Proto-Historic Ein Zippori: The 2007 Excavation Season

Barzilai et al. 2013

22

Proto-Historic Ein Zippori: The 2007 Excavation Season

Omry Barzilai1, Nimrod Getzov2, Natalia Gubenko3, Nimrod Marom4, Ianir Milevski5, Ariel Vered6 and Junfu Zheng7

1 Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. [email protected] Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. [email protected] Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. [email protected]. 4 Zinman Institute of Archaeology and Department of Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel. [email protected] Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. [email protected] Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. [email protected] Center for East Asian Studies, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. [email protected].

ABSTRACTRecent excavations at Ein Zippori in the Lower Galilee revealed a complex proto-historic site dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods. While the nature of the Neolithic occupation is not clear and consists of few lithic artifacts, the density of the architectural remains and rich archaeological assemblages indicate well established Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IB settlements. The recent excavations at Ein Zippori, together with other investigations carried out at Yiftahel and Tell Mitzpe Zevulun North (Nahal Zippori 3) add insights into the proto-historic settlement pattern within the Nahal Zippori basin. The early farming communities around Nahal Zippori founded their villages within the alluvial lands along the stream. It is only with the rise of fortified towns during the Early Bronze II that these settlements relocated from the fertile lands to the hilltops overlooking the Nahal Zippori Valley.

KEYWORDS: Proto-historic site, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, Early Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age

Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-73

INTRODUCTIONUntil recently most of the available data regarding proto-historic periods in the Nahal Zippori Basin relied mainly on excavations at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh (Braun 1997; Garfinkel et al. 2012; Goring-Morris et al. 1995, 2001, 2008). The 1980’s excavations at Yiftahel exposed settlement remains dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) and Early Bronze Age (EB) IA periods (Braun 1997). The data from PPNB Yiftahel was extremely valuable for research of plant domestication, ancient architecture and building techniques (Garfinkel 1987; Kislev 1985), and the EB IA remains for comprehending early pottery typology and village layout before the beginning of urbanization in the region (Braun 1997; Getzov et al. 2001). The excavations at Kfar HaHoresh exposed settlement remains dated to the

Early through Late PPNB with numerous human burials (ca. 70 individuals; Goring-Morris et al. 1995, 2001, 2008). The density of burials and the unique geographical location by the summit of Har Baharan (Nazareth hills) led the excavator to suggest that the site served as a regional ritual centre (Goring-Morris 2000, 2005).

Extensive salvage excavations carried out in the last five years under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority provide new insights into the proto-historic cultures of the Lower Galilee. New investigations were conducted within the Nahal Zippori basin at Ein Zippori, Givat Rabi East, Yiftahel, Hanaton, Kfar Kanna and Tell Mitzpe Zevulun North (Barzilai 2010a; Barzilai and Milevski 2010; Barzilai et al. 2013; Garfinkel et al. 2012; Khalaily et al. 2008; Nativ n.d.; H. Smithline, pers. comm.). Notably


23


Figure 1. Ein Zippori and other proto-historic sites mentioned in the text.

these settlements, bearing long chrono-cultural sequences, were founded in the alluvial lands by the stream (Fig. 1), indicating that Nahal Zippori was an ideal locale for early farming.

The current paper is concerned with the chrono-cultural sequence at the proto-historic site of Ein Zippori on the southern bank of Nahal Zippori (Fig. 2). The site, estimated to extend over ca. 300 dunams, was discovered in an archaeological survey in the 1990's and was revisited in additional surveys which suggested Early Chalcolithic (ECh) and EB occupations (Gal 2002; Marder and Khalaily, pers. obs.). The initial excavation at the site was conducted in 1995 south of route 79 by D. Kaufman on behalf of the University of Haifa (Fig. 2). The excavation exposed settlement remains from the EB (Gal, pers. comm.). In the spring of 2007 another excavation was conducted north of and adjacent to the Ein Zippori Junction by one of the authors (O.B.) on behalf

of the Israel Antiquities Authority (Barzilai 2010a). The excavation revealed archaeological remains dated to the PPNB, ECh and EB periods. For the purposes of this paper, Early Chalcolithic consists of the Wadi Rabah culture (Kaplan 1958) and “the following variants” (Gopher and Gophna 1993), and includes what Garfinkel (1999) refers to as Middle Chalcolithic.

Ein Zippori was subjected to extensive excavations between 2011–2013 by I. Milevski and N. Getzov on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The new excavations were carried out on both sides of Route 79, extending over an area of ca. 5,000 m2; the results are reported elsewhere (Getzov and Milevski 2012; Milevski and Getzov 2013). While this paper will report mainly on the excavations of 2007, the conclusions take into consideration field observations from the 2011–2013 excavations as well as preliminary data from other proto-historic excavations and surveys in the region.


24

THE 2007 EXCAVATION SEASON (O.B.)The 2007 excavation area was located northwest of Zippori Junction (the intersection between Route 79 and Road 7926) (Fig. 2). A long and narrow excavation trench (3x15 m) was opened (Fig. 3). The trench was divided into three excavation units, two of which were partly excavated (A3–A4) and one dug down to sterile sediments (A2). The stratigraphy consists of six layers (I–VI). The uppermost (Layers I–II) were recorded in all of the excavation area whereas the rest were superimposed in excavation unit A2. The volume of the excavation in Unit A2 narrowed as excavations went deeper; Layer III was excavated throughout Unit A2 (3x5 m), while Layers IV–VI were excavated to a lesser extent (2x2 m).

StratigraphyLayer VI. A dark heavy clay sediment was recorded at 2.8 m below surface. It contains carbonated concretions likely formed by post-depositional hydrological processes. The sedimentological composition matches the description of the regional alluvial gromosol (Dan and Raz 1970).

This sediment is almost sterile and contained a few lithic artifacts that probably derive from Layer V.

Layer V. This dark heavy clay sediment is similar to that of Layer VI but with archaeological finds, mostly PPNB flint artifacts (see below). The layer (0.3–0.4 m thick) was sealed by an architectural element (L122) attributed to Layer IV.

Layer IV. This light brown loose sediment (ca. 0.5 m thick) contained ECh and EB potsherds and flint artifacts characteristic to the PPNB and ECh. Layer IV probably represents a house level as attested by a stone pavement (floor) adjoining an architectural element (L122; Fig. 4). Despite the small size of the excavated area, this layer was rich in finds; most were found on top of the stone surface. Exceptional findings were two complete late Chalcolithic bowls found together which may attest to another stratigraphic phase that was not recognized in the excavation (and see discussion below).

Layer III. This is the richest layer in the excavation area. It is composed of light brown clay fill (ca. 0.7 m thick) and several stone foundations of at least two adjacent buildings

Figure 2. Ein Zippori: location of excavation areas from all seasons. Estimation of the extension of the site is marked in grey.


25

Figure 3. Plan of Layers II–IV (top) and stratigraphic section of the excavation area, looking east (bottom).

with round corners (Figs. 3, 5) which are characteristic of EB IB (Golani 2003). This layer is subdivided into two phases: (a) the remains of a “rounded-corner building” (W18) with additional walls (W14; W15; W17) and, (b) a stone surface (L111) and an installation (L112).

The pottery in both phases is abundant and includes numerous potsherds with typical EB IB decorations such as rope decoration and grain-wash surface treatment (see below). The lithic assemblage is mixed as attested by diagnostic artifacts characteristic of the PPNB, ECh and EB periods.

Layer II. Layer II is composed of brown terra rossa soil that contained small stones (ca. 0.55 m thick). The layer was exposed in the south; it seems that its northern part, closer to the Nahal Zippori channel, was eroded. Remains

of three walls were exposed (Figs. 3, 6), apparently suggestive of a rectangular structure, because the contact between the long wall (W10) and a smaller wall (W11) to its west forms a right angle. Another wall fragment (W12) and an installation (L103) were exposed east of the structure. The pottery remains include EB IB types mixed with few EB II types.

Layer I. Layer I is the surface level (0.7–1.0 m thick) that sloped gently toward the north. It had been deeply tilled and contained archaeological finds (potsherds and flint tools) mixed with modern artifacts.

The stratigraphic division into six layers relies on clear differences in sedimentological composition and architectural units. Still, all layers contained mixed assemblages, mainly pottery and lithics which are attributed


26

Figure 4. Ein Zippori: Remains of an installation (L122) in Layer IV.

to several periods (see below). These disturbances are probably due to the construction activities of digging wall foundations for the buildings in Layers IV–II. Despite the mixture the chrono-cultural attribution of each layer within the current excavation is clear and is based on cross-correlation between stratigraphy, architectural elements, and pottery and lithic assemblages. Notably the current chrono-cultural sequence was confirmed by the new excavations (Getzov and Milevski 2012; Milevski and Getzov 2013).

THE POTTERY (N.G.) The pottery assemblages in all layers display considerable mixture (Table 1). EB IB types are dominant in all layers except for Layer IV where ECh types are more dominant. EB II types are found in Layers II–III. Layer V, attributed to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic contained ECh and EB IB pottery sherds. Consequently, the pottery assemblages are presented according to periods. The pottery sherds were sorted in the field, and all rims, handles and decorated pieces were kept for further analysis.

Periods ECh EB Ib EB II Roman TotalLayers n % n % n % n % n %

II 6 3.9 135 88.8 6 3.9 5 3.4 152 100.0III 106 19.4 411 75.1 30 5.5 547 100.0IV 10 55.5 8 44.5 18 100.0V 5 22.7 17 77.3 22 100.0

Total 127 17.2 571 77.2 36 4.9 5 0.7 739 100.0

Table 1. Pottery assemblages at Ein Zippori by layers and periods.


27

Figure 5. Ein Zippori: Remains of buildings with rounded corners in Layer III phase a (view to south).


28

Figure 6. Ein Zippori: Remains of a building from Layer II (view to south).


29

The Early Chalcolithic PotteryThe aim of the analysis of the Early Chalcolithic pottery was to clarify the relative chronological position of the Layer IV assemblage. The comparisons given in the present report refer to two reports that include a systematic typological list as well as detailed quantitative data: Munhata (Horbat Minha; Garfinkel 1992) and the ECh of Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov 2009), where four successive strata of this period were unearthed. Only in a few cases comparisons were made with finds that did not appear in these two reports.

The assemblage includes 127 rim fragments that should be attributed to the ECh period. Unfortunately, the assemblage is not large enough to permit a comprehensive quantitative comparison.

Following is the typology of the vessels of the ECh:Straight-sided bowls. Bowls with straight- or slightly

incurving sides are sometimes deep, as in Fig. 7:1, and sometimes shallow. Given the small number of specimens, the type was not divided into separate subtypes, as in the excavation reports of Munhata and H. ‘Uza.

Shallow rounded bowls. These are shallow, rounded bowls with a rounded profile (Fig. 7:2–3). At Munhata, such bowls were classified as Type B2, defined as “a shallow, rounded, open bowl” (Garfinkel 1992a: fig. 96:1–16), while at H. ‘Uza they were included with the thin bowls of Type Ch.Bo.2a (e.g. Getzov 2009: fig. 2.53:3), and were found in all the strata of the Early Chalcolithic period.

Flaring-rim bowls. Included here are bowls whose rims flare out (Fig. 7:4). The Munhata bowls with flaring rims include Types A2, A4 and B3 (e.g. Garfinkel 1992a: figs. 91; 97:1–14, 16–22). The H. ‘Uza, bowls with flaring rims include Types Ch.Bo.1 and Ch.Bo.2b that were found in all Early Chalcolithic strata. The great similarity between the example presented here (Fig. 7:4) and a complete bowl found in Stratum 18 (Getzov 2009: fig. 2.23:1) is of note.

Thick-walled bowls and basins. The bowls have thick walls, slipped and burnished on the interior only (Fig. 7:5). At Munhata, such bowls were included among the basins of Type B4 (Garfinkel 1992: fig. 99), while at H. ‘Uza they were designated as Type Ch.Bo.3 and were found only in Stratum 19 (Getzov 2009: fig. 2.21:7–8). The basins also had thick walls and their rims, angular in profile, were wider than the vessels’ walls (Fig. 7:6). At Munhata, they were included in Type B4 (Garfinkel 1992: fig. 98:1), while

at H. ‘Uza they were counted as part of the pithoi of Type Ch.Pi.1 (Getzov 2009: fig. 2.24:3). The pithoi and the basins with the wide rims were found in H. ‘Uza only in Strata 19 and 18, but not in later strata.

Ridged-rim holemouth Jars. These holemouth jars have a high ridge parallel to their rim (Fig. 7:7). At H. ‘Uza, such holemouth jars were designated Ch.Ho.3 (Getzov 2009: fig. 2.26:12–13), while at Munhata they are absent. At H. ‘Uza they were found only in Stratum 17, and Garfinkel ascribes them to his “Middle Chalcolithic” (Garfinkel 1999: fig. 105:11).

Simple-rim holemouth jars. These holemouth jars have a simple rim which is cut, sharp or rounded (Fig. 7:8). Such holemouth jars are frequent in all strata at H. ‘Uza (e.g. Getzov 2009: fig. 2.23:13–24). Holemouth jars with a wide variety of rim shapes are also common at Munhata (Garfinkel 1992: figs. 117–121).Strap handles Wide handles that widen at their joint with the body of the vessel (Fig. 7:9–10) are characteristic of Early Chalcolithic assemblages. At H. ‘Uza they are abundant in all strata (e.g. Getzov 2009: fig. 2.24:4), and they also dominate the handles at Munhata (Garfinkel 1992: fig. 133:1–7).

Although, as noted, such handles are known from all the stages of the Early Chalcolithic period, it should be noted that the H. ‘Uza assemblages exhibit an increase in the overall number of handles during the ECh period (Getzov 2009: table 2.6). In the present assemblage, the ratio of rim to handle fragments is 12:1 (73 rim fragments and 6 handle fragments; Table 1), which is higher than at H. ‘Uza Stratum 19 (27:1; 191 rim fragments and 7 handle fragments) and considerably lower than that of H. ‘Uza Stratum 17 (3:1, 422 rim fragments and 145 handle fragments).DecorationStabbed and Incised Decoration. There are diverse patterns made by stabbing and impressing the clay while still in the leather hard stage. In some cases, the decoration is found under slip or burnish, in others on plain sherds. Stabbed decoration was made using either a chisel or a roller (Fig. 8), and the incised decoration was made using a comb (Fig. 7:11–12).

Similar decorations are characteristic of the Munhata assemblage (Garfinkel 1992: figs. 134–139); at H. ‘Uza they appear only in Stratum 19 (Getzov 2009: fig. 2.22:11–18).

At H. ‘Uza this decoration style is characteristic of Strata


30

18 and 17, where the diagonal decoration runs from the rims of holemouth jars (Getzov 2009: fig. 2.23:15). Sherds decorated in a similar manner were probably also found in Munhata, although the publication does not mention a light slip beneath the red paint (e.g. Garfinkel 1992: figs. 102:8, 133:6).

Red-on-light decoration. This decoration technique describes vessels slipped in white paint on which wide stripes or stains were drawn in red color (Fig. 7:8–9). Figure 7:8 presents an exceptionally well-preserved holemouth jar whose rim was decorated with a red-painted stripe, from which a wide stripe diagonally stretches toward the bottom of the vessel. No such well-preserved example of red-on-light decoration has hitherto been published.Early Chalcolithic pottery – conclusionParallels to all the finds described above can be found in the assemblage of the Wadi Rabah phase of Munhata, ascribed by Garfinkel to the chronological and cultural horizon of the Wadi Rabah culture of the southern Levant (Garfinkel 1999:107).

The parallels from Strata 19–17 at H. ‘Uza suggest that the assemblage from Ein Zippori is mixed (see discussion in Getzov 2009:68–72). The thick-walled bowls slipped on the inside and the sherds with stabbed or incised decoration are characteristic of Stratum 19. A ridged holemouth jar and vessels with red-on-light decoration are characteristic of Strata 18 and 17. The relative frequency of the handles in our assemblages, falling between those of H. ‘Uza Strata 19 and 17, supports this conclusion.

It seems that the Early Chalcolithic layer of Ein Zippori contains components contemporary with H. ‘Uza Stratum 19 and the site of Wadi Rabah on the one hand, and with H. ‘Uza Stratum 17 and Jericho Stratum VIII (PNB) on the other (Getzov 2009: table 2.43).

Late Chalcolithic potteryTwo complete small bowls should be dated to this period (Fig. 7:14–15). The small bowls are V-shaped, have thin walls and were made on a potter's wheel. The use of the potter's wheel is unknown prior to the Late Chalcolithic period. On the rim of one small bowl (Fig. 7:15) is a strip of red color. Such bowls are characteristic of Late Chalcolithic assemblages (Garfinkel 1999: fig. 127:1–8).

Early Bronze I potteryThe aim of the analysis of the Early Bronze I pottery

was to explore the relationship of Ein Zippori to contemporary assemblages in neighboring sites. Thus, all vessels and fragments dated to this period, whether from Layers II or III, were used. Study of the assemblage was based on a list of 25 vessel types. Quantitative data used here were based on a count of rim and handle fragments (Table 2). All definable fragments were counted; conjoinable pieces were counted as one piece.

No estimation of the minimum number of vessels was made so the counts, as they appear in the final tables, do not indicate precisely the actual frequency of each vessel type.

Typology of vessels1. Simple bowls (Fig. 9:1–7). A variety of bowls with straight or incurved walls and a simple pointed or rounded rim. Such bowls were often used as lamps, as is evident from burning marks on the rim. A special specimen of this group is a bowl with an inner shelf (Fig. 9:7), apparently made to avoid the slipping of the wick to the bottom of the bowl.

2. Bowls with incurved rounded rim (Fig. 9:8–12). These are bowls with incurved sides and rims.

3. Triangular-rim bowls (Fig. 9:13–15). These bowls have a thickened rim and an inward facing triangular cross section.

4. Gutter-rim bowls (Fig. 9:16). Similar in profile to the previous type, these bowls have a thickened rim on top of which is a kind of a gutter.

5. Bowls with incurved carinated rim (Fig. 9:17–18). The tops of the walls and the rims of these bowls are carinated inward. All bear a dark slip in which a network of tiny cracks, similar to those that develop in dry soil, was formed following its drying or firing. These belong to the group of vessels known as “Crackled Ware.” Esse (1989) dated these vessels to EB IB and showed that their geographical distribution is limited to the vicinity of Tel Bet Yerah.

6. Gray-burnished bowls (Fig. 9:19–21). These bowls belong to the late phase of the gray-burnished ware family (Wright 1958, Type 3) and are characterized as having an inclined ledge rim and a carinated wall, with no handles. These vessels are to be attributed to the second phase of EB I.


31

Figure 7. Early (1–13) and Late Chalcolithic (14–15) pottery.


32

No. Locus Basket Vessel Description

1 116 1116 Deep bowl Grayish-brown clay, pinkish-brown surface, large and light temper, red slip

2 108 1077 Bowl Yellowish-brown clay, gray temper, red slip

3 108 1086 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, red slip, burnish

4 101 1010 Bowl Brown clay, light temper

5 115 1150 Thick bowl Brown-gray clay, gray core, large-sized light temper, red slip, burnish

6 111 1127 Krater Brown-gray clay, light surface, large-sized light temper7 101 1065 Holemouth jar Light gray clay, gray core, calcite temper, traces of red slip

8 111 1137 Holemouth jar Light brown clay, much large-sized temper, whitish slip, red paint ='red-on-light'?

9 121 1144 Handle Light brown clay, light temper, whitish slip, red paint ='red-on-light' decoration?

10 111 1127 Handle Grayish-brown clay, pinkish-brown surface, red slip, light large-sized temper

11 119 1128 Decorated sherd Brown-gray clay, gray core, light large-sized temper, combed decoration, red slip

12 114 1123 Decorated sherd Brown-gray clay, gray core, light large-sized temper, wavy combed decoration

13 119 1130 Spindle whorl Gray clay, dark temper14 111 1133 Small bowl Grayish-white clay, varied temper15 111 1125 Small bowl Grayish-white clay, few varied temper, red paint

Figure 8. Early Chalcolithic pottery with stabbed and incised decoration.


33

7. Miscellaneous and unidentified bowls (Fig. 9:22).

8. Simple-rim holemouth jars (Fig. 10:1–5). Holemouth jars with a simple, thickened rim.

9. Ridged-rim holemouth jars (Fig. 10:6, 7). Holemouth jars with a simple rim, with a protruding ridge near the rim.

10. Drooping-rim holemouth jars (Fig. 10:8–9). Holemouth jars with inward drooping rims.

11. Square-rim holemouth jars (Fig. 10:10). The rims of these holemouth jars are straight in profile.

12. Cooking pots (Fig. 10:11). Vessels with a rounded body and an everted rim. The outline of the vessels is very similar to that of jars, but they were made of a different ware, dark brown or reddish-brown in color.

13. Miscellaneous and unidentified holemouth jars.

14. Vertical-rim juglets (Fig. 11:1–2). Juglets with an oval body and a high loop handle, drawn above the rim to below the center of the body. The rim is plain and upright, sometimes slightly everted.

Type Description / Locus 101 102 104 105 107 109 111 113 114 115 116 117 Total1 Simple bowls 3 3 1 18 1 2 28

2 Bowls with incurved roundedrim 15 20 5 3 21 1 2 2 69

3 Triangular-rim bowls 4 1 54 Gutter-rim bowls 2 5 1 3 11

5 Bowls with incurved carinatedrim 2 3 2 10 3 2 2 1 25

6 Gray-burnished bowls 1 4 5

7 Miscellaneous and unidentifiedbowls 1 1 2

8 Simple-rim holemouth jars 62 65 36 49 4 2 2 1 2 1 2249 Ridged-rim holemouth jars 1 1 210 Drooping-rim holemouth jars 1 1 211 Square-rim holemouth jars 4 4 2 1012 Cooking pots 1 1

13 Miscellaneous and unidentifiedholemouth jars 1 1

14 Vertical-rim juglets 2 1 6 3 1 1 1 1515 Everted-rim juglets 1 4 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 1916 High-necked amphoriskoi 1 1 1 317 Low, simple rim jars 6 7 1 1 5 2018 Molded-rim jars 1 7 5 1 7 2 1 2419 High-rim jars 2 4 1 720 Rounded-rim jars 7 1 821 Decorated rounded-rim pithoi 10 29 5 3 2 2 5122 Plain rounded-rim pithoi 3 4 723 Triangular-rim pithoi 1 124 Flaring-rim pithoi 1 3 425 Bow-rim pithoi 1 1 2

Total EBI rims 120 166 64 17 129 15 11 4 7 8 4 1 546 Chalcolithic rims 5 14 2 8 30 1 7 2 10 10 2 91 EBII rims 6 30 36 Post-EBII rims 5 5

Table 2. Pottery from Early Bronze Age I loci.


34

15. Everted-rim juglets and amphoriskoi (Fig. 11:3–5). Small closed vessels that are very similar to the previous ones but whose rims are everted. Only fragments were found, so the profile of the body remains unknown; it is also possible that these are actually fragments of spouted teapots (e.g. Fig. 11:16, 17; cf. Yannai 1996: fig. 4:14).

16. High-necked juglets (Fig. 11:6). Juglets with a high neck and a simple flaring rim.

17. Low, simple-rim jars (Fig. 11:7–12). Jars with a low simple rim, usually everted.

18. Molded-rim jars (Fig. 11:13–14). Jars with a thickened everted rim. In many cases, the fashioning of the rim results in a triangular cross section.

19. High-rim jars (Fig. 11:15). Jars with a simple, high and straight or slightly everted rim.

20. Rounded-rim jars (not drawn). Jars with a rounded thickened rim.

21. Decorated rounded-rim pithoi (Fig. 12:1–6). Pithoi with a thickened rim and a low neck. The rim is decorated with a line of incisions or fingerprints that sometimes form a rope pattern. At the base of the neck is a protruding ridge.

22. Plain rounded-rim pithoi (Fig. 12:7–10). Similar to the previous type but with undecorated rims.

23. Triangular-rim pithoi (not drawn). Similar to the previous types, but with rims triangular in cross section. Such pithoi were not decorated by incision.

24. Everted-rim pithoi (Fig. 12:11). Pithoi whose rim is high and everted; sometimes a protruding ridge occurs at the base of the neck.

25. Bow-neck pithoi (Fig. 12:12). These pithoi have a high neck, slightly swollen in the middle, resulting in a bow-like section. The rim is simple or thickened.

26. Handle Types (Fig. 13). All handle fragments found in the excavation were kept, sorted and counted. Decorated handles are somewhat overrepresented in Figure 13 (e.g. 1, 2, 4), as their actual frequency in the assemblage is rather small. Four types of handles were defined: 1) handles with a round or oval cross section (Fig. 13:1–2); 2) pierced handles (Fig. 13:3); 3) juglet loop handles (Fig. 13:4–5) and 4) ledge handles (Fig. 13:6).Comparable assemblages Of the pottery assemblages excavated in northern Israel and dated to the early stages of the EB period, five were fully published, including quantitative data comparable to

the EB IB finds from Ein Zippori: En Shadud, Tel Qashish, Qiryat Ata, Abu edh-Dhahab and Tel Bet Yerah.

En Shadud. A site in the center of the Jezre’el Valley, about 9 km south of Ein Zippori (Braun 1985).

Tel Qashish. A tell in the northwest of the Jezre’el Valley, about 15 km west of Ein Zippori (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Strata XV–XIII (including post-XIII), which were at the base of the accumulation, were dated to the EB I.

Qiryat Ata. A large settlement situated on a low hill to the south of the Plain of Akko. A series of salvage excavations were conducted at the site, and most of them were published in a comprehensive report (Golani 2003). The discussion of the pottery assemblage was based on the typological terms used in the Tel Qashish report.

Abu edh-Dhahab. A large settlement in the north of the Plain of Akko. Remains of the EB IB were found in a limited excavation conducted on the fringes of the site (Getzov 2004).

Tel Bet Yerah. A large tell on the southwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, close to the outlet of the Jordan River. The 1994–1995 excavations exposed strata of EB cities, including Stratum V, dated to the EB IB. A comparison with other sites showed that the Tel Bet Yerah assemblage is very similar to those found in the central Jordan Valley, but is different, mainly quantitatively, from those of the Jezre’el and Bet She’an Valleys (Getzov 2006:37).

A quantitative comparison of the bowls and pithoi from Ein Zippori to those from the above mentioned sites (Tables 3–4), proves to be helpful in defining the regional distribution of these vessels.1. Gutter-rim bowls are characteristic of sites in the Jezre’el Valley. On the basis of their appearance in the Tel Qashish strata it appears that they existed during the EB IB (Zuckerman 1996:32, 45). Such bowls appear, although in small numbers, in all assemblages, as is also the case at Ein Zippori (indeed, they are absent from the quantitative summary of En Shadud, but many are present in the figures, e.g. Braun 1985: fig. 15). The situation is different in the Tel Bet Yerah assemblage, where only a single specimen was found.2. Bowls with incurved carinated rims are absent from Tel Qashish and En Shadud, but are frequent at Tel Bet Yerah. These bowls belong to the group of vessels with crackled slip (Crackled Ware), characteristic of the Tel Bet Yerah region (Esse 1989). Bowls with a similar profile were found in lesser numbers in Qiryat Ata, but there is no information in the excavation report regarding crackled


35

Figure 9. EB IB bowls.

36


No. Locus Basket Vessel Description1 107 1083 Lamp-bowl Pinkish-brown clay, traces of red slip, burn marks2 101 1016/1 Small bowl Brown clay, white temper, red slip3 111 1100 Lamp-bowl Brown clay, dark temper, red slip, burnt marks on rim4 101 1020/3 Small bowl Brown clay, small-sized temper, red slip5 107 1088 Small bowl Pinkish-brown clay, light surface, few white temper, red slip6 107 1105 Bowl Gray clay, gray temper, black slip7 108 1091 Lamp Grayish-brown clay, gray small-sized temper, red slip8 101 1011/1 Bowl Brown clay, varied temper, red slip outside, brown slip inside9 109 1078/1 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, red slip

10 107 1105/1 Bowl Pinkish-brown clay, Yellowish-gray core, varied temper, brown slip

11 116 1113/1 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper, dark brown crackled slip (CW)

12 114 1123 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, light gray core, dark temper, dark brown crackled slip (CW)

13 101 1020/1 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, light gray core, small-sized temper

14 101 1011/3 Bowl Pinkish-brown clay, well levitated, light surface, red-brown slip, burnish

15 102 1043/1 Bowl Pinkish-brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, traces of red slip

16 101 1020/2 Bowl Brown clay, varied temper, red slip

17 107 1083 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper, dark brown crackled slip (CW)

18 101 1011/2 Bowl Brown clay, varied temper, dark brown crackled slip inside, red outside (CW)

19 107 1182/2 Bowl Gray clay, light gray core, small-sized temper, gray burnished surface

20 107 1083 Bowl Gray clay, dark Calcite temper, gray surface, traces of burnish21 107 1079 Bowl Gray clay, few light temper, light gray surface, burnish22 101 1028/1 Bowl Pinkish-brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, red paint

slip. Interestingly, a few such bowls were found at Abu edh-Dhahab. 3. Gray-burnished ware of Wright’s Type 3 (Wright 1958) comprises a large group among the bowls at En Shadud, Tel Qashish and Qiryat Ata. At Ein Zippori, only a few items were found, while they were not found at all at Tel Bet Yerah and Abu edh-Dhahab.4. The distribution of pithos types in northern Israel is clearly regional: at Tel Bet Yerah, most of the pithoi have rounded rims; at En Shadud there are rounded-rim pithoi alongside bow-rim pithoi; at Tel Qashish there are only bow-rim pithoi; at Qiryat Ata, bow-rim pithoi predominate but a few rounded-rim pithoi and flaring-rim pithoi are present; and at Abu edh-Dhahab, flaring-rim pithoi predominate and only a few rounded-rim pithoi are

present. It seems that flaring-rim pithoi were frequent in the western Galilee (Braun 1996:18–20), bow-rim pithoi were frequent in the Jezre’el Valley and rounded-rim pithoi were frequent in the Jordan Valley and the east of the Jezre’el Valley. A few rounded-rim pithoi found their way to the western Galilee along the commerce routes, as they were found at Qiryat Ata, Abu edh-Dhahab and Rosh Ha-Niqra (Tadmor and Prausnitz 1958: fig. 6:1–4). Against this background, the composition of the pithoi group at Ein Zippori is very interesting: almost all had thickened rims, as at Tel Bet Yerah, while bow-rim pithoi were surprisingly nearly absent.

Most of the differences noted between the assemblage of Ein Zippori and those of EB IB Tel Bet Yerah, En Shadud, Tel Qashish and Abu edh-Dhahab relate to


37

Figure 10. EB IB holemouth jars.


38


1 101 1066/1 Holemouth jar Dark brown clay, basalt temper

2 102 1056/1 Holemouth jar Brown clay, gray core, varied temper, red slip

3 101 1011/1 Holemouth jar Clay gray inside and brown outside, calcite temper, red slip

4 101 1065/1 Holemouth jar Dark brown clay, dark temper

5 111 1127 Holemouth jar Pinkish-brown clay, light gray core, calcite temper, brown-red slip

6 109 1078 Holemouth jar Redish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper including calcite

7 104 1064/1 Holemouth jar Grayish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper including calcite, red slip

8 117 1115 Holemouth jar Reddish-brown clay, varied temper and calcite, red slip

9 101 1020 Holemouth jar Light brown clay, yellowish-gray core, varied temper, red band slip

10 101 1028 Holemouth jar Pinkish-brown clay, gray core, much varied temper, red slip

11 104 1064 Cooking pot Reddish-brown clay, dark gray core, much small-sized light temper

varying frequencies of vessel types, while most of the types appear at all six sites. It therefore seems that the sites are contemporary, and that the quantitative differences represent a regional diversity.

A comparison of the bowls and the pithoi from these sites suggests that in many ways (the frequencies of bowls with carinated walls, gray-burnished ware bowls and pithoi with thickened rims), the Ein Zippori assemblage shows greater resemblance to the Tel Bet Yerah assemblage, characteristic of the Jordan Valley, rather than to assemblages of neighboring sites in the Jezre’el Valley.

At Ein Zippori there are also a few vessels characteristic of the Jezre’el Valley that are rare or even absent at Tel Bet Yerah, such as gutter-rim bowls, gray-burnished ware bowls and bow-rim pithoi. Their presence at the site reflect its proximity to the Jezre’el Valley, but does not change the overall picture in which the Ein Zippori assemblage resembles that of Tel Bet Yerah, but differs from those of the Jezre’el Valley sites.

Early Bronze Age II potteryPottery dated to EB II was found only in Loci 101 and 102, where most of the finds were of EB IB (see Table 2). Figure 14 presents some examples ascribed to this period, including four vessels of the Metallic Ware family (Fig. 14:1–3, 7) shown by Greenberg and Porat (1996:12) to include mainly types that are unique to the EB II period; a

brown holemouth jar (Fig. 14:4), characteristic of the EB II assemblages in Tel Bet Yerah (Getzov 2006:76); and two cooking pots (Fig. 14:5, 6) that appear in assemblages of different stages of the period (e.g. Covello-Paran 2003:133) and therefore there is no certainty concerning their place in the EB II assemblage in Ein Zippori.

The occurrence of Metallic Ware sherds in the EB I assemblage of Ein Zippori could be explained in two ways. These sherds may have originated in EB II activity at the site. Alternatively, they could hint at a relatively late date of the EB IB assemblage, as Metallic Ware sherds were reported from EB IB Beth Shean (Rotem 2012). However, all the Metallic Ware sherds were found in the two uppermost loci in the excavation area. Furthermore, no differences were noticed between the EB IB pottery from these loci and that from the remaining EB IB loci. Therefore, we suggest these finds should be viewed as intrusive EB II elements, and not as part of the EB I assemblage.

THE FAUNA (N.M.)The faunal remains from Ein Zippori consist of bone fragments from four layers (V–II), representing respectively the PPNB, Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age occupations at the site. Layers I (topsoil) and VI (sterile sediment) were not included in the analysis.

An attempt was made to identify all specimens, including long bone shaft fragments, according to skeletal


39

Figure 11. EB IB juglets, amphoriskoi and jars.


40

No. Locus Basket Vessel Description1 101 1011 Juglet Grayish-brown clay, gray core, red slip2 113 1106 Juglet Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper3 119 1031 Juglet Grayish-brown clay, red slip4 117 1115 Juglet Grayish-brown clay, dark temper, dark brown and red slip5 107 1032 Juglet Pinkish-brown clay, red slip6 101 1011 Amphoriskos Grayish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip7 104 1064 Jar Yellowish-brown clay, dark temper, black paint8 107 1105/2 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip9 111 1127 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, gray core, dark temper, red slip10 107 1083 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper11 104 1045 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip

12 101 1011/1 Jar Clay pinkish-brown outside and yellowish-brown inside, dark temper, brown slip

13 107 1105 Jar Yellowish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip14 120 1142 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip15 109 1078 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip16 105 1070 Spout Brown clay, varied temper, red and brown slip17 19 1078 Spout Gray clay, varied temper and calcite, dark brown slip

Qiryat AtaTel Qashish

Ein Shadud

Abu a-Dhahab

Tel Beth Yerah

Ein Zippori

Ein Zippori Types

Qiryat Ata

Types

Tel Qashish Types

EinShadud Types

Tel Beth

Yerah Types

%n%n%n%n%n%n

8.73840.9529.694.7331.412219.328Simple Bowls (1)

BIIa, BIVa

BI, BIIa, BIV5,8,91, 9-11

50.222029.13748.94650.03233.913247.669

Bowls with Incurved Rounded Rim (2)

BIIIb, K1-2BIIc, K1, 2, 3,

102, 3

3.91731.2203.45

Bowls with Incurved Triangular Rim (3)

BV

4.1183.953.120.2517.611Gutter-Rim Bowls (4)BIIbBIIb64

7.3329.4632.412617.225

Bowls with Incurved Carinated Rim (5)

BIa-b, BIIc6

18.78225.93334.0323.45Gray-Burnished Bowls (6)

BIIIb-cBIII7, 4

7.1317.471.612.081.42Varia and Unidentified (7)

BIC, BIIIe-f, BIVc BVI,

KIII-IV

8, 5, 4, 7

100.043899.812799.9941006499.938999.9145Total

Table 3. Comparison of bowls in the EBI strata of Ein Zippori, Tel Beth Yerah, 'En Shadud, Abu a-Dhahab, Qiryat Ata and Tel Qashish. Data after Getzov 2006: table 2.11; Getzov 2004: 48, table 3; Braun 1985: 148, table 2; Zuckerman 2003: tables 2–5; Golani 2003: 157, table 4.9.


41

Figure 12. EB IB pithoi.


42


1 107 1085 Pithos Grayish-brown clay, gray core, dark temper

2 105 1070 Pithos Clay gray outside and pinkish-brown inside, brown temper, dark brown slip, impressed decoration

3 109 1078 Pithos Clay pinkish outside and gray inside, varied temper, red slip, impressed decoration

4 102 1022 Pithos Light brown clay, light gray core, light temper, red slip

5 101 1073 Pithos Grayish-brown clay, much varied temper, red slip

6 101 1028 Pithos Light brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, red slip

7 103 1053 Pithos Brown clay, gray core, much light temper

8 101 1010 Pithos Clay light gray inside and brown outside, varied temper, dark brown slip

9 102 1032 Jar Grayish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip

10 101 1065 Pithos Grayish-brown clay, gray core, calcite and other temper

11 101 1011/3 Pithos Grayish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper, red slip

12 101 1011 Pithos Light brown clay, varied temper, red slip

Qiryat AtaTel QashishEn ShadudAbu adh-Dhahab

Tel Beth YerahEin ZipporiEin Zippori

Types

Qiryat Ata

Types

Tel Qashish Types

En Shadud Types

Tel Beth Yerah Types

%n%n%n%n%n%n

36 36.4412.5577249258Rounded-rim pithoi (21, 22)SJVIII 2529

16521Triangular-rim pithoi (23)

30

85.034 3.22Flaring-rim pithoi (24)

SJIV, SJVI, SJVII

811801005163.67 32Bow-rim pithoi (25)SJIISJII26

16.637 2.5162 Varia pithoi 31

1002231005110011100401003110063Total

Table 4. Comparison of Pithoi in the EBI strata of Ein Zippori, Tel Beth Yerah, En Shadud, Abu adh-Dhahab, Qiryat Ata and Tel Qashish. Data after Getzov 2006: table 2.11; Getzov 2004:48, table 3; Braun 1985:148, table 2; Zuckerman 2003: tables 2–5; Golani 2003:157, table 4.9.


43


1 101 1028 Handle Brown clay, much dark temper, incised decoration

2 109 1082 Handle Gray-brown clay, gray core, varied temper, dark brown slip, incised decoration

3 107 1083 Handle Gray clay, varied temper

4 107 1089 Handle Brown clay, dark small-sized temper, incised decoration, red slip

5 117 1115 Handle Grayish-brown clay, varied small-sized temper, incised decoration, red and gray slip

6 101 1066 Handle Grayish-brown clay, varied temper, red and gray slip

Figure 13. EB IB miscellaneous pottery.


44

element, taxon or mammalian body size class. Mammalian body size classes used are small-sized (cat), medium-sized (large dog to pig) and large-sized (donkey, cow, or deer). Out of 773 bone fragments in the assemblage, 270 were thus identified. Sheep and goat remains were distinguished following the list of criteria used by Boessneck (1969). Osteological measurements were taken following von den Driesch (1976), using Vernier calipers. Teeth wear patterns were recorded using Grant's (1982) method. The state of epiphyseal closure was recorded when relevant (Silver 1970).

All identified specimens were scanned for bone surface modifications using a ×2.5 hand-lens. State of bone weathering (Behrensmeyer 1978), presence of butchery marks (Olsen 1988), impact fractures, carnivore gnawing

(Binford 1981) and fracture morphology (Villa and Mahieu 1991) were recorded.

Taxonomic abundance was estimated based on the number of identified specimens (NISP) (Lyman 1994). Skeleton element abundance profiles were constructed based on NISP counts per body portion of body-size classes. This method, while being analytically justified (Grayson and Frey 2004; Lyman 2008), does not allow fine-grained reconstruction of species-based skeletal element utilization patterns. Minimum number of elements (MNE) and skeletal element abundance (SEA) could not be effectively employed due to sample size restrictions. Statistics were performed using Paleontological Statistics (PAST) ver. 1.92 (Hammer et al. 2001).

No. Locus Basket Vessel Description1 101 1009 Bowl Orange-brownish clay, metallic firing2 104 1053 Platter Pinkish-brown clay, metallic firing3 102 1053 Platter Orange-brownish clay, metallic firing4 topsoil 1000 Holemouth jar Brown clay, dark core, white temper5 102 1039 Cooking pot Brown-red clay, varied temper6 topsoil 1001 Cooking pot Dark gray clay, much small-sized white temper, red surface

Figure 14. EB II pottery.


45

Period Locus/ taxon Sus Bos C/O Capra Ovis Canis Large Medium Small Total

EB II 101 5 2 8 9 12 36

106 1 3 1 3 8 109 2 1 1 2 6Subtotal EB II 8 3 12 1 9 17 50 EB Ib 104 7 1 4 1 2 8 2 25 105 5 2 4 5 4 20 107 9 2 6 1 4 21 1 44 108 1 1 1 1 4 8 111 1 1 1 1 5 9 113 1 2 3 114 1 3 1 1 4 10 115 1 2 3 1 7 116 1 1 117 1 1 2Subtotal EB Ib 26 5 22 3 1 1 15 52 4 129 Early Chalcolithic 119 5 4 6 7 12 34 120 4 5 10 1 6 26 1 53 121 2 2Subtotal ECh 11 9 16 1 13 38 1 89 PPNB 123 1 1 2Subtotal PPNB 1 1 2 Total 45 17 51 4 2 1 37 108 5 270

Table 5. Animal bone counts of the different taxa represented in the assemblage by context.

ResultsThe assemblage consists mainly of caprine (Capra hircus and Ovis aries, n=51), suid (Sus scrofa cf. domesticus, n=45) and taurine (Bos cf. taurus, n=17) remains (Table 5). The frequency of these taxa does not change significantly between the different chrono-stratigraphic phases (Cramer's V = 0.16, Pno association = 0.20).

Epiphyseal fusion data were collected in order to reconstruct age-at-death data for suids, caprines and cattle – an attempt that failed because of prohibitive sample sizes (Table 6). Tooth wear data, pooled for the entire assemblage, indicate pigs were culled at a very early age as compared to caprines (Table 7). This may indicate that pigs were kept at the site as domesticated stock throughout the

periods represented at the site, although caution is in place due to the very small sample size.

Taphonomic analysis (Table 8) shows that 16% of the bones found in Chalcolithic contexts were burnt, while only 2% of the bones found in Bronze Age contexts were similarly modified. This may suggest increased use of cooking, as opposed to roasting, during the later periods at the site. Fracture morphology was examined on 103 long-bone shaft fragments of medium and large sized ungulates. Most (86%) of the fractures recorded are morphologically indicative of fresh breakage, presumably for bone marrow removal. Carnivore gnawing was observed on 25% of the specimens recovered from Chalcolithic contexts, and on 15% of the Bronze Age sample. Post-depositional, sub-


46

Element Sub Element Age (months) ECh EBUnfused Fused Unfused Fused

Ovis/CapraScapula glenoid cavity 6–8 1 1Pelvis acetabulum 6–10 1 1Humerus distal 10 1Radius proximal 101st palanx proximal 13–16 1 12nd palanx proximal 13–16Tibia distal 18–24 1 1 1Metacarpal distal 18–24 1Metatarsal distal 20–28Metapodial distal 18–28Ulna proximal 30Femur proximal 30–36 2 1Calcaneum proximal 30–36 1 1Radius distal 36 1Humerus proximal 36–42Femur distal 36–42 1Tibia proximal 36–42Bos taurusScapula glenoid cavity 7–10 1Pelvis acetabulum 7–10Humerus distal 12–18Radius proximal 12–181st palanx proximal 18 12nd palanx proximal 18Tibia distal 24–30 1Metacarpal distal 24–30Metatarsal distal 27–36Metapodial distal 24–36 2 1Calcaneum proximal 36–42Femur proximal 42 1Humerus proximal 42–48Radius distal 42–48Femur distal 42–48Tibia proximal 42–48Ulna proximal 42–48Sus scrofaScapula glenoid cavity 12 1 1Humerus distal 12 1 1Radius proximal 122nd palanx proximal 12 11st palanx proximal 24 1Tibia distal 24 1 1Metacarpal distal 24 1


47

Table 6. Counts of fused and unfused epiphyses for sheep, goats, cattle and suids at Ein Zipori, by chronological phases (Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages).

Element Sub Element Age (months) ECh EBUnfused Fused Unfused Fused

Metatarsal distal 27Calcaneum proximal 24–30Ulna proximal 36–42 1Femur proximal 42Humerus proximal 42Radius distal 42 1Femur distal 42Tibia proximal 42Pelvis Acetabulum 72–84 1

Period Locus Basket Taxon Teeth Wear stageEB II 101 1065 C/O M2…M3 x, eEB II 101 1009 C/O M1/2 gEB Ib 114 1121 C/O P3….M2 x, e, eEB Ib 114 1123 C/O P4..M1 g, gEB Ib 114 1123 C/O M2 aECh 119 1129 C/O M1/2 ePPN 123 1151 C/O M1/2 eEB II 101 1016 Sus dp4 bEB Ib 104 1048 Sus dp4 bEB Ib 105 1070 Sus M2 aEB Ib 107 1079 Sus M1 aECh 119 1138 Sus dp4…M1 d, aECh 120 1143 Sus

Table 7. Teeth wear stage for sheep, goat and suids at Ein Zipori (after Grant 1982).

Period NISP Cut-marks Function n Burning GnawingECh 80 10 Dismemberment 1 n = 13 n = 20

Filleting 9EB Ib 127 11 n = 4 n = 21

Skinning 2Dismemberment 2Filleting 7

EB II 50 7 Filleting 7 n = 0 n = 7ECh & EB Fracture Green 89

Dry 14Weathering Stage 1 64

Stage 2 16Stage 3 2

Table 8. Bone surface modifications on specimens from Ein Zipori.


48

aerial destruction of bones is indicated to have been slight by the low degree of weathering observed throughout the assemblage.

The small assemblage from Ein Zippori shows the economy was based on sheep, goat, pig and cattle utilization. There is no significant change in faunal composition along the occupation periods at the site. Pigs

Size class Element EB II EB Ib ECh PPNB TotalLarge Mandible 1 2 3 Maxilla 3 1 4 Vertebra 1 1 2 Rib 5 2 5 12 Pelvis 2 2 Scapula 1 1 2 Femur 1 2 1 4 Humerus 1 2 1 4 Tibia 1 2 1 4 Radius 1 1 2 Metacarpus 1 1 Metapodial 2 5 7 Carpal 1 1 Tarsal 1 1 2 Phalanx 2 2Subtotal large 12 18 22 52Medium Mandible 4 15 8 1 28 Maxilla 2 4 5 11 Vertebra 2 5 1 8 Rib 7 20 5 32 Pelvis 3 1 1 5 Scapula 6 7 3 16 Femur 3 9 8 20 Humerus 2 11 10 23 Tibia 4 6 9 19 Radius 3 15 4 1 23 Ulna 1 1 2 Metacarpus 1 3 1 5 Metapodial 3 3 Metatarsus 1 2 3 Tarsal 1 1 2 Phalanx 4 5 9Subtotal medium 38 103 66 2 209Total 50 121 88 2 261

Table 9. Animal bone counts listing frequencies (% NISP) of skeletal element by chronological phase.

appear to have been slaughtered very young, which hints that pork meat was obtained from domesticated animals. Skeletal element abundance profiles (Table 9; Figs. 15–17) show the presence of limb, axis and head remains, with noticeably low numbers of feet. These low numbers may show that primary butchery and skinning was carried out away from the excavated area. Taphonomic analysis


49

Figure 16. Animal bone counts showing frequencies (%NISP) of skeletal element by size-class for mammals from the EB IB sample.

Figure 15. Animal bone counts showing frequencies (%NISP) of skeletal element by size-class for mammals from the Chalcolithic sample.


50

Figure 17. Animal bone counts showing frequencies (%NISP) of skeletal element by size-class for mammals from the EB II sample.

shows a higher degree of bone burning in the Chalcolithic than in the Bronze Age. This could indicate changes in meat preparation habits, from roasting to cooking. Bones in the assemblage were commonly cracked for marrow. Carnivore gnawing was a significant post-depositional bone destruction agent.

THE FLINT ASEMMBLAGES (J.Z. and O.B.)The lithic finds from Ein Zippori comprise 12,118 artifacts obtained from five layers (Table 10). Like the pottery, all assemblages contained elements from several periods, thus suggesting intrusions and disturbances (see explanation below). The assemblage of Layer III is well represented whereas the ones from Layers II, IV and V are less so. Notably the assemblage from Layer I is underrepresented. The differences in sizes of the assemblages between Layer III and the layers above it (I–II) are probably due to extensive knapping. Intrusive artifacts, mainly abraded and patinated Middle Palaeolithic items, were found in all layers. These were not subjected to further classification and were counted within the debris (Table 11).

Layer VThe assemblage consists of 1,398 items and displays a dominance of flakes (53%) within the debitage, whereas

blade and bladelets comprise 15.1%. A total of 30 cores were found, most extremely utilized. The core types consist of flake cores (n=16), tested nodule (n=6), core fragments (n=4), blade cores (n=2) and bladelet cores (n=2) (Table 11).

The tools comprise 103 items (Table 11). The most frequent types are perforators (14.6%) followed by retouched blades (13.6%), retouched pieces (13.6%) and scrapers (12.6%). The perforators consist mainly of awls and a few borers. It is important to note that one of the borers (Fig. 18:1) displays invasive pressure retouch on its lateral edges that is typical to the PPNB period (Barzilai 2010b: Type III4E). Among the retouched blades is a pointed blade that may represent a projectile in preparation (Fig. 18:2).

Burins, notches and denticulates comprise 9.7% each. Among the burins there is a burin on a break made on a bidirectional débordante blade (Fig. 18:3). Projectile points comprise 7.8% of the tools and include two complete pressure retouched Byblos points (Fig. 18:4–5) that are characteristic of the Final PPNB (Barzilai 2010b; Gopher 1999). The rest of the projectiles include an atypical Amuq point and five tang fragments of which two were modified by pressure flaking (Fig. 18:6–7).

Bifaces and multiple tools each comprise 5.6% of the


51

tools. The bifaces consist of two axes, one of which is complete (Fig. 19:1); a pick; and three bifacially retouched items. The sickle blades (4.9%) consist of five items. One is a typical PPNB sickle blade that was modified on a bidirectional blade (Fig. 18:8); one is a backed fragment typical of the Early Chalcolithic period; and three fragments. The remaining tools include a rectangular microlith and a varia item.

In sum the lithic assemblage of Layer V clearly exhibits PPNB types: projectile points, sickle blades, burins and perforators on bidirectional blade blanks (e.g. Barzilai 2010b; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). The only exception is a Chalcolithic sickle blade that probably represents an intrusion from Layer IV.

Layer IVThe Layer IV assemblage consists of 552 artifacts (Table 10). Like Layer V, flakes are dominant within the debitage (55%) while blade and bladelets are less frequent (16%). The 12 cores found in this layer are utilized and comprise

tested nodules (n=4), bladelet cores (n=3), cores on flakes (n=2), core fragments (n=2) and a flake core (Table 11).

The tools consist of 83 items and comprise 15% of the total assemblage (Table 11). The most frequent tool type is retouched pieces (42.2%). The perforators (14.5%) are the second most frequent, followed by notches and denticulates (10.8%) and retouched blades (9.6%). The perforators mainly consist of awls; there are a few borers, multiple borers and a massive borer. Scrapers and burins comprise 8.4% each. The scrapers were mainly made on flake blanks while the burins were mainly made on blade blanks. Three burins were made on bidirectional blade blanks (Fig. 19:2–3) typical of the PPNB and probably representing an intrusion from Layer V.

The remainder of the tools include two sickle blades (Fig. 19:4–5), two multiple tools and a biface. The retouch type and morphometrics of the sickle blades are characteristic of the Chalcolithic period (Vardi 2011). The only biface is a fragment.

Layers I II III IV V Total n % n % n % n % n % n %

DebitagePE 10 27 65 29.7 1,439 29.5 55 19.6 131 22.8 1,700 28.4Flakes 20 54.1 110 50.2 2,609 53.4 154 55 305 53 3,198 53.4Blades 3 8.1 21 9.6 357 7.3 34 12.1 85 14.8 500 8.3Bladelets 2 5.4 0 0 147 3 11 3.9 2 0.3 162 2.7BS 0 0 0 0 29 0.6 7 2.5 0 0 36 0.6RB 0 0 1 0.5 39 0.8 5 1.8 4 0.7 49 0.8CT 1 2.7 1 0.5 12 0.2 1 0.4 2 0.3 17 0.3CTE 0 0 12 5.5 161 3.3 12 4.3 30 5.2 215 3.6BF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2.6 15 0.3Overpassed 1 2.7 9 4.1 89 1.8 1 0.4 1 0.2 101 1.7 Subtotaldebitage 37 100.0 219 100.0 4,882 100.0 280 100.0 575 100.0 5,993 100.0

Debris

Chips 2 11.8 16 19.3 1,026 41.5 82 46.3 225 32.6 1,351 39.3

Chunks 4 23.5 21 25.3 482 19.5 18 10.2 116 16.8 641 18.6Intrusive 11 64.7 46 55.4 963 39 77 43.5 349 50.6 1,446 42.1Subtotaldebris 17 100 83 100 2,471 100 177 100 690 100 3,438 100

Debitage 37 32.7 219 29.8 4,882 52.4 280 50.7 575 41.1 5,993 49.5Debris 17 15 83 11.3 2,471 26.5 177 32.1 690 49.4 3,438 28.4Tools 57 50.4 391 53.1 1,695 18.2 83 15 103 7.4 2,329 19.2Cores 2 1.8 43 5.8 271 2.9 12 2.2 30 2.1 358 3Total 113 100.0 736 100.0 9,319 100.0 552 100.0 1398 100.0 12,118 100.0

Table 10. Flints breakdown by strata.


52

Layers I II III IV V Totaln % n % n % n % n % n %

Tools Projectilepoints 0 0 1 0.3 4 0.2 0 0 8 7.8 13 0.6

Perforators 4 7 51 13 209 12.3 12 14.5 15 14.6 291 12.5Sickle blades 3 5.3 9 2.3 79 4.7 2 2.4 5 4.9 98 4.2 Retouchedblades 12 21.1 47 12 219 12.9 8 9.6 14 13.6 300 12.9

Retouchedpieces 15 26.3 153 39.1 640 37.8 35 42.2 13 12.6 856 36.8

Scrapers 4 7 42 10.7 130 7.7 7 8.4 14 13.6 197 8.5Burins 0 0 7 1.8 55 3.2 7 8.4 10 9.7 79 3.4 Notches &denticulates 12 21.1 50 12.8 227 13.4 9 10.8 10 9.7 308 13.2

Microliths 0 0 5 1.3 17 1 0 0 1 1 23 1Bifaces 1 1.8 8 2 34 2 1 1.2 6 5.8 50 2.1Multiples 5 8.8 15 3.8 53 3.1 2 2.4 6 5.8 81 3.5Varia 1 1.8 3 0.8 28 1.7 0 0 1 1 33 1.4Total tools 57 100.0 391 100.0 1,695 100.0 83 100.0 103 100.0 2,329 100.0CoresFlakes 1 50 15 34.9 100 36.9 1 8.3 16 53.3 133 37.2Blades 0 0 2 4.7 29 10.7 0 0 2 6.7 33 9.2Bladelets 1 50 1 2.3 35 12.9 3 25 2 6.7 42 11.7Flake/bladelets 0 0 4 9.3 14 5.2 0 0 0 0 18 5Flake/blades 0 0 2 4.7 7 2.6 0 0 0 0 9 2.5Cores on flake 0 0 3 7 5 1.8 2 16.7 0 0 10 2.8Tested nodules 0 0 6 14 40 14.8 4 33.3 6 20 56 15.6Fragments 0 0 10 23.3 41 15.1 2 16.7 4 13.3 57 15.9Total cores 2 100.0 43 100.0 271 100.0 12 100.0 30 100.0 358 100.0

Table 11. Flint tools and cores breakdown by strata.

In sum, the small lithic assemblage of Layer IV exhibits a mixture of PPNB and Chalcolithic components.

Layer IIIThe assemblage from both phases of Layer III is quite large when compared to the other layers, comprising 9,319 items (Table 10). This layer is also dominated by flakes 53.4% and the frequency of the total of blades and bladelet is reduced to 10.3% of the debitage. A total of 271 cores were found in Layer III (Table 11). The most frequent are flake cores, (36.9%) some large enough for further flake production. The other core types are fragments (15.1%), tested nodules (14.8%), bladelet (12.9%), blade (10.7%), flake/bladelet (5.2%), flake/blade (2.6%) and core on

flake (1.8%). Most of the blade cores are semi-pyramidal single platform cores (Fig. 20:1–2). In addition there are two recycled bidirectional cores. The bladelet cores are composed of pyramidal and semi-pyramidal single platform cores and seem to represent intrusive Chalcolithic cores, probably from Layer IV. It should be noted that the frequency of the sum of blade and bladelet cores is 23.6%, which is quite near the frequency of the flake cores, and is in contrast with the frequencies of flakes and blade/bladelet in the debitage.

Tools comprise 1,695 items (Table 11). Similar to Layer IV, the frequency of tools is 18.2% of the total. The most frequent tool type is retouched pieces (37.8%) followed by notches and denticulates (13.4%), retouched blades


53

Figure 18. PPNB flint tools from layer V. 1) borer; 2) pointed blade; 3) burin; 4–5) Byblos points; 6–7) projectile point tang fragments; 8) sickle blade.

cm


54

Figure 19. PPNB and Chalcolithic flint tools from layers V–IV. Layer V: 1) axe. Layer IV: 2–3) burins on bidirectional blades; 4–5) backed and truncated sickle blades.

cm


55

Figure 20. Chalcolithic flint tools and cores from layer III. 1) blade core; 2) bladelet core; 3–4) micro-borers; 5) tabular scraper; 6) biface on tabular flint.

cm


56

(12.9%) and perforators (12.3%). Most of the blades seem to have been produced from single platform cores. The perforators consist mainly of awls followed by becs and borers. The few micro-borers (Fig. 20:3–4) that are typical of the Chalcolithic period (Rosen 1997) are probably intrusive from Layer IV. The remainder includes scrapers (7.7%), sickle blades (4.7%), burins (3.2%), multiple tools (3.1%), bifaces (2%), varia (1.7%), microliths (1%) and projectile points (0.2%).

The projectile points include three tang fragments, probably of Amuq points as attested by the collateral pressure flaking. These fragments are attributed to the PPNB occupation at the site, probably intrusions from Layer V. Another is a transversal arrowhead that is characteristic of the ECh period (Gopher 1994). The scrapers were mostly modified on flakes. Among them are oval-shaped tabular scrapers that are characteristic of the Chalcolithic and EB (Rosen 1997) (Fig. 20:5). Most of the sickle blades were backed with a fine denticulated working edge usually with gloss. They consist mainly of Chalcolithic types that were modified on unstandardized unidirectional blades (Vardi 2011) (Fig. 21:1–4). They include backed and truncated sickles with various retouches on the working edge: fine denticulation, coarse denticulation and wide denticulation. The other sickles were made on Canaanean blades and are typical of the Early Bronze Age (Rosen 1997). These are much fewer (n=11) than the Chalcolithic ones and consist mainly of fragments of reaping knives, and backed and retouched items.

The burins were mainly made on flake and blades. They consist of burins on a break, dihedral, on a truncation, multiple and transversal. There are several intrusive PPNB types that were modified on bidirectional blades. The bifaces consist of six adzes, four chisels, four picks, three axes and a few fragments and other types (Figs. 21: 5–6; 22:1–2; Fig. 22:1–2). One was a thin biface made on tabular flint resembling tabular scrapers (Fig. 20:6).

The diagnostic tools date to PPNB, ECh and EB periods. The PPNB is represented by tang fragments and a few burins that were modified on bidirectional blades. The Chalcolithic is the most dominant and is represented by the bifaces, backed and truncated sickle blades, a transversal arrowhead, micro-borers, tabular knives and scrapers and unidirectional blade/lets cores. The EB, dated according to architecture and pottery, is represented only by a few Canaanean sickle blades.

The lithic assemblage seems to be a mixture of ECh and EB, with minor intrusions of PPNB that may be due to disturbances from constructing stone foundations from this layer.

Layer IIThe Layer II assemblage consists of 736 artifacts (Table 10). Like Layer III, it is dominated by flakes (50.2 %) whereas the total blade component is 9.6%. A total of 43 cores were found in this layer (Table 11). These consist of flake cores (34.9%), core fragments (23.3%), tested nodules (14%), flake/bladelet cores (9.3%), cores on flake (7%), blade cores (4.7%), flake/blade cores (4.7%) and bladelet cores (2.3%). Notably some of the flake cores were still large enough to produce additional blanks.

Tools comprise 391 items (53.1%, Table 11). This is an extremely high frequency and represents quite a drastic change compared to Layer III.

Retouched pieces are the most frequent tool type (39.1%) followed by perforators (13%), notches and denticulates (12.8%), retouched blade (12%) and scrapers (10.7%). The remainder includes multiple tools (3.8%), sickle blades (2.3%), bifaces (2%), burins (1.8%), microliths (1.3%), varia (0.8%) and a projectile point (0.3%).

Diagnostic tools that could be assigned to specific time periods include ECh and EB types. The ECh component consists of a bifacial tabular knife, backed and truncated sickle blades and bifaces (Fig. 23:1–2). The EB includes retouched Canaanean blades and a complete Beth Shean point (Fig. 23:3–5; see Bankirer 1999). Like Layer III, the lithic assemblage of this layer is a mixture of ECh and EB.

Layer IThe Layer I assemblages consists of 113 artifacts (Table 10) and also exhibits a predominance of flake technology; within the debitage the frequency of flakes is 54.1 %, while the total of blades and bladelets is only 13.5%. Only two cores were found in this layer, a bladelet core and a flake core (Table 11). Both are utilized. The bladelet core is characteristic of the Chalcolithic period.

The tools comprise 57 items (50.4%, Table 11). This high frequency is similar to that of Layer II. Retouched pieces are the most frequent tool type (26.3%) followed by retouched blades and notches and denticulates (21.1% each). Multiple tools (8.8%), scrapers (7%) and perforators (7%) are also common. The remainder includes three


57

Figure 21. Chalcolithic flint tools from Layer III. 1–4) backed and truncated sickle blades; 5–6) bifaces.

cm


58

Figure 22. Chalcolithic flint tools from Layer III. 1) adze; 2) pick.

cm


59

Figure 23. Flint tools from Layers II–I. 1) Chalcolithic biface on tabular flint; 2) backed and truncated sickle blade; 3) Beth Shean point; 4–5) Canaanean blades; 6) backed and truncated sickle on a flake.

cm


60

Type / Layer I III IV V TotalGrinding stones 5 1 6Grinding slabs 5 1 6Pounders 2 2Vessels 4 1 5Small mortars 3 3Pestles 1 1 2Perforated stones 1 1Miscellaneous 2 1 3Total 1 23 1 3 28

Table 12. Groundstone tools according to layers.

sickle blades, a biface and varia. One of the sickles seems to represent a Late Bronze-Iron Age type on a flake, as it is made on a wide and thick blade that was backed and truncated and bears no gloss (Fig. 23:6; Rosen 1997).

In sum, the lithic assemblage of Layer I, like the rest of the finds from this layer, is mixed and has hardly any diagnostic tools.

SummaryThe lithic assemblages from Ein Zippori are mixed due to disturbances which could have occurred due to construction activities and bioturbation. The diagnostic tools and formal technologies attest to three periods. Projectile points, sickle blades and burins and the use of bidirectional blade technology are characteristic of the PPNB (Barkai 2005; Barzilai 2010b; Gopher 1994). The Chalcolithic period is represented by sickle blades and bifacial tools (Barkai 2005; Vardi 2011). The Early Bronze Age is represented by Canaanean blades and by a Beth Shean point (Bankirer 1999; Rosen 1997).

Despite being mixed, Layer V can clearly be attributed to the PPNB while Layers IV–II are dominated by Chalcolithic elements. These cultural attributions correspond with other finds: PPNB lithics with almost no pottery in Layer V; Chalcolithic lithics and pottery in Layer IV. On the other hand the diagnostic lithics in layers III–II do not correspond with the pottery and architectural elements. The lithic assemblages of Layers III–II are dominated by Chalcolithic types although EB types were noted too. The EB architecture and pottery types assign these layers respectively to the EB I B and EB II periods with great confidence. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Chalcolithic lithic components represent refuse from Layer IV that was redeposited in Layers III–II due to digging wall foundations for the EB I B and EB II buildings.

THE GROUNDSTONE TOOLS AND VESSELS (A.V.)The 2007 season of excavations at Ein Zippori yielded a small assemblage of 28 groundstone tools. Most of the items (n=23) were found in both phases of Layer III, dated to EB IB, making it possible to analyze only the artifacts from this layer.

Identified raw materials included limestone (n=7) and flint (n=1), which could have been obtained in the immediate vicinity of the site, as well as basalt (n=7), vesicular basalt (n=9), scoria (n=1) and sandstone (n=1).

Following Wright's terminology (Wright 1992), grinding slabs, grinding stones, and vessels form the majority of the items (Table 12).

Grinding stonesTogether with grinding slabs, this is the most frequent tool type in the assemblage. Of the six grinding stones, two complete ones were made on flat round limestone pebbles and bear evidence for battering and flaking along their circumference (see Rosenberg et al. 2008); one (73x65x30 mm; 160 gr.; Fig. 24:1) was found in Layer III and the other (78x69x21 mm; 155 gr.) originated just below Layer V, probably deriving from that layer. Two others were made on basalt and belong to large plano-convex grinding stones. The remaining are a fragment of scoria (Fig. 24:2) with two flat surfaces, and the edge of a plano-convex grinding stone made of sandstone. The relatively wide variety of raw materials used for the making of grinding stones is of note.Grinding slabs Two thick (>40 mm) objects made of vesicular basalt bear slightly concave ground surfaces, characteristic of grinding slabs. The better preserved one was found in Layer III (Fig. 24:3), the other in Layer V. Four additional items that bear clear evidence of grinding were too small to determine whether they represent grinding slabs or grinding stones. However, as all were relatively thick (41–58 mm) and made of vesicular basalt, it is probable that they represent grinding slabs.PoundersA complete cuboid pounder (97x89x76 mm; 832 gr.; Fig. 24:4) had four ground facets and signs of battering on the remaining two. A fragment made of dense basalt, with two ground facets and a curved battered face, may represent another pounder.


61

No. Basket Locus Description1 1151 123 Grinding stone, pebble2 1103 107 Grinding stone, scoria3 1112 102 Grinding slab, vesicular basalt4 1109 114 Pounder, basalt

Figure 24. Groundstone tools.


62

No. Basket Locus Description1 1099 107 Bowl, basalt2 1030 102 Mortar, limestone

Figure 25. Groundstone tools and vessels.


63

Vessels Five fragments of vessels were found, all made of basalt. Of the four fragments found in Layer III, three (e.g. Fig. 25:1) were bowl rims (estimated diameter 24–36 cm), and one was a vessel's wall. No incisions in the form of triangles, typical of Late Chalcolithic basalt vessels, were noticed. The fifth fragment, found in Layer IV, could have belonged to a flat base with a concave floor. However, as it was made of coarse-grained basalt and lacks any evidence of polish, it might actually belong to a grinding slab.MortarsThree small mortars were found. Two are rounded cavities made on an amorphous stone (inner diameter 35 mm, depth 12 mm) and on a pebble (inner diameter ca. 40 mm, depth 8 mm). The third cavity is elongated in shape (73x42 mm, depth 17 mm; Fig. 25:2) and was made on a flint nodule covered with limestone, probably taking advantage of an existing natural cavity; battering signs on the bottom of this last item may indicate the crude shaping of a base.PestlesTwo items could, perhaps, be identified as pestles. One is an elongated pebble (80x44x24 mm) of vesicular basalt that was found on the surface of the site and bears battering marks on both its ends and lateral sides. The other is a medial fragment of an elongated limestone item, oval in cross section (ca. 28x24 mm), with smoothed surface.Perforated stonesThe surface of a round basalt item (estimated diameter ca. 40 mm, height 51 mm; estimated weight 52 gr.) was nicely polished and its center was drilled from both sides. The perforation is quite steep, making the object similar to a mace head but much smaller.MiscellaneousA flat limestone pebble (ca. 40x21 mm) and a fragment of another limestone item had their edges shaped by grinding on both faces. The function of a small black pebble with a surface that was well polished (intentionally or naturally) remains unclear.Discussion: the groundstones of Layer IIIThe composition of the Layer III groundstone assemblage is comparable to those recovered from contemporary nearby sites such as En Shadud (Braun 1985:89–99) and Yiftahel (Braun 1997; Ch. 12), with regard to their general typological composition, the specific types of tools represented and in the raw materials used. Contemporary strata at sites that are located at some distance from Ein Zippori, such as Tel Bet Yerah and Qiryat Ata, also yielded

similar groundstone assemblages (Getzov 2006:26–27; Rowan 2003). Thus, our assemblage seems to be typical of those from sites in the northern part of the country in the EB IB.

AN ANIMAL RELIEF (I.M.)An almost unique example of what appears to be a figurative depiction of an animal was found on the surface of the broken base of a jar. The lines of the figure are in relief (Fig. 26). The base (ca. 19 cm in diameter, ca. 1 cm thick) was found on a probable stone floor or surface in Layer III (Phase b) dated to the EB I. It seems that the base was cut off after the vessel was broken. The clay is light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4) in color and has medium white grits; the core is light gray (10YR 7/1; Fig. 26). In the inner part of the base the coil marks are visible, showing the way the base of the vessel was built (E. Kamaisky, pers. observation).

The item seems to be EB I in date according to its fabric, and was found in an EB I context. While it is possible that in the past certain depictions were designed not to be visible, the assumption that the figure was done purposely on the base of the vessel is difficult to accept. Since the jar would be standing on the floor or other surface the motif would not be appreciated by passersby. Usually potter marks or impressions on pottery vessels were made on the exterior. Furthermore, the design was done while the clay was leather-hard.

A parallel to our item is the relief of one or two oxen from Beit Yerah (Sussman 1980) found on an EB (I?) holemouth jar. The vessel was totally restored and the suggestion by Sussman (1980:75) is that the holemouth was positioned (deliberately or not) on an incised surface (stone?) bearing the motif appearing in the base of the jar. We will come back to this question.Description of the reliefThe design (Fig. 27) depicts an animal with an elongated body; the head, to the left, is rounded-oval, slightly wider than the body. From the lower part of the head, two small arched lines appear, representing probably pincers. To the right, at the lower extremity of the body there is a long and up-curved tail or stinger. Three legs (in three pairs of lines) are attached to the body from the left. The front extremity is slightly arched at the front; the middle and back extremities are angled to the back. The right legs are not depicted.


64

Figure 26. Base of pottery vessel from Layer III with an animal depiction in relief.

While it is difficult to establish at first glance which animal is depicted, we suggest that it is a type of scorpion because of the elongated body and the head attached to it (the cephalothorax), the legs on the left, the frontal pincers (pedipals?) and the possible stinger in the back. Scorpions have eight legs and in our case it looks that we have only three on the left side, while there are no legs on the right site (but see below). The stinger appears more like a “tail”,

not suspended on the back of the animal with the tip pointing forwards.

There are other possibilities, if one turns the figure upside down; one is that it is a running mammal with an elongated body and a long tail (a feline? a bull?), but its number of legs and the lines in front of the head do not fit with any characteristic of the mammals. In any case we must keep in mind that the rendering of naturalistic figures does not always produce an exact replication of reality.


65

Figure 27. Drawing of the suggested reconstruction of the motif on the base of the pottery vessel from Layer III.

DiscussionWe suggest that in our case the motif on the base of the jar was created (deliberately or not) while the vessel’s clay was leather-hard and placed above an incised surface with this motif, as suggested in the case of Bet Yerah (Sussman 1980:75). The fact that the right legs do not appear could be because the jar was located only partially above the design surface, and only the center and left sides of the scorpion were registered in the base. A suggested reconstruction of the original incised design is provided with dashed lines (Fig. 27).

Except for the bull/s from Bet Yerah, relief depictions of animals are unfortunately unknown during the EB in the southern Levant on pottery vessels, and thus we could only make comparisons on a stylistic basis to drawings of animals on some tabular scrapers. One from Lower Horvat `Illin (Marder et al. 1995:80, fig. 11:1) seems to portray an animal (a bird?) with an elongated body similar to ours in style and the rounded head attached to the left extreme. Another is from Gezer (Macalister 1912: pl. CXXXIX:22), representing a multi-legged animal with tail and horns or ears. One example from


66

Tel Esdar (Kochavi 1969: fig. 20.2) depicts an elongated figure with a round end, probably the head. There are other examples of tabular scrapers from Arad (Schick 1978: pl. 87:6) and Mizpe Shalem (Greenhut 1989: fig. G.22:1, 2, 4) but the designs are not clear.The parallels in flint objects only show that there is some similarity in the motifs and style of EB artistic expression. Unfortunately, the iconography of the EB does not provide many examples of animals depicted on pottery vessels. There are mainly seal impressions from the EB I and EB II (Beck 1967, 1995; Ben-Tor 1978), the latter on metallic ware vessels (Greenberg 2001; Joffe 2001). Scorpions appear in the iconography of the Levant and the Near East in earlier periods (Schmidt 2010; Stordeur 2010). A seal impression from Choga Mish (Elam), containing animals and humans working with churns, depicts a scorpion (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: pls. 44:D, G; 146:E). According to Amiran (1976: fig. 2:1), this impression must be paralleled with our Ghassulian Chalcolithic based on the presence of these churns.For periods contemporary to the Levantine EB, some scorpions are represented in seals from Northern Syria, the Upper Euphrates and Elam (e.g. Amiet 1963: figs. 8, 10). During the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Ages the motif of the scorpion appears more often in seals and scarabs in the southern Levant (Eggler 2008). In several early and late cases it can be see that some of the scorpions have only two or three pairs of legs (as in our example) and some of them have no pincers. Further investigation is needed to understand the iconography and probable symbolic function of the relief on the base of the jar from Ein Zippori.

OTHER FINDS (N.Gu.)ShellsFive shells were discovered at the site. They include two worn Glycymeris shells with naturally perforated umbos and two broken specimens of Donax trunculus. In addition, one unrecognizable shell fragment was found on the surface of the site. Glycymeris is very abundant on the sea shores of Israel and constitutes a significant part of the shell assemblages of Neolithic and EB sites like Yiftahel and Jericho. Donax trunculus is an edible marine species from the Mediterranean Sea which appears in much smaller quantities (Bar-Yosef and Heller 1987).

Clay objectThis is a lower part of a geometrical item with circular section (measurements: 14×17 mm). The broken object was made of pale brown clay with an uneven, eroded surface that exhibits remains of polish. Very similar items were found at the PPNB and PN levels at Munhata (Garfinkel 1995: fig. 19:11–13; fig. 35). Stone beadsTwo stone beads were found at Ein Zippori. One is a brown disk bead (8×4 mm), probably made of sandstone with a small hole. The other is a black, cylinder-shaped bead (10×7 mm) made of obsidian. Based on PXRF analysis, the source of the obsidian comes from Bingöl B in eastern Anatolia (E. Rice pers. comm.). Another two or three obsidian beads were discovered in the extensive excavations at Ein Zippori in 2011–2013 by Milevski and Getzov (the materials are under study).

All the finds above were found in EB contexts. However, the clay object and the obsidian bead are more typical of Early Chalcolithic assemblages. Recent studies of obsidian (Garfinkel 2011; Gopher et al. 2011) note the general decline of the obsidian trade by the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and the near absence of obsidian in Early Bronze Age sites (Rosen et al. 2005). Obsidian beads are a rather rare find in the southern Levant. The majority of obsidian artifacts recovered in excavations is debitage and blanks, except for a few decorative items from the Early Chalcolithic sites of Hagoshrim and Kabri (Gopher et al. 2011).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The 2007 salvage excavations at Ein Zippori have exposed a multilayered proto-historic site that was inhabited during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods. The exposure of the PPNB archaeological remains is too small for drawing any explicit conclusions regarding the size, nature and chronological sub-phasing of the Neolithic settlement. Nevertheless, some suggestions may be offered if data is correlated with two other Neolithic exposures, one near Illut Junction exposed in the 2011–2013 project (Fig. 2), the second during the 2008 excavation at Givat Rabi East, ca.1.5 km to the east (Barzilai and Milevski 2010).

The latter revealed two PPNB lithic workshop dumps containing bidirectional blades and bifacial tools on top of flint outcrops (Barzilai and Milevski 2010). Although no


67

absolute dates were available the lithic production at the Givat Rabi East flint outcrops was attributed to the Final PPNB on the basis of techno-typological characteristics (Barzilai and Milevski 2010). This corresponds to the PPNB lithic component recovered in Layers V–III, in particular the presence of pressure retouched Byblos and Amuq points, characteristic of the Final PPNB (e.g. Gopher 1999; Barzilai 2010b).

Limited evidence for PPNB architecture was recorded in the 2011–2013 excavations in the form of lime-plastered floor fragment at the southeastern excavation area adjacent to Illut Junction (Area N; Milevski and Getzov pers. comm.).

If indeed the Neolithic remains from Givat Rabi and Ein Zippori are contemporary, then it is likely that the Neolithic settlement extended from the Ein Zippori spring in the west to the Givat Rabi flint outcrops to the east. The “domestic zone” with lime plastered structures was centered at the area of Illut Junction, while the “industrial zone” where specialized flint knapping activities were carried out near the flint outcrops at Givat Rabi East. The location of specialized flint knapping workshops nearby a large Neolithic settlement was recognized also at Yiftahel and Ain Ghazal. The Givat Rabi East-Ein Zippori affiliation seems to reestablish the relationship between the Triangulation Point 1 site (near Kibbutz Hasolelim) and Yiftahel, located ca. one km apart (Oshri et al. 1999). Apparently this outcrop was the major supplier of flint nodules and preformed cores to the PPNB village (Garfinkel 2007). An analogous pattern is also attested in the Amman region in central Jordan where highly lustrous purple-pink flint blocks were quarried at Wadi Huweijir and transported a distance of ca. 2 km to the village of Ain Ghazal for further production (Quintero 1996). It seems that in all three cases the dedicated workshops functioned as “industrial zones” for the large settlements.

The Early Chalcolithic settlement at Ein Zippori, though excavated in limited area in 2007, is well represented by pottery (Layer IV) and lithic tools (Layers IV–II). Both attest to an intensive occupation of the Wadi Rabah culture, which continued through the next stage of the Early Chalcolithic period. Notably this observation was later confirmed by the new 2011–13 excavations which exposed a large portion of the Early Chalcolithic village (Getzov and Milevski 2012). Diagnostic Wadi Rabah lithic artifacts were also recovered (Layers IV–II), including backed

and truncated sickle blades as well as thin axes made on tabular flint and adzes with trapezoid cross section (e.g. Barkai 2005). The discovery of an obsidian bead sourced to Bingöl, as well as chipped obsidian artifacts from the 2011–2013 seasons whose sources are also Anatolian (E. Rice, pers. comm.), add to the accumulating archaeological data on inter-regional networks between Anatolia and the southern Levant during the Early Chalcolithic period (e.g. Gopher et al. 2011).

The Early Bronze Age occupation at Ein Zippori was very intensive as attested by the architectural remains and rich pottery and ground stone tool assemblages. Like the Early Chalcolithic, this observation was confirmed by new excavations which exposed the outlines of a large EB IB village (Milevski and Getzov 2013). Sporadic architectural remains of the EB II existed at the site. It seems, however, that the main town during the period was located at the summit of Givat Rabi.

The Ein Zippori Early Bronze Age pottery and ground stone tools shows similarities but also some regional differences from other EB IB sites in northern Israel: Tel Bet Yerah, En Shadud, Tel Qashish and Abu edh-Dhahab. The discovery of the relief of a probable scorpion on the base of a pottery vessel is noteworthy. Despite being rare during the southern Levantine Early Bronze Age, this known motif from other areas of the Near East could have some symbolic meaning to the community of Ein Zippori and possibly beyond. Scorpions may symbolize a protective animal, reproduction capabilities in daily life, and strengthening political power (Eggler 2008).

Facets of the local economy at the site of Ein Zippori can be elucidated by the analysis of the faunal remains. Faunal exploitation during the Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods is similar and emphasized caprine, suid and cattle utilization.

The archaeological finds from Ein Zippori and data obtained in other excavations presented below add important information on the proto-historic settlement pattern from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age periods in the region. The earliest Neolithic occupation in the region is found at the site of Bir al Maksur, which is the only site dated to the PPNA (Malinski-Buller et al. 2009). The nature of the settlement is not clear yet but it undoubtedly exhibits spatial organization as revealed by a concentration of human bones (probably burials) at one area of the site and cobble surfaces at another.


68

The settlement pattern during the PPNB is better understood thanks to the excavations at Yiftahel, Kfar HaHoresh, Givat Rabi East, Hanaton, Tel Mitzpe Zvulun North and Kfar Kanna (Fig. 1). It seems that the key PPNB village in the region was Yiftahel, which is estimated to extend over 40 dunams (Garfinkel et al. 2012). The various archaeological expeditions to Yiftahel revealed an excellently preserved and securely dated PPNB village with several mud brick buildings with lime-plastered floors, great quantities of knapping waste attesting to large-scale lithic production, burials and ritual activities and several silos with charred remains of domesticated legumes (Vicia faba and Lens culinaris).

Smaller villages in the region were found at Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North, Hanaton and Kfar Kanna (Barzilai et al. 2013, Nativ n.d., H. Smithline pers. comm.). Their size was probably smaller than Yiftahel - up to 10 dunams. Notably all share similar lithic blade technology and probably domestic architecture with Yiftahel. Interestingly domesticated legumes (Vicia faba and Lens culinaris) were recovered at Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North (V. Carracuta pers. comm.).

The only exceptional PPNB site in the region is Kfar HaHoresh, dated from the Early through Late PPNB (Goring-Morris et al. 1995; 2001; 2008). Its exclusive geographical location near the summit of the Nazareth Hills and not within the lowland alluvial valley, as well as the profusion of human burials (ca. 70) discovered there lead the excavator to suggest it was a regional burial ground for the neighbouring PPNB villages (Goring-Morris 2000; 2005).

Settlement in the region in the Pottery Neolithic period is less known and seems to be more limited. The discovery of Yarmukian and Jericho IX settlements at Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North and Yiftahel respectively may suggest fluctuations of smaller settlements. The former was exposed in 2011 when remains of what seems to be a Yarmukian courtyard house were exposed (Barzilai et al. 2013). Notably the Pottery Neolithic layer at the site is characterized by Yarmukian lithics and pottery but the most diagnostic finds were ca. two dozen Yarmukian clay figurines (Barzilai et al. 2013). A Jericho IX settlement was discovered in the 2007–8 excavations at Yiftahel in Area G (Khalaily et al. 2008). This included an almost complete rectangular structure associated with typical Jericho IX pottery sherds and lithics.

During the Early Chalcolithic there is a peak in the size of settlement as attested by the extremely large village at Ein Zippori (Getzov and Milevski 2012). Another site was identified and excavated at Hanaton (Nativ n.d.), but it seems to be much smaller, perhaps a satellite site of Ein Zippori. The finds from the new excavations at Ein Zippori clearly indicate it was a large affluent village with strong interregional relations as evidenced by imported items (Getzov and Milevski 2012).

The Late Chalcolithic period (Ghassulian culture) is present but is limited in finds and space within the sites of Ein Zippori, Yiftahel, Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North and Hanaton. It is mainly expressed in lithics and pottery; hardly any structures have been revealed. For the moment it is unclear if the finds attest to a large settlement in the basin of Nahal Zippori whose remains have not yet been identified.

The Early Bronze IA is represented at Yiftahel and Kfar Kanna (Braun 1997; Smithline pers. comm.). Complete domestic structures, silos and installations were documented in the 1980's and 2007–2008 excavations at Yiftahel, indicating its importance during that period in the region (Braun 1997; Khalaily et al. 2008).

A considerable demographic expansion in the region clearly occurred during the Early Bronze IB when large settlements at Ein Zippori and Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North were established (Barzilai et al. 2013; Milevski and Getzov 2012). At the end of the Early Bronze Age IB it seems that these two sites, at least, were relocated to the upper hilly area of the Nahal Zippori Basin and transformed into fortified towns. A similar pattern was suggested to occur in other regions within the Galilee (e.g. Getzov et al. 2001).

In sum, although the settlement patterns in the Nahal Zippori basin demand further study, it is safe to state that this region exhibits a cultural continuum from the PPNB until the end of the Early Bronze IB. The continuity succeeded thanks to favorable ecological conditions around Nahal Zippori, in particular the presence of suitable land for cultivation and available fresh water which were the most essential resources for early village communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe excavation (Permit A-5128/2007) was directed by O. Barzilai on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). We wish to thank the IAA for permission to publish the article in this journal. The authors wish to thank the


69

following people for their assistance during the field work and research: O. Marder (area supervision), Y. Laban (administration), R. Mishayev, M. Kunin (surveying and drafting), A. Shapiro, L. Barda and D. Levi (GPS), H. Tahan-Rosen and C. Hersch (pottery drawing), C. Amit (studio photography), M. Smelansky (flint and groundstone drawing) and E. Rice (obsidian sourcing). Thanks are extended to S. Wolff for editing of this paper.

REFERENCESAmiet P. 1963. La glyptique syrienne archaique. Notes sur

la diffusion de la civilization mésopotamienne en Syrie du Nord. Syria 40: 57–83.

Amiran R. 1976. More about the Chalcolithic culture of Palestine and Tepe Yahya. Israel Exploration Journal 26: 157–162.

Bankirer R. 1999. The "Beth-Shean point" - A new type of tool from the Early Bronze Age I–II at Tel Beth Shean. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 29: 129–134.

Barkai R. 2005. Flint and Stone Axes as Cultural Markers: Socio-Economic Changes as Reflected in Holocene Flint Tool Industries of the Southern Levant (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 11). Berlin: ex-oriente.

Bar-Yosef D.E. and Heller J. 1987. Mollusca from Yiftah'el, Lower Galilee, Israel. Paléorient 13(1): 131–135.

Barzilai O. 2010a. ‘En Zippori: Preliminary report. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 122: http://www.hadasho t -e s i . o rg . i l / r epor t_de ta i l_eng .asp?id=1547&mag_id=117.

Barzilai O. 2010b. Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies: the Bidirectional Blade Industries (BAR International Series 2180). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Barzilai O. and Milevski I. 2010. Giv‘at Rabi East. Middle Palaeolithic and Neolithic workshop sites. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 122: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1587&mag_id=117.

Barzilai O., Vardi J., Liran R., Yegorov D., Covello-Paran K., van den Brink E.C.M., Yaroshevich A. and Berger U. 2013. The Nahal Zippori excavation project. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=2305.

Beck P. 1967. Problems in the Glyptic Art of Palestine. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University, New York.

Beck P. 1995. Issues in history of the Early Bronze Age art in Eretz–Israel. Cathedra 76: 3–33 (Hebrew with English abstract).

Behrensmeyer A. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4(1): 50–162.

Ben-Tor A. 1978. Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Palestine (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 22). Winona Lake: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Ben-Tor A., Bonfil R. and Zuckerman S. 2003. Tel Qashish, a Village in the Jezreel Valley (Qedem Reports 5). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Binford L.R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press.

Boessneck J. 1969. Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and goat (Capra hircus Linné). In: Brothwell D. and Higgs E., Science in Archaeology, pp. 331–358. London: Thames and Hudson.

Braun E. 1985. En Shadud, Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel (BAR International Series 249). Oxford.

Braun E. 1996. Salvage excavations at the Early Bronze Age site of Me‘ona: Final report. ‘Atiqot 28: 1–39.

Braun E. 1997. Yiftah‘el. Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel (IAA Reports 2). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Covello-Paran K. 2003. The Early Bronze Age occupation at Tel Gat-Hefer, lower Galilee, areas C and D. ‘Atiqot 44: 97–138

Dan J. and Raz Z. 1970. The Soil Association Map of Israel (1: 250,000). Beit Dagan: Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research (Hebrew with English abstract).

Delougaz P. and Kantor H.J. 1996. Chogha Mish I: The First Five Seasons of Excavations 1961–1971. Part. 2. Plates (Oriental Institute Publications 101). Chicago: The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

Driesch A. v.d., 1976. A Guide for the Measurements of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Eggler J. 2008. Scorpion. In: Iconography of Deities and Demons in the Ancient Near East. http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_idd_scorpion.pdf.

Esse D.L. 1989. Village potters in Early Bronze Palestine:


70

A case study. In: Leonard A. and Williams B.B. (eds.), Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene Kantor (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47), pp. 77–92. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

Gal Z. 2002. Settlement location in Nahal Zippori as a reflection of cultural diversity from the Neolithic through the Early Bronze Age II–III periods. In: van den Brink E.C.M. and E. Yannai E. (eds.), In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna, pp. 45–56. Tel Aviv: Ramot.

Garfinkel Y. 1992. The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha'ar Hagolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata (Israel) (Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français à Jerusalem 6). Paris: Association Paléorient.

Garfinkel Y. 1995. Human and Animal Figurines of Munhata (Israёl) (Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français à Jerusalem 8). Paris: Association Paléorient.

Garfinkel Y. 1987. Yiftahel: A Neolithic village from the seventh millennium B.C. in Lower Galilee, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 199–212.

Garfinkel Y. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant (Qedem 39). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Garfinkel Y. 2007. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B naviform industry of Yiftahel. In: Astruc L., Binder D. and Briois F. (eds.), Technical Systems and Near Eastern PPN Communities, pp. 203–213.Antibes: Editions APDCA.

Garfinkel Y. 2011. Obsidian distribution and cultural contacts in the southern Levant during the 7th Millennium cal. BC. In: Healey E., Campbell S. and Maeda O. (eds.), The State of the Stone. Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 13), pp. 403–409. Berlin: ex-oriente.

Garfinkel Y., Dag D., Khalaily H., Marder O., Milevski I. and Ronen A. (eds.). 2012. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Village of Yiftahel: The 1980s and 1990s Excavations. Berlin: ex-oriente.

Getzov N. 2004. Studies in the material culture of the western Galilee settlements in the Early Bronze IB in light of the excavations at Abu edh-Dhahab. ‘Atiqot 48: 35–50.

Getzov N. 2006. The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994–1995 (IAA Reports 28). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Getzov N. 2009. The pottery from strata 19–16, C8–C7. In: Getzov N., Lieberman-Wander R., Smithline H. and Syon D. (eds.), Horbat ‘Uza, The 1991 Excavations, Volume I: The Early Periods (IAA Reports 41), pp. 26–72. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Getzov N., Paz Y. and Gophna R. 2001. Shifting Urban Landscapes during the Early Bronze Age in the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Getzov N. and Milevski I. 2012. Ein Zippori, second season of excavations. Paper presented at The 24th Annual Meeting of the Israeli Prehistory Society. Weizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel.

Golani A. 2003. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata (IAA Reports 18). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Gopher A. 1994. Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant (ASOR Dissertation Series 10). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Gopher A. 1999. Lithic industries of the Neolithic period in the southern/central Levant. In: Kozłowski S.K. (ed.), The Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent: Late Prehistory of Greater Mesopotamia Lithic Industries, pp. 116–138 (BAR International Series 760). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Gopher A. and Gophna R. 1993. Cultures of the eighth and seventh millennia BP in the southern Levant: A review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 297–353.

Gopher A., Marder O. and Barkai R. 2011. An obsidian industry from Neolithic Hagoshrim, Upper Galilee. In Healey E., Campbell S. and Maeda O. (eds.), The State of the Stone Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 13), pp. 395–403. Berlin: ex-oriente.

Goring-Morris A.N. 2000. The quick and the dead: The social context of aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In: Kuijt I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, pp. 103–136. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Goring-Morris A.N. 2005. Life, death and the emergence of differential status in the Near Eastern Neolithic: Evidence from Kfar HaHoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel. In: Clarke J. (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, pp. 89–105. Oxford: Oxbow.


71

Goring-Morris A.N., Goren Y., Horwitz L.K. and Bar-Yosef D. 1995. Investigations at an Early Neolithic settlement in Lower Galilee: Results of the 1991 season at Kfar Hahoresh. ‘Atiqot 27: 37–62.

Goring-Morris A.N., Boaretto E. and Weiner S. 2001. Radiometric dating of the PPNB mortuary site of Kfar Hahoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel: Problems and preliminary Results. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 31: 213–217.

Goring-Morris A.N., Ashkenazi H., Barzilai O., Birkenfeld M., Eshed V., Goren Y., Horwitz L., Oron M. and Williams J. 2008. The 2007–8 excavation seasons at Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Antiquity 82: 318.

Grant A. 1982. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In: Wilson B., Grigson C. and Payne S. (eds.), Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, pp. 91–108 (BAR International Series 109). Oxford.

Grayson D. K. and Frey C.J. 2004. Measuring skeletal part representation in archaeological faunas. Journal of Taphonomy 2: 27–42.

Greenberg R. 2001. EB II–III Palestinian cylinder seal impression and the North Canaanite metallic ware. In: Wolff S. (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59 and ASOR Books 5), pp. 189–197. Chicago and Atlanta: Oriental Institute.

Greenberg R. and Porat N. 1996. A third millennium Levantine pottery production center. Petrography and provenance of the metallic ware of Northern Israel and adjacent regions. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 301: 5–24.

Greenhut Z. 1989. Flint tools. In: Bar-Adon P., Excavations in the Judean Desert. ‘Atiqot 9: 60–77 (Hebrew).

Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T. and Ryan P.D. 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4.

Joffe A.H. 2001. Early Bronze Age seal impressions from the Jezreel Valley and the problem of sealing in the southern Levant. In: Wolff S. (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memoryof Douglas L. Esse (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59 and ASOR Books 5), pp. 355–375.Chicago and Atlanta: Oriental Institute.

Kaplan J. 1958. Excavations at Wadi Rabah. Israel Exploration Journal 8: 149–160.

Khalaily H., Milevski I., Getzov N., Hershkovitz I., Barzilai O., Yarosevich A., Shlomi V., Najjar A., Zidan O., Smithline H. and Liran R. 2008. Recent excavations at the Neolithic site of Yiftahel (Khalet Khalladyiah), Lower Galilee. Neo-lithics 2: 3–11.

Kislev M.E. 1985. Early Neolithic horsebean from Yiftahel, Israel. Science 228: 319–320.

Kochavi M. 1969. Excavations at Tel Esdar. ‘Atiqot 5: 14–48 (Hebrew).

Kuijt I. and Goring-Morris A.N. 2002. Foraging, farming, and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant: A review and synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16: 361–440.

Lyman R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyman R.L. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909, Vol. 3. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Malinsky-Buller A., Aldjem E. and Yeshurun R. 2009. Bir el-Maksur. A new Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site in Lower Galilee. Neo-Lithics 2: 13–16.

Marder O., Braun E. and Milevski I. 1995. The flint assemblage of Lower Horvat `Illin. Some technical and economic considerations. ‘Atiqot 27: 63–93.

Milevski I. and Getzov N. 2013. Ein Zippori excavations: The site during the Early Bronze Age. Paper presented at The Annual Conference of the IAA and the University of Haifa. Haifa, Israel (Hebrew).

Nativ A. n.d. Q-1 site – test excavation A-6123. Unpublished report for the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Olsen S.L.1988. Surface modification on bones: Trampling versus butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 535–553.

Oshri A., Khalaily H., Milevski I. and Marder O. 1999. Yiftah'el (Northeast; Triangulation Point Q-1). Excavations and Surveys in Israel 110: 89.

Paz Y. and Iserlis M. 2009. Golanite production and distribution center of cooking pots during the Early Bronze Age II. In: Rosen S.A. and Roux V. (eds.), Techniques and People, Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-Historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant


72

(Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français à Jerusalem 9), pp. 99–110. Paris: De Boccard.

Quintero L.A. 1996. Flint mining in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic: Preliminary report on the exploitation of flint at Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal in Highland Jordan. In: Kozłowski S.K. and Gebel H.K.G. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Lithic Industries of the Fertile Crescent and their Adjacent Regions (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3), pp. 233–260. Berlin: ex-oriente.

Rosen S.A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age. A handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.

Rosen S.A., Tykot R.H. and Gottesman M. 2005. Long distance trinket trade: Early Bronze Age obsidian from the Negev. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 775–784.

Rosenberg D., Assaf A., Getzov N. and Gopher A. 2008. Flaked stone discs of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the southern Levant. Paléorient 34(2): 137–151.

Rotem Y. 2012. The Early Bronze Age IB pottery from Area M. In: Mazar A. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996 IV: The 4th and 3th Millennia BCE, pp. 123–235. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Rowan Y.M. 2003. The groundstone assemblage. In: Golani A. Salvage Excavations in the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata (IAA Reports 18), pp. 183–202. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Schick, T. 1978. Flint Implements, Strata V–I. In: Amiran R., Paran U., Shiloh Y., Brown R., Tsafrir Y. and Ben-Tor A. (eds.), Early Arad. The Chalcolithic Settlement and the Early Bronze Age City, pp. 58–64. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Schmidt K. 2010. Göbekli Tepe – the stone age sanctuaries. New results of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs. Documenta Praehistorica 37: 239–256.

Silver I.A. 1970. The ageing of domestic animals. In: Brothwell D. and Higgs E. Science in Archaeology, pp. 283–302. London: Thames and Hudson.

Stordeur D. 2010. Domestication of plans and animals, domestication of symbols? In: Bolger D. and Maguire L.C. (eds.), Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East, pp. 123–130. Oxford: Oxbow.

Sussman V. 1980. A bull from the Early Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 238: 75–77.

Tadmor M. and Prausnitz M.1958. Excavations at Rosh Haniqra. ‘Atiqot 2: 72–88.

Vardi J. 2011. Sickle Blades and Sickles of the Sixth and Fifth Millennia BCE in Light of the Finds from the Chalcolithic Sickle Blade Workshop Site of Beit Eshel. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva (Hebrew).

Villa P. and Mahieu E. 1991. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21: 27–48.

Wright G.E. 1958. The problem of the transition between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Eretz Israel 5: 37–45.

Wright K.I. 1992. A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18(2): 53–81.

Yannai E. 1996. A tomb of the Early Bronze Age I and Intermediate Bronze Age near Tel Esur (Assawir). ‘Atiqot 30: 1–16 (Hebrew with English summary).

Zuckerman S. 1996. The Pottery of Tel Qashish and Jezreel Valley in the Early Bronze Age. Unpublished MA Thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. (Hebrew with English summary).

Zuckerman S. 2003. The Early Bronze Age I pottery. In: Ben-Tor A., Bonfil R. and Zuckerman S. (eds.), Tel Qashish, A Village in the Jezreel Valley (Qedem Reports 5), pp. 35–56. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Proto-Historic Ein Zippori: The 2007 Excavation Season

Documents

Transcript of Proto-Historic Ein Zippori: The 2007 Excavation Season