UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
Department of Archaeology
‘An Investigation into the Implications of Cock Fighting Upon Medieval
Sites and How This Might Enable Archaeologists to Better Identify
Monastic Influence. ’
by
Poppy Hodkinson
Module V63403
Dissertation presented for BA Hons in Archaeology, April 2013
1
I certify that:

The following dissertation (or extended essay) is my own original work.

The source of all non-original material is clearly indicated.

All material presented by me for other modules is clearly indicated.

All assistance received has been acknowledged.
Signed ...................................................................................................................
2
Contents
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 5
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ……………………..…………………………………………………………………….…………………..…….…. 8
Cockerels and Cock Fighting: A Brief Introduction ..........................................................….. 10
Cockerels Throughout History ..…………………………….…………….…………….……...……..…..... 10
The Basic Principles of Cock Fighting ..……………………………………………………………....….… 11
Cock Fighting and Anthropology ….………….….……………………………………………………….….. 12
Medieval Cockerels …………………………………………………….............................…………………………… 15
The Medieval Church on Animals ………………………………………………………………………….... 15
Were Cockerels Symbols of Lust? ............................................................................... 16
Lust, Medicine and Cockerels …………………………..………………………………………………........ 19
Did ‘Cock’ Mean ‘Penis’? ....................................................................................... 20
Natural Magic and the Four Humours …………………………………………………………….……….. 21
What About Hens? …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23
Method ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Identifying Sex ...................................................................................................... 25
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Lewes.................................................................................................................... 30
Lyminge ................................................................................................................ 32
Bishopstone .......................................................................................................... 34
Flixborough ........................................................................................................... 36
Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 38
Lewes.................................................................................................................... 38
Lyminge ................................................................................................................ 39
Bishopstone – The Probability of an Ecclesiastical Presence......................................... 40
Flixborough – The Question of Monastic Occupation .............................................. 41
Flixborough Fish Remains ......................................................................................... 41
Flixborough Wild Bird Remains .................................................................................... 43
Flixborough - Answering the Question of Monastic Occupation .................................. 44
3
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 46
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 49
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 60
4
List of Figures
Medieval Cockerels:
1.1 Example of Celtic human-animal hybrids ........................................................................... 15
1.2 English Medieval lead badge, a single cockerel ................................................................... 17
1.3 English Medieval lead badge, a cock mounting a hen ......................................................... 17
1.4 Wild Man brooch ................................................................................................................. 17
1.5 Quintin Metsys’ The Older One Gets, the More Foolish One Becomes ................................ 18
1.6 Close up of ‘Cock’ shaped tap from Dürer’s The Men’s Bath ............................................. 21
1.7 Archaeological example of ‘cock’ shaped tap ...................................................................... 21
1.8 Diagram of the relationship between the Four Humours and the elements, temperature
and temperament ..................................................................................................................... 22
Method:
2.1 Criteria for measuring domestic fowl tarsometatarsus ...................................................... 26
2.2 Map of England displaying locations of the sites used in this investigation ....................... 28
2.3 Diagram of spur development in male domestic fowl ........................................................ 29
Results:
3.1 Graph displaying the results of plotting GL against SC on Lewes tarsometatarsi across all
phases ........................................................................................................................................ 30
3.2 Graph displaying percentage of old and young cockerels at Lewes across all phases .........31
3.3 Graph displaying percentage of old/ young cockerels and females at Lewes across all
phases .........................................................................................................................................32
3.4 Graph displaying the results of plotting GL against SC at Lyminge tarsometatarsi during the
8th – 9th centuries ....................................................................................................................... 32
3.5 Graph displaying percentage of old and young cockerels at Lyminge during 8th – 9th
centuries ....................................................................................................................................33
3.6 Graph displaying percentage of old/ young cockerels and females at Lyminge during 8th –
9th centuries ...............................................................................................................................33
3.7 Graph displaying the results of plotting GL against SC on Bishopstone tarsometatarsi during
the 8th – 10th centuries ............................................................................................................... 34
3.8 Graph displaying percentage of old and young cockerels at Bishopstone during the 8th –
10th centuries ............................................................................................................................. 35
3.9 Graph displaying percentage of old/ young cockerels and females at Lewes during the 8th –
10th centuries ............................................................................................................................. 35
5
3.10 Graph displaying the results of plotting GL against SC on Flixborough tarsometatarsi
across all phases ....................................................................................................................... 36
3.11 Graph displaying percentage of old and young cockerels at Flixborough across all phases
................................................................................................................................................... 37
3.12 Graph displaying percentage of old/ young cockerels and females at Flixborough across all
phases ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Discussion:
4.1 Graph displaying results of plotting GL against SC on pheasant tarsometatarsi and those
from Lewes across all phases .................................................................................................... 39
4.2 Female domestic fowl tarsometatarsus displaying signs of arthritis .................................. 40
4.3 Recovery of fish at Flixborough across all phases ............................................................... 42
List of Tables
Method:
1.1 Table of the sites used in this investigation ......................................................................... 27
Results:
2.1 Female, spurred cockerels, scarred cockerels and unspurred cockerels at Lewes, across all
phases ........................................................................................................................................ 30
2.2 Female, spurred cockerels, scarred cockerels and unspurred cockerels at Lyminge during 8th
– 9th centuries ............................................................................................................................ 32
2.3 Female, spurred cockerels, scarred cockerels and unspurred cockerels at Bishopstone.... 34
2.4 Female, spurred cockerels, scarred cockerels and unspurred cockerels at Flixborough,
across all phases ........................................................................................................................ 36
Discussion:
3.1 Size distribution of Smelt recovered from Flixborough across all phases ........................... 43
3.2 Wild birds recovered from Flixborough across all phases ................................................... 43
6
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank:
Dr Naomi Sykes for her advice and guidance throughout this dissertation and for providing the
Bishopstone data
Dr Gabor Thomas and Zoe Knapp, for allowing me to work with the University of Reading’s
Lyminge 2008 and 2009 faunal assemblages
Dr Christopher Loveluck and Dr Poly Baker (in association with English Heritage), for providing
the Flixborough data
Gemma Ayton (UCL), for providing the Lewes data
7
Introduction
Domestic fowl, Gallus gallus, or as it is more commonly known, the chicken is the most
widespread domestic animal in the world ranging from its native South-east Asia to almost
every other continent on the planet (Serjeantson 2009, 267). Its movement across the globe
has been entirely manufactured by humans, making the chicken one of the most relevant
animals for archaeological study. Domestic fowl are present in countless aspects of human life
and history; from their physical use in religious or ritualistic practices and subsistence
economies to documentary and iconographic references, chickens are found alongside humans
everywhere throughout time and space. Despite this, there has been very little investigation
into these birds, something which is only now being corrected and I hope to achieve further,
through this dissertation.
There has recently been a call for zooarchaeologists to apply their findings in a new and more
in-depth way (Sykes forthcoming), they have been challenged to answer more than just the
question of ‘what did they eat?’, and begin to address how past societies behaved and
thought. If, as Salisbury (1994, 2) attests, a society’s treatment and attitudes towards animals
are indeed the greatest indicator of how they perceive themselves, this aim ought to be
achievable for those willing to apply their data in a different way. With these objectives in
mind, I aim to conduct a ‘social zooarchaeological’ investigation into what the culture of cock
fighting can do for our understanding of the Medieval period.
It has long been considered difficult to distinguish between Anglo Saxon ecclesiastical
settlements and aristocratic estate centres (Foot 2006, 96); we do not know the majority of
activities that took place within religious sites and it is understood that they were capable of
developing in a similar way to manorial centres (Blair 2006, 284). Both monasteries and
aristocratic sites enjoyed a great amount of landed wealth, meaning that their occupants lived
in grand buildings and possessed a rich material culture; making them rather similar in
appearance to the archaeological record (Dyer 2002, 77).
The lines between the two
settlement types are further blurred by the fact that the upper levels of the clergy often
comprised of members of high ranking families and many monasteries were patronised by
aristocrats (Dyer 2002, 72 & Foot 2006, 120). Additionally, monasteries were not exclusively
inhabited by monks – there is evidence from Germany for areas within monasteries that were
used as accommodation for visiting aristocrats (Blair 2006, 283).
Zooarchaeological factors which have previously been used to identify monastic influence have
mostly pertained to diet – the signatures of wild or domestic animals and also fish (Dobney et
8
al. 2007).
However, there is much evidence to suggest that monastic diet was less
straightforward than has previously been thought; not only were extravagant feasts conducted
on days of celebration, but many missions saw it as their duty to provide ‘overzealous
hospitality’ for guests (Foot 2006, 237). In light of this, I wish to take the utilisation of
zooarchaeology beyond the examination of diet, by studying the presence or absence of cock
fighting upon these sites. It is hoped that this investigation will shed light upon the question
of site classification.
Anthropological studies have highlighted the highly masculine nature of the sport; it is thought
to be an explicit expression of male sexual aggression – whether its participants are
consciously aware of it or not (Marvin 1984, Dundes 1994 & Cook 1994). The medieval belief in
the Theory of the Four Humours has interesting implications for the engagement of certain
classes and groups in cock fighting. It was commonly thought that the humours of animals
(and therefore their traits and behaviour) could be transferred to humans via consumption,
physical and visual interaction with environments and the animals within them (Sykes
forthcoming). If this was indeed the case, I suspect that monks seeking a life of piety and
godliness would not wish participate in a sport so strongly associated with male sexual
aggression, lest they absorb these qualities themselves. On the other hand, it seems likely that
aristocratic men, whose lives were highly influenced and dependent upon a warrior culture
and sense of overtly masculine identity (McNamara 1994, 4), would be more likely to allow
cock fighting upon their settlements.
Using this assumption, I wish to investigate whether cock fighting was more prevalent on
secular sites than ecclesiastical and to then perhaps use this information to answer a question
that has long pervaded the study of Anglo Saxon archaeology. This is of course, not to say that
engagement in one specific behaviour can be used to unequivocally identify an entire social
class; but rather that knowledge of cock fighting might be used in conjunction with other
evidence to enhance our understanding of Anglo Saxon social behaviour even further.
Over the course of my investigation, I will examine the evidence from two sites of known
ecclesiastical or secular association – Lewes, East Sussex and Lyminge, Kent – and ponder the
possibility of a monastic influence upon Flixborough, North Lincolnshire and Bishopstone, East
Sussex. I will also explore modern cock fighting, the cockerel’s longstanding association with
lust and sexuality, and how ideas of medieval gender roles may have contributed to society’s
perceptions and interactions with domestic fowl.
9
Cockerels and Cock Fighting: A Brief Introduction.
Cockerels Throughout History
The domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus) is descended from the red jungle fowl, native to
Southeast Asia (Zeuner 1963, 444). It is thought that after their domestication around 3000BC,
fowl became important to a wide variety of cultures across the globe, not for their meat, but
for their mystical properties and symbolic associations (Serjeantson 2009, 268). Indeed,
chickens; cockerels especially, have been bred for fighting and their use in rituals in almost
every place on earth and throughout all time periods.
Cockerels were worshipped by Babylonians, Syrians and sacrificed to Osiris by the Ancient
Egyptians (McCaghy & Neal 1994, 67). Ancient Greece styled the cockerel as a symbol of
sexuality, the sun and resurrection. They were associated with Asclepius, the god of healing,
to whom they would sacrifice a cockerel upon recovering from an illness (Sax 2001). The
cockerel has also commonly been portrayed as a symbol of light and health in eastern cultures
(Zeuner 1963, 447). As for sexuality, the ancient Greek cockfight has been interpreted as an
allegory for homosexual rape and it appears that cockerels were a token of desire and
dominance: vases depicting the gift of cockerels from adult men to young male lovers have
been recovered throughout Greece (Serjeantson 2009, 330, Dundes 1994, 251 & Dover 1989,
6). It certainly seems that domesticated fowl have always been perceived to have strong
gender divisions, as is suggested by the Greek tale of two temples divided by a river, one
dedicated to Hercules and one to Hebe. In each of these temples was a chicken: a cockerel for
Hercules and a hen for Hebe (Sax 2001, 64).
Chickens were first introduced into Britain during the Iron Age and a high ratio of cockerels to
hens in deposits from this period indicates the probable development of a cock fighting culture
over one of exploitation for meat (Serjeantson 2000a, 499). Caesar’s Gallic War records the
avoidance of chicken consumption amongst the native peoples of Britain, making this theory
more credible (Sykes 2012, 162). For the Romans, cockerels were a symbol of courage in
battle; fights were staged as a display for young soldiers, to teach them that combat ought to
be a fierce fight to the death. They were used as grave furnishings, with whole chickens being
found on plates or in bowls in Nijemegen cemetery, Netherlands (Serjeantson 2009). They
played a further role in domestic sacrifices and were of great importance to cults of Mercury
and Mithras.
With the establishment of Christianity, the cockerel as a symbol of resurrection became
important once more. The cockerel also appears as the voice of conscience in the Bible, when
10
Peter denies Christ three times before a cock’s crow (Sax 2001, 65). The cockerel’s crow has a
place in folklore too, it was thought to frighten away evil spirits and their entrails were used to
read the future (Sax 2001, 65). However, by the Middle Ages it has been suggested that
people started to realise the potential of chickens as an animal for consumption rather than
one of ritual use only, and they consequently become relevant for economic rather than
symbolic reasons (Beneke 1993, 28). Whether this was the case or not remains to be seen.
The Basic Principles of Cock Fighting
Cock fighting is one of the oldest sports in the world that is still practised to this day. It is
assumed that it began soon after fowl were first domesticated, around 3000 BC (McCaghy &
Neal 1994, 67). The most important principle behind the cock fight is the natural inclination of
two cockerels to fight when placed in close contact with each other.
In the artificial
environment of a fighting ring, this can mean a fight to the death, but in nature, without a
purposely confined enclosure, a cock might abandon a fight when it becomes obvious that he
cannot win. Before each fight, the cockerels are placed in pairs; matched in both weight and
spur length and then set against each other. Bets are placed by spectators and the fight
commences, each pair of cocks fight one round each usually lasting 30 minutes, though times
vary depending on rules specific to individual cultures. The fight itself consists of the birds
leaping into the air and slashing at each other with their spurs.
A cockerel may lose a fight either via death or submission to the other; this is regarded as
voluntarily lowering their chest to the ground, or being forced there by the other bird (Marvin
1984, 64). Attempting to run away also results in the instant loss of a match (Harris 1994, 13).
A bird that does this may be slaughtered by their owner to prevent the proliferation of
‘cowardly’ genes (Wollan 1994, 88). The corpse of this bird might be given to the family of the
victor to consume. In Andalusia, the wing or tail feathers of the loser are removed, to signify
their loss of ‘fighting cock’ status (Marvin 1984, 64). If neither cock has lost by the end of the
round, then no winner is declared. Sometimes a cockerel may appear to be dying, but owners
are often able to resuscitate them by blowing air into their lungs – perhaps this played a part in
their association with resurrection (Dundes 1994, 252).
Venezuelan cockerel breeders sometimes poison the spurs of their cockerels in order to win a
fight, and while this would be considered unsportsmanlike to some cultures it is acceptable
here, as long as the perpetrator is not caught in the act (Cook 1994). In cultures such as Bali,
artificial spurs are used: a cockerel’s spur is removed and replaced with a blade. In Andalusia
however, these artificial spurs are considered to be brutish, and to poorly reflect the skill of
11
real fighting cocks. Artificial spurs are often surrounded by superstition – in Bali, they are only
sharpened during eclipses and women are prohibited from even seeing them (Geertz 1994,
102).
Cock Fighting and Anthropology
In a stark contrast to womanhood, masculinity lacks obvious biological undercurrents such as
pregnancy and menstruation and thus, maleness cannot just be assumed, it has to be proven
(McNamara 1994, 3). Because of this, the male gender requires constant social support,
usually manifested in displays of strength or sporting prowess at male dominated gatherings.
And thus, modern anthropological studies have shown that cock fighting is a mostly male
domain. While men might take their sons and nephews to a fight, women rarely attend.
Although this varies throughout all cock fighting cultures; it is sometimes the case that women
prefer to avoid fights rather than them being purposely excluded, as can be observed in
Andalusia (Marvin 1984, 63).
Guggenheim (1994, 149) reports that admission gates to
cockfights in the Philippines are manned by women, as are the food stores surrounding the
cockpit.
In Margarita, Venezuela however there is a ban on female attendance at fights;
neither are women allowed to own fighting cocks, for the fear that the loss of a fight for her
cockerel would cause her to become pregnant (Cook 1994, 233). This has some interesting
implications for the ways in which the winning and losing cocks are perceived, of which greater
detail will follow.
In cock fighting cultures, cockerels are seen to possess courage, tenacity and virility, and it is
perhaps no coincidence that these are traits also sought after in the ideal man within these
societies. Indeed over the course of her research Cook was told that owners should choose a
fighting cock the same way a woman would ‘choose a man’ (Cook 1994, 243). Within
Venezuelan cock fighting communities it is thought that these qualities are diminished at
certain times in the lunar month. They believe that the movement of the moon causes their
cocks to become weaker and less aggressive, and while it is not explicitly mentioned, it is
difficult not to draw a probable link with the female menstrual cycle (Cook 1994, 238).
Menstruation is further associated with cock fighting in the Philippines, where it is thought
that a cockerel touched by a menstruating woman is sure to lose their next fight, no matter
what their previous success (Guggenheim 1994, 145).
For many owners of fighting cocks, there is a strong link between themselves and their
cockerel. Both Cook and Geertz have documented the high level of intimacy between owners
and their cocks in Bali and Venezuela. In addition to the great amount of time and effort that
12
goes into breeding cockerels – tightly controlled feeding, cleaning and exercise regimes are
common amongst serious cock breeders – and there appears to be a great deal of physical
contact between owner and cockerel.
Continuous holding and stroking of cockerels is
common, as is bouncing them between one’s legs; these actions are described as having a
subconscious sensuality about them, implying that the relationship is much more complex
than just ‘man and animal’.
And thus it has been suggested that for Balinese owners, the cockerel functions as a
‘detachable, self-operating penis’; while this may sound fanciful, it does concur with the
Balinese belief that the body is composed of separately animated parts (Geertz 1994, 99).
Geertz also indicates that the cockerel might become a reflection of an owner’s personality
(1994, 100). This link between a man and his cock has also been noted in the Philippines,
where it is thought that a man ‘stupid enough to have sex before a match will be humiliated
when his bird runs away’ (Guggenheim 1994, 145). Here is a clear example of the belief that
actions of an owner will have an impact on the actions of the bird and thus the two are
inseparably entwined. In Andalusia, the picture is slightly different – a man is not attached to
his cock; indeed it would be considered poor form for two men to fight each other. Instead,
the cockfight is merely an outlet for male aggression in a form that is acceptable – between
animals rather than humans (Marvin 1984, 66).
A common observation amongst researchers of cock fighting is that a winning cockerel not
only proves his greater skill, but also feminises his competitor – his masculinity is proven at the
expense of the other cock (Dundes 1994, 250). ‘Canta la gallina’ or ‘The hen sings’ is said of a
losing cockerel in Andalusia; by fleeing he has taken on female characteristics and is no longer
considered to be a brave fighter, but a feminine coward instead (Marvin 1984, 64). The
cockfight has even been described as a display of male sexual aggression; the sexual
domination of a female by a male could be used as a metaphor to describe the manner in
which a cock wins a fight (Dundes 1994, 254). At this point, it is interesting to recall how
across cock fighting cultures, interaction with females before a fight is perceived to weaken
cockerels, and decrease their likelihood of winning (Guggenheim 1994, 145 & Cook 1994, 238).
Taking into account what has been discussed on the link between fighting cocks and their
owners, it is reasonable to consider the impact the loss of a match has upon the owner
himself. If indeed, the cock becomes emasculated then is the owner also reduced to a
feminine state? This would certainly explain the Venezuelan prohibition of women owning
13
cockerels, lest they become pregnant upon the loss of a fight – such is the extent of the
winning cock’s masculinity.
The language surrounding cockfights across all cultures contains further acknowledgement of
the strongly masculine aspects of the sport. In Bali, the word ‘cock’ can also mean ‘hero’,
‘warrior’ or ‘lady-killer’ – indicating a definite association with masculinity where the fighting
cock, warrior and womaniser are all equal (Geertz 1994, 99). Andalusian gamblers might
describe a likely looking contestant as having the ‘balls to win well’, again connecting victory
with overtly male qualities (Marvin 1984, 65). The use of this phrase ‘having balls’ is present in
many cultures and it is important to note that the possession of actual testicles is not
necessary to earn this praise; instead a person or animal, be they male or female may be
described in this way if they are considered to have acted in a courageous, and therefore male,
manner.
Clearly, there can be no doubt that the cock fight is a deeply masculine activity; one which not
only entertains but reinforces the observer’s sense of masculine identity and provides a way
for them to express their aggression in a socially acceptable manner. The association of the
cockerel with sexuality is a further underlying theme of the whole sport, from its superstitions
and language, right down to the very way in which the cock wins a fight: by assuming
dominance over the loser. But whether this was the case for medieval attitudes towards
cockerels and cock fighting remains to be seen, and is a theme which will be explored further
throughout the next chapter.
14
Medieval Cockerels
The Medieval Church on Animals
It is often the case that a society’s attitude and treatment of animals is a reflection of how they
view themselves (Mullin 1999); in the case of Medieval England, the Christian church was
highly influential in the general perception of animals. During the establishment of the church,
it sought to completely reject previous religious orders, which had portrayed animals as being
similar to ourselves; indeed, many human-animal crossovers occur in ancient mythology and
iconography, where the distinction between human and animal becomes blurred. Greek
mythology and Celtic art are but two examples of where human-animal hybrids are
commonplace (figure 1.1). Abandoning these ideas, Christianity declared animals entirely
separate from humanity – they were thought to be savage and illogical, where humans were
civilised and rational (Salisbury 1994, 5). The Bible’s view of humans as God’s stewards of the
Earth placed humans above animals in the natural order, and as such they were viewed as
commodities for people to make use of as they saw fit.
Figure 1.1 – Example of Celtic human-animal hybrids. Source:
Megaw & Megaw 2001.
However, while the church urged people to separate themselves from the animal world, how
certain can we be that this view was shared by people outside of the church? There is a
certain amount of evidence to suggest that this was not the case, and that in fact, people often
felt a sense of affection and kinship towards their animals. Medieval people lived alongside
their livestock, sharing their homes with them and it is likely that animals were given individual
names and decorated with bells and ribbons (Ryder 2000, 34). There is even evidence in
Europe that animals were put on trial if they had committed a crime: pigs, dogs and bulls were
all tried and sentenced under human laws (Ryder 2000, 35). This treatment of livestock in such
15
a human manner implies that to an extent, medieval people considered their animals as semihuman.
Additionally, animals were often used as moral metaphors in fables and iconography. Levi
Strauss identified the use of animals ‘to think with’, the idea that societies project their
attitudes and beliefs upon animals in a way that is instantly recognisable (Serjeantson 2000,
179). The depiction of a lion for example, might imply strength and majesty, whereas a snake
would represent a sly and cheating character. In English medieval society, this was manifest in
many ways – a mostly illiterate society had to display information in a way which was
accessible to those who could not read, and so tapestries and wall paintings in churches and
civic buildings utilised imagery of animals in this way. Heraldry was of particular importance in
this period, especially after the 15th century, it was used amongst the aristocracy to advertise
the morals and beliefs of each individual house (Ailes 2002, 83). Moralistic stories and fables
were further mediums by which animals might represent human qualities such as bravery,
jealousy or honour in order to educate an audience.
Were Cockerels Symbols of Lust?
It is clear that during the Middle Ages certain animals came to represent human traits, but the
animal this paper is most concerned with is the chicken. It is often assumed that cockerels
have a strong association with lust, sexuality and sexual aggression. It is certainly true that
cockerels will fight one another for dominion over a harem of hens, but were they seen as
symbols of such behaviour during the Middle Ages? Animals most commonly linked to lust by
medieval writers, philosophers and painters appear to have included bears, horses and boars;
promiscuity was the domain of hares and goats; and even homosexuality was thought to be
represented by partridges, but is there any indication that cockerels were important symbols
of sexuality? (Salisbury 1994, 80).
Germanic cultures of the Medieval period do indeed contain references to this, with many
images of cockerels linking them to lust and lechery; of the vices depicted in the c.1400
Regensburg tapestry, Luxuria is given a cockerel as her crest. Further Germanic medieval
sources portray lechery as a young woman holding a cockerel and adultery is illustrated by a
lone cockerel. As for Medieval England, there seems to be less evidence for this association of
cockerels with sexuality than one would imagine (Jones 2002, 49). Lead badges of sexual
content have been found in England, many of which depict cockerels, some as individuals,
some mounting hens – figures 1.2 and 1.3 (Jones 1991).
16
Figure 1.2 & 1.3 – English Medieval lead badges, a single cockerel (left) and a cock mounting a hen (right).
Source: Egan & Pritchard 2002, 265.
Of course, these badges needn’t symbolise anything more than that of a purely biological
function; it may not be the case that this badge had an association with the lechery or lust of
humans. Although this seems unlikely as Gilchrist (2012, 106) contests; lead badges were
worn by young men to advertise their virility and availability. Other examples of this type of
badge have been heavily laden with accepted sexual symbolism and suggestion, with the ‘Wild
Man’ (figure 1.4) – an acutely hairy man, standing on a fish, grinding a pestle whilst
ejaculating/ urinating into a bowl – being a popular depiction (Gilchrist 2012, 101).
Figure 1.4 – Wild Man brooch. Source: Egan & Pritchard 2002,
267.
Further cultural references to cockerels in relation to sexual performance have been
documented: young women were supposedly advised to avoid eating cockerel crests, in order
to preserve their virtue (Jones 1991). And a popular ballad of the later Middle Ages: ‘The
Scolding Wife’s Vindication’ describes a woman who cures her husband’s impotence with a
‘cock broth’ (Fletcher 1995, 14). A 14th century restriction on the prostitutes of London to one
single road – Cock’s Lane – might also point to the association of cockerels with lust, though
17
again it is possible that this is merely a coincidence, rather than a result of specific town
planning (Karras 1996, 15).
In Christianity cockerels are symbols of resurrection and faith; the Bible states that Peter
betrayed Christ three times before a cockerel crowed, after which he remembered his loyalty
(Wollan 1994, 84). This link with religion is certainly at odds with the idea that cockerels were
symbolic of lust and lechery. In addition to this, medieval bestiaries describe the cockerel as a
symbol of hope; they are praised for their timekeeping and announcement of the start of each
day – despite the fact that cockerels crow throughout the day and night (Payne 1990, 80).
However, it is probable that the celibacy of the monks who wrote the bestiaries could have led
them to form different associations with cockerels than the rest of the population.
As previously mentioned, medieval fables were often used to demonstrate human social
hierarchy through animal metaphors, and it is in these fables that one might find further
references to cockerels. It is common for medieval fables to depict domestic animals as the
victim of the story; often they are tricked by a wild animal. This was certainly the case with
Reynard the Fox, who is seen to exploit a cockerel in one tale (Sailisbury 1994, 131). Again,
this appears to contradict the image of the cockerel as a potent sexual symbol, instead here he
appears as the quarry of a more intelligent animal. After 1540, a common representation for a
fool is a man with the crest or entire head and neck of a cockerel upon his head, indeed by the
Elizabethan period; the term ‘coxcomb’ was synonymous with a fool (Jones 2012, 105).
A
jester portrayed by Quintin Metsys c.1515 wearing a cockerel shaped head piece illustrates
Figure 1.5 – Quintin Metsys, The OlderOne Gets, the More Foolish One Becomes. Source:
oilpaintinghistory.com
18
this perfectly (figure 1.5). Here too, the cockerel is not an icon of sexual power, but a figure of
fun.
Taking into account all of these conflicting descriptions of the cockerel, it is likely that different
areas of society developed their own alternate interpretations of animal symbolism, relative to
their own experiences and values. It may be the case that it was only the areas of society
which celebrated cock fighting that also viewed the cockerel as a representation of male
sexuality.
Lust, Medicine and Cockerels
With regards to lust or a lack thereof, sexual organs of animals were of particular importance
within medicine when finding a cure. Albertus Magnus c. 1206-1280, recommended the
consumption of sparrow meat to restore sexual potency, and conversely prescribed a wolf
penis with the name of the patient attached to it in order to reduce sexual desire (McLaren
2007, 40 & Rider 2006). Other remedies proposed for impotence were deer and hare testicles,
and it was even suggested that the female consumption of cockerel testicles after intercourse
would increase the likelihood of pregnancy. It seems that while the species of animal may
change, it is the association of sexual organs with fertility that remained important.
Even before the Middle Ages, the cockerel had been associated with sexual performance by
Pliny the Elder; he suggested that the right testicle of a cockerel ‘worn as an amulet in a piece
of ram’s skin’ would serve as an aphrodisiac. Interestingly, he then goes on to state that the
testicle of a ‘fighting cock rubbed with goose grease and worn as an amulet wrapped in ram’s
skin’ would have the opposite effect, extinguishing sexual desire (Jones 1963, 369). Does this
mean that the testicle of a fighting cock was considered to have different properties than that
of an ordinary cockerel? Or are we just to assume that this is just the result of a work that has
been translated and re-written many times? Pliny also writes that either the testicles of a cock
or a bowl its blood placed under a marital bed reduces the desire of those who lie in it. What
then are we to assume from this – were cock’s testicles associated with virility or not? Did the
mode in which a person encountered an animal alter the effect its properties had on them? Or
is this again the result of many centuries of re-interpretation of Pliny’s work, which it must be
remembered, was just a collection of thoughts on medicine at the time – Pliny did not
necessarily agree with everything he wrote.
Pliny makes further references to the use of cockerel testicles in his Natural History, claiming
that the consumption of them by a woman after intercourse would cause a ‘male to form in
19
the uterus’ (Jones 1963, 359). This may be further indication that cockerels were considered to
be so inextricably linked with male qualities that the mere consumption of them would cause
the birth of a male child. It is important to consider whether these ideas and remedies were
practised during the Middle Ages or if cockerels had been abandoned after the development
of an association with fools, in favour of other animals with stronger sexual potency.
Did ‘Cock’ Mean ‘Penis’?
With the association between cockerels and sexuality being so prevalent, it is not difficult to
see why the term ‘cock’ can be used in place of ‘penis’; usually taking the form of a double
entendre or sexual innuendo. It is a joke that works in many languages, again attesting to the
undeniable link between cockerels and sex; Geertz (1994, 99) documented the presence of
‘the same tired jokes, strained puns and uninventive obscenities’ in Bali. And although Dundes
(1994, 253) attests that the double entendre does not work within Spanish or Portuguese,
there is still an association between the cockerel and the phallus within these cultures – in
Brazil, a ‘tea of cock spurs is recommended for sexual potency’. Additionally, the American use
of ‘rooster’ instead of ‘cock’ implies a sense of discomfort at the obvious connotations
attached to the word (Wollan 1994, 83).
It is thought that by AD c.1300, ‘coc’ was not only present within the English language, but
being used in the same way as ‘penis’ (Gilchrist 2012, 105). Uncertainty however, stems from
the debate as to whether ‘coc’ is used in relation to the bird or to plumbing, where it could
also mean a ‘short pipe or spout serving as a channel for passing liquids through’ (Jones 1991,
193). Clearly, when one considers the functions of the penis, this is a reasonable suggestion;
even more so, when the imagery in Dürer’s c.1500 painting ‘The Men’s Bath’ is taken into
account. Jones (2002, 50) notes within the painting, the positioning of a cockerel shaped tap
placed suggestively, in front of a man’s crotch (figure 1.6).
Additionally, an actual
archaeological example of a cockerel shaped tap has been discovered in the Thames estuary
(figure 1.7). Jones (1991, 195) takes this to indicate that the original use of the word ‘cock’ in
place of ‘penis’ was not actually a reference to the bird, and that this may have appeared later,
after the connection between all three words was made.
20
Figures 1.6 & 1.7 – Close up of ‘Cock’ shaped tap from Dürer’s The Men’s
Bath (left). Source: durerart.com. Archaeological example of ‘cock’
shaped tap (right). Source: Jones 2002, 50.
Natural Magic and the Four Humours
In medieval society, it was thought that a human might take on certain qualities of an animal
via the consumption of all or part of it, crucial to this quality. Hunters for example, are
understood to have eaten the testicles of the boars they hunted, in the belief that they could
ingest the power and potency concentrated within (Salisbury 1994, 80). This was part of a
‘natural magic’ – a result of ‘forces’ present in natural substances, in this case animals (Rider
2006, 84). The humoural principles of Hippocratic medicine were applied to this natural magic.
The theory of the four humours was prevalent in not only medicine, but science and
philosophy also, right up until the renaissance (Churchill 2005, 3). The theory stated that the
body contained four humours – blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile – that were the key
to health and bodily functions; these humours were introduced into the body through the
consumption of food, and it was thought that if a humour was present in an excess within the
body, it would result in illness (Stelmack & Stalikas 1991, 257). The humours were linked to
temperature, seasons and human temperament (figure 1.8). In order to balance the humours,
physicians would try to remove the humour in question, or to counter it with its ‘opposite’.
For example, a person with pneumonia – a ‘cold’ illness caused by an excess of phlegm – might
be fed a ‘hot’ food in order to counteract it (Stelmack & Stalikas 1991, 259).
And so it is easy to see how people might have assumed that eating a specific animal part
might endow them with the properties of that animal. It is probable that beliefs surrounding
absorption of animal traits went even further than merely eating them; seeing, hearing or even
touching an animal was believed to be enough for their qualities to be passed onto a human
21
(Sykes forthcoming). The implications this may have for medieval interactions with animals,
especially cockerels and cock fighting are intriguing. If it was the case that just seeing a
cockerel was thought to endow one with masculine qualities, what then would it mean for a
medieval person to observe a cockfight? A powerful (and noisy) display of intense masculinity,
coupled with obvious sexual undertones would surely be much more potent than merely
keeping cockerels on a farmyard.
Figure 1.8 – Diagram of the relationship between the Four Humours and the elements,
temperature and temperament. Source: Stelmack & Stalikas 1991.
Is it possible that by witnessing the aggressive behaviour of cockerels, medieval observers of
the cock fight believed they would become more likely to act in an aggressive manner? Or
alternatively, would a medieval man wishing to become more masculine attend a cock fight in
order to be instilled with such qualities? As the Anglo Saxon vision of masculinity was built
around the concept of a ‘warrior culture’ (McNamara 1994, 4), this does not appear to be out
of the question. And it is certainly the case that the cock fight is viewed in this way in cock
fighting cultures of the modern world; one need only recall the way in which owners of losing
(and thus feminised) cockerels are too considered to have taken on feminine qualities.
This theory might enable us to consider Medieval ecclesiastical attitudes towards animals in a
new way. If it was possible for animalistic traits to be passed onto a human observer, what
would the implications be for the interactions between religious people and their animals? It
has already been noted that Christian doctrine encouraged humans to separate themselves
from animal savagery – might this have affected the ways in which Medieval ecclesiastical
settlements interacted with animals? With specific reference to cock fighting, one might
22
suppose that monastic sites would not engage in this sport, lest the monks begin to absorb the
cock’s aggression and lustful tendencies.
What About Hens?
It may also be argued that that the perception of chickens as a representation of fertility is
derived not from the cockerel, but from hen’s ability to lay many eggs at a constant rate
throughout her life (Zeuner 1963). For the many medieval cultures, hens were perceived as a
symbol of domesticity and maternal care. Henry Smith’s later medieval marriage advice book
likened husband and wife to the cock and the hen: ‘The cock flyeth to bring in and the dam
siteth upon the nest to keep all at home’ (Fletcher 1995, 61). It appears that old notions of
expected male and female behaviour were similar to that of chickens, or at least those were
the traits placed upon chickens by humans. The term ‘henpecked’ often refers to a husband
who is exploited and controlled by his wife – this is a perfect example of how women were not
only linked to domestic poultry keeping, but over time appear to have taken on the hen’s
qualities, and were perhaps perceived to be similar in their behaviour (Jones 2002, 236).
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that hens were thought of as an entirely female concern;
poultry keeping was a female activity and the phrase ‘hen groper’ was used as an insult to men
who interacted with chickens on a domestic level (Jones 2002, 235). These men were thought
to be particularly effeminate, and once again, it seems that male and female behaviour was
strongly associated with cocks and hens. Gilchrist’s (1999, 32) assertion that western societies
tend to see female activities as being of a lower status than those of men may be relevant
here; in fact it may have been the case that within medieval society, cock fighting had a higher
status attached to it than poultry keeping because of these male/ female connotations.
Further examples of weak men depicted in association with hens and ‘women’s work’ might be
found in French, Germanic and Flemish wood carvings where the man is pictured sitting on a
nest of eggs, sometimes accompanied by a controlling wife who has taken his place of
dominance within the relationship (Jones 2002, 236) . A German tale of a prince who travels
the world to find a man who is not controlled by his wife, with the intention of rewarding him
with a stallion, is another perfect illustration of the link between weak men and poultry
keeping; each man he finds who is controlled by his wife is rewarded with an egg instead
(Jones 2002, 235). These attitudes are a further display of the power that humoural theory
held over medieval society; men who associated with hens and their strong female
connotations were perceived to absorb these feminine qualities and become in themselves
effeminate.
23
All these examples indicate that even in the medieval period, interaction with chickens was
dictated by gender, and was in all likelihood affected by the theory of the four humours. Many
of the examples given were pertaining to areas of Germanic medieval culture rather than
English however, and thus we must question whether these attitudes were present in England
as well as continental Europe; although the level of interaction between Britain and Europe
suggests that the spread of this perception was not impossible.
24
Method
I began this project by requesting data on chicken tarsometatarsi from both elite and
ecclesiastical Medieval sites. I was provided with a volume covering the environmental
archaeological findings from Flixborough – Dobney et al. 2007. Farmers, Monks and
Aristocrats: The Environmental Archaeology of Anglo Saxon Flixborough, – an elite site with
some possible phases of monastic occupation. By examining the available data, I was hopeful
that I might be able to shed some light on the question of whether the site had undergone a
monastic phase. This volume contained the metrics for every domestic fowl tarsometatarsus
recovered from the site, but unfortunately, did not record which phases they belonged to. In
order to compare the data by phase, I contacted University of Nottingham lecturer, Dr
Christopher Loveluck, who had contributed to the original volume, with a request for metrics
with phases included. Chris was able to lend me a number of floppy disks he thought might
contain the correct information. However, I was unsuccessful in getting the required data
from these floppy disks and proceeded to contact Dr Poly Baker at English Heritage with the
same request. She then sent me the correct information (Appendix 5) and I was able to
proceed with my investigation into domestic fowl remains at Flixborough.
The excavators of Bishopstone, East Sussex have thus far suggested that it was a manorial
estate centre (Thomas 2010); however I decided to test this hypothesis via the analysis of the
site’s chicken remains. Attaining the domestic fowl metrics (Appendix 4) for this site was much
more straightforward – it was provided by Dr Naomi Sykes, University of Nottingham.
I decided that it would be necessary for me to have something to compare the results of
Bishopstone and Flixborough to, and so collected data from sites whose function had already
been assigned. The sites I chose were Lewes, a secular town settlement, and Lyminge – a site
with a known ecclesiastical phase. The tarsometatarsus metrics for Lewes (Appendix 1) were
passed on to me by Gemma Ayton, University College London. I was invited to collect my own
data on an assemblage from Lyminge (Appendices 2 & 3) by Zoe Knapp at the University of
Reading, as metrics for domestic fowl tarsometatarsi had not yet been collected. I examined
all of the faunal remains from the 2009 excavation and some from 2008, as much of the 2008
excavation material was stored elsewhere.
25
I measured the greatest length (GL), smallest
length of corpus (SC) and the greatest breadth
of both proximal and distal ends (Bp and Bd)
where possible. I also recorded the presence or
absence of spurs/ spur scars and the length of
each spur, along with any visible pathological or
ageing data. All measurements were carried
out with digital callipers according to the
criteria set out by Cohen and Serjeantson (1996,
108).
Figure 2.1 – Criteria for measuring domestic fowl tarsometatarsus.
Source: Cohen & Serjeantson 1996.
26
Site name/
Site dates
Number of complete
location
tarsometatarsi
Lewes, East Sussex. 3c (8th- 10th
3c: 1
Sites A/C and B
century)
4a-4b: 29
(Lewes House and
4a-4b (11th-13th
5a-5b: 8
Lewes Library)
century)
Site Publication
Ayton pers. comm.
5a-5b (13th-14th
century)
Lyminge, Kent.
8th – 9h century
116
Lyminge assemblage,
access courtesy of the
University of Reading
8th – 10th century
52
Poole pers. comm.
Flixborough,
2-3a (late 7th to
2-3a: 13
Dobney, K. Jones, D.
Northern
mid-8th century)
3b: 62
Barrett, J. Johnstone, C.
Lincolnshire
3b (mid 8th to early
4-5b: 46
2007. Farmers, Monks and
9th century)
6: 22
Aristocrats: The
Bishopstone, East
Sussex
4-5b (9th century)
Environmental
6 (10th century)
Archaeology of Anglo
Saxon Flixborough.
Excavations at Flixborough,
Volume 3. Oxford: Oxbow
Books.
Table 1.1 – Table of the sites used in this investigation
27
Figure 2.2 – Map of England displaying locations of the sites used in this investigation
Identifying Sex – Issues surrounding the dependence upon presence/ absence of spurs
Traditionally, the gender of domestic fowl has been ascertained by the presence (or absence)
of cock spurs upon the tarsometatarsus (Sadler 1991, 43). However, as Doherty (Forthcoming)
has demonstrated, there are cases where cockerels do not develop archaeologically visible
spurs until much later on in development. This is due to the way in which a spur forms; while
the outer ‘sheath’ of a spur may be attached, the spur core takes a considerable amount of
time to fuse with the tarsometatarsus (figure 2.3) – anywhere between 7 and 18 months
(Sadler 1991, 44). Consequently, if a cockerel is slaughtered before the spur properly develops
it will appear as female in the archaeological record. In response to the growth of the spur
core, a socket may form on the tarsometatarsus to accommodate it, although again, if a bird
dies before fusion has fully occurred, only a spur scar will remain (Sadler 1991, 43). The stages
of development for this spur socket and their relation to age of the animal are not fully
understood, but despite this, it is possible to interpret cockerels with scars but no spurs as
relatively young birds (Doherty forthcoming). As Sadler’s (1991, 41) study focused on only
28
modern breeds of domestic fowl, it is pertinent to consider whether the same was true of spur
development in older breeds of chicken. Fortunately, research into the spur development of
Red Jungle Fowl has revealed that fusion of a spur to the tarsometatarsus does indeed occur
later in life for primitive breeds also (Doherty forthcoming). And so, using this knowledge, I
will attempt to ascertain gender within my data using more than a simple ‘spur’/ ‘no spur’
distinction.
Figure 2.3 – Diagram of spur development in male domestic fowl. Source: Doherty forthcoming
Knowing that an absence of spur was not definite proof of gender, I plotted the greatest length
(GL) of each tarsometatarsus against the diameter of its shaft (SC), by site phase in a scatter
graph, whilst also identifying presence/ absence of a spur or scar. Some of the tarsometatarsi
from each site lacked the necessary measurements due to the level of fragmentation, and
were therefore not included in these samples. However, in all instances I have attempted to
get the largest sample size possible with the data available to me, and believe them to be
reasonably representative samples of the rest of the sites.
Plotting the data in this way allowed me to identify two distinct groupings of the
tarsometatarsi. These groups relate to the sex of each individual; those with the smallest
measurements are females and the group with larger measurements are males (Sadler 1991,
42). I then noted the percentage of young cockerels and old, using the assumption that those
without spurs (or with scars only) were youngest, and those who had developed spurs to be
oldest. These results were then recorded by phase in a bar chart in order to compare the
presence of old/ young cockerels on each site during each phase. The percentage of females
to young/ old males was also recorded.
29
Results
The results of my investigation into the possible presence of cock fighting on Medieval
settlements are presented below.
Lewes, East Sussex
Lewes
Female
Spur
Scar
Unspurred male
3c
1
0
0
0
4a-b
8
13
3
4
5a-b
5
4
0
0
Table 2.1 - Female, spurred cockerels,
scarred cockerels and unspurred cockerels
at Lewes, across all phases.
Figure 3.1 - Graph displaying the results of plotting GL against SC on Lewes tarsometatarsi across all phases
Figure X shows a slightly indistinct separation between males and females, though it is still
visible. Figure 3.1 shows a slightly indistinct separation of sexes, though it is still visible; the
group with the smallest measurements is most probably the females, and the group of larger
tarsometatarsi represents the males. Within the male group, are tarsometatarsi without cock
spurs (or with spur scars only) - these occurrences reflect the existence of young cockerels,
which have not been allowed to fully develop their spurs. There are no unspurred cockerels in
phase 5a-b, but there appear to be a number of very small males for phases 4a-b and 5a-b.
Phase 3c has only one tarsometatarsus; that of a female.
30
Figure 3.2 – Graph displaying percentage of old and young cockerels at Lewes across all phases
Figure 3.2 shows that old cockerels were in higher abundance in both phases 4a-b and 5a-b;
there are no young cockerels present at all during 5a-b.
Figure 3.3 - Graph displaying percentage of old/ young cockerels and females at Lewes across all phases
Figure 3.3 shows that across all phases, hens were more common than cockerels old or young.
There were no cockerels present at all in phase 3c.
31
Lyminge
Lyminge
Females
Spur
Scar
Unspurred male
C 8th - 9th
104
6
7
4
Table 2.2 - Female, spurred cockerels, scarred cockerels
th
th
and unspurred cockerels at Lyminge during 8 – 9
centuries.
th
th
Figure 3.4 - Graph displaying the results of plotting GL against SC at Lyminge tarsometatarsi during the 8 – 9
centuries
Figure 3.4 has a clear separation of sex, although one spurred element does plot within the
‘female’ group. There is a definite presence of spurred and scarred cockerels, there are also
individuals who show no spur or scar yet plot within the ‘male’ group; these represent young
cockerels.
32
th
th
Figure 3.5 – Graph displaying percentage of old and young cockerels at Lyminge during 8 – 9 centuries
Figure 3.5 shows that the majority of cockerels at Lyminge during this period were young.
th
th
Figure 3.6 - Graph displaying percentage of old/ young cockerels and females at Lyminge during 8 – 9 centuries
Figure 3.6 shows that while young cockerels may be in more abundance than old ones, both
are far outweighed by females.
33
Bishopstone, East Sussex
Bishopstone
Female
Spur
Scar
Unspurred male
C 8th - 10th
37
1
3
3
Table 2.3 - Female, spurred cockerels, scarred cockerels
and unspurred cockerels at Bishopstone.
th
Figure 3.7 – Graph displaying the results of plotting GL against SC on Bishopstone tarsometatarsi during the 8 –
th
10 centuries
Figure 3.7 shows the distinction between males and females, there were clearly fewer males
than females upon this site during the 8th-10th centuries. Of these males, it seems that only
one was an old cockerel.
34
th
th
Figure 3.8 – Graph displaying percentage of old and young cockerels at Bishopstone during the 8 – 10 centuries
Figure 3.8 shows that throughout the 8th – 10th centuries, old cockerels were in the minority at
Bishopstone.
th
th
Figure 3.9 - Graph displaying percentage of old/ young cockerels and females at Lewes during the 8 – 10
centuries
Figure 3.9 shows that cockerels were very much inferior in number to female chickens during
the 8th – 10th centuries.
35
Flixborough, North Lincolnshire
Flixborough
Female
Spur
Scar
Unspurred male
2-3a
10
4
2
1
3b
40
13
3
5
4-5b
22
13
5
6
6
11
4
1
5
Table 2.4 - Female, spurred cockerels,
scarred cockerels and unspurred cockerels
at Flixborough, across all phases.
Figure 3.10 – Graph displaying the results of plotting GL against SC on Flixborough tarsometatarsi across all phases
Figure 3.10 shows two distinct groupings between the size of the tarsometatarsi, which reflect
the presence of both females and cockerels present on the site. There are young, unspurred/
scarred cockerels across all phases, as well as old, spurred ones.
36
Figure 3.11 – Graph displaying percentage of old and young cockerels at Flixborough across all phases
Figure 3.11 shows that old cockerels were more prevalent during phases 2-3a and 6. Old
cockerels were in higher abundance than young cockerels during phases 3b and 4-5b.
Figure 3.12 – Graph displaying percentage of old/ young cockerels and females at Flixborough across all phases
Figure 3.12 shows that across all phases, hens were more common than cockerels old and
young.
37
Discussion
From these results, it is possible to argue that the slaughter of young cockerels is likely to
reflect their use in meat consumption, whereas the birds who were allowed to mature beyond
18 months must have been kept for a different reason (Doherty Forthcoming, 6). It seems
unlikely that a site which was already slaughtering its young cockerels for meat would allow
other cockerels to develop well into adulthood (and into less desirable meat) if they intended
to slaughter these birds also. Instead an alternate explanation for the presence of these old
cockerels must be sought; ritual and religion are popular suggestions in the face of
‘exploitation outside of the normal manner’ (Wait, 1985), but there may be yet another
explanation – cock fighting. Is it possible that these older cocks were bred for fighting and
therefore avoided being killed for their meat as young birds? To test this hypothesis, the data
from Lewes, Lyminge, Flixborough and Bishopstone will be examined and discussed below.
Lewes
The town of Lewes was established as a fortress c. AD 878-879 by Alfred the Great, and soon
developed into a trading centre (Swift 2011, 29). After the Norman invasion, a castle was built
within the town and it became an important Norman power base (Swift 2011, 30). Both the
Domesday Book and the archaeological evidence portray Lewes as a sizable and wealthy
secular medieval town; precisely the kind of place one could expect to find cock fighting.
In accordance with this, the examination of the domestic fowl tarsometatarsi recovered from
excavations at Lewis House and Library have revealed a strong possibility that cock fighting
was indeed being carried out from phase 4a, right through to 5b. Old cockerels by far
outweigh the young in phase 4a-b (figure 3.2) and there are no young cockerels at all in phase
5a-b. The number of hens present within each phase is interesting, as they are lower in
number than cockerels during phase 4a-b (figure 3.3); indicating that meat and secondary
products were not the primary use of fowl.
By phase 5a-b, females did become more
numerous, although they remain similar in number to old cockerels. This may reflect a society
which is beginning to appreciate fowl as a source for meat consumption, in accordance with
Beneke’s (1993, 28) theory. However, it must be acknowledged, that Lewes has only a small
number of domestic fowl tarsometatarsi, meaning that the sample size for each phase is also
small; 5a-b in particular has only nine bones to analyse. 3c is the only medieval phase that
contains no cockerels, although this is because the evidence from this phase consists of a
single unspurred tarsometatarsus – see Table 2.1.
38
Many of the spurred elements from the Lewes assemblage do not plot amongst the main
group of males; there are two explanations for this. The first might be that there was an
unusually small breed of cockerels – or perhaps bantam versions were present – present on
the site throughout these phases. The appearance of particularly small hens upon the site
also, might represent the female counterparts of this breed. Alternatively, it might be the case
that these bones do not belong to domestic fowl at all, and are in fact the tarsometatarsi of
pheasants, which have been incorrectly identified as chickens; this was a concern raised by
Gemma Ayton (pers. comm.), who provided the raw data. However, upon measuring both
male and female pheasant tarsometatarsi (University of Nottingham reference collection), this
seems less likely (figure 4.1). The pheasants did not plot in the same region as the outlying
spurred cockerels, and thus the outliers are probably reflections of a small breed of fowl.
Despite the sample size not being ideal, the data from Lewes is highly indicative of
participation in a cock fighting culture, in keeping with the town’s secular status.
Figure 4.1 – Graph displaying results of plotting GL against SC on pheasant tarsometatarsi and those from
Lewes across all phases.
Lyminge
During the 8th – 9th centuries, Lyminge underwent a phase of monastic occupation (Thomas
pers. comm.), which is reflected in the domestic fowl signature. The presence of young
cockerels is significantly higher than older ones (figure 3.5); leading to the assumption that
cock fighting was not practised upon the site during this period. On top of this, the number of
39
females far outweighs that of males (figure 3.6), indicating that the inhabitants of Lyminge
were exploiting chickens for meat and eggs, rather than breeding fighting cocks. This is in
accordance with what one would expect to find upon a medieval monastic settlement, as it is
unlikely that monks would have indulged in a sport with such masculine and sexual
undertones.
A number of these female individuals displayed signs of arthritis – a trait most commonly
found in animals of a great age – implying that not all hens were slaughtered as soon as they
matured, and some were in fact kept for many years (figure 4.2). Perhaps these few were of a
specific significance to their keepers; indeed it is pleasing to imagine a long standing
relationship between these hens and the monks of Lyminge at a time when the relationship
between animals and religion was more often one of dominance and provision of products
(Salisbury 1994).
Figure 4.2 – Female domestic fowl tarsometatarsus displaying signs of
arthritis. Source: University of Reading, Lyminge (2009) assemblage
Bishopstone – The Probability of an Ecclesiastical Presence
The excavators of Bishopstone have thus far interpreted it as an estate centre; they have
highlighted a lifestyle of conspicuous consumption and described its role as a centre for
distribution of goods to the local area (Thomas 2010). The probability of an ecclesiastical
presence upon the site was considered and subsequently dismissed due to a lack of evidence
for the monastic lifestyle, such as literacy and diet (Thomas 2010, 215). By applying my
method of investigation via domestic fowl remains, I wish to re-examine this interpretation.
40
There is very little evidence for old cockerels upon this site, with only one complete spurred
tarsometatarsus having been recovered (figure 3.7). The rest appear to have belonged to
young cockerels or hens (figure 3.9); strongly implying that there was no culture of cock
fighting in Bishopstone during the 8th – 10th centuries. And thus, it can be proposed that the
site experienced a level of ecclesiastical influence, which led to this absence of cock fighting.
This is not to say that Bishopstone was not a secular estate centre, only that the possibility of a
religious presence upon the site might be reconsidered.
However, it must also be acknowledged that the evidence for cock fighting may be limited
because the secular inhabitants did not adopt it at this time. It seems to me that a more
comprehensive view of how widespread the practice of cock fighting was within Medieval
England is needed before a definitive answer can be given. If it was the case that all elite
secular sites were indeed participating in the cock fight, then this would make Bishopstone
either an exception, or point to an ecclesiastical influence. Either way, the archaeological
record would benefit greatly from deeper investigation into the practice of cock fighting
throughout the Middle Ages.
Flixborough – The Question of Monastic Occupation
Flixborough is one of the best examples of a Medieval aristocratic site in Britain, but the
evidence also suggests possible phases of monastic occupation. However, discerning the
precise period of time in which this occurred has proven to be rather complex. Various
suggestions are put forward in the site publication; most of which rely on the presence or
absence of certain fauna as evidence, although none of these theories agree when a phase of
monastic influence was most likely to have taken place (Dobney et al. 2007, 220-234). Each of
these suggestions are considered in turn below and discussed in terms of the current findings.
Fish Remains
Thanks to fine sieving recovery techniques, fish remains are well represented at Flixborough
throughout all phases. Unusually for an elite site, Flixborough’s fish are thought to best
resemble assemblages of hospitals and monasteries throughout all of the site’s phases. At first
glance, this may seem to be largely unhelpful, but Dobney et al. (2007, 233) have attempted to
identify monastic phases by looking at the specific presence of flatfish and smelt – two species
most common to monastic assemblages. Figure 4.3 shows an increased number of flatfish
(eels) during phase 3b, while recovery of smelt is higher from phase 2-3a to 3b (the size of
41
smelt also increases – see Table 3.1). This evidence led to the suggestion that monastic
occupation may have occurred throughout these phases.
Figure 4.3 – Recovery of fish at Flixborough across all phases. Source: Dobney et al. 2007.
The findings from my own investigation suggest that phase 2-3a has no evidence for cock
fighting, but that 3b is in fact, the phase with the strongest indication of a cock fighting culture
(figure 3.11). If indeed, Medieval monks were avoiding cock fighting, then despite the fish
signatures, it seems unlikely that phase 3b was populated by monks. 2-3a however, has very
weak evidence for cock fighting; this fact combined with an increase in smelt size and
exploitation might be indicative of monastic style living.
42
Table 3.1 – Size distribution of Smelt recovered from Flixborough across all phases. Source: Dobney et al.
2007.
Wild Bird Remains
As religious sites tend to have a limited range of wild birds, Dobney et al. (2007, 224) propose
that examination of the wild bird record at Flixborough might reveal clues as to whether there
was indeed a monastic presence at any point in its occupation sequence. Their examination
showed that phase 4-5b best reflected the wild bird signature of an ecclesiastical site, while
wild birds were most abundant during phase 3b and 6, both of which better resemble high
status estate centres – see Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 – Wild birds recovered from Flixborough across all phases. Source: Dobney et al. 2007.
Phase 4-5b might have the weakest wild bird signature, but does in fact have some, albeit
limited, evidence for cock fighting (figure 3.11). If indeed this was an elite phase, complete
with cock fighting, the lack of wild birds might be perhaps explained by a decreased interest in
the exploitation and hunting of them, caused by a growing preference for cock fighting as a
form of entertainment instead. However, the probability of cock fighting during this phase is
not overwhelmingly obvious; the difference in percentage of young and old cockerels is not as
great as that of the other phases. Additionally, if the site’s inhabitants had replaced the
43
pursuit of hunting wild birds with cock fighting, surely this ought to have also occurred during
phase 3b – the phase with strongest evidence for cock fighting. The appearance of an ‘elite’
wild bird signature for phase 6 seems to be at odds with the fact that this phase has the
weakest overall indication of cock fighting; if the inhabitants of Flixborough had been
participating in a cock fighting culture, they seem to have abandoned it by the 10th century,
although the exploitation of wild birds continues into this period.
Answering the Question of Monastic Occupation
If the hypothesis regarding the utilisation of old cockerels in cock fighting are correct, then it
appears likely that the inhabitants of Flixborough were exploiting them in this way during the
mid-8th – early 9th century (phase 3b). Because of this, I would not consider this phase to be
particularly ecclesiastical, despite the sharp increase in eel remains. Instead I offer the
suggestion that this was a reaction to changing availability of fish – the decline in all other fish
taxa upon the site during phase 3b is testament to this (figure 4.3). Additionally, the wild bird
signature for phase 3b better resembles that of a high status secular site than a monastic one,
further refuting the theory that monastic occupation occurred during this phase – see Table
3.2.
Phase 2-3a has both an ecclesiastical fish signature and an absence of cock fighting; two things
which might be reasonably assumed to indicate a monastic lifestyle. While the physical size of
smelt may be highest during this phase, the increase in their number is not a drastic one and
could again, merely reflect a change in the availability of resources. Pike, perch and carp all
decline during this phase and thus, exploitation of larger smelt may have increased to
counteract the loss of these other fish (figure 4.3).
Another phase which may be judged to be most similar to an ecclesiastical site is phase 4-5b.
Whilst this phase does have some suggestion of cock fighting, the difference between old and
young cockerels is not as clearly defined as phase 3b and there are still other compelling
factors to consider. The wild bird signature for this site is very different to those that come
before and after it; while phases 3b and 6 contain taxa more common to sites of a secular
nature, 4-5b appears more similar to an ecclesiastical site (Table 3.2). Although, this could of
course reflect the changes in available resources for exploitation, it seems unlikely that these
bird species would have just disappeared from the local environment for a century. Instead, it
is more likely that the absence of these fauna was a result of purposeful avoidance on behalf
of Flixborough’s inhabitants. Further to this, the high incidence of neonatal and very juvenile
44
cattle remains during sub-phases 4i-5a might indicate vellum production; something which is
highly suggestive of a monastic presence (Dobney et al. 2007, 234 & Scott 2000).
Of the two, I would suggest that phase 4-5b has more evidence for monastic occupation than
phase 2-3a; despite the fact that there is no indication of cock fighting during phase 2-3a, the
other evidence for monastic influence is tenuous at best and I suspect that the lack of cock
fighting is due to the fact it had yet to be adopted at Flixborough. Phase 4-5b seems to have
the greatest number of coinciding factors which point to monastic involvement. However, as
there does also seem to be a slight possibility of cock fighting during this phase, it may have
been the case that instead of a period of complete monastic control, there were a number of
literate monks living alongside aristocratic inhabitants. It certainly seems that boundaries
between secular and ecclesiastical sites were not as rigid as previously thought (Dyer 2002,
Blair 2006 & Foot 2006); thus the presence of ecclesiastical persons upon a secular site is not
out of the question. This would explain the need for vellum production, but does not fully
explain the change in wild bird signature – perhaps these monks were of a high enough
influence that they could control exploitation of wild birds.
Finally, it is worth noting that across all of Flixborough’s phases, hens are in a higher
abundance than cockerels (figure 3.12).
And so whatever their religious affiliation, the
occupants of the site were probably exploiting some fowl for meat and secondary products, in
addition to their utilisation in cock fighting.
45
Conclusion
This investigation into cock fighting and its surrounding culture has revealed much for our
consideration. It has explored the link between cockerels and masculinity – both in the
modern world and the Middle Ages – and considered the relationship between these
perceptions and humoural theory in an attempt to identify which Medieval groups were
participating in the sport. New research into identification of sex of domestic fowl (Sadler
1991 & Doherty forthcoming) was consulted and applied to the faunal signatures of both
secular and ecclesiastical sites – Lewes, Lyminge, Bishopstone and Flixborough – in the hope
that it would reveal the presence or absence of cock fighting upon them. Finally, these
findings were brought together in order to identify whether they enable archaeologists to
better recognise secular and ecclesiastical sites within the Anglo Saxon world.
It is a well attested fact that cockerels are strongly associated with visions of masculinity and
sexuality; from a Greek symbol of homosexual rape (Dover 1989, 6) and a Roman illustration of
courage in battle (Serjeantson 2009, 330) to the modern male dominated blood sport.
Cockerels have been depicted as creatures of lust and lechery in religious iconography, English
medieval lead badges (Jones 2002) and even medicine – where their use as an aphrodisiac and
in fertility treatment is widely documented (Jones 1963). Indeed, their very name ‘cock’ is
commonly used as an alternative for ‘penis’, although whether this originally came from the
bird, or a plumbing device is disputed (Gilchrist 2012, 105 & Jones 1991, 193). The intensely
masculine role given to cockerels is matched in the way in which hens were perceived, to the
point where men who kept hens were considered to be feminine also (Jones 2002, 235).
Modern anthropological studies of cock fighting reveal that the gender distinctions
surrounding cocks and hens still hold true today. In many cultures which practice cock
fighting, the cockerel is considered to have all the qualities men ought to aspire to, such as
honour, bravery and virility (Cook 1994, 243 & Marvin 1984, 60). The Balinese language of the
cockfight reflects these perceptions; the word ‘cock’ can also mean ‘warrior’ and ‘lady-killer’
(Geertz 1994, 99). It was Dundes (1994, 250) who recognised that a cockerel does not merely
win a fight, but by dominating the loser with his superior masculinity, he also feminises it in
the process. It is clear that the sport is essential to the male participant’s sense of masculine
identity; it is an acceptable outlet for their aggression and helps to affirm their status as a man.
So, which groups practiced cock fighting during the Middle Ages? The answer to this might be
found via the application of humoural theory and the Medieval assumption that a human
could absorb animal behaviours via mere observation of them (Sykes forthcoming). It appears
46
that awareness of humoural theory persists to a certain extent within modern cock fighting,
with the belief that the actions of the owner can affect the performance of the cockerel
(Guggenheim 1994, 145) and the concern that a female cock owner will fall pregnant if her
cock loses – such is the potency of the winning cock (Cook 1994, 233). It is likely that the
‘warrior culture’ of the Early Medieval period would have embraced all displays of male
aggression and dominance, and thus cock fighting would have been an acceptable pastime
within secular settlements. Monasteries however, would have been less interested in cock
fighting, for the very reason it was so acceptable to the warrior classes.
On their own, these theories can be no more than mere speculation, but with available
evidence from Lewes and Lyminge does appear to support them. The secular town settlement
of Lewes does indeed have strong evidence for cock fighting – with a high occurrence of old
cockerels and almost no young or female individuals being represented. Whereas Lyminge’s
monastic phase c.700-800 AD, does not show this at all; instead the faunal signature reflects
the exploitation of domestic fowl in meat consumption and secondary products.
With regards to identifying a monastic presence upon Flixborough and Bishopstone, it must
first be recognised that the relationships between secular and ecclesiastical sites were fluid
and complex (Dyer 2002, Foot 2006 & Blair 2006) and as such, it is difficult to accept one
singular behaviour or tradition as definite proof of site function. Instead, archaeologists ought
to endeavour to study all aspects of a site in relation to one another in order to obtain true
understanding of the settlement. Having said that, I believe that the study of cock fighting
upon settlements can lend a new angle to the interpretation of ancient sites, as has been
demonstrated throughout this dissertation.
In the case of Bishopstone, much of the material recovered from the site implies that it was a
secular manorial centre (Thomas 2010); the domestic fowl signature however, does not
conform to this classification. The data for Bishopstone displays no suggestion of cock fighting
whatsoever; it is far more reminiscent of the monastic phase at Lyminge. Of course, as
knowledge of the distribution of cock fighting within Medieval England is extremely limited, it
is impossible to know to what extent manorial centres can be expected to have practiced cock
fighting. It is entirely possible that cock fighting was actually of little importance to these sites,
making its absence at Bishopstone unremarkable. If this is not the case however, it may be
pertinent to consider the possibility of an ecclesiastical presence at Bishopstone during the 8th
– 10th centuries.
47
As for Flixborough, there are a number of coinciding monastic traits during the 9th century
(phase 4-5b); the wild bird signature, limited evidence for cock fighting and possible vellum
production are all indicative of a monastic presence. However, this is a complex site, with
much conflicting evidence and I would conclude that while there may have been some
ecclesiastical inhabitants at Flixborough, it was not ever exclusively a monastery.
The point that I wish to conclude this dissertation upon is that we are only just beginning to
appreciate how beneficial the study of domestic fowl can be for our understanding of past
civilisations. Cock fighting alone can tell us so much about the worldview and belief system of
a settlement’s occupants, that chickens can no longer go unstudied. I believe that were a
comprehensive overview of cock fighting in Medieval England conducted, it might be used to
great effect in the attempt to distinguish between monastic and secular sites in Anglo Saxon
England.
48
Appendices
SITE
CONTEXT
PHASE
GL
Bd
Bp
SC
SEX
Site B
1095
3c
63.4
11.1
11.4
4.7
No Spur
Site B
605
4a
67.22
13.2
13.7
5.9
No Spur
Site B
605
4a
81.5
14.5
13.6
6.5
No Spur
Site B
636
4a
66.7
11.5
12.6
5.2
No Spur
Site B
1172
4a
69.6
12.9
12.8
5.6
No Spur
Site B
1053
4a
76.5
12.7
12.7
6.2
No Spur
Site B
1064
4a
64.6
111.6
12.8
5.2
No Spur
Site B
1057
4a
65.7
11.5
11.2
5.1
No Spur
Site B
1027
4a
79
13.7
13.5
6.3
No Spur
Site B
537
4a
65.3
11.3
11.4
4.6
No Spur
Site B
537
4a
63
11
11.5
6
Scar
Site B
456
4a
64.4
11
11
5.2
Scar
Site B
458
4a
58.4
10.7
10.8
5.4
Spur
Site B
603
4a
81.1
14.4
14.2
6.8
Spur
Site B
1065
4a
68.4
12.3
12.2
5.4
Spur
Site B
2159
4a
78.5
13.6
12.7
6
Spur
Site B
605
4a
75.3
13.8
6.4
Spur
Site B
Site B
1175
2020
4b
4b
77.8
66.6
13.9
11.9
13.2
11.6
6.2
5.1
No Spur
No Spur
Site B
1213
4b
82.7
14.6
13.9
7.4
Spur
Site B
608
5b
79.8
13.9
13.4
6.6
Spur
Site A/C
386
4a
64.8
5
No Spur
Site A/C
386
4a
64.9
5.4
No Spur
Site A/C
1508
4a
74.93
13.14
14.08
5.3
No Spur
Site A/C
1602
4a
72.82
12.08
12.72
6.22
Scar
Site A/C
1693
4a
80.4
13.1
6.7
Spur
Site A/C
1189
4a
82.4
14.8
14.1
7.3
Spur
Site A/C
2068
4b
66.3
11.9
10.8
5
No Spur
Site A/C
2074
4b
64.6
11.5
11.8
4.7
Spur
Site A/C
1619
4b
75.61
12.87
12.21
5.53
Scar
Site A/C
1026
5a
64.5
11.73
11.03
4.7
No Spur
Site A/C
1176
5a
66.8
10.7
9.9
3.9
No Spur
Site A/C
1176
5a
66.9
9.9
3.7
No Spur
Site A/C
1176
5a
56.9
11.8
10.3
4
No Spur
Site A/C
1454
5a
78.71
13.54
13.95
7.21
Spur
Site A/C
607
5b
64
11.7
10.5
4.8
No Spur
Site A/C
997
5b
67.69
14.4
13.81
6.17
Spur
Site A/C
1191
5b
71.2
14.3
13.6
6.2
Spur
Appendix 1 – Tarsometatarsi metrics for domestic fowl, from Lewes (East Sussex)
49
Context
Left/
Right
GL
Bp
SC
Bd
Spur?
Spur
length
247
R
61.36
11.59
5.39
11.7
None
247
R
64.43
12.13
5.71
12.43
None
247
L
11.55
5.84
628
R
65.49
11.64
5.34
11.12
None
628
L
64.76
11.55
5.35
11.04
None
628
R
628
R
628
L
680
R
680
R
684
R
684
L
65.4
11.21
5.44
11.33
None
684
L
61.01
11.69
5.39
11.58
None
684
R
66.19
12.03
6.01
11.84
None
684
L
65.96
12.05
6.04
11.91
None
684
L
69.8
11.72
5.83
11.83
None
684
R
63.84
12.62
5.83
11.32
None
684
R
65.63
11.23
5.33
11.09
None
684
R
61.07
11.36
5.28
11.5
None
684
R
69.53
11.66
5.66
11.95
None
684
R
69.58
11.76
5.74
12.04
None
684
L
69.06
11.64
5.85
12.27
None
684
L
71.24
13.78
7.2
13.87
Spur
10.55
684
R
7.01
14.14
Spur
10.56
Comments
None
12.36
12.04
6.06
12.08
12.56
Spur
16.96
6.11
Most likely same
specimen as above
12.85
13.87
620
L
14.34
6.98
620
R
13.95
6.82
Spur
620
L
592
L
82.88
14.54
7.87
14.18
Spur
592
R
82.37
14.29
7.9
14.16
Spur
592
L
14.12
11.66
None
Appendix 2 – Tarsometatarsi metrics for domestic fowl, from Lyminge (Kent). Excavation year - 2008
50
Context
Left/
Right
GL
Bp
SC
Bd
Spur?
Spur
length
1600
R
68.63
11.66
5.69
11.92
None
1600
L
67.91
11.46
6.03
12.01
None
1008
R
1612
L
1603
L
5.89
12.72
1018
L
5.92
11.63
1026
R
67.27
11.43
5.61
11.2
None
1825
L
76
13.79
6.71
14.01
Scar
1835
L
67.51
11.25
6.28
12.6
None
1827
L
1837
L
62.09
11.33
5.54
11.56
None
Juvenile
1837
R
63.01
11.32
5.61
11.51
None
Juvenile
1828
R
57.9
10.95
5.88
11.25
None
Juvenile
1711
L
54.28
12.25
5.26
11.24
None
1752
R
57.36
11.79
5.02
10.99
None
Comments
14.17
66.13
11.65
5.76
None
None
Juvenile
1839
1793
11.44
Juvenile
45.31
10.21
4.64
1481
R
66.51
11.68
5.65
11.57
None
1730
L
74.23
12.89
6.69
13.78
Scar
1730
R
75.04
13.16
6.29
13.57
Scar
1730
R
77.08
13.94
6.75
13.77
Scar
1730
L
66.39
12.03
5.69
11.66
None
1730
R
59.95
12.26
4.63
10.82
None
Juvenile
1730
R
66.99
12.26
5.78
11.73
None
Juvenile
1730
R
11.61
5.32
11.6
4.74
1485
45.56
1707
1420
None
Juvenile
None
Juvenile
5.36
L
53.33
11.66
5.02
1409
L
57.79
12.25
1409
R
61.42
12.49
1409
L
1464
L
78.77
1440
R
1440
R
1440
1440
Juvenile
11.25
None
5.16
11.6
None
5.29
12.13
None
5.35
11.78
None
14
7.47
14.63
Spur
69.12
11.56
5.78
12.2
None
68.27
11.73
5.82
11.94
None
Juvenile
L
68.9
12.13
6.1
12.14
None
Juvenile
L
69.5
11.96
5.74
12.73
None
1420
4.47
1420
4.81
1482
L
64.38
11.75
5.44
11.66
None
1482
R
65.62
11.8
5.72
11.52
None
1479
L
14.32
1284
L
12.14
1294
R
5.96
13.01
None
15.88
Appendix 3 – Tarsometatarsi metrics for domestic fowl, from Lyminge (Kent). Excavation year - 2009
Continues to next page
51
Context
Left/
Right
1230
L
1230
L
1095
L
1665
1037
GL
Bp
SC
11.51
5.28
Bd
1037
Comments
Juvenile
11.57
11.23
5.61
None
10.27
4.87
None
L
Spur
length
None
5.46
56.03
Spur?
5.81
12.62
17.3
None
Juvenile
13.4
1672
L
76.57
13.23
6.8
13.29
Spur
1672
L
66
13.13
5.78
13.35
None
1672
R
1672
R
73.15
14.48
7.36
13.76
Spur
1672
R
61.01
11.84
5.48
11.46
None
1045
L
1689
R
74.04
12.92
5.78
1672
R
60.66
12.08
5.87
11.37
None
1672
R
64.75
5.77
11.38
None
1672
R
60.02
11.9
4.56
11.25
None
Juvenile
1672
R
59.19
13.1
5.41
11.97
None
Juvenile
1672
L
63.54
10.77
5.77
11.25
None
1672
L
52.89
11.47
4.58
10.83
None
1672
L
59.33
5.37
11.98
None
1672
R
69.76
12.39
5.23
1672
R
65.36
11.91
5.26
11.33
None
1618
L
66.6
11.84
5.65
12.124
None
12.5
Juvenile
10.89
1618
None
None
Juvenile
Juvenile
13.84
1618
L
1618
R
65.97
11.81
5.33
11.49
None
1618
R
68
12.14
5.86
11.91
None
1571
R
1523
R
65.52
11.45
5.29
11.27
None
1523
L
65.98
11.63
5.29
11.27
None
1566
L
67.15
11.41
5.52
11.8
None
1514
R
61.16
10.99
5.62
10.83
None
45.01
10.61
4.43
12.6
5.09
11.06
5.83
1514
7.24
Scar
5.71
1514
1514
17.46
L
1514
None
None
Juvenile
Juvenile
11.4
1592
R
1592
L
11.68
1586
L
12.04
1586
R
12.15
1586
L
5.86
11.75
1586
L
5.67
12.32
1580
L
5.47
12.06
59.48
12.23
5.69
None
5.85
None
Juvenile
Juvenile
None
Appendix 3 – Tarsometatarsi metrics for domestic fowl, from Lyminge (Kent). Excavation year - 2009
Continues to next page
52
Context
Left/
Right
GL
Bp
SC
Bd
Spur?
Spur
length
1409
L
76.53
13.83
6.26
13.51
None
Juvenile
Juvenile
1409
R
12.53
5.59
1332
L
65.37
12.35
6
11.35
None
Juvenile
1332
L
66.7
12.39
5.68
13.42
None
1332
R
76.24
12.31
6.46
14.92
None
1332
L
76.21
12.25
6.31
14.91
None
1312
L
69.29
11.67
5.66
11.77
None
1039
R
62.21
11.4
5.25
11.32
None
1326
R
56.87
11.75
5
11.12
None
1326
L
56.88
12.14
5.09
10.86
None
1311
L
69.04
11.12
5.59
11.61
None
1311
R
6903
11.64
5.62
11.7
None
1311
L
63.67
11.25
4.96
11.69
None
1311
R
63.74
11.46
5.18
11.47
None
1348
R
61.72
11.67
5.79
1348
L
1327
L
67.19
12.11
6.47
12.18
None
1327
R
67.65
12.31
6.15
13.01
None
1310
L
69.84
11.9
5.68
12.21
None
1310
R
5.28
11.31
None
1310
R
1310
L
1310
L
11.88
5.9
1332
L
67.54
12.34
5.71
12.03
None
1332
L
69.08
11.93
5.49
12.25
None
1332
R
67.9
12.7
5.67
12.34
None
1332
R
65.14
11.78
5.54
11.08
None
1332
R
11.93
5.75
1332
R
5.75
12.08
None
1349
L
1349
1327
Comments
None
11.42
11.24
5.34
None
5.6
11.15
None
65.83
11.75
5.26
11.9
None
R
66
11.77
5.18
11.73
None
L
68.27
11.73
5.67
12.8
None
1327
R
68.31
11.7
5.45
12.28
None
1327
L
67.58
11.82
5.73
11.67
1327
R
5.71
11.56
1320
R
71.51
12.9
5.55
11.92
1333
R
67.29
11.86
6.95
12.25
1333
L
68.13
5.6
1333
R
65.96
5.6
11.85
None
1333
R
5.98
12.51
None
1333
L
6.03
12.45
None
70.6
12.19
Juvenile
None
Scar
Pathological
specimen
None
Appendix 3 – Tarsometatarsi metrics for domestic fowl, from Lyminge (Kent). Excavation year - 2009
Continues to next page
53
Context
Left/
Right
GL
Bp
SC
Bd
Spur?
1506
L
69.04
11.99
5.67
12.02
None
1506
R
66.3
11.61
5.75
14.75
None
1566
L
61.7
12.09
5.26
12.89
None
1566
R
61.39
11.88
5.66
11.37
None
1506
L
64.6
12.26
7.61
12.78
Scar
1574
L
78.55
13.45
6.41
1552
L
63.39
12.18
5.23
11.54
None
1590
R
1586
L
5.59
11.54
None
1587
R
1500
R
1500
Pathological
specimen arthritis
Pathological
specimen arthritis?
Pathological
specimen arthritis?
Pathological
specimen fracture
Scar
12.52
5.65
R
Comments
13.48
60.63
1586
1509
Spur
length
None
6.03
13.88
None
13.88
7.96
Spur
59.81
11.29
5.27
None
L
60.78
11.56
5.4
1500
L
59.85
11.45
5.06
1516
L
1521
L
62.78
11.55
11.52
16.16
Pathological
specimen
None
None
7.57
13.17
Spur
7.71
5.76
10.89
Spur
7.89
Appendix 3 – Tarsometatarsi metrics for domestic fowl, from Lyminge (Kent). Excavation year - 2009
54
GL
SC
70.7
Dd
Bd
Bp
Sex
6
12.8
13.6
Juvenile
59.1
4.9
11.3
12.1
Juvenile
60.6
4.9
11.1
12.1
Juvenile
52.2
4.9
10.4
11.6
Juvenile
69.7
5.6
12.8
13
Juvenile
52
5
10.3
63.2
5.9
12.1
13.5
Juvenile
62.5
5.2
11.8
12.7
Juvenile
63.8
5.8
12
13.3
Juvenile
56.8
5.1
10.4
10.2
Juvenile
Appendix 4 – Tarsometatarsi
metrics for domestic fowl, from
th
Bishopstone (East Sussex). 8 C –
th
10 C
Juvenile
59.6
5
11
12.1
Juvenile
73.8
5.9
12.7
12.9
Juvenile
82.9
6.6
13.4
13.3
Juvenile
71.2
6.5
13.5
12.7
Juvenile
68.8
6.3
13.4
13.2
Juvenile
81
6
14.7
13.7
Juvenile
70.7
5.7
12.7
13.5
Juvenile
66.5
5.9
12.4
11.8
no spur
63.2
5.2
11.5
12
no spur
56.8
5
10.6
11.4
no spur
65.1
5.7
11.2
11.8
no spur
62.3
5.7
11
11.5
no spur
64.8
5.9
11.2
11.8
no spur
62.7
5.3
11.2
11.4
no spur
65
6
12.1
12
no spur
65.2
6
12.6
11.6
no spur
10.8
11.5
no spur
61.7
5.6
118.7
5.9
65.6
6.2
12.3
12.3
no spur
68.6
6.5
11.7
12
no spur
66.8
5.9
11.7
11.6
no spur
63.1
5.2
11
11.3
no spur
62.5
5
11
11.2
no spur
63.4
5.4
11.5
11.9
no spur
69.3
5.7
12.2
12
no spur
65.7
5.6
11.2
11.8
no spur
65.2
5.5
11.6
11.4
no spur
65.8
5
11.8
12
no spur
61.4
4.9
11
11.5
no spur
68.7
6.1
12.1
12.1
no spur
61.9
5.3
11.1
11.4
no spur
77.7
7.5
14.1
13.5
scar
13.9
no spur
Continues to next page
55
GL
SC
77.8
79.2
Dd
Bd
Bp
Sex
6.5
13.9
13.8
scar
6.8
14.2
13.3
scar
76.8
7.4
14.3
13.2
scar
81.4
7.5
14.1
14.1
spur
56
Appendix 4 – Tarsometatarsi
metrics for domestic fowl, from
th
Bishopstone (East Sussex). 8 C –
th
10 C
Phase
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
2-3a
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
Bone id
5582
5585
5587
6452
6453
6458
6459
6559
6561
6562
6572
6573
6574
7409
7410
8856
9584
9585
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2385
2386
2389
2390
2391
2392
2395
3739
3740
3741
3742
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
GL
78.29
69.38
62.7
69.43
60.97
64.96
68.73
66.21
82.87
79.88
66.13
78.02
64.34
78.73
78.81
75.91
63.64
61.84
83.42
76.98
63.63
66.08
63.74
57
68.13
62.83
77.98
81.57
65
68.46
63.3
64.6
59.55
74.44
67.14
68.32
67.27
81.23
63.51
61.5
77.2
67.33
61.69
85.28
82.05
74.65
82.62
81.58
68.89
64.89
68.78
70.21
Bp
12.72
11.89
10.81
11.74
Bd
13.69
12.18
10.45
11.67
11.37
11.49
11.53
11.89
13.1
13.19
11.62
12.95
11.28
14.2
12.9
12.69
10.56
10.48
13.65
12.54
11.6
11.63
10.5
11.27
13.77
13.48
11.52
12.23
11.95
11.12
10.95
12.53
11.97
12.23
11.34
13.72
11.81
11.18
13.01
11.34
11.21
13.6
13.46
12.63
13.24
12.6
11.88
11.35
11.47
12.07
SC
6.3
5.23
4.6
5.12
4.94
5.24
5.06
5.1
5.86
6.02
5.28
6.34
4.98
6.99
6.01
6.8
5.13
4.73
6.43
5.55
6.62
5.45
4.91
4.71
5.42
5.04
6.56
7.23
5.51
5.39
5.25
4.88
4.92
6.65
5.79
5.4
5.54
6.95
5.33
5.48
5.76
5.6
5.03
6.15
7.07
6.23
6.73
6.35
5.49
5.38
5.04
5.42
3b
4613
68.78
11.75
5.34
11.85
11.21
11.29
11.76
13.55
13.11
11.86
13.51
11.65
13.89
13.41
12.6
11.1
11.35
13.06
13.37
12.01
11.83
11.49
10.8
13.86
14.22
10.68
12.29
11.64
11.23
10.53
13.2
11.96
11.92
13.77
11.58
11.5
12.81
11.43
10.82
13.92
12.71
13.62
12.77
12.09
11.49
11.39
12.16
57
Spur?
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spur scar
No spur
No spur
Spur scar
No spur
Spurred
Spur scar
Spur scar
No spur
No spur
Spur scar
Spur scar
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spurred
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spurred
Spurred
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
This
appendix
contains only the
data used for this
investigation – a full
appendix may be
found in Dobney et
al. 2007.
Appendix 5 – Tarsometatarsi
metrics for domestic fowl,
from Flixborough, North
Lincolnshire
Continues to next page
Phase
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
3b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
Bone id
4614
4616
4618
4619
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
6211
7149
7150
7764
7765
7905
7906
7983
8211
8336
9232
9264
9265
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2999
3000
5397
5398
6042
6043
6044
6045
6047
6052
GL
68.29
63.59
68.63
62.75
76.49
80.21
68.53
67.49
63.96
62.02
62.99
81.3
58.55
67.47
81.72
80.52
67.79
74.91
62.68
64.66
81.25
81.55
66.91
66.65
66.91
64.39
74.33
84.28
79.9
63.74
68.68
72.4
85.33
79.89
66.11
70.02
60.5
72.99
65.65
64.75
63.65
78.08
81.03
66.04
64.18
68.52
69.87
67.88
67
83.09
79.96
4-5b
6053
4-5b
6055
Bp
Bd
11.39
13.34
10.95
11.52
11.51
11.22
13.33
13.6
13.64
12.16
11.41
12.53
13.73
13.63
11.43
11.46
11.43
12.08
11.52
11.49
10.95
13.09
12.87
11.74
11.06
11.09
11.56
11.32
11.25
13.47
13.41
SC
4.89
4.74
5.39
4.98
6.45
6.57
4.86
5.66
4.95
4.87
4.94
5.83
5
4.78
6.32
5.91
5.07
5.88
4.91
5.23
6.8
6.61
5.04
5.12
5.4
4.99
6.45
7.44
7.1
5.48
5.85
6.18
6.21
7
5.34
5.71
5.03
5.7
5.44
5.01
5.37
6.29
6.25
5.28
5.52
5.25
5.24
4.79
5.23
6.63
6.21
13.33
Appendix 5 – Tarsometatarsi
No spur metrics for domestic fowl, from
Spur scar Flixborough, North Lincolnshire
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spur scar
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spur scar
Spurred
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spur scar
Spur scar
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spurred
Spur scar
77.09
12.82
6.34
13.24
Spurred
78.94
12.59
5.7
12.59
Spur scar
10.77
11.32
11.03
13.18
12.88
11.44
12.31
10.82
11.23
10.65
12.95
10.48
13.71
13.52
11.44
12.51
11.06
11.68
11.8
10.91
12.72
13.7
11.25
11.8
11.3
10.59
10.19
12.88
9.98
11.84
13.31
13.02
11.56
13.1
10.99
10.73
13.76
10.97
11.58
10.99
11.34
12.53
13.19
14.46
11.18
12.25
12.68
13.06
14.38
11.48
11.52
11.14
12.47
11.45
12.94
13.89
11.87
5.36
11.2
11.65
11.18
58
Spur?
No spur
No spur
No spur
Continues to next page
Phase
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
4-5b
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Bone id
6056
7722
7795
8233
8234
8325
8508
8527
9245
9328
9400
9728
9729
10458
10524
10771
10935
10983
10989
11096
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1781
1782
1783
5131
6749
6750
7078
7299
7435
7532
7533
10427
10994
GL
64.89
71.15
84.5
76.12
82.82
69.26
78.39
78.26
72.02
64.94
63.28
66
64.07
77.35
73.94
73.46
64.95
66.73
73.89
77.23
64.34
67.67
78.82
68.56
68.5
63.96
83.31
68.31
81.36
79.78
62.89
80.44
64.11
65.73
77.29
78.11
77.58
70.75
68.18
80.74
71.72
Bp
10.87
13.77
13.91
13.45
13.22
11.67
13.48
15.01
12.45
11.63
10.93
12.53
13.27
12.59
11.09
11.27
13.12
12.59
11.82
12.01
12.44
11.39
11.61
11.04
13.95
11.78
12.95
12.49
11.16
13.62
10.66
11.33
14.15
13.54
13.35
11.43
11.55
SC
4.96
6.31
5.96
6.58
6.43
5.49
6.8
6.96
5.95
5.45
5.53
5.38
5.39
6.4
6.08
5.73
4.84
5.22
6.19
6.2
5.81
5.34
5.97
5.1
5.2
5.6
6.92
5.27
6.26
5.78
5.09
6.88
4.98
5.33
6.89
7.1
6.59
6.25
4.95
6.1
5.41
Bd
11.51
13.21
13.23
13.13
13.65
11.84
12.84
13.11
12.61
11.75
11.45
11.6
13.42
12.68
12.42
11.05
11.55
12.81
12.1
11.54
11.44
12.41
11.62
11.25
14.47
12.77
13.5
10.66
13.82
11.66
11.38
14.01
14.03
11.68
12.22
59
Spur?
No spur
Spurred
No spur
Appendix 5 – Tarsometatarsi
Spurred metrics for domestic fowl, from
No spur Flixborough, North Lincolnshire
No spur
Spurred
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spur scar
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spurred
Spurred
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
No spur
Spur scar
No spur
No spur
Spurred
Spur scar
No spur
Spur scar
No spur
No spur
No spur
Bibliography
Ailes, A. 2002. Heraldry in Medieval England: Symbols of Politics and Propaganda. In Coss, P.
Keen, M. (eds) Heraldry, Pagentry and Social Display in Medieval England. Suffolk: The Boydell
Press. pp 83-104.
Benecke, N. 1993. On the utilization of the domestic fowl in central Europe from the Iron Age
up to the Middle Ages. Archaeofauna, 2: 21–31.
Blair, J. 2006. The Church in Anglo Saxon Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Churchill, W. 2005. The Medical Practice of the Sexed Body: Women, Men and Disease in
Britain c.1600-1740. Social History of Medicine, 18:3-22.
Cohen, A. Serjeantson, D. 1996. A Manual for the Identification of Bird Bones from
Archaeological Sites. London: Archetype Publications.
Cook, K. 1994. Cockfighting on the Venezuelan Island of Margarita: A Ritualised Form of Male
Aggression. In Dundes, A. (ed) The Cockfight: A Casebook. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin
Press. pp 232 – 240.
Dobney, K. Jaques, D. Barrett, J. Johnstone, C. 2007. Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats: The
Environmental Archaeology of Anglo Saxon Flixborough. Excavations at Flixborough Volume 3.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Doherty, S. Forthcoming. New Perspectives on Domestic Fowl in Roman Towns.
The
Archaeological Review. 28.2
Dover, K. 1989. Greek Homosexuality. London: Harvard University Press.
Dundes, A. 1994. Gallus as Phallus: A Psychoanalytic Cross-Cultural Consideration of the
Cockfight as Fowl Play. In (ed) Dundes, A. The Cockfight: A Casebook. Madison, WI: University
of Wisconsin Press.
Dyer, C. 2002. Making a Living in the Middle Ages: The People of Britain 850-1520. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Egan, G. Pritchard, F. 2002. Medieval Finds from Excavations in London: Dress Accessories
c.1150-1450. Suffolk: The Boydell Press.
60
Fletcher, A. 1995. Gender, Sex and Subordination in England 1500-1800. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Foot, S. 2006. Monastic Life in Anglo Saxon England c.600-900 AD. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge Press.
Geertz, C. 1994. Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. In Dundes, A. (ed) The Cockfight:
A Casebook. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. pp 94 – 132.
Gilchrist, R. 1999. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. London: Routledge.
Gilchrist, R. 2012. Medieval Life: Archaeology and life courses. Suffolk: The Boydell Press.
Guggenheim, s. 1994. Cock or Bull: Cockfighting, Social Structure and Political Commentary in
the Philippines. . In Dundes, A. (ed) The Cockfight: A Casebook. Wisconsin: University of
Wisconsin Press pp 133 – 173.
Harris, J. 1994. The Rules of Cockfighting. In Dundes, A. (ed) The Cockfight: A Casebook.
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. pp 9-16.
Jones, WHS. 1963. Pliny’s Natural History, Book XXX. London: Harvard University Press.
Jones, M. 1991. Folklore Motifs in Late Medieval Art III: Erotic Animal Imagery. Folklore Vol.
102: 192-219.
Jones, M. 2002. The Secret Middles Ages. Gloucester: Sutton Publishing Limited.
Karras, R. 1996. Common Women: Prostitution and Sexuality in Medieval England. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Marvin, G. 1984. The Cockfight in Andalusia, Spain: Images of the Truly Male. Anthropological
Quarterly, 57(2): 60–70.
McCaghy & Neal. 1994. The Fraternity of Cockfighters: Ethical Embellishments of an Illegal
Sport. . In Dundes, A. (ed) The Cockfight: A Casebook. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin
Press. pp 66-80.
McLaren, A. 2007. Impotence: A Cultural History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNamara, J. 1994. The Herrenfrage – the Restructuring of the Gender System 1050-1150. In
Lees, C. (ed) Medieval Masculinities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press p3-29.
61
Megaw, R. Megaw, J. 1989. Celtic Art: From its Beginnings to the Book of Kells. New York:
Thames and Hudson
Mullin, M. H. 1999. Mirrors and Windows: Sociocultural Studies of Human-Animal
Relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28: 201–24.
Payne, A. 1990. Medieval Beasts. London: The British Library.
Rider, C. 2006. Magic and Impotence in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryder, R. 2000. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Oxford: Oxford
International Publishers.
Sadler, P. 1991. The Use of Tarsometatarsi in Sexing and Ageing Domestic Fowl (Gallus gallus),
and Recognising Five Toed Breeds in Archaeological Material. Circea. 8: 41-48.
Salisbury, J. 1994. The Beast Within: Animals in the Middle Ages. London: Routledge.
Sax, B. 2001. The Mythical Zoo. ABC Clio. Oxford.
Scott, S. 2000. The Animal Bones from Green Sheil, Lindisfarne. Unpublished Masters Thesis.
University of Durham.
Serjeantson, D. 2000a. Bird bones. In Fulford, M. and Timby, J. (eds.) Late Iron Age and Roman
Silchester: Excavations on the Site of the Forum Basilica 1977, 1980–86. London: Society for the
Promotion of Roman Studies, pp. 484–500.
Serjeantson, D. 2000b. Good to Eat and Good to Think With: Classifying Animals from Complex
Sites. In Rowley-Conwy , P. (ed) Animal Bones, Human Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books pp179189.
Serjeantson, D. 2009. Birds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stelmack, R. Stalikas, A. 1991. Galen and the Humour Theory of Temperament. Personality and
Individual Differences, 12: 255-263.
Swift, D. 2011. Anglo Saxon ‘Burh’ and Norman Stronghold: The Archaeology of Medieval
Lewes. Current Archaeology. Issue 225: 28-33.
Sykes, N. 2012. A Social Perspective on the Introduction of Exotic Animals: The Case of the
Chicken. World Archaeology 44: 158 – 169.
62
Sykes, N. Forthcoming. Beastly Questions: Animal Answers to Archaeological Issues. London:
Duckworth.
Thomas, G. 2012. The Later Anglo Saxon Settlement at Bishopstone: A Downland Manor in the
Making. York: Council for British Archaeology.
Wait, G. 1985. Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Wollan, L. 1994.Questions from a Study of Cockfighting. In Dundes, A. (ed) The Cockfight: A
Casebook. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. pp 81-93.
Zeuner, F. E. 1963. A History of Domesticated Animals. London: Hutchinson.
63