Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Improvement: The Archaeological Evidence from Animal Bones and Teeth

Abstract

Agricultural historians have long been aware that a major increase in productivity and output characterised the so-called ‘agricultural revolution’. Usually, however, this has been measured by indirect means: the fact, for example, that English farmers were able to feed some 3 million more people in 1700 than in 1540, and almost 20 million more in 1880 than in 1750. Since mouths were fed without recourse to massive imports -which would have had significant economic implications for the industrial revolution -and since these increases in output were achieved while the agricultural labour force was in steep relative decline, the obvious implication is that productivity was increasing. Measuring such changes has proved complex, partly because data were not collected in a systematic fashion prior to the 1870s, and partly because such evidence as we have relating to prices and rents hardly represents an adequate proxy for productivity. In general terms, the best material has been for the grain acreage, particularly for wheat and barley.

Zooarchaeology, Improvement and the British Agricultural Revolution

“…A slowly growing body of zooarchaeological evidence indicates that agricultural practice was changing from the 14th century onwards, although there was some regional variation, with outlying sites generally experiencing later developments than more central localities (Davis 1997;Davis and Beckett 1999). Moreover, in some places (such as Dudley Castle), the change in size seemingly occurs over a short period of time, while at other sites it is a much more gradual affair, such as Launceston Castle, Cornwall (Albarella and Davis 1996).…”

“…The principal focus of historical studies in this topic has tended to be land management and crop husbandry, partly reflecting the unsuitability of livestock data. As Albarella (1997), Davis (1997) and Davis and Beckett (1999) have demonstrated, however, archaeological animal bone assemblages have the potential to investigate this issue, since they enable long-term changes in animal husbandry to be charted.…”

“…Higham and Message 1969). Analysis of medieval and post-medieval fauna from Britain has also demonstrated that size and shape change can provide a proxy indicator of deliberate attempts to 'improve' animal productivity (Albarella 1997;Davis 1997;Davis and Beckett 1999). In the latter context, biometrical analyses can provide indications of the causes of change since tooth size is largely dictated by genotype and is less affected by environmental conditions during development, while the size of the post-cranial skeleton can be influenced by both genotypic and phenotypic factors.…”

CFD analysis of exhaust gas recirculation in a micro gas turbine combustor for CO2 capture

“…Although English post-medieval faunal assemblages are still largely ignored when it comes to analysis and publication (Broderick, 2014), the subject has received some attention in the recent past (i.e. Albarella, 1997;Davis & Beckett, 1999;Thomas, 2009). However, this has only scratched the surface of what is clearly a more complex and widespread area of investigation.…”

“…According to this model, most late medieval/early post-medieval changes in animal husbandry can be associated with improvements in yield and productivity in response to an increasing urban demand. Evidence of these major innovations in livestock keeping includes the following: development of new animal breeds, introduction of more sophisticated agricultural machinery, development of new foodstuff and feeding techniques, enhancement of meat and dairy production, progressive substitution of cattle with horse as the main animal for traction, and increase in size of the main domesticates (Langdon, 1986;Albarella, 1997Albarella, , 2004Davis, 1997;Davis & Beckett, 1999;Thomas, 2005Thomas, , 2009Sykes, 2006;Vann & Grimm, 2010;Thomas et al, 2013).…”