QEDEM REPORTS 11

Editorial Board Y. Garfinkel, N. Goring-Morris, T. Ornan, N. Panitz-Cohen, Z. Weiss

2018 Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon, Jeffrey R. Zorn and Sveta Matskevich EXCAVATIONS AT DOR, FINAL REPORT

VOLUME IIB

AREA G, THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGES: POTTERY, ARTIFACTS, ECOFACTS AND OTHER STUDIES

DIRECTED BY EPHRAIM STERN 1986–2000 ILAN SHARON AND AYELET GILBOA 2002–2004

with contributions by: Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, László Bartosiewicz, Hagar Ben Basat, John E. Berg, Elisabetta Boaretto, Adi Eliyahu-Behar, Marina Faerman, Christian Herrmann, Tzipi Kahana, Othmar Keel, Elicia Lisk, Stefan Münger, Yossi Salmon, Irina Segal, Sariel Shalev, Sana Shilstein, Patricia Smith, Ragna Stidsing, Philipp W. Stockhammer, Yana Vitalkov, Naama Yahalom-Mack and Irit Zohar CONTENTS

List of Illustrations...... IX

List of Abbreviations...... XIII

VOLUME IIA (QEDEM 10)

Part One: Introduction and Synthesis

Chapter 1. History of the Excavations in Area G (1986–2004), Post-Excavation Analysis (1993–2010) and Remarks on Documentation and Methods — Jeffrey R. Zorn, Ilan Sharon and Ayelet Gilboa ...... 3

Chapter 2. The Late Bronze and Iron Ages in Area G: An Architectural, Contextual, Functional and Chronological Synthesis — Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon and Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 27

Part Two: Stratigraphy

Chapter 3. Introduction to the Stratigraphy of Area G — Phases 5–12 — Ilan Sharon ...... 81

Chapter 4. East of “Cheryl’s Room”: AG/33–34—Phases 5–6/7? — Allen Estes and Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 99

Chapter 5. The “Pithoi Room”: AH–AI/33—Phases 5–10 — Allen Estes and Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 109

Chapter 6. Below “Ana’s Room”: AH/34—Phases 6–8 — Allen Estes...... 121

Chapter 7. “Cheryl’s Room”: AH–AG/33—Phases 5–8 — Allen Estes and Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 125

Chapter 8. The “Egyptian-Jars Room”: AI/31—Phases 5–12 — Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 137

Chapter 9. The Courtyard (The “Bakery” and the Bronze Smithy): AI/32–33, AJ/32—Phases 5–12 — Jeffrey R. Zorn . . 155

Chapter 10. “Doreen’s Room”: AI/33—Phases 5–10 — Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 191

Chapter 11. Fragmentary Remains of Phases 5–7 in AI/34 — Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 205

Chapter 12. The “Cult Room”: AJ/34—Phases 6–10 — Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 209

Chapter 13. The “Fish Room”: AJ/33 East–AI/33 West—Phases 6–12 — Ilan Sharon...... 219

Chapter 14. The “Antler Room”: AJ–AK/32—Phases 5–12 — Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Jeffrey R. Zorn and Ilan Sharon. 229

Chapter 15. “Sloan’s Room”: AJ/33–AK/33 West—Phases 5–10 — Ilan Sharon...... 249

Chapter 16. Iron Age Traces: AK/34 —Phases 4?/5?–6 — Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 259

Phase Plans and Section – John E. Berg and Sveta Matskevich...... 261 Volume IIB (QEDEM 11)

Part Three: Ceramics

Chapter 17. The Local and Imported Late Bronze Age II–III Pottery of Phases 12 and 11: Typology, Chronology and Cultural Setting — Ragna Stidsing and Yossi Salmon...... 3

Chapter 18. The Aegean-Type Pottery of Phases 12 and 11 — Philipp W. Stockhammer ...... 71

Chapter 19. Neutron Activation Analysis of Aegean-Type Pottery of Phase 11 — Yossi Salmon ...... 89

Chapter 20. The Iron Age Pottery of Phases 10–5: Sequence, Contexts, Typology, Cultural Affinities and Chronology — Ayelet Gilboa...... 97

Chapter 21. Quantitative Aspects of the Iron Age Pottery Assemblage — Sveta Matskevich and Ayelet Gilboa...... 173

Part Four: Artifacts, Ecofacts and Other Studies

Chapter 22. Metalworking in Area G — Naama Yahalom-Mack, Jeffery R. Zorn, Adi Eliyahu-Behar, Sana Shilstein and Sariel Shalev 195

Chapter 23. Lead Isotope Analysis of Copper-Based Artifacts from Area G — Naama Yahalom-Mack and Irina Segal...... 205

Chapter 24. The Flaked-Stone Tool Assemblage — John E. Berg ...... 211

Chapter 25. The Glyptics of Area G — Othmar Keel and Stefan Münger ...... 233

Chapter 26. Ornamental and Utilitarian Objects of the Late Bronze IIB and Iron Ages — Hagar Ben Basat With an Addendum by Christian Herrmann ...... 247

Chapter 27. Mammalian Remains — László Bartosiewicz and Elicia Lisk ...... 277

Chapter 28. Non-Mammalian Vertebrate Remains — László Bartosiewicz, Elicia Lisk and Irit Zohar...... 313

Chapter 29. The Human Skeletal Remains from Area G— Tzipi Kahana, Marina Faerman and Patricia Smith...... 323

Chapter 30. Radiocarbon Dating of the Human Skeletal Remains from Area G — Elisabetta Boaretto ...... 331

Chapter 31. Mollusk Shells from the Late Bronze Age IIB in Area G — Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer and Yana Vitalkov...... 333

VOLUME IIC (QEDEM 12)

Part Five: Pottery Plates, Phase Plans and Index of Loci

Pottery Plates – Chapter 17...... 3

Pottery Plates – Chapter 20...... 63

Phase Plans and Section – John E. Berg and Sveta Matskevich...... 241

Index of Loci – Jeffrey R. Zorn, Ilan Sharon, Elizabeth Bloch-Smith and Allen Estes...... 257 CHAPTER 28 Non-mammalian Vertebrate Remains László Bartosiewicz, Elicia Lisk and Irit Zohar

Introduction mediated preservation of some skeletal parts may be excellent, while others perish easily. Reduced gravity in Although domestic ruminants dominated the meat diet in aquatic environments tends to make many fish bones grow the assemblages from all the strata in Area G (see Chapter relatively porous. On the other extreme, most bird skeletons 27), remains from a number of other vertebrate classes were have evolved to reduce weight so as to facilitate flying by also identified. Due to difficulties of quantification (discussed producing thin, but very dense bones. Based on this difference below), these remains cannot be directly compared to those of in microstructure alone, the number of fish bones found would relatively large-bodied domestic mammals; however, many of be fewer than what might be expected, while higher-density them played a role in daily diet. Indeed, the consumption of meat bird bones would tend to make that vertebrate class over- of certain species may have had a certain prestige attached to represented. The situation is far more complex, however, as it, since some animals may have been considered luxury items there are major differences between species within the same by ancient standards. Last, but not least, fish, reptilian and class, including those of size and shape, that all influence both avian species have a far better potential for characterizing the preservation and recovery. For example, the bones of small natural environment than typical domesticates, whose keeping fish and birds are frequently ingested by scavenging dogs or and consumption may be governed by a number of economic even humans, regardless of their respective structural density. or even ideological considerations which are not applicable to Yet another source of difference is that the diagnostic the consumption of these other species. This is why, in spite of skeletal elements most precisely identifiable also vary by taxa. their smaller numbers and often non-representative quantities, In fish, bones of the skull and zonoskeleton (the body region the non-mammalian vertebrates are of special importance directly adjacent to the fish’s head that includes rudimentary in understanding the relationship between people and their bones of the shoulder and pelvic girdles) tend to be most easily natural environment. identifiable to species, and some fish have very characteristic vertebrae. On the other hand, many bird long bones are nearly impossible to precisely identify in the absence of epiphyses. Material and Methodology Last, but not least, there is a strong recovery bias when Taphonomic considerations are of special importance in the bones are collected only by hand; entire genera may be missing case of the heterogeneous group of non-mammalian vertebrate because their small bones can be retrieved only through wet remains. Due to special features of skeletal anatomy that vary sieving. In such a case, the faunal assemblages will be skewed between these classes, differential preservation and variable by large specimens at the expense of mostly small fish and bird chances of recovery and identifiability, non-mammalian species. Characteristically, the number of bones recovered in animal remains undergo diverse taphonomic processes, both Area G increased during the excavation of the stratigraphically during culturally affected biostratonomy (the phase between reliable earlier phases, because by that time, wet sieving (mesh the death of the animal and the final deposition of its remains) size=2mm; over 200 liters of the deposit retrieved from Area and subsequent, post-depositional fossil diagenesis, during G) was used to complement the dry sifting (mesh size=5mm) which a host of natural factors may modify and even destroy and hand collection of animal remains. Preliminary analyses bones during the millennia spent in the deposit. Therefore, the of the sieved materials (Lisk 1999: 69) showed that hand- bones of fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds under discussion collected and water-sieved samples differed significantly; here cannot be directly compared to those of mammals in the latter yielded significantly higher numbers of identifiable quantitative terms. In the case of fish, even though the number specimen (NISP) percentages of fish, amphibian and bird of bones per individual varies strongly, even between families, bones (Chi2=435.3, df=9, P≤0.001), as noted in Chapter 27 their total number in the skeleton is invariably far greater than as well. for mammals. Meanwhile bird skeletons consist of far fewer The resulting divergent taphonomic histories of the bones than counted in the average mammal (Bartosiewicz and various animal groups have a cumulative effect on the final Gál 2007: 42, Fig. 6). “faunal” lists painstakingly compiled by archaeozoologists; Depending on the species and its habitat, the density- certain animals will be under-represented for a number of the

313 CHAPTER 28 aforementioned reasons, leading to the relative dominance of Fish Remains others. Therefore, aside from a few exceptions, the tabulated summary of animal species presented in this paper should be Although, as discussed above, the quantification of fish remains seen largely as a documentation of the presence of certain combined from hand-collected and a small amount of wet- species. It is impossible to precisely quantify the NISP in terms sieved samples is not meaningful, NISP values for the identified of proportions and such values would not even be comparable species, genera and families are summarized in Table 28.1. The between the various classes. This is also the reason why remains effect of concerted wet-sieving in Phase 10 is shown by the from large mammals of overwhelming economic importance much greater number of partly non-identifiable fish remains. were discussed in a separate chapter (Chapter 27, note 3). Although species diversity in fish-bone assemblages is affected by the method of recovery, the number of fish species indicative of various aquatic environments offers at least an Results and Discussion impression of the basic type of fishing that was conducted. The Given the location of Dor on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea number of fish species by gross-habitat types (largely based and its long-standing maritime tradition, fish would be expected on the degree of salinity) is shown in Fig. 28.1. All fish-bone to have played an important role in the diet during the periods assemblages from Area G and the early Iron Age phases of Area under discussion. The remains of amphibians, reptiles and birds D2 are dominated by fish originating from two main habitats: alike are chiefly indicative of this coastal environment. the Eastern Mediterranean and the Nile (Raban-Gerstel et al.

Table 28.1. Habitat preference (H) of fish remains (NISP) by phase (S=sea, B=brackish, F=freshwater, N=Nile)*

Area and Phase/NISP Local (fishermen’s) name Latin name and authority H G D2 D2 D2 G D2 G G Total 6-8 8 9–10 11 9 12–13 10 11–12 Elasmobranchii S 4 3 1 12 6 26

Sardinella sp. S 3 3 (סרדין) Sardine

Cyprinus sp. F 1 1 (קרפיון) Carp

Bagrus sp. N 1 1

Clarias gariepinus Burchell, 1822 F 3 1 4 (שפמנון) Catfish

Lates niloticus Boulenger, 1907 F 22 63 45 28 23 10 142 333 (נסיכת הנילוס) Nile perch

Epinephelus aeneus Geoffroy Saint- S 4 3 5 12 (לוקוס לבן) White locus Hilaire, 1817 Da’ur, Rock Locus Epinephelus guaza Linné, 1758 S 1 1 (דאור, לוקוס סלעים) Epinephelus sp. S 22 4 23 26 2 77 (לוקוס) Locus Serranidae S 5 4 8 1 7 25 (דקריים) Sea bass

Umbrina cirrosa Linné, 1758 B 7 7 (קורבל) Korbal Dicentrarchus labrax Linné, 1758 B 3 3 (לברק) Labrak

Argyrosomus regius Asso, 1801 B 7 6 5 18 (מוסר) Mussar Sciaena umbra Linné, 1758 B 4 1 9 14 (סאינס) Saienes Scianidae B 1 4 5 (מוסריים) Drum, Croaker

Denise, Tchipura Sparus aurata Linné, 1758 3 7 10 (דניס, צ׳יפורה)

314 Non-mammalian Vertebrate Remains

Table 28.1. Continued

Area and Phase/NISP Local (fishermen’s) name Latin name and authority H G D2 D2 D2 G D2 G G Total 6-8 8 9–10 11 9 12–13 10 11–12 Pagrus pagrus Linné, 1758 S 2 2 (פרידה) Faridha Sparidae S 36 34 11 5 47 2 32 11 178

Sarotherodon galilaeus Linné, 1758 F 1 1 (אמנון, מושט) Musht

Euthynnus alletteratus Rafinesque, S 4 2 6 (טונה) Tuna 1810

Barbunia, Sultan Ibrahim Liza ramada Risso, 1826 B 3 4 2 9 (ברבוניה) Mugil cephalus Linné, 1758 B 9 1 1 11 (בורי) Bouri Mugilidae B 14 12 2 2 30

Sea-pig, Khanzir Balistes carolinensis Gmelin, 1789 S 4 13 6 6 1 30 (נצרן, חזיר–ים, איילת–ים) Pisces ? 3 16 623 165 807 Total 106 148 86 35 117 29 737 356 1614 * Species lists from Area D2 were summarized in Raban-Gerstel et al. 2008; local names with transliterations in Hebrew were provided by Ilan Sharon

2008). Sparidae have robust bones that are easily identified, rarely and poorly preserved. As the latter are widely distributed while fish in the sub-class Elasmobranchii include cartilaginous along the Mediterranean coast, one may suppose that their species, such as shark and rays, whose skeletal remains would be dietary importance was greater than shown by the archaeological record. Those fish preferring brackish waters must also have been easily available in the proximity of the site. Several species of drum, for example, move between the demersal zone and brackish waters throughout their life cycles. In Fig. 28.2, NISP values are compared for all species represented by over ten

Fig. 28.1. The number of fish species characteristic of gross Fig. 28.2. The percentual distribution of 441 identifiable fish categories of aquatic habitats based on salinity. Assemblage size bones (except for large Nile perch and species represented for fish (NISP) is shown in each phase. Nile perch is marked by by NISP>10), showing the proportion of groups of sea fish an asterisk. (d10Z1-1189) throughout the sequences in Areas G and D2. (d10Z1-1190)

315 CHAPTER 28 identifiable bones (total NISP=441), excluding large Nile perch commonly found at prehistoric sites in Egypt (Van Neer (NISP=333), since the latter freshwater species is dominant in 1994: 21). Along the Nile, bones originating exclusively so many hand-collected assemblages. from small individuals were interpreted as being indicative The remaining major groups of fish shown in the graph of catching Nile perch only in the floodplain, rather than in (Fig. 28.2) show the importance of sea fish that could have the main stream of the river (Van Neer 1989: 53). Bones been caught offshore using small boats, or in brackish waters. of Nile perch were first reported from Israel by Hanan The exploitation of marine fauna at coastal Dor does not come Lernau (1986/87). In the absence of additional finds at that as a surprise and the composition of the assemblage falls in time, Lernau contemplated the possibility that these bones line with the observation Van Neer, Zohar and Lernau (2005) originated from an autochtonous Levantine population. Since made at contemporaneous sites in the eastern Mediterranean this publication, Nile perch bones have been identified not that most fish could be obtained without deep-sea fishing. only from Bronze Age Cyprus, where it could not have been Indirect evidence for this tendency is shown by the relative native (Rose 1994), but also from a number of Bronze Age, as paucity of tuna, as well as the lack of bones from swordfish, well as Iron Age and later settlements in Israel, for example, baccala and sole, etc., in the assemblages from Areas G and Iron Age II Jerusalem—in the Ophel (Lernau and Lernau D2 (Raban-Gerstel et. al. 2008). 1989), the City of David (Lernau and Lernau 1992) and the Freshwater fish species in the assemblage require more of Jewish Quarter (Kolska-Horwitz and Lernau 2003), as well an explanation. The carp (Cyprinidae) family is represented as Late Bronze Age through Persian Period specimens from by over a dozen species known from the lakes and rivers of Tel Harrassim (Lernau 1996; 2002a). Consistent discoveries Israel (Lernau 1995: 101). The exact species for this cypranic of various Bronze Age specimens, and the ubiquity of Nile fish found at Dor could not be identified. The remaining perch in Iron Age Israelite and Phoenician assemblages three freshwater species, however, point to potential long- (Lernau 2000a, 2000b; 2002b; 2004; Lernau and Golani distance trade links with Africa. Today, the Bagrus catfish 2004), have recently lent more weight to the fact that these species inhabits the Nile river, generally preferring deeper large fish were Egyptian imports. Bones of Nile perch have waters with considerable current, although they have been come to light at over 30 sites, ranging from the Chalcolithic found in shallow waters as well. The genus Clarias is also of (Lernau 1996) to the Early Islamic periods (Lernau 2004: African origin. They are spread in freshwater habitats of the 345). They have been found at Lachish in combination with southern Levant and Africa in muddy, deoxygenated waters the remains of other kinds of freshwater fish, such as Baridae, and can withstand even partial drying of the environment Mormyridae and Citharinidae, that must have been imported by burrowing or by moving to the closest body of water from the Nile Valley (Lernau and Golani 2004: 2841). This (Brewer and Friedman 1989: 60). Consequently, they may seems to be the pattern repeated in Areas G and D2 at Dor as be gathered even without specialized fishing gear. DNA well (Fig. 28.3). analyses of catfish (Clarias gariepinus Burchell, 1822) Although the niches of predatory Nile perch and hippo remains from Egypt, Israel, Syria and Turkey have shown (Hippopotamus amphibius Linné 1758), a large aquatic that, indeed, all of them originated from the lower Nile mammal, are not directly comparable, both species require (Arndt et al. 2003). large bodies of fresh water. Fig. 28.3 shows archaeological While the commercial name of African tilapia originates sites (marked by period) where sporadic remains of Nilotic from thiape, the Tswana word for “fish”, species in the large fish and hippo (Tsahar et al. 2009) were revealed. As noted Cichlidae family go by many names. The name “St. Peter’s in Chapter 27, two hippo bones were found in Areas B1 and fish” comes from the account in the New Testament about that D2 at Dor. Hippos thrive in marshland, a type of habitat that apostle catching a fish that held a shekel coin in its mouth, must have dominated the coastal plain of Israel. Nile perch, on although, in fact, the passage does not specify the kind of fish the other hand, is a demersal and potamodromous fish with a (Matthew 17: 27: “take up the fish that first cometh up; and depth range of 10–60 m that needs well-oxygenated bodies of when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of water. The relatively small carrying capacity and seasonally money”). While the name tilapia also applies to John Dory fluctuating levels of rivers in Israel may not have favored this (Zeus faber Linné, 1758), a deep sea fish, this tilapia species fish species. (Sarotherodon galilaeus Linné, 1758) is found in the wild only Arguments against the theory that Nile perch were imported in the Jordan-Sea of Galilee watershed (the biblical account should also be mentioned. The absence of associated Nilotic refers to the Sea of Galilee). This fish has been the target of fish species and the complexity of trade routes were seen as small-scale artisanal fisheries in the region for thousands of circumstantial evidence for the local origins of Nile perch years (Baker 1988). identified at Byzantine Upper Zohar (Lernau 1995: 104). The The case of another freshwater species, Nile perch, has sheer ubiquity of this fish was also a consideration. Moreover, been the subject of much debate and study. The total length at some Levantine sites, such Nilotic fish species would seem of this fish may reach 200 cm, with a maximum weight of to be the only trade item originating from Egypt (Van Neer et ca. 200 kg. This is clearly shown in a wall painting from the al. 2004). tomb of Prince Rahotep at Medun, Egypt, from about 2800 Naturally, as noted above, the frequent occurrence of BCE, in which two men carry a large Nile perch matching bones from large fish, such as the Nile perch, has todo the size of their own bodies (Lernau 1986/87: 236). This with the dominance of hand collection. Bones reaching artistic rendition is a reminder that fully grown individuals the size of a child’s fist, such as the commonly occurring of this fish need deep water (Berra 2001). Its bones are vertebrae from Late Bronze and Iron Ages contexts in Area

316 Non-mammalian Vertebrate Remains

Fig. 28.4. The size distribution of Nile perch vertebrae (cranial breadth) recovered from the Late Bronze IIB and early Iron Age strata in Area G. (d10Z1-1192)

Amphibians and Reptiles

While the small bones of frogs and toads were recovered only sporadically from wet-sieved samples, they are unlikely to have originated from intentional anthropogenic deposits. Most came from Locus 18351 of Phase 11 (Late Bronze IIB). These remains may be seen as indicators of some humidity in certain parts of the settlement. However, one cannot safely say whether this part of the site was damper in the Late Bronze Fig. 28.3. The distribution of Nilotic fish remains (all studied than in the Iron Age on the basis of such a small number of periods) in Israel, alongside prehistoric sites with hippopotamus bones. remains (Ch=Chalcolithic, EB=Early Bronze Age, MB=Middle The class of reptiles is represented by the remains of Bronze Age, IR=early Iron Age). (d10Z1-1191) tortoises and turtles (Table 28.2); the latter, especially, may have played some role in the diet and possibly also provided raw material for turtle-shell manufacturing. The natural habitat of Greek tortoise includes semi-arid scrub and Mediterranean forest to the verges of semi-desert. G at Dor, are easily spotted during excavation. While the The vegetation of such habitats is subject to marked seasonal absence of information on their exact location within the fluctuations in southern regions and therefore, Greek tortoise vertebral column renders these bones poor predictors of tends to be active throughout the mild winter and estivates overall body size, their distribution is nonetheless indicative during the summer. It remains a question whether the few bone of the presence of especially large specimens in the Bronze specimens found in Areas G and D2 at Dor (NISP­=6) were Age. Although Lisk (1999: 68, Fig. 29) did not distinguish introduced by humans. The same holds true for the sporadic between precaudal (abdominal) and caudal vertebrae, her remains of pond turtle, whose presence is consistent with the measurements are somewhat smaller than the average of the broader marshy environment of the site. chronologically pooled sample (Fig. 28.4). While caudal Nile softshell turtle is mainly a freshwater species adapted vertebrae tend to be narrower and more elongated within to moderately deep to shallow rivers, including estuaries and the same individual, similarities between the breadths of the lakes. Its presence in marine environments is little known and two types of vertebrae may be indicative of standardized thus, it joins the group of some Nilotic fish and the hippos, “commercial” cuts of comparable sizes, regardless of whose earlier range of natural distribution, according to the animal’s trunk segment selected for consumption. Lernau (1986/87), may have included the Levantine coast. In Hypothetically, this may be regarded as a step in processing any case, a complete turtle shell found in Phase 11 at Area and preserving Nile perch, a prerequisite for long-distance D2 is suggestive of this animal providing an appreciated raw shipping. material (Raban-Gerstel et al. 2008: 44, Fig. 10), although

317 CHAPTER 28

Table 28.2. The phasing and habitat preference (H) of frog/toad and reptile remains (NISP) (A=aquatic [freshwater], G=grassland, H=humid, S=sea)

Area and Phase/NISP Taxon Latin Name H D2 G9 G10 G11–12 Total Ir1a–Ir2a Ir1a late Ir1a early LBII Toad/Frog Anura H 1 12 13 Greek tortoise Testudo graeca Linné, 1758 G 2 1 3 6 Pond turtle Emys orbicularis Linné, 1758 A 4 1 5 Nile softshell turtle Trionyx triunguis Forskål, 1775 A 8 27 1 36 Green turtle Chelonia mydas Linné, 1758 S 12 12 Total 10 1 44 17 72 it does not answer the question regarding the autochtonous be indicative of humid environments that are rich in flying versus imported nature of these animals. and/or water-skimming insects near ponds, rivers, streams Today, green turtle, the only species in the genus Chelonia, and marshland. Swallow species that build mud nests also especially endangered along the Levantine coast, is globally prefer habitats in which mud is plentiful, while the artificially distributed in warm seas. Adult individuals are commonly built environment of the ancient settlement may have readily found in shallow lagoons, such as those near Dor, feeding on provided nesting spots for these birds. marine vegetation. Therefore, even if they were exploited only Grassland species include geese representing two genera, opportunistically, they could be easily targeted. Along with whose exact species and domestic status cannot be identified. the composition of the fish-bone material, these turtle finds Given the close contacts with Egypt (also indicated by the point to the exploitation of the littoral zone, rather than deep- aforementioned fish imports), the possibility cannot be ruled sea fishing (Van Neer, Zohar and Lernau 2005). out that some geese were already domesticated. Bones of domestic hen of East Asian origins also occur in the early Birds Iron Age assemblage. Hens are omnivorous and, being domesticates, they would be poor indicators of the natural The bones of wild birds recovered at archaeological sites habitat. Their presence at Dor is interesting, as the Iron Age are important sources of environmental information due was a time of westward expansion of this species, followed to analogous habitat preferences seen in modern bird by its rapid dispersal in Europe (West and Zhou 1988). Finds populations (e.g., Peterson, Mountfort and Hollom 1969). from Tel Lachish (Drori 1978) and Tel Hesban (Boessneck Size-related recovery bias may be only a partial explanation and von den Driesch 1978) yielded the first known early Iron for the low representation of this vertebrate class at Dor. Age bones of domestic hen in the Levant. It seems unlikely that even larger birds would have played Recovered from Area D2 (Raban-Gerstel et al. 2008), a significant roles in the diet, although some two-thirds of single bone from Eurasian griffon stands out in this avian the species identified would be considered of potential food assemblage; it would be a bird of rocky mountainous habitats, value even by modern standards (Lisk 1999: 69). NISP values but may be considered vagrant. This individual must have for the identified species and higher taxa are summarized in originated from the Mount Carmel range beyond the coastal Table 28.3. plain that slopes gradually from the south and forms a steep Of the 198 bird bones, 104 were identifiable to species (or ridge on its western face. The presence of this bird in the genus), representing 15 taxa; the pooled avifauna from Areas southern edge of a settlement of possibly peninsular shape G and D2, therefore, is relatively rich. Using the regression would be consistent with the possibility of fish processing equation developed for 29 Neolithic bird bone assemblages during the early Iron Age (Raban-Gerstel et al. 2008: 45) from the Danube basin (Bartosiewicz and Gál 2007: 43, and the subsequent disposal of carcasses that took place there Table 1), the expected number of species at Dor would be during the Persian period (Bartosiewicz 2003: 173). This 11, somewhat less than the number of species identified. The area may have been designated for dealing with such organic source of this richness at Dor is, in part, that most of the bird refuse, whose smell was diverted from the settlement by the bones under discussion here originated from the wet-sieved coastal winds. fractions of Phase 10 and from Area D2 that also contained the As for the seasonal interpretation of bird remains, even bones of relatively small avian species. today, a great number of migratory species cross over Israel As for the environmental indicator value of the avian annually, commuting between their breeding grounds in remains, the assemblage contained comparable numbers Eurasia towards their wintering quarters in Africa. Given of aquatic (largely fresh or brackish water) and grassland the limited extent of prehistoric fowling and detrimental species. In addition to evidently water-bound species, such taphonomic factors, such as poor preservation and recovery, as cormorant or coot, largely ubiquitous swallows would also only a fraction of the birds exploited would be represented

318 Non-mammalian Vertebrate Remains

Table 28.3. The phasing and habitat preference (H) of bird remains (NISP) (A=aquatic [freshwater], S=sea, G=grassland, D=domestic, M/V=mountain/vagrant, U=ubiquitous)

Area and phase/NISP Taxon Latin name H G 6–8 G 9 G 10 D2 G 11–12 Total Ir2a – Ir1a/b Ir1a late Ir1a early Ir1a – Ir2a LBII Pelecaniformes Phalacrocoracidae Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Linné, 1758 A 2 2 4 Pelecanidae White pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus Linné, 1758 A 1 3 1 5 Ciconiformes Ardeidae Egret Ardeola ibis Linné, 1758 A 2 2 Ciconiidae White stork Ciconia ciconia Linné, 1758 G 5 5 Anseriformes Anatidae Goose Anser sp. G/D? 10 2 12 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Linné, 1758 A 16 6 6 28 Egyptian goose Alopochen sp. G/D? 7 6 13 Accipitriformes Accipitridae Eurasian griffon Gyps fulvus Linné, 1758 M/V 1 1 Small raptor Falconiformes 1 1 Galliformes Phasianidae Chukar partridge Alectoris chukar Gray, 1830 G 2 1 2 5 Domestic hen Gallus domesticus Linné, 1758 D 9 9 Gruiformes Rallidae Common coot Fulica atra Linné, 1758 A 1 1 Gruidae Common crane Grus grus Linné, 1758 G 1 1 Charadriiformes Chararidriidae S 4 4 Rostratulidae Black-winged stilt Himantopus himantopus Linné, 1758 A 2 2 Gull family Laridae S 5 2 7 Swallow family Hirundinidae U 4 4 Pigeon-size ? 8 2 10 Goose-size ? 19 19 Pelican-size ? 5 5 Aves non-identifiable ? 2 4 36 18 60 Total 2 4 101 50 41 198

319 CHAPTER 28

In any case, it is probably the quality represented by fish and bird remains that mattered. Among fish, marine taxa easily caught in brackish waters and the littoral zone overwhelmingly dominate, while fresh-water fish remains seem to originate from various fish potentially imported from Egypt; it is also possible that the bones of Egyptian geese arrived with imported food. All this seems likely in light of the intensive contacts with Egypt evident at Dor during the Late Bronze and early Iron Ages, although convincing direct archaeozoological evidence for such imports is missing. However, there is evidence of imports from Egypt in Area G in the form of Egyptian storage jars made of Nile clay that are present between Phases 6a and 12 (Chapters 17; 20), as well as scarabs (Gilboa, Sharon and Zorn 2004; Chapter 25, this volume). The presence of these artifacts seems consonant with the relative wealth of exotic freshwater fish, soft-shell turtle and some of the goose remains that may well have originated from Egypt. A thorough summary tentatively correlating trade in Egyptian goods and fish specifically based on an analysis of textual sources and finds from 27 sites in the Levant Fig. 28.5. The annual presence of bird species identified at throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages has been published modern-day Dor; sporadic seasonal occurrences of Egyptian by Van Neer et al. (2004: 120–127). The authors point to goose (marked by asterisks) complement those of greylag goose. the importance of better chronological sequences and more (d10Z1-1193) precise quantification in further testing of relevant research hypotheses. Although most bird remains originate from highly edible in the archaeological record. The modern-day seasonal species, fowling must have played a tertiary role in meat presence of the bird species (Shirihai 1996) identified at Dor provisioning at Dor. Birds, however, are important indicators is summarized in Fig. 28.5. Chukar is the only resident bird in of the natural environment in the coastal plain and the marshy the list, although common coot and mallard, who are passage zone adjacent to the settlement. While the domestic status of migrants, are also frequent winter/summer visitors. However, geese could not be established, domestic hen first appears at they are rare breeders in the study area, therefore cannot be this site during the early Iron Age. There may have been some considered true residents today. Common crane is another prestige attached to keeping or even eating these rare birds at passage-migrant winter visitor. Other species that are common that early time. migrant winter/summer visitors include egret, white stork While relatively small in number, non-mammalian and black-winged stilt. Great cormorant and white pelican remains from Area G at Dor show the complementary are non-breeding, passage-migrant summer visitors. Greylag role these animals played in the local diet during the Late goose is a rare passage-migrant winter visitor. Shirihai (1996) Bronze and early Iron Ages. The port was a transit point mentioned 511 bird species currently recorded in the territory for maritime trade and eventually developed elites to whom of Israel. Of these, 34 belong to Anseriformes. However, the luxury meat (imported fish, game birds, newly introduced occurrence of Egyptian goose in the wild has been considered domestic hen) must have become a form of routine self only accidental until the 1980s. Recent records are of a feral representation. populations, many of which may be descendants from escapees from zoos (apparently mainly from the Ramat Gan Safari Acknowledgements Park) that started to breed in the Tel Aviv area as recently as 1978 (Shirihai 1996). Parts of this study rely on relevant chapters of the M.Sc. thesis by Elicia Lisk (1999). Special thanks go to Omri Lernau and the late Eitan Tchernov for their help with Conclusions identifications. Erika Gál kindly revised the section on bird Despite the relatively small NISP of non-mammalian exploitation. Special thanks are due to Jeffrey R. Zorn, Ilan vertebrate remains and multifactorial taphonomic loss (caused Sharon and Ayelet Gilboa for their thorough reading of the by differential preservation and recovery techniques), the manuscript. Nava Panitz-Cohen is thanked for her insightful taxonomic richness of fish and avian remains is quite high. editing of the text and constructive remarks. Work by László This shows that they played a visible role in Late Bronze Age Bartosiewicz was carried out within the framework of the and early Iron Age diets at Dor. Therefore, identifications 1999–2000 Research Project (ISR-3/98) of the Hungarian- can be most safely interpreted on a presence/absence basis, Israeli Cooperation in Science and Technology; two short rather than in terms of the quantitative contribution of fish, study trips in 2001 and 2003 were sponsored by The Hebrew reptiles and birds. University of Jerusalem.

320 Non-mammalian Vertebrate Remains

Bibliography 1992–1996 Seasons. (Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 18). Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Arndt, A., Van Neer, W., Hellemans, B., Robben, J., Volckaert, Lernau, O. 2002a. Fish Remains at Tel Harassim. Pp. 4–13 in F. and Waelkens, M. 2003. Roman Trade Relationships at Givon, S. (ed.). The Eleventh Season of Excavation at Sagalassos (Turkey) Elucidated by Ancient DNA of Fish Tel Harassim (Nahal Barkai) 2000. Tel Aviv–Ramat Remains. JAS 30: 1095–1105. Gan. Baker, J. 1988. Simply Fish. Faber and Faber. London. Lernau, O. 2002b. Fish Remains. Pp. 409–427 in Scheftelowitz, N. Bartosiewicz, L. 2003. “There is Something Rotten in the and Oren, R. (eds.). Tel Kabri. The 1986–1993 Excavation State…” Bad Smells in Antiquity. Journal of European Seasons. (Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 20). Archaeology 6.2: 171–191. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Bartosiewicz, L. and Gál, E. 2007. Sample Size and Taxonomic Lernau, O. 2004. Fish Remains from Early Bronze Age Ashqelon, Richness in Mammalian and Avian Bone Assemblages Afridar. ‘Atiqot 45: 299–303. from Archaeological Sites. Archeometriai Műhely 1: 37–44. Lernau, O. and Golani, D. 2004. Section B: The Osteological Berra, T.M. 2001. Freshwater Fish Distribution. University of Remains (Aquatic). Pp. 2456–2489 in Ussishkin, D. (ed.). Chicago Press. Chicago. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish Boessneck, J. and von den Driesch, A. 1978. Preliminary (1973–1974). (Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series Analysis of the Animal Bones from Tell Hesban. Andrews 22). Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. University Seminary Studies 16: 259–287. Lisk, E. 1999. Tel Dor: An Iron Age Port City. Zooarchaeological Brewer, D.J. and Friedman, R. F. 1989. Fish and Fishing in Analysis. M.Sc. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Ancient Egypt. Aris and Phillips. Warminster. Peterson, R. T., Mountfort, G. and Hollom, P.A.D. 1977. Európa Drori, I. 1978. The Faunal Remains. Tel Aviv 5: 88. madarai (A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. and Zorn, J. 2004. Dor and Iron Age Europe). Gondolat Könyvkiadó. Budapest. Chronology: Scarabs, Ceramic Sequence and 14C. Tel Raban-Gerstel, N., Bar-Oz, G. Zohar, G., Sharon, I. and Gilboa, A. Aviv 31/1: 32–59. 2008. Early Iron Age Dor (Israel): A Faunal Perspective. Kolska-Horwitz, L. and Lernau, O. 2003. Animal Remains. Pp. BASOR 349: 25–59. 493–495 in Geva, H. (ed.). Jewish Quarter Excavations in Rose, M.J. 1994. With Line and Glittering Bronze Hook: Fishing the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, in the Aegean Bronze Age. Ph.D. Dissertation. Indiana 1969–1982. Vol. II. The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. University, Bloomington. Final Report. Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem. Shirihai, H. 1996. The Birds of Israel. Princeton University Press. Lernau, H. 1986/87. Subfossil Remains of Nile Perch (Lates Princeton. cf. niloticus); First Evidence from Ancient Israel. Israel Tsahar, E., Izhaki, I., Lev-Yadun, S. and Bar-Oz, G. 2009. Journal of Zoology 34: 225–236. Distribution and Extinction of Ungulates during the Lernau, H. and Lernau, O. 1989. Fish Bone Remains. Pp. 155–161 Holocene of the Southern Levant. PLoS ONE 4(4): www. in Mazar, E. and Mazar, B. (eds.). Excavations in the South plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal. of the Temple Mount, the Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem, pone.0005316 (Qedem 29). Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew Van Neer, W. 1989. Fishing along the Prehistoric Nile. Pp. University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. 4–56 in Krzyżaniak, L. and Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.). Late Lernau, H. and Lernau, O. 1992. Fish Remains. Pp. 131–148 Prehistory of the Nile Basin and the Sahara. Studies in in De Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T. (eds.). Excavations at the African Archaeology, Vol. 2. Poznań Archaeological City of David 1978–1985, Final Rreport. Vol. III. (Qedem Museum. Poznań. 33). Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Van Neer, W. 1994. La pêche dans le Nil égyptien durant la Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Préhistoire. Archéo-Nil, Bulletin de la société pour Lernau, O. 1995. The Fish Remains from Upper Zohar. Pp. 99– l’étude des cultures prépharaoniques d la vallée du Nil 111 in Harper, R.P. (ed.). Upper Zohar. An Early Byzantine 4: 1–25. Fort in Palestina Tertia. Final Report of Excavations in Van Neer, W., Lernau, O., Friedman, R., Mumford, G., 1985–1986. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Poblome, J. and Waelkens, M. 2004. Fish Remains Lernau, O. 1996. Fish Remains from Tel Harassim. Pp. 14–23 from Archaeological Sites as Indicators of Former Trade in Givon, S. (ed.). The Sixth Season of Excavations at Tel Connections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Paléorient Harassim (Nahal Barkai) 1995. Tel Aviv–Ramat Gan. 30/1: 101–148. Lernau, O. 2000a. Fish Bones from Horbat Rosh Zayit. Pp. 233– Van Neer, W., Zohar, I. and Lernau, O. 2005. The Emergence 237 in Gal, Z. and Alexander, Y. (eds.) Horbat Rosh Zayit. of Fishing Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. (IAA Reports 8). Region: A Survey of Evidence from Pre- and Protohistoric Israel Antiquities Authority. Jerusalem. Periods. Paléorient 31.1: 131–157. Lernau, O. 2000b. Fish Bones. Pp. 463–477 in Finkelstein, I., West, B. and Zhou, B.-X. 1988. Did Chickens Go North? New Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. (eds.). Megiddo III – The Evidence for Domestication. JAS 15: 515–533.

321