1 Introduction. Megan Brickley human remains from archaeological sites for the past of cremation, and improving site recovery and recording of human
63 pages
Missing: bahamas | Must include: bahamas

216 KB – 63 Pages

PAGE – 2 ============
1Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human RemainsPublished 2004 byBABAO, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BF and theInstitute of Field Archaeologists, SHES, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 227, Reading RG6 6ABISBN 0948 393 88 2 Copyright © BABAO, IFAand individual authors Editors:Megan Brickley and Jacqueline I McKinleyContributors:Anthea Boylston, Megan Brickley, Don Brothwell, Brian Connell, Simon Mays, Jacqueline I McKinley, Linda O™Connell, Mike Richards, Charlotte Roberts, Sonia ZakrzewskiAcknowledgementsThanks are due to all those who assisted in this publication by reading and making comments on various parts of the document including Andrew Millard, Natasha Powers, James Steele and Bill White, and also contributors who commented on colleagues contributions. Thanks to Professor Sue Black for providing Appendix 1. Thanks are also due to various individuals and organisations for permission to print figures from their sites/reports; Rachel Ives for Figure 1, Wessex Archaeology for Figure 5, Roger Mercer and the Hambledon Hill Project for Figure 7, Dr Kay Prag for Figure 16 and Dr Ingrid Mainland for Figure 17. BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND OSTEOARCHAEOLOGYINSTITUTE OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGISTS

PAGE – 3 ============
Contents1Introduction Megan Brickley52Compiling a skeletal inventory: articulated inhumed bone Megan Brickley63Compiling a dental inventory Brian Connell84Compiling a skeletal inventory: cremated human boneJacqueline I McKinley95Compiling a skeletal inventory: disarticulated and co-mingled remains Jacqueline I McKinley146Guidance on recording age at death in adults Linda O™Connell187Guidance on recording age at death in juvenile skeletonsMegan Brickley218Determination of sex from archaeological skeletal material and assessment of parturitionMegan Brickley239Anote of the determination of ancestry Linda O™Connell2610Metric and non-metric studies of archaeological human boneDon Brothwell and Sonia Zakrzewski 2711Guidance on recording palaeopathology Charlotte Roberts and Brian Connell3412Recording of weapon trauma Anthea Boylston4013Sampling procedures for bone chemistry Mike Richards4314After the bone report: the long-term fate of skeletal collectionsSimon Mays46Bibliography47 AppendicesAppendix 1Infant skeletal record sheet55 Appendix 2Juvenile skeletal record sheet57 Appendix 3Adult skeletal record sheet58 Appendix 4Juvenile skeletal inventory60 Appendix 5Adult skeletal inventory61 2Guidelines to the Standards for Recording HumanRemainsINSTITUTE OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGISTS PAPER NO. 7 Editors:Megan Brickley and Jacqueline I McKinley

PAGE – 4 ============
The contributorsAnthea BoylstonAnthea has been undertaking contract work in human remains from archaeological sites for the past 13 years, working for archaeological units nationwide on collections dating from the prehistoric to post- medieval. She was involved in the excavation and post-excavation analysis of the first mass grave from a known battle to be found in Britain over the last century (Towton, Yorkshire). This resulted in a multidisciplinary study in collaboration with staff from the Royal Armouries. She recently participated in a project collaborating with the curatorial staff of the Norton Priory museum and gardens linking evidence of disease on the skeleton with the medicinal plants utilised for treatment in the medieval period. Since completing her Master™s Degree at the University of Bradford in 1991 Anthea has participated in undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in the Department of Archaeological Sciences and in instructing palaeopathologist from all over the world on the short courses held in the Biological Anthropology Research Centre laboratory. Megan BrickleyMegan Brickley obtained her PhD from the University of London in 1998, her research being undertaken jointly between the Institute of Archaeology and the Hard Tissue Research Unit, University College London. In 1997 Megan was appointed lecturer in Environmental Archaeology at the University of Birmingham where she teaches on all aspects of human bone from human origins to forensic anthropology. Her main research interests lie in investigations of metabolic bone diseases, but since working at Birmingham she has also undertaken contract work on human bone with the Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit (now Birmingham Archaeology). She is currently writing up the report on the eighteenth/nineteenth century human bone from St Martin™s, Birmingham.Don Brothwell Don Brothwell is an art school drop-out who became hooked on skeletal studies. He taught this and other subjects at London, Cambridge and York. Not being ageist, he still teaches and researches, but doesn™t have to attend boring meetings anymore. In his life, he has been checked for venereal disease, and has had pubic lice, various worms and septic jigger fleas, as well as various respectable conditions and skeletal traumas; vertebral osteophytes now cause him some problems. He bitterly regrets that the repression of western morality has seriously impeded the spread of his DNAinto the next generation. He is currently working on further publications, if Alzheimer will leave him in peace.Brian ConnellBrian completed his HND in Practical Archaeology at Bournemouth University in 1992 and went on to study his MSc in Osteology, Palaeopathology and Funerary Archaeology at Sheffield and Bradford in 1993. Subsequently he has worked in contracting archaeology, first at the Calvin Wells Laboratory for the University of Bradford, then as a zooarchaeologist at the Ancient Monuments Laboratory for English Heritage. In 1998 he returned to human bones when he began working on human bone assemblages for MoLAS. He is currently the lead human osteologist on the Spitalfields Market Project. His research interests include palaeopathology and physical anthropology. Jacqueline I McKinleyGraduating in 1981 (Archaeological Sciences, Bradford University), as archaeologist Jacqueline has worked on a wide-range of excavations, and as osteoarchaeologist has analysed and reported on the remains of over 6000 cremation and inhumation burials from over 300 sites, ranging from Neolithic to Post-mediaeval across the British Isles. Aregular visiting lecturer (on cremation) at several English universities, she has also occasionally worked on forensic cases in the UK and elsewhere. Currently employed by Wessex Archaeology as a senior project officer, over the last ten years her time had been divided between managing, running and writing-up archaeological excavations, and the analysis of human remains from both Wessex Archaeology sites and those of other archaeological organisations nationwide. Her specialist interest lies in the study of the mortuary rite of cremation, and improving site recovery and recording of human remains. Simon MaysSimon gained his PhD at the Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton in 1987. In 1988 he joined English Heritage as their human skeletal biologist, a post he still holds. Since 1999 Simon has been a visiting lecturer at the Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton. His research interests cover all areas of human osteoarchaeology, particularly material from the British Isle. Simon is the author of Thearchaeology of human bones (1998, Routledge) and withMargaret Cox co-editor of Human Osteology in archaeology and forensic science (2000, Greenwich Medical Media). Linda O™ConnellDr Linda O™Connell is a lecturer in Forensic and Biological Anthropology at Bournemouth University. She is a qualified medical doctor who has chosen to specialise within the aforementioned field and is extensively involved in the delivery of the three Masters courses (Forensic and Biological Anthropology, Forensic Archaeology and Osteoarchaeology) offered by the Forensic and Bioarchaeological Sciences Group. In addition, she contributes to undergraduate programmes Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains 3

PAGE – 5 ============
and is involved in teaching short courses in forensic archaeology and anthropology to the police. Her main research interests include the association between the human pelvis and vertebral degenerative disease, and the evaluation of the effects of modern clinical conditions (and their treatments) upon the human skeleton and how these may facilitate the identification of individuals recovered from forensic contexts. She has written numerous archaeological skeletal reports and is involved in forensic work both locally and further afield. Mike RichardsMike is a Reader in Bioarchaeology at the Department of Archaeological Sciences at the University of Bradford. He obtained his DPhil from the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art at the University of Oxford in 1998, and a BAand MAfrom the Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Canada in 1992 and 1994. He specialises in bioarchaeology, particularly in bone chemical studies, such as stable isotope studies of past human diets. Charlotte RobertsReader in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham since 2000, teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students. Charlotte began her career as a State Registered Nurse, subsequently gaining a BAArchaeological Studies (Leicester), MAEnvironmental Archaeology (Sheffield), and PhD in Biological Anthropology in 1988 (Bradford). Charlotte has published c. 100 papers, four seniorauthored books, and two edited books; most recently (2003) Health and disease in Britain: prehistory to the present day (with M Cox), and The bioarchaeology of tuberculosis: a global perspective on a re-emerging disease (with J Buikstra).Sonia ZakrzewskiSonia obtained her PhD in Biological Anthropology at University of Cambridge. Following an Addison Wheeler Research Fellowship in Archaeology at the University of Durham, she now lectures in biological anthropology and human osteology in the Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, where she is the course convenor for the MAin Osteoarchaeology. Her main research interests are in morphological population variation in relation to human evolution. Her research has primarily focused on the population affinities and morphological diversity within a variety of regions, including Egypt, the Caribbean and Britain. She has also been looking at changes in social identity and sexual dimorphism within a variety of Northeast African groups. Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains 4

PAGE – 6 ============
1Introduction Megan BrickleySince the founding of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO) in 1998, the issue of standards in recording of human skeletal remains in Britain has been of concern to the membership. The need for a guidance document to give specialists a framework within which to work was outlined at the annual meeting of the association held at Durham University in 2001. Recording of human bone is one of the few areas of a project over which the specialist has control and they are anxious to achieve a high level of professionalism. Standardised recording will enable greater comparability between human bone assemblages from different sites. The difficulties currently encountered in making comparisons between skeletal reports have recently been highlighted by Roberts and Cox (2003) in their attempt to study health and disease in Britain from prehistory to the present day. Comparisons are required for all levels of work, from standard bone reports where comparative data is required to set an assemblage in its wider context (Mays et al2002), todoctoral research where data are needed to aid decisions on inclusion of skeletal remains in an investigation. This document is primarily aimed at those engaged inthe recording of human bone from commercial projects. Recording undertaken to answer questions relating to specific areas of research pertaining to a site (eg obstetrics and parturition at Christchurch Spitalfields; Molleson and Cox 1993) will require greater detail than is outlined in this document. Research carried out as part of specific projects above and beyond the general site report will also be more detailed. It is not the intention to preclude wider research, indeed it may only be through such work that specific archaeological questions can be answered or knowledge of past populations increased. It is also recognised that due to the rapidly changing field of research into human skeletal remains that this document will have a limited lifespan (probably in the region of ten to fifteen years). The situation pertaining to recording and analysis of human remains in the British context is different to that found in the United States, where a guidance document has already been published (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). The differences lie in the former and current cultural and political systems in the USA, which have affected the quantity and type of remains recovered, and have had implications for the commercial and research- based analysis undertaken. This document should not be viewed as a ‚recipe book™, but rather as a guide giving advice about the current state of affairs relating to various fields of research and analysis. As there was little point in re-writing significant amounts of information already available, readers are frequently referred to publications where specific details of recording methodology or rationale can already be found. This document aims to provide some basic pointers as to what the recording of different types of information might reveal, and through this assist in devising a research design for any assemblage and provide guidance as to the ways in which questions posed by the archaeologist might feasibly be answered. Many of the areas of investigation covered in the various sections of this document are not mutually exclusive but are interdependent in terms of producing a comprehensive report. Astandard record of any assemblage should include an inventory (Sections 2Œ5), which not only presents a record of the bones which were available for analysis but is essential for the calculation of the prevalence of pathological lesions and conditions; a record of the data used to determine the age and sex of an individual (Sections 6Œ8); metric data and a record of non-metric traits (Sections 9 and 10), which assist in sexing and are necessary for the calculation of various indices to further our understanding of biodistance within and between populations; and an accurate record of pathological lesions (Sections 11Œ12). Other documents which it is advisable to consultinclude: Garratt-Frost (1992) for guidance relating to the law and human remains; McKinley and Roberts (1993) on the excavation and post-excavation treatment of cremated and inhumed human bone; Cox (2002) on crypt archaeology; the joint English Heritage/ BABAO publication Human Bones from Archaeological Sites: Guidelines for producing Assessment Documents and Analytical Reports (Mays et al2002) and the IFA™s Standards and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials (2001).For those working in Scotland and Northern Ireland other useful documents are available (Historic Scotland 1997; Buckley et al1999). Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains 5

PAGE – 8 ============
publication. For example, some of the detail visible on a colour picture may be far less clear if reproduced in black and white. Monochrome photographs are often more appropriate than colour images to illustrate fine surface details, such as cut-marks, abrasions or surface etching. Colour images may, however, illustrate some pathological specimens better than a monochrome image. More detailed information on the suitability of different film types for storage in an archive and photographic techniques for different types of bone and teeth is provided by Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994, 10-12). The progressively increasing quality of close-up images from digital cameras render them very useful for taking record shots Œ particularly where material is to be reburied Œ since the images are easily and relatively cheaply stored to form part of the archive. The possibility of obtaining images from microscopic examination should also be considered. In many instances it may be possible to observe and record the features of interest using light microscopy, and it is possible to attach a camera to a microscope with a suitable attachment. At the assessment stage of a project the possibility that either light or scanning electron microscopy may be required should be considered. Early planning will allow funds to be requested and/or suitable equipment to be located prior to the start of recording. Useful information on procedures for obtaining various types of visual record are contained in Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994, 10Œ14), Bruwelheide and co-workers (2001), and White (2000, 517Œ518). However, the quantity of images Œ particularly radiographic Œ required will normally be less as these guidelines assume that material will be reburied after primary analysis and this is not normal practice with British archaeological material.Additional information on visual recording of various types can be found in Williams (2001). Full visual recording will enhance both the quality of the report or paper published, as well as forming a valuable resource in the archive. Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains 7Figure 1 Sketch of scapula with pathology. Anterior view, all measurements in cm. Key:post mortem damage eburnation (Illustration courtesy of Rachel Ives)

PAGE – 9 ============
3Compiling a dental inventoryBrian ConnellThe aim of a dental inventory is to count all of theindividual teeth and tooth positions available for examination. This initial quantification allows assessment of how complete the dentition is and permits calculation of the prevalence of dental pathology. In practice it is easy to use the Zsigmondy system (see van Beek 1983, 5) which allows the deciduous or permanent dentition to be recorded using grids (Figures 2 and 3). Each grid is divided into four sections, each of which corresponds to a quadrant of the dentition. The numbers within each quadrant relate to the individual teeth in that section. For example in Figure 2 the top right quadrant labelled AŒE represents the left maxillary deciduous teeth, and the lower left section of Figure 3 labelled 8Œ1 represent the right mandibular permanent teeth.RightLeft E D C B AAB C D E E D C B AAB C D E RightLeft Figure 2 Recording grid for deciduous dentition RightLeft 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8RightLeft Figure 3 Recording grid for permanent dentition The only disadvantage of the Zsigmondy system is that an adult may have four teeth with the same number; this presents significant problems when data are being entered into a database. Consequently, it is important to consider how data will be processed and analysed before recording starts. Where data is to be entered into some form of database the system set out in Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994, 14a and 14b) should be implemented. In this system the permanent dentition are numbered 1 to 32 and the deciduous dentition 51 to 70. This system means that each tooth has a unique number making it easier to make a query on pathology by individual tooth. The different numbers for permanent and deciduous teeth also assist in recording and entering data on juveniles with mixed dentition.The most important aspect of recording information relating to the dentition is to ensure that in both the archive and publication reports the system employed and coding used are adequately referenced and/or explained.In counting the presence or absence of teeth some distinctions have to be made about ‚absence™ because teeth can be missing for different reasons. For example, a particular tooth can be missing due to post mortem loss (tooth has fallen out of the socket), ante mortem loss (with the socket partially or fully healed) or the tooth could be congenitally absent, ie the tooth did not form in the first place. The following symbols should be used on the grid to record data about the individual teeth or tooth position:\ scored through the tooth number indicates tooth lost post mortem (this can be difficult to do on a computer so in computerised records the strikethrough effect, found in the font section of the tools menu could be used)-scored through with a horizontal line indicates tooth present but socket missing xtooth lost ante mortem nptooth not present —jaw and teeth not present ccaries (cavity) in tooth b broken tooth a abscess e tooth erupting u tooth unerupted Where a tooth is present and has no abnormality the letter, number or other symbol used to represent the tooth should be left with no symbol added. Examples of how to use this type of recording system are provided by Brothwell (1981, 51-54). Dental pathology is covered in Section 11. For details on tooth identification or further details on labelling systems consult Hillson (1996, Table 2.1) or van Beek (1983). Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains 8

PAGE – 10 ============
4Compiling a skeletal inventory: cremated human boneJacqueline I McKinley4.1Introduction Cremation was the predominant rite for the disposal of the dead at various phases in Britain™s past, from prehistory up to and including the Anglo Saxon period. Consequently, cremated human bone is frequently encountered in archaeological mortuary deposits. The analysis of cremated bone shares many of the aims common within the study of all archaeologically derived human skeletal material (eg demographic and pathological data). Cremated material is the product of a series of ritual formation processes within a mortuary rite, the nuances of which are still little understood. Systematic data collection of a comparative nature is essential if we are to increase our understanding of the geographic, temporal, social and individual variations and similarities within the rite. It is the responsibility of the osteologist to collect and analyse the evidence for pyre technology and ritual reflected in the form and condition of the cremated bone. In all areas of analysis, the context of the deposit comprising or containing the cremated remains is a vital consideration and no recording or analysis should be undertaken without access to the archaeological site records. 4.2Areas of data recovery The various types of data required to fulfil (as far as possible) the aims of analysis as outlined above may be expressed as a series of questions; type of deposit level of disturbance/truncation total weight of bone (exclusive of extraneous material) demographic data pathology data degree of fragmentation efficiency of cremation (ie levels of oxidation and dehydration)skeletal elements represented presence and type of pyre goods (including staining to bone)presence and type of pyre debris formation process Œ undisturbed, spit-excavated deposits Deposits comprising or containing cremated bone should have been subject to whole-earth recovery in excavation (McKinley 1998; 2000a). The term ‚sample™ isdeliberately avoided as this implies only partial recovery which is not acceptable for cremation-related deposits of any type, other than in rare extreme circumstances (eg lack of access). Unless the osteologist is to personally excavate the remains of an intact urned burial, the cremated bone should have been cleaned prior to receipt via careful wet sieving to 1mm mesh size, and all extraneous material (eg stones and other coarse components) within the residue should have been removed from at least the 5mm fraction and above. In most cremation-related deposits, other than intact urned burials, the quantity of extraneous material (‚pea-grits™ etc) in the smaller fractions is too great for cost-effective extraction of all the bone and the residues should be scanned to remove fragments of human bone identifiable to skeletal element, animal bone or other pyre goods. 4.3Recording Analysis can be undertaken in a series of steps which will allow recovery of the data without necessitating repeat handling. 1.Obtain the total weight of bonefrom the combined sieve fraction weights (see Cover, lower Figure). This, together with a measure of the maximum fragment size, will give an assessment of bonefragmentation. 2.Examine every fragment of bone, however small, at least once. Identifiable material may be present amongst even the 1mm sieve residue be it human, animal or artefactual in nature. 3.Separate out identifiable bone fragments into four skeletal areas Œ skull, axial skeleton, upper limb and lower limb Œ for further detailed analysis. In case of any need to reaccess this ‚identifiable™ material, it is advisable to bag it separately after recording rather than to re-mix it with the mass of bone from the context. If space allows, this separate bag may be placed within the main bag of material from the context.4.3.1Type of deposit No analysis of cremated bone should be undertaken without reference to the context from which it was recovered. The osteologist must have access to the site record sheets Œ if they are not sent with the bone, ask for them; meaningful analysis cannot be undertaken without the site data. The archaeological records should include a description not just an interpretation of the deposit. All too often record sheets offer the term ‚cremation™ as an interpretation of the deposit where what is meant is ‚cremation burial™ Œ the two are not synonymous. A‚cremation™ is a burning pyre, ie part of a mortuary rite. The cremated bone and other remains Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains 9

PAGE – 11 ============
may be deposited in a ‚burial™, as ‚redeposited pyre debris™, or remain in situor be manipulated on the pyre site itself (not to mention various forms of accidentally disturbed and redeposited material; McKinley 1997; 1998; 2000a; 2000b). There is increasing evidence for apparently deliberate differentiation in cremated material (not necessarily the human bone) recovered from the different types of deposit in some temporal periods (eg Polfer 1993). The various parts of the mortuary rite will only become further apparent through detailed comparison. It must, therefore, be made clear throughout all areas of analysis (eg with a code or statement attached to the relevant context number in any database, archive and publication tables or other records) from what type of deposit the material was derived. Recorded deposit types may include; pyre sites Œ with either in situor manipulated pyre debris (including cremated bone) burials Œ urned: ceramic, glass (Romano-British) or stone (steatite in parts of Scotland) vessels and unurned burials: generally the presence of some form of organic container is apparent or bone may be spread across base of a cist grave (prehistoric) redeposited pyre debris Œ may be in the grave fill, over the grave, in a pre-existing feature (eg ditch) or formal deposit in a deliberately excavated feature cenotaph Œ may contain a small amount of bone (<25g) or nonecremation-related deposit (ie don™t know or unsure of the type) Œ redeposited bone Burials, urned and unurned, are the most commonly recovered type of deposit, but there is growing recognition of pyre debris deposits of various forms. More pyre sites are being found and the concept of a cenotaph or memorial is now being recognised archaeologically in association with the cremation rite (McKinley 2000b).The term ‚cremation™ should only be applied to the act of burning the body or the mortuary rite, not to the cremated remains or the archaeological deposit. 4.3.2Disturbance The condition of cremated bone may be affected by the nature of the deposit from which it is recovered, by taphonomic processes including post-depositional disturbance, and by excavation and post-excavation processing (McKinley 1994a). The site record sheets should give reference to the levels of potential truncation and disturbance Œ if not, ask the excavator, this information is essential. Direct comparisons (weight, bones present etc) cannot be made between disturbed and undisturbed deposits, or between intact and heavilytruncated ones. Interpretation requires comparison of ‚like with like™ and between deposits with different levels of disturbance.As with the deposit types, a statement or code should be attached to each individual context record within the various databases, tables etc, to distinguish levels of disturbance, in both archive and publication. Levels generally observed may include;undisturbed, lidded urned burials Œ generally very little or no sediment will have infiltrated the burial (the only instance where bone is liable to be of same size as at the time of deposition)undisturbed or slightly disturbed (eg vessel rim of an urned burial broken off; sediment infiltration will have some effect on fragment size) vessel of urned burial intact but cracked (possibly further affects fragment size) all of burial in situbut vessel fragmentary (furtheraffects fragment size) disturbed (potentially some bone loss, further affecting fragment size) badly disturbed (ie bone loss and increased pressure fragmentation probable) 4.3.3Bone fragmentation The weight of bone recovered from three Œ 10mm 5mm and 2mm Œ sieve fractions should be recorded and represented as a percentage of the total weight. A measure (mm) of the maximum bone fragment should also be taken and, where possible, a pre-excavation maximum fragment size should also be provided by the excavator or the osteologist where they have undertaken the excavation of an intact urned burial. NB: the 2mm sieve fraction often includes extraneous material, and this weight should only include extracted bone fragments, with a visual assessment of the amount of bone included in the unsorted residue. 4.3.4Total weight of cremated materials The total weight of all cremated bone Œ including pyre goods comprising animal remains or artefactual material Œ should be taken. The weight of the latter two may then be presented separately and the percentage they comprise of the total weight can be calculated. Weight in grams should be measured to one decimal place. 4.3.5Demographic data The archive report requires a record of all identified bone fragments, including a clear statement indicating duplication of elements indicative of one or more individuals, together with morphological observations pertaining to assessment of age and sex made in accordance with Sections 6Œ8 . Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains 10 216 KB – 63 Pages