A Handbook of Animals in Old English Texts 9781802700299

Citation preview

ARC COMPANIONS

Further Information and Publications www.arc-humanities.org/search-results-list/?series=arc-companions

A HANDBOOK OF ANIMALS IN OLD ENGLISH TEXTS

by

TODD PRESTON

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. © 2022, Arc Humanities Press, Leeds

The authors assert their moral right to be identified as the authors of their part of this work.

Permission to use brief excerpts from this work in scholarly and educational works is hereby granted provided that the source is acknowledged. Any use of material in this work that is an exception or limitation covered by Article 5 of the European Union’s Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) or would be determined to be “fair use” under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act September 2010 Page 2 or that satisfies the conditions specified in Section 108 of the U.S. Copy­ right Act (17 USC §108, as revised by P.L. 94-553) does not require the Publisher’s permission.

ISBN (print): 9781641893107 e-ISBN (PDF): 9781802700299 www.arc-humanities.org Printed and bound in the UK (by CPI Group [UK] Ltd), USA (by Bookmasters), and elsewhere using print-on-demand technology.

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Animal Entries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Biblio­graphy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Index of Old English Headwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

To Susan, Michael, and Jack, for their constant inspiration, support, and love. To Pete, for the pike.

PREFACE This book began with a decapitation. Actually, it began with the aftermath of a decapitation. In teaching Ælfric’s hagio­graphy of the East Anglian King Edmund, I was taken not with the miraculous fact that the king’s head, severed by Viking invaders, survives to call to his subjects, nor that a savage wolf sits to guard it, but rather that the wolf’s actions seemed so familiar. The hiding and protecting of its prize seemed so utterly canine, I couldn’t help but wonder if it had an analogue in the wolf’s natural behaviour. As you may see below, it certainly does. This revelation led to numerous conference papers and articles exploring the relationship between the representations of animals in early medi­eval vernacular literature and the eco­logical and behavioural realities of the actual creatures. The more research I did into the bio­logical, eco­logical, and archaeo­logical literature, the more I came to see actual beasts swimming and flying, creeping, and stalking, between the lines of Old English poetry and prose. My own life-long fascination with, and connection to, animals found purchase in my scholarly practice. Along the way, I have received much encouragement and support, both informal and formal. Conference sessions mounted or presided over by enthusiastic scholars like Michael Bintley, Megan Cavell, Heide Estes, Richard Hoffmann, Johanna Kramer, Jennifer Neville, Robin Norris, and Michael Warren started me on this path. Formative publications of mine shepherded by Olivia Holmes and Thomas Willard, and refined by anonymous peer–reviewers, honed my approach to the dizzying confluence of bio­ logical, eco­logical, archaeo­logical, and theoretical literatures. Conversations with fellow scholars such as John Black, Cullen Chandler, and Alf Siewers helped me clarify and contextualize my ideas. A sabbatical provided by Lycoming College gave me the initial time and freedom to build the core of this text. My colleagues at the college provided no end of good cheer and support throughout the process. The acquisitions editors Ilse Schweitzer-VanDonkelaar and Danna Messer at Arc Humanities Press helped to shape and guide the formation of the text at each step of its development, and the anonymous peer–review process provided invaluable suggestions for greater clarity and depth. Most importantly, of course, my family endured long days of little contact and both parental and spousal distraction, but nonetheless succoured me with love and patience and sustenance both material and immaterial. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations in the following text are my own, which fairly may be faulted for sacrificing grace in favour of fidelity. In the end, any errors found herein are most surely mine alone.

INTRODUCTION For the people of early medi­eval England, animals were a pervasive and significant presence in their daily lives.1 Whether these interactions were intentional, as in the milking of a goat, or not, as in catching sight of a wheeling wild raptor over a field, animals were never far from the human experience of the time. Domestic animals provided an array of the products of everyday life, from food to medicine to clothing, and the procurement of these goods required intimate contact with these creatures. Even wild animals were closer at hand, as rural living was the norm, and even those at the pinnacle of society would surround themselves with helper-animals such as dogs and raptors in search of woodland beasts as prey. The turn of the first millennium would also see a shift to large-scale marine fishing, literally broadening the horizons of the early medi­eval English. Nearly every aspect of early medi­eval life on the island was in some way touched by animals. As difficult as it is to understand the alterity of the early Middle Ages from a modern perspective, grasping how and what the people of the time thought about animals is harder still. The stratum of society having the most direct contact with the most animals, including the farm workers, laborers, and game hunters, left no written record of their experiences. Texts that do survive mediate the animal-contact experience through their respective lenses of church, state, or fictions in poetry and prose. Poets and clerics largely turned to animals as metaphors or set dressing for tales of human endeavours. Historians and the state primarily referenced animals as resources, if at all. Much of the knowledge that can be gleaned from these texts is indirect, glimpsed sidelong through the thicket of the anthropocentric main narrative. Despite the difficulty in ascertaining the status of animals in the medi­eval English environment, and especially the conception of them by their contemporary human observers, the expanding field of animal studies has begun to investigate the nature of the connection between the people and animals of the period more comprehensively. The core of animal studies often wrestles with the essential contradiction at the heart of the human–animal relationship. On the one hand, animal studies investigates the continuities between the animal and the human. In his now famous lecture, “L’animal que donc je suis,” Jacques Derrida interrogates and problematizes the perceived divide between the human and the animal: “Beyond the edge of the so-called human, beyond it but by no means on a single opposing side, rather than ‘The Animal’ or ‘Animal Life’ 1  The phrase “early medi­eval England” is used throughout this text in reference to the land from the northern borders of Northumberland in the north to the English Channel in the south and from the eastern coast to Offa’s Dyke in the west. The phrase “early medi­eval English” refers to the people who existed within those borders between the years circa 450 ce and 1066 ce. Further, while acknowledging the reductiveness of the term and its problematic political implications, for the sake of lexical simplicity “British Isles” is used in a purely geo­graphical sense to refer to the landmasses and smaller islands belonging to the modern political entities that constitute the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

2

Introduction

there is already a heterogeneous multiplicity of the living.”2 Derrida’s onto­logical inquiry questions the very language of categorization that imposes the artificial divide between the self and the other, the human and the animal. On the other hand, animal studies is also interested in the animal’s selfhood, divorced from human categorization altogether. In this view, the animal can emerge not merely as a representative of its species but as an individual. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen recognizes the value of freeing the animal from an existence circumscribed by an anthropocentric perspective, which allows for “what might occur between animals and humans, what processes, desires, identities might circulate in the interspace where animal and human differences come together or come apart.”3 Such a recognition of animals as distinct individuals that intersect with, but are not determined by, human life and culture approaches these creatures and the texts in which they appear with fresh eyes, forcing us to reconsider our critical approaches to their place in art and literature. Applying the lens of animal studies to the Middle Ages is particularly relevant given the ubiquitous presence of animals in human existence during the period. Looking to the medi­eval and early modern periods, Cary Wolfe finds that “the question of the animal assumes, if anything, even more centrality in earlier periods.”4 One significant approach to addressing the question of the animal has been through literary studies, as texts are one of the primary links modern scholars have to medi­eval perceptions of the animal world. Susan Crane finds the path of literary analysis key to understanding the human–animal connection because “literary scholarship is well placed to examine the subtle mechanisms of imagination through which medi­eval encounters shaped and defined animals.”5 Here she follows Derrida’s onto­logical lead in “stress[ing] the plurality and density of medi­eval thought rather than seeking out a dominant cultural paradigm.”6 Scholars of medi­eval England seem to agree with Crane’s point of view as the last two decades have seen a groundswell of studies re-examining the relationship of the animal to the texts, culture, and environment of the period.7

2  Derrida, The Animal That Therefore I Am, 31. Other foundational texts interrogating the relation­ ship between the human and the animal, particularly within the scope of the humanities, include Peter Singer, Animal Liberation; Margot Norris, Beasts of the Modern Imagination: Darwin, Nietzsche, Kafka, Ernst and Lawrence; Donna Haraway, Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science; and Cary Wolfe, ed., Zoonto­logies: The Question of the Animal. For examples of general introductions to the field, see Margo DeMello, Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human–Animal Studies; Linda Kalof, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies; Mario OrtizRobles, Literature and Animal Studies; Lynn Turner, Undine Sellbach, and Ron Broglio, eds., The Edinburgh Companion to Animal Studies; and Paul Waldau, Animal Studies: An Introduction. 3  Cohen, Medi­eval Identity Machines, 42. 4  Wolfe, “Human, All Too Human,” 567.

5  Crane, Animal Encounters, 8. 6  Crane, Animal Encounters, 8.

7  A representative, but by no means exhaustive, list of recent scholarship focusing on animals in medi­eval England would include Jennifer Neville, Representations of the Natural World in Old English Poetry; Debra Hassig, ed., The Mark of the Beast: The Medi­eval Bestiary in Art, Life, and



Introduction

3

One of the hallmarks of animal studies scholarship is its interdisciplinary nature. As animals are bio­logical entities that interact with each other and humans in environmental contexts, and whose physical remains and textual representations provide interpretive clues about their contact with human culture, the study of these creatures requires an interdisciplinary approach. The bio­logical sciences provide a treasuretrove of illuminating information about the animal world, and they have long been invested in the study of animals in their own right, particularly in disciplines such as eco­logy, etho­logy, and zoo­logy. However, early conceptual systemizations of the animal world, such as those of Aristotle and Pliny, intertwined careful natural observation with cultural histories and biases, filtered through the lens of human exceptionalism. While anthropocentrism still may play a role in the bio­logical sciences, over the course of the twentieth century scientists have become more conscious of the particular complexities of the relationships between researchers and animal subjects, explicitly acknowledging biases and limitations that previously might have gone unrecognized or unarticulated.8 Similarly, the discipline of archaeo­logy has become more intentional in its treatment of animal subjects over the last century. In many archaeo­logical excavations prior to the mid-twentieth century, animal remains were too often treated as relatively unimportant by-products to the more valued human–related artefacts. As such, animal remains were not infrequently discarded or reburied unless they bore some direct relevance to the human context of the site. From the mid-century onward, the growing interest in animals as subjects worthy of archaeo­logical investigation in themselves culminated with the establishment of the International Council of Archaeozoo­logy.9

Literature; Dorothy Yamamoto, The Boundaries of the Human in Medi­eval English Literature; David Salter, Holy and Noble Beasts: Encounters with Animals in Medi­eval Literature; Joyce Salisbury, The Beast Within: Animals in the Middle Ages; Jeffrey J. Cohen, Medi­eval Identity Machines; Jill Mann, From Aesop to Reynard: Beast Literature in Medi­eval England; Karl Steel, How to Make a Human: Animals and Violence in the Middle Ages; Kathleen Walker-Meikle, Medi­eval Pets; Michael D. J. Bintley and Thomas J. T. Williams, eds., Representing Beasts in Early Medi­eval England and Scandinavia; Corinne Dale, The Natural World in the Exeter Book Riddles; Heide Estes, Anglo-Saxon Literary Landscapes: Ecotheory and the Environmental Imagination; James Paz, Nonhuman Voices in Anglo-Saxon Literature and Material Culture; Alison Langdon, ed., Animal Languages in the Middle Ages: Representations of Interspecies Communication; Michael J. Warren, Birds in Medi­eval English Poetry: Metaphors, Realities, Transformations; and Karl Steel, How Not to Make a Human: Pets, Feral Children, Worms, Sky Burial, Oysters. 8  On the progress of self–awareness in current research practices within the bio­logical sciences, see Bowler and Pickstone, The Modern Bio­logical and Earth Sciences, 3–5. For recent studies providing overviews of observer effects on animal subjects, see Alcayna-Stevens, “Habituating Field Scientists,” 833–34; Allan, Bailey, and Hill, “Habituation Is Not Neutral or Equal,” 1–2; and Radhakrishna and Sengupta, “What Does Human–Animal Studies,” 193–96. For a useful overview of anthropocentrism in a wide range of disciplines involved in animal studies, see Boddice, ed., Anthropocentrism.

9  Generally speaking, the terms zooarchaeo­l ogy and archaeozoo­l ogy are used somewhat interchangeably, although they may also be used to indicate more specific disciplinary perspectives. For a discussion of these terms, definitions, and their connotations, see Gifford-Gonzalez, An Introduction to Zooarchaeo­logy, 9–11; Albarella et al., The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeo­logy,

4

Introduction

While once relegated to supplementary sections of archaeo­logical reports, the studies of animal remains in archaeo­logical contexts are now more regularly taken as integral parts in understanding the totality of any given site.10 The current volume, then, seeks to engage in an interdisciplinary reconsideration of the animal in Old English texts, correlating the textual, archaeo­logical, and bioscientific evidence. While there is a large and important body of Anglo-Latin writing from the period, this investigation focuses on the vernacular for both practical and interpretive reasons.11 Pragmatically, to attempt to address the animal trace in the entirety of both Latin and Old English texts from the place and period under scrutiny would be a prohibitively gargantuan enterprise.12 Focusing on Old English texts provides clear and manageable delimiters for the scope of the project. That said, the variety of genres covered by these texts is impressive. From the sacred to the secular and from poetry to prose, Old English texts include works of religion, education, history, science, law, and lexico­graphy, just to name a few.13 A number of animals appear primarily or only in texts that may not be considered “literature” in the traditional sense, such as law codes, medical texts, charters (which delimit property borders), educational texts, and Latin–Old English glossaries. These quotidian texts ultimately play an outsized role in the representation of animals in vernacular texts in their treatment of everyday life. For example, Ælfric of Eynsham’s Colloquy appears quite often in the following pages. Students were to take the roles of the various craftsmen represented in the text and discuss their work in a dialogue meant to teach the budding scholars Latin. As many of the jobs presented in the text included those that worked closely with animals (e.g., fowler, angler, hunter), animals feature largely in the work. Given that the Colloquy was also glossed in Old English, the text is also the source of numerous vernacular animal terms. Similarly, the medicinal recipes in Bald’s Leechbook and the Old English translations of the Herbarium and the Medicina de quadrupedibus often rely upon animal ingredients. Book 3 of the Leechbook and the Herbarium are of particular interest as scholars believe them to be more representative of local practices, rather than simply reiterating the cures found in their Continental sources.14 As such, they are invaluable 3–6; Steele, “The Contributions of Animal Bones from Archaeo­logical Sites,” 168–69; and Reitz and Wing, Zooarchaeo­logy, 2–6.

10  For a pair of examples of the practice and import of zooarchaeo­logy in medi­eval contexts, see Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats and Sykes, “Woods and the Wild,” 327–45.

11  For overviews of the Anglo-Latin literature of the period, see Love, “Anglo-Latin Literature in the Foreground”; Orchard, “Latin and the Vernacular Languages”; McGowan, “An Introduction to the Corpus of Anglo-Latin Literature”; Lapidge, Anglo-Latin Literature, 600–899; and Lapidge, AngloLatin Literature, 900–1066.

12  The most recent, comprehensive tally of the corpus amounts to over twelve hundred items, with each item typically composed of multiple texts. See Gneuss and Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manu­ scripts, x.

13  For a helpful overview of textual genres from the culture, see Pulsiano and Treharne, A Companion to Anglo-Saxon Literature.

14  On the native nature of the Leechbook, see Cameron, Anglo-Saxon Medicine, 35–36, 75–77. On the local character of the Herbarium, see Van Arsdall, Medi­eval Herbal Remedies, 86–95.



Introduction

5

windows into the perception of animals in early medi­eval England. Although this body of Old English texts is substantial in size, it still provides a workable sample set for the current project. Conceptually, tracking the appearance of animals in vernacular texts seeks to cleave closer to the native, local understanding and expression regarding the animals of early medi­eval England as conveyed in the common idiom of the people at that place and time.15 However, Latin works are not ignored in the following study. The understanding of animals in early medi­eval England was undoubtedly and significantly influenced by classical and early medi­eval Latin works, such as the Physio­logus, Pliny’s Historia naturalis, and Isidore’s Etymo­logiae.16 The influence of these texts is apparent in early medi­eval Anglo-Latin writings, perhaps most notably in Aldhelm’s Enigmata, which in turn had its own influence on vernacular texts.17 Such works, and others, are referenced in the following text as they specifically bear on the relevant Old English writings in question, either as direct sources or by association. The provenance of the sources, so far as it is known, is accounted for in the discussion of each creature’s textual appearances. Ultimately, the goal of this handbook is to provide the context for the vernacular appearances of each animal discussed, exploring the physical and textual evidence with the aim of adding to the current understanding of these creatures both in their relation to humans and, perhaps more importantly, also in their own regard.

How to Use This Book

The following work is a handbook that documents each animal (or relevant group of them, if the sample size is particularly small) that appears in the Old English lexicon and relates its textual presentation to relevant literary, historical, archaeo­logical, and bioscientific studies. Each entry first provides the common Present-Day English name of the animal, the Old English terms associated with it, and the likely species in question. The animals are presented in alphabetical order according to their common name in Present-Day English. Variant forms of a specific animal or animal group are 15  This point, of course, acknowledges at least some degree of early medi­eval English multi­ lingualism. For recent studies that include overviews of the scholarship of the topic, see Cain, “‘Þæt Is on Englisc’”; Timofeeva, “Of Ledenum Bocum to Engliscum Gereorde”; Tyler, Conceptualizing Multilingualism in England; Townend, “Contacts and Conflicts.”

16  For examples of the influence of the Physio­logus in early medi­eval English texts, see SalvadorBello and Gutiérrez-Ortiz, “The Cambridge and the Exeter Book Physio­logi”; Kay, “‘The English Bestiary.’” For a brief overview of the influence of Pliny’s Historia naturalis during the period, see Griffith, “A Possible Use of Pliny’s Historia Naturalis,” 1. For representative overviews of the history and influence of Isidore of Seville’s encyclopedic Etymo­logiae, see Elfassi, “Isidore of Seville and the Etymo­logies”; Isidore of Seville, The Etymo­logies, ed. Barney et al., 3–28. For the Etymo­logiae’s impact on various genres of early medi­eval English textual culture, see Frank, “Reading Beowulf with Isidore’s Etymo­logies”; Salvador-Bello, Isidorian Perceptions of Order; and Lazzari, “Isidore’s Etymo­logiae in Anglo-Saxon Glossaries.”

17  For some sense of Aldhelm’s impact on the Old English riddles of the Exeter Book, see Williamson, A Feast of Creatures, 7–11; Bitterli, Say What I Am Called, 20–26; and Orchard, “Enigma Variations.”

6

Introduction

collated together. Therefore, the entry for the domestic pig (swin) also includes other closely associated terms, such as those of the barrow-pig (bearg) and hog (fearh). Gendered variants will be recognized if they represent a significantly distinct lexical form in the texts. For example, the lexically distinct terms dog (hund) and bitch (bicc) are separate items grouped under the headword dog. Alternately, the lexically similar male and female cat (Old English cat and catte, respectively) are subsumed under the generic male term: cat. Only specific animal names are listed, as general animal terms (e.g., deor, animal; fugel, bird; fisc, fish) are so broad and numerous as to be functionally nondescript. For each entry, the name of each animal and its variants will be followed by the taxonomic binomial names of likely relevant species. In some cases, multiple Old English terms will refer to a single species, while in other cases the converse will be true. For example, both the Old English beorn and bera refer to the Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos), while the Old English moððe can refer to any of thousands of moth species that likely existed in early medi­eval England. When identifying specific species names is impossible, the most specifically relevant taxonomic classification is used (e.g., genus, family, order). The text proper begins with an overview of the animal’s physical attributes and present-day eco­logical niche.18 Then, the archaeo­logical and historical evidence of the animal’s presence in early medi­eval English contexts is presented, along with any significant interpretations of the findings. Next follows an introduction to the creature’s presence and acknowledged metaphorical or narrative function in the vernacular texts, with examples from representative works. Each entry then summarizes the connection between the eco­logical facts, the archaeo­logical record, and the textual evidence from the period. A short biblio­graphy follows each entry, citing the animal-specific studies of the creature in question. These short biblio­g raphies are not meant to be exhaustive, but representative. When possible, recent and directly relevant literary analyses are included. For the broader zoo­logical studies, the goal was to find species-specific and geo­graphically relevant publications, while acknowledging that current environmental realities may not reflect those of the early medi­eval period. These studies, in turn, often provide literature reviews of their own, citing the more specific texts in the field regarding the relevant animal. More widely referenced texts cited in this volume, typically primary textual sources and broadly referenced literary and archaeo­logical resources, can be found in the biblio­graphy. 18  The eco­logical niches of animals necessarily change over time and space. In this text, current eco­logical studies are used as the baseline for understanding the broad outlines of any given animal’s eco­logical niche. This understanding is then refined based on relevant archaeo­logical evidence or contexts from the early medi­eval period in England. Finally, with an eye towards the subjectivity of the evidence, a discussion of relevant vernacular documentary sources from the period may provide additional detail. For an overview of the scientific literature on niche evolution, see Pyron, “Niche Bio­logy.” For an overview of the dynamics between animals, humanity, and the environment and their relation to a modern environmental history of the Middle Ages, see Hoffmann, An Environmental History of Medi­eval Europe, 6–15.



Introduction

7

One caveat regarding the relationship between the animals herein and their textual appearances: the breadth of representation of any animal in Old English texts does not necessarily indicate the importance of the animal’s relationship either to its ecosystem or to the people of early medi­eval England. Some animals may have great cultural value, but have little or no eco­logical presence, leading to a literary profile that far outstrips the reality of its presence in the environment (e.g., the wolf). Conversely, everyday animals of the native ecosystem or domestic culture of the period may receive little notice in the texts of the times precisely due to their quotidian nature (e.g., the chicken). While some guesses can be made as to the importance of animals based upon their presence or absence in Old English texts, such tallying of textual occurrences do not provide absolute proof of an objective value of the animal to either the environment or the people of early medi­eval England. In the end, the goal of this volume is to serve as a starting point for further research. For scholars interested in the role of animals in Old English texts and early medi­eval English culture and practices, this work hopes to reveal the animal on its own terms, as well as that of its textual inheritance. By understanding the lives of these creatures, in the flesh and on the page, a clearer understanding of how the people of early medi­ eval England interacted with them and perhaps even understood them becomes more possible. The following portraits of these creatures are not meant to rob them of their literary meaning or symbolic power, but rather to add to our understanding of the complexity of other living beings that have an existence and value beyond their mere utility to humanity or their traces on the page.

ANIMAL ENTRIES  ANT  OE: æmette Families: Dolichoderinae, Formicinae, Myrmicinae, Ponerine

Today, there are over forty species of ants native to England. Among the most common species are the common black garden ant (Lasius niger), the European red ant (Myrmica rubra), and the wood ant (Formica rufa). The black and red ants are usually a little under a quarter of an inch (6 mm) long, while the wood ants grow slightly larger. While the colours of black and red ants, respectively, are fairly obvious, the wood ant combines the colouration of the two, having a blackish head and abdomen, but a reddish thorax. As the name implies, the wood ant is more common in woodland settings, while L. niger and M. rubra are more likely to be found in and around human habitations. All of these species are colony-based, living in complex communities. Perhaps the biggest distinction among them is M. rubra’s aggressiveness and ability to sting, earning it the alternate name of the European fire ant. The archaeo­logy of ants is unsurprisingly difficult. Although fairly ubiquitous to modern eyes, they can be surprisingly scant in the archaeo­logical record. While many site reports may include information on insect assemblages, few treat specifically on ants.1 Nevertheless, the paucity of gathered evidence is not indicative of the insects’ probable ubiquity. Old English literature has very few references to ants as commonplace insects. Actual ants appear only in the medical remedies of Bald’s Leechbook and the Latin–Old English glossaries. In the glossaries, æmette simply glosses the Latin formica (ant).2 The Leechbook engages with the ant in a more significant, if suspect, way. For the healing of a wounded dog’s atrophied sinews, the text instructs that one should “nime æmettan mid hiora bedgeride” (take ants with their nest-food) and boil them into a restorative poultice.3 While the efficacy of the cure may be in doubt, the acknowledgement of the presence of ants is most certainly not. Alternately, texts such as Marvels of the East cite ants as miraculous creatures of far-off lands where there are “æmættan swa micle swa hundas” (ants as big as dogs).4 Although these miraculous ant-creatures are not a major fixture of early medi­eval English culture, they do operate as an example of how the authors of the period were influenced by cultures far removed from their own. Similarly, the ants in the Old English translation of the Latin life of St. Malchus serve primarily as a metaphor for hard work, as the saint notes when he sees “micelne æmettena heap up astigendne, and hio bæran maran byrðene” (a great company of ants going up, and they bore great burdens).5 1  See, for example, Mark Robinson, “The Ants from Barton Court.”

2  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 310. 3  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:329.

4  Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, 190.

5  Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, ed. Assmann, 204.



Animal Entries

9

These ants may be performing a characteristic feat of strength recognizable to an insular audience, but their role in this context is primarily symbolic. Ultimately, while ants were undoubtedly a member of the early medi­eval ecosystem in England, their textual presence in the vernacular was slight. Further Reading

Cesario, Marilina. “Ant-lore in Anglo-Saxon England.” Anglo-Saxon England 40 (2012): 273–91. Robinson, Mark. “The Ants from Barton Court.” In Archaeo­logy at Barton Court Farm, Abingdon, Oxon: An Investigation of Late Neolithic, Iron Age, Romano-British, and Saxon Settlements, edited by David Miles, C14–D2. Council for British Archaeo­logy Research Reports 50. Oxford: Oxford Archaeo­logical Unit and the Council for British Archaeo­logy, 1984.

 APE  OE: apa  |  Species: Indeterminate

Apes, of course,

are not native to the British Isles. Correspondingly, there is little textual evidence of them in Old English literature. For the most part, mentions of apes are limited to glossaries and vocabularies, where the Old English apa glosses the Latin simia or pithecus (ape).6 Beyond the glossaries, other appearances of apes in the Old English corpus refer to them superficially. One small anecdote in Pope Gregory I’s Dialogues references a tamed ape,7 and the Old English translation of Sextus Placitus’ Medicina de quadrupedibus makes reference to salving the bite of a man or ape,8 but the animal is of little consequence to either text. Both of these Old English texts are translations of earlier Continental, Latin texts, and as such do not indicate any significant impact of the simians on the textual corpus of early medi­eval England. While it is impossible to determine the specific species of these apes, the most common connection between the people of medi­eval western Europe and apes is through members of the family Cercopithecinae, also known as Old World monkeys.9 These are a group of African monkeys that includes such species as the Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) and the moustached guenon (Cercopithecus cephus), while the most common captive species of this family was M. sylvanus.10 These animals did not become widely familiar to northern Europeans until the twelfth century, after the Norman Conquest.11

6  For a gloss of simia, see Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. For a gloss of pithecus, see An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 93. 7  Waerferths von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, ed. Hecht, 62.

8  See The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, 268. 9  See George and Yapp, The Naming of Beasts, 91–92.

10  See Janson, Apes and Ape Lore, 15.

11  The earliest archaeo­logical evidence of a monkey in northern Europe has been carbon-dated to the late twelfth century. See Brisbane et al., “A Monkey’s Tale,” 189–91.

10

Animal Entries

Further Reading

Brisbane, Mark, Ellen Hambleton, Mark Maltry, and Evgenji Nosov. “A Monkey’s Tale: The Skull of a Macaque Found at Ryurik Gorodishche during Excavations in 2003.” Medi­eval Archaeo­logy 51 (2007): 185–91. Janson, Horst Waldemar. Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. London: Warburg Institute, 1952.

ASS OE: assa, asal, asald, eosol   MULE OE: mul

SHE-ASS OE: assen, ass-myre, eosole Species: Equus asinus

Wild asses are native to northern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, but were domesticated and widely disseminated throughout Europe as early as the first century bce. Domestic asses likely came to early medi­eval England through the expansion of the Roman Empire, but accounted for a small fraction of contemporary livestock.12 Even by the end of the late medi­eval period, archaeo­logical evidence and written records show that donkeys and mules were among the least numerous draught animals in England.13 The people of the period made a distinction between the ass and the mule only insofar as their sources did. Technically, while the ass is categorized by taxonomists as a distinct species, the mule is merely a sterile hybrid bred of a male ass and a female horse, thus not a species unto itself. Old English texts provide no acknowledgement of this bio­logical difference between the ass and the mule, but typically parrot the form extant in the Latin source (OE assa for Latin asinus and OE mul for Latin mulus).14 The ass (also known as the donkey) and mule appear largely in vocabularies and scriptural contexts in Old English texts. Outside of linguistic texts, asses most frequently occur in texts that translate or interpret scripture. For example, in his homily for Palm Sunday, Ælfric references the ass as he quotes Matthew 21:2, where Jesus directs two of his followers to find an “assan  his folan” (ass and colt) upon his arrival at Bethphage.15 Ælfric then goes on to interpret the gospel to mean that “se getigeda assa  his fola getacniað twa folc þæt is iudeisc  hæþen” (the ass and colt betoken two people, that is the Jewish and the heathen).16 As in virtually all of the Old English corpus, the ass here is referenced by way of a context far removed from early medi­eval England in both time and space. 12  See Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, 83–84.

13  See Mitchell, The Donkey in Human History, 159.

14  For a collocation of ass and mule terms, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 76.

15  Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 290. 16  Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 291.



Further Reading

Animal Entries

11

Mitchell, Peter. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeo­logical Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

 BADGER  OE: brocc  |  Species: Meles meles

The European badger has historically ranged from Scandinavia to the Iberian peninsula and from the British Isles to central Russia. Badgers east of the Volga River to the Pacific coast of Asia are now identified as separate species (M. anakuma and M. leucurus). For an indigenous creature, the badger makes surprisingly little impact on Old English texts. Aside from its appearance in vocabularies and glossaries, where the Old English brocc glosses the Latin tesso or meles (badger), its primary occurrence is in the translation of a Latin folk-medicine text, the Medicina de quadrupedibus.17 This text describes how the blood and various body parts of the badger might be used in protective and healing charms. Direct evidence of actual badgers in the English landscape is most clearly found in charters of the period. These legal documents identify places such as Brochyl (Brockhill or Badger-hill) and features of the landscape, such as a brochol (badger hole).18 The paucity of badger evidence in Old English texts is likely a result of the relative lack of interaction with the animal among the people of the time. Badger remains account for less than a fraction of a percent of animal remains in early medi­eval bone assemblages in the British Isles, suggesting the creature did not play a materially significant role in that society.19 Moreover, the animal’s own habits would have limited its exposure to people of the time. Badgers are largely nocturnal and crepuscular, preferring the cover of darkness to forage and hunt. As fossorial animals, they spend their days in burrows called setts. As such, they would be infrequently seen on a regular basis. Given these aspects of badger eco­logy, in concert with their relative lack of interference with, or contribution to, social and agricultural life of the time, the lack of representation of these animals in Old English texts comes as no surprise. Further Reading

Poole, Kristopher. “Foxes and Badgers in Anglo-Saxon Life and Landscape.” The Archaeo­logical Journal 172 (2015): 389–422. Roper, Timothy J. Badger. Collins New Naturalist Library 114. Glasgow: Collins, 2010. Sayers, William. “Names for the Badger in Multilingual Medi­eval Britain.” American Notes & Queries 22, no. 4 (2009): 1–8. Shippey, Thomas A., “Boar and Badger: An Old English Heroic Antithesis,” Leeds Studies in English, n.s., 16 (1985): 220–39. 17  For the badger in the Medicina de quadrupedibus, see The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, 234–39. For an example of the badger in a vocabulary, see Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. 18  See Gelling, “Stour in Ismere,” 86.

19  See Poole, “Foxes and Badgers,” 391–97.

12

Animal Entries

 BASS OE: bærs  |  Species: Dicentrachus labrax

The European seabass (D. labrax) is a common, coastal fish of British waters.

A marine species, it also enters brackish waters and even enters the mouths of rivers. This eighteen-inch (45 cm), silvery fish is noted for the prominent spines on its anterior dorsal fin. Given its association with coastal and estaurine waters, well within the reach of human activity, D. labrax has long been prized as a target species for angling. There is slight evidence for the taking of European seabass in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England.20 Where the size of the fish has been measured, the seabass that were taken tended to be medium-sized specimens, perhaps suggesting casual fishing from shore rather than deep-water, marine angling.21 While people of the time may have taken D. labrax opportunistically, the fish did not seem to be a staple of their diet or commerce. The Old English literary record of the European seabass is similarly attenuated. The Old English word for bass, bærs, only occurs in Latin–Old English glossaries, and only ten times. Curiously, the word also glosses the Latin lupus (literally wolf), which was also a name accorded to D. labrax, perhaps due to the fish’s voracity. The etymo­ logy of the Old English word links it to the Proto-Indo-European root *bhar (point or bristle), most probably in reference to D. labrax’s dorsal spines.22 As the European seabass shares this spiny trait with another perciform fish, the freshwater European perch (Perca fluviatilis), bærs can be taken to refer to either species. Ultimately, while the European seabass was present as a species taken by early medi­eval English anglers, it did not appear to play a major role in their fisheries. They did not seem to explicitly target D. labrax as a food item, but would take it when the chance would occur. Unsurprisingly, such a catch of happenstance does not figure significantly in Old English texts, either. Here, too, the European seabass is little more than an infrequent passer-by. Further Reading

Pickett, Graham D., and Michael G. Pawson. Sea Bass: Bio­logy, Exploitation and Conservation. Fish and Fisheries Series 12. London: Chapman & Hall, 1994.

20  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 51–52.

21  See Coy, “The Animal Bones, ” in “An Excavation on the Post-Roman Site at Bantham,” 106–10. 22  See Skeat, An Etymo­logical Dictionary of the English Language, 50.



Animal Entries

13

 BAT OE: hreaðe-mus  |  Species: Pipistrellus pipistrellus, P. pygmaeus

Currently, eighteen species

of bat are acknowledged to be residents of England, with the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) being the most ubiquitous. The common pipistrelle and its close relative, the soprano pipistrelle (P. pygmaeus), until recently regarded as the same species, may have been the bats most likely seen by people in early medi­eval England.23 However, the exact species of bats known to the early medi­eval inhabitants of England are impossible to identify. The archaeo­ logical record does not bear significant evidence of these flying mammals for at least two reasons. First, given the small size and fragility of their skeletons, bats’ remains are not likely to endure over time. Secondly, not being a significant part of the economic or cultural life of the early medi­eval English, bat remains are not likely to have purposefully been introduced into settlements of the period. Despite their common appearance in the twilight sky, bats make little impact on Old English writings. Outside of glossaries, bats occur only twice in the Old English corpus: once in the Old English translation of Alexander’s Letter to Aristotle and again in the medical text, Bald’s Leechbook. In the former, bats are represented as yet another native animal given unusual size and behaviour in a foreign context.24 In the latter, the bat is materia medica for healing the condition of spewing feces from one’s mouth.25 Both of these texts are translations of Latin originals and, as such, do not represent the local understanding of the bat as a member of the ecosystem. What knowledge of bats people of the time might have had may be gleaned from the Old English term hreaðemus, used to translate the Latin vespertilio. 26 Etymo­l ogically, the Latin vespertilio appears to reference the bat’s habit of flying in the evening, the Latin vespers. Alternately, the Old English word hreaðe-mus may rely on the bat’s appearance as a winged mouse; that is, as a mouse (mus) decorated (hreoðan) with wings.27 This etymo­logy does not rely on a linguistic, Latin basis, but might instead be evidence of the direct observation of bats. Further Reading

Altringham, John D. British Bats. Collins New Naturalist Library 114. Glasgow: Collins, 2010. Jackson, Noel. “Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus.” Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumbria 73 (2012): 78–81.

23  See Jackson, “Common Pipistrelle,” 78–79.

24  See Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, 236–37. 25  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:236–37.

26  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307.

27  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “hreaðemus,” “hreoðan,” and “mus.”

14

Animal Entries

BEAR OE: bera

SHE-BEAR OE: byren Species: Ursus arctos

Bears were most

likely eradicated in the British Isles before the post-Roman invasions and subsequent resettlement of the land.28 The lone identified bear species of early England is the Eurasian brown bear (U. arctos arctos), a subspecies of brown bear (U. arctos) related to the North American grizzly bear (U. arctos horribilis). Currently, the Eurasian brown bear ranges from Scandinavia across northern Europe and into central Russia. The bear may have existed in the further reaches of the Scottish wilderness into the era of Roman Britain. Archaeo­logical evidence suggests that post-Iron Age remains of bears in the British Isles are due to the trade and the use of skins harvested previously or elsewhere, but not from indigenous animals.29 Despite likely being extinct in England before the end of the sixth century, the bear appears to still have had a hold on the imaginations of the people of the time. Perhaps the most widely recognized reference to a bear in Old English literature is also one of the most fraught. Literary scholars have long discussed the meaning and significance of names in the epic poem Beowulf.30 While some names, such as the wise queen Hygd (i.e., reason) and the protective king Scyld (i.e., shield), carry fairly straightforward associations, others are not so easy to understand. In particular, the name of the main character, Beowulf, has been the source of speculation for some time. One of the more widespread interpretations of Beowulf’s name is that it is a kenning, a poetic combination, of beo (bee) and wulf (wolf). This interpretation posits Beowulf as being identified as a “bee-wolf,” or bear (well known as the scourge of the beehive).31 Outside of their possible role in Beowulf, bears appear a few times in religious contexts as examples of God’s power over creation. This power can be seen directly, as in Ælfric’s Hexameron, cataloguing the first six days of creation. On the sixth day, the text cites the creation of the beasts of rapine, which include “wulfas and leon and witodlice beran” (wolves and lions and indeed bears).32 Alternately, a bear’s behaviour may be a sign of God’s power over nature, such as when Pope Gregory describes the miraculous conduct of a bear towards St. Florentius, “he ofdune onhylde his heafod to þære eorðan…to þegnunge þæs Godes weres” (he [the bear] held his head down towards the earth…to do service to that man of God).33 In both of these instances, the bear is presented in terms of God’s power, either as a creation of it or subject to it. 28  See Hammon, “The Brown Bear,” 100.

29  See Hammon, “The Brown Bear,” 100.

30  See Orchard, A Critical Companion to Beowulf, 172–73.

31  For a history of the scholarship on Beowulf’s name, see Abram, “Bee-Wolf and the Hand of Victory.” 32  Exameron Anglice, ed. Crawford, 54.

33  Waerferths von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, ed. Hecht, 206.



Animal Entries

15

The only texts that might point towards a local knowledge of the bear as an animal in the landscape are the gnomic poems, “Maxims I” and “Maxims II.” The Old English texts filter folk and Christian wisdom through the authors’ culture and lived experiences.34 “Maxims I” presents the idea that it is better for a man to be alongside his brother if they need to “begen beran” (overcome a bear).35 In “Maxims II,” a catalogue of certainties is presented: for example, a bird must fly, a river must flow, and a lord must be in his hall. The poet also claims that “bera sceal on hæðe, / eald and egesfull” (a bear must be on the heath, / old and terrible).36 While it might be tempting to read these occurrences as references to actual early medi­eval experiences with ursines, given that the archaeo­logical record points to prior extirpation of bears in the British Isles, and that the texts of “Maxims I” and “Maxims II” also cite fantastic creatures like dragons, the descriptions of bears in the poems are more likely stock depictions of dangerous beasts than actual recordings of human interactions with the animals. Further Reading

Hammon, Andy. “The Brown Bear.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 95–103. Oxford: Windgather, 2010.

 BEAVER  OE: befer, ior(?)  |  Species: Castor fiber

The Eurasian beaver

was probably present, if in decline, in early medi­eval England. It was likely extinct in the south by 1300 ce, not very far into the post-Conquest period.37 During this time, its numbers were likely dwindling as the animals were hunted beyond their ability to survive. The physical evidence for beavers in early medi­ eval England can include both the remains of their bodies (e.g., pelts, teeth, and bones) and their impacts upon the environment (e.g., beaver dams, lodges, and even unique sediment patterns). More allusively, evidence for the impact of beavers on English society might be seen in the number of beaver-related place names from the period. From Beverston (Old English Bever-stan: “Beaver-stone”) in Gloucestershire to Beverley (Old English Beofer-leac: “Beaver-stream” or “Beaver-meadow”) in Yorkshire, about thirty Old English place names carry some kind of beaver reference.38 Such a range of beaverassociated names likely reflect the readily observable features beavers create in the environment. As people of the time would often use natural features to delineate properties in their charters, it is little surprise that animals that literally leave their mark on the landscape should become a ready reference point and nomenclature source for the map of early medi­eval England. 34  On the sources and contexts of “Maxims I” and “Maxims II,” see Cavill, Maxims in Old English Poetry, 204–33. 35  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 79.

36  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 177.

37  For an overview of the theories of advocating earlier (ca. 1200 ce) or later (ca. 1800 ce) extinction dates, see Raye, “Early Extinction,” 1029–41. 38  See Coles, “The European Beaver,” 110–12.

16

Animal Entries

Beavers leave much less of a footprint in Old English texts. They are most commonly present in Old English glossaries and vocabularies, glossing the Latin beaver terms fiber and castor.39 Beyond these linguistic tools, beavers appear explicitly only in medical texts. Here, beavers appear for the use of beferes herþan (beaver’s testicles, or beaver stones) as a source for castoreum, a secretion thought to have medicinal value.40 The substance actually is produced by the beaver’s castor sacs, internal organs located behind the animal’s testicles, hence the confusion between the two organs and the source of the valuable liquid. However, the Old English references to beavers and their sought after secretions are merely translations of an earlier Latin text, the Practica of Petrocellus, and thus are of only partial use in illuminating the relationship between the beaver and the people of early medi­eval England. The beaver, although unnamed, may also be a subject within the “Rune Poem.”41 The poem presents a series of runes, each with an accompanying short riddle hinting at the rune’s definition. One stanza in the poem identifies a semi-aquatic animal named by the ᚼ (ior) rune, which is described as iar in the text.42 This animal “hafaþ fægerne eard / wætre beworpen, ðær he wynnum leofaþ” (has a fair home surrounded by water, where he lives in joy).43 The animal’s habitat and dwelling indeed fit that of the beaver and its lodge, but a definitive identification of the riddle’s subject remains elusive. What is clear is the widespread awareness of the beaver demonstrated by means of both the textual and archaeo­logical records of early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Coles, Bryony. “The European Beaver.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 104–26. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. Gouwens, Kenneth. “Emasculation as Empowerment: Lessons of Beaver Lore for Two Italian Humanists.” European Review of History 22, no. 4 (2015): 536–62. Raye, Lee. “The Early Extinction Date of the Beaver (Castor fiber) in Britain.” Historical Bio­logy 27 (2015): 1029–41.

39  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi , 73.

40  Peri didaxeon, ed. Löweneck, 31. On the literary tradition of beaver-testicle lore, see Gouwens, “Emasculation as Empowerment,” 540–43. 41  For the beaver as the mysterious subject of the “Rune Poem,” see Meaney, “The Hunted and the Hunters,” 96–98.

42  On the definition and use of the rune, see The Old English Rune Poem, ed. Halsall, 157–59; Page, An Introduction to English Runes, 75; Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “ior, iar.” 43  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 132.



 BEE  OE: beo

Animal Entries

17

 BEE-SWARM  OE: beo-gang, sige-wif  BUMBLEBEE  OE: dora  QUEEN BEE  OE: beomodor Clade: Anthophila

The British Isles

are host to more than two hundred and fifty species of bees. Representative species include social bees, like the white-tailed bumblebee (Bombus lucorum) and the western honeybee (Apis mellifera), and solitary bees, like the tawny mining bee (Andrena fulva) and the red mason bee (Osmia bicornis). As their names indicate, bees can appear in a variety of hues and patterns, but they also come in a range of sizes. The small scissor bee (Chelostoma campanularum) is one of England’s smallest bees at about one-eighth of an inch (3 mm) long, while the queen of the buff-tailed bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) can measure over three-quarters of an inch (2 cm). Aside from being fairly common in the English landscape, bees are one of the few insects that served an appreciable economic role for the people of early medi­eval England. In particular, A. mellifera, the western honeybee, is England’s only honeybee species and the source of at least two commodities useful to humans: wax and honey. This bee lives in colonies that can contain over 50,000 individuals. Propagated by a single queen, the bees construct a hive out of their own wax secretions, shaped into hexagonal cells, which are in turn assembled into a series of connected combs. The worker bees supply the nutrition for all of this work by travelling up to three miles from the hive in search of nectar. The collected nectar is returned to the hive where the combination of their stomach enzymes and wing-driven dehydration turn it into honey. Although the evidence for apiculture is not vast for early medi­eval England, the archaeo­logical remains of bees do point towards their probable use by people of the period. Perhaps some of the most well-known early medi­eval bee assemblages were excavated in York. Thousands of bee remains were found there, suggesting purposeful domestication of the insects.44 While honey was an important dietary item, used for everything from sweetening to the production of alcoholic drinks like mead, it very rarely survives in archaeo­logical contexts.45 Although human-made hives or honey have not survived in English early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts, beeswax has. The abovementioned sites in York provided evidence of beeswax used to wax twine.46 Outside of the Latin–Old English glossaries, bees appear as both metaphors and actual insects. The Vercelli Book’s “Homiletic Fragment I” serves as a representative example of the bee’s metaphorical role in Old English literature. The poet portrays 44  See Kenward, “Buzz,” 20–24. For a concise overview of bee husbandry in early medi­eval England, see Price, “A Hive of Activity,” 449–55. 45  See Hagen, Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink, 147–55.

46  See Hall and Kenward, “Setting People in Their Environment,” 397–98.

18

Animal Entries

duplicitous men as presenting a fair face but having evil intent, “swa ða beon berað buta ætsomne arlicne anleofan, ond ætterne tægel hafað on hindan” (just as the bees bear both together, [it has] noble food and has a venomous tail behind).47 In its combination of producing deliciously sustaining honey and delivering a painful sting, the bee is an effective example of the combination of good and evil, pleasure and pain. Other texts show the familiarity people of the period had with actual bees. Bede provides an overview of the land he calls Britain (“Breoton”) in his Historia and characterizes it as “welig on meolcum  on hunige” (rich in milk and honey), the product of native bees.48 Among the interpretations of many commonplace observations found in the Old English Prognostics, one prophetic event relies on seeing bees about their business: “Gif him þince, þæt he geseo beon hunig beran, þæt biþ, þæt he on eadigum hadum feoh gestrynþ” (If it appears to him that he sees bees carrying honey, that means that he will obtain wealth from prosperous people). 49 The Old English lexicon illustrates such everyday knowledge of bee species, bee behaviour, and beekeeping. While the Latin–Old English glossaries gloss the Latin apis as Old English beo, both generic terms for bee, they also equate the Latin attacus with the dora, both referencing a solitary bee, such as a bumblebee, in juxtaposition to social bees, such as honeybees.50 Understanding of bee social behaviour is evident both in the glossary term beomodor (a bee-mother, or queen bee) and the Old English charm to settle swarming bees. Of course, a single queen, the mother of the hive, is the generative source of the colony. Once a colony becomes too large, or the old queen is getting ready to die, new queens will be fostered and some or all of the colony will swarm to follow the new queens to a new locale. Those wanting to raise bees, or keep wild hives nearby, would want to frustrate that process. In the Old English bee charm, the would-be beekeeper is instructed to “forweorp ofer greot, þonne hi swirman” (throw dirt over them when they swarm).51 This action would physically settle the growing swarm and keep them from literally taking off for greener pastures. Exeter Book Riddle 17 may even provide evidence of early medi­eval beekeeping in England by use of a skep, a domed artificial hive made of plant materials like wicker, grass, or bark. The poem describes a structure from which emerges and returns “eglum attorsperum” (painful poison-spears) and that houses a “wombhord wlitig” (beautiful womb-hoard), as apt an image of a beehive as one is likely to find.52 That this structure is “eodor wirum fast” (an enclosure firmly fixed with wires) may be an allusive way of referencing the woven structure of the early medi­eval skep.53 An even 47  Old English Shorter Poems, 1: Religious and Didactic, ed. Jones, 120.

48  The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, 1:30.

49  Anglo-Saxon Prognostics, ed. Liuzza, 178.

50  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 79. 51  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 216. 52  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:300.

53  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:300.



Animal Entries

19

more attenuated reference to bee husbandry may be found in Exeter Book Riddle 27, which is usually solved as mead. Although not referenced directly, bees are implied in the mead’s riddling description of itself as depending upon transport in which “mec wægun / feþre on lifte, feredon mid liste / under hrofes hleo” (feathers carried me in the air, took me with skill under a roof’s shelter).54 Here, the riddle portrays the transport of nectar to a hive, which will in turn become the honey crucial to the ultimate production of mead. Both riddles, then, point to the employment of bees’ honey production in relation to human industry. The people of early medi­eval England were clearly cognizant of bees more than many other insects due to the human desire for the products that bees could supply. As a result, even if the archaeo­logical evidence is scant, documentary evidence points towards a significant engagement with bees as both symbol and animal. From the sweetness of honey to the dangers of venom, bees provided a unique connection to the insect world for people of the period. Further Reading

Else, George, and Mike Edwards. Handbook of the Bees of the British Isles. 2 vols. London: Ray Society, 2018. Hill, Thomas D. “The Hypocritical Bee in the Old English ‘Homiletic Fragment I,’ Lines 18–30.” Notes and Queries 15, no. 4 (1968): 123. Kenward, H. K. “‘Buzz, Buzz, Buzz, I Wonder What It Was?’ A Skeptical View of the Coppergate ‘Beehive.’” Interim: Bulletin of the York Archaeo­logical Trust 15, no. 4 (1991): 20–24. Osborn, Marijane. “Anglo-Saxon Tame Bees: Some Evidence for Beekeeping from Riddles and Charms.” Neuphilo­logische Mitteilungen 107, no. 3 (2006): 271–83. Price, Helen. “A Hive of Activity: Realigning the Figure of the Bee in the Mead-making Network of Exeter Book Riddle 27.” postmedi­eval 8, no. 4 (2017): 444–62.

 BEETLE  OE: ceafor, eorþ-ceafer, hræd-bita, wibba, wifel  DUNG BEETLE  OE: tord-wifel   JEWEL BEETLE  OE: twyn-wyrm  Order: Coeloptera

Beetle species in the British Isles are too numerous to list, numbering over four thousand. Coming in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colours, beetles are distinct from other insects by their characteristic hardened wing-cases, giving them added protection and a sleek appearance. Some English beetles can be large and menacing, like the strikingly-named devil’s coach-horse (Ocypus olens), which can be up to an inch-and-a-half (4 cm) long and will rear up and brandish its formidable mandibles if threatened. Much more docile and familiar, the seven-spot ladybird (Coccinella septempunctata) sports its 54  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:307. On the allusive presence of bees in Riddle 27, see Price, 447–48.

20

Animal Entries

namesake black spots against a deep red background on its third-of-an-inch-long (8 mm) body. The variety of species and their attributes is staggering, from the aquatic whirlygig beetle (Gyrinus substriatus) to the luminescent glow-worm (Lampyris noctiluca). Given their sheer numbers, it is no surprise that beetles are relatively well represented in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. In some cases, when reporting insect finds at sites dated to the period, beetles will be the only insects catalogued by the archaeo­logists. Some sense of scale can be derived from a report from the sites at York, where somewhere around nine hundred beetle species were identified.55 Given their ubiquity and staggering numbers, it is little surprise that beetles are the most studied of all invertebrates in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts.56 Their presence or absence, species representation or distribution, can all provide important interpretive clues about an archaeo­logical site. By any measure, beetles are pervasive throughout early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England. Such commonplace insects as beetles did not garner especial notice in Old English texts. Far and away, their most prominent appearances are in the Latin–Old English glossaries. For the most part, these entries refer to insects rather generically, glossing general Latin terms like bruchus (insect, locust, or other pest) or more specific creatures like scarabaeus (dung beetle).57 Indirect references to beetles may occur in place names, such as Wilsford (i.e., “weevil’s ford”) in Wiltshire.58 One text where an actual beetle occurs is in Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook. When the text exhorts the prospective physician to scoop up a beetle “þær geseo tordwifel on eorþan up weorpan” (when you see a dung beetle throwing up dirt), the author assumes the audience would be familiar with native dung beetles (such as Onthophagus fracticornis) and their behaviours.59 Perhaps the most evident dung beetle behaviour to humans, as noted in the Leechbook, would be the excavation of their nests, where the beetles dig tunnels into the substrate, kicking excess material out behind them.60 The native familiarity with beetles is also fleetingly referenced in Exeter Book Riddle 40, which translates Aldhelm’s final Latin riddle in his Enigmata, “De creatura” (“On Creation”). In his Latin riddle, Aldhelm expounds on the wondrous breadth of God’s creation. As he contextualizes the speed of creation, quite the abstract notion, he compares it to both the swiftness of the wind and the slowness of “fimi soboles sordentis cantarus ater” (the offspring of dung, the black beetle).61 When the poet of the Exeter Book riddles translates this line in Riddle 40, he also adds a note: “is þæs gores sunu gonge hrædra, / þone we wifel wordum nemnað” (the child of dung 55  See Hall and Kenward, “Setting People in Their Environment,” 377.

56  See Kenward, Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy, 46.

57  See, for example, “The Minor Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Quinn, 20.

58  See John Baker, “Entomo­logical Etymo­logies,” 237, 248–49. 59  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:318.

60  See Hanski and Cambefort, Dung Beetle Eco­logy, 45–48.

61  Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, 147.



Animal Entries

21

is faster, which we call by the word beetle).62 Here, the early medi­eval poet recognizes Aldhelm’s Latin reference to the dung beetle, and acknowledges its place in the Old English lexicon and native environment.63 Beetles may be one of the most numerous forms of life on the planet, but they maintain a relatively low profile in Old English texts. Although their numbers in the archaeo­logical record of the period may be significant, their influence on the vernacular of the time appears to be slight. The beetle exists as more of a lexical beast in that context than as a creature of any meaningful presence. Further Reading

Hanski, Ilkka, and Yves Cambefort. Dung Beetle Eco­logy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Lane, Stephen A., and Darrin J. Mann. A Review of the Status of the Beetles of Great Britain: The Stag Beetles, Dor Beetles, Dung Beetles, Chafers and Their Allies—Lucanidae, Geotrupidae, Trogidae and Scarabaeidae: Species Status No. 31. Natural England Commissioned Report 224. Peterborough: Natural England, 2016. O’Brien O’Keeffe, Katherine. “Exeter Riddle 40: The Art of an Old English Translator.” Proceedings of the Patristic, Medi­eval and Renaissance Conference 5 (1983), 107–17.

 BLACKBIRD  OE: osle  |  Species: Turdus merula

The Eurasian (or

common) blackbird, formerly known in English as the ouzel into the seventeenth century, is a medium-sized member of the thrush family. Although not particularly impressive in its namesake dark colouring and its modest length of somewhat under a foot (30 cm), the blackbird has long been one of the most common songbirds in England. Birds of its genus, Turdus, are rarely identified to the species level in archaeo­logical contexts.64 This unassuming bird only appears in the Latin–Old English glossaries, where the Old English osle glosses the Latin merula.65 Overall, its very nondescript ubiquity may have led to its lack of impact on the vernacular. Further Reading

Snow, David. The Blackbird. Shire Natural History 13. Princes Risborough: Shire Publications, 1987.

62  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:319.

63  On the native nature of the Old English translation of Aldhelm’s original Latin, see O’Brien O’Keefe, “Exeter Riddle 40,” 62; Sebo, “The Creation Riddle,” 149. 64  See, for example, Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 143.

65  See, for example, Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary, ed. Pheifer, 36. See also Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 485.

22

Animal Entries

 BOAR  OE: bar, eofor, swin  |  Species: Sus scrofa

Wild boar can

be difficult animals to quantify in early medi­eval England. One reason is the sometimes uncertain subspecies boundary between wild and domestic swine. The transition from wild boar (S. scrofa) to domestic pig (S. scrofa domesticus or, simply, S. domesticus) was a long and gradual one from prehistory into historic times, complicated by interbreeding between the two subspecies.66 As a result, separating the remains of domestic pigs from wild boars in the archaeo­logical record can be problematic.67 Nevertheless, wild boar remains, when identified as such, are typically found to be significantly larger than those of their domestic cousins. Although wild boars were a fairly common game animal among the elite on the Continent, the animals were not a significant source of food or sport for the early medi­eval English. Boar remains do not feature strongly in period bone assemblages, and post-Conquest royal edicts single them out as a rare commodity to be protected for the enjoyment of the new, Continental aristocracy.68 These facts point to the relative scarcity of wild boar across early medi­eval England. By the mid-thirteenth century, the wild, native stock of these animals was extinct.69 Perhaps fitting for such a formidable beast, the wild boar has a larger presence in Old English literature than it had on the ground at the time. Outside of glossaries and vocabularies, where boar terms gloss the Latin aper or verres (boar), boars occur only a few dozen times in the Old English corpus.70 Yet when they do appear, they often do so as symbols of ferocity and power. In Ælfric’s Colloquy, the student playing the hunter reports that he “ofstikode” (stabbed or pierced) a boar, to which his interlocutor replies, “Swyþe þryste þu wære þa” (You were very brave then!).71 This comment must have been taken as a truism, as the gnomic poem “Maxims II” relates that “eofor sceal on holte, toðmægenes trum” (the boar must be in the woods, strong in the power of his tusks).72 Indirect reference to the impressiveness of the wild boar occurs in Riddle 40 of the Exeter Book, in which the personification of Creation uses the “amæsted swin” (mast-fed swine) that ranges freely “on bocwuda” (in the beechwood) as a mea66  See Albarella, “The Wild Boar,” 61.

67  See Sykes, “The Impact of the Normans,” 166.

68  See Albarella, “The Wild Boar,” 63–65. Further evidence of the association of boars with the social elite can be found in their appearance as decorative figures on armor from the period, particularly helmets, such as those found at Benty Grange in Derbyshire and Guilden Morden in Cambridgeshire. For a succinct overview of such artistic representation, see Frank, “The Boar on the Helmet,” 76–82. 69  See Albarella, “The Wild Boar,” 63–65.

70  The Old English eofor more specifically refers to the wild boar, with bar and swin being more generic. See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “eofor,” “bar,” and “swin.” For glossary examples, see, An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 19; Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. 71  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 25.

72  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 174.



Animal Entries

23

sure of its greatness.73 In reality, given their dwindling numbers in the wild, the greatest power boars wielded was in the imaginations of the early medi­eval English. In Beowulf, the boar makes its highest-profile appearance not in the flesh, but in the decoration of war gear. Most notably, boar-figures adorn helmets in five different episodes in the poem.74 The poet best evokes the symbolic role of these decorations as he describes how “Eoforlic scionon ofer hleorber[g]an” (Boar-figures shone over cheek-guards) and the “ferhwearde heold / guþmod grimmon” (the lifeguard protected the war-minded helmet-masked men).75 One reading of these lines suggests that the boar-figures on the Geats’ helmets serve as protection over the warriors.76 The boar is connected to the gods Freyr, Freyja, and even Woden in Old Norse literature, and thus could serve as a powerful totem for people influenced by early medi­eval Scandinavian culture. Ultimately, the boar figured as a powerful symbol in Old English texts, despite being largely absent from the ecosystem of early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Albarella, Umberto. “The Wild Boar.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 59–67. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. Gutiérrez Barco, Maximino. “The Boar in Beowulf and Elene: A Germanic Symbol of Protection.” SELIM: Journal of the Spanish Society for Medi­eval English Language and Literature 9 (1999): 163–71. Frank, Roberta. “The Boar on the Helmet.” In Aedificia Nova: Studies in Honor of Rosemary Cramp, edited by Catherine E. Karkov and Helen Damico, 76–88. Publications of the Richard Rawlinson Center. Kalamazoo: Medi­eval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2008. Shippey, Thomas A., “Boar and Badger: An Old English Heroic Antithesis,” Leeds Studies in Eng­ lish, n.s., 16 (1985): 220–39.

 BREAM  OE: þunor-bodu  |  Species: Sparus aurata, Abramis brama

The Present-Day English word bream could conceivably reference two very

different fish from the early medi­eval period: the freshwater bream (A. brama) or the marine gilthead seabream (S. auratus). The Old English term, þunor-bodu, references only the latter. This is somewhat curious as the former, A. brama, is not uncommon in the archaeo­logical record.77 Moreover, the freshwater bream is a member of the cyprinid, or carp, family, of which there are often numerous unidentified bones in fish-bone assemblages. As a result, there may yet be many unidentified remains of A. brama in the 73  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:320. For the identification of this “swin” as a boar, see Sebo, “The Creation Riddle,” 150–51. 74  See Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 12, 39, 45, 46, 50.

75  Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 12.

76  For the boar as symbol of protection, see Gutiérrez Barco, 163–71. For an overview of alternate readings of these lines, including the grammatical evidence that points to the Danish coast guard as the “lifeguard” referenced here, see Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 135–37. 77  See Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 183–95.

24

Animal Entries

archaeo­logical record. However, there is no literary or lexical reference to the freshwater bream, leaving S. auratus its only namesake in the Old English corpus. The gilthead seabream is the lone representative of its genus: Sparus. Attaining lengths of between one and two feet (30 to 60 cm), S. aurata has a relatively tall profile, distinctive longitudinal lines, and its namesake gold band between its eyes. It is primarily native to the Mediterranean, but it also lives off the Atlantic coast from northern Africa to the British Isles. Historically, the gilthead seabream has been a prized food-fish, but its appearance in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England is not terribly pronounced.78 This fish occurs only once in the Old English corpus, in Ælfric’s Glossary. Curiously, its Old English name seems to have little to do with the fish itself. The Old English þunor-bodu literally means thunder-boder, as in foretelling the arrival of thunder. While Walter W. Skeat, an early scholar of Old English, claims this name “preserves to us a specimen of folk-lore,” there does not seem to be any record of what that specific piece of folklore may be.79 Perhaps it is nothing more than any number of associations anglers make between fish, their behaviours, and the weather. In the end, the gilthead seabream remains a marginal and mysterious creature in the vernacular textual record. Further Reading

Pavlidis, Michail A., and Constantinos C. Mylonas. Sparidae: Bio­logy and Aquaculture of Gilthead Sea Bream and Other Species. Chichester: Wiley–Blackwell, 2011.

 BURBOT  OE: æle-pute  |  Species: Lota lota

Burbot (L. lota) are freshwater members of the cod family and are now extinct in

British waters. Termed æle-pute in Old English, the burbot is not to be confused with a marine species of a similar modern English name, the eelpout (Zoarces vivparus).80 Still present in northern European fresh waters, the burbot grows to over fifteen inches (40 cm) long. Its colour varies from yellowish to brownish, with darker vermicular dorsal patterning. The archaeo­logical record confirms that burbot were fished for food in early medi­ eval England. However, its numbers can pale in comparison to other freshwater fish. At the fish-rich excavations at Flixborough, for example, pike and carp-family remains number in the hundreds, while burbot remains barely make it into the double digits.81 This may indicate that burbot may have been more often taken opportunistically by early medi­eval anglers in England, even if it was not specifically a target species itself. 78  See Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 183–95.

79  Skeat, “Anglo-Saxon Fish Names,” 169.

80  On the identification of the species, see Worthington et al., “A Review of the Historical Distribution and Status of the Burbot,” 371–77. On the extirpation of burbot from British waters, see Stapanian et al., “Worldwide Status of Burbot,” 34–37. 81  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 54.



Animal Entries

25

The Old English æle-pute occurs only twice in the texts of the time: once in a Latin– Old English glossary, where it glosses the Latin capito (a large-headed fish), and once in Ælfric’s Colloquy.82 Playing the role of a fisherman in the text, a student describes his catch as including “ælas  hacodas, mynas  æleputan, sceotan  lampredan,  swa wylce swa on wætere swymmaþ” (Eels and pike, minnows and burbot, shoat and lampreys, and whatever swims in the waters).83 Given that the burbot only occurs in one other text, its appearance in the Colloquy should probably be understood as more of a lexical artifact than as an accurate description of the eco­logical record.84 Further Reading

Stapanian, Martin A., Vaughn L. Paragamian, Charles P. Madenjian, James R. Jackson, Jyrki Lappalainen, Matthew J. Evenson, and Matthew D. Neufeld. “Worldwide Status of Burbot and Conservation Measures.” Fish and Fisheries 11 (2010): 34–56. Worthington, T., P. S. Kemp, P. E. Osborne, C. Howes, and K. Easton. “A Review of the Historical Distribution and Status of the Burbot (Lota Lota) in English Rivers.” Journal of Applied Ichthyo­logy 27, supplement no. 1 (2011): 1–8.

 BUTTERFLY  OE: buter-fleoge, fifalde

 CATERPILLAR  OE: cawel-wyrm, emel, grimena, leaf-wyrm, mæl-sceafa, treow-wyrm

Superfamily: Papilionoidea

Over fifty species of butterfly currently float over the British Isles with any reg-

ularity. Of course, given the migratory nature of butterflies as well as the recent alarming decreases in their populations in the region, it is hard to say how many species would have been encountered in early medi­eval England and in what numbers. Regardless of species, butterflies are readily recognizable by the often-striking colouration on their relatively broad wings and their fluttering flight patterns. Current well-represented butterfly species range from the common orange and grey gatekeeper (Pyronia tithonus) to the more strikingly patterned peacock (Aglais io) to the distinctively hued common blue (Polyommatus icarus). Butterflies in England range in size from the small blue (Cupido minimus), with a wingspan of about an inch (2.5 cm), to the three-and-a-half-inch (9 cm) wingspan of the swallowtail (Papilio machaon). Given their fragile nature, adult butterflies are virtually absent from the archaeo­ logical record of early medi­eval England.85 Butterflies prove to be as ephemeral in Old English texts as they are in archaeo­logical contexts. They appear as no more than lexical items in the Old English corpus. The Old English buter-fleoge and fifalde occur only 82  For the vocabulary entry, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228.

83  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 27.

84  See Preston, “Fact and Fish Tales,” 3–5.

85  See Kenward, Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy, 59.

26

Animal Entries

in the Latin–Old English glossaries, typically for the Latin papilio.86 Somewhat surprisingly, caterpillars are more conspicuous than butterflies in vernacular texts, perhaps due to their conflation with other pests. For example, the Old English emel (caterpillar) glosses not only the Latin eruca (caterpillar), but also bruchus (a wingless locust) and curculio (a weevil or worm).87 As such, caterpillar terms can be found in Old English translations of Psalms 77 and 104, both of which recount the infestations of the ten plagues of Egypt in the biblical book of Exodus.88 Ultimately, butterflies made little impression on the vernacular literary culture of early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Asher, Jim, Martin Warren, Richard Fox, Paul Harding, Gail Jeffcoate, and Stephen Jeffcoate, eds. The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

 BUZZARD  OE: mus-hafoc, cyta  |  Species: Buteo buteo, B. lagopus

The generic name buzzard may give rise to some initial confusion due the differ-

ence in avian nomenclature on either side of the Atlantic. In the Americas, the word buzzard refers to a member of the New World vulture family (Cathartidae). This includes species such as turkey vulture and the California condor. In Eurasia and Africa, a buzzard is a member of the Accipitridae family, which includes raptors such as hawks, eagles, kites, and Old World vultures. These finer distinctions may be moot in the case of the mus-hafoc, because identifying the precise species denoted by the term is near to impossible. Given that the word mus-hafoc literally translates as mouse-hawk, it could readily apply to any number of raptors. The birds that have been traditionally understood to be the mus-hafoc are the common buzzard (B. buteo) and the rough-legged buzzard (B. lagopus), both medium-sized raptors measuring somewhat under two feet (60 cm) in length. These birds are known for diets that rely to a great extent on small mammals, such as mice.89 While this would make either one a solid candidate for the mus-hafoc, there is no contextual evidence to substantiate such a claim. The scales might tip in favour for the common buzzard, given that its current range is much more widespread across the island year-round, while the rough-legged buzzard is more of a coastal, winter migrant. The mus-hafoc exists only as a glossary term in Old English, glossing the Latin soricarius (mouse-eater). The other buzzard term, cyta, more specifically glosses the Latin butio (buzzard).90 The people of the time would have been familiar with raptors 86  For a collocation of these glosses, see An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 88–89. 87  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “emel.”

88  See Old English Psalms, ed. O’Neill, 304, 414, 671n46.

89  See Whitman, “The Birds of Old English Literature,” 9.

90  For a collocation of these terms, see Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright and



Animal Entries

27

in general, and perhaps B. buteo in particular, as it was a largish, diurnal bird. The buzzard makes only slight appearances in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England.91 However, documentary and archaeo­logical evidence show no direct connection between either B. buteo or B. lagopus and the mouse-hawk of the Old English texts. Further Reading

Dare, Peter. The Life of Buzzards. Dunbeath: Whittles, 2015. Whitman, Charles Huntington. “The Birds of Old English Literature.” The Journal of Germanic Philo­logy 2, no. 2 (1898): 149–98.

 CAMEL  OE: olfend(a)  |  Species: Camelus dromedarius

The Arabian camel (C. dromedarius), whose native range stretched from north-

ern Africa, across the Arabian Peninsula, and into northern India, was unlikely to have been known first-hand by any but the most intrepid of early medi­eval travellers from northern Europe. Unsurprisingly, references to camels in Old English texts are largely limited to translations or references to Latin texts, where the Old English olfend glosses the Latin camelus or dromas.92 Scripture, for example, offers the well-known maxim in Matthew 19:24 that “eaðelicre byð þam olfende to ganne þurh nædle eage þonne se welega on heofona rice ga” (it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for the rich man to go into heaven).93 On the secular side, camels appear in texts describing the faraway lands of the east, primarily as beasts of burden among other fantastic creatures. In The Wonders of the East, people who wish to steal gold from the dog-sized ants found in the mythical land of Gorgoneus should “lædað hi mid him olfenda myran mid hyra folan  stedan” (bring with them female camels with their young and males) in order to distract the ants with the male camels and load the gold upon the females.94 In these metaphorical and mythical examples, there is little sense of the camel as actual animals.95 However, one mention of the camel does show how the authors of Old English texts could conceptualize the realities of unfamiliar animals. In Ælfric’s Hexameron, the monk translates and paraphrases St. Basil’s homilies on creation. St. Basil expounds upon the creation of animals in Genesis 1:24 in his Homilia IX in Hexaemeron (Homily 9 on the Hexameron), “Longum est cameli collum, ut par sit pedibus, et eam qua vescitur herbam attingat” (Long is the camel’s neck, in order to reach its pair of feet, so that he can feed on the grass).96 Ælfric makes this strange creature understandable Wülcker, 1:284–87. See also Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (II),” 9–11.

91  See, for example, Bond and O’Connor, Bones from the Medi­eval Deposits at 16–22 Coppergate, 356–57. 92  For a combined gloss of both Latin terms, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 74.

93  See Matthew 19:24 in The Old English Version of the Gospels, ed. Liuzza, 1:39. 94  Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, 190.

95  For a discussion of the camel as more symbolic than actual in the text and accompanying illustrations in the manu­script, see Mittman and Kim, Inconceivable Beasts, 13, 173, 235–37.

96  St. Basil, Homiliae in Hexaemeron, ed. Migne, in Patro­logia Græca 29:199. See The Vulgate Bible,

28

Animal Entries

to his contemporary audience by comparing it to local, recognizable fauna: “Ða beoð langswyrede þe lybbað be gærse, swa swa olfend and assa, hors and hryðeru, headeor and rahdeor” (Then there was long-necked ones that live on grass, such as the camel and ass, horse and oxen, stag and roe-deer).97 The camel is the only non-native animal in this list, but Ælfric seizes on a physio­logical similarity to native animals to help his audience understand just what kind of creature his source indicates. While Ælfric’s audience may have largely understood camels as just another far-off creature of the biblical Middle East, at least Ælfric provided some native eco­logical context. Further Reading

Gauthier-Pilters, Hilde, and Anne Innis Dagg. The Camel: Its Evolution, Eco­logy, Behavior, and Relationship to Man. University of Chicago Press, 1981. Mittman, Asa Simon, and Susan M. Kim. Inconceivable Beasts: The Wonders of the East in the Beowulf Manu­script. Medi­eval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 453. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medi­eval and Renaissance Studies, 2013.

 CAT  OE: cat 

 SHE-CAT  OE: catte  Species: Felis catus, Felis silvestris

Given the prevalence

of modern-day cat ownership in the British Isles, cats have a remarkably low profile in early medi­eval England. Domestic cats (F. catus) came to the British Isles from the feline’s original range of North Africa and the Middle East. Whether the arrival of the cat in the British Isles initially occurred as early as the Neolithic period or as recently as the Roman conquest of the area remains a matter yet to be conclusively settled.98 Determining the origin of the domestic cat in early medi­eval England is complicated by the presence of the native European wildcat (F. silvestris), whose native range spread from the British Isles to the Iberian peninsula and across central Europe to eastern Russia. The domestic cat and wildcat can overlap in size and morpholo­logy, and they likely interbred.99 As a result, there is the possibility of some confusion in the archaeo­logical record, although those cat bones found in association with human settlement can reasonably be assumed to belong to F. catus. These remains indicate that cats were substantially fewer in number than other domestic mammal species in early medi­eval England, accounting for less than 0.5 percent of the total.100 The 1: The Pentateuch, ed. Edgar, 6–7: Genesis 1:24 reads, “Dixit quoque Deus: ‘Producat terra animam viventem in genere suo, iumenta et reptilia et bestias terrae secundum species suas.’ Factumque est ita” (And God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things and beasts of the according to their kinds.” And so it was done). 97  Exameron Anglice, ed. Crawford, 54.

98  See Kitchener and O’Connor, “Wildcats, Domestic and Feral Cats,” 90–96. 99  See Poole, “The Contextual Cat,” 865.

100  See Poole, “The Contextual Cat,” 867.



Animal Entries

29

wildcat (F. silvestris) appears to be even more dramatically elusive in the archaeo­logical record, but conclusive species-identification is extremely difficult in bone assemblages that include both wild and domestic species.101 Archaeo­logical evidence suggests that at least some cats were skinned for their fur, skin, or both.102 Felines probably interacted with people much as cats on the domestic/feral border do today. As much as their capability for rodent predation was appreciated, and any adverse behaviours thereby mitigated, they likely would have been tolerated as cohabitators or even welcomed as pets.103 The cat’s footprint in Old English texts is vanishingly faint. It makes cursory appearances in Latin–Old English glossaries, glossing a variety of Latin cat terms, such as cattus, murilegus, feles (cat), and muriceps (mouse-catcher).104 Cats slink onto the page only twice in the literature of the Old English corpus. The two parallel appearances occur in Old English penitentials based on the eighth-century Penitential of Theodore, which lays out the penances for a variety of bad behaviour. Cats come into play regarding hygiene: “gyf man mid unclæne hand hwæs mete onhrine oððe him hund oððe cat oððe mus æthrine oððe oðer unclæne neat hwylc, Theodorus cwæð þæt him þæt nawuht ne eglade” (If someone with unclean hands touches someone’s food, or a dog or a cat or a mouse or any other unclean animal touches it, Theodore said that was no harm to him).105 While this text does not provide any direct indication of the extent of the early medi­eval knowledge of, or attitude towards, the domestic cat in England, it does suggest the cat was a common enough animal to regularly come in contact with human foodstuffs. Fittingly, the cat’s presence in vernacular texts appears to be as light as its step. Further Reading

Cavell, Megan. “Domesticating the Devil: The Early Medi­eval Contexts of Aldhelm’s Cat Riddle.” In Riddles at Work in the Anglo-Saxon Tradition, edited by Megan Cavell and Jennifer Neville, 57–75. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2020. Kitchener, Andrew C., and Terry O’Connor. “Wildcats, Domestic and Feral Cats.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 83–94. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. O’Connor, T. P. “Wild or Domestic? Biometric Variation in the Cat Felis silvestris Schreber.” International Journal of Osteoarchaeo­logy 17 (2007): 581–95. Poole, Kristopher. “The Contextual Cat: Human–Animal Relations and Social Meaning in Anglo-Saxon England.” Journal of Archaeo­logical Method and Theory 22 (2015), 857–82. 101  See O’Connor, “Wild or Domestic,” 594.

102  See Poole, “The Contextual Cat,” 867–70. 103  Poole, “The Contextual Cat,” 870–77.

104  For cattus, murilegus, and muriceps, see Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. For feles, see An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 55. For an overview of cat literature beyond the Old English in the British Isles, see Cavell, “Domesticating the Devil,” 59–69.

105  Das altenglische Bussbuch, ed. Spindler, 193. For a parallel text, see Quellen und Forschungen, ed. Mone, 523.

30

Animal Entries

 CATTLE  OE: ceap, feoh, neat, nyten, orf, yrfe    COW  OE: cu, hryðer  BULL  OE: fearr, hryðer  CALF  OE: cealf  OX  OE: hryðer, oxa Species: Bos taurus

The domestic cattle

of early medi­eval England (Bos taurus) appear to be of Asian ancestry, as opposed to being directly descended from the native, massive aurochs (B. primigenius), bovines that became extinct in the British Isles sometime around 1300 bce.106 According to the current state of the archaeo­logical record, cattle appear to have been the dominant livestock of the region until around the time of the Norman Conquest, after which sheep became the chief domestic animal. There is ample evidence of cattle in early medi­eval bone assemblages in England, often as the most frequently-represented domestic mammal species. However, some care should be taken in making absolute claims regarding cattle’s relative dominance, as the sheer size and robustness of their remains might skew the record in their favour if it is strictly based on the numbers of surviving bones.107 Whether they or sheep were the primary domesticated livestock of the period, cattle were undoubtedly of great importance to the people of early medi­eval England. Cattle were valued for numerous reasons. Most directly, they provided foodstuffs derived from their flesh, fat, bones, and milk. The range of cattle-based food products can be seen in a ninth-century will from Bury St. Edmunds that describes the costs of foods to be procured for a funeral feast, including payments of “twa ore an reþær…7 viii peniges an cese…7 fæouer pæniges at milch” (two oras for a bull…and 8 pennies for a cheese…and four pennies for milk).108 Evidence of food production from both the animal and its products can be found in the archaeo­logical and textual records. Cut-mark evidence on cattle bones shows that butchery was common and that techniques appear to have been refined over the course of the period.109 While there is no literature of the period that directly details cattlebutchery practices, indirect references can be found. The Old English Lacnunga, a medical text, presents a recipe for a poultice to heal a cyst that includes the following: “ealle þa ban tosomne ðe man gegaderian mæge,  cnocie man þa ban mid æxse yre” (then gather together all the bones that one can and pound those bones with the back of an axe).110 While cattle are not particularly mentioned, archaeo­logists find this bone-grinding technique of 106  For the complicated evolution of bovine taxonomy, see Felius et al., “On the Breeds of Cattle,” 660–92. 107  See Legge, “The Aurochs and Domestic Cattle,” 34–35. 108  Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Robertson, 253.

109  See Hagen, Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink, 271; Sykes, “Cu and Sceap,” 69–70.

110  Grattan and Singer, Anglo-Saxon Magic and Medicine, 113.



Animal Entries

31

animal processing most commonly employed on cattle and sheep remains.111 Artifacts of dairy-product creation also continue to come to light. As recently as 2015 a butter churn lid was excavated at a railway construction site in Staffordshire that dates to the eighth–ninth centuries.112 All evidence points towards cattle as an important source of dietary protein in early medi­eval England. The skin of cattle was likewise prized and utilized for everything from clothing to parchment. Calfskin was the highest quality, and most highly prized, source of parchment in early medi­eval England.113 Known as vellum, this variety of parchment was valued for its light colour, suppleness, and beauty.114 Skins could also be tanned and transformed into leather, which could serve a variety of purposes. A remarkable trove of leather goods from the early medi­eval period was excavated at York. Numerous shoes, as well as items ranging from knife sheaths to clothing accessories and from horse tack to water vessels, were preserved at the site.115 Even the large amount of leather scraps found there, accompanied by the remains of leatherworking tools, points to the importance of animal-skin products and their production.116 Cattle bones and horns were also a source of tools and decoration among the early medi­eval English. Bones provided a durable, yet malleable, resource for creating everything from needles and pins to combs and even ice-skates. 117 Horns were famously used for drinking vessels, but due to their plasticity when heated, they could serve purposes from lantern windows to helmet components.118 Cattle rendered a great variety, amount, and quality of animal products for human use and consumption. To reap these rewards, the early medi­eval livestock owner needed to make a significant investment in the animal in terms of fodder, shelter, and care. This investment made cattle an important commodity and valued piece of property.119 The care of livestock literally shaped the community, as the wanderings of foraging cattle needed to be controlled, leading to systems of ditches or fences demarcating the separation of pastures and agricultural fields.120 Cattle have a place in Old English texts commensurate with their evident value to the early medi­eval English. The very characters of the Old English runic alphabet included the rune ᚢ (ur), linguistically represented by the word for the auroch, and ᚠ (feoh), representing the word used generically for property or wealth and specifi111  See Sykes, “From Cu and Sceap to Beffe and Motton,” 70.

112  See Headland Archaeo­logy. “A Rare Saxon Butter Churn Find.”

113  See Gameson, “The Archaeo­logy of the Anglo-Saxon Book,” 797–98. 114  See Rumble, “Using Anglo-Saxon Manu­scripts,” 10–11.

115  See Mould, Carlisle, and Cameron, Craft, Industry and Everyday Life, 3392.

116  Mould, Carlisle, and Cameron, Craft, Industry and Everyday Life, 3205, 3235–46. 117  See Riddler and Trzaska-Nartowski, “Chanting Upon a Dunghill,” 131.

118  See Hinton, “Raw Materials,” 432.

119  See Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, 85–88.

120  See Hamerow, Rural Settlement and Society in Anglo-Saxon England, 89–90.

32

Animal Entries

cally for cattle.121 Both runes appear in the “Rune Poem,” although the rune feoh therein most likely refers to wealth in the generic sense, as it is referred to as a valuable commodity that is a joy to have, “Sceal ðeah manna gehwylc miclun hit dælan” (Although each person must distribute it widely). The auroch of the poem is clearly described as a beast: “ela-frecne deor, feohteþ mid hornum” (a very fierce animal, [that] fights with its horns).122 A telling example of the overlap of the senses of feoh as both wealth and cattle comes from the law code of Alfred the Great. In the preface to his law code, Alfred borrows liberally from the book of Exodus. Exodus 22:7 deals with the custodianship of another’s wealth, beginning with the phrase “Si quis commendaverit amico pecuniam aut vas in custodiam” (If someone entrusts to his friend money or vessels to keep).123 Alfred incorporates this into the preface to his law code as, “Gif hwa oð fæste his friend fioh” (If one entrusts property to his friend), translating the Latin pecuniam (money) with the Old English feoh (property).124 Alfred later adds a clarification to this statute, making a stipulation for repayment, “Gif hit ðonne cucu feoh wære” (If it then were live cattle).125 Here, Alfred shows the linguistic connection between wealth and livestock in Old English by using feoh to represent both referents. The Old English law codes also provide the most explicit evidence of cattle’s value. These statutes establish the wergild (literally “man-price,” or monetary compensation) for the lives of men or their individual body parts. For example, Alfred stipulates that “Gif mon men eage ofaslea, geselle him mon lx scill  vi scill  vi pæningas  ðriddan dæl pæninges to bote” (If a man smites out a man’s eye, the man shall give to him 60 shillings and 6 shillings and 6 pennies and a third portion of a penny for compensation).126 Likewise, Alfred appends the law code of an earlier king, Ine of Wessex, whose legal statutes also stipulate the value of some cattle body parts: “oxan eage bið v pæninga weorð, cus bið scilling weorþ” (an ox’s eye is worth 5 pennies, a cow’s is worth a shilling).127 Both people and cattle had quantifiable value in early medi­ eval England. Additionally, the law codes take cattle theft quite seriously. The law code of Ine stipulates: “Ðonne mon monnan betyhð, þæt he ceap forstele oððe forstolenne gefeormie, þonne sceal he be lx hida onsacan þære þiefðe, gif he aðwyrðe bið” (When a man accuses a man, that he stole cattle or harbours stolen goods, then he shall by 60 hides dispute that theft, if he is oath-worthy).128 Sixty hides is a measure of land-ownership that would frequently equate to an equal number of shillings in the Old Eng121  For a definition of the runes, see Page, An Introduction to English Runes, 65–68; The Old Eng­ lish Rune Poem, ed. Halsall, 96–107. For the polysemy of feoh, in particular, see Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “feoh”; Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, 86–87.

122  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 126. See The Old English Rune Poem, ed. Halsall, 104–6. 123  The Vulgate Bible, 1: The Pentateuch, ed. Edgar, 390.

124  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:36. 125  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:36. 126  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:80.

127  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:116. 128  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:108.



Animal Entries

33

lish law codes. Therefore, the defendant in this case would have to back up his claim of innocence with a pledge of sixty shillings, a not inconsiderable sum.129 Cattle theft was such a concern that charms were invoked against it. Metrical Charm 9 threatens: “Eall he weornige, swa syre wudu weornie, / swa breðel seo swa þystel, / se ðe ðis feoh oðfergean þence” (May he completely wither as dry wood withers, as weak as the thistle, he who thinks to bear off this cattle).130 Clearly, cattle were seen as having great economic value in early medi­eval England. Cattle were such a mainstay of early medi­eval life that they turn up numerous times across the Old English corpus. Translations of biblical texts and their exegesis rely on the stereotypical representations of cattle simply as beasts to be owned. Occasionally, their place in creation is juxtaposed with that of humanity’s, as in Ælfric’s homily on the Catholic faith: “Men he gescop mid gaste  mid lichaman. Nytenu  deor, fixas  fugelas he gesceop on flæsce buton sawle” (He created men with spirit and with body. Cattle and beasts, fishes and birds he created in flesh without a soul).131 The comparison is meant to underscore humanity’s special place in creation, while highlighting the lack of a spiritual nature in animals like cattle. Alternately, the Old English riddles may provide a glimpse of the commonplace attitude towards cattle, as many focus on everyday objects or events. While there are a number of cattle-related riddles in the Exeter Book, Riddle 38 seems to sum up the early medi­eval attitude of people towards cattle rather succinctly. The riddler ends the poem with this observation of its subject: “Seo wiht, gif hio gedygeð, duna briceð; / gif he tobirsteð, bindeð cwice” (This creature, if she survives, breaks the hills; if he is torn apart, binds the living).132 Whether the animal lives or dies, it is seen primarily through the lens of its use to people, either as labour, such as pulling the plough that beaks the soil, or as product, such as the leather made from its hide that can be used as binding strips. Some sympathy for the cattle’s plight is found in the Exeter Book’s Riddle 72, as the animal narrator describes its lot as one of servitude.133 In the riddle, the ox describes itself as one who “wean on laste weorc þrowade, / earfoða dæl” (on the track of woe suffered pain, a share of hardships).134 Even though the ox gets a voice by means of this riddle, the poem ultimately serves to describe the cattle’s acceptance of its servitude to humanity. Both the textual and archaeo­logical records indicate the ubiquity and importance of cattle in early medi­eval English culture and agriculture. Yet despite their value, their appreciation as living beings seems subordinated to their utility in the eyes of the 129  Exact equivalencies to modern prices can be difficult to ascertain, but within the context of Alfred’s law code, 60 shillings would equate to the price of 60 ox-tails or, in Ine’s laws, the penalty for cutting off someone’s nose. See, respectively, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:80, 116. 130  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 218. 131  Homily 20 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 335.

132  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:315.

133  On the animal’s suffering and servitude, see Dale, The Natural World in the Exeter Book Riddles, 57–86. 134  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:368.

34

Animal Entries

people of the time, according to the vernacular evidence. Just as the Old English feoh can be translated as cattle, the living creature, it could simultaneously merely refer to property, and all the objectification that term implies. Further Reading

Felius, Marleen, Peter A. Koolmees, Bert Theunissen, European Cattle Genetic Diversity Consortium, and Johannes A. Lenstra. “On the Breeds of Cattle: Historic and Current Classifications.” Diversity 3 (2011): 660–92. Gameson, Richard. “The Archaeo­logy of the Anglo-Saxon Book.” In The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeo­logy, edited by Helena Hamerow, David A. Hinton, and Sally Crawford, 797–823. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Headland Archaeo­logy. “A Rare Saxon Butter Churn Find from Staffordshire Rail Development,” May 25, 2015. https://headlandarchaeo­logy.com/a-rare-saxon-butter-churn-findfrom-staffordshire-rail-development/. Hinton, David A. “Raw Materials: Sources and Demand.” In The Oxford Handbook of AngloSaxon Archaeo­logy, edited by Helena Hamerow, David A. Hinton, and Sally Crawford, 423–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Hollis, Stephanie. “Old English ‘Cattle-Theft Charms’: Manu­script Contexts and Social Uses.” Anglia 115, no. 2 (1997): 139–64. Hough, Carole. “Cattle-Tracking in the Fonthill Letter.” The English Historical Review 115, no. 463 (2000): 864–92. Legge, Anthony J. “The Aurochs and Domestic Cattle.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 26–35. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. Rumble, Alexander. “Using Anglo-Saxon Manu­scripts.” In Anglo-Saxon Manu­scripts: Basic Readings, edited by Mary P. Richards, 3–24. New York: Garland, 1994.

 CHAFFINCH  OE: ceaffinc  |  Species: Fringilla coelebs

The common chaffinch

(F. coelebs) is the sole representative of the genus Fringilla in the British Isles. Close to six inches (15 cm) long, this member of the finch family is quite colourful. The male sports a blue-capped head, an olive-green rump, and a rosy underside. Year-round residents of the British Isles, common chaffinches are quite noticeable thanks to their large numbers and relatively loud and distinctive song. Mainly seed-eaters, sporting short, wedge-shaped bills, common chaffinches would have been frequent visitors to early medi­eval agricultural sites and settlements. The diminutive size of this bird, and the fragility of its bones, leads to a lack of positive identification in insular archaeo­logical contexts from the early medi­eval period. Despite their likely ubiquity in the countryside, the common chaffinch has the slightest of presences in Old English texts. Its name occurs in only one glossary, glossing the Latin suctatus (finch).135 Its Old English name reflects an interesting combination of onomatopoeia and behavioural observation. The name element ceaf derives from the bird’s predilection to feed on the chaff left behind by grain harvesting and processing, 135  See Zupitza, “Altenglische Glossen,” 241.



Animal Entries

35

while the finc portion of its name reflects an approximation of the common chaffinch’s call.136 Although a common enough bird in the British Isles, the chaffinch makes only the most minor of appearances in the early medi­eval archaeo­logical and cultural contexts. Further Reading

Macleod, Catriona J., David M. B. Parish, and Stephen F. Hubbard. “Habitat Associations and Breeding Success of the Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs.” Bird Study, 51, no. 3 (2004), 239–47.

 CHICKEN  OE: cicen  COCK  OE: coc, hana

 HEN  OE: henn, hen-fugol, ham-henn Species: Gallus gallus

Domestic fowl had been present in appreciable numbers in England since the Roman period.137 While bird bones typically account for a fairly small percentage of remains in early medi­eval bone assemblages, the domestic chicken (G. gallus) is the predominant avian food-animal represented at these sites at ratios from about 2:1 to 20:1.138 While identification as to breed is impossible, it is clear that some kind of intentional husbandry practices were in effect. Investigations of the archaeo­logical chicken remains at the early medi­eval site at Bishopstone show not only that chickens were far and away the most numerous domestic fowl, but also that they were primarily older birds that were likely fed human food-waste.139 Both of these facts point to dedicated care of the flock and perhaps even points to the use of these fowls for egg-laying. Although the archaeo­logical evidence cannot be considered comprehensive, due to the fragility of bird bones, the relative number of chicken remains indicates they were an important domestic resource. As an unassuming denizen of the farmyard, the chicken does not make any grand appearances in Old English texts. The termino­logy used for chickens speak to their domestic roles. In the glossaries, the Latin pullus (chick), gallina (hen), and gallus (cock) are respectively glossed by the Old English cicen, henn, and coc, referring to them in their roles as brood-stock.140 This role is underscored in Exeter Book Riddle 42, in which the riddler “seah wyhte wrætlice twa / undearnunga ute plegan / hæmedlaces” (saw two wonderful creatures / openly outside playing / in the act of sex).141 While such activity is not restricted to chickens, of course, the runic clues later in the poem provide the letters for the words hana (cock) and hæn (hen). Correspondingly, 136  Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 491–92.

137  See Yalden and Albarella, The History of British Birds, 101.

138  See Yalden and Albarella, The History of British Birds, 101; Coy, “Comparing Bird Bones,” 416. 139  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 152–53.

140  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307. 141  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:321.

36

Animal Entries

brooding behaviour is described but once in the literature. In his Enchiridion, the monk Byrhtferth describes the attentions of a mother hen to her young: “Oft seo brodige henn, þeah heo sarlice cloccige, heo tospræt hyre fyðera and þa briddas gewyrmð” (Often, the broody hen, though she is sorrowfully clucking, she spreads her feathers and warms the chicks).142 A touching maternal scene, although one cannot be sure if Byrhtferth drew this image from experience or the literary tradition. Finally, although the evidence of chicken consumption is rare in the vernacular literature, medical texts can provide some clue as to its range. Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook, the most indicative of local practice in the collection, variously references eating a “henne æg” (hen egg), “hænne flæsc” (hen flesh), and “seoþ henne” (seeth[ed] hen) broth as part of different cures.143 Chickens were well known to the people of early medi­eval England. While the archaeo­logical record shows that they were not a primary food source, as compared to domestic livestock, they were a widespread supplement to the mainstays of cattle, sheep, and pigs. In keeping with their humble role, they are equally unobtrusive in vernacular texts of the period. Further Reading

Coy, Jennie. “Birds as Food in Prehistoric and Historic Wessex.” In Animals and Archaeo­logy, 2: Shell Middens, Fishes and Birds, edited by Caroline Grigson and Juliet Clutton-Brock, 181–95. BAR International Series 183. Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports, 1983. Lerer, Seth. “The Riddle and the Book: Exeter Book Riddle 42 in its Contexts.” Papers on Language and Literature 25 (1989): 3–18. Salvador-Bello, Mercedes. “The Key to the Body: Unlocking Riddles 42–46.” In Naked Before God: Uncovering the Body in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Benjamin C. Withers and Jonathan Wilcox, 60–96. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2003.

 CHOUGH  OE: ceo  |  Species: Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax

Of the two

species of chough, the red-billed chough (P. pyrrhocorax) is the only one represented in the British Isles. It is a medium-sized member of the crow family, measuring approximately fifteen inches (40 cm) in length. Black-plumed, as typical of the Corvidae family, the red-billed chough’s distinguishing feature is its namesake bill of bright scarlet. Partial to mountains and sea-cliffs, P. pyrrhocorax would have been relatively less noticeable to the early medi­eval English than its larger, more cosmopolitan cousins, the crow and raven. It is typically unidentified to species in the archaeo­logical record, likely being correlated with other corvid remains, if present at all.144 In keeping with that lower profile, the chough appears in the Old English corpus only in glossaries and Ælfric’s grammar, glossing the Latin cornicula (little crow).145 Of 142  Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion, ed. Baker and Lapidge, 68.

143  See, respectively, Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:328, 358, 336.

144  See, for example, Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 39, 49; Holmes, Southern England, 20, 25–26, 92–93. 145  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 103.



Animal Entries

37

some note is the variability of spelling of the bird’s name in the vernacular, including the following: ceo, cio, cyo, cheo, ciae, and chyae.146 The non-standardization of Old English aside, the variety of spellings appears to endeavour to render an onomatopoetic reproduction of the chough’s call, a harsh chee-uh.147 Further Reading

Hayhow, Daniel B., Ian Johnstone, A. S. Moore, C. Mucklow, A. Stratford, M. Súr, and Mark Eaton. “Breeding Status of Red-billed Choughs Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax in the UK and Isle of Man in 2014.” Bird Study 65 (2018): 458–70.

 COCKLE  OE: sæ-cocc  |  Species: Cerastoderma edule

While the term cockle can refer to any number of small bivalve molluscs, the most numerous cockle species in the British Isles is C. edule, the common cockle. About twenty other similar members of the Cardiidae (i.e., cockle) family can be found in the waters surrounding the British Isles, not to mention numerous other members of similar-looking mollusc families. However, C. edule has historically been the most common representative of this group eaten by people. Up to about two inches (5 cm) long, C. edule has a series of parallel, raised ridges radiating across its off-white to yellow-tinged shells. Due to its proclivity for an intertidal habitat and typically burrowing no more than two inches below the surface, the common cockle was a readily obtainable mollusc for coastal dwellers in the early medi­eval period. Cockles are relatively infrequent in the archaeo­logical record, far outstripped by oysters and even mussels. The late-Saxon site at East Sussex contains an uncommonly large amount of mollusc remains and may serve as a good source for species–use comparison. Archaeo­logists at the site found cockles to account for only about 2.7 percent of all molluscs found, with mussels (Mytilus edulis) being the most common by a factor of ten.148 In Old English literature, the cockle’s sole appearance is in Ælfric’s Colloquy. The cockle is simply listed as one of the many types of shellfish the fisherman character draws from the waters: “ostran  crabban, muslan, winewinclan, sæcoccas” (oysters and crabs, mussels, periwinkles, cockles).149 Although associated in the Colloquy with the much more popular oysters and mussels, cockles fail to appear elsewhere in the Old English corpus, perhaps reflecting its nature as a secondary or incidental food source for the early medi­eval English. Further Reading

Gosling, Elizabeth. Bivalve Molluscs: Bio­logy, Eco­logy, and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003. 146  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “ceo.”

147  See Poole and Lacey, “Avian Aurality in Anglo-Saxon England,” 404. 148  See Somerville, “Marine Molluscs,” 177. 149  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29.

38

Animal Entries

 CORMORANT  OE: scealfor, scræf  Species: Phalacrocorax carbo, P. aristotelis

The two cormorant

species of the British Isles are the great cormorant (P. carbo) and the common shag (P. aristotelis). Both birds are coastal, piscivorous birds, typically diving to depths of around thirty feet (9 m) to attain their prey. As its name implies, the great cormorant is the larger of the two, at lengths of around the three-foot mark (90 cm). The common shag is somewhat smaller, reaching a length closer to thirty inches (75 cm). Both birds are frequently found on the coasts of the region, and the combination of their striking dives and conspicuous behaviour of drying their feathers with broadly outstretched wings would make them quite noticeable seaside inhabitants to the people of early medi­eval England. They are relatively rare, although not absent, from the archaeo­logical record of the period. Of the roughly fifty wild bird specimens recorded in the early medi­eval contexts at Flixborough, for example, three were from the cormorant.150 Cormorants may have been an occasional prey-item of opportunity, but not a typically targeted game species. Despite their relative rarity in the archaeo­logical record, the cormorant has an outsized presence in the corpus of Old English, thanks to an oft-repeated event related to the hagio­graphy of St. Martin. Ælfric, in his vernacular life of the saint, relates how Martin “geseah he swymman scealfran on flode, and gelome doppettan adune to grunde ehtende þearle ðære ea fixa” (saw cormorants swimming in the water, and often diving down to the bottom fervently pursuing the fishes of the river).151 Here, the cormorant is being used as a metaphor for how hungrily devils pursue humanity. The narrator explains that St. Martin then banishes the birds, just as he banished evil spirits from preying upon the innocent. While this image of the bird comes from Ælfric’s Latin, Continental source, it would still be relatable to the early medi­eval English based on the ready opportunities for casual observation of cormorant behaviour. Further Reading

Arnott, W. G. “Notes on Gavia and Mergvs in Latin Authors.” The Classical Quarterly 14, no. 2 (1964): 249–62. Newson, Stuart, John Marchant, Robin Sellers, Graham Ekins, Richard Hearn, and Niall Burton. “Colonisation and Range Expansion of Inland-Breeding Cormorants in England.” British Birds 106, no. 12 (2013): 737–43.

150  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 143.

151  Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 2:300. On the source of the Latin text and the reading of scealf as cormorant for the Latin mergus, see Arnott, 257–58; Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 497–98.



 CRAB  OE: crabba, hæfern, wæterhæfern

Animal Entries

39

Species: Cancer pagurus, Carcinus maenas, Necora puba

More than sixty

species of crab make the waters surrounding the British Isles their home. It is nearly impossible to identify a single specific species the early medi­ eval people of England would have harvested from the sea, but the combination of the archaeo­logical record and modern distribution patterns indicate three species to be the most likely representative animals: the brown, or edible, crab (C. pagurus), the common shore crab (Carcinus maenas), and the velvet swimming crab (Necora puba). All species inhabit the littoral zone, preferring the shelter of rocky ledges and crevices. C. maenas and N. puba both attain carapace lengths of about three inches (7.5 cm) while C. pagurus is typically twice that. They range in colour from the edible crab’s brick red to the greenish-brown colouration of the velvet swimming and common shore crabs, although the colouration of the latter two may vary based on geo­graphy and life-stage. Crabs do not have a high profile in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. For example, in the period archaeo­logical site at Flixborough, although almost five thousand individual specimens of marine or migratory fish were found, only one fragment of a crab shell was discovered.152 Additionally, excavations at the monastic site at Wearmouth–Jarrow indicate a trend of crab remains not occurring until after the early medi­eval period, and even then in only the smallest of numbers.153 This, of course, does not prove that the people of the time refrained from harvesting and eating crabs. Crustacean shells are relatively delicate and might well not survive over the centuries. However, the relative lack of archaeo­logical evidence does correlate with the scant presence of the crab in Old English texts. The crab occurs in three primary contexts in Old English: as a medicinal food, in reference to the astro­logical sign Cancer, and in the Old English–Latin glossaries. The fisherman character in Ælfric’s Colloquy numbers crabs among the sea-creatures he captures, but there is no reference in Old English texts to crab as a strictly culinary item. Rather, when it is used, it occurs as a medicinal aid. For example, Bald’s Leechbook recommends the use of crab to treat the swelling of neck glands, which can be treated with an ointment made from a “wæterhæfern gebærnedne…gegniden smale  wiþ hunig gemenged  on gedon” (burnt water-crab…ground fine and mixed with honey).154 The crab can also refer to the well-known icono­graphy of the zodiac, which, of the twelve signs, Ælfric identifies “Feorða, Cancer, þæt is Crabba” (The fourth, Cancer, that is the crab).155 The glossaries are nearly evenly split in glossing the Latin cancer as either the Old English crabba or hæfern.156 While crabba is clearly the ancestor to Present-Day English crab, Bosworth and Toller’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary posits hæfern 152  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 45, 54.

153  See Noddle, Stallibrass, and O’Connor, “The Animal Bones and Marine Shells from Jarrow,” 552, 558. 154  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:44.

155  Ælfric’s De temporibus anni, ed. Blake, 82.

156  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “crabba” and “hæfern.”

40

Animal Entries

as a compound word comprised of hæf (sea) and ærn (house).157 Of course, the resulting sea-house can metaphorically refer to the crab’s carapace. Although unnamed, the crab might also make one more indirect appearance as the solution to Exeter Book Riddle 78. In a combination of lexical and thematic analyses, Mercedes Salvador convincingly argues that “the fragmentary clues of Riddle 78 therefore most likely point to an antagonistic creature [to the oyster] that, according to medi­eval encyclopedic tradition, can be none other than the crab.”158 True to its cryptic nature, the crab may exist in both early medi­eval insular life and letters, even where it is not readily seen. Further Reading

Ingle, R. W. Shallow-water Crabs: Keys and Notes to the Identification of the Species. Synopses of the British Fauna, n.s., 25. 2nd ed. Shrewsbury: Field Study Council, 2004. Salvador, Mercedes. “The Oyster and the Crab: A Riddle Duo (nos. 77 and 78) in the Exeter Book.” Modern Philo­logy 101, no. 3 (2004): 400–19.

 CRANE  OE: cran, cranoc  |  Species: Grus grus

Although found across northern Europe and Asia today, the common crane became extinct in the United Kingdom in the sixteenth century. Prior to that time, and certainly in early medi­eval England, the common crane was a remarkable and not uncommon denizen of the British Isles’ wetlands.159 Standing somewhat over four feet (1.2 m) tall, with a wingspan in excess of seven feet (2.1 m), the common crane is an impressive physical presence. Additionally, it is possessed of a loud, trumpeting call and distinctive social behaviours that include complex dancing manoeuvres and impressive leaps. Both its size and comportment would have presented a striking vision to the early medi­eval English. That the people of the time saw the common crane as a resource is clear from the archaeo­logical record. Crane bones have been found in archaeo­logical contexts throughout early medi­eval England. One particularly productive site is at Flixborough, where crane remains number over two hundred specimens.160 However, for such a widespread and imposing creature, the crane has a contrastingly minor presence in Old English texts. It exists only in vernacular glossaries of the period, glossing the Latin grus (crane).161 Although apparently valued as a game animal at the time, the crane made little impact on vernacular writing. Further Reading

Boisseau, S., and Derek W. Yalden. “The Former Status of the Crane Grus grus in Britain.” Ibis 140, no. 3 (1998): 482–500. 157  See Bosworth and Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, s.v. “hæfern,” 495. 158  See Salvador, “The Oyster and the Crab,” 419. 159  See Serjeantson, “Extinct Birds,” 148–49.

160  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 39.

161  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307. See also Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (II),” 16.



 CROW  OE: crawe

Animal Entries

41

 ROOK  OE: hroc, niht-hroc Species: Corvus corone, C. cornix, C. frugilegus

The three crow species of early medi­eval England were the rook (C. frugilegus),

the carrion crow (C. corone), and the hooded crow (C. cornix).162 Known by their characteristic dark plumage and hoarse calls, the birds have colouration differences that allow for specific identification. While they all measure about eighteen inches (45 cm) in length, the carrion crow is the only one that is uniformly black in colour. The adult rook has similar swarthy plumage, but it can be distinguished by an area of white skin around the base of its beak. The hooded crow is easiest to distinguish of the three as it has large swaths of greyish-white feathers covering its back and underside. Collectively, they are well-known scavengers, adapted to a wide range of habitats and often found associated with human habitations.163 As a result, crow remains are relatively frequent components in assemblages of animal bones in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts. Crow remains are fairly common at such sites in England, occurring in as many as one in four assemblages.164 They can also appear in significant numbers in these contexts. At Flixborough, for example, a large number of crow remains were found, amounting to over one hundred specimens at the site. They do not outnumber the total remains of domestic species of birds at the site, but their bones are present in numbers greater than those of many other wild birds represented there.165 While there is early archaeo­logical evidence of crows being incorporated into human burials in England, there does not appear to be any such evidence for the birds’ use as food or in commerce during the early medi­eval period.166 For such common birds in early medi­eval England, they have a relatively slight presence in the vernacular writings of the period. They primarily appear in Latin– Old English glossaries, where the Old English crawe glosses the Latin cornix (crow) or garrulus (chattering thing).167 The single appearance of crawe in a vernacular literary text is in a post-Conquest translation of Psalm 147 in which the greatness of God is described, in part, by how He “selleð nietenum mete hira  briddas crawan oncigende hine” (gives to the cattle their food and [also] to the young crows calling Him).168 Like162  See Serjeantson and Morris, “Ravens and Crows in Iron Age and Roman Britain,” 86.

163  See, for example, the case of early medi­eval finds at York in O’Connor, “Animal Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian York,” 436–37. 164  See Poole and Lacey, “Avian Aurality in Anglo-Saxon England,” 403. 165  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 38–39.

166  For evidence of the ritual burial of corvids in earlier archaeo­logical contexts, see Serjeantson and Morris, “Ravens and Crows in Iron Age and Roman Britain,” passim. 167  For crawe as a gloss of cornix, see Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary, ed. Pheifer, 17. For a gloss of garrulus, see An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 59. 168  Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter, ed. Harsley, 241 (numbered Psalm 146 in the text).

42

Animal Entries

wise, the Old English hroc appears in similar places, glossing both the Latin graculus (jackdaw, crow, or rook) and garrulus (chattering thing), similarly appearing in translations of Psalm 147.169 Despite this variety of crow-terms, early medi­eval English authors did not appear to make fine distinctions between the different crow species, with the possible exception of recognizing their different voices.170 More concrete evidence of crows and rooks in the early medi­eval English environment is found in charters, which stipulate property borders, often in reference to animal-related landscape markers. For example, two charters of King Æthelstan from the year 973 ce rely on crow-related landmarks. In one charter, a grant of land in Sandford, the text describes how one boundary travels “of hroces forda norð rihte oð henne stigle” (from the rook’s ford north to the hen’s stile).171 Another charter, a restoration of a land grant in Wiltshire, begins its description to the property bounds in question with a crow reference: “Ærest of crawan crundul on wereðan hylle” (First, [go] from the crow’s hollow on Weretha’s hill).172 That the early medi­eval English would use crow habitations as markers of their landscape is testament to the ubiquity of these birds. While crows may not have graced the tables or artifacts of the people of the period in any significant ways, their textual footprint suggests a relatively widespread familiarity with these ebony-hued birds. Further Reading

Lacey, Eric. “When Is a Hroc Not a Hroc? When It Is a Crawe or a Hrefn! A Study in Recovering Old English Folk-Taxonomies.” In The Art, Literature and Material Culture of the Medi­eval World: Transition, Transformation and Taxonomy, edited by Meg Boulton, Jane Hawkes, and Melissa Herman, 138–52. Dublin: Four Courts, 2015. Marzluff, John, and Tony Angell. Gifts of the Crow. New York: Free Press, 2012. —— . In the Company of Crows and Ravens. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Serjeantson, Dale, and James Morris. “Ravens and Crows in Iron Age and Roman Britain.” Oxford Journal of Archaeo­logy 30 (2011): 85–107.

 CUCKOO  OE: geac  |  Species: Cuculus canorus

The lone member

of the cuckoo family represented in the British Isles in the common cuckoo (C. canorus). A medium-sized bird of about twelve inches (30 cm), the nondescript, grey dorsal plumage of the common cuckoo stands in contrast to its boldly barred black and white underside. Common cuckoos appear in the British Isles in the warmer months to breed, at which time they voice their distinctive, namesake call: khu-koo. Given their smaller size and minor viability as a prey species, it is not terribly surprising that cuckoos are generally unidentified in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England.

169  For a collocation of hroc glossing garrulus and graculus, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 104. For an example of hroc in Psalm 147, see The Vitellius Psalter, ed. Rosier, 358. 170  See Lacey, “When Is a Hroc Not a Hroc,” 151.

171  Hooke, Pre-Conquest Charter-Bounds of Devon and Cornwall, 181. 172  Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, ed. Kemble, 3:301.



Animal Entries

43

Of apparently more interest to people of the time was the cuckoo’s most characteristic behavioural trait: its habit of brood parasitism. In this reproductive strategy, the cuckoo lays its egg in the active nest of another bird species. In the British Isles, these species are most often the dunnock (Prunella modularis), the reed-warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus), and the meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis).173 Cuckoos can employ a combination of stealthy, rapid egg-laying with a mimicking of the host’s eggs in order to encourage the acceptance of its own egg by the host.174 Once hatched, the cuckoo chick ejects the host’s remaining eggs or chicks, ensuring a monopoly on the host’s feeding behaviour. The people of early medi­eval England might not have readily or often seen cuckoos, despite the bird’s distinctive call, as cuckoos are solitary, fairly drab-coloured birds. However, the cuckoo does have a significant profile in Old English literature, likely thanks to the long literary history acknowledging the cuckoo’s parasitic behaviour.175 Ironically, the bird isn’t specifically named in its most high-profile appearance in Old English literature: Riddle 9 of the Exeter Book. The cuckoo is unnamed in the text, simply enough, because it is the unspoken answer to the enigma. However, the clues in the text clearly point to the cuckoo’s piratical brooding behaviour. The cuckoo describes being raised among “ungesibbum” (unrelated) nest mates, and the host mother who takes it in ultimately raises “swæsra þy læs / suna ond dohtra, þy heo swa dyde (fewer of her own dear sons and daughters since she did so).176 Even if this depiction of the cuckoo chick is derived from the literary characterization of species, it need not preclude the possibility of observed natural behaviour in the wild by the people of the period. An indication of this first-hand observation may be found in the cuckoo’s Old English name: geac. The name is an onomatopoetic reference to a secondary call of the bird and points to a familiarity with the cuckoo in the early medi­eval English environment.177 The people of early medi­eval England seemed to take meaning from the bird’s call depending on its context. In Old English poems such as “The Seafarer” and “The Husband’s Message,” the texts focus on the despair of exile, and the speakers subsequently reference the cuckoo’s call as mournful. The lonely narrator of “The Seafarer” cites the bird’s “geomran reorde” (sorrowful voice), and “the exiled spouse of The Husband’s Message” hears “galan geomorne geac” (the sad cuckoo sing).178 Alternately, in the Old English “Guthlac A,” as the saint returns home after escaping demons that were assaulting him, “geacas gear budon” (the cuckoos announced the spring).179 Not only does this reference mark a positive association with the bird’s call, but it also 173  See Glue and Morgan, “Cuckoo Hosts in British Habitats,” 187–88. 174  See Nick Davies, “Cuckoo Adaptations,” 1–14. 175  See Neville, “Fostering the Cuckoo,” 432.

176  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:294–95.

177  On the etymo­logy of geac, see Whitman, “The Birds of Old English Literature,” 162. 178  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:234, 358.

179  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:137.

44

Animal Entries

nods to the cuckoo’s migratory patterns, recognizing the bird’s temporary residence in the British Isles during the warmer seasons. The cuckoo is a bird that seems to have lived a dual life for the early medi­eval English. It was a creature of the literary tradition, whose natural behaviour was enshrined in well-known texts. Yet it was also an observable visitor to the early medi­eval English ecosystem, and seems to have been recognized both in its natural migratory behaviour and by its distinctive song. Further Reading

Bitterli, Dieter. “The ‘Cuckoo’ in the Collectanea of Pseudo-Bede: An Unnoticed Latin Analogue to Exeter Book Riddle 9.” Notes and Queries 56 (2009): 481–82. —— . “The Survival of the Dead Cuckoo: Exeter Book Riddle 9.” In Riddles, Knights and Crossdressing Saints: Essays on Medi­eval English Language and Literature, edited by Thomas Honegger, 95–114. Variations 5. Bern: Lang, 2004. Davies, Nick. Cuckoo: Cheating by Nature. New York: Bloomsbury, 2015. —— . “Cuckoo Adaptations: Trickery and Tuning.” Journal of Zoo­logy 284 (2011): 1–14. Glue, David, and Robert Morgan. “Cuckoo Hosts in British Habitats.” Bird Study 19 (1972): 187–92. Neville, Jennifer. “Fostering the Cuckoo: Exeter Book Riddle 9.” The Review of English Studies 58 (2007): 431–46. Warren, Michael J. “A New Latin Analogue to the Cuckoo-Motif in The Seafarer and The Husband’s Message.” Medium Ævum 88, no. 1 (2019): 129–33.

 CURLEW  OE: hwilpe  |  Species: Numenius arquata

The Eurasian curlew

(N. arquata) is the largest wading bird in the British Isles. A member of the sandpiper family, the species ranges across Europe and southern Asia. It prefers tidal flats and estuaries, where it probes the mud for small invertebrates and crustaceans. At about two feet (60 cm) in length, the curlew is a medium-sized bird of grey and brown patterned plumage. The most remarkable aspect of the curlew’s appearance is its long, narrow, distinctively curved bill, which can extend to over six inches (15 cm) in length. The curlew was certainly viewed as an edible bird in early medi­eval England. Its remains are found at numerous sites that date to the period, sometimes in great numbers. At one such site in Portchester, nearly half of the over 200 wild-bird bones found were those of the curlew.180 Curlew appears to have been one of the more common game birds to grace the early medi­eval table in England. However, what appeared to most attract the attention of the authors of the period was the curlew’s voice. The Old English name of N. arquata, hwilpe, appears to derive from one of its calls, an emphatic whaup.181 The modern English curlew is taken to come from another of the bird’s call, a high-pitched, musical cour-li.182 In either case, the bird’s 180  See Eastham, “The Bird Bones,” 295.

181  This call is also cited as the source of the Scots name for N. arquata, the whaup. See Warren, Birds in Medi­eval English Poetry, 38n37. 182  See Peterson, Mountfort, and Hollom, A Field Guide to Birds of Britain and Europe, 116.



Animal Entries

45

songs were apparently what made an impact on the mind of early medi­eval poets. This impact is on display in the bird’s sole appearance in the Old English corpus: within the poem “The Seafarer.” As the narrator ponders the loneliness of exile, he hears “huilpan sweg fore hleahtor wera” (the curlew’s cry instead of the laughter of men).183 Although the poet bemoans his travels “ofer holma gelagu” (over the expanse of the seas), he also mentions being within range of the shore as his ship “be clifum cnossað” (tosses by the cliffs).184 Such proximity to the waters’ edge could conceivably put him within earshot of the coastal curlew. The loneliness of the curlew’s cry reflects both its role in establishing the mood of “The Seafarer” and its isolated condition in the vernacular. Further Reading

Franks, Samantha E., David J. T. Douglas, Simon Gillings, and James W. Pearce-Higgins. “Environmental Correlates of Breeding Abundance and Population Change of Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata in Britain.” Bird Study 64, no. 3 (2017): 393–409. Peterson, Roger Tory, Guy Mountfort, and P. A. D. Hollom. A Field Guide to Birds of Britain and Europe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993.

 CUTTLEFISH  OE: cudele, wasescite

Species: Sepia officinalis, Loligo forbesi, L. vulgaris

Both vernacular cuttlefish

terms appear in a single Old English–Latin glossary, glossing the Latin sepia (squid).185 The words appear nowhere else in the Old English corpus, nor do the animal’s remains seem to occur in the archaeo­logical record. Although the common cuttlefish (S. officinalis), as the name implies, commonly can be found in the shallow waters around the British Isles during its warm-weather spawning season, it does not seem to have figured largely in Old English texts. Although cudele has been suggested as a possible solution for Exeter Book Riddle 74, it has not been widely accepted as such.186 Old English cudele might also apply to squid: the common squid (L. vulgaris) and the veined squid (L. forbesi) are common in British waters. However, these squid tend to live at greater depths and farther from shore than S. officinalis. Therefore, it seems even more unlikely that the early medi­eval English would have had any significant interaction with the squid species. Further Reading

Gerhardt, Mia I. “Knowledge in Decline: Ancient and Medi­eval Information on ‘Ink-Fishes’ and Their Habits.” Vivarium 4 (1966): 144–75. Niles, John D. “Exeter Book Riddle 74 and the Play of the Text.” Anglo-Saxon England 27 (1998), 169–207. 183  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:232. On the identification of the curlew based on its call, see Goldsmith, “The Seafarer and the Birds,” 228–29. 184  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:234, 232.

185  See “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 229. 186  See, for example, Paz, Nonhuman Voices, 78.

46

Animal Entries

 DEER  OE: heorot, heort  HART  OE: heorot, heort  BUCK  OE: bucca  STAG  OE: heorot, heort, hea-deor, stacga, pohha/pocca  HIND  OE: hind  ROEDEER  OE: ra, rah-deor, eolh, ræge  FALLOW DEER  OE: eolh, fealu187 Species: Cervus elaphus, Capreolus capreolus, Dama dama

The people of

early medi­eval England were familiar with three species of deer: red deer (C. elaphus), roe deer (C. capreolus), and fallow deer (D. dama), which were imported from the Continent. Red deer are the largest native species, averaging 48 inches (1.2 m) at the shoulder and weighing in at about four hundred pounds (180 kg). Roe deer are quite smaller, typically reaching only a 28-inch (70 cm) shoulder height and a weight of fifty or so pounds (22 kg). Fallow deer, which may have been imported as early as the first century from central Europe by the Romans, split the size difference and can average 36 inches at the shoulder and weigh somewhere in the neighbourhood of two hundred pounds. It should come as no surprise that in the early medi­eval period, as is true today, such large mammals would be targeted for hunting. Not only would their flesh supply a significant yield of dietary protein, but their skin, bones, and antlers could also provide the raw material for a great variety of products. However, the number of deer remains found in archaeo­logical sites from this period in England point to relatively light harvesting of these wild creatures compared to the processing of domestic animals. The excavations at West Stow, dating to the fifth and sixth centuries, are well known among archaeo­logists for having produced a large number of animal remains, but only limited numbers of deer were recorded at the site. Of the more than 175,000 animal remains identified at West Stow, for example, less than hundred were deer (and then only C. elaphus and C. capreolus).188 While the hunting and use of deer between the fifth and eleventh centuries in England appears to have increased, the harvesting of the respective species seems to have bifurcated along temporal and socio-economic lines. Deer remains at earlier and lower-status settlements reflect a harvesting practice geared more towards communal food production, while later and higher-status sites indicate the spoils of deer hunting as a marker of elite society.189 Conversely, iso187  The definition of fealu as referring to the fallow deer is a tentative one. See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “fealu.” 188  See Crabtree, West Stow, 6.

189  On the progression of hunting and distribution practices, see Sykes, “Woods and the Wild,” 328–40; Sykes, “The Impact of the Normans,” 162–75.



Animal Entries

47

lated instances of greater deer consumption at lower-status sites later in the period may indicate a reversion to game as a food source when domestic production failed.190 In addition to providing venison, antlers and hides were other important resources harvested from deer. Antlers were used for fashioning a variety of items, but combs predominate in artifact collections.191 The finely-sawn teeth of these combs would certainly allow for the hygienic removal of any unwanted residents in one’s hair. Deer hide may also have served a range of purposes, but was probably used infrequently where the skins of domestic animals were available. At the leatherworking centre of early medi­eval York, for example, only one scrap-piece out of tens of thousands of artifacts and scraps tentatively has been identified as deer-hide.192 Overall, the archaeo­ logical record of early medi­eval England shows broad yet surprisingly shallow use of deer as a resource as compared to domestic animals. Just as deer seem to be a secondary animal resource in early medi­eval England, they also occur in largely formulaic roles in the vernacular texts of the period. They most commonly appear in translations of Latin texts and the Latin–Old English glossaries. In these works, Old English deer terms like heorot almost always gloss the Latin cervus.193 Only a few recipes including deer products appear in medical texts reflecting native practice. For example, the Herbarium suggests one treatment for snakebite is to take “peucedanum  betonican  heortes smeoruw oððe þæt mearh  eced, do tosomne, lege þonne to þære wunde” (hog’s fennel and betony and a hart’s marrow or grease and vinegar, put [them] together, then lay them on the wound).194 While this may or may not have been effective as a treatment, it is at least some slight indication of the use of deer products at the time. Counterintuitively, two vernacular examples of the concrete use of deer products occur in highly allusive texts: the riddles. Two Exeter Book riddles, Riddle 88 and Riddle 93, both speak in the voice of a deer antler that comes to be fashioned into an inkpot. Interestingly, both riddles appear to reference antlers that were foraged after they were shed and not taken as a consequence of hunting. The antler in Riddle 93, for example, explains that it rode upon the deer’s head “oþþæt him þone gleawstol gingran broþor / min agnade  mec on earde adraf” (until my younger brother took that joyous home from me and drove me from my place).195 This “younger brother” is the beginning of next year’s antler growth, displacing the current year’s rack. Even though the antlers in these riddles were not harvested in the hunt, they are acknowledged as 190  See Hagen, Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink, 132–33.

191  See Riddler and Trzaska-Nartowski, “Chanting Upon a Dunghill,” 133–36.

192  See Mould, Carlisle, and Cameron, Craft, Industry and Everyday Life, 3267.

193  See, for example, Old English heort and hind for Latin cervus and cerva, respectively, in Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. On the distinctions in deer terms, see Meaney, “The Hunted and the Hunters,” 96.

194  The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, 142. On the local character of the Herbarium, see Van Arsdall, Medi­eval Herbal Remedies, 86–95.

195  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:381. On the literary depiction of the lifecourse of the antler in these riddles, see Soper, 852–53, 58–59.

48

Animal Entries

symbols of nobility and power. The antler in Riddle 88 proclaims that “eard wæs þy weorðra þe wit on stodan / hyrstum þy hyrra” (the land was the worthier on which we two stood, exalted in adornments).196 These riddles provide an interesting confluence of the early medi­eval reverence for the symbolism deer antlers and the quotidian use to which they could be put. There are a few instances where deer, in their entirety, truly capture the vernacular spotlight. In providing his overview of the island in his Historia, Bede defines the island in terms of them, praising England as “mære on huntunge heorta  rana” (renowned in respect to the hunting of deer and roe-bucks).197 Ælfric’s Colloquy goes into yet more detail, identifying the varieties of deer as the first and most numerous types of wild prey mentioned. When asked what game he takes, the hunter of the text replies, “Ic gefeo heortas  baras  rann  rægan  hwilon haran” (I catch harts and boars and roe-buck and roe and sometimes hares).198 As opposed to stalking the deer on foot, or even pursuing them on horseback, the hunter catches deer by driving them into a net: “getihte hundas mine þæt wildeor hig ehton, oþþæt hig becuman to þam nettan unforsceawodlice” (I urge my dogs so that they chase the animals, until they [the prey] come into that net unexpectedly).199 Here, Ælfric realistically describes the technique of driving deer into waiting entrapment, which was the standard model of pre-Conquest deer hunting.200 More than simply prey, deer were also accorded a measure of cultural regard in the vernacular literature. The most notable example is in Beowulf, when the naming of Hrothgar’s mead-hall is recalled: “healærna mæst scop him Heort naman” (the greatest of hall-buildings, he named it Heorot [Hart/Stag]). 201 Later in the poem, when describing how even the bravest creature would avoid Grendel’s mere, the poet claims that even the “heorot hornum trum” (the stag strong in horns) would rather die on its banks than escape to the lake’s treacherous waters.202 Here the deer symbolize strength and nobility in the poem, even if Heorot ultimately burns and the stag is pulled down by the pursuing hounds. Deer were a not insignificant cultural resource in early medi­eval England. Although their utility to people of the time did not match that of domestic livestock, their value as both a material and symbolic resource was recognized in vernacular texts. They were emblematic of the wildlife beyond the confines of human society, even as they played a recognizable role within it. 196  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:377.

197  The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, 1:30.

198  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 24. On the confusing doubling of “roe” terms, ra and ræge, see Sykes and Carden, “Were Fallow Deer Spotted,” 142–43. 199  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 23.

200  See Cummins, The Art of Medi­eval Hunting, 51–52.

201  Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 5. On the significance of the name as hart, see Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 119–20n78. 202  Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 47.



Further Reading

Animal Entries

49

Cummins, John. The Art of Medi­eval Hunting: The Hound and the Hawk. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988. Flight, Tim. “Aristocratic Deer Hunting in Late Anglo-Saxon England: A Reconsideration, Based upon the Vita S. Dvnstani.” Anglo-Saxon England 45 (2016): 311–31. Higley, Sarah Lynn. “‘Aldor on Ofre,’ or the Reluctant Hart: A Study of Liminality in ‘Beowulf.’” Neuphilo­logische Mitteilungen 87, no. 3 (1986): 342–53. Marvin, William Perry. “Heorot and the Ethos of the Kill.” In Hunting Law and Ritual in Medi­ eval English Literature, 17–45. Cambridge: Brewer, 2006. Soper, Harriet. “Reading the Exeter Riddles as Life-Writing.” Review of English Studies 68, no. 287 (2017): 841–65. Sykes, Naomi. “Deer, Land, Knives and Halls: Social Change in Early Medi­eval England.” Antiquaries Journal 90 (2010): 175–93. —— . “European Fallow Deer.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 51–58. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. Sykes, Naomi, and Ruth F. Carden. “Were Fallow Deer Spotted (OE *pohha/*pocca) in AngloSaxon England? Reviewing the Evidence for Dama dama dama in Early Medi­eval Europe.” Medi­eval Archaeo­logy 55 (2011): 139–62.

 DOG  OE: hund, docg  BITCH  OE: bicc, tife

 HUNTING DOG  OE: ryðða, roð-hund, headeor-hund, ræcc, wæl-hwelp  WHELP  OE: hwelp  GREYHOUND  OE: grighund  MAD DOG  OE: wede-hund Species: Canis lupus familiaris

The domestic dog

(C. l. familiaris), a subspecies of the grey wolf (C. lupus), has a long history in England. The species had been on the British Isles since at least the Mesolithic and was domesticated long before the early medi­eval period.203 Dogs of medi­ eval England were categorized more in terms of functions than breed. Generally, larger dogs are thought to have been working dogs and smaller dogs may have been kept as pets. The smaller dogs seem to shrink in number following the end of Roman Britain and reappear in significant numbers towards the latter part of the early medi­eval period. In the interim, most dogs appear to have been on the larger side, standing two feet (60 cm) or slightly more at the shoulder, about the size of a contemporary German shepherd.204 The archaeo­logical record suggests the status of dogs in early medi­eval England. For example, the excavations at West Stow yielded more than six hundred domestic canine bones from twenty-seven structures across the settlement, speaking to the 203  See Yalden, The History of British Mammals, 99.

204  See Harcourt, “The Dog in Prehistoric and Early Historic Britain,” 168.

50

Animal Entries

ubiquity of dogs at the site.205 The widespread presence of dogs throughout the human habitations at this locale points to an extensive association between humans and canines. However, the mixture of these material remains does not necessarily indicate the existence of today’s person–pet bond. Although the remains of dogs at the site did not show any sign of human butchering practices, indicating that these animals were not used for food or skins, at least one dog showed evidence of having died from untreated injuries.206 Such remains suggest that dogs were likely seen from a more utilitarian point of view, as work animals, rather than as sympathetically-viewed companion animals. The image of dogs as working animals is supported in the vernacular texts of the time. Of course, the most common canine gloss in the Latin–Old English glossaries is the Old English hund for the Latin canis.207 However, some specialized vocabulary paints a more detailed picture. While dogs were not discussed in terms of breeds, they were identified by size and function. The Latin molossus refers to a large dog, and it is glossed by Old English terms such as roð-hund and ryðða.208 Hunting dogs also had specialized names, presumably reflective of their primary function. These descriptive names include the headeor-hund (stag-hound), wæl-hwelp (slaughter-whelp), and the raecc (scent-hound).209 Hunting canines can be seen in action in a number of Old English texts. Perhaps the most overt description of canine–human relations comes from Ælfric’s Colloquy. For example, the shepherd character in the text watches over his flock, which demands that he “stande ofer hie on hæte  on cyle mid hundum” (and stand over them in the heat and in the cold with dogs).210 Similarly, the hunter character uses dogs to help him do his job: “getihte hundas mine þæt wildeor hig ehton, oþþæt hig becuman to þam nettan unforsceawodlice” (I urge my dogs so that they chase the animals, until they [the prey] come into that net unexpectedly).211 Clearly, dogs are integral partners in some important early medi­eval human occupations in England. However, the vernacular texts do not overtly attest to a conception of dogs as valued companion animals. While numerous laws pertain to the safeguarding of livestock, dogs are conspicuously absent. The only place dogs appear in Old English legal texts is in the law code (Domboc) of King Alfred. There, the focus is not on protecting the animal, but rather on rendering compensation to an injured party if a “hund mon toslite oððe abite” (dog rends or bites someone).212 Such injuries appear to be a 205  See Crabtree, West Stow, 62. 206  Crabtree, West Stow, 62.

207  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309.

208  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossary,” ed. Stryker, 301.

209  See, respectively, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:447; The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:299; “The Minor Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Quinn, 51. 210  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 22. 211  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 23.

212  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:62.



Animal Entries

51

regular enough occurrence that the Old English Herbarium has over ten treatments for dog bite.213 Alfred’s statute relies on an accepted notion of an individual person being responsible for a specific dog. This indirect evidence suggests that dogs did have individual relationships with people, even if the animals under consideration weren’t particularly well trained. The image of the early medi­eval dog in England, as presented in the vernacular writings of the period, emerges as that of a useful creature, if not as thoroughly integrated into the household as modern domestic canines. Effective as sentinels and hunting partners, dogs appeared to have been valued inasmuch as they helped humans at their labours. While pet lapdogs may have reappeared towards the end of the early Middle Ages, the bulk of the English vernacular and archaeo­logical evidence from the period points towards larger working dogs as representative of the species. Further Reading

Crabtree, Pam J. “A Note on the Role of Dogs in Anglo-Saxon Society: Evidence from East Anglia.” International Journal of Osteoarchaeo­logy 25, no. 6 (2015): 976–80. Harcourt, R. A. “The Dog in Prehistoric and Early Historic Britain.” Journal of Archaeo­logical Science 1, no. 2 (1974): 151–75.

 DOLPHIN  OE: mere-swin

 PORPOISE  OE: mere-swin Species: Delphinus delphis, Lagenorhynchus acutus, L. albirostris, Phocoena phocoena, Orcinus orca, Stenella coeruleoalba, Tursiops truncatus

Among the nine species of dolphins that are currently more usual visitors to the waters of the British Isles, five are the most commonly sighted: the bottlenose dolphin (T. truncatus), the common dolphin (D. delphis), the striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba), the Atlantic white-sided dolphin (L. acutus), and the white-beaked dolphin (L. albirostris). While the rarely seen killer whale (O. orca) is the largest member of the dolphin family at lengths of up to twenty-six feet (7.8 m), most other species of these marine mammals typically measure from six to twelve feet (2 to 4 m) in length, with D. delphis on the smaller side and T. truncatus usually the largest. The only true porpoise species present in these seas is the harbour porpoise (P. phocoena), which is smaller than its dolphin cousins, reaching lengths of up to six feet (2 m). With the notable exception of the bold black-and-white markings of the killer whales, the remainder of these cetaceans have dorsal colourations that range from grey to black, offset by pale undersides. The only striking variation is the incorporation of yellow pigmentation on the sides of the common and the Atlantic white-sided dolphin. Generally, dolphins would be a scarce resource for the early medi­eval English. However, where the conditions were right, they could be taken in large numbers. Such was the case at Flixborough, where more than a hundred and fifty specimens of bottle213  See, for example, The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, 2–3.

52

Animal Entries

nose dolphin remains were recorded.214 Given the numbers involved, archaeo­logists suspect that Flixborough may have been the site of an active cetacean fishery and not just a locale for the opportunistic scavenging of strandings.215 While the bulk of dolphin references occur in the Latin–Old English glossaries, glossing the Latin dolphin–terms delphin or bacharius, the creature does make a few other appearances in the Old English corpus that alludes to its role as a marine resource for the early medi­eval English.216 Bede recognizes the dolphin as one of the native species of the British Isles when he asserts that “her beoþ oft fangene seolas  hronas and mereswyn” (here are often caught seals and whales and dolphins).217 Likewise, Ælfric has the fisherman character of the Colloquy cite the mereswyn as one of his potential catches, which includes “hærincgas  leaxas, mereswyn  stirian” (herrings and salmon, dolphin and sturgeon).218 Even charters of the time cite dolphin as an animal resource. A survey of Tidenham contains mention of a food-rent stipulating that selected animal products of the estate, including “styria  mereswyn, healic oðer sæfisc” (sturgeon and dolphin, herring or sea-fish), be rendered unto the lord of the manor.219 Although not average fare, dolphins were certainly recognized as a valuable prey animal by the early medi­eval English. Further Reading

Brereton, Tom, Duncan Jones, Keith Leeves, Kate Lewis, Rachel Davies, and Trudy Russel. “Population Structure, Mobility and Conservation of Common Bottlenose Dolphin off South-West England from Photo-Identification Studies.” Journal of the Marine Bio­logical Association of the United Kingdom 98, no. 5 (2018): 1055–63. Coombs, Ellen J., Rob Deaville, Richard C. Sabin, Louise Allan, Mick O’Connell, Simon Berrow, Brian Smith et al. “What Can Cetacean Stranding Records Tell Us? A Study of UK and Irish Cetacean Diversity over the Past 100 Years.” Marine Mammal Science 35, no. 4 (2019): 1527–55.

 DORMOUSE  OE: sisemus  |  Species: Muscardinus avellanarius

The lone dormouse

species native to England is the hazel dormouse (M. avellanarius). On the Continent, this species of dormouse ranges from France and Germany across central and southern Europe and into eastern Russia. Although it can reach a length of up to six inches (15 cm), including the tail, the dormouse was probably seldom seen by the people of early medi­eval England. It is nocturnal and arboreal, usually forag214  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 37.

215  Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 240. See also Szabo, Monstrous Fishes, 183–86.

216  For a collocation of these glossary terms, see “The Minor Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Quinn, 20. 217  The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, 1:26. 218  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29.

219  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 3:102.



Animal Entries

53

ing above the height of a human’s head, making it difficult to spot among the dark, leafy branches of its home. The dormouse is equally hard to find in the Old English corpus. It appears only as an entry in vocabularies, glossaries, and grammars. Therein, the Old English sisemus is simply a gloss for the Latin glis (dormouse).220 The lack of the dormouse’s presence in Old English texts likely mirrors the limited interaction with, or knowledge of, this small, secretive mammal. Further Reading

Bright, Paul W., and Pat A. Morris. “A Review of the Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) in England and a Conservation Programme to Safeguard Its Future.” Hystrix 6 (1995): 295–302. Skeat, Walter W. “Dormouse.” Notes and Queries, ser. 4, 2 (1868): 190.

 DOVE  OE: culfre, wudu-culfre, cusceota  |  Species: Columba livia, C. oenas, C. palumbus, Streptopelia decaocto, S. risoria, S. turtur

The Old English word culfre could refer to any, or all, of the five species of the family Columbidae found in the British Isles, representing what are today called either pigeons or doves: the rock dove (Columba livia), the stock dove (C. oenas), the wood pigeon (C. palumbus), the collared dove (S. decaocto), the Barbary dove (S. risoria), and the turtle dove (S. turtur). All of these birds have similar profiles, being somewhat stout and rounded, and range around a foot (30 cm) in length (with wood pigeons running up to 16 inches (40 cm) and turtle doves only achieving about 10 inches (25 cm)). The rock dove and stock dove are quite similar in plumage, being mostly grey with an iridescent collar. The wood pigeon is patterned much the same, but is readily distinguished by its larger size. The colouration of the collared dove is nearly identical to that of the Barbary dove and runs more to a pinkish buff, with both of them sporting a bold, black collar. The turtle dove shades to the darker brown, with a distinctive patch of black and white stripes on its neck. All of these birds have ranges across most of temperate Europe and appear to be native species, perhaps bolstered in the British Isles through domestication during the Roman period.221 As granivores, these birds would have been common visitors to fields, proving to be nuisances at both the sowing and harvesting of grain crops.222 Archaeo­ logical evidence shows that wood pigeons and both rock and stock doves were used as food items during the early medi­eval period, although they do not appear to have been systematically domesticated at that time.223 All told, the six dove species represent one 220  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. 221  See Yalden and Albarella, The History of British Birds, 105.

222  See Zadoks, Crop Protection in Medi­eval Agriculture, 90–91.

223  See Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, 103.

54

Animal Entries

of the larger taxa of birds found in early medi­eval archaeo­logical matrixes, suggesting an abiding familiarity with the birds by the people of the time.224 The doves and pigeons have a commensurately high profile in Old English texts, but there is limited precise termino­logy in the vernacular to distinguish between the species. The glossary terms wudu-culfre and cusceote denote the wood pigeon, but do not provide any other literary context for C. palumbus. The turtledove appears in the form of a direct borrowing of the Latin turtur from biblical sources.225 For most of the Old English corpus, the bulk of references to doves are in Christian contexts.226 The people of the time largely reiterated the longstanding metaphor of the dove as symbol of innocence, peace, and the divine spirit, as can be seen in the prose Solomon and Saturn: “‘Saga me hwilc fugel ys selust.’ ’Ic ðe secge, culfre ys selust; heo getacnað þone halegan gast’” (“Tell me which bird is best.” “I say to you, the dove is best; she betokens the Holy Spirit”).227 Ælfric further explains this association in his homily on Pentecost: “se halga gast on culfran anlicnysse gesewen bufon criste for þan ðe he wæs drohtniende on ðisre worulde mid bilewitnysse  unscæððinysse  gesibsumnysse” (the Holy Ghost is seen in the dove’s likeness above Christ because he was living in this world with innocence, harmlessness, and peacefulness).228 The association between the folk-knowledge of the dove’s gentle nature and its spiritual purity makes it a common symbol in early medi­eval Christian texts. The early medi­eval English placed significant cultural value on the dove as a Christian symbol. Even so, the people of the time were also quite aware of the actual birds as members of their ecosystem. Although the various species of dove had important cultural associations for these people, the veneration of the dove did not stop the early medi­eval English from including these birds as lesser fare for their tables. Further Reading

Jerolmack, Colin. The Global Pigeon: A Comparative Ethno­graphy of Human–Animal Relations in Urban Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Morgan, Gwendolyn. “The Old English ‘Partridge’ Reconsidered.” In Geardagum 17 (1996): 1–7. Morgan, Gwendolyn, and Brian McAllister. “‘The Dove’ and ‘A Prayer’: Two Anglo-Saxon Poems.” Literature and Belief 14 (1994): 57–65. Zadoks, Jan C. Crop Protection in Medi­eval Agriculture: Studies in Pre-Modern Organic Agriculture. Leiden: Sidestone, 2013.

224  See Dobney and Jaques, “Avian Signatures for Identity and Status,” 11. 225  Cf. Psalm 83:4 and Luke 2:24.

226  On dove and pigeon nomenclature, see Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 495–96. 227  The Prose Solomon and Saturn, ed. Cross and Hill, 30.

228  Homily 22 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 359.



 DUCK  OE: ened, dop-ened, duce

Animal Entries

55

Species: Anas platyrhynchos, A. crecca, A. acuta, A. clypeata, A. penelope, A. querquedula, A. strepera, Aythya ferina, A. fuligula, A. marila, Bucephalus clangula, Clangula hyemalis, Melanitta nigra, M. fusca, Mergellus albelus, Mergus merganser, M. serrator, Netta rufina, Somateria mollissima, Tadorna ferruginea, T. tadorna

As an island

ecosystem, the British Isles have a wide range of duck species as either year-round or seasonal residents. The most common species for the early medi­ eval English would likely have been the mallard (A. platyrhynchos) and the teal (A. crecca), which lie at either end of the size spectrum of modern English ducks, from the two-foot-long mallard (60 cm) to the one-foot-long teal. Other species possibly identified as a duck at that time may well have included a long list of more or less duck-shaped waterbirds found in the early medi­eval archaeo­logical record: the pintail (A. acuta), the shoveler (A. clypeata), the wigeon (A. penelope), the garagney (A. querquedula), the gadwall (A. strepera), the pochard (Aythya ferina), the tufted duck (A. fuligula), the scaup (A. marila), the goldeneye (B. clangula), the long-tailed duck (C. hyemalis), the velvet scoter (M. fusca), the smew (M. albelus), the goosander (M. merganser), the red-breasted merganser (M. serrator), the red-crested pochard (N. rufina), the eider (S. mollissima), the ruddy shelduck (T. ferruginea), and the shelduck (T. tadorna).229 Many of these species would have been relatively common on the British coasts and wetlands. Unfortunately, archaeo­logists have found it all but impossible to distinguish species variation among the duck-bone remains.230 Overall, ducks represent only a fraction of waterfowl remains present in early medi­eval sites in England, eclipsed almost 10:1 by geese alone.231 This is not to say that ducks are underrepresented relative to the whole of bird remains at period sites. At a site like Flixborough, for example, duck remains number just about three hundred specimens, a third larger than those of the crane (Grus grus), a relatively well-represented wild bird.232 While not as numerous as domestic fowl species, ducks appear in greater numbers than many other wild birds, which is fitting for a group of birds that straddle the border between the domesticated and the wild.233 The most common Old English word for duck was ened, although there is one reference in a charter that traces a property boundary past a “ducan seaðe” (duck’s hole).234 The Old English ened occurs primarily in glossaries for the Latin anas (wild duck).235 Only once does ened appear outside the glossaries, but that is in Book 2 of Bald’s Leech229  See Yalden and Albarella, The History of British Birds, 205–7.

230  See Yalden and Albarella, The History of British Birds, 10. 231  See Albarella, “Alternate Fortunes,” 251–52.

232  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 38–39.

233  See Serjeantson, “Birds: Food and a Mark of Status,” 133. 234  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 3:486.

235  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307.

56

Animal Entries

book, taken to reflect Continental practices rather than insular ones. Despite the fact that the archaeo­logical record indicates the eating of duck in early medi­eval England, the text refers to duck as one of the “fuglas þa þe heard flæsc habbað” (fowls that have hard flesh) and might be offered to someone with an immoderate appetite.236 Ducks were clearly not seen as premier food-species in the eyes of the early medi­ eval English. Although occasionally taken, or perhaps raised, as food-animals, they were at best second-tier choices. The only extra-lexico­graphical notice of them in the vernacular is disparaging, seemingly fitting for an animal considered a second-rate food source. Further Reading

Albarella, Umberto. “Alternate Fortunes? The Role of Domestic Ducks and Geese from Roman to Medi­eval Times in Britain.” Documenta Archaeobio­logiae 3, no. 4 (2005): 249–58. Ogilvie, M. A. Ducks of Britain and Europe. Berkhamsted: Poyser, 1975.

 EAGLE  OE: earn, guþ-hafoc, guþ-fugel

Species: Haliaeetus albicilla, Aquila chrysaetos

As large, impressive birds, the two eagle species of the British Isles, the white-

tailed eagle (H. albicilla) and the golden eagle (A. chrysaetos), were quite well-known to the people of early medi­eval England. Approaching three feet (90 cm) in length with wingspans in excess of six feet, these raptors were among the largest of birds in the land, with H. albicilla being the larger of the two. The white-tailed eagle is also the more widely distributed species, at home by the sea or inland, while the golden eagle tends to inhabit upland habitats. As such, people have been more likely to encounter white-tailed eagles, simply as a consequence of the geo­graphical distribution of the two species. Both birds consume smaller mammals and scavenge carrion, but the white-tailed eagle can take somewhat larger prey and adds fish to its diet as well. The archaeo­logical record for these birds in early medi­eval English contexts is relatively scant. Typically, remains are found in the single digits at any given site. While eagle remains were found in nearly thirty percent of Romano-British sites, they occur in only about five percent of early medi­eval sites in the British Isles.237 Likely not food items, these birds may have been used for decorative or symbolic purposes.238 As opposed to their rather low profile in the archaeo­logical record, eagles feature quite prominently in the vernacular literature. Eagles are one of the few creatures that can be identified to species in Old English texts. This identification occurs through its appearance as one of the “beasts of battle” that appear in epic poetry such as Beowulf and the Old English Exodus.239 The “beasts of battle” is a poetic motif in which the 236  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:196.

237  See Holmes, “King of the Birds,” 176. 238  See Holmes, “King of the Birds,” 184.

239  For a list of the eagle’s appearances as a “beast of battle,” see Griffith, “Convention and



Animal Entries

57

eagle, along with the wolf and the raven, is associated with a coming or concluded battle, where it will scavenge among the dead. In the “Battle of Brunanburh,” the poetic entry for the year 973 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the eagle is described as “earn æftan hwit” (the eagle white from behind).240 The only carrion-eating eagle with that colouration in the British Isles would be H. albicilla, the white-tailed eagle. The eagle here serves a double function as both symbolic and animal, metaphorical meaning coupled with realistic bio­logical detail. The same can be seen in Ælfric’s homily on the life of St. Cuthbert, where an eagle superficially represents God’s beneficence. Wondering at how he and his companion might be fed, Cuthbert spies an eagle flying overhead and exclaims, “La hwæt se ælmihtiga god mæg foreaðe unc þurh ðisne earn æt foresceawian” (Lo, Almighty God can very easily provide food for us by means of this eagle).241 Soon enough, they find that “se earn on ðam ofre gesæt mid fisce geflogen þone he ðærrihte gefeng” (the eagle sat on the shore, having flown there with a fish he had just caught).242 On the surface, this appears to be an open and shut case of an animal serving as a symbolic embodiment of God’s power and beneficence towards His saints.243 Yet even here there are natural behaviours at play. In foraging for food, white-tailed eagles seek to expend as little energy as possible. As a result, they employ a sit-and-wait approach in prey capture.244 They typically don’t take flight until they have spotted prey from a perch, and once it is captured, they consume their catch straightaway. Thus, when Cuthbert saw the eagle flying by, it was most likely already on its way to its target, which it would then have taken to the nearest convenient spot for consumption; in this case, the nearby shore. Naturally, when Cuthbert then instructs his companion to “yrn to ðam earne and him of anim þæs fisces dæl ðe he gefangen hæfð unc to gereorde” (run to that eagle and take from him part of the fish that he has caught for our meal) the startled eagle flies off, leaving Cuthbert and his companion, somewhat ironically, to scavenge from the eagle.245 This episode shows plausible natural behaviours of the eagle even as it relates a miraculous tale. The eagle was a noteworthy, if seldom utilized, denizen of the early medi­eval skies above England. Although it may not have provided a great deal of animal products for the people of the period, it did fuel their imaginations. Authors of vernacular literature appear to have recognized the eagle’s observable behaviours, even as they invoked the impressive bird as a symbol of sacred and secular power. Originality,” 185. See also Magoun, “The Theme of the Beasts of Battle,” 81–90; Honegger, “Form and Function,” 291–98. 240  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, vol. 3, ed. Bately, 72.

241  Homily 10 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 84. 242  Homily 10 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 84. 243  See Brooks, Restoring Creation, 138–40.

244  See Nadjafzadeh, Hofer, and Krone, “Sit-and-Wait for Large Prey.”

245  Homily 10 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 84.

58

Animal Entries

Further Reading

Evans, Richard J., Lorcan O’Toole, and D. Philip Whitfield. “The History of Eagles in Britain and Ireland: An Eco­logical Review of Placename and Documentary Evidence from the Last 1500 Years.” Bird Study 59, no. 3 (2012): 335–49. Holmes, Matilda. “King of the Birds! The Changing Role of White-Tailed (Haliaeetus albicilla) and Golden-Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in Britain’s Past.” Archaeofauna 27, no. 1 (2018): 173–94. Nadjafzadeh, Mirjam, Heribert Hofer, and Oliver Krone. “Sit-and-Wait for Large Prey: Foraging Strategy and Prey Choice of White-tailed Eagles.” Journal of Ornitho­logy 157, no. 1 (2016): 165–78. Watson, Jeff. The Golden Eagle. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, 2010. Yalden, Derek W. “The Older History of the White-Tailed Eagle in Britain.” British Birds 100, no. 8 (2007): 471–80.

 EARWIG  OE: earwicga

Species: Apterygida media, Forficula auricularia, F. lesnei, Labia minor

England supports four

native species of earwig. At about a half-inch (12.5 mm) long, the largest and the most ubiquitous species is the aptly named common earwig (F. auricularia). The smallest is similarly well-named: the lesser earwig (L. minor), which measures only a quarter of an inch. Lesne’s earwig (F. lesnei) and the short-winged earwig (Apterygida media) fall between these extremes. All of these species are immediately recognizable thanks to their elongated body shape terminating in pronounced pincers. Omnivorous and nocturnal scavengers, they are typically hidden from human view unless their hiding places are disturbed. Earwigs are fairly common in archaeo­logical contexts in early medi­eval England.246 However, given their reclusive habits and lack of concrete utility for the people of the period, they seem to have made little impact on Old English texts. Besides glossing the Latin auriculum (earwig) in the glossaries, the medical text Bald’s Leechbook nods to the classical folk idea that earwigs can infest human ears.247 Among other ear-related ailments, the text claims to supply remedies “gif wyrmas on earan synd oþþe earwicga” (if worms are in the ears or earwigs).248 Aside from this bit of folk wisdom, earwigs are absent from the Old English textual record. Further Reading

Orpet, Robert J., David W. Crowder, and Vincent P. Jones. “Bio­logy and Management of European Earwig in Orchards and Vineyards.” Journal of Integrated Pest Management 10, no. 1 (2019): article 21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmz019. 246  See, for example, Hall and Kenward, Bio­logical Evidence, 563.

247  On earwig termino­logy, see Cortelyou, Die altenglischen Namen der Insekten, 88–89. For a sample glossary entry, see An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 22. On the earwig imagined as a parasite, see Cameron, Anglo-Saxon Medicine, 12–13. 248  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:38, 40.



Animal Entries

59

 EEL  OE: æl, ælfisc  |  Species: Anguilla anguilla, Conger conger

The two main

species of eel in British waters are the common, or European, eel (A. anguilla) and the conger eel (C. conger). Both fish are long and slender, sporting a continuous dorsal fin along their lengths. They are generally dark above and paler below, and both are scaleless. Instead, they are smooth-skinned and coated with a protective layer of slime. However, this is where the similarities end. C. conger is strictly a marine species that averages about five feet (1.5 m) in length, although they can grow to nearly ten feet long and are the largest known eel by weight. Although present in coastal waters, these nocturnal eels prefer the rocky crevices of the depths, descending as deep as 12,000 feet (3650 m) to spawn. By contrast, although A. anguilla spawns in the sea, it can tolerate both sea-water and the lower salinity of brackish and even fresh water. Typically about two-and-a-half feet (75 cm) long, the common eel favours grassy bottoms or soft sediment as a habitat. These eels frequently find their way into estuaries and freshwater rivers and streams, often travelling in and out of inland waterways with the tides. Eels have long been a food item for humans and the early medi­eval English treated them no differently. There is ample evidence for eel-consumption in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. One survey of the fish-bone remains in archaeo­ logical sites from this period, ranging from Yorkshire to Devon, found eels to outnumber all other fish.249 Evidence for the techno­logy of eel fishing can be found in the form of the remains of fishing weirs, of which there are nearly three dozen examples extant from the early medi­eval period.250 Given A. anguilla’s proclivity to move with the tides, they would be particularly susceptible to weir-based fisheries, which capture travelling fish by using walls or nets to funnel them into waiting traps. Aside from glossaries, where the Old English æl frequently glosses the Latin anguilla (eel) or moraena (moray eel), eels occur most frequently in Old English texts of practical purposes: instructionals, histories, laws, charters, and medicinals.251 In his Colloquy, Ælfric creates the character of the fisherman, who describes his livelihood and lists eels before all the other fish species he catches: “Ælas  hacodas, mynas  æleputan, sceotan  lampredan,  swa wylce swa on wætere swymmaþ” (Eels and pike, minnows and burbot, shoat and lampreys, and whatever swims in the waters).252 Eeling seems to have been the most common form of fishing during the period.253 Bede describes how Bishop Wilfrid saves the South Saxons from starvation by teaching them to fish in the sea, because “ðeod þone cræft þæs fiscaþes ne cuðe, nemne to ælum anum” (the people did not know the craft of fishing, except for eels alone).254 An idea of 249  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 123. 250  See Cooper et al., “A Saxon Fish Weir,” 33–69.

251  For a collocation of eel terms in a Latin–Old English glossary, see “The Minor Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Quinn, 20. 252  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 27.

253  See Preston, “Fact and Fish Tales,” 4–7.

254  The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, 2:304.

60

Animal Entries

the ratio of eels to other fish in early medi­eval insular commerce is evident in the law code of the West Saxon king Ine. In the text, the king commands that ““Æt x hidum…v leaxas,…7 hundteontig æla” (for the maintenance for 10 hides [of land]: [among other provisions] 5 salmon…and a hundred eels are to be provided).255 The Old English charters also show rents to be paid with eels by the thousands. The rent from the fen at Fordham to Thorney Abbey alone added up to over 26,000 eels.256 While no recipes for eel dishes remain, indirect evidence can be found in medical texts. The Old English Leechbook provides a curative diet for shingles sufferers and warns against a patient eating “ferscne æl” (fresh eel).257 Such texts are testament to the eel’s ubiquity as a resource during the period. By all accounts, eels appear to have been among the most commonly consumed fish in early medi­eval England. The documentary and archaeo­logical records provide ample evidence of their widespread presence at the time. Yet while they can be found in a wide range of prosaic texts, the lowly eel does not seem to qualify for the literature of high culture. Given their apparent abundance, and perhaps in no small part due to their humble appearance, the eel is largely relegated to the backwaters of Old English textual culture. Further Reading

Cooper, John, Caira Gianni, Johan Opdebeeck, Chryssanthi Papadopoulou, and Vassilis Tsiairis. “A Saxon Fish Weir and Undated Fish Trap Frames near Ashlett Creek, Hampshire, UK: Static Structures on a Dynamic Foreshore.” Journal of Maritime Archaeo­logy 12, no. 1 (2017): 33–69. Righton, David, and Mandy Roberts. “Eels and People in the United Kingdom.” In Eels and Humans, edited by Katsumi Tsukamoto and Mari Kuroki, 1–12. Humanity and the Sea. Tokyo: Springer Japan, 2014.

 ELEPHANT  OE: elpend, ylpend

Species: Loxodonta africana pharaohensis, L. cyclotis

The elephant, quite

obviously, was not a native of early medi­eval England. Rather, this was an animal that Old English speakers might best know from texts cataloguing the wonders of the far reaches of their world, across Europe and into Asia. The elephants cited in these texts may have been North African elephants (L. africana pharaohensis), a now extinct subspecies of the African elephant (L. africana).258 The North African elephant was a relatively smaller subspecies, standing perhaps only eight feet 255  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:118, 120. 256  Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Robertson, 256. 257  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:88.

258  On the association between the use of war elephants and the problems of taxonomy (L. a. pharaohensis versus L. cyclotis), see Nowak, Walker’s Mammals, 487; Kistler, ix–x. Most recently, genetic research is questioning the identification of elephant species used in the wars of antiquity: see Brandt et al., 82–90.



Animal Entries

61

(2.4 m) at the shoulder. These were the animals supposed to have served as war-beasts in the ancient and classical past. The elephant in closest proximity to the people of early medi­eval England was probably the one that lived at Charlemagne’s court at Aachen from 802 to 810 ce. Charlemagne procured an Indian elephant (Elephas maximus indicus) named Abul Abaz, which he may have desired as a symbol of his royal power.259 While this was indeed a major accomplishment, the animal is not directly remarked upon in Old English literature. As for the archaeo­logical sites in early medi­eval England, rings of elephant ivory, cut transversely across the tusk to serve as bag handles, appear in fifth and sixth-century contexts.260 Of course, these remains reflect the results of foreign trade and not any contact with the animal itself. Unsurprisingly, outside of the glossaries, where various forms of the Old English elpend glosses the Latin elephantus, elephants appear in Old English texts by means of translations from Continental Latin sources.261 For example, in The Marvels of the East, the narrator describes the Nile region of Egypt as a place where “akende þa miclan menigeo ylpenda” (a great multitude of elephants are born).262 Elephants serve as a marker of the place’s strangeness and distance, both literal and figurative, from early medi­eval England. The only direct mention of elephants in Old English references their absence from the early medi­eval English ecosystem.263 Ælfric of Eynsham makes an aside regarding the appearance of elephants in his Lives of the Saints. Retelling the story of Eupator’s war against the Jews in 1 Maccabees, Ælfric recalls Eupator’s use of war elephants. The homilist explains that “Ylp is ormæte nyten mare þonne sum hus” (the elephant is an enormous animal that is larger than a house), and “Sumum menn wile þincan syllic þis to gehyrenne, forþan þe ylpas ne comon næfre on Engla lande” (To some men this will seem strange to hear, because the elephants never came to England).264 For the people of early medi­eval England, elephants were distinctly creatures of a distant, mysterious time and place. Further Reading

Brandt, Adam L., Yohannes Hagos, Yohannes Yacob, Victor A. David, Nicholas J. Georgiadis, Jeheskel Shoshani, and Alfred L. Roca. “The Elephants of Gash-Barka, Eritrea: Nuclear and Mitochondrial Genetic Patterns.” Journal of Heredity 105 (2014): 82–90. Christie, E. J. “The Idea of an Elephant: Ælfric of Eynsham, Epistemo­logy, and the Absent Animals of Anglo-Saxon England.” Neophilo­logus 98 (2014): 465–79. Cross, J. E. “The Elephant to Alfred, Ælfric, Aldhelm and Others.” Studia Neophilo­logica 37 (1965): 367–73. 259  See Dutton, Charlemagne’s Mustache, 59–61. 260  See Hills, “From Isidore to Isotopes,” 138.

261  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. 262  Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, 190.

263  For an extended investigation of this idea, see Christie, “The Idea of an Elephant.” 264  Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 2:104.

62

Animal Entries

Dutton, Paul Edward. Charlemagne’s Mustache: And Other Cultural Clusters of the Dark Ages. New York: Palgrave, 2004. Hills, Catherine. “From Isidore to Isotopes: Ivory Rings in Early Medi­eval Graves.” In Image and Power in the Archaeo­logy of Early Medi­eval Britain: Studies in Honour of Rosemary Cramp, edited by Helena Hamerow and Arthur MacGregor, 131–46. Oxford: Oxbow, 2001. Kistler, John M. War Elephants. Westport: Praeger, 2005. Thornbury, E. “Ælfric’s Zoo­logy.” Neophilo­logus 92 (2008): 141–53.

 ELK  OE: eolh  |  Species: Alces alces alces

The Eurasian elk

(Alces alces alces), a close relative of the North American moose (A. alces americanus), was extinct in the British Isles well before the early medi­ eval period (dying out ca. 4000 bce). Shrinking populations held on in Central Europe, and archaeo­logical remains have been found in the Netherlands that date as contemporary with the early medi­eval era in England.265 Elk appear in Old English texts only as entries in Latin–Old English glossaries, and even there in a somewhat confusing mixture of denotations. The Old English glosses of the Latin do not appear to reference A. alces alces specifically, but more broadly refer to deer-like creatures: cervus (deer), damma (doe), and tragelaphus (wild goat or antelope).266 The closest Old English literature gets to mentioning elk is in the “Rune Poem,” which renders the rune ᛉ (eolhx) as part of the compound eolhxsecg (elk-sedge). This elk-sedge is taken to be some kind of waterside reed.267 Given the absence of elk in the British Isles at the time, and their rapidly shrinking numbers on the Continent, it comes as little surprise that they are so slightly witnessed in the Old English corpus. Further Reading

Kitchener, Andrew. “The Elk.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 36–42. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. Schmölcke, Ulrich, and Frank E. Zachos. “Holocene Distribution and Extinction of the Moose (Alces alces, Cervidae) in Central Europe.” Mammalian Bio­logy 70 (2005): 329–44.

265  See Schmölcke and Zachos, “Holocene Distribution and Extinction of the Moose,” 331–33.

266  For cervus, damma, and tragelaphus, respectively, see An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 30, 40, 117.

267  On the rune, its meaning, and its contexts, see Page, An Introduction to English Runes, 71; The Old English Rune Poem, ed. Halsall, 129–32; Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “eolhx,” “? eolh-secg.”



 FLATFISH  OE: facg

Animal Entries

63

 FLOUNDER  OE: facg, floc  FLUKE  OE: floc  PLAICE  OE: facg Species: Platichthys flesus, Pleuronectes platessa

Of the over

two dozen species of flatfish that visit the waters surrounding the British Isles, the Old English texts most probably refer to two of the more common species taken for food: the European flounder (P. flesus) and the European plaice (P. platessa). As the generic name for these fish implies, flatfish have flattened bodies. More notably, their eyes have migrated to one side of their bodies. As the eyes of both P. flesus and P. platessa eventually move to their right sides, they are known as dextral flatfish. Therefore, they actually swim parallel to the seafloor with their left sides turned to the bottom and their right sides serving as their dorsal surfaces. Both fish are about two feet (60 cm) in length with pale undersides and darker pigmentation above. The flounder and the plaice have somewhat mottled dorsal colouration, with the former tending towards a lighter brown or olive and the latter tending towards darker greenishbrowns. This cryptic pigmentation allows the flatfish to hunt by resting on the bottom and sometimes even covering themselves with sediment in order to ambush their prey. Although both species can be considered inshore fishes, plaice tend to favour somewhat deeper water while flounder are found relatively closer to shore. Flounder can also tolerate lower salinity levels, and they are able to enter estuaries and even freshwater streams and rivers as a result. Flounder and plaice are the most commonly identified species in archaeo­logical reports when flatfish species are differentiated.268 In one comprehensive analysis of medi­eval fish-bone evidence, archaeo­logists found that flatfish were quite commonly consumed during the early medi­eval period.269 The plaice, for example, was a common fish in an eleventh-century archaeo­logical context in Exeter.270 Overall, flatfish tend to represent the third or fourth most common category of fish in the early medi­eval archaeo­logical record, only behind eels, herring, and carp.271 The Old English lexicon contains two somewhat interchangeable words for the different species of flatfish. Flatfish are referred to as either facg or floc, which the Old English glossaries respectively identify as the Latin platesia (plaice) or platissa (flounder).272 The only place these terms are found outside of the Latin–Old English 268  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 110. 269  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 117. 270  See Hagen, Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink, 168.

271  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 110.

272  For the identification of facg as platesia (plaice), for example, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228. For the identification of floc as platissa (flounder), see Anglo-Saxon

64

Animal Entries

glossaries is in Ælfric’s Colloquy. When the teacher in the text asks the student posing as a fisherman what he catches, the student replies, “Hærincgas  leaxas, mereswyn  stirian, ostran  crabban, muslan, winewinclan, sæcoccas, fagc  floc  lopystran  fela swylces” (Herrings and salmon, dolphins and sturgeon, oysters and crabs, mussels, periwinkles, cockles, plaice and flounder and lobsters and many of the like).273 The flatfish are just one small group of the many marine creatures the early medi­eval English would have been expected to recognize as food sources. One place where the flatfish might be hiding in Old English literature is as the unnamed answer to Riddle 77 in the Exeter Book. Widely accepted to be solved as oyster, the riddle describes an edible sea creature that is violently skinned and eaten raw. However, the depiction of the creature as using camouflage, turning towards the tide, and opening its mouth might allow for an alternate possible answer to the riddle as flatfish.274 Overall, while flatfish may have been a fairly regular food item for the early medi­ eval English, they do not figure largely in Old English writings. Rather, in keeping with their cryptic colouration and natural camouflaging behaviour, plaice and flounder remain largely hidden in the written record of the time. Further Reading

Dando, P. R. “Site Fidelity, Homing and Spawning Migrations of Flounder Platichthys flesus in the Tamar Estuary, South West England.” Marine Eco­logy Progress Series 430 (2011): 183–96. Gibson, Robin N., Richard Nash, Audrey Geffen, and Henk van der Veer. Flatfishes: Bio­logy and Exploitation. Chichester: Wiley, 2015. Preston, Todd. “An Alternative Solution to Exeter Book Riddle 77.” Viator 42, no. 1 (2011): 25–34.

 FLEA  OE: fleah, flea  |  Order: Siphonaptera

The British Isles are currently home to over sixty species of flea. Fleas are minute, dark-hued insects whose tough carapace and tenacious claws make them formidable parasites. Powerful legs enable fleas to make incredible leaps in search of their preferred foodstuff: blood. The hematophagous (i.e., blood-eating) insects seek our any likely warm-blooded vertebrate prey, from birds and bats to horses and humans. While individual flea-bites may be merely an itchy discomfort, fleas can serve as vectors for numerous serious diseases. Although most people today come into contact with fleas through the vector of their pets, as in the dog flea (Ctenocephalides canis), animal fleas are relatively scarce in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. Some host-specific species do occur in such contexts, such as the (Nosopsyllus fasciatus) and the mole flea (Hystrichopsylla talpae).275 Much more common are the human flea (Pulex irritans), conand Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright and Wülcker, 1:293. 273  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29.

274  See Preston, “An Alternative Solution,” 25–34.

275  See Kenward, Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy, 54.



Animal Entries

65

centrations of which can provide evidence as to the relative intensity of occupation of a given site.276 Despite their undoubted presence among early medi­eval English populations, fleas appear in but a small number of Old English texts. Old English–Latin glossaries simply gloss the Latin pulex with the vernacular fleah.277 Beyond the glossaries, fleas occur in either religious or medical contexts. They are inevitably agents of punishment in Christian texts, as when Adam suffers when “hine biton lys bealdlice and flean” (lice and fleas boldly bit him) after his expulsion from Eden.278 If only Adam had access to the plant fleabane (Dittrichia viscosa), as described in the Old English version of the Continental Herbarium, in which the plant is heralded to “gnættas  micgeas  flean acwelleþ” (kill gnats and midges, and fleas).279 For such a commonplace and bothersome parasite to humans, it is rather surprising that fleas do not make more of an impact on the vernacular literature of early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Allison, E. P. and Kenward, H. K. “Hopping Mad? Fleas from Archaeo­logical Deposits.” Interim 15, no. 1 (1990): 27–33. George, Robert S. Atlas of the Fleas (Siphonaptera) of Britain and Ireland. Edited by Paul T. Harding. Shrewsbury: Published for Bio­logical Records Centre by FSC, 2008. Whitaker, Amoret P. Fleas (Siphonaptera). Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 1, no. 16. 2nd ed. London: Royal Entomo­logical Society, 2007.

 FLY  OE: fleoge

 BLOWFLY  OE: smegawyrm   GADFLY  OE: beaw  MAGGOT  OE: maða  GNAT  OE: gnæt, stut  MIDGE  OE: mycg Order: Diptera

Flies are an all-too-familiar aspect of modern life, and so they were in early medi­

eval England. Currently, over seven thousand species of flies are considered native to the British Isles. Common indoor and urban species include the housefly (Musca domestica) and the bluebottle fly (Calliphora vomitoria). Outdoors, frequently encountered species are the autumn fly (M. autumnalis) and horse flies like the notch-horned cleg-fly (Haematopota pluvialis). Flies have a well-earned reputation as disease carriers and 276  Hall and Kenward, Bio­logical Evidence, 764.

277  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 310. 278  Pope, Homilies of Ælfric, 2:679.

279  The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, de Vriend, 266.

66

Animal Entries

some, like the horse flies, can give a painful bite in search of a meal. Other members of the order Diptera include similar flying creatures, the midges and gnats, which are not taxonomic distinctions but colloquial ones. One species commonly considered representative of the gnats is the dark-winged fungus gnats (Bradysia placida), while midges can be represented by a species like the biting midge (Culicoides obsoletus). Abundant in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England, most flies are typically identified thanks to the hardened outer shell of the fly larva (i.e., the puparium). Unsurprisingly, they appear in significant numbers around human habitation. The numbers and distribution of these insects can provide important interpretive information. For example, the large numbers of houseflies (M. domestica) and stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans) found in the early medi­eval contexts at Coppergate in York point towards conditions including considerable amounts of actively decaying organic matter, like dung.280 Such information can give us not only a sense of the sights and sounds of early medi­eval England, but its smells as well. Despite their commonality, members of the order Diptera seldom appear in Old English writings in local contexts. Rather, fly terms are frequently glosses of Latin terms such as musca (fly) in either the Latin–Old English glossaries or in translations of Christian texts.281 These translations are often associated with one of the ten plagues visited upon Egypt, as is described in Exodus 8:21: “eall Egypta land byð gefilled mid mistlicum fleogena cynne” (all of the land of Egypt will be filled with diverse kinds of flies).282 The various species of the order Diptera are presented as a somewhat undifferentiated whole, as is also found in the Leechbook, which suggests the use of fleabane (Conyza squarrosa), which “gnættas  micgeas  flean acwelleþ,  heo eac swylce ealle wunda gelacnað” (kills gnats, midges, and fleas, and also heals all of their wounds [i.e., the wounds inflicted on people by these insects]).283 The ubiquity of flies may also be found in their use as place-name elements in such locales as Fly Hill in Derbyshire.284 Flies, in their many forms, are relegated to the cultural backdrop in the vernacular as pests and apparently garner no more interest than that role allows. Further Reading

Chandler, Peter J., ed. Checklists of Insects of the British Isles (New Series). Part 1: Diptera. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 12, no. 1. London: Royal Entomo­logical Society, 1998; Dipterists Forum, 2019. https://dipterists.org.uk/checklist

280  See Hall and Kenward, Bio­logical Evidence, 677.

281  See Cortelyou, Die altenglischen Namen der Insekten, 67–74. For a glossary example, see Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 308. 282  The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, ed. Crawford, 233.

283  The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, 186.

284  See John Baker, “Entomo­logical Etymo­logies,” 249–51.



 FOX  OE: fox

Animal Entries

67

 VIXEN  OE: fyxe Species: Vulpes vulpes

The red fox

(V. vulpes) was a well-known member of the environment in early medi­eval England, if not an often-used animal resource. One of the most widely-ranging of foxes, living throughout Europe, Asia, and North America, the red fox is the largest member of genus Vulpes. It can stand almost two feet (60 cm) tall at the shoulder and, including its tail, can reach lengths of over four feet. The fox is mainly crepuscular, active in the twilight period around dawn and dusk, which can make it less visible to people. However, it favours the edges of forest and field and is an opportunistic feeder that would take advantage of smaller domestic animals. As such, the fox would not be an unfamiliar sight to farmers of the period. Despite the likely familiarity people of the time had with this creature, the archaeo­ logical evidence shows a vanishingly small number of fox remains in early medi­eval contexts in England, but a steady increase in those numbers across a wider range of sites throughout the period.285 There are a few examples of fox remains in burials of the time, primarily pointing towards the use of their teeth and pelts as personal decoration or grave goods.286 Many fox remains might be unidentified or misidentified for two reasons. Firstly, fox bones could very well be confused with the bones of smaller dogs. Secondly, the main fox product for human use, the pelt, would be unlikely to survive in a typical archaeo­logical context, rotting away to nothing over the centuries.287 In contrast to this paucity of material evidence of foxes in early medi­eval England, these animals do have a notable presence in Old English, although most of this is simply in the form of translations of vulpes (fox) from Latin texts.288 For example, in the translation of Gregory the Great’s Dialogues, the author tells the story of “Hu Bonefatius mid his gebede adydde þone fox, þe bat his modor henna” (How Boniface, with his prayers, killed the fox, which bit his mother’s hen).289 As far as the fox’s appearance in an original vernacular text goes, perhaps the best example comes from an Old English homily regarding the ninth-century St. Neot. In the homily, the saint’s servant is fetching the holy man’s lost shoe and comes upon “an fox, þe is geapest ealra deora, þær arn geond dunen  denen wunderlice beseonde mid egen hider  þider” (a fox, which is the craftiest of all animals, that races throughout the hills and fields, wonderfully looking with his eyes hither and thither).290 While the text obviously relies in part on the age-old identification of the fox with slyness, it also paints a relatively realistic 285  See Poole, ”Foxes and Badgers,” 391–97. 286  Poole, “Foxes and Badgers,” 397.

287  Only one archaeo­logical site in Britain, located near Hertfordshire, has any significant evidence of fox-skin processing. See Baxteri and Hamilton-Dyer, “Foxy in Furs,” 92. 288  See for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309.

289  Waerferths von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, ed. Hecht, 69. 290  Early English Homilies, ed. Warner, 131.

68

Animal Entries

portrayal of the fox’s alert, ranging behaviour.291 Considering this description of fox behaviour as stemming from observation of the animal in the wild is not improbable, given the numerous times fox occurs as a location element in Old English charters. One such charter describes a supposed land grant that identifies its boundaries, in part, as “Of dunne dic into þam foxhole. Of ðam foxhole into ꝥ oðer clif” (from the dark ditch to the fox-hole. From the fox-hole to that other cliff).292 Over twenty charters use some kind of fox-related maker in establishing property bounds and, as such, give testament to the recognition of the fox’s place in the landscape. Finally, a fox may be lurking in the details of Exeter Book Riddle 15, which portrays an animal fleeing a burrow from a pursuing wæl-hwelp (slaughter-whelp). The mystery-beast describes herself, noting that “Hlifiað tu earan ofer eagum” (Two ears tower over eyes), which some have taken to represent a fox’s tall ears.293 Overall, while foxes may not appear directly in many Old English texts, their traces are manifold. As wild animals and not a significant source of material goods, foxes are slightly witnessed in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. However, their elusive presence can be found in the vernacular literature of the period. What traces of the fox that can be found in the textual sources imply a familiarity with both the actual animal and its metaphorical significance. Further Reading

Aldous, Kirstin, and Terry Coult. “Red Fox Vulpes vulpes.” Northumbrian Naturalist 73 (2012): 21–23. Baxteri, Ian L., and Sheila Hamilton-Dyer. “Foxy in Furs? A Note on Evidence for the Probable Commercial Exploitation of the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes L.) and Other Fur Bearing Mammals in Saxo-Norman (10th–12th Century AD) Hertford, Hertfordshire, U.K.” Archaeofauna 12 (2003): 87–94. Osborn, Marijane. “Vixen as Hero: Solving Exeter Book Riddle 15.” In The Hero Recovered: Essays on Medi­eval Heroism in Honor of George Clark, edited by Robin Waugh and James Weldon, 173–87. Kalamazoo: Medi­eval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2010. Poole, Kristopher. “Foxes and Badgers in Anglo-Saxon Life and Landscape.” The Archaeo­logical Journal 172 (2015): 389–422. Walton, Zea, Gustaf Samelius, Morten Odden, and Tomas Willebrand. “Variation in Home Range Size of Red Foxes Vulpes vulpes along a Gradient of Productivity and Human Landscape Alteration.” PLoS ONE 12, no. 4 (2017): e0175291.

291  For an overview of fox home-range distribution and behaviour, see Walton et al., “Variation in Home Range Size of Red Foxes,” 1–3, 7–10. 292  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 1:320.

293  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:298. For the solution of fox, see Meaney, “The Hunted and the Hunters,” 99–103; Osborn, “Vixen as Hero,” 173–87; The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 2:585; Niles, Old English Enigmatic Poems, 141.



Animal Entries

69

 FROG  OE: fen-yce, frogga, frosc, tosca, wæter-frogga, yce Species: Rana temporaria, Pelophylax lessonae

Two species of frog can be found in the damper parts of the British Isles: the com-

mon frog (R. temporaria) and the pool frog (P. lessonae). Both frogs need still waters for egg laying and reproduction, so they are commonly found within relatively close proximity to ponds, lakes, or marshes. The common frog (also known as the European common frog or the grass frog), as its name suggests, is the more ubiquitous species. About three inches (7.5 cm) long, it can range in colouration from an olive green to yellowish to brownish, often with a dark chevron behind each eye and dark spots on the back. The pool frog is of a similar size, but tends to the green in dorsal colouration and is patterned with light-coloured lateral lines. Bio­logists have only recently established P. lessonae as a truly native frog species of the British Isles through genetic studies, only shortly after the amphibians had become locally extinct in the 1990s. The amphibians have since been reintroduced to the island from Continental populations. Overall, amphibian remains in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England seem to be incidental and accidental. For example, the slight number of frogs found at the archaeo­logical site at Flixborough is thought to be the result of inadvertent traps made by ditches, pits, or post-holes, which are not-uncommon sources of amphibian remains in such contexts.294 Even though the presence of these creatures may not indicate any human use of the animals, the remains of these diminutive creatures can help to identify local eco­logical or climatic conditions of early medi­eval sites in England. Widespread appearance of incidental frog remains, such as that at the Anglian settlement at Fishergate, may not reveal much about human–amphibian relations, but they can suggest that the site at that period was damper rather than drier at the time of deposition.295 For animals of such little apparent use to the people of the time, frogs appear in a wide range of texts. This textual diversity reflects the lexical variety of frog-terms found in the Old English glossaries. The most common form in Old English is frosc, and its most common context is reference to frogs as one of the ten plagues of Egypt in the Old Testament. In the Old English version of the book of Exodus, for example, God tells the Egyptians he “sende froxas ofer ealle þine landgemæru  þæt flod awylð eall froxum” (will send frogs over all the confines of your lands and the water will swarm completely with frogs).296 More familiar to modern eyes is the Old English frogga, which occurs about a third as often as frosc, but in much the same contexts.297 Outside of biblical references, the Old English Prognostics translates its Latin source describing what seeing a frog in one’s dream means: “froxas gesihð anxsumnesse ge[tacnað]” 294  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 38, 55.

295  See O’Connor, “8th–11th Century Economy and Environment in York,” 141–42. 296  The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, ed. Crawford, 231. 297  See Whitman, “The Old English Animal Names,” 385–86.

70

Animal Entries

(seeing frogs betokens anxiety).298 Beyond these texts, frogs occur in Latin–Old English glossaries, most typically, for the Latin rana.299 Overall, the biblical and lexical contexts are the most frequent contexts for frogs, without any reference to their bio­logical reality or eco­logical role in early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Gleed-Owen, Chris P. “Subfossil Records of Rana cf. lessonae, Rana arvalis and Rana cf. dalmatina from Middle Saxon (c. 600–950 AD) Deposits in Eastern England: Evidence for Native Status.” Amphibia-Reptilia 21, no. 1 (2000): 57–65. Ranworthy, C. J., B. Kiølbye-Biddle, and M. Biddle. “An Archaeo­logical Study of Frogs and Toads from the Eighth to Sixteenth Century at Repton, Derbyshire.” Herpeto­logical Journal 1, no. 11 (1990): 504–9. Raye, Lee. “Frogs in Pre-Industrial Britain.” Herpeto­logical Journal 27, no. 4 (2017): 368–78. Snell, Charles, John Tetteh, and Ivor H. Evans. “Phylogeo­graphy of the Pool Frog (Rana lessonae Camerano) in Europe: Evidence for Native Status in Great Britain and for an Unusual Post­ glacial Colonization Route.” Bio­logical Journal of the Linnean Society 85, no. 1 (2005): 41–51.

 GANNET  OE: ganot  |  Species: Morus bassanus

The largest seabird of western Europe, at about three feet (90 cm) in length, the northern gannet (M. bassanus) is generally white with a yellow-tinged head and black wingtips. They would have been fairly familiar birds to the people of early medi­ eval England as their range encompasses the coasts of the British Isles. However, as they were not a targeted game bird, their remains are quite infrequent in archaeo­logical contexts dated to the early medi­eval period.300 Gannets seem to serve a particular poetic function in Old English literature, as representative of the sea. More often than not, gannets appear only referentially, as when Hrothgar describes the peace between the Geats and Spear-Danes in Beowulf: “manig oþerne godum gegrettan ofer ganotes bæð” (many will greet others with gifts over the gannet’s bath).301 Analogously, the lonely narrator of “The Seafarer” conveys his maritime loneliness by emphasizing that he is accompanied only by the sounds of the sea and its birds, including “ganetes heloþor” (the gannet’s cry).302 This allusive relationship of the gannet with the sea is fitting, as the very term used to describe them in Old English, ganot, glosses the generic Latin word fulix (sea-bird) in the Latin–Old English glossaries.303 Although the people of early medi­eval England did not have much physical interaction with the gannet, its very remove from terrestrial affairs seems to have given it a particular evocative power. 298  Anglo-Saxon Prognostics, ed. Liuzza, 110.

299  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 310.

300  See Serjeantson, “Birds: Food and a Mark of Status,” 132.

301  Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 63.

302  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:232. On the identification of the gannet, see Goldsmith, “The Seafarer and the Birds,” 227–28; Warren, Birds in Medi­eval English Poetry, 38n37. 303  See, for example, Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary, ed. Pheifer, 23.



Further Reading

Animal Entries

71

Kubetzki, Ulrike, Stefan Garthe, David Fifield, Bettina Mendel, and Robert W. Furness. “Individual Migratory Schedules and Wintering Areas of Northern Gannets.” Marine Eco­logy Progress Series 391 (2009): 257–65. Langston, Rowena, and Emma Teuten. “Ranging Behaviour of Northern Gannets.” British Birds 111, no. 3 (2018): 131–43.

 GOAT (female)  OE: gat

 BUCK (male goat)  OE: bucca, hæfer  KID  OE: ticcen Species: Capra hircus

By all accounts, goats were a minor component of the livestock of early medi­

eval England. The domestic stock of goats are not identifiable in terms of modern breeds, but were smaller-hooved, horned ungulates measuring about two feet (60 cm) tall at the shoulder, not dissimilar to extant domestic breeds. Unfortunately, differentiating between the remains of goats and sheep is notoriously problematic, making it quite difficult to paint an accurate picture of insular early medi­eval caprines.304 The archaeo­logical record suggests that goats were kept for domestic purposes, but were clearly secondary resources at best. The ratio of sheep to goats in archaeo­ logical contexts of the period range anywhere from roughly 7:1 to 100:1.305 That said, goats were still broadly present during the period. At the early medi­eval site at West Stow, for example, even though goat remains were outnumbered by those of sheep almost 100:1, goat bones were still “widely distributed across the site.”306 Given the relative toughness of goat meat, and their lack of numbers compared to other livestock, they may have been primarily dairy animals.307 As for their skins, here too goats are difficult to differentiate from sheep, making a definitive measure of their use in leather or parchment-making impossible.308 While goats were certainly a part of early medi­eval farm life in England, they were not the most widely utilized livestock. Old English texts provide further evidence of goats as domestic resources. Specialized glossary terms like bucca and hæfer (male goats), gat (female goat), and ticcen (kid), focusing on gender and age, point to a concern with animal husbandry.309 Compound terms such as gat-hyrde (goat-herd) and gat-anstig (goat-path) indicate the practices and places of animal care.310 Naturalistic depictions of goats in the vernacu304  See O’Connor, “Animal Husbandry,” 364.

305  See Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, 96.

306  See Crabtree, West Stow, 106.

307  See Crabtree, West Stow, 106; Hagen, Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink, 101.

308  See, for example, Mould, Carlisle, and Cameron, Craft, Industry and Everyday Life, 3233, 3265. 309  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossary,” ed. Stryker, 103.

310  By way of example, for gat-hyrde, see “The Latin–Old English Glossary,” ed. Stryker, 130.

72

Animal Entries

lar are rare. Riddle 24 in the Exeter Book presents a creature, probably some kind of small corvid like a jay or a magpie, who can make all sorts of noises. The animal can bark like a dog or honk like a goose or “hwilum blæte swa gat” (sometimes bleat like a goat).311 While the riddler does not provide any description of the goat’s appearance or behaviour, he does get the sound right. Goat products do appear in vernacular medical texts of the period, but most often in those that are close translations of Continental sources. The Old English Herbarium provides one example of the medicinal use of the goat. If one unexpectedly has blood well up in the mouth, for example, a brew made of betony and “cole gate meolc þreo full fulle” (cool goat’s milk, three cups full) will stem the crimson tide.312 Whether this tonic works or not is debatable, but it does provide evidence of the goat’s use as a dairy animal. Goats, in Old English texts as in early medi­eval life, do not appear to play as large a role as do their more commonplace pasture-mates, the sheep and domestic cattle. They appear to be functional second-tier livestock, but little more. A source of milk, meat, skin, and likely consumer of the odd misplaced shoe, the goat of early medi­eval England maintained a relatively low cultural profile. Further Reading

Dyer, Christopher. “Alternative Agriculture: Goats in Medi­eval England.” In People, Landscape and Alternative Agriculture: Essays for Joan Thirsk, edited by R. W. Hoyle, 20–38. Agricultural Review Supplement 3. Exeter: British Agricultural History Society, 2004. Noddle, Barbara. “The Under-Rated Goat.” In Urban–Rural Connexions: Perspectives from Environmental Archaeo­logy, edited by A. R. Hall and H. K. Kenward, 117–28. Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeo­logy 12 / Oxbow Mono­graph 47. Oxford: Oxbow, 1994.

 GOOSE  OE: gos, gos-fugel, græg-gos, hwite-gos, wild-gos  GANDER  OE: gandra

Species: Anser anser, A. albifrons, A. brachyrhynchus, A. fabalis, Branta bernicla, B. leucopsis, B. ruficollis

Of the seven goose species that frequent the British Isles, the greylag goose is the

largest (at close to three feet (90 cm) in length and with wingspans in excess of five feet) and the most ubiquitous. While most occurrences of geese in early medi­eval England are likely A. anser, six other goose species are currently found in British waters and marshlands: the white-fronted goose (A. albifrons), the pink-footed goose (A. brachyrhynchus), the bean goose (A. fabalis), the brent goose (Branta bernicla), the barnacle goose (B. leucopsis), and the red-breasted goose (B. ruficollis). As the greylag goose is taken to be the ancestor of most modern domestic goose breeds in Europe, it was most likely the 311  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:305. For the identification of Riddle 24’s subject, see Bitterli, Say What I Am Called, 91–97. 312  The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, 32.



Animal Entries

73

species domesticated by the people of the early Middle Ages in England. However, as is the case with numerous bird taxa, distinguishing specific species from archaeo­logical remains has been problematic at best.313 The archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England indicates that geese were typically the most common domestic waterfowl, although a distant second to chickens as a percentage of total domestic fowl.314 At some sites, however, such as in the early medi­eval contexts at Bishopstone, geese remains numbered over 4,000, fully twothirds the number of chicken remains.315 Like chickens, geese were a multi-use animal, providing meat and eggs, as chickens do, but also feathers for both down and quills.316 Unfortunately, both eggs and feathers preserve poorly, if at all, in archaeo­logical contexts.317 Regardless of the preservation of such remains, the people of early medi­eval England clearly relied on geese as a substantial resource. The domestic value of geese is evident in the vernacular language used to describe these birds. The differentiation between the terms gos (goose) and wild-gos (wild goose) is testament to domestication, while the denotation of gender by means of gos (female goose) and gander (male goose) indicates some attention to husbandry.318 Some acknowledgement of species or breed difference might be indicated in the descriptives græg-gos (grey-goose) and hwite-gos (white-goose), especially as they gloss the Latin anser (goose) and ganta (grey-goose), respectively.319 The relative value and prevalence of geese is evident in their inclusion in food rents, such as that at Bury St. Edmunds, which required “an ryðer  ii swin iiii ges xx hennen” (a bull and 2 swine, 4 geese [and] 20 hens).320 In this case, where twenty hens are expected to be available and expected as rent, only four geese are demanded, giving some sense as to their representative numbers in domestic settings. The textual presence of geese in Old English texts is quite small, in keeping with its humble role in the early medi­eval farmyard. The only reference to the consumption of geese is a prohibition against it as misfortunate in an eleventh-century table of lucky and unlucky days: “seðe et gose flæsc on þisson iii dagan, ær xl dæge he sceal sweltan” (he who eats goose flesh on this third day, before 40 days he shall die).321 Casting similar poor light on the goose is Riddle 24 of the Exeter Book. Within the poem, the mystery narrator describes the various sounds it can make, including the 313  See Yalden and Albarella, The History of British Birds, 10.

314  See Serjeantson, “Birds: Food and a Mark of Status,” 134–35; Albarella, “Alternate Fortunes,” 252. 315  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 38–39.

316  See Serjeantson, “Goose Husbandry,” 41–45.

317  See Bond and O’Connor, Bones from the Medi­eval Deposits at 16–22 Coppergate, 355.

318  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307.

319  See, for example, “The Minor Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Quinn, 15–16. See also Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (II),” 16–17. 320  Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Robertson, 198.

321  Förster, “Die altenglischen Verzeichnisse von Glücks- und Unglückstagen,” 274.

74

Animal Entries

fact that it “hwilum græde swa gos” (sometimes cries like a goose).322 The word grædan here can mean simply to cry, but it also has the connotation of shrieking or crying abrasively.323 As anyone who has encountered a goose’s defensive vocalizations can attest, their calls can be rather jarring to the human ear. These references to bad luck and discomfort seem to imply that geese may have been held in relatively low esteem in Old English literature. However, geese also appear to be a source of some intriguing mystery as well. In Riddle 10 of the Exeter Book, a wondrous creature describes how it emerges alive from an inanimate object: “þa ic of fæðmum cwom / brimes ond beames on blacum hrægle; / sume wæron white hyrste mine” (then I came from the bosom of the waves and wood in a black garment; some of my adornments were white).324 Given these clues, one of the accepted solutions to this riddle is the barnacle goose (B. leucopsis). The description of the unnamed creature’s black-and-white plumage, along with its mysterious breeding habits as a migratory visitor to the British Isles, has long made this bird the accepted solution to Riddle 10, despite not being explicitly named.325 In early medi­eval England, people were well acquainted with geese. They provided any number of animal products for human use, and would have been a typical feature of the agricultural way of life. While they do not make any major impact on the Old English corpus, this low textual profile of the goose is perfectly in line with its humble standing in the early medi­eval English community. Further Reading

Albarella, Umberto. “Alternate Fortunes? The Role of Domestic Ducks and Geese from Roman to Medi­eval Times in Britain.” Documenta Archaeobio­logiae 3, no. 4 (2005): 249–58. Kitson, Peter R. “Swans and Geese in Old English Riddles.” Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeo­logy and History 7 (1994): 79–84. Serjeantson, Dale. “Goose Husbandry in Medi­eval England, and the Problem of Ageing Goose Bones.” Acta Zoo­logica Cracoviensia 45 (2002): 39–54.

 GRASSHOPPER  OE: gærs-hoppa, gærs-stapa, hama, secg-gescere, stapa, weald-stapa  CICADA  OE: hyll-hama Order: Orthoptera; Superfamily: Cicadoidea

Over fifty species of grasshoppers, crickets, and groundhoppers call England home. Among these members of the order Orthoptera are common representatives like the field grasshopper (Corthippus brunneus), the meadow grasshopper (C. parallelus), and the field cricket (Gryllus campestris). These insects are readily identifiable by their 322  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:305.

323  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “grædan.”

324  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:295. 325  See, for example, Kitson, “Swans and Geese,” 81.



Animal Entries

75

large heads and outsized rear legs that enable them to leap impressive distances. English varieties of grasshopper and cricket range in size from the impressive great green bush cricket (Tettigonia viridissima), growing to sizes of over two inches (5 cm) long, down to the common bush cricket (Tetrix undulata), who measures in at around an eighth of an inch (3 mm). Crickets generally run from blackish to brownish in colouration, while grasshoppers shade from browns to bright greens. One noteworthy ability of members of this order is their ability to “sing.” Of course, these insects do not produce song through vocal chords, but rather by means of an action called stridulation. Crickets achieve their trademark sound by rubbing their wings together, while grasshoppers produce their songs by rubbing their legs against their wings. This sound production is what most likely led the people of early medi­ eval England to consider their only native cicada species, the New Forest cicada (Cicadetta montana), as associated with the grasshoppers and crickets, even though the cicada technically belongs to an entirely separate taxonomic order. Somewhat counterintuitively, crickets and grasshoppers are virtually absent from the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. Given their relatively large size and seemingly tough exterior, not to mention their frequency in the modern environment, one would expect these insects to be well-represented in archaeo­logical contexts. Their complete absence appears to indicate the non-survival of their remains and, most probably, a lack of their exploitation by the human population of the place and time.326 Old English terms for grasshoppers appear in the textual record primarily to gloss the Latin locusta (locust).327 This mainly occurs in either the Latin–Old English glossaries or in the translation of Latin texts describing foreign lands. Very often, the glossing of locusta occurs in the context of the ten plagues of Egypt, as in God’s words to Moses in Exodus 10:12: “ahefe þine hand ofer Egypta land, þæt gærstapan cumon  freton eal ðæt gærs” (stretch out your hand over the land of Egypt, so that the locusts come and devour all the grass).328 In these instances, the grasshoppers act more as symbolic representatives of God’s wrath in the Old Testament than as actual insects found in the early medi­eval English ecosystem. Taxonomic confusion may be found in the glossaries, even as they indicate both connections and divisions between the grasshopper-like insects. For example, glossaries render the Latin gryllus (cricket) as Old English hama, seeming to acknowledge the difference between the grasshoppers and crickets. However, hama also glosses the Latin cicada. Clearly associated by their singing abilities, the Old English glossaries wrongly conflate the taxonomic divisions between crickets and cicadas even as they rightly make a distinction between grasshoppers and crickets.329 More curiously, some 326  See Kenward, Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy, 41.

327  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 310. See also Cortelyou, Die alt­ englischen Namen der Insekten, 88. 328  The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, ed. Crawford, 239. 329  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “hama.”

76

Animal Entries

texts gloss the Latin locusta (locust) for loppestra (lobster), following an initial mistranslation that later came to be taken as a false etymo­logical link: that lobsters can be considered locusts of the sea.330 These lexical vagaries point towards some recognition of the differences between these creatures, but a lack of clarity and consistency in identifying them as distinct insects in an early medi­eval environment. Further Reading

Sutton, Peter G. A Review of the Status of the Orthoptera (Grasshoppers and Crickets) and Allied Species of Great Britain: Orthoptera, Dictyoptera, Dermaptera, Phasmida: Species Status No. 21. Natural England Commissioned Report 187. Peterborough: Natural England, 2015.

 GUDGEON  OE: blæge  |  Species: Gobio gobio

The gudgeon (G. gobio) is a small, freshwater fish of northwestern Europe. It is a

bottom-feeder, travelling in schools in search of minuscule prey. Typically only growing to about five or six inches (13 to 15 cm) long, the gudgeon would not have been a worthwhile food item for the early medi­eval English. Unsurprisingly, given its size and lack of utility to people, the gudgeon has no presence in the archaeo­logical record of the period. Correspondingly, its unusual Old English name appears only once in the Old English corpus, within a Latin–Old English glossary, glossing the Latin gobio (gudgeon).331 As no other reference to it exists, it is probable that the gudgeon only served a passing, lexical interest to the people of the time. Further Reading

Mann, R. H. K. “The Growth and Reproductive Strategy of the Gudgeon Gobio gobio (L.) in Two Hard-water Rivers in Southern England.” Journal of Fish Bio­logy 17, no. 2 (1980): 163–76.

 GULL  OE: mæw  |  Species: Larus argentatus, L. canus, L. fuscus, L. hyperboreus, L. marinus, L. ridibundus, Rissa tridactyla

The gulls of

early medi­eval England show no sign of being considered as separate species in the vernacular literature of the time, all being referenced by the word mæw. Even today, the birds can look very similar, appearing as variations on the theme of relatively large-bodied birds with slightly differing distributions of white, black, and grey over their heads, wings, and undersides. The more notable species were likely the relatively larger ones, such as the great black-backed gull (L. marinus), the lesser blackbacked gull (L. fuscus), and the herring gull (L. argentatus), all who feature more commonly, if not frequently, in the archaeo­logical record. The common gull (L. canus), the black-headed gull (L. ridibundus), the glaucous gull (L. hyperboreus), and the smallest of the gulls, the kittiwake (R. tridactyla) appear to be somewhat less represented in 330  See Fred C. Robinson, “Lexico­graphical Notes.” Biblical Commentaries, ed. Bischoff and Lapidge, 407–8, 520n64. 331  See “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 197. See also Köhler, Die altenglischen Fischnamen, 24–27.



Animal Entries

77

archaeo­logical contexts of the period. A definitive collating of gull species’ representation in period sites is problematized by the typical difficulty of discriminating between very similar skeletal morpho­logy.332 In addition, the numbers of gull remains in early medi­eval sites in England are quite small. For example, of the more than 11,000 bird remains at Flixborough, which represents other coastal species rather well, less than ten specimens were identified as belonging to gull species.333 Gulls are most often invoked as representatives of the sea in Old English literature. For example, in “The Husband’s Message,” the eponymous missive calls for the love of the absent spouse to “Ongin mere secan, mæwes eþel” (Begin to seek the sea, the gull’s homeland) in search of him.334 Similarly, the poet describes the sea over which St. Andrew travels in Andreas as a place where whales play and “se græga mæw wælgifre wand” (the grey gull, eager for carrion, circled).335 In “The Seafarer,” the exiled narrator is bereft of human company and must take the “mæw singende for medodrince” (gull’s singing for mead-drink) in his maritime isolation.336 Otherwise, the Old English mæw simply glosses the Latin alcedo in the Latin–Old English glossaries.337 As wild, coastal species, with no clear culinary or cultural value to the early medi­eval English, gulls have only a tangential impact on the archaeo­logical and vernacular written records of the period. Further Reading

Burton, Niall H. K., Alexander N. Banks, John R. Calladine, and Graham E. Austin. “The Importance of the United Kingdom for Wintering Gulls: Population Estimates and Conservation Requirements.” Bird Study 60, no. 1 (2013): 87–101.

 HARE  OE: hara  |  Species: Lepus europaeus, Oryctolagus cuniculus

The brown hare

(L. europaeus) was the native leporid species of England, but would have been unknown to people of the early medi­eval period because it did not survive beyond the time of the Roman occupation of the British Isles.338 While some European rabbits (O. cuniculus) may have been introduced to the British Isles by Roman invaders, they did not become an established wild population until the post-Conquest period. Due to factors ranging from bone morpho­logy to the rabbit’s inclination to burrow, finding definitive archaeo­logical evidence clarifying the advent of rabbits in early 332  See Yalden and Albarella, The History of British Birds, 10, 218–19.

333  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 38–39.

334  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:358. 335  Andreas, ed. North and Bintley, 137.

336  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:232. On the identification of the gull in “The Seafarer,” see Goldsmith, “The Seafarer and the Birds,” 229–34; Poole and Lacey, “Avian Aurality in Anglo-Saxon England,” 407–8; Warren, Birds in Medi­eval English Poetry, 33n24, 48n67. 337  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307. 338  See Yalden, The History of British Mammals, 127.

78

Animal Entries

medi­eval England has been difficult to achieve.339 One early medi­eval assemblage of mammal remains at West Stow provides a representative picture. While two-thirds of the wild mammal bones found at the site were of rabbits (O. cuniculus), they all date to after the time of the Norman Conquest.340 What rabbits that are found in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England are typically burrowers from another time. In keeping with the archaeo­logical record, hares and rabbits are either late arrivals or foreign visitors in Old English texts. Most vernacular mentions of the rabbits or hares outside of medical texts are simply translations of the Latin lepus (hare).341 The only truly documentary mention of rabbits comes in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for the year 1086, after the Norman Conquest, in which William the Conqueror’s prohibition against hunting game animals is described. According to the text, in addition to forbidding the hunting of deer and boars, William also “sætte be þam haran þet hi mosten freo faran” (set forth concerning the hares that they might go free [i.e., remain unmolested]), presumably to save their hunting for the new Anglo-Norman aristocracy.342 While these creatures do turn up in medical texts from the pre-Conquest period, they are most often found in texts beholden to Continental sources. The more insularoriented Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook does include references to “haran gealle” (hare’s gall) and “haran wulle,” but given the lack of hares in England at the time, these are likely continental elements.343 Likewise, the hunter-character in Ælfric’s Colloquy mentions many native game animals, but he qualifies the appearance of hares. The hunter states that he takes “heortas  baras  rann  rægan  hwilon haran” (stags and boars and roe-buck and roe and sometimes hares [my emphasis]).344 This qualification may be a nod to the artificial nature of the dialogue as a tool for teaching Latin, and perhaps in reference to the hare’s absence or occasional presence as imported wildlife. Ultimately, rabbits and hares were neither fixtures of the early medi­eval ecosystem in England, nor were they a terribly consequential creature in Old English texts. People of the time would have been aware of them primarily as inhabitants of the Continental landscape and literature. These animals would not become a mainstay of the English environment until after the arrival of the Normans. Further Reading

Home, Malasree. ‘“These Things We Have Written about Him’: The Portrait of King William in ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.’” Anglo-Saxon 1 (2007): 239–68. Jurasinski, Stefan. “The Rime of King William and Its Analogues.” Neophilo­logus 88, no. 1 (2004), 131–44. Sykes, Naomi, and Julie Curl. “The Rabbit.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 116–26. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. 339  See Sykes and Curl, “The Rabbit,” 121. 340  See Crabtree, West Stow, 6.

341  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. 342  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, vol. 7, ed. Irvine, 97.

343  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:332, 354.

344  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 24.



Animal Entries

79

 HAWK  OE: hafoc, spear-hafoc, wealh-hafoc, gos-hafoc, hafoc-fugel, mus-hafoc Species: Accipiter gentilis, A. nisus, Circus aeruginosus, C. cyaneus, C. pygargus, Falco peregrinus, F. tinnunculus

Given the interest

in falconry by the people of early medi­eval England, it is no surprise that they should be more discerning between the species of hawks than other birds. In particular, they identify the goshawk (A. gentilis) and the sparrowhawk (A. nisus) by name: gos-hafoc and spear-hafoc, respectively. Other species of this class of raptors would fall under the more general varieties of the term hafoc (hawk), including the western marsh harrier (C. aeruginosus), the hen harrier (C. cyaneus), Montagu’s harrier (C. pygargus), the peregrine falcon (F. peregrinus), and the common kestrel (F. tinnunculus).345 While most of these medium-sized birds grow to between eighteen and twentyfour inches (45 to 60 cm), the sparrowhawk and the kestrel are the smaller outliers, each at only about a foot in length (30 cm). Females of these species sport a brownish colouration on their backs and wings, with tawny breasts barred with darker brown. Males, characteristically, have more dramatic plumage, tending towards bluish colourations and accents. The backs and wings of male A. nisus, for example, take on bluishgrey tones and their breasts turn a distinctive orange. The northern goshawk is decidedly larger than the sparrowhawk, regularly growing larger than eighteen inches (45 cm) in length. Dark grey above and a lighter barred grey below, A. gentilis can be distinguished from its relatives by the distinctive white bar above its striking red eyes. Both the sparrowhawk and the goshawk are accipiters, having rounded wings and long tails. Not only does this profile in flight serve as an aid to identification for humans, but it also provides these birds with exceptional agility. Whether in the open or in dense wooded areas, these accipiters have the speed and manoeuvrability to take down almost any prey species they wish. This aerial dexterity is what made these birds of especial interest to the early medi­eval English, who used them for both hunting and sport. The archaeo­logical record provides some suggestive evidence of hawking in early medi­eval England. While finds of single bones most likely indicate the presence of wild birds at a given site, partial or complete raptor skeletons may be a sign of domestication.346 For example, one site at Faccombe includes multiple, nearly complete raptor skeletons. Although three of the four skeletons are dated post-Conquest, one skeleton dates firmly to the prior century.347 This collocation of near-complete raptor skeletons may indicate a tradition of hawking at the site. Indirect evidence can also play an important role in ascertaining if falconry was taking place. For example, when an animal’s remains are found outside of its usual 345  For an illustrative cluster of hawk-terms in a Latin–Old English glossary, see “The Minor Latin– Old English Glossaries,” ed. Quinn, 16. 346  See Cherryson, “The Identification of Archaeo­logical Evidence for Hawking,” 311. 347  See Sadler, “The Faunal Remains,” 2:505.

80

Animal Entries

geo­graphic range, human manipulation may be at work. The remains of an almost complete peregrine falcon (F. peregrinus) were found at an early medi­eval site at Brandon, a fenland settlement that is quite removed from the bird’s normal habitat of craggy sea-cliffs.348 The translocation of this bird suggests captivity by humans. The combination of raptor remains with those of a significant number of prey-species in the context of human habitation may also indicate falconry was in practice. For example, archaeo­logists believe the unusually high number of crane (Grus grus) remains at the early medi­eval site of Flixborough might point to falconry practices at work.349 Both direct and indirect evidence suggests that the early medi­eval English were hunting with domesticated raptors. One vernacular text from the period clearly indicates the use of domesticated hunting birds: Ælfric’s Colloquy. The fowler of Ælfric’s text attests to hunting birds “hwilon mid neton, mid grinum, mid lime, mit hwistlunge, mid hafoce, mid trepan” (sometimes with nets, with nooses, with lime, with birdcalls, with hawks, with traps).350 When the instructor asks him for a bird, the fowler replies, “Hwilcne hafac wilt þu habban, þone maran hwæþer þe þæne læssan?” (What hawk would you have, the greater or the lesser?).351 By this question, the fowler indicates that he has birds of different sizes, perhaps indicating a variety of species. He also speaks to their domestication and care: “Hig fedaþ hig sylfe  me on wintra,  on lencgten ic læte hig ætwindan to wuda,  genyme me briddas on hærfæste,  temige hig” (They feed themselves and me in the winter, and in the spring I let them escape to the woods, and I take young birds in the fall and tame them).352 Actual training practice can be found in the Exeter Book’s “Fortunes of Men,” in which the young falconer “deþ he wyrplas on, / fedeþ swa on feterum” (puts the jesses on [and] feeds [it] thus in fetters).353 The Exeter Book may hold yet another hawk between its boards in Riddle 20. In the poem, the riddling narrator describes his warlike duties and how his lord “healdeð mec on heaþore, hwilum læteð eft / radwerigne on gerum sceacan, / orlegfromne” (holds me in restraint, sometimes he lets me again, travel-weary, to go forth in space, stout in battle).354 These details may describe a tethered hawk, set free to kill for its keeper. Although these descriptions are found in fictional works, there is no indication in the texts that these methods are anything but normal practice in early medi­eval falconry. 348  See Crabtree and Campana, “Animal Bone,” 309–10.

349  Although, in this case, the raptors in question might be the buzzard (Buteo buteo) and the red kite (Milvus milvus). See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 241–45. 350  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 31.

351  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 31–32. 352  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 32.

353  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:250. Titled “Fates of Mortals” in Muir’s text.

354  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:302. Note that the most common solution for Riddle 20 is sword. See, for example, The Old English Riddles of The Exeter Book, ed. Williamson, 193–99.



Animal Entries

81

While the falconer of Ælfric’s Colloquy is portrayed as a working man, hawks are most often associated with the aristocracy. Their value can be seen in documentary texts, such as in the tenth-century will of the thane Brihtric and his wife Ælfswith. In their will, the couple leave their royal lord numerous valuables, including an armlet, swords, horses, and “twegen hafocas ” (two hawks).355 Hawks also mark nobility in poetic works such as “The Battle of Maldon,” as when one of the noble native warriors “let him þa of handon leofne fleogan hafoc wið þæs holtes, and to þære hilde stop” (then let go from his hand his beloved hawk to fly to the woods, and then [he] stepped to the battle).356 Although falconry might have been a rare occupation among the working class, it was a common symbol of nobility of both character and birth. As with many cultures, raptors held a fascination for the early medi­eval English. They were relatively commonplace inhabitants of the native ecosystem, but they were also both effective tools and important symbols. The archaeo­logical record confirms their presence and use, while the vernacular writings of the time underscore both their monetary and metaphorical values. Further Reading

Cherryson, Annia Kristina. “The Identification of Archaeo­logical Evidence for Hawking in Medi­eval England.” Acta Zoo­logica Cracoviensia 45 (2002): 307–14. Oggins, Robin S. The Kings and Their Hawks: Falconry in Medi­eval England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Shaw, Philip A. “Telling a Hawk from an Herodio: On the Origins and Development of the Old English Word Wealhhafoc and Its Relatives.” Medium Aevum 82, no. 1 (2013): 1–22. Shook, Laurence K. “Old English Riddle No. 20: Heoruswealwe.” In Franciplegius: Medi­eval and Linguistic Studies in Honor of Francis Peabody Magoun, Jr., edited by Jess B. Bessinger and Robert P. Creed, 194–204. New York: New York University Press, 1965. Wallis, Robert J. “‘As the Falcon Her Bells’ at Sutton Hoo? Falconry in Early Anglo-Saxon England.” Archaeo­logical Journal 174, no. 2 (2017): 409–36.

 HEDGEHOG  OE: igil, il, hatte-fagol, hæren-fagol Species: Erinaceus europaeus

The western European, or common, hedgehog (E. europaeus) is the sole native

hedgehog species of the British Isles. They range across southern and western Europe and into Scandinavia. As their Present-Day English name suggests, these animals prefer habitats at the edge of where woodland and open fields meet. Solitary and nocturnal in habits, hedgehogs were probably seldom seen by the people of early medi­eval England. These diminutive insectivores appear to have no recognized presence in the archaeo­logical record of the period, suggesting a lack of use by people of the early medi­eval period.357 355  Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. Whitelock, 26. 356  The Battle of Maldon, ed. Scragg, 57.

357  For the paucity of E. europaeus remains in early medi­eval York, see O’Connor, Bones from 46–54 Fishergate, 255.

82

Animal Entries

Hedgehogs directly appear in Old English texts either as metaphors in Christian literature or in glossaries. For example, in his Lives of the Saints, Ælfric describes St. Sebastian’s martyrdom as leaving the holy man shot full of arrows “swa þicce on ælce healfe hwylce iles byrsta” (as thick on every side as a hedgehog’s bristles). 358 In the same text, he describes the fate of the English king St. Edmund at the hands of Viking archers as leaving the king “besæt mid heora scotungum swilce igles byrsta” (beset with their shots like a hedgehog’s bristles).359 In glossing the original Latin hystrix (porcupine) from both texts with the Old English igil (hedgehog), Ælfric translates the Continental animal metaphor into his native idiom using an insular analogue. This transition may have been Ælfric’s awareness of his audience’s need for a recognizable image, porcupines not being native to early medi­eval England. Alternately, the alternation of porcupine to hedgehog may have been due to lexical slippage, as the Old English glossaries use igil to gloss both the Latin hystrix (porcupine) and ericius (hedgehog).360 Fittingly, one last possible literary refuge for the hedgehog in the Old English corpus is an indirect one, as the solution to a riddle. Riddle 15 in the Exeter Book presents a burrowing mother animal fiercely defending her young from a threatening hound. The riddle has been variously solved as badger, fox, or even porcupine.361 The latter solution, and its connection to the hedgehog, lies in the description of the beleaguered creature’s desperate stand against her pursuer as she “þurh hest hrino hildepilum laðgewinnum” (fiercely attack[s] the hated foe by means of battle-spears).362 While the hedgehog is unlikely to go on the offensive, a defensive setting of spears against an oncoming enemy can still deal considerable damage. Perhaps, in the case of the hedgehog, the best offense is a good defence. The marginal lifestyle of the hedgehog may well explain its minimal appearance in the archaeo­logical record. Its correspondingly retiring nature may also account for its limited occurrence in the vernacular textual tradition of early medi­eval England. In both cases, the hedgehog’s elusive presence in the artifacts of human culture of the time seems to be consonant with its place in its environment. Further Reading

Cavell, Megan. “The Igil and Exeter Book Riddle 15.” Notes and Queries 64, no. 2 (2017): 206–10. Jordan, Timothy R. W. “Holiness and Hopefulness: The Monastic and Lay Audiences of Abbo of Fleury’s Passio Sancti Eadmundi and Ælfric of Eynsham’s Life of St. Edmund, King and Martyr.” Ennaratio 19 (2015): 1–29. Reeve, Nigel. Hedgehogs. London: Poyser, 1994. 358  Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 1:144. 359  Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 2:323.

360  For ericius and hystrix, respectively, see An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 49, 63.

361  For a recent overview of the scholarship and an argument for hedgehog as a solution to Riddle 15, see Cavell, “Igil,” 206–10. 362  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:299.



 HERRING  OE: hæring  |  Species: Clupea harengus

Animal Entries

83

The Atlantic herring (C. harengus) is one of the most common marine fishes found in the world. They are taller than they are wide, averaging fifteen inches (40 cm) in length, with a darkish blue colouration above and silver below. Even at today’s historically depressed numbers, there are still estimated to be more than fifty billion fish in the North Atlantic herring fishery.363 They range coastally from the mid to northern Atlantic, from the United States to France. Herring travel in vast schools, making them susceptible to intensive fishing practices, such as netting. There is ample evidence of herring in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. Overall, herring remains appear in fairly localized, coastal sites dating to the earlier medi­eval period, but increased dramatically in both number and distribution after the year 1000 ce.364 Known as the “fish event horizon,” this point in time marks a significant shift to intensive marine fishing.365 For example, an archaeo­logical survey of eleventh and twelfth-century sites shows the herring as more prominent than the prior number one fish in early medi­eval England: the eel.366 Somewhat surprisingly, despite their ultimate importance to the early medi­eval insular diet, herring have a relatively low profile in Old English texts, occurring in only thirteen texts. However, their ubiquity as a food item may explain how their slight appearance in the Old English corpus extends to lexical, educational, legal, and religious works. Across the Latin–Old English glossaries, the Old English hæring glosses a number of specific and more generalized Latin fish-terms, such as allec (herring), garus (fish), sardina (sardine or small fish), and tarichus (preserved fish).367 As such, hæring may be a catch-all name for small, edible fish, regardless of species. This kind of undifferentiating reference may explain how hæring can claim cultural importance by dint of their sheer numbers. For example, when the student portraying the fisherman in Ælfric’s Colloquy lists what he catches in the sea, he names “Hærincgas  leaxas, mereswyn  stirian, ostran and crabban, muslan, winewinclan, sæcoccas, fagc  floc  lopystran  fela swylces” (Herrings and salmon, dolphins and sturgeon, oysters and crabs, mussels, periwinkles, cockles, plaice and flounder and lobsters and many of the like).368 Herring, thanks to their numbers, take pride of place in the list before other usually more prestigious game fish. The value of the abundance of herring is also evident in the Old English charters. When Abbot Ælfwig leases land at Tidenham to Archbishop Stigand in the decade before the Conquest, part of the rent includes “i marc goldes to eacan  vi merswun  xxx þusenda hæringys ælce eare” (one mark of gold in addition [to the aforementioned rent] and six dolphins and 30 thousand herrings each 363  See Bartolino and Lusseau, Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group, 131. 364  See Barrett, Locker, and Roberts, “‘Dark Age Economics’ Revisited,” 621–22. 365  Barrett, Locker, and Roberts, “‘Dark Age Economics’ Revisited,” 619.

366  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 110–11.

367  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “hæring.”

368  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29.

84

Animal Entries

year).369 The very number of fish Ælfwig demands demonstrates the expectation of the herring fishery’s productivity. Conversely, an instructional on almsgiving shows just how humble a single herring can be. The text advises that one should give alms every day, even if it is no more than “se feorða dæl þines hlafes and an hærinc” (the fourth part of your bread and a herring).370 If a single herring can be the very symbol of meagreness, it is only because the fish eventually became so common to the early medi­eval English. A staple of their diet, the herring was one of the preeminent sources of marine protein for people of the time. Yet, as with so many quotidian aspects of life, that very familiarity may have led to the herring’s underrepresentation in the Old English corpus. Further Reading

Barrett, James, and David Orton. Cod and Herring: The Archaeo­logy and History of Medi­eval Sea Fishing. Oxford: Oxbow, 2016. Bartolino, Valerio, and Susan Mærsk Lusseau, eds. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62° N (HAWG). ICES Scientific Reports 1, no. 2. Copenhagen: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 2019. Estrella-Martí�nez, Juan, Bernd R. Schöne, Ruth H. Thurstan, Elisa Capuzzo, James D. Scourse, and Paul G. Butler. “Reconstruction of Atlantic Herring (Clupea harengus) Recruitment in the North Sea for the Past 455 Years Based on the δ13C from Annual Shell Increments of the Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica).” Fish & Fisheries 20, no. 3 (2019): 537–51. Tsurushima, Hirokazu. “The Eleventh Century in England through Fish-eyes: Salmon, Herring, Oysters and 1066.” In Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2006, edited by C. P. Lewis, 193–213. Anglo-Norman Studies 29. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007.

 HORSE  OE: blanca, eoh, friþ-hengest, hengest, hors, mearh, rad-hors, wicg  FOAL  OE: fola  MARE  OE: myre, stod-myre  PACK-HORSE  OE: ealfara, seam-hors  CART-HORSE  OE: cræte-hors, stott  STALLION  OE: gested-hors, steda, stod-hors Species: Equus caballus

Although evidence of horse remains in the British Isles can be traced back to the Neolithic period, their originally slight numbers do increase appreciably in archaeo­ logical contexts up through the Bronze Age (ca. 2000 bce), when they become fairly commonplace.371 By the time of the early Middle Ages, the horse had been widely domesticated for human use in England. Although there has yet to be found any definitive proof 369  Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Robertson, 218.

370  Ker, “Three Old English Texts in a Salisbury Pontifical,” 276. 371  See Bendrey, “The Horse,” 10–12.



Animal Entries

85

of intentional breeding, the people of the time recognized horses as correlated with particular jobs: hunting, farming, or breeding, for example. Typically about 13 hands tall (four-and-a-third feet (1.32 m) at the shoulder), the horses of early medi­eval England were closer in size to modern-day ponies than full-sized modern horses.372 A good deal of scholarship has been devoted to the possible colouration of these horses, with no definitive, standard colouration accepted as the norm.373 The archaeo­logical evidence suggests that horses were widespread but not particularly numerous.374 At the mammal-rich archaeo­logical excavations at West Stow, for example, horse remains from the early medi­eval period were outnumbered at a ratio of at least 20:1 by both cattle and sheep remains.375 Excavations from the same period in York rendered even more extreme results, with horse remains outnumbered by both cattle and sheep by a factor of 200:1.376 However, remains of horse tack indicates the equestrian use of horses, with everything from bridle-bits to saddles found in archaeo­logical contexts from the period.377 The relative lack of butchery marks on horse remains indicates that they were rarely eaten.378 Old English writings provide further clues as to horse usage. Numerous terms are used in the context of what was likely aristocratic riding (e.g., blanca, eoh, friþ-hengest, hengest, hors, mearh, rad-hors, wicg).379 In Ælfric’s homily on Esther, he uses a unique Old English term to portray noble equestrianism. In the text, the treacherous Haman describes how king Ahasuerus might bestow honours on a favoured follower. Ælfric translates his source, describing Haman’s ideal that one way to honour such a man is “letan hine ridan on þæs cyninges radhorse” (to let him ride upon the king’s ridinghorse).380 The word rad-hors is a hapax legomenon, occurring only in this one instance in all of the Old English corpus, most likely created to underscore the noble association of the subject. Horses occur quite frequently in aristocratic contexts, both real and imagined. The “Rune Poem” presents the rune ᛖ (eh) to stand in for the Old English word eoh (steed), which is described as “for eorlum æþelinga wyn” (for nobles the joy of princes).381 Pe haps one of the more noteworthy poetic appearances of noble horse-use occurs in 372  See Fern, “Archaeo­logical Evidence,” 65–66.

373  For extended discussion of the colouration of early medi­eval horses, see Neville, “Hrothgar’s Horses,” 145–53. 374  See O’Connor, “Animal Husbandry,” 367. 375  See Crabtree, West Stow, 6.

376  See O’Connor, Bones from 46–54 Fishergate, 236–39. 377  See Fern, “Archaeo­logical Evidence,” 43–46.

378  See Poole, “Horses for Courses,” 22–28.

379  For a collocation of some of these horse terms, see, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 75. 380  Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, ed. Assmann 99.

381  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 130. On the use and interpretation of the rune, see Page, An Introduction to English Runes,72–73; The Old English Rune Poem, ed. Halsall, 139–40; Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “eoh.”

86

Animal Entries

Beowulf. In celebration of Beowulf’s defeat of Grendel, young warriors trace the monster’s tracks to his swampy lair. They then returned “fram mere modge mearum ridan, / beornas on blancum” (from the mere, joyfully riding on horses, warriors on white steeds).382 Once back at Heorot, “Hwilum heaþorofe hleapan leton, / on geflit faran fealwe mearas” (Sometimes the warriors let them [the steeds] leap, to race the duncoloured horses in competition).383 In both these instances, horse riding and racing are portrayed as aristocratic exercises. Yet horses were also measured among the real wealth of the ruling classes. When prince Æthelstan Ætheling wills his valuables to his father Æthelred in 1014 ce, he leaves the king land, armour, weapons, and “þæs horses þe Þurbrand me geaf  þæs hwitan horses þe Leofwine me geaf ” (the horse that Thurbrand gave me and the white horse that Leofwine gave me).384 This single act demonstrates the value horses had to the aristocracy, their individual familiarity with particular animals, and the horse’s role in the cultural practice of gift-giving. Horses were so important to the aristocracy of the period that some of these animals even were afforded ceremonial burial.385 Of course, horses appear in more humble circumstances. The vernacular equine termino­logy alone points to horses’ use as working animals (e.g., cræte-hors, ealfara, seam-hors, stott) and brood-stock (e.g., gested-hors, fola, myre, steda, stod-hors, stodmyre).386 One of the few written examples of lower-class horse use is found in the Rectitudines, a guide for managing an aristocratic estate. In the section “Gebures Gerihte” (On the Rights of the Peasant), the text stipulates, “gif he aferað ne ðearf he wyrcan ða hwile ðe his hors ute bið” (if he supplies his horses for labour, it is not necessary that he work while his horses are out).387 Peasants, in this instance, appear to be able to possess horses, use them for agricultural labour, and trade the animals’ work for their own. People could also turn to horses for folk remedies. As unpleasant as it seems, Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook suggests the following treatment for heavy menstrual flow: “genim niwe horses tord, lege on hate gleda, læt reocan swiþe betweoh þa þeoh up under þæt hrægl” (take a new horse-turd, lay it on hot coals, [and] let it steam very much between the thighs, up under the clothes).388 More palatable, but still relatively uncommon, uses of the horse’s body may have been the harvesting of its skin, bones, and perhaps even, in extremis, its flesh.389 When it comes to works of the imagination, horses also find humble employment. Ælfric’s telling of St. Cuthbert’s life portrays the saint’s horse as both a domestic and 382  Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 31. 383  Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 31. 384  Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. Whitelock, 58.

385  See Fern, “Archaeo­logical Evidence,” 43–46.

386  For a collocation of some of these horse terms, see, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 50; Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. 387  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:446. 388  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:330, 332.

389  On the evidence and products of horse-butchery, see Poole, “Horses for Courses,” 322–28.



Animal Entries

87

natural animal. In the text, Cuthbert and his horse are stranded inside a shepherd’s cottage during a storm. While the saint prays, “ða tær þæt hors þæt ðæc of ðære cytan hrofe” (then the horse tore the thatch from the roof of the cottage), miraculously revealing a warm loaf of bread with which to feed the saint.390 The details presented as commonplace are in fact noteworthy. A humble travelling devotee, Cuthbert still has a horse available for transportation. Moreover, the monk’s sheltering under the same roof as his horse is not remarked upon as unusual. Finally, the horse’s fodder-seeking behaviour would have been understood as eminently natural to an early medi­eval audience. In all, this snapshot of Cuthbert’s interaction with his horse, meant to make the miraculous relatable to Ælfric’s lay audience, relies upon the audience’s knowledge of the close relationship between horses and humans at the time. Both the archaeo­logical and textual records attest to the close and crucial relationship that existed between the people of early medi­eval England and their equines. Horses were widespread, yet valuable, domestic livestock. A source of pride and wealth for the upper classes, they also provided more quotidian services for the lower echelons of society. Horses touched every stratum of early medi­eval insular society, from parchment to pasture, and their influence remains evident even now. Further Reading

Bendrey, Robin. “The Horse.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 10–16. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. Davis, R. H. C. “Did the Anglo-Saxons Have Warhorses?” In Weapons and Warfare in AngloSaxon England, edited by Sonia Chadwick Hawkes, 141–44. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeo­logy, 1989. Fern, Chris. “The Archaeo­logical Evidence for Equestrianism in Early Anglo-Saxon England, c.450–700.” In Just Skin and Bones? New Perspectives on Human–Animal Relations in the Historical Past, edited by Aleksander Pluskowski, 43–71. BAR International Series 1410. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2005. —— . “Horses in Mind.” In Signals of Belief in Early Medi­eval England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited, edited by Martin Carver, Alex Sanmark, and Sarah Semple, 128–57. Oxford: Oxbow, 2010. Keefer, Sarah Larratt. “Hwær cwom mearh? The Horse in Anglo-Saxon England.” Journal of Medi­eval History 22, no. 2 (1996): 115–34. Neville, Jennifer. “Hrothgar’s Horses: Feral or Thoroughbred.” Anglo-Saxon England 35 (2006): 131–57. Poole, Kristopher. “Horses for Courses? Religious Change and Dietary Shifts in Anglo-Saxon England.” Oxford Journal of Archaeo­logy 32, no. 3 (2013): 319–33.

390  Homily 10 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 82.

88

Animal Entries

 IBEX  OE: fyrgen-gat, fyrgen-bucca  |  Species: Capra ibex

The ibex is a mountain goat of the Alps that would not have been encountered in early

medi­eval England. The only substantive mention of ibex outside of the glossaries, where it glosses the Latin ibex, is in the Latin medical text, Medicina de quadrupedibus.391 As with many of the maladies found therein, a bloody nose can be treated with animal products: “Wið blodryne of nebbe, firginbuccan, þæt ys wudubucca oððe gat þæs lifer gebryted wið ecede  on næsþyrl bestungen, wundorlice hraþe hyt ðone blodryne gestilleþ” (Against the bleeding of the nose, from an ibex, that is a wild buck or goat, the liver is broken up with vinegar and pushed in the nostril; wonderfully quickly it will stop the bleeding).392 Given that this medical text relies on Continental sources, this medical treatment likely does not reflect actual therapeutic practice on the island at the time.393 Not surprisingly, this unfamiliar animal leaves little trace in early medi­eval English vernacular texts. Further Reading

Parrini, Francesca, James W. Cain, III, and Paul R. Krausman. “Capra ibex (Artiodactyla: Bovidae).” Mammalian Species 830 (2009): 1–12.

 JACKDAW  OE: ceahha  |  Species: Coloeus monedula

The western Eurasian

jackdaw (C. monedula spermo­logus) is the most common representative of the species in the British Isles. A smaller member of the Corvid family, which includes the more formidable crows and raven, the jackdaw typically reaches a length of about fourteen inches (35 cm). Tending to a greyish-black colouration around the neck and breast, the wings, back, tail, and head are a deeper black. As opposed to its scavenging brethren, the jackdaw tends more towards foraging for insects and vegetable matter. The jackdaw has a minor presence in the archaeo­logical record, although not as significant as its larger cousins, the raven and crows.394 Its textual footprint is correspondingly small. The Old English term for the jackdaw, ceahh, occurs in just one charter. The document is a grant of land in Witney by King Edgar in 969 ce. At one point the charter describes the property boundary as travelling “andlang broces on ða myþy of þas gemyþon on ceahhan mere” (along the brook unto the mouth, [and] from that unto the jackdaw’s lake).395 While jackdaws may not have made a large impression on the archaeo­logical or vernacular textual records of early medi­eval England, they were at least acknowledged as a presence in the landscape. 391  For a glossary appearance, see, for example, Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary, ed. Pheifer, 30. See also Jordan, Die altenglischen Saugetiernamen , 142. 392  The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, 252.

393  Cameron, Anglo-Saxon Medicine, 35.

394  See, for example, the broad survey of archaeo­logical remains in Holmes, Southern England, 286.

395  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 3:520. For a description of the landmarks cited, see Baggs et al., “Introduction to Witney and Its Townships,” 6.



Further Reading

Animal Entries

89

Madge, Steven. “Identification of Jackdaws and Choughs.” British Birds 87, no. 3 (1994): 99–105.

 JAY  OE: higera  |  Species: Garrulus glandarius, Pica pica

The Old English higera may refer to either or both of two birds: the Eurasian jay

(G. glandarius) and the magpie (P. pica). To the eye, these birds are quite different. The jay measures in at about thirteen inches (33 cm) in length, compared to the slightly larger magpie’s seventeen inches (43 cm). The magpie is a study in black and white, largely black above and white below, with a greenish sheen to its long tail. The jay, in contrast, is mainly buff-coloured, but with striking black, white, and blue markings on its wings and black and white striping across its head and throat. The jay will mainly stick to its diet of nuts, seeds, and insects, while the magpie will eat almost anything it can grab. However, these birds do have one distinctive trait in common: their raucous voices. The magpie’s call is a strident chattering, and the call of the jay has accurately, if ungenerously, been described as screaming. More impressively, both birds have the ability to mimic what they hear, from the songs of other birds to human voices. The mimetic skill of these birds seems to be what brought them to the attention of the early medi­eval English. Magpie remains are few and far between in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England, and jays virtually absent, most likely due to their lack of dietary or cultural value to people of the time.396 Even in Old English texts, these birds are primarily the denizens of glossaries, their vernacular names glossing the Latin jaia (jay or magpie).397 The notable exception is their occurrence as a likely answer to Exeter Book Riddle 24. In the poem, the anonymous speaker describes its skills, which include an impressive range of mimetic sounds: “hwilum beorce swa hund, hwilum blæte swa gat, / hwilum græde swa gos” (sometimes [I] bark like a hound, sometimes bleat like a goat, sometimes cry like a goose).398 While this may be clue enough as to the riddler’s identity, the poet also includes a runic clue. The riddle includes the runic letters for G, Æ, R, O, H, and I, which, unscrambled, can spell higoræ (jay or magpie).399 Thus, while magpies and jays were not featured in diet or crafts, they appeared to capture the attention and imagination of the early medi­eval English through their distinctive voices. Further Reading

Gregory, Richard D., and John H. Marchant. “Population Trends of Jays, Magpies, Jackdaws and Carrion Crows in the United Kingdom.” Bird Study 43, no. 1(1996): 28–37. Stanton, Robert. “Mimicry, Subjectivity, and the Embodied Voice in Anglo-Saxon Bird Riddles.” In Voice and Voicelessness in Medi­eval Europe, edited by Irit Ruth Kleiman, 29–43. The New Middle Ages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. 396  See, for example, Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 39; Poole, “Mammal and Bird Remains,” 143. 397  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 103. 398  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:305.

399  See Bitterli, Say What I Am Called, 91–97.

90

Animal Entries

 KINGFISHER  OE: isearn  |  Species: Alcedo atthis

The common, or

Eurasian, kingfisher (A. atthis) is by far the most representative of its family in the British Isles, although the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) has made isolated appearances, at least in recent history. The common kingfisher is a smaller bird, averaging about six inches (15 cm) in length, but makes an impression with its brilliant colouration: a vibrant blue above contrasted with a ruddy orange below. Given their slight, small frames and waterside habitat, it is not unusual that kingfishers are virtually absent from early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England.400 They are similarly scarce in Old English texts, occurring only in glossaries for the Latin alcyon (kingfisher).401 Combine its striking appearance with its dramatic whirring over the surface of pond or stream, and the lack of mention of the kingfisher in the Old English corpus seems somewhat surprising at first glance. However, its limited contact with the people of the period and its apparent lack of utility may well explain its relative absence from the archaeo­logical and written records of the time. Further Reading

Chandler, David, and Ian Llewellyn. Kingfisher. London: New Holland, 2010.

 KITE  OE: glida  |  Species: Milvus milvus, M. nigra

Two species of kite call the British Isles home: the red kite (M. milvus) and the black kite (M. nigra). Kites are members of the Accipitrid family, closely resembling their raptor cousins such as the hawks, but tending to be somewhat larger, ranging from eighteen to twenty-eight inches (46 to 71 cm) in length. The red kite is the resident species of England and the greater of the two birds. The black kite is a migratory visitor and is somewhat smaller than its red relative. Given its size and distribution, it seems probable that the species most recognized by the English of the early medi­eval period would be the red kite. Archaeo­logical contexts from the period show the red kite to be the most common of the kite species present, while not particularly abundant.402 At Flixborough, the unusually large amount of red kite remains, and a corresponding surfeit of prey species associated with hawking, may indicate that M. milvus was used in falconry at this site.403 While the archaeo­logists note that the red kite is not a typically domesticated raptor, they also assert that the sheer number of M. milvus remains indicate some kind of human intervention in the bird’s distribution. As suggestive as the archaeo­logical evidence may be, the Old English corpus leaves much less material to investigate. The kite appears primarily as a glossary item, gloss-

400  Note their absence from large-scale surveys of avian remains from period sites. See, for example, Holmes, Southern England, 286–88.

401  See Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 494.

402  See, for example, Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 38; Holmes, Southern England, 288. 403  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 243–45.



Animal Entries

91

ing the Latin milvus (kite).404 Some small acknowledgement of the bird comes in Riddle 24 of the Exeter Book, but only indirectly. The riddler of the poem, likely a jay or magpie, touts its ability to mimic.405 For this clever bird, “hwilum glidan reorde muþe gemæne” (sometimes the voice of the kite [is] common in [my] mouth).406 The only direct reference to the nature of the kite comes in Ælfric’s homily on the Epiphany. In juxtaposing sinners to Christ, Ælfric uses the raptor in a metaphor: “se ðe reaflac lufað he bið glida and na culfre” (he who loves rapine, he is a kite and not a dove).407 In explaining bad behaviour to his contemporary audience, Ælfric appears to be counting on their recognition of the kite’s reputation for ferocity. Kites have a slight presence in both the archaeo­logical and vernacular written records of early medi­eval England. In accordance with their largely wild, untamed ways, these birds appear to have remained relatively free of human influence or representation. Rather, the kite seems to be largely understood through metaphor and association, fitting for its aerial remove from the human experience. Further Reading

Stevens, Matthew, Campbell Murn, and Richard Hennessey. “Population Change of Red Kites Milvus milvus in Central Southern England between 2011 and 2016 Derived from Line Transect Surveys and Multiple Covariate Distance Sampling.” Acta Ornitho­logica 54, no. 2 (2020): 243–54.

 LAPWING  OE: leap-wince, hlæp-wince  |  Species: Vanellus vanellus

The northern lapwing (V. vanellus) is a striking member of the plover family.

About a foot long (30 cm), the lapwing is white below and an iridescent greenish-black above. Its most distinctive feature is a sweeping black crest curling up from the back of its head. Lapwings are common, year-round residents of the British Isles. They are wading birds, and are consequently found near water sources, although they prefer fields during the breeding season. The archaeo­logical record of lapwing remains in the early medi­eval period in England is quite small.408 Their appearance in those contexts is likely accidental or the result of a rare, opportunistic capture. There is no evidence that V. vanellus was sought as a source of food or as a resource for human material culture. In keeping with the thin archaeo­logical representation of the bird in early medi­ eval contexts, it is also barely present in the Old English corpus. Just four references to the bird exist in Latin–Old English glossaries, where it glosses the Latin cucu and cucurata, potentially confusing it with glosses for both the cuckoo and the wren.409 Despite 404  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307. 405  Bitterli, Say What I Am Called, 91–97.

406  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:305.

407  Homily 3 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 24.

408  See Crabtree, West Stow, 27. See also Yalden and Albarella, The History of British Birds, 130–32.

409  See Whitman, “The Birds of Old English Literature,” 160, 178.

92

Animal Entries

its impressive coif, the northern lapwing made little detectable impact on the vernacular texts of the time. Further Reading

Shrubb, Michael. The Lapwing. London: Poyser, 2007.

 LAMPREY  OE: lamprede, mere-næddra Species: Lampetra fluviatilis, L. planeri, Petromyzon marinus

British waters are home to three lamprey species that span the divide between freshwater and saltwater. The brook lamprey (L. planeri) spends the entirety of its life in freshwater while the river lamprey (L. fluviatilis) and marine lamprey (P. marinus) spawn and develop in freshwater before spending their maturity in the sea. These latter two sea-going fish then return to freshwater to repeat their reproductive cycle. All three species have long, slender, eel-like bodies, dark above and pale below, and a circular sucking disk ringed with teeth instead of a jawed mouth. The brook lamprey is the smallest of the species at about five inches (12.5 cm), but the river lamprey is longer at somewhere around a foot in length (30 cm). The sea lamprey is larger still at about eighteen inches (45 cm), although some specimens can reach over twice that size. Having a skeleton made of cartilage, lamprey remains are virtually nonexistent in the early medi­eval archaeo­logical record. Only one record of lamprey teeth in the English archaeo­logical contexts from the time has been found: at the Coppergate site in York.410 Similarly, there is very little vernacular textual evidence of lamprey. Although the twelfth-century Liber Eliensis describes the catch in Ely as including “murenas, quas nos serpentes aquaticas vocamus” (lampreys, which we call water serpents), the Old English corpus only supplies three instances of lampreys.411 Two of these are merely glossary entries, and the last one is in Ælfric’s Colloquy.412 In the text, Ælfric’s fisherman describes his take from the waters, which includes “Ælas  hacodas, mynas  æleputan, sceotan  lampredan,  swa wylce swa on wætere swymmaþ” (Eels and pike, minnows and burbot, shoat and lampreys, and whatever swims in the waters).413 According to Ælfric’s text, lamprey appear as just another typical target of the angler. However, the place of the lamprey as a resource for the early medi­eval English is unclear at best. The nature of the lamprey’s remains makes it nearly impossible to find in archaeo­logical contexts and, while Ælfric seems to cast the lamprey as a normal food-species, there is precious little documentary evidence of it as well. Ultimately, the lamprey’s relationship to the people of the period is as difficult to get a grasp on as the fish itself. 410  See A. K. G. Jones, “Provisional Remarks on Fish Remains,” 117. 411  Liber Eliensis, ed. Blake, 232.

412  For glossary examples of lamprede and mere-næddra, respectively, see “The Latin–Old English Glossary,” ed. Stryker, 285; “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228. 413  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 27.



Further Reading

Animal Entries

93

Maitland, Peter S. Eco­logy of the River, Brook and Sea Lamprey: Lampetra fluviatilis, Lampetra planeri, and Petromyzon marinus. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Eco­logy Series 5. Peterborough: English Nature, 2003.

 LION  OE: leo  |  Species: Panthera leo, Panthera spelaea

Lions had been

absent from the British Isles for roughly 13,000 years by the early medi­eval period, since the extinction of the cave lion (P. spelaea).414 Undoubtedly, the knowledge of lions by that point would primarily derive from Continental writings concerning the modern lion (P. leo). In fact, the Latin leo is simply glossed as leo in Old English as a loanword, illustrating that they had no native term for the creature.415 Unsurprisingly, lions most often appear in vernacular literature in explicitly Christian contexts. In Ælfric’s homily on the sacrifice at Easter, for example, he repeats the conventional Christian metaphor that Christ is called “leo for ðære strencðe” (the lion for his strength).416 Actual lions often appear as ferocious denizens of the environment as bodily, if two-dimensional, threats to the faithful, as in Ælfric’s homily on the Octaves and Christ’s circumcision. In the text, the homilist describes the environment of the desert saints as a place where “Oft halige menn wunedon on westene betwux reþum wulfum  leonum” (often holy men lived in the wastelands among ferocious wolves and lions).417 Similarly, lions are also depicted as little more than bestial set-dressing in travelogues of faraway lands. For example, the Old English translation of Alexander’s Letter to Aristotle presents the lion as just another threat in a rogues’ gallery of fearsome beasts that harry travellers: “ofer ealle þa niht ðe we ferdon þus symle leon  beran  tigris  pardus  wulfas ure ehtan” (over all the night as we thus travelled, lions and bears and tigers and leopards and wolves pursued us)418. Ultimately, it is this lion of the mind, much more often than the real beast, that stalks the corpus of Old English writings. Further Reading

Schnitzler, Annik E. “Past and Present Distribution of the North African–Asian Lion Subgroup: A Review.” Mammal Review 41, no. 3 (2011): 220–43. Stuart, Anthony J., and Adrian M. Lister. “Extinction Chrono­logy of the Cave Lion Panthera spelaea.” Quaternary Science Reviews 30 (2011): 2329–40.

414  See Stuart and Lister, “Extinction Chrono­logy of the Cave Lion,” 2329–40. 415  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 308. 416  Homily 15 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 153.

417  Homily 12 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 111. 418  Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, 234.

94

Animal Entries

 LIZARD  OE: aðexe  |  Species: Anguis fragilis, Lacerta agilis, Zootoca vivipara

England has three native lizard species: the slow-worm (A. fragilis), the sand

lizard (L. agilis), and the viviparous lizard (Z. vivipara), also known as the common lizard. About eighteen inches (45 cm) long, the slow-worm may be mistaken as a brownish-coloured snake as it is a legless lizard. A key identifying factor of A. fragilis is that, as a lizard, it has eyelids while true snakes do not. The sand lizard is a rare species in England, sporting a spotted brown or, in males, green colouration with darker spots along their nine-inch lengths. As its name implies, the viviparous lizard is exceptional for its bearing of live young, as opposed to egg laying. The colouration of Z. vivipara can vary from browns to greys to near black, usually with some kind of lateral stripe. Lizard representation is as scarce in the archaeo­logical record as it is in Old English texts. For example, of the thousands of animal remains found in the early medi­eval site of Flixborough, only one was tentatively identified as a lizard.419 Extensive excavations at York yielded “a number of specimens of slow-worm Anguis fiagilis [sic],”420 but these legless lizards would have been most likely assumed to be snakes by the early medi­eval inhabitants of England. Although the scarcity of lizard remains might have more to do with the fragile nature of their skeletons than it does with their actual presence, the fact that they only appear in Old English glossaries for the Latin lacerta indicates that none of these three species figured largely in the textual culture of early medi­eval vernacular English.421 Further Reading

Beebee, Trevor J. C., and Sophia Ratcliffe. “Inferring Status Changes of Three Widespread British Reptiles from NBN Atlas Records.” Herpeto­logical Bulletin 143 (2018): 18–22. Speybroeck, Jeroen, Wouter Beukema, Bobby Bok, Jan van der Voort, and Ilian Velikov. Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Britain and Europe. London: Bloomsbury, 2015.

 LOBSTER  OE: lopystre  |  Species: Homarus gammarus, Palinurus elephas

Of the seven

lobster species in British waters, the two larger and more widespread lobsters are the European, or common, lobster (H. gammarus), and the European spiny lobster (P. elephas). Both lobsters can reach two feet (60 cm) in length and inhabit rocky coastlines. The common lobster can be distinguished by its blue carapace and, in keeping with its name, the spiny lobster is characterized by the noticeable spines on its orangish shell. Despite these hardy-looking exteriors, lobster remains do not preserve well and are quite rare in the archaeo­logical record of the English early Middle Ages.422 The lobster appears in the Old English corpus only seven times. Six of those occurrences are in the Latin–Old English glossaries, where the vernacular lopystre glosses 419  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 55, 58.

420  See O’Connor, “8th–11th Century Economy and Environment in York,” 142.

421  See, for example, An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 71. 422  See, for example, Kenward, Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy, 35–36.



Animal Entries

95

the Latin polypus (octopus or sea creature).423 The odd conflation of lobster with the octopus also occurs in Ælfric’s Colloquy. In the Old English gloss to the Latin text, a student portraying a fisherman claims to catch the following in the sea: “Hærincgas  leaxas, mereswyn  stirian, ostran  crabban, muslan, winewinclan, sæcoccas, fagc  floc  lopystran  fela swylces” (Herrings and salmon, dolphins and sturgeon, oysters and crabs, mussels, periwinkles cockles, plaice and flounder, and lobsters and many of the like).424 Curiously, Ælfric is here translating the original Latin “polipodes” (octopuses) as “lopystran” (lobsters). However, readers should be careful of taking Ælfric’s catalogue of sea creatures at face value, as the source of Ælfric’s list may have been Continental and served primarily as a linguistic teaching tool.425 In actuality, there is currently no archaeo­logical or documentary record of the octopus in early medi­eval England. Ælfric likely transformed the animal from his Latin source into a lobster to provide his students with a vocabulary word referencing a recognizable animal term that actually existed in the Old English lexicon. Ironically, there is no record of the lobster in archaeo­logical contexts of the period either, so that Ælfric seemingly trades one elusive invertebrate for another. In the end, the lobster appears to exist more as part of a lexical exercise rather than as a real animal to the early medi­eval English. Further Reading

Ingle, Ray W., and Marit E. Christiansen. Lobsters, Mud Shrimps and Anomuran Crabs: Keys and Notes to the Identification of the Species. Synopses of the British Fauna, n.s., 55. Shrewsbury: Field Study Council, 2004.

 LOUSE  OE: lus  NIT  OE: hnitu  

Order: Phthiraptera

The lice of

early medi­eval England can be divided into two suborders: the Mallophaga (biting lice) and the Anoplura (sucking lice). The louse that most often parasitizes people is the human louse (Pediculus humanis), variously identified as the head louse or body louse.426 As anyone who has lived with a young child can assert, lice are a tenacious parasite. At one-tenth of an inch (2.5 mm) long, these blood-sucking invertebrates are difficult to see, and their infestation of a human host can be rapid and prolific. Feeding four to six times a day, a female louse can lay five or six eggs each day for the duration her four-week lifespan. The tiny eggs are extremely difficult to spot and are glued to hair follicles, which makes them difficult to eradicate. Given that a colony can 423  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228. 424  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29.

425  See Frantzen, Food, Eating and Identity, 72; Preston, “Fact and Fish Tales,” 7.

426  There has been an ongoing taxonomic debate whether head and body lice are separate subspecies. Current research indicates they are different morphotypes (i.e., having differing physio­ logies) within a single species (Pediculus humanis). See Bonilla et al., “The Bio­logy and Taxonomy of Head and Body Lice,” 1–2.

96

Animal Entries

include up to twenty individuals, an infestation can be quite an uncomfortable condition for the host due to the irritation caused by the louse’s bites. Unfortunately, the infestation is also quite easily spread among hosts who have head-to-head contact, as would be common in families and small social groups. For such tiny animals, they are readily evident in the archaeo­logical contexts of early medi­eval England. Digs at Coppergate in York, for example, yielded a great number of human lice (P. humanis).427 Curiously rare in the findings from this period are pubic lice (Pthiris pubis). That these parasites are largely absent from the archaeo­ logical record of the period may be due to the nature of personal grooming at the time, which would more likely produce greater quantities of shed hair from the head.428 The distribution of lice remains can be an important interpretive clue to understanding the usage patterns of areas in an archaeo­logical context, as intensive deposits of P. humanis would indicate intensive human use or occupation. Further, as lice species tend to specialize in host choice, tracking the relative deposit of livestock lice can indicate levels and patterns of animal husbandry.429 Old English texts give witness to the presence of lice in the community. While the term most often appears to gloss the Latin pediculus (louse) in the glossaries, there is some recognition of these little beasts in the early medi­eval medical literature in England.430 The more native remedies within Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook recommend the following: “Wiþ lusum sele him etan gesodenne cawel on neaht” (Against lice, give him boiled colewort [a species of cabbage: Brassica oleracea] to eat at night).431 Although an associated medical text, the Lacnunga, may not reflect actual medical practice in early medi­eval England, the choice to translate the following cures may point to a familiarity with the varieties of lice infestation.432 One remedy instructs the reader to create a salve and “smyre mid ealne ðone lichoman” (smear the whole body with that) while another recommends making a different ointment and the sufferer “smyre mid þæt heafod” (smear the head with that).433 At the very least, here is some acknowledgement of the different presentations of a lice infestation, body lice as opposed to head lice. Aside from vernacular medical texts and glossaries, lice also appear in Christian contexts, typically as a means of suffering for wrongdoing. For example, in Ælfric’s homily on false gods, he describes that one of the consequences of Adam’s disobedience and subsequent ejection from Eden is “þæt hine biton lys bealdlice and flean” 427  See Hall and Kenward, Bio­logical Evidence, 764.

428  See Kenward, Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy, 343–44.

429  For example, species-specific livestock lice include the sheep louse (Damalinia ovis), the cattle louse (D. bovis), the horse louse (D. equi), and the pig louse (Hematpinus apri). See Kenward, Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy, 347–48.

430  For a glossary example, see Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 310. See also Cortelyou, Die altenglischen Namen der Insekten, 92–95. 431  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:336.

432  See Cameron, Anglo-Saxon Medicine, 45–47.

433  Grattan and Singer, Anglo-Saxon Magic and Medicine, 172, 176.



Animal Entries

97

(that lice and fleas boldly bit him).434 In such cases, lice were portrayed as a divinelyordained natural affliction for misbehaviour. Ultimately, although they did not appear to be a desired part of textual culture or a significant aspect of cultural practice, lice were nevertheless a frequent companion of people of the period. Further Reading

Allison, E. P., and H. K. Kenward. “Those Were Lousy Times! Lice from Ancient York.” Interim: Bulletin of the York Archaeo­logical Trust 16, no. 2 (1991): 22–28. Bonilla, Denise L., Lance A. Durden, Marina E. Eremeeva, and Gregory A. Dasch. “The Bio­logy and Taxonomy of Head and Body Lice: Implications for Louse-Borne Disease Prevention.” PLoS Pathogens 9, no. 11 (2013): e1003724. Kenward, Harry. “Pubic Lice (Pthirus pubis L.) Were Present in Roman and Medi­eval Britain.” Antiquity 73, no. 282 (1999): 911–15. —— . “Pubic Lice in Roman and Medi­eval Britain.” Trends in Parasito­logy 71, no. 4 (2001): 167–68.

 LYNX  OE: lox  |  Species: Lynx lynx

The Eurasian lynx (L. lynx) historically ranged across virtually all of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. This brawny cat stands somewhat over two feet (60 cm) at the shoulder. Its coat tends to the darker tawny in colour and is marked by black spots. Perhaps its most distinctive feature is the whitish ruff bearding its cheeks and neck. Until relatively recently, this large felid was supposed to have gone extinct in the British Isles over 5,500 years ago.435 Recently, evidence has been found of a lynx bone that may date to as late as the sixth century ce, the beginning of the early medi­eval period in England.436 As of this writing, that find is the only physical evidence of a lynx dating to the period. The literary evidence is likewise scanty, with only one mention of the big cat not found in the Old English glossaries, where the Old English lox glosses the Latin lynx.437 Commenting on his Latin exemplar of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, Alfred expands on the idea of the lynx’s ability to see through objects: “Aristotelis se uðwita sæde þæt an dior wære ðe meahte ælc wuht þurhsion ge treowu ge furðum stanas: þæt dior we hatað lox” (Aristotle the philosopher said that there was an animal that could see through every creature, the trees, even stones: that animal we call the lynx).438 On the one hand, Alfred is referring to a Continental source: Aristotle.439 As such, this reference to the lynx is clearly not tied to an experience on English soil. On the other hand, he does note that the animal is what “we hatað” (we call) the lynx. This shows 434  Homilies of Ælfric, ed. Pope, 2:679. 435  See Hetherington, “The Lynx,” 75.

436  See Hetherington, Lord, and Jacobi, “New Evidence for the Occurrence of Eurasian Lynx,” 3–8. 437  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 74. 438  The Old English Boethius, ed Irvine and Godden, 186.

439  Alfred was likely misconstruing the Latin rendering the Greek name Lynceus. See The Old English Boethius, ed Irvine and Godden, 434.

98

Animal Entries

that the term for the lynx was in the living Old English vocabulary and the king was aware of the lynx as “an dior” (an animal). Perhaps word of surviving cats in the north came to the king, or tales from his Continental connections described the impressive carnivore. As a king of scholarly bent, he may have simply found the closest word to the Latin in an Old English vocabulary. This may well be the case, seeing as how, in an attempt to gloss the Latin term, the best Ælfric could do to classify the beast was to situate the lynx between the exotic lion and the fantastic unicorn, describing the cat as “gemenged hund and wulf” (a mixture of dog and wolf).440 Apparently, while the actual lynx may have been largely absent from the English landscape by the early medi­eval period, it still prowled the word-hoard of Old English speakers. Further Reading

Hetherington, David A. “The Lynx.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 75–82. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. Hetherington David A., Tom C. Lord, and Roger M. Jacobi. “New Evidence for the Occurrence of Eur­asian Lynx (Lynx lynx) in Medi­eval Britain.” Journal of Quaternary Science 21 (2006): 3–8. Thornbury, Emily V. “Strange Hybrids: Ælfric, Vergil and the Lynx in Anglo-Saxon England.” Notes and Queries 56 (2009): 163–66.

 MARTEN  OE: mearð  |  Species: Martes martes

The European pine

marten (Martes martes) is a member of the weasel family that was known to the people of early medi­eval England. It ranges from the Atlantic coast across much of Europe and into northeastern Russia in the north and Turkey in the south. Long, slender omnivores (reaching lengths of over two feet (60 cm)), martens are typically nocturnal and arboreal animals, removing them from regular interaction with people. They were already rare in England by the late medi­eval period, presumably due to the value of their luxurious brown fur.441 Evidence of the harvesting of pine martens for their fur can be found in the archaeo­logical record of the period. Although the number of pine marten remains in these contexts is not great, relative to other species, the manner of their appearance speaks to their use by humans. In excavations of levels dated to the eighth and ninth centuries at York, for example, bones of M. martes are not only present, but they also show cut-marks indicative of skinning.442 Clearly, the people of the period viewed and used these animals as a valuable, if infrequently obtained, resource. The marten’s fur is the context by which the animal turns up in any Old English text beyond the glossaries, where the vernacular mearð glosses the Latin furunculus (ferret).443 In the interpolation of Ohthere’s journey into King Alfred’s translation of Orosius’s history of the world, the marten’s fur earns mention. In describing Ohthere’s 440  Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 308.

441  See Langley and Yalden, “The Decline of the Rarer Carnivores,” 105. 442  See O’Connor, Bones from 46–54 Fishergate, 259.

443  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309.



Animal Entries

99

wealth, the narrator says it comes largely in the form of animal skins: “Æghwilc gylt be hys gebyrdum. Se byrdesta sceall gyldan fiftyne mearðes fell  fif hranes  an beran fel…” (Each one pays according to his station. The highest born must pay fifteen of martens’ pelts and five of the reindeer and one of bear’s skin…).444 Clearly, marten skins must have been known as quite a valuable commodity to lead the list of payments in animal skins. Further, the author of the Ohthere material must have felt no need to explain the nature of the animal to his audience due to its familiarity. The pine marten occurs in Old English texts in a manner consummate with its perceived relationship to the people of the time. Although not as familiar as the animals of farm and village, its lustrous pelt caught the eye of appreciative humans. That alone was enough to bring the pine marten into the orbit of both early medi­eval material culture and vernacular textual representation in England. Further Reading

Howard-Johnston, James. “Trading in Fur, from Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages.” In Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early Medi­eval Trade and Techno­logy, edited by Esther Cameron, 65–79. London: Archetype Publications, 1998. Langley, P. J. W., and D. W. Yalden. “The Decline of the Rarer Carnivores in Great Britain during the Nineteenth Century.” Mammal Review 7 (1977): 95–116.

 MINNOW  OE: mine  |  Species: Phoxinus phoxinus

As a term, minnow can refer to the young of any number of species of fish. In terms of modern taxonomy, the Eurasian minnow is identified as P. phoxinus. A small, schooling, freshwater fish, the minnow is a member of the cyprinid (i.e., carp) family. A diminutive fish, averaging around three inches (7.5 cm) in length, it is unlikely that any of the unidentified cyprinid bones found in early medi­eval insular assemblages would belong to P. phoxinus, as their delicate skeletons would unlikely survive the centuries. One survey of the fish-bone remains in archaeo­logical sites from this period, ranging from Yorkshire to Devon, does not even include P. phoxinus among its identifiable species.445 Likewise, the textual profile of the minnow is just as small as its stature. The Old English mine only garners minimal and indeterminate mention in the Latin–Old English glossaries, glossing a variety of Latin terms for fish, such as murenula (small, marine fish) or, more confusingly, capito (a large-headed fish).446 The minnow surfaces only once in verncular prose: within Ælfric’s Colloquy. In the text, the student playing the fisherman lists his freshwater prey: “Ælas  hacodas, mynas  æleputan, sceotan  lampredan,  swa wylce swa on wætere swymmaþ” (Eels and pike, minnows and burbot, shoat and lampreys, and whatever swims in the waters).447 In both the Latin and 444  The Old English History of the World, ed. Godden, 40.

445  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 110–11.

446  For the gloss of murenula, see Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright and Wülcker, 1:444. For capito, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228. 447  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 27.

100

Animal Entries

its Old English gloss, the minnow is merely listed among the freshwater fishes in the angler’s catch, garnering no further notice in the Old English corpus.448 The minnow leaves as little a ripple in the vernacular textual record of early medi­eval England as it ever did on the surface of a stream. Further Reading

Peirson, Graeme. “Minnow Phoxinus phoxinus.” In Freshwater Fishes in Britain: The Species and Their Distribution, edited by Cynthia Davies et al., 81–82. Colchester: Harley, 2004.

 MOLE  OE: wand, wanda-weorpe  |  Species: Talpa europaea

The European mole

(Talpa europaea) is the single species of mole native to England. Its range on the Continent stretches across central and southern Europe into eastern Russia. Due to their solitary, subterranean habits, these small mammals (typically only up to six inches (15 cm) in length) did not appear to make a great impression on the people of early medi­eval England. Their appearance in the archaeo­logical record can be problematic to interpret given their burrowing habits and the susceptibility of smaller mammals to pitfalls. With that in mind, their presence in not insignificant numbers at the mammal-rich early medi­eval archaeo­logical site at West Stow (the number of their remains being roughly equivalent with those of roe deer) should be taken with a grain of salt.449 They are generally overlooked in Old English writings, occurring only in vocabularies and glossaries, glossing the Latin talpa.450 In all, these unobtrusive creatures impinge little on early medi­eval English vernacular texts or material culture. Further Reading

Gorman, M. L., and R. D. Stone. The Natural History of Moles. London: Christopher Helm, 1990. Skeat, W. W. “Want.” Notes and Queries, ser. 4, 11 (1873): 367.

 MOTH  OE: moððe  |  Suborder: Heterocera

A staggering

2,600 species of moth, and currently counting, can be found in the British Isles. Moths are superficially similar to butterflies in structure, but there are some characteristic differences. One of the most diagnostic distinctions is the shape of the antennae, which is typically slender and club-ended in butterflies, but often feathery or comb-shaped in moths. Butterflies are famously more brilliantly coloured and strikingly patterned than moths, and moths tend to have stouter and hairier bodies. That said, there is a huge variety of shapes, sizes, and colourations of English moths. Some of the most impressive and recognizable species come from the Sphingidae family of hawkmoths. This family includes such large species as the poplar hawk-moth (Laothoe populi), whose wingspan can reach three-and-a-half inches (9 cm), to the garishly coloured 448  See Preston, “Fact and Fish Tales,” 5–6.

449  See Crabtree, West Stow, 6. On the trouble in counting moles, see O’Connor, Bones from 46–54 Fishergate, 255. 450  See, for example, An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 113.



Animal Entries

101

elephant hawk-moth (Deilephila elpenor), bedecked in greens and pinks. Aside from these standout species, many more moths are of more modest size and colouration, like the large yellow underwing (Noctua pronuba), one of the most common native moths in England. Like many common moth species of the British Isles, N. pronuba is half the size of the larger hawk-moths and sports an unassuming cryptid mottled-brown colouration. Moths are important pollinators, but they can also be significant agricultural pests, laying eggs that hatch into very hungry and destructive larvae. As delicate as they are, it is usually the hard parts of moth larvae and chrysalises that survive in archaeo­logical contexts. In early medi­eval sites in England, finds of moth remains are relatively few and largely restricted to pupae and cocoons. At Coppergate in York, for example, only a few fragmented remains were discovered among the thousands of insects catalogued in early medi­eval contexts. While there were silk textiles found at Coppergate, they were most likely imported products created with the silk of the Asian domestic silkworm (Bombyx mori).451 There is no evidence of native silk production in early medi­eval England.452 Moths appear to be as rare in Old English texts as they are in the archaeo­logical contexts from the period. They largely occur in two literary contexts: the Latin–Old English glossaries and in translations of Latin scripture. In both cases, the Old English moððe glosses the Latin tinea (a moth or caterpillar).453 In scriptural contexts within Old English literature, the moth appears as symbolic of destruction. This metaphor largely comes in the context of the gospels’ accounts of Jesus’s teachings regarding possessions. In Luke 12:33, for example, Jesus instructs his followers to renounce material possessions and “wyrcað seodas þa ðe ne forealdigeað ungeteorudne goldhord on heofenum; þyder ðeof ne genealæcð, ne moððe ne gewemð” (make money-bags that will not grow old, an unfailing gold-hoard in heaven; where the thief cannot come near, nor the moth defile).454 This reference to the moth as defiler most likely invokes the image of the destructive caterpillar rather than the mature form of the insect. The same metonymy is at work in the moth’s only and most recognized appearance in secular Old English prose or poetry: Exeter Book Riddle 47. This riddle poem begins with the famous conundrum, “moððe word fræt” (a moth ate words) and then continues to describe a “wyrm” (worm or insect) devouring “gied” (utterances) and “cwide” (speech).455 The most obvious answer appears to be the larval form of a moth, colloquially referred to as a bookworm. However, many scholars have noted that such a simple, self-disclosed answer flies in the face of the riddle-tradition’s raison d’être: to challenge and obfuscate. In that spirit, scholars have seen Riddle 47 as a lens through which the text may be questioning everything from semiotics to codico­ 451  See Walton, Textiles, Cordage and Raw Fibre, 313–14, 419–20.

452  See Fleming, Acquiring, Flaunting and Destroying Silk,” 128–32.

453  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 310. See also Cortelyou, Die alt­ englischen Namen der Insekten, 55–57. 454  The Old English Version of the Gospels, ed. Liuzza, 1:129.

455  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:323.

102

Animal Entries

logy.456 Although this riddle may have a Latin inspiration in the “Tinea” (moth) enigma of Symphosius, its Old English expression is distinct enough to merit consideration as a vernacular creation and, as such, perhaps shed some light on early medi­eval English opinions on actual moths.457 Surprisingly, although some scholars allude to actual insects that may qualify as potential suspects for the book damage referenced in the poem, no one has appeared to identify a specific moth species.458 If the text is referencing moth larvae, as opposed to that of other insects such as beetles, the most likely culprits would be the fungus moths of the Tineidae family, such as the common clothes moth (Tineola bisselliella), or the house moths of the Oecophoridae family, such as the brown house moth (Hofmannophila pseudospretella).459 While these species, along with the case-bearing clothes moth (Tinea pellionella), the tapestry moth (Trichophaga tapetzella), and the whiteshouldered house moth (Endrosis sarcitella), have all been identified as book-damaging species, only T. bisselliella is known for extensive damage to animal skins and their products, such as parchment.460 If a moth larva is being identified in Exeter Book Riddle 47, it would most likely be that of the common clothes moth. However, consonant with the moth’s other fleeting appearances in Old English texts, the primary interactions with these insects in early medi­eval England appear to be metaphorical. Further Reading

Fleming, Robin. “Acquiring, Flaunting and Destroying Silk in Late Anglo-Saxon England.” Early Medi­eval Europe 15, no. 2 (2007): 127–58. Foys, Martin. “The Undoing of Exeter Book Riddle 47: ‘Bookmoth’.” In Transitional States: Cultural Change, Tradition and Memory in Medi­eval England, A Festschrift for Allen Frantzen, edited by Graham Caie and Michael D. C. Drout, 101–30. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medi­ eval and Renaissance Studies, 2018. Hickin, Norman. Bookworms: The Insect Pests of Books. London: Sheppard, 1985. Jacobs, Nicholas. “The Old English ‘Book-moth’ Riddle Reconsidered.” Notes and Queries 35, no. 3 (1988): 290–92. Robinson, Fred C. “Artful Ambiguities in the Old English ‘Book-Moth’ Riddle.” In Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Essays in Appreciation, for John. C. McGalliard, edited by Lewis E. Nicholson and Dolores Warwick Frese, 355–62. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975. Russom, Geoffrey. “Exeter Riddle 47: A Moth Laid Waste to Fame.” Philo­logical Quarterly 56, no. 1 (1977): 129–36.

456  For a recent, comprehensive overview of the scholarship, see Foys, “The Undoing of Exeter Book Riddle 47,” 103–7.

457  For the “Tinea” enigma of Symphosius, see Symphosius, The Aenigmata, ed. Leary, 41. On the relationship between the Latin and Old English riddles, see Andy Orchard, “Enigma Variations,” 284–304. 458  See Foys, “The Undoing of Exeter Book Riddle 47,” 102.

459  See Hickin, Bookworms, 60–72. Other prospective bookworms include the larvae of the death watch beetle (Xestobium rufovillosum) or the common furniture beetle (Anobium punctatum), or the larger pale booklouse (Trogium pulsatorium). For these insects as possible referents for the poem, see Foys, “The Undoing of Exeter Book Riddle 47,” 102. 460  Hickin, Bookworms, 62.



Animal Entries

103

Walton, Penelope. Textiles, Cordage and Raw Fibre from 16–22 Coppergate. The Archaeo­logy of York 17, fasc. 5. York: Council for British Archaeo­logy, 1989. Waring, Paul, and Martin Townsend. Field Guide to the Moths of Great Britain and Ireland. 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. Williams, Kyle Joseph. “The Worm and the Chalice: Eucharistic Imagery and the Unity of Exeter Riddles 47 and 48.” Modern Philo­logy 114, no. 3 (2017): 482–502.

 MOUSE  OE: mus, hearma  |  Species: Mus musculus domesticus

It almost goes

without saying that where there are people, there are mice. The early medi­eval English were no doubt quite familiar with mice. For example, mice were frequently found throughout excavations of early medi­eval contexts at York.461 Pinpointing exactly which species of mice people of the period encountered is problematic for reasons both physical and taxonomic. Physically, mice are extremely diminutive and delicate creatures and, as such, their remains are unlikely to be preserved in archaeo­logical contexts. Even if they are, the process of excavation itself, however careful, may miss or destroy them. On the rare chance that a complete and undamaged specimen was actually recovered, the precise identification and distinction of species in the genus Mus remains a matter of some debate and confusion up to the present day.462 For creatures so omnipresent in the settlements of the period, mice are relatively scarce in the corpus of Old English writings. The indiscriminate view the people of early medi­eval England had of mice can be seen in the very terms they use for them. The Old English mus (mouse) is a generic gloss for the generic Latin, mus (mouse). Yet even the Old English hearma is a gloss for the non-specific Latin term nitella (a small mouse).463 Outside of the glosses, mice are most often invoked metaphorically, as in the folkloric juxtaposition of the smallness of the mouse set against the largeness of the elephant. In discussing the necessity for fear in his second homily for the Common of a Confessor, Ælfric reminds the reader that even the mighty elephant “ondræt him forþearle, gif he gesihð ane mus, ðeah ðe seo mus ne mage his micelnysse derian” (fears him greatly, if he sees a mouse, though the mouse cannot harm his greatness).464 The few instances of real mice in Old English literature mainly refer to their uncleanliness. For example, in his second pastoral letter to Wulstan, Ælfric demands that a cleric’s “weofod beo clæne and wel gescryd æfre, na mid musa tyrdlum ne mid meoxe befiled” (altar be clean and well-dressed at all times, not with the turds of mice nor with dung defiled).465 While metaphorical mice may be useful in teaching larger lessons in Old English literature, actual mice seem to be treated merely as a nuisance by people of the time. 461  See O’Connor, “Animal Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian York,” 440–41. 462  See O’Connor, “The House Mouse,” 129–31.

463  For a collocation of mus and hearma, see Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary, ed. Pheifer, 36. 464  Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, ed. Assmann 64. 465  Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, ed. Fehr, 128.

104

Animal Entries

Further Reading

Clayton, Mary. “Of Mice and Men: Ælfric’s Second Homily for the Feast of a Confessor.” Leeds Studies in English, n.s., 24 (1993): 1–26. Jolly, Karen. “A Cat’s Eye View: Vermin in Anglo-Saxon England.” In The Daily Lives of the AngloSaxons, edited by Carole Biggam, Carole Hough, and Daria Izdebska, 79–98. Essays in Anglo-Saxon Studies 8. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medi­eval and Renaissance Studies, 2017. O’Connor, Terry. “The House Mouse.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 127–33. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. —— . “Pets and Pests in Roman and Medi­eval Britain.” Mammal Review 22, no. 2 (1992): 107–13.

 MULE  OE: mul  |  Species: Equus caballus × Equus asinus

The mule is

an infertile crossbreed of a female horse (E. caballus) and a male ass (also known as a donkey) (E. asinus). Generally speaking, mules are valuable because they retain the strength of the ass with the increased size of the horse. Given that early medi­eval England would have been at the outskirts of the donkey’s environmental range, and that there has been no clearly documented archaeo­logical find of the mule in an early medi­eval matrix, the mule appears to have been rare, if not absent, between the end of the Roman period in the British Isles and the Norman Conquest.466 Literary references to mules in Old English literature only come from Latin sources describing the lives of Continental saints. In translating the life of St. Martin, for example, Ælfric relates that after some soldiers savagely beat the saint, the soldiers’ “mulas ealle endemes astifodon to þære eorþan afæstnode, swylce hi ærene wæron” (mules all together became fixed to the earth, as if they were made of brass). 467 Here, the mules’ transfixing is an obvious sign of God’s power operating on behalf of His saint. Beyond such Christian contexts, mules appear in the Old English corpus only in glossaries, glossing the Latin mulus.468 Clearly, these beasts were more textual creatures than actual animals to the people of early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Johnstone, Cluny. “Donkeys and Mules.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 17–25. Oxford: Windgather, 2010.

 MULLET  OE: hacod, hæced, mece-fisc  |  Species: Chelon labrosus

The mullet is

barely attested to in Old English texts, with only eight, somewhat confusing references in the Old English glossaries. Although the Old English hacod generally means pike, glossing the Latin lucius, in eight instances it also glosses the Latin mugil, meaning mullet.469 The Latin mugil is taken to refer to the grey mullet, of which

466  See Johnstone, “Donkeys and Mules,” 19, 25. 467  Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 2:280.

468  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossary,” ed. Stryker, 301.

469  See Köhler, Die altenglischen Fischnamen, 41. For hacod glossing both lucius and mugil used in a single glossary, see “The Latin–Old English Glossary,” ed. Stryker, 271, 298, respectively.



Animal Entries

105

there are several varieties. The most common mullet species in the waters surrounding the British Isles is the grey thick-lipped mullet (C. labrosus). This silver fish is also the largest mullet species found in English waters, typically growing to one to two feet (30 to 60 cm) in length. The fish can tolerate brackish waters and may frequent estuaries, making them an attractive target for coastal anglers. However, C. labrosus has a relatively low profile in early medi­eval insular archaeo­logical contexts.470 The fish’s importance, then, seems to be more lexical than as a commodity for the early medi­eval inhabitants of the British Isles. Outside of the glossaries, hacod refers to the freshwater pike, so the use of hacod for mullet seems odd. An alternate Old English name for the mullet, mece-fisc, seems more appropriate as it means sword-fish, which would reflect the mullet’s long silvery body, as opposed to the mottled green of the pike.471 This vernacular name for the mullet, dependent as it is on a visual association, possibly suggests some first-hand knowledge of the fish. However, although mullet was present in the fish stocks of early medi­eval England, it did not make a significant impact on the textual or archaeo­logical records of the time. Further Reading

Turan, Cemal. “Biogeo­graphy and Distribution of Mugilidae in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and North-East Atlantic.” In Bio­logy, Eco­logy and Culture of Grey Mullets (Mugilidae), edited by Donatella Crosetti and Stephen J. M. Blaber, 116–27. Boca Raton: CRC, 2016.

 MUSSEL  OE: muscelle  |  Species: Mytilus edulis

Of the numerous mussel species surrounding the British Isles, the common mussel (M. edulis) earns its name as the most ubiquitous. Usually two to four inches (5 to 10 cm) in length, these blue-black molluscs can be found in clusters clinging to rocks along all of the shores of the British Isles. Easily harvested and yielding a tasty and nutritious source of protein, mussels would have been an attractive food item to the early medi­eval English. The archaeo­logical record in England bears out the popularity of mussels in the early medi­eval period. Despite the fact that mussels have relatively delicate shells as compared to other molluscs (e.g., oysters or limpets), their remains do survive in a number of settings. While usually dominated by the presence of the shells of oysters (Ostrea edulis), mussels are a consistent presence in early medi­eval archaeo­logical sites.472 However, in some sites, such as the monastic community at Wearmouth–Jarrow, mussels can outstrip even the oyster in prevalence.473 470  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 110–11. 471  See Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 308. 472  See Hagen, Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink, 169–70.

473  See Noddle, Stallibrass, and O’Connor, “The Animal Bones and Marine Shells from Jarrow,” 555, 558.

106

Animal Entries

Authors of the time also attest to the mussel’s widespread presence in Old English texts. In addition to multiple glossary witnesses, the mussel appears in both teaching and historical texts.474 In Ælfric’s Colloquy, the student pretending to be a fisherman claims to have harvested the following from the ocean: “ostran  crabban, muslan, winewinclan, sæcoccas” (oysters and crabs, mussels, periwinkles, cockles).475 Here, mussels rank among the top three shellfish in the text. Although he cites them for their pearl production rather than their meat, Bede also notes the usefulness of the mussel: “her beoþ oft numene missenlicra cynna weolcscylle  muscule,  on þam beoð oft gemette þa betstan meregrotan ælces hiwes” (here are often found various kinds of whelks and mussels, and among them are often found the best pearls of all hues).476 Whether for food or ornament, the people of early medi­eval England recognized M. edulis in the vernacular as both an important dietary item and valuable commodity. Further Reading

Gosling, Elizabeth. Bivalve Molluscs: Bio­logy, Eco­logy, and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003.

 NEWT  OE: efete  |  Species: Lissotriton helveticus, L. vulgaris,Triturus cristatus

England is home

to three species of newt: the palmate newt (L. helveticus), the smooth newt (L. vulgaris), and the great crested newt (T. cristatus). Amphibians all, they breed and are born in water, and then spend their remaining time on land. The palmate and smooth newt are similarly small creatures, somewhere around three inches (7.5 cm) in length. Both species tend towards the olive-brown in colour, but the smooth newt has spots on its throat that distinguishes it from its cousin. The great crested newt stands out from its confederates due to its size, about a third larger than the others, and its namesake crest that runs from the head to the base of the tail. Due to their fine bones, newt remains are virtually absent from the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. Even the few newt bones found at the archaeo­logical site at Flixborough are believed to be there due to natural traps made by ditches, pits, or post-holes.477 Newts occur only four times in the Old English corpus, and then only in glossaries translating the Latin word for lizard: lacerta.478 This lexical conflation likely reflects the similarity in body shape between newts and small terrestrial lizards. In any event, the scarcity of newts in both the vernacular texts and the archaeo­logical 474  In the Latin–Old English glossaries, the vernacular muscelle typically glosses the Latin musculus, concha, or geniscula. See, respectively, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 308; An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 38, 60. See also Whitman, “The Old English Animal Names,” 381. 475  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29.

476  The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, 1:26. 477  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 38, 55.

478  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 310; Whitman, “The Old English Animal Names,” 390.



Animal Entries

107

record of the period indicates that they garnered relatively little notice of the people of early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Paterson, Erik. “Changes in Relative Population Size Detection Rates of Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) over Time.” Herpeto­logical Bulletin 143 (2018): 12–17. —— . “Nocturnal Variation in Population Size Estimate Counts of Male Palmate and Smooth Newts (Lissotriton helveticus and L. vulgaris).” Herpeto­logical Bulletin 145 (2018): 1–7.

 NIGHTINGALE  OE: niht-gale, hearpen, frosc, geolu-earte Species: Luscinia megarhynchos

At about six

inches (15 cm) long, the nightingale is a smallish songbird whose reputation far outstrips its diminutive size and the modest showing of its nondescript, brownish plumage. Its claim to fame, of course, is its song. A melodious chirping and trilling, the birdsong is quite distinctive, even if its owner is hidden in the thick brush scrubland or forests it prefers. Due to its small size and secretive habits, the nightingale is virtually absent from the early medi­eval archaeo­logical record in England.479 The nightingale’s identification in the Old English glossaries is somewhat fraught. While the Old English niht-gale most often glosses the Latin luscinia (nightingale), the other Old English nightingale-terms appear to be various kinds of glossing errors.480 Beyond the glossaries, the nightingale occurs in vernacular literature only by implication. Riddle 9 in the Exeter Book presents a mystery speaker who describes itself as an “æfenscop, eorlum bringe / blisse in burgum” (evening-singer, to men I bring bliss in the towns).481 From the clues provided, the jump from æfen-scop (evening-singer) to niht-gale (night-singer) is a very short one indeed.482 The poetic reputation of the nightingale as a songbird appears to be intact in Old English literature. While the people of early medi­eval England would have certainly heard its song, the small, elusive bird did not appear to be of material value to them, as witnessed by its absence from the archaeo­logical record. In the case of the nightingale, perhaps its song was treasure enough. Further Reading

Holt, Chas A., Chris M. Hewson, and Robert J. Fuller. “The Nightingale in Britain: Status, Eco­ logy and Conservation Needs.” British Birds 105, no. 4 (2012): 172–87. Salvador-Bello, Mercedes. “The Evening Singer of Riddle 8 (K–D).” SELIM: Journal of the Spanish Society for Medi­eval English Language and Literature 9 (1999): 57–68. 479  See, for example, Holmes, Southern England, 286–88.

480  For mistaken glossing in Old English, see Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “frosc,” “geolu-earte,” and “hearpen.” Old English niht-gale also glosses alternate Latin nightingale terms, such as philomela and roscinia. See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 101; “The Latin–Old English Glossary,” ed. Stryker, 41. 481  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:294.

482  See Bitterli, Say What I Am Called, 46–56.

108

Animal Entries

 OSPREY  OE: earn-geat, earn-geap  |  Species: Pandion haliaetus

The osprey (P. haliaetus) comes to the British Isles to breed in the summer. A large

raptor measuring over two feet (60 cm) in length, the osprey is a specialist in hunting fish. As a result, it is commonly found where water is present, from the coasts to inland waterways. Brown above and white below, the osprey is particularly recognizable thanks to the bold brown mask across its eyes and its piercing cry. Osprey are very rare in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England.483 This may be a result of the combination of their seaside habitat and their lack of usefulness to human material culture of the period. Osprey were neither used as hawking birds, nor were their remains used in the fashioning of any cultural products. As a result, the people of early medi­eval England did not appear to have much to do with these wild birds. This lack of involvement is mirrored in the textual record as well. The Old English term earn-geat is a purely lexical artifact, appearing only in the Latin–Old English glossaries, where it almost exclusively glosses the Latin harpe, a generic raptor-term.484 Although certainly a feature of the early medi­eval ecosystem in England, the osprey seems to have remained beyond the reach of its people. Further Reading

Dennis, Roy. A Life of Ospreys. Caithness: Whittles, 2008.

 OTTER  OE: oter  |  Species: Lutra lutra

The Eurasian otter is the single otter species in the British Isles. A large member of the weasel family, the Eurasian otter can be found across all of Europe and most of Asia. Sleekly elongated in profile at roughly four feet (1.2 m) in length, the otter tends to brown colouration above and buff below. Active during the daylight hours, it frequents both freshwater and saltwater environments. Feeding on the surface, the otter was likely a regular feature of early medi­eval aquatic environments around the British Isles, from streams and rivers to bays and the seashore. Like many other fur-bearing creatures, otters were likely valued for their pelts and skin. For example, among the treasures of the seventh-century Sutton Hoo ship burial is an otter-skin cap.485 However, their remains are quite rare in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England. Of all the thousands of animal remains recovered from excavations dating to the period in York, for example, only one otter bone was recovered.486 Interpreting the presence of this bone is problematic, as it evinced no telltale cut-marks indicative of skinning or butchering.487 483  See, for example, Holmes, Southern England, 288.

484  See, for example, Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary, ed. Pheifer, 5. On the identification of earn-geat, see Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (II),” 7–8. 485  See Carver, Sutton Hoo, 186–91.

486  See O’Connor, Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian Levels at 16–22 Coppergate, 187. 487  See Mould, Carlisle, and Cameron, Craft, Industry and Everyday Life, 3234.



Animal Entries

109

Otters have a similarly slight presence in Old English texts as well. They primarily occur in two contexts: glossaries and charters. In the glossaries, the Old English oter typically glosses the Latin lutra.488 In the charters, otters are indicated indirectly, in reference to the landscape features associated with them. For example, a 943 ce charter for a grant of land in South Newton by King Edmund directs the reader following the borders of the property to “Þonne of hig forda eft ofer wilig on oteres hol” (then [proceed] from Hay Ford in turn over the Wylye to the otter’s hole).489 While such mentions of otters are not indicative of direct contact, this kind of documentation serves as proof of an awareness of otters as part of the early medi­eval ecosystem in England. Further Reading

Chace, Jessica. “Animal, Vegetable, Prosthesis: Medi­eval Care Networks in the Lives of Three English Saints.” Exemplaria 29, no.1 (2017): 1–20. Kruuk, Hans. Otters: Eco­logy, Behaviour and Conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

 OWL  OE: ule, uf  |  Species: Tyto alba, Strix aluco, Asio flammeus, A. otus

The dish-shaped faces

of owls, often featuring distinctively wide eyes, make them easily distinguishable from their other avian cousins. Although not particularly numerous overall, the two most common owl species in early medi­eval England would appear to be the barn owl (T. alba) and the tawny owl (S. aluco). The long-eared (A. otus) and short-eared (A. flammeus) owls are scarcer still. Medium-sized birds, each of these owls typically measures around fifteen inches (40 cm) in length. Their plumage tends towards the browns and greys, but each species has defining characteristics, such as the dramatic white facial disc of the barn owl or distinctive ear-tufts of the long-eared owl. Given their famously nocturnal habits, owls also would be known by their distinctive calls, even as they passed unseen in the night. Owl remains are few and far between in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­ eval England. In a survey of almost 100 pre-Conquest sites across southern England, owl remains numbered in the single digits.490 At the period site at Flixborough, wild bird remains numbered in the thousands, but only a handful were tentatively identified as belonging to owls.491 The physical remains of these birds appear to be as elusive as their nocturnal presence. Owls are similarly infrequent in the written record. Latin–Old English glossaries record two Old English words for owls: uf, which glosses the Latin bubo (owl), and the Old English ule, which glosses a combination of Latin owl-terms, such as cavannus (night-owl), noctua (night-owl), strix (screech-owl), and ulula (screech-owl).492 488  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. 489  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 2:522.

490  See Holmes, Southern England, 288.

491  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 39.

492  For an example of the lexical differentiation between the Old English ule and uf in the glossaries, respectively, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 101, 104. For an overview of Old English owl terms, see Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (II),” 6–7.

110

Animal Entries

The only vernacular literary occurrences of owls are in translations of two non-insular Latin texts. In the Old English translation of Alexander’s Letter to Aristotle, for example, the narrator of the travelogue describes a pre-dawn flocking of birds as “nocticoraces hatton, wæron in wealhhafoces gelicnesse” (birds called night-ravens, that were in the likeness of raptors).493 The raptor-like description and nocturnal predation of these birds strongly suggests an identification of them as owls. Owls are more specifically identified in the Old English Heptateuch, but merely as an item in a list of dietary restrictions found in Leviticus 11:13–17: “Ne ete ge nan ðingc hafoccynnes ne earncynnes, / Ne ulan, ne nan þingc hrefncynnes” (Nor eat you no thing of hawk-kin nor eagle-kin, nor owls, nor no thing of raven-kin).494 While both of these examples reference owls, neither provide native contexts. One place where local evidence of owls occurs is in the charters. These texts mark property boundaries, not infrequently citing landscape markers associated with animals. One such charter of 963 ce grants a lease of land in Tanworth from Oswald, the bishop of Worcester. One property boundary of this lease measures “Of diopan seaðe to ulan bearhe” (from the deep pit to the owl’s woods).495 While no native vernacular text explicitly addresses the presence of owls in early medi­eval England, charters such as this nevertheless reveal their presence implicitly. Wild birds of the night, owls would likely be infrequently encountered by the people of early medi­eval England. Surely, their calls would be heard echoing from forest and field in the evening, but they would be largely beyond the reach of human habitation. The owls’ slight impact on the vernacular texts and archaeo­logical record of the time reflects their life outside the scope of the daily lives of the era’s people. Further Reading

Toms, Mike. Owls. Collins New Naturalist Library 125. London: Collins, 2014.

 OYSTER  OE: ostre  |  Species: Ostrea edulis

Known variously as the common oyster, the native oyster, the mud oyster, or the European flat oyster, O. edulis is one of the most common and important molluscs in the British Isles. The whitish, rough, oval shell of the native oyster is one of the more familiar sights on the British seashore. Oysters cluster in groups and accumulate into large beds in the sublittoral zone. Fastened to rocky outcroppings or muddy sea-bottoms, the oysters can aggregate to the point of creating reefs that serve as habitats for other marine species. The accessibility and numbers of oysters, combined with their flavour and nutritional value, made the oyster a key comestible mollusc for the early medi­eval English. Thanks to their ubiquity, oyster remains are relatively well-represented in the archaeo­logical record. More often than not, they are among the most common mol493  Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, 238.

494  The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, ed. Crawford, 295. 495  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 3:344.



Animal Entries

111

lusc shell to be found in early medi­eval archaeo­logical assemblages in England. The sheer number of oysters at a given site can be overwhelming. At the Hamwic site in Southampton, for example, the shells of over 11,000 individuals were found.496 While not always present in such staggering numbers, oysters were nonetheless a significant marine resource of the period. Oysters are correspondingly well-represented in vernacular texts. Throughout the Latin–Old English glossaries, the Old English ostre simply glosses the Latin ostrea.497 Beyond merely being a lexical concern, oysters also are depicted as a common food item in Old English literature. The Old English medical text, Bald’s Leechbook, cites numerous cures or dietary directions in reference to the mollusc. On the one hand, it gives witness to the practice of consuming raw oysters: “Þonne cumað þa oftost mettum  of cealdum drincan swa swa sindon cealde ostran” (Then [illnesses of the spleen] come most often from food and cold drinks such as cold oysters).498 On the other hand, oysters were also prepared and cooked before eating. If one suffers from a liver disorder, for example, “osterhlafas” (oyster-loafs) must be avoided.499 Cooked oysters appeared in such dishes as the osterhlafas because larger oysters would need to be processed to render them readily consumable.500 Whether raw or cooked, oysters were a staple and an adaptable food source for the early medi­eval English. Curiously, the method of eating an oyster is described in contexts of both restraint and excess in Old English literature. In the Monasterialia Indicia, a manual for monastic sign language, the text instructs the silent monk how to signal for a single oyster: “clæm þu þine wynstran hand, ðam gemete þe þu ostran on handa hæbbe, and do mid sexe oððe mid fingre swylce þu ostran scenan wylle” (clench your left hand, as if you had an oyster in hand, and do with a knife or with your fingers as if you would open an oyster).501 Alternately, the poem “Seasons for Fasting” presents the oyster as the food of a glutton.502 The author claims that an immoderate priest might lie to get “ostran to æte and æþele wyn / emb morgentyd” (oysters to eat and fine wine around morning-time), acting as if he is “mæða bedæled” (deprived of moderation).503 Likewise, a clue to the solution of “oyster” in Exeter Book Riddle 77 is that the subject of the riddle complains that an attacker “min flæsc fretan,…/ hyd arypeð, ond mec hraþe siþþan / iteð unsodene” (devours my flesh,…tears off my hide, and then quickly eats me uncooked).504 Cooked or raw, sampled or gorged upon, oysters obviously were a 496  See Winder, “The Marine Mollusca,” 122.

497  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 308. 498  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:245.

499  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:210.

500  See Hagen, Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink, 170.

501  Banham, Monasteriales indicia, 36.

502  For oyster-eating as a sign of gluttony, see Magennis, Anglo-Saxon Appetites, 77–78, 89–91.

503  The Old English Poem Seasons for Fasting, ed. Hilton and Richards, 100.

504  Numbered 76 in The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:370. See Preston, “An Alternative Solution,” 25; Salvador, “The Oyster and the Crab,” 400–401.

112

Animal Entries

common foodstuff for people of the period. For such a humble creature, the oyster has a significant presence in both the material and textual worlds of early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Preston, Todd. “An Alternative Solution to Exeter Book Riddle 77.” Viator 42, no. 1 (2011): 25–34. Salvador, Mercedes. “The Oyster and the Crab: A Riddle Duo (nos. 77 and 78) in the Exeter Book.” Modern Philo­logy 101, no. 3 (2004): 400–19. Tsurushima, Hirokazu. “The Eleventh Century in England through Fish-eyes: Salmon, Herring, Oysters and 1066.” In Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2006, edited by C. P. Lewis, 193–213. Anglo-Norman Studies 29. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007. Winder, Jessica. “The Marine Mollusca.” In Excavations at Melbourne Street, Southampton, 1971–76, edited by Philip Holdsworth. Southampton Archaeo­logical Research Committee Report 1; CBA Research Report 33. London: Council for British Archaeo­logy, 1980.

 PEACOCK  OE: pawa  |  Species: Pavo cristatus

Introduced by the

Romans, the peacock remained, at least in some small way, into the early medi­eval period in England. A largish bird of about four feet (1.2 m) in length, they are rightly well-known for the spectacular plumage of the male: an iridescent blue body followed by an impressive spread of tail feathers decorated with arresting eye-spots. This train of tail feathers can be as long as six feet (1.8 m). As if the appearance of this plumage is not enough, the bird’s mating display sets those tail feathers into a vibrating, vertical fan. The bird does not underperform vocally, either. Its startlingly loud pai-ow call can carry some distance. The archaeo­logical record of the period does not suggest any large-scale breeding of the peacock. Only four early medi­eval sites in England have yielded peacock remains to date. Even then, the evidence can be scant. A period site in Thetford, for example, produced peacock remains of only two bones.505 While peacocks are in evidence for the period, they seem to have been fairly scarce. There is but slight reference to the peacock in Old English literature. The Exeter Book poem “The Phoenix” describes the titular bird as spectacularly multicoloured. The only analogy the poet can muster in regards to its appearance is that the phoenix is “on hiwe / æghwæs ænlic, onlicost pean” (in hue altogether singular, much like the peacock).506 Otherwise, the peacock gets rather short shrift in the vernacular corpus. Aside from glossing the Latin pava, the bird is mentioned only as among “fuglas þa þe heard flæsc habbað” (birds that have hard flesh) as a source of indigestion in Bald’s Leechbook.507 Beautiful to behold, surely, but the peacock does not seem to have a major presence in early medi­eval England. This relative absence likely explains the lack of 505  See Gillian Jones, “Animal Bones,” 187.

506  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:177.

507  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:196. For a sample glossary entry, see Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary, ed. Pheifer, 43.



Animal Entries

113

remains in the archaeo­logical record, either in terms of its use as food or decoration. Consequently, the peacock makes only the slightest of impressions on the vernacular literature of the period, suggesting it was a bird known more through its reputation than direct observation. Further Reading

Cheke, Anthony. “A Long-Standing Feral Indian Peafowl Population in Oxfordshire, and a Brief Survey of the Species in Britain.” British Birds 112, no. 6 (2019): 337–48. Faraci, Dora. “Sources and Cultural Background for?? the Example of the Old English ‘Phoenix.’” Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 42, no. 2 (2000): 225–39.

 PELICAN  OE: dufe-doppa, dumle, felofor, pellican, stan-gella, wann-fota Species: Pelecanus crispus

The Dalmatian pelican

(P. crispus) is the one species of the pelican family associated with early medi­eval England. The largest of the pelicans, this seabird measures up to an impressive six feet (1.8 m) in length and can weigh in at over thirty pounds (14 kg). It sports the distinctive long bill (up to eighteen inches (45 cm)) and throat pouch associated with its family. The species became locally extinct during the latter part of the Roman period in the British Isles.508 No pelican remains found in archaeo­logical contexts have been dated definitively to the early medi­eval period. One possible find in Glastonbury is as yet not positively dated.509 The traces of the pelican in the vernacular texts of the period are similarly scanty and confused. In the main, the pelican exists in the form of a variety of glossary terms for the Latin pellicanus or onocrotalus (pelican).510 The only literary mention of the pelican is in a translation of the Latin from Psalm 101. In the poem, the narrator describes his isolation: “Ic geworden eom pellicane gelic, se on westene wunað” (I am become like a pelican, who endures in the wastelands).511 Rather than the actual bird, the psalm employs the pelican as a metaphor for loneliness. Given that the people of early medi­eval England probably had no experience with the bird in the flesh, metaphors are as close to the animal as they were likely to get. Further Reading

Forbes, C. L., K. A. Joysey, and R. G. West. “On Post-Glacial Pelicans in Britain.” Geo­logical Magazine 95, no. 2 (1958): 153–60.

508  See Serjeantson, “Extinct Birds,” 151. 509  See Serjeantson, “Extinct Birds,” 150.

510  See, for example, Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright and Wülcker, 1:287. For wann-fots as the best candidate for a native term for the pelican, see Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (II),” 14–16. 511  Old English Psalms, ed. O’Neill, 388.

114

Animal Entries

 PERCH  OE: bærs  |  Species: Perca fluviatilis

The common, or European, perch (P. fluviatilis) is a beautifully marked fish, with

bold dark bands on a yellowish background and red-tinged ventral and tail fins. They have two dorsal fins, with the anterior fin harbouring prominent spines. Typically measuring about ten inches (25 cm) in British waters, unusual specimens can reach up to two feet (60 cm) in length. They predominantly inhabit fresh water, although some populations can endure brackish conditions. Despite their widespread presence in British inland waters, the perch does not have a great presence in the early medi­eval archaeo­logical record. In a survey of animal remains at over 140 archaeo­logical sites from the period, only six have any evidence of perch.512 On the one hand, this lack of evidence for perch may reflect the relatively limited use of freshwater stocks by the early medi­eval English. On the other hand, it may be a result of the difficulty in preserving the fine bones of the fish. In keeping with its slight archaeo­logical representation in early medi­eval contexts, the perch is also little mentioned in Old English texts, occurring only in Latin–English glossaries. In fact, the Old English bærs is specifically identified as a perche in only one glossary, and that as an Old French term in a thirteenth-century gloss.513 The perch, as a specific, identifiable species, does not seem to have captured the imagination of Old English authors. Perch are an infrequent representative of freshwater fish in the early medi­eval insular archaeo­logical record, and they do not appear to have been a major food resource. They were most likely taken opportunistically, and not the focus of a major fishery. Coupled with their minimal profile in Old English texts, these facts provide a picture of the perch as a species of some nutritional value to the early medi­eval English, but likely of little cultural importance. Further Reading

Barbier, Paul. “Le mot bar comme nom de poisson en français et en anglais.” Revue des langues romanes 48 (1905): 193–99. Craig, John F. Percid Fishes: Systematics, Eco­logy and Exploitation. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000.

 PERIWINKLE  OE: wine-wincla, pine-wincla, sæ-winewincle, sæ-snægl

Species: Littorina littorea, L. saxatilis, L. obtusata

Not to be

confused with the plant of the same Present-Day English name (Vinca major), periwinkles are a common group of molluscs of the British seashore. Three of the most common periwinkles found on British coasts include the common periwinkle (L. littorea), the rough periwinkle (L. saxatilis), and the flat periwinkle (L. obtusata). All

512  See Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 183–95.

513  Garrett, “Middle English and French Glosses,” 411–12; Köhler, Die altenglischen Fischnamen, 21–24.



Animal Entries

115

of these coastal molluscs have whorled shells and can be found throughout areas with rocky surfaces proximate to either side of the intertidal zone. Of the three, L. littorea is the largest and most likely to have been gathered as a food source. Typically coloured in the black to grey range, the foreshortened, somewhat conical shell of the common periwinkle is about one by two inches (2.5 by 5 cm) in size. Periwinkles are among the most commonly found shells in English archaeo­logical sites dating to the early medi­eval period, besides oysters (Ostrea edulis) and mussels (Mytilus edulis).514 Correspondingly, they make a relatively broad appearance in Old English texts, from the lexical to the descriptive to the medicinal. The Latin–Old English glossaries provide at least three specific names for periwinkles (wine-wincla, pinewincla, sæ-winewincle) and one generic moniker (sæ-snægl), but don’t seem to specify or distinguish between species. Instead, the Old English terms for periwinkle simply gloss Latin terms that reference shells or shellfish: chelo, concha, cochlea, testudo, and the mysterious “marina gagalia.”515 This last word may be a corruption of Latin gugalia from cochlea, rendering the term sea-snail.516 Outside of lexical concerns, the actual animal is addressed in Ælfric’s Colloquy as one of the many shelled creatures a fisherman might harvest: “ostran  crabban, muslan, winewinclan, sæcoccas” (oysters and crabs, mussels, periwinkles, cockles).517 In addition to its use as a food item, the periwinkle was also used in medical treatments. If one was unfortunate enough to suffer excessive flatulence, Bald’s Leechbook suggests to “sæ winewinclan gebærnde  gegnidene gemeng wiþ æges þæt hwite, smire mid” (burn and grind a periwinkle, mingle [it] with the white of an egg, and smear [the afflicted] with it).518 Such preparations including periwinkles are suggested to treat misty vision and intemperate appetites as well. These creatures are also recommended as food for soothing the sick or the sore, indirectly asserting that these molluscs were considered a significant part of the early medi­eval diet in England, despite their humble stature. Further Reading

Smith, Shelagh Mary, and David Heppell. Checklist of British Marine Mollusca. Edinburgh: National Museums of Scotland, 1991.

 PHEASANT  OE: wor-hana, reod-muþa  |  Species: Phasianus colchicus

The common pheasant

(P. colchicus) is a medium-sized bird of almost two feet (60 cm) in length. Its plumage is made notable not by its barred, deep-brown body, but by its iridescent greenish-purple head and red face. A wild gamebird known to the Greeks and Romans as a source of sport and food, it was introduced to the British Isles 514  See Somerville, “Marine Molluscs,” 177–78, 184–85.

515  See Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright and Wülcker, 1:24, 56; 2:136; Whitman, “The Old English Animal Names,” 381–82. 516  See du Cange, Glossarium, 3.588.

517  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29. 518  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:240.

116

Animal Entries

during the period of Roman colonization. During the early medi­eval period, the bird may have continued to exist on the island thanks to continued trading relationships with the Continent.519 Pheasants are relatively rare in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. At the bird-rich period sites at Flixborough, for example, only one pheasant bone was found among the more than 11,000 bird specimens.520 A more broadly-based survey of over ninety archaeo­logical sites across southern England yielded only two pheasant bones from the period.521 The pheasant is solely a creature of the glossaries in Old English texts, perhaps due to its relative scarcity. The Old English wor-hana glosses the various misspelling of the Latin phasianus (pheasant) in these texts.522 An alternate Old English glossary-term, reod-muþa (red-mouth), may be a descriptor of the pheasant’s striking red cheeks.523 While the early medi­eval English may have had some incidental contact with the pheasant, its status as a relatively rare exotic in the local ecosystem resulted in the bird having little impact on the vernacular textual culture of the time. Further Reading

Avery, Mark. “The Common Pheasant: Its Status in the UK and the Potential Impacts of an Abundant Non-Native.” British Birds 112, no. 7 (2019): 372–89. Kabell, Inge Kryger. “The Old English Rēodmūþa and the Bird Today Called the Pheasant.” Studia Neophilo­logica 59, no. 1 (1987): 3–6.

 PIG  OE: swin  HOG  OE: fearh  SOW  OE: su, sugu  SWINE  OE: swin, eofor-swin, sliht-swin  BARROW-PIG  OE: bearg  STY-PIG  OE: stig-fearh Species: Sus scrofa

The domestic pig

of early medi­eval England was simply the domesticated version of the countryside’s wild boar (S. scrofa) stock. Technically, these animals are of the same species, but the domestic strain arose from individuals that would be herded between woodland and farmland, taking advantage of the most readily available food-

519  See Poole, “Bird Introductions,” 159.

520  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 39.

521  See Holmes, Southern England, 286.

522  For the vagaries of the spelling of phasianus in the glossaries, see Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 498–99. For an example, see “The Latin–Old English Glossary,” ed. Stryker, 133, 191. 523  See Kabell, “The Old English Rēodmūþa,” 3–6.



Animal Entries

117

stuffs as the seasons offered. On average, these swine measured somewhat over two feet (60 cm) tall at the shoulder, comparable to medium-sized domestic breeds of today.524 However, selective breeding of pig stock was not a feature of early medi­eval swine husbandry. Despite the lack of intensive husbandry practices, pigs were one of the largest sources of domestic animal protein in early medi­eval England.525 For the bulk of the period, pigs were raised by driving them into woodlands to forage for fallen nuts and other edibles.526 The ubiquity of pig husbandry is evident in the archaeo­logical record of the time, where pig bones are relatively frequent finds. Although excavations at York identified pig remains at ratios of 5:1 in favour of cattle and 2:1 in favour of sheep, for example, swine remains still numbered in the thousands.527 These numbers are impressive, given that pigs were most likely raised solely for food, as opposed to other domestic livestock that could also provide multiple animal products.528 Although cut-marks on pig-bones are relatively uncommon, this is not necessarily evidence of a lack of butchery, but rather the relative ease with which their carcasses might be disarticulated.529 The popularity of pork is suggested by socio-economic differentiation in the distribution of pig remains.530 The evidence indicates that pork may well have been considered a high-status food.531 By any measure, pigs were a staple of early medi­eval husbandry practices in England, and their flesh was an important component of the people’s diet. Swine were as common in Old English texts as they were in animal husbandry of the time. Glossaries readily equate the Old English swin (pig) with either the Latin porcus (domestic pig) or sus (pig, generically). Ælfric, for example, does so in a single entry: “porcus oððe sus swyn” (porcus or sus: swine).532 In the literature of the period, the long-time association of swine with filth, literal and metaphorical, holds true. In Ælfric’s exegesis on the miracle of the swine (Mark 5:1–20), he explains the story of how Jesus transported the evil spirits that were possessing a man into a herd of pigs. Ælfric explains that swine are appropriate vessels for evil spirits because one who sins “hine befylan fullice mid leahtrum. swa swa swyn deð” (defiles himself with sins, just

524  See Hagen, Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink, 103; Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, 100. 525  See Albarella, “Pig Husbandry,” 73–77. 526  See Albarella, “Pig Husbandry,” 77.

527  See O’Connor, “Animal Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian York,” 428.

528  See Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, 98. On the lack of pigskin crafts, see Mould, Carlisle, and Cameron, Craft, Industry and Everyday Life, 3232–33.

529  See, for example, O’Connor, Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian Levels at 16–22 Coppergate, 179–80. 530  See Albarella, “Pig Husbandry,” 80.

531  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 222, 238–40.

532  Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309.

118

Animal Entries

as a swine does).533 Even in a place as hygienically challenged as early medi­eval England, pigs still served as symbols of filthiness. While there is ample evidence of the value of domestic pigs in Old English texts, there is precious little direct vernacular documentary evidence as to their husbandry. The law code of Æthelstan, for example, sets out a sliding scale of livestock values, with pigs priced between cows and sheep: “cu to XX  swyn to X  sceap to schillinga” (a cow at 20 [pence] and a pig at 10 and a sheep at a shilling).534 The eleventh-century Rectitudines, a manual of estate management, describes some pig-husbandry practices. According to the text, peasants on the estate are to pay the swineheard in bread “ðonne he his heorde to mæstene drife” (when he drives his herd to the mastpasture).535 This shows that a worker was dedicated to keeping the pigs in a sty for some period of time and then driving them outside where they could forage for mast (primarily fallen tree-nuts). The swineherd also had obligations to his lord in return, to whom “he sylle ælce geare xv swyn to sticunge, x ealde  v gynge; hæbbe sylf, þæt he ofer þæt arære” (he gives each year 15 swine for slaughter, 10 old and 5 young; he may have for himself that which he rears over that). Thus, pigs were not only raised to feed the aristocratic estate, but also were a source of protein for the working class. Some further evidence of pig husbandry might be gleaned from the Exeter Book’s Riddle 40 on Creation. The riddle ends with the personification of Creation claiming that “Mara ic eom ond fættra þonne amæsted swin, / bearg bellende” (I am greater and fatter than the mast-fed swine, the bellowing barrow-pig).536 Although these pigs might be considered wild boars due to the description of them living joyfully “on bocwuda” (in the beechwood),537 the specific reference to a bearg, a barrow-pig or gelded male pig, suggests the presence of human husbandry practices.538 There is not much vernacular textual evidence of the specifics of pork consumption. Again, the Rectitudines provides some clue. One perk of the bound servant who tends the estate’s pigs is that he should get to keep a little one for himself “ðonne he spic behworfen hæfð” (when he had prepared the bacon).539 In his Grammar, Ælfric explains the provenance of the Old English spic (some kind of preserved pork or ham): “Þanon ys gecweden lardum spic, forðan ðe hit on husum hangað lange” (Thence is [the Latin] lardum called spic, because it hangs in the house a long time).540 Additionally, like the products of most domestic animals, pig products also served medicinal purposes. One remedy for muscle-stiffness recommends making a soothing poultice from a plant “wududocce nemneð  eald swynen smeru  ðone cruman of ofenbace533  Homily 27 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 219. 534  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:176. 535  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:447.

536  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:320.

537  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:320.

538  For the identification of this “swin” as a boar, see Sebo, “The Creation Riddle,” 150–51. 539  See Sebo, “The Creation Riddle,” 150–51.

540  Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 42.



Animal Entries

119

num hlafe” (named dock and grease from an old swine and the crumbs from an ovenbaked loaf).541 Whether the treatment worked or not, it does show the ready use of pig products beyond the table. Domesticated swine were an important aspect of animal husbandry in early medi­ eval England. The archaeo­logical record proves their ubiquity, and the vernacular written record attests to their common use. Although the animals were burdened with a metaphorical association with all that is filthy, pig consumption could also be a mark of social prominence. As ever, pigs appear to have served whatever use the people of the period needed. Further Reading

Albarella, Umberto. “Pig Husbandry and Pork Consumption in Medi­eval England.” In Food in Medi­eval England: Diet and Nutrition, edited by C. M. Woolgar, D. Serjeantson, and T. Waldron, 72–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Crabtree, Pam J. “Sheep, Horses, Swine, and Kine: A Zooarchaeo­logical Perspective on the Anglo-Saxon Settlement of England.” Journal of Field Archaeo­logy 16, no. 2 (1989): 205–13.

 PIKE  OE: hacod  |  Species: Esox lucius

The largest and most impressive freshwater fish in British waters is the pike (E. lucius). A long, heavy-bodied fish, E. lucius is a dark green with yellowish spots above, shading to a yellowish-cream below. Perhaps its most distinctive feature is its broad, almost duckbill-shaped mouth, which is home to powerful jaws and multiple rows of teeth that can number in the hundreds. The pike has the ability to grow nearly five feet (1.5 m) in length and weigh over forty pounds (18 kg). Combine all that with a truly fierce disposition and a diet that can include everything from small fish to young waterfowl, and it becomes rather obvious that the pike would make an impression on any who encounter it. Pike are a significant fish in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England.542 One reason for this is the sheer size of the fish, making their bones more likely to survive and be recognizable to archaeo­logists centuries later. A second reason for the pike’s higher profile is its role as a marker of social standing. As both a sizable fish and an apex predator, the pike would supply both a significant meal and trophy catch.543 One of the largest assemblages of freshwater fish bones in an early medi­eval archaeo­logical context is at Flixborough. Almost half of the entire number of freshwater fish remains from this site belong to pike, which outnumbers the next most numerous species two to one.544 Clearly, pike was an important fish to the people of early medi­eval England. 541  The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend 80.

542  See Hoffmann, “A Protohistory of Pike,” 7–11; Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 47, 51, 183–87; Preston, “Fact and Fish Tales,” 5–6. 543  See Locker, Freshwater Fish, 36; Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 124. 544  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 54.

120

Animal Entries

Curiously, this obvious regard for the pike does not find its way into the written record of Old English, where pike are but little mentioned. For the most part, pike appear in Latin–Old English glossaries, glossing the Latin lucius.545 The one literary instance of the pike is in Ælfric’s Colloquy, where it is merely one in a list of fish a fictionalized fisherman might catch: “ælas  hacodas, mynas  æleputan, sceotan  lampredan,  swa wylce swa on wætere swymmaþ” (eels and pike, minnows and burbot, shoat and lampreys, and whatever swims in the waters).546 There is some confusion surrounding the Old English word hacod, in that it might also refer to the saltwater grey mullet (Chelon labrosus). Yet two of the four examples of such glosses provided by the Dictionary of Old English more likely point to pike over mullet.547 The dictionary cites two copies of a spurious charter supposedly issued by King Edgar to Ramsey Abbey in 974 ce, which, among other issues, tells a miraculous story of the founding of the abbey. In the tale, a fisherman had a vision of St. Benedict, who instructed him to go fishing and take the biggest fish from the surrounding waters, “istius soli hacaed proprio nuncupant vocabulo” (that which is only called hacaed in your own words).548 The Dictionary cites this instance of hacod as “perhaps pike [my emphasis],” but both the historical and archaeo­logical records show no evidence of mullet near the site of the abbey, but the definite presence of pike.549 When seeking the biggest freshwater fish of the British Isles, the pike is the only contender. Despite its meagre showing in Old English texts, the pike appropriately looms large among the freshwater fish of the period. A not uncommon freshwater food source, E. lucius makes a substantial mark upon the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. It was likely as impressive a fish to the people of the time as it remains for anglers today. Further Reading

Craig, J. F. “A Short Review of Pike Eco­logy.” Hydrobio­logia 601, no. 1 (2008): 5–16. Hoffmann, Richard. “A Protohistory of Pike in Western Culture.” In An Annotated Biblio­graphy of the Pike, Esox lucius (Osteichthyes: Salmoniformes), edited by Edwin J. Crossman and J. M. Casselman, vii–xvii. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1987. Nilsson, P. Anders, and Christian Skov. Bio­logy and Eco­logy of Pike. Boca Raton: CRC, 2018.

545  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 308. 546  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 27.

547  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “hacod.”

548  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 3:641.

549  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “hacod.” For pike in the archaeo­logy of Ramsey Abbey, see Spoerry et al., “Ramsey Abbey, Cambridgeshire,” 195. For an overview of Ramsey’s fish stocks, see Oosthuizen, The Anglo-Saxon Fenland, 5–6.



Animal Entries

121

 PORCUPINE  OE: igil, il  |  Species: Hystrix cristata, H. indica

The two species of porcupine relevant to the people of the British Isles are the crested porcupine (H. cristata) and Indian crested porcupine (H. indica). Well known for their bushy coats of barbed quills, which they can raise in a defensive crest, both species reach lengths of about three feet (90 cm). Both species also have distributions that include lands around the Mediterranean: H. cristata is found proximate to the coast of North Africa and Italy, while H. indica can be found on the Mediterranean coasts of Turkey and the Middle East. While neither of these creatures lived in the British Isles, they came to the notice of the early medi­eval English by means of Mediterranean textual cultures. That the early medi­eval English had little to no contact with porcupines is evident in the language itself. Old English employs the same words, igil and il, for both the porcupine and the native hedgehog, the closest analogue to the porcupine to be found in the British Isles. The lexical conflation of these creatures is readily found in Ælfric’s Glossary, where he uses the vernacular il (hedgehog) to gloss both the Latin hystrix (porcupine) and erinaceus (hedgehog).550 Other glossary entries attempt to distinguish between the hedgehog and the porcupine by referring to them, respectively, as the læsse igil (lesser hedgehog) and the mara igil (greater hedgehog).551 However, it seems as though reading igil primarily as hedgehog is supported by still other glossaries that render hedgehog as simply il and porcupine as the mara igil.552 While an argument may be made that Exeter Book Riddle 15 refers to the porcupine in describing its active defence “hildepilum” (with battle-spears), the reference is indirect.553 The porcupine did not exist in the early medi­eval English landscape except perhaps as imagined in relation to the corresponding diminutive figure of the hedgehog. Further Reading

Bitterli, Dieter. “Exeter Book Riddle 15: Some Points for the Porcupine.” Anglia 120, no. 4 (2003): 461–87. Cavell, Megan. “The Igil and Exeter Book Riddle 15.” Notes and Queries 64, no. 2 (2017): 206–10. Mori, E., L. Ancillotto, S. Lovari, D. Russo, L. Nerva, W. F. Mohamed, Y. Motro, P. Di Bari, and M. Plebani. “Skull Shape and Bergmann’s Rule in Mammals: Hints from Old World Porcupines.” Journal of Zoo­logy 308, no. 1 (2019): 47–55.

 QUAIL  OE: edisc-henn, ersc-henn  |  Species: Coturnix coturnix

Common across Europe and into Asia, the common quail (C. coturnix) is a summer migrant to the British Isles. Small and rounded, at about six inches (15 cm) long the brown-and-buff quail is a retiring bird, favouring the thick underbrush for cover. More likely to be heard than seen, the bird emits a signature wet-my-lips call. Although 550  See Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309.

551  See, for example, Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright and Wülcker, 1:430. 552  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 82. 553  See Bitterli, “Exeter Book Riddle 15,” 478–87.

122

Animal Entries

preferring to run from a threat than fly, once in the air the quail is recognizable due to its surprisingly long wings. Although likely a wild-game species, quail are sparingly found in the early medi­ eval archaeo­logical contexts of England. When they do appear, their numbers are few and their remains scant, as in the Romano-British to early medi­eval contexts of the settlement of Viroconium in Wroxeter.554 Likewise, the quail’s presence in Old English literature is equally attenuated. Outside of the glossaries, where the Old English edischenn and ersc-henn gloss the Latin coturnix or ortygometra (both quail-terms), quails only occur in translations of scripture relating the feeding of the Israelites by God in Exodus.555 In the Old English version of Exodus 16:13, God sends “micel fugolcyn on hira wicstowe swilce erschenna, þæt ys on Lyden coturnix” (many birds into their dwelling-place such as quail, that is coturnix in Latin).556 This event may have seemed doubly miraculous to the people of early medi­eval England, who appear to have had little interaction with quail in any great numbers. Further Reading

Davies, Colin. “The European Bird Report: Non-Passerines.” British Birds 95, no. 4 (2002): 174–88.

 RAT  OE: ræt  |  Species: Rattus rattus

For a creature

as ubiquitous as it is today, the black rat (R. rattus) makes only the most minor of appearances in early medi­eval England. This absence may be linked to their relative numbers during the period. Originating in Asia and introduced to the British Isles by the Romans in the first century ce, the archaeo­logical evidence suggests a precipitous decline in rat numbers from the end of the fourth century through the end of the tenth century.557 Rats make a comeback in northern England with the invasions from Scandinavia, suggesting that the rat population did not necessarily rebound, so much as they were reintroduced at that time.558 The decline in the rat population during the height of the early medi­eval period in England probably explains their relative absence from Old English texts. The only mention of rats in the Old English corpus is in a vocabulary glossing the Latin term raturus.559 Luckily, despite all the other hardships of early medi­eval life in England, rats cannot be counted among the problems significantly plaguing people of the day. 554  See Hammon, “Understanding the Romano-British–Early Medi­eval Transition,” 295.

555  See Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 498. For a glossary example, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 104. 556  The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, ed. Crawford, 253.

557  See Rielly, “The Black Rat,” 140.

558  See Rielly, “The Black Rat,” 140–42.

559  “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 73. On the etymo­logy of ræt, see McCormick, 4.



Further Reading

Animal Entries

123

Jolly, Karen. “A Cat’s Eye View: Vermin in Anglo-Saxon England.” In The Daily Lives of the AngloSaxons, edited by Carole Biggam, Carole Hough, and Daria Izdebska, 79–98. Essays in Anglo-Saxon Studies 8. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medi­eval and Renaissance Studies, 2017. McCormick, Michael. “Rats, Communications, and Plague: Toward an Eco­logical History.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 34, no. 1 (2003): 1–25. O’Connor, T. P. “Pets and Pests in Roman and Medi­eval Britain.” Mammal Review 22, no. 2 (1992): 107–13. Rielly, Kevin. “The Black Rat.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 116–26. Oxford: Windgather, 2010.

 RAVEN  OE: hræfn, hremn, niht-hræfn  |  Species: Corvus corax

The raven (C. corax) is a large, darkly plumaged member of the Corvidae family, which includes its lesser cousins, the crows, rooks, and jays. Measuring about two feet (60 cm) long, the raven is an impressive bird, relatively large and stout in form, uniformly black in colouration, and arresting in voice. Its deep-throated croak is unmistakable among other insular bird calls. It ranges across much of the western part of the British Isles, particularly in upland regions. Famously, the raven is expansive in appetite, feeding as readily on carrion as on live prey. Ravens occur relatively frequently in early medi­eval English archaeo­logical contexts. For example, in a survey of over a hundred pre-Conquest sites in southern England, ravens are among the most represented of wild bird species.560 Although this distribution of remains suggests that the people of the period were apparently well acquainted with these birds, it does not appear that these animals were used for food or products.561 Where ravens appear to make the biggest impact on early medi­eval insular culture is in the written record. In Old English texts, the raven’s most iconic appearances in the literature are as one of the “beasts of battle.” In this poetic topos, the raven, along with the wolf and the eagle, helps to serve as a symbol of the ravages of war in Old English poetry.562 For example, in “The Battle of Brunanburh,” the poet relates that the victors “Letan him behindan hræw bryttian / saluwigpadan, þone sweartan hræfn” (left behind them, to enjoy the corpses, the dark coated one, the black raven).563 Here the raven is clearly connected to the spoils of war in its function as scavenger, yet more as symbol than actual animal. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the raven is always and ever merely a signifier. In “The Fortunes of Men,” the detailed description of a raven feasting upon a human corpse pairs the symbolic and bio­logical. The raven indeed symbolizes death 560  See Holmes, Southern England, 286–88.

561  For evidence of the ritual burial of corvids in earlier archaeo­logical contexts, see Serjeantson and Morris, “Ravens and Crows in Iron Age and Roman Britain,” passim.

562  For a list of the raven’s appearances as a “beast of battle,” see Griffith, “Convention and Originality,” 185. See also Magoun, “The Theme of the Beasts of Battle,” 81–90; Honegger, “Form and Function,” 291–98. 563  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, vol. 3, ed. Bately, 72.

124

Animal Entries

at the scene of a human execution, but it also behaves as a real bird. In describing the fate of the body hanging from a gallows, the narrator relates that “Þær him hrefn nimeþ heafodsyne, / sliteð salwigpad sawelleasne (There the raven seizes his eyeballs, the dusky-plumed one tears the soulless one).564 The image of the raven targeting the vulnerable eyeball as a prize at first appears to be a gory detail provided to link the bird with the horrors of death. However, ornitho­logists have described corvids in the wild first taking the most accessible remains available to them, such as eyes, tongues, and the flesh of any open wounds.565 Although used for grim effect, the poet accurately describes the bird’s natural behaviour faithfully, skillfully weaving together the factual and the figurative. Aside from their grim association with death, ravens are also used to illustrate the beneficent power of God over nature in Old English literature. For example, in Aelfric’s homily on the life of St. Cuthbert, when the saint attempts to grow grain, “Þa woldon hremmas hine bereafian æt his gedeorfum” (then would ravens rob him at his labour).566 The birds would also steal thatch from his roof as they “his hus tæron mid heardum bile and to neste bæron heora briddum to hleowðe” (tore his house with their hard bills, and bore it [the thatching] to their nest, as a shelter for their young).567 In response, Cuthbert exerts his power as saint, banishing the birds from his island retreat. When one raven returns seeking forgiveness, it miraculously “brohton ðam lareowe lac to medes swines rysl his scon to gedreoge” (brought to the teacher a gift as reward, swine’s fat to oil his shoes).568 While this behaviour may appear to be an example of the saint’s divinely inspired victory over nature, there is also true eco­ logical observation at play in these scenes.569 The stealing of grain is readily explained by the birds’ opportunistic feeding style. Ravens are well known for their wide-ranging diet, from live animals to carrion to plant matter.570 The pilfering of roofing thatch accords with observations of raven nest construction, in which the birds use almost any locally available material to build their homes.571 The seemingly generic challenge to the saint by the forces of nature is also representative of quite readily observed behaviour of the actual animal. What at first seems more difficult to explain is the wayward raven’s seeking of forgiveness from the saint and the presentation of a conciliatory gift. Given the range of the raven’s diet, its possession of swine’s rysl (fat) is easily understandable. Yet even the seemingly miraculous gift-giving behaviour of the bird might well be based in eco­ logical observation. Recent research has found that corvids appear to understand the 564  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:248.

565  See Ratcliffe, The Raven, 85.

566  Homily 10 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 86. 567  Homily 10 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 86. 568  Homily 10 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 87. 569  See Brooks, Restoring Creation, 60–65, 160–63. 570  See Heinrich, “Neophilia and Exploration,” 695. 571  See Ratcliffe, The Raven, 142.



Animal Entries

125

concept of reciprocity. Through experiments exploring the understanding of the relationship between behaviour and reward, corvids have emerged as star pupils, quickly grasping the link between the two.572 The results of such research explain a natural context for the amazing interchange between the raven and the saint. While their remains in archaeo­logical contexts point to their liminal roles as scavengers in early medi­eval England, the raven also carried an inescapable figurative connection to death in the eyes of humanity. Even so, they also could be depicted as just another feathered creature in the ranks of Creation. In either case, current behavioural research helps modern readers to see the traces of the real animal that flutters among the metaphors in the vernacular texts. Further Reading

Heinrich, Bernd. Mind of the Raven. New York: Cliff Street, 1999. —— . “Neophilia and Exploration in Juvenile Common Ravens, Corvus corax.” Animal Behaviour 50, no. 3 (1995): 695–704. Lacey, Eric. “When Is a Hroc Not a Hroc? When It Is a Crawe or a Hrefn! A Study in Recovering Old English Folk-Taxonomies.” In The Art, Literature and Material Culture of the Medi­eval World: Transition, Transformation and Taxonomy, edited by Meg Boulton, Jane Hawkes, and Melissa Herman, 138–52. Dublin: Four Courts, 2015. Marzluff, John, and Tony Angell. Gifts of the Crow. New York: Free Press, 2012. —— . In the Company of Crows and Ravens. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Osborn, Marijane. “Domesticating the Dayraven in Beowulf 1801 (With Some Attention to Alison’s Ston).” In Heroic Poetry in the Anglo-Saxon Period: Studies in Honor of Jess B. Bessinger, Jr., edited by Helen Damico and John Leyerle, 313–30. Kalamazoo: Medi­eval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1993. Preston, Todd. “Feathers and Figuration: Ravens in Old English Literature.” In Reading the Natural World, edited by Thomas Willard, 37–51. Arizona Studies in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance 45. Turnhout: Brepols, 2020. Ratcliffe, Derek. The Raven. London: Poyser, 1997. Serjeantson, Dale, and James Morris. ”Ravens and Crows in Iron Age and Roman Britain.” Oxford Journal of Archaeo­logy 30 (2011): 85–107.

 RAY  OE: reohhe, ruhha  |  Species: Raja clavata

Of the eleven

ray species in the North Sea, the thornback ray (R. clavata) is the most common inshore species surrounding the British Isles. Usually about three feet (90 cm) in length, R. clavata is a slightly rounded diamond shape. Its colouration varies across the brown–grey–black spectrum dorsally, and it is whitish beneath. Its common name derives from the thorny protrusions on its back, especially those running down the spine from snout to tail. Found in shallow waters on all manner of substrate, R. clavata is the primary food-species of ray taken commercially even today. The case of rays in the early medi­eval archaeo­logical record of England is difficult to thoroughly analyze due the nature of their remains. Having cartilaginous skeletons, rays leave behind precious little durable material. Often, only the dermal denticles (lit572  See Marzluff and Angell, Gifts, 114.

126

Animal Entries

erally, the tooth-like “scales” that make up the skin of rays and sharks) remain behind. The lack of (literally) hard evidence makes it difficult to accurately ascertain just how many rays were actually taken at early medi­eval sites.573 When ray remains are classified to the species level, they are almost always identified as R. clavata. Regardless of the difficulty of their discovery and identification, ray remains still manage to occur throughout period sites from London to York, serving as a testament to their use as a fairly widespread resource for the early medi­eval English.574 The near invisibility of the ray in the archaeo­logical record of the time extends to the Old English corpus. The ray only appears a handful of times in Latin–Old English glossaries in a variety of spellings, typically glossing fannus, a possible Latin term for ray.575 Despite the acknowledged availability and use of rays in early medi­eval England, the fish did not make a substantial impact on the Old English corpus. Further Reading

Chevolot, Malia, Jim R. Ellis, Galice Hoarau, Adriaan D. Rijnsdorp, Wytze T. Stam, and Jeanine L. Olsen. “Population Structure of the Thornback Ray (Raja clavata L.) in British Waters.” Journal of Sea Research 56 (2006): 305–16.

 REINDEER  OE: hran  |  Species: Rangifer tarandus

Reindeer (R. tarandus)

were not native to early medi­eval England. The only evidence of the animal in early medi­eval English culture is textual and occurs in the Old English Orosius. Within the text, the Norseman Ohthere is reported to have told King Alfred (r. 871–99 ce) that he owned “tamra deora unbebohtra syx hund. Þa deor hi hatað ‘hranas’” (six hundred unsold tamed animals. Those animals they call “reindeer”).576 The extent to which he “owned” these animals, as opposed to simply having the right to take advantage of a large migratory herd, is difficult to discern. The fact that Ohthere had to identify the reindeer to Alfred by means of what others called them indicates an unfamiliarity with the animals in early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Allport, Ben. “Home Thoughts of Abroad: Ohthere’s Voyage in Its Anglo‐Saxon Context.” Early Medi­eval Europe 28, no. 2 (May 2020): 256–88. Storli, Inger. “Ohthere and His World: A Contemporary Perspective.” In Ohthere’s Voyages: A Late Ninth Century Account of Voyages along the Coasts of Norway and Denmark and its Cultural Context, edited by Janet Bately and Anton Englert, 76–99. Maritime Culture of the North 1. Roskilde: Viking Ship Museum, 2007. 573  For a helpful overview of the place of rays in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England, see Locker, “Fish Bone from Castle Mall,” 131–46. 574  See Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 52, 189–95.

575  See Köhler, Die altenglischen Fischnamen, 67–70; Napier, “Old English Lexico­graphy,” 60, Buckalew, “Leland’s Transcript of Ælfric’s ‘Glossary,’” 156–57. For a glossary example, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 229. 576  The Old English History of the World, ed. Godden, 40.



 ROACH  OE: scealga  |  Species: Rutilus rutilus

Animal Entries

127

The roach (R. rutilus) is a common British member of the freshwater cyprinid (i.e.,

carp) family. Typically about ten inches (25 cm) long, the roach is uniformly silver, has striking red eyes, and sports both reddish pectoral and anal fins. One of the most common freshwater fishes in the lakes, rivers, and streams it inhabits, the roach can tolerate brackish waters as well. Given their numbers and habits as a schooling fish, roach would be particularly susceptible to netting in great numbers. The early medi­eval archaeo­logical record in England speaks to the familiarity of the roach to the people of the period. It is one of the most commonly found freshwater fishes in bone assemblages of the time, despite its relatively small size. 577 Given the number of unidentified (or unidentifiable) cyprinid bones at early medi­eval sites across the island, the roach may be even more common than it appears. While the roach may not have been a high-status species like the pike (Esox luscius), it was clearly a common food stock among early medi­eval English freshwater fishes. Its humble stature and role in the diet of the time may also explain why it is almost overlooked in Old English texts. The roach only occurs twice in the Latin–Old English glossaries, glossing the Latin rocea (roach).578 It may well be that the roach was so common and unassuming that a passing mention in a couple of glossaries was all the authors of Old English texts believed the little cyprinid merited. Further Reading

Carter, Matt. “Roach Rutilus rutilus.” In Freshwater Fishes in Britain: The Species and Their Distribution, edited by Cynthia Davies, Jonathan Shelley, Paul Harding, Ian McLean, Ross Gardiner, and Graeme Peirson, 86–88. Colchester: Harley, 2004.

 ROBIN  OE: rudduc, readda, salt-haga  |  Species: Erithacus rubecula

The European robin (E. rubecula) was likely a common native of early medi­eval

England, as it is today. About five inches (12.5 cm) in length, the robin is a small bird that has a brownish-olive back and head with an orange face and breast, limned with a slateblue border. The resident, largely non-migratory British subspecies of the robin has been identified as the subspecies E. rubecula melophilus. This particular line of robins tend to be of a deeper overall hue than their Continental cousins. Given their small size and habitation outside of the scope of human domestication, robins are largely unidentified in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England. At best, as relatively common birds, their remains may be among those typically identified at the family level: Turdidae.579 Similarly, their occurrence in Old English texts is 577  On the roach’s presence in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England, see Locker, Freshwater Fish, 37–40; Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 124; Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 47, 51, 183–87.

578  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228; Köhler, Die altenglischen Fischnamen, 73–74. 579  See, for example, Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 39; Crabtree, West Stow, 27.

128

Animal Entries

marginal, relegated merely to glossary entries for the Latin rubisca (robin).580 There is some question as to whether the Old English glossary term salt-haga actually refers to the robin, as it glosses the Latin rubisca as well, or if it indicates the similar redstart (Phoenicurus phoenicurus).581 In any event, whether robin or redstart, these small birds seemed to make a minimal impact on the insular material and textual cultures of the period. Further Reading

Fennessy, Gavin J., and Thomas C. Kelly. “Breeding Densities of Robin Erithacus rubecula in Different Habitats: The Importance of Hedgerow Structure.” Bird Study 53, no. 2 (2006): 97–104.

 SALMON  OE: leax

 SALMON SPAWN OE: cypera  |  Species: Salmo salar

An impressive animal and important food source, the Atlantic salmon (S. salar)

was a major component of the early medi­eval insular fishery. The fish typically measures around thirty inches (75 cm), but can grow to twice that size. They are rather heavilybodied, with an overall elongated profile. The colouration of S. salar changes with its life stage. Young fish have bluish-grey bars and red spots along their sides. Adults become more completely silvery, with a dorsal sheen of deep bluish-green. When spawning, their colouration dulls to a yellowish-brown, and males can develop bold red spotting and a pronounced hook to their lower jaws. The species is famously anadromous, migrating from freshwater spawning grounds to the sea, only to return to their home waters once more to reproduce. Their spawning trips to fresh water put them in reach of both coastal and inland anglers. Unfortunately, for such an important fish, salmon bones do not preserve well due to their lower relative density.582 This may have led to a significant underrepresentation of S. salar in the archaeo­logical record. Nevertheless, enough salmon bones have survived to show that it was a consistent food item for the early medi­eval English across the entire period and the whole of the island.583 In addition to bone, the remains of fishing techno­logy known to be used for salmon can still be found. The remains of period fishing weirs give witness to the practice of obstructing waterways to funnel migrating fish towards a net or basket for capture. This would have been an especially effective way to target a species like salmon, whose migrations can be readily observed and anticipated. Remains of early medi­eval weirs likely to have been used 580  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307. 581  See Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 486–87.

582  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 106; Jane, Nislow, and Whiteley, “The Use (and Misuse) of Archaeo­logical Salmon Data,” 943–54. On the general problem of fish-bone survival, see Barrett, “An Environmental (Pre)History of European Fishing,” 1034. 583  See Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 47, 51, 183–87.



Animal Entries

129

to harvest salmon have been found across southern England.584 Clearly, S. salar was an important target species for the early medi­eval fishery in England. The importance of the salmon to the people of the period is evident not only in the archaeo­logical record, but also in Old English literature. The fish occurs over twenty times and in almost every genre of Old English literature, from the sacred to the secular and from the prosaic to the poetic. In the Latin–Old English glossaries, the vernacular leax is a common term and glosses the Latin esox or salmo (salmon).585 Salmon were apparently ubiquitous enough that an Old English poet turned to an observation of the salmon to help understand the ways of the world in the Exeter Book’s “Maxims II”: “Leax sceal on wæle mid sceote scriðan” (The salmon must glide in deep waters with the trout).586 In adapting the Latin Life of St. Martin, Ælfric shows the food value of salmon by citing the miraculous catch of an “ormæte leax” (enormous salmon), presenting its capture as a possible example of coastal net-fishing.587 Another hint as to how salmon were taken comes from Ælfric’s Colloquy. When questioned as to what he catches in the sea, the student posing as fisherman responds, “hærincgas  leaxas, mereswyn  stirian” (herrings and salmon, dolphin and sturgeon).588 Although salmon are known for their migration into fresh water, Ælfric here contextualizes them as a sea-going species for the purposes of the dialogue.589 The fish had any number of uses beyond the table, as in medicinal preparations. If one has misty vision, for example, Bald’s Leechbook recommends the following: “hrefnes geallan  leaxes  eles  feldbeon hunig meng tosomne, smire mid þære sealfe innan þa eagan” (mingle together a raven’s gall, and a salmon’s, and an eel’s, and a bumblebee’s honey, [and] smear that salve into the eyes).590 Salmon also appear as an economic commodity in the Old English charters as a means to pay one’s rent. Ealdwulf, the archbishop of York, granted property to thane Leofenath in a 996 ce charter, stipulating “þæt Leofenað and his twegen yrfewardas æfter him gesyllan ælce geare xv leaxas, and þa gode, þam biscope þe þonne beo into Wiogornaceastre” (that Leofenath and his two heirs after him shall give each year 15 salmon, and those good, to the bishop that is in Worcester).591 From the mundane to the miraculous, salmon played some kind of role in just about every aspect of early medi­eval English life.

584  See Cooper et al., “A Saxon Fish Weir,” 141–44.

585  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228. 586  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 176.

587  For the Old English text, see Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 2:298. For medi­eval coastal net fishing techniques, see Hoffmann, “Medi­eval Fishing,” 361. 588  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29.

589  See Preston, “Fact and Fish Tales,” 3–4, 10–11. 590  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 3:308.

591  Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, ed. Kemble, 3:295–96.

130

Animal Entries

Further Reading

Aas, Øystein, Anders Klemetsen, Sigurd Einum, and Jostein Skurdal. Atlantic Salmon Eco­logy. Chichester: Wiley–Blackwell, 2011. Cooper, John, Caira Gianni, Johan Opdebeeck, Chryssanthi Papadopoulou, and Vassilis Tsiairis. “A Saxon Fish Weir and Undated Fish Trap Frames Near Ashlett Creek, Hampshire, UK: Static Structures on a Dynamic Foreshore.” Journal of Maritime Archaeo­logy 12, no. 1 (2017): 33–69. Jane, Stephen F., Keith H. Nislow, and Andrew R. Whiteley. “The Use (and Misuse) of Archaeo­ logical Salmon Data to Infer Historical Abundance in North America with a Focus on New England.” Reviews in Fish Bio­logy and Fisheries 24 (2014): 943–54. Tsurushima, Hirokazu. “The Eleventh Century in England through Fish-eyes: Salmon, Herring, Oysters and 1066.” In Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2006, edited by C. P. Lewis, 193–213. Anglo-Norman Studies 29. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007.

 SAND MARTIN  OE: stæð-swealwe  |  Species: Riparia riparia

The smallest of the European swallows at almost five inches (12.5 cm) in length,

the sand martin (R. riparia) is a dark grey above and white or buff below. Their distinguishing feature is a band of dark feathers spanning their chests. Preferring to nest in holes excavated into the side of steep riverbanks or streambanks, these agile insectivores secure their prey by swooping dramatically over the water’s surface. With their diminutive size and lifetime spent above or alongside the water, sand martins have no definitive record in the early medi­eval archaeo­logical record in England. Beyond the glossaries, where the Old English stæð-swealwe glosses the Latin ripariolus (sand martin), the bird makes one appearance in a medical text.592 Likely beholding more to Continental practice than local remedies, Book 1 of Bald’s Leechbook suggests that when a man is facing a fight, he should “stæþ swealwan briddas geseoþe on wine” (boil sand martin fledglings in wine) and eat them.593 Curiously, there is no indication of whether this is meant to help one win a fight or avoid it. Altogether, the undetermined archaeo­logical presence and slight textual impact of the sand martin in the vernacular underscores its seeming lack of influence on early medi­ eval insular culture. Further Reading

Mondain, Monval, Thomas O., Kevin Briggs, John Wilson, and Stuart P. Sharp. “Climatic Conditions during Migration Affect Population Size and Arrival Dates in an Afro‐Palaearctic Migrant.” Ibis 162, no. 2 (2020): 572–80.

592  See Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 494. For the glossary term, see An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 103.

593  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:154. On the Continental connection of Book I, see Cameron, AngloSaxon Medicine, 77.



Animal Entries

131

 SCORPION  OE: þrowend, scorpio  |  Order: Scorpiones

Scorpions are, of course, not native to the British Isles. These arachnids are most easily and commonly recognized by a stinger-tipped tail curving over their backs, supplementing their eight legs and two pincer-ended arms. They can range in size from a third of an inch, as in the eyeless cave scorpion Typhlochactas mitchelli, to over nine inches in the giant forest scorpion (Heterometrus swammerdami). Scorpions can be found on every continent, excepting Antarctica, mostly below approximately 50° north latitude.594 Although most frequently inhabiting deserts, scorpions can be found in a wide variety of habitats. As non-native species, scorpions are absent from the archaeo­logical record, but make a relatively impressive showing in Old English literature. This is largely due to their presence not only in the Old English–Latin glossaries, but also in Continentalinfluenced scriptural, astronomical, medical, and travel literature. While the word scorpio can appear in Old English directly as a Latin loanword, the Old English–Latin glossaries supply a native equivalent: þrowend.595 Unsurprisingly, the scorpion most often appears in negative contexts. In his homily on the Greater Litany, Ælfric focuses on the interpretation of the scorpion in Luke 11:12, in which Jesus asks if a father would give his son a scorpion for an egg. As Ælfric sees it, “Se wyrm þrowend, þe is geset ongean þæt æig, is ættren  slihð mid þam tægle to deaðe” (The insect scorpion, which is set against the egg, is venomous and stings with the tail to death).596 Although not a danger to the early medi­eval English, treatment for scorpion stings are included in the Medicina de quadrupedibus: “Wið scorpiones bite  nædran slite, haran cyslyb geseald on wines drince” (Against scorpion’s bite and snake’s sting, drink hare’s rennet given in wine).597 More neutral references to scorpions typically take the form of references to the constellation Scorpio, as in Ælfric’s De temporibus anni. In listing the constellations, he cites, “Eahteoðe is Scorpius, þæt is ðrowend” (Eighth is Scorpio, that is the scorpion).598 Ultimately, while the scorpion makes an impression on Old English texts through Continental sources, the creature existed more as a animal of the imagination for the early medi­eval English. Further Reading

Fet, Victor. “Scorpions of Europe.” Acta Zoo­logica Bulgarica 62, no. 1 (2010): 3–12. Cavell, Megan. “Arachnophobia and Early English Literature.” New Medi­eval Literatures 18 (2018): 1–43.

594  Some species, such as the northern scorpion (Paruroctonus boreus), can be found as far north as Canada in North America. See Fet, Scorpions of Europe, 3-4. 595  See, for example, Zupitza, “Altenglische Glossen,” 239.

596  Homily 18 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 321. 597  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 1:346.

598  See Ælfric’s De Temporibus Anni, ed. Blake, 82.

132

Animal Entries

 SEABIRD  OE: brim-fugel  |  Species: unknown

The generic term

brim-fugel is both a kenning and a hapax legomenon in the Exeter Book poem “The Wanderer.” Its single occurrence in the Old English corpus yokes together two separate words: brim, the Old English term for sea or ocean; and fugel, the generic term for bird or fowl. While fugel is a broadly used term, brim occurs much more often in poetry than in prose.599 This choice of poetic combination works on at least two levels. First, it provides the narrative of the poem, that of a seaborne wanderer lamenting his solitary state, with a realistic detail. The sea would indeed be home to seabirds. Second, the kenning also serves the alliteration of the poem well. The line including it reads: “baþian brim-fulgas brædan feþra” (the bathing seabirds spread their feathers).600 This poetic rendering of the birds on the waves may also contain a detail of eco­logical realism. The conjunction of “bathing” and “spreading their feathers” may refer to the grooming behaviour known as preening. Birds preen to clean and coat their feathers with excretions from the uropygial gland. The gland excretes a waxy, fatty substance that, among other functions, serves to waterproof the birds’ feathers, a crucial survival tool for seabirds.601 Thus, even the use of a term as generic as brim-fugel can refer to a seed of eco­logical fact. Further Reading

Osborn, Marijane. “The Vanishing Seabirds of The Wanderer.” Folklore 85 (1974), 122–27. Quay, W. B. “The Skin of Birds: Uropygial Gland.” In Bio­logy of the Integument. Vol. 2, Vertebrates, edited by J. Bereiter-Hahn, A. G. Matoltsy, and K. Sylvia Richards, 248–54. Berlin: Springer, 1986.

 SEAL  OE: seolh  |  Species: Phoca vitulina, Halichoerus grypus

Two species of seal are endemic to the waters surrounding the British Isles: the

harbour seal (P. vitulina) and the Atlantic grey seal (H. grypus). Harbour seals are the more common and, at lengths of up to six feet (2 m), smaller than the ten-foot-long (3 m) grey seals. Both species engage in hauling-out behaviour, where the animals leave the sea and pull themselves on shore to rest, regulate their body temperature, and avoid marine predators, among other reasons. While on shore, seals vocalize often to either attract or ward off other seals. Both their numbers and raucous vocalizations would have made them quite apparent to any inhabitants of early medi­eval England who wandered near their haul-out sites. The archaeo­logical record of the period provides little evidence of seal harvesting. Most archaeo­logical evidence of sealing appears to be in what is now Scotland.602 In England, seal remains tend to be few, even in the presence of larger caches of marine mammal bones. For example, at the excavations of early medi­eval contexts at Flix599  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “brim” and “fugel.”

600  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 4. 601  See Quay, “The Skin of Birds.”

602  See, for example, Szabo, Monstrous Fishes, 174–75.



Animal Entries

133

borough, archaeo­logists have recovered over a thousand cetacean bones, almost all belonging to the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), but not a single fragment of seal-bone.603 While marine mammals were certainly considered a resource by people at the site, for some reason pinnipeds seemed to be either unconsidered or unavailable. However, the people of early medi­eval England were certainly aware of these animals. Although the specific species are not made clear, as the vernacular seolh typically glosses the generic Latin term phoca (seal), these marine mammals do appear fairly significantly in Old English literature.604 In his Historia, Bede cites some of the bounty of England’s waters, including the fact that “her beoþ oft fangene seolas  hronas  mereswyn” (here are often taken seals and whales and dolphin).605 Although the archaeo­logical evidence seems to belie Bede’s claim, seal products were known to the early medi­eval English, if only through reports of foreign lands. In Ohthere’s report to King Alfred regarding his voyages in the north, the traveller notes that he is paid tribute, in part, with ropes “oþer sy of hwæles hyde geworht, oþer of sioles” (either made of whale’s hide or from seal’s).606 Of course, such products might not survive the centuries, rotting away while more durable artifacts persist. However, despite the lack of physical evidence, seals apparently were thought of as resources. Like many other animals in Old English literature, seals could also serve a metaphorical purpose. This is most evident in Ælfric’s homily on the life of St. Cuthbert. After a night praying neck-deep in the chilly North Sea, Cuthbert returns to shore to continue his prayers. Shortly thereafter he is visited by “twegen seolas of sælicum grunde, and hi mid heora flyse his fet drygdon, and mid heora blæde his leoma beðedon. and siððan mid gebeacne his bletsunge bædon” (two seals from the sea-ground, and they with their fur dried his feet and with their breath warmed his limbs, and afterward by a sign begged his blessing).607 The text’s reference to the seals’ fur, hauling-out activity, and what can be described as snuggling behaviour are all somewhat realistic depictions of the animals.608 While the direction of this behaviour towards the saint appears miraculous, it very closely resembles their natural behaviour towards one another.609 Seal metaphors also extend to the metonymic, wherein the seal serves as a representative for its environment. The Old English Andreas concludes its catalog of the travels of St. Andrew with the saint once again taking to the waves while his companions look on: “Stodon him ða on ofre æfter reotan / þendon hie on yðum æðelinga wunn / ofer seolhpaðu geseon mihton” (They stood then on the seashore, crying after 603  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 199, 207.

604  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228. 605  The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, 1:26. 606  Ohthere’s Voyages, ed. Bately and Englert, 46.

607  Homily 10 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 83.

608  For a categorization of body contact among seals, see Wilson, “Juvenile Play,” 57–58. 609  See Brooks, Restoring Creation, 27–31, 132–36.

134

Animal Entries

him, while they could yet see the joy of princes on the waves, over the seal-paths).610 Here, the paths that seals swim represent the whole of the sea.611 While seals may have been common on English coasts during the early medi­eval period, they seem to have had limited impact on human material culture. Perhaps due to the difficulty of obtaining them as a regular resource for material goods or food, they appear to have largely remained in the realm of the textual. Further Reading

McBain, Rhia, and Robert Woods. “Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus.” Northumbrian Naturalist 73 (2012): 161–63. Wilson, Susan. “Juvenile Play of the Common Seal Phoca vitulina vitulina with Comparative Notes on the Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus.” Behaviour 48, no. 1/2 (1974): 37–60. Woods, Robert. “Harbour or Common Seal Phoca vitulina.” Northumbrian Naturalist 73 (2012): 164–65.

 SHAD  OE: sceadd  |  Species: Alosa alosa, A. fallax

Two species of shad commonly ply British waters: the allis shad (A. alosa) and the

twaite shad (A. fallax). Both of these members of the herring family are quite similar in appearance and habits. The fish are usually around eighteen inches (45 cm) long, with A. alosa tending to be a little larger and A. fallax a little smaller. Both fish have bodies that are somewhat deeper in profile and are a deep blue above with silvery sides. As anadromous species, they spawn in rivers but spend most of their adult lives in salt waters off the coast. They migrate up estuaries and into rivers in huge schools, making them ready targets for coastal and riverine fisheries, including those that employ the use of nets and weirs. Shad is sporadically present in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England but typically not in any great number. In a survey of about a hundred and twenty period sites, only one had shad remains, and even there they were outnumbered by those of eel (Anguilla anguilla) and herring (Clupea harengus).612 Shad appeared to be present in the early medi­eval fisheries of England, but did not seem to make a widespread economic or cultural impact. However, this does not mean that shad could not be important locally. Its one instance of appearance in an Old English text is both remarkable and suggestive. In his will of 1002–1004 ce, the nobleman Wulfric wanted his inheritors to use his land to help support Burton Abbey in Burton upon Trent. He commands, “þonne sceadd genge sy, þæt heora ægðer sylle iii þusend sceadda, into þæra stowa æt Byrtune” (when the shad season is [on], that they give 3,000 shad to the place [i.e., abbey] at Burton).613 610  Andreas, ed. North and Bintley, 210.

611  Similar kennings (i.e., poetic compounds) are also constructed using the swan and the whale as animal components. For a concise overview of the form and function of kennings in Old English literature, see, for example, Scragg, “The Nature of Old English Verse,” 60–62. 612  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 110.

613  Charters of Burton Abbey, ed. Sawyer, 54.



Animal Entries

135

That the abbey could rely upon an annual food-rent of so many fish speak to its viability as a substantial fishery. This command is remarkable for at least two reasons. The first is the acknowledged robustness of a local shad fishery able to supply such numbers of fish. The second is the journey these fish had to make once gathered. The trip from the nearest shad fishery, in Liverpool, to Burton Abbey is over eighty miles. This distance speaks to the widespread demand for marine fish and the growing market that supplied them.614 For a fish with such a minor actual presence in the archaeo­logical and vernacular textual records of the period, the shad sheds significant light on the burgeoning state of the early medi­eval marine fishery in England at the turn of the eleventh century. Further Reading

Aprahamian, Miran W., Jean-Luc Baglinière, M. Richard Sabatié, Paulo Alexandrino, Ralf Thiel, and Christine D. Aprahamian. “Bio­logy, Status, and Conservation of the Anadromous Atlantic Twaite Shad Alosa fallax fallax.” American Fisheries Society Symposium 35 (2003): 103–24. Baglinière, Jean-Luc, M. Richard Sabatié, Eric Rochard, Paulo Alexandrino, and Miran W. Aprahamian. “The Allis Shad Alosa alosa: Bio­logy, Eco­logy, Range, and Status of Populations.” American Fisheries Society Symposium 35 (2003): 85–102.

 SHEEP  OE: sceap  EWE  OE: eowu

 LAMB  OE: lamb, pur-lamb  RAM  OE: weðer  WETHER  OE: weðer Species: Ovis aries

Domestic sheep (O.

aries) were well-established in England before the early medi­eval era. During that time, these animals were likely horned, tending to the white in colouration, and typically standing just under two feet (60 cm) at the shoulder.615 Second only to cattle as an important animal resource, sheep were a mainstay of both early medi­eval diets and crafts in England. The archaeo­logical record of this period provides plentiful evidence of sheep husbandry. A survey of over three hundred bone–assemblages from the fifth to the sixteenth century shows sheep remains dominating those of cattle at between twentyfive and fifty percent of the sites from the fifth through the twelfth centuries.616 An 614  For the development of marine fishing and its associated trade in early medi­eval England, see Barrett, Locker, and Roberts, “The Origins of Intensive Marine Fishing in Medi­eval Europe,” 2417–21. 615  See Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, 93–95. 616  See Sykes, “From Cu and Sceap to Beffe and Motton,” 56–62.

136

Animal Entries

analogous survey of fewer sites found sheep outnumbering pigs somewhere between a 3:2 and 2:1 margin.617 Clearly, sheep were a common, widespread, and important animal resource. Archaeo­logical evidence also indicates the use to which these animals were typically put. Cut marks on sheep bones show evidence of butchery, which can be variously indicative of meat-butchery, skinning, or horn-harvesting.618 This variety of butchering marks speaks to the range of products harvested from sheep. Horns, for example, were used for knife handles, wool for textiles, and skin for leather and parchment.619 Of course, dairy products would also have been valuable commodities, although archaeo­logical evidence of dairying is largely indirect, being inferred from the age of the animals at death. That is, older animals were likely kept primarily for replaceable resources, like milk or wool in the case of sheep, until they were so old that their usefulness had run its course, with butchery as the end of the husbandry process.620 Old English literature provides numerous instances of sheep, both symbolic and actual. Sheep, unsurprisingly, occur numerous times in Christian contexts, reflective of the metaphorical relationship between a religious shepherd and his flock. Ælfric relates this most plainly in his homily for the first Sunday after Easter: “Ure alysend is se goda hyrde  we cristene menn synd his scep” (Our saviour is the good shepherd, and we Christian men are his sheep).621 Of course, this ovine symbolism also includes the image of Christ as lamb, as in Ælfric’s homily on the nativity of John the Baptist. In the text, Ælfric explains that Christ “is lamb gehaten for þære unscæððignysse lambes gecyndes” (is called the lamb, for the unsinningness of the lamb’s nature).622 Coupled with the amount of feasting on lamb present in Christian texts, sheep are frequently found in Old English translations and exegeses of scripture. When it comes to the actual animals in vernacular texts of the time, legal texts are the most common source of information. For example, the law code of the early eighth-century king Ine cites the value of sheep: “ewo bið mid hire giunge sceape scilling weorð oþþæt xii niht ofer eastran” (a ewe with her young sheep is worth a shilling until 12 nights after Easter).623 This statute is interesting not only for the valuation of the animal, but also due to the implication that this value will change over time. Like cattle, sheep were both a measure and unit of wealth, and they consequently were bartered for goods or services. In the estate management rules found in the Rectitudines, a peasant is instructed to pay tax at certain feast days throughout the year. At Easter, 617  See Albarella, “Pig Husbandry,” 76.

618  See, for example, Crabtree, West Stow, 103.

619  For an overview of period sheep products, see Grocock, “The Place of Sheep and Cattle in the Economy,” 88–92.

620  On the various determiners of age at death for early medi­eval livestock, see Sykes, “From Cu and Sceap to Beffe and Motton,” 58–60. 621  Homily 17 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 313.

622  Homily 25 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 384. 623  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:114.



Animal Entries

137

for example, he is to pay “an geong sceap oððe ii peningas” (a young sheep or two pennies).624 Either cash or livestock operated as currency. Some techniques of sheep husbandry can also be found in the Old English corpus. In Ælfric’s Colloquy, the student playing a shepherd is asked about his employment. He gives lengthy testimony regarding the specifics of his duties: “On forewerdne morgen ic drife sceap mine to heora læse,  stande ofer hig […],  ic agen læde hig on heora loca,  melke hig tweowa on dæg,  heora loca ic hæbbe, on þærto  cyse  buteran ic do” (In the early morning I drive my sheep to their pasture, and stand over them […], and I lead them back again to their enclosure, and milk them twice a day, and maintain their enclosure, and there I make cheese and butter).625 While the Colloquy is a work of fiction made for instructional purposes, its details do map onto evidence of sheep husbandry from both the archaeo­logical and documentary records of the time. Sheep products are well attested to in the vernacular literature of the period. The above quote from Ælfric’s shepherd shows that his sheep are the source of “cyse  buteran” (cheese and butter).626 The tenth-century king Edgar also recognized the value of sheep’s wool as a commodity. He managed wool sales carefully, decreeing in a statute that “ga seo wæg wulle to ealfan punde,  hie nan man na deoror ne sylle” (a wey of wool [about 175 pounds or 80 kg] shall go for a half-pound, and may no man sell it any cheaper).627 Old English literature records many such examples of sheep products, their use, and their value. Sheep were among the most important domestic animals in early medi­eval England. Rivaled only by the cow, these creatures provided both important animal products and meaningful metaphors to the people of the time. Even as they are both valuable resources and representative of idyllic pastoral life in the present day, so were they integral parts of English culture in the past. Further Reading

Grocock, Christopher. “The Place of Sheep and Cattle in the Economy.” In The Material Culture of Daily Living in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Maren Clegg Hyer and Gale R. OwenCrocker, 73–92. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2011. Hough, Carole. “Onomastic Evidence for an Anglo-Saxon Animal Name: OE *Pur ‘Male Lamb.’” English Studies 83, no. 5 (2002): 377–91.

 SHREW  OE: screawa  |  Species: Sorex araneus, S. minutus, Neomys fodiens

Three shrew species make their home on the British Isles: the common shrew (S. araneus), the pygmy shrew (S. minutus), and the water shrew (N. fodiens). As the name implies, the common shrew would have been the most likely of the three to be encountered by the early medi­eval English. This diminutive creature, measuring only 624  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 446. 625  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 22–23. 626  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 23.

627  Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 1:204.

138

Animal Entries

up to three inches (7.5 cm) in length, ranges from the British Isles across northern and central Europe into central Asia. Although quite small, the shrew’s metabolism requires almost constant foraging for food. This relentless activity could have brought the shrew to the attention of the people of the time, but there does not appear to be any record of the animal’s use in the material culture, despite some odd instances of rather large numbers of common shrews in the archaeo­logical record of the period.628 Glossaries and vocabularies are the only places the shrew occurs in Old English texts. Glossing the Latin mus araneus (the mouse-spider), this nomenclature depends upon the classical belief that the animal could deliver a deadly bite.629 Indeed, certain shrew bites can be particularly irritating to humans thanks to relatively mild toxins in the rodents’ saliva.630 However, given the lack of archaeo­logical evidence of the human use of shrews, or any substantive mention of them in vernacular texts, it seems safe to say that most people of early medi­eval England would have been quite unlikely to experience such an injury first-hand. Further Reading

Griss, Don. “Common Shrew Sorex araneus.” Northumbrian Naturalist 73 (2012): 153–55. Kowalski, Krzysztof, Paweł Marciniak, Grzegorz Rosiński, and Leszek Rychlik. “Evaluation of the Physio­logical Activity of Venom from the Eurasian Water Shrew Neomys fodiens.” Frontiers in Zoo­logy 14, no. 1 (2017): 1–13. —— . “Pygmy Shrew Sorex minutus.” Northumbrian Naturalist 73 (2012): 156–57. Ligabue-Braun, Rodrigo, Hugo Verli, and Célia Regina Carlini. “Venomous Mammals: A Review.” Toxicon 59, no. 7–8 (2012): 680–95.

 SMELT  OE: smelt  |  Species: Osmerus eperlanus

The European smelt (O. eperlanus) is a small fish, just about six inches (15 cm) long. It has an elongated profile, relative to its size, and is coloured a nondescript silver, shading to a green on its back. However, what it lacks in distinctive appearance, it makes up for in numbers. These unassuming fish travel in huge groups when spawning, forming schools that can number in the thousands. Smelt are anadromous, migrating from freshwater to saltwater and back again as part of their life cycles. In the past, there were even landlocked populations of O. eperlanus in the British Isles that were adapted to a solely freshwater existence, but these are now extinct.631 Because of their numbers, affinity for coastal or estuarine environments, and migratory habits, smelt are particularly vulnerable to coastal and riverside anglers. 628  Curiously, shrews are well represented in shafts from the medi­eval period, which have provided large concentrations of small mammal bones. Most likely, this is the result of inadvertent trapping of diminutive animals that accidentally fell into such holes and could not subsequently escape. See Yalden, The History of British Mammals, 162.

629  See Jordan, Die altenglischen Saugetiernamen, 77–78. For a glossary example, see “The Latin– Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 82. 630  See Ligabue-Braun, Verli, and Carlini, “Venomous Mammals,” 681–83.

631  See Maitland and Lyle, “Conservation of Freshwater Fish,” 43.



Animal Entries

139

Smelt are not one of the main species found in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England, but neither are they the least present. At the period site at Flixborough, for example, smelt account for about ten percent of the total number of fish remains found. That represents about one third the number of eels found, but three times the number of pike discovered. 632 Based on their numbers and distribution across early medi­eval sites in England, O. eperlanus emerges as a not infrequent foodfish species for the people of the period. The smelt’s small size neatly matches its presence in the Old English corpus. The Old English smelt glosses the Latin sarda only five times in the corpus.633 The Latin sarda apparently refers to the European sardine (Sardina pilchardus), a species that is very similar in appearance to O. eperlanus, but which does not appear to occur in the early medi­eval archaeo­logical record in England. The Old English term smelt, then, was as close a fish to the sardine that the glossators could imagine. Even then, authors in the vernacular seem to have regarded the smelt only passingly, as more of an element in a lexical exercise than as the focus of any kind of deeper consideration of this little fish. Further Reading

Maitland, Peter S. The Status of Smelt Osmerus eperlanus in England. English Nature Research Reports 516. Peterborough: English Nature, 2003.

 SNAIL  OE: snegel  |  Class: Gastropoda

Somewhere over a hundred and fifty native species of terrestrial snails are cur-

rently creeping their ways over the English landscape.634 These gastropods range in size from the Roman snail (Helix pomatia), whose shell can measure two inches (5 cm) in diameter, to the aptly-named pygmy snail (Punctum pygmaeum), whose shell reaches a mere one-twentieth of an inch (1 mm) in height. The shells of English terrestrial snails are quite varied. Shell colouration among these molluscs trends from white through cream-tones to brownish, and they can either sport a variety of patterns or be of a fairly uniform hue. Significant variation in colour and pattern can even exist among individuals within a single genetic population. In structure, shells can be disc-shaped, rounded, or elongated. Common English species include the garden snail (Cornu asperum), the brown-lipped snail (Cepaea nemoralis), and the white-lipped snail (Cepaea hortensis). The land snails of the British Isles are largely herbivorous, so their most significant interactions with humans typically take the form of conflicts over garden produce. Of course, land snails themselves can become food items for humans. The Roman snail (H. pomatia) is also known by its French moniker, escargot, when it is on the menu. Other edible species are the common garden snail (C. asperum) and the more recently introduced Turkish snail (Helix lucorum). In early medi­eval archaeo­logical 632  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 54.

633  See Köhler, Die altenglischen Fischnamen, 78–79. For a glossary example, see Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary, ed. Pheifer, 49. 634  See Anderson, “An Annotated List of the Non-Marine Molluscs.”

140

Animal Entries

contexts, land snail representation can vary widely. At the Fishergate site in Norwich, for example, only a handful of terrestrial snail shells were recorded, while oyster shells numbered over twelve hundred.635 In contrast, at the early medi­eval contexts at York, land snails were very common.636 Due to their tolerances of, and preferences for, specific environmental conditions, land-snail finds at archaeo­logical sites can clarify the environmental contexts of their surrounding matrixes.637 In the early medi­eval sites at Flixborough, for example, the relative paucity of land snails suggested an environment of short grasslands, which would not be preferred habitat for these animals.638 Although there is suggestive scorching of some land-snail remains at early medi­eval sites in England, which might indicate cooking, there does not appear to be any solid evidence of the widespread use of land snails as food items during the period.639 The closest Old English comes to addressing snail consumption is in the medical texts, but here the snails are more often than not part of creating a broth or dust, rather than being the main course in themselves. For example, as a cure for diarrhea, Bald’s Leechbook advises the sufferer to “mergeallan blæc snegl wyl on meolcum, sup on æfenne  on morgenne” (boil horse-gall and black snail in milk, sip in the evening and in the morning).640 While it is impossible to infer what species this “blæc snegl” represents, the early medi­eval English certainly differentiated between terrestrial and aquatic snails. In the Latin–Old English glossaries, the Old English snegel variously glosses the Latin coclea (snail), limax (slug or snail), or maruca (snail).641 These glosses stand in distinction to the marine snail, known as sæ-snegel in Old English, which glosses the Latin concha (conch), chelio (shell), testudo (shell), or marina gulalia (sea-snail).642 The sole appearance of the snail in any kind of naturalistic context in Old English literature is in Exeter Book Riddle 40. In the riddle, the personification of creation presents the mystery of its all-encompassing scope by claiming, in part, to be simultaneously faster than the wind even as “me is snægl swiftra” (the snail is swifter than me).643 For the early medi­eval English, the snail’s slowness appears to be taken as a commonplace and in need of no further commentary. 635  See Murphy, “Mollusca.”

636  See Hall and Kenward, “Setting People in Their Environment,” 397.

637  For an overview of the use of snails as environmental indicators, see Paul Davies, Snails, passim. For interesting examples from the period, see Evans, 75–89; Maslin, 137–51. 638  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 68–69.

639  See, for example, Campbell, 17–18. On the general lack of attention paid to land snails as a food item, see Hagen, Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink, 171. 640  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:296.

641  See, for example, An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 34, 72, 76, respectively; Whitman, “The Old English Animal Names,” 382–83. 642  See “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 82.

643  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:319.



Animal Entries

141

Terrestrial snails do appear to have been a fairly widespread inhabitant of the early medi­eval landscape in England. They do not appear to have been regularly utilized as food items by the people of the period, and, as such, do not seem to have made any measurable cultural impact on the region’s human society. However, they do garner some small recognition in the vernacular texts of the period, which seems very much in keeping with their unassuming role in the larger environment. Further Reading

Davies, Paul. “Land and Freshwater Molluscs.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 176–80. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. —— . Snails: Archaeo­logy and Landscape Change. Oxford: Oxbow, 2008. Evans, John G. “An Approach to the Interpretation of Dry-Ground and Wet-Ground Molluscan Taxocenes from Central-Southern England.” In Modelling Eco­logical Change: Perspectives from Neoeco­logy, Palaeoeco­logy and Environmental Archaeo­logy, edited by David R Harris and Kenneth D Thomas, 75–90. London: University College London Institute of Archaeo­ logy, 1991. Kerney, Michael P., and R. A. D. Cameron. A Field Guide to the Land Snails of Britain and NorthWest Europe. London: Collins, 1979. Maslin, Simon P. “Anglo-Saxon Economy and Eco­logy by a Downland Stream: A Waterlogged Sequence from the Anglo-Saxon Royal Settlement at Lyminge, Kent.” Environmental Archaeo­logy 23, no. 2 (2018), 137–51.

 SNAKE  OE: snaca, slincend, wyrm  ADDER  OE: nædre  ASP  OE: aspide  SLOW-WORM  OE: sla-wyrm

 WATERSNAKE  OE: wæter-næddre Species: Coronella austriaca, Natrix helvetica, Vipera berus

Three snake species are native to England, only one of which is venomous. The non-venomous species include the grass snake (N. Helvetica) and the smooth snake (C. austriaca), while the sole venomous species is the adder (V. berus). The legless slowworm (Anguis fragilis) looks like a snake, but in fact is a species of limbless lizard. The grass snake is England’s most common species to be found on the island. The largest of insular snakes, N. helvetica grows to over three feet (90 cm) long, tending to the greenish in colouration, with a distinctive yellowish collar and black barring along its length. The very uncommon smooth snake only reaches about two feet (60 cm) in length and is typically brownish with a darker, heart-shaped marking on top of its head. Finally, the more heavily-bodied adder is markedly darker, usually with a telltale zigzag of lighter colour down its two-foot length. Snakes appear relatively rarely in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England, but this may stem in part from the fact that reptiles and amphibians are often

142

Animal Entries

hard to definitively identify in such contexts.644 Additionally, their small, fragile bones make preservation an issue. By way of example, a review of over 400 archaeo­logical contexts in central England yielded only one medi­eval-era bone fragment as belonging to a snake (in this case, N. helvetica).645 In Old English texts, the words used for snakes must be considered carefully as they can have a range of meanings. For example, terms like wyrm and slincend may specifically refer to snakes, but are usually more broadly used in reference to reptilian-like beasts, which might include everything from the creeping creatures of creation in the book of Genesis to Beowulf’s dragon to the bookworm of the Exeter Book riddles. Even specific vernacular terms for snake can refer to snakes in general. For example, in his homily on the fifth Sunday in Lent, Ælfric recounts how the Israelites complained about the hardships of their flight from Egypt to Moses, and God sent fiery serpents to plague them.646 Ælfric uses the word nædre to refer to snakes generically, and interprets them metaphorically: “Hwæt getacnodon þa terendan næddran, buton synna on urum deadlicum flæsce” (What betokened the tearing of the snakes, but the sins in our mortal flesh?).647 Here, the nædre is more symbolic than actual for Ælfric. However, nædre also appeared to be used specifically to refer to an actual reptile that could deliver a venomous bite. The translator of the Old English Herbarium uses the word nædre exclusively for the over forty sections of the text dealing with snakebite, rather than the more generic wyrm or snaca. It is not too far a stretch to imagine that he likely had V. berus in mind, as it would be the only venomous snake in his experience. Similarly, when Bede discusses English snakebite victims in England in his Historia, he translates his more general Latin “serpente percussis” for snakebite into the more specific Old English, “ða þe wæron fram nædran geslegene” (those who were struck by adders). For his English-speaking audience, Bede presents the name of a venomous snake they would actually recognize, the adder V. berus. In other cases, the specificity of snake terms can be invoked to underscore the foreign setting of a text. Authors of Old English texts use the vernacular term aspide (asp) to refer to any one of a number of venomous Middle Eastern snakes. This term occurs only five times in the Old English corpus and each time in a fittingly biblical setting.648 In Ælfric’s homily on the beheading of John the Baptist, he describes the saint’s time in the wilderness, living “betwux dracan ond aspidum ond eallum wurmcynne” (among dragons and asps and all serpent-kind).649 The explicit inclusion of the asp in this context highlights the Middle Eastern setting of the story. Sometimes, serpent-words are altogether mystifying. The term sla-wyrm does not seem to apply to the reptile known today as the slow-worm (A. fragilis), the snake-like, 644  See O’Connor, The Archaeo­logy of Animal Bones, 37.

645  See Albarella, A Review of Animal Bone Evidence, 6, 344.

646  Numbers 21:5–9.

647  Homily 13 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Godden, 135.

648  See Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “aspide.”

649  Homily 32 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 457.



Animal Entries

143

limbless lizard. Rather, it is used to gloss a variety of Latin terms: regulus, stellio, and spalangius (a small serpent, a newt or lizard, and a spider). Likewise, wæter-nædre does not seem to apply to a specific species of aquatic snake, but glosses the Latin anguis, chelydros, salamandra, and ydris (a snake, a venomous snake or devil, a salamander, and a venomous water-snake), all circling around the idea of a venomous, water-associated herptile, but not necessarily a specific creature.650 For the early medi­eval English, then, snakes were both metaphorical creatures of myth and Christianity as well as actual reptiles that slithered across the English countryside. Of the three species present in England, it is no surprise that the venomous adder, V. berus, made the largest impact on their imaginations. Further Reading

Brunning, Sue. “‘(Swinger of) the Serpent of Wounds’: Swords and Snakes in the Viking Mind.” In Representing Beasts in Early Medi­eval England and Scandinavia, edited by Michael D. J. Bintley and Thomas J. T. Williams, 53–72. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2015. Fritz, Uwe, and Carolin Kindler. “A Very European Tale Britain Still Has Only Three Snake Species, but Its Grass Snake Is Now Assigned to Another Species (Natrix helvetica).” Herpeto­ logical Bulletin 141 (2017): 44–45. Gardner, Emma, Angela Julian, Chris Monk, and John Baker. “Make the Adder Count: Population Trends from a Citizen Science Survey of UK Adders.” Herpeto­logical Journal 29, no. 1 (2019): 57–70. Momma, Haruko. “Worm: A Lexical Approach to the Beowulf Manu­script.” In Old English Philo­logy: Studies in Honour of R. D. Fulk, edited by Leonard Neidorf, Rafael J. Pascual, and Thomas A. Shippey, 200–14. Cambridge: Brewer, 2016.

 SNIPE  OE: hæfer-blæte, snite  |  Species: Gallinago gallinago, Botaurus stellaris

The common snipe (G. gallinago) is a medium-sized wading bird typically around ten inches (25 cm) in length and possessed of a distinctively long, narrow bill. A frequenter of marshes, bogs, and fens, the snipe is a year-round resident of England. Although well camouflaged with buff and brown plumage, the startling goat-like call of the common snipe likely would have caught the attention of the early medi­eval English. In light of its voice, an alternate name for the snipe might be the Old English word hæfer-blæte (goat-bleater). The term appears to refer to the bird’s call, which sounds remarkably like a bleating goat. Another species the word hæfer-blæte might reference is the common bittern (B. stellaris), which bears a passing resemblance to the common snipe and shares the same eco­logical niche. Even more unlikely, hæfer-blæte may refer to the little bittern (Ixobrychus minutus), another common snipe look-alike, but only a transient visitor to England. In either case, neither B. stellaris nor I. minutus have calls that sound anything as distinctive as the common snipe’s. Archaeo­logical evidence of the snipe from the period is rare. For example, a survey of over ninety early medi­eval sites in England produced only four snipe bones.651 650  For a collocation of a variety of snake-glosses, see Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 310. 651  Holmes, Southern England, 287.

144

Animal Entries

The textual evidence for snipe is equally thin. Both snite and hæfer-blæte are exclusive to Old English glossaries. The former term glosses the Latin acega (snipe). The latter translates the Latin terms bicoca and bugium, both of which are of uncertain definition, but appear to refer to the common snipe.652 Given that G. gallinago was of little apparent economic or cultural significance to the early medi­eval English, except perhaps as a minor game bird, it had very little impact on Old English texts. Further Reading

Hoodless, Andrew N., Julie A. Ewald, and David Baines. “Habitat Use and Diet of Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Breeding on Moorland in Northern England.” Bird Study 54, no. 2 (2007): 182–91.

 SPARROW  OE: hege-sucga, hron-spearwa, spearwa, sucga Species: Passer domesticus, P. montanus

The two species of sparrows in England are the house sparrow (P. domesticus) and

the tree sparrow (P. montanus). Small creatures of about five inches (12.5 cm) in length, these birds look fairly similar in their largely brown plumage striped with black. The distinguishing element between them is head colouring: the house sparrow’s head is brown while the tree sparrow’s is grey. Both are fairly common seed-eating generalists, but the house sparrow is currently the more populous of the two in the British Isles today. Being such small, wild birds, neither species figures largely in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. Even in large surveys of numerous archaeo­logical sites, sparrows typically occur in the single digits.653 Yet for such diminutive, unremarkable birds, they have a relatively large presence in the vernacular literature of the time. Sparrows occur in Old English literature primarily by means of scripture. These humble birds are not infrequently found in Christian texts. In Matthew 10:29, for example, Jesus comforts his apostles by explaining that God cares for even the most humble of beasts, and that the apostles “synt selran þonne manega spearuan” (are better than many sparrows).654 The use of the sparrow as a Christian teaching tool must have made an impression on the early medi­eval English. Bede employs the sparrow in describing the seventh-century conversion of the Kentish king Edwin in the Historia. In conversation with the king about the benefits of Christianity, one of Edwin’s thanes thinks the new religion might be better than their current way of understanding life. He likens their present state to the interior of a storm-wracked dwelling, wherein “cume an spearwa  hrædlice þæt hus þurhfleo, cume þurh oþre duru in þurh oþre ut gewite” (comes a sparrow and [it] swiftly flew through that house, coming in through 652  See Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 500. For the variety of snipe terms in a single glossary, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 67, 102, 104.

653  See, for example, Holmes, Southern England, 288; Bond and O’Connor, Bones from the Medi­eval Deposits at 16–22 Coppergate, 392–93. 654  The Old English Version of the Gospels, ed. Liuzza, 1:21.



Animal Entries

145

one door and departing out through the other).655 In both Matthew’s consolation and Bede’s explanation, the sparrow is part of a metaphor about the smallness of life and the greatness of God. Despite their not infrequent appearances in both vernacular literature and the early medi­eval English landscape, there is little species specificity regarding sparrows in surviving Old English texts. For the most part, the various vernacular sparrowterms typically gloss the Latin passer (sparrow).656 The lack of clear species differentiation is seen in the translation of the Latin term ficedula (fig-pecker) as hege-spearwa (hedge-sparrow) in the glossaries. Both terms are most likely referring to the garden warbler (Sylvia borin), a small, brown bird that the untrained eye may take as sparrow, although it is a member of a completely different family of birds. Too small to be of much practical use to the early medi­eval English, and too delicate to survive in archaeo­logical contexts, sparrows leave little physical evidence of their interaction with the people of the time. However, despite their small stature, these little birds made an outsized impact on Old English literature. Further Reading

Hough, Carole. “Old English Dunnoc ‘Hedge-Sparrow’: A Ghost Word?” Notes and Queries 52, no. 1 (2005): 11–13. Major, Tristan. “1 Corinthians 15:52 as a Source for the Old English Version of Bede’s Simile of the Sparrow.” Notes and Queries 54, no. 1 (2007): 11–16. Summers-Smith J. Denis. “Current Status of the House Sparrow in Britain.” British Wildlife 10 (1999): 381–86. —— . “A History of the Status of the Tree Sparrow Passer montanus in the British Isles.” Bird Study 36, no. 1 (1989): 23–31. Toswell, M. J. “Bede’s Sparrow and the Psalter in Anglo-Saxon England.” American Notes and Queries 13, no. 1 (2000): 7–13.

 SPIDER  OE: attor-coppa, gange-wæfre, gangol-wæfre, hunta, lobbe, loppe, renge  |  Order: Araneae

England currently supports over six hundred and fifty species of spiders,

representing over thirty families. The variety among these species is truly remarkable. Some of the most common species, like the missing-sector orbweaver (Zygiella x-notata), create the classically spiral-patterned gossamer spiderweb. Other widespread species, such as the giant house spider (Tegenaria gigantea), construct horizontally oriented funnel webs. Still other common spiders do without standing webs at all, as does the common zebra spider (Salticus scenicus), and hunt their prey on foot (or feet, as it were). Spiders in the British Isles also range considerably in size. The tiny members of the Linyphiidae family (composed of over 270 species) are under a quarter-inch (6 655  The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, 1:137.

656  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307. For the mistaken gloss of spearwa for the Latin fenus (usury), see Meritt, Some of the Hardest Glosses in Old English, 13–14.

146

Animal Entries

mm) in length, while the imposing cardinal spider (Tegenaria parietina) can be over five inches (12.5 cm) long. With the exception of the family Uloboridae, all of England’s spiders are venomous, but few pose any danger to humans. Spider venom is produced in amounts, and delivered through mechanisms, geared towards the arachnids’ prey: insects. As a result, very few spiders are a threat to humans due to either the relatively small amount of venom involved or the lack of the spider’s ability to pierce human skin. In total, there are perhaps four British species that could envenomate a human sufficiently to cause a reaction: the false black widow (Steatoda nobilis) and the woodlouse spider (Dysdera crocata) would be the most likely culprits, while the rare water spider (Argyroneta aquatica) and the introduced cellar spider (Segestria florentina) also pack nasty bites. Even if envenomated, the reactions to bites from these spiders are likely to be temporary localized pain and swelling, although some may experience systemic reactions. While spiders were probably quite common in the early medi­eval ecosystem of England, much as they are today, their remains are frustratingly hard to contextualize in the archaeo­logical sites dated to the period. Not infrequently, there simply are not enough remains to adequately identify and interpret. For example, a report on the early medi­eval site at Hamwic that focused exclusively on arthropod remains found only a single, unidentifiable arachnid sample among the thousands of other arthropods present.657 At the insect-rich early medi­eval sites at Coppergate in York, slightly fewer than two hundred/ of the more than 83,000 samples collected were spiders, and none of these were identifiable to species.658 Consequently, very little can be said conclusively about spider numbers and species distribution for early medi­eval England. Despite the inconclusive archaeo­logical record, spiders do appear somewhat significantly in Old English texts. The Old English terms for spider are evocative in themselves. For example, attorcoppe is a compound of attor (poison/infection) and cop/ copp (top/cup). Similarly, gangewæfre is a compound of gangan (to go) and wefan (to weave a web). The idea of rendering the spider in terms of the native idiom, rather than simply adapting the Latin aranea, as is likely the case with the Old English renge, may indicate the local experience with the actual insects. One bitten by a spider might very well consider it an attorcoppe (“poison-cup”) just as one watching a spider construct its web may think of it as a gangewæfre (“go-weaver”).659 The most common occurrences of spider terms beyond the glossaries are in medical texts, where they appear in reference to treating spider bites. Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook may well reflect the local practice of spider-bite treatments.660 The remedy suggests the following surprise remedy for an unsuspecting patient: “Wiþ gongewifran bite nim henne æg, gnid on ealu hreaw  sceapes tord niwe swa he nyte, sele him 657  See Girling and Kenward, Arthropod Remains from Archaeo­logical Sites in Southampton, 11.

658  See Hall and Kenward, “Invertebrate Remains from GBA Samples,” Table 4.

659  For an overview of spider terms in Old English literature, see Cavell, ”Arachnophobia,” 25–27. See also Cortelyou, Die altenglischen Namen der Insekten, 100–11. 660  See Cameron, Anglo-Saxon Medicine, 35–36, 75–77; Cavell, ”Arachnophobia,” 21–22.



Animal Entries

147

drincan godne scenc fulne” (Against spider bite, take a raw hen’s egg, rub it into ale and a new sheep’s turd so he [the sufferer] doesn’t know it, [and] give him a good cup full to drink).661 While this “cure” seems singularly unpleasant, it does highlight the apparent real need to deal with such an injury. Further indication of the early medi­eval awareness of spiders in the vernacular can be found scattered among a variety of texts. The Psalms (specifically numbers 38 and 89) and the Old English translation of Boethius’s Consolatio feature translations from the Latin that slightly expand the spider’s presence in these works, and there are isolated references to the arachnid in both a penitential and a homily.662 Of these, perhaps the most interesting is the translation of Psalm 89. The Latin text invokes the spider as metaphor for the insubstantial nature of a human lifespan: “Anni nostri sicut aranea meditabuntur” (Our years are considered as a spider).663 The Old English of the Paris Psalter text expands upon this image, portraying the spider as an active hunter: “Wæran anlicast ure winter geongewifran, þonne hio geornast bið, þæt heo afære fleogan on nette” (Our winters are most like a spider, when it is most eager, that it may frighten flies into [its] net).664 Unfortunately, this image does not reflect bio­ logical reality. While spiders use numerous strategies to catch or trap their prey, no known British species actually chases its victims into its webs. The spider, then, occupies a fittingly shadowy space in Old English texts. Authors of the period were certainly aware of the creatures, their webbed homes, and their possibly painful bites. However, truly definitive traces of the actual animal are frustratingly hard to come by in both the archaeo­logical record and the vernacular writings of the period. Rather, much like their silken structures, their delicate remains are ephemeral in both the Old English texts and physical contexts of the time. Further Reading

Bee, Lawrence, Geoff Oxford, and Helen Smith. Britain’s Spiders: A Field Guide‬. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Cavell, Megan. ”Arachnophobia and Early English Literature.” New Medi­eval Literatures 18 (2018): 1–43. Girling, Maureen A., and Harry Kenward. Arthropod Remains from Archaeo­logical Sites in Southampton. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 46/86. London: Ancient Monuments Laboratory, 1986. Stuart, Heather. “‘Spider’ in Old English.” Parergon 18 (1977): 37–42.

661  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:328. On the native nature of the Leechbook, see Cameron, AngloSaxon Medicine, 35–36, 75–77. 662  For an extended analysis of these works, see Cavell, “Arachnophobia,” 22–34.

663  See The Vulgate Bible, 3: The Poetical Books, ed. Edgar and Kinney, 94–97. 664  Old English Psalms, ed. O’Neill, 354.

148

Animal Entries

 SPRAT  OE: sprott  |  Species: Sprattus sprattus

The European sprat (S. sprattus) is a diminutive member of the herring family. A small silvery fish of about four inches (10 cm) in length, the sprat’s distinguishing characteristic is its travelling in huge schools, sometimes numbering in the thousands of individuals. S. sprattus is a marine fish that can tolerate low salinities, and thus frequents estuaries as well as coastal waters, making it quite accessible to English anglers. A number of difficulties make identifying the bones of S. sprattus in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England problematic. One significant problem is the sprat’s size. As such small, fine-boned fish, the very survival of their remains is questionable. In addition, if their bones do survive, their similarity to juvenile herring (Clupea harengus) makes positive identification unsure.665 Very often, archaeo­logists will simply group S. sprattus and C. harengus together, as they are functionally indistinguishable when their remains are commingled.666 These problems often make assertions about the very presence of S. sprattus inconclusive. However, their natural abundance and accessibility point towards their ready availability as an opportunistic catch, if not as a specific target species of the early medi­eval fishery in England. The difficulty of distinguishing the sprat from other fishes in archaeo­logical settings is mirrored in their ambiguous identity in literary contexts. The lone Latin–Old English glossary citing the fish does not present a clear taxonomic equivalency for the sprat. The Old English sprott is used to gloss the Latin silurus, but silurus is simply an indiscriminate term for a small fish in the Latin of medi­eval England.667 The size of the sprat is what really seemed to capture the imagination of AngloSaxon authors. When Byrhtferth presents the fifth day of Creation in his Enchiridion, he shows the scope of God’s work by identifying the variety of sea creatures from the greatest to the smallest, including ”þa myclan hwælas and þa lytlan sprottas and eall fisckynn” (the great whales and the little sprats and all fish-kind).668 In Ælfric’s life of St. Martin, the sprat is also invoked as a symbol of the smallest of fishes. In the text, the saint speaks with a disheartened fisherman about the catch for an Easter feast. The fisherman emphasizes the lack of even the most meagre of catches by telling the saint “þæt hi ealle ne mihton, ne fisceras ne he sylf, gefon ænne sprot” (that they all could not, neither the fishermen nor himself, catch even one sprat).669 Although the sprat may have been considered a minor catch, and is not well-represented in the archaeo­ logical record, the early medi­eval English clearly had a vision of it as a common marine resource. 665  On the difficulty of identifying S. sprattus in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England, see Nicholson, “Southampton French Quarter 1382,” 3. 666  See, for example, Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 52, 189–95.

667  See Preston, “Fact and Fish Tales,” 3–4; Köhler, Die altenglischen Fischnamen, 79–81; Napier, “Old English Lexico­graphy,” 278; Latham, Dictionary of Medi­eval Latin from British Sources, s.v. “silurus.” 668  Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion, ed. Baker and Lapidge, 70. 669  Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 2.298.



Further Reading

Animal Entries

149

Henderson, Peter A., and Rowena C. Henderson. “Population Regulation in a Changing Environment: Long-Term Changes in Growth, Condition and Survival of Sprat, Sprattus sprattus L. in the Bristol Channel, UK.” Journal of Sea Research 120 (2017): 24–34.

 SQUIRREL  OE: acweorna, acwern  |  Species: Sciurus vulgaris

The native red

squirrel (S. vulgaris) was the only species in England until the very recent influx of grey squirrels (S. carolinensis). Rare in southern England today, the red squirrel would have been more common in the early medi­eval period. There is very limited evidence of S. vulgaris in the archaeo­logical record, although some minor finds in York may indicate the processing of these animals for their pelts.670 Likewise, the red squirrel made no major impression in Old English texts. It appears in Old English glossaries, glossing the Latin sciurellus (squirrel), but not elsewhere.671 In keeping with their fleeting appearances in the environment as primarily arboreal and relatively small mammals, squirrels did not appear to make much of an impact on the vernacular writings of early medi­eval England. Further Reading

Yalden, Derek. The History of British Mammals. London: Poyser, 1999.

 STARLING  OE: stær, stærling  |  Species: Sturnus vulgaris

A year-round resident of the British Isles, the European, or common, starling (S. vulgaris) is now easily found in impressive numbers across the temperate world, thanks in part to its introduction to the Americas in the late nineteenth century. Darkhued birds of about eight inches (20 cm) in length, starlings’ feathers have a multicoloured sheen of blues, purples, and greens upon closer inspection. Known to travel in impressive flocks of thousands of birds, they can move in seemingly coordinated movements that appear as synchronized swarms termed murmurations. Their conspicuous flocks, with their voracious appetite for grain crops, would have made them quite familiar to the people of early medi­eval England. However, not being a primary game species or the source of any significant animal products, starling remains are few in the archaeo­logical record of the time. Even sites with otherwise robust numbers of animal remains produce little evidence of starlings. By way of example, of the nearly fifteen hundred bird bones found in the period context at Hamwic, Southampton, only four specimens were identified as starling.672 It appears that encounters with S. vulgaris by the early medi­eval English were incidental at best. 670  See O’Connor, Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian Levels at 16–22 Coppergate, 190–91.

671  See Jordan, Die altenglischen Saugetiernamen, 78–80. For a glossary example, see “The Latin– Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 73. 672  See Bourdillon and Coy, “The Animal Bones,” 115.

150

Animal Entries

Perhaps unsurprisingly, for such a common, nondescript bird, the Old English word stær (starling) was also used generically for other similarly-sized birds. In the Latin– Old English glossaries, versions of the Old English stær glossed both specific Latin birdterms like sturnus (starling), but also general ones, such as turdus (thrush).673 Aside from the glossaries, there is some small presence of starling-words conflated with the Latin term for sparrow (passer), perhaps pointing to the lack of discrimination between such unprepossessing animals. For example, the Latin text of Luke 12:6 reads, “nonne passeribus u uenerunt duo pondio” (are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins), while one Old English translation reads “ah ne stearas fife comun twoege” (are not five starlings sold for two).674 Yet starlings were not completely anonymous to the early medi­eval English, as there is some evidence that suggests starlings were seen as a viable food option. In Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook, one cure for bladder pain includes instruction to drink some ale-steeped herbs and “etan gebrædne stær” (to eat a roasted starling).675 As this particular volume is taken to be indicative of local practice, it confirms that the starling was seen as edible, at least in medical contexts.676 Although not featured in the archaeo­logical or written vernacular records, starlings were ubiquitous enough to at least exist on the margins of early medi­eval English culture. Further Reading

Robinson, Robert A., Gavin M. Siriwardena, and Humphrey Q. P. Crick. “Status and Population Trends of Starling Sturnus vulgaris in Great Britain.” Bird Study 52, no. 3 (2005): 252–60.

 STURGEON  OE: styria  |  Species: Acipenser sturio

The European sea

sturgeon (A. sturio) is also known as the common sturgeon or the Atlantic sturgeon. Regardless of which common name is applied to it, A. sturio is thought to be the only representative of the sturgeon family native to British waters.677 An anadromous fish, A. sturio spawns in fresh water, migrates to the seas where it spends most of its life, and returns to fresh water to spawn again. While at sea, the sturgeon can migrate prodigious distances, but early medi­eval anglers in England would most likely have encountered it in its migrations to and from fresh water to reproduce. The common sturgeon would easily have been the largest fish early medi­eval fishermen could encounter in fresh water. Although they commonly top four feet (1.2 m) in length, these fish have the ability to grow to twenty feet (6 m) long and weigh close to 900 pounds (410 kg). In addition to its size, A. sturio has a striking, almost prehistoric appearance. Greenish-black above with silvery sides and a pale belly, the fish sports an impressive 673  See Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 486. For a concise collocation of such terms in a glossary, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 103–4. 674  The Four Gospels, ed. Skeat, 3:127 (Old English text), 3:244 (Latin text).

675  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:320.

676  On the native nature of the Leechbook, see Cameron, Anglo-Saxon Medicine, 35–36, 75–77.

677  On the possibility of the historical presence of another sturgeon species commonly known as the Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrhincus), see Thieren et al., 1958–59.



Animal Entries

151

armour plating that arrests the attention of its observer. The sturgeon has five rows of bony dermal plates that run down its back and along each of its sides, giving it the aspect of an armour-plated submarine. While their cartilaginous skeletons would not usually survive over time, their bony dermal plates make for excellent preservation in the archaeo­logical record. However, their remains are relatively infrequently found in English contexts from the early medi­eval period, speaking to the relative rarity of the animal. Of a survey of over two hundred and forty early medi­eval archaeo­logical sites, only six contain any sturgeon remains.678 Even in bone-assemblages at sites with significant fish remains, sturgeon make up only a small portion. At the excavations of early medi­eval Flixborough, only two of over ten thousand fish remains were identified as belonging to sturgeon. 679 While surely a prized landing, if due to nothing else but its size, a sturgeon seems to have been a rare catch indeed for early medi­eval anglers. However, the fish was not so rare to avoid mention in Old English literature. Although the fish is anadromous, and lives part of its life in fresh water, from the perspective of the early medi­eval English, the European sturgeon seems to have been seen primarily as a denizen of the ocean. In Ælfric’s Colloquy, the student playing a fisherman describes his catch from the sea to include “hærincgas  leaxas, mereswyn  stirian” (herrings and salmon, dolphin and sturgeon).680 Similarly, an eleventh-century survey of the boundaries of Tidenham, in Gloucestershire, stipulates that the lord of the manor is entitled to “ælc seldsynde fisc þe weordlic byð, styria  mereswyn, healic oðer sæfisc” (every valuable rare fish, sturgeon or porpoise, herring or sea-fish).681 In both instances, the sturgeon is characterized as a marine species. However, reading these mentions of the sturgeon too literally is problematic due to the indeterminacy of the Old English word styira.682 In the Latin–Old English glossaries, styria is used to gloss terms as diverse as the Latin cragacus (porpoise) and unclear words such as porcopiscis, rombus, and sulio, all of which refer to fish in a generic sense.683 These terms are taken to mean the sturgeon in the glossaries, but the etymo­logical connection is unclear.684 The vagueness of the Old English styria is apparent in a tenth-century charter citing the bounds of Abington. According to the text, one boundary proceeds “andlang straete ut on styrian pol” (along the street to the sturgeon’s pool).685 However, the waterways of the area are not large enough to support the spawning activity of A. sturio, who need greater depths and waterflow than 678  See Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 51.

679  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 54–55.

680  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29.

681  Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. Robertson, 206. 682  See Preston, “Fact and Fish Tales,” 11–12.

683  Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright and Wülcker, 1:16, 180, 366, 469. 684  See Köhler, Die altenglischen Fischnamen, 81–84.

685  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 3.257. For the identification of the “styrian pol,” see Gelling, The Place-Names of Berkshire, 725n7.

152

Animal Entries

are locally available.686 In this case, styria seems to be used in a generic sense, simply meaning fish. Ultimately, while the sturgeon appears to have been known by the early medi­eval anglers of England, it must have been rare enough to allow for such lexical confusion. Further Reading

Billard, Roland, and Guillaume Lecointre. “Bio­logy and Conservation of Sturgeon and Paddlefish.” Reviews in Fish Bio­logy & Fisheries 10, no. 4 (2000): 355–92. Thieren, Els, Aanton Ervynck, D. Brinkhuizen, Alison Locker, and Wim van Neer. “The Holocene Occurrence of Acipenser Spp. in the Southern North Sea: The Archaeo­logical Record.” Journal of Fish Bio­logy 89, no. 4 (2016): 195–73.

 SWALLOW  OE: swealwe  |  Species: Hirundo rustica

The swallow (H. rustica), also known as the European swallow or barn swallow,

is a common sight across the temperate world. Largely migrating from Africa, the swallow is a summer visitor to the British Isles, arriving in the spring and departing in the early fall. Easily recognizable due to the deep v-shape of their eponymous tails, the swallow has a glossy, deep-blue back, white undersides, and a red throat. Their impressive acrobatics still can be seen over fields and farms across present-day England. As small, wild birds, swallows would be rare prey species for humans and, even if they were taken as food-animals, their remains would be unlikely to survive in archaeo­logical contexts. Subsequently, very little evidence of H. rustica is to be found in early medi­eval bone assemblages in England.687 Conversely, swallows make more of a mark on the early medi­eval vernacular literature of the island. The various spellings of Old English swealwa usually gloss the Latin hirundo (swallow).688 Ælfric uses the vernacular term in his adaptation of Jeremiah 8:7, commenting upon how the natural world keeps time: “storc  swalewe heoldon þone timan heora tocymes” (the stork and the swallow hold the time of their coming).689 Yet swallows are also invoked in vernacular literary texts. In the prose hagio­graphy of the English St. Guthlac, for example, one marker of the saint’s sanctity is the affinity animals have for him. At one point, while Guthlac is conversing with another cleric, “in twa swalewan fleogan…setton unforhtlice on þa sculdra þæs halgan weres Guðlaces” (in flew two swallows…[who] sat unafraid on the shoulders of that holy man Guthlac).690 Guthlac’s miraculous Cinderella moment would be recognized as proof of God’s power over the recognizable natural world for an early medi­eval English audience.691 This familiarity with the spar686  See Billard and Lecointre, “Bio­logy and Conservation of Sturgeon and Paddlefish,” 359–61.

687  For one of the few examples, see O’Connor, “8th–11th Century Economy and Environment in York,” 139. 688  For a glossary example, see Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 307.

689  Homily 28 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 412.

690  Das angelsächsische Prosa-Leben des hl. Guthlac, ed. Gonser, 52.

691  See Brooks, Restoring Creation, 217–21, 258–60.



Animal Entries

153

row has prompted critics to posit the creature as one of the numerous possible solutions to Exeter Book Riddle 57, although it is not mentioned by name.692 The riddling flying creature of the poem describes itself as “blace swiþe, / swearte salopade” (very black, swarthy [and] darkly coated), which matches nicely with the swallow’s colouration.693 While the swallow may or may not have been the bird the poet had in mind, swallows have an outsized presence in Old English literature relative to evidence of their physical remains from the period. More quotidian encounters with swallows feature but little in Old English literature. While not likely to be seen as game animals, the locally-oriented Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook recommends the use of swallow’s blood or the stones from their gizzards as elements in home remedies. The text recommends the healer to “sec lytle stanas on swealwan bridda magan” (seek little stones in swallow-fledglings’ maws) to treat everything from headaches to nightmares.694 Although the medical benefits are dubious, the instruction shows some knowledge of the actual bird behaviour and bio­logy, as young swallows have been documented to eat grit for use in their gizzards to grind up food items.695 Swallows were undoubtedly common birds in the early medi­eval insular ecosystem. While their ubiquity made them ready touchstones for environmental metaphors, their small size made them less valuable as commodities to the people of the time. As such, while they are not uncommon in Old English, they leave less of a physical trace behind. Further Reading

Barrentine, Carl D. “The Ingestion of Grit by Nestling Barn Swallows.” Journal of Field Ornitho­ logy 51, no. 4 (1980): 368–71. Evans, Karl L., Jeremy D. Wilson, and Richard B. Bradbury. “Swallow Hirundo rustica Population Trends in England: Data from Repeated Historical Surveys.” Bird Study 50, no. 2 (2003): 178–81. Welsh, Andrew. “Swallow Names Themselves: Exeter Book Riddle 55.” American Notes and Queries 3, no. 2 (1990): 90–93.

 SWAN  OE: ilfette, swan

Species: Cygnus columbianus bewikii, C. cygnus, C. olor

Three species of swan would have been known to the early medi­eval English: the

mute swan (C. olor), the whooper swan (C. cygnus), and Bewick’s swan (C. columbianus bewikii). Taxonomists identify Bewick’s swan as a subspecies of the tundra swan (C. columbianus). Easily recognizable with their white plumage and long, graceful necks, 692  See The Old English Riddles of The Exeter Book, ed. Williamson, 307–9. 693  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:329.

694  See Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:306, 308. On Book 3’s native orientation, see Cameron, AngloSaxon Medicine, 75–77. 695  Barrentine, “The Ingestion of Grit by Nestling Barn Swallows,” 368.

154

Animal Entries

swans are large-bodied birds of lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers. While all three species are large, they can be distinguished by their relative sizes and bill colours. The mute swan and whooper swan can both reach an impressive five feet (1.5 m) in length, but the mute swan’s bill is orange while the whooper swan’s is yellow. The bill of Bewick’s swan is also yellow, but it is somewhat smaller than the whooper swan, attaining lengths of about four feet (1.2 m). Of the three, only the mute swan is a year-round resident of the British Isles, while the whooper and Bewick’s swans are winter visitors. While present in early medi­eval archaeo­l ogical contexts, swans appear about as often as other wild game bird species across England, which is relatively infrequently as compared to domestic fowl. For context, over seven hundred domestic-bird remains were identified at West Stow, while only about sixty wild-bird specimens were recorded. Of those, a mere two have been identified as swan remains.696 While the early medi­eval English might have enjoyed a feast of swan, it seems to have been a relatively rare event given the relative paucity of swan remains in period sites. Of course, swans could also have provided feathers as potential resources for down or quills for writing. Unfortunately, neither of these products preserve well, if at all, in archaeo­logical contexts. Its impressive size and regal mien are likely what accounts for the swan’s textual presence in the vernacular overshadowing its archaeo­logical one. Some measure of regard for the swan in early medi­eval England is evident in the acknowledgment of species differentiation in Old English swan-terms. The Old English swan refers to the mute swan, glossing the Latin olor (mute swan), while Old English ilfette apparently conflates the whooper swan with Bewick’s swan, glossing the more generic Latin cycnus (swan).697 Ælfric recognizes these distinctions in his adaptation of St. Basil’s Hexameron: “Sume beoð langsweorede, swa swa swanas and ylfettan” (Some [birds] are long-necked just as the swans and mute swans).698 Here Ælfric expands upon his Latin original, which uses only the single, generic term “cyncus.”699 He makes sure to include the native, resident swan in his version of the text, connecting his vernacular text to the familiar native ecosystem. That his local audience was well acquainted with the swan is apparent in its appearances, directly or indirectly, in secular literature of the period. The lonely narrator of “The Seafarer,” for example, eases his loneliness by means of the bird: “Hwilum ylfete song dyde ic me to gomene” (Sometimes the swan’s song I turned to an amusement for me).700 The sound of the swan must have been fairly recognizable to the early medi­ eval English, as it also serves as a clue in Riddle 7. In the poem, the riddling narrator describes itself as flying and “Frætwe mine / swogað hlude ond swinsiað, / torhte sin696  Crabtree, West Stow, 27.

697  On the lexical distinction, see Kitson, “Swans and Geese,” 79–80. 698  Exameron Anglice, ed. Crawford, 53.

699  St. Basil, Homiliae in Hexaemeron, ed. Migne, in Patro­logia Græca 29:183.

700  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:232.



Animal Entries

155

gað” (My adornments sound loud and make music, clearly sing).701 Numerous scholars have identified these singing raiments as the distinctive, throbbing musical sounds of the mute swan’s wings as it takes flight.702 When the Beowulf poet describes the eponymous hero’s intention to help Hrothgar, he famously frames it as a kenning, a poetic compound, in terms of the swan: “he guðcyning / ofer swanrade secean wolde” (he [Beowulf ] would seek the warrior-king over the swan-road).703 All these poetic invocations of the swan depend upon a common knowledge of the bird. The early medi­eval English apparently used the swan as a food animal, although the only mention of doing so in the vernacular literature is a warning against the practice in Bald’s Leechbook. The text advises against eating “fuglas þa þe heard flæsc habbað, pawa, swan, æned” (birds that have hard flesh: peacock, swan, duck).704 While the infrequency of swan in archaeo­logical contexts suggests that the bird was a relatively rare meal, people of the time appear to have been more taken with the sight and sound of it. Perhaps the swan was valued more for its evocative presence in the wild than for its place on the early medi­eval menu. Further Reading

Brazil, Mark. Whooper Swans. London: Poyser, 2010. Kitson, Peter R. “Swans and Geese in Old English Riddles.” Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeo­logy and History 7 (1994): 79–84. Meaney, Audrey. “Birds on the Stream of Consciousness: Riddles 7 to 10 of the Exeter Book.” Archaeo­logical Review from Cambridge 18 (2002): 120–52. Rees, Ellen. Bewick’s Swans. London: Poyser, 2006. Wood, Kevin A., Richard A. Stillman, Terry Coombs, Claire McDonald, Francis Daunt, and Matthew T. O’Hare. “The Role of Season and Social Grouping on Habitat Use by Mute Swans (Cygnus olor) in a Lowland River Catchment.” Bird Study 60, no. 2 (2013): 229–37.

 TENCH  OE: sliw  |  Species: Tinca tinca

The tench (T. tinca) is a member of the populous cyprinid (i.e., carp) family. Averaging around eight inches (20 cm) long, T. tinca is a stout-looking specimen coloured a uniform olive-green with distinctive red eyes. Tench can tolerate brackish waters, even though they are a freshwater species, so they can be found from river mouths to streams to lakes, preferring still water over swiftly moving currents. Their wide-ranging diet makes them an attractive target for anglers as well as a frequent by-catch species. 701  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:232.

702  See, for example, Bitterli, Say What I Am Called, 39–40. For swan as the answer to Exeter Book Riddle 73, see Kitson, “Swans and Geese,” 79–81.

703  Klaeber’s Beowulf, ed. Fulk, Bjork, and Niles, 9. Similar kennings are also constructed using the whale and the seal as animal components. For a concise overview of the form and function of kennings in Old English literature, see, for example, Scragg, “The Nature of Old English Verse,” 60–62. 704  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:196.

156

Animal Entries

Tench are one of the lesser identified species in early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts in England. However, identification does not always equal absolute numbers. In examining the evidence of fish bones at medi­eval York, archaeo­logists note the difficulty in distinguishing cyprinid species.705 As a result, there may be many more fish present of any particular cyprinid species than the record indicates, simply because of the indeterminacy of identification. While the archaeo­logists positively identified only three individual remains as T. tinca at the Coppergate site in York, there were over eight hundred and fifty unidentified cyprinid remains that could have been tench.706 Given the fish’s current eco­logical profile, it seems quite likely that tench were a relatively common catch for the people of the time. Tench appear in Old English texts exclusively as a lexical artifact. Of its less than a dozen appearances, all of them in Latin–Old English glossaries, almost every instance of the Old English sliw glosses the Latin tinca, meaning the tench. 707 There is one instance where a version of sliw glosses the Latin mugilis, the mullet (Chelon labrosus). Tellingly, the editor of the text claims that the source for this confusing gloss is unknown.708 Not unlike its largely unrecognized presence in the archaeo­logical record, the tench is only glancingly present in the Old English corpus. Even though T. tinca was probably not uncommon to the early medi­eval English, its very mundaneness submerged its profile in both the soil and the vernacular written record. Further Reading

Hindes, Andrew M. “Tench Tinca tinca.” In Freshwater Fishes in Britain: The Species and Their Distribution, edited by Cynthia Davies et al., 90–91. Colchester: Harley, 2004.

 TERN  OE: stearn  |  Species: Chlidonias niger, Sterna dougallii, S. hirundo, S. paradisaea, S. sandvicensis, Sternula albifrons

Numerous tern species

are visitors to the British Isles. The more common ones, likely to be more well-known to the early medi­eval English, include six species. In order of relative frequency, these species are the common tern (S. hirundo), the arctic tern (S. paradisaea), the Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), the little tern (S. albifrons), the roseate tern (S. dougallii), and the black tern (C. niger). The common, roseate, and artic terns are marginally longer than a foot (30 cm) and share similar colouration, with white breasts, grey backs, black caps, and striking orange bills and legs. The Sandwich tern can be distinguished from these species by being slightly larger and sporting a black bill. Both the little tern and the black tern are smaller than their fellows, averaging somewhere around nine inches (23 cm) in length. Moreover, as its name implies, the black tern is also the only British tern that has predominantly dark plumage. 705  See Harland et al., “Fishing and Fish Trade in Medi­eval York,” 180.

706  See Harland et al., “Fishing and Fish Trade in Medi­eval York,” 182–83.

707  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228; Köhler, Die alt­ englischen Fischnamen, 76–78. 708  See “The Latin–Old English Glossary,” ed. Stryker, 309.



Animal Entries

157

Coastal, wild, and relatively slight of build, with no obvious material use for the early medi­eval English, terns are few and far between in the archaeo­logical record of the time. In a survey of over ninety early medi­eval sites in southern England, archaeo­ logists identified only two tern bones.709 For a bird with little impact on material culture, the tern also has the lightest of footprints in the vernacular texts. The glossaries show some confusion, using the Old English stearn to gloss both sturnus (starling) and beacita (tern or starling).710 The only naturalistic mention of the tern, and, indeed, its only appearance beyond the glossaries, is in “The Seafarer.” As the lonely narrator stands at the wintry waters’ edge “þær him stearn oncwæð / isigfeþera” (there the tern calls back to him, icy-feathered).711 While the early medi­eval English did not seem to see the bird as a resource, “The Seafarer” gives proof that they were at least aware of the tern’s existence in the local ecosystem. Further Reading

Vinicombe, Keith. “The Migration of Common and Arctic Terns in Southern England.” British Birds 107, no. 4 (2014): 195–206.

 THRUSH  OE: scric, strostle, þræsce, þrostle, þrysce Species: Turdus philomelos, T. viscivorus

Of the twenty

species of thrushes in the British Isles, the Old English words for thrush specifically indicate just two: the mistle-thrush (T. viscivorus) and the songthrush (T. philomelos). Other thrushes, such as the blackbird (T. merula) and the robin (T. migratorius), have their own distinct names in the Old English lexicon (in this case, osle and readda or rudduc, respectively). The mistle-thrush and the song-thrush are very similar in appearance. Medium-bodied birds between eight and eleven inches (20 and 28 cm) long, the mistle-thrush tends to be the larger of the two species. Both birds are brownish in colour with speckled undersides, with the song-thrush tending towards a lighter underbelly. As wild birds on the smaller side, thrushes do not occur in any great numbers in insular early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts. Thrushes, for example, account for only eight of the more than sixty wild bird bones found in the zoo­logically-rich contexts at West Stow, which may sound significant, if not for the more than a thousand other bird bones recovered at the site.712 These unassuming birds correspondingly make little impact on Old English texts. For the most part, the variety of thrush terms occur in the Latin–Old English glossaries. Even here, their identity is muddled through a confusion of termino­logy. For example, while the Old English scric glosses the Latin turdus (mistle-thrush), þrostle glosses both turdela (another mistle-thrush term) and 709  See Holmes, Southern England, 287.

710  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 101.

711  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:232–33. On the identification of the tern, see Goldsmith, “The Seafarer and the Birds,” 230–34; Warren, Birds in Medi­eval English Poetry, 38n37.

712  See Crabtree, West Stow, 27.

158

Animal Entries

merula (blackbird).713 Perhaps it is just this kind of confusion that led to the thrush’s few appearances in Old English literature. An example of this confusion occurs in the Old English version of Pope Gregory’s Dialogues, which features a mistranslation of an event from the life of St. Benedict, bringing the thrush mistakenly to the page. In the Latin text, a blackbird (“merola”) flutters in the face of the saint, presaging a temptation of the flesh that Benedict overcomes.714 The translator of the Old English version of the story swaps out the blackbird for the thrush, having Benedict beset by “sum swyþe sweart  lytel fugel, se is on folcisc þrostle gehaten” (a certain very dark and little bird, that is called a thrush by the common folk).715 There was either a confusion in termino­logy, or one dark, smallish, nondescript bird appeared much like any another to the Old English translator. Due to its rather generic appearance, the thrush did not make a great impression on the imaginations of the early medi­eval English. Neither a game species nor a source of medicinal products, the bird does not feature in the archaeo­logical record, likely thanks to its perceived lack of utility. Rather, the thrush seems to have been little more than that certain little dark bird to the people of the time. Further Reading

Simms, Eric. British Thrushes. Collins New Naturalist Library 63. Glasgow: HarperCollins, 1978.

 TICK  OE: ticia  |  Families: Ixodidae and Argasidae

Twenty species of

ticks are endemic to the British Isles. These include seventeen species of hard ticks (family Ixodidae) and three species of soft ticks (family Argasidae). As many people who spend any amount of time in the outdoors or in the company of animals could attest, ticks are not uncommon parasites of the fields and forests. Typically quite small, adults can measure less than one-tenth of an inch (2 mm), but swell to as large as a half-inch (12.5 mm) long when engorged. Of course, what they are engorged with is the blood of their hosts. Ticks find their hosts either through “questing” behaviour, in which they wait on vegetation with forelimbs outstretched, or by crawling towards stimuli such as the warmth or smell of their desired hosts. Mammals, birds, and even reptiles are all susceptible to parasitism by these arthropods. The most common tick of the British Isles is the sheep tick (Ixodes ricinus), followed by the hedgehog tick (I. hexagonus). While the names of these ticks imply singlehost parasitism, their tastes can be more eclectic. Modern common names generally reflect the most common hosts associated with these ticks, but should not be thought of as signalling exclusivity. While some species of ticks specialize more than others (for example, I. vespertilionis, the bat tick), many are generalists. Humans most likely encounter ticks by means of contact with wild or domestic animals, as well as through 713  For a full description of the glossary variations, see Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 484–85. 714  St. Benedict of Nursia, Vita, ed. Migne, in Patro­logia Latina 66:132.

715  Waerferths von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, ed. Hecht, 100.



Animal Entries

159

exposure to tick habitat (grassy and brushy environments) in the warmer months of the year, between April and September in England. Despite their modern ubiquity and the hard exoskeleton of most of the British Isles’ tick species, they are very uncommon in the archaeo­logical record of the early medi­eval period. Even in one of the richest invertebrate assemblages of the early medi­eval period in York, there are only a few incidences of I. ricinus.716 Ticks are similarly rare in the vernacular texts of early medi­eval England. The Old English term ticia appears in only one Latin–Old English glossary. There, it glosses the Latin ricinus, which can indeed refer to a tick.717 However, ricinus is also variously glossed as a flea and a parasitic worm in the glossaries, indicating that the tick may not have been considered primarily on its own terms, as much as a member of a class of similarly parasitic beasties.718 Thus, while ticks were certainly present in the environment of early medi­eval England, they appear to have had limited effect on its vernacular textual culture. Further Reading

Cull, Benjamin, Maaike E. Pietzsch, Kayleigh M. Hansford, Emma L. Gillingham, and Jolyon M. Medlock. “Surveillance of British Ticks: An Overview of Species Records, Host Associations, and New Records of Ixodes Ricinus Distribution.” Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases 9, no. 3 (2018.): 605–14.

 TIGER  OE: tigris  |  Species: Panthera tigris

Tigers (P. tigris) were never part of the insular ecosystem, and they do not appear

at all in the early medi­eval archaeo­logical record in England. Their only relevance to the people of the time was textual, as creatures found in Continental sources that were translated from Latin originals. In the description of the exotic creatures in The Marvels of the East, for example, the narrator describes wild animals belonging to a tribe of bearded women: “fore hundum tigras  leopardos þæt hi fedað þæt syndan þa kenestan deor” (instead of dogs, tigers, and leopards they raise that are the boldest animals).719 The juxtaposition of tigers with domesticated dogs underscores the unusual nature of the tiger from the western point of view. The only native depiction of tigers in Old English occurs in Ælfric’s homily on the passion of the apostles Simon and Jude. Among the numerous miracles attributed to the saints in the text, Ælfric describes how the saints tamed “twa hreðe deor þe sind tigres gehatene þær urnon and abiton swa hwæt swa hi gemetton” (two swift animals, 716  Hall and Kenward, “Setting People in Their Environment,” 402.

717  The Corpus, É pinal, Erfurt and Leyden Glossaries, ed. Lindsay, 48. See also Cortelyou, Die altenglischen Namen der Insekten, 112–13.

718  For ricinus glossed as hundes fleoge (a hound’s flea) and hundes wyrm (a hound’s worm), see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 77 and 82, respectively. 719  Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, 198.

160

Animal Entries

which are called tigers, [that] ran there and bit whatever they met).720 Ælfric’s explanatory phrase, “þe sind tigres gehatene” (which are called tigers), indicates the cleric’s assumption of his audience’s unfamiliarity with these exotic felids. Further Reading

Busbee, Mark Bradshaw. “The Idea of India in Early Medi­eval England.” In India in the World, edited by Cristina M. Gámez-Fernández and Antonia Navarro-Tejero, 3–16. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2011.

 TOAD  OE: tadige, taxe  |  Species: Bufo bufo, Epidalea calamita

The common toad (B. bufo) and the natterjack toad (E. calamita) are the two native toad species found in England. The common toad is ubiquitous in England, typically growing about four inches (10 cm) long with a warty skin that tends to the olivebrown in colouration. Extremely rare in the British Isles today, the natterjack toad is somewhat smaller, at about three-and-a-half inches (9 cm) in length, and is distinguishable by an overall greener appearance and a distinctive thin yellow stripe running down its back from nose to tail. While B. bufo makes its home in a wide variety of environments with access to water, the natterjack inhabits just a few sandy, coastal locales in the British Isles. Much like frogs, toads leave little evidence in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. Even when frogs appear in appreciable numbers, such as at the early medi­eval site surrounding the ninth-century church of St. Wystan at Repton, toads are much more uncommon. While archaeo­logists found evidence of 129 individual frogs from the eighth and ninth centuries at the site, they recovered the remains of only two toads from the same period.721 At many sites, when toads are even identified as separate from frog remains, this kind of frog-to-toad ratio is common. Specific references to toads in Old English literature are few, most likely due to their conflation with frogs.722 For example, when Aldhelm, in his De laudibus virginitatis (In Praise of Virginity), describes the poisons foisted upon John the evangelist as including the venom of “quadrupedis robetae” (the four-footed toad), an Old English gloss to the text renders the Latin rubeta (toad) as “que et rane dicuntur, toxan” (that which is called frog and toad).723 While blurring the taxonomic line between frogs and toads may seem fairly natural, given their cursory similarities, there might be some evidence that people in early medi­eval England did make some distinctions between these groups of amphibians. In an anonymous eleventh-century homily on the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah, the author expounds upon the prophet’s experience of being cast in a pit.724 The hom720  Homily 38 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 284.

721  See Ranworthy, Kiølbye-Biddle, and Biddle, “An Archaeo­logical Study of Frogs and Toads,” 505.

722  See Whitman, “The Old English Animal Names,” 385–86. 723  Old English Glosses, ed. Napier, 50. 724  See Jeremiah 38:6–13.



Animal Entries

161

ilist notes that men hoard their wealth, “liggeþ alse þe tadde deð in þere eorðe” (just as the toad does lie in the earth).725 While this is obviously a metaphorical point, the metaphor must work in part due to a shared knowledge of B. bufo’s burrowing behaviour. Common toads will excavate shallow burrows to hide and sometimes use them for hibernation over the winter. Frogs are much more obviously aquatic, and even casual observation would prove toads to be more terrestrial. Further, for an agrarian society, the regular disturbance of the soil for agriculture would inevitably disclose the toad’s burrowing habits. Thus, the homilist’s noting of the toad’s subterranean habits, while in service to metaphor, could well have been based upon observation of the natural behaviours of the actual amphibian. Overall, toads seemed to have made little impact on the material or vernacular textual cultures of early medi­eval England. This is probably due as much to their conflation with frogs as it is to their retiring nature and lack of economic value. Further Reading

Liberman, Anatoly. ”Bird and Toad.” In Runica—Germanica—Mediaevalia, edited by Wilhelm Heizmann, and Astrid Nahl, 375–88. Reallexikon der Germanischen. Altertumskunde 37, supp. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. Ranworthy, C. J., B. Kiølbye-Biddle, and M. Biddle. “An Archaeo­logical Study of Frogs and Toads from the Eighth to Sixteenth Century at Repton, Derbyshire.” Herpeto­logical Journal 1, no. 11 (1990): 504–9. Salazar, Rosie D., Robert A. Montgomery, Sarah E. Thresher, and David W. Macdonald. “Mapping the Relative Probability of Common Toad Occurrence in Terrestrial Lowland Farm Habitat in the United Kingdom.” PLoS ONE 11, no. 2 (2016): 1–14. Smith, Philip H., and Graeme Skelcher. “Effects of Environmental Factors and Conservation Measures on a Sand-Dune Population of the Natterjack Toad (Epidalea calamita) in NorthWest England: A 31-Year Study.” Herpeto­logical Journal 29, no. 3(2019): 146–54.

 TROUT  OE: truht, sceota, forn  |  Species: Salmo trutta

The brown trout (S. trutta) is the only native British trout species. While this seems to be a simple statement, it belies a continuing scientific debate over the genetic distinction between populations of S. trutta in the British Isles. The main division is between one branch of the trutta family tree that is anadromous, living part of its life in salt water and part in fresh, and another that is comprised of strictly freshwater inhabitants. While the anadromous populations are commonly called sea trout in the British Isles today, they are in fact still considered the same species as the freshwater brown trout. For the purposes of simplicity, both populations will be referred to as brown trout here. In addition to the differences in lifestyle within its taxonomic classification, the brown trout also causes confusion in its identification because of the variability of its appearance. The sea-going trout tend towards a greenish-black back and silvery sides, like many oceanic fishes. The freshwater relatives are more generally tan to olivecoloured, with dark sides and more pronounced black or red spots along their sides. 725  Old English Homilies and Homiletic Treatises, ed. Morris, 53.

162

Animal Entries

Perhaps the most notable difference among mature fish are their respective sizes. Due to environmental factors, especially food availability, the anadromous brown trout are usually quite larger than their freshwater kin. While freshwater S. trutta will grow to somewhere in the neighbourhood of six to nine inches (15 to 23 cm) in length, the ocean-faring specimens can measure over three feet (90 cm) long. Freshwater brown trout are a difficult catch for anglers even today, but their larger migratory cousins would be more susceptible to early medi­eval anglers’ lines and traps. Trout pose a problem for archaeo­logists for at least two reasons. The first issue is one of preservation, as their bones decay more readily than those of other fishes. Secondly, being a close relative of the salmon, archaeo­logists can find it difficult to distinguish between the bones of large brown trout and smaller salmon.726 That being said, trout are still fairly well represented in the archaeo­logical record of the tenth and eleventh centuries.727 The shift to more organized marine fishing at the turn of the eleventh century may have resulted in a greater number of the more robust anadromous trout being taken, resulting in an increase of trout remains in later assemblages.728 Despite their relative frequency in period archaeo­logical deposits, S. trutta has a relatively small impact on Old English texts. In the Latin–Old English glossaries, trout get scant mention. Even so, the variety of terms associated with them may indicate an awareness of the variability of local stocks. Generally, the Latin tructus (trout) is glossed by the Old English truht in the glossaries.729 However, the Old English term sceota also is used, if only once, to gloss the Latin tructus. In Ælfric’s Colloquy, a student posing as a fisherman claims to catch “sceotan  lampredan,  swa wylce swa on wætere swymmaþ” (shoat and lampreys, and whatever swims in the waters).730 Scholars point to a seventeenth-century survey of Cornwall that identifies the shoat as a diminutive, local kind of trout.731 Even more attenuated is the single appearance of the Old English word forn glossing the Latin turnus, which itself might be a scribal error, and is taken to be a reference to trout, but the lexical connection is unclear.732 Despite 726  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 106; Guillaud, Cornette, and Béarez, 85.

727  For a general overview, see Holmes, Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England, 51, 183–87. For a specific example of trout representation at early medi­eval York, see A. K. G. Jones, “Provisional Remarks on Fish Remains,” 117–25. 728  On the “fish-event horizon” marking the turn to marine fishing by the early medi­eval English, see Barrett, Locker, and Roberts, “‘Dark Age Economics’ Revisited,” passim.

729  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 308. See also Köhler, Die altenglischen Fischnamen, 85–87. 730  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 27.

731  See Carew, The Survey of Cornwall, fol. 26r: “in shape and colour he resembleth the Trowt: howbeit in bignesse and goodnesse, commeth farre behind him.” See also the entry on Old English sceota (shoat) in Bosworth and Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, s.v. “sceota.” 732  See “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228; Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “forn.”



Animal Entries

163

these linguistic issues, the brown trout was a fish that grew in importance to the early medi­eval English as they turned their attention towards the sea as a significant fishery. Further Reading

Davidson, Ian. “Brown Trout and Sea Trout Salmo trutta.” In Freshwater Fishes in Britain: The Species and Their Distribution, edited by Cynthia Davies et al., 110–13. Colchester: Harley, 2004. Guillaud, Emilie, Raphaël Cornette, and Philippe Béarez. “Is Vertebral Form a Valid SpeciesSpecific Indicator for Salmonids? The Discrimination Rate of Trout and Atlantic Salmon from Archaeo­logical to Modern Times.” Journal of Archaeo­logical Science 65 (2016): 84–92.

 TURTLE  OE: se þe hæfð hus (?)  |  Species: Caretta caretta, Dermochelys coriacea, Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, Lepidochelys kempii

The British Isles

host no native species of terrestrial or freshwater turtles. However, various species of marine turtles visit the islands, most commonly the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), but also the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), and Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). However, even leatherback turtle sightings are a relatively rare occurrence, typically restricted to the waters off the west coast of England during the summer months. While the leatherback can reach massive dimensions (up to nine feet (2.75 m) in length and weighing over 1,500 pounds or 680 kg), the other species are typically about a third that size. All sea turtles have the same general profile dominated by their streamlined carapaces but also sporting non-retractable heads and flipper-shaped limbs. Turtle and tortoise remains are largely absent from the early medi­eval archaeo­ logical record in England.733 The few remains that do appear are fragmentary and provide little in the way of interpretive context.734 The same lack of evidence applies to the textual record. The closest Old English comes to explicitly acknowledging any kind of turtle or tortoise is in Ælfric’s Glossary, wherein he glosses the Latin testudo (tortoise, snail, or whelk) as “se þe hæfð hus” (he who has a house).735 While this reference may seem to apply to architecture rather than animals, the fact that it appears in a list of animals between the glosses for the snail and the ant confirms its bio­logical association. That said, the Old English glossaries most often gloss the Latin testudo as some form of snegel (snail).736 Ultimately, turtles are as scarce in vernacular texts and the archaeo­logical records as they likely were along the coasts of early medi­eval England. 733  See Thomas, “Translocated Testudinidae,” 166. For examples of comprehensive lists of remains from period archaeo­logical sites showing a lack of turtles, see Albarella, A Review of Animal Bone Evidence, 340–51. 734  See, for example, Addyman and Hill, “Saxon Southampton,” 69.

735  Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 310. On the lack of turtle terms, see Whitman, “The Old English Animal Names,” 389–93. 736  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 82.

164

Animal Entries

Further Reading

Botterell, Zara L. R., Rod Penrose, Matthew J. Witt, and Brendan J. Godley. “Long-Term Insights into Marine Turtle Sightings, Strandings and Captures around the UK and Ireland (1910–2018).” Journal of the Marine Bio­logical Association of the United Kingdom 100, no. 6 (2020): 869–77. Thomas, Richard. “Translocated Testudinidae: The Earliest Archaeo­logical Evidence for Land Tortoise in Britain.” Post-Medi­eval Archaeo­logy 44, no. 1 (2010): 165–71.

 WALRUS  OE: hors-hwæl  |  Species: Odobenus rosmarus

The walrus (O. rosmarus), of course, is well known for its striking dentition, show-

cased in the form of two long ivory tusks. The largest of the pinnipeds, the taxonomic group that includes seals and sea lions, walruses are huge animals, with males averaging weights of around 2,000 pounds (900 kg) and lengths in the neighbourhood of ten feet (3 m). Walrus colouration ranges from dark brown to almost pink in older individuals. Their trademark tusks can grow in excess of three feet (90 cm) long. These impressive animals generally live around the globe north of the Arctic Circle (66º north latitude), although there have been rare sightings and captures in British waters. Taxonomists divide walruses into two subspecies: the Pacific walrus (O. r. divergens) and the Atlantic walrus (O. r. rosmarus), the latter of which was in the purview of the early medi­eval English. Walrus remains typically take the form of worked artifacts in the archaeo­logical record of the period, with no evidence of local ivory crafting until the twelfth century.737 Imported walrus ivory took the form of items as disparate as devotional carvings, personal seals, and gaming pieces. The early medi­eval English, then, were aware of the walrus, but probably had little to no contact with the animals in the flesh. This fact is evident in the lone literary reference to walruses in Old English literature, the translation of Paulus Orosius’s Historiae adversus paganos (Histories against the Pagans). The Old English version of this text adds a report of the Norwegian chieftain Ohthere to King Alfred. In the text, Ohthere relates his journey north around the top of the Scandinavian Peninsula and into the White Sea. He is particularly interested in “horshwælum, for ðæm hie habbað swiþe æþele ban on hiora toþum […]  hiora hyd bið swiðe god to sciprapum (walruses, because they have very excellent bone in their teeth […] and their hide is very good for ship-ropes.)738 As opposed to the generic Old English terms hran and hwæl, which could apply to any species of whale, Ohthere’s use of the term hors-hwæl is a welcome bit of specificity. It conjures the image of a whale but scales it down to the size of a horse, combining the images of two animals known to the early medi­eval English to create a visual approximation of a walrus. Ohthere goes on to provide a picture of the early medi­eval exploitation of the walrus. He claims that his crew of six “ofsloge syxtig on twam dagum” (killed sixty over two days).739 While this sounds like an extravagant number, given the social nature 737  See Riddler and Trzaska-Nartowski, “Chanting Upon a Dunghill,” 120. 738  Ohthere’s Voyages, ed. Bately and Englert , 45. 739  Ohthere’s Voyages, ed. Bately and Englert , 46.



Animal Entries

165

of the walrus and their aggregation in the thousands at haul-out sites, they could be quite vulnerable to groups of hunters.740 Further, Ohthere enumerates the commercial goods to be taken from the walrus: ivory for art and hides for rope. The monetary and cultural worth of ivory seems self-evident, but numerous texts also speak to the value of walrus ropes due to their superior strength and endurance.741 Unfortunately, no evidence of such rope survives in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. Even though the archaeo­logical and vernacular written records of the period do not supply evidence for direct contact between the walrus and the English of the time, they do speak to the esteem in which the animal was held. Further Reading

Frei, Karin M., Ashley N. Coutu, Konrad Smiarowski, Ramona Harrison, Christian K. Madsen, Jette Arneborg, Robert Frei et al. “Was It for Walrus? Viking Age Settlement and Medi­eval Walrus Ivory Trade in Iceland and Greenland.” World Archaeo­logy 47, no. 3 (2015): 439–66. Gotfredsen, Anne Birgitte, Martin Appelt, and Kirsten Hastrup. “Walrus History around the North Water: Human–Animal Relations in a Long-Term Perspective.” Ambio 47, suppl. 2 (2018): 193–212. Valtonen, Irmeli. The North in the Old English Orosius: A Geo­graphical Narrative in Context. Helsinki: Société Néophilo­logique, 2008. Webster, Leslie. “Apocalypse Then: Anglo-Saxon Ivory Carving in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Aedificia Nova: Studies in Honor of Rosemary Cramp, edited by Catherine Karkov and Helen Damico, 226–53. Publications of the Richard Rawlinson Center. Kalamazoo: Medi­eval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2008.

 WASP  OE: wæps  

 HORNET  OE: hyrnett Suborder: Apocrita

Wasps are somewhat tricky to identify taxonomically, as they are members of the suborder Apocrita, which includes ants and bees, but are considered a group separate from them. Wasps are typically categorized into two types based on social organization, solitary and social wasps. The solitary wasp species are thought to number in the thousands in England, as ongoing refinements to taxonomic identification continue to both collapse and expand the total range of extant species.742 Much more easy to collate are the number of social wasps, of which there are only seven species: the common wasp (Vespula vulgaris), the German wasp (Vespula germanica), the tree wasp (Dolichovespula sylvestris), the Norwegian wasp (Dolichovespula norwegica), the cuckoo-wasp (Vespula austriaca), the red wasp (Vespula rufa), and the hornet (Vespa crabro). Generally speaking, these wasps are very similar in appearance: black and yellow striped with a pinched 740  See Gotfredsen, Appelt, and Hastrup, “Walrus History around the North Water,” 196. 741  See Frei et al., “Was It for Walrus,” 444–45.

742  See Barnard, The Royal Entomo­logical Society Book of British Insects, 226–27.

166

Animal Entries

waist (unlike the comparatively stout bee). Most are about a half-inch long, but the heavyweight of the bunch is the hornet, which can be up to an inch (25 mm) in length. Although wasps are quite prevalent today, their remains are scant in the archaeo­ logical record of early medi­eval England. This may well be a function of their fragility rather than an indication of their scarcity.743 The literature of the period is not much help either, as the insect’s appearances outside of the glossaries, where the vernacular wæps glosses the Latin crabro (hornet or wasp) or vespa (wasp), are few.744 One appearance of the vespids is in Ælfric’s homily in the opening verses of John’s gospel. In the text, Ælfric draws from Isidore of Seville’s Etymo­logiae in describing the miracles of creation: “of assan flæsce cumað wæpsas  of horses flæsce cumað eac hyrnetta” (from asses’ flesh come wasps and from horses’ flesh come hornets).745 Ælfric refers to Isidore’s mythical lore of spontaneous generation, but nothing of the insect itself. The other references are simply translations of Exodus 23:28, where God promises to drive out the enemies of Israel: “ic asende hyrnetta, þe aflymeþ Efeum  Chananeum” (I will send hornets, which will drive out the Hivites and the Canaanites).746 In all, while wasps may have flown the early medi­eval skies of the British Isles, the actual insects appear to have made little impact on its vernacular texts or material culture. Further Reading

Archer, Michael E. The Vespoid Wasps (Tiphiidae, Mutillidae, Sapygidae, Scoliidae and Vespidae) of the British Isles. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 6, part 6. St. Albans: Royal Entomo­logical Society, 2014.

 WEASEL  OE: wesle  |  Species: Mustela nivalis

The weasel (M. nivalis) is the smallest member of the mustelid family in the British

Isles. It ranges across virtually all of Europe, Asia, and North America. Usually about a foot long (30 cm), the supple weasel has an elongated body shape and light brown fur above with a whitish underside. Weasels inhabit almost every kind of habitat available in England, excepting the seaside. They are active year-round, hunting at any time of day. Surprisingly effective predators, weasels can take down prey as large as rabbits. For the early medi­eval English, their most probable interaction with weasels would be recognizing them as predators of domestic poultry and their eggs. Given their relatively small size, weasels were likely not purposely harvested for their pelts, and no archaeo­logical sites feature significant, if any, remains. Weasels are largely the inhabitants of glossaries and vocabularies in Old English texts.747 One minor exception is the penitential known as the Scriftboc, where the 743  See Kenward, Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy, 60, 351.

744  For glossary examples of crabro and vespa, see An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 38, 55, respectively. See also Cortelyou, Die altenglischen Namen der Insekten, 38–41. 745  Homilies of Ælfric, ed. Pope, 1:208.

746  The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, ed. Crawford, 271.

747  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309. See also Jordan, Die



Animal Entries

167

reader is instructed that if into one’s water a “mus oððe wesle afealle and ðær dead sy, sprencge man mid haligwætere and ðicge” (a mouse or weasel falls and is dead there, sprinkle it with holy water and drink it).748 It appears that the weasel is presented with the mouse as just another small mammal that might inadvertently turn up in a water vessel, but not particularly reflecting the actual behaviour of the specific animal. Given this context, it seems as though the weasel was among the most minor of mammals in Old English texts. Further Reading

O’Hara, Kevin. “Weasel Mustela nivalis.” Northumbrian Naturalist 73 (2012): 33–35.

 WHALE  OE: hran, hran-fisc, hwæl

Species: Balaenoptera acutorostrata, B. borealis, B. physalus, Eschrichitus robustus, Globicephala melas, Hyperoodon ampullatus, Megaptera novaeangliae, Physeter macrocephalus

There are close

to twenty species of whale that currently can be found in the waters surrounding the British Isles, but many are rare visitors. The more common species include the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), sei whale (B. borealis), fin whale (B. physalus), long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas), northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). In addition, the grey whale (Eschrichitus robustus) was present in the northern Atlantic in the medi­eval period, but is now locally extinct and exists only in the Pacific. These whales range in size from the nearly seventy-foot-long (20 m) fin whale to the long-finned pilot whale, measuring less than twenty feet (6 m) in length. Their dorsal colourations can range from browns to greys and blacks, with typically paler undersides. Some species, like the fin and humpback whales, graze on huge numbers of small creatures, filtering them from the water through fibrous plates of baleen. Others are hunters, like the sperm whale, who chase down prey as large as giant squid (Architeuthis sp.). Whales frequently travel in social groups and some, like the minke whales, form pods numbering in the hundreds. All whales surface regularly to breathe and some occasionally make such displays as breaching (i.e., jumping out of the water), spy-hopping (i.e., holding their heads vertically out of the water), or lobtailing (i.e., slapping the water with tails or fins). Any of these behaviours can make them readily observable from land or sea. In addition, whales can sometimes be found on the shore itself, either after death or as a result of purposeful self-stranding. As an island-dwelling people, there are any number of ways the early medi­eval English may have encountered whales. altenglischen Saugetiernamen, 41–43.

748  Das altenglische Bussbuch, ed. Spindler, 193.

168

Animal Entries

The archaeo­logical record of the period provides ample evidence of whale–human interaction. One of the largest accumulations of whale-bone evidence was found at the early medi­eval site at Flixborough. Whale bone was used for the creation of items ranging from fishing buoys to combs to gaming pieces.749 Perhaps the most celebrated whale-bone artifact from the period is the Franks Casket, an ornately carved whalebone chest.750 Whales also figure prominently among sea-creatures in Old English literature. While the early medi­eval English were aware of the actual animal, as evidenced by such texts as the Orosius and Ælfric’s Colloquy, there is a rather surprising lack of practical information about the whale in Old English texts. A survey of the appearance of the Old English words hran and hwæl shows that the whale most often appears in the vernacular literature not as the animal itself, but rather as a symbol of size, strength, and power. More specifically, the Old English terms for whale occur in four broad categories: as a simple denotative term in the glossaries, as a metonymic descriptor of the sea, as a symbolic animal in religious literature, and, most infrequently, as the actual animal. In the glossaries, the occurrence of the whale is usually simple enough. In most cases, forms of the term hran or hwæl are used as glosses for the Latin words for whale: cetus and balaena.751 Hran is also used for the more generic Latin word musculus, which, although more commonly the term for a mouse, can also refer to a mussel or, more to the point, sea creatures in general.752 One glossary, evocatively, also uses hwæl to gloss cetus þæt pixtrix dicitur (whale that is called sea-monster).753 The Latin term pistrix refers to sea monsters in general, but both the Latin cetus and the Greek ketos are specific terms for whale in the Physio­logus tradition.754 Outside of the glossaries, the imaginative approach to the whale is more typically expressed in its use as a metonymic signifier for the sea in Old English poetry. For the most part, this takes the form of poetic compounds known as kennings. Hran and hwæl are variously joined to other Old English words to form such kennings as the hwæl-weg (whale-way) in “The Seafarer,” the hwæl-mere (whale-sea) in Andreas, and the hran-rad (whale-road) in Beowulf.755 In all of these instances, the whale functions as a referent for its home: the sea. Religious texts often cite the whale as an impressive example of God’s creative power. The formula of Hymn 1 in the Canticle of the Psalter nicely sums up the place of the whale in the aquatic hierarchy: “Bletsiaþ hwalas  ealle þa ðe beoð onstyrede on 749  See Riddler and Trzaska-Nartowski, “Chanting Upon a Dunghill,” 121. 750  See Paz, Nonhuman Voices, 98–138.

751  See Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wright and Wülcker, 1:261, 319, 367. 752  “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 228. 753  “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 227. 754  See The Old English Physio­logus, ed. Squires, 20.

755  For references to the variety of whale-term pairings, see Cameron et al., Dictionary of Old English, s.v. “hran” and “hwæl.” For a concise overview of the form and function of kennings in Old English literature, see, for example, Scragg, “The Nature of Old English Verse,” 60–62.



Animal Entries

169

wæterum drihten” (Bless the whales and all which are moving in the waters, Lord).756 Of all the creatures in the oceans, the whale takes primacy, and all other marine creatures are secondary. That the early medi­eval English saw the whale as the apex of sea creatures is made clear in Ælfric’s homiletic translation and exegesis of 1 Maccabees. Ælfric attempts to describe the elephant therein to his insular audience by comparing it to the greatest creature they might know: “Hwæl is ealra fixa mæst, and ylp is eallra nytena mæst” (the whale is the greatest of all the fishes, and the elephant is the greatest of all cattle).757 Finally, the whale can be God’s agent, a role it famously plays in the story of Jonah. As Ælfric’s Homily 18 succinctly recounts: “God þa gegearcode ænne hwæl  he forswealh þone witegan  abær hyne to þam lande þe he to sceolde  hine þær ut aspaw” (God then procured a whale and he swallowed that prophet and bore him to the land to which he should and there spat him out).758 For the early medi­eval English, whales served as both impressive symbols and agents of a powerful God. As with many powerful beasts, whales could also be seen as agents of evil. The whale became conflated with the aspidochelone (or asp-turtle) of the Physio­logus and bestiary traditions. The aspidochelone proper is best described as a giant sea turtle that would appear to weary sailors as an island and, once the men encamped upon its back for the night, the creature would drag them to their deaths beneath the waves.759 Like the aspidochelone, the whale in the Old English poem of the same name in the Exeter Book is “facnes cræftig” (skillful in deceit) and “in deaðsele drence bifæsteð scipu mid scealcum” (in a death-hall consigns both ships and crew to drown).760 Just as the devil can take unsuspecting mortal souls to hell, so can the whale drag an unsuspecting sailor to the depths of the ocean. Similarly, after describing the irresistible breath of the whale, and its analogue in the devil’s trickery, the poet explains how the devil’s victims “nagon hwyrft ne swice, utsiþ æfre, þa þær in cumað, þon ma þe þa fiscas faraðlacende of þæs hwæles fenge hweorfan motan” (shall not be allowed a way out nor an escape, ever depart, those who come in there, any more than the swimming fishes can return from the whale’s grasp).761 Here the whale represents both the devil’s treachery, and the gates of hell itself. While the literary and religious depictions of the whale seem to vacillate between presenting the whale as either a paragon of creation or a personification of the diabolic, the early medi­eval English were certainly aware of the actual animal plying their waters. When Bede initially describes the British Isles in his Historia, among the first natural resources he mentions are that “her beoþ oft fangene seolas  hronas and mereswyn” (here seals and whales and dolphins are often caught).762 The Norwegian 756  “Die altenglischen Glossen im Bosworth-Psalter,” ed. Lindelöf, 190–91. 757  Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 2:104.

758  Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 318.

759  See Physio­logus, trans. Curlew, 45–46, 83–84.

760  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 2:272–73.

761  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 74.

762  The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, 1:26.

170

Animal Entries

traveller Ohthere described the products of the North Sea whale-fishery to King Alfred while visiting his court in Wessex: “on his agnum lande is se betsta hwælhuntað: þa beoð eahta and feowertiges elna lange,  þa mæstan fiftiges elna lange” (in his own land is the best whale hunting: those [whales] are eight and forty ells long [72–96 feet, 22–29 m], and the greatest [are] fifty ells long [75–100 feet, 23–30 m]).763 While this may sound like a wonderful resource, Ælfric’s Colloquy gives a more measured view of whale fishing by the early medi­eval English. When the student posing as a fisherman in the text is asked about catching whales, he doesn’t hesitate to show his apprehension. He refuses to chase whales “forþam plyhtlic þingc hit ys gefon hwæl” (because it is a dangerous thing to catch a whale).764 When the teacher explains that “mænige gefoþ hwælas,  ætberstaþ frecnysse,  micelne sceat þanon begytaþ” (many catch whales, and escape danger, and then get great reward), the student is unmoved: “ic ne geþristge for modes mines nytenyssæ” (I would not dare sail [in pursuit of whales] on account of my fears).765 Apparently, while catching whales sounded attractive in the abstract, attitudes about the realities of whale-hunting may have been quite different among the early medi­eval English. Finally, both whale stranding and the early medi­eval opportunistic use of the whale bone is embodied in the early eighth-century artifact known as the Franks Casket. A whale-bone box of roughly 9 by 7.5 by 5 inches (23 × 19 × 13 cm), the Franks Casket is an exquisite example of the artistic use to which this animal resource can be put. Carvings on the sides and lid depict scenes from Germanic and Roman mytho­logy as well as Judeo-Christian history. The front panel may reference the provenance of the casket’s materials in a runic riddle as it describes how “fisc flod ahof on firgenberig” (a fish the sea cast up on the mountain cliff).766 This line not only describes how the animal came to its end, either as flotsam or by self-stranding, but also how the craftsperson obtained his medium, as whale-bone was more likely to be acquired by means of scavenging than from active whale-hunting at sea.767 Fitting for such an imposing beast, the whale loomed large in the early medi­eval English imagination and was a physical presence in their culture, either as animal or artifact. While they may not have had a dedicated whale fishery as did cultures to the north, they were perfectly willing to take advantage of such whale products as came their way. Even if their primary contact with whales was a distant glimpse of the arching backs of passing pods or an awe-inspiring corpse heaved upon the strand, the people of the period saw their culture, and island, as floating amidst a realm that was ruled by these riders of the whale-roads.

763  Ohthere’s Voyages, ed. Bately and Englert, 45. 764  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 29. 765  Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, 30. 766  Webster, The Franks Casket, 18.

767  See Szabo, Monstrous Fishes, 94.



Further Reading

Animal Entries

171

DeAngelo, Jeremy. “Discretio Spirituum and the Whale.” Anglo-Saxon England 42 (2013): 271–89. Esser-Miles, Carolin. “King of the Children of Pride: Symbolism, Physicality, and the Old English Whale.” In The Maritime World of the Anglo-Saxons, edited by Stacey Klein, William Schipper, and Shannon Lewis-Simpson, 275–301. Essays in Anglo-Saxon Studies 5. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medi­eval and Renaissance Studies, 2014. Gardiner, Mark. “The Exploitation of Sea-Mammals in Medi­eval England: Bones and Their Social Context.” Archaeo­logical Journal 154 (1997): 173–95. Gardiner, Mark, John Stewart, and Greg Priestly-Bell. “Anglo-Saxon Whale Exploitation: Some Evidence from Dengemarsh, Lydd, Kent.” Medi­eval Archaeo­logy 42 (1998): 96–101. Lindquist, Ole. Peasant Fisherman: Whaling in the Northeast Atlantic Area, ca. 900–1900. Akureyri: University of Akureyri, 1997. McFadden, Brian. “Sweet Odors and Interpretive Authority in the Exeter Book ‘Physio­logus’ and ‘Phoenix.’” Papers on Language & Literature 42, no. 2 (2006): 181–209. Salvador-Bello, Mercedes, and Mar Gutiérrez-Ortiz. “The Cambridge and the Exeter Book Physio­logi: Associative Imagery, Allegorical Circularity, and Isidorean Organization.” Anglia 136, no. 4 (2018): 643–86. Szabo, Vicki. “‘Bad to the Bone’? The Unnatural History of Monstrous Medi­eval Whales.” Heroic Age 8 (2005). http://www.heroicage.net/issues/8/szabo.html. Znojemska, Helena. “Sailing the Dangerous Waters: Images of Land and Sea in The Seafarer, The Panther and The Whale.” Prague Studies in English 24 (2005): 87–105.

 WHELK  OE: weoloc

Species: Buccinum undatum, Nucella lapillus, Neptunea antiqua

While there are about fifteen species of whelk usually found in the waters sur-

rounding the British Isles, three of the species most often associated with the early medi­eval period in England are the common whelk (Buccinum undatum), the dog whelk (Nucella lapillus), and the red whelk (Neptunea antiqua). The common whelk’s name is well suited to its ubiquity on British coasts. It is one of the larger species of whelk in British waters, with a whorled, conical shell that can be four inches (10 cm) high and over two inches long. While the shell’s colouration is a muted yellowish white, the flesh of this whelk is a striking white with black spots that is exposed as the animal moves across the seafloor. The common whelk prefers somewhat deeper waters and is not typically found in the intertidal zone. The same habitat preference holds true for the red whelk. Roughly the same size as the common whelk, N. antiqua also has a whitish, spiral shell but can also take on its eponymous hue, at least around the shell’s opening. It is most easily distinguished from the common whelk by the colour of its flesh, which is a more uniform white than B. undatum’s distinctive spotted patterning. As opposed to the common and red whelks, the dog whelk is frequently found on the rocky shore. About half the size of those larger whelks, N. lapillus also has a whorled, conical shell. The shell of the dog whelk can sport a wide variety of colouration, from white to orange to black and from solid to a striped patterning. These gastropods are often found in large aggregations in the intertidal zone.

172

Animal Entries

Likely due to their relatively large size, both the common and red whelks have been historically harvested for food. The red whelk, in particular, has been prized above other whelks for its flavour, earning it a secondary name as the almond whelk. Although inedible, the dog whelk’s shell can be ground up and used to make a purple dye, which has made it a popular commodity over the centuries. All of these molluscs were collected in some numbers by the early medi­eval English. Whelks are much less well-represented in the archaeo­logical record than more popular edible mollusc species like the oyster (Ostrea edulis) or mussel (Mytilus edulis). While the survival of the whelk’s remains benefits from a fairly robust shell, they typically are not present in the numbers of the more common shellfish. For example, less than eighty of the over ten thousand mollusc shells found in early medi­eval contexts at Lyminge, Kent, were from whelk species.768 The people of the time would have harvested these molluscs either by hand (for shore-going species like the dog whelk) or through the use of traps or trawling. As whelk shells are often found in the context of other mollusc shells, a fair number of them were also likely taken as fortuitous by-catch. Whelks occur in the Old English corpus primarily as mere lexical items in the Latin–Old English glossaries. These texts present the Old English weoloc to gloss the Latin coclea (snail) and conhcylilium or murex (a purple shellfish).769 Although there is a wild variation in spelling, all the glosses connect weoloc to a shellfish that is either purple itself or yields a purple dye. This identification is made clear in the only mention of the whelk outside of the glossaries in Old English: the vernacular translation of Bede’s Historia. Within the text, Bede describes the geo­graphy of early medi­eval England and some of the natural resources found there: “her beoð swyþe genihtsume weolocas, of þam bið geweorht se weolocreada tælgh, þone ne mæg sunne blæcan ne ne regn wyrdan; ac swa he biþ yldra, swa he fægerra biþ” (here whelks are in great abundance, from which is made the whelk-red dye, that the sun cannot bleach nor the rain harm; but just as it ages, so it becomes fairer).770 Although it may be tempting to read weoloc-read literally as whelk-red, meaning the primary colour red as we understand it, the pigment extracted from dog whelk shells can range from red to purple, and the Old English read can refer to either shade. Literary, textual, and archaeo­logical investigations have established that the people of the time may have used the dye derived from N. lapillus to colour everything from clothing to manu­script illustrations.771 Thus, while not major factors in either the archaeo­logical or vernacular written records, whelks have still managed to leave their mark on early medi­eval English society.

768  See Campbell, “Assessment of the Archaeo­logical Potential,” 7–8.

769  See, for example, “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 124–25. See also Whitman, “The Old English Animal Names,” 383. 770  The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, 1:26.

771  See Biggam, “Knowledge of Whelk Dyes and Pigments,” 32–33, 54–55; Clarke, 233, 239, 241.



Further Reading

Animal Entries

173

Biggam, C. P. “Knowledge of Whelk Dyes and Pigments in Anglo-Saxon England.” Anglo-Saxon England 35 (2006): 23–55. Campbell, Greg. “Assessment of the Archaeo­logical Potential of the Sieved Middle Saxon Molluscs Sieved from Lyminge, Kent.” Unpublished report. Lyminge Archaeo­logical Project, University of Reading, 2011. https://www.academia.edu/1560527/Assessment_of_the_archaeo­ logical_potential_of_the_sieved_middle_Saxon_molluscs_sieved_from_Lyminge_Kent. Clarke, Mark. “Anglo-Saxon Manu­script Pigments.” Studies in Conservation 49, no. 4 (2004): 231–44. O’Connor, T. P. “Shellshock or How I Learned to Love the Humble Whelk.” Interim 10, no. 2 (1985): 29–32.

 WHITING  OE: hwitling  |  Species: Merlangius merlangus

Commonly around ten

inches (25 cm) in length with a darker bluish-green back transitioning to silvery-white sides, the whiting (M. merlangus) is a smaller member of the cod family common to the waters around the British Isles. Typically schooling as juveniles in inshore waters, whiting move further offshore as they mature. However, their tolerance of brackish waters can put them in the reach of anglers working estuaries. Combine that habitat tolerance with the relative aggressiveness of feeding whiting and you have a fish that may have been relatively easily caught by early medi­eval anglers fishing the coastal waters of England. Given that possible scenario, it comes as small surprise that M. merlangus is fairly common in the archaeo­logical record of the period. In a survey of about a hundred and twenty medi­eval bone assemblages, archaeo­logists found whiting to be the third most common marine fish, after cod (Gadus morhua) and herring (Clupea harengus).772 Whiting numbers linger in the shadow of these larger gadid-family cousins until after the early medi­eval period.773 Whiting appear only once, as a glossary entry, in the Old English corpus. The Old English hwitling is used to gloss the Latin glaucus, a word that primarily means greyish or brilliant, but can also refer to M. merlangus.774 The relatively marginal state of whiting in the vernacular texts of the period suggests that the fish was not of marked cultural importance to the early medi­eval English. Although a common enough fish in the archaeo­logical record come the end of the tenth century and beyond, the whiting seems to have made little impression on the literary imaginations of the authors of Old English texts. Further Reading

Lauerburg, R. A. M., Alex Temming, John K. Pinnegar, Paul Kotterba, Anne F. Sell, Alexander Kempf, and Jens Floeter. “Forage Fish Control Population Dynamics of North Sea Whiting Merlangius merlangus.” Marine Eco­logy Progress Series 594 (2018): 213–30. 772  See Serjeantson and Woolgar, “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England,” 117. 773  See Harland et al., “Fishing and Fish Trade in Medi­eval York,” 178–79, 196. 774  See Napier, “Old English Lexico­graphy,” 278.

174

Animal Entries

 WOLF  OE: wulf

 SHE-WOLF  OE: wylfen Species: Canis lupus

The wolf of

early medi­eval Europe was Canis lupus, the grey wolf. More specifically, the subspecies C. lupus lupus, the Eurasian or common wolf, was the historically representative subspecies across temperate Europe and Asia during the early Middle Ages.775 This robust canid was the equivalent in size to larger modern dog breeds, such as the German Shepherd, standing somewhat taller than two feet (60 cm) at the shoulder. Although currently extant in populations from the Iberian Peninsula to Scandinavia and from Italy to China, the wolf was eliminated from the British Isles between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries.776 The archaeo­logical evidence is both too scanty and indeterminate (due to the similarity between the remains of wolves and domestic dogs) for any qualitative assessment of wolf numbers and distribution in early medi­eval England. However, pre-Conquest England may have been host to at least some wolves, both singular and perhaps in packs, scattered across the countryside.777 The archaeo­logical remains of wolves from the period are difficult to categorize, in no small part, due to the similarity between wolves (C. lupus lupus) and domestic dogs (C. lupus familiaris).778 To this point, the only set of likely wolf remains from the period, found at an iron-smelting site in Wiltshire, are inconclusive.779 However, evidence of the use of wolf teeth as grave goods does exist.780 In all, the archaeo­logical evidence for wolves in early medi­eval England is marked more by the absence than the presence of C. lupus. However, wolves loom large in Old English texts. At the most basic lexical level, the Latin–Old English glossaries render the Latin lupus (wolf) as the vernacular wulf.781 The larger literary representation of the wolf relies on both its known behaviour and its strong metaphorical associations. Although wolves may have been largely absent from the insular ecosystem of the period, early medi­eval assumptions regarding their canine behaviour can be teased out of the vernacular literature. One such possible instance is the description of the wolf in Ælfric’s life of the ninth-century king and martyr, St. Edmund. After Edmund refuses to submit to Viking invaders, he is shot by their archers and subsequently beheaded. According to Ælfric, Edmund’s severed head called to his followers, leading them to discover “se græga wulf þe bewiste þæt heafod, and mid his twam fotum hæfde þæt heafod beclypped, grædig and hungrig” (the grey wolf who guarded the head, and with his two feet it had clasped the head, greedy 775  See Pluskowski, Wolves in the Wilderness, 18–39; Nowak, “Wolf Evolution,” 245. 776  See Boitani, “Wolf Conservation and Recovery,” 318.

777  See Pluskowski, “Prowlers in Dark and Wild Places,” 83.

778  See, for example, O’Connor, Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian Levels at 16–22 Coppergate, 186. 779  See Coy, “The Animal Bones,” in ”A Middle Saxon Iron Smelting Site at Ramsbury,” 49. 780  See Pluskowski, “Where Are the Wolves,” 288–90.

781  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 308.



Animal Entries

175

and hungry).782 The protecting of the saint’s decapitated head is ultimately ascribed to God’s power over the beast, yet it also displays a realistic canine behaviour, as anyone who has ever tried to get a bone away from a hungry dog can attest. The wolf’s actions, in this case, can be recognized as caching behaviour, in which a wolf will remove its prey some distance from the kill or scavenging site in order to rest and eat its bounty in relative seclusion, at its leisure.783 While the wolf’s actions in this case seem miraculous, they are also very much in keeping with the animal’s natural activities. Much more often, Old English texts focus on the wolf as metaphor. The wolf can represent strength and ferocity in battle, even if the authors are on the receiving end of it.784 Earlier in the tale of King Edmund’s martyrdom, Ælfric describes the savage Viking king Hingwar, who “swa swa wulf / on lande bestalcode, and þa leode sloh / weras and wif, and þa ungewittigan cild” (just like a wolf / stalked over the land and slew the people, / men and women, and unknowing children).785 This wolfish simile can also be employed as a metaphor, as in the description of the Viking attackers in “The Battle of Maldon.” As they pressed their attack across the river: “Wodon þa wælwulfas for wætere ne murnon” (Then the slaughter-wolves waded, they cared not about the waters).786 Here the Vikings are figured as ravening wolves and invoked as symbols of fear. One use of the wolf in Old English poetry that depends upon the association of wolves with doom is the “beasts of battle” motif. In epic poetry of the period, the wolf typically appears with a pair of other carrion eaters, the white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and the raven (Corvus corax).787 Inevitably, the wolf is described in ominous terms. In the “Battle of Brunanburh,” a poetic entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the eponymous battle, not only do those two carrion-birds await the spoils of war, but also “þæt græge deor, / wulf on wealde” (that grey animal, the wolf in the wood).788 The beasts of battle may appear before battle begins, as a harbinger of fate, or afterwards, as a grim reminder of mortality. Whatever the case, the presence of the wolf betokens doom for humanity. However, as much as wolves were feared, their name was often invoked as a symbol of power.789 A wulf element can be frequently found in early medi­eval English names. From Wulfsige and Æthelwulf to Ceolwulf and Wulfhere, over a dozen kings between the seventh and eleventh centuries had wulf elements in their names. Even important 782  Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 2:324.

783  See Peterson and Ciucci, “The Wolf as Carnivore,” 124.

784  See Prietzel, “Animals in Religious and Non-Religious Anglo-Saxon Writings,” 254.

785  Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, 2:316. 786  The Battle of Maldon, ed. Scragg, 60.

787  For a list of the wolf ’s appearances as a “beast of battle,” see Griffith, “Convention and Originality,” 185. See also Magoun, “The Theme of the Beasts of Battle,” 81–90; Honegger, “Form and Function,” 291–98. 788  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, vol. 3, ed. Bately, 72.

789  See Leibring, “Given Names in European Naming Systems,” 200.

176

Animal Entries

ecclesiasts, such as the archbishops Wulfstan and Wulfred, carried the mark of the wolf in their names. Figures from literature also trade upon the association with this powerful creature, not least of whom is Beowulf. The slippery association between man and beast is probably most apparent in “Wulf and Eadwacer,” the Exeter Book poem. In the poem, the female narrator negotiates her relationship between a man who may be her husband, Eadwacer, and “Wulf, min wolf ” (Wulf, my wolf ), her lover.790 Interpretations of the poem range from reading it as an elegy about humans in a doomed love triangle to thinking of it as a riddle in which the characters are actually canines.791 Despite their general absence from the early medi­eval ecosystem in England, wolves still served as a point of identification for its people. Of course, many of the metaphorical wolf-associations are in Christian contexts. If Christ or his priests are shepherds, and the Christian people are their flocks, the wolf represents all that is inimical to the faith. Ælfric makes this particularly clear in his homily for the second Sunday after Easter: “Se wulf is deoful, þe syrwð ymbe godes gelaðunge, and cepð hu he mage cristenra manna saula mid leahtrum fordon” (The wolf is the devil, who lies in wait around God’s congregation and observes how he can corrupt the souls of Christian men with sins).792 Even if the people of early medi­ eval England had little to fear from actual wolves stalking the countryside, they often turned to the wolf as a symbol of destruction and fear. Despite the lack of conclusive archaeo­logical evidence for the wolf’s physical presence in early medi­eval England, the animal made an indelible imprint on the imaginations of the writers of vernacular texts. Whether they were invoked as symbols of violence and death, or embraced as symbols of power, wolves were a significant point of connection to the natural world for people of the time. As in the hair-raising reaction to the sound of a far-off howl, the wolf did not need to appear in the flesh to make its presence known to the early medi­eval English. Further Reading

Boitani, Luigi. “Wolf Conservation and Recovery.” In Wolves: Behaviour, Eco­logy, and Conservation, edited by Luigi Boitani and L. David Mech, 317–40. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Nowak, Ronald. “Wolf Evolution and Taxonomy.” In Wolves: Behaviour, Eco­logy, and Conservation, edited by Luigi Boitani and L. David Mech, 239–58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Peterson, Rolf O., and Paolo Ciucci. “The Wolf as Carnivore.” In Wolves: Behaviour, Eco­logy and Conservation, edited by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, 104–30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Pluskowski, Aleksander. “Lupine Apocalypse: The Wolf in Pagan and Christian Cosmo­logy in Medi­eval Britain and Scandinavia.” Cosmos 17, no.1 (2001) 113–31. 790  Old English Shorter Poems, 2: Wisdom and Lyric, ed. Bjork, 102.

791  See, for example, Peter S. Baker, “The Ambiguity of Wulf and Eadwacer,” 39–40. For a concise overview of the poem’s scholarship, see Sebo, “Identifying the Narrator of Wulf and Eadwacer,” 110–11. 792  Homily 17 in Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, ed. Clemoes, 238, 240.



Animal Entries

177

—— . “Prowlers in Dark and Wild Places: Mapping Wolves in Medi­eval Britain and Southern Scandinavia.” In Just Skin and Bones? New Perspectives on Human–Animal Relations in the Historical Past, edited by Aleksander Pluskowski, 81–94. BAR International Series 1410. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2005. —— . “Where Are the Wolves?” International Journal of Osteoarchaeo­logy 16, no. 4 (2006), 279–95. —— . “The Wolf.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 68–74. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. —— . Wolves in the Wilderness in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2006.

 WOODCOCK  OE: holt-hana, wudu-cocc, wudu-hana Species: Scolopax rusticola

A woodland cousin to the sandpipers of the shoreline, the Eurasian woodcock

(S. rusticola) is a stocky, medium-bodied bird up to fifteen inches (40 cm) in length. A nondescript mottled brown and grey in colour, the woodcock is nevertheless readily identified by its long bill, which can be over three inches (7.5 cm) long. Favouring dawn and dusk as times for activity, and retiring by nature, the woodcock would not be the most easily observed bird of the early medi­eval English landscape. The only exception might be during the spring months when the woodcock engages in a conspicuous mating display consisting of rapid flights and distinctive calls, a behavioural combination known as roding. The archaeo­logical record shows that woodcocks can be one of the better represented game birds in early medi­eval England. A survey of over ninety southern England archaeo­logical sites dated to the time found S. rusticola bones to outnumber those of other game birds by a ratio of at least 4:1.793 However, such ratios may be idiosyncratic as another bird-rich site at Flixborough, dated to the same time, counted the number of woodcock bones at only five, with curlew bones numbering nearly thirty.794 Although woodcocks are fairly well-represented among game birds in archaeo­logical contexts, they are barely present in the vernacular texts of the period. In Old English texts, the woodcock is solely a creature of the glossaries, typically glossing the Latin acega (woodcock) or, in one case, the generic pantagathus (bird of good omen).795 While the woodcock was seemingly fit for the early medi­eval table, its reclusive nature apparently did not inspire authors of the time to sing its praises on the page. Further Reading

Heward, Christopher J., Andrew N. Hoodless, Greg J. Conway, Nicholas J. Aebischer, Simon Gillings, and Robert J. Fuller. “Current Status and Recent Trend of the Eurasian Woodcock Scolopax rusticola as a Breeding Bird in Britain.” Bird Study 62, no. 4 (2015): 535–51. 793  See Holmes, Southern England, 287.

794  See Dobney et al., Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats, 39.

795  See, respectively, An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, 10, 90. See also Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 500.

178

Animal Entries

 WOODPECKER  OE: fina, higera Species: Dendrocopos major, D. minor, Picus viridis

The great spotted woodpecker (D. major), the lesser spotted woodpecker (D. minor), and the European green woodpecker (Picus viridis) are the three woodpecker species of England. The great and lesser spotted woodpeckers are superficially similar in that they share a barred black and white plumage. However, the greater woodpecker’s colouration is typically more vibrant and it sports a scarlet lower abdomen as well as a matching bright red patch at the base of its neck. The plumage of the lesser spotted woodpecker is more muted, and its only crimson accent is on the crown of its head. As their names imply, the greater spotted woodpecker is larger, at nine inches (23 cm) long, than its smaller cousin, at six inches. In addition to its greater size and more vibrant colouration, the greater spotted woodpecker is also the more numerous of the two similar species. The European green woodpecker is easily differentiated from the other two species by its arresting green plumage. Green above, shading to yellowish below, the European green woodpecker also wears an easily recognizable red cap. Growing to over a foot long (30 cm), this woodpecker is also notably larger than the others. Of course, all of these birds are well-known for their feeding behaviour, which relies upon a clearly audible drumming on trees in search of invertebrate prey. Woodpeckers are virtually invisible in the insular early medi­eval archaeo­logical contexts, most probably due to their lack of consideration as a game bird and their woodland habitat, outside the sphere of most human influence. However, this does not mean that the early medi­eval English were oblivious to them. Some charters define property boundaries in terms of the bird’s connection to the land. For example, one such charter directs the reader to proceed from one point on the property “to finan mædwuum” (to the woodpecker’s meadow).796 Clearly, the author of the charter or inhabitants of the area connected the bird to their mental maps. Such a tangential relationship to the woodpecker is also present in glossaries of the time. While the Old English fina typically glosses the Latin picus (woodpecker), there is some lexical confusion, which also cross-identifies the bird with the Old English higera (jay).797 Although woodpeckers were probably loud enough to be noticed by the early medi­eval English in the landscape, their otherwise liminal presence seemed to foster a less than careful written representation. Further Reading

Gorman, Gerard. Woodpeckers of Europe: A Study of the European Picidae. Chalfont St. Peter: Bruce Coleman Books, 2004.

796  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 1:342.

797  On the glossarial confusion, see Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 496–97.



 WORM  OE: wyrm, maða

Animal Entries

179

 ANIMAL PARASITES  OE: hundes-wyrm, wer-nægel  BODY PARASITES  OE: deaw-wyrm, hand-wyrm, toþ-wyrm, ðeor-wyrm   INTESTINAL WORM  OE: ana-wyrm, fic-wyrm, in-wyrm, reng-wyrm, smea-wyrm

 EARTHWORM  OE: angel-twicca, eorþ-maþa, mold-wyrm, regn-wyrm  MAGGOT  OE: flæsc-maþu, flæsc-wyrm  PLANT PARASITES  OE: cawel-wyrm, corn-wyrm, emel, treow-wyrm Phyla: Annelida, Nematoda, Platyhelminthes; Class: Insecta

While the Old English word wyrm can refer to reptiles generally, snakes specifically, and even dragons, this entry will focus on the term’s reference to a variety of invertebrates. However, even here the attribution of wyrm was somewhat indiscriminate. It was applied to creatures as varied as the common red earthworm (Lumbricus rubellus) to the parasitic large roundworm (Ascaris lumbricoides) to the larval stage of the common housefly (i.e., the maggot, Musca domestica). The main qualifying bio­logical feature to be counted among these members of the Old English wyrm family was to be limbless.798 In fact, these invertebrates come from disparate branches of the taxonomic tree. A defining difference between the actual worms in the wyrm group is the presence of a coelom, the cavity between the digestive tract and the outer body. The Platyhelminthes, like the tapeworms, do not have coelom, while the nematodes, like the hookworms, have a partial one. Annelids, like earthworms, have a true, tissue-filled space between digestive tract and body wall. Of course, the larval forms of insects, such as maggots, are simply representatives of a developmental stage of an entirely separate phylum: the Arthropods. Unfortunately, the soft bodies of worms do not preserve well and some worms, like earthworms, can burrow quite deeply into the soil, making interpretation based on soil stratification difficult at best.799 However, while the soft bodies of worms do not survive from medi­eval contexts, the remains of the eggs of some species preserve well, allowing for closer environmental analyses. The most important of these species to the archaeo­logical record are the parasitic worms, particularly of the genera Ascaris and Trichuris, as they can provide indications of numerous facets of early medi­eval life from diet to health to animal husbandry.800 For example, some excavations at Coppergate in York yielded few human remains, but the investigators found large numbers of parasitic worm eggs, which can provide important information about the health of 798  This limblessness would largely apply to the dragons of Germanic traditions, as well. See Acker, “Death by Dragons,” 16–18. 799  See Kenward, Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy, 26–27.

800  See Reinhard, “Parasito­logy as an Interpretive Tool,” 236–41.

180

Animal Entries

the site’s human and animal inhabitants.801 Ultimately, the ubiquity of worm eggs in these archaeo­logical contexts has become a treasure-trove of information regarding the ways and quality of life in early medi­eval England. Sadly, for the creatures considered worms by early medi­eval authors in England, these boneless beasts were not quite as appreciated in the texts of the time. Perhaps the only truly neutral mentions of worms are in the Latin–Old English glossaries. Most often, the Old English wyrm glosses the Latin vermis (worm) or sometimes, more specifically, teredo (a wood-boring worm).802 Otherwise, worms appear almost exclusively in negative contexts. While worms, in and of themselves, do not figure largely as objects of Old English literature, there is perhaps one high-profile exception. This anomalous invertebrate is the bookworm of Exeter Book Riddle 47. Although actually the larval form of an insect, most likely the common clothes moth (Tineola bisselliella), the creature is described in the poem as both moððe (moth) and as a “wyrm forswealg wera gied sumes, þeof in þystro” (worm [that] swallowed the song of a certain man, a thief in the darkness).803 Of course, the riddle hinges on the impossibility of an insect actually ingesting words and relies upon the reader (or auditor) to interpret the metaphor at work. More often, worms of the invertebrate ilk are not addressed so metaphorically. Medical texts, unsurprisingly, are more interested in worms as the cause of a variety of ills. The Old English translation of the Latin Herbarium and Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook provide some vivid examples of worm infestations and their treatments.804 The Herbarium, for example, suggests the stonecrop (a succulent plant, likely Sedum acre) for use “Wiþ utsiht  wiþ innoþes flewsan  wiþ wyrmas þe on þam innoðe deriaþ” (Against diarrhea and against flux of the bowels and against worms which harm the bowels).805 As S. acre is mildly toxic and can have purgative qualities, it could be a useful remedy for infestations of the common parasitic roundworm, A. lumbricoides.806 Likewise, Book 3 of Bald’s Leechbook presents treatment for what it calls a smea-wyrm (literally, a penetrating worm). Apparently, this references a worm that has burrowed into the sufferer’s flesh. As there are no actual worms endemic to the British Isles that would create such a wound, the most likely suspect is a maggot of either the common housefly (Musca domestica) or the bluebottle fly (Calliphora vomitoria). Although an uncommon occurrence outside of the tropics, these flies sometimes lay their eggs in 801  See Hall and Kenward, Bio­logical Evidence, 758.

802  See, for example, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza, 309; “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 80, respectively. For examples of the breadth of invertebrate worm-terms, see Cortelyou, Die altenglischen Namen der Insekten 21–23, 49–58, 66–67, 72, 78, 96–97, 114–15; Whitman, “The Old English Animal Names,” 387–89. 803  The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry, ed. Muir, 1:323. For recent scholarship on Riddle 47, see Foys, “The Undoing of Exeter Book Riddle 47,” 103–7.

804  On the native nature of the Leechbook, see Cameron, Anglo-Saxon Medicine, 35–36, 75–77. On the local character of the Herbarium, see Van Arsdall, Medi­eval Herbal Remedies, 86–95.

805  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 1:258.

806  See Duke, Duke’s Handbook of Medicinal Herbs, 701.



Animal Entries

181

existing wounds, leading the larvae to grow in the still-living hosts, a condition known as myiasis. According to the text, the salve to address this injury “wile ærest þa dolh ryman  þæt deade flæsc of etan  þone swile aþwænan  þone wyrm þær on deadne gedeþ oþþe cwicne ofdrifð  þa dolh gelacnað” (will first enlarge the wound and eat off the dead flesh and soften the swelling and put the worm therein to death or drive him off alive and heal the wound).807 Given that the salve is made from various acidic tree barks and a poisonous plant (perhaps of the genus Aconitum, which would include plants such as wolfsbane or monkshood), all boiled in bull’s urine, it’s easy to see how such a concoction might kill or drive off a parasite (and burn a hole in the victim’s flesh in the bargain). A final context indicative of the early medi­eval appreciation of worms has to do with their consumption of the dead. Numerous texts attest to this function of these invertebrates. Even the humble earthworm does not escape this association. In the Old English poem known as “Soul and Body I,” the pure soul bemoans its association with the corrupt body. The soul derides the body with descriptions of its state after death: “þe sculon her moldwyrmas manige ceowan, slitan sarlice swearte wihta, gifre ond grædige” (there many earthworms will chew upon you, to tear grievously, dark creatures, ravenous and greedy).808 While texts of the period focus on the decompositional functions of these animals, there are no mentions of the agricultural benefits of worms in the Old English corpus. Worms are relatively numerous in the vernacular texts of early medi­eval England, but, more often than not, they are saddled with negative associations. Given the state of hygiene of the period, and perhaps a limited knowledge of the role of worms in agricultural eco­logy, this denigration of the worm comes as little surprise.809 As the people of the period most readily noticed worms in their roles as parasites and decomposers, the representation of these creatures in Old English texts, not to mention their reputations, suffered in turn. Further Reading

Mitchell, Piers D. “Human Parasites in Medi­eval Europe: Lifestyle, Sanitation and Medical Treatment.” In Fossil Parasites, 389–420. Advances in Parasito­logy 90. Cambridge, MA: Academic, 2015. Momma, Haruko. “Darkness Edible: Soul, Body, and Worms in Early Medi­eval English Devotional Literature.” In Darkness, Depression, and Descent in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Ruth Wehlau, 237–54. Kalamazoo: Medi­eval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2019.

807  Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, 2:333.

808  Old English Shorter Poems, 1: Religious and Didactic, ed. Jones, 196.

809  On the paucity of Old English agricultural texts, see Banham and Faith, Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming, 8–10.

182

Animal Entries

 WREN  OE: wrenna  |  Species: Troglodytes troglodytes

The single wren species in England is the Eurasian wren (T. troglodytes), a small

brown bird of only about four inches (10 cm). A year-round inhabitant of the British Isles, its loud call belies its size, stringing together warbling musical notes with percussive trills. Maybe the most common bird in the British Isles, the wren is an unassuming yet ubiquitous inhabitant of town and country. Such a small wild bird would be expected to have little presence in the insular archaeo­logical record of the early medi­eval period, and this is exactly the case with the wren. One of the only records from the period is a single bone found at Fishergate in York, a number that pales in comparison to the over six hundred domestic fowl bones from the same contexts.810 The lack of interaction with the people of the time that this dearth of physical evidence indicates is also present in the vernacular texts of the time. The glossaries show a lack of precision in representing the wren, with the various spellings of the Old English wrenna glossing the Latin parrax (wren or titmouse), bitorius (wren or small bird), or berbicariolus (wren or wagtail). To confuse matters even more, the latter two of these Latin terms are also glossed by the Old English yrþling, an indeterminant word that might also refer to the cuckoo, glossing the Latin tanticus (cuckoo, wagtail, or wren).811 The wren appears outside of the glossaries in only one instance, and there only indirectly. In a ninth-century charter, one of the boundaries of a piece of property in Wiltshire is described as travelling from “wernanbroc ðonne on wrennanwylle” (Wren’s Brook thence unto Wren’s Well).812 This minor nod to the presence of the wren in the early medi­eval landscape is in keeping with its marginal presence in both the archaeo­logical record and vernacular literature of the time. Further Reading

Garson, P. J. “The Breeding Eco­logy of the Wren in Britain.” Bird Study 27, no. 2 (1980), 63–72.

  YELLOW WAGTAIL  OE: geolu-earte  |  Species: Motacilla flava flavissima

The modern taxonomy and common naming of this bird can lead to some con-

fusion. Yellow wagtail is a name used to identify the subspecies specific to the British Isles (M. f. flavissima). However, this same subspecies also goes by the common name yellow-crowned wagtail. A subspecies of the western yellow wagtail (M. flava), the yellow wagtail wears its namesake colour on most of its body save its wings and back, which can shade from yellow through olive and even into a greyish hue. The six-inch (15 cm) long bird is a common sight catching insects over fields and farmland.

810  See O’Connor, Bones from 46–54 Fishergate, 261.

811  For an example of the collocations of these terms in a glossary, see “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 102, 105. For a discussion of the etymo­logy of these wren-terms, see Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 490–91. 812  Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Birch, 2:65. On the geo­graphic locations of these landmarks, see Grundy, “The Saxon Land Charters of Wiltshire,” 170–71.



Animal Entries

183

The yellow wagtail is uncommon in the archaeo­logical record of early medi­eval England. This should come as no surprise, however, as the wild bird would have little interaction with humans and served as neither game nor a source of animal products. As a result, yellow wagtails are very nearly absent from archaeo­logical contexts of the period. One example of their relative rarity can be found in the otherwise zoo­logically robust site at Southampton in which only one bone of a yellow wagtail was recorded, and that identified only tentatively.813 Correspondingly, in the entirety of the Old English corpus, geolu-earte (yellow wagtail or possibly nightingale, glossing the Latin luscinus) occurs only once in a single glossary entry.814 This pretty but unassuming bird takes a correspondingly minor role in the early medi­eval material and vernacular textual cultures of England. Further Reading

Bradbury, Richard B., and Ute Bradter. “Habitat Associations of Yellow Wagtails Motacilla flava flavissima on Lowland Wet Grassland.” Ibis 146, no. 2 (2004): 241–46.

813  See Bourdillon and Coy, “The Animal Bones,” 118.

814  See “The Latin–Old English Glossaries,” ed. Kindschi, 104. See also Kitson, “Old English Bird Names (I),” 492.

BIBLIO­GRAPHY Primary Works Aldhelm. Aldhelmi Opera. Edited by Rudolf Ehwald. Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Auctores Antiquissimi 15. Berlin: Weidmann, 1919. Ælfric of Eynsham. Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The First Series. Edited by Peter Clemoes. Early English Text Society, s.s., 17. London: Oxford University Press, 1997. —— . Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The Second Series. Edited by Malcolm Godden. Early English Text Society, s.s., 5. London: Oxford University Press, 1979. —— . Ælfric’s Colloquy. Edited by G. N. Garmonsway. Methuen’s Old English Library. London: Methuen, 1938; repr. Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1991. —— . Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar: Text und Varianten. Edited by Julius Zupitza. 4th ed. Berlin: Weidmann, 1880; repr. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 2003. —— . Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics in altenglischer und lateinischer Fassung. Edited by Bernhard Fehr. Bibliothek der Angelsächsischen 9. Hamburg: Grand, 1914; repr. Darmstadt: Wissen­ schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966. —— . Ælfric’s Lives of the Saints: Being a Set of Sermons on Saints’ Days Formerly Observed by the English Church. Edited by Walter W. Skeat. 4 vols. Early English Text Society, o.s., 76, 82, 94, 114. London: Trübner, 1881–1900. —— . Ælfric’s De temporibus anni. Edited and translated by Martin Blake. Anglo-Saxon Texts 6. Cambridge: Brewer, 2009. —— . Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection. Edited by John C. Pope. 2 vols. Early English Texts Society, o.s., 259, 260. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. Das altenglische Bussbuch: (sog. Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti) ein Beitrag zu den kirchlichen Gesetzen der Angelsachsen: Kritische Textausgabe nebst Nachweis der mittellateinischen Quellen, sprachlicher Untersuchung und Glossar. Edited by Robert Spindler. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1934. “Die altenglischen Glossen im Bosworth-Psalter.” Edited by Uno L. Lindelöf. Mémoires de la société neophilo­logique de Helsingfors 5 (1909): 137–230. Andreas: An Edition. Edited by Richard North and Michael Bintley. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2016. Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben. Edited by Bruno Assmann. Bibliothek der Angel­ sächs­ischen 3. Kassel: Wigand, 1889; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell­ schaft, 1964. Das angelsächsische Prosa-Leben des hl. Guthlac. Edited by Paul Gonser. Anglistische Forsch­ ungen 27. Heidelberg: Winter, 1909. Anglo-Saxon Charters. Edited by Jane Robertson. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956; repr. 2009. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vol. 3, MS A. Edited by Janet Bately. Cambridge: Brewer, 1986. —— . Vol. 7, MS E. Edited by Susan Irvine. Cambridge: Brewer, 2004. Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies. Edited by Thomas Wright and Richard Paul ­Wülcker. 2nd ed. 2 vols. London: Trübner, 1884. Anglo-Saxon Prognostics: An Edition and Translation of Texts from London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius A. III. Edited and translated by Roy M. Liuzza. Anglo-Saxon Texts 8. Cambridge: Brewer, 2010.



Biblio­graphy

185

Anglo-Saxon Wills. Edited by Dorothy Whitelock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930. Banham, Debby. Monasteriales indicia: The Anglo-Saxon Monastic Sign Language. Pinner: Anglo Saxon Books, 1993. The Battle of Maldon. Edited by Donald G. Scragg. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1981. Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian. Edited by Bernhard Bischoff and Michael Lapidge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion. Edited by Peter S. Baker and Michael Lapidge. Early English Text Society, s.s., 15. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Carew, Richard. The Survey of Cornwall, edited by John Chynoweth, Nicholas Orme, and Alexandra Walsham. Exeter: Devon and Cornwall Record Society, 2004. Cartularium Saxonicum: A Collection of Charters Relating to Anglo-Saxon History. Walter de Gray Birch. 4 vols. London: Clark, 1885–1899. Charters of Burton Abbey. Edited by P. H. Sawyer. Anglo-Saxon Charters 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici. Edited by J. M. Kemble. 6 vols. London: English Historical Society, 1839–1848. The Corpus, É pinal, Erfurt and Leyden Glossaries. Edited by W. M. Lindsay. London: Oxford University Press, 1921. Eadwine. Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter, Part 2: Text and Notes. Edited by Fred Harsley. Early English Text Society, o.s., 92. London: Trübner, 1889. Early English Homilies from the Twelfth Century MS. Vesp. D. xiv. Edited by Rubie Warner. Early English Text Society, o.s., 152. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1917. An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary. Edited by J. H. Hessels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890. Exameron Anglice or The Old English Hexameron. Edited by S. J. Crawford. Bibliothek der angelsachsischen Prosa 10. Hamburg: Henri Grand, 1921; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. The Exeter Antho­logy of Old English Poetry: An Edition of Exeter Dean and Chapter MS 3501. Edited by Bernard J. Muir. 2 vols. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1994. The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions. Edited by Walter W. Skeat. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1871–1877; repr. Darmstadt: Wissen­schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen. Edited by Felix Liebermann. 3 vols. Aalen: Scientia, 1960. Hooke, Della. Pre-Conquest Charter-Bounds of Devon and Cornwall. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1994. Isidore of Seville, The Etymo­logies of Isidore of Seville. Edited and translated by Stephen A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach, and Oliver Berghof. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Klaeber’s Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. Edited by R. D. Fulk, Robert E. Bjork, and John D. Niles. 4th ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. “The Latin–Old English Glossaries in Plantin-Moretus MS 32 and British Museum MS Additional 32, 246.” Edited by Lowell Kindschi. PhD diss., Stanford University, 1955. “The Latin–Old English Glossary in MS. Cotton Cleopatra A.III.” Edited by William Stryker. PhD diss., Stanford University, 1951. Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of Early England. Edited by Thomas Oswald Cockayne. Rolls Series 35. 3 vols. London: Longman 1864–1866; repr. Wiesbaden: Krause, 1965. Liber Eliensis. Edited by E. O. Blake. Camden Society 3rd series 92. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1962.

186

Biblio­graphy

“The Minor Latin–Old English Glossaries in MS. Cotton Cleopatra A III.” Edited by John J. Quinn. PhD diss., Stanford University, 1956. Ohthere’s Voyages: A Late 9th-Century Account of Voyages along the Coasts of Norway and Denmark and Its Cultural Context. Edited by Janet Bately and Anton Englert. Roskilde: Viking Ship Museum, 2007. The Old English Boethius with Verse Pro­logues and Epilogues Associated with King Alfred. Edited and translated by Susan Irvine and Malcolm Godden. Dumbarton Oaks Medi­eval Library 19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Old English Glosses: Chiefly Unpublished. Edited by Arthur S. Napier. Oxford: Clarendon, 1900. Old English Glosses in the Epinal–Erfurt Glossary. Edited by J. D. Pheifer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974. The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus. Edited by Hubert Jan de Vriend. Early English Text Society, o.s., 286. London: Oxford University Press, 1984. The Old English History of the World: An Anglo-Saxon Rewriting of Orosius. Edited by Malcolm Godden. Dumbarton Oaks Medi­eval Library 32. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. Old English Homilies and Homiletic Treatises. Edited by Richard Morris. Early English Text Society, o.s., 29, 34. London: Trübner, 1868. The Old English Physio­logus. Edited by Ann Squires. Durham Medi­eval Texts 5. Durham: Durham Medi­eval Texts, 1988. The Old English Poem Seasons for Fasting: A Critical Edition. Edited by Chad B. Hilton and Mary P. Richards, eds. Medi­eval European Studies. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2014. Old English Psalms. Edited and translated by Patrick P. O’Neill. Dumbarton Oaks Medi­eval Library 42. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. The Old English Riddles of The Exeter Book. Edited by Craig Williamson. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1977. The Old English Rune Poem: A Critical Edition. Edited by Maureen Halsall. McMaster Old English Studies and Texts 2. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1981. Old English Shorter Poems. Vol. 1, Religious and Didactic. Edited by Christopher Jones. Dumbarton Oaks Medi­eval Library 15. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Old English Shorter Poems. Vol. 2, Wisdom and Lyric. Edited by Robert E. Bjork. Dumbarton Oaks Medi­eval Library 32. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Edited by Thomas Miller. 4 vols. Early English Text Society, o.s., 95, 96, 110, 111. London: Trübner, 1890. The Old English Version of the Gospels. Edited by Roy M. Liuzza 2 vols. Early English Text Society, o.s., 304, 314. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994; repr., 2000, 2009. The Old English Version of the Heptateuch. Edited by S. J. Crawford. Early English Text Society, o.s., 160. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922; repr. 2004. Peri didaxeon, Eine Sammlung von Rezepten in Englischer Sprache aus dem 11./12. Jahrhundert. Edited by Max Löweneck. Erlanger Beiträge zur Englischen Philo­logie und Vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte 12. Erlangen: Junge, 1896; repr. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1970. Patro­logia cursus completus. Series Græca. Edited by J. P. Migne. 166 vols. Paris: Migne, 1857–1936. Patro­logia cursus completus. Series Latina. Edited by J. P. Migne. 221 vols. Paris: Migne, 1844–1864. Physio­logus: A Medi­eval Book of Nature Lore. Translated by Michael Curlew. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2009.



Biblio­graphy

187

The Prose Solomon and Saturn and Adrian and Ritheus. Edited by James E. Cross and Thomas D. Hill. McMaster Old English Studies and Texts 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der teutschen Literatur und Sprache. Edited by Franz J. Mone. Aachen: Mayer, 1830. Symphosius. Symphosius, The Aenigmata: An Introduction, Text and Commentary. Edited and translated by T. J. Leary. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. The Vitellius Psalter, Edited from British Museum Cotton E. xviii. Edited by James L. Rosier. Cornell Studies in English 42. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962. The Vulgate Bible: Douay-Rheims Translation. Vol. 1, The Pentateuch. Edited by Swift Edgar. Dumbarton Oaks Medi­eval Library 32. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. —— . Vol. 3, The Poetical Books. Edited by Swift Edgar and Angela M. Kinney. Dumbarton Oaks Medi­eval Library 8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. Werferth, Bishop of Worcester, Bischof Waerferths von Worcester: Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen. Edited and translated by Hans Hecht. Bibliothek der angelsächsi­ schen Prosa 5. 2 vols. Leipzig: Wigland, 1900–1907; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965.

Secondary Works 

Abram, Christopher. “Bee-Wolf and the Hand of Victory: Identifying the Heroes of Beowulf and Volsunga saga.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philo­logy 116 (2017): 387–414. Acker, Paul. “Death by Dragons.” Viking and Medi­eval Scandinavia 8 (2012): 1–21. Addyman, P. V., and D. H. Hill. “Saxon Southampton: A Review of the Evidence, Part I: History, Location, Date and Character of the Town.” Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club 25 (1968): 61–93. Albarella, Umberto. A Review of Animal Bone Evidence from Central England. Research Report Series no. 61–2019. Porstmouth: Historic England, 2019. https://historicengland.org.uk/ research/results/reports/61-2019. Albarella, Umberto, Mauro Rizzetto, Hannah Russ, Kim Vickers, and Sarah Viner-Daniels, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeo­logy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Alcayna-Stevens, Lys. “Habituating Field Scientists.” Social Studies of Science 46, no. 6 (2016): 833–53. Allan, Andrew T. L., Annie L. Bailey, and Russell A. Hill. “Habituation Is Not Neutral or Equal: Individual Differences in Tolerance Suggest an Overlooked Personality Trait.” Science Advances 6, no. 28 (2020): eaaz0870. Anderson, Roy. “An Annotated List of the Non-Marine Molluscs of Britain and Ireland.” Journal of Concho­logy 38, no. 6 (2005): 607–37. Baggs, A. P., Eleanor Chance, Christina Colvin, Nicholas Cooper, Alan Crossley, Christopher Day, Nesta Selwyn, Elizabeth Williamson, and Margaret Yates. “Introduction to Witney and Its Townships.” In The Victoria History of the Counties of England: A History of the County of Oxford. Vol. 14, Witney and Its Townships: Bampton Hundred Part Two, edited by Simon Townley, 1–7. London: Victoria County History, 2004. Baker, John. “Entomo­logical Etymo­logies: Creepy-Crawlies in English Place-Names.” In Representing Beasts in Early Medi­eval England and Scandinavia, edited by Michael D. J. Bintley and Thomas J. T. Williams, 229–52. Anglo-Saxon Studies 29. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2015. Baker, Peter S. “The Ambiguity of Wulf and Eadwacer.” Studies in Philo­logy 78, no. 5 (1981), 39–51.

188

Biblio­graphy

Banham, Debby, and Rosamond Faith. Anglo-Saxon Farms and Farming. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Barnard, Peter C. The Royal Entomo­logical Society Book of British Insects. Chichester: Wiley– Blackwell, 2011. Barrett, James H. “An Environmental (Pre)History of European Fishing: Past and Future Archaeo­logical Contributions to Sustainable Fisheries.” Journal of Fish Bio­logy 94 (2019): 1033–44. Barrett, James, Alison Locker, and Callum Roberts. “‘Dark Age Economics’ Revisited: The English Fish-Bone Evidence ad 600–1600.” Antiquity 78 (2004): 618–36. —— . “The Origins of Intensive Marine Fishing in Medi­eval Europe: The English Evidence.” Proceedings of the Royal Society, B: Bio­logical Sciences 271 (2004): 2417–21. Bintley, Michael D. J., and Thomas J. T. Williams, eds. Representing Beasts in Early Medi­eval England and Scandinavia. Anglo-Saxon Studies 29. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2015. Bitterli, Dieter. Say What I Am Called: The Old English Riddles of the Exeter Book and the AngloLatin Riddle Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Boddice, Rob, ed. Anthropocentrism: Humans, Animals, Environments. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Bond, J. M., and T. P. O’Connor. Bones from the Medi­eval Deposits at 16–22 Coppergate and Other Sites in York. The Archaeo­logy of York 15: The Animal Bones 3. York: Council for British Archaeo­logy and York Archaeo­logical Trust, 1999. Bosworth, Joseph, and T. Northcote Toller. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Based on the Manu­script Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth, Edited and Enlarged by T. Northcote Toller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1898; repr. 1954. Bourdillon, Jennifer, and Jennie Coy. “The Animal Bones.” In Excavations at Melbourne Street, Southampton, 1971–1976, edited by Philip Holdsworth, 79–121. Southampton Archaeo­ logical Research Committee Report 1 / CBA Research Report 33. London: Council for British Archaeo­logy, 1980. Bowler, Peter J., and John V. Pickstone, eds. The Modern Bio­logical and Earth Sciences. Vol. 6 of The Cambridge History of Science, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Brooks, Britton Elliott. Restoring Creation: The Natural World in the Anglo-Saxon Saints’ Lives of Cuthbert and Guthlac. Woodbridge: Brewer, 2019. Buckalew, Ronald E. “Leland’s Transcript of Ælfric’s ‘Glossary.’” Anglo-Saxon England 7 (1978): 149–64. Cain, Christopher M. “‘Þæt Is on Englisc’: Performing Multilingualism in Anglo-Saxon England.” In Imagining Medi­eval English: Language Structures and Theories, 500––1500, edited by Tim William Machan, 81–99. Cambridge Studies in Medi­eval Literature 95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Cameron, Angus, Ashley Crandall Amos, Antonette diPaolo Healy, et al., eds. Dictionary of Old English: A to I Online. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, 2018. Cameron, M. L. Anglo-Saxon Medicine. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; repr, 2006. Carver, Martin. Sutton Hoo: A Seventh-Century Princely Burial Ground and Its Context. London: British Museum, 1998. Cavill, Paul. Maxims in Old English Poetry. Cambridge: Brewer, 1999. Cohen, Jeffrey J. Medi­eval Identity Machines. Medi­eval Cultures 35. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003. Cortelyou, John van Zandt. Die altenglischen Namen der Insekten, Spinnen- und Krustentiere. Anglistische Forschungen 19. Heidelberg: Winter, 1906.



Biblio­graphy

189

Coy, Jennie. “The Animal Bones.” In R. J. Silvester, “An Excavation on the Post-Roman Site at Bantham, South Devon.” Proceedings of the Devon Archaeo­logical Society 39 (1981): 106–10. —— . “The Animal Bones.” In Jeremy Haslam, ”A Middle Saxon Iron Smelting Site at Ramsbury, Wiltshire.” Medi­eval Archaeo­logy 24, no.1 (1980): 41–51 (1–68). —— . “Comparing Bird Bones from Saxon Sites: Problems of Interpretation.” International Journal of Osteoarchaeo­logy 7, no. 4 (1997): 415–21. Crabtree, Pam J. West Stow, Suffolk: Anglo-Saxon Animal Husbandry. East Anglian Archaeo­logy 47. Ipswich: Suffolk County Planning Department, 1989. Crabtree, Pam, and Douglas Campana. “Animal Bone.” In Staunch Meadow, Brandon, Suffolk: A High Status Middle Saxon Settlement on the Fen Edge, edited by Andrew Tester, Sue Anderson, Ian Riddler, and Robert Carr, 296–312. East Anglian Archaeo­logy Report 151. Bury St. Edmunds: Suffolk County Council Archaeo­logical Service, 2014. Crane, Susan. Animal Encounters: Contact and Concepts in Medi­eval Britain. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Dale, Corinne. The Natural World in the Exeter Book Riddles. Nature and Environment in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge: Brewer, 2017. DeMello, Margo. Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human–Animal Studies. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. Derrida, Jacques. The Animal That Therefore I Am. Edited by Marie-Louise Mallet. Translated by David Wills. Bronx: Fordham University Press, 2008. Dobney, Keith, and Deborah Jaques. “Avian Signatures for Identity and Status in Anglo-Saxon England.” Acta Zoo­logia Cracoviensia 45 (2002): 7–21. Dobney, Keith, Deborah Jaques, James Barrett, and Cluny Johnstone. Farmers, Monks and Aristo­crats: The Environmental Archaeo­logy of Anglo‐Saxon Flixborough. Excavations at Flix­borough 3. Oxford: Oxbow, 2007. du Cange, Charles du Fresne. Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Latinitatis, edited by G. A. L. Henschel. New ed. 7 vols. Paris: Didot, 1840–1850. Duke, James A. Handbook of Medicinal Herbs. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2002. Eastham, Anne. “The Bird Bones.” In Excavations at Portchester Castle. Volume II: Saxon, edited by Barry Cunliffe, 287–95. London: Society of Antiquaries, 1976. Elfassi, Jacques. “Isidore of Seville and the Etymo­logies.” In A Companion to Isidore of Seville, edited by Andrew Fear and Jamie Wood, 245–78. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 87. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Estes, Heide. Anglo-Saxon Literary Landscapes: Ecotheory and the Environmental Imagination. Environmental Humanities in Pre-modern Cultures. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017. Förster, Max. “Die altenglischen Verzeichnisse von Glücks- und Unglückstagen.” In Studies in English Philo­logy, A Miscellany in Honor of Fredrick Klaeber, edited by K. Malone and M. B. Ruud, 258–77. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1929. Frank, Roberta. “Reading Beowulf with Isidore’s Etymo­logies.” In Old English Lexico­logy and Lexico­graphy: Essays in Honor of Antonette diPaolo Healey, edited by Maren Clegg Hyer, Haruko Momma, and Samantha Zacher, 245–59. Cambridge: Brewer, 2020. Frantzen, Allen. Food, Eating and Identity in Early Medi­eval England. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2014. Garrett, Robert Max. “Middle English and French Glosses from MS. Stowe 57.” Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, n.s., 21. (1908): 411–12.

190

Biblio­graphy

Gelling, Margaret. The Place-Names of Berkshire. Part 3: The Old English Charter Boundaries of Berkshire, Introduction and Analyses. The Survey of English Place-Names 51. Cambridge: English Place-Name Society, 1976. —— . “Stour in Ismere.” In Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Brooks, edited by Julia Barrow and Andrew Wareham, 83–88. New York: Routledge, 2008. George, Wilma, and Brunsdon Yapp. The Naming of Beasts: Natural History in the Medi­eval Bestiary. London: Duckworth, 1991. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane. An Introduction to Zooarchaeo­logy. Cham: Springer, 2018. Gneuss, Helmut, and Michael Lapidge. Anglo-Saxon Manu­scripts: A Biblio­graphical Handlist of Manu­scripts and Manu­script Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. Goldsmith, Margaret E. “The Seafarer and the Birds.” The Review of English Studies 5, no. 19 (1954): 225–35. Grattan, J. H. G., and Charles Singer. Anglo-Saxon Magic and Medicine: Illustrated Specially from the Semi-Pagan Text “Lacnunga.” Publications of the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum, n.s. 3. London: Oxford University Press, 1952. Griffith, Mark S. “Convention and Originality in the Old English ‘Beasts of Battle’ Typescene.” Anglo-Saxon England 22 (1993): 179–99. _____. “A Possible Use of Pliny’s Historia Naturalis in the Old English Rune Poem.” Notes and Queries 57, no. 1 (2010): 1–3. Grundy, G. B. “The Saxon Land Charters of Wiltshire (First Series).” The Archaeo­logical Journal 76 (1919): 143–301. Hagen, Anne. Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink: Production, Processing, Distribution and Consumption. Hockwold cum Wilton: Anglo-Saxon Books, 2006. Hall, Allan R., and Kenward, Harry K. Bio­logical Evidence from Anglo-Scandinavian Deposits at 16–22 Coppergate. The Archaeo­logy of York 14, fasc. 7. York: Council for British Archaeo­ logy, 1995. —— . “Invertebrate Remains from GBA Samples.” In Data Archive for Plant and Invertebrate Remains from Anglo-Scandinavian 16–22 Coppergate, York. Archaeo­logy Data Service, 2002. https://archaeo­logydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/eau_coppergate_2002/downloads. cfm#t4. —— . “Setting People in Their Environment: Plant and Animal Remains from Anglo-Scandinavian York.” In Aspects of Anglo-Scandinavian York, ed. Allan Hall et al., 372–426. The Archaeo­logy of York 8: Anglo-Scandinavian York 4. York: Council for British Archaeo­logy and York Archaeo­logical Trust, 2004. Hamerow, Helena. Rural Settlement and Society in Anglo-Saxon England. Medi­eval History and Archaeo­logy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Hamerow, Helena, David A. Hinton, and Sally Crawford, eds. The Oxford Handbook of AngloSaxon Archaeo­logy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Hammon, Andy. “Understanding the Romano-British–Early Medi­eval Transition: A Zoo­ archaeo­logical Perspective from Wroxeter (Viroconium Cornoviorum).” Britannia 42 (2011): 275–305. Hassig, Debra, ed. The Mark of the Beast: The Medi­eval Bestiary in Art, Life, and Literature. New York: Garland, 1999. Haraway, Donna. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge, 1989. Harland, Jennifer F., Andrew K. G. Jones, David C. Orton, and James H. Barrett. “Fishing and Fish Trade in Medi­eval York: The Zooarchaeo­logical Evidence.” In Cod and Herring: The



Biblio­graphy

191

Archaeo­logy and History of Medi­eval Sea Fishing, edited by James Barrett and David Orton, 172–204. Oxford: Oxbow, 2016. Hoffmann, Richard. An Environmental History of Medi­eval Europe. Cambridge Medi­eval Textbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. —— . “Medi­eval Fishing.” In Working with Water in Medi­eval Europe: Techno­logy and Resource Use, edited by Paolo Squariti, 331–93. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Holmes, Matilda. Animals in Saxon and Scandinavian England: Backbones of Economy and Society. Leiden: Sidestone, 2014. —— . Southern England: A Review of Animal Remains from Saxon, Medi­eval and PostMedi­eval Archaeo­logical Sites. Research Report Series 8–2017. London: English Heritage, 2018. Honegger, Thomas. “Form and Function: The Beasts of Battle Revisited.” English Studies 79 (1998): 289–98. Jones, A. K. G. “Provisional Remarks on Fish Remains from Archaeo­logical Deposits at York.” In The Exploitation of Wetlands, edited by Peter Murphy and Charles French, 113–27. British Archaeo­logical Reports 186. Oxford: B.A.R., 1988. Jones, Gillian. “Animal Bones.” In Excavations at Thetford 1948–59 and 1973–80, edited by Andrew Rogerson and Carolyn Dallas, 187–92. East Anglian Archaeo­logy Report 22. Gressenhall: Norfolk Archaeo­logical Unit, 1984. Jordan, Richard. Die altenglischen Säugetiernamen . Anglistische Forschungen 12. Heidelberg: Winter, 1903. Kalof, Linda. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Kay, Sarah. “‘The English Bestiary,’ the Continental ‘Physio­logus,’ and the Intersections between Them.” Medium Aevum 85, no. 1 (2016): 118–42. Kenward, Harry K. Invertebrates in Archaeo­logy in the North of England. Northern Regional Review of Environmental Archaeo­logy. English Heritage Research Department Report Series 12–2009. Portsmouth: English Heritage, 2009. Ker, Neil R. “Three Old English Texts in a Salisbury Pontifical, Cotton Tiberius C.i.” In The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in Some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickens, edited by Peter Clemoes, 262–79. London: Bowes and Bowes, 1959. Kitson, Peter R. “Old English Bird Names (I),” English Studies 78, no. 6 (1997): 481–505. —— . “Old English Bird Names (II),” English Studies 79, no.1 (1998): 2–22. Köhler, Johann Jakob. Die altenglischen Fischnamen. Anglistische Forschungen 21. Heidelberg: Winter, 1906. Langdon, Alison, ed. Animal Languages in the Middle Ages: Representations of Interspecies Com­munication. The New Middle Ages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Lapidge, Michael. Anglo-Latin Literature, 600–899. London: Hambledon, 1996. —— . Anglo-Latin Literature, 900–1066. London: Hambledon, 1993. Latham, Ronald E. et al., eds. Dictionary of Medi­eval Latin from British Sources. 17 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975–2013. Lazzari, Loredana. “Isidore’s Etymo­logiae in Anglo-Saxon Glossaries.” In Foundations of Learning: The Transfer of Encyclopaedic Knowledge in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Rolf H. Bremmer, Jr. and Kees Dekker, 63–93. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Leibring, Katharina. “Given Names in European Naming Systems.” In The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming, edited by Carole Hough, 199–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Locker, Alison. “Fish Bone from Castle Mall (Site 777N).” In Norwich Castle: Excavations and Historical Survey, 1987–98; Part III: A Zooarchaeo­logical Study, edited by Umberto Albarella, Mark Beech, Julie Curl, Alison Locker, Marta Moreno Garcí�a, and Jacqui Mulville, 131–46. East Anglian Archaeo­logy Occasional Paper 22. Gressenhall: Historic Environment, Norfolk Museums and Archaeo­logy Service, 2009.

192

Biblio­graphy

—— . Freshwater Fish in England: A Social and Cultural History of Coarse Fish from Prehistory to the Present Day. Oxford: Oxbow, 2018. Love, Rosalind. “Anglo-Latin Literature in the Foreground.” In Books Most Needful to Know: Contexts for the Study of Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Paul E. Szarmach, 9–68. Old English Newsletter Subsidia 36. Kalamazoo: Medi­eval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2016. Magennis, Hugh. Anglo-Saxon Appetites: Food and Drink and Their Consumption in Old English and Related Literature. Dublin: Four Courts, 1999. Magoun, Francis P., Jr. “The Theme of the Beasts of Battle in Anglo-Saxon Poetry.” Neuphilo­ logische Mitteilungen 56, no. 2 (1955): 81–90. Maitland, Peter S., and Alex A. Lyle. “Conservation of Freshwater Fish in the British Isles: The Current Status and Bio­logy of Threatened Species.” Aquatic Conservation 1, no. 1 (1991): 25–54. Mann, Jill. From Aesop to Reynard: Beast Literature in Medi­eval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. McGowan, Joseph P. “An Introduction to the Corpus of Anglo-Latin Literature.” In A Companion to Anglo-Saxon Literature, edited by Phillip Pulsiano and Elaine Treharne, 11–49. Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture 11. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell, 2001. Meaney, Audrey. “The Hunted and the Hunters: British Mammals in Old English Poetry.” AngloSaxon Studies in Archaeo­logy and History 11 (2000): 95–105. Meritt, Herbert Dean. Some of the Hardest Glosses in Old English. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968. Mould, Quita, Ian Carlisle, and Esther Cameron. Craft, Industry and Everyday Life: Leather and Leatherworking in Anglo-Scandinavian and Medi­eval York. The Archaeo­logy of York 17, fasc. 16. York: Council of British Archaeo­logy, 2003. Murphy, Peter. “Mollusca.” In Excavations at Fishergate, Norwich 1985, edited by Brian S. Ayers, 48–49. East Anglian Archaeo­logy Report 68. Dereham: Field Archaeo­logy Division, Norfolk Museums Service, 1994. Napier, Arthur S. “Contributions to Old English Lexico­graphy.” In Transactions of the Philo­ logical Society, 1903–06, 265–358. London: Trübner, 1906. Neville, Jennifer. Representations of the Natural World in Old English Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Nicholson, Rebecca. “Southampton French Quarter 1382: Specialist Report Download E2: Fish Bone.” In Southampton French Quarter 1382 Specialist Report Downloads, edited by R. Brown. Oxford Archaeo­logy OA Library EPrints, https://library.thehumanjourney. net/58/1/SOU_1382_Specialist_report_download_E2.pdf. Niles, John D. Old English Enigmatic Poems and the Play of the Texts. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 13. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Noddle, Barbara, and Sue Stallibrass, with a contribution from Terry O’Connor. “The Animal Bones and Marine Shells from Jarrow.” In Wearmouth and Jarrow Monastic Sites, edited by Rosemary Cramp, 2:552–67. 2 vols. Swindon: English Heritage, 2005–2006. Norris, Margot. Beasts of the Modern Imagination: Darwin, Nietzsche, Kafka, Ernst and Lawrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985. Nowak, Ronald. Walker’s Mammals of the World: Monotremes, Marsupials, Afrotherians, Xenarthrans, and Sundatherians. Rev. ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018. O’Connor, Terence P. “8th–11th Century Economy and Environment in York.” In Environment and Economy in Anglo-Saxon England: A Review of Recent Work on the Environmental Archaeo­logy of Rural and Urban Anglo-Saxon Settlements in England: Proceedings of a



Biblio­graphy

193

Conference Held at the Museum of London, 9–10 April, 1990, edited by James Rackham, 136–47. Council for British Archaeo­logy Research Report 89. London: Council for British Archaeo­logy, 1994. —— . “Animal Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian York.” In Aspects of Anglo-Scandinavian York, edited by Allan Hall et al., 427–45. The Archaeo­logy of York 8: Anglo-Scandinavian York 4. York: Council for British Archaeo­logy and York Archaeo­logical Trust, 2004. —— . “Animal Husbandry.” In The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeo­logy, edited by Helena Hamerow, David A. Hinton, and Sally Crawford, 361–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. —— . The Archaeo­logy of Animal Bones. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000. —— . Bones from 46–54 Fishergate. The Archaeo­logy of York 15: The Animal Bones 4. York: Council for British Archaeo­logy and York Archaeo­logical Trust, 1991. —— . Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian Levels at 16–22 Coppergate. The Archaeo­logy of York 15: The Animal Bones 3. York: Council for British Archaeo­logy and York Archaeo­logical Trust, 1989. O’Connor, Terry, and Naomi Sykes, eds. Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. Oosthuizen, Susan. The Anglo-Saxon Fenland. Oxford: Oxbow, 2017. Orchard, Andy. A Critical Companion to Beowulf. Cambridge: Brewer, 2003. —— . “Enigma Variations: The Anglo-Saxon Riddle-Tradition.” In Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge, edited by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe and Andy Orchard, 284–304. Toronto: Toronto University Press: 2005. —— . “Latin and the Vernacular Languages.” In After Rome, edited by Thomas M. Charles‐ Edwards, 191–219. Short Oxford History of the British Isles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. —— . Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manu­script. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Ortiz-Robles, Mario. Literature and Animal Studies. Literature and Contemporary Thought. London: Routledge, 2016. Page, R. I. An Introduction to English Runes. 2nd ed. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003. Paz, James. Nonhuman Voices in Anglo-Saxon Literature and Material Culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017. Poole, Kristopher. “Bird Introductions.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 156–65. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. —— . “Mammal and Bird Remains.” In The Later Anglo-Saxon Settlement at Bishopstone: A Downland Manor in the Making, edited by Gabor Thomas, 142–57. CBA Research Report 163. York: Council for British Archaeo­logy, 2010. Poole, Kristopher and Eric Lacey. “Avian Aurality in Anglo-Saxon England.” World Archaeo­logy 46, no. 3 (2014): 400–15. Preston, Todd. “Fact and Fish Tales in Ælfric’s Colloquy.” Mediaevalia 40 (2019): 1–34. Prietzel, Kathrin. “Animals in Religious and Non-Religious Anglo-Saxon Writings.” In Tier und Fabelwesen im Mittelalter, edited by Sabine Obermaier, 235–60. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. Pulsiano, Phillip, and Elaine Treharne, eds. A Companion to Anglo-Saxon Literature. Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture 11. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell, 2001. Pyron, Alex. “Niche Bio­logy.” Oxford Biblio­graphies in Evolutionary Bio­logy, edited by Douglas Futuyma. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. doi: 10.1093/OBO/9780199941728-0075. Radhakrishna, Sindhu, and Asmita Sengupta. “What Does Human–Animal Studies Have to Offer Etho­logy?” Acta Etho­logica 23 (2020): 193–99.

194

Biblio­graphy

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing. Zooarchaeo­logy. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeo­logy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Reinhard, Karl J. “Parasito­logy as an Interpretive Tool in Archaeo­logy.” American Antiquity 57, no. 2 (1992): 231–45. Riddler, Ian, and Nicola Trzaska-Nartowski, “Chanting Upon a Dunghill: Working Skeletal Materials in Anglo-Saxon England.” In The Material Culture of Daily Living in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Maren Clegg Hyer and Gale R. Owen-Crocker, 116–41. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2011. Robinson, Fred C. “Old English Lexico­graphical Notes.” Philo­logica Pragensia 8 (1965): 303–7. Sadler, Peta. “The Faunal Remains.” In Faccombe Netherton: Excavations of a Saxon and Medi­ eval Manorial Complex, edited by J. R. Fairbrother, 2:462–508. British Museum Occasional Paper 74. 2 vols. London: British Museum, 1990. Salisbury, Joyce E. The Beast Within: Animals in the Middle Ages. New York: Routledge, 2010. Salter, David. Holy and Noble Beasts: Encounters with Animals in Medi­eval Literature. Cambridge: Brewer, 2001. Salvador(-Bello), Mercedes. Isidorian Perceptions of Order: The Exeter Book Riddles and Medi­ eval Latin Enigmata. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2015. Salvador-Bello, Mercedes, and Mar Gutiérrez-Ortiz. “The Cambridge and the Exeter Book Physio­logi: Associative Imagery, Allegorical Circularity, and Isidorean Organization.” Anglia 136, no. 4 (2018): 643–86. Scragg, Donald G. “The Nature of Old English Verse.” In The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature, edited by Malcolm Godden and Michael Lapidge, 50–65. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Sebo, Erin. “The Creation Riddle and Anglo-Saxon Cosmo­logy.” In The Anglo-Saxons: The World Through Their Eyes, edited by Gale R. Owen-Crocker and Brian W. Schneider, 149–56. BAR British Series 595. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2014. —— . “Identifying the Narrator of Wulf and Eadwacer? Signy, the Heroides and the Adaptation of Classical Models in Old English Literature.” Neophilo­logus 105 (2020): 109–22. Serjeantson, Dale. “Birds: Food and a Mark of Status.” In Food in Medi­eval England: Diet and Nutrition, edited by C. M. Woolgar, D. Serjeantson, and T. Waldron, 131–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. —— . “Extinct Birds.” In Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna, edited by Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes, 146–55. Oxford: Windgather, 2010. Serjeantson, Dale, and C. M. Woolgar. “Fish Consumption in Medi­eval England.” In Food in Medi­eval England: Diet and Nutrition, edited by C. M. Woolgar, Dale Serjeantson, and Tony Waldron, 102–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: HarperCollins, 1975. Skeat, Walter W. “Anglo-Saxon Fish Names, No. II.” The Angler’s Note-Book 11 (1880): 168–70. —— . An Etymo­logical Dictionary of the English Language. New ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Somerville, Elizabeth. “Marine Molluscs.” In The Later Anglo-Saxon Settlement at Bishopstone: A Downland Manor in the Making, edited by Gabor Thomas, 176–87. CBA Research Report 163. York: Council for British Archaeo­logy, 2010. Spoerry, Paul, Rob Atkins, Stephen Macaulay, and Elizabeth Shepherd Popescu, “Ramsey Abbey, Cambridgeshire: Excavations at the Site of a Fenland Monastery,” Medi­eval Archaeo­logy 52 (2008): 171–210. Steel, Karl. How to Make a Human: Animals and Violence in the Middle Ages. Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2011.



Biblio­graphy

195

—— . How Not to Make a Human: Pets, Feral Children, Worms, Sky Burial, Oysters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2019. Steele, Teresa E. “The Contributions of Animal Bones from Archaeo­logical Sites: The Past and Future of Zooarchaeo­logy.” Journal of Archaeo­logical Science 56 (2015): 168–76. Sykes, Naomi. “From Cu and Sceap to Beffe and Motton.” In Food in Medi­eval England: Diet and Nutrition, edited by C. M. Woolgar, D. Serjeantson, and T. Waldron, 56–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. —— . “The Impact of the Normans on Hunting Practices in England.” In Food in Medi­eval England: Diet and Nutrition, edited by C. M. Woolgar, D. Serjeantson, and T. Waldron, 162–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. —— . “Woods and the Wild.” In The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeo­logy, edited by Helena Hamerow, David A. Hinton, and Sally Crawford, 327–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Szabo, Vicki. Monstrous Fishes and the Mead-Dark Sea: Whaling in the Medi­eval North Atlantic. The Northern World 35. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Timofeeva, Olga. “Of Ledenum Bocum to Engliscum Gereorde: Bilingual Communities of Practice in Anglo-Saxon England.” In Communities of Practice in the History of English, edited by Joanna Kopaczyk and Andreas H. Jucker, 201–23. Pragmatics & Beyond, n.s., 235. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2013. Toller, T. Northcote, ed. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: Based on the Manu­script Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth: Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1921. Townend, Matthew. “Contacts and Conflicts: Latin, Norse and French.” In The Oxford History of English, edited by Lynda Mugglestone, 75–105. Updated ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Turner, Lynn, Undine Sellbach, and Ron Broglio. The Edinburgh Companion to Animal Studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018. Tyler, Elizabeth M., ed. Conceptualizing Multilingualism in England, c.800–c.1250. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 27. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Van Arsdall, Anne. Medi­eval Herbal Remedies: The Old English Herbarium and Anglo-Saxon Medicine. New York, Routledge, 2002. Waldau, Paul. Animal Studies: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Walker-Meikle, Kathleen. Medi­eval Pets. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2012. Warren, Michael J. Birds in Medi­eval English Poetry: Metaphors, Realities, Transformations. Nature and Environment in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2018. Webster, Leslie. The Franks Casket. British Museum Objects in Focus. London: British Museum Press, 2012. Whitman, Charles Huntington. “The Old English Animal Names: Mollusks; Toads, Frogs; Worms; Reptiles.” Anglia 30 (1907): 380–93. Williamson, Craig. A Feast of Creatures: Anglo-Saxon Riddle Songs. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Wolfe, Cary. “Human, All Too Human: ‘Animal Studies’ and the Humanities.” PMLA 124, no. 2 (2009): 564–75. —— . Zoonto­logies: The Question of the Animal. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003. Woolgar, C. M., D. Serjeantson, and T. Waldron, eds. Food in Medi­eval England: Diet and Nutrition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Yalden, Derek W. The History of British Mammals. London: Poyser, 1999.

196

Biblio­graphy

Yalden, Derek W., and Umberto Albarella. The History of British Birds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Yamamoto, Dorothy. The Boundaries of the Human in Medi­eval English Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Zupitza, Julius. “Altenglische Glossen.” Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 33 (1889): 237–42.

INDEX OF OLD ENGLISH HEADWORDS

acweorna, 149 acwern, 149 æl, 59 æle-pute, 24 æl-fisc, 59 æmette, 8 ana-wyrm, 179 angel-twicca, 179 apa, 9 asal, 10 asald, 10 aspide, 141 assa, 10 assen, 10 ass-myre, 10 aðexe, 94 attor-coppa, 145 bærs, 12, 114 bar, 22 bearg, 116 beaw, 65 befer, 15 beo, 17 beo-gang, 17 beomodor, 17 bera, 14 bicc, 49 blæge, 76 blanca, 84 brim-fugol, 132 brocc, 11 bucca, 46, 71 buter-fleoge, 25 byren, 14

catt, 28 catte, 28 cawel-wyrm, 25, 179 ceaffinc, 34 ceafor, 19 ceahhe, 88 cealf, 30 ceap, 30

ceo, 36 cicen, 35 coc, 35 corn-wyrm, 179 crabba, 39 cræte-hors, 84 cran, 40 cranoc, 40 crawe, 41 cu, 30 cudele, 45 culfre, 53 cusceota, 53 cypera, 128 cyta, 25

deaw-wyrm, 179 dogc, 49 dop-ened, 55 dora, 17 duce, 55 dufe-doppa, 113 dumel, 113 ealfara, 84 earn, 56 earn-geap, 108 earn-geat, 108 ear-wicga, 58 edisc-henn, 121 efete, 106 elpend, 60 emel, 25, 179 ened, 55 eofor, 22 eofor-swin, 116 eoh, 84 eolh, 46, 62 eorþ-ceafor, 19 eorþ-maþa, 179 eosol, 10 eowu, 135 ersc-henn, 121

facg, 63 fealu, 46 fearh, 116 fear, 30 felofor, 113 fen-yce, 69 feoh, 30 fic-wyrm, 179 fifalde, 25 fina, 178 flæsc-maðu, 179 flæsc-wyrm, 179 flea, 64 fleah, 64 fleoge, 65 floc, 63 fola, 84 forn, 161 fox, 67 friþ-hengest, 84 frogga, 69 frosc, 69, 107 fyrgen-bucca, 88 fyrgen-gat, 88 fyxe, 67

gærs-hoppa, 74 gærs-stapa, 74 gandra, 72 gange-wæfre, 145 gangol-wæfre, 145 ganot, 70 gat, 71 geac, 42 geolu-earte, 107, 182 gested-hors, 84 glida, 90 gnæt, 65 gos, 72 gos-fugel, 72 gos-hafoc, 79 græg-gos, 72 grig-hund, 49 grimena, 25

198

Index of Old English Headwords

guþ-fugel, 56 guþ-hafoc, 56

hacod, 104, 119 hæced, 104 hæfer, 71 hæfer-blæte, 143 hæfern, 39 hæren-fagol, 81 hæring, 83 hafoc, 79 hafoc-fugel, 79 ham-henn, 35 hama, 74 hana, 35 hand-wyrm, 179 hara, 77 hatte-fagol, 81 hea-deor, 46 headeor-hund, 49 hearma, 103 hearpan, 107 hege-sucga, 144 hen-fugol, 35 hengest, 84 henn, 35 heorot, 46 heort, 46 higera, 89, 178 hind, 46 hlæp-wince, 91 hnitu, 95 holt-hana, 177 hors, 84 hors-hwæl, 164 hræd-bita, 19 hræfn, 123 hran, 126, 167 hran-fisc, 167 hreaðe-mus, 13 hremn, 123 hroc, 41 hron-spearwa, 144 hryðer, 30 hund, 49 hundes-wyrm, 179 hunta, 145 hwæl, 167 hwelp, 49

hwilpe, 44 hwit-gos, 72 hwitling, 173 hylle-hama, 72 hyrnett, 165 igil, 81, 121 il, 81, 121 ilfette, 153 in-wyrm, 179 ior, 15 isearn, 90

lamb, 135 lamprede, 92 leaf-wyrm, 25 leap-wince, 91 leax, 128 leo, 93 lobbe, 145 loppe, 145 lopystre, 94 lox, 97 lus, 95

maða, 65, 179 mæl-sceafa, 25 mæw, 76 mearh, 84 mearð, 98 mece-fisc, 104 mere-næddra, 92 mere-swin, 51 mine, 99 moððe, 100 mold-wyrm, 179 mul, 10, 104 mus, 103 muscelle, 105 mus-hafoc, 26, 79 mycg, 65 myre, 84 nædre, 141 neat, 30 niht-hræfn, 123 niht-gale, 107 niht-hroc, 41 nyten, 30

olfend(a), 27 orf, 30 osle, 21 ostre, 110 oter, 108 oxa, 30

pawa, 112 pelican, 113 pine-wincla, 114 pocca, 46 pohha, 46 pur-lamb, 135 ra, 46 rad-hors, 84 ræcc, 49 ræge, 46 ræt, 122 rah-deor, 46 readda, 127 regn-wyrm, 179 renge, 145 reng-wyrm, 179 reod-muþa, 115 reohhe, 125 roð-hund, 49 ruddoc, 127 ruhha, 125 ryðða, 49

sæ-cocc, 37 sæ-snægl, 114 sæ-winewincla, 114 salt-haga, 127 sceadd, 134 scealfor, 38 scealga, 127 sceap, 135 sceota, 161 scorpion, 131 scræf, 38 screawa, 137 scric, 157 seam-hors, 84 secg-gescere, 74 seolh, 132 sige-wif, 17 sisemus, 52



sla-wyrm, 141 sliht-swin, 116 slincend, 141 sliw, 155 smea-wyrm, 179 smegawyrm, 65 smelt, 138 snaca, 141 snægel, 139 snite, 143 spear-hafoc, 79 spearwa, 144 sprott, 148 stacga, 46 stæð-swealwe, 130 stær, 149 stærling, 149 stan-gella, 113 stapa, 74 stearn, 156 stead, 84 stig-fearh, 116 stod-hors, 84 stod-myre, 84 stott, 84 strostle, 157 stut, 65 styria, 150 su, 116 sucga, 144 sugu, 116 swan, 153 swealwe, 152 swin, 22, 116

tadige, 160 taxe, 160 ticcen, 71 ticia, 158 tife, 49 tigris, 159 tord-wifel, 19 tosca, 69 toþ-wyrm, 179 treow-wyrm, 25, 179 truth, 161 twyn-wyrm, 19

Index of Old English Headwords

þeor-wrym, 179 þræsce, 157 þrostle, 157 þrowend, 131 þrysce, 157 þunor-bodu, 23 uf, 109 ule, 109

wæl-hwelp, 49 wæps, 165 wæter-frogga, 69 wæterhæfern, 39 wæter-næddre, 141 wand, 100 wand-weorpe, 100 wann-fota, 113 wasescite, 45 weald-stapa, 72 wealh-hafoc, 79 wede-hund, 49 weðer, 135 weoloc, 171 wer-nægel, 179 wesle, 166 weðer, 135 wibba, 19 wicg, 84 wifel, 19 wild-gos, 72 wine-wincla, 114 wor-hana, 115 wrenna, 182 wudu-cocc, 177 wudu-culfre, 53 wudu-hana, 177 wulf, 174 wylfen, 174 wyrm, 141, 179 yce, 60 ylpend, 60 yrfe, 30

199