[go: up one dir, main page]

Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Veronica Aniceti and Mauro Rizze1o, PhD students, University of Sheffield (UK) INTRODUCTION RESULTS The Roman fort and vicus of Castleford (West Yorkshire) occupied a strategic position on the river Aire, along a variant of the Ermine street. This study presents the zooarchaeological analysis of a faunal assemblage from the vicus. The results are interpreted and compared to paCerns of animal husbandry in Roman Britain. 1. NISP 100% 90% 80% cattle 70% sheep/goat 60% 50% pig 40% horse 30% 20% 10% 0% 70-90 AD 90-140 AD 3rd-4th c. AD ü The dearth of pig reflects cultural preferences ü The predominance of caLle in the early and mid-Roman periods is a very typical trait or Roman husbandry in Britain and reflects practical needs ü In the 3rd-4th c. AD caCle incidence is halved in favour of pigs and horse, suggesting a relaxation of specialised husbandry practices Roads and major se1lements in Roman Britain (left); geographic location of Castleford (right). THE SITE The chronology of the site has been divided in four phases, ranging from the late 1st to the 4th c. AD. No evidence from the Late Iron Age was found, suggesting that the site had been founded by the incoming Romans in the 70s during the military campaigns in northern England. FORT VICUS Phase I 70-90 AD Phase II late 80s-95 AD 90-140 AD Phase III 100-250 AD Phase IV 3rd-4th c. AD 70- 90 AD HISTORY 2. BIOMETRY 70-90 AD The log ratio histogram from Phase 2 shows the presence of larger animals than in Phase 1, suggesting an increase in the size of sheep. 90-140 AD In Phase 4 the distribution is almost bimodal and, as in the previous period, includes small animals as well as larger ones 3rd-4th c. AD First military fort and vicus Construction of a new fort 140-180 AD First abandonment of the fort, now used for waste disposal (no remains from this phase) 3rd-4th c. AD Last Roman occupation of the fort and vicus THE FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE The faunal assemblage here analysed was recovered from the southern part of the vicus and was not included in the main zooarchaeological study of the site by Berg (1999). The assemblage produced 866 recorded fragments and it was recorded following the diagnostic zone method. When the results from this assemblage and the main report by Berg (1999) are compared, it is possible to notice: ü a difference in the frequency of species during the late Roman period ü similar husbandry strategies for caCle, sheep and pig ü similar butchery paCerns on caCle remains HIGHER INTEREST IN MUTTON FOOD SUPPLY FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES log10 On the contrary, the size of caLle remains relatively stable during all periods. The Roman improvement of caCle originated in south-east Britain; evidence for Roman caCle improvement is much rarer in western and northern England. 3. BUTCHERY CaCle bones were intensively butchered during all phases. In Phase 2 there is a high incidence of butchered scapulae showing: ü ü ü ü hook marks on the blade several cut and chop marks on the blade and neck distal spine chopped off at the base trimmed glenoid cavity PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF CURED BEEF SHOULDERS This practice is typical of Roman butchery and originated from Roman Germany and southern Gaul. CONCLUSION Animal husbandry at Castleford presents most of the traits typical of rural seClements associated to Roman low-status military sites: such traits include a major focus on caLle for traction and meat, a low incidence of pigs and a specialisation of husbandry and butchery practices. In addition larger sheep were present since the late 1st c. AD. Sheep improvement would have required less labour and resources than the maintenance of large caCle. The evidence reported highlights some aspects of Roman husbandry practices. The paCern of change is evident since early times and is the result of both economic needs and cultural preferences. At the same time, it raises some issues regarding the nature and extent of ‘Romanisation’: spatial and temporal variations were the result of local needs, available resources, and practical and cultural preferences.