Avian aurality in Anglo-Saxon England

Abstract

Reconstructions of past human experience have generally focused on the visual and the tactile. When sound has been considered, it is usually in terms of anthropogenic noises, created within human-built environments. While these studies are valuable, they frequently overlook a ubiquitous aspect of soundscapes in previous cultures: birdsong. As with other animals, birds were far more than just sources of food in past societies; they were key aspects of people's daily lives and the ways they experienced their worlds. Using an integrated approach that combines archaeology, onomastics and textual evidence, this paper explores the roles of bird sounds in Anglo-Saxon England. Through the use of the middle-late Saxon site of Bishopstone as a case study, the importance of birds and their noises for defining place and time is highlighted.

Foxes and Badgers in Anglo-Saxon Life and Landscape

“…Taken together, the evidence indicates the importance of animals as living creatures in terms of peoples' daily lives, in many cases more than when the animals were dead (see also Sykes 2012;Poole and Lacey 2014). It also highlights the importance of adopting integrative approaches to studying human-animal relations in the past.…”

“…Foxes may have been a greater risk to poultry, although this is generally only when alternative prey, including hares and roe deer, are scarce (Jankowiak et al 2008). It is perhaps notable in this context that highstatus and ecclesiastical sites tend to have had greater proportions of domestic birds (Sykes 2007;Poole 2011;Poole and Lacey 2014). However, there does not appear to be a direct correlation between frequencies of chickens and foxes on settlements; at Bishopstone, for example, a large flock was present, but no fox remains were identified in the large faunal assemblage (Poole 2010).…”

Pots, chicken and building deposits: The archaeology of folk and official religion during the High Middle Ages in the Basque Country

“…In fact, there is plenty of evidence that sacrifice-divination and ritual offerings survived well into the Middle Ages (Jolly et al 2002;Gilhus 2006). Historical evidence suggests that ornithomancy and avian aurality lasted at least into the Early Middle Ages (Poole & Lacey 2014), as it is mentioned (prohibited) in Anglo-Saxon laws (Hinton 2005: 70). Also, Isidore of Seville (6 th -7 th centuries AD) and Augustine of Hippo (4 th -5 th centuries AD) strongly opposed this type of rituals (Jolly et al 2002;Gilhus 2006: 26, 166).…”

Is it time for an elemental and humoral (re)turn in archaeology?

“…The idea that ancient manuscripts, being made from animal skins, could also transfer their properties to those who touched them seems increasingly plausible based on recent proteomic studies of medieval documents: work by Matthew Collins has highlighted that some ecclesiastical documents were made of a combination of roe deer and sheep skins, both animals deemed chaste and pious in character, thus any transfer of their temperament was suitable for good Christians (Sykes 2014b). The sound of animals could be equally important for medieval ecclesiasts: Poole and Lacey (2014) suggest that the large numbers of chickens found at Anglo-Saxon monastic sites may reflect a deliberately engineered ‘soundscape’, appropriate for ecclesiastic aural consumption. But this is perhaps not taking the issue far enough, since human–animal encounters are multi-sensory, combining sound with sight, touch and smell (Sykes 2014a).…”