SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD PROCESSING ACTIVITIES AT LATE IRON I MEGIDDO

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD PROCESSING ACTIVITIES AT LATE IRON I MEGIDDO

Danny RosenbergUniversity of Haifa

AbstractThe paper discusses the food-related stone tools found in Building 00/K/10 at Iron Age I Megiddo. Given the tools’ spatial distribution in the building, specifically their clustering, the author suggests that the processing and serving of food had social implications directly related to the spatial division between nuclear family units that shared the building during this period.

The spatial distribution of groundstone (hereafter=stone) tools used as food processing implements enables archaeologists to make inferences about the activities carried out at a given location.

In this regard, stone food processing tools, ethnographically associated with women’s activities in societies where agriculture played an important role in the subsistence economy (Brumfiel 1991; Goheen 1996; Hastorf 1991; Hendon 1997; Jackson 1991; Jones 1996; Nelson et al. 2002), are widely accepted by archaeologists as a means through which both daily life and, more particularly, food-processing activities, can be understood.

These food-associated tools—dominated by grinding stones (both upper and lower elements), pounding implements (pestles, pounder-crushers and bowls/mortars), as well as various vessels and containers—transformed crops into palatable and nutritious substances. In addition, they played an important role in bridging the gap between the insecurity associated with anticipated annual harvests and the stability associated with stored foodstuffs.

Producing these tools was costly. First, the raw material from which they were made had to be quarried, and then they had to be manufactured and transported to a given site (to date, not much evidence for production of stone tools in south Levantine Iron Age settlements is available). Thus, the tools had an innate value of their own. But their potential as implements capable of transforming raw food stuffs into storable and/or consumable items gave them special socio-economic importance. And it is this that makes it possible for archaeologists to build on the frequently arbitrary presentation of stone tools, and to analyze their spatial distribution in terms of socio-economic indicators.

Building 00/K/10 in Level K-4 (University of Chicago’s Stratum VIA) at Tel Megiddo is a domestic Late Iron Age I structure that came to a sudden end in a fierce conflagration (Gadot et al. 2006; for the pottery see Arie 2006; for metallurgical

96

Rosenberg: Spatial Distribution of Food Processing Activities at Late Iron I Megiddo

activity see Yahalom and Shalev 2006; for an analysis of the spatial distribution of finds see Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006). Its walls and roof collapsed, sealing off everything within it. The building was thus an excellent laboratory for examining the spatial distribution of food processing tools and for making inferences on the whereabouts of food preparation within the structure. This, plus the meticulous retrieval methods (including sieving of all sediments) executed during excavation, enabled us to focus on different aspects of food preparation (see Borowski 2004: 97), and also made it possible to examine the relationships between woman-related activities and domestic architecture.

While exposing Building 00/K/10 (Fig. 1), four facts became evident: (1) the building ceased to exist due to a violent collapse of the walls and roof (Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006); (2) as a consequence, the contexts below the roof were sealed; (3) stone tools, specifically those considered food processing tools, found where they had been used or stored, were among the most prominent finds beneath the debris; (4) in many cases it seems that the food processing tools were deliberately clustered in defined spaces, suggesting a connection between specific tools and contexts.

OBJECTIVES

The study of the stone assemblage of Building 00/K/10 was conducted with several goals in mind: (1) to review the spatial distribution of food-processing-related activities; (2) to distinguish between private spaces and open-communal court in relation to the spatial position of women’s activity areas; (3) to define clusters of food processing tools as indicators of the formal ‘tool kit’ of food processors; and (4) to test raw material selection for food processing and serving tools; (5) to test the distribution of task-specific tools as a means of analyzing social division of labour and spatial organization of food processing.

METHOD

This paper concentrates on stone food processing tools found inside Building 00/K/10. Items found near but not within the building were excluded from the analysis.

It should be borne in mind that archaeological implements, especially small tool fragments, are frequently found outside their original-use contexts. While the possibility of post-deposition processes infecting the whereabouts of the artefacts within the perimeters of Building 00/K/10 was taken into account (small tool fragments and unidentified tool fragments were excluded from the study) a detailed enumeration of such activity, including micro-morphology, is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, the fact that some of the artefacts found inside Building 00/K/10 were broken or damaged could indicate that at least some of the stone

97

TEL AVIV 35 (2008)

implements were broken before the destruction , i.e., they were never used as whole items (although the possibility of damage to some finds during the devastation should be taken into account as well). While it is nearly impossible to test such an assumption, most of the stone tools, including fragments, are relatively large and thus less likely to have moved between strata. If this is true, one should consider the possibility that both whole tools and fragments were present on the floors of Building 00/K/10 and its internal court at the time when its roof collapsed. The fact that none of the pairs of food grinding tools was found in situ (i.e., one atop the other) could be the consequence of the collapse or the outcome of a behavioural pattern that did not lay tools together where they were used but rather stored them one next to the other.

For the present study, the typological definitions used by Sass (2000) and Sass and Cinamon (2006) were adopted, though certain taxonomic modifications were employed in order to keep as many tool types as possible in the general food-processing-tools group. Thus, a generalized approach was chosen that defines grinding and pounding implements as well as vessels as one functional food-processing-tools group. While this generalization could not be supported by evidence retrieved from

Fig. 1. Building 00/K/10, looking east.

98


Fig. 2. Building 00/K/10.

99

TEL AVIV 35 (2008)

both use-wear and residue analyses, it is assumed that the main functions of most of the tools included here were associated with tasks related to food processing, handling or serving.

Reliable evidence for any given item being an actual food processing tool is difficult to obtain (but see for instance Yohe et al. 1991; Hard et al. 1996; Fullagar et al. 1999; Piperno et al. 2004 for such studies), and if obtained suffers from a variety of methodological problems concerning both retrieval techniques and preservation. The current study therefore considers the common typo-functional definitions of food processing tools as the basis for the attribution of the tools studied here. These definitions and the correlation between the tools and the management of food resources are backed by numerous ethnographic and archaeological studies (e.g., Bartlett 1933; Curwen 1937; Carter 1977; Curtis 1977; Muchawski-Schapper 1985; Inomata and Stiver 1988; Ertug-Yaras 1997; David 1998; Adams 2002; Ebeling and Rowan 2004).

SUBDIVISION OF SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDING

Building 00/K/10 (Figs. 1−2) is characterized by a central courtyard (00/K/10) flanked by nine (or ten) rooms. The rooms can be separated into three relatively large spaces (Rooms 98/K/77 and 00/K/45 and Space 00/K/87 [which may be two smaller rooms—00/K/87 and 00/K/70]) and six smaller units (98/K/66, 98/K/46, 00/K/51, 00/K/30, 00/K/05 and 00/K/22). Similar structures are found at other 2nd millennium BCE strata at Megiddo. They are also found at other Iron Age sites (see Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006). The lower parts of the building were almost entirely preserved. While the foundations of the walls were made of stone it is evident that the upper parts and roof were made of mud bricks and various perishable materials, e.g., timber or logs.

Judging from the reconstructed plan of the building, the court was accessed from two rooms (Room 00/K/45, with possibly two entrances, and Room 00/K/87). Rooms 00/K/22, 98/K/77, 98/K/66, 98/K/46 and 00/K/51 are actually linked, separated only by partition walls as are Rooms 00/K/30, 00/K/05 and Room 00/K/87.

THE STONE ASSEMBLAGE

The stone assemblage of Building 00/K/10 includes 148 items (Sass 2000; Sass and Cinamon 2006). The assemblage contains an assortment of perforated articles (weights, flywheels, etc.) and unidentified stone tools and fragments, as well as many tools and implements related to the processing, storing or serving of food. These were found in almost every room and space within the building and its internal court (Fig. 3).

The food processing tool assemblage (n=74, Table 1; Figs. 4−6) includes lower

100


grinding tools such as querns and grinding slabs (n=7, 9.46% of the stone food processing assemblage), upper grinding tools, including processors (manos) and burnishers (n=27, 36.5%). Various abrading and polishing paraphernalia such as rubbers, polishers, etc., were included here as part of a general definition of processing implements (n=12, 16.22%). Also found were vessels, including bowls and mortars (n=11, 14.86%), pestles (n=6, 8.1%) and hammerstones (n=11, 14.86%).

The above items were found whole or nearly whole. Since the ‘terminal event’ concerning the sealing of the house and its contents was the collapse of walls and roof, in situ breakage of items is suggested and therefore it is possible to include broken items in the analysis. Thus, these were regarded as items in operative condition and their find spots were considered as original use/storing contexts.

Most of the tools are made from basalt, though limestone, sandstone and unidentified stone were also noted. The dominance of basalt is not surprising, since it has been one of the most preferred stones for the production of food processing tools from prehistory through to modern times (Rosenberg 2004; Rowan 1998; Rutter 2003). Two kinds of basalts were utilized: one, the more prevalent, is compact and fine-grained (or occasionally coarse-grained) and the other porous, characterized by various sized vesicles, created during the cooling of the magma. It is of note that while basalt quarry and production sites for stone tools are not common features in the Levant, one rare instance of such a site (attributed to the late prehistoric−early protohistoric periods) was found only a few kilometres northwest of Megiddo (Shimelmitz et al. 2005; Rosenberg et al. forthcoming).

To date, no evidence of Iron Age stone tool/vessel production was found at Megiddo. It is possible that stone for the basalt tools was quarried in the Manasseh Hills (less likely) or in the eastern parts of Wadi Ara or the eastern Jezreel Valley, where basalt is more prevalent. More distant basalt outcrops are known in the Hula Valley and the Golan Heights (Rowan 1998; Rutter 2003 and references). Limestone and dolomite are also evident in the tool assemblage, yet it seems that procurement of these raw materials was more arbitrary, since many potential sources were available in proximity to the site.

Grinding/abrading tools dominate the assemblage from Building 00/K/10 (n=46, 62.18%), while pounding implements are less frequent. In Table 1 all containers and pounding tools were grouped together, though not all were clearly intended for food processing. The dominance of grinding tools, specifically the upper, mobile items, suggests that grinding was the major technique used to process food (possibly floral resources such as grains or pulses).

Grinding tools were probably used to pulverize or crack grain into flour or bran but could also be used for the processing of legumes, fruits, vegetables and meat. All are well known in both prehistoric and ethnographic contexts.

101

TEL AVIV 35 (2008)

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION

The spatial distribution of the stone food-processing items (Table 1; Fig. 3) in Building 00/K/10 suggests that the tools were found adjacent to the rooms’ walls, near doorways and passages, and in the internal court. Their distribution calls for the following observations:(1) Tools were found in most rooms, yet in four rooms as well as in the court,

they appear in relatively large quantities. Rooms that had no stone processing tools (00/K/30 and to some extent Rooms 98/K/66 and 00/K/22) should possibly be regarded as spaces in which no food processing related activity took place, at least in the terminal stage of the building. It is noteworthy that two of these rooms (00/K/30 and 00/K/22) are confined spaces with restricted entrance (i.e., could be approached only from a neighbouring room).

Fig. 3. Building 00/K/10, distribution of stone tools.

102


(2) Most tools were found in the north and northeastern parts of the building, including Court 00/K/10 (over 85% of the food processing tools).

(3) While some of the tools were found scattered on the floors of rooms and in the court, a large number of tools was found in clusters of several tools (2−11 tools per cluster). Two such clusters were found in Room 98/K/77 (2 and 11 items), four in Room 98/K/46 (2, 2, 3 and 8 items), one in Room 00/K/51 (8 items), and two in Room 00/K/45 (3 and 10 items). Thus, each of the rooms containing stone tool clusters (n=4) had one large cluster, that is, most of the tools found in the building were part of a large cluster.

(4) The central court revealed four clusters of food processing tools (2, 2, 4 and 5 items). Thus, a similar phenomenon of tool grouping characterized rooms with access to the central court, the court itself, as well as rooms with no direct accessibility to the internal court.

(5) The clusters differ not only in the number of tools they contain, but also in their composition and in the relative frequencies of grinding and pounding tools. For instance, Room 98/K/77 contained most of the stone vessels/mortars (n=5). The largest group of lower grinding stones (n=3) was found

TABLE 1. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD PROCESSING AND HANDLING TOOLS

Room/Type

Lower Grinding Stones

Upper Grinding Stones/ Processors

Other Grinding/ Abrading Tools

Vessels (bowls/mortars)

Pestles Hamer-stones

Total %

98/K/77 - 5 1 5 2 1 14 18.998/K/66 - - - - - 1 1 1.3598/K/46 1 8 2 1 2 1 15 20.300/K/51 2 - 2 2 1 1 8 10.800/K45 - 5 3 1 - 4 13 17.600/K/30 - - - - - - - -00/K/05 1 - - 1 - 1 3 4.0500/K/87+00/K/70

- 3 2 - - - 5 6.75

00/K/22 - - 1 - - - 1 1.35Court - 00/K/10

3 6 1 1 1 2 14 18.9

Total 7 27 12 11 6 11 74 -% 9.46 36.5 16.22 14.86 8.1 14.86 - 100

103

TEL AVIV 35 (2008)

Fig. 4. Selected lower grinding stones from Building 00/K/10.

104


Fig. 5. Selected upper and lower grinding stones from Building 00/K/10.

105

TEL AVIV 35 (2008)

in the court, followed by Room 98/K/46 (which has direct access to the court and contained many upper grinding stones) with two such tools. Room 00/K/45 contained four hammerstones (crushers?) grouped together, and Room 00/K/51, with a cluster of eight tools, revealed no definite upper grinding stones (yet it had two fragments of unidentified grinding tools, i.e., grinding tools that could not be identified as either upper or lower, and two lower grinding tools).

DISCUSSION

Food processing activities or food-related behaviours are among the more conspicuous day-to-day activities expressed in the archaeological record of Iron Age settlements. Much anthropological and archaeological research has been conducted on the social implications of food (e.g., Caplan 1994; Curtis 2001;

Fig. 6. Selected stone vessels/mortars from Building 00/K/10.

106


Delwen 1999; Goody 1982; Masson 1996; Mennell et al. 1992; Messer 1984; Murcott 1988). These investigations suggest that in complex societies where a large amount of the total food consumed was vegetal (i.e., originated from farming sources), food processing, was carried out in the vicinity of the familial home by family members. The grinding and pounding of the crops and the final preparation were primarily done by the women of the household. These studies occasionally note the relationship between specific locations within buildings and their immediate surroundings and food processing tools, as well as the relationships between processing tools and specific persona.

When viewing food handling as a hierarchical structure, e.g., acquisition, alteration/processing, distribution and discarding of waste, the spatial positioning of food processing tools indicates where food was processed, where tools were stored and the nature of food processing tool kits. Another aspect that is related to the spatial position of these tools is the whereabouts of women-related activities.

Assemblages similar to the one retrieved from Building 00/K/10 were found at many other Iron Age sites (see for example Ben-Ami 2005; Fantalkin 2001; Gal and Alexander 2000; Hovers 1996; Ilan 1999; Lederman 1999; Rosenberg forthcoming a; Rosenberg forthcoming b), suggesting that similar phenomena characterize other rural Iron Age settlements. As at Megiddo, these assemblages show a dominance of basalt and limestone (local or imported) for grinding tools. At these sites, food-related stone tools were mostly retrieved from domestic contexts and, as stated, were often found near walls and entrances to rooms and in courts.

The amount, diversity and spatial distribution of stone food processing tools in Building 00/K/10 imply that the household was a self-sufficient unit (see also Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006). The large numbers of tools, their frequency and their diversity offer a wide range of food processing possibilities, including grinding and pounding, crushing, stirring and mixing, leaching and soaking, etc. Therefore, a wide range of food stuffs, including cereals, fruits, vegetables, meat and spices could have been processed with these stone tools.

The hypothesis that the social unit that occupied the house was probably larger than a single nuclear family—possibly a joint, extended family (Gadot and Yasur-Landau 2006: 456, and see discussion therein for the possible number of individuals occupying the building with regard to the Naroll [1962] formula)—is strengthened by the notion that there was a partition or division of space within the compound. This division of space is seen in the clear clustering of food processing tools and their total or nearly total absence from some of the rooms. This seems to point toward the isolation of at least part of the food processing activity within the household. This differentiation could indicate some sort of spatial restriction

107

TEL AVIV 35 (2008)

or could symbolize ownership rights to parts of the building. If this was the case, then it can be postulated that at least four nuclear family units occupied the building and that the yard was a communal area that provided unobstructed access to all the building inhabitants. As such, the court may have been the place where the majority of the meals took place. It is also possible that it was used as the place for communal processing of food or for the processing of certain substances which may have been difficult to process indoors.

It seems that food processing activity had preferred spaces in the building. Thus, Gadot and Yasur-Landau’s suggestion (2006: 454) that grinding was done in two rooms only (98/K/46 and 00/K/45) and that cooking took place in Room 98/K/77 is problematic, because substantial evidence for food processing was found in other spaces in the building (Rooms 98/K/77, 00/K/51 and the internal court) and because there is no clear explanation for the distance between the places where food was processed and where it was cooked. The distribution of pottery vessels related to the preparation of food (mainly cooking vessels) suggests that they appear in at least five rooms and the court. In this regard, it is interesting that Rooms 00/K/87 and 00/K/70, which exhibit only a few stone processing tools, feature a number of pottery cooking vessels.

The clustering of the stone processing tools has several possible implications. First, the larger clusters, which could be set aside as more secure (clusters with two−three items should be dealt with cautiously since there was a potential for horizontal movement of items during the collapse of the walls and roof), may have been the property of a family or certain individuals. Ethnographic observations suggest that every woman engaged in food processing had her own tool kit, though occasionally these tools were shared (David 1998; Rucks 1995), and that the personal kits were often stored or kept in one place. If one accepts that each of the large clusters represents at least one active woman, we can assume that six to eight ‘food processing individuals’ occupied five different spaces in Building 00/K10 (including four rooms and the court).

The absence of food processing tools in some rooms seems to imply that units in the most private areas in the building were possibly used as sleeping quarters. The fact that most of the tools were found in the northeastern part of the building could suggest that it had certain advantages in terms of environmental conditions (i.e., early morning light, favourable wind conditions or cooler temperature in the summer). If this is true, and the northeastern rooms were indeed preferred due to favourable summer temperatures, we can then assume that the building was demolished by fire during the summer.

Another possibility is that locating food processing activity in the northern or northeastern parts of the building was due to some social convention, which may

108


have been related to restrictions over women or women’s activities. Nonetheless, the fact that almost every space in the building contained at least one food processing tool suggests high accessibility for women throughout the building.

SUMMARY

Building 00/K/10 offers a rare opportunity to analyze the spatial positioning of domestic food processing activities at Megiddo during the Iron Age I. The picture that emerges indicates that the building may have functioned as an economically self-sufficient unit in which a few nuclear families lived together, with a partial sharing of the means of production. Food preparation was most probably carried out in rooms with access to the court or in the court itself, where there was an abundance of ventilation and light.

Given the spatial distribution of food processing tools in Building 00/K/10, specifically the clustering of these tools, it seems reasonable to suggest that the division of labour in Late Iron Age I Megiddo had social significance that directly related to the spatial division between nuclear family units sharing the building. This may have been the case in the realm of the preparation of the daily meal by each of the nuclear family units rather than in the preparation of a single, communal meal.

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin for allowing me to study Building 00/K/10 and to Noga Blockman and Elena Zapassky for their help in retrieving the data related to Building 00/K/10. I am grateful to Joan Schneider for her helpful comments while this paper was in draft form.

109

TEL AVIV 35 (2008)

REFERENCES

Adams, J.L. 2002. Ground Stone Analysis. Salt Lake City. Arie, E. 2006. The Iron Age I Pottery: Levels K-5 and K-4 and an Intra-Site Spatial

Analysis of the Pottery from Stratum VIA. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo IV: The 1998−2002 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24). Tel Aviv: 191–298.

Bartlett, K. 1933. Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff Region and Their Relation to Others in the Southwest. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 3: 3−32.

Ben-Ami, D. 2005. Miscellaneous Small Objects. In: Ben-Tor, A., Zarzecki-Peleg, A. and Cohen-Anidjar, S., eds. Yoqne’am II—The Iron Age and the Persian Period. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977−1988) (Qedem Reports 7). Jerusalem: 377−394.

Borowski, O. 2004. Eat, Drink and Be Merry—The Mediterranean Diet. NEA 67: 96−107.

Brumfiel, E.M. 1991. Weaving and Cooking: Women’s Production in Aztec Mexico. In: Gero, M.J. and Conkey, M., eds. Engendering Archaeology. Oxford: 224−251.

Caplan, P. 1994. Feasts, Fats, Famine: Food for Thought. Oxford.Carter, G.F. 1977. The Metate: An Early Grain-Grinding Implement in the New

World. In: Reed, C.A., ed. Origins of Agriculture. Paris: 693−710.Curtis, R.I. 2001. Ancient Food Technology. Leiden.Curwen, E.C. 1937. Querns. Antiquity 11: 133−151.David, N. 1998. The Ethnoarchaeology and Field Archaeology of Grinding at Sukur,

Adamawa State, Nigeria. African Archaeological Review 15: 13−63.Delwen, S. 1999. Bread Making and Social Interactions at the Amarna Workmen’s

Village, Egypt. World Archaeology 31: 121−144.Ebeling, J.R. and Rowan, Y.M. 2004. The Archaeology of the Daily Grind: Ground

Stone Tools and Food Production in the Southern Levant. NEA 67: 108−117.Ertug-Yaras, F. 1997. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Subsistence and Plant

Gathering in Central Anatolia (Ph.D. dissertation, UMI Ann Arbor). Ann Arbor.

Fantalkin, A. 2001. Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background. Tel Aviv 28: 1−166.

Fullagar, R., Meehan, B. and Jones, R. 1999. Residue Analysis of Ethnographic Plant-Working and Other Tools from Northern Australia. In: Anderson, P.C., ed. Prehistory of Agriculture (Monograph 40). Los Angeles: 15−25.

Gadot, Y. et al. 2006. Area K (Levels K-5 and K-4, The 1998–2002 Seasons. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo IV: The

110


1998−2002 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24). Tel Aviv: 87–103.

Gadot, Y. and Yasur-Landau, A. 2006. Beyond Finds: Reconstructing Life in the Courtyard Building of Level K-4. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo IV: The 1998−2002 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24). Tel Aviv: 450−467.

Gal, Z. and Alexander, Y. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit—An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 8). Jerusalem.

Goheen, M. 1996. Men Own the Fields, Women Own the Crops. Wisconsin.Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class. Cambridge.Hard, R.J., Mauldin, R.P. and Raymond, G.R. 1996. Mano Size, Stable Carbon

Isotope Ratios, and Macrobotanical Remains as Multiple Lines of Evidence of Maize Dependence in the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 253−318.

Hastorf, C.A. 1991. Gender, Space and Food in Prehistory. In: Garow, J. and Conky, M., eds. Engendering Archaeology. Oxford: 132−159.

Hendon, J.A. 1997. Women’s Work, Woman’s Space, and Women’s Status Among the Classic-Maya Elite of the Copan Valley, Honduras. In: Claassen, C. and Joyce, R.A., eds. Women in Prehistory. Philadelphia: 33−46.

Hovers, E. 1996. The Groundstone Industry. In: Ariel, D. and De Groot, A., eds. Excavations at the City of David IV (Qedem 35). Jerusalem: 171−203.

Ilan, D. 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspective (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv.

Inomata, T. and Stiver, L.R. 1998. Floor Assemblage from Burned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala: A Study of Classic Maya Households. Journal of Field Archaeology 28: 431−452.

Jackson, T.L. 1991. Pounding Acorn: Women’s Production as Social and Economic Focus. In: Garow, J.M. and Conkey, M.W., eds. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. London: 301−325.

Jones, T.L. 1996. Mortars, Pestles, and Division of Labor in Prehistoric California: A View from Big Sur. American Antiquity 61: 243−264.

Lederman, Z. 2001. An Early Iron Age Village at Khirbet Raddana: The Excavations of Joseph A. Callaway (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University). Cambridge, MA.

Mason, S. 1996. Acornutopia? Determining the Role of Acorns in Past Human Subsistence. In: Wilkins, J. Harvey, D. and Dobson, M., eds. Food in Antiquity. Exeter: 12−24.

Mennell, S., Murcott, A. and van Otterloo, A.H. 1992. The Sociology of Food, Eating, Diet and Culture. London.

111

TEL AVIV 35 (2008)

Messer, E. 1984. Anthropological Perspective on Diet. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 205−249.

Muchawsky-Schnapper, E. 1985. Stone Kitchenware from the Yemen. The Israel Museum Journal 4: 85−92.

Murcott, A. 1988. Sociolgical and Social Anthropological Approaches to Food and Eating. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 55: 1−40.

Naroll, R. 1962. Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27: 587−589.

Nelson, M., Glowacki, D. and Smith, A. 2002. The Impact of Women on Household Economies: A Maya Case Study. In: Nelson, S. M. and Rosen-Ayalon, M., eds. In Pursuit of Gender. New York: 125−151.

Piperno, D.R., Weiss, E., Holst, I. and Nadel, D. 2004. Processing of Wild Cereal Grains in the Upper Palaeolithic Revealed by Starch Grain Analysis. Nature 430: 670−673.

Rosenberg, D. 2004. The Pestle: Characteristics and Changes of Stone Pounding Implements in the Southern Levant from the Early Epipaleolithic through the Pottery Neolithic Period (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English summary).

Rosenberg, D. Forthcoming a. Stone Implements of >Aroer’s Desert Community—A Descriptive Account. In: Thareani-Sussely, Y., ed. Tel >Aroer: An Iron Age II Caravan Town and a Hellenistic and Early Roman Settlement in the Negev (Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology). Jerusalem.

Rosenberg, D. Forthcoming b. Stone Tools of Iron Age Tel Dan—Technological, Typological and Spatial Distribution.

Rosenberg, D., Shimelmitz, R. and Nativ, A. Forthcoming. Basalt Bifacials Production in the Southern Levant: A Glance at the Quarry and Workshop Site of Giv’at Kipod, Israel. Antiquity.

Rowan, Y.M. 1998. Ancient Distribution and Deposition of Prestige Objects: Basalt Vessels during Late Prehistory in the Southern Levant (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas). Austin.

Rucks, M.M. 1995. The Social Context and Cultural Meaning of Ground Stone Milling Among Washoe Woman (M.A. thesis, The University of Nevada), Reno.

Rutter, G.P. 2003. Basaltic-Rock Procurement Systems in the Southern Levant: Case Studies from the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I and the Late Bronze–Iron Ages (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Durham). Durham.

Sass, B. 2000. The Small Finds. In: Finkelstein, I. Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo III: The 1992−1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 18). Tel Aviv: 349−387.

112


Sass, B. and Cinamon, G. 2006. The Small Finds. In: Finkelstein, I. Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24). Tel Aviv.

Shimelmitz, R., Rosenberg, R. and Nativ, A. 2005. Giv’at Kipod: A Basalt Quarry and a Workshop for the Production of Bifacial Tools in the Manasseh Hills, Israel. Neo-Lithics 1/05: 9−12.

Yahalom-Mack, N. and Shalev, S. 2006. Metallurgical Activity in Levels K-5 and K-4. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo IV: The 1998−2002 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24). Tel Aviv: 542–549.

Yohe, R.M., Newman, M.E. and Schneider, J.S. 1991. Immunological Identification of Small-Mammal Proteins on Aboriginal Milling Equipment. American Antiquity 56: 659−666.

113

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD PROCESSING ACTIVITIES AT LATE IRON I MEGIDDO

Documents

Transcript of SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD PROCESSING ACTIVITIES AT LATE IRON I MEGIDDO