Ravens and Crows in Iron Age and Roman Britain

8/2/2019 Ravens and Crows in Iron Age and Roman Britain

1/23

ojoa_360 85..107

D. SERJEANTSON AND J. MORRIS

RAVENS AND CROWS IN IRON AGE AND ROMAN BRITAIN

Summary. The raven and crow skeletons from Danebury are re-examined,taking into account their taphonomy, their context and the associated finds.

Raven and crow burials from other Iron Age and Roman sites are surveyed,

again with a discussion of their context and associated finds where these couldbe ascertained. Taken together, the evidence makes it clear that most if not all

were deliberate burials, often at the base of pits. We demonstrate how

interpretations of such burials have changed, with zooarchaeologists initially

proposing functional explanations and archaeologists readier to accept that the

burials were deliberate. We go on to argue that the unique character of ravens

and crows, including their tolerance of humans, their scavenging habits, and

their voice, led to their playing an important role in Iron Age and Roman rites

and beliefs.

introduction

Skeletons of ravens and crows have been found on several Iron Age and Roman sites inBritain and elsewhere in Europe. Until the 1980s most archaeologists believed that functionalinterpretations could account for the birds, and such interpretations are still found in the

literature, but since the late 1980s several authors have argued that the birds were burieddeliberately and that the ravens and crows were an element in the deliberate deposition of

animals and cultural material (Grant 1984a; Cunliffe 1992; Hill 1995; 1996; Aldhouse-Green2001). A set of animal burials, including ravens and crows, has recently been identified in shafts

in the centre of Dorchester (Woodward and Woodward 2004), which has highlighted the role ofanimal deposits in Roman Britain. Burials of corvids were not a common event, but did takeplace from time to time; at Danebury, for instance, there was a corvid skeleton in approximately

one out of every 50 pits.In the first report on the animal remains from Danebury, Grant (1984b) wrote that a

number of animal bone deposits were singled out from the bulk of the bone sample because oftheir special associations with other bones or the manner of their deposition . . . they were in themain articulated skeletons (mainly of the common domestic animals, but also possibly including

birds, fox and badger). Although it was not made clear in the Danebury reports, nearly all thebirds referred to by Grant and Cunliffe were ravens or crows. Grant defined the deposits of

unusual bones and skeletons as special animal deposits (SADs) to distinguish them fromdomestic waste which was discarded and buried without deliberate intent. Later authors have

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 30(1) 85107 2011 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA. 85


2/23

given them the more neutral designation Associated Bone Groups or ABGs (Hill 1995; Morris

2008a; 2008b).In this paper we focus first on the natural and human modifications to the skeletons

themselves, and then go on to look at the context in which they were found, and the material with

which they were associated. Detailed discussion of taphonomy is restricted to the Daneburybirds, as modifications are only occasionally commented on at other sites. For context andassociated finds, we have re-examined the Danebury archives and for other sites have drawntogether published and unpublished data where it was available. The integration of the

archaeological, zoological, taphonomic and documentary evidence has led us to revise somepreconceptions about the deposits.

Ravens and crows

The raven (Corvus corax) (Fig. 1) has a worldwide distribution. It is found only in the

north and west today, but in the Iron Age and Roman period was present all over the British Isles.The raven is the largest of the corvids and its skeletal elements are not difficult to identify. Thereare three other large corvids found in Britain: the carrion crow ( C. corone), the hooded crow (C.cornix) and the rook (C. frugilegus). Their skeletal elements other than the skull are very similarand overlap in size, so it is rarely possible to identify them (Tomek and Bochenski 2000). Thehooded crow is found in Scotland and the north of England, while the carrion crow and the rook

are found further south. From their behaviour (see below) it is likely that the remains discussedhere are mostly of crows rather than rooks, and we have mostly referred to crows, but some

were originally identified as rooks. There are three other corvids found in Britain, the jackdaw,the magpie and the chough. They are smaller, and their remains are not likely to be confused with

those of the larger corvids (Tomek and Bochenski 2000).It is worth bearing in mind that people in the Iron Age are unlikely to have made the

conceptual distinctions that we make today with our modern understanding of animal species. It

Figure 1Raven on a wall in a car park hoping for a titbit.


OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.86


3/23

is possible that the rook was subsumed in the category crow in the pre-Linnaean world view,

as the two are hard to tell apart except by experts. In the beliefs and myths of the Celtic peoplesof Ireland the raven and the crow were viewed as part of a continuum and the myths associated

with ravens and crows tell the same stories: for instance, the Mor Regan, the Irish triple-goddess,

was sometimes associated with ravens and sometimes with crows (Ross 1974, 313).

the danebury burials

The hillfort at Danebury was excavated in two campaigns, published separately

(Cunliffe 1984; Cunliffe and Poole 1991). The archive from the excavations, including bothexcavated material and paper records, is housed in the Hampshire Museum Service stores in

Winchester. This discussion of the Danebury birds is based mainly on remains from the secondcampaign, which were analysed by Serjeantson (1991), as it has not been possible up to now tolocate the bird bones or the data lists of the birds from the first excavation campaign, which were

analysed by Coy (1984).Altogether, between 1 and 2 per cent of all identified bones were from birds (Grant

1984b; Grant et al. 1991, table 61). The numbers do not differ significantly between occupationphases. Bird bones were recovered from 12 per cent of the pits, but they were found in one-thirdof the pits in which SADs were identified (Grant et al. 1991, table 6). Out of the approximately

1200 identified bird bones, more than 70 per cent are ravens and 10 per cent crows or rooks(Table 1). Next most frequent are buzzards; two buzzard skeletons were found as well as a few

disarticulated bones. Most of the remains of ravens and crows are from 31 skeletons andpart-skeletons, but a number of articulated sets of wing bones were found, and also disarticulated

bones (Serjeantson 2010).

Taphonomy

Understanding both the natural destruction and human modifications to the skeletalelements is essential for understanding the processes of deposition and subsequent destruction

and loss (Serjeantson 1991; Morris 2008a, chapter 12). These changes are summarized here andhave been discussed in detail elsewhere (Serjeantson 2010).

Three ravens (from P2030, P2183 and P2286) have arthritic changes to some bones,

something which is usually associated with old age (Serjeantson 2010, fig. 1). Coy also notedsigns of age on raven bones. There were traces of carnivore-gnawing on the ravens from P648

(Coy MS notes), P2587 (Serjeantson 2010, fig. 3) and post-hole H4101. The possibility was

table 1

Bird bones from Danebury, showing numbers of raven, crow or rook and

buzzard bones separately

19691978 19791988 Total Per cent

Raven 533 308 841 71.1Crow or rook 42 79 121 10.2Buzzard 26 11 37 3.1Other birds 118 66 184 15.6Total 719 464 1183


OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 87


4/23

originally raised that a cat had gnawed on the carcass from P2587 (Serjeantson 1991), but

re-examination suggests that the tooth marks are more like those of a polecat or stoat. Since theseanimals burrow, they could have found the carcass after it had been buried in the ground. Nothing

on the skeletons indicates whether or not they were deliberately killed.

The wings and feathers were sometimes removed from the bird after death. There werecut marks on wing bones of the raven from P924. In three skeletons the wings were deliberatelysnapped off, leaving only the proximal end of the humerus (Fig. 2). Three separate articulatedwings of ravens were found (in P1978, P2223 and P2578) and one of a crow or rook in P2196

(Serjeantson 2010, table 3).All parts of the body other than the missing wing bones are present in six of the ravens

and one of the crows (Table 2). Three of the ravens and two of the crows lack all bones from thehead, and two ravens lack any evidence of leg bones. Two of the incomplete skeletons are thosewhich had been attacked by small carnivores, which probably accounts for the loss of some

Figure 2

Removing the wings: humeri of ravens from pits P2609 and P2218 at Danebury with ancient breaks where the wingwas snapped off.




5/23

skeletal elements. In the others the fragile bones of the skull could have fragmented in the ground

and the small bones of the leg could have been missed in excavation. In spite of the fact that manyskeletons today are incomplete, it is clear that in most cases whole skeletons were originally

present at Danebury. There are no traces of butchery and breakage associated with consumption,showing that the corvids were not eaten, something which distinguishes them from nearly all ofthe other animals in associated bone groups.

Context of the burials

The fact that the skeletons were whole does not in itself confirm that the birds were

deposited in the pits as an intentional act. To establish this we have to look at the context and the

associated finds (Table 3). The context is known for all the burials from the second campaign andfor four from the first (pits P723, P921, P924 and P1028) as well as for three of the wings. Allbut one of the skeletons from the second campaign are from pits, mostly beehive pits; theexception is the raven from H4101. All the skeletons were interpreted as coming from deliberate

tip layers, though some may have been recognized as such only after the event. Nearly all (14)were from the base of the pit or from the tip layer immediately above the base, as Cunliffe (1992)

observed.The ravens in P921 were disarticulated and spread out close to the base of the pit

(Fig. 3); there were at least two and possibly as many as four on the base of this pit as well as

another at a higher level. In P2530 the archive record notes resting on the surface of [layer] 7

was a bird skull [of a crow], placed upside down with beak to N.E.. The rest of the skeleton wasin layers 5 to 7. The skull or the complete bird had been covered with a pile of stones (Fig. 4).In P2609 a bird burial [a raven] was placed on the pit floor against the pit edge at the SE side

of the pit. The wing in P2196 was placed on a platform of flint and chalk at the base of the pit.

Associated finds

The finds associated with the ravens and crows have been taken here to include material

in the same context, and also in the layers immediately below and above. Disarticulated animalremains from food or feasting were found with over half the burials. Six were associated with

complete or substantially complete skulls of other animals: those of a dog in P1481, an ox inP2030, a pig in P2568, sheep in P2223 and P2530, and both sheep and goat skulls in P2286.

table 2

Parts of the body present of the raven and crow or rook skeletons from Danebury. R = raven; C/R = crow or rook; ph

= proximal humerus only; x = some elements from that part of the body present

Species R R R R R R R R R C/R C/R Crow

Context 2030 2178 2183 2218 2286 2568 2587 2609 4101 1481 2223 2530

Head x x x x x x xNeck x x x x x x x x x xPectoral girdle x x x x x x x x x x x xWing x ph x ph x x x ph x x x xTrunk x x x x x x x x x x xLeg x x x x x x x x x x




6/23

table 3

Raven and crow/rook skeletons from Danebury: context and associated finds. R = raven; C/R = crow or rook; (W) =

wing bones only; (n) = number of birds in multiple burials

Context type

and number

Species Context description Associated finds

Beehive pit P723 R (2) Interface of layer 3, the primary cone,and layer 2, a deliberate tip

Iron strip, disarticulated bone fragments, 8potsherds

Beehive pit P921 R (5) 1 in upper layer4 at interface of layer 3, primarysilt, and layer 2, a deliberatedeposition

2 sheep bones in layer 2a, other disarticulatedbones in layer 2

Beehive pit P924 R Layer 7c bird skeleton, disarticulated,spread over an area 0.3 x 0.4m onW side of pit above basal layer 8

1 horse bone, pig bones

Beehive pit P1028 R on pit base (layer 7) or within layer 6 No other finds in layers 7/6/5. Layer 4 (above)contained a deliberate deposit of three younganimals, pig and two calves

Beehive pit P1481 C/R In layer 11g, one of the basal layers ofthe pit special deposit in layers 10/11 of ?partial dogskull, large dump of pottery, other disarticulatedanimal bones

Beehive pit P2030 R In layer 4a, a deliberate tipimmediately above the primary silt

Above a human skull and 3 vertebrae in layer 5a.Below a special deposit in layer 3a of largepots, ox skull, other human bones

Beehive pit P2178 R In layer 4c, the basal layer, a deliberatedeposit

With pot (24 sherds), briquetage, quern, workedbone, sheep (37 including skull frags), otherdisarticulated animal bone

Subrectangular pitP2183

R In layer 6, the basal layer, a deliberatetip

Above a fragment of a human skull (female) andscattered fragments of a male torso in layer 6b.Little occupation material

Beehive pit P2196 R (W) On a platform of flint and chalk atbase of pit (layer 6a)

Two dogs, cow leg, sheep bones also on platform

Cylindrical pit P2218 R In layer 1, a layer in the middle of thepit, a deliberate tip

Above a human skeleton in layer 2a against the SEwall of the pit, crouched, face to wall. Withpottery, other disarticulated animal bone

Beehive pit P2223 C/RR (W)

In layer 3, the basal layer, a deliberatetip

Adjacent to special deposit (layer 3a) of acrouched human skeleton, complete, associatedwith a sheep skull, other cattle and horse bones.With disarticulated bones of cow, pig and horse

Beehive pit P2286 R Layer 5, base of pit, a deliberate tip Goat skull, sheep skull and mandibles, other bonefragments including sheep

Beehive pit P2530 C Layer 5, a deliberate deposit towardsthe base of the pit: Resting on thesurface of 7 [the layer below] was abird skull, placed upside down withbeak to N.E. The rest of theskeleton was assigned to layers 5, 6,

8 and 1

Partial sheep skull and disarticulated sheep bones

Beehive pit P2568 R In layer 3, a deliberate tip Pig skull + 11 pig bones, disarticulated sheepbones, remains of five pots, slingstone

Beehive pit P2578 R (W) In layer 5, a deliberate tip, above layer6, the natural erosion on the base ofthe pit

Disarticulated human bones, a large quantity ofdisarticulated animal bones including 1 of dogand 1 of hare, pottery

Beehive pit P2587 R Layer 5, a deliberate tip in the middlefill of the pit

Bone point, chalk lumps, a few disarticulatedanimal bones

Beehive pit P2609 R Layer 5, a deliberate deposit on thebase of the pit: bird burial placedagainst the pit edge SE side on thepit floor

1 sheep and 1 ox bone




7/23

Three burials were associated with dog remains: the crow or rook in P1481, the raven in P2196,which was associated with two dog ABGs, and a wing from P2578, which was associated with

disarticulated dog remains.Two burials (at least) were associated with significant pottery, and several were

associated with other artefacts including an iron strip, a quern, worked bone and a slingstone.The sling is a weapon which could have been used to kill the birds. Five of the 17 were associatedwith human remains: there were a skull and disarticulated human bone in P2030, a female skull

fragment and a male torso in P2183, a crouched skeleton in P2218 and P2223, and disarticulatedhuman bone in P2578. The strongest association therefore is with animal skulls, but human

remains and dogs also feature. The buzzard skeletons were also recovered in pits: P949 andP2598 (Serjeantson 1991).

Figure 3

Archive drawing of a section through pit P921 at Danebury. Up to four raven skeletons were found on the base of

the pit.




8/23

other iron age raven and crow burials

At least 12 further Iron Age sites in England have burials of ravens or crows (Table 4),

with many more ravens than crows or rooks. The records compiled here are from published and

unpublished sources. The counties of Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Yorkshire have beencomprehensively surveyed (Morris 2008a) as have the Midland counties (Albarella and Pirnie2009) but we may have missed some examples from elsewhere.

The absence of butchery was noted for the skeletons from Owslebury near Winchester

(Maltby 1987a), Skeleton Green (Ashdown 1981) and Wittenham Clumps (Allen in prep.). Theraven from Winklebury (Smith 1977) had a diseased carpometacarpus (i.e. the end of the wing)

Figure 4

Section through Danebury pit P2530. The location of the skull of a crow noted during excavation is shown; other parts

of the skeleton were in the same layer and the layers above. The bird was covered with a pile of stones. Redrawn byPenny Copeland.




9/23

and that from Wittenham Clumps had an injured toe which had healed. Neither of theseconditions would have caused the death of the birds.

Context

The burials are within settlements, hillforts and oppida. As with ABGs generally, nearly

all are from pits, with Owslebury for some reason being an exception; there, most were inditches. The raven skeleton from the oppidum at Silchester was in a layer of dark earth in thecentre of the town in deposits which immediately pre-dated its founding (Fulford and Timby

2000; Serjeantson 2000). The ravens from at least three sites, including Boscombe Down(Richardson 1951), Rooksdown (Powell and Clark 1996) and Winklebury, were found on the

base of pits, while those from Balksbury were at all levels (Hill 1995).

Associated finds

Nine of the corvid burials were associated with skulls or part-skeletons of other animals,

including four with dogs, three with piglets, and one with a sheep or goat. The raven on the baseof a pit at Rooksdown was associated with three horse skulls placed upright on the base and a

table 4

Raven and crow or rook skeletons from Iron Age sites in Britain: site type, context and associated finds. Key as Table 3

Site Species Date Site type Context Associated finds

Balksbury R MIA Hillfort Pit F52/6 No published dataBalksbury R MIA Hillfort Pit F213/8 No published dataBoscombe Down W R EIA Settlement Beehive pit Q5 Abundant finds shown in section; no

details in textBoscombe Down W R (2) EIA Settlement Beehive pit Q9,

platform on baseAsh, no further details

Budbury R EIA Promontory fort No data No dataCowdown R IA Hillfort Pit No dataLittle Somborne Rook 3rd1st Settlement Pit 84, mid-layer Burnt flint, no other dataOwslebury R (2) LIA Settlement Gully, F369, L.2 Articulated horse bonesOwslebury C/R LIA Settlement Ditch, F370, L.3 Dog skeleton, pig skeleton, cow

skeleton. See also L.5Owslebury R LIA Settlement Ditch, F370, L.5 Sheep/goat skeleton, buzzard, large

dumps of boneOwslebury C/R (2) IA Settlement Quarry F378 with

rapid infill L.1/2Cat skeleton, chicken skeleton,

complete pots, large quantity ofother animal bone

Owslebury C/R LIA Settlement Gully F574, L.4 Pig skeleton, dog skull + otherbones

Rooksdown R MIA Settlement Pit 365, basal layer Three horse skulls, puppy,disarticulated dog anddisarticulated raven bones

Silchester Insula IV R LIA Oppidum Dark earth layer L.2030 Two pieces of human bone, coins,pottery, metalworking anddomestic debris

Skeleton Green R LIA Oppidum Pit F9 G5 L.2 Large quantity of bone and pottery,oyster shell, bronze and iron

objectsSkeleton Green R LIA Oppidum Pit F9 G5 L.3

Winklebury R LIA Hillfort Base of pit c.2611 Human bones, piglet, ox bones,burnt material

Wittenham Clumps R IA Hillfort Pit 3006 Human, lamb, piglet, high-qualitypottery in associated pits




10/23

puppy skeleton (Powell and Clark 1996). Complete or almost complete pots were also found

with the burials at Owslebury and Wittenham Clumps. A raven at Owslebury was associated witha buzzard, and a crow or rook with the skeletal remains of a chicken, at the time an unusual bird

in Britain. Three, including the Silchester raven, were associated with human skeletal remains.

A slingstone was found in the pit at Wittenham Clumps, as at Danebury. At Wittenham Clumpsand Skeleton Green the raven was in the richest pit excavated in terms of the artefacts foundwithin. It has been impossible to find out whether there were significant associated finds withsome burials: this information is not available from the published record of some sites, including

Budbury (Westley 1970) and Cowdown, Longbridge Deverill (Harcourt 1968).

corvid burials on roman sites

We have found records of almost 35 examples of corvid skeletons on Roman periodsites. Of these, 24 are of ravens (several of which are multiple), seven are of crows or rooks, and

four include more than one species (Table 5). At the large settlement at Owslebury both ravensand crows or rooks were found, but at the smaller settlement of Little Somborne it was the

smaller corvid, identified as a rook (Neal 1980). None of the skeletons is reported to havebutchery marks or other human modifications, but a few have pathological changes. The ravenfrom Great Holme Street, Leicester, had had a blow to the shoulder which had healed (T.

Gouldwell, pers. comm.); other changes suggest old age.

Context

The largest number of burials was found in the town of Dorchester, where at least 14skeletons were identified from seven shafts or pits (Maltby 1993; Woodward and Woodward

2004). At Silchester raven skeletons were found in all of the central insulae (Fox 1891; Ingrem2006; in prep.). Several were in the extra-mural areas of towns, including those at Alcester

(Maltby 2001), Cirencester (R. Nicholson, pers. comm.), Great Holme Street, Leicester, andWinchester (Maltby 1987b). Some were within temples, as at Springhead (Grimm 2007) andJordan Hill, Dorset (Drew 1932; Green 1992). There were ravens in the fill of three deep shafts,

Dunstable (Matthews and Hutchings 1972), Keston (Grimm 2007) and Oakridge (Maltby 1994).Sites with military associations include Longthorpe (Frere and St. Joseph 1974), and the shore

fort at Portchester (Cunliffe 1975; Eastham 1975). Sheepen was a garrison at the time when theraven burial took place (Luff 1982; 1995). Two raven burials are from shafts or wells within villacomplexes: Keston (Grimm 2007) and Stanion (K. Deighton, pers. comm.). The burials are not

restricted to town and shrines, but have also been found on rural settlements such as ButterfieldDown (Rawling and Fitzpatrick 1996).

Most of the burials were in pits, wells or shafts. These ranged in depth from 3 m to anastonishing 30 m deep at Oakridge. Many of the shafts were originally interpreted as wells which may have been their original function, since the role of these deep structures probably

changed over time (Fulford 2001). Some of the shafts were only later recognized as ritual shafts.A small number only were from general layers rather than pits: these include the ravens from

Sheepen and Alcester, and one of the ravens from Winchester.

Associated finds

The associated material (Table 5) includes some elements familiar from the Iron Age,but also additional items such as coins and glass. The association of ravens and crows with




11/23

table 5

Raven and crow or rook skeletons from Romano-British sites, showing date, site type, context and associated finds. Key

as Table 3

Site Species Date Site type Context Associated finds

Alcester C/R 4th C Extra-mural

settlement

Large subrectangular

pit or basement

Kitten, domestic rubbish (pottery and animal bone)

B utterfield Down C Late Roman R ural settlement Base of d eep p it or

ditch terminal

Pottery, animal bone, oyster shell in layer above

Cirencester C RB Extra-mural Pit Dog skeletonDorchester

Greyhound Yard

R (2) AD 75120 Town centre Rectangular shaft,

C.3403

7 dress items, 1 coin

Dorchester

Greyhound Yard

R AD 75120 Town centre Square shaft C.4161 Human skull, dog skeleton (17), sheep (1), bowls,

jars, samian ware, dress itemsDorchester

Greyhound Yard

R (3) C/R 2nd C Town centre Square shaft, C.2310 Dog (13), sheep (7), bowls, jars, coins

Dorchester

Greyhound Yard

R (3)

C/R

AD 150300 Town centre Rectangular shaft,

C.1425

Dog (20), 7 dress items, 35 counters, 1 coin

Dorchester

Greyhound Yard

R AD 150300 Town centre Rectangular shaft,

C.2164

Dog (11), 4 dress items, 2 counters

Dorchester

Greyhound Yard

R L4th Town Pit 1297 No data

Dorchester

Greyhound Yard

R L4th Town Well, C.5145 No data

Dunstable R RB Well/shaft Shaft 9 m deep Human infant, dogs, white-tailed sea eagleJordan Hill R

C

RB Temple Upper fill of shaft or

pit, 14 deep

Layered pairs of tiles sandwiching a bird and coins.

Also buzzard and starlingKeston R 2nd3rd C Villa complex Shaft H, base Buzzard, dog skeletonLeicester

Great Holme St

R 3rd4th C Extra-mural

settlement

Well 2 dogs, cattle heads

Longthorpe R (4) AD 4462 Fortress No data No dataOakridge R

C

3rd4th C Well/shaft 78 deep 7 dog skeletons (some burnt), 87 puppies, pig

skeletons, sheep heads, calf skulls and feet, chicken

skeleton, other burnt and unburnt chicken bonesOakridge C 3rd4th C Well/shaft 79 deep

Owslebury R 1st C Settlement Gully F147, L.1/2 Skeletons of sheep/goat, cat bones, general bone in

upper layersOwslebury R 1st C Settlement Ditch F642, L.1 (base) Pig skeleton with raven on base of ditch. 3 puppies in

L.3, 1 chicken, dog skeletons in L.4Owslebury C/R Late 1st C Banjo enclosure Ditch of handle,

F596, L.2

Few other finds

Owslebury R 4th C Settlement Cess pit F646, L.3 4 dogs/puppies, 2 cat skeletons, buzzard, sheep skulls,

1 horse skull, little general boneOwslebury C/R 2nd C Settlement Quarry F613, L.1 Few other bonesPortchester R (2) LRB Shore fort Well (pit) 236 MN 13 ox skulls, 3 sheep skulls, 2 dog skulls, 1 red

deer skull, piglets, lambs, 1 calf, 2 cat skeletons (1

old, 1 immature), shellfish, leather, potteryColchester

Sheepen

R (2) Mid 1st C Extra-mural

metal-

working area

Pit 120 Skeletons of dog , puppy, white-tailed eagle, 3

complete pots, metal-working materials

Silchester

Insulae I, II, III

R (2) Roman Town No data No details

Silchester

Insula IX

R c.AD 250 Town Base of well/shaft

1750

Cattle, sheep, pig, red deer, hare, woodcock

SilchesterInsula IX R c.AD 250 Town Pit 2601 Cattle, pig, sheep, red deer antler, hare, rat, chicken

Springhead R (3) RB Temple Base of deep shaft,

C.6220, 4.5 m deep

Six dog skeletons, calf, pig, chicken, goose

Springhead R RB Temple Sealing of road to

sanctuary

No data

Stanion R 2nd C Villa Stone-lined well 3 cattle skeletonsWalbrook R (W) AD 24050 Temple of

Mithras

Floor 3 of nave

(CB353)

Chicken skeletons

Winchester

NW suburbs

R LRB Suburb Pit 814 (Tr.XIII,

Ph.480, C.3262) 3.8

m deep

Intact pots, glass vessel, 8 dog skeletons, 2 cat

skeletons, cattle skulls, bullock metapodials,

chicken skeleton, white-tailed sea eagle humerus,

other animal bonesWinchester

NE suburbs

R LRB Suburb Disused building

(Tr.XI, Phase 68)

Disarticulated animal bone, many wild species

Winchester

NE suburbs

R (W) LRB Suburb Silting when area fell

out of use

(Tr.XI, L.74-5)

Immature pig skeleton




12/23

burials of dogs and puppies emerges more strongly in the Roman period than in the Iron Age:

they have been found with at least 15 corvid burials. Altogether 61 dog and puppy ABGs werefound in the same group of shafts as the corvids at Dorchester; in shaft 6 all but one of the dog

burials were associated with ravens (Woodward and Woodward 2004, fig. 3). Seven adult dogs

and no less than 87 puppy ABGs were found in the Oakridge shaft and eight dogs of varioustypes, size and age were found in the extra-mural pit at Winchester.

Skeletons of cats were associated with at least five corvid burials. These are likely to bedomestic cats, which became common in Roman times. Chickens were found with three of the

burials, some as disarticulated remains and some as whole birds. Three cattle skeletons werefound in the well at Stanion Villa. Pig and piglet ABGs were associated with several of the

corvids, and skulls of sheep and cattle were found in the Oakridge well. The other birdsassociated with the corvid burials are again buzzards and also the white-tailed sea eagle. Theseraptors, like ravens and crows, sometimes scavenge around human settlements.

Several Dorchester shafts contained pottery vessels and jars which had originally been

complete (Woodward and Woodward 2004, pl. 1). They also contained coins, counters and dressitems. The skeleton outside the town of Colchester was also associated with a complete pot (Luff1982), and a glass vessel was present in the fill of the Winchester pit (Maltby 2010). Two shafts

only with raven burials also had human remains: in shaft 6 in Dorchester the raven was in thesame layer as a human skull and at Dunstable an infant was buried in the same shaft as the raven.

corvid deposits beyond southern britain

A small number of corvid skeletons from Continental Europe have similarities to thosediscussed here. In Italy, a crow burial was excavated from a shaft of the Etruscan period in Altino;

it, too, was accompanied by several dogs (Fiore and Tagliacozzo 2001). At Late Iron AgeManching in Bavaria, which was excavated on a similar scale to Danebury, only one ravenskeleton was recognized, but the remains of at least six more were present (Boessneck et al.

1971). The fill of a cistern or shaft of the Hellenistic (Roman) period at the Sanctuary of Poseidonat Kalaureia on the Greek island of Poros contained a crow, together with eight adult dogs,

several young puppies and unusually several snakes. The cistern also contained a largequantity of eggshell, murex shells, remains of food animals and glass vessels (Mylona et al. in

press). At Voorburg (Forum Hadriani) in the Netherlands, a raven, originally complete, wasfound in a pit or well with a quantity of other animal bones (Zeiler and Vries 2008), and remainshave been recovered from the Mithraeum at Weissloch in Germany (King 2005).

changing interpretations

Since archaeologists first found raven bones on Roman sites, ideas on how to interpret

them have changed (Table 6). Some authors have seen the remains as accidental inclusions ofbirds which lived commensally with people or even as pets, while others have seen them as birds

deliberately killed for food or as undesirable scavengers around the settlement. Many discussedpossible interpretations without coming to a conclusion these are shown as either/or inTable 6 and some did not comment on the origin of the skeleton. The interpretations have

tended to change over time (Morris 2008a).Functional explanations have usually been offered by zooarchaeologists who, trained in

rational and scientific disciplines, sought natural reasons for the presence of the corvid. Theritual explanations are offered by those familiar with the religious beliefs and practices of the




13/23

Iron Age and Roman period. Ross (1974) looked at deposits in pits, shafts and wells from IronAge and Roman Britain, advocating that they should be examined in the light of Celtic practice

as evidenced in iconography and literature. She observed that there were many strange depositsin the pits, shafts and wells, including dogs and the heads of ravensas well as other objects such

as vessels and swords. She regarded the animals as sacrificed for prognostication and other ritualpurposes, which were regular components of Celtic religion (Ross 1974, 275). Amongzooarchaeologists, little note was taken of the implications of Rosss conclusions for several

years, but research by Aldhouse-Green (Green 1992; Aldhouse-Green 2001; Aldhouse-Greenand Aldhouse-Green 2005) and J.D. Hill (1995) has since led to greater understanding of the role

of animals in Iron Age rituals among archaeologists, if not among zooarchaeologists.At Danebury itself, Coy was reluctant to accept that the corvids were deliberate burials

with ritual significance. Unpublished archive notes document their associations with small

mammals such as rodents and rabbits, which suggests that she was working on the hypothesisthat the corvids were also accidentally incorporated in the pits. However, Grant and Cunliffe

reached the conclusion that the birds were a component of the special animal deposits. In somecases interpretations have changed as more data have become available. Maltby (1993) originally

regarded the raven and crow skeletons from Greyhound Yard as natural deaths or of unknownorigin but subsequently Woodward and Woodward (2004), who looked at the location of theshafts and the contents as a whole, showed that they were deliberate offerings, probably

foundation or dedicatory sacrifices. This led Maltby to reconsider his original views (Maltby inpress). The raven skeleton in Insula IX at Silchester was initially seen as a natural casualty

(Ingrem 2006), but, after learning that the associated material included dog skeletons and horses,Ingrem recognized that the burial was more likely to be an offering or ritual deposit of some kind

(Ingrem in prep.). In his original report on the bone remains from the suburbs of Winchester,Maltby considered that the raven skeleton from pit F814 could have been part of a purge ofscavenging animals, but later modified his views to suggest that this pit is the most likely

candidate to meet the criteria of a special deposit as defined by Grant (Maltby 2010).

Functional reasons for corvid burials

The implication of the above analysis is that nearly all of the ravens and crows discussedhere were deliberate burials, although there is room for doubt with a minority. Some of the

possible functional explanations for the presence of corvids in deposits have already beenreferred to and we shall examine this possibility first.

table 6

Summary of interpretations of corvid burials showing how interpretations have changed over time

Authors interpretation 1890s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

No comment 1 2 4 1Killed for food 1Tame bird 1 1 1Scavenger 1 2 3 2Killed for feathers 1Either/Or 1 2 1Ritual 1 2 6




14/23

Natural deaths: Some authors regarded the skeletons as accidental casualties of

commensal birds. Coy (1984) observed Ravens frequent rubbish dumps and may pick atcarcasses so that the high frequency of raven finds on Iron Age settlements in Wessex is not

surprising. The most powerful reason for rejecting natural death as the origin for most of the

corvids is that the skeletons discussed here were not disarticulated or gnawed by dogs, as is thecase with animal remains which lie unburied for any length of time. Remains of ravens, crowsand other scavenging birds such as red kites are occasionally found on medieval sites, but theyare rare, and, more significantly, are disarticulated. These are likely to be remains of scavenging

birds (Mulkeen and OConnor 1997).Killed because scavengers of carrion: The raven has evolved to feed mainly on carrion

(Ratcliffe 1997, 9) and the crow is also a scavenger of carrion and other food scraps. This habitof feeding on carrion has led ravens and crows to live around human settlements from very earlytimes. There were particular conditions which must have encouraged ravens and crows to live

close to human settlement in the first millennium BC. From that time onwards there appears to

have been intensification of the animal husbandry, one aspect of which was that calving andlambing took place within the settlement (Serjeantson 2007). Casualties of young animals andplacentas would have provided carrion, especially at calving and lambing time. There is a debate

which continues among farmers as to whether ravens and crows merely scavenge the carcassesof calves and lambs which die naturally, or whether they also kill them. It seems likely that thebirds sometimes hasten the death of a weak young lamb, but that they do not kill healthy animals

(Wilmore 1977). Ravens are known to have acted as scavengers which cleaned up the towns inthe Roman period and, with red kites, were encouraged in medieval towns for the same role

(Ratcliffe 1997, 14). Coy suggested that the corvids at Danebury were killed because theyscavenged carcasses and Maltby originally thought it likely that the corvids at Danebury and in

the Oakridge well were killed for the same reason. A raven skeleton at Owslebury is describedas dumped on the base of the ditch (Maltby 1987a).

With some of the skeletons discussed, there is room for doubt as to whether the birds

were deliberately buried, but the context and associated material (or lack of it) do suggest thatsome were casualties or killed as scavengers. These include the part-skeleton found in the

large pit at Alcester, and those in the ditch of the banjo enclosure and in the quarry atOwslebury. The raven from the north-eastern suburbs of Winchester which was found in a siltlayer and with no distinctive associated material was plausibly interpreted as a scavenger

which died or was killed (Maltby 2010). The raven from the Silchester oppidum is moreambiguous. Though in a layer, it was associated with very rich occupation debris and also

disarticulated human remains (Fulford and Timby 2000). This may well have been a deliberateburial.

Killed for food: In the discussion of the finds from Boscombe Down West, Richardson

(1951) suggested that the bones of the three ravens were perhaps the remains of raven stew. Asdiscussed, this explanation was rejected for the Danebury corvids, and is equally unlikely for the

other sites discussed here. Ravens and crows are among those few animals which wereconsistently avoided as food. In the Celtic world, according to Ross (1974, 329), the flesh of the

raven seems to have been regarded as deadly. This is partly because humans tend to avoideating other animals which eat carrion but it must also be because of the association of ravens andcrows with evil omen and death, as discussed later.

Killed for feathers: Were the ravens and crows killed for their glossy black wingfeathers, as suggested by Serjeantson (1991) and Hill (1995)? As we have seen, the wings were




15/23

removed from three of the Danebury corvids and sets of wing bones were found. Feathers were

worn in the Roman period, especially by the army (Parker 1988). A warriors helmet of thesecondthird century AD from Ciumesti in Romania is mounted with a metal raven with moving

wings which would have flapped as the warrior ran (Green 1992, 88). This suggests that some

helmets were surmounted with actual feathers. Raven wings were part of the regalia ofMithraism, a religion which was briefly popular in the later Empire, and a wing bone of a ravenwas in fact found in the temple of Mithras at Walbrook (Macready and Sidell 1998). Feather useno doubt accounts for the disarticulated sets of wing bones as well as for those part-skeletons

lacking the distal wing. Of the possible functional reasons for killing the birds, the mostconvincing is the desire for feathers or feathered wings, though it does not explain why the birds

were then carefully deposited in pits.

ritual reasons why ravens and crows?

If, as we have argued, the deposition of ravens and crows in pits was deliberate atDanebury and at all or nearly all of the other sites discussed here, it is important to considerwhat the ritual purpose might be. Ritual is a category which can include many different actionsand means so only provides a very general explanation (Morris 2008a). The reasons for

interpreting the burials as purposeful ritual acts are based on many aspects of the relationshipbetween humans and ravens and crows. These included on the one hand a fear and distrust of the

birds and on the other hand a closeness which went beyond commensalism.Ravens and crows are often viewed as close to people (Ratcliffe 1997, 10). Ravens are

the most intelligent of the birds, and both crows and ravens are sociable and adaptable. Ravenscan count (Wilmore 1977, 148) and are capable of deliberate deception, a character once thought

to be found only in humans and primates (Bugnyar and Kotrschal 2004). Most significantly, bothravens and crows can learn to understand limited human speech and their calls seem similar tohuman speech. They can even learn to talk (Wilmore 1977, 148). Ravens live to 20 to 25 years;

one tame bird at the Tower of London even lived to 44 years (Ratcliffe 1997, 214).Peoples attitudes to ravens and crows were linked with beliefs about the spirit world

and the gods. Both feature in myths worldwide. We know something of the beliefs associated

with ravens and crows in the Roman world from the Classical writers and this is complementedby the other rich source for beliefs and ritual practice in Europe, which is found in the early

Celtic literature (Ross 1974; Green 1992, 17781; Aldhouse-Green and Aldhouse-Green 2005).

Communication and prophecy

Raven calls were often interpreted as messages carried from the Otherworld to the

human world (Green 1992, 17781). The fact that ravens and to a lesser degree crows can talkled to their being assigned the power of prophecy in many societies, especially prophecies of

doom. Apollo is said to have listened to the prophetic utterances of a raven. A bronze containerin the National Etruscan Museum in Rome depicts a raven standing on the oracle stone as Apolloconsults the oracle at Delphi. In the beliefs of the first millennium BC and indeed later, ravens

were thought to have the ability to foretell the outcome of battles. The Celtic raven-god Lugh, thegod of war, was warned by his raven familiars of the approach of his enemies. In many societies

the flight patterns as well as the calls of ravens were believed to predict future events (Henig1996; Aldhouse-Green 2004, 187).




16/23

Shape-shifting

Iron Age society, like many pre-Modern societies, will have seen humans and animalsas a continuum, rather than as a duality, with some individuals seen as having the ability to

manipulate themselves into either human or animal form, and vice versa (Mullin 1999). Ravensand crows are among those animals which are most often involved in shape-shifting. The god

Lugh could change at will into a raven, as could Badbh or the Mor Regan, the evil triple-goddessor harridan of ancient Irish belief, who prophesied the outcome of battles. The Mor Regan, whotook many forms, could change at will into a raven, squawking terrible omens and terrifying

armies by their presence . . . sometimes these women appear as old hags hunched in black ragsand so take on the semi-guise of carrion birds (Green 1992, 879; Aldhouse-Green 2004, 54).

When three ravens appeared at the Samhain festival and carried off three boy-children, the heroCaoilte killed all three; they turned out to be the Mor Regan (Ross 1974, 328; Green 1992,

17781).

Companion animals and familiars

Ravens and crows have been tamed and kept as pets or companion animals, having lessfear of humans than other birds do because of their long history of commensalism. Pliny andMacrobius among the Classical authors refer to the keeping of ravens as pets in ancient Rome

(Toynbee 1973) and the practice continues today with the tame ravens at the Tower of London.The Roman tradition of keeping ravens as pets led some authors to suggest that the ravens found

during the late nineteenth century excavations at Silchester were pets or even semi-domesticated (Fox 1891).

Today tamed birds are regarded as pets or companion animals, but when they are tamedfor ritual purposes they are familiars rather than pets. In many ancient cultures the gods are saidto have kept a raven or a pair of ravens as familiars. This is reported of Mithras as well as of

Apollo, Lugh and the Mor Regan. The two raven familiars of the Norse god Odin representedthought and memory. They acted as his messengers, flying out each morning, and returning each

evening to tell their master of all the events which had taken place that day.The druids or shamans of the Celtic world and their successors the priests of the Roman

world may have kept ravens as familiars. Some images of the period show ravens associating

with people. A Gallo-Roman stone relief from Moux, France, shows a man with birds perchedon his shoulders; possibly a shaman with his animal helpers (Fig. 5). These have been

interpreted as ravens or possibly woodpeckers, but from their relative size, shape and attitude thebirds appear to be a pair of ravens. The other animal helper is a dog and, as discussed, dogs arefrequently associated with ravens in burials. There is a pair of ravens on the Dunaverney

flesh-hook, which may be intended as a pair of prophetic birds. A copper alloy figurine of a birdon an iron mount found at Butterfield Down is thought to be the terminal of a priestly wand

(Henig 1996). The shape is not clear and Henig thought the bird might be an eagle, but its beakis more like that of a corvid, so it may well have been intended as a raven. A bronze strip froma priests sceptre from Farley Mount shows a raven and also a dog (Ross 1974, 425), and

goddesses are depicted with ravens in Continental Europe (e.g. Ross 1974, figs. 151 and 152).These examples reinforce a connection between ravens and the priestly class. If some of the

ravens and crows deposited in the pits had been companion animals or familiars to the druids orpriests, it could account for the fact that some of the skeletons were of long-lived birds.




17/23

Avian scavengers and excarnation

The predominant burial rite in Iron Age southern Britain was excarnation followed bysecondary burial (Wait 1985; Craig et al. 2005; Redfern 2008). The druid or priest will have

officiated in this rite in which the body was exposed after death, sometimes having beendismembered or partly dismembered (Redfern 2008). The place of exposure is thought to have

been a platform on a four-post structure or a tree, a location in which the corpse would beaccessible to ravens, crows and other scavenging birds. The process of exposure is thought tohave extended as long as a year, and after that time parts of the skeleton, usually the skull and the

long bones, were collected and curated or buried within the settlement or hillfort. Thedisarticulation, breakage and erosion of the human skeletal elements have confirmed that

excarnation took place at Danebury itself, Maiden Castle, Gussage All Saints and some othersites. Carnivores were probably not a usual part of the excarnation process. The traces of

Figure 5

Stone relief of the Gallo-Roman period from Moux, France, showing a man with birds perched on each of his shoulders

and a dog at his feet. The man is probably a priest or druid and the birds have the appearance and attitude of ravens.

Reproduced with permission from Aldhouse-Green (2001, fig. 74).




18/23

carnivore-gnawing are easily recognized and though occasionally seen are very rare on

human bones (Redfern 2008).Both ravens and crows are notorious for scavenging human as well as animal corpses if

the body is left unburied, especially after battle. This is attested in folklore and in such works as

the Anglo-Saxon poem Judith, where the raven is referred to as the corpse greedy bird, the blackcoated raven. An image on an Etruscan pot shows a warrior with a raven pecking at his eye(Green 1992, 89). This habit must be one reason for the fear and respect in which ravens wereheld. As we have seen, the other scavenging birds of Britain, the buzzard and the white-tailed sea

eagle, also occasionally received special treatment.Where excarnation is practised today in India and Tibet the main avian scavengers

which do the work of excarnation are vultures, but crows, kites and buzzards play a minor role.In Tibet the dead are carried to a hilltop and the waiting vultures are called to the site to begintheir work (Peters and Schmidt 2004). If ravens and crows played a similar role among those Iron

Age communities in Britain which practised excarnation, the druids may even have called

them, providing another context in which they could have become commensal or tame. It is alsoa role which might readily have led to ravens and crows being appropriate for certain sacrifices.

Ravens and crows as propitiatory offerings

The beliefs and relationships discussed above do not necessarily lead to the burial of

physical remains, but there were many reasons for burying animals and parts of animals insignificant places in the past. Some can be ruled out. Ravens and crows do not feature as

offerings in graves, no doubt because they were food for neither the dead nor for the gods theywere going to meet in the afterlife (Serjeantson 2009, 3408). The raven has been a powerful

totemic bird in many cultures (Driver 1999) and, according to Celtic literature, people assignedtotemic roles to animals, including the raven. However, it is not usual for people to kill theirtotem animal; on the contrary, killing the totem animal was normally avoided (Oberg 1980, 45).

The explanation that is most widely accepted for why people in the Iron Age and Romanperiod deposited bones and other material in pits is that they were part of a ritual intended to

propitiate the gods and to ensure fertility and reproduction. Cunliffe (1992) proposed that thedeposits at Danebury were offerings to Demeter, since the primary use of many of the pits wasto store seed corn. The ravens and crows in this context would not have been offerings of the first

fruits, as the other animals might have been, as they were not food. Nevertheless, they are likelyto have been offerings to the gods of the underworld, deposited to ensure a favourable outcome

to some future event or to avert a bad outcome. Ravens may have been associated with pits andwells because of a perceived chthonic symbolism: ritual shafts penetrate deep underground,forming a line of communication between the living and the dead, the earth and the underworld

powers (Green 1992, 88). Their power of communication between humans and the gods was tocontinue after their death.

discussion

The interpretation of the deposits discussed here has been a matter of much debatewithin the archaeological community, which has centred on the dichotomy between ritual and

functional interpretations of past behaviour. We have shown how, if we are to understand theintentions of those who made the deposits, it is essential to understand the sequence of actions




19/23

which created them. We have called on zoological and taphonomic knowledge as well as

contextual information. By taking these data together with written sources and iconography, wehave been able to offer some possible explanations for the corvid burials. By demonstrating the

history of the individual skeletons, we have been able in many cases to confirm their deliberate

nature, with the key factors being their context within a pit or shaft and their degree ofcompleteness. We have also shown how the wings and feathers of ravens and crows wereremoved, no doubt for use as decoration or as military or ritual regalia.

The material with which the burials are associated includes other animals and significant

artefacts such as whole pots and glass. In the Iron Age some raven and crow burials areassociated with human remains, and in the Roman period many are associated with dogs,

including puppies. Indeed, it is clear that ritual burials of puppies and adult dogs are encounteredmore often than those of ravens and crows (Morris 2008a), and they would certainly merit astudy in their own right.

This paper has reaffirmed the importance of ravens and crows in ritual action in the Iron

Age and Roman period. The burials are one of the elements of the continuity in religious practicein evidence between the first millennium BC and the first millennium AD (Fulford 2001). Thepractice of corvid burial was widespread; though most of the examples we have cited are from

Britain, it also took place across Europe. Similar ritual or votive deposits have now beenidentified on some Anglo-Saxon sites; the deposits include dogs and also horses though nonenoted up to now includes corvids (Hamerow 2006). In view of the importance of the raven in the

Anglo-Saxon and Nordic religions, it would not be surprising if further raven burials were to befound in the future.

The character and behaviour of ravens and crows gave them significance in laterprehistoric and Classical times. Both species lived alongside human settlements as scavengers,

which must have given them a role in the Iron Age as agents in the rite of excarnation. Thetolerance of ravens and crows to living close to human settlement may well have led to theirbeing tamed or at least to their associating as familiars with individuals such as druids and

priests. Their voice and calls led to the belief that they communicated with the gods, which musthave contributed to the belief that certain of the gods and goddesses were shape-shifters who

could transform themselves sometimes into human form and sometimes into the form of ravensand crows. Both were assigned powers of prophecy, which derived on occasion from their flight which they have in common with all birds but especially from their calls. All or any of these

might have been the impulse which led to the notion that for certain rituals it was desirable thata raven or crow was deposited within a pit or shaft.

conclusion

Zooarchaeologists up to now have drawn attention to reasons why the excavated ravensand crows might have become buried accidentally rather than deliberately, while archaeologists

have been readier to accept the ritual significance of the corvids (Morris in press). This is partlybecause zooarchaeologists by training are more likely first to seek biological, economic orindeed rational explanations for behaviour. But it is also because, unlike the archaeologist who

has the opportunity to see the whole picture, zooarchaeologists have all too often worked inignorance of the archaeological context of the material they study. This has two implications. The

interpretations arrived at here required that all classes of material were considered together.Feedback between the excavator and those reporting on the different materials is necessary,




20/23

something which is frequently a casualty of commercial excavations today. Excavators, for their

part, need to be sensitive to the possible presence of the bones of these birds in the lower levelsof pits, especially of any pits which otherwise seem to include deliberate deposits.

Zooarchaeologists need to be more open to the social importance of the animals they study,

especially in pre-Christian societies where animals were closely linked with spiritual and sociallife and indeed were not necessarily viewed as separate and alien beings from the humans withwhom they came into contact.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank many people for their help. Kay Ainsworth and Alan Jacobs gave accessto the Danebury archive, which is currently being assembled and catalogued at the Hampshire MuseumStores. Miranda Aldhouse-Green kindly provided a photograph of the Moux engraving and allowed us toreproduce it, and Barry Cunliffe gave permission to reproduce the Danebury pit sections. GeraldineParsons was helpful on the subject of the Celtic gods and the Mor Regan. Many people allowed us to referto data which have not yet been published, including Umberto Albarella, Tim Allen, Rebekah Davis, KarenDeighton, Lisette de Vries, Tony Gouldwell, Jessica Grimm, Clare Ingrem, Mark Maltby, RebeccaNicholson, Tessa Pirnie, Adrienne Powell and Jorn Zeiler.

(DS) Archaeology

School of Humanities

University of Southampton

Highfield

Southampton SO17 1BJ

(JM) Museum of London Archaeology

Mortimer Wheeler House

46 Eagle Wharf Road

London N1 7ED

references

albarella, u. and pirnie, t. 2009: A review of animal bone evidence from Central England (http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/animalbone_eh_2007/query.cfm?)

aldhouse-green, m.j. 2001: Dying for the Gods: Human Sacrifice in Iron Age and Roman Europe(Stroud).

aldhouse-green, m.j. 2004: An Archaeology of Images (London).aldhouse-green, m.j. and aldhouse-green, s. 2005: The Quest for the Shaman (London).

allen, t. in prep.: Excavations at Wittenham Clumps (Oxford, Oxford Archaeology).ashdown, r. 1981: Avian bones. In Partridge, C. (ed.), Skeleton Green: a Late Iron Age and Romano-

British Site (London, Britannia Monogr. 2), 23541.boessneck, j., von den driesch, a., meyer-lemppenau, u. and wechsler-von ohlen, e. 1971: Die

Ausgrabungen in Manching VI. Die Tierknochenfunde aus dem Oppidum von Manching (Wiesbaden).bugnyar, t. and kotrschal, k. 2004: Leading a conspecific away from food in ravens ( Corvus corax)?

Journal of Animal Cognition 7(2), 6976.coy, j. 1984: The bird bones. In Cunliffe, B., Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 2 The

Excavations 19691978: the Finds (London, CBA Res. Rep. 52), 52731.craig, r.c., knsel, c.j. and carr, g.c. 2005: Fragmentation, mutilation and dismemberment: an

interpretation of human remains on Iron Age sites. In Parker Pearson, M. and Thorpe, I.J.N. (eds.),Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 1374), 6580.

cunliffe, b. 1975: Excavations at Portchester Castle. Vol. 1 Roman (London, Res. Rep. Soc. Antiq.XXXII).




21/23

cunliffe, b. 1984: Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 1 The Excavations 19691978: theSite (London, CBA Res. Rep. 52).

cunliffe, b. 1992: Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age. Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 11(1), 6983.

cunliffe, b. and poole, c. 1991: Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 4 The Excavations19791988: the Site (London, CBA Res. Rep. 73).

drew, c.d. 1932: The excavations at Jordan Hill, 1931. Dorset Natural History and Archaeology SocietyTransactions 53, 26573.

driver, j. 1999: Raven skeletons from Palaeoindian contexts, Charlie Lake Cave, British Columbia.American Antiquity 64(2), 28998.

eastham, a. 1975: The bird bones. In Cunliffe, B., Excavations at Portchester Castle. Vol. 1 Roman(London, Res. Rep. Soc. Antiq. XXXII), 40915.

fiore, i. and tagliacozzo, a. 2001: I resti ossei animali dal santuario preromano in localit Fornace diAltino (VE). In del Sacro, G. (ed.), Culti e Santuari antichi in Altino e nel Veneto orientale (Altinum,Studi e ricerche sulla Gallia Cisalpina 14, Studi di archeologia, epigrafia e storia 2), 8796.

fox, g.e. 1891: Excavations on the site of the Roman city at Silchester, Hants, in 1891; with a note on theanimal remains found during the excavations by Herbert Jones, Esq. Archaeologia 53, 26388.

frere, s.s. and st. joseph, j.k. 1974: The Roman fortress at Longthorpe. Britannia 5, 1129.fulford, m. 2001: Links with the past: pervasive ritual behaviour in Roman Britain. Britannia 32,

199318.fulford, m. and timby, j. (eds.) 2000: Late Iron Age and Roman Silchester: Excavations on the Site of the

Forum Basilica 1977, 198086 (London, Britannia Monogr. 15).grant, a. 1984a: Ritual behaviour. In Cunliffe, B., Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 2

The Excavations 19691978: the Finds (London, CBA Res. Rep. 52), 53363.grant, a. 1984b: Animal husbandry. In Cunliffe, B., Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol.

2 The Excavations 19691978: the Finds (London, CBA Res. Rep. 52), 496548.grant, a., rush, c. and serjeantson, d. 1991: Animal husbandry. In Cunliffe, B. and Poole, C.,

Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 5 The Excavations 19791988: the Finds (London,CBA Res. Rep. 73), 44787.

green, m.j. 1992: Animals in Celtic Life and Myth (London).grimm, j. 2007: A dogs life: animal bone from a Romano-British ritual shaft at Springhead, Kent (UK).

Beitrge zur Archozoologie und Prhistorischen Anthropologie, Band VI (Langenweibach), 5475.

hamerow, h. 2006: Special deposits in Anglo-Saxon settlements. Medieval Archaeology 30, 130.harcourt, r. 1968: Animal Remains from Cowdown, Longbridge Deverill (London, English Heritage,

AML Rep. 1626).henig, m. 1996: Sceptre head. In Rawling, M. and Fitzpatrick, A.P., Prehistoric and Romano-British

settlement at Butterfield Down, Amesbury. Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Magazine 89,356.

hill, j.d. 1995: Ritual to Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a Study on the Formation of a SpecificArchaeological Record (Oxford, BAR Brit. Ser. 242).

hill, j.d. 1996: The identification of ritual deposits of animal bones. A general perspective from a specificstudy of special animal deposits from the southern English Iron Age. In Anderson, S. and Boyle, K.(eds.), Ritual Treatment of Human and Animal Remains. Proceedings of the First Meeting of theOsteoarchaeological Research Group (Oxford), 1732.

ingrem, c.y. 2006: The animal bone. In Fulford, M., Clarke, A. and Eckardt, H. (eds.), Life and Labourin Late Roman Silchester. Excavations in Insula IX since 1997 (London, Britannia Monogr. 22),16788.

ingrem, c.y. in prep.: The animal bone from Early and Mid-Roman deposits. In Fulford, M. (ed.), City inTransition: Silchester Insula IX.

king, a. 2005: Animal remains from temples in Roman Britain. Britannia 36, 32969.luff, r.m. 1982: A Zooarchaeological Study of the Roman North-western Provinces (Oxford, BAR Int.

Ser. 137).

luff, r. 1995: The fauna. In Niblett, R. (ed.), Sheepen: an Early Roman Industrial Site at Camulodunum(London, CBA Res. Rep. 57), 1439.




22/23

macready, s. and sidell, j. 1998: Animal remains. In Shepherd, J.D. (ed.), The Temple of Mithras,London. Excavations by W.F. Grimes and A. Williams at the Walbrook (London, English HeritageArchaeol. Rep. 12), 20815.

maltby, m. 1987a: The Animal Bones from the Excavations at Owslebury, Hants. An Iron Age and EarlyRomano-British Settlement (London, English Heritage, AML Rep. 6/87).

maltby, m. 1987b: The Animal Remains from the Later Roman Phases from Winchester Northern Suburbs.1: The Unsieved Samples from Victoria Road Trenches XXVI (London, English Heritage, AML Rep.125/87).

maltby, m. 1993: Animal bones. In Woodward, P.J., Davies, S.M. and Graham, A.H. (eds.), Excavationsat the Old Methodist Chapel and Greyhound Yard, Dorchester (Dorchester, Dorset Natural Historyand Archaeological Society), 315 40.

maltby, m. 1994: The animal bones from a Romano-British well at Oakridge II, Basingstoke. Proceedingsof the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 49, 4776.

maltby, m. 2001: Faunal remains (AES 76-7). In Booth, P. and Ewans, J. (eds.), Roman Alcester: NorthernExtra-mural Area 19691988 Excavations (London, CBA Res. Rep. 127), 26590.

maltby, m. 2010: Feeding a Roman Town. Winchester Excavations, Vol. 4 (Winchester, WinchesterMuseums).

maltby, m. in press: Zooarchaeology and the interpretation of deposition in shafts. In Morris, J. andMaltby, M. (eds.), Integrating Social and Environmental Archaeologies; Reconsidering Deposition(Oxford, BAR Brit. Ser.).

matthews, c.l. and hutchings, j.b. 1972: A Roman well at Dunstable in Bedfordshire. ArchaeologicalJournal 7, 2134.

morris, j. 2008a: Re-examining Associated Bone Groups from Southern England and Yorkshire, c.4000BCto AD1550 (Ph.D. Thesis, Bournemouth University).

morris, j. 2008b: Associated bone groups; one archaeologists rubbish is anothers ritual deposition. InDavis, O., Waddington, K. and Sharples, N. (eds.), Changing Perspectives on the First Millennium BC(Oxford), 8398.

morris, j. in press: The composition and interpretation of associated bone groups from Wessex. InCampana, D., Choyke, A., Crabtree, P., Defrance, S. and Lev-Tov, J. (eds.), Anthropological

Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity and Animal Transformations (Oxford).mulkeen, s. and oconnor, t.p. 1997: Raptors in towns: towards an ecological model. International

Journal of Osteoarchaeology 7(4), 4409.mullin, m.h. 1999: Mirrors and windows: socio-cultural studies of human-animal relationships. Annual

Review of Anthropology 28, 20124.mylona, d., nitinou, m., pakkanen, p., penttinen, a., serjeantson, d. and theodoropoulou, t. in

press: Integrating archaeology and science in a Greek sanctuary: issues of practise and interpretationin the study of the bioarchaeological remains from the sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia. In Voutsaki,S. and Valamoti, S. (eds.), Subsistence, Economy and Society in the Greek World: Improving the

Integration of Archaeology and Science (Louvain).neal, d. 1980: Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman settlement sites at Little Somborne and Ashley, Hants.

Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 36, 91143.

oberg, k. 1980: The Social Economy of the Tlingit Indian (Vancouver).parker, a.j. 1988: The birds of Roman Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7(2), 197226.peters, j. and schmidt, k. 2004: Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Gbekli Tepe,

south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment. Anthropozoologica 39(1), 179218.powell, a. and clark, k.m. 1996: Exploitation of Domestic Animals in the Iron Age at Rooksdown

(University of Southampton, unpublished report for Wessex Archaeology).ratcliffe, d. 1997: The Raven (London).rawling, m. and fitzpatrick, a.p. 1996: Prehistoric and Romano-British settlement at Butterfield Down,

Amesbury. Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Magazine 89, 143.redfern, r. 2008: New evidence for Iron Age secondary burial practice and bone modification from

Gussage All Saints and Maiden Castle (Dorset, England). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27(3),281301.

richardson, k.m. 1951: The excavation of Iron Age villages on Boscombe Down West. WiltshireArchaeological and Natural History Magazine 54, 12368.




23/23

ross, a. 1974: Pagan Celtic Britain (London).serjeantson, d. 1991: The bird bones. In Cunliffe, B. and Poole, C., Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in

Hampshire. Vol. 5 The Excavations 19791988: the Finds (London, CBA Res. Rep. 73), 47981.serjeantson, D. 2000: Bird bones. In Fulford, M. and Timby, J. (eds.), Late Iron Age and Roman

Silchester: Excavations on the Site of the Forum Basilica 1977, 198086(London, Britannia Monogr.15), 484500.

serjeantson, d. 2007: Intensification of animal husbandry in the Late Bronze Age? The contribution ofsheep and pigs. In Haselgrove, C. and Pope, R. (eds.), The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the NearContinent (Oxford), 8093.

serjeantson, d. 2009: Birds (Cambridge, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology).serjeantson, d. 2010: Ravens and crows in Iron Age Britain: the Danebury corvids. In Prummel, W.,

Zeiler, J. and Brinkhuisen, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Bird Working Group Meeting, Groningen2008 (Groningen, Groningen Archaeological Studies), 17585.

smith, k. 1977: The excavation of Winklebury Camp, Basingstoke, Hampshire. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 43, 5869.

tomek, t. and bochenski, z. 2000: The Comparative Osteology of European Corvids (Aves: Corvidae),with a Key to the Identification of their Skeletal Elements (Krakow, Institute of Systematics andEvolution of Animals).

toynbee, j.m.c. 1973: Animals in Roman Life and Art (London).wait, g.a. 1985: Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain (Oxford, BAR Brit. Ser. 149).westley, b. 1970: The animal bones. In Wainwright, G.J., An Iron Age promontory fort at Budbury,

Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 65B, 1524.wilmore, s.b. 1977: Crows, Jays, Ravens and their Relatives (Newton Abbot).woodward, p. and woodward, a. 2004: Dedicating the town: urban foundation deposits in Roman

Britain. World Archaeology 36, 6886.zeiler, j.t. and vries, l.s. 2008: De raaf in de waterput. Archeozologisch onderzoek van de Romeinse

stad Forum Hadriani (120270 AD), gem. Leidschendam-Voorburg (LVB-FO 9888) (Leeuwarden,ArchaeoBone rapport nr. 65).


OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 107

Ravens and Crows in Iron Age and Roman Britain

Documents

Transcript of Ravens and Crows in Iron Age and Roman Britain