The Neolithic Site of Abu Ghosh: The 1995 Excavations 9654061546, 9789654065580, 9789654061544

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 19

THE NEOLITHIC SITE OF ABU GHOSH THE 1995 EXCAVATIONS

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

With contributions by Rina Y. Bankirer, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Eldad Barzilay, Israel Carmi, Pierre Ducos, Charles Greenblatt, Liora K. Horwitz, Sonya Itkis, Gila Kahila Bar-Gal, Zinovi Matskevich, Ianir Milevski, Dror Segal, Deborah A. Sklar-Parnes, Patricia Smith, Shoh Yamada

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2003

IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Zvi Gal Series and Volume Editor: Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz

Front Cover: View of the excavation, looking east (photographer: H. Khalaily) Back Cover: Small finds from Abu Ghosh (photographers: C. Amit, Ts. Sagiv, and H. Khalaily)

Typesetting, Layout and Cover Design: Ann Abuhav Illustrations: Elizabeth Belashov, Irina Berin, Tania Kornfeld, and Natalia Zak Production: Lori Lender Printing: Keterpress Enterprises, Jerusalem Copyright © 2003, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 965–406–154–6 eISBN 9789654065580

CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vi

CHAPTER 1: THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION

Hamoudi Khalaily, Ofer Marder, and Eldad Barzilay

1

CHAPTER 2: THE GEOLOGICAL SETTING

Eldad Barzilay

3

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

Hamoudi Khalaily and Ofer Marder

13

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

Hamoudi Khalaily, Ofer Marder, and Rina Y. Bankirer

23

CHAPTER 5: USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF SICKLES AND GLOSSED PIECES

Shoh Yamada

47

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGE

Hamoudi Khalaily and Ofer Marder

59

CHAPTER 7: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE

Hamoudi Khalaily and Ofer Marder

69

CHAPTER 8: THE SMALL FINDS A Third Shell Assemblage from Abu Ghosh Stone Imagery Items

Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer Zinovi Matskevich and Ianir Milevski

73 73 74

CHAPTER 9: THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE POTTERY NEOLITHIC AND PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B LAYERS

Deborah A. Sklar-Parnes and Patricia Smith

77

CHAPTER 10: THE NEOLITHIC FAUNA

Liora K. Horwitz

87

CHAPTER 11: PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH

Pierre Ducos and Liora K. Horwitz

103

CHAPTER 12: VERIFICATION OF CAPRA SPECIES AT ABU GHOSH USING ANCIENT DNA ANALYSIS

Gila Kahila Bar-Gal, Pierre Ducos, and Charles Greenblatt

121

iv

CHAPTER 13: RADIOCARBON DATING

Dror Segal and Israel Carmi

127

CHAPTER 14: MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL: A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR LOCATING HUMAN ACTIVITY AREAS

Sonia Itkis

129

CHAPTER 15: GENERAL DISCUSSION

Hamoudi Khalaily and Ofer Marder

133

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Addresses of contributors not on the staff of the Israel Antiquities Authority (POB 586, Jerusalem 91004). Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Eldad Barzilay Independent Consultant in Geomorphology, 25 Arazim St., Lapid 73133, Israel. Israel Carmi Department of Environmental Science and Energy Research, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel. Pierre Ducos CNRS, 15 Shimshon St., P.O. Box 547, Jerusalem 91004, Israel and the Department of Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel. Charles Greenblatt Kuvin Center for the Study of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical School, P.O. Box 12272, Jerusalem 91120, Israel. Sonia Itkis Independent Consultant in Geophysics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva‘, Israel. Gila Kahila Bar-Gal Kuvin Center for the Study of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical School, P.O. Box 12272, Jerusalem 91120, Israel. Liora Kolska Horwitz Department of Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel. Dror Segal Museum of Regional and Mediterranean Archaeology, Gan Hashlosha (Nir David) 19150, Israel. Patricia Smith Laboratory of Bioanthropology and Ancient DNA, Department of Anatomy and Embryology, Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical School, P.O. Box 12272, Jerusalem 91120, Israel. Shoh Yamada Aruka, Inc., 49-15 Kou, Komoro, Nagano, Japan 384-0801.

137

v

ABBREVIATIONS

ASOR

American Schools of Oriental Research

ADAJ

Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

BAR Int. S.

British Archaeological Reports International Series

EI

Eretz Israel

ESI

Excavations and Surveys in Israel

IAA Reports

Israel Antiquities Authority Reports

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

PEQ

Palestine Exploration Quarterly

vi VI

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Mary Peterson-Solimany, Neta Abres, Zehava Levi, and Eli Ben-David for their aid in the field, as well as Gideon Avni ( former Jerusalem regional archaeologist) and Dani Weiss and Gideon Solimany (district inspectors) for the valuable information about the site that they provided. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Leonid Zeiger, Michael Smilansky, and Marina Zeltser for drawing the flint and stone artifacts, to Tsila Sagiv and Clara Amit for photographing objects, to Avi Hajian (field surveyor), to Marjolène Barazani and Elizabeth

Belashov (illustrations and sections), and especially to Iris Hadar for her effort in performing the spatial distribution analysis. We are indebted as well to Simon Gibson, Harley Stark, Vladimir Zbenovich, Na‛ama Goren-Inbar, Anna Belfer-Cohen, Avi Gopher, Nigel Goring-Morris, and Isaac Gilead for their valuable comments. Special acknowledgement must be paid to Abed el-Rahman from the village of Abu Ghosh for his wonderful hospitality and logistic support.

CHAPTER 1

THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION HAMOUDI K HALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND ELDAD BARZILAY

INTRODUCTION The Neolithic site of Abu Ghosh is located c. 12 km west of Jerusalem, in the Judean Hills about 700 m above sea level (map ref. 1604/1354). The site is situated on a wide terrace on the western bank of a small wadi traversing the modern village of Abu Ghosh (Fig. 1.1). About 50 m to the southeast is Bir Nakush, a small well that taps the water table c. 3 m below the present surface. A salvage excavation was initiated after construction work severely damaged the northern area of the site (Fig. 1.2: Area B). Two seasons of excavation were

conducted in 1995 by the authors on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (License No. A-2249/1995). The first season took place from February to April, and the second, from October through November.

EXCAVATION STRATEGIES AND METHODS The excavation area was located uphill, approximately 500 m northwest of the previous excavations (Fig. 1.2: Area A; Perrot 1952; Lechevallier 1978). A probe conducted prior to the excavation reported here included two trenches made by mechanical equipment, adjacent to the excavated area. The work was carried

Fig. 1.1. Location map of Abu Ghosh.

2

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND ELDAD BARZILAY

southern faces of the ridges are very steep (30–40°), and the elevation differences between the ridges and the channels reach 300–350 m. The steep dip of the Ramallah anticline has enabled the drainage system to cut back and cross the axis of the anticline to the present national water divide. The village of Abu Ghosh is situated on the divide between the Har Adar—Ma‛ale Ha-Hamisha—Beit Thull ridge and the Ma‛ale Ha-Hamisha—Shoresh— Cermila ridge (Efrat 1963; Markus 1993). The village is located in a semicircular depression, which drains southward by way of a small tributary into Nahal Kesalon (Fig. 1.1). Fig. 1.2. Location of the excavated areas at Abu Ghosh.

HISTORY OF R ESEARCH

out by hand in a 5 × 5 m grid system with soil removal units 10 cm in depth. When structures appeared, the actual digging proceeded according to a locus system. However, while the work progressed, varying methods were applied according to the specific demands of each phase. Living floors, for example, were treated differently, by using a 1 × 1 m grid system and soil removal in 5 cm depths. All soil units underwent dry sieving through a 2 mm mesh and wet-sieving was randomly performed.

LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY The Jerusalem Hills lie at an elevation of about 800 m asl. One of the highest summits of the region is Har Adar (880 m asl), north of the village of Abu Ghosh. The topography of the Jerusalem Hills is determined mainly by the drainage system, which dissects the terrain into seven sub-parallel ridges oriented east– west. The peaks of these ridges are flat along most of the western side. The gradient abruptly changes from moderate to steep at the fringe of the structural flexure of the Ramallah anticline. The northern and

The site of Abu Ghosh was first discovered in the early 1920s, when a member of the nearby monastery collected flint artifacts from the site’s surface. In 1950, Jean Perrot, of the Centre de Recherche Français in Jerusalem, conducted excavations on both sides of the road, covering an area of 500 sq m. In his Area F, he found archaeological remains dating to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period (Perrot 1952). In 1967, Monique Lechevallier, of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, renewed the excavations at the site (Fig. 1.2: Area A). Her excavation concentrated mainly in Perrot’s Area F and in test pits at the northern and western parts of the site (Lechevallier 1978). She uncovered a rectangular house with a plaster floor, and an architectural complex that contained several small square rooms and cells, as well as installations and burials. Though several architectural phases were identified, she concluded that the flint assemblage and architectural remains belonged to a homogeneous occupation Pre-Pottery Neolithic B in date. Geophysical surveying and archaeological tests determined the limits of the architectural remains (Hesse 1978:88).

REFERENCES Efrat E. 1963. Geographical Aspects in the Physical Planning of the Jerusalem Region. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Hesse A. 1978. Reconnaissance géophysique de l’ensemble du site d’Abou Gosh. In M. Lechevallier. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Pp. 83–88.

Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Markus M. 1993. Jerusalem Mountains—Description and Travel. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Perrot J. 1952. Le Néolithique d’Abou-Gosh. Syria 29:119–145.

CHAPTER 2 THE GEOLOGICAL SETTING ELDAD BARZILAY

INTRODUCTION A geomorphological study of the site was conducted. The aims were to interpret the gravelly archaeological layer that was excavated during previous excavations (Farrand 1978:98), to understand the regional paleoenvironment during the occupation of the site, and to define the post-depositional processes and their impact on the preservation of the site.

METHODS The geological and geomorphological field study was designed to complement published information from the literature cited about the immediate surroundings of the site and the intra-site stratigraphy. These goals were approached through a careful study of sections within the excavated area, by a provenance survey of the entire drainage basin for raw material sources, and a geological survey of nearby outcrops, road-cuts, and excavations for trenches and foundations of new houses. The depositional history of the site was studied using two soil profiles. The first was recorded at the fringe of the site (Profile 100; Sq B1; see Fig 2.1), where the natural soil stratigraphy was better preserved. The second was sampled at the center of the excavated area (Profile 200; Sq B5; see Fig. 2.2 and Plan 3.1: Section 1-1), where almost all the Neolithic levels were represented. Samples were taken every 5–10 cm down the profiles and described using the Soil Survey Staff Handbook (1975). The samples were analyzed in the laboratory to determine their chemical and physical properties, including particle-size distribution by dry and wet phi-scale mesh, organic matter content, total CaCO3, electro-conductivity, total phosphorus (P) content, and potassium (K) content in extract. Samples were also taken from each Neolithic archaeological phase to evaluate the properties of the

gravel layers, the samples being analyzed to determine their grain-size distribution, burnt stone content, and lithology. Each sample weighed 10–20 kg. The samples were dried at 60°C in an oven for 48 hours, and reweighed. The gravels were then washed through a 2 mm mesh, dried, and weighed to determine the fine earth weight. The gravels were sieved through a phi-scale set of sieves (2, 4, 8,16, 32, 64 mm mesh). All the archaeological material (flint, bones, and ceramics) was collected. Lithology and percentage of burnt stones were calculated. The grainsize distribution results were compared with the grainsize distribution finds reported previously by Farrand (1978: Fig. 39).

THE GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE The Judean Hills region is an anticline, whose NNE– SSW structural features were apparently created in the Senonian epoch as part of the folds of the Syrian Arc of the Levant (Garfunkel 1988). This area is divided into three units: the Hebron monocline in the south; the Ramallah anticline in the north; and the Jerusalem syncline structure between. The axis of the southern end of the Ramallah anticline is the Ma‘ale HaHamisha–Sho’eva–Ramat Razi’el line; Abu Ghosh is situated on this line. The western flanks of the anticline dip steeply at an angle as great as 30°, while the eastern and southeastern flanks dip moderately, attaining not more than a few degrees. Erosion processes lowered the axis much more at the western flank than the eastern, causing the topography to level out (Plan 2.1). The area east and south of Abu Ghosh is dissected by faults, while the village is situated in a graben (Plan 2.2). The graben faults have placed the Kefira Formation opposite the Soreq Formation, which comprises the graben. This setting has resulted in c. 100 m of vertical displacement along the graben.

4

ELDAD BARZILAY

Plan 2.1. Topographical–geological reconstruction of a section of the Ramallah anticline (after Markus 1993).

Plan 2.2. Geological map of the Abu Ghosh area (after Arkin 1976).

CHAPTER 2: THE GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The Geological Formations The Judean Hills are built up mainly of hard dolomites and limestones of the Upper Cretaceous period, which are included in the Judean Group. In the vicinity of Abu Ghosh, Qatana, Kefira, Giv‛at Ye‛arim, Soreq, and Kesalon Formations of the Albian period, Bet Me’ir and Moza Formations of the Cenomanian period, and deposits of the Quaternary period are exposed

5

(Arkin 1976: Fig. 2). The stratigraphic section (Plan 2.3) comprises the above-mentioned formations of the Judean Group, as well as the Cenomanian Aminadav, Kefar Sha’ul, and Weradim Formations of the Judean Group that outcrop further away from the site and are not discussed here (Arkin et al. 1965: Fig. 4). Qatana Formation. Of the early Albian period, the Qatana Formation includes 40 m of limestone and

Plan 2.3. Composite stratigraphic section, Jerusalem area (after Taitel-Goldman, Heller-Kallai, and Sass 1995).

6

ELDAD BARZILAY

marls, containing a rich micro- and macrofauna. The limestones are mainly of the biomicrite type, pseudoconcretional, with marl, heavily encrusted with nari (Shachnai 1969). Kefira Formation (Kk). The Kefira Formation of the Albian period is composed of predominantly wellbedded limestone alternating with limey dolomite making a thickness of 180 m. These carbonate rocks are affected by massive karstic activity. Eolithic limestone appears in the lower and middle parts of the formation. Most of the limestones are biosparites and biomicrites, with some pelsparite occurring in the upper part of the section. Giv‛at Ye‛arim Formation (Kugy). The Giv‛at Ye‛arim Formation of the Albian period includes well-bedded dolomite in layers 0.5–1.5 m thick, mostly finely crystalline and with coarse crystalline dolomite appearing in the lower part of the section. A bed of platy quartzolite, 0.9 m thick and containing silicified rudists, occurs in the upper part. Type section thickness is 82.7 m. Soreq Formation (Kus). The Soreq Formation of the Albian period is subdivided into two members: the limestone member and the argillaceous dolomite member. The lower limestone member (7 m thick) is thin bedded with very thin marl intercalations. The limestone is pelsparite and the biomicrite is partly dolomitic. The upper dolomite member (120 m thick) consists of well, evenly bedded (beds, 0.5–1 m thick) soft dolomite and interbedded marl. The dolomite is in part argillaceous and has a chalky appearance. Quartz spheralites, quartz crystals, and flint concretions occur sporadically and in layers parallel to the bedding. The total thickness of the Soreq Formation is 127 m in the type locality. Kesalon Formation (Kuke). The Kesalon Formation of the Late Albian period consists of massive dolomite with lenses and thin beds of quartzolite. The quartzolite layers range in thickness from a few centimeters to 50 m. Quartz crystals, flint concretions and chalcedony flint occur in the lower part of the formation. Frequent remains of rudists occur in the upper part of this formation. The thickness of the formation in the type locality is 48 m.

Bet Me’ir Formation (Kubm). The Bet Me’ir Formation of the Early Cenomanian period consists of wellbedded dolomite with flint and quartzolite concretions and minor interbedded marls. Two members are distinguished: (a) the Carmila member, consisting of about 70 m of partly laminated dolomite, finely crystalline, with flint concretions, quartz crystals, and spherulites; and (b) the Hamasreq member, composed of about 30 m of well-bedded dolomites, very finely crystalline, with flint concretions and separated from the other member by yellow marls. The total thickness at the type locality is 96 m. The Bet Me’ir Formation is conformably overlain by the Early to Middle Cenomanian, the soft greenish and yellowish marls of the Moza Formation (Arkin et al. 1965). Soils The soils of the region are typically terra rossa (Xerochrepts) and rendzina soils (Soil Survey Staff Handbook 1975: Haploxerolls). Marish (1980) has recognized a correlation between the geological formations and the soils developed on them. Thus the Kefira Formation has reddish brown terra rossa which contains carbonate; the Giv‛at Ye‛arim Formation, a reddish brown or a protogromic terra rossa; the Soreq Formation, pale marly rendzina or brown forest soils, which contain carbonate; the Kesalon Formation, reddish brown terra rossa, which contains carbonate; and the Bet Me’ir Formation, which has dark rendzina or reddish brown terra rossa. Hydrology A small drainage basin (64 hectares) on the eastern side of Abu Ghosh was studied, focusing on the rain–runoff–ground-water relationships of this small watershed catchment (Shachori, Michaeli, and Segal 1960: Fig. g). Data from two bore-holes within the basin show that the regional ground-water level around Abu Ghosh is found at 500 m asl (above the Qatana marls). A shallow bore-hole within the basin (map ref. 1594/1341) revealed another, local, shallow water-table which exists c. 4 m below the surface all year, and which rises a meter after heavy rains. Indeed, this is the source for the Bir Nakush well. This phenomenon was noticed in the site itself: the foundations for the adjacent school had to be altered due to the high ground-water level. One trench (No. 3;

7

CHAPTER 2: THE GEOLOGICAL SETTING

outside the excavation area) filled with water up to c. 3 m below the surface. Besides Bir Nakush other similar springs are located nearby, at Marzuk, ‘En Hemed, Bet Nakuba, ‘Ein Rafa, and Limor. A small tributary of Nahal Kesalon drains the site and the village. The area of the watershed above the site is c. 0.3 sq km. The valley at this location is 200 m wide, although it is only 500 m from the ridge, because of the graben fault. The wadi and valley are steeper and narrower further downslope toward Nahal Kesalon. Fig. 2.1. Profile 100.

THE SITE During the excavations at Abu Ghosh by Lechevallier, Farrand (1978) studied the site stratigraphy, while Hesse (1978) conducted geophysical examinations to investigate the physical parameters and boundaries of the site. Their results are considered below. Site Stratigraphy The excavation revealed three sedimentary units (Units I–III), two of which contain archaeological remains (Units I–II), mostly belonging to the Neolithic period (Marder et al. 1996). These include walls, fragments of rooms, living spaces, installations, and burials (see Chapter 3). A section (Fig. 2.1), which represents the less disturbed area at the fringe of the excavation, includes a thick terra rossa paleosol (Unit III) overlaid by a thin gravel layer (Unit II), which is covered by cultivated colluvial terra rossa soil (Unit I). A type section, of the main excavation area where the archaeological remains are the thickest, is shown in Fig. 2.2. This section includes Unit I and most of Unit II, Phase 3 of Unit II, and Unit III. Unit I This uppermost unit (c. 0.2–0.9 m thick) is cultivated, colluvial, terra rossa soil with small angular stones (2–5 cm in the B axis). It blanketed the higher part of the excavated area and lay against a terrace wall running from north to south, the length of the terrace. It does not exist in the lower part of the site. This unit contained sherds with heavily worn surfaces and a small quantity of bones and flints, and is correlated with archaeological Layer I. The relative roundness and small size of the stones in relation to those in the lower units and the nature of weathering of the pottery resemble nearby wadi alluvial soil. The

Fig. 2.2. Profile 200.

primary nature of the soil suggests that the soil had no time to develop. These observations combined suggest that this unit is of alluvial origin and results from building the terrace wall. Unit II This unit is a stony layer, a mixture of angular stones and light to dark gray silt, rich in carbonate and organic material. The stones in this unit are of dolomite and limestone, some of which appear to be burnt and shattered (see below). Observations show vertical and horizontal changes in the size and shape of gravel throughout this unit. There are also differences in its thickness. The depth of the gravel deposit ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 m in the upper part of the terrace, while in the midslope and lower areas the deposit becomes thicker, from 0.4 to 1.2 m. This unit includes the uppermost portions of the Neolithic occupation and is correlated to the archaeological Layers II–IV. Three or more depositional phases can be distinguished within this unit: Phase 1. The upper phase is characterized by light gray soil appearing over most of the excavation areas except

8

ELDAD BARZILAY

on the lowest parts. It contains small to medium gravels with a high density of flint artifacts and animal bones as well as some few Neolithic sherds, in addition to other archaeological remains. This phase is associated with the archaeological Layer II of the Pottery Neolithic. The boundary between this unit and Unit I is clear. This boundary represents a time lag from which no sediments were found, probably due to erosion. Phase 2. The middle phase is rich in archaeological finds of the archaeological Layer III, from the PPNB period. The general nature resembles the later phase, but is notable for having more angular stones, medium in size, and darker in color than those associated with Phase 1. Two to three gravel sub-phases were identified within this phase. Small differences have been noticed between the gravel layers. The subphases were separated in places by thin layers of a gray fine sediment with smaller amounts of gravel. Phase 3. The lowest phase differs from those above by its dark color due to the high content of organic material and the notably lesser quantity of gravel inclusions. This soil is also rich in lumps of red clay. This phase is transitional to an underlying terra rossa layer. In comparison to the upper phases of this unit, there is a decline in the quantity of flint and an increase in the amount of faunal remains. This phase is associated with the archaeological Layer IV of the middle PPNB period. Unit III The lowermost unit (0.6 and 0.8 m) overlying bedrock varies in thickness from west to east according to the natural slope. It is composed of fine-grained, red, compact terra rossa soil with a small percent of small stony fragments. At its upper reaches there is a thin horizon (c. 0.2 m in thickness) of secondary carbonate accompanied by bits of charcoal. Walls and the installation of the middle occupation phase were dug into this unit. However, no archaeological remains are associated with it. This paleosol, the natural soil that covered the valley prior to human occupation, is a red vertic terra rossa soil with secondary carbonate.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The main problem that arises from the excavations is the origin and mode of deposition of the gravel layers

of Unit II. These were recognized already by Farrand (1978:92), who described the unit as “a dark yellowish brown (7.5YR 4/4, moist) loam with abundant stone fragments, ranging from 0 to 90 cm thick, but averaging about 50 cm. The layer is sub-parallel to the present surface and dips to the southwest with an inclination of 1:10. Lechevallier (1978:13) commonly called this layer ‘gray’.” Farrand found a general similarity between the stony layer and the surface layer (Unit I). Both layers are composed of limestone fragments in a silty clay matrix. The surface layer contains fewer stones, and these stones tend to be more rounded when compared to the stony layer. The fine fraction of the layers is similar. Farrand (1978:93) suggested that the stony layer is “... causally related to constructional and habitational activities at the site”. This phenomenon was reviewed earlier by Ronen (1971:84) in caves and rock shelters. He concluded that climatic changes caused this phenomenon. He rejected other factors, such as earthquakes or human activity. In his reference to the gravelly layers at Abu Ghosh he stated that “ … during the occupation of this Neolithic site, attributed to the end of seventh millennium (PPNB) an important fragmentation of nearby limestone cliffs apparently took place” (Ronen 1971:91). In addition to this climate-triggered fragmentation process, he considered the option of human activity: “The angular stone debris confined to the cultural layer at Abu Ghosh would be in this case a result from local quarrying activity, though for building materials in this case” (Ronen 1971:91). In the present study the profiles were sampled and analyzed to show the depth, functions of the texture, and chemical composition within the cross section. The three phases of the gravelly unit were sampled to assess both the spatial and temporal variability of gravel-size distribution, as was done by Farrand (1978). Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show the results of the two profiles analyzed. Profile 100 (Fig. 2.1) is a profile from the fringe of the excavated area (Sq B5), where only a few centimeters of gravel were seen. Profile 200 is the type section (Fig. 2.2), which describes Units I and II at the center of the excavation (Sq B1). The soil particle distribution of the three units is similar: loamy clay. The carbonate volume of the C horizon of Unit III is lower than that of the other units. The potassium percentage of the present surface and Unit II is considerably higher than that of Unit III and most of Unit I. This feature is likely to happen because

9

CHAPTER 2: THE GEOLOGICAL SETTING

Table 2.1. Profile No. 100. Laboratory Results Depth (cm)

Clay (%)

Silt (%)

Sand (%)

CaCo3 (%)

E.C. dS/m

O.M. (%)

P mg/kg

K Extract meq/l

Remarks

0–5

47

30

23

19.4

0.78

1.84

18.4

0.235

Unit I

5 – 10

45

34

21

28.0

0.72

1.59

17.6

0.151

Unit I

10 – 15

42

37

21

30.0

0.86

1.37

8.0

0.138

Unit I

15 – 20

42

35

23

29.0

0.78

1.03

7.2

0.072

Unit I

20 – 25

42

33

25

25.1

0.80

1.08

0.101

Unit I

25 – 30

45

30

25

19.7

0.53

1.32

16.0

0.098

Unit I

30 – 40

47

28

25

16.0

0.47

1.11

16.0

0.084

Unit II

40 – 45

49

24

27

12.8

0.43

0.80

10.4

0.047

Unit III

45 – 50

47

24

29

11.4

0.48

0.72

0.104

Unit III

50 – 60

49

22

29

9.8

0.47

0.60

4.8

0.057

Unit III

60 – 70

51

22

27

8.3

0.50

0.45

6.4

0.088

Unit III

70 – 80

53

20

27

6.0

0.58

0.33

7.2

0.108

Unit III

Depth (cm)

Clay (%)

Silt (%)

Sand (%)

CaCo3 (%)

E.C. dS/m

O.M. (%)

P mg/kg

K Extract meq/l

Remarks

0–5

41

34

25

28.2

0.88

2.14

30.4

0.275

Unit I

5 – 10

43

34

23

29.0

0.88

2.12

10.4

0.110

Unit I

10 – 15

45

34

21

31.3

0.82

1.86

12.0

0.094

Unit I

15–20

41

36

23

33.5

0.76

1.51

0.088

Unit I

20–25

43

36

21

28.2

0.78

1.39

7.2

0.084

Unit I

25 – 30

45

32

23

31.3

0.72

1.36

7.2

0.070

Unit I

30 – 35

41

38

21

38.7

0.78

1.22

0.065

Unit I

35 – 40

45

32

23

30.5

0.82

1.28

0.104

Unit I

40 – 45

43

34

23

31.0

0.72

1.20

0.084

Unit I

45 – 50

43

32

25

34.0

0.68

1.09

0.096

Unit I

50 – 55

45

30

25

35.0

0.68

1.17

0.057

Unit I

55 – 60

47

28

25

24.0

0.58

1.11

0.051

Unit I

60 – 65

49

26

25

21.4

0.58

1.20

0.055

Unit I

65 – 71

49

26

25

21.4

0.76

1.38

12.8

0.098

Unit II

71 – 79

48

29

23

20.6

0.68

1.35

13.6

0.068

Unit II

79 – 85

48

29

23

21.3

0.68

1.23

20.0

0.051

Unit II

85 – 91

50

29

21

18.3

0.55

1.17

28.0

0.049

Unit II

91 – 95

50

29

21

16.8

0.49

1.13

24.0

0.040

Unit II

95 – 101

50

29

21

16.8

0.47

1.10

28.8

0.053

Unit II

101 – 109

48

31

21

21.2

0.60

0.92

33.6

0.076

Unit II

109 – 114

46

29

25

25.2

0.50

0.96

33.6

0.042

Unit II

114 – 122

46

31

23

23.7

0.47

0.86

33.6

0.055

Unit II

Table 2.2. Profile No. 200. Laboratory Results

7.2

4.8

10

ELDAD BARZILAY

potassium is related to the soil surface. The phosphorus concentration is related to bone remains, which are common in the archaeological unit. The organic matter (O.M.) percentage is very low in terra rossa soil. One can observe that the O.M.% of Unit III is less than half that of the other units. The O.M.% and potassium content are respectively higher at the surface and in the upper part of the archaeological layer, leading to an assumption that the deposition of Unit I was rapid, as supported by the archaeological finds and weak soil development features. Results of five samples taken from different locations in Unit II were compared to those of Farrand (1978:92). All the samples show a bimodal distribution with over 60% of the stones larger than 16 mm and c. 30% of the mass being soil. Sample 32 was taken from the upper part of Unit II and is similar to Sample AG100 of Farrand. The stones in Farrand’s AG200 sample are notably larger than those of the samples taken in this study. The explanation can be related to the exact place of sampling. The stone fill of the stony layers is smaller than those of the installations and walls but their lithology is the same, the main fraction being of the Soreq Formation dolomites. The percentage of burnt stones in the samples is c. 14%. The burnt stones are distinguished from non-burnt stones by their appearance, since they are more angular and have sharp ends, while some of the stones have a reddish rim and the fractures are coaxial. A survey of construction trenches dug in the village of Abu Ghosh reveals no similar stony layers outside the site. Moreover, comparison of the thicknesses of the stony

layer within the site itself shows that it thins toward the fringe of the excavation. As revealed by the present study and the previous excavations at Abu Ghosh, the gravelly layer appears to be of anthropogenic origin due to its restriction to the habitation area and its absence from the surrounding areas. It also contains fragments of other types of stones such as basalt and beachrock. Shachori, Michaeli, and Segal (1960), who conducted a soil survey and hydrological measurements in the nearby basin, reported no such gravelly phenomenon. No natural cause, such as a channel bed or debris flow, which is known to move gravels or deposit well-sorted gravel, was discovered. On the other hand, similar gravel units are known from archaeological sites of the Neolithic period. A.M. Rosen (forthcoming) reached the conclusion that the ‘cobbled surfaces’ excavated at Tel Yosef at the foot of M. Gilboa “...were … a result of human cultural activity”. Getzov (1995; Getzov et al., forthcoming) found similar features that were described as ‘gravel floors’ in Strata 17–19 of the site of ‛Uza in the western Galilee. Terra rossa soil becomes muddy during the rainy season. The stony layers are probably related to construction and habitation activities at the site, which can range from the secondary use of a collapse, to the filling of depressions and the leveling of the area for construction, to functioning as beddings for plaster floors. The high percentage of burnt stones and the high potassium percentage in Unit II help support this conclusion.

REFERENCES Arkin Y. 1976. The Geological Map of Greater Jerusalem, Scale 1:50,000. Jerusalem. Arkin Y., Braun M., Starinsky A., Hamaui M., and Raab M. 1965. Type Sections of Cretaceous Formations in the Jerusalem–Beit Shemesh Area (Geological Survey of Israel—Stratigraphic Sections Publication 1). Jerusalem. Farrand W.R. 1978. Sedimentological Observations at Abou Gosh. In M. Lechevallier. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Pp. 91–93. Garfunkel Z. 1988. The Pre-Quaternary Geology of Israel. In Y. Yom-Tov and E. Tchernov eds. The Zoogeography of Israel: The Distribution and Abundance at a Zoogeographical Crossroad (Monographiae biologicae 62). Dordrecht. Pp. 1–33.

Getzov N. 1995. Horvat ‘Uza. ESI 13:19–21. Getzov N., Avshalom-Gorni D., Tatcher A., LiebermanWander R., Smithline H., and Stern E.J. Forthcoming. Horbat ‘Uza: A Final Report of the 1991 Excavations (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Hesse A. 1978. Reconnaissance géophysique de l’ensemble du site d’Abou Gosh. In M. Lechevallier. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Pp. 83–88. Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris.

CHAPTER 2: THE GEOLOGICAL SETTING

Marder O., Khalaily H., Barzilay E., and Peterson-Solimany M. 1996. Recent Excavations at Abu Ghosh. Neo-Lithics: 1/96:3–4. Marish S. 1980. Maté Yehuda: Soil Survey. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Markus M. 1993. Jerusalem Mountains—Description and Travel. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Ronen A. 1971. Post Pleistocene Stony Layers in East Mediterranean Sites. Quartar 22:73–93. Rosen A. M. Forthcoming. Geomorphological Setting and Paleoenvironments of the Pottery Neolithic Site at Tel Yosef. In K. Covello-Paran. The Pottery Neolithic Settlement at Tel Yosef (Tell esh-Sheikh Hasan). ‛Atiqot.

11

Shachnai E. 1969. Lower Cretaceous Stratigraphy of the Bet-El (Ramallah) Mountains, Israel. Journal of Earth Sciences 18:169. Shachori A., Michaeli A., and Segal M. 1960. Abu Ghosh Basin. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Soil Survey Staff Handbook. 1975. Soil Taxonomy (US Department of Agriculture Handbook 436). Washington, D.C. Taitel-Goldman N., Heller-Kallai L., and Sass E. 1995. Clay Minerals and Feldspars in Argillaceous Strata of the Judea Group in the Jerusalem Hills. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 44:71–80.

CHAPTER 3

THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE HAMOUDI K HALAILY AND OFER MARDER

INTRODUCTION The 1995 excavations revealed four occupation layers (Plans 3.1, 3.2): Layer I. The uppermost stratum (c. 0.2–0.9 m) is characterized by a colluvial terra rossa soil. This topsoil has been intensively used in crop cultivation. It appears in the western excavation area and lies against a long terrace wall running from north to south. This stratum does not exist in the eastern part of the excavation. It contains mainly worn pottery sherds, of most probably medieval origin, and a few bones and flints. The loose, fine-grained soil indicates that this layer was formed as a result of plowing. Layer II. Appears in patches, mainly in the western excavated area. It varies in thickness, 0.1–0.3 m in the uppermost section, and extends from 0.6 to 0.8 m in depth in the center of the excavation (Sq B–C4–5). The section (Plan 3.2) shows the depositional accumulation and the archaeological phases. Layer II is characterized by light gray soil with medium-sized gravel, rich in organic material. It contains a high density of flint artifacts and animal bones. A small quantity of Neolithic sherds was identified, mainly in installations and hearths. Layer II appears to be a Pottery Neolithic occupation of short duration, since no architectural remains were recognized. However, there are some indications of secondary use of the earlier Pre-Pottery Neolithic B structures, with small additions. Layer III. A Pre-Pottery Neolithic layer was uncovered throughout the excavated areas. This archaeological deposit is thicker in the eastern (1.25 m) than in the western (0.4 m) excavation area, yet the architectural preservation is similar in all areas due to the natural slope. Two gravel depositional phases are associated with Layer III, and minor geomorphological differences

have been noticed between them. The upper gravel phase is rich in archaeological finds and characterized by medium-sized angular stones and a dark colored soil. The lower phase differs from the first by a high quantity of dark silty soil with less gravel in it. Red clay lumps in this deposit create an overall reddish tint. There is also a decline in the quantity of flint and an increase in the amount of faunal remains. Layer III has abundant architectural remains as compared with Layer II. These include features such as hearths, installations, walls, rooms, and living spaces relating to both gravel phases. Layer IV. The lowest occupation horizon was reached in two squares only, B5 and D5. It differs from the overlying stratum in its darker color and a lower density of gravel inclusions, plus it is rich in red clay lumps and overlies the terra rossa soil which contains small chalky fragments. Due to the limited excavation of this layer, few remains were identified. The few flint artifacts that were recovered here are typical of the PPNB industry.

ARCHITECTURE Despite the nature of the site and the later agricultural activities that disturbed the remains, which made the distinction between the units more difficult, each layer was assigned to a distinct chronological period. The attribution of the remains to geological units and their relative stratigraphic position was quite straightforward. In this report, four types of construction were identified: 1. Feature. Single features such as hearths and installations, which might have been associated with a building; floors; or independent shapes. This type also includes isolated graves. 2. Structure. A well-defined area within a building, e.g., a complete room or indications of such.

14

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

Plan 3.1. General plan of the excavation.

Plan 3.2. Main Section 1-1, showing the four occupation layers.

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

3. Building, Enclosure. A group of structures or rooms which are somehow connected with each other. They may represent one construction subdivided into two or more chambers, or several constructions in an enclosure. 4. Complex. A group of more than two structures that are interrelated. The description of the architectural remains is presented in reverse chronological order, starting from the upper layer (I), which includes the later remains, through Layer IV of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic occupation. Layer I The dominant feature of Layer I is a massive stone wall (Plan 3.3) that bisects the excavated area from north to south. Portions of this wall were uncovered in Sqs B1–5 lying c. 0.2 m below the present surface. The wall (W10) is 1 m thick and preserved to a height of 0.6 to 1.0 m. The uncovered parts extend from the southern limit of the excavation area to the northern boundary and probably continue north beyond the excavated area. No cross walls were found branching off to form corners. The position of the wall is perpendicular to the natural slope, and it consists of two rows of stones. The eastern face is constructed of large, undressed stones to a maximum height of 1 m, while the western is built of small stones reaching a maximum height of 0.6 m. Small fieldstones fill the spaces between them. A layer of colluvial terra rossa soil mixed with small angular stones (2–5 cm), pottery sherds, bones, and flint artifacts lay against the wall toward the west. This soil overlies a medieval surface and varies in thickness from 0.2 to c. 0.9 m next to the wall. It seems that this

15

wall was constructed as part of terracing activities that do not predate the Middle Ages. Layer II (PN) The main architectural features of this layer are segments of walls, installations, hearths, and two burials (see Plan 3.1). There is no clear relation between these features other than their location in the same stratum. Pit 102 A small rounded pit was uncovered in Sq A3 in the western part of the excavation. It was cut into the uppermost gravel phase of geological Unit II and through W11 (see Plan 3.1; Fig. 3.1). Its base went through the eastern part of this wall and some stones were removed. The main fill contains small burnt stones mixed with dark ashy material. The archaeological finds were scant, though the flint artifacts can be associated with a Pottery Neolithic industry.

Plan 3.3. Layer I, W10.

Fig. 3.1. Layer II, Pit 102 and Installation 109.

16

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

Installation 104 A small installation was discovered in the middle of Sq C5, lying c. 0.25 m under the present surface. It was badly preserved due to modern plowing. The western part of this installation overlies the remains of an earlier wall (W21). Its foundation on the east cuts into the top of the PPNB Layer III. The installation is built of one row of medium-sized, undressed stones in an elliptical shape (see Plan 3.1). The fill contained small fieldstones, flints, animal bones, grinding slabs, and pottery sherds. The grinding slabs appeared to be in secondary usage. Installation 109 A segment of a semicircular wall (W15) was exposed in Sq B3 and another small segment in the adjacent square (A3). This wall overlies earlier walls (W14, W16). It is constructed of small to medium-sized fieldstones and was preserved to a height of 0.4 m. It is possible that it was a part of a circular installation with a diameter of approximately 2.3 m (see Plan 3.1; Fig. 3.1). Installation 114 In Sq B5, a section of a small rounded installation (Fig. 3.2), c. 0.6 m in diameter with a maximum depth of 0.26 m, was uncovered. This installation was unearthed directly below the Layer I deposit, with its southern portion buried below W1. The installation is built of five to six large, upright limestone slabs arranged in a circle. They surrounded two flat slabs at the bottom of the installation, and were encircled by small fieldstones. The basal slabs exhibit signs of burning. The installation is U-shaped in cross section. The matrix of the fill is dark brown clay with large

Fig. 3.2. Layer II, Installation 114.

quantities of pottery sherds and few flint and bone artifacts. Installation 126 This installation is located in the eastern excavation area, at the intersection of four squares (C–D4–5; see Plan 3.1). It is oval in shape, 1–1.3 m in diameter, and up to 0.8 m in depth. Its circumference is composed of small fieldstones that were scattered around, while the fill consists of small and medium-sized stones in a circular order. This might indicate that the installation was originally smaller, but collapsed outward later. A high density of pottery sherds and other archaeological material, including flints and animal bones, was recovered. Burial T134 In the center of Sq B1, a single grave was unearthed in a rounded pit (Plan 3.4). It contains the primary burial of an individual including the skull (see Chapter 9). The skull was resting on its right side above the chest. One rounded installation, 160, 0.75 m in diameter and built of small fieldstones, was associated with the burial. Burial T131 In the southwestern corner of Sq B2, a human burial, probably oriented east–west, was discovered without its skull. Part of the skeleton was in articulation and the remainder was disturbed. Small stones covered part of the limbs (see Chapter 9). Layer III (PPNB) Western Complex In the western part of the excavation in Sqs A–B3, a series of stone walls was uncovered (see Plan 3.1 and Fig. 3.1). These appear to represent remains of a complex, which includes small domestic rooms and a large open space. Despite later activities, which caused severe damage to some walls, it is possible to reconstruct the complex and its main activity areas. Room 101. A narrow rectangular room was unearthed in the western, highest excavation area. Only two walls (W11and W16) and a segment of a third (W14) define its plan, on an east–west axis. The northern wall (W11), uncovered in Sq A3 c. 0.2 m under the present surface, is massive and well constructed. Another short segment of it was exposed

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

17

Plan 3.4. Burial T134 in Sq B1.

under the balk that separated Sqs A3 and AA3. The wall has two parallel courses: an inner face built of large dressed stones preserved to a height of 0.75 m and an outer face composed of large fieldstones. The maximum length of this wall is 5.2 m and its thickness over 1.0 m. No extension of this room was found further west. A perpendicular wall (W16) is connected with it and was constructed using the same technique, but is thinner (c. 0.7 m thick). The two walls and the continuation of W14 toward the west form a narrow rectangular room, which has a maximum width of 2 m and is 5 m long. The southwestern corner is absent. This plan resembles the cell-like rooms of ‛Ain Ghazal in Jordan (Rollefson and Kafafi 1994:19). A thin, beaten-earth floor is associated with this room, which contained flint

artifacts and animal bones. Among the flints are two distinctive arrowheads and one typical sickle blade. Room 112. This room is situated to the southeast of the first cell-like room and is similar to it. Its plan is asymmetric; the width of the northern part is 1.2 m but it narrows toward the south (0.9 m). Perhaps a soil creep caused the western wall (W16) to shift and create this irregularity. The open space continues to the south, as reflected by the same beaten-earth floor being associated with both cell-like rooms (L101 and L112). A few patches of gravel and several features were found on the courtyard floor, suggesting that this was an open space utilized for domestic purposes. One of these features is a posthole (L123), built of four stone slabs placed along their widths to form a square feature, 0.2 × 0.2 m, probably a base for a wooden post. To

18

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

its south are two circular hearths: The first (L124) measures 0.5 m in diameter and is constructed of small pebbles that bear evidence of fire. The second (L155) is larger, 0.7 m in diameter and built of small fieldstones found in a depression within the terra rossa soil. Room 113. This is the largest room in this complex. It is rectangular (L113 and L127), situated in the southeastern quarter of the enclosure (see Plan 3.1). Its inner dimensions are 5 × 5 m, and its orientation appears to be north–south. The western (W17) and southern (W19) walls were preserved along most of their lengths, though in several sections they were severely damaged, particularly the southern part of W17. The eastern wall is missing, and only a short section of the northern (W14) wall was preserved. This room and Room 112 share the northern (W14) and the western (W17) walls, both walls constructed similarly to W11 of Room 101. The living floor associated with the room is made of dense angular fieldstones, small to medium in size, and dark in color. A round installation (L128) located in the southeastern margin of the room is noteworthy (Fig. 3.3). Installation 128. A well-preserved circular installation is associated with Room 113/127. It is c. 1 m in diameter and constructed of medium-sized matching stones (Plan 3.5; Fig. 3.3) that protrude above the installation’s surface. The area within the stone circle is filled with small to large fieldstones, most apparently originating from the outer stone circle which collapsed inward. Thus, the feature is dome-like in section. The abundance of burnt flint artifacts and animal bones, especially of long bone shafts that were recovered in it, indicates that this installation may have functioned as a roasting pit.

Fig. 3.3. Layer III, Installation 128.

Northern Enclosures Some building sections, which appear to belong to the same architectural phase and are contemporaneous with the above complex, were unearthed in the northern part of the excavated area, in Sqs A–D4–6 (see Plan 3.1). The extension of this enclosure over the upper and the lower areas excavated indicates that the ancient topography sloped moderately southward, toward the nearby wadi. To date, only the southern part has been excavated, while the northern part was destroyed by construction work that prevented the reconstruction of the layout of the enclosure. The quality of the architectural remains and the size of the components indicate that it functioned as an independent habitation unit. This unit consists of architectural remains including walls, wall segments, open areas, and installations. Some walls were either damaged by the recent construction activities or are still buried. The northeastern enclosure consists of a long, curved wall (W12), 17.9 m in length and 0.8 m in thickness, which crosses the excavated area from east to west. Three segments of walls (W20, W21, W22) perpendicular to it create three distinct spaces: one domestic room with a plastered floor (L119), an associated burial (L118, H6/7) and a posthole (L158; Marder et al. 1996:4), and two large courtyards (L110, L139), as well as a few associated elements. Room 119. This is an interesting part of the complex. It is located in the eastern and lowest area of the excavation, and only part of it, with a plaster floor, still exists (Fig. 3.4). The western wall of the room (W20) was poorly preserved (one course). It abuts W12 on the south, and a small wall segment abutting W20 is all that remains of a third, northern wall. The plaster floor is destroyed in its eastern and northern sections, so that only a small area of approximately 8 sq m was preserved. There is direct contact between the floor and the walls surrounding it, which is typical of PPNB structures at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson and Kafafi 1994:21). In addition, a circular posthole (L158), 0.35 m in diameter, was unearthed at the eastern edge of the plaster floor. The floor was constructed of at least three superimposed lime-plaster layers, together forming a 4–6 cm thick layer (Plan 3.6). The plaster layer overlies a thick layer of small fieldstones. Signs of repairs to the plaster floor were noticed, distinct in patches where it was disturbed.

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

19

Plan 3.5. Layer III, plan of L127 and Installation 128.

a

b Fig. 3.4. Layer III, plaster floor of Room 119 with intentional cut (L118): (a) view from above; (b) looking north.

A rounded, intentional cut was observed in the plaster in the floor’s southern portion (L118). Although it at first seemed to be a recent disturbance, further excavation yielded a grave containing at least three

individuals without skulls buried under the floor. The resurfacing to the north of this rounded cut may have been related to the skull removal from the first two interments. One of the skeletons found inside the cut

20

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

Plan 3.6. Layer III, Section 2-2. Plaster floor in Room 119 showing plaster layers overlying angular stones.

was fitted specifically into this space. The skull was later removed and this area was resurfaced with a lime/ chalk material. (See the detailed study of the skeletal remains in Chapter 9.) Courtyard 110. A medium-sized open courtyard (L105, L110) is associated with the habitation unit. It is broad, c. 7 m in width and 9 m in length. In contrast with W20 and W21, which are 0.5 to 0.6 m thick, the southern wall (W12) reaches a thickness of almost 1.0 m, though both the eastern and western walls were badly damaged by erosion and cultivation and originally may have been thicker. The floor is made of small, angular stones cut by two installations (L104, L126) dating to the Pottery Neolithic phase. To the north, in Sqs D–E6, two features were excavated (L135, L136). Both contained a concentration of animal bones in primary deposition. Between the features a row of stones adjoins a fireplace (L157). Since some of the animal bones were burnt, we posit a relationship between both concentrations and the fireplace. Courtyard 139. A partially exposed, wide area to the west of Courtyard 110 is situated between W21 and W22. It is similar to the former, open courtyard, but more poorly preserved. The maximum width between W21 and W22 is 9 m. No distinct floor was noted, but there are at least two levels of angular stones associated with it that underlie another gravel layer of a later phase of the geological Unit II gravels, which includes several installations (L145, L154). Installations 145, 154: These were exposed in Sq A5 (see Plan 3.1). Both installations are dug into a gravel layer to a depth of 0.6 m and are constructed of

fieldstones, as are the majority of the installations in this layer. Installation 145 is circular, 1.0 m in diameter. It is built of stones of the same size and was preserved to a maximum height of 0.75 m. The fill is mainly terra rossa soil, including a few animal bones and flint artifacts. Installation 154 is oval in shape and larger than Installation 145, with a diameter of 1.4 m. It seems that the western section of Installation 154 was partially built from W22 stones. Therefore, we can assume that the installation was built after W22 was destroyed. Similarly to Installation 145, it contains few archaeological remains. Installation 146 On the northwestern side of the excavation an installation (L146) was unearthed in Sq AA5 (Plans 3.1, 3.7). It is circular in plan and c. 1.0 m in diameter, its fill c. 0.6 m deep. Three phases of construction were identified. In the earliest, the installation is small and elliptical in shape, c. 0.65 m in diameter and constructed of large fieldstones. A circle of large stones overlies it, with a flat slab situated in the middle that is surrounded by small fieldstones. During the latest phase it was well constructed, circular in shape following the second plan, but with a pile of variously-sized stones filling its interior. In addition to an abundance of flint artifacts and animal bones, a concentration of groundstone tools with some pounders scattered around the flat slab was found, suggesting that grinding activities may have taken place here. We do not know its function during the earlier phase; however, we assume that this installation was used for food processing during its middle and late phases.

CHAPTER 3: THE STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE

21

Plan 3.7. Layer III, Installation 146.

Layer IV (PPNB) Layer IV is attributed to the earlier PPNB level exposed in two deep soundings, in Sq B5 beneath Courtyard 139 and Sqs C–D5 below Courtyard 110. Remains of two wall segments (W24, W25) were recovered in Sq B5. Both were constructed of one row of undressed stones, which created the corner of an unidentified

structure. These are associated with a concentration of burnt bones and a few flint artifacts. It is the earliest occupation phase exposed in the excavation. Feature 125 comprises an accumulation of variouslysized stones that had been placed in a circle, with large stones and a quantity of red clay lumps filling its center. Since no other material culture evidence was recovered, it is difficult to determine its function.

REFERENCES Marder O., Khalaily H., Barzilay E., and Peterson-Solimany M. 1996. Recent Excavations at Abu Ghosh. Neo-Lithics 1/96:3–4.

Rollefson G.O. and Kafafi Z. 1994. The 1993 Season at ‘Ain Ghazal: Preliminary Report. ADAJ 38:11–32.

CHAPTER 4

THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE HAMOUDI KHALAILY,

OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

The recovered lithics from Abu Ghosh include two different components, the larger Pre-Pottery Neolithic B from Layers IV and III and a smaller assemblage of Pottery Neolithic from Layer II. Since the boundary between the two major layers is unclear and intrusions of the lithic material were observed in the PN layer, a distinction between the two assemblages was made on the basis of architectural assignment; the two assemblages were counted separately. This report concentrates mainly on the PPNB assemblage; the PN assemblage will be published in full in the future. The analysis of the lithic industry was conducted in three stages. First, lithic artifacts were separated into waste and tools. Second, a typological description of the tool types was completed, including some general observations such as type of retouch and retouch location. Third, detailed technological and typological attribute analyses of cores, blade blanks, sickle blades, and arrowheads were performed (see below). These analyses included both metric and non-metric attributes (Goren-Inbar 1990:61), such as raw material type, state of preservation, scar pattern, platform facetting, bulb shape, etc., in order to determine modes of reduction and to reconstruct technological organization and raw material exploitation. In addition, use-wear analysis was conducted on a small sample of the sickle blades (see Chapter 5). Although Table 4.1 presents the frequencies of both the PPNB and PN assemblages, the detailed description of the debitage and the technological analysis are based on the PPNB samples only.

RAW MATERIAL The location of the site offers a variety of local flint sources from the Judean group of the Cenomanian and Quaternary Formations (see above, Chapter 2). Most flint outcrops are found in the dolomites of the Kesalon Formation, and a smaller outcrop is noted also in the Bet Me’ir Formation.

A flint outcrop was discovered during a flint provenance survey (conducted by the excavators) in the nearby hills, some 1.4 km northeast of the site. Flint nodules were found within a single bed in the dolomite of the Giv‛at Ye‛arim Formation. The nodules’ cross sections show white to yellow coaxial laminates with a thick cortex. Their colors range from white to light red and brown. Such nodules were probably used in the manufacture of some of the lithics recovered at the site. The abundant knapping products that lay on the surface near the flint source include mainly the waste material of blades, indicating that some knapping activities took place off-site (see below). Most of the ‘formal’ tools (sickle blades, arrowheads) uncovered at the site are made of white to light reddish flint. Such flint is similar, in its matrix, to the outcrop described above and most likely is of the same origin. A few of these tools are pinkish in color and probably were heat treated (Nadel 1989). Most of the ad hoc tools were manufactured on-site, on local white-gray raw material.

THE PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B ASSEMBLAGE Debitage Flakes and blades constitute the majority of the debitage products. Flakes are predominant, as shown by the blade/bladelet:flake ratio of 1:3.35 (Table 4.1). The same tendency appears in the core frequencies (see below, Table 4.3). The opposite is observed concerning the tools, where the majority are fashioned on blade blanks (67.4%). Flakes are small, ranging in length from 14 to 59 mm, with a minor amount of cortex on the dorsal face. Blades and bladelets comprise 20% of the total debitage. Eighty-three percent of the blades are broken both distally and proximally. They appear to be fractures of longer blade blanks, and not intentionally

24

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

Table 4.1. PPNB and PN Waste Frequencies Type

PPNB

PN

N

%

N

%

375

9.0

72

10.5

Flakes

2784

66.9

444

65.0

Blades

491

11.8

66

9.7

Bladelets

340

8.2

55

8.1

90

2.1

30

4.4

Primary Elements

CTE Spalls Total Debitage Chunks

84

2.0

16

2.3

4164

100.0

683

100.0

333

16.5

70

20.3

Chips

1682

83.5

275

79.7

Total Debris

2015

100.0

345

100.0

Debitage

4164

55.3

683

47.4

Debris

2015

26.7

345

23.9 0.4

10

0.1

6

Cores

Hammerstones

118

1.6

34

2.4

Tools

1227

16.3

373

25.9

Total

7534

100.0

1441

100.0

broken segments. The complete blades range in length from 35 to 82 mm. The majority retains no cortex— those bearing more than 75% cortex on their dorsal surface were classified as primary elements and not counted among the blades, although technologically they are blades (Table 4.2). Table 4.2. PPNB Distribution of Cortex on a Random Sample of Blades (N = 100) % Cortex

0

1–25

26–50

51–75

% Blades

84

6

5

5

There is some similarity between the frequencies of raw materials used for manufacturing the blade/ bladelets and those of the total lithic industry. It is interesting to note that blades of a pink color which was probably a result of heat treatment appear in low frequency (8%), while burnt blades appear more often, up to 16%. Analysis of scar patterns on a random sample of 100 blade blanks shows that 44% bear scars of typical single platform cores. Blades with bi-directional scars constitute only 21% of the total sample and were probably knapped on double platform prismatic cores. No direct indication for naviform blade production

could be detected here. This correlates with the absence of blade and naviform cores at the site (see Table 4.3). Core-Trimming Elements Core-trimming elements (n = 90) occur in low frequencies (Table 4.1). The eight core tablets were produced in the course of rejuvenating core platforms. Thirty-one of 39 ridge blades are of secondary crest or neo-crest type, and are by-products of core maintenance. The remaining ridge blades (8) reflect core preparation (see Fig. 4.2:4). Retooling Spalls These include three groups, formed by either retooling or reshaping activities: Burin Spalls (n = 62). There are two distinct subgroups: The larger one is included in debitage material (n = 47, with an average length of 30.4 mm). Most burin spalls are of a whitish to light beige raw material, which is common in the flint industry at the site. Eight burin spalls are pink. Five are burnt. At least three bear scars that are evidence of previous burin reduction (Fig. 4.1:1, 2).

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

The second sub-group (n = 15) are burin spalls of retouched artifacts, mostly sickle elements. Of these, seven are small transverse burin spalls, with an average length of 16.4 mm and a rectangular cross section (Fig. 4.1:3, 4). Figure 4.1:5 shows the removal of part of the sickle working edge. Bifacial Spalls (n = 7). These could have resulted from breakage, rejuvenation, or thinning of axes and chisels (Barkai 1996:31–34). Two of the pieces were removed by transverse blows and retain a part of the bifacial retouch on one of their faces. Remains of polish on the other spalls indicate that they were removed from bifacials.

25

Side-Blow Elements (n = 15). This is a unique group of small segments bearing sickle gloss, with a wide and simple winged striking platform (11–21 mm), produced by a side-blow (Copeland 1996) or a special side-strike (Isaac and Keller 1968:17). They are narrow and have a central ridge and have been bitruncated closely together (Fig. 4.1:6–8). They were detached from the original sickle blades by a blow on the central ridge that removed a part of the blade face that bore gloss. Eight of these were struck from sickle blades of a reddish to pink raw material, possibly indicating that sickle blades of this type of raw material (heat treated) were more intensively re-modified, and another three are burnt.

Fig. 4.1. PPNB. (1,2) Burin spalls; (3,4) transverse burin spalls; (5) burin spall with sickle gloss; (6–8) special side-blow elements.

26

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

Table 4.3. PPNB Core Frequencies Type

Flake

Blade

Bladelet

Flake/Blade

Flake/Bladelet

Blade/Bladelet

Single Platform

Total

21

–

7

3

3

–

34

Two Platform

4

–

4

–

3

1

12

Three Platform

2

–

–

–

–

–

2

Amorphous

21

–

–

–

–

–

21

Discoidal

11

–

–

–

–

–

11

Fragments

19

–

13

1

2

3

38

Total

78

–

24

4

8

4

118

Cores Over 66% of the 118 cores recovered are flake cores (Fig. 4.2:1, 2). Naviform cores are totally absent, except for one flake core which might be an exhausted naviform core (Fig. 4.2:5). Lechevallier (1978:42) reports a similar example. A distinctive group among the cores are the bladelet cores (n = 24), most of which are manufactured from a whitish raw material with a light blue patina, resembling Epipaleolithic cores (Fig 4.2:3). In addition, the few Epipaleolithic tools which were retrieved (see tool description) are produced of the same raw material. Single platform, broken, and amorphous cores dominate, while discoidal (Fig. 4.2:1), two-platform, and three-platform cores are represented in low frequencies (Table 4.3). Most cores were knapped from a whitish to a light beige raw material (63%), while cores of a light reddish raw material are rare (1.9%) and are irregular in shape and small with an average length of 36 mm. Most cores are heavily utilized and many are fragments (32.2%). Over 85% of all cores have no cortex or retain minor amounts of cortex covering 5–25% of the nodule. Approximately 20% of all cores exhibit heavy signs of burning. Given the distance from the site to raw material sources (c. 1.4 km), it is suggested that some core preparation took place off-site, with some cores being preliminarily treated before transportation to the site. Core size and the cortex remains support this assumption. Hammerstones (n = 10) Six of the hammerstones are complete and four are broken. Most (n = 7) are made of flint nodules, while

the others are of hard limestone. Two are burnt. Their diameters range from 60 to 70 mm. Generally, they are rounded in shape and have at least two working edges. Battering and hammering signs are visible on one or more of the working edges. Tools Tools appear in high frequency at Abu Ghosh and represent 16.3% of the total assemblage (see Table 4.1 and Fig. 4.13). Tools on blade blanks predominate, comprising over two-thirds of the total tool assemblage (Table 4.4). Notches and denticulates, sickle blades, retouched blades, and multiple tools dominate the assemblage. Truncations and bifacials are relatively uncommon (Table 4.5). The other types fall within the relative frequencies of PPNB assemblages. Most tools are manufactured on a whitish/beige raw material. Dark gray raw material was mostly used for ad hoc tools (Rosen 1997:34). Purple/pink (heat-treated) raw material is generally rare but is utilized more for sickle blades, retouched blades, and arrowheads. More than 19% of all tools are burnt, with arrowheads, retouched blades, and sickle blades showing higher frequency of burning damage (Table 4.6). Moreover, these standardized tools have a higher tendency toward breakage, more than 80%, while of all other tools, c. 60% are broken (Table 4.7). The typological classification is based on the type list suggested by Gopher (1985; 1989) for Neolithic assemblages. However, some modifications have been made in order to distinguish between formal and ad hoc types.

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

Fig. 4.2. PPNB. (1, 2) Flake cores; (3) bladelet core; (4) ridge blade; (5) possible exhausted naviform core.

27

28

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

Table 4.4. PPNB Blank Types According to Tool Type Tool Type

Flake

Blade

Nodule

Core Fragment

Formal

N

%

N

%

N

N

%

Arrowheads

3

4.8

62

95.2

-

65

100.0

Sickle Blades

2

0.9

209

99.1

-

211

100.0

–

Bifacials

%

N

Total

%

2

10.0

–

18

20

100.0

Multiple Tools on Burins

11

34.4

21

65.6

-

32

100.0

Multiple Tools on Sickle Blades

3

3.8

75

96.2

-

78

100.0

Multiple Tools—Other

13

68.4

6

31.6

-

19

100.0

Scrapers

39

66.1

20

33.9

-

59

100.0

Burins

17

19.3

71

80.7

-

88

100.0

Awls

41

59.4

28

40.6

-

69

100.0

1

3.1

31

96.9

-

32

100.0

Borers Ad Hoc

Notches and Denticulates

149

64.2

31.0

-

232

100.0

71

100.0

–

–

-

71

100.0

–

185

100.0

-

185

100.0

Retouched Flakes Retouched Blades Truncations

–

72

-

11

4.8

10

31.2

22

68.8

-

32

100.0

Varia

9

26.5

25

73.5

-

34

100.0

Total

371

30.2

827

67.4

18

1227

100.0

1.5

11

0.9

Table 4.5. PPNB and PN Tool Frequencies Tool Type

PPNB Tools

PN Tools

Formal

N

%

N

Arrowheads

65

5.3

27

7.2

Sickle Blades

211

17.2

72

19.2

Bifacials

%

20

1.6

9

2.4

129

10.5

21

5.6

Scrapers

59

4.8

26

6.9

Burins

88

7.2

34

9.1

Awls and Borers

101

8.2

35

9.3

Notches and Denticulates

12.0

Multiple Tools

Ad Hoc

232

18.9

45

Retouched Flakes

71

5.8

19

5.1

Retouched Blades

185

15.1

75

20.0

Truncations

32

2.6

12

3.2

Varia

34

2.8

–

–

Total

1227

100.0

375

100.0

16 17 39 13 35 53 19 26 84 32 85 20 21 573

Bifacials

Multiple Tools on Burins

Multiple Tools on Sickle Blades

Multiple Tools— Other

Scrapers

Burins

Borers

Awls

Notches and Denticulates

Retouched Flakes

Retouched Blades

Truncations

Varia

Total

89

Sickle Blades

N 24

Formal

Ad Hoc 46.7

61.8

62.5

46.0

45.1

36.2

37.7

59.3

60.2

59.3

68.4

50.0

53.1

80

42.2

36.9

%

Whitish/Beige

Arrowheads

Tool Type

–

158

4

3

11

15

66

18

6

6

6

2

5

4

8

4

N

12.9

11.8

9.4

5.9

21.1

28.5

26.1

18.7

6.8

10.2

10.5

6.4

12.5

–

3.8

6.2

%

Dark Gray

68

3

1

14

–

6

2

–

5

–

1

11

2

1

15

7

N

–

5.6

8.8

3.1

7.6

–

2.6

2.9

5.7

–

5.25

14.1

6.3

5.0

7.1

10.8

%

Purple/Pink (‘Heat Treated’)

118

1

1

13

7

11

7

3

11

4

1

11

7

–

8 33

N

%

9.6

2.9

3.1

7.0

9.8

4.7

10.2

9.4

12.5

6.8

5.25

14.1

21.8

–

15.6

12.3

Reddish

236

1

3

53

11

42

11

2

7

11

1

11

2

2

58

21

N

Table 4.6. PPNB Raw Material Frequencies According to Tool Type Burnt %

19.2

2.9

9.4

28.6

15.5

18.1

15.9

6.3

8.0

18.6

5.25

14.1

6.3

10.0

27.5

32.3

74

4

4

9

6

23

5

2

6

3

1

1

–

1

8

1

N

6.0

11.8

12.5

4.9

8.5

9.9

7.2

6.3

6.8

5.1

5.25

1.3

–

5.0

3.8

1.5

%

Other N

1227

34

32

185

71

232

69

32

88

59

19

78

32

20

211

65

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Total

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

29

30

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

Table 4.7. PPNB. State of Preservation According to Tool Type Tool Type

Broken

Complete

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

Arrowheads

53

81.5

12

18.5

65

100.0

Sickle Blades Formal

202

95.7

9

4.3

211

100.0

Bifacials

12

60.0

8

40.0

20

100.0

Multiple Tools on Burins

15

46.9

17

53.1

32

100.0

Multiple Tools on Sickle Blades

60

76.9

18

23.1

78

100.0

8

42.1

11

57.9

19

100.0

Scrapers

Multiple Tools—Other

34

57.6

25

42.4

59

100.0

Burins

52

59.1

36

40.9

88

100.0

Awls

47

68.1

22

31.9

69

100.0

Borers Ad Hoc

26

81.2

6

18.8

32

100.0

145

62.5

87

37.5

232

100.0

Retouched Flakes

25

35.2

46

64.8

71

100.0

Retouched Blades

168

90.8

17

9.2

185

100.0

Truncations

20

62.5

12

37.5

32

100.0

Varia

19

55.9

15

44.1

34

100.0

Total

886

72.2

341

27.8

1227

100.0

Notches and Denticulates

Formal Tools Arrowheads (n = 65) Arrowheads represent 5.3% of the tool assemblage (Table 4.5) and range from small to medium in size. More than 43% are either heat treated (n = 7) or show burning damage (n = 21; Table 4.6). Jericho (n = 14) and Byblos (n = 12) arrowheads are present in almost equal numbers, while there are only five ‘Amuq arrowheads. Comparisons with the previously excavated assemblages from Abu Ghosh show similar frequencies (Gopher 1994:55). Byblos arrowheads are elongated and have long, thick tangs (Fig. 4.3:1–3). Fine retouch on the ventral surface is common, while the tangs are formed by semi-abrupt to abrupt retouch. On some tangs, pressure retouch is visible on the ventral surface. All complete Jericho arrowheads are medium sized, with short, pointed barbs (Fig. 4.3:4; Gopher 1989:37) and wellshaped tangs. ‘Amuq arrowheads are all, except one large point, of intermediate forms (Fig. 4.3:5–7). They have an

elongated leaf shape with a narrow point and a shaped tang. A small portion of the tips is retouched. Some of the Byblos, Jericho, and ‘Amuq arrowheads have long, square tangs shaped by Abu Ghosh pressure retouch (Fig. 4.3:5, 6 and see back cover; Lechevallier 1978:4; Goring-Morris 1991:86; Gopher 1994:55). In addition, two Helwan arrowheads, which often appear sporadically in the PPNB assemblages, were recovered (Fig. 4.3:8). These are small, with a pair of notches on their lateral edges. One point bears white patina and the second is broken at the tip. A group of six arrowhead segments could not be associated with a specific type—the body and the point resemble an arrowhead’s form, but the tangs are missing as a result of breakage or flake removal. Four other items exhibit the primary preparation of arrowheads, such as one barb or pressure retouch on the tangs, and were probably discarded before the final shape was achieved. An additional group consists of 22 small fragments, the majority of which are arrowhead tangs that show pressure and semi-abrupt retouch.

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

31

Fig. 4.3. PPNB. (1–3) Byblos points; (4) Jericho point; (5–7) ‘Amuq points; (8) Helwan point.

Sickle Blades (n = 211) Sickle blades of the PPNB layers are the second most prominent formal group in the tool assemblage (Table 4.5). All sickle specimens, except those with cortical dorsal surfaces, were used for detailed attribute analysis. The

results are presented in Tables 4.8 and 4.9. The sickle blades’ sections are divided almost equally between triangular and trapezoidal. The majority are broken items, more often at both ends (66.8%) than at the proximal (20.7%) or distal (12.5%) end alone.

32

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

Only seven sickles retain remnants of cortex. A similar phenomenon was noticed on retouched blades and blade blanks. Most dorsal scars are either unidirectional or opposed with an average of 3.1 ± 1.3 scars per tool. Multidirectional patterns have an average of 4.1 ± 1.9 scars (Table 4.8). The average width of the sickle blades is 15.5 ± 3.7 mm and the average thickness, 5.2 ± 1.9 mm. Other metric measurements were partially taken.1 Sickle gloss was visible on dorsal and ventral blade surfaces and extended over a large portion of the edges. On 63.5% of the blades gloss is visible on one edge. Gloss on both edges occurs frequently, while on only a few items does the gloss extend from the edge to cover also the blade ridges, probably as a result of hafting (Table 4.9). Sickle blades were classified into four types, based on retouch type and sickle gloss location: 1. Sickle blades with fine denticulation along one or both edges (n = 106; Fig. 4.4:1–6, 9–10), more common on the ventral surface of both edges (71.7%). A variant

Table 4.8. PPNB Sickle Blades. Scar Pattern Frequencies Type

N

%

Unidirectional

79

38.7

Opposed

81

39.7

Multidirectional

15

7.4

Indeterminate

23

11.3

6

2.9

204

100.0

Irregular Total

of this type is a combination of fine denticulation on one edge and regular or nibbling retouch on the other. Most sickles have gloss on one edge. In some cases, gloss appears on one edge, while denticulation appears on the other (see Table 4.9). There is a clear preference of the left edge for harvesting activities, a trend which dominates the sickle blades of this type (75%). Observations on the left edges show that the serrations were meticulously prepared, indicating right-hand preference (Warren 1980). 2. Plain sickle blades (n = 26; Fig. 4.4:7, 8). This type includes all unmodified blades, with the sickle gloss as the only indicator of use. Of 26 sickle blades, nineteen sickles bear gloss on the right edge, another four on their left edge and three on both edges. 3. Sickle blades which display various types of retouch (n = 62), ranging from regular fine retouch to signs of use. Sickle gloss appears on one or both edges (Fig. 4.4:11, 12). 4. Reaping blades. Two artifacts of this type are among the sickle group, both having some sort of a shaped tang and two narrow bilateral notches, and are distally broken. The notches are small, 3–5 mm wide, and are prepared by semi-abrupt retouch, probably for hafting purposes. One displays heavy luster, while the other bears traces of gloss (Fig. 4.10:2). Both resemble the ‘Nahal Hemar knife’ (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988:9) and probably functioned as reaping knives (Gopher 1989:50, Fig. 18). The sickle group includes an additional fifteen items that bear gloss. They are fragments too small to classify morphologically as sickle blades.

Table 4.9. PPNB. Sickle Blades with Gloss on One Edge. Type of Retouch Frequencies in Relation to Gloss Location Gloss Location Type of Retouch

Right V

None Denticulation Regular Abrupt

D

Left B

B

4

3

6

1

3

3

5

33

6

4

5

–

1

–

9

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

4

Nibbling

3

1

1

Combination

9

6

7

38

21

V = Ventral; D = Dorsal; B = Both faces.

67

–

1

1

17

–

1

–

– 4

–

2

Total

D

16

Pressure

Various

V

Total Items

– 20

– 3 – 37

– 4 – 13

– 1 – 5

5 30 1 134

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

33

Fig. 4.4. PPNB. Sickle blades.

Bifacials (n = 20) One of the most distinctive markers of the Neolithic is the appearance of bifacials within the flint tool repertoire. The presence of such types reflects major culture changes (Barkai 2000:2).

Three subtypes are found: axes, chisels, and other bifacial elements. The vast majority of bifacials are manufactured of a whitish–light beige raw material. Seven items are defined as axes, of which four are complete and three are fragments (distal ends).

34

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

Two of the complete axes have a wide and polished working edge. Figure 4.5:1 is fashioned on tabular flint with cortex covering most of the dorsal surface, while Fig. 4.5:2 is larger and made of a flint nodule that was shaped by abrasion and polishing. Another complete axe is small and leaf shaped (Fig. 4.6:1). Two

fragments exhibit a transverse (tranchet) blow on their working edges. Eight items are chisels, of which six are fragments and two are complete. The complete ones have an elongated shape with a bi-convex cross section. The distal tips are narrow and one tip has polish

Fig. 4.5. PPNB. Axes.

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

35

Fig. 4.6. PPNB. Bifacials. (1) Axe; (2, 3) chisels.

on both faces (Fig. 4.6:2). The second specimen is also elongated with parallel sides (Fig. 4.6:3) and a triangular cross section. Its working edge is unpolished and exhibits a transverse blow, probably in the course of final shaping. The miscellaneous subtype includes five items, four bifacials of irregular shape and one fragment of a dagger. Multiple Tools (n = 129) Multiple tools are relatively common within the tool assemblage (see Table 4.5). It seems that the circumstances in which a shortage of blade blanks occurred (see below) induced reshaping of different tool types. Various tools on sickle blades compose the

main group (Table 4.10). After functioning as sickle blades, they were reshaped to a different tool type, sometimes removing a large portion of the sickle gloss (Fig. 4.7:1, 3, 6). Frequently, a combination of sickle blades and burins (Fig. 4.7:6), borers, or arrowheads appears. Arrowheads were also reused as burins (Fig. 4.7:2). Another common combination is a scraper and another ad hoc tool, mostly burins (Fig. 4.7:4, 5). Ad Hoc Tools Scrapers (n = 59) Scrapers represent 4.8% of the tool assemblage (see Table 4.5). Scraper retouch (Movius et al. 1968) varies

36

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

Fig. 4.7. PPNB. Multiple Tools. (1) Arrowhead on sickle; (2) burin–arrowhead; (3) sickle blade–borer; (4) borer–scraper; (5) burin–scraper; (6) sickle blade–burin. Table 4.10. PPNB. Multiple Tool Frequencies Type

Scrapers

Burins

Awls

Borers

Notches and Denticulates

Truncated Pieces

Retouched Blades

Scrapers

–

12

3

1

1

2

–

Burins

–

–

4

–

6

1

Awls

–

–

–

–

7

2

Sickle Blades

Splintered Pieces

Arrowheads

4

–

–

6

43

–

3

–

–

–

–

Borers

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

10

–

–

Notches and Denticulates

–

–

–

–

–

3

–

3

–

–

Truncations

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Retouched Blades

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

3

–

–

Sickle Blades

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

7

8

Splinters

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Arrowheads

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

37

Fig. 4.8. PPNB. (1, 3) Endscraper on a flake; (2) endscraper on a blade; (4) rounded scraper (5, 6) sidescrapers.

from semi-steep to steep, which sometimes occurs after reuse of the tool.

The endscraper is the most common scraper type in the PPNB assemblage. Twenty-one are endscrapers on flakes or retouched flakes (Fig. 4.8:1, 3), including two

38

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

carinated endscrapers on thick items, two shouldered items, and three rounded scrapers with retouch that covers most of their circumference (Fig. 4.8:4). Nineteen specimens are endscrapers on blades or retouched blades (Fig. 4.8:2); the majority of these are simple endscrapers on blade fragments. These include two nosed scrapers and two shouldered. Sidescrapers (n = 10) are mostly manufactured on large flakes. Scraper retouch covers one of the lateral edges and in one case, both lateral edges (Fig. 4.8:5, 6). One sidescraper is of special interest: it is manufactured on a large burin spall, which shows evidence of scraper retouch after spall removal. Burins (n = 88) Burins of all types appear within the Abu Ghosh tool assemblage (Fig. 4.9:1–5). They can be divided into several sub-types (Table 4.11). The greater number of burins was shaped on blade blanks (72.7%), and more than half are broken (58.3%). There is a tendency toward selection of good quality blades for the manufacture of burins. Approximately 20% of these blades were produced from reddish to pink raw material. The relatively high frequency of transverse burins (Fig. 4.9:3, 5) could be explained by the fact that many blade blanks were shortened and thinned by burin blows, probably as an early step of sickle preparation for insertion into a haft. Dominance of transverse burins is also known from the mid-PPNB occupation of ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson 1995:516). Awls and Borers (n = 101) Awls, in this assemblage, are considered as expedient tools. The knapper used available flakes and blades for shaping this type of tool. They were manufactured with

single or double notches to produce shoulders with a point between them (Rosen 1997:68). Most working edges occur on the distal or proximal end (Fig. 4.9: 8–10), except for four awls which appear on one of the lateral edges. While the 41 awls on flakes were produced on ad hoc (white-gray) raw material, there is a distinct preference for light beige raw material for awls on blades. This raw material was restricted to formal tools such as sickle blades. Borers, however, are much more uniform in shape and should probably be considered as formal tools. This type includes 32 items, and all but one are shaped on blades. Abrupt to semi-abrupt retouch fashioned their narrow, elongated working edges (Fig. 4.9:6, 7), with fine retouch along one of their lateral edges. In some cases, a shallow notch formed the working edge. Notches and Denticulates (n = 232) Notches and denticulates are variable types of tools, generally manufactured from different waste products, mainly flakes. They appear in a wide variety of shapes, from small shallow notches shaped by retouch to deep notches on thick blanks. Several repeated notches or compound notches with irregular spacing, which appear on one side of the item, are classified as denticulation. Notches include 137 tools, which constitute 11.2% of the tool assemblage. Most are on flakes (n = 87), either on large flakes or on core fragments up to 80 mm in length (n = 31), or on flakes 10–40 mm in length. A variety of notch sizes characterizes these. On the other hand, notches on blades (mostly broken) are mainly deep and narrow. A single blow, usually from the ventral toward the dorsal surface, forms them. Denticulates (n = 95) represent 7.7% of the total tools; two-thirds are on flakes. Most (n = 62) are on

Table 4.11. PPNB Burin Subtype Frequencies in Relation to Blank Type Blank Types Type

Blade N

Flake N

N

%

6

8

14

15.9

29

10

39

44.3

Truncation

4

1

5

5.7

Transverse

15

4

19

21.6 10.2

Dihedral On Natural Pan / Break

Total

Double

9

-

9

Varia

1

1

2

2.3

Total

64

24

88

100.0

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

Fig. 4.9. PPNB. (1–5) Burins; (6, 7) borers; (8–10) awls.

39

40

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

large flake blanks with cortex covering 10–30% of the total surface; they vary in length from 50 to 90 mm. Each denticulate has at least two to five irregular notches. Two denticulates are fashioned on core fragments and another two are exceptional pieces on burin spalls. Thirty-one denticulates are on blades with irregular denticulation. Retouched Flakes (n = 71) Retouched flakes vary in size, shape, and raw material. These include cortical and partially cortical flakes, and flakes without cortex. Either limited coarse to fine retouch over 10 mm is visible on one of the edges, or in some cases, the retouch extends the length of one edge. Retouched Blades (n = 185) Most of these are fragments (Table 4.12), with an average width of 15.12 mm. Continuous simple and irregular retouch appears along one or both edges. Pressure retouch is rare and appears on only 10 items. One of the complete blades is elongated (122 × 24 × 6 mm), burnt, and partially retouched on both edges (Fig. 4.10:1). It resembles a Nahal Hemar knife blank. Truncations (n = 32) Abrupt to semi-abrupt retouch formed the straight truncations. Except for one example, all are produced by direct retouch (ventral to dorsal). Twenty-two truncations on blades and 10 on flakes (see Table 4.4) were encountered. Three examples were retouched on breaks. Varia (n = 34) These include miscellaneous retouched and flaked artifacts, which could not be associated with any of the tool categories. These tools vary in shape and size. One item is an arrowhead with abraded and polished edges, probably as result of reuse for cutting purposes (Fig. 4.10:3). Splintered pieces form a group of 15 specimens, five bearing gloss and the others on retouched blades. All splintered pieces have longitudinal scars on their ventral surface as a result of a direct blow from the distal end (Fig. 4.10:4). Two additional tools are denticulates manufactured on core fragments. The one retouched blade bears remains of some red substance, probably ochre.

The varia group also contains 13 intrusive items: two typical Chalcolithic sickle blades, one Levallois point, and ten Epipaleolithic/PPNA microliths. Most of the microliths are broken backed bladelets, others are lunates (n = 2, Fig. 4.10:5, 6), arched backed bladelets (n = 2, Fig. 4.10:7) and a possible broken trapeze/ rectangle (Fig. 4.10:8).

THE LATE POTTERY NEOLITHIC ASSEMBLAGE The Pottery Neolithic lithic assemblage was retrieved in loci containing pottery sherds. Preliminary observation indicated that most of the lithics originated in the earlier PPNB occupation and were reused at this stage. However, some changes in the lithic industry were noticed: flake cores dominate, bifacial coarse denticulation retouch was employed to fashion some of the sickle blades, and the arrowheads are smaller (none exceeding more than 40 mm) and are diagnostic of the late Pottery Neolithic. The frequencies presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.5 should be treated with caution since the PPNB industry dominates. Therefore, only diagnostic tool categories are described below. Arrowheads Of the 27 arrowheads retrieved, 11 can be assigned to the PN occupational phase. All are small (20–40 mm in length); three are Ha-Parsa points (Fig. 4.11:1, 2); three resemble Herzliya points (Fig. 4.11:3); and three are Nizzanim points (Fig. 4.11:4, 5; Yeivin and Olami 1979; Gopher 1989, 1994). Two items were identified as transversal arrowheads fashioned on sickle segments (Fig. 4.11:6). Sickle Blades A total of 72 sickle blade segments were retrieved, of which only five are typical of the late PN. Three sickles are clearly of PPNB origin, reused and reshaped by deep denticulation (Fig. 4.11:9, 10). Two others are distinct, one being fashioned on an elongated blade, with regular deep denticulation produced by pressure retouch and a pointed end (Fig. 4.11:7), while the other is prepared on a wide blade with double truncations. Coarse denticulation appears on one lateral edge, while the other is unretouched (Fig. 4.11:8).

41

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

Table 4.12. PPNB Retouched Blades. Type of Retouch and Breakage Location Type of Retouch

Complete N

Broken Distal/Proximal N

Fragments N

N

%

7

31

77

115

62.2

Partial

10

30

30

70

37.8

Total

17

61

107

185

100.0

Continuous

Total

Fig. 4.10. PPNB, Varia. (1) Retouched blade; (2) reaping knife; (3) arrowhead with polished edges; (4) splintered piece; (5–8) Epipaleolithic artifacts.

42

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

Fig. 4.11. PN. (1, 2) Ha-Parsa points; (3) Herzliya point; (4, 5) Nizzanim points; (6) transversal arrowhead; (7–10) sickle blades.

Bifacials These include axes (n = 3) and chisels (n = 4), which are manufactured on a light beige raw material. The axes are small and amorphous, with one bearing signs of polish. The chisels are narrow and elongated (Fig. 4.12:1) with bi-convex cross sections, and their working edges are also convex. Two bear signs of polish.

In addition, two tools are worth mentioning. One is an elongated, broken tabular scraper, made of a whitish raw material (93 × 49 mm; Fig. 4.12:3). Thick cortex covers most of the dorsal surface and large scars shape the ventral surface. The second item is a small bifacial made of the same type of raw material. It is narrow and elongated as well, but without cortex on its dorsal surface (Fig. 4.12:2).

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

43

Fig. 4.12. PN. (1) Chisel; (2) bifacial – varia; (3) tabular scraper.

DISCUSSION The Layer III assemblage displays a high typological uniformity with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B assem-

blages of the southern Levant on the one hand, while on the other hand there are some pronounced differences with regard to the knapping techniques, discard patterns, and technological organization.

44

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

The Abu Ghosh assemblage is characterized by a high frequency of multiple tools (see Table 4.10). This can be explained by a shortage of good quality blade blanks, with their concomitant intensive reconditioning as tools on-site (see below). Sickle blades and multiple tools on artifacts bearing sickle gloss (23% of the entire assemblage) dominate the tools. Bifacials are scarce, as are arrowheads, which include Byblos and Jericho types in equal quantity while ‛Amuq and Helwan points appear in low frequencies. Such frequencies of arrowheads in the assemblage could place it within the middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (Bar-Yosef 1981). This is reinforced by the radiocarbon date (Chapter 13) yielded by Layer III to the first half of the ninth millennium BP. When comparing the frequency of tools as a class within the lithic assemblages of contemporary middle PPNB sites in the Mediterranean zone, variation is clearly visible (Fig. 4.13). However, sickle blades generally appear in similar frequencies, while arrowheads range from 5.7% at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson, Simmons, and Kafafi 1992: Table 4) to c. 20% at Munhata (Gopher 1989). The Abu Ghosh frequencies are similar to those of ‘Ain Ghazal rather than Yiftah’el. Comparison of the current assemblage with that of the Lechevallier excavation at Abu Ghosh shows different frequencies in some tool categories, notably points and notches/denticulates, yet a similarity in other ad hoc tools (Lechevallier 1978:45). Furthermore, Lechevallier interpreted the flint assemblage as one unit which was assigned to the PPNB, despite the fact that the excavators noted the presence of two distinct stratigraphical units, one of the PPN and another later phase (Perrot 1952; Lechevallier 1978). There is, thus,

1

some uncertainty when trying to compare the lithic assemblages of both excavations. The current assemblage indicates that at least two distinct modes of lithic production (chaîne opératoire) prevailed at Abu Ghosh: 1. Off-site production of standardized blades, which were imported to the site, and were modified there, mainly into sickle blades. During this process, arrowheads, burins, awls, borers, and a few notches and denticulates were produced as well. The blades were possibly produced in the immediate vicinity of the site (c. 2 km distant), from bi-polar or single platform pyramidal cores. The fact that more than half of the blades exhibit a unidirectional scar pattern might indicate that some blades were produced by non-naviform technology. These blades were thinned, modified, and inserted into hafts; in other instances they were used as reaping knifes. Many side-blow spalls were found, which suggests that worn out blades were reshaped for reuse. In addition, when exhausted, they were reshaped into other tools, such as arrowheads, burins, borers, etc. 2. On-site production including ad hoc tools, mainly retouched flakes, denticulates, and scrapers, which were produced of amorphous and single platform flake cores, common at the site. The presence of at least these two different lithic production methods in the Abu Ghosh lithic industry is not an isolated phenomenon and has been reported from several PPN sites such as Munhata (Gopher 1989:27) and Kfar Ha-Horesh (Goring-Morris 1994:439). The lithic assemblage of Layer II is problematic with regard to its cultural assignment. If the occupation during the PN was sporadic, the lithics are even less representational. The few diagnostic tools present

Fig. 4.13. Frequency of tools at selected PPNB sites. Data from recent excavations; 2 Garfinkel 1987; 3 Gopher 1989; 4 Goring-Morris et al. 1994–1995; 5 Rollefson, Simmons, and Kafafi 1992.

CHAPTER 4: THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

within this layer most closely resemble assemblages of the early fifth millennium BCE (Gilead 1990). The small arrowheads and the bifacially denticulated sickle blades show an affinity to the Jericho IX or the Lodian entity (Gopher and Gophna 1993; Blockman 1997).

45

These tools are also similar to those from several Late Neolithic sites in the coastal plain, e.g., Giv‛at HaParsa (Olami, Burian, and Friedman 1977), Herzliya (Prausnitz et al. 1970), and Nizzanim (Yeivin and Olami 1979).

NOTES 1

Since most of the sickle blades were either broken or fragmentary, it was difficult to obtain metric measurements. However, length of complete blade blanks was measured,

while width and thickness were also measured on blades over 20 mm long.

REFERENCES Barkai R. 1996. The Flint Assemblage from Nahal Zehora I, a Wadi Raba Site in the Menashe Hills: The Implications of a Technological and Typological Analysis. M.A. thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary). Barkai R. 2000. Flint and Stone Axes as Cultural Markers: Socio-Economic Changes as Reflected in Holocene Flint Tool Industries of the Southern Levant. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary). Bar-Yosef O. 1981. The “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” Period in the Southern Levant. In J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville eds. Préhistoire du Levant; chronologie et organisation de l´espace depuis les origines jusqu’au VIe millénaire (Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). Paris. Pp. 555–569. Bar-Yosef O. and Alon D. 1988. Nahal Hemar Cave. ‘Atiqot 18:1–30. Blockman N. 1997. The Lodian Culture (Jericho IX) Following the Excavations at Newe Yarak, Lod. M.A. thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary). Copeland L. 1996. The Flint and Obsidian Industries. In P.M. Akkermans ed. Tell Sabi Abyad, the Neolithic Settlement. Istanbul. Pp. 285–338. Garfinkel Y. 1987. The Neolithic Village of Yiftah’el. M.A. thesis. Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Gilead I. 1990. The Neolithic–Chalcolithic Transition and the Qatifian of the Northen Negev and Sinai. Levant 22: 47–63. Gopher A. 1985. Flint lndustries of the Neolithic Period in lsrael. Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Gopher A. 1989. The Flint Assemblages of Munhata (Israel), Final Report (Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 4). Paris. Gopher A. 1994. Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant (ASOR Dissertation Series 10). Winona Lake. Gopher A. and Gophna R. 1993. Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7:297–353. Goren-Inbar N. 1990. The Lithic Assemblages. In N. GorenInbar. Quneitra: A Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights (Qedem 31). Jerusalem. Pp. 61–149.

Goring-Morris [A.] N. 1991. A PPNB Settlement at Kfar Hahoresh in Lower Galilee: A Preliminary Report of the 1991 Season. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 24:77–101. Goring-Morris [A.] N. 1994. Aspects of the PPNB Lithic Industry at Kfar Hahoresh, near Nazareth, Israel. In H.G. Gebel and S.K. Kozlowski eds. Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 1). Berlin. Pp. 427–444. Goring-Morris A.N., Goren Y., Horwitz L.K., Hershkovitz I., Lieberman R., Sarel J., and Bar-Yosef D. 1994–1995. The 1992 Season of Excavations at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement of Kefar Hahoresh. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 26:74–121. Isaac G.L. and Keller C.M. 1968. Note on the Proportional Frequency of Side- and End-Struck Flakes. South-African Archaeological Bulletin 23:17–19. Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Movius H.L., David N.C., Bricker H.M., and Clay R.B. 1968. The Analysis of Certain Major Classes Of Upper Palaeolithic Tools. American Schools of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 6:1–58. Nadel D. 1989. Flint Heat Treatment at the Beginning of the Neolithic Period in the Levant. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22:61*–67*. Olami Y., Burian F., and Friedman E. 1977. Giv‛at Ha-Parsa: A Neolithic Site in the Coastal Region. EI 13:34–47 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 291). Perrot 1952. Le Néolithique d’Abou-Gosh. Syria 29: 119–145. Prausnitz M., Burian F., Friedman E., and Wreschner E. 1970. Excavations at Hertzliya, Site 30/9. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 10:11–16 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 16). Rollefson G.O. 1995. Burin Variability at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. In F. Zayadine ed. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan V. Amman. Pp. 515–518.

46

HAMOUDI KHALAILY, OFER MARDER, AND RINA Y. BANKIRER

Rollefson G.O., Simmons A.H., and Kafafi Z. 1992. Neolithic Cultures at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 19:443–470. Rosen S.A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age. A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek.

Warren J.M. 1980. Handedness and Laterality in Human and Other Animals. Physiological Psychology 8:351–359. Yeivin E. and Olami J. 1979. Nizzanim—A Neolithic Site in Nahal Evtah: Excavations of 1968–1970. Tel Aviv 6: 99–135.

CHAPTER 5

USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF SICKLES AND GLOSSED PIECES SHOH YAMADA

INTRODUCTION Thirteen tools from the 1995 excavation—ten sickles, two burins (one of them transformed from a sickle), and one faintly glossed piece—were subjected to usewear polish analysis (Table 5.1). The specimens were selected from those illustrated in Chapter 4, many of which preserve their proximal or distal ends. This aids in the reconstruction of tool use by providing a polish distribution relative to the tool part, which is effectively

mapped on the illustrations. The relatively good surface condition of the tools was another important sampling criterion for the analysis. Typologically, all the sickles are PPNB types (originating in Layer III).

METHOD The technique employed for use-wear analysis is the ‘high power method’, that is, an analysis of microscopic polish using an incident light microscope at the

Table 5.1. Attributes of Analyzed Specimens Item No.

Tool Type

Edge (Left or Right)

1004

Sickle

L

1008

Sickle

L

Background Polish*

White Patina**

Edge Angle

3.5

1

61.7

1

1

58.7

35.7

67.0

36.0

R

39.3

R 1030

Sickle

1049

Glossed Piece

2

2

23.7

2

2.5

58.2

1075

Sickle

–

–

40.3

1084

Burin

2

2

54.7

1135

Sickle

2

1

38.7

1139

Sickle

1

2

61.7

1150

Sickle

1157

Sickle

1170-1

Sickle

1170-2

Burin

L

1196

Sickle

L

L R L

79.0

R

L

50.0

39.7

2.5

2

62.7

26.3

1

1

67.0

25.7

65.0

28.0

R 2

36.3

2

1

30.0

2

1

67.3

42.0

62.0

34.7

R R

Spine-Plane Angle***

36.0

* Degree of background polish: 1––very weak; 2––weak; 2.5––weak/intermediate; 3––intermediate; 3.5––intermediate/strong; 4—strong. ** Degree of white patina: 1––weak; 1.5––weak/intermediate; 2––intermediate; 2.5––intermediate/strong; 3––strong. *** Spine-plane angle (Tringham et al. 1974:178) was measured only when the final edge angle seems to deviate significantly from the initial one as a result of repeated resharpening.

48

SHOH YAMADA

magnifying power of x100–500 (Keeley 1980). Usewear on sickles in the Near East has been intensively studied by Romana Unger-Hamilton and Patricia Anderson, both experimentally and archaeologically (Unger-Hamilton 1983, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992; Anderson-Gerfaud 1983, 1988; Anderson 1991, 1992, 1994a, b; Anderson and Inizan 1994). In the present analysis, special attention was paid to the following three points: Polish Distribution Map Observation of gloss distribution on sickles can provide information on sickle use, including hafting. This is a line of approach proposed by Marie-Claire Cauvin (1983), and later applied to Munhata by Avi Gopher (1989) and to ‘Ain Ghazal by Deborah Olszewski (1994). Because of its significance, archaeologists have been illustrating gloss distribution on their drawings, not only on tool edges but also on the sickle surface, using dotted lines. In the present study, the distribution of polish that covers an extensive area of a tool surface was mapped at two levels, corresponding to different degrees of polish development: strong polish visible with the unaided eye, and weak polish usually visible with a microscope (in some cases, the latter can also be detected with the unaided eye). The advantage of this two-tone map, compared with one drawn with unaided eye observation only, is that it provides more precise information for the mode of tool use, particularly for hafting. Firstly, the map shows which part of the tool had the most intensive contact with worked materials. Secondly, the map can indicate more precisely which part of the tool was embedded in a haft. Under a microscope, we can see weak polish that would otherwise go undetected, demonstrating that the margin of polish distribution observed with the unaided eye is not necessarily the true limit of polish distribution. Thus reconstruction of hafting methods based on macroscopic observation may be incorrect. In the present analysis, polish recognizable with a magnifying power of up to x500 was mapped. True contact area can be larger than the mapped area: especially when the degree of background polish (Yamada 1998; 2000) is high, it is difficult to determine the margin of use-wear polish distribution. Additionally, the boundary line between strong and weak polish is more or less subjective and arbitrary;

polish distribution maps drawn by different researchers for the same specimen would not be exactly the same, although they should not be significantly different. Sequential Order of Polish and Breakage All the PPNB sickles analyzed here are broken. Whether or not the breakage preceded the tool use cannot be determined precisely by morphological observation, but an observation of use-wear polish on the boundary ridge between working edge and breakage scar can provide an answer. If polish covers the ridge dividing the working edge and breakage scar, we can tell the tool was used after the breakage had happened either accidentally or intentionally. If a polish does not cover the ridge and is cut by a breakage scar, then it means that the break took place after the tool use (see Fig. 5.3:2). There are some reservations: if the tool use after the breakage is not intensive, it may not leave a recognizable trace on the ridge dividing working edge and break. Also, the shallow focus depth of an incident light microscope sometimes prevents the precise identification of polish on the ridge. Overall, however, this method of observation is highly effective in determining whether the major tool use episode precedes the breakage or not. The observed sequential order of use-wear and breakage is denoted with a symbol in the illustrations (Figs. 5.1, 5.2). Comet-Shaped Pit Comet-shaped pits are known to be an indication of unidirectional movement of a stone tool (Keeley 1980: 60–61); the ‘head’ of a comet points in the direction of tool movement (Fig. 5.3:1). In the present analysis, such features were only identified on highly developed polishes. On undeveloped polishes, particularly on the ventral side, step-like features produced by flint knapping that indicate the direction of fracture propagation (called ‘fissures’, ‘lances’, ‘hackle lines’, etc.) can mimic comet-tail features when they are partially abraded and polished. Therefore, only completely delineated comet-shaped pits on a flat surface with developed polish were counted as a sign of unidirectional movement. The direction of tool movement identified from comet-shaped pits is indicated with arrows in the illustrations (Figs. 5.1, 5.2). Where a single direction could not be determined, the directions are described with a two-headed arrow. A

CHAPTER 5: USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF SICKLES AND GLOSSED PIECES

Fig. 5.1. Use-wear distribution on analyzed specimens.

49

50

SHOH YAMADA

Fig. 5.2. Use-wear distribution on analyzed specimens. See Fig. 5.1 for explanation of drawing conventions.

CHAPTER 5: USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF SICKLES AND GLOSSED PIECES

1 ← # 1030

2 → # 1075

3

4

←

# 1196

5 → # 1004 → Direction of tool movement (single direction).

←

51

# 1196

6 ↔ # 1004 ↔ Direction of tool movement (single direction unclear).

Fig. 5.3. Use-wear polish on analyzed specimens. (1–5) Sickle gloss; (1) comet-shaped pits; (4) demarcation by haft; (6) plant or hide.

two-headed arrow does not mean the tool was actually used in back and forth motion.

Since most of the specimens are sickles that have very developed sickle gloss, the surface condition does not significantly affect the analysis.

OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATION Surface Condition

Polish Type

Surface condition for the use-wear analysis (Yamada 1998) was evaluated and summarized in Table 5.1.

Except for Nos. 1049 and 1170-2 and the left edge of No. 1004, the use-wear polish found on the Abu Ghosh

52

SHOH YAMADA

specimens is highly developed plant polish visible with the unaided eye. Whether any subtype of plant polish is discernible among them is a difficult question. The highly developed polishes leveled off the surfaces, leaving fewer recognizable features; although I do not have experimental references, minor differences in plant polish that may have been caused by different cereal types and harvesting conditions can be identified (cf. Unger-Hamilton 1983, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992; Anderson-Gerfaud 1983). At present, however, I do not see any particular feature that deviates from regular polish features produced by cereal harvesting on the examined specimens. Therefore, these glosses are interpreted to fall among the regular variation of developed plant polish; that is, so-called sickle gloss. However, striations seem to be relatively dense on Abu Ghosh sickle gloss (Fig. 5.3:1, 3, 5), although this point needs to be further examined on a larger number of specimens. The existence of abrasive particles in harvesting conditions is reported to generate many striations (Korobkova 1981; Unger-Hamilton 1983, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992). Therefore, high occurrence of striations may have something to do with the soil condition of the farming field; Abu Ghosh is located in the Judean Hills, where soil is rocky. The following three specimens showed polishes other than sickle gloss: Both edges of No. 1049 demonstrated linear alignment of rough, less developed polish parallel to the edge line (Fig. 5.4: 10–12). The limited development of polish indicates that the material worked was not pliable and thus had limited contact area. Also, the appearance of the polish suggests that it may be the residue of worked materials rather than a worn surface. These characteristics match the general features of use-wear polish produced by cutting or sawing some kind of hard mineral material (shell, bone, stone, etc.). Heavy microflaking on both edges also indicates use on hard materials. The left edge of No. 1004 shows spots of weakly developed, rounded polish (Figs. 5.1; 5.3:6). A polished surface with a rounded profile is an indication of relatively soft and pliable materials (Yamada 1993). Since the other edge shows sickle gloss, this can be an early stage of sickle gloss, but a harder, less silica-rich plant such as wood is also a possible worked material. There is no recognizable use-wear polish associated with the burin facet of No.1170-2, but the side edges show weakly developed polish (Figs. 5.2; 5.4:7, 8). It is difficult to specify the type of material, but the

rounded polish profile suggests that the material was relatively soft and pliable. This can be interpreted as a very weakly developed plant polish (as in No. 1004), but hide cutting is also a possibility. Sickle polish on the distal end of No. 1135 is obliterated by another type of wear (Figs. 5.1; 5.4:9). The worn surface consists of many coarse scratches that are oblique to the edge line, leaving little polished surface. This demonstrates the very abrasive nature of the wear. Also, the wear is not confined to the edge tip but is invasive and evenly distributed within the range. These features suggest that the wear was generated by some kind of grinding. However, the nature of this grinding, i.e., what materials and for what purpose, is not known. Direction of Tool Movement The striations found on the analyzed specimens are mainly parallel to the edges, which indicates the cutting and sawing motion of use, although diagonal striations are occasionally imposed on polishes. Direction of tool movement identified from comet-shaped pits on sickles coincides on both surfaces of the same edges in all cases as expected. Tools Nos. 1135 (Fig. 5.1) and 1196 (Fig. 5.2) indicate a motion toward the proximal end of these tools — that is, a pulling motion — which is expected for sickle harvesting. These observations confirm the diagnostic value of comet-shaped pits. Interestingly, Nos. 1008 and 1157 (Fig. 5.2) show different directions of tool movement between the two side edges. This suggests that the proximal and distal ends of the tools were switched when they were replaced in a haft to switch the functional edge. Tool No. 1157 (Fig. 5.2) demonstrates a creation of a new hafting device, a stem-like feature, associated with the switching of proximal and distal ends (see below, Fig. 5.5:a). Originally, the left edge (on the dorsal surface) had been a cutting edge, and a hafting device is inferred to have been at the missing upper end of the illustration in Fig. 5.2. The tool was pulled in the direction indicated with the arrow. When the cutting edge was switched to the other edge, the proximal and distal ends were also switched by creating a new stem-like feature for hafting. This is evidenced by the fact that the retouch forming the stem-like feature cuts previously developed sickle gloss on the left edge of the dorsal surface. However, the presence of weaker polish inside these retouch scars for hafting (seen on

CHAPTER 5: USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF SICKLES AND GLOSSED PIECES

7

9

↔

# 1170-2

# 1135

11 ↔ # 1049 ↔ Direction of tool movement (single direction unclear).

53

8 ↔ # 1170-2 enlargement of Fig. 5.4:7

10

12

# 1049

↔

# 1049 the same spot as Fig. 5.4:11

Fig. 5.4. Use-wear polish on analyzed specimens. (7, 8) Plant or hide; (9) unknown; (10–12) hard mineral (shell, bone, stone, etc.).

the ventral surface) suggests that the tool had been rehafted again, switching the proximal and distal end, to use the retouched part as a cutting edge. Sequential Order of Breakage and Tool Use In all cases except for No. 1030, sickle gloss was disrupted by breakage. Therefore, these sickle segments

are interpreted as broken fragments of originally complete pieces, not pieces that were intentionally snapped to make composite sickle elements. On No. 1030, weak polish was observed on the breakage edge, which indicates that the tool was used for a short duration after the tool was broken or snapped, during or after the major use episode that produced the developed polish seen on the edge. Because of its

54

SHOH YAMADA

small size, the piece was probably used as an element of a composite sickle after the breakage. Distribution Pattern of Sickle Gloss Sickle gloss distribution mapped on illustrations has provided new insight on sickle hafting methods. Generally, PPNB sickles in the southern Levant show very uniform polish distributions: very developed gloss reaching the central or first ridge on the dorsal surface, with a developed but narrower gloss band on the ventral surface (e.g., Olszewski 1994). The sickles from Abu Ghosh are no exception (typically, Nos. 1008, 1150, 1157, 1170-1, and 1196). What is the cause of this marked difference in polish width between ventral and dorsal faces? The triangular or thick trapezoidal cross section of the typical PPNB sickle blades may be responsible. With this cross section, if a tool is inserted in a haft with its ventral surface parallel to the plane of the harvesting motion, a dorsal surface is likely to have more exposure to plant stems. Also, it is natural that the dorsal ridge constitutes an isolated polish band or shows stronger polish than the immediately adjacent area, because such protrusions are susceptible to heavier abrasion. However, the contrast in polish development between ventral and dorsal surfaces of PPNB sickles often seems extreme. For example, in the case of No. 1084, sickle gloss seen on the left edge of the dorsal surface is interpreted as an extension from the right edge, because there is no polish on the ventral side. The fact that the polish reaches a dorsal ridge means that the ridge was exposed and not embedded in a haft. This would result in a shallow, unstable insertion into the haft, if one considers the triangular cross section of many PPNB sickles. In terms of polish distribution, polishes produced with cutting or sawing motions normally show gradual inward diminution of polish intensity. In the drawing system in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2, it appears as a strong polish band on the edge, circumscribed by a certain width of a weak polish band; Nos. 1135 and 1004 (right edge) are good examples. If a developed polish is suddenly demarcated by an unaltered surface without gradual diminution or has too narrow a diminution zone relative to the extent of the strong polish zone, it suggests the existence of an obstacle on the surface that prevented regular polish development, most likely a haft or mastic materials.

M.-C. Cauvin (1973) observed macroscopically visible sickle polish as an indication of haft coverage. The present analysis develops this line of observation at a microscopic level. The stem-like features on the proximal end of reaping knife-shaped sickles in the PPNB southern Levant suggest that the primary point of attachment was at the proximal end of blades, as has been suggested by Cauvin (1983) and Gopher (1989:44–51). The very clear demarcation (Fig. 5.3:4) of polish distribution on the proximal ends of Nos. 1196 and 1157, as well as black stains that are probably residues of mastic material found on the proximal part of No. 1196, strongly supports the idea. In Fig. 5.3:4, a transitional zone between the developed sickle gloss (white area at right) and the unaltered area (dark area at left) can be seen. But empirically, the width of the transitional zone is too small to be seen as a regular transitional zone of the highly developed polish seen at right. Abrupt demarcation of strong polish is seen on the ventral sides of No. 1008 (right), Nos. 1150, 1157 and 1196 (left). The ventral sides of No. 1008 (left), Nos. 1030, 1170-1, and 1196 (right) have some diminishing zones, but their width is considered to be unusually narrow relative to the extent of polish in its strong part. Except for No. 1030, these are all ventral sides of typical PPNB sickles with triangular or thick cross sections. These observations suggest extensive coverage by haft or mastic materials on the ventral side of this sickle type. This makes sense when one considers the shallow insertion on the dorsal side indicated above, which alone would result in an unstable haft. Also, in order to have a deep, stable insertion for such a thick sickle on both surfaces, a thick haft with a large insertion groove must be prepared. This will be more costly than a haft for a thin blade. The switch of proximal and distal ends indicated by comet-shaped pits on Nos. 1157 and 1008 is also consistent with the proposed reconstruction of extended haft coverage on the ventral side. If the working edge is switched in this hafting method, the asymmetrical cross section of the tool may prevent it from fitting comfortably into the haft unless the proximal and distal ends are switched (Fig. 5.5). Morphologically different sickle types (Nos. 1004, 1030, and 1139) show different patterns of polish distribution; equally developed polish width on ventral and dorsal surfaces indicates that these were hafted at the other side of the edge with equal coverage on both surfaces. This indirectly supports the hypothesis

CHAPTER 5: USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF SICKLES AND GLOSSED PIECES

55

Fig. 5.5. Schematic reconstruction of reaping knife type sickles.

of asymmetrical hafting coverage of the reaping-knife type sickle. To sum up, the most likely hafting method for typical PPNB sickles (reaping-knife type sickles) is as follows: A haft was primarily attached at one end of the blade that often has a stem-like shape, and haft coverage was asymmetrical between ventral and dorsal surfaces, being more invasive on the ventral surfaces (Fig. 5.5:a). Alternatively, a haft may have supported a blade along the central axis on the ventral surface (Fig. 5.5:b). The latter reconstruction can be supported by the examples of Nos. 1008 and 1196, although, as for No. 1196, a possible haft width may be too narrow to support the idea. Unger-Hamilton (1989; 1992) observed larger sickle polish width in the PPNB than in the previous Natufian and PPNA periods and attributed it to the increase in plant stem diameter associated with the evolution of domestic cereals. The present analysis shows that the phenomenon should be interpreted, at least partially, as an effect of the above hafting method in the PPNB. The different polish width between ventral and dorsal sides may be an effect of different contact angles between the surfaces and the plant stem (Olszewski 1994:477).

However, it is more likely to be an effect of the hafting method because of the sharp demarcation of polish on the ventral side. Resharpening Many pieces show traces of resharpening. This is evidenced by weaker polish development on retouched edge tips, on ridges of retouch scars, and/or inside retouch scars, compared with adjacent inner areas of the dorsal and ventral surfaces. Abrupt retouched edge angle and narrow width of the final product also indicate the possible practice of resharpening. Such indications are clearly observed on Nos. 1008, 1075, 1150, 1157, and 1196. Evidence of the creation of a new stem-like feature for hafting is visible on No. 1157 (as seen above) and No. 1084. On these pieces, retouch forming a stemlike feature cut the previously developed sickle gloss. The ‘stem-like feature’ on No. 1084 may be associated with the burin feature rather than the sickle feature, although use-wear polish is not distinctive on the burin facets. Only weak edge beveling without polish or

56

SHOH YAMADA

striations is observed on the corner between the final burin facet and the break. The serrated edges of the sickles are the result of resharpening. Whether or not the initial edge line was also serrated cannot be determined from these specimens, which retain only the final form. The evidence of resharpening and the strongly developed polish on both edges of Nos. 1008, 1157, and 1196 indicate that these pieces were maintained for use over a prolonged period through repeated resharpening and by alternating edges. The residents of Abu Ghosh seem to have been rather thrifty about their sickle blade consumption. Operational Sequence of Individual Sickles It is possible to reconstruct the ‘life history’ of an individual sickle, i.e., a resharpening and rehafting sequence based on observations of polish distribution and retouch. Nos. 1157 and 1084 are good examples, as we have already seen. Such stories of individual tool manufacture and use may sound trivial in relation to the higher level of social and historical analysis. However, geographical and chronological comparison of any general tendencies in tool use found in large samples may provide valuable information for higherlevel analysis.

CONCLUSIONS Ten PPNB sickles, two burins, and one faintly glossed blade from Abu Ghosh (1995 excavation) were examined for use-wear polish analysis. 1. The following types of use-wear polish were identified: sickle gloss (14 edges of 11 pieces); possible undeveloped plant polish (2 edges of 2 pieces); hard mineral polish (2 edges on 1 piece); possible hide polish (1 edge on 1 piece); possible grinding trace (1 edge on 1 piece). 2. All the sickles were used in motions parallel to the edge line. 3. No distinctive use-wear polish is associated with burin facets on the two burins. 4. Two possible sickle-hafting methods are suggested by polish distribution and retouch patterns: (a) Reaping-knife type hafting, in which a blade was primarily hafted at one end. A side edge of the blade was inserted into a haft as well, with more invasive haft coverage on the ventral surface. Alternatively, a haft supported a blade along the central axis on the ventral surface. (b) Composite sickle-type hafting, in which a blade was hafted at the side edge. Haft coverage was almost equal on both surfaces. 5. Observations on retouch and polish distribution suggest prolonged use maintenance of sickles at Abu Ghosh through a sequence of resharpening, rehafting, and alternating of working edges.

REFERENCES Anderson P.C. 1991. Harvesting Wild Cereals during the Natufian as Seen from Experimental Cultivation and Harvest of Wild Einkorn Wheat and Microwear Analysis of Stone Tools. In O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla eds. The Natufian Culture in the Levant (International Monograph of Prehistory 1). Ann Arbor. Pp. 521–556. Anderson P.C. 1992. Experimental Cultivation, Harvest and Threshing of Wild Cereals and Their Relevance for Interpreting the Use of Epipaleolithic and Neolithic Artifacts. In P.C. Anderson ed. Préhistoire de l’agriculture; nouvelles approches expérimentales et ethnographiques (Monographie du Centre de Recherche Academique 6). Paris. Pp. 179–209. Anderson P.C. 1994a. Insights into Plant Harvesting and Other Activities at Hatoula, as Revealed by Microscopic Functional Analysis of Selected Chipped Stone Tools. In M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen eds. Le gisement de Hatoula en Judée occidentale, Israël: rapport des fouilles 1980– 1988 (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Français de Jérusalem 8). Paris. Pp. 277–315.

Anderson P.C. 1994b. Reflections on the Significance of Two PPN Typological Classes in Light of Experimentation and Microwear Analysis: Flint “Sickles” and Obsidian “Cayönü Tools”. In H.G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski eds. Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 1). Berlin. Pp. 61–82. Anderson P.C. 1995. La moisson à Aswad vue à travers une étude des microtraces d’utilisation sur un échantillon d’outils lustrés. In H. de Contenson ed. Aswad et Ghoraifé, sites néolithiques en Damascène (Syrie) aux IXème et VIIIème millénaires avant l’ère chrétienne (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 137). Beirut. Pp. 221–230. Anderson P.C. and Inizan M.-L. 1994. Utilisation du tribulum au début du IIIe millénaire: des lames “Cananéennes” lustrées à Kutan (Ninive V) dans la région de Mossoul, Iraq. Paléorient 20:85–103. Anderson-Gerfaud P. 1983. A Consideration of the Uses of Certain Backed and “Lustred” Stone Tools from Late Mesolithic and Natufian Levels of Abu Hureyra and

CHAPTER 5: USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF SICKLES AND GLOSSED PIECES

Mureybet (Syria). In M.-C. Cauvin ed. Traces d’utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du Proche Orient (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 5). Lyon. Pp. 77–105. Anderson-Gerfaud P. 1988. Using Prehistoric Stone Tools to Harvest Cultivated Wild Cereals: Preliminary Observations of Traces and Impact. In S. Beyries ed. Industries lithiques: tracéologie et technologie: aspects archéologiques (BAR Int. S. 411i). Oxford. Pp. 175–195. Cauvin M.-C. 1973. Problèmes d’emmanchement des faucilles du Proche-Orient: les documents de Tell Assouad (Djezireh, Syrie). Paléorient 1:101–106. Cauvin M.-C. 1983. Les faucilles préhistoriques du ProcheOrient. Données morphologiques et fonctionnelles. Paléorient 9:63–79. Gopher A. 1989. The Flint Assemblages of Munhata (Israel): Final Report (Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 4). Paris. Keeley L.H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis (Prehistoric Archeology and Ecology). Chicago. Korobkova G.F. 1981. Ancient Reaping Tools and Their Productivity in the Light of Experimental Tracewear Analysis. In P. L. Kohl. The Bronze Age Civilization of Central Asia. New York. Pp. 325–349. Olszewski D.I. 1994. The PPN Glossed Blades from ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan (1982–85 and 1988–89 Seasons). In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski eds. Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 1). Berlin. Pp. 467–478. Tringham R., Cooper G., Odell G., Voytek B., and Whitman A. 1974. Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171–196. Unger-Hamilton R. 1983. An Investigation into the Variables Affecting the Development and the Appearance of

57

Plant Polish on the Blades. In M.-C. Cauvin ed. Traces d’utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du Proche Orient (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 5). Lyon. Pp. 243–250. Unger-Hamilton R. 1985. Microscopic Striations on Flint Sickle-Blades as an Indication of Plant Cultivation: Preliminary Results. World Archaeology 17:121–126. Unger-Hamilton R. 1988. Method in Microwear Analysis: Prehistoric and Other Stone Tools from Arjoune, Syria (BAR Int. S. 435). Oxford. Unger-Hamilton R. 1989. The Epi-Paleolithic Southern Levant and the Origins of Cultivation. Current Anthropology 30:88–103. Unger-Hamilton R. 1991. Natufian Plant Husbandry in the Southern Levant and Comparison with That of the Neolithic Periods: The Lithic Perspective. In O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla eds. The Natufian Culture in the Levant (International Monographs in Prehistory 1). Ann Arbor. Pp. 483–520. Unger-Hamilton R. 1992. Experiments in Harvesting Wild Cereals and Other Plants. In P. C. Anderson ed. Préhistoire de l’agriculture; nouvelles approches expérimentales et ethnographiques (Monographie du Centre de Recherche Academique 6). Paris. Pp. 211–224. Yamada S. 1993. The Formation Process of “Use-Wear Polishes”. In P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson eds. Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés II (ERAUL 50). Liège. Pp. 433–445. Yamada S. 1998. Archaeological Use-Wear: Problems and Analytical Methods. Proceeding of the XIII International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Congress 6. Forlì. Pp. 1115–1120. Yamada S. 2000. Development of the Neolithic: Lithic UseWear Analysis of Major Tool Types in the Southern Levant. Ph.D. diss. Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass.

CHAPTER 6

THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGE HAMOUDI K HALAILY AND OFER MARDER

INTRODUCTION One hundred grinding implements and other groundstone artifacts were recovered. These tools exhibit various shapes and dimensions and were made of a variety of raw materials. The majority was retrieved in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic levels. The few artifacts that can be assigned securely within the Pottery Neolithic layer (at least two of which were found in secondary use) are listed in Table 6.2. However, all items will discussed typologically by major groups. A concentration of 20 groundstone artifacts was discovered in the PPNB installation, L146. This group of tools is analyzed here twice, once amongst the general assemblage and then separately in an attempt at spatial reconstruction of the inhabitants’ domestic/ craft activities. The analysis consists of a classification based on tool morphology, which also indicates its function. Such a classification is based upon the type list suggested by Wright (1992; 1993) and a morphological description of the artifacts, including general remarks on manufacturing techniques. Tools that do not fall within the major types will be described separately under ‘varia’. Raw Material Dolomite, which is locally available, provides the main raw material used for manufacturing groundstone artifacts (Table 6.1). Seventy-six percent of the artifacts were produced from either chalky dolomite of the Soreq Formation (Sass and Oppenheim 1965) or hard limestone. Soft limestone (chalk) is less frequent, utilized for only six items. Hammerstones represent the only use of flint in this category. Basalt and sandstone are represented in low frequencies; the remaining tools are made of quartzite.

Table 6.1. Groundstone Tools. Raw Material Frequencies Type

N

Dolomite

60

Limestone

16

Chalk

6

Basalt

6

Flint

5

Sandstone

3

Quartzite

2

Indeterminate

2

Total

100

THE ARTIFACTS (Table 6.2) Grinding Slabs Fourteen artifacts comprise this group. Half are complete and half are fragmentary; most were manufactured of hard limestone. In general, these grinding slabs have a plano-convex shape, which is characterized by a flat working surface. In some cases, the working surface is slightly concave and shows signs of battering, and the base is convex, sometimes retaining its natural form, or shaped and ground to symmetrical oval or rounded shapes. The grinding slabs can be divided into three subgroups, based on morphology: Oval Slabs. The three objects in this subgroup are elongated with thick convex bases. They can be small or large with an average length of 20 cm and thickness of 7 cm. The smaller slab (Fig. 6.1:1; 17 × 11 × 7 cm) is shaped by small and large flaking scars. The larger specimen (Fig. 6.1:2; 23 × 19 × max. thickness 8 cm) has an oval surface. Its sides were shaped by flaking, and the slightly convex base by alternate flaking and battering. In both cases there are no signs of polishing.

60

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

Fig. 6.1. Grinding slabs.

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGE

Table 6.2. Groundstone Tool Type Frequencies Type

% PN

% PPNB

Grinding Slabs

2

12

Mortars

–

4

Handstones

3

24

Pestles

–

11

Pounders

1

8

Polishers

–

3

Worked Pebbles

2

6

Axes

–

8

Grooved and Perforated Stones

–

7

Stone Vessels

–

6

Varia

1

2

Total (N = 100)

9

91

61

The third object is a fragment of a pillar mortar (Fig. 6.2:3), fashioned on an elongated piece of basalt, carefully pecked and smoothed, with striations on its exterior surface. At the upper part of the pillar there is a shallow rounded depression with a 4.5 cm diameter and a depth of 3.3 cm. The interior surface is smooth and the rim is rounded. Three to four flaking scars are directed from the rim toward the outer surface; they probably were incurred after it went out of use. The fourth is a fragment of a lower part of a mortar, the interior surface displaying polishing marks and the exterior exhibiting small chiseling marks and battering. Handstones

Circular Slabs. Five complete slabs and another four fragments (Fig. 6.1:3, 4) are similar to the former in their plano-convex section, but display a different shape. The specimens are circular and well manufactured. The largest slab measures 27 cm in diameter while the smallest is only 8.5 cm in diameter. The circumference was carefully flaked and the bottom is irregular in shape, ranging from flat to convex. Two of these circular grinding slabs are manufactured of basalt. One—small, complete and made of vesicular basalt—has a flat surface and bottom. The second is a fragment of compact basalt, its working surface and sides displaying signs of battering and abrasion. Querns. Two querns were found. One is made on a hard limestone boulder (max. length 15 × 12.5 × 11 cm). Its upper surface has a shallow depression to a depth of at least 1.5 cm and abrasion marks. The base of this quern is concave and exhibits chiseling marks. The second is a fragment fashioned on burnt dolomite. It has a shallow depression on its upper surface. Mortars Stone mortars are not common. Only four artifacts could be assigned to this category. Two artifacts (Fig. 6.2:1, 2) are thick and rounded. They feature semi-spherical utilized surfaces, rounded sides with flattened bases, and deep depressions and pounding marks at the lower points of the depressions. Bifacial flaking thinned the rims and their sides were pounded to form a regular shape.

A handstone is defined as the mobile stone artifact of the grinding process. Wright (1992:67) defined it as the upper stone in a pair of grinding tools. Gopher and Orrelle (1995:17) adopted the term ‘processor’ in defining the active tool (Wright 1992: Pls. 17, 31). The 27 artifacts comprising this group are made of flint, dolomite, or limestone pebbles. Sizes range from small to large (diameter range, 4–8 cm) and shapes are variable: rectilinear, discoidal, ovate, loaf, and irregular. However, all of them share two characteristics: they are smaller than grinding slabs and bear at least two active facets. Among this group there are ten discoidal or circular handstones. They have rounded sides with two opposed flat surfaces. In a few cases the working surfaces are slightly convex. Another five artifacts are oval or elongated, with bi-plano or plano-concave sections. Some of them are small, slightly elongated pebbles with two utilized facets. Four artifacts are loaf-shaped handstones, two with bifacial working surfaces and rounded transverse sections. One fragment, made of thin chalky limestone, is 2.1 cm thick and has a flat lower surface but is slightly convex in the longitudinal section. The fourth object of this group is a broad, elongated handstone. The upper portion is rounded and abraded, dome-like in shape, while the lower working surface is naturally flat. There are also four objects which have a rectilinear shape with a mainly bi-plano section, as well as four handstones on a thick, irregularly shaped stone with one working surface.

62

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

Fig. 6.2. Mortars.

Pestles This group consists of 11 mostly complete artifacts. All except one are manufactured of hard material such

as basalt, dolomite, and hard limestone. Seven are cylindrical or conical, elongated in shape, and have one or two working edges. The rest are irregularly shaped,

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGE

ranging from rectilinear to plano-convex in section, and have one or two flattened ends. Three of the cylindrical pestles are short, ranging from 6 to 9 cm in length and 3.5 to 6.2 cm in diameter. Traces of abrasion were observed along their sides and signs of pecking are visible on their flattened working edges, a result of pounding actions. Interestingly, the three objects were flaked at one of their ends as if they had been intentionally thinned, or damaged during pounding activities (Fig. 6.3:1, 2). Two conical pestles were discovered, one manufactured of soft limestone (Fig. 6.3:3) and the other of compact basalt (Fig. 6.3:4). Both have a circular cross section, wide at the middle and narrower at the ends. One is 11.5 cm long and its diameter at the middle is 4.3 m. Both ends were heavily used and small flaking scars are visible. The second is a pestle fragment of this type. Its exterior surface was well worked and smoothed and the active end is narrow and round with traces of pounding activities. In addition, there are four elongated pestles, which have squared to irregular cross sections and one working surface. Three of the elongated pestles have flat working surfaces and the fourth has a rounded pointed working surface. Pounders, Polishers, and Worked Pebbles The items in this group are mostly made of limestone or flint pebbles, bearing signs of use. A few items also exhibit a restricted polished surface. Out of the 20 objects of these types, nine are pounders, three are polishers, and eight are worked pebbles. Pounders are made of various raw materials: three are of dolomite; three are flint nodules; two are limestone pebbles; and one is of basalt. Pounders are rounded in shape, varying in diameter from 5.6 to 9.2 cm. They carry traces of hammering and battering on all surfaces. One of the dolomite pebbles has signs of pecking covering the entire surface. The flint nodules are spherical with one or two flattened sides. In many cases, the cortex is still present and shows several flake scars as a result of pounding. Another limestone pounder is cubical. It is yellow to red in color, with traces of a red material on its outer surface. It was probably used as an ochre grinder. The polishers are present in a small quantity and were found together in one installation (L146). One

63

is made of flint, one of quartzite, and another of hard limestone. All items are spherical with two flattened sides. Brightly polished areas were visible on their sides. Eight implements are worked pebbles (Fig. 6.3:5). They are small cobbles, mainly of dolomite, which were ground on all sides to achieve a spherical shape. Axes Eight implements represent this type of tool, all manufactured of limestone. Six were produced from elongated pebbles ranging in length between 6 and 11 cm, while the other two items were fashioned of large flakes. The vast majority are large celts made on an elongated limestone pebble, trapezoidal in shape and plano-convex in cross section. The distal end is thinned on both faces by longitudinal flakes that extend almost half the length of the objects, with traces of polish on both faces. Two celts are small and relatively flat (Fig. 6.3:6), their mid-section broad and their profile adze-like, while they are relatively short (6.9 cm). The distal end is curved, forming a cutting edge. Two of the implements, originally used as pestles (Fig. 6.3:7), were reutilized. Both have a rounded cross section, 8.8 cm long and 3.8 cm in diameter. The butts show signs of hammering and retain a rounded shape, while each working edge was bifacially ground, resharpened, and reused. Fig. 6.3:8 represents the largest two objects, missing their tips. Both were longitudinally flaked to thin the working edge. Later, the cutting edge was broken. The remaining two objects are fragments, fashioned of large broad flakes with two parallel sides. In one case, the dorsal and ventral surfaces were sharpened with retouch; on both, the wide cutting edge was shaped by bifacial flaking. In both objects, there are no traces of polishing. Grooved and Perforated Stones Three objects bear grooved patterns. In addition, four artifacts display various types of perforations. The grooved stones include two artifacts known as ‘shaft straighteners’ and one small pebble with incisions.

64

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

Fig. 6.3. (1–4) Pestles; (5) worked pebble; (6–8) celts.

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGE

Both shaft straighteners were recovered at the lowest gravel level, which is associated with the middle PrePottery Neolithic occupation. One item (Fig. 6.4:1) is manufactured on a basalt cobblestone, slightly elongated—8 cm long. Its upper surface is ‘domed’, while the lower surface is flat. The upper surface is grooved along its longitudinal axis to a length of 6.4 cm, in a V-shaped section; no signs of polishing appear in the groove. The second item is a fragment of a shaft straightener on a compact basalt cobble. The grooved segment has a U-shaped section and was highly used; polish is obvious on its interior surface (Fig. 6.4:2). The third artifact is a small flattened limestone pebble with smoothed edges and traces of incisions visible encircling the pebble along its longitudinal axis. Four broken perforated artifacts were found. Two are fragments of large massive artifacts resembling a ‘weight for digger sticks’ (Gilead 1995). Both have wide perforations in the center. One is manufactured of dolomite and is broken in the middle. Its perforation shows evidence of bi-conical drilling (Fig. 6.4:3). The second is a perforated disk, 7 cm in diameter and broken in half. It has one flattened side while the other is natural. The perforation is small (diameter 1.2 cm) and is straight drilled (Fig. 6.4:4). Among the perforated tools are two macehead fragments. One macehead, of soft limestone, is irregular in shape, with a smoothed surface. The perforation, made by straight drilling, is narrow at one side and widens toward the middle and the opposite side. The other fragment, of dolomite, is elongated in shape with a rounded section and a flat top. The perforation was made by straight drilling. Stone Vessels This group includes six limestone objects: four vessels with rims, one body fragment, and one flat base. The vessel type was shaped by picking and punching and then finished by grinding and polishing (Dorrell 1983:492). Two of the stone vessels (Fig. 6.4:5, 6) are 15 and 20 cm in diameter, respectively. They are shallow and rounded in shape. The walls are thick and thicken toward the base, while the rims are rounded. Their inner surfaces are smoothed and concave in shape. The

65

exterior surfaces are curved toward the rims and bear pecking signs. The third vessel resembles a platter and has a flat upper surface and roughly finished curved base. The rim is slightly pointed with traces of polishing. The fourth is a bowl with splayed sides and a straight, almost vertical wall slightly curved in its interior, and a flat base; its rim is missing. Circular striations are visible on the interior surface, indicating the method of chiseling the interior space. Varia This group comprises three stone tools that do not fall within any of the main types described above: two flat and squared slabs with possible working edges and one fragment of what might have been a vessel.

INSTALLATION 146 (Plan 6.1) Three phases of construction were identified during the excavation of this installation (see Chapter 3). Each phase is rich in groundstone tools, especially Phases 1 and 2. Spatial analysis of the recovered material allowed us to reconstruct the type of activities that took place at this installation and its primary function. In the earliest phase (3) the installation is small and elliptical in shape, c. 0.65 m in diameter, and constructed of large fieldstones. In the middle phase (2) it is circular and constructed of large stones. In its center a flat slab is surrounded by small fieldstones and plentiful bone fragments. During the latest phase (1) it was well constructed and circular in shape, following the second plan. It contained a grinding slab in its center, as well as a concentration of groundstone tools, including some pounders scattered around the grinding slab. The groundstone tool distribution suggests grinding activities may have taken place here, leading to the conclusion that this installation was used for food processing during Phases 2 and 1.

DISCUSSION Analysis of groundstone artifacts can yield valuable information regarding subsistence economies of early farming communities. The variety of grinding tools, represented by grinding slabs, querns, handstones,

66

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

Fig. 6.4. (1, 2) Grooved stones; (3, 4) perforated items; (5, 6) stone vessels.

and other processing tools, indicates that the Abu Ghosh inhabitants were familiar with food-processing activities and that part of their diet was based on plant exploitation, including domesticated crops. The fact that raw materials, especially dolomite, are available around the site influenced its use for manufacturing stone vessels for food processing (Wright 1991:38).

Most grinding stones were found in caches related to installations and living floors. Many of the grinding slabs and handstones were recovered in Installation 146, which is within a domestic enclosure. The abundance of these tools in one installation indicates that this installation functioned for food production. The groundstone assemblage from the recent excavation

CHAPTER 6: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGE

67

Plan 6.1. Distribution of groundstone implements in Installation 146: (1, 2) grinding slabs; (3, 6, 14) pestles; (4, 5, 11, 14) handstones; (7, 9, 13, 15, 16) worked pebbles; (8, 10) mortars; (12) stone axe.

at Abu Ghosh shows a high degree of similarity to other PPNB groundstone assemblages in the southern Levant. Their frequency is similar to assemblages from the previous excavation at Abu Ghosh (Lechevallier 1978), the PPNB layers of Munhata (Gopher and Orrelle 1995), Yiftah’el (Garfinkel 1987), Kfar HaHoresh (Goring-Morris et al. 1994–1995), ‘Ain Ghazal

(Rollefson, Kafafi, and Simmons 1989), and Basta (Gebel et al. 1988). The presence of the one hundred implements from the recent excavation is connected with the intensive use of sickle blades (see Chapters 4 and 5) and finally, linked with the development of farming activities in the vicinity of Abu Ghosh.

R EFERENCES Dorrell P.G. 1983. Appendix A: Stone Vessels, Tools, and Objects. In K.M. Kenyon and T.A Holland. Excavations at Jericho V: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. Oxford. Pp. 485–575. Garfinkel Y. 1987. Yiftahel: A Neolithic Village from Seventh Millennium B.C. in the Lower Galilee, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:199–222. Gebel H.G., Muheisen M., Nissen H., Qadi N., and Starck M. 1988. Preliminary Report on the First Season of Excavation at Basta. In A.G. Garrard and H.G. Gebel eds. The Prehistory of Jordan (Bar Int. S. 396). Oxford. Pp. 101–134.

Gilead I. 1995. The Stone Industry. In I. Gilead ed. Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer Sheva 7). Be’er Sheva‛. Pp. 309–334. Gopher A. and Orrelle E. 1995. The Ground Stone Assemblages of Munhata, a Neolithic Site in the Jordan Valley, Israel. A Report (Les Cahiers des Missions Archéologiques Françaises en Israël 7). Paris. Goring-Morris A.N., Goren Y., Horwitz L.K., Hershkovitz I., Lieberman R., Sarel J., and Bar-Yosef D. 1994–1995. The 1992 Season of Excavations at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement of Kfar HaHoresh. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 26:74–121.

68

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Rollefson G.O., Kafafi Z.A., and Simmons A.H. 1989. The 1988 Season at ‘Ain Ghazal: A Preliminary Report. ADAJ 33:9–26. Sass E. and Oppenheim M.J. 1965. The Petrography of Some Cenomanian Sediments from the Judean Hills, Israel, and

the Paleo-Environmental Break of the Motza Marl. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 14:91–122. Wright K. 1991. The Origin and Development of Ground Stone Assemblages in the Late Pleistocene Southwest Asia. Paléorient 17:19–45. Wright K. 1992. A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18:53–81. Wright K. 1993. Early Holocene Ground Stone Assemblages in the Levant. Levant 25:93–111.

CHAPTER 7

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE HAMOUDI K HALAILY AND OFER MARDER

This study includes all pottery collected during the 1995 season. The assemblage consists of all sherds recorded from the two occupation horizons—Layers II and I (Table 7.1)—and the intrusive sherds in Layer III. Since the assemblage lacks almost any diagnostic sherds, such as rims, handles, bases, or decorated items, both quantitative and qualitative observations were made in order to evaluate whether the potsherds predate the site’s abandonment. These results may contribute a better understanding of human and natural processes involved in site formation (Bar-Yosef 1993:17), non-human incorporation within the archaeological sediment, and conditions of preservation. Finally a spatial distribution of pottery remains within the two occupational horizons was performed. The sherds were sorted according to size: (a) sherds less than 2 cm; (b) 2–5 cm; (c) 5–10 cm; (d) over 10 cm. This grouping helped to determine the different degrees of breakage that occurred during post-depositional processes. Three criteria were recorded concerning the degree of preservation—freshness, encrustations, and abraded surfaces—which focused mainly on the physical condition of sherds.

and the remainder are rim and base fragments. It was difficult to attribute the sherds to a specific period, as they were abraded and heavily encrusted. The analysis of body sherds by count based on size indicates that over 92% of the pottery sherds are small, falling within the 0.5–5 cm interval, while only 0.3% of the sherds are over 10 cm in size. These data are significant for a reconstruction of post-depositional processes acting on the pottery.

LAYER II—THE NEOLITHIC POTTERY Layer II yielded a small assemblage of Neolithic potsherds. Perrot (1952) noted similar sherds when he tested the site in 1950; they were ignored later by Lechevallier (1978). Of the 4,367 pottery sherds (see Table 7.1) collected in the present excavations, only 345 sherds can be assigned to the Pottery Neolithic occupation. The majority were retrieved from structural features and a few were scattered within a gravel unit. The pottery sherds were poorly preserved; indeed, it is likely that a large portion of the pottery was probably not preserved. Furthermore, no chronologically diagnostic sherds were unearthed. The sherds were in fragile condition and in many cases were crumbly. The ware ranges from yellow to reddish yellow with a gray core, and the major inclusions are of fine to medium-coarse lime and quartz grits. Traces of red paint occur on a few sherds.

LAYER I—THE LATE POTTERY Over 4,000 pottery sherds were recovered within the uppermost layers, including the surface. They date from the Late Roman to the Islamic periods, and a few are modern. Over 99% of the items are body sherds

Table 7.1. Sherd Count Period/ Sherds Late Sherds Neolithic Sherds Total

Layer I

Layer II

Layer III

N

%

N

%

N

%

2766

99.6

1055

76.7

201

92.6

Total 4022

9

0.4

320

23.3

16

7.4

345

2775

100.0

1375

100.0

217

100.0

4367

70

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

DISCUSSION Qualitative observations on the pottery indicate that almost all pieces show signs of abrasion, as if they were rolled some distance. They also have rounded and/or broken edges and heavy encrustation on one or both surfaces, indicating that they were redeposited in the terra rossa soil. The pottery assemblage of Layer I had gone through several depositional phases. We believe that the origin of these sherds was the medieval site, Kh. elSheikh, located uphill, some 400 m northeast of the Neolithic site. Sherds of different sizes were rolled and transported downstream by the wadi. The modern inhabitants, in the course of terrace construction, brought in the alluvial soil with its pottery inclusions. This observation is reinforced by the geomorphological analysis (Chapter 2) that Layer I was formed rapidly and directly on the Pottery Neolithic remains (Layer II), after the site had been abandoned. The Neolithic pottery is characterized by lightcolored clay, with no plastic decorative elements. However, remains of red slip were visible on a few sherds. The sherds resemble Jericho IX pottery assemblages of the sixth millennium BCE (Goren 1991; Garfinkel 1992b). The Neolithic sherds were found in a poor state of preservation, a phenomenon that was noted first by Kaplan (1977:59) when he described the pottery condition from Lod. It was also noted in other Pottery Neolithic sites, such as Tel Yosef (Covello-Paran, forthcoming), Moza (De Groot and Greenhut, pers. comm.), Horbat ‛Uza (Getzov et al., forthcoming) and Ha-Gosherim (Getzov 1999). In contrast, at other

Pottery Neolithic sites, such as Munhata (Garfinkel 1992a, b), Nahal Zehora I and II (Gopher and Orrelle 1991; Orrelle 1993), and Sha‛ar Ha-Golan (Stekelis 1972), pottery was well preserved. The state of pottery preservation is a result of a wide range of factors, such as environmental conditions, site-formation processes, post-depositional processes, and ceramic manufacturing techniques (Goldberg, Nash, and Petraglia 1993). Although it is difficult to determine the specific role that each factor played, it seems that ceramics of the same period are much better preserved in rendzina soils, while sherds in more active soils, such as terra rossa soils, tend to suffer greater decay. The main processes at work in rendzina soils are mechanical weathering and disintegration of the soft parent material in addition to the low caption exchange capacity, which results in the carbonate crusting of stones and ceramics within soils. In terra rossa soils the main processes are swelling and cracking of the soil due to wet and dry cycles in smictite clay soils with a high caption exchange capacity, which results in the chemical weathering of ceramics, as well as the fracturing of the edges of ceramic sherds. Furthermore, the ceramic technologies of the Yarmukian and Jericho IX assemblages point to a clear use of highly carbonated clay with a local calcareous tempering material (Goren 1992:341). In the case of the Abu Ghosh pottery, the clay used for manufacturing ceramic vessels was marl originating in the Moza Formation, combined with quartz and limestone used as tempering materials. Pottery products of this technology possibly increase the ionic exchange capacity with terra rossa soil and accelerate the deterioration and decomposition process.

REFERENCES Bar-Yosef O. 1993. Site Formation Processes from a Levantine Viewpoint. In P. Goldberg, D.T. Nash, and M.D. Petraglia eds. Formation Processes in Archaeological Context (Monographs in World Archaeology 17). Madison. Pp. 11–32. Covello-Paran K. Forthcoming. The Pottery Neolithic Settlement at Tel Yosef (Tell esh-Sheikh Hasan). ‛Atiqot. Garfinkel Y. 1992a. The Material Culture in the Central Jordan Valley in the Pottery Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Periods. Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Garfinkel Y. 1992b. The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha‘ar Hagolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata (Israel) (Les

Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français de Jerusalem 6). Paris. Getzov N. 1999. Ha-Gosherim. ESI 110:2–3. Getzov N., Avshalom-Gorni D., Tatcher A., LiebermanWander R., Smithline H., and Stern E.J. Forthcoming. Horbat ‘Uza: Final Report of the 1991 Excavations (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Goldberg P., Nash D.T., and Petraglia M.D. eds. 1993. Formation Processes in Archaeological Context (Monographs in World Archaeology 17). Madison. Gopher A. and Orrelle E. 1991. Preliminary Report on the Excavations of Nahal Zehora II—Seasons of 1990 and 1991. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 24:169–172.

CHAPTER 7: THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE

Goren Y. 1991. The Beginning of Pottery Production in Israel: Technology and Typology of Proto-Historic Ceramic Assemblages in Eretz-Israel (6th–4th Millennia B.C.E.). Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Goren Y. 1992. Petrographic Study of the Pottery Assemblage from Munhata. In Y. Garfinkel ed. The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha‘ar Hagolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata (Israel) (Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français de Jerusalem 6). Paris. Pp. 329–343. Kaplan J. 1977. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains at Lod. EI 13:57–75 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 291*–292*).

71

Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Orrelle E. 1993. Nahal Zehora I and II: Fifth Millennium B.C. Villages of the Wadi Rabah Culture—Quantitative Studies on the Pottery Assemblages. M.A. thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Perrot J. 1952. Le Néolithique d’Abou-Gosh. Syria 29: 119–145. Stekelis M. 1972. The Yarmukian Culture of the Neolithic Period. Jerusalem.

CHAPTER 8

THE SMALL FINDS

A THIRD SHELL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABU GHOSH Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer Introduction Two malacological assemblages have been reported previously from the PPNB site of Abu Ghosh. The first report is that of Henk K. Mienis (1978), based on the excavations of Monique Lechevallier (1978). The second is of an older assemblage, also described by Mienis (1987), based on the material collected by the Benedictine monks from the Saint Saveur monastery at Abu Ghosh, who first discovered the site. This chapter describes the assemblage recovered during the current excavations (above, Chapter 3; Marder et al. 1996). The three assemblages are part of the same site. While certain later elements exist at the site (dating to the Pottery Neolithic, and some surface sherds dating to the Roman and Byzantine periods), the material described below is attributed exclusively to the PrePottery Neolithic B period. The assemblage consists of 120 mollusc shells. Twenty-four of those are local and probably recent landsnails, some complete and others broken. The rest are marine shells, described here. The Assemblage Gastropods The only Red Sea shell at the site is Nerita sanguinolenta, which is perforated at the body whorl opposite the aperture and is slightly damaged at the outer lip. One fragment of the outer lip of a Cypraea sp. was found, but it was too small to identify at species level and thus impossible to determine if it originated in the Mediterranean or the Red Sea. Two members of the family Muricidae were recovered: One is a Hexaplex trunculus with the base and apex naturally abraded, and an additional recent

breakage at the outer lip. The other is a naturally abraded fragment of the body whorl of a Murex sp., with a natural hole in its center that may have served as a bead. One Nassarius gibbosulus had two artificial holes in it: one where the dorsum was removed, and another near the aperture. There was one unidentifiable fragment of a gastropod. Bivalves Fifty-three specimens of Glycymeris insubrica (previously called G. violacescens) were retrieved. Those include eleven complete valves, six broken valves, 25 fragments (where less than half the valve is present), eight valves with a naturally abraded hole in the umbo (three of those were broken), and one valve with an artificial hole at the umbo. In addition, there was one valve very heavily abraded all around. Another specimen of this type is broken and seems to bear traces of an artificial hole at the place where it is broken. The hole seems to have been first incised, then drilled, and the shell subsequently broke. Other examples found are five specimens of Acanthocardia tuberculata, including one complete valve, one broken, one with a natural hole in the umbo, and two fragments; 28 specimens of Cerastoderma glaucum, comprising two complete valves, two valves with a natural hole in the umbo and broken, and 24 fragments; and Donax trunculus, represented by one complete valve and one fragment of a valve. There were also two bivalve fragments that were unidentifiable. Bead There was one bead, apparently made of limestone. It measures 9 mm in diameter, 5 mm in length, and the diameter of the hole, which is perforated from both ends, is 5 mm.

74

DANIELLA E. BAR-YOSEF MAYER

Discussion The assemblage consists of six gastropods and 90 bivalves. In addition there were 24 landsnails (not described above) belonging to the genera of Levantina, Monacha, Euchondrus, Calaxis, and Helix, and one bead apparently made of limestone. Of the total marine shell assemblage, about half are small fragments (where less than half the shell or valve is present). This fragmentation is probably related to preservation conditions at the site. No pattern pertaining to spatial distribution was detectable. Most marine shells originated in the Mediterranean Sea; only one (N. sanguinolenta) is from the Red Sea. Comparison of this assemblage with those previously described by Mienis (1978; 1987) reveals no new

species. A further comparison of all the Abu Ghosh assemblages with other PPNB assemblages from the Mediterranean zone also places it comfortably within the known range of species (Bar-Yosef and Heller 1987; Bar-Yosef Mayer 1999, and see further references therein). However, thus far a comprehensive study of shells that will satisfactorily explain the reasons for the collection of these particular species has not yet been conducted, although some attempts have been made (Biggs 1963; Bar-Yosef Mayer 1997). Suffice it to say that in addition to the limestone bead there were only six worked shells that may have served as beads: a Nerita, a Cypraea fragment, a Murex, a Nassarius, and two Glycymeris. Whether Glycymeris and Cerastoderma (the most common species) had other uses (as amulets?) is impossible to determine.

REFERENCES Bar-Yosef D.E. and Heller J. 1987. Mollusca from Yiftahel, Lower Galilee, Israel. Paléorient 13:131—135. Bar-Yosef Mayer D. E. 1997. Neolithic Shell Bead Production in Sinai. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:97–111. Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E. 1999. The Role of Shells in the Reconstruction of Socio-Economic Aspects of Neolithic through Early Bronze Age Societies in Southern Sinai. Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Biggs H.E.J. 1963. On Mollusca Collected during the Excavations at Jericho, 1952–1958, and Their Archaeological Significance. Man August 1963:125–128. Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en

Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Marder O., Khalaily H., Barzilay E., and Peterson-Solimany M. 1996. Recent Excavations at Abu Ghosh. Neo-Lithics 1/96:3–4. Mienis H.K. 1978. Molluscs from Abou Gosh and Beisamoun. In M. Lechevallier. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Pp. 269–272. Mienis H.K. 1987. A Second Collection of Shells from Neolithic Abou Gosh. Levantina 66:695–702.

STONE IMAGERY ITEMS Zinovi Matskevich and Ianir Milevski

Preservation: Broken at the neck; only the forefront is preserved. Dimensions: Preserved length, 80 mm; max. width, 47 mm; max. height, 59 mm.

The renewed excavations at Abu Ghosh produced two stone objects that must be considered as related to imagery objects (as defined by Gopher and Orelle 1995). One, a zoomorphic head, was found in a Pottery Neolithic context, while the second, a bell-shaped object, was retrieved from the excavation dump. Zoomorphic Head (Fig. 8.1) Provenance: L130, B1216. Raw Material: Hard, gray limestone, probably a cobble.

This item represents a horned animal, probably an Ovis. The details of the animal’s anatomy are modeled by incising, polishing, and possibly pecking and chiseling. They include one whorled horn on the right side of the head. Incisions on the tip of the muzzle probably indicate the nose. Two additional parallel incisions schematically shaped the frontal part of the head. The surface of the item is perfectly smoothed; it is unclear whether the smoothing is the result of the finishing of the object or the weathering of the cobble.

75

CHAPTER 8: THE SMALL FINDS

One object from the excavations of the French mission at Abu Ghosh (Lechevallier 1978: Fig. 35:2) is iconographically similar to this item but was attributed by the excavators to PPNB.1 It is made of clay and much smaller in dimensions. Although it was identified by the excavator (Lechevallier 1978:82) as a Bos, we suggest on the base of a direct observation of the object that the features identified as ears actually represent whorled horns. Two stone ram figurines from Kabri (Amiran 1976: Pl. 29:B, C) are the closest parallels to our head in both technical and iconographic details. Although surface finds, they are generally regarded as associated with a late phase of the Pottery Neolithic. It is of interest to note that no domesticated sheep were present in the PPNB assemblage of Abu Ghosh (Horwitz, Chapter 10; Ducos and Horwitz, Chapter 11). This fact may be regarded as an additional argument in favor of a dating of our head within the Pottery Neolithic period.

Fig. 8.1. Zoomorphic head.

Bell-Shaped Object (Fig. 8.2) Provenance: B1202. Raw Material: Hard, pink limestone. Dimensions: Height, 44 mm; max. diameter, 39 mm. The object is completely modeled in the round; the form of the initial blank cannot be identified. A wide, engraved groove (the ‘neck’) divides the ‘cylinder’ into two parts—body and head; the ‘head’ was then reduced in size. The body was hollowed with a drill. After the object had been shaped, two holes were drilled from both sides of the ‘neck’ although they do not meet. The perforation was then completed by breaking through the lateral part of the hole. The surface finish was accomplished by pecking and smoothing. The closest parallel to this object comes from the previous excavations at the site (Lechevallier 1978:82, Fig. 35:7). It is made of the same kind of limestone but is smaller, and the body is globular. In general it also strongly resembles a bell. The function of the object under discussion is obscure. Two possibilities exist: (a) the object was decorative (as defined by Lechevallier 1978:82); or (b) it was practical. The fact that the objects from both excavations were perforated suggests they were hung or pendent. A possible practical use as a bell, however, presents some difficulties in the absence of any

Fig. 8.2. Bell-shaped object.

indication for the clapper. Also, there is no evidence of the use of bells before the introduction of metals. It is suggested here that the similarity in the shape of these objects with bells does not necessarily suggest a similar function, but may simply be casual. Therefore the definition of these objects as pendants seems to be more plausible. Conclusions Dating of the objects under discussion is somewhat problematic. The context of the zoomorphic head, as well as the parallel with the figurines from Kabri and the absence of domesticated sheep bones from the PPNB layers of the site, indicates its possible dating to the Pottery Neolithic. On the other hand, the clay ram

76

ZINOVI MATSKEVICH AND IANIR MILEVSKI DANIELLA E. BAR-YOSEF MAYER

figurine, apparently from the PPNB layer of the French excavation of the site, implies that the early date of the head cannot be automatically excluded. In this case the figurines probably portray a wild species.

The bell-shaped object cannot be dated on the basis of its context, but the close parallel with the previously excavated PPNB object from Abu Ghosh could indicate the same date for our item.

NOTE 1

However, since a Pottery Neolithic component could be identified in the lithic assemblage of the French expedition

(Gopher 1994:51–56), it appears that the later date of the object is also possible.

REFERENCES Amiran R. 1976. More about the Chalcolithic Culture of Palestine and Tepe Yahya. IEJ 26:157–162 Gopher A. 1994. Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant (ASOR Dissertation Series 10). Winona Lake. Gopher A. and Orrelle E. 1995. The Ground Stone Assemblages of Munhata, a Neolithic Site in the Jordan

Valley, Israel. A Report (Les Cahiers des Missions Archéologiques Françaises en Israël 7). Paris. Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris.

CHAPTER 9

THE HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE POTTERY NEOLITHIC AND PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B LAYERS DEBORAH A. SKLAR-PARNES AND PATRICIA SMITH INTRODUCTION The salvage excavations carried out at Abu Ghosh during 1995 yielded the remains of eleven individuals1 from Pottery Neolithic (PN) and PrePottery Neolithic B (PPNB) layers (Table 9.1). The burials were found in pits and underneath a plastered floor, in both primary and secondary contexts. They are described below.

The cranium (Figs. 9.1, 9.2) is brachycephalic in shape with all sutures (except metopic) patent, and thin cranial bones. The basicranium and facial regions were not preserved. The frontal eminence is prominent though the supra orbital tori are weakly developed.

POTTERY NEOLITHIC BURIALS Grave 134 —Homo 1 This is a primary burial of an adult female oriented east–west, with the skull in the east, lying on her left side in a pit. The lower limbs were pulled tight into the chest with the feet pushed underneath the pelvis, causing it to rest above the level of the knees. The skull was facing south, with the chin tucked tightly down onto the chest cavity (see Plan 3.1). The burial had been disturbed, as evidenced by the missing pelvis, proximal femora, distal tibiae and fibulae, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges.

a

Fig. 9.2. Superior view of Homo 1, note brachycephalic shape.

b Fig. 9.1. (a, b). Side views of the PN skull, Homo 1.

78

DEBORAH A. SKLAR-PARNES AND PATRICIA SMITH

Table 9.1. Inventory of Individuals from PN and PPNB Layers Specimen No.

Period

Age

Sex

Context

Homo 1

PN

c. 20 years

Female

Grave

Homo 2

PN

Adult

?

Grave

Homo 3

PN

Adult

Male

Pit

Homo 4

PN

Adult

Female

Pit

Homo 5

PPNB

Adult

Female

Pit

Homo 6

PPNB

Adult

Male?

Under floor

Homo 7

PPNB

Adult

Female

Under floor

Homo 8

PPNB

35–40 years

Male

Pit

Homo 9

PPNB

30–35 years

?

Pit

Homo 10

PN

13–14 years

Male?

?

Table 9.2. Comparison of Female Skull Measurements from 1995 and 1978 (mm) Cranial Measurements Max. Breadth Min. Frontal Parietal Chord 1

Abu Ghosh 19781

Homo 1 N

Mean

SD

148

3

142.7

3.0

97

1

99

0.5

112

2

114

1.0

Arensburg B., Smith P., and Yakar R. 1978.

hypoplastic bands. Severe caries with pulp cavity exposure was seen on the mesial surface of the lower right first molar and on the distal surface of the adjacent second premolar (Fig. 9.4). Hypoplastic bands were present on the upper and lower central incisors, lower right and left canines, and upper right canine (Fig. 9.5). The bands occurred near the occlusal surface on the incisors, and near the cervix on the canines, indicating two incidents of growth arrest.

Laterally, the parietal eminences are pronounced and the mastoid processes are quite large. The lambdoidal region of the occipital bone is flattened. A few small wormian bones were present along the lambdoidal suture at lambda. Cranial measurements that could be taken are presented in Table 9.2. Postcrania The postcranial bones are robust. The measurements of the upper limbs and proximal tibiae appear in Table 9.3. Fig. 9.3. Homo 1. X-ray of missing first molar.

Teeth All teeth were fully erupted and displayed a slight to moderate state of attrition. The anterior teeth were more worn than the molars. Dentine was exposed on the mesio-buccal cusp of the lower third molars, the distal-lingual cusp of the lower right second molar, and the distal-buccal cusp of the lower left second molar (Tables 9.4, 9.5). The upper right third molar was congenitally absent. The lower left first molar was lost ante mortem, and the tooth socket had healed completely, indicating that the tooth had been lost at least several months before death (Fig. 9.3). Other dental pathology included caries, pitting, and

Fig. 9.4. Homo 1. X-ray of caries in first molar.

CHAPTER 9: HUMAN REMAINS

The first, as indicated by the incisors (Miles 1963), probably occurred around 1.5 years and the second, seen on the canines, around the age of 3 to 4 years. Pitting was visible on the occlusal surfaces of the upper left second molar and lower left second molar. Calculus was present on the lower left central incisor, lateral incisor, and canine on their buccal surfaces. The dentition and attrition suggest this female was about 20 years old at death. As seen in Figs. 9.5 and 9.6, gnaw marks, possibly from a rodent, had damaged the mandible at pogonion and right gonion.

79

to Homo 2. The absence of the proximal femora, vertebral column, and skull makes it difficult to determine the sex or assign a more specific age. Due to the condition of the bones, measurements were not obtained. Teeth A left mandibular second molar was found near the ulna and radius. It was well worn with secondary dentine seen on the occlusal surface (see Tables 9.4, 9.5). Because of the disturbed nature of this grave, it is unknown whether this tooth belonged to Homo 2 or to another individual. Bone Concentration Sq A2—Homo 3 and 4

Fig. 9.5. Mandible of Homo 1, note hypoplastic bands on incisors.

This concentration, recovered not far from Grave 131 in Sq A2, was mixed with many animal bones. On examination in the laboratory, a number of broken human bones were identified, belonging to at least two different individuals. Two adults, a male (Homo 3) and female (Homo 4), were recognized from fragments of upper and lower limbs (see Table 9.3). Strong sexual dimorphism is present in these specimens as seen in the differences in cortical thickness and overall size of the bones. Buttressing of the femur (as in Homo 10) was visible on the female individual; however the male femur was too fragmentary for evaluation of this feature. Bone Concentration Sq B1—Homo 10 The fragmentary and disarticulated remains of a 13–14 year-old adolescent, possibly male, were discovered near Installation 155 in Sq B1. It is unclear whether this was a secondary burial or an accidentally disturbed primary burial. It is likely that Homo 10 was buried in a pit, as were Homo 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Fig. 9.6. Side view of Homo 1.

Grave 131—Homo 2 This was a poorly preserved adult, interred in a pit, which was later disturbed. The articulated remains of the distal femora, tibiae, fibulae, tarsals, metatarsals and phalanges were found with small stones resting above and below the bones. Approximately 0.25 m to the north were the fragmentary remains of a humerus, radius, and ulna in articulation, subsequently attributed

Postcrania The right femur is characterized by slight buttressing on the posterior side below the greater trochanter. (This same buttressing is seen in Homo 4, though to a greater degree.) The femur and humerus are comparable to the adult male specimen in terms of midshaft diameters (see Table 9.3). Aging was based on the non-union of the greater trochanter, the radial head, the distal epiphysis of the humerus, and the ischium.

80

DEBORAH A. SKLAR-PARNES AND PATRICIA SMITH

Table 9.3. Postcranial Measurements from PN and PPNB Burials at Abu Ghosh (mm; after Bass 1987) Bone/ Measurement (mm) Specimen No. Sex

PN Homo 1 Female

Homo 3 Male

Abu Ghosh 19781

PPNB Homo 4 Female

Homo 10 Male?

Homo 5 Female

Homo 6 Male?

Homo 7 Female

N

Mean

SD

Scapula Glenoid Cavity Length

36.3

31.5

Humerus Max. Diameter Midshaft

20.2 L

22.2 L

18.3 R

21.3 R

18.4 L

20.5 L

18.8 L

7

23.6

1.1

Min. Diameter Midshaft

16.1

16.5

14.3

15.6

16.1

17.8

13.5

7

19.3

2.7

Ulna Max. Length

263.0

1

227.0

Physiologic Length

228.0

1

20.0

Min. Width

10.5

10.0

10.3

20.1

20.0

Radius Diameter of Head Min. Width

12.0

Femur Diameter of Head

42.0

45.3

½ M–L Diameter

27.9

26.4

27.5

27.1

25.4

4

35.6

2.4

½ A–P Diameter

32.7

25.3

25.6

26.0

25.8

15

31.2

3.9

Subtrochanteric A–P Diameter

22.6

24.2

24.2

3

26.0

0.8

Subtrochanteric M–L Diameter

29.0

27.1

31.8

3

34.0

1.6

1

82.0

Tibia Bicondylar breadth 1

73.0

Arensburg B., Smith P., and Yakar R. 1978.

PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B BURIALS Five individuals of the PPNB phase were found. Three were in pits (Homo 5, 8, and 9) and two were underneath a plaster floor (Homo 6 and 7). Homo 5 is the only primary interment attributed to the PPNB phase from these excavations. Homo 8 and 9 are known from dental remains and fragmentary postcranial bones. Burial 118 —Homo 5, 6, and 7 Homo 5 was buried in a pit (L118), that was cut into the plaster floor (Room 119; see Fig. 3.4). To the north,

the floor appeared to have undergone resurfacing, as evidenced by the loose mixture of small and mediumsized stones with chalk. A thin layer of plaster, presumably from this resurfacing, was preserved in the northwestern corner of the pit. Underneath the pit and continuing to the north were the remains of Homo 6 and 7. Homo 5 Homo 5, an adult female, was found in good preservation, articulated and flexed on her left side, oriented east–west. The right arm was slightly flexed at the elbow with the metacarpals and phalanges extended vertically along the southern edge of the pit. The left

81

CHAPTER 9: HUMAN REMAINS

arm was resting across the chest, slightly flexed at the elbow, with the forearm lying prone. The right leg was flexed at the knee with the foot resting under the pelvis. The left leg was medially rotated and extended toward the head. The distal end of the left tibia and fibula were superior to the right metacarpals, and the metatarsals were found near the thoracic cavity. The skull is missing, though it is unclear whether it was intentionally removed, as has been documented for skulls in the PPNB phase at sites such as Yiftah’el, Horbat Galil, ‘Ain Ghazal, Jericho, and Abu Ghosh, or if it was disturbed by agricultural activity in later times. Part of the basal region of the corpus of a mandible, damaged in the region of the symphysis, was found in association with this burial. An abcess was present on the left side in the first molar region. The chin is rounded and delicate, indicating a female. Teeth were not found. Postcrania. The pelvis has a wide sciatic notch, indicating a female. The humeri are gracile in appearance and the broken sections show that the cortical bone is thin. The femora appear more gracile than those of the PN specimens and buttressing was not present (see Table 9.3). Homo 6 and 7 In the field, only one individual was identified; however in the laboratory, the remains of two people were distinguished. The skeletons were not uncovered in articulation. Two femora, a humerus, an ulna, and a radius represent the first individual (Homo 6). The second (Homo 7) is known from fragmentary femoral, humeral, and radial diaphyses. The femora of Homo 6 are more robust in comparison to those of the second. The humeri of both individuals are very similar in size, although differences are apparent in the prominence of the deltoid ridge (see Table 9.3). Homo 6 and 7, like Homo 5, are characterized by a more gracile build than the PN individuals, as can be observed in the cross sections of their respective femora. Teeth. A fragment of the right side of a mandible was found with the first through third molars (see Table 9.4). Calculus was thick on the lingual surfaces as well as on the distal surface of the third molar. The

Table 9.4. Mandibular Tooth Measurements of PN and PPNB Individuals (mm) Tooth/ Homo 1 Homo 2 Homo 6/7 Homo 8 Homo 9 Measurement M3 MD BL MD X BL ACH ECH

9.7 9.5 92.6 6.4 8.2

11.1 10.7 118.8 5.9 –

11.3 10.0 113.0 6.0 6.8

10.6 10.8 114.5 6.8 –

10.8 10.5 113.4 5.3 6.5

10.7 10.4 111.3 5.0 –

11.1 10.4 115.4 4.6 7.3

10.6 10.7 113.4 5.1 –

M2 MD BL MD X BL ACH ECH

10.8 10.6 113.9 6.7 8.3

M1 MD BL MD X BL ACH ECH

– 10.4 – 6.1 –

P2 MD BL MD X BL ACH ECH

7.4 8.6 63.6 6.8 8.6

7.8 8.5 66.3 5.6 7.9

P1 MD BL MD X BL ACH ECH

6.7 8.1 53.5 7.7 –

7.4 7.6 56.2 7.4 9.9

C MD BL MD X BL ACH ECH

6.8 8.3 56.0 9.7 –

8.0 9.0 72.0 10.3 –

I2 MD BL MD X BL ACH ECH

5.7 6.3 35.3 7.7 –

6.1 6.3 38.4 9.7 –

I1 MD BL MD X BL ACH ECH

5.4 6.1 32.4 7.1 9.1

10.5 10.4 109.2 4.4 –

7.3 8.7 63.5 5.3 –

teeth were worn with dentine exposed, indicating an individual between 30 and 35 years of age (see Table 9.5). It is unclear to which individual this mandible belongs.

82

DEBORAH A. SKLAR-PARNES AND PATRICIA SMITH

Table 9.5. Attrition Scores for Mandibular Teeth of PN and PPNB Individuals Specimen No. H1

M3 R L

M2 R L

M1 R L

P2 R L

P1 R L

C R L

I2 R L

I1 R L

2 2

3 3

4 –

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3

3 4

3

H2

6

H6/7

2

3

4

H8

3

4

5

H9

3

3

1 = No wear; 2 = Enamel faceting; 3 = Small area of dentine on cusp tip; 4 = Dentine exposed over more than half of cusp; 5 = Cupping of dentine; 6 = Secondary dentine; R = Right; L = Left.

Homo 8 This individual is represented by the right half of a mandible (Fig. 9.7) discovered in Pit 136, mixed with animal bones. It is large and very robust, overall indicative of a male individual (Tables 9.4 and 9.6). A torus mandibularis is present on the lingual side at P2. The premolars and molars are worn, with cupping of the dentine on the molars (see Table 9.5). The pattern of wear suggests an individual between 35 and 40 years of age. Hypoplasia was not found on this specimen.

BURIAL PRACTICES Burial Types The PN burials are characterized by the primary burials of Homo 1 and 2, and possibly Homo 3, 4, and 10. The problem of the context of the latter individuals derives from the series of pit disturbances in the area. It is possible that Homo 2, 3, and 4 may represent secondary burials in a single grave that was later disturbed by a garbage pit containing animal remains. Pottery Neolithic burial customs such as onsite burial, primary burial (flexed positions), and the presence of an intact, untreated skull as seen in Homo 1, are observed in this occupation (Gopher and Orrelle 1995:24). The crania of the PPNB individuals were missing from their respective graves. The presence of the partial mandibles indicates that the skulls were likely removed after the soft tissues had decomposed. Burial 118, Homo 6 and 7, represents the first interments associated with the plaster floor (L119). Sometime after burial, the floor was opened and the skulls were probably removed, thus disturbing the postcranial material. The opening was then filled and the floor resurfaced. Homo 5 represents a burial postdating that of Homo 6 and 7. A rounded cut was made in the floor and the individual (Homo 5) was forced into the tight space. The skull removal witnessed at Abu Ghosh in the PPNB period follows this ritual practice, well documented at sites such as ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson and Simmons 1988), Yiftah’el (Smith and Horwitz 1997), Horbat Galil (Hershkovitz and Gopher 1988, 1990; Gopher and Hershkovitz 1994), Beisamoun (Ferembach and Lechevallier 1973), and Jericho (Kenyon 1960).

Fig. 9.7. Mandible of Homo 8, note mandibular torus.

Homo 9 Homo 9, found in a pit with animal remains, is represented by fragments of cranial and postcranial bones and teeth. The sex was not determined due to a lack of diagnostic remains. The right mandibular third molar, first premolar, and canine were present, as well as a left mandibular lateral incisor (see Table 9.4). All teeth were loose except for the third molar preserved in a fragment of the mandible. The wear patterns indicate an adult individual between 30 and 35 years old (see Table 9.5).

Missing Crania The crania from Homo 5, 6, and 7 were not found during the course of the excavations. At sites such as Jericho, Beisamoun, Tell Ramad (Ferembach 1969), and ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson 1983; Rollefson et al.1985) skulls were decorated and reburied separately from the postcranial remains. The absence of such crania at Abu Ghosh may be due to the small size of the excavated area. If the proposed sexing is correct for these PPNB skeletons, at least two female crania were purposefully removed.

83

CHAPTER 9: HUMAN REMAINS

Table 9.6. Mandibular Measurements of 1995 and 1978 Abu Ghosh and Yiftah’el Individuals (mm) Measurement (mm)

Max. Length Body Length Mandibular Angle

Abu Ghosh 19781 Mixed

Abu Ghosh Homo 1 Female

Abu Ghosh Homo 8 Male

PN

PPNB

N

Mean

SD

102.0

–

1

113.0

–

Yiftah’el 1997 L69 Male

Yiftah’el 1986 H2 Female

PPNB2

PPNB3

–

120.0

77.0

–

1

85.0

–

–

73.0

115.0

–

1

122.0

–

–

–

Ramus Height

56.9

–

1

56.0

–

–

56.0

Ramus Width

34.4

–

7

33.1

2.8

39.5

35.0

Bimental Breadth

42.8

–

4

45.0

4.6

–

43.0

Thickness in Proj. M1–M2

13.2

13.5

4

17.2

2.6

16.7

–

Symphyseal Height

31.4*

–

4

31.7

4.6

34.9

33.0

Height at Mental Foramen

32.3

34.5

7

31.8

4.3

–

33.0

Length of P1–M2

34.1

35.8

–

–

–

–

Height at P2–M1

30.3

34.5~

7

– 31.3

4.4

–

32.0

Height at M1–M2

–

33.8

8

29.2

3.8

29.3

31.0

* Measurement affected by animal gnawing. ~ Mental foramen located at P2–M1. 1 Arensburg B., Smith P., and Yakar R. 1978. 2 Smith and Horwitz 1997. 3 Hershkovitz, Garfinkel, and Arensburg 1986.

Age/Sex Distribution The individuals recovered from the recent excavations at Abu Ghosh show a bias toward adult individuals. Homo 10, aged 13–14 years, represents the only juvenile specimen, although an infant was identified in the field, but could not be recovered. Due to the small sample size, it is difficult to draw conclusions on paleodemography. However, it is known from the 1978 Abu Ghosh report that infants, juveniles, and adults were all interred on-site (Arensburg, Smith, and Yakar 1978).

dentine formation was seen on the lower second molar of Homo 2. Abcesses were present on two individuals (Homo 1 and Homo 5). Ante-mortem tooth loss was witnessed only in the PN individual, Homo 1. This tooth was probably lost to caries rather than attrition, given the overall state of wear and due to the presence of advanced caries with pulp cavity exposure on the remaining mandibular first molar. The absence of caries or hypoplasia in the PPNB individuals may be significant in terms of reconstructing the paleodiets of both populations. However, the sample size is too small for drawing further conclusions.

DENTAL PATHOLOGY Teeth or partial jaws could be examined in five individuals, Homo 1 and 2 from the PN, and Homo 6/7, 8, and 9 of the PPNB. The overall condition was good with only one instance of hypoplasia seen in Homo 1. Attrition was moderate on the younger individual (Homo 1) and more advanced on the older specimens (see Table 9.5). The only example of secondary

DISCUSSION The specimens recovered here were analyzed in relation to those previously retrieved from the site (Arensburg, Smith, and Yakar 1978) and characterized as robust, with large teeth and a relatively high frequency of caries for a pre-agricultural society. Khalaily and Marder (see Chapter 15) have now suggested that the 1978 study

84

DEBORAH A. SKLAR-PARNES AND PATRICIA SMITH

included specimens from both PN and PPNB layers. If this is so, then the range of variation shown in the 1978 study should include that of specimens of both periods studied here. The skull of Homo 1 resembles the female cranium belonging to H2 (L747.1) as described by Arensberg, Smith, and Yakar (1978) in its brachycephalic shape, smooth frontal and bossing of parietal eminences, strong nuchal lines, flattening of the lambdoidal region, and prominent mastoid processes. The mandible of Homo 1 was compared in Table 9.6 to those from the 1978 sample and those from Yiftah’el, L69 (Smith and Horwitz 1997) and H2 (Hershkovitz, Garfinkel, and Arensburg 1986). It is smaller in terms of maximum length, mandibular angle, and body length, but similar in the height of the ramus and corpus. Homo 8, the PPNB male, falls within the upper range of measurements obtained from the 1978 Abu Ghosh individuals (Fig. 9.8) and is slightly larger than the Yiftah’el specimens. The extent to which the differences between these two specimens is related to sexual dimorphism or microevolutionary trends is difficult to elucidate; however the differences do conform to previous studies showing a decrease in jaw size over time (Smith 1995; Hershkovitz, Bar-Yosef, and Arensburg 1994). In regard to the postcranial material, the PN sample examined here appears to have more robust limbs than those of the PPNB, with prominent muscle markings

and in one case (Homo 4) buttressing on the diaphyses of the femora. As seen in Table 9.3, the measurements of the upper and lower limbs of Homo 10, the juvenile specimen, are comparable in proportions to the adult PN specimens and surpass those of the PPNB individuals. The postcranial remains of the PPNB skeletons uncovered in this excavation are smaller and more slender than those found in the earlier excavation at Abu Ghosh (Arensburg, Smith, and Yakar 1978), as seen in Table 9.3. Furthermore, the PN skeletons, Homo 1, 3, 4, and 10, fall at the low end and below the range given for the 1978 sample. Demography of the sample as well as a mixing of material can explain this.

CONCLUSIONS The bones of the specimens identified here as PPNB appear to be, if anything, more gracile than the majority of those recovered from the earlier excavation at Abu Ghosh (Arensburg, Smith, and Yakar 1978), but sample sizes are too small and incomplete for any detailed analysis. It is therefore impossible to state at this stage whether this reflects a bias in sampling or microevolutionary trends between the periods represented. Obviously the issue of paleodiet must be considered when looking at changes in morphology. However, due to the incomplete nature of the sample

Fig. 9.8. Variation in mandibular tooth area.

CHAPTER 9: HUMAN REMAINS

this could not be examined in depth. Arensburg, Smith, and Yakar (1978) reported that the Abu Ghosh sample showed an unusually high frequency of caries for a PPNB site. The presence of severe caries, in at least one young individual from the Pottery Neolithic period reported here, confirms the previous diagnosis of a

85

cariogenic diet at Abu Ghosh and re-opens the question as to the exact provenience of the earlier material. In spite of the shortcomings of this collection of specimens from the Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic periods, the information adds further information to the study of a period which is still relatively unknown.

NOTE 1 The eleventh individual is an infant from the PPNB layer. It was identified in the field, but was not removed due to

a sewage problem. The skeleton was neither drawn nor examined by the anthropologists.

R EFERENCES Arensburg B., Smith P., and Yakar R. 1978. The Human Remains from Abou Gosh. In M. Lechevallier. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Pp. 95–105. Bass W. 1987. Human Osteology. Columbia. Ferembach D. 1969. Etude anthropologique des ossements humains néolithiques de Tell-Ramad (Syrie). Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 19:49–70. Ferembach D. and Lechevallier M. 1973. Découverte de deux crânes surmodelés dans une habitation du VIIème millénaire à Beisamoun, Israël. Paléorient 1:223–230. Gopher A. and Hershkovitz I. 1994. Burial Practices in Israel in the Neolithic Period. In I. Singer ed. Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period. Jerusalem. Pp. 31–53 (Hebrew). Gopher A. and Orrelle E. 1995. New Data on Burials from the Pottery Neolithic Period (Sixth–Fifth Millennium BC) in Israel. In S. Campbell and A. Green eds. The Archaeology of Death in the Near East. Exeter. Pp. 24–28. Hershkovitz I. and Galili E. 1991. The Morphological Significance of the Homo I Skeleton from the PPNB Submerged Site at Atlit-Yam, Israel. Bulletins et Memoires de la Societé d’Anthropologie de Paris 3:83–96. Hershkovitz I. and Gopher A. 1988. Human Burials from Horvat Galil: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site in the Upper Galilee, Israel. Paléorient 14:119–125. Hershkovitz I. and Gopher A. 1990. Paleodemography, Burial Customs, and Food-Producing Economy at the Beginning of the Holocene: A Perspective from the Southern Levant. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:9*–47*.

Hershkovitz I., Bar-Yosef O., and Arensburg B. 1994. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Populations of South Sinai and Their Relations to Other Circum-Mediterranean Groups: An Anthropological Study. Paléorient 20:59–84. Hershkovitz I., Garfinkel Y., and Arensburg B. 1986. Neolithic Skeletal Remains at Yiftahel, Area C (Israel). Paléorient 12:73–81. Kenyon K.M. 1960. Excavations at Jericho, 1957–1958. PEQ 92:88–108. Miles A. 1963. The Dentition in the Assessment of Individual Age. In D.R. Brothwell ed. Dental Anthropology. New York. Rollefson G.O. 1983. Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan). Paléorient 9:29–38. Rollefson G. and Simmons A. 1988. The Neolithic Settlement at ‘Ain Ghazal. In A. Garrard and H.G. Gebel eds. The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1984 (BAR Int. S. 396). Oxford. Pp. 393–421. Rollefson G.O., Simmons A.H., Donaldson M., Gillepsie W., Kafafi Z., Köhler-Rollefson I., McAdam E., Rollston S.L., and Tubb M. 1985. Excavation at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Village of ‘Ain Ghazal (Jordan), 1983. Mitteilugen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 117:69–116. Smith P. 1995. People of the Holy Land from Prehistory to the Recent Past. In T.E. Levy ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. Pp. 58–74. Smith P. and Horwitz L.K. 1997. Human Skeletal Remains from Areas A and B at Yiftah’el. In E. Braun. Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel (IAA Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp. 172–180.

CHAPTER 10

THE NEOLITHIC FAUNA LIORA K. HORWITZ

INTRODUCTION With respect to subsistence strategies, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period in the southern Levant (9600–7500 uncal. BP) represents a break with the preceding Epipaleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A periods. The main change is reflected in the advent of the earliest domesticated herd animals in the region (goats and sheep), a shift that is characterized by a marked increase in the frequency of caprines relative to gazelle which dominated the preceding periods (CluttonBrock 1979; Davis 1982; Helmer 1994; Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995; Garrard, Colledge, and Martin 1996; Legge 1996; Horwitz et al. 1999; Peters et al. 1999). In addition, a reduction in species’ richness and diversity occurs with fewer reptiles, birds, and small mammals exploited (Köhler-Rollefson, Gillespie, and Metzger 1988; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993; Tchernov 1993, 1995; Horwitz 1996; Horwitz and Tchernov 1998; Horwitz et al. 1999). It should be noted that in terms of biometrical parameters and morphological traits, these early caprines conform to the wild type (large size, robust build, scimitar-shaped horns) but some selection of animals for culling based on age and sex is observed. By the subsequent Pottery Neolithic period (7500–7000 uncal BP), the faunal constellation which characterizes traditional Near Eastern herds today is established, with domestic goats, sheep, cattle, and pigs the most common taxa (Gophna and Gopher 1992; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993; Horwitz et al. 1999). The rich faunal assemblage recovered during the 1995 excavations in the mid-PPNB and PN layers at the site of Abu Ghosh offers an excellent opportunity to further document changes in the subsistence economy over this critical period of time.

METHODS Dry sieving using a 2 mm mesh was carried out on the entire sample, with random wet sieving (see Chapter 1).

This has resulted in excellent retrieval of smallsized bones as well as those of smaller-sized species (Gordon 1993). However, the bones were covered with a hard calcite matrix that made identification and measurement of most bones impossible. This matrix was removed following a laborious process in which all bones were soaked in a 5% solution of acetic acid and then washed at least twice under running water. More fragile bones (of birds, reptiles, etc.) underwent the same treatment but for shorter periods of time. Following washing, the bones were placed on blotting paper on trays in the shade, and left to dry for three to five days, depending upon weather conditions. Following drying, the bones were sorted into identifiable and non-identifiable material (fragments and chips). The identifiable material was further separated by bodypart and species and studied with reference to the comparative mammalian collection of the Department of Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A small sample of animal bones belonging to common taxa found at the site (goats, cattle, fox, gazelle, and pig) and derived from several well-defined PN and mid-PPNB loci (based on a stratigraphic list provided by the excavators) was separated out prior to washing and acid treatment. These bones were intended for use in dating, ancient DNA analysis, or other chemical tests that researchers may be interested in carrying out in the future. This was done, as acid and water treatment has been shown to denature the bones, resulting in the dissolution of the organic fraction of the bone. This step proved fortunate as a study of the DNA of goat remains from this sample was successful (see below, Chapter 12), while bones from the earlier Lechevallier excavation at the site (see below, Chapters 11 and 12) yielded no DNA. Most calculations used in this study are based on individual bone counts (NISP) and relative frequencies derived from these counts. To date, the small mammals (hedgehog, hare, and rodents) have been identified on

88

LIORA K. HORWITZ

the basis of cranial elements. Other postcranial material still awaits identification, such that the numbers given for these species may increase in the future. Due to the difficulties in separating sheep from goat, a detailed morphometric study was made of all caprine material using morphological and metric criteria outlined in Boessneck, Müller, and Teichert (1964) and Prummel and Frisch (1986). Where it was not possible to separate them, sheep and goat bones were pooled and placed in a joint ‘sheep/goat’ category. In the case of the PN layer, this category included remains of both wild and domestic animals where distinction between them was not possible. Sexing of gazelle was based on data given in Horwitz, Cope, and Tchernov (1990), while age profiles for this taxon were based on data published in Davis (1980) for the timing of dental eruption and epiphyseal fusion. For goats, ageing was based on longbone fusion as presented in Ducos and Horwitz (see below, Chapter 11: Table 11.4). This table gives later fusion ages for most of the bones as compared to rates for domestic goats, indicating a longer growth period in the wild animals. Age data for wild boar was based on Bull and Payne (1982), while for aurochs, in the absence of more suitable data, tables compiled for bone fusion in domestic cattle were used (Grigson 1982). Skeletal parts were collapsed into five bodypart categories: cranial, forelimb, hindlimb, trunk, and feet, while bone measurements followed standards given in von den Driesch (1976).

FAUNAL REMAINS A large assemblage, comprising 3,314 animal bones that could be identified to species and/or skeletal element, was recovered during the 1995 excavations at Abu Ghosh (Table 10.1). The bones are derived from contexts in Layer II (Pottery Neolithic) and Layer III (mid-PPNB). In the latter, only material from defined structures or installations was studied and the results of their analysis presented. The bones that could be identified were very fragmented but robust. Similarly, the unidentified portion of the assemblage is composed of thousands of highly comminuted fragments, many of which are burnt. It is likely that past human activities relating to food processing as well as post-depositional diagenetic changes, such as soil compaction, are responsible for the fragmented nature of the assemblage.

Pottery Neolithic (c. 7000–5200 uncal. BP) A total of 577 bones were identified from the Pottery Neolithic sample in Layer II. According to the excavators, the PN at Abu Ghosh represents a short period of occupation, and the layer is characterized by re-use of mid-PPNB architectural features (see Chapter 3). The faunal assemblage from this layer may be divided into two components: bones from general fill (NISP = 409) and those found in association with five features (a pit and four installations; NISP = 168) that yielded pottery and lithics. Due to the ephemeral nature of this occupation and the potential problem of mixing with mid-PPNB material, a detailed description of the remains according to the features in which they were discovered is given below. The descriptions of the installations follow those outlined in Chapter 3. The material from the general PN fill of Layer II is described separately. As very few measurements could be taken on the PN sample, they are presented in the text. Pit 102. Comprised a small rounded pit with small burnt stones and ash. The four animal bones recovered in association with the pit are a sheep/goat proximal rib and the spine of a lumbar vertebra of Bos, a fox 1st phalanx, and a fragment of a spur-thighed tortoise carapace. It was not possible to determine whether the caprine and cattle represent wild or domestic animals, and as such they are not indicative of either the PN or mid-PPNB. Installation 104. In addition to animal bones, the fill of this small installation contained flints, small fieldstones, ceramic sherds, and grinding slabs. The faunal sample is derived from the top of the installation and comprised 23 bones. These were: 10 bones of sheep/goat, some of them large and robust such that they probably represent wild goat; 8 bones of large goat, which, based on comparison with measurements of mid-PPNB goats given in Figs. 10.1 and 10.2, probably belong to wild C. aegagrus (measurements taken—a 1st phalanx Bd: 15.0, Bp: 18.5; a 2nd phalanx GLpe: 25.0, Bd: 15.6; a distal humerus Bd: 38.6); 4 Bos bones, one of which is large enough to represent an aurochs (measurement taken—2nd phalanx GLpe: 49.4; Bp: 36.4); and a gazelle calcaneum. An additional 14 bones were found in loci around the installation. Here, in addition to remains of sheep/goat

CHAPTER 10: THE NEOLITHIC FAUNA

(NISP = 5), bones of large-sized Capra were retrieved (NISP = 2; measured bone—1st phalanx GLpe: 46.5, Bd: 15.6, Bp: 16.6; Fig. 10.3), as well as those of Bos (possibly representing aurochs as they are very large and robust), Gazella, and spur-thighed tortoise (NISP = 1 respectively). Pig was represented by four bones of a young animal. As they were either unfused or broken, most bones could not be measured for size (measured bone—3rd phalanx Lad: 29.9). Consequently, it was not possible to determine whether the pig represents a domestic or wild form. The association of bones of wild goat and aurochs with this installation suggests that this sample is mixed and contains mid-PPNB elements in addition to those dating to the PN. Installation 109. A total of 17 bones were recovered from this semicircular installation built of fieldstones. Animal bones found here comprise a small sized 1st phalanx, probably of a domestic goat (Capra hircus) (measurements taken—GLpe: 37.6, Bd: 12.0, Bp: 12.5; see Fig. 10.3), four bones of domestic sheep (Ovis aries; measurements taken—a distal scapula GLP: 30.9, BG: 22.8; a distal humerus Bd: 27.3, BT: 24.6, trochlea height: 13.0; a distal tibia Bd: 26.6, Dd: 20.0), and seven bones of sheep/goat. In addition, two bones each of pig and gazelle were identified, as well as a longbone of red fox. Due to their fragmentary state it was not possible to determine whether the pig remains belonged to domestic or wild animals. An Ovis metatarsal has parallel cut marks running perpendicular to the proximal epiphysis, butchery damage usually associated with skinning (Binford 1981). Installation 114. This is a small, circular installation built of upright limestone slabs, with two scorched flat stones at the bottom, and containing ceramic sherds, flints, and bone artifacts. Only five animal bones were recovered directly from the installation and another 62 bones during the cleaning of the installation and its immediate environs. The five bones directly associated with this structure are a fragment of a cervical vertebra of Bos and a very large distal humerus, probably of an aurochs (measurements taken—Bd: 103.9, BT: 99.2, trochlea height: 42.6), as well as two gazelle longbones and one of a fox. The diagnostic bone sample from the immediate vicinity of the installation and the cleaning of the installation comprises 16 fragmented sheep/goat bones,

89

some of them robust enough to represent wild goat (C. aegagrus), 6 bones of large goat, probably wild (measurements taken—an astragalus GLl: 30.4, Bd: 19.1, Dl: 16.3; 1st phalanx GLpe: 45.0, Bd: 18.1; see Fig. 10.3; 2nd phalanx: GLpe: 31.2, Bd: 11.3, Bp: 14.8), 10 bones each of Bos and Gazella, 9 remains of tortoise and fox respectively, and 1 each of an unidentified bird and rodent. Installation 126. This is an oval installation built of fieldstones that appears to have collapsed outwards. A total of 43 animal bones were collected from the installation and its immediate environs. Of these, 8 represent a large goat, probably the wild bezoar Capra aegagrus (measurements taken—a proximal radius Bp: 36.6, Dp: 18.2; astragalus GLl: 30.9, Bd: 20.8, Dl: 16.9; 1st phalanx GLpe: 50.9, Bd: 17.7, Bp: 18.3 [see Fig. 10.3]; 2nd phalanx GLpe: 30.2, Bd: 14.1, Bp: 17.2). One bone belongs to a small-sized goat, possibly a domestic Capra hircus (measurements taken—1st phalanx GLpe: 35.6, Bd: 12.0, Bp: 12.5) and 23 bones represent undetermined sheep/goat of which 11 may belong to small-sized (?domestic) animals. In addition, 6 gazelle bones, 2 bones of red fox, and 1 bone each of cattle, pig, and an unidentified bird were recovered here. Due to the scanty cattle and pig remains, their domestic status could not be determined. Layer II Fills. A total of 409 diagnostic bones were recovered from general fills associated with Layer II. As documented in Table 10.1, the bulk of the bones belong to sheep/goat. Although it is unclear whether the majority of these remains represent wild or domestic animals, five bones from these fills were definitely identified as those of domestic goat, one as domestic sheep, and another two as domestic sheep/goat. Thus, it is likely that an even higher proportion of bones in the general Ovis/Capra category may represent domestic animals. However, on the basis of size and robusticity, a high proportion of remains from these fills were identified as belonging to the wild goat, C. aegagrus. We may then conclude that both domestic and wild taxa are represented here, with wild goat clearly more abundant (see Table 10.1). Relatively few remains of either cattle, pig, or gazelle were recovered. It was not possible to determine the domestic status of remains of Bos and Sus as few bones were complete. However, four remains of an

90

LIORA K. HORWITZ

immature pig derived from a basket in Sq A5 in this layer may belong to a domestic animal on account of the small size of the radius (measurements taken—a proximal radius Bp: 30.6, Dp: 21.3). The shafts and fragments of all other Bos and Sus remains were of large size and robust proportions, suggesting that they predominantly represent wild forms. A wide range of small-sized taxa (e.g., reptiles, rodents, amphibians) was recovered here, and it is not possible to attribute them to a particular period as they occur throughout the Neolithic sequence. Conclusions Most baskets in the PN sample contain goat bones that are comparable in size to the wild bezoar goat, Capra aegagrus (Figs. 10.1, 10.2). In addition, in the bone samples recovered from the installations and their immediate environs, remains of what appear to be domestic goats and sheep were found (see Table 10.1). These were identified on the basis of morphological and biometric criteria (see measurements given above). The extent of differences between these size groups is very large and does not appear to represent dimorphic differences within a single population (see Fig. 10.3). Rather, they indicate that in most loci, both wild and domestic animals are represented. This may be explained by the fact that both wild and domestic (or incipiently-domestic) animals were exploited in the PN, or, as based on the ceramic and lithic assemblages, that most of the PN sample is mixed with PPNB elements (see Chapters 3, 4, 7, 15). Results of the aDNA analysis (see Chapter 12) support these findings, with one goat bone from Layer II positively identified as domestic goat, C. hircus, and one identified as resembling wild ibex, C. ibex. In addition, one bone from the upper part of Layer III (midPPNB) was identified on the basis of aDNA analysis as representing a domestic goat, suggesting that some degree of mixing has occurred between these two layers. Mountain gazelle, pig, and cattle are the next most common taxa in the PN sample. Most of the cattle bones in this sample are large and robust and appear to derive from wild rather than domestic animals. Few bones that may represent smaller-sized animals (i.e., domesticates) were found but could not be measured due to breakage. For pigs, the majority of these belong to immature animals with unfused epiphyses, such that it cannot be determined whether they represent wild or domestic forms.

a

b

c

d Fig. 10.1. Goat astragalus length (GLl) measurements (after von den Driesch 1976). (a) ‘Ain Ghazal Yarmukian; (b) Basta late PPNB; (c)‘Ain Ghazal mid-PPNB; (d) Abu Ghosh mid-PPNB. Data for ‘Ain Ghazal are taken from Köhler-Rollefson (1989) and von den Driesch and Wodtke (1997). Data for Basta are from Becker (1997).

CHAPTER 10: THE NEOLITHIC FAUNA

a

b

c

91

Other wild taxa comprise a minor portion of the sample. Many of their remains may represent nondietary elements and accidental intrusions. As listed in Table 10.1, wild species represented in Layer II are red fox (Vulpes vulpes), wild cat (Felis silvestris), hare (Lepus capensis), rodent, insectivores, reptiles— especially the spur-thighed tortoise (Testudo graeca), birds—especially raptors, and an amphibian. Based on our knowledge of fauna from PN sites (Ducos 1968; Clutton-Brock 1979; Horwitz 1987; Haber 2001), we would expect both domestic sheep and goat to be represented, that the cattle and pig remains include those of domestic animals, and that hunted species comprise, by this time, a minor component of the assemblage. In the PN sample from Abu Ghosh, there is evidence for the presence of small-sized goats, as well as sheep. As reported by Ducos (1978) and Ducos and Horwitz (Chapter 11), as well as in this chapter, no remains of Ovis have been identified from the mid-PPNB layers at the site. Current data indicate that Ovis was only introduced into this region in the late PPNB (Garrard, Colledge, and Martin 1996; Legge 1996; Horwitz and Ducos 1998; Horwitz et al. 1999), such that its presence in the PN levels at the site tallies well with the available information on this taxon. None of the PN loci at Abu Ghosh contained enough ‘clean’ material to facilitate a study of biometric changes in goats associated with their domestication, nor for investigating patterns of animal exploitation (age and sex kill-off) over time. Moreover, the size range of pig and cattle in the PN layers is difficult to assess due to the small size of the samples, but even here remains of large-sized animals (wild?) seem to form the majority. The PN sample may be summarized as primarily containing remains of wild goats, signifying either that hunting continued to be practiced concurrently with early herding/cultural control of goats, or that due to the ephemeral nature of the PN occupation at the site, mixing with underlying mid-PPNB material occurred. Based on data from the lithic assemblage (see above, Chapter 4), the latter seems to be the most feasible explanation.

d Fig. 10.2. Goat first phalanx maximum length (GLpe) measurements (after von den Driesch 1976). (a) ‘Ain Ghazal Yarmukian; (b) Basta late PPNB; (c) ‘Ain Ghazal late mid-PPNB; (d) Abu Ghosh mid-PPNB. Data for ‘Ain Ghazal are taken from von den Driesch and Wodtke (1997). Data for Basta are from Becker (1997).

Mid-Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (c. 9300–8500 uncal. BP) Species Composition The 2,737 identifiable bones from the mid-PPNB layers have yielded a similar and broad range of species as found in the PN fills (see Table 10.1), but this is undoubtedly

92

LIORA K. HORWITZ

Table 10.1. Comparison of Species Representations PN Installations NISP Domestic Sheep 4 (Ovis aries) Domestic Goat 2 (Capra hircus) Domestic Sheep/Goat 12 (Capra/Ovis) Wild Goat 24 (C. aegagrus/C. ibex) Domestic/Wild Sheep/ 50 Goat (Capra/Ovis) Mountain Gazelle 22 (Gazella gazella) Small Ruminant sp. Cattle/Aurochs 19 (Bos taurus/ primigenius) Pig/Boar 7 (Sus scrofa) Equid sp. Fallow Deer (Dama mesopotamica) Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) Cervid sp. Red Fox 14 (Vulpes vulpes) Wild Cat (Felis silvestris) Beech Marten (Martes foina) Leopard (Panthera pardus) Canid sp. Carnivores Cape Hare (Lepus capensis) Palestine Molerat (Spalax ehrenbergi) Rodent sp. 1 Insectivores Tortoise 11 (Testudo graeca) Snakes (Ophidia) Raptors (Falconiformes) Songbird 1 (Passeriformes) Bird sp. 1 Amphibian 168 Total 1

PN Fill

Total PN Layer II

PPNB Ducos 1

PPNB This Chapter, Layer III NISP % -

% 2.3

NISP 1

% *

NISP 5

% -

1.2

5

1.2

7

-

-

-

7.1

2

*

14

-

-

-

14.2

98

24.0

122

56.0

2784

42.5

1115

41.0

30.0

148

36.1

198

-

380

5.8

284

10.5

13.1

45

11.0

67

13.3

823

12.5

390

14.5

11.3

32

8.0

51

17.52

418 1146

6.3 17.5

424

15.5

4.2

54

13.2

61

13.03

626

9.5

235

8.5

-

-

-

-

*

3 52

* 0.7

71

2.5

-

-

-

-

-

9

*

3

8.3

2

*

16

-

15 94

* 1.4

81

-

2

*

2

-

31

*

5

*

-

-

-

-

-

11

*

2

*

-

-

-

-

-

2

*

-

-

-

1 1

* *

1 1

-

5 44 8

* 0.6 *

2 30

* 1.0

-

-

-

-

-

27

*

2

1 2 23

-

35

*

10 3 58

*. 6.5

2 12

* 3.0

-

8

*

* 3.0

* * * 2.0

-

-

-

-

-

2

*

3

*

-

2

*

2

-

30

*

9

*

*

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

* 100.0

1 1 409

* * 100.0

100.0

-

* 100.0

2 1 577

Represents the first sample from Abu Ghosh published by Ducos (1978). Only aurochs have been identified. 3 Only wild boar have been identified. * Represents 0.5% of the species or less. 2

PPNB Ducos & Horwitz, Chapter 11 NISP % -

100.0

6545

2 2737

93

CHAPTER 10: THE NEOLITHIC FAUNA

due to mixing of the latter sample with underlying midPPNB material. In the mid-PPNB, remains of caprines clearly predominated (51.5%), followed by gazelle and cattle (c. 15% each) and finally pig (8.5%). Bones belonging to three species of carnivores—the wild cat (Felis silvestris), Beech marten (Martes foina), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes)—are common but even then present in low frequencies. The same is true for remains of hare and reptiles—snake (Ophidia sp.) and tortoise (Testudo greaca)—as well as birds (Aves), which despite the wide range of species represented, together constitute a small number of remains. No bones of sheep were identified in this assemblage. However, a number of bones could not be determined to species and so were placed in a combined sheep/ goat category (see Table 10.1). This does not mean that sheep are represented in this layer, but merely that these bones could not be unequivocally identified to caprine species. In addition, eight small-sized caprine bones from loci lying near the top of Layer III may represent domestic sheep/goat. One of these bones was analyzed for aDNA (see Chapter 12) and found to represent a domestic goat. These bones probably represent intrusions from the overlying PN layer. The vast majority of goat remains in Layer III are extremely large in size and robust. As illustrated in Figs. 10.1 and 10.2 they conform in these parameters to bones identified as belonging to the wild bezoar goat, Capra aegagrus, from the mid-PPNB and late mid-PPNB levels at ‘Ain Ghazal (von den Driesch and Wodtke 1997). Remains from both these sites are markedly larger than those from the late PPNB from Basta and the PN (Yarmukian) level at ‘Ain Ghazal. Since the entire size range has shifted to the left (smaller animals), it is safe to conclude that this signifies a genuine size change, with domestic as opposed to wild goats present from the late PPNB onwards. The species of gazelle represented has been identified as the mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella), based both on biogeographic distribution of this species (Mendelssohn and Yom-Tov 1999) and on the resemblance to modern mountain gazelle in size (Table 10.2). It is evident in this table that no marked diachronic reduction in size of this species has taken place between the PPNB and PPNC. This contrasts with the pattern shown by Capra (Figs. 10.1 and 10.2), providing further evidence for specific anthropogenic control of goats by the late PPNB.

Table 10.2. Comparative Measurements of Gazella Bone Site/Period

N

Mean

Range

Distal Scapula Length (GLP) Abu Ghosh Mid-PPNB

9

29.3

26.8–31.6

‘Ain Ghazal Late Mid-PPNB/ Early Late PPNB

2

30.2

29.5–31.0

‘Ain Ghazal Late PPNB

3

29.8

27.5–31.0

‘Ain Ghazal PPNC

2

31.0

30.0–32.0

Modern Male Mountain Gazelle

15

29.7

27.4–37.4

Modern Female Mountain Gazelle

16

27.4

25.4–30.2

Abu Ghosh Mid-PPNB

7

24.3

22.8–27.2

‘Ain Ghazal Late PPNB

2

24.0

22.0–26.0

‘Ain Ghazal PPNC

2

24.7

24.5–25.0

‘Ain Ghazal Yarmukian

2

25.0

25.0

Modern Male Mountain Gazelle

13

23.2

20.8–25.4

Modern Female Mountain Gazelle

15

21.3

19.4–24.6

Distal Radius Breadth (Bd)

Measurements in mm as defined in von den Driesch (1976). ‘Ain Ghazal measurements from von den Driesch and Wodtke (1997). Modern mountain gazelle data from Horwitz, Cope, and Tchernov (1990).

Few measurements could be taken on Bos bones due to the predominance of immature animals with unfused longbones in the sample. In Table 10.3 adult Bos bones are compared to data from ‘Ain Ghazal and domestic cattle from Bronze Age sites in Israel. The extremely large size of the cattle bones clearly indicates that they represent aurochs (Bos primigenius) and are comparable to animals identified as such from ‘Ain Ghazal. Both samples are markedly larger than the Bronze Age domestic Bos taurus. A similar comparison was undertaken for pig (Table 10.4). Although sample sizes of measured bones are small (for the same reason as for Bos), the results clearly indicate that the pigs from Abu Ghosh represent wild boar. This species would have probably inhabited the dense vegetated areas of the springs at Bir Nakush. Sexing The broad size range and bimodal distribution for measurements of astragali (see Fig. 10.1) and first phalanges (see Fig. 10.2) indicate that both male and

94

LIORA K. HORWITZ

Table 10.3. Comparative Measurements of Bos Bone Site/Period

N

Mean

Range

Distal Humerus Breadth (BT) 91.6–98.8

Table 10.4. Comparative Measurements of Sus Bone Site/Period

N

Mean

Range

Distal Humerus Breadth (Bd)

Abu Ghosh Mid-PPNB

2

95.2

‘Ain Ghazal Late PPNB/ PPNC—Wild

1

105.0

105.0

Abu Ghosh MidPPNB

4

45.8

43.0–55.0

‘Ain Ghazal Late PPNB/ PPNC—Domestic

1

77.0

77.0

‘Ain Ghazal Late PPNB—Wild

5

44.6

42.0–49.0

Bronze Age Sites

4

72.7

69.8–77.0

‘Ain Ghazal PPNC—Wild

4

42.4

42.0–-44.0

Bronze Age Sites

3

39.5

38.2–40.2

Abu Ghosh Mid-PPNB

8

38.3

34.0–44.0

Jericho Mid-PPNB

4

36.8

33.9–42.0

26

26.0

22.2–30.0

Abu Ghosh MidPPNB

11

46.9

41.4–53.2

Abu Ghosh Mid-PPNB

7

64.1

60.0–70.6

4

44.0

40.0–47.0

‘Ain Ghazal Late PPNB/ PPNC—Wild

2

66.0

63.0–69.0

‘Ain Ghazal Late PPNB—Wild

9

46.6

44.0–51.0

‘Ain Ghazal Yarmukian— Wild

2

‘Ain Ghazal PPNC—Wild

1

45.0

45.0

‘Ain Ghazal Late PPNB/ PPNC—Domestic

2

‘Ain Ghazal PN—Wild

5

37.1

36.0–38.0

‘Ain Ghazal PPNC— Domestic

2

Bronze Age Sites—Domestic

Bronze Age Sites

9

1st Phalanx Breadth (Bd)

Bronze Age Sites 3rd Phalanx Length (Ld)

66.5 52.0 47.6

65.0–68.0 45.0–59.0 46.2–49.0

Astragalus Length (GLl)

Measurements in mm as defined in von den Driesch (1976). 48.3

40.0–56.3

Measurements in mm as defined in von den Driesch (1976). Phalanges include bones of forelimb and hindlimb.

‘Ain Ghazal measurements from von den Driesch and Wodtke (1997: Table 11); the PN at ‘Ain Ghazal is Yarmukian. Middle and Late Bronze Age sites (Qiryat Ata, Tel Aphek, and Nahal Refaim ) are unpublished measurements of the author.

PPNB Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) measurements are unpublished data of the author. ‘Ain Ghazal measurements from von den Driesch and Wodtke (1997: Table 11). PN at ‘Ain Ghazal is Yarmukian. Bronze Age sites are unpublished measurements of the author (Tel Qashish, Qiryat Ata, and Tel Aphek).

female goats are represented in the Abu Ghosh sample. For both bones there is a predominance of larger-sized animals, presumably adult males and/or ibex. This

contrasts with the findings for the distal humerus and distal metacarpal for the Lechevallier excavation described in Ducos and Horwitz (see Chapter 11). The preferential culling of immature males has generally been accepted as an indicator of cultural control in PPNB caprines (for example, Zeder and Hesse 2000). Thus the Abu Ghosh data may be interpreted in several ways. Firstly, that the

Fig. 10.3. Photograph showing the extreme size differences between 1st phalanges of domestic goats (on the left) and wild goats (on the right), all derived from the Pottery Neolithic level (Layer II) at Abu Ghosh.

CHAPTER 10: THE NEOLITHIC FAUNA

predominance of males in this excavated sample as opposed to that studied by Ducos and Horwitz (see Chapter 11) is a result of random intra-site variation. A second alternative is that the goats at this site represent hunted prey with selection of prime males. Alternately, the results may be a consequence of a mixed sample comprising a hunted component of wild ibex and a component of incipient domesticates—bezoar goat. Finally, it is possible that at Abu Ghosh, male goats were culled at a later age than at other sites. At this stage it is not possible to determine which of these scenarios is correct. Ageing Survivorship frequencies, based on bone fusion, were calculated for mid-PPNB Capra, Gazella, Bos, and Sus (Fig. 10.4). Capra shows a slow reduction in survivorship. Over 95% of animals survived by 10 months, indicating a low immature cull. This is reduced to 85% by 14 months, and to 60% by 21 months. Just over 50% of the animals survived until 36 months, followed by a significant drop with only 29% surviving by 39 months. In contrast, a higher frequency of Gazella survived into adulthood, with 80% surviving by 10 months. Data for the later fusing bones

Fig. 10.4. Kill-off patterns of (a) Capra, (b) Gazella, (c) Bos, and ► (d) Sus from Abu Ghosh. The percentage of fused specimens is plotted, giving the survival rate for each taxon. a. Age classes for Capra: 7 months = Scapula coracoid; 10 months = Distal humerus, proximal radius; 14 months = Proximal phalanges; 21 months = Distal tibia, distal metapodia; 33 months = Proximal femur, calcaneum; 36 months = Distal radius, proximal ulna; 39 months = Proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia; 54 months = Vertebrae. b. Age classes for Gazella: 2 months = Distal humerus, proximal radius; 6 months = Scapula coracoid; 8 months = Proximal phalanges; 10 months = Distal tibia; 16 months = Distal metapodia, proximal femur, proximal calcaneum; 18 months = Distal radius, proximal ulna, proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia. c. Age classes for Bos: 9 months = Scapula coracoid; 15 months = Distal humerus, proximal radius; 18 months = Proximal phalanges; 27 months = Distal tibia, distal metapodia; 39 months = Calcaneum; 42 months = Proximal femur; 45 months = Distal radius, proximal ulna, proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia. d. Age classes for Sus: 12 months = Scapula coracoid, proximal radius, proximal 2nd phalanges; 18 months = Distal humerus; 24 months = Distal metapodials, distal tibia, proximal 1st phalanges; 30 months = Proximal calcaneum, distal fibula; 36 months = Proximal ulna; 42 months = Proximal humerus, distal radius, proximal femur, proximal tibia, proximal fibula; 48 months = Vertebrae.

a

b

c

d

95

96

LIORA K. HORWITZ

indicate that slightly over 65% of animals survived by adulthood (18 months) in contrast to a low 29% in Capra. The difference in kill-off patterns between these two species denotes that juvenile Capra (probably males as discussed above) were selectively culled. This pattern has been interpreted by Ducos (1978) and Ducos and Horwitz (Chapter 11) as reflecting a degree of cultural control of morphometrically wild animals, a state termed proto-élevage or incipient domestication. However, survivorship profiles for both Bos and Sus resemble that of Capra with low kill-off of animals prior to one year of age and fewer than 30% surviving by adulthood. Survivorship curves for Bos show a focus on immature animals. Some 80% of animals were culled by 14 months with a significant drop by 21 months. Only 15% survived by 39 months. It is possible that as adult aurochs were dangerous opponents, young animals were preferentially hunted. This is corroborated by the fact that aurochs have the highest cull rate in the pre-10 month age class. Few pigs survived into adulthood, with just under 20% surviving by 48 months. A minority of animals were culled before 12 months, but by 18 months this had risen markedly, with a 58% survival rate.

For Capra, Bos, and Sus, the biometrical and morphological data indicate that we are dealing with wild animals. Consequently, the difference in the mode of exploitation of Capra, as opposed to the other two taxa for which no such management is suggested, is difficult to determine. All three kill-off patterns resemble each other sufficiently to be interpreted as reflecting selective hunting of wild animals or management by humans. In contrast, gazelle has a higher survivorship rate of adults. Unfortunately, aside from Capra, insufficient data were available for these taxa to examine sex ratios, a critical feature in determining the presence or absence of cultural control of animals. Thus, the crucial difference in exploitation of these taxa may lie in the sex of the animals being culled. Skeletal Elements Figure 10.5 summarizes the data on bodypart distribution for the four main taxa represented in Layer III. No consistent pattern is found between them. Capra and Gazella resemble each other and are characterized by high frequencies of cranial, foot, and hindlimb elements; Bos has the highest frequency of cranial remains of any of the taxa and fewest trunk elements. Despite the fact that the skeleton of the

Fig. 10.5. Skeletal element breakdown for Capra, Gazella, Bos, and Sus according to five categories. Cranial: Antler, horn, skull, maxilla, mandible and loose teeth. Forelimb: Scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, proximal metacarpal. Trunk: Cervical, thoracic, lumbar and caudal vertebrae, ribs, sacrum. Hindlimb: Pelvis, femur, tibia, calcaneum, astragalus, tarsals, proximal metatarsal. Feet: Metapodial shafts, 1st, 2nd and 3rd phalanges.

CHAPTER 10: THE NEOLITHIC FAUNA

pig has a higher number of vertebrae, metapodials, phalanges, and teeth than the other three taxa, this does not appear to have inflated the bone counts of the cranial, trunk or foot categories. In fact, the most common elements for Sus are the meat-rich forelimbs and hindlimbs. For all taxa, elements rich in meat (limbs and trunk) are slightly more common than those poor in meat (crania and feet). Conclusions The mid-PPNB assemblage reflects a pattern of animal exploitation that is based on hunting of a broad range of wild taxa. It is possible that some form of control of wild caprines took place, although there is no morphometric evidence to indicate that we are dealing with domestic animals. Most importantly, the cull pattern for Capra closely resembles that for Bos and Sus and may simply reflect selective hunting of young animals. In addition, there appears to be a bias for adult male goats in this sample, which clearly does not support accepted cull profiles of early domestic herds. However, the extremely high frequencies of caprine remains in the mid-PPNB level at the site suggest that the caprines probably represent a population undergoing incipient domestication. According to Horwitz (1989), this initially entails the selective hunting of a taxon followed by penning or isolation of animals and the creation of a founder herd. Selective culling of young males is a further component of this system (Horwitz 1989, 1993; Zohary, Tchernov, and Horwitz 1998). It is argued here, that if the Capra population at Abu Ghosh was already genetically isolated, then marked changes in horn shape as well as skeletal biometry would already be visible. This would be a direct result of ongoing changes in selective pressures brought about by the introduction of wild animals into a new, anthropogenically created and maintained environment. These changes would occur automatically, i.e., without direct human intervention (Zohary, Tchernov, and Horwitz 1998). The Abu Ghosh goats then represent the very initial stage of the domestication process. This argument is supported by the fact that remains of another wild caprine, C. ibex, have also been recovered at Abu Ghosh. Of the six randomly selected samples of what had been initially identified as wild goat from the mid-PPNB layers, two (33%) were identified as ibex on the basis of DNA, while of the two PN samples, one (50%) was identified as ibex (see below, Chapter

97

12). It is suggested here that if local domestication of goats was being undertaken, then discrimination between ibex and wild bezoar may not have been of critical importance to the human population carrying out this experiment. In the end, only the wild bezoar goat (C. aegagrus) was successfully domesticated, but as attested by the finds from Abu Ghosh, attempts to domesticate ibex may also have been underway. Today, ibex and the wild bezoar goat inhabit different environments (Harrison and Bates 1991), with the bezoar goat found in the Mediterranean region (today it survives only in Turkey and parts of Iran and the former Soviet Union— Harrison and Bates 1991), while the ibex is a desert dweller and is known from arid environments such as the Negev. Assuming that the current biogeographical distributions of these species were the same in the past, the results from Abu Ghosh indicate that the catchment area exploited by inhabitants of the site was much larger than previously thought. It included the Judean Desert area or the southern Jordan Valley where ibex would have been found; the nearest PPNB site to Abu Ghosh to have yielded remains of ibex is el-Khiam in the Judean Desert (Ducos 1997). Alternately, it is more likely that following the expansion of human settlements and competition with domestic caprines, the biogeographical distribution of ibex shifted southwards to its current range. In either event, the presence of two taxa of wild goats in the mid-PPNB levels at this site raises the possibility that both were targeted by mid-PPNB populations as potential domesticates. This issue will only be clarified once archaeozoological criteria are developed for distinguishing clearly between ibex and bezoar goats on the basis of postcranial remains. We may conclude then that there is no conclusive evidence to indicate that domestication of Capra in the mid-PPNB levels at Abu Ghosh had occurred. Instead, it is proposed that the Abu Ghosh goats reflect the earliest steps in the creation of a founder herd. This is supported by evidence for selection of particular age groups, as well as sex classes.

THE FINDS FROM ABU GHOSH AND THE ADVENT OF CAPRINE DOMESTICATION Current data for the southern Levant indicate that domestic goats and sheep first appear in this region during the PPNB (Davis 1982; Bar-Yosef and Meadow

98

LIORA K. HORWITZ

1995; Garrard, Colledge, and Martin 1996; Horwitz et al. 1999; Legge 1996; Peters et al. 1999; Wasse 2002). With regard to Ovis, a recent re-examination of the evidence for sheep remains from archaeological contexts in the southern Levant (Horwitz and Ducos 1998) has corroborated the presence of sheep in the Natufian, but questioned the validity of subsequent claims for sheep from the PPNA (c. 7300–8300 BCE) and early to mid-PPNB. Thus, immediately prior to the mid-PPNB, wild goats but probably not sheep inhabited the southern Levant. The available data for this region indicate that this latter taxon was introduced by the late PPNB as a domesticate from the northern Levant, where it had been domesticated earlier (Garrard, Colledge, and Martin 1996; Peters et al. 1999). In contrast, the record for goats seems to be more complicated. Although wild goats are represented in most Epipaleolithic contexts in the southern Levant, they are usually present in low numbers (e.g., Davis 1982; Tchernov 1995). As attested to at Abu Ghosh, in the mid-PPNB there is evidence for a significant increase in their number and a concomitant reduction in the frequency of gazelles, a trend that has commonly been accepted as marking the advent of caprine domestication in the region (Clutton-Brock 1979; Davis 1982; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989a, 1989b, 1992; Tchernov 1993, 1995). However, it has been demonstrated (Horwitz 1993) that in the southern Levant the replacement of gazelles by caprines is a gradual process, beginning with gazelle-dominated assemblages in the early PPNB, while only by the mid-PPNB are some sites characterized by a predominance of caprines. There appears to be some inter-site variation in this feature with the co-existence of at least three different strategies of animal exploitation (Horwitz et al. 1999; Horwitz, in press). The first strategy is evident in sites located in the Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian zones in the Beqa‘a and Jordan Valleys (Tel Aswad, Munhata 4–5, Jericho) and its periphery (Beidha, ‘Ain Ghazal), as well as on the slopes of the Judean Hills at Abu Ghosh. These are agricultural communities focused on cereal cultivation (Garrard 1999) with faunal assemblages dominated by goats. As these animals still exhibit wild-type morphometry but in many cases are associated with a kill-off of immature males, it is suggested that they are in the process of being domesticated (‘incipient

domestication’). Hunting, including of gazelle, continues at these sites but comprises a relatively minor element. The second strategy, as represented by sites also located in the Mediterranean zone but to the extreme west of the Jordan Valley (Nahal Bezet, Yiftah’el, Kfar Ha-Horesh, Nahal Oren), reflects some continuity with the earlier PPNB and PPNA traditions and is still based on gazelle hunting. However, a marked increase in the frequency of wild caprines relative to the preceding PPNA and early PPNB is evident, as well as selective culling of Capra based on age and sex, perhaps reflecting the incipient domestication of goats. Evidence for agriculture (primarily of legumes) is found at these sites (Garrard 1999). The third strategy characterizes populations inhabiting the desert regions (Nahal Hemar, Wadi Tbeik, Jilat 7). They show no marked change in subsistence strategies from those practiced previously in the Epipaleolithic and continue to be based on hunting and gathering, with gazelle and ibex the most common prey. It is important to note that mid-PPNB caprines in sites in the Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian zones are comparable in size and form to wild bezoar goats (Horwitz 1989, in press; Köhler-Rollefson 1989; Goring-Morris et al. 1994–1995; Tchernov 1995; Garrard, Colledge, and Martin 1996; Legge 1996; Wasse 2002). Only by the late PPNB do caprines (both goats and sheep) clearly dominate Levantine assemblages in the Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian zones, such as at Ramad II (Ducos 1993a, 1993b), Basta (Becker 1991), and ‘Ain Ghazal (Köhler-Rollefson, Gillespie, and Metzger 1988; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993; Wasse 2002). At this time, they are first found in sites located in the eastern desert of Jordan (Martin 1999). Diagnostic traits associated with domestication, such as twisted horncores and a marked diminution in metric parameters, characterize a high proportion of caprines in late PPNB assemblages (Becker 1997; von den Driesch and Wodtke 1997; Wasse 1997). Bar-Yosef (2000) has suggested that the diversity in mid-PPNB modes of subsistence reflects the slow dispersal and introduction of domestic goats from the northern Levant via the Jordan Valley, with sites in this Levantine corridor having a greater abundance of goats than those on the periphery. In contrast, it is proposed here and in Horwitz (in press) that this mosaic patterning may reflect the gradual and staggered local

CHAPTER 10: THE NEOLITHIC FAUNA

development of goat domestication in the southern Levant. If we take the introduction of sheep as a possible example of the patterning that may be expected in the faunal record following the introduction of a domestic species then, as based on data from late PPNB Basta (Becker 1991, 1997) or ‘Ain Ghazal (von den Driesch and Wodtke 1997; Wasse 2002), we see a pattern which differs from that observed for mid-PPNB goats. From their initial appearance in the site, the majority of the Basta sheep are of small size and may easily be classified as domesticates, with only a small minority of very large animals that may be identified as wild. In contrast the mid-PPNB goats all conform to the wildtype in terms of body size and morphological traits. They show a gradual change over time as evidenced by the changing frequencies of straight to twisted horns at Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal (Clutton-Brock 1979; Wasse 2002), as well as a slow diminution in size. Another factor to consider is that initially, domestic

99

sheep represent only a minor component of late PPNB assemblages, increasing in frequency and becoming the dominant taxon only in the terminal phases of the PPNB (e.g., Final PPNB/PPNC levels at ‘Ain Ghazal), which is a typical pattern for a colonizing species (Becker 1991, 1997; Wasse 2002). In contrast, midPPNB goats comprise a significant, if not dominant, component of assemblages, even those lying on the western extremities of the Levantine corridor. A further factor is that mid-PPNB sites such as Abu Ghosh and Beidha provide evidence that both the bezoar goat and ibex were being exploited simultaneously, suggesting that attempts at domesticating wild goats senso lato may have been underway. Current genetic data relating to goat domestication (Luikart et al. 2001) indicates a multi-centric origin for domestic goats, such that it is highly feasible that autochthonous domestication of this taxa may have taken place in the southern Levant, at sites such as Abu Ghosh.

REFERENCES Bar-Yosef O. 2000. The Context of Animal Domestication in Southwestern Asia. In M. Mashkour, A.M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, and F. Poplin eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East IV. Groningen. Pp. 185–195. Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A. 1989a. The Levantine “PPNB” Interaction Sphere. In I. Hershkovitz ed. People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin (BAR Int. S. 508i). Oxford. Pp. 59–72. Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A. 1989b. The Origins of Sedentism and Farming Communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 3:447–498. Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A. 1992. From Foraging to Farming in the Mediterranean Levant. In A.B. Gebauer and T.D. Price eds. Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Madison. Pp. 21–48. Bar-Yosef O. and Meadow R. 1995. The Origin of Agriculture in the Near East. In A.B. Gebauer and T.D. Price eds. Last Hunters, First Farmers. Santa Fe. Pp. 39–94. Becker C. 1991. The Analysis of Mammalian Bones from Basta, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site in Jordan: Problems and Potential. Paléorient 17:59–75. Becker C. 1997. On the Identification of Sheep and Goats: the Evidence from Basta. Unpublished manuscript. Binford L.S. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York. Boessneck J., Müller H-H., and Teichert M. 1964. Osteologische Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen Schaf

(Ovis aries Linné) und Ziege (Capra hircus Linné). KuhnArchiv 78:1–129. Bull G. and Payne S. 1982. Tooth Eruption and Epiphyseal Fusion in Pigs and Wild Boar. In B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne eds. Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (BAR British Series 109). Oxford. Pp. 55–71. Clutton-Brock J. 1979. The Mammalian Remains from the Jericho Tell. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45: 135–157. Davis S.J.M. 1980. A Note on the Dental and Skeletal Ontogeny of Gazella. Israel Journal of Zoology 29: 129–134. Davis S.J.M. 1982. Climatic Change and the Advent of Domestication: The Succession of Ruminant Artiodactyls in the Late Pleistocene-Holocene in the Israel Region. Paléorient 8:5–15. Driesch von den A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Bulletin 1). Cambridge, Mass. Driesch von den A. and Wodtke U. 1997. The Fauna of ‘Ain Ghazal, a Major PPN and Early PN Settlement in Central Jordan. In H.G.K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G.O. Rollefson eds. The Prehistory of Jordan II: Perpectives from 1997 (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4). Berlin. Pp. 511–556. Ducos P. 1968. L’origine des animaux domestiques en Palestine (Publications de l’Institute de Préhistoire de l’Université de Bordeaux 6). Bordeaux.

100

LIORA K. HORWITZ

Ducos P. 1978. La faune d’Abou Ghosh; proto-élevage de la chèvre en Palestine au néolithique pré-céramique. In M. Lechevallier. Abou Ghosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jerusalem 2). Paris. Pp. 107–120. Ducos P. 1993a. Proto-élevage et élevage au Levant sud au VIIe millénaire B.C. Les données de la Damascène. Paléorient 19:153–174. Ducos P. 1993b. Some Remarks about Ovis, Capra and Gazella Remains from Two PPNB Sites from Damascene, Syria, Tell Aswad and Ghoraife. In H. Buitenhuis and A.T. Clason eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East I. Leiden. Pp. 37–42. Ducos P. 1997. A Re-Evaluation of the Fauna from the Neolithic Levels of El-Khiam. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 27:7–81 Garrard A. 1999. Charting the Emergence of Cereal and Pulse Domestication in South-West Asia. Environmental Archaeology 4:67–86. Garrard A., Colledge S., and Martin L. 1996. The Emergence of Crop Cultivation and Caprine Herding in the “Marginal Zone” of the southern Levant. In D. R. Harris ed. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London. Pp. 204–226. Gophna R. and Gopher A. 1992. Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7:297–353. Gordon E.A. 1993. Screen Size and Differential Faunal Recovery: A Hawaiian Example. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:453–460. Goring-Morris N., Goren Y., Horwitz L.K., Hershkovitz I., Lieberman R., Sarel J., and Bar-Yosef D. 1994–1995. The 1992 Season of Excavations at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement of Kfar Hahoresh. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 26:74–121. Grigson C. 1982. Sex and Age Determination of Some Bones and Teeth of Domestic Cattle: Review of the Literature. In B. Wilson, S. Payne, and C. Grigson eds. Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (BAR British Series 109). Oxford. Pp. 7–25. Haber A. 2001. The Faunal Analysis of HaGhoshrim: Biological and Economical Aspects of Prehistoric Agricultural Societies and the Process of Domestication. M. Sc. thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Harrison D.L. and Bates P.J. 1991. The Mammals of Arabia. (2nd ed.). (Harrison Zoological Museum Publication). Seven Oaks. Hecker H.M. 1975. The Faunal Analysis of the Primary Food Animals from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Beidha (Jordan). Ph.D. diss. Columbia University. New York. Helmer D. 1994. La domestication des animaux d’embouche dans le Levant nord (Syrie et Sinjar) du milieu du IXe millénaire BP à la fin du VIIIe millénaire BP. Nouvelles données d’après les fouilles recentes. Anthropozoologica 20: 41–54.

Horwitz L.K. 1987. Animal Remains from the Pottery Neolithic Levels at Tel Dan. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 20:114–118. Horwitz L.K. 1989. A Reassessment of Caprovine Domestication in the Levantine Neolithic: Old Questions, New Answers. In I. Hershkovitz ed. People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin (BAR Int. S. 508i). Oxford. Pp. 153–181. Horwitz L.K. 1993. The Development of Ovicaprine Domestication during the PPNB of the Southern Levant. In H. Buitenhuis and A.T. Clason eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East I. Leiden. Pp. 27–36. Horwitz L.K. 1996. The Impact of Animal Domestication on Species Richness: A Pilot Study from the Neolithic of the Southern Levant. ArchaeoZoologia 8:53–70. Horwitz L.K. In press. Temporal and Spatial Variation in Neolithic Caprine Exploitation Strategies: A Case Study of Fauna from the Site of Yiftah’el, Israel. Paléorient. Horwitz L.K. and Ducos P. 1998. An Investigation into the Origins of Domestic Sheep in the Southern Levant. In L. Bartosiewiscz, H. Buitenhuis, and A.M. Choyke eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East III. Leiden. Pp. 80–94. Horwitz L.K. and Tchernov E. 1998. Diachronic and Synchronic Changes in Patterns of Animal Exploitation during the Neolithic of the Southern Levant. In P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem, and W. Meid eds. Man and the Animal World. Budapest. Pp. 307–318. Horwitz L.K., Cope C., and Tchernov E. 1990. Sexing the Bones of Mountain Gazelle (Gazella gazella) from Prehistoric Sites in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 16: 1–10. Horwitz L.K., Tchernov E., Ducos P., Becker C., von den Driesch A., Martin L., and Garrard A. 1999. Animal Domestication in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 25: 63–80. Köhler-Rollefson I. 1989. Changes in Goat Exploitation at ‘Ain Ghazal between the Early and Late Neolithic: A Metrical Analysis. Paléorient 15:141–146. Köhler-Rollefson I., Gillespie W., and Metzger M. 1988. The Fauna from Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal. In A.N. Garrard and H.G. Gebel eds. The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1988 (BAR Int. S. 396ii). Oxford. Pp. 423–430. Köhler-Rollefson I., Quintero L., and Rollefson G.O. 1993. A Brief Note on the Fauna from Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal. Paléorient 19:95–97. Legge A. 1996. The Beginning of Caprine Domestication in Southwest Asia. In D.R. Harris ed. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London–Washington, D.C. Pp. 238–262. Luikart G., Gielly L., Excoffier L., Vigne J.-D., Bouvet J., and Taberlet P. 2001. Multiple Maternal Origins and Weak Phylogeographic Structure in Domestic Goats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, U.S.A. 98:5927–5932.

CHAPTER 10: THE NEOLITHIC FAUNA

Martin L. 1999. Mammal Remains from the Eastern Jordanian Neolithic, and the Nature of Caprine Herding in the Steppe. Paléorient 25:87–104. Mendelssohn H. and Yom-Tov Y. 1999. Fauna Palaestina— Mammalia of Israel. Jerusalem. Noy T., Legge A.J., and Higgs E.S. 1973. Recent Excavations at Nahal Oren, Israel. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39:75–99. Peters J., Helmer D., von den Driesch A., and Saña Segui M. 1999. Early Animal Husbandry in the Northern Levant. Paléorient 25:27–48. Prummel W. and Frisch H.-J. 1986. A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and Body Side in Bones of Sheep and Goat. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:567–577. Rollefson G.O. and Köhler-Rollefson I. 1993. PPNC Adaptations in the First Half of the 6th Millennium B.C. Paléorient 19:33–42.

101

Tchernov E. 1993. The Impact of Sedentism on Animal Exploitation in the Southern Levant. In H. Buitenhuis and A.T. Clason eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East I. Leiden. Pp. 10–26. Tchernov E. 1995. Environmental and Socioeconomic Background to Domestication in the Southern Levant. In P.J. Crabtree and D.V. Campana eds. Before Farming: Hunter-Gatherer Society and Subsistence (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supplement 12). Philadelphia. Pp. 39–77. Wasse A. 2002. Final Results of an Analysis of the Sheep and Goat Bones from ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Levant 34:59–82. Zeder M.A. and Hesse B. 2000. The Initial Domestication of Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago. Science 287:2254–2257. Zohary D., Tchernov E., and Horwitz L.K. 1998. The Role of Unconscious Selection in the Domestication of Sheep and Goats. Journal of Zoology 245:129–135.

CHAPTER 11

PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH PIERRE DUCOS AND LIORA K. HORWITZ INTRODUCTION The site of Abu Ghosh is situated some 12 km west of Jerusalem. Jean Perrot carried out the first excavations at the site in 1950, excavating five small test pits (Perrot 1952). Based on the material recovered from these pits, he ascribed the site to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, noting the resemblance between the Abu Ghosh material and the Neolithic assemblages from Jericho Strata XVII–IX, as well as the so-called ‘Tahounian’ (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B) industry from the site of elKhiam in the Judean Desert (Perrot 1952). Subsequent excavations at the site between 1967 and 1971 under the direction of Monique Lechevallier (Lechevallier 1978) confirmed the presence of a Neolithic occupation dating to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B identified on the basis of the architecture, lithic artifacts, burial pattern, and other cultural remains.

INITIAL FAUNAL ANALYSIS The faunal assemblage recovered from Perrot’s test pits was never analyzed but a study was undertaken of the fauna collected during Lechevallier’s excavation (Ducos 1978). This assemblage consisted of 3,618 identifiable bones (NISP). Of these, 69% of the bones (NISP = 2,511) represented small ruminants. For the latter group, only a sub-sample of this assemblage comprising 340 bones composed of six different skeletal elements (horncores, distal humeri, astragalus, metacarpal, metatarsal, and phalanges) was identified to species. The relative proportions between the small ruminant species as given in Ducos (1978: Table 1) is therefore based on this sub-sample. It should be noted that this study only addressed the five main taxa at the site: pig (Sus); cattle (Bos); gazelle (Gazella); goat (Capra); and fallow deer (Dama). Remains of goat were the most common (c. 56%), followed by cattle (17.5%), with gazelle and pig almost equally represented (c. 13%). Fallow deer (Dama

mesopotamica) was represented by only one bone. Carnivore, bird, rodent, and reptile remains were not dealt with in this study. For this sub-sample, the morphometry and mortality curves of the three main taxa (goat, cattle, and pig) were examined in order to ascertain whether their remains represented wild or domestic animals. Ducos (1978) concluded that based on their large size, which resembles the measurements from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A levels at Mureybet and the Natufian at ‛Eynan, both the cattle and pig remains from Abu Ghosh represent wild animals: wild cattle, aurochs (Bos primigenius), and wild boar (Sus scrofa). This was supported by the results of the age profiles that he suggested are characteristic of hunted fauna. Having established that the remains of at least two of the three taxa represented were those of wild animals, it was necessary to establish for caprines whether: (a) both sheep and goats were represented at the site and (b) if they represented domestic or wild animals. On the basis of morphometric criteria, Ducos (1978) determined that sheep were not represented in the assemblage, only goat. The age profile of the goats reflects a population with a predominance of animals aged 1–3 years old, which differs markedly from that typical of a wild herd. Moreover, there appears to have been a preponderance of female animals. Based on these data, Ducos (1978) suggested that the goats at Abu Ghosh represent an early phase of domestication termed by him ‘protodomestication’ (i.e., proto-élevage), an incipient phase of human involvement in herd management, primarily entailing selective culling of young males.

CURRENT FAUNAL ANALYSIS For the current analysis, the entire faunal assemblage from the Lechevallier excavation was studied. Bones were identified with reference to the comparative zoological collection held in the Department of

104

PIERRE DUCOS AND LIORA K. HORWITZ

Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Measurements followed Ducos (1968) unless otherwise stated. Species Identification Species representation is presented only by numbers of identified bones (NISP). Estimates of the minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) were not used, as the results derived from the calculation of a ‘coefficient of preservation’ on a set of goat astragali from the site indicated that most bones are derived from different individuals, such that the NISP counts probably provide a more reliable indication of the relative importance of different species. The astragalus was chosen for calculation of the ‘coefficient of preservation’ as it is a particularly robust bone and is usually well preserved even under adverse environmental and diagenetic conditions. The ‘coefficient of preservation’ method is based on the consideration of the age, size, and shape of a set of rights and lefts of a given bone element. From these data it is possible to assess, for some bones, whether they represent pairs (C = a pair of left and right bones) and hence belong to the same individual or, whether they represent isolated bones (L = isolated left, R = isolated right). This accurate sorting of a series of bones has been used for estimating the initial number of individuals in an assemblage (Krantz 1968). The sorting of L + R + C for each skeletal element permits the calculation of P(2), which is the probability that one individual is represented by at least two bones. This probability is calculated as: P(2) = Number of individuals giving pairs / Total number of individuals = C/(L +R + C) where L and R represent isolated left and right bones and C equals pairs. At Abu Ghosh the mean value of P(2) for the astragalus was 0.0485. This result indicates that for this site, the probability that two bones represent the same goat is less than 0.05, which is a very low probability. Consequently, MNI counts would underestimate the true number of animals in the site. Such a low probability is characteristic of assemblages resulting from food consumption/processing activities followed by strong dispersal processes. The final size of the identified bone sample from Abu Ghosh was almost double that of the initial study carried out by Ducos (1978) with an NISP count of

6,256 for the large and small ruminants (Table 11.1). Despite the increased sample size, few changes were observed in the relative frequencies of the main species as shown in Tables 11.1–11.3. In order to assess whether the animals represented are wild or domestic, one of the parameters examined was size. For this purpose, measurements of postcranial elements from Abu Ghosh were compared to those from other Levantine sites using the size index method (Figs. 11.1–11.4). This approach has been successfully applied to study size change associated with animal domestication in the southern Levant by Ducos (1968, 1991, 1993b) and Ducos and Horwitz (1997). As the latter reference provides details concerning the underlying assumptions of the method and how it can be applied to the study of domestication, they will not be repeated here. It should however be kept in mind that the size index is not a statistical method. Moreover, as has been noted by Ducos (1989), size change by itself is insufficient to determine the domestic status of an animal. Domestication implies cultural and social control of animals (‘ownership’). As such, evidence for specialized management of animals, for example selective culling by age and/or sex, provides additional evidence concerning their domestic status (e.g., Zeder and Hesse 2000). Both lines of evidence will be discussed in this paper. Goat Goat is the most common taxon represented in the assemblage (Table 11.1). As shown in Fig. 11.1, the mean and range of the size index for Capra from Abu Ghosh falls well within that for PPNB and PPNA goats from other Levantine sites. These are slightly lower than the means for the Natufian and Kebaran periods; this has been interpreted as due to climate change rather than diminution associated with domestication (Ducos and Horwitz 1997). On the basis of their relatively large size and morphology, the Abu Ghosh remains have been identified as those of the Persian bezoar goat (Capra aegagrus). Although no complete Capra horncores were recovered in the Abu Ghosh sample, none of the 57 horncore fragments in the assemblage resembled domestic goat (Capra hircus) or for that matter wild or domestic sheep (Ovis orientalis/aries). Indeed, on the basis of postcranial skeletal morphology (Boessneck, Müller, and Teichert 1964; Prummel and Frisch 1986) no remains of sheep have been identified at the site. The 380 bones that could not be ascribed to

CHAPTER 11: PPNB FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH

105

Table 11.1. Species Representation—Large and Small Ruminants

Small Ruminants

Cervidae

NISP

%

4405

70.4

76

1.2

NISP Ovis/Capra

Equidae Suidae Total

1146 3

18.3 0.05

626

10.0

6256

100.0

6.1

Capra aegagrus

2784

44.5

Gazella gazella

823

13.2

Small Ruminant sp.

418

6.7

Dama mesopotamica

52

0.8

Capreolus capreolus

9

0.1

15

0.2

1146

18.3

Cervid sp. Large Ruminants

380

%

Bos primigenius Equus sp. Sus scrofa

Capra with a high degree of certainty were placed in a combined sheep/goat category. However, it is most unlikely that they include bones of sheep. Capra aegagrus is extinct in the Levant and the nearest herds are to be found today in the Zagros–Taurus mountains to the north and east of the Levant (Harrison and Bates 1991). Remains of both ibex (Capra ibex cf. nubiana) and bezoar goats (C. aegagrus) have been identified at Abu Ghosh using DNA analysis (see below, Chapter 12). Ibex are still found in the desert regions of the Levant (Mendelssohn and Yom-Tov 1999), but their past distribution is unclear and may have encompassed larger regions than today, especially to the north. Unfortunately, with the exception of horncores, no clear morphological criteria are available for distinguishing between ibex and bezoar goat, such that it has not been possible to assess the relative frequency of the two species in the Abu Ghosh assemblage. Moreover, too few data are available to test for size differences between Neolithic ibex versus contemporaneous wild goats. How this may affect the results of the size index distributions is also unclear. The DNA results do however raise the possibility that ibex is represented but has to date not been identified in other PPNB assemblages from the Mediterranean phytogeographic zone. Evidence for the co-existence of goats and ibex, based on horncore morphology, has been reported from the PPNB site of Beidha in Jordan, located in a more arid environment than Abu Ghosh, at the inter-face of the Mediterranean and Saharo-Sindian phytogeographic zones (Hecker 1975).

3

0.05

626

10.0

6256

100.0

Cattle Bos is the second most important species in the assemblage and comprises 18% of all identified ruminant remains (see Table 11.1). Based on their robusticity and large size (Fig. 11.2) the remains are all ascribed to aurochs (Bos primigenius). Both the range and the mean of the Abu Ghosh sample fall within that of other PPNB sites, though it lacks some of the larger specimens present at Jericho and Ghoraifé, which may be due to a few extremely large adult male specimens in these sites. The overall range and mean of the size index for Bos from the mid-PPNB assemblages are markedly larger than those of Bos from the PPNC site of ‘Atlit Yam. The latter site shows a shift in both the upper and lower size ranges and has been tentatively identified as an early domestic form. Like cattle, aurochs are thought to have inhabited a broad range of habitats—forests, park forests and open grasslands. Such habitats would have been available in the vicinity of Abu Ghosh. Gazelle Mountain gazelle is the third most important species exploited, but compared to goat comprises a minor component of the assemblage—only 13% of identified ruminant bones (see Table 11.1). Identification of the species of gazelle was based on comparison with modern specimens of gazelle held in the collections of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Comparison of the size index for the Abu Ghosh gazelle (Fig. 11.3) shows that their range is comparable to that of specimens from other sites in the region. However, the mean value for Abu Ghosh is slightly higher than

106

PIERRE DUCOS AND LIORA K. HORWITZ

Fig. 11.1. Plot of size index values for Capra from Abu Ghosh compared to those from other sites in the southern Levant. For each site, the thin line denotes the range, the thick line the standard deviation, and the short vertical line the mean. The vertical line running through all the plots represents the Grand Mean, which has been calculated for all specimens shown. Means falling to the left of this line indicate that the mean size in this site is smaller than the Grand Mean, while those lying to its right are higher. (After Ducos and Horwitz 1997.)

Fig. 11.2. Plot of size index values for Bos from Abu Ghosh compared to those from several sites in the southern Levant. Explanation follows that for Fig. 11.1.

CHAPTER 11: PPNB FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH

Fig. 11.3. Plot of size index values for Gazella from Abu Ghosh compared to those from several sites in the southern Levant. Explanation follows that for Fig. 11.1.

107

Fig. 11.4. Plot of size index values for Sus from Abu Ghosh compared to those from several sites in the southern Levant. Explanation follows that for Fig. 11.1.

108

PIERRE DUCOS AND LIORA K. HORWITZ

the other sites and more similar to that for Natufian and PPNA gazelles from the site of Hatula, which lies in close proximity to Abu Ghosh. The presence of relatively larger specimens in both these sites may reflect specifically optimal local environmental conditions for gazelles, but most probably indicates a hunting bias for male animals as has been suggested by Cope (1991) for the Natufian. Indeed, in the Abu Ghosh assemblage no female gazelle horncores were found, although three almost complete male horncores and 23 fragmented ones were identified. Measurements of the complete horncores are comparable to modern day mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella) from the region (Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2000), with a mean basal length (DAP) of 30.9 mm, and mean basal depth (DT) of 21.3 mm. The mountain gazelle (Gazelle gazella) occurs throughout the Mediterranean region of the Levant (Harrison and Bates 1991; Mendelssohn and Yom-Tov 1999) and was the dominant ungulate exploited prior to the PPNB in the southern Levant (Davis 1982; Cope 1991; Tchernov 1995). During the PPNB, several sites located in the western portion of the region—such as Yiftah’el and Nahal Oren—continued to be dominated by mountain gazelle, while those located further east and in close proximity to the Jordan Valley (such as Jericho, Munhata, and Abu Ghosh), were dominated by goats (Horwitz et al. 1999; Horwitz, in press). Pig The wild boar is the fourth most frequent mediumsized mammal found in the assemblage (see Table 11.1). The size range and mean values of Sus from Abu Ghosh (Fig. 11.4) closely resemble those of other mid-PPNB sites. They include some smaller animals than in the PPNA and early PPNB, although the mean and upper size ranges show little change. They are markedly smaller than the Kebaran pigs from ‛En Gev I, a diminution due to climatic change (Ducos and Horwitz 1997), which parallels that observed in goat and gazelle. The pig bones recovered from Abu Ghosh then represent wild boar. The area around the site offers a suitable habitat for this species, due to the proximity of springs and thickets in the valley, as well as forested areas on the surrounding hills. Cervids Two species of cervids are represented at Abu Ghosh— the Persian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) and the

roe deer (Capreolus capreolus; see Table 11.1). Their presence in the assemblage, like that of the wild boar, is a reflection of the fact that the forested areas near the site were exploited. Both cervids became extinct at the turn of the twentieth century with the introduction of firearms (Yom-Tov and Mendelssohn 1988). Equids Three long bones of equid were recovered from Abu Ghosh (see Table 11.1), a taxon that was missing from the initial sample studied by Ducos (1978). Equids from pre-ceramic Neolithic contexts are generally believed to represent wild animals (Meadow and Uerpmann 1986). As they are steppic taxon and inhabit open grasslands, they could have been hunted on the coastal plain lying to the west of Abu Ghosh. Unfortunately only one equid bone, a metatarsal, could be measured and most closely resembles the metrical attributes of the ass, Equus asinus. It is far smaller than measurements given by Eisenmann (1979) for E. hemionus and E. africanus. However, no definite species attribution could be made. The metatarsal measurements of the Abu Ghosh specimen are listed below and follow those given in Ducos (1968): GL 202.4; DAP 30.2; DT 32.2; DAP’ 25.8; DT’ 30.0; Dtm 19.4; DTD 30.0; DTCD 30.0; DAPCD 23.6. Carnivores The majority of carnivore remains at the site (Table 11.2) are those of wild taxa typical of the Mediterranean region (Mendelssohn and Yom-Tov 1999). The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is present in the highest frequency and is the most common carnivore found in Epipaleolithic and Neolithic sites in the Levant in general (CluttonBrock 1969; Dayan 1994; Horwitz 1996). The second most common species at Abu Ghosh is the wild cat (Felis silvestris). Dayan (1994) has noted that the frequency of this species in assemblages is associated with that of red fox, and both increase in number in periods characterized by low carnivore species diversity such as the Neolithic. The beech marten (Martes foina) and leopard (Panthera pardus) are each represented at Abu Ghosh by a few bones. A medium-sized canid constitutes 3% of the carnivore remains identified at the site and was represented by 1L and 2R maxillary fragments, as well as a distal ulna and a proximal femur. As none of these bones can be used to distinguish between jackal, wolf, and dog, their identification as to species

CHAPTER 11: PPNB FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH

109

Table 11.2. Species Representation—Carnivores

Canidae

Felidae

NISP

%

110

59

33

18

NISP Canis cf. familiaris

5

3

Vulpes vulpes

94

50

Martes foina

11

6

Panthera pardus Felis silvestris

Carnivora Total

44

23

187

100

%

Carnivore sp.

2

1

31

17

44

23

187

100

Table 11.3. Species Representation—Small Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds NISP

%

8

8

Rodentia

27

26

Reptilia

37

36

Lagomorpha

NISP Lepus capensis

8

Spalax ehrenbergi

27

26

Testudo graeca

35

35

Ophidia sp. Aves

Total

30

102

30

%

8

2

1

Accipitridae—medium size

15

15

Accipitridae—large size

15

15

102

100

100

remains conjecture. The femur has a set of parallel cut marks under the proximal head indicating either meat removal and/or skinning. Cut marks have been reported on dog remains from the PN site of Tel Hreiz (Horwitz et al. 2002). Consequently, their presence on the Abu Ghosh canid material does not negate their identification as dog. An additional 44 carnivore bones were identified in the assemblage, the majority representing fragments of vertebrae and metapodials. However they could not be ascribed with certainty to taxon. Hare At Abu Ghosh, eight postcranial elements of the Cape hare (Lepus capensis; Table 11.3) were recovered: 1R scapula,1L distal humerus, 2R and 1L proximal radius, 1R distal tibia, 1L calcaneum and 1st phalanx. The Cape hare is found in open habitats throughout Israel (Mendelssohn and Yom-Tov 1999) and was commonly exploited, probably by trapping, in the Levant during the Epipaleolithic and Neolithic periods (Bar-El and Tchernov 2000).

Rodents The only rodent represented in the Abu Ghosh assemblage was the Palestine molerat (Spalax ehrenbergi): 5 jaws (3L and 2R) and 22 postcranial remains (Table 11.3); none of the remains was burnt or exhibited cut marks. This species lives in subterranean burrows and is known to excavate to a depth of up to 2 m. Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether these remains are archaeological in origin or represent more recent intrusions. Birds A total of 30 bird bones was recovered from the site (Table 11.3). They all represent diurnal birds of prey (Order Falconiformes) and are members of the Acciptridae family. Two size classes are represented; a medium-sized bird of prey that may represent a small buzzard (Buteo buteo) and a very large bird, possibly the Egyptian vulture, Neophron percnopterus. All members of this family are migrants in Israel. In the autumn their migration route passes over the region where the coastal plain meets the foothills (Paz 1987:50),

110

PIERRE DUCOS AND LIORA K. HORWITZ

which includes the environs of Abu Ghosh. This suggests that the site would have been occupied in the autumn, though it does not negate the possibility of year-round occupation.

represented element (11 bones—6R and 5L), one of which was burnt.

Reptiles Remains of reptiles include two vertebrae of an unidentified species of snake (Ophidia) and 35 remains belonging to the spur-thighed tortoise, Testudo graeca (see Table 11.3). The latter included 16 carapace fragments, of which 4 were burnt, and 19 postcranial remains. The distal femur was the most frequently

Scattergrams and histograms were plotted for most longbones in order to determine the ratio of female to male animals in the assemblage based on bivariate distributions. As illustrated in Figs. 11.5 and 11.6, in the Capra sample there is a preponderance of smaller sized bones (females), and in some instances (as for the distal humerus) their number is almost double that of the larger males. A bias for females may be the result of

Sex Profiles

Fig. 11.5. Distribution of male versus female Capra for the distal metacarpal.

Fig. 11.6. Distribution of male versus female Capra for the distal humerus.

CHAPTER 11: PPNB FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH

selective hunting of harem herds or may be taken as an indication of the first steps towards culturally managed herds, namely the removal of excess young males and the retention of females into adulthood. For pig and aurochs, sample sizes of measurable bones are unfortunately small, which severely limits the scope of our analysis. However, as illustrated in Figs. 11.7 and 11.8, both male and female boar are represented at the site. For aurochs there is some indication that smaller animals, possibly females, were favored (Figs. 11.9, 11.10).

111

Mortality Profiles Bone Fusion Data on bone fusion for the four most common taxa are presented in Table 11.4. For each taxon, age classes are presented in the key to this table. It should be noted that only a portion of all identified bones could be aged for each taxon and that in many instances, differential bone preservation has resulted in uneven distribution of bones in each category resulting in ‘rebounds’ in the data-set (survival rates increase instead of decreasing in

Fig. 11.7. Distribution of male versus female Sus for the astragalus.

Fig. 11.8. Distribution of male versus female Sus for the proximal radius.

112

PIERRE DUCOS AND LIORA K. HORWITZ

Fig. 11.9. Distribution of male versus female Bos for the distal metatarsal.

Fig. 11.10. Distribution of 1st phalanx proximal breadth in Bos.

a linear fashion). Survival rates were calculated based on the frequency of fused bones in each age class. For Capra, few animals were culled before 14 months (93–85% survival rate). Survivorship decreases to 60% by 21 months and continues to decrease to 54% survival rate by 36 months and 31% by 39 months. This frequency continues to decrease for the later fusing bones, the vertebrae to 19%, and indicates that juvenile caprines were selectively culled at the site. Although the survival rate for Gazella is similar to that of Capra for the early fusing bones (in the 2–10 month age range survival rates range from 100 to 85%), a markedly higher frequency of gazelles survived into

adulthood; 68% by 18 months for Gazella compared to 31% by 39 months for Capra. The picture for Bos is slightly different with more animals being culled in the first 15 months than for goats (Bos has a survival rate of 82 to 85% between 15 and 18 months) and a slightly higher survival rate into adulthood than for Capra (26% by 48 months). This data set is however marred by ‘rebounds’ due to the small size of the sample and also differential bone preservation. Pig shows a low survival rate into adulthood, with only 25% of the animals surviving by 48 months. There is a low cull of very immature animals (under

CHAPTER 11: PPNB FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH

113

Table 11.4. Bone Fusion by Taxon Capra Upper Age Limit (months)

Bos

F N

UF %

Total N

Upper Age Limit (months)

F N

UF %

Total N

7

39

7

42

9

7

36

11

10

201

4

210

15

23

18

28

14

415

15

488

18

119

15

140

21

232

40

390

27

30

64

84

33

87

52

183

39

1

91

11

36

33

46

79

42

7

84

38

39

46

69

149

48

12

74

47

64

81

344

96

1117

-

1885

199

-

359

54 Total

Sus Upper Age Limit (months)

Gazella F N

UF %

Total N

Upper Age Limit (months)

F N

UF %

Total N

56

2

38

8

41

12

55

2

18

10

37

16

6

9

0

9

24

73

56

166

8

93

10

102

30

3

77

13

10

22

15

26

36

2

75

8

16

82

29

116

42

9

85

60

18

53

32

78

48

9

75

36

161

-

355

297

-

Total

372

F = Fused; UF = Unfused. Age classes for Capra: 7 months = Scapula coracoid; 10 months = Distal humerus, proximal radius; 14 months = Proximal phalanges; 21 months = Distal tibia, distal metapodia; 33 months= Proximal femur, calcaneum; 36 months = Distal radius, proximal ulna; 39 months = Proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia; 54 months = Vertebrae. Age classes for Bos: 9 months = Scapula coracoid; 15 months = Distal humerus, proximal radius; 18 months = Proximal phalanges; 27 months = Distal tibia, distal metapodia; 39 months = Calcaneum; 42 months = Proximal femur; 45 months = Distal radius, proximal ulna, proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia. Age classes for Sus: 2 months = Scapula coracoid, proximal radius, proximal 2nd phalanges; 18 months = Distal humerus; 24 months = Distal metapodials, distal tibia, proximal 1st phalanges; 30 months = Proximal calcaneum, distal fibula; 36 months = Proximal ulna; 42 months = Proximal humerus, distal radius, proximal and distal femur, proximal tibia, proximal fibula; 48 months = Vertebrae. Age classes for Gazella: 2 months = Distal humerus, proximal radius; 6 months = Scapula coracoid; 8 months = Proximal phalanges; 10 months = Distal tibia; 16 months = Distal metapodials, proximal femur, proximal calcaneum; 18 months = Distal radius, proximal ulna, proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia.

12 months—98% survival rate), but this drops steadily from 18 months on. Dental Aging Sufficient data were only available for Capra, Bos, and Gazella (Table 11.5). For each species seven age classes were created based on a combination of tooth eruption, attrition, and crown height.

It is clear that the majority of the goats in the assemblage were culled when young, but few died as neonates. The peak goat mortality of 44% was for yearlings. No animals survived into adulthood beyond Stage AD2. Such a cull profile supports the model of a high immature cull (especially of male goats), which is thought to characterize the earliest stage of domestication, termed proto-élevage (e.g., Ducos

114

PIERRE DUCOS AND LIORA K. HORWITZ

Table 11.5. Dental Age Classes by Species Capra

Bos

Gazella

N

%

N

%

N

%

NN

4

2

13

13

-

-

TJ

32

15

13

13

4

7

Y

95

44

39

37

16

28

AD1

58

27

17

16

15

27

AD2

28

13

12

12

6

11

AD3

-

-

6

6

9

16

AD4

-

-

3

3

6

11

Total

217

100

103

100

56

100

NN = Neonate, 0–6 months; TJ = Young, 6–12 months; Y = Yearling, 12 months; AD1–4 = Stages of adults.

1978, 1993b; Zeder and Hesse 2000). Alternately, as suggested by Ducos (1993a), such a kill-off pattern may be associated with controlled exploitation of wild ‘harem’ herds comprising adult females and immature males aged 1–2 years. Males only leave these herds when they are 2 years old or more to join male bachelor herds. Aurochs show a peak mortality (37%) in the yearling and young adult age classes. However for Bos more animals were killed in the neonate and very young classes than for goats, while several animals were culled as mature animals—Stages AD3 and AD4— thus differentiating this kill-off pattern from that of goats. In contrast gazelle show a lower mortality peak in the yearling and young adult age class and have a higher survivorship of adult animals. This indicates that compared to Capra, more adult gazelle survived to an older age, corroborating the results obtained for bone fusion. This cull pattern is typical of hunted prey and is logical if meat exploitation was the primary aim as immature gazelles have little meat compared to immature aurochs or even immature goats. Skeletal Element Representation The first stage in the analysis of bone element representation is to assess the potential impact of taphonomic factors on the creation of the sample and how this may have influenced the proportion of the different bones represented in the site. To this end, bone mineral density (BMD) values for three taxa (bison, sheep, marmot) given in Lyman (1994: Tables 7.6, 7.7), which serve as rough parallels to the main taxa represented in the Abu Ghosh sample (aurochs, goat,

gazelle, fox), were examined. Four bones from each taxon were chosen—two forelimb and two hindlimb elements. The bones were selected based on the fact that the distal and proximal ends showed no overlap in their range of BMD values. As expected, for each bone one end was clearly denser than the other (Table 11.6). The number of distal and proximal ends of these bones in the Abu Ghosh sample was then calculated and compared to the data from Lyman (1994). For each of the bones from Abu Ghosh, the relative frequency of the densest end was calculated (Ndistal + Nproximal/Densest end). The results, as shown in Table 11.6, indicate that in most cases, the densest portion of the bone, i.e., with the highest BMD value, is the best represented. Consequently, the distribution of bone elements at Abu Ghosh has undoubtedly been influenced by diagenetic factors with the denser elements better preserved. It is important to note that this pattern is variable for small sample sizes, such as the fallow deer, where the distribution of preserved bones appears to be random. Bearing in mind that the Abu Ghosh assemblage has been biased by diagenetic factors, caution should be exercised when interpreting the distribution of bodyparts and their association with human activities. In order to counter this bias, the bones were re-grouped into eight functional categories that may best reflect butchery and food-processing activities, as the categories include mixed classes of bones with high and low mineral density values: Cranial: Antler, horn, skull, maxilla, mandible and loose teeth. Posterior Axial Skeleton: Cervical and thoracic vertebrae. Anterior Axial Skeleton: Lumbar and caudal vertebrae, sacrum. Upper Forelimb: Scapula, humerus, radius, ulna. Lower Forelimb: Carpals, proximal metacarpal. Upper Hindlimb: Pelvis, femur, tibia. Lower Hindlimb: Calcaneum, astragalus, tarsals, proximal metatarsal. Extremities: Metapodial shafts and distal epiphyses, 1st, 2nd and 3rd phalanges. As ribs were only identified for pigs, these elements were completely excluded from this breakdown. The results of this bodypart breakdown are given in Table 11.7. For all taxa, with the exception of fallow deer (which is the smallest sample), the extremities (which include metapodials and phalanges) are the

115

CHAPTER 11: PPNB FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH

Table 11.6. Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Values for Taxa Species by Skeletal Element and Epiphyseal End Forelimb Bone Epiphysis

Hindlimb

Humerus

Radius

Metatarsal

Metatarsal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Bison (BMD)

24–25

38–48

31–34

22–26

59–63

46–53

52–59

40–48

Abu Ghosh Aurochs (N)

8

19

13

18

13

9

21

18

70%

42%

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Deer (BMD)

24–25

39–63

56–69

49–51

30–32

Abu Ghosh Fallow Deer (N)

7

0

1

7

1

0%

12.5%

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Sheep (BMD)

13–22

34–37

35–36

Abu Ghosh Goat (N)

14

148

67

91%

52%

45

11

79%

52%

% DP Bone Epiphysis

Humerus

% DP Bone Epiphysis

12

% DP Bone Epiphysis

Metacarpal

Humerus

% DP Abu Ghosh Gazelle (N)

59% Tibia

Metatarsal Proximal

Distal

50–51

55–65

46–50

1

1

0

50%

100%

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

19–21

16–20

28–36

43–53

31–39

61

46

102

49

43

69%

53%

10

23

Radius

Humerus

54%

Tibia

Metatarsal

27 54%

Radius

11

6 35%

Femur

Tibia

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Marmot (BMD)

37–44

62–77

79–97

51–70

56–73

39–48

45–53

56–74

Abu Ghosh Red Fox (N)

2

4

8

2

6

5

4

4

67%

80%

% DP

54.5%

50%

BMD values for bison, deer, sheep, marmot are derived from Lyman (1994: Tables 7.6, 7.7). Data given here for each taxon represent the range of BMD values for each epiphysis. Data for the epiphysis with the highest bone density values are highlighted in bold. N = Number of epiphyses in each category. % DP = The frequency of the densest epiphyseal end represented at Abu Ghosh, calculated from the sum of proximal + distal ends.

most common or second most common bodypart category represented. This may reflect either the relative density and hence resistance of the phalanges to destruction or else result from a methodological bias—the ease with which metapodial shaft fragments may be identified compared to other longbone shafts. The numbers of metapodia may therefore be artificially inflated in the collection. The meat-rich upper hindlimb is the second most common element for caprines and gazelle, while for fallow deer the pattern is reversed and the upper forelimb is more common than the hindlimb. For pig, the upper forelimb and hindlimb elements are represented in equal numbers (Table 11.7). The preference of the upper portion of the limbs is directly related to the greater quantity of

meat that may be exploited from these joints compared to the lower portions of the limbs or even the trunk. Thus, for caprines and gazelle, the heavier, more meaty haunch region appears to have been the preferred meat cut. In pigs both forelimbs and hindlimbs were equally exploited, probably as they comprise very comparable quantities of meat. The relatively low frequency of cranial remains for all taxa, including teeth, suggests that preservation is good, as under adverse taphonomic conditions teeth tend to be over-represented in an assemblage. The largest animal in the sample, Bos primigenius, is primarily represented by cranial elements and those of the extremities (Table 11.7). Both these element categories are characteristic of primary butchery discards (Hellwing and Gophna 1984) and suggest that

116

PIERRE DUCOS AND LIORA K. HORWITZ

Table 11.8. Burnt Bones by Species*

Table 11.7. Bodypart Breakdown Caprine Bodyparts Cranial Posterior Axial Anterior Axial

%

Gazelle %

Fallow Cattle Deer %

%

Pig %

16

11

6

28.5

14.5

9

11

2

7

4

3

6.5

4

7

3

Species

N Burnt

N Burnt/ Total Burnt (%)

N Burnt/NISP Species (%)

Capra aegagrus + Ovis/Capra

213

45.2

7

Gazella gazella

101

21.4

12

Dama mesopotamica

7

1.4

13

Upper Forelimb

13

14

52

12

20.5

0.2

11

4

2

13

2

6

Capreolus capreolus

1

Lower Forelimb Upper Hindlimb

23.5

25

19

13

20.5

Cervid sp.

2

0.4

13

Lower Hindlimb

3

2

2

4

5

Small Ruminant

55

11.6

13

28.5

28.5

2

26.5

26.5

Sus scrofa

30

6.4

5

Total %

100.0

100.0

100

100.0

100.0

Bos primigenius

63

13.4

5

Total NISP

3164

823

52

1146

626

Total

472

100.0

Extremities

Cranial: Antler, horn, skull, maxilla, mandible and loose teeth. Posterior Axial Skeleton: Cervical and thoracic vertebrae. Anterior Axial Skeleton: Lumbar and caudal vertebrae, sacrum. Upper Forelimb: Scapula, humerus, radius, ulna. Lower Forelimb: Carpals, proximal metacarpal. Upper Hindlimb: Pelvis, femur, tibia. Lower Hindlimb: Calcaneum, astragalus, tarsals, proximal metatarsal. Extremities: Metapodial shaft and distal epiphysis, 1st, 2nd and 3rd phalanges.

the meat-rich limb elements may have been processed elsewhere. Alternately, this pattern may be the result of differential taphonomic factors acting on the larger longbones of cattle, which have been fragmented (fractured such as for marrow extraction) and reduced to undiagnostic shaft fragments. Consequently, they are under-represented in the assemblage. Based on the fact that those cattle remains show an inverse pattern to other species in the sample, this last explanation seems the most feasible. Furthermore, the extremely high representation of teeth in the Bos sample relative to long bones supports this interpretation. Burnt Bones A total of 472 identified bones were burnt; they represent only 7.5% of the total identified assemblage. As shown in Table 11.8, burning was most frequently observed on goat bones followed by gazelle, cattle, small ruminant, and pig. If burning were random, then one would expect the most common species to have the highest frequency of burnt bones, while the least abundant species would have the fewest burnt bones. However, when the proportion of burnt bones is calculated by NISP per species, it is evident this is

* NISP species taken from Table 11.1.

not the case. The most frequently represented taxa, Capra and Bos, do not have the highest frequencies of burnt bones. The highest frequencies (in the range of 11 to 13%) are found for some of the least frequent species—gazelle and cervids. This indicates that the latter species may have undergone a different method of food processing compared to that for goats, cattle, and pigs, although accidental burning of bone cannot be discounted. An alternative explanation is offered when the breakdown of burnt limb elements is examined. As illustrated in Fig. 11.11, there is a clear pattern, with burning rare on the cranial and axial skeleton (vertebrae) but frequent on the fore- and hindlimbs. The most commonly burnt portions were the extremities of the limbs, especially the phalanges (1st–3rd; Fig. 11.11). It is suggested here that this may be the result of selective burning of hooves, i.e., keratin which covers the 3rd phalanx, which were used for fuel such as during preparation of lime plaster. There is a detailed description of lime preparation, fueled by horn (keratin) mixed with charcoal, from a twelfth-century CE text, De Diversis Artibus by Moine Theophile (Forest and Bois 2000). At Abu Ghosh, all phalanges, not just the 3rd, were burnt.

CONCLUSIONS The Abu Ghosh PPNB assemblage is dominated by remains of goat, the majority of which have been identified as bezoar or Persian wild goat, Capra aegagrus. In this feature, the Abu Ghosh assemblage

CHAPTER 11: PPNB FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH

closely resembles contemporaneous sites such as Beisamoun, Munhata, Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, and Beidha where Capra constitutes close to 50% of the bone remains (Davis 1982; Horwitz 1993; Legge 1996; von den Driesch and Wodtke 1997). Remains of Ovis are present in small quantities or altogether absent in these sites (Horwitz and Ducos 1998; Wasse 2000) and remains of goat clearly predominate. Morphologically, the majority if not all of these animals still retain wild-type morphological characteristics and are of large and robust proportions (Ducos 1993a, b; Legge 1996; Horwitz et al. 1999; in contrast see Wasse 2000 for claims of domestic horncore morphology in midPPNB goats from ‘Ain Ghazal). Furthermore, as at Abu Ghosh, there are indications from these sites that a high frequency of immature animals was culled (von den Driesch and Wodtke 1997; Wasse 2000), and in some instances, such as Abu Ghosh and ‘Ain Ghazal, there is evidence for an increased proportion of females (Köhler-Rollefson 1989). A further characteristic of these sites is the low frequency of gazelle remains, which constitute less than 20% of the identified assemblage in most cases and which is in sharp contrast to the preceding PPNA and Natufian periods

117

(Davis 1982; Horwitz 1993, in press; Tchernov 1995). Similarly, other hunted elements such as aurochs, wild boar, carnivores, hares, birds, and reptiles constitute a relatively smaller proportion of the subsistence economy than in previous periods (Horwitz 1996). The sites with a high frequency of goats, high immature cull, and predominance of females have been interpreted as those undertaking the first steps towards domestication (Zeder and Hesse 2000). In the southern Levant, such occurrences have been interpreted as representing a phase of proto-élevage (Ducos 1993b) or incipient domestication (Horwitz 1993, in press; Horwitz et al. 1999). The Abu Ghosh assemblage fits well into this framework. It should be emphasized that the location of these sites, in or adjacent to the Jordan Valley, may not be fortuitous and may be correlated with the introduction of domestic goats into the southern Levant via the ‘Levantine Corridor’ from areas further to the north. However, it has been suggested (Horwitz et al. 1999) that local, autochthonous domestication of this species may have occurred, with the uneven frequency of caprines reflecting intersite variation in the intensity of the process and differential access to wild caprine herds in each region.

Fig. 11.11. Breakdown of burnt bones by bodypart.

118

PIERRE DUCOS AND LIORA K. HORWITZ

REFERENCES Bar-El T. and Tchernov E. 2000. Lagomorph Remains at Prehistoric Sites in Israel and Southern Sinai. Paléorient 26:93–109. Boessneck J., Müller H-H., and Teichert M. 1964. Osteologische Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen Schaf (Ovis aries Linné) und Ziege (Capra hircus Linné). KuhnArchiv 78:1–129. Clutton-Brock J. 1969. Carnivore Remains from the Excavation of the Jericho Tell. In P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby eds. The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. Chicago. Pp. 337–345. Cope C.R. 1991. The Evolution of Natufian Megafaunal Economics. Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Davis S.J.M. 1982. Climatic Change and the Advent of Domestication: The Succession of Ruminant Artiodactyls in the Late Pleistocene-Holocene in the Israel Region. Paléorient 8:5–15. Dayan T. 1994. Carnivore Diversity in the Late Quaternary of Israel. Quaternary Research 41:343–349. Driesch von den A. and Wodtke U. 1997. The Fauna of ‘Ain Ghazal, a Major PPN and Early PN Settlement in Central Jordan. In H.G.K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G.O. Rollefson eds. The Prehistory of Jordan II: Perspectives from 1997. Berlin. Pp. 511–556. Ducos P. 1968. L’origine des animaux domestiques en Palestine (Publications de l’Institute de Préhistoire de l’Université de Bordeux 6). Bordeaux. Ducos P. 1978. La faune d’Abou Ghosh; proto-élevage de la chèvre en Palestine au néolithique pré-céramique. In M. Lechevallier. Abu Ghosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistorique Français de Jerusalem 2) Paris. Pp. 107–120. Ducos P. 1989. Defining Domestication: A Clarification. In J. Clutton-Brock ed. The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation (One World Archaeology 2). London. Pp. 28–30. Ducos P. 1991. Bos, Ovis et Capra dans les sites néolithiques du Proche-Orient. Paléorient 17:161–168. Ducos P. 1993a. Proto-élevage et élevage au Levant sud au VIIe millénaire B.C. Les données de la Damascène. Paléorient 19:153–173. Ducos P. 1993b. Some Remarks about Ovis, Capra and Gazella Remains from Two PPNB Sites from Damascene, Syria, Tell Aswad and Ghoraife. In H. Buitenhuis and A.T. Clason eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East I. Leiden. Pp. 37–42. Ducos P. and Horwitz L.R.K. 1997. The Influence of Climate on Artiodactyl Size during the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene of the Southern Levant. Paléorient 23:229–247. Eisenmann V. 1979. Les metapodes d’Equus sensu lato (Mammalia, Perissodactyla). Geobios 12:863–886. Forest V. and Bois M. 2000. La corne et le fer: elements d’enquête. In Des ivoires et des cornes dans le Mondes Ancien (Orient-Occident 4) (Collection de l’Institut

d’Archaeologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité). Lyon. Pp. 55–61. Harrison D.L. and Bates P.J. 1991. Mammals of Arabia. (2nd ed.). (Harrison Zoological Museum Publication). Seven Oaks. Hecker H.M. 1975. The Faunal Analysis of the Primary Food Animals from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Beidha (Jordan). Ph.D. diss. Columbia University. New York. Hellwing S. and Gophna R. 1984. The Animal Remains from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages at Tel Aphek and Tel Dalit: A Comparative Study. Tel Aviv 11:48–59. Horwitz L.K. 1993. The Development of Ovicaprine Domestication during the PPNB of the Southern Levant. In H. Buitenhuis and A.T. Clason eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East I. Leiden. Pp. 27–36. Horwitz L.K. 1996. The Impact of Animal Domestication on Species Richness: A Pilot Study from the Neolithic of the Southern Levant. ArchaeoZoologia 8:53–70. Horwitz L.K. In press. Temporal and Spatial Variation in Neolithic Caprine Exploitation Strategies: A Case Study of Fauna from the Site of Yiftah’el, Israel. Paléorient. Horwitz L.K. and Ducos P. 1998. An Investigation into the Origins of Domestic Sheep in the Southern Levant. In L. Bartosiewiscz, H. Buitenhuis, and A.M. Choyke eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East III. Leiden. Pp. 80–94. Horwitz L.K. and Goring-Morris N. 2000. Fauna from the Early Natufian Site of Upper Besor 6 in the Central Negev, Israel. Paléorient 26:111–128. Horwitz L.K., Galili E., Sharvit J., and Lernau O. 2002. Fauna from Five Submerged Pottery Neolithic Sites off the Carmel Coast. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 32:147–174. Horwitz L.K., Tchernov E., Ducos P., Becker C., von den Driesch A., Martin L., and Garrard A. 1999. Animal Domestication in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 25: 63–80. Köhler-Rollefson I. 1989. Changes in Goat Exploitation at ‘Ain Ghazal between the Early and Late Neolithic: A Metrical Analysis. Paléorient 15:141–146. Krantz G.S. 1968. Archaeological Notes: A New Method of Counting Mammal Bones. American Journal of Archaeology 72:286–288. Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Ghosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistorique Français de Jerusalem 2). Paris. Legge A. 1996. The Beginning of Caprine Domestication in Southwest Asia. In D.R. Harris ed. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London. Pp. 238–262. Lyman R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge. Meadow R. and Uerpmann H.P. eds. 1986. Equids in the Ancient World (Beihefte zum Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe A, 19/1). Wiesbaden.

CHAPTER 11: PPNB FAUNA FROM THE LECHEVALLIER EXCAVATIONS AT ABU GHOSH

Mendelssohn H. and Yom-Tov Y. 1999. Fauna Palaestina— Mammalia of Israel. Jerusalem. Paz U. 1987. The Birds of Israel. Kent. Perrot J. 1952. Le Néolithique d’Abou-Gosh. Syria 29: 119–145. Prummel W. and Frisch H.-J. 1986. A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and Body Side in Bones of Sheep and Goat. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 567–577. Tchernov E. 1995. Environmental and Socioeconomic Background to Domestication in the Southern Levant. In P.J. Crabtree and D.V. Campana eds. Before Farming: Hunter-Gatherer Society and Subsistence (MASCA

119

Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supplement 12). Philadelphia. Pp. 39–77. Wasse A.M.R. 2000. The Development of Goat and Sheep Herding during the Levantine Neolithic. Ph.D. diss. University College. London. Yom-Tov Y. and Mendelssohn H. 1988. Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Vertebrates in Israel during the 20th Century. In Y. Yom-Tov and E. Tchernov eds. The Zoogeography of Israel: The Distribution and Abundance at a Zoogeographical Crossroad (Monographiae biologicae 62). Dordrecht. Pp. 515–548. Zeder M.A. and Hesse B. 2000. The Initial Domestication of Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago. Science 287: 2254–2257.

CHAPTER 12

VERIFICATION OF CAPRA SPECIES AT ABU GHOSH USING ANCIENT DNA ANALYSIS GILA K AHILA BAR-GAL, PIERRE DUCOS, AND CHARLES GREENBLATT

INTRODUCTION New technologies developed in molecular biology, forensic science, and anthropology have demonstrated that it is possible to recover DNA from archaeological specimens (Pääbo 1985, 1993; Higuchi et al. 1987; Pääbo, Gifford, and Wilson 1988; Hagelberg and Clegg 1991; Woodward et al. 1996; Kaestle and Horsburgh 2002). This new technology was applied to bone samples from Abu Ghosh in order to test the accuracy of morphometric identifications in separating sheep (Ovis aries) from goat, as well as wild (bezoar, Capra aegegrus) from domestic goat (Capra hircus). DNA contains the genetic information of the organism. This information is coded in genes and is capable of self-replication. The DNA itself is a sequence of nucleotides, the molecules that compose the message of DNA; this sequence is the coding for amino acids, which is, in turn, the coding for protein. DNA is found in both the nucleus and mitochondria— cellular organelles that exist in multiple copies within the cell. In the research presented here we studied the DNA found in two mitochondrial genes, the cytochrome b and the control region (D-loop). Each of them is c. 1,100 nucleotides in length. The cytochrome b gene is species specific, while the D-loop region can identify species, individuals, and closely related individuals such as would be seen in a herd or flock (Irwin, Kocher, and Wilson 1991). The DNA recovered from ancient specimens is fragmented in pieces, each composed of several hundred nucleotides in length. We have devised means of analyzing each of the fragments and combining the results to obtain information on the entire sequence. Even the fragmented DNA contains significant information concerning the unique signature of the individual animal. These samples provide the opportunity to study the genetic characteristics of ancient organisms and to describe individual and population history.

The major technological advance that has improved genetic research and made ancient DNA (aDNA) studies feasible is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR; Saiki et al. 1988). Starting with the few remaining copies of DNA extracted from the original sample, PCR amplifies specific fragments of DNA exponentially, resulting in up to millions of copies. The DNA amplified through the PCR can be used in DNA analyses, such as determining species affinity (Irwin, Kocher, and Wilson 1991). It also offers a suitable approach with which to verify species identifications carried out using standard morphometry, as well as in situations where such approaches are inadequate (Loreille et al. 1997; Kahila Bar-Gal et al. 2002a, b; Newman et al. 2002). The survival of DNA in a sample depends on the state of preservation rather than the chronological age of the specimen, as nucleic acids (the building blocks of DNA) have limited life expectancies under a variety of physiological conditions. Upon death, spontaneous degradation of DNA molecules occurs, mainly through hydrolysis and oxidation (Höss et al. 1996; Yang 1997; Kumar et al. 1999), even in fully protected environments. Therefore, the limiting factor of aDNA analysis is the success of recovery of DNA from ancient samples (Herrmann and Hummel 1994). If DNA is preserved in ancient specimens, it is usually present in extremely small quantities; these are often found to be highly degraded, with fragment size 100–300 base pairs (bp) (Pääbo 1989; Pääbo, Higuchi, and Wilson 1989; Lindahl 1993a, b; Austin, Smith, and Thomas 1997; Kumar et al. 1999). Despite these drawbacks, aDNA analysis offers a valuable contribution to archaeozoological studies. It provides a window into the past, presenting the unique genetic signature of the individual. It may also aid in assessing the genetic affinity of skeletal remains assigned to a species on the basis of morphometric analyses (Kahila Bar-Gal et al. 2002b).

122

GILA KAHILA BAR-GAL, PIERRE DUCOS, AND CHARLES GREENBLATT

METHOD AND MATERIAL In this study eight bones from the mid-PPNB and PN periods of the 1995 excavations were sampled (Table 12.1). The specimens were morphometrically identified as Capra species, either domestic or wild goats by L.K. Horwitz (see Chapter 10). The surface layer of the bone was removed by electric drill, and bone powder was obtained by drilling in a freshly uncovered surface with a sterile small burr. Approximately 0.5–1.0 mg of bone powder was used for each DNA extraction. DNA was extracted using Guanadinum (Boom et al. 1990) and silica-based purification (Höss and Pääbo 1993). DNA from each specimen was extracted at least twice, independently, with a period of several months between each extraction. The DNA extraction was carried out under a hood, sterilized by UV light, using sterile reagents and solutions and disposable filtered tips and tubes in order to prevent contamination. In every extraction process a blank extraction control and PCR control were included to monitor possible contamination. In order to overcome the problem of degraded DNA in the samples PCR amplification was performed with seven sets of primers (a primer is a synthetic sequence of nucleotides), for both mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) regions, amplifying each of about 200 nucleotides from the entire gene (Kahila Bar-Gal et al. 2002b). Applying seven sets of primers increased the chances of amplifying DNA since each set of primers was designed to amplify different areas in the gene. The amplified DNA was sequenced by a direct sequencing reaction using the Termo Sequenase kit (Amersham) to determine the genetic signature of the sample. The DNA sequences of the Abu Ghosh specimens were analyzed using the Molecular Biology Shortcut Table 12.1. Abu Ghosh Bone Sample Basket No. Period

Layer

Description

Bone Sampled

1301

PN

II

Fill

Distal tibia

1413

PN

II

Fill

Astragalus

1407

PPNB

III

Gravel

Distal tibia

1241

PPNB

III

Fill

Proximal femur

1302

PPNB

III

Floor

Astragalus

1408

PPNB

III

Fill

Metatarsal

1406

PPNB

III

Fill

Metatarsal

1333

PPNB

IV

Floor

Metacarpal

Program (Rodrigues and Thompson 1999) to determine a consensus sequence from each set of primers. These sequences were compared to our database of modern local goat species (Kahila Bar-Gal 2000) and to caprine sequences in the Genebank. The comparison was made using the BLASTN Program (Altschul et al. 1992). The results of the sequence comparison yielded the genetic variability profile within and between the samples.

R ESULTS AND DISCUSSION The genetic profile of each individual specimen was determined using the different sequences. These results were compared to the morphometric identification. For seven samples, DNA was amplified from one or two different areas along the cytochrome b gene and from one of the areas in the D-loop (Table 12.2). An exception was Sample B1302, where the only DNA amplified was from the D-loop area. All the amplified DNA’s were sequenced in both strands using the Termo Sequenase kit. For each set of primers a consensus sequence was obtained; they were used in the analysis to characterize the species of each individual. All the eight specimens sampled were identified as Capra species as expected from the morphological identification (Table 12.2). These results support the morphometric findings that no remains of sheep are present in the PPNB and PN periods at the site (see Chapters 10 and 11). Among the individuals sampled three specimens were securely identified on the basis of their DNA as nubian ibex (C. ibex nubiana), two from PPNB period Layers III and IV, and the third individual from PN Layer II. Two samples, one from the PN and one from the PPNB layers, were identified as domestic goats, and three samples were indeterminate and represented either wild or domestic goats (Table 12.2). Although both methods of identification concluded that all the bones sampled are goat bones, there is variation in the characterization of some individuals, especially in distinguishing between wild and domestic goats. The goat remains from PPNB at Abu Ghosh were first described by Ducos (1978) and subsequently by Horwitz and Ducos (see Chapters 10, 11) as robust and extremely large. In terms of their morphometry they conform to the wild form and represent remains of animals either hunted and/or members of a founder herd of wild goats (Horwitz 1989; Ducos 1993;

CHAPTER 12: VERIFICATION OF CAPRA SPECIES AT ABU GHOSH USING ANCIENT DNA ANALYSIS

123

Table 12.2. Genetic and Morphometric Species Identification of Eight Capra Species from Abu Ghosh Basket No.

Period

Layer

Description

Morphology

DNA Identification

Amplifed and Sequenced Fragments

1301

PN

II

Fill

C. hircus / C. aegagrus

C. ibex nubiana

Cyto b (one area) and D-loop (two areas)

1413

PN

II

Fill

C. hircus / C. aegagrus

C. hircus

Cyto b (two areas) and D-loop (one area)

1407

PPNB

III

Gravel

C. hircus / C. aegagrus

C. hircus / C. aegagrus

Cyto b (two areas) and D-loop (two areas)

1241

PPNB

III

Fill

C. aegegrus

C. aegagrus / C. hircus

Cyto b (two areas) and D-loop (one area)

1302

PPNB

III

Floor

C. aegegrus

C. hircus

D-loop (one area)

1408

PPNB

III

Fill

C. aegegrus

C. aegagrus / C. hircus

Cyto b (one area) and D-Loop (two areas)

1406

PPNB

III

Fill

C. aegegrus

C. ibex nubiana

Cyto b (one area) and D-loop (one areas)

1333

PPNB

IV

Floor

C. aegegrus

C. ibex nubiana

Cyto b (one area) and D-loop (two areas)

Zohary, Tchernov, and Horwitz 1998). The genetic characterization presented here indicates that both the wild goat and the Nubian ibex are represented in the PPNB assemblage at Abu Ghosh. This is the first study to identify the latter at this site, as the horns, which are the morphological characteristic distinguishing between wild goat and Nubian ibex, were absent among the faunal remains from Abu Ghosh. This datum indicates that the rise in caprine frequencies during the PPNB is associated with hunting of both species of wild goats, the Nubian ibex and the bezoar goat. The identification of Nubian ibex also in the PN shows that hunting continued, although the domestic goat predominates. Two domestic goats (C. hircus) were identified, one in the PPNB and one in the PN period (Table 12.2). The identification of the PN specimen (B1413) as a domestic goat is not surprising, as during this period the frequency of domestic goats in the assemblage is very high (see Chapter 10). The identification of the PPNB specimen (B1302) was based only on one region of the D-loop (140 bp). It is possible that this is one of the first forms of domestic goat or an individual in the early phases of domestication (Horwitz 1989; Ducos 1993). On the other hand, it can be a result of a bias in the data as the D-loop is not a species-specific marker. Another possibility is the problem of mixed samples, as the PN layer is dug into those of PPNB. For three samples from the PPNB period (B1241, B1407, B1408) the genetic characteristic lacks a decisive identification. This result is due to problems of extraction of ancient DNA. The regions amplified in the cytochrome b and D-loop were chosen because they

are polymorphic and can distinguish between sheep, and Nubian ibex, wild and domestic goats. With sheep and Nubian ibex there is a 5–12% difference in the nucleotide sequence, while between wild and domestic goats the differences are much smaller with substitution rates (differences in nucleotides) of 2 to 9 nucleotides, causing at the most a change of two amino acids (Kahila Bar-Gal 2000). The amplified and sequenced DNA from the Abu Ghosh samples was smaller in length than the expected length designated by the primers. This length difference, which occurred due to the poor preservation of the ancient DNA in three of the bones, made it impossible to give a definite identification of the species because the position of the marker substitutions was not sequenced. In order to distinguish between the species the complete region should be sequenced, including the marker nucleotides. Comparison of the Sample B1408 sequences hints at a closer similarity to bezoar goat, C. aegagrus, which corroborates the morphometric analysis (see Chapter 10). This study demonstrates the difficulty of morphometric analysis of postcranial elements in distinguishing between Nubian ibex, wild goat, and domestic goat. The joint use of the analytical data (morphometric and genetic) will increase the reliability of the identification of archaeological remains and will shed new light on the findings. For example, the presence of Nubian ibex among the remains was unknown from the morphometric studies. The occurrence of the Nubian ibex in the PPNB and PN periods illustrates that intensified hunting of a range of wild caprines may have constituted an important initial phase in their domestication.

124

GILA KAHILA BAR-GAL, PIERRE DUCOS, AND CHARLES GREENBLATT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Liora Kolska Horwitz for providing us with the bone samples after identifying

them as goat bones, and in particular, for the important and interesting conversations concerning the genetic results.

R EFERENCES Altschul S.F., Gish W., Miller W., Meyers E.W., and Lipman D.J. 1992. Basic Local Aligment Search Tool (BLAST). Journal of Molecular Biology 215:403–410. Austin J.J., Smith A.B., and Thomas R.H. 1997. Palaeontology in a Molecular World: The Search for Authentic Ancient DNA. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:303–306. Boom R., Sol C.J., Salimans A.M., Jansen C.L., Wertheimvan Dillen P.M.E., and Noordaa J. 1990. Rapid and Simple Method For Purification of Nucleic Acids. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 28:495–503. Ducos P. 1978. La faune d’Abou Gosh; proto-élevage de la chèvre en Palestine au néolithique pré-céramique. In M. Lechevallier. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Pp. 107–120. Ducos P. 1993. Proto-élevage et élevage au Levant sud au VIIe millénaire B.C. Les données de la Damascène. Paléorient 19:153–174. Hagelberg E. and Clegg J. B. 1991. Isolation and Characterization of DNA from Archaeological Bone. Proceeding of the Royal Society London B 244:45–50. Herrmann B. and Hummel S. 1994. Introduction. In B. Herrmann and S. Hummel eds. Ancient DNA. New York. Pp. 1–12. Higuchi R.G., Wrischnik L.A., Oakes E., George M., Tong B., and Wilson A.C.. 1987. Mitochondrial DNA of the Extinct Quagga: Relatedness and Extent of Postmortem Change. Journal of Molecular Evolution 25:283–287. Höss M. and Pääbo S. 1993. DNA Extraction from Pleistocene Bones by a Silica-Based Purification Method. Nucleic Acids Research 21:3913–3914. Höss M., Jaruga P., Zastawny T.H., Dizdaroglu M., and Pääbo S. 1996. DNA Damage and DNA Sequence Retrieval from Ancient Tissues. Nucleic Acids Research 24:1304–1307. Horwitz L.K. 1989. A Reassessment of Caprovine Domestication in the Levantine Neolithic: Old Questions, New Answers. In I. Hershkovitz ed. People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin (BAR Int. S. 508i). Oxford. Pp.153–181. Irwin D.M., Kocher T.D., and Wilson A.C. 1991. Evolution of the Cytochrome B Gene of Mammals. Journal of Molecular Evolution 32:128–144. Kaestle F.A. and Horsburgh K.A. 2002. Ancient DNA in Anthropology: Methods, Applications, and Ethics. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 45:92–130.

Kahila Bar-Gal G. 2000. Genetic Change in Capra Species of the Southern Levant over the Past 12,500 Years as Studied by DNA Analysis of Ancient and Modern Populations. Ph.D diss. Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Kahila Bar-Gal G., Khalaily H., Marder O., Ducos P., and Horwitz L.K. 2002a. Ancient DNA Evidence for the Transition from Wild to Domestic Status in Neolithic Goats: A Case Study from the Site of Abu Gosh, Israel. Ancient Biomolecules 4:9–17. Kahila Bar-Gal G., Smith P., Tchernov E., Greenblatt C., Ducos P., Gardeisen A., and Horwitz L.K. 2002b. Genetic Evidence for the Origin of the Agrimi Goat (Capra aegagrus cretica). Journal of Zoology 256:369–377. Kumar S.S., Subramanin V., Walimbe S.R., and Singh L. 1999. Current Trends in ‘Ancient DNA Studies’—A Review. Current Science 76:879–885. Lindahl T. 1993a. Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA. Nature 62:709–715. Lindahl T. 1993b. Recovery of Antediluvian DNA. Nature 365:700. Loreille O., Hardy C., Callou C., Treinen-Claustre F., Dennebouy N., and Monnerot M. 1997. First Distinction of Sheep and Goat Archaeological Bones by the Means of Their Fossil mtDNA. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:33–37. Newman M.E., Parboosingh J.S., Bridge P.J., and Ceri H. 2002. Identification of Archaeological Animal Bone by PCR/DNA Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:77–84. Pääbo S. 1985. Molecular Cloning of Ancient Egyptian Mummy DNA. Nature 314:644–645. Pääbo S. 1989. Ancient DNA: Extraction, Characterization, Molecular Cloning and Enzmatic Amplification. Proceeding of the National Academy Society USA 86: 1939–1943. Pääbo S. 1993. Ancient DNA. Scientific American 269: 86–92. Pääbo S., Gifford J.A., and Wilson A.C. 1988. Mitochondrial DNA Sequence from a 7000-Year Old Brain. Nucleic Acids Research 16:9587–9775. Pääbo S., Higuchi R.G., and Wilson A.C. 1989. Ancient DNA and the Polymerase Chain Reaction: The Emerging Field of Molecular Archaeology. Journal of Biological Chemistry 264:9709–9712. Rodrigues P. and Thompson J. 1999. Genetic and Biological News. www.mbshortcuts.com. Saiki R.D., Geelfand D.H., Stoffel B., Scharf S.J., Higuchi R., Horn G.T., Mullis K.B., and Erlich H.A. 1988.

CHAPTER 12: VERIFICATION OF CAPRA SPECIES AT ABU GHOSH USING ANCIENT DNA ANALYSIS

Primer-Directed Enzimatic Amplification of DNA with a Thermostable DNA Polymerase. Science 239:487–491. Woodward, S.R., Kahila G., Smith P., Greenblatt C., Zias J., and Broshi M. 1996. Analysis of Parchments from the Judean Desert Using DNA Techniques. In D.W. Parry and D.W. Ricks eds. Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April

125

1995 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 20). Leiden–New York–Köln. Yang H. 1997. Ancient DNA from Pleistocene Fossils: Preservation, Recovery and Utility of Ancient Genetic Information for Quaternary Research. Quaternary Science Reviews 16:1145–1161. Zohary D., Tchernov E., and Horwitz L.K. 1998. The Role of Unconscious Selection in the Domestication of Sheep and Goats. Journal of Zoology 245:129–135.

CHAPTER 13

R ADIOCARBON DATING DROR SEGAL AND ISRAEL CARMI

Three samples from the Neolithic site of Abu Ghosh were submitted for radiocarbon dating to the Rehovot Laboratory (RT) of the Weizmann Institute. The samples were pre-treated with acid and alkali. They were then oxidized to carbon dioxide, reduced to lithium, and hydrolyzed to acethylene. The samples were also hydrolyzed to ethane and counted in a proportional counter (Carmi 1987). RT-2453 was trimerized to a benzene and counted in a liquid scintillation counter (Gupta and Polach 1985). One sample, RT-2451, was prepared and found to lack the minimum amount of charcoal. It should pass through an accelerator for dating. RT-2844 was not analyzed for the same reason. Only RT-2453 produced a date (Table 13.1). 1. RT-2451. Charcoal collected under gravel layer in Sq D6, Basket 1294 at 693.6 m above sea level.

Table 13.1. The Results of 14C Dating Sample

Δ14C (‰)

δ13C (‰) Ybp*

RT-2453 -669 ± 2.4 -22.5

Calibrated Age** (%)

8895 ± 60 8260–7880 BCE

100

* Year BP. ** Based on Bronk Ramsey 2001.

2. RT-2453. Cratagus 1 charcoal, collected from Sq A7 balk, Basket 1343. 3. RT-2844. Charcoal from living floor of Layer III, Sq C2, Basket 1421 at 694.2 m asl. The sample preparation line was accurate and revealed minimum variation with 100% confidence. Thus, the date obtained indicates that the site was inhabited during the late ninth and early eighth millennia BCE, occupying the time span of the midPPNB (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1998:85).

NOTE 1

Botanical material identified by Dr. U. Baruch.

R EFERENCES Bronk Ramsey C. 2001. Development of the Radiocarbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 43:355–363. Carmi I. 1987. Rehovot Radiocarbon Measurements III. Radiocarbon 29:100–114. Goring-Morris [A.] N. and Belfer-Cohen A. 1997. The Articulation of Cultural Processes and the Late Quaternary

Environmental Changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23: 71–94. Gupta S.K. and Polach H.A. 1985. Radiocarbon Dating Practicing at AUN (Handbook). Canberra. Pp. 42–49.

CHAPTER 14

MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL: A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL FOR LOCATING HUMAN ACTIVITY AREAS SONIA ITKIS INTRODUCTION Geophysical prospecting is now well established as a means of locating and mapping archaeological sites. Anthropogenic objects buried in the subsoil have different physical properties than their surroundings and therefore can be detected by geophysical methods. The technique employs instruments specially designed to detect the presence of subsurface objects. With the increasing sophistication of geophysical exploration techniques this science has been employed not only to study the earth’s crust features (prospecting for minerals, research of geological structures and tectonics), but has been successfully used over the past fifty years for archaeological investigations (Aitken 1974; Heimmer and De Vore 1995; Boucher 1996). One of the most important physical characteristics used in archaeological geophysics is the magnetization of archaeological features and surrounding soil. Magnetization of rocks is a base for the classic geomagnetic method (or magnetometry) that measures magnetic anomalies in the subsurface. These anomalies might be caused by buried bodies with a high magnetic contrast.

METHODS The magnetic susceptibility (MS) of soil can be affected by a number of natural and anthropogenic processes.1 These include chemical oxidation during weathering, chemical reduction by bacterial organisms, and chemical oxidation from natural or man-made fires (Ellwood et al. 1996). The enhancement of soil magnetic susceptibility on archaeological sites occurs because of repeated heating of the soil, as well as accumulation of organic debris. Both these processes are associated with human habitation and provide good conditions for the conversion of the iron oxide found within the soil to a strongly ferromagnetic form (Tite and Mullins 1971).

The enhancement of magnetic susceptibility produced by these processes can be traced and used as a local marker of archaelogical units because magnetic susceptibility is greater closer to the source. Integration of the magnetic susceptibility measurements with the study of chemical characteristics of the soil may help at all stages of the investigation: from the discovery of buried objects to the stage of interpretation of data for the creation of the first-approximation model of the subsurface (Itkis and Eppelbaum 1997). In Israel the first attempts to study the relationship between magnetic susceptibility and chemical characteristics of the soil were undertaken at the site of Abu Ghosh. Two soil profiles were sampled during the 1995 excavation season: Profile 100 from the fringe of the site and Profile 200 from the center of the excavation area (see Chapter 2). These soil samples were examined in order to determine the chemical and physical components of the sediments through a variety of analyses. They include estimation of organic material content, as well as phosphorous, potassium, and other values, which characterized the archaeological units. In addition to these investigations, magnetic susceptibility of each sample has been measured. The MS measurements were performed with the help of a KT-5 instrument (Field Rock Magnetic Susceptibility Meter, produced by the Brnogeophysica plant, the Czech Republic). Samples for magnetic susceptibility measurements were packed into plastic (nonmagnetic) boxes (c. 180 cm3). All measurements were normalized by weight in order to obtain comparable values. For each sampling interval (5 or 10 cm thick) 10–15 measurements were made and the average value of magnetic susceptibility was calculated. The graphs characterizing the relationship between magnetic susceptibility and chemical characteristics along both profiles are presented in Figs. 14.1 and 14.2.

130

SONIA ITKIS

Fig. 14.1. Abu Ghosh Profile 100, variations of chemical and physical characteristics of the soil.

a

b

Fig. 14.2. Abu Ghosh Profile 200, variations of chemical and physical characteristics of the soil.

CHAPTER 14: MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL

131

trend three weak peaks of phosphorous concentration were discernible (Fig. 14.2:b).

R ESULTS The results of the soil study of Profile 100 are demonstrated in Fig. 14.1.2 It can be seen that in the 0.2–0.5 m depth interval, there is a close correlation between phosphorous concentration, content of organic material, and magnetic susceptibility values. A clear peak of each parameter was observed in the depth interval 0.25–0.40 m. In Fig. 14.2:a the results of investigations of soil samples from Profile 200 are shown. It can be seen there that within the 0.6–1.2 m interval that there is a good correlation between the magnetic susceptibility and almost all the chemical parameters. All graphs in this interval display similar configurations: peaks in the vicinity of 0.75–0.80 m and 1.10 m depth. The correlation between values of magnetic susceptibility and phosphorous concentration are less clear because of a general rise in the last parameter from the depth of 0.6 m. However, even against this rising strong linear

CONCLUSIONS The close association between the magnetic susceptibility and the chemical characteristics of the soil revealed in the two profiles at Abu Ghosh seems to confirm the fact that the soil at Abu Ghosh is magnetically enhanced due to past human occupation processes. It is obvious that the study of MS and its use in tandem with other analyses of the physical and chemical characteristics of soil corroborate and complement one another. The combined results are more useful than the results from each analysis employed separately. However, in this case, where a full excavation was not possible, the quick and inexpensive magnetic susceptibility method may serve as an immediate indicator of sedimentary units containing archaeological remains.

NOTES 1

MS is a measure of the degree to which a substance may be magnetized in the earth’s magnetic field. It is typically expressed in unit SI (System International).

2

I thank Eldad Barzilay for providing the soil samples for the magnetic susceptibility analysis and the chemical analyses there of.

R EFERENCES Aitken M.J. 1974. Physics and Archaeology. Oxford. Boucher A.R. 1996. Archaeological Feedback in Geophysics. Archaeological Prospection 3:129–140 Ellwood B. B., Petruso K.M., Harold, F.B. and Korkuti M. 1996. Paleoclimate Characterization and Intra-Site Correlation Using Magnetic Susceptibility Measurements: An Example from Konispol Cave, Albania. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:263–271. Heimmer D.H. and De Vore S.L. 1995. Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource

Management and Archaeological Investigations. (Revised ed.). Denver. Itkis S. and Eppelbaum L. 1997. First Results of Magnetic Prospecting Application at the Prehistoric Sites in Israel. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 28:177–187. Tite M.S. and Mullins C. 1971. Enhancement of the Magnetic Susceptibility of Soils on Archaeological Sites. Archaeometry 13:209–219.

CHAPTER 15

GENERAL DISCUSSION HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

The present environment of the site of Abu Ghosh is hospitable for human occupation. The alternating dolomites and marls of the Soreq Formation form, under the present Mediterranean climate, a moderately sloping terrain with a thick soil cover and water available for vegetation and wild life (Chapter 2). It seems that these conditions have prevailed at least since late prehistoric times (Lipschitz 1986:84; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997:86; Baruch and Bottema 1999:82), when the site was settled. Furthermore, the existence of local and regional ground-water tables, which supply water for numerous springs in the vicinity, provides a site catchment conducive to human habitation. The Neolithic site of Abu Ghosh was settled during two different periods, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and the Pottery Neolithic. The earlier, PPNB occupation, taken together with the area previously excavated by Lechevallier (1978), covers some 15 dunams, falling within the size range of other village sites such as Munhata (Perrot 1969; Gopher 1989). The nature of the architecture and installations points to the site as having been a permanent settlement facilitated by its proximity to a permanent water source. The PN occupation at the site was not clearly stratified. It consists mainly of features, installations, pits, and wall segments. It also seems to have suffered from severe damage during later periods. A further limitation was the fact that the PN had been dug into the underlying PPNB deposits, resulting in mixing with the earlier material. Taking these factors into account, it is not surprising that the previous excavators of the site (Lechevallier 1978) did not identify material relating to this period. The nature of the PN occupation at Abu Ghosh still remains unclear. It may have represented a substantial settlement, but the general impression is that we are dealing with an ephemeral, short occupation. The two excavations (Lechevallier 1978 and the present volume) uncovered approximately 10% of

the site (c. 1.5 dunams excavated out of some 15 dunams), allowing the investigation and reconstruction of intra-site organizational patterns in the PPNB village through analysis of the built environment, as well as that of the relationship between domestic and exterior areas (Byrd 1994:639–640). The architectural features consist of small to medium-sized rectangular domestic dwellings on one hand, and large courtyards with long enclosure or fence walls on the other. These walls served several purposes: they formed divisions between parts of the village; they fulfilled a primary function, as an outer wall of a house; and they also created partitions between the open spaces belonging to different dwellings. Varied domestic activities took place in the courtyards as evidenced by the presence of a roasting pit, garbage pits, and installations specific to food production. In all of the excavated area, pits containing flint knapping waste are totally absent, even though it is a common characteristic of other mid-PPNB sites (Garfinkel 1987; Goring-Morris et al. 1994–1995). An additional phenomenon observed during the previous and the recent excavations is the presence of gravel layers associated mainly with the architectural features. These gravel layers are confined to the site’s area and are absent in its surroundings. Shachori, Michaeli, and Segal (1960), who conducted hydrological measurements and a soil survey in the nearby basin, reported no such phenomenon. In addition, there is no evidence of natural processes such as a channel bed or a debris flow, which might have caused gravel movement and the deposit of angular, well-sorted gravel. Analysis of samples from each gravel layer indicates that the gravelly layers are of human origin (see Chapter 2). Similar gravel units were observed in various archaeological sites that predate the Neolithic period. Arlene Rosen (forthcoming), who studied the ‘cobbled surfaces’ excavated at Tel Yosef, reached the conclusion that these surfaces are a result of human cultural

134

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

activity. Nimrod Getzov (Getzov et al., forthcoming) uncovered similar features at Horbat ‛Uza (Strata 17–19), which he describes as ‘gravel floors’. The stony layers are probably related to construction and habitation activities at the site, which range from secondary use of a collapse, to filling depressions, to leveling the area for construction, and to preparing the foundations for plaster floors. This conclusion can be supported by the high frequency of burnt stones, the high potassium percentage in Unit II (Chapter 2), and the correlation between the magnetic susceptibility and the organic material due to human activities (Chapter 14). Plaster floors were unearthed, partially preserved in two buildings. In other dwellings they are totally absent. It is not clear whether this is a result of variation in floor construction methods (plaster as opposed to beaten-earth floors) or site formation processes, which caused damage (e.g., construction activities). The separation of the exterior areas (for production and storage activities) from other portions of the residential units is a well-known phenomenon during the early Neolithic throughout Southwest Asia (Banning and Byrd 1987; Byrd and Banning 1988; Byrd 1994; Banning 1998). This aspect is connected with a series of social and economic developments, which involves a more restricted social network of sharing production and consumption, associated with expanded household autonomy and increased importance of the communitywide regularity mechanisms and affiliated corporate bodies (Byrd 1994:660). Another aspect connected with the plaster floors is the human burials. The remains of at least three human burials were documented under the plaster floor. Such a phenomenon is known in other PPNB sites such as Jericho (Kenyon 1981), ‛Ain Ghazal (Rollefson and Kafafi 1994), Yiftah’el (Garfinkel 1987), and Kefar Ha-Horesh (Goring-Morris et al. 1994–1995; 1995). The small sample size of skeletons recovered at the site and their poor preservation make it difficult to characterize the human population at Abu Ghosh. On the whole, the PPNB skeletons from our 1995 excavations (Chapter 9) are more gracile and smaller than those recovered in the Lechevallier excavation, but in some parameters they fall within the range of PPNB specimens from other sites in the region. The PN specimens are on the whole more robust than those from PPNB, which is contrary to the trend

documented for these periods. It is difficult to tell at this stage whether this is a result of mixing or due to a unique situation at Abu Ghosh. It is possible that at Abu Ghosh some of the human burials in the Lechevallier excavation belong to the PN. If so, then the exceptionally large and robust size of that sample may be due to admixture of PPNB and PN specimens. This would also account for the fact that the PPNB samples from the two excavations differ metrically. This still does not explain the larger physical size of the PN population at the site, which may be due to bias introduced by the small sample size, which includes an exceptionally large individual, or to marked changes in diet. The study of the PPNB flint industry indicates that the first priority was a selection of blanks suited for sickle blades (Chapter 4). A similar phenomenon is known from other PPNB sites, such as Jericho, Nahal Oren and Munhata (see discussion in Gopher 1989:51). At Abu Ghosh, sickle blades are clearly the most common formal tools identified at the site. Their numbers are probably even higher than counted, as many sickle blades were re-used as burins and arrowheads. Usewear analysis on selected specimens shows at least three types of usage. The majority was used for plant cutting, as shown by developed reed polish. However, at least one example exhibits hard mineral or possible grinding traces (see Chapter 5; Yamada 2000:145). This indicates that plant food exploitation was a major component of the economy of the site, not only for human consumption but also perhaps as fodder collected for animals. A similar emphasis on plant food modification is reflected in the site’s large quantity of groundstone tools (Chapter 6). The fauna from the current excavation to a large extent substantiates the results previously obtained by Ducos (1978) from the Lechevallier excavation. They indicate that during PPNB, primarily goats were exploited with gazelle, cattle, and pigs of secondary importance. In contrast to Ducos, the smaller faunal elements were also identified and included several species of carnivores, birds, reptiles, and fish, which indicate that a wide range of species was utilized in this period (Chapter 10). The PPNB goat sample comprises animals that are extremely large and robust, and as shown in the DNA study (Chapter 12; Kahila Bar-Gal et al. 2002), contains both wild bezoar goat (Capra aegagrus) and ibex (Capra ibex nubiana). The PN

CHAPTER 15: GENERAL DISCUSSION

sample contains the full range of species found in the PPNB, which is probably due to sedimentary mixing resulting from the fact that the PN features were dug into the underlying PPNB layers. In the PN layer, both large goats and smaller animals were found; the latter appear to represent domestic goats. This is confirmed by the DNA results that indicate the presence of domestic animals in this layer (Chapter 12). The PPNB goats at Abu Ghosh are morphometrically identical to those from other mid-PPNB sites (Jericho, Nahal Oren, Kfar Ha-Horesh, Yiftah’el, Munhata), suggesting that they are all derived from a similar population, identified as wild bezoar goat (Chapters 10 and 11). At Abu Ghosh, Munhata, and Jericho, this species predominates in the assemblage in contrast to Nahal Oren, Yiftah’el, and Kfar Ha-Horesh, where gazelle is the dominant species and goats are only of secondary importance. It has been suggested (Horwitz 1989) that the predominance of goats in several southern Levantine sites—although morphometrically wild— is an indication that they are undergoing the first steps towards domestication, i.e., incipient domestication (Ducos 1993; Horwitz 1989; Horwitz and Ducos 1998; Horwitz et al. 1999). This pattern may however be complicated by the presence of ibex at Abu Ghosh, as this species was never domesticated. Remains of ibex are difficult to separate archaeozoologically from those of wild bezoar goat and as such when mixed together as at Abu Ghosh, may artificially inflate the numbers of goats found in a site. This will mistakenly create the impression that larger numbers of goats were hunted or possibly even undergoing domestication (Kahila BarGal et al. 2002). In the mid-PPNB sites in the Sinai Peninsula, remains of ibex dominate (Horwitz and Tchernov 1998). It has been suggested that this patterning relates to the co-existence of three different modes of production: (1) in the southern Mediterranean region and Jordan Valley, a predominance of goats; (2) in the northwestern Mediterranean region, a predominance of gazelle; and (3) in the Sinai Peninsula, a predominance of ibex. There appear to be several other factors which

135

support this division, such as architectural differences between sites, differences in the frequencies and ratios of groundstone tools, sickle blades, and arrowheads, and differences in the composition of the plant-based subsistence (legumes vs. cereals; Horwitz et al. 1999). We may conclude that in the PPNB, the animal economy of Abu Ghosh was based on the incipient domestication of the wild bezoar goat, with hunting, in lower frequencies, of ibex, gazelle, aurochs, and boar in addition to a wide spectrum of small mammals, reptiles, and birds. We suggest that at Abu Ghosh, the courtyards and the long walls may have been used as enclosures for animals undergoing domestication in order to fulfill the growing need for meat and dairy products (Horwitz 1996:59). Since architecturally each enclosure is associated with more than one dwelling, it might imply some degree of socio-economic cooperation between several households. By the Pottery Neolithic, domestic goats formed the basis of the economy with continued exploitation of most of the species previously utilized at the site. Characterization of the PN economy is complicated by admixture with the underlying PPNB deposits. A similar problem has been encountered in the analysis of the lithics, where only diagnostic tools (arrowheads and sickle blades) identifiable as PN were isolated; while for the human remains it is clear that some of the PN material may have been derived from the PPNB layers (Chapter 9). Trade or exploitation of a wider catchment area is illustrated by the presence of basalt pestles and arrow-straighteners/sharpeners (Chapter 6) and marine shells (Chapter 8). It is possible that the ibex remains identified at the site on the basis of DNA analysis were hunted further away, such as in the Judean Desert and/or the Central Jordan Valley, which lie only 20 km from the site. Alternately, the ibex remains may be trade items from exchange with populations inhabiting the arid regions of the southern Levant. If so, this may indicate that Abu Ghosh was part of a larger system of exchange such has been documented for other PPNB sites in the region (Bar-Yosef 1991).

R EFERENCES Banning E. B. 1998. The Neolithic Period. Triumphs of Architecture, Agriculture, and Art. Near Eastern Archaeology 61:188–237.

Banning E.B. and Byrd B.F. 1987. Houses and the Changing Residental Unit: Domestic Architecture at PPNB ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53: 309–325.

136

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

Baruch U. and Bottema S. 1999. A New Pollen Diagram from Lake Hula: Vegetational, Climatic, and Anthropogenic Implication. In H. Kawanabe, G.W. Coulter, and A.C. Roosevelt eds. Ancient Lakes: Their Cultural and Biological Diversities. Shiga. Pp. 75–86. Bar-Yosef D.E. 1991. Changes in the Selection of Marine Shells from the Natufian to the Neolithic. In O. Bar-Yosef and F. R.Valla eds. The Natufian Culture in the Levant (International Monographs in Prehistory 1). Ann Arbor. Pp. 629–644. Byrd B. F. 1994. Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: Emergence of the South West Asian Village. American Antiquity 59: 639–666. Byrd B. F. and Banning E. B. 1988. Southern Levantine Pier Houses: Intersite Architectural Patterning during the PrePottery Neolithic B. Paléorient 14:65–72. Ducos P. 1978. La faune d’Abu Ghosh; proto-élevage de la chèvre en Palestine au néolithique pré-céramique. In M. Lechevallier. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Pp. 107–120. Ducos P. 1993. Proto-élevage et élevage au Levant sud au VIIe millénaire B.C. Les données de la Damascène. Paléorient 19:153–173. Garfinkel Y. 1987. Yiftahel: A Neolithic Village from Seventh Millennium B.C. in the Lower Galilee, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:199–122. Getzov N., Avshalom-Gorni D., Tatcher A., LiebermanWander R., Smithline H., and Stern E.J. Forthcoming. Horbat ‛Uza: Final Report of the 1991 Excavations (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Gopher A. 1985. Flint lndustries of the Neolithic Period in lsrael. Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Gopher A. 1989. The Flint Assemblages of Munhata (Israel), Final Report (Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 4). Paris. Goring-Morris [A.] N. and Belfer-Cohen A. 1997. The Articulation of Cultural Processes and the Late Quaternary Environmental Changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23: 71–94. Goring-Morris A.N., Goren Y., Horwitz L.K., Bar-Yosef D., and Hershkovitz I. 1995. Investigations at an Early Neolithic Settlement in the Lower Galilee. Results of the 1991 Season at Kefar HaHoresh. ‛Atiqot 27:37–62. Goring-Morris A.N., Goren Y., Horwitz L.K., Hershkovitz I., Lieberman R., Sarel J. and Bar-Yosef D. 1994–1995. The 1992 Season of Excavations at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement of Kefar Hahoresh. Mitkufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 26:74–121. Horwitz L.K. 1989. A Reassessment of Caprovine Domestication in the Levantine Neolithic: Old Questions,

New Answers. In I. Hershkovitz ed. People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin (BAR Int. S. 508i). Oxford. Pp.153–181. Horwitz L. K. 1996. The Impact of Animal Domestication on Species Richness: A Pilot Study from the Neolithic of the Southern Levant. ArchaeoZoologia 8:53–70. Horwitz L. K. and Ducos P. 1998. An Investigation into the Origin of Domestic Sheep in the Southern Levant. In H. Buitenhuis, L. Bartosiewicz, and A.M. Choyke eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East III. Leiden. Pp. 80–95. Horwitz L.K. and Tchernov E. 1998. Diachronic and Synchronic Changes in Patterns of Animal Exploitation during the Neolithic of the Southern Levant. In P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiwicz, E. Jerem, and W. Meid eds. Man and the Animal World. Budapest. Pp. 307–318. Horwitz L. K., Tchernov E., Ducos P., Becker C., von den Driesch A., Martin L., and Garrad A. 1999. Animal Domestication in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 25: 63–80. Kahila Bar-Gal G., Khalaily H., Marder O., Ducos P., and Horwitz L.K. 2002. Ancient DNA Evidence for the Transition from Wild to Domestic Status in Neolithic Goats: A Case Study from the Site of Abu Ghosh, Israel. Ancient Biomolecules 4:9–17. Kenyon K. 1981. Excavations at Jericho III: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. Oxford. Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 2). Paris. Lipschitz N. 1986. The Vegetational Landscape and Macroclimate of Israel during Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 19:80–90. Perrot J. 1969. Horbat Minha, a Prehistoric Village in the Middle Jordan Valley. Qadmoniot 2: 52–56 (Hebrew). Rollefson G.O. and Kafafi Z. 1994. The 1993 Season at ‘Ain Ghazal: Preliminary Report. ADAJ 38:11–32. Rosen A. M. Forthcoming. Geomorphological Setting and Paleoenvironments of the Pottery Neolithic Site at Tel Yosef. In K. Covello-Paran. The Pottery Neolithic Settlement at Tel Yosef (Tell esh-Sheikh Hasan). ‘Atiqot. Shachori A., Michaeli A., and Segal M. 1960. Abu Ghosh Basin. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Yamada S. 2000. Development of the Neolithic: Lithic UseWear Analysis of Major Tool Types in the Southern Levant. Ph.D. diss. Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass.

APPENDIX 1

BASKET LIST

Basket

Locus

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

Notes

1001

A3

696.72

696.31

I

P,F

Surface.

1002

A4

696.18

696.12

I

P,F

Surface.

1003

B5

696.09

695.89

I

P,F

Surface.

1004

A3

696.31

696.13

I

P,F

Surface.

1005

B1

696.62

696.50

I

P,F

Surface.

1006

B5

695.89

695.61

I

P,F

Surface.

1007

A3

696.15

695.79

I

P

Next to B1004.

1008

C5

695.14

694.81

I

B,P

Fill.

1009

C4

695.54

695.32

I

P

Fill.

1010

A3

696.13

695.73

III

B,F,P

Over W11.

1011

101

A3

695.79

695.63

III

B,F,P

Pit.

1012

102

A3

695.69

695.45

II

B,F,P,S

Topsoil.

C4

695.04

694.54

II

B,P

Uncovering a wall.

C5

694.81

694.71

I

B,F,P

Fill.

A3

695.73

695.66

III

B,F,S

Next to W11.

C5

694.71

694.58

I

B,F,P

Fill.

A3

695.73

695.66

III

B,F

White-gray level.

C5

694.60

694.33

II

B,F

Top of Gravel II.

1014 1015 1016

103

1017 1018

103

1019 1020

104

C5

694.60

694.35

II

B,F

Top of installation.

1021

107

B5

695.53

695.35

II

P,F

Next to W10.

A4

696.15

695.97

II

B,F,P

Surface.

1022 1023

A4

695.97

695.70

II

B,F

Under B1022.

1024

103

A3

695.66

695.50

III

B,F,S

Between W11 and W16.

1025

104

C5

694.35

694.12

III

B,F,S

Defining installation.

1026

A4

695.97

695.93

II

B,F,P

Cleaning fill over gravel.

1027

B3

696.21

695.88

I

P

Surface.

1028

D4

694.41

694.31

III

B,P

Expose top of Layer III.

1029

D4

694.41

694.13

III

B,F,P

South of W12.

B3

695.88

695.57

I

B,F,P

Next to W10.

1031

B–C5

695.50

695.18

I

P

Balk removal.

1032

D4

694.44

694.14

III

B,F,P

Cleaning surface.

1033

B3

695.98

695.57

I

B,F,P

Cleaning section.

B–C5

695.24

695.11

I

P

Exposure of top of paleosoil.

B5

695.89

695.36

I

B,F,P

Defining installation.

1036

B–C5

695.11

695.05

I

B,F,P

Fill.

1037

B3

695.57

695.53

II

B,F,P

Top of Gravel I.

1038

C4

695.74

695.54

II

B,F,P

Surface.

1030

108

1034 1035

107

138

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Basket

Locus

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

Notes

1039

108

Removal of W10.

C3

696.02

695.52

I

B,P

1040

B–C5

695.00

694.91

II

B,F,S

1041

B4

696.22

695.98

I

P

Left side of square.

1042

B–C5

695.48

695.03

II

B,F,P

Neolithic pottery.

B3

695.52

695.32

I

B,F,P

Cleaning section.

1044

B4

695.98

695.64

I

B,F,P

Under B1041.

1045

C5

694.74

694.61

III

B,P

Top of Gravel I.

1043

1046

108

B3

695.59

695.37

II

B,F,P

Semicircular structure.

1047

109

B–C5

695.03

694.80

III

B,F

Under B1042.

1048

B4

695.64

695.60

III

B,F,P

Under B1044.

1049

B–C5

694.80

694.64

II

B,F

PPNB industry.

1050

B5

695.21

695.16

III

P

Cleaning.

1051

B3

695.37

695.27

III

B,F,S

Cutting gravel level.

1052

B5

695.52

695.24

III

B,F,P

Part of the square.

1053

B4

695.60

695.37

III

B,F,P

Part of the square.

1054

B3

695.27

595.15

III

B,F

Sieving.

1055

B4

695.37

695.32

III

B,F,P

Cutting Gravel I.

1056

B–C5

694.62

694.53

III

B,F

Removing Gravel I.

1057

B4

695.44

695.33

III

B,F

Geological sample.

1059

104

C5

694.48

694.30

II

B,F

Fill near installation.

1060

109

B3

695.53

695.09

II

B,F

Semicircular installation.

1061

B4

695.32

695.12

III

F,B,P

Fill.

1062

B5

695.52

695.15

II

F,B,P

Fill. Near installation.

1063

C5

694.35

694.12

III

F,B

1064

C4

694.91

694.85

III

B,F,C

Ashy spot.

1065

B3

696.53

695.78

III

B,P

Open other half of square.

1066

A3

696.75

696.60

III

B,SH

Removal of collapse.

1067

B3

695.78

695.54

III

B,F

Cleaning top of W10.

B–C5

694.51

694.48

III

B,F

Large gravels.

AA3

696.73

695.97

I

B,F

Mixed.

1068

110

111

1069 1070

112

B3

695.71

695.50

III

B,F

Room 112.

1071

113

B3

695.65

695.31

III

B,F

Room 113.

1072

E4

694.01

693.71

I

F

Cleaning surface.

1073

A3

III

F

Cleaning balk.

1074

E4

693.83

693.73

III

F

Uncover plaster.

1075

111

B–C5

694.51

694.32

II

B,F

Uncover Gravel II.

1100

112

B3

695.65

695.84

III

B,F

Defining installation.

1101

B4

695.95

695.66

III

B,F,P

E half of square.

1102

B5

695.12

694.94

III

B,F,P

Gravel II.

1103

D–E5

694.24

693.79

III

B,F

Balk removal.

1104

B2

696.46

696.16

II

F,P

N part of square.

1105

B3

I

B,F

Cleaning after rain.

1106

B2

696.56

696.16

III

B,F,P

Next to B1104.

B4

695.66

695.40

II

F,P

To the top of W10.

B5

694.94

694.88

III

B,F,P

Top of Gravel II.

1107 1108

115

139

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Basket

Locus

1109 1110

115

1111

114

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

Notes

D–E5

693.88

693.72

III

B,F

Top of Installation.

B4

695.94

695.49

II

B,F,P

E side of W10.

B5

695.27

695.16

II

B,F

Small installation.

B2

696.55

696.25

I

B,P

Fill.

B4

695.28

695.46

I

B,F

E of W10.

1114

B5

695.24

694.96

II

B,F

Gravels.

1115

D–E5

693.94

693.68

III

B,F,S

Surface.

1112 1113

115

1116

115

B4

695.40

695.11

II

B,F,P

W side of W10.

1117

116

B2

696.26

695.85

I

B,F,P

W side of W11.

1118

115

B4

695.95

695.26

II

B,F,P

Removal of W10.

1119

B5

695.20

694.90

II

B,F,P

Under B1114.

1120

D5

694.54

694.75

I

B,F,P

Top of Gravel II.

B2

696.28

696.56

I

B,F,P

S of B1117.

1121

116

1122

B4

695.26

695.41

I

B,F,P

Fill under W10.

1123

116

B2

696.36

695.82

I

B,F

Top of Gravel I.

1124

115

B4

695.26

695.41

III

B,F,P

Continue removal of fill.

B5

695.16

695.05

III

B,F

Top of Gravel II.

1125 1126

116

B2

695.82

695.74

I

B,F,P

Layer I next to W10.

1127

115

B4

695.45

695.19

II

B,F

Installation.

1128

B5

695.06

694.83

II

B,F

Top of Gravel II.

1129

D5

694.26

693.95

I

B,F

Plaster floor.

1130

B–C5

695.76

695.23

II

B,F

Balk removal.

1131

D5

693.95

693.79

III

B,F

Top of Gravel II.

1132

116

B2

695.82

695.74

III

B,F,P

First level.

1133

117

E5

693.82

693.59

III

B,F

Clean plaster floor.

B5

694.83

694.74

III

B,F,P

Under B1128.

D5

694.00

693.82

II

B,F

Clean installation.

E5

693.82

693.55

III

B,F

Uncovering the plaster.

1137

B–C4

695.93

695.15

II

B,F

Under B1130.

1138

A–B3

696.48

695.77

I

B,F,P

Balk removal.

1139

B2

695.81

695.62

III

B,F,P

Under W10.

1134 1135 1136

117

1140

119

E5

693.81

693.65

III

B,F,P

E of plastered floor.

1141

116

B2

695.62

695.55

III

B,F

Red clay on top of Gravel II.

1142

A–B3

695.77

695.61

I

B,F,S

Balk removal.

1143

B–C4

694.93

694.83

III

F,B

Cutting gravel level.

1144

E5

694.01

693.60

III

1145

118

End of W12.

E5

693.88

693.78

III

B

Burial.

1146

C2

696.01

695.66

II

P,F

Surface.

1147

C3

695.92

695.32

I

P modern

Surface.

1148

A4

696.15

695.95

I

B,F,P

Surface.

1149

C2

695.66

695.49

II

B,F

Surface.

1150

A4

695.95

695.80

I

B,F

Red clay with gravel.

1151

A–B3

695.61

695.51

III

B,F

Top of W16.

1152

B2

695.60

695.55

III

B,F

Top of W17.

1153

C3

694.20

694.10

II

B,F

E part of square.

140

Basket

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Locus

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

1154

B–C4

695.15

695.01

1155

C5

III

B,F

1156

A4

695.84

695.64

II

B,F,P

Fill over Gravel I.

1157

B4

695.27

695.08

III

B,F

Cleaning gravels.

1158

C2

695.49

695.31

I

B,F

Surface.

1159

C3

695.32

695.03

I

B,F

Surface.

1160

A4

695.64

695.43

III

B,F

Surface.

III

Notes Removal of gravel layer. Cleaning section.

1161

127

C2

695.32

695.17

III

B,F

Pit.

1162

120

B2

695.55

695.17

III

B,F

Next to W17.

C3

695.03

694.84

I

B,F

N of garbage pit.

1163 1164

B4

695.08

694.11

III

B,F

Second level in Gravel II.

1165

122

A4

695.84

695.65

II

B,F

E part of square.

1166

A4

695.65

695.35

III

B,F

Top of gravel.

1167

121

B2

695.78

695.62

III

B,F

Cutting Gravel I.

1168

127

C2

695.58

695.20

III

B,F,P

Gravel II.

C3

695.40

694.96

I

B4

695.08

694.96

II

B,F

A4

695.39

695.33

III

B,F

1169 1170

112

1171 1172

Garbage. Top of Gravel II.

B5

694.98

694.75

III

B,F

Thin layer between PN and PPNB.

1173

125

D5

693.85

693.81

IV

B,F

Brick material.

1174

122

B4

695.08

694.84

III

B,F

1175

111

B–C5

694.55

694.34

III

B,F

Defining L111.

1176

125

D5

693.85

693.83

IV

B,F

Installation.

1177

C5

694.22

694.10

III

B,F

SE part of square.

1178

E4–5

694.53

693.83

II

B,F

1179

C2

695.20

695.12

III

B,F

Removal of top of balk.

E4–5

693.82

693.58

II

B,F

Removal of top of balk.

C5

694.22

694.05

III

B,F

1182

C2

695.20

695.02

III

B,F

1200

A3

696.31

695.79

III

B,F,P,CL

Whitish material.

1201

A4

695.95

695.76

III

B,F,P,S

Fill. Collect from all area.

1180 1181

110

1202

696.34

696.34

III

B,F

B4

695.44

695.38

III

B,F,C

1204

B4

695.38

695.24

III

B,F,C

1205

A4

695.82

695.66

II

B,F

1206

A3

695.79

695.76

III

B,F,P,S

Removal of paleosoil.

1207

AA4

696.61

696.50

I

B,F,P

Excavation of S half of square.

1208

B4

695.38

695.23

III

B,F,S

Excavation under L130.

1209

A3

695.74

695.64

III

B,F,P

Under B1206.

1203

1210

130

D4–5

694.41

694.25

II

B,F,P

Removal of E side.

1211

D4–5

694.25

694.03

II

B,F,P

Excavation under L126.

1212

A4

695.66

695.51

II

B,F

Under 1205.

1213

A3

696.01

695.56

III

B,F,S

Terra rossa fill.

B2

695.95

695.79

III

B,F,P

Burial, grayish layer.

AA4

696.80

696.45

III

B,F

1214 1215

126

Excavation under L130.

131

141

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Basket

Locus

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

Notes

1216

130

B4

695.29

695.05

II

B,F,S

Excavation of S part of L130.

1217

A4

695.55

695.47

III

F,B,S

Work under B1212.

1218

B4

695.05

694.95

II

F,B,S

Work under L130.

1219

AA4

697.04

696.36

I

B,F,P,S

N part of square.

B4

695.05

694.95

II

B,F,S

New locus.

1221

A4

695.46

695.30

III

B,F,P

Excavation in E part of square.

1222

A5

696.08

696.00

I

B,F,P

In S part of square.

B1

696.67

696.35

I

B,P,SH

In N part of square.

B1

696.35

696.20

III

B,F,P,S

Start.

1225

A5

696.08

696.85

III

B,F,P

1226

B1

696.37

696.06

I

F,P

1227

B1

696.25

695.88

III

B,F,P

1228

D5

693.85

693.83

III

B,F,P,S

1229

AA4

696.50

696.17

III

B,F,P

1230

A5

695.85

695.65

II

B,F,P

1231

B5

695.13

695.04

III

B,F,P

Cleaning of N part of square.

1232

B5

695.04

695.00

III

B,F,SH

Installation in NE.

1233

AA4

696.17

696.13

III

B,F,P

SE part of square.

1234

B5

695.00

694.82

III

B,F,SH

Bone concentration.

1235

A5

696.08

695.71

III

B

N part of square.

1220

132

1223 1224

1236

133

128

Removal of W10. Cleaning SW part of square.

C2

695.05

694.92

III

B

Cleaning L128.

1237

C2

694.92

694.90

III

B,F

Cleaning C2.

1238

C2

695.05

694.92

III

B,F

Under surface.

1240

B5

695.01

695.74

III

B,F

Bones in articulation.

1241

A5

695.83

695.52

III

B,F,P

Second part of the square.

1242

AA4

696.13

696.02

III

B,F,P

W part of square.

1243

D6

693.83

693.74

1244

B2

1245

B5

695.13

694.94

III

1246

A5

695.83

695.54

III

B,F,P

Removal of S part.

1247

D6

694.24

693.71

III

B,F,P

Topsoil disturbance.

1248

B6

695.33

695.08

I

B,F,P

Square measures 2 × 4 m.

1249

B5

695.13

694.95

III

F,B,SH

Cleaning. Stones, bones.

1250

AA4

696.06?

696.02

III

B,F,S

E part of square.

1251

D6

694.16

693.71

III

B,F,P,SH

Continuation of B1247.

1252

A5

695.73

695.54

II

B,F,P

Clean S half of square.

1253

B6

695.20

694.95

II

B,F,P

Fill.

1254

B5

694.95

694.77

III

B,F,P,SH

Cleaning. Stones, bones.

1255

A5

695.86

695.54

III

B,F,P

N half of square.

III

B,F,S

Square measures 3 × 5 m.

III

F,B,SH

Cleaning section. NW part is finished.

1256

135

D6

694.05

693.75

III

B,F,P,S

Grayish soil with stones.

1257

136

D6

693.88

693.63

III

B,F,SH

Line of stones

1258

AA4

696.20

696.14

I

B,F

W part of square.

1259

B6

695.77

694.95

III

B,F,P

Balk.

1260

A5

695.54

695.38

II

B

E part of square.

1261

AA5

696.40

696.21

I

F,B,P

N part of square.

142

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Basket

Locus

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

Notes

1262

138

A5

695.71

695.63

III

F,B,P,S

W part of square.

B6

695.07

694.77

III

B,F, P

1263 1264

134

B1

696.23

696.08

II

S

Peeling the first level.

1265

138

A5

695.93

695.71

III

B,F,P

Brown sediment.

1266

AA4

696.20

695.84

III

B,F,P

N part of square.

1267

A2

696.37

696.20

I

B,F,P

Topsoil.

1268

A5

695.54

695.38

III

B,F

Cleaning all of square.

1269

A1

696.69

696.56

I

B,F,P,SH

1270

AA5

696.37

696.13

III

B,F

W part of square.

139

A5

695.47

695.34

III

B,F,P,S

Topsoil.

B6

695.07

694.64

II

F,B,P,SH

1273

134

B1

696.17

696.07

III

F,B,C

Second level.

1274

140

AA4

696.02

696.02

II

C

NW of square.

1275

135

D6

693.95

693.60

II

F,B,P

Gray brown soil.

1276

137

B1

696.17

696.08

III

Few finds.

B1

696.10

695.96

III

Fill.

141

A5

695.48

695.35

III

Fill.

AA5

697.00

696.33

III

S part of square.

1271 1272

1277 1278 1279 1280

B6

694.98

694.80

II–III

F,B

Gravel layer.

136

D6

693.63

693.53

II–III

C

E of W20.

A7

695.53

695.43

I

1283

141

A4

695.58

695.55

III

1284

136

D6

693.70

693.51

III

F,B,S

Red-gray soil with clay lumps.

1285

139

A5

695.48

695.37

III

F,B,P

Cleaning sections.

1286

139

A5

695.48

695.32

III

1287

C6

696.14

696.10

I

1288

A4

695.58

695.55

III

B

Clearing stones.

1289

AA5

696.62

696.36

III

B,F

Fill in S part of square.

1290

B6

694.80

694.60

III

1291

B1

695.96

695.86

III

1292

A2

696.80

696.53

I

1281 1282

1293

Topsoil with modern material. Cleaning of L141.

Surface.

Removal of L143. Work mainly in NW of square. B,F,P

N and W part of square.

B6

694.60

694.39

III

D6

693.88

693.66

III

1295

A7

695.60

695.26

I

1296

B1

695.86

695.79

III

1297

AA2

697.09

696.95

I

B,F,P

E part of square.

1298

AA1

697.27

697.16

I

B,F,P

W part of square.

1299

A1

697.08

696.98

I

B,F,P

S part of square.

E4

693.64

693.49

III

1301

A2

696.57

696.38

II

B,F,P,S

W part of square.

1302

AA5

696.36

696.10

III

B

S part of square.

1303

A7

695.26

695.00

III

S

E part of square.

1304

B6

694.39

694.31

III

B,F,SH,C

W part of square.

1305

D5

694.17

693.81

III

F

Cleaning of N Section D5.

1306

B6

694.31

694.22

III

B,F,S

Under B1304.

1294

1300

135

118

Few artifacts. B,F,C

Ashy sediments. W part of square. NE part of square.

Burial.

143

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Basket

Locus

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

Notes

1307

146

Cleaning stones.

AA5

696.41

696.21

III

B,F,P,S

1309

B6

694.34?

694.29

III

B,F,SH,P

1310

E6

693.70

693.45

II-III

B,F,P

W part of square.

1311

C3

695.01

694.32

I

F,B,P

Modern garbage.

1312

A7

695.29

695.07

III

B,F,P

E part not excavated.

1313

118

E6

693.80

693.64

III

F,B

Burial, SW corner.

1314

146

AA5

696.36

696.13

III

B,F,P

Cleaning stones S of L146.

1315

B1–2

696.65

696.15

Balk removal.

1316

B5

I-III

B,F,P

II

B,F,P

Cleaning S section.

1317

147

AA5

696.10

695.96

III

B,F,P,SH

Work E of W24.

1318

136

E6

693.45

693.40

III

B,F,P

E of W20.

1319

118

E4

693.64

693.49

III

B,F

Burial 118.

B1–2

696.04

695.75

III

B,F,P,S

Balk removal. Removal of W24 stones.

1320 1321

D6

693.99

693.66

III

B,F

1322

W24

AA5

696.10

695.90

III

B,F

1323

A7

695.06

694.93

III

B,F,S,P

Similar to B1312.

1324

B1–2

696.04

695.67

III

B,F,SH

Exposure of W17.

1325

D6

693.70

693.62

III

1326

C3

694.94

694.45

III

F,B,P,S

Gravel in the SW.

1327

C4

694.63

694.45

III

F,B,P,S

Removal of W13.

F,B,P,S

SE part of square.

1328

Leveling and cleaning.

B5

694.82

694.65

III

1329

118

E4

693.75

693.64

III

Organic sample.

1330

149

AA5

696.47

696.03

III

W of W23.

1331

AA5

696.39

696.05

III

1332

D6

693.70

693.62

III

B,F,P

Continuation of B1325.

1333

C4

694.69

694.50

IV

B,F,P,S

S half of square.

1334

B5

694.77

694.67

III

B,F,P,S

N half of square.

1335

C3

694.29

694.22

III

B,F

Under modern pit.

A7

694.87

694.80

III

B,F

Top level.

AA5

696.41

696.01

III

B,F,S,C

Bones in installation.

1338

A3–AA3

696.63

696.27

II

B,F

Removal of section.

1338

AA3

696.63

696.27

II

Bead

Bead made from bone.

1339

B–C4

694.92

694.69

II

B,F,S

Section removal.

1340

C–D5

694.55

694.08

III

B,F,S

Balk removal over L126.

1341

B–C4

694.79

694.71

III

B,F,P

Section removal.

1342

B5

694.82

694.66

III

B,F,S

Exposure of W25.

1343

A7

694.87

694.72

III

B,F,P,S

First phase.

1344

C–D5

694.33

694.03

II

B,F,CL

Removal of section N of L126.

1345

C4

694.45

694.42

III

B,F,S

Disturbance from pit in C3.

A7

694.87

684.72

IV

S

B1346 + B1343.

B5

694.82

694.60

III

B,F,SH

SW of W25.

1348

B4–5

696.09

695.59

I

B,F,P,SH

1349

A3–AA3

696.27

696.18

III

1336 1337

146

1346 1347

151

N of L146.

S of W11.

1350

146

AA5

696.71

696.01

III

B

Excavation of bones.

1351

152

B3

695.30

695.14

II

B,F,P,SH

Removal of W15 in L152.

144

Basket

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Locus

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

Notes

1352

A3–AA3

696.27

696.08

III

Section N of W11.

1353

A6

694.72

694.66

II

Combined with B1342.

1354 1355

150

1356

C4

694.40

694.22

III

B,F,SH

Combined with B1345.

B5

694.82

694.59

IV

B,F,P,S

W of W25. Brown soil.

E6

693.51

693.39

III

B,F

Cleaning and exposure of bone concentration.

1357

144

B5

694.82

694.68

III

B,F

Removal of L144.

1358

153

B5

694.68

694.54

IV

B,F

Excavation of Installation 153.

B4

694.99

694.91

III

B,F,S

S half of square.

1360

152

B3

695.30

695.14

II

B,F,S,P

More soil than gravel.

1361

131

B2

693.90

695.75

II

B,F,P

Excavation of a burial.

B4–5

695.59

695.23

II

B,F

Defining wall or installation.

152

B3

695.30

695.13

II

B,F

Excavation in yellow-gray soil.

1364

A2

697.20

696.81

I

B,F,P

E part of square.

1365

AA2

697.09

696.95

I

B,F,P

E part of square.

1366

AA1

697.27

696.91

I

F,P,S

E part of square.

1367

B5

694.80

694.68

III

B,F

S part of square.

1368

E3–4

694.12

693.60

I

B,F,P

Gravels.

1369

A1

696.84

696.72

III

F

E part of square.

1370

B1–2

696.17

695.78

III

B,F,P,S

Fill.

1371

B3

695.07

695.00

III

B,F,P,S

E part of square.

1372

AA–B7

695.61

695.54

I

B,F

Section removal.

1373

B4

695.10

694.58

III

B,F,S

Cutting gravels.

D5

693.94

693.75

IV

B,F

Removal of Installation 125.

1375

D5

693.75

693.65

III

B,F,SH

N part of square.

1376

A7–AA7

695.56

695.34

III

F,B

Fill.

B3

695.26

695.15

III

F,B

W part of square.

1378

B4–5

694.14

693.66

II

F,B

Gravel near W12.

1379

A7

695.60

694.66

III

F,B

Cleaning top of possible wall.

1380

A7

695.60

695.13

III

1381

AA1

697.27

696.82

I

F,B,P

Remains of human bones.

1382

AA2

697.02

696.48

I

F,B,P

S part of square.

1383

A1

696.89

696.68

III

F

W part of of square.

1384

A2

696.48

696.18

I

1385

C4–5

694.96

694.86

II

1386

B4–5

694.86

694.76

III

Cleaning and exposure of W12.

1387

A2

696.48

696.10

I

E part of square.

1359

1362 1363

1374

1377

125

152

1388 1389

117

1390

Cleaning top of possible wall.

Surface. B,F,P

Removal of section.

B4

694.99

694.90

III

D–E5

693.78

693.46

III

B,F,S

Top of Gravel III. Excavation under plaster floor.

C4–5

694.98

694.68

II

B,F

Excavation of fill over Gravel III.

1391

154

A5

695.46

695.26

III

B,F

Excavation of Installation 154.

1392

145

A5

695.71

695.39

III

B,F

Excavation of Installation 145.

C4

694.36

694.22

III

B,F,S

SE part of square.

155

B4–5

695.36

695.07

III

B,F,S

Installation 155 cutting W12.

A4

695.31

695.22

III

B,F,P

Excavation of gravel layer.

B3

695.23

694.99

III

1393 1394 1395 1396

152

Fill.

145

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Basket

Locus

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

Notes

D5

693.65

693.56

IV

B,F,SH

Reddish clay soil.

D–E5

693.59

693.37

III

B4–5

695.13

694.85

II

F,B,P,S

Defining W12 and W21.

B3

694.99

694.65

III

F,S,B

E part of square.

A4

695.61

695.11

III

B4–5

695.01

694.67

III

F,B

Under B1399.

C4–5

694.57

694.21

II

B,F

Inside Installation 126.

1404

C4

694.44

694.22

III

F,B,S

S of W12.

1405

D5

693.67

693.47

III

F,B

Exposure of top of W26.

D–E5

693.52

693.47

III

1407

C4–5

694.71

694.35

III

1408

B4

694.87

694.82

III

1409

E6

693.49

693.37

III

B,F

Bone concentration.

1410

E6

693.49

693.37

III

B,F

Combined with B1409.

1411

D–E6

693.68

693.37

III

S,B,F

Under plaster floor.

AA5

696.41

695.94

III

S,B,F

Rich in bones & flint.

C4–5

694.53

694.03

II

B,F

Gravel layer.

B3

695.53

695.05

III

B,F,S

E of W14.

A4

695.34

695.11

III

D–E5

693.78

693.74

III

F,B,CL

Removal of plaster floor.

1417

D5

693.75

693.65

III

F,B,CL

Foundation trench of W20.

1418

C4

694.22

694.14

III

F,B

Lower part of gravel.

1419

B4–5

695.12

694.60

III

1397 1398

117

1399 1400

152

1401 1402 1403

1406

1412

126

117

146

1413 1414

113

1415 1416

119

1420

Second level under L117.

Gravel with brown soil.

Defining floor related to W26. B,F,S

Excavation of gravel layer E of W21. Fill.

Combined with B1401.

Under W12.

D–E6

693.56

693.20

III

B

Plaster sample.

1421

128

C2

696.03

695.87

III

B,F

Cleaning of outer line of Installation 128.

1423

156

C5

693.53

693.29

III

B,F

Posthole.

1424

157

E6

693.72

693.58

III

CL

Installation near W20.

1425

158

E5

693.72

693.58

IV

CL

Posthole.

1426

128

E5

693.71

693.50

III

1427

128

C2

695.26

694.89

III

F,B

Second level around Feature 128.

1428

157

E6

693.62

693.50

III

F,B,C

Circular Installation.

1429

D6

693.63

693.58

IV

B,F

Gazelle skeleton.

1430

C5

694.33

694.15

IV

B,F

Hearth (fireplace).

D–E5

693.74

693.62

III

B,F,CL

Under plaster floor

A5

695.44

695.18

III

F,B

Inside installation.

D–E5

693.62

693.44

III

CL,B

Under B1432.

1432 1433

145

1434 1435

146

Cleaning around L128.

AA5

696.09

695.99

III

F,B,S

Phase 3.

1436

D–E5

693.44

693.20

III

F,B,CH

Second layer under plaster floor.

1437

A5

695.44

695.36

III

F,B

Clearing the outer lines of Installations 145, 146.

1438

B–C2

696.12

695.61

III

B,P,F

Balk removal.

1439

146

AA5

696.55

696.36

III

B,F,S

Excavation of the N part of installation.

1440

106

D4

694.05

693.73

III

F,B,S

S of W12.

1441

119

D–E4

693.84

693.74

III

F,B,CL

As B1432

D–E4

693.74

693.54

III

F,B,S,SH

Second layer under plaster floor.

1442

146

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

Basket

Locus

Square

Opening

Closing

Layer

Finds

Notes

1443

158

D–E4

693.36

694.93

III

CL

Cleaning posthole.

D2

695.36

694.73

III

B,F,S

Probe through W19. Phase 3.

1444 1445

146

AA5

696.34

696.14

III

F,B,S

1446

145

A5

695.60

695.14

III

F,B,C

Excavation of part of installation.

AA4–5

695.77

695.27

II

B,F,P,S

Balk removal.

1447 1450

118

E4

693.87

693.82

III

B,S,F

Under burial.

1451

118

E4

693.82

693.43

III

B

Exposure of human burials.

1452

139

A5

695.34

695.30

III

F,B

Exposure of human burials.

1452

157

E4

693.34

693.30

III

F,B

1453

158

E5

693.73

693.63

III

S,B,F

1454

158

E5

693.45

693.46

III

* B = Bones; C = Charcoal; CL = Clay; F = Flint; P = Pottery; S = Stone; SH = Shells

Hearth. Posthole.

APPENDIX 1: BASKET LIST

147

IAA REPORTS

No. 1 G. Avni and Z. Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, 1996, 129 pp.

No. 11 M. Hartal, The al-Subayba (Nimrod) Fortress: Towers 11 and 9, 2001, 129 pp.

No. 2 E. Braun, Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel, 1997, 249 pp. + plans.

No. 12 R. Gonen, Excavations at Efrata: A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages, 2001, 153 pp.

No. 3 G. Edelstein, I. Milevski and S. Aurant, Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989, 1998, 149 pp.

No. 13 E. Eisenberg, A Gopher and R. Greenberg, Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley, 2001, 227 pp.

No. 4 C. Epstein, The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan, 1998, 352 pp. + plans. Hardcover.

No. 14 R. Frankel, N. Getzov, M. Aviam and A. Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, 2001, 175 pp. + color distribution maps and foldout map.

No. 5 T. Schick, The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert, 1998, 137 pp. No. 6 ,‫ התקופה הכלקוליתית‬:‫ ההתיישבות הקדומה בהר הנגב‬,‫ר' כה‬ .‫ תש"ס‬,'‫תקופת הברונזה הקדומה ותקופת הברונזה התיכונה א‬ .'‫ עמ‬396 R. Cohen, Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev: The Chalcolithic Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I (Hebrew, English Summary), 1999, 396 pp. No. 7 R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew, Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period, 1999, 202 pp. No. 8 Z. Gal and Y. Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village, 2000, 247 pp. No. 9 U. Dahari, Monastic Settlements in South Sinai in the Byzantine Period: The Archaeological Remains, 2000, 250 pp. + map. No. 10 –1980 ,1964–1962 ‫ חפירות בשני‬:‫ בית הכנסת בכורזי‬,‫ז' ייבי‬ .'‫ עמ‬216 .‫ תשס"א‬,1987 Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue at Korazim: The 1962–1964, 1980–1987 Excavations (Hebrew, English Summary), 2000, 216 pp.

No. 15 M. Dayagi-Mendels, The Akhziv Cemeteries: The Ben-Dor Excavations, 1941–1944, 2002, 176 pp. No. 16 Y. Goren and P. Fabian, Kissufim Road: A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site, 2002, 97 pp. No. 17 A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, 2003, 183 pp.

I:

No. 18 A. Golani, Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat ‘Ata, 2003, 261 pp. No. 19 H. Khalaily and O. Marder, The Neolithic Site of Abu Ghosh: The 1995 Excavations, 2003, 146 pp.