My first thought was that it was chopped off for theft, or was that only in Biblical times? You can see my mind often goes to scenarios involving crime and punishment. :)
I'm sure there's any number of ways that a hand could get so damaged that it would have to be cut off, however. Perhaps it was crushed by an animal or a fall or got gangrenous from an unhealed cut.
Skeletons from prior time periods were in general more "battered" than modern ones, and show more evidence of disease, including malnutrition. There was a recent story about tuberculosis found in Hungarian remains from two hundred years ago.
http://www.archaeology.org/news/3185...europe-mummies
"Fourteen tuberculosis genomes were detected in eight naturally mummified bodies from a 200-year-old Hungarian crypt. “Microbiological analyses of samples from contemporary TB patients usually report a single strain of tuberculosis per patient. By contrast, five of the eight bodies in our study yielded more than one type of tuberculosis—remarkably from one individual we obtained evidence of three distinct strains,”
I sort of keep up with the research into tuberculosis in the past, because it ravaged my mother's family in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. It was still showing up in the 1900s in fact. They must have had very little resistance to it, a susceptibility which I seem to share if 23andme is correct.
The discovery and mass use of antibiotics has had an almost incalculable effect on human experience.