Yes indeed, while looking up this thread I deviated a bit from the main topic and came across a few nice little links to the depiction of animals in medieval art which might be of interest, here they are:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/best/hd_best.htm
http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/medieval_beasts/
As well as a book title on the same topic:
http://www.bergpublishers.com/?TabId=4894&v=896369
Apologies if these have already been posted.
AB
Prof. Ariane Burke,
Dept. d'anthropologie,
Université de Montréal,
C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville
Montreal, QC
Canada, H3C 3J7
Tel. 514-343-6574 Fax. 514-343-2494
http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/burkea/
-----Original Message-----
From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites on behalf of Pam Cross
Sent: Thu 2010-11-18 5:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Re : [ZOOARCH] Animal Writes - zooarchaeology of Pets
Hi David/all
I'd be interested in Kate Smith's work, do you have a pdf/link/ref? I'll
revisit Richard's article as well.
As you say it's important to clearly define what is meant by pet. Whether
it's the only or best definition is somewhat beside the point, as long as
the work keeps to the definition. The issue of ritual/special/abg's burials
and pet burials will need to be addressed particularly since I, personally,
don't think most indicate a 'pet status' but then again what is a pet? For
instance, the horse dedicated to Frey in one of the sagas (sorry haven't
got the ref to hand) has a special status different from other
horse/livestock, but is that a pet? Are Salima's Egyptian puppy/dog burials pets? Both of
these are ritual animal examples...do you think that makes them pets? What
is your definition of a pet?
Quite a difficult task id'g pets, I think. Even the lapdogs -- could you be
sure it was a pet and not a ratter? Again does doing a job exclude you
from being a pet? I'd say no, but I don't know how you would discern this
status archaeologically.
Jacqui -- if nothing else, your email has sparked off some great and
divergent discussions. Re the pet topic, do you remember the hospital/mouse
burial thread earlier this year? If not I can send you a copy (and I contacted
them for more info).
best
Pam
Pamela J Cross
PhD researcher, Bioarchaeology
AGES, University of Bradford
BD7 1DP UK
[log in to unmask]
or [log in to unmask]
_http://www.barc.brad.ac.uk/resstud_Cross.php_
(http://www.barc.brad.ac.uk/resstud_Cross.php)
In a message dated 16/11/2010 21:26:50 GMT Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
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
==================================
Lots from Egypt....
Some in book: Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt (Paul N.
has a copy), and can send you others...
Best
Salima
On 14 Nov 2010, at 21:27, Jacqui Mulville wrote:
Hello,
I am organising an Outreach event focused on Pets as a way of bringing
zooarchaeology alive (including a visit to a pet cemetery) and getting people
to think about relationships with animals other that eating them....and I am
looking for good examples of animals identified as 'pets'.
I often start my undergrad discussions with how to identify a pet burial
(e.g. evidence of veterinary care, good diet, aged individual, species,
location, artefacts etc) but have rarely found any good examples. I can rustle
up a few dogs under floors in Hebridean roundhouses, a dog trapped in a
drain under the kitchen of Windsor Castle, cats in wells and a parrot in
Norwich. Of course pets are something of a modern construct however can
anyone provide good zooarchaeological examples of animals accorded special
pet-like status? Any famous pets dug up? Any usual pet burials people know
of? Also anyone ever excavated a pit pony? Or were they all fed to the
dogs?
All suggestions welcome.....the weirder the better.
Jacqui Mulville (PhD),
Follow my Leverhulme Artist in Residence at Osteography
_http://osteography.wordpress.com/_ (http://osteography.wordpress.com/)
School of History, Archaeology and Religion,
Cardiff University, Humanities Building, Colum Drive, CARDIFF, CF10 3EU
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/hisar/people/archaeology/jm1/
Tel: + 44 (0) 29 2087 4247
Fax: + 44 (0) 29 2087 4929
|