Dr. Eileen Reilly: Dirt, hygiene and health on early medieval settlements | Drumclay Conference 2014 | Review
[If you like what I write, please consider throwing something in the Tip Jar on the right of the page. Alternatively, using The Reading Room portal (top of page) for shopping with Amazon brings in some advertising revenue and costs you nothing]
Jackie McDowell, the
chairperson for this session, welcomed Dr. Eileen Reilly to the podium and
introduced her as a post-Doctoral research fellow at UCD. Reilly initially studied
archaeology, following up with a graduate degree in environmental studies,
specialising in insects. Reilly explained that she’d be discussing issues
surrounding dirt and hygiene at Drumclay and comparing the evidence with data
from other sites, chiefly Fishamble Street in Dublin and Deer Park Farms, Co.
Antrim. She stated that she would ‘discuss some of the more intimate aspects of
people’s lives during the Early Medieval period, the conditions in which they
lived and how they managed that living space.’
Over many decades, many
notable anthropologists, historians, social geographers have discussed ideas
and approaches around human behaviour and attitudes towards dirt and hygiene.
While she noted that she could deliver an entire lecture just on that topic,
she would instead limit herself to nothing that biological and cultural legacies
have created a 'dirt-ridding' culture. Thus, everything from basic bodily
evacuation, to grooming and our living environments have resulted in a plethora
of customs, manners, structures, habits, engineering developments etc. The
questions following from this are 'when do these ideas become culturally embedded
and normalised?' and 'how can we recognise these things in the past?' From an
archaeological perspective, we have much evidence in the forms of structures
and their layouts and several types of artefacts. Among the artefacts may be
included combs and various toilet implements. Added to this are refuse features
such as middens and cesspits along with material dumped over palisades and into
ditches. All of these activities show how Early Medieval people managed waste
and how they thought about it. While these things were clearly important to
medieval people, we cannot assume that the motivations behind these responses
were simply about the disposal of waste materials. In some cases the piling up
of rubbish may have been about the display of wealth, or ritual/religious
cleansing, as well as removing dirty or smelly things from the immediate
vicinity. Reilly is justifiably keen to stress that one of the most powerful
and insightful strands of evidence available is that brought by environmental
archaeology. She adds that the evidence from a waterlogged site like Drumclay
has the potential to yield numerous data and new insights. The site has
evidence of insects, plant materials, intestinal parasites, animal and fish
bone etc. She describes this as a ‘circle of evidence’ that comes back to the
human body, and the effects of that environment on the individual. As an aside,
Reilly notes that although the study of insects is fascinating in its own
right, from an archaeological perspective they may be used as a proxy to the
past. Thus, to get an understanding of how we lived in the past, it is
imperative that we look at the things that lived with us. In this way, all the
insects recovered from the meticulously recovered samples from house floors,
ditch deposits etc., ultimately reflect our choices, our behaviours, and the
activities we engaged in.
We also have a body of
interesting literary evidence from this period which is of use in understanding
attitudes towards dirt, hygiene, and health. We can see whether the
archaeologically recovered features such as cesspits were discussed in the past
(while they are mentioned, it is far less than we’d like). The literature also
allows understandings of the expectations of cleanliness, including the cleaning
of entrance ways. On the other side of the coin there are indications of the
things that are considered unacceptable within houses, such as allowing animals
to walk through dwellings. There are also insights concerning how various craft
workers were viewed in terms of personal cleanliness. For example, comb makers
are regarded as people who ‘grapple among the dirt’ to get their basic
materials. The literary sources also include numerous references to diseases
and the impact of the living environment on health and hygiene.
She argues that the
best way to show the strength of the environmental evidence is to demonstrate
what they can tell us about conditions both inside and outside the houses. Within
the island of Ireland, we have some of the best bodies of data that can
illustrate these points, one of which is, of course, from
Deer Park Farms. Reilly describes it as ‘the site that keeps on giving’ as she
is now re-evaluating the results of the original environmental analyses, more
than two decades later, and finding new details and drawing out new insights.
The other major corpus is from the excavations at Fishamble St., Dublin. These
excavations were carried out in the late 1970s and 1980s, but the environmental
samples have only been examined in the last two years. With these amazing
datasets at her disposal, Reilly can now directly compare the inside of a house
in Dublin in the 10th century with one from the 7th and 8th centuries at Deer
Park Farms. As the Fishamble St. material is from an early,
first-wave urban settlement, it may be assumed that there would be
significant differences between it and Deer Park Farms. Although differences do
exist, her research has shown that there are some remarkable similarities
between the two sites. As the post-excavation work (hopefully) progresses on
the Drumclay samples the obvious expectation is that it will add significantly
to this body of knowledge.
 |
| Human flea (source) |
Reilly argues that if
we stepped inside a house of this period, the dominant smell would not be of
something foul or nasty. Everything would have been dominated by the
all-pervading smell of wood smoke. Looking at the ecology of the insects that
are turning up within these houses, particularly within the bedding areas,
these are actually very clean and dry spaces. They are made up of quite deep
layers of locally-available plant material and would probably have been covered
with blankets or hides. All of the insects from these locations are dominated
by dry mould feeders. These are clearly not nasty, foul places. The central
floor spaces would have seen more human traffic, but still the insect evidence
indicates that these are not filthy spaces. There were large numbers of human
parasites recovered – lice and animal parasites dominated at Deer Park Farms,
while both it and Fishamble St. had high numbers of fleas. While this may at
first appear to run counter to Reilly’s argument that these are not filthy
places, their presence indicates that people were actively involved in grooming
and that these lice were being removed from the body. Fleas are extremely
difficult to get rid of today, necessitating the use of strong chemicals, but
in the past it would have been a constant struggle and nuisance of life. The
human flea can exist on both ourselves and pigs, so if there were swine on the
site the closeness of animal-human living conditions would have ensured a
constant supply. As the human flea can live in the floors and in the bedding
they can prove extremely difficult to remove and probably contributed to the
constant turnover of bedding material. Reilly argues that their presence is not
so much an indicator of filth, as a testament to the tenacity of the parasite.
However, the evidence
from outside the houses tells a very different story. Insect and fly evidence
from the external spaces indicates that, for the most part, it was an
exceedingly dungy and muddy environment. Samples from all external areas of the
Deer Park Farms site produced a consistent signature. The presence of beetle
species indicated that quantities of dung was present, along with urine-soaked
plant matter. Recovered examples of fly species included the housefly and the seaweed fly. The recovery
the seaweed fly remains, in particular, indicates the presence of cess pits as
it was attracted to salts and urine. Blowfly remains were
also recovered, indicating the presence of fresh butchery waste. Reilly paints
an all too vivid picture of the amount of animal waste and products that would
have been around the site, including stomach contents, blood, and raw meat …
and all the various species of flies attracted to it and feeding off it. She
describes the experience as ‘quite a buzzy, nasty atmosphere, during the summer
especially’. She notes that there is also evidence for human parasites outside
the houses and that this may be interpreted as the result of outdoor grooming, washing
or removal of clothing. From anthropological studies, she notes that the
evidence is that grooming was chiefly an outdoor activity until relatively
recent times. In many traditional cultures this form of activity remains an
outdoor activity as it is easier to dispose of waste water and materials such
as hair clippings.
At both Fishamble St.
and Deer Park Farms route ways through the sites were constructed of planks,
wattle panels, or cobbles. The insect evidence indicates that these were a
necessity, rather than any form of luxury. Reilly notes that it is
unsurprising, given the volume of dirt and filth, that the surviving corpus of laws deal specifically with
the roles and responsibilities of cleaning and maintaining these paths. Defined
cesspits are near ubiquitous at this time on urban settlements and at Fishamble
St. there is practically a cesspit associated with every plot, though sometimes
one was shared between two properties. In terms of location, these were
frequently at the front of the building, which may seem a somewhat lacking in
privacy to a modern viewer. The insect remains demonstrate that they are, as
one would expect, filled with human waste but they were also used for the
disposal of household refuse. They also preserve interesting evidence for
recutting, clearing out and reuse. This would suggest that the waste was
cleared out from time to time and piled up elsewhere or recycled in some way.
However, evidence for defined cesspits is largely absent from rural settlements
at this time, including Deer Park Farms. The question that then needs to be
addresses is ‘where did they go to the toilet?’ Reilly explains that ‘this is
where the intestinal parasites come in and can be really useful’ (a sentence
that could only be uttered by an archaeologist!). She notes that they are
particularly useful for understanding contamination of human waste as the
intestinal parasites live within the human host and produce eggs that are
passed in faeces. Careful sampling and analysis can tell us where human waste
is being deposited on sites. At Deer Park Farms over 100 samples were examined during
the original post-excavation phase. Reilly has since re-examined this evidence
and mapped the locations of where they were recovered. She showed a plan of one
of the earlier phases of the site (Phase 4a) where two deposits (one in
particular) produced significant evidence for the presence of whipworm (Trichuris trichiura).
Both deposits were in the west to south-west portions of the site. During Phase
6a (one of the main settlement phases) intestinal parasites were recovered from
areas to the south of the houses. The first point of note is that none of these
deposits occur indoors. Indeed, there is remarkably little evidence for any
form of either animal or human intestinal parasites within buildings. This
would suggest that filth is not being walked into houses and that shoes and
boots were cleaned before entering. She also notes that the lack of defined
cesspits may indicate that wherever they were using for a toilet was above
ground and was regularly removed and emptied. Bodily waste may have been spread
on fields as fertiliser, or may just have easily been dumped into the
surrounding ditch as numerous early medieval ditches appear to have been filled
with dungy material. Reilly notes that her thinking on the reuse of excrement
as fertiliser has led her to think more deeply about questions of contamination
and disease. Looking at general dumping behaviour from this period, she notes
that while there is a desire to remove waste out of sight (and smell) of the
inhabitants, but that the locations chosen would have had a detrimental effect
on health. She cites the examples of the Viking Age towns of Birka in Sweden; Kaupang in Norway, and York in England
where research has shown that the watercourses beside these towns were heavily
contaminated with fly pupae, animal bone, plant remains etc. This has been shown to be the case at both Irish and Scottish
crannogs, including Buiston,
where large middens of animal bone have been found from the surrounding waters.
There is also the question as to what is happening with the human waste if it
is not being deposited in a cesspit, or if the cesspit is being cleared out and
recut. As noted previously, one of the possibilities is that it was being used
for fertiliser. Reilly notes that research on the plant remains at Fishamble
St., carried out by Siobhain Geraghty, indicates that human waste may have been
used to fertilise flax plots within the town boundaries. Of course, this would
have contaminated the soil and sources of drinking water with whipworm and any
of the other intestinal parasites. In this way, there would have been increased
exposure to waterborne diseases for the local population. Added to this are the
flies and other parasites, all of which are potentially disease carrying too.
Thus, she asks ‘is there evidence in the archaeological and historical records
that back this up?’ Obviously, there are a large variety of different
references to diseases in the historical record. Reilly cites Crawford’s
research on historical references to diseases, causes and cures from this time.
A significant number of the diseases, such as dysentery, are related to poor hygiene,
poor water quality, or impaired immune systems generally. Research by Keating
on over 140 children’s skeletons from early medieval Ireland clearly
demonstrate the realities of these situations. For example, Keating found that
the majority of the examined skeletons had not met their optimum growth
potential and displayed evidence for stunted growth, especially in the leg
bones. Many showed evidence for both dietary stress and stresses related to parasitic
infections or infections that may have been exacerbated by parasitic
infections, such as blood loss, diarrhoea, or anaemia. Unfortunately, when the
causes are noted in the historical records they are most commonly attributed to
demons, divine retribution, or naturalistic explanations such as the result of
bad weather. They are not in any way attributed to dirt or hygiene issues.
Similarly, the recovery strategies divide along religious and naturalistic
lines. Religious strategies include prayer, laying on of hands, consumption of
holy water, or interaction with saintly relics. However, the naturalistic
remedies show that there was an understanding that a clean or quiet environment
was good for a patient’s heath. Thus, there are rules for the exclusion of
animals such as dogs, pigs, and sheep.
In summary, the picture
that emerges from Reilly’s all too brief overview is that the environmental evidence,
particularly from insects and parasites, is that the interior floors of houses
were very ‘clean’. Reilly notes the use of inverted commas on ‘clean’ as it may
not have appeared so to a modern viewer, but from an ecological point of view
(‘we have to think like a beetle’: again, a sentence that could only be uttered by an archaeologist ... or Kafka) it is a clean environment. The examined
samples have almost no evidence for dung, or anything else that may be
considered to be ‘dirty’. It is clear that this is a universal desire as it is
the same at Fishamble St. during the 10th and 11th centuries; at Deer Park
Farms in the 7th and 8th centuries. Reilly’s own research on Russian sites of a
similar age, along with work at York, all show the same pattern. The next
research question is: Will Drumclay agree with this pattern? Owing to its siting
in a lake environment, will it break the pattern? Reilly’s instinct is that
Drumclay will be the same, but that it will be an interesting research project.
As noted previously, the opposite is true of exterior spaces where less control
is exercised over the outdoor portions of these sites. It is clearly managed
differently from the interior spaces. Although it appears to have been
carefully maintained where prescribed by law, it is not as carefully monitored
as interior areas. The presence of lice indicates that personal grooming was of
great importance. Activities like ‘nit picking’, and general maintenance of
hair was a continual process. The evidence shows that there was an abundance of
nuisance and biting flies, fleas, and parasites of the intestines and were the
direct causes of illness. Considering the amount of waste dumping into water,
there appears to have been a lack of understanding of the nexus between this
and the spread of disease. Because of the incredible level of preservation at
Drumclay, there is the potential to add a very high quality corpus of data to that already
available. It may challenge prevailing views or confirm the universality of the
known evidence. All that can be said for certain is that it is likely to bring
forth further insights and discoveries about early medieval Ireland.
Comments
Post a Comment