The working life of Museum of London

This month zoologist Alan Pipe talks about the resources for the identification of fish and wild bird bones from archaeological sites in London…

Viewers of ‘Time Team’ and readers of archaeological site reports will be familiar with the recovery of animal bones from a wide range of species, usually dominated by those of domesticated mammals of major economic value for meat, milk, wool or traction. With increased wet-sieving of bulk soil samples, particularly over the past four decades, archaeological recovery of smaller species from all vertebrate groups; fish, amphibians, reptiles, small birds and mammals, continues to expand.

London sites produce particularly diverse assemblages of fish and wild birds and each unfamiliar ‘new’ species presents challenges in identification, indeed some bones are not identifiable to species-level. Museum of London Archaeology holds a useful reference collection used for identification purposes. This concentrates mainly on British fish, birds and mammals and has been built up over the years as a valuable resource in support of MOLA zooarchaeological studies.

Even with access to a reference collection and the increasing availability of reference literature and images, the relatively unfamiliar morphology, fragmentation and often small size, of archaeological fish bones are obstacles to their recovery and identification and this has resulted in their relative neglect by many workers and a reliance on external specialists.

 In an attempt to improve our own internal capability, MOLA Osteology has now established a solid nucleus reference collection of the economically important freshwater (e.g. pike), marine/estuarine (e.g. herring and cod) and migratory (e.g. salmon and eel) species most commonly encountered on London sites.  Researchers interested in studying the fauna of London should contact the LAARC

The growth of industry and advent of new manufacturing techniques brought with it associated occupational hazards for those going to work in the factories, building sites, dockyards and railways of 19^th century London. This could involve fractured bones resulting from falls from heights, amputation of limbs that were caught in machinery, burns and other workplace incidents. Another cause of illness at work was related to the materials and chemicals involved. One example of this was known as ‘phossy jaw’, where the vapor emitted during the manufacture of ‘strike anywhere’ matches could result in gangrene if the poisonous phosphorous fumes penetrated the jaw bone (Picard 2005). This could lead to the formation of an abscess and disfigurment with surgical removal of the jaw bone the only treatment.

The excavation of St Mary and St Michael Church, Whitechapel by MOLA revealed one possible example of this affliction.  The skeletal remains of an adult male aged 26-35 years displayed active, localised bone changes to the mandible (lower jaw). There were areas of fine pitting together with occasional large pits to the buccal (cheek facing) and lingual (tongue facing) surfaces of the jaw. Towards the mandibular rami (posterior jaw) were areas of eroded bone that revealed the underlying spongy bone structure. The outer cortex of the bone also appeared abnormally thickened.

Radiographs of the jaw revealed regions of irregular, thinned bone and also areas of increased thickening towards the mentum (chin). While a diagnosis of ‘phossy jaw’ is difficult to prove conclusively, this helped to identify osteonecrosis of the mandible, a condition where the blood supply to the bone is disrupted resulting in the necrosis (death of bone cells). Such changes may also be caused by a range of other conditions and infections such as syphilis.

The identification of this condition from excavated skeletal remains provides a rare glimpse into the dangers faced in the work place and the changes related to the expansion of cities and industrialisation at this time

By Dr James Morris

Recently I’ve been working on the animal bone from the Royal London Hospital (RLP05) excavated by MOLA in 2006. Some of this consists of waste from the hospital kitchens, and gives us fascinating evidence for the diet of both the patients and staff. The hospital was founded in 1740 and archaeological evidence suggests that the associated burial ground was in use from 1820-1854. The remains give a brilliant opportunity to combine the zooarchaeological data with the historical records, which show hospital food has never been great.

However, amongst the animal remains were a number of more unusual finds which were not from the hospital kitchen. Attached to the hospital was an anatomy school and many of the animal bones appear to originate from the activities carried out there. This includes a number of dissected cows, sheep, horses, dogs, cats and rabbit s, buried as partial or complete skeletons. We even have evidence that some of the skeletons were wired together to be used in teaching anatomy. There have also been a number of surprises including the skull of a guinea pig, the partial skeleton of a tortoise and a headless monkey. The tortoise was missing the skull, shell and most of its feet, which may have been kept by the anatomy school or deposited elsewhere. Similarly the lack of the monkey’s skull and neck vertebrae would suggest that the head had been kept by the anatomists.

As a British based zooarchaeologist, finds of tortoise and monkey are incredibly rare, and therefore we needed to turn to experts outside the Museum of London for help to identify the bones to a specific species. If you have been watching the BBC’s ‘Museum of Life’ with Jimmy Doherty (who makes very nice sausages, I’m lucky enough to live close to his farm) you’ll know that we have one of the world’s best zoological collections in London at the Natural History Museum. So it was with some excitement that I made my way to the Natural History Museum, only to arrive there and realise I’d gone to a free museum during a school holiday. After battling through the crowds, I was lead by Colin McCarthy, Collections Manager for Reptiles, Amphibians and Fish, to the museum’s old dry store number one. If you saw the first Museum of Life show it’s the amazingly huge store full of a host of old specimens ranging from zebra to tortoises (have a look at episode 1, 17min 40sec into the program). I could have stayed in there for days, but under Colin’s excellent guidance we quickly identified the tortoise as being a European tortoise either Greek or Herman’s.

Identification of the monkey required me to visit the zoological department and the mammals collection which is held over a number of different floors at the back of the museum. Identification of the monkey was much trickier and involved a good few hours examining different skeletons held in the museum’s collection. The monkey collection is held in row upon row of metal cabinets that don’t have windows. That means you need to be prepared for a surprise when searching the collection. At one point, standing on a step ladder to access an upper cabinet, I did open a door to be greeted face to face with a snarling monkey. Fortunately it was an old stuffed specimen, unfortunately, by the time I realised that I’d already undone any reputation I had as a cool zooarchaeologist by letting out a manly yelp, much to the amusement of the other researchers using the collection. Eventually we identified the monkey as a Mona Monkey, which comes from south-west Africa.

You may ask why go to such trouble to identify these species? Well, the tortoise may be one of the earliest archaeological examples of tortoise from the United Kingdom, and the Mona monkey is the first example of such a species to have been found archaeologically, certainly in London and possibly in the United Kingdom. Analysis of the specimens and the site is still ongoing, but these skeletons show how far and wide animals were traded at the beginning of the 1800s: the tortoise is likely to have come to London from the eastern Mediterranean and the Monkey from south-west Africa.

The next step is to investigate how the anatomy school acquired such animals and why, and what they were used? Identifying the bones to a species is just the beginning of the investigation.

A big thank you to Colin McCarthy, Louise Tomsett and Paula Jenkins for helping arrange my Natural History Museum visit and helping me on the day.
 
You can also find out more about my background and my other research at http://www.animalbones.org

 Dental disease and other afflictions of the teeth were suffered by many in the nineteenth century. The analysis of skeletons from St Mary and St Michael, Whitechapel, London revealed over 80% of adults with carious lesions (cavities) and 90% with mineralized plaque deposits (calculus) stuck to the surfaces of their teeth. This suggested a starchy diet that was high in carbohydrates and containing sugars, as well as poor oral hygiene. Almost 80% of individuals had also lost at least some of their teeth during life, most likely through decay and disease.

 The nineteenth century also saw major advances in the practice of dentistry and the development of new restorative techniques. New materials such as amalgam (mercury and metal) were introduced to fill cavities and prosthetics were used to replace missing teeth (Roberts and Cox 2003: 323).

These false teeth could be made of ivory, bone or porcelain and human teeth were also often used. These came from live donors or could be extracted from the dead, earning some extra money for body snatchers if the bodies they exhumed were too decayed to sell to anatomists (Richardson 1988).

 An example of dental work was recovered during the excavation by MOLA of  the cemetery of St Mary and St Michael. A maxillary (upper jaw) prosthesis was found associated with an adult female burial. This comprised a thin plate of rose-gold coloured metal that was carefully fitted around the remaining teeth. A high degree of skill had been used in the construction of this item and the metal was molded around the gums and palate in order to hold it in place. Four ceramic teeth were fixed in place by small gold pins. These replaced the right premolars, left second premolar and first molar teeth that had been lost during the individuals life. A dark material to the central aspect of the occlussal (biting surface) of the right secondary molar suggested that this person had also had a cavity filled.

This evidence provides an important glimpse into the types of dental treatment available. However, the construction of such dentures would have required considerable time and skill and would have remained out of reach of many individuals from poorer backgrounds in London.

Paget ’s disease

A major difficulty when diagnosing pathological disease in archaeological skeletal remains is that many conditions may only affect the soft tissues of the body, such as the skin or organs. This may result in the death of a person before bone changes took place, leaving no visible traces on the skeleton to be observed. Some diseases, however, may directly affect the bones. The way that bone responds and the distribution pattern of changes throughout the skeleton, enable certain pathologies suffered in life to be identified.

One such pathology occasionally encountered in the osteological analysis of archaeological human bone is Paget’s disease. During life, the human skeleton constantly remodels, repairs and grows. Paget’s disease disrupts this normal routine and results in an increased bone turnover. This can affect single or multiple bones and involve the entire skeleton, resulting in severe deformity and enlargement of affected areas. The skull, spine, sacrum and upper legs are the most commonly involved.

This rare condition was first described by James Paget in 1877. Today the exact causes remain unknown and multiple origins are thought likely. In modern cases, the disease is more common amongst males than females and tends to affect older individuals.

The osteological analysis of post-medieval population from Bow Baptist Church, London by MoLA revealed one individual who displayed bone changes consistent with a diagnosis of Paget’s disease.

An older male aged 46 years or over displayed thickening of the cranial bones with new bone formed to the internal and outer surfaces that was porous and pumice stone like. Examination of radiographs revealed enlargement of the bone cortex with areas that displayed a ‘cotton wool’ like appearance.

The vertebral bodies also showed enlargement and this was more apparent in the lower lumbar regions of the spine. Radiographs showed sclerotic areas (thickening) at the margins of the vertebral centra and areas of porosity to the internal trabecular structures. This gave a ‘picture frame’ appearance in radiographs. The disease had also resulted in deformity and enlargement to the clavicles (collar bone), scapula (shoulder) upper legs and pelvis.

Pathological fractures are a common feature of this disease due to weakening of the bone structures that may cause bowing of the limbs. This individual had suffered compression fractures to several vertebrae. This had also resulted in degenerative joint disease and osteoarthritis throughout the spine. Osteoarthritis was also recorded in the hands and shoulder joints.

This individual may have been unaware that he had such a disease during life as many cases are asymptomatic. However, some people can suffer bone pain, headaches and hearing loss.

For more information see:

Brickley, M, and Ives, R, 2008 The bioarchaeology of metabolic disease, Oxford

Ortner DJ, 2003, Identification of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains. London

Roberts, C A, and Manchester, K, 2005, The archaeology of disease, Third edition, Stroud

   By Dr James Morris 

As well as human remains, the osteology department deals with the animal bones recovered from archaeological sites, which are examined and reported upon by the two zooarchaeologists (or archaeozoologists, believe it or not a matter of some debate within the animal bone community), James Morris and Alan Pipe.

As zooarchaeologists we operate in association with many different fields and specialists. We often utilise zoological data from modern day animals enabling us to understand how their ancestors would have behaved, we also consult with other environmental archaeology specialists, such as archaeobotanists so we can get an overall picture of past environments and economies. Working in the osteology department also gives us a good opportunity to work alongside our human bone counterparts. Although we will often joke with human bone specialists that they only have to deal with one species compared to our hundreds, a lot of our methods and practises are the same and there is a great deal we learn from working beside each other. Finally and most importantly we are also archaeologists, in that our primary aim is always to investigate and shed light on humanity’s past, animal remains are merely the tools we use.

You may now be thinking to yourself, how do they do that? Well, consider how you interact with animals in your day to day life. Firstly, if you’re not vegetarian, there’s the animals you eat and use for raw materials such as leather, then the animals who are your companions and pets, the animals you work with such as horses and finally the wild animals who sometimes live alongside you unawares. Even today we have many different relationships with the animal kingdom and it is through examining these relationships that zooarchaeologists can tell us about past human societies.

The photo shows sheep/goat (it’s hard to tell the difference between the two species) metacarpals (top) and metatarsals (bottom) from medieval leather working site, the bones are often left attached to the skin during the tanning process. Photo by J. Morris  

 The primary bread and butter of zooarchaeological work is food (please forgive the pun), in that the majority of the animal remains archaeologists recover are food waste. What we are able to do is construct not only what people are eating, but how and why. By examining the remains we can tell how an animal was butchered and what parts people were eating. As with everything, different food goes in and out of fashion. Today we often eat just the prime cuts, but this was not always the case, when I was a kid I remember my mum sending me to school with tongue sandwiches (which were impossible to trade), a meat which is eaten less and less today. We also see such changes in the past; the medieval period providing a classic example. Think of a medieval aristocratic feast and a picture of stuffed piglets, swans and peacocks springs to mind, yet eventually the nature of such meals changed along with the species used. Such meals were also a far cry from the food the majority of people were eating. By examining the animal bones we can pick up such differences, which add to our knowledge not only of social status, but the way people used food as a show of wealth.

As a final point with the time of year in mind it’s worth thinking about Christmas celebrations and asking yourself, how many other times a year you eat roast turkey. Perhaps zooarchaeologists in the future will be examining what appear to be annual deposits of turkey bones in landfill sites and wondering about the activities which created them.

If you are interested in finding out more about animal bones then please visit the  International Council of Archaeozoology website

You can also find out more about James’ research at http://www.animalbones.org/

Every so often when the office phone rings, there is a police officer on the end of the line and we know that possible human bones have been discovered somewhere in the city.

Living and working in a city of London’s magnitude, with its densely packed population and layer upon layer of history, it is not uncommon for the dead of long ago to resurface. A gardener may accidently have uncovered some remains or construction workers digging new building foundations may have disturbed an old rubbish pit full of animal bone or an unexpected burial ground.

Human or animal?

When the police are contacted, the first vital question they need to answer is whether the bone is human or animal. To an untrained and sometimes trained eye, tiny fragments of bone can often be difficult to distinguish.

Working with archaeological material on a daily basis, osteologists at Museum of London Archaeology often encounter poorly preserved and heavily fragmented bone and disarticulated skeletons (where the bones are no longer in anatomical position). These may have originated from burials that have degraded or been disturbed in the ground over time, or bone that has been deliberately burnt and broken through the act of cremation. Animal bone is also a common finding on archaeological sites and is often mixed with the human skeletons.

 The experience and familiarity gained by working with such material gives the osteologist an advantage in identifying bone. Many medical doctors for example, may only be used to dealing with recent, well preserved and complete human skeletal material or might not have handled animal bone.

Following a phone call, osteologists will either visit the site where the bone was found or occasionally the police may bring the remains into the office. If the bone is identified as animal, and is of no interest to the police, the English Heritage area Archaeological Advisor will usually be informed and if the find is of archaeological significance, further work may take place.

Modern or old?

If the bone is human, then the next question that the police need to know is whether it is of modern or historical/ archaeological date.

Using GIS, a system which allows us to look at historic maps and the location of previous archaeological finds overlaid onto the modern ordnance survey maps, we can quickly determine if the remains are likely to have originated from a historic burial ground.

Importantly, by visiting the site and seeing the remains in the ground where they were found, we can look at the different layers of soil which have built up through time and together with any artefacts found can use this to determine what period the bone dates from. If the bone is deemed of archaeological date (defned by the Human Tissue Act as 100 years old or more) then the Ministry of Justice, and the local Archaeological Advisor are contacted to discuss the best way to proceed. This may warrant further archaeological investigation.

On rare occasions, where bone is thought to be modern and suspicious then our experienced Forensic Archaeologists assist the police in the recovery of the remains and associated evidence. Archaeological excavation techniques involve the detailed collection and recording of evidence that can be vital in the reconstruction of a possible crime.

Detailed recording of the human remains can provide evidence of age and sex and may help with victim identification. Analysis of the bone may also help establish a date: evidence of modern dental work for example will distinguish the material from archaeological remains. Samples may also be sent for radiocarbon dating to help determine what time period the person lived.

If human bones are encountered (or if you find remains and are unsure if they are human or not) you should always contact the police first, it may also be appropriate to contact the GLAAS Advisor for your area. Human remains whether from a modern or archeological time should always be treated with care and respect. It is vital that the bone is not disturbed further or removed from the ground. This will help to preserve the bone and if left situ (where they were found), this will retain important information about the context and type of burial.

Click here for further information and contact details of the Museum of London Archaeology Forensic Archaeology team.

Unfortunately, at present we do not have any vacancies or opportunities for work experience in this area. If you are interested in finding out more about forensic archaeology you may find the links below of interest. There are also a large number of Universities with undergraduate and post-graduate courses which include aspects of forensic archaeology.

www.forensic-science-society.org.uk

www.bahid.org

This month archaeozoologist Alan Pipe shows how the excavation and analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites can help us learn about the diet and lifestyle of people in the past.

FAUNAL DIETARY EVIDENCE FROM TORRE ABBEY, TORQUAY,
DEVON

INTRODUCTION

Torre Abbey was founded in AD1196 as a Premonstratensian monastery. Although it became wealthy, it was partially demolished after Dissolution in AD1539, and then occupied by Thomas Ridgeway and subsequent owners, passing into the possession of the
Cary family in AD1662 until AD1930 when it was sold to Torquay Borough council. Animal bone and invertebrate remains from recent excavations show dietary composition linked to changes in use and occupancy of the building.

ANIMAL BONES

These derived largely from ox, sheep/goat and pig indicating consumption of good quality beef, mutton and pork. There was a smaller component of chicken, goose Anser anser and mallard/domestic duck Anas platyrhynchos. Game was represented by thrush family Turdidae, pheasant Phasianus colchicus, partridge Perdix sp., teal Anas crecca, wild duck (not mallard), rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus, brown hare Lepus europaeus, fallow deer Dama dama and red deer Cervus elaphus. The fish were mainly marine; thornback ray Raja clavata, cod Gadus morhua and gurnard Triglidae with one migratory species; salmon Salmo salar.

 INVERTEBRATES

These were mainly molluscs, particularly the common/flat oyster Ostrea edulis with small numbers of other important edible species including common mussel Mytilus edulis, common cockle Cerastoderma edule, great scallop Pecten maximus, common whelk Buccinum undatum, common periwinkle (‘winkle’) Littorina littorea, a fragment of the internal shell (‘cuttlebone’) of common cuttlefish Sepia officinalis, and a fragment of edible crab Cancer pagurus.

Also, there were less commonly eaten species; common limpet Patella vulgata, razor shell Ensis sp., and rough cockle Acanthocardia tuberculata. Though common in British coastal waters and still consumed here; they are rarely recovered from archaeological sites in
London.

The invertebrates suggest consumption of a variety of littoral and inshore species with a bias towards oyster and, to a lesser extent, rough cockle and the other commonly exploited snails and bivalves. Sources would have included gathering from the shore and fishing from coastal waters. The evidence corresponds to a diverse and high-quality meat diet including exploitation of local ‘wild’ resources.

FOUNDATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT AD1196-1300

Mainly cattle, sheep/goat and pig with emphasis on areas of good meat-quality. Infant calf tibia may indicate stock-rearing, dairying and consumption of veal. Consumption of fish and game is indicated by cod and red deer suggesting some degree of status and affluence. A single winkle shell provides the only evidence for consumption of ‘shellfish’.

AD1300-1400

This small group indicates consumption of beef and mutton, although recovery of thornback ray and gurnard suggests consumption of locally available fish.Molluscs included limpet, winkle, cockle, oyster and whelk. Fragments of foetal or neonate rat probably indicate black rat Rattus rattus in view of the known presence of this species in England from Roman times (Yalden 1999, 125) and the absence of the now-prevalent brown rat R. norvegicus until the early 18th century AD (Yalden 1999, 183).

DISSOLUTION AD1539-1543

Fragments of ‘ox-sized’ rib and sheep/goat tibia.

17th CENTURY AD1600-1700

There are qualitative differences between this and earlier groups; this group is mainly cattle and sheep/goat, with a significant component of poultry; chicken, goose and mallard/domestic duck and recovery of game; wild duck, pheasant, rabbit and brown hare. Species-diversity, together with the quality of the beef and mutton, suggests consumer status and affluence.

The molluscs were mainly oyster with whelk, razor shell, great scallop and common cuttlefish and two shells of common periwinkle. Razor shell and common cuttlefish are the only examples of these species from the whole assemblage. Cuttlefish occur around all British coasts, they are edible with an internal shell useful as a dietary supplement for cage birds, a ‘once-only’ mould medium for casting small metal objects and, when finely-powdered, as ‘pounce’ in the preparation of documents (Pipe 2006, 63)

18th CENTURY AD1700-1800

This group derives mainly from cattle, sheep/goat and pig; with considerable species-diversity of migratory and marine fish (salmon and cod), poultry and game; thrush, wild duck, including teal, partridge, rabbit and fallow deer. Recovery of infant chicken, infant calf and foetal/neonate piglet may suggest local husbandry. Again, species-diversity and carcase-part recovery suggests consumer status and affluence.The molluscs mainly included oyster, with limpet, scallop, rough cockle, common cockle and mussel.

19th CENTURY AD1800-1900

This small group included areas of good and poor meat-bearing quality; ‘ox-sized’ rib, ox tarsal and sheep/goat metacarpal suggesting disposal of waste from consumption, butchery and primary processing. Invertebrates included single shells of oyster and rough cockle with fragments of edible crab.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pipe, A, 2006 Animal remains In: Whipp, D, 2006 The medieval postern gate by the Tower of London MoLAS Monograph 29, 63-65

Yalden, D W, 1999 The history of British mammals London. T & A D Poyser Ltd.

On Saturday 20th June, there is an exiting chance to discover what post-medieval cemeteries can tell us about life in the past.  Meet the archaeologists and osteologists involved in the excavation and analysis of the cemeteries and skeletal populations from 18th-19th century London.

Talks will discuss the evidence gathered from St Marylebone, Westminster and Old Church, Chelsea. This will demonstrate what can be learnt about the lifestyle, diet and diseases of past popluations.

Alongside osteologists, there will also be an opportunity take part in the examination of human remains and learn how the study of a skeleton can provide information about age, sex and disease.

For more information visit http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/studyday

 By Maggie McDonald

How do you know when you’re shaking hands with a finds processor at MOLA? Simple. Rough finger tips. Like needlewomen who sew without thimbles, we all have innumerable pinpricks, fresh and healing on the ends of our fingers. The cause? The staple. How could such an invaluable invention cause so much bad temper and pain? A wonderfully useful device in thoughtful hands, the staple has a rich history, beginning with a lavish device believed to have been invented for Louis XV in the 18th century, then refined and patented from the mid-19th century.

Weighing in at a kilo or so, the early staplers bound together everything from carpet to paper. George McGill patented the first single-stroke stapler in 1879, an elegant cast-iron press decorated with swirling patterns of gold, rather like an old Singer sewing machine. McGill hand fed a staple into the press, then a single push on the handle closed it against a small anvil  . We’ve left the cast-iron a long way behind. Modern staplers are ubiquitous, light weight and indispensable. No one, not even a finds processor with shredded gloves and fingers would disagree with that. It’s the use to which that indispensable stapler is put that causes us grief.

Finds come in to MOLA in plastic bags, stapled shut. It’s a fine, sensible and invaluable way of doing things because we have to keep finds and their context labels together and protected.  It sometimes goes wrong. Why use 17 staples to close a small plastic bag?  

Maybe we processors should use staple removers? Yes, but given mud, dust and debris round a bagged find, those ubiquitous staples are all but invisible. You can pick out the obvious ones with a staple remover, of course, but it’s the hidden extras that slash through rubber and latex gloves on their way to piercing the flesh. No, the only way forward is re-education of those wayward stapling diggers.

Here’s the rule: one bag, two labels, one staple. It’s doable: you just have to put a context label in with the find, take the second label and position it inside the bag, near the top. Fold over the top of the bag, then staple once  through the fold and the label. Worried that the find will fall out? Fold the top over twice, staple once through the double fold and label.  That will earn you the gratitude of your fine finds processors. All we have to do is tug open the fold, and, just like that, the staple springs out.  No ripped gloves, no bleeding fingers.