This is a fascinating question, not least because the discrepancies
force us to reassess our bird identifications.

I had both bittern and pheasant at Flaxengate, Lincoln; pheasant has
turned up a couple of times in medieval samples from York; and I think
Don Bramwell had bittern from Baynard's Castle, London.   

As for 'rees', there is the famous mention of them in the banquets that
marked the enthronement of the new Archbishop of York, in September
1465, the larderer's list for which mentions 'The foules called Rees'.
The roundabout naming of the birds implies some ambiguity as to what
constituted a 'ree', and the fact that they were the third most numerous
item on the list (2400 rees; 4000 mallard and teals; 4000 rabbits) makes
one wonder.  Would a summer-migrant wader have been available in such
numbers? 

The discrepancy with medieval rees may therefore be a combination of two
things: misidentification through confusion with other medium-sized
waders, and inappropriate equation of a documented term with a
particular species. The fact that Philomachus pugnax has a number of
English dialect names similar to 'ree' today does not necessarily mean
that medieval 'rees' were that species alone.

Likewise bustards: are we confident that a re-examination of all the
published late- and post- medieval turkeys and peacocks would not yield
the odd overlooked bustard?  Yes, they are clearly separable on many
parts of the skeleton, but what about fragmented and immature specimens?

Thanks to Dale for raising an interesting question: sadly, ars longa,
lunchtime brevis.

Terry

Dale Serjeantson wrote:
> 
> Apologies to non British readers of zooarch for airing a
> specifically British - i ndeed English - query.
> 
> Chris Woolgar, the medieval historian, recently wrote a
> paper for a meeting on the consumption of wild birds in
> medieval England. There is quite good correspondence with
> the birds referred to  most often and caught in  largest
> numbers (which include mallard, teal, woodcock and some
> others), but there are some which are described which - as
> far as I know - have never or hardly ever been recorded.
> 
> The species are: "bittern", "quail", "egret", "pheasant",
> "spoonbill", "bustard" and "stork" and "rees"
> 
> Has anyone identied any of these, and what do others think
> about possible reasons?
> 
> 
> Possible reasons are
> 
> 1. misidentification. This I think is rather unlikely
> (except perhaps for pheasant), since so many of the major
> collections were identified at Tring, but I would be
> interested to know what others think.
> 
> 2. bones too small for hand retrieval. Of the list, only
> quail falls into this category. quail  Coturnix is sparse
> in sieved samples too.
> 
> 3. the medieval steward used a term which we would now
> apply to another bird. Examples:
> 
>  "rees". This ought to be (?ruff +) reeve Philomachus
> pugnax , but perhaps applies to all middle size waders.
> "Spoonbill" may have been used for shoveller, according to
> some. Shovellers Anas clypeata might fall into the category
> of middle size ducks.
> 
> What do others think about the discrepancies?
> 
> Dale Serjeantson
> Department of Archaeology
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
> Tel: (44) (0)23 8059 3210
> Email:  [log in to unmask]