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
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