Birds, in contrast to mammals, are thought to have fragile bones, which are difficult to identify when found, so have no useful archaeological record. This book is based on an accumulation of over 9,000 records of species identified from sites in the British Isles, which indicates that the contrary is true. The difficulties of identification are discussed, but 9,000 records is a substantial body of evidence, which is reviewed. The book summarizes the archaeological record of birds in the British Isles, and integrates this factual basis into an overview of the history of the bird fauna in these ... More

Birds, in contrast to mammals, are thought to have fragile bones, which are difficult to identify when found, so have no useful archaeological record. This book is based on an accumulation of over 9,000 records of species identified from sites in the British Isles, which indicates that the contrary is true. The difficulties of identification are discussed, but 9,000 records is a substantial body of evidence, which is reviewed. The book summarizes the archaeological record of birds in the British Isles, and integrates this factual basis into an overview of the history of the bird fauna in these islands. It tells us much about what native birds we should have, which ones we have lost, and therefore which ones would be worth discussing for reintroduction. Recent discussions suppose that eagle owls are not native, but archaeological evidence suggests they were. White-tailed eagles were widespread up to Saxon times at least, and cranes (not the same as herons) were widespread through to mediaeval times. When did our most common bird arrive? Where from? Which species is it, anyway? And how does the balance of wild, introduced and domestic birds compare with the similar balance of mammals, or with the balance 7,000 years ago, before farming altered the landscape?