Zooarchaeology is the name given to the study of animal remains from archaeological sites. This is really the study of human interaction with animals, usually as a result of their exploitation as an economic resource.

Perhaps the most obvious reason for human association with animals is as a food source, but there are others: clothing, raw materials, transport, companionship, and even unwelcome association from, for example, rats and mice! The animal remains, which have been recovered from the excavations, are beginning to give us a picture of some of these aspects. The validity of this picture is dependent on quantifying the excavated bones in such a way as to represent their original significance to the community - in other words, we have to count up all the bones and give reasons for their relative abundance.

Many factors have influenced the survival of the bones since they were living animals; these are outside our control but still must be considered. There are other influences on our data that we can control; the way we recover the bones for example.

Animal bones from the Boneyard are collected as they are encountered during the trowelling of the site. It is generally thought that this method is unreliable as bones from the smaller sized animals may be overlooked. If this were the case, our bone count would be biased toward the larger animals, small species could be under-represented, and so our results would be misleading and therefore useless. In order to check that this was not happening, we have adopted a programme of fine screening to see what has been missed. This method requires that ALL of the soil from archaeologically important areas, that is, any area of occupational activity that can be securely dated, is washed through a 6mm mesh sieve. This entails a huge amount of work but it is of fundamental significance to our results.

We have been able to prove that the recovery by hand trowelling has generally been good, although conditions such as the weather make this variable. Sieving has increased the collection of small bone fragments and loose teeth, but has not significantly altered the species ratio for the larger animals. Most importantly, it has improved our collection of fish bone, although much of this is a product of the smaller meshes used during environmental sampling. 

Now we have confidence in our figures, we are able to make some statements about the relative importance of various animals to the Anglo-Saxon in Sedgeford. Sheep bones are the most abundant by far. A large number of sheep appear to have been slaughtered at about two years old, so we can place lamb on our Anglo-Saxon's menu. Most sheep, however, were allowed to live on to old age, indicating that food was not the prime product from this beast. Abundance does not necessarily mean importance, however, as cattle bones rank next, about a third the quantity when compared with sheep, but if the butchered carcass weight is taken into consideration we can see that cattle meat, beef if you like, was available in greater quantities. 

The meat yield from a cow carcass can be over seven times that from a sheep (Boessneck et al 1971). Pigs are relatively few in number but still significant; the reason why this animal is not evident in anywhere near the same amount as sheep and cattle may be simply that it was not raised in great quantities, perhaps due to a shortage of forage and fodder. West Norfolk was probably not ideal pig country, lacking large wooded areas. Sty-fed pigs would need a large amount of surplus fodder for large-scale meat production; this was unlikely to have been available. Similar proportions of pig bone are reported from other contemporary rural sites; so the data from Sedgeford does fit into a pattern. Possible differences in bone preservation must be taken into account. Being primarily exploited for meat, most pigs were slaughtered before reaching maturity. Immature pig bones tend to be porous and fragile. This may be a possible reason for the under representation of this animal. 

It is very difficult to determine the contribution that domestic birds made to the diet, particularly when attempting a comparison with the large mammals discussed above. However, bones from domestic fowl are abundant and geese plentiful, so they must have been an important food source. 

Anglo-Saxon Sedgeford was primarily an agricultural economy; hunting appears to have made a very minor contribution to the procurement of food. Wild fowl such as duck and crane are present but rare, as is deer. The duck, of course could be domestic. 

We are beginning to feel that fishing, particularly for sea fish and eels, was a greater source of food than the evidence at first seemed to suggest. Fish bone is by no means abundant but it is to be found distributed across the site, particularly in features such as ditch fills and possible postholes. The gathering of shellfish, particularly oysters, needs no comment for those working on or visiting the excavations. The discarded valves are to be found in considerable quantities.

The huge amount of animal bone from the site immediately gives the impression that Sedgeford in Anglo-Saxon times was a vegetarian's nightmare! However, animal bone is very 'archaeologically visible'. I feel this does tend to over represent the amount of meat consumed by the average inhabitant. Extensive attrition of teeth, even on children's deciduous teeth, is evident on Anglo-Saxon skeletons of this period (e.g. Wells, 1980). This points to a coarse abrasive diet, perhaps indicating that bread, contaminated with grit from milling and baking, was the staple. We cannot, of course, state with certainty what was eaten; we must leave that to those studying the chemistry of the human remains, but we can at least say what was available.

There is much information yet to be revealed by this pile of bones. The next stage is to carry out a study of any changes in the animal bone from the different phases of occupation on the site. This should highlight any modifications of lifestyle and economy occurring during the Mid to Late Saxon period. In addition, an intensive study of each type of animal will give us a better understanding of the varieties of livestock kept and details of their utilisation. Such a study has recently been completed for the sheep and the bird bones; this will significantly contribute to our knowledge of animal husbandry in Anglo-Saxon times.

References
Boessneck, J.A., von den Driesch, A., Meyer-Lemennau, U., and Weschler-von Ohlen, E. 1971. 'Das Tierknochenfunde aus dem Oppidum von Manching', Die Ausgrabungam in Manching 6. Wiesbaden.
Wells, C. and Cayton, H. 1980. 'The Human Bones' in East Anglian Archaeology No.9, Excavations in North Elmham park 1967-1972. Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Gressenhall.