Papers from the forty-second meeting of the Seminar ...

2 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
Jul 26, 2008 - species (Yom-Tov, Mendelssohn & Groves 1995; Groves. 1996; 1997 ..... Arabia Felix: An Exploration of the Archaeological History of Yemen.
Proceedings of the

Seminar for Arabian Studies Volume 39 2009

Papers from the forty-second meeting of the Seminar for Arabian Studies held in London, 24-26 July 2008

Seminar for Arabian Studies Archaeopress Oxford

Orders for copies of this volume of the Proceedings and of all back numbers should be sent to Archaeopress, Gordon House, 276 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7ED, UK. Tel/Fax +44-(0)1865-311914. e-mail [email protected] http://www.archaeopress.com For the availability of back issues see the Seminar’s web site: www.arabianseminar.org.uk Steering Committee of the Seminar and Editorial Committee of the Proceedings Dr. R. Carter (Chairman) Prof. A. Avanzini Dr. M. Beech Dr. N. Durrani Dr. R. Eichmann Prof. C. Holes Dr. R.G. Hoyland Dr. D. Kennet Mr. M.C.A. Macdonald Dr. A. MacMahon (Secretary) Prof. K. Al-Muaikel Dr. V. Porter Prof. D. Potts Prof. C. Robin Dr. St.J. Simpson Mrs. J. Starkey (Editor) Mr. A. Thompson (Treasurer) Prof. J. Watson Dr. L. Weeks Seminar for Arabian Studies c/o the Department of the Middle East, The British Museum London, WC1B 3DG, United Kingdom e-mail [email protected] Opinions expressed in papers published in the Proceedings are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by the Editorial Committee. Typesetting, Layout and Production: Dr. David Milson The Proceedings is produced in the Times Semitic font, which was designed by Paul Bibire for the Seminar for Arabian Studies. © 2009 Archaeopress, Oxford, UK. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISSN 0308-8421 ISBN 978-1-905739-23-3

Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39 (2009): 135–154

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen Francesco G. Fedele

Summary The study of the large archaeofaunal collection from the Early Sabaean town of Yalā, also known as al-Durayb (A. de Maigret's excavations, 1987), was completed in 2007–2008. This collection of about 3000 specimens includes the whole bone refuse from a single two-storey house, House A, for which the ceramic assemblage is also known (ninth to seventh centuries BC), and the bone finds from the stratigraphic soundings beneath the house (thirteenth to ninth centuries BC). About 1,200 pieces could be identified to species and were subjected to detailed analysis. Both this species-diagnostic fraction and the large number of fragments identified to the size-group were used to map the spatial distribution of animal species within the house and in the earlier levels beneath the house. This work casts some light on two complementary aspects of an Earl y Sabaean settlement, which have remained poorly known until now: its animal economy, and the use of animals in household food consumption. The spatial distribution of animal bone allows some suggestions to be made about daily behaviour and the function of rooms, thus complementing the indications from house architecture and pottery. Overall, sheep and goats are by far the most represented animal species, followed by taurine cattle and, in much smaller numbers, by the occasional donkey and dromedary. The presence of the domestic dromedary at a ninth- to eighth-century date is of particular interest. The dog and a few wild game animals — gazelle, ibex, hare — are extremely rare in the collection. This matches the picture from other similar sites so far studied. The ibex bones at Yalā might bear a relationship to the “sacred hunt” practice that was carried out in the area. Keywords: Yalā (al-Durayb), Early Sabaean animals, household consumption, ibex ceremonial hunt, domesticated dromedary

Introduction: Yalā and its context The walled city of Yalā, located near the modern village of that name and also locally known as al-Durayb, was found by A. de Maigret in 1985, after he was able to set foot in the previously inaccessible territory of the Banī Dabyān tribe of the eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl. The results of a ten-day survey were significant (de Maigret 1985; 2002: 173–186, 273–285). It was recognized that Yalā was only part of a larger and remarkable archaeological complex of the Sabaean period, which included a dam, an agricultural estate in the plain of al-Jafnah, and a rocky gorge or shiΚb devoted to ceremonial hunting, the ShiΚb alΚAql (Fig. 1). The importance of the settlement lay in its size and articulation, for it gave a comprehensive picture of a Sabaean community, combining farms, a large city 230 by 170  m across, and religious aspects at al-ΚAql, where rocks were carved with royal inscriptions from the period of the mukarribs of SabaΜ. Equally important was

the archaic nature of the ruins, inscriptions, and pottery, suggesting a date in the early Sabaean period (de Maigret 1988). Yalā was ancient Дafaray (or Дafarī; Robin & Brunner 1997). It lies 30 km south-west of Mārib at an altitude of 1280 m. The main watercourse is Wādī SabaΜ, the lowland segment of the large Wādī Аanah which flows down to Mārib and retains water throughout the year. Wādī Yalā is one of its last tributaries from the right. The next tributary west, Wādī Qawqah, leads into the defile of ShiΚb al-ΚAql in a granite landscape of outstanding natural beauty. At the end of 1987 the Italian Archaeological Mission found it possible to negotiate a return to Yalā. An excavation was carried out inside the walls in the “upper city” of the low tell, where the depth of the deposits appeared to be greatest. The excavation had the main objectives of establishing stratigraphy and recovering associated finds, pottery in particular. A Sabaean house, House A, was uncovered and excavated almost completely

136

Francesco G. Fedele

Figure 1. A map of the Sabaean archaeological complex in the Wādī Yalā area (de Maigret 1988: fig. 1, modified). Inset map: the Wādī Аanah basin of the eastern Yemen Highlands (based on de Maigret & Robin 1989: fig. 1). (Fig. 2/a), and it is the only archaeological excavation at Yalā to date (de Maigret & Robin 1989; de Maigret 2003; 2005: 10–17). Evident signs of fire and collapse show that occupation of the house ended abruptly. Its destruction probably coincided with the abandonment of the city, which was never reoccupied. This house represents Stratum A of the sequence and its occupation defines phase A in Yalā’s history. Radiocarbon measurements, pottery parallels, and indirect historical data would place the end of the occupation in the seventh century BC. Testing beneath the floors revealed earlier layers and structures, which were grouped as Strata B–D (Fig. 2/b) and radiocarbondated from possibly the fourteenth to the eighth centuries BC, one of the longest recorded intervals of Sabaean

development. These strata were equated layer by layer with the city’s historical phases (de Maigret & Robin 1989: 283–291). Animal remains were present in all stratigraphic units, apart from Stratum D (see Fig. 4). Particularly rich were the occupation deposits of House A, including the ground floor (1b) and a collapsed upper floor (1a), both sealed stratigraphically. This rare occurrence makes it possible to attempt a spatial-functional study of the house (cf. de Maigret 2003 and Loreto 2009, this volume, on the pottery assemblage). Representing the whole bone refuse from a single house, the faunal collection will be particularly examined as a record of human behaviour. Equally significant was the animal collection from the underlying levels, particularly Stratum B. From this sample of earlier

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen

137

Figure 2. Yalā (al-Durayb): a. a plan of House A as excavated (courtesy of A. de Maigret); b. a complete stratigraphic profile obtained from room L6 (adapted from de Maigret & Robin 1989: fig. 3; Stratum A added from published information).

138

Francesco G. Fedele

Sample No.

Context

Material

Laboratory

C yr BP

14

cal BC (2 s)

probability level

Original 14C determinations: Y1

Stratum A, 1c

burnt timber

R-1945a

2600 ± 50

851-545

93.3%

Y2

Stratum A, 1c

burnt timber

R-1949a

2570 ± 60

839-508

94.5%

Y1+2

Stratum A, 1c

combined*

2588 ± 39

828-665(588)

82.3(92.3)%

Y3

Stratum B, 2d

charcoal debris

R-1948a

2750 ± 75

1090-796

94.3%

Y4

Stratum B, 2d

charcoal debris

R-1946a

2840 ± 70

1213-836

94.7%

Y3+4

Stratum B, 2d

combined*

2798 ± 52

1088-830

94.1%

Y5

Stratum C, 3c

R-1947a

2980 ± 65

1392-1022

95.4%

charcoal debris

* By use of OxCal 4.0.5 ‘Combine’ function; chi-squared test tY1+2 = 0.1, tY3+4 = 0.8, both < 3.8 (5%).

Figure 3. Yalā: radiocarbon dates for House A and the earlier levels. The original 14C determinations Y1–Y5 are from de Maigret & Robin (1989: 290). Calibration ranges were calculated with OxCal 4.0.5, 2007 (https://c14. arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal; cf. Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001), using the IntCal04 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2004) and reporting values at the 2-sigma (95.4%) confidence interval. Only weighted dates Y1+2 and Y3+4 should be employed in historical evaluation. material one can attempt to extract information on animal economy and its changes through time.1 From this perspective, a critical reappraisal of the radiocarbon chronology of Yalā was essential, otherwise several findings concerning Yalā’s animal world would remain vague: for instance, the appearance of domesticated camels. The available 14C measurements (de Maigret & Robin 1989) have been recalibrated as in Figure 3, considering that four must be combined in pairs because of statistical identity (cf. Edens & Wilkinson 1998: 94). Epigraphic data from the ShiΚb al-ΚAql that suggest a continuance of Yalā into the reign of mukarrib KaribΜīl Watār (Garbini 1988), dated c. 700–680 BC (e.g. Robin 2002), would support a date in the mid-seventh

century BC for the end of the city. The details of our reanalysis will be presented elsewhere.2 For the purpose of this paper the following chronology is suggested: • end of city c. 650 BC; • occupation of House A (Stratum A) c. 850–650 BC (≤ two centuries); • Stratum B c. 1050–850 BC; • Stratum C c. (1300) 1200–900 BC.

Yalā’s House A House A faced east onto a large road. It was composed of a squarish building, with an entrance from the road and extra rooms added onto either side as well as the back

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen (Fig. 2/a). The main building had at least two floors, the ground floor divided into six rooms: an entrance hall or corridor (L1), two larger rooms on the southern side (L2, L6), and three smaller rooms with sunken floors on the northern side, only accessible from raised passages (L7, L12) or the first floor (L11). Of the annexed rooms, L3 and L5 opened jointly onto a narrow side street, L9 was a large independent room, its entrance level with the main road, and L10 was a sunken appendage entered from L1 through a flight of stairs (see de Maigret & Robin 1989 and Loreto 2009, this volume, for architectural details). Bone material derived from the upper floor provides a glimpse of meat consumption in a two-storey residence. As to the ground floor, the occupation layer was made of compacted silty-organic sediments, generally mixed with bone and pottery fragments and containing stones. As a consequence of the gradual accumulation and incorporation of debris, the floor grew thicker during the occupancy of the house, whether or not the floor deposits were sometimes emptied. For this occupancy a duration of a few generations can be proposed. The location of the house and the size and quality of its construction suggest that the inhabitants had an elevated status (de Maigret & Robin 1989: 280). Unfortunately, an estimated 20% of the house could not be excavated (loci L4 and L8), nor was it possible to explore the surroundings and locate — for instance — dumps or trash pits. Taphonomy The physical structure of the house is of interest from a depositional viewpoint, and specifically to evaluate whether bone refuse could have been moved around or introduced from the outside. Rooms L1, L6, and L2 were interconnected, although floor materials could not move freely between them, and L10 might have received a little material from L1 above. All the other rooms were effectively segregated, without any chance of trash being introduced through human movement. The condition of the bone suggests little or no transport, and visually there is no evidence that earth or trash were brought into the rooms from the outside (de Maigret, personal communication). Thus one can assume that the rooms effectively acted as separate compartments, each essentially retaining what debris had been left or discarded in it. The collection of animal remains from House A has the character of an archaeological assemblage. Although no sieving could be done at Yalā, high excavation standards were kept and the collection was made by expert handpicking of all visible bone, including small rodents and

139

tiny hyoid bones of caprines. No sorting took place and the faunal assemblage can therefore be considered to be fairly representative of the archaeological contents of the house (leftovers, discarded or decayed residue), and possibly only defective in micro-vertebrates and minuscule debris. However, we do not know the amount of animal material that might have left the house through deliberate discard, or whether the accumulated floor deposits were ever cleared away. Nothing is known of the trash disposal system of Sabaean households in general, if there was any. Ours might be an instance where nearly every bone is derived from a different individual (e.g. Lie 1980), and thus a calculation of the minimum number of individuals grossly underestimates the number of animals actually manipulated during the occupancy of the house. Only tentative figures will be given below. The animal remains from the house display surface markings and patterns of breakage entirely compatible with butchering, cooking, eating, and in-house trampling. They represent food refuse — predominantly “kitchen” refuse — and the overwhelming, or indeed only, factor of accumulation was human agency. There is no trace of bone gnawing by dogs, who evidently were not allowed into the house (or behaved properly!) and did not contribute to either the accumulation or destruction of residue. Taphonomic “attrition” from trampling and in situ decay was apparently modest, to judge from both preservation and skeletal representation. Preservation was average to good and bone splitting from salts limited; the representation of skeletal elements in the best-documented species is unbiased (see Fig. 9/a). In elite structures, given continuing occupancy, one might expect a deliberate attempt to dispose of all trash outside the elite living areas so that these structures are comparatively clean (cf. Hoffman 1974). This was not the case of House A, where an appreciable amount of trash was allowed to accumulate, not perhaps in the living rooms — presumably on the upper floor — but certainly in the food processing and storage quarters on the ground floor.

The archaeofaunal collection About 2900 specimens were available for study. The collection can be divided into four stratigraphic subsets (Fig. 4/a): • Surface: bone was found on the surface during the initial phases of the excavation, particularly in L1 (205 pieces); although studied in detail, this subset will be excluded

140

Francesco G. Fedele n

Domestic species: Ovis/Capra, domestic caprines Ovis aries, sheep Capra hircus, goat Bos taurus, cattle ?Bos taurus Camelus dromedarius, dromedary ?Camelus dromedarius Equus (Asinus) asinus, donkey Canis familiaris, dog Canis sp.1

identified

Surface

228

114

50.0%

House A:

165

38

23.0%

Ground floor (Stratum A, level 1b)

1521

703

46.2%

Total House A

1686

741

44.0%

Stratum B, level 2a

753

263

34.9%

Stratum B, level 2b

89

18

20.2%

Stratum B, level 2d

41

11

26.8%

Strata B+C mixed

108

59

54.6%

Upper floor (Stratum A, level 1a)

Earlier levels:

1

Total earlier levels

991

351

35.4%

Yalā total excluding Surface

2677

1092

40.8%

Yalā total

2905

1206

41.5%

2

Wild species: Gazella cf saudiya, Saudi gazelle (?) Gazella sp. Capra ibex nubiana, ibex Lepus capensis, brown hare ?Lepus Rodentia: Gerbillinae, gerbils2 indeterminate microrodents2 ? a bird Cypraeidae, a cowrie3

And top of Stratum C (single horncore Y.59)? Not included in this count is an additional ~600 g of very minute debris, largely due to excavation and post-excavation damage. 1 2

Figure 4a and b. The Yalā 1987 archaeofaunal collection. Comprehensive statistics: the number of specimens (n), and the number and percentage of specimens identified to species or genus, not including Homo; the faunal list, including Homo. The codes in the right-hand column are used in the subsequent tables and graphs.

from further evaluation; • Ground floor, House A: the main assemblage, 1521 pieces in total; rooms L3 and L5 yielded no bone; • Upper floor, House A: a smaller sample associated with burnt timbers and decayed masonry, found in rooms L6, L9 and L11 (Fig. 5/b); • Earlier levels: a sample of about 1000 specimens from undefined structures or open spaces beneath the house. The zooarchaeological interpretation was based on a collection of 2677 specimens. The percentage of species-diagnostic identifiable elements varied between 44 and 35% (Fig. 4/a). The remaining fraction comprised undiagnostic or uncertain fragments that could only be identified by size category, as defined in Figure 4/b (ranges relative to the size of the adult animal). This table also lists the animal taxa identified at Yalā. The abundance of each animal species or conventional taxon is reported as number and percentage of specimens (Figs 5 & 6). Frequencies are further analyzed according to their spatial distribution by locus and layer, with special emphasis on the house (see Fig. 7). Additional analyses concern the markings on bone (see Fig. 8) and skeletal and

Size/morphology groups:4 small = smaller than caprine-gazelle medium = caprine-gazelle size group large = cattle-equid-camel size group

OVC OV CA BOS CAM ASI CNF CN GAZ IBX LEP GE RO CY sm md la

Human remains: Homo sapiens, modern humans Might include the wolf, Canis lupus arabs. Modern intrusives excluded. Toothed, white peristomal fragments, cf Erronea. 4 Undiagnostic finds identified to size group (age and morphology considered). Fragments with old breaks only. 1 2 3

age frequencies (see Fig. 9). Selected bone measurements are given in Figure 10.3 Species and frequencies The range of animal species at Yalā is very limited. This might be a common feature of the Sabaean faunas from the cities across the desert fringe, however, as this type of composition is also shown by the faunal series from Wādī al-Jūbah and Barāqish (see below). The domestic species are represented by sheep, goat, cattle, dromedary, donkey, and the occasional dog, with sheep and goat — the domestic caprines — being by far the most common livestock (82%). The only wild species are the gazelle, ibex, and hare, their percentages being almost negligible (≤ 3.4%). The size-group fragments confirm this composition. The dominance of the domestic species at Yalā is overwhelming throughout the sequence (97.1%). Sheep and goats show medium variation both over time and within the house; our collection may have sampled different breeds. In the species-diagnosed fraction the

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen

141

Figure 5. The Yalā 1987 archaeofaunal collection: the composition in animal species and their frequencies for House A (ground floor and upper floor combined) and the earlier levels (all strata combined). The domestic species are on the left, the wild species on the right; House A: the ground floor and the upper floor compared. The distribution and number of finds from the upper floor are plotted on the map. sheep outnumbers the goat 2.8:1 in the house and 4:3 in the earlier levels (Fig. 6/b) but whether the disproportion is historical reality or analytical bias cannot be determined; only control samples from different city contexts could shed light on the matter. Cattle are represented by the taurine species, Bos taurus. At Yalā we observe greater size variation, and larger animals on average (5–15%), than both in the Bronze Age (Fedele 1990b) and at Hajar al-RayΉānī (Hesse 1996a; 1996b), where the bovines tend to be small-sized, like those of Yemen today. For a few bone fragments, presumably belonging to cattle and dromedary, a positive identification was not possible. If the attributions are correct, the frequencies for cattle and camel given in Figure 6 should be recalculated as, respectively, Bos taurus 9.0% in the house and 18.5% in the earlier levels (Yalā total = 12.1%), and Camelus dromedarius 1.7% in the earlier levels and 1.7% in the Yalā total. Their relatively small size leaves no doubt that both the donkey and the dromedary are domestic. For the dromedary this condition is of particular interest in the light of Yalā’s high chronology. Of the seventeen Camelus bone finds

only three from the house provide usable measurements (Fig. 10). Their sizes have been checked against the biometric records for the Arabian Peninsula by use of logarithmic size indices, on the basis of the admirable review by Uerpmann & Uerpmann (2002; cf. Beech et al. 2009, this volume). LSIs provide an objective method for scaling measurements of different skeletal elements in order to make them comparable. The comparisons show that the dromedary bones from Yalā not only clearly fall within the domestic range (radius = –0.083; first phalanx, probably anterior = –0.026; astragalus = 0.018), but also provide the lowest osteometric mean among the known sites of eastern and southern Arabia (M. Mashkour, personal communication, 5 September 2008). Earlier Camelus fragments from Stratum B, level 2a, include two mandibular rami from which nonstandard measurements can be taken (see Fig. 10). Such measurements have little comparative value, but in conjunction with bone morphology and appearance they strongly suggest that we are dealing with domestic camels well within the variation later observed in the house. The domestic dromedary is thus documented at Yalā to a date

142

Francesco G. Fedele Surface

Upper floor Ground floor Total: House A

Stratum B, 2a

Stratum B, 2b+2d

Mixed ‘B+C’

Total: earlier strata

Total: Yalā*

42

219

777

Domestic species: OVC

98

31

527

558

159

18

OV

3

1

55

56

17

3

4

24

80

CA

5

2

18

20

14

1

2(3?)

17(18?)

37(38?)

106 90.6%

34 85.0%

600 85.6%

634 85.6%

190 72.2%

22 75.9%

49 83.1%

261 74.4%

895 82.0%

63 9.0%

63 8.5%

53 20.2%

3 10.3%

7 11.9%

63 17.9%

126 11.5%

4-

4-

2-

2-

6-

12 1.7%

13 1.8%

4 1.5%

4 1.1%

17 1.6%

2-

2-

2-

2 3.4%

5 1.4%

11 1.0%

1↓

1↓

1↓

1.7%

1+gn 0.6%

2 0.3%

59 100%

339 96.6%

1060 97.1%

Total caprines:

4 3.4%

BOS ?Bos

1 2.5%

CAM ?Camelus 1(2?) 1.7%

ASI

6 0.9%

6 0.8%

2 0.8%

1 3.5%

CNF Canis sp.

1 0.9% 113 96.6%

Total domestic:

35 87.5%

1 0.1%

1 0.1%

1+gn 0.4%

686 97.9%

721 97.3%

254 96.6%

26 89.7%

2↓

1↓

3↓

3↓

2 10.3%

6 2.6%

17 1.8%

3 0.9%

6 0.5%

Wild species: GAZ Gazella sp.

2 5.0%

IBX 11 2.5%

LEP

9 1.3%

11 1.5%

4 2.3%

3 0.4%

3 0.4%

3 1.1%

2 0.3%

3 0.4%

3 0.3%

1 0.1%

1 0.1%

1-

?Lepus GE

2 1.7%

RO

gn

1 2.5%

a bird (?)

gn

gn

1 0.1%

1 0.1%

gn

gn

gn

gn 1 0.1%

1 fr 0.1%

1 fr 0.1%

1 fr 0.9%

1 fr 2.5%

117

40

4 3.6%

1 0.8%

medium

88 79.3%

91 72.8%

666 81.2%

757 80.1%

331 67.6%

87 86.1%

36 73.5%

454 70.9%

1211 76.4%

large Total size groups: Homo sapiens

19 17.1%

33 26.4%

154 18.8%

187 19.8%

159 32.4%

14 13.9%

13 26.5%

186 29.1%

373 23.5%

111

125

820

945

490

101

49

640

1585

228

165

1521

1686

753

130

108

991

2677

CY Total domestic + wild: Size groups: small

741

263

29

59

351

1 0.1%

x

Total Identified Ovis and Capra: n =

701

1092 1 0.1%

x

8

3

73

76

31

4

7

42

118

Ovis aries

37.5%

34.0%

75.3%

73.7%

54.8%

75.0%

57.1%

57.1%

67.8%

Capra hircus

62.5%

66.0%

24.7%

26.3%

45.2%

25.0%

42.9%

42.9%

32.2%

3:5

1:2

3:1

2.8:1

1.2:1

3:1

4:3

4:3

2.1:1

Ovis/Capra ratio

* Excluding ‘Surface’; x = unspecified quantity; fr = shell fragment; gn = animal gnawing; 1 Might be an ancient intrusive.

Figure 6. The Yalā 1987 archaeofaunal collection. a. Taxonomic abundance in terms of number and percentage of specimens, in relation to stratigraphic distribution (taxa codes as in Fig. 4). The percentages were calculated within each stratigraphic lot, separately for the “domestic + wild” group and the “size” groups, and all gazelles and all canids combined; dubious identifications (e.g. ?Bos) were excluded; b. Caprines: detailed frequencies of Ovis aries and Capra hircus as a percentage of the sum of identified sheep and goats.

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen

143

Figure 7. Yalā: the topographic distribution of animal remains in House A, as represented by the number of finds (n) and the composition in species. In each room histogram the room total is the black bar on the left, and a scan of each species is plotted on the right. of c. 850 BC, or a cautious ninth–eighth century BC.4 This represents an interesting signal of camel domestication at an early date from the south-western Arabian Peninsula. Contrary to established views Uerpmann & Uerpmann (2002; and cf. 2008) have effectively shown that the first bone finds of domestic dromedaries in Arabia appear in the UAE in Iron Age II, around 800–900 BC, a century or more later than the assumed earliest appearance in the Levant. This, at the moment, would exclude southern Arabia from any role in camel domestication, a rather surprising perspective (see, for other “paradoxes”, Edens & Wilkinson 1998: 105–108).

Concerning the donkey, one or two bones suggest the theoretical possibility of an equid hybrid, i.e. a mule in a general sense. “Canis sp.” among the domestic species in Figures 6 and 10 is probably the dog, but the occurrence of the wolf (Canis lupus arabs) cannot be excluded. As for the gazelles, our evidence suggests the presence of just one species, a small-sized form which according to some cranial finds could be the Saudi gazelle, Gazella saudiya. This is now commonly considered a separate species (Yom-Tov, Mendelssohn & Groves 1995; Groves 1996; 1997; cf. Kingdon 1991: 264–265). Unfortunately, a lack of suitable skeletal elements as well as comparative

144

Francesco G. Fedele

Figure 8. Yalā: traces on animal bone. The categories of traces include burning and surface markings, the latter cultural and non-cultural (cut-marks, chopping, animal gnawing). a. The topographic distribution in House A by the number of finds (n); b. the stratigraphic distribution: the house and the earlier levels compared. Cultural markings as percentages of the Yalā total (surface excluded), and traces of gnawing as the number of finds (n).

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen material prevents a positive determination. No evidence was found of wild boar or pig. This absence might well depend on the environment being too dry for raising pigs, as on pork avoidance. However the hare, which was considered “unclean” in Iron Age Israel (Borowski 1998: 192), was consumed at Yalā; this is the brown hare, Lepus capensis (Harrison & Bates 1991; Kingdon 1991: 47–50, 191). A long-bone diaphysis from the house’s ground floor may belong to a small bird, and a pneumatized bone fragment from level 2a might indicate the ostrich, Struthio camelus (now recognized osteologically at Barāqish; Fedele, forthcoming). Gerbils and the cypraeid shell fragments were probably unconnected with food. No evident pathologies were observed. Some bones were still in their anatomical articulation when found, i.e. they derived from discarded whole joints of meat: four caprine lumbar vertebrae and a sheep tarsus, from the house’s ground floor; a joint of tarsus and distal tibia, and an articulated first and second phalanx, both Bos taurus, from the earlier levels.

The faunal assemblage of the house As animal substances were exclusively introduced as food, House A probably cannot give an objective picture of Yalā’s economy, but represents an important source of information on daily behaviour and culinary and dietary habits in particular. Behavioural patterns can be sought in the relationships between the human residents and their animal foodstuffs, as a contribution to understanding the functioning of the house (cf. Loreto 2009, this volume, for an analysis from architecture and pottery). Basic to functional interpretation is the assumption that activity pattern and discard/deposition pattern can be taken as statistically correlated, the latter being a reflection of the former, although they are not the same thing (for a broader discussion see Kent 1984; 1987; Becker 1998). The assumption is acceptable, insofar as the rooms of the house acted as self-contained units: a very large majority of the bones entered the archaeological record where they had been left or discarded after processing or consumption. Only the most basic species are attested among the animal foodstuffs – not an example of elaborate cuisine for an elite residence. The range of species and their frequencies (Figs 4–6) is a particular instance of the animal spectrum described for the collection in general. Besides caprines (85.6%) and cattle (8.5 or 9%), the remaining fauna is scanty and occasional. Particularly surprising

145

is the relative paucity of gazelles, since in western Asia they represented a frequent supplement to the diet, and were readily available in the vicinity of Yalā. U. Brunner (1989; 2008; in press) has reported on numerous so-called “desert kites” for the mass hunting or capture of gazelles in the area between Mārib, СirwāΉ, and Yalā itself. The rarity of the donkey is probably due to this species not being appreciated as a meat animal, whereas the dromedary more or less was, as in rural Yemen today, besides being a great provider of milk (Horwitz & Rosen 2005). Although indispensable as a working and transport animal, if this inference holds true for the early Sabaean period, the dromedary must have fulfilled an outstanding multiplicity of roles (Gauthier-Pilters & Dagg 1981; Wilson 1984), a distinction it retains to this day in Yemen and elsewhere. Although of dubious value, the minimum numbers of individuals was estimated for House A as follows, adopting the criteria of Klein and Cruz-Uribe (1984: 107– 174) and summing up the separate counts for each room: sheep 50, goats 18, caprines together 400, and cattle 55. Human behaviour: people and foodways The spatial distribution of animal remains on the ground floor of House A is plotted out for each room in the form of frequency histograms in Figure 7. The abundance varies from room to room, although not very considerably, being greater in the southern and western parts of the house (L2, L6 and L10). The caprines are overwhelming in these same rooms, and this coincides with maxima in burnt bones (see below). Individuals of both sexes are represented, mostly young or prime-adult in age, and several went to slaughter as lambs and kids, almost none as older animals. Caprine ribs are especially abundant in L2, where bone has an evident aspect of kitchen refuse. Our data suggest that rooms L2 and L6 were specifically involved in cooking, and cooking was largely connected with caprine meat. L6 had an oven, a bipartite compartment made of stone slabs set on edge, which contained a small mix of immatures (including a caprine radius-ulna and a shattered camel vertebra). L2 had a clay hotplate or heater and a chest to stock materials (Loreto 2009, this volume). Room L10 looks like a multi-purpose room where perhaps cooked foodstuffs were stored and/or butchery was frequent; it also shows a modest maximum of wild game bones. The analysis of the cultural and non-cultural modifications of bone contributes significantly to the behavioural picture (Fig. 8). Three categories of

146

Francesco G. Fedele

Figure 9. Yalā: a. the skeletal frequency of sheep/goat and cattle remains from House A and the earlier levels; b. D-M-W (dairy-meat-wool) triaxial diagrams, based on kill age classes, for House A and the earlier levels. cultural traces were observed: burning, cut-marks, and percussion marks (“chopping”). Non-cultural markings include animal gnawing. The evidence of roasted bone is conspicuous and almost ubiquitous, with varying frequencies. Equally common are the marks from chopping or intentional breakage whereas, surprisingly, cutting traces are extremely rare. The use of metal knives is evident in the cut-marks observed; caprine skulls were split open along the sagittal suture. Cultural patterns of breakage recur, the long bones being chopped mid-shaft or bitruncated at both epiphysial junctions, but sometimes

also bent and snapped by hand. Rodent gnawing is fairly frequent on the ground floor, while dog traces are absent. Burnt bone is common everywhere on the ground floor, but exceptionally frequent in the southern rooms and in L10, with a clear distinction from the rooms to the north of the corridor (Fig. 8/a). These latter rooms are notable for their constricted sizes as well as being inaccessible from floor level, and the pottery types suggest a use as storerooms. Faunal analysis would support a storage function for L7 and L12, in light of reduced bone discard and very little carcass processing. More enigmatic are

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen rooms L11 and L9, the latter perhaps a butchering area (and easy to be emptied of its refuse onto the street?). The vertical distribution of bone modifications (Fig. 8/b) adds a diachronic perspective and confirms that the ground floor of the house was specialized in processing and cooking food. Mice circulated there rather freely, most liberally in L11. The upper floor saw no mice and was kept rather clean (low refuse rate). Any comparison of the ground floor and the upper floor (Fig. 5/b) may be precarious, due to the large sample size difference. However, on the upper floor one observes a dominance of the smaller species, domestic and wild, whereas only small-sized leftovers of the larger species are documented. It appears that only minute bone parts were brought to the upper floor and discarded there. In conjunction with the burnt bone data, this would confirm that the upper floor was reserved for food consumption. People in the house mostly ate sheep and goats, which left a staggering 86% of refuse, and enjoyed the meatier cuts of beef and the occasional gazelle or hare. All these meat animals were healthy. A lot of carcass and meat processing took place in room L2, according to the exceptional peak of chopped residue. As the house contains a spectrum of all the portions of the carcass, if not equal abundances (Fig. 9/a), it seems that the household often acquired and processed whole animals rather than selected, pre-treated parts. The lack of bone and pottery in annexes L3 and L5 and, in contrast, the great number of querns, mortars, and pestles (Loreto 2009, this volume), clearly show that vegetable substances were usually treated and animal meat was not processed in these rooms at all.

The earlier levels The earlier levels from beneath the house were explored by means of three soundings in rooms L2, L5 and L6 (Fig. 2/a). Bone was particularly abundant in Stratum B which is more than 1 m thick (Fig. 2/b). From the limited masonry evidence Stratum B bears a resemblance to the architectural plan of House A, not unlike an earlier phase of the building,5 whereas no suggestion can be made for the precise contexts in which layers C and D were formed. Clearly, most of the bones from the earlier levels show characteristics of kitchen refuse, or bear stains connected with burial within manure; traces of chopping predominate (Fig. 8/b). The pattern of animal species, all strata combined, is strikingly similar to that from the house (Fig. 5/a). One can only observe that cattle are twice as abundant,

147

although still a mere 17.9–18.5%, and this parallels the decrease in sheep and goats. The donkey and gazelles are better represented and the ibex marginally so, while the demonstration of the domestic dromedary in Stratum B has been discussed above. The dog is represented by a patella. Overall, the earlier levels greatly resemble Stratum A: there is compositional uniformity from Stratum C up to the end of the house in spite of the latter’s specialization in domestic consumption, and this gives an impression of remarkable continuity through time. This further suggests that, possibly, the excavated house represents more than a single episode of Yalā’s phase A, and the excavated site similarly reflects persistent orientations of the city at large. This justifies attempting to place our faunal sample in a wider perspective, both local and regional.

Yalā’s House A in its wider context The animal sample from House A speaks of the daily life of a single family of social standing at the apex of the Sabaean florescence. However, we have just seen that the combined record from the house and underneath reveals intriguing continuities, therefore our sample — although insufficient to portray economy in depth — can give an idea of Yalā’s economic orientation through time. A triangular graph for modelling the economic strategy from bone refuse, through the pattern of killoff or culling, was employed (Fig. 9/b; only the caprine sample is numerous enough for evaluation). The graph refers to idealized strategies associated with dairy, meat, and wool production, and the input is represented by the age distribution (Payne 1973; Hesse 1996a; Millard 2006; ageing based on Jones 2006; on these critical ages in caprines cf. Borowski 1998: 57–58). At face value, caprine husbandry in earlier Yalā was heavily oriented towards meat and milk, with fibre exploitation apparently marginal. The results for House A are extremely similar, once again implying a strong sense of continuity throughout the city’s existence. At the regional level, our results do not seem to be only local (cf. Fedele 1992: 74–75; Edens & Wilkinson 1998: 99–100). Yalā closely matches the faunal picture obtained from Hajar al-RayΉānī, the largest town in Wādī al-Jūbah (see Fig. 1), where a fundamental reliance on sheep and goats is apparent (97%) and the dromedary increases from trace amounts in the early first millennium – rather vaguely dated – to 1.2% in the sixth to fifth centuries BC (Hesse 1996a; 1996b; n = 25,540 bones, 19.2% identified). A smaller sample from nearby Hajar

148

Francesco G. Fedele Equus asinus Mandible

OL

B3

H1

Lnd

LF

penBS2

M2

28.7

11.9

77

14.7

11.3

1

n=1

M3

19

9

-

11.2

-

-

n=1

#Y.74:120

M1/2

22.8

14.3

25.9

12.2

3.8 sic

-

n=1

#Y.43:64

M1

23.0

13.7

-

12.5

-

1

n=1

M2

24.0

12.2

-

12.0

6.5

1

n=1

Bd

Dd3

Btro4

75.5

(90)

(46)

#Y.51:9 ”

” Femur

n=1

From middle of double knot to root bifurcation, taken from the buccal side. 2 Degree of penetration of the buccal sulcus (Payne 1991: 137). 3 Greatest depth on the medial side, taken at right angles to the axis of shaft. 4 Greatest breadth of trochlea.

1

Horncore

Mandible Scapula

Humerus

Radius

Metacarpal

Metatarsal

Tibia Astragalus

OV CA GAZ OVC IBX? OVC OV CA IBX GAZ OVC OV CA IBX OVC OV CA GAZ OVC OV CA OVC OV CA GAZ OVC GAZ OVC OV CA

GD1 32.0 27.0 ± 4.5 13.0 L M3 20.2 ± 1.3 LG 22.6 ± 1.5 23.2 ± 1.8 22.4 ± 1.1 25.0 20.8 BT 26.2 ± 1.7 27.1 ± 0.7 27.4 (34) Bp 26.4 ± 2.3 28.1 ± 2.0 25.4 ± 1.5 25.7 GL 119.8* 120.9 ± 0.7 110 GL 115.4 110.5 GL GLl 27.2 ± 2.6 27.8 24.6

Caprini (OVC, OV, CA, IBX) and Antilopini (GAZ) LD1 22.0 17.8 ± 2.4 11.7 B M3 LM1M3a2 6.8* 45.6 ± 1.8 52.2 BG SLC 18.2 ± 1.0 16.1 ± 1.5 18.5 ± 0.8 16.7 ± 0.6 19.5 ± 0.3 17.5 ± 0 24.2 23.0 15.9 15.4 HT HTC Bp 16.1 ± 0.9 12.1 ± 0.4 16.6 ± 0.7 22.9 (39) 18.3 49.6 BFp Dp 27.3* 13.9 ± 0.8 14.9 ± 1.5 13.7 ± 0.8 13.0 SD Bda3 Dd 12.1 ± 1.3 21.1 ± 1.2 13.2 ± 1.9 11.1 ± 0.3 22.6 ± 0.4 13.3 21.6 SD Bda3 Dd 11.5 ± 0.6 22.4* 9.5 21.5 13.1 11.2 22.3 9.1 ± 0.1 19.6 ± 0.1 12.9 ± 0.1 Bd Dd 23.5 ± 1.8 17.4 ± 1.4 21.2 ± 0.8 15.4 ± 1.0 Dl Bd 14.6 ± 0.7 17.5 ± 1.3 16.0 18.0 13 15.7

*n=1 1 GD and LD equivalent, respectively, to von den Driesch's (1976) 41 and 42. 2 Alveolar length. 3 Payne (1991: 138); equivalent to Davis's (1992) BFd.

n=1 n=5 n=1 n=3 n=1 n=8 n=7 n=2 n=1 n=1 n=8 n=4 n=1 n=1

Wcon 10.0 ± 0.9 10.3 ± 0.5 10.1 Wcon 9.6* 9.0 8.5 ± 0

Wtro 9.4 ± 0.5 10.1 ± 0.3 9.9 Wtro 8.8* 8.5 8.4 ± 0.2

n=6 n=3 n=5 n=1 n=4 n=3 n=1 n=5 n=1 n=1 n=2 n = 12 n=2 n=4 n=1 n=1

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen

149

Bos taurus Metacarpal

GL

SD

Bda1

BOS Metatarsal

BOS

Wtro

n 3

-

27.5*

58.3 ± 2.5

-

27.2 ± 2.0

24.3 ± 2.9

SD

Bda1

Dd

Wcon

Wtro

-

24.5*

20.6*

-

11.8*

55.7 ± 1.7

GL

Bd

Dd

BOS

-

56.9 ± 6.3

46.6 ± 1.9

GLl

Dl

Bd

68.5 ± 5.2

37.0 ± 3.0

43.7 ± 2.9

Astragalus

Wcon

GL BOS

Tibia

Dd

2 3 2

*n=1 1 Payne (1991: 138); equivalent to Davis's (1992) BFd.

Camelus Mandible

Radius

Stratg.0 Str. B Str. B House

Astragalus

House

1st phalanx

House

Wram1 62 55.2 GL GLl 77.2 Gl -

Bcon2 39.6 SD (37) GLm 69.1 GLpe -

n 1 1 CD Dl 45.7 SD (20)

Bp 72.6 Dm 36.5 Bp 36.1

BFp 66.5 Bd 52.2 Dp -

Dp (37) GB 54.9

1 1 1

Stratigraphic position. 1 Minimum width of vertical ramus at constriction. 2 Mediolateral breadth of the articular condyle. 0

Canis familiaris (CNF) and Lepus capensis (LEP) Patella CNF

GL 23.4

GB 13.8

LEP

Dp 15.8

Bcap1 10.8

LEP

SD 7.7

Bp 19.6

Dp 8.3

Bp 15.0

Dp2 16.3

Humerus Femur Tibia LEP 1 2

n 1 1 DC 7.0

BTr 18.2

1 1

Breadth of caput, taken at right angles to Dp. Greatest proximal depth.

Figure 10. The Yalā 1987 archaeofaunal collection: a selection of measurements (mean value and standard deviation, given to the nearest 0.1 mm; the selection criteria are based on Davis 1992). The measurements codes after von den Driesch 1976, with variations and additions as defined in the notes. al-Tamrah shows the same (Toplyn 1985), as does a preliminary investigation of the Sabaean fauna from Barāqish (Fedele, forthcoming). Animals and ideology The occurrence of ibex bones (0.5%) inevitably brings to mind relationships between the ibex and the “sacred hunt”, the famed but elusive practice of the Sabaean rulers

(e.g. Serjeant 1976; Ryckmans 1976). There are specific reasons for thinking of this association in the case of Yalā. As already mentioned, the city was integrated within a greater complex in which stands out the unusual record from the ShiΚb al-ΚAql, whose rock-carved inscriptions commemorate royal hunts celebrated in this gorge and involving the ibex. In Garbini’s (1988) interpretation all the texts would refer to one particular hunting event led by a mukarrib and his co-regent, but ibexes were probably

150

Francesco G. Fedele

also hunted in less formal circumstances. Predictably, no direct evidence links the animals from the excavation to the ceremonial hunting of ibexes. However, six ibex bones were preserved, and the three from the house are rather special, all belonging to large males and bearing traces of chopping and heavy burning. High uniformity is thus associated with relative rarity. This circumstantial evidence suggests that meat from male ibexes circulated in the city on certain occasions and was treated selectively. One wonders whether some cuts were from ritually killed animals and a few did indeed reach this particular house. This suggestion is, of course, untestable on current evidence. It is meant to emphasize a different and more interesting point, the problematic relationship between husbandry and hunting. From bone studies hunting emerges as irrelevant in Sabaean Yemen. At the moment, a marked contrast is apparent between the prominence of hunting in symbolic and depictive contexts — “art” — and its utmost marginality in actual bone samples. A striking example comes from House A itself, where a unique find, a clay talisman from a wall in corridor L1, boasts a hunting scene with bow and arrow (de Maigret & Robin 1989: pl. 8/b; Antonini 1996; de Maigret 2005: fig. 16). The subject of breeding versus hunting in its overall cultural context holds promise for future zooarchaeological investigations into early historic Yemen.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Alessandro de Maigret for allowing the study of the faunal material and sharing with me his data and recollections on Yalā; he also kindly checked my Figure 2/b. Romolo Loreto clarified the secrets of House A. Jill Morris was a great help with laboratory work in СanΚāΜ in 1990, while Gennaro Di Rosa and Stefano Iavarone assisted with storeroom work and photographs in 2006–2007. Permission for the transfer of the animal bones was granted by the General Organization of Antiquities, Museums and Manuscripts (СanΚāΜ), for which I am grateful. Special thanks to Richard Sabin for providing access to Antilopini in the Natural History

Museum (London), to Marjan Mashkour for her help with sizing camels, and to Cornelia Becker, Mark Beech, Ueli Brunner, and Christian Robin for information. I take sole responsibility for the use made here of the above information and support.

Notes 1

2

3

4

5

The present study was begun in СanΚāΜ in 1990 (Fedele 1990a). Only in 2006 was the archaeofaunal collection retrieved from the Italian Mission storerooms at the National Museum in СanΚāΜ, and permission obtained to transfer it to the Italian archaeological camp at Barāqish, where a small laboratory had been set up by the writer. There the study was eventually completed in December 2007. The writer did not take part in the excavations, but was able to visit Yalā and its area in October 1985. Only after the submission of this manuscript was I aware of a recent article by Manzo (2005) on Yalā’s radiocarbon chronology, in which this author performs the same analysis summarized in my Figure 3 and comes to my same dating conclusions concerning the occupation of House A and Stratum B. The linkages with the actual stratigraphy were not completely appraised, however. The details of my own reappraisal of Yalā’s stratigraphic sequence as used in this paper (cf. Fig. 2/b) will be discussed elsewhere. For reasons of space the detailed spatial, biological and osteometric analyses will be presented elsewhere. The relevant values are summarized here in Figures 5, 7, 8, and 9. The surface finds from the Yalā survey in 1985 include a clay figurine of a camel (de Maigret 1988: fig. 27). The sounding in L5 stumbled upon some human remains in level 2a near an earlier wall of the room (a mandible and postcranial bones). Equally problematic is a neurocranium of probable Homo from the floor level of room L10. One might suspect that material from nearby graves was reworked into the soil of House A during construction.

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen

151

References Antonini S. 1996. Una tavoletta-portafortuna in terracotta dagli scavi di Yalā/ad-Durayb (Repubblica dello Yemen). Pages 143–163 in C.J. Robin & I. Gajda (eds), Arabia Antiqua. Early Origins of South Arabian States. (Serie orientale Roma, 70/1). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. Becker C. 1998. Can animal bones reflect household activities? A case study from a prehistoric site in Greece. Pages 79–86 in P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem & W. Meid (eds), Man and the Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in memoriam Sándor Bökönyi. (Archaeolingua, 8). Budapest: Archaeolingua. Beech M., Mashkour M., Huels M. & Zazzo A. 2009. Prehistoric camels in south-eastern Arabia: the discovery of a new site in Abu Dhabi’s Western Region, United Arab Emirates. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39: 17–30. Borowski O. 1998. Every Living Thing. Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Bronk Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: The OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37/2: 425– 430. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43/2A: 355–363. Brunner U. 1989. Vorsabäische Jagdfallen. Jemen Report 20/1: 23–25. 2008. Desert kites between MaΜrib and Sirwah. Paper delivered at the 12th Rencontre Sabéenne, Rome, June 2008. [Unpublished]. (in press). Les pièges de chasse antiques au Yémen. Chroniques Yéménites. Davis S.J.M. 1992. A Rapid Method for Recording Information About Mammal Bones from Archaeological Sites. (Ancient Monuments Laboratory Reports, 19/92). London: English Heritage. de Maigret A. 1985. Exploration of the Banī Dabyān region. Pages 338–351 in A. de Maigret, G.M. Bulgarelli, L. Costantini, P. Cuneo, F.G. Fedele, V. Francaviglia, B. Marcolongo, A. Palmieri, M. Tosi, U. Scerrato & G. Ventrone. Archaeological activities in the Yemen Arab Republic, 1985. East and West 35 [N.S.]: 337–395. 1988. (ed.). The New Sabaean Archaeological Complex in the Wādī Yalā (Eastern Еawlān aΓ-Кiyāl, Yemen Arab Republic). A Preliminary Report. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. 2002. Arabia Felix: An Exploration of the Archaeological History of Yemen. London: Stacey International. 2003. La ceramica sabea. Specificità e sviluppi da uno studio delle forme. Arabia 1: 89–96, 217–244. 2005. The Italian Archaeological Mission. An Appraisal of 25 Years’ Research (1980–2004). (YICAR Papers, 2). СanΚā [sic]: Yemeni-Italian Centre for Archaeological Research. de Maigret A. & Robin C. 1989. Les fouilles italiennes de Yalā (Yémen du Nord): nouvelles données sur la chronologie de l’Arabie du Sud préislamique. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 255–291. Driesch A. von den 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. (Peabody Museum Bulletin, 1). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Edens C. & Wilkinson T.J. 1998. Southwest Arabia during the Holocene: recent archaeological developments. Journal of World Prehistory 12/1: 55–119. Fedele F.G. 1990a. Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology in the Eastern Highlands of North Yemen. Report of Activities

152

Francesco G. Fedele

Conducted in February 1990. Naples: Laboratory and Museum of Anthropology, University of Naples. [Unpublished circulated report]. 1990b. Bronze Age faunal collections from North Yemen. Pages 149–185 in A. de Maigret (ed.), The Bronze Age Culture of Еawlān aΓ-Кiyāl and Al-Дadā (Republic of Yemen): A First General Report. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. 1992. Zooarchaeology in Mesopotamia and Yemen: a comparative history. Origini. Preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche 16: 49–93. (forthcoming). Barāqish, over-wall excavations 2005–06: stratigraphy, environment and economy of the SabaeanIslamic sequence. Arabia 4 (2007–2008). Garbini G. 1988. The inscriptions of ShiΚb al-ΚAql, al-Jafnah and Yalā/ad-Durayb. Pages 21–40 in A. de Maigret (ed.), The New Sabaean Archaeological Complex in the Wādī Yalā (Eastern Еawlān aΓ-Кiyāl, Yemen Arab Republic). A Preliminary Report. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. Gauthier-Pilters H. & Dagg A.I. 1981. The Camel. Its Evolution, Ecology, Behavior, and Relationship to Man. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Groves C.P. 1996. Taxonomic diversity in Arabian gazelles: the state of the art. Pages 8–39 in A. Greth, C. Magin & M. Ancrenaz (eds), Conservation of Arabian Gazelles. Riyadh: The National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development. 1997. The taxonomy of Arabian gazelles. Pages 24–51 in K. Habibi, A.H. Abuzinada & I.A. Nader (eds), The Gazelles of Arabia. (English Series, 29). Riyadh: National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development. Harrison D.L. & Bates P.J.J. 1991. The Mammals of Arabia. (Second edition). Sevenoaks: Harrison Zoological Museum. Hesse B. 1996a. The Hajar ar-Rayhani fauna: a first look at Yemen’s Iron Age pastoral economy. Pages 109–122 in J.D. Seger (ed.), Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns/Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University. 1996b. The Hajar ar-Rayhani fauna. Variation in the animal economy in Iron-Age Yemen. Pages 263–292 in M.J. Grolier, R. Brinkmann & J.A. Blakely (eds), Environmental Research in Support of Archaeological Investigations in the Yemen Arab Republic, 1982–1987. Washington, DC: American Foundation for the Study of Man. Hoffman M.A. 1974. The social context of trash disposal in an Early Dynastic Egyptian town. American Antiquity 39: 35– 50. Horwitz L.K. & Rosen B. 2005. A review of camel milking in the Southern Levant. Pages 121–131 in J. Mulville & A.K. Outram (eds), The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Jones G.G. 2006. Tooth eruption and wear observed in live sheep from Butser Hill, the Cotswold Farm Park and Five Farms in the Pentland Hills, UK. Pages 155–178 in D. Ruscillo (ed.), Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Kent S. 1984. Analyzing Activity Areas. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 1987. Method and Theory for Activity Area Research. An Ethnoarchaeological Research. New York: Academic Press.

Sabaean animal economy and household consumption at Yalā, eastern Khawlān al-Кiyāl, Yemen

153

Kingdon J. 1991. Arabian Mammals. A Natural History. London: Academic Press. Klein R.G. & Cruz-Uribe K. 1984. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archeological Sites. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Lie R.W. 1980. Minimum number of individuals from osteological samples. Norwegian Archaeological Review 13: 24–30. Loreto R. 2009. House and household: a contextual approach to the study of South Arabian domestic architecture. A case study from Yalā/ad-Durayb. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39: 255–270. Manzo A. 2005. The stratigraphic sequence at Yalā (Yemen): a statistical evaluation. Radiocarbon 47/1: 147–158. Millard A.R. 2006. A Bayesian approach to ageing sheep/goats from toothwear. Pages 145–154 in D. Ruscillo (ed.), Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Payne S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: the mandibles from Aşvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23: 281–303. 1991. Early Holocene equids from Tall-i-Mushki (Iran) and Can Hasan III (Turkey). Pages 132–177 in R.H. Meadow & H-P. Uerpmann (eds), Equids in the Ancient World. ii. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, A, 19/2). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Reimer P.J., Baillie M.G.L., Bard E., Bayliss A., Beck J.W., Bertrand C.J.H., Blackwell P.G., Buck C.E., Burr G.S., Cutler K.B., Damon P.E., Edwards R.L., Fairbanks R.G., Friedrich M., Guilderson T.P., Hogg A.G., Hughen K.A., Kromer B., McCormac G., Manning S., Bronk Ramsey C., Reimer R.W., Remmele S., Southon J.R., Stuiver M., Talamo S., Taylor F.W., van der Plicht J. & Weyhenmeyer C.E. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46/3: 1029–1058. Robin C. 2002. SabaΜ and the Sabaeans. Pages 51–58 in StJ. Simpson (ed.), Queen of Sheba. Treasures from Ancient Yemen. London: The British Museum Press. Robin C. & Brunner U. 1997. Map of Ancient Yemen/Carte du Yémen Antique 1:1,000,000. Munich: Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde. Ryckmans J. 1976. La chasse rituelle dans l’Arabie du Sud ancienne. Pages 259–308 in J.F. Thiel (ed.), Al-Bā���������� Ή��������� ī�������� Ε������� : Festschrift Joseph Henninger zum 70. Geburtstag am 12. Mai 1976. (Studia Instituti Anthropos, 28). St Augustin bei Bonn: Verlag des Anthropos-Instituts. Serjeant R.B. 1976. South Arabian Hunt. London: Luzac. Toplyn M.R. 1985. Faunal evidence. Pages 127–128 in J.A. Blakely, J.A. Sauer & M.R. Toplyn (eds), The Wadi al-Jubah Archaeological Project. 2: Site Reconnaissance in North Yemen, 1983. Washington, DC: American Foundation for the Study of Man. Uerpmann H-P. & Uerpmann M. 2002. The appearance of the domestic camel in south-east Arabia. Journal of Oman Studies 12: 235–260. Uerpmann M. & Uerpmann H-P. 2008. Neolithic faunal remains from al-Buhais 18 (Sharjah, UAE). Pages 97–132 in H-P. Uerpmann, M. Uerpmann & S.A. Jasim (eds), The Archaeology of Jebel al-Buhais. 2: The Natural Environment of Jebel al-Buhais: Past and Present. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.

154

Francesco G. Fedele

Wilson R.T. 1984. The Camel. London/New York: Longman. Yom-Tov Y., Mendelssohn H. & Groves C.P. 1995. Gazella dorcas. (Mammalian species, 491). Lawrence, KS: The American Society of Mammalogists. Author’s address Francesco G. Fedele, Chair and Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Naples “Federico II”, via Mezzocannone 8, 80134 Naples, Italy. e-mail [email protected]