this discussion begs the question of what is normal?
During the Roman period at least, there seems to be a marked difference
between what is normal in urban sites and what is normal in rural sites.
Mark Maltby many years ago pointed out that Roman period horse remains were
much more common at the edges of built up areas in Dorchester (and I think
Winchester: apologies I haven't checked the reference) than they were in
the centre. I found the same when I collated all the faunal evidence for
Roman remains in and around Catterick: few in the military fort/small town
centre, substantially more in the roadside settlements.
It seems to make good sense in a very simplistic manner: food animal
remains are found mostly where they are eaten. Non-food animal remains
(such as horses in the Roman period and I don't want to get sidetracked
into whether or not Roman ate horses: we have enough evidence to
demonstrate that they were not commonly eaten, if at all) are found where
they die. Horses are large, need to move, need to stand up, need to eat.
They can't be kept in a sty in the back yard, so the sensible place to keep
them is in a paddock at the edge of the settlement (if it's urban) or
adjacent to the settlement (if it's rural).
I'm not a horsey person, but it seems to me that a stud (in the sense of a
specialist horse breeding centre) is something highly specialised and
involves a great deal of capital investment and exchange of finance. I
suspect that it was far more normal for people in the past to do what
people in the present do ie breed from their mare(s). Someone owning a
stallion (like a bull) has a resource that others need to barter for, but
it's not a stud in the organised sense of the term.
Maltby, M. 1994 The meat supply in Roman Dorchester & Winchester. in Hall,
A., & Kenward H. eds Urban-rural connexions [sic]: perspectives from
environmental archaeology. Symposia of the Association for Environmental
Archaeology 12. Oxbow: Oxbow Books
Catterick:
military and urban centre Horse = 1 - 2%,
associated roadside settlements Horse =6 - 9%
separate settlement 2km down the road from the fort/small town Horse
= 10%
Stallibrass, S. 2002 An overview of the animal bones: what would we like to
know, what do we know so far, and where do we go from here? In Wilson, P.R.
Catteractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and
research 1958-1997. Part II. York: English Heritage & Council for British
Archaeology. CBA Research Report 129: 392-415
Sue
--On 24 April 2006 13:01 +0100 Marsha Levine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Jen,
>
> Just a quick, belated word here:
>
> There seems to be a tendency to interpret what is regarded as relatively
> large numbers of horses at a site as evidence of relatively large scale
> horse breeding at that site. However, there are a considerable number of
> other explanations and issues which must be considered before reaching
> such a conclusion.
>
> First of all, what exactly is meant by "a high %"? Secondly, what
> possible explanations could there be for a high %. For one thing, there
> is taphonomy. Poor preservation conditions may favour the preservation
> of the bones of large animals such as horses. Another explanation for a
> large % of horses could be the use of the site as a station for post
> horses or for military horses or for work horses over a long period of
> time. The presence of immature horses in itself is not very meaningful.
> Small-scale horse breeding is very common in a farming context. The
> population structure of the assemblage is very important if you want to
> have any chance of understanding what is going on at the site in
> question. Theoretically the best evidence that a site had been used for
> stud would be the presence of large numbers of shed deciduous teeth,
> possibly in paddocks - a situation I've never come across.
>
> Hope this is of some help.
>
> Good luck,
> Marsha
>
> Jen Kitch wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am currently working on a fenland site in Lincolnshire incorparating a
>> 2nd-early 4th century Roman settlement site. Although I am only halfway
>> through recording the assemblage I have started to note an inflated
>> number of horses than I would have originally expected, these include
>> both adult and foal material from pony sized animals. Therefore I am
>> starting to hypothise on the reasons behind this perceived inflation of
>> the number of horse remains.
>>
>> I am considering the potential of horse breeding on site. The other
>> thought is the potential of the utilization of ponies as a wild
>> resource. There are modern anecdotal references to lincolnshire fen
>> ponies (now extinct) and the reintroduction of Kronig ponies to Wicken
>> Fen in Cambridgshire as semi-wild herds.
>> Does anyone have any parallels with this kind of utilisation or
>> archaeological evidence of wild herds prior to the medieval- modern
>> periods?
>>
>> I would be grateful for any comments, thoughts or parallels that anyone
>> may have.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jen Kitch
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Marsha Levine, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
> University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3ER, England
> phone: +44 (0)1223-339347 / fax: +44 (0)1223-339285
> http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/~ml12/
Dr. Sue Stallibrass
English Heritage Archaeological Science Adviser for North-West England
Department of Archaeology
Hartley Building
University of Liverpool
LIVERPOOL L69 3GS
direct telephone: +44 (0)151 794 5046
departmental FAX: +44 (0)151 794
5057
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|