The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages [1 ed.] 9781789696301, 9781789696295

Citation preview

The Neglected Goat A new method to assess the role of the goat in the English Middle Ages

Access Archaeology y olog Ar

A

s Archae

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

eop cha r

Acces ess

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

Lenny Salvagno

About Access Archaeology Access Archaeology offers a different publishing model for specialist academic material that might traditionally prove commercially unviable, perhaps due to its sheer extent or volume of colour content, or simply due to its relatively niche field of interest. This could apply, for example, to a PhD dissertation or a catalogue of archaeological data. All Access Archaeology publications are available as a free-to-download pdf eBook and in print format. The free pdf download model supports dissemination in areas of the world where budgets are more severely limited, and also allows individual academics from all over the world the opportunity to access the material privately, rather than relying solely on their university or public library. Print copies, nevertheless, remain available to individuals and institutions who need or prefer them. The material is refereed and/or peer reviewed. Copy-editing takes place prior to submission of the work for publication and is the responsibility of the author. Academics who are able to supply printready material are not charged any fee to publish (including making the material available as a free-todownload pdf). In some instances the material is type-set in-house and in these cases a small charge is passed on for layout work. Our principal effort goes into promoting the material, both the free-to-download pdf and print edition, where Access Archaeology books get the same level of attention as all of our publications which are marketed through e-alerts, print catalogues, displays at academic conferences, and are supported by professional distribution worldwide. The free pdf download allows for greater dissemination of academic work than traditional print models could ever hope to support. It is common for a free-to-download pdf to be downloaded hundreds or sometimes thousands of times when it first appears on our website. Print sales of such specialist material would take years to match this figure, if indeed they ever would. This model may well evolve over time, but its ambition will always remain to publish archaeological material that would prove commercially unviable in traditional publishing models, without passing the expense on to the academic (author or reader).

y olog Ar

A

Acces ess

s Archae

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

eop cha r

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Neglected Goat A new method to assess the role of the goat in the English Middle Ages

Access Archaeology y olog Ar

A

s Archae

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

eop cha r

Acces ess

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

Lenny Salvagno

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-629-5 ISBN 978-1-78969-630-1 (e-Pdf)

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

© L Salvagno and Archaeopress 2020

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Contents CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................................ I 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 79 1.1 1.1.1

TAXONOMY.............................................................................................................................................. 81

1.3

METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 82

1.3.1

Morphological approach..................................................................................................................... 82

1.3.2

Non morphological approaches .......................................................................................................... 93

1.3.3

Biometrical approach .......................................................................................................................... 95

1.3.4

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 100 THE MEDIEVAL ENGLISH GOAT: SETTING THE SCENE ............................................................................. 101

1.4.1

The historical evidence for the medieval goat .................................................................................. 101

1.4.2

Zooarchaeological evidence for the medieval goat .......................................................................... 103

STUDY OF THE MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS AND BIOMETRY OF THE MODERN MATERIAL ... 111 2.1

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

Description of the structure of this book............................................................................................. 80

1.2

1.4

2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND BOOK STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 79

METHODS............................................................................................................................................... 111

2.1.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 111

2.1.2

Morphological Approach .................................................................................................................. 112

2.1.3

Biometrical approach ........................................................................................................................ 127

2.1.4

The Recording Protocol ..................................................................................................................... 137

2.2

MATERIALS ............................................................................................................................................ 138

2.3

INTER-OBSERVER ERROR AND INTRA-OBSERVER ERROR: CONSISTENCY TESTS .................................... 147

2.3.1

Reliability Tests ................................................................................................................................. 149

2.3.2

Inter-Observer Error: Inter Correlation Coefficient ........................................................................... 157

2.3.3

Intra-Observer Error: Inter Correlation Coefficient ........................................................................... 166

2.3.4

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 173

2.4

MORPHOLOGICAL RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 174

2.4.1

Reliability of the morphological diagnostic traits ............................................................................. 174

2.4.2

Influence of sex ................................................................................................................................. 201

2.4.3

Influence of age................................................................................................................................. 235

2.4.4

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 272

I

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

2.5 2.5.1

Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................................... 277

2.5.2

Bivariate plots ................................................................................................................................... 283

2.5.3

Allometric shape analysis as expressed by Biometrical Indices ........................................................ 318

2.5.4

Statistical Analyses: Mann Whitney U test and Multivariate Approaches ....................................... 337

2.5.5

Mann Whitney U-test and Manova .................................................................................................. 338

2.5.6

Discriminant Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 342

2.5.7

Principal Component Analysis ........................................................................................................... 374

2.5.8

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 413

2.6 3

BIOMETRIC RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 277

DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY OF THE MODERN MATERIAL: MORPHOLOGICAL AND BIOMETRICAL APPROACH .. 416

REEVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF THE GOAT IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND .................................... 419 3.1

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES................................................................................................................. 419

3.2

KING’S LYNN (AD 1050-1800) .............................................................................................................. 419

3.2.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 419

3.2.2

Archaeological Investigations ........................................................................................................... 420

3.2.3

Activities at King’s Lynn..................................................................................................................... 423

3.2.4

What does the zooarchaeological evidence say?.............................................................................. 424

3.2.5

Reevaluation of King’s Lynn sheep/goat bone material: methodology ............................................ 427

3.2.6

Morphological Approach: Results ..................................................................................................... 427

3.2.7

Shape analysis as expressed by Biometrical Indices ......................................................................... 433

3.2.8

DA predictions of the sheep/goat assemblage from King’s Lynn ...................................................... 496

3.2.9

Discriminant Analysis on the King’s Lynn material in toto ................................................................ 545

3.2.10 3.3

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 566

MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL FLAXENGATE (C. LATE 11TH CENTURY AD; LATE 14TH - MIDDLE 16TH

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

CENTURY AD) ..................................................................................................................................................... 574

3.3.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 574

3.3.2

Archaeological Investigations ........................................................................................................... 575

3.3.3

What does the zooarchaeological evidence say?.............................................................................. 576

3.3.4

Reevaluation of Flaxengate sheep/goat bone material: methodology ............................................ 577

3.3.5

Morphological Approach: Results ..................................................................................................... 578

3.3.6

Shape analysis as expressed by Biometrical Indices ......................................................................... 580

3.3.7

Discriminant Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 616

3.3.8

Discussion.......................................................................................................................................... 639

3.4 3.4.1

WOOLMONGER /KINGSWELL STREET, NORTHAMPTON (C. 1000-1550 AD) ........................................... 645 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 645 II

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

3.4.2

Archaeological Investigations ........................................................................................................... 646

3.4.3

Trade activities at Northampton ....................................................................................................... 648

3.4.4

What does the zooarchaeological evidence say?.............................................................................. 649

3.4.5

Reevaluation of Woolmonger/ Kingswell Street sheep/goat bone material: methodology ............. 652

3.4.6

Morphological Approach: Results ..................................................................................................... 652

3.4.7

Shape analysis as expressed by Biometrical Indices ......................................................................... 655

3.4.8

Discriminant Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 701

3.4.9

Discussion.......................................................................................................................................... 724

3.5

DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW METHODOLOGY ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES . 730

3.6

REASSESSMENT OF THE ROLE OF THE GOAT IN MEDIEVAL ENGLISH HUSBANDRY AND ECONOMY: A

BEGINNING. ......................................................................................................................................................... 733

3.7 4

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS: THE WAY IS PAVED ........................................................................................ 736

CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................ 737

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 742 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................ 757 APPENDIX I: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GOAT IN THE HUMAN PAST .................................................. 757 1.1

THE DOMESTICATION OF THE GOAT: BACKGROUND, DYNAMICS, PLACE AND TIME................................. 757

1.2 THE WILD PROGENITOR OF THE DOMESTIC GOAT ........................................................................................... 759 1.3 DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES WITH THE SHEEP......................................................................................... 759 APPENDIX II: BLAND AND ALTMAN PLOTS AS INTEGRATION OF THE ICC (INTER-OBSERVER ERROR) ................................................................................................................................................................. 761 APPENDIX III: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE MODEN SHEEP AND GOAT MATERIAL ............ 809 APPENDIX IV: ASSUMPTIONS FOR DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS (DA) AND PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS (PCA) ................................................................................................................................................. 878

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX V: PCA, A BRIEF GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................ 879 APPENDIX VI: DA: HOW TO USE IT TO PREDICT NEW ARCHAEOLOGICAL CASES............................ 880

III

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

TABLES TABLE 1.1 LIST OF SPECIES OF CAPRA WITH THEIR COMMON NAME. .......................................................................... 81 TABLE 1.2 LIST OF THE MAJOR STUDIES ON THE TOPIC WITH A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE USED, THE ANATOMICAL ELEMENTS CONSIDERED, THE MORPHOLOGY AND/OR BIOMETRY APPROACHES ADOPTED. .......... 89

TABLE 1.3 ELEMENTS, INDICES AND SUMMARY RESULTS FROM FERNÁNDEZ (2001). ................................................ 97 TABLE 1.4 NUMBERS OF GOAT FLOCKS AS REPORTED BY THE DOMESDAY BOOK. IMAGE REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, FROM: DARBY, H.C. DOMESDAY ENGLAND, COPYRIGHT

1977, CAMBRIDGE: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS...................................................................................... 102 TABLE 2.1 REFERENCE FOR THE MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS CHOSEN FOR THIS STUDY. ............................................. 113 TABLE 2.2 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE HORNCORE (TRAIT 1: IMAGE REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM JOERG SCHIBLER, FROM: SCHMID, E. ATLAS OF ANIMAL BONES: FOR PREHISTORIANS, ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND QUATERNARY GEOLOGISTS. AMSTERDAM: ELSEVIER, COPYRIGHT 1972. TRAIT 2: IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THAMES AND HUDSON, FROM: BOESSNECK, J. OSTEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP (OVIS ARIES LINNÉ) AND GOAT (CAPRA HIRCUS LINNÉ). IN SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SURVEY OF PROGRESS AND RESEARCH, (EDS) D. BROTHWELL AND E. HIGGS, 331-358, COPYRIGHT 1969. LONDON: THAMES AND HUDSON). ..................................................................................... 114

TABLE 2.3 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE 3RD DECIDUOUS PREMOLAR............................. 115 TABLE 2.4 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE 4TH DECIDUOUS PREMOLAR............................. 115 TABLE 2.5 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE 3RD PERMANENT PREMOLAR............................ 115 TABLE 2.6 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE 4TH PERMANENT PREMOLAR............................ 116 TABLE 2.7 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE 3RD MOLAR...................................................... 116 TABLE 2.8 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE MANDIBULA. .................................................. 117 TABLE 2.9 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE SCAPULA (IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THAMES AND HUDSON, FROM: BOESSNECK, J. OSTEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP (OVIS ARIES

LINNÉ) AND GOAT (CAPRA HIRCUS LINNÉ). IN SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SURVEY OF PROGRESS AND RESEARCH, (EDS) D. BROTHWELL AND E. HIGGS, 331-358, COPYRIGHT 1969. LONDON: THAMES AND HUDSON). ........... 117 TABLE 2.10 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE DISTAL HUMERUS (TRAITS 1 AND 2: IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THAMES AND HUDSON, FROM: BOESSNECK, J. OSTEOLOGICAL

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP (OVIS ARIES LINNÉ) AND GOAT (CAPRA HIRCUS LINNÉ). IN SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SURVEY OF PROGRESS AND RESEARCH, (EDS) D. BROTHWELL AND E. HIGGS, 331-358, COPYRIGHT 1969. LONDON: THAMES AND HUDSON). ..................................................................................... 118

TABLE 2.11 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE PROXIMAL RADIUS. ...................................... 119 TABLE 2.12 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE PROXIMAL ULNA. IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THAMES AND HUDSON, FROM: BOESSNECK, J. OSTEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP (OVIS ARIES LINNÉ) AND GOAT (CAPRA HIRCUS LINNÉ). IN SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SURVEY OF

IV

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

PROGRESS AND RESEARCH, (EDS) D. BROTHWELL AND E. HIGGS, 331-358, COPYRIGHT 1969. LONDON: THAMES AND HUDSON. ................................................................................................................................................. 119

TABLE 2.13 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE METAPODIALS (TRAITS 1, 2, 5: IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THAMES AND HUDSON, FROM: BOESSNECK, J. OSTEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP (OVIS ARIES LINNÉ) AND GOAT (CAPRA HIRCUS LINNÉ). IN SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SURVEY OF PROGRESS AND RESEARCH, (EDS) D. BROTHWELL AND E. HIGGS, 331-358, COPYRIGHT 1969. LONDON: THAMES AND HUDSON). ..................................................................................... 120

TABLE 2.14 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE DISTAL TIBIA (TRAITS 3 AND 4: IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM ACTA VETERINARIA BRNO, FROM: KRATOCHÍL, Z. SPECIES CRITERIA ON THE DISTAL SECTION OF THE TIBIA IN OVIS AMMON F. ARIES L. AND CAPRA AEGAGRUS F. HIRCUS L. ACTA VET

BRNO, COPYRIGHT 1969, 38: 483-490). ......................................................................................................... 121 TABLE 2.15 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE ASTRAGALUS (TRAITS 1, 2, 3 AND 6: IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THAMES AND HUDSON, FROM: BOESSNECK, J. OSTEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP (OVIS ARIES LINNÉ) AND GOAT (CAPRA HIRCUS LINNÉ). IN SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SURVEY OF PROGRESS AND RESEARCH, (EDS) D. BROTHWELL AND E. HIGGS, 331-358, COPYRIGHT 1969. LONDON: THAMES AND HUDSON). ..................................................................................... 122

TABLE 2.16 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE CALCANEUM (TRAIT 1 AND 3: IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THAMES AND HUDSON, FROM: BOESSNECK, J. OSTEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP (OVIS ARIES LINNÉ) AND GOAT (CAPRA HIRCUS LINNÉ). IN SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SURVEY OF PROGRESS AND RESEARCH, (EDS) D. BROTHWELL AND E. HIGGS, 331-358, COPYRIGHT 1969. LONDON: THAMES AND HUDSON). ..................................................................................... 124

TABLE 2.17 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE 1ST PHALANX. IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THAMES AND HUDSON, FROM: BOESSNECK, J. OSTEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEEP (OVIS ARIES LINNÉ) AND GOAT (CAPRA HIRCUS LINNÉ). IN SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SURVEY OF PROGRESS AND RESEARCH, (EDS) D. BROTHWELL AND E. HIGGS, 331-358, COPYRIGHT 1969. LONDON: THAMES AND HUDSON. ................................................................................................................................................. 125

TABLE 2.18 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE 2ND PHALANX. ............................................... 126 TABLE 2.19 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ADOPTED FOR THE 3RD PHALANX. IMAGES REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THAMES AND HUDSON, FROM: BOESSNECK, J. OSTEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

SHEEP (OVIS ARIES LINNÉ) AND GOAT (CAPRA HIRCUS LINNÉ). IN SCIENCE IN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SURVEY OF PROGRESS AND RESEARCH, (EDS) D. BROTHWELL AND E. HIGGS, 331-358, COPYRIGHT 1969. LONDON: THAMES AND HUDSON. ................................................................................................................................................. 126

TABLE 2.20 LIST OF THE SCORES GIVEN FOR EACH MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS EVALUATED. ..................................... 127 TABLE 2.21 REFERENCES FOR THE CHOSEN MEASUREMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS THEY TRANSLATE. MEASUREMENTS IN WHICH THE AUTHORS NAME IS CITED WITH AN ASTERISK ARE THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL VERSION, WHILE THOSE ONLY REPRESENTED BY AN ASTERISK HAVE BEEN NEWLY DEVISED BY THE AUTHOR. ................................................................................ 129

V

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

TABLE 2.22 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON TEETH. ..................................................................................................... 130 TABLE 2.23 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE MANDIBLE. ........................................................................................ 131 TABLE 2.24 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE HORNCORE. ....................................................................................... 131 TABLE 2.25 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE SCAPULA. .......................................................................................... 131 TABLE 2.26 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE DISTAL HUMERUS. ............................................................................. 131 TABLE 2.27 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE RADIUS. ............................................................................................. 131 TABLE 2.28 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE ULNA................................................................................................. 132 TABLE 2.29 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE METAPODIALS. .................................................................................. 132 TABLE 2.30 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE TIBIA. ................................................................................................ 132 TABLE 2.31 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE ASTRAGALUS. ................................................................................... 132 TABLE 2.32 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE CALCANEUM. .................................................................................... 132 TABLE 2.33 MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE 3RD PHALANX. .................................................................................... 133 TABLE 2.34 TOTAL NUMBER OF SHEEP AND GOAT SPECIMENS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY ALONG WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THEIR COMPLETENESS. ......................................................................................................... 139

TABLE 2.35 GOAT SPECIMENS INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE STUDIED. THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THIS TABLE (BREED, SEX AND AGE) IS AS PROVIDED BY THE COLLECTION DATA-BASES. ................................................................. 139

TABLE 2.36 SHEEP SPECIMENS INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE STUDIED. THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THIS TABLE (BREED, SEX AND AGE) IS AS PROVIDED BY THE COLLECTION DATA-BASES CONSULTED. ............................................. 143

TABLE 2.37 FORM PROVIDED TO THE GROUP FOR RECORDING THE MEASUREMENTS. THE FORM INCLUDED ALL THE MEASUREMENTS, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM COULD NOT BE TAKEN ON THE SELECTED SPECIMENS. ......... 148

TABLE 2.38 MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION (SD) AND COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION (CV) FOR EACH MEASUREMENT FOR EACH OF THE SPECIMENS CALCULATED FROM THE MEASUREMENTS PROVIDED BY THE EIGHT OPERATORS. THE MEASUREMENTS HIGHLIGHTED WITH AN ASTERISK ARE THOSE WHICH COULD NOT BE TAKEN ON ALL THE FOUR SPECIMENS. THE ‘NUMBER OF SPECIMENS’ COLUMN INDICATES THE NUMBER OF SPECIMENS FOR WHICH A MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN...................................................................................................................... 151

TABLE 2.39 LIST OF THE MEASUREMENTS WHICH PROVIDED THE LOWEST CV VALUES PER SPECIES. ...................... 155 TABLE 2.40 LIST OF THE MEASUREMENTS WHICH PROVIDED THE HIGHEST CV VALUES PER SPECIES. ..................... 156 TABLE 2.41 ICC VALUE AND 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL VALUES FOR DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

DIFFERENT ANATOMICAL ELEMENTS. .............................................................................................................. 157

TABLE 2.42 ICC VALUE AND 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL VALUES FOR DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON DIFFERENT ANATOMICAL ELEMENTS. .............................................................................................................. 167

TABLE 2.43 MATCHINGS OF MORPHOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATIONS WITH ACTUAL TAXA. C= CAPRA, O= OVIS, CL= CAPRA-LIKE, OL= OVIS-LIKE, OC= OVIS/CAPRA. ............................................................................................ 175 TABLE 2.44 MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS WHICH HAVE PROVIDED A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF TAXON ATTRIBUTIONS FOR GOAT (>90%).................................................................................................................................................. 176

VI

The Neglected Goat: a New Method to Assess the Role of the Goat in the English Middle Ages, Archaeopress, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,

TABLE 2.45 MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS WHICH PROVIDED A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF TAXON ATTRIBUTIONS FOR SHEEP (>90%). .......................................................................................................................................................... 176 TABLE 2.46 MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS FOR THE GOAT GROUP WHICH PROVIDE A HIGH SCORE (>95%) ONLY WHEN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES WERE COMBINED (C+CL). ........................................................................................ 177

TABLE 2.47 MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS FOR THE GOAT GROUP, WHICH PROVIDE A HIGH SCORE (>95%) ONLY WHEN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES WERE COMBINED (O+OL). ....................................................................................... 178

TABLE 2.48 NUMBER OF MODERN SPECIMENS ACCORDING TO THEIR SEX FOR EACH TAXON. ................................... 201 TABLE 2.49 GOAT. SCORES EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES GIVEN TO DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT CRANIAL AND POST-CRANIAL BONES ACCORDING TO THE SEX OF THE ANIMALS. ..................... 202

TABLE 2.50 SHEEP. SCORES EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES, GIVEN TO DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT CRANIAL AND POST-CRANIAL BONES, ACCORDING TO THE SEX OF THE ANIMAL. ...................... 203

TABLE 2.51 GOAT. LIST OF MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS PER ELEMENT PER SEX, WHICH HAVE PROVIDED A HIGH INITIAL PERCENTAGE (>90%) OF SPECIES ATTRIBUTIONS (C) AND A HIGH PERCENTAGE (>95%) WHEN THE INTERMEDIATE CATEGORY (CL) WAS ADDED. ................................................................................................ 204

TABLE 2.52 SHEEP. LIST OF MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS PER ELEMENT PER SEX, WHICH HAVE PROVIDED A HIGH INITIAL PERCENTAGE (>90%) OF SPECIES ATTRIBUTIONS (O) AND A HIGH PERCENTAGE (>95%) WHEN THE INTERMEDIATE CATEGORY (OL) WAS ADDED. ................................................................................................ 205

TABLE 2.53 SUMMARY OF THE AGE CATEGORIES ESTABLISHED BY PAYNE (1973; 1987) AND USED FOR THIS ANALYSIS. ....................................................................................................................................................... 235

TABLE 2.54 NEW AGE GROUPS COMBINING DIFFERENT PAYNE’S AGE CATEGORIES. THE SPECIMENS PRESENT ARE BOTH THOSE FOR WHICH THE AGE WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH PAYNE’S METHOD AND THOSE FOR WHICH THE AGE AT DEATH WAS KNOWN. .......................................................................................................................... 236

TABLE 2.55 GOAT. SCORES EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES GIVEN TO DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT CRANIAL AND POST-CRANIAL BONES ACCORDING TO AGE GROUPS. ......................................... 236

TABLE 2.56 SHEEP. SCORES EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES GIVEN TO DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT CRANIAL AND POST-CRANIAL BONES ACCORDING TO AGE GROUPS. ......................................... 238

TABLE 2.57 SUMMARY OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS FOR THE TWO SPECIES WITH INFORMATION REGARDING THE FACTORS CAN INFLUENCE THEM. RELIABILITY IS EXPRESSED IN SCORES: ***= >

Copyright © 2020. Archaeopress. All rights reserved.

90%PERCENTAGE OF SPECIES IDENTIFICATION (C OR O), **= >/= 60% OF SPECIES IDENTIFICATION; *=