Having read more about this discovery, only the skull of this young woman was discovered. She showed signs of Anaemia/ malnutrition- cribra orbitalia (as many people did in this time). She was around 18-22 years old when she died, which is even younger than the life expectancy of 25 years in Iron Age Britain. She apparently had not undergone menarche even though she had mosaic Turner Syndrome.
You can see the skull here An individual with mosaic Turner syndrome from Iron Age Somerset, UK a... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)Many of us with Turner Syndrome found this discovery fascinating and could not help but think about what this young woman’s life would have been like. One of the\ main things that stuck us was how what sort of quality of life she would have had with no medical treatment available. Firstly, it is important to note that of course life in Britain was very different in this period. The average life span was 25 years, testifying to the difficult nature of life and the fact that medical conditions and diseases/infections that are simple to treat today could be frequently fatal and that malnutrition was part of life.
This young woman most probably has recurrent ear infections throughout her life. Did she have any other health issues such as hypothyroidism, odema, kidney issues and any of the issues that affect us as women and girls with Turner Syndrome? Was her eyesight affected? Did this young woman have the cardiac issues associated with Turner Syndrome? How did the cognitive and spatial issues some women with Turner Syndrome have to deal with affect her life? Did she have coeliac disease (contributing to her malnutrition/Anaemia? Did the fact she had this health issue contribute to the fact she did not go through puberty? We have no indication of how she died. Did any of the health issues connected to Turner Syndrome play a role in her short life span?
Did this young woman ever wonder why her body wasn’t developing? Did she ever cry or get distressed about this? Did she face stigma and rejection because of this? She was at least buried with other people, indicating she was accepted as part of her society. She was not seen as holding a special role because she had a DSD and as far as the evidence indicates she was not an outcast.
But we have no other evidence about this young woman’s life apart from her skull. No objects were found with her remains – probably because the only thing she owned were the clothes she wore. We don’t even have any other part of her body which would have told its own story about her life and impact of Turner Syndrome and possibly her death.
We still know so little about the life of ordinary people in Iron Age Britain. We know that life was very communal and tribal. It was also hierarchical, and this young woman would not have much status. We are still finding out new things about Iron Age society, particularly about the role women played. We are still making discoveries about the roles women could play in this society. We will never fully understand what life was like for people who lived in Britain at this time. But most importantly people in Iron Age Britain would have little or no concept of what we term ‘gender’. And whatever they may have believed about sex roles, these are from a very different time and do not justify or uphold any modern beliefs. After all this is a society that probably practiced slavery and human sacrifice!
The nearest we can possibly get to understanding what she may have felt could possibly be indicated by the reports of the various mental health issues (depression, feelings of lack of self-worth) that Henry Turner found in the eight women with the DSD that bears his name in his original 1938 paper. Like this young woman, they were offered up as objects of scientific /medical interest.
Moreover and more importantly we cannot project a very particular late twentieth /early twenty first century ideology (which many people have concerns and issues with) which this project is explicitly trying to do.
It is so concerning that in the Nature paper which reported this used terms such as ‘Non binary sex’ People with DSDs, and our lives are not an ideological tool or ‘gotcha’ to be used by researchers who know nothing about the actual reality of living with these conditions. They don’t consider the impact of being used on this way or the difficulties they are creating for us.
Indeed the researchers had to admit that there was nothing out of the ordinary about the way the individuals with DSDs they analysed were treated and that ‘ they seem to have been part of their societies.” as Kyriaki Anastasiadou put it, She is so close to getting it while not getting that people with DSDs are no some ‘other’. She also said ‘It’s quite interesting to think that these people existed throughout human history’- I can’t help but feel patronised and a little troubled by these words. The existence of this young woman is not ‘quite interesting’. Why should the existence of individuals with specific conditions (with special reference to DSDs) be even remarkable? I agree it is remarkable and deeply moving to have found a woman with Turner Syndrome from over two millennia ago. The fact she made it to early adulthood, let alone be born is in and of itself remarkable (there is a 99% rate of miscarriage for Turner Syndrome in utero and apparently 15% of confirmed pregnancies that end in miscarriage are due to Turner Syndrome). I find it deeply moving this young woman managed against all the odds to live even to the age she got to.
So yes. Women and girls with Turner Syndrome have always been here, as have men and boys with Klinefelter Syndrome and people with DSDs generally. Our lives were only remarkable in in how unremarkable they were. We exist and the only thing our existence proves is that individuals with DSDs exist. As have all genetic conditions So yes, celebrate and proclaim this.
No comments:
Post a Comment