And another thing, Kevin makes a good point about identification.
However, the skull is not the only identifiable element.  Vole and murid
pelves are quite distinct in morphology, and Rattus/Arvicola
distinctions can be made on isolated ossa innominata with confidence.
See also Jean-Denis Vigne's useful paper in the Fiches d'Osteolgie
series (1995: Serie B, No. 6 'Determination osteologique des principaux
elements du squelette appendiculaire d'Arvicola, 'Eliomys, de Glis et de
Rattus' - and email will strip off all the diacritical accents!).

Regarding burrowing, whilst it is true that rats burrow, and could
therefore be found out of period, Rattus rattus is much less inclined to
burrow than is R norvegicus. An isolated bone is also much less likely
to derive from a burrowing individual than is a complete or partial
skeleton.

Terry O'Connor

-----Original Message-----
From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rielly, Kevin
Sent: 14 May 2003 10:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] rats


In connection with early rats and also whether rats may have been
carriers of the plague prior to the Dark Ages in Britain, it is well
known that definite black rat bones have been found at a small number of
Roman sites in Britain, including a rat skull from a mid third century
deposit from Fenchurch St in London. There are, however, two problems
attached to the identification of rat bones. One is to do with
identification. To separate black from brown rat and from the water vole
(similar in size to the black rat), you need the skull. In addition, the
various postcranial parts overlap in size with the water vole and
separation of vole from rat can sometimes be difficult. The second major
problem is that rats do burrow, so maybe one bone isn't sufficient
evidence that they were there. This being said, I did recently identify
what I reckon must be a rat pelvis from a pre-Boudiccan deposit at
another site in Fenchurch Street (site FEH95, forthcoming MoLAS report),
which was clearly quite different from the water vole pelvis shown in
Lawrence and Brown (1973. 199). Not being the size of a brown rat, and
knowing that this species did not reach our shores until much much
later, I can only assume that it must be a black rat. As for whether it
is early, again I can only assume that its date is given by the
associated stratigraphy.

Lawrence, M J, and Brown, R W, 1973 (1967) Mammals of Britain: Their
tracks, trails and signs, revised, London

Kevin Rielly
Archaeozoologist
Museum of London Specialist Services
Tel: 020 7566 9332
Fax: 020 7490 3955

[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>

http://www.molss.org.uk


-