3.9 Article

Counting Roman chickens: Multidisciplinary approaches to human-chicken interactions in Roman Britain

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE-REPORTS
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 1003-1015

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.09.013

关键词

Zooarchaeology; Chickens; Roman Britain; Eggshell; Medullary bone; Pathology

资金

  1. Arts and Humanities Research Council as part of the project Cultural and Scientific Perspectives of Human-Chicken Interactions [AH/L006979/1]
  2. Leverhulme Trust as part of the project The Rural Settlement of Roman Britain [RPG-417, RPG-2014-227, 6120 MAIN]
  3. Historic England as part of the project The Rural Settlement of Roman Britain [RPG-417, RPG-2014-227, 6120 MAIN]
  4. AHRC [AH/L006979/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses some of the approaches and results from two multi-disciplinary projects. The first is the AHRC-funded 'Cultural and Scientific Perceptions of Human-Chicken Interactions' Project, which investigates the history of the exploitation of chickens in Europe. The second is the Leverhulme Trust-funded 'Rural Settlement of Roman Britain' Project, which has collated evidence from excavation reports from thousands of sites. This paper updates the evidence for the exploitation of chickens in Roman Britain, showing that there were significant variations in the abundance of chicken bones found on different types of settlement. There was also a modest increase in their abundance during the Roman period, suggesting chickens became slightly more frequent contributors to the diet, albeit still only a rare commodity. However, they continued to be frequently represented in graves, shrines and other ritual deposits. The paper also discusses evidence of egg production and avian osteopetrosis, demonstrating that when traditional zooarchaeological research is integrated with scientific analyses, a deeper understanding of past human diet (and other avian-human interactions) can be acquired.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据