Fishing at the Late Islamic settlement in Kharā’ib al-Dasht, Failaka Island, Kuwait

Urszula Iwaszczuk; Agnieszka Pieńkowska; Wim Wouters; Anna Gręzak; Marta Mierzejewska

doi:10.1007/s12520-021-01434-w

Fishing at the Late Islamic settlement in Kharā’ib al-Dasht, Failaka Island, Kuwait

Iwaszczuk, Urszula; Pieńkowska, Agnieszka; Wouters, Wim; Gręzak, Anna; Mierzejewska, Marta 2021-11-01 00:00:00 The Kharā’ib al-Dasht settlement, located on the north-eastern coast of the island of Failaka in Kuwait, has been excavated systematically since 2013 by the Kuwaiti-Polish Archaeological Mission. The investigated area yielded remains dated to the Late Islamic period, from the late seventeenth to the nineteenth century. In the northernmost part of the site, a fish processing area was uncovered, while the remains of residential structures (houses 1 and 2), as well as a mosque, were discovered in the eastern part of the site. Concentrations of fireplaces, hearths and ovens were discovered inside the houses and courtyards of what seems to be the centre of the settlement as well as from the periphery of the site. Fishing was evidenced not only by the presence of fish bones but also by recovered fishing technologies, including the remains of stone fish traps that were discovered in the coastal waters near to the site. The excavations yielded 12,182 bones of marine fishes. Twenty eight families are represented, including six families of cartilaginous fishes. Ariidae bones were most numerous followed by Haemulidae, Sciaenidae and Carcharhinidae. The analysis of the assemblage shows that fishing could have been of great importance to the inhabitants of the settlement. Moreover, we attest different patterns in the fish assemblages between the two different parts of the village. The fish processing area can be seen as a workplace, while the daily activity took place in the village. These differences can also be used to shed light on the fishing techniques these people used. Keywords Late Islamic period · Late Islamic settlement · Fish processing · Fishing · Fishing techniques Introduction from at least the third millennium BC until the Late Islamic period (Bibby 1969, pp. 195–212; Højlund and Abu-Laban Failaka Island lies in the Arabian Gulf, some 20 km off the 2016; Grassili and Di Miceli 2018). Early twentieth century Kuwaiti coast (Fig. 1). The results of archaeological research texts state that the primary occupations of Failaka’s inhabit- conducted since the 1950s indicate that the island was settled ants were fishing and, to a lesser extent, farming. Although the presence of freshwater sources is mentioned in some tex- tual evidence (Persian Gulf Gazetteer 1904, p. 56; Lorimer This paper is dedicated to the memory of Marta Mierzejewska. 1908, p. 513), including sixteenth century Portuguese maps that label Failaka as Ilha de Aguada, meaning ‘island of This article is part of the Topical Collection on Fishing Over the Millennia the water well’ (Slot 1991, p. 59), recent discoveries by the Kuwaiti-Georgian Archaeological Mission indicate that by * Urszula Iwaszczuk the Late Islamic period, the island’s inhabitants also col- uiwaszczuk@iksio.pan.pl lected rainwater (Chkhvimiani et al. 2021). Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Kharā’ib al-Dasht (20°27′47.45″N, 48°18′59.22″E) Academy of Sciences, Nowy Świat 72, 00-330 Warsaw, was a large Late Islamic settlement, the remains of which Poland stretch approximately 600 m along Failaka’s north-eastern Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University coast (Fig. 1). The site was first registered during a survey in of Warsaw, Prosta 69, 00-838 Warsaw, Poland 1976 and dated to the Late Islamic period (AD 1650–1870) Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, (Patitucci and Uggeri 1984, p. PL. XXXV:a; Mierzejew- 1000 Brussels, Belgium ska 2021). Regular archaeological investigations at the site Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie have been conducted since 2013 by the Kuwaiti-Polish Przedmieście 26/28, 00-927 Warsaw, Poland Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 211 Page 2 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Fig. 1 Location of Failaka Island and Kharā’ib al-Dasht (top) (S. Lenarczyk, P. Zakrze- wski), map of the site (bottom) (drawing by M. Puszkarski); fish traps are numbered from 1 to 8 Archaeological Mission, co-organised by the Polish Centre The goal of this paper is to present the analysis of the of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw, and fish remains demonstrating that fishing and fish processing the National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters, Kuwait. were conducted by the Late Islamic inhabitants of Kharā’ib Six seasons of excavation uncovered parts of the settlement al-Dasht. — a small hill with a cluster of ovens, hearths and fireplaces in the north, and the remains of two houses and a mosque in the east (Fig. 1). The site yielded numerous finds character - Chronology istic of fishing, mostly fishing net weights, anchors and metal hooks. In addition, numerous animal remains were excavated Two main chronological phases have been identified at the inside the structures and around them, including many fish site. Research of the earliest phase, I, in over a dozen test bones. The waterfront area of the site was also investigated, trenches below the foundation levels of the houses and the and several fish traps were registered there. mosque has, to date, not uncovered any structural remains 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 3 of 29 211 that would indicate residential activity. The presence of clay specimens from the collection of the institute to esti- ovens and hearths of the same type as were found within the mate the size of sharks and fish of the Ariidae family. houses and in the northern part of the site dated to the later The identification of fish remains from the Persian Gulf phase was characteristic here. Based on the pottery recov- region is, in general, problematic (Yeomans and Beech ered from the test trenches, which was excavated below the 2021). The similarity of the remains of fish from the foundation level of the mosque, phase I was dated to the same family complicates precise determination of the Late Islamic 1a (approximately AD 1650–1720). Phase II, bones, as does the state of preservation of the remains evidenced by the fishing huts in the fish processing area and their fragmentation. Therefore, most of the remains and the houses, was dated to the Late Islamic 1b–2a (AD from Kharā’ib al-Dasht were identified to the family 1720–1870) based on the pottery found on the plateau in level, while identification to the genus or species level the northern part of the site and from the two houses. As the was only possible in a very limited number of cases. The mosque yielded only scarce ceramic material, it is impos- characteristic elements used for the identification of the sible to provide reliable dating on this basis (Mierzejewska fish remains depended on the level of accuracy of the 2021). determinations. In the case of the determination to the Based on the accounts of a plague in AD 1839 that led family level, well-preserved characteristic cranial ele- to the depopulation of Failaka (Jones 1856, p. 51), Kharā’ib ments and vertebrae were used. In the case of the iden- al-Dasht was likely deserted in the mid-nineteenth century. tification to the genus/species level, only some elements However, it is possible that some seasonal activities con- were taken into consideration: tinued in the northern part of the site, perhaps even until the beginning of the twentieth century, as indicated by the a. Vertebrae: cartilaginous fish, Chanos chanos, Pampus presence of pottery that has been found in modern pits and argenteus, Pseudorhombus sp., Euthynnus affinis (exclu- landfills (Mierzejewska 2021). sively last caudal vertebrae) and Sarda sarda (exclu- sively last caudal vertebrae) b. Neurocranium: Pomadasys sp., Pomadasys stridens, Material and methods Otolithes sp., Argyrops spinifer, Tenualosa ilisha c. Oromandibular, hyoid and pectoral bones: Pomadasys Based on concentrations of pottery as well as the installa- sp. (articular, basioccipital, ceratohyal, cleithrum, tions, including the presence of structures identified during dentary, entopterygoid, epihyal, interopercular, max- a survey, several areas were selected for excavation. It is illa, opercle, palatinum, parasphenoid, pharyngeal important to note that the research is still at a preliminary plate, postcleithrum, posttemporal, premaxilla, pre- stage and the following paper only discusses the material opercle, quadrate, supracleithrum and vomer); Plat- uncovered from selected ovens and layers identified in the ycephalus indicus (articular, basioccipital, ceratohyal, fish processing area, in house 1 and below the foundation cleithrum, dentary, epihyal, hyomandibular, palati- level of the mosque. num and quadrate); Otolithes sp. (articular, dentary Animal remains were successively registered and col- and premaxilla); Acanthopagrus sp. (dentary, max- lected by hand and by sieving through a 5-mm mesh illa and premaxilla); Argyrops spinifer (premaxilla); during field work. Archaeoichthyological material was Sparidentex sp. (maxilla and premaxilla); Chelon separated from other remains and has been undergoing sp. (vomer); Chirocentrus nudus (dentary); Plector- continued identification since 2017. The remains of cut- hinchus sp. (premaxilla); Pseudotolithus sp. (premax- tlefish (Mollusca) were also included in the analysis as a illa); and Siganus sp. (cleithrum) common marine resource that can be obtained using the same techniques as for fish. Mammal bones await analysis. The variations in size between fish of different spe- The fish remains were dry and partially weathered to a cies within a family group were too significant to under- similar degree, but a large proportion of them were pre- take the assessment of size without knowing the species. served, including complete or nearly complete skeletons. Therefore, the discussion concerning the established size Most of the contexts (especially the lower parts of the of fish must be limited to catfish of the Ariidae family ovens and layers adjacent to the ovens) contained a large and cartilaginous fish widely represented in the reference proportion of the burned bones and had been mixed with collection. ash. The total number of the studied remains amounted to According to the FAO and other guides (Kuronuma and 12,182 fragments. Abe 1972; Fischer and Bianchi 1984; Carpenter et al. 1997, The identification of the fish remains was carried pp. 121–122) as well as the updated checklist by Bishop out at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, (Bishop 2003), the Ariidae family is represented in the Brussels. The excavated remains were also compared to region by only four species: Netuma bilineata, Plicofollis 1 3 211 Page 4 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 dussumieri, Plicofollis layardi and Netuma thalassina. Description of the contexts and general Only Netuma thalassina may exceed 75 cm SL, reach- results ing up to 185 cm TL (Sommer et al. 1996, p. 376). How- ever, according to Randall (1995), the length of individu- Phase I (Late Islamic 1a, AD 1650–1720). als > 100 cm should be carefully verified. On the other hand, the common length in this species is similar to the Fish remains from the mosque area length of the remaining three species. Based on the shape of the neurocrania, it seems that only two of them were pre- The mosque at Kharā’ib al-Dasht was situated a few dozen sent in the archaeoichthyological material from Kharā’ib metres north of house 1 (Fig. 1). It was most likely located al-Dasht, but due to the lack of reference material, it is outside the residential area as no residential structures were impossible to determine the species with certainty. There- found in the proximity of the mosque. The outline was fore, the remains present in the assemblage from the site typical for small mosques of the Late Islamic period found were compared with specimens of Netuma thalassina, the in the region (Petersen and Grey 2012; Al-Mutairi 2017, only Ariidae species from the region available in the refer- 276–83; King 2004, pls. 4, 7, 11). The entire unit measured ence collection. The size of catfish (SL) was, for the most 19 × 20 m and consisted of a prayer room with pillars and part, provided in three groups: small (< 30 cm), medium- a courtyard (ṣaḥn) surrounded by a wall. Nearly no animal sized (30–40 cm) and large (> 50 cm). remains were found in the mosque, except for two small The size of sharks was also established based on the unidentified fish bones that were recovered from the walk - reference collection. The analysed vertebrae were com- ing level of the courtyard (Table 1). Test trenches, however, pared with the vertebrae of individuals of known size. The revealed remains of clay ovens below the foundation level shark size groups were defined based on the proportions of of the mosque. Due to the limited scale of the excavations vertebrae depending on their position in the skeleton char- in this area, the ovens remained unexplored, but a small acteristic of the orders/families of these cartilaginous fish. number of fish remains were found in the layers around The last caudal vertebrae were not used for the size esti- them, providing the only evidence of fish processing from mation. The size (TL) was analysed in the following class the oldest phase, I. Details of the fish composition are groups: < 50 cm, 51–100 cm, 101–150 cm, 151–200 cm given in Table 1. Cranial elements of catfish of the Arii- and > 200 cm. dae family are most common (35 fragments) followed by The material contained a large number of vertebrae of the vertebrae of the requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae). Six bony fish. Therefore, the series of measurements of the other taxa were represented by only a few bone fragments. maximum width of the vertebral centrum were taken. The A fragment of a cuttlebone of the cuttlefish (Sepiidae) was differences in size between the different precaudal vertebrae also registered (Table 1). of one individual are much smaller than those of caudal ver- tebrae; for that reason, only the measurements of precaudal Phase II (Late Islamic 1b–2a, AD 1720–1870). vertebrae were taken into consideration. The results were presented as a series of diagrams and showed only general Fish remains from the fish processing area tendencies. A number of individual specimens (NISP) were Research in the northern part of the site was concentrated recorded for all contexts. The minimum number of indi- on a small plateau, 40 × 60 m (Fig. 2), which was distinctive viduals (MNI) was counted only for closed contexts, such due to the abundance of small clay ovens and hearths (88 as ovens, hearths, fireplaces and pits that were most likely recorded, 20–40 cm in diameter) (Fig. 3) as well as refuse sealed naturally or artificially shortly after the deposition pits. The only excavated remains of architecture were two of supplies or waste. The MNI of each taxon was esti- small single-roomed structures measuring approximately mated based on the single element of the skeleton most 4 × 8 m each, both very poorly preserved. The remains of frequently represented, taking the size of the bones into hut 1 were identified only by the lowest series of stones. consideration as well. Its walls, 0.6–0.8 m wide, were built from beachrock slabs The presentation of families is based on the latest tax- arranged in two rows and bonded with silt mortar mixed onomic classification of recent fish (Van Der Laan et al. with lime, while the space between the stones was filled 2014). with smaller rocks. In the case of hut 2, the outline of the Cut marks were recorded as well as traces of burning; structure was established based on a barely visible shadow however, the processes of butchery were not discussed in foundation wall. the paper as only three cranial elements of Haemulidae exca- A preliminary stratigraphic analysis suggests the presence vated in house 1 bore them. of two phases of use in this area. The oldest phase, I, was 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 5 of 29 211 1 3 Table 1 Fish remains from Kharā’ib al-Dasht: NISP and relative frequencies of the finds Taxon Late Islamic 1a Islamic 1b–2a Mosque area Fish processing area House 1 Layers Layers Pits Installa- Total Layers Pits Installations Total tions n n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Orectolobiformes Orectolobidae (carpet sharks) 21 0.49 21 0.20 Lamniformes Lamnidae (mackerel sharks) 1 0.10 1 0.07 2 0.05 2 0.02 Carcharhiniformes Triakidae (houndsharks) 3 0.29 1 0.33 1 0.77 5 0.34 3 0.07 3 0.03 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 13 225 21.66 113 36.93 29 22.31 367 24.88 228 5.28 115 2.67 46 2.41 389 3.70 Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) 31 2.98 6 1.96 9 6.92 46 3.12 5 0.12 5 0.05 Myliobatiformes Myliobatidae (eagle rays) 76 1.76 76 0.72 Batoidea (rays) indet 1 35 3.37 20 6.54 3 2.31 58 3.93 102 2.36 65 1.51 29 1.52 196 1.86 Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish) indet 1 5 0.48 3 0.98 1 0.77 9 0.61 8 0.19 6 0.14 14 0.13 Total Chondrichthyes 15 300 28.87 143 46.73 43 33.08 486 32.95 424 9.82 207 4.81 75 3.93 706 6.71 Clupeiformes Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 11 1.06 18 5.88 6 4.62 35 2.37 20 0.46 98 2.28 26 1.36 144 1.37 Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) 2 0.65 1 0.77 3 0.20 1 0.02 16 0.37 14 0.73 31 0.29 Gonorynchiformes Chanidae (milkfish) 1 0.10 2 0.65 3 2.31 6 0.41 9 0.21 1 0.05 10 0.10 Siluriformes Ariidae (sea catfish) 35 42 4.04 9 2.94 3 2.31 54 3.66 711 16.47 851 19.79 529 27.70 2091 19.87 Beloniformes Belonidae (needlefish) 1 0.02 1 0.01 Scorpaeniformes Platycephalidae (flatheads) 8 0.77 2 0.65 5 3.85 15 1.02 31 0.72 47 1.09 13 0.68 91 0.86 Perciformes Serranidae (groupers) 13 1.25 14 4.58 3 2.31 30 2.03 73 1.69 58 1.35 14 0.73 145 1.38 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, 3 7 0.67 1 0.33 1 0.77 9 0.61 28 0.65 6 0.14 9 0.47 43 0.41 trevally) Lutjanidae (snappers) 4 0.09 4 0.04 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rub- 2 5 0.48 8 2.61 1 0.77 14 0.95 376 8.71 111 2.58 14 0.73 501 4.76 berlips, hotlips) Sparidae (porgies, seabreams) 1 3 0.29 5 1.63 8 0.54 34 0.79 33 0.77 1 0.05 68 0.65 Lethrinidae (emperors) 5 0.48 5 0.34 6 0.14 2 0.05 5 0.26 13 0.12 Nemipteridae (threadfin breams) 5 0.12 5 0.05 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 8 55 5.29 12 3.92 4 3.08 71 4.81 159 3.68 185 4.30 81 4.24 425 4.04 Polynemidae (threadfins) 1 0.02 1 0.01 Mugilidae (mullets) 2 13 1.25 3 0.98 16 1.08 4 0.09 1 0.02 6 0.31 11 0.10 Siganidae (rabbitfish) 2 0.05 1 0.02 3 0.03 Sphyraenidae (barracuda) 1 0.10 1 0.07 2 0.05 3 0.16 5 0.05 Trichiuridae (cutlassfishes) 1 0.10 4 1.31 5 0.34 8 0.19 33 0.77 41 0.39 Scombridae (mackerels) 2 0.19 2 0.65 4 0.27 Stromateidae (silver pomfret) 1 0.33 1 0.07 211 Page 6 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 only partially investigated and yielded 12 ovens and hearths which were not explored. Seventy-six of the 88 installations and two huts, corresponding to phase II in house 1, suggest the period of most intense activity. The analysed archaeoich- thyological material from this area was collected from only ten ovens and five pits (Table 1). The activities associated with fishing and fish process- ing in this part of the site were confirmed by bones dis- covered in layers, pits and installations; specifically, these were five pits, three fireplaces, four hearths and three ovens (Appendix Table 5), all dated to the Late Islamic 1b–2a period. Elements of fish bones were predominant in the fills of three pits (pits 2–4). It is very interesting that in the case of pits 3 and 4, where cartilaginous fish vertebrae were more frequent, the number of bony fish remains was small, repre- sented mostly by cranial elements and some vertebrae. On the other hand, cartilaginous fish vertebrae were scarce in pit 2, where bony fish elements were the most abundant (with similar amounts of cranial elements and vertebrae). Addi- tionally, two fragments of cuttlebone were discovered in pit 2. Pits 1 and 5 contained only a few fish remains (Appendix Table 5). Almost no fish bones were registered in the fireplaces (fireplaces 6, 7 and 9), while most of the hearths (hearths 2, 8 and 10) and the ovens (ovens 3, 4 and 5) yielded sparse archaeoichthyological material. Only hearth 1 contained a somewhat larger amount of bones, but these were small fragments, and most of them remain unidentified (Appendix Table 5). More abundant deposits of fish remains were found in the layers between the huts and inside the huts. The number of bony fish remains was almost twice as high as that of sharks and rays (Table 1). Cartilaginous fish were represented exclusively by vertebrae from four families (Lamnidae, Triakidae, Carcharhinidae and Sphyrnidae), among which requiem sharks predominated and some uni- dentified rays and sharks. Bony fish remains belonged to 16 families, with the bones of the Sciaenidae and Ariidae being the most numerous. In addition, bony fish material had a much higher proportion of vertebrae than cranial elements. The remains of Sciaenidae in particular were characterised by the prevalence of vertebrae, while some other families, such as Carangidae, Chanidae, Clupeidae, Mugilidae, Platycephalidae, Scombridae, Sphyraenidae and Trichiuridae. were exclusively represented by verte- brae. Cranial elements were predominant only in the case of catfish of the Ariidae family. The representation of fish in installations and pits varied; in general, the remains of the more numerous specimens were recorded in pits (Appendix Table 6). 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1a Islamic 1b–2a Mosque area Fish processing area House 1 Layers Layers Pits Installa- Total Layers Pits Installations Total tions n n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Pleuronectiformes Paralichthyidae (large-tooth floun- 2 0.05 13 0.30 1 0.05 16 0.15 ders) Teleostei (bony fish) indet 54 572 55.05 80 26.14 60 46.15 712 48.27 2420 56.07 2633 61.23 1118 58.53 6171 58.63 Total Teleostei 105 739 71.13 163 53.27 87 66.92 989 67.05 3892 90.18 4093 95.19 1835 96.07 9820 93.29 Mollusca Sepiidae (cuttlefish) 1 2 2 39 6 13 58 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 7 of 29 211 revealed only two ovens each, though it is necessary to stress that both of these rooms were only partially explored. The analysis of the stratigraphic position of the wall indicates that locus 3 was built first, while the remaining rooms were added at a later time. The final usage phase of the ovens in the northern corner of the courtyard damaged the walls of locus 3, indicating that this area remained in use after locus 3, was abandoned. Fish bones were found in layers and installations regis- tered in the courtyard and inside the rooms, but a few instal- lations in house 1 have not yet been explored. Among the remains that provide evidence of fish processing, fish skel- etal elements seem to be the most significant. Although we were not able to precisely identify a large number of them, as they lacked diagnostic features, many elements were deter- mined to either the family or genus level (Table 1, Appendix Table 7). An abundance of archaeoichthyological material was found on the walking levels of the courtyard (locus 11) and three rooms (loci 3–5). Skeletal elements of bony fish were dominant, but numerous vertebrae of sharks and rays of at least four families and tooth plates of rays of the Myliobati- dae family were also discovered. Sharks were represented Fig. 2 Plan of the northern part of the site (drawing by E. Mizak, P. exclusively by vertebrae, rays by both vertebrae and tooth Zakrzewski) plates, while in the case of bony fish, cranial elements were the most frequent find; vertebrae, fragments of spines and Fish remains from house 1 ribs were also found. As far as the remains of bony fish are concerned, specimens of the Ariidae and Haemulidae The uncovered fragment of house 1 comprised a courtyard (Pomadasys sp.) families were most numerous. In addition, and four rooms adjoining it from the north and east (Fig. 4). a few fragments of cuttlebone were found in this assemblage The courtyard (locus 11) was 6.5 m wide and, so far, has (Table 1). been excavated to a length of approximately 7.5 m. The larg- Fish remains were found in five pits and 13 installations est of the unearthed rooms, locus 3, measured 5.0 × 2.5 m (ovens 3–6, 8–15 and hearth 1) discovered in the courtyard and bordered the courtyard from the north. The best studied and inside the rooms (loci 3–5) (Appendix Table 7). eastern part of the house consisted of three rooms. All were Pits 1–4 contained very few remains, and these were approximately 1.5 m wide. The middle room (locus 5) was almost exclusively bone fragments of bony fish (Table 1, 4.0 m long, flanked by smaller rooms (loci 4 and 10) only Appendix Table 6). Vertebrae and cranial elements were 2.5 m in length. It is plausible that yet another narrow room equally represented in pits 2 and 4, while pits 1 and 3 con- was located to the east of the courtyard, as suggested by tained only a few unidentified bone fragments. The number an uncovered wall fragment leading in that direction. Such of individuals varied in these pits, yet in general, MNI was houses with central courtyards surrounded from all sides by low (Appendix Table 8). narrower rooms are well-known from other Islamic sites, Although it is still uncertain whether pit 5, located east such as Quraniya nearby (Grassili and Di Miceli 2018). of the courtyard (locus 11), belonged to house 1 or not, it House 1 was built from beachrock using a simple method was most likely associated with it. It was the only pit that — its walls, 0.4–0.5 m wide, were composed of a single row contained such a large number of fish bones as well as some of stones, bonded by a mortar of silt and lime. scales (Appendix Table 7). Bony fish remains were the most Every locus in house 1 yielded remains of clay ovens and prevalent, with a large number of cranial and postcranial hearths (Fig. 3), with the largest concentration located in the elements of a catfish of the Ariidae family (almost 2/3 of the northern corner of the courtyard, where a sequence of ovens identified bones), Pomadasys sp. and fish of the Sciaenidae was found arranged one on top of the other. Apparently, family. Shark and ray vertebrae and ray tooth plates were it seems that unused ovens were not removed but served also registered in greater numbers in this assemblage, while as a support for a new installation. In locus 3, ovens and other families were less frequent. Additionally, six fragments hearths were placed along the two longer walls. Loci 4 and 5 of cuttlebone were excavated from pit 5 (Appendix Table 6). 1 3 211 Page 8 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Fig. 3 Typical ovens at Kharā’ib al-Dasht (photo A. Oleksiak, M. Iskra) 1b 1a 2a 2b In total, the remains of 70 individuals of fish from different was relatively high, while others held the remains of only families, including 22 remains belonging to catfish (Arii- one or two individuals (ovens 3, 9, 10 and 15). The hearth dae), were discovered (Appendix Table 8). also contained a low number of individuals (Appendix The ovens yielded skeletal elements of cartilaginous Table 8). and bony fish, of which the latter was prevalent (Table 1). Among the bony fish remains, cranial fragments and ver - Summary: fish remains from phase II (Late Islamic 1b–2a, tebrae of a catfish of the Ariidae family were the most AD 1720–1870) numerous. In the case of oven 5, an entire skeleton was found inside the installation with two additional fragments Overall, 28 fish families were present in the material of bone present in the bottom layer. Other cranial and post- (Table 1) although most of these are represented in very cranial fragments belonged to fish from 13 families, yet low numbers. Due to a lack of sieving using a 2 mm mesh, determination to the genus or species level was possible it is impossible to give clear statements about possible only in a few cases. Cartilaginous fish were represented by catches of small fishes like schooling Clupeidae and other vertebrae of sharks of the Carcharhinidae family and some kinds of small fishes that live close to the coast. unidentified ray vertebrae. Additionally, in oven 12, large A considerable disproportion in the archaeoichthyologi- parts of two partially articulated skeletons of fish from cal material was observed between the assemblages from the Ariidae and Sciaenidae families were uncovered. The the fish processing area and house 1. Therefore, only an MNI in some of the ovens (ovens 4–6, 8, 12, 13 and 14) approximate comparison between these two assemblages 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 9 of 29 211 Table 2 Comparison between the most important fishes in the fish processing area and house 1 Fish processing House 1 area XXXIV-h-10 XXXIV-i-10 Loc.4 n % n % Loc.5 12 3 4 Carcharhinidae 367 52.7 389 9.4 Loc.3 5 Other identified cartilaginous fish 52 7.5 107 2.6 Ariidae 54 7.8 2091 50.4 Loc. 10 Other identified bony fish 223 32.0 1558 37.6 Total 696 100 4145 100 Loc. 11 XLIV-h-1 XLIV-i-1 200 × 150 × 30 m. The remaining structures were circular, with the largest one (no. 9) measuring 14 m in diameter and the other seven (nos. 2–8) ranging between 4.5 and 0 5 m 7.0 m in diameter (Pieńkowska et al. 2015; Pieńkowska and Mierzejewska 2018). Unfortunately, we have no way Fig. 4 Plan of house 1 (drawing by M. Iskra and Z. Kowarska, digit- of confirming beyond any reasonable doubt that these fish ising by M. Puszkarski) traps functioned concurrently with the settlement; such structures, although quite common throughout the Arabian can be made. There was a significant difference in the Gulf, are extremely hard to date (Blue et al. 2013; Beech share of bony and cartilaginous fish between the fishing 2004, 45–47, 71; Breeze et al. 2011, 20–21). Still, it is plau- huts and house 1. Cartilaginous fish was very scarcely sible to assume that they were used at that time, since early represented in house 1, while material from the fishing twentieth century texts demonstrate that fish traps were the huts contained a relatively large share of the remains of prevalent fishing method used in Kuwait and throughout sharks, especially of the Carcharhinidae family (Table 2). the Gulf region (Qatar Digital Library File 9/23 1944, 52). Only three cranial elements of Haemulidae bore cut marks, while burned bones were numerous. The dif- Fish size ferences concerned the state of preservation of the fish remains within the contexts. The large share of burned The analysis of the relative size of bony fish was based bones was observed inside the installations, both in house exclusively on precaudal vertebrae and provided an oppor- 1 and the fish processing area. Such bones were also reg- tunity to explore general trends in the sizes of fish from the istered in a greater number in pits from house 1 but were represented families. The results indicate that the maxi- rare in other contexts (Table 3). mum width of the centrum of precaudal vertebrae was The percentage of catfish bones from the Ariidae fam- between 2 and 15 mm which suggests rather small- and ily found in house 1 was a few times higher than in the medium-sized fish in the case of most families (Fig. 6). fishing huts (Table 2). Their remains seem to be more Only in the case of the most abundant vertebrae of fish concentrated in the installations than in the pits or layers. from the Sciaenidae and Serranidae families it was possible The ovens, hearths and fireplaces from house 1 contained to compare the measurements from two different locations a large share of catfish bones, while in the case of installa- — the fish processing area and house 1. The differences tions located in the fishing huts, over a half of the remains in size are evident only in the case of these two families belonged to cartilaginous fish (Table 4). (Fig. 7) in which the share of the measurements above 15 mm is much higher than in other groups. However, the Fish traps comparison of the results for house 1 and the fish process- ing area proved to be the most interesting. In both cases, the Investigations conducted in the coastal waters surrounding groups of small-/medium-sized and large vertebrae were the island revealed 32 large stone fish traps. Their fences present, but the latter contained evidently larger vertebrae. were not preserved, as they were likely made of less dura- The most common established length of catfish was ble materials, possibly palm branches and leaves (Serjeant between 30 and 40 cm; individuals smaller than 30 cm 1968). As many as nine fish traps were located directly were rare as were those exceeding 50 cm (Fig. 8). The opposite Kharā’ib al-Dasht (Fig. 5). The largest structure low number of the remains of small individuals should be (no. 1) had a roughly rectangular shape and measured not due to the recovery technique employed as the bones 1 3 211 Page 10 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Table 3 Proportions of burned bones inside the different contexts layers, though usually in the vicinity of the installations. No size preference was visible in the installations and lay- Location NSP Burned remains ers. Pit 5, the only pit containing a large number of catfish n % bones, yielded mostly medium-sized individuals and one specimen that was clearly bigger. The measurements of the Fish processing area Layers 1039 50 4.81 maximum width of centrum of precaudal vertebrae came Installations 130 83 63.85 almost exclusively from house 1; they also confirmed the Pits 308 12 3.90 presence of small- and medium-sized catfish (Fig. 6). House 1 Layers 4355 302 6.93 Based on the established size of the fish, it is possible Installations 1923 1387 72.13 to say that sharks of 50 to 100 cm TL were most abundant Pits 91 30 32.97 at the site. Larger sharks and rays were found in the layers, Pit 5 4209 66 1.57 although small fish < 50 cm, as well as medium-sized, were Mosque Layers 121 2 1.65 also registered. However, large sharks measuring 200 cm or more were small in numbers at the site (Fig. 9). The instal- of even very small catfish are large enough to be obtained lations and pits yielded fish of a relatively smaller size, by sieving with 5 mm mesh. A few cases of really large but the remains found inside the installations were addi- individuals, probably measuring over 60 cm, were also tionally standardised to individuals measuring 50–100 cm registered. Catfish remains were most frequently discov - TL. Variation in size among the specimens found in the ered inside the installations but were also found in the Table 4 Comparison of the spatial distribution of cartilaginous and bony fish in the fish processing area and house 1 Fish processing area House 1 n % n % Layers Pits Install Layers Pits Install Layers Pits Install Layers Pits Install Carcharhinidae 225 113 29 52.7 55.7 43.9 228 115 46 12.8 7.2 6.0 Other identified cartilaginous fish 35 7 10 8.2 3.4 15.2 86 21 0 4.8 1.3 0.0 Ariidae 42 9 3 9.8 4.4 4.5 711 851 529 39.8 53.3 69.3 Other identified bony fish 125 74 24 29.3 36.5 36.4 761 609 188 42.6 38.2 24.6 Total 427 203 66 100 100 100 1786 1596 763 100 100 100 Fig. 5 Aerial photograph show- ing fish traps (A. Oleksiak) 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 11 of 29 211 installations was observed only in the case of the Car- uncertain. Perhaps they were only seasonal, as no struc- charhinidae family (Fig. 9). tures dated to the Late Islamic period 1a (phase I) were recorded at the site. On the other hand, evidence of a per- manent settlement, accompanied by very intensive fishing Discussion activity in the Late Islamic period 1b and 2a (phase II), is provided by the large number of excavated structures and Very little is known about fishing and fish processing at fish remains. Kharā’ib al-Dasht in the earliest phase, I. Although such Given that the necessary factor for husbandry and activities certainly took place, as attested by several instal- agriculture — fresh water — was scarce on the island in lations and infrequent fish remains, their nature is rather the Late Islamic period, fishing must have been of great Fig. 6 Comparison of the maximum breadth of the vertebral centrum of families represented in the material 1 3 211 Page 12 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Fig. 7 Comparison of the maximum breadth of the vertebral centrum of Sciaenidae and Serranidae families from different locations the northern Arabian Gulf, any knowledge concern- ing preferences and fish processing in the Late Islamic period is limited to Kharā’ib al-Dasht exclusively. Still, the numerous fish families recorded in the bone assem- blage of the settlement are also known from other Gulf sites from different regions and periods, including the Islamic Period (Beech 1998, 2004, 2005; Von den Dri- esch and Dockner 2002; Russ and Petersen 2013; Yeo- mans 2015; Vorenger 2016; Uerpmann 2017). We must keep in mind that the type of seaf loor, depth of the sea level, salinity and biodiversity differ in the southern and northern part of the Arabian Gulf and the salin- ity, temperature and circulation changes show seasonal Fig. 8 Standard length (SL) of fish from the Ariidae family variability (Al-Ghadban 2002; Reynolds 2002; Swift and Bower 2003; Kampf and Sadrinasab 2006; Rakha importance to the inhabitants of Kharā’ib al-Dasht, as et al. 2007; Naser 2014) which is undoubtedly ref lected demonstrated by the architecture, installations, arte- in the taxonomic composition of fish. Recent research facts and large amounts of fish remains uncovered concerning fishing in the coastal waters of Kuwait shows there. The archaeological evidence points to the exist- a very different species composition from modern-day ence of a fishing village at the site in the eighteenth fish traps than those identified in the material from and the nineteenth centuries. Only a few settlements of Kharā’ib al-Dasht, as well as a smaller range of fish this period has been excavated on Failaka so far, includ- species in recent catches (Al-Baz et al. 2003, 2007). ing a few clusters of sites in the vicinity of Al-Awazim Earlier research by Abou-Seedo (Abou-Seedo 1992, pp. (Makharadze et al. 2017; Chkhvimiani et al. 2021) and 94–95) shows differing results — the abundance of the the remains of the villages in Al-Qurainiyah and Al-Sab- represented families is comparable with the assemblages bahiya (Pawlicki 2012; Grassili and Di Miceli 2018), but from Kharā’ib al-Dasht which was probably linked to the analyses of fish remains have not yet been published. the favourable environmental conditions of the intertidal Furthermore, given the lack of adequate parallels from zones of Kuwait Bay. The fish caught in the recent fish 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 13 of 29 211 Layers Installations Pits Fig. 9 Total length (TL) of sharks and rays from different locations traps on the Failaka shoreline were small- or medium- traps in the shallow inshore waters. This picture is also sized, < 44 cm TL (Al-Baz et al. 2007, pp. 206, Table 3). evident in the case of Kharā’ib al-Dasht where most This shows that only small species or younger individu- of the assemblages contained only small- and medium- als of larger species could have been caught in the fish sized fish. The size of the fish from the experimental 1 3 211 Page 14 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 fish traps described by Al-Baz and co-authors (2007) waters not far from Failaka Island. The remains of large does not indicate that this fishing method could have and very large fish from the layers and pits in house 1 been used to catch larger fish; such fish were available and the fish processing area, as well as the presence of offshore. It seems that the changing environment of the artefacts like anchors and fishing hooks, suggest that the Northern Arab Gulf strongly inf luenced the fish- offshore fishing was also practised by the fishers from ing activity, with changes in the catch rate and species Kharā’ib al-Dasht. composition. The large spectrum of the fish families dem- onstrated by the bones discovered at Kharā’ib al-Dasht Fishing as subsistence strategy suggests that probably all the fish that could be caught were processed and consumed. Cultural preferences seem Based on the archaeological sources, the culinary pref- to be less important here, though they are certainly not erences in the Late Islamic period varied from those of without significance. the present-day market. For example, the catfish (Arii - dae), which was a frequent find at the discussed site, is Fishing techniques applied at the site now largely ignored by the market (both fishers and con- sumers), although the fish is still present in abundance Fishing was most likely undertaken with the use of fish in Kuwaiti waters (Beech 2004, 20–21). It is not clear traps, but other methods of capture in the inshore areas if this is due to cultural influences or a low social stand - were probably also carried out. Fish traps were located ard of the people of Kharā’ib al-Dasht. Other fish, like close to the village, which supports the hypothesis that sharks, are a food taboo for many people in the region, its inhabitants used them. Structures of this type were yet they were in fact consumed by the inhabitants of this also located in other areas surrounding the island, with Late Islamic fishing village. Written accounts also confirm concentrations of fish traps being registered close to shark consumption in Kuwait. For instance, according to other settlements dated to the Late Islamic period (Qatar Lorimer, sharks were very popular among Arab fishers, Digital Library File 9/23 1944, p. 52; Pawlicki 2015). even though only Sunnis would eat them, as they consider Serjeant described fish traps of a similar shape called them to be aphrodisiacs, but also used them as manure hadrah known from Bahrain, which were always built (Lorimer 1915, p. 2316; Serjeant 1968, pp. 488–489). in the waters belonging to the nearby village (Serjeant Although shark consumption was confirmed at numerous 1968, p. 503), although their location was determined sites located throughout the entire Gulf region from the “by the nature of the terrain” (Serjeant 1968, p. 491). Neolithic to the Late Islamic periods (Beech 2004), the Hadrah were common along the shallow shore waters finds do not have a stable pattern. Of the five sites com- of the Arabian Gulf but not used on the South Arabian pared by Monchot (Monchot et al. in press), proportions coasts (Serjeant 1968, p. 489). They were usually the of cartilaginous fish vary between 1 and 40.8%, however, property of those who built them, and as such, they could only at Failaka F5, dated to the Hellenistic period, the have been inherited or rented. It seems probable that number of cartilaginous fish was elevated (40.8%). It is not in the case of a small village, like Kharā’ib al-Dasht, defined how many sharks were included in this number. only the owners of the fish traps held the fishing rights. Most of these fish seem to have been of medium-sized or Although collecting the catch from fish traps was rather have come from juveniles, thus caught close to the shore easy and could have been done by hand, ethnographic (Desse and Desse-Berset 1990). sources indicate that the preparation and maintenance of such structures required considerable expertise (Serjeant Fish preparation and preservation 1968, p. 495). According to some sources, fish for local use were caught in the summer (Qatar Digital Library There are three traditional methods of fish processing File 17/16 1944), yet fish that could be caught using known from historical and ethnographic sources, namely, traps differed depending on the season (Serjeant 1968, p. salting, drying and grilling (ElMahi 2000). Direct proof 509; Beech 2004, pp. 35–42). It seems that usually small- for salting fish is almost impossible to identify archae- and medium-sized fish were obtained in this manner. ologically (Maritan et al. 2018). There is also no clear Large and very large specimens, especially sharks, could evidence for drying fish, but some of the architectural probably be caught from a boat as attested to by the pres- remains, such as the huts located in the northern part of ence of anchors (Serjeant 1968, p. 510). A private letter the site, as well as similar structures found in other areas from February 1947 (Qatar Digital Library File 17/16 of Failaka (Pawlicki 2012, pp. 51–52), were most prob- 1944) confirms that sharks were caught in the offshore ably used for this purpose, given that they seem to be too 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 15 of 29 211 small to have had a residential function. Moreover, such with some fish bones. The presence of a large part of structures are also known from the Omani coast (Costa an unburned catfish skeleton found in the upper part of 1988), where fishing stations, located at some distance ovens 5 and 12 from house 1 may suggest that grilling from villages, included these kinds of small buildings to (understood as baking fish on a grate) was done directly shelter drying fish from the wind, birds and carnivores inside the installation, in the inner partition found in the (Costa 1988, p. 5). middle of the height of the oven. Such a structure was Traditionally, fish intended for drying can be of two present only in some of the ovens. On the other hand, sizes, either very small or large. Very small fish were the constructions could be interpreted as heating instal- either consumed in the region by humans as snacks or lations with fish bones used as fuel; however, such an used as animal feed as described by Marco Polo in the interpretation seems doubtful given their large number thirteenth century: “Another thing you will much won- inside the rooms and a lack of known analogies on the der at is, that all the animals, sheep, oxen, and camels, island (Mierzejewska 2019, pp. 10–11). On this basis, eat fish, because there is no grass, for it is the most arid grilling seems to have been a common practice at the place in the world. These fishes are very small, caught site, at least judging by the number of installations inside in March, April, and May, in wonderful quantities. They house 1 as well as in the northern part of the village are dried, lodged in houses, and given as food to the (Mierzejewska 2019). Although meat preserved in this animals during the whole year. The people eat them also manner remains safe to eat for only a few days (ElMahi when quite alive and newly taken. There are also plenty 2000, p. 105), it seems to have been sufficient for every- of large ones, which being made into a kind of biscuit, day meals. Grilling could also be understood as a means by cutting them into small pieces and drying them in of smoking fish. This technique is impossible to attest the sun, are preserved under cover during the whole based on archaeological remains, but some pits, at least year” (Murray 1845, pp. 329–330). Such a purpose of in house 1, could have been used for such a goal taking drying fish is also known from more recent sources into consideration the elevated number of burned bones. (Qatar Digital Library File 17/16 1944). Even though In general, fish intended for grilling were usually small, the material was sieved, the share of small fish remains while sharks also had a standardised size of between 50 was not high at the site. In particular, the bones of fish and 100 cm. The most frequently grilled specimens were of the Clupeidae family, the most commonly dried fish small- and medium-sized catfish, though many other in the region (ElMahi 2000, 101–2), were infrequent. families were also represented in the assemblages from However, especially in the case of small species such ovens and hearths. It should be noted that different fish as clupeids, it might have been due to the 5 mm mesh were processed in the installations depending on the part chosen during the excavation, which is too wide to keep of the village. Sharks and rays were grilled mostly in the all the small bones. On the other hand, this scarcity may fish processing area, while catfish were found in a greater be explained by the fact that such fish would gener- number only in house 1. In a publication by Monchot and ally be consumed in their entirety, while if it was fed co-authors (Monchot et al. in press), a comparison was to animals, it would not appear in the material inside already made for the most important taxa present at three the structures. Conversely, the remains of large fish, sites in Failaka Island of the earlier chronology — Failaka like sharks and rays, were discovered in the layers in F5 (Hellenistic fortress) and Failaka F6 (a site dated to greater numbers, although this might only be an indirect the Ur III and Dilmun periods), as well as Al-Qusur (a evidence of this kind of processing. Before it could be village from the Early Islamic period located in the mid- dried, a large fish had to be cut into smaller pieces (usu- dle of the island) and Tell Akkaz (inland Kuwait). The ally fillets) and soaked in brine for a day or two (ElMahi high number of Ariidae was only present in Tell Akkaz 2000, 103–4). Meat prepared in this manner should have (Desse-Berset and Desse 2011), where 31.5% of the fish been edible for a long time. bones come from this family and belonged to large fish While the usage of fireplaces and hearths (open measuring 90 cm up to 1 m, which is very different from sources of fire found in a large number especially in the the finds from Kharā’ib al-Dasht. Interestingly, catfish northern part of the site) is rather clear, the construction remains were, in general, rare or even absent, as was of the ovens is difficult to interpret. The clay walls of the the case of oven deposits excavated at Julfar in the UAE intact and usually well-preserved ovens were open with (Beech 1998) dated to mid-fourteenth to sixteenth cen- the formed rim without any visible remains of a grate tury, yet numerous bones of catfish of the Ariidae fam- (Mierzejewska 2019, pp. 10, Table 2). The lower parts ily were identified in the installations from Late Islamic of the discovered ovens contained ashes, usually mixed sites, such as Al Zubārah in northern Qatar (Yeomans 1 3 211 Page 16 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 2015). At this site, the proportion of catfish tended to fish in winter and during the warmest months in summer, decrease after the initial occupation phase of the settle- due to cold or too warm water temperatures (Abou-Seedo ment, namely, from 10% of the bones to less than 4% only 1992). Moreover, similar structures in Oman, called baka- years later (Yeomans 2015). This may indicate that the kir, made of walls lined with stone, were used for keeping presence of catfish bones at the sites may be connected dried and salted fish (Costa 1988, p. 6). Other pits from with the seasonal availability of the fish in the inshore house 1 yielded a very low number of fish remains, which fishing area or the preferences of the consumers. may suggest that they had a different function. The pits There is no doubt that the northern part of Kharā’ib located in the fish processing area contained far less fish al-Dasht fulfilled an economic function, given the abun- bones which makes interpretation difficult. dance of hearths, ovens and refuse pits found there and a large fish trap nearby. The division of the settlement into two parts with fishing huts in the north and a vil- Conclusions lage in the east seems reasonable, as fish processing is a rather foul-smelling activity. Fishing huts were most Although the scale of the excavations at Kharā’ib al- probably used primarily for fish processing. It is uncer- Dasht is still very small and the investigated structures tain whether the fish caught here were intended only for generate even more questions than answers, we now have the fishers and their families or if any surplus was used a better understanding of fishing and fish processing at for local trade with the interior of the island. It seems the site. Fish remains, artefacts and structures associated plausible that at least a part of the fish processed here was with fishing found at the site provide evidence of a small preserved as commercial products. Some written sources community that lived mostly off the sea and its resources, suggest that Failaka provided a large share of the Kuwaiti and fish were their main source of protein. Very little fish supply (Qatar Digital Library File 17/ 16 1944), which is known about fishing and fish processing at Kharā’ib may indicate the involvement of the inhabitants of Kharā’ib al-Dasht in the earliest phase. Although such activities al-Dasht in long-distance trade. The high share of shark certainly took place, the low number of fish remains does remains and the larger size of fish in the fish processing not permit any detailed interpretation. The archaeological area suggest that the fish processed in this location were evidence suggests that in the younger phase, fish were destined for the market. These fish had economic value probably grilled for both direct consumption and short- and were probably preserved to sell elsewhere. The fish term preservation, although other methods of preserva- remains from this area include almost certainly other bones tion, including drying and perhaps salting, could also that were preserved for consumption in the village. There have taken place. The families’ composition and the dif- is supporting evidence for this hypothesis found in the fish ference in fish sizes suggest that bigger fish were pro- traps nearby. While the large fish trap no. 1 was built close cessed in the fish processing area, while smaller fish were to the fish processing area, the small fish traps 2 to 8 were used as food resources in the village itself. The small fish adjacent to the village. traps near the village delivered probably enough food for The discovery of pit 5, located either in one of the rooms daily consumption. Offshore fishing was certainly another surrounding the courtyard or just outside the house, may way to supply the village of large fish which were most be important for our understanding of how food supplies probably prepared and sold for the market. If preservation were stored. Some of the numerous fish remains found was drying or salting or a combination, it is impossible in the pit were articulated, especially the almost com- to state. It seems that fishers used diversified methods plete catfish and of Pomadasys sp. skeletons, with cranial for catching fish; it is more than probable that they used elements as well as vertebrae, which were reported by fish traps but also practised offshore fishing. There is the archaeologists, although they were not documented no direct or indirect evidence for other fishing methods, in situ. The assemblage also contained numerous fish of including the use of baskets or similar organic tools, as different sizes. Therefore, the interpretation of a structure these types of remains were not preserved in the archaeo- as a storage pit and not a waste pit is more probable. It logical materials from Kharā’ib al-Dasht. Nonetheless, also indicates that these fish were kept in a preserved the rich fish bone assemblage from Kharā’ib al-Dasht state. Probably this was a reserve against times when fresh contributes additional information concerning to the role fish was difficult to obtain. The fish traps yielded less of fish in this region. 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 17 of 29 211 Appendix Table 5 Number of identified specimens (NISP) from the fish processing area Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Layers Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Fireplace 6 Fireplace 7 Fireplace 9 Hearth 1 Hearth 2 Hearth 8 Hearth 10 Oven Oven Oven Total 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 Lamniformes Lamnidae 1 1 (mackerel sharks) Carcharhini- Triakidae 3 1 1 5 formes (hound- sharks) Carcharhi- 225 2 48 62 1 3 4 2 10 5 1 4 367 nidae (requiem sharks) Sphyrnidae 31 2 3 6 3 45 (ham- merhead sharks) Sphyrnidae: 1 1 Sphyrna sp. (ham- merhead shark) Batoidea (rays) 35 1 4 15 1 1 1 58 Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous 5 2 1 1 9 fish) indet Total Chondrichthyes 300 0 6 57 79 1 0 4 5 2 10 12 1 5 0 4 486 Clupeiformes Clupeidae: 3 3 Tenualosa ilisha (hilsa shad) Clupeidae 11 12 3 3 3 32 (herrings, sardines, shads) indet Chirocen- 2 2 tridae: Chirocen- trus nudus (whitefin wolf- herring) Chirocentri- 1 1 dae (wolf herrings) indet Gonorynchi- Chanidae: 1 2 3 6 formes Chanos chanos (milkfish) Siluriformes Ariidae (sea 42 2 2 5 3 54 catfish) indet Scorpaeni- Platycephali- 8 1 1 1 2 2 15 formes dae: Plat- ycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) Perciformes Serranidae 13 1 9 4 2 1 30 (groupers) indet Carangidae 7 1 1 9 (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) indet 1 3 211 Page 18 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Table 5 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Layers Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Fireplace 6 Fireplace 7 Fireplace 9 Hearth 1 Hearth 2 Hearth 8 Hearth 10 Oven Oven Oven Total 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 Haemulidae: 1 4 5 Poma- dasys sp. (grunt) Haemulidae 5 1 2 1 9 (grunts, sweetlips, rub- berlips, hotlips) indet Sparidae: 1 1 Acan- thopagrus sp. (sea- bream) Sparidae 3 4 7 (porgies, sea- breams) indet Lethrinidae 5 5 (emper- ors) indet Sciaenidae 55 4 3 5 2 1 1 71 (drums, croakers) indet Mugilidae 13 2 1 16 (mullets) indet Sphyraeni- 1 1 dae (bar- racuda) indet Trichiuridae 1 4 5 (cutlass- fishes) indet Scombridae: 1 1 Euthynnus affinis (tuna) Scombridae 2 1 3 (macker- els) indet Stro- 1 1 mateidae: Pampus argenteus (silver pomfret) Teleostei (bony fish) indet 572 3 63 4 10 3 1 36 7 2 1 6 4 712 Total Teleostei 739 6 106 17 34 0 4 6 6 45 9 5 1 6 4 1 989 Mollusca Sepiidae 2 2 (cuttle- fish) 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 19 of 29 211 Table 6 Number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimum num- Table 6 (continued) ber of individuals (MNI) in the installations and pits located in the Taxon NISP MNI fish processing area Ariidae (sea catfish) indet 2 1 Taxon NISP MNI Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) indet 1 1 Fireplace 6 Chirocentridae: Chirocentrus nudus (whitefin wolf- 2 1 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) indet 3 1 herring) Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 1 1 Scombridae: Euthynnus sp. (tuna) 1 1 head) Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Fireplace 7 indet Batoidea (rays) indet 1 1 Mugilidae (mullets) indet 2 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 3 1 Haemulidae: Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 4 1 indet Serranidae (groupers) indet 9 2 Serranidae (groupers) indet 2 1 Sparidae (porgies, seabreams) indet 1 1 Fireplace 9 Clupeidae: Tenualosa ilisha (hilsa shad) 15 1 Batoidea (rays) indet 1 1 Pit 3 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 4 1 Batoidea (rays) indet 4 2 Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) indet 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 48 3 Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 2 1 Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) indet 3 1 head) Chanidae: Chanos chanos (milkfish) 2 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 2 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 2 1 Hearth 1 indet Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) indet 3 2 Mugilidae (mullets) indet 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) indet 2 1 Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 1 1 Chanidae: Chanos chanos (milkfish) 3 1 head) Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 2 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 3 3 head) Trichiuridae (cutlassfishes) indet 4 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 1 1 Pit 4 Hearth 2 Batoidea (rays) indet 15 2 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) indet 10 3 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 62 2 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 1 1 Triakidae (houndsharks) indet 1 1 Serranidae (groupers) indet 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) indet 5 1 Hearth 8 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) indet 3 1 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) indet 5 1 Stromateidae: Pampus argenteus (silver pomfret) 1 1 Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) indet 6 1 Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 1 1 Triakidae (houndsharks) indet 1 1 head) Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) indet 3 2 Haemulidae: Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 4 1 Hearth 10 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 5 2 Batoidea (rays) indet 1 1 Scombridae (mackerels) indet 1 1 Oven 3 Serranidae (groupers) indet 4 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 1 1 Pit 5 Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) indet 3 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 1 1 Oven 5 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 4 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) indet 2 1 Pit 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) indet 2 1 Serranidae (groupers) indet 1 1 Pit 2 Batoidea (rays) indet 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 2 1 Sphyrnidae: Sphyrna sp. (hammerhead shark) 3 1 Sparidae: Acanthopagrus sp. (seabream) 1 1 1 3 211 Page 20 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 1 3 Table 7 Number of identified specimens (NISP) from house 1 Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Orectolobi- Orectolo- 21 21 formes bidae (carpet sharks) indet Lamni- Lamnidae 2 2 formes (mack- erel sharks) indet Carcharhini- Triakidae 2 1 3 formes (hound- sharks) indet Carcharhi- 106 1 2 1 5 17 1 4 27 2 1 38 2 58 114 9 1 389 nidae (Req- uiem sharks) indet Sphyr- 4 1 5 nidae (ham- merhead sharks) indet Myliobati- Mylio- 11 34 31 76 formes batidae (eagle rays) indet Batoidea (rays) indet 73 9 1 4 1 8 14 1 6 10 6 58 5 196 Chondrichthyes (cartilagi- 4 1 6 3 14 nous fish) indet Total Chondrichthyes 202 1 11 2 0 9 0 0 1 0 26 1 0 18 28 2 7 84 2 95 199 17 1 706 Clupei- Clupeidae: 1 1 formes Tenu- alosa ilisha (hilsa shad) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 21 of 29 211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Clupeidae 13 5 6 6 9 6 1 97 143 (her- rings, sardines, shads) indet Chirocen- 13 1 1 16 31 tridae (wolf herrings) indet Gonorynchi- Chanidae: 6 1 1 2 10 formes Chanos chanos (milk- fish) Siluriformes Ariidae 394 1 38 211 17 40 2 111 3 192 1 23 7 74 106 844 26 1 2091 (sea catfish) indet Beloni- Belonidae 1 1 formes (needle- fish) indet Scorpaeni- Plat- 15 1 7 2 1 12 1 1 5 1 2 42 1 91 formes ycephal- idae: Plat- ycepha- lus indicus (bartail flathead) Perciformes Serranidae 30 4 2 3 4 2 1 29 1 3 58 7 1 145 (group- ers) indet 211 Page 22 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Caran- 1 1 gidae: Scom- broides sp. (queen- fish) Carangidae 21 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 6 42 (jacks, jack mack- erels, trevally) indet Lutjanidae 1 3 4 (snap- pers) indet Hae- 1 1 mulidae: Plector- hinchus sp. (sweet- lip) Hae- 1 1 mulidae: Poma- dasys stridens (striped piggy) Hae- 160 3 1 1 2 37 2 1 1 2 10 26 100 89 435 mulidae: Poma- dasys sp. (grunt) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 23 of 29 211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Hae- 32 1 2 8 1 2 1 6 5 5 1 64 mulidae (grunts, sweet- lips, rub- berlips, hotlips) indet Sparidae: 1 2 3 Acan- thopa- grus sp. (sea- bream) Sparidae: 1 1 Argyrops spinifer (king soldier bream) Sparidae: 3 3 Spari- dentex sp. (sea- bream) Sparidae 20 6 1 4 28 2 61 (porgies, sea- breams) indet Lethrini- 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 13 dae (emper- ors) indet Nemip- 5 5 teridae (thread- fin breams) indet 211 Page 24 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Sciaeni- 1 1 1 5 1 5 2 16 dae: Otolithes sp. (tiger- tooth croaker) Sciaeni- 4 4 dae: Pseudo- tolithus sp. (croaker) Sciaenidae 78 2 13 2 7 2 44 6 44 1 1 6 6 12 167 13 1 405 (drums, croak- ers) indet Polyne- 1 1 midae (thread- fins) indet Mugilidae 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 11 (mullets) indet Siganidae: 1 1 Siganus sp. (rab- bitfish) Siganidae 1 1 2 (rab- bitfish) indet Sphyraeni- 2 3 5 dae (bar- racuda) indet Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 25 of 29 211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Trichiu- 7 1 33 41 ridae (cutlass- fishes) indet Pleuronec- Paralich- 13 13 tiformes thyidae: (flatfish) Pseudor- hombus sp. (large- tooth flounder) Paralich- 2 3 thyidae (large- tooth floun- ders) indet Teleostei (bony fish) indet 1692 4 38 505 45 94 12 6 2 294 19 351 7 48 2 31 191 1 173 2582 70 4 6171 Total Teleostei 2470 5 101 754 80 150 2 12 11 2 538 31 606 14 76 3 58 321 2 342 4010 221 10 9820 Mollusca Sepiidae 26 12 3 9 1 6 1 58 (cuttle- fish) 4209 211 Page 26 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Table 8 Number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimum num- Table 8 (continued) ber of individuals (MNI) in the installations and pits located in house Taxon NISP MNI Oven 8, locus 11 (courtyard) Taxon NISP MNI Batoidea (rays) 4 1 Hearth 1, west of locus 3 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 5 1 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 40 2 Ariidae (sea catfish) 1 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 2 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Lethrinidae (emperors) 2 1 Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 2 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Serranidae (groupers) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 7 1 Hearth 2, west of locus 3 Serranidae (groupers) 3 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 1 1 Oven 9, locus 11 (courtyard) Oven 3, locus 11 (courtyard) Ariidae (sea catfish) 2 1 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 1 1 Oven 10, locus 4 Ariidae (sea catfish) 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 2 1 Oven 4, locus 11 (courtyard) Serranidae (groupers) 1 1 Batoidea (rays) 9 1 Oven 11, locus 3 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 2 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 38 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 3 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 1 1 Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 1 1 Chanos chanos (milkfish) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 2 1 Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) 13 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 6 1 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 5 1 Oven 12, locus 3 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 192 6 Mugilidae (mullets) 1 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 3 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 1 1 Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 2 1 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 9 1 Oven 5, locus 11 (courtyard) Mugilidae (mullets) 3 1 Batoidea (rays) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 44 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 211 10 Serranidae (groupers) 2 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 1 1 Oven 13, locus 3 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 6 1 Batoidea (rays) 14 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 2 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 4 1 Lethrinidae (emperors) 2 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 1 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 7 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 3 2 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 13 1 Lethrinidae (emperors) 1 1 Serranidae (groupers) 4 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 1 1 Oven 6, locus 11 (courtyard) Serranidae (groupers) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 17 2 Sparidae (porgies, seabreams) 1 1 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 6 1 Oven 14, locus 3 Pleuronectiformes (flatfish) 1 1 Batoidea (rays) 1 1 Mugilidae (mullets) 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 27 1 Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 23 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 2 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Mugilidae (mullets) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 2 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 1 1 Serranidae (groupers) 2 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Sphyraenidae (barracuda) 3 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 1 1 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 27 of 29 211 Funding The research was funded by the Kuwaiti National Council Table 8 (continued) for Culture, Arts and Letters and by the Rector of the University of Taxon NISP MNI Warsaw (micro-grant 2018). Oven 15, locus 3 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 2 1 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 1 1 adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, Pit 2, courtyard (locus 11) as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate Batoidea (rays) 1 1 if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 1 1 article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 2 1 indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 2 1 included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted Pit 4, locus 3 use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright Batoidea (rays) 6 1 holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 1 1 org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. Ariidae (sea catfish) 7 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 3 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 2 1 References Lethrinidae (emperors) 2 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 5 1 Abou-Seedo FS (1992) Abundance of fish caught by stake traps (hadra) in the intertidal zone in Doha, Kuwait bay. J Univ Kuwait Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 2 1 (sci) 19:91–99 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 6 1 Al-Baz AF, Al-Husaini MM, Bishop JM (2003) Intertidal fixed stake Pit 5, east of locus 11 (courtyard) net trap (hadrah) fishery in Kuwait: distribution, catch rate and Batoidea (rays) 58 2 species composition. Int J Agric Sci Eng 7:256–261 Al-Baz AF, Chen W, Bishop JM et al (2007) On fishing selectivity Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 114 3 of hadrah (fixed stake trap) in the coastal waters of Kuwait. Fish Orectolobidae (carpet sharks) 21 1 Res 84:202–209. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fishr es. 2006. 10. 022 Acanthopagrus sp. (seabream) 2 1 Al-Ghadban AN (2002) Geological oceanography of the Arabian Ariidae (sea catfish) 844 22 Gulf. In: Munawar M (ed) The Gulf Ecosystem, Health and sus- tainability. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 23–40 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 3 1 Al-Mutairi H (2017) Islamic archaeology on the north western cost Chelon sp. (mullet) 1 1 of Failaka Island. Archaeological, analytical and comparative Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) 16 1 study. NCCAL, Kuwait Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 97 2 Beech M (1998) Comments on two vertebrate samples from early Jazirat al-Hulaylah (5th-9th c. AD) and Islamic Julfar (mid- Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 5 1 14th-16th c. AD). United Arab Emirates Bulletin of Archaeol- Mugilidae (mullets) 7 1 ogy 24:197–203 Nemipteridae (threadfin breams) 5 1 Beech MJ (2004) In the land of Ichthyophagi. Moddeling fish exploi- Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 5 3 tation in the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman from the 5th mil- lenium BC to the Late Islamic period. Archeopress, Oxford Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 42 2 Beech MJ (2005) Chapter 5, Part 3. In: Insoll T (ed) The land of Enki Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 100 5 in the Islamic Era. Routledge, London-New York-Bahrain Pseudotolithus sp. (croaker) 4 2 Bibby G (1969) Looking for Dilmun. Alfred A, Knopf, New York Pseudorhombus sp. (large-tooth flounder) 13 1 Bishop JM (2003) History and current checklist of Kuwait’s ichthyo- fauna. J Arid Environ 54:237–256 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 167 7 Blue L, Strutt K, Sheehan P, et al (2013) Developing an integrated Serranidae (groupers) 58 7 policy for the maritime and coastal heritage of the UAE: a col- Siganidae (rabbitfish) 1 1 laborative approach. In: Weeks L, Watson J (eds) Proceedings Sparidae (porgies, seabreams) 28 2 of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. pp 63–73 Breeze P, Cuttler R, Collins P, Starkey J (2011) Archaeological land- Sparidentex sp. (seabream) 3 1 scape characterization in Qatar through satellite and aerial pho- Tenualosa ilisha (hilsa shad) 1 1 tographic analysis, 2009 to 2010. In: Proceedings of the Seminar Trichiuridae (cutlassfishes) 33 1 for Arabian Studies. pp 13–26 Carpenter KE, Krupp F, Jones DA, Zajonz U (1997) Living marine resources of Kuwait, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. FAO species identification field guide Acknowledgements We would like to thank Wim Van Neer for his hos- for fishery purposes, Food and Agricultural Organization of the pitality in his lab in Brussels. We would like to express our gratitude to United Nations, Rome the Kuwaiti National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters, especially Chkhvimiani J, Mamiashvili V, Bakhtadze N, Kvavadze E (2021) Dr Sultan Al-Duweish, Dr Hamed Al-Mutairi and Mr Talal Al-Saie for Late Islamic water collection systems on Failaka Island: prelimi- their constant support and active participation as well as Joanna Reiche nary results of the Kuwait-Georgian Archaeological Mission in and Mark Ordon for proofreading the text. 1 3 211 Page 28 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 2018–2019. Arab Archaeol Epigr N/a. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ Naser HA (2014) Marine ecosystem diversity in the Arabian Gulf: aae. 12188 threats and conservation. In: Grillo O (ed) Biodiversity The Costa PM (1988) Fishing stations of the coast of Oman: a theme of Dynamic Balance of the Planet. IntechOpen, London ethno-archaeological research. Proc Semin Arab Stud 18:3–14 Patitucci S, Uggeri G (1984) Failakah: insediamenti medievali islam- Desse J, Desse-Berset N (1990) La faune: les mammifères et les ici. Ricerche e scavi nel Kuwait, ”L’Erma di” Bretschneider, poissons. In: Calvet Y, Gachet J (eds) Failaka, fouilles françaises Rome 1986–1988. Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouil- Pawlicki F (2012) Failaka. Spring 2012. Preliminary report on the lou, Lyon, pp 51–70 archaeological survey of joint Kuwaiti-Polish Mission. Failaka Desse-Berset N, Desse J (2011) Les poissons du Tell Akkaz (Koweït). Pawlicki F (2015) Preliminary report on the archaeological survey of In: Gachet-Bizollon J (ed) Le tell d’Akkaz au Koweït. Maison de the joint Kuwaiti-Polish mission, Failaka Island. Polish Archaeol- l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, Lyon, pp 359–378 ogy in the Mediterranean 24:547–559 ElMahi AT (2000) Traditional fish preservation in Oman: the season- Persian Gulf Gazetteer (1904) Persian Gulf Gazetteer, Part II: Geo- ality of a subsistence strategy. Proc Semin Arab Stud 30:99–113 graphical and descriptive materials, Section II: Western Side of Fischer W, Bianchi G (1984) Western Indian Ocean. Fishing Area 51. the Gulf’ [117v] (234/280), British Library: India Office Records FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Vol. 1. and Private Papers, IOR/R/15/5/366. In: Qatar Digital Library. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome h tt p s :/ / w w w . q dl . q a / a r c h i ve / 8 10 5 5/ v dc _ 1 00 0 4 1 59 0 9 2 3. 0 x0 0 0 Grassili GL, Di Miceli A (eds) (2018) Al-Qurainiyah, Failaka. 023. Accessed 23 May 2021 Kuwaiti-Italian Excavations 2010–2015, vol. 1. Stratigrphy and Petersen A, Grey T (2012) Palace, mosque, and tomb at al-Ruwayḍah, Phases. University of Perugia and NCCAL, Perugia-Kuwait Qatar. In: Starkey JCM (ed) Proceedings of the Seminar for Ara- Højlund F, Abu-Laban A (2016) Tell F6 on Failaka Island. Kuwaiti- bian Studies. Archeopress, Oxford, pp 277–289 Danish Excavations 208–2012. NCCAL and Jutland Archaeo- Pieńkowska A, Mierzejewska M (2018) Late Islamic fishing industry logical Society and Moesgaard Museum, [Aarhus N] in the Gulf: the case of Kharāib al-Dasht, Jazīrat Faylakā. In: van Jones JF (1856) Extracts from a report on the harbour of grane (or Rensburg JJ, Munt H, Power T, Starkey J (eds) Proceedings of the Kuwait), and the Island of Pheleechi in the Persian Gulf, Pre- Seminar for Arabian Studies. Archeopress, Oxford, pp 269–277 pared in November 1839. In Selections from the Records of Pieńkowska A, Mierzejewska M, Nowakowska M (2015) Failaka the Bombay Government. Bombay Education Society’s Press, Archaeological Research Project. Preliminary results after the Bombay first season of excavation at the Kharaib el-Desht site in 2013. Kampf J, Sadrinasab M (2006) The circulation of the Persian Gulf: a Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean (research) 24:560–589 numerical study. Ocean Sci 2:27–41 Qatar Digital Library File 9/23 (1944) “File 9/23 I Fishing schemes in King GRD (2004) The traditional mosques of Dalma, Abu Dhabi Emir- Persian Gulf” [5r] (9/80), British Library: India Office Records ate. Tribulus (journal of the Emirates Natural History Group) and Private Papers, IOR/R/15/2/368. In: Qatar Digital Library. 14:23–32 h tt p s :/ / w w w . q dl . q a / a r c h i ve / 8 10 5 5/ v dc _ 1 00 0 2 6 19 6 3 8 6. 0 x0 0 0 Kuronuma K, Abe Y (1972) Fishes of Kuwait. Kuwait Institute for 049. Accessed 10 Nov 2020 Scientific Research, Kuwait City Qatar Digital Library File 17/16 (1944) “File 17/16 Fish Industry Lorimer JG (1908) Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman and Central in Muscat (Dr. Bertram’s Visit to Muscat)” [14r] (27/212), Arabia, vol II. Geographical and Statistical, Superintendent Gov- British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, ernment Printing, Calcuta IOR/R/15/6/463. In: Qatar Digital Library. https:// www. qdl. qa/ Lorimer JG (1915) Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, vol I. Historical. archi ve/ 81055/ vdc_ 10007 61989 18. 0x000 01c. Accessed 2 Nov Part II, Superintendent Government Printing, Calcuta 2020 Makharadze Z, Kvirkvelia G, Murvanidze B et al (2017) Kuwait-Geor- Rakha K, Al-Salem K, Neelamani S (2007) Hydrodynamic Atlas for gian archaeological mission - archaeological investigations on the Arabian Gulf. J Coast Res SI 50:550–554 the Island of Failaka in 2011–2017. Bull Georgian Natl Acad Sci Randall JE (1995) Coastal fishes of Oman. University of Hawaii Press, 11:177–186 Honolulu Maritan L, Iacumin P, Zerboni A et al (2018) Fish and salt: the suc- Reynolds RM (2002) Oceanography. In: Munawar M (ed) The Gulf cessful recipe of White Nile Mesolithic hunter-gatherer-fishers. Ecosystem, Health and sustainability. Backhuys, Leiden, pp J Archaeol Sci 92:48–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jas. 2018. 02. 23–40 008 Russ H, Petersen A (2013) Fish and fishing during the late Islamic Mierzejewska M (2021) Evidence for local, regional and interregional period at Rubayqa, northern Qatar: preliminary results (poster). exchange networks on Failaka: some remarks on late Islamic Proc Semin Arab Stud 43:277–283 pottery from Kharaib al-Dasht. Arab Archaeol Epigr 1–13 Serjeant RB (1968) Fisher-folk and fish-traps in al-Baḥ rain. Bull Sch Mierzejewska M (2019) Hearths, ovens and fishery: Kharaib al-Dasht Orient Afr Stud 31:486–514 as a case of Late Islamic fishing village (Jazirat Faylaka). Arab Slot BJ (1991) The origins of Kuwait. Brill, Leiden, New York, Kob- Archaeol Epigr 30:263–279 enhave, Köln Monchot H, Wouters W, Van Neer W (in press) Animal bones from Sommer C, Schneider W, Poutiers J-M (1996) The living marine Al-Qusur (Kuwait). In: Bonnéric J (ed) Al-Qusur, a Christian resources of Somalia. FAO species identification field guide for settlement from Early Islam off Kuwait Bay, vol. 1. Final publi- fishery purposes, FAO, Rome cation of the French-Kuwaiti Archaeological Mission in Failaka Swift SA, Bower AS (2003) Formation and circulation of dense water (2011–2018. NCCAL & IFPO, Kuwait City in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. J Geophys Res 108:3004. https://doi. Murray H (1845) The travels of Marco Polo, greatly amended and org/ 10. 1029/ 2002J C0013 60 enlarged from valuable early manuscripts recently published by Uerpmann M (2017) Faunal remains from the Islamic fort at Luluyyah the French society op geography and in Italy by Count Baldelli (Sharjah, UAE). Arab Archaeol Epigr 28:2–10 Boni. With copious notes, illustrating the routes and observa- Van Der Laan R, Eschmeyer WN, Fricke R (2014) Family-group tions of the author, and comparing them with those of more names of Recent fishes. Zootaxa 3882:001–230 recent travellers. Third edition. Oliver & Boyd, Tweeddale Von den Driesch A, Dockner A (2002) Animal exploitation in medi- Court; And Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., Edinburgh-London eval Siraf/Iran, based on the faunal remains from the excavation 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 29 of 29 211 at the Great Mosque (seasons 1966–1973). Bonn Zool Beitr Yeomans L, Beech M (2021) An aid to the identification of fish bones 50:227–247 from southeast Arabia: the influence of reference collections on Vorenger J (2016) Fishing at Qal’at al-Bahrain, archipelago of Bah- taxonomic diversity. Int J Osteoarchaeol 31:3–17. https://doi. or g/ rain, from the Early Dilmun (2200 BC) to the Middle Islamic 10. 1002/ oa. 2920 period (13–16th centuries AD). Cybium 40:93–103 Yeomans L (2015) Preliminary report on fish remains from the 18th- Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to and 19th-century pearl fishing and trading settlement of Al jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Zubārah, Qatar. Environ Archaeol 21:381–388 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences Springer Journals http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/fishing-at-the-late-islamic-settlement-in-khar-ib-al-dasht-failaka-jpKmcsxvq0

Loading next page...

References (74)

J. Bishop (2003)
History and current checklist of Kuwait's ichthyofauna
Journal of Arid Environments, 54
J. Desse, N. Desse-Berset (1990)
La faune : les mammifères et les poissons
, 18
A. Al-Ghadban (2002)
Geological oceanography of the Arabian Gulf
G. Bibby (1969)
Looking for Dilmun
C. Sommer, W. Schneider, J. Poutiers (1996)
The living marine resources of Somalia
Jimsher Chkhvimiani, Vazha Mamiashvili, N. Bakhtadze, E. Kvavadze (2021)
Late Islamic water collection systems on Failaka Island: Preliminary results of the Kuwait–Georgian Archaeological Mission in 2018–2019
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy
(2013)
Fish and fishing during the late Islamic period at Rubayqa, northern Qatar: preliminary results (poster)
(2015)
Failaka Archaeological Research Project . Preliminary results after the first season of excavation at the Kharaib el - Desht site in 2013
(1984)
Western Indian Ocean. Fishing Area 51. FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes
(1915)
Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf , vol I . Historical . Part II , Superintendent Government Printing , Calcuta
N. Khan, M. Munawar, A. Price (2002)
The Gulf Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
(2000)
Traditional fish preservation in Oman : the seasonality of a subsistence strategy
A. Al-Baz, Weizhong Chen, J. Bishop, M. Al-Husaini, S. Al-Ayoub (2007)
On fishing selectivity of hadrah (fixed stake trap) in the coastal waters of Kuwait
Fisheries Research, 84
M. Uerpmann (2017)
Faunal remains from the Islamic fort at Luluyyah (Sharjah, UAE)
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 28
M. Beech (2001)
In the land of the ichthyophagi : modelling fish exploitation in the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman from the 5th millennium BC to the Late Islamic period
(2005)
Chapter 5, Part 3. In: Insoll T (ed) The land of Enki in the Islamic Era
(2016)
Tell F6 on Failaka Island. Kuwaiti-Danish Excavations 208-2012. NCCAL and Jutland Archaeological Society and Moesgaard Museum
A. Al-Baz, M. Al-Husaini, J. Bishop (2013)
Intertidal Fixed Stake Net Trap (Hadrah) Fishery in Kuwait: Distribution, Catch Rate and Species Composition
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Biological, Biomolecular, Agricultural, Food and Biotechnological Engineering, 7
(2011)
Les poissons du Tell Akkaz ( Koweït )
B. Slot (1991)
The origins of Kuwait
G. Bianchi (1993)
The living marine resources of Namibia : FAO species identification field guide for fishery purposes
(2012)
Abu-Laban A (2016) Tell F6 on Failaka Island. KuwaitiDanish Excavations 208–2012
黒沼勝造, Yoshitaka Abe (1972)
Fishes of kuwait
(2012)
Palace, mosque, and tomb at al-Ruwayḍah, Qatar
(1988)
Fishing stations of the coast of Oman: a theme of ethno-archaeological research
(2002)
Animal exploitation in medieval Siraf/Iran, based on the faunal remains from the excavation Page
L. Blue, K. Strutt, P. Sheehan, Peter Jackson, M. Beech (2013)
Developing an integrated policy for maritime and coastal heritage of the UAE – a collaborative approach
L. Maritan, P. Iacumin, A. Zerboni, G. Venturelli, G. Sasso, V. Linseele, S. Talamo, S. Salvatori, D. Usai (2018)
Fish and salt: The successful recipe of White Nile Mesolithic hunter-gatherer-fishers
Journal of Archaeological Science, 92
Section II: Western Side of the Gulf
(1915)
Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, vol I. Historical
(2016)
Fishing at Qal’at al-Bahrain, archipelago of Bahrain, from the Early Dilmun (2200 BC) to the Middle Islamic period (13–16th centuries AD)
(2002)
Oceanography. In: Munawar M (ed) The Gulf Ecosystem
J Kampf (2006)
10.5194/os-2-27-2006
Ocean Sci, 2
R. Serjeant (1968)
Fisher-folk and fish-traps in al-Baḥrain
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 31
(1992)
Abundance of fish caught by stake traps (hadra) in the intertidal zone in Doha, Kuwait bay
(1969)
Moddeling fish exploitation in the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman from the 5th millenium BC to the Late Islamic period
(2007)
Hydrodynamic Atlas for the Arabian Gulf
M. Mierzejewska (2019)
Hearths, ovens and fishery: Kharaib al‐Dasht as a case of Late Islamic fishing village (Jazirat Faylaka)
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy
J. Lorimer (1972)
Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman and Central Arabia
(2012)
Preliminary report on the archaeological survey of joint Kuwaiti-Polish Mission. Failaka Pawlicki F (2015) Preliminary report on the archaeological survey of the joint Kuwaiti-Polish mission
(2006)
under a Creative Commons License. Ocean Science The circulation of the Persian Gulf: a numerical study
J. Randall, J. Hoover (1995)
Coastal Fishes of Oman
(2012)
Preliminary report on the archaeological survey of joint Kuwaiti-Polish Mission
File 9/23 I Fishing schemes in Persian Gulf
J.C.F Salles (1988)
S. Patitucci-G. Uggeri, Failakah. Insediamenti Medievali Islamici. Ricerche e scavi nel Kuwait.
, 65
M. Mierzejewska (2021)
Evidence for local, regional and interregional exchange networks on Failaka: Some remarks on late Islamic pottery from Kharaib al‐Dasht
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy
(2015)
Failaka Archaeological Research Project. Preliminary results after the first season of excavation at the Kharaib el-Desht site
AF Al-Baz, MM Al-Husaini, JM Bishop (2003)
Intertidal fixed stake net trap (hadrah) fishery in Kuwait: distribution, catch rate and species composition
Int J Agric Sci Eng, 7
(2004)
The traditional mosques of Dalma , Abu Dhabi Emirate
(2004)
The traditional mosques of Dalma
(1908)
Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf
S. Swift, A. Bower (2003)
Formation and circulation of dense water in the Persian/Arabian Gulf
Journal of Geophysical Research, 108
H. Naser (2014)
Marine Ecosystem Diversity in the Arabian Gulf: Threats and Conservation
(1998)
Comments on two vertebrate samples from early Jazirat al-Hulaylah (5th-9th c. AD) and Islamic Julfar (mid14th-16th c. AD)
Archaeological landscape characterization in Qatar through satellite and aerial photographic analysis , 2009 to 2010
Richard LAAN, W. Eschmeyer, R. Fricke (2014)
Family-group names of Recent fishes.
Zootaxa, 3882
File 17/16 Fish Industry in Muscat (Dr. Bertram's Visit to Muscat)
(2017)
Islamic archaeology on the north western cost of Failaka Island. Archaeological, analytical and comparative study
K. Carpenter, F. Krupp, D. Jones, U. Zajonz (1997)
Living marine resources of Kuwait, eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates
(2013)
Fish and fishing during the late Islamic period at Rubayqa
(2018)
Late Islamic fishing industry in the Gulf: the case of Kharāib al-Dasht, Jazīrat Faylakā
(2015)
Preliminary report on the archaeological survey of the joint Kuwaiti-Polish mission, Failaka Island
RM Reynolds, M Munawar (2002)
Oceanography
The Gulf Ecosystem, Health and sustainability
Z. Makharadze, G. Kvirkvelia, B. Murvanidze, Jimsher Chkhvimiani, Sultan Duweish, Hamed Mutairi, D. Lordkipanidze
Kuwait-Georgian Archaeological Mission-Archaeological Investigations on the Island of Failaka in 2011-2017
(1984)
Failakah: insediamenti medievali islamici. Ricerche e scavi nel Kuwait, ”L’Erma di
A. Von-Den-Driesch, A. Dockner (2002)
Animal exploitation in medieval Siraf, Iran, based on the faunal remains from the excavations at the Great Mosque (seasons 1966-1973)
, 50
(2011)
Archaeological landscape characterization in Qatar through satellite and aerial photographic analysis
(1856)
Extracts from a report on the harbour of grane ( or Kuwait ) , and the Island of Pheleechi in the Persian Gulf , Prepared in November 1839
(2011)
Les poissons du Tell Akkaz (Koweït). In: Gachet-Bizollon J (ed) Le tell d’Akkaz au Koweït
MJ Beech, T Insoll (2005)
Chapter 5, Part 3
The land of Enki in the Islamic Era
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
L. Yeomans, M. Beech (2020)
An aid to the identification of fish bones from southeast Arabia: The influence of reference collections on taxonomic diversity
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
L. Yeomans (2016)
Preliminary report on fish remains from the 18th- and 19th-century pearl fishing and trading settlement of Al Zubārah, Qatar
Environmental Archaeology, 21
(2015)
A (eds) (2018) Al-Qurainiyah, Failaka

Publisher: Springer Journals
Copyright: Copyright © The Author(s) 2021
ISSN: 1866-9557
eISSN: 1866-9565
DOI: 10.1007/s12520-021-01434-w
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The Kharā’ib al-Dasht settlement, located on the north-eastern coast of the island of Failaka in Kuwait, has been excavated systematically since 2013 by the Kuwaiti-Polish Archaeological Mission. The investigated area yielded remains dated to the Late Islamic period, from the late seventeenth to the nineteenth century. In the northernmost part of the site, a fish processing area was uncovered, while the remains of residential structures (houses 1 and 2), as well as a mosque, were discovered in the eastern part of the site. Concentrations of fireplaces, hearths and ovens were discovered inside the houses and courtyards of what seems to be the centre of the settlement as well as from the periphery of the site. Fishing was evidenced not only by the presence of fish bones but also by recovered fishing technologies, including the remains of stone fish traps that were discovered in the coastal waters near to the site. The excavations yielded 12,182 bones of marine fishes. Twenty eight families are represented, including six families of cartilaginous fishes. Ariidae bones were most numerous followed by Haemulidae, Sciaenidae and Carcharhinidae. The analysis of the assemblage shows that fishing could have been of great importance to the inhabitants of the settlement. Moreover, we attest different patterns in the fish assemblages between the two different parts of the village. The fish processing area can be seen as a workplace, while the daily activity took place in the village. These differences can also be used to shed light on the fishing techniques these people used. Keywords Late Islamic period · Late Islamic settlement · Fish processing · Fishing · Fishing techniques Introduction from at least the third millennium BC until the Late Islamic period (Bibby 1969, pp. 195–212; Højlund and Abu-Laban Failaka Island lies in the Arabian Gulf, some 20 km off the 2016; Grassili and Di Miceli 2018). Early twentieth century Kuwaiti coast (Fig. 1). The results of archaeological research texts state that the primary occupations of Failaka’s inhabit- conducted since the 1950s indicate that the island was settled ants were fishing and, to a lesser extent, farming. Although the presence of freshwater sources is mentioned in some tex- tual evidence (Persian Gulf Gazetteer 1904, p. 56; Lorimer This paper is dedicated to the memory of Marta Mierzejewska. 1908, p. 513), including sixteenth century Portuguese maps that label Failaka as Ilha de Aguada, meaning ‘island of This article is part of the Topical Collection on Fishing Over the Millennia the water well’ (Slot 1991, p. 59), recent discoveries by the Kuwaiti-Georgian Archaeological Mission indicate that by * Urszula Iwaszczuk the Late Islamic period, the island’s inhabitants also col- uiwaszczuk@iksio.pan.pl lected rainwater (Chkhvimiani et al. 2021). Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Kharā’ib al-Dasht (20°27′47.45″N, 48°18′59.22″E) Academy of Sciences, Nowy Świat 72, 00-330 Warsaw, was a large Late Islamic settlement, the remains of which Poland stretch approximately 600 m along Failaka’s north-eastern Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University coast (Fig. 1). The site was first registered during a survey in of Warsaw, Prosta 69, 00-838 Warsaw, Poland 1976 and dated to the Late Islamic period (AD 1650–1870) Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, (Patitucci and Uggeri 1984, p. PL. XXXV:a; Mierzejew- 1000 Brussels, Belgium ska 2021). Regular archaeological investigations at the site Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie have been conducted since 2013 by the Kuwaiti-Polish Przedmieście 26/28, 00-927 Warsaw, Poland Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 211 Page 2 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Fig. 1 Location of Failaka Island and Kharā’ib al-Dasht (top) (S. Lenarczyk, P. Zakrze- wski), map of the site (bottom) (drawing by M. Puszkarski); fish traps are numbered from 1 to 8 Archaeological Mission, co-organised by the Polish Centre The goal of this paper is to present the analysis of the of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw, and fish remains demonstrating that fishing and fish processing the National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters, Kuwait. were conducted by the Late Islamic inhabitants of Kharā’ib Six seasons of excavation uncovered parts of the settlement al-Dasht. — a small hill with a cluster of ovens, hearths and fireplaces in the north, and the remains of two houses and a mosque in the east (Fig. 1). The site yielded numerous finds character - Chronology istic of fishing, mostly fishing net weights, anchors and metal hooks. In addition, numerous animal remains were excavated Two main chronological phases have been identified at the inside the structures and around them, including many fish site. Research of the earliest phase, I, in over a dozen test bones. The waterfront area of the site was also investigated, trenches below the foundation levels of the houses and the and several fish traps were registered there. mosque has, to date, not uncovered any structural remains 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 3 of 29 211 that would indicate residential activity. The presence of clay specimens from the collection of the institute to esti- ovens and hearths of the same type as were found within the mate the size of sharks and fish of the Ariidae family. houses and in the northern part of the site dated to the later The identification of fish remains from the Persian Gulf phase was characteristic here. Based on the pottery recov- region is, in general, problematic (Yeomans and Beech ered from the test trenches, which was excavated below the 2021). The similarity of the remains of fish from the foundation level of the mosque, phase I was dated to the same family complicates precise determination of the Late Islamic 1a (approximately AD 1650–1720). Phase II, bones, as does the state of preservation of the remains evidenced by the fishing huts in the fish processing area and their fragmentation. Therefore, most of the remains and the houses, was dated to the Late Islamic 1b–2a (AD from Kharā’ib al-Dasht were identified to the family 1720–1870) based on the pottery found on the plateau in level, while identification to the genus or species level the northern part of the site and from the two houses. As the was only possible in a very limited number of cases. The mosque yielded only scarce ceramic material, it is impos- characteristic elements used for the identification of the sible to provide reliable dating on this basis (Mierzejewska fish remains depended on the level of accuracy of the 2021). determinations. In the case of the determination to the Based on the accounts of a plague in AD 1839 that led family level, well-preserved characteristic cranial ele- to the depopulation of Failaka (Jones 1856, p. 51), Kharā’ib ments and vertebrae were used. In the case of the iden- al-Dasht was likely deserted in the mid-nineteenth century. tification to the genus/species level, only some elements However, it is possible that some seasonal activities con- were taken into consideration: tinued in the northern part of the site, perhaps even until the beginning of the twentieth century, as indicated by the a. Vertebrae: cartilaginous fish, Chanos chanos, Pampus presence of pottery that has been found in modern pits and argenteus, Pseudorhombus sp., Euthynnus affinis (exclu- landfills (Mierzejewska 2021). sively last caudal vertebrae) and Sarda sarda (exclu- sively last caudal vertebrae) b. Neurocranium: Pomadasys sp., Pomadasys stridens, Material and methods Otolithes sp., Argyrops spinifer, Tenualosa ilisha c. Oromandibular, hyoid and pectoral bones: Pomadasys Based on concentrations of pottery as well as the installa- sp. (articular, basioccipital, ceratohyal, cleithrum, tions, including the presence of structures identified during dentary, entopterygoid, epihyal, interopercular, max- a survey, several areas were selected for excavation. It is illa, opercle, palatinum, parasphenoid, pharyngeal important to note that the research is still at a preliminary plate, postcleithrum, posttemporal, premaxilla, pre- stage and the following paper only discusses the material opercle, quadrate, supracleithrum and vomer); Plat- uncovered from selected ovens and layers identified in the ycephalus indicus (articular, basioccipital, ceratohyal, fish processing area, in house 1 and below the foundation cleithrum, dentary, epihyal, hyomandibular, palati- level of the mosque. num and quadrate); Otolithes sp. (articular, dentary Animal remains were successively registered and col- and premaxilla); Acanthopagrus sp. (dentary, max- lected by hand and by sieving through a 5-mm mesh illa and premaxilla); Argyrops spinifer (premaxilla); during field work. Archaeoichthyological material was Sparidentex sp. (maxilla and premaxilla); Chelon separated from other remains and has been undergoing sp. (vomer); Chirocentrus nudus (dentary); Plector- continued identification since 2017. The remains of cut- hinchus sp. (premaxilla); Pseudotolithus sp. (premax- tlefish (Mollusca) were also included in the analysis as a illa); and Siganus sp. (cleithrum) common marine resource that can be obtained using the same techniques as for fish. Mammal bones await analysis. The variations in size between fish of different spe- The fish remains were dry and partially weathered to a cies within a family group were too significant to under- similar degree, but a large proportion of them were pre- take the assessment of size without knowing the species. served, including complete or nearly complete skeletons. Therefore, the discussion concerning the established size Most of the contexts (especially the lower parts of the of fish must be limited to catfish of the Ariidae family ovens and layers adjacent to the ovens) contained a large and cartilaginous fish widely represented in the reference proportion of the burned bones and had been mixed with collection. ash. The total number of the studied remains amounted to According to the FAO and other guides (Kuronuma and 12,182 fragments. Abe 1972; Fischer and Bianchi 1984; Carpenter et al. 1997, The identification of the fish remains was carried pp. 121–122) as well as the updated checklist by Bishop out at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, (Bishop 2003), the Ariidae family is represented in the Brussels. The excavated remains were also compared to region by only four species: Netuma bilineata, Plicofollis 1 3 211 Page 4 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 dussumieri, Plicofollis layardi and Netuma thalassina. Description of the contexts and general Only Netuma thalassina may exceed 75 cm SL, reach- results ing up to 185 cm TL (Sommer et al. 1996, p. 376). How- ever, according to Randall (1995), the length of individu- Phase I (Late Islamic 1a, AD 1650–1720). als > 100 cm should be carefully verified. On the other hand, the common length in this species is similar to the Fish remains from the mosque area length of the remaining three species. Based on the shape of the neurocrania, it seems that only two of them were pre- The mosque at Kharā’ib al-Dasht was situated a few dozen sent in the archaeoichthyological material from Kharā’ib metres north of house 1 (Fig. 1). It was most likely located al-Dasht, but due to the lack of reference material, it is outside the residential area as no residential structures were impossible to determine the species with certainty. There- found in the proximity of the mosque. The outline was fore, the remains present in the assemblage from the site typical for small mosques of the Late Islamic period found were compared with specimens of Netuma thalassina, the in the region (Petersen and Grey 2012; Al-Mutairi 2017, only Ariidae species from the region available in the refer- 276–83; King 2004, pls. 4, 7, 11). The entire unit measured ence collection. The size of catfish (SL) was, for the most 19 × 20 m and consisted of a prayer room with pillars and part, provided in three groups: small (< 30 cm), medium- a courtyard (ṣaḥn) surrounded by a wall. Nearly no animal sized (30–40 cm) and large (> 50 cm). remains were found in the mosque, except for two small The size of sharks was also established based on the unidentified fish bones that were recovered from the walk - reference collection. The analysed vertebrae were com- ing level of the courtyard (Table 1). Test trenches, however, pared with the vertebrae of individuals of known size. The revealed remains of clay ovens below the foundation level shark size groups were defined based on the proportions of of the mosque. Due to the limited scale of the excavations vertebrae depending on their position in the skeleton char- in this area, the ovens remained unexplored, but a small acteristic of the orders/families of these cartilaginous fish. number of fish remains were found in the layers around The last caudal vertebrae were not used for the size esti- them, providing the only evidence of fish processing from mation. The size (TL) was analysed in the following class the oldest phase, I. Details of the fish composition are groups: < 50 cm, 51–100 cm, 101–150 cm, 151–200 cm given in Table 1. Cranial elements of catfish of the Arii- and > 200 cm. dae family are most common (35 fragments) followed by The material contained a large number of vertebrae of the vertebrae of the requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae). Six bony fish. Therefore, the series of measurements of the other taxa were represented by only a few bone fragments. maximum width of the vertebral centrum were taken. The A fragment of a cuttlebone of the cuttlefish (Sepiidae) was differences in size between the different precaudal vertebrae also registered (Table 1). of one individual are much smaller than those of caudal ver- tebrae; for that reason, only the measurements of precaudal Phase II (Late Islamic 1b–2a, AD 1720–1870). vertebrae were taken into consideration. The results were presented as a series of diagrams and showed only general Fish remains from the fish processing area tendencies. A number of individual specimens (NISP) were Research in the northern part of the site was concentrated recorded for all contexts. The minimum number of indi- on a small plateau, 40 × 60 m (Fig. 2), which was distinctive viduals (MNI) was counted only for closed contexts, such due to the abundance of small clay ovens and hearths (88 as ovens, hearths, fireplaces and pits that were most likely recorded, 20–40 cm in diameter) (Fig. 3) as well as refuse sealed naturally or artificially shortly after the deposition pits. The only excavated remains of architecture were two of supplies or waste. The MNI of each taxon was esti- small single-roomed structures measuring approximately mated based on the single element of the skeleton most 4 × 8 m each, both very poorly preserved. The remains of frequently represented, taking the size of the bones into hut 1 were identified only by the lowest series of stones. consideration as well. Its walls, 0.6–0.8 m wide, were built from beachrock slabs The presentation of families is based on the latest tax- arranged in two rows and bonded with silt mortar mixed onomic classification of recent fish (Van Der Laan et al. with lime, while the space between the stones was filled 2014). with smaller rocks. In the case of hut 2, the outline of the Cut marks were recorded as well as traces of burning; structure was established based on a barely visible shadow however, the processes of butchery were not discussed in foundation wall. the paper as only three cranial elements of Haemulidae exca- A preliminary stratigraphic analysis suggests the presence vated in house 1 bore them. of two phases of use in this area. The oldest phase, I, was 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 5 of 29 211 1 3 Table 1 Fish remains from Kharā’ib al-Dasht: NISP and relative frequencies of the finds Taxon Late Islamic 1a Islamic 1b–2a Mosque area Fish processing area House 1 Layers Layers Pits Installa- Total Layers Pits Installations Total tions n n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Orectolobiformes Orectolobidae (carpet sharks) 21 0.49 21 0.20 Lamniformes Lamnidae (mackerel sharks) 1 0.10 1 0.07 2 0.05 2 0.02 Carcharhiniformes Triakidae (houndsharks) 3 0.29 1 0.33 1 0.77 5 0.34 3 0.07 3 0.03 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 13 225 21.66 113 36.93 29 22.31 367 24.88 228 5.28 115 2.67 46 2.41 389 3.70 Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) 31 2.98 6 1.96 9 6.92 46 3.12 5 0.12 5 0.05 Myliobatiformes Myliobatidae (eagle rays) 76 1.76 76 0.72 Batoidea (rays) indet 1 35 3.37 20 6.54 3 2.31 58 3.93 102 2.36 65 1.51 29 1.52 196 1.86 Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish) indet 1 5 0.48 3 0.98 1 0.77 9 0.61 8 0.19 6 0.14 14 0.13 Total Chondrichthyes 15 300 28.87 143 46.73 43 33.08 486 32.95 424 9.82 207 4.81 75 3.93 706 6.71 Clupeiformes Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 11 1.06 18 5.88 6 4.62 35 2.37 20 0.46 98 2.28 26 1.36 144 1.37 Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) 2 0.65 1 0.77 3 0.20 1 0.02 16 0.37 14 0.73 31 0.29 Gonorynchiformes Chanidae (milkfish) 1 0.10 2 0.65 3 2.31 6 0.41 9 0.21 1 0.05 10 0.10 Siluriformes Ariidae (sea catfish) 35 42 4.04 9 2.94 3 2.31 54 3.66 711 16.47 851 19.79 529 27.70 2091 19.87 Beloniformes Belonidae (needlefish) 1 0.02 1 0.01 Scorpaeniformes Platycephalidae (flatheads) 8 0.77 2 0.65 5 3.85 15 1.02 31 0.72 47 1.09 13 0.68 91 0.86 Perciformes Serranidae (groupers) 13 1.25 14 4.58 3 2.31 30 2.03 73 1.69 58 1.35 14 0.73 145 1.38 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, 3 7 0.67 1 0.33 1 0.77 9 0.61 28 0.65 6 0.14 9 0.47 43 0.41 trevally) Lutjanidae (snappers) 4 0.09 4 0.04 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rub- 2 5 0.48 8 2.61 1 0.77 14 0.95 376 8.71 111 2.58 14 0.73 501 4.76 berlips, hotlips) Sparidae (porgies, seabreams) 1 3 0.29 5 1.63 8 0.54 34 0.79 33 0.77 1 0.05 68 0.65 Lethrinidae (emperors) 5 0.48 5 0.34 6 0.14 2 0.05 5 0.26 13 0.12 Nemipteridae (threadfin breams) 5 0.12 5 0.05 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 8 55 5.29 12 3.92 4 3.08 71 4.81 159 3.68 185 4.30 81 4.24 425 4.04 Polynemidae (threadfins) 1 0.02 1 0.01 Mugilidae (mullets) 2 13 1.25 3 0.98 16 1.08 4 0.09 1 0.02 6 0.31 11 0.10 Siganidae (rabbitfish) 2 0.05 1 0.02 3 0.03 Sphyraenidae (barracuda) 1 0.10 1 0.07 2 0.05 3 0.16 5 0.05 Trichiuridae (cutlassfishes) 1 0.10 4 1.31 5 0.34 8 0.19 33 0.77 41 0.39 Scombridae (mackerels) 2 0.19 2 0.65 4 0.27 Stromateidae (silver pomfret) 1 0.33 1 0.07 211 Page 6 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 only partially investigated and yielded 12 ovens and hearths which were not explored. Seventy-six of the 88 installations and two huts, corresponding to phase II in house 1, suggest the period of most intense activity. The analysed archaeoich- thyological material from this area was collected from only ten ovens and five pits (Table 1). The activities associated with fishing and fish process- ing in this part of the site were confirmed by bones dis- covered in layers, pits and installations; specifically, these were five pits, three fireplaces, four hearths and three ovens (Appendix Table 5), all dated to the Late Islamic 1b–2a period. Elements of fish bones were predominant in the fills of three pits (pits 2–4). It is very interesting that in the case of pits 3 and 4, where cartilaginous fish vertebrae were more frequent, the number of bony fish remains was small, repre- sented mostly by cranial elements and some vertebrae. On the other hand, cartilaginous fish vertebrae were scarce in pit 2, where bony fish elements were the most abundant (with similar amounts of cranial elements and vertebrae). Addi- tionally, two fragments of cuttlebone were discovered in pit 2. Pits 1 and 5 contained only a few fish remains (Appendix Table 5). Almost no fish bones were registered in the fireplaces (fireplaces 6, 7 and 9), while most of the hearths (hearths 2, 8 and 10) and the ovens (ovens 3, 4 and 5) yielded sparse archaeoichthyological material. Only hearth 1 contained a somewhat larger amount of bones, but these were small fragments, and most of them remain unidentified (Appendix Table 5). More abundant deposits of fish remains were found in the layers between the huts and inside the huts. The number of bony fish remains was almost twice as high as that of sharks and rays (Table 1). Cartilaginous fish were represented exclusively by vertebrae from four families (Lamnidae, Triakidae, Carcharhinidae and Sphyrnidae), among which requiem sharks predominated and some uni- dentified rays and sharks. Bony fish remains belonged to 16 families, with the bones of the Sciaenidae and Ariidae being the most numerous. In addition, bony fish material had a much higher proportion of vertebrae than cranial elements. The remains of Sciaenidae in particular were characterised by the prevalence of vertebrae, while some other families, such as Carangidae, Chanidae, Clupeidae, Mugilidae, Platycephalidae, Scombridae, Sphyraenidae and Trichiuridae. were exclusively represented by verte- brae. Cranial elements were predominant only in the case of catfish of the Ariidae family. The representation of fish in installations and pits varied; in general, the remains of the more numerous specimens were recorded in pits (Appendix Table 6). 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1a Islamic 1b–2a Mosque area Fish processing area House 1 Layers Layers Pits Installa- Total Layers Pits Installations Total tions n n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Pleuronectiformes Paralichthyidae (large-tooth floun- 2 0.05 13 0.30 1 0.05 16 0.15 ders) Teleostei (bony fish) indet 54 572 55.05 80 26.14 60 46.15 712 48.27 2420 56.07 2633 61.23 1118 58.53 6171 58.63 Total Teleostei 105 739 71.13 163 53.27 87 66.92 989 67.05 3892 90.18 4093 95.19 1835 96.07 9820 93.29 Mollusca Sepiidae (cuttlefish) 1 2 2 39 6 13 58 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 7 of 29 211 revealed only two ovens each, though it is necessary to stress that both of these rooms were only partially explored. The analysis of the stratigraphic position of the wall indicates that locus 3 was built first, while the remaining rooms were added at a later time. The final usage phase of the ovens in the northern corner of the courtyard damaged the walls of locus 3, indicating that this area remained in use after locus 3, was abandoned. Fish bones were found in layers and installations regis- tered in the courtyard and inside the rooms, but a few instal- lations in house 1 have not yet been explored. Among the remains that provide evidence of fish processing, fish skel- etal elements seem to be the most significant. Although we were not able to precisely identify a large number of them, as they lacked diagnostic features, many elements were deter- mined to either the family or genus level (Table 1, Appendix Table 7). An abundance of archaeoichthyological material was found on the walking levels of the courtyard (locus 11) and three rooms (loci 3–5). Skeletal elements of bony fish were dominant, but numerous vertebrae of sharks and rays of at least four families and tooth plates of rays of the Myliobati- dae family were also discovered. Sharks were represented Fig. 2 Plan of the northern part of the site (drawing by E. Mizak, P. exclusively by vertebrae, rays by both vertebrae and tooth Zakrzewski) plates, while in the case of bony fish, cranial elements were the most frequent find; vertebrae, fragments of spines and Fish remains from house 1 ribs were also found. As far as the remains of bony fish are concerned, specimens of the Ariidae and Haemulidae The uncovered fragment of house 1 comprised a courtyard (Pomadasys sp.) families were most numerous. In addition, and four rooms adjoining it from the north and east (Fig. 4). a few fragments of cuttlebone were found in this assemblage The courtyard (locus 11) was 6.5 m wide and, so far, has (Table 1). been excavated to a length of approximately 7.5 m. The larg- Fish remains were found in five pits and 13 installations est of the unearthed rooms, locus 3, measured 5.0 × 2.5 m (ovens 3–6, 8–15 and hearth 1) discovered in the courtyard and bordered the courtyard from the north. The best studied and inside the rooms (loci 3–5) (Appendix Table 7). eastern part of the house consisted of three rooms. All were Pits 1–4 contained very few remains, and these were approximately 1.5 m wide. The middle room (locus 5) was almost exclusively bone fragments of bony fish (Table 1, 4.0 m long, flanked by smaller rooms (loci 4 and 10) only Appendix Table 6). Vertebrae and cranial elements were 2.5 m in length. It is plausible that yet another narrow room equally represented in pits 2 and 4, while pits 1 and 3 con- was located to the east of the courtyard, as suggested by tained only a few unidentified bone fragments. The number an uncovered wall fragment leading in that direction. Such of individuals varied in these pits, yet in general, MNI was houses with central courtyards surrounded from all sides by low (Appendix Table 8). narrower rooms are well-known from other Islamic sites, Although it is still uncertain whether pit 5, located east such as Quraniya nearby (Grassili and Di Miceli 2018). of the courtyard (locus 11), belonged to house 1 or not, it House 1 was built from beachrock using a simple method was most likely associated with it. It was the only pit that — its walls, 0.4–0.5 m wide, were composed of a single row contained such a large number of fish bones as well as some of stones, bonded by a mortar of silt and lime. scales (Appendix Table 7). Bony fish remains were the most Every locus in house 1 yielded remains of clay ovens and prevalent, with a large number of cranial and postcranial hearths (Fig. 3), with the largest concentration located in the elements of a catfish of the Ariidae family (almost 2/3 of the northern corner of the courtyard, where a sequence of ovens identified bones), Pomadasys sp. and fish of the Sciaenidae was found arranged one on top of the other. Apparently, family. Shark and ray vertebrae and ray tooth plates were it seems that unused ovens were not removed but served also registered in greater numbers in this assemblage, while as a support for a new installation. In locus 3, ovens and other families were less frequent. Additionally, six fragments hearths were placed along the two longer walls. Loci 4 and 5 of cuttlebone were excavated from pit 5 (Appendix Table 6). 1 3 211 Page 8 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Fig. 3 Typical ovens at Kharā’ib al-Dasht (photo A. Oleksiak, M. Iskra) 1b 1a 2a 2b In total, the remains of 70 individuals of fish from different was relatively high, while others held the remains of only families, including 22 remains belonging to catfish (Arii- one or two individuals (ovens 3, 9, 10 and 15). The hearth dae), were discovered (Appendix Table 8). also contained a low number of individuals (Appendix The ovens yielded skeletal elements of cartilaginous Table 8). and bony fish, of which the latter was prevalent (Table 1). Among the bony fish remains, cranial fragments and ver - Summary: fish remains from phase II (Late Islamic 1b–2a, tebrae of a catfish of the Ariidae family were the most AD 1720–1870) numerous. In the case of oven 5, an entire skeleton was found inside the installation with two additional fragments Overall, 28 fish families were present in the material of bone present in the bottom layer. Other cranial and post- (Table 1) although most of these are represented in very cranial fragments belonged to fish from 13 families, yet low numbers. Due to a lack of sieving using a 2 mm mesh, determination to the genus or species level was possible it is impossible to give clear statements about possible only in a few cases. Cartilaginous fish were represented by catches of small fishes like schooling Clupeidae and other vertebrae of sharks of the Carcharhinidae family and some kinds of small fishes that live close to the coast. unidentified ray vertebrae. Additionally, in oven 12, large A considerable disproportion in the archaeoichthyologi- parts of two partially articulated skeletons of fish from cal material was observed between the assemblages from the Ariidae and Sciaenidae families were uncovered. The the fish processing area and house 1. Therefore, only an MNI in some of the ovens (ovens 4–6, 8, 12, 13 and 14) approximate comparison between these two assemblages 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 9 of 29 211 Table 2 Comparison between the most important fishes in the fish processing area and house 1 Fish processing House 1 area XXXIV-h-10 XXXIV-i-10 Loc.4 n % n % Loc.5 12 3 4 Carcharhinidae 367 52.7 389 9.4 Loc.3 5 Other identified cartilaginous fish 52 7.5 107 2.6 Ariidae 54 7.8 2091 50.4 Loc. 10 Other identified bony fish 223 32.0 1558 37.6 Total 696 100 4145 100 Loc. 11 XLIV-h-1 XLIV-i-1 200 × 150 × 30 m. The remaining structures were circular, with the largest one (no. 9) measuring 14 m in diameter and the other seven (nos. 2–8) ranging between 4.5 and 0 5 m 7.0 m in diameter (Pieńkowska et al. 2015; Pieńkowska and Mierzejewska 2018). Unfortunately, we have no way Fig. 4 Plan of house 1 (drawing by M. Iskra and Z. Kowarska, digit- of confirming beyond any reasonable doubt that these fish ising by M. Puszkarski) traps functioned concurrently with the settlement; such structures, although quite common throughout the Arabian can be made. There was a significant difference in the Gulf, are extremely hard to date (Blue et al. 2013; Beech share of bony and cartilaginous fish between the fishing 2004, 45–47, 71; Breeze et al. 2011, 20–21). Still, it is plau- huts and house 1. Cartilaginous fish was very scarcely sible to assume that they were used at that time, since early represented in house 1, while material from the fishing twentieth century texts demonstrate that fish traps were the huts contained a relatively large share of the remains of prevalent fishing method used in Kuwait and throughout sharks, especially of the Carcharhinidae family (Table 2). the Gulf region (Qatar Digital Library File 9/23 1944, 52). Only three cranial elements of Haemulidae bore cut marks, while burned bones were numerous. The dif- Fish size ferences concerned the state of preservation of the fish remains within the contexts. The large share of burned The analysis of the relative size of bony fish was based bones was observed inside the installations, both in house exclusively on precaudal vertebrae and provided an oppor- 1 and the fish processing area. Such bones were also reg- tunity to explore general trends in the sizes of fish from the istered in a greater number in pits from house 1 but were represented families. The results indicate that the maxi- rare in other contexts (Table 3). mum width of the centrum of precaudal vertebrae was The percentage of catfish bones from the Ariidae fam- between 2 and 15 mm which suggests rather small- and ily found in house 1 was a few times higher than in the medium-sized fish in the case of most families (Fig. 6). fishing huts (Table 2). Their remains seem to be more Only in the case of the most abundant vertebrae of fish concentrated in the installations than in the pits or layers. from the Sciaenidae and Serranidae families it was possible The ovens, hearths and fireplaces from house 1 contained to compare the measurements from two different locations a large share of catfish bones, while in the case of installa- — the fish processing area and house 1. The differences tions located in the fishing huts, over a half of the remains in size are evident only in the case of these two families belonged to cartilaginous fish (Table 4). (Fig. 7) in which the share of the measurements above 15 mm is much higher than in other groups. However, the Fish traps comparison of the results for house 1 and the fish process- ing area proved to be the most interesting. In both cases, the Investigations conducted in the coastal waters surrounding groups of small-/medium-sized and large vertebrae were the island revealed 32 large stone fish traps. Their fences present, but the latter contained evidently larger vertebrae. were not preserved, as they were likely made of less dura- The most common established length of catfish was ble materials, possibly palm branches and leaves (Serjeant between 30 and 40 cm; individuals smaller than 30 cm 1968). As many as nine fish traps were located directly were rare as were those exceeding 50 cm (Fig. 8). The opposite Kharā’ib al-Dasht (Fig. 5). The largest structure low number of the remains of small individuals should be (no. 1) had a roughly rectangular shape and measured not due to the recovery technique employed as the bones 1 3 211 Page 10 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Table 3 Proportions of burned bones inside the different contexts layers, though usually in the vicinity of the installations. No size preference was visible in the installations and lay- Location NSP Burned remains ers. Pit 5, the only pit containing a large number of catfish n % bones, yielded mostly medium-sized individuals and one specimen that was clearly bigger. The measurements of the Fish processing area Layers 1039 50 4.81 maximum width of centrum of precaudal vertebrae came Installations 130 83 63.85 almost exclusively from house 1; they also confirmed the Pits 308 12 3.90 presence of small- and medium-sized catfish (Fig. 6). House 1 Layers 4355 302 6.93 Based on the established size of the fish, it is possible Installations 1923 1387 72.13 to say that sharks of 50 to 100 cm TL were most abundant Pits 91 30 32.97 at the site. Larger sharks and rays were found in the layers, Pit 5 4209 66 1.57 although small fish < 50 cm, as well as medium-sized, were Mosque Layers 121 2 1.65 also registered. However, large sharks measuring 200 cm or more were small in numbers at the site (Fig. 9). The instal- of even very small catfish are large enough to be obtained lations and pits yielded fish of a relatively smaller size, by sieving with 5 mm mesh. A few cases of really large but the remains found inside the installations were addi- individuals, probably measuring over 60 cm, were also tionally standardised to individuals measuring 50–100 cm registered. Catfish remains were most frequently discov - TL. Variation in size among the specimens found in the ered inside the installations but were also found in the Table 4 Comparison of the spatial distribution of cartilaginous and bony fish in the fish processing area and house 1 Fish processing area House 1 n % n % Layers Pits Install Layers Pits Install Layers Pits Install Layers Pits Install Carcharhinidae 225 113 29 52.7 55.7 43.9 228 115 46 12.8 7.2 6.0 Other identified cartilaginous fish 35 7 10 8.2 3.4 15.2 86 21 0 4.8 1.3 0.0 Ariidae 42 9 3 9.8 4.4 4.5 711 851 529 39.8 53.3 69.3 Other identified bony fish 125 74 24 29.3 36.5 36.4 761 609 188 42.6 38.2 24.6 Total 427 203 66 100 100 100 1786 1596 763 100 100 100 Fig. 5 Aerial photograph show- ing fish traps (A. Oleksiak) 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 11 of 29 211 installations was observed only in the case of the Car- uncertain. Perhaps they were only seasonal, as no struc- charhinidae family (Fig. 9). tures dated to the Late Islamic period 1a (phase I) were recorded at the site. On the other hand, evidence of a per- manent settlement, accompanied by very intensive fishing Discussion activity in the Late Islamic period 1b and 2a (phase II), is provided by the large number of excavated structures and Very little is known about fishing and fish processing at fish remains. Kharā’ib al-Dasht in the earliest phase, I. Although such Given that the necessary factor for husbandry and activities certainly took place, as attested by several instal- agriculture — fresh water — was scarce on the island in lations and infrequent fish remains, their nature is rather the Late Islamic period, fishing must have been of great Fig. 6 Comparison of the maximum breadth of the vertebral centrum of families represented in the material 1 3 211 Page 12 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Fig. 7 Comparison of the maximum breadth of the vertebral centrum of Sciaenidae and Serranidae families from different locations the northern Arabian Gulf, any knowledge concern- ing preferences and fish processing in the Late Islamic period is limited to Kharā’ib al-Dasht exclusively. Still, the numerous fish families recorded in the bone assem- blage of the settlement are also known from other Gulf sites from different regions and periods, including the Islamic Period (Beech 1998, 2004, 2005; Von den Dri- esch and Dockner 2002; Russ and Petersen 2013; Yeo- mans 2015; Vorenger 2016; Uerpmann 2017). We must keep in mind that the type of seaf loor, depth of the sea level, salinity and biodiversity differ in the southern and northern part of the Arabian Gulf and the salin- ity, temperature and circulation changes show seasonal Fig. 8 Standard length (SL) of fish from the Ariidae family variability (Al-Ghadban 2002; Reynolds 2002; Swift and Bower 2003; Kampf and Sadrinasab 2006; Rakha importance to the inhabitants of Kharā’ib al-Dasht, as et al. 2007; Naser 2014) which is undoubtedly ref lected demonstrated by the architecture, installations, arte- in the taxonomic composition of fish. Recent research facts and large amounts of fish remains uncovered concerning fishing in the coastal waters of Kuwait shows there. The archaeological evidence points to the exist- a very different species composition from modern-day ence of a fishing village at the site in the eighteenth fish traps than those identified in the material from and the nineteenth centuries. Only a few settlements of Kharā’ib al-Dasht, as well as a smaller range of fish this period has been excavated on Failaka so far, includ- species in recent catches (Al-Baz et al. 2003, 2007). ing a few clusters of sites in the vicinity of Al-Awazim Earlier research by Abou-Seedo (Abou-Seedo 1992, pp. (Makharadze et al. 2017; Chkhvimiani et al. 2021) and 94–95) shows differing results — the abundance of the the remains of the villages in Al-Qurainiyah and Al-Sab- represented families is comparable with the assemblages bahiya (Pawlicki 2012; Grassili and Di Miceli 2018), but from Kharā’ib al-Dasht which was probably linked to the analyses of fish remains have not yet been published. the favourable environmental conditions of the intertidal Furthermore, given the lack of adequate parallels from zones of Kuwait Bay. The fish caught in the recent fish 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 13 of 29 211 Layers Installations Pits Fig. 9 Total length (TL) of sharks and rays from different locations traps on the Failaka shoreline were small- or medium- traps in the shallow inshore waters. This picture is also sized, < 44 cm TL (Al-Baz et al. 2007, pp. 206, Table 3). evident in the case of Kharā’ib al-Dasht where most This shows that only small species or younger individu- of the assemblages contained only small- and medium- als of larger species could have been caught in the fish sized fish. The size of the fish from the experimental 1 3 211 Page 14 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 fish traps described by Al-Baz and co-authors (2007) waters not far from Failaka Island. The remains of large does not indicate that this fishing method could have and very large fish from the layers and pits in house 1 been used to catch larger fish; such fish were available and the fish processing area, as well as the presence of offshore. It seems that the changing environment of the artefacts like anchors and fishing hooks, suggest that the Northern Arab Gulf strongly inf luenced the fish- offshore fishing was also practised by the fishers from ing activity, with changes in the catch rate and species Kharā’ib al-Dasht. composition. The large spectrum of the fish families dem- onstrated by the bones discovered at Kharā’ib al-Dasht Fishing as subsistence strategy suggests that probably all the fish that could be caught were processed and consumed. Cultural preferences seem Based on the archaeological sources, the culinary pref- to be less important here, though they are certainly not erences in the Late Islamic period varied from those of without significance. the present-day market. For example, the catfish (Arii - dae), which was a frequent find at the discussed site, is Fishing techniques applied at the site now largely ignored by the market (both fishers and con- sumers), although the fish is still present in abundance Fishing was most likely undertaken with the use of fish in Kuwaiti waters (Beech 2004, 20–21). It is not clear traps, but other methods of capture in the inshore areas if this is due to cultural influences or a low social stand - were probably also carried out. Fish traps were located ard of the people of Kharā’ib al-Dasht. Other fish, like close to the village, which supports the hypothesis that sharks, are a food taboo for many people in the region, its inhabitants used them. Structures of this type were yet they were in fact consumed by the inhabitants of this also located in other areas surrounding the island, with Late Islamic fishing village. Written accounts also confirm concentrations of fish traps being registered close to shark consumption in Kuwait. For instance, according to other settlements dated to the Late Islamic period (Qatar Lorimer, sharks were very popular among Arab fishers, Digital Library File 9/23 1944, p. 52; Pawlicki 2015). even though only Sunnis would eat them, as they consider Serjeant described fish traps of a similar shape called them to be aphrodisiacs, but also used them as manure hadrah known from Bahrain, which were always built (Lorimer 1915, p. 2316; Serjeant 1968, pp. 488–489). in the waters belonging to the nearby village (Serjeant Although shark consumption was confirmed at numerous 1968, p. 503), although their location was determined sites located throughout the entire Gulf region from the “by the nature of the terrain” (Serjeant 1968, p. 491). Neolithic to the Late Islamic periods (Beech 2004), the Hadrah were common along the shallow shore waters finds do not have a stable pattern. Of the five sites com- of the Arabian Gulf but not used on the South Arabian pared by Monchot (Monchot et al. in press), proportions coasts (Serjeant 1968, p. 489). They were usually the of cartilaginous fish vary between 1 and 40.8%, however, property of those who built them, and as such, they could only at Failaka F5, dated to the Hellenistic period, the have been inherited or rented. It seems probable that number of cartilaginous fish was elevated (40.8%). It is not in the case of a small village, like Kharā’ib al-Dasht, defined how many sharks were included in this number. only the owners of the fish traps held the fishing rights. Most of these fish seem to have been of medium-sized or Although collecting the catch from fish traps was rather have come from juveniles, thus caught close to the shore easy and could have been done by hand, ethnographic (Desse and Desse-Berset 1990). sources indicate that the preparation and maintenance of such structures required considerable expertise (Serjeant Fish preparation and preservation 1968, p. 495). According to some sources, fish for local use were caught in the summer (Qatar Digital Library There are three traditional methods of fish processing File 17/16 1944), yet fish that could be caught using known from historical and ethnographic sources, namely, traps differed depending on the season (Serjeant 1968, p. salting, drying and grilling (ElMahi 2000). Direct proof 509; Beech 2004, pp. 35–42). It seems that usually small- for salting fish is almost impossible to identify archae- and medium-sized fish were obtained in this manner. ologically (Maritan et al. 2018). There is also no clear Large and very large specimens, especially sharks, could evidence for drying fish, but some of the architectural probably be caught from a boat as attested to by the pres- remains, such as the huts located in the northern part of ence of anchors (Serjeant 1968, p. 510). A private letter the site, as well as similar structures found in other areas from February 1947 (Qatar Digital Library File 17/16 of Failaka (Pawlicki 2012, pp. 51–52), were most prob- 1944) confirms that sharks were caught in the offshore ably used for this purpose, given that they seem to be too 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 15 of 29 211 small to have had a residential function. Moreover, such with some fish bones. The presence of a large part of structures are also known from the Omani coast (Costa an unburned catfish skeleton found in the upper part of 1988), where fishing stations, located at some distance ovens 5 and 12 from house 1 may suggest that grilling from villages, included these kinds of small buildings to (understood as baking fish on a grate) was done directly shelter drying fish from the wind, birds and carnivores inside the installation, in the inner partition found in the (Costa 1988, p. 5). middle of the height of the oven. Such a structure was Traditionally, fish intended for drying can be of two present only in some of the ovens. On the other hand, sizes, either very small or large. Very small fish were the constructions could be interpreted as heating instal- either consumed in the region by humans as snacks or lations with fish bones used as fuel; however, such an used as animal feed as described by Marco Polo in the interpretation seems doubtful given their large number thirteenth century: “Another thing you will much won- inside the rooms and a lack of known analogies on the der at is, that all the animals, sheep, oxen, and camels, island (Mierzejewska 2019, pp. 10–11). On this basis, eat fish, because there is no grass, for it is the most arid grilling seems to have been a common practice at the place in the world. These fishes are very small, caught site, at least judging by the number of installations inside in March, April, and May, in wonderful quantities. They house 1 as well as in the northern part of the village are dried, lodged in houses, and given as food to the (Mierzejewska 2019). Although meat preserved in this animals during the whole year. The people eat them also manner remains safe to eat for only a few days (ElMahi when quite alive and newly taken. There are also plenty 2000, p. 105), it seems to have been sufficient for every- of large ones, which being made into a kind of biscuit, day meals. Grilling could also be understood as a means by cutting them into small pieces and drying them in of smoking fish. This technique is impossible to attest the sun, are preserved under cover during the whole based on archaeological remains, but some pits, at least year” (Murray 1845, pp. 329–330). Such a purpose of in house 1, could have been used for such a goal taking drying fish is also known from more recent sources into consideration the elevated number of burned bones. (Qatar Digital Library File 17/16 1944). Even though In general, fish intended for grilling were usually small, the material was sieved, the share of small fish remains while sharks also had a standardised size of between 50 was not high at the site. In particular, the bones of fish and 100 cm. The most frequently grilled specimens were of the Clupeidae family, the most commonly dried fish small- and medium-sized catfish, though many other in the region (ElMahi 2000, 101–2), were infrequent. families were also represented in the assemblages from However, especially in the case of small species such ovens and hearths. It should be noted that different fish as clupeids, it might have been due to the 5 mm mesh were processed in the installations depending on the part chosen during the excavation, which is too wide to keep of the village. Sharks and rays were grilled mostly in the all the small bones. On the other hand, this scarcity may fish processing area, while catfish were found in a greater be explained by the fact that such fish would gener- number only in house 1. In a publication by Monchot and ally be consumed in their entirety, while if it was fed co-authors (Monchot et al. in press), a comparison was to animals, it would not appear in the material inside already made for the most important taxa present at three the structures. Conversely, the remains of large fish, sites in Failaka Island of the earlier chronology — Failaka like sharks and rays, were discovered in the layers in F5 (Hellenistic fortress) and Failaka F6 (a site dated to greater numbers, although this might only be an indirect the Ur III and Dilmun periods), as well as Al-Qusur (a evidence of this kind of processing. Before it could be village from the Early Islamic period located in the mid- dried, a large fish had to be cut into smaller pieces (usu- dle of the island) and Tell Akkaz (inland Kuwait). The ally fillets) and soaked in brine for a day or two (ElMahi high number of Ariidae was only present in Tell Akkaz 2000, 103–4). Meat prepared in this manner should have (Desse-Berset and Desse 2011), where 31.5% of the fish been edible for a long time. bones come from this family and belonged to large fish While the usage of fireplaces and hearths (open measuring 90 cm up to 1 m, which is very different from sources of fire found in a large number especially in the the finds from Kharā’ib al-Dasht. Interestingly, catfish northern part of the site) is rather clear, the construction remains were, in general, rare or even absent, as was of the ovens is difficult to interpret. The clay walls of the the case of oven deposits excavated at Julfar in the UAE intact and usually well-preserved ovens were open with (Beech 1998) dated to mid-fourteenth to sixteenth cen- the formed rim without any visible remains of a grate tury, yet numerous bones of catfish of the Ariidae fam- (Mierzejewska 2019, pp. 10, Table 2). The lower parts ily were identified in the installations from Late Islamic of the discovered ovens contained ashes, usually mixed sites, such as Al Zubārah in northern Qatar (Yeomans 1 3 211 Page 16 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 2015). At this site, the proportion of catfish tended to fish in winter and during the warmest months in summer, decrease after the initial occupation phase of the settle- due to cold or too warm water temperatures (Abou-Seedo ment, namely, from 10% of the bones to less than 4% only 1992). Moreover, similar structures in Oman, called baka- years later (Yeomans 2015). This may indicate that the kir, made of walls lined with stone, were used for keeping presence of catfish bones at the sites may be connected dried and salted fish (Costa 1988, p. 6). Other pits from with the seasonal availability of the fish in the inshore house 1 yielded a very low number of fish remains, which fishing area or the preferences of the consumers. may suggest that they had a different function. The pits There is no doubt that the northern part of Kharā’ib located in the fish processing area contained far less fish al-Dasht fulfilled an economic function, given the abun- bones which makes interpretation difficult. dance of hearths, ovens and refuse pits found there and a large fish trap nearby. The division of the settlement into two parts with fishing huts in the north and a vil- Conclusions lage in the east seems reasonable, as fish processing is a rather foul-smelling activity. Fishing huts were most Although the scale of the excavations at Kharā’ib al- probably used primarily for fish processing. It is uncer- Dasht is still very small and the investigated structures tain whether the fish caught here were intended only for generate even more questions than answers, we now have the fishers and their families or if any surplus was used a better understanding of fishing and fish processing at for local trade with the interior of the island. It seems the site. Fish remains, artefacts and structures associated plausible that at least a part of the fish processed here was with fishing found at the site provide evidence of a small preserved as commercial products. Some written sources community that lived mostly off the sea and its resources, suggest that Failaka provided a large share of the Kuwaiti and fish were their main source of protein. Very little fish supply (Qatar Digital Library File 17/ 16 1944), which is known about fishing and fish processing at Kharā’ib may indicate the involvement of the inhabitants of Kharā’ib al-Dasht in the earliest phase. Although such activities al-Dasht in long-distance trade. The high share of shark certainly took place, the low number of fish remains does remains and the larger size of fish in the fish processing not permit any detailed interpretation. The archaeological area suggest that the fish processed in this location were evidence suggests that in the younger phase, fish were destined for the market. These fish had economic value probably grilled for both direct consumption and short- and were probably preserved to sell elsewhere. The fish term preservation, although other methods of preserva- remains from this area include almost certainly other bones tion, including drying and perhaps salting, could also that were preserved for consumption in the village. There have taken place. The families’ composition and the dif- is supporting evidence for this hypothesis found in the fish ference in fish sizes suggest that bigger fish were pro- traps nearby. While the large fish trap no. 1 was built close cessed in the fish processing area, while smaller fish were to the fish processing area, the small fish traps 2 to 8 were used as food resources in the village itself. The small fish adjacent to the village. traps near the village delivered probably enough food for The discovery of pit 5, located either in one of the rooms daily consumption. Offshore fishing was certainly another surrounding the courtyard or just outside the house, may way to supply the village of large fish which were most be important for our understanding of how food supplies probably prepared and sold for the market. If preservation were stored. Some of the numerous fish remains found was drying or salting or a combination, it is impossible in the pit were articulated, especially the almost com- to state. It seems that fishers used diversified methods plete catfish and of Pomadasys sp. skeletons, with cranial for catching fish; it is more than probable that they used elements as well as vertebrae, which were reported by fish traps but also practised offshore fishing. There is the archaeologists, although they were not documented no direct or indirect evidence for other fishing methods, in situ. The assemblage also contained numerous fish of including the use of baskets or similar organic tools, as different sizes. Therefore, the interpretation of a structure these types of remains were not preserved in the archaeo- as a storage pit and not a waste pit is more probable. It logical materials from Kharā’ib al-Dasht. Nonetheless, also indicates that these fish were kept in a preserved the rich fish bone assemblage from Kharā’ib al-Dasht state. Probably this was a reserve against times when fresh contributes additional information concerning to the role fish was difficult to obtain. The fish traps yielded less of fish in this region. 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 17 of 29 211 Appendix Table 5 Number of identified specimens (NISP) from the fish processing area Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Layers Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Fireplace 6 Fireplace 7 Fireplace 9 Hearth 1 Hearth 2 Hearth 8 Hearth 10 Oven Oven Oven Total 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 Lamniformes Lamnidae 1 1 (mackerel sharks) Carcharhini- Triakidae 3 1 1 5 formes (hound- sharks) Carcharhi- 225 2 48 62 1 3 4 2 10 5 1 4 367 nidae (requiem sharks) Sphyrnidae 31 2 3 6 3 45 (ham- merhead sharks) Sphyrnidae: 1 1 Sphyrna sp. (ham- merhead shark) Batoidea (rays) 35 1 4 15 1 1 1 58 Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous 5 2 1 1 9 fish) indet Total Chondrichthyes 300 0 6 57 79 1 0 4 5 2 10 12 1 5 0 4 486 Clupeiformes Clupeidae: 3 3 Tenualosa ilisha (hilsa shad) Clupeidae 11 12 3 3 3 32 (herrings, sardines, shads) indet Chirocen- 2 2 tridae: Chirocen- trus nudus (whitefin wolf- herring) Chirocentri- 1 1 dae (wolf herrings) indet Gonorynchi- Chanidae: 1 2 3 6 formes Chanos chanos (milkfish) Siluriformes Ariidae (sea 42 2 2 5 3 54 catfish) indet Scorpaeni- Platycephali- 8 1 1 1 2 2 15 formes dae: Plat- ycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) Perciformes Serranidae 13 1 9 4 2 1 30 (groupers) indet Carangidae 7 1 1 9 (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) indet 1 3 211 Page 18 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Table 5 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Layers Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Fireplace 6 Fireplace 7 Fireplace 9 Hearth 1 Hearth 2 Hearth 8 Hearth 10 Oven Oven Oven Total 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 Haemulidae: 1 4 5 Poma- dasys sp. (grunt) Haemulidae 5 1 2 1 9 (grunts, sweetlips, rub- berlips, hotlips) indet Sparidae: 1 1 Acan- thopagrus sp. (sea- bream) Sparidae 3 4 7 (porgies, sea- breams) indet Lethrinidae 5 5 (emper- ors) indet Sciaenidae 55 4 3 5 2 1 1 71 (drums, croakers) indet Mugilidae 13 2 1 16 (mullets) indet Sphyraeni- 1 1 dae (bar- racuda) indet Trichiuridae 1 4 5 (cutlass- fishes) indet Scombridae: 1 1 Euthynnus affinis (tuna) Scombridae 2 1 3 (macker- els) indet Stro- 1 1 mateidae: Pampus argenteus (silver pomfret) Teleostei (bony fish) indet 572 3 63 4 10 3 1 36 7 2 1 6 4 712 Total Teleostei 739 6 106 17 34 0 4 6 6 45 9 5 1 6 4 1 989 Mollusca Sepiidae 2 2 (cuttle- fish) 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 19 of 29 211 Table 6 Number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimum num- Table 6 (continued) ber of individuals (MNI) in the installations and pits located in the Taxon NISP MNI fish processing area Ariidae (sea catfish) indet 2 1 Taxon NISP MNI Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) indet 1 1 Fireplace 6 Chirocentridae: Chirocentrus nudus (whitefin wolf- 2 1 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) indet 3 1 herring) Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 1 1 Scombridae: Euthynnus sp. (tuna) 1 1 head) Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Fireplace 7 indet Batoidea (rays) indet 1 1 Mugilidae (mullets) indet 2 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 3 1 Haemulidae: Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 4 1 indet Serranidae (groupers) indet 9 2 Serranidae (groupers) indet 2 1 Sparidae (porgies, seabreams) indet 1 1 Fireplace 9 Clupeidae: Tenualosa ilisha (hilsa shad) 15 1 Batoidea (rays) indet 1 1 Pit 3 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 4 1 Batoidea (rays) indet 4 2 Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) indet 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 48 3 Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 2 1 Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) indet 3 1 head) Chanidae: Chanos chanos (milkfish) 2 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 2 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 2 1 Hearth 1 indet Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) indet 3 2 Mugilidae (mullets) indet 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) indet 2 1 Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 1 1 Chanidae: Chanos chanos (milkfish) 3 1 head) Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 2 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 3 3 head) Trichiuridae (cutlassfishes) indet 4 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 1 1 Pit 4 Hearth 2 Batoidea (rays) indet 15 2 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) indet 10 3 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 62 2 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 1 1 Triakidae (houndsharks) indet 1 1 Serranidae (groupers) indet 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) indet 5 1 Hearth 8 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) indet 3 1 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) indet 5 1 Stromateidae: Pampus argenteus (silver pomfret) 1 1 Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) indet 6 1 Platycephalidae: Platycephalus indicus (bartail flat- 1 1 Triakidae (houndsharks) indet 1 1 head) Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) indet 3 2 Haemulidae: Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 4 1 Hearth 10 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) indet 5 2 Batoidea (rays) indet 1 1 Scombridae (mackerels) indet 1 1 Oven 3 Serranidae (groupers) indet 4 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 1 1 Pit 5 Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) indet 3 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 1 1 Oven 5 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 4 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) indet 2 1 Pit 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) indet 2 1 Serranidae (groupers) indet 1 1 Pit 2 Batoidea (rays) indet 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) indet 2 1 Sphyrnidae: Sphyrna sp. (hammerhead shark) 3 1 Sparidae: Acanthopagrus sp. (seabream) 1 1 1 3 211 Page 20 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 1 3 Table 7 Number of identified specimens (NISP) from house 1 Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Orectolobi- Orectolo- 21 21 formes bidae (carpet sharks) indet Lamni- Lamnidae 2 2 formes (mack- erel sharks) indet Carcharhini- Triakidae 2 1 3 formes (hound- sharks) indet Carcharhi- 106 1 2 1 5 17 1 4 27 2 1 38 2 58 114 9 1 389 nidae (Req- uiem sharks) indet Sphyr- 4 1 5 nidae (ham- merhead sharks) indet Myliobati- Mylio- 11 34 31 76 formes batidae (eagle rays) indet Batoidea (rays) indet 73 9 1 4 1 8 14 1 6 10 6 58 5 196 Chondrichthyes (cartilagi- 4 1 6 3 14 nous fish) indet Total Chondrichthyes 202 1 11 2 0 9 0 0 1 0 26 1 0 18 28 2 7 84 2 95 199 17 1 706 Clupei- Clupeidae: 1 1 formes Tenu- alosa ilisha (hilsa shad) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 21 of 29 211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Clupeidae 13 5 6 6 9 6 1 97 143 (her- rings, sardines, shads) indet Chirocen- 13 1 1 16 31 tridae (wolf herrings) indet Gonorynchi- Chanidae: 6 1 1 2 10 formes Chanos chanos (milk- fish) Siluriformes Ariidae 394 1 38 211 17 40 2 111 3 192 1 23 7 74 106 844 26 1 2091 (sea catfish) indet Beloni- Belonidae 1 1 formes (needle- fish) indet Scorpaeni- Plat- 15 1 7 2 1 12 1 1 5 1 2 42 1 91 formes ycephal- idae: Plat- ycepha- lus indicus (bartail flathead) Perciformes Serranidae 30 4 2 3 4 2 1 29 1 3 58 7 1 145 (group- ers) indet 211 Page 22 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Caran- 1 1 gidae: Scom- broides sp. (queen- fish) Carangidae 21 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 6 42 (jacks, jack mack- erels, trevally) indet Lutjanidae 1 3 4 (snap- pers) indet Hae- 1 1 mulidae: Plector- hinchus sp. (sweet- lip) Hae- 1 1 mulidae: Poma- dasys stridens (striped piggy) Hae- 160 3 1 1 2 37 2 1 1 2 10 26 100 89 435 mulidae: Poma- dasys sp. (grunt) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 23 of 29 211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Hae- 32 1 2 8 1 2 1 6 5 5 1 64 mulidae (grunts, sweet- lips, rub- berlips, hotlips) indet Sparidae: 1 2 3 Acan- thopa- grus sp. (sea- bream) Sparidae: 1 1 Argyrops spinifer (king soldier bream) Sparidae: 3 3 Spari- dentex sp. (sea- bream) Sparidae 20 6 1 4 28 2 61 (porgies, sea- breams) indet Lethrini- 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 13 dae (emper- ors) indet Nemip- 5 5 teridae (thread- fin breams) indet 211 Page 24 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Sciaeni- 1 1 1 5 1 5 2 16 dae: Otolithes sp. (tiger- tooth croaker) Sciaeni- 4 4 dae: Pseudo- tolithus sp. (croaker) Sciaenidae 78 2 13 2 7 2 44 6 44 1 1 6 6 12 167 13 1 405 (drums, croak- ers) indet Polyne- 1 1 midae (thread- fins) indet Mugilidae 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 11 (mullets) indet Siganidae: 1 1 Siganus sp. (rab- bitfish) Siganidae 1 1 2 (rab- bitfish) indet Sphyraeni- 2 3 5 dae (bar- racuda) indet Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 25 of 29 211 1 3 Table 7 (continued) Taxon Late Islamic 1b–2a Locus 11 (courtyard) Locus 3 Locus 4 Locus East of West of loci 3 Total 5 locus 11 and 4 (court- yard) Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Pit Pit Lay- Oven Oven Oven Oven Oven Pit Lay- Oven Layers Pit 5 Lay- Hearth 1 ers 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 ers 11 12 13 14 15 4 ers 10 ers Trichiu- 7 1 33 41 ridae (cutlass- fishes) indet Pleuronec- Paralich- 13 13 tiformes thyidae: (flatfish) Pseudor- hombus sp. (large- tooth flounder) Paralich- 2 3 thyidae (large- tooth floun- ders) indet Teleostei (bony fish) indet 1692 4 38 505 45 94 12 6 2 294 19 351 7 48 2 31 191 1 173 2582 70 4 6171 Total Teleostei 2470 5 101 754 80 150 2 12 11 2 538 31 606 14 76 3 58 321 2 342 4010 221 10 9820 Mollusca Sepiidae 26 12 3 9 1 6 1 58 (cuttle- fish) 4209 211 Page 26 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Table 8 Number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimum num- Table 8 (continued) ber of individuals (MNI) in the installations and pits located in house Taxon NISP MNI Oven 8, locus 11 (courtyard) Taxon NISP MNI Batoidea (rays) 4 1 Hearth 1, west of locus 3 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 5 1 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 40 2 Ariidae (sea catfish) 1 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 2 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Lethrinidae (emperors) 2 1 Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 2 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Serranidae (groupers) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 7 1 Hearth 2, west of locus 3 Serranidae (groupers) 3 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 1 1 Oven 9, locus 11 (courtyard) Oven 3, locus 11 (courtyard) Ariidae (sea catfish) 2 1 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 1 1 Oven 10, locus 4 Ariidae (sea catfish) 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 2 1 Oven 4, locus 11 (courtyard) Serranidae (groupers) 1 1 Batoidea (rays) 9 1 Oven 11, locus 3 Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 2 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 38 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 3 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 1 1 Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 1 1 Chanos chanos (milkfish) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 2 1 Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) 13 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 6 1 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 5 1 Oven 12, locus 3 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 192 6 Mugilidae (mullets) 1 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 3 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 1 1 Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 2 1 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 9 1 Oven 5, locus 11 (courtyard) Mugilidae (mullets) 3 1 Batoidea (rays) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 44 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 211 10 Serranidae (groupers) 2 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 1 1 Oven 13, locus 3 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 6 1 Batoidea (rays) 14 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 2 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 4 1 Lethrinidae (emperors) 2 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 1 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 7 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 3 2 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 13 1 Lethrinidae (emperors) 1 1 Serranidae (groupers) 4 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 1 1 Oven 6, locus 11 (courtyard) Serranidae (groupers) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 17 2 Sparidae (porgies, seabreams) 1 1 Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 6 1 Oven 14, locus 3 Pleuronectiformes (flatfish) 1 1 Batoidea (rays) 1 1 Mugilidae (mullets) 1 1 Carcharhinidae (Requiem sharks) 27 1 Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 1 1 Ariidae (sea catfish) 23 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 2 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 1 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Mugilidae (mullets) 1 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 2 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 1 1 Serranidae (groupers) 2 1 Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 1 1 Sphyraenidae (barracuda) 3 1 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 1 1 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 27 of 29 211 Funding The research was funded by the Kuwaiti National Council Table 8 (continued) for Culture, Arts and Letters and by the Rector of the University of Taxon NISP MNI Warsaw (micro-grant 2018). Oven 15, locus 3 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 2 1 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 1 1 adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, Pit 2, courtyard (locus 11) as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate Batoidea (rays) 1 1 if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 1 1 article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 2 1 indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 2 1 included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted Pit 4, locus 3 use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright Batoidea (rays) 6 1 holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 1 1 org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. Ariidae (sea catfish) 7 1 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 3 1 Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 2 1 References Lethrinidae (emperors) 2 1 Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 5 1 Abou-Seedo FS (1992) Abundance of fish caught by stake traps (hadra) in the intertidal zone in Doha, Kuwait bay. J Univ Kuwait Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 2 1 (sci) 19:91–99 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 6 1 Al-Baz AF, Al-Husaini MM, Bishop JM (2003) Intertidal fixed stake Pit 5, east of locus 11 (courtyard) net trap (hadrah) fishery in Kuwait: distribution, catch rate and Batoidea (rays) 58 2 species composition. Int J Agric Sci Eng 7:256–261 Al-Baz AF, Chen W, Bishop JM et al (2007) On fishing selectivity Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) 114 3 of hadrah (fixed stake trap) in the coastal waters of Kuwait. Fish Orectolobidae (carpet sharks) 21 1 Res 84:202–209. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fishr es. 2006. 10. 022 Acanthopagrus sp. (seabream) 2 1 Al-Ghadban AN (2002) Geological oceanography of the Arabian Ariidae (sea catfish) 844 22 Gulf. In: Munawar M (ed) The Gulf Ecosystem, Health and sus- tainability. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 23–40 Carangidae (jacks, jack mackerels, trevally) 3 1 Al-Mutairi H (2017) Islamic archaeology on the north western cost Chelon sp. (mullet) 1 1 of Failaka Island. Archaeological, analytical and comparative Chirocentridae (wolf herrings) 16 1 study. NCCAL, Kuwait Clupeidae (herrings, sardines, shads) 97 2 Beech M (1998) Comments on two vertebrate samples from early Jazirat al-Hulaylah (5th-9th c. AD) and Islamic Julfar (mid- Haemulidae (grunts, sweetlips, rubberlips, hotlips) 5 1 14th-16th c. AD). United Arab Emirates Bulletin of Archaeol- Mugilidae (mullets) 7 1 ogy 24:197–203 Nemipteridae (threadfin breams) 5 1 Beech MJ (2004) In the land of Ichthyophagi. Moddeling fish exploi- Otolithes sp. (tigertooth croaker) 5 3 tation in the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman from the 5th mil- lenium BC to the Late Islamic period. Archeopress, Oxford Platycephalus indicus (bartail flathead) 42 2 Beech MJ (2005) Chapter 5, Part 3. In: Insoll T (ed) The land of Enki Pomadasys sp. (grunt) 100 5 in the Islamic Era. Routledge, London-New York-Bahrain Pseudotolithus sp. (croaker) 4 2 Bibby G (1969) Looking for Dilmun. Alfred A, Knopf, New York Pseudorhombus sp. (large-tooth flounder) 13 1 Bishop JM (2003) History and current checklist of Kuwait’s ichthyo- fauna. J Arid Environ 54:237–256 Sciaenidae (drums, croakers) 167 7 Blue L, Strutt K, Sheehan P, et al (2013) Developing an integrated Serranidae (groupers) 58 7 policy for the maritime and coastal heritage of the UAE: a col- Siganidae (rabbitfish) 1 1 laborative approach. In: Weeks L, Watson J (eds) Proceedings Sparidae (porgies, seabreams) 28 2 of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. pp 63–73 Breeze P, Cuttler R, Collins P, Starkey J (2011) Archaeological land- Sparidentex sp. (seabream) 3 1 scape characterization in Qatar through satellite and aerial pho- Tenualosa ilisha (hilsa shad) 1 1 tographic analysis, 2009 to 2010. In: Proceedings of the Seminar Trichiuridae (cutlassfishes) 33 1 for Arabian Studies. pp 13–26 Carpenter KE, Krupp F, Jones DA, Zajonz U (1997) Living marine resources of Kuwait, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. FAO species identification field guide Acknowledgements We would like to thank Wim Van Neer for his hos- for fishery purposes, Food and Agricultural Organization of the pitality in his lab in Brussels. We would like to express our gratitude to United Nations, Rome the Kuwaiti National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters, especially Chkhvimiani J, Mamiashvili V, Bakhtadze N, Kvavadze E (2021) Dr Sultan Al-Duweish, Dr Hamed Al-Mutairi and Mr Talal Al-Saie for Late Islamic water collection systems on Failaka Island: prelimi- their constant support and active participation as well as Joanna Reiche nary results of the Kuwait-Georgian Archaeological Mission in and Mark Ordon for proofreading the text. 1 3 211 Page 28 of 29 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 2018–2019. Arab Archaeol Epigr N/a. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ Naser HA (2014) Marine ecosystem diversity in the Arabian Gulf: aae. 12188 threats and conservation. In: Grillo O (ed) Biodiversity The Costa PM (1988) Fishing stations of the coast of Oman: a theme of Dynamic Balance of the Planet. IntechOpen, London ethno-archaeological research. Proc Semin Arab Stud 18:3–14 Patitucci S, Uggeri G (1984) Failakah: insediamenti medievali islam- Desse J, Desse-Berset N (1990) La faune: les mammifères et les ici. Ricerche e scavi nel Kuwait, ”L’Erma di” Bretschneider, poissons. In: Calvet Y, Gachet J (eds) Failaka, fouilles françaises Rome 1986–1988. Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouil- Pawlicki F (2012) Failaka. Spring 2012. Preliminary report on the lou, Lyon, pp 51–70 archaeological survey of joint Kuwaiti-Polish Mission. Failaka Desse-Berset N, Desse J (2011) Les poissons du Tell Akkaz (Koweït). Pawlicki F (2015) Preliminary report on the archaeological survey of In: Gachet-Bizollon J (ed) Le tell d’Akkaz au Koweït. Maison de the joint Kuwaiti-Polish mission, Failaka Island. Polish Archaeol- l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, Lyon, pp 359–378 ogy in the Mediterranean 24:547–559 ElMahi AT (2000) Traditional fish preservation in Oman: the season- Persian Gulf Gazetteer (1904) Persian Gulf Gazetteer, Part II: Geo- ality of a subsistence strategy. Proc Semin Arab Stud 30:99–113 graphical and descriptive materials, Section II: Western Side of Fischer W, Bianchi G (1984) Western Indian Ocean. Fishing Area 51. the Gulf’ [117v] (234/280), British Library: India Office Records FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Vol. 1. and Private Papers, IOR/R/15/5/366. In: Qatar Digital Library. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome h tt p s :/ / w w w . q dl . q a / a r c h i ve / 8 10 5 5/ v dc _ 1 00 0 4 1 59 0 9 2 3. 0 x0 0 0 Grassili GL, Di Miceli A (eds) (2018) Al-Qurainiyah, Failaka. 023. Accessed 23 May 2021 Kuwaiti-Italian Excavations 2010–2015, vol. 1. Stratigrphy and Petersen A, Grey T (2012) Palace, mosque, and tomb at al-Ruwayḍah, Phases. University of Perugia and NCCAL, Perugia-Kuwait Qatar. In: Starkey JCM (ed) Proceedings of the Seminar for Ara- Højlund F, Abu-Laban A (2016) Tell F6 on Failaka Island. Kuwaiti- bian Studies. Archeopress, Oxford, pp 277–289 Danish Excavations 208–2012. NCCAL and Jutland Archaeo- Pieńkowska A, Mierzejewska M (2018) Late Islamic fishing industry logical Society and Moesgaard Museum, [Aarhus N] in the Gulf: the case of Kharāib al-Dasht, Jazīrat Faylakā. In: van Jones JF (1856) Extracts from a report on the harbour of grane (or Rensburg JJ, Munt H, Power T, Starkey J (eds) Proceedings of the Kuwait), and the Island of Pheleechi in the Persian Gulf, Pre- Seminar for Arabian Studies. Archeopress, Oxford, pp 269–277 pared in November 1839. In Selections from the Records of Pieńkowska A, Mierzejewska M, Nowakowska M (2015) Failaka the Bombay Government. Bombay Education Society’s Press, Archaeological Research Project. Preliminary results after the Bombay first season of excavation at the Kharaib el-Desht site in 2013. Kampf J, Sadrinasab M (2006) The circulation of the Persian Gulf: a Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean (research) 24:560–589 numerical study. Ocean Sci 2:27–41 Qatar Digital Library File 9/23 (1944) “File 9/23 I Fishing schemes in King GRD (2004) The traditional mosques of Dalma, Abu Dhabi Emir- Persian Gulf” [5r] (9/80), British Library: India Office Records ate. Tribulus (journal of the Emirates Natural History Group) and Private Papers, IOR/R/15/2/368. In: Qatar Digital Library. 14:23–32 h tt p s :/ / w w w . q dl . q a / a r c h i ve / 8 10 5 5/ v dc _ 1 00 0 2 6 19 6 3 8 6. 0 x0 0 0 Kuronuma K, Abe Y (1972) Fishes of Kuwait. Kuwait Institute for 049. Accessed 10 Nov 2020 Scientific Research, Kuwait City Qatar Digital Library File 17/16 (1944) “File 17/16 Fish Industry Lorimer JG (1908) Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman and Central in Muscat (Dr. Bertram’s Visit to Muscat)” [14r] (27/212), Arabia, vol II. Geographical and Statistical, Superintendent Gov- British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, ernment Printing, Calcuta IOR/R/15/6/463. In: Qatar Digital Library. https:// www. qdl. qa/ Lorimer JG (1915) Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, vol I. Historical. archi ve/ 81055/ vdc_ 10007 61989 18. 0x000 01c. Accessed 2 Nov Part II, Superintendent Government Printing, Calcuta 2020 Makharadze Z, Kvirkvelia G, Murvanidze B et al (2017) Kuwait-Geor- Rakha K, Al-Salem K, Neelamani S (2007) Hydrodynamic Atlas for gian archaeological mission - archaeological investigations on the Arabian Gulf. J Coast Res SI 50:550–554 the Island of Failaka in 2011–2017. Bull Georgian Natl Acad Sci Randall JE (1995) Coastal fishes of Oman. University of Hawaii Press, 11:177–186 Honolulu Maritan L, Iacumin P, Zerboni A et al (2018) Fish and salt: the suc- Reynolds RM (2002) Oceanography. In: Munawar M (ed) The Gulf cessful recipe of White Nile Mesolithic hunter-gatherer-fishers. Ecosystem, Health and sustainability. Backhuys, Leiden, pp J Archaeol Sci 92:48–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jas. 2018. 02. 23–40 008 Russ H, Petersen A (2013) Fish and fishing during the late Islamic Mierzejewska M (2021) Evidence for local, regional and interregional period at Rubayqa, northern Qatar: preliminary results (poster). exchange networks on Failaka: some remarks on late Islamic Proc Semin Arab Stud 43:277–283 pottery from Kharaib al-Dasht. Arab Archaeol Epigr 1–13 Serjeant RB (1968) Fisher-folk and fish-traps in al-Baḥ rain. Bull Sch Mierzejewska M (2019) Hearths, ovens and fishery: Kharaib al-Dasht Orient Afr Stud 31:486–514 as a case of Late Islamic fishing village (Jazirat Faylaka). Arab Slot BJ (1991) The origins of Kuwait. Brill, Leiden, New York, Kob- Archaeol Epigr 30:263–279 enhave, Köln Monchot H, Wouters W, Van Neer W (in press) Animal bones from Sommer C, Schneider W, Poutiers J-M (1996) The living marine Al-Qusur (Kuwait). In: Bonnéric J (ed) Al-Qusur, a Christian resources of Somalia. FAO species identification field guide for settlement from Early Islam off Kuwait Bay, vol. 1. Final publi- fishery purposes, FAO, Rome cation of the French-Kuwaiti Archaeological Mission in Failaka Swift SA, Bower AS (2003) Formation and circulation of dense water (2011–2018. NCCAL & IFPO, Kuwait City in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. J Geophys Res 108:3004. https://doi. Murray H (1845) The travels of Marco Polo, greatly amended and org/ 10. 1029/ 2002J C0013 60 enlarged from valuable early manuscripts recently published by Uerpmann M (2017) Faunal remains from the Islamic fort at Luluyyah the French society op geography and in Italy by Count Baldelli (Sharjah, UAE). Arab Archaeol Epigr 28:2–10 Boni. With copious notes, illustrating the routes and observa- Van Der Laan R, Eschmeyer WN, Fricke R (2014) Family-group tions of the author, and comparing them with those of more names of Recent fishes. Zootaxa 3882:001–230 recent travellers. Third edition. Oliver & Boyd, Tweeddale Von den Driesch A, Dockner A (2002) Animal exploitation in medi- Court; And Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., Edinburgh-London eval Siraf/Iran, based on the faunal remains from the excavation 1 3 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:211 Page 29 of 29 211 at the Great Mosque (seasons 1966–1973). Bonn Zool Beitr Yeomans L, Beech M (2021) An aid to the identification of fish bones 50:227–247 from southeast Arabia: the influence of reference collections on Vorenger J (2016) Fishing at Qal’at al-Bahrain, archipelago of Bah- taxonomic diversity. Int J Osteoarchaeol 31:3–17. https://doi. or g/ rain, from the Early Dilmun (2200 BC) to the Middle Islamic 10. 1002/ oa. 2920 period (13–16th centuries AD). Cybium 40:93–103 Yeomans L (2015) Preliminary report on fish remains from the 18th- Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to and 19th-century pearl fishing and trading settlement of Al jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Zubārah, Qatar. Environ Archaeol 21:381–388 1 3

Journal

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences – Springer Journals

Published: Nov 1, 2021

Keywords: Late Islamic period; Late Islamic settlement; Fish processing; Fishing; Fishing techniques

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Fishing at the Late Islamic settlement in Kharā’ib al-Dasht, Failaka Island, Kuwait

Fishing at the Late Islamic settlement in Kharā’ib al-Dasht, Failaka Island, Kuwait

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Fishing at the Late Islamic settlement in Kharā’ib al-Dasht, Failaka Island, Kuwait

Fishing at the Late Islamic settlement in Kharā’ib al-Dasht, Failaka Island, Kuwait

References (74)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies