'The mystery of husbandry': Medieval animals and the problem of integrating historical and archaeological evidence

Abstract

Archaeological evidence and historic records are often at variance on the subject of animal husbandry. This paper discusses the problems of integrating the evidence for medieval and later Britain, and offers new discussion on the interpretation of the zooarchaeological data. In this paper I will discuss the problem of comparing and integrating archaeological - more specifically 'zooarchaeological' - and historical evidence for medieval and early modern husbandry. I will mainly rely on examples drawn from the research I have carried out, with colleagues, in the last six years in England. However, I hope that some of the methodological aspects of this discussion may be relevant to other geographic areas too. A few case-studies are presented. We will see that in some cases our data stress the existence of biases, gaps and inconsistencies in either of the two disciplines. In others it will be clear that only through the combined effort of historians and archaeologists will it be possible to solve specific problems. It is also stressed that not all is problematic or incongruous and that cases in which historical and archaeological sources fit well together and provide consistent information do exist. Finally, I briefly discuss what lessons we can learn from the problems and where and how possible solutions are likely to be found. This paper is written from the point of view of the zooarchaeologist; thus I have no claim to tackle these problems in a completely objective way. Criticisms from historians, other archaeologists and fellow zooarchaeologists are welcome. My ultimate aim and hope is to stimulate some debate and to encourage an exchange of information and ideas.