Kate Smith University of Wales, Newport Ph.D. Thesis 2005 Domesticated Dogs in the Art and Archaeology of Iron Age and Roman Britain Romano-British Bronze Statuette Romano-British Dog Burial from Kirkby Thore, Westmorland from Silchester, Hampshire After Toynbee 1962, Cat. No. 58 After Fulford and Clarke 2002, 366 1· Thesis Summary The Domestic Dog in the Art and Archaeology of Iron Age and Roman Britain This study investigates the symbolic role of the domestic dog in Iron Age and Roman Britain through contextual analysis of their faunal remains and interpretation of their representations in iconography. Previous studies have highlighted linkages between the species and ideas about death, healing and regeneration (Jenkins 1957, Ross 1967, Toynbee 1973, Henig 1984, Green 1992). Although these connections clearly did exist in the cosmologies of Britain and the Western provinces of Rome, this detailed examination of the evidence seeks to identify reasons why this might have been so. The enquiry was also designed to highlight any previously unnoticed patterns in the dataset that might add a further dimension to our understanding of how the domestic dog was perceived at a symbolic level. It has been established for some time that dogs appear in statistically significant numbers, compared to other species, in the special animal deposits that are a feature of certain Iron Age pits (Grant 1984, Wait 1985, Hill 1995). Dramatic evidence for ritual practice involving animals found at a Romano-British temple complex in Springhead, Kent, and comparable finds from both sacred and secular sites, suggest that domestic dogs were also a favoured sacrifice during this period. As well as analysing such archaeological evidence, this study draws on anthropological, psychological and historical writings about human relationships with the domestic dog in an attempt to forward our understanding of religious expression during antiquity. 11 Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my excellent supervisor Professor Miranda Aldhouse­ Green for all her advice, support and encouragement throughout the production of this thesis. I am also very grateful for Professor Stephen Aldhouse-Green's faith in me as an undergraduate; without his encouragement I would not have attempted research in the first place. During my studies I was delighted to find that the vast majority of people who I approached for information were really very helpful and forthcoming with their responses. In no particular order I would like to thank: Dr Kate Clark, Mr Mark Maltby from Bournemouth University, Professor Barry Cunliffe and Dr Martin Henig from Oxford University, Mr Phil Andrews of Wessex Archaeology. Professor Martin Millet from Cambridge University, Mr Ian Baxter, Dr Roger Jacobi and Dr J D Hill of the British Museum, Sylvia Jones and Mrs Sally James from Lydney Park Estate, Helen Glass of Rail Link Engineering, Kirsty Stonell of English Heritage, Hannah Firth from Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust, Dr Annie Grant from Leicester University, Dr Robin Birley from VindolandalChesterholm Museum and Sue Byrne from City of Gloucester Museum and Art Gallery. Please accept my sincere apologies if I have left anybody out. Finally I would like to thank my friends and family for being there for me - particularly Mum, Dad and Andrew. Love always. ... 111 Contents Page Thesi s Summary ........................................................................................................ i Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. ii Contents .................................................................................................................. III··· · . F19ures .................................................................................................................... Xl Tables ................................................................................................................... xiv Chapter 1 Domestic Dogs in the Art and Archaeology of Iron Age and Roman Britain - An Introduction to the Study 1.1 The Origins of Our Relationship with the Domestic Dog - A Brief Overvi ew ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Dog Images and Remains from Iron Age and Romano-British Archaeologic~ C::onte}(ts - ~hGlt ~e ~now ............................................................. 2 1.3 The Background Literature and Origins of the Project ........................................ 3 1.4 The Aims and Objectives of the Study ............................................................... 10 1.5 The Study Methodology .................................................................................... 12 1.6 Iron Age and Roman Britain - An Island but Not Isolated .................................. 14 Chapter 2 Dog Remains from British Iron Age Settlements, Sacred Sites and Human Burials 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 17 2.2 The Dog Population at Danebury Hill Fort, Hampshire ...................................... 17 2.2.1 Domestic Dogs as a Source of Primary Produce at Danebury Hill Fort ........... 19 IV 2.2.2 The Special Animal Deposits at Danebury Hill Fort ....................................... 20 2.2.3 Dogs as Special Animal Deposits at Danebury Hill Fort ................................. 22 2.3 Dog Remains from Iron Age Sacred Space ........................................................ 24 2.3.1 The Dog Remains from the East Leicestershire Hoard Site ............................. 26 2.4 Dog Remains Found in Association with Iron Age Human Burials .................... 27 2.4. 1Associated Human and Dog Remains from Iron Age Grain Storage Pits at Broadstairs, Kent and Dibbles Farm, Christon ..................................................... 28 2.4.2 Ritual Pit Burials from an Iron Age Site at Andover, Hampshire .................... 30 2.5 Human Remains Accompanied by Dog Remains from Iron Age Cemeteries .............................................................................................................. 32 2.5.1 Dogs as Negative Features in Iron Age Cemeteries ......................................... 32 2.5.2 The Thorley Dog Burial - Sacred or Profane? ................................................. 32 2.5.3 Mill Hill, Deal, Kent ....................................................................................... 34 2.5.4 Maiden Castle Hill Fort, Dorset ..................................................................... .36 2.6 Blewburton Hill, Berkshire - A Rampart Burial ............................................... .37 2.6.1 Domestic Dogs - Guards in this World and the Next ..................................... .39 2.7 Summary ...........................................................................................................42 Chapter 3 Domestic Dogs in the Archaeology of Romano-British Settlement Sites 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 45 3.2 Evidence for the Presence of Domestic Dogs in Print and Imprints .................... 46 3.3 A Dog's Life ..................................................................................................... 48 3.4 Dogs as a Feature of Special Animal Deposits in the Roman Britain.................. 50 3.5 Archaeological Interpretation of Shafts, Wells and other Human-Made Holes in the Ground at Sacred and Secular Sites ...................................................... 51 v 3.6 Dog Burials as a Feature of the Archaeology from Shafts, Pits and Wells at Settlement Sites in Southern Britain .................................................................... 53 3.6.1 The Skeletons from a Romano-British Industrial site at Chichester Cattle Market, Hampshire ....................................................................................... 53 3.6.2 Dog Burials from Silchester, Insula IX, Hampshire ......................................... 55 3.6.3 Dog Burials from Greyhound Yard, Dorset. .................................................... 60 3.6.3.1 Comparative Archaeology from Other Sites in Roman Britain ..................... 63 3.6.3.2 Human Skulls and Dogs' Bodies ................................................................. 63 3.6.3.3 Control and Restraint ................................................................................... 65 3.6.3.4 Possible Cenotaph Burials ........................................................................... 67 3.6.4 Ritual Practise and Practical Ritual - Dog Population Control in Roman-British Wessex ............................................................................................ 68 3.6.5 Evidence for the Continuation of Ritual Animal Deposition in the Romano-British period from Winnall Down, Hampshire ......................................... 69 3.6.6 Pervasive 'Ritual' Behaviour in Roman Britain .............................................. 70 3.7 Dogs as a Feature of Termination and Foundation Deposits ............................... 70 3.8 Evidence for Ritual Dog Burials in Kent. ........................................................... 74 3.8.1 Puppy Burials on Upchurch Marshes, Kent. .................................................... 74 3.8.2 The Ritual Shafts at Warbank, Keston, Kent ................................................... 76 3.9 Summary ..........................................................................................................