|
Identification
Most faunal analyses begin with the skeletal recognition of
the bone and the taxonomic identity (family, genus, species,
etc.) of the animal to which it belongs. Familiarity with
mammalian skeletal anatomy is essential, since an analyst should
be able to determine where in the body the bone has come. Once
the bone has been correctly assigned to a part of the skeleton,
taxonomic identification is the next step. The most effective
method of identification is accomplished by comparing the
archaeological sample to a modern specimen of known taxonomic
identity. Identifying incomplete bones is problematic, and the
processes affecting the preserved state of faunal samples play a
crucial role for their level of recognition. As a result,
identification can be carried out to varying degrees of
accuracy; in some cases, only the genus is discernable, and in
others, taxonomic designations are carried to the species level.
Some publications serve as reference aids in identifying the
remains from different taxa, such as Gilbert (1980), Hillson
(1999), Schmid (1972), and Walker (1985).
 In the eastern Mediterranean basin, some animal
species are difficult to identify, such as recognizing
distinctions between bactrian (two hump) and dromedary (single
hump) camels (Clason and Buitenhuis 1978:80). Research efforts
have focused on publishing illustrations clearly defining those
features that distinguish between the remains of animals with
similar morphology. Lister (1996) demonstrated how the remains
of fallow deer (Dama dama) can be identified from red
deer (Cervus elaphus). A far more desperate need for
making fine-grained taxonomic distinctions is associated with
attempts to recognize the remains of domestic sheep (Ovis
aries) from goats (Capra hircus). Articles by
Boessneck (1969) and Prummel and Frisch (1986) have served as
invaluable aids to many zooarchaeologists as they highlight the
diagnostic features of sheep and goat bones. Identifying
juvenile sheep and goats has also been addressed (Payne 1985).
Yet, even with the aid of an illustrated guide, making clear-cut
identifications is not always possible on every fragment.
Remains that cannot be precisely identified as sheep or goat are
often pooled in a category designating them as either species,
and is termed ‘ovicaprine’ and ‘caprovine’ in the literature.
 Species range can reflect the choices ancient
people made regarding which animals they used and how they were
acquired. Species lists can suggest the state of the local
environment, such as the remains of desert dwellers (Figures 1
and 2) at Mudaybic. Remains of larger animals were
also found at the site:
Figure 3  illustrates a bone from the
hind leg (astragalus) from cattle (Bos taurus) (left side
of image) and camel (Camelus sp.) (right side of image).
Note the differences in size and shape of each; these are
diagnostic traits used to determine their taxonomic identity.
These bones are dense and compact, and are often found whole and
intact at archaeological sites. Other parts of the skeleton,
such as limb bones, are less dense and tend to be rather
fragmented. However, an entire lower leg bone of a donkey (Equus
asinus) (Figure 4 ) suggests it was buried rapidly and
the deposit in which it was found relatively undisturbed.
Bones from different places on the site are subject to different processes
affecting their condition, or state of preservation. In some
cases, these fragments are part of the same bone. This can be
seen in Figures 5a and
5b
where two halves of the same leg bone
(tarsometatarsus) of a small bird exhibits different colors. The
bone was broken near the mid-point of the shaft, which is the
least dense and structurally weakest part of the element. The
upper and lower portions of the same bone can be refit into a
single element, and demonstrates the variety in conditions
affecting each half of the bone after they had separated.
Animals acquired through trade can be identified by the presence of
exotic fauna in areas outside of their natural zoogeographic
range (Crabtree 1990:158). Since parrot fish (Family: Scaridae
are a marine fish found in both the Mediterranean and the Red
Sea, its remains
(Figures 6a
and 6b ) indicate the contact Mudaybic had
with coastal communities.
|
