The neglected goat: a methodological approach to the understanding of the role of this species in English medieval husbandry

The study of the goat has been largely disregarded by British archaeologists, partly because there is a methodological problem related to the difficulty of distinguishing goat remains from those of the more common sheep, and partly because the relative rarity of this species during the Middle Ages has contributed to the perception that this animal was not important. Despite the fact that different methodological approaches have been proposed, problems still affect our ability to correctly differentiate sheep and goat bones. The most commonly used approach relies on morphological traits that have been established by analysing goat specimens from many different parts of the world, and not all of them may necessarily apply to British populations. In addition, these criteria are based on morphological differences whose assessment may be highly subjective. The development of a more objective methodology is of paramount importance in order to address the various historical and archaeological questions concerning the role of the English medieval goat. For instance, why is the goat commonly recorded in the Domesday Book when it appears to be so scarce in the contemporary archaeological record? Is it under-represented in the archaeological record or over-represented in the Domesday Book? Why is the goat, when identified in English medieval animal bones assemblages, almost exclusively represented by horncores? This study provides a new methodology that is based on a combination of two approaches: morphological and biometric. Through the study of modern reference material, a short-list of reliable morphological criteria has been defined and a new biometrical approach focused on translating, whenever possible, morphological differences into Biometrical Indices, has been tested for a variety of mainly post cranial bones. This has permitted the development of a more objective tool for the assessment of archaeological sheep/goat identification. The new protocol has then been then applied to three English sheep and goat medieval assemblages so that a reassessment of the role this animal played in the Middle Ages could be carried out. The results obtained have confirmed what many researchers have previously observed: the goat was not a very common animal. When identified, it is mainly represented by horncores, which are more numerous than those of the sheep; when postcranial bones are considered, sheep by far outnumbers goat. It is likely that the abundance of goat horns is a consequence of an international trade in goat skins (containing horns) while only a relatively small number of goats lived on British soil, probably to be used for small scale household consumption

A morphometric system to distinguish sheep and goat postcranial bones.

Distinguishing between the bones of sheep and goat is a notorious challenge in zooarchaeology. Several methodological contributions have been published at different times and by various people to facilitate this task, largely relying on a macro-morphological approach. This is now routinely adopted by zooarchaeologists but, although it certainly has its value, has also been shown to have limitations. Morphological discriminant criteria can vary in different populations and correct identification is highly dependent upon a researcher's experience, availability of appropriate reference collections, and many other factors that are difficult to quantify. There is therefore a need to establish a more objective system, susceptible to scrutiny. In order to fulfil such a requirement, this paper offers a comprehensive morphometric method for the identification of sheep and goat postcranial bones, using a sample of more than 150 modern skeletons as a basis, and building on previous pioneering work. The proposed method is based on measurements-some newly created, others previously published-and its use is recommended in combination with the more traditional morphological approach. Measurement ratios, used to translate morphological traits into biometrical attributes, are demonstrated to have substantial diagnostic potential, with the vast majority of specimens correctly assigned to species. The efficacy of the new method is also tested with Discriminant Analysis, which provides a successful verification of the biometrical indices, a statistical means to select the most promising measurements, and an additional line of analysis to be used in conjunction with the others

A morphometric system to distinguish sheep and goat postcranial bones.

Distinguishing between the bones of sheep and goat is a notorious challenge in zooarchaeology. Several methodological contributions have been published at different times and by various people to facilitate this task, largely relying on a macro-morphological approach. This is now routinely adopted by zooarchaeologists but, although it certainly has its value, has also been shown to have limitations. Morphological discriminant criteria can vary in different populations and correct identification is highly dependent upon a researcher's experience, availability of appropriate reference collections, and many other factors that are difficult to quantify. There is therefore a need to establish a more objective system, susceptible to scrutiny. In order to fulfil such a requirement, this paper offers a comprehensive morphometric method for the identification of sheep and goat postcranial bones, using a sample of more than 150 modern skeletons as a basis, and building on previous pioneering work. The proposed method is based on measurements-some newly created, others previously published-and its use is recommended in combination with the more traditional morphological approach. Measurement ratios, used to translate morphological traits into biometrical attributes, are demonstrated to have substantial diagnostic potential, with the vast majority of specimens correctly assigned to species. The efficacy of the new method is also tested with Discriminant Analysis, which provides a successful verification of the biometrical indices, a statistical means to select the most promising measurements, and an additional line of analysis to be used in conjunction with the others

Deposito rituale o deposito speciale? Il contributo dell'archeozoologia alla definizione dei contesti cultuali: alcuni casi di studio della preistoria e protostoria italiana

ItTroppo spesso l'etichetta di "deposito di natura rituale" è stata attribuita a quei depositi considerati speciali in quanto "diversi" rispetto a quello che viene considerato un tipico campione faunistico d'abitato. Ma un deposito speciale non è necessariamente un deposito rituale. È ben noto all'archeozoologo come in determinati casi, (i.e. resti rinvenuti in sepolture, o vere e proprie sepolture di animali), il carattere simbolico dei resti faunistici sia spesso chiaro e ricostruibile. Molto più arduo è invece rilevare il significato simbolico in contesti insediativi dove non sempre è possibile distinguere resti oggetto di deposizione intenzionale con finalità cultuali da resti faunistici legati ad altre attività di natura non rituale. L'archeozoologia concorre attivamente alla definizione del carattere eventualmente simbolico (i.e. cultuale, votivo, «religioso» etc.) di un sito, molto spesso confermando e integrando le conclusioni a cui si perviene attraverso gli studi di contesto e della cultura materiale. Questo contributo propone, attraverso l'analisi di alcuni casi-studio della preistoria e protostoria italiana, alcuni criteri utili alla definizione rituale di un sito. Le conclusioni a cui si perviene sono le seguenti: data la pluralità di forme con cui il simbolico si manifesta, l'etichetta "rituale" deve essere attribuita con molta cautela e soprattutto deve basarsi sull'integrazione delle informazioni di tipo archeozoologico con le altre evidenze disponibili contestualmente.EnToo often the label 'ritual deposit' has been given to those deposits which were considered 'special' because of their different nature compared to what we would expect from a typical faunal assemblage from a settlement. However, a special deposit is not always a ritual deposit. It is well known to zooarchaeologists that, in some cases (i.e. animal bones found in human burials or in so called 'animal burials'), the symbolic character of the faunal assemblages is clear and possible to reconstruct. However, much more challenging is defining the ritual value of some contexts when they are found in settlements. It is, in fact, very complicated to distinguish between remains intentionally deposited with a ritual aim and remains which are the result of activities of a non-ritual nature. Zooarcheology actively contributes to the definition of the possible symbolic ritual character of a site (i.e. ritual, votive, "religious" etc.) integrating and confirming conclusions drawn through the study of contextual information and material culture. This contribution intends to establish, through the use of case-studies from Italian pre and proto-history, useful criteria for the definition of a ritual context. The conclusions of the authors are the following: considering the variety of ways through which ritual manifests itself, the label of 'ritual deposit' should be attributed very cautiously and, as always, based on integration of the zooarchaeological evidence with all other available contextual information

El Diario de Pontevedra : periódico liberal: Ano XVIII Número 5080 - 1901 abril 30

<p>CH = <i>Capra hircus</i>; OA = <i>Ovis aries</i>.</p

ASTRAGALUS: Ratio between height of the central constriction (H) and greatest depth of the lateral half (Dl) plotted against a ratio between breadth of the distal end (Bd) and greatest length of the lateral half (GLl).

<p>CH = <i>Capra hircus</i>; OA = <i>Ovis aries</i>.</p

3^rd PHALANX: Diagonal length of the sole (DLS) plotted against the ratio between diagonal length of the sole (DLS) and the middle breadth (MBS).

<p>CH = <i>Capra hircus</i>; OA = <i>Ovis aries</i>.</p

Scapula: ASG (shortest distance from the base of the spine to the edge of the glenoid cavity).

<p>This measurement has been slightly modified from previous literature.</p

Calcaneum: c (length of the articular facet on the calcaneum taken where the articular facet starts to project out.

<p>This measurement can be tricky to take as in some specimens the articular facet coincides with the area that projects out, forming the <i>os malleolare</i>, in others the beginning of the articular facet is visible before it starts projecting out. For sake of consistency we decided to take it where the articular facet starts projecting out) and d (length from the articular facet to the articulation-free part of the process). Both measurements have been slightly modified from previous literature.</p