Typo! the link should be http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10561/

Thanks to everyone who has pointed this out

 

---

From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Richard H. Meadow [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 27 May 2013 18:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ZOOARCH] size diminution in cattle during the Medieval period in Europe

It has been years since I followed anything on this subject, so if you know of publications since 1977 concerning size change in cattle following the Roman period in Europe (esp. within what was
Roman occupied territory), I would greatly appreciate it. I guess that it is fairly well established that size increase in cattle took place in areas influenced by the Romans during the Roman period (I have seen recent literature on the subject), but not being plugged into the field, I am having trouble locating recent references to the situation in the Medieval period in relation to that during the Roman period. If you could send me references directly (not via the listserv), I will compile them and post them on the listserv. That will save some space in everyone's inbox.
The context for this is that, in the volume that Mindy Zeder and I edited and published in 1978, Boessneck and von den Driesch kindly included an article titled: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MEASURING ANIMAL BONES FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES in which they wrote the following (pp. 29 and 32-33):

To determine the effects of culture and environment, it is necessary to work period by period in documenting the size of domestic animals from the various assemblages. Only in this way will it be possible to investigate size change through pre- and early historic times (7). In central Europe, size change has been examined for pig and cattle through measurements of the molar row, the M3, and the long bones (e.g., Boessneck 1958a, pp. 70 ff., 94 ff.; 1958b; Boessneck et al. 1971, pp. 56 ff.). Figures 8 and 9 show examples. These diagrams include single finds as well as larger series and when one knows that the measurements used were assembled merely because they were available (although value was placed in completeness, cf. Boessneck et al. 1971, pp. 56 ff.), then it is indeed remarkable with what uniformity both figures, along with others not included here (ibid., Diagrams XX, XXXVII, and XXXVIII), show the development. Furthermore, these bones, coming as they do from different parts of the body, are surely often not from the same animals and, in part, are also from different findspots. The same kind of size-change pattern can be followed in parts of Europe outside of that included in the figures: in England (Jewell 1962, 1963), in the Iberian Peninsula (von den Driesch 1972), and in Thessaly (Jordan 1975). This decline in animal size until the effects of Roman influence became apparent was clearly far reaching and independent of cultural group. The following explanation has
been proposed by one of us (from Boessneck 1975a, pp. 178 ff.):
It is first of all the expression of an accommodation to living conditions under which the smaller size brings advantages. Although conscious selection of smaller animals, especially of smaller males, in the earliest stages of domestication for the purpose of easing the human relationship with the cattle cannot- be excluded, the primary reasons for the reduction in size must have been the shrinking of territory and altered selection pressure which, in a short period, reduced sexual dimorphism. Soon emphasis on numbers of animals as opposed to quality can be added as an additional factor, bringing as it did a situation where too many animals were kept for the land available and for the amount of fodder available in the winter. In various regions, especially in central Europe, can be added the fact that with population increase, the use of land for agriculture came at the expense of animal husbandry. Cattle became primarily dung and leather providers. This last development continued, for the most part, after Roman times and produced a size reduction up to the limits possible under simple conditions of animal keeping ••• [Fig. 8 and 9] ••• Where the Romans brought their cultural influence to bear strongly, there is a size increase evident in the animals. It is an expression of the first peak in selective animal breeding.

The question is whether this posited post-Roman size reduction actually occurred and, if so, whether it was highly site/region specific.

I am happy to supply anyone who asks me (again by individual email) with a copy of the Boessneck and von den Driesch 1978 article.

Many thanks.
Richard

Richard H Meadow