Emma Collett and Dr. David Johnson, Anthropology Department
Introduction
In Petra, Jordan the ancient civilization of the Nabataeans has been studied for hundreds of years. Even with these years of archaeological research and discovery some aspects of the Nabataean culture have not yet been extensively studied. This past Spring term the BYU archaeology department held a field school in Petra. During this field school, Dr. Johnson and I were able to more closely study and gather information on one such aspect of the Nabataean culture not yet studied—Seashell trade.
Methodology
Gathering Data: We spent 6 weeks in Petra, Jordan excavating two different sites: Wadi Mataha (a tomb site) and the Ad Deir Monument. At both sites we were able to find various shells. At Wadi Mataha most of the shells found were in burial contexts and were probably placed with the deceased as funerary goods or offerings. Other shells were found at this site through survey, showing up on the surface outside of tombs, most likely having been washed out of the tombs by rain water. At the Ad Deir monument most of the shells we found were in the Temenos Slot, an area just West of the monument itself and that leads to the front of the monument. It is likely that most of the shells are being found in the Temenos Slot because it is a wash area. As rain and flood water comes through Ad Deir, because of the way the landscape in this region slopes, many artifacts, including the shells, end up being washed down into the Temenos Slot. Besides the shells collected from these two sites, with the help of Dr. Johnson I was also able to get in contact with a researcher in the anthropology department at another university who specializes in marine fauna from the Mediterranean and Middle East. He was able to give us excavation reports from Petra that listed other seashells that have been found in the area. These reports gave us a much broader data set to work with as we processed and analyzed our finds.
Processing Data: During and after field school I began to photograph, identify, and document the seashells. I spent several weeks photographing each individual shell from our excavation in Spring as well as shells stored at BYU from previous excavations done by Dr. Johnson. After photographing these shells, I inputted the pictures into a spreadsheet where I could more easily keep track of them while working on identification. While I had done faunal analysis before, I had never yet done it on seashells and thus the identification process proved hard for me because I was a beginner. The more specific I could get, the better our data would be, so I tried to at least identify the shell down to its Genus, and then Species when possible. Many of the shells were worn and had lost their identifying traits, others were no more than fragments and couldn’t be identified beyond the fact that they were seashells. Even those that were complete gave me some problems. Juvenile shells can look the same as a different species of shell and furthermore, there are variations even within a species of shell. And even though I did not have to identify the shells listed on the other excavation reports, I at times had problems with those because the scientific names of shells had changed. But even with these problems I was able to identify a good amount of the shells we had excavated.
Results
After identifying the shells, I would locate their native body of water and figure out the most likely trade routes that were used to transfer them from the sea to Petra. We got some very interesting results after identifying what shells we could and finding where they came from. We knew that the Nabataeans were trading materials in and out of several different areas and had connections to just about all the nearby bodies of water: The Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, and bodies of water in-between. Even though the Nabataeans had access to all these bodies of water through trade, most of the shells were coming from one body of water—the Red Sea. 80-90% of the shells we were finding are native to the Red Sea, while only 10-20% are native to the other bodies of water combined.
Discussion
Now the question is why are most of the shells coming from one body of water when the Nabataeans have known trade routes leading to all the surrounding bodies of water? Since this is the first that seashells from Petra archaeological excavations are being studied, there are not any scholarly articles to read on this specific topic. There is, however, some extensive reading on Nabataean trade and also seashells being found in other Middle Eastern excavations. There are two known Nabataean ports located on the Red Sea, because of this they would have had easier and more frequent access to the Red Sea. This could possibly explain why the data shows mostly Red Sea shells. But it is important to note that the Nabataeans did extensive trading to the Mediterranean. With how often seashells appear in the archaeological record in Petra, as well as how often they would bring items up to trade in the Mediterranean, why are there not as many shells being found from this body of water?
Conclusion
These are questions that we cannot yet answer, but they are questions that did not yet exists until this research was begun. The research of the seashell trade in Petra has only just started. The first step has been taken to allow for a better understanding of this ancient culture, and hopefully it will help people to continue to research the Nabataeans as well as help others learn about cultures and history. What lies ahead is possibility. This research has been waiting for a while to be done and now it has begun.