Element contents
Archaeological Bird Bone and Eggshell Identification
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 June 2026
Summary
This element provides the reader with an easy-to-read reference guide for avian bone and eggshell analysis. Standard visual identification is the methodology outlined for the analysis of avian bone. This element details how to select reference material, what markers to look for, and tips and tricks for identifying avian bones. Cooking, butchery, pathology, and age will be discussed alongside reference images the reader can use when identifying these in their own collections. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is the method utilized for avian eggshell identification in this element. Information about creating your own reference images and performing microscopy are detailed. How to identify several types of cooking methods, embryogenesis (stage of egg development), and weathering will also be discussed. This is the first element to provide methodologies for both avian bone identification and SEM identification of avian eggshell.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009610438Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 30 July 2026
References
Asmussen, B. (2009). Intentional or incidental thermal modification? Analysing site occupation via burned bone. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36(2), 528–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartosiewicz, L. (2021). What is a rare disease in animal paleopathology?. International Journal of Paleopathology, 33, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartosiewicz, L., & Gál, E. (2013). Shuffling nags, lame ducks: The archaeology of animal disease. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumel, J. J. (1993). Handbook of avian anatomy: nomina anatomica avium. Publications of the Nuttall Ornithological Club (USA). 23, 45–132.Google Scholar
Beacham, E. B., & Durand, S. R. (2007). Eggshell and the archaeological record: new insights into turkey husbandry in the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34(10), 1610–1621.Beisaw, A. M. (2013). Identifying and interpreting animal bones: a manual (Vol. 18). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellairs, R., & Boyde, A. (1969). Scanning electron microscopy of the shell membranes of the hen’s egg. Zeitschrift fur Zellforschung und Mikroskopische Anatomie, 96, 237–249.Google ScholarPubMed
Bello, S. M., & Galway-Witham, J. (2019). Bone taphonomy inside and out: Application of 3-dimensional microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and micro-computed tomography to the study of humanly modified faunal assemblages. Quaternary International, 517, 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. (2012). Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. Eliot Werner Publications/Percheron Press.Google Scholar
Bovy, K. M. (2002). Differential avian skeletal part distribution: explaining the abundance of wings. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29(9), 965–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovy, K. M. (2012). Why so many wings? A re-examination of avian skeletal part representation in the south-central Northwest Coast, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(7), 2049–2059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Y. C., Hincke, M. T., & McKee, M. D. (2009). Ultrastructure of avian eggshell during resorption following egg fertilization. Journal of Structural Biology, 168(3), 527–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayburn, J. K., Smith, D. L., & Hayward, J. L. (2004). Taphonomic effects of pH and temperature on extant avian dinosaur eggshell. Palaios, 19(2), 170–177.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A., & Serjeantson, D. (1996). A manual for the identification of bird bones from archaeological sites. London: Archetype Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Corbett, D. (2017). Saĝdaĝ—to catch birds. Arctic Anthropology, 53(2), 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, I. (2008). Avian and mammalian bone taphonomy in southern continental Patagonia: a comparative approach. Quaternary International, 180(1), 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacke, C. G., Arkle, S., Cook, D. J. et al. (1993). Medullary bone and avian calcium regulation. Journal of Experimental Biology, 184(1), 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalén, L., Lagerholm, V. K., Nylander, J. A. et al. (2017). Identifying bird remains using ancient DNA barcoding. Genes, 8(6), 169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delfino, H. C. (2024). Ethno-ornithology: Exploring the intersection between human culture and avian science. Human Ecology, 52(5), 953–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarchi, B., Presslee, S., Sakalauskaite, J., Fischer, R., & Best, J. (2020). The role of birds at Çatalhöyük revealed by the analysis of eggshell. Quaternary International, 543, 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirrigl Jr, F. J., Brush, T., Morales-Muñiz, A., & Bartosiewicz, L. (2020). Prehistoric and historical insights in avian zooarchaeology, taphonomy and ancient bird use. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 12(2), 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglass, K., Bulathsinhala, P., Feo, T. J. et al. (2021). Modeling avian eggshell microstructure to predict ontogenetic age and reveal patterns of human-avifauna interaction. Journal of Archaeological Science, 133, 105442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, J. C., Bovy, K., Butler, V. L. et al. (2011). Identification, classification and zooarchaeology. Ethnobiology letters, 2, 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastham, A. (1997). The potential of bird remains for environmental reconstruction. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 7(4), 422–429.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastham, A., & Gwynn, I. A. (1998). Archaeology and the electron microscope: Eggshell and neural network analysis of images in the Neolithic. Anthropozoologica, 25, 85–94.Enghoff, I. B. (2003). Hunting, fishing and animal husbandry at the Farm Beneath the Sand, western Greenland (Vol. 1). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Fothergill, B. T. (2017). Human-aided movement of viral disease and the archaeology of avian osteopetrosis. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 27(5), 853–866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frie, A. C. (2018). Insignia of power: Bird imagery on artefacts of hierarchy and ritual in Iron Age Dolenjska (SE Slovenia). Documenta Praehistorica, 45, 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, C. (2018). Ethno-ornithology in the Rat Islands: Prehistoric Aleut relationships with birds in the western Aleutians, Alaska. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 51, 144–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, C., Holt, E., Taivalkoski, A., Howard, J., & Poltorak, D. (2016). Avifauna discard packages and bone damage resulting from human consumption processes. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 5, 383–391.Google Scholar
Gál, E., Hír, J., Kessler, E., Kókay, J., & Venczel, M. (2000). Középső-miocén ősmaradványok a Mátraszőlős, Rákóczi-kápolna alatti útbevágásból. II. A Mátraszőlős 2. lelőhely. Folia historico-naturalia Musei Matraensis, 24, 39–75.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. L., Heinsohn, R., & Joseph, L. (2009). Shifting latitudinal clines in avian body size correlate with global warming in Australian passerines. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1674), 3845–3852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, B. M., Martin, L. D., & Savage, H. G. (1981). Avian osteology. Springfield, MO: Missouri Archeological Society.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. I., Newbury, D. E., Michael, J. R. et al. (2017). Scanning electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Green, R. E. (1995). Diagnosing causes of bird population declines. Ibis, 137, S47–S55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, J. L., Zelenitsky, D. K., Smith, D. L., Zaft, D. M., & Clayburn, J. K. (2000). Eggshell taphonomy at modern gull colonies and a dinosaur clutch site. Palaios, 15(4), 343–355.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, J. (1999). Túnel: a case study of avian zooarchaeology and taphonomy. Journal of archaeological science, 26(12), 1449–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, E. (2000). The contextual analysis of animal intesrments and ritual practice in southwestern North America. Kiva, 65(4), 361–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchinson, J. R., Rankin, J. W., Rubenson, J. et al. (2015). Musculoskeletal modelling of an ostrich (Struthio camelus) pelvic limb: influence of limb orientation on muscular capacity during locomotion. PeerJ, 3, p.e1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalaycı, T., Altuğ, D. T., Kınaytürk, N. K., & Tunalı, B. (2025). Characterization and potential usage of selected eggshell species. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 6241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keepax, C. A. (1981). Avian egg-shell from archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science, 8(4), 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konig, H. E. (Ed.). (2016). Avian Anatomy 2nd Edition: Textbook and Colour Atlas. 5m Books.Google Scholar
Kost, C., & Hussain, S. T. (2019). Archaeo-ornithology: Towards an archaeology of human-bird interfaces. Environmental Archaeology, 24(4), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laroulandie, V. (2004). Exploitation des ressources aviaires durant le Paléolithique en France: bilan critique et perspectives. In J.-P. Brugal, J. Desse (dir.), Petits Animaux et Sociétés Humaines. Du complément alimentaire aux ressources utilitaires. Actes des XXIVe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire, Antibes, 23–25 octobre 2003 (pp. 163–172). APDCA.Google Scholar
Lawson, D. M., Williams, C. K., Lavretsky, P., Howell, D. L., & Fuller, J. C. (2021). Mallard–black duck hybridization and population genetic structure in North Carolina. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 85(6), 1243–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeFebvre, M. J., & Sharpe, A. E. (2017). Contemporary challenges in zooarchaeological specimen identification. In Zooarchaeology in practice: Case studies in methodology and interpretation in archaeofaunal analysis (pp. 35–57). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Lupo, K. D. (1994). Butchering marks and carcass acquisition strategies: distinguishing hunting from scavenging in archaeological contexts. Journal of Archaeological Science, 21(6), 827–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R. L. (1987). Archaeofaunas and butchery studies: a taphonomic perspective. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 10, 249–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R. L. (2019). Assumptions and protocol of the taxonomic identification of faunal remains in zooarchaeology: a North American perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 26(4), 1376–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madgwick, R. (2014). What makes bones shiny? Investigating trampling as a cause of bone abrasion. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 6(2), 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahato, P. L., Weatherby, T., Ewell, K., Jha, R., & Mishra, B. (2024). Scanning electron microscope-based evaluation of eggshell quality. Poultry Science, 103(3), 103428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, A. J., & Schachner, E. R. (2025). When the lung invades: a review of avian postcranial skeletal pneumaticity. Philosophical Transactions B, 380(1920), rstb-2023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oakes, J. (1991). Environmental factors influencing bird-skin clothing production. Arctic and Alpine Research, 23(1), 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. J. (1979). Osteology for the Archaeologist: Number 3, The American Mastodon and the Woolly Mammoth; Number 4, North American Birds: Skulls and Mandibles; Number 5, North American Birds: Postcranial Skeletons (Vol. 3). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, S. L. (1989). On distinguishing natural from cultural damage on archaeological antler. Journal of Archaeological Science, 16(2), 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. L. (2003). Development and use of Avian skeletal collections. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists Club, 123A, 26–34.Google Scholar
Orton, D. C. (2012). Taphonomy and interpretation: An analytical framework for social zooarchaeology. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 22(3), 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, A. J. (1988). The birds of Roman Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 7(2), 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pobiner, B. L. (2020). The zooarchaeology and paleoecology of early hominin scavenging. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 29(2), 68–82.Google Scholar
Pokines, J. T., L’Abbe, E. N. & Symes, S. A. (Eds.) (2021). Faunal dispersal, reconcentration, and gnawing damage to bone in terrestrial environments. In Manual of forensic taphonomy (pp. 295–360). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, J. M. (1997). Communal ritual and faunal remains: an example from the Dolores Anasazi. Journal of Field Archaeology, 24(3), 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, N. S., & Lynch, P. J. (1993). Manual of ornithology: Avian structure & function. New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Reitz, E. J., & Wing, E. S. (2008). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Richter, K. K., Codlin, M. C., Seabrook, M., & Warinner, C. (2022). A primer for ZooMS applications in archaeology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(20), e2109323119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rico-Guevara, A., Sustaita, D., Gussekloo, S. et al. (2019). Feeding in birds: Thriving in terrestrial, aquatic, and aerial niches. In Feeding in vertebrates: Evolution, morphology, behavior, biomechanics (pp. 643–693). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanoff, A. L., & Romanoff, A. J. (1949). The avian egg. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Russell, N. (2011). Social zooarchaeology: Humans and animals in prehistory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidell, E. J. (1993). A methodology for the identification of avian eggshell from archaeological sites. Archaeofauna,2 (2), 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serjeantson, D. (1997). Subsistence and symbol: the interpretation of bird remains in archaeology. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 7(4), 255–259.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serjeantson, D. (2002). Goose husbandry in Medieval England, and the problem of ageing goose bones. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia, 45, 39–54.Google Scholar
Serjeantson, D. (2009). Birds: Cambridge manuals in archaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soulier, M. C., & Costamagno, S. (2017). Let the cutmarks speak! Experimental butchery to reconstruct carcass processing. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 11, 782–802.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. R., Allen, R. B., Jones, A. K., Penkman, K. E., & Collins, M. J. (2013). ZooMS: making eggshell visible in the archaeological record. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(4), 1797–1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taivalkoski, A., & Holt, E. (2016). The effects of cooking on avian eggshell microstructure. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 6, 64–70.Google Scholar
Taivalkoski, A., Holt, E., & MacKinnon, M. (2022). Bird eggshell in the diet of ancient Pompeii: An SEM analysis of archaeological avian eggshell. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 41, 103258.Google Scholar
Taivalkoski, A., Funk, C., West, C., & Etnier, M. (2021). Instances of avian osteoarthritis from the Unalaska Sea Ice Project, Unalaska Island, Alaska. International Journal of Paleopathology, 35, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tidemann, S., & Gosler, A. (Eds.). (2012). Ethno-ornithology: “Birds, Indigenous Peoples, Culture and Society”. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tubaro, P. L., & Lijtmaer, D. A. (2002). Hybridization patterns and the evolution of reproductive isolation in ducks. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 77(2), 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Buskirk, J., Mulvihill, R. S., & Leberman, R. C. (2010). Declining body sizes in North American birds associated with climate change. Oikos, 119(6), 1047–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, M. E., Perdeck, A. C., Van Balen, J. H., & Both, C. (2009). Climate change leads to decreasing bird migration distances. Global Change Biology, 15(8), 1859–1865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Den Driesch, A. (1976). A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites (Vol. 1). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum Press.Google Scholar
West, B., & Zhou, B. X. (1988). Did chickens go north? New evidence for domestication. Journal of Archaeological Science, 15(5), 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wild, M., Thurber, B. A., Rhodes, S., & Gates St-Pierre, C. (2021). Bones at a Crossroads: Integrating Worked Bone Research with Archaeometry and Social Zooarchaeology (p. 317). Leiden, Netherlands: Sidestone Press.Google Scholar
Wolverton, S. (2013). Data quality in zooarchaeological faunal identification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(3), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, H. W., & Gao, Z. J. (2012). The application of scanning electron microscope (SEM) to study the microstructure changes in the field of agricultural products drying. In Kazmiruk, V. (Ed.), Scanning electron microscopy (pp. 213–226). London: IntechOpen.Google Scholar
Xu, X., Zhou, Z., Dudley, R. et al. (2014). An integrative approach to understanding bird origins. Science, 346(6215), 1253293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yalden, D., & Albarella, U. (2009). The history of British birds. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yeomans, L., Codlin, M. C., Mazzucato, C., Dal Bello, F., & Demarchi, B. (2024). Waterfowl eggshell refines palaeoenvironmental reconstruction and supports multi-species niche construction at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition in the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 31(3), 1383–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeomans, L. (2025). Zooarchaeology of managed, captive, tame, and domestic birds: shifts in human–avian relationships. Journal of archaeological research, 33(4), 587–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
Supplementary materials for this Element are available here