User:Richard Hawkins/sandbox

Dogs of Roman Britain refers to the presence of dogs, particular dog-types and their varieties, in the Province Britannia of the Roman Empire. For a period of a little more than 4 centuries, military and colonial rule in Roman Britain would considerably influence and change aspects of life, including that of domestic animals such as dogs. Prior to the Roman colonisation of the English mainland, the influence of European Celtic peoples would also have contributed to the population of domestic animals and dogs found in Britain through the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. With respect to dogs, based on systematic zooarcheology, that influence appears to have been moderate and would suggest that with few exceptions the comparative dog anatomy of that period remained mainly that of a uniform "plain dog" or "village dog", having the function of scavenger, guard and occasional hunting dog.

Literature
Most written information about dogs from antiquity comes from didactic verse in the form of hunting treatises, such as those of Xenophon, Grattius, Arrian, Oppian and Nemesianus, none of whom were known to have ever been in Britain.

At the early period of Roman rule in Britain, Grattius in his Cynegeticon enumerates the varying dogtypes (Latin gens, not the equivalent of the modern distinction breed) across the known world of the Roman Empire and outside, and their names, which generally came from their geographic location or the names of the peoples that reared them: "'Dogs belong to a thousand lands and they each have characteristics derived from their origin.'"

Grattius names from that world in total some 16 types of dog according to Phillips & Willcock, though Enk counts as many as 25 types , two of those dogs are cross bred varieties, and a further one a mythical descendant of the jackal; however with respect to Britannia, Grattius simply mentions “British whelps” in general: "What if you visit the staits of Morini [close to present day Boulogne], tide-swept by a wayward sea and choose to penetrate even among the Britons? How great your reward, how great your gain beyond any outlays! If you are not bent on looks and deceptive graces (this is the one defect of the British whelps), at any rate when serious work has come, when bravery must be shown, and the impetuous War-god calls in the utmost hazard, then you could not admire the renowned Molossians so much." 

Although given to exaggeration and flights of fancy, as much of this early verse was, Grattius did appear to know hunting, the hunting-dogs and their essential care. As Xenophon did before him, he gives a type standard for his own ideal dog, and although he likely did not know and did not describe “the British whelps”, he compared their valour favourably to the then universally known Molosser. Grattius described the sort of hunting with dogs as scent-hunting, or the driving of game, but he also knew coursing and re-introduced the Vertraha or vertragus to the reader of Latin, "'And the Vertraha coloured with yellow spots — swifter than thought or a winged bird it runs, pressing hard on the beasts it has found, though less likely to find them when they lie hidden;" This dog-type, first named by the poet Ovid as vertragus, leporem the hare-catching hound of Gaul was the Celtic sighthound which Arrian fully describes in his Cynegeticus both in conformation and function, and must soon have found its way to Britain by trade, and by accompanying the occupying Roman military (as other dog-types would from the Roman Empire), and so possibly becoming the antecedent of one of the later  breeds, the Greyhound.

The Roman Province of Britannia was credited by some for exporting hunting dogs. The references by Roman writers to these dogs suggest that British dogs could be and strong, useful in hunting and even possibly in war.

The Greek-Roman historian and geographer Strabo in his description of Britain at the time of Julius Caesar’s campaign, reported that “hunting dogs” were exported:

"These things, accordingly, are exported from the island, as also hides, and slaves, and dogs that are by nature suited to the purposes of the chase; the Celti, however, use both these and their own native dogs for the purposes of war too. Strabo IV,5: 198" refhttp://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4E*.html

Oppian in his Cynegeticon writing after the period when the Scots were pushed back into Northern England and Hadrian’s wall rebuilt, described one particular British dog-type this time with its given name: There is one valiant breed of tracking dogs, small indeed but as worthy as large dogs to be the theme of song; bred by the wild tribes of the painted Britons and called by the name of Agasseus. Their size is like that of the weak and greedy domestic table dog; round, very lean, shaggy of hair, dull of eye, it has its feet armed with grievous claws and its mouth sharp with close-set venomous tushes. With its nose especially the Agassian dog is most excellent and in tracking it is best of all; for it is very clever at finding the track of things that walk the earth but skilful too to mark the airy scent. Cynegeticon 468 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Oppian/Cynegetica/1*.html#368

Towards the end of the Roman Empire Nemesianus remarks briefly: "But it is not only Spartan whelps or only Molossian which you must rear: sundered Britain sends us a swift sort, adapted to hunting-tasks in our world.Cynegetica 224" http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Nemesianus/Cynegetica*.html

The even later Roman poet Claudian mentions in poetic hyperbole British dogs "that can break the necks of mighty bulls." gambolling around the airborne chariot of the goddess Diana

Agassian
"There is a strong breed of hunting dog, small in size but no less worthy of great praise. These the wild tribes of Britons with their tattooed backs rear and call by the name of Agassian. Their size is like that of worthless and greedy domestic table dogs; squat, emaciated, shaggy, dull of eye, but endowed with feet armed with powerful claws and a mouth sharp with close-set venomous tearing teeth. It is by virtue of its nose, however, that the Agassian is most exalted, and for tracking it is the best there is; for it is very adept at discovering the tracks of things that walk upon the ground, and skilled too at marking the airborne scent." Oppian

Art
Joan Alcock is referenced by Leslie Cram in compiling the following [edited] list giving an introduction to the evidence of depictions and statues of dogs made in Roman Britain, "There are statues showing toy dogs held by women, dogs associated with chasing hares sculpted in stone, and often shown on pottery, dogs hunting deer on a mosaic, on pottery and other media, bronze statues of long limbed dogs, and stocky dogs, dogs associated with the hunter goddess Diana, and miscellaneous other dogs. There are many other representations of dogs found on objects in Britain but made elsewhere in the Roman Empire, in particular on Samian pottery, but these were obviously not modelled on native British dogs."

The ceramic production in the Nene Valley from the 2nd-4th Centuries AD frequently included images of hunting scenes in barbotine decoration. The so-called 'hunt cups' often depicted dogs chasing deer or hares. 

Summary Over a period of approximately 4 centuries, at the beginning of which almost all dogs would appear to have been used for scavenging, hunting and guarding purposes - only gradually in some cases becoming companion animals - Britain, as other regions of the Empire and outside, appears to have produced some notable dog types according to a handful of foreign writers. Some of those observations had simply been passed on from preceding authors, some were poetic fancy. A more accurate portrait of the variety of dogs in Brittain of that time is provided by zooarchaeology
 * (A note) With reference to Anglo-Saxon literature, Harcourt wrote: “[T]he literature indicates a wider range of variation in their dogs than does the bone evidence (Clutton-Brock, pers. comm.) and when more Saxon domestic sites have been found and excavated this discrepancy may disappear. On the other hand it must be remembered that the written word on any subject and in all times has been a rich source of distortions of the facts and of unsupported assertions.”

Vindolandenses tabulae tablet number 594 http://vto2.classics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/tablets/search-for-tablets?tablet=594&submit=View

discussed in :- Adams, James N. "The new Vindolanda writing-tablets." The Classical Quarterly (New Series) 53, no. 02 (2003): 530-575.

Zooarchaeology
This section see other Word doc “Zooarchaeology

Synthesise the following Harcourt. Clark .Phillips Cram Baxter Nussbaum. Bennet chronologically re-read Clutton Brock Finish with th possibility of DNA exposing te genetic traits that were selrcted for by the early hunters breedsrs which cannot be seen in the faunal collection

Factors of Harcourt

Harcourt The dog in Prehistoric and Early Historic Britain 1974: a survey in which the development and changes in size, conformation and skull shape of the dog in Britain from the Mesolithic to the end of the eleventh century AD were described and shoulder height estimated from long bone lengths. Harcourt determined that even given the meagre sample representation of the dogs of the Neolithic and Bronze ages, they were single populations, showing little variation, with a mean shoulder height of 43-62 cm/16.9-24.4inch. In the following Iron Age, with a richer sample, the population remained single, larger dogs appeared to be better represented but the size range is reduced to 29-58cm/11.4-22.8inch. The cardinal feature of Romano-British dog population, with again a much larger sample, is variability in height, build and skull shape. The height range being 23-72cm/9-28.3inch. This represents 2 to 3 distinct populations and for the first time the lap dog, or house dog, very much in the minority, a pet too small to fill any of the functions of the more numerous other two groups: the middle range scavenger or village dogs, and the group of large guard, hunting or fighting animals.

Phillips

Bennet et al