Print

Print
Hi all,
 
This is an interesting subject and something that I looked at (very briefly) as part of my PhD on the Norman Conquest. I am certainly no expert on names; in fact, I am nervous of dabbling in philology/etymology as you need so much knowledge to work with names (the philologists/onomasts I know are the closest things you get to the Wizards from Harry Potter - they know EVERYTHING!).
 
That said, I think it is worth exploring the issue of names from a zooarchaeological perspective, particularly when the linguists have already looked at the subject - it gives us the chance to see if new names represent just a new language or if we can find evidence for new behaviours.
 
So, the Cu -> Beef (Bouef), Sceap -> Mutton shift is a really neat example. Archaeologically speaking the dating is difficult but it does seem that the shift in terminology coincides with a change in the way that elite settlements were provisioned: on the multi-period sites I examined, I noticed that post-Conquest assemblages tended to contain a restricted suite of skeletal elements (mostly meat-bearing) whereas in the earlier periods all parts of the carcass had been represented.  
 
To me, this suggests that the name changes are linked not only to the arrival of the 'Normans' but also to real changes in foodways - that the elite were consuming more 'prime' meat (which became associated with French terms) whilst the lower orders were increasingly eating up the rest. Interestingly, cuts of meat that were perceived to be lower-quality retained their Old English name - e.g. Ox tail.
 
Another thing that makes me think that the shift in name reflects more than just the arrival of a new elite (although clearly cannot be divorced from this) is the word 'capon', which has already been discussed.
 
capun (capon) appears in England for the first time around the date of the Conquest, which Burnley (1992, 429)

suggests reflects the dietary preferences of the Norman aristocracy. As Louisa says, the idea that the arrival of a word is associated with the arrival of a new people is hardly ground-breaking but when you look at the zooarchaeological data, you see that, shortly after 1066, there is a dramatic increase in the representation of domestic fowl on elite sites (it is almost double what we see on aristocratic sites of the Late Saxon period).

 

What I haven't done is look at the sexing/measurement data for domestic fowl to see if there is a coincident increase in the presence of large unfused specimens - that might make a nice UG dissertation perhaps?

 

Apologies for the long email - I'll leave pheasants for another day...

 

Burnley, D. 1992. Lexis and semantics pp. 409-499 in N.Blake (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English

Language Vol II 1066–1476. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

 

 

From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of geraldine [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 November 2010 16:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ZOOARCH] Re : [ZOOARCH] Re : [ZOOARCH] Animal Writes - zooarchaeology of Pets

capon is a derivative of the french "chapon", which would support the idea of a "higher elite" word since they are quite high maintenance to produce and can't breed. 

De : GIDNEY L.J. <[log in to unmask]>
À : [log in to unmask]
Envoyé le : Mar 16 novembre 2010, 17h 44min 37s
Objet : Re: [ZOOARCH] Re : [ZOOARCH] Animal Writes - zooarchaeology of Pets

With respect, a pullet is a young female, a cockerel is a young male. The usage "point of lay pullet" is still commonplace. And what about capons, large fat male eunuch table birds.
The "lowly peasant" and the "elite" were only using the words of their respective native languages. We merely had a ruling class who spoke a foreign language. Mouton is still sheep and sheep meat in French, for example.
What is the linguistic derivation of bacon? Staple meat of the laboratores.
Regards, Louisa

From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites on behalf of Lee G. Broderick
Sent: Tue 16/11/2010 16:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Re : [ZOOARCH] Animal Writes - zooarchaeology of Pets

I’m not sure that we can discuss pheasants in this light, since they were introduced from Asia, probably some time in the middle to late mediaeval period.  In which case, it may be derived directly from the Latin, rather than via French.  What the reasoning is behind quail, I have no idea.

 

I think Geraldine may have hit upon something though:

 

Pullet (Poulet)

 

Pullets, of course, are birds less than a year old and may well have been called this to distinguish the young male birds, destined for the table, from those hens which would go on to produce eggs.  If this is the case, we then have to ask not “why do we still call chickens chickens when we eat them”  but “why did we stop calling them pullets?”

 

Anton’s idea re. the need to label unrecognisable chunks of prepared meat is a valid one.  There’s also a social interpretation of the language however, whereby the lowly peasants who do the grubby work of looking after the animals have one word, whereas the elite have another word to use when it enters their domain.

 

Best regards,

 

Lee G. Broderick.  BA (Hons), MSc, FZS

Zooarchaeologist

www.zooarchaeology.co.uk

 

This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is private and confidential. If an addressing or transmission has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail.

 

We sweep all outgoing messages for the presence of computer viruses.

However, we cannot accept any responsibility for any loss or damage to your systems due to viruses or malicious code not detected.

 

From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of geraldine
Sent: 16 November 2010 15:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ZOOARCH] Re : [ZOOARCH] Animal Writes - zooarchaeology of Pets

 

then again... poultry (FR poule) and hen (GER Huhn)...

Geraldine

 

De : Burke Ariane <[log in to unmask]>
À : [log in to unmask]
Envoyé le : Mar 16 novembre 2010, 16h 00min 45s
Objet : Re: [ZOOARCH] Animal Writes - zooarchaeology of Pets

I'm guessing low-status food... Except for quail (caille) and pheasant (faisan)?
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/
 

________________________________

From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites on behalf of Lee G. Broderick
Sent: Tue 2010-11-16 9:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Animal Writes - zooarchaeology of Pets



I'm sure most people on this list are aware of this, but the English "linguistic separation between meat  and the animal" is a result of the Norman conquest - the Anglo-Saxons tended the animals in life, but then served the prepared product to their Norman overlords, at which point they acquired the French word:



Cow > Beef (Bouef)

Sheep > Mutton (Mouton)

Pig > Pork (Porc)

Deer > Venison (Venaison)



Quite why this didn't affect the vocabulary relating to poultry I have no idea.



Best regards,



Lee G. Broderick.  BA (Hons), MSc, FZS

Zooarchaeologist

www.zooarchaeology.co.uk <http://www.zooarchaeology.co.uk/>



This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is private and confidential. If an addressing or transmission has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail.



We sweep all outgoing messages for the presence of computer viruses.

However, we cannot accept any responsibility for any loss or damage to your systems due to viruses or malicious code not detected.



From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jacqui Mulville
Sent: 16 November 2010 13:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Animal Writes - zooarchaeology of Pets



Thanks for the information provided by folk so far....

We have already done a workshop based around dogs and domestication, (youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOqTFgiUWVk <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOqTFgiUWVk>  and blog/website http://futureanimals.wordpress.com/ <http://futureanimals.wordpress.com/> ) . Dogs are good example as they are both 'pets', working animals and food - however I am keen to expand our range of examples to other species. 

We do have a challenge in that most modern day interactions with animals are based around pets and to a lesser extent food - (or CGI stories!) . Of course in the English our linguistic separation between meat  and the animal e.g. beef and cattle is also interesting (I remember the day my daughter could read duck in the supermarket - wanted to know why ducks were in there and then shrieked when I told her we ate animals - she thought beef/pork/sausages were an abstraction - and was strangely immune to chickens (I think feeding ducks in the park was more relevant to her)). 

Anyhow trying to come up with an appreciation of animals in society in 30 mins is a challenge, and in my experience of the 'future animals' dog focused work shop pets were the one thing everyone could (and would) talk about and it was remarkably easy to then move to discussions on the ethics of animal breeding and then to food production and security (and beyond). 

We will be creating some on-line resources relating to these workshops in due course and we also have a student event to broaden out the workshops to environmental archaeology  coming up soon http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=155858611112288 <http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=155858611112288> . 

In the meantime any more evidence for ancient pets will be most welcome....

Jacqui Mulville (PhD),

Follow - 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/ <http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/hisar/people/archaeology/jm1/> 

Tel: + 44 (0) 29 2087 4247
Fax: + 44 (0) 29 2087 4929

 



This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.