|
Conclusion
It is crucial to realize that zooarchaeological techniques
can address only the sample that has preserved well enough
for us to study. As archaeologists we have but a small
portal through which to view the past, and in
zooarchaeological terms, that portal is represented by the
death assemblage. Since animal remains represent the death
assemblage, the archaeofaunal sample represents only a
portion of the living animal herd. Given the restrictions of
limiting our research to the death assemblage,
zooarchaeological analysis carried out on the faunal remains
from the Iron Age Moabite fortress at Mudaybic allows us to
learn a great deal about cultural interaction with animals.
The species list is composed mainly of domesticate animals,
with sheep and goats dominating the assemblage. The presence
of equids and camels demonstrate the importance of pack
animals, and wild species such as gazelle and hare
supplemented the local diet. Age at death estimates for
sheep and goat, based on epiphyseal fusion, demonstrates a
cull pattern that removed at least one third of the herd
from each age category. A peak kill off schedule at 18-30
months corresponds to interests centered on meat production,
but younger and older animals were also killed. Some of the
remains of mature ovicaprines were probably a few milk
producing females living at or near the site. Based on the
ratio of non-meat bearing to meat bearing bones, Moabite
soldiers at Mudaybic were provisioned with protein from
sheep and goats of various ages. Sufficient political
organization and implementation are required if such
supplies are to reach their intended destination, and
suggests the efficiency of such planning. It also raises
interesting questions regarding the source of the animals
and methods of acquisition. Did the original owners
volunteer or sell their animals, or were they coerced into
surrendering them for military endeavors?
Conducting a thorough investigation of an archaeofaunal
sample requires familiarity with a number of research
techniques, as the methodological aspects inherent in
zooarchaeological analyses are many and varied. One must have
command of zoological knowledge for identifying body parts,
species, and age at death. This must be merged with the
archaeological component of the research, and when possible,
interpretations should incorporate the socio-political climate
of the region. Uniting zoology with archaeology, and sometimes
history, represents the foundation on which plausible inferences
regarding the cultural use of animals, and their role in ancient
societies, is based.
|
