I think the confusion is probably down to the fact that rabbits were brought into Britain by the Romans, but that the domestication and farming of rabbits (the creation of warrens, with rights protected by law) began properly with the Normans in the C12th. This confusion is prevalent throughout many of the sources available online, some stating introduction by the Romans, some by the Normans.
But there is clear archaeological evidence for rabbits (being the species Oryctolagus cuniculus which is a native of the western Mediterranean) found in Roman context (as a food source) Take this BBC article for example:
Remains of Roman rabbit uncovered
"The bones themselves had been butchered, possibly the rabbit was to be eaten by a Roman, and then buried on the site.
"We believe we have convincing evidence that these rabbit remains could be the earliest known in Britain," she said.
The Mammal Society in their
Fact Sheet - The Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus notes that:
Rabbits originate from the western Mediterranean. They were introduced to Britain by the Normans in the 12th century to provide meat and fur. Rabbits are now widespread throughout Britain and Ireland, but are absent from Rum.
I think that this tends to reinforce the deliberate domestication and farming/ breeding of rabbits (in warrens) at that time, following earlier incidental introduction, at least from current evidence.
This is also the case with the
Brown Hare which was also probably introduced to Britain by the Romans, unlike the native
Mountain Hare which it has displaced in all but higher moorland and mountain regions.
So you are all right!
