Showing 691 results

The animal bone assemblage totalled 673 assessable specimens (8901g), of which 315 were identified to species. The material was recovered from cut features; other closed contexts – layers and spreads from Trench 1 and 2. It displayed a good level of preservation, with minimal or no surface erosion and weathering. Based on the provenance and the chronology of the material, several sub-sets were created in order to study the assemblage.

The zooarchaeological investigation followed the system implemented by Bournemouth University with all identifiable elements recorded (NISP: Number of Identifiable Specimens) and diagnostic zoning (amended from Dobney & Reilly 1988) used to calculate MNE (Minimum Number of Elements) from which MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) was derived. Identification of the assemblage was undertaken with the aid of Schmid (1972), Hillson (1999) and reference material from the Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Cambridge. Most, but not all, caprine bones are difficult to identify to species; however, it was possible to identify a limited range of sheep specimens from the assemblage, using the criteria of Boessneck (1969). Unidentifiable fragments were assigned to general size categories where possible. Ageing of the assemblage employed both mandibular tooth wear (Grant 1982; Payne 1973) and fusion of proximal and distal epiphyses (Silver 1969). Sexing using morphological characteristics was only undertaken for pig canines based on their size, shape and root morphology (Schmid 1972: 80-81). The Gallus/ Numida/ Phasianus group of closely related Galliformes are difficult to distinguish and these were only recorded as Galliformes. Other bird identifications will, at this stage, have to remain provisional or left at Family/ Order level pending further specialist analysis. Taphonomic criteria including indications of butchery, pathology, gnawing activity and surface modifications as a result of weathering were also recorded when evident.

Two pits produced the total of 48 bone specimens. The range of species is relatively varied, given the small quantity of faunal material. Pit B/D yielded a small, yet interesting array of domestic and wild species with sheep accounting for 72.8% of the sub-set and giving the MNI count for three individual animals (Table 4). An articulated cat skeleton came from pit B/D aged 4 to 8 months. Butchery was crude, noted on 10 specimens (23.2%) including rabbit and sheep/ goat. The most common actions were performed to prepare for disarticulation or to dismember portions of skeleton.

A further 70 assessable fragments came from two layers: [15] and [16]. Sheep is again the prevalent species, with a limited range of bird species being present (Table 5). A midshaft fragment of a human fibula also came from [15]. One of the unidentified bird specimens could potentially represent a bird of prey; however, this identification will have to be undertaken at later stage.

A range of other ambiguously dated contexts produced the largest sub-set within the assemblage totalling 237 fragments, of which 76 were identified to species (32%). A relatively broad range of bird species was recorded, with a portion of the bird component being identified to species level (provisionally - pending further identifications) and the remainder being assigned to a family or order (Table 6). Of 237 specimens from this sub-set, 133 came from [043] and this is also where the majority of the birds came from. Animal bone material coming from spreads in trench 1 and trench 2 showed a similar range of species, although, it would seem, with a slightly greater emphasis on the livestock component of the assemblage. Butchery was relatively common and it is noteworthy that cut marks were also recorded on bird and rabbit bones, which a testimony to a good preservation.

In conclusion, in 17th and 18th century Jesus College mutton appears to have been regularly eaten, followed by rabbit and a wide array of bird species, both domestic and wild. One butchery action was exceptionally common in this assemblage and that is splitting animal carcass in half by chopping the vertebrae along the dorso-ventral axis. Although present in some prehistoric assemblages, this butchery technique was extremely rare until the 16th century when it becomes increasingly important (Maltby 1979). In general, domestic species appear to have made a major contribution with a number of wild species hinting at remains of ‘high table’ banquets. The assemblage is broadly similar to the Trinity Kitchen’s faunal record (Rajkovača in prep.) in terms of the range of species and comparable butchery techniques. When viewed against other contemporaneous assemblages from the city, it has the potential to offer more distinct answers about socio-economic and dietary practices from Medieval and Post-Medieval Cambridge.

<030> Context 13

Context D, 155 fragments = cat skeleton

Context 16

Context B, Pit 1

<236>: Context 42, TPF grid, Bt bone fragment

<027> Context 11

<078>: Context 36, Feature 11

<072>: Context 34, North of Hall

<090>: Context 43 and 45, Internal Trench

Context C, Pit 2

<097>: Context 45

Two boxes of animal bone were assessed. The material covers both phases of the site's occupation, the Nunnery Phase and the College Phase, and the main aim of the evaluation was to judge whether differences in living standards could be determined from the bone fragments.

The Nunnery-phased material consists of approximately 3 kilograms of animal bone while that of the College Phase is substantially more (9 kg). It should be noted that 1.5 kilograms of the Nunnery assemblage consists of the partial skeletons of a young pig and her three piglets (foetal). In general, the preservation was reasonable, and recovery techniques had permitted the retrieval of some very small fragments of bone including bird, fish and rat remains. Dog gnawing was observed on a minimal amount of bone.

The identifiable fraction of the Nunnery bone is 70 fragments and that of the College Phase, 683. However, the small nature of the Nunnery assemblage precludes further in-depth analysis, indeed many of the fragments belonged to oxo (large mammal, cow/horse/red deer) and sma (medium-sized mammal, sheep/goat/roe deer pig/) categories.
The partial pig skeleton had not reached two years of age and her three piglets were all foetal.

Showing that both meat-bearing (crudely denoted by bold type) and non-meat-bearing bone occurs for cattle, sheep/goat and pig, it would appear that live animals were brought in or kept at the College, and slaughtered on site.

Since pig bones, by virtue of their shape, can be recognised from very small fragments, it is highly likely that the sma component of the assemblage is sheep/goat and it is very noticeable that this taxa is much more fragmented than the cattle bones. The oxo fraction is most likely reflecting cattle, since horse and red deer were only represented by one metapodial fragment and two metatarsal bones respectively. This aspect would repay further study in conjunction with an in depth analysis of the butchery marks. Incidentally, several cattle and sheep /goat vertebrae had been split sagittally and also a sheep cranium had been cleaved in half in order to extract the brains.

While further analysis would establish the relative importance of the main domesticates, the impression gained from this evaluation is that mutton formed an important part of the college diet together with beef, with some contribution of pork and variation in the diet being provided by duck, wood pigeon, chicken, goose, red deer and fish, with perhaps the occasional rabbit or hare.

Both the Nunnery and College animal bone assemblages are unique in the archaeological record. Unfortunately, the Nunnery sample is too small to be useful at the analytical stage. However, the quality of such material has been established b y the excavation, a n d it is recommended that at the earliest opportunity, n o time should b e lost obtaining further samples.

The College Phase assemblage is also important because very few post-Medieval assemblages have been analysed and published. The material is very well preserved and, as stated above, an analysis of the butchery is desirable. It would be advisable to undertake this in conjunction with other assemblages of similar date, which are i n the same geographical area.

<10>: Context 15, count 1, lower grid