UNIVERSITY OF READING DYING YOUNG – A PALAEOPATHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF CHILD HEALTH IN ROMAN BRITAIN Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY – SCHOOL OF ARCHAEOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ANNA ROHNBOGNER SEPTEMBER 2015 DECLARATION OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP “I confirm that this is my own work and the use of all material from other sources has been properly and fully acknowledged.” Anna Rohnbogner ABSTRACT Children represent the most vulnerable members of society, and as such provide valuable insight into past lifeways. Adverse environmental conditions translate more readily into the osteological record of children, making them primary evidence for the investigation of ill- health in the past. To date, most information on growing up in Roman Britain has been based on the Classical literature, or discussed in palaeopathological studies with a regional focus, e.g. Dorset or Durnovaria. Thus, the lifestyles and everyday realities of children throughout Britannia remained largely unknown. This study sets out to fill this gap by providing the first large scale analysis of Romano-British children from town and country. The palaeopathological analysis of 1643 non-adult (0-17 years) skeletons, compiled from the literature (N=690) and primary osteological analysis (N=953), from 27 urban and rural settlements has highlighted diverse patterns in non-adult mortality and morbidity. The distribution of ages-at-death suggest that older children and adolescents migrated from country to town, possibly for commencing their working lives. True prevalence rates suggest that caries (1.8%) and enamel hypoplasia (11.4%) were more common in children from major urban towns, whereas children in the countryside displayed higher frequencies of scurvy (6.9%), cribra orbitalia (27.7%), porotic hyperostosis (6.2%) and endocranial lesions (10.9%). Social inequality in late Roman Britain may have been the driving force behind these urban- rural dichotomies. The results may point to exploitation of the peasantry on the one hand, and higher status of the urban population as a more ‘Romanised’ group on the other. Comparison with Iron Age and post-medieval non-adults also demonstrated a decline in health in the Roman period, with some levels of ill-health, particularly in the rural children, similar to those from post-medieval London. This research provides the most comprehensive study of non-adult morbidity and mortality in Roman Britain to date. It has provided new insights into Romano-British lifeways and presents suggestions for further work. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Most importantly, I thank Dr Mary Lewis and Dr Hella Eckardt for their tireless supervision, encouragement and help in many moments of crisis. I am very grateful to the AHRC for providing funding for this research, and allowing me to pursue this project. I am indebted to all the generous curators for access to the skeletal collections that have enabled me to undertake this project: Robert Kruszynski, Natural History Museum London (NHM); Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, North Hertfordshire District Council Museums Service; Dr. Simon Mays, English Heritage/Historic England; Christiane Jeuckens, Oxfordshire Museums Service; Dr. Jo Buckberry, Biological Anthropology Research Centre at the University of Bradford (BARC); Steve Minnitt, Somerset Heritage Centre; David Allen, Hampshire Arts and Museums Service; Sarah Wilson, Peterborough Museum; Helen Rees, Winchester Museum Service; Lorraine Cornwell, Rutland County Museum; Dr. Alison Brooks and Heather Dawson, Corinium Museum; Dr. Paul Sealey, Colchester and Ipswich Museums and Timothy Vickers, Luton Culture. Additionaly thank you to all the curators and curating institutions for granting me permission to photograph and radiograph the skeletons. Copyright of the photographs and radiographs printed in this thesis is with the relevant institution, unless otherwise stated. Moral support by fellow archaeology PhD students at the University of Reading has been invaluable, particularly from Matt and Zoe. Last, but not least, I need to thank my sister Magi and of course John, it was hard but it would have been so much more difficult without you! I am dedicating this thesis to the women in my family. ii CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xi List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1 1.1. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE ............................................................................... 1 1.2. RESEARCH AIMS ............................................................................................................. 3 1.3. OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. THESIS OUTLINE ............................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 2. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CHILDHOOD ........................... 5 2.1. CHILDREN IN SOCIAL ARCHAEOLOGY ..................................................................... 5 2.1.1. Childhood theory in social archaeology ....................................................................... 5 2.1.2. Children as entities in the archaeological record ........................................................ 6 2.1.3. The archaeological visibility of socialisation and development ................................. 7 2.1.3.1. The material culture of children .................................................................................... 7 2.1.3.2. Children’s space in archaeology ................................................................................... 9 2.1.4. Children in the burial record ........................................................................................ 9 2.1.5. The archaeology of Romano-British child burials .................................................... 10 2.2. POTENTIALS AND LIMITATIONS OF NON-ADULT BIOARCHAEOLOGY ......... 17 2.2.1. Theoretical issues .......................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2. Issues of preservation ................................................................................................... 20 2.2.3. Age and the concept of childhood ............................................................................... 22 2.2.4. Sex determination ......................................................................................................... 24 2.2.5. Growth ........................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.6. Non-adult palaeopathology .......................................................................................... 27 2.2.6.1. Enamel hypoplasia ...................................................................................................... 28 2.2.6.2. Infectious disease ........................................................................................................ 30 2.2.6.2.1. Endocranial lesions .................................................................................................. 30 iii 2.2.6.2.2. Non-specific infection: periostitis, osteitis, osteomyelitis .............................................................................................................. 31 2.2.6.2.3. Tuberculosis ............................................................................................................. 33 2.2.6.3. Metabolic disease and nutritional stress ...................................................................... 36 2.2.6.3.1. Cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis ............................................................... 36 2.2.6.3.2. Vitamin D deficiency (rickets/osteomalacia) ........................................................... 39 2.2.6.3.3. Vitamin C deficiency (scurvy) .................................................................................. 40 2.2.6.3.4. Acquired anaemia .................................................................................................... 40 2.2.6.3.5. Genetic anaemia ....................................................................................................... 42 2.2.6.4. Harris lines .................................................................................................................. 44 2.2.6.5. Trauma ........................................................................................................................ 44 2.2.6.6. Dental disease .............................................................................................................. 45 2.2.7. Weaning stress .................................................................................................. 47 2.3. ROMAN BRITONS OR BRITISH ROMANS? ..............................................................