Palaikastro, Building 1: the fish bones

OFFPRINT From PALAIKASTRO: BUILDING 1 SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME 48 THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENS 2019 The copyright on this publication belongs to the British School at Athens. As author you are licensed to make printed copies of the pdf or to send the unaltered pdf file to up to 50 contacts. You may not upload this pdf to the World Wide Web — including websites such as academia.edu and open-access repositories — until three years after publication. Please ensure that anyone receiving an offprint from you observes these rules as well PALAIKASTRO BUILDING 1 edited by J. A. MACGILLIVRAY AND L. H. SACKETT with contributions by J. N. BOTTEMA-MAC GILLAVRY, T. F. CUNNINGHAM, C. DOHERTY, J. M. DRIESSEN, D. EVELY, P. JEROME, O. H. KRZYSZKOWSKA, D. MYLONA, D. REESE, J. RUSSELL, A. SARPAKI, S. WALL-CROWTHER, P. WESTLAKE and J. G. YOUNGER SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME 48 Published by THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENS 2019 Published and distributed by The British School at Athens 10 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AH Series Editor: John Bennet Managing Editor: Olga Krzyszkowska © The Council, The British School at Athens ISBN 978-0-904887-70-9 Designed and computer type-set by Rayna Andrew Printed by Short Run Press Ltd, Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom Contents List of Figures List of Tables and Charts List of Plans, Sections and Elevations List of Plates General abbreviations, technical terms, symbols, measurements, glossary Palaikastro site periods with their approximate Cretan equivalents Palaikastro pottery wares and styles outline Acknowledgements Preface x xiv xv xvi xix xx xxi xxiii xxv Chapter 1 The excavation by L. H. Sackett and J. A. MacGillivray 1 Chapter 2 The architecture by J. M. Driessen 5 Chapter 3 Protopalatial and Neopalatial stratigraphy and contexts by J. A. MacGillivray and L. H. Sackett 49 Chapter 4 Postpalatial stratigraphy and contexts by T. F. Cunningham and L. H. Sackett 137 Chapter 5 The stone, terracotta, bone, ivory, faience and metal objects by D. Evely with contributions by C. Doherty, O. H. Krzyszkowska and J. G. Younger 295 Chapter 6 The plaster by P. Westlake 337 Chapter 7 The archaeobotanical remains by A. Sarpaki 349 Chapter 8 The foraminifera by J. Russell 371 Chapter 9 The fish remains by D. Mylona 373 Chapter 10 The invertebrates by D. S. Reese 387 Chapter 11 The carbon remains by J. N. Bottema-Mac Gillavry 411 Chapter 12 The animal bones by S. Wall-Crowther 425 Chapter 13 Synthesis: Ritual Space in Transition by L. H. Sackett, T. F. Cunningham and J. A. MacGillivray 435 Appendix 1 Building 1 detailed context list 443 Bibliography Index 449 461 Plans Sections by L. H. Sackett Elevations by P. Jerome Plates ix Abbreviations Ae ANM B c. C.F. cm Cr Cu decat D. ext. F F.F. FM fr(s). FS H. hc ISJ gm hm indet. ill. incl. int. l L. Le m M max. MNI mono. MPD bronze/copper alloy Agios Nikolaos Museum bone circa coarse flot centimetre crucible copper de-catalogued diameter exterior flot fine flot Furumark motif fragment(s) Furumark shape height hand collected sample inscribed stirrup jar gramme handmade indeterminate illustrated inclusions interior litre length left metre metal maximum Minimum number of individuals monochrome maximum preserved depth MPH MPL MPW Murex n. NAM Not ill. Ob OMA OXSAMP Pb PK Pl PRB pres. R Ri rest S SF Sh SM SS Tc TCP Th. W. WS wm Wt. / -/- maximum preserved height maximum preserved length maximum preserved width Murex trunculus footnote National Archaeological Museum, Athens not illustrated obsidian oval-mouthed amphora sampled for analysis at Oxford lead Palaikastro plaster pulled-rim bowl preserved residue right restored stone small find shell Siteia Museum soil sample terracotta tripod cooking pot thickness width water flotation sample wheelmade Weight Excavation inventory number complete/fragment(s) Classical to Hellenistic gas chromatography Ir Xps infrared reflectance spectroscopy x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy arbitrary level assigned to a distinctive layer during excavation. ‘zembil’ or basic site locus unit (named for the recycled rubber baskets used to collect ceramics during excavation) followed by four-digit number. [0] find number assigned during excavation. absolute height above sea level in metres less than greater than TECH N ICAL TE RM S Class/Hell. Gc SYM BOLS L # ↑ < > M EAS U RE M E NTS Architecture in metres Artefacts in centimetres Flora and fauna in millimetres xix xx A B B R E V I AT I O N S , S I T E P E R I O D S G LOS SARY ammouda apothetis ashlar elutriation koresani lime-popping polythyron sideropetra socle sottoscala thymiaterion zembil aeolianite sandstone, locally quarried at Ta Skaria receptacle or repository for refuse, often discarded from ritual usage square hewn sandstone masonry blocks laid in horizontal courses purifying clay by washing and/or straining brick-dust mortar surface spalling on pottery due to calcium carbonate absorbing moisture and expanding during or after firing literally ‘many opening’, hence a Minoan Hall with multiple doors blue limestone slabs from Cape Sidero stone-built foundation for a mud-brick wall storage area beneath a staircase incense burner recycled rubber baskets used to collect ceramics during excavation, here used to designate lot or locus (see #) PALAIKASTRO SITE PERIODS W I T H T H E I R A P P R O X I M AT E I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX C R E TA N E Q U I VA L E N T S Neolithic EM I EM IIA EM IIB EM III–MM IA MM IB MM II MM IIIA MM IIIB LM IA LM IB1 LM IB2 LM II LM IIIA1 LM IIIA2–B LM IIIB LM IIIC Geometric Archaic–Roman Chapter 9 The Fish Remains1 D. Mylona The excavation of Building 1 produced 669 fish remains, listed here in the APPENDIX (below).2 Among those, almost all originate from 110 water floated soil samples3 and they represent deposits dating from MM–LM I to LM IIIB. The analysis of each context4 has shown that the majority of the fish bones do not originate from primary deposits but were rather incorporated in the soil that was used as fill during construction and remodelling. For this reason, the following analysis will mostly focus on long term trends revealed by the fish bone assemblage and less on temporal and spatial features. The cases where such features could be discerned are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. The fish remains were identified using the fish reference collections of the London Natural History Museum5 and the author’s own collection housed at the Laboratory of Geophysical-Satellite Remote Sensing and Archaeoenvironment, of the Institute for Mediterranean Studies (F.O.R.T.H.). Identifications have been made on several levels of accuracy, which include the species, groups of species, genus, family, order and size group, depending on the identifiability and preservation state of each bone. In this manner all bones are considered identifiable to a certain level. The terminology regarding fish anatomy is based on Wheeler and Jones,6 and that on nomenclature as well as the information on fish biology, ethology and habitats are based on Papakonstantinou7 and Fishbase.8 The common names of the taxa identified in the assemblage are presented in TABLE 9.1. The analysis of the fish bone assemblage is based on the recording of the following parameters for each identifiable bone: zembil (provenance), anatomical part, taxon, approximate size of the live fish, the bone’s location on the body (left, right, central), fragmentation, burning, presence of cut marks and presence of polishing, which is interpreted as a possible sign of digestion. Measurements have been taken from otoliths (H: height and L: length as described by Rose9). The approximate live fish size has been estimated on the basis of comparison with the reference skeletons. Four size categories have been devised: the very small (<8 cm), the small (8–15 cm), the medium (15–25 cm), the large (25–50 cm) and the very large (>50 cm) fish. The assemblage is characterised by a marked homogeneity in synthesis and traits. For this reason in the discussion of taphonomic issues the material is analysed as one unit. Because of the intense taphonomic problems of the assemblage (see Taphonomy, below), quantification is kept to its simplest. It is based on the Number of Identifiable Specimens (NISP). FISH TAXA IN BUILDING 1 The fish bone assemblage from Building 1 is quite rich in variety of taxa, although the majority of the remains are from of a few types of fish only (TABLE 9.2). These are the picarels, the sea breams, the damsel fish and the combers. Picarels (Centracanthidae) predominate the assemblage as a whole but also in almost every phase with the exception of MM–LM IA (TABLE 9.4). At least two species have been identified, i.e. Maena precludes any quantification, thus they are not be included in this analysis. 3 For the water flotation programme at PK and Building 1 in particular see PK 1988, 435–36 and Sarpaki (Chapter 7, this volume). 4 See description of contexts in Chapters 3 and 4, this volume. 5 The Frost and the Webster collections, Natural History Museum, London. 6 Wheeler and Jones 1989. 7 Papakonstantinou 1988. 8 Froese and Pauly 2011. 9 Rose 1995b, 206. 1 Acknowledgements: the analysis of the fish remains from Building 1, which began many years ago, was partly funded by the British School Centenary Bursary (1992–93). Part of the identification took place at the Archaeological Resource Centre at York, UK. I am deeply indebted to Dr Andrew Jones for his help and guidance. Also I owe thanks to Bryan Irving, Oliver Crimmen and Nigel Merrit for providing access to the resources of the Environmental Archaeology Unit, University of York and of the Natural History Museum London. 2 Water flotation has additionally produced a large number of minuscule fish scale fragments that appear to be contemporary to the rest of the fish remains. Their state of preservation, however, 373 374 TH E F I S H RE MAI N S TABLE 9.1. Scientific and common English names for the fish found in Building 1. Chondrichthyes Dasyatis sp. Clupeidae/Engraulidae Phycis phycis Serranus sp. Epinephelus sp. Carangidae Trachurus trachurus Sciaenidae Mullidae Sparidae indet. Sp. Boop boops Dentex dentex Diplodus annularis Lithognathus mormyris Oblada melanura Pagellus erythrinus Pagellus acarne Pagrus pagrus Sparus aurata Spondyliosoma cantharus Centracanthidae Chromis chromis Sparisoma cretense Blennius sp. Cartilaginous fish Stingrays Shads, herring, pilchards and anchovies Forkbeard Combers Groupers Jacks and pompanos Horse mackerel Meagers and shi drums Red mullets Sea breams Bogue Common dentex Annular sea bream Striped sea bream Saddled sea bream Common pandora White sea bream Common sea bream Gilt-head sea bream Black sea bream Pickarel Damsel fish Parrot fish Blennies TABLE 9.2. Building 1 (all phases). Fish taxonomic representation. NISP Chondrichthyes Dasyatis sp. Clupeidae/Engraulidae Phycis phycis Serrannus sp. Epinephelus sp. Carangidae Trachurus trachurus Sciaenidae Mullidae Sparidae indet. sp. Boop boops Dentex dentex Diplodus annularis Diplodus sargus Lithognathus mormyris Oblada melanura Pagellus erythrinus Pagellus acarne Pagellus sp. Pagrus pagrus Sparus aurata Spondyliosoma cantharus Centracanthidae Centracanthidae/Boops boops Centracanthidae/Mullidae/Sparidae Chromis chromis Sparisoma cretense Blennius sp. Indeterminate very small (<8 cm) Indeterminate small (8–15 cm) Indeterminate medium (15–25 cm) Indeterminate large (25–50 cm) Indeterminate very large (>50 cm) 4 2 4 1 41 8 9 8 1 1 97 29 2 1 2 4 1 5 2 4 3 1 5 213 29 13 44 1 2 10 59 27 30 6 TOTAL fish remains 669 % 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.1 6.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.1 14.5 4.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.7 31.8 4.3 1.9 6.6 0.1 0.3 1.4 8.8 4 4.5 0.9 100 D. MYLO NA 375 vulgaris and Spicara smaris. Most of the picarel remains are otoliths. This element exhibits a considerable variation in shape within the family and even within each species. The vertebrae of picarel are very similar to those of the bogue and the red mullet. For this reason, no attempt has been made to assign those bones identified as Centracanthidae to particular species. Additionally, several elements, both otoliths and vertebrae have been assigned to inter-family groups such as Centracanthidae/Boops boops, or Centracanthidae/Sparidae/Mullida. The use of these broad categories, albeit problematic on the level of biological taxonomy, they are however, quite convenient in the present study, that focuses primarily on issues of fishing technology and economy. Because the various types of picarels found in Cretan waters (along with the smaller red mullets and the bogues) occupy the same habitats, are caught by the same fishing methods, and fall more or less into the same size range, they can be treated as one group.10 Picarels are schooling fish commonly found near the shore. They are usually caught in large numbers by nets, often by cast nets.11 Sea breams form the most diverse, sizable group. Thirteen different taxa have been identified, among which the following species: the common dentex (Dentex dentex), the common sea bream (Pagrus pagrus), the gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata), the annular sea bream (Diplodus annularis.), the white sea bream (Pagellus acarne), the saddled sea bream (Oblada melanura), the black sea bream (Spondyliosoma cantharus), the striped sea bream (Lithognathus mormyris), the common pandora (Pagellus erythrinus) and the bogue (Boops boops). The common pandora and the bogue are the commonest. There is also a group of bones identifiable only on the family level as Sparidae, largely due to their bad state of preservation. Judging from their small size, many of them could belong to bogues or to young individuals of the other sea breams. The sea breams, and especially the smaller species and the younger individuals that dominate the assemblage are usually found in shallow coastal waters. When young they are often gregarious, in contrast to mature individuals who either live a solitary life or form very small groups. This observation has a bearing on the fishing methods required to capture these fish. For the smaller of the sea breams, the use of a net from the shore could suffice. The larger fish of this group could have been caught by hook and line but also by nets or a harpoon. Serranidae is another common type of fish in the Building 1 assemblage. Although some groupers (Epinephelus sp.), the largest members of this family, are present, the Serranidae are mostly represented by the combers (Serranus sp.), the smaller representatives of this family, which live in coastal, often very shallow waters, along with the picarels and the youngest of the sea breams. The damsel fish (Chromis chromis), which is also found among the rocks near the coast, is quite common in the assemblage. Nowadays, it is rarely consumed by humans as it is considered too full of spines and bones12 and it is usually caught to be used as fishing bait. Carangidae are represented by a fairly large number of remains, many of which fall within the size range of the horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus), a fish that forms large schools and approaches the coast in summer. The forkbeard (Phycis phycis), the blenny (Bleniidae), the meagers or shi-drums (Sciaenidae), the parrot fish (Sparisoma cretense) and fish such as the sardine or shad (Clupeidae/Engraulidae) are all present with one or few bones each. The assemblage also contains a few elements of cartilaginous fish, possibly shark and also of a sting ray (Dasyatis sp.). Finally, there is in the assemblage, a large number of remains that cannot be precisely identified. Those could belong to any of the above mentioned taxa. TAPHONOMY The most common anatomical elements among the fish remains from Building 1 are the otoliths, followed by the vertebrae (TABLE 9.3). Very few other anatomical parts are present, and among those, the tooth-bearing bones or the teeth themselves are the commonest. The assemblage is characterised by bones of very small fish. 51.3% of the remains originate from fish smaller than 8 cm, 30.5% from fish 8–15 cm and further 12.1% from fish 15–235 cm long. Only about 6% of the bones represent fish larger than 25 cm in length (TABLE 9.4). Burning traces are relatively scarce. Only 28 elements (4.51%) are burned brown, black or white. Burned bones are concentrated in certain contexts of both the Prepalatial and Neopalatial phases and the Roccupation phases (e.g. Contexts 1.1d.7.2, 1.2a.7.1, 1.2b.7.2, 1.2c.10.1, 1.2c.Wxt.1). Their burning appears to be related to cooking and waste management during the use of spaces rather than to the conflagrations that ruined the building several times. 10 For the use of special purpose taxonomies as opposed to biological taxonomies of the Linnaean type in the analysis of bioarchaeological remains, see Mylona forthcoming a. 11 For the fishing methods referred to in this paper, see von Brandt 1984; Leukaditis 1941. 12 It is, however, still considered edible in the Dodecanese. 376 TH E F I S H RE MAI N S TABLE 9.3. Building 1 (all phases). Anatomical part representation. NISP % Cranial/branchial bones Otoliths Vertebrae Other 23 443 194 6 3.9 66.2 29 0.9 Total identifiable 669 100 TABLE 9.4. Building 1 (all phases). Size distribution for various taxa. <8 cm Chondrichthyes Dasyatis sp. Clupeidae/Engraulidae Phycis phycis Serrannus sp. Epinephelus sp. Carangidae Trachurus trachurus Sciaenidae Mullidae Sparidae indet. sp. Boop boops Dentex dentex Diplodus annularis Diplodus sargus Lithognathus mormyris Oblada melanura Pagellus erythrinus Pagellus acarne Pagellus sp. Pagrus pagrus Sparus aurata Spondyliosoma cantharus Centracanthidae Centracanthidae/Boops boops Centracanthidae/Mullidae/Sparidae Chromis chromis Sparisoma cretense Blennius sp. Indeterminate very small (<8 cm) Indeterminate small (8–15 cm) Indeterminate medium (15–25 cm) Indeterminate large (25–50 cm) Indeterminate very large (>50 cm) TOTAL fish remains 8–15 cm 15–25 cm 25–50 cm >50 cm 4 2 2 1 25 3 3 1 35 16 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 175 25 13 18 1 2 10 2 16 5 5 1 3 1 31 13 1 1 1 1 31 3 2 5 3 3 37 4 1 1 9 18 59 27 30 6 343 204 81 35 6 Erosion of the fish remains is quite common (but not quantified). The texture of the bones and otoliths’ surface is pitted and scarred, perhaps due to the acidity of the depositional environment.13 Furthermore, about one-quarter of the otoliths are highly polished, having lost all surface features.14 The polishing of the otoliths might be the result of two processes: a) the moving of the element through an abrasive substance, such as sand;15 or b) the passing of the element through the digestive system of an animal (humans, dogs, birds etc.).16 In both cases, not only a distinctive polishing of the otoliths’ surface is Layman 1994, 422. Several of the otoliths from Building 1, appear to be relatively featureless for another quite different reason. These are the undeveloped otoliths of very young fish. 13 15 14 16 Wheeler and Jones 1989, 63; Nicholson 1992. Harkonen 1986, 28–29; Jones 1986; 1989, 69–76.