The Bioarchaeology of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire: Present and Future Perspectives
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This is a repository copy of The bioarchaeology of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire: present and future perspectives. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/1173/ Book Section: Dobney, K., Hall, A. and Kenward, H. (2000) The bioarchaeology of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire: present and future perspectives. In: Geake, H. and Kenny, J., (eds.) Early Deira: Archaeological studies of the East Riding in the fourth to ninth centuries AD. Oxbow Books , Oxford, UK , pp. 133-140. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 11 The Biomchaeology of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshe: present and future perspectives Keith Dobney, Allan Hall and Harry Kenward The Anglo-Saxon period in Yorkshire - in terms uf our There is, bowever, rather more information from ver- knowledge of hose questions which bioarcbaaologicnf tebrate remains from one of the ~ites,46-54 Hahergate. studies are conventiondly used to address - remains very Depodts associated with Anglo-Saxon occupation nt much an unknown quantity, Wecan hardly claim even to Fishergate (AlIison er al 19%) gave dixappointingly Iittie know whether thae questions are indeed appropriate in evidence for invertebrates, despite extensive sampling, the Anglo-Saxon period. To some extent this reflects the The samples were, in addition, subjected to large-scale nature of the Anglo-Saxon deposits so far encountemd, =view for biolapal remains, on the grounds that any in which preservation of the less durable organic remains substantial evidence of this date would be ofthe pest has been very limited. The nature of Anglo-Saxon jrnportanm in undarstanding the use of the site and occupation, with a bias towards mral settlements of a prhaps the wider nature of York at the period. Preserva- kind whicb have generally left only faint traces in the tion by nnoxic waterlogging was ~xxtraordinarilyrare, and ground, means that there are no deeply stratified richly charred and minetalked mated (other than dog wpm- organic deposits of the kind revealed in some Roman and Iites) was net much commoner. Viking Age phases in major urban centres, of which only Objects idcntifid as dog coproliks (or fragments of York is weIl known in the region. such) were quite numerous at Fishergate, particularly in The angloSaxon period thus presenw exceptional the earlier Anglo-Saxon phases. Some proved to contain challenges to the environmental arebaeologist, and ones eggs of the intestinal parasitic nematode worms Trichuris which closely parallel thoso for the Iron Age. It is a (whipworm) and (more rarely] Ascarls (roundworm), period for which the khd of assemblages traditionally proMly present ss a mu1 t of dogs eating human faeces. provided by bioarchaeologica1 studies m8 most urgently Only two insect assemblages of any useful sirs were needed. to define envim~lmcntand land use, resource detected. One was a ditch fill with aquatics (insects and expIoitation, living conditions, trade and exchange, as ephippia of Dapknih, Ceriadapkniaand at least one other well as aspects of craft-working and industrial activities, cladoceran),but there were no indications of mora than a In addition, the period in Yorkshire pmsents special few herba~usplants and thinly-dispe& organic problems concmning the status of individual rural or detritus in the mrrounding contexts. The second small ecclesiastical settlements, particularIy henature of York group of insects was raovered from a pit there were as a possible wk. rare occutfenees here of a limited fauna assdted with For the pnrposes of this paper (and in view of the human occupation. A modest numbw of other deposits at complexities of the archaeology of the 5th to l Jth Fishergate gave small numbof parasite. ew(Trichrk, centuri~s).we have dected to discuss only such biological Ascaris, or both), but only occrasiondly were the numbers material as .falls after the end of the Roman period (as suficiant to give clear evidence of the disposal of faces. generally accepted) and before the first significant waves The only 0th invertebrates were odd records of beetles of Scandinavian invasion in tfre mid Pth century. or fly puparia, and some Hde- type (soil nematode) cysts in one pit. Plant remains fkom Anglo-Saxon fishergate wera sparsa, and proservation was often only by chdng w York (in a fu W cases) though mineralisation.Few food plants Deposits of Anglo-Saxon (or putative Anglo-Saxon) date were ftcod,hough barley was present in 27 contexrs tit a small number af sites in York have been investigated (21%)and charred hazelnut in 16 (12%). Other cereals bioarchamlogieaily, but the evidence recovered is sligbt included oats and wheat, some of the latter being so far as invertebrates and plant remains are concerned. identified as bread wheat. There was also one context 134 Keith Dobney, Allan Hi xll and Harry Kenward with uncharred wheatlrye 'bran'. Pulses were represented indicates only limited exploitation of inshore coastal by mineralised remains of pea and field bean; hits were fishing (O'Connor 1991). few and included apple, sloe, blackberry and elderberry. At another site in York, the Bedern, the fills of a series" Two possible sources of oil were linseed and opium of pits cut through late Roman surfaces were investigated poppy, each recorded from single contexts. The remaining by Kenward et al. (1986, 268-2881. They are discussed taxa included a few weeds and wetland taxa; the rarity of here at some length in view of their considerableg the former is remarkable for an occupation site. Although implications for land-use in central York; the site is wi$n poor preservation may be an important factor here, even the areaof the Roman fortress, little more than 200 m from where there was 'waterlogged' preservation, remains of the Minster, the precursor of which was presumably close weeds - as remains of invertebrates - were still very by at the time these deposits were forming. Two of these scarce. pits were 'bell-shaped', around a metre in depth and It is not clear why this site gave so little preservation diameter, with distinctly undercut sides. One seemed to of uncharred non-vertebrate remains, bearing in mind its have been recut. Although the lowest primary fill of this low elevation and close proximity to the River Foss. pit was aImost barren of invertebrate remains, and yielded Anoxic waterlogging, although expected to have been only small numbers of plant remains of no particular widespread in such a situation, was in fact rare; the interpretative value, the upper one (radiocarbon dated to contrast in quality and quantity of preservation with other, ad 740-1-30, firmly within the Anglo-Saxon period) gave later, riverside sites at 6-8 Pavement and 16-22 Copper- a large and very unusual assemblage. This deposit was gate (Hall et al. 1983; Kenward and BaII 1995) is described as a 'peat', probably formcdfromgrasses, sedges remarkable. It is tempting to suggest that, in addition to or rushes, and contained seeds of Juncus spp. (rushes), the lack of waterIogging, there may have been a very low Carex spp. (sedges), Eleocharis palustris (spike-rush) rate of input of organic matter at Fishergate. Perhaps and Runanculus flammula (iesser spearwort), strongly most waste disposal here was into the river, or perhaps suggesting adamp groundlwaterside community. Aquatic the site was close enough to farms for waste to be removed beetles in modest numbers, together with some caddis as manure. Alternatively, if (as discussed by Kemp 1996) cases and Daphnia ephippia, indicated that there were this was a trading post, the nature, density, and perhaps periods when the pit held open water. There were many timing of occupation may have been such that little waste plant-feeding insects, including numerous individuals of was produced, the numerous pits perhaps being short- the froghopper Conornelus anceps, which feeds on Juncus. lived cesspits (in which the organic component was slight Beetles associated with decomposing plant remains were and able to decay rapidly) or dug originally for some abundant. It was suggested in the original report (Kenward other purpose entirely. Subjectively, the invertebrate and et al. 1986,273) that these decomposers may have lived plant remains from Fishergate suggest a low density of in plant litter on the surrounding ground surface, as true occupation, but the evidence relies too heavily on the synanthropes (species favoured by human activity) were negative to be reliable. absent. The vertebrate remains from the Anglo-Saxon deposits Re-examination of the species lists (Kenward et al. at Fishergate add much to the interpretation of the nature 1986, fiche table 120) with the benefit of hindsight and a of the site based on the excavationnl and artefactual revised classification of synanthropes among the beetles evidence. One of the most striking features of the suggests alternative origins. Mycetaea hirta and Ptinus vertebrate assemblage is the narrow range of animals fur were both rather common, and there was distinct represented, with very few birds (wild or domestic) or indication of a 'house fauna' community including, for wild mammals present. The assemblage is dominated by example, numerous Eathridius minutus group and the remains of mature cattle, which appear to have Xylodromus co~acinaus.Corticaria serrata, the most provided the basis of the settlement's subsistence.