The working life of Museum of 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.

By Sarah Matthews, BA, MSc. Senior Osteology Processor

The stage between the archaeological excavation and analysis of a human skeleton is often overlooked. The washing and processing of the remains is not the most glamorous of jobs in the world, but does have a unique benefit. The osteological processors are the first people to really see the skeleton in a clean state. We get the chance to closely examine every skeleton and are the first to see any pathology that affects the bone.

 Our job begins with the arrival of a skeleton contained within a large bag, separated into smaller bags containing the head, torso, arms, legs, hands and feet. The remains are often received with a large amount of soil and this can affect the condition and preservation of the bone. The bones are carefully cleaned by spraying  them with water through a hose, to rinse the soil off and occasionally using soft brushes to remove stubborn, dried on dirt. This allows the remains to be examined for discolouration, cut marks and pathology,  that may be more clearly visable once cleaned. The bones are then spread out onto trays and placed in a drying room. Depending on the size and condition of the remains it can take between 3-5 days to ensure the bones are thoroughly dried.

The final stage of processing is the boxing up. The remains are separated into the key elements, with the legs, arms, hands and feet sided by left and right. These elements are then placed into bags, and any trauma, pathology or unique differences noted. Pathologies for example can include infection and inflammation of the bone, rickets, scurvy and arthritis. Evidence of trauma to the bone can include: healed fractures, dislocations, trephination, amputation, and cut marks. The remains are then ready for storage in the archive.

 The basic washing and drying of the bones, while a relatively simple job, can occasionally provide unique challenges. Recently for example, we had to work out how to remove expanding foam and concrete that had stuck to the bone surfaces. Most importantly, we have to ensure continuity is kept throughout the entire process.  All skeletons are given an individual context number, and these numbers must be kept with the same skeleton at all times. Complete records are made throughout the process to allow easy identification and location of the skeleton once boxed and stored. If part of a skeleton is excavated later, this can then be correctly reunited with the same remains.

Processing is a unique and interesting job within archaeology; and one that is essential for the preservation and analysis of excavated human remains.

 Joint disease is one of the most frequently observed pathological disorders recorded in archaeological skeletal human remains.  The joints represent the point at which two bones meet, allowing for movement and support. The most common form of joint disease is osteoarthritis, this is prevalent in modern populations as well as those in the past.

Osteoarthritis can be caused by a range of different factors. These include increasing age, injury to the bone, dislocation, illness, genetic factors, diet, activity and lifestyle. Osteoarthritis can result in pain and swelling of the joint and can lead to reduced movement and deformity.

 The joints are covered by a strong layer of tissue called cartilage. If this is damaged, the underlying joint surface may be exposed. Bone changes involved in osteoarthritis include the formation of new bone called osteophytes at the joint surface or surrounding margins. This represents the bodies attempt to repair the joint and counter the stresses placed upon it. If the osteophyte growth is large then the two joints may join together or fuse.

Bone changes observed in osteoarthritis can also be erosive or destructive with pitted holes and the formation of cysts into the joint surface. If the joint continues to be moved, the two opposing joint surfaces will be in direct contact and the resulting friction will cause the bone to harden and become polished (eburnation).

Analysis of the post-medieval population of Sts Mary and Michael revealed high rates of osteoarthritis with around 25% of the population showing evidence of this disease. The most commonly affected joints of the body were the radioulnar (wrist), humeroradial (elbow), acetabulum (hip), and femoropatellar (knee).

 The study of joint disease can help us to understand the stresses and strains placed upon the skeleton in past populations. This can also be used to see the affects of increasing age on bone. The occurence of joint disease can then be compared to the prevalence rates  in modern populations.

 By Don Walker

Restrictive, ill fitting and pointed shoes can result in a condition known as hallux valgus. This is where the proximal pedal phalanx (toe bone) of the great toe points laterally (outward towards the other toes), exposing the medial area (inner surface) of the metatarsal head joint surface. In extreme cases, the great toe may cross under or over the second toe. This may also result in painful joint disease and the formation of a bunion, a swelling around the toe joint. Symptoms include swelling, redness and pain at the base of the great toe.

Analysis of the 301 skeletons from St. Marylebone Church Yard, Westminster dating between the mid-eighteenth century to 1850, revealed ten individuals (10/301: 3.3%) suffering from hallux valgus. All were aged over 36 years at death and the deformity was observed in both sexes. Eight of these had hallux valgus in both the left and right great toe. In seven individuals the angle of deformity was at least 40 degrees.

Contemporary examples of footwear from the Dress and Decorative Arts Department. at the Museum of London demonstrate some of the shoe designs that could have led to the development of hallux valgus. It was common in the early 19th century for men and women from the more prosperous classes to wear handmade shoes with symmetrical soles. The right and left shoes were often made identical in form, and this continued up until machine manufacture began in the later 19th century. Shoes normally had pointed toes, although square toed shoes became more popular from the 1820’s to the 1840’s.

Archaeological and osteological evidence has shown that the population from St. Marylebone was of high status. These wealthier individuals would have been able to afford the fashionable footwear of the day, and these designs may have caused some to suffer hallux valgus. This condition appears to have worsened with age and long term wearing of badly fitting shoes. Today, the deformity often affects the adolescent foot. Girls tend to be more commonly stricken, probably as a result of wearing restrictive and high-heeled shoes (McRae 2003:181).

The new MOL Archaeology monograph: St Marylebone Church and burial ground in the 18th to 19th centuries: excavations at St Marylebone School, 1992 and 2004-6, has just been published.

  Teeth are one of the strongest elements of the skeleton and often survive well in archaeological remains. Diseases that affect the dentition are one of the more common pathological conditions observed in the study of human remains. These can be used to inform us about the diet, oral hygiene, stress and occupations of past populations (Roberts and Manchester 2005: 63).

One type of pathology that affects the teeth is calculus. This is caused by a build up of plaque in the mouth that sticks to the surfaces of the teeth. These deposits can become mineralized or calcified and remain attached to the teeth. Calculus is observed as hard deposits of  yellow or brown coloured material located above the gum line (supragingival) or below (subgingival). It can range from slight deposits to large build ups, that can cover most of a tooth surface.

 Dental caries or cavities are a common type of dental pathology that continue to cause much pain for sufferers today. The break down of foods such as sugars, carbohydrates and starch by bacteria in the mouth, can create acids that attack the hard surfaces of teeth. This can lead to the development of caries (small holes and cavities) that can be observed on the enamel and root surfaces. If this destruction continues, extensive decay or gross caries of the entire tooth can occur, leading to early loss.

Carious decay and the build up of calculus on the surfaces of teeth can result in infection and inflammation of the soft tissues surrounding the tooth or gingivitis (gum disease). If this inflammation passes to the bone it can result in the resorbtion of the alveolar bone of the tooth socket (periodontal disease). This may lead to the exposure of the root and early loss as the tooth becomes loose in its socket.

If infection reaches the pulp cavity, inflammation may result in a build up of puss around the region of the tooth root. A large cavity or sinus may form, penetrating the outer surface of the bone, allowing the puss to escape. This can be seen as a large hole or abscess in the region of bone above or below the infected tooth and may also result in early loss.

Another type of dental pathology observed is defects to the enamel surface of a tooth. These are seen as hypoplastic lines, pits and grooves casued by thinning of the enamel surface when the tooth was developing during childhood. These may indicate disturbances during growth, caused by a variety of factors including dietary deficiencies, hormonal imbalances, and disease (Chamberlain 1998: 37).

Analysis of skeletons from the post-medieval (1843-1854) catholic mission of Sts. Mary and Michael, Whitechapel, London has revealed high rates of dental disease. Eighty one percent of adults showed evidence of dental caries, 90.7% had calculus, 78.6% suffered from periodontal disease, 35.9% had dental abscesses, 77.8 % had lost teeth during life and 54.4% showed hypoplastic defects of the tooth enamel. The teeth of children were also affected with 33.9% presenting cavities of at least one tooth, 12.1% with calculus and 10.2% with enamel hypoplasia.