O. P. ZHURAVLIOV
OSTEOLOGICAL MATERIALS FROM CHERSONESSOS

During 2003-2006 I identified osteological materials, found during the excavations of Ukrainian-American expedition in the area of Chersonessos in 2001-2002 and 2004-2005. The results of this identification are listed in Tables 1-8.
I would like to mention that I operate with the datings, which were given by archeologists according to their materials. I consider that the datings of bones, especially based on the radiocarbon method, will not be accurate enough for this period of time, because of the procedural errors of this method.
All the bones, which were given to me, are typical kitchen leavings. This fact is indicated by the fragmentation of these bones and by the presence of cuts and notches on them, which were left during carcass cutting. I would like to mention that osteological materials were thoroughly collected during excavations, even the smallest bone fragments. This fact is indicated by the considerable number of indeterminable bones (Tables 1-8). By the way, this number gives an idea on the efficiency of utilization of animals. Of course, if osteological materials are collected thoroughly. The comparison of osteological materials from different layers shows a very interesting picture. I think that only the layers with good excerpts should be considered. Namely: the VIII-XI centuries A.D. (Table 5), the XII-XIV centuries A.D. (Table 7) and the XIII century A.D. (Table 8). It turns out that utilization efficiency (i.e. bones fragmentation) increases from the early times of the VIII-XI centuries A.D. to the XIII century A.D. almost by one third: from 33% to 44%. If one dares to include the materials of the V-VII centuries A.D. (Table 3), which gave 21%, then the whole picture will be impressive. But the materials of the XII-XIV centuries A.D. gave a decrease to 29%. This is a problem of broad datings. So, does this decrease date from the XII century A.D. or the XIV century A.D.? After all, the XIII century A.D. gave 44%. And what were these changes caused by? Perhaps, they were evoked by some changes in farming or ethnic structure of the population. Or, may be, these changes were caused by material stratification among the inhabitants of that block. I think, that the answer to these questions should be found after complex study of all materials, obtained during its excavations, by all specialists. Perhaps, only after all the data: archaeological, archaezoological, paleoethnobotanical – is obtained, we will be able to elucidate (clear up) something.
The presence of all parts of a skeleton, especially of the third hoof phalanges, and also the presence of the bones from animals of various individual age (Table 1-8), testifies that animals were bred, kept and slaughtered either in the city or near it.
The age structure of domestic animals, which was obtained during the study of kitchen leavings from Chersonessos, shows that there was good forage reserve for livestock-breeding (Tables 1-8). This allowed to keep not only the main cattle stock, but also the growing cubs in winter. The inhabitants would have had to slaughter almost all cubs (the litter of that year) in autumn without good forage reserve. Then the bones of the animals at the age less than one year would have prevailed in kitchen leavings.
In the layers of the Hellenistic period (Table 1), all found bones belonged to one individual of Domestic ox or cattle, as it is often called. I would like to make the following remarks about the use of either one or another term. The point is that the term “cattle” implies two species of buffalo and 1 species of ox (namely our Domestic ox). Because the bones of buffalo haven’t been found in Chersonessos yet, the term “cattle” can be applied in the narrow sense of this word here, implying only one species of Domestic ox. According to the number of individuals there were 33% of young (juvenile) animals and 67% of adults among small cattle (this term implies the bones of two species: Domestic sheep and Domestic goat). Here and below all conclusions will be based only (merely) on this value: the number of individuals or the minimal number of individuals, if to be more exact (accurate). The age structure, which was obtained according to lower jaws (mandibles) denture condition, will be considered at the same time. In this case the only lower jaw (mandible), for which we managed to determine its denture and age, respectively, belonged to an adult. All bones of Domestic pig, as well as those of Domestic ox, belonged to one adult animal. Though the excerpts are extremely small, they still prove the conclusion about good forage reserve for livestock-breeding.
In the layers of the Roman period (Table 2) all found bones belonged to one adult individual of Domestic ox. Even here we have the evidence of good forage reserve for livestock-breeding.
 In the Early Byzantine period of the V-VII centuries A.D. (Table 3) all bones, attributed to Domestic ox, belonged to one adult individual. There were 25% of young (juvenile) and 75% of adult animals among small cattle according to the number of individuals. There was 1 young (juvenile) (50%) and 1 adult (50%) individual of Domestic pig. Despite the small excerpts, in this case we can trace a tradition to use this species as a (merely) “meat” animal. I am sure that “dairy” branch existed in the breeding of cattle and small cattle. Besides, small cattle gave wool. That’s why, these animals were slaughtered mainly, when they were adult. Of course, only good forage reserve could make this possible. I think that forage reserve shouldn’t be discussed below (later on). It is quite enough to look through the similar data in other tables.
A part of osteological materials was dated from the whole Byzantine period (Table 4). If there are materials with narrower datings, such finds can be ignored, because they don’t allow to make the conclusions about livestock-breeding and hunting for any particular period of time. Significant changes can occur for a hundred of years. Of course, they occurred during a thousand years from the V to the XIV centuries A.D. Nevertheless, some patterns and tendencies can be traced even here. Thus, adults of Domestic ox prevail over young (juvenile) animals (20% of young individuals and 80% of adults). The only lower jaw (mandible), for which we managed to determine the denture, belonged to an adult. Probably, these animals were kept (preserved) for milk and were slaughtered only, if there were some problems with milk. There were 17% of young (juvenile), 33% of semiadult and 50% of adult individuals among small cattle. 33% of lower jaws (mandibles) belonged to young animals and 67% – to semiadult. That’s why we can conclude that “meat” branch was more developed in small cattle breeding than in cattle breeding. The wool will be considered later. Semiadult and adult individuals were in equal parts among the population of Domestic pig (1 semiadult and 1 adult animal). The only lower jaw (mandible), for which we managed to determine the denture, belonged to a semiadult individual. These data can point out at the meat branch in pig-breeding.
All bones, which were found in osteological materials from the layers of the VIII-XI centuries A.D., belonged to three adult individuals. We didn’t succeed to determine the age structure according to lower jaws (mandibles). There was one young (juvenile), one semiadult and one adult individual among small cattle. Lower jaws denture condition showed that there were 30% of young, 10% of semiadult and 60% of adult individuals. Therefore, we can conclude that meat branch in small cattle breeding was developed better than in cattle breeding. Domestic pig gave the same pattern as small cattle: 1 young (juvenile), 1 semiadult and 1 adult individual. We didn’t manage to determine the denture of lower jaws (mandibles). Thus, these data prove the development of “meat” branch in the pig-breeding in Byzantine Chersonessos.
In the osteological materials from the layers of the XII-XIII centuries (Table 6) all found bones of cattle, small cattle and Domestic pig belonged only to adults. But the excerpts were very small in this case. And the pattern can change in future.
In the osteological materials from the late Byzantine layers of the XII-XIV centuries A.D. (Table 7) there were 20% of young (juvenile), 20% of semiadult and 60% of adult individuals of Domestic ox. 18% of lower jaws (mandibles) were from young (juvenile) animals and 82% of lower jaws (mandibles) were from adults. We haven’t found any jaws, which could belong to semiadult animals, yet. Thus, greater development of meat branch in livestock-breeding (in cattle-breeding) was more typical for this period than for the earlier periods. There were 31% of young (juvenile), 16% of semiadult and 53% of adult animals among small cattle according to the number of individuals. 28% of lower jaws (mandibles) belonged to young (juvenile) animals, 27% – to semiadults and 45% – to adults. Therefore, the percentage of the animals used for food significantly increases. Thus, the development of meat branch is typical for small cattle during this period. And it is much more evident for small cattle. However, it is hard to estimate its development in the earlier periods because of small excerpts. There were 43% of young (juvenile) animals, 28,5% of semiadults and 28,5% of adults among the population of Domestic pig according to the number of individuals. According to lower jaws denture condition there were 22% of young (juvenile), 30% of semiadult and 48% of adult animals. Besides, we found a lower jaw, which belonged to a sucking pig (under 3 months). Thus, well-defined meat branch, which appeared in the V-VII centuries A.D., retains in pig-breeding.
There were 12% of young (juvenile) and semiadult animals, and 76% of adult individuals of Domestic ox in the osteological materials from the layers of the XIII century (Table 8) according to the number of individuals. There were 21% of young (juvenile) animals, 16% of semiadult and 63% of adult individuals according to lower jaws (mandibles) denture condition. Thus, young (juvenile) and semiadult animals were used for food more often, which became apparent in the XII century A.D. (Table 7). However, this could be the case earlier, but small excerpts didn’t allow to register it. So let’s decide on these conclusions. There were 31% of young (juvenile), 16% of semiadult and 53% of adult individuals among small cattle. According to lower jaws (mandibles) denture condition there were 43% of young (juvenile) individuals, 26% of semiadults and 31% of adults. Besides, we found a jaw of a very young individual (at the age) under 6 months, which had never occurred before. Therefore, the tradition of the development of “meat” branch, which was fixed (established) since the XII century A.D., still retained. There were 29% of young (juvenile), 29% of semiadult and 42% of adult individuals among the population of Domestic pig. According to lower jaws (mandibles) there were 46% of young animals, 23% of semiadults and 31% of adults. Everything is clear here. “Meat” branch of pig-breeding existed always or almost always.
A major part of finds accounted for vertebra and ribs for all animals with sufficient excerpts (Tables 1-8). Unfortunately, we didn’t find entire craniums or more or less big parts of them, which were suitable for craniological description (characteristic), for cattle, small cattle, or Domestic pig. Nevertheless, there is an opinion that one can define whether the breed of Domestic ox was horned or hornless according to the percentage of horn shafts (stems). If there is more than 1% of horn shafts (stems) from the total amount of bones of this species, the breed is considered as horned, if less than 1% – than the breed is considered as hornless.
The Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine layers (Tables 1-3) gave such small excerpts that I will not dare to make even preliminary conclusions about the breed of Domestic ox. There were about 3% of horn shafts (stems) in the layers of the VIII-XI centuries A.D. (Table 5). This corresponds to the horned breed. The layers of the XII-XIII A.D. centuries gave small excerpts (Table 6), and again I don’t dare to make any conclusions on the basis of these excerpts. There were 4,6% of horn shafts (stems) from the total amount of Domestic ox bones in the layers of the XII-XIV centuries A.D. (Table 7). This corresponds to the horned breed. And there was 1,65% of horn shafts (stems) in the layers of the XIII century A.D. (Table 8), which also pointed out to the horned breed. Thus, the horned stock (breed) of cattle was bred in the area of Chersonessos during the whole Byzantine period.
The prevalence of female horn shafts (stems) over male horn shafts (stems) of Domestic ox (Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8) indicates the development of diary branch in cattle breeding among the population of Chersonessos. However, extremely high percentage of male horn shafts (stems) in comparison with female horn shafts (stems) is observed among small cattle, domestic sheep and goat. Thus, according to the horn shafts (stems) and cranium fragments in the layers of the VIII-XI centuries A.D. (Table 5) there was the same quantity of males and females among the population of domestic sheep, while males prevailed among the population of domestic goat. According to the horn shafts (stems) and cranium fragments in the layers of the XII-XIV centuries A.D. (Table 7) there were 11 males and 8 females of domestic sheep, while there were 9 males and 8 females of domestic goat. According to the horn shafts (stems) and cranium fragments in the layers of the XIII century A.D. (Table 8) there were 21 males and 5 females of domestic sheep, while there were 15 males and 9 females of domestic goat. Normally, females should prevail in order to reproduce the flock. That’s why males are slaughtered for meat at an early age. So, what made the citizens of Chersonessos breed and keep such a big number of males? I think that it was (the) commodity production of wool for export. Males give more wool than females. But the wool obtained from males is much coarser. That’s why females are usually left for “internal use”. Females are left even for so called “small” and “middle (average, moderate)” export. High percentage of males is necessary for wool export on a substantial scale. Females can’t provide so much wool by themselves.
The excavations in 2001-2002 and 2004 gave osteologocal materials namely of the XIII century A.D. We succeeded to obtain earlier materials in 2005. This gives us an opportunity to trace the development of Chersonessos livestock-breeding in a timely manner for Byzantine epoch (Tables 9 and 10).
Careful study of acquired data indicates that serious changes in livestock-breeding of Byzantine Chersonessos could happen approximately in the VII-VIII centuries A.D. (Tables 9 and 10). These changes appeared in the significant decrease of percentage of bred pigs and dogs and in the increase of percentage of small cattle. However, small excerpts of materials related to the V-VII centuries A.D. don’t allow to make final conclusions. And then no considerable changes in livestock-breeding occurred from the VIII till the XIV centuries A.D. This is the evidence of the stability of farming (at least, livestock-breeding) in Chersonessos at that time, despite many shakes, which it survived during that period of time.
Hunting wasn’t very important (Tables 9 and 10). Evidently, there was no need to hunt wild animals, when livestock-breeding was so developed. Two branches are clearly observed in hunting: fur and meat hunting. The first branch is represented by the bones of brown hare and fox, the second branch – by the bones of ungulates. Unfortunately, osteological materials don’t allow to determine, which of these two branches prevailed in hunting. The point is that, while bagging furry animals, hunters try to cut the fell as soon as possible, otherwise the fur can be spoilt. In this case, if the meat of this furry animal is not used for food, its carcass (of course with the bones) is thrown away on the site (place) of bag. If not the whole carcasses of meat animals, then at least their major parts, are delivered, of course, with the bones. Thus, it is very hard to determine which branch – fur or meat – prevailed in hunting.
The structure of bag indicates at a kind of forest-steppe landscape in the area near Chersonessos at that time. The bones of typically forest animals such as red deer and European roe were found along with (the bones of) a steppe animal – saiga. Nevertheless, I doubt that saiga could be bagged somewhere in the area of Chersonessos. Saiga is an inhabitant of wide steppe areas. It avoids (keeps off) rugged terrain. There are no such areas near Chersonessos. They are situated further to the North. That’s why I was surprised when its bone was found in Chersonessos. I still don’t know where it was bagged. Woodlands were situated in the area of Chersonessos in ancient times, especially in the mountains and river valleys, and they still can be found nowadays.
Summing up, one could say that the population of Chersonessos had highly developed livestock-breeding with good forage reserve. Small cattle was (provided) the basis of livestock-breeding. Domestic animals gave people meat, milk, wool and other products. The fact that males prevailed among small cattle can indicate that wool was obtained on a substantial scale for further export.