Not by Bread Alone: meat and fish in the diet of residents of Kyiv Podil under Yaroslav the Wise

Abstract

The article presents the results of the investigation of diet features of the Kyiv Podil population in the first half of the 11th century, based on archaeozoological analysis. The study of meat and fish diet in a separate chronological layer includes the animal bones from the well-stratified cultural horizon 14 at the Spaskyi excavation site, dated back to 1020—1040s years. Archaeological finds from this horizon reflect both the northern and southern vectors of cultural connections. The inhabitants of discovered here estates ate quite varied and actively consumed meat. Among other food, they preferred beef and pork, buying most of the meat in the market, and the cows were kept for milk in the household. Small ruminants principally raised for their milk, meat, and wool were eaten less often. Chickens were also rarely eaten; they were bought, and not bred at home. Finds of eggs from the horizon 14 used for food were not chicken eggs, but goose eggs. Occasionally the diet was enriched with horses, wild-hunted animals, and large fish, incl. Acipenseridae. Dogs were a rare and unusual part of the diet.

Sturgeons in materials from archaeological sites of Ukraine: A review

“…Yanish and Kovalchuk (2013) presented the results of species identification and size reconstruction of sturgeons from Berezan (sixth to fifth centuries BC). Individual sturgeon remains in the materials from the sites of different age in Ukraine were also reported in other publications (Gorobets et al, 2017;Khamaiko et al, 2021;Kovalchuk, 2010Kovalchuk, , 2014Kovalchuk, , 2015Kovalchuk, , 2023Kovalchuk et al, 2018Kovalchuk et al, , 2020Kovalchuk & Klenina, 2015;Kutsokon, 2020Kutsokon, , 2023Makowiecki, 2016;Morales et al, 2007;Pugolovok et al, 2016;Taranenko et al, 2017;Yanish, 2012Yanish, , 2020.…”

“…Among 34 publications, where sturgeon remains from Ukraine are reported, 17 (50%) are in Russian, 10 (29%) in Ukrainian, and seven (21%) in English. Supplementing archaeozoological publications with illustrations (e.g., Khamaiko et al, 2021;Kovalchuk, 2015;Lebedev, 1960;Zhiteneva, 1964) is also important, as it allows other researchers in the field to assess the state of preservation of the remains described and use them for comparison with their own material. We believe that providing numerical data in the form of tables, although a useful addition, cannot fully replace the photos of the bones themselves.…”