Chapter 16
FAUNAL REMAINS FROM AMHEIDA, AREA 1
Pam J. Crabtree and Douglas V. Campana
Introduction
This chapter describes the analysis of the faunal remains from Area 1 in Amheida that were excavated over three seasons between 2005 and 2007. While archaeologically recovered faunal remains have traditionally been used to study economic questions, such as the reconstruction of animal husbandry, hunting, and diet, animal bone remains can also be used to address a broader range of social, political, and other questions including status, trade, ethnicity, and colonialism. In addition to addressing the role of wild and domestic animals in the diet of the inhabitants of Area 1, we will compare the faunal data from Area 1 to the large sample of animal bone remains that was recovered from House B1 at Amheida (Area 2). We will also compare our data to other Roman Period assemblages from Egypt.↩#p3021
Materials and Methods
The faunal assemblage from Area 1 includes 534 animal bones and fragments that were identified during January of 2010. The archaeological context, bone identifications, ageing, measurement, and taphonomic data were recorded using FAUNA, a specialized database manager for archaeozoology. Animal bones were identified to species where possible. Sheep bones were distinguished from goat remains following Boessneck and Halstead. Higher order categories, such as sheep/goat, were used for fragmentary bones that could not be identified to species. These include small artiodactlyl (sheep-, goat-, pig-, or gazelle-sized remains), large ungulate (cattle- or equid-sized remains), rodent, and equid (donkey or horse), and domestic fowl-sized birds (probable chicken). We faced problems that were similar to those encountered by Hamilton-Dyer. Since we had to carry out the work in Egypt without access to a full comparative collection, we had to rely on our own experiences, identification guides and illustrations to identify the faunal material. We tried to err on the side of caution in identifying these materials.↩#p3022
In addition to identifying the animal bone remains to species or higher order taxon, the following additional information was recorded for each specimen: body part, side, portion, degree of fragmentation, and evidence for bone modification (burning, staining, gnawing, etc.). Although the faunal assemblage from Area 1 is too small for detailed analysis of the ages at death for the mammals, ageing data for all the Amheida faunal remains were recorded using both dental eruption and wear and epiphyseal fusion of the long bones. Measurements were recorded following the recommendations of von den Driesch. Species ratios were calculated using fragment counts.↩#p3023
Table 16.1: Faunal remains identified from Area 1 at Amheida.
| Species |
R1 |
R2 |
R3 |
R4 |
R5 |
R6 |
R7 |
R8 |
R9 |
R10 |
R11 |
1.2 trench |
1.4 trench |
1.8 N/M 38 |
FU N/M 38 |
Total |
| Domestic Cattle; Bos taurus |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
9 |
2 |
|
|
20 |
| Sheep or Goat; Small caprine |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
| Gazelle; Gazella dorcas |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
| Donkey; Equus asinus |
|
1 |
16 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
22 |
| Camel; Camelus dromedarius |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
| Small rodent—mouse sized |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
| Probable rat (cf. Rattus rattus) |
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
| Small artiodactyl |
2 |
6 |
10 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
31 |
| Large ungulate |
3 |
7 |
12 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
9 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
50 |
| Rodent |
7 |
3 |
7 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
| Equid; species indeterminate |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
| Undetermined mammal |
22 |
30 |
99 |
7 |
14 |
4 |
10 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
45 |
7 |
|
1 |
250 |
| Domestic chicken; Gallus gallus |
1 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
13 |
| Domestic fowl-sized bird |
3 |
2 |
13 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
| Unidentified bird |
5 |
26 |
39 |
2 |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
76 |
| Unidentified reptile |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
| Undetermined species |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
| Total |
48 |
84 |
203 |
23 |
30 |
14 |
13 |
2 |
23 |
2 |
4 |
68 |
12 |
1 |
7 |
535 |
Results
The animal bones identified from the Area 1 features are shown in Table 16.1. About half of the 534 animal bone remains are indeterminate fragments of mammal, bird, and reptile bone. The animal bones were exceptionally well preserved, and the recovery of the bones was excellent, as can be seen by the presence of sizable numbers of bird and rodent bones. The domestic mammals identified include cattle (Bos taurus), donkeys (Equus asinus), camels (Camelus dromedarius), and small numbers of indeterminate caprines (sheep [Ovis aries] or goats [Capra hircus]). Particularly striking is the total absence of any pig (Sus scrofa) bones. The presence of both camel and donkey in the faunal assemblage is particularly interesting, since donkey and camel drivers appear in the documentary evidence from Area 1, and a possible transportation basket for a donkey was recovered from room 6. Domestic mammals were augmented by the hunting of gazelles (Gazella dorcas). By the late Roman period, most of the other large wild mammals in the region had probably been extirpated. The mammals were supplemented by substantial numbers of chickens (Gallus gallus) which were kept for their eggs as well as their flesh. Egg shells were recovered from several contexts in room 4. Nearly all the rodent bones are rat-sized, and the material is cautiously identified as possible black rat.↩#p3024
The spatial distribution of the faunal remains can also contribute to our understanding of the activities that were carried out in Area 1 (Table 16.1). Over 200 faunal remains were recovered from room 3. This room appears to have been associated with craft activities and food storage. It was the least well lit room in the house and was probably not terribly clean. Room 7 was centrally located and appears to have been kept much cleaner. Only 13 bones were recovered from room 7, and most of these were small fragments of mammal bone that could not be identified to species.↩#p3025
The ageing data for the mammal remains from Area 1 are quite limited. A single worn lower cheek tooth from a donkey came from a mature animal. Four cattle bones could be aged on the basis of epiphyseal fusion. These include unfused epiphyses of the proximal tibia, proximal humerus, and the tuber of the calcaneus. The proximal humerus and tibia fuse between 3.5 and 4 years of age, while the calcaneus fuses between 3 and 3.5 years. A second calcaneus was fused and would have come from an animal that was more than 3–3.5 years old when it died. While the number of ageable specimens is far too small to draw any detailed conclusions, it is reasonable to suggest that the inhabitants of Area 1 consumed market aged and adult cattle. The small sample yields no evidence for very young calves, and the Area 1 residents were probably not raising their own cattle.↩#p3026
Comparisons with Amheida Area 2
A far larger faunal assemblage (10,556 fragments) was recovered from Area 2 (Table 16.2). In addition to the species identified from Area 1, the fourth-century house also yielded the remains of domestic pig (Sus scrofa), identifiable sheep (Ovis aries) and goat (Capra hircus), pigeon (Columba sp.), and a small number of fish bones that are still under study.↩#p3027
Table 16.2: Summary of the faunal remains recovered from Area 2 at Amheida.
| Species |
Count |
| Domestic Cattle; Bos taurus |
240 |
| Sheep; Ovis aries |
5 |
| Goat; Capra hircus |
23 |
| Sheep or Goat; Small caprine |
62 |
| Pig; Sus scrofa |
1037 |
| Donkey; Equus asinus |
21 |
| Camel; Camelus dromedarius |
8 |
| Gazelle; Gazella dorcas |
21 |
| Small rodent—mouse sized |
1 |
| Probable rat (cf. Rattus rattus) |
27 |
| Equid; species indeterminate |
2 |
| Small artiodactyl |
617 |
| Large ungulate |
141 |
| Rodent |
137 |
| Small Mammal |
6 |
| Undetermined mammal |
3072 |
| Domestic chicken; Gallus gallus |
593 |
| pigeon or dove; Columba sp. |
1 |
| Domestic fowl-sized bird |
282 |
| Unidentified bird |
717 |
| Unidentified fish |
25 |
| Undetermined species |
3518 |
| Total |
10556 |
Species ratios for the identified bird and mammal species from Areas 1 and 2 are compared in Table 16.3. The most obvious difference is that pigs make up of 40% of the identified bird and mammal bones from House B1 while they are totally absent from Area 1. The Area 1 assemblage, on the other hand, includes higher proportions of cattle, gazelles, donkeys, and camels. The higher proportions of camels and donkeys are perhaps not surprising in light of the documentary evidence for donkey and camel driving. The higher proportions of cattle and gazelles, on the other hand, might indicate that the inhabitants had a more traditionally Egyptian diet, since these species have formed part of the Egyptian diet in the western oases since Neolithic times. The Area 1 and Area 2 assemblages produced roughly equal proportions of caprines and chickens.↩#p3028
Table 16.3: Species ratios (based on NISP) for Areas 1 and 2 at Amheida.
| Species |
Area 1 NISP |
Area 1 % NISP |
Area 2 NISP |
Area 2 % NISP |
| Cattle |
20 |
16.95 |
240 |
9.76 |
| Sheep / Goat |
3 |
2.54 |
90 |
3.66 |
| Pig |
0 |
0.00 |
1037 |
42.19 |
| Donkey |
22 |
18.64 |
21 |
0.85 |
| Camel |
5 |
4.24 |
8 |
0.33 |
| Gazelle |
4 |
3.39 |
21 |
0.85 |
| Commensal Rodent |
25 |
21.19 |
165 |
6.71 |
| Chicken |
39 |
33.05 |
875 |
35.60 |
| Columba sp. |
0 |
0.00 |
1 |
0.04 |
| Total |
118 |
|
2458 |
|
Comparisons with Other Sites
The Area 1 fauna from Amheida can also be compared to the broadly contemporary assemblage from Ain el-Gedida in the Dakleh Oasis. Ain el-Gedida is a more rural site, and excavations there yielded 1942 animal bones and fragments. The identified species included pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, donkeys, chickens, and gazelles. The remains of dogs and cats, commensal species that were not part of the diet, were also recovered. Pigs were by far the most common species, followed by caprines, donkeys, and cattle. Pigs (240 fragments) are almost four times more common than caprines (66 fragments). In this respect, the Ain el-Gedida assemblage is more comparable to the faunal assemblage from Amheida Area 2.↩#p3029
Other Roman period sites from Egypt also present important contrasts to the Area 1 assemblage. The site of Mons Claudianus was a fort in the Eastern Desert, and it is likely that all the provisions were supplied by pack animals. The assemblage is far larger than the Area 1 faunal collection from Amheida, and it yielded a broader range of species, especially fish. The most common mammals recovered from Mons Claudianus were equids, followed by pigs, caprines, and camels. Small numbers of gazelles were also identified. The vast majority of the bird remains recovered from Mons Claudianus was domestic chicken, but small numbers of geese, pigeons, and ravens were also recovered. The striking feature of the Mons Claudianus assemblage is the large number of fish remains. At least 18 families and 30 species of fish were identified. Most are marine species, but some freshwater fish were also included. There is nothing comparable from Area 1 at Amheida.↩#p3030
A large assemblage of approximately 14,000 vertebrate remains was recovered from the Roman coastal site of Berenike. The mammal species identified include sheep, goats, cattle, dromedary camels, and pigs. In addition, a variety of marine fish taxa, as well as Nilotic fish, were recovered from the Berenike excavations; marine fish species make up the majority of the vertebrate remains recovered from the site. Domestic fowl are the most common bird species, but they are more common in early Roman than in late Roman contexts. The importance of pigs also declines in late Roman times at Berenike. The small fifth to sixth century Roman site of Shenshef near Berenike yielded a very different faunal assemblage. The assemblage was dominated by the remains of caprines, and bones of cattle, domestic fowl, and small numbers of dorcas gazelle were also identified. Fish remains were limited to a single bone of a parrotfish. This assemblage is broadly similar to the assemblage from Amheida Area 1, but it lacks the camel and donkey remains that are present in Area 1.↩#p3031
Discussion and Conclusions
While the extensive use of chicken is typical of Roman sites throughout the Empire, the remainder of the faunal assemblage from Area 1 at Amheida has a more traditionally Egyptian character. Cattle and caprines formed a major part of Egyptian subsistence from the Neolithic period onward. The donkey was initially domesticated in Africa, and early domesticated donkeys have been identified from the First Dynasty site of Abydos. While camels were domesticated on the Arabian Peninsula, they were present in the Nile Valley in the early part of the first millennium BCE. Pigs, which are often seen as indicators of Romanization, are totally absent from the Area 1 faunal collection. When compared to the faunal assemblage from Area 2, the Area 1 faunal remains suggest a diet that is far less Romanized and more traditionally Egyptian in character. The absence of marine and freshwater fish distinguishes the Area 1 assemblage from contemporary faunal assemblages from the Egyptian Eastern Desert. The Area 1 faunal assemblage is quite small, and it is difficult to draw broad conclusions from a sample of this size.↩#p3032
