Fauna from West Wickham (WWI13)
Vida Rajkovača
A small faunal assemblage totalling 276 assessable specimens came from a series of test pits excavated across the village. Only a small portion of some 76 specimens or
27.5% of the assemblage were identified to species or family level.
The three main ‘food species’, cattle, ovicapra and pigs, were represented in identical numbers (Table 1), regardless of which quantifying method is taken into account. This was closely followed by chickens, with 11.9% of the NISP count. The full range of domestic species is completed with horse, dog/ fox and cat. The unidentified count was dominated by the sheep-sized splinters, and this suggests that sheep were the mainstay of the economy.
Taxon
Cow
Sheep/ goat
NISP %NISP MNI
18 23.7
18 23.7
2
2
Pig
Horse
Dog/ fox
Cat
Rabbit
18
1
1
1
7
23.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
9.2
2
1
1
1
1
Fox
Chicken
Galliformes
Sub-total to species
Cattle-sized
Sheep-sized
2 2.6
9 11.9
1 1.3
76
37
136
100
.
.
1
1
1
.
.
.
Rodent-sized
Mammal n.f.i.
Bird n.f.i.
1
3
23
.
.
.
.
.
.
Total 276 . .
Table 1. Number of Identified Specimens and Minimum Number of Individuals for all species from all test pits from Meldreth; the abbreviation n.f.i. denotes that the specimen could not be further identified.
Methods:
Identification, quantification and ageing
The zooarchaeological investigation followed the system implemented by Bournemouth University with all identifiable elements recorded (NISP: Number of Identifiable Specimens) and diagnostic zoning (amended from Dobney & Reilly 1988) used to calculate MNE (Minimum Number of
Elements) from which MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) was derived. Identification of the assemblage was undertaken with the aid of Schmid (1972), and reference material from the Cambridge
Archaeological Unit. Undiagnostic fragments were assigned to a size category. A small number of bones were retrieved from sieving of the environmental bulk soil samples. Small taxa were not particularly abundant, however, and the sieved bones did not provide a great deal of additional data on the main domestic species.
Preservation, fragmentation and taphonomy

Only five specimens recorded with surface erosion and signs of weathering (1.8%). The fragmentation was quite high, with no complete and measurable specimens except for an occasional find of a complete cattle phalanx. Two bones were recorded as charred and one as calcined. Gnawing was extremely rare recorded on two specimens only. The overall good level of surface preservation and a near absence of gnawing marks are indicative of quick deposition of material.
Butchery
Butchery marks were recorded on 13 specimens, or c.
5% of the assemblage. This is surprising, given the assemblage’s small size and character. Although crude chop marks performed with use of heavy blades were more common, a number of fine knife marks were also recorded.
Test pits
Pits were not rich in animal bone, with some generating as little as three specimens
(Tables 2-7). Pits 4 and 6 yielded more animal bone, although the range of species was not particularly varied. The preservation of bone in some instances did not allow for any elements to be identified to species (test pit 15). The low quantities of bone waste suggest the investigated area was away from areas of immediate domestic activities.
Taxon
Cow
Sheep/ goat
Pig
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [2] [3] [4] [2] [3] [4] [5]
.
Test pit 1
. . 3 1
Test pit 2
1 . . .
Test pit 3
. . .
. . 1 . . 1 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 1 . . . .
Rabbit . 1 . . . 1 . . . . . .
Subtotal to species . 1 1 3 1 3 . 1 . . . .
Cattlesized
Sheepsized
Bird n.f.i.
.
1
.
.
2
.
3
5
.
1
3
.
.
.
.
1
2
.
.
1
1
1
2
.
.
2
1
.
1
.
.
1
.
1
3
.
Total 1 3 9 7 1 6 2 4 3 1 1 4
Table 2. Number of Identified Specimens from TP 1 - 3; the abbreviation n.f.i. denotes that the specimen could not be further identified.
Test pit 4 Test pit 5 Test pit 6
[1] [2] [3] [4] [1] [3] [4] [6] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [9]
. . 1 1 . . . 1 . . 1 . . . 1 .
Taxon
Cow
Sheep/ goat
Pig
Horse
Cat
. 1 2 . . . . 2 . . 1 . . . 1 1
. . 2 3 . . . . . . 1 . . . . 1
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . .

Rabbit . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . .
Chicken . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . .
Subtotal to species . 1 5 4 . 1 . 3 . 1 4 1 1 . 2 2
Cattlesized
Sheepsized
Mammal n.f.i.
Bird n.f.i.
.
.
1
.
3
5
.
.
.
21
.
.
.
2
7
.
.
1
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
3
.
.
2
.
.
.
.
1
.
1
2
3
.
.
.
3
.
4
.
.
.
4
3
1
.
.
.
1
.
1
1
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
Total 1 9 26 13 1 2 3 5 2 6 11 5 5 2 6 2
Table 3. Number of Identified Specimens from TP 4 - 6; the abbreviation n.f.i. denotes that the specimen could not be further identified.
Test pit 7
Test pit
8 Test pit 9
Taxon
Cow
Sheep/ goat
Pig
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [3] [6] [1] [2] [3] [4]
. . . 1 . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
1
2
.
1
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dog/ fox . . 1 . . . . . . . . . .
Fox . 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Chicken
Subtotal to species
Cattlesized
Sheepsized
Bird n.f.i.
.
.
.
1
.
2
.
2
.
4
.
8
.
2
1
4
.
1
.
2
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
3
4
4
1
1
.
.
.
3
.
.
.
4
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Total 1 4 12 7 3 1 1 1 3 6 3 4 1
Table 4. Number of Identified Specimens from TP 7 – 9; the abbreviation n.f.i. denotes that the specimen could not be further identified.
Taxon
Cow
Test pit 10
[1] [2] [4] [3] [4] [5] [6] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
. . 3 .
Test pit 11
. . 1 . 1
Test pit 12
. . . . .
Sheep/ goat . . 1 1 . 1 . . . . 1 . . .
Pig 1 1 . . . 1 . 1 . . . . . .
Rabbit . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . 1
Galliformes . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . .

Sub-total to species 1 1 4 1 . 2 1 2 2 . 1 . . 1
Cattle-sized . . 3 . . 1 1 . . . 1 . . 1
Sheepsized . . . . . 2 4 . 3 2 . 1 1 .
Rodentsized . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Bird n.f.i. . . . . 1 1 . . . . 1 . . .
Total 1 1 7 1 1 6 6 2 5 2 3 1 1 3
Table 5. Number of Identified Specimens from TP 10 – 12; the abbreviation n.f.i. denotes that the specimen could not be further identified.
Test pit
13 Test pit 14 Test pit 15
Taxon
Cow
Sheep/ goat
Pig
Rabbit
Chicken
Sub-total to species
Cattlesized
Sheepsized
Mammal n.f.i.
Bird n.f.i.
Taxon
Sheep/ goat
Chicken
Sub-total to species
Cattlesized
Sheepsized
Mammal n.f.i.
Bird n.f.i.
[3] [4] [2] [3] [4] [5] [3] [4] [5]
.
.
.
1
1
1
.
1
.
.
.
1
1
.
.
.
2
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
1
2
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
. . . . . . 1 3 .
. . . 2 . . . . .
Total 2 1 1 4 1 3 2 3 1
Table 6.. Number of Identified Specimens from TP 13 – 15; the abbreviation n.f.i. denotes that the specimen could not be further identified.
Test pit 16 Test pit 17
[1] [2] [3] [4] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
. . 1 1 . . . . . .
Test pit 19
[3]
1
. . 1 1 . . . . . .
. 1 1 . . . . . 1 .
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
1
.
2
.
.
.
.
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
.
1
.
.
.
1
1
.
1
.
.
.
2
1
.
1
.
.
.
1
.
1
.
.
.
1
1
1
.
.
1
.
1
.
1
.
1
.
.
.
1
2
.
.
.
1

Total 1 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 3 3
Table 7.. Number of Identified Specimens from TP 16, 17 and 19; the abbreviation n.f.i. denotes that the specimen could not be further identified.
Discussion
The assemblage’s faunal signature showed that all three main food species are represented in the same numbers. Chicken also appear to have played an important part in their diet, and other species are under-represented. The exclusive focus on livestock species is a trait of the Medieval and later periods. With an assemblage of small size, and in the absence of any ageing data, other than stating the range of exploited species, it would not be possible to draw any conclusions about the site’s economy.
Bibliography:
Dobney, K., and Reilly, K., 1988. A method for recording archaeological animal bones: the use of diagnostic zones, Circaea 5 (2): 79-96.
Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of animal bones . Amsterdam: Elsevier.