Roman tourniquet?

[ParthianBow]

Great link, thanks! It's amazing to see the real historical deal, rather than just read about it.

[Martin Moser]

... the real historical deal

I doubt it is, though :-( ( - see posts above

[ParthianBow]

Point taken, Martin. However I find it hard to believe that the more primitive way of stopping blood loss (the tourniquet) was not invented before the more advanced (using artery forceps etc.) While my field of expertise is veterinary surgery, not human, I have performed countless amputations of limbs, from cats to dogs and even cattle. A tourniquet works absolutely brilliantly, especially when placed before hand. Then it prevents blood spurting everywhere from lots of blood vessels, which is what happens if one proceeds with such an operation without it. Of course if the historical evidence doesn't provide us with such proof, I haven't a leg to stand on (no pun intended! :lol: ), but I think there's a strong argument in favour of the tourniquet being used as well as the more advanced methods.

[Martin Moser]

Ben, I couldn't agree more with what you say above. I only echoed the "official" status quo in the field of medical history as I know it - there is no known description of it in ancient sources apparently. Therefore I think it a bit bold on the museum's side to simply declare an artifact as a tourniquet without putting the thing into proper perspective. That's what I tried to amend by taking the role of the advocatus diaboli :-) )

[ParthianBow]

It's what is soooo frustrating about the gaps in our knowledge - that we think 'such and such must have existed', but have no proof to back our theories up! I guess it applies to all fields...