Dear all,
I've done a bit of work on fallow deer and I've found it really difficult to
justify the idea that they were living, even briefly, in Britain or the rest
of northern
Europe until at least the late 11th century. I've re-analysed the main
British
sites that claim the early presence (i.e. Roman and Anglo-Saxon) of fallow
deer and have found that the specimens from these sites fall into 3
categories:
1) those that have been misidentified
2) those that are badly dated and mostly likely intrusive
3) those that are well dated but are either antler (usually shed) or foot
bones.
For reasons of trade, shed antler cannot be taken as evidence for the
presence of the actual living
animal and I think the same explanation should be applied to the foot bones.
There are too many north European sites where red deer have been found in
considerable numbers, represented by all skeletal elements, but fallow deer
are represented by just one or two specimens, invariably metapodials or the
astragalus.
In the classical period, fallow deer appear to have had some religious
significance and I think it's possible that particular body parts were
traded, perhaps as relics. The excavation of a Phoenician ship wreck
produced a small number of animals bones which appear to have been
'exotica', amongst which were a utilised crane bone, the tooth of a false
killer whale and a fallow deer metatarsal.
Without meaning to hijack Robin's original enquiry, I'm open to suggestions
if anyone has any contradictory evidence.
Yours,
Naomi Sykes.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|