Blue Bridge Lane
&
Fishergate House
Printed from the APC web site: navigation and non-essential images removed.
Please view on-line for full content (URL at end of document).
An archaeological excavation was undertaken by Field Archaeology Specialists (FAS) Ltd on the site of the Mecca Bingo Hall at Blue Bridge Lane, York, in association with Mike Griffiths & Associates, on behalf of Rank Leisure. Fieldwork was undertaken between July 2001 and July 2002 following a programme of evaluation carried out during December 2000 and January 2001. The excavation encountered deposits dated from the Roman period to the 20th century and recovered large faunal assemblages of 10,254 fragments by hand-collection and 17,748 fragments by coarse-sieving. An extensive programme of flotation and fine-mesh sieving was also undertaken, producing an assemblage of c.100,000 fragments of mammal, bird and fish bone, an assessment of which will be reported following full assessment of the ceramic assemblage.
Assessment of the hand-collected material indicated that a moderate proportion (2,225 fragments = c.22%) of these remains could be identified to taxon, although the proportion of identifiable coarse-sieved material was quite low (2303 fragments = c.13%). The main domesticates (cattle, caprovid and pig) were well-represented, as were domestic birds such as goose and chicken. Hare, rabbit, rat, dog, cat, horse, and red, roe and fallow deer, were present in small numbers in most phases, while a diverse range of ducks, wading birds, pigeons, corvids and raptors was largely restricted to the medieval phases. Fish, while present in each phase, were limited to small numbers of large gadids and a few larger freshwater taxa such as pike and salmon, as is expected from a hand-collected assemblage.
Material from the Anglian period was broadly similar to that recovered from previous excavations at 46-54 Fishergate and Fishergate House, but there was evidence for increased emphasis on caprovid consumption, possibly connected to the processing, manufacture and trading of woollen goods. Bones from the 12th to 13th century showed evidence for high-status consumption, with significant proportions of pig bones and a wide variety of bird taxa. Food remains from the later medieval period were poorer in character and the high proportion of scavenger bones implied that the local environment was likely to have been more squalid.
This document reports on the zooarchaeological assessment of approximately 1600 litres of animal bone recovered by hand-collection and coarse-sieving (to 10mm) from an archaeological evaluation and excavation undertaken by Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd (FAS) in association with Mike Griffiths Associates on behalf of Rank Leisure. Fieldwork took place between July 2001 and July 2002 following a programme of evaluation between December 2000 and January 2001 on the site of the Mecca Bingo Hall, Blue Bridge Lane, York. The recovery methos followed the procedure laid out in the Project Design. Large volumes of sediment were sampled from targeted features on the basis of feature type, period, status (whether primary or secondary), organic preservation, as well as to enhance recovery of artefacts and dating evidence. Consequently, from each of these targeted deposits at least 30 litres of sediment were retained for Sir~f tank flotation, 100 litres were fine-mesh sieved (to 2mm using a pressurised water jet), a further minimum of 100 litres were coarse-sieved (to 10mm using a pressurised water jet). Where the 100 litres for coarse-sieving represented less than 50% of a deposit, more litres were processed until 50% or, in the case of specific features (such as Anglian pits), 100% of the deposit had been processed. Deposits that, after initial processing in the Siraf tank showed themselves to contain uncharred organics, insect remains or were suspected to have been cess were retained for specialist analysis. Any remaining sediment was subjected to hand-collection. This extensive programme of flotation and fine-mesh sieving (to 2mm) produced an assemblage of c.100,000 fragments of mammal, bird and fish bone, an assessment of which will be reported following full assessment of the ceramic assemblage.
Excavation encountered 574 features and 1285 contexts; zooarchaeological assessment targeted bone from feature fills because these were more likely to contain primary refuse, with the result that material from 265 bone-yielding contexts was recorded. This represented the majority (approximately 70%) of the excavated faunal assemblage, the remainder of which was distributed among c.300 bone-bearing floating contexts, presumed to be secondary in nature. Based upon pottery spot dates, recorded features and contexts containing faunal material originated from deposits dated to the 2nd to 20th century. To simplify analysis and to produce more statistically significant samples, contexts were collated into period groups as follows: Roman (1st to 3rd century), Anglian (8th to 9th century), Anglo-Scandinavian (10th to 11th century), medieval (12th to 13th century), late medieval (14th to 15th century), post-medieval (16th to 18th century) and modern (19th to 20th century). In addition, some features could be only broadly dated as 'medieval' (unspecified) or as 'undated'.
The aim of the zooarchaeological study was to assess the potential of faunal material to be informative in the study of social, economic, husbandry and butchery practices prevalent in York and its environs between the Roman and post-medieval period. This potential was determined through characterisation of preservation, fragmentation and the extractability of metrical and ageing data. Of particular interest were bones of Anglian date, partly because assemblages of this period are rare but also because they provide an opportunity for comparison with contemporaneous assemblages from nearby excavations at Fishergate House and 46-54 Fishergate. While bones of medieval date are certainly not rare, the Blue Bridge Lane assemblage provides an opportunity to examine material from an urban religious institution and also to compare assemblages from different parts of the Gilbertine Priory encountered during the Fishergate excavations. In addition, in order to refine sampling regimes for future excavations, the contribution made by two different recovery strategies in operation at Blue Bridge Lane was to be determined.
Zooarchaeological remains were recorded into a computerised Microsoft Access 2002 database, with subjective and semi-quantitative notes made on the state of preservation ('excellent', 'good', 'fair' or 'poor'), angularity ('spiky', 'quite spiky', 'rounded' or 'battered') and colour, as well as the degree of fragmentation and the proportions of butchery, burning, gnawing and fresh breakages as expressed in percentage ranges. Percentage ranges for butchery, burning, gnawing and fresh breakages are expressed in words as follows: low (0-10%), moderate (10-20%), high (20-50%) and very high (50%+). Fragmentation is referred to as low (<20% bones measuring 0-5cm, >50% measuring 5-20 cm, some bones >20cm across), moderate (20-50% of fragments measuring 0-5cm, >50% measuring 5-20cm), high (>50% fragments measuring 0-5cm, 20-50% 5-20cm) and very high (>50% fragments measuring 0-5cm across and <20% fragments 5-20cm). Data was manipulated and figures and tables were prepared using Microsoft Excel 2002.
Identifications were made using the FAS and University of York Palaeoecology reference collections and recording followed the Environmental Archaeology Unit (EAU) protocol for recording animal bones (Dobney, Jaques and Johnstone 1999) which, to increase speed of analysis and to maximise the potential of the most informative elements, advocates the recording of a specific suite of 'A bones' using the bone zones of Dobney and Reilly (1988). The remaining elements were not identified to taxon, regardless of completeness. Instead, along with less complete elements, these were identified to anatomic element where possible, and recorded generally as medium mammal 2 (dog, cat or rabbit sized), medium mammal 1 (caprovid, pig and small deer sized), large mammal (cow, horse and large deer sized) or unidentified.
Sheep and goat were distinguished on the basis of the deciduous fourth premolar, distal humerus and tibia, proximal and distal radius, astragalus, calcaneus and the third phalanx according to the criteria of Boessneck (1969), Payne (1985) and Prummel and Frisch (1986).
Mammal bones were recorded as 'juvenile' if the epiphysis was unfused and if the epiphysis or metaphysis was spongy with billowing growth surfaces. If the bone was particularly small, then it was described as 'neonatal', although bones described thus could derive from animals several months old.
The contents of certain contexts were examined in more detail. These included those from hand-collection with more than 50 fragments, and those from coarse-sieving with over 100 fragments (to account for the high proportion of unidentified bones in the latter category).
Fourteen contexts from five features (two pits, two ditches and a well) were dated to the Roman period, of which 11 contexts were coarse-sieved while hand-collected bone was recorded from eight contexts. Single contexts from the two pit features F241, C1517, and F273, C1132 contained Anglian pottery. Preservation on the whole was recorded as 'good', although bones from well F46, C1167 were in a 'fair' state of preservation, as were those from ditch F537, C2159. Angularity was more variable, but consistent within contexts, with the exception of F273, C1588 where bones varied between rounded and spiky. Bones from most contexts were described as 'spiky', or 'quite spiky', but those from F46, C1167 and from F537, C2159 were 'rounded', along with those from F241, C1518. Colour was generally fawn in pit features, although it was variable in F273, C2104 (grey, brown and white) and C1588 (fawn, beige, brown and black). Fragments from ditch F43 and well F46 were brown. Fragmentation was moderate to high, with half of the hand-collected contexts containing 50% or more bones measuring less than 5cm across and only two contexts containing any bones measuring more than 20cm. Butchery and gnawing marks were observed in most contexts, but rarely exceeded 10%. The amount of burning was similar, only exceeding 20% in F273, C2104 and C2096, neither of which contained large numbers of fragments.
There were 65 bone-bearing contexts from 17 features of Anglian date, virtually all of which, with the exception of hearth F246 and postholes F202 and F256, were pit fills and backfills. 49 contexts were coarse-sieved while hand-collected bone came from 39 contexts. Preservation was recorded as 'good' throughout, while angularity was generally 'spiky' or 'quite spiky'. 'Rounded' fragments were predominant in only six contexts, while only F402, C1883 and F458, C2055 contained bones of variable angularity. Both these contexts contained residual Roman pottery, while C1883 also had intrusive china. Angularity was broadly consistent within features, such as those contexts within F13 and F520 which contained only spiky bones. Colour tended to be brown or fawn, and in 13 cases was variable within the context, generally mixtures of fawn and brown. Six of these were contexts from F13 and also contained residual Roman pottery and, in the case of C1062, a lot of medieval pottery. Those from the remaining contexts also generally contained residual Roman pottery and, in the case of F381, C1861, intrusive late medieval pottery. Among the hand-collected remains, fragmentation was generally moderate, with more than 50% of bones exceeding 5cm across in most contexts. Fragmentation in the majority of contexts from pits F13, F381 and F520 was noticeably high, with over 50% of bones measuring less than 5cm across. The reverse was true of the bulk of contexts from pits F235, F442, and F546, where the number of small fragments was often less than 20%. In any context, fragments over 20cm across were rare. Material from coarse-sieving was typically fragmentary, with small fragments accounting for over 50% of the bone recovered from each context.
Butchery marks were present in almost every context, but affected more than 10% of bones in only 22 contexts and over 20% in just four more. The proportion of butchery marked bones was noticeably higher within pits F13, F381 and F546 while it was lower than average among contexts from F458. Contexts throughout F442 and F520 were consistent in their more limited butchery. Burnt bones were observed in most contexts, but rarely accounted for more than 10% of the fragments. F381, C1853 was unusual in containing more than 20% burnt fragments while a similar proportion from hearth F246, C1543 is less surprising. Gnawed bones were found in just over half of the Anglian contexts, but only in small numbers. The amount of contexts containing gnawed bones seemed to be distributed fairly evenly between features, but bones from F13, F381 and F520 were more heavily affected, while those from F442 and F458 were less so.
Bone from 16 contexts, from eight features (four pits and four postholes) was assessed, most notably pits F351 and F388. Preservation was 'good' throughout, and angularity generally 'spiky', although those from F249 C1555 tended towards roundedness and variations were observed in several contexts. These included F351 C2108, where there was a number of battered fragments, and the same was true of several contexts from F388, most noticeably C1857 which contained pottery from the 11th to 14th century. Colour was either fawn or a lightish-brown, but with the exceptions of C1857 and posthole F281, C1457 was generally consistent within deposits. Fragmentation tended to be moderate to high, with the majority of bones from most contexts measuring 5cm across or more. There was greater fragmentation in F249, C1555, F281, C1457, F304, C1460, but much less in each of the contexts from F351, while within F388, although variable between contexts, the overall level was low to moderate, with some contexts containing between 10% and 20% fragments exceeding 20cm across.
Butchery marks were observed in most contexts (although not from pits F249, C1555 and F351, C2108 or posthole F277, C1599), and were generally present in small numbers, only affecting more than 10% of bones from F338, C1748 and F388, C1843. Burnt bones were noted in most contexts, but rarely in proportions greater than 10%. Gnawed bones were largely absent, although contexts from F388 appeared to have consistently higher proportions of gnawed bones than those from other features.
There were 50 contexts from 27 features dated to the 12th to 13th century, the majority of which were pits, but there were also three postholes, five scoops, a robber pit and a robber trench. 28 contexts from pits or scoops were coarse-sieved. Bone preservation was good throughout, while colour was largely fawn, less commonly brown and there were seven incidences of variations. Angularity was generally 'spiky' or 'quite spiky', with 'rounded' bones from only two contexts (F272, C1644 and F392, C1792) and variations from three, one of which, F357, C1777, also contained variably coloured fragments. Fragmentation was generally quite high, sometimes consistently between contexts within the same feature, such as F232, but more moderate in contexts from certain features, such as pits F245 and F252. Fragments measuring over 20cm across were very rare.
The level of butchery was quite variable, on occasions absent, on others exceeding 20%, but was rarely consistent between contexts within the same feature. One exception were the contexts from F245, all of which contained under 10% butchered bones. The proportion of burnt bones was again quite variable even between contexts from the same feature, but overall was low (and frequently absent), only contexts with limited fragments containing proportions greater than 20%. Burning was consistently low in contexts from F232 and F245. Gnawing was largely absent being observed in only seven contexts, and in several cases the proportion of gnawed bone was rendered artificially high by the small number of fragments from those contexts.
There were 136 bone-bearing contexts from 46 features which included three ditches, a hearth, three industrial features, a levelling deposit, two postholes and a scoop, while the remainder comprised pits. In almost all cases, preservation was described as 'good', although bones from scoop F186, C1372 , pit F473, C2012 and pit F150, C1312 were only in a 'fair' state of preservation, while those from kiln F58, C1367 and C1369 were recorded as 'excellent'. Only four contexts contained bones in variable states of preservation, all of which were either 'excellent' or 'good'. Angularity was predominantly 'spiky' with 'rounded' bones recorded in only seven contexts (three of which were less well-preserved) and variations in only three, one of which, F215, C1439, contained residual splash-glazed ware and grey ware. Colour appeared to be somewhat lighter than bones from preceding phases, being predominantly fawn, occasionally brown and with a small but significant proportion of contexts containing beige fragments. Twenty contexts contained varieties of colour and many of these contained residual pottery. However, all three contexts from pit F269 contained variably coloured fragments, and the same was true of two or more contexts from pits F77, F88, and F253, ditch F208 and kiln F225. Colour was consistent between contexts within several features, including pit F39 and scoop F186 (fawn) pits F44 and F150 (brown), pit F119 (predominantly fawn) and kiln F58 (predominantly brown). Among the hand-collected material, fragmentation appeared moderate, with over 50% of bones measuring 5cm or more across. In several features, such as pit F88, overall fragmentation was low.
Butchery was again quite variable, even within features, but overall low, with roughly half the contexts containing no evidence of butchery marks. Only two contexts of significant size, F162, C1315 and F126, C1590, contained more than 20% butchered bones. Burning was absent from roughly two thirds of the contexts, with less than 10% of bones being burnt from the majority of the remainder. Over half the bones from ditch F208, C1771 were burnt, as were 20% to 50% of those from kiln F225, C1493. Only F211 contained bones that were consistently unburnt within contexts. Gnawing was even less prevalent than burning, affecting less than 10% of bones in roughly 10% of contexts. F223, C1484 was unusual in containing a moderate amount of bones, between 20% to 50% of which had been gnawed. Pits F88, F162 and F401 had more contexts containing gnawed bones than the other features.
There were 17 contexts from two postholes and seven pit features. Preservation was described as 'good' except for pit F408, C1906 and C1911, where it was 'excellent'. Angularity was 'spiky' except for F397, C1787 and F460, C1975 where the majority of bone fragments were 'rounded'. Colour was generally fawn or brown and there was little consistency between contexts from the same feature. Those from F408 were particularly heterogenous, and included two contexts (C1905 and C1906) with variably coloured bones. Overall, fragmentation was moderate, but distinctly low in pit F359, where all three contexts contained between 10% and 20% bones under 5cm across. Butchery marks were observed in small amounts in most contexts, only being completely absent from pit F216, C1407; otherwise, there appeared to be no features containing contexts with similar proportions of butchered material. Burning was absent from many contexts and features, but F408 was distinctive, containing a number of contexts in which burnt bones exceeded 20%. Gnawing was less common, affecting less than 10% of fragments in only four contexts, two each from pits F359 and F408.
There were seven contexts from one well and three pit features. Preservation was mostly 'good', although bones from pit F242, C1528 were in 'excellent' condition, while those from F242, C1527 varied between 'good' and 'excellent'. Angularity was spiky throughout, and colour mostly fawn, although bones from pit F75, C1203 were variably coloured. Butchery was absent from the latter, but was otherwise recorded in low to moderate amounts, with the exception of F242, C1528 where it was high. Burning was recorded in low amounts only in two contexts while gnawing was absent but for a moderate amount in F242, C1528. Fragmentation was variable, being high in F403 contexts and low to moderate in F242 contexts.
There were six modern contexts from four features, which comprised a ditch, a wall, a pit and a test-pit. Preservation, angularity and colour were respectively recorded as 'good', 'spiky' and 'fawn' throughout. Fragmentation was moderate, gnawing was absent and both butchery and burning were present in a few contexts in small amounts.
Fourteen features containing 17 contexts included a well, a ditch, two pits and ten postholes. Preservation was generally 'good', occasionally 'fair'; angularity frequently 'spiky' but, especially in the case of posthole F417, 'rounded' and colour mostly brown or fawn. Butchery, burning and gnawing were present in small amounts in most contexts, but with the exception of butchery, frequently absent.
In order to maintain analytical integrity, it was not viable to group together hand-collected and coarse-sieved material into a single assemblage. To simplify comparison, and to maximise the amount of analysable material, a third category, 'total collection' was devised, whereby species frequencies were based upon all of the material from those contexts which had received only coarse-sieving or, both hand-collection and coarse-sieving. For the major periods, this produced assemblages greater in size than those from each individual recovery technique. Once complete, the results of the assessment of bones from fine-mesh sieving and flotation will be added to these figures for total collection.
The proportion of bird bones did not seem to be greatly influenced by recovery strategy, accounting for 7.9% of identified hand-collected bones and 7.2% of those identified from the coarse-sieved fraction. Similarly, the ratio of larger and smaller birds did not seem to be affected; for these reasons, bird bones from both recovery technique have been combined for analysis. Roughly 50% more identified fish bones were recovered through coarse-sieving and many of those from hand-collection comprised of large gadid. However, the overall number of bones is so small (78 fragments) that both fractions have been combined.
There was a total of 1,577 bones of Roman date of which only 198 (12.5%) were identified to taxon. Of the identified bones, nearly all were domesticated animals. Proportions of the main domesticates by total collection were: cattle 57% (90 fragments), caprovid 30% (47 fragments) and pig 13% (21 fragments). There was a total of nine fragments of horse (seven from total collection) three cat bones and six human skull fragments from ditch F43, C1163. A single, rather battered and morphologically unusual medial phalanx was recovered by coarse-sieving from well F46, C1167. It appeared deer-like rather than pig-like, and its size was closer to that of a fallow deer than a red deer, however, from the same context was found a misshapen pig calcaneus, unusually thickened and strangely arched. It is possible that both elements belonged to the same animal and that some pathological condition is represented. Further pathological bones included a horse metacarpal with a fused lateral metatarsal from pit F273, C1588 and from well F46, C1167 a cow metatarsal with ossified ligament attachments. Birds were limited to five chicken bones, while there was a single salmon vertebra from pit F273, C2096.
Several contexts contained reasonable numbers of fragments and were examined in more detail. Ditch F43, C1163 (194 fragments) was dominated by large mammal remains, representing elements from most parts of the body. Medium mammal parts were generally those from moderate (ribs, vertebrae) to high (long bones) meat bearing elements. The presence of human skull fragments would suggest that this deposit was either not entirely of domestic refuse or, of heterogenous origin. Bones from well F46, C1167 (292 fragments) were fairly similar in character, with most body parts for large and medium mammal represented, including cattle horn cores, with slightly meatier elements a little more common among the medium mammals. Pig elements were restricted to the limbs.
Pit F273, C2095 contained 414 fragments. Cattle and large mammal element distribution showed little specialisation, although distal limb bones were quite limited and the amount of more meaty elements seemed fairly high. Most body parts from pig, caprovid and medium mammal were present, but again there was a distinct lack of phalanges (even in the coarse-sieved material), while moderate and high meat-bearing elements seemed better represented. Pig bones comprised of head and major limb bones. Bone from F273, C2093 (81 hand-collected fragments) was very similar in character, as was that from F273, C2103 (73 fragments, both techniques), with perhaps even more meaty bits, while that from F273, C2074 (coarse-sieved) contained fewer meaty elements.
Using both recovery techniques pit F241, C1526 yielded a total of 119 fragments the majority of which comprised of unspecialised waste (all body parts represented) with a slightly higher proportion of moderately meaty elements. Material from F241, C1529 (111 coarse-sieved fragments) was similar in character, more meaty elements being a little more common.
Considering the amount of identified material, the proportion of analysable bone was quite high, with 30 measurable bones, eight mandibles (five caprovid and including one horse, recovered from ditch F537, C1168), and twelve isolated teeth (mostly cattle). There were 51 unfused bones, almost half of which were vertebrae identified as medium or large mammal.
Over half of the assemblage, 14691 fragments, was dated to this period, of which 2116 (14.4%) fragments were identified to taxon. Main domesticate proportions are based on 1609 bones from total collection indicating the predominance of cattle (908 fragments = 56%), followed by caprovid (512 fragments = 32%) and then pig (189 fragments = 12%). Such figures are near-identical to those calculated for Roman bones. There were 31 fragments of horse, but proportionately, this was only a third as many bones as from Roman deposits. One horse tibia from F381, C1853 had been burnt. Other domesticated mammals included one dog and three goat bones. Wild mammals were rare, but there were 14 bits of red deer, all but one of which, a radius from F381, C1836, were fragments of antler. Several of these had been worked, notably from F442, C1951 where there were eleven fragments one of which had been sawn, while a number of the others appeared to be inner cores from which the more compact outer layer had been removed. The three remaining fragments came from separate contexts within pit F381. F442 also produced the only roe deer from the period, a metacarpal from C2011.
There were moderate numbers of bird bones, and these too were dominated by the domestic taxa, chicken (70 fragments) and grey goose (37 fragments). In addition there was a limited number of smaller, definitely wild barnacle geese and a possible brent goose. Ducks comprised single bones of mallard and shoveler. Woodcocks (two bones of which were recovered from pit F458, C2041), were also likely to have been eaten. The only other bird bones were those of scavengers, a buzzard femur from F458, C2041 and a raven tarsometatarsus from pit F546, C2201. Two vertebrae, one of a plaice or flounder and that of a pike were the only fish bones. A total of 71 oyster valves indicated that molluscs were eaten in small quantities. They were recovered from 14 contexts from six pit features, with concentrations in F353, F381, F458 and F546.
Examination of the better represented deposits suggested one or two trends. F13, C1865 yielded 1048 fragments by hand-collection and fine-mesh sieving, a large proportion of which, even from the hand-collected fraction could not be identified. All body parts were represented and there appeared to be no particular selection of more meaty elements and the same was true of C1025 which yielded 310 hand-collected fragments. In both contexts horse was represented by isolated teeth. The 232 coarse-sieved fragments from C1064 were similar in character, although there were a few more moderately meaty large mammal bones. The cattle and large mammal bones from C1062 (234 hand-collected and coarse-sieved fragments) were fairly general, but not especially appetising, as were those of the medium mammals for which major limb elements appeared poorly represented compared to other body parts. C1027 contained 345 hand-collected fragments with many cattle and large mammal bones coming from the less desirable head and distal limbs. The remains of caprovid, pig and medium mammal suggested no element selection, with all body parts represented.
Pit F164, C1341 yielded 220 fragments from hand-collection, including a fairly non-specific suite of cattle and large mammal elements while those of caprovid, pig and medium mammal, most likely as result of recovery technique appeared more meaty.
A total of 299 fragments was recovered by hand and coarse-sieving from two contexts from F235. Cattle and large mammal followed the more generalised trend, as did the medium mammals from C1558, but those from C1559 seemed to have less head and distal limb elements. Twelve further contexts from seven pits (F246, F256, F353, F381, F402, F442 and F520), each containing over 400 fragments on average, all appeared to indicate the deposition of a complete range of body parts from cattle, caprovids and pigs, albeit in a fragmentary state. There were no deposits that might indicate primary butchery, nor any that might suggest that waste from superior cuts of meat had been disposed of, nor any that might relate to intense craft-production or industry. However, a sheep horncore from F381, C2062 had been chopped at the base to facilitate removal of the horn sheath, presumably for working. F546, C2195 contained two cow and two sheep horncores, while another horncore from C2198 in the same feature had the tip sawn off.
Several bones bore pathological lesions. These included a caprovid radius from pit F13, C1064 with osteophyte development around the lateral surface of the proximal articulation typical of penning elbow. From pit F164, C1337 there was a goose humerus with a depressed puncture into the anterior surface, around which there was finely pitted new bone formed as a result of infection. This injury is thought to be the result of a dog bite. Another traumatic injury, a large mammal rib that had fractured but then healed was found in F520, C1811. Arthropathies included a robust cattle metacarpal from F381, C1861 with lateral extension of the medial condyle, eburnation and osteophyte development, most likely to have developed as a result of the animal being used for traction and also. A large mammal lumbar vertebra was also noted with severe eburnation on, and osteophyte development around, the caudal surface. There was a chicken carpo-metacarpus from pit F381 C1836 with considerable additional bone growth on the diaphysis, perhaps relating to a metabolic or dietary condition and from the same context there were three cattle vertebrae fused together. While this may have been the result of tuberculosis, there was no infectious bone nor the near-destruction exhibited by human vertebrae suffering the same condition. It is possible that fusion in this case is the result of trauma. Posthole F256, C1574 contained a cattle lumbar vertebrae with a large dorso-ventrally running foramen which may well have been a non-metric trait.
The number of analysable bones was quite high, including 503 measurable elements. These included most of the domestic bird bones and over a quarter of the identified caprovid bones. There were not so many complete mandibles, only 13 in the case of cattle, but this was partly compensated by the number of loose teeth. There were in excess of 600 unfused bones, just over half of which were from vertebrae identified as medium and large mammal. A number of newborn bones were recovered, including a scapula, humerus and femur from posthole F256, C1574 as well as a possible pig femur from F381, C2062 and very juvenile pig remains were recovered from pit F442, C2004.
Figure 1 Line graph showing main domesticate proportions by period according to total collection raw fragments
Of 1,747 bones from Anglo-Scandinavian features, 306 (17.5%) were identified to taxon, with the main domesticates predominant. Using only material from totally recovered contexts there were 192 domesticate fragments available for analysis from which the following species proportions were calculated: 58% cattle (111 fragments), and 21% for each of caprovid and pig (40 and 41 fragments respectively). From all recovery techniques there were only two horse bones, indicating a further decrease in the overall proportion of this animal. There was a single goat bone, and a human skull fragment from pit F249 C1555. Single fragments of sawn red deer antler were recovered from pit F351, C2106 and C2107, and there was an unworked piece from pit F388, C1856. Birds also seemed less common than in the preceding period, consisting of three goose and five chicken bones along with the femur of a possible lesser black-backed gull. Fish were represented by a single salmon bone, and oysters by only two valves.
The bones from five contexts, F351, C1753 (177 fragments) C1763 (346 fragments) and C2107 (452 fragments), F388, C1843 (388 fragments) and C1856 (207 fragments) were more closely examined for element distribution. The results of this were very similar to those of the Anglian period, the material being of a rather general nature and implying that no specialised processing or consumption of animal remains had taken place. Indeed, it is possible that some contexts represent the consumption and disposal of whole, or near-complete animals. For example, C1845 in pit F388 was recorded initially as an animal burial, due to the articulated state of much of its contents. Closer examination revealed that while there was evidence for only one skull, at least three cattle were represented, two of similar size (including almost complete vertebral columns and some paired elements) and a third with fused vertebral epiphyses. Parts of an immature individual were also present; the partial skeleton of a lamb which included most of the limb bones, was recovered from F351, C2107 by coarse-sieving.
The amount of analysable bones was moderate, including 58 measurables, mostly of cattle, ten mandibles and only nine loose teeth, again mostly of cattle. A small number of the 72 unfused bones were medium and large mammal vertebrae. There was a single pathological bone, a sheep humerus from F351, C1753 with a malformed proximal end. There appeared to be no eburnation or other evidence for degenerative joint disease, and it is possible that the condition could be an osteochondritic cyst. In addition, there was a horse metatarsal fragment from F388, C1843 which was noticeably rounded compared to the other bones, and bore a number of curvilinear butchery marks. It is unclear whether these represent skinning marks or whether this bone had been used as some sort of tool.
There was a total of 2,213 bones of which 404 (18.3%) were identified to taxon. Using the total collection figures for the main domesticate proportions it can be seen that while cattle remains the dominant taxon, relative to previous phases it declines in importance to 46% (102 fragments) while the proportions of caprovid (64 fragments = 29%) and especially pig (57 fragments = 26%) increase. The proportion of horse remains low and there are limited numbers of cat and dog bones. Of particular interest are three hare bones all from pit F245: two foot bones from C1546 and a tibia from C1548. Further evidence for the consumption of wild game is provided by roe deer bones, a metatarsal from F245, C1548, an axis from pit F252, C1562 and a humerus from robber pit F4, C1029. There was a single rat pelvis from F245, C1542 tentatively identified as a brown rat on the basis of size, but it could have belonged to a large male black rat.
The proportion of bird bones at 14% is notably high in this phase, and while the proportion of chicken is similar to that of the Anglian period (roughly 60%), the importance of goose appears to decline to less than 10% (Figure 2). Ducks, including mallard, shelduck, tufted duck and possible pochard account for 10% of bird bones while the remainder are those that could be considered game birds: grey partridge, golden plover, and particularly woodcock. Doves might also fit such a category, but may have been domesticated.
The amount of fish in the diet also seems to rise significantly, the 30 hand-collected and coarse-sieved fragments accounting for 7% of the identified assemblage (Figure 3). The period sees the introduction and predominance (roughly 80%) of gadid bones, which by virtue of the recovery strategy reported here are those of larger taxa, such as cod. eeper water taxa, haddock and ling, were identified in small but significant numbers. Individual specimens of thornback ray and conger eel were also recovered along with four flatfish bones, while a single pike dentary from F245 C1542 was the only freshwater representative.
Figure 2 Proportion of main bird taxa by phase, using raw fragment counts from all recovery techniques
Figure 3 Proportion of fish taxa by period, using raw fragment counts from all recovery techniques
Nine contexts containing a reasonable number of bones were examined for element distribution, the pattern of which appeared noticeably different from those of preceding periods. Overall, the proportion of moderate or high meat-bearing elements seemed quite high compared to the less fleshy bones of the head and distal limb. In addition, there was not the impression that complete animals had been butchered, consumed and disposed of within the same feature, more that specific joints had been selected for consumption. Such joints were not always the best quality however, and both head and distal limb (although less commonly phalanges) appeared in most contexts. For example, many of the bones from pit F245, C1542 would have borne a fair amount of flesh but cattle horncores and hooves were also present. C1546, C1548 and C1549 from the same feature were similar in character, although vertebrae seemed under-represented compared to other elements, particularly long bone fragments. Pits F418, C1807 and F425, C1786 both contained somewhat mixed material with more meaty overtones. Bones from F252, C1562 and C1571 appeared to contain even more fleshy material, although less desirable elements were still present. In most contexts, the amount of high meat-bearing elements among caprovid, pig and medium mammal bone was high (pig head elements also being common), but this may in part reflect the low recovery of loose teeth and phalanges from these smaller animals.
The amount of analysable bones was moderate, including 90 measurable fragments, only four mandibles and 29 loose teeth. The number of unfused epiphyses was small compared to earlier periods. There were a number of pathological bones, including from pit F245, C1546 a caprovid axis and third cervical vertebra fused together by a narrow osteophyte running across their centra. There was no evidence for degenerative joint disease or for any trauma, so it is possible that the condition is congenital. Pit F252, C1570 contained a sheep metatarsal with an ossified haematoma, while the only arthropathy was a cattle proximal phalanx with eburnation and extension of the proximal articular surface along with ossified ligaments.
There was a total of 5,738 bones of which 1,146 (19.9%) were identified to taxon. There were 678 main domesticate bones available for analysis using those from total collection contexts. These indicated an increase in the proportion of cattle to 54% (364 fragments), a slight increase in caprovids to 33% (226 fragments) while the proportion of pig bones halves to 13% (88 fragments). Other mammals included single bones of rabbit, hare and black rat along with five of dog, one of the latter being a near-complete dog skeleton from ditch F219, C1946 (recorded as one fragment). Cat bones were quite common (12 fragments), appearing singly or in pairs, though there was a partial skeleton from pit F253, C1569 (counting as a single fragment) and six came from various contexts in ditch F219. Horse bones were roughly twice as common as the preceding phase, with 32 fragments from all recovery techniques and almost a third of these were recovered singly from various contexts in three ditches: F208, F219 and F450. While long bones were present, the majority of horse bones were elements of the distal limb and head. One of these, a calcaneus from ditch F219, C1426, bore chop marks which could possibly relate to the disarticulation of joints of horse meat, perhaps for dog food, or, for skinning. There were three fragments of fallow deer, a radius and ulna from pit F88, C1230 and a humerus from pit F77, C1743 while red deer was represented by antler fragments, one from levelling layer F352, C1538 and one from ditch F450, C1959. In addition, there were two human bones, a radius from pit F77, C1741 and a skull fragment from scoop F186, C1384.
The proportion of bird bones relative to those of other identified taxa was significantly reduced compared to the preceding phase, accounting for only 8.9% of the identified assemblage. Within the bird taxa, the proportion of chicken approached 70%, while grey geese accounted for another 20%. Ducks and game birds, while still represented in small numbers respectively by large mallard and teal, and by grey partridge, pheasant/black grouse and dove, also appear to have declined in importance. There is an increase in the number of scavengers, including three raven bones (one from pit F220, C1482 and two from pit F221, F1483) and two of red kite (both from pit F162, C1351). Of particular interest is a tibiotarsus from ditch F219, C1270, tentatively identified as turkey.
There were only 23 fish bones, but the range and proportions of taxa (including ray, pike, gadids and conger eel) was similar to the preceding period. The importance of shellfish seemed to increase, as did the range of taxa. While oyster accounted for the majority, small numbers of cockle, mussel and whelk were also present.
Seventeen contexts from eleven features containing reasonable amounts of bones were examined in more detail for the elucidation of element distribution patterns. The overall appearance was of quite mixed material, with few contexts containing large amounts of primary butchery waste, and very few containing a predominance of high meat bearing elements. Distal limb bones and fragments of skull and teeth were present in all contexts. There was no evidence for specialised industrial deposits or for craft-production. Again, there was an overall impression from most contexts of the more meaty elements of caprovid and pig being more in evidence than those from cattle. A large proportion of bones from pit F162, C1314 derived from the head and hooves, but the context was not without meatier elements, especially among the medium mammal bones. Pit fills F39, C1150, F77, C1743, F162, C1352, F162, C1353 and F215, C1406 contained a rather mixed cattle and large mammal assemblage, while from the medium mammals head elements were rare and long bone shafts common. Pit fills F44, C1164, F88, C1230, F126, C1590 and F215, C1427 contained a higher proportion of moderate and high meat-bearing elements while those from F162, C1315 were particularly poor. The bones from pit F215, C1428 and kiln backfill F225, C1491 were somewhat non-specific, as were those from pit F223, C1484 and ditch backfill F450, C1959 but for a few more moderately meaty elements such as ribs and vertebrae.
The number of analysable bones was reasonable, with 244 measurables, a third of which were caprovid. The number of mandibles was not excessive, but combined with the amount of loose teeth, ageing data was adequate. The number of unfused bones was again proportionately small compared to the early medieval periods. There were also a number of pathological bones, including a pig scapula with osteochondritis from kiln F58, C1186, a cattle femoral head with eburnation from pit F253, C1569, a cattle first phalanx with ossified ligament attachments from pit F236, C1431 and a cattle second phalanx from ditch F219 C1485 with eburnation and linear depressions into the anterior margin of the proximal articular surface along with ossified ligaments. There was a goose tibiotarsus from F219, C1429 onto the shaft of which the distal fibula had fused and from pit F126, C1590 a fowl radius with marginal osteophytes around the proximal surface. From pit F77, C1744 there was an eburnated patella and a proximal phalanx with ossified ligament attachments, both of horse. Finally, from pit F77, C1756 there was a medium mammal rib fragment with additional bone formation on the outer surface, possibly relating to some sort of infection.
There were 805 fragments from loosely dated medieval contexts, of which 135 (16.8%) were identifiable. The amount of material available for analysis was rather limited, with less than 70 fragments available from each of hand-collected, coarse-sieved or totally collected fractions. The overall pattern was similar to that of the 14th to 15th century material, with a predominance of cattle and just over 10% pig bones. Other mammals included a few bones of dog and horse along with single fragments of worked red deer antler from posthole F163, C1338 and pit F460, C1975. Birds, which accounted for about 10% of the identified taxa, included goose and chicken in similar proportions to the 14th to 15th century material. Fish and molluscs were absent while the proportion of analysable bones, particularly measurables, was quite high. There were however just four mandibles and only three teeth.
Two contexts contained reasonable amounts of bone, both including a full range of body parts. In the case of pit F359, C1863 the number of large mammal phalanges was low, while there appeared to be a slight predominance of moderate and high meat-bearing elements among the medium mammal bones. The number of extremities and head elements from pit F408, C1906 was more limited, and the overall impression was of an assemblage of slightly more fleshy bones.
Post-medieval features contained a total of 456 bones of which 97 were identified (21.3%). There were only 50 domesticate bones from total collection contexts, with even less fragments from either hand-collected or coarse-sieved fractions. These 50 bones inferred an increase in the importance of caprovid to 48%, with cattle and pig at 28% and 24% respectively. Of particular interest was a fragment of sea mammal vertebrae from pit F360, C1810. This appeared somewhat larger than the porpoise in the University of York palaeoecology reference collection. The proportion of bird bones within the identified assemblage was very high at 17.5%. Of these 17 bones, 13 were chicken along with two geese and two mallards. The relative frequency of fish bones, all Gadiformes, was also high and among these 20 fragments deep water taxa represented by haddock and ling accounted for 65%. There were four oyster valves and a fragment of crab claw from pit F242, C1528. Relative to the size of the assemblage the number of analysable mammal bones was actually quite high.
Pit F242, C1528 contained 377 fragments recovered by hand-collection and coarse-sieving. All body parts were represented, but the amount of distal limb and skull bones seemed low in the case of large mammals. There was quite a lot of medium mammal skull, but moderately meaty elements of the torso and high meat-bearing bones of the upper limbs were well-represented.
There were 103 modern bones, mostly recovered through hand-collection, of which 60 were identifiable (58.3%). Horse was the most common domesticate (13 fragments) followed by caprovid (10), then cow (6) and then pig (3). Three cat, four chicken and a possible whiting bone were also identified while there were no molluscs. The amount of analysable bones was small but in proportion to the size of the assemblage, while there were no particular concentrations of bones from which to determine element distribution. There was a cat mandible from ditch F200, C1387 which was unusually short with crowded teeth. As such, it could have belonged to a modern breed.
There were 677 bones from undated contexts, of which 91 (13.4%) were identified to taxon with a good proportion of analysable elements. Cattle bones were predominant and from ditch F389, C1782 there were two teeth and a medial phalanx of red deer. Horse, cat, goose and chicken were also represented and there was a single osteochondritic cattle metacarpal from pit F437, C1797.
While assessment results can never be considered definitive, initial analysis of the zooarchaeological material from Blue Bridge Lane does provide some interesting insights into the nature of activity at different points of the site's occupation as well as a basis for comparison with other contemporary sites. Overall, a large and well-preserved assemblage was recovered, with high potential to be informative on a range of research questions.
Firstly, there are a number of methodological issues regarding recovery strategy. Ideally, all collection would be by fine-mesh sieving or flotation, although this is impractical, and a more targeted recovery strategy is required. The use of 'total' collection counts means that hand-collected material can be drawn into analysis with the coarse-sieved material and then be directly comparable with sites from which coarse-sieving was the main form of recovery, such as at 46-54 Fishergate. Also, it may actually be considered useful to have a hand-collected assemblage which can be used for comparison with those sites where only this form of retrieval was used. Coarse-sieving can be a time consuming recovery method, but this time is justified by the fact that in all periods where two techniques were used it yielded a very different set of data to that based upon hand-collected remains. The value of more refined recovery techniques is not so much that they improve the proportion of identifiable or analysable elements, indeed, with the exception of ageable teeth the situation is quite the reverse. It does provide a consistent level of retrieval, allowing smaller bones to be recovered, and for the proportions of the collected assemblage, more accurately reflects that which was deposited. This is particularly noticeable with the disparity between hand-collected and coarse-sieved main domesticate ratios, the former of which clearly favour cattle over caprovid and pig. In the case of the latter taxa, certain elements such as phalanges, particularly the medial and distal would appear under-represented compared to those of cattle, even from coarse-sieved samples. This may in part relate to the size of the mesh aperture, which at 10mm would allow the loss of smaller bones. When this data is compared with that from fine-mesh sieving (to 2mm) and with flotation (to 1mm) it will be possible to determine whether such small bones were not initially recovered or simply not present.
A further issue is that of comparison of material with assemblages from other sites which might differ on a number of key points: recovery strategies, recording protocol and quantification technique. In addition, assessment results are crude: they provide information on the number of element fragments, but not of the body side nor of the portion of the element; it is possible to calculate raw fragment counts by taxa (NISP) but not more sophisticated techniques such as the minimum number of individuals (MNI) or the minimum number of elements (MNE), while O'Connor counts (which provide the more refined information from 46-54 Fishergate) cannot accurately be calculated from assessment information as they require quantification of particular parts of bones (eg mandibular condyle).
Only material from the major periods will be discussed in any detail, as the medieval (unspecified), post-medieval, modern and undated assemblages are either too limited in size, too broad in date range or were not targeted in the Project Design.
While bone dated to the Roman period was somewhat limited, a number of comments can be made, the most important being the extreme similarity between the Roman assemblage as a whole, and that from the Anglian period; the statistics from coarse-sieving and total-collection indicate differences between these periods in the range of 1% or 2%. Combined with the bone condition and the presence of Anglian pottery in F241, C1517 and F273, C2096, such an assemblage would not look entirely out of place if the majority were found to be of Anglian date once more refined dating was complete. One or two differences that might be genuine are the higher incidence of horse bones from contexts dated to the Roman period compared to successive periods.
The Anglian assemblage represents the largest body of faunal material of that date from York since the York Archaeological Trust (YAT) 46-54 Fishergate excavation, an assemblage with which it shares a number of similarities, along with that from Fishergate House. All of the Anglian contexts from Fishergate House were coarse-sieved, meaning that in terms of recovery, this assemblage is analogous to the total collection assemblage from Blue Bridge Lane, and with 742 domesticate fragments, it is also of statistically valid size. This direct comparison indicates broadly similar domesticate proportions with slightly higher numbers of cattle at Blue Bridge Lane at the expense of caprovid, and particularly pig, which is 18% more important at Fishergate House than it is at Blue-Bridge Lane.
Recovery at 46-54 Fishergate was by hand-collection, sieving to 12mm and flotation to 1mm, and thus comparable to that carried out by FAS at Blue Bridge Lane. Only the material from 12mm sieving was used for calculation of domesticate ratios (for which total collection context from Blue Bridge Lane should be considered analogous). However, comparison between the YAT and FAS excavations is complicated by the fact that different methods of quantification have been used. O'Connor used two techniques: firstly, a raw fragment count of seemingly all identifiable bone fragments including ribs and presumably shafts and vertebrae, and secondly, a count of eight selected, durable elements. The EAU system used by FAS is likely to (and indeed, does) produce results in between, although considering the differential survival of more robust elements and the use of a recording system that selects articular ends, the figures from Fishergate House are likely to be slightly more akin to O'Connor's eight selected elements. The effect of this selection can clearly be seen in the 46-54 Fishergate Period 3 assemblages. Not only does the count of identified domesticate bones fall from 13,012 to 1014, there is a severe re-arrangement of the proportions of the domesticates. Cattle fall from 63.8% to 49.4% while sheep and pig rise from 26.3% and 10% to 35.5% and 15% respectively (see Figure1). As mentioned, O'connor counts cannot be satisfactorily calculated from assessment data because, instead of counting the number of distal humeri or proximal metapodials, one can only calculate the number of humeri and metapodials and the overall results are still likely to favour cattle over caprovid and pig. Although the sample size is reduced (from 1609 to 574 fragments, roughly 36%), it is not so drastic as that from 46-54 Fishergate (where less than 8% of the material was useable for such analysis). Plotting the results (Figure 4), as predicted, does create a different pattern, but not in the manner expected. The proportion of caprovid increases from 32% to 44%, much of this at the expense of cattle which decrease from 56% to 45%. Pig falls from 12% to 11%. The adjustment of these figures is far greater than might be expected from a heavily fragmented assemblage recorded with a selective protocol and such a decline in cattle and pig (the latter of which should in effect be favoured by such a technique) may in part be explained by the large numbers of loose cattle and pig teeth that are not countable for the O'Connor technique. The figures also differ somewhat from 46-54 Fishergate, and once fully recorded are likely to become more different, with in all likelihood caprovid becoming more important than cattle. Support for the significance of these results comes from comparison with the O'Connor counts from Fishergate House, where caprovid again increases and becomes more important than cattle. Other proportions, such as the high numbers of pig compared to Blue Bridge Lane remain consistent.
Figure 4 Pie charts showing main domesticate proportions according to O'Connor counts of bones from total collection contexts from Anglian phases at Blue Bridge Lane, Fishergate House and 46-54 Fishergate
In other respects, the three sites show a number of similarities. Species diversity is generally low, with mostly domestic mammal remains. Exploitation of wild resources seems limited, with most red deer represented by antler fragments, and the same was true of birds, which mostly comprised of chicken, goose and a few ducks. Such a pattern is seen as typical of middle Saxon sites (O'Connor 1992, 282). The slightly higher numbers of Branta geese from Blue Bridge Lane might be considered distinctive, as might the woodcock bones. Buzzard was recovered from both of the larger sites. Only fish bones from bulk sieved samples were published from 46-54 Fishergate, and thus are far from comparable with those from Blue Bridge Lane, but those few that are represented from the latter would fit in with a trend of freshwater and estuarine exploitation, with few in the way of gadids or marine fish other than herrings.
The bone assemblage is markedly different from those from Anglo-Saxon rural sites (many of which admittedly predate the Fishergate assemblage). These tend to have either a predominance of either cattle in the case of Heslington Hill (FAS_YHS03)and Site 12 on the Silk-Willoughby to Staythorpe gas pipeline (FAS_SSP03), but more usually of caprovid, as at Caythorpe and Wharram Percy (Stallibrass 1995). They also, in general, have much larger numbers of horses, which while they may have been eaten, were likely to have been much more useful for their traction. This low level of horse bone was noted at the other Fishergate sites. While there are some juvenile and neonatal bones from Blue Bridge Lane, these are very few in number. One would expect far greater numbers of these on a rural site intimately associated with livestock birth and high infant mortality rates.
Apart from the limited amount of antler indicating small scale craft-production, it is clear that the Anglian bone derived from food waste, with most contexts, particularly those within the same features, producing broadly similar results. It is also interesting to observe that certain features contained contexts from which the bones were markedly consistent in terms of preservation, fragmentation, butchery, burning, gnawing and body part representation, implying that bones from a single activity or event had been dumped into the feature. None of these bones seemed to indicate primary butchery, and taking into account the favoured preservation of more robust elements, very few seemed to indicate concentration of particularly meaty joints. Instead, the impression is that complete animals were brought to the site and were butchered and prepared for consumption as part of the same activity. Indeed, it would seem that pretty much all parts of the animal were (as they largely can be) eaten. Even horncores and hooves seem to have been left on the carcass, although it is probable that hides, and possibly horn sheaths were removed before dismemberment. This situation is mirrored by that from Fishergate House and the majority of deposits from 46-54 Fishergate. It was suggested that there was evidence for importation of joints of pork as well as complete animals from 46-54 Fishergate (O'Connor 1992), and it is possible that the slight preponderance of more meaty medium mammal bones in some contexts from Blue Bridge Lane may reflect this, although it is equally possible that smaller foot bones missed recovery, and this question cannot be addressed until the assemblage has been fully recorded and analysed. While it is possible that people of different status consumed better or worse food, it would appear that all of their rubbish was disposed of in the same place.
Overall, largely because it is so similar, the assemblage does little to disagree with O'Connor's hypothesis that the Anglian settlement was supplied with a diet limited in diversity using food rents from local rural settlements (O'Connor 1992, 282). The high numbers of caprovid bones from Blue Bridge Lane are curious in this light, but it is possible that a different phase of occupation is represented, perhaps utilising food rents from different areas, or perhaps that the exact rent to be provided was subject to stipulation. Afterall, most law code quotations are from those of Ina of Wessex, not of the kings of Northumbria. A large number of loomweights were being made and used on the Blue Bridge Lane site and these were accompanied by shears, pin beaters and spindlewhorls. It is possible that large numbers of sheep bones may reflect specialisation in the production of wool for use as a tradeable commodity. In this light, it would be very useful to conduct metrical analysis on the caprovid bones in order to establish the presence of heavy fleeced wethers, and also to establish whether the caprovid age profiles fit in with those associated with a wool economy. The high proportion of caprovid bones from Fishergate House may imply that this area may also have been part of a wool processing zone. It is also possible that the sites excavated at Blue Bridge lane and 46-54 Fishergate were not directly contemporaneous and that the different animal assemblages represent food rents requisitioned from a diverse rural economy at slightly different times.
The intensity of occupation of the site has also been an issue and one that it hard to resolve using animal bones. The lack of synanthropic insect remains from 46-54 Fishergate suggested that the occupation was not continual (Kenward, pers. comm.), whereas O'Connor (1992) used the large numbers of house mouse remains and the small amounts of insectivore bones to suggest that the site was more intensely settled. The evidence of small vertebrate remains from Blue-Bridge Lane will only be possible with the study of the residues from flotation and fine-mesh sieving. O'Connor also used bird bones as an indication of occupation intensity, with red kite signifying less occupation, and raven preferring more urban conditions. Both taxa were recorded from Blue Bridge Lane, but there was only raven (a single bone) from Anglian deposits. However, buzzard was identified only from Anglian deposits at both sites, and it is possible that this taxon, generally a rural scavenger, may also indicate less intense occupation. A further, somewhat indirect indication of the low intensity of the site's occupation might be the low numbers of secondary domesticates: cats, dogs and horses, animals that were likely to have lived and worked on the site, but if only there temporarily, are less likely to have died there.
The high level of fragmentation among Anglian deposits may derive from a number of factors. It is possible that material was redeposited over periods of time, and the gradual increase in the proportion of identifiable bones over time might support such an idea. However, none of the bone is particularly battered, and very few contexts contained rounded material. Alternatively, bone may have been collected and deliberately broken up for stock boiling. Such a process would involve the collection of bones removed during primary butchery, but would largely be concentrated on long bones with high marrow content. Depending on the period of time between butchery, initial consumption, collection and reprocessing, bones from stock-making may not necessarily find their way into deposits with those bones from initial consumption. A further explanation might be that bones were left exposed for some time before redeposition into pits. However, the state of preservation, angularity and the degree of carnivore gnawing was not so great to suggest prolonged exposure, with none of the fragments indicating any form of weathering. The issue of taphonomy and butchery at the site can only really be addressed through more detailed analysis during the recording phase.
Comparison of the Anglo-Scandinavian assemblage from Blue Bridge Lane with other broadly contemporary sites from York, notably Fishergate House, 46-54 Fishergate (Phase 4a and 4b) and Coppergate (Phases 4-5B) shows a number of differences. When compared to the small assemblage (152 domesticate bones) from Fishergate House, the material from Blue Bridge Lane is different both in the proportions of taxa, but also in the manner in which the proportions change between the Anglian and Anglo-Scandinavian periods. At Fishergate House there is a significant decline in the proportion of pigs from 14.6% to 10% and a slight rise in the number of cattle. At Blue Bridge Lane the proportion of pig almost doubles to 21% and caprovid declines by about a third from 32% to 21% while cattle increase very slightly. Turning to 46-54 Fishergate, pig remains constant, cattle declines and caprovid increases. Curiously, while different collection and quantification techniques were used at Coppergate (hand-collection and recording of all identifiable parts including ribs) the actual figures and species proportion changes taking place at this site are not so different to those from Blue Bridge Lane. Period 3 at Coppergate is very different from Anglian Blue Bridge Lane, but over the course of phases 4 to 5B, there is net decline in cattle to 52%, a rise in caprovids to 19.8% and a large increase in pigs to 18.8%. O'Connor (1992) suggested that the low number of pigs in Anglian assemblages from 46-54 Fishergate (reflected at Blue Bridge Lane) may indicate an absence of small-scale urban pig-keeping. Their sharp increase in Anglo-Scandinavian deposits at Coppergate and Blue Bridge Lane may reflect greater exploitation of this animal, and also a change in the character of the Blue Bridge Lane economy. It is however curious that the contemporary assemblages from 46-54 Fishergate do not reflect these changes in pig proportions.
Figure 5 Main domesticate proportions of Anglo-Scandinavian date using raw fragment counts (those from Coppergate are hand-collected, all others from total collection contexts)
Other aspects of the Anglo-Scandinavian assemblage from Blue Bridge Lane are not so different from the contemporary material from the three other sites up to the later 10th century. Avian resources are again limited largely to goose and chicken with a few ducks. However, in Phase 5B at Coppergate (dated from 975 AD to the early or mid-11th century), there is a veritable explosion on the diversity of bird taxa.
The best assemblage for comparison is that from Period 6a, relating to St Andrews Gilbertine Priory between 1195 and 1300. At Blue Bridge Lane there is an indication of an increase in status, with pig, often associated with aristocratic conspicuous flesh consumption (K. Dobney, pers. comm.) accounting for 26% of the domesticates, much higher than the 9% from 46-54 Fishergate. Caprovid increases in importance, probably reflecting the burgeoning English wool trade and the range of elements would imply that joints of meat, some of them of good quality, were being consumed. The range and proportion of birds, particularly wild game, is again greater at Blue Bridge Lane, even considering that bones from flotation or fine-mesh residues, likely to include the smaller birds, have yet to be identified. Taxa such as grey partridge, diving ducks, golden plover and woodcock are absent from 46-54 Fishergate, as are deer and hare bones, and it is possible that deposits encountered at Blue Bridge Lane may have derived from the table of church dignitaries and their secular aristocratic guests, while that from 46-54 Fishergate may have been from the table of monks or lay brothers. Documentary sources and zooarchaeological investigations certainly suggest that churchmen could be self-indulgent in their dietary tastes. An absence of scavenging birds may suggest that the site was kept relatively clean at this stage of occupation.
The 14th to 15th century sees a number of changes in the use of the site, and this is reflected in the zooarchaeological assemblage. With an increase in industrialisation as evidenced by kilns, the quality of the food declines. There are still one or two wild animals, but overall, much of the dietary diversity has been lost with goose regaining importance, perhaps because such animals could have been husbanded on the site. Pig consumption is halved, with caprovid further increasing. The presence of a goat deciduous fourth premolar (pit F215, C1436) and a very juvenile pig humerus (pit F88, C2002) may indicate that some pigs and goats were bred on the site, but in the case of cattle and caprovids joints of meat seem to have been bought, consumed and disposed of, though these joints came from all over the body and many were not of particularly good quality. Also, there are far more pathological bones than in the preceding phase, particularly cases of degenerative joint diseases that might indicate consumption of animals that were either older, or whose primary purpose had been the provision of traction rather than of meat. The people that occupied the site at this point also seem less fastidious about their refuse disposal, as scavenging birds are present in significant numbers and bones from F223, C1484 and pits F88, F162 and F401 contained moderate amounts of gnawed bones, suggesting that they had been left exposed to be predated upon by canines before being redeposited into pits. An increase in shellfish consumption at a time when molluscs were readily available and cheap may again imply that there was some reduction in status in this period.
There is a large volume of material from Blue Bridge Lane, and much of it would provide valuable information should it be fully recorded. According to the current dating, the largest assemblages derive from the Anglian, 12th to 13th century and 14th to 15th century periods. Anglian assemblages are far from common and that from Blue Bridge lane is sufficiently large to be sub-divided into activity phases, dating evidence permitting, as was the case at 46-54 Fishergate. This might provide more information on developments and changes of site function and intensity of occupation and deposition. The greatest potential of each of the Blue Bridge Lane period assemblages would be achieved by combining their data with that from Fishergate House. Again, if dating evidence was sufficient, it might be possible to detect different patterns of use, occupation and disposal both temporally and spatially. Analysis of spatial patterning could be extended to incorporate Fishergate House, where the Anglian features were located very close to those of Blue Bridge Lane. It would therefore be interesting to determine whether there is any change in the contents of features progressing westwards towards 46-54 Fishergate. More detailed analysis of butchery and fragmentation would be of value in determining the taphonomic processes that led to the formation of the Anglian deposits; such an issue may require adoption of a more specific methodology. Although neither of these assemblages are as large as those from 46-54 Fishergate they are of more than adequate size for comparison, which is vital for the formulation of research questions regarding the Anglian 'wic'.
Bones from the Roman period are less well-represented at Blue Bridge Lane, and while the assemblage is of moderate size and potential, it is likely that further refinement of the phasing will reduce the amount of material available for analysis from this period.
The Anglo-Scandinavian assemblage is not vast, but amalgamated with the contemporary bones from Fishergate House, this assemblage could be informative regarding the development and use of this site during this period. As such, combination of these collections with that from 46-54 Fishergate might provide a basis for comparison of Anglo-Scandinavian activity on the site compared to that from Coppergate.
Bones of the medieval period are very common in York, but being associated with a religious institution those from Blue Bridge Lane have high potential. Again, should this information be combined with spatial data and finer dating, temporal variations in consumption and disposal in areas of differing function and status might be traced, both within the Blue-Bridge Lane and Fishergate House assemblages, but also with that recovered from 46-54 Fishergate. Recording of such an assemblage would allow not only the comparison of religious and secular diets, but also that of different religious orders. Particularly important in this respect is the large number of fish bones recovered through flotation and fine-mesh sieving.
The post-medieval assemblage is perhaps a little small to provide much information beyond species proportions, but raw data would be of value in synthesis of contemporary sites across York. The modern material is too limited in both size and interest, while material from undated contexts is likely to be pushed into other periods once full analysis of the stratigraphic relationships and dating evidence has been completed.
It is recommended that bones from Anglian and medieval contexts be recorded and completely analysed in terms of age, stature, gender, butchery and fragmentation and spatial patterning, with creation of a full metrical archive. Material from fine-mesh sieving and from flotation should also be recorded, although the large amount of material, particularly of fish bone, may dictate the adoption of a more selective recording strategy. Bone from Roman, Anglo-Scandinavian and less well-represented medieval assemblages should be identified, measured and recorded with a complete digital archive.
Appendix 1: Summary of Preservation, context and residuality information from Blue Bridge Lane, York
Appendix 2: Summary of analysable bones by period from Blue Bridge Lane, York
apc > monographs > blue bridge lane & fishergate house > archive > specialist assessment reports > animal bone