|
|
Associated Bone Groups
The majority of faunal assemblages are fragmented and biased by taphonomic factors. Therefore the interpretation of faunal remains by what could be called ‘social zooarchaeology’, has concentrated on specific types of faunal deposit. Faunal material recovered from archaeological sites is normally found in a state of disarticulation. Occasionally remains of an individual animal are found still in articulation. These types of deposits have long been noted in the archaeological record and have been subject to a number of descriptions, often heavily loaded with interpretation. Examples include ‘animal burials’ (Wheeler, 1943, 115) ‘butchery waste’ (Maltby, 1985), ‘culled deposit’ (Maltby, 1981), ‘fall victim’ (Maltby,1993), ‘feasting waste’ (Armour-Chelu, 1991), ‘sacrificial offerings’ (Ross, 1968) and ‘special animal deposit’ (Grant, 1984, 533; Wait, 1985, 122).
(Plan of dog ABG from Southampton, © J. Morris)
One of the most influential pieces of work on the subject was Grant’s (1984) study on the faunal material from the Iron Age hillfort of Danebury, Hampshire. A large number of articulated animal skeletons were encountered during the excavation. Grant (1984) labelled these as ‘special animal deposits’ and argued they resulted from a distinct type of ritual activity. Following on from Grant (1984; 1991) was Hill’s (1995) work on the nature of possible ‘special’ deposits within Iron Age pits from sites in Wessex. Hill (1995, 27), in order to be more objective in his analysis of these deposits, utilised the term Articulated or Associated Animal Bone Group (ABG). This countered the problem of using Grant’s term of ‘special animal deposit’. It removed the inherent assumption that the deposit is of a ‘special’ or ‘ritual nature’.
Previous studies of these ABG deposits have largely been limited to a single period and a small sample of sites. The majority of studies have also been concentrated on the Wessex region and have not examined in detail the osteological composition of these deposits. My thesis moved beyond these limitations. It investigated the nature of ABGs from the Neolithic to the Medieval period for the contrasting regions of southern England and Yorkshire. This was achieved by collecting detailed information on ABGs from publicly available sources and analysing it utilising modern database technology.
Overall, data from 2,062 ABGs was collected, 1,863 from the southern England region and 199 from Yorkshire. Although the majority of previous literature concerns Iron Age deposits, in fact the largest proportion of ABGs from both regions comes from Romano-British sites. Furthermore, their nature is highly variable within and between periods and regions.
The previous interpretation of these deposits was also an important factor to investigate. Currently, ABG deposits from prehistoric and Romano-British contexts are commonly viewed as the results of ritual activities. However, deposits of more recent date are more often considered to be the result of mundane actions. The review of previous literature shows that the interpretation of these deposits is changeable and linked to development in archaeological paradigms. The study collected data on ABGs published from the 1940’s onwards, allowing these changes in interpretation to be tracked and, importantly, to review the links between the nature of the deposit and its interpretation. Results show that the interpretation of these deposits is influenced by key publications and current period-based assumptions, with ritual interpretations often only given at a meta-level. For example, Iron Age deposits are seen as ‘ritual’, yet this does not provide information on the actions and the associated meaning and agenda which created them.
The research showed that each ABG is unique, and to apply a meta-level interpretation to all ABGs, even from the same period, would be inaccurate and inappropriate. A biographical approach to the investigation of these deposits was developed, which can lead to a more considered and informed view and can help us move away from a generalized interpretation. A biographical approach shows there is no standard type of ABG, which means there can be no standard interpretation. There are trends in the creation of ABGs, but each bone group is created by specific actions and it is the investigation of these individual events that moves us closer to the societies we wish to understand.
Please see my publication and presentation list for relevent literature on ABGs. If you require any further information please contact me.
Armour-Chelu, M. 1991. The animal bones. In. N. Sharples (Ed.). Maiden Castle; Excavations and Field Survey. London, English Heritage Archaeological Reports No.19, 131-151.
Grant, A. 1984. Animal husbandry. In. B. Cunliffe (Ed.). Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Volume 2. The Excavations 1969-1978: the Finds. London, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52, 102-119.
Grant, A. 1991. Animal husbandry. In. B. Cunliffe & C. Poole (Eds.). Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Volume 5. The Excavations 1979-1988: the Finds. London, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 73, 447-487.
Hill, J. D. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex. Oxford, BAR British Series 242.
Maltby, M. 1981. The animal bones. In. S. Davies. The excavations at Old Down Farm, Andover. Part 2 Prehistoric and Roman. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club, 37, 147-153.
Maltby, M. 1985. The animal bones. In. P. Fasham (Ed.). The Prehistoric Settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester. Winchester, Hampshire Field Club Monograph No.2, 97-125.
Maltby, M. 1993. The animal bone from a Romano-British well at Oakridge II, Basingstoke, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, 49, 47-76.
Ross, A. 1968. Shafts, pits, wells - sanctuaries of the Belgic Britons? In. J. M. Coles & D. D. A. Simpson (Eds.). Studies in Ancient Europe. Leicester, Leicester University Press, 255-285.
Wait, G. 1985. Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain. Oxford, BAR British Series 149.
Wheeler, R. E. M. 1943. Maiden Castle, Dorset. London, Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries No. 12.
|
