Livestock Changes at the Beginning and End of the Roman ......southern Britain was conquered by the...

Livestock Changes at the Beginning and Endof the Roman Period in Britain: Issuesof Acculturation, Adaptation, and‘Improvement’

MAURO RIZZETTO1, PAM J. CRABTREE2 AND UMBERTO ALBARELLA1

1Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, UK2Department of Anthropology, New York University, USA

This article reviews aspects of the development of animal husbandry in Roman Britain, focusing inparticular on the Iron Age/Roman and Roman/early medieval transitions. By analysing the twochronological extremes of the period of Roman influence in Britain we try to identify the core character-istics of Romano-British husbandry by using case studies, in particular from south-eastern Britain,investigated from the perspective of the butchery and morphometric evidence they provide. Our aim is todemonstrate the great dynamism of Romano-British animal husbandry, with substantial changes inlivestock management occurring at the beginning, the end, and during the period under study. It issuggested that such changes are the product of interactions between different cultural and social tradi-tions, which can be associated with indigenous and external influences, but also numerous other causes,ranging from ethnic origins to environmental, geographic, political, and economic factors.

Keywords: zooarchaeology, animal husbandry, biometry, butchery, late Iron Age, Roman period,early Anglo-Saxon period

INTRODUCTION

In the second half of the first century AD,southern Britain was conquered by theRomans, to become the northernmostoutpost of the Roman Empire. Despite itsperipheral geographic location, the inclu-sion of the island within the Empireentailed a series of major socio-economicand cultural changes. The significance,character, and distribution of suchchanges, and the survival and influence ofIron Age traditions, have variably beeninterpreted and debated by historians andarchaeologists alike. Some archaeologicalindicators, such as settlement patterns,ceramics, and iconography, have been

linked to issues of cultural and economicdomination, resistance, and syncretism,and have been the subject of intensiveinvestigations (e.g. Millett, 1990a, 1990b;Webster, 2001; Pitts, 2008).Zooarchaeology—the study of animal

remains from archaeological sites—hasalso been contributing to our understand-ing of the Roman economy and culturesince at least the 1970s. Through timeand experience, zooarchaeologists havemanaged to identify a series of traits thatare considered typical of husbandry prac-tices during the Roman period. Suchtraits, however, tend to vary, sometimessubstantially, between macro-regions andsite-types. In the north-western provinces

European Journal of Archaeology 20 (3) 2017, 535–556

© European Association of Archaeologists 2017 doi:10.1017/eaa.2017.13Manuscript received 8 August 2016,accepted 12 January 2017, revised 20 October 2016

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.13Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 07 Feb 2021 at 08:48:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.13https://www.cambridge.org/core

of the Empire, some clear patterns havebeen recognized: with very few exceptions,animal husbandry focused primarily oncattle, which was intensively exploited fortraction in agricultural work and for meatproduction. Sheep, which in many areasdominated the animal economy in theBritish late Iron Age, became of secondaryimportance, while pigs, which played amajor role in food production in RomanItaly, were the least represented of thethree most common livestock species(cattle, sheep, and pig). Butchery practicesbecame standardized and aimed at large-scale full exploitation of bovine carcasses(Grant, 1989; King, 1999; Albarella,2007; Maltby, 2007).Although the large size of cattle

remains from Roman sites has long beenrecognized, more recent studies have ana-lysed livestock morphometry through timeand at different site-types, highlightingthe complex dynamics and patterns ofanimal management which characterizedthe Roman period (Albarella, 2007;Albarella et al., 2008). These studies arenow being complemented by the analysisof stable isotopes from animal remains, apromising though still under-exploitedfield of research, which suggests increasedcattle mobility, first in the late Iron Ageand then, more so, in the Roman period(Minniti et al., 2014).Until recently, however, little attention

has been paid to the transition betweenthe late Roman and early Anglo-Saxonperiods. In part, this is the result ofthe dearth of non-urban sites showingcontinuity of occupation between thefourth and the fifth–sixth centuries AD;discontinuity is indeed a topic frequentlyassociated with the establishment of Anglo-Saxon communities and is often reflected inthe material culture recovered from theirsettlements and cemeteries (e.g. Reece,1989; Evans, 1990; Hamerow, 2012). EarlyAnglo-Saxon animal husbandry has mainly

been investigated in settlements that wereestablished after the fall of Roman Britain.Most notably, the fifth- to seventh-centurysite of West Stow has been the subject ofextensive investigation (Crabtree, 1989).The evidence from this and other sitesreveals a considerable degree of variation interms of representation of the main domes-ticates and their use, although most assem-blages differ greatly from those of thepreceding Roman period (Crabtree, 1991,2014; Holmes, 2014). Such lack of regionalcoherence during the early period ofAnglo-Saxon establishment may suggestthat, in the immediate aftermath of thearrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the ruraleconomy was not yet fully settled andintegrated (O’Connor, 2014). Rather, itseems that the character of animal hus-bandry was dictated by the needs of local,self-sufficient communities and by envir-onmental constraints.This study encompasses the transitions

between the late Iron Age and the earlyRoman period, as well as between the lateRoman and the early Anglo-Saxonperiods. It attempts to assess the natureand extent of change in the biometrictraits and butchery of the main domesti-cates. The interpretation of similaritiesand differences between assemblages datedto either ends of these transitions will con-tribute to characterize husbandry practicesduring the period of Roman occupation ofBritain.

SITES AND MATERIALS

The study presents and discusses the zooarch-aeological evidence from nine sites locatedin central-eastern England (Figure 1).These sites were chosen on the basis oftheir geographical location and the avail-ability of biometric and butchery data.Some sites were rescue excavations, othersresearch projects; consequently, recovery

536 European Journal of Archaeology 20 (3) 2017



methods differ to some extent. However, themain evidence considered in this paper—biometry and butchery—is only marginallyaffected by recovery bias. Bearing in mindthe great cultural variation of the threeperiods investigated, i.e. the late Iron Age,Roman and early Anglo-Saxon periods,all sites used in this study were, or soondeveloped into, civilian settlements.

Iron Age assemblages

Three sites with Iron Age phases havebeen considered in this study: MarketDeeping (Lincolnshire), Heybridge(Essex), and Wavendon Gate (MiltonKeynes, Buckinghamshire). The first siteprovided material from the middle to lateIron Age, which has been compared tothe late Iron Age phases from the twolatter excavations. Cattle remains prevail,though to different extents, at all threesites; exploitation of cattle was multi-purpose, with a focus on traction. Sheep

husbandry was also important and wasgeared towards meat and wool production(Dobney & Jaques, 1996; Albarella, 1997a;Johnstone & Albarella, 2002, 2015).

Roman assemblages

Data from the Roman period were col-lected from Heybridge, Wavendon Gate,Great Holts Farm (Essex), Pakenham,and Icklingham (the latter two in Suffolk).The first two sites provided data coveringthe whole period of Roman occupation;only late Roman data could be used fromPakenham, while Great Holts Farm andIcklingham are dated to the late Romanperiod only. At all Roman sites husbandrypractices relied on cattle, which were inten-sively exploited for meat production andtraction. Sheep were raised for meat and,to a lesser extent, wool, while pigs wereless common (Beech, 1991; Dobney &Jaques, 1996; Albarella, 1997b; Johnstone& Albarella, 2002, 2015; Crabtree, 2014).

Figure 1. Location of sites mentioned in the text.

Rizzetto et al. – Livestock Changes at the Beginning and End of the Roman Period in Britain 537



Early Anglo-Saxon assemblages

The early Anglo-Saxon period is coveredby three sites: West Stow (Suffolk),Higham Ferrers (Northamptonshire), andMucking (Kent). The material selected forWest Stow is dated to the fifth to earlysixth century, while the assemblages fromHigham Ferrers and Mucking are broadlydated to the fifth to seventh centuries.Caprines (mostly sheep) are more frequentthan in the late Roman period, althoughcattle continue to play an important role; ingeneral, the faunal evidence fits well themodel of unspecialized husbandry practices,in which the main domesticates are exploitedfor a wide range of products (Crabtree,1989; Done, 1993; Albarella, 2000).

METHODS

Biometry

The biometric data selected from each sitewere compared to highlight similaritiesand differences in the size and shape ofremains of cattle, caprines (sheep/goat),and pig.The measurements from post-cranial

bones and teeth were taken according tovon den Driesch (1976), Payne & Bull(1988), and Davis (1992, 1996). Unfusedand fusing bones, as well as immature(porous or light) astragali, were excluded.The analysis of measurements from the

same element is to be preferred wheneverpossible, as it provides a better control onthose variables that affect growth. In par-ticular, teeth and different bones tend toreact differently and to a different extentto ageing and sex, as well as to other vari-ables such as nutrition and pathology(Payne & Bull, 1988; Popkin et al., 2012).In this study, it was possible to analyseelements individually in a few cases only.When the sample size was too small,

measurements from different bones had tobe merged by using a size index scalingtechnique; this method relates each meas-urement to a standard, producing a seriesof relative values which can be plotted onthe same scale (Simpson et al., 1960;Meadow, 1999; Albarella, 2002). Thestandards employed in this study are listedin Table 1, while the complete list of mea-surements used in the histograms is pro-vided in Table 2.The technique which calculates the

decimal logarithm of the ratio betweeneach measurement and the standard (‘logratio’) was employed here, since it is easyto apply, provides a good visual represen-tation, and is widely employed in the lit-erature (Meadow, 1999; Albarella &Payne, 2005).Although scaling index techniques

make it possible to increase the samplesize, the inclusion of bones which reactdifferently to different variables compro-mises the resolution of the final results.Consequently, patterns related to changesin size or sex ratio may be masked or over-emphasized (Meadow, 1999; Albarella,2002). Specific measurements can beexcluded to mitigate these problems; still,the commonly encountered dearth of data,which makes this method invaluable tozooarchaeology, does not always make itpossible to be particularly selective in themeasurements to use.Post-cranial bones and teeth have to be

analysed separately since they react verydifferently to selective pressures. In par-ticular, teeth tend to be conservative interms of size changes within a population;hence abrupt variations in their size orshape suggest the introduction of a newgenotype (Payne & Bull, 1988).In this study, the smallest breadth of

the diaphysis of long bones (SD) and thesmallest length of the collum scapulae(SLC) were excluded, as these measure-ments tend to increase after skeletal




maturity and through the life of ananimal, i.e. they are heavily affected byage. Other measurements are also affectedby age, but to a lesser extent. In thisstudy, however, the kill-off patterns of theanimal populations compared did notdiffer substantially.To avoid reducing the sample size,

measurements that are variably sexdependent were generally combined (butsee Results for a case in which it was pos-sible to assess the effect of this variable onsheep metric data).In a few cases length and width mea-

surements were analysed separately, becausedimensions lying on different axes can reactdifferently to selection and environmentalstimuli. Separating measurements makes itpossible to verify whether measurementslocated on different axes are consistentlydifferent from the standard. If they are not,then shape differences between the stand-ard populations and the analysed assem-blage must be postulated (Davis, 1996;Meadow, 1999). In this study, width anddepth measurements were combined andcompared to lengths. When shape differ-ences were investigated, length and width/depth measurements from single boneswere considered and analysed separately.For pigs it was necessary to combine

lengths and widths/depths in the samehistograms due to the dearth of biometric

data for this species, while for cattle andsheep only widths/depths were used toassess changes in size. In most cases, morethan one measurement was available fromthe same bone and these were all included(see Table 2), except those mentionedabove. Although this generated a greaterelement of interdependence of the plottedmeasurements, it also helped enhance thesample size. Because of the interdepend-ence of measurements, mean differencescould not be statistically tested; nonethe-less, the patterns are fairly clear.The biometric data from each site have

been presented separately whenever pos-sible. In some instances, the dearth of datafrom individual sites meant that they hadto be grouped according to chronologicalphases.All animal remains identified as

caprines (sheep/goat) were used in thisstudy, unless they had been clearly identi-fied as goats. Evidence for the presence ofgoats in Roman and Anglo-SaxonEngland is very scant (Noddle, 1994;Albarella with Pirnie & Viner, in prep.);for this reason, caprine specimens can rea-sonably be assumed to represent mainlysheep remains, and as such they have beentreated.

Butchery

The incidence of butchery marks on cattlebones was calculated on the total numberof bones recorded for that species for eachassemblage and phase. Cut, chop, and sawmarks were considered together.Specialized butchery practices were notedin terms of presence/absence.

RESULTS

Biometric and butchery data are presentedto compare patterns in the late Iron Age

Table 1. Standards used in this study for produ-cing the log ratio histograms.

Cattle the mean of the measurements of cattlebones recovered from Period II (late IronAge), Elms Farm, Heybridge (Essex)(Albarella et al., 2008)

Caprines the mean of the measurements of sheepbones from a sample of modern unim-proved Shetland ewes (Davis, 1996)

Pigs the mean of the measurements of pig bonesand teeth recovered from late NeolithicDurrington Walls (Wiltshire) (Albarella& Payne, 2005)




and the early Roman period, as well as thelate Roman and early Anglo-Saxonperiods. The results are described separ-ately for each species.

Cattle

Biometry

Animal husbandry at most of the sitesanalysed here focused on cattle. In particu-lar, during Roman times this animal wasintensely exploited for traction in agricul-tural work, as well as for large-scale meatproduction and redistribution (Luff, 1982;Grant, 2007). Cattle remains are also par-ticularly abundant in the Iron Age assem-blages considered here, though many othersites dated to this period have a prevalenceof caprines (Albarella, 2007). Enough datafrom cattle remains were also available forthe early Anglo-Saxon sites of West Stow,Higham Ferrers, and Mucking to providea comparison with the late Roman period.As a result, the biometric data from cattlemade it possible to investigate changesthat took place in both transition phases.The pattern of change presented by the

breadth of distal humeri from Iron Age,

Roman, and early Anglo-Saxon assem-blages illustrates the developments in thebiometric characters of cattle throughoutthese periods (Figure 2). A clear increasein size is evident from the late Iron Age tothe Roman period; despite the dearth ofmeasurements from early Anglo-Saxonassemblages, it is also possible to detect adecrease in size in the post-Roman period.Metacarpals provide a similar picture; inFigure 3, values cluster in two separategroups, with Anglo-Saxon specimensbeing much smaller than their late Romancounterparts.Although the study of measurements

from individual elements allows a bettercontrol on variables affecting bone growth,the analyses presented here unfortunatelyrely on small sample sizes. Both humeriand metacarpals are substantially affectedby sexual dimorphism, and the risk of adifferential representation of males andfemales (as well as castrates) is enhancedwhen dealing with small samples.The following analyses make use of the

scaling index technique. The standardvalues used to calculate the log ratio arethe mean values of cattle remains from thelate Iron Age (Period II) at Heybridge(Johnstone & Albarella, 2002, 2015). This

Table 2. List of measurements used in the log ratio histograms.

Element Lengths Widths Element Lengths Widths

Scapula [GLP] Astragalus GLl,[GLm]

Bd, Dl

Humerus GL [Bp, Bd], BT, HTC Metatarsus GL BatF, BFd, WCM,WCL, DIM, DIL

Radius GL [Bp, Bd] dP4 [L] [WP]

Metacarpus GL BatF, BFd, WCM, WCL, DEM,DVM, DIM, DEL, DVL, DIL

M1,2 [L] [WA, WP]

Pelvis [LAR] M3 [L] [WA]

Tibia GL Bd, Dd M1,2 [L] [WA, WP]

Calcaneum GL M3 [L] [WA]

Measurements in square brackets, including all those from teeth, were only used for pigs, while those under-lined were also used as sex-dependent measurements in one log ratio histogram (see Results). For an explan-ation of each measurement see references in the text.




can be used as an additional element ofcomparison in the analyses that follow.Figure 4 confirms the results obtained

from the distal humeri. Both the middleto late Iron Age remains from MarketDeeping and the late Iron Age materialfrom Wavendon Gate are on average thesame size as those from the same periodfrom Heybridge, represented by the stand-ard (whose average obviously lies at 0).The larger size of the remains from earlyRoman Heybridge and Wavendon Gate isevident, both in the log ratio average andin the distribution, which is clearly skewedto the right of the standard. Differencesin age between the two periods couldpotentially affect such a trend, as somebones may continue to grow post-fusion.However, the kill-off pattern from early

Roman Heybridge is similar to that ofits late Iron Age phase (Johnstone &Albarella, 2002, 2015). Roman cattle atWavendon Gate, on the other hand, wereculled at an even younger age, and thisunderlines the fact that the size increase inthis period is genuine (Dobney & Jaques,1996). Similarly, changes in the sex ratioare unlikely to have occurred, as high-lighted by the analyses carried out forHeybridge by Albarella et al. (2008) andas suggested by the nature of the kill-offpatterns mentioned above. Different pro-portions of females, males, and castratesare unlikely to have had an effect on live-stock morphometry.The comparison between late Roman

and early Anglo-Saxon assemblages sug-gests a reversal to smaller animals. Thedifference is less pronounced for lengths(but note the smaller sample size;Figure 5), which may perhaps indicatemore slender animals in the later period.Figure 6 presents the results separately foreach site. The late Roman animals fromGreat Holts Farm were exceptionallylarge. At late Roman Wavendon Gate andPakenham, cattle remains are as large asthey were in the early Roman period atWavendon Gate and at Heybridge, whilethe animals from Icklingham were slightlysmaller. The values from early Anglo-Saxon West Stow, Higham Ferrers, andMucking, on the other hand, tend tocluster around the standard, in a waysimilar to the late Iron Age assemblagesshown in Figure 4. Despite the animalsfrom West Stow being only slightlysmaller than those from late RomanIcklingham, the biometric evidence fromthese sites altogether suggests a general-ized decrease in the size of cattle in thepost-Roman period. Although differencesin the sex ratio can potentially compromisebiometrical comparisons between site-periods, there is no substantial evidencefor different proportions of males, females,

Figure 2. Distal humeri, breadth of trochlea(BT) (cattle). Histograms by periods, with mea-surements (in mm) from Heybridge, WavendonGate, Pakenham, Mucking, Higham Ferrers, andWest Stow. Triangles indicate the means.




and castrates in the assemblages consid-ered. In addition, a comparison of theslightly bimodal patterns of cattle mea-surements at Great Holts Farm,Pakenham, and West Stow in Figure 6highlights the decrease in average size ofboth females and males/castrates.

Butchery

The incidence of butchery marks on cattlebones has been calculated for all theperiods considered in this study(Figure 7). The cattle from Roman siteswere much more intensely butchered thanthose from late Iron Age or early Anglo-Saxon assemblages. The pattern is clearfor all the eight site-periods analysed. Inaddition, in the Roman assemblages thereis evidence for specialized butcherypractices.At Heybridge and Pakenham the scapu-

lae (the most frequent cattle bone atPakenham) were butchered in a standar-dized way: the acromion and spine wereoften chopped off at the base. The rim ofthe glenoid cavity was sometimes trimmedand vertical chop marks were also recorded

on the coracoid process, which was oftenremoved, and the neck. Cut and chopmarks were often present along the upperand lower borders, sometimes recalling the‘shaving’ marks described by Lauwerier(1988). Cut marks were recorded, often inlarge quantities, on the ventral and dorsalsides of the scapular blade. In addition,‘hook damage’ was often recorded; it con-sists of irregular holes on the blade, whichare usually interpreted as the result ofhanging the shoulder for curing (Schmid,1972) (Figure 8).This evidence suggests that cured beef

shoulders were consumed on site; it iswidely recognized as diagnostic of Romanbutchery practice in the central andnorth-western provinces (Schmid, 1972;Lauwerier, 1988; Dobney et al., 1996).Dobney (2001) attempted to distinguishbetween hooked scapulae, which wouldhave represented the remains of hot-smoked joints, and trimmed and intenselychopped scapulae, i.e. butchery activitiesthat favoured the process of brining andcold smoking. However, in many instancesthe scapulae from Heybridge andPakenham present both these patterns,

Figure 3. Metacarpals, greatest length (GL) vs distal breadth (Bd) (cattle). Scatter plot for the lateRoman and early Anglo-Saxon periods, with measurements (in mm) from Great Holts Farm,Heybridge, Pakenham, Wavendon Gate, Mucking, and West Stow.




underlining the difficulty of identifying aprecise curing process on the basis ofbutchery traits.At Heybridge, Pakenham, and

Icklingham many long bones were longi-tudinally split, resulting in helicalbreakages along the shaft; furthermore, inmany instances the degree of choppingand fragmentation was very high

(Johnstone & Albarella, 2002, 2015;Crabtree, 2010; Rizzetto, 2014). Thesplitting of long bones is related to theextraction of marrow; this represented avaluable food source, although marrowcould also be used for glue production oras fuel. Intensive bone chopping was prob-ably for extracting fat and producingbroth, hence the label ‘kitchen-soup’ givento discrete deposits that exclusively containthis kind of material (Schmid, 1972; vanMensch, 1974; Maltby, 2007) (Figure 9).Like the butchered (and often hooked)

Figure 4. Log ratio histograms by site-periods(cattle, post-cranial bones, widths/depths com-bined). Triangles indicate the logarithmic means.Here and in the following figures: MIA =MiddleIron Age; LIA = Late Iron Age; ER = EarlyRoman; MR =Middle Roman; LR = LateRoman; EAS = Early Anglo-Saxon.

Figure 5. Log ratio histograms by periods(cattle, post-cranial bones, lengths and widths/depths shown separately), with measurementsfrom Icklingham, Great Holts Farm, Pakenham,Wavendon Gate, West Stow, Higham Ferrers,and Mucking. Triangles indicate the logarithmicmeans.




scapulae, this feature is characteristic ofthe northern half of the Roman Empire,but is unknown in the Mediterraneanarea, as well as in late Iron Age and earlyAnglo-Saxon assemblages.

Sheep

The biometric datasets for sheep providedenough data to cover the late Roman toearly Anglo-Saxon transition; however,earlier developments revealed by the studyof the Heybridge material (Albarella,et al., 2008) will be integrated in the dis-cussion below.The width measurements of sheep bones

from Icklingham and Heybridge (lateRoman) and West Stow (early Anglo-Saxon) do not differ in terms of either logratio average or distribution of values(Figure 10). The breadths and depths ofthe distal tibia confirm this result, with thevalues from West Stow covering the wholesize range of the specimens from lateRoman Heybridge (Figure 11).Measurements from humeri and meta-

podials, which are heavily sex-dependent(Davis, 1996, 2000), were also analysed.Size overlap between ewes, rams, and cas-trates occurs, and clear separationsbetween their size ranges are unlikely toemerge from the histograms. Nevertheless,

Figure 6. Log ratio histograms by site-periods(cattle, post-cranial bones, widths/depths com-bined). Triangles indicate the logarithmic means.

Figure 7. Incidence of butchery marks by site-periods (cattle).




analyses employing this set of measure-ments are more affected by sex than otheranatomical elements considered here. Theresults showed little or no difference in theproportion of female and male individuals(Figure 12). This suggests that theabsence of substantial differences in sizebetween late Roman and early Anglo-Saxon assemblages is genuine and not thecoincidental result of changes in the sexratio.

Pig

Pigs are only raised for meat and thereforetend to be slaughtered as soon as theyreach their optimum weight. When thisoccurs, the animal has not yet reached fullskeletal maturity and consequently mostpig bones recovered from archaeologicalsites are unfused or fusing. As a result, thepig bone metric dataset is rather small.Five sites nevertheless produced enoughdata to assess potential changes in thebiometry of pigs during the transitionbetween the late Roman and early Anglo-Saxon periods.When the post-cranial bone data from

individual sites are combined into twophases (late Roman and early Anglo-Saxon), there appears to be a perceivable

decrease in size (Figure 13). The occur-rence of wild boar (difficult to distinguishfrom the domestic pig) may potentiallyconfuse this picture. However, the wholedataset includes only one large outlierfrom Icklingham, which suggests that wildboar is insufficiently common to substan-tially affect the pattern of size variation.The evidence from individual sites pro-

vides some important details and warnsagainst uncritical interpretations of combinedassemblages (Figure 14). The animals fromIcklingham (fourth century AD) are onlyslightly larger than those from Anglo-SaxonWest Stow. The difference in size ishowever much more evident when the largepigs from late Roman Heybridge are com-pared to those from West Stow and espe-cially Mucking.No pig tooth data are available for

Icklingham, but a comparison betweenlate Roman Heybridge and early Anglo-Saxon West Stow and Mucking suggeststhat pig teeth at these latter sites weremuch smaller (Figure 15).

DISCUSSION

Animal husbandry in Britain before andafter the Romans

Biometrical studies of faunal remains havepreviously highlighted the larger size ofRomano-British livestock, especially cattle,in comparison to late Iron Age animals.Such difference in size has been inter-preted in terms of improvement promotedby the Romans (Albarella et al., 2008).Larger and more robust cattle would haveprovided a greater quantity of meat andstronger workforce in the fields; similarly,the improvement in the size of sheep, pig,and even chicken would have resulted in ahigher meat output.The results presented in this article

largely confirm such trends but also add

Figure 8. Butchered cattle scapulae from RomanHeybridge, with hook marks visible on the blade.Scale: 5 cm.




new dimensions and detail to them. Cattlefrom early Roman assemblages (HeybridgeIII and Wavendon Gate) are larger thanthose from the late Iron Age contexts(Heybridge II and Wavendon Gate). Inaddition, cattle from late Iron Age sitesare no larger than those from MarketDeeping, more generally dated to themiddle to late Iron Age. Although morebiometric data from middle and late IronAge sites are needed before drawing defin-ite conclusions, currently we have no evi-dence of an increase in size occurringwithin the Iron Age.The changes that occurred at the onset

of the early Anglo-Saxon period seem topoint in the same direction. The sizegained under the Romans is lost; the cattlefrom the three early post-Roman sitesused in this study are both smaller andmuch more gracile than their Romancounterparts.Such a decrease in size and robustness

remains difficult to interpret, and more bio-metrical studies on teeth and post-cranial

bones are needed to provide a clearerpicture of what occurred during the lateand post-Roman periods. Large assem-blages from the early Anglo-Saxon periodare particularly rare, and in many casesprovide no or little information on animalsize. Clutton-Brock, for example, merelystates that Anglo-Saxon cattle were ‘smallerthan modern feral populations’ (Clutton-Brock, 1976: 379). More detailed conclu-sions were drawn for south-easternEngland, where the withers’ heights ofearly Anglo-Saxon cattle were defined asintermediate between Iron Age and Romanvalues (Crabtree, 2012, 2014). Cattleremains from the baths basilica site atWroxeter (Shropshire), on the other hand,are no smaller in the fourth to sixth centurythan they were in the previous period,although in all phases their size remainsconsiderably smaller than in RomanHeybridge (Hammon, 2011). In westernBritain, the reduced impact of Romaninfluence on animal husbandry is reflectedby other lines of archaeological evidence

Figure 9. ‘Kitchen-soup’ deposit from Ortons Pasture, Rocester (Staffordshire). Scale: 3 cm.




(Evans, 1990 and references therein). Theurban character of Wroxeter may have alsocaused an underestimation of potential live-stock improvements under the Romans (fora discussion on settlement types and biom-etry, see Albarella et al., 2008).Biological processes and human agency

may both have played a role in the size dim-inution of cattle at the three early Anglo-Saxon sites discussed here. It is likely that,when the selective pressures for largeranimals were relaxed after the Romanperiod, the size of cattle gradually settleddown and decreased slightly as a result ofthe lack of control in breeding or introduc-tion of larger stock. However, it has beenrecognized that herds of smaller cattleexisted side-by-side with improved animalsthroughout the period of Roman occupation(Maltby, 1981). Luff (1982) even arguedthat some of these small-sized cattle weresmaller than those dated to the Iron Age.

The dynamics of improvement sug-gested by Albarella et al. (2008) seek toexplain the pattern of variation observed atRoman sites. The improvement of cattle isunlikely to have been a homogeneousprocess: larger cattle are first observed atproducer and trading centres (such as atthe villa at Great Holts Farm, Essex),where herds were dominated by importedcattle. Local animals were improvedthrough interbreeding (e.g. at Heybridge),though at urban centres like Colchester(Essex), the effects of this ‘improvement’were gradual, due to the multiple supplyof a variety of cattle types to the maintowns (Albarella et al., 2008). In less‘Romanized’ urban sites small animalsoften persisted, alongside a prevalence insheep husbandry (King, 1999). Variationin the size of cattle during Roman times istherefore to be expected, and indeed thisis evident in the late Roman assemblagesanalysed here: the animals at Great HoltsFarm are large (most likely as a result ofimports), those from Icklingham relativelysmall (only slightly larger than those fromWest Stow), while those from WavendonGate, Pakenham, and Heybridge(Albarella et al., 2008) lie in between.As for pigs, the smaller size of bones

from early Anglo-Saxon assemblages is

Figure 10. Log ratio histograms by site-periods(sheep, post-cranial bones, widths). Trianglesindicate the logarithmic means.

Figure 11. Distal tibiae, distal breadth (Bd) vsdistal depth (Dd) (sheep). Scatter plot for the lateRoman and early Anglo-Saxon periods, measure-ments in mm.




paralleled by a clear difference in toothsize, which is smaller at West Stow andHigham Ferrers than at late RomanHeybridge. Although more assemblagesneed be analysed before generalizing theresults to the rest of Britain, the evidencesuggests that genetically distinct pig herdsexisted, as teeth are less susceptible thanbones to environmental stimuli. AtHeybridge, there is a highly significantincrease in the size of pig teeth, alongwith an increase in bone size, between theearly and mid-Roman periods (Albarellaet al., 2008). This, in combination withthe difference in pig tooth size betweenlate Roman Heybridge and the earlyAnglo-Saxon assemblages, suggests thatlarger pigs were introduced from continen-tal Europe in Roman times, as has alreadybeen suggested for cattle.The adoption of small animals by early

Anglo-Saxon settlers cannot be regarded

as a return to Iron Age standards but itcertainly indicates a form of cultural andeconomic change. Perhaps the improve-ment of livestock required a range of skillsand resources which were no longer avail-able or selected for. In addition, it is likelythat, by the fifth century, the large animalsof the Roman period were rare or hadalready undergone a process of size dimin-ution through interbreeding with localstock.Large domesticates would obviously

provide a series of advantages in terms ofmeat yield and, for cattle, traction force.The assumption that they had to be pre-ferred at all times, however, relies more onmodern theories of economic maximiza-tion than on the actual variables thataffected choices made by past rural com-munities. It is possible, in other words,that improved livestock was simply notneeded by early Anglo-Saxon settlers.On most early Anglo-Saxon sites,

animal exploitation did not focus as muchon cattle (and traction) as in Romantimes, but was rather based on small-scalemeat production and on a range of sec-ondary products such as dairying and

Figure 12. Log ratio histograms by site-periods(sheep, post-cranial bones, widths/depths com-bined), sex-dependent measurements. Trianglesindicate the logarithmic means.

Figure 13. Log ratio histograms by periods (pig,post-cranial bones, lengths and widths/depthscombined), with measurements from Icklingham,Pakenham, West Stow, and Mucking. Trianglesindicate the logarithmic means.




wool. Large livestock would have alsorequired more resources, labour, and skillsto maintain, especially during winter. Inaddition, the subsistence economy whichcharacterizes early Anglo-Saxon sitesentailed a local redistribution of animalfood, for which large carcasses of bovineswere not well suited; ad hoc butchery ofsheep or pig for use by a restricted groupof people was much more the norm thanthe large-scale standardized beef produc-tion which characterized the Romanperiod. The analysis of the butchery evi-dence supports the latter suggestion: cattlebones are much less intensively butcheredin early Anglo-Saxon assemblages (asindeed in late Iron Age ones); they also

lack any indications of the specializedbutchery activities observed on Romansites.The butchery activities described above

(production of cured beef shoulders,marrow extraction, and ‘soup-kitchen’deposits) probably derived from Romanmilitary practices in the north-westernprovinces, and have been associated withthe large-scale activity of professionalbutchers (Grant, 1989). The widespreadpresence of these specialists reflectschanges in the redistribution of beef: inRoman times, this relied on wholesaleprocurement, slaughter, and redistributionwithin a structured market system. In theIron Age and early Anglo-Saxon period,on the other hand, animal remains derivefrom occasional local butchery events.Because of these different needs, early

Anglo-Saxon communities relied on sheep

Figure 14. Log ratio histograms by site-periods(pig, post-cranial bones, lengths and widths/depths combined). Triangles indicate the logarith-mic means.

Figure 15. Log ratio histograms by site-periods(pig, teeth, lengths, and widths). Triangles indi-cate the logarithmic means.




husbandry rather than cattle. In general,sheep husbandry requires less labour andresources than cattle herding. It is prob-ably not by chance that sheep is the onlydomesticate at West Stow which is notsmaller than the animals from late Romanassemblages, as the Anglo-Saxons investedmany of their resources in the breeding ofsheep.Environmental conditions must also be

taken into account when interpreting dif-ferences in livestock types. In Britain, amuch higher concentration of Roman set-tlements characterizes the lowlands in thecentre-south and south-east of the prov-ince, usually richer in heavy clay soilsthan the highlands in the centre-northand north-west, which were less affectedby the socio-economic and cultural changesintroduced by the Romans (Evans, 1990).Although a recent large-scale review ofBritish Roman sites (The Rural Settlementsof Roman Britain project) has revealed amore homogeneous distribution than previ-ously thought, a higher settlement densityin the east remains visible when agriculturalsettlements are considered (Allen et al.,2015). Larger cattle would have been usefulfor ploughing the heavy soils of the low-lands, where ‘Romanized’ settlements areconcentrated, while they were less import-ant on lighter soils, where quite a few of the‘indigenous’ and post-Roman settlementscan be found.North-west Suffolk provides a good

example in this respect. The late Romansite of Icklingham and the early Anglo-Saxon site of West Stow lie on the south-ern fringes of the Breckland, an areacharacterized by light, sandy soils, whoseexploitation for agricultural purposes didnot require the use of large robustanimals. The late Roman site ofPakenham, on the other hand, lies onclay land a few kilometres east and, asmentioned earlier, produced particularlylarge cattle remains. Not only were the

animals from West Stow smaller, butenvironmental conditions could partlyexplain why cattle from Icklingham arethe smallest of all the late Roman examplesanalysed here.Although local climate and soil condi-

tions played a role, it is important to con-textualize the evidence within the widerpolitical and economic conditions of theRoman Empire. The fact that theimprovement of domesticates is a centralfeature of Roman animal husbandry inmany other provinces—e.g. in France(Lepetz & Yvinec, 1998), the Netherlands(Lauwerier, 1988; Groot, 2008, 2016),and Italy (MacKinnon, 2010)—warns usof the danger of interpreting culturalchange in a small-scale, merely environ-mental, perspective.

The socio-economic context of change

The biometric and butchery analyses pre-sented here highlight some key aspects ofanimal husbandry in Britain during theRoman period. Ultimately, these can con-tribute to characterizing the Romaneconomy and society in this corner of theEmpire and beyond.A major consequence of the socio-eco-

nomic changes introduced by the Romanswhen they conquered a territory was theneed for the lower class to produce asurplus. This was sold in local markets,and the money acquired in this way wouldhave been used to pay cash taxes andrents. Such cycles fuelled a series ofchanges in production, distribution, andconsumption at the lowest levels, whichresulted in an overall increase in agricul-tural production and specialization; cumu-latively, these changes brought aboutlarge-scale interregional flows of moneyand goods, with increasing urbanizationand the establishment of a functional




settlement hierarchy (Hopkins, 1980;Esmonde Cleary, 1989).On a theoretical basis, such flows con-

tributed to the integration of the localeconomy in that of the Empire. In prac-tice, however, local conditions meant thatconsiderable spatial and temporal varia-tions existed. For example, the impact ofchange would have been much greater inareas where the previous economic systemwas entirely different, for instance wherepeasants used to pay little or no cash taxes.The third-century crisis caused money

to be debased considerably and created theneed to increase taxation in kind. The col-lapse of the traditional fiscal systemresulted in a decline of trade; however, theneed for peasants to produce a surplusremained unchanged. Constantine’sreorganization of the army andDiocletian’s administrative reforms weredesigned to accommodate the new tax-ation system and increase the efficiencyand control over tax collection (EsmondeCleary, 1989).In the first half of the fifth century, the

Romano-British economy experienced adramatic decline, with evidence forimported goods and local traditionalproduce almost disappearing from thearchaeological record (Evans, 1990).Whatever the approach of individualauthors to the study of the Romaneconomy, many suggest a link betweensuch a decline and the collapse of taxationwhich followed the end of effectiveRoman control (e.g. Esmonde Cleary,1989; Evans, 1990). Lewit (2009)strengthens the argument by comparingthe economic situation in the western andeastern parts of the Roman Empire in thefifth to sixth centuries: in the EasternRoman Empire, the survival and continu-ation of central control and economicstructures allowed and promoted settle-ment expansion, as well as an increase inagricultural production and specialization.

In sum, the Roman administration ofBritain created the conditions for a seriesof long-lasting changes in the economy ofthe island, which were to endure until thevery end of Roman Britain. Such changeshad a great impact on food productionand redistribution, mainly because of theneed to sustain surplus production.When changes in the size of the live-

stock and in butchery practices are inter-preted within this politico-economicframework, it becomes easier to under-stand the reasons behind the initialsudden improvement of cattle, which weredirectly involved in agricultural productionand could provide large quantities of meat.Similar developments in other domesti-cates would also fit within an economywhich prioritized the production of asurplus. In the fifth century, the disappear-ance of improved animals and Romanbutchery practices reflect the demise ofRoman control on the island, highlightingeven more the key role played by theRomans in shaping the economy ofBritain for almost four centuries.The new political and economic condi-

tions brought about by the arrival ofgroups of people from continental Europeimplies a radical reconsideration of theaims and nature of food production. Thesmall, self-sufficient settlements thatreplaced Roman towns and market centresengaged in a less specialized form of hus-bandry (O’Connor, 2014). Decision-making would have been driven by localneeds and environmental conditions, witha marked increase in regional and micro-regional variation.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparison of the biometric andbutchery evidence has revealed a clearpattern of change which affected cattle,pig, and sheep at all the sites considered




in this study. Such change was, however,not homogeneous and local variation canbe observed. Among the variables andprocesses involved, the complex dynamicsof Roman animal improvement, the differ-ent extent of Romanization of someregions, environmental conditions, as wellas local adaptation to new economic andpolitical conditions in the immediate post-Roman period, played a part.Overall, the nature and extent of

changes in early Roman Britain and in theearly post-Roman period suggest theintroduction and collapse of a substantiallynew economic system. Unspecialized hus-bandry practices of the early Anglo-Saxonperiod should be seen as a functionaladaptation to new socio-economic andpolitical conditions, rather than as part ofan inevitable process of decline.The number of early Anglo-Saxon sites

where zooarchaeological investigation canbe undertaken is still low. In addition, thecoverage within Britain is uneven, hinder-ing a proper analysis of regional variation.However, the present study highlights thepotential of an approach which combinesdifferent lines of zooarchaeological ana-lysis. Although the debate is far fromclosed, there is sufficient zooarchaeologi-cal evidence to suggest that the four cen-turies of Roman occupation of Britaingenuinely represented an anomaly, whenseen as part of the long-term historicaltrajectory from late prehistory to theonset of the Middle Ages.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to the anonymous refereesfor constructive comments and theEditorial Board for support and sugges-tions. We would also like to thank JudePlouviez and Faye Minter, who gave usaccess to relevant material.

REFERENCES

Albarella, U. 1997a. The Iron Age AnimalBone Excavated in 1991 from OutgangRoad, Market Deeping (Mad91),Lincolnshire. Ancient MonumentsLaboratory Report 5/97.

Albarella, U. 1997b. The Roman Mammal andBird Bones Excavated in 1994 from GreatHolts Farm, Boreham, Essex. AncientMonument Laboratory Report 9/97.

Albarella, U. 2000. The Early to Late SaxonAnimal Bones Excavated in 1995 fromKings Meadow Lane, Higham Ferrers,Northamptonshire. Ancient MonumentLaboratory Report 79/2000.

Albarella, U. 2002. ‘Size Matters’: How andWhy Biometry is Still Important inZooarchaeology. In: K. Dobney & T.O’Connor, eds. Bones and the Man. Studiesin Honour of Don Brothwell. Oxford:Oxbow Books, pp. 51–62.

Albarella, U. 2007. The End of the SheepAge: People and Animals in the Late IronAge. In: C. Haselgrove & T. Moore, eds.The Late Iron Age in Britain and Beyond.Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 389–402.

Albarella, U. & Payne, S. 2005. Neolithic Pigsfrom Durrington Walls, Wilthsire,England: A Biometrical Database. Journalof Archaeological Science, 32: 1589–99.

Albarella, U., Johnstone, C. & Vickers, K.2008. The Development of AnimalHusbandry from the Late Iron Age to theEnd of the Roman Period: A Case Studyfrom South-East Britain. Journal ofArchaeological Science, 35: 1828–48.

Albarella, U. with Pirnie, T. & Viner-Daniels, S. In prep. Animals of Our Past.The Zooarchaeological Evidence for CentralEngland. Portsmouth: Historic England.

Allen, M., Blick, N., Brindle, T., Evans, T.,Fulford, M., Holbrook, N., Richards, J.D.& Smith, A. 2015. The Rural Settlementof Roman Britain: An Online Resource.York: Archaeology Data Service. Availableat http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/romangl/index.cfm [accessed 16 October2016].

Beech, M. 1991. Animal Bones, Pakenham(PKM 005), Suffolk. Unpublishedzooarchaeological report, Suffolk CountyCouncil Archaeological Service.

Clutton-Brock, J. 1976. The AnimalResources. In: D.M. Wilson, ed. The



http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/romangl/index.cfmhttp://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/romangl/index.cfmhttp://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/romangl/index.cfmhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.13https://www.cambridge.org/core

Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp. 373–92.

Crabtree, P. 1989. West Stow, Suffolk: EarlyAnglo-Saxon Animal Husbandry. Ipswich:Suffolk County Planning Department.

Crabtree, P. 1991. Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: The ZooarchaeologicalEvidence. In: P. Crabtree & K. Ryan, eds.Animal Use and Cultural Change.Philadelphia: Museum Applied ScienceCenter for Archaeology, pp. 33–38.

Crabtree, P. 2010. Agricultural Innovation andSocio-Economic Change in Early MedievalEurope: Evidence from Britain and France.World Archaeology, 42: 122–36.

Crabtree, P. 2012. Middle Saxon AnimalHusbandry in East Anglia. Bury StEdmunds: Suffolk County CouncilArchaeological Service.

Crabtree, P. 2014. Animal Husbandry andFarming in East Anglia from the 5th tothe 10th Centuries CE. QuaternaryInternational, 346: 102–08.

Davis, S. 1992. A Rapid Method forRecording Information about MammalBones from Archaeological Sites. AncientMonuments Laboratory Report 19/92.

Davis, S. 1996. Measurements of a Group ofAdult Female Shetland Sheep Skeletonsfrom a Single Flock: A Baseline forZooarchaeologists. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience, 23: 593–612.

Davis, S. 2000. The Effect of Castration andAge on the Development of the ShetlandSheep Skeleton and a Metric Comparisonbetween Bones of Males, Females andCastrates. Journal of Archaeological Science,27: 373–90.

Dobney, K. 2001. A Place at the Table: TheRole of Vertebrate Zooarchaeology withina Roman Research Agenda for Britain. In:S. James & M. Millet, eds. Britons andRomans. York: Council for BritishArchaeology, pp. 36–45.

Dobney, K. & Jaques, D. 1996. The MammalBones. In: R.J. Williams, P.J. Hart & A.T.L. Williams, eds. Wavendon Gate. ALate Iron Age and Roman Settlement inMilton Keynes. Aylesbury:Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society,pp. 203–33.

Dobney, K., Jaques, D. & Irving, B. 1996. OfButchers and Breeds. Lincoln: City ofLincoln Archaeology Unit.

Done, G. 1993. Animal Bone from Anglo-Saxon Contexts. In: H. Hamerow, ed.Excavations at Mucking, Vol. 2: The Anglo-Saxon Settlement (English HeritageArchaeological Report 21). London:English Heritage & British MuseumPress, pp. 74–79.

Esmonde Cleary, A. S. 1989. The Ending ofRoman Britain. London: Batsford.

Evans, J. 1990. From the End of RomanBritain to the ‘Celtic’ West. Oxford Journalof Archaeology, 9: 91–103.

Grant, A. 1989. Animals in Roman Britain.In: M. Todd, ed. Research on RomanBritain: 1960–1989. London: Society forthe Promotion of Roman Studies, pp.135–46.

Grant, A. 2007. Domestic Animals and theirUses. In: M. Todd, ed. A Companion toRoman Britain. Malden: Blackwell, pp.372–92.

Groot, M. 2008. Animals in Ritual andEconomy in a Roman Frontier Community.Excavations at Tiel-Passewaaij.Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Groot, M. 2016. Livestock for Sale: AnimalHusbandry in a Roman Frontier Zone. TheCase Study of the Civitas Batavorum.Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Hamerow, H. 2012. Rural Settlements andSociety in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Hammon, A. 2011. Understanding theRomano-British–Early Medieval Transition:A Zooarchaeological Perspective fromWroxeter (Viroconium Cornoviorum).Britannia, 42: 275–305.

Holmes, M. 2014. Animals in Saxon andScandinavian England. Backbones ofEconomy and Society. Leiden: SidestonePress.

Hopkins, K. 1980. Taxes and Trade in theRoman Empire (200 BC–AD 400). Journalof Roman Studies, 70: 101–25.

Johnstone, C. & Albarella, U. 2002. The LateIron Age and Romano-British Mammaland Bird Bone Assemblage from ElmsFarm, Heybridge, Essex (Site Code:HYEF93-95). Centre for ArchaeologyReport 45/2002.

Johnstone, C. & Albarella, U. 2015. The LateIron Age and Romano-British Mammaland Bird Bone Assemblage from ElmsFarm, Heybridge, Essex. In: M. Atkinsonand S.J. Preston, eds. Heybridge: A Late




Iron Age and Roman Settlement,Excavations at Elms Farm 1993–5.Internet Archaeology, 40. Available athttp://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.40.1.albarella[accessed 4 April 2016].

King, A. 1999. Meat Diet in the RomanWorld: A Regional Inter-Site Comparisonof the Mammal Bones. Journal of RomanArchaeology, 12: 168–202.

Lauwerier, R. 1988. Animals in Roman Timesin the Dutch Eastern River Area.Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor hetOudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.

Lepetz, S. & Yvinec, J.-H. 1998. L’élevage àla période gallo-romaine et au HautMoyen Age en Normandie: l’apport del’archéozoologie. In: P. Manneville, ed. LeMonde Rural en Normandie, Actes duCongrès des Sociétés Historiques etArchéologiques de Normandie, Gisors 1997.Caen: Musée de Normandie, pp. 83–109.

Lewit, T. 2009. Pigs, Presses and Pastoralism:Farming in the Fifth to Sixth CenturiesAD. Early Medieval Europe, 17: 77–91.

Luff, R.-M. 1982. A Zooarchaeological Study ofthe Roman North-Western Provinces(British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 137). Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports.

MacKinnon, M. 2010. Cattle ‘Breed’ Variationand Improvement in Roman Italy:Connecting the Zooarchaeological andAncient Textual Evidence. WorldArchaeology, 42: 55–73.

Maltby, M. 1981. Iron-Age, Romano-Britishand Anglo-Saxon Animal Husbandry: AReview of the Faunal Evidence. In: M.Jones & G. Dimbleby, eds. TheEnvironment of Man: The Iron Age to theAnglo-Saxon Period (British ArchaeologicalReports British Series 87). Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports, pp. 155–203.

Maltby, M. 2007. Chop and Change:Specialist Cattle Carcass Processing inRoman Britain. In: B. Croxford, N. Ray& R. Roth, eds. TRAC 2006: Proceedingsof the 16th Annual Theoretical RomanArchaeology Conference. Oxford: OxbowBooks, pp. 59–76.

Meadow, R. H. 1999. The Use of Size IndexScaling Techniques for Research onArchaeozoological Collections from theMiddle East. In: C. Becker, H. Manhart,J. Peters & J. Schibler, eds. Historia ani-malium ex ossibus. Beiträge zur

Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie,Ethnologie und Geschichte der Tiermedizin.Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch.Rahden: Marie Leidorf, pp. 285–300.

Millett, M. 1990a. The Romanization ofBritain. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Millett, M. 1990b. Romanization: HistoricalIssues and Archaeological Interpretations.In: T. Blagg & M. Millett, eds. The EarlyRoman Empire in the West. Oxford:Oxbow Books, pp. 35–41.

Minniti, C., Valenzuela, S., Evans, J. &Albarella, U. 2014. Widening the Market:Strontium Isotope Analysis on CattleTeeth from Owslebury (Hampshire, UK)Highlights Changes in Livestock Supplybetween the Iron Age and the RomanPeriod. Journal of Archaeological Science, 42:305–14.

Noddle, B. 1994. The Under-Rated Goat. In:A.R. Hall & H.K. Kenward, eds. Urban-Rural Connections: Perspectives fromEnvironmental Archaeology. Oxford:Oxbow Books, pp. 117–28.

O’Connor, T. 2014. Livestock and AnimalHusbandry in Early Medieval England.Quaternary International, 346: 109–18.

Payne, S. & Bull, G. 1988. Components ofVariation in Measurements of Pig Bonesand Teeth, and Use of Measurements toDistinguish Wild from DomesticRemains. Archaeozoologia, 2: 27–66.

Pitts, M. 2008. Globalizing the Local inRoman Britain: An AnthropologicalApproach to Social Change. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology, 27: 493–506.

Popkin, P., Baker, P., Worley, F., Payne, S. &Hammon, A. 2012. The Sheep Project(1): Determining Skeletal Growth,Timing of Epiphyseal Fusion andMorphometric Variation in UnimprovedShetland Sheep of known Age, Sex,Castration Status and Nutrition. Journal ofArchaeological Science, 39: 1775–92.

Reece, R. 1989. Models of Continuity. OxfordJournal of Archaeology, 8: 231–36.

Rizzetto, M. 2014. Animal Resources in LateRoman and Early Anglo-Saxon Britain: ABiometrical Investigation of the MainDomesticates from Pakenham and WestStow, Suffolk (unpublished MSc disserta-tion, University of Sheffield).

Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones.London: Elsevier.



http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.40.1.albarellahttp://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.40.1.albarellahttps://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.13https://www.cambridge.org/core

Simpson, G.G., Roe, A. & Lewontin, R.C.1960. Quantitative Zoology, revised edition.New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

van Mensch, P.J.A. 1974. A Roman Soup-Kitchen at Zwammerdam? Berichten vande Rÿksolienst voon OudheidkundigBodemonderzoek, 24: 159–65.

von den Driesch, A. 1976. A Guide to theMeasurement of Animal Bones fromArchaeological Sites. Harvard: PeabodyMuseum.

Webster, J. 2001. Creolizing the RomanProvinces. American Journal of Archaeology,105: 209–25.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Mauro Rizzetto is a PhD student at theUniversity of Sheffield. His research con-cerns the development of animal hus-bandry during the late Roman-earlymedieval transition in Britain and in thelower Rhine region, with particular regardto biometrical changes. He has beenworking at a number of archaeologicalsites in Italy, Britain, France, Greece, andSpain, dating from the Neolithic to thepost-medieval period.

Address: Department of Archaeology,University of Sheffield, Northgate House,West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET, UK.[email: [email protected]]

Pam J. Crabtree is an Associate Professorin the Anthropology Department atNew York University where she hasworked since 1990. She received her PhDin anthropological archaeology from theUniversity of Pennsylvania in 1982. As azooarchaeologist, she has studied the lateRoman faunal collections from Icklinghamin Suffolk (UK) and Amheida in the

Dahleh Oasis in Egypt, as well as theearly Anglo-Saxon animal bone materialfrom West Stow in Suffolk (UK). She isthe author of West Stow: Early Anglo-Saxon Animal Husbandry (1989) andMiddle Saxon Animal Husbandry in EastAnglia (2012). She is co-editor (with PeterBogucki) of European Archaeology asAnthropology: Essays in Memory of BernardWailes which will be published by theUniversity of Pennsylvania Museum in 2017.

Address: Department of Anthropology,New York University, Rufus D. SmithHall, 25 Waverly Place, 307B New York,NY 10003, USA. [email: [email protected]]

Umberto Albarella is a Reader inZooarchaeology at the University ofSheffield (UK). He studied NaturalSciences at the University of Naples (Italy)and obtained his PhD from the Universityof Durham (UK). He has also worked atthe Universities of Lecce (Italy),Birmingham (UK), and Durham (UK), aswell as for English Heritage. His mainareas of research include domestication,pastoralism, ethnography, husbandry inno-vations and the integration of differentstrands of archaeological research. Hiswork is predominantly based in Britainand Italy, but he has also worked inArmenia, Greece, the Netherlands,Germany, Switzerland, France, andPortugal. Within archaeology, he has beenan advocate for global and social justice.

Address: Department of Archaeology,University of Sheffield, Northgate House,West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET, UK.[email: [email protected]]



mailto:[email protected]]mailto:[email protected]]mailto:[email protected]]https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.13https://www.cambridge.org/core

Les transformations de l’élevage au début et à la fin de l’époque romaine en GrandeBretagne : questions d’acculturation, d’adaptation et « d’amélioration »

Dans cet article nous considérons certains aspects de l’évolution de l’élevage en Grande Bretagne àl’époque romaine, en examinant tout particulièrement les phases de transition entre l’âge du Fer etl’époque romaine et entre cette dernière et les débuts du Moyen Age. Notre but, en analysant les deuxextrêmes de l’époque d’influence romaine dans la province de Bretagne, est d’identifier les caractéristiquesessentielles de l’élevage romano-britannique dans une série d’études de cas provenant en particulier dusud-est de l’Angleterre et portant sur les traces de dépeçage et la morphométrie des ossements. Nousespérons ainsi démontrer que les dynamiques de l’élevage romano-britannique comportent des transfor-mations importantes dans la gestion du bétail avant, pendant et après l’époque romaine. Ces change-ments sont sans doute liés aux interactions entre différentes traditions culturelles et sociales associées àdes influences tant indigènes qu’extérieures mais aussi à d’autres facteurs d’ordre ethnique, environne-mental, géographique, politique et économique. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Mots-clés: archéozoologie, élevage, biométrie, boucherie, âge du Fer tardif, époque romaine,époque anglo-saxonne

Veränderungen in der Viehzucht am Anfang und am Ende der Römerzeit inGroßbritannien: Fragen der Akkulturation, der Anpassung und der “Verbesserung”

In diesem Artikel werden Aspekte der Entwicklung der Viehzucht in Großbritannien in römischer Zeitbehandelt, mit besonderem Schwerpunkt auf den Übergängen von der Eisenzeit zur Römerzeit undvon letzterer zum Frühmittelalter. Durch die Analyse dieser chronologischen Schwellen am Anfang undam Ende der Phase des römischen Einflusses in der Provinz Britannia wird versucht, auf der Basisvon Fallstudien vor allem aus Südostengland und unter Berücksichtigung der Schlachtspuren und mor-phometrischen Angaben, die Kerneigenschaften der romano-britischen Viehzucht zu bestimmen. DasZiel dieser Untersuchung ist, die Dynamik der romano-britischen Tierhaltung zu verdeutlichen. DieseKräfte sind für wesentliche Veränderungen in der Tierhaltung am Anfang, am Ende und auchwährend der Römerzeit verantwortlich. Solche Veränderungen sind wahrscheinlich im Rahmen vonWechselbeziehungen zwischen verschiedenen kulturellen und sozialen Traditionen entstanden. Sie sindmit einheimischen und fremden Einflüssen verbunden aber auch mit einer Vielfalt von anderenUrsachen, unter allem ethnische, umweltliche, geografische, politische und wirtschaftliche Gegebenheiten.Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Stichworte: Zooarchäologie, Viehzucht, Biometrie, Schlachterei, späte Eisenzeit, Römerzeit,angelsächsische Epoche




Livestock Changes at the Beginning and End of the Roman Period in Britain: Issues of Acculturation, Adaptation, and ‘Improvement IntroductionSites and MaterialsIron Age assemblagesRoman assemblagesEarly Anglo-Saxon assemblages

MethodsBiometryButchery

ResultsCattleBiometryButchery

SheepPig

DiscussionAnimal husbandry in Britain before and after the RomansThe socio-economic context of change

ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences

Livestock Changes at the Beginning and End of the Roman ......southern Britain was conquered by the...

Documents

Transcript of Livestock Changes at the Beginning and End of the Roman ......southern Britain was conquered by the...