in Anglo-Saxon England?

Medieval Archaeology, 55, 2011

WINNER OF THE 2011 MARTYN JOPE AWARD

Were Fallow Deer Spotted (OE *pohha/*pocca) in Anglo-Saxon England? Reviewing the Evidence for Dama dama dama in Early Medieval Europe By NAOMI SYKES1 and RUTH F CARDEN2 THERE IS A GROWING recognition that introduced species are direct records of cultural activity and that studies of their biogeography have the potential to tell us about patterns of human migration, trade and even ideology. In England the fallow deer (Dama dama dama) is one of the earliest and most successful animal introductions, whose establishment has traditionally been attributed to the Normans. However, recent investigations of Old English place names have raised the possibility that the term *pohha/pocca relates to fallow deer, suggesting that the species was widely established in the Anglo-Saxon landscape. This suggestion deserves serious consideration as it has implications for our understanding both of AngloSaxon society and the impact of the Norman Conquest. This paper therefore presents a critical review of the literary, iconographic, place-name and zooarchaeological evidence for fallow deer in early medieval England and beyond. Britain is host to a large, and growing, variety of exotic fauna composed of animals brought to the island, either purposefully or inadvertently, as a result of human population movements, trade and exchange. The majority of these species are fairly recent arrivals, but others have a more respectable antiquity. One of the latter is the beautiful and elegant fallow deer, Dama dama dama (Fig 1). This species is native to Turkey, and possibly Greece, but has a long and complex history of association with the British Isles and indeed the rest of northern Europe. Its history is, however, poorly understood, obfuscated by the linguistic, iconographic and archaeological evidence, all of which are ambiguous when it comes to determining the timing of the fallow deer’s dispersion from its homeland. As is the case with most ancient animal introductions, the fallow deer is widely reported as having been brought to northern Europe by ‘invading peoples’, namely the Romans and the Normans, although the Phoenicians have also been proposed.3 Certainly, there is conclusive evidence that breeding populations of fallow deer were established in Roman Britain, both at Fishbourne Palace in Sussex and Monkton Villa on the Isle of Thanet, Kent, where deer 1 Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG23 5ST, England, UK. naomi.sykes@ nottingham.ac.uk 2 National Museum of Ireland-Natural History, Merrion Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. [email protected] 3 For a review, see Sykes 2010a.

139 © Society for Medieval Archaeology 2011

DOI: 10.1179/174581711X13103897378483

140

naomi sykes and ruth f carden

fig 1 Male fallow deer (Dama dama). Note the palmate antlers, spotted coat and the penile brush — the tuft of hair on the underside of the animal. Photograph © Richard Ford, Digital Wildlife.

were maintained in parks and pleasure gardens — landscape features that were unknown in Iron-Age Britain.4 It is generally agreed that the species extirpated across the whole of northern Europe following the withdrawal of the Roman Empire. Based on available zooarchaeological evidence, the early medieval distribution of fallow deer appears to have been very restricted, extending little beyond the species’ native range (Fig 2). Free-living herds were certainly present in Turkey and Greece, with a few translocated populations probably established on some of the Mediterranean islands.5 In northern Europe, fallow deer remains appear first in Britain and then in Ireland; it is not until the 13th/14th century that they are represented on mainland Europe.6 A single 4 Sykes et al 2006; 2010; Sykes 2009. 5 Sykes 2010a. 6 Reinken 1997 and 1999 has argued that fallow deer are recorded in early medieval texts in Germany but there is currently no zooarchaeological evidence to support this.

anglo-saxon fallow deer?

141

fig 2 Distribution of fallow deer in early medieval (up to 12th-century) Europe, based on the zooarchaeological representation of D dama remains.

specimen has been identified from a 10th/11th-century context in Saint Dizier, France, but this example is a shed antler fragment, so need not represent an animal that lived in the area; it could have been transported great distances before arriving at its final resting place.7 The apparent timing of the fallow deer’s dispersion has promoted the Normans as the most likely candidates for the translocation of the species, and it is widely accepted that they imported fallow deer, along with the concept of emparkment, via their contacts with Sicily.8 While this story of fallow deer introduction appears repeatedly in academic literature, some scholars maintain that the species was present in pre-Conquest England.9 The last decade has seen the publication of research appearing to confirm that fallow deer were well established in the Anglo-Saxon landscape. On the basis of place-name evidence Carole Hough has argued that the Old English *pohha or *pocca — which she connects to the word pocc ‘pock or spot’ — was the demotic term for ‘fallow deer’, reflecting the distinctive markings of the animal’s summer coat (Fig 1).10 In the past, place-name studies have provided important information about the ancient biogeography of animal species.11 For instance place-name scholars were able to argue confidently that the name Lostford indicated that the lynx (Lynx lynx) did not become extinct several millennia ago, as was the 7 Lepetz and Yvinec 2002; Jean-Hervé Yvinec pers comm. 8 Rackham 1997; Rowley 1997; Lever 2009; Sykes 2007a; 2010a. 9 Marvin 2006, 82 puts fallow deer at the top of his list of quarry taken in pre-Conquest England. 10 Hough 2001; 2008. 11 Aybes and Yalden 1995; Gelling 1987; Yalden 1999; 2002.

142


established belief, but rather that it survived into the Anglo-Saxon period.12 This conclusion was reached long before zooarchaeologists were able to provide confirmation in the form of AMS-dated lynx bones; only recently were remains recovered from two caves in Yorkshire with radiocarbon dating proving that that the lynx was extant in England until at least the 6th/7th century.13 Given this precedent, it is unwise to reject Hough’s suggestion without serious consideration. It is feasible that, rather than dying out in the post-Roman period, fallow deer survived in Anglo-Saxon England. This scenario both reinforces and takes strength from the recent suggestions that parks — the original and quintessential home of fallow deer — were also present in the Anglo-Saxon landscape.14 The possibility that fallow deer and their associated enclosures were features of Anglo-Saxon England is important because both of these elements have been held up as tangible evidence for the cultural impact of the Norman Conquest — an event that is otherwise largely invisible archaeologically.15 Should fallow deer and parks be earlier arrivals, this would require not only a reassessment of the Norman Conquest but would also have implications for understanding Anglo-Saxon ideology because the decision to enclose wild animals reflects a particular kind of attitude to nature more frequently attributed to post-Conquest England.16 The timing and circumstances of the fallow deer’s introduction are, therefore, matters of significance for early medieval studies. Studies of fallow deer have traditionally been the domain of zoologists and natural historians, but this paper sets out to review the evidence for the establishment of D d dama with the intention of demonstrating that introduced species can be a source of cultural information with value for assisting archaeological interpretations. FALLOW DEER IN EARLY MEDIEVAL LITERATURE, ICONOGRAPHY AND PLACE NAMES Fallow deer have only been referred to as such for the last 500 years.17 Prior to this they were known as damas, a name that, like the deer itself, derives from the Near East: the Persian word ‘dam’ means a tame, subdued or domestic animal — a fitting label for such a biddable creature.18 References to damas are found throughout classical literature: Kron provides a list of the Roman texts in which they are mentioned.19 None of these sources refer to Roman Britain; indeed, the documentary record for the island is largely silent on the subject of fallow deer until the medieval period. Aelfric’s Colloquy, a late 10th/early 11th-century manual of Latin conversation, is often cited as the first definite evidence for the presence of fallow deer in Britain but this is not a straightforward reference. In the dialogue the hunter is asked what wild animals he catches and replies: Ic gefeo heortas, baras, rann, raegan, hpilon haran [Old English] Capio ceruos et apros et dammas et capreos et aliquando lepores.20

Here it can be seen that dammas does appear in the Latin version of the text but in the Old English it is glossed as rann, meaning roe buck.21 This suggests that Aelfric was 12 Margaret Gelling pers comm; and see Gelling 2006, 153. 13 Hetherington 2010. 14 See Liddiard 2003; Gautier 2007. 15 Rowley 1997; Sykes 2007a. 16 Pluskowski 2006, 13–17. 17 The term is first recorded (c 1410) in Edward Duke of York, The Master of Game, 111, in Baillie-Grohman. 18 Reinken 1997. 19 Kron 2008, 190. 20 Aelfric, Aelfric’s Colloquy, 65, in Garmonsway. 21 This point is made by Yalden 1999, 153.


143

aware of the term dammas, presumably from his knowledge of classical texts, but was unfamiliar with the animal to which it referred and so attributed it to a native species. Far from being evidence for the presence of fallow deer, the Colloquy would therefore seem to suggest that they were not established in England at this point. As Hough argues, there are no convincing references to fallow deer in texts dating to before 1066 and even in the Norman period records are scarce.22 Lever intimates that the 30 or so parks mentioned in Domesday Book were stocked with fallow deer but, while this may have been the case, damas are not actually specified; instead the references are more generalised to parcus bestiarum silvaticum, that is, parks for wild animals.23 Unambiguous records of fallow deer begin to appear through the course of the 12th century: by 1180 Alexander Neckham was able to list damas among the animals commonly available in Britain; they are also mentioned in William Fitzstephen’s description of London (c 1174 × 1183).24 These records must, of course, be viewed only as a terminus ante quem and it seems likely that fallow deer were well established by the middle of the 12th century. Iconographic representations of fallow deer exhibit a similar chronological distribution to the literary evidence. Within the Mediterranean region the species is depicted on various artefacts — coins, vases, mosaics — from the Roman and Byzantine periods, but the frequency of artistic representation declines from southern to northern Europe. Reinken has identified just one Roman representation of fallow deer north of the Alps: a buck is shown in a 3rd-century mosaic from Bad Kreuznach, Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany).25 Again, Britain lacks early illustrations of fallow deer; we are aware of none from the Roman or Anglo-Saxon period. Yapp raises the possibility that they are depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry but the deer in this embroidery show no traits characteristic of dama, such as palmate antlers, spotted coat or the penile brush (Fig 1).26 Several 13th-century manuscripts show possible depictions of fallow deer: the deer illustrated in the St John’s Bestiary has antlers that are more palmate and with fewer tines than are usually shown in representations of the hart (male red deer).27 Similarly, the deer in the Royal 14 BV (unfoliated) appears to be spotted and has a penile brush. We have been unable to find definitive depictions of fallow deer that date before the 14th century, however. For example, a spotted deer that also has the penile brush is illustrated in the 14th-century unfoliated manuscript held by the Wormsley Library.28 More naturalistic depictions of fallow deer are found in a variety of 14th-century manuscripts held by the British Library where hunters, in particular ladies, are shown taking bucks with dogs and by bow and arrow.29 It is, of course, possible that many of the deer illustrated in earlier medieval manuscripts are fallow rather than red deer but, as is so often the case with medieval art, it is impossible to be certain of identifications. The fact that neither the literary nor the iconographic record provides firm evidence for the presence of fallow deer in Anglo-Saxon England is, perhaps, understandable; as Hough argues, there are many examples where evidence for particular animals is preserved only in demotic vocabulary.30 It is on this basis that she set out her case for an

22 Hough 2008, 43. 23 Lever 2009, 105; Yalden 1999, 153. 24 Neckham, De nominibus utensilium 112 in Wright; Chapman and Chapman 1975, 48. 25 Reinken 1997, 267. 26 Yapp 1987, 49. 27 St John’s Bestiary MS 61, f 2r. We are grateful for Richard Almond for alerting us to this image. 28 Wormsley Library MS BM 3731. 29 See in particular Royal 10 E IV, ff 44, 159v, 253v. 30 Hough 2001, 1; 2008, 43.

144


Old English *pohha or *pocca ‘fallow deer’.31 Her suggestion that the term might represent a deer seems appealing given that deer often ‘leap’ in place names (Hartlip, Hindlip, Deer’s Leap) and there is one apparent case of a *pohha doing likewise (Poflet in Devon, early Poghelippe).32 There are uncertainties here, however. For instance, Hough observes that previous scholars have related *pohha to the word for ‘pouch, bag’. This might conceivably be extended to some bag-shaped creature, but she rejects this in favour of a possible connection with Old English pocc ‘pock, spot’, which allows her to suggest the fallow deer. Hough’s case is well made but it is not conclusive in its own right. Deer are, after all, not the only creatures which ‘leap’ in place names — Hough herself mentions examples involving ‘cat’, ‘wolf’, ‘bird’ and ‘swallow’.33 Furthermore, if *pohha was a creature, it could quite feasibly denote some other baggy or speckled animal, it need not be the demotic name for fallow deer: here one might note Ekwall’s suggestion of an Old English *poc(c)e ‘frog’, related to a term, pogge, found in Middle Low German and Middle Dutch.34 For Hough’s argument to stand it requires that fallow deer were well known to the Anglo-Saxon population; but if the premise is wrong — if the fallow deer was not widespread in early medieval England — the case largely crumbles. As has already been shown for the lynx, the zooarchaeological record has the capacity to strengthen place-name based reconstructions of early medieval fauna, and it is to the animal bone data that we now turn. THE ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL REPRESENTATION OF FALLOW DEER IN EARLY MEDIEVAL ENGLAND Zooarchaeological evidence for the presence of fallow deer in Anglo-Saxon England has never been strong. It is, nonetheless, important to recognise that the animal bone record is largely the result of human activity and cultural choices, so it is not a direct reflection of the animals available within the local environment; certain species may have been available but were simply not exploited by people. Nevertheless, if fallow deer were present in Anglo-Saxon England, we might expect the occasional archaeological find and, indeed, there are a few, just sufficient to maintain the theory that breeding populations could possibly have been established. These early medieval records of fallow deer are summarised in Appendix 1, where the data have been divided into two sub-periods: the ‘pre-Conquest’, which includes specimens that pre-date 1066, and the ‘Saxo-Norman’, which encompasses the Late Anglo-Saxon and Norman periods. Fig 3 shows the locations of these sites. At face value the data seem compelling, with several sites suggesting a pre-Conquest presence of fallow deer. The majority of these sites were originally analysed prior to the publication of Lister’s criteria for differentiating the skeletal remains of fallow deer and red deer, however, and so there exists the possibility that the putative Dama specimens are misidentified red or even roe deer.35 For this reason, we felt it necessary to re-examine the evidence. Where possible, excavation archives were consulted or the original zooarchaeological researchers were contacted for further information. In addition, the assemblages from three pivotal sites — the Cheddar Palaces (Somerset), Portchester 31 Hough 2001; 2008. 32 Hough 2001, 2, 10. 33 Ibid, 5. 34 Ekwall 1960, 369 (Pockley) and 370 (Polebrook); cf Hough 2001, 9, n 73. 35 Lister 1996.

145


fig 3 Location of early medieval English sites discussed in this paper (see Appendix for details of the fallow deer specimens from these sites).

Castle (Hampshire) and Goltho (Lincolnshire) — were targeted for full re-investigation. This was carried out using reference material and Lister’s identification criteria, with measurements being taken following the standards of von den Driesch.36 The study of the material from the Cheddar Palaces and Portchester Castle is published in detail elsewhere, the conclusion being that the specimens from the Cheddar Palace are insecurely dated while those from Portchester Castle were misidentified.37 The Goltho results are presented here for the first time; they are shown, together with other data from the reassessments, in the highlighted part of the Appendix. The original zooarchaeological report for Goltho noted a considerable number of Dama remains.38 The majority were said to come from Period 5, a phase that Guy Beresford dated to 1000–80, with a smaller number reported from the earlier phase, Period 3/4 (c 850–1000).39 The animal bone assemblage is now stored at Lincoln Museum, but the detailed zooarchaeological archive report could not be located by museum staff.40 During re-analysis of the assemblage it became clear that the archive material does not reflect the published report, with far fewer cervids (red deer, roe deer and fallow deer) being present. Furthermore, the dating noted on the archive boxes and assemblage labels does not directly match the published phasing. None of the reported phase 3/4 Dama specimens were found during re-analysis, and just three (rather than 25) fragments were identified in the ‘11th–century’ contexts. A further six fallow deer specimens were recovered from the ‘mid-12th-century’ material and one of these (a right metatarsal — foot bone) paired with a left metatarsal from the ‘11th-century’ material, 36 von den Driesch 1976. 37 See Sykes 2004 for further details of the Cheddar Palaces and Portchester Castle reassessments. 38 Jones and Ruben 1987. 39 Beresford 1987. 40 Roger Jones pers comm; Polydora Baker pers comm.

146


suggesting a certain level of intrusion or residuality. The lack of consistency between the archived material and the published report is puzzling and, in the absence of the detailed archive report, it seems unlikely that the issue will be resolved. It is clear, however, that fallow deer are not as well represented in the earlier phases of the site as the original report suggests. The argument for an early presence of fallow deer at Goltho becomes weaker still by the fact that the dating for the castle/manorial site has been brought into question.41 Without secure evidence from Portchester Castle, the Cheddar Palaces and Goltho, the case for a definite pre-Conquest presence of fallow deer rests upon just a few other specimens (Appendix). Those from Anglo-Saxon Ipswich are thought to have been misidentified and those from Hertford (Hertfordshire) and Pontefract Castle (West Yorkshire) must also be viewed with suspicion given that the reports for these assemblages provided no details to allow the specimens’ identifications to be independently verified.42 Equally problematic are the examples from Barking Abbey (London) because, although some details have been archived, there are no metrical data and the contexts from which the specimens derive are potentially insecure.43 Two specimens — the calcaneum (ankle bone) from Hare Court in London and the humerus from Brandon Road in Thetford (Norfolk) — are undoubtedly fallow deer, their identifications confirmed by measurement, but neither are from sealed contexts.44 Both of these bones are good candidates for AMS radiocarbon dating; however, because few researchers outside zooarchaeology recognise the cultural importance and interpretative potential of fallow deer, their remains are seldom submitted for radiometric dating, as in these cases. This is unfortunate because AMS radiocarbon dating provides not only ‘absolute’ dates for the specimens but also stable isotope values for carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) that allow inferences to be made about the animals’ diet and management.45 There is one Dama specimen that has fortuitously been dated to the early medieval period: a fallow deer calcaneum was identified from the Roman site of Redlands Farm (Northamptonshire) but this was shown to be a later intrusion: the resulting date was, however, frustratingly inconclusive at ad 965 ± 45, which equates to a calibrated ‘Saxo-Norman’ date of ad 990–1170 (OxA-7896).46 At present, and when viewed in isolation, the archaeological representation data are unable to either confirm or refute a pre-Conquest presence of fallow deer because the only reliably identified specimens come from ‘Saxo-Norman’ contexts (see Appendix). On the basis of the specimens from Dudley Castle (West Midlands) and Goltho it would seem that the species was present in England by the end of the 11th century, but whether they were established before or after 1066 remains a matter of debate. In the absence of a comprehensive programme of radiocarbon dating, an examination of fallow deer size offers perhaps the best opportunity to clarify the situation. OSTEOMETRICS: THE EVIDENCE FOR FALLOW DEER MOVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT Within a single species the size and shape of an animal’s skeletons are dictated and influenced by a range of factors, such as the individual’s age, sex, nutrition and 41 Everson 1988 and Hodges 1988 suggest a later chronology for the site, arguing that the first castle dated to the 12th rather than 11th century and that the second castle was much later than Beresford 1987 reported. 42 Dale Serjeantson pers comm; Noddle 1985; Richardson 2003. 43 James Rackham pers comm; Jim Morris pers comm. 44 Bendrey 2005; Jones 1993. 45 See Sykes et al 2010 for results relating to Roman fallow deer. 46 Davis 1997; Bronk Ramsey et al 2000.


147

physicality, as well as wider variables including population genetics and environmental conditions.47 This is certainly the case for fallow deer as recent studies have shown that ‘native’ fallow deer populations from the eastern Mediterranean are far larger in body size than individuals belonging to translocated herds from northern Europe.48 The reason for this size variation is currently uncertain but it is likely that the move from large free-living populations to emparked groups caused rapid size decline due to genetic, environmental and/or nutritional factors — the so-called ‘island rule’.49 On this basis it should be possible to determine whether early medieval specimens are from large first-generation imports from the eastern Mediterranean or smaller animals derived from translocated populations, possibly herds that had been established in England for some time. Fallow deer are highly sexually dimorphic so size studies also offer the opportunity to examine herd composition, which in turn can provide information about the motivation for deer management. Unfortunately, there are few available metrics for early medieval fallow deer, but in order to make the archaeological data more meaningful, they are here viewed against measurements from modern adult fallow deer of known sex from the Phoenix Park in Dublin, Ireland.50 These modern data provide not only an important backdrop against which to view the archaeological measurements but also offer a vital opportunity to examine broad patterns of size change through the calculation of log ratios. The methods and benefits of log ratios are discussed in detail elsewhere but, in brief, studies have shown that measurements taken along the same skeletal plane (bone lengths, widths or depths) are highly correlated.51 If archaeological measurements are converted into logarithms in base 10, using averages derived from a modern population as the standard, it is possible to aggregate the log ratios of measurements from different parts of the same skeletal element, and even between different element types, so increasing the size of the sample available for analysis. When calculated, log ratios give either a positive or negative value, depending on whether the archaeological specimen is larger or smaller than the standard; a value of zero indicates that the specimen is the same size as the standard. In this study, average measurements from the Phoenix Park population were used as the standard to calculate the log ratios and the resulting figure was multiplied by 100, simply to reduce the number of decimal places. Here only the log ratios for bone widths are presented. Fig 4 presents the results of the log ratio study, where data for the early medieval specimens from England are shown against those for the ‘native’ populations from Turkey and Greece (Neolithic to Byzantine) as well as the translocated populations from Roman Europe and the naturalised populations from later medieval Britain. It can be seen that both the Roman and later medieval populations are significantly smaller than those from Turkey and Greece, an observation that is confirmed by statistical analysis (Tab 1). The early medieval specimens, however, are not significantly different from the Turkish/Greek population but neither are they different to those from Roman Europe or later medieval England. Although the statistical analysis is perhaps inconclusive, visual inspection of the log ratio distribution for early medieval England demonstrates that it is skewed towards the positive end of the scale, suggesting that most of the animals are larger than the Phoenix Park standard. Indeed, some very large early medieval specimens have been

47 Davis 1987, 37–8, 68–72. 48 Sykes et al 2011. 49 Information on the island rule is provided in Lomolino 2005. 50 The raw metrical data for the archaeological deer can be accessed at and the measurements for the Phoenix Park population are presented in Carden et al in prep. 51 Eg Davis 1996; Albarella 2002; Meadow 1999; Thomas 2005a.

148


fig 4 Comparison of log ratios distributions for fallow deer bone width measurements. The distribution for early medieval deer is shown against the data for ‘native’ populations from Turkey and Greece, Roman Europe and later medieval Britain. Arrows represent mean values.

149


Table 1 RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LOG-RATIO DISTRIBUTIONS. Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. Significant variations are highlighted.

Anatolia/Greece Roman Early medieval Late medieval

Anatolia/Greece

Roman

Early medieval

Late medieval

0 0.0002267 0.2087 0

0 1 0.303

0 0.4073

0

recorded, particularly from the Saxo-Norman levels at Trowbridge Castle (Wiltshire). There are two possible explanations for this pattern: either the early medieval animals are genuinely larger and represent first generation imports from the eastern Mediterranean, or the majority of specimens derive from male animals. To some extent the first possibility can be checked by examining the measurements for the astragalus (ankle bone) because there is a geographical variation in astragalus shape: by comparison to north European populations, the astragali of ‘native’ animals from Turkey and Greece have a greater length relative to their breadth.52 This can be seen in Fig 5, where the measurements for the early medieval astragali from Castle Rising Castle (Norfolk) and Faccombe Nertherton (Hampshire) are shown plotted against those for archaeological specimens from the eastern Mediterranean and England, as well as those from modern individuals of known sex from Phoenix Park. The Faccombe Netherton specimen falls centrally within the north European distribution, as do the measurements for the Castle Rising Castle specimens.53 This suggests that none of these early medieval individuals were first generation imports from Turkey or Greece and must

fig 5 Measurements for early medieval fallow deer astragali from Castle Rising and Faccombe Netherton, shown against those for archaeological specimens from the eastern Mediterranean (all periods) and later medieval England as well as modern Irish specimens of known sex. Carden et al in prep. 52 Sykes et al 2011. 53 Here it has been necessary to plot all the astragalus measurements for the whole site because the archive report did not specify which metrics belonged to which phase.

150


instead have derived from translocated populations established elsewhere in Europe. It is feasible that these animals may have come from herds long-established in England; however, Italy or Sicily are more probable sources, especially since fallow deer from these regions have a similar size range to those from early medieval England.54 While the specimens from Castle Rising Castle and Faccombe Netherton are not obviously from Mediterranean animals, it is possible that the fallow deer from Trowbridge Castle may be first generation introductions. A single astragalus was recovered from a context dated to ad 950–1139 and this specimen is documented as having a greatest length of 40.2 mm. It is one of the largest fallow deer astragali as yet recovered from any site in England and this specimen, together with other fallow deer bones from the site, fits more comfortably within the range of specimens from Turkey and Greece (see Fig 5). Had a breadth measurement been published for the astragalus, it would have been possible to confirm or disprove this theory but, as is often the case, a full set of metrics was not available for consultation. Until such time as deer metrics are regularly published or, better still, a comprehensive programme of fallow deer molecular analysis is undertaken, it seems unlikely that the issue of where early medieval fallow deer were sourced will be resolved. What is clear from the metrics, however, is that the majority of early medieval fallow deer specimens appear to be males, Fig 5 showing that the astragali measurements are consistent with those of the Phoenix Park bucks. Interestingly, Figs 6–9 show that the

fig 6 Measurements for early medieval fallow deer tibiae, shown against those for archaeological specimens from Turkey and Greece (all periods) and modern Irish specimens of known sex. Carden et al in prep. 54 Bossard-Beck 1984.


151

fig 7 Measurements for early medieval fallow deer metatarsi, shown against those for archaeological specimens from four later medieval castle sites and modern Irish specimens of known sex. Carden et al in prep.

fig 8 Measurements for early medieval fallow deer metacarpi, shown against those for modern Irish specimens of known sex. Carden et al in prep.

male-dominated pattern is repeated when the data for other bone measurements and sites are considered. Indeed, there is very little indication that does are represented in early medieval assemblages, only Goltho yielding specimens that plot within the female range: the smallest of the tibiae (Fig 6) and the two smaller metatarsals (Fig 7). It seems most probable, therefore, that the skewed log ratio distribution (Fig 4) is the result of an overrepresentation of males in the various assemblages. This sex distribution raises its own questions because it is irrational in terms of deer management and venison production, where a far higher proportion of females would be required to maintain a viable breeding population: Figs 5 and 7 show that the representation of males and females is far more even in later medieval assemblages. The number of early medieval specimens is sufficient to suggest that the distribution is not an artifice of small sample size and it is therefore necessary to determine why bucks are better represented in assemblages of this date. Indeed, this sexual composition may hold the key to understanding the deep history of

152


fig 9 Measurements for early medieval fallow deer humeri, shown against those for modern Irish specimens of known sex. Carden et al in prep.

fallow deer, but only if the zooarchaeological data are situated in the broader socialpolitical context of early medieval England. By integrating the evidence and, in particular, reviewing how attitudes to wild animals changed between the 5th and 12th centuries it should be possible to highlight the most probable circumstances by which fallow deer became established in early medieval England. FALLOW DEER IN EARLY MEDIEVAL ENGLAND For the early Anglo-Saxon period (early 5th to late 7th century), the remains of wild animals are seldom found in domestic assemblages, although they are marginally better represented in funerary deposits.55 This has prompted several researchers to argue that wild animals were viewed as sacred during this period, with hunting, fowling and fishing being rare, and possibly tabooed, activities.56 That such a situation may have existed in early Anglo-Saxon England should come as no surprise, given that comparable beliefs

55 Crabtree 1995; Bond 1994; Sykes 2011. 56 Glosecki 1989; Williams 2005; Sykes 2011.


153

are found among a wide variety of modern and recent societies.57 In many traditional cosmologies the wilderness is viewed as an unfamiliar, dangerous and usually sacred geography, and those who engage in hunting are frequently conferred with shamanic status or supernatural authority.58 Pluskowski’s study of the evidence for early medieval Europe indicates that the wilderness was conceptualised as a cosmological boundary and if, as it appears, wild resources were seen as beyond human control, it seems improbable that the early Anglo-Saxon population would have deemed it appropriate to hunt, import or empark fallow deer.59 Avoidance of these animals may, however, account for their absence in the zooarchaeological record — it is feasible that dama populations established during the Roman period endured without direct interference from humans. There is one piece of, highly tenuous, evidence that could possibly support the suggestion that Roman fallow deer populations survived into Anglo-Saxon England. Legend recounts that the 7th-century Kentish princess, Domneva, owned a tame deer whose wanderings were used to mark out the boundary for her Minster on the Isle of Thanet.60 Given that dama were established on this island in the Roman period, it is tempting to believe that Domneva’s animal was actually a fallow deer and that captive herds existed here, and perhaps elsewhere, into the middle Anglo-Saxon period (late 7th to mid-9th century). All of the documentary evidence, however, suggests that the deer in question was a hind — a female red deer — and this would seem a more likely suggestion given the wider evidence for the period; although fallow deer remains are almost entirely absent for middle Anglo-Saxon England, red deer are well represented, particularly on sites of high status. Through the course of the middle Anglo-Saxon period, and certainly by the late Anglo-Saxon period (late 9th to mid-11th century), hunting gradually became an important part of royal and aristocratic culture. It was bound up with concepts of land ownership and displays of both social cohesion and differentiation, whereby the elite validated their power by their ability to interact with and acquire the dynamic properties from the wilderness.61 For this reason hunting abilities came to be a widely understood metaphor for the wider merits of a good leader: Asser repeatedly mentions Alfred’s hunting skills and Ælfric Bata’s colloquies refer to hunting as an activity of ‘kings and great men’.62 Marvin’s examination of early medieval literature highlights that red deer, in particular the males of the species, were important emblems of power and community in AngloSaxon society, a situation exemplified by Beowulf where Hrothgar names his great hall ‘Heorot’, the stag.63 Certainly, the zooarchaeological evidence indicates that hunting was centred on stags: Fig 10 clearly illustrates that males and female red deer are represented equally in post-Conquest assemblages but males are far more abundant on pre-Conquest sites. If fallow deer were present in late Anglo-Saxon England, selective hunting of males (where females were left to breed) could account for the apparent over-representation of bucks in early medieval assemblages, but implicit in this suggestion is the idea that hunters had the option of selecting male fallow deer from a larger herd. Such a scenario would fit with Hough’s belief that fallow deer populations were substantial enough for places to be named after them.64 It might also support the 57 Helms 1993. 58 Ibid, 153–7, 211; Hamilakis 2003, 240; Ingold 2000, 84. 59 Pluskowski 2006, 57–9. 60 Anon, Historia Monasterii S. Augustini Canutariensis, viii, 8, in Harwick; see Hiatt 2000 for discussion. 61 Sykes 2010b; 2011; Helms 1993, 160. 62 Marvin 2006, 84–7. 63 Marvin 2006. 64 Hough 2008, 45.

154


fig 10 Metatarsal measurements for pre-Conquest and post-Conquest red deer. Sykes 2001.

argument that parks, possibly for housing fallow deer, were present in the Anglo-Saxon landscape.65 The case for the existence of pre-Conquest parks is based on the place-name elements haga (enclosure) and haiae (hedge), which are often found associated with woodland and sometimes specifically mention deer. At Ongar in Essex, for instance, a derhage was recorded in a will dated to ad 1045 and, importantly, here there is continuity between the late Anglo-Saxon haga and the area that later became Ongar Great Park. While the idea that haga and haiae represent parks is neat and very attractive, the argument has recently been critiqued by a number of authors.66 Even if these pre-Conquest features were parks, they are unlikely to have contained fallow deer in large numbers. Quite simply, there is no zooarchaeological evidence to support this theory, especially since the scarcity of dama remains is contrasted by the considerable quantities of red and roe deer bones that are found on high-status sites.67 This is not ruling out the idea that fallow deer were present in Anglo-Saxon England; however, they must have been very rare and certainly we should be wary of envisaging a situation where they were numerous enough to inspire the pocca elements of English place names. With such a low presence of fallow deer in England and, indeed, the rest of northern Europe (Fig 2), the over-representation of males in early medieval assemblages could feasibly reflect repeated introductions of individual bucks. Their size suggests that most came from translocated populations established on Mediterranean islands, although some, such as the Trowbridge individuals, may represent wild animals caught in Turkey or Greece. The importation of males may seem illogical, but it is readily explicable in terms of the trade in exotica and rise of menageries, which became particularly widespread between the 11th and 15th centuries.68 Pluskowski has suggested that fallow deer should be differentiated from ‘menagerie species’ because, he argues, their introduction was motivated by the developing aristocratic hunting culture rather than the specific desire to own

65 Liddiard 2003; Gautier 2007. 66 See Mileson 2009, 134; Sykes 2007b and 2011. 67 Sykes 2010b; 2011. 68 Pluskowski 2004.


155

and display an exotic animal.69 Admittedly, fallow deer must very quickly have become associated with hunting but, for the first few decades after their introduction, they would presumably have been a great rarity; a prized exotica to be observed and admired rather than chased and eaten. An indication that early medieval fallow deer were valued more during life than they were in death is indicated by their ageing data. This suggests that animals were kept for many years before they were culled; no juvenile individuals have yet been identified in early medieval deposits, and measurements of the shed antler from Goltho indicates that the animal was aged between two and four years — it may, of course, have lived for many years after shedding this particular antler.70 The rationale for maintaining fallow deer well into adulthood cannot have been for their secondary products because fallow deer provide none; even their antlers are unsuitable for bone working because the compacta is too thin. We need to consider the possibility that they were originally imported for reasons other than as quarry or for their venison, perhaps instead being valued for the sensory sustenance they provided. If the intention in the 10th and 11th centuries was to collect attractive animals, it would make sense to focus on bucks that are visually stunning (Fig 1) rather than the plain does, and this is perhaps the best explanation to account for the over-representation of male animals in early medieval assemblages. If this argument is accepted, it would suggest that those ‘Saxo-Norman’ fallow deer bucks are legitimately the earliest examples of the species in early medieval England. It is possible that fallow deer were first brought to England during the late Anglo-Saxon period, especially since the trade in exotic animals was known at this point: as early as the 9th century Charlemagne was sent an elephant, called Abu l’Abbas, by the Abbasid caliph. It seems more likely, however, that their establishment was a product of the post-Conquest period, most probably the late 11th or early 12th centuries, when records for other exotic animals — especially big cats and monkeys — also appear with increasing regularity.71 It is well known that exotic animals were frequently exchanged between leaders to cement political relationships or taken from conquered lands and displayed as a metaphor for empire.72 According to William of Malmesbury, for instance, Henry I (1100–35) was sent a variety of exotica — lions, leopards, camels and a porcupine — that he housed in his menagerie at Woodstock (Oxfordshire).73 Deer are also said to have been maintained there and it seems probable that fallow deer, perhaps sourced from the southern Norman Kingdom of Sicily, formed part of Henry’s collection.74 Similar to Domneva’s pet red deer, exotic fallow deer brought from the limits of the known world would have been symbols of cosmological power. The 7th- to 11th-century shift from local to long-distance acquisition of animals indicates a recalibration of mental geographies, however, whereby the boundaries to ‘outer realms’ gradually expanded with the rise of international travel and trade.75 As such, the introduction of fallow deer can be seen as a marker of the emergence of a new, less parochial worldview.

69 Ibid, 295. 70 The ageing of the specimen was carried out following Bilson 2008. 71 Pluskowski 2004; O’Regan et al 2006; Brisbane et al 2007. 72 Ritvo 1987; O’Regan et al 2002. 73 Hodges 2000, 36; Bartlett 2000, 672. 74 Clark 2006, 18. 75 See Helms 1993; Sykes 2009.

156

naomi sykes and ruth f carden CONCLUSION

When all the strands of evidence are brought together, the case for a pre-Norman introduction of fallow deer does not seem strong. There are no literary references or iconographic representations, and the place-name evidence for an Old English *pohha or *pocca ‘fallow deer’ has been shown to be questionable. It is quite correct that place names contain a wealth of valuable material about the fauna of the early medieval period but, as has now emerged for the lynx, the evidence is at it strongest when supported by zooarchaeological data. Unfortunately, in this case, the animal bone evidence for pre-Conquest fallow deer is weak, especially now the putative Anglo-Saxon specimens from Portchester Castle, Cheddar Palaces and Goltho have been discredited on the basis of identification or dating. The argument that the scarcity of fallow deer in zooarchaeological record is due to lack of hunting rather than physical absence is difficult to substantiate, especially since the bones of red deer and roe deer are frequently recovered from elite settlements dating to the middle and late Anglo-Saxon period. While it is tempting to believe that fallow deer herds established during the Roman period, such as those on the Isle of Thanet, endured into the medieval period, we would expect that their remains would be better represented had this been the case. The chronological distribution of the zooarchaeological, literary and, to a lesser extent, iconographic evidence all point to a late 11th- to early 12th-century introduction of fallow deer. Considering the European distribution of fallow deer at this time, which indicates that large deer were present in Turkey and Greece with slightly smaller animals found in translocated populations in the Mediterranean, it would seem that the traditional belief that fallow deer were brought to England, most probably from Sicily by the Normans, has much to commend it. The idea that they were originally imported as exotica destined for menageries is supported by both the sexing and the ageing data for early medieval fallow deer; the preponderance of adult bucks indicates that they were maintained for their visual, symbolic and cosmological properties rather than primarily as a source of venison. This paper has taken the available evidence as far as it can go. To advance the study and obtain a more detailed understanding of the timing, circumstance and meaning behind the spread and introduction of fallow deer it will be necessary to undertake a comprehensive programme of AMS radiocarbon dating, isotope analysis and molecular work. This is where future investigations should focus, but it will require researchers to recognise the cultural importance and interpretative potential of fallow deer remains — issues that we hope that this paper has managed to highlight. acknowledgements This paper was researched and written during a period of leave funded by the University of Nottingham and the AHRC. We are indebted to Richard Almond for his help regarding the medieval iconography and to David Parsons and Paul Cullen for their advice on matters of place names. Thanks go also to our zooarchaeological colleagues who provided the zooarchaeological data on which this paper is based and, in particular, to Polydora Baker, Roger Jones, Jim Morris, James Rackham and Dale Serjeantson for specific information about the assemblages discussed here. Rachel Bilson kindly provided access to her UG dissertation, Richard Thomas provided invaluable advice on the log ratio technique and we are grateful to Richard Tyler-Jones for creating the online database. We are grateful to both Alan Outram and Amanda Richardson for their comments on the paper. NS acknowledges the support of the staff from Fort Brockhurst, Somerset County Museum and Lincoln Museum who provided access to their collections. RFC gratefully acknowledges the facilities provided by Mr Nigel T Monaghan, Keeper of Natural History, National Museum of Ireland.

76 Grant 1976. 77 Noddle 1985. 78 Jones and Ruben 1987. 79 Rackham 1994.

not located in archive no further details

Portchester Castle, Hampshire (Anglo-Saxon) – 28 fragments76 Hereford, Hertfordshire (Anglo-Saxon) – ‘present’77 Goltho, Lincolnshire (ad 850–1000) – antler fragments78 Barking Abbey, London (Anglo-Saxon) – ‘present’79 Hare Court, London (middle Anglo-Saxon) – 1 fragment80 Brandon Road, Thetford, Norfolk (10th century) — humerus81 Chedar Palaces, Somerset (pre-930) – 1 fragment82 Cheddar Palaces, Somerset (late 10th/ early 11th century ) – 3 fragments82 Ipswich, Suffolk (Anglo-Saxon) – ‘present’83 Pontefract Castle, Yorkshire (Anglo-Saxon) – 1 fragment84 Saxo–Norman Sites with reported Dama specimens Bath, Avon (10th/11th century) – 4 fragments85 4

1

1

Ant Man Hum Rad MC

80 Bendrey 2005. 81 Jones 1993. 82 Higgs and Greenwood 1979.

no further details

no further details

definitely Dama — date secure? definitely Dama — date secure? not located in archive one metatarsal — insecure date misidentified?

not located in archive insecure contexts?

Outcome of re-analysis

Pre-Conquest Sites with reported Dama specimens

Pel Fem Tib

1

Cal

1

MT Phal Other

83 Jones and Serjeantson 1983. 84 Richardson 2003. 85 Grant 1979.

Ast

Zooarchaeological representation data for published Dama specimens from early medieval England. The highlighted section of the table presents the results of the re-analysis of these early specimens.

APPENDIX

anglo-saxon fallow deer? 157

1

not located in archive just 3 11th-century specimens 6 12th-century specimens no measurements available no further details 1

2

2

1

4

1

1

1

3

1

2

2

2

1

3

Pel Fem Tib

1

1

2

Ast

1

1

Cal

1

3

3

35

1

30

MT Phal Other

86 Maltby 1979. 87 Saddler 1990. 88 Jones et al 1997. 89 Noddle 1977.

90 Noddle 1980. 91 Cartledge 1988. 92 Davis 1997.

93 Sykes et al 2005. 94 Thomas 2005b. 95 Bourdillon 1993.

Ant = antler, Man = mandible, Hum = humerus, Rad = radius, MC= metacarpal, Pelv = pelvis, Fem = femur, Tib = tibia, Ast = astragalus, Cal = calcaneum, MT = metatarsal, Phal = phalanges.

definitely Dama — date secure? definitely Dama — date secure? no further details

C14 dated to ad 990–1170 definitely Dama

metrics suggest misidentification no further details

7

no further details

Exeter, Devon (ad 1000–1150) – 1 fragment86 Faccombe Netherton, Hampshire (ad 980–1204) – 91 fragments87 Portchester Castle, Hampshire (Saxo–Norman) – 1 fragment76 Goltho, Lincolnshire (ad 1000–1080) – 25 fragments78 Goltho, Lincolnshire (ad 1080–1150) – 5 fragments78 Castle Rising Castle, Norfolk (Saxo–Norman) – 7 fragments88 Kings Lynn, Norfolk (ad 1050–1250) – 1 fragment89 North Elmham, Norfolk (Saxo–Norman) – 13 fragments90 St Martins-at-palace plain, Norfolk (11th/12th century) – 2 fragments91 Redlands Farm, Northamptonshire (*Roman*) – 1 fragment92 Guildford Castle, Surrey (ad 1000–1170) – 3 fragments93 Dudley Castle, West Midlands (pre-1070)— 2 fragments94 Trowbridge Castle, Wiltshire (ad 950–1139) – 4 fragments95 Pontefract Castle, Yorkshire (Saxo–Norman) – 3 fragments84

Ant Man Hum Rad MC

definitely Dama

Outcome of re-analysis

Pre-Conquest Sites with reported Dama specimens

158 naomi sykes and ruth f carden


159

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aelfric, Aelfric’s Colloquy, ed G N Garmonsway, Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1991. Albarella, U 2002, ‘”Size matters”: how and why biometry is still important in zooarchaeology’, in K Dobney and T O’Connor (eds), Bones and Man: Studies in Honour of Don Brothwell, Oxford: Oxbow, 51–62. Anon, Historia Monasterii S. Augustini Canutariensis, ed C Harwick, Rolls Series 8, 1858. Aybes, C and Yalden, D W 1995, ‘Place-name evidence for the former distribution and status of wolves and beavers in Britain’, Mammal Rev 25, 201–27. Bartlett, R 2000, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings 1075–1225, Oxford: Clarendon. Bendrey, R 2005, ‘The animal bone’, in J Butler (ed), Saxons, Templars and Lawyers in The Inner Temple: Archaeological Excavations in Church Court and Hare Court, PCA Monogr 4, 64–6. Beresford, G 1987, Goltho: The Development of an Early Medieval Manor c.850–1150, London: English Heritage. Bilson, R A 2008, An investigation into the relationship between the size of antlers and age of animal in fallow deer (Dama dama) Bucks, and the possibility of aging antlers recovered from archaeological excavations (unpubl UG dissertation, UCL). Bond, J 1994, ‘The cremated animal bone’, in J McKinley (ed), The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham, Part VIII: The Cremations, East Anglian Archaeol Rep 69, 121–35. Bossard-Beck, C 1984, ‘Le mobilier ostéologique et botanique’, in J M Pesez (ed), Brucato: Histoire et Archéologie d’un Habitat Médéival en Sicile, Collection de l’Ecole Français de Rome 78:2, 615–71. Bourdillon, J 1993, ‘Animal bones’, in A H Graham and S M Davies (eds), Excavations in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, 1977 and 1986–1988: The Prehistoric, Saxon and Saxo-Norman Settlements and the Anarchy Period Castle, Wessex Archaeol Rep 2, 127–36. Brisbane, M, Hambleton, E and Maltby, M et al 2007, ‘A monkey’s tale: the skull of a macaque found at Ryurik Gorodishche during excavations in 2003’, Medieval Archaeol 51, 185–91. Bronk Ramsey C, Pettit P B and Hedges, R E M et al 2000, ‘Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 30’, Archaeometry 42:2, 459–79. Carden, R F, Sykes, N and Hayden T J in prep, ‘Osteological measurements from the Phoenix Park (Dublin, Ireland) population of Dama dama: a metrical baseline for investigating the

ancient morphology, spread and management of European fallow deer’. Cartledge, J 1988, ‘Mammal bones’, in B Ayers (ed), Excavations at St-Martin-at-Palace Plain, Norwich 1981, East Anglian Archaeol Rep 37, 111–15. Crabtree, P 1995, ‘The symbolic role of animals in Anglo-Saxon England: evidence from burials and cremations’, in K Ryan and P J Crabtree (eds), The Symbolic Role of Animals in Archaeology, MASCA Res Papers in Sci and Archaeol 12, 20–6. Chapman, N and Chapman, D 1975, Fallow Deer: Their History, Distribution and Biology, Lavenham: Terence Dalton. Clark, W B 2006, A Medieval Book of Beasts. The Second-Family Bestiary: Commentary, Art, Text and Translation, Woodbridge: Boydell. Davis, S J M 1987, The Archaeology of Animals, London: Batsford. Davis, S J M 1996, ‘Measurement of a group of adult female Shetland sheep skeletons from a single flock: a baseline for zoo-archaeologists’, J Archaeol Sci 23, 593–612. Davis, S J M 1997, Animal Bones from the Roman Site Redlands Farm, Stanwick, Northamptonshire, 1990 Excavations, Ancient Monuments Lab Rep 106/97. Edward, Duke of York, The Master of Game, ed W A Baillie-Grohman and F Baillie-Grohman, London: Ballantyne, Hanson and Co, 1904. Ekwall, E 1960, Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Everson, P 1988, ‘What’s in a name? Goltho, “Goltho” and Bullington’, Lincolnshire Hist Archaeol 23, 93–9. Gautier, A 2007, ‘Deer parks in Sussex and the Godwinesons’, Anglo-Norman Stud 29, 51–64. Gelling, M 1987, ‘Anglo-Saxon eagles’, Leeds Stud Engl 18, 173–81. Gelling, M 2006, The Place-Names of Shropshire V, Nottingham: English Place-Name Society. Grant, A 1976, ‘The faunal remains’, in B W Cunliffe (ed), Excavations at Portchester Castle Vol. II: Saxon, Soc Antiq Lon 33, 262–87. Grant, A 1979, ‘The animal bones (Citizen’s House)’, in B W Cunliffe (ed), Excavations in Bath, 1950–1975, Bristol: Committee for Rescue Archaeology in Avon Gloucestershire and Somerset, 60–70. Glosecki, S O 1989, Shamanism and Old English Poetry, New York: Garland. Hamilakis, Y 2003, ‘The sacred geography of hunting: wild animals, social power and gender in early farming societies’, in E Kotjabopoulou,

160


Y Hamilakis and P Halstead et al (eds), Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, London: Brit School Athens, 239–47. Helms, M 1993, Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art Trade and Power, Austin: University of Texas. Hetherington, D A 2010, ‘The lynx’, in T O’Connor and N J Sykes (eds), Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, Oxford: Windgather, 75–82. Hiatt, A 2000, ‘The cartographic imagination of Thomas Elmham’, Speculum 75:4, 859–86. Higgs, E and Greenwood, W 1979, ‘Faunal report’, in P Rahtz (ed), The Saxon and Medieval Palaces at Cheddar: Excavations 1960–2, Brit Archaeol Rep, Brit Ser 65, 354–62. Hodges, R 1988, ‘Origins of the English castle’, Nature 333, 112–13. Hodges, R 2000, Towns and Trade in the Age of Charlemagne, London: Duckworth. Hough, C 2001, ‘Place-name evidence for an Anglo-Saxon animal name: OE *pohha/*pocca fallow deer’, Anglo-Saxon Engl 30, 1–14. Hough, C 2008, ‘Deer in Sussex place-names’, Antiq J 88, 43–7. Ingold, T 2000, The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, London: Routledge. Jones, G 1993, ‘Animal and bird bones’, in C Dallas (ed), Excavations in Thetford by B. K. Davidson between 1964 and 1970, East Anglian Archaeol 62, 176–92. Jones, R T, Reilley, K and Pipe, A R 1997, ‘The animal bones’, in B Morley and D Gurney (eds), Castle Rising Castle, Norfolk, East Anglian Archaeol Rep 81, 123–31. Jones, R T and Ruben, I 1987, ‘Animal bones, with some notes on the effects of differential sampling’, in G Beresford (ed), Goltho: The Development of an Early Medieval Manor c.850– 1150, London: English Heritage, 197–206. Jones, R T and Serjeantson, D 1983, The Animal Bones from Five Sites at Ipswich, Ancient Monuments Lab Rep 13/83. Kron, G 2008, ‘Animal husbandry, hunting, fishing and fish production’, in J P Oleson (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 175–222. Lepetz, S and Yvinec, J-H 2002, ‘Présence d’espèces animales d’origine méditerranéennes en France du nord aux périodes romaine et médiévale: actions anthropiques et mouvements naturels’, in A Gardeisen (ed), Mouvements ou Déplacements de Populations Animales en Méditerranée au cours de l’Holocène, Brit Archaeol Rep Int Ser 1017, 33–42. Lever, C 2009, The Naturalised Animals of Britain and Ireland, London: New Holland.

Liddiard, R 2003, ‘The deer parks of Domesday Book’, Landscapes 4:1, 4–23. Lister, A M 1996, ‘The morphological distinction between bones and teeth of fallow deer (Dama dama) and red deer (Cervus elaphus)’, Int J Osteoarchaeol 6, 119–43. Lomolino, M V 2005, ‘Body size evolution in insular vertebrates: generality of the island rule’, J Biogeog 32, 1683–99. Maltby, M 1979, Faunal Studies on Urban Sites: The Animal Bones from Exeter 1971–1975, Exeter Archaeol Rep 2. Marvin, W P 2006, Hunting Law and Ritual in Medieval English Literature, Cambridge: Brewer. Meadow, R H 1999, ‘The use of size index scaling techniques for research on archaeozoological collections from the Middle East’, in C Becker, H Manhart and J Peters et al (eds), Historia Animalium ex Ossibus. Festchrift für Angela von den Driesch, Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, 285–300. Mileson, S 2009, Parks in Medieval England, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Neckham, A De Nominibus Utensilium, ed T Wright, A Volume of Vocabularies 1857, 96–119. Noddle, B 1977, ‘Mammal bone’, in H Clarke and A Carter (eds), Excavations in Kings Lynn 1963–70, Soc Med Archaeol Monogr Ser 7, 378–99. Noddle, B 1980, ‘Identification and interpretation of animal bones’, in P Wade-Martins (ed), North Elmham Park. Vol II, East Anglian Archaeol Rep 9, 375–408. Noddle, B 1985, ‘Animal bones’, in R Shoesmith (ed), Hereford City Excavations, Vol 3. The Finds, Counc Brit Archaeol Res Rep 56, 84–94. O’Regan, H, Turner, A and Sabin, R 2006, ‘Medieval big cat remains from the royal menagerie at the Tower of London’, Int J Osteoarchaeol 16, 385–94. Pluskowski, A 2004, ‘Narwhals or unicorns? Exotic animals as material culture in medieval Europe’, Europ J Archaeol 7:3, 291–313. Pluskowski, A 2006, Wolves and the Wilderness in the Middle Ages, Woodbridge: Boydell. Rackham, J 1994, ‘Economy and environment in Saxon London’, in J Rackham (ed), Environment and Economy in Anglo-Saxon England, Counc Brit Archaeol Res Rep 89, 126–36. Rackham, O 1997, The History of the Countryside: The Classic History of Britain’s Landscape, Flora and Fauna, London: Phoenix. Reinken, G 1997, ‘Wieder-verbreinung. Verwendung und namesgebungung des damhirsches Cervus dama L. in Europa’, Z Jagdwiss 43, 197–206.


161

Reinken, G 1999, ‘Wieder-Verbreitung. Verwendung und namensgebung des Damhirsches Cervus dama L. in Europa — Ergänzende Mitteilung’, Z Jagdwiss 45, 266–9. Richardson, J 2002, ‘The mammal bones’, in I Roberts (ed), Pontefract Castle Archaeological Excavations 1982–86, Yorkshire Archaeol 8, 363–90. Ritvo, H 1987, The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University. Rowley, T 1997, Norman England: An Archaeological Perspective on the Norman Conquest, London: Batsford/English Heritage. Sadler, P 1990, ‘The faunal remains’, in J R Fairbrother (ed), Faccombe Netherton: Excavations of a Saxon and Medieval Manorial Complex II, British Museum Occasional Paper 74, 462– 508. Sykes, N J 2001, The Norman Conquest: a zooarchaeological perspective (unpubl PhD thesis, University of Southampton). Sykes, N J 2004, ‘The introduction of fallow deer (Dama dama) to Britain: a zooarchaeological perspective’, Environmental Archaeol 9, 75–83. Sykes, N J 2007a, The Norman Conquest: A Zooarchaeological Perspective, Brit Archaeol Rep Int Ser 1656. Sykes, N J 2007b ‘Animal bones and animal parks’, in R Liddiard (ed), The Medieval Deer Park: New Perspectives, Macclesfield: Windgather, 49–62. Sykes, N J 2009, ‘Worldviews in transition: the impact of exotic plants and animals on Iron Age/Romano-British landscapes’, Landscapes 10:2, 19–36. Sykes, N J 2010a, ‘Fallow deer’, in T O’Connor and N J Sykes (eds), Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, Oxford: Windgather, 51–8. Sykes, N J 2010b, ‘Deer, land, knives and halls: social change in early medieval England’, Antiq J 90, 175–93. Sykes, N J 2011, ‘Woods and the wild’, in H Hamerow, S Crawford and D A Hinton (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon

Archaeology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 327–45. Sykes, N J, Ingrem, C and Ayres, K 2005, ‘The bones and shell’, in R Poulton (ed), A Medieval Royal Complex at Guildford: Excavations at the Castle and Palace, Guildford: Surrey Archaeological Society, 116–32. Sykes, N J, White, J and Hayes, T et al 2006, ‘Tracking animals using strontium isotopes in teeth: the role of fallow deer (Dama dama) in Roman Britain’, Antiquity 80, 948–59. Sykes N J, Baker K and Carden R F et al, 2010, ‘New evidence for the establishment and management of fallow deer (Dama dama dama) in Roman Europe with specific reference to Britain’, J Arch Sci 38:1, 156–65. Sykes N J, Carden, R F and Harris, K 2011, ‘Changes in fallow deer size and shape — evidence for the movement and management of a species’ Int J Osteoarcheol. DOI: 10.1002/ oa.1239 Thomas, R 2005a, ‘Zooarchaeology, improvement and the British Agricultural Revolution’, Int J Hist Archaeol 9:2, 71–88. Thomas, R 2005b, Animals, Economy and Status: Integrating Zooarchaeological and Historical Data in the study of Dudley Castle, West Midlands (c.1100– 1750), Brit Archaeol Rep Brit Ser 392. Von den Driesch, A 1976, A Guide to the Measurements of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University. Williams, H 2005, ‘Animals, ashes and ancestors’, in A G Pluskowski (ed), Just Skin and ones? New Perspectives on Human-animals Relations in the Historical Past, Brit Archaeol Rep Int Ser 1410, 19–40. Yalden, D W 1999, The History of British Mammals, London: Poyser. Yalden, D W 2002, ‘Place-name and archaeological evidence on the recent history of birds in Britain’, Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 45, 415– 29. Yapp, W B 1987, ‘Animals in medieval art: the Bayeux Tapestry as an example’, J Med Hist 13:1, 15–73.

Résumé

culturelle et que des études de leur biogéographie peuvent donner des informations sur les tendances de la migration humaine, du commerce et même de l’idéologie de l’époque. En Angleterre, le daim (Dama dama dama) compte parmi les introductions d’espèces les plus anciennes et les plus réussies. Son arrivée est traditionnellement attribuée aux Normands. Cependant, des études récentes sur les toponymes en vieil anglais ont soulevé la

Des daims (vieil anglais *pohha/*pocca) ont-ils été observés dans l’Angleterre anglo-saxonne ? Analyse des preuves de l’existence du Dama dama dama dans l’Europe du Haut Moyen Âge par Naomi Sykes et Ruth F Carden Il est de plus en plus reconnu que les espèces introduites sont révélatrices de l’activité

162


possibilité que le terme *pohha/pocca renvoie au daim, suggérant que cette espèce était largement établie dans le paysage anglo-saxon. Cette suggestion mérite d’être sérieusement prise en compte, car elle a des implications pour notre interprétation de la société anglo-saxonne et de l’impact de la conquête normande. Cet article présente donc une revue critique des éléments de preuve décelés dans la littérature, l’iconographie, la toponymie et la zooarchéologie confirmant la présence du daim dans l’Angleterre du Haut Moyen Âge et au-delà. Zusammenfassung Wurde im angelsächsischen England Damwild (Aeng *pohha/*pocca) gesichtet? Eine Begutachtung der Belege für Dama dama dama im frühmittelalterlichen Europa von Naomi Sykes und Ruth F Carden Zunehmend wird anerkannt, dass neu eingeführte Tierarten direkte Nachweise für kulturelle Aktivitäten sind und dass die Untersuchung ihrer Biogeographie uns potenziell etwas über die menschlichen Migrationsmuster, den Handel und sogar die Ideologien mitteilen kann. In England ist das Damwild (Dama dama dama) eine der frühesten und erfolgreichsten neu eingeführten Tierarten, deren Einführung traditionell den Normannen zugeschrieben wurde. Die kürzlich erfolgte Erforschung altenglischer Ortsnamen wirft jedoch die Möglichkeit auf, dass der Ausdruck *pohha/pocca sich auf Damwild bezieht, was zu der Annahme führt, dass diese Art in der angelsächsischen Landschaft bereits weithin etabliert war. Diese Annahme verdient ernsthafte Überprüfung, denn sie hätte Folgen

für unser Verständnis der angelsächsischen Gesellschaft und der Auswirkungen der normannischen Eroberung. Dieser Aufsatz stellt also eine kritische Untersuchung der literarischen, ikonographischen, zooarchäologischen und auf Ortsnamen beruhenden Hinweise auf Damwild im frühmittelalterlichen England und darüber hinaus an. Riassunto Nell’Inghilterra anglosassone c’erano i daini (in antico inglese *pohha/*pocca)? Revisione delle conoscenze per Dama dama dama nell’Europa altomedievale di Naomi Sykes e Ruth F Carden Si viene riconoscendo sempre più diffusamente che le specie introdotte sono testimonianze dirette di attività culturali e che lo studio della loro biogeografia può rivelarci lo schema delle migrazioni umane, dei commerci e perfino delle ideologie. In Inghilterra il daino (Dama dama dama) è stata una delle prime specie animali introdotte e anche con risultati estremamente positivi, e tradizionalmente se ne attribuisce l’introduzione ai normanni. Recenti studi di toponimi in antico inglese hanno tuttavia fatto scorgere la possibilità che il termine *pohha/pocca si riferisca al daino, suggerendo così che questa specie fosse ampiamente stabilita nel paesaggio anglosassone. Questa ipotesi merita serie considerazioni poiché contiene implicazioni per quanto riguarda la nostra conoscenza sia della società anglosassone, sia dell’impatto della conquista normanna. Questo studio presenta perciò una revisione critica dei documenti letterari, iconografici, toponomastici e zooarcheologici riguardanti il daino nell’Inghilterra del periodo altomedievale e anche oltre.