Lost, But Not AloneBurial records as a means of determining absolute

taphonomic loss by age in cemetery populations.

Amanda Murphy

The Problem: Juvenile mortality is not well understood in ancient populations.• 0.02 – 20 % modern infant mortality

• 15 -30% or more in known historic populations

•Can archaeologists trust the mortality profiles they see in cemeteries?

The Industrial Revolution was an interesting time for public health….

Preservation is an UnknownIf many infants died, many should be found….

But, it is rare to find an assemblage with many infants

When few infants are found, mortality is still assumed to be high: 3 factors are blamed

SO, how can we ever know what mortality actually was?

Burial Elsewhere?Are infants lost because they were buried in isolated graves or cemetery sections?

• Rarer than once thought in

historic periods

• Complete excavation desirable

•If lots were buried somewhere, we should still

find them

Differential Preservation?

Preservation not

proven to differ

substantially

between adults and

children

Do infants just

disintegrate?

Failure to Recover?

Historic Interments• Historic exhumation & modern

disturbance• Infant bones are less distinct &

have more parts• No requirement that specialist

excavate bones• Modern excavations = better

results!

Are juveniles getting lost in the

shuffle?

Aims:

Demographic info from….

3 excavated historical cemeteries

3 sets of parish records

Is there a difference between “true” mortality and mortality from excavation? Can records show us this?

The Samples: Historic Cemeteries

Voegtly ChurchPittsburgh, PA1833-1861 AD

St Benet SherehogLondon, UK1670-1850 AD

Alameda StoneTucson, AZ1851-1875 AD

MethodologyCemeteries & Parish Records N

Alameda Stone 1,323San Agustin Parish 5,099

Voegtly Churchyard 546Voegtly Church Records 806St. Benet Sherehog 187

St. Steven’s Walbrook & St Benet Sherehog 1,513

Age Categories (Years):0-1.9, 2-11.9, 12-17.9, 18-34.9, 35-

49.9, 50-99.9Data Studied in 3 Ways….• Proportional loss by age compared to Model West life tables

• Absolute loss within each age category• Effect of including foetal remains

Results:

0-1.9

2-11.9

12-17.9

18-34.9

35-49.9

50-99.9

05

10152025303540

St Benet Sherehog Osteology 1670-1850 (N=230)St Benet Sherehog Burial Records 1716-1849 (N=1513)Level 9 Model Life Table Estimates

Age in Years

% of

Age

able

Pop

ulat

ion

Deat

hsSt. Benet Sherehog, London UK: circa 1670-1850

Alameda Stone, Tucson USA: circa 1851-1909

0-1.9

2-11.9

12-17.9

18-34.9

35-49.9

50-99.9

05

10152025303540

Alameda Stone Osteology ~1851-1875 (N=1166)San Agustin Burial Records 1875-1909 (N=5099)Level 5 Model Life Table Estimates

Age in Years

% of

Age

able

Pop

ulat

ion

Deat

hs

Voegtly Church, Pittsburgh USA: circa 1833-1861

0-1.9

2-11.9

12-17.9

18-34.9

35-49.9

50-99.9

05

10152025303540455055

Voegtly Cemetery Osteology 1833-1861 (N=546)Voegtly Burial Records 1834-1861 (N=806)Level 1 Model Life Table Estimates

Age in Years

% of

Age

able

Pop

ulat

ion

Deat

hs

Absolute Loss by Age Category

Alameda Stone Voegtly Cemetery St. Benet Sherehog

-100-90-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10

01020

Infants & Foetuses Infants Only Children Adults

% Loss from Burial to

Excavation

DiscussionInitial historic infant mortality 21-52%

5-10% proportional loss between burial & excavation in 0-1.9 year group in

Absolute loss of infants only 3-15% greater than absolute loss of adults

Inclusion of foetal remains has a dampening effect on infant loss

Conclusions:• Records can give a plausible estimate of initial mortality • Infants appear to be lost at a slightly greater rate than adults, but the loss to children varies

• Preservation varies more between cemeteries than between age categories within a cemetery

Acknowledgements CHNT & City Hall of Vienna, for hostingUniversity of Manchester Department of Life Sciences

Archdiocese of TucsonMolas, SRI, & the Smithsonian& you! Thanks for listening!