Birds in Medieval Norway

Abstract

Whilst modern avian distributions in Scandinavia are well studied, how past events and processes have shaped modern bird communities in the region remains poorly known. This is mainly due to the fact that work on post-glacial avian assemblages has been done mostly from an archaeological perspective, and on a site-specific basis. Therefore, in order to understand the history of bird species in Scandinavia, there is a clear need to collate data on the past occurrences and abundance of birds within the region. Here we present data on the presence of bird species within 21 Norwegian Medieval (1030-1537 CE) assemblages. Despite climatic fluctuations and the rise of urban centres, our re-examination and compilation of bird bone assemblages from Medieval Norway found no evidence to suggest that the Medieval bird fauna differed from the modern one. The most common birds in Medieval assemblages are Galliformes. In urban sites these are mostly domestic fowl, whereas on rural sites wild species are dominant. Our data indicates an introduction of domestic fowl in the early Medieval period and a slightly delayed introduction of domestic geese, with both species becoming more abundant during the mid to late Medieval period. This appears to be later than other Scandinavian countries. Interestingly, species that are now ubiquitous in urban areas, such as pigeons, corvids and gulls are mostly absent from Medieval urban centres. In addition, we found a bias towards the use of female Accipiter gentilis in falconry, while Falco species may have been exported. This is the first time that data on past avian occurrences for any period are reviewed and collated for Norway. In addition, our work highlights the importance of birds and bird exploitation in Medieval Norway.

Birds of prey from 4th to 18th centuries AD of the Volga River basin of Russia

“…The sharp increase in the number of bones remains of northern goshawk and Eurasian sparrowhawk as well as the presence of bones from large falcons (gyrfalcon [ Falco rusticolus ], saker falcon, peregrine falcon) observed at medieval Volga River basin archaeological sites can be clearly interpreted in favor of the widespread development of hawking/falconry. A very similar pattern of increase in remains of these species of birds of prey at the archaeological sites of the Middle Ages was observed in Great Britain (Yalden & Albarella, 2009), Poland (Bochenski et al, 2016), and Norway (Walker et al, 2019).…”

“…A very similar pattern of increase in remains of these species of birds of prey at the archaeological sites of the Middle Ages was observed in Great Britain (Yalden & Albarella, 2009), Poland (Bochenski et al, 2016), and Norway (Walker et al, 2019).…”

A long‐term study of size variation in Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis across Scandinavia, with a focus on Norway

“…In general A. gentilis is not frequent within the archaeological record for Norway (Walker et al., 2019). Morphologically, the osteology of A. gentilis is not easily confused with any other species, and we are confident of specimen identification.…”

“…The Medieval bones date to 1030–1537 Common Era (CE) and come from only eight sites, all from the urban contexts of Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim (Table 1). Most Medieval bones come from female individuals and are likely to be linked to the practice of falconry (Walker et al., 2019). Most of the archaeological bones were limb elements; this may be due to taphonomic bias as they are more robust than for example cranial remains.…”

Application of morphometric and stable isotope analyses for distinguishing domestic and wild geese

“…One of the challenges in finding the earliest domestic goose, but also in identifying it in faunal assemblages, is distinguishing it from its wild forms only by bone morphology. Detection of the domestic form in archaeological assemblages has been indicated by context (found outside their natural coastal habitat), high relative frequencies of goose bones, increased number of immature birds, and, if possible, changes in body size (Gotfredsen, 2013; Serjeantson, 2009; Walker et al, 2019). Nevertheless, some of these criteria are problematic.…”