The Early History of the Turkey (Meleagris Gallopavo) in the Czech Republic

Home , Domestic turkey, Ocellated turkey, Pheasantry, Turkey (bird)

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00891-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

The early history of the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) in the Czech Republic

René Kyselý1 & Petr Meduna2

Received: 11 October 2018 /Accepted: 20 June 2019 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract The article evaluates all early archaeological osteological finds of turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) dated to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries AD in what is today the Czech Republic and offers an analysis and discussion of written historical sources. Altogether, 45 bones of turkey (Meleagris) from ten archaeological sites and a further six bones probably also of turkey (cf. Meleagris) are known from both sub-regions of the Czech Republic, that is, Bohemia and Moravia, and from a variety of contexts. Many of the bones originate from contexts of high social status (especially those from Prague Castle); interestingly, four of the ten contexts represent a clerical or monastic setting. The extensive sample from a range of geographical and socio- cultural contexts enables various analyses. Osteometrically, the early Czech turkeys, which probably weighed between 3 and 9 kg, resemble their wild ancestor. The management of breeding and slaughtering is reflected in the variety of ages and sexes. Cut marks undoubtedly suggest butchering and subsequent eating. The written sources from the end of the sixteenth and in the seventeenth century prove that turkey was on the menu of those of high social class, which we see from the earliest reliable written Czech record from 1578, which describes a festal menu for the wedding of Vilém of Rožmberk (Rosenberg), one of the most powerful men in Bohemia. Different sources suggest that either 450 or 600 turkeys were served at the feast. From as early as 1583, we have a written record, although an isolated one, which suggests the early spread of the turkey into the rural environment and among the lower nobility. Considering archaeological dating, historical records from 1578, and their absence from earlier records, the domestic turkey was probably introduced to and spread across the Czech lands as late as between the 50s and 80s of the sixteenth century. The history of the peacock—although later it would be replaced on the dining table by turkey—is longer; the first written record of its being bred in Bohemia dates from around 1125–1140. According to other records, the pheasant, another imported Galliform bird, was known in Bohemia in 1330. The keeping of the wild form of turkey is documented much later; certainly in 1801, but very probably already in 1781.

Keywords Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) . Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) . Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) . Bone finds . Osteometry . Diet . Historical sources

Introduction: turkey in a wider context Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00891-8) contains supplementary The turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), a large Galliform bird, was material, which is available to authorized users. domesticated or semi-domesticated before Christopher Columbus reached America; several subspecies of its wild * René Kyselý [email protected] ancestor were spread across a large area from southern Canada to southern Mexico (Crawford 1984, 1992; Petr Meduna Thornton 2016). Later—like the Muscovy duck, another do- [email protected] mestic bird of American origin—it spread across the world to become a significant source of domestic poultry in many 1 Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, countries. The turkey was brought to Europe quite soon after v.v.i., Letenská 4, 118 01 Prague, Czech Republic the discovery of the Americas by Europeans. It is supposed 2 Center for Theoretical Study, Joint Research Institute of Charles first to have been introduced into Spain, and later spread to the University and the Czech Academy of Sciences, Jilská 1, 110 other royal houses of Europe. The first reliable written 00 Prague, Czech Republic Archaeol Anthropol Sci reference to the turkey in Spain is from 1511 and in England particularly descriptions of the menus (the carte du jour) from 1541, although earlier references have also been sug- from the tables of the higher social classes. In an early gested (1497 in England, 1498 in Spain, and other dates) study, Kokeš (1974) suggested the likely presence of tur- (Kokeš 1974;Crawford1984, 1992;LefèvreandMarinval- key in central Europe as early as 1534, but we have found Vigne 1992; Plouvier 1995; Serjeantson 2009; Yalden and no support for such an early date in written records from Albarella 2009;Poole2010; Corona-M. 2013). A white feath- Czech history, and the date probably refers to the founda- er from one of the earliest turkeys imported into Italy in the tion of the Royal Garden at Prague Castle by Ferdinand I sixteenth century suggests the keeping of fully domesticated where the turkeys were kept, but obviously much later (cf. birds (Serjeantson 2009, 290). The earliest mention in France “house for Indian birds” from 1601, see below). The first is from 1534 (Serjeantson 2009, 290). In the mid-sixteenth completely reliable record refers to the year 1578, when, century, the turkey spread rapidly across the western regions depending on the source, either 450 or 600 (!) turkeys were of Europe (Zeuner 1963;Crawford1984, 1992). It is said to used in a huge banquet in Český Krumlov, South Bohemia, have been practically unknown in Germany before 1530, but for the marriage of Vilém of Rožmberk (Rosenberg), one by 1571, flocks were being reared on the Lower Rhine of the most powerful men in Bohemia and a candidate for (Zeuner 1963, 459). Its arrival in western, central and northern the Polish throne, to Anna Maria of Baden (Winter 1892, Europe as early as the sixteenth century is also confirmed by 80; Beranová 2007, 230–231). In 1587, at another wedding archaeological osteological finds from Britain (Albarella and feast for this aristocrat, 200 turkeys were served (Winter Thomas 2002;Poole2010), Hungary (Bartosiewicz and Gál 1892, 80). Although these two early cases may represent 2018), Germany (Benecke 1994a, 1994b;Küchelmann2014) brought animals, the frequency of further written evidence and Sweden (Tyrberg 2002). Later finds are documented in (see below) suggests that the bird was well known, and its other countries of central Europe such as Austria (seventeenth breedingprobablywellestablishedintheregioninthelast century; Adam and Kunst 1999) and Slovakia (tentatively quarter of the sixteenth century. However surprising these dated to the eighteenth century; Bielichová et al. 2019). The large numbers may appear, these particular turkeys com- earliest osteo-archaeological record from Germany is dated to prised only a small fraction (1.2% and 2.6% respectively) the first half of the sixteenth century (Benecke 1994a,188– of the total number of birds consumed at each feast 189, 381, tab. 51; 1994b, 392–394). These early imports in all (49,680 at the first; 7630 at the second). In the same year likelihood originated in Mexico; any potential imports from (1587), Stanislav Pavlovský, the bishop of Olomouc, North America could not have begun until at least the seven- hosted Prince Maximilian (the future emperor) in Vyškov teenth century, after that territory had been colonised. in Moravia, where five turkeys were served. This Problems surrounding the analysis of the introduction and accounted for almost half (45%) of the 11 birds consumed breeding of the turkey are complicated by the fact that not at the feast (Havlová 2009, 80). It is no surprise that tur- only domesticated birds, but also wild turkeys might have keys appeared in the court of Emperor Rudolf II Habsburg, been brought from America, but it is believed that the earliest as he is known for having been a collector of various exotic European archaeological finds represent the bred species at Prague Castle (such as lions, tigers, cheetahs, (domesticated) form, especially those finds located far from wisents, flamingos, ostriches, parrots, dodo, etc.). In the places of original importation. 1600, the emperor sent an unknown number of these birds, Although the basic scenario is well known, further details and others, to the ambassador of Florence (Havlová 2009, concerning the bird’s regional history are rare and very much 46). A year later, a special house for Indian birds is docu- needed. In this paper, we present an analysis of the early his- mented in the Royal Garden at Prague Castle (Bašeová tory of the turkey in the Czech lands based on archaeological 1991, 37), where they were presumably used as decorative osteological evidence and written sources. The paper provides birds. This was undoubtedly a house for turkeys since the a complete review of Czech osteological finds, including ma- turkey was called the “Indian”, “Indian bird” or “Indian terial yet to be published. cock” (in Czech, “indián”, “indiánský pták”, “indiánská slepice”, “indiánský kot”) in the Czech lands in the Early Modern Ages (Beranová 2007, 96). The locality Prague Historical records of the domestic turkey Castle–Riding School (Table 1) is close to this house and in the Czech lands and related topics to the pheasantry of Rudolf II, founded before 1600, so there could be some connection. Nonetheless, during the The earliest records of the domestic turkey, the “bird Rudolf’s reign, their presence was something of an excep- of the rich” tion; in the financial records of the imperial estates from the years 1603–1702, all kinds of livestock and poultry are The first historical mention of turkeys in the Czech lands listed, but there is no mention of turkeys (Kalousek 1905, corresponds to records from elsewhere in Europe, and 400). On the other hand, in 1629 the daily consumption of rhelAtrplSci Anthropol Archaeol

Table 1 An overview of the Czech sites containing bones of turkey (Meleagris), including dating and relevant references

Region Site Location Excavation Context (trench, ID Function of the context Dating References: original Material code feature, layer) determination/further literature revised

Bohemia B1 Prague Castle–North 1987, J.Frolík trench VI/2 (602A) 174 former stables of the Supreme deposited 1571–1621 R.Kyselý pers. obs./Kovačiková yes Promontory Master of the Czech et al. 2013b;Frolíkand Kingdom and a later Nemeškalová 1999 armoury Bohemia B2 Prague Castle–Courtyard 1928, “jímka D” (cesspit D) 1345 cesspit most probably 2nd half of R.Kyselý pers. obs./Borkovský yes III I.Borkovský the 16th–1sthalfofthe 1928 17 c. Bohemia B3 Prague Castle–Jiřské 1987, 680, 683 3094, 3098, house of armoury scribe 2nd half of Šamata and Kovačiková yes Square I.Boháčová, 3659 the16th–beginning of 2001/Blažková-Dubská 2007 J.Frolík, the seventeenth c. J.Žegklitz Bohemia B4 Prague Castle–Riding 1982–1983, foundation ditch, black 41 the Riding School built in 1694 or earlier, perhaps Peške 1985; Frolík et al. 1988 no School J.Frolík layer no. 4 1694 around 1600 Bohemia B5 Prague– Loretánské 1935, pit piercing medieval 13013 unclear probably 16th–1/2 Peške 1984/Boháčová and yes Square I.Borkovský grave, by the seventeenth c. Blažková 2011a,331; foundation with apse Boháčová and Blažková H171 2011b, 236a Bohemia B6 Prague–Náměstí 1998–1999, trench 15, feature 7/96, 15007, 15010, Capuchin Monastery 1630–1644, possibly Kyselý 2002 yes Republiky Archaia pit 15,026 15012 somewhat earlier Bohemia B7 Prague–Vyšehrad 1979, trench 173, 60–80 cm 4/79 area of the Dean’s Court 244 ± 22 BP (cal. Kyselý 2009 yes B.Nechvátal 1645–1665, P = 85, 1787–1792, P = 14,8)c Moravia M1 Olomouc–Prior 1973–1976, feature V/73 748/73, 685/73 cesspit in a burgher end of the 16th–beginning Kratochvíl 1985a,b/Bláha et al. no J.Bláha and? environment of the seventeenth c. 1998 Moravia M2 Olomouc–Křížkovského 1978–1979, settlement layer ? canonical residences sixteenth century Kratochvíl 1985a,b/Bláha et al. no Street J.Bláha environment 1998 Moravia M3 Ivančice 1980, well 1975/73 area of the former Unity of the until twenties of the Kratochvíl 1985a,b,c/Šebela and no L.Šebela, Brethren seventeenth c., most Vaněk 1985 J.Vaněk, probably in or around L.Belcredi 1623 a Evaluated as “Pavo cristatus?” in Peške (1984)andas“Pavo cristatus” in Boháčová and Blažková (2011a) b In the unpublished report tentatively determined as “cf. Meleagris gallopavo” c Dated in the Czech Radiocarbon Laboratory, sample CRL-17439A C. century, ID identification number Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Duke Albrecht of Wallenstein (the “first man of Bohemia” The domestic turkey in cookbooks and diet at the time) and his companions consisted of four turkeys and other birds (Winter 1892, 60), which suggests that the The gradual spread of turkeys can also be seen by examining bird had become a familiar part of the menu at some tables cookbooks of the day. The oldest Czech cookbooks (by Pavel in the country. Severin from 1535 and Bavor Rodovský of Hustiřany from 1591; Winter 1892, 16) do not mention recipes using turkey. The bird’s first appearance—in a recipe for “Sauce under the The domestic turkey in the countryside? Indian”—is in a compendium of recipes written in the first half of the seventeenth century as an appendix to a medical From around the same time, we can trace the spread of the work (Paříková and Cipeová 1995, 88). Within the wider, turkey into smaller towns in the region. The brief mention of a central European context, the turkey (“Indianischen han”)ap- dispute in 1583 between a knight, Burian Nostitz, and some pears in Marx Rumpolt’s Cookbook from 1581, which fea- butchers from Rakovník (Winter 1892, 16) contradicts this tures an overview of European regional cuisines. However, apparent trend of the gradual spread of reports on turkeys from the four variants (11–20 courses) of the feasts of the which mainly describe menus. The knight’s dogs are said to Bohemian and Hungarian kings, the turkey does not yet ap- have killed the butchers’ Indian cocks. The precise circum- pear on the menu (Rumpolt 1581,18–20). The slow spread of stances of the case are unknown, so we can only guess at what recipes that include turkey could be because the target reader- might have happened. Rakovník was a county town in Central ship of the cookbooks was largely the middle classes (bur- Bohemia and Nostitz was the owner of a small farm about ghers and the lower nobility). Furthermore, the turkey entered 12 km away (Sedláček 1891, 91). The incident may have Europe at a time when annual meat consumption decreased occurred in the city (perhaps at the market), or on the knight’s from 100 kg per person to 14 kg (between the fourteenth/ estate, or somewhere in the vicinity of Rakovník (for example fifteenth and eighteenth/nineteenth centuries; Montanari while the birds were being transported). Whatever the case, 2006). Poultry meat was not normally cured at that time and the story offers tangible proof that turkeys were known and an adult male turkey weighing even c. 10 kg and a half-weight probably being bred in a rural environment connected to the female turkey provided a quantity of meat that a middle-class lower nobility. Indeed, chronologically, this is the second family would have had difficulty affording at one sitting. mention of the presence of turkeys in Bohemia. In the wider Capons, weighing around 2 kg, were therefore the bird of context, it fits the trend of the takeover of the breeding busi- choice for eating in the Early Modern Ages, or less often geese ness (mainly of specialised fish and sheep) by the nobility of (c. 5 kg), either of which could be consumed in a single meal. central Europe in the sixteenth century (Macek 1992,63–84). Although the turkey might have been valued as a precious or Nevertheless, we have no other osteological or written data prestigious object in the early period after its introduction, the from the rural environment in the sixteenth and the beginning written records referred to above repeatedly suggest that it was of the seventeenth century. Breeding of the turkey by cotters is being consumed as early as the second half of the sixteenth shown in a later report which mentions the duty to supply 61 century (for various recipes from various European countries Indian hens to Ždár estate in 1638 (Kaplanová 2017,71).In in the sixteenth century, see Plouvier 1995). This corresponds 1659, Cardinal Harrach was entertained with three male and with the traditional exploitation of this bird for food in pre- five female turkeys in the town of Soběslav, South Bohemia Hispanic and Hispanic America (Lefèvre and Marinval-Vigne (Winter 1892, 89). The situation in the Czech lands was prob- 1992; Manin and Lefèvre 2016). Besides, in traditional Indian ably similar to other central European countries such as communities, and according to some sources even in Europe, Poland, where people added this bird to their stocks much eating turkey was recommended for health benefits and for later, in the eighteenth century (see Makowiecki and improved sexual performance (Corona-M. 2005, 2013). Gotfredsen 2002). Early finds (mainly from sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) from Britain demonstrate the same pattern, The domestic turkey in clerical contexts as only one of the 39 localities containing Meleagris bones represents a rural site; the others are described as “urban”, The repeated appearance of turkey in four different clerical “castle”, “wealthy” or “ecclesiastical” (Poole 2010). In the contexts (Prague–Náměstí Republiky, Ivančice, Vyšehrad, Czech lands, turkeys were first kept in the yards of the rich and Olomouc–Křížkovského Street; Table 1) suggests that (manorial yards); only later, from the second half of the nine- the turkey might have been eaten as Lenten food or might teenth century, did they spread among the peasantry. have played some other, perhaps aesthetic role. According to Interestingly, in the eighteenth century, turkeys were brought some historical sources, however, the recommendation at the regularly to markets in the autumn in Moravia and Austria time was that only fish and other cold-blooded animals could from the Balkans (Croatia, Slavonia and the Banat), and might be eaten during Lent (Nerušil 2007); other kinds of sustenance have been farmed as commonly as geese (e.g. Löffler 2016). were rare and depended on many factors. The use of turkey as Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Lenten food is therefore highly unlikely to say the least; we mandatory raising of peacocks is mentioned as early as the should rather consider it here as a festal meal (as mentioned Carolingian capitulary from 771 to 800 (Capitulare de villis above), together with other meat, including poultry and fish. vel curtis imperii LXX). Peacocks and peahens (“pavones However, the abundance of poultry in some monastic contexts cum pavonissis”)werekeptatZbyhnev’s manor in Únětice, (Ivančice and Prague–Náměstí Republiky, for example; Central Bohemia, from 1125 to 1140 (CDB I, no. 124, 129– Table 3) undoubtedly reflects their significant role in the diet. 131), which is the earliest written historical evidence from the In addition to the turkey bone from a cloister of the Czech lands. The presence of both sexes suggests breeding. Camaldolese order in Zobor (Nitra, Slovakia; Bielichová Earlier, the peacock was depicted on a bone artefact from et al. 2019), the presence and role of the turkey and other birds Budeč, Central Bohemia (Bartošková 1995), and on a metal on monastic menus is known from western European regions button from Prague Castle (Lumbeho zahrada; Smetánka et al. (Moreno-García and Detry 2010). From France, we know of 1973); both finds have been dated to the end of the ninth or the the turkey being referred to as “Jesuit” (Winter 1892;accord- early tenth century. The peacock was also depicted on buttons ing to Brillat-Savarin—possibly related to the Jesuits’ activi- from sites from the Great Moravian Empire (Moravia) from ties in America), and we read of Dominican “Jacobin pottage” the ninth century AD (Beranová 1980, 230; Anoškinová with turkey meat from the seventeenth century (after the 1995). In these cases, it is considered to be a motif adopted Dominicans of St. Jakob, Paris; Smith 2006, 31). The use of from the South. Later, the motif of the peacock was wide- turkey in the American feast of Thanksgiving—established by spread, and the peafowl is mentioned in various records. For Calvinists as a symbolic act—is considered a celebration of example, the use of peacock feathers on knights’ helmets is abundance, and Thanksgiving of course never overlaps with well known. Unlike with the peafowl, there is no evidence that Lent. To sum up, the occurrence of turkey in cloisters or other turkey or crane feathers were used in the Early Modern Ages clerical contexts relates mainly to alimental utilisation. The in the Czech lands. There are also no records suggesting the high proportion of ecclesial contexts from among the sites keeping of crane (Grus grus), another large and spectacular where turkey bones have been found (4 of 10 in Czech lands, bird, as guardians or for decoration, although such uses are 1 of 2 in Slovakia) could be a result of monks’ and clerics’ referred to in nearby Hungary (Bartosiewicz 2005), and its penchant for birds or archaeologists’ interest in these kinds of bones are present in Czech archaeological assemblages (see contexts. Online Resource 1 for further information on crane, and capercaillie, Tetrao urogallus, another large Galliform bird, The domestic turkey versus the peacock alongside the turkey and peafowl). Later on, of these only peafowl remained in use as a decorative bird in public gardens It would not be too much of an exaggeration to consider the and the gardens of the rich. peacock a competitor to the turkey (or vice versa), at least on the menus of the region. On the semantic level, the peacock is The question of wild turkey and pheasant an important bearer of Christian and Christological symbolism, a symbolism which gradually evolved over the course of Although we cannot exclude the occasional import of wild the millennium in the Old Continent, while the turkey was turkeys to Bohemia or Moravia in the Early Modern Ages, only likened to the peacock (see its name “gallopauus” in such imports do not appear in the historical record. the sixteenth century; Gessner 1555). While the peacock According to some written sources, the wild turkey ap- found its meaning in art, the turkey became allegorically per- peared in the Czech lands much later: earlier reviews sug- ceived as a symbol of the “discontent”, but, like the peafowl, gest from 1801 (Nové Hrady, South Bohemia; Kokeš 1974; became a component of festive tables and was used in luxury Andreska and Andresková 1993, 327–328; Mlíkovský dishes. From only a small number of written sources, we can 2006a). However, an earlier record—in a letter written by see a gradual decline of the peacock and an increase in the Earl Helfenburg in July 1781 and addressed to the hunting number of turkeys in the preparation of festive dishes during association in Český Krumlov (Kokeš 1974) —of a request the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. At the above- to buy four fallow deer and four turkeys probably concerns mentioned wedding of Vilém of Rožmberk (1578), the ratio wild animals; the earl is unlikely to have made a special of turkeys to peafowl might have been 450:350 (after request to hunters for domestic turkeys, already widely Beranová 2007). Keeping peafowl, however, predated the im- used for eating at that time, alongside the fallow deer. portation of the turkey. It was well known in the Roman This makes the association of the Czech finds from the Empire, from where it was adopted into Medieval Europe sixteenth–seventeenth centuries with the domestic form (Zeuner 1963;Kokeš 1988;Serjeantson2009). Together with plausible. On the other hand, the pheasant (Phasianus pheasant and crane, peafowl appear in the oldest medieval colchicus) —another Galliform bird introduced to Europe cookbook, from the beginning of the sixth century AD, as and having a similar role—was imported much earlier, but birds suitable for eating (Anthimus s.d. in Rose 1877). The in the Czech Republic is also yet to be documented in Archaeol Anthropol Sci osteological finds. It was known from very early elsewhere However, a button (gombík) from Great Moravian times in Medieval Europe, cf. Anthimus s.d. (in Rose 1877) from (ninth century AD) may, in our view, also depict the pheas- the sixth century AD and records in the Carolingian capit- ant, although the determination is uncertain (Anoškinová ulary from 771 to 800 (Capitulare de villis vel curtis imperii 1995: Figure1c). There are numerous records of LXX). According to Andreska and Andresková (1993, pheasantries and of keeping pheasants in later (post- 316–325) and Mlíkovský (2006b), the earliest written evi- sixteenth) centuries and the bird was abundant in the eigh- dence in Bohemia is from when Ludvík Bavor, Holy teenth century, but wild populations probably arose only in Roman Emperor, took a pheasant from Bohemia to the middle of the nineteenth century (Nováková 1955; Bavaria in 1330. This means the pheasant must already Andreska and Andresková 1993; Mlíkovský 2006b). On have been numerous enough in Bohemia. Some authors the contrary, the wild form of turkey, although frequently suggest it might have been present as early as the eleventh imported, and also managed and bred by huntsmen, never century and argue for linking its origin in the Czech lands became “naturalised” in the wild in the territory of the to Benedictine orders (Dyk 1942; Nováková 1955). Czech Republic (Mlíkovský 2006a).

Fig. 1 Map with the sites containing the bones of turkey (Meleagris). B1- Czech Republic (thick brown line—state border; thin brown line— Prague Castle–North Promontory, B2-Prague Castle–Courtyard III, B3- border between Bohemia and Moravia). The map in the box top right Prague Castle–Jiřské Square, B4-Prague Castle–Riding School, B5- shows the position of the Czech Republic in Central Europe (dark Prague–Loretánské Square, B6-Prague–Náměstí Republiky, B7- brown—Bohemia; light brown—Moravia; grey lines—state borders). Prague–Vyšehrad, M1-Olomouc–Prior, M2-Olomouc–Křížkovského The map in the box top left shows detail of the centre of Prague with Street, M3-Ivančice (the site codes correspond to codes in Tables 1, 2 distribution of the sites and 3 and Figs. 6, 9 and 10). The map below shows the whole Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Analysis of archaeological finds necessarily reflect the precise age from the point of view of reproduction or breeding. For bird anatomy and terminology, Sites, material and context see Serjeantson (2009). For literature concerning the sites and the material, see Table 1. For acronyms, see captions, espe- The osteological finds of turkey presented here originate from cially the caption to Table 2. Czech archaeological excavations and represent the osteolog- Most of the osteological finds from Bohemia were collect- ical evidence of this species in the Early Modern Ages that is ed and revised within this study. For bones that were available known to date in the territory of the Czech Republic (Table 1). for inspection, the identification was checked (see During the period in question, this country was part of the “Taxonomic determination” in Table 2) using the key of Holy Roman Empire under the rule of Habsburgs. Prague Tomek and Bocheński (2009) and comparative material (such was the most important cultural and political centre of what as a number of skeletons of Pavo, Meleagris and other rele- is today the Czech Republic; Prague Castle was the residence vant species from the zoological collections at the Institute of of kings, emperors and other important authorities. The coun- Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague, try consists of Bohemia (the western part of the country, incl. and Anthropos in Brno). The finds were inspected morpho- Prague) and Moravia (the eastern part), where Olomouc was logically and taphonomically in great detail. All available an important city. Although Prague and the Moravian cities finds were photo-documented (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7)and are not too far from each other (c. 200 km) and were part of measurements were taken after Bocheński and Campbell one empire, they could represent different cultural, political (2006) and von den Driesch (1976)(Table2). It should be and subsistence influences. The finds of Meleagris are from noted that Table 2 also includes selected metrics of juveniles ten locations distributed in three urban centres in both main and sub-adults to provide basic proportions (see notes “j” and sub-regions. In Bohemia, the locations are concentrated in the “s”). Most of the unavailable items, specifically the Moravian city of Prague; five of them are located close to each other in material, had been measured and photo-documented during or near the area of Prague Castle. In Moravia, they are from previous research (Kratochvíl 1985a). Dating is based on re- two towns, Olomouc and Ivančice. Details of the locations and lated artefacts found with the bones, especially pottery and contexts are noted in the list of sites (Table 1)andinFig.1. coins. Only one find (from Vy šehrad) was dated by radiocar- The finds from Prague Castle–Riding School, Ivančice, bon analysis (see Table 1). sites in Olomouc, and some of the bones from Prague– The Log size index (LSI) visualised in the graph was de- Náměstí Republiky are now lost or inaccessible. Altogether fined by G. G. Simpson (Simpson 1941) and reused in data from 51 bones determined as Meleagris or cf. Meleagris archaeozoology (Meadow 1999). It allows for the combina- were collected; 42 of these bones (specifically those from tion of measurements from various anatomical elements in Bohemia) were available for examination. Some of the mate- one metric calculated as: LSI = Log (a)–Log (b), with (a) be- rial has already been analysed and published (Ivančice, ing a decimal logarithm of the measurement taken from the Olomouc, Prague–Náměstí Republiky, Prague–Vyšehrad; sample and (b) being a decimal logarithm of the correspond- see Table 1 for references), but the present study also contains ing measurement taken from the reference skeleton. The skel- as yet unpublished or partially published finds. The latter in- eton of an old breed of turkey according to Manin et al. 2016) cludes a reappraisal of the finds from the area or vicinity of was used as the reference for the calculation of LSI, which Prague Castle Prague–Loretánské Square (as Pavo in Peške evaluates lengths (Fig. 9). Along with comparative analysis of 1984 and Boháčová and Blažková 2011a, 331); Prague bone lengths, statistics from breadth skeletal dimensions from Castle–Courtyard III, not yet mentioned elsewhere; Prague “wild”1 turkeys given in Martínez-Lira and Corona-M. (2016) Castle–North Promontory (Kovačiková et al. 2013); Prague were used for one-dimensional comparisons with the Czech Castle–Riding School published with no details (Frolík et al. finds (Fig. 8). In this paper, only measurements of the long 1988). bones of adult or almost adult individuals, considered fully grown according to the length of the bones, were used in Methods and terms graphic comparisons in Figs. 8 and 9.

In this paper, the Latin name Meleagris gallopavo (otherwise Taxonomy named Meleagris gallopavo f. domestica)isusedforthedo- mestic turkey (in line with Serjeantson 2009 and other The review revealed 45 bone finds from ten archaeological relevant publications). The shorter term Meleagris is used contexts reliably determined taxonomically to be of for Czech finds, and it is believed that only the domestic form Meleagris gallopavo. Three of these contexts contain a further was present in these early times (see Introduction and “ ” “ ” “ ” Discussion). The terms adult , sub-adult and juvenile 1 In this paper, we will use the term wild for turkeys living in the wild, which in are used to describe the appearance of the bones and do not present-day terms can also mean naturalised, feral, or semi-domesticated birds. Table 2 A list of osteological finds of turkey (Meleagris)orpotentialturkey(cf.Meleagris) from the Czech Republic including anatomical determination, ageing and measurements

Site ID Taxonomic Anatomy Side P. Ind. Note Metrics according to Bocheński and Cambell (2006), in mm Other metrics, in mm code determination age ABCDEFGHIBp*Bd*BpBbDpDipSCDd

B1 174 M.g. rev. TMT df d 2 SA no spur, 85.4 ♀ B2 1345 M.g. rev. COR s2J 19.8j dist. B2 1345 cf. M.g. rev. FEM d 1 J 21.7j 18.7j B2 1345 M.g. rev. FEM s 1 J 103j 24.6j 20.6j B2 1345 M.g. rev. FEM s 3 J 23.6j prox. B2 1345 M.g. rev. HUM s 1 J 102.8j 25.8j 20.9j B2 1345 cf. M.g. rev. STER 5J rost. B2 1345 cf. M.g. rev. SYN 1 J? B2 1345 M.g. rev. TIB d2J 26.2j prox. B2 1345 M.g. rev. TIB d2J 21.7j prox. B2 1345 M.g. rev. TIB s3J 25j prox. B2 1345 M.g. rev. TIB s2J 27.1j prox. B2 1345 M.g. rev. TIB s2J prox. B3 3094 M.g. rev. COR df s 3 A 10.7 B3 3659 M.g. rev. HUM s 5 A 3 cuts 29.5 12.4 28.3 prox. B3 3098 M.g. rev. HUM s 5 SA 24.8 12.9 8.1 dist. B3 683 M.g. rev. TIB d 4 SA chop 8.8 6.4 B3 683 cf.M.g.rev. TIB s 5 SA B4 41 M.g. unrev. SCAP d B5 13013 M.g. rev. COR d 2 S 10.1s B5 13013 M.g. rev. TMT d 1 SA no spur, 111.7 19.6 11.8 8.5 5.1 20.4 11.5 9.5 13.5 ♀

B5 13013 M.g. rev. TIB d 1 SA ♂? 190.7 22.8 11.3 9.3 21.1 19 20.5 Sci Anthropol Archaeol B5 13013 M.g. rev. TIB s 1 SA ♀?, 3 157.6 18.6 10 7.4 17.7 15.2 cuts B6 15007 M.g. rev. CMC s4SA dist. B6 15007 M.g. rev. COR d 5 S 10.5 s rost. rhelAtrplSci Anthropol Archaeol Table 2 (continued)

Site ID Taxonomic Anatomy Side P. Ind. Note Metrics according to Bocheński and Cambell (2006), in mm Other metrics, in mm code determination age ABCDEFGHIBp*Bd*BpBbDpDipSCDd

B6 15007 M.g. rev. COR s 3 SA 31.6 10.4 rost. B6 15007 M.g. rev. COR s 2 JS 10.2j 24j 6.1j caud. B6 15007 M.g. rev. FEM d5SA♂?, 5 21.5 dist. cuts B6 15007 M.g. rev. FEM s 3 S 23.2j prox. B6 15007 cf. M.g. rev. FIB ? 1- SA B6 15012 M.g. rev. HUM d 3 JS 22.5js 11.4js 10.9js 8js dist. B6 15010 M.g. unrev. HUM d 1 S 128.1 s 12.9 s 9.3 s B6 15010 cf. M.g. unrev. HUM df s 4 S B6 15007 M.g. rev. MDB d3AA rost. B6 15012 M.g. rev. MDB d 2 AA 6.7 3.2 8.5 caud. B6 15007 M.g. rev. RAD s3SA 11.93.6 dist. B6 15007 M.g. rev. RAD s 3 SA cut? 8.6 7.3 4.5 prox. B6 15007 M.g. rev. SCAP d 2 SA 26.3 15.9 7.1 prox. B6 15012 M.g. rev. STER 5AA rost. B6 15007 M.g. rev. TIB s 2 S 18.2 s 27.3 s prox. B6 15007 M.g. rev. ULNA df d 4 SA B6 15007 M.g. rev. ULNA d 2 A 24.2 18.3 15.4 7.4 9.8 prox. B6 15007 M.g. rev. ULNA s 1 SA 124.1 23.5 17.6 16.1 6.8 9.5 15.8 13 9.7 B6 15010 M.g. unrev. ULNA s 4 S 15.7 s dist. B7 4/79 M.g. rev. HUM d 2 S cuts? 30.7 s 12.1 s 8.7 s 28.9 s prox. M1 ?? M.g. unrev.** FEM ? 1 A? 106.3 96.6 10 24.4 18.6 26.7 16.5 M1 685/73 M.g. unrev.** HUM s 1 A? 126.2 12.9 27.6 34.2 M1 748/73 M.g. unrev.** HUM s 1 A? 113.2 12.5 25.3 32.7 M2 M.g. unrev.** FEM ? 1 A? 116.4 107 10.8 26.6 20.7 27.4 17.8 M2 M.g. unrev.** TIB dist. ? 3 A? 22.5 18 9.7 Archaeol Anthropol Sci s six finds which in all likelihood represent the same species (cf. Meleagris gallopavo). For further detail, see Table 2. diaphysis,

ulna; side: Osteometrically and osteomorphologically, peafowl (Pavo df

ination as M.g cristatus) bear the closest resemblance to the turkey. The finds ULNA ),2006 Bp, Bb, Dp, analysed were carefully compared to a recent skeleton of Pavo agment; Ind. age (= cristatus and the key of Tomek and Bocheński (2009) but max.

coracoideum, none was determined as peafowl. Furthermore, this species Dd distal depth; letters is not recorded in any other analysed and published assem- COR blage in the Czech Republic, which suggests the relative rarity 1967 ), tarsometatarsus,

ski and Campbell ( of peafowl compared to the turkey in the seventeenth century ń caudal,

TMT and reduces the probability that some uncertain finds in Table or Bacher

caud. 2 belong to Pavo. The capercaillie is the only other Galliform bird similar in size to the turkey which could be present in the 1976

tibiotarsus, context (cf. Online Resource 1), but its bones could be

TIB distinguished more easily from the turkey. Inclusion of the

I according to Boche Czech material in the evaluation on infra-species level, using – osteometric and DNA analyses of European finds, is planned unrevised; anatomy: sternum, for the near future. unrev. STER Dating ogical details in the published photos correspond well to determ 11 24.8 19.3 27.5 revised, scapula, Dating of the finds suggests a narrow range between the end rev. of the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth juvenile; measurements: A SCAP J century. Only a single find was stated to be only from the ski and Cambell (2006), in mm Other metrics, in mm sixteenth century (Olomouc–Křížkovského Street); others rostral, might either be from the sixteenth or seventeenth century, or ents are of uncertain method (either after Driesch rost. perhaps even later (Table 1). All the evidence points to the turkey being well used in the Czech lands at the turn of the Meleagris gallopavo, radius, juvenile/sub-adult, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The concentration of the JS M.g. 100.5

RAD finds, mostly from the end of the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth century, suggests that the turkey was unknown or

ABCDEFGHIBp*Bd*BpBbDpDipSCDd at least extremely rare in the earlier part of the sixteenth cen- sub-adult, S proximal, tury (perhaps the first 60 years). The lack of finds from later 10 periods seems unusual, but can probably be explained by the and prox. Note Metrics according toń Boche 9 relatively small amount of processed osteological material , 6

, from the eighteenth and later centuries in the Czech Republic. 1 age

mandibula, Contexts of the finds and Figs. MDB 3

: 1 = whole bone element, 1- = nearly whole element (damaged), 2 = ca ¾ of bone, 3 = ca ½ of bone, 4 = ca ¼ of bone, 5 = small fr In many cases, the contexts are indicative of higher social and sub-adult/adult (almost adult), 1 status. Prague Castle was the most important centre of politi- humerus, SA cal power in the country; Vyšehrad was another important measurement of sub-adult; **although unrevised, metrics, size indexes and morphol identification number; taxonomic determination: Anatomy Side P. Ind. 1976 ), Bp* (prox. breadth) and Bd* (dist. breadth) measurem s centre; Olomouc contained a Bishop’s residence. The finds ID HUM from Prague Castle include those from the house of the armoury scribe (Blažková-Dubská 2007) and finds from the fibula, former stables of the Supreme Master of the Czech FIB Kingdom (in Latin supreme magister curiae), the second most Moravian sites, determination M adult or probably adult, important official of the Czech Kingdom, and a later armoury femur, A dextra (right); P. (= preservation) (Frolík and Nemeškalová 1999). Finds from Prague–Náměstí d measurement of juvenile, j

FEM Republiky—a refuse site from the Capuchin Monastery— (continued) ID Taxonomic represent a clerical setting (Kyselý 2002). Interestingly, turkey

distal, bones can also be linked to important ecclesiastical bodies in Bohemian sites, sinistra (left), individual age): M3 1975/73 M.g. unrev.** FEM ? 1 A? Dip, SC according to von den Driesch ( š after values: dist. The site codes correspond to codes in Tables B Table 2 Site code the case of the site at Vy ehrad (the deanery; Nechvátal 2009) Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Fig. 2 Turkey (Meleagris)bones from Prague Castle–North Promontory (a), viewed from three aspects, and Prague Castle– Jiřské Square (b). See Tables 1, 2 and 3 for further information. Scale: 1 piece = 1 cm. Photo: R. Kyselý

and the Moravian sites at Ivančice, a significant centre of the the largest accumulation from Prague–Náměstí Republiky. Unity of the Brethren (Šebela and Vaněk 1985), and Although the anatomical representation fits the assumption Olomouc–Křížkovského Street, representing the residences that the larger elements have a better chance of being pre- of church canons (Bláha et al. 1998). The last location repre- served and are therefore represented in greater numbers sents the environment of burghers in the city of Olomouc, an (Kyselý and Meduna in print), the dominance of the hind limb important urban centre in Moravia. For more detail, see (especially tibiotarsus) in Prague Castle–Courtyard III and the Table 1. underrepresentation of the same limb (especially tibiotarsus) in Prague–Náměstí Republiky is interesting. The actual num- Taphonomy ber of individuals represented could thus be much larger than the displayed MNIs, given in Table 3. None of the bones show The material shows a moderate amount of fragmentation; signs of burning or gnawing, but five bones display cuts, four some of the long bones are complete (see column “P.” in of these clearly caused by butchery or food preparation. All Table 2 and Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5). Skeletons or articulated bones cases show disarticulation of certain joints: (1) the transverse were not observed in any of the cases and the assemblages are cuts on the distal joint of the tibiotarsus from Prague– parts of settlement waste, so we are not able to assign the Loretánské Square show the separation of the tarsometatarsus bones to particular individuals. This is even the case with (lower leg) from the tibiotarsus (shin), which could suggest

Fig. 3 Turkey (Meleagris) bones from Prague Castle–Courtyard III, including three bones of uncertain determination. Others as in Fig. 2 Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Fig. 4 Turkey (Meleagris)bones from Prague–Loretánské Square (a)andVyšehrad (b), the latter viewed from three aspects. Others as in Fig. 2

removal of the distal non-consumable (non-fleshy) parts; (2) proximal articular surface of the humerus from Prague Castle– similarly, the clear transverse chop separating the distal epiph- Jiřské Square separated a wing from the body (Fig. 6). Further ysis of the tibiotarsus from Prague Castle–JiřskéSquarecould small marks on the proximal diaphysis of the radius, under its suggest removal of the non-fleshy parts; (3) the transverse cuts caput, from the Prague–Náměstí Republiky specimen, and in the transitional zone between the diaphysis and the distal marks on the proximal joint of the humerus from Vyšehrad epiphysis of the femur from Prague–Náměstí Republiky show may also be intentional cuts but this interpretation is uncertain, the separation of the shin from the thigh, which could suggest so the pieces were not included in Fig. 6. However, the cuts portioning of the meaty parts; and (4) the transverse cuts on the generally suggest butchering of the birds for consumption.

Fig. 5 Turkey (Meleagris) bones from Prague–Náměstí Republiky, including two bones of uncertain determination. Others as in Fig. 2 Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Fig. 6 Photo-documentation of the cut marks and chop marks— indicated by the arrows—on turkey bones, also depicted in Figs. 2b, 4a, 5 and 7 (B3-Prague Castle–Jiřské Square, B5-Prague– Loretánské Square, B6-Prague– Náměstí Republiky, cf. Table 2). The site codes correspond to Table 1, 2 and 3 and Fig. 1.Others as in Fig. 2

Age, sex and metrics shaft (calculated using means according to Steadman 1980; Thornton et al. 2012). Relatively large differences in size, The material clearly represents individuals of various ages. unrelated to age, were found within the Czech assemblages. Some contexts included the remains of birds of different ages In the given limited geographical and historical context, we do (juveniles, sub-adults, adults) (Prague–Náměstí Republiky); not expect the co-existence of two or more breeds of turkey in other contexts only juveniles (Prague Castle–Courtyard strongly differing in size, although it is an assumption that will III) or sub-adults (Prague–Loretánské Square) are present. be analysed in a future investigation. We thus expect the size No very young individuals were recorded, but they might differences in sets of grown bones are because of sex dimor- have gone unrecognised as their bones are more fragile and phism. For example, the difference between two tibiotarsi at this age do not have features distinguishing them from other from the same context, Prague–Loretánské Square, differing Galliform birds. However, young birds and birds of reproduc- in length by 21% (157.6 mm and 190.7 mm; Table 2; Fig. 4a), tive age are both present. Although the adults may originate corresponds well with the size difference between sexes; the from various parts of the year, no medullar bone—potentially bones are likely, therefore, to represent a male and a female. It indicating killing during the reproductive cycle—was ob- is possible that a difference of c. 11.5% in the length of both served in the fragmented finds. Turkeys reproduce in late win- humeri in Olomouc–Prior also reflects sexual dimorphism. ter or spring; they take 7–12 months to grow to adult size, but Neither of the tarsometatarsi present in the material, which only 7–8 months to reach reproductive age. Although we can- are of sub-adult/adult age, bear any signs of a spur so probably not ascertain from these temporal patterns and from the ap- belong to females (photos in Figs. 2a and 4a). pearance of the juvenile or sub-adult bones when exactly dur- Metric data from archaeological sites in the Czech Republic ing the year the birds died, we can suggest that individuals (Table 2) enabled an evaluation of the size and size variability killed in the late summer, autumn or perhaps winter are and a comparison of early Czech turkeys with a wild turkey. This present. was carried out using breadth dimensions (Fig. 8) and using Sexual dimorphism in the turkey is strong (Bocheński and length dimension transformed by LSI technique (Fig. 9). Campbell 2006; Serjeantson 2009;Thorntonetal.2012; Including a wild male turkey individual in Fig. 9 allows us to Manin et al. 2016). The average weight of a wild female is see the variability within one individual in the LSI distribution. only 56% of the average weight of a wild male (based on Based on these comparisons, the sizes of the turkeys from the Dunning 2008). The inter-sex difference in the size of the Czech Republic are mostly within the variability seen in wild bones of Meleagris meleagris is c. 19–22%, if based on var- Mexican turkeys, Meleagris gallopavo, with two exceptions of ious length dimensions and the dimensions of proximal or smaller humeri, one of them possibly from a sub-adult individual distal ends, or mainly around 25% if based on diameters of (if compared with data from Martínez-Lira and Corona-M. 2016; Archaeol Anthropol Sci

valuesarereportedbysomeauthors(upto12.5kginmales; Schemnitz and Zeedyk 1992). The weight of an adult male of Meleagris ocellata is c. 4–5 kg and an adult female c. 3–4kg (Lint 1977; Gonzalez et al. 1996). So, although we do not have equations calculating weight from bone dimensions at our dis- posal, we can, based on the logic of the observations described, assume that the measurements obtained from Czech material correspond to smaller or medium-sized breeds with weight between 3 and 9 kg.

Frequency

The frequency can be compared with other domestic poultry such as goose (Anser) and chicken (Gallus); the available data and results are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 10. Based on this comparison, we can conclude that the bird’s role was only marginal, except perhaps in certain special locations or during exceptional events—as indicated by the osteological finds from the former Capuchin monastery in what is now Prague–Náměstí Republiky. Since this compares only the sites containing the bones of turkey, the proportion of turkeys in the overall view is significantly smaller. Being placed in the house for “Indian birds” adjacent to Prague Castle (see above, sec- tion 2.1) suggests that after introduction, the bird might have been used as a “spectacular” bird. Nevertheless, cuts on at least four bones from three sites (Fig. 6), and perhaps also the low age in many cases (e.g. in Prague Castle–Courtyard III; Table 3), suggest the bird was eaten. Further evidence of its having played a part in the diets of certain people was found Fig. 7 Prague Castle–Jiřské Square—pathology and chop mark on distal tibiotarsus, viewed from two aspects (same as in Figs. 2b and 6). Others in various written historical sources. In the archaeological as- as in Fig. 2 semblages we have compared, turkey bones usually represent up to 1.5% of all bones and up to 6% of domestic fowl (Table 3, Fig. 10). Correspondingly, at the wedding of Vilém Fig. 8). The shaft cross-dimensions of the Czech sub-adult/adult of Rožmberk in 1578 (see above), the ratio of turkeys to geese tibitotarsi, if compared with Thornton et al. (2012: Figure 4), also and chickens served at the wedding meal was 1:10:4 (after correspond with the variability in the wild turkey, Meleagris Beranová 2007, rounded), and the corresponding ratio of gallopavo, and two Czech tarsometatarsi, probably of females fowls ordered for the funeral feast in honour of Petr Vok of (see above), fall within the intermediate size between Meleagris Rožmberk in 1612 was 1:5:50 (after Pangerl 1875,rounded). gallopavo females and males. Very large or very small individ- At Krumlov Castle (southern Bohemia), random samples of a uals were not recorded among the fully-grown animals. The day’s supply to the kitchen in 1592 included 3 turkey, two relatively large variation compared to one individual (the wild geese and 28 chicken; on another day, one turkey and 27 male; Fig. 9) again suggests the presence of both sexes. The chickens; and on the following 6 days, no turkey but a number comparison shows that the size of early Czech finds corresponds of chickens (Sedláček 1884, 56). Another source, from one to the size of the wild ancestor, even if does not reach its maxi- kitchen in Hradec in 1589, shows a menu for a week of recipes mum values (see Figs. 8 and 9). Some values also fall into the which included three ducks and one turkey (Beranová 2007, upper region of the metric span of the ocellated turkey, Meleagris 247–248). But, for instance, for the court of Svachov near ocellata (cf. Martínez-Lira and Corona-M. 2016 and Thornton Velešín (southern Bohemia), it was stated in the urbary from et al. 2012). The average weight of an adult wild Meleagris the end of the sixteenth century that ideal breeding numbers gallopavo is 7.8 kg (with a range between c. 6 and c. 10.5 kg) are 25 turkeys, 10 geese, 120 capons, 250 hens and so on (the in males and 4.3 kg (3–6.5 kg) in females according to Dunning urbary of Nové Hrady, according to Schusser 2009); so, the (2008) and Schorger (1966,tab.10).Forthesub-speciesM.g. relevant ratio here is 5:2:74, and turkeys would predominate mexicana—being larger than M.g. gallopavo—somewhat larger over geese. Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Fig. 8 Evaluation of the size of the Czech finds of turkey identified by red humerus—BpaccordingtovondenDriesch(1976); ulna—D; crosses compared to Mexican “wild” turkeys, Meleagris gallopavo,using tibiotarsus—E; tarsometatarsus—F according to Bocheński and dimensions of proximal (prox.) or distal (dist.) ends of bones. Size spans Campbell (2006)consideredsameasBp(Dofulna)andBd(E,Fof of Mexican turkeys are represented by vertical black lines based on data tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus) according to von den Driesch (1976); according to Martínez-Lira and Corona-M. (2016), measured according prox. breadth of femur is also included despite some uncertainty on mea- to von den Driesch (1976). Dimensions used for the Czech finds are: suring method (probably by von den Driesch 1976); data from Table 2

Conclusion seventeenth centuries AD (Table 1), which corresponds to the earliest local historical records. A total of 51 bone finds attrib- Osteological evidence shows that the turkey was well known uted to Meleagris/cf. Meleagris, representing a minimum of in the Czech lands at least by the turn of the sixteenth and 18 individuals originating from ten archaeological sites,

Fig. 9 Evaluation of the size of the Czech finds of turkey (left: metric and acronyms from Table 2)comparedtowildmale turkey individual (right: skeleton MNHN-ZO-1893-7) by LSI technique (see Methods for calculation). The same longitudinal dimensions of the Czech finds and the wild turkey were involved in the calculation of LSI (crosses). As the reference (the zero on the y-axis), a female of a little differentiated turkey breed was used (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo, skeleton MNHN-ZO-A-4433). Measurements of both turkey skeletons from MNHN according to Manin et al. (2016,tab.S4). CR = the Czech Republic Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Table 3 Quantification of Meleagris bones compared to other domestic Table 1. Quantified by number of bones (N) and minimum number of birds and other determined bones found together with Meleagris in the individuals (MNI). Gallus–chicken, Anser–goose, det. determined respective contexts. For the respective contexts and acronyms, see

Site Site Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Other osteological material in the context code NN N sub-totals MNI Gallus Anser All Note (cf.) total (N) (N) det. N N N bones adult sub- juvenile (N) adult

B1 Prague castle–North 1 11 1 12 4 499 material dominated by medium-sized Promontory mammals, and including domestic mammals, Cervus, Capreolus, Gallus, Anser, Anas, Cygnus, Tetrao, Bonasa, Cyprinus and other fish B2 Prague Castle–Courtyard 93 9–12 12 3 ? ? ? full composition unknown, but also fish III bones present B3 Prague Castle–Jiřské 41 4–54–5 2 154 37 914 almost 20% (N = 191) of identified Square bones come from domestic poultry, which is thus represented comparably to cattle B4 Prague Castle–Riding 1 1 1 2 1 20 including few domestic animal bones School and ulna of Perdix perdix B5 Prague–Loretánské 4 44 2 ? ? ? also 3 sheep/goat and one undetermined Square bone labelled with the same ID (13013) B6 Prague–Náměstí 19 2 19–21 4–10 7–12 4 250 82 1538 include large portion of calf, poultry and republiky fish (Cyprinus, Esox) bones (details in Kyselý 2002) B7 Prague–Vyšehrad 1 11 1 ? ? ? material mixed M1 Olomouc–Prior 3 3 2 30 18 331 incl. mainly cattle, but also 48 bones of domestic poultry M2 Olomouc–Křížkovského 2 2 1 ???nodetails street M3 Ivančice 1 1 1 16 53 151 altogether 1074 bones, incl. mainly cattle, but also 86 bones of domestic poultry TOTAL 45 6 45–51 8–16 12–18 12 18 464 +? 195 + 3453 + ? ? makes the Czech lands exceptional in the central European Rožmberk (Rosenberg), one of the most powerful men in context (Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5; Table 2); much less osteological Bohemia, a feast which involved the consumption of 600 (or material is available from other central European regions. 450) turkeys. The high frequency of turkey bones in clerical Relatively frequent finds from various, even distant locations, contexts (four of the ten analysed archaeological contexts; and the occasional relatively larger accumulation of bones, Table 1) is probably a result of the high frequency of poultry often representing more than one individual, suggest it was in the diet of monks and clerics and also of the interest of relatively widespread at the time (Fig. 1; Table 3). It should be archaeologists in these kinds of contexts, rather than a reflec- stressed, however, that the finds originate from locations that tion of turkey being used as Lenten food. The early spread of indicate high social status or at least a social environment of the turkey into the rural environment among the lower nobility medium status. This may mean that this type of poultry was a is suggested by an isolated written record from 1583. luxury commodity rather than something ordinary and avail- Considering archaeological dating of the bone finds, repeated able to the poor. Furthermore, written sources mostly present and relatively frequent historical records from 1578, and their the turkey as forming part of the menu of the rich. This is well absence from earlier records, we believe that the domestic demonstrated in the earliest reliable written record of the tur- turkey was introduced to, and spread across, the Czech lands key in the Czech lands, that is, the record from 1578 which as late as between the 50s and 80s of the sixteenth century. describes the festal menu for the wedding of Vilém of Although we cannot exclude the occasional import of the wild Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Fig. 10 Representation of turkey 100% and other poultry in the Czech osteological collections providing 90% relevant data quantified using number of bones, N (data from the Table 3). The site codes cor- 80% respond to codes in Tables 1, 2 and 3 and Figs. 1, 6 and 9 70%

60% other determined species 50% Gallus N Anser 40% Meleagris

30%

20%

10%

0% B1 B3 B4 B6 M1 M3 turkey to Bohemia or Moravia in the Early Modern Ages, such Acknowledgments We would like to thank Josef Bláha and Gabriela ž importation is not supported by historical sources, and its Bla ková for help with obtaining the material and with the contextual information about Olomouc and some of the locations in Prague Castle, presence in Bohemia is certainly documented in 1801, but and Aurélie Manin for her assistance with the determination of several more than likely by 1781. problematic finds. All photos by René Kyselý. Even though the turkey might have been a precious, prestigious and even spectacular decorative object in the earliest times Funding information This study was produced with support from after its introduction, written records repeatedly describe its con- European Structural and Investment Funds, Operational Programme Research, Development and Education, registration number sumption as early as the sixteenth century, from which time it CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/16_018/0002686. started to replace the peacock on the tables of the elite of society. The introduction of the peacock and pheasants, other allochtho- nous Galliforms, greatly predates the turkey. The keeping of References peacocks was first mentioned around 1125–1140, although as a motif on buttons, it was known earlier (from the ninth century Adam A, Kunst GK (1999) Aspekte der Tierknochenauswertung in AD). The first reliable written record for the keeping of pheas- einem urbanen Milieu am Beispiel der Grabung Wien/Alte Aula. – ants is from 1330 AD. Cuts on at least four turkey bones from Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 15:157 175 Albarella U, Thomas RM (2002) They dined on crane: bird consumption, three Czech sites, and perhaps also the low age of many of the wild fowling and status in medieval England. Acta Zool Cracov turkeys found, suggest that this bird was a regular part of the diet 45(special issue):23–28 at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth Andreska J, Andresková E (1993) Tisíc let myslivosti, Tina, Vimperk century (Fig. 6;Table3). Breeding and slaughtering strategies Anoškinová V (1995) Identifikácia orientálnych motívov vo veľkomoravskom umení na príklade analýzy ornito-animálnej are suggested by the variety of ages and sexes of the analysed výzdoby. ARS 28/2-3:124–138 turkey bones. The amount of meat available can be deduced Bacher A (1967) Vergleichend morphologische Untersuchungen an from the size of the bones, which are comparable to wild turkey Einzelknochen des postkranialen Skeletts in Mitteleuropa (Figs. 8 and 9). A rough estimate suggests a body weight of the vorkommender Schwäne und Gänse. Ludwig Maximilians turkeys in the Czech lands of between 3 and 9 kg. The contri- Universität, Munchen Bartosiewicz L (2005) Crane: food, pet and symbol. In: Gruppe G, Peters bution of turkey to the total diet was generally marginal, how- J (eds) Feathers, grit and symbolism. Birds and humans in the an- ever, as can be seen from the proportion it makes up in bone cient old and new world. Proceedings of the 5th meeting of the assemblages (Fig. 10), although by the end of the sixteenth ICAZ bird working Group in Munich, Documenta archaeobiologie – century, as can be gathered from both archaeological and histor- 3, Rahden, pp 259 269 Bartosiewicz L, Gál E (2018) Ottoman Turkish influences on animal ical sources, turkeys may have been represented in similar num- exploitation in 16th-17th century Hungary. In: Cakirlar C, Scheele bers to geese in bird-rearing and on menus. EE, Chahoud J, Berthon R, Birch SP (eds) Proceedings of the 13th Archaeol Anthropol Sci

ASWA Conference. Barkhuis Publishing & University of Havlová J (2009) Stravování na dvoře olomouckého biskupa Stanislava Groningen Barhuis, Groningen, pp 191–206 II. Pavlovského z Pavlovic (1579–1598). Bachelor thesis. Faculty of Bartošková A (1995) Die Knochen- und Geweihindustrie aus der Vorburg Humanities, Charles University, Prague des frühmittelalterlichen Budeč -LageNakašně. Pamatky archeol Kalousek K (ed) (1905) Řády selské a instrukce hospodářské 1350–1626. 86(2):21–62 Archiv český, Svazek 22. Domestikální fond království Českého, Bašeová O (1991) Pražské zahrady. Panorama, Prague Prague Benecke N (1994a) Archäozoologische Studien zur Entwicklung der Kaplanová M (2017) Obraz žďárského panství v předbělohorské době. Haustierhaltung in Mitteleuropa und Südskandinavien von den Diploma thesis. Pedagogical Faculty, Masaryk University, Brno Anfängen bis zum ausgehenden Mittelalter. In: Schriften zur Ur- Kokeš O (1974) Historie pokusu o introdukci a aklimatizaci divokého und Frühgeschichte, vol 46, Berlin krocana (Meleagris gallopavo L., 1758) v ČSSR. Folia venatoria 4: Benecke N (1994b) Der Mensch und seine Haustiere. Theiss, Stuttgart 167–184 Beranová M (1980) Zemědělství starých Slovanů. Academia, Prague Kokeš O (1988) Páv korunkatý a jeho cesta k nám. Živa 36(1):31–32 Beranová M (2007) Jídlo a pití v pravěku a ve středověku. Academia, Kovačiková L, Kyselý R, Trojánková O (2013) Determinace Prague osteologického materiálu z výzkumu v tzv. severním výběžku Bielichová Z, Samuel M, Hensel K (2019) Ryby a pôst v Zoborskom Pražského hradu. Unpublished report TP-2014-3926. Archiv, kláštore pri Nitre vo svetle archeozoologických dokladov. Štud. Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Zvesti AÚ SAV 65:133–178 Czech Republic, Prague Bláha J, Drobný T, Hlobil I, Michna P, Sedláčková H (1998) Renesanční Kowalski T (1946) Pomniki dzejowe Polski, Seria II, Tom I: Relacja Olomouc v archeologických nálezech. Sklo, slavnostní keramika a Ibrāhīma Ibn Ja‘kūbazpodróżydokrajówsłowiańskich w kachle. Archeologické výzkumy Památkového ústavu v Olomouci przekazie Al-Bekrīego. Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Kraków 1973-1996. Katalog výstavy. Památkového ústavu v Olomouci, Kratochvíl Z (1969a) Die Tiere des Burgwalles Pohansko. Acta Olomouc, pp 6–9, 15-18, 19-20, 39-100 Scientiarum Naturalium Academiae scientiarum Bohemoslovacae, Blažková-Dubská G (2007) House of the armoury scribe at Prague Brno 3(1):1–39 Castle. In: Studies in post-medieval archaeology 2. Archaia, Kratochvíl Z (1969b) Wildlebende Tiere und einige Haustiere der Prague, pp 9–42 Burgstätte Pohansko. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Academiae Boháčová I, Blažková G (2011a) Pohřebiště na loretánském náměstí v Praze scientiarum Bohemoslovacae, Brno 3(3):1–44 – Hradčanech, díl I. Castrum Pragense 11. Institute of Archaeology of Kratochvíl Z (1985a) Tierknochenfunde aus Olomouc und Ivančice (I). the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague Přírodovědné práce ústavůČeskoslovenské akademie vědvBrně Boháčová I, Blažková G (2011b) Pohřebiště na loretánském náměstí v (Acta scientiarum naturalium) 19(8):1–40 Praze – Hradčanech, díl 2. Castrum Pragense 11. Institute of Kratochvíl Z (1985b) Tierknochenfunde aus Olomouc und Ivančice (II). Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Přírodovědné práce ústavůČeskoslovenské akademie vědvBrně Prague (Acta scientiarum naturalium) 19(9):1–44 Bocheński ZM, Campbell KE (2006) The extinct California Turkey, Kratochvíl Z (1985c) Rozbor osteologického materiálu z výzkumu v Meleagris californica, from rancho La Brea: comparative osteology Ivančicích. In: Šebela L, Vaněk J (eds) Hromadný nález ze studny and systematics. Contr Sci Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles County 509: vareálubývaléhobratrskéhosboruvIvančicích (přelom 16. a 17. 1–92 stol.). Muzeum Brno - venkov, Ivančice, pp 58–59 Borkovský I (1928) Hrad Pražský – III. Nádvoří. Deník vykopávek. Küchelmann HC (2014) Frühneuzeitliche Tierknochen aus dem Bremer Unpublished report, Archiv, Institute of Archaeology of the Stadtgraben, Grabung 253-Altstadt 2011. Am Wall, Bericht für die Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague Landesarchäologie Bremen, Bremen, pp 1–66 Corona ME (2005) Archaeozoology and the role of birds in the traditional Kyselý R (2002) Archeozoologický rozbor osteologického materiálu z medicine of pre-Hispanic Mexico. In: Gruppe G, Peters J (eds) Náměstí republiky ze sondy 15 (1. polovina 17. století) z areálu Feathers, grit and symbolism. Birds and humans in the ancient old bývalých kasáren Jiřího z Poděbrad na Náměstí republiky v Praze and new world. Proceedings of the 5th meeting of the ICAZ bird 1 (zjišťovací výzkum v letech 1998-1999). Archaeologica Pragensia working Group in Munich, Documenta archaeobiologie 3, Rahden, 16:197–216 pp 295–301 Kyselý R (2009) Zvířecí kosterní materiál z archeologických výzkumů v Corona ME (2013) El guajolote se pavonea fuera de América. El okolí basiliky sv. VavřincenaVyšehradě. In: Nechvátal B (ed) Tlacuache - suplemento cultural 298:1–3 Rotunda sv. Martina a bazilika sv. Vavřince - Archeologický Crawford RD (1984) Turkey. In: Mason IL (ed) Evolution of domesticat- výzkum. Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of ed animals. Longman, London, pp 325–334 the Czech Republic, Prague, pp 427–432 Crawford RD (1992) Introduction to Europe and the diffusion of domes- Kyselý R (2012) Paleoekonomika lengyelského období a eneolitu Čech a ticated turkeys from the Americas. Arch zootec 41:307–314 Moravy z pohledu archeozoologie. Pamatky archeol 103:5–70 Dunning JB (2008) CRC handbook of avian body masses, Second edn. Kyselý R (2015) Archeozoologická analýza raně středověkých kostí / CRC Press, Boca Raton Archaeozoological analysis of early medieval bones. In: Moucha Dyk A (1942) Bažantnictví. Knihovna Stráže myslivosti, sv. 18. Novina, V, Nechvátal B, Varadzin L (eds) Vyšehrad - knížecí a královská Brno akropole. Svědectví archeologie. Institute of Archaeology of the Frolík J, Nemeškalová Z (1999) Hromadný nález mincí ze 16. století na Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, pp 421–528 Pražském hradě. Castrum Pragense 2. Institute of Archaeology of the Kyselý R, Meduna P (in print) The Turkey, Meleagris gallopavo,inthe Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, pp 219–226 Czech lands in the early archaeological and historical records. In: Frolík J, Tomková K, Žegklitz J (1988) Výzkum slovanského pohřebiště Manin A, Speller C, Corona E, Thornton E (eds) Exploring the vjižním křídle Jízdárny Pražského hradu. Pamatky archeol 79:424– history of the Turkey domestication and management. Museum na- 455 tional d'Histoire naturelle, Paris Gessner C (1555) Historia Animalium Liber III, qui est de Auium natura. Lefèvre C, Marinval-Vigne M-C (1992) Histoire culturelle du Dindon Froschauer, Zurich dans le Nouveau Monde. Ethnozootechnie 49:25–46 Gonzalez MJ, Quigley HB, Taylor CL (1996) Habitat use, reproductive Lint KC (1977) Ocellated turkeys. World Pheasant Assoc 3:14–21 behavior, and survival of ocellated turkeys in Tikal National Park, Löffler J (2016) Správa panství a statků knížat z Lichtenštejna v českých Guatemala. Proc Natl Wild Turkey Sym 7:193–199 zemích od poloviny 18. století do roku 1948. In: Merki CM, Löffler Archaeol Anthropol Sci

J (eds) Lichtenštejnové v českých zemích od středověku do 20. Poole K (2010) Bird introductions. In: O'Connor TP, Sykes N (eds) století. Majetky, práva, správa. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Extinctions and invasions: a social history of British Fauna. Principality of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, pp 145–321 Windgather Press, Oxford, pp 156–165 Macek J (1992) Jagellonský věkvčeských zemích (1471–1526). (1) Rose V (1877) Anthimi De observatione ciborum epistula ad Hospodářská základna a královská moc. Academia, Prague Theudericum regem Francorum. Lipsiae B.G. Teubneri, Leipzig Makowiecki D, Gotfredsen AB (2002) Bird remains of medieval and Rumpolt M (1581) Ein new Kochbuch. Olms, Frankfurt an Main post-medieval coastal sites at the southern Baltic Sea, Poland. Acta Schemnitz SD, Zeedyk WD (1992) Gould’s Turkey. In: Dickson JK (ed) Zool Cracov 45(special issue):65–84 the wild Turkey: biology and management. National wild Turkey Manin A, Lefèvre C (2016) The use of animals in northern Mesoamerica, federation, United States Forest Service, Harrisburg, pp 350–460 between the classic and the conquest (200-1521 AD). An attempt at Schorger AW (1966) The wild Turkey: its history and domestication. The regional synthesis on Central Mexico. Anthropozoologica 51(2): University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma – 127 147 Schusser F (2009) http://www.velesinpratele.cz/domains/velesinpratele. Manin A, Cornette R, Lefèvre C (2016) Sexual dimorphism among cz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106: Mesoamerican turkeys: a key for understanding past husbandry. J svachovsky-dvr-v-16-stoleti&catid=56&Itemid=89. Accessed 3 – Archaeol Sci Rep 10:526 533 October 2018 Martínez-Lira P, Corona ME (2016) Possible co-existence of two species Sedláček A (1884) Hrady, zámky a tvrze království českého, díl 3 - of genus Meleagris at Monte Albán, Oaxaca. J Archaeol Sci 10: Budějovsko. František Šimáček, Prague – 632 639 Sedláček A (1891) Hrady, zámky a tvrze království českého, díl 8 - Meadow RH (1999) The use of size index scaling techniques for research Rakovnicko a Slánsko. František Šimáček, Prague on archaeozoological collections from the Middle East. In: Becker Serjeantson D (2009) Birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge C, Manhart H, Peters J, Schibler J (eds) Historia Animalium Ex Simpson GG (1941) Large Pleistocene felines of North America. Ossibus Leidorf, Rahden/Westf, pp 285–301 American museum novitates 1136. American Museum of Natural Mlíkovský J (2003) Ptáci z raně středověkého hradu Stará Boleslav History, New York (střední Čechy). In: BoháčováI(ed)StaráBoleslav- Smetánka Z, Hrdlička L, Blajerová M (1973) Výzkum slovanského Přemyslovský hrad v raném středověku. Mediaevalia pohřebiště za Jízdárnou na Pražském hradě.Předběžná zpráva. Archaeologica, vol 5, pp 335–344 Archeol rozhl 25:265–270, 369 Mlíkovský J (2006a) Meleagris gallopavo. In: Mlíkovský J, Stýblo P (eds) Nepůvodní druhy fauny a flóry České republiky. ČSOP, Smith AF (2006) The Turkey: an American story. Urbana, Chicago Prague, pp 415–416 Steadman DW (1980) A review of the osteology and paleontology of Mlíkovský J (2006b) Phasianus colchicus. In: Mlíkovský J, Stýblo P turkeys (Aves: Meleagridinae). Contr Sci Nat Hist Mus Los – (eds) Nepůvodní druhy fauny a flóry České republiky. ČSOP, Angeles County 330:131 208 Š č Prague, pp 417–418 amata J, Kova iková L (2001) Zpráva o zooarcheologické analýze, – ř ě ř Montanari M (2006) La fame e l'abbondanza. Storia dell'alimentazione in Praha Ji ské nám stí, analýza zví ecích kostí. Unpublished report. Europa,Laterza,Roma Prague Castle workplace, Institute of Archaeology of the Academy Moreno-García M, Detry C (2010) The dietary role of hens, chickens and of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague eggs among a 17th-century monastic order: the Clarisse of Santa Šebela L, Vaněk J (1985) Hromadný nález ze studny v areálu bývalého Clara-a-Velha, Coimbra (Portugal). In: Prummel W, Zeiler JT (eds) bratrského sboru v Ivančicích (přelom 16. a 17. stol.). Okresní Birds in archaeology: proceedings of the 6th meeting of the ICAZ muzeum Brno – venkov, Ivančeic bird working Group in Groningen. Barkhuis Publishing, Groningen, Thornton EK (2016) Introduction to the special issue - Turkey husbandry pp 45–55 and domestication: recent scientific advances. J Archaeol Sci Rep Nechvátal B (2009) Rotunda sv. Martina a bazilika sv. Vavřince – 10:514–519 Archeologický výzkum. Institute of Archaeology of the Academy Thornton EK, Emery KF, Steadman DW, Speller C, Matheny R, Yang D of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague (2012) Earliest Mexican turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo)intheMaya Nerušil J (2007) Srdce je místo pro Boha, ne pro jídlo. Katolický týdeník region: implications for pre-Hispanic animal trade and the timing of 50(3):10 Turkey domestication. PLoS One 7(8):e42630 Nováková E (1955) Nástin historie bažanta zvláště v Českých zemích. Tomek T, Bocheński MZ (2009) A key for the identification of domestic Živa 3:36–37 bird bones in Europe: Galliformes and Columbiformes. Polish Pangerl M (1875) Das Begräbnis des letzten Herrn von Rosenberg. Academy of Sciences, Kraków Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen Tyrberg T (2002) The archaeological record of domesticated and tamed XIII(1):87–97 birds in Sweden. Acta Zool Cracov 45(special issue):215–231 Paříková M, Cipeová I (1995) Dobrá kuchařka českých šlechticů od von den Driesch A (1976) A guide to the measurement of animal bones gotiky po baroko. Avatar, Prague from archaeological sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Harvard Peške L (1981) Ekologická interpretace holocenní avifauny University, Cambridge Československa. Arch rozhledy 33:142–153 Winter Z (1892) Kuchyně astůlnašich předků.František Bačkovský, Peške L (1984) Zvířecí osteologický materiál z Prahy – Hradčan, Prague Loretánské náměstí. Unpublished report TX-2012-497. Archiv, Yalden DW, Albarella U (2009) The history of Brotish Birds. Oxford Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the University Press, New York Czech Republic, Prague Zeuner FE (1963) A history of domesticated animals. Hutchinson, š ů Pe ke L (1985) Rozbor osteologických nález Praha-Hrad - Jízdárna, London jižní křídlo, výzkum 1982-3. Unpublished report TX-1985-307. Archiv, Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague Peške L (1993) Nálezy kostí ptáku z Čech a Moravy z doby po posledním zalednění. Zprávy České společnosti ornitologické 36:53–58 Plouvier L (1995) Introduction de la dinde en Europe. Scientiarium Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Historia 21(1):13–34 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.