| Abstract: |
The twelve papers from the December 1986 conference are introduced by the first editor (1-12), who draws attention to the usefulness of animal remains for the study of diet and social status and for research on craft specialization; changes through time can be seen. Four criteria are given for distinguishing food remains from butchery deposits (etc). Terry O'Connor (13-23) in 'What shall we have for dinner? Food remains from urban sites' uses material from York and Lincoln to consider the implications of these deposits for the production and trading of animal-based food supplies, focusing in turn on towns as markets, animals as food, the various uses of cattle and sheep, livestock in town households, and hunting/fishing products. Jennie Coy (25-40) discusses, with reference to recent rescue excavations in Central Southern England, the retrieval of urban faunal samples (sampling, sieving) and the establishment of a strategy for project management before, during, and after excavation. The advantages of using fowl, instead of ungulate, bones for examining rubbish disposal strategies are set out. The importance of fish material and its careful retrieval is also stressed. In 'Social differentiation from animal bone studies' F Gerard Ijzereef (41-53) reports a comparison between animal bones from two areas in Amsterdam, one Jewish; the composition of the food remains provided more specific information on differences of social habits and class than did the artefacts. 'The effects of urbanization on human health: the evidence from skeletal remains' are considered by T Waldron (55-73), who examines the potential for detecting alterations in nutrition, in the pattern of diseases such as tuberculosis, in height, in age at death, in occupational diseases, and toxic exposures. He includes notes on the excavation of skeletons. Mark Maltby (75-106) takes the topic of 'Urban-rural variations in the butchering of cattle in Romano-British Hampshire'. Town butchers were using non-traditional, probably faster, methods o butchery as compared with their rural counterparts. 'Bone, antler and horn industries in the urban context' are discussed by Arthur MacGregor (107-28), who finds that the process of urbanization brought about sharp changes in the gathering of raw materials and on the dispersal of craft products. Comparison of the periods 8th to 11th century and 11th to 13th century shows that craft workers became more settled but also more reliant on the butchery trade for their raw materials; and new craft allegiances were formed. D Serjeantson's second piece (129-46) is on 'Animal remains and the tanning trade', discussing the use of hides and skins, furs, the physical remains of tanneries, and tools; groups of foot bones can sometimes betray the presence of a tannery. Philip Armitage (147-60) examines 'The use of animal bones as building material in post-medieval Britain', distinguishing between 'rational' and 'non-rational' use of such material. The practice is no earlier than 17th century and ceases abruptly at 1750 for economic reasons. His gazetteer of sites is given on pp 201-23. The cost-effectiveness and academic value of selectivity in bone analysis is argued by Bruce Levitan (161-88) in 'Bone analysis and urban economy: examples of selectivity and a case for comparison'. He shows, with reference to three sites in Exeter, that information about specialization and about processes and activities within a site can be obtained by this means. Terry O'Connor (189-200) also argues for selectivity in 'Deciding priorities with urban bones: York as a case study'; here it was a couple of million bones that enforced selectivity. |
