Hi all,
I'm finding this discussion really interesting and it is loosely connected to my own research in a sense. If I might go back to the initial point. In terms of pets in archaeology, Richard Thomas' (2005) article succinctly discusses the issues surrounding this topic, particularly the point of what are deemed "necessary" and "unnecessary" animals and it should be stressed that any study of pets in the past necessitates a detachment from the modern mindset.
Obviously dogs are the first animals everyone thinks of, this has already been mentioned. Kate Smith's publication (I think it was her PhD thesis) gives a comprehensive study of dogs in archaeological contexts and especially in human burials (a very very useful resource when i gave a presentation about that exact subject not long ago).
There are also lots of documentary references to members of monastic houses keeping animals (cats, dogs, rabbits, monkeys etc) within precinct walls despite being frowned upon. But so far I have not come across many references to such animals that can be classed absolutely as pets. Even birds of prey kept by heads of houses cannot be conclusively regarded as pets except in the sense that they were unlikely to have been used for their purpose as it was forbidden by Benedictine Rule (as far as I know - correct me if i'm wrong) but the number of occurences of their solitary burial in the primary fill of a pit within a precinct may be interpreted 'special treatment' of these birds. I think I have references for these if anyone is interested. Essentially all discussions of pets require that detachment as any interpretation of 'pet' burial can usually just as easily be interpreted as something else.
Sorry if i'm covering sterile ground but I am interested in this discussion.
David Brown
MSc Osteoarchaeology
Bournemouth University
|