Hospitality in pre-viking Anglo-Saxon England

This article studies the question of Anglo-Saxon hospitality, that is, in the first place, the gift (from a host to a guest) of food, fodder, roof and bed for a night or for a longer term. Contrary to Romantic visions, it was nothing like a spontaneous and free practice: Marcel Mauss and other anthropologists after him have shown that giving and receiving were obligations, compulsory acts in pre-market societies. In Anglo-Saxon England, hospitality was always a duty, strictly limited and framed by custom. It may have been provided to a single traveller, to a member of a formal or informal network (particularly ecclesiastical), to a king or to his agents in the form of a pastus or feorm: a kind of 'guesting' or compulsory hospitality which was progressively given up by kings as they booked lands to religious institutions. The forms and beneficiaries may vary, but the opposition between 'spontaneous' feasting and 'compulsory' guesting must not be stressed too much: hospitality was always a kind of binding exchange, even when it assumed the shape, the aspect, and even the values of a free and open practice .     

Animal exploitation at ed‐Dur (Umm al‐Qaiwain,United Arab Emirates)

Faunal remains are described from a series of contexts excavated in the coastal site of ed‐Dur, dated between the second and fourth century AD. The more than 19,000 identified animal bones allowed a diachronic and spatial analysis. Subsistence relied heavily on domestic animals, in particular sheep and goat, and on fishing. Whereas the exploitation of terrestrial resources seems to have been quite constant throughout the period considered, the aquatic fauna shows changes through time. A shift, possibly linked to overexploitation, is seen both in the proportions of the targeted fish species and in their sizes. The deposition of some of the mammals encountered in burials is also dealt with; dog and ovicaprid can probably be added to the list of mammals used in ritual context in the region. Spatial analysis did not reveal particular concentrations or activity areas. In general the finds fit nicely in the archaeozoological record of the wider region.