So I watched a youtube video where one of the hosts just randomly mentioned that burial sites containing victims of the Black Death are a real threat to archeologists and it's important that they quickly recognize that what they've just unearthed holds Black Death victims.(Supposedly because it still holds the pathogens and can thus be a bacteriological threat). He also mentioned that the reason for that was that people were buried in lead coffins which would preserve the bodies somewhat.
Now, to me, it sounds like a bit of a bullshit, especially since I recall that historians aren't even entirely sure what kind of a pathogen caused Black Death to begin with, but what do I know?
So would an archeologist that stumbled upon a burial pit from that time be in any real danger or be required to use any different proceedures compared to excavating any other grave?
In order to contract the bubonic plague from a corpse lymph nodes, respiratory tissue, or bodily sections must be present. Burial sites in Europe would be unlikely to contain such tissue as many burials where hastily performed, and most plague pits are unlikely to contain coffins. When there is a lead coffin present, certain precautions are undertaken to limit lead exposure, but in my bioarchaeology excavation experience, these precautions do not drastically alter an osteology dig. In fact, the plague is not something that remains in the soil, it must be contained within a living (or tissued) body. Paleopathologist will analyze the remains, having just as much, if not more, contact with the remains than an archeologist. I am unaware if literature surrounds the topic of lead coffin burials, so I am unable to speak on it.
The pathogen that caused the plague is Yersinia pestis, anthropologists and epidemiologist have known that Y. pestis bacteria was responsible for the plague, and still is. So, would an archeologist be at risk while excavating? No more so than any other bioanth dig. While excavating human remains, and archeologist is press and aware that they are working with a person. In most European sites sot tissue is rarely preserved, instead, the skeleton is all that remains. As the skeleton is invaluable to research carefully attention is placed in the preparation of the remains. Laboratory work involves classifying human skeletal remains, palaeodemography, and palaeopathology— I have yet to be exposed to a pathogen in my skeletal research.
While we have established that the plague does not live within the soil, precautions should still be taken while working in the site. In some sites it is acceptable to lick stones, sometimes bones, and indirectly ingest soil, in a region known with pathogen related deaths (or human remains in most cases) it is not recombined to ingest the soil. Cover all open wounds, and excavate carefully. An archeologist is not in danger unless they are in Madagascar— in which case soft tissue comes in direct contact with humans doing corpse dances.
I am happy to provide select images of my work with human and faunal remains as evidence of my archeological knowledge.
Sources:
Devaux, Christian. "Small oversights that led to the Great Plague of Marseille (1720–1723): Lessons from the past." Infection, Genetics and Evolution. Volume 14, March 2013, Pages 169-185
Birkelbach, Karl. Plague Debate: Methodology and Meaning in the Retrospective Diagnosis of the Black Death, University of Western Australia, nd.
Perry, R D and J D Fetherston. “Yersinia pestis--etiologic agent of plague”Clinical microbiology reviews vol. 10,1 (1997): 35-66.
Benedictow, Ole J. 2004. The Black Death 1346-1353: The Complete History. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.
Gross, L. How the plague bacillus and its transmission through fleas were discovered: reminiscences from my years at the Pasteur Institute in Paris.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 August 15; 92(17):7609–7611.