SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Archaeological evidence shows that the first brown hares and chickens to arrive in Britain were buried with care and intact. There is no signs of butchery on bones examined and the ongoing research suggests the two animals were not imported for people to eat.
Work by experts from the Universities of Exeter, Leicester and Oxford is revealing when brown hares, rabbits and chickens were introduced to Britain, and how they became incorporated into modern Easter traditions.
The team has previously analyzed the earliest rabbit bone to be found in the country, which dates to the first/second century AD. New radiocarbon dates for bones found on sites in Hampshire (Houghton Down, Weston Down, Winnal Down and Winklebury Camp) and Hertfordshire (Blackhorse Road) suggests brown hares and chickens were introduced to Britain even earlier, arriving simultaneously in the Iron Age, between the fifth and the third century BC.
The discovery of buried skeletons fits historical evidence that neither animal was eaten until the Roman period, which began hundreds of years later.
Julius Caesar's De Bello Gallico says: "The Britons consider it contrary to divine law to eat the hare, the chicken, or the goose. They raise these, however, for their own amusement and pleasure." The third-century AD author, Dio Cassius reported that Queen Boudicca released a live hare in order to divine the outcome of her battle with the Romans, calling upon the goddess Andraste to secure their victory.
During the Roman period, both species were farmed and eaten, and rabbits were also introduced. But in AD 410 the Roman Empire withdrew from Britain causing economic collapse. Rabbits became locally extinct, while populations of chickens and brown hares crashed. Due to their scarcity at this time, chickens and hares regained their special status.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday April 18 2020, @06:48PM (2 children)
Well as for chickens and geese, their eggs would provide far more nutrition over their lives than just eating them right away. Also their feathers and down would provide comfort and decoration.
As for hares and rabbits, once they die (of natural cause) their fur can provide warmth. Also if a hare or rabbit eats a certain plant without harm, then that plant is likely to be nutritious to hairless apes.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2020, @11:53PM
Agree with the birds, and rabbits today are often kept as pets. Most people don't skin their pets when they die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2020, @06:21PM
Chicken is basically meat grass. You give them chunk of land even with no apparently significantly source of nutrition on it and they will peck and fuck their way into a sustained Fibonacci level of reproduction. You practically have to slaughter them to keep the numbers from getting out of control. Also, if you don't slaughter them then they'll kill each other a good chunk of the time. Chickens are huge assholes. Even the females will peck each other to death. And roosters are a million times worse.
Claims of religion in archaeology are generally pretty irrelevant. Because anything that's not understood is attributed to religion as a default, because it works as an explanation for any otherwise bizarre phenomena. Claims of religion are constantly later overturned as new evidence emerges.