A methodological approach to the identification of duck and goose remains from archaeological sites with an application to Roman Britain By: James Gerard Poland Registration number: 130109174 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Sheffield Faculty of Arts and Humanities Department of Archaeology 31/01/2018 Abstract~ The use of ducks and geese in Roman Britain is poorly understood and rarely discussed despite the frequent recovery of their osteological remains from archaeological sites. This is because it can be difficult to distinguish between the different genera, let alone different species, using a comparative reference collection. The main aim of this project was to develop a reliable method of taxonomic identification using morphometry in order to analyse archaeological assemblages and develop our understanding of the use of ducks and geese in the past. Linear measurements were taken from modern reference material to create a database of the different European anatids. Taxon distinguishing criteria was then identified using statistical analysis and the simplest reliable identification criteria are presented here for nine bones of the avian skeleton. The reliable taxon distinguishing criteria were applied to various archaeological assemblages from a range of Roman sites in Britain to discuss which taxa were used and in what way. Key questions that are discussed include the use of wild birds compared to domestic ones, the use of ducks compared to geese and whether there is variation in the use of anatids between types of sites. Further applications of this research will be that the identification method could readily be used by other researchers interested in the role of ducks and geese in the past, and that we will have a much better context for discussing the changes in the way ducks and geese were used during the Saxon and medieval periods in Britain. ‘Ged’s first Tufted Duck’ - N. Ellis, watercolour, 01/01/2016 ‘Roman quack troops’ - C.A. Hay, 2014 Acknowledgements~ There are many, many people and organisations that need to be acknowledged for their support and help during this thesis project. First and foremost is Umberto Albarella for his patience, advice, reassurance, and confidence in me. Umberto has been exactly the supervisor I needed and I am grateful everything he has done. Secondly is Tessa Pirnie for her generosity with the data she collected a number of years ago. Tessa’s work enabled me to identify and fill in the gaps in the modern reference material database, rather than start from scratch. This then allowed for more time for the main task of establishing identification criteria, and time for applying the criteria to archaeological material. I would also like to thank Kevin Kuykendall for being my second supervisor and for his suggestions about statistical analysis at the start of this project. I travelled to a number of places to collect modern reference data and was welcomed and helped by some brilliant people. Richard Thomas and the team the University of Leicester department of Archaeology and Ancient History really made me feel included there and gave some great advice on collecting data and other collections I should consider. I was also helped by Tony Parker at the Liverpool World Museum, Henry Mcghie at the Manchester Museum, and Zena Timmons and Andrew Kitchener from National Museums Scotland. When I travelled to record the archaeological material I was met with similar a welcome and help from many different people from many different organisations. The main people were Alan Pipe at MOLA, Dan Nesbitt at LAARC, Rob Symmons at Fishbourne Palace Museum, Jagoda Olender at YAT, Tim Pestell at Norfolk Museums Service, and Laura Hadland from the Jewry Wall Museum (Leicester). I would like to thank Lizzie Wright and Silvia Valenzuela-Lamas (both formerly of the University of Sheffield) for access to the Ware and Owselbury assemblages, and for their friendship and guidance over the last few years. Naomi Sewpaul was very helpful and gave me access to the material from Melton. The zooarchaeology research team at the University of Sheffield needs to be thanked (past and present members) for their help, advice, and friendship over the last few years. The following list is in no particular order but all of these people are special to me; Mikołaj Lisowksi, Chiara Corbino, Idoia Grau Sologestoa, Evelyne Browaeys, Angela Maccareinelli, Mauro Rizzetto, Lenny Salvagno, Veronica Aniceti, Sofia Tecce, Jane Ford, George Kazantzis, Angela Trentacoste, and Ornella Prato. I must thank and acknowledge Marie Norris, Katie Morris, and everyone else at Clear Links Support Ltd. for their patience and support over the last few years. It would not have been possible to do this project without additional employment and it has been great to work in such a supportive, flexible, and understanding workplace. Thank you to my housemate Adam Fraser for being a sounding board and for the many archaeological discussions with good whisky/whiskey. Thanks also to all of my friends and colleagues in the Department of Archaeology and Arts and Humanities Faculty who have all helped or supported me in some way. Particularly the members of the unofficial Sheffield Humanities International Think-tank For Academic Collaboration and Educational Development (Samantha Garwood, Hannah Plumer, Martin Huggon, Courtenay-Elle Crichton-Turley, Lenore Thompson, Liam Lee, Philip Maier, Derbhail O’Frighil, Catarina Oliveira, Kate Gadsby-Mace, and Emma Hook). Thank you to Jake Nickles and all the staff at the Red Deer for many years of providing an excellent place to relax and talk about archaeology with so many different people. The Red Deer is a big reason I am still in Sheffield and I have met many fantastic people there. Particularly Duncan Cameron and Nichola Austen that have given me some great advice over the last few years. Thank you to the many people that gave me duck and goose based paraphernalia (I now have 13 rubber ducks but no bath!) and especially for Nicola Ellis for her painting of the tufted duck, and Charles Hay for his illustration of the Roman ‘quack’ troops. A massive thank you and acknowledgement has to go to my Mum, Dad, and sister as without their support, help, and patience I would not have been able to study for my MSc or undertake PhD research. They have always been there for me and whole heartedly encouraged me to pursue my dreams. The last thank you is for Rachael Hand who was the one who suggested I study archaeology when we were A Level students together, and has kept me sane this past year. This project would not have been completed without her. Thank you to my examiners; Caroline Jackson and Mark Maltby. Their suggestions were invaluable and will make future publications so much better. This thesis was part funded by the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the University of Sheffield. Contents~ List of tables i List of figures iii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 2: The use of ducks and geese in the past 9: Ducks and geese in the Roman Empire: Historical evidence 14: Ducks and geese in Roman Britain: The archaeological evidence so far 18: Identifying ducks and geese from archaeological sites: Previous work 25: Summary Chapter 2 Modern reference sample selection and recording protocol 27 27: Modern reference material sample selection 31: Recording protocol 32 - Coracoid 34 - Scapula 36 - Humerus 39 - Ulna 41 - Radius 42 - Carpometacarpus 44 - femur 46 - Tibiotarsus 49 – Tarsometatarsus 50: Statistical analysis Chapter 3 Distinguishing between ducks (Anatinae) and geese (Anserinae) 52 54: Coracoid 55: Scapula 55: Humerus 56: Ulna 57: Radius 57: Carpometacarpus 58: Femur 59: Tibiotarsus 59: Tarsometatarsus Chapter 4 Duck genus and species distinctions 61 61: Coracoid - Genus 69: Coracoid - Species 76: Coracoid - Wild compared to domestic (Anas platyrhynchos) 77: Scapula - Genus 84: Scapula - Species 90: Scapula - Wild compared to domestic (Anas platyrhynchos) 91: Humerus - Genus 98: Humerus - Species 104: Humerus - Wild compared to domestic (Anas platyrhynchos) 105: Ulna - Genus 112: Ulna - Species 118: Ulna - Wild compared to domestic (Anas platyrhynchos) 119: Radius - Genus 125: Radius - Species 131: Radius - Wild compared to domestic (Anas platyrhynchos) 132: Carpometacarpus - Genus 138: Carpometacarpus - Species 145: Carpometacarpus - Wild compared to domestic (Anas platyrhynchos) 146: Femur - Genus 152: Femur - Species 158: Femur - Wild compared to domestic (Anas platyrhynchos) 159: Tibiotarsus - Genus 166: Tibiotarsus - Species 172: Tibiotarsus - Wild compared to domestic (Anas platyrhynchos) 173: Tarsometatarsus - Genus 179: Tarsometatarsus - Species 185: Tarsometatarsus - Wild compared to domestic (Anas platyrhynchos) 186: Summary Chapter 5 Goose genus and species distinctions 188 188: Coracoid - Genus 188: Coracoid - Species 190: Coracoid - Wild compared to domestic (Anser anser) 191: Scapula - Genus 191: Scapula - Species 193: Scapula - Wild compared to domestic (Anser anser) 194: Humerus - Genus 194: Humerus - Species 196: Humerus - Wild compared to domestic (Anser anser) 197: Ulna - Genus 197: Ulna - Species 199: Ulna - Wild compared to domestic (Anser anser) 200: Radius - Genus 200: Radius - Species 202: Radius - Wild compared to domestic (Anser anser) 203: Carpometacarpus - Genus 203: Carpometacarpus - Species 205: Carpometacarpus - Wild compared to domestic (Anser anser) 206: Femur - Genus 206: Femur - Species 208: Femur - Wild compared