Transcription
Guidelines to the Standards for RecordingHuman RemainsIFA Paper No. 7Editors: Megan Brickley and Jacqueline I McKinley
Guidelines to theStandards for RecordingHuman RemainsPublished 2004 byBABAO, Department of Archaeology, University ofSouthampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BF andthe Institute of Field Archaeologists, SHES,University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 227,Reading RG6 6ABISBN 0948 393 88 2Copyright BABAO, IFA and individual authorsEditors:Megan Brickley and Jacqueline I McKinleyContributors:Anthea Boylston, Megan Brickley, Don Brothwell,Brian Connell, Simon Mays, Jacqueline I McKinley,Linda O’Connell, Mike Richards, Charlotte Roberts,Sonia ZakrzewskiAcknowledgementsThanks are due to all those who assisted in thispublication by reading and making comments onvarious parts of the document including AndrewMillard, Natasha Powers, James Steele and Bill White,and also contributors who commented on colleaguescontributions. Thanks to Professor Sue Black forproviding Appendix 1. Thanks are also due to variousindividuals and organisations for permission to printfigures from their sites/reports; Rachel Ives for Figure 1,Wessex Archaeology for Figure 5, Roger Mercer and theHambledon Hill Project for Figure 7, Dr Kay Prag forFigure 16 and Dr Ingrid Mainland for Figure 17.BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR BIOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY AND OSTEOARCHAEOLOGYINSTITUTE OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGISTS1
Guidelines to the Standards for Recording HumanRemainsINSTITUTE OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGISTS PAPER NO. 7Editors:Megan Brickley and Jacqueline I McKinleyContents123456789IntroductionMegan BrickleyCompiling a skeletal inventory: articulatedinhumed boneMegan BrickleyCompiling a dental inventoryBrian ConnellCompiling a skeletal inventory: crematedhuman boneJacqueline I McKinley5689Compiling a skeletal inventory: disarticulatedand co-mingled remainsJacqueline I McKinley14Guidance on recording age at death in adultsLinda O’Connell18Guidance on recording age at death in juvenileskeletonsMegan Brickley21Determination of sex from archaeological skeletalmaterial and assessment of parturitionMegan Brickley23A note of the determination of ancestryLinda O’Connell2610 Metric and non-metric studies of archaeologicalhuman boneDon Brothwell and Sonia Zakrzewski2711 Guidance on recording palaeopathologyCharlotte Roberts and Brian Connell3412 Recording of weapon traumaAnthea Boylston4013 Sampling procedures for bone chemistryMike Richards4314 After the bone report: the long-term fate ofskeletal collectionsSimon Mays46Bibliography47AppendicesAppendix 1Infant skeletal record sheet55Appendix 2Juvenile skeletal record sheet57Appendix 3Adult skeletal record sheet58Appendix 4Juvenile skeletal inventory60Appendix 5Adult skeletal inventory612
Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human RemainsThe contributorsAnthea BoylstonAnthea has been undertaking contract work inhuman remains from archaeological sites for the past13 years, working for archaeological units nationwideon collections dating from the prehistoric to postmedieval. She was involved in the excavation andpost-excavation analysis of the first mass grave froma known battle to be found in Britain over the lastcentury (Towton, Yorkshire). This resulted in amultidisciplinary study in collaboration with stafffrom the Royal Armouries. She recently participatedin a project collaborating with the curatorial staff ofthe Norton Priory museum and gardens linkingevidence of disease on the skeleton with the medicinalplants utilised for treatment in the medieval period.Since completing her Master’s Degree at the Universityof Bradford in 1991 Anthea has participated inundergraduate and postgraduate teaching in theDepartment of Archaeological Sciences and ininstructing palaeopathologist from all over the worldon the short courses held in the BiologicalAnthropology Research Centre laboratory.Megan BrickleyMegan Brickley obtained her PhD from the Universityof London in 1998, her research being undertakenjointly between the Institute of Archaeology and theHard Tissue Research Unit, University CollegeLondon. In 1997 Megan was appointed lecturer inEnvironmental Archaeology at the University ofBirmingham where she teaches on all aspects of humanbone from human origins to forensic anthropology.Her main research interests lie in investigations ofmetabolic bone diseases, but since working atBirmingham she has also undertaken contract workon human bone with the Birmingham University FieldArchaeology Unit (now Birmingham Archaeology).She is currently writing up the report on theeighteenth/nineteenth century human bone from StMartin’s, Birmingham.Don BrothwellDon Brothwell is an art school drop-out whobecame hooked on skeletal studies. He taught this andother subjects at London, Cambridge and York. Notbeing ageist, he still teaches and researches, but doesn’thave to attend boring meetings anymore. In his life, hehas been checked for venereal disease, and has hadpubic lice, various worms and septic jigger fleas, aswell as various respectable conditions and skeletaltraumas; vertebral osteophytes now cause him someproblems. He bitterly regrets that the repression ofwestern morality has seriously impeded the spreadof his DNA into the next generation. He is currentlyworking on further publications, if Alzheimer willleave him in peace.Brian ConnellBrian completed his HND in Practical Archaeology atBournemouth University in 1992 and went on to studyhis MSc in Osteology, Palaeopathology and FuneraryArchaeology at Sheffield and Bradford in 1993.Subsequently he has worked in contracting archaeology,first at the Calvin Wells Laboratory for the University ofBradford, then as a zooarchaeologist at the AncientMonuments Laboratory for English Heritage. In 1998 hereturned to human bones when he began working onhuman bone assemblages for MoLAS. He is currentlythe lead human osteologist on the Spitalfields MarketProject. His research interests include palaeopathologyand physical anthropology.Jacqueline I McKinleyGraduating in 1981 (Archaeological Sciences, BradfordUniversity), as archaeologist Jacqueline has worked on awide-range of excavations, and as osteoarchaeologist hasanalysed and reported on the remains of over 6000cremation and inhumation burials from over 300 sites,ranging from Neolithic to Post-mediaeval across theBritish Isles. A regular visiting lecturer (on cremation) atseveral English universities, she has also occasionallyworked on forensic cases in the UK and elsewhere.Currently employed by Wessex Archaeology as a seniorproject officer, over the last ten years her time had beendivided between managing, running and writing-uparchaeological excavations, and the analysis of humanremains from both Wessex Archaeology sites and thoseof other archaeological organisations nationwide. Herspecialist interest lies in the study of the mortuary riteof cremation, and improving site recovery and recordingof human remains.Simon MaysSimon gained his PhD at the Department ofArchaeology, University of Southampton in 1987. In1988 he joined English Heritage as their human skeletalbiologist, a post he still holds. Since 1999 Simon has beena visiting lecturer at the Department of Archaeology,University of Southampton. His research interestscover all areas of human osteoarchaeology, particularlymaterial from the British Isle. Simon is the author of Thearchaeology of human bones (1998, Routledge) and withMargaret Cox co-editor of Human Osteology in archaeologyand forensic science (2000, Greenwich Medical Media).Linda O’ConnellDr Linda O’Connell is a lecturer in Forensic andBiological Anthropology at Bournemouth University.She is a qualified medical doctor who has chosen tospecialise within the aforementioned field and isextensively involved in the delivery of the three Masterscourses (Forensic and Biological Anthropology, ForensicArchaeology and Osteoarchaeology) offered by theForensic and Bioarchaeological Sciences Group. Inaddition, she contributes to undergraduate programmes3
Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remainsand is involved in teaching short courses in forensicarchaeology and anthropology to the police. Her mainresearch interests include the association between thehuman pelvis and vertebral degenerative disease, andthe evaluation of the effects of modern clinicalconditions (and their treatments) upon the humanskeleton and how these may facilitate the identificationof individuals recovered from forensic contexts. She haswritten numerous archaeological skeletal reports and isinvolved in forensic work both locally and further afield.began her career as a State Registered Nurse,subsequently gaining a BA Archaeological Studies(Leicester), MA Environmental Archaeology (Sheffield),and PhD in Biological Anthropology in 1988 (Bradford).Charlotte has published c. 100 papers, four seniorauthored books, and two edited books; most recently(2003) Health and disease in Britain: prehistory to thepresent day (with M Cox), and The bioarchaeology oftuberculosis: a global perspective on a re-emerging disease(with J Buikstra).Mike RichardsMike is a Reader in Bioarchaeology at the Department ofArchaeological Sciences at the University of Bradford.He obtained his DPhil from the Research Laboratory forArchaeology and the History of Art at the University ofOxford in 1998, and a BA and MA from the Departmentof Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Canada in 1992and 1994. He specialises in bioarchaeology, particularlyin bone chemical studies, such as stable isotope studiesof past human diets.Sonia ZakrzewskiSonia obtained her PhD in Biological Anthropology atUniversity of Cambridge. Following an Addison WheelerResearch Fellowship in Archaeology at the University ofDurham, she now lectures in biological anthropologyand human osteology in the Department of Archaeology,University of Southampton, where she is the courseconvenor for the MA in Osteoarchaeology. Her mainresearch interests are in morphological populationvariation in relation to human evolution. Her researchhas primarily focused on the population affinities andmorphological diversity within a variety of regions,including Egypt, the Caribbean and Britain. She has alsobeen looking at changes in social identity and sexualdimorphism within a variety of Northeast African groups.Charlotte RobertsReader in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology,University of Durham since 2000, teachingundergraduate and postgraduate students. Charlotte4
Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains1IntroductionMegan BrickleySince the founding of the British Association forBiological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO)in 1998, the issue of standards in recording of humanskeletal remains in Britain has been of concern to themembership. The need for a guidance document to givespecialists a framework within which to work wasoutlined at the annual meeting of the association held atDurham University in 2001. Recording of human bone isone of the few areas of a project over which the specialisthas control and they are anxious to achieve a high levelof professionalism. Standardised recording will enablegreater comparability between human bone assemblagesfrom different sites. The difficulties currentlyencountered in making comparisons between skeletalreports have recently been highlighted by Roberts andCox (2003) in their attempt to study health and disease inBritain from prehistory to the present day. Comparisonsare required for all levels of work, from standard bonereports where comparative data is required to set anassemblage in its wider context (Mays et al 2002), todoctoral research where data are needed to aid decisionson inclusion of skeletal remains in an investigation.This document is primarily aimed at those engaged inthe recording of human bone from commercial projects.Recording undertaken to answer questions relating tospecific areas of research pertaining to a site (egobstetrics and parturition at Christchurch Spitalfields;Molleson and Cox 1993) will require greater detail thanis outlined in this document. Research carried out aspart of specific projects above and beyond the generalsite report will also be more detailed. It is not theintention to preclude wider research, indeed it mayonly be through such work that specific archaeologicalquestions can be answered or knowledge of pastpopulations increased. It is also recognised that due tothe rapidly changing field of research into humanskeletal remains that this document will have a limitedlifespan (probably in the region of ten to fifteen years).The situation pertaining to recording and analysis ofhuman remains in the British context is different to thatfound in the United States, where a guidance documenthas already been published (Buikstra and Ubelaker1994). The differences lie in the former and currentcultural and political systems in the USA, which haveaffected the quantity and type of remains recovered, andhave had implications for the commercial and researchbased analysis undertaken.This document should not be viewed as a ‘recipe book’,but rather as a guide giving advice about the currentstate of affairs relating to various fields of research andanalysis. As there was little point in re-writingsignificant amounts of information already available,readers are frequently referred to publications wherespecific details of recording methodology or rationalecan already be found. This document aims to providesome basic pointers as to what the recording of differenttypes of information might reveal, and through thisassist in devising a research design for any assemblageand provide guidance as to the ways in which questionsposed by the archaeologist might feasibly be answered.Many of the areas of investigation covered in the varioussections of this document are not mutually exclusive butare interdependent in terms of producing a comprehensivereport. A standard record of any assemblage shouldinclude an inventory (Sections 2–5), which not onlypresents a record of the bones which were available foranalysis but is essential for the calculation of theprevalence of pathological lesions and conditions; arecord of the data used to determine the age and sex ofan individual (Sections 6–8); metric data and a record ofnon-metric traits (Sections 9 and 10), which assist insexing and are necessary for the calculation of variousindices to further our understanding of biodistancewithin and between populations; and an accurate recordof pathological lesions (Sections 11–12).Other documents which it is advisable to consultinclude: Garratt-Frost (1992) for guidance relating tothe law and human remains; McKinley and Roberts(1993) on the excavation and post-excavation treatmentof cremated and inhumed human bone; Cox (2002)on crypt archaeology; the joint English Heritage/BABAO publication Human Bones from ArchaeologicalSites: Guidelines for producing Assessment Documents andAnalytical Reports (Mays et al 2002) and the IFA’sStandards and guidance for the collection, documentation,conservation and research of archaeological materials (2001).For those working in Scotland and Northern Irelandother useful documents are available (Historic Scotland1997; Buckley et al 1999).5
Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains2Compiling a skeletalinventory: articulatedinhumed bonesurface preservation of bone is important forinterpretations of the prevalence of many pathologicalchanges in bone, for example periosteal new boneformation.Megan BrickleyRecording of other types of taphonomic changes aredealt with in more detail in Section 5, dealing withdisarticulated and co-mingled human bone.First questions to be asked of any assemblage of humanbone will be: how many individuals are present andhow well preserved is the skeletal material?With most assemblages, a minimum level of recordingof numbers of individuals and levels of preservation setout in Mays et al (2002) should have been undertaken atthe assessment stage. However, for the production of ahuman bone report exact numbers of individuals presentshould be calculated (infants may be present with adultsthat had not been noticed during excavation), and thecondition of the bone of each individual should beanalysed and recorded (Janaway et al 2001, 202–4).2.1CompletenessThere are many systems for recording thecompleteness of a skeleton, for example those outlinedin Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994). The system selectedwill largely depend on the specific research questionsto be addressed but, as a minimum, numbers of eachbone type and all major joint surfaces should berecorded in such a way as to allow prevalence ofpathological conditions to be calculated (see Section11.8). Use of visual recording forms such as thoseincluded as appendices in this document will allow notonly the completeness, but also the amount offragmentation affecting bones to be recorded.Fragmentation has important implications for theamount of metric data that will be recordable. Systemsof recording should be made clear and fully referenced,where necessary, in the final report.2.2Surface preservationThe surface preservation of bone should be recordedfollowing published guidelines as statements such as‘the bone was well preserved’ are almost meaninglessand there will be discrepancies in the way differentresearchers apply and interpret such a statement. Thisdocument contains a newly compiled, illustrated set ofrecording criteria for human bone to allow consistency(Section 5.3.2). Previously it was recommended thatBehrensmeyer (1978) was used to record surfacepreservation, but human bone weathers differently toanimal bone – which tends to have a much denser cortex– and the varied burial environments encounteredwithin contexts across the British Isles result in differentmechanisms acting on the bone. Information on the2.3Recording sheets and archivingThe use of paper or electronic means for recordingskeletal completeness, or a combination of these twomedia, will depend largely on the circumstances ofthe individual undertaking the recording. However,the durability of records and their accessibility to futureresearchers should be carefully considered; rapidcomputer development has rendered many programmesand operating systems obsolete in recent years.A number of recording sheets depicting completeskeletons and individual bones are presented in Buikstraand Ubelaker (1994). Whilst some of these are useful andenable detailed recording of individual elements andfeatures observed on bones, the complete skeleton sheets(both adult and juvenile) are felt to lack the detail usefulas a means of recording. An updated set of recordingsheets are provided in this document (Appendices 1–5)for those wishing to record greater detail.2.4Visual recording (illustrations)Various means of visual recording are available:photographs, radiographs, professional drawings andsketches. It is recommended that as many visual recordsas possible are obtained during the recording of skeletaland dental material, although the purpose of suchrecording, to assist in diagnosis or illustrate a point,should always be kept in mind.Clearly, the extent of this type of recording will dependon factors such as the nature of the assemblage andresearch questions posed. However, such recordingshould be considered a vital part of any project (especiallyprimary recording of skeletal material on a commercialbasis). Costings for adequate recording of this natureshould always be made whether the project is research orcommercially funded. Although, drawings andphotographs produced by professionals are indispensablefor final reports, the value of images made by the personundertaking the recording should not be underestimated(Figure 1) and such illustrations form an important part ofthe archive where skeletal material is to be reburied.Photographs should always be viewed in the formatthey are to be produced in before being submitted for6
Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human RemainsFigure 1 Sketch of scapula with pathology.Anterior view, all measurements in cm.Key:post mortem damageeburnation(Illustration courtesy of Rachel Ives)publication. For example, some of the detail visibleon a colour picture may be far less clear if reproducedin black and white. Monochrome photographs areoften more appropriate than colour images to illustratefine surface details, such as cut-marks, abrasions orsurface etching. Colour images may, however,illustrate some pathological specimens better than amonochrome image. More detailed information on thesuitability of different film types for storage in anarchive and photographic techniques for differenttypes of bone and teeth is provided by Buikstra andUbelaker (1994, 10-12). The progressively increasingquality of close-up images from digital cameras renderthem very useful for taking record shots – particularlywhere material is to be reburied – since the images areeasily and relatively cheaply stored to form part of thearchive.The possibility of obtaining images from microscopicexamination should also be considered. In many instancesit may be possible to observe and record the features ofinterest using light microscopy, and it is possible to attacha camera to a microscope with a suitable attachment. Atthe assessment stage of a project the possibility that eitherlight or scanning electron microscopy may be requiredshould be considered. Early planning will allow funds tobe requested and/or suitable equipment to be locatedprior to the start of recording.Useful information on procedures for obtaining varioustypes of visual record are contained in Buikstra andUbelaker (1994, 10–14), Bruwelheide and co-workers(2001), and White (2000, 517–518). However, the quantityof images – particularly radiographic – required willnormally be less as these guidelines assume thatmaterial will be reburied after primary analysis and thisis not normal practice with British archaeologicalmaterial.Additional information on visual recording of varioustypes can be found in Williams (2001). Full visualrecording will enhance both the quality of the report orpaper published, as well as forming a valuable resourcein the archive.7
Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains3Compiling a dentalinventoryare numbered 1 to 32 and the deciduous dentition 51to 70. This system means that each tooth has a uniquenumber making it easier to make a query on pathologyby individual tooth. The different numbers forpermanent and deciduous teeth also assist in recordingand entering data on juveniles with mixed dentition.Brian ConnellThe aim of a dental inventory is to count all of theindividual teeth and tooth positions available forexamination. This initial quantification allows assessmentof how complete the dentition is and permits calculationof the prevalence of dental pathology. In practice it iseasy to use the Zsigmondy system (see van Beek 1983, 5)which allows the deciduous or permanent dentition to berecorded using grids (Figures 2 and 3). Each grid isdivided into four sections, each of which corresponds toa quadrant of the dentition. The numbers within eachquadrant relate to the individual teeth in that section. Forexample in Figure 2 the top right quadrant labelled A–Erepresents the left maxillary deciduous teeth, and thelower left section of Figure 3 labelled 8–1 represent theright mandibular permanent teeth.RightLeftEDCBA ABCDEEDCBA ABCDERightLeftFigure 2 Recording grid for deciduous RightLeftFigure 3 Recording grid for permanent dentitionThe only disadvantage of the Zsigmondy system isthat an adult may have four teeth with the samenumber; this presents significant problems when dataare being entered into a database. Consequently, it isimportant to consider how data will be processed andanalysed before recording starts. Where data is to beentered into some form of database the system set outin Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994, 14a and 14b) should beimplemented. In this system the permanent dentitionThe most important aspect of recording informationrelating to the dentition is to ensure that in both thearchive and publication reports the system employedand coding used are adequately referenced and/orexplained.In counting the presence or absence of teeth somedistinctions have to be made about ‘absence’ becauseteeth can be missing for different reasons. For example,a particular tooth can be missing due to post mortemloss (tooth has fallen out of the socket), ante mortem loss(with the socket partially or fully healed) or the toothcould be congenitally absent, ie the tooth did not form inthe first place. The following symbols should be used onthe grid to record data about the individual teeth ortooth position:\scored through the tooth number indicatestooth lost post mortem (this can be difficult todo on a computer so in computerised recordsthe strikethrough effect, found in the fontsection of the tools menu could be used)- scored through with a horizontal line indicatestooth present but socket missingx tooth lost ante mortemnp tooth not present--- jaw and teeth not presentc caries (cavity) in toothb broken tootha abscesse tooth eruptingu tooth uneruptedWhere a tooth is present and has no abnormality theletter, number or other symbol used to represent thetooth should be left with no symbol added. Examplesof how to use this type of recording system are providedby Brothwell (1981, 51-54). Dental pathology is coveredin Section 11. For details on tooth identification orfurther details on labelling systems consult Hillson(1996, Table 2.1) or van Beek (1983).8
Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains4Compiling a skeletalinventory: crematedhuman boneJacqueline I McKinley4.1IntroductionCremation was the predominant rite for the disposalof the dead at various phases in Britain’s past, fromprehistory up to and including the Anglo Saxon period.Consequently, cremated human bone is frequentlyencountered in archaeological mortuary deposits. Theanalysis of cremated bone shares many of the aimscommon within the study of all archaeologicallyderived human skeletal material (eg demographic andpathological data). Cremated material is the product ofa series of ritual formation processes within a mortuaryrite, the nuances of which are still little understood.Systematic data collection of a comparative nature isessential if we are to increase our understanding of thegeographic, temporal, social and individual variationsand similarities within the rite. It is the responsibilityof the osteologist to collect and analyse the evidence forpyre technology and ritual reflected in the form andcondition of the cremated bone. In all areas of analysis,the context of the deposit comprising or containing thecremated remains is a vital consideration and norecording or analysis should be undertaken withoutaccess to the archaeological site records.4.2Areas of data recoveryThe various types of data required to fulfil (as far aspossible) the aims of analysis as outlined above may beexpressed as a series of questions; type of depositlevel of disturbance/truncationtotal weight of bone (exclusive of extraneous material)demographic datapathology datadegree of fragmentationefficiency of cremation (ie levels of oxidation anddehydration)skeletal elements representedpresence and type of pyre goods (including stainingto bone)presence and type of pyre debrisformation process – undisturbed, spit-excavateddepositsDeposits comprising or containing cremated boneshould have been subject to whole-earth recovery inexcavation (McKinley 1998; 2000a). The term ‘sample’ isdeliberately avoided as this implies only partial recoverywhich is not acceptable for cremation-related deposits ofany type, other than in rare extreme circumstances (eglack of access). Unless the osteologist is to personallyexcavate the remains of an intact urned burial, thecremated bone should have been cleaned prior to receiptvia careful wet sieving to 1mm mesh size, and allextraneous material (eg stones and other coarsecomponents) within the residue should have beenremoved from at least the 5mm fraction and above. Inmost cremation-related deposits, other than intact urnedburials, the quantity of extraneous material (‘pea-grits’etc) in the smaller fractions is too great for cost-effectiveextraction of all the bone and the residues should bescanned to remove fragments of human boneidentifiable to skeletal element, animal bone or otherpyre goods.4.3RecordingAnalysis can be undertaken in a series of steps which willallow recovery of the data without necessitating repeathandling.1. Obtain the total weight of bone from the combinedsieve fraction weights (see Cover, lower Figure).This, together with a measure of the maximumfragment size, will give an assessment of bonefragmentation.2. Examine every fragment of bone, however small,at least once. Identifiable material may be presentamongst even the 1mm sieve residue be it human,animal or artefactual in nature.3. Separate out identifiable bone fragments into fourskeletal areas – skull, axial skeleton, upper limb andlower limb – for further detailed analysis. In case ofany need to reaccess this ‘identifiable’ material, it isadvisable to bag it separately after recording ratherthan to re-mix it with the mass of bone from thecontext. If space allows, this separate bag may beplaced within the main bag of material from thecontext.4.3.1Type of depositNo analysis of cremated bone should be undertakenwithout reference to the context from which it wasrecovered. The osteologist must have access to the siterecord sheets – if they are not sent with the bone, ask forthem; meaningful analysis cannot be undertakenwithout the site data. The archaeological records shouldinclude a description not just an interpretation of thedeposit. All too often record sheets offer the term‘cremation’ as an interpretation of the deposit wherewhat is meant is ‘cremation burial’ – the two are notsynonymous. A ‘cremat
Don Brothwell is an art school drop-out who became hooked on skeletal studies. He taught this and other subjects at London, Cambridge and York. . Charlotte has published c. 100 papers, four senior authored books, and two edited books; most recently (2003) Health and disease in Britain: prehistory to the
