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.