Ajrud Fish remains 2012

with contributions byS. AĦITUV, B. ARENSBURG, E. AYALON, P. BECK, I. CARMI, E. ESHEL,A. GOREN, Y. GOREN, J. GUNNEWEG, S. HELLWING, L. K. HORWITZ,O. LERNAU, N. LIPHSCHITZ, H. K. MIENIS, N. NAVEH, I. PERLMAN,

N. RESHEF, D. SEGAL, O. SHAMIR, A. SHEFFER, Y. SITRY,A. TIDHAR, R. YAKAR

Editor: Liora FreudEnglish style: John Tresman

ISRAEL EXPLORATION SOCIETYJERUSALEM 1

KUNTILLET AJRUD(ḤORVAT TEMAN)

AN IRON AGE II RELIGIOUS SITE ON THE JUDAH-SINAI BORDER

ZEʼEV MESHEL

THE RESEARCH AND COMPILATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT FOR PUBLICATIONWERE MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH A GENEROUS GRANT FROM

THE SHELBY WHITE-LEON LEVY PROGRAMFOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS

© 1 by the Israel Exploration Society

ISBN --1--

Layout: Avraham Pladot

Production editor: Alan Paris

Typesetting: Marzel A.S. — Jerusalem

Printed by Old City Press, Jerusalem

CONTENTS

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST AND PLAN OF LOCI AND WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LISTS OF TABLES, FIGURES AND PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART ONE THE SITE

Chapter 1 THE SITE: LOCATION, ENVIRONMENT AND EXPLORATION Ze’ev Meshel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2 ARCHITECTURE, PLAN AND PHASES Ze’ev Meshel and Avner Goren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter 3 C DATES FROM KUNTILLET ªAJRUD Israel Carmi and Dror Segal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter 4 THE NATURE OF THE SITE AND ITS BIBLICAL BACKGROUND Ze’ev Meshel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

PART TWO THE FINDS

Chapter 5 THE INSCRIPTIONS Shmuel Aħituv, Esther Eshel and Ze’ev Meshel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Chapter 6 THE DRAWINGS AND DECORATIVE DESIGNS Pirhiya Beck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

Chapter 7 THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE Etan Ayalon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

APPENDIX A Yuval Goren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

APPENDIX B By the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Chapter 8 THE ORIGIN OF THE POTTERY Jan Gunneweg, Isadore Perlman and Ze’ev Meshel . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

Chapter 9 TEXTILES AND BASKETRY Avigail Sheffer and Amalia Tidhar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Chapter 10 REMAINS OF CORDS AND A TEXTILE IMPRESSION ON A CLAY STOPPER Orit Shamir . . . . . . . 313

Chapter 11 WOODEN OBJECTS Yigal Sitry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Chapter 12 THE FAUNAL REMAINS AND THE FUNCTION OF THE SITELiora Kolska Horwitz, Shlomo Hellwing, Omri Lernau and Henk K. Mienis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .327

SUPPLEMENT Baruch Arensburg and Regita Yakar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .341

Chapter 13 THE BOTANICAL REMAINS Nili Liphschitz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Chapter 14 STONE ARTIFACTS Nadin Reshef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

Chapter 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF KUNTILLET ªAJRUD Nira Naveh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .358

PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF

e David and Jemima Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center of Jewish History at Bar Ilan University

e Dorot Foundation

Samuel D. Turner

Biblical Archaeology Society

Hershel Shanks

Susan Laden

John and Carol Merrill

CHAPTER 1

THE FAUNAL REMAINSAND THE FUNCTION OF THE SITE

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ, SHLOMO HELLWING, OMRI LERNAU AND HENK K. MIENIS

SUMMARY

e small faunal remains recovered at Kuntillet ªAjrud during the excavations were identi ed, and investigated to determine whether they could help clarify the function of the site. e remains were compared with faunal remains in Iron Age II domestic, military and ritual sites located in the arid areas of the Sinai, the Negev and southern Jordan.

It was concluded that the pattern of ªAjrud nds is not typical of that of faunal remains documented in cultic localities, nor does it clearly t the pattern recorded for fortresses or strongholds in this region, while it differs in several features from typical Iron Age domestic settlements. An option that may account for most of the features observed at ªAjrud is that it functioned as a desert way-station, perhaps with specialized localities within the complex, such as the bench-room, which served a ritual function.

e only clear result of the faunal analysis is that it supports the notion that the site was largely, if not wholly, provisioned from the outside.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As no faunal assemblages from excavated Iron Age II desert way-stations in the region have been examined, the Editor regards it as impossible, on the basis of the faunal assemblage from Kuntillet ªAjrud, to conclude that the site functioned as a desert way-station.

INTRODUCTION

A small faunal sample was recovered during the excava-tions at ªAjrud.. It was hoped that these bone remains would help clarify issues concerning the function of the site. Faunal assemblages recovered from ritual sites oen differ markedly from those recovered from secular contexts in features such as the range of species and skeletal elements represented, the age and sex pro les of animals slaughtered, frequencies of burnt bones and butchery marks, and the nd spots of the remains (see papers in Ryan and Crabtree 1995; Horwitz 1999,2001).

Identi cation of the animal bones recovered from ªAjrud was initiated by the late Dr. S. Hellwing of Tel Aviv University in the early 1980s, but his ndings were never published. e current description is based on Hellwing’s listings, supplemented by additional material studied by the authors. Unfortunately, in most cases no details concerning skeletal elements represented, body side, or state of fusion, were provided in Hellwing’s list, so the data are not wholly comparable with the newly examined portion of the assemblage. His list does, however, provide some indication of the nd spots of remains and taxa represented, and is therefore incor-porated in this report.


THE FAUNAL REMAINS

Artiodactyla

Sheep/goats

e most common artiodactyl remains were those of domestic sheep and goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus) (Table 12.1). eir bones were recovered from four loci: L 51, 65, 67 and 251, and represent a minimum number (MNI) of four animals, including at least one sheep and

one goat (Appendix A). e majority of bones were recovered from L 51, the Eastern Kitchen (Fig. 12.1). ese nds included an almost complete post-cranial skeleton of a young sheep (Ovis aries) less than 2 years old, and a horn sheath of an adult ram, which although partially decayed, may have survived due to the extreme aridity of the region. e young animal is represented by fore- and hind-limb elements, and cervical vertebrae (see Appendix A for element breakdown). One of the cervical vertebrae has a deep puncture mark on its body

Table 12.1. Faunal Remains from Kuntillet ªAjrud

Species Material identi ed by Horwitz/Mienis/Lernau Hellwing list

Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) 1 almost complete skeleton –

Domestic goat (Capra hircus) 1 X

Sheep/goat (Ovis/Capra) 3 X

Cattle (Bos taurus) – X

Dog (Canis familiaris) – XX

Rueppell’s sand fox (Vulpes rueppellii) 1 almost complete skeleton and cranial remains –

Cape Hare (Lepus capensis) 6 X

Rodentia

Unidenti ed rodent species 1 X

House mouse (Mus musculus) – X

Sundevall’s jird (Meriones crassus) 5 XXX

Ostrich (Struthio camelus) – X

Reptilia

Unidenti ed snake species 6 –

Unidenti ed reptile species – X

Pisces

Unidenti ed sh species – XXXX

Nile perch (Lates niloticus) 4 –

Grouper species (Epinephelus sp.) 1 –

Gilt-head sea bream (Sparus auratus) 2 –

Mollusca

Glycymeris insubrica – X

Monetaria moneta – XXX

Stramonita haemastoma – X

e X in the Hellwing list shows the relative number of loci in which material was present (note: this does not represent the number of nds per locus)

CHAPTER 1 — THE FAUNAL REMAINS AND THE FUNCTION OF THE SITE

as a result of being gnawed by a carnivore. In addition, a pair of scapulae (unfused epiphyses) of a very young sheep/goat less than 1 year old, was found in L 51. None of the skeletal elements in L 51 showed damage resulting from butchery or burning; neither did the isolated goat bones (including at least one femur) from adjacent L 65 and 67. ese remains may belong to the same animal.

Cattle

In his species list for the site, Hellwing identi ed cattle (Bos taurus) as present in L 252 (Appendix A). However, no details of the number or type of skeletal element/s represented, or of metrical or morphological features relating to this nd, were provided. e additional material from the site contained no other cattle bones. Since cattle have high water requirements (Schmidt-Nielsen 1979) it seems unlikely (but not impossible) that large numbers of this species were kept at ªAjrud, given the high temperatures experienced in Sinai and the generally arid environment of the site.

Carnivores

Sand foxes

An almost complete skeleton of an adult, small-sized canid was recovered from the kitchen area (L 51). Bones represented were: paired mandibles, scapulae, radii, ulnae, a right femur and tibia, ribs, four cervical and one lumbar vertebra (Appendix A). All epiphyses are fused. Comparison of dental and limb measurements of the ªAjrud specimen with skeletons of recent canids housed in the comparative zoological collections of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and of Tel Aviv University (Table 12.2), indicated that the ªAjrud specimen rep-resents a sand fox (Vulpes rueppellii). Desiccated scats from a small carnivore were also recovered from this locus. It is feasible that they originated from the sand fox. Given the completeness of the skeleton and pres-ence of coprolites, it is most likely that the fox represents a more recent element, possibly attracted to the site by food remains. e presence of carnivore damage to a

Fig. 12.1. Locations of faunal remains in the site by taxon (designated by capital letter) Artiodactyls: S — sheep, G — goat, SG — sheep/goat, C — cattle, N — unidenti ed bone fragments.

Carnivores: CS — carnivore scats, D — dog, V — fox.


sheep vertebra from the same locus corroborates this suggestion.

Additional carnivore scats, not associated with skel-etal remains, were found in L 16, L 68 and L 104 (Fig. 12.1). ey too are probably of recent origin, and based on their morphology and size, are probably derived from the fox.

Dogs

In addition to the fox, skeletal remains of a larger sized canid, probably dog (Canis familiaris) were identi ed by Hellwing in L 41 and the adjacent L 256 (Appendix

A). Since both loci are in the Southern Storeroom, it is possible that they represent remains of the sameanimal.

Small mammals, birds and reptiles

Hares

Remains of hares (Lepus capensis) were identi ed in three loci: L 19, L 51 and L 65 (Fig. 12.2) (Appendix A). L 51 contained the larger collection of hare represent-ing hind limb elements of at least two animals, both immature (with unfused epiphyses).

Table 12.2. Measurements of Vulpes from Kuntillet ªAjrud and modern specimens of Vulpes

N specimens lower M1 length lower M1 breadth N specimens Tibia distal breadth

Kuntillet ªAjrud 1 11.1 4.2 1 10.6

Vulpes vulpes (red fox) 6 13.3 7.7 6 12.9

Vulpes rueppellii (Rueppell’s sand fox) 13.2 4.8 11.3

Vulpes cana (Blanford’s fox) 2 8.8 3.9 1 11.5

(All measurements are in mm, as de ned in von den Driesch 1976. Modern samples comprise both sexes)

Fig. 12.2. Small mammals: L — hare, R — unidenti ed rodent, M — house mouse, C — Sundevall’s jird, birds: B — unidenti ed bird: bone or feather, F — feathers, O — ostrich.

CHAPTER 1 — THE FAUNAL REMAINS AND THE FUNCTION OF THE SITE 1

Birds

Birds were represented by fragments of ostrich eggshell (Struthio camelus) in L 81, and feathers (in L 16, L 51, L 80, L 101, L 104) (Fig. 12.2). Like the carnivore scats, they probably represent recent intrusions. In Hellwing’s list the presence of bird remains is noted in L 65, but no indication is given as to whether they represent bones or feathers. e absence of bird bones at the site suggests that the feathers may be more recent intrusions.

Snakes

In L 18, post-cranial skeletal remains (vertebrae and a few patches of skin) of a snake were found. e species of the remains was not identi able, as they lacked the diagnostic cranial elements. ey probably represent an accidental mortality associated with the deposit. Scales of an unidenti ed reptile were recovered from L 51, and are also probably recent in origin.

Rodents

Cranial and post-cranial remains of a rodent from L 14, L 19 and L 51, were identi ed as Sundevall’s jird (Meriones crassus) (Appendix A). is nocturnal rodent inhabits

desert regions below the 125 mm isohyet (Shalmon 1993). It is commonly found in concentrations around refuse dumps, suggesting some level of commensalism with humans (Haim and Tchernov 1974). It is therefore not surprising to nd this species at the site. An iso-lated limb bone in L 18 may also belong to this species. In addition, Hellwing identi ed remains of the house mouse, Mus musculus, in L 50. Like Sundevall’s jird it is a commensal taxon.

Fish (O. Lernau, University of Haifa)

Seven identi able sh bones, representing three fami-lies, were recovered from the site (L 8, L 50, L 251, L 254, L 262, L 266) (Fig. 12.3). Hellwing also noted sh bones in his list, deriving from L 14, L 51, L 104 and L 162. e presence of sh remains in so many loci may indicate that they comprised a substantial component of the faunal assemblage, and hence local diet.

One of the families identi ed is a Mediterranean species; the gilt-head sea bream, termed denise in Arabic (Sparus auratus, Sparidae), while the other, a grouper (Epinephelus sp., Serranidae) originates from either the Mediterranean or the Red Sea. e third species,

Fig. 12.3. Marine/freshwater taxa: F — unidenti ed sh, L — Nile perch, E — gilt-head sea bream, R — grouper, C — cowrie shell Monetaria moneta, Y — Glycymeris insubrica shell, T — Lambis truncata sebae


the Nile perch (Lates niloticus, Centropomidae), is a freshwater sh found in the Nile, and has been traded throughout Israel since the Bronze Age (Van Neer et al. 2004).

e gilt-head bream is represented by two elements of the upper jaw, both from the le side, a le maxilla (L 251) and a le premaxilla (L 50). e MNI count for this species is 1, with both bones probably derived from the same sh. e grouper is represented by one dental bone, the posterior element of the lower jaw (L 254). e Nile perch is represented by three abdominal (ante-rior) vertebrae, the 4th, 5th and 6th along the vertebral column (L 262 and L 8) and a le neurocranial element (L 266). All four elements could conceivably belong to the same sh. e MNI for sh at the site is therefore 3.

Shells (H.K. Mienis, e Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

ree species of shells were identi ed in the list com-piled by Hellwing. Since the material has been mislaid, the identi cations could not be re-assessed.

Two species originate from the Mediterranean Sea: the bivalve: Glycymeris insubrica (Fam. Glycymerididae) and the gastropod: Stramonita haemastoma (Fam. Muricidae), both being represented by a single shell (Fig. 12.3). Stramonita has been exploited for purple dye during historic times. Two other species originate from the Red Sea: the money cowrie, Monetaria moneta (Fam. Cypraeidae), represented by three shells. It is an extremely rare species in the northern part of the Red Sea (Heiman 2002), becoming more common towards the Gulf of Aden, while in the Indian Ocean it is a locally abundant species. is species received its name as Arab merchants shipped millions of these shells, mainly from the Maldives and Andaman Islands, to Africa, where they were used for centuries as currency (Jackson 1916). e other shell found in L 90 is the columella of Seba’s spider conch, Lambis truncata sebae. is is a large marine gastropod living in shallow waters in the Gulf of Aqaba and elsewhere in the Red Sea. e function of the object which was made of this shell is unknown.

DISCUSSION

A limitation of the study of the ªAjrud faunal assemblage is its small size. Taking into consideration that almost the entire site was excavated, one would have expected a larger faunal assemblage to have been recovered than

was the case. While bearing in mind that for a portion of the faunal assemblage no quantitative data are avail-able (the Hellwing list), the assemblage recovered from the site is still relatively small (probably a total of far fewer than 100 identi ed remains. Hellwing noted 22 occurrences of faunal remains, while the authors noted 31 occurrences, two comprising articulated skeletons). Ayalon (see Ch. 7) has raised the possibility that the site was deserted hastily, with ceramic vessels concentrated in the storerooms and the kitchen ‘cleaned out’. is proposal offers a reasonable explanation for the paucity of animal remains.

In order to assess site function based on the faunal remains, several features will be brie y discussed: the depositional processes that have affected the assem-blage, the nd spots of faunal remains in the site, and the representation of species, age and sex classes rela-tive to roughly contemporaneous domestic, military and ritual sites located in the arid areas of the southern Levant.

DEPOSITIONAL HISTORYOF THE ASSEMBLAGE

Before comparing the faunal remains from ªAjrud to those recovered from contemporary domestic, military and ritual sites, it is rst necessary to clarify the relation-ship between the animal remains and their archaeologi-cal context. Certain elements present at ªAjrud, such as the rodent and reptile remains, bird feathers and car-nivore scats, raise the possibility that at least a portion of this assemblage represents recent intrusions. All are taxa commonly found in the vicinity of the site today, and include burrowing animals (rodents), and animals known to shelter in abandoned structures or caves (fox, snake, hare). is is despite the fact that during excava-tion, the bones and other faunal remains appeared to be in situ (Z. Meshel pers. comm. 1995).

To counter this argument, examination of the nd spots of rodent remains (Fig. 12.2) shows that they are found in contexts where food was stored or processed; either in areas with many ceramic vessels at the corners of the courtyard, in the Southern Storeroom, or in the kitchen area. In addition, it is clear that both species of rodent found at the site (Mus and Meriones) are com-mensal species, which indicates that they are probably contemporary with the archaeological deposit. In con-trast, the snake remains were found in anatomical asso-ciation with adhering skin, so that they are more likely


to represent a more recent element. Similarly, the pres-ence of bird feathers suggests that they too are of recent origin. e partly articulated fox skeleton from L 51 may represent an intruder attracted to the site by food waste, shortly aer it was abandoned. is is supported by the location of this nd in the kitchen area, the presence of small-sized desiccated scats and a sheep vertebra dam-aged by a carnivore, all from the same locus. Puncture marks are commonly found on remains that have been scavenged (Lyman 1994). Based on its small size (less than 0.5 mm wide), this mark ts the parameters of a fox canine. Consequently, this animal may have died on site shortly aer it was abandoned.

An additional issue to be considered is that most species found at ªAjrud (fox, snake, and sheep) are rep-resented by almost complete skeletons of single animals. is is a rare occurrence in most archaeological sites, with the exception perhaps in some ritual contexts (e.g. Klenck 2002; Wapnish and Hesse 1993). It is, however, a common characteristic of animals that have died due to natural causes or accidents (omas 1971). Finally, the ªAjrud assemblage contains skeletal elements, such as horn sheaths and scats, which are rare in most archae-ological contexts. However, it is well known that arid environments, such as those prevailing in the Judean Desert or the Sinai Peninsula, offer an excellent milieu for the preservation of all types of ancient organic remains (botanical, human or animal); therefore this cannot be used as a valid criterion for identifying intru-sive elements (Horwitz 2002).

None of the bones found at the site exhibit modi ca-tions of human origin, namely cut marks or burning (Lyman 1994). Consequently, it is not possible to link them directly to human culinary or ritual activities.

Based on the points outlined above, it is evident that the association between the archaeological remains and some elements in the faunal sample is unclear. It is highly likely that we are dealing with an assemblage cre-ated by multiple processes and agents (Lyman 1994), and that both intrusive and in situ material is represented. us, this factor needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting the fauna in relation to the possible function of the site.

DISTRIBUTION OF FINDS

Examination of the nd spots of the animal remains from the site shows that, with two exceptions, all remains are derived from Building A (Fig. 12.1–3). Only

sh bones and a few unidenti ed fragments were recov-ered from Building B. For ceramics, a similar paucity of vessels can be seen (see Ch. 7) in Building B. is patterning may be explained by an unknown function of Building B.

Within Building A, the majority of remains are concentrated in the southern and south-eastern por-tion of the structure. is follows the pattern reported for ceramics, with 23 of vessels found in the Southern Storeroom, and 18 in the Eastern Corner-rooms (cal-culated from Ayalon, see Ch. 7). Few faunal remains were recovered from the open Courtyard, mainly from its margins. According to Ayalon, 24 of the ceramic assemblage originated from this locality, the major-ity being located in the corners of the Courtyard. e entrance to the building, located to the east, yielded few faunal or ceramic remains. Similarly, the western por-tion was poor in both elements.

ere is a marked concentration of sheep, goat, cattle and sh remains close to the cooking facility in L 51, suggesting that this served as the main cooking area in this building. As noted by Ayalon, no complete vessels were discovered there, not even pots, which led him to hypothesize that the kitchen area had been cleaned out (see Ch. 7). In the western part of the building, with the exception of the ovens in L 104, the majority of remains comprised unidenti ed bones or potentially intrusive elements (rodent remains and feathers).

Many of the unique cultural nds, especially the majority of small vessels (votives?), were recovered from, and adjacent to, the bench-rooms located on either side of the entrance to Building A (Northern Wing of Bench-room: L 6; Southern wing of Bench-room: L 14). In these localities no terrestrial animal bones were found; only faunal items representing trade goods — shells from the Red Sea (Monetaria) and Mediterranean Sea (Glycymeris and Stramonita), and

sh from the Mediterranean (Sparus), Mediterranean or Red Sea (Epinephelus), and the Nile (Lates). ese exotic items may have served as votive offerings. ese data provide some support for Meshel’s interpretation that the bench-rooms were not used as waiting rooms but “for the reception of votive offerings” (Meshel 1982–3: 52).

SPECIES REPRESENTATION

e species represented at ªAjrud are shown in Table 12.1. Several, roughly coaeval, Iron II assemblages from


the desert regions of the southern Levant are shown in Table 12.3. e comparative samples include three assemblages from military forts located in Sinai, or just over the border in the Negev desert (Kadesh Barnea, ªEn Kadeis, Naħal Sirpad), three ritual localities from the northern Negev Desert, an Edomite cultic complex at Ħorvat Qitmit, two Israelite cultic localities at Tel Arad and Ħorvat Uza, domestic sites which are represented by the Edomite site of Tawilan in southern Jordan, and three Judaean sites from the northern Negev (Tel Arad, Ħorvat Uza and Tel Ira).

Irrespective of site function, domestic sheep and goat are the most common taxa exploited, ranging from 61–97 in the forts, 91–96 in cultic sites, and 81–92 in domestic sites. Unfortunately, in most reports these species were not separated, such that it has not been possible to explore potential differences in their representation relative to site function. ere is some degree of variation between sites (based on function) as to the second most common species. In the forts, beasts of burden and hunted taxa (such as gazelle) com-prise the next most common species, while in cultic and domestic sites cattle are preferred. However, domestic sites are distinguished from cultic contexts in that they comprise a far broader range of other taxa — carni-vores, beasts of burden, birds and sh.

e ªAjrud assemblage differs markedly from the three cultic sites in that it has a far wider range of spe-cies. Indeed, of the taxa identi ed from ªAjrud, only four (sheep, goat, sh and possibly hare) are typical Iron Age food items, while at least two of these taxa (sheep, goat and sh) are known to have been used in this region for ritual offerings at this time (e.g. Horwitz 1999; Horwitz and Raphael 1994; Wapnish and Hesse 1993). Noteworthy is the fact that the only shells recov-ered at the Edomite shrine at Ħorvat Qitmit were of Monetaria annulus, a cowrie species closely related to Monetaria moneta (Mienis 1995). Both species have been exploited intensively, not only for currency, but also as amulets and charms (Jackson 1916). At Ħorvat Qitmit, cowrie shells appear even in the form of adorn-ments on jar-shaped anthropomorphic statues (Beck 1995: gs 3.16–3.17, 3.19–3.20).

e other species (snake, rodent, dog and fox) are not documented as having been exploited for either purpose. Furthermore, animals represented in ritual sites tend to have been slaughtered young (Horwitz 1999, Horwitz and Raphael 1994). Of the three caprines represented at the site, two are young, but the third is an adult. e hare represents a young animal, but the

fox is a mature adult. In ritual contexts, selection of skeletal elements is frequently observed (Horwitz 1999, 2001). However, for the ªAjrud sample it has not been possible to examine body part breakdown. Aside from the fact that two species are represented by almost com-plete skeletons, the only other interesting feature is the absence of sheep/goat cranial and dental remains, with the exception of the horn sheath. Whether this is a bias resulting from the small sample size, or the fact that the animals were slaughtered elsewhere on- or off-site and their skulls discarded there, is unclear.

e salient difference between the three Iron Age II fortresses located in close proximity to ªAjrud (Table 12.3) and others located further north (Hakker-Orion 2004), is that the ªAjrud assemblage lacks remains of beasts of burden — horses, donkeys and camels. In general, the faunal spectrum at ªAjrud closely compli-ments that known from Iron Age domestic settlements in the southern Levant as shown in Table 12.3 (see also in Hellwing and Feig 1989; Horwitz and Tchernov 1989; Wapnish and Hesse 1991; Lernau 1986/87, Lernau and Lernau 1992). ese sites have a predominance of remains of domestic herd animals — sheep, goat and cattle — and in contrast to cultic sites, have a broad spectrum of wild and domestic taxa. However, ªAjrud differs from typical domestic sites in that it lacks hunted ungulates (gazelle, deer) and pack animals (equids and camels). It should be noted that the absence of pigs at ªAjrud may be related to the arid environment. Based on these data, albeit limited, it is suggested that the faunal remains from ªAjrud do not t the pattern observed at coeval military, cultic or domestic sites, suggesting that the site was probably provisioned from outside. e data exclude this site from having served a purely cultic function (due to the broader range of species rep-resented) or as a fortress (due to the absence of beasts of burden and hunted ungulates). It should however be borne in mind that the extremely small size of the faunal assemblage may have biased species representa-tion, with rare taxa — such as hunted animals, or those unlikely to have been consumed, e.g. beasts of burden — not being represented.

A nal point of note is the absence of any similarity between the spectrum of taxa found on-site and those painted on the pithoi recovered from the site. e paint-ings include a horse, wild boar, deer, a lion, an ibex, and a cow suckling a calf (see Ch. 6). e paintings on stone are less well preserved, but include a goat or other horned animal, the head of an animal that may repre-sent a lion, and a hoofed animal depicted by its forelegs.


Table 12.3. Comparison of species represented in Iron Age II Sites from Sinai, and the desert regions of Israel and Jordan (data given as frequency of total identi ed remains)

Type of site Fortresses Cultic Sites Domestic sites

SiteSpecies

ªAjrud Kadesh Barnea1

ªEn Kadeis1

Naħal Sirpad1

Ħorvat Qitmit

Ħorvat ªUza

Tel Arad

Tawilan Tel Arad

Ħorvat ªUza

Tel ªIra

Sheep/goat (Ovis/Capra) 6 61 96.5 97 93 91 96 43 92 90 81

Small ruminant 40 4 – – –

Cattle (Bos taurus) X 3 2 0.5 7 7 4 9 7 6 12

Pig (Sus scrofa) – – – – – 2 – 1 – 0.3 1

Ibex (Capra ibex) – – – – – – – – 0.1 0.3 –

Gazelle sp. (Gazella sp.) – 10 2 0.2 2 – – – – 1 – 1 0.5

Deer (Cervid sp.) – – – – – – – – 0.6 1 1

Horse (Equid sp.) – – – 0.5 – – – 1 0.2 – –

Camel (Camelus dromedarius)

– 15.5 1 – – – – 0.5 – – 0.1

Large mammal – – – – – – – 4.5 – – –

Unidenti ed carnivores – – – – – – – – – – 0.2

Dog (Canis familiaris) X 2 0.1 0.5 – – – – 0.1 0.5

Rueppell’s sand fox (Vulpus rueppellii)

1 – – – – – – –

Cape hare (Lepus capensis)

6 3 – 1 – – – – 0.1

Rodent sp. 6 – 0.2 – – – – 1

Bird sp. 1 5.5 – 0.5 – – – X 0.1 0.1 2

Reptile sp. 2 – – – – –

Fish 7 – – – – – 0.5

TOTAL 251 1298 182 317 521 797 548 3083 4761 578

Key to Table 12.3Data on Iron Age II Fortresses1. Kadesh Barnea, Ein Kadeis and Naħal Sirpad from Hakker-Orion (2004: table 1).2. In an earlier report in Cohen (1986: 399–400), the three bones from Ein Kadeis are identi ed as those of ibex, while the 25 gazelle bones

from Kadesh Barnea are split into 13 gazelle bones and 12 ibex bones. In the 1986 report, the gazelle species is identi ed as the dorcas gazelle.

Data on Iron Age II cultic sites — Ħorvat Qitmit (Horwitz and Raphael 1994, the temple at Tel Arad (Sade 1988) and the podium adjacent to the gate at Ħorvat ªUza (Sade 1988). Data are summarised in Horwitz and Raphael (1994: table 8.3).Data on Iron II domestic sites — Tel Arad VI–XI, Ħorvat ªUza Strata 1–4 (Sade 1988) and Tel ªIra from Sade (1988); Tawilan from Köhler-Rollefson (1995).3. e function of the site of Tawilan, southern Jordan is unclear: according to Köhler-Rollefson (1995) it may have been a seasonal agro-

pastoral settlement, permanent agricultural village, or administrative/trading centre.4. Small ruminants include gazelle, roe deer, and sheep and goat-sized animals. However, according to Köhler-Rollefson (1995), the

majority of these remains belong to sheep and goats, with a total sheep/goat frequency probably being about 80.


According to Beck the same painter or painters, with an identical technique and background, produced the animals. e motifs represented are common in Phoenician and North Syrian art, but their execution is simple and unprofessional. ey are probably the work of a local, perhaps amateur, artist who imitated themes from other well-known artworks. is would explain the depiction on vessels of non-desert species, such as deer and boar, side by side with ibex.

CONCLUSIONS

e shallow wells situated below the site have obviously played a signi cant role in determining the location and importance of the site. ey would have offered a stable supply of water for both people and their stock. Although sheep and goats do not require daily access to water, cattle have a high daily water requirement, especially in regions with high temperatures and poor pasture (Schmidt-Nielsen 1979). However, the wells would probably have been inadequate to support large-scale, year-round pastoralism in this hyper-arid region. e keeping of small herds of animals may have been possible, but obviously limited in terms of the quantity of food they would have provided unless their stock was frequently replenished. Traditionally, the keeping of large herds of sheep and goat in the Sinai is contingent upon seasonal migration in search of pasture, either to higher altitudes or out of the region (e.g. Ben-David 1981; Levi 1987). is would have necessitated seasonal mobility of at least a portion of the ªAjrud commu-nity, making the idea of provisioning a more viable option, especially if the site served as a cultic centre or way-station rather than as a domestic settlement. An alternative management strategy would have been to supplement the animals’ diet with fodder, including grazing on stubble aer harvest, and storage of suitable vegetal matter. However, in the absence of evidence for agricultural activities at the site, such as agricultural tools (sickle blades or milling devices), or structures that may have served as granaries, this does not appear to have been the case. e absence of beasts of burden (equids, camels) essential to agricultural activities and local trade, illustrates that no large-scale agriculture or specialized production was practised at this locality.

e absence at ªAjrud of medium to large sized hunted taxa (such as gazelle or ibex) commonly con-sumed by Iron Age communities in desert regions (Table 12.3), may also attest to provisioning at the site.

Moreover, the presence of a wide range of imported animal taxa at the site (relative to the size of the faunal sample available), lends further credence to the view that the site was provisioned. Fish was imported from the Mediterranean Sea (distant 120 km) and the Nile (distant 330 km), and seashells from both the Mediterranean and Red Seas (the latter 90 km distant). In contrast, the other terrestrial taxa recovered from the site are all local species that still inhabit the region (Osborn and Helmy 1980; Yom-Tov 1987). However, several of these are probably accidental intrusions (hare, fox, rodents, reptiles, birds). e ostrich eggshell may be a local item collected in Sinai, or else imported from Egypt or the Mediterranean coastal plain.

e idea that the site was provisioned from the out-side is supported by the archaeological record. ere is a very large corpus of storage vessels and storage areas (in Building A) while Gunneweg et al. (see Ch. 8) and Goren and Ayalon (see Ch. 7) have illustrated that the ceramics were imported from a variety of sources within Israel, including the southern coastal region. In a similar vein, the botanical remains prove the presence at the site of wood from both northern and southern sources (see Ch. 13). Taking into account its unique location at the intersection of routes connecting Sinai with the Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts, as well as regions to the west and east, and the proximity of the site to a permanent water source, the presence of traded botanical, ceramic and faunal items from northern and southern sources is not surprising.

It is possible that ªAjrud served as a religious centre visited by pilgrims (Meshel 1993), possibly related to traditions concerning Mount Sinai, as suggested by Mazar (1990: 449). If this is this case, then it does not

t the typical pattern for faunal remains documented in other Iron Age cultic localities in the desert regions of the southern Levant. Nor does it clearly t the pat-tern recorded for Iron Age II fortresses or strongholds in this region, while it differs in several features from typical Iron Age domestic settlements. An option that accounts for most of the features observed here is that it functioned as a desert way-station (Hadley 1993), perhaps with specialized localities within the com-plex (such as the bench-rooms), which served a ritual function. Although the faunal remains cannot offer an unequivocal answer concerning the function of the site of ªAjrud, whichever interpretation is favoured, the results of the faunal analysis discussed here tend to sup-port the notion that the site was largely, if not wholly, provisioned from the outside.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

e authors would like to thank the excavator of the site, Dr. Z. Meshel, for allowing them to study the remains from ªAjrud. e late Prof. E. Tchernov (e

Hebrew University of Jerusalem) con rmed the rodent identi cations.

REFERENCES

Beck, P. 1995. Catalogue of Cult Objects and Study of the Iconography. In Ħorvat Qitmit. An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, Beit-Arieh, I. (Ed.). Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 11: 27–197

Ben-David, Y. 1981. Jabaliyeh. A Bedouin Tribe in the Shadow of the Monastery. Caneh, Jerusalem: (Hebrew)

Cohen, R. 1986. e Settlement of the Central Negev. PhD dissertation, e Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew)

Driesch, von den, A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Bulletin 1, Cambridge MA

Hadley, J.M. 1993. Kuntillet ªAjrud: Religious Centre or Desert Way Station? Palestine Exploration Quarterly 125: 115–124

Haim, A. and Tchernov, E. 1974. e Distribution of Myomorph Rodents in the Sinai Peninsula. Mammalia 38 (2): 201–223

Hakker-Orion, D. 2004. Animal Bones from Sites of the Iron Age and Persian Period. In Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands. Cohen, R. and Cohen-Amin, R. (Eds). Israel Antiquities Authority Reports No. 20, Jerusalem: 220–222 (Hebrew)

Heiman, E.L. 2002. Cowries of East Sinai. Keterpress Enterprises, Jerusalem

Hellwing, S. and Feig, N. 1989. Animal Bones. In Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Herzog, Z., Rapp, G. and Negbi, O. (Eds). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 236–247

Horwitz, L.K. 1999. e Contribution of Archaeozoology to the Identi cation of Ritual Sites. In e Practical Impact of Science on Near Eastern and Aegean Archaeology. Pike, S. and Gitin, S. (Eds). Wiener Laboratory Monograph No. 3. Archetype Press, London: 63–69

Horwitz, L.K. 2001. Animal Offerings in the Middle Bronze Age: Food for the Gods, Food for ought. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 133: 78–90

Horwitz, L.K. 2002. e Fauna from Caves in the Northern Judean Desert. ‘Atiqot XLI (Part II): 257–80

Horwitz, L.K. and Raphael, O. 1994. Faunal Remains. In Ħorvat Qitmit. An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, I. Beit-Arieh (Ed.). Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 11: 287–302

Horwitz, L.K. and Tchernov, E. 1989. Subsistence Patterns in Ancient Jerusalem: A Study of Animal Remains. In Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount, Mazar, B. and Mazar, E. (Eds). Qedem 29: 144–154

Jackson, F.G.S. 1916. e Use of Cowrie Shells for the Purpose of Currency, Amulets and Charms. Manchester Memoirs 60 (13): 1–72

Klenck, J.D. 2002. e Canaanite Cultic Milieu. e Zooarchaeological Evidence from Tel Haror, Israel. BAR International Series 1029. Archaeopress, Oxford

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1995. e Animal Bones. In Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan. Bennett, C.-M. and Bienkowski, P. (Eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford: 97–100

Lernau, H. 1986/87. Subfossil Remains of Nile Perch (Lates cf. niloticus). First Evidence from Ancient Israel. Israel Journal of Zoology 34: 225–236

Lernau, H. and Lernau, O. 1992. Fish Remains. In Excavations at the City of David Vol. III, de Groot, A. and Ariel, D.T. (Eds). Qedem 33: 131–148

Levi, S. 1987. e Bedouin in the Sinai Desert. A Pattern of Desert Society. Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing (Hebrew)

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

Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. 10,000–586 ... Doubleday, New York

Meshel, Z. 1982–3. e Israelite Religious Centre of Kuntillet ªAjrud. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society: 52–55

Meshel, Z. 1993. Ħorvat Teman. In New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. IV, Stern, E. (Ed.), Jerusalem: 1458–1464

Meshel, Z. 2000. Sinai. Excavations and Studies. BAR International Series 876. Archaeopress, Oxford

Mienis, H.K., 1995. Molluscs. In Ħorvat Qitmit, an Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, Beit-Arieh, I. (Ed.).


Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 11, Tel Aviv University: 276–279

Osborn, D.J. and Helmy, I. 1980. e Contemporary Land Mammals of Egypt (Including Sinai). Chicago Fieldiana Museum of Natural History, Zoology. New Series No. 5

Ryan, K. and Crabtree, P.J. 1995. e Symbolic Role of Animals in Archaeology. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology Vol. 12. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia

Sade, M. 1988. Domestic Mammals in the Iron Age Economy of the Northern Negev. Unpublished MA esis, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew)

Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1979. Desert Animals. Physiological Problems of Heat and Water. Dover Publications, New York

Shalmon, B. 1993. A Field Guide to the Land Mammals of Israel.: Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem (Hebrew)

omas, D.H. 1971. On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Bone in Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 36: 366–371

Van Neer, W., Lernau, O., Friedman, R., Mumford, G., Poblome, J. and Waelkens, M. 2004. Fish Remains from Archaeological Sites as Indicators of Former Trade Connections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Paléorient 30/1: 101–148

Wapnish, P. and Hesse, B. 1991. Faunal Remains from Tel Dan. Archaeozoologia 4 (2): 9–86

Wapnish, P. and Hesse, B. 1993. Pampered Pooches or Plain Pariahs? e Ashkelon Dog Burials. Biblical Archaeologist 56 (2): 55–79

Yom-Tov, Y. 1987. Vertebrates of the Sinai Peninsula. In Sinai, Part I. Gvirtzman, G., Shmueli, A., Gradus, Y., Beit-Arieh, I. and Har-El, M. (Eds). Eretz, Ministry of Defence, Tel Aviv: 341–374 (Hebrew)


APPENDIX A

Table 12A.1 List of taxa at Kuntillet ªAjrud by locus

Locus Taxon Skeletal Element

8 Fish — Lates niloticus 5th abdominal vertebra13* Shell — Glycymeris insubrica14* Rodent — Meriones crassus

Shell — Monetaria monetaFish

16* Shell — Monetaria monetaFeathersCarnivore cats

18 Snake Vertebrae and ribs (with skin)Rodent 1 femur

19* HareShell — Monetaria monetaRodent — Meriones crassusUnidenti ed bone fragments

41* Dog 1 phalanxUnidenti ed hair

50 Rodent — Mus musculus*Rodent — Meriones crassus*Fish — Sparus auratus 1 le premaxilla

51 Carnivore — Vulpes rueppellii Almost complete skeleton with 2 cranial fragments, le maxilla, upper canine, le zygoma, le jaw with M1, right humerus, le pelvis, thoracic vertebra, 4 lumbar vertebrae, 3 caudal vertebrae, 4 ribs, 1st phalanx) and carnivore scats

Sheep — Ovis aries 1 horn sheathSheep — Ovis aries Almost complete post-cranial skeleton with le and right scapula, le and right

humerus, le and right ulna-radius, right pelvis, le distal tibia-unfused, le distal metatarsal-unfused., sacrum, cervical vertebra, axis

Sheep/goat pair of scapula-unfusedHare — Lepus capensis 3 distal tibia, 1 pelvis, 1 metapodial unfusedRodent — Meriones crassus Occipital, 1 right jaw, 1 humerus, 1 tibia, 1 pelvisFish — unidenti ed* Pharyngeal teethReptile* ScalesBird FeathersUnidenti ed hair* –


Locus Taxon Skeletal Element

65* Goat 1 femurBird –Hare 1 molar

67* GoatSheep/goat

68* Carnivore scats71* Unidenti ed bone fragments73* Rodent

Bird80* Bird Feathers81* Ostrich Fragments of eggshell

Unidenti ed bone fragments101* Feathers104* Feathers

Carnivore scatsFish

153* Unidenti ed bone fragments162* Fish251 Fish — Sparus auratus. 1 le maxilla

Sheep/goat* 1 ribUnidenti ed bone fragments*Shell — Stramonita haemastoma*

252* Cattleunidenti ed bone fragments

254 Fish — Epinephelus sp. 1 le dentale256* Dog262 Fish — Lates niloticus 4th and 6th abdominal vertebrae266 Fish — Lates niloticus 1 le neurocranial element

Unidenti ed bone fragments*270* Unidenti ed bone fragments

Note: Loci denoted by an asterisk * indicate material listed by Hellwing which was not re-examined.

CHAPTER 1 — THE FAUNAL REMAINS AND THE FUNCTION OF THE SITE 1

SUPPLEMENT

LATE HUMAN REMAINS AT KUNTILLET ªAJRUD

BARUCH ARENSBURG AND REGITA YAKAR

A few skeletal remains of three individuals were recov-ered at ªAjrud (L 68, Reg. No. 607/40, 609/40). e stratigraphic position of the remains was unclear, but it is certain that their archaeological period is not Iron Age II.

e preservation of the bones and so tissues in the arid Sinai desert make the osseous remains appear more recent than they probably are. e bones are well pre-served, but most of them fragmentary. ey belong to an adult male, about 35–40 years old, to a young female between 14–16 years old, and to a foetus almost at term, in the 8–9th month of pregnancy. e list below indi-cates the bones that were found and recognized.

Adult male (35–40 years old):Mandible, right and le humerus, right ulna, atlas ver-tebra, le clavicle, le scapula, bula.

Female (14–16 years old):Mandible, right and le ulna, right and le radius, atlas vertebra, right and le clavicle, right scapula, bula, sternum.

Foetus (ad terminus):Mandible, basioccipital.

Four vertebrae, 16 ribs and 12 phalanges could not be identi ed by age or sex.

e bones of the male are strong and rugged, with arthritic deformations in the humerus, ulna and atlas. His stature was estimated, according to the humeral length, as 1.65 m. e mandible presents a very atypi-cal, bilateral dental attrition in the molar teeth. e le side is the more affected: the deep erosion that extends to the pulp cavity has produced a large alveolar abscess. In the right side the rst molar is absent, and the second presents a very deep concavity with a very low labial border (see Fig. 12 4). is kind of dental erosion is

considered as functional (use of the teeth for work-ing activities), and has been observed in prehistoric times (e.g. Natu ans) as well as modern populations (e.g. Inuit). In the present case the mandible also pres-ents extremely strong muscular attachments for the masticatory muscles, mainly of the lateral and medial pterygoids, indicating work activities, such as gripping one end of a rope or a skin in the month while pulling the other end. Table 12.A.2 shows the measurements of the male and female mandibles of ªAjrud compared to a Bedouin sample from the Sinai.

e female skeletal remains present parts of dry mummi ed dorsal and ventral skin in the pelvic region. e skull of the foetus lay in this mummi ed pelvic region of the woman. Her stature would have been about 1.56 m according to the long bones.

e human remains of Kuntillet ªAjrud are espe-cially interesting, even if it is not possible to determine their archaeological age or ethnic affinities. ey seem

Fig. 12.4. e ªAjrud adult male mandible


to differ in some aspects from the present Bedouin dwellers of the region, especially in some morphologi-cal aspects of the skeleton and in the characteristics of the masticatory apparatus. More material is necessary, however, to con rm this view.

Table 12.A.2 e mandibles of ªAjrud compared with those of average Sinai Bedouin

ªAjrud Sinai Bedouin

Male Female Male Female

Maximum length 114 103 106 98

Body length 75 74 78 72

Bicondylar breadth 116 110 114 109

Bicoronoid 101 90 95 88

Bigoniac 99 83 90 84

Ramus breadth 31 31 33 30

Ramus height 63 51 59 50

Symphysis height 32 27 30 28

Mental foramen height 31 27 30 27

Mandibular angle 131° 129° 123° 128°

Dimensions are in mm. (Arensburg 1973)

From a social point of view, it is most interesting to nd the remains of a young girl about to give birth. is is not uncommon with the Bedouin of the region. Although it was not possible to prove that all the osse-ous remains belong to a single family, that is, father, mother and foetus, this may well be the case. e causes of death could not be determined (see Editor’s notes below).

Editor’s notes

1. At Locus 41, some 10 m from the place where the bones were found, a large lock of hair was found (L 41, Reg. No. 352/40). It was checked at the Israeli Police Forensic Laboratory and determined to be human*. A 14C test of the hair determined it to be 155 ± 65 years old (see Ch. 3, sample RT-2095). e hair may have been of the girl (or the man) whose remains were found, which would give them an approximate date.

2. e human remains described above were not found in a regular burial, and were collected during the clearing of the stone collapse that cov-ered the locus. It appears to the excavators that the deceased had been buried together among the stones, and most of their organs were eaten by animals and birds. Since these are the only human remains found at the site, and it was not used as a Bedouin cemetery, it seems that this is a special case: not an ordinary family who died at the same time, but a death resulting from a romantic or another relationship forbidden in the nomadic society, which led the man, girl and foetus to their fate.

* Report No. ZB/11–79/6118–32815, dated 20.12.1979, by Dr. W. Opricht, Head of the Biology Laboratory, Israel Police Headquarters, Department of Forensic Identi cation. anks are also due to D. J. Almog, Deputy Head of the Research and Development Unit.

REFERENCES

Arensburg, B. 1973. e Peoples in the Land of Israel from the Epipaleolithic to Present Times. esis for Doctor of Philosophy submitted to Tel Aviv University

Documents

Ajrud Fish remains 2012