Next Article in Journal
Middle Paleolithic Neanderthal Open-Air Camp and Hyena Den Westeregeln (D)—Competition for Prey in a Mammoth Steppe Environment of Northern Germany (Central Europe)
Previous Article in Journal
Fossil Tusk Shells (Mollusca, Scaphopoda) in Archaeological Sites in the South of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Quaternary
Volume 8
Issue 3
10.3390/quat8030051
quaternary-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Archaeozoological Insights into the Husbandry of Domestic Ruminants at Monastic and Noble Sites in Medieval Croatia

by
Kim Korpes
1,
Tajana Trbojević Vukičević
1,
Martina Đuras
1,
Magdalena Kolenc
1 and
Aneta Piplica
2,*
1
Department of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
The Department of Animal Breeding and Livestock Production, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Quaternary 2025, 8(3), 51; https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8030051
Submission received: 18 July 2025 / Revised: 5 September 2025 / Accepted: 9 September 2025 / Published: 22 September 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Animal husbandry played a central role in the economy of medieval Croatia, yet little comparative archaeozoological research was performed on noble and monastic sites. The aim of the present paper is to compare the proportions and use of cattle, sheep, and goats at noble and monastic sites dating from the 13th to 16th centuries. Out of 25,739 animal remains, 8923 were identified, with cattle (N = 2819) and small ruminants (N = 1791) among the most frequent species. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in species distribution between some monastic and noble sites. Cattle were the dominant species at two monasteries and three castles, while small ruminants were the most frequent species at one monastic and one noble site. Age profiles suggested a greater use of subadult and adult animals across all sites, suggesting breeding for secondary products. Estimated height at the withers was 108.5 cm for cattle, 60 cm for sheep, and 65.6 cm for goats. Logarithmic bone width analysis showed no statistically significant differences in animal size between site types, though some noble sites had larger individuals. The results point to both shared and distinct animal husbandry practices between the two site categories and contribute to our understanding of medieval dietary and economic patterns in continental Croatia.

1. Introduction

In medieval Croatia, animal husbandry had an extensive form and was crucial for the survival of communities [1]. The animals that were raised and mentioned in written records were goats, sheep, pigs, cattle, and poultry [2]. In addition to meat, milk, cheese, butter, lard, and eggs were consumed, while products such as wool, hides, and manure were also utilised [1,3]. Pig farming in medieval Croatia is well documented [2,4]. Cattle breeding was also a major agricultural activity, with oxen used as draft animals, dairy cows kept on estates, and cattle hides traded in towns. In contrast, there is little written record on the husbandry of small ruminants like sheep and goats, although sheep farming was known to be developed in areas south of the Kupa river and the Vinodol valley [2].
Previous archaeozoological research in Europe gave valuable insight into cattle and small ruminants’ husbandry and their use. Sheep, and sometimes goats, were significant for the clergy’s diet and as a Christian symbol [5,6]. Small ruminants also played an important role for the rural population, while cattle were more consumed by the nobility and townspeople [5,7]. Cattle and small ruminants were the most common species found at high-status sites in Hungary, and the high number of sheep and goat remains with a very low presence of pig remains at Szolnok castle is explained by the Ottoman occupation [8]. Research on seven settlements and monasteries from the 9th to the 13th centuries in southeastern Romania revealed that the most frequently identified species was cattle, ranging from 32.7% to 58.6%, except at the Dumbrăveni Abbey, where sheep and goats comprised 55.2% of the total identified remains [9]. In Italy, the monastic diet was modest, relying on fish and mainly adult sheep. Similarly, in rural settlements the bones of adult cattle and small ruminants dominated and suggested primary use for milk. In contrast, castles showed high proportions of young pigs and poultry [10]. Research across 60 Spanish sites found sheep and goats as the most common species, particularly in rural settlements, and they were used for wool and milk. In urban areas, secondary products and meat from large and small ruminants were used in the diet the most, while high-status sites were marked by a prevalence of pig remains [11]. In southern England, sheep and pigs dominated the archaeozoological material from castles, monasteries, and rural sites, with cattle bones abundant only at St. Mary Spital and Eynsham Abbey [5]. From the High to Late Middle Ages, sheep gradually replaced cattle, likely due to the growing wool trade [12]. A clear distinction between monastic and noble sites (from the 14th to 16th century) was observed in Ireland, where sheep and pigs were the most abundant species at monastery sites, while castle sites had over 50% of cattle remains [13].
Even though continental Croatia is rich in medieval archaeological sites, the only comparative archaeozoological study focusing on diet included four smaller castles in Slavonia. Apart from Mihalj Castle, where 51.5% of the remains belonged to cattle, pigs were the most dominant species in the other castles, reflecting high social status. Small ruminants were the second or third most abundant species [14]. Archaeozoological analyses of other medieval sites mostly indicates a dominance of cattle remains: Čanjevo Castle with 41.4% [15], Virovitica Castle with 70% [16], and Barilović Castle with over 50% subadult and adult cattle [17]. At two sites, Vrbovec and Paka, pig remains were the most dominant, with cattle being the second-most-abundant species [18,19]. A part of the sample from Vrbovec castle dating to the second half of the 15th century, where 66.1% of the remains were sheep and goat bones, cannot be considered relevant as it comes from only one waste pit within the settlement [18]. The only study in Croatia showing the highest proportion of sheep and goat remains (55.4%), with more goats than sheep, was conducted at Rašpor Castle, with cattle remains accounting for 31.3% [20].
Research on the size of cattle and small ruminants is scarce, with some studies coming from neighbouring countries and local Croatian breeds [21,22,23,24]. It is known that cattle, and to a lesser extent small ruminants, were larger during the Roman period and became smaller in the Middle Ages. An increase in sheep size was recorded in the Late Middle Ages, coinciding with a rise in wool production and trade, which required larger-bodied sheep to yield more wool [25].
Since there remains a gap in the comparative research of dietary habits concerning medieval castles and monasteries in Croatia, this research tries to fill the gap and investigate the differences in the husbandry and use of cattle, sheep, and goats. The aim of this study is to investigate the abundance of cattle, sheep, and goats in the archaeozoological material from eight archaeological sites in continental Croatia. Moreover, the goal is to analyse the differences in the proportion of these species between noble and monastic sites. Furthermore, this paper explores the size differences between cattle, sheep, and goats and the use of these animals.

2. Materials and Methods

Archaeozoological material investigated in this research has been excavated during 2010, and from 2013 to 2022, at eight archaeological sites (Figure 1)—the Benedictine Abbey of St. Michael the Archangel (male monastery, RUD), the Benedictine Monastery of St. Margaret (male monastery, BSM), the Pauline Monastery of All Saints (male monastery, STR), castle Milengrad (MIL), castle Vrbovec (PGV), castle Barilović (BAR), castle Sokolac (SOK), and castle Krčingrad (KRČ).
All archaeological excavations were carried out by the Croatian Conservation Institute and Institute of Archaeology from Zagreb, Croatia. Animal remains were excavated manually, without sieving, following standard archaeological protocol and were dated between the 13th and 16th century. Animal remains were first sorted in the laboratory, according to Miracle and Pugsley [26], into identifiable (skeletally and taxonomically) and unidentifiable. Identifiable samples were all bones longer than 5 cm, with fully or partially preserved epiphyses, diaphyses with recognisable muscle, ligament, or tendon attachments or nutrient foramina, and all skull or mandible elements with distinct morphological features. Identifiable remains underwent skeletal and taxonomical identification, then the total number of animal remains and the number of identified specimens (hereafter NISP) were determined, and then osteological measurements were taken [27,28]. For those specimens where it was possible, the age and sex of the animal were determined [29,30,31,32]. Remains were classified into five age classes, juvenile, juvenile–subadult, subadult, subadult–adult, and adult individuals, according to Reitz and Wing [28]. Early fusing bones with fused epiphyses were classified as subadult–adult animals, i.e., 24–42 months or older for cattle, 18–24 months or older for goats, 18–36 months or older for sheep. Late fusing bones with unfused epiphyses were classified as juvenile–subadult animals, i.e., younger than 2 or 3.5 years for cattle, from 4–12 months to 18–24 months for goats, from 3–10 to 18–36 months for sheep.
Severe damage to specimen and the absence of important articular surfaces made it difficult to determine exact species, goat or sheep, and those specimens were referred to as small ruminants, i.e., sheep or goat. When possible, sheep from goat and cattle from red deer where distinguished using specific morphological features of bone and teeth [33,34,35,36,37]. To estimate height at the withers, formula GL × f was used, where GL was greatest bone length and f was a species and bone specific factor [38,39,40,41]. Bones used for estimating height at the withers were metacarpal and metatarsal bones, talus, and calcaneus.
For height at the withers of cattle, goats, and sheep, descriptive statistical analysis was first performed. The data were presented as the arithmetic mean ( X ¯ ), standard deviation (SD), and minimum and maximum values. In order to explore differences between social status of archaeological sites according to NISP and age groups for sheep, goat, and cattle, the sites were categorized as monasteries, the Benedictine Abbey of St. Michael the Archangel (RUD), the Benedictine Monastery of St. Margaret (BSM), and the Pauline Monastery of All Saints (STR), and castles, castle Milengrad (MIL), castle Vrbovec (PGV), castle Barilović (BAR), castle Sokolac (SOK), and castle Krčingrad (KRČ) (Figure 1). The relationship between the social status of investigated sites and the NISP of each species was tested using a chi-square test [42]. Statistical significance was considered at the level of p < 0.05.
To explore the size of domestic ruminants, a logarithmic data transformation was performed for the bone width of cattle and sheep, according to the following formula:
log ratio = log10 (observed measurement) − log10 (standard measurement),
where the observed measurement refers to the measurement of the analysed sample, and the standard measurement refers to that of a reference animal [43]. Measurements for the reference animals were obtained from the website of the Integrative Prehistory and Archaeological Science (IPAS) research group at the University of Basel (Bos taurus, Inv. no. 2426; Ovis aries, Inv. no. 2448) [44]. To identify differences, sites were grouped into monastic (RUD, BSM, and STR) and noble sites (MIL, PGV, BAR, SOK, and KRČ) (Figure 1). A Mann–Whitney U test was applied to compare the transformed logarithmic bone width data between the two groups. The data were graphically displayed using box plots for all archaeological sites, and were also grouped into monastic and noble sites. The box plots showed the first quartile (25% of data), the second quartile (median), the third quartile (75% of data), as well as the minimum and maximum values and outliers.

3. Results

Archaeozoological excavations revealed 25,739 animal remains, consisting of bones, teeth, and horns or antlers, out of which 34.7% (N = 8923) were identified. Most of the identified remains belonged to mammals. Furthermore, the remains of birds, fish, molluscs, and turtles were also identified, though in very small numbers (Figure 2).
While pig remains were the most abundant, cattle (N = 2819) and small ruminants (N = 1791) were the second- and third-most-identified species out of all identified mammal remains (N = 8089, Figure 3). Out of small ruminant remains, 459 were identified as sheep and 260 as goats.
Out of all cattle bones, pelvic limb bones (N = 992) were the most frequently identified in the sample from all archaeological sites. Sex was determined for 40 bones from noble sites, where 30 belonged to females and 10 to males. At none of the monastic sites was it possible to determine the sex. The most recorded age group in cattle was subadult–adult (N = 669). The mean height at the withers for cattle was estimated at 108.5 cm.
As for sheep remains, the most frequently identified bones from all archaeological sites where those of the thoracic limb (N = 179). Sex was determined for 27 bones, where 18 belonged to female and only 9 to male animals. Out of the 27 bones, all except 1 bone of a female animal came from monastic sites. The most recorded age group was subadult–adult (N = 136). For 28 remains it was possible to calculate height at the withers, and the mean was 60 cm.
Out of goat remains, skull, thoracic, and pelvic limb bones were equally represented on all archaeological sites. Sex was morphologically determined for only two bones from the noble site, both of which belonged to female animals. The most represented age group was subadult–adult with 68 bones. The height at the withers was estimated for only two bones and was 65.6 cm.

3.1. The Relationship Between the Social Status of the Site and the NISP of Cattle and Small Ruminants

Cattle and small ruminant remains (i.e., sheep and goats) were identified at all of the investigated sites. Since it was not possible to determine for all specimens in the total sample of small ruminants whether they belonged to sheep or goats, and to increase the sample size and strengthen the statistical test, sheep and goats were analysed together under the category of small ruminants. As seen from Figure 4, cattle were the most represented species at sites BSM (42.8%) and STR (35.4%), both monasteries, as well as at two noble sites, MIL (38.9%) and PGV (36%). The percentage of small ruminant remains was the highest for the noble site SOK, with 45.7%, and monastic site BSM, with 40.8%. Cattle and small ruminant remains were the least represented at two monasteries, RUD and STR.
The analysis of the relationship between the NISP of cattle and small ruminants in relation to the social status of the sites showed a statistically significant difference between monastic and noble sites. The results of the chi-square test for each species individually are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
Cattle were generally more prevalent at certain monastic sites, particularly BSM and STR, compared to the castle site KRČ, and statistically significant differences were found (Figure 4, Table 1). However, the monastic site RUD showed a significantly lower proportion of cattle remains than almost all the castle sites, except for SOK. Small ruminants were more frequently identified at the monastic sites of BSM and RUD compared to the castle sites of MIL and PGV. However, RUD also had a significantly lower number of small ruminant remains than the castle sites of KRČ and SOK. Archaeological site STR had the lowest number of identified small ruminant remains (Table 2).

3.2. Age Comparison for Cattle and Small Ruminants Regarding the Monastic and Noble Sites

As a result of age comparison for cattle, the most represented age groups from both monastic and noble sites were subadult–adult and adult animals (Figure 5). More remains from juvenile and juvenile–subadult animals were identified at monastic than at noble sites.
Out of the goat bones available for age determination from monastic sites, almost 50% of them belonged to juvenile animals, what is opposite to those from noble sites where more remains belonged to subadults and adults (Figure 6).
As for sheep remains, at monastic sites the juvenile, subadult–adult, and adult age groups were almost equally represented, what is opposite to what was found at noble sites where almost 80% of remains belonged to subadult and adult animals (Figure 7).

3.3. Height at the Withers for Cattle, Sheep and Goat

Estimation of the height at the withers was based on 16 cattle, 28 sheep, and 2 goat bones (Table 3). Bones used for estimating height at the withers for cattle were nine metacarpal and seven metatarsal bones and they originated from four out of the eight archaeological sites. The average estimated cattle height was 108.5 cm, with the lowest value at the noble site BAR (103.8 cm) and the highest at the noble site PGV (109.43 cm).
The highest number of bones suitable for calculating the height at the withers came from sheep (N = 28). Bones used for calculation were 11 taluses, 10 calcanei, 2 metacarpal and 3 metatarsal bones, and 1 radius and 1 humerus. Those bones originated from all archaeological sites except monastic sites BSM and STR. The average estimated height at the withers for sheep was 60 cm. Over half of the specimens originated from the noble site BAR, for which the average height at the withers was also the highest (62.2 cm), while the lowest value was calculated for the bones from the noble site SOK (52.7 cm).
Only one metatarsal bone from the noble site KRČ was used to calculate the height at the withers for the goat and there was one metacarpal bone from another noble site, MIL, giving a mean value of 65.6 cm.

3.4. Comparison of Bone Measurements from Noble and Monastic Sites

Logarithmically transformed bone width values of analysed cattle and sheep bones were compared with the standard measurements, whereas goat bones were not included in this analysis due to the small sample size.
The analysis revealed that cattle bone measurements from all investigated sites were lower than the standard values (Figure 8). The only exception was the noble site BAR, where the values tended toward zero, meaning the bone widths were very similar to the standard measurements. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found when comparing cattle bone width values between monastic and noble sites.
Comparison of the logarithmically transformed width values of the sheep bones with standard sheep measurements showed that, at all investigated sites, the values were slightly higher than the standard values (Figure 9). The PGV site stood out with the highest values. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between monastic and noble sites, although it should be noted that the sample size was very small (n = 42).

4. Discussion

Archaeozoology helps to build a narrative and understand the broader picture of life in the past. Food waste, which consists of animal and plant remains, leads to conclusions on eating habits, social hierarchy, and differences among social classes, including monastic communities, nobility, townspeople, and rural populations [28,45,46]. For this reason, researchers often compared data from monasteries, castles, towns, and villages [9,10,47]. As higher social status is usually reflected in greater species diversity, a larger number of bones from non-mature animals, a higher proportion of wild game, birds, and fish, as well as the occurrence of rare species, it is usually the primary focus of research. In contrast, evidence of animal exploitation for secondary products and eventually for meat often indicates a more modest diet [11,48,49].
Considering continental Croatia, cattle were a significant component of agriculture at monastic sites. The only exception was the site RUD, where pig remains dominated, suggesting that not all monks strictly adhered to the Benedictine dietary rule, or that it was observed only on specific occasions, with young pigs being delivered to monasteries whole or in halves for consumption [4]. Notably, cattle were present in high proportions at noble sites, particularly at MIL, PGV, and BAR, each exceeding 30% of the remains. However, these values remain lower than those reported for Mihalj Castle with 51.5% [14], Barilović Castle with over 50% [17], and especially the castle in Virovitica with over 70% of cattle remains [16]. In this study cattle were represented with 32.3%, consistent with findings from high-status Hungarian sites [8] and similar to the comparative analysis in England between monasteries, castles, and abbeys, where cattle dominated the castle, while sheep and pigs predominated at churches and abbeys [13].
At the monastic sites, a higher frequency of cattle bones that belonged to younger animals, around six months to under two years, was found. Since unfused long bones are often more damaged in archaeozoological material compared to those with fused epiphyses [50], it is very likely that the finding of more bones from juvenile animals found at monastic sites reflects actual consumption patterns. The slaughter of animals before reaching the optimal age for butchering, i.e., the age when feed investment and meat yield are balanced, suggests a dietary focus on young meat [51,52]. Beglane [13] noted preferential slaughter of males, as females were retained for breeding and secondary products. In this study, more bones belonged to females than males, but this result must be interpreted cautiously due to the very small number of specimens for which sex could be determined. Therefore, due to the lack of sufficient osteometric data and preserved bones for morphological sex assessment, it was not possible to determine the predominant sex of cattle at both monastic and noble sites. At noble sites, a higher proportion of cattle remains came from individuals older than 2 to 3.5 years. suggesting use for secondary products and as draft animals [2,53,54,55].
Among monastic sites, BSM and RUD showed a high proportion of small ruminant remains, aligning with patterns seen in southern England and Romania [5,9]. In contrast, monastic site STR had only 2.7% small ruminant bones, while pig (43.3%) and cattle (35.4%) bones dominated the material. At the noble site SOK, small ruminants comprised 45.7% of the material, possibly due to the popularity of wool production in the late medieval period [12]. Overall, no clear preference for small ruminants by clergy or nobility was observed.
However, when looking at the proportion of all age categories of small ruminants between monastic and noble sites, higher numbers of goat individuals aged 6 to 12 months and sheep aged 3 to 10 months were found at the monastic sites. As previously mentioned, unfused bones are more fragile and thus often underrepresented in archaeozoological material [50]. It is therefore likely that the higher proportion of juvenile small ruminants at the monastic sites is accurate and reflects the use of these animals for meat [51,52]. Beglane [13] similarly found 40–50% of sheep slaughtered at 15–42 months of age, probably for high-quality meat. Conversely, noble sites in this research had a higher proportion of goat and sheep remains from individuals older than 1.5 to 2 years, implying use for secondary products such as milk and a focus on wool production.
Several factors, such as diet, genetics, and the sexual composition may influence animal size. In archaeozoology, increased size is often interpreted as a sign of improvement, whether via enhanced nutrition or breeding practices [25]. Larger animals offered economic advantages such as more meat or greater traction, and historical sources confirm size was seen as beneficial [56]. While cattle size increased during the Roman and Late Roman periods, a reduction occurred from the 8th century through the medieval era [25]. The average height at the withers for cattle in this study, 107.8 cm, was lower than the value of 113.3 cm recorded at medieval sites in Serbia [22] and below the average height of the cattle population in Europe, which was 112 cm [21]. This suggests the cattle were smaller than even the local Croatian breed Buša, which ranges from 110 to 114 cm [23,24]. Logarithmic bone width comparisons support this, with all specimens smaller than the standard reference that was an old, small German cattle breed with a height at the withers of 113 cm and a weight of 340 kg. Though smaller cattle are expected in the medieval period, caution is needed due to the small sample size.
Unlike cattle, sheep and goats showed little change in size from the Roman to the medieval periods [25]. However, their size increased during the Late Middle Ages [25,57]. In this study, logarithmic comparison indicated that the sheep were slightly larger than the reference male Soay sheep, a small Scottish breed with an average height at the withers of 65 cm and a weight of 30 kg. This size difference may be explained by selective breeding for increased wool production [25,57]. However, when examining the average height at the withers of the sheep in this study (59.8 cm), the results were smaller than those reported in research from Serbia for the 16th–17th century, where sheep were larger. Interestingly, the average height in this study matches the measurements found in the same Serbian study for sheep dating to the 5th–6th centuries [22].
For goats, the estimated height at the withers (65.6 cm, based on two bones) was smaller than the average of 70.26 cm reported by Nedeljković [22]. These findings suggest that sheep and goats in this assemblage were similar in size to those from the Early Middle Ages [25]. However, the small sample size limits the broader interpretation of these results.

5. Conclusions

Analysis of faunal remains from eight medieval sites in continental Croatia reveals distinct patterns in livestock use and diet tied to social context. Cattle and small ruminants were central to subsistence, but their roles varied between monastic and noble sites. Cattle were present at all sites, but differences in slaughter age suggest varied purposes. Both monastic and noble communities oriented cattle husbandry toward secondary products, but while nobles may have kept cattle longer for labour and milk, monastic communities also likely bred cattle for meat, as suggested by the slaughter of younger animals. Sheep and goats were more prevalent at some sites, indicating localised preferences or economic activities, such as wool production. The presence of young sheep and goat bones at monasteries indicates that animal remains were directly associated with food preparation and everyday activities, rather than confined to special contexts such as an infirmary. Since no written records mention an infirmary or treatment of sick individuals at these monasteries, it remains uncertain whether meat was consumed by healthy monks, thereby contravening Benedictine rule, or by sick members of the community or possibly guests. These results highlight the complexity of dietary practice in monasteries and suggest that strict rules were not always followed in practice, but the question why remains unanswered. An alternative hypothesis is that the monastic economy, with its emphasis on smaller animals, may have resembled that of nearby villages more than the cattle-focused economies of castles, but further research on this topic is needed. Despite these differences, animal size remained relatively uniform, suggesting shared breeding practices or regional trade. Livestock use in medieval Croatia was thus shaped not only by functional needs and social organisation, but also by proximity to local communities and the extent to which religious rules were observed in practice. More research, particularly on village communities surrounding castles and monasteries, is needed to provide a fuller picture of husbandry strategies and dietary practices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K.; formal analysis, K.K. and A.P.; methodology, K.K. and M.K.; investigation, K.K. and M.K.; resources, M.Đ. and T.T.V.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K., M.Đ. and T.T.V.; writing—review and editing, A.P., M.K., M.Đ. and T.T.V.; visualisation, K.K.; supervision, T.T.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

All data used in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

Our gratitude goes to the leaders of the excavations of the archaeological sites included in this research who entrusted us with the archaeozoological material. Special thanks to Andrej Janeš (BSM) and Petar Sekulić (KRC, MIL, RUD, STR) from the Croatian Conservation Institute, Zagreb, and Tatjana Tkalčec (PGV) from the Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
RUDBenedictine Abbey of St. Michael the Archangel
BSMBenedictine Monastery of St. Margaret
STRPauline Monastery of All Saints
MILCastle Milengrad
PGVCastle Vrbovec
BARCastle Barilović
SOKCastle Sokolac
KRČCastle Krčingrad
NISPnumber of identified specimens

References

  1. Vučevac Bajt, V. Povijest Veterinarstva, 1st ed.; Maltar Strmečki, N., Ed.; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb: Zagreb, Croatia, 2012; pp. 106–107. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adamček, J. Agrarni Odnosi u Hrvatskoj od Sredine XV do Kraja XVII Stoljeća, 1st ed.; Sveučilišna Naklada Liber: Zagreb, Croatia, 1980; pp. 116–119, 191–215. [Google Scholar]
  3. Grant, A. Animal resources. In The Countryside of Medieval England; Astill, G., Grant, A., Eds.; Basil Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1988; pp. 149–187. [Google Scholar]
  4. Korpes, K.; Piplica, A.; Đuras, M.; Trbojević Vukičević, T.; Kolenc, M. Exploitation of pigs during the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period in Croatia. Heritage 2024, 7, 1014–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Holmes, M. Southern England: A review of animal remains from Saxon, medieval and post-medieval archaeological sites. Archaeol. Data Serv. 2017, 8, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Holmes, M. The ‘Lamb of God’ in the early Middle Ages: A zooarchaeological perspective. J. Mediev. Hist. 2023, 49, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Crabtree, P.J. Agricultural innovation and socio-economic change in early medieval Europe: Evidence from Britain and France. World Archaeol. 2010, 42, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gál, E. Animal remains from archaeological excavations in north-eastern Hungary. In Environmental Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary; Gál, E., Juhász, I., Sümegi, P., Eds.; Publicationes Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae: Budapest, Hungary, 2005; pp. 139–174. [Google Scholar]
  9. Stanc, S.; Bejenaru, L.; Acumenco-Pîrnău, L. Domestic mammals in the diet of medieval communities in south-eastern Romania. Bull. Univ. Agric. Sci. Vet. Med. Cluj-Napoca Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 69, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Venuto, G. To eat and to be in medieval southern Italy: The zooarchaeological contribution from religious, rural and fortified sites. In Bestial Mirrors—Using Animals to Construct Human Identities in Medieval Europe; Pluskowski, A., Kunst, G.K., Kucera, M., Bietak, M., Hein, I., Eds.; Vienna Institute for Archaeological Science: Vienna, Austria, 2010; pp. 85–99. [Google Scholar]
  11. Grau-Sologestoa, I. Socio-economic status and religious identity in medieval Iberia: The zooarchaeological evidence. Environ. Archaeol. 2017, 22, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. McCormick, F.; Murray, E. The zooarchaeology of medieval Ireland. In The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology; Albarella, U., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Beglane, F. Meat and dairy products in medieval Ireland. In Food Provisioning in Complex Societies: Zooarchaeological Perspectives; Atici, L., Arbuckle, B.S., Eds.; University Press of Colorado: Denver, CO, USA, 2023; pp. 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tkalčec, T.; Trbojević Vukičević, T. Archaeozoological evidence of dietary habits of small castle inhabitants in medieval Slavonia. In Castrum Bene 16: Castrum and Economy; Pisk, S., Ed.; Museum of Moslavina Kutina, Historical Association Moslavina: Popovača, Croatia, 2021; pp. 124–152. [Google Scholar]
  15. Trbojević Vukičević, T.; Štilinović, A. Arheozoološka analiza kostiju s utvrde Čanjevo. In Castle Čanjevo—Research 2003–2007; Bekić, L., Ed.; Visoko County: Visoko, Croatia, 2008; pp. 253–259. [Google Scholar]
  16. Trbojević Vukičević, T.; Alić, I. Arheozoološka analiza. In Srednjovjekovna Nizinska Utvrda u Virovitici; Kulej, M., Ed.; Gradski Muzej Virovitica: Virovitica, Croatia, 2008; pp. 39–44. [Google Scholar]
  17. Trbojević Vukičević, T.; Kučko, A. Procjena prehrambenih navika temeljem arheozoološke analize. In Stari Grad Barilović—10 Godina Arheoloških Istraživanja; Azinović Bebek, A., Krmpotić, M., Eds.; Hrvatski Restauratorski Zavod: Zagreb, Croatia, 2014; pp. 110–117. [Google Scholar]
  18. Trbojević Vukičević, T.; Frančić, S.; Kužir, S. Analiza životinjskih kostiju iz srednjovjekovnog burga Vrbovca u Klenovcu Humskome. In Burg Vrbovec u Klenovcu Humskome; Horjan, G., Tomičić, Ž., Eds.; Institut za arheologiju, Muzeji Hrvatskog zagorja: Zagreb, Croatia, 2010; pp. 235–247. [Google Scholar]
  19. Radović, S. Prehrana posade srednjovjekovne utvrde Paka. In Burg Paka; Šimek, M., Ed.; Gradski muzej Varaždin, Državni arhiv u Varaždinu: Varaždin, Croatia, 2021; pp. 215–242. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bradara, T.; Radović, S. Nalazi iz kaštela Rašpor—Arheološka i arheozoološka analiza. Histria Archaeol. 2021, 51, 159–203. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bökönyi, S. History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe; Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nedeljković, D. Pregled arheozooloških istraživanja Sirmijuma—Lokalitet 85 (2002–2005). In Zbornik Muzeja Srema; Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia, 2009; pp. 7–40. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329210737_Pregled_arheozooloskih_istrazivanja_Sirmijuma-_lokalitet_85_2002-2005_The_review_of_archaeozoological_researches_of_Sirmium_-_site_85_2002-2005_Summary_in_English (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  23. Konjačić, M.; Ivanković, A.; Caput, P.; Mijić, P.; Pranić, D. Buša u Hrvatskoj. Stočarstvo 2004, 58, 163–177. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ramljak, J.; Bunevski, G.; Bytyqi, H.; Marković, B.; Brka, M.; Ivanković, A.; Kume, K.; Stojanović, S.; Nikolov, V.; Simčič, M.; et al. Conservation of a domestic metapopulation structured into related and partly admixed strains. Mol. Ecol. 2018, 27, 1633–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Grau-Sologestoa, I. Livestock management in Spain from Roman to post-medieval times: A biometrical analysis of cattle, sheep/goat and pig. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2015, 54, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Miracle, P.T.; Pugsley, L. Vertebrate faunal remains from Pupićina Cave. In Prehistoric Herders of Northern Istria—The Archaeology of Pupićina Cave, 1st ed.; Miracle, P.T., Forenbaher, S., Eds.; Arheološki Muzej Istre—Pula: Pula, Croatia, 2006; pp. 259–400. [Google Scholar]
  27. Von den Driesch, A. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites; Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1976; pp. 68–111. [Google Scholar]
  28. Reitz, E.J.; Wing, E.S. Zooarchaeology, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA; Melbourne, Australia; Madrid, Spain; Cape Town, South Africa; Singapore; São Paulo, Brazil, 2008; pp. 1–31, 75–77, 110–238. [Google Scholar]
  29. Silver, I.A. Fusion of post-cranial epiphyses etc. in domestic cattle, Bos taurus. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites; Wilson, B., Grigson, C., Payne, S., Eds.; BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1963; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hillson, S. Teeth, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996; pp. 94–102, 202–216. [Google Scholar]
  31. Grant, A. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites; Wilson, B., Grigson, C., Payne, S., Eds.; BAR British Series: Oxford, UK, 1982; pp. 91–108. [Google Scholar]
  32. Greenfield, H.J.; Arnold, E.R. Absolute age and tooth eruption and wear sequences in sheep and goat: Determining age-at-death in zooarchaeology using a modern control sample. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2008, 35, 836–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Boessneck, J.; Müller, H.-H.; Teichert, M. Osteologische Unterscheidungsmerkmale Zwischen Schaf (Ovis Aries Linné) und Ziege (Capra hircus Linné); Akademie Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schmid, E. Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists; Elsevier Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1972; pp. 42–43, 79–151. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pohlmeyer, K. Zur vergleichenden Anatomie von Damtier, Schaf und Ziege. In Osteologie und Postnatale Osteogenese; Verlag Paul Parey: Berlin/Hamburg, Germany, 1985; pp. 16–233. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zeder, M.A.; Lapham, H.A. Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identify postcranial bones in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37, 2887–2905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zeder, M.A.; Pilaar, S.E. Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identify mandibles and mandibular teeth in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37, 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Teichert, M. Osteometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der Widerristhöhe bei vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Schweinen. Kühn-Arch. 1969, 83, 237–292. [Google Scholar]
  39. Schramm, Z. Long Bones and Height in Withers of Goat; Wyższa Szkoła Rolnicza: Warsaw, Poland, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  40. Von den Driesch, A.; Boessneck, J. Kritische Anmerkungen zur Widerristhöhenberechnung aus Längenmassen vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Tierknochen. Saugetierkd. Mitteilungen 1974, 22, 325–348. [Google Scholar]
  41. Teichert, M. Osteometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der Widerristhöhe bei Schafen. In Archaeozoological Studies; Clason, A.T., Ed.; North Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1975; pp. 51–69. [Google Scholar]
  42. Petrie, A.; Watson, P. Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science, 3rd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  43. Meadow, R.H. The use of size index scaling techniques for research on archaeozoological collections from the Middle East. In Historia Animalium Ex Ossibus: Beiträge zur Palaoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethnologie, und Geschichte der Tiermedizin; Schibler, J., Ed.; Verlag Marie Leidorf: Rahden, Germany, 1999; pp. 285–300. [Google Scholar]
  44. Marti-Grädel, E.; Stopp, B. LSI Standards. In Integrative Prehistory and Archaeological Science; University of Basel: Basel, Switzerland, 2019; Available online: https://ipna.duw.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/ipna_duw/PDF_s/PDF/LSIStandards_IPASUniversityBasel.xlsx (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  45. Gumerman, G. IV Food and complex societies. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 1997, 4, 105–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Steele, T.E. The contributions of animal bones from archaeological sites: The past and future of zooarchaeology. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2015, 56, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bartosiewicz, L. Animal Husbandry and medieval settlement in Hungary. Beitr. Mittelalterarchäol. Österr. 1999, 15, 139–155. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ashby, S.P. The role of zooarchaeology in the interpretation of socioeconomic status: A discussion with reference to Medieval Europe. Archaeol. Rev. Camb. 2002, 18, 37–59. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ervynck, A.; Van Neer, W.; Hüster Plogmann, H.; Schibler, J. Beyond affluence: The zooarchaeology of luxury. World Archaeol. 2003, 34, 428–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Landon, D.B. Zooarchaeology and historical archaeology: Progress and prospects. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2005, 12, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Veszeli, M. Bestimmung der Tierknochen. In Der Südfriedhof von Vindonissa; Hintermann, D., Ed.; Gesellschaft Pro Vidonissa: Bruges, Belgium, 2000; pp. 169–178. [Google Scholar]
  52. Vanderhoeven, A.; Martens, M.; Ervynck, A.; Van Neer, W. Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen in dem römischen Vicus von Tienen (Belgien): Die Integration von ökologischen und archäologischen Daten. In Archäologie, Naturwissenschaften, Umwelt; Frey, M., Hanel, N., Eds.; BAR International Series: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 13–31. [Google Scholar]
  53. McCormic, F. The faunal remains. In Kells Priory, Co. Kilkenny: Archaeological Excavations by T. Fanning and M. Clyne; Clyne, M., Ed.; Stationery Office Books (TSO): Dublin, Ireland, 2007; pp. 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Grau-Sologestoa, I.; Albarella, U.; Quirós Castillo, J.A. Urban medieval and post-medieval zooarchaeology in the Basque Country: Meat supply and consumption. Quat. Int. 2016, 460, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kovačíková, L.; Trojánková, O.; Meduna, P.; Starec, P.; Burian, M.; Čiháková, J.; Frolík, J. Trendy v konzumaci masa a dalších živočišných produktů ve středověké Praze. Archeol. Rozhl. 2019, 71, 529–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Davis, S.J.M. British Agriculture: Texts for the Zoo-Archaeologist. Environ. Archaeol. 2002, 7, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Davis, S.J.M.; Gonçalves, M.J.; Gabriel, S. Animal remains from a Moslem period (12th/13th century AD) lixeira (garbage dump) in Silves, Algarve, Portugal. Rev. Port. Arqueol. 2008, 11, 183–258. [Google Scholar]
Quaternary 08 00051 g001
Figure 1. Geographic distribution of the analysed archaeological sites in Croatia. Monastic sites (red) include STR (Pauline Monastery of All Saints), BSM (Benedictine Monastery of St. Margaret), and RUD (Benedictine Abbey of St. Michael the Archangel), while noble (green) sites include PGV (castle Vrbovec), MIL (castle Milengrad), BAR (castle Barilović), SOK (castle Sokolac), and KRC (castle Krčingrad). Inset shows the study area within Europe.
Figure 1. Geographic distribution of the analysed archaeological sites in Croatia. Monastic sites (red) include STR (Pauline Monastery of All Saints), BSM (Benedictine Monastery of St. Margaret), and RUD (Benedictine Abbey of St. Michael the Archangel), while noble (green) sites include PGV (castle Vrbovec), MIL (castle Milengrad), BAR (castle Barilović), SOK (castle Sokolac), and KRC (castle Krčingrad). Inset shows the study area within Europe.
Quaternary 08 00051 g001
Quaternary 08 00051 g002
Figure 2. Number of identified specimen remains of mammals, birds, fish, molluscs, and turtles from all archaeological sites combined.
Figure 2. Number of identified specimen remains of mammals, birds, fish, molluscs, and turtles from all archaeological sites combined.
Quaternary 08 00051 g002
Quaternary 08 00051 g003
Figure 3. The percentage of identified mammals remains on all archaeological sites.
Figure 3. The percentage of identified mammals remains on all archaeological sites.
Quaternary 08 00051 g003
Quaternary 08 00051 g004
Figure 4. The proportion of the total number of identified cattle (purple), small ruminants (pink), and pig (blue) remains from monastic and noble sites.
Figure 4. The proportion of the total number of identified cattle (purple), small ruminants (pink), and pig (blue) remains from monastic and noble sites.
Quaternary 08 00051 g004
Quaternary 08 00051 g005
Figure 5. Proportion of age groups for cattle at monastic and noble sites. Juv.—juvenile; juv.-subad.—juvenile–subadult; subad.—subadult; subad.-ad.—subadult–adult; ad.—adult individuals.
Figure 5. Proportion of age groups for cattle at monastic and noble sites. Juv.—juvenile; juv.-subad.—juvenile–subadult; subad.—subadult; subad.-ad.—subadult–adult; ad.—adult individuals.
Quaternary 08 00051 g005
Quaternary 08 00051 g006
Figure 6. Proportion of age groups for goats at monastic and noble sites. Juv.—juvenile; juv.-subad. —juvenile–subadult; subad.—subadult; subad.-ad.—subadult–adult; ad.—adult individuals.
Figure 6. Proportion of age groups for goats at monastic and noble sites. Juv.—juvenile; juv.-subad. —juvenile–subadult; subad.—subadult; subad.-ad.—subadult–adult; ad.—adult individuals.
Quaternary 08 00051 g006
Quaternary 08 00051 g007
Figure 7. Proportion of age groups for sheep at monastic and noble sites. Juv.—juvenile; juv.-subad.—juvenile–subadult; subad.—subadult; subad.-ad.—subadult–adult; ad.—adult individuals.
Figure 7. Proportion of age groups for sheep at monastic and noble sites. Juv.—juvenile; juv.-subad.—juvenile–subadult; subad.—subadult; subad.-ad.—subadult–adult; ad.—adult individuals.
Quaternary 08 00051 g007
Quaternary 08 00051 g008
Figure 8. Bone widths of cattle bones on a logarithmic scale. Top horizontal line of the boxplot—first quartile (25% of the data); middle horizontal line—second quartile (median); bottom horizontal line of the boxplot—third quartile (75% of the data); top vertical line—minimum value; bottom vertical line—maximum value; dots—outliers.
Figure 8. Bone widths of cattle bones on a logarithmic scale. Top horizontal line of the boxplot—first quartile (25% of the data); middle horizontal line—second quartile (median); bottom horizontal line of the boxplot—third quartile (75% of the data); top vertical line—minimum value; bottom vertical line—maximum value; dots—outliers.
Quaternary 08 00051 g008
Quaternary 08 00051 g009
Figure 9. Bone widths of sheep bones on a logarithmic scale. Top horizontal line of the boxplot—first quartile (25% of the data); middle horizontal line—second quartile (median); bottom horizontal line of the boxplot—third quartile (75% of the data); top vertical line—minimum value; bottom vertical line—maximum value; dots—outliers.
Figure 9. Bone widths of sheep bones on a logarithmic scale. Top horizontal line of the boxplot—first quartile (25% of the data); middle horizontal line—second quartile (median); bottom horizontal line of the boxplot—third quartile (75% of the data); top vertical line—minimum value; bottom vertical line—maximum value; dots—outliers.
Quaternary 08 00051 g009
Table 1. The relationship between the social status of investigated sites and the NISP of cattle. NISPs—total number of all identified specimens except cattle; NISPcattle—total number of identified specimens of cattle.
Table 1. The relationship between the social status of investigated sites and the NISP of cattle. NISPs—total number of all identified specimens except cattle; NISPcattle—total number of identified specimens of cattle.
GroupNISPsNISPcattleΧ2p-Value
monastic sites170658956.76<0.05
noble sites42922230
BSM262149
BAR13766542.52>0.05
KRČ53918315.04<0.05
MIL9746210.99>0.05
PGV13347490.01>0.05
SOK69234.23<0.05
RUD1062231
BAR137665483.26<0.05
KRČ53918315.88<0.05
MIL974621152.41<0.05
PGV1334749126.76<0.05
SOK69232.92>0.05
STR382209
BAR13766542.05>0.05
KRČ53918315.57<0.05
MIL9746212.33>0.05
PGV13347490.07>0.05
SOK69233.81>0.05
Table 2. The relationship between the social status of investigated sites and the NISP of small ruminants. NISPs—total number of all identified specimens except small ruminants; NISPsr—total number of identified specimens of small ruminants.
Table 2. The relationship between the social status of investigated sites and the NISP of small ruminants. NISPs—total number of all identified specimens except small ruminants; NISPsr—total number of identified specimens of small ruminants.
GroupNISPsNISPsrΧ2p-Value
monastic sites17875086.36<0.05
noble sites52391283
BSM269142
BAR14435875.18<0.05
KRČ4892330.61>0.05
MIL1406189122.22<0.05
PGV1851232147.60<0.05
SOK50423.99>0.05
RUD943350
BAR14435871.33>0.05
KRČ4892336.10<0.05
MIL1406189108.96<0.05
PGV1851232141.92<0.05
SOK504214.62<0.05
STR57516
BAR1443587177.51<0.05
KRČ489233184.83<0.05
MIL140618942.41<0.05
PGV185123238.89<0.05
SOK5042188.93<0.05
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the value height at the withers for cattle, sheep, and goats. N—number of bones; X ¯ —arithmetic mean; Min.—minimum value; Max.—maximum value; SD—standard deviation; CV%—coefficient of variation.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the value height at the withers for cattle, sheep, and goats. N—number of bones; X ¯ —arithmetic mean; Min.—minimum value; Max.—maximum value; SD—standard deviation; CV%—coefficient of variation.
SpeciesArchaeological SiteN X ¯ Min.Max.SDCV %
CattleBAR1103.8----
MIL4108.298.40118.1610.09.24
PGV9109.594.20122.228.497.75
RUD2106.7103.8109.54.03.8
Cattle total16108.594.2122.27.97.3
SheepBAR1562.255.169.44.126.6
KRČ456.952.959.32.975.2
MIL260.056.263.85.399.0
PGV262.158.066.25.819.4
RUD258.357.958.60.520.9
SOK352.752.054.01.112.1
Sheep total286051.9569.44.767.9
GoatKRČ165.1----
MIL166.1----
Goat total265.665.166.10.81.1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Korpes, K.; Trbojević Vukičević, T.; Đuras, M.; Kolenc, M.; Piplica, A. Archaeozoological Insights into the Husbandry of Domestic Ruminants at Monastic and Noble Sites in Medieval Croatia. Quaternary 2025, 8, 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8030051

AMA Style

Korpes K, Trbojević Vukičević T, Đuras M, Kolenc M, Piplica A. Archaeozoological Insights into the Husbandry of Domestic Ruminants at Monastic and Noble Sites in Medieval Croatia. Quaternary. 2025; 8(3):51. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8030051

Chicago/Turabian Style

Korpes, Kim, Tajana Trbojević Vukičević, Martina Đuras, Magdalena Kolenc, and Aneta Piplica. 2025. "Archaeozoological Insights into the Husbandry of Domestic Ruminants at Monastic and Noble Sites in Medieval Croatia" Quaternary 8, no. 3: 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8030051

APA Style

Korpes, K., Trbojević Vukičević, T., Đuras, M., Kolenc, M., & Piplica, A. (2025). Archaeozoological Insights into the Husbandry of Domestic Ruminants at Monastic and Noble Sites in Medieval Croatia. Quaternary, 8(3), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8030051

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop