Mummification in Bronze Age Britain.
Booth, Thomas J. ; Chamberlain, Andrew T. ; Pearson, Mike Parker 等
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
In previous papers in Antiquity, we have presented the first
evidence for mummification in prehistoric Britain (Parker Pearson et al.
2005, 2007). Mummification is defined here as the preservation of bodily
soft tissue via natural processes (e.g. deposition of a corpse within a
preservative environment such as a sphagnum peat bog) or artificial
means (e.g. embalming) (Aufderheide 2003: 41). Skeletons recovered from
beneath Late Bronze Age roundhouses at Cladh Hallan on South Uist,
Western Isles of Scotland, were shown to have been mummified prior to
deposition (Parker Pearson et al. 2005, 2007, 2013); the osteological
and ancient DNA analyses also indicate that these ostensibly articulated
single individuals had been reconstructed from the preserved anatomical
parts of several people (Parker Pearson et al. 2005; Hanna et al. 2012).
These findings raise questions about the extent, distribution and nature
of mummification in prehistoric Britain, a difficult research area given
that similar circumstances of preservation and recovery to those found
at Cladh Hallan are unlikely to be present in most parts of Britain or
Europe. Our aim has been to develop a single method of analysis that can
be used consistently to identify previously mummified skeletons more
widely.
Microscopic analysis of bone histology was one of the main methods
used to infer mummification at Cladh Hallan. The most common, almost
ubiquitous, form of diagenetic alteration observed within archaeological
bone microstructure consists of bioerosive tunnelling produced by
invasive microorganisms (Hackett 1981; Hedges 2002; Turner-Walker et al.
2002; Jans et al. 2004; Nielsen-Marsh et al. 2007; Figure 1). There is a
growing body of evidence indicating that this bacterial bioerosion is
produced by an organism's intrinsic gut bacteria during
putrefaction (Child 1995; Bell et al. 1996; Jans et al. 2004; Guarino et
al. 2006; Nielsen-Marsh et al. 2007; White & Booth 2014), suggesting
that bacterial bioerosion of archaeological bone reflects the extent of
bodily putrefaction experienced during the early post-mortem stages.
Histological analysis of the femur of Cladh Hallan skeleton 2638, a
composite adult male (Parker Pearson et al. 2005), revealed that it had
been subjected to only limited levels of bacterial bioerosion,
indicating that initial putrefactive activity was arrested. A similar
conclusion was reached for the composite female-male skeleton 2613
(Parker Pearson et al. 2005, 2013). The condition of these two composite
human skeletons contrasts with results of previous microscopic studies
on archaeological articulated human bones, which usually show extensive
tunnelling by bacteria (Hedges 2002; Jans et al. 2004; Nielsen-Marsh et
al. 2007). By contrast, faunal bones recovered from the same machair
(shell sand) sediments at Cladh Hallan demonstrated extensive bacterial
alteration (Parker Pearson et al. 2005; Mulville et al. 2011).
Putrefaction is a highly destructive process and the most
successful methods of mummification neutralise or remove visceral
bacteria to prevent this stage of bodily decomposition (Aufderheide
2003). Putrefactive bacteria are likely to include osteolytic species
responsible for bioerosion (Bell et al. 1996; Jans et al. 2004),
therefore bacterial attack can be expected to be absent or limited
within bones from mummified bodies. The arrested pattern of bacterial
bioerosion observed within the Cladh Hallan skeleton is theoretically
consistent with mummification. Consequently, microscopic investigation
may be the best and most consistent method for identifying previously
mummified skeletons.
A diagenetic signature for mummification?
In most cases, previous investigations of the bone histology of
bona fide mummified archaeological remains (Table 1) have not reported
directly or in detail on histological preservation. The descriptions of
samples and their images reveal, however, that mummified bones usually
demonstrate immaculate levels of histological preservation. These
results support the hypothesis that ancient mummified bones are unlikely
to have been affected by putrefactive bioerosion. This typical absence
of bacterial bioerosion in known mummified bone is not entirely
consistent with the arrested pattern of attack observed within the Cladh
Hallan skeletons.
Those mummified bodies examined in previous histomorphological
studies are preserved in ways that would have affected putrefaction
immediately after death (Weinstein et al. 1981; Thompson & Cowen
1984; Stout 1986; Brothwell & Bourke 1995; Garland 1995; Hess et al.
1998; Monsalve et al. 2008; Bianucci et al. 2012). The evidence for the
onset and subsequent halting of putrefaction in the Cladh Hallan bodies
suggests that the method of mummification employed here had an
inconsistent or delayed effect on bodily decomposition (Parker Pearson
et al. 2005). To test the relationship between bone bioerosion and the
extent of soft tissue preservation, the microstructures of bone samples
from a mummy and a bog body were examined using thin-section light
microscopy. These samples consist of the patella of a desiccated
prehistoric mummy, retrieved from the town of Kawkaban in northern
Yemen, and the tibia of a partially mummified Bronze Age body recovered
from a sphagnum peat bog at Derrycashel in County Roscommon, Ireland. We
made applications to analyse bone from a range of mummified remains; we
were, however, granted access to sample only these two specimens.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The soft tissue preservation of the Yemeni individual suggests that
putrefaction was arrested soon after death because of the arid
environment (Don Brothwell pers. comm.). Bodies placed in arid
environments dry out rapidly, depriving putrefactive bacteria of
essential moisture (Aufderheide 2003). Only the top half of the
Derrycashel bog body retained soft tissue and it is likely that it had
putrefied to some extent before decomposition was curtailed by the
preservative chemicals in the bog environment (Eamonn Kelly pers.comm.).
Thin sections of the mummified bones were assessed using the
standard Oxford Histological Index (OHI), which translates the
percentage of remaining intact bone microstructure into an ordinal scale
ranging from 0 (worst preserved) to 5 (best preserved) (Hedges et al.
1995; Millard 2001). The histological preservation of the Yemeni
mummified patella is excellent (OHI = 5), although enlarged osteocyte
lacunae (natural cavities in the bone microstructure that house
osteocyte cells) were observed towards the periosteal (outer) surface
(Figure 2). Post-mortem enlargement of osteocyte lacunae has been linked
to acidic erosion, staining by exogenous substances and the initial
stages of bacterial bioerosion (Gordon & Buikstra 1981; Garland
1987; Bell et al. 1996; Turner-Walker & Peacock 2008; White &
Booth 2014).
It is unlikely that the attack observed within the Yemeni patella
was a result of acidic erosion because the bone was still protected by
soft tissue; there were no other typical signs of acidic degradation
such as microfissuring, while the distribution of attack did not form a
characteristic diffuse wave of destruction (Gordon & Buikstra 1981;
Turner-Walker & Peacock 2008). Acidic degradation would normally
result in the destruction of the whole bone over an archaeological
timescale (Nielsen-Marsh et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2007). Enlarged
osteocyte lacunae caused by exogenous staining are usually accompanied
by discolouration of the surrounding bone microstructure (Garland 1987;
Schultz 1997). Such discolouration was not apparent within the Yemeni
sample. Therefore, the best explanation for the enlarged osteocyte
lacunae observed within the Yemeni patella is that it was exposed to
initial putrefactive activity, which was rapidly curtailed (Bell et al.
1996; Jans et al. 2004; Hollund et al. 2012).
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Histologically, the thin section of the Derrycashel tibia shows the
bone to be well-preserved (OHI = 5), but it displays numerous enlarged
osteocyte lacunae within the sub-periosteal zone that have amalgamated
to form larger areas of alteration consistent with bacterial bioerosion
(Hackett 1981; Figure 3). The survival of the whole bone and the
distribution of attack are inconsistent with acidic erosion or staining.
The Derrycashel sample demonstrates lower levels of bacterial bioerosion
than were observed in the Cladh Hallan specimen, but, overall, this
result suggests that the Cladh Hallan diagenetic signature is indeed
consistent with mummification using a technique that promoted partial
soft-tissue preservation. The Cladh Hallan skeletons were recovered from
alkaline machair sediments, yet previous Fourier transform infrared
(FTIR) and small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) analyses of these
specimens had indicated that bone mineral crystals located towards the
periosteal (external) surfaces had been altered in a manner consistent
with acidic chemical dissolution (Parker Pearson et al. 2005). This
result was used to suggest that mummification may have been achieved
through deposition within an acidic peat bog (Parker Pearson et al.
2005); the evidence from the Derrycashel bog body provides further
support for this hypothesis. The histological analysis of the Kawkaban
and Derrycashel samples is in agreement with previous microscopic
studies of mummified bone and suggests that mummification prevents or
limits putrefactive bioerosion of the skeleton, producing a
characteristic diagenetic signature.
Identification of further Bronze Age mummies
The use of measurements of bacterial bioerosion to interpret
post-mortem treatment of a body is hampered by problems of equifinality.
Bones from anoxic or waterlogged environments often display patterns of
arrested bacterial bioerosion similar to those from mummified remains
(Janaway 1996; Turner & Wiltshire 1999; Turner-Walker & Jans
2008; Hollund et al. 2012); microscopic analysis cannot therefore be
used to infer previous mummification within skeletons recovered from
these contexts. Neonatal bones may naturally remain free from bacterial
bioerosion after death, as the mammalian gut microbiome only develops in
the days after birth (Jans et al. 2004; White & Booth 2014).
Excarnation promotes rapid exogenous skeletonisation and disarticulation
by carnivorous insects and limits the impact of soft-tissue putrefaction
on the skeleton (Rodriguez & Bass 1983; Bell et al. 1996;
Fernandez-Jalvo et al. 2010; Simmons et al. 2010; White & Booth
2014). Dismemberment, defleshing and other processes that separate the
bone from the gut bacteria would also produce disarticulated bones that
display limited degrees of bacterial attack (Jans et al. 2004;
Nielsen-Marsh et al. 2007). Given the rapidity of skeletal
disarticulation that accompanies bodily decomposition, the most obvious
way in which an articulated skeleton can survive archaeologically is
through immediate burial of the corpse (Duday 2006). Burial protects the
body from skeletonising insects, and bones from buried bodies typically
exhibit advanced bioerosion resulting from extensive putrefaction of
soft tissues, in contrast to reduced or absent bioerosion resulting from
mummification (Rodriguez & Bass 1985; Rodriguez 1997).
A microscopic study of archaeological human long-bone thin sections
(97% femora) representing 301 individuals retrieved from 25 European
sites, of which 24 were British, found that bacterial bioerosion relates
to funerary treatment in predictable ways based on models of bodily
decomposition (Booth 2014). Most samples of bone retrieved from
historic-period contexts (Roman and later), where there is good evidence
that these individuals were buried soon after death, produced the lowest
OHI score of 0 (typified in Figure 1) and almost all scored less than 2.
Less than 3% demonstrated the high OHI scores of 4 or 5 assigned to the
Cladh Hallan skeletons and the mummified specimens. These findings
suggest that skeletons of mummified bodies are the only ancient
articulated remains that either consistently remain free from bacterial
bioerosion or demonstrate only limited levels of bacterial attack.
Microscopic examination of bioerosion in articulated skeletons thus
provides a plausible method for identifying past mummification.
The patterns of bacterial bioerosion observed amongst Bronze Age
skeletons, with the addition of a further 6 individuals from Canada
Farm, Dorset, were remarkably distinctive compared with the results from
the historical, Neolithic and Iron Age assemblages (Figure 4a). Just
over half of the Bronze Age samples (18 out of 34) produced low OHI
scores consistent with immediate burial, but the remainder produced high
scores of 4 or 5, indicating excellent bone preservation comparable with
the mummified examples. Most of these high-scoring samples are free from
bacterial bioerosion. A significantly large proportion of Bronze Age
bones had been subject to early post-mortem processes that had limited
their exposure to putrefaction bacteria. Two of these were recovered
from waterlogged sediments at Bradley Fen in Cambridgeshire (Gibson
& Knight 2006) and Langwell Cist in Strath Oykel (Lelong 2009,
2012). Additionally, some of the other high-scoring Bronze Age human
remains were recovered in various stages of skeletal disarticulation
(Bell et al. 1996; Fernandez-Jalvo et al. 2010; Simmons et al. 2010).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The exclusion of waterlogged and disarticulated bone samples does
not, however, affect the overall distinctive distribution of Bronze Age
OHI scores (Figure 4b & c). The Bronze Age sample set from aerobic
environments is distributed evenly between articulated (n = 16) and
disarticulated (n = 16) skeletons. The regular occurrence of
histologically well-preserved articulated human bone samples is
exclusive to the Bronze Age sample. Only 3 of the 35 Neolithic samples
originate from articulated skeletons. All articulated Neolithic bone
samples are extensively bioeroded, but the possibility that a proportion
of Neolithic articulated skeletons will demonstrate high levels of
histological preservation cannot be dismissed entirely. The distribution
of variably articulated skeletons amongst the Iron Age sample set was
more balanced (10 articulated, 16 disarticulated).
Instances of well-preserved Bronze Age bone were identified from
remains at several different sites, removing the possibility that these
results are attributable to the disproportionate influence of one large
but anomalous sample set. It is highly unlikely that sampling of a small
number of Bronze Age individuals from a varied group of sites would have
repeatedly captured anomalous specimens. Most Bronze Age sites that have
yielded histologically well-preserved bones also provide examples of
extensively bioeroded remains. In all cases, these contrasting samples
originate from skeletons found only a few metres apart, within similar
sediments. These results suggest that histological bone preservation has
not been dictated by either specific environmental conditions or
exogenous soil bacteria (Fernandez-Jalvo et al. 2010; Turner-Walker
2012). The unconventional arrested patterns of bioerosion observed
amongst samples of articulated Bronze Age skeletons must relate to an
early anthropogenic process that limited bodily putrefaction (Bell et
al. 1996; Jans et al. 2004; Nielsen-Marsh et al. 2007). Mummification
represents the only plausible method of significantly reducing the
deleterious effects of bodily putrefaction while retaining skeletal
articulation. Mummified bodies are the only articulated archaeological
remains to demonstrate consistently the diagenetic pattern observed
amongst the Bronze Age samples, the simplest explanation is, therefore,
that a substantial proportion of these bodies were mummified before they
were buried.
All of the histologically well-preserved disarticulated Bronze Age
bones were free from bacterial bioerosion. Sub-aerial exposure could be
responsible for this result, although bones from exposed carcasses
usually demonstrate some bacterial bioerosion; skeletonisation in
temperate environments is rarely quick enough to prevent the bones from
experiencing soft-tissue putrefaction altogether (Bell et al. 1996;
Fernandez-Jalvo et al. 2010; Simmons et al. 2010; Hollund et al. 2012;
White & Booth 2014). Immaculate histological bone preservation is
more consistent with mummification than with excarnation (Weinstein et
al. 1981; Thompson & Cowen 1984; Stout 1986; Brothwell & Bourke
1995; Hess et al. 1998). When it is considered that the Cladh Hallan
bodies were constructed out of the partially disarticulated elements of
several individuals (Parker Pearson et al. 2005; 2007; 2013; Hanna et
al. 2012), the most parsimonious interpretation of all of the
histologically well-preserved Bronze Age bone samples is that they
represent parts of, or whole, previously mummified individuals.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Archaeological bones from intermittently waterlogged environments
demonstrate variably elevated levels of histological preservation, most
likely corresponding with the varying degree of bodily decomposition
that took place before the grave was inundated (Turner-Walker & Jans
2008; Hollund et al. 2012). The two waterlogged articulated Bronze Age
skeletons from Bradley Fen and Langwell Cist were both free from
bioerosion. Waterlogged environments often limit bacterial action but
should not prevent putrefactive bone bioerosion completely; the absence
of bacterial bioerosion from these samples is therefore unusual (Booth
2014). It is possible that these two waterlogged Bronze Age skeletons
are those of previously mummified individuals, but the variable effects
of waterlogging on putrefaction and bacterial bioerosion mean that this
interpretation must remain uncertain (Nielsen-Marsh & Hedges 2000;
Turner-Walker & Jans 2008; Hollund et al. 2012).
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
Distribution of Bronze Age mummified human remains in Britain
The distribution of Bronze Age human skeletal remains demonstrating
diagenetic signatures consistent with mummification extends across large
areas of Britain (Figure 5; Table 2), regardless of whether
disarticulated and waterlogged remains are included; this suggests that
mummification was practised throughout Britain during the Bronze Age.
These sites are dated to the Early and Late Bronze Age (c. 2200-750 BC),
indicating furthermore that mummification was a long-lived mortuary
practice. These results raise the question--yet to be addressed--of
whether similar funerary treatments were practised more widely among
European Bronze Age societies.
Methods of Bronze Age mummification
Arrested patterns of bacterial attack were observed within
individuals from Neat's Court in Kent (Morley 2010) and Bradley Fen
in Cambridgeshire (Figure 6; Gibson & Knight 2006), although
mummification techniques may have differed between the two sites. The
Neat's Court skeletons demonstrate macroscopic discolouration and
Assuring consistent with low-level heat treatment (Figure 7; Deter &
Barrett 2009), suggesting that these bodies may have been mummified by
desiccation through smoking. In contrast, the Bradley Fen skeletons
display no post-mortem alterations that are indicative of a particular
method of mummification; their provenance close to substantial wetlands
however, raises the possibility that they were preserved through initial
deposition within watery anoxic environments. Bone samples from Windmill
Fields in Teesside (Annis et al. 1997), Cnip Headland on the Isle of
Lewis, Western Isles of Scotland (Lelong 2011) and Canada Farm in Dorset
(Green 2012; Bailey et al. 2013) were free from bacterial bioerosion,
which indicates that bodily putrefaction was curtailed at an early
post-mortem stage, and that their treatment may have involved
evisceration (Figure 8).
The evidence for variability in methods of mummification is
consistent with suggestions that Bronze Age communities made innovative
use of available local resources to preserve their dead (Parker Pearson
et al. 2005). Techniques that produced a partial or ephemeral mummy
might have been deliberately used by British Bronze Age communities to
enable fragmentation, circulation and recombination of bodies and
anatomical parts. Consistent production of such relatively short-lived
mummies might partly explain why preserved soft tissue of Bronze Age
individuals has not usually survived archaeologically (with the
exception of some bog bodies); Britain's temperate climate is
generally poorly suited for long-term soft tissue preservation above or
below ground in any case.
The Cladh Hallan bodies had been manipulated into tightly flexed
positions (leg flexion at the hip was above 45[degrees]), suggesting
that they may have been wrapped (Parker Pearson et al. 2005). Body
position was highly variable amongst the Bronze Age mummified skeletons
identified here and there is no significant association between posture
and OHI score (n = 27, Kruskal-Wallis [chi square] = 3.50453, p =
0.3202). There is no regional variation in posture amongst the mummified
specimens and positions often varied considerably across single sites
(Table 2). Evidence for tight wrapping of bodies in the Bronze Age does
not equate to mummification, although prior mummification may provide an
explanation for articulated skeletons that appear to have been
manipulated beyond what might be possible on a fresh corpse (Parker
Pearson et al. 2005).
Conclusion
Microscopic analysis of diagenesis in a dataset of 307 samples of
human bone recovered from 26 archaeological sites in Europe reveals that
16 of those 34 British human remains dating to the Bronze Age (c.
2200-750 BC) demonstrate an unusual pattern of arrested bacterial
bioerosion. These same patterns of histological preservation have been
observed regularly within bone samples from mummified individuals. The
Bronze Age assemblage includes samples of skeletons retrieved from the
Cladh Hallan settlement where there is a suite of evidence that at least
two (composite) bodies had formerly been mummified (Parker Pearson et
al. 2005, 2007, 2013).
The simplest explanation for the persistence of these diagenetic
signatures is that Bronze Age populations throughout Britain practised
mummification on a proportion of their dead. The numbers of
disarticulated bone samples that display the diagenetic signature of
prior mummification and the occasional evidence for deliberate
reconstruction of anatomical parts suggest that a significant proportion
of buried Bronze Age mummies may be composites.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
The common appearance of diagenetic signatures of mummification on
Bronze Age bone samples might lead us to infer that this practice was
introduced as one aspect of the cultural changes associated with the
appearance of metalworking and other Bronze Age innovations in, for
example, ceramic or textile manufacture.
Perhaps more plausible is the probable growing role of deceased
ancestors in the legitimation of rights over land and property.
Increasing concerns with the genealogical significance of individual
ancestors are evident in the round-barrow cemeteries of the earlier
Bronze Age (c. 2200-1500 BC; e.g. Garwood 2007). The second millennium
BC in Britain was associated with increasing pressures on land use and
intensification of agriculture (Field 2008: 71-83), especially from
1600--1500 BC onwards, as is evident in the laying out of co-axial field
systems (e.g. Yates 2007).
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
Whatever the motives were for adopting practices of post-mortem
preservation, these results confirm the value of microscopic examination
of bone microstructure. Indeed, it may be the only consistent method for
identifying formerly mummified skeletons in the archaeological record.
Further research is required to confirm the extent and nature of these
practices in later prehistoric Britain, and whether they extended into
continental Europe. One line of inquiry could involve investigating
skeletons from Bronze Age sites that demonstrate anomalous early
radiocarbon dates, although the success of this approach would depend
upon the precision of dating methods and the interval between death and
burial.
doi: 10.15184/aqy.2015.111
Acknowledgements
This research formed part of an Arts and Humanities Research
Council doctoral studentship undertaken at the University of Sheffield.
We would like to thank the following people for granting access to
sample remains: Eamonn Kelly and Isabella Mulhall (National Museum of
Ireland), Don Brothwell (University of York), Geoff Morley (MOLES
Archaeology), Paul Wilkinson (Swales and Thames Archaeological Survey
Company), Olivia Lelong (Northlight Heritage), Mark Knight (Cambridge
Archaeological Unit), Peter Rowe (Tees Archaeology), Martin Smith
(University of Bournemouth) and Martin Green.
References
ANNIS, R., S. ANDERSON, A. BAYLISS, C. BRONK RAMSEY, J. HUNTLEY, J.
JONES, P. MARSHALL, F.G. MCGORMAC, G. PEARSON, P.W. ROGERS, P ROWE, K.
SEDMAN & B. VYNER. 1997. An unusual group of early Bronze Age
burials from Windmill Fields, Ingleby Barwick, Stockton-on-Tees.
Unpublished report, Tees Archaeology.
AUFDERHEIDE, A.C. 2003. The scientific study of mummies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
BAILEY, L., M. GREEN & M.J. SMITH. 2013. Keeping the family
together: Canada Farm's Bronze Age burials. Current Archaeology
279: 20-26.
BELL, L.S., M.F. SKINNER & S.J. JONES. 1996. The speed of
post-mortem change to the human skeleton and its taphonomic
significance. Forensic Science International 82: 129-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(96)01984-6
BIANUCCI, R., D. BROTHWELL, W. VAN DER SANDEN, C. PAPGEORGOPOULOU,
P. GOSTNER, P. PERNTER, E. EGARTER-VIGL, F. MAIXNER, M. JANKO, D.
PIOMBINO-MASCALI, G. MATTUTINO, F. RUHLI & A. ZINK. 2012. A possible
case of dyschondrosteosis in a bog body from the Netherlands. Journal of
Archaeology in the Low Countries 4: 37-64.
BOOTH, T.J. 2014. An investigation into the relationship between
bacterial bioerosion and funerary treatment. Unpublished PhD
dissertation, University of Sheffield.
BROTHWELL, D. & J.B. BOURKE. 1995. The human remains from
Lindow Moss, in R.C. Turner & R.G. Scaife (ed.) Bog bodies: new
discoveries and new perspectives'. 52-58. London: British Museum.
CHILD, A.M. 1995. Microbial taphonomy of archaeological bone.
Studies in Conservation 40: 19-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/sic.
1995.40.1.19
DETER, C. & C. BARRETT. 2009. The human bones from the
Neat's Court round barrow. Unpublished Report, Kent Osteological
Research and Analysis.
DUDAY, H. 2006. L'archeothanatologie ou l'archeologie de
la mort (archaeothanatology or the archaeology of death), in R. Gowland
& C. Kniisel (ed.) Social archaeobgy of funerary remains: 30-56.
Oxford: Oxbow.
FERNANDEZ-JALVO, Y, P. ANDREWS, D. PESQUERO, C. SMITH, D.
MARIN-MONFORT, B. SANCHEZ, E.-M. GEIGL & A. ALONSO. 2010. Early bone
diagenesis in temperate environments. Part I: surface features and
histology. Palaeogeography, Pabeoclimatobgy, Palaeoecology 288: 62-81.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.12.016
FIELD, D. 2008. Use of land in central southern England during the
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (British Archaeological Reports British
series 458). Oxford: Archaeopress.
GARLAND, A.N. 1987. A histological study of archaeological bone
decomposition, in A. Boddington, A.N. Garland & R.C. Janaway (ed.)
Death, decay and reconstruction: approaches to archaeology and forensic
science: 109-26. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
--1995. Worsley Man, England, in R.C. Turner & R.G. Scaife
(ed.) Bog bodies: new discoveries and new perspectives: 104-107. London:
British Museum.
GARWOOD, P. 2007. Before the hills in order stood: chronology, time
and history in the interpretation of early Bronze Age round barrows, in
J. Last (ed.) Beyond the grave: new perspectives on round barrows:
30-52. Oxford: Oxbow.
GIBSON, D. & M. KNIGHT. 2006. Bradley Fen excavations
2001-2004, Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire. An archaeological assessment
report (733). Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Available at:
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/
greylit/details.cfmiid = 25069 (accessed 15 July 2015).
GORDON, C.C. & J.E. BUIKSTRA. 1981. Soil pH, bone preservation,
and sampling bias at mortuary sites. American Antiquity 46: 566-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/280601
GREEN, M. 2012. Cursus continuum: further discoveries in the Dorset
Cursus environs, Cranborne Chase, Dorset, in A. Meirion Jones, J.
Pollard, M.J. Allen & J. Gardiner (ed.) Image, memory and
monumentality: archaeological engagements with the material world
(Prehistoric Society research paper 5): 73-79. Oxford: Oxbow.
GUARINO, F.M., F. ANGELINI, C. VOLLONO & C. OREFICE. 2006. Bone
preservation in human remains from the Terme del Sarno at Pompeii using
light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33: 513-20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.09.010
HACKETT, C.J. 1981. Microscopical focal destruction (tunnels) in
exhumed human bones. Medicine, Science and the Law 21: 243-66.
HANNA, J., A.S. BOUWMAN, K.A. BROWN, M. PARKER PEARSON & T.A.
BROWN. 2012. Ancient DNA typing shows that a Bronze Age mummy is a
composite of different skeletons. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:
2774-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.04.030
HEDGES, R.E.M. 2002. Bone diagenesis: an overview of processes.
Archaeometry 44: 319-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-4754.00064
HEDGES, R.E.M., A.R. MILLARD & A.W.G. PIKE. 1995. Measurements
and relationships of diagenetic alteration of bone from three
archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 201-209.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1995.0022
HESS, M.W., G. KLIMA, K. PFALLER, K.H. KONZEL & O. GABER. 1998.
Histological investigations on the Tyrolean ice man. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 106: 521-32. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199808)106:4<521:: AID-AJPA7>3.0.CO;2-L
HOLLUND, H.I., M.M.E. JANS, M.J. COLLINS, H. KARS, I. JOOSTEN &
S.M. KARS. 2012. What happened here? Bone histology as a tool in
decoding the post-mortem histories of archaeological bone from
Castricum, the Netherlands. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
22: 537-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oa.1273
JANAWAY, R.C. 1996. The decay of buried human remains and their
associated material, in J. Hunter, C. Roberts & A. Martin (ed.)
Studies in crime: an introduction to forensic archaeology: 58-85. Frome:
Butler & Tanner.
JANS, M.M.E., C.M. NIELSEN-MARSH, C.I. SMITH, M.J. COLLINS & H.
KARS. 2004. Characterisation of microbial attack on archaeological bone.
Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 87-95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2003.07.007
KNOTT, C. 2010. Cnip Headland, Uig, Isle of Lewis. GUARD human
remains call-off contract data structure report on behalf of Historic
Scotland.
LELONG, O. 2009. LANGWELL FARM, STRATH OYKELL. GUARD human remains
call-off contract data structure report on behalf of Historic Scotland.
--2011. Cnip Headland, Uig, Isle of Lewis. GUARD human remains
call-off contract data structure report on behalf of Historic Scotland.
--2012. Langwell Farm, Strath Oykell. Past 72: 12-14.
MILLARD, A. 2001. The deterioration of bone, in D. Brothwell &
A.M. Pollard (ed.) Handbook of archaeological sciences: 637-47.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
MONSALVE, M.V., E. HUMPHREY, D.C. WALKER, C. CHEUNG, W. VOGL &
M. NIMMO. 2008. Brief communication: state of preservation of tissues
from ancient human remains found in a glacier in Canada. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 137: 348-55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20864
MORLEY, G. 2010. Neat's Court: review of the archaeological
fieldwork within area C. Unpublished MOLES Archaeology Report.
MULVILLE, J., R. MADGWICK, A. POWELL & M. PARKER PEARSON. 2011.
Flesh on the bones: animal bodies in Atlantic roundhouses, in A.
Pluskowski (ed.) Animal ritual killing and burial: European
perspectives: 205-19. Oxford: Oxbow.
NIELSEN-MARSH, C.M. & R.E.M. HEDGES. 2000. Patterns of
diagenesis in bone. I: the effects of site environments. Journal of
Archaeological Science 27: 1139-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ jasc.
1999.0537
NIELSEN-MARSH, C.M., C.L. SMITH, M.M.E. JANS, A. NORD, H. KARS
& M.J. COLLINS. 2007. Bone diagenesis in the European Holocene. II:
taphonomic and environmental considerations. Journal of Archaeological
Science 34: 1523-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.11.012
PARKER PEARSON, M., A. CHAMBERLAIN, O. CRAIG, P. MARSHALL, J.
MULVILLE, C. SMITH, C. CHENERY, M. COLLINS, G. COOK, G. CRAIG, J. EVANS,
J. HILLER, J. MONTGOMERY, J.-L. SCHWENNINGER, G. TAYLOR & T. WESS.
2005. Evidence for mummification in Bronze Age Britain. Antiquity 79:
529-46.
PARKER PEARSON, M., A. CHAMBERLAIN, M. COLLINS, C. COX, G. CRAIG,
O. CRAIG, J. HILLER, P. MARSHALL, J. MULVILLE & H. SMITH. 2007.
Further evidence for mummification in Bronze Age Britain. Antiquity 81:
312-22.
PARKER PEARSON, M., C. COX WILLIS, P. MARSHALL, J. MULVILLE, H.
SMITH, T. COWIE, O. CRAIG, I. DELUIS, M. JUDDERY, H. MANLEY, J.-L
SCHWENNINGER & G. TAYLOR. 2013. After the 'Frankenstein
mummies': Cladh Hallan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Past 73: 11-13.
PERKINS, D.R.J. 1994. An assessment/research design: South Dumpton
Down, Broadstairs. Unpublished Report for the Trust for Thanet
Archaeology.
--1995. Researches and discoveries in Kent. Archaeologia Cantiana
112: 405.
RODRIGUEZ, W.C. 1997. Decomposition of buried and submerged bodies,
in W.D. Haglund & M.H. Sorg (ed.) Forensic taphonomy: the
post-mortem fate of human remains: 93-108. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
RODRIGUEZ, W.C. & W.M. Bass. 1983. Insect activity and its
relationship to decay rates of human cadavers in east Tennessee. Journal
of Forensic Sciences 28: 423-32.
--1985. Decomposition of buried bodies and methods that may aid in
their location. Journal of Forensic Sciences 30: 836-52.
SCHULTZ, M. 1997. Microscopic investigation of excavated skeletal
remains: a contribution to palaeopathology and forensic medicine, in
W.D. Haglund & M.H. Sorg (ed.) Forensic taphonomy: the post-mortem
fate of human remains: 201-22. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
SIMMONS, T., P.A. CROSS, R.E. ADLAM & C. MOFFATT. 2010. The
influence of insects on decomposition rate in buried and surface
remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 55: 889-92. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01402.x
SMITH, C.I., C.M. NIELSEN-MARSH, M.M.E. JANS & M.J. COLLINS.
2007. Bone diagenesis in the European Holocene. I: patterns and
mechanisms. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1485-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.11.006
STOUT, S.D. 1986. The use of bone histomorphometry in skeletal
identification: the case of Francisco Pizarra. Journal of Forensic
Sciences 31: 296-300.
THOMPSON, D.D. & K.S. COWEN. 1984. Age at death and bone
biology of the barrow mummies. Arctic Anthroplogy 21: 83-88.
TURNER, B. & P. WILTSHIRE. 1999. Experimental validation of
forensic evidence: a study of the decomposition of buried pigs in a
heavy clay soil. Forensic Science International 101: 113-22. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(99)00018-3
TURNER-WALKER, G. 2012. Early bioerosion in skeletal tissues:
persistence through deep time. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und
Palaontologie 265: 165-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1127/
0077-7749/2012/0253
TURNER-WALKER, G. & M. JANS. 2008. Reconstructing taphonomic
histories using histological analysis. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 266: 227-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.palaeo.2008.03.024
TURNER-WALKER, G. & E.E. PEACOCK. 2008. Preliminary results of
bone diagenesis in Scandanavian bogs. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 266: 151-59.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.03.027
TURNER-WALKER, G., C.M. NIELSEN-MARSH, U. SYVERSEN, H. KARS &
M.J. COLLINS. 2002. Sub-micron spongiform porosity is the major
ultra-structural alteration occurring in archaeological bone.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 12: 407-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oa.642
WEINSTEIN, R.S., D.J. SIMMONS & C.O. LOVEJOY. 1981. Ancient
bone disease in a Peruvian mummy revealed by quantitative skeletal
histomorphometry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 54: 321-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ ajpa.1330540304
WHITE, L. & T.J. BOOTH. 2014. The origin of bacteria
responsible for bioerosion to the internal bone microstructure: results
from experimentally deposited pig carcasses. Forensic Science
Internationally): 92-102. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.03.024
YATES, D.T. 2007. Land, power and prestige: Bronze Age field
systems in southern England. Oxford: Oxbow.
Received: 3 November 2014; Accepted: 22 December 2014; Revised: 19
January 2015
Thomas J. Booth (1),*, Andrew T. Chamberlain (2) & Mike Parker
Pearson (3)
(1) Department of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, UK (Email: t.booth@nhm.ac.uk)
(2) Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, 3.614
Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK (Email:
andrew.chamberlain@manchester.ac.uk)
(3) Institute of Archaeology, UCL, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H
0PY, UK (Email: m.parkerpearson@ucl. ac.uk)
* Author for correspondence
Table 1. Catalogue of ancient human mummies whose bones have been
subject to histomorphological analysis.
Specimen State Date Publication
Peruvian Skeleton AD 400-1600 Weinstein et
mummy al. 1981
Otzi the Mummified body 3370-3100 BC Hess et al. 1998
Tyrolean
'ice man'
Two Mummified AD 1475 Thompson
Utqiagvik body & Cowen 1984
barrow
mummies
Francisco Mummified AD 1541 Stout 1986
Pizarro body
Lindow II & Mummified bodies 2 BC-AD 119 Brothwell &
Lindow I/II Bourke 1995
Worsley Man Partially AD 100 Garland 1995
mummified head
Zweeloo Woman Mummified body AD 78-233 Bianucci et
al. 2012
Kwaday Dan Mummified AD 1670-1850 Monsalve
Ts'inchi body et al. 2008
Specimen Mummification method Bone histology
Peruvian Desiccated by wrapping Perfect microstructure.
mummy and deep burial in
dry, coastal sand.
Otzi the Desiccated by Perfect microstructure.
Tyrolean freeze-drying. Species of gut bacteria
'ice man' identified under the
periosteum.
Two Desiccated by Perfect micro-
Utqiagvik freeze-drying. structure.
barrow
mummies
Francisco Application of Perfect micro-
Pizarro lime (CaO). structure.
Lindow II & Deposition within a Well-preserved, but with
Lindow I/II sphagnum peat bog. 'globular pseudopatho-logical
points of collagen loss'.
Worsley Man Deposition within a Perfect microstructure.
sphagnum peat bog.
Zweeloo Woman Deposition within a Perfect microstructure.
sphagnum peat bog.
Kwaday Dan Frozen in a OHI = 2-3, although no
Ts'inchi glacier. bioerosion observed.
Table 2. Catalogue of Bronze Age samples; skeletons that demonstrated
histological signatures of mummification are highlighted in bold.
Site Location Type Phase
Canada Farm Down Farm, Ring ditch Beaker/Middle
Dorset, Bronze Age
England
Windmill Ingleby Barwick, Cemetery Early Bronze
Fields Stockton-on-Tees, Age
County Durham
South Broadstairs, Kent Round Early-Middle
Dumpton Down barrow Bronze Age
Langwell Strath Oykell, Cist Early Bronze
Farm Cist Highlands of Age
Scotland
Cnip Isle of Lewis, Cist Early-Middle
Headland Western Isles, cemetery Bronze Age
Scotland
Neats Court Queensborough, Round Early Bronze
Isle of Thanet, barrow Age
Kent, England.
Bradley Fen Whittlesey, Settlement Late Bronze
Cambridgeshire, Age
England.
Cladh Hallan South Uist, Outer Settlement Late Bronze
Hebrides of Age
Scotland
Site Site details Specimen Articulation
Canada Farm Green 2012; F8 Articulated
Bailey et al.
2013 F3 Partially articulated
F6 Articulated
F1# Articulated#
F5 Partially articulated
F4 Partially articulated
Windmill Annis et al. Sk 2# Articulated#
Fields 1997 Sk 3# Disarticulated#
Sk 5 Articulated
Sk 6 Articulated
South Perkins 1994, B 6 Partially articulated
Dumpton Down 1995 B 10 Disarticulated
B 5 Articulated
B 2 Partially articulated
B 7 Partially articulated
Langwell Lelong 2009, Sk 1# Articulated#
Farm Cist 2012
Cnip Knott 2010; SF 19# Disarticulated#
Headland Lelong 2011 SF 20# Disarticulated#
SF 50# Disarticulated#
SF 54B# Partially articulated#
Sk 1# Partially articulated #
Sk 2 Partially articulated
Neats Court Deter & Sk 2545 Articulated
Barrett Sk 2614# Articulated#
2009; Sk 2635# Articulated#
Morley Sk 2673 Articulated
2010
Bradley Fen Gibson & Sk 853# Articulated#
Knight 2006 Sk 573# Articulated#
Sk 785# Articulated#
Cladh Hallan Parker Pearson Sk 2638# Articulated (composite)#
2005, 2007, C Disarticulated
2013 Sk 2613# Articulated
(composite)#
Sk 2792 Partially articulated
Sk 2727 Articulated
Angle of Radiocarbon
Site flexion at hip date (cal BC) Waterlogging OHI
Canada Farm <90[degrees] -- No 0
>45[degrees]
<45[degrees] 1620-1390 No 2
<90[degrees] -- No 0
>45[degrees]
<90[degrees] 2620-2470# No# 5#
>45[degrees]# 2470-2290#
<45[degrees] -- No 0
<45[degrees] 1620-1390 No 0
Windmill <90[degrees] 2200-1970# No# 5#
Fields >45[degrees]#
-- 2400-2040# No# 5#
<45[degrees] 1740-1530 No 0
<45[degrees] 2030-1885 No 0
South >90[degrees] -- No 1
Dumpton Down -- -- No 1
>90[degrees] 1951-1703 No 1
>90[degrees] -- No 0
<45[degrees] -- No 0
Langwell <90[degrees] 2200-1960# Yes# 5#
Farm Cist >45[degrees]#
Cnip -- -- No# 5#
Headland -- -- No# 5#
-- -- No# 5#
-- 1880-1630# No# 5#
<45[degrees]# 1880-1640# No# 5#
<45[degrees] 1750-1530 No 0
Neats Court <45[degrees] 1882-1770 No 0
>90[degrees]# 1891-1637# No# 5#
>90[degrees]# 1882-1770# No# 4#
<90[degrees] -- No 0
>45[degrees]
Bradley Fen Extended# -- Yes# 5#
<45[degrees]# -- No# 4#
<90[degrees] -- No# 4#
>45[degrees]#
Cladh Hallan <45[degrees]# 1500-1260# No# 4#
1500-1210#
1620-1410#
-- -- No 0
<45[degrees]# 1370-1050# No# 5#
<90[degrees] 1440-1130 No 2
>45[degrees]
<45[degrees] 1190-840 No 0
Note: Skeletons that demonstrated histological signatures of
mummification are indicated with #.
