As stated in section 5.1, all osteological data utilised in this study was extracted from data previously entered onto WORD. The following sections detail the criteria utilised for the compilation of skeletal inventories, age and sex estimations, and the recording and diagnosis of pathologies (all taken from Powers 2007, and Powers 2012a). Following these details, the nature of the data captured for this thesis is given in each section. For further information regarding the WORD project see White (2007), Powers (2012a), and Redfern and Bekvalac (2013).
(i) WORD Database: Context Information
The data held on WORD is primarily differentiated and captured using the unique site code and context number combination of each individual skeleton (Connell 2012a: 9). Every
archaeological site in the City and Greater London area is issued a unique site code by the LAARC, and this designator and the context number assigned at the point of excavation to each individual is entered onto WORD. The name of the person recording the individual and the date when the record was opened is also captured.
Fields for the cemetery phase and burial dates are also present, and these data are entered manually by the recorder or through the migration of field data from a compatible database used by MoLA. The burial dates are established by a range of dating techniques (i.e. find spot dates or 14C dating) and are fully presented in each cemetery’s archive report and/or published
119
site report. The database also allows information about coffin type, the presence of intrusive human or animal bone, staining and truncation (Powers 2007: 3). Fields are also present to record the presence of ossified cartilage, ear ossicles, sampling history, and if any bones had to be “artificially deleted” from the record, e.g. if multiple hand bones could not be separated into individuals (Powers 2007: 3).
For this thesis, each skeletal entry will be identified using the site code and context number of the skeleton given in the WORD database. Where this differs from the publication data, the WORD context number is favoured.
(ii) WORD Database: Assessment of Overall Skeletal Preservation
Skeletal preservation is visually assessed and graded using a three point grading system (see Table 5.2). Where skeletal preservation varied across the skeleton, the most prevalent grade was recorded (Connell 2012a: 2).
Skeletal Preservation Grading System
Grade Description
1 Bone surface is in good condition with no erosion, fine surface detail such as coarse woven bone deposition would be clearly visible (if present) to the naked eye
2 Bone surface is in moderate condition with some post-mortem erosion on long bone shafts but the margins of articular surfaces are eroded and some
prominences are eroded
3 Bone surface is in poor condition with extensive post-mortem erosion resulting in pitted and eroded cortical surfaces and long bones with articular surfaces missing or severely eroded
Table 5.2: Skeletal preservation grading system (taken from Connell 2012a: Table 1)
(iii) WORD Database: Bone Inventory
For each individual skeleton, each bone that is present is entered into the WORD database. In order to allow accurate recording, some bones are divided into components that are recorded separately (Connell 2012b: 11). For example, long bones are recorded in three components – the proximal third, middle third (shaft), and distal third. In order to be included, at least 50% of a bone or component had to be present. Each bone or component is then entered using a binary array (1= present, 0 = absent), e.g. a complete femur would be recorded as 111
120
(Powers 2007: 6). For a full list of binary arrays for each individual bone, please see Powers (2007: 4-6).
A full bone inventory for each individual skeleton was compiled for the thesis, given in Appendix 6. Each bone is identified as present (1) or absent (0). For bones recorded by components in WORD, two of the three were required to be present for the bone to be recorded as present in thesis bone inventory.
(iv) WORD Database: Dental Inventory
For each individual skeleton, a dental inventory is recording using the Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) recording system (1971) that gives each tooth a unique identifier (Hillson 1996: 8) (Connell 2012b: 12). Each tooth and tooth position is recorded as present or absent using a set of numeric codes (see Table 5.3) (Connell 2012b: 12).
Code Description
1 Tooth present
2 Post-mortem loss
3 Ante-mortem loss
4 Congenital absence
5 Tooth Present (no socket observed)
6 Tooth erupting
7 Deciduous retention
Null Area Absent
Table 5.3: WORD dental inventory codes (taken from Connell 2012b: Table 2)
For the thesis, each individual was identified as having dentition present (1) or absent (0), if they had at least one tooth present (Appendix 6).
(v) Age Estimation: Subadults
As identified in Chapter 2, a multifactorial approach to ageing is considered to be the most reliable method of estimating age in skeletal material. Therefore, all age estimations conducted by osteologists entering data for the WORD database employ a number of macroscopic methods (Powers 2012b: 13-15). A combination of metrical, dental, and
121
epiphyseal fusion assessments are utilised for the estimation of age of sub-adults (see Table 5.4) (Powers 2012b: 13-14). The age estimates from all the techniques applied are combined to produce an overall age, given in years or weeks, as appropriate (Powers 2012b: 14-15). Where age estimates between methods are contradictory, the dental age estimation is favoured due to its greater reliability (Lewis and Garn 1960; Powers 2012b: 14).
Where preservation or skeletal incompleteness did not permit the determination of a specific age-at-death, but morphology and other developmental features showed the individuals were not adult, these individuals are recorded on WORD as unassigned subadult <18 years (Powers 2012b: 15).
Sub-adult Ageing Methodologies Subadult Age Methodology
Type
Methodology References
Foetal/Neonate Metric Linear Regression Equations using diaphyseal lengths
Scheuer and Black, 2000
Sub-adults over 2 months old
Diaphyseal Lengths Maresh, 1970
Maximum dimensions of ilium Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994; Scheuer and Black, 2000
Basioccipital Dimensions Scheuer and MacLaughlin-Black, 1994
Dental Dental Eruption Data Gustafson and Koch,
1974
Tooth Formation Data Moorees et al 1963a
and 1963b Epiphyseal
Fusion
Epiphyseal Fusion Data Buikstra and
Ubelaker, 1994; Scheuer and Black, 2000; Powers 2012b Table 5.4: Subadult age estimation methodologies (after Powers 2012b:13-14)
122
The aims of this study required a more nuanced age-group approach compared to those used by WORD (Powers 2007: 9-10; 2012b: 13-14). Therefore, the results of each ageing technique were extracted by Redfern at the individual context level for all individuals from foetal to 25 years old. Individuals aged between foetal and 20 years old were considered to be subadults, with all other individuals classed as adult individuals.
The age-group ranges employed in this study are narrower and based on developmental transitions (after Redfern 2007) (see Table 5.5). Although the use of age categories is not ideal as it imposes potential social bias onto the data that has no bearing on social age (see Chapter 2), they are necessary to organise the osteological data and permit temporal and spatial comparison of the results (Halcrow and Tayles 2008).
WORD Subadult Age Categories Subadult Age Categories Used in This Study Age
Code
Description Age Range Age
code
Description Age Range
1 Inter-uterine/neonate < 4wks 1 Preterm <37wks gestation
2 Early post-natal infant 1-6mths 2 Full Term 37-42wks gestation
3 Later post-natal infant 7-11mths 3 Infancy >42wks gestation – 3.0 years
4 Early Child 1-5 years 4 Childhood 3.5-7.5 years
5 Later Child 6-11 years 5 Juvenile 8.0-16.5 years
6 Adolescent 12-17 years 6 Adolescent 17.0-20.0 years
12 Unassigned
Subadult
< 18 years 12 Unassigned Subadult
< 20 years
Table 5.5: Subadult age categories used within the study compared to those adopted by WORD (after Powers 2012b, Table 4)
(vi) Age Estimation: Adults
The methodologies utilised for adult age estimation focus on degenerative changes in the pelvis, namely that of the pubic symphysis (Todd 1921a; 1921b; Brooks and Suchey 1990) and auricular surface (Lovejoy et al. 1985) as detailed in Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994: 21-
32)(Powers 2012b: 15). Other areas examined include the sternal rib morphology (İşcan et al. 1984; 1985) and dental attrition (Brothwell 1981: 72) (Powers 2012b: 15). As many different ageing methods as preservation allowed were applied and combined to assign a skeleton to
123
WORD Adult Age Categories Adult Age Categories Used in This Study Age
Code
Description Age Range Age
code
Description Age Range
7 Young Adult 18-25 years 7 Young Adult 20-25 years
8 Early Middle Adult 26-35 years 8 Early Middle Adult 26-35 years
9 Later Middle Adult 36-45 years 9 Later Middle Adult 36-45 years
10 Mature Adult ≥ 46 years 10 Mature Adult ≥ 46 years
11 Unassigned Adult > 18 years 11 Unassigned Adult > 20 years Table 5.6: Adult categories used within the study compared to those adopted by WORD (after Powers 2012b, Table 5)
one of the four adult age categories (see Table 5.6) (Powers 2012b: 15). In fragmentary remains where the appropriate areas were not preserved to allow age to be assessed, adulthood is confirmed by the identification of widespread epiphyseal fusion and the individual is recorded as an unassigned adult >18yrs (Powers 2012b: 15).
(vii) Adult Sex Estimation
For adult sex estimation (individuals over the age of 20 years old), in order to account for the different levels of preservation in the skeletal material, macroscopic assessment of a number of morphological features of the cranium and pelvis is undertaken (see Table 5.7) (Bekvalac 2012: 16).
Each feature is graded using a five-point scale (see Table 5.8) and overall sex is estimated through the combination of all available scores, with each individual assigned to one of the five categories (Bekvalac 2012: 15). If there is disagreement between the sex estimated for the cranium and pelvis, the sex determined by the pelvic scores is given preference (Powers 2007). In cases where sex could not be determined due to poor preservation, the individual was assigned as undetermined (code 9) (Bekvalac 2012: 15). Sub-adults assigned to subadult age categories 1-5 were not sexed due to the lack of accepted standards for sexing sub-adult material (Bekvalac 2012: 15).
In this study, biological sex was recorded for adult individuals only. For statistical analyses, both probable categories are combined with the appropriate male and female category. Any individuals who could not be assigned a sex (including sub-adults) were not included in statistical analyses investigating biological sex.
124
Skeletal Element Morphological Feature Reference Given
Skull Supraorbital ridges Brothwell (1981)
Inion Protuberance Nuchal Crest
Mastoid process Bass (1987: 82)
Slope of Forehead
Zygoma root Ferembach et al. (1980)
Mandible Gonions Brothwell (1981)
Pelvis Ventral Arc Phenice (1969)
Medial portion of pubis
Greater Sciatic Notch Bass (1987: 203-05) Preauricular Sulcus
Subpubic Angle Subpubic Concavity Median Ischiopubic Ridge
Table 5.7:Morphological features utilised for sex estimation (taken from Bekvalac 2012: Table 6)
Code Description 1 Male 2 Probable Male 3 Indeterminate 4 Probable Female 5 Female
9 Undetermined adult/ features
not present
125