Zooarchaeology of Early Bronze Age Nahal Tillah

Overview:

Though the phases of the Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant are distinct, many zooarchaeological analyses do not consistently distinguish between its phases or sub-phases. Hampered by small sample sizes (often fewer than 100 specimens) and mixed deposits, analysts are forced to lump together the bones from different phases into one category, sometimes as broad as “Early Bronze Age,” essentially covering a period of 1000 years or longer. In their article entitled “Animal Exploitation in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant: An Overview,” (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989) stress that distinctions within different phases of the Early Bronze Age are important for understanding the role of the subsistence economy in forming and maintaining complex societies. They state that, except for two sites (Arad and Tel Yarmouth), no large Early Bronze Age animal bone assemblages have yet been studied (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989:281) and call for more analyses to be undertaken on larger assemblages from distinct phases of the Early Bronze Age. More recent work has focused on the different phases of the Early Bronze Age, but little attention has been given to defining differences within distinct sub-phases.

This data publication presents the entire corpus of analyzed faunal remains (7,523 specimens) from Early Bronze I levels at the Halif Terrace, located in the area of interface between the southern Mediterranean coast, the northern Negev desert, and the southern Shephelah. Substantial zooarchaeological materials recovered from the Early Bronze IA (EB IA) and from two distinct phases of the Early Bronze IB (EB IB), provide important information about animal exploitation in the different phases of the Early Bronze I in light of the paucity of zooarchaeological analyses of distinct Early Bronze I sequences from sites in the southern Levant.

The data set provides information on changes in the animal economy between the various phases of the EB I that occurred alongside the social and economic changes reflected in the architecture and artifact assemblages. Examination of the economy in each of the phases of the Early Bronze I has placed particular attention on the Late EB IB when there is evidence for an Egyptian presence at the site.

The data set presented here has been used as the basis for several studies (see list of related publications below).

Methodological Notes:

Recovery and Analysis:

Excavations at the Halif Terrace were part of the Nahal Tillah Regional Archaeological Research Project, jointly sponsored by the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Hebrew Union College (HUC). Excavations took place during three summers, from 1994-1996. The project was a field school co-directed by Thomas E. Levy of UCSD and the late David Alon of HUC. Animal bones from the Halif Terrace were collected separately from human bones, in paper bags by locus and basket. Dry-sieving (1/4 inch mesh) was carried out on all pits and other more primary contexts.

The animal bone assemblage reported here was analyzed by two researchers. Caroline Grigson (University College London) identified all faunal remains recovered during the first two seasons (1994 and 1995), as well as remains from Chalcolithic contexts recovered in 1996. Sarah Whitcher Kansa (The Alexandria Archive Institute) identified all faunal remains from Early Bronze contexts recovered during the 1996 excavations. Grigson and Kansa split the data analysis, Grigson choosing to analyze the Chalcolithic data from all three excavation seasons, and Kansa taking responsibility for reporting on the entire corpus of Early Bronze I faunal remains.The data set published here comprises 7,523 specimens from Early Bronze I levels (ca. 3600 – 3000 BCE) from all excavation years (63% analyzed by Grigson and 37% by Kansa.

Identification and Quantification:

A bone was deemed “identifiable” if both the skeletal element and the taxon could be determined. The “identifiability” of a bone depends on how much and which parts of the original element are present. Thus, the more fragmented an element is, the less identifiable it is. “Unidentifiable” bones are those for which the element (and, normally thus, the taxon) could not be identified. Unidentifiable bones were sorted by fragment size, counted, rebagged and stored. Identifiable bones were separated into animal size and body part categories and counted. During laboratory analysis, a catalog number was assigned to each bone, but for the sake of expediency, bone numbers were not written on the individual specimens. Instead, the range of catalog numbers was written on the outside of each bag and each box containing multiple bags. Modern breaks were refit, but ancient breaks were left separate and were noted in the database. Unless otherwise indicated, all results are based on NISP counts (number of identified specimens). All measurements, except where noted, follow the methods described by von den Driesch (1976). Distinctions between sheep and goat were facilitated by Boessneck et al (1964), Boessneck (1969) and Prummel and Frisch (1986). Two published sources were used to determine mortality patterns among sheep/goat through tooth eruption and wear analysis, that of Payne (Payne 1973) and of Zeder (1991: 93), who expanded on Payne’s method. Sheep, goat, cattle, and pig fusion stages are based on Silver (1969).

Related Publications: