Ritual or fluvial? A further comment on the Thames skulls.

Ritual or fluvial? A further comment on the Thames skulls. Further (and final) comment on the origin of ancient human skullsfrom the River Thames (ANTIQUITY 62 (1988): 503-9; 69 (1995): 162-9) isprompted by comparison with the skulls from the London Thames tributary,the Walbrook.Knusel & Carr's ANTIQUITY article on the Thames skulls(March 1995) attributes these finds to fluvial flu��vi��al?adj.1. Of, relating to, or inhabiting a river or stream.2. Produced by the action of a river or stream.[Middle English, from Latin sorting, and states (p.166): 'The same interpretation may be applied to the Walbrookcrania cra��ni��a?n.A plural of cranium. (Marsh & West 1981).' It cites taphonomic studies (pp.163-4):In the process of dispersion bones often lose their original form ...crania lose their facial region, forming calvaria calvaria/cal��va��ria/ (kal-var��e-ah) [L.] the domelike superior portion of the cranium, comprising the superior portions of the frontal, parietal, and occipital bones. cal��var��i��an. pl. .... Many of the Thamesbasin crania examined are in this condition and have been eroded fromwater action as a result of being rolled along the river bottom.This statement forms a main foundation for their argument: yet nodata is offered to substantiate it. Despite their statement that theage, sex and condition of the Thames skulls were re-assessed (p. 163),the data on condition (percentages & photographs of completeness,'erosion', 'river-bottom rolling', etc.) werecompletely excluded from their paper.In the Walbrook study, half the skulls lacked the facial region(Marsh & West 1981: 90). Examples of the other half can be seen inFIGURE 1. The lack of abrasion marks (also noted in Marsh & West1981, but not mentioned by Knusel & Carr), excellent condition andcomplete facial regions form a striking contrast to the assertions ofKnusel & Carr.As for craniometry craniometry/cra��ni��om��e��try/ (kra?ne-om��ah-tre) the scientific measurement of the dimensions of the bones of the skull and face.craniomet��ric cra��ni��om��e��tryn. , Chris Stringer (Natural History Museum) has madeextensive use of cranial vault measurements in his research (see, forexample, Stringer 1992), and comments (pers. comm. June 1995):Knusel & Carr's [p. 163] paraphrasing of Howells (1989) issomewhat misleading. While Howells notes that the upper face isimportant, he by no means states that the cranial vault is unimportant.His 1973 monograph provides plenty of data for the usefulness of cranialvault measurements in discriminating populations, as is illustrated bythe following quote: 'Whatever the agencies causing differences ofcranial form in modern man, these differences have long been assumed tobe deep-seated and relatively slow to change, and there is no indicationto the contrary in this study.... In other words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , the value of cranialdistinctions in assessing genetic relationships of modern populations,as in tracing populations into the past, continues to seem considerable.In addition to the references cited by Richard Bradley in his replyto Knusel & Carr (ANTIQUITY 69: 168-9), I recommend RalphMerrifield's (1987) book, The archaeology of ritual and magic,which collates related discoveries, such as human skulls deposited withcomplete pots in the bottom of Romano-British wells. These did notarrive there by fluvial action.Finally, I would point out that the idea that the Walbrook skullsrepresent differential deposition of bones by fluvial action was currentat the turn of the century (Reader 1903; quoted in Marsh & West1981: 91).Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Chris Stringer, HarveySheldon & Francis Crew for advice, and Jenny Hall for providing thephotograph.CHRISTOPHER KNUSEL & GILLIAN CARR(*) comment:The intent of our publication was to refute any attempt to'date' or provenance crania (not skulls, which include thecranium cranium:see skull. and mandible) on the basis of craniometrics. We found evidenceof abrasion, erosion, or preservation of only calottes, calvaria, orcranial fragments of 33% of the total examined (60/178). Thisobservation supports our assessment that find locations may not be theoriginal context for crania.It is difficult to judge from the sample means plotted in Marsh &West's (1981) article just how discrete the groupings are withoutstandard deviations, but we would suspect that there is some overlap.Howells' studies were based on widely distributed geographicvariants. Measurements of the cranial vault are too crude to separateclosely spaced, time-successive populations within a restrictedgeographic region with any precision. The cranial breadth, length, andcranial index are all size-related measurements. They tell us littleabout the shape of the vault. Crania with the same or similar cranialindex may, in fact, be very dissimilar in their shape. Howells (1973)confirms this observation when he comments that attempts to see shapedifferences directly from measurements 'became unwieldy because ofpoor control of the relations among measures (placing much reliance onthe cranial index)' (our emphasis, p. 9). There is good evidence ofa ritual importance for watery places in later European pre- andprotohistory pro��to��his��to��ry?n.The study of a culture just before the time of its earliest recorded history.pro , but the assertion that crania found without awell-recorded context in rivers are good analogies for those found incontext is not sufficiently supported (see Needham 1992 for a goodexample of an in situ cranium).* Calvin Wells Laboratory, Department of Archaelogical Sciences,Bradford University, Bradford BD7 1DP, England.ReferencesBRADLEY, R. & K. GORDON. 1988. Human skulls from the RiverThames, their dating and significance, Antiquity 62: 503-9.HOWELLS, W.W. 1973. Cranial variation in man: a study by multivariateanalysis of patterns of difference among recent human populations.Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology is a museum affiliated with Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded in 1866, it is one of the oldest and most renowned museums focusing on anthropological material, and is particularly strong in New World and 67.1989. Skull shapes and the map: craniometric cra��ni��om��e��ter?n.An instrument or device used to measure the skull.crani��o��met analyses in thedispersion of modern Homo. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. Papers ofthe Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 79.KNUSEL, C.J. & G.C. CARR. 1995. On the significance of the craniafrom the River Thames and its tributaries, Antiquity 69:162-9.MARSH, G. & B. WEST. 1981. Skullduggery in Roman London?,Transactions of the London & Middlesex Archaeological Society 32:86-102.MERRIFIELD, R. 1987. The archaeology of ritual and magic. London:Batsford.READER, F.W. 1903. Pile structures in the Walbrook near London Wall,Archaeological Journal 60: 137-212.STRINGER, C.B. 1992. Reconstructing human evolution, PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, or Phil. Trans., is a scientific journal published by the Royal Society.Begun in 1665, it is the oldest scientific journal printed in the English-speaking world and the second oldest in the world, of London: Biological Sciences 337(1280): 217-24.ReferencesHOWELLS, W.W. 1973. Cranial variation in man: a study by multivariateanalysis of patterns of difference among recent human populations.Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology 67.MARSH, G. & B. WEST. 1981. Skullduggery in Roman London?Transactions of the London & Middlesex Archaeological Society 32:86-102.NEEDHAM, S.P. 1992. The structure of settlement and ritual in thelate Bronze Age of South-East Britain, in C. Mordant mordant(môr`dənt)[Fr.,=biting], substance used in dyeing to fix certain dyes (mordant dyes) in cloth. Either the mordant (if it is colloidal) or a colloid produced by the mordant adheres to the fiber, attracting and fixing the colloidal & A. Richard(ed.), L'habitat et l'occupation du sol a l'Age du Bronzeen Europe (Actes du Colloque International de Lons-le-Saunier, 16-19 mai1990): 49-69. Paris: Editions du Comite des Travaux historiques etscientifiques. Documents Prehistoriques 4.