4.3 Article

Socioeconomic differences in diet: An isotopic examination of post-Medieval Chichester, West Sussex

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
卷 171, 期 4, 页码 584-597

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.23984

关键词

carbon; collagen; nitrogen; paleodiet; status

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Historical evidence suggests that social hierarchy pervaded all aspects of society in post-Medieval England. This study uses stable isotope analysis to explore the extent to which socioeconomic status and sex affected the dietary habits of the inhabitants of post-Medieval Chichester. Materials and Methods Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios were measured on 40 human burials from the post-Medieval site of St. Michael's Litten (Chichester, West Sussex, England). Samples were selected from three burial types that denoted differing socioeconomic status with roughly equal numbers of males and females: tomb burials (n = 13) for high-status; single coffin burials (n = 14) for middle-status; and shroud burials (n = 13) for low-status individuals. Results The data showed a largely terrestrial diet with the possibility of some inclusion of marine resources. The isotope results indicate significant variation in the consumption of terrestrial meat (and marine protein) between high-status tomb burials and coffin and shroud burials, showing that socioeconomic status likely played a role in daily dietary patterns. However, the isotope data suggest sex did not influence an individual's diet. Discussion These results mirror trends established in status-based studies from elsewhere in post-Medieval England. However, notably absent from the data is evidence for significant marine resource consumption, which is a well-established dietary trend of the late Medieval and early post-Medieval periods. These results indicate post-Medieval Chichester was a socially stratified society with clear implications that the diet of higher status individuals differed significantly from lower status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据