far more water than sheep do. Even so, there is evidence that cattle, sheep and pigs were all exploited to some extent in each of these environments, implying that different ground-types were used by the occupants of both downland and valley settlements and suggesting a symbiotic relationship between the communities inhabiting the different areas. Annie Grant argues convincingly18 that an example of such interaction may be witnessed in the case of Danebury. This great fortified hill-settlement produced evidence of cattle-raising only on a modest scale (compared to the very large numbers of sheep on the site) but down in the neighbouring Test Valley are two Iron Age settlements, Little Somborne and Meon Hill, both of which reared cattle on a much larger scale. Grant's thesis is that the three sites may have been linked economically and that cattle may have been bred only at Danebury, but were kept and raised on good valley pasture on the lower ground nearby. A reverse situation may have pertained in the Thames Valley: here the Iron Age settlement at Farmoor can have had only a seasonal occupation since it would have been flooded by the river in winter. It is possible that the Farmoor community had sheep which were kept on high ground, while their cattle were sent to safe levels elsewhere during the winter. Certainly, as Andrew Fitzpatrick suggests,19 flocks and herds of viable breeding size could not have been sustained by each and every community. So there was bound to be some interaction between settlements for their mutual benefit. Fitzpatrick envisages traditions whereby people from different communities gathered together at periodic intervals for the birth of young livestock, for the arrangements for seasonal use of uplands and lowlands and for exchange markets.

In Gaul as well as in Britain there were preferences for certain stock animals over others in particular settlements or kinds of settlement: on native farms, cattle were favoured, with pigs being less frequent. Hornaing (Nord) specialized in cattle, horses and intensive sheep husbandry. By contrast, the community at Beauvais (Oise) in the late La Tene period seems to have concentrated on pig-rearing. Many trends towards one type of husbandry or another are associated with different chronological phases. In Britain and, to an extent, in Gaul, pigs became more popular in later free Celtic times, and the Roman

predilection for pork is reflected by their increased frequency on Romano-Celtic sites. Barbara 22

Noddle— has made a comparison of the bones of the primary domestic species - cattle, sheep and pigs -from ten multiperiod (Iron Age and Romano-British) sites. Within the sample, she traces a general increase in cattle through time, balanced by a decline in sheep. At Danebury, there was no perceptibly significant change in animal husbandry traditions in its 500 or so years of occupation. However, here there seems to have been an increase in sheep whilst cattle and pigs were in decline in later periods. The paucity of pigs by the second century BC has led Barry Cunliffe to speculate that this may have resulted from the over-use and/or demise of woodland in the area (forest being the favoured habitat of pigs). Although sheep were especially dominant at this late phase in Danebury's history, the faunal remains indicate that the Danebury community had to cope with the scourge of mouth disease in their flocks.

Figure 2.4 Bronze rein-ring decorated with knob-horned bulls' heads and bird head, second to first century BC, Manching, Bavaria. Height: 9cm. Paul Jenkins.

The Iron Age economy remained mixed both in species and in methods of management throughout its duration. The advent of the new Roman culture made itself felt in many ways, but it did not alter essential indigenous patterns of animal husbandry. The Roman army liked its pork and this is reflected in the animal remains, but increased use of pigs was a trend already present in the later Iron Age, as witnessed at the pre-Roman oppidum of Silchester. Cattle became increasingly important in Roman times, not only for meat but also for leather. But the lack of any fundamental change between the free Celtic and Romano-Celtic traditions is shown by the fact that animals other than pigs were still mainly killed for food only when they were mature and after they had already fulfilled their other economic functions - the provision of wool, traction or milk. This is a distinctive characteristic of

Iron Age animal exploitation.24 Animals in the Celtic world were sometimes consumed at the optimum time for meat (i.e. at the onset of maturity or adulthood), but many were kept longer, implying that the use of cattle and sheep as meat was a consideration secondary to those of pulling-power and wool production. There were exceptions to this: pigs were raised primarily for their meat and fat and were thus generally killed when they were fully grown but their meat was still at its most tender - when the animal was about 2 years old. Weak or diseased stock might also be slaughtered young. Surplus new-born animals might be killed off in the spring and extra males or barren females might be dispatched before winter came with its necessity for supplementary feeding. It was important to keep flocks and herds at their optimum level.

Whilst each species of stock had particular needs (see pp. 12-21), Iron Age communities had to come up with solutions to many problems common to the maintenance of all domestic animals. One was protection against predators (whether human or animal) and against the weather. This could be at least partially overcome by the building of enclosures: at Danebury, for instance, the pregnant ewes and cows may have been enclosed so that they could be kept under surveillance and receive special attention. Dogs may well have been used to protect stock. At Danebury, the many slingstones found at the hillfort may represent not conventional warfare but the protection of flocks by the driving off of predators. Slingshot could also have been used to drive flocks in particular directions - by aiming the slingstone so that it

landed behind the animals.26 Another problem to be overcome was that of winter feeding, when both flocks and herds would require supplementary fodder, but Peter Reynolds has stressed that it is ludicrous to imagine a mass autumn slaughter of stock simply because of the difficulties of winter feeding, though this used to be the accepted view. Various supplementary feeds could be used: hay was undoubtedly one; leaf-fodder gathered from local woodland another. Cattle could be fed on a mixture of barley and chaff but also perhaps unripe barley was cut with its straw and stored on rick-stands for winter use.

The farming year was closely linked with the natural life of plant and animal. In autumn, winter and spring, ploughing would be preceded by manuring the fields. Spring was lambing and calving time; summer saw not only the harvest but the shearing of sheep. In late autumn, meat would be slaughtered and cured for storage; now was the time for sheep to receive such attention as hoof-trimming. In winter, supplementary food and water would be organized for wintering stock.

0 0

Post a comment