FISHING AND COASTAL ADAPTATIONS AT ‘ATLIT-YAM—A SUBMERGED PPNC FISHING VILLAGE OFF THE CARMEL...

‘Atiqot 48, 2004

INTRODUCTION

The fluctuations of climatic conditions during

the Neolithic period induced major socio-

economic changes within human societies

of the Levant. Global warming that followed

the last glacial maximum resulted in

deglaciation, rise in sea level, reduction of

coastal plains and significant changes in coastal

palaeoenvironments (Van Andel 1989:736;

Pirazzoli 1998:72). Two thousand years of

intensive exploitation of the environment during

the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) period, caused

severe pressure on the natural environment

and significantly reduced the availability of

natural resources (Rollefson 1989; Rollefson

and Köhler-Rollefson 1993). Toward the end

of the PPN, the interaction between man and

environment brought about the collapse of

socio-economic systems and induced damage

to the natural environment. This situation called

for totally new economic strategies and new

social organizations (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-

Cohen 1989; Gopher 1993; Gopher and Gophna

1993; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993).

Consequently, during the end of the ninth and

the first half of the eighth millennium BP,1 new

economic strategies were developed in different

coastal and terrestrial regions of the Levant

(Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian and Saharo-

Arabian zones). These new strategies entailed

the integration of agriculture, pastoralism,

fishing and hunting.

Although exploitation of marine resources is

documented from many Levantine Pleistocene

and Holocene sites, the role of marine resources

in the economic subsistence system of the

coastal Neolithic communities of the southern

Levant is yet unclear. This is chiefly because the

coastal prehistoric settlements are submerged

off the present-day coastline and data was

lacking until recently.

Submerged prehistoric sites off the coast of

Israel have been exposed in recent decades

due to human intervention in natural processes

(Wreschner 1977, 1983; Raban 1983; Galili

and Weinstein-Evron 1985; Galili 1985, 1987;

Galili and Inbar 1986, 1987; Galili, Kaufman

and Weinstein-Evron 1988; Galili and Nir

1993; Galili and Sharvit 1994–5, 1998b; Galili,

Sharvit and Nagar 1998). Sand quarrying

and construction of marine structures (jetties,

breakwaters) have considerably reduced the

availability of sand on the seabed. As a result,

sites covered by a protective layer of sand for

thousands of years are now being exposed by

sea storms. Shortly after the exposure, the sites

are subject to erosion and rapid disintegration.

Years of underwater rescue surveys, excavations

and documentation, yielding numerous pieces

of information, are to be pieced together in

puzzle-fashion.

Submerged prehistoric settlements off the

Carmel coast (Fig. 1) are mainly of two periods:

Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC), as defined by

Rollefson (1989) for ‘Ein Ghazzal, and the Late

Pottery Neolithic (PN) Wadi Rabah culture. In

addition, meager remains of Middle PN Jericho

IX culture (‘Lodian’) were uncovered at the

Nevé–Yam site (Fig. 2). Six PN sites dated to

6500–7000 BP: Kefar Shamir, Kefar Gallim

(North), Kefar Gallim, Tel Hreiz, Megadim and

Nevé–Yam (Fig. 1) are now submerged at water

depths of 0–5 m.

FISHING AND COASTAL ADAPTATIONS AT ‘ATLIT-YAM—A SUBMERGED

PPNC FISHING VILLAGE OFF THE CARMEL COAST, ISRAEL

EHUD GALILI, OMRI LERNAU AND IRIT ZOHAR

EHUD GALILI, OMRI LERNAU AND IRIT ZOHAR2

In this study, fish remains recovered at ‘Atlit-

Yam, as well as items associated with fishing

and the exploitation of marine resources will

be described and discussed. Ancient fishing and

fish-processing methods will be reconstructed

and the contribution of marine resources to

the economy of the PPNC population will be

evaluated.

THE SITE

The submerged PPNC settlement of ‘Atlit-

Yam (Galili and Weinstein-Evron 1985; Galili

1987; Galili, Weinstein-Evron and Ronen 1988;

Galili et al. 1993; Galili and Nir 1993; Galili,

Sharvit and Shifroni 1999) is situated 300–

500 m offshore in the northern bay of ‘Atlit, 10

km south of Haifa (34º56'E, 32º42.5'N), at water

depths of 8–12 m (Fig. 1). The archaeological

material is embedded in the upper layer of a

dark clay matrix, which fills the trough between

a submerged sandstone ridge and the coastline.

Underwater excavations and surveys have

revealed foundations of several rectangular

structures, paved floors, straight walls, hearths, Fig. 1. Location map of the Carmel coast and the

submerged Neolithic sites.

Fig. 2. Cultural entities of submerged settlements off the Carmel coast and 14C datings.

FISHING AND COASTAL ADAPTATIONS AT ‘ATLIT-YAM 3

circular ritual installations, storage and

production installations and water wells. The

structures and the installations are sparsely

dispersed over the site with wide open spaces

in between (see Fig. 3). The tool assemblage

consists of flint, stone and bone artifacts, as well

as some ornaments. Based on the architecture,

the typology of the tools and 14C dates, the site is

dated to the PPNC period. Radiocarbon dating

of several charcoal and waterlogged plant

fragments yielded ages of 8170 to 7250 ybp

(Table 1), with one exceptionally young date of

6580 ybp.

Botanical remains recovered from the

site include charcoal and waterlogged plant

fragments (branches, seeds and pollen) of

domesticated and non-domesticated vegetation

(Galili et al. 1993; Hartman, Kislev and Galili

1997; Hartman 1997). Osteological remains

include wild mammals (herbivores, omnivores

and predators) reptiles, amphibians, fish and

domesticated pig, dog and goat, and cattle in

the early stages of domestication (Horwitz and

Tchernov 1987; Galili et al. 1993; Horwitz et

al. 1999; Dayan and Galili 2001). In addition,

human remains of at least 90 individuals were

found in both primary and secondary burial

contexts (Galili et al. 2000; Eshed et al. 2000).

The ‘Atlit-Yam site is unsurpassed among

submerged settlements in its degree of

preservation. Not only is it the largest and best-

preserved prehistoric settlement yet found on

the Mediterranean seabed, but it is also the only

one known to contain in situ human burials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Excavations and Surveys 1984–2000Fourteen excavation seasons were focused

on selected features revealed in the exposed

Table 1. 14C Dates from the ‘Atlit-Yam Site

Laboratory

Reference*

Date (YBP)

Uncalibrated

Calibrated**

Calendaric Age

(YBC)

Sample Provenance

PTA 3950 8000 ± 90 7010–6766 Charred branch Near Structure 13

RT 707 8140 ± 120 7411–6786 Charred branch Near Structure 13

RT 944A 7670 ± 85 6599–6429 Charred wheat Locus 10A (wheat and fish bone

concentration)

RT 944C 7610 ± 90 6561–6348 Charred branches Locus 10A (wheat and fish bone

concentration)

PITT 0622 7550 ± 80 6480–6180 Charred wheat Structure 10A (wheat and fish bone

concentration)

RT 1431 7300 ± 120 6233–5992 Waterlogged wood Structure 11 (water well) (2.9–3.1)***

RT 2479 7460 ± 55 6361–6216 Waterlogged tree branch Structure 11 (water well) (1.9–2.3)

RT 2477, 2478 7605 ± 55 6458–6385 Waterlogged tree branch Structure 11 (water well) (2.3–2.9)

RT 2475 7465 ± 50 6361–6220 Waterlogged tree branch Structure 11 (water well) (3.5–4.0)

RT 2493, 2495 7755 ± 55 6563–6470 Waterlogged tree branch Structure 66 (water well) (0.5–1.0)

RT 2489, 2492 7880 ± 55 6993–6596 Waterlogged tree branch Structure 66 (water well) (0–0.5)

RT 2681 6580 ± 35 5521–5490 Waterlogged plants

(grass)

Structure 32 (round pit) (0–0.5)

RT 3038 8000 ± 45 7010–6766 Charcoal Human burial (H67) near Structure 54

RT 3043 7250 ± 45 6150–6000 Waterlogged wood Near Structure 56

RT 2496, 2497 8170 ± 55 7253–7043 Waterlogged plant fibers Structure 65 (0–0.3)

*RT= Weitzmann Institute, Israel; PITT=Pittsburgh, USA; PTA= Pretoria, South Africa.

**Dendrochronological Calibration, after Stuvier and Reimer 1993.

*** (2.9–3.1) = Depth of archaeological layer under the sea floor.

YBP = Year Before Present


areas of the seabed. In addition, rescue surveys

conducted in the winter months served to

document structures and installations and to

preserve and retrieve any occasionally exposed

finds (human skeletons, artifacts and organic

remains), facing imminent threat of destruction.

The digging activities were carried out either

manually with a knife or with a dredging

system operated by a water pump. Loose

sediments were removed by a dredger until

the clay containing the archaeological material

was reached. The deposit was then excavated

in 10 cm intervals in 0.5 × 0.5 m squares.

The excavated material was placed in tagged

plastic bags, marked by square and layer, and

taken ashore to be sieved. Small or fragile

artifacts were collected in plastic jars and core

samples of in situ clay were taken for pollen and

sediment analysis.

Post-Dive Conservation and Documentation

The excavated material underwent a series

of conservation treatment: (1) Each bag of

excavated material was submerged in a large

plastic tub of tap water. Large and medium-

size objects (stones, artifacts, etc.) were then

removed manually, dried and marked. (2) The

water was then circulated manually and

hovering waterlogged organic material was

collected using a 0.5 mm mesh strainer.

(3) The waterlogged organic material was stored

in a solution of tap water and alcohol (5:1).

(4) The remaining material was sieved with

water in a 1 mm mesh strainer and subsequently

dried in wooden trays. (5) Tiny bones, charcoal,

botanic material and flint implements, were

extracted. (6) Bones and artifacts were

immersed in tap-water tubs for three days to

dissolve salts and were then dried in the shade

and marked.

Analysis of the Fish RemainsThe fish remains were identified by comparing

the sub-fossil bones with those of recent

fish material in Tel Aviv University and in

O. Lernau’s reference collections. Skeletal

elements were determined according to the

terminology of Tyler (1980), Cannon (1987)

and Wheeler and Jones (1989). We calculated

the number of identified bones/specimens

(NISP) and the minimum number of individuals

(MNI) for each species (Klein and Cruz-Uribe

1984).

Bones that suited the criteria for size

estimation (Wheeler and Jones 1989) were used

for body size (body mass and standard length)

estimation. Measurements were performed

with a digital caliper to a precision of 1 mm (see

method described by Morales and Roselund

1979). The body size of B. Carolinensis was

assessed by using the linear regression method

calculated from 42 recent triggerfish (Zohar

1994:231–237; Zohar et al. 1994). For other

species, body size was estimated in comparison

either to the bones in the reference collection, or

to published data.

Comparative Data

The reconstruction of fishing methods at ‘Atlit-

Yam is based on archaeological evidence,

ethnographic and iconographic sources, ocea-

nographic data, fish-catch statistics, interviews

and personal observations.

To obtain firsthand information concerning

current habitats and behavior of fish populations,

local fishermen employing a variety of fishing

techniques combined with diving were

interviewed. The information presented here

represents over 50 years of fishing experience

and more than 9000 hours of diving. Reports

on the Fisheries of Palestine (Hornell 1935)

provided valuable information on traditional

fishing methods, fish-catch statistics and

fishermen subsistence in the first third of the

twentieth century, prior to the appearance

of mechanized boats, synthetic fishing nets

and lines and modern diving equipment.

Reports of the Israel Ministry of Agriculture,

Department of Fisheries (Anonymous 1963)

were also used as reference for comparison.

Data on sea conditions were obtained from the

Israel National Oceanographic Institute, based

on measurements taken by the Hadera port

authorities, Ashdod port and ship observations


(Goldsmith and Soffer 1983), Mediterranean

pilot manuals of the Dutch navy (Anonymous

1957) and the British navy (Anonymous 1976),

and from observations of fishermen during the

second half of the twentieth century.

Loci with Fish RemainsFish remains were recovered from six structures

and installations at the site (Fig. 3), some fully

excavated (Nos. 11, 10A, 35A) and others

probed (Nos. 9, 13, 20) (Galili 1985, 1987;

Galili and Inbar 1987; Galili et al. 1993).

Locus 10A (Figs. 3: No. 10A; 4).— Most of

the fish remains (89%) recovered from the

site originated from L10A, where a dense

concentration of fish bones and cereal grains

was recovered. The fish remains and the grains

were embedded in a pocket-like clay deposit,

lacking association with either a container or a

living floor. The deposit was located in an open

flat area, a few meters from wall foundations

Fig. 3. Top, right: ‘Atlit peninsula and bays. Inset: ‘Atlit-Yam site.

Fig. 4. Diver excavating L10A (Photo: J. Galili).

and installations. A hearth filled with charcoal

and ashes was discovered embedded in the

clay in the northeastern corner of the excavated

area (plan 1). Excavations (2.0 × 2.0 × 0.3 m)

revealed a large quantity of fish remains, as well

as cereal grains, chiefly domesticated emmer

wheat (Triticum dicoccon) and naked wheat


(T. parvicoccum) (Galili et al. 1993). This

concentration of grains is apparently the largest

accumulation of wheat ever discovered at PPN

sites in the Near East: it consisted of some

27,000 well-preserved seeds of domesticated

cereals, as well as associated weeds (Carex extensa, Cyperus laevigatus, C. rotunds and

Scirpuus maritimus), which are typical of

cultivated fields. The total volume of the ‘lens’

containing the charred plant remains was about

10 liters. The wheat was embedded in a cone-

shaped concentration of scattered fish bones,

approximately 175 liters in volume.

Although the wheat was concentrated within

the fish deposit, the distribution patterns of

the two assemblages were clearly different.

The fish bones were embedded in clay, which

contained associated archaeological material,

such as flint artifacts, animal bones, some

isolated human bones and stones, whereas

the wheat concentration consisted almost

exclusively of charred plant matter. The fish-

bone deposit was densest at the center while the

edges contained isolated and dispersed bones; it

penetrated deeper than the grains into the clay

toward the east, attaining an unknown depth

beyond the excavation square. The borders of

the wheat deposit were, in contrast, sharp and

well defined. The grains were charred, while

most of the fish bones were not.

In addition to fish remains, a few human

bones and approximately 60 bones of sheep/

goat and cattle were recovered from L10A. The

mammal bones included mainly post-cranial

bones and a few skull elements of sheep/goat

(Horwitz, unpublished data). The animal species

represented in L10A are similar to those found

in the site as a whole (c. 50% sheep/goat and c.

50% cattle) (Horwitz and Tchernov 1987; Galili

et al. 1993).

The flint assemblage consists of some 50

flakes, several cores, a sickle blade, an awl, a

chisel and a few hundred chips.

Structures and installations that can be

associated with the fish bones were discovered

in the vicinity of L10A: foundations of a

rectangular structure (4 × 5 m) constructed from

undressed stones (dwelling?) were found 3–4 m

south of L10A (Fig. 3: No. 10). The structure

contained two hearths, 0.8 m in diameter,

containing gray ash and a concentration of

artifacts, including three well-shaped projectile

points made of pressure-flaked flint (Fig. 5)

(daggers or spearheads), a pierced stone (Fig.

6:A) (end sinker of fishing net?) and a small

oval limestone bowl.

Another circular pit (Fig. 3: No. 65), 2 m in

diameter, was located 10 m to the southeast; it

was filled with plano-convex fired mud bricks

and a concentration of charred plant fibers

Plan 1. Plan and section of L10A.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240738236_The_submerged_Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_water_well_of_Atlit-Yam_northern_Israel_and_its_palaeoenvironmental_implications?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-ec3798a9-bebe-4b54-b049-ab09cd0d5dc7&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2NDA5Mzg2NTtBUzoxMjE2NzQ2NzQ0NzkxMDRAMTQwNjAyMDkxMTU4Mw==


(flax?). About 10 m northwest of the fish bones

were three megaliths (Fig. 3: No. 67) (each

1.2 m high). Two of these are of anthro-

pomorphic shape, grooved around their upper

sections and creating a so-called ‘neck’ (Galili,

Sharvit and Shifroni 1999).

Structure 20 (Fig. 3: No. 20).— A 4-m-long

straight wall foundation, constructed of two

rows of undressed stones. A large concentration

of charred organic material was discovered

0.5 m south of the wall. Examination of the

surface revealed an assortment of flint artifacts,

stone and bone implements, charred wood,

plant remains and 62 fish bones.

Water Well (Fig. 3: No. 11).— A 5.5-m-deep

shaft, reaching a depth of 15.5 m below

present-day mean sea level (Galili and Nir

1993; Galili and Sharvit 1998), explored in

three excavation seasons. The sieved sediments

have yielded large quantities of animal bones,

mostly domesticated goat, sheep and wild and

domesticated pigs (Horwitz et al. 1999), cattle

Fig. 5. Spearheads/daggers recovered from ‘Atlit-Yam.

Fig. 6. Stone net sinkers recovered from ‘Atlit-Yam.

A

B

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266209505_Animal_Domestication_in_the_Southern_Levant?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-ec3798a9-bebe-4b54-b049-ab09cd0d5dc7&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2NDA5Mzg2NTtBUzoxMjE2NzQ2NzQ0NzkxMDRAMTQwNjAyMDkxMTU4Mw==


(domesticated?) and carnivores, primarily dogs

(Dayan and Galili 2001), as well as numerous

small bones of rodents and reptiles, and insects.

Sixteen bones of fish were retrieved from

sampled sediments. In addition, hundreds

of flint, stone, wood and bone artifacts, and

thousands of charred and waterlogged seeds of

wild and domesticated plants were recovered.

Plants of economic value include domesticated

and wild cereals, wild fruits, domesticated

legumes, domesticated linum (flax) and plant

seeds of species used to this day as fish poison,

medicine, or spices by traditional Levantine

villagers (Hartman 1997). Large quantities of

tree branches and pollen grains were recovered

as well. Analyses of the finds show that at a

certain point in time the well was converted

into a refuse pit, presumably as a result of water

salinization caused by the rise of sea level.

Structure 13 (Fig. 3: No. 13).— A rectangular

(5 × 8 m) dwelling foundation, constructed from

undressed fieldstones. A number of hearths and

three human burials were discovered nearby. A

1 × 2 m probe within the structure revealed flint

artifacts, bone and stone implements, animal

bones and four fish vertebrae.

Structure 9 (Fig. 3: No. 9).— A wall foundation

of a rectangular dwelling (5 × 14 m) constructed

from undressed stones. A 2 × 2 m probe revealed

animal bones, flint and limestone artifacts and

three fish bones.

L35A (Fig. 3: No. 35A).— Excavation of a

2 × 4 m area, in a dense concentration of

flint artifacts revealed a chipping floor with

thousands of flakes, chips and cores, a few tools,

a few animal bones and a single fish bone.

FINDINGS

The Fish RemainsMore than 6000 fish remains were collected

from the sieved material. These included a large

number of small unidentifiable fragments

of bones and scales. Skeletal elements were

identified for 4074 remains and taxonomic

status determined for 3842 identified bones.

Of the identified remains, 3778 (98.3%) were

recovered from L10A and 64 from six other

loci (Table 2); 254 bones (6.2% of the recovered

bones) were blackened by fire. Some of the fish

bones were discovered in partial articulation

(up to 10 vertebrae together), and most of the

skeletal elements were represented.

The following is a detailed catalogue of the

identified remains in their order of frequency:

(A) Balistidae (Leatherjackets): The 3736

specimens (97.2% of all identified remains)

of this family that were recovered from

the site (Table 3) consisted of 49 different

skeletal elements, including teeth, scales and

numerous small fragments of pterygiophores

(Fig. 7). All of these can be assigned to

the sole representative of this family in the

Table 2. Fish Bones Recovered from ‘Atlit-Yam (see Fig. 3 for location)

10A 20 Water Well 11 13 9 35a Total NISP (MNI)

Balistidae 3678 50 3 4 1 3736 (88)

Serranidae 34 34 (4)

Sciaenidae 32 2 34 (7)

Sparidae 30 2 1 33 (7)

Mugilidae 3 3 (1)

Carangidae 1 1 (1)

Elasmobranchii 1 1 (1)

Unidentified 2780 12 10 2802

Total 6558 62 16 4 3 1 6644 (110)

NISP = Number of Individual Specimens

MNI = Minimum Number of Individuals


Skeletal Element Detail NISP

Neurocranium Vomer 34

Parasphenoid 39

Frontal 89

Prefrontal 22

Ethmoid 52

Supraoccipital 22

Basioccipital 30

Exooccipital 10

Pterotic 19

Epiotic 6

Prootic 36

Pterosphenoid 14

Branchiocranium Dens 169

Premaxilla 51

Maxilla 46

Dentary 39

Articular 29

Palatine 26

Entopterygoid 1

Ectopterygoid 12

Metapterygoid 25

Quadratum 64

Hyomandibular 92

Opercular 32

Preopercular 113

Epihyal 1

Ceratohyal 9

Urohyal 11

Branchial elements 11

Vertebral Column 1st vertebra 36

2nd vertebra 49

3rd vertebra 51

Abdominal vertebra 82

Caudal vertebra 396

16th vertebra 33

17th vertebra (last) 30

Haemal spine of- 22

Undefined vertebra 3

Median Fins 1st dorsal spine 110

2nd dorsal spine 79

3rd dorsal spine 38

Supraneural 18

Skeletal Element Detail NISP

Pterygial carina 148

1st interhaemal

pterygiophore

27

Pterygiophore

splinters

528

Caudal Skeleton Hypural 23

Appendicular Skeleton Basipterygium

(pelvis)

111

Cleithrum 124

Postcleithrum 92

Supracleithrum 48

Scapula 40

Coracoid 3

Scales 541

Table 3. Frequency Distribution of Balistes

Carolinensis Skeletal Elements (Total NISP = 3736)

Mediterranean, the Gray triggerfish Balistes carolinensis (Gmelin 1789). The majority of

these remains, 3678 bones and scales, were

recovered from L10A; 50 in L20; 4 in L13; 3 in

the well (L11) and one in L9. The MNI for the

triggerfish was estimated at 76 for L10A and

88 for the entire site. The calculated standard

lengths of the fish from L10A are in the range

of 10 to 45 cm, averaging 23 cm. Body mass

calculations for the triggerfish in L10A are in

the range of 90 to 3400 gm, averaging 500 gm

(Zohar et al. 1994:234).

Remains of B. carolinensis, totaling 110

specimens, have been identified in 11 additional

sites in Israel. Of these, only eight specimens

were dated to the Neolithic period: 7 out of 8

fish bones in Kabri (Lernau 2002) and one out

of 297 in the PPNC site of Afridar in Ashqelon

(Lernau, unpublished data). Triggerfish were

not identified at five other Neolithic sites,

among them Ziqim, with 51 identified fish

bones (Garfinkel et al. 2002) and Hatoula, an

Epipaleolithic and early Neolithic site, with 502

identified bones (Lernau and Lernau 1994).

Small schools or pairs of young B. carolinensis are found in shallow waters (4–

15 m) among rocks and rich vegetation, while

larger individuals, move deeper and inhabit

coarse sandy and silty bottoms near isolated

rocks or shipwrecks (Golani and Darom 1977;


Fig. 7. Triggerfish bones: (a) Left premaxilla and maxilla, complete, lateral view; (b) Left dentary, complete, lateral view; (c) Right quadrate, complete, lateral view; (d) Left hyomandibula, complete, lateral view; (e) Left

post-cleithrum, complete; (f) Right cleithrum, broken, lateral view; (g) Pelvis, broken, left-lateral view; (h) Fourth vertebra, well preserved, left-lateral view; (i) Same, anterior view; (j) First dorsal spine, complete, left-lateral view.

Spine is locked in a vertical position by the action of 2nd and 3rd spines (wherefrom the fish derives its name);(k) Same, dorsal view; (l) Second dorsal spine, complete, left-lateral view; (m) Pterygial carina, broken, left-lateral view. This bony structure supports the three dorsal spines, which combine to form the trigger mechanism; (n) Same,

medial view; (o) Parasphenoid bone, broken, left-lateral view; (p) Ethmoid bone, complete, ventral view.


Fischer, Bianchi and Scott 1981; Caveriviere

1982; Whitehead et al. 1986; Essuman and

Diakite 1990; Nelson 1994).

Annual reports of the Israel Department of

Fisheries (Shapiro and Znovsky 1996) and the

Reports on the Fisheries of Palestine (Hornell

1935), indicate that this fish was not a common

fishermen’s catch during the twentieth century.

(B) Serranidae (Groupers): All 34 bones

were recovered from L10A. They consist of

22 different skeletal elements: 27 from the

region of the cranium, 4 from just behind it (2

first vertebrae, 1 second and 1 third vertebra)

and 3 anal pterygiophores representing the

meat-bearing trunk (Fig. 8:a–c). The genus

Epinephelus is represented by 30 bones,

Fig. 8. Bones of other fish species recovered from the site: (a) Serranidae, Epinephelus sp., left operculum, complete, lateral view; (b) Serranidae, Epinephelus sp., complete, anterior view; (c) Serranidae, Epinehelus sp.,

2nd vertebra, complete, left-lateral view; (d) Caranidae, fragmentary right maxilla, medial view;(e) Sparidae, abdominal vertebra, almost complete, left-lateral view; (f) Sparidae, probably Sparus aurata, 2nd

vertebra, complete, left-lateral view; (g) Sparidae, Pagrus sp., complete, Caudal vertebra, left-lateral view; (h) Argyrosomus regius, abdominal vertebra, broken, left-lateral view; (i) Scianidae, 1st vertebra, complete,

antero-superial view; (j) Argyrosomus regius, caudal vertebra, almost complete, left-lateral view; (k) Mugilidae, abdominal vertebra, broken, left-lateral view.


most of them probably belonging to the white

Grouper E. aeneus (Geoffrey Saint Hilaire 1817)

(Table 4), and 2 bones to the dusky Grouper E. marginatus (Lowe 1834). The MNI for this

family was estimated at four. Estimated standard

lengths, based on 20 measured bones, ranged

between 19 and 48 cm with an average of 34.

Over 1300 bones of groupers have been

identified in archaeological excavations in

Israel. Of these, 62 bones dated to the Natufian,

the Khiamian and the Sultanian cultures were

recovered from the inland Epipaleolithic site

of Hatoula, 252 from the coastal PPNC site of

the Ashqelon marina (Perrot and Gopher 1996;

Garfinkel 1999, 2001; Lernau, unpublished

data), 49 from the PN site of Ziqim (Garfinkel

et al. 2002), 2 from the Neolithic strata at Kabri

(Lernau 2002), one from PPNB Yiftah’el

(Lernau, unpublished data) and 4 from the

submerged PN site of Nevé-Yam (Horwitz,

Lernau and Heschel, in press).

The body mass analysis seems to indicate

that the ancient inhabitants of ‘Atlit-Yam did

not capture large groupers. At Afridar, the

estimated average size of groupers was higher

(51 cm long, range 32–76 cm), at Ziqim it was

57 cm (range 49–79 cm) and in the Late Bronze

and Iron Age II city of Lakhish it was 60.5 cm

(range 40–82 cm) (Lernau, pers. comm.).

Epinephelus aeneus inhabits rocks and

clayey sand bottoms at depths of 2–50 m; at

70–120 cm they return to deeper waters (up to

200 m) and live on the clayey bottom. When

spawning, E. aeneus, like other members of

the family, forms groups with reduced activity

in selected areas, where they are likely to be

caught more easily.

Epinephelus marginatus resembles E. aeneus,

yet never leaves the shallow rocky habitats.

Young individuals of up to 3 kg are found in

shallow waters (0.5–15.0 m), whereas older

and bigger ones (up to 25 kg) reach deeper

waters, about 60 m deep. E. costea (formerly E. alexandriunus) is a predator that inhabits rocky

habitats or coarse sand near rocks, at water

depths of 2–200 m and can reach a weight of

7 kg.

Table 4. Bones of the Family Serranidae

Skeletal Element Identification NISP

L M R

Neurocranium

Posttemporal Epinephelus sp. 1

Vomer Serranidae indet. 1

Parasphenoid Epinephelus sp. 1

Frontal Epinephelus sp. 1

Supraoccipital Epinephelus sp. 1

Basioccipital Epinephelus sp. 1

Branchiocranium

Premaxilla Epinephelus sp. 1

Maxilla Epinephelus sp. 1

Dentary Epinephelus sp. 2

Articular Epinephelus sp. 2 2

Palatine Epinephelus sp.

Epinephelus

marginatus

1 1

1

Quadratum Epinephelus sp. 2

Hyomandibular Epinephelus sp.

Epinephelus

marginatus

1

1

Opercular Epinephelus sp. 1 1

Subopercular Epinephelus sp. 1

Urohyal Epinephelus sp. 2

Vertebral Column

1st vertebra Serranidae indet.

Epinephelus sp.

1

1

2nd vertebra Epinephelus sp. 1

3rd vertebra Epinephelus sp. 1

Abdominal vertebra

Caudal vertebra

Median Fins

Pterygiophore Serranidae indet.

Epinephelus sp.

2

1

Appendicular skeleton

Cleithrum Epinephelus sp. 1

Supraclethrum Epinephelus sp. 1

NISP = Number of Identified Specimens

R = right L = left M = median

(C) Sciaenidae (Drums or Croakers): Of 34

bones belonging to this family (Table 5; Fig.

8:h–j), 32 are from L10A and 2 from L9. They

are represented by eight different skeletal

elements: 2 from the head region and 6 from the


trunk. Thirty vertebrae of various types were

recovered, including the first three vertebrae

(7 bones), with the remainder representing

the meat-bearing trunk. Fourteen bones could

further be identified with the species Meagre

Argyrosomus regius (Asso 1801). Estimation of

MNI was seven (six in L10A). Measurements

of 31 bones allowed estimations of standard

lengths between 10 and 42 cm (average 20

cm).

So far 780 bones of this family have been

identified in various excavated assemblages

of fish, but only a few are dated to prehistoric

periods: 43 in Hatoula, 1 in Yiftah’el, 1 in Ziqim

(estimated standard length 65 cm) and 1 in the

Ashqelon marina (estimated standard length 57

cm). Captured Drums became much larger in

sites dated to historical periods, as for instance

in Bronze Age Lakhish (24–150 cm with an

average SL of 55 cm). A. regius is a migratory

predator that feeds on small fish and large

invertebrates and may attain a maximum length

of 150 cm (80 kg). It inhabits various grounds,

including open areas and shallow rocky and

sandy bottoms (1–70 m deep). It sometimes

enters fresh water streams and coastal lagoons.

Until about 20 years ago it was common

along the coast of Israel, but has since almost

disappeared.

(D) Sparidae (Sea Breams, Porgies): From this

family 33 bones were recovered, 30 from L10A,

2 from L11 and 1 from L9 (Table 6; Fig. 8:e–g).

They represent 12 different skeletal elements,

including 12 bones from the region of the head

and 21 from the meat-bearing trunk. Sixteen

bones could be further identified as belonging

to four different genera: six of the gilthead

seabream Sparus aurata (Linnaeus 1758), five

of the genus Pagrus, probably the species P. coeruleostictus (Valenciennes 1830); four of

the genus Dentex and one striped sea bream

Lithognatus mormyrus (Linnaeus 1758). Most

other bones probably belong to the first three

genera, but their state of preservation did not

allow for definitive identification. Estimated

MNI was seven (five for L10A). Measurements

of bones showed two size-groups: 11 bones

belonged to small fish with an average length

Table 5. Bones of the Family Sciaenidae


L M R

Branchiocranium

Premaxilla Sciaenidae indet. 1

Dentary Sciaenidae indet. 1

Vertebral Column

1st vertebra Sciaenidae indet. 2

2nd vertebra Sciaenidae indet. 4

3rd vertebra Sciaenidae indet. 1

Abdominal

vertebra

Sciaenidae indet.

Argyrosomus regius5

5

Caudal vertebra Sciaenidae indet.

Argyrosomus regius5

9


R = right; L = left; M = median

Table 6. Bones of the Family Sparida


L M R U

Neurocranium

Basioccipital Sparidae indet. 1

Branchiocranium

Dens Sparidae indet. 1

Maxilla Sparidae indet. Dentex sp.

1 1

Dentary Sparidae indet.

Lythognatus mormyrus

1

1

Articular Sparidae indet. 2

Palatine Sparus aurata 2

Quadratum Sparidae indet. 1

Urohyal Sparidae indet. 1

Vertebral Column

2nd vertebra Sparus aurata 1

Abdominal

vertebra

Sparidae indet.

Sparus aurata Dentex sp.

3

1

3

Caudal vertebrae Sparidae indet.

Sparus aurata Pagrus pagrus

5

2

5

Median Fins

Pterygiophore Sparidae indet. 1


R = right; L = left; M = median; U = unidentified


of 20 cm (range 17–29 cm) and nine bones

belonged to larger fish with an average length

of 45 cm (range 43–47 cm). All the larger-sized

bones probably belong to Pagrus or Dentex.

Remains of Sparidae have been identified in

almost every excavated assemblage of fish in

Israel, including 176 bones in Epipaleolithic

Hatoula, 16 bones in the Neolithic Ashqelon

marina, four bones in Yiftah’el, one bone in

Ziqim and two bones in Nevé-Yam. However,

one needs to bear in mind that their apparent

relative abundance might be the biased result

of a robustness of their bones, especially jaws

and vertebrae. Sparus aurata inhabits waters

with a wide range of salinity. Before they reach

a length of 40 cm and a weight of about 1 kg,

young fish live mainly in coastal rocky habitats

or lagoons (0.5–15.0 m deep). They later

inhabit deeper waters (up to 40 m) above rocky

bottoms, attaining a maximum size of about

60 cm and a weight of up to 5 kg in the Eastern

Mediterranean.

Dentex dentex (Linnaeus 1758) feeds on

mollusks and inhabits coarse sand near rocks at

water depths of 2–150 m. It attains a maximum

length of about 80 cm (9 kg). During summer it

migrates to deeper waters.

Lithognatus mormyrus inhabits sandy

bottoms or rocky bottoms adjacent to sand

down to about 80 m, attaining a maximum

length of about 40 cm (1 kg). During August it

migrates to deeper waters.

(E) Mugilidae (Mullets): Three bones were

recovered from L11 (Fig. 8:k), one head bone

and two 3rd vertebrae. One bone could be

further identified as the flathead mullet Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus 1758), with an estimated

standard length of about 32 cm.

There have been close to 3,000 identifications

of mullets in archaeological sites in Israel but

hardly any in prehistoric periods (three bones in

Afridar, two in Hatoula and one in Yiftah’el).

Members of the Mugilidae family are

common in the coastal waters of the Levant.

They feed on algae, floating debris and

plankton. Mugilidae can adapt to a wide range

of salinity, from freshwater to salty lagoons, and

attain maximum lengths of 60–70 cm (4 kg).

They inhabit various habitats, including sandy

and rocky bottoms close to the coast, at water

depths of 0.5–10.0 m. They also form schools

in open waters close to the surface. Mugilidae

are catadromic fish; when young they migrate

upstream rivers, grow in freshwater and then

return to the sea to breed.

(F) Carangidae (Jacks and Pompanos): one

very small maxilla, less than 20 mm in length

(Fig. 8:d), from L10A.

Some species of Carangidae identified and

dated to the Neolithic period (one from the

PPNC Ashqelon marina and two from PN Néve-

Yam). They probably belong to the species

Seriola dumerili, fish with an estimated length

of over 100 cm (Lernau, unpublished data).

Carangidae are rapid swimming and

schooling fish, some of its species are pelagic

while others inhabit coastal areas.

(G) Subclass Elasmobranchii (Cartilaginous

fish, Sharks and Rays): one calcified centrum of

a vertebra was recovered from the well (L11).

DISCUSSION

The Ichtyofauna from ‘Atlit-Yam: Cultural or Natural Deposit?The discovery of fish bones at the submerged

site of ‘Atlit-Yam, although associated with

archaeological remains, raises the question of

whether they are the result of human activities,

or a natural deposit. The archaeological finds

were embedded in solidified clay of terrestrial

origin. The archaeological layers were free of

disturbances that could be attributed to post-

depositional processes (intrusions of later

cultural phases, rodents, tree roots, etc.). The

site represented a single phase of occupation

situated between two waterlogged episodes; at

the beginning of the Holocene, 10,000–13,000

BP, the coastal area was a poorly drained marsh.

Neolithic occupation commenced at c. 8200 BP,

when the marshes presumably dried out. By


c. 7500 BP the site had been abandoned and was

subsequently flooded by the sea (Galili and Nir

1993). The origin of the archaeological material

embedded in the clay, including the fish bones,

was undoubtedly associated with the Neolithic

settlement. Fire traces identified on 6.2% of

the recovered bones also indicate that the fish

bones were a man-made deposit. Analysis of

fragmentation patterns and representation of the

different skeletal elements of triggerfish from

L10A confirmed that the fish had been processed

and deposited by man (Zohar et al. 2001).

The fish bones recovered from ‘Atlit-Yam had

been submerged in water for some 8,000 years,

embedded in a fine-grained matrix of poorly-

oxygenated marshy clay, typical of waterlogged

environments. These conditions turned out to

be extremely favorable for the preservation of

the bones (Lernau and Ben-Horin 1994; Zohar

et al. 2001). The high representation of almost

all the skeletal elements of triggerfish, including

vertebrae in articulation and a large number of

scales, was only possible due to the outstanding

local taphonomic conditions. A relatively large

variety of skeletal elements of other fish species

recovered from L10A has been preserved as

well, including brittle and fragile bones. There

are no indications of the taphonomic impact of

marine erosion on the bones, or on any other

cultural artifact, such as one would expect

from studies of sea level changes in the region

(Raban and Galili 1985; Galili, Weinstein-

Evron and Ronen 1988; Galili and Nir 1993).

A gradual rise in sea level, rather than a sudden

catastrophic tectonic subsidence followed by

rapid inundation of the village, should have

meant a lengthy exposure to the high-energy

impact of waves and to long-shore currents.

The bones and other archaeological remains

would have had little chance of surviving the

advancing sea. Thus, the remarkable state of

preservation of the archaeological material

suggests that the village of ‘Atlit-Yam had been

covered by a thick layer of sand before it was

flooded. The sand protected it from weathering

in the breaker-zone during the inundation period

(Galili and Nir 1993).

Considering the favorable preservation

conditions at the site, the absence of skeletal

elements of a larger number of fish species

(excluding B. carolinensis) is worth discussing.

This absence may be related to modes of

processing and habits of consumption, or to the

feeding of domesticated pigs and dogs with the

remains of fish. Studies of the carnivore species

found in ‘Atlit-Yam (Dayan and Galili 2001)

confirm that dogs were present at the site and

were probably fed with kitchen refuse.

The Dominance of Triggerfish in the Sub-Fossil Fishbone Fauna at ‘Atlit-YamThe concentration of at least 76 individual

triggerfish in L10A is at present the largest man-

made deposit of B. carolinensis bones found to

date in Israel, and probably elsewhere in the

Levant. The 58 triggerfish bones (MNI = 12)

scattered across the site constitute 55% of all

fish bones recovered, excluding those in L10A.

It is thus dominant throughout the site with the

exception of L9 (see Table 2).

Triggerfish can multiply rapidly over short

periods of time. An explosive increase in the

biomass of B. carolinensis was documented

in the 1970s in West Africa, from a few tons

in 1970 to about 1.5 million tons in 1981

(Essuman and Diakite 1990). This upsurge

prevailed until 1986, when a decrease of B. carolinensis was noted, unrelated to over-

exploitation (Caveriviere 1990). Triggerfish

were commercialized in Ghana and Togo

during these years of plenty, as the annual

catch grew from a negligible quantity to 13,000

tons (Caveriviere 1982). The abundance was

followed by a rapid development of fish-

processing industries, including simple outdoor

plant industries and commercial distribution

(Essuman and Diakite 1990). In addition, the

local population consumed the fish in large

quantities, despite their earlier aversion, when

fishermen would throw the triggerfish back

into the sea. The sudden explosive upsurge

may be attributed to a contemporaneous rise in

salinity and decline in temperatures of Atlantic

coastal waters, noted at the same time and


possibly the result of several years of drought

(Caveriviere 1982). There was also a rise in

the plankton biomass with abundance of two

other fish species—Sardina pilchardus and

Macrorhamphosus scolopax. Studies of the

life cycle of the triggerfish showed a strong

dependence of larvae and juveniles on water

temperatures, suggesting a dormant potential

for rapid proliferation dependant on favorable

conditions (Caveriviere 1990).

The high MNI proportion of triggerfish in

‘Atlit-Yam (80%) may be assigned to local

environmental circumstances related to the

existence of a lagoon (Galili et al. 1993), where

small triggerfish could have found shelter

from predators, or to a proliferation of this fish

species in the entire eastern Mediterranean

region at the time. It may also indicate cultural

specialization based on fishing technology or

culinary preferences.

At the Neolithic site of Cape Andreas

Kastros in Cyprus (eighth millennium BP),

contemporaneous with the later phase of ‘Atlit-

Yam, 7.8% of the identified fish bones belonged

to B. carolinensis (Desse and Desse-Berset

1994). Desse suggested that this high percentage

was the result of fishing specialization.

Alternations in the Mediterranean sea

conditions over time (salinity, currents,

temperatures, etc.) could have been caused by

climatic changes, fluctuations of the Nile River

channels and a supply of fresh water from the

Black Sea (Stanley and Warne 1993; Horowitz

1992:378; Horowitz 1998; Stanley and Galili

1996). Supportive sea conditions and (or)

the lack of competition, could have induced

the proliferation of triggerfish in the region,

similarly to the recent upsurge in the Eastern

Atlantic (Zohar et al. 1994; Stanley and Galili

1996; Galili, Sharvit and Weinstein-Evron

1997).

The Fish Concentration in L10A—Storage or Refuse Pit?The large number of triggerfish, concentrated

in a small well-defined volume of clay, suggests

that one is not dealing here with remains of

meals or with accumulated refuse over time.

Taphonomic studies of the triggerfish bones

from L10A indicate that they represent whole

fish, including skins, tightly stored in a small

space at a particular point in time (Lernau and

Ben Horin 1994; Zohar et al. 2001). The fact

that the depression contained a considerable

amount of fish and cereal grains (that were

valuable food products), a few animal bones

and little else indicates that it was not a typical

garbage dump, where one would expect to

find a diversity of mixed artifacts and animal

bones, similar to the refuse that was found in

the water well. The archaeological context

suggests that the cereal grains were wrapped

in a container made of organic material (that

had gradually disintegrated) and were added to

the pit where the fish had already been stored

for future consumption, thus explaining their

separation.

In addition to taphonomic study from the

archaeological patterns of the deposit, some

clues and insights into the modes of processing

the triggerfish in ‘Atlit-Yam may be gained

through ethnographic considerations. In Ghana,

the captured triggerfish are gutted and salted

overnight with crude salt, spread to dry in the

sun for one day, and then packed tightly in

traditional round mud ovens for initial storage

(Nerquaye-Tetteh 1985). Similarly, the Sinai

Bedouins split the fish longitudinally (leaving

the two halves joined along the abdomen), and

dry it in the sun with or without salt. In larger

fish (3 kg and over), the backbones are removed

and parallel transverse incisions are cut along

the side flesh. Another method of processing

triggerfish, also practiced by Sinai Bedouins, as

well as many fishermen and restaurants in Israel

(Fig. 9), is by slicing the skin on both sides of the

fish (one short vertical cut at the base of the tail

and two longitudinal cuts along the top and the

bottom), pulling it forcefully and then removing

the exposed flesh, thus leaving the skin, gut

and the entire skeleton including the head in

one piece to be disposed as refuse. This last-

mentioned procedure is apparently wasteful,

entailing the disposal of edible parts. Moreover,


although it would explain the concentrated fish

remains, was unlikely to have been employed

by the inhabitants of ‘Atlit-Yam. All other

considerations mentioned above indicate that

we are dealing with storage of whole fish rather

than a refuse dump.

Had the tough skins of the triggerfish in

‘Atlit-Yam been left intact, one would expect

to find a full representation of the skeletal

elements. Since the branchial arch region is

under-represented at ‘Atlit-Yam (Table 3), this

is not the case. The taphonomic study (Zohar

et al. 1994) confirms that the triggerfish in

L10A were indeed split, gutted, and spread

open without removing the spine, in a manner

similar to recent practices, so that the skin

still adhered to the flesh, but no longer held

the bones together. Fish conservation could

have been achieved by salting and drying in

the sun or by smoking. Crude sea salt was

available along the coast through evaporation.

Its production for domestic consumption, using

small depressions on the coastal cliffs, has been

commonly practiced along the Levantine coast

until recently.

The three megaliths (10 m northwest of

L10A) might have had a ritual significance,

and may offer an alternative explanation to

the findings in this locus. The fish, wheat and

other artifacts and goods found in the vicinity

of L10A (see above) would have constituted

offerings placed in an area that served for

public ceremonies and rituals. However, this

hypothesis is as yet unsubstantiated.

Reconstruction of PPNC Fishing GroundsReconstruction of palaeo-marine environments

and potential fishing grounds in the ‘Atlit-

Yam region is based on recent sea-bottom

morphology, sediments and bathymetry (Eitam

and Ben Avraham 1992; Khaikin 1999; Adler

1985) and studies of tectonic activity and sea

level fluctuations during the Holocene (Galili,

Weinstein-Evron and Ronen 1988; Galili and

Sharvit 1998a, 1998b; Nir and Eldar-Nir 1987).

The dominant features on the sea bottom off the

present Carmel coast are the sandstone ridges

and the sandy troughs between them (Fig. 10).

As no major tectonic activity took place in

the region after the PPNC occupation (Galili,

Weinstein-Evron and Ronen 1988; Galili and

Sharvit 1998a) and the sea level at the PPNC

was c. 16 m below present-day level (Galili

and Nir 1993), we can reconstruct the coastline

and the marine environment in the region 8000

years ago (Fig. 11).

The submerged kurkar ridge, situated c. 200 m

west of ‘Atlit-Yam at water depths of 6–10 m,

was a rocky coastal ridge that sheltered the

settlement from southwesterly and westerly

storm winds and sea spray (Fig. 11). Another

6-km-long kurkar ridge—the Tira ridge (Eitam

and Ben-Avraham 1992)—is situated 3–9 km

north of the site at a depth of 6–18 m. East of

this submerged ridge lies an elongated sandy

trough at a maximum depth of 17 m, with a sand

layer 1–3 m thick. During the PPNC period this

ridge must have been an elongated north–south

oriented peninsula (tongue) a few kilometers

long, surrounded with seawater and attached to

the mainland at its northern edge. The western

and southern slopes of the ridge formed rocky

coastlines with small bays, coastal caves and

east–west oriented erosion channels. Up to

a water depth of 5–6 m (21–22 m deep today),

the sea bottom west of this rocky peninsula was

most probably a highly productive and rich

rocky habitat. The sand layer that covered the

Fig. 9. Triggerfish processed in a Haifarestaurant (1991).


bottom of the trough during the PPNC, when

the sea level was considerably lower and there

was less sand in the region, must have been

1–2 m thinner than it is today. The trough

situated between the peninsula and the mainland

Fig. 10. Recent physical characteristics of the ‘Atlit-Yam marine environment (modified after Eitam and Ben-Avraham 1997; Khaikin 1999 and Adler 1985).

formed a 3–4 km long shallow (1–2 m deep)

sandy lagoon.

About 3.5 km northwest of the ‘Atlit-Yam

site, at a water depth of 32–42 m, is the south

edge of another kurkar ridge, 1–2 km wide, and


Fig. 11. Reconstructed physical conditions and fishing grounds at ‘Atlit-Yam region in the PPNC, assuming a sand layer 1–2 thinner than at present.

c. 8 km long, the Megadim ridge (Eitam and

Ben-Avraham 1992). At the time of occupation

of ‘Atlit-Yam, the summits of this ridge were

at a water depth of 16–25 m.

Five different marine habitats can be

reconstructed in this region (Fig. 11): (1) an

approximately 3–5 km long rocky coastline

on the west slope of the peninsula (presently


the submerged ridge north of the village);

(2) several square kilometers of shallow (0–5 m

deep), rocky sea-bottom west of the peninsula;

(3) 1–2 sq km of shallow sandy lagoon east of

the peninsula; (4) 4–5 sq km of relatively deep

(16–25 m deep) rocky sea-bottom (presently

the submerged kurkar ridge at a water depth of

32–42 m); (5) c. 8 km long sandy beach, with a

sandy sea-bottom that may have been occupied

by mollusks, crabs and fish.

Such an abundance of highly productive fishing

grounds in the vicinity of the settlement could

have supported many families, if proper fishing

technologies were available and practiced.

Access to the peninsula and the adjacent fishing

grounds to its west required the use of boats (or

a 3.5 km walk, if the entrance to the lagoon was

shallow enough to be crossed on foot).

The fish species at ‘Atlit-Yam provide data on

the nature of fishing grounds exploited by the

PPNC inhabitants. While trying to reconstruct

ancient fishing grounds and strategies, one

must bear in mind that natural changes in

the physical conditions of the Mediterranean

over time, and human interference in modern

times, may have considerably changed habitats

and marine life. Powell (1996:79), however,

has suggested that marine resources of the

Mediterranean are essentially unchanged from

antiquity and prehistory to the present. Reports

of the Palestine Department of Fisheries

(Hornell 1935) as compared with recent fish

catches show that since the beginning of the

twentieth century some species, which were

previously abundant, have almost disappeared

(e.g., A. regius and M. cephalus) while others

(mainly Lessepian immigrants from the Red

Sea) have filled vacant environmental niches.

Nevertheless, all the identified species of fish

from ‘Atlit-Yam are indeed still present in the

region and have probably not changed their

behavioral patterns: Most habitats have survived

over time, maintaining fish communities and

their feeding and breeding strategies. We

suggest that by combining the reconstruction of

ancient fishing grounds with ethnological data

on traditional fishing technologies practiced

in the region until recently, one may gain

some qualitative insights into ancient fishing

strategies.

Table 7 summarizes the fish species found in

‘Atlit-Yam and provides details regarding recent

habitats, behavior during fishing, seasonality,

and present-day coastal fishing methods.

Where, in the vicinity of ‘Atlit-Yam, could the

identified kinds of fish be caught? Lithognatus mormyrus and A. regius inhabit chiefly shallow

sandy environments, and could thus have been

captured in the sandy beaches near the village or

in the sandy lagoon. The species E. marginatus, E. costea, S. aurata and B. carolinensis favor

rocky habitats and could have been caught in

the shallow areas (1–2 m deep) west of the

land tongue, or in the deeper, rocky habitat (17–

25 m) of the western ridge, where E. aeneus, D. dentex and larger specimens of B. carolinensis

would also have been found. Mugilids could

have been captured in all the above mentioned

marine environments. The fish bones recovered

from the site coincide with species presently

inhabiting diverse marine environments

identical to the above mentioned reconstructed

ones. Study of the fish assemblage thus confirms

the reconstruction based on physical conditions

and environmental observations. Comparison

of the ancient catch with coastal catches in the

same region during the first half of the twentieth

century (Hornell 1935; Anonymous 1963)

shows a significant change in the representation

of B. carolinensis: in ‘Atlit-Yam, this fish

constitutes 84% of the catch, while it is almost

absent in the modern catch.

Reconstruction of Fishing Techniques of the ‘Atlit-Yam FishermenSeveral active and passive fishing methods can

be reconstructed from the fish remains, human

skeletons, botanical remains and the associated

material culture. These include fishing with

nets, hooks and lines, spear fishing, harpooning,

poisoning and the use of bows and arrows. The

archaeological finds at the site indicate that

fishing with nets was practiced by the PPNC

population:


Table 7. Recent Availability and Habitats of Fish Families and Species from ‘Atlit-Yam, Methods of Fishing and

Fish Behavior During Fishing

Fish Species:

Genus and/or

Family

Methods of Fishing Behavior Patterns During Fishing Period of Presence in Coastal Waters

Serranidae: Epinephelus aeneus

Trawling, long line, single

hook and line, gill nets after

storms or at night, rarely

caught by spear

Escapes divers rather than enter

a cave. Enters cave only to evade

a chasing diver. If frightened,

batters and tears the net

Present all year round, approaches

coasts in April–May, Nov., Dec.

Epinephelus marginatus

Long line, single hook and

line, seines in shallow water,

rarely by gill nets set after

storms or at night, spear

fishing

Hides in caves and under stones to

evade diver or net. Clings to rock

with gill and back fins

Present all year round, common in

April–June, schooling in June–July

Epinephelus costea

Single hook and line, long

line, occasionally by gill net

set after storms or at night,

spear fishing

Short escape distance (1–2 m), to

cave only as a last resort (Arabic

name Hafash—brave), rams the

net and often tears it

Present all year round, schooling in

May–June

Sparidae: Sparus aurata

Single hook and line, long

line, gill net set after storms

and at night, rarely with

surrounding nets, spear

fishing

In the presence of diver or net,

hides under the sand or lies

horizontally at the bottom to avoid

the net, capable of escaping on its

side under the foot rope

Present all year round, mostly

Sept.–Nov.

Dentex dentex Usually not lured by baited

hooks, gill net set at night

Does not respond to the presence

of net, does not batter the net

Relatively rare, Schooling close to

the coast in Feb.–Apr.

Lithognatus mormyrus

Coastal seine, gill net, hook

and line from coast, gill net

set at night

Buries itself in the sand in the

presence of a net, capable of

escaping on its side, sliding under

the foot rope of the net

Present all year round, common

Oct.–Nov., May

Scianidae: Argyrosomus regius

Hook and line from coast,

gill net with end loop set

at night, or after storms,

coastal seine

Tends to group in schools, does

not tear net, relatively easy to

capture by net in large quantities

(schools)

Present mainly in cold winter waters

Mugilidae: Mugil cephalus

Cast net, hook and line

from coast, gill net set at

night, surrounding net, traps

in tidal zone. Sometimes

beaches on dry land to

escape predatory fish

Capable of escaping by leaping in

the air over net buoys

Present all year round, common

Aug.–Sept.

Balistidae: Balistes carolinensis

Gill net set at night, single

hook and line, long line,

speared easily by free divers

Escape distance limited, divers

get very close; when speared,

attempts to bite and makes sounds

Present all year round, large

specimens school in Oct. in

relatively deep water.

Carangidae:

Trachurus sp.Purse seine, gill net Rapid swimmer

(1) Twenty-six perforated stones and pebbles,

19 of limestone and the rest of local kurkar

stone, comprise 7% of the stone tool assemblage

(Fig. 6). They range in length between 5 and

25 cm, weighing 100 gm to 3 kg. A pebble

marked by a circumscribing groove (probably

for tying a rope) was also recovered (Galili et

al. 1993) (Fig. 6:B). The small sinkers were

probably used for foot-ropes and the bigger

ones may have been used as sinkers at the nets’

edges (Stewart 1981:78, 79, 91). Perforated and

grooved stones used by traditional fishermen

until recently, have been discovered in the

Sea of Galilee (Nun 1993) and in prehistoric

coastal and inland sites associated with fishing:

‘Enan, a Natufian settlement in the Hula basin

(Perrot 1966), Sha‘ar Ha-Golan, a Yarmoukian

settlement in the Jordan Valley (Stekelis 1966:


Pl. 62), and Khirokitia, a Neolithic settlement

in Cyprus (Astruc 1994).

(2) A pointed spatula (15 cm long), with

a perforation (0.5 cm in diameter) at its edge

(Fig. 12:c), and two spatula fragments, may

have been used for net-making. Five wide, flat

spatula fragments (Fig. 12:d) could have been

used as gauges for the production of fishing

nets. Similar artifacts used for producing nets

by traditional fishermen in Canada are reported

by Stewart (1981:123).

(3) Flax fibers and seeds of domesticated flax

recovered from the site (Galili et al. 1993;

Hartman 1997) indicate that plant fibers were

produced in the village and may have been

used for producing fishing gear, e.g., nets and

ropes. Flax was used by local fishermen for

producing fishing nets until recently (Avitsur

1976; Hornell 1935).

(4) Several stone artifacts recovered from

‘Atlit-Yam bear incisions of a grid pattern (Fig.

13). Similar grid incisions found at Sha‘ar Ha-

Golan (Stekelis 1966: Pl. 59) were associated

with fishing net iconography (Nun 1964:21).

Pierced stones, probably net weights, found in

the Neolithic site of Khirokitia, Cyprus, also

bear net-like incisions (Astruc 1994).

(5) Some of the fish species identified at the site

can be captured using nets (see Table 7), e.g.,

D. dentex, A. regius and M. cephalus.

(6) B. Carolinensis body mass and standard

length distribution (Zohar et al. 1994) are

typical of fish captured with a gill net, its eye

size estimated at 30–45 mm (Shehadeh Adib,

pers. comm.).

(7) Unusual dental attrition, caused by

continuous movement of ropes pulled between

Fig. 12. Bone artifacts from ‘Atlit-Yam: (a) fishing hook; (b) bone points; (c) perforated spatula;

(d) net gauges; (e) reconstruction of fishing hook (after Stewart 1981).

Fig. 13. Stone artifacts from ‘Atlit-Yam bearing grid or net-like incisions.


the teeth, was identified in some of the ‘Atlit-

Yam skeletons: definitely not a result of eating

habits, this wear can clearly be associated with

the production of fishing nets (Hershkovitz

and Galili 1990). Anthropological research

shows that one of these individuals suffered

from serious arthritis that prevented him from

walking; thus he could have contributed to the

community by producing nets (Hershkovitz

and Galili 1990).

There are various methods of net fishing:

coastal seine, cast net, trammel net and gill net.

An early descriptive evidence for the use of

these methods comes from the Old and Middle

Kingdoms of Egypt (Brewer and Friedman

1989), though there is no direct evidence for the

use of cast nets or coastal seines in prehistoric

times.

At ‘Atlit-Yam nets could have been set by

either boats or rafts. Coastal seine and gill nets

could have been used in the sandy regions close

to the coastline, for capturing fish that occupied

sandy habitats (e.g., L. mormyrus) or migrating

fish passing through sandy areas. Gill nets (set

by walking) are widely used by traditional

Bedouin fishermen in Sinai Red Sea coasts and

could have served the ancients for fishing in

shallow rocky areas and small closed bays.

Fishing with Hook and Line.— A broken bone

artifact was recovered from the well. It may

well represent a broken fishing hook. Also

there are a few points 4–5 cm long (Fig. 12:a),

which may have served as barbs of composed

leister spearheads or composed hooks similar

to those used by aborigines in North America

(Stewart 1981).

Some of the fish species identified at ‘Atlit-

Yam (e.g., E. marginatus, E. costea and S. aurata) could have been captured with hooks

and lines from the shore. Other species (e.g.,

E. aeneus) that occupy offshore habitats, may

have been captured with single lines and hooks,

using either boats or rafts. This is not the case

with B. carolinensis, however, as his sharp

powerful teeth would tear any plant or skin-

made line. Since finds associated with fishing

hooks are rare, and gorges are totally absent in

‘Atlit-Yam, it seems that this method was not

widely applied.

Free-Diving.— Free-diving with unprotected

eyes limits visibility and cold winter waters

can expose a free-diver to hypothermia after

c. 15 minutes. Nevertheless, diving to a depth

of a few meters, a free-diver can still carry out

a variety of activities. Powell (1996:83–84)

pointed out the difficulty of identifying free-

diving in the archaeological record, as the

only equipment that it requires are a stone

weight, a knife and a basket. Local undressed

stones that were probably used for buoyancy

control are abundant on the sea floor. Woven

baskets are not often preserved and knives may

allude to other purposes as well. Some indirect

archaeological and anthropological finds may,

however, provide circumstantial evidence for

diving activity. An ear pathology, auditory

exostosis, caused by diving in cold water, was

observed in the ear channels of at least four

male skeletons recovered from the site. As this

syndrome is relatively rare, its high frequency in

the male population of the Neolithic settlement

is significant and most probably indicates spear

fishing and food collection through free-diving

(Hershkovitz and Galili 1990).

Some of the fish species identified in ‘Atlit-

Yam (e.g., B. carolinensis, E. marginatus and E. costaea) are easy to capture by spear or knife,

or even with bare hands while free-diving. The

last two species tend to hide in small crevices

and under rocks when approached by a diver.

This behavior makes them easy prey for free-

divers. Other fish bury themselves in the sand

(L. mormyrus and S. aurata) or lie horizontally

on the bottom when they are encircled by a net.

In order to improve their harvest present-day,

traditional fishermen tend to dive and poke at

the hiding fish with a stick, forcing them into

the gill net. Prehistoric fishermen may have

combined the use of gill nets with free-diving

in shallow waters (1–6 m). Crabs, sea urchins,

mollusks and octopuses were probably abundant

in the Neolithic period, and a free-diver familiar


with the marine environment would have easily

obtained a daily catch (Hershkovitz and Galili

1990). Fifteen bifacial pressure-flaked flint

points (daggers or spearheads) (8–14 cm long)

were recovered from the site. Of these, a cluster

of four points (Fig. 5) was found in Structure 10

(rectangular dwelling) several meters south of

L10A. These tools are almost absent in other

Neolithic sites in the southern Levant. Their

presence in ‘Atlit-Yam may suggest that they

are associated with spear-fishing or gutting of

fish.

Traps.— Fishing with weir, basket or barricade

traps has an advantage over using gill nets or

lines and hooks, as the fish do not perish during

the fishing process. Unlike other methods that

require rapid retrieval to avoid decay or loss

of the captured fish, a trap can be left at sea

for a few days. Evidence of Mesolithic fishing

with wooden traps was found in the North

Sea (Verhart 1995). Fishing with weir traps is

evidenced in this region in the first half of the

twentieth century (Hornell 1935:43, 102, 104)

and they are still in use in the Sea of Galilee and

the Red Sea (Grophit 1991:13). Iconographic

evidence shows fishing with weir traps in the

Old Kingdom of Egypt (Brewer and Friedman

1989:31–38). The lack of evidence for fish

trapping in ‘Atlit-Yam is probably due to

the fact that the traps were made of organic

material which was not preserved; moreover,

trap sinkers are identical to net-end sinkers and

cannot be differentiated.

Bow and Arrow.— Arrowheads are often used

for fishing by traditional fishermen (Stewart

1981). This method is practiced in inland

waters, but it may also have been possible in

shallow lagoons or tidal pools at sea. Sixty

arrowheads were recovered from the site, most

of them of Byblos and Amuq types (4–6 cm

long), and a few of small (2.5–3.0 cm) types:

Nizzanim, Ha-Parsa and Herzliyya (Galili et al.

1993). These arrowheads may have served for

hunting, as well as fishing.

Toxic Plants.— A single seed of Styrax officinalis was identified among the floral

remains excavated at the well (Galili et al.

1993), indicating that fish poisoning could

have been practiced at the site (Galili et al.

1993). This tree grows to this day in the Mount

Carmel region and in Western Galilee, and its

seeds serve for poisoning fish (Avitsur 1976:

105–106), a method recorded in the Sea of

Galilee until the twentieth century (Nun 1964:

89) and locally on the Mediterranean coast at

the beginning of the twentieth century (Hornell

1935:46–48).

Other Strategies of Marine Exploitation.—

The ‘Atlit-Yam inhabitants most probably

consumed a variety of marine species of types

common in the littoral zone. In traditional

coastal communities, foraging seafood in

the inter-tidal zone and in shallow waters is

generally practiced by women, children and old

folk (Powell 1996:77). Sand crabs, sea urchins,

octopuses, bivalves, snails and annelids, are

common today in the region, and were most

probably abundant in the Neolithic period.

Though sea turtles can be captured and turtle

eggs easily gathered in the laying season, the

absence of their remains in the bone assemblage

of ‘Atlit-Yam may reflect indigenous taboo.

Shortly after strong winter storms, fish

species of 1–8 kg and sea turtles are washed

ashore along the Israeli coast. The fish usually

float on the sea surface, unable to descend

due to excessive buoyancy, and die soon after

being washed ashore. The most common fish

species of this area are groupers and triggerfish.

By scavenging along a few kilometers of

coastline after a storm, an individual can collect a

considerable amount of fish. A search performed

early in the morning, soon after a storm, yields

fresh fish that are sometimes alive. No doubt

fresh fish were washed ashore and consumed by

the Neolithic inhabitants.

Marine Mollusks.— Exploitation of cepha-

lopods leaves scanty detectable traces in the


archaeological record. Seashells, on the other

hand, preserve well (up to 80% of the mollusk

biomass is resistant to decay) and are therefore

likely to be over-represented (Powell 1996:

36). Even a limited mollusk-diet can yield

a rich kitchen waste in the form of shell

middens. The absence of shell concentrations

in the prehistoric coastal settlements of the

southern Levant (Ronen 1980:31) and in the

‘Atlit-Yam site is therefore significant, and

worth mentioning. Man-made and naturally

deposited shells in a coastal site are difficult

to distinguish, unless human modifications are

evident. The shell species recovered from the

sediments at ‘Atlit-Yam lacked anthropogenic

concentrations of empty shells, shell ornaments

or modified shells. Various shells, particularly

Dentalium and Cyprea, were recovered from

pre-Neolithic and Neolithic inland sites in

the southern Levant, some of them up to 90

km inland (Reese 1991). There is no reason

to assume that the PPNC population of the

coastal settlements would ignore such valuable

commodities, which could have been traded

with inland communities. The absence of shell

middens, or modified shells at the site can

therefore be thus explained: (1) Shells were

very common in the vicinity of the village

and therefore neither processed nor used as

ornaments, but rather collected for trading

purposes; (2) Mollusks were not relied upon as

a source of food, as other sources of marine and

terrestrial food were abundant and preferable;

(3) Taboo customs precluded the consumption

of shellfish.

Reconstruction of Sea Conditions and Fishing Seasons in PPNC Carmel CoastRecent Sea Conditions for Coastal Fishing along the Carmel Coast.— The favorable

fishing seasons in the region are autumn

(September–November) and spring (March–

May; Fig. 14). The currents are then relatively

moderate and the transparency of the water

facilitates diving. In autumn the winds alternate

between easterlies and northerlies, many fish

species are schooling, and at any rate easy to

catch. As the water is still relatively warm, the

gill net cannot be left overnight due to danger

of fish decay. The night gill net can, however,

be used for some two hours in the evening or

before dawn.

During spring (toward the end of February

and throughout March) southwesterly storms

gradually decrease, with growing intervals

(which are ruled by the east winds) in between.

April and May are choice seasons with the sea

calm and clear most of the time, the water still

relatively cold. The gill net can therefore be

left at sea overnight. Surrounding gill nets,

beach seine, hand line hooks and spear fishing

by free-diving can serve the fishermen to

catch abundant fish, including lobsters. This

situation prevails until the summer storms of

mid-June.

In winter (December to mid-February), the

frequency of southwesterly cyclonic storms and

the harshness of sea conditions often interfere

with fishing activity. Visibility is marred by

river-floods, currents and waves up to 12 m

high. Fishing opportunities are less frequent

than during the spring and fall seasons.

The first winter storm usually appears in

November. The cyclonic winter storms usually

break after a few days of easterly winds and

last for a few days. At the end of the cycle, the

southwesterly winds turn to northerlies.

During summer (mid-July to end-August),

there are frequent and rapid southwesterly

summer storms (locally termed Barawanza)

characterized by medium-height waves (2–

3 m). These storms last a few days each and

imply the worst fishing conditions.

It seems that before the large-scale modern

exploitation of marine resources, there was

considerably higher availability of fish in the

region. Modern innovations, such as motor

engines, synthetic fibers (for nets and fishing

lines), marine charts, echo sounders, scuba

diving equipment and weather forecast services,

have reduced risks for life and equipment.

However, these improvements may have been

the cause of over-exploitation and reduction in

the volume of marine resources.


The floral and entomological remains from

the ‘Atlit-Yam well provide evidence for a more

humid and slightly colder climate during the

PPNC, lower by c. 3°C than today (Kislev,

Hartman and Galili 1996; Galili, Sharvit and

Weinstein-Evron 1997; Hartman, Kislev and

Galili 1997). Horowitz (1998), basing his

study on pollen assemblages, deep sea cores,

terrestrial sediments and cave deposits, has

suggested that climatic and sea conditions

prevailing in the eastern Mediterranean region

during the Neolithic period differed from those

of today in several respects: (a) no cyclonic

thunderstorms and no moderate storms; (b) a

more uniform dispersal of precipitation during

the year, including some summer rains; (c) a

calm sea, favorable for navigation; and (d) a

stratified sea, more productive in the coastal

zones than in open waters.

Varying patterns of sea conditions are also

indicated by the fish remains and the sediments

from the well (Zohar et al. 1994; Galili, Sharvit

and Weinstein-Evron 1997; Stanley and Galili

1996). It is difficult, however, to assess the

impact of such changes on the distribution and

availability of fish species, fish habitats and fish

behavior.

For the sake of discussion we may consider

the possibility of exploitation in two possible

climatic patterns:

Fig. 14. Recent inshore fishing in the Carmel coastal waters: sea condition patterns, fishing methods, availability of fish families and fishing seasons (+ = high; ± = medium; - = low).


(1) Sea conditions similar to the present-day

conditions (hot dry summer, cold and wet winter

with cyclonic storms). Neolithic fishing seasons

could have been similar to recent traditional

fishing in the region. The model (Fig. 15) is an

estimation based on data from various sources.

Judging by modern local fishing activities, the

Neolithic population apparently relied largely

on autumn and spring marine exploitation with

reduced fishing and marine food procurement

strategies practiced in summer and winter.

Evidence for free-diving in cold water during

wintertime is indicated by the auditory exostosis

found in the male skeletons recovered from

the site. We therefore suggest that Neolithic

fishing seasons were largely dictated by access

to fishing grounds ruled by sea conditions and

the practice of technologies, rather than by the

availability of fish.

(2) Sea conditions such as proposed by

Horowitz (1998), may have affected the

seasonality, the habitats, the availability and

the distribution of fish species, as well as the

fishing methods employed. It seems premature,

if not impossible, to reconstruct all the potential

biological, ecological and cultural implications

of such conditions. However, such climatic

patterns (Horowitz 1998) would have been

favorable for Neolithic fishing communities:

the suggested sea conditions enabled better

access to fishing grounds all year round and

reduced risks to equipment and life. The waters

must have been clearer and slightly warmer,

thus enhancing conditions for free-diving.

Fig. 15. Year-round exploitation of marine and terrestrial resources in ‘Alit-yam: a possible reconstruction. Degree of labor investment: H = high; M = medium; L = low.


Economic Strategies at ‘Atlit-Yam and the Role of Marine ExploitationSocieties subsisting on marine resources supp-

lementary to terrestrial (faunal and floral, wild

or domesticated) resources prove to be more

economically stable (Hayden, Chrisholom and

Schwartz 1987) than wholly terrestrial-based

societies. The terrestrial exploitation area of a

coastal village is half the size of that exploited by

an inland settlement, based on a similar walking

radius. Thus, the coastal settlements needed to

rely heavily on marine resources to compensate

for the loss of terrestrial area. The coastal

region was hostile and threatening for humans:

marshes infected with malaria mosquitoes, and

the lack of perennial water sources prevented

or disrupted sedentary occupation. Moreover,

fishing was and is still considered an arduous

and risky activity. Unless restricted to the

coastal region by social or economic factors,

a population settling along the coast must

have been strongly motivated to do so. High

productivity of the marine environment and

availability of marine resources, which was

probably higher during the Neolithic period

than today (due to less intensive exploration),

most likely were the encouraging factors

for PPNC populations. These, as well as the

limited carrying capacity of inland areas, the

shrinking of natural resources, the growth of the

population-size and the competition with other

populations, may have played the dominant

roles in the decision to settle the coastline and

rely on marine resources.

The domesticated cereals, legumes and flax

seeds and the associated weeds that usually

grow in cultivated fields, complemented by

the sickle blades recovered from the site,

demonstrate that the PPNC inhabitants also

engaged in agriculture (Galili et al. 1993). The

seed assemblage indicates an extensive exploi-

tation of wild and domesticated plants, which

could have provided most of the necessary

components of human diet: domesticated

cereals (providing carbohydrates), fresh

and preserved fruits: figs, grapes, dates and

raspberries (providing sugars), almonds and

legumes (providing vegetable protein) and

lipids (Hartman 1997). The 91 plant species

identified at the site, included spices (Dafni

1984), medicines (Palvitz et al. 1987) and

livestock fodder (Gutman Mario, pers. comm.).

The faunal remains retrieved from the

surface layers, representing the early phases of

occupation, suggest that at the end of the ninth

and the beginning of the eighth millennia BP,

the PPNC population relied on hunting and

incipient herding, in addition to agriculture and

fishing (Galili et al. 1993). The faunal remains

recovered from the well indicate that during the

later stages of occupation in the village (7550–

7750 BP), husbandry of goats, sheep, pigs and

possibly cattle was widely practiced (Horwitz et

al. 1999). The faunal assemblage corroborates

the assumption that at the early stages of

occupation, hunting was more intensive than

at the later stages, when there was grazing on

a larger scale.

Powell (1996:35), basing her studies on con-

temporary Greek fishing societies, concluded

that the Mediterranean, and especially the

Aegean region, is less fertile than the North

Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, and cannot

provide year-round subsistence relying on

marine resources only. Therefore, large

scale and specialized fisheries had not been

developed there, however, the variety of species

in the Mediterranean compensates for what it

lacks in quantity. She pointed out that fishing

activity is not the single economical strategy

of most contemporary Greek fishermen, and

that due to a combination of year-round farming

and fishing activities they are less vulnerable

to drastic changes in the availability of marine

resources. This may have also been the case in

‘Atlit-Yam. Assuming that sea conditions and

seasonality patterns were similar to the present-

day ones, we can reconstruct the economic

activities carried out by the PPNC inhabitants as

relying on both terrestrial and marine resources

(Fig. 15). Though some of these strategies

most probably required specialization, seasons

of unemployment in farming and possibly in

fishing would enable cooperation and multi-


disciplinary application of procurement strate-

gies.

The peak season of cereal, flax and legume

farming stands apart from the preferred fishing

seasons. Sowing could have been carried

out in December, when fishing declined, and

harvesting in June, when the fishing season

ended. Animal husbandry is one of the most

beneficial and rewarding environmental

strategies of a gathering subsistence. Herds

consuming wild vegetation require relatively

low labor investment, and thus grazing

does not affect farming or fishing activities.

Nevertheless, herds can feed on harvested fields

when wild plants are scarce. Such a regime is

still applied in this region by traditional farmers.

Shepherds probably carried weapons to protect

both themselves and their livestock and could

thus engage simultaneously in opportunistic

hunting and foraging.

If the climatic and sea conditions were

as proposed by Horowitz (1998), one can

hypothesize on the impact of such conditions

on human economic activity. A cooler climate

with summer rains and a constantly calm sea

rendered sea sailing safer and increased access

to marine resources. Fishing could have been

carried out more intensively all year-round

and be planned not to interfere with other

subsistence activities. Summer rains induced

the availability of green grasses raising the

productivity of grazing and farming activities.

The exploitation of marine resources played

an important role in ‘Atlit-Yam economy

as evidenced by fish bones and other finds

associated with marine adaptation. This was

probably supplemented by curing meat, storing

grains, dried fruit and fish, raising livestock,

foraging and hunting. These food procurement

strategies, and the availability of drinking water

from wells, enabled year-round occupation

in the coastal village. Some of the inhabitants

were liable to stray from the village in order

to acquire distant raw materials, such as flint,

basalt stone, or to trade in e.g., seashells. It

seems, however, that the village was occupied

by most of the inhabitants all year-round.

The dispersed rectangular dwellings inter-

spaced by open areas are typical of a village

society composed of several groups or families,

each representing an independent production

unit (Flannary 1972). Collaboration would have

been applicable in communal activities, such as

defense construction of public enterprises, cults

and rituals. Collaboration would also apply to

highly specialized activities, such as fishing and

boat construction.

As alluded by the auditory exostosis cases,

fishing involving diving and net fishing was

practiced by men, which would leave foraging

and possibly farming to be carried out by

women. Hunting was most probably a highly

specialized male occupation performed possibly

by shepherds.

Seafaring Capabilities and Shifting of CulturesThe ‘Atlit-Yam population’s usage of watercraft

is suggested indirectly by archaeological

evidence: (1) Near-shore fishing strategies are

indicated by some of the fish species recovered

from the site, e.g., E. aeneus, D. dentex and large

specimen of B. carolinensis. (2) Elbow abrasion

and specific muscle markings identified in some

of the skeletons could be the result of paddling

(Hershkovitz and Galili 1990).

Of the 165 bifacial flint tools discovered

at ‘Atlit-Yam most are axes. Many of them

are heavy and broad. The percentage of

the bifacial tools on the ‘Atlit-Yam surface

assemblage is relatively high in comparison

to other Neolithic assemblages. The axes may

then allude to intensive wood crafting, possibly

of watercraft.

It has been suggested that traditions and

agriculture permeated from the Near East

westward, to the European coasts of the

Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf 1988;

Renfrew 1996; Thomas 1996; Harris 1996;

Broodbank 2000:15–41). Powell (1996:52,

53) has suggested that connections, ideas

and cultural habits of the northern coasts of

the eastern Mediterranean followed counter-

clockwise sea currents, which dictated sailing

routes. However, judging by modern sailing


activity from the Levant shores to southern

Anatolia and Greece, it seems that sailing routes

are dictated by the wind regime rather than by

currents. Nevertheless, winds are usually more

favorable for sailing to the east than to the west.

The finds from ‘Atlit-Yam indicate that

the Mediterranean-style fishing village—

exhibiting simultaneous herding, farming and

fishing—emerged on the Levantine coasts

at the end of the ninth and the beginning of

the eighth millennia BP. Shortly thereafter,

the phenomenon extended into the eastern

Mediterranean basin, as observed in the Cypriot

Cape Andreas Castros site (Desse and Desse-

Berset 1994), the Cyclops cave in Jura Island

(Sampson 1998; Sampson and Kozwoski 1999)

and the Franchthi cave in Peloponnesian Greece

(Jacobsen 1981).

Concluding RemarksThe finds from ‘Atlit-Yam indicate that during

the PPNC period the Carmel coastal inhabitants

were engaged in agriculture, which included the

cultivation of wheat, barley, legumes and flax,

the herding of goats, sheep, pigs and possibly

cattle. They intensively exploited wild plants,

hunted, trapped or foraged wild animals and

exploited the marine environment by employing

a variety of fishing strategies. This wide-

spectrum subsistence economy of terrestrial and

marine resources enabled a relatively secure and

stable economy and lifestyle. It minimized risks

induced by fluctuations in terrestrial resources

(rainfall, natural fluctuations in the availability

of wild plants and animals, etc.). Exploitation

of marine resources and the development of

permanent water sources did not depend on

existing natural water sources or rainfall and

considerably raised the carrying capacity of

the coastal region, opening new terrain for

permanent settlement. These developments

probably reduced the need for transhumance and

enabled year-round occupation of the coastal

region. ‘Atlit-Yam serves as an example of an

early Mediterranean self-sustainable fishing

village, one of a settlement type characteristic

of the Mediterranean zone to this day, and it

demonstrates the success and sustainability of

this subsistence pattern.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is dedicated with special gratitude

to the late Hanan Lernau, who carried out

the pioneering work on the fish remains from

‘Atlit-Yam. Special gratitude is extended

to Josef Galili, a pioneer of underwater

archaeology in Israel and inventor of recovery

and photography techniques, for organizing the

excavation and for underwater photography.

The research was funded by the Irene Levi Sala

CARE Foundation, the National Geographic

Foundation, S.H. and Helen R. Scheuer Family

Foundation, the Morris M. Polver Scholarship

Funds of Israel, The National Center for

Collaboration between Natural Sciences and

Archaeology at the Weizmann Institute of

Science, Aharon Katzir Center of the Weizmann

Institute of Science, Na‘amat Organization

for Working Women, The Israeli Diving

Federation, MAFCAF Foundation, Maria

Rossi Ascoli Foundation, The Israel Antiquities

Authority and The University of Haifa. The

Department of Anatomy and Anthropology of

Tel Aviv University generously allowed us to

use their research facilities. We thank Knud

Rosenlund and Inge Enghoff, of the Zoological

Museum, Copenhagen, for their generous

assistance and hospitality, Israel Hershkovitz

and Tamar Dayan for their tremendous help

and encouragement, the archaeologists-divers

Jim Dwyer, Vered Eshed and Tami Shabi and

other volunteer divers who participated in the

excavations, as well as the fishermen Adib

Shehadeh, Adam Kotzer and Adnan Shehadeh;

Baruch Rosen for reviewing the manuscript,

Liora Kolska Horwitz for reviewing and editing

the manuscript and Sharon Ben-Yehuda for

editing and arranging the drawings.


1 Dates in this text are uncalibrated unless indicated

otherwise.

REFERENCES

Adler E. 1985. The Submerged Kurkar Ridges off the Northern Carmel Coast. M.A. thesis, University of

Haifa. Haifa.

Anonymous 1957. Middellandse Zee, Oceano-grafische en Meteorologische Gegevens (The

Mediterranean Oceanographic and Meteorolgical

Data). Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch

Instituut. Staatsdrukkerij – en Uitgeverijbedrijf –

‘S. Gravenhage.

Anonymous 1963. Hadayig BeIsrael. Israel Ministry

of Agriculture, Department of Fisheries, p. 15

(Hebrew).

Anonymous 1976. Mediterranean Pilot V: The Coasts of Libya, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Israel: The Southern Coast of Turkey and the Island of Cyprus (6th ed.). Published by The Hydrographer

of the Navy, Ministry of Defence. Taunton,

Somerset.

Astruc L. 1994. Fouilles Récentes à Khirokitia

(Chypre) 1988–1991. In A. Le Brun ed. Etudes Neolithiques, Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Paris. Pp. 270–277.

Avitsur S. 1976. Man and His Work. Jerusalem

(Hebrew).

Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A. 1989. The Origins

of Sedentism and Farming Communities in the

Levant. JWP 3:447–498.

Brewer J.D. and Friedman R.F. 1989. Fish and Fishing in Ancient Egypt: The Natural History of Egypt II. Warminster. Pp. 31–38, 40–41.

Broodbank C. 2000. Colonization and Configuration

in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegean. In P.

Halstead ed. Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield

Studies in Aegean Archaeology). Sheffield.

Cannon D.Y. 1987. Marine Fish Osteology: A Manual for the Archaeologist (Department of

Archaeology Simon Fraser University, Burnbay).

British Columbia.

Caveriviere A. 1982. Le baliste des cotes africaines

(Balistes carolinensis). Biologie, proliferation

et possibilités d‘exploitation. Oceanol. Acta. 5:

453–459.

Caveriviere A. 1990. Evolution des indices

d’abondance du baliste (Balistes carolinensis) et

de leur taille movenne dans la zone Cote d’Ivoire-

Chana-Togo-Benin. Report of the Ad hoc working Group on the Demersal Stocks of the Western Gulf of Guinea (Statistical Division 34.3.4). Coastal

Centre of the Islands Santa Cruz de Ternifine,

Spain, 23–27 March 1987, 89/48. Pp. 195–207.

Dafni A. 1984. Edible Wild Plants in Israel (Hebrew).

Dayan T. and Galili E. 2001. A Preliminary Look at

Some New Domesticated Dogs from Submerged

Neolithic Sites off the Carmel Coast. In S.J.

Rockford ed. Dogs: Issues and Methods in the Analysis of Archaeological Remains. London.

Desse J. and Desse-Berset N. 1994. Osteometry

and fishing strategies at Cape Andreas Kastros

(Cyprus, 8th millennium BP). In W. Van Neer ed. Fish Exploitation in the Past. Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group (Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique

Centrale: Sciences Zoologiques No. 274). Tervuren.

Pp. 69–79.

Eitam Y. and Ben-Avraham T. 1992. Morphology and

Sediments of the Inner Shelf Off Northern Israel.

Journal of Earth Sciences 41:27–44.

Eshed V., Galili E., Goring-Morris N. and Hershkovitz

I. 2000. Paleodemographic Study of Two Neolithic

Populations: Kfar HaHoresh (PPNB) and Atlit-

Yam (PPNC), Israel. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Israel Prehistoric Society. Jerusalem

(Hebrew).

Essuman K. and Diakite B. 1990. L‘utilisation du

balistes (Balistes carolinensis) au Ghana et au

Senegal. FAO Fisheries Circ. 828:1–23.

Fischer W., Bianchi G. and Scott W.B. eds. 1981.

FAO Species Identification Sheets for Fishery Purposes, Eastern Central Atlantic I. Ottawa.

Flannary K.V. 1972. The Origins of the Village

as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the

Near East: A Comparative Study. In P.J. Ucko,

R. Tringnam and G.W. Dimbleby eds. Man, Settlement and Urbanism. Duckworth, London.

Pp. 23–54.

Galili E. 1985. Clay Exposures and Archaeological Finds on the Sea Bottom, Between Haifa and Atlit. M.A. thesis, University of Haifa . Haifa (Hebrew;

English abstract).

NOTE


Galili E. 1987. A Late Pre-pottery Neolithic B Site

on the Sea Floor at Atlit. Mitekufat Haeven 20:

30*–36* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 50–71).

Galili E. and Inbar M. 1986. Underwater Clay

Exposures Along the Israeli Coast and Submerged

Settlements off the Carmel Coast. Proceedings of the 5th Coastal Symposium. Haifa. Pp. 39–48

(Hebrew).

Galili E. and Inbar M. 1987. Underwater Clay

Exposures Along the Israeli Coast, Submerged

Archaeological Remains and Sea-Level Changes

in the Northern Carmel Coast. Horizons in Geography 22:3–34 (Hebrew).

Galili E., Kaufman D. and Weinstein-Evron M.

1988. 8,000 Years Under the Sea. Archaeology 41:

66–67.

Galili E. and Nir Y. 1993. The Submerged Pre-Pottery

Neolithic Water Well of ‘Atlit-Yam, Northern

Israel, and Its Palaeoenvironmental Implications.

The Holocene 3:265–270.

Galili E. and Sharvit J. 1994–5. Evidence of Olive

Oil Production from the Submerged Site at Kfar

Samir, Israel. Mitekufat Haeven 26:122–133.

Galili E. and Sharvit J. 1998a. Ancient Coastal

Installations and the Tectonic Stability of the Israeli

Coast in Historical Times. In I.S. Stewart and C.

Vita-Finzi eds. Coastal Tectonics (Geological

Society. Special Publications London No. 146).

Pp. 147–163.

Galili, E. and Sharvit, J. 1998b. Submerged Neolithic

Water-Wells from the Carmel Coast of Israel.

In Landschaftsverband Rheinland, Rheinisches Amt für Bodendenkmalpflege (Brunnen der

Jungsteinzeit, Int. Symp. Erkenlenz, Oktober

1997). Rheinland-Verlag: Cologne, Habelt, Bonn.

Pp. 31–44.

Galili E., Sharvit J., Eshed V., Hershkovitz I.

2000. The Burials at Atlit-Yam—A PPNC Site

Submerged off the Carmel Coast. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Israel Prehistoric Society. Jerusalem.

Galili E., Sharvit J. and Nagar A. 1998. Nevé-Yam—

Underwater Survey. ESI 18:35–36.

Galili E., Sharvit J. and Shifroni A. 1999. Atlit-Yam

Excavations 1993–4. HA–ESI 109:30*–31*.

Galili E., Sharvit J. and Weinstein-Evron M. 1997.

The Palaeoenvironment of the Carmel Coast

During the 8th–7th millennium BP: Evidence

from Submerged Prehistoric Settlements. In

B. Galil and Y. Mart eds. The Mediterranean Continental Margin of Israel, Symposium of Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research, The National Institute of Oceanography. Haifa. Pp.

32–39.

Galili E. and Weinstein-Evron M. 1985. Prehistory

and Paleoenvironments of Submerged Sites along

the Carmel Coast of Israel. Paléorient 11:37.

Galili E., Weinstein-Evron M., Hershkovitz I.,

Gopher A., Kislev M., Lernau O., Horowitz L.K.

and Lernau H. 1993. Atlit-Yam: A Prehistoric Site

on the Sea Floor Off the Israeli Coast. JFA 20:133.

Galili E., Weinstein-Evron M. and Ronen A.

1988. Holocene Sea-Level Changes Based on

Submerged Archaeological Sites Off the Northern

Carmel Coast in Israel. Quaternary Research 29:

36.

Garfinkel Y. 1999. Radiometric Dates from Eighth

Millennium B.P. Israel. BASOR 314:1–13.

Garfinkel Y. 2001. Neolithic Ashqelon. In A. Sasson,

Z. Safrai and N. Sagiv eds. Ashkelon, A City on the Seashore. Tel-Aviv. Pp. 39–56.

Garfinkel Y., Dag D., Horwitz L.K., Lernau O. and

Mienis H.K. 2002. Ziqim, A Pottery Neolithic Site

in the Southern Coastal Plain of Israel, A Final

Report. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society

32:73–145.

Golani D. and Darom D. 1977. Handbook of the Fishes of Israel. Jerusalem.

Goldsmith V. and Soffer S. 1983. Wave Climatology

of the Southeastern Mediterranean. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 32:1–51.

Gopher A. 1993. Sixth–Fifth Millennia B.C.

Settlements in the Coastal Plain, Israel. Paléorient 19:55–63.

Gopher A. and Gophna R. 1993. Cultures of the

Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern

Levant: A Review for the 1990s. JWP 7:297–353.

Grophit A. ed. 1991. Fishing in Israel in 1991. Tel

Aviv (Hebrew).

Hartman A. 1997. Landscape and Agriculture of the Carmel Coastal Plain in the PPNC Period, Reconstruction from Plant Macrofossils of Atlit-Yam Well. M.A. thesis, Bar Ilan University. Ramat

Gan.

Hartman A., Kislev M. and Galili E. 1997.

Reconstruction of Landscape Units in the Atlit

Bay 8000 Years Ago. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of The Israel Society for Ecology and Environmental Quality Sciences. Haifa. P. 83

(Hebrew).

Harris D.R. 1996. The Origins and Spread of

Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: An

Overview. In D.R. Harris ed. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoraslism in Eurasia.

London. Pp. 552–576.

Hayden B., Chrisholom B. and Schwartz H.P. 1987.

Fishing and Foraging: Marine Resources in the

Upper Paleolithic of France. In O. Soffer ed. The


Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives.

New York. Pp. 279–291.

Hershkovitz I. and Galili E. 1990. 8000 Year-Old

Human Remains on the Sea Floor near Atlit, Israel.

Journal of Human Evolution 5:319–358.

Hornell J. 1935. Report on the Fisheries of Palestine.

London. Pp. 43, 46–48, 102, 104, Appendices 28,

81, 83, 84, 85.

Horowitz A. 1992. Palinology of Arid Lands.

Amsterdam–London–New York–Tokyo.

Horowitz A. 1998. The First Mediterranean

Navigators—Possible Role of Climate in the

Neolithic Settlement of the Islands. In A. Demaison

ed. Navigation, Échanges et Environment en Mediterranée. Montpellier, France. Pp. 112–116.

Horwitz L.K., Galili E., Sharvit J. and Lernau

O. 2002. Fauna from Five Submerged Pottery

Neolithic Sites off the Carmel Coast. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 32:147–174.

Horwitz L.K. and Lernau O. In preparation. Fauna

from the Pottery Neolithic Site of Nevé Yam. In

E. Galili Ed. Submerged 6th–5th Millennium BC Settlements off the Carmel Coast (IAA Reports).

Horwitz L.K. and Tchernov E. 1987. Faunal Remains

from the PPNB Site of Atlit-Yam. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 20:72–78.

Horwitz L.K., Tchernov E., Ducos P., Becker C.,

Driesch V.D.A., Martin L. and Garrard A. 1999.

Animal Domestication in the Southern Levant.

Paléorient 25:63–80.

Jacobsen T.W. 1981. Franchthi Cave and the

Beginning of Settled Village Life in Greece.

Hesperia 50:303–319.

Khaikin L. 1999. Gas Pipe Route Survey Bathymetric Chart, Scale 1:20000.

Kislev M., Hartman A. and Galili E. 1996. Evidence

from Atlit-Yam for a Colder Climate during the

PPNC period. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Israel Prehistoric Society (Hebrew).

Klein R.G. and Cruz-Uribe K. 1984. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago.

Lernau O. 2002. Fish Bones. In A. Kempinski

(N. Scheftelowitz and R. Oren eds.) Tel Kabri: The 1986–1990 Excavation Seasons (Tel Aviv

University Institute of Archaeology Monograph

Series 20). Tel Aviv. Pp. 409–427.

Lernau O. and Ben Horin M. 1994. Taphonomic

Curve and Index: A Preliminary Exploration

of a New Concept. In W. Van Neer ed. Fish Exploitation in the Past. Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group

(Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale,

Sciences Zoologiques, No. 274). Tervuren. Pp.

17–24.

Lernau H. and Lernau O. 1994. The Fish Remains.

In M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen eds. Le site de Hatoula en Judée occidentale, Israël (Memoires

et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de

Jerusalem No. 8). Paris. Pp. 111–124.

Morales A. and Rosenlund K. 1979. Fish Bone Measurements. Steenstrupia, Copenhagen.

Nelson J.S. 1994. Fishes of the World. New York.

Nerquaye-Tetteh G.A. 1985. Triggerfish (Balistes spp.) Processing Industry at Elmina (A Fishing Village in the Central Region of Ghana). Rome.

Nir Y. and Eldar-Nir I. 1987. Ancient Wells and their

Geoarchaeological Significance in Detecting

Tectonics of the Israel Mediterranean Coastline

Region. Geology 15:3–6.

Nun M. 1964. Ancient Jewish Fishery. Tel Aviv.

(Hebrew).

Nun M. 1993. Ancient Stone Anchors and Net Sinkers from the Sea of Galilee. Kibbutz Ein Gev.

Palvitz D., Yaniv Z., Dafni A. and Friedman Y. 1987.

Survey of Wild Plants in Israel as a Source of Medicine. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

Perrot, J. 1966. Le Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha

(Eynan), Israel. L’Anthropologie 70:437–483.

Perrot J. and Gopher A. 1996. A Late Neolithic Site

near Ashkelon. IEJ 46:145–166.

Peterson G.H. 1985. The Eastern Mediterranean

Shelf Bionetwork in Global Connection including

some Biological and Geological Implications.

In M. Moraitou-Apostolopoulou and V. Kiortis

eds. Mediterranean Marine Ecosystems (NATO

Conference Series 1, Ecology 8). New York. Pp.

147–162.

Pirazzoli P.A. 1998. Sea-Level Changes, The Last 20,000 Years. Chichester–New York–Brisbane–

Toronto–Singapore.

Powell J. 1996. Fishing in the Prehistoric Aegean.

Jonsered.

Raban A. 1983. Submerged Prehistoric Sites off the

Mediterranean Coast of Israel. In P.M. Masters and

N.C. Flemming eds. Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology. London. Pp. 215–232.

Raban A. and Galili E. 1985. Recent Maritime

Archaeological Research in Israel—A Preliminary

Report. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 14:321–356.

Reese D.S. 1991. Marine Shells in the Levant:

Upper Palaeolithic, Epipaleolithic and Neolithic.

In O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla eds. The Natufian Culture in the Levant (Archaeological Series 1,

International Monographs in Prehistory). Ann

Arbor. Pp. 613–628.

Renfrew C. 1996. Language Families and the Spread

of Farming. In D.R. Harris ed. The Origins and


Spread of Agriculture and Pastoraslism in Eurasia.


Rollefson G.O. 1989. The Aceramic Neolithic of the

Southern Levant: The View from ‘Ain Ghazal.

Paléorient 15:135–140.

Rollefson G. and Köhler-Rollefson I. 1989. The

Collapse of Early Neolithic Settlements in the

Southern Levant. In I. Hershkovitz ed. People and Culture in Change (BAR Int. S. 508). Oxford. Pp.

73–89.

Ronen A. ed. 1980. The Carrying Capacity of the Coastal Plain of Israel Before Domestication.

Haifa (Hebrew).

Sampson A. 1998. The Neolithic and Mesolithic

Occupation of the Cave of Cyclope, Youra,

Alonnessos, Greece. The Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 93:1–22.

Sampson A. and Kozlowski S.K. 1999. The Cave of

Cyclope in the Northern Aegean: A Specialized

Fishing Shelter of Mesolithic and Neolithic

Periods. Neo-Lithics 3:5–7.

Shapiro J. and Znovsky G. eds. 1996. The Fisheries and Aquaculture of Israel, 1994. Tiberias.

Stanley D.J. and Warne A.G. 1993. Nile Delta:

Recent Geological Evolution and Human Impact.

Science 260:628–634.

Stanley D.J. and Galili E. 1996. Sediment Dispersal

Along Northern Israel Coast During the Early

Holocene: Geological and Archaeological

Evidence. Journal of Marine Geology 130:11–17.

Stekelis M. 1966. The Yarmoukian Culture.

Jerusalem.

Stewart H. 1981. Artifacts of the Northwest Coast Indians. Vancouver.

Thomas J. 1996. The Cultural Context of the First

Use of Domestication in Continental Central and

Northwest Europe. In D.R. Harris ed. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London. Pp. 310–322.

Tyler J.C. 1980. Osteology, Phylogeny and Higher Classification of the Fishes of the Order Plectognathi (Tetradontiformes) (NOAA Technical

Reports NMFS circular, No. 434). Miami.

Van Andel T.H. 1989. Late Quaternary Sea-Level

Changes and Archaeology. Antiquity 63:733–745.

Verhart L.B.M. 1995. Fishing for the Mesolithic. The

North Sea: A Submerged Mesolithic Landscape.

In A. Fischer ed. Man and Sea in the Mesolithic.

Oxford. P. 299.

Wheeler A. and Jones K.G. 1989. Fishes.

Cambridge.

Whitehead P.J.P., Bauchot M.L., Hureau J., Nielsen

J. and Tortonese E. eds. 1986. Fishes of the Northeastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean

(UNESCO). Paris.

Wreschner E.E. 1977. Newe Yam—A Submerged

Late-Neolithic Settlement Near Mount Carmel.

Eretz-Israel 13:260–271.

Wreschner E.E. 1983. The Submerged Neolithic

Village ‘Neve-Yam’ on the Israeli Mediterranean

Coast. In P.M. Masters and N.C. Flemming Eds.

Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology.


Zohar I. 1994. Exploitation of Marine Resources by the Neolithic Inhabitants of Atlit-Yam, Israel: A Multivariate Analysis Based on Gray Triggerfish (Balistes Carolinensis) Remains. M.A. thesis,

University of Haifa. Haifa.

Zohar I., Dayan T., Spanier E., Galili E. and Lernau

O. 1994. Exploitation of Grey Triggerfish (Balistes carolinensis) by the Pehistoric Inhabitants of

‘Atlit-Yam, Israel: A Preliminary Report. In

W. Van Neer ed. Fish Exploitation in the Past. Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group (Annales du Musée Royal

de l’Afrique Centrale; Sciences Zoologiques, No.

274). Tervuren. Pp. 231–237.

Zohar I., Dayan T., Galili E. and Spanier E. 2001.

Fish Processing During the Early Holocene:

A Taphonomic Case Study from Coasts, Israel.

Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1041–1053.

Zohari D. and Hopf M. 1988. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley. Oxford.

FISHING AND COASTAL ADAPTATIONS AT ‘ATLIT-YAM—A SUBMERGED PPNC FISHING VILLAGE OFF THE CARMEL...

Documents

Transcript of FISHING AND COASTAL ADAPTATIONS AT ‘ATLIT-YAM—A SUBMERGED PPNC FISHING VILLAGE OFF THE CARMEL...