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 Mudaybi’ had with coastal communities.
