A spatial and chronological examination of butchering skill in the Levantine Early Bronze Age: analysis of the butchery marks from Tel Arad, Israel.

By Trent Cheney

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Anthropology University of Manitoba Winnipeg

Copyright © 2020 by Trent Cheney i Trent Cheney Table of Contents List of Figures ...... iv List of Tables ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vii Abstract ...... viii I. Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 A. Introduction to the problem...... 1 B. Geographic and temporal context ...... 1 C. Early Bronze Age provisioning ...... 2 D. Introduction to data ...... 3 E. Butchering and skill ...... 4 F. Hypotheses ...... 5 1. General ...... 5 2. Specific ...... 5 3. Criteria for identifying skilled versus unskilled butchering ...... 6 G. Method ...... 7 H. Conclusions ...... 8 II. Chapter 2: The ethnography of butchering ...... 10 A. Introduction ...... 10 B. Butchering stages ...... 11 1. Slaughtering ...... 12 2. Skinning ...... 15 3. Disarticulation ...... 16 4. Carving ...... 17 5. Filleting ...... 18 6. Consumption ...... 19 C. Conclusion ...... 20 III. Chapter 3: Data Description ...... 21 A. Introduction ...... 21 B. Chronology of the EB in the southern Levant ...... 21 C. Regional culture history ...... 23 D. Settlement pattern of the EB in the southern Levant ...... 23 1. Regional settlement patterns ...... 23 2. Intra-site settlement patterns ...... 25 ii Trent Cheney

E. Socio-Political organization of the EB of the southern Levant ...... 26 F. Technology and productive specialization in the EB of the southern Levant ...... 27 1. Lithics in the EB of the southern Levant ...... 27 2. Metalworking in the EB of the southern Levant ...... 28 G. EB faunal exploitation ...... 29 H. Tel Arad ...... 31 1. Introduction ...... 31 2. Chronology ...... 31 3. Nature of occupation ...... 32 4. Site description...... 33 5. Some relevant artefact types from the EB settlement ...... 34 6. Faunal data ...... 35 7. Butchering data ...... 36 I. Conclusion ...... 37 IV. Chapter 4: zooarchaeological analytical methods in butchering analysis ...... 38 A. Analytical domain – Zooarchaeology ...... 38 B. Zooarchaeological analysis ...... 38 1. Taphonomy ...... 38 2. Taxonomic identification ...... 38 3. Element and part of element identification ...... 39 4. Symmetry, age, and pathology of elements ...... 39 C. Butchering marks ...... 39 1. Identifying natural vs human-made marks ...... 40 2. Human-made butchering marks ...... 41 D. Quantification...... 42 1. Assemblage taxonomic frequency quantification methods ...... 42 2. Butchering quantification methods ...... 43 3. Butchering incidence ...... 44 E. Butchering efficiency ...... 45 1. Processing intensity ...... 45 2. Slicing mark incidence frequency ...... 46 3. Butchering mark frequency...... 46 F. Identifying butchering technology ...... 46 1. Technique for reconstructing butchering tool technology ...... 47 iii Trent Cheney

G. Chronological and spatial analysis ...... 48 1. Chronological analysis ...... 49 2. Spatial analysis...... 49 H. Statistics ...... 50 I. Conclusion ...... 51 V. Chapter 5: Data analysis ...... 52 A. Introduction ...... 52 B. Analysis ...... 52 1. Quantification ...... 52 2. Butchering stages and taxon ...... 53 3. Butchering technology ...... 55 4. Butchering Efficiency ...... 56 5. Chronological analysis ...... 60 6. Spatial analysis...... 62 7. Statistics ...... 67 C. Discussion ...... 73 VI. Chapter 6 Conclusions ...... 75 A. Introduction ...... 75 B. Hypotheses tested ...... 75 C. Analytical measures ...... 76 D. Issues during analysis ...... 77 E. Conclusion ...... 78 VII. Appendix A – Figures ...... 80 VIII. Appendix B – Tables ...... 88 IX. References ...... 115

iv Trent Cheney List of Figures Figure 1. Google map showing location of Tel Arad, Israel. Figure 2. Plan map of the Early Bronze Age II structures from Stratum III excavated at Tel Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1996, Plate 69). Figure 3. Plan map of the Early Bronze Age II structures from Stratum II excavated at Tel Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1996, Plates 86 and 97) in Areas T and M. Figure 4. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 393 face A (cm scale) with butchering mark from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Ovis/Capra, femur, shaft, posterior face) excavated at Tel Arad. Figure 5. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen Arad 393 face B (cm scale) with butchering mark from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Ovis/Capra, femur, shaft, lateral face) excavated at Tel Arad. Figure 6. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 3 cm scale) with two butchering mark incidences from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Medium mammal, long bone shaft fragment) excavated at Tel Arad. Figure 7. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 41 cm scale) with grooves made by a bifacially produced or bifacially retouched, chipped stone blade from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Ovis aries, cranium, horn, lateral face) excavated at Tel Arad. Figure 8. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 266 - cm scale) with grooves made by a unifacial produced (unretouched) chipped stone blade/flake from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Bos taurus, radius, distal shaft, posterior face, locus 5289) excavated at Tel Arad. Figure 9. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 5.2 cm scale) with grooves made by an unretouched, chipped stone flake from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Large mammal, rib, shaft, lateral face) excavated at Tel Arad. Figure 10. BMF per BI for butchering activity v Trent Cheney List of Tables Table 1. Chronology of the Early Bronze age of the southern Levant and neighboring regions (Regev 2013). Table 2a: Butchering assemblage. Table 2b: Quantification of slicing marks. Table 2c: Quantification of slicing marks examined under microscope. Table 2d: Quantification of spatial/chronological information. Table 3: Bones with multiple slicing incidences. Table 4a: Comparison of bNISP and BI quantification in butchering activity. Table 4b: Comparison of bNISP and BI quantification with taxa. Table 5: Quantification of Bos butchering activities. Table 6: Quantification of caprine butchering activities. Table 7: Quantification of misc. taxa butchering activities. Table 8a: Quantification of tool type with bNISP. Table 8b: Quantification of tool type with BI. Table 9a: Tool type and butchering activity for bNISP. Table 9b: Tool type and butchering activity for BI. Table 10a: Tool type and taxon with bNISP. Table 10b: Tool type and taxon with BI. Table 11a: BMF calculations per bNISP for butchering activity. Table 11b: BMF calculations per BI for butchering activity. Table 12a: BMF per bNISP for Bos butchering activities. Table 12b: BMF per BI for Bos butchering activities. Table 13a: BMF per bNISP for caprine butchering activities. Table 13b: BMF per BI for caprine butchering activities. Table 14a: BMFs per bNISP for minor taxa butchering activities. Table 14b: BMFs per BI for minor taxa butchering activities. Table 15a: Tool type BMF per bNISP. Table 15b: Tool type BMF per BI. Table 16a: bNISP Tool type and Stratum. Table 16b: BI Tool type and Stratum. vi Trent Cheney Table 17a: BMF per bNISP for butchering activity and stratum. Table 17b: BMF per BI for butchering activity and stratum. Table 18a: Disarticulation BMF per bNISP for taxa and strata. Table 18b: Disarticulation BMF per BI for taxa and strata. Table 19a: bNISP for taxa and area. Table 19b: BI for taxa and area. Table 20a: bNISP for butchering activity and area. Table 20b: BI for butchering activity and area. Table 21a: bNISP disarticulation for taxa and area. Table 21b: BI disarticulation for taxa and area. Table 22a: Caprine bNISP disarticulation for stratum and location. Table 22b: Caprine BI disarticulation for stratum and location. Table 23a: bNISP for Tool type and area. Table 23b: BI for Tool type and area. Table 24a: Disarticulation BMF per bNISP for taxa and area. Table 24b: Disarticulation BMF per BI for taxa and area. Table 25: Tool type and butchering activity with taxa. Table 26: BMF and skill levels for butchering activities. Table 27: Butchering skill level for butchering activity per stratum.

vii Trent Cheney Acknowledgements The research on which this thesis is based began in 2011 during my trip to Israel to be part of the eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath excavation team. Unfortunately, progress was dramatically interrupted when I fell desperately ill in 2012 with a severe and life threatening form of leukemia. Over the many intervening years, I was slowly nursed back to a modicum of health by my wife and doctors, and only in the final year was I able to work once again on finishing this thesis. Now, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, my life is once again being threatened and I am forced to retreat to the new normal self-isolation lifestyle of the immune-compromised once again. I thank my wife Tracy for her love, kindness, generosity, and support throughout my many years of illness, and to my many doctors for nursing me back to some degree of health so that I could finally finish this thesis. Thanks must also be extended to my untiring and patient advisor Prof. Haskel J. Greenfield for sharing with me his data from Arad, for mentoring me through this thesis, and never giving up on me. Thanks must also be extended to Michael Sabbane and the late Ornit Ilan of the Israel Antiquities Service, Simon Davis, and Liora Horwitz for allowing me to use part of the Tel Arad faunal collection for this thesis, and to Rivka Rabinovich (Hebrew University) for allowing me to utilize the resources of the National Natural History Collections located in the Institute of Earth Sciences, Givat Ram Campus of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem during my visits there to do this analysis. Any errors are my own responsibility.

viii Trent Cheney Abstract Productive specialization is a component of all models for the evolution of complex and urban societies. However, it is difficult to measure this in terms of food provisioning. In any settlement or society, food provisioning is essential. In this thesis, I test the assumption that food provisioning will become more and more specialized as a society becomes more complex and consumers become more and more divorced from growing their own crops and raising their own animals. One aspect of food provisioning is animal butchering, and whether skilled or unskilled individuals are butchering animals. In a situation where there is household butchering, it is expected that the butchers will be unskilled. In contrast, where butchering is taking place on a large and regular scale, it is expected that the butchers will become more and more skilled. This thesis uses Butchering Incidences to quantify the nature of the butchered specimens and Butchering Mark Frequency as a weighted measure of butchering efficiency and skill. The faunal remains from the Early Bronze Age site of Tel Arad, Israel are used to test whether butchering skills change as the site evolves from an open-air settlement to a walled regional urban centre. The results indicate that all butchery activities for sheep and goats were conducted by relatively unskilled individuals over time at the site. There was not difference across the site as well. In contrast, the low Butchering Mark Frequency values for cattle disarticulation possibly suggest that they were butchered by individuals with higher skill levels. In general, however, most of the other cattle butchery activities were also conducted by lower skilled individuals. In general, the results from the site do not support a model of increasing specialization in food production as the site evolved into an early urban centre.

1 Trent Cheney I. Chapter 1: Introduction A. Introduction to the problem In any settlement or society, food provisioning is essential. Food is a basic human need. However, “A major problem for complex societies, and particularly for urban societies, is the provisioning of …non-food-producing specialists with food” (Crabtree 1990a, 158). Larger populations and more complex social formations need greater quantities of materials and supplies. The appearance of urban centers may present a problem for direct access to food resources. “Occupational specialization in the form of either part-time or full-time laborers, craft workers, or administrators [may have] eventually resulted in large segments of the population [that are] no longer involved in their own subsistence needs. These individuals needed to be fed” (deFrance 2009, 107-108). Under conditions of where there are large urban populations who need to be fed, it is expected that large-scale meat processing will emerge and butchering will be conducted by skilled individuals. This is part of the evolution of productive specialisation. Food provisioning strategies are difficult to identify without the presence of ancient texts (Teeter 2002, Foster 2002, Houlihan 2002, Breniquet 2002). Zooarchaeology, in particular the butchering data, can provide a means to investigate this issue since the faunal remains in archaeological sites are abundant and can be associated with different levels of society and institutions. Butchering data, however, are difficult if not impossible to directly associate with food provisioning strategies. Instead, it is proposed that skill level in butchering may be used to indirectly infer the direct or indirect food provisioning strategies and the presence or absence of butchering specialisation in ancient societies. In this thesis, I will investigate the degree of skill level of butchers as displayed in the butchered zooarchaeological data from the southern Levantine Early Bronze Age site of Tel Arad, Israel in order to infer the food provisioning strategies. At Tel Arad, we test the proposition that meat processing changed from a low to high skill activity as the site evolved from an open village into an urban fortified regional centre. B. Geographic and temporal context In the southern Levant, urban and complex societies appear during in the mid-4th millennium BC. The Levantine EB I (3500-3000 BCE) is characterized by small, unwalled settlements which were typically short-lived (Broshi and Gophna 1984a, Greenberg 2019a). EB I settlements were numerous and densely located throughout the Southern Levant (Amiran and 2 Trent Cheney Gophna 1989, 110). In contrast, EB II and III (3000-2500 BCE) settlements grew in size with many smaller settlements disappearing. Walls and other fortifications are built, and more city planning is introduced with specific public and domestic areas; more public buildings, including palaces and temples; and administrative centers. This suggests increased political and economic centralization (Greenberg 2019a, 70). With the advent of the EB IV, many of the urban centers are abandoned with the population living in smaller agricultural settlements (Amiran and Ilan 1993, Greenberg 2019b). C. Early Bronze Age provisioning A central issue in zooarchaeology for past two decades has been the nature of provisioning in early complex societies (Allentuck and Greenfield 2010, 16). This has been expressed through testing of the “direct or indirect provisioning” model (Hesse 1986, Hesse and Wapnish 2002, Stein 1987, Zeder 1988, 1991). On one end of the continuum, individuals/families procure food resources directly from those who focus on food production, such as farmers and herders who operate more or less independently of a central administration. In this situation, individuals or families are largely responsible for obtaining and processing food on their own. The other end of the continuum is where a centralized administration collects food resources from producers and then distributes it to those without direct access to their own food resources. Full-time specialization in a craft unrelated to food production leaves individuals without direct access to food resources. It is generally believed that when raw materials, in this case where animals are raised at a distance from those who need their products, access to these materials is often controlled by the elite (Schortman and Urban 2004). The central administration controls and organizes the various groups involved: the procurers or those who acquire the resources, the producers, or those that create the products, and the consumers, or those who use the products. Herd management of caprines (sheep and goats) is often conducted away from the cities to reduce pressure on the more agriculturally fertile land. The maintenance of sheep and goats is rarely in conflict with other forms of agriculture as they can be pastured on less fertile or fallowed land. Economic centralization is more likely where there is conflict in land management between animal management and other economic activities (Zeder 1988, 8). Evidence for specialised nomadic pastoralists is relatively late in Near Eastern contexts (Rosen 2019). 3 Trent Cheney A variety of studies illustrate the variability of food provisioning in complex societies. A recent summary of numerous zooarchaeological studies focusing on complex societies, from chiefdoms to states, revealed that more societies practiced household meat provisioning than centralized redistribution (deFrance 2009). Despite the probability that most complex and urban societies also had urban-based political elites that controlled a variety of economic resources, it appears the political elites used existing forms of animal exploitation and redistribution strategies, such as household resource provisioning, to feed the bulk of the population in those societies. There is great variability in provisioning strategies during the early urban stages of Near Eastern societies. Some studies are summarised below. Allentuck and Greenfield (2010) observed differences in food resource procurement between two different non-elite neighbourhoods of an early urban centre from the EBA levels of Titriş Höyük, Turkey. Based on NISP counts of various criteria (taxa, age, sex, and element distribution), they suggest that there was not any clear evidence for spatial differentiation in neighbourhood provisioning and that the inhabitants. Sheep and goats appear to have been indirectly provisioned, while cattle were managed on the household level. On the other end of the provisioning spectrum, Zeder (1991)) analyzed the Bronze Age faunal remains from Tal-e Malyan, Iran. The analysis compares remains from the pre-urbanism, initial walled urbanism, full-scale urbanism, and decline of the site as a regional center. The results indicated growing separation of the urban population from rural-based food resources during the longue durée of the Bronze Age. Another example of the variation that exists in provisioning during these early urban periods is from the Old Kingdom (4th dynasty) pyramid worker’s village at the site of Giza. The inhabitants of the workers village were provisioned with food since they are full-time workers building the pyramids. Most food was provided, and there were significant differences between elites and common workers in the village. It is an example of full-time provisioning from a central authority. By implication, this suggests the presence of productive specialisation (Redding 2010, 1991). D. Introduction to data The Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant provides a unique setting to test the development of specialization in butchering and what it can Tel us about the provisioning of urban societies. Social complexity in the EBA shifts from small village settlements in the EB I to 4 Trent Cheney complex, large, walled cities in the EB II and III and back to small villages in the EB IV (Richard 2003b). The small unwalled settlements of the EB I exhibit little to no evidence for political or economic centralization or hierarchy. The development of urban centers in the EB II and III is thought to usher in a period of political and/or economic centralization (Broshi and Gophna 1984b). As part of this process of centralization of authority, productive specialization in food processing may appear. Tel Arad has archaeological remains for EB I and EB II, allowing for comparison from a small village to large walled settlement (Amiran and Ilan 1996). Centralized administration is evident in massive fortifications, urban planning, and Egyptian trade products (Amiran and Ilan 1996). Extensive excavations of the EB strata at the site have provided a significant quantity of faunal remains for analysis. This thesis will focus on the butchered faunal remains to determine the level of skill of butchers and by implication evaluate any evidence for productive specialization. The larger faunal assemblage from the site is being analyzed by Liora Horwitz and only the butchered remains were available for analysis in this thesis. As Arad evolves from a village to an urban centre, it is expected that animal processing may become a more skilled (and hence, specialized) profession. This implies that the skill set of butchers will change over time if specialisation is emerging in this industry. By analyzing the butchering marks on the faunal remains at an early urban centre, it may be possible to determine if skilled butchers are present or not. E. Butchering and skill Skill is the ability to do something. There are many types of skills from general, all- purpose type skills to very task specific skills. There are also different degrees of competency. These range from totally unskilled to highly skilled. Inventors and craftsmen are an example of highly skilled people. Important to this thesis is skill in butchering and whether the butchers are low-skilled or high-skilled in the butchering craft. There are two different aspects of skill: knowledge and know-how (Apel 2008, Willis and Boehm 2015). Knowledge is information necessary to perform a task. Know-how is experience, the unlearned knowledge that only many hours performing a task can teach. Skill level varies depending on the amount of knowledge, but even more so the amount of know-how. 5 Trent Cheney With highly skilled butchering, it is expected that there will be a consistent placement and minimal numbers of butchering marks as part of their effort to minimize wastage (MacKinnon 1999, 32). A less skilled butcher will likely have less practice on a regular basis (Seetah 2005, 2004, 2006, Maltby 2007). In consequence, they will be less efficient, less standardized in the placement of butchering marks, and require more effort to conduct the butchering task. In consequence, the numbers of butchering marks will vary in each location depending upon skill and technology level. One does not have to imagine specialist butchering shops as one sees today in 3rd World urban markets (Burke 2001a). Instead, the skilled butchers might be the herders who bring animals to urban markets and have do butchering on a regular basis. In effect, they become the specialists. Since are slaughtering and butchering animals on a regular basis, they develop an intimate understanding of animal anatomy from long standing familiarity. This thesis will test a newly developed method for identifying skill level in butchering by analyzing the butchering marks on animal bones from the Early Bronze Age archaeological of Tel Arad, Israel. F. Hypotheses 1. General I propose that if complex societies are based upon productive specialization in food production, there should be skilled specialists who are responsible for different food resources and different stages of its production and distribution (deFrance 2009, Zeder 1991). One of these stages is butchering. 2. Specific If there are skilled butchers in the food production process, there should be evidence that food is processed in a more consistent manner to achieve efficiency and economies of scale (Zeder 1991). Typically, a large amount of food needs to be processed quickly to make it worthwhile to employ a skilled butcher. This argument is grounded in efficiency, that is people will choose practices based upon the principle of least effort (Jochim 1976, 1979). While efficiency is not the only or necessarily the primary strategy used by people, it underlies general provisioning behaviour for both hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers (Monahan 1998, Vita- Finzi and Higgs 1970, Chisholm 1968, 1975). While producers and practices are motivated by many other (often multiple and overlapping) concerns ranging from who does the work, where, and when, to loftier concerns, such as the supernatural and cosmological conceptions of raw 6 Trent Cheney materials, resources, and animals, as well as other people who are the consumers, these are not possible to identify archaeologically with the evidence at hand. Most previous research has provided a simple bone count (NISP) analysis of faunal assemblages or butchering assemblages (Lyman 1987b, d, Broughton 1994). My research will examine butchering skill in the faunal remains of Tel Arad. By analyzing the butchering marks on animal bones, I hope to determine the skill level of butchers and by implication to infer productive specialization. Butchering skill levels may be visible in patterns of butchering efficiency based on variability in taxonomy, butchering activity, temporal, and intra-site spatial distributions. 3. Criteria for identifying skilled versus unskilled butchering It is envisioned that there is likely a continuum of skills in butchery practices depending on how often one butchers the same type of animal. At one end of the continuum, there will be what I refer to as the high skill (specialized) butchers who are processing large numbers of animals on a regular basis and develop highly refined skills. At the other end of the continuum will be the low skill (or household) butchers who are processing very few animals over a period of time. In fact, in most households, meat may play a very small part of the regular diet and very few animals are butchered in a single year. It is assumed that specialized butchers would be relatively highly skilled at butchering due to the need to the regularity of butchery activities. If they were processing large number of animals on a daily basis, they would become more skilled and more efficient in their activity. In contrast, household butchers are assumed to be relatively unskilled since they do not perform this activity regularly, in any quantity and hence are not very efficient. The differences between skilled and unskilled butchers should be evident in the location and frequency of butchering marks. This can be examined through the following hypotheses. 1) Skilled butchers should produce a lower Butchering Mark Frequency (BMF, described below) than unskilled butchers (Luff 1994, Dewbury and Russell 2007, MacKinnon 1999). The following are some reasons for this expectation:  It is quite possible to butcher an animal of any size without leaving a single mark on any bone. The absence of a standard butchering mark in many cases does not, therefore, necessarily imply that some other butchering technique was used. It may, of course, but more probably it reflects the skill of the operator. The more 7 Trent Cheney hurried or careless the process the greater the probability that the bone will be scored (Guilday, Parmalee, and Tanner 1962, 64).  Skilled butchers are less likely to leave butchering marks, so that assemblages with few such marks might indicate the presence of high skill butchers (Dewbury and Russell 2007, 357).  Butchers are not cutting bones, but rather hide and meat from bones and through joints; any contact between a bone surface and the edge of a stone tool might occur (or not occur) fortuitously for any of several reasons (Lyman 2005, 1723).  Skilled butchers will leave few marks on bones because cutting into the bone may leave bone fragments in the meat, dull the blade, and decrease the efficiency of the butchering process. The absence of evidence is the evidence! This is similar to the argument about identifying kosher slaughtering (Greenfield and Bouchnick 2010). 2) The BMF should be lower on slaughtering, skinning and disarticulation marks if the butcher is skilled. 3) Skilled butchers should use the most time and cost-efficient tools for butchering such as unifacial and bifacial blades which are stronger and more durable and therefore should not break as easily and quickly. This is evident from iconographic studies in Egypt where butchers are seen using formal blades that are bifacially retouched chipped stone tools (Kobusiewicz 2015). This is expected to be a change in butchering technology as most butchering activities in Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites in the southern Levant are probably done with ad-hoc flake tools (Greenfield 2013). 4) Finally, skilled butchery is expected to take place in specific locations in a settlement. This implies that there should be a spatial separation of various parts of the butchery process. Such locations may be best identified by spatial clusters of similar remains (e.g. distal limbs, cranial fragments) away from residences. In contrast, the presence/absence of high/low quality cuts may simply be a function of differential status. There is no evidence for specific middens or garbage dumps in these sites. Rubbish appears to be deposited in and around where people live. G. Method To test the above hypotheses for the presence/absence of specialized butchering at Tel Arad during the EB I and II periods, six stages of analysis will be performed. First, a 8 Trent Cheney zooarchaeological analysis will be conducted on the butchering assemblage. The butchering assemblage consists of any fragment of bone that was found to have slicing butchering marks on them. The zooarchaeological analysis will determine species and element. Quantification of these attributes is also part of this stage of analysis. The data will be quantified using Number of Individual Specimens (NISP) and Total Number of Elements (TNE) for the butchering assemblage as well as Butchering Incidents (BI) all of which will be discussed in detail below. Second, the type of butchering activity – slaughtering, skinning, disarticulating, carving, and filleting – being performed on each Butchering Incident will be analyzed. It is important to identify the butchering activity to determine which activities should display a higher degree of butchering efficiency. The third stage of analysis will examine butchering efficiency. This is different than processing intensity which measures the amount of effort being used to butcher. Instead, butchering efficiency measures how skilled and how effective a butcher is at butchering. This can be measured by Butchering Mark Frequency (BMF) which is counting the number of slicing marks per BI. Fourth, an examination of butchering technology will also be conducted. This will involve identifying the type of tool and tool raw material used to make each set of Butchering Incidents. Identification can be accomplished due to each type of tool causing a different morphology of slice mark. Metal knife, stone scrappers, bifacial stone blade, unifacial stone blade, and stone flakes can all be distinguished by the distinct morphologies. Fifth, a temporal analysis of the data will be conducted. This will identify any temporal patterns in butchering activity, efficiency, and tool type. It is predicted that changes in skilled butchering will be evident by an examination of temporal butchering patterns. Lastly, analysis of the remains and their spatial location in the site allow for comparisons between areas and may illuminate patterns in butchering. Skilled butchering is predicted to occur in fewer and more specific (e.g. open-air) locations possibly resulting in spatial variability of the remains. H. Conclusions Food is an important resource in human societies and different systems are put in place to procure and process food for a population. In this thesis I will use the butchering data from Tel Arad to identify skill level to infer skill level in meat processing at Tel Arad in the EB as it 9 Trent Cheney evolves into an urban site. Chapter 2 describes the butchering process and includes some historical and ethnographical examples to explain how we interpret butchering. Chapter 3 discusses how the research was conducted including quantification, slicing mark identification, slicing mark frequency, and time analysis. An overview of the Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant and a description of the archaeological site of Arad follow in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 describes and discusses the results of the analysis. Finally, Chapter 6 makes some conclusions and discusses the shortcomings of the research and possible corrections and future research.

10 Trent Cheney II. Chapter 2: The ethnography of butchering In this chapter, some of the relevant literature on the butchering process as observed in non-industrial contexts will be summarized. Understanding how and where butchering activity affects the bone allows us to interpret the slicing butchering marks and reconstruct the process of butchering. This is important so we can identify which butchering marks may be the result of skilled butchering and which marks are the results of household butchering. Skilled butchering is more likely to be present in the slaughtering, skinning, disarticulation, and possibly carving stages of the butchering process. A. Introduction Butchering can be described as “the human reduction and modification of an animal carcass into consumable parts” (Lyman 1987b, 252). Understanding the butchering process is essential for our analysis. It allows the various butchering incidences that can be identified archaeologically to be organized into a sequence of production stages. This will enable analysis of butchering efficiency and technology which are essential for determining whether skilled butchering was part of the overall food distribution process in ancient urban society. If the society’s food procurement and processing strategies involve centralized distribution of food resources, specialized butcher(s) may be involved and should be more highly skilled than the household butchers. Skilled butchering should be evidenced in specific butchering activities. Depending on various food procurement and processing strategies, skilled butchering should be evident in different ways. Early studies into butchering patterns focused only on the faunal remains (White 1952a, b, 1953b, c, 1954, 1955, 1956, Kehoe and Kehoe 1960, White 1953a). Butchering patterns were inferred from the presence or absence of fragments from specific skeletal elements. Efficiency was determined from the number of various skeletal elements. In contrast, slightly later studies (for example, Guilday, Parmalee, and Tanner (1962)) reasoned that actual butchery marks were the best way to infer human activity with the bones. Others quickly followed up on this suggestion with more intensive descriptions of butchery marks and their importance to increasing our understanding of the archaeological record (Frison 1970, Gilbert 1969, Johnson 1978, Johnson 1980, Wheat 1979) 11 Trent Cheney B. Butchering stages Experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies of both hunter-gathers and full-time butchers have demonstrated that each stage of the butchering process leaves specific butchering marks on the bones (Binford 1978, 1981, Burke 2001a, O'Connell and Hawkes 1988, O'Connell, Hawkes, and Blurton-Jones 1990, Johnson and Bement 2009) The butchering sequence of stages can be reconstructed based upon the location and orientation of butchering marks on the bone (Lyman 1987b). Therefore, it is important to identify the element and location on the element of each butchering mark on each bone fragment to reconstruct its position in the butchery sequence. In this analysis, butchering stage is an important criterion since it is expected that skilled full- time butchering would result in differential distribution of animal parts around the site. Binford (1981) and Lyman (1994) identified a number of stages in the butchering process which tend to be common to all cultures, both simple and complex: slaughtering, skinning, dismemberment, disarticulation, and filleting. Each of these activities will be discussed below as to their impact on the animal bones. A number of other butchering activities are also performed on an animal carcass to extract other resources – evisceration, brain removal, blood extraction, sinew/tendon removal, marrow/grease removal, etc. (Lyman 1994, 295). These activities are for the most part more difficult to identify as they often do not leave marks on the bone (except for marrow/grease removal). While butchering stages are cross-culturally similar, the specific manner that each cultural group performs these actions may be highly variable (Binford 1981, Davis and Wilson 1978, Yellen 1977, Frison 1970). Each cultural group has its own ideas and/or rituals which influence how they perform each specific butchering activity within a stage (David and Kramer 2001). However, it should also be acknowledged that the locations of butchery marks may simply be the result of the specific anatomy of different taxa. The butchering process is affected by where animals are procured and whether skilled butchering may exist. For example, hunting often involves initial butchering, including slaughter, skinning and disarticulation, in the field and secondary butchering and consumption, including further disarticulation and filleting, in the household setting (David and Kramer 2001). However, hunting may also involve initial butchering in the field, slaughter and skinning and maybe some 12 Trent Cheney initial disarticulation, with additional disarticulation by a full-time or semi-full-time butcher before being consumed in the household setting. Processing domestic animals is undertaken in a different manner. Domestic animals may be brought to a skilled butcher live with initial butchering being done there before being transferred to the household for consumption. Alternatively, local households may be responsible for their own food processing and all stages of butchering may be performed at or near the household setting. Binford has further identified that the locations of butchery marks may vary based on the state of the carcass, frozen or fresh, and the geographical location of the butchery activity, whether local or in the field (Binford 1981, 1978). Also, as noted earlier, it is possible not to leave butchery marks on the bones if the butcher is careful and/or skilled. An ethnoarchaeological study by Burke (2001b)) identified the patterns of skilled verses unskilled butchering and bone disposal. Skilled butchering produces fewer marks due to the knowledge of where to slice for the easiest disarticulation while unskilled butchering took more attempts to disarticulate and remove meat. It was also noted that the entire skeleton was distributed throughout the community with only the horns and hooves remaining at the butcher’s for disposal. This study observed metal tool technology and results may not apply to stone tool technology. It is also important to mention that butchery marks from different stages of butchering may occur in similar locations (Binford 1981) and marks from a specific butchery stage may occur in various locations (Lyman 1987b). These situations are more likely if the carcass is not skillfully butchered. 1. Slaughtering a) Process The first stage of butchering, slaughtering, is ending an animal’s life. Slaughtering is essential because the animal needs to be dead before butchering activities can commence. Cutting through the trachea and carotid artery is a common form of slaughtering. Other cultures may kill the animal with an impact blow to the head crushing the skull (Gifford-Gonzalez 1989) and others may try to stab it in the heart. The variety of slaughtering techniques, most of which would not leave a systematic slice mark on the bones, makes it difficult to identify the nature of slaughtering often, aside from the severing of the neck – which is hard to distinguish from disarticulation of the head from the neck. This same action is also used to drain blood from a 13 Trent Cheney carcass prior to processing. It is impossible to distinguish between these two actions due to the similarity of the actions. Due to the similarities between slaughtering and blood draining, they will both be considered as slaughtering for the purposes of this research. The head may or may not be removed at this stage. While the vertebra may be severed, often the head is left attached by the hanging skin (MacKinnon 1999). A skilled butcher may be involved in this step of butchering if the animal is brought live to the butcher (Rixson 1989, Zeder 1991, Ikram 1995b). Household subsistence strategies may involve the individual animals being brought to the household where it is then slaughtered or the pastoralist or hunter may slaughter in the field. b) Historic archaeological examples Slaughtering practices are ethnically and/or religiously distinguishable, for example there are culturally definable differences between Jewish and non-Jewish butchering. This is already evident beginning around the 1st Century CE (Cope 2004, Sanders 1990). Non-Jewish butchers tended to slaughter with a straight cut to the throat, while Jewish butchers would use an angled cut from the ear and across the windpipe. The ritual slaughtering process minimizes pain to the animals and prevents the dulling of the knife (Greenfield and Bouchnick 2010). Egyptian reliefs and paintings show animals being slaughtered by exposing the left side of the neck and slicing across the throat (Ikram 1995b). Often the head is also removed at this stage according to Egyptian documents (Ikram 1995b, 44, 52). Roman sources mention stunning the animal first and then cutting the throat (MacKinnon 1999). In a modern example of Hallal butchering in a small town in Tunisia, Burke (2001a)) describes the process of slaughtering by lying the animal on the ground and cutting through the jugular vein and carotid artery. c) Bone modification Slaughtering produces butchering slice marks on the ventral surface of the upper cervical vertebrae perpendicular to the axis of the bone (Cope 2004). Generally, it would not be expected to be found on the first few vertebra (i.e. atlas and axis) since they would be too difficult to reach for slaughtering purposes. There is a thick muscle mass that attaches the cranium to the neck. The most likely location is the 3-4th cervical vertebrae. It is the softest and most fleshy part of the neck. This is the most likely location of slaughtering marks to be found on these vertebrae, while disarticulation of the cranium from the neck would focus on the 1st and 2nd vertebrae. Greenfield and Bouchnick (2010)) have argued that kosher slaughtering should be identifiable by the 14 Trent Cheney absence of marks on the ventral face of the cervical vertebrae because kosher slaughterers are not supposed to touch the bone with their knives during the moment of slaughtering. d) Spatial indicators for where the activity takes place In ancient or modern pre-industrial societies, slaughtering activities usually would have taken place in marketplaces, courtyards or other open air locations (Burke 2001a, Ikram 1995b). The fresh air would disperse the smell of the blood so as not to terrify the animals before butchering. For the skilled butcher, this would likely be at one or a few locations in or peripheral to a settlement site. It is a messy job when done on a large scale and would probably not be associated with residential areas when done on a large scale (MacKinnon 1999, 171). In skilled slaughtering environment, it is assumed that the carcasses are not only butchered by them, but also may be redistributed through them or other officials (Burke 2001a). Hence, it is assumed that neck vertebrae with slaughtering marks will be sold off or distributed to households without leaving any spatial patterning. If the head is removed at this stage it may be disposed of in specific locations away from the domestic areas or the site where the other waste from the initial butchering is also disposed (MacKinnon 1999, 31). Household butchering, which occurs on a small scale, would probably bring the animals to a courtyard within the household complex or slaughter them outside of the settlement and bring the carcass home for processing (which means carrying rather than walking it). In the latter, the blood would be lost. Considering the use of blood as a food or for other functions in most societies (Ikram 1995b) the latter is unlikely. Hence, it makes more sense that animals were walked home before slaughtering. In household slaughtering, all the elements should be present and therefore bones with slaughtering marks are expected to be found largely in domestic areas. In a situation where animals are hunted, most slaughtering evidence will take place away from the base camp site (Binford 1978). The animal is killed, blood is drained, and innards removed at the hunting or butchering station before it is brought elsewhere (e.g. home) for complete processing. In many cases, the crania are removed and discarded in the field since they have less meat utility. Hence, the evidence for slaughtering of wild animals may be lost unless there was a reason to bring home the crania (e.g. with deer and their antler for trophies). 15 Trent Cheney 2. Skinning a) Process Skinning is the first stage of the actual butchering or carcass processing. There are two possible goals when removing the skin of an animal: accessing the meat and/or saving the skin (Binford 1981, 1978, Morrison 1997). The first simply involves removal of the skin or hide of the animal to get access to the resources under the skin. The second goal of skinning is to remove the skin intact with as few nicks as possible for use in clothing or other products. b) Historical/Ethnographic example Johnson and Bement (2009)) describe some experimental butchering which attempted to reproduce the faunal remains at a bison kill site. According to their experiment, the carcasses were placed on their stomachs (ventral face) while being skinned. Modern butchers in Tunisia skinned a sheep while it was still on the ground from slaughtering and took care to avoid hitting any bones with their tools (Burke 2001a). Greenfield, Galili, and Horwitz (2006)) describe butchering practices at an archaeological site, Neve Yam. They identified skinning marks made up 11.4% of the total slicing marks on the faunal remains. Skinning marks were found on the cranium and the mandible. c) Result or effect on the bone Skinning normally leaves few marks on the bone because it affects the skin only (Burke 2001a). Skinning usually leaves slice marks only at the limb or cranial extremities – i.e. metapodia, phalanges, around the horns/antler bases, premaxillae, and orbits of the cranium, and horizontal ramus of the mandible (Noe-Nygaard 1989, 471, Binford 1981, 103, 107, 1978, Frison 1970). d) Spatial result Skinning marks are usually located on elements which are typically considered undesirable due to low meat content and will be differentially discarded based on the level of food distribution system of the community. Skilled butchering would be unlikely to distribute these undesirable elements to the population. If a specialist is involved with the skinning, it is expected that the bone elements with skinning marks would be disposed of in a dump where they would possibly be an over representation of skinning mark elements. In a household level organization of the butchering process, skinning would likely take place within the household. Household butchering is expected to dispose of the bone elements with skinning marks on them 16 Trent Cheney with the other bones from the animal resulting in a relatively equal representation of all bones with marks from various stages of butchering from the animal. 3. Disarticulation a) Process Disarticulation is typically the next phase which involves taking the animal apart at the joints to make smaller portions (Lyman 1987b). The terms disarticulation and dismemberment have often been used interchangeably, such as by (Noe-Nygaard 1989, Binford 1981). Disarticulation is separating the carcass into sections or parts at the joints. Tendons and ligaments tend to hold the joints together and it is necessary to cut through them to separate the bones (Noe-Nygaard 1989, 471, Binford 1981, 91, Rixson 1989). b) Ethnographic example There are two types of disarticulation typically employed when butchering an animal. First, butchering often involves disarticulation of the animal into anatomical segments not individual bones with the anatomical segments being dispersed to the public (Binford 1978, 1981). Second, butchering may involve disarticulation of all the bones at the joints before being dispersed. This is most commonly the activity of the household at the time of consumption. Skilled butchering should not be evident with this type of disarticulation. Both these possibilities will be analyzed for skilled butchering patterns. The division of the animal into segments as described by (Binford 1978) is not comparable since these were modern hunters using steel and saw technologies. Common butchering segments include removing the head and the lower legs of the animal from the carpals and tarsals and below due to the limited amount of meat involved, removal of front limbs with scapulae attached, removal of rear legs at the hip joint, the neck or cervical vertebrae, thoracic vertebrae and first two sets of ribs, and lumbar vertebrae and pelvis (Binford 1978). The exact disarticulation points between the anatomical segments may differ between various cultures (Binford 1981, Gifford-Gonzalez 1989) and this needs to be taken into account when analyzing the butchering assemblage. Burke’s (Burke 2001a) modern example of sheep butchery indicates that the forelimbs can be removed by extending the shoulder joint and inserting a knife into the joint to sever the connections. Hill (1979)) and Hill and Behrensmeyer (1985)) studied butchering patterns at the Olsen-Chubbuck bison kill site and the Koobi Fora Research Project, They were able to determine differences between natural disarticulation, not 17 Trent Cheney involving humans, and human disarticulation. Human disarticulation displayed higher bone frequencies than the more random natural disarticulation. c) Bone modification Disarticulation will result in butchering slice marks located at or around the bone ends. Alternatively, chopping may be utilized in some situations where slicing through a joint is difficult, such as between the humerus and the radius-ulna or the hip joint (Rixson 1989). A sawing action is occasionally performed to cut tough tendons (Noe-Nygaard 1989, 473). There are two distinct bone modifications to distinguish between skilled butchering and household butchering at this stage. First, skilled butchering should have a low degree of variability in the location and placement of disarticulation marks at the anatomical segment endpoints by species due to a high degree of expertise. Second, skilled butchering should display a high degree of butchering efficiency (as described in the Butchering Efficiency section) in the location and frequency of disarticulation marks. d) Spatial result Spatially, skilled butchering will likely result in the removal the head and feet due to low meat content (Rixson 1989) and disposal of them in a specific location. This should result in an over representation of disarticulation marks at some disposal sites. Some of the bones with disarticulation marks would be distributed to the households for consumption and thus would be disposed in relatively equal quantities with other butchering marks as well. Thus, it is important to locate the skilled butchering disposal site with over-representations of disarticulation marks to identify specialized butchering. Household butchering will be more likely to have all the elements, or a more random representation, of the animal initially present at the household before disposal that would be carried out at various locations around the site. An ethnographic example indicated that household butchering and disposal would often dispose of the bones over the side of the nearest fence (Gifford-Gonzalez 1989). 4. Carving a) Process To avoid confusion due to the similarity of the terms disarticulation and dismemberment, the term dismemberment will not be used in this project. Instead, the term carving will refer to the dividing the carcass into subparts. Carving ignores the joints, instead cutting or chopping through the bone. 18 Trent Cheney b) Ethnographic examples For example, butchers cut through long bones, rib sections and vertebrae to produce specific cuts of meat (Binford 1978, Greenfield, Galili, and Horwitz 2006). Another example is separating the mandible from the skull cutting through the horizontal or lateral ramus (Binford 1981, 109). The Dassanetch of Kenya were observed breaking the ribs rather than cutting to divide the carcass into smaller sections (Gifford-Gonzalez 1989). Long bones were likewise broken to fit into cooking pots. A modern example of carving a sheep for consumption purposes describes the carcass being cut in half by chopping through the pubic synthesis and vertebral column (Burke 2001a). c) Bone modification Butchering marks produced by doing this will typically be from sawing or chopping either all the way through or partially through the bone, which may then be broken (Noe- Nygaard 1989, 473, Burke 2001a). The process described by Burke (2001a) would leave plenty of bone modification from chopping through the vertebral column and pubic synthesis. The skill and tools required for carving are relatively specific and easily available to a skilled butcher dealing with carving sections of meat regularly. This should also result in a higher degree of butchering efficiency than household carving. d) Spatial result Carving is not expected to produce any significant spatial patterning. The various cuts of meat if produced by skilled butchering would be distributed to the household level and then disposed of at the household level to various disposal sites around the site. Carving at the household level would also leave evidence of carving randomly at various household-related disposal locations around the site. It is expected that there should be no visible signs spatially of specialized or concentrated butchering from the carving process as any bones with carving marks should be distributed rather evenly throughout the site. 5. Filleting a) Process Removal of the meat and other soft tissue (other than skin) is called filleting (Lyman 1987b). Regarding the number of butchering marks on meat bearing bones, it has been suggested that “hominids processed carcasses to obtain products such as meat, ligament or bone” (Potts and Shipman 1981, 597). 19 Trent Cheney b) Ethnographic example As mentioned earlier, Johnson and Bement (2009)) described experimental butchering of bison where the carcass was placed in a prone position for skinning. After this, the butcher would remove meat, filleting, from the back and sides while the carcass was still in this position. All this was done before any disarticulation. Frison (1970)) describes a similar practice of removing meat before disarticulation of bison at Glenrock Buffalo Jump. In Burke’s (2001a) modern sheep butchering example from a small-scale, professional butchery shop, the meat is sold with the bones so filleting the meat would take place in the domestic environment. Thus, no bones from the carcass remain at the butcher shop. c) Bone modification Filleting typically produces multiple slice or scrape marks along the shaft of the bone on any face (Noe-Nygaard 1989, 472). Also, the medial surface of the mandible may have marks from removing the tongue (Binford 1981, 101, 1978). Also of note is that the metapodials are usually not used for this stage as they have little meat (Braun, Pobiner, and Thompson 2008). This stage should largely fall into the realm of household consumption and should not display any signs of skilled butchering regardless of whether skilled butchering is a part of the overall butchering pattern. d) Spatial result As mentioned above, filleting is expected to be largely a household process. Evidence for it as a household process would be its association with each and every household structure, as well as with more elite and public structures or associated middens. Evidence for skilled filleting as part of the butchering process would appear if there were a few concentrations only of skilled filleting middens associated with butchering workshops. 6. Consumption Consumption involves any form of use of the carcass resources. Resources which can be used include: hide, hair, meat, blood, brains, marrow, grease, juice, sinew (tendon, ligament), bone, teeth, horn, antler, hooves, and viscera (Lyman 1987b, 252). This is the end stage of the butchering process. This stage occurs after the bones and the other resources have been separated from each other. Thus, there is no bone modification or spatial distribution of this stage. 20 Trent Cheney C. Conclusion There are a number of butchering processes which can be performed on an animal carcass of which slaughter, skinning, disarticulation, carving, and filleting have been described above. Of these disarticulation and maybe slaughter and skinning, would involve skilled butchering if full-time skilled butchering arises during urbanization. If skilled butchering is involved in these processes, there should be differential butchering efficiency observable between time periods and between the other butchering processes. Disarticulation, skinning, and slaughtering should also display spatial differentiation throughout the archaeological site if skilled butchering is present. Carving activities, on the other hand, even if processed by skilled butchering should be dispersed to households and would therefore be disposed of along with filleting activity marks from the household level resulting in no spatial differentiation throughout the site.

21 Trent Cheney III. Chapter 3: Data Description A. Introduction Since the data analyzed in this thesis derive from the EB I and II deposits from the site of Arad, this chapter summarizes the relevant information from the EB of the southern Levant. This will allow the data to be eventually discussed within the regional culture historical sequence developments. B. Chronology of the EB in the southern Levant

Table 1 Chronology of the EB (Regev 2013)

Revised Southern Egypt Mesopotamia Date Levant 3500-3300 EB Ia Late Pre-Dynastic Late Uruk BCE 3300-3000 EB Ib Late Pre-Dynastic Late Uruk BCE 3000-2900 EB II Dynasty 1, 2: Early Dynastic Jemdet Nasr; Early Dynastic I BCE 2900-2500 Dynasty 3-4, and beginning of 5: Old EB III Early Dynastic II, early ED III BCE Kingdom 2500-2000 Dynasty 5-11: First Intermediate End of ED III, 1st Dynasty of EB IV BCE Period Akkad; Ur III

The Bronze Age (c. 3500-1200 BCE) is broadly defined as the period of time after people begin working with Bronze and before they begin working with Iron (Greenberg 2019a). It is to be noted that bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, was not used in the Levant until close to the end of the Early Bronze Age (Richard 2003a, 286). The Bronze Age is subdivided into three main sub-periods: Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, and Late Bronze Ages. This research is primarily concerned with the Early Bronze (EB) Age between c. 3500 BCE and 2000 BCE. The EB is subdivided into four periods: I, II, III and IV. The Early Bronze I runs from c. 3500 BCE until 3000 BCE (Regev, Miroschedji, and Boaretto 2012, Regev et al. 2012, Regev 2013), and coincides with the late Pre-Dynastic phase in Egypt based on trade goods between the two regions (Dever 2003, 83). The EB I in the Levant 22 Trent Cheney is marked by a change in religion, economic systems, and settlement patterns (Richard 2003a, Greenberg 2019a). Religion in the EB I shifts to a vegetation/fertility cult led by an elite priesthood based on cultic artifacts (Richard 2003a, 287). The economic system shifts to largely plough agriculture, horticulture and viticulture, in contrast to the mixed horticulture/animal husbandry economy of the Chalcolithic (Richard 2003a, 288, Greenberg 2019a). Related to the adoption of intensive agriculture and horticulture is the relocation of settlements to more agriculturally productive areas (Richard 2003a, 288), which is discussed below in settlement pattern section. Based on new radiocarbon dating the Early Bronze II has been dated around 3000 to 2900 BCE (Regev, Miroschedji, and Boaretto 2012, Regev et al. 2012, Regev 2013) and is contemporary with Dynasties 0, 1, and 2 in Egypt (Dever 2003, 84). This is based upon the discovery of EB II Palestinian pottery, ‘Abydos ware’, in Dynasty I tombs (Dever 2003, 84). This is supported by synchronisms with the Egyptian sequence since the signature of Pharaoh Narmer and other Dynasty I seals have also been found in EB II deposits in the southern Levant, such as Tel Erani (Yeivin 1960) and Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1996). The EB II is also equated with the first urban period in the southern Levant (Richard 2003a, 289, Sebag 2005, 20). A common culture spreads across the entire region in terms of similarities in architecture, settlement forms, and material assemblages during the EB II (Richard 2003a, 289). Typical EB II ceramics include ‘Abydos ware’, ‘Metallic ware’, and platters all of which do not appear in EB I contexts (Braun 2009b, 27, 28). Religious artifacts from the southern Levant continue to show similarities with Syria and Mesopotamia with female figurines and Sumerian religious scenes on cylinder seals (Richard 2003a, 291, Greenberg 2019a). Traditionally the EB III period is seen as synchronising with Dynasty III-VI in Egypt (Dever 2003, 84). EB III ‘combed ware’ jars are found in Dynasty V contexts, while Dynasty V- VI objects have been found in Levantine EB III strata (Dever 2003). However these material connections are few and are not securely dated (Regev et al. 2012).The traditional end of the EB III is usually dated to the end of the 6th Dynasty, c. 2300 BCE upon the death of Pharaoh Pepi I. However, the new high chronology for the southern Levant suggest that it is more likely in the 2550 BCE range (Regev et al. 2012, Regev 2013). However, the new radiocarbon dating of the Early Bronze III period suggests it begins earlier (c. 2900 BCE) and ends later (c. 2550 BCE) (Regev et al. 2012, Regev 2013). 23 Trent Cheney The Early Bronze IV (c. 2500 BCE to 2000 BCE) traditionally coincides with both Dynasties VII-XII in Egypt and the 1st Dynasty of Akkad and Ur III Dynasty in Mesopotamia (Dever 2003, 84). There is very little contact between the southern Levant and either Egypt or Mesopotamia during this period (Dever 2003, 84). This phase can be marked by the absence of urban settlements (Richard 2003a, 294, Greenberg 2019b). C. Regional culture history The cultures of the EB I are often argued to be a result of a new influx of peoples who had connections to the Syro-Mesopotamia region as evident in their similar material cultural assemblages (Richard 2003a, 287). However, there is also evidence for cultural continuity with the Chalcolithic societies based on the continued use of some ceramic and lithic types (Richard 2003a, 287). Based on skeletal remains, it appears that there was population continuity throughout the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (Smith 1995, 69). D. Settlement pattern of the EB in the southern Levant 1. Regional settlement patterns At the end of the Chalcolithic in the southern Levant, approximately 3500 BCE, society and populations appears to have collapsed. The population of the area shrinks and evidence for social hierarchy vanishes (Levy 2007, 83). The Negev Chalcolithic sites, where Tel Arad is located, are abandoned at the end of the Chalcolithic (Amiran and Ilan 1996) In the southern Levant, the EB I, c. 3500-3100 BCE, is characterized by a renewal of settlement. The EB Ia consisted of “sprawling villages spread thinly along wadi beds, on alluvial fans and on valley floors” (Greenberg 2019a, 29). The EB Ib is marked by an increased sedentarisation with the appearance of many densely clustered small, un-walled settlements (Broshi and Gophna 1984a, de Miroschedji 2009, Sebag 2005, Amiran and Gophna 1989). There is also an overall increase in the number of small villages that implies that the population of the region was growing (Amiran and Gophna 1989, Richard 2003a, 288). Settlement types include “transitory settlements (i.e., camps and cave dwellings), small villages, and a few large villages” or towns (de Miroschedji 2009, Broshi and Gophna 1984a, 41). There is also evidence for the beginning of craft specialisation (metallurgy, art, and cult) and an elite social class (temples and public buildings) (Richard 2003a, 288). By the beginning of the EB II, approximately 3100 BCE, an urbanisation of the region begins. Many villages are abandoned which lead to a new settlement structure. Several of the 24 Trent Cheney large villages/towns of the EB I become large, walled settlements with internal organization (Richard 2003a, Broshi and Gophna 1984a, Greenberg 2019a). The urbanisation of the EB II and III resulted in a significant portion of the population of the southern Levant, almost half, living in cities, many of which were found for the first time in the hill country (Broshi and Gophna 1984a, 50, Sebag 2005, Greenberg 2019a). As the villages are abandoned cemeteries are also abandoned (Greenberg 2019a, 72). Political and economic centralisation increased during the EB II with the larger, walled settlements seemingly being supplied by outlying agricultural villages (Richard 2003a, 290). There also appears to be renewed interest in exploiting local copper sources which are largely located in the marginal areas of the region, such as the Sinai Peninsula, southernmost tip of the Negev, and in the Wadi Faynan of Jordan, as evidenced by increased evidence for mining, metallurgy, and trade. In the Levant, only Levantine cultural influence have been identified in material assemblages from settlements near the copper sources (Richard 2003a, 290). Egyptian Old Kingdom material culture has long been identified at various Sinai Peninsula copper ores sources from the Old Kingdom (Forbes 1950, Petrie 1906, Avner et al. 2014, Ball 1916, 191) (Forbes 1950: Petrie 1906; Ball 1916: 191; Avner 2014). The beginning of the EB III is marked by the abandonment of many sites (Greenberg 2019a, 96). However, the remaining walled sites continue to grow in size and importance through the EB III. There is some evidence of a three-tier settlement structure with villages and towns supporting the big cities. At the very least the existence of cities surrounded by smaller agricultural villages probably indicates economic control by the city on the smaller villages. Trade with Egypt appears to have stopped (Greenberg 2019a, 96) By the EB IV, also known as the Intermediate Bronze Age (IBA), almost all the walled urban centers are abandoned. Some of the population appears to be dispersed into smaller agriculturally-oriented settlements (Amiran and Ilan 1993, de Miroschedji 2009, Regev et al. 2012). The EB IV is marked by the absence of large, walled settlements and a decentralisation of the region (Richard 2003a). It is possible that much of the population shifts to a nomadic lifestyle (Richard 2003a). Aside from the few larger settlements, the population of the EB IV appears focused on self-sufficient subsistence, which becomes especially important for survival in the absence of a centralised authority (Richard 2003a). Pottery styles are highly regionalized with an influx of Syrian styled ceramic ware (Regev et al. 2012). There is also little evidence for productive specialization during the EB IV (Richard 2003a). 25 Trent Cheney 2. Intra-site settlement patterns EB I settlements appear to be focused on individual households and the community (Sebag 2005). Settlement planning appears to be haphazard with little organization (Sebag 2005). Some residential house styles from the Chalcolithic are still used in the EB I, such as caves, circular pit houses (Sebag 2005, Greenberg 2019a) and broadroom houses (Richard 2003a, 287). Added to these is the curvilinear house, which often has an associated courtyard (Sebag 2005). The broadroom house becomes more common and is roughly rectilinear, but with rounded edges. In contrast, curvilinear houses have rounded walls. EB I temples also seem to follow the broadroom plan (Richard 2003a, 287, Sebag 2005, Greenberg 2019a). The later EB I appears to have been a time of change with two phases identified in the EB Ib. The first phase shows a growth in village and city size and the second phase adds walls to many of the villages and cities (Greenberg 2019a). During the EB II, for the walls and other fortifications to be built, some kind of centralized organisation of the work force had to be developed. A consequence of this may be that there is more evidence for city planning, such as the presence of specific public and domestic areas; more public or elite buildings, including palaces and temples; workshops; and administrative centers within the large walled settlements (de Miroschedji 2009, Sebag 2005, Richard 2003a, Broshi and Gophna 1984a). Arad, in particular, shows evidence of city planning with a well-constructed and standardised plan for the construction of the large fortification wall that extended entirely around the site, with 30-40 round towers, a perimeter road between the fortification wall and the nearest houses, and spatially distinct sacred and palace areas (Richard 2003a, 290). Arad also has what are probably a sacred precinct and ‘palace’ area together that are separated from the rest of the settlement (Richard 2003a, 290). All of this suggests the presence of increased political and economic centralisation. In these walled settlements/cities, domestic housing makes way for or follows the organization of the walls (Sebag 2005). Domestic dwellings become increasing densely packed and change shapes. The previously round, oval, or curvilinear housing makes way for rectilinear house forms, with the rooms surrounding a courtyard (Sebag 2005, Greenberg 2019a). In the smaller villages of the Negev desert region, housing tends to follow a ‘cluster’ plan. There is a courtyard surrounded by many small rooms still, but each of the room clusters is more widely separated than in the cities, where they are densely packed (Sebag 2005). 26 Trent Cheney Many EB II cities are abandoned at the beginning of the EB III. The remaining EB II settlements grew and new building projects aimed at improving the city fortifications are conducted (Richard 2003a, Greenberg 2019a). Larger more monumental structures are built. Public complexes are often expanded, as well. For example, in EB III phase at Tel Yarmuth, there is a large palace complex consisting of many rooms, courtyards, and storerooms (Richard 2003a, 292). There are more indications of a group of elites and more wealth and social stratification with monumental temples and palaces (Regev et al. 2012, Greenberg 2019a). Material culture is relatively uniform although there is an influx of Khirbet Kerak Ware (Regev et al. 2012, Greenberg 2019a). With the collapse of urbanism at the end of the EB III, most of the southern Levantine walled settlements are abandoned. Settlement for the most part now consists of small, unwalled, and agriculturally based villages (Richard 2003a, 294). There is evidence for some social stratification with intra-site differentiation, monumental architecture, and sometimes fortifications in the EB IV, such as at Khirbet Iskander in Jordan (Richard 2003a, 295), but little to the west of the Jordan River Valley. E. Socio-Political organization of the EB of the southern Levant The early EB I displays little evidence for craft specialization or long distance trade (Regev et al. 2012), likely indicating the absence of a large-scale centralized economy and political organization. Few larger villages and very little monumental construction also indicate very little political organization (Greenberg 2019a). With the establishment of new settlements in the Mediterranean zone during the EB Ib, trade of Mediterranean products increased and an elite class developed to control these products (Sebag 2005). Ceramic trade beyond the region, e.g. the Southern Sinai (Saidel 2001/2002) and the Sea of Galilee (Harrison and Savage 2003), indicates an economic administration that was probably controlling production and/or trade networks. The growth of large walled cities in the EB II surrounded by smaller villages possibly indicates small city states or regional political centers. The building of walls, palaces, temples, and administrative centers in the EB II suggests increased political and economic centralization including productive specialization (Sebag 2005, Greenberg 2019a). Control of the city gates leads to economic centralization (Sebag 2005). Economic centralization is probable with possible food redistribution from the outlying villages to the cities (Richard 2003a, 290). Within many of 27 Trent Cheney the urban centers of the EB II, in particular Arad, there is clear separation of industrial, public, and residential areas probably due to social hierarchy (Richard 2003a, 290). The separation of the sacred and the profane at Arad further indicates social hierarchy with the elite including priests and secular officials (Richard 2003a, 290). Strong evidence of production and distribution of ceramic wares and copper tools can be found throughout the southern Levant (Greenberg 2019a). Some of these ceramics made their way to Egypt (Greenberg 2019a). Social stratification, economic centralization, productive specialization with a distinctive trades class, and monumental building are all indicative of state level society. The presence of the huge palace at EB III Yarmuth may indicate that it was a major political center for the region and that ‘city-states’ had begun to emerge in the southern Levant during the EB (Richard 2003a, 292). During the EB III, power appears to be concentrated in a few large cities with smaller cities supporting the larger ones and small villages supporting the small cities. It has been proposed that this was a response to a stronger Egyptian presence in the region at this time (Richard 2003a, 291). Others propose that there was a regional political reorganisation since some sites appear to become more dominant than others (de Miroschedji 2009). Given the absence of significant Egyptian material (suggesting presence) across the region at this time, the former explanation is unlikely. F. Technology and productive specialization in the EB of the southern Levant 1. Lithics in the EB of the southern Levant In the EB, reliance upon lithic technology was still in full swing. Important lithic industries during the EB include Canaanean sickles and blades, tabular scrappers, and the “ad hoc” industry consisting of awls, flakes, choppers and other miscellaneous tools (Rosen 1997). Canaanean blades are usually made of fine-grained Eocene and produced using a specialized prismatic technology of flaking on three sides. The blades can be either unretouched or retouched. Canaanean sickles and blades appear to have been a specialized or semi-specialized industry with the tools being imported into most settlement sites through a local trading network evidenced by the lack of Canaanean cores at the local sites (Rosen 1997, 1983). Tabular or fan-shaped scrapers are also common in the EB and have been claimed to be used for butchering (Levy 2007, Greenberg 2019a). Tabular scrapers are large flakes, average of 20x15x10 cm and typically retouched. There is indication of trading and transportation of these scrapers from the deserts of Jordan and possibly the Negev and Sinai (Rosen 1997, Müller- 28 Trent Cheney Neuhof 2013). The ability to procure these lithic resources from a distance is often seen as indicating local centralized administration. The miscellaneous, ‘ad hoc’ industry is the most numerous as it constitutes any other type of worked stone tool (Rosen 1997). This category consists of numerous production technologies. The ‘ad hoc’ industry appears to have been made on site as an expedient tool to produce, use, and discard. This also seems to indicate that the ‘ad hoc’ industry was non-specialized. There is also a large quantity of flake waste and expedient flake cores at most sites (Rosen 1997). A flake is usually considered waste and is defined as being unretouched or modified in any way. They have no special morphological attributes to identify them as special creations. Lithic waste is usually ignored by most archaeologists as simply being the result of lithic reduction and not useful for analysis. In butchery scenes from Egypt Old Kingdom tombs, approximately EB, there is some evidence for the use of metal knifes although stone blades still appear to dominate (Ikram 1995a). 2. Metalworking in the EB of the southern Levant It is also significant that the Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant shows an increase in metal usage and trade. Metallurgical technology is evident in the Southern Levant beginning in the Chalcolithic (Ilan and Sebbane 1989) (Ilan and Sebbane 1989, 139, Levy 2007, Muhly 2003). Sources of the copper have been identified as the mines of Timna, Wadi Feinan, and southern Sinai (Greenberg 2019a). There is also evidence, particularly the copper hoard from the Cave of the Treasure, of copper sources coming from as far away as eastern Turkey (Levy 2007, Muhly 2003). Chalcolithic metalworking consisted of creating items for decoration and prestige and also utilitarian items. Items were created to show the influence and power of select individuals and groups leading to social inequalities and hierarchies and even the utilitarian items would have required large amounts of time and labour to create a single item indicating the possible use by the elite. The possible existence of elites may indicate the beginnings of a centralized administration responsible for the organization, trade, and distribution of these rare metal objects. The availability of copper assisted a thriving metal industry throughout the EB as evidenced from copper objects and/or production facilities at a variety of sites, such as el-Hesi, Jericho, Bab edh-Dhra', and Kfar Monash (Philip 1989). The beginning of the EB Ia saw the replacement of stone axes and drills with copper axes, awls, adzes, and chisels (Rosen 1984, Ilan 29 Trent Cheney and Sebbane 1989, Rosen 1989, Greenberg 2019a). Metal daggers and knives are occasionally found in EB graves and more common in the EB IV (Philip 1989, 164, Muhly 2003), but it is unclear if these were being used as tools or were distinctly status objects. Metal had an advantage over stone tools due to its durability, more efficient manufacture, and recyclability causing metal tools to slowly replace stone tools as metal became more available. Copper is initially used to later be replaced by bronze, which is copper with a tin or arsenic additive. It appears that during the EB I and II smelting and manufacture of the metal took place near the mines and then was traded to southern Levantine settlements (Ilan and Sebbane 1989). A local, centralized administration is likely to have been needed to enable the trade network and to redistribute these trade items in the local communities. G. EB faunal exploitation Domestic sheep and goat appear to make up large portions of early diet, averaging around 53% of domesticates, in the southern Levant in the Chalcolithic (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). Horwitz and Tchernov (1989) conclude that mostly sheep and goats were exploited - sheep for their milk and goats for their meat. Cattle, pigs and occasionally donkey make up most of the remaining domestic animal exploitation at most sites (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). Wild animals comprise 3.3% of the faunal record (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020) with deer and gazelle the main wild animals (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). Along with animal exploitation agriculture would have subsidized the diet in these communities. The EB Ia saw a continuation of the importance of domestic sheep and goats increasing to approximately 60% of domestic species (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). Sheep appear more frequently than goat with variation from site to site from 50% to 80% (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). There is also a higher frequency of adults (80%) to younger animals. Cattle gained in importance in the EB Ia, although still less than half the number of remains as caprids (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). Cattle are more important in the northern regions of the southern Levant with numbers dropping from 32% to 7% in the south at Arad. It should also be noted that one cow provides much more meat than one sheep or goat (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). Pigs remain low in frequency in the EB Ia with 10% and less, declining in the south (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). Small numbers of pig, donkey and horse are also found in the remains (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). Wild animals such as deer are also present in small quantities, 5.2% 30 Trent Cheney (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). As with cattle and pigs there was a decline towards the south (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). Sheep and goats continue to be important in the southern Levant in the EB Ib constituting 70% of domesticate species (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). Tel Erani, in the lowlands toward the coast, differs slightly with a higher amount of cattle and pigs than other sites. Hunting is still rare with wild animals accounting for 3.6% of animal species (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). There also appears to be little difference in the faunal remains between urban and rural sites (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). In the EB II, the faunal assemblage begins to show a difference between urban and rural sites (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). In rural sites sheep and goat comprise 82% of domesticates with few cattle (17%), pigs (0.3%), and equids (0.8%) (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). In contrast, urban sites show an increase in cattle (37%) and pigs (4%), and a reduction of sheep and goats (59%) (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). There is also an age differentiation for the sheep and goats between urban and rural sites (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). Sheep and goats from urban sites are almost exclusively subadults while subadults are conspicuously missing from rural sites. There also appears to have been more hunting in urban sites than rural with 4.3% compared to 1.6% (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). The taxon frequency variation and age differentiation in sheep and goats between urban and rural sites probably indicate a producer (rural) and consumer (urban) relationship between the different sites. Animal exploitation in the EB III is similar to the previous period between urban and rural. Cattle are 29% in urban sites and 11% in rural sites and pigs are 2.7% vs. 0.2% (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020) There is some variation in these frequencies such as the urban site of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath with 13.5% cattle and 0.6% pigs with an emphasis upon adult cattle for their secondary products (Greenfield et al. 2016). The age differentiation for sheep and goats between urban and rural sites continues in the EB III (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020) such as at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath (Greenfield et al. 2016). Equids become more important in urban sites with 5.8% compared to 1.3% in rural sites (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). Wild animals are found in similar abundance to the earlier period with 6.3% of urban assemblages and 2.7% in rural assemblages (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). The producer-consumer relationship from the EB II continues into the EB III. 31 Trent Cheney With the end of the urban phase in the EB IV in the southern Levant there no longer appears any inter-site difference. Also, representation of cattle (8.1%) and pigs (0.5-0.9%) sharply declines (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). Wild animals are also limited in number from 1.3% to 3.5% (Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield 2020). H. Tel Arad 1. Introduction Tel Arad is an ancient multi-period site located on the northern edge of the Negev Desert, Israel. It is occupied periodically from the Chalcolithic onwards. The final occupation dates to the 16th century CE. The site is divided into a lower and upper city. The upper city includes the citadels and related buildings and is occupied from the Iron Age I (late 12th Century BCE) through to the 16th century CE. The lower city was occupied during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age and was situated around a natural watershed and reservoir (Amiran and Ilan 1996). This thesis will focus on the EB Ib and II settlements. 2. Chronology The site was first settled in the Chalcolithic period sometime between 4000-3600 BCE (Stratum V). It was abandoned during the Early Bronze Ia (3600-3300 BCE) and reoccupied during the Early Bronze Ib, 3300-3000 (Stratum IV) (Regev, Miroschedji, and Boaretto 2012, Regev et al. 2012, Amiran and Ilan 1996). There appears to be two phases of the EB Ib occupation, the large, unwalled city phase and the walled city phase (Greenberg 2019a, 44), although the material culture of the two phases is similar (Amiran and Ilan 1996, 1). EB Ib appears to coincide with the 0 Dynasty of Egypt based on the discovery of a fragment of a jar with the serekh, an Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol indicating a royal name, that of King Narmer (Amiran and Ilan 1996). Strata III and II belong to the fortified urban settlement of the middle EB II (3000-2900 BCE). Stratum III was occupied approximately 200 years before the city was destroyed and Stratum II was occupied for 150 years before it was finally abandoned (Amiran and Ilan 1996). Stratum I is also dated to the EB II, but consists only of a small walled village. The EB II strata can be cross dated to the first and second dynasties in Egypt by Egyptian ceramics at the site. The EB II settlement has been extensively excavated, while the earlier EB Ib and Chalcolithic periods were tested with smaller excavations. The focus of the spatial analysis will 32 Trent Cheney be on the two phases of the site with the widest exposure (Strata II and III) since they represent different levels of social organization at the site. But, all four EB strata will be included in the temporal analysis. 3. Nature of occupation The Chalcolithic (Stratum V) appears to have been a small rural settlement with the population living in both caves and non-permanent, insubstantial huts. Silos and pits were used for storage during this period. The low volume of artefacts may indicate the settlement was occupied for a short duration of time. The EB Ib period (Stratum IV) is also a rural settlement, but on a larger scale. While there are no apparent fortification walls, the settlement appears to have been spread rather extensively across the upper and lower parts of the site. The population dwelt both below (caves) and above ground (stone structures) and used pits for storage. There appears to be two distinct phases of this settlement, possibly reflecting either a temporary abandonment or movement within the settlement. During this time, Arad was part of the copper trade network which continued into the EB II (Amiran and Ilan 1996). During the EB II settlement phase (Strata III and II), evidence for a managerial elite appears. City fortifications, more organized streets and open spaces, organization of public and domestic areas, similar architecture styles, and construction of a reservoir indicate some form of centralized government. The fortifications consist of a thick wall (with a standardized width 2- 2.5 m), semi-circular towers (Stratum III), rectangular towers (Stratum II), two city gates, and two postern gates. Streets are organized radially, from the reservoir to the walls, and concentrically apparently following the contours of the watershed. Several open spaces devoid of any architecture have been identified. There is one near the Western Gate that may have served for a market or public gathering. There is a second between the Palace and Sacred Precinct that may have been used for ceremonial or ritual activities. Other open spaces around the walls and between the Sacred Precinct and the reservoir are of unknown function. The city is organized into public and domestic areas during the EB II settlement. The public areas consist of a sacred precinct with temples, a large complex and intricately planned building interpreted as a palace, a market area with open spaces and associated buildings, and the water reservoir and possible associated buildings. The domestic quarters of the city consist of structures, commonly known as the ‘Arad House’. This type of structure involves a broad-room, 33 Trent Cheney rectangular in shape, with the floor sunken below street level, and a row of benches around the interior (Amiran et al. 1978). There are often additional rooms attached to the main structure, particularly in Stratum II, possibly indicating an increased population and density at some point during the period between Strata III and II (Amiran and Ilan 1996). This is apparent when structures continue in use from Strata III to II (Amiran and Ilan 1996). Numerous storage closets were found throughout the site, typically in the corners of public and domestic buildings, and were constructed of small stone or brick. In every instance, there is an attached courtyard with or without a fence or boundary. The Stratum I (EB II) phase of site occupation consisted of a small village settled near the walls of the Strata III and II city. It appears this settlement was nothing more than “survivors squatting in the ruined city after its destruction” (Amiran and Ilan 1993, 76). No public buildings have been found for this period indicating it was primarily a domestic settlement until this too was abandoned (Amiran and Ilan 1996). 4. Site description a) Public Quarters The Public Quarters are located in what has be called Area T and include what has been interpreted as the Palace, the Sacred Precinct, and the Markets (Amiran and Ilan 1996). The Palace has been identified based on its large size, its location on a major street near the Sacred District, and the design of the compound which is enclosed and separated from the other buildings. It was founded in Stratum III, the beginning of the EB II, the beginning of urbanization at Arad and remained in use through Stratum II. The Sacred Precinct has been identified based on three large interconnected complexes with connecting streets and open spaces, similar architecture to other EB Levant temples, and items that appear to be cultic in nature. The Markets have been identified based on city planning including large open spaces and non-dwelling buildings located near the Western Gate. b) Domestic Quarters The Domestic Quarters consist of two areas in Area T, a North section and an East section (Amiran and Ilan 1996). Both sections are thought to be domestic areas due to residential appearing buildings. Domestic/residential architecture is identified as a main room, a subsidiary room or rooms, and a courtyard or courtyards enclosed by a wall. Some of the rooms contain 34 Trent Cheney raised platforms and/or benches. Ash and cooking ceramics are often found within these structures. c) Water Reservoir The water reservoir is found in Area M. It “occupies the lowest point of the bowl-shaped hill” (Amiran and Ilan 1996, 105). It is surrounded by several buildings that appear to be connected to the operation of the reservoir while numerous radial streets that start at the city walls end here. This city planning makes the reservoir ideal for collecting water for the city. The buildings surround the reservoir on three sides: the north or northeast, west, and south. The east side is presumed to be the run-off channel that was probably dammed most of the time. The water reservoir and surrounding buildings originated in Stratum III or the beginning of the EB II and urbanization at Arad. For the purpose of this thesis, the area of the reservoir and surrounding buildings will be separated into three sections based on Amiran and Ilan (1996)) divisions for spatial analysis: north, west, and south. The north section of Area M is comprised of three buildings: the Water Citadel, the Water Commissioner’s House, and an eastern building with no defined purpose. To the west and south the buildings are similar and consist of “units of similar-sized rooms and their courtyards” (Amiran and Ilan 1996, 105). Although the purpose of the western and southern block of buildings is unclear, it is suggested based on the layout that a central administration planned the spatial structure of the settlement. 5. Some relevant artefact types from the EB settlement Two types of artefact types are described next because they can inform us about productive specialisation at the site and they might have impact on the butchering process. a) Lithics The lithic assemblage for Tel Arad consists of two main tool industries: the Ghassulian culture in the Chalcolithic and the Canaanean industry in Strata IV-I, the EB Ib and II (Amiran et al. 1978). Few lithics have been recovered from Stratum V (Chalcolithic) due to the limited excavations that have been carried out for this stratum; however they appear to belong to the Ghassulian culture. These consist of a retouched fan scraper, retouched scrapers, a retouched sickle blade, retouched blades, notched and denticulated flakes, retouched flakes, and a bifacial tool. The waste material is mostly flakes and some blades. Of main importance to this thesis are the lithic remains from Strata IV-I and how they may have affected butchering practice. Stratum 35 Trent Cheney IV (EB Ib) contained retouched fan-scrapers, retouched sickle blades, scrapers, denticulated or notched tools, retouched flakes and blades, notched awls. Waste material was flakes, a few blades and one core. Stratum III (EB II) consisted of retouched fan-scrapers, retouched sickle blades, retouched blades, scrapers, denticulate or notched tools, retouched flakes, retouched microlithic blades, and a Levalloisian flake. Waste material was numerous flakes, blades, cores, and a core tablet. Stratum II contained retouched fan scrapers, retouched sickle blades, a retouched scraper, a retouched borer, denticulate or notched tools, retouched flakes and blades, chopping tools with worked edges, a bifacially flaked tool, and a ground stone celt. Waste material was flakes and cores. Stratum I (EB II) lithics consisted of retouched fan scrapers, retouched sickle blades, scrapers, an awl, retouched irregular flakes, and a retouched microlithic blade. Waste material was flakes, blades, and one core. Some of these tools have importance for butchering. Scrapers can be used for skinning and processing of the hides. Awls are used for processing hides, but are not used in butchering. The retouched flakes and blades can be used in slaughtering, disarticulation, and filleting. Sickle blades are used in agriculture and are less useful for butchering. b) Metallurgy Two copper objects were recovered from the Chalcolithic settlement of Stratum V, a copper awl and a piece of a crucible (Amiran et al. 1978). Strata IV, III, II and I contained over 200 metal (copper and bronze) objects including axes, chisels, and awls. These tools are simple in design and are not typical of the craftsmanship of prestige items. It appears that metal tool production occurred within the city given the presence of copper prills and crucible fragments. The raw materials for these tools appear to have been obtained from Wadi Feynan to the east (located on the Jordanian side of the Rift Valley) and Timna located to the far south, near Eilat along the Israeli portion of the Rift Valley (Hauptmann, Begemann, and Schmitt-Strecker 1999). 6. Faunal data Even though a final report on the faunal data for Tel Arad is still underway, some preliminary findings are reported. Similar to most southern Levantine sites, sheep and goats are in abundance and dominate the taxonomic frequencies (Davis 1976, Lernau 1978). Based on metacarpals, adult sheep and goats were similar in abundance, but most of the goats were female (Davis 1976). Cattle were low in quantity, approximately 7-8% of the faunal assemblage (Lernau 1978, Davis 1976). There were only a few pig bones in the assemblage (Lernau 1978). Equid 36 Trent Cheney bones have also been found in small numbers, but it is unclear to which species they belong (Davis 1976). There is also some evidence of hunting with the presence of gazelle bones (Davis 1976). An interesting find was a hippopotamus “tusk” that came from Egypt or the coast suggesting long distance trading (Davis 1976). The zooarchaeological assemblage from Arad is well contextualized, both chronologically and spatially for the EB I and II. The site was abandoned afterwards and not reoccupied in this part of the site. Hence, it allows us to monitor developments in the site as it was transformed from an open settlement to walled urban regional centre, and then its collapse. Hence, it can be used as an example of the evolution from pre-urban settlement to urban settlement. Hypothetically, the early stages of the settlement which are rural in nature should have little evidence of organized butchering and specialist butchering. In contrast, the larger fortified, urban period of the city with evidence of centralized organization should also have evidence for centralized specialist butchering as one stage in the centralized economy. Similarly, this change in butchering specialization is expected to coincide with changes in technology, such as the adoption of metal butchering technology transition. Arad is on the way from Wadi Faynan to Egypt and was an important way station for the shipment of copper. 7. Butchering data The zooarchaeological data from the site of Tel Arad have been chosen for this analysis because the butchering sample size is large (n=400+ specimens) and comes from a variety of spatial contexts that extend over much of the lower city. The data to be analysed consists of the animal bones from Tel Arad that have evidence of butchering marks on them. To be considered for this analysis, the bone fragments had to be identified as having butchering marks (described below in detail) on them. The butchering marks were identified and distinguished from naturally produced marks by use of the naked eye, a low power magnifying glass, and/or a low power optical microscope (Greenfield 2004, 245, Greenfield and Jongsma 2008). All the animal bones from the original collection were individually examined using these procedures to select the butchered sample. The butchering sample is a subset of the larger faunal assemblage from this site. The mammal remains were originally analysed by Davis (Davis 1976) and Lernau (1978)). Liora Horwitz is planning on reanalysing the assemblage in its entirety. 37 Trent Cheney Over 400 mammal bone fragments with evidence of butchering were identified by Professor Haskel Greenfield during his preliminary analysis of this material. He selected them after going through the collection with some of his team (i.e. Tina L. Jongsma-Greenfield, Elizabeth Arnold, and Matthew Singer) in 2001. He received permission from both the excavators (the late Ornit Ilan and Michael Sebbane of the Israel Antiquities Authority) as well as the current project zooarchaeologist (Liora Horwitz). The larger faunal assemblage is curated by Prof. Rivka Rabinovich, National Natural History Collections, Institute of Earth Sciences, Givat Ram Campus, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Prof. Greenfield has graciously allowed these data to be analysed for this thesis. The sample from Tel Arad to be examined contains specimens from the EB I and EB II periods of occupation. The specimens are spread throughout the lower city and are found in a number of different depositional contexts. These data can be placed into the EB households allowing for household comparison and analysis of household productive specialization. The butchered sub-set of zooarchaeological data from this site will only be used for analysis of the butchering marks in regards to type of butchering technology (metal or stone), tool type (blade, scraper, axe, etc.), and butchering efficiency in order to reconstruct the butchering process and organization of production. The butchering data will not be compared to the larger faunal assemblage that is not relevant for either efficiency or tool type and material study. These data are described more comprehensively in the next chapter. I. Conclusion Arad provides good spatial and chronological information for the EB I and II to investigate the evolution of productive specialization from pre-urban to urban society and back to a non-urban settlement. The early stages of the settlement which are rural in nature should have little evidence of organized butchering and specialist butchering. The larger fortified, urban period of the city with evidence of centralized organization should also have evidence for centralized specialist butchering as one stage in the centralized economy. The final stage represents the collapse of urban society at the site.

38 Trent Cheney IV. Chapter 4: zooarchaeological analytical methods in butchering analysis To identify the nature of the butchering stage, the type of tool used in the butchering process and raw material of the tool and their manufacturing process, the sample must be subject to a series of rigorous analytical procedures. These procedures allow the results to be replicated and compared to the results of other similarly analyzed samples. The following discussion outlines these methods and the specific sequence that needs to be followed in the analysis of any assemblage of faunal remains. A. Analytical domain – Zooarchaeology Zooarchaeology, broadly defined, is the study of animal remains from archaeological sites (Reitz and Wing 2008, Chaplin 1971). It is interested mainly in the interaction of humans with animals, but can encompass much more (Gifford-Gonzalez 2018). It involves many disciplines including biology, archaeology, anthropology, and history (Gilbert 1973, 1980, Gilbert, Martin, and Savage 1985, Chaplin 1971). Diet, settlement organization, hierarchy, and governmental organization are a few of the issues that zooarchaeological analysis can address (Crabtree 1990a). Zooarchaeological analysis utilizes several types of identification including taxonomic, elemental, age at death, pathology, and bone modification (Hesse and Wapnish 1985). In particular, taxonomic, elemental, and bone modification are important to this study as described below. B. Zooarchaeological analysis 1. Taphonomy Each sample has been examined to identify the taphonomic processes which have acted on it (Lyman 1994). It is important to identify these processes to ensure that naturally made marks are distinguished from those marks made through human behaviour (Fisher 1995, Behrensmeyer, Gordon, and Yanagi 1986, Blumenschine and Selvaggio 1988, Capaldo and Blumenschine 1994, Lyman 1987b, Olsen and Shipman 1988, Potts and Shipman 1981, Shipman and Rose 1983, Bunn 1981). Taphonomic processes can also affect the morphology of butchering marks, thereby disguising the actual identification of the butchering marks (Greenfield 2006). 2. Taxonomic identification Taxonomic identification is the basis of nearly all zooarchaeological analysis (Hesse and Wapnish 1986, Reitz and Wing 1999). Taxonomic identification of the butchered sample 39 Trent Cheney involves the identification of the taxon (e.g. species, genus, class, etc.) of the specimen. Differential butchering patterns based on species can be identified at this stage of identification. It is possible that some species may be selected for centralized control, while other species may be processed by individual family groups. All specimens were identified for the above zooarchaeological variables using the comparative collection of animal bones at the National Natural Collections, Institute of Earth Sciences, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the comparative collection in the Anthropology Lab at the University of Manitoba, as well as many standard zoological taxonomic identification manuals (Walker 1985, Barone 1976, Pales and Lambert 1971, Hillson 1996, McCuaig Balkwill and Cumbaa 1992, Lawrence 1951, Schmid 1972, Boessneck 1969, Boessneck, Mueller, and Teichert 1964). 3. Element and part of element identification Each specimen is identified with regard to the element (i.e. humerus, tibia, etc.) and then part of the element. In particular, the proximal and distal shaft, and proximal or distal end of an element are noted. This is important for interpretation of body segments that may have been preferred during the different butchering stages and the importance of each segment to the butchers and consumers. It is also is important when considering bone attrition based on bone density. In addition, butchering stages can be reconstructed based on the presence or absence of different elements, parts of elements, and the location of the butchering marks on the bone. 4. Symmetry, age, and pathology of elements Each element was identified as to the side of the body it comes from and age class at death. Age and symmetry of elements are essential if the faunal assemblage is evaluated with respect to certain quantitative measures (e.g. MNI and/or MNE) which are explained below, or for issues of ritual, status, and/or cultural differences. However, it is not expected that skilled butchering would result in any differential butchering patterns based on the age of the animal or side of the body. Similarly, osteological pathologies are not expected to have an influence on identifying specialized butchering. In consequence, these issues will not be investigated any further. But, the data for each of these variables is available in the database. C. Butchering marks Analysis of the morphology of butchery marks, particularly slices, allows archaeologists to reconstruct the relative frequency of different raw materials and tool types at a site that are 40 Trent Cheney employed in the butchering process. This can occur even in the absence of recovery of the butchering tools (Greenfield 2000a, 2002, 2006, Mathieu and Meyer 1997, Shipman 1981, de Juana, Galán, and Domínguez-Rodrigo 2010). It is important to recognize the subtle differences in butchering mark morphologies to provide accurate analysis of tool types. Experimental archaeology has reproduced various butchering mark morphologies using a variety of tool types that can be used in analysis of archaeological assemblages (Bello and Soligo 2008, Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009, Greenfield 1999, 2002, 2006, Lemke 2013, Lewis 2008, Monnier and Bischoff 2014, Shipman 1981, West and Louys 2007, Bunn 1981, Lyman 1987b, Potts and Shipman 1981, Shipman and Rose 1983, Walker and Long 1977). Butchering mark morphology has been examined by eye, under light optical microscopes, and under more powerful microscopes (Bunn 1981, Greenfield 1999, Lyman 1987b, Walker and Long 1977). The greatest success in consistency has been when they are examined by Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEM) (Greenfield 2002, 431). The use of SEM has added new detail to the analysis of slicing marks. These microscopic features have been described by several researchers. Research has shown that the tool type, tool material, and how the tool was produced will affect the internal morphology mark (Noe-Nygaard 1989, Greenfield 1999, 2000b, 100). 1. Identifying natural vs human-made marks The first step is to distinguish natural from cultural marks. There is a long history of confusion of pseudo from real butchering marks (cf. Binford 1981). However, identifying slicing marks from natural marks on faunal remains only began in earnest in the second half of the 20th Century, particularly with the seminal study by Semenov (Semenov 1964). His experimental work was the first to systematically associate the type of microscopic groove with particular stone tool types using light optical microscopes. Previous research determined that butchering marks can be easily distinguished from naturally occurring marks, such as tooth marks, even with light optical microscopes (Walker and Long 1977). The next biggest breakthrough came with the results of Shipman’s (1981) research where she pioneered the use of SEM in distinguishing tooth versus butchering marks. These results were later corroborated using a SEM (Blumenschine, Marean, and Capaldo 1996). Olsen and Shipman (1988) were able to identify trampling marks from butchering marks. This was followed up by Greenfield in a series of studies that helped to distinguish metal from stone tool knife marks on bones (Greenfield 1999, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2013). 41 Trent Cheney 2. Human-made butchering marks Leakey (1953)) produced some of the first experimental research into butchering marks on bones. His research demonstrated that large stone tools were more effective than smaller stone tools at performing butchering activities. His conclusion that large stone tools are better for butchery was reaffirmed by Frison (1974)). Frison, Wilson, and Wilson (1976)) expanded on these experiments and concluded through further butchery experimentation that metal tools are more effective than stone tools. Walker and Long (1977)) performed experiments using different types of stone tools to identify marks created from different slicing edges. They also determined that mark morphology could be determined by pressure, angle of application, length of slicing edge, and type of slicing action. Butchering marks typically come in five basic types (slice, scrape, saw, chop, and blow/bash marks) that will be described below. A variety of instruments (knives, scrapers, saws, axes/cleavers, and hammers) may be used during the butchering process (Noe-Nygaard 1989, 471-473, Gifford-Gonzalez 2018). These tools can affect the morphology of each type of mark. Slicing marks are the most common type of mark found in a butchering assemblage. The term slicing mark distinguishes this mark type from other butchering types, such as a scrape or chop that can be created by a variety of other instruments. Slices made from a slicing action may be subdivided into ‘nicks’ and ‘slices’ in some research based upon the length of the mark (Lemke 2013). However, this distinction has not been made here. Slicing marks are typically short straight incisions made by a blade being drawn across the bone. The tool type, tool material, and tool production will affect the internal morphology mark. The morphology is roughly a ‘V’ shaped groove with or without lateral striations on one or both sides of the groove (Noe-Nygaard 1989, Greenfield 1999, 2000b, 100). The striations are caused by irregularities in the blade based on its manufacture style. In terms of chipped stone tools, the morphology will vary if one uses an unmodified stone instrument with unifacial or bifacial production, or with retouching. In terms of metal tools, they tend not to have any irregularities that would cause lateral striations. Scrape marks are shallow, irregular but parallel marks caused by the teeth of an instrument being scraped along the bone against the long axis of the tool (Greenfield 2006). The tool is usually held perpendicular to the direction of the scraping and thus usually requires a more robust tool such as a thick stone blade usually reworked on one side and sometimes both 42 Trent Cheney sides usually called a scrapper (Rosen 1997). The mark is wide with a number of internal grooves. Scrape marks can be easily mistaken for natural scraping of the bone on the ground or as slicing marks if they are deeper (Gifford-Gonzalez 2018). Chop marks are formed by chopping at the bone with a sharp or semi-sharp axe or chopping tool. Metal axes produce deep ‘V’ shaped grooves occasionally with striations parallel to the chopping direction due to irregularities in the blade. Ground stone axes leave an amorphous mark similar to impact marks in a very rough ‘V’ shape. In between the two, chipped stone axes create a semi-‘V’ shape with some impact marking and possibly striations parallel to the chopping direction (de Juana, Galán, and Domínguez-Rodrigo 2010, Mathieu and Meyer 1997). Impact marks are the result hitting a blunt instrument (e.g. hammer) against the bone. This is typically done to fracture the bone in the process of marrow removal. An impact mark can be identified by crushed bone and an indent at the site or fractured bone pieces with radiating striations on the bone wall (Noe-Nygaard 1989, 473). Saw marks are criss-crossed striations created by repeated strokes of a tool on the bone (Noe-Nygaard 1989, 473). The purpose of sawing is to dismember the carcass into smaller portions or access the marrow within the bone. A form of this type of mark, called a gash, may result from delayed butchering where the carcase is in rigor mortis or frozen and requires a heavier tool to butcher (Lemke 2013). This thesis focuses on slicing butchering marks since they are more common and visible in EB assemblages. Data on other types of butchery marks were not systematically collected from the general faunal assemblage for three reasons: 1) some types were not evident in the assemblage (e.g. saw and chop marks); 2) bash marks were often difficult to distinguish from eroded or gnawed edges on bones; and 3) slice marks were the most evident and most common butchering mark in the assemblage. D. Quantification 1. Assemblage taxonomic frequency quantification methods Any zooarchaeological analysis involving large quantities of remains requires quantification to identify patterns in the data. Quantification provides substance and numerical objectivity analysis. Several quantification methods have been applied in zooarchaeological 43 Trent Cheney research. Some of the most common taxonomic frequency quantification methods are discussed next. Number of Individual Specimens (NISP) is typically the most basic quantification created by counting each fragment or articulated element as separate individuals. NISP does not consider whether different fragments may in fact match together and thus be parts of one individual (Grayson 1984). Total Number of Elements (TNE) is similar to NISP except that it ignores articulations and counts every fragment as a discrete individual. Alternatively, some researchers employ Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) (Bökönyi 1970). A version used in butchering studies is based on the Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) (Abe et al. 2002). Both MNI and MNE determine taxonomic frequency by matching element, side, sex, and age. MNI is then determined by counting the most numerous element by side for a particular species, adjusting it for side, sex, age, weathering, context, etc. and using that frequency for the number of individuals of a particular species (Lyman 2008, Bökönyi 1970). MNI and MNE are difficult to employ in a consistent manner due to the difficulty of pairing left and right elements together considering all the variables discussed above. It is also more difficult to quantify more ambiguous taxon such as large or medium mammal and sheep/goat. MNI may also reduce the frequency of a taxon to such small numbers to render it inaccurate for quantification purposes. MNI measures have long been argued by many to be an undesirable measure for quantification for later prehistoric food producing and complex societies (Falconer 1995, Redding 1992, Crabtree 1990b, Greenfield 1986). Comparisons of NISP and MNE particularly for butchering analyses seem to indicate that MNE is a more accurate measure of quantification (Otarola-Castillo 2010b). However, most analyses of later prehistoric and historic assemblages, where there are large numbers of specimens and refitting of elements is not possible, continue to use NISP is the most common measure (Greenfield 1986). 2. Butchering quantification methods Quantification of the butchered assemblage is different than quantification of an entire assemblage because the focus is on the individual elements for each taxonomic category and not the overall taxon. Usually, only a small percentage of the overall assemblage is quantified for butchering analysis. The term ‘butchering’ is used to differentiate the quantification of the butchering assemblage (Lyman 1994, Reitz and Wing 1999). 44 Trent Cheney A few different quantification methods have been proposed to describe the butchered assemblage such as: fragment counts, percentages of the larger faunal assemblage, and frequency of individual slicing marks on the fragments (Abe et al. 2002). This has resulted in difficulty comparing results between studies the quantification used in this thesis are the following. The Butchering Number of Individual Specimens (bNISP) is obtained by counting every fragment or articulated element as one individual. Butchering Total Number of Elements (bTNE) is similar to the bNISP except that it ignores articulations and counts every fragment as a discrete individual. Butchering Minimum Number of Individuals (bMNI) will not be used in this analysis because it reduces the frequencies to such low numbers that it is inaccurate for quantification purposes. MNI measures have been previously argued to be an undesirable measure for quantification (Falconer 1995, Redding 1992, Crabtree 1990b, Otarola-Castillo 2010a). BMNI is also difficult to measure due to the difficulty of pairing left and right elements together using age, sex, size, and even weathering. It is also more difficult to quantify more ambiguous taxa, such as large or medium mammal and sheep/goat. Due to these problems MNI or bMNI will not be used in this analysis. Both bNISP and bTNE have been included in this analysis for comparison to previously printed material. However, both these quantification methods are inherently inaccurate for the purposes of determining butchering practices. They assume that only one butchering activity is displayed on each individual specimen. This is not always the case as recent research has revealed. 3. Butchering incidence A more accurate measure, Butchering Incidences (BI), has been proposed by Greenfield, Cheney, and Galili (2016)). Butchering Incidences count individual clusters of butchering marks on the bone. This quantification measure is preferred because in some situations, more than one group of butchering marks may be present on a bone fragment. These clusters may have been made at separate times, by different tools, and /or by different butchering activities- e.g. disarticulation at the end and filleting along the shaft (e.g. Tel Arad Sample 393, Figures 4 & 5). Clusters of butchering marks may occur on different surfaces, locations, or distinct clusters on the same part of the bone. For this reason, each distinct cluster must be identified and counted as specific butchering incidences. This will provide a more accurate measure of the butchering activities being represented in a faunal assemblage. 45 Trent Cheney E. Butchering efficiency It has been proposed earlier in this thesis (Chapter 1) that skilled butchering should display increased butchering efficiency over more household modes. This increase in butchering efficiency should be evident in fewer butchering slicing marks on the bone, especially regarding skinning and disarticulation activities. The premise is that skilled butchers will have the skill to avoid hitting the bone (MacKinnon 1999). Butchery marks on the bone indicate mistakes in the butchery process since it leaves bone fragments in the meat. More carcasses can be processed more efficiently by skilled versus unskilled or low skilled butchers. Also, hitting the bone dulls the blade and further slows down the efficiency of the butchery process. There are several measures used to count the butchering marks on the bone for several different purposes. 1. Processing intensity One measure of frequency compares the bNISP and/or bTNE to the corresponding measures of the larger assemblage and is usually expressed as a percentage of the larger assemblage. Egeland (2003) considers this to be one measure of ‘processing intensity’. This measure has been used to determine how hard or vigorously the butchering was being performed. Processing intensity has been used to infer differential carcass processing in regards to the carcass condition (Binford 1981), animal size (Lyman 1987c), and others. This method requires knowledge of NISP and/or TNE of the larger assemblage. Other measures of processing or butchering intensity include counting each mark or striation and measuring the surface area of certain defined skeletal regions (Abe et al. 2002). However, it is unclear whether there is any advantage to use surface area instead of NISP (Lyman 2005). Other problems include the presumption that the frequency of marks would be the same for the unpreserved portions of bone, that individual striae can be identified, and that the frequency of marks is correlated to the amount of effort put into butchering (Lyman 2005). Lyman (2005) attempts to overcome these difficulties by counting the number of skeletal regions, e.g. shoulder, elbow, hip, knee, wrist, and ankle, with butchering marks compared to the individual elements in the faunal assemblage (Lyman 2005, 1726). Thus, for elbow, the number of distal humeri and proximal ulnae and radii present would be counted. Lyman’s approach also attempts to account for the problem that butchering may not produce butchering marks by assuming that the ratio of butchery marked specimens to unmarked specimens is also correlated to the number of unpreserved butchered specimens. This is a useful approach when the entire 46 Trent Cheney assemblage is available for analysis. Unfortunately, only the butchered assemblage was available for this thesis. 2. Slicing mark incidence frequency Similar to processing intensity, Dewbury and Russell (2007) used frequency of slicing marks per deer carcass to assess differences between flint and obsidian tools. This measure has the problem of calculating all butchering marks on the bone regardless of the butchering activity. Unfortunately, this research is difficult to test on archaeological samples due to the reliance on whole or mostly whole carcasses. They observed that butchering with obsidian required fewer slicing mark incidences than butchering with flint, however the results were not statistically significant due to low sample size. 3. Butchering mark frequency The above measures do not account for butchers trying to avoid hitting the bone. They only try to account for the bones that do not have butchering marks on them. As stated earlier, the specialist butcher is trying to avoid hitting the bone for several reasons – dull the blade; bone fragments in the meat, as well as for possible religious purposes (Greenfield and Bouchnick 2010). Processing intensity has proven useful for the study of hominid carcass use, but intensity is not an adequate measure to identify skilled butchering. Instead, butchering efficiency needs to quantify how few marks are left on the bone. To measure efficiency, Butchering Mark Frequency (BMF) quantifies the number of slices per BI to account for both butchering activity and tool type. BMF in any form does not require knowledge of the larger assemblage. This measure also avoids any assumption about the unpreserved portion of the assemblage as it deals only with the bone fragments that have been preserved and have butchering marks on them. As stated previously, highly skilled butchers should leave fewer marks on the bone compared to low skilled butchers. Skilled butchers, if present, should be involved mainly with skinning and disarticulation. Furthermore, BMF using bNISP and bTNE will also be included for comparison to other research. F. Identifying butchering technology It is proposed that the development of skilled butchering would result in differential tool type and raw material usage for the various butchering activities. It is expected that tools and raw material would be selected for increased efficiency for butchering activities in which a skilled 47 Trent Cheney butcher is involved, such as disarticulation, skinning and possibly slaughtering. This would mean using metal tools when they became available or unifacial and bifacial blade stone tools before metal tools are available. Metal tools are useful due to metal keeping a sharp edge longer, the ease of sharpening a metal tool and the overall durability and long life of a metal tool. It is necessary to determine the type of butchering activity performed by each BI. Butchering practices can be inferred through analysis of the different butchering incidences. As mentioned earlier, it is important to rule out marks caused by natural agents so they do not get confused with butchering activities. Butchering practices produce unique sets of marks on the bones which allow reconstruction of butchery practices from the marks in an archaeological assemblage. Analysis of the morphology of butchery marks allows archaeologists to identify the tool type and tool raw material used (Greenfield 2000a, 2002, 2006, Mathieu and Meyer 1997, Shipman 1981, de Juana, Galán, and Domínguez-Rodrigo 2010). It is important to recognize the subtle differences in butchering mark morphologies to provide accurate analysis of tool types. Experimental archaeology has reproduced various butchering mark morphologies using a variety of tool types which can be used in analysis of archaeological assemblages. Butchering mark morphology can be identified under an optical microscope (Greenfield 2002, 431). 1. Technique for reconstructing butchering tool technology To identify butchering tool types, first, each Butchering Incidence is examined under an optical microscope. Each butchering tool type creates a different variation in butchering mark morphology. These differences are visible under an optical microscope allowing for interpretation of which tools were used in the butchering. a) Butchering tool morphology Based on a simplified Rosen’s (1997) stone tool classification system, the classification of stones tools identified in the butchered assemblage will be based on three general categories: unifacially produced flakes, unifacially retouched knife blades, and bifacially retouched knife blades. The fourth category is metal knives. The identification of what tool created each mark is based on the interpretation of the morphology of the mark. Metal blades are lengths of metal sharpened to an edge along one or both sides. Due to the sharpened edge, metal blades produce marks like a ‘V’ or ‘U’ depending on the sharpness of 48 Trent Cheney the blade (Greenfield 2006). Metal blades tend to have steep sides with no striations but are often dull or wide at the bottom of the grove due to the difficulty of sharpening metal to a fine point. Flakes are created by chipping a piece of stone from a core. This produces a flake with a smooth, slightly rounded ventral surface and a dorsal surface which displays the results of previous chipping (Rosen 1997, 23). No further chipping or modification is performed on simple flake tools. This results in a sharp edge with relatively smooth sides. Simple flakes are usually considered ‘debitage’ or ‘waste’ (Rosen 1997, 31). The morphology of a flake will make a lopsided ‘V’ shaped groove in the bone with one side displaying a more gradual slope and the other steeper slope (Greenfield 2006). They tend to be sharp at the apex due to the natural sharpness of stone flaking. There is often no more than a single lateral striation on one side of the grove. Unifacial blades are the result of additional chipping or modification, called retouch, along one or more edges of one surface, usually the dorsal, of the flake (Rosen 1997, 81). This retouch will produce a number of lateral striations on one side of the ‘V’ shaped groove on the bone (Greenfield 2006, 152). Bifacial knives have retouch on one or more edges of both the dorsal and ventral surface of the tool (Rosen 1997, 81). Retouching on both surfaces creates lateral striations on both sides of the groove on the bone (Greenfield 2000b, 100, 2006, 152). b) Butchering tool raw material Experiments have been inconclusive regarding any differences in the butchering mark morphologies due to various stone tool raw materials (e.g. obsidian, flint, and quartzite) (Greenfield 2006). The minor differences in the butchering mark morphologies appear to be the result of differential pressure exerted, angle of slicing, and size of tool which are difficult to control for (Greenfield 2006, 154). Dewbury and Russell (2007) determined that obsidian was more efficient than flint requiring fewer slicing incidents, however it was not statistically significantly different. Due to these difficulties stone tool raw material type will not be examined. G. Chronological and spatial analysis Finally, the butchering assemblage was analyzed according to chronological and spatial information. Only Butchering Incidents with chronological and spatial information were considered for this part of the analysis. 49 Trent Cheney 1. Chronological analysis Each sample is associated with a locus number. A locus is a reference to a specific temporal and spatial (3D) location within an archaeological site. Each locus, therefore, can be associated with a specific stratum, layer of earth, or time period. Tel Arad, like many sites in the EBA Southern Levant, grew from a small village to a larger walled settlement, presumably with organized economic authority, and then declined to a small village again. Analysis of the different strata can reveal any change in butchering patterns between the time periods. It is hypothesized that there should be no evidence for highly skilled butchering in Stratum IV. In contrast, since there is evidence of some kind of centralized administration in Stratum II and III, I expect that butchering skill should increase. As the urban centre collapses back into a village, Stratum I should show more generalized butchering skill due to a presumed lack of any centralized authority. 2. Spatial analysis Given the constraints on a spatial analysis due to the lack of association between many bone baskets with specific buildings in the excavation area, the spatial analysis was conducted in light of the clear divisions within the excavated areas as defined by Amiran and Ilan (1996)) and summarized in Chapter 5 of this thesis. The butchered remains were analyzed spatially using the general divisions of the Public Quarters and Domestic Quarters from Area T and the Northern Block, Western Block, and Southern Block around the Water Reservoir in Area M. These divisions enabled analysis of the remains for spatial differentiation on the site for identification of specialized butchering activities. First, using bNISP and BI, a spatial analysis of the taxa in general was conducted to determine if there was any preference for specific taxa in any of the five areas. Involvement of centralized administration would possibly distribute taxa differentially throughout the site. If there is evidence for taxonomic distinctions between areas, then the data must be evaluated with respect to a variety of possible causes – e.g. butchering skill, ethnicity, ritual, and/or status. Second, the bNISP and BI measures were analyzed spatially to identify spatial differentiation of butchering activities between the areas. As discussed earlier (Chapter 3), marks created by a skilled butcher, such as disarticulation, skinning, and slaughtering, should be deposited in a few specific locations resulting in spatial differentiation. For example, skinning, slaughtering, and disarticulation marks are often found on bones that have little or no meat on 50 Trent Cheney them (e.g. head, upper vertebrae, and lower parts of the limbs) that may be visible in spatial differences within the site. If household butchering is predominant, then it is expected that bones with marks representing all butchering activities should be deposited in a variety of locations, usually the closest wall or abandoned area. If it is based on the individual household, then no spatial differentiation should be visible. Third, the type of butchering activity for each taxon can be spatially analysed to determine if there is any evidence for spatial differentiation between the areas. It is predicted that if skilled butchering is present, then there should be a spatial distinction in the various steps of the butchering process – i.e. filleting, disarticulation, skinning, and slaughtering. If household butchering is predominant, then there should be little evidence for spatial differentiation between the areas. Fourth, analysis of the tool types used in butchering may also be useful in determining specialized or household butchering. It is predicted that household butchering will likely use more haphazard tools (e.g. flakes), while specialized butchering will choose tools that are mass produced (e.g. tabular scrapers and long blades). If there is spatial differentiation in tool type, then this would be evidence for specialized butchering. As mentioned earlier in Chapter 1, specialist butchers should be choosing tools which are stronger and more durable in order to process the meat more efficiently. Fourth, a spatial analysis was conducted of the BMF values, which are based on bNISP and BI data, to determine if there are differences in butchering efficiency between different parts of the site. Skilled butchering (and by implication, the presence of a centralized administration controlling food distribution) should be evident in differential efficiency of the butchering process (i.e. disarticulation) between different parts of the site. H. Statistics Lastly, statistical calculations were conducted to determine the significance of the findings of the previous sections. To avoid misidentification of possible patterns in the data it is imperative to verify the results with statistical analysis. A few different tests were performed depending on the data available for analysis: single sample T-Tests, two sample t-Tests, and Chi Square tests. 51 Trent Cheney I. Conclusion In the next chapter, I will describe the site and the relevant data (butchered fauna) to be used as a test of the utility of the methods outlined in this chapter. From this analysis, I ultimately hope to be able to identify changes in butchery skill that are coincident with the evolution of Arad from an open settlement to a walled regional urban centre.

52 Trent Cheney V. Chapter 5: Data analysis A. Introduction In this chapter, the butchering data from the EB layers at Tel Arad will be described. Empirical data analyses are used as the basis for archaeological interpretations. This study used three main methods of quantification for data analysis. The two standard zooarchaeological quantification measures used in this study are Number of Individual Specimens, abbreviated as NISP, and Total Number of Elements, abbreviated as TNE. The new method of measurement recently developed is Butchering Incidences, abbreviated as BI. Since the data in this study are a sample of the original larger faunal assemblage, the butchered data will be abbreviated as bNISP and bTNE. B. Analysis 1. Quantification a) Traditional butchering quantification methods The total number of fragments identified with butchering marks and taxon identification were bNISP=454 and bTNE=457 (Table 2a). Further filtering for fragments with slicing marks made by flakes, unifacial retouch tools, and bifacial retouch tool, the total comes down to bNISP=414 and bTNE=417 (Table 2b). Filtering the data for slicing marks and those with information on slices counted under a microscope there were bNISP=346 and bTNE=346 (Table 2c). Counting the number of bone fragments with slicing marks, microscopic counts, and spatial/chronological data returned a result of bNISP=233 and of bTNE=233 (Table 2d). The bNISP and bTNE are similar due to only a few fragments being articulated with another fragment which would have lowered the bNISP. Since the bNISP and bTNE have a similar value, only bNISP will be further reported. These measures have been included for comparison purposes with the more accurate measure of BI. b) Butchering incidence method The total BI of butchering mark fragments with taxon identification was BI=522 (Table 2a). Selecting for only slicing marks made by flakes, unifacial retouch tools, and bifacial retouch tools, resulted in BI=479 (Table 2b). Filtering for only fragments with slicing marks and information on the number of slices counted under a microscope produced BI=390 (Table 2c). Counting each distinct cluster of slicing butchering marks with microscopic counts and spatial/chronological data resulted in a BI of 267 (Table 2d). The difference between bNISP and 53 Trent Cheney BI is due to several bone fragments with 2 or more clusters of marks on them. There was a total of n=47 bones with two or more BI on them resulting in a total of n=66 more BI that would not have been counted using bNISP or bTNE (Table 3). Of these n=47 bones, n=1 bone had seven BI, n=1 bone had four BI and n=12 bones had three BI on them. The remaining n=33 only had 2 BI each. Examination of the difference between bNISP and BI regarding butchering stages revealed significant new data. There were n=26 extra BI in filleting and n=32 extra BI in disarticulation marks (Table 4a). The other stages were less significant with n=6 from skinning and n=1 from carving. Analyzing both BI and bNISP with regards to taxon also revealed new patterns in the data. The Ovis/Capra category had n=27 extra BI, Ovis aries had n=13 extra BI, and Capra hircus had n=15 extra BI (Table 4b). The remaining taxa were less significantly different with Bos taurus at BI=5, Gazelle at BI=2, large mammal at BI=2, and medium mammal at BI=1 extra marks. 2. Butchering stages and taxon Using bNISP and BI the butchering stages and taxon were quantified for analysis. Quantification allowed for recognition of patterns in the data. a) Butchering stages Breaking down the slicing butchering marks into butchering stages revealed a predominance of filleting slice marks with bNISP=230 and BI=256 marks (Table 4a). Disarticulation slicing marks were next with bNISP=145 and BI=177 marks. Significantly less were skinning slice marks at bNISP=27 and BI=33. At the low end of the list were slaughtering marks at bNISP=7 and BI=7, and tool production marks with bNISP=5 and BI=5. Carving slicing marks were the bottom of the list with bNISP=0 and BI=1. b) Bos species There was bNISP=31 and BI=36 samples of slicing butchering mark clusters on Bos taurus bones (Table 5). Of these, bNISP=17 and BI=21 were disarticulation, bNISP=11 and BI=12 were filleting, and bNISP=3 and BI=3 were skinning marks. c) Caprini species Capra hircus and Ovis aries are very similar in bone morphology and it is not always easy to differentiate between the two species (Boessneck 1969, Boessneck, Mueller, and Teichert 54 Trent Cheney 1964, Prummel and Frisch 1986, Zeder and Lapham 2010, Zeder and Pilaar 2010). For this reason, the categories of Capra hircus, Ovis aries, and Ovis/Capra will all be discussed at the same time. Slicing butchering marks identified on Capra hircus were bNISP=53 and BI=68 (Table 6). The slicing butchering marks were distributed as bNISP=35 and BI=44 interpreted as disarticulation, bNISP=7 and BI=12 as skinning, bNISP=6 and BI=6 as slaughtering, and bNISP=5 and BI=6 as filleting. There were bNISP=71 and BI=84 slicing butchering marks identified on Ovis aries bones (Table 6). Disarticulation marks accounted for bNISP=45 and BI=55 of those butchering marks, while bNISP=18 and BI=20 were filleting, bNISP=7 and BI=7 were skinning, bNISP=1 and BI=1 were slaughtering, and bNISP=0 and BI=1 were for carving. Slicing butchering marks on bones which could only be identified as Ovis/Capra counted for bNISP=150 and BI=177 (Table 6). Identification of the butchering stages indicated that bNISP=101 and BI=121 were filleting, bNISP=41 and BI=47 were disarticulation, and bNISP=8 and BI=9 were skinning. The high frequency of filleting marks in the Ovis/Capra category is likely due to these marks occurring along the shaft of the bone where there are few identifying features to distinguish between Capra hircus or Ovis aries. d) Miscellaneous species There are so few specimens of other species that it is best if they are considered together. Gazella gazelle is represented by bNISP=4 and BI=6 specimens (Table 7). These butchering marks are bNISP=3 and BI=5 as disarticulation and bNISP=1 and BI=1 as filleting. There are bNISP=2 and BI=2 butchering marks on Canis familiaris which were identified as filleting (Table 7). Equus asinus was represented by bNISP=1 and BI=1 filleting mark (Table 7). One bone with bNISP=1 and BI=1 could only be identified as Gazella/Ovis/Capra and it is a filleting mark (Table 7). There were several specimens, bNISP=67 and BI=68, that were only identified as medium mammal (Table 7). These butchering marks are identified as bNISP=63 and BI=63 filleting, bNISP=2 and BI=3 disarticulation, and bNISP=2 and BI=2 skinning. 55 Trent Cheney The remaining specimens could only be identified to the general category of large mammal, bNISP=29 and BI=31 (Table 7). These were divided up as bNISP=27 and BI=29 for filleting and bNISP=2 and BI=2 for disarticulation. The overabundance of filleting butchering marks for the categories of large and medium mammal is expected due to filleting marks typically being located on the shaft of the bone which may have very few morphologically distinguishing features. e) Discussion Overall, the caprid remains account for 67.1% of the bNISP and 69.5% of the BI while the Bos remains account for 7.5% of the bNISP and BI. This is comparable to the larger faunal assemblage at other sites from the EB and the larger faunal assemblage from Arad (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989, Davis 1976, Lernau 1978). However, the cattle remains are lower than other sites in the southern Levant, such as Yiftah’el (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). 3. Butchering technology With the aid of morphological characteristics diagnostic of tool type, the type of tool technology is interpreted and quantified next. a) Technique for reconstructing butchering tool technology To identify butchering tool types, many Butchering Incidences were examined under an optical microscope. Filtering the data for BI which had been investigated under an optical microscope produced a sample of bNISP=346 and BI=390 (Table 8a and b). As discussed previously, each butchering tool type creates a different variation in butchering mark morphology. These differences are visible under an optical microscope allowing for interpretation of which tools were used in the butchering. The interpretation of which stone tools were used to create the various slice marks in this sample used a simplified version Rosen’s (1997) classification of stone tools. Slice marks that appeared to be created by an unretouched stone tool were interpreted as Flake tools. Other slice marks appeared to be made by unifacial retouched tools or bifacial retouched tools. b) Overall butchering tool quantification Analysis of each slicing BI under a light optical microscope lead to the interpretation that, most the marks were created by flake tools, bNISP=323 and BI=366 (Table 8a and b). Morphological indications for the other tool types were significantly less with unifacial retouch tools at bNISP=18 and BI=19 and bifacial retouch tools at bNISP=5 and BI=5. 56 Trent Cheney c) Butchering tool and butchering activity Due to the high volume of marks interpreted as flake tools in the sample, there was little variation in tool frequencies across the different butchering activities (Table 9a and b). Marks interpreted as flake tools accounted for 93.8% bNISP or 93.9% BI for filleting, 95.3% bNISP or 95.9% BI for disarticulation, 80.0% bNISP or 83.9% BI for skinning, 100% bNISP and BI of marks for slaughtering, and 100% BI for carving. Unifacial retouch tools make up 12.0% bNISP or 9.7% BI of skinning marks, 4.8% bNISP and BI of filleting marks, and 4.7% bNISP or 4.1% BI of disarticulation marks. Bifacial retouch tools are identified on 8.0% bNISP or 6.5% BI of skinning marks and 1.4% bNISP or 1.3%BI of filleting marks. d) Butchering tool and taxon Slice marks that are interpreted as flake tools are the most common marks in every taxon ranging from 84.6% bNISP or 85.7% BI in Bos taurus to 100% bNISP and BI for the Gazelle, Gazelle/Ovis/Capra, Canis familiaris, and large mammal taxa (Table 10a and b). Marks interpreted as unifacial retouch tool tools accounted for 11.5% bNISP or 10.7% BI of marks on Bos taurus, 8.8% bNISP and BI on medium mammals, 5.8% bNISP or 5.7% BI on Ovis/Capra, and 4.4% bNISP or 3.8% BI on Capra hircus. Bifacial knife marks showed up in 3.9% bNISP or 3.6% BI of Bos taurus marks, 2.2% bNISP or 1.9% BI of marks on Ovis/Capra bones, and 1.9% bNISP or 1.6% BI on Ovis aries. e) Discussion Most slicing butchering marks (93.4% of bNISP and 93.9% of BI) were interpreted as made by flake tools (Table 8). It is interesting that 20.0% bNISP and 16.1% BI skinning marks are interpreted as being performed by heavier blades (e.g. heavy unifacial and bifacial retouch tools) (Table 9). However, it is only n=5 out of bNISP=25 or BI=31 so the numbers are not substantial. Also, there does not appear to be any corresponding taxon associated with it (Table 25). 4. Butchering Efficiency One aspect of butchering that this research explores is butchering efficiency and its changes over time at Arad. It is presumed that more efficient butchers, i.e. skilled butchers, would leave fewer marks on the bone. Butchering efficiency can be measured by counting the number of slice marks present on the bone which is referred to as Butchering Mark Frequency (BMF). 57 Trent Cheney The analysis of BMF is based on the number of slice marks visible under an optical microscope between 16x and 40x magnification. It is not always easy to count every slice mark. Sometimes the slice mark is too faint to see even under 40x magnification. Another problem is overlapping slice marks which can obscure some of the slice marks, although by careful examination of the ends of the overlapping marks it is possible to overcome this problem to some degree. In total, the number of slice marks counted on the sample was n=5621 (Table 11a). Since the number of slices under an optical microscope was unavailable for some of the samples, the number of samples used for BMF analysis was reduced to bNISP=346 and BI=390 (Table 11a and b). Calculation of the Butchering Mark Frequency averages the number of slices per bNISP and BI. Overall, the BMF per bNISP was BMFN=16.25 (Table 11a). The overall BMF per BI for the butchering assemblage was BMFB=14.41 (Table 11b). a) Butchering activity and BMF The BMF is expected to vary based on whether butchering activity was performed by skilled butchers. Skilled butchers would perform the activity over and over again and would have a highly developed skill set. Hence, it is expected that they would require fewer strokes to do a specific activity. In contrast, low skill butchers would require far more strokes to complete the same task. (1) Results Filleting had the highest frequency of slice marks with BMF=20.32 per bNISP and BMF=18.38 per BI (Table 11a and b). Skinning came next with =BMFN=12.04, =and BMFB=9.71. Disarticulation had a frequency of BMFN=9.79 and BMFB=8.58. The lowest frequency of slice marks was recorded for slaughtering with BMF=5.00 per bNISP and BI. Carving only had one recorded BI with a BMFB=20.0. (2) Discussion BMF based on bNISP had higher frequency scores than BMF based on BI because of bNISP counting all the slice marks on a bone fragment as one event. The advantage to using the BMF per BI is the ability to break down the separate events which may be occurring on the bone. Slaughtering and disarticulation had the lowest BMF values which was predicted if there was specialized butchering. These results may indicate a difference between skilled butchering and household butchering activities. 58 Trent Cheney b) BMF and taxon BMF results can provide further information by breaking the results down into taxa. (1) BMF for Bos Using bNISP to measure BMF (BMFN) in Bos taurus resulted in a total BMFN=7.38 (Table 12a). Examining the individual butchering stages indicated disarticulation BMFN=7.00, filleting BMFN=7.00, and skinning BMFN=10.33. The BMF per BI (BMFB) in Bos taurus had an overall BMFB=6.86 (Table 12b). The individual butchering stages resulted in disarticulation BMFB=6.46, filleting BMFB=6.42, and skinning BMFB=10.33. (2) BMF for Caprini A bNISP based BMF for the Caprini category came up with a total of BMFN=16.65 (Table 13a). BMF per bNISP for the Caprini sub-categories resulted in Capra hircus BMFN=11.27, Ovis aries BMFN=14.87, and Ovis/Capra BMFN=19.09. Breaking it down into the butchering stages for Capra hircus showed slaughtering at BMFN=4.67, filleting at BMFN=11.60, disarticulation at BMFN=11.81, and skinning at BMFN=14.71. BMF values based on bNISP for Ovis aries were skinning at BMFN=5.00, slaughtering at BMFN=7.00, disarticulation at BMFN=10.37, and filleting at BMFN=25.63. Ovis/Capra BMF based on bNISP indicated disarticulation at BMFN=9.32, skinning at BMFN=9.63, and filleting at BMFN=23.47. Analyzing the frequency of slicing butchering marks per BI for the Caprini category revealed a BMFB=14.24 (Table 13b). Looking at the sub-categories, the BMFB breaks down as: Capra hircus BMFB=9.54, Ovis aries BMFB=12.47, and Ovis/Capra BMFB=16.52. Capra hircus butchering stage frequencies were slaughtering at BMFB=4.67, skinning at BMFB=8.58, filleting at BMFB=9.67, and disarticulation at BMFB=10.96. Ovis aries butchering stages had frequencies of: skinning at BMFB=5.00, slaughtering at BMFB=7.00, disarticulation at BMFB=8.41, carving at BMFB=20.00, and filleting at BMFB=22.78. The more general category of Ovis/Capra had frequencies for the butchering stages as: disarticulation at BMFB=8.34, skinning at BMFB=8.56, and filleting at BMFB=20.03. (3) BMF for miscellaneous species The lesser represented species and the broad categories of Medium and Large Mammals were also analyzed for frequency. The bNISP based BMF for Gazella gazelle totaled BMFN=6.33 (Table 14a). The butchering stages for Gazella gazelle had frequencies of 59 Trent Cheney disarticulation BMFN=5.50 and filleting BMFN=8.00. Canis familiaris had a BMFN=5.00 for two set of filleting marks. The Gazelle/Ovis/Capra category had one set of filleting marks for a BMFN=11.00. The general category of medium mammal had an overall BMFN=19.07. The frequencies for the butchering stages of medium mammal are disarticulation BMFN=1.00 for one incidence, filleting BMFN=18.91, and skinning BMFN=32.50 for two incidences. Large mammal had a BMF total of BMFN=17.59 with disarticulation BMFN=7.00 and filleting BMFN=18.00. Using BI for the BMF of Gazella gazelle had the total of BMFB=4.75 (Table 14b). Breaking down the butchering stages for BI BMF in Gazella gazelle resulted in disarticulation BMFB=3.67 and filleting BMFB=8.00. Canis familiaris butchering had two sets of marks for a filleting BMFB=5.00. The Gazelle/Ovis/Capra category had a BMFB=11.00 with one set of filleting marks. The medium mammal category had an overall BMFB=19.07 with a disarticulation BMFB=1.00 for one BI, a filleting BMFB=18.91, and skinning BMFB=32.50 for two BI. The category for large mammal had a total BMFB=16.38 with a disarticulation BMFB=7.00 and a filleting BMFB=16.71. (4) Discussion The Bos taxa had lower BMF values per bNISP and BI, BMFN=7.00 and BMFB=6.46, for disarticulation than the caprini taxa, BMFN=10.39 and BMFB=9.08 (Table 12a and b and 13a and b respectively). This pattern was predicted and may be indicative of skilled butchering. The other taxa are represented by too few specimens to draw any conclusions. c) Butchering tool BMF Analysis of the BMF values for the various tool types is expected to indicate patterns that may reveal skilled butchering. (1) Results Frequency of slice marks is used as an indicator of butchering skill with a lower frequency indicating higher skill level. There was a total BMFN=16.25 and BMFB=14.41 (Table 15a and b). Flake tools had a BMFN=16.77 and a BMFB=14.80. Bifacial retouch tools had a BMF=11.00 for bNISP and BI. The frequency of slice marks for unifacial retouch tools was BMFN=8.22 and BMFB=7.79. (2) Discussion 60 Trent Cheney It is interesting that unifacial and bifacial retouch tools had lower BMF values than simple flakes. This is contrary to Walker’s (1978) findings that demonstrated simple flakes were more efficient and required less strokes than unifacial and bifacial retouch tools. 5. Chronological analysis The chronological data for each stratum, or time period, can be used to determine if there are any changes in butchering skill over time at the site. Tel Arad, as with many sites in the EBA of the southern Levant, grew from a small village to a larger walled settlement, presumably with organized political and economic authority, and then declined to a small village again. Analysis of the different strata can reveal changes in butchering patterns between the time periods. It is hypothesized that higher skilled butchering should be evident in Strata II and III. In contrast, Strata I and IV should show little signs of skilled butchering due to the presumed lack of economic authority. Only samples which were slicing marks and contained chronological data and a slice count under a microscope were included in this part of the analysis. The total number of samples examined for this part of the study were bNISP=238 and BI=272 (Table 16a and b). a) Butchering tool percentage by stratum In Stratum IV, the lowest layer for which there is information for, flake tool marks consisted of bNISP=100% (Table 16a). Stratum III slicing marks were identified as 94.0% bNISP flake tools and 6.0% bNISP unifacial retouch tools. Mixed Stratum III-II only had marks identified as flake tools (100% bNISP) with a bNISP=7. Slicing marks from Stratum II were identified as 96.3% bNISP flake tools, 3.0% bNISP unifacial retouch tools, and 0.8% bifacial retouch tools. The top layer, Stratum I, only contained bNISP=1 tool mark which was interpreted as a flake tool. When considering quantification based on BI, marks interpreted as flake marks in Stratum IV comprised 100% of BI marks (Table 16b). Stratum III had 94.7% BI flake marks and 5.3% BI unifacial retouch tool marks. Stratum III-II slice marks were 100% BI, n=8 BI, flake tools. Flake marks were 96.0% BI in Stratum II, unifacial retouch tools were 3.3% BI, and 0.7% BI interpreted as bifacial retouch tools. Stratum I, the top layer, only consisted of BI=1 which was interpreted as a flake tool. 61 Trent Cheney When tool marks from Strata II, II-III, and III were combined, 95.7% bNISP or 95.7% BI were flake tools, 3.8% bNISP and BI were unifacial retouch tools, and 0.5% bNISP and 0.4% BI were bifacial retouch tools (Table 16). b) BMF by stratum Important to our discussion is to remember that the site changes from a simple agrarian community to a complex urban centre. At Arad, the pre-urban stratum is Stratum IV, while Strata III and II are part of the urban phase. Stratum I, the top layer, is the post-urban phase. Coincident with these changes are changes in the BMF through time. A breakdown of the BMF based on bNISP (BMFN) by stratum resulted in BMFN=22.71 in stratum IV, BMFN=19.75 in stratum III, BMFN=25.29 in the mixed stratum III-II, BMFN=16.23 in stratum II, and BMFN=6.00 in stratum I (Table 17a). The bNISP BMF for slaughtering activities were BMFN=2.00 in stratum III and BMFN=6.00 in stratum II based on only one and two samples respectively. Skinning activities had bNISP BMF values of BMFN=22.60 in stratum IV, BMFN=13.50 in stratum III, and BMFN=14.50 in stratum II. The skinning total for strata III, III-II, and II was BMFN=14.25. Disarticulation events recorded bNISP BMF values of BMFN=10.50 in stratum IV, BMFN=9.53 in stratum III, BMFN=1.00 for one sample in stratum III-II, BMFN=10.67 in stratum II, and BMFN=6.00 for one sample in stratum I. The total disarticulation bNISP BMF for strata III, III-II, and II was BMF=10.16. The bNISP BMF for filleting events were BMFN=26.00 in stratum IV, BMFN=24.09 in stratum III, BMFN=29.33 in the mixed stratum III-II, and BMFN=18.85 in stratum II. The total filleting bNISP BMF for strata III, III-II, and II was BMFN=21.06. BI based BMF (BMFB) values for each stratum were BMFB=17.03 in Stratum IV, BMFB=17.64 in Stratum III, BMFB=22.13 for mixed stratum III-II, BMFB=14.40 in stratum II, and BMFB=6.00 for Stratum I (Table 17b). Slaughtering BMF is based on only a few incidents and had BI based BMF values of BMFB=2.00 in Stratum III and BMFB=6.00 in Stratum II. Values of BI based BMF for skinning activities per strata were BMFB=10.27 in Stratum IV, BMFB=13.50 in Stratum III, and BMFB=14.50 in Stratum II. The combined strata III, III-II, and II had a skinning frequency of BMFB=14.25. Disarticulation BI BMF values are BMFB=8.40 for Stratum IV, BMFB=8.10 for Stratum III, BMFB=1.00 for mixed Stratum III-II with only one incident, BMFB=9.45 for Stratum II, and BMFB=6.00 for Stratum I with only one incident. Disarticulation frequencies had a total of BMFB=8.91 for strata III, III-II, and II. Carving had a 62 Trent Cheney frequency of BMFB=20.00 in stratum II with only one sample. Filleting frequencies were BMFB=24.38 in stratum IV, BMFB=21.77 in stratum III, BMFB=25.14 in the mixed stratum III- II, and BMFB=16.73 in stratum II. The total filleting frequency for strata III, III-II, and II was BMFB=18.78. c) BMF and taxon by stratum Taking only disarticulation marks and separating them by taxa and strata resulted in bNISP totals for all strata of BMFN=6.5 for Bos taurus, BMFN=10.07 for Capra hircus, BMFN=10.73 for mixed Ovis/Capra, BMFN=11.18 for Ovis aries, and BMFN=5.50 for gazelle (Table 18a). For stratum IV bNISP based BMF values were BMFN=7.00 for Bos taurus, BMFN=27.00 for Capra hircus, and BMFN=4.00 for Ovis/Capra. Stratum III had BMF values of BMFN=10.00 for Bos taurus, BMFN=2.86 for Capra hircus, BMFN=12.00 for Ovis aries, and BMFN=24.00 for Ovis/Capra. Mixed stratum III-II had BMF values of BMFN=1.0 for Capra hircus. BMF values for stratum II were BMFN=5.50 for Bos taurus, BMFN=19.40 for Capra hircus, BMFN=10.60 for Ovis aries, BMFN=10.00 for Ovis/Capra, and BMFN=5.50 for gazelle. Stratum I had a value of BMFN=6.00 for Capra hircus. Looking at the BI disarticulation marks by taxa and strata produced the following totals for all strata: BMFB=6.50 for Bos taurus, BMFB=10.07 for Capra hircus, BMFB=8.64 for Ovis aries, BMFB=9.44 for Ovis/Capra, and BMFB=3.67 for gazelle (Table 18b). Stratum IV values were BMFB=7.00 for Bos taurus, BMFB=27.00 for Capra hircus, and BMFB=2.67 for Ovis/Capra. Values for stratum III were BMFB=10.00 for Bos taurus, BMFB=2.86 for Capra hircus, BMFB=9.33 for Ovis aries, and BMFB=16.00 for Ovis/Capra. Mixed stratum III-II had a value of BMFB=1.00. Frequency values for stratum II were BMFB=5.50 for Bos taurus, BMFB=19.40 for Capra hircus, BMFB=8.15 for Ovis aries, BMFB=9.47 for Ovis/Capra, and BMFB=3.67 for gazelle. Stratum I had a value of BMFB=6.00 for Capra hircus. 6. Spatial analysis It was also important to conduct a spatial analysis on the faunal assemblage. Variation in deposition of the faunal remains may provide evidence of skilled butchers. Butchering incidences created by a skilled butcher, such as disarticulation, skinning, and slaughtering, should be deposited in very specific locations in the site. Bones which have little or no meat on them, such as the head, upper vertebrae, and lower parts of the limbs, which are also the locations where you will find skinning, slaughtering and disarticulation marks, should be 63 Trent Cheney deposited in a specific location that is used by the skilled butchers. It is inefficient to travel to different depositional areas to discard these portions of the carcass, so it is presumed that the skilled butcher(s) would use a specific dump. Household or unskilled butchering on the other hand should deposit the bones in a variety of locations based on the individual household. Bones should be deposited depending on the individual household’s closeness to a depositional location usually over the closest fence. a) Spatial analysis by taxa As mentioned in Chapter 5 (Data Description), the spatial analysis of the faunal remains at the site are based on Amiran and Ilan (1996)) descriptions of the various areas at the site. For the spatial analysis, the faunal data were filtered by type of butchering marks, microscopic slice counts, and whether there were any associated spatial provenience data in the report. With these filters in place, there was a total bNISP of n=228 (Table 19a). This is further divided into bNISP=136 from Northeast of the Water Reservoir (WR), bNISP=50 West WR, bNISP=18 domestic area, bNISP=18 public area, and bNISP=6 South WR. Next, we separate these areas by taxa. Northeast of the Water Reservoir, there were bNISP=62 Ovis/Capra, bNISP=30 medium mammals, bNISP=14 large mammals, bNISP=12 Ovis aries, bNISP=10 Capra hircus, bNISP=7 Bos taurus, and bNISP=1 Gazelle/Ovis/Capra (Table 19a). The West WR area had bNISP=16 Ovis/Capra, bNISP=9 medium mammals, bNISP=7 Capra hircus, bNISP=6 large mammals, bNISP=5 Ovis aries, bNISP=5 Bos taurus, and bNISP=2 Gazelle. The domestic area had bNISP=7 Ovis/Capra, bNISP=5 Ovis aries, bNISP=3 Capra hircus, bNISP=2 medium mammals, and bNISP=1 Bos taurus. The public area had bNISP=6 Ovis/Capra, bNISP=4 Ovis aries, bNISP=3 Capra hircus, bNISP=2 Bos taurus, and bNISP=1 each for medium mammal, Canis familiaris, and Gazella gazella. South WR had bNISP=2 Ovis/Capra, bNISP=2 medium mammals, bNISP=1 Capra hircus, and bNISP=1 large mammal. BI counts were also analyzed with the above filters. This resulted in a total BI of n=261 (Table 19b). Dividing this by areas, there were BI=155 Northeast WR, BI=56 West WR, BI=25 domestic, BI=19 public, and BI=6 South WR (Fig. 4 and 5). Northeast WR had BI=73 Ovis/Capra, BI=30 medium mammals, BI=15 Capra hircus, BI=15 Ovis aries, BI=14 large mammals, BI=7 Bos taurus, and BI=1 Gazelle/Ovis/Capra. West WR contained BI=19 Ovis/Capra, BI=9 medium mammals, BI=7 Capra hircus, BI=7 large mammals, BI=6 Ovis 64 Trent Cheney aries, BI=5 Bos taurus, and BI=3 Gazelle. The domestic area had BI=10 Ovis/Capra, BI=8 Ovis aries, BI=3 Capra hircus, BI=2 medium mammals, and BI=2 Bos taurus. The public area of the site contained BI=6 Ovis/Capra, BI=5 Ovis aries, BI=3 Capra hircus, BI=2 Bos taurus, BI=1 medium mammal, BI=1 Gazelle, and BI=1 Canis familiaris. South WR had BI=2 Ovis/Capra, BI=2 medium mammals, BI=1 Capra hircus, and BI=1 large mammal. Sheep appear to be overrepresented in the domestic and public areas with BI=32.0% and BI=26.3% of those areas’ faunal remains respectively compared to the site average of BI=12.9%. All other taxa appear to have an average distribution pattern. b) Spatial analysis for butchering activity Understanding the spatial locations of the remains of the butchering activities is important for attempting to analyze skilled versus unskilled butchering. The data for this analysis was filtered by slicing marks, microscopic slice count, and presence of spatial data. There was a total bNISP of n=228 (Table 20a). The total bNISP was distributed between the areas as bNISP=136, from Northeast of the Water Reservoir (WR), bNISP=50 West WR, bNISP=18 domestic area, bNISP=18 public area, and bNISP=6 South WR. Next the data was analyzed by butchering activity and area. North WR had bNISP=99 filleting, bNISP=29 disarticulation, and bNISP=8 skinning. West WR comprised of bNISP=30 filleting, bNISP=15 disarticulation, bNISP=3 skinning, and bNISP=2 for slaughtering. The domestic area contained bNISP=9 filleting, bNISP=8 disarticulation, and bNISP=1 for slaughtering. The public area had bNISP=10 filleting, bNISP=6 disarticulation, and bNISP=2 for skinning. South WR had bNISP=3 filleting and bNISP=3 for disarticulation. Analyzing the BI with the same filters returned a total BI of n=261 (Table 20b). Breaking this down by area returned the following results: BI=155 for North WR, BI=56 for West WR, BI=25 for the domestic area, BI=19 for the public area, and BI=6 for South WR. Next the areas were analyzed by taxon. North WR had BI=110 for filleting, BI=31 for disarticulation, and BI=14 for skinning. West WR had BI=33 for filleting, BI=18 for disarticulation, BI=3 for skinning, and BI=2 for slaughtering. The domestic area contained BI=12 for filleting, BI=11 for disarticulation, BI=1 for slaughtering, and BI=1 for carving. The public area comprised of BI=10 for filleting, BI=7 for disarticulation, and BI=2 for skinning. South WR had BI=3 for filleting and BI=3 for disarticulation. 65 Trent Cheney The high percentage (44% of BI) of disarticulation marks from the domestic area stands out in comparison to the overall average (26.8% of BI) (Table 20b). This could be indicative of skilled butchering with the differential spatial patterning of disarticulation marks. There is also a higher (10.5% BI) than average percentage (7.3% BI) of skinning marks found in the public area, but that only amounts to BI=2 for skinning marks out of a total BI=19 for skinning marks and is unlikely to be significant (Table 20b). c) Spatial analysis by taxa and disarticulation It is predicted that disarticulation, skinning, and slaughtering should have spatial differentiation if skilled butchering is present. However, due to low numbers of skinning and slaughtering marks it was only possible to analyze disarticulation marks on the taxa between the areas. For this analysis only faunal samples with location information were used and then divided by taxon groups and disarticulation. There was a total bNISP of n=61 with bNISP=29 in North WR, bNISP=15 in West WR, bNISP=8 in the domestic area, bNISP=6 in the public area, and bNISP=3 in South WR (Table 21a). Analyzing by taxa in North WR had results of bNISP=11 for Ovis/Capra, bNISP=7 for Ovis aries, bNISP=7 for Capra hircus, and bNISP=4 for Bos taurus. West WR had bNISP=5 for Ovis/Capra, bNISP=4 for Ovis aries, bNISP=3 for Capra hircus, bNISP=2 for Gazelle, and bNISP=1 for Bos taurus. The domestic area had bNISP=3 for Ovis/Capra, bNISP=3 for Ovis aries, and bNISP=2 for Capra hircus. The public area had bNISP=3 for Ovis aries, bNISP=1 for Ovis/Capra, bNISP=1 for Capra hircus, and bNISP=1 for Bos taurus. South WR had bNISP=2 for Ovis/Capra and bNISP=1 for Capra hircus. Examining the disarticulation BI, there was a total BI of n=70 with BI=31 in North WR, BI=18 in West WR, BI=11 in the domestic area, BI=7 in the public area, and BI=3 in South WR (Table 21b). North WR contained BI=12 for Ovis/Capra, BI=8 for Ovis aries, BI=7 for Capra hircus, and BI=4 for Bos taurus. West WR had BI=6 for Ovis/Capra, BI=5 for Ovis aries, BI=3 for Capra hircus, BI=3 for Gazelle, and BI=1 for Bos taurus. The domestic area had BI=5 for Ovis aries, BI=4 for Ovis/Capra, and BI=2 for Capra hircus. The public area contained BI=4 for Ovis/Capra, BI=1 for Ovis/Capra, BI=1 for Capra hircus, and BI=1 for Bos taurus. South WR consisted of BI=2 for Ovis/Capra and BI=1 for Capra hircus. A more detailed examination of the spatial distribution of disarticulation locations around the site indicates that they are relatively evenly spread with only a few exceptions Caprine taxa 66 Trent Cheney disarticulation had a few small concentrations of remains. Looking at locations with more than three bNISP and BI had bNISP=5 and BI=6 in a Stratum II open space 5551 north of the WR, bNISP=5 and BI=7 in a Stratum II Room 5821a in the domestic area, and bNISP=4 and BI=4 in a Stratum II street 4772 west of the WR, and BI=4 in a Stratum II open space 6052 in the domestic area (Table 22a and b) (Amiran and Ilan 1996). There was a higher representation of sheep in the public (57.1%) and domestic (45.5%) areas than the average of 31.0% (Table 21b). One room, Room 5821a (Amiran and Ilan 1996, 98) in the domestic area, had a considerably higher quantity of disarticulation incidences, BI=7, when compared to the rest of the site. This over representation of sheep in the public and domestic areas along with the caprine disarticulation incidences in one specific room may indicate skilled butchering in general at the site and possibly associated with this room. d) Spatial analysis by tool type Next the spatial distribution of tool types was analyzed. A total bNISP of n=136 for North WR was broken down to bNISP=132 for flakes, bNISP=3 for unifacial retouch tools, and bNISP=1 for bifacial retouch tools (Table 23a). West WR had a total bNISP=50 divided as bNISP=47 for flakes and bNISP=3 for unifacial retouch tools. The domestic area had a total bNISP=18 with bNISP=18 for flakes. There was a total bNISP of n=18 for the public area with bNISP=16 for flakes and bNISP=2 for unifacial retouch tools. South WR had a total bNISP of n=6, all flakes. Analyzing the BI values for the tool types for North WR had a total BI=155 with BI=150 for flakes, BI=4 for unifacial retouch tools, and BI=1 for bifacial retouch tools (Table 23b). West WR had a total BI=56 with BI=53 for flakes and BI=3 for unifacial retouch tools. The domestic area had a total BI=25 all of which were flakes. A total BI of n=19 for the public area break down into BI=17 for flakes and BI=2 for unifacial retouch tools. South WR had a total BI=6 which were all flakes. Due to the preponderance of flake tools, spatial analysis of tool types did not reveal any spatial patterning. Without any evident spatial patterning of tool types, there is no way to use this statistic to determine if there was any skilled butchering. e) Spatial analysis of disarticulation BMF per taxa Disarticulation BMF values were also analyzed spatially to identify possible spatial differentiation that might indicate skilled butchering. Bos taurus had a bNISP or BI BMF=5.80 67 Trent Cheney in Area M and a bNISP or BI BMF=10.00 in Area T (Table 24a and b). Capra hircus had a bNISP and BI BMF=11.27 in Area M and a bNISP or BI BMF=8.67 in Area T. Ovis aries had a BMFN=12.27 or BMFB=10.38 in Area M and a BMFN=9.17 or BMFB=6.11 in Area T. Ovis/Capra had a BMFN=11.50 or BMFB=10.35 in Area M and a BMFN=7.25 or BMFB=5.80 in Area T. Gazelle had a BMFN=5.50 or BMFB=3.67 in Area M. Area M and Area T can be broken down into smaller locals to identify spatial differentiation. North WR had a total BMFN=10.00 or BMFB=9.35 with Ovis aries at BMFN=12.43 or BMFB=10.88, Ovis/Capra at BMFN=10.82 or BMFB=9.92, Capra hircus at BMFN=8.00 or BMFB=8.00, and Bos taurus at BMFN=7.00 or BMFB=7.00 (Table 24a and b). West WR had a total BMFN=13.67 or BMFB=11.39 with Capra hircus at BMFN=22.00 or BMFB=22.00, Ovis/Capra at BMFN=15.80 or BMFB=13.17, Ovis aries at BMFN=12.00 or BMFB=9.60, Gazelle at BMFN=5.50 or BMFB=3.67, and Bos taurus at BMFN=1.00 or BMFB=1.00. The domestic area had a total BMFN=9.13 or BMFB=6.64 with Capra hircus at BMFN=10.00 or BMFB=10.00, Ovis aries at BMFN=9.00 or BMFB=5.40, and Ovis/Capra at BMFN=8.67 or BMFB=6.50. The public area had a total BMFN=7.83 or BMFB=6.71 with Bos taurus at BMFN=10.00 or BMFB=10.00, Ovis aries at BMFN=9.33 or BMFB=7.00, Capra hircus at BMFN=6.00 or BMFB=6.00, and Ovis/Capra at BMFN=3.00 or BMFB=3.00. South WR had a total BMFN and BMFB of n=3.67 with Ovis/Capra at n=4.50 BMFN and BMFB and Capra hircus at n=2.00 BMFN and BMFB. Bos taurus had n=5 out of 6 BI concentrated around the Water Reservoir with low BMF values. This possibly indicates that skilled butchering of cattle was occurring nearby. Also, the abundance of sheep disarticulation associated with Room 5821a (Amiran and Ilan 1996, 98) and the low BMF values associated with them possibly indicates skilled butchering of sheep in or near the room. Both results are predicted by the hypotheses posed earlier in this thesis. 7. Statistics Given the poor representation of slaughtering incidents in the butchered assemblage, it can be concluded that slaughtering was conducted away from the site, or that slaughtering was done in a manner that did not leave much evidence. Also, given the observation of slaughtering in different cultures around the world, there does not need to be a knife or axe mark on the bone for the animal to be killed (Greenfield and Bouchnick 2010). Often, the animal may receive a crushing blow to the skull (Haskel Greenfield, pers. observation in Bosnia in 1989, and Serbia in 68 Trent Cheney 1991). If this is likely, this question can be better explored by an analysis of the fracturing of skull segments in the larger unbutchered assemblage. This may be part of the final report on the fauna being conducted by Liora Horwitz. It was expected that with the rise of urbanism in Strata III and into II, lower BMF values for skinning and disarticulation would appear than in the earlier pre-urban Stratum IV. The BMF values for skinning are lower in Strata II and III than in Stratum IV, possibly indicating more skill, although there are few samples. Disarticulation BMF was significantly lower in all strata compared to filleting BMF. However, the disarticulation BMF values appear to increase slightly over time, from BMFB=8.4 in Stratum IV to BMFB=8.9 in Strata II and III, contrary to the expected result. However, this rather small increase suggests little change over time in butchering skill. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify whether the results were statistically significant and whether they suggest the presence of skilled butchering practices. Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation, Chi-Square test with Yates correction, and one and two sample T-Tests. They are appropriate because of the small sample sizes of butchered remains. The following two web sites were used to calculate the statistics: https://www.mathportal.org/index.php https://www.socscistatistics.com/ a) Disarticulation BMF for Strata II and III compared to Strata IV Disarticulation BMF patterns for BI for all taxa were analyzed to detect any change through time. Disarticulation BMFB for Strata III, III-II, and II appeared to be considerably different from the disarticulation BMFB of Stratum IV (Table 17). When the data set of disarticulation frequencies from Strata III, III-II, and II are tested against the mean for Stratum IV, it turns out that there is no significant difference between the two time periods when the disarticulation frequencies of all taxa are taken as a whole. This indicates that there is no apparent evidence for skilled butchering when all taxa are considered together. A single sample t-test was used because the second data set had too few data points for analysis and it yielded the following result: Disarticulation BMFB for Strata II and III compared to Strata IV Summary of Disarticulation BMFB for Strata III, III-II, II Mean= 8.9077 69 Trent Cheney Variance= 8.3268 Stand. Dev.= 2.8856 n= 65 t= 0.4916 d.o.f= 64 critical value= 2

Strata IV mean µ0=8.40 The t-value is 0.491565. The value of p is .624709. The result is not significant at p<0.05. b) Filleting BMF for Strata II and III compared to Strata IV Filleting BMF patterns for BI for all taxa in the butchering sample were analyzed. Filleting frequencies were expected to remain similar through the different strata. Even though the average BI filleting BMF for Strata III, III-II, and II (BMFB=18.78) (Table 17b) appears much less than the BMF for Stratum IV (BMFB=24.38), there is no significant statistical difference between the two values. The statistical analysis confirms that there is no evidence for skilled butchering at the filleting stage developing over time. A two sample t-test was used to compare two data sets which produced the following results: Filleting BMFB for Strata II and III compared to Strata IV Summary Strata III, III-II, II Strata IV Mean 18.7771 24.375 Variance 267.5077 447.7167 Stand. Dev. 16.3557 21.1593 n 157 16 t 1.2673 d.o.f 171 critical value 1.654 The t-value is 1.2673. The p-value is .206772. The result is not significant at p<0.05. The means of Group 1 and Group 2 are not significantly different at p<0.05. c) Disarticulation BMF for Strata II, II-III, and III for Bos compared to caprine An examination of the BI disarticulation BMF values for different taxa should reveal whether there was skilled butchering for only specific animals (Table 18b). While there was not 70 Trent Cheney enough data for the Bos taxon in Stratum IV for any comparison, it was possible to compare the BMFB values between Bos and caprine taxa in other strata. In Strata III, III-II, and II there is a statistically significant difference in the BMFB between Bos and caprine taxa. The BI disarticulation BMF for cattle was significantly lower than for sheep and goats. This possibly indicates skilled butchering occurred for cattle, but not for caprines. The low number of incidences for Bos disarticulation required that a single sample t-test be performed with the following results: Disarticulation BMFB for Strata II, II-III, and III for Bos compared to caprine Summary of caprine disarticulation BMFB for Strata III, III-II, II Mean 9.4035 Variance 8.6393 Stand. Dev. 2.9393 n 57 t 2.6247 d.o.f 56 critical value 2.009

Bos mean µ0=6.40 The t-value is 2.624743. The value of p is .011157. The result is significant at p<0.05. d) Distribution of sheep versus other taxa The distribution of the taxa between the areas was compared. Table 19b suggested a possible overabundance of sheep in the domestic and public areas. These were compared to the BI results for the other areas using a chi square test of independence. The chi-square of independence analyzed the relationship between the various taxa and the different areas of the site. The result indicated a significant difference in the distribution pattern between the areas, X2(4, N=242) =13.2158, p=.010268. The result is significant at p<0.05. There were significantly more sheep in the domestic and public areas compared to the water reservoir areas. e) Distribution of disarticulation and filleting Disarticulation and filleting BI from the domestic area were compared against the disarticulation and filleting results for the rest of the site. In Table 20b, it appeared that there was a sizable number of disarticulation BI’s in the domestic area in comparison with the rest of the site. A chi square test of independence was performed to analyze the relationship of 71 Trent Cheney disarticulation and filleting from the domestic area with the rest of the site which indicated that significantly more disarticulation BI were found in the domestic area than should have been in a normal distribution of remains, X2(1, N=244) =4.3169, p=.037736. The result is significant at p<0.05. The Yates correction was applied to avoid error with the result, X2(1, N=244) =3.3728, p=.066279, not significant at p<0.05. These results indicate that the spatial differentiation may or may not be a significant finding. Therefore, the results indicate that there may or may not be more than expected disarticulation in the domestic area and may or may not indicate skilled butchering. f) Disarticulation BMF between Area M and Area T for all taxa A spatial comparison was conducted regarding the BI disarticulation BMF values between Area M and Area T using the entire disarticulation data set (all taxa) (from Table 24). The result indicates that there is no significant difference in disarticulation practices between the two areas of the site when all taxa are considered. A two sample t-test was performed to compare the BMF values from the two major areas of the site with the following results: Disarticulation BMFB between Area M and Area T for all taxa Summary Area T Area M Mean 6.6667 9.566 Variance 23.2941 84.4811 Stand. Dev. 4.8264 9.1914 n 18 53 t -1.2757 d.o.f 69 critical value 2 The means of Group 1 and Group 2 are not significantly different at p<0.05. The t-value is -1.2757. The p-value is .103169. The result is not significant at p<0.05. g) Disarticulation BMF for caprine taxa in domestic area Disarticulation BI BMF for caprine taxa in the domestic area was compared to the disarticulation BMFB from areas North WR, West WR, South WR, and public from Table 24b. Disarticulation BMF values for the caprine taxa of the domestic area were low compared to the disarticulation values for the other taxa in other areas of the site. However, a statistical analysis 72 Trent Cheney revealed that the disarticulation BMF values for the caprine taxa of the domestic area were not significantly different from the other disarticulation values. This result suggests no evidence for skilled butchering of sheep and goat in a specific part of the site. A two tailed two sample t-test was performed to compare caprine disarticulation BMF values in the domestic area versus disarticulation BMF values from all taxa from North WR, West WR, South WR and Public areas. Disarticulation BMFB for caprine taxa in domestic area Summary Group 1 Group 2 Mean 9.3729 6.6364 Variance 78.2379 23.2546 Stand. Dev. 8.8452 4.8223 n 59 11 t 0.9948 d.o.f 68 critical value 2 t(68) =0.9948, p=.161672 The means of Group 1 and Group 2 are not significantly different at p<0.05. h) Cattle disarticulation BMF between Area M and Area T Spatial comparison between Water Reservoir area and the domestic and public area for cattle disarticulation BI BMF was also conducted based on Table 24b. The result suggests that there is no apparent statistically significant difference between the two areas of the site regarding the BMF of cattle disarticulation. There are no frequency differences which would indicate skilled butchering of cattle occurring in one area over the other. A single sample t-Test was performed to compare a very small sample size with the following results: Cattle disarticulation BMFB between Area M and Area T Summary Mean 5.8 Variance 5.1672 Stand. Dev. 2.2731 n 5 73 Trent Cheney t -1.8175 d.o.f 4 critical value 2.776

The mean of data set is not significantly different from μ0=10. The t-value is -1.817518. The value of p is .14329. The result is not significant at p<0.05. C. Discussion The butchering tool type analysis revealed a complete lack of evidence for butchering marks that were created by metal tools. Instead, it demonstrated that all of the butchering marks were created by stone tools. The vast majority were made by simple unretouched flakes. These would be considered expedient tools since they are quickly and easily made and easily destroyed. However, these simple unretouched flakes were considered the waste product that are largely unanalysed in the publication of the site (Amiran et al. 1978, 61). There was no discernible difference among the different taxa regarding tool type either. All taxa are butchered by simple flake tools. The few BI samples attributed to other tool types did not show any preference for specific taxa or butchering activities. There is no evidence for selection of specific tool type for various stages of the butchering process. The abundance of simple ad-hoc chipped stone flake tools is contrary to what was expected if skilled butchering was taking place. This result concurs with other research regarding the efficiency of unretouched flake tools (Walker 1978). Three possible reasons could exist to explain this: 1) skilled butchering continued to use simple flakes due to efficiency, 2) no skilled butchering took place at Arad, or 3) that the locales where skilled butchering took place are off- site. The last reason is unlikely given that most of the site was excavated and also the evidence from butchering efficiency (below). Butchering Mark Frequency has been shown to be an excellent tool for analyzing butchering skill and therefore efficiency. Butchering efficiency as measured by Butchering Mark Frequency revealed similar BMF values for all butchering activities when all taxa were considered. This would imply an absence of skilled butchers in butchery activities. In contrast, when the cattle disarticulation BMF values are compared against all the other taxa disarticulation BMF values from Strata II, III-II, and III, the cattle disarticulation BMF is statistically significantly lower than the others. This suggests a greater degree of butchering efficiency for this taxon. It was expected that this would be a change chronologically from low skill in Stratum 74 Trent Cheney IV (EB Ib) to higher skill in Strata III, III-II, and II (EB II). However, this trend could not be traced chronologically as there are too few cattle samples from Stratum IV. As well, none of the other taxa BMF values showed any sign of chronological change either. The BMF results appear to indicate that skilled butchering may have only occurred with cattle. There are two possible reasons for this result. First, there are many more caprines and this could affect the test. If more caprines were butchered, then one would expect higher skill level. However, statistically, there is no BMF value difference for the sheep and goats anywhere in the site. Cattle disarticulation displayed higher skilled butchering at least for the first three stages (slaughtering, skinning, disarticulation), the latter stages (carving, cutting tendons, filleting) though display low skill level. The second possibility is that cattle simply have more meat on the bones and larger bones making it easier to fillet the animal without hitting the bone (personal communication with Prof. H. Greenfield). Occam’s razor would suggest the second explanation is more likely. The spatial analysis of butchering stages and taxa across the site did not find any evidence for a skilled butchering locale. The spatial distribution of taxa and butchering stages is very uniform except for two small spatial anomalies. First, Room 5821a (Amiran and Ilan 1996, 98) in the domestic area is associated with a higher than site average representation of disarticulation BI. Statistical analysis indicates there is a significant difference when the pattern of disarticulation remains is compared with the rest of the site. Second, there are statistically more sheep and goat remains associated with Room 5821a than elsewhere at the site. These two spatial discrepancies, both involving Room 5821a, are not enough evidence to suggest skilled butchering. The spatial analysis in general suggests that there is no evidence for skilled butchering occurring since there are only small differences in taxa distribution at the site. Hence, if there is any skilled butchering locus at Arad, it has not yet been uncovered. It is more likely that it was not present during these early stages of the development of urban life at EB Arad. Thus, it can be concluded there is little evidence for skilled butchering at Arad. This is based on the taxonomic, tool type, butchering stage, spatial, and BMF efficiency analyses. The only exception to the latter conclusion is that cattle might have a slightly higher than expected disarticulation efficiency.

75 Trent Cheney VI. Chapter 6 Conclusions A. Introduction The results of the research presented in this thesis on the butchered faunal remains from Tel Arad do not show any clear indication of skilled butchering or administrative controlled food distribution accompanying the evolution of this early urban society. This is a significant finding that suggests one can no longer assume that productive specialization evolved in all parts of society with the rise of the state and appearance of urbanization. In other words, occupational specialization likely evolved more slowly, in fits and starts. Each occupation would need to be evaluated in its own terms. The analysis presented here provides a test case for identification of the presence or absence of skilled butchering as part of food processing, a subject rarely considered by most archaeologists who focus on traditional artifacts (Cowgill 2004, Evans 1978, Patterson 2005). The thesis also introduces two new measuring techniques which were useful to evaluating the presence or absence of skilled butchering: BI/Butchering Incidence as a more thorough means of counting butchering samples; and BMF/Butchering Mark Frequency to evaluate butchering skill and efficiency. Also, the analysis identified issues with taxonomic classification that create problems for the analysis that need to be addressed in future research. These issues are explored below. B. Hypotheses tested Most of the tool type, Butchering Mark Frequency, and chronological and spatial analyses indicate that there was probably no skilled butchering occurring at Arad during the Early Bronze Age.  It was predicted that skilled butchering would produce a differential patterning of tool type use. It is expected that skilled butchers might use more formal blade tools for butchering, while less skilled butchers might use ad-hoc flake tools. No such patterning was detected since the vast majority of slicing marks were made by ad-hoc flakes. Therefore, tool type use does not indicate skilled butchering.  It was also expected that skilled butchering should produce lower BMF values for slaughtering, skinning, and disarticulation. There were too few samples of slaughtering and skinning to generate meaningful interpretation. Part of the problem with slaughtering is that one does not have to touch the bone and leave a mark in order to kill the animal. 76 Trent Cheney Very few marks on the bones could be identified with slaughtering as a result. The very low BI for slaughtering and skinning prevented a BMF analysis for these two categories. There were sufficient BI’s for disarticulation to evaluate skill level. There was a very low BMF value for cattle and high for caprines. The high BMF disarticulation value for caprines suggest low butchering skills, while the high disarticulation BMF values for cattle suggests more highly skilled butchering of cattle. However, evidence for high skill cattle disarticulation could not be traced chronologically (since there were too few samples from other time periods) or spatially (since the results were not statistically significant). Thus, the BMF evidence for skilled butchering is not strong enough to conclude that specialist butchers were present.  Spatial differentiation of BI and BMFs were expected given the presence of different use areas. There is a domestic area, water reservoir, and public areas of the site (which includes a temple and open area). It was expected that skilled butchering might occur in the public area of the site. However, spatial distinctions were not statistically supported. There was no evidence for spatial variability at the site. This suggests that skilled butchering was not taking place in any part of EB Tel Arad. C. Analytical measures To the author’s knowledge, Butchering Mark Frequency (BMF) has never been used in the manner outlined in this thesis. Others have used a similar measure to analyze processing intensity (Egeland 2003, Binford 1981, Lyman 1987a). However, BMF is a measure for butchering efficiency that can identify skill in butchering. It allows analysis essentially of the absence of evidence. By being able to count how few butchering slice marks there are on a bone, we are analyzing how well the butcher can avoid hitting the bone during butchering. Furthermore, analysis using Butchering Incidences (BI) allows for many more variables that impact butchering analysis than simple NISP counts, such as taxonomy, butchering activity, tool type, BMF, chronology, and spatial differentiation. Since, BI can account for more than one type of, or event of, butchering activity on a bone, it is a very useful tool in any butchering analysis. BMF and BI measures are even more useful because they act as a weighted measure of efficiency and skill. Using this weighted index of efficiency and skill allows us to produce models that can be tested with faunal data. For example, when the BMF per stage of butchery is organized in a table 77 Trent Cheney (Table 26), the data appear to show an interesting pattern. When these data are plotted in a histogram, there are two large breaks where there are sizeable jumps in frequencies in the total data set (Figure 10). Any values less than BMF=10.00 are low frequency, and suggest high skill, and any values over BMF=18.00 are high frequency, and suggest low skill. This suggest that there was a relatively high skill level for the first three stages of butchering – slaughtering, skinning, and disarticulation – and low skill for the last two stages – carving and filleting. Using this model, we can also track high and low skill butchering through time. However, there does not appear to be any significant changes in skill level over time in each of the stages of butchering (Table 27). D. Issues during analysis There were two main difficulties with analyzing the butchered data from Tel Arad from the perspective of butchering analyses. First, the large quantity of undifferentiated categories (e.g. Ovis/Capra and large and medium mammals) could not provide the resolution data to make many conclusions to a specific taxon. Other researchers have split these categories into other taxa based on percentages (Horwitz and Tchernov 1989, Greenfield 1986). However, this is an arbitrary division of taxa that was not found useful in this analysis since it would require specific specimens to be reassigned to a taxon. A second difficulty with analyzing some of these results was the degree to which the data needed to be subdivided by applying filters to the data. Although the many steps to filter the data into categories for analysis left too few samples in many categories, it was necessary to have these analyzable categories. The BMF, chronological, and spatial analyses would have benefited from more data that could have been analyzed. By the time the data was filtered for samples to include only those with secure spatial information and microscopic slice mark counts, only 272 BI were available to analyze. There are two possible solutions to the low sample count problem. First, a sample size of n=500+ with chronological and spatial information and microscopic slice mark counts would have provided a stronger result. Second, categorizing all the taxa into larger groups of large and medium mammal and comparing everything according to these categories. Future research could apply both of these approaches to compare the results and the effectiveness of each approach. Also, applying the new measures of BI and BMF to validate or falsify the results and standardizing our quantification methods will also allow for better comparison of the materials and results. 78 Trent Cheney E. Conclusion The result of the butchering analysis suggests that there was little or no evidence for skilled butchering during the EB at Tel Arad. With little evidence for skilled butchering, it suggests that most butchering occurred within the household. This means that animals were likely obtained from herders, but processed within the household. It is difficult to determine if Tel Arad was a form of direct provisioning, meaning that each household had direct access to its own herds or indirect provisioning, meaning that there were specialist herders who provided the livestock to households. Even though EB Arad displays evidence for a centralized administration, there is little to no evidence for skilled butchering and the implication for productive specialization. Even though the EB of the southern Levant in general and Tel Arad in particular show signs of productive specialization in certain realms (e.g. ceramics, certain types of lithic production, etc. (Braun 2009a, Rosen 1997, Sebag 2005, Ilan and Sebbane 1989). It appears that skilled butchering and central administrative control over food resources do not necessarily emerge at the same time. They are not part of the processes associated with initial urbanization. This also raises the question of how much meat people actually consumed as part of their daily subsistence. It is possible that meat protein was not a large part of the diet on a regular basis, and that butchering was done irregularly, even in urban centres. However, one cannot use the frequency of faunal remains in a site to determine, or even estimate meat intake. It has long been known in zooarchaeology that such efforts are fraught with all kinds of problems and the results tend to be highly speculative. There are many variables that remove bones and teeth from the archaeological record that would prevent any kind of estimation of actual frequencies. In any case, given the low frequency of burning, it is likely that the large numbers of bones recovered from the Tel Arad EB deposits were probably cooked in stews and not roasted over a fire. The majority of faunal remains belong to sheep and goats suggesting that they were butchered far more often than cattle. In contrast, since cattle were less often available than sheep and goats, they may have been slaughtered for more special occasions. This may help explain some of the differences in butchery skill that were observed between the medium and large mammal taxa. A possible reason that skilled butchering is not evident in EB Arad is that the site is located on the edge of the zone of uncertainty (Wilkinson 2000). It is located at the edge of the agriculturally marginal region of the Negev Desert. This is a region where production of food is 79 Trent Cheney risky and where families/households may choose to diversify their subsistence base to maximize return. In such a situation, skilled butchering may not evolve early on until large-scale urban and complex societies appear. Also, specialized nomadic pastoralism appears very late in this region (Rosen 2019). Finally, Arad may have just been too small of an urban manifestation to require the development of a centralized food processing and distribution system (i.e. administration). More research comparing other sites needs to be conducted to identify if this is a trend or a unique occurrence. At this point in time, this is the only study that has attempted such an analysis during the period of early urban formations. More studies from other sites are needed to determine if the patterns in the butchered materials from EB Arad are typical or exceptional.

80 Trent Cheney VII. Appendix A – Figures

Figure 1. Google map showing location of Tel Arad, Israel.

81 Trent Cheney

Figure 2. Plan map of the Early Bronze Age II structures from Stratum III excavated at Tel Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1996, Plate 69).

82 Trent Cheney

Figure 3. Plan map of the Early Bronze Age II structures from Stratum II excavated at Tel Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1996, Plates 86 and 97) in Areas T and M.

Figure 4. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 393 face A (cm scale) with butchering mark from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Ovis/Capra, Femur, shaft, posterior face) excavated at Tel Arad. 83 Trent Cheney

Figure 5. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen Arad 393 face B (cm scale) with butchering mark from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Ovis/Capra, Femur, shaft, lateral face) excavated at Tel Arad.

Figure 6. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 3 cm scale) with two butchering mark incidences from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Medium mammal, Long Bone) excavated at Tel Arad.

84 Trent Cheney

Figure 7. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 41 cm scale) with grooves made by a bifacially produced or bifacially retouched, chipped stone blade from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Ovis aries, cranium, horn, lateral face) excavated at Tel Arad.

85 Trent Cheney

Figure 8. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 266 - cm scale) with grooves made by a unifacial produced (unretouched) chipped stone blade/flake from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Bos taurus, radius, distal shaft, posterior face, locus 5289) excavated at Tel Arad.

86 Trent Cheney

Figure 9. Photograph of Arad butchered specimen (Arad butchered specimen 5.2 cm scale) with grooves made by an unretouched, chipped stone flake from the Early Bronze Age II deposit (Large mammal, rib, shaft, lateral face) excavated at Tel Arad.

87 Trent Cheney

BMF per BI for Butchering Stage of Activity 25.00

20.00 Low Skill 20.00 18.38

15.00 Moderate Skill

9.71 10.00 8.58

5.00 High Skill 5.00

0.00 Slaughtering Skinning Disarticulation Carving Filleting

Figure 10. . BMF per BI for butchering stage of activity

88 Trent Cheney VIII. Appendix B – Tables

Table 1. Chronology of the Early Bronze Age of the southern Levant and neighboring regions (Regev 2013). Revised Southern Egypt Mesopotamia Date Levant 3500-3300 EB Ia Late Pre-Dynastic Late Uruk BCE 3300-3000 EB Ib Late Pre-Dynastic Late Uruk BCE 3000-2900 EB II Dynasty 1, 2: Early Dynastic Jemdet Nasr; Early Dynastic I BCE 2900-2500 Dynasty 3-4, and beginning of EB III Early Dynastic II, early ED III BCE 5: Old Kingdom 2500-2000 Dynasty 5-11: First End of ED III, 1st Dynasty of EB IV BCE Intermediate Period Akkad; Ur III

89 Trent Cheney Table 2a: Butchering assemblage Values bNISP 454 bTNE 457 BI 522

Table 2b: Quantification of slicing marks Values bNISP 414 bTNE 417 BI 479

Table 2c: Quantification of slicing marks examined under microscope Values bNISP 346 bTNE 346 BI 390

Table 2d: Quantification of spatial/chronological information Values bNISP 233 bTNE 233 BI 267

90 Trent Cheney Table 3: Bones with multiple slicing incidences # of incidences per bone Extra BI # of bones with multiple incidents 2 47 33 3 14 12 4 2 1 5 1 0 6 1 0 7 1 1 Grand Total 66 47

Table 4a: Comparison of bNISP and BI quantification in butchering activity Butchering Activity bNISP BI Difference Carving 0 1 1 Tool production 5 5 0 Slaughtering 7 7 0 Skinning 27 33 6 Disarticulation 145 177 32 Filleting 230 256 26 Grand Total 414 479 65

Table 4b: Comparison of bNISP and BI quantification with taxa Taxon bNISP BI Difference Gazelle/Ovis/Capra 1 1 0 Equus asinus 1 1 0 Canis familiaris 2 2 0 Gazella gazella 4 6 2 Mammal - large 29 31 2 Bos taurus 31 36 5 Mammal – medium 68 69 1 Capra hircus 54 69 15 Ovis aries 72 85 13 Ovis/Capra 152 179 27 Grand Total 414 479 65

91 Trent Cheney Table 5: Quantification of Bos butchering activities Taxon Bos taurus Butchering Activity bNISP BI Total bNISP Total BI Skinning 3 3 3 3 Disarticulation 17 21 17 21 Filleting 11 12 11 12 Grand Total 31 36 31 36

Table 6: Quantification of Caprine butchering activities Taxon Capra hircus Ovis aries Ovis/Capra Butchering Total Total bNISP BI bNISP BI bNISP BI Activity bNISP BI Slaughtering 6 6 1 1 7 7

Skinning 7 12 7 7 8 9 22 28 Disarticulation 35 44 45 55 41 47 121 146 Carving 0 1 0 1

Filleting 5 6 18 20 101 121 124 147 Grand Total 53 68 71 84 150 177 274 329

Table 7: Quantification of miscellaneous taxa butchering activities Butchering Activity Disarticulation Filleting Skinning Taxon bNISP BI bNISP BI bNISP BI Total bNISP Total BI Mammal - medium 2 3 63 63 2 2 67 68 Mammal - Large 2 2 27 29 29 31 Gazella gazella 3 5 1 1 4 6 Canis familiaris 2 2 2 2 Equus asinus 1 1 1 1 Gazelle/Ovis/Capra 1 1 1 1 Grand Total 7 10 95 97 2 2 104 109

92 Trent Cheney Table 8a: Quantification of tool type with bNISP Tool Type bNISP % of bNISP Bifacial knife 5 1.4% Blade 18 5.2% Flake 323 93.4% Grand Total 346 100.0%

Table 8b: Quantification of tool type with BI Tool Type BI % of BI Bifacial knife 5 1.3% Blade 19 4.9% Flake 366 93.8% Grand Total 390 100.0%

93 Trent Cheney Table 9a: Tool type and butchering activity for bNISP Tool Type Bifacial Unifacial Flake Butchering % of % of % of Total Total % bNISP bNISP bNISP Activity bNISP bNISP bNISP bNISP of bNISP Slaughtering 7 100.00% 7 100.00%

Skinning 2 8.00% 3 12.00% 20 80.00% 25 100.00% Disarticulation 5 4.72% 101 95.28% 106 100.00%

Carving

Filleting 3 1.44% 10 4.81% 195 93.75% 208 100.00% Grand Total 5 1.45% 18 5.20% 323 93.35% 346 100.00%

Table 9b: Tool type and butchering activity for BI Tool Type Bifacial Unifacial Flake Butchering Total % of BI % of BI BI % of BI BI % of BI Total BI Activity BI Slaughtering 0.00% 0.00% 7 100.00% 7 100.00% Skinning 2 6.45% 3 9.68% 26 83.87% 31 100.00% Disarticulation 0.00% 5 4.13% 116 95.87% 121 100.00% Carving 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1 100.00% Filleting 3 1.30% 11 4.78% 216 93.91% 230 100.00% Grand Total 5 1.28% 19 4.87% 366 93.85% 390 100.00%

94 Trent Cheney Table 10a: Tool type and taxon with bNISP Tool Type Bifacial Unifacial Flake Taxon % of % of % of Total Total % bNISP bNISP bNISP bNISP bNISP bNISP bNISP of bNISP Ovis/Capra 3 2.19% 8 5.84% 126 91.97% 137 100.00% Mammal - 5 8.77% 52 91.23% 57 100.00% medium Ovis aries 1 1.89% 52 98.11% 53 100.00%

Capra hircus 2 4.44% 43 95.56% 45 100.00%

Mammal - 27 100.00% 27 100.00% Large Bos taurus 1 3.85% 3 11.54% 22 84.62% 26 100.00% Gazella 3 100.00% 3 100.00% gazella Canis 2 100.00% 2 100.00% familiaris Gazelle/Ovis/ 1 100.00% 1 100.00% Capra Grand Total 5 1.42% 18 5.13% 328 93.45% 351 100.00%

Table 10b: Tool type and taxon with BI Tool Type Bifacial Unifacial Flake Taxon Total Total % BI % of BI BI % of BI BI % of BI BI of BI Ovis/Capra 3 1.90% 9 5.70% 146 92.41% 158 100.00% Ovis aries 1 1.59% 0.00% 62 98.41% 63 100.00% Mammal - medium 0.00% 5 8.77% 52 91.23% 57 100.00% Capra hircus 0.00% 2 3.77% 51 96.23% 53 100.00% Mammal - Large 0.00% 0.00% 29 100.00% 29 100.00% Bos taurus 1 3.57% 3 10.71% 24 85.71% 28 100.00% Gazella gazella 0.00% 0.00% 4 100.00% 4 100.00% Canis familiaris 0.00% 0.00% 2 100.00% 2 100.00% Gazelle/Ovis/Capra 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1 100.00% Grand Total 5 1.27% 19 4.81% 371 93.92% 395 100.00%

95 Trent Cheney Table 11a: BMF calculations per bNISP for butchering activity Butchering Activity Sum of Slices bNISP BMF per bNISP Slaughtering 35 7 5.00 Skinning 301 25 12.04 Disarticulation 1038 106 9.79 Carving 20 0 0.00 Filleting 4227 208 20.32 Grand Total 5621 346 16.25

Table 11b: BMF calculations per BI for butchering activity Butchering Activity Sum of Slices BI Frequency per BI Slaughtering 35 7 5.00 Skinning 301 31 9.71 Disarticulation 1038 121 8.58 Carving 20 1 20.00 Filleting 4227 230 18.38 Grand Total 5621 390 14.41

96 Trent Cheney Table 12a: BMF per bNISP for Bos butchering activities bNISP Bos taurus Butchering Sum of BMF per Total Sum of Total Total BMF bNISP Activity slice marks bNISP slice marks bNISP per bNISP Skinning 31 3 10.33 31 3 10.33 Disarticulation 84 12 7.00 84 12 7.00 Filleting 77 11 7.00 77 11 7.00 Grand Total 192 26 7.38 192 26 7.38

Table 12b BMF per BI for Bos butchering activities BI Bos taurus Sum of slice BMF Total Sum of Total Total BMF Butchering Activity BI marks per BI slice marks BI per BI Skinning 31 3 10.33 31 3 10.33 Disarticulation 84 13 6.46 84 13 6.46 Filleting 77 12 6.42 77 12 6.42 Grand Total 192 28 6.86 192 28 6.86

97 Trent Cheney Table 13a: BMF per bNISP for caprine butchering activities Butchering activity Sum bNISP BMF per bNISP Capra hircus 496 44 11.27 Slaughtering 28 6 4.67 Skinning 103 7 14.71 Disarticulation 307 26 11.81 Filleting 58 5 11.60 Ovis aries 773 52 14.87 Slaughtering 7 1 7.00 Skinning 25 5 5.00 Disarticulation 311 30 10.37 Carving 20 0 0 Filleting 410 16 25.63 Ovis/Capra 2577 135 19.09 Skinning 77 8 9.63 Disarticulation 317 34 9.32 Filleting 2183 93 23.47 Grand Total 3846 231 16.65

Table 13b: BMF per BI for caprine butchering activities Butchering activity Sum BI BMF per BI Capra hircus 496 52 9.54 Slaughtering 28 6 4.67 Skinning 103 12 8.58 Disarticulation 307 28 10.96 Filleting 58 6 9.67 Ovis aries 773 62 12.47 Slaughtering 7 1 7.00 Skinning 25 5 5.00 Disarticulation 311 37 8.41 Carving 20 1 20.00 Filleting 410 18 22.78 Ovis/Capra 2577 156 16.52 Skinning 77 9 8.56 Disarticulation 317 38 8.34 Filleting 2183 109 20.03 Grand Total 3846 270 14.24

98 Trent Cheney Table 14a: BMF per bNISP for misc. taxa butchering activities Butchering activity Sum bNISP BMF per bNISP Canis familiaris 10 2 5.00 Filleting 10 2 5.00 Gazelle/Ovis/Capra 11 1 11.00 Filleting 11 1 11.00 Mammal - Large 475 27 17.59 Disarticulation 7 1 7.00 Filleting 468 26 18.00 Mammal - medium 1068 56 19.07 Skinning 65 2 32.50 Disarticulation 1 1 1.00 Filleting 1002 53 18.91 Gazella gazella 19 3 6.33 Disarticulation 11 2 5.50 Filleting 8 1 8.00 Grand Total 1583 89 17.79

Table 14b: BMF per BI for misc. taxa butchering activities Butchering activity Sum BI BMF per BI Canis familiaris 10 2 5.00 Filleting 10 2 5.00 Gazelle/Ovis/Capra 11 1 11.00 Filleting 11 1 11.00 Mammal - Large 475 29 16.38 Disarticulation 7 1 7.00 Filleting 468 28 16.71 Mammal - medium 1068 56 19.07 Skinning 65 2 32.50 Disarticulation 1 1 1.00 Filleting 1002 53 18.91 Gazella gazella 19 4 4.75 Disarticulation 11 3 3.67 Filleting 8 1 8.00 Grand Total 1583 92 17.21

99 Trent Cheney Table 15a: Tool type BMF per bNISP Tool type Sum of Slices bNISP BMF/bNISP Bifacial knife 55 5 11.00 Blade 148 18 8.22 Flake 5418 323 16.77 Grand Total 5621 346 16.25

Table 15b: Tool type BMF per BI Tool type Sum of Slices BI BMF/BI Bifacial knife 55 5 11.00 Blade 148 19 7.79 Flake 5418 366 14.80 Grand Total 5621 390 14.41

Table 16a: bNISP Tool type and Stratum Tool Type Bifacial Unifacial Flake % % Total Total % Stratum bNISP bNISP % bNISP bNISP bNISP bNISP bNISP bNISP I 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1 100.00%

II 1 0.75% 4 2.99% 129 96.27% 134 100.00% III 0.00% 4 5.97% 63 94.03% 67 100.00%

III-II 0.00% 0.00% 7 100.00% 7 100.00%

IV 0.00% 0.00% 24 100.00% 24 100.00%

Grand 1 0.43% 8 3.43% 224 96.14% 233 100.00% Total Strata II, 0.48% 3.84% 95.67% 100.00% II-III, III

Table 16b: BI Tool type and Stratum Tool Type Bifacial Unifacial Flake

Stratum BI % BI BI % BI BI % BI Total BI Total % BI I 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1 100.00%

II 1 0.66% 5 3.31% 145 96.03% 151 100.00% III 0.00% 4 5.33% 71 94.67% 75 100.00%

III-II 0.00% 0.00% 8 100.00% 8 100.00%

IV 0.00% 0.00% 32 100.00% 32 100.00%

Grand Total 1 0.37% 9 3.37% 257 96.25% 267 100.00% Strata II, II-III, 0.43% 3.84% 95.72% 100.00% III

100 Trent Cheney Table 17a: BMF per bNISP for butchering activity and stratum Stratum/Butchering activity Sum of slices bNISP BMF/bNISP I 6 1 6.00 Disarticulation 6 1 6.00 II 2175 134 16.23 Slaughtering 12 2 6.00 Skinning 87 6 14.50 Disarticulation 416 39 10.67 Carving 20 0 #DIV/0! Filleting 1640 87 18.85 III-II 177 7 25.29 Disarticulation 1 1 1.00 Filleting 176 6 29.33 III 1323 67 19.75 Slaughtering 2 1 2.00 Skinning 27 2 13.50 Disarticulation 162 17 9.53 Filleting 1132 47 24.09 IV 545 24 22.71 Skinning 113 5 22.60 Disarticulation 42 4 10.50 Filleting 390 15 26.00 Grand Total 4226 233 18.14

101 Trent Cheney Table 17b: BMF per bNISP for butchering activity and stratum Stratum/Butchering activity Sum of slices BI BMF/BI I 6 1 6.00 Disarticulation 6 1 6.00 II 2175 151 14.40 Slaughtering 12 2 6.00 Skinning 87 6 14.50 Disarticulation 416 44 9.45 Carving 20 1 20.00 Filleting 1640 98 16.73 III-II 177 8 22.13 Disarticulation 1 1 1.00 Filleting 176 7 25.14 III 1323 75 17.64 Slaughtering 2 1 2.00 Skinning 27 2 13.50 Disarticulation 162 20 8.10 Filleting 1132 52 21.77 IV 545 32 17.03 Skinning 113 11 10.27 Disarticulation 42 5 8.40 Filleting 390 16 24.38 Grand Total 4226 267 15.83

102 Trent Cheney Table 18a: Disarticulation BMF per bNISP for taxa and strata Stratum/Taxon Sum of slices bNISP BMF per bNISP I 6 1 6.00 Capra hircus 6 1 6.00 II 416 39 10.67 Bos taurus 22 4 5.50 Capra hircus 97 5 19.40 Ovis aries 106 10 10.60 Ovis/Capra 180 18 10.00 Gazella gazella 11 2 5.50 III 162 17 9.53 Bos taurus 10 1 10.00 Capra hircus 20 7 2.86 Ovis aries 84 7 12.00 Ovis/Capra 48 2 24.00 III-II 1 1 1.00 Capra hircus 1 1 1.00 IV 42 4 10.50 Bos taurus 7 1 7.00 Capra hircus 27 1 27.00 Ovis/Capra 8 2 4.00 Grand Total 627 62 10.11

103 Trent Cheney Table 18b: Disarticulation BMF per BI for taxa and strata Stratum/Taxon Sum of slices BI BMF per BI I 6 1 6.00 Capra hircus 6 1 6.00 II 416 44 9.45 Bos taurus 22 4 5.50 Capra hircus 97 5 19.40 Ovis aries 106 13 8.15 Ovis/Capra 180 19 9.47 Gazella gazella 11 3 3.67 III 162 20 8.10 Bos taurus 10 1 10.00 Capra hircus 20 7 2.86 Ovis aries 84 9 9.33 Ovis/Capra 48 3 16.00 III-II 1 1 1.00 Capra hircus 1 1 1.00 IV 42 5 8.40 Bos taurus 7 1 7.00 Capra hircus 27 1 27.00 Ovis/Capra 8 3 2.67 Grand Total 627 71 8.83

104 Trent Cheney Table 19a: bNISP for taxa and area bNISP Area Taxon Grand North WR West WR Domestic Public South WR Total Ovis/Capra 62 16 7 6 2 93 Mammal - medium 30 9 2 1 2 44 Ovis aries 12 5 5 4 26

Capra hircus 10 7 3 3 1 24 Mammal - Large 14 6 1 21

Bos taurus 7 5 1 2 15

Gazella gazella 2 1 3

Canis familiaris 1 1

Gazelle/Ovis/Capra 1 1

Grand Total 136 50 18 18 6 228

Table 19b: BI for taxa and area BI Area Grand Taxon North WR West WR Domestic Public South WR Total Ovis/Capra 73 19 10 6 2 110 Mammal - medium 30 9 2 1 2 44 Ovis aries 15 6 8 5 34

Capra hircus 15 7 3 3 1 29 Mammal - Large 14 7 1 22

Bos taurus 7 5 2 2 16

Gazella gazella 3 1 4

Canis familiaris 1 1

Gazelle/Ovis/Capra 1 1

Grand Total 155 56 25 19 6 261

105 Trent Cheney Table 20a: bNISP for butchering activity and area Grand Butchering Activity North WR West WR Domestic Public South WR Total Slaughtering 2 1 3

Skinning 8 3 2 13

Disarticulation 29 15 8 6 3 61 Carving 0 0

Filleting 99 30 9 10 3 151 Grand Total 136 50 18 18 6 228

Table 20b: BI for butchering activity and area Grand Butchering Activity North WR West WR Domestic Public South WR Total Slaughtering 2 1 3

Skinning 14 3 2 19

Disarticulation 31 18 11 7 3 70 Carving 1 1

Filleting 110 33 12 10 3 168 Grand Total 155 56 25 19 6 261

106 Trent Cheney Table 21a: bNISP disarticulation for taxa and area % of Taxon bNISP bNISP North WR 29 47.54% Ovis/Capra 11 37.93% Ovis aries 7 24.14% Capra hircus 7 24.14% Bos taurus 4 13.79% West WR 15 24.59% Ovis/Capra 5 33.33% Ovis aries 4 26.67% Capra hircus 3 20.00% Gazella gazella 2 13.33% Bos taurus 1 6.67% Domestic 8 13.11% Ovis/Capra 3 37.50% Ovis aries 3 37.50% Capra hircus 2 25.00% Public 6 9.84% Ovis aries 3 50.00% Ovis/Capra 1 16.67% Bos taurus 1 16.67% Capra hircus 1 16.67% South WR 3 4.92% Ovis/Capra 2 66.67% Capra hircus 1 33.33% Grand Total 61 100.00%

107 Trent Cheney Table 21b: BI disarticulation for taxa and area Taxon BI % of BI North WR 31 44.29% Ovis/Capra 12 38.71% Ovis aries 8 25.81% Capra hircus 7 22.58% Bos taurus 4 12.90% West WR 18 25.71% Ovis/Capra 6 33.33% Ovis aries 5 27.78% Gazella gazella 3 16.67% Capra hircus 3 16.67% Bos taurus 1 5.56% Domestic 11 15.71% Ovis aries 5 45.45% Ovis/Capra 4 36.36% Capra hircus 2 18.18% Public 7 10.00% Ovis aries 4 57.14% Ovis/Capra 1 14.29% Bos taurus 1 14.29% Capra hircus 1 14.29% South WR 3 4.29% Ovis/Capra 2 66.67% Capra hircus 1 33.33% Grand Total 70 100.00%

108 Trent Cheney Table 22a: Caprine bNISP disarticulation for stratum and location bNISP Stratum Location I II III IV Grand Total North WR 13 11 4 28

Locus (p. 110) 1 1

Locus (p. 120) 2 2

Open Space (p. 107) 1 1

Open Space (p. 119) 5 5

Open Space (p. 120) 3 3

Pit (p. 5) 2 2

Pit (p. 6) 1 1

Probe (p. 107) 2 2

Probe (p. 5) 1 1

Room (p. 107) 2 2

Room (p. 118) 1 1

Room (p. 119) 1 1

Room/ Courtyard (p. 107) 2 2

Street (p. 121) 1 1

Water Citadel (p. 111) 3 3

West WR 11 3 14

Courtyard (p. 122) 1 1

Courtyard (p. 125) 2 2

Locus(p. 115) 2 2

Locus(p. 124) 1 1

Room (p. 114) 1 1

Room (p. 121) 1 1

Room (p. 124) 2 2

Street (p. 126) 4 4

Domestic 9 1 10

Courtyard/ Open Space (p. 99) 2 2

Locus (p. 88) 1 1

Probe (p. 95) 1 1

Room (p. 98) 5 5

Room (p. 99) 1 1

Public 1 3 1 5

Building (p. 51) 1 1

Open Space (p. 101) 1 1

Opening (p. 55) 1 1

Room (p. 38) 1 1

Room (p. 62) 1 1

South WR 2 1 3

Courtyard (p. 117) 1 1

Room (p. 126) 2 2

Grand Total 1 38 17 4 60

109 Trent Cheney Table 22b: Caprine BI disarticulation for stratum and location BI Stratum Location I II III IV Grand Total North WR 14 11 5 30

Locus (p. 110) 1 1

Locus (p. 120) 2 2

Open Space (p. 107) 1 1

Open Space (p. 119) 6 6

Open Space (p. 120) 3 3

Pit (p. 5) 2 2

Pit (p. 6) 2 2

Probe (p. 107) 2 2

Probe (p. 5) 1 1

Room (p. 107) 2 2

Room (p. 118) 1 1

Room (p. 119) 1 1

Room/ Courtyard (p. 107) 2 2

Street (p. 121) 1 1

Water Citadel (p. 111) 3 3

West WR 11 5 16

Courtyard (p. 122) 1 1

Courtyard (p. 125) 2 2

Locus(p. 115) 3 3

Locus(p. 124) 1 1

Room (p. 114) 2 2

Room (p. 121) 1 1

Room (p. 124) 2 2

Street (p. 126) 4 4

Domestic 14 1 15

Courtyard/ Open Space (p. 99) 4 4

Locus (p. 88) 2 2

Probe (p. 95) 1 1

Room (p. 98) 7 7

Room (p. 99) 1 1

Public 1 3 2 6

Building (p. 51) 2 2

Open Space (p. 101) 1 1

Opening (p. 55) 1 1

Room (p. 38) 1 1

Room (p. 62) 1 1

South WR 2 1 3

Courtyard (p. 117) 1 1

Room (p. 126) 2 2

Grand Total 1 44 20 5 70

110 Trent Cheney Table 23a: bNISP for Tool type and area Area Bifacial Unifacial Flake Grand Total North WR 1 3 132 136 West WR 3 47 50

Domestic 18 18

Public 2 16 18

South WR 6 6

Grand Total 1 8 219 228

Table 23b: BI for Tool type and area Area Bifacial Unifacial Flake Grand Total North WR 1 4 150 155 West WR 3 53 56

Domestic 25 25

Public 2 17 19

South WR 6 6

Grand Total 1 9 251 261

111 Trent Cheney Table 24a Disarticulation BMF per bNISP for taxa and area Taxon bNISP BMF per bNISP North WR 29 10.00 Bos taurus 4 7.00 Capra hircus 7 8.00 Ovis aries 7 12.43 Ovis/Capra 11 10.82 West WR 15 13.67 Bos taurus 1 1.00 Capra hircus 3 22.00 Ovis aries 4 12.00 Ovis/Capra 5 15.80 Gazella gazella 2 5.50 Domestic 8 9.13 Capra hircus 2 10.00 Ovis aries 3 9.00 Ovis/Capra 3 8.67 Public 6 7.83 Bos taurus 1 10.00 Capra hircus 1 6.00 Ovis aries 3 9.33 Ovis/Capra 1 3.00 South WR 3 3.67 Capra hircus 1 2.00 Ovis/Capra 2 4.50 Grand Total 61 10.26

112 Trent Cheney Table 24b Disarticulation BMF per BI for taxa and area Taxon BI BMF per BI North WR 31 9.35 Bos taurus 4 7.00 Capra hircus 7 8.00 Ovis aries 8 10.88 Ovis/Capra 12 9.92 West WR 18 11.39 Bos taurus 1 1.00 Capra hircus 3 22.00 Ovis aries 5 9.60 Ovis/Capra 6 13.17 Gazella gazella 3 3.67 Domestic 11 6.64 Capra hircus 2 10.00 Ovis aries 5 5.40 Ovis/Capra 4 6.50 Public 7 6.71 Bos taurus 1 10.00 Capra hircus 1 6.00 Ovis aries 4 7.00 Ovis/Capra 1 3.00 South WR 3 3.67 Capra hircus 1 2.00 Ovis/Capra 2 4.50 Grand Total 70 8.94

113 Trent Cheney Table 25: Tool type and butchering activity with taxa Tool Type Bifacial Unifacial Flake Taxon/Butchering bNISP BI bNISP BI bNISP BI Total bNISP Total BI ActivityBos taurus 1 1 3 3 22 24 26 28 Disarticulation 12 13 12 13

Filleting 1 1 2 2 8 9 11 12 Skinning 1 1 2 2 3 3

Canis familiaris 2 2 2 2

Filleting 2 2 2 2

Capra hircus 2 2 43 51 45 53

Disarticulation 25 27 25 27

Filleting 5 6 5 6

Skinning 1 1 6 11 7 12

Slaughtering 6 6 6 6

Tool production 1 1 1 1

Cutting tendon 1 1 1 1

Gazelle/Ovis/Capra 1 1 1 1

Filleting 1 1 1 1

Mammal - Large 27 29 27 29

Disarticulation 1 1 1 1

Filleting 26 28 26 28

Mammal - medium 5 5 52 52 57 57

Disarticulation 1 1 1 1

Filleting 5 5 48 48 53 53

Skinning 2 2 2 2

Tool production 1 1 1 1

Ovis aries 1 1 52 62 53 63

Carving 0 1 0 1

Disarticulation 30 37 30 37

Filleting 16 18 16 18

Skinning 1 1 4 4 5 5

Slaughtering 1 1 1 1

Tool production 1 1 1 1

Ovis/Capra 3 3 8 9 126 14 137 158 Disarticulation 4 4 30 34 34 38 6 Filleting 2 2 3 4 88 10 93 109 Skinning 1 1 1 1 6 37 8 9 Tool production 2 2 2 2

Gazella gazella 3 4 3 4

Disarticulation 2 3 2 3

Filleting 1 1 1 1

Grand Total 5 5 18 19 328 37 351 395 1

114 Trent Cheney

Table 26: BMF and skill levels for butchering activities Stage BMF per BI BMF Skill Slaughter 5 Low High Skinning 9.7 Low High Disarticulation 8.6 Low High Carving/Cutting 21 High Low Filleting 18.4 High Low

Table 27: Butchering skill level for butchering activity per stratum Stratum Butchering I II III II-III IV Activity Slaughter high high Skinning moderate moderate moderate Disarticulation high high high high moderate Carving/Cutting low Filleting moderate low low low

115 Trent Cheney

IX. References

Abe, Yoshiko, Curtis W. Marean, Peter John Nilssen, Zelalem Assefa, and Elizabeth C. Stone. 2002. "The analysis of cutmarks on archaeofauna: a review and critique of quantification procedures, and a new Image-Analysis GIS approach." American Antiquity 67 (4):643- 663. Allentuck, Adam, and Haskel J. Greenfield. 2010. "The organization of animal production an early urban center: the zooarchaeological evidence from Early Bronze Age Titriş Höyük, southeast Turkey." In Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity and Animal Transformations, edited by Douglas V. Campana, Pam J. Crabtree, Susan D. DeFrance, Justin Lev-Tov and Alice M. Choyke, 12-29. Oxford: Oxbow Press. Amiran, Ruth, and Ram Gophna. 1989. "Urban Canaan in the Early Bronze II and III Periods: Emergence and Structure." In L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien, edited by Pierre de Miroschedji, 109-116. Oxford: BAR International Series. Amiran, Ruth, and Ornit Ilan. 1993. "Arad." In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by Ephraim Stern. Amiran, Ruth, and Ornit Ilan. 1996. Early Arad II: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IB Settlements and the Early Bronze II City: Architecture and Town Planning: Sixth to Eighteenth Seasons of Excavations, 1971-1978, 1980-1984. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. Amiran, Ruth, Uzzi Paran, Yigal Shiloh, Rafi Brown, Yoram Tsafrir, and Amnon Ben-Tor, eds. 1978. Early Arad: the Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age City, Vol. I, First‒ Fifth seasons of excavations, 1962‒1966. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Apel, Jan. 2008. "Knowledge, know-how, and raw material — the production of Late Neolithic flint daggers in Scandinavia." Journal of archaeological method and theory 15 (1):91– 111. Avner, Uzi , Moti Shem-Tov, Lior Enmar, Gideon Ragolski, Rachamim Shem-Tov, and Omry Barzilai. 2014. "A Survey of Neolithic Cult Sites in the Eilat Mountains, Israel." Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society:101-116. Ball, J. 1916. "The Geography and Geology of the West Sinai, Egypt." Egyptian Geological Survey. Barone, R. 1976. Anatomie Comparee des Mammiferes Domestiques. Paris: Vigot Freres. Behrensmeyer, Anna K., Kathleen D. Gordon, and Glenn T. Yanagi. 1986. "Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks." Nature 319:768-771. Bello, Silvia M., and Christophe Soligo. 2008. "A new method for the quantitative analysis of cutmark micromorphology." Journal of Archaeological Science 35:1542-1552. Binford, Lewis R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. Binford, Lewis R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press. Blumenschine, Robert J., Curtis W. Marean, and Salvatore D. Capaldo. 1996. "Blind tests of inter-analyst correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cut marks, percussion marks, and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces." Journal of Archaeological Science 23:493-507. Blumenschine, Robert J., and Marie M. Selvaggio. 1988. "Percussion marks on bone surfaces as a new diagnostic of hominid behaviour." Nature 333:763-765. 116 Trent Cheney Boessneck, Joachim. 1969. "Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and goats (Ovis capra Linne)." In Science in Archaeology, 2nd edition, edited by Don Brothwell and Eric S. Higgs, 331-359. London: Thames and Hudson. Boessneck, Joachim, H. H. Mueller, and Manfred Teichert. 1964. "Osteologische unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen Schaf (Ovis aries Linne) und Ziege (Capra hircus Linne)." Kuhn-Archiv 78 (1-2). Bökönyi, Sándor. 1970. "A new method of the determination of the number of individuals in animal bone material." American Journal of Archaeology 74 (3):291-292. Braun, David R., B. L. Pobiner, and J. C. Thompson. 2008. "An experimental investigation of cut mark production and stone tool attrition." Journal of Archaeological Science 35:1216-1223. Braun, Eliot. 2009a. "South Levantine Early Bronze Age chronological correlations with Egypt in light of the Narmer serekhs from Tel Erani and Arad: New interpretations." British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 13:25-48. Braun, Eliot. 2009b. "South Levantine Early Bronze Age chronological correlations with Egypt in light of the Narmer serekhs from Tel Erani and Arad: New interpretations." British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 13:25–48. Breniquet, Catherine. 2002. "Animals in Mesopotamian Art." In A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East., edited by Billie Jean Collins, 145-168. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. Broshi, Magen, and Ram Gophna. 1984a. "The Settlements and Population of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age II-III." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253:41-53. Broshi, Magen, and Ram Gophna. 1984b. "The settlements and population of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age II‒III." BASOR 253:41‒53. Broughton, Jack M. 1994. "Declines in mammalian foraging efficiency during the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay, California." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:371-401. Bunn, Henry T. 1981. "Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio-Pleistocene hominids from Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge." Nature 291 (5816):574. Burke, Ariane M. 2001a. "Butchery of a sheep in rural Tunisia (North Africa): repercussions for the archaeological study of patterns of bone disposal." Anthropozoologica 32:3-9. Burke, Ariane M. 2001b. "Patterns of animal exploitation at Leptiminus: faunal remains from the East Baths and the Roman cemetary Site 10." Journal of Roman Archaeology 14:442- 455. Capaldo, Salvatore D., and Robert J. Blumenschine. 1994. "A quantitative diagnosis of notches made by hammerstone percussion and carnivore gnawing on Bovid long bones." American Antiquity 59 (4):724-748. Chaplin, R. E. 1971. The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. New York: Seminar Press. Chisholm, Michael. 1968. Rural Settlement and Land Use: An Essay in Location. Vol. 2nd ed. London: Hutchinson and Co. Chisholm, Michael. 1975. Human Geography: Evolution or Revolution. Middlesex, England: Penguin. Cope, Carol R. 2004. "The butchering patterns of Gamla and Yodefat: beginning the search for kosher practicies." In Behavior Beyond Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, 117 Trent Cheney Status and Identity, edited by Sharyn Jones O'Day, Wim van Neer and Anton Ervynck, 25-34. Oxford: Oxbow. Cowgill, George L. 2004. "Origins and development of urbanism: archaeological perspectives." Annual Review of Anthropology 33:525-49. Crabtree, Pam J. 1990a. "Zooarchaeology and complex societies: some uses of faunal remains for the study of trade, social status, and ethnicity." Archaeological Method and Theory 2:155-205. Crabtree, Pamela J. 1990b. "Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity." In Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 155-205. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. David, Nicolas, and Carol Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, Leslie B., and Michael Wilson. 1978. "Bison Procurement and Utilization : a Symposium.". Davis, Simon J. M. 1976. "Mammal bones from the Early Bronze Age city of Arad, northern Negev, Israel: Some implications concerning human exploitation." Journal of Archaeological Science 3:153-164. de Juana, S., A. B. Galán, and M. Domínguez-Rodrigo. 2010. "Taphonomic identification of cut marks made with lithic handaxes: an experimental study." Journal of Archaeological Science In Press, Accepted Manuscript. de Miroschedji, Pierre. 2009. "Rise and Collapse in the Southern Levant in the early bronze age." Scienze dell’antichità 15:101-129. deFrance, Susan D. 2009. "Zooarchaeology in complex societies: political economy, status, and ideology." Journal of Archaeological Research 17:105-168. Dever, William G. 2003. "Chronology of the Southern Levant." In Near Eastern Archaeology: a reader, edited by Suzanne Richard, 82-87. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Dewbury, Adam J., and Nerissa Russell. 2007. "Relative frequency of butchering cutmarks produced by obsidian and flint: an experimental approach." Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (3):354-357. Domínguez-Rodrigo, Manuel, M. S. de Juana, A. B. Galán, and M. Rodríguez. 2009. "A new protocol to differentiate trampling marks from butchery cut marks." Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2643-2654. Egeland, Charles P. 2003. "Carcass processing intensity and cutmark creation: an experimental approach." Plains Anthropologist 48:39-51. Evans, Robert K. 1978. "Early craft specialization: An example from the Balkan Chalcolithic." In Social Archeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited by Charles L. Redman, 113-129. New York: Academic Press. Falconer, Steven E. 1995. "Rural Responses to Early Urbanism: Bronze Age Household and Village Economy at Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan." Journal of Field Archaeology 22 (4):399- 419. Fisher, John W., Jr. 1995. "Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology." Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2 (1):7-68. Forbes, Robert James. 1950. "Professions and crafts in Ancient Egypt." Archives internationales d'histoire des Sciences. 118 Trent Cheney Foster, Benjamin R. 2002. "Animals in Mesopotamian Literature." In A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East., edited by Billie Jean Collins, 271-288. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. Frison, George C. 1970. "The Glenrock Buffalo Jump, 48C0304: Late Prehistoric Period Buffalo Procurement and Butchering." Plains Anthropologist 15 (50):1-45. Frison, George C. 1974. "Archaeology of the Casper site." In The Casper Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains, edited by George C. Frison, 1-112. New York: Academic Press. Frison, George C., M. Wilson, and D. J. Wilson. 1976. "Fossil biosn and artifacts from an early Altithermal period arroyo trap in Wyoming." American Antiquity 41 (1):28-57. Gaastra, Jane S., Tina L. Greenfield, and Haskel J. Greenfield. 2020. "There and back again: A zooarchaeological perspective on Early and Middle Bronze Age urbanism in the southern Levant." PLoS ONE 15 (3):e0227255. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0227255. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P. 1989. "Ethnographic analogues for interpreting modified bones: some cases from east Africa." In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marcella H. Sorg. Orono: University of Maine. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P. 2018. An Introduction to Zooarchaeology: Springer. Gilbert, Miles B. 1969. "Some aspects of diet and butchering techniques among prehistoric Indians in South Dakota." Plains Anthropologist 14 (46):277–294. Gilbert, Miles B. 1973. Mamalian Osteoarchaeology: North America. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society. Gilbert, Miles B. 1980. Mammalian Osteology. Laramie, WY: Modern Printing. Gilbert, Miles B., L. Martin, and Howard Savage. 1985. Avian Osteology. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society. Grayson, Donald K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. New York: Academic Press. Greenberg, Raphael. 2019a. The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant: From Urban Origins to the Demise of City-States, 3700–1000 BCE, Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenberg, Raphael. 2019b. "The Intermediate Bronze Age: entering the orbit of Syria." In The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant: From Urban Origins to the Demise of City- States, 3700–1000 BCE, edited by Raphael Greenberg, 136-179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenfield, Haskel J. 1986. The Paleoeconomy of the Central Balkans (Serbia): A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age (4500-1000 BC). British Archaeological reports, International Series Vol. 304. Oxford: BAR. Greenfield, Haskel J. 1999. "The origins of metallurgy: distinguishing stone from metal cut marks on bones from archaeological sites." Journal of Archaeological Science 26 (7):797-808. Greenfield, Haskel J. 2000a. "Animal bone fragmentation and the origins of metallurgy in the central Balkans." In Contributions to the innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory, edited by Lolita Nikolova, 93-96. Oxford: BAR. Greenfield, Haskel J. 2000b. "The Origins of Metallurgy in the Central Balkans based on the Analysis of Cut Marks on Animal Bones." Environmental Archaeology 5:93-106. Greenfield, Haskel J. 2002. "Origins of metallurgy: a zooarchaeological perspective from the Central Balkans." In Eureka: The Archaeology of Innovation and Science: Proceedings 119 Trent Cheney of the 27th Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary: Chacmool, edited by Roman Harrison, Milan Gillespie and Meaghan Peuramaki-Brown, 430-448. Calgary, AB: The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Greenfield, Haskel J. 2004. "The butchered animal bone remains from Ashqelon, Afridar - Area G." 'Atiqot 45:243-261. Greenfield, Haskel J. 2006. "Slicing cut marks on animal bones: diagnostics for identifying stone tool type and raw material." Journal of Field Archaeology 31:147-163. Greenfield, Haskel J. 2008. "Metallurgy in the Near East. A zooarchaeological perspective on the origins of metallurgy in the Near East: analysis of stone and metal cut marks on bone from Israel." In Encyclopedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, 2nd edition, edition on the internet, edited by Helaine Selin, 1639-1647. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Academic Publishers. Greenfield, Haskel J. 2013. "“The Fall of the House of Flint”: a zooarchaeological perspective on the decline of chipped stone tools for butchering animals in the Bronze and Iron Ages of the southern Levant." Lithic Technology 38 (3):161-178. Greenfield, Haskel J., and Ram Bouchnick. 2010. "Kashrut and Shechita – the relationship between dietary practices and ritual slaughtering of animals on Jewish identity." In Identity Crisis: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Identity: Proceedings of the 42nd (2009) Annual Chacmool Archaeology Conference, edited by Lindsay Amundsen-Meyer, Nicole Engel and Sean Pickering, 106-12. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary. Greenfield, Haskel J., Annie Brown, Itzhaq Shai, and Aren M. Maeir. 2016. "Preliminary analysis of the fauna from the Early Bronze Age III neighbourhood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel." In Bones and Identity: Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia (Proceedings of the ICAZ-SW Asia Conference, Haifa, June 23-28, 2013), edited by Nimrod Marom, Reuven Yeshurun, Lior Weissbrod and Guy Bar-Oz, 170-192. Oxford: Oxbow Press. Greenfield, Haskel J., Trent Cheney, and Ehud Galili. 2016. "A taphonomic and technological analysis of the butchered animal bone remains from Atlit Yam, a submerged PPNC site off the coast of Israel." In Bones and Identity: Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia (Proceedings of the ICAZ-SW Asia Conference, Haifa, June 23-28, 2013), edited by Nimrod Marom, Reuven Yeshurun, Lior Weissbrod and Guy Bar-Oz, 89-112. Oxford: Oxbow Press. Greenfield, Haskel J., Ehud Galili, and Liora Kolska Horwitz. 2006. "The butchered animal bones from Newe Yam, a submerged Pottery Neolithic site off the Carmel Coast." Mitekufat Haeven (Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society) 36:173-200. Greenfield, Haskel J., and Tina L. Jongsma. 2008. "Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the Early Neolithic - architectural, botanical, and zoological evidence for mobile economies from Foeni-Salas, SW Romania." In Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe, edited by Douglas W. Bailey, Alasdair Whittle and Daniela Hofmann, 108-130. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Guilday, J. E., Paul W. Parmalee, and D. P. Tanner. 1962. "Aboriginal butchering techniques at the Eschelman Site (36lA12), Lancaster County, Pennsylvania." Pennsylvania Archaeologist 32:59-83. 120 Trent Cheney Harrison, Timothy P., and Stephen H. Savage. 2003. "Settlement Heterogeneity and Multivariate Craft Production in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant." Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16 (1):33-57. Hauptmann, Andreas , Friedrich Begemann, and Sigrid Schmitt-Strecker. 1999. "Copper Objects from Arad: Their Composition and Provenance." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314:1-17. Hesse, Brian. 1986. "Animal use at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Bronze Age and Iron Age." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 264:17-27. Hesse, Brian, and Paula Wapnish. 1985. Animal Bone Archaeology: From Objectives to Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Taraxacum Press. Hesse, Brian, and Paula Wapnish. 1986. "Appendix F. faunal remains." In Tel Miqne-Ekron. Report of the 1984 Excavations, edited by B. M. Gittlen, 227-250. Jerusalem: W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. Hesse, Brian, and Paula Wapnish. 2002. "An archaeozoological perspective on the cultural use of mammals in the Levant." In A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, edited by Billie Jean Collins, 457-402. Leiden: Brill. Hill, Andrew. 1979. "Disarticulation and Scattering of Mammal Skeletons." Paleobiology 5 (3):261-274. Hill, Andrew, and Anna K. Behrensmeyer. 1985. "Natural disarticulation and bison butchery." American Antiquity 50 (1):141-145. Hillson, Simon. 1996. Mammal, Bones and Teeth: An Introductory Guide to Methods of Identification, 2nd edition. Reprinted with corrections ed. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Horwitz, Liora Kolska, and Eitan Tchernov. 1989. "Animal exploitation in the Early Bronze Age of the southern Levant: an overview." In L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 527, edited by Pierre de Miroschedji, 279-296. Oxford: BAR. Houlihan, Patrick F. 2002. "Animals in Egyptian Art and Hieroglyphs." In A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East., edited by Billie Jean Collins, 97-144. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. Ikram, Salima. 1995a. Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. Vol. 69, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Leuven: Peeters Press and Department Oriental Studies. Ikram, Salima. 1995b. Choice Cuts: Meat Products in Ancient Egypt. Vol. 69, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Leuven: Peeters Press and Department Oriental Studies. Ilan, Ornit, and Michael Sebbane. 1989. "Copper metallurgy, trade, and the urbanization of southern Canaan in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age." In L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien, edited by Pierre De Miroschedji, 139-162. Oxford: BAR. Jochim, Michael A. 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. New York: Academic Press. Jochim, Michael A. 1979. Strategies for Survival. New York: Academic Press. Johnson, Eileen. 1980. "Updating Comments On “Paleo-Indian Bison Procurement And Butchering Patterns On The Llano Est Acado.”." Plains Anthropologist 25 (87):83–85. Johnson, Eileen 1978. "Paleo-Indian bison procurement and butchering patterns on the Llano Estacado." Plains Anthropologist 23 (82):98-105. 121 Trent Cheney Johnson, Eileen, and Leland C. Bement. 2009. "Bison butchery at Cooper, a Folsom site on the southern Plains." Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1430-1447. Kehoe, Thomas F., and Alice B. Kehoe. 1960. "Observations on the Butchering Technique at a Prehistoric Bison-Kill in Montana." American Antiquity 25 (3):420-423. Kobusiewicz, Michał. 2015. The production, use and importance of flint tools in the Archaic Period and the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Archaeopress Egyptology 12. Oxford: Archaeopress. Lawrence, Barbara. 1951. Post-cranial Skeletal Characteristics of Deer, Pronghorn and Sheep- Goats, with Notes on Bos and Bison. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 35, Part B. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Peabody Museum. Leakey, Louis. 1953. Adam's ancestors: an up-to-date outline of the Old Stone Age (Palaeolithic) and what is known about man's origin and evolution. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Lemke, Ashley K. 2013. "Cutmark systematics: analyzing morphometrics and spatial patterning at Palangana." Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (1):16-27. Lernau, H. 1978. "Faunal remains, Strata III-I." In Early Arad: the Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age City, edited by Ruth Amiran, 83-113. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Levy, Thomas E. 2007. Journey to the Copper Age: Archaeology in the Holy Land. San Diego: San Diego Museum of Man. Lewis, Jason E. 2008. "Identifying sword marks on bone: criteria for distinguishing between cut marks made by different classes of bladed weapons." Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (7):2001-2008. Luff, Rosemary M. 1994. "Butchery at the Workmen's Village (WV), Tell-el-Amarna, Egypt." In Whither Environmental Archaeology?, edited by Rosemary M. Luff and Peter Rowley- Conwy, 158-170. Oxford: Oxbow. Lyman, Lee, R. 1987a. "Hunting for Evidence of Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Scavengers." American Anthropologist 89 (3):710-715. Lyman, R. Lee. 1987b. "Archaeofaunas and butchery studies: a taphonomic perspective." Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10:249-337. Lyman, R. Lee. 1987c. "Hunting for Evidence of Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Scavengers." American Anthropologist 89 (3):710-715. Lyman, R. Lee. 1987d. "On zooarchaeological measures of socioeconomic position and cost- efficient meat purchases." Historical Archaeology 21 (1):58-66. Lyman, R. Lee. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyman, R. Lee. 2005. "Analyzing cut marks: lessons from artiodactyl remains in the northwestern United States." Journal of Archaeological Science 32:11. Lyman, R. Lee. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacKinnon, Michael Ross. 1999. "Animal production and consumption in Roman Italy: the zooarchaeological and textual evidence." Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Anthropogy, University of Alberta. Maltby, Mark. 2007. "Chop and change: specialist cattle carcass processing in Roman Britain." In TRAC 2006: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, edited by B. Croxford, N. Ray and R. Roth, 59-76. Oxford: Oxbow. 122 Trent Cheney Mathieu, James, and Daniel A. Meyer. 1997. "Comparing axe heads of stone, bronze, and steel: studies in experimental archaeology." Journal of Field Archaeology 24:333-351. McCuaig Balkwill, D., and Steve L. Cumbaa. 1992. A Guide to the Identification of Postcranial Bones of Bos Taurus and Bison Bison. Canadian Museum of Nature, Syllogeus 71. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature. Monahan, Christopher M. 1998. "The Hadza Carcass Transport Debate Revisited and its Archaeological Implications." Journal of Archaeological Science 25:405-424. Monnier, Gilliane, and Emily Bischoff. 2014. "Size matters. An evaluation of descriptive and metric criteria for identifying cut marks made by unmodified rocks during butchery." Journal of Archaeological Science 50:305–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.06.025. Morrison, David A. 1997. Caribou hunters in the western Arctic : zooarchaeology of the Rita- Claire and Bison Skull Sites. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Muhly, James D. 2003. "Metalworking/Mining in the Levant." In Near Eastern Archaeology: a reader, edited by Suzanne Richard, 174-183. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Müller-Neuhof, Bernd. 2013. "Southwest Asian late chalcolithic/early bronze age demand for “big-tools”: specialized flint exploitation beyond the fringes of settled regions." Lithic Technology 38 (3):220-236. Noe-Nygaard, Nanna. 1989. "Man-made trace fossils on bones." Human Evolution 4 (6):461- 491. O'Connell, James F., K. Hawkes, and N. B. Blurton-Jones. 1990. "Reanalysis of large mammal body part transport among the Hadza." Journal of Archaeological Science 17:301-316. O'Connell, James F., and Kristen Hawkes. 1988. "Hadza hunting, butchering and bone transport and their archaeological implications." Journal of Archaeological Research 44:113-161. Olsen, Sandra L., and Pat Shipman. 1988. "Surface modification on bone: trampling versus butchery." Journal of Archaeological Science 15:535-553. Otarola-Castillo, Erik. 2010a. "Differences between NISP and MNE in cutmark analysis of highly fragmented faunal assemblages." Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1-12. Otarola-Castillo, Erik. 2010b. "Differences between NISP and MNE in cutmark analysis of highly fragmented faunal assemblages." Journal of Archaeological Science 37:1-12. Pales, L., and C. Lambert. 1971. Atlas Ostéologique pour servir à l'identification des Mammifières du Quaternaire (I. Les membres. Carnivores). Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Patterson, Thomas C. 2005. "Craft specialization, the reorganization of production relations and state formation." Journal of Social Archaeology 5 (3):307-337. Petrie, W. M. F. 1906. Hyksos and Israelite Cities. Vol. 12, British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Philip, Graham. 1989. Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine, British Archaeological Reports, ISS 526. Oxford: BAR. Potts, Richard, and Pat Shipman. 1981. "Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania." Nature 291 (5816):577-580. Prummel, Wietske, and Hans-Jorge Frisch. 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. Redding, R. W. 1992. "Egyptian Old Kingdom Patterns of Animal Use and the Value of Faunal Dala in Modeling Socioeconomic Systems." Paleorient 18 (2):99-107. Redding, Richard W. 1991. "The role of the pig in the subsistence system of Ancient Egypt: a parable on the potential of faunal data." In Animal Use and Culture Change, edited by 123 Trent Cheney Pam J. Crabtree and Kathleen Ryan, 20-30. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology. Redding, Richard W. 2010. "Status and diet at the Workers' Town, Giza, Egypt." In Anthropological approaches to zooarchaeology: colonialism, complexity and animal transformations, edited by D. Campana, A. Choyke, P. Crabtree, S. D. deFrance and J. Lev-Tov. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Regev, Johanna. 2013. Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant Based on 14C Dates in Relation to Context, Stratigraphy and Cultural Remains, Modeled with Bayesian Analysis. Ramat Gan, Israel: Ph.D. thesis, Bar-Ilan University. Regev, Johanna, Pierre de Miroschedji, and Elisabetta Boaretto. 2012. "Early Bronze Age chronology: radiocarbon dates and chronological models from Tel Yarmuth (Israel)." Radiocarbon 54:505‒524. Regev, Johanna, Pierre de Miroschedji, Raphael Greenberg, Eliot Braun, Zvi Greenhut, and Elisabetta Boaretto. 2012. "Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant: new analysis for a high chronology." Radiocarbon 54:525‒ 566. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing. 2008. Zooarchaeology, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reitz, Elizabeth, and Elizabeth Wing. 1999. Zooarchaeology. Second ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprint, IN FILE. Richard, Suzanne. 2003a. "The Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant." In Near Eastern Archaeology, edited by Suzanne Richard, 286-302. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Richard, Suzanne. 2003b. "The Early Bronze Age of the southern Levant." In Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader, edited by Suzanne Richard, 280-296. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Rixson, D. 1989. "Butchery evidence on animal bones." Circaea 6 (1):49-62. Rosen, Steven A. 1983. "The Canaanean Blade and the Early Bronze Age." Israel Exploration Journal 33 (1):15-29. Rosen, Steven A. 1984. "The adoption of metallurgy in the Levant: a lithic perspective." Current Anthropology 25:504-505. Rosen, Steven A. 1989. "The Analysis of Early Bronze Age Chipped Stone Industries: a Summary Statement." In L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien, edited by Pierre de Miroschedji, 199-222. Rosen, Steven A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Rosen, Steven A. 2019. "Trade through the desert: a long-term perspective on goods, animals, and politics in the Negev." Chungara Revista de Antropología Chilena 51:71-84. doi: 10.4067/S0717-73562019005000401. Saidel, Benjamin A. 2001/2002. "More than Meets the Eye: A Reappraisal of the Occupational History of Unit A at Nabi Salah in Southern Sinai." Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 19-20:19-27. Sanders, E. P. 1990. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: S. M. Press. Schmid, Elisabeth. 1972. An Atlas of Animal Bones. New York: Elsevier Publishing Company. Schortman, Edward, and Patricia Urban. 2004. "Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies." Journal of Archaeological Research 12 (2):41. Sebag, Deborah 2005. "The Early Bronze Age Dwellings in the Southern Levant." Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem 16:222-235. 124 Trent Cheney Seetah, Krish. 2004. "Meat in history - the butchery trade in the Romano-British period." Food & History 2:19-33. Seetah, Krish. 2005. "Butchery as a tool for understanding the changing view of animals: cattle in Roman Britain." In Just Skin and Bones? New Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations in the Historical Past. British Archaeological Reports 1410, edited by Aleksander Pluskowski, 1-8. England: BAR. Seetah, Krish. 2006. Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric technologies: an experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books. Shipman, Pat. 1981. "Application of scanning electron microscopy to taphonomic problems." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 375:357-385. Shipman, Pat, and Jennie Rose. 1983. "Early hominid hunting, butchering and carcass- processing behaviors: approaches to the fossil record." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:57-98. Smith, Patricia. 1995. "People of the Holy Land from Prehistory to the Recent Past." In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by Thomas E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press. Stein, Gil J. 1987. "Regional economic integration in early state societies: Third millennium BC pastoral production at Gritille, Southeast Turkey." Paléorient 13:101-111. Teeter, Emily. 2002. "Animals in Egyptian Literature." In A history of the animal world in the ancient near east., edited by Billie Jean Collins, 251-270. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. Vita-Finzi, Claudio, and Eric S. Higgs. 1970. "Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: site catchment analysis." Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36:1-37. Walker, Phillip L. 1978. "Butchering and stone tool function." American Antiquity 43 (4):710- 715. Walker, Phillip L., and J. C. Long. 1977. "An experimental study of the morphological characteristics of tool marks." American Antiquity 42:605-616. Walker, R. 1985. A Guide to Post-Cranial bones of East African Animals. Norwich,England: Hylochoerus Press. Reprint, IN FILE. West, Jolee, and Julien Louys. 2007. "Differentiating bamboo from stone tool cut marks in the zooarchaeological record, with a discussion on the use of bamboo knives." Journal of Archaeological Science 34:512-518. Wheat, Joe Ben. 1979. "The Jurgens Site." Plains Anthropologist 24 (84):1–149. White, T. E. 1952a. "Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples, No. 1." American Antiquity 17:337-338. White, T. E. 1952b. "Suggestions on the butchering technique of the inhabitants of the Dodd and Phillips Ranch Sites in the Oahe Reservoir." Plains Archaeological Conference Newsletter 5 (2):20-25. White, T. E. 1953a. "A method of calculating the dietary percentage of various food animals utilised by Aboriginal peoples." American Antiquity 18 (4):396-398. White, T. E. 1953b. "Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples, No. 2." American Antiquity 19:160-164. White, T. E. 1953c. "Studying osteological material." Plains Archaeological Conference Newsletter 6:58-67. White, T. E. 1954. "Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples, Nos. 3-4." American Antiquity 19:254-264. 125 Trent Cheney White, T. E. 1955. "Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples, Nos. 7-9." Amerian Antiquity 21:170-178. White, T. E. 1956. "The study of osteological materials in the plains." Amerian Antiquity 21:401-404. Wilkinson, Tony J. 2000. "Settlement and land use in the zone of uncertainty in upper Mesopotamia." Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia: Proceedings of the Third MOS Symposium (1999), Leiden. Willis, Lauren M., and Andrew R. Boehm. 2015. "Evaluating the Role of Skill Level in Fish Butchery." Journal of Taphonomy 13 (1):1-15. Yeivin, S. 1960. "Early Contacts Between Canaan and Egypt." Israel Exploration Journal 10 (4):193-203. Yellen, John E. 1977. "Cultural patterning in faunal remains: Evidence from the !Kung Bushmen." In Experimental Archaeology, edited by D. Ingersoll, J. E. Yellen and W. MacDonald, 271-331. New York: Columbia University Press. Zeder, Melinda A. 1988. "Understanding urban process through the study of specialized subsistence economy in the Near East." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7:1-56. Zeder, Melinda A. 1991. Feeding cities: specialized animal economy in the Ancient Near East. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Zeder, Melinda A., and Heather A. Lapham. 2010. "Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identify postcranial bones in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra." Journal of Archeological Science 37:2887-2905. Zeder, Melinda A., and Susan E. Pilaar. 2010. "Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identify mandibles and mandibular teeth in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra." Journal of Archaeological Science 37:225-242.