Emergence of fishing communities 2005

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS

Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 131-157 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005 Manuscrit reçu le 15 mars 2005, accepté le 7 juin 2005

THE EMERGENCE OF FISHING COMMUNITIES IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN REGION : A SURVEY OF EVIDENCE FROM PRE- AND PROTOHISTORIC PERIODS

W. VAN NEER, I. ZOHAR and O. LERNAU

Abstract : The present overview deals with the fish remains found at Palaeolithic to Late Bronze Age sites in the Eastern Mediterranean.Attention is focussed on both marine and continental fisheries in Anatolia, the Levant and Mesopotamia. After presenting a detailedinventory of the archaeofaunal data available in the literature, an attempt is made to document diachronic trends in marine exploitationand continental fishing of the region. The use of fish in ritual and religious practices is dealt with briefly and attention is also paid to fishas trade items.

Résumé : Une synthèse sur la pêche marine et continentale en Anatolie, au Levant et en Mésopotamie est présentée sur la base de restesde poissons trouvés sur des sites archéologiques allant du Paléolithique au Bronze récent. Un inventaire détaillé des données archéo-fauniques provenant de la littérature est suivi par un essai de mise en évidence des tendances diachroniques dans l’exploitation des eauxmarines et continentales de la région. Le rôle du poisson dans les pratiques rituelles et religieuses et le poisson comme produit de com-merce sont également abordés.

Key-Words : Archaeozoology, Fish, Fishing, Diet.Mots Clefs : Archéozoologie, Poissons, Pêche, Régime alimentaire.

Fishing is an important economic aspect of many societiesthroughout the world today and has probably played a signifi-cant role in the life and subsistence of many prehistoric peo-ples. Several studies1 have demonstrated that fish exploitationstarted earlier than previously assumed, and that near-shorefishing was a fundamental and optimal strategy, that allowedcoastal, riverine and lacustrine populations not just to survive,

but also to flourish. These studies also showed that, except foroff-shore fishing and sea-mammal hunting, there is no need tocall upon increased technological efficiency to explain inten-sification of aquatic exploitation2. It is therefore assumed thatearly fishing involved a lot of gathering, as is still practisedtoday by some small-scale commercial fishermen in different

1. YESNER, 1980 ; VAN NEER, 1986 ; GAUTIER and VAN NEER, 1989 ;STEWART, 1989 ; RICK and ERLANDSON, 2000 ; RICK et al., 2001. 2. YESNER, 1980 ; RICK and ERLANDSON, 2000.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS

132 W. VAN NEER, I. ZOHAR and O. LERNAU

Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 131-157 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

parts of the world3. However, we have little knowledge aboutthe evolution and importance of fishing.

Over the last twenty years, analyses of fish remains fromarchaeological sites worldwide have demonstrated the impor-tance of taxonomic identification (species richness and diver-sity) and estimated body sizes for characterising season andplace of capture, available fishing techniques, and environ-mental conditions (water temperature, salinity, etc.). Otherpossibilities of interpretation include the establishment oftrade or exchange patterns (through the presence of exoticspecies) and, in more complex societies, the definition of theconsumers’ social status. The study of diachronic changes ofichthyofaunas can, in addition, contribute to the understand-ing of anthropogenic or climatic factors that have affectedaquatic resources. The aforementioned issues can beaddressed only in those regions where sites with fish remainsare abundant and have been sampled efficiently. Fish exploi-tation has often been underestimated in the past, mainly as aresult of inadequate recovery methods applied during excava-tion. Studies have demonstrated the significant impact of siev-ing and screen size on species richness, diversity, body size,and skeletal representation4. The impact of water levelchanges on palaeogeography and geomorphology is anotherfactor that affects our knowledge of former fish exploitation.We now know that late Pleistocene and early Holocenecoastal sites have existed on shore lines that are presently sub-merged and have therefore been destroyed or obscured bymarine transgression5. Similarly, sites located along previousriver or lake sides may have disappeared or become invisibledue to erosion or sedimentation processes. When examiningthe role of fish and fishing in the Eastern Mediterranean theaforementioned limitations have to be taken into account.

The area investigated in this article incorporates a varietyof aquatic habitats, i.e. the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, thePersian Gulf, and numerous inland waters between these seas(fig. 1). These environments offered diverse aquatic dietaryresources that may have been exploited permanently or sea-sonaly, contributing to the emergence of broad-spectrumeconomies. An overview will be presented of both marine andcontinental fisheries during pre- and protohistoric times in theEastern Mediterranean region, paying attention to the evi-dence provided by fish bones found in Stone Age to LateBronze Age sites of Anatolia, the Levant and Mesopotamia.

Prehistoric fishing in Egypt and Sudanese Nubia has been dis-cussed in another paper6. We shall examine to what extentfish remains can be used to document 1) fish exploitation andfishing activity, 2) the beginning of open sea fishing, 3) fishpreservation and trade, 4) the role of fish in ritual and religion.

FISH BONES : THE RAW DATA

The chronological overview of marine and continentalfishing is based on bibliographical data, complemented byunpublished information on ichthyofaunas that we are cur-rently studying. An overview of the sites in the region thatyielded fish bones is given in table 1. For each site theperiod(s) of occupation, the number of fish bones and thesampling methods are indicated. Because a review is foreseenon the evolution of prehistoric fishing of Cyprus7, the pub-lished data available for this island are not included in thistable and will only be mentioned in the discussion, where wewill focus on the largest and most meaningful assemblages.At least 111 sites have yielded fish (table 1), but the amountof bones is usually extremely low because no sieving waspractised. This, combined with the fact that we are dealingwith a vast geographic area (fig. 1), hampers the documenta-tion of former fishing practices and of the importance of fishin human diet. Due to small sample size and lack of sievedmaterial, the possibilities of interpretation are limited andbiased toward larger species, while exploitation of small fishis under-represented, as will be observed in species richnessand estimated body sizes. Another factor hampering interpre-tation is the paucity of adequate reference collections andexperienced fish bone analysts that, especially in the past, hasresulted in poor and biased identification of the material.Despite the biases mentioned above, we have attempted toexamine variation in species richness (number of species ;table 2) and the relative abundance of high ranked fish com-pared to low ranked prey8 in order to explain changes in fishexploitation patterns and fishing techniques.

3. VON BRANDT, 1972 : 160 ; GUNDA (ed.), 1984 : 50.4. GARSON, 1980 ; GORDON, 1993 ; JAMES, 1997 ; ZOHAR and BEL-

MAKER, 2005.5. GALILI, 1985 ; NADEL, 1993.

6. VAN NEER, 2004.7. DESSE and DESSE-BERSET, pers. comm.8. BUTLER, 2000, 2001.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS

The Emergence of Fishing Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean region : A survey of Evidence from Pre- and Protohistoric Periods 133


Fig

. 1 :

Loc

alit

ies

in th

e E

aste

rn M

edit

erra

nean

reg

ion

that

yie

lded

fish

rem

ains

in p

re-

and

prot

ohis

tori

c le

vels

.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



Table 1 : Overview of pre- and protohistoric sites that have yielded fish remains. For each site only the periods are indicated for which fishbones have been reported. The total number of fish remains and the recovery methods (- : no sieving ; + : systematic sieving ; (+) : occasionalsieving) are indicated. In the last column the type of fish found are given.

SITE PERIODNUMBER

OF BONESSIEVING REMARKS

Anatolian inland sites

Karain cave1 Palaeolithic, levels unspecified ? - unidentified

Öküzini2 Upper Palaeolithic “many fish” + unidentified

Asıklı Höyük3 Neolithic (8040-7490 cal BC) 2 - unidentified

Çatal Höyük4 Neolithic (7400-6200 cal BC) + 16 000 + cyprinids and loaches

Domuztepe5 Halafian (ca 5500 cal BC) ? - unidentified

Demircihüyük6 EBA 17 - all cyprinid

Kilise Tepe7 EBA, MBA & LBA 27 - freshwater + imported marine

Sirkeli Höyük8 MBA & LBA 2 - 1 local Clarias, 1 imported marine

Bo*azköy-Hattu¬a9 MBA & LBA 8 - local freshwater + imported marine

Kaman-Kalehöyük10 LBA IIIa ? - unidentified

Gordion11 LBA 17 - unidentified

Sites along Euphrates and Tigris basin

Turkey

Hallan Çemi Tepesi12 terminal Epipalaeolithic ? - catfish and cyprinid

Göbekli Tepe13 PPNA-Early PPNB 2 - 1 cyprinid ; 1 Silurus

Nevalı Çori14 Early PPNB- Middle PPNB 13 - all cyprinids

Girikihaciyan15 Late Neolithic ; middle 5th mill. BC ? - unidentified

Hassek Höyük16 Late Uruk & EBA 96 - cyprinid + ? imported marine

Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük17 Late Uruk & EBA I 11 - unidentified

Nor„un Tepe18 Late Chalcolithic ? - unidentified

Arslantepe19 Late Chalcolithic & EBA IA 6 - unidentified

Hayaz Höyük20 Chalcolithic - LBA 13 - only cyprinid

Kurban Höyük 21 EBA 2 - unidentified

Lidar Höyük22 EBA, MBA & LBA 42 - mainly cyprinid, also Silurus triostegus

Korucu Tepe23 EBA, MBA & LBA 40 - unidentified

Titris Höyük24 MBA-LBA 1 - unidentified

Syria

Tell es Sinn25 Late PPNB 10 - cyprinids + Silurus

Bouqras26 Late PPNB 2 unidentified

Tell Abu Hureyra27 PPN “rare” - unidentified

Umm Qseir28 Halafian “small num-bers”

- unidentified

Tell Sabi Abyad29 Early Halafian 1 - unidentified

Jebel Aruda30 3000-3300 BC 25 - 1 silurid, rest cyprinid

Tell Brak five phases from Early Uruk to early 2nd mill. BC

1 27631 + varied fauna, all freshwater

end Akkadian 1 skeleton32 - marine import

Tell Beydar33 Early Dynastic III & Akkadian 27 (+) mainly cyprinids, 1 silurid, 1 marine import

Tell Halawa34 EBA, MBA & LBA 6 - 2 silurid, 4 cyprinid

Tall Habuba Kabira35 EBA & MBA 3 - unidentified

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



SITE PERIODNUMBER


Tall Munb°qa, site “Ibrahims Garten”36

EBA, MBA & LBA 8 - 1 Silurus, rest cyprinids

Tell Hadidi37 MBA & LBA 4 - unidentified

El Qitar38 MBA & LBA 56 - only cyprinid

Tal ¬“h Hamad39 LBA 1 - cyprinid

Tell Sweyhat40 LBA 1 - 1 cyprinid

Iraq

M’lefaat Early PPNA ? 41 + 96142 - and + mainly cyprinid, 5 catfish, 1 Mastacem-belus

Tell as-Sawwan43 Sammaran 34 - unidentified

Arpachiyah44 Halafian 1 - unidentified

Banahilk45 Late Halafian ? - unidentified

Larsa46 Chalcolithic (final Ubaid) 739 - mainly cyprinid, some silurid, bagrid, mugilid ; few marine

Kish47 3rd mill. ? - 1 cm thick layer of small fish, including cyprinids

Uruk-Warka (old excavations)48 Uruk III ? - large amounts in floor deposits ; unidenti-fied

Uruk-Warka (renewed excava-tions)49

final Chalcolithic-MBA 64 - mainly cyprinids ; 3 silurids, 1 mugilid, 3 marine

Eridu50 Chalcolithic (Ubaid), Uruk, Early Dynas-tic, Akkadian

? - large amounts in Ubaid period floor depo-sits ; unidentified

Tello (Girsu)51 EBA I (Jamdet Nasr), Early Dynastic ? - large amounts in floor deposits ; unidenti-fied

Lagash52 Early Dynastic III 57 - mainly cyprinid and sparid ; some silurid and pomadasyid

Sakheri Sughir53 Early Dynastic 1305 + mainly cyprinid, some silurid and “drums”

Isin-I„°n Bahry:°t II54 EBA, MBA & LBA + 300 - mainly cyprinid, some silurid, few marine import

Abu Salabikh EBA II & III 52255 + 124756

- and + freshwater and estuarine

Nippur57 Old Babylonian 28 - mainly cyprinid, some silurid

Iran

Farukhabad58 Farukhbayat to Elamite 86 + cyprinid, pomadasyid, myliobatid

Levantine inland sites

Ubeidiya59 Early Acheulian >1,000 - mainly clariids, also cyprinids, cichlids & cyprinodonts

Gesher Benot Ya’akov60 Middle Acheulian >5,000 + cyprinids, clariids, cichlids

Latamné61 Middle Acheulean + 60 + local cyprinids ; unclear if sparids are anthropogenic

Douara Cave62 Middle Palaeolithic 2 + marine ; probably fossil

Amud Cave63 Upper-Levallois-Mousterian ? + cyprinids, clariids, cichlids

Shubbabiq Cave64 Mousterian ? - unidentified


Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



SITE PERIODNUMBER


Ohalo II65 Early Epipaleolithic (23 000 BP) ca. 20 000 + cichlid and cyprinid

Mallaha (Eynan)66 Natufian 4659 + cichlid, cyprinid, clariid

Hayonim B67 Natufian ? + unidentified

Hilazon Tachtit68 Natufian 5 + unidentified

Hatoula69 Natufian & PPNA 840 + diverse marine fauna, except 2 freshwater fish bones

Yiftah’el70 mid-PPNB 7 + imported marine

Kfar Hahoresh71 PPNB (9 200-8 500 BP) ? + unidentified

Wadi Tbeik72 PPNB 4 + 1 Clarias

Ujrat el-Mehed73 PPNB 7 + unidentified marine import

‘Ain Ghazal74 PPNB, PPNC and Yarmoukian 4 - cyprinid

Tel Ali75 PPNC stratum II 2 ? unidentified

Netiv-Hagdud 76 PPN ? + cypriniforms, characin

Shiqmim77 Late Chalcolithic 2 ? unidentified

Tell Jenin78 EBA I 1 - imported marine

Tell Qashish79 EBA I-III 10 - freshwater + imported marine

Tell el-Oreme (Kinarot) 80 EBA, MBA IIC/LBA 18 - Clarias + imported Lates

Bab-edh-Dhra´81 EBA "few" ? unidentified

Megiddo82 EBA, MBA & LBA 39 (+) marine + Nile import

Jerusalem, City of David83 MBA II 9 - imported marine and Nile fish

Tell el-Hayyat84 MBA 52 - clariid, cyprinid

Sasa85 MBA 2 - 1 Lates, 1 Clarias

Lachish86 MBA & LBA III 611 (+) mainly marine import

Tel-el-Wawayat87 MBA & LBA 5 - imported marine and Nile fish

Neve Yarak88 LBA 1 - 1 Lates

Tall al-’Umayri89 LBA to IA I 4 - local freshwater and imported Lates

Timna90 LBA to IA I 95 + imported marine and Clarias

Anatolian coastal sites

Mersin-Yumuktepe91 Neolithic (6785-6620 BC) 7 - marine

Be„ik-Yassıtepe 92 EBA 442 - marine, 1 freshwater

Troia93 EBA, MBA & LBA + 500 (+) marine, some lagoonal and freshwater

Levantine coastal sites

Tabun Cave, layer C94 Upper-Levallois-Mousterian ? + unidentified

Kebara Cave95 Middle Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic 1 + marine

El-Wad Natufian96 & PPNA97 160 + marine

Sfunim98 PPNB 1 - marine

Atlit-Yam99 PPNC >6 000 + marine

Ashqelon Marina100 PPNC 789 + marine, 1 Clarias

Ziqim101 PN 154 + marine

Ras Shamra102 Late PN, Halafian, Ubaid ? - marine

Kfar Galim103 Late PN 2 - marine


Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



SITE PERIODNUMBER


Tel Hreiz104 Late PN Wadi Rabah culture 2 - marine

Tel Kabri105 Late PN Wadi Rabah culture, EBA, MBA IIA-B

192 (+) mainly marine

Neve Yam106 PN 14 - marine

Tel Katif107 Pottery Neolithic & Chalcolithic 295 ? marine in PN ; Nile fish in Chalcolithic

Afridar (Ashqelon)108 EBA I 54 + marine + 1 Lates

Tell es-Sakan109 EBA & MBA 3 (+) unidentified

Sidon110 EBA, MBA & LBA 139 - marine

Sarepta111 LBA II ? ? marine + Nile import

Tel Abu-Hawam112 LBA 232 - marine + Nile import

Tel Akko113 LBA 45 - marine + Nile + local fresh?

Tel Ashqelon114 LBA 5 - no marine ; 3 Lates + 2 indet

Tel Harassim115 LBA 21 - marine + Lates

Haruvit116 LBA 564 ? marine + 1 Lates + 1 Clarias


1. DENIZ and TA≠KIRAN, 1989.2. ALBRECHT et al., 1992 : 139, 140.3. BUITENHUIS, 1997.4. GRAVENDEEL and VAN NEER, pers. obs.5. WHITCHER KANSA and CAMPBELL, 2004.6. BOESSNECK and VON DEN DRIESCH, 1987.7. VAN NEER and WAELKENS, in press.8. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1996 ; VOGLER, 1997 : 178-180.9. VON DEN DRIESCH und BOESSNECK, 1981 ; VON DEN DRIESCH undPÖLLATH, 2004.10. HONGO, 1998.11. ZEDER and ARTER, 1994.12. ROSENBERG et al., 1998.13. VON DEN DRIESCH and PETERS, 2001 : 119.14. Ibid. : 120.15. MCARDLE, 1990.16. BOESSNECK, 1992a.17. SIRACUSANO, 2004.18. BOESSNECK and VON DEN DRIESCH, 1976.19. BÖKÖNYI, 1983 ; BARTOSIEWICZ, 1998.20. BUITENHUIS, 1988.21. WATTENMAKER, 1987.22. KUSSINGER, 1988.23. BOESSNECK and VON DEN DRIESCH, 1974.24. GREENFIELD, 2002.25. CLASON, 1980.26. AKKERMANS et al., 1983.27. LEGGE, 1975.28. ZEDER, 1994.29. CAVALLO, 1997 : 52. 30. BUITENHUIS, 1988.31. DOBNEY et al., 2003.32. ROSELLÓ IZQUIERDO and MORALES MUÑIZ, 2002.33. VAN NEER and DE CUPERE, 2000.34. BOESSNECK and VON DEN DRIESCH, 1989.35. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1993.36. BOESSNECK and VON DEN DRIESCH, 1986 ; BOESSNECK and PETERS,1988.

37. CLASON and BUITENHUIS, 1978.38. BUITENHUIS, 1988.39. BECKER, 1991.40. BUITENHUIS, 1986.41. TURNBULL, 1983.42. VAN NEER, unpublished.43. FLANNERY and WHEELER, 1967.44. WATSON, 1980.45. LAFFER, 1983.46. DESSE in HUOT et al., 1981.47. FIELD, 1936.48. NÖLDEKE et al., 1939 ; NÖLDEKE und LENZEN, 1940.49. BOESSNECK et al., 1984 ; BOESSNECK, 1992b.50. LLOYD and SAFAR, 1947 ; SAFAR et al., 1981.51. CROS et al., 1910.52. MUDAR, 198253. BÖKÖNYI and FLANNERY, 1969.54. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1981 ; BOESSNECK und ZIEGLER, 1987 ; BOESSNECK

and VON DEN DRIESCH, 1992.55. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1986.56. POLLOCK, 1990 : 71.57. BOESSNECK, 1978, 1993 ; BOESSNECK and KOKABI, 1993.58. REDDING, 1981.59. HAAS, 1966 ; TCHERNOV, 1979 ; Zohar, pers. obs.60. ZOHAR, pers. obs.61. GAYET, 1993.62. PAYNE, 1983.63. ZOHAR, pers. obs.64. BINFORD, 1966.65. ZOHAR, 2002, 2003.66. DESSE, 1987 ; Zohar, pers. obs.67. STINER and MUNRO, 2002.68. Zohar, pers. obs.69. DAVIS, 1985 ; LERNAU and LERNAU, 1994.70. HORWITZ with a contribution by LERNAU, 2003a.71. GORING-MORRIS et al., 1994/1995.72. TCHERNOV and BAR-YOSEF, 1982.73. DAYAN et al., 1986.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



74. KÖHLER-ROLLEFSON et al., 1988, 1993.75. LEV-TOV, 2000.76. BAR-YOSEF et al., 1991 ; TCHERNOV, 1994 : 11.77. WHITCHER KANSA et al., 1998.78. AL-ZAWAHRA, 1999.79. HORWITZ with a contribution by LERNAU, 2003b.80. ZIEGLER und BOESSNECK, 1990 ; MANHART and VON DEN DRIESCH,2004.81. FINNEGAN, 1976.82. LERNAU, 2000a.83. LERNAU and LERNAU, 1992.84. Van Neer, pers. obs. ; Metzger, in preparation.85. HORWITZ, 1987 ; VAN NEER et al., 2004.86. LERNAU and GOLANI, in press.87. LERNAU, 1996 ; VAN NEER et al., 2004 ; Lernau, unpublished.88. VAN NEER et al., 2004.89. PETERS et al., 200290. LERNAU, 1988.91. BUITENHUIS and CANEVA, 1998.92. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1999.93. ROSE, 1994 ; VAN NEER and UERPMANN, 1998 ; UERPMANN and VAN

NEER, 2000.94. JELINEK et al., 1973.

95. SAXON, 1974.96. DESSE in VALLA et al., 1986 ; Zohar, pers. obs.97. Zohar, pers. obs.98. LERNAU, 2002 : 425 ; GARFINKEL et al., 2002 : 134.99. GALILI et al., 1993, 2002, 2004a ; ZOHAR et al., 1994.100. LERNAU, in press.101. GARFINKEL et al., 2002.102. GALILI et al., 2002, 2004b103. HORWITZ et al., 2002.104. Ibid.105. LERNAU, 2002.106. Lernau, unpublished.107. LERNAU, 1996 ; Lernau, unpublished.108. LERNAU, 2000b.109. MIROSCHEDJI et al., 2001.110. Van Neer, pers. obs.111. ROSE, 1994.112. LERNAU, 1996 ; Lernau, unpublished.113. LERNAU, 1996 ; VAN NEER et al., 2004 ; Lernau, unpublished.114. LERNAU, 1986/87 ; LERNAU, 1996 ; VAN NEER et al., 2004 ; Lernau,unpublished.115. LERNAU, 1996 ; Lernau, unpublished.116. VAN NEER et al., 2004 ; Lernau, unpublished.

Table 2 : Fishing strategies as reflected by species richness in sites with abundant fish remains.

Period Site Location NISP Species Richness Provenance of fish

Epipaleolithic Ohalo II Inland >20 000 8 Freshwater

Natufian Mallaha (Eynan) Inland >5 000 5 Freshwater

El-Wad Coastal 62 4 Marine-littoral

Hatoula Inland 26 4 Imported marine-littoral

PPN-Sultanian Hatoula Inland 664 16 Imported marine-littoral & local freshwater

PPN-Khiamian Hatoula Inland 132 10 Imported marine-littoral

PPN El-Wad Coastal 12 8 Marine-littoral

M’lefaat Inland 643 4 Freshwater

Çatal Höyük Inland ~16 000 11 Freshwater

Shillourokambos Coastal 711 2 Marine-littoral

Khirokitia Coastal 3102 7 Marine-littoral

Cap Andreas Kastros Coastal 5,906 19 Marine-littoral

PPNC Atlit-Yam Coastal >6 000 7 Marine-littoral

Ashqelon Marina Coastal 789 11 Marine-littoral

Pottery Neolithic Ziqim Coastal 154 3 Marine-littoral

Chalcolithic Tell Brak Inland 22 3 Freshwater

Larsa Inland 739 10 Freshwater

EBA Be„ik-Yassıtepe Coastal 442 10 Marine-littoral & open sea

Sidon Coastal 91 8 Marine-littoral & open sea

Abu Salabikh Inland 522 16 Freshwater & estuarine

EBA/MBA Troia Coastal 251 13 Marine open water, lagoonal, & freshwater

Tell Brak Inland 1 254 8 Freshwater

Lachish Inland 62 9 Imported Nile & marine-littoral

LBA Lachish Inland 549 15 Imported marine-littoral & Nile, freshwater

Tel-Abu Hawam Coastal 232 14 Imported marine-littoral &Nile, freshwater fish

Haruvit Inland 564 8 Imported marine-littoral & Nile, freshwater

1. More material from this site is presently under study and will be presented in a future publication, DESSE and DESSE-BERSET, pers. comm.2. Idem.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



CONTINENTAL FISHING

Although more than 70 inland sites with fish remains existthus far in the Eastern Mediterranean area, the number of themthat has yielded a substantial amount of bones is very low(table 1). In very broad terms, it can be stated that the majorexploited fish taxa in Anatolia and Mesopotamia are cyprinids(minnows and carps such as Barbus, Capoeta, Acanthobrama,etc.) and silurids (catfish such as Silurus and Mystus). In theLevantine area, cyprinids, clariids (catfish) and cichlids(perch-like fishes such as tilapia) are the families that areencountered most frequently. These interregional differencesare simply related to the geographical distribution of the taxa.Because sample sizes are usually very limited and becauseidentifications beyond family level are rare, attention will needto be focused on the few exceptional sites where thoroughsampling and detailed analysis have been carried out.

For the Palaeolithic periods, the oldest fish remains from theconsidered region have been recovered in the Jordan Rift Valleyat the Lower Palaeolithic site of ‘Ubeidiya9. Preliminary studydemonstrated the occurrence of Barbus longiceps and Clariasgariepinus with a preponderance of the latter species. Since thesite is located on the shore of a palaeolake it is unclear if the fishbones are anthropogenic in nature. A similar taphonomic prob-lem is observed for the Middle Acheulian site of Gesher BenotYa’akov10 in the northern Jordan Valley. Preliminary analysisshows the occurrence of Cyprinidae, Clariidae and Cichlidae11.Further study will provide more precise identifications and estab-lish whether the fauna is anthropogenic or is instead a naturaldeposit. The same question, concerning the nature of the deposit,remains for the fish bones from the Middle Acheulean site ofLatamné12. At this inland site along the Orontes river, the major-ity of the material consists of cyprinids, among which Barbus sp.was identified. Sparid teeth have also been reported, but as thesite is located about 100 km east of the coast, it was hypothesisedthat they may be derived from younger strata, or that they repre-sent reworked fossils from upper Cretaceous, or early Tertiary,beds cut by the Orontes or one of its tributaries. For the Mouste-rian period, fish remains were recovered from three caves in theLevant : Tabun Cave13, Shubbabiq14 and Amud Cave15. It is

unclear what the taxonomic identification is of the few fishbones reported from Tabun Cave. The two other assemblageshave not yet been studied although a sample of bones fromAmud was quickly inspected, showing that they consist ofcyprinids, clariids and cichlids.

Clear evidence for fish exploitation and intensive fishingactivity is observed during the Epipalaeolithic. Due to lakelevel changes, the site of Ohalo II, dated to 23000 BP, hasbeen exposed on the southern shore of the present Sea of Gal-ilee (fig. 1). Fish remains are highly abundant at the site.Analysis of ca 5000 bones16 demonstrated that the inhabitantsof Ohalo II exclusively exploited Cichlidae and Cyprinidae,targeting Tilapiini, Barbus and Capoeta (table 3). The widerange of body sizes observed (14-54 cm SL for Barbus sp. andCapoeta sp. ; see fig. 2) may indicate the use of a variety offishing techniques such as weirs, baskets, traps, and nets. Pos-sible fishing gear that was preserved at the site includes piecesof burnt string17 found on the floor of locus 1 and four double-notched pebbles18 recovered in loci 13, 1, and 18. In addition,41 double-notched pebbles were recovered from the surfaceof the site19. Since no clear evidence was found for open waterfishing, it was postulated that fishing might have been prac-tised mainly in riverine and lacustrine inshore areas, duringthe breeding season20. Despite the abundance of Epipalaeo-lithic sites21 in the vicinity of freshwater habitats, additional

9. HAAS, 1966 ; TCHERNOV, 1979 ; Zohar, pers. obs.10. Zohar, pers. obs.11. Ibid.12. GAYET, 1993.13. JELINEK et al., 1973 : 165.14. BINFORD, 1966.15. Zohar, pers. obs.

16. ZOHAR, 2002, 2003.17. NADEL et al., 1994.18. NADEL and ZAIDNER, 2002.19. Ibid.20. ZOHAR, 2003.

Table 3 : Fish remains from Epipalaeolithic Ohalo II.

NISP %

Tilapia aurea 2 0.04

T. zillii 9 0.18

Sarotherodon galilaeus 3 0.06

Tristamella sp. 43 0.86

Tilapiini 3 189 64.13

B. canis 35 0.70

B. longiceps 87 1.74

Barbus sp. 178 3.57

Capoeta damascina 306 6.14

Barbus/Capoeta 1 126 22.58

Total 4 987 100%

21. BAR-OZ et al., 1999.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



evidence for intensive fish exploitation is not observed untilthe Natufian period. This is the case at Mallaha (Eynan),located in the northern Jordan Valley. Fish remains are highlyabundant at the site and, similar to Ohalo II, they includemainly Cyprinidae and Cichlidae22, but differ in the addi-tional presence of Clariidae. Preliminary analysis mentionsthe presence of large cyprinids (including Barbus sp.) weigh-ing more than 500 g, and of smaller fish, probably includingtilapias, catfish (Clariidae etc.) and cyprinids. Recently thefollowing taxa were identified from the 1998-1999 excava-tion season : Capoeta damascina, Barbus longiceps, Acan-thobrama cf. lissneri, Clarias gariepinus and Tilapiini23.From the marginal growth increments of the vertebrae,Desse24 concluded that fishing was practised during thespring. The exploitation of small fish by the Mallaha inhabit-ants, demonstrates that they did not target exclusively highranked fish (i.e., large Cyprinids, tilapia and Clariidae) butthat they also exploited low ranked fish (Acanthobrama sp.).As for the presence of small fish, Desse25 concluded that theinhabitants probably used baskets or nets with fine mesh.Worth mentioning is that a single stone weight was recoveredat the site in the early 1960’s26. Fish remains have beenreported in low quantities from the Natufian sites of HayonimB27 and Hilazon Tachtit28, but they are so far unidentified. Ofspecial interest is the Natufian assemblage from Hatoula29,

which consists exclusively of imported marine fish (seebelow).

In contrast to the fishing activity documented along theJordan rift Valley, Palaeolithic fish bones have been reportedin Anatolia only from the caves of Karain30 and Öküzini31,with no identifications provided. Farther east, the terminalEpipalaeolithic site of Hallan Çemi Tepesi32, yielded cyprinidand “catfish” remains ; but again neither detailed identifica-tions nor quantitative data were given.

Table 1 shows that information on freshwater fish exploi-tation during the Neolithic is very limited, despite the fact that22 inland sites with fish remains are known. The number ofrecovered bones is usually very small (mostly less than 10, ornot specified) and in half of the cases no identifications areprovided. Three inland sites only have yielded large amountsof Neolithic fish bone, and in one of them mainly marine fishwere found. This is the case for Hatoula, already mentionedearlier, in which only the Sultanian levels yielded a singlecyprinid bone, tentatively identified as Capoeta damascina,and one bone of tilapia33. Freshwater fish are totally lackingin the Khiamian levels. M’lefaat34 and Çatal Höyük35 are sofar the only sites that document continental fishing during theNeolithic. In both cases, the identifications have only recentlybeen completed. The full exploitation of the data, taking intoaccount more contextual information, still needs to be carriedout. Therefore the information provided below should beregarded as preliminary results. The site of M’lefaat is locatedin the Tigris basin along the Khazir river, and dates to theearly PPNA. Fish remains from excavations carried out in1954 were hand-collected and included catfish spines, whichwere identified as Heteropneustes fossilis, Mystus pelusiusand/or M. colvilli36 (the latter is now considered a synonym ofM. pelusius). During the renewed excavations in 1989-199037, 643 fish remains were recovered by using a 3 mmmesh38 (table 4). The cyprinids, among which only the genusBarbus could be recognised, represent 98 % of all the identi-fied remains. Previously published, hand-collected, Neolithicichthyofaunas seemed to suggest that only large specimenswere targeted, but the reconstructed body lengths of the

22. DESSE, 198723. Zohar, pers. obs.24. DESSE, 1987.25. Ibid.26. PERROT, 1966.27. STINER and MUNRO, 2002.28. Zohar, pers. obs.29. DAVIS, 1985 ; LERNAU and LERNAU, 1994.

Fig. 2 : Body length reconstructions for the Barbus and Capoeta fromOhalo II (n = 34).

30. DENIZ and TA≠KIRAN, 1989.31. ALBRECHT et al., 1992 : 139, 140.32. ROSENBERG et al., 1998.33. LERNAU and LERNAU, 1994.34. TURNBULL, 1983 ; VAN NEER, unpublished.35. Gravendeel and Van Neer, pers. obs.36. TURNBULL, 1983.37. KOZ∂OWSKI, 1998 ; KOZ∂OWSKI et al., 1991.38. Van Neer, pers. obs.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



cyprinids from M’lefaat (fig. 3) show that small-sized fishwere also frequently captured. Moreover, there is no doubtthat the relative abundance of small fish would have beeneven higher if smaller mesh-sizes had been used. Evidence forintensive fish exploitation, especially small fish, has beenobserved at Çatal Höyük. The site is situated next to the Çar-samba River and dates to 7400-6200 cal BC. About16000 fish bones have been analysed from 65 different con-texts. From the identified bones (ca 60 %)39 two familieswere determined, of which the Cyprinidae were highly abun-dant (89 %) compared to the loaches (11 %). Among thecyprinids, five taxa were recognised of which Capoeta andPseudophoxinus are the most common : Capoeta represents52 % of all identified cyprinids, Pseudophoxinus 40 % andLeuciscinae 7 %. The genus Chondrostoma is poorly repre-sented (1 %) and of Gobio gobio and Leuciscus sp. only onebone each was found. Among the loaches, the genera Cobitisand Seminemacheilus are about equally represented. It isstriking that almost 80 % of the fish were smaller than 10 cmSL (fig. 4). The contexts from which the fish bones arederived include midden deposits, floors, pit fills, ashy spreadsand oven rake-outs, as well as alluvial deposits. A detailedspatial analysis, combined with confrontation to other findcategories, still needs to be undertaken. However, it alreadyappears that the highest concentrations of fish bone are foundin contexts defined as dumps and that alluvial deposits usuallyyield low amounts. Evidence for fishing gear is rare. A singlefish-hook has been found40, but this would only have beenefficient for the capture of the largest cyprinids. Harvesting oflarge quantities of small cyprinids and loaches would proba-bly have been carried out with the aid of baskets and fine-

meshed nets. However, none of the basketry discovered so farseems to be related to fishing41.

The information for the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ageperiods is also very restricted (cf. table 1). More than 40inland sites with fish remains have been found in the litera-ture, but the number of bones is usually very small. In thesouthern Levant, new settlements appear during the Chalcol-ithic, but despite the fact that most of them are located alongrivers42, fish remains were only recorded from a small numberof sites due to lack of sieving. During the Early Bronze Age I,numerous settlements were also established in the fertileregion of the southern Levant, next to water resources43. Sitessuch as Megiddo, Beth-Shean, Arad, and Bad edh-Drahdeveloped in the EBA II into urban centres. These included

Table 4 : Fish remains from PPNA M’lefaat.

NISP

Barbus sp. 14

Cyprinidae indet. 305

Mystus pelusius 4

Silurus triostegus 1

Mastacembelus mastacembelus 1

Total identified 325

Unidentified 318

Total 643

39. Gravendeel and Van Neer, pers. obs.40. Russell, pers. comm.

41. WENDRICH, in press.42. MAZAR, 1990.43. Ibid.

Fig. 3 : Body length reconstructions for the cyprinids from M’lefaat(n = 231).

Fig. 4 : Body length reconstructions for the cyprinids and loachesfrom Çatal Höyük.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



the sites Beth Yerah and Tel Kinrot, located on the shores ofthe Sea of Galilee44. Again, due to recovery methods, few fishremains were reported from these sites, although their geo-graphic location implies that fishing must have been one ofthe inhabitants’ subsistence strategies. Of the Levantineinland sites from the considered periods, Lachish45 is the onlyone where partial sieving was carried out, by using a large (1-2 cm) mesh. Sample size is therefore small (NISP = 62) andlarger fish are over-represented. The identification of 8 differ-ent taxa emphasises that if a smaller mesh had been used, spe-cies richness might have been even higher. Despite theseshortcomings it appears, however, that in this region localfreshwater fishing was a minor activity and that import ofMediterranean and Nilotic fish was important, no doubtbecause of the proximity of the coast and the existence of effi-cient trade networks46. From Anatolia, only hand-collectedmaterial is available and this consists mainly of large-sizedcyprinids. Again, in the sites of the Euphrates and Tigrisbasins, most of the material was hand-collected whichexplains why most of the identified bones are from largecyprinids and, less frequently, Silurus triostegus. It is unfortu-nate that the available archaeo-ichthyological data are so lim-ited, since Mesopotamian sites of these periods have yieldeda wealth of information on the exploited fish, organization offisheries, fish processing and on the importance of fish in reli-gion and mythology47. Confrontation of fish bone finds withthe evidence from cuneiform tablets, iconography and repre-sentations on seals could be very rewarding in the future. Inthis vast region, sieving was carried out at the Early DynasticIII and Akkadian site of Tell Beydar48, but since this was notdone systematically, the sample is small. A more systematiceffort was carried out at the nearby site of Tell Brak, resultingin a substantial amount of well-sampled fish remains (NISP= 1276)49. The site is located close to Wadi ar Radd, whichruns into the Habour river, a branch of the Euphrates. Fiveoccupation phases from Early Uruk to the early second mil-lennium BC have been distinguished, but fish remains areunequally distributed over the phases. Sample size is small forphase I (Early Uruk), phase II (Middle Uruk), and phase III(Ninevite 5) ; larger assemblages are available for phase IV

(later third millennium BC) and phase V (early second millen-nium BC). No clear shift in time is seen in the species compo-sition. Cyprinids always dominate with a proportion ofbetween about 60 % and 80 %. An increase in cyprinids is vis-ible from phase II through phase V, but sample size is smallfor the earliest phases II and III. Silurus glanis are rare andother taxa such as the catfish Mystus pelusius and the spiny eelMastacembelus mastacembelus are even less frequent. Fresh-water mullets (Liza abu) are well represented in one particularcontext and consist of small individuals (73 % between 10-20 cm SL ; 27 % less than 10 cm SL). The size of thecyprinids varies between < 10 cm and 60-70 cm, but mostspecimens fall in the size classes 10-20 and 20-30 cm SL.Among the Silurus glanis no specimens considered large werefound. No decreasing trend in the sizes, that could be indica-tive of overfishing, was observed through time. The ichthyo-fauna as a whole shows that all parts of the river system wereexploited, i.e. surface waters (mullets), mid-water (cyprinids)and benthic habitats (cyprinids and typical bottom dwellerssuch as Mastacembelus, Silurus and Mystus). No fishing gearwas found at the site, but based on the type of fish and theirreconstructed body lengths it was postulated that hook andline, baskets and nets, including those with small mesh sizes,might have been used. From the Early Bronze Age site of AbuSalabikh more than 500 fish remains have been reported byA. von den Driesch50. Although hand-collecting was themajor recovery method, ashy deposits were partly dry-sievedand 10 % was flotated. Most of the material comes from set-tlement contexts and consists of at least eight differentcyprinid taxa, two catfish species, and spiny eel (Mastacem-belus). A large amount of fish bones (NISP = 1286) from thesite has been reported subsequently51, but this assemblageremains unstudied thus far. Finally, at the Early Dynastic vil-lage site of Sakheri Sughir, the importance of fishing in thesubsistence is indicated by the preponderance of fish remainsboth in terms of number of specimens (72 % of the totalnumber of bones in the 1 mm screened samples) and in termsof bone weight (23 %). Preliminary identifications show adominance of cyprinids52.

44. MAZAR, 1990 : 95-96.45. LERNAU and GOLANI, in press.46. VAN NEER et al., 2004.47. E.g., SALONEN, 1970 ; ENGLUND, 1990 ; DE MOOR, 1998 ;

SAHRHAGE, 1999.48. VAN NEER and DE CUPERE, 2000.49. DOBNEY et al., 2003.

50. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1986.51. POLLOCKS, 1990 : 71.52. BÖKÖNYI and FLANNERY, 1969.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



MARINE EXPLOITATION

Our knowledge regarding marine exploitation and coastaladaptation is biased not only as a result of the recovery meth-ods applied, but also due to sea level changes. Studies demon-strated that the earliest coastal sites along the Levantine coastappear between about 5000 and 6000 years ago, which coin-cides with the period when sea levels approximated the mod-ern ones53. However, significantly earlier coastal sites havebeen coming to light in the last few years, due to underwaterexploration in that region54 and, in addition, Cyprus hasyielded several remarkable sites going back in time as far asthe end of the 9th millennium BC55.

Marine fish have been reported in small numbers forLower and Middle Palaeolithic sites, but for most of them itis doubtful that they are anthropogenic. The single shark toothfrom the Middle Palaeolithic Douara cave (Central Syria),located at about 200 km east of the Mediterranean, was inter-preted as a fossil56, and the presence of an isolated sparid orlabrid tooth should probably be explained similarly. AtKebara Cave, a site in the Mount Carmel, located at about10 km from the coast in Middle Palaeolithic times, a singlebone of Sparus aurata was reported57, but no contextualinformation is provided to support fish exploitation.

In contrast to the intensive exploitation of freshwater fishalready documented during the early Epipalaeolithic, evi-dence for intensive marine exploitation appears only from thelate Epipalaeolithic, during the Natufian. At present, El-Wadis the only coastal site for which fish bones have beenreported. Of the 62 fish remains discovered during the 1980-1981 excavations, 16 were identifiable and they belong toSparidae (sea breams), Mullidae (goat fishes), Mugilidae(mullets) and Serranidae (groupers)58. The bones aredescribed as from small specimens, caught inshore. Morematerial is now available from later excavations (1994), buthas not yet been studied in detail. Information on marineexploitation during the Natufian is also provided by the site ofHatoula59, located in the Judea Mountains at 30 km from theMediterranean. Despite the small sample size (NISP = 26),the four marine taxa may document fish trade between coastal

and inland populations. Another possibility is that the inhab-itants of Hatoula were seasonal fishermen. In any case, theappearance of marine fish at Hatoula attests the importance ofmarine fish to the diet of late Epipalaeolithic populations.

In the PPNA layers from Hatoula a wide diversity ofinshore fish from the Mediterranean (table 2) is observed. Theabundant taxa are sparids, serranids and mugilids, all fishfrom the littoral zone (fig. 5A). The Khiamian fish faunayielded a few remains of little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus)and greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), which are typicalopen water fish that can, however, also occur more inshoreseasonally. It is therefore unclear whether this occurrence ofopen water species in the final stage of the PPNA may be con-sidered as a result of improving fishing techniques. Thereconstructed sizes provided for Sparus aurata show no dia-chronic trend that may be related to a shift in exploited fishinggrounds (fig. 5B), but it should be underlined that the samplesize for the Khiamian specimens (n = 5) is small. The con-sumed sparids ranged between 25 and 45 cm total length andit is striking that no smaller specimens are available in any ofthe periods despite the fact that a 0,5 mm sieve was used dur-ing sampling. Since Hatoula is an inland site to which marinefish were transported, this size distribution should probably beconsidered as a result of the high ranked prey choice made bythe trading parties, rather than an indication of a disinterest insmaller fish by the fishermen along the coast. When the pro-portion of fish remains at Hatoula is compared to the rest ofthe fauna, it appears that the contribution of fish increases dur-ing the transition of the Sultanian to the Khiamian60. In El-Wad Terrace a small number of bones (n = 12) was identi-fied61 from PPNA levels excavated during the 1994 season.Half of the bones belong to Sparidae (5 Pagellus sp. and 1Pagrus pagrus). Other taxa, each represented by a singlebone, are Chelon labrosus, Mugilidae indet., Dicentrarchuspunctatus, Labridae, Euthynnus alletteratus, and Raja sp. Allthese taxa may be considered coastal fish, including themigratory little tunny which, as already mentioned above, canbe found inshore seasonally.

Information on the marine exploitation in the Levant dur-ing the PPNB is rather limited, probably due to the recoverymethods applied. A single PPNB find of a shark or ray hasbeen reported from Sfunim62, a site located on the westernslope of Mount Carmel. At Yiftah’el, a mid-PPNB site at53. GALILI, 1985 ; WRESCHNER, 1977.

54. GALILI et al., 2004b.55. For a summary see DESSE et DESSE-BERSET, 2003.56. PAYNE, 1983 : 61.57. SAXON, 1974.58. VALLA et al., 1986.59. DAVIS, 1985 ; LERNAU and LERNAU, 1994.

60. LERNAU and LERNAU, 1994 : 120.61. Zohar, pers. obs.62. LERNAU, 2002 : 425 ; GARFINKEL et al., 2002 : 134.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



15 km from the coast, dry sieving on a 5 mm mesh yieldedfour sparids, two serranids and one mugilid63. From the PPNBsite Ujrat el-Mehed, located on a hill top along Wadi ed-Deirin the southern Sinai, seven fish vertebrae have been reported.Although no taxonomic identification is provided, theremains are said to belong to marine species that were broughtin as dried fish from the Red Sea along with the abundant seashells64.

Although the fish remains recovered at Hatoula alreadyimply intensive marine exploitation, more direct evidence forsuch practices by coastal fishing communities is observedonly from the PPNC period. Fish remains were recovered inrelatively large and diverse amounts at Atlit-Yam andAshqelon Marina65 (table 2). From the latter site, located atabout 1 km from the Mediterranean coast at the time of occu-pation, a well-sampled assemblage of almost 300 identifiable

fish bones is available66. It is striking that, despite the recov-ery with 3 mm mesh sieves, the ichthyofauna is dominated byserranids (86 %). Sparids account for only 5.5 % althoughthese fish also occur in inshore waters all year round. Thedominance of serranids may therefore be due to a specialisa-tion of the fishermen. Another site that yielded evidence for astriking dominance of one taxon is PPNC Atlit-Yam67. Its ich-thyofauna is unique due to the preponderance of the grey trig-gerfish (Balistes carolinensis) representing about 97 % of theidentified remains68. The other identified taxa are rare andinclude ray/shark, serranids, sparids, sciaenids, mugilids, anda carangid (Trachurus trachurus). Since they are only repre-sented by small and medium-sized individuals it is believedthat these fish were caught in the littoral zone.

For the Pottery Neolithic period, seven sites along theLevantine coast have yielded fish remains, but the informa-tion they provide is scanty (table 1). Underwater surveys dem-onstrated that many of the Neolithic coastal sites are presentlysubmerged, and therefore their mere existence is, at present,taken as the main evidence for marine exploitation. Sincenone of these sites have been excavated, fish remains recov-ered are hand-collected from random surveys, and theiramount and species richness are therefore low. The sub-merged coastal site of Kfar Galim produced one sparid andone unidentified fish bone69, whereas the Wadi Rabah culturesite of Tel Hreiz (another submerged coastal site) yielded onesparid and one tilapia bone70. From the submerged PN site ofNeve Yam serranids, sparids and carangids have been identi-fied71. The site of Ziqim, currently located 1 km from thecoast and 25 m above sea level, yielded 51 identifiable fishbones which all belong to serranids with the exception of asingle Sparus aurata and Argyrosomus regius72. All theremains are from fish of medium size, showing that they mayhave been caught with simple fishing gear between rocks ininshore, shallow waters. South of Ziqim, at Tel Katif, acoastal site in the Gaza strip, a single sparid tooth73 has beenreported. The Neolithic Wadi Rabah culture levels of TelKabri, a site located at 5 km from the present coast, yieldedone serranid and seven Balistes carolinensis remains. At Ras

63. HORWITZ with a contribution by LERNAU, 2003.64. DAYAN et al., 1986 : 107.65. PERROT and GOPHER, 1996.

Fig. 5 : A : Proportion of the fish taxa in Natufian and PPNA levelsat Hatoula. Percentages have been calculated on the basis of thefigures indicated in the detailed inventory which are slightlydifferent from those mentioned in the text. B : Proportion of the sizeclasses of Sparus aurata from the Sultanian and Khimanian levels.

66. LERNAU, in press.67. GALILI et al., 1993, 2002, 2004a ; ZOHAR et al., 1994.68. An unusual high proportion of triggerfish (8 %) has also been reported

from Cap Andreas-Kastros, Cyprus, by DESSE et DESSE-BERSET, 1994a.69. HORWITZ et al., 2002.70. Ibid.71. Lernau, pers. obs.72. GARFINKEL et al., 2002.73. LERNAU, 2002 : 425.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



Shamra, a site further north, remains of tuna and shark havebeen reported in the Late PN level VC. This and the associatedtools were taken as evidence for the existence of fishing tech-niques enabling the exploitation of large pelagic fish74. It isunclear, however, how this information was obtained since theichthyofauna from this site has not yet been studied. Shark ver-tebrae occur in small numbers at Ras Shamra in levels IIIB(Ubaid period), IIIC (Ubaid-Halaf transition), IV (Halaf) andVA (PN). A vertebra of a very large individual was found in theHalafian levels. In addition, the Halafian levels have yielded asingle large, unidentified vertebra75. Along the Anatoliancoasts, the only site of Pottery Neolithic date is Mersin-Yumuk-tepe, which yielded only 7 hand-collected fish bones of whichfour could be identified as belonging to the serranid family76.

The Chalcolithic period is characterised by a lack ofinformation regarding settlements along the coastal region77,as well as by inappropriate recovery methods. This mayexplain the scarcity of coastal sites in general and fish remainsin particular. At present, the only Chalcolithic site with infor-mation on marine fish exploitation is Tel Katif. At this siteone of us (OL) identified 128 bones belonging mainly tosparids (53 %), serranids (15 %), sharks (11 %) and sciaenids(10 %). Less frequently represented taxa are mugilids (4 %),scorpaenids (3 %), scarids (2 %) and balistids (2 %). Interest-ingly, despite the low sample size, eight taxonomic groupswere identified, implying that species richness may have beenhigher. Of the 14 shark vertebrae, two were classified as“small”, six as “large” and six as “extremely large”, showingthat besides littoral fishing some open water exploitation mayalso have been practised.

From the Early Bronze Age I period onward, intensivesettlement along the coastal zone is observed78. Despite this,fish exploitation was not examined in most of the sites. Theonly Levantine EBA I site with a reasonable number of fishbones is the coastal site of Afridar (Ashqelon) where 54 iden-tifiable bones have been found, mainly in refuse pits79. Thesebelong mainly to serranids (59 %) and sparids (35 %). Themeagre Argyrosomus regius and elasmobranchs are repre-sented by a single find. No doubt the narrow species spectrumis again a result of the recovery methods. At Tel Kabri80 six

hand-collected remains of serranids (n = 3), mugilids (n = 2)and Dicentrarchus (n = 1) were recovered in floors, pits andtombs from the EBA I period. Except for a single mugilid ver-tebra found in an EBA I tomb, the provenance of the bones isnot specified. An exceptionally interesting site is Sidon81

where out of 91 hand-collected fish remains dated to the EarlyBronze Age almost 70 % belong to sharks (table 5). Atpresent this is the earliest firm evidence for pelagic fishingand intensive shark exploitation. In addition, 6 other fish taxawere identified, each low in frequency. Due to the recoverymethods applied, it is clear that the relative abundance isbiased and that species richness should have been higher. Atthe western end of the considered region, the sites of Troia82

and nearby Be„ik-Yassıtepe83 also document the extensiveexploitation of large pelagic fish, mainly tuna and, to someextent, swordfish and large sharks. The major inshore fishtaxa are sparids and serranids. At Troia, the lagoon was alsoexploited intensively, but those fishing grounds graduallydiminished in importance as a result of the silting up of theriver, a process that can be followed through the species com-position of the ichthyofaunas from Early Bronze Age to clas-sical times.

74. GALILI et al., 2002, 2004b.75. Helmer, pers. comm.76. BUITENHUIS and CANEVA, 1998.77. MAZAR, 1990.78. Ibid.79. LERNAU, In press.80. LERNAU, 2002.

81. Van Neer, pers. obs.82. ROSE, 1994 ; VAN NEER and UERPMANN, 1998 ; UERPMANN and

VAN NEER, 2000.83. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1999.

Table 5 : Fish remains (NISP) from the Bronze Age contexts of Sidon.

EBA MBAMBAtombs

LBA total

Lamna nasus 1 (+1cf.) - - - 1 (+1cf.)

Sphyrna sp. 58 8 - 3 69

Argyrosomus regius 1 1 - - 2

Mugilidae sp. 1 - - - 1

Seriola dumerili 4 2 1 1 8

Serranidae 15 7 2 2 26

Sparidae 1 1 1 1 4

Sparus aurata - 1 - - 1

Sparus pagrus / caeruleostictus

- 1 - - 1

Dicentrarchus labrax - - 1 - 1

Thunnus sp. 5 1 - - 6

Balistes carolinensis - 2 - - 2

Total identified 87 24 5 7 123

Unidentified fish 4 5 1 6 16

Total 91 29 6 13 139

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



The more intense occupation and exploitation of thecoastal zone, that started in the EBA I, strengthens through theyears and from the MBA II period onwards a chain of cities,forts, and small settlements is established along the coastalplains84. Unfortunately, due to recovery methods applied inthese sites, fish remains were not recovered in most of them.From the available data on the Middle and Late Bronze Agefish faunas in the Eastern Mediterranean region, it is clear thatlittoral fishing was still practised. Although the exact contri-bution of taxa from the open sea is not very clear yet, itappears that sharks continue to be important. At LBA Haru-vit85 a hand-collected sample (NISP = 251) shows that morethan one third of the fish bones are from sharks (table 6) andthat 12 % of them are from large specimens that are unlikelyto have been captured inshore. A similar pattern is seen at TellAkko86, where half of the marine component is from sharks,of which at least 17 % are from large or very large fish.

TOO EARLY FOR DIACHRONIC PATTERNS IN CONTINENTAL AND MARINE FISHING ?

Various parameters can be used to try and document fishexploitation strategies through time. An increasing speciesspectrum can be indicative of more efficient fishing equip-ment and of the exploitation of multiple fishing grounds, bothinshore and off-shore. Such a phenomenon is noted in the NileValley where in the Epipalaeolithic the number of speciessuddenly increases dramatically as a result of a shift fromexclusively floodplain fishing to an exploitation of the whole

river system, including the main channel87. Exploited habitatscan be revealed by the ecological preferences of the species assuch, but also within each taxon it is vital to consider the sizedistributions. In general, adult fish migrate inshore for spawn-ing and the juveniles remain in shallow waters before migrat-ing to deeper or off-shore waters. Reconstructed fish lengthscan therefore demonstrate whether selective fishing was car-ried out on specific size groups, or whether the fish exploita-tion was less selective, targeting specimens of all sizes.Diachronic series of fish assemblages from a given regionmay also illustrate overexploitation, which results in adecreasing size trend over time. Morales et al.88, for instance,were able to document a possible evolution in fish exploita-tion strategies in the Iberian Peninsula, using fish bones fromcoastal sites of the Neolithic, Copper/Bronze Age and IronAge.

From the overview for the Eastern Mediterranean, no clearpattern emerges that would indicate a changing fish exploita-tion pattern in continental waters. Although the use of speciesrichness, indicated in table 2, might in theory be a goodapproach to discern diachronic patterns, it should be realizedthat the data set available so far includes figures that are heav-ily dependent on a number of variables, some of which aredifficult to control. The highest number of species occur inarchaeofaunas from sites that have been sieved and fromwhich the fish bones have been identified with an adequatereference collection. The more time is spent on collectingmodern comparative skeletons and on the establishment ofdiagnostic characters useful for generic or specific identifica-tion, the higher the number of taxa is. Therefore, assemblagesonly identified at family level a priori show a lower speciesrichness than those that have been more accurately identified.In addition, sample size and preservation may play a role inthe number of species found in an assemblage. Moreover, theapplied methodology and experience of the bone analysts canhave an effect on the number of lower taxa. From table 2, noclear increase in species richness is noted that could be relatedwith certainty to shifting fish exploitation techniques. Simi-larly, the sizes of the exploited taxa do not show a diachronictrend : small fish are always very abundant when sieving iscarried out.

The quality of the available dataset also limits the possibil-ities of interpretation regarding marine exploitation in theEastern Mediterranean. From the data on the sample sizes and

84. MAZAR, 1990.85. Lernau, pers. obs.86. Ibid.

Table 6 : Fish remains from the Late Bronze Age contexts of Haruvit.

NISP %

Clarias gariepinus 1 0.4

Tilapiini 9 3.6

Lates niloticus 1 0.4

Sharks 89 35.5

Serranidae 27 10.8

Sparidae 70 27.9

Sciaenidae 17 6.8

Mugilidae 37 14.7

Total 251 100.0

87. VAN NEER, 2004.88. MORALES et al., 2001.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



recovery methods indicated in table 1, it is again obvious thatconclusions on possible diachronic trends need to be formu-lated very cautiously. On most sites sparids and serranids pre-ponderate, but the proportions of the different size classesusually cannot be established correctly because the smallerfish are often underrepresented due to hand-picking. There-fore, it is also impossible on the basis of these taxa to try anddocument trends that may be related to shifts in exploited fish-ing grounds. In addition, small-sized taxa that could be indic-ative of open water fishing, such as clupeids, have onlyminimal chances of being recovered when no sieving is prac-tised during excavation. Nevertheless, an attempt can be madeto document a shift towards open water exploitation by look-ing at taxa of large size that are less affected by sampling bias.Several fish are considered as indicative of fishing in open,off-shore waters. These include tuna (Thunnus), Euthynnusalletteratus (little tunny), carangids such as the greater amber-jack (Seriola dumerili) and large sharks. These fish some-times occur on sites in very small numbers along with thenumerous bones of typical inshore fish such as sparids andserranids, and may in that case reflect occasional catches ofindividuals that ventured seasonally into shallower waters.Such specimens may therefore represent inshore rather thanoffshore fishing. It is only when large proportions of thesespecies occur that open water exploitation can be postulated,although even then the local topography of the coastal siteswith respect to the possible migration routes of the fish needto be taken into account89.

The rare finds of little tunny at PPNA El-Wad, and the fewbones from little tunny and greater amberjack at PPNAHatoula may well represent occasional captures of individualsthat migrated close to the shore. At PPNC Atlit-Yam, the sizeof the fish only indicates littoral fishing. Reliable data on RasShamra are not yet available, but it appears that large sharkswere captured since the Halafian (final Neolithic), althoughthe importance of other taxa is unclear. In Chalcolithic TelKatif, sharks represent one tenth of the total number of iden-tified bones and the large size of some of them suggests openwater exploitation. From the Early Bronze Age at Sidon thereis firm evidence for the frequent capture of large hammerheadsharks, that represent two-thirds of the ichthyofauna for thatperiod. In western Anatolia extensive exploitation of largepelagic fish, mainly tuna, has also been demonstrated fromthis period onwards. These data seem to be in agreement withthe general idea that from the Bronze Age onwards better fish-

ing equipment and fishing vessels were available90, allowingmore extended fish exploitation in offshore waters. However,evidence is already available for the Neolithic that suggeststhe seafaring capacities of the Eastern Mediterranean peopleswere considerable. This is evidenced, for instance, by the col-onisation of islands such as Cyprus91. It is worth noting, how-ever, that the fish remains from three early ceramic Neolithicsites at Cyprus do not yield firm evidence for open water fish-ing92. The oldest site with a substantial number of fish bones93

is Shillourokambos, located 6 km from the coast, whereEpinephelus of very large size was consumed almost exclu-sively, probably reflecting very selective fishing. At Khiroki-tia, a younger site located at a similar distance from the seashore, the ichthyofauna is also typical of coastal fishing,mainly in a rocky environment94. The groupers representabout half of the fauna, but they are smaller, on average, thanat Shillourokambos. Sparid remains account for about one-third of the fish fauna, and open water species such as amber-jack and scombrids are represented by a few bones only.Finally, Cap Andreas-Kastros95 is located on a rocky outcropalong the seashore and shows inshore fishing of mainlysparids and groupers. However, the most frequently capturedspecies was little tunny which represents one-third of thefinds. It is stressed by Desse and Desse-Berset, however, thatno boat fishing needs to be invoked since capture of the thun-nines may have been possible with watched catching cham-bers (so-called “madragues” or “tonnara”) or with long linesoperated from the rocky outcrops of the cape. Fish-hookshave been found indicating that the latter fishing gear wasavailable96. Contrary to the two other sites, fish remains pre-ponderate and mammal bones are poorly represented suggest-ing that marine resources played a primary role in the foodprovisioning at Cap Andreas-Kastros. Although the patternseen in these three sites may seem reminiscent of the hypoth-esis presented by Galili et al.97 for the Levantine coast wheresettlers at first continue to rely mainly on terrestrial resources,it should be underlined that the location of the Cypriot sitesalso needs to be taken into account. Cap Andreas-Kastros islocated at the seashore whereas Khirokitia and Shillourokam-

89. DESSE et DESSE-BERSET, 2003.

90. MCGRAIL, 2001 ; MORALES et al., 2001.91. PELTENBURG and WASSE (eds), 2004.92. DESSE et DESSE-BERSET, 2003.93. A single mullet bone was reported from early ninth to mid-tenth mil-

lennium BC Akrotiri-Aetokremnos by ROSE, 1999.94. DESSE, 1984 ; DESSE et DESSE-BERSET, 1989, 2003.95. See also DESSE et DESSE-BERSET, 1994a, b.96. LE BRUN, 1981. 97. GALILI et al., 2002.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



bos are a few kilometres from the coast. The differences infish/mammal ratios may therefore be due to geographicallocation and related site specialisation. In general, it shouldalso be remembered that it may be difficult to quantify theimportance of fishing versus other food procurement strate-gies by relying solely on faunal analysis since poor samplingand differential preservation of fish bones may distort theresults. This is especially the case if inter-site comparisons arecarried out. In addition the fact that ichthyofaunas from pro-ducer sites and consumer sites, located further inland, are con-sidered together may be problematic. In the PPNA site ofHatoula, fish bones become proportionally more importantthrough time, but it is unclear if this reflects an early increasein fishing effort along the coast or if it is a result of moreintense contact and exchanges with coastal populations. Iso-topic studies may be a useful additional tool to documentshifts in subsistence strategies and to quantify the importanceof the marine component in the diet.

FISH PRESERVATION AND TRADE

The development of methods to preserve fish, and thepotential of storage and long-range trade, is highly significantto the interpretation of socio-economic patterns. However,identification of human activity is a subjective exercise, sincethe researcher reconstructs several processes from an alreadytaphonomically biased assemblage of faunal remains. In thecase of fish processing this includes : 1) immediate butcheringafter procurement, 2) preparation for immediate or long-termconsumption (disarticulation, preservation, storage, and cook-ing), 3) consumption, and 4) waste deposition of consumedfish or of parts removed during processing98. In addition,recent ethno-archaeological studies have demonstrated thatthere is variability in the degree to which these activities aresegregated at the site, and waste is seldom deposited whereactivity took place99. The earliest possible indication of fishstorage for later consumption in the considered region wasdescribed from the coastal PPNC site of Atlit-Yam where alarge concentration of triggerfish was found100. Outside theregion considered for the present review, still earlier indica-

tions for such practices have been described for the thunnidsfrom Cap Andreas-Kastros at Cyprus101.

Another way of documenting fish preservation is by con-sidering evidence for long distance trade. The generallyaccepted distance that can be covered in a day by two individ-ual parties meeting at a central point is 50 km, a distance thatcan serve to differentiate regional from wider distribution pat-terns102. Only when distances are larger, it is likely that the fishwere transported in a preserved state. Following this reasoningit is doubtful if the aforementioned Natufian and PPNA marinefish found at Hatoula, located 30 km east of the present shoreline, can be considered as firm evidence for fish preservation.For a synthesis of the available archaeozoological evidence forlong distance trade in fish from the Nile, the Mediterranean,the Red Sea and Anatolia the reader is referred to a recentlypublished review103. From this overview it appears that thetrade in preserved Nile fish has the longest tradition, starting inthe Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age when finds arelimited to more southerly located coastal settlements of theLevant. It is only from the Middle Bronze Age onwards thatfinds of Nilotic fish become more numerous and also occurinland and on more northerly located coastal sites.

Numerous inland sites yielded evidence for the import ofmarine fish during the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ageperiods104. The distances over which the fish were trans-ported were relatively small, probably not necessitating cur-ing of the product, at least in the Levantine area, where siteswith such imports are dispersed 5 to 50 km from the coast.They include Megiddo105 (EBA, LBA), Tell Jenin106

(EBA), the City of David in Jerusalem107 (MBA),Lachish108 (MBA, LBA), Tel Harassim109 (LBA) and Tel-el-Wawayat110 (LBA). It is striking that most of these sitesalso yielded remains of Nilotic fish, showing that Mediterra-nean and Nilotic fish were transported inland along the sameroads from coastal towns. In Anatolia, imported Mediterra-nean fish were found at Kilise Tepe111 (40 km from thecoast) and Sirkeli Höyük112 (20 km). The marine fish from

98. ZOHAR et al., 2001.99. O’CONNELL and TUNNICLIFFE, 2001. 100. ZOHAR et al., 2001.

101. DESSE et DESSE-BERSET, 1994a, b and 2003.102. HODDER and ORTON, 1976 : 20-29.103. VAN NEER et al., 2004.104. Ibid.105. LERNAU, 2000.106. AL-ZAWAHRA, 1999.107. LERNAU and LERNAU, 1992.108. LERNAU and GOLANI, in press.109. LERNAU, 1996 ; Lernau, unpublished.110. Ibid.111. VAN NEER and WAELKENS, in press.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



Bo*azköy-Hattu¬a113 (250 km from the Black Sea and500 km from the Mediterranean coast) consist only of sharkvertebrae that may have been brought in as ornaments. InMesopotamia, four inland sites illustrate long distance tradein marine fish. A remarkable find is from an Akkadian (2200BC) context at Tell Brak114 where a complete skeleton ofAcanthopagrus latus was discovered that must have beenimported from the Gulf, which is now at a distance of about2000 km. At Isin-I„°n Bahry:°t II115, Acanthopagrus berda,another species typical of the Gulf, was found in a BronzeAge assemblage. A single ray vertebra, probably from thestingray Dasyatis, was found in an Early Dynastic III con-text at Tell Beydar116. Because of the location of the site, inthe Jazirah, and because the genus Dasyatis occurs in boththe Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, the exact prove-nance of this fish cannot be established. A less considerabledistance needs to be invoked to explain the presence in SWIran at Farukhabad of Myliobatis (eagle ray) in a Late Urukcontext and of pomadasyids found in the younger JemdetNasr phase117. Both taxa live in the Gulf and enter brackishwaters.

FISH IN RITUAL AND RELIGION

The fact that fish played a role in ritual and religion isreflected by the presence of fish bones in tombs and ritualdeposits. The oldest, possible, evidence in south-easternAnatolia is from Domuztepe118, a Halafian site (ca 5500 calBC) where a large, ritual, funerary deposit included mainlydomestic animals, some wild mammals and birds, and a few,unidentified, fish bones. In ancient Mesopotamia, icono-graphical and textual evidence points to the importance offish in religion119. The role of fish is profusely illustrated inreligious motives and scenes on ceramics, seals and fres-coes, whereas texts and representations on seal impressionsprovide information on fish offerings. It has been postu-

lated120 that fish betokened life in quite early times and thatlater the concept of re-birth caused them to be used in funer-ary rites. Although most of the evidence dates to the BronzeAge and later periods, some older finds exist as well show-ing that these beliefs went back to at least the Late Chalcol-ithic121. Excavations in the first half of the 20th centuryyielded massive deposits of fish skeletons and bones frombuildings at Kish122, Eridu123, Tello124and Uruk125. Thethird millennium material from Kish was described as adeposit of animals that died naturally from a catastrophiccause. The other finds, dating to the Chalcolithic and theEarly Bronze Age, were initially considered as fish offer-ings, but for Tello and Uruk the finds have been reinter-preted126 as the remains from fish storage or fish preparationunits. These bone finds were never studied archaeozoologi-cally, no doubt due to the lack of reference material andexpertise at the time. Information on the actual fish speciesthat played a role in religion and ritual is available from laterexcavations only. The meaning of the previously mentionedcomplete skeleton of a sparid imported from the Gulf at TellBrak, dating to the end of the Akkadian (2200 BC), isunclear, but it is not ruled out that it may be ritual127. At AbuSalabikh128, a site dating to the Early Dynastic I-III, fishbones have been found in 9 out of 200 tombs. Except for thesingle, more or less complete skeleton of a Barbus sharpeyi,the fish bones were found isolated and may have acciden-tally ended up in the graves. Fish remains have also beenfound inside tombs, mainly dating to the Old Babylonianperiod, at Isin-I„°n Bahry:°t II129 where isolated bones occurand at Nippur130 where a partial skeleton was found. Thefish were mainly Barbus that could reach sizes of up to onemetre. Isolated bones of (unidentified) fish have also beenmentioned from a small number of graves in Eridu131. In theLevantine area, fish bones were found from at least threesites. Middle Bronze Age tombs at Sidon (table 5) yielded a

112. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1996.113. VON DEN DRIESCH and BOESSNECK, 1981 ; VON DEN DRIESCH und

PÖLLATH, 2004.114. ROSELLÓ IZQUIERDO and MORALES MUÑIZ, 2002.115. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1981.116. VAN NEER and DE CUPERE, 2000.117. REDDING, 1981.118. WHITCHER KANSA and CAMPBELL, 2004.119. VAN BUREN, 1948 ; SALONEN, 1970 ; KREUZER, 1984 ;

SAHRHAGE, 1999.

120. VAN BUREN, 1948 : 102. 121. VAN BUREN, 1948.122. FIELD, 1936.123. LLOYD and SAFAR, 1947 ; SAFAR et al., 1981.124. CROS et al., 1910.125. NÖLDEKE et al., 1939 ; NÖLDEKE und LENZEN, 1940 ; VAN

BUREN, 1941, 1948.126. CRAWFORD, 1973.127. ROSELLÓ IZQUIERDO and MORALES MUÑIZ, 2002.128. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1986.129. VON DEN DRIESCH, 1981 ; BOESSNECK and VON DEN DRIESCH,

1992.130. BOESSNECK, 1993.131. SAFAR et al., 1981.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



few marine species, whereas at Middle Bronze Age Sasa132

a bone of catfish (Clarias) was found in a tomb. The lattersite also yielded a Lates niloticus imported from Egypt133,but it is unclear if the catfish had the same origin or if it camefrom a local river, i.e. the Jordan or one of the coastal rivers,all located at about 20 km from Sasa. The fish bonesreported from Early and Middle Bronze Age tombs at TelKabri134 show that mullets, serranids and cichlids were usedas funerary gifts. At Lachish135, finally, numerous fishbones have been found in Middle and Late Bronze Age con-texts. These included remains found in simple dwellings,public houses, and in palace and temple contexts. It is possi-ble that fish may have been used here for certain cultic pur-poses, but the small sample size of the individualassemblages did not provide hard evidence for suchpractices.

CONCLUSIONS

It is known that small animals were important to humandiets in the Mediterranean Basin from at least the early Mid-dle Palaeolithic, some 200000 years ago136. The relative con-tribution of fish to these economic systems is unknown, dueto lack of research. The present data demonstrate that sincethe Lower Palaeolithic hominids settled in the vicinity offreshwater resources that were rich in ichthyofauna. Moreo-ver, there is no doubt that the emergence of fishing communi-ties observed since the Epipalaeolithic has developed fromearlier fishing experience. Due to sea level changes ourknowledge regarding coastal exploitation prior to the Pre Pot-tery Neolithic period can, for the Levantine coast, only bedocumented from fish remains recovered at El-Wad and,especially, from the inland site of Hatoula. Earlier evidence ofmarine exploitation in the Eastern Mediterranean is onlyfound at Cyprus.

For the moment, the available data on freshwater fishexploitation in the Eastern Mediterranean region do not allowdetection of any possible diachronic trends in the speciesspectrum or in fish size that could be related to changing fish-ing methods or to a shift in fishing grounds. Small fish seem

to be important on every site where sieving has been carriedout and it remains to be verified if the proportions of large andsmall fish changed through time. This could then reflect ashift from inshore fishing, or mass harvesting of schools ofsmall species and juvenile fish of larger taxa, towards anexploitation of open waters using more sophisticated gearfrom vessels.

Regarding marine fishing, a shift from inshore fishingtowards exploitation of the open sea is documented by theincrease of pelagic species such as sharks, carangids, scom-brids and tunnids. In the Early Bronze Age this knowledgewas well established, but there are also indications that in theChalcolithic, and possibly even in the final Neolithic, offshorefishing for large fish was practised to some extent. Due to thelack of sieving so far, the importance of exploitation of smallversus large fish is still unclear. As long as there is a lack offurther large samples from systematic sieving it will remaindifficult to quantify what the role of fishing was in food pro-visioning during pre- and protohistoric times in the region.Moreover, only when such adequate samples become availa-ble will it be possible to address other interesting issues. Inother areas attempts have been made to document over-fish-ing137 or phenomena such as “fishing down the food web” 138

with the aid of archaeo-ichthyological samples. It is clear thatit is still too early for such exercises in the Eastern Mediterra-nean. In addition, the use of fish remains as markers of statusof the consumers will need to await the availability of prop-erly recovered assemblages with well-defined contextualinformation.

Acknowledgements : The contribution of Wim Van Neerto this text presents research results of the InteruniversityAttraction Poles Programme – Belgian Science Policy, of theConcerted Action of the Flemish Government (GOA 97/2)and of the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (Belgium)(FWO, G.2145.94). The contribution of Irit Zohar to thispaper presents research performed at Tel-Aviv University andwas funded by Irene Levi Sala Care Archaeological Founda-tion, University of Haifa and the Jacob Recanati fellowshipfrom the Centre of Maritime Studies, University of Haifa. Wealso thank Aude Van Driessche (RBINSc) for preparing themap and Sheila Hamilton-Dyer (Southampton) for the lin-guistic corrections of the text. The Israel Antiquity Authori-

132. HORWITZ, 1987.133. VAN NEER et al., 2004.134. LERNAU, 2002.135. LERNAU and GOLANI, in press.136. STINER et al., 2000 ; STINER, 2001.

137. HALES and REITZ, 1992 ; DESSE et DESSE-BERSET, 1993 ; CROCK-

FORD, 1994 ; VAN NEER et al., 2002.138. REITZ, 2003 ; MORALES and ROSELLÓ, 2004.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



ties is acknowledged for their permission to work on the fishremains. We also thank the anonymous reviewers, as well asJean Desse and Nathalie Desse-Berset, for their constructivecomments on an earlier version of this paper.

Wim VAN NEERRoyal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences

Vautierstraat 29B-1000 Brussel

[email protected] Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Laboratory of Comparative Anatomy and BiodiversityCh. De Bériotstraat 32

B-3000 Leuven

Irit ZOHARInstitute of Archaeology

The Hebrew University of JerusalemMount Scopus

Jerusalem 91904Israel

[email protected] Department of Maritime Civilizations

and The Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime StudiesUniversity of Haifa

Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905Israel

Omri LERNAUZinman Institute of Archaeology

University of HaifaMount Carmel

Haifa 31905Israel

[email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AKKERMANS P.A., BOERMA J.A.K., CLASON A.T., HILL S.G., LOHOFF E., MEIKLEJOHN C., LE MIÈRE M., MOLGAT G.M.F., ROODENBERG J.J., WATERBOLK-VAN ROOYEN W. and VAN ZEIST W.

1983 Bouqras revisited : preliminary report on a project in EasternSyria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49 : 335-372.

ALBRECHT G., ALBRECHT B., BERKE H., BURGER D., MOSER J., RÄHLE W., SCHOCH W., STORCH G., UERPMANN H.-P. and URBAN B.

1992 Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene finds from Öküzini : acontribution to the settlement history of the Bay of Antalya,Turkey. Paléorient 18,2 : 123-141.

AL-ZAWAHRA M.A.M.

1999 The Faunal Remains from Tell Jenin, Northern West Bank –Palestine. Leuven : Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, M.A.Thesis.

BAR-OZ G., DAYAN T. and KAUFMAN D.

1999 The Epipalaeolithic faunal sequence in Israel : a view fromNeve-David. Journal of Archaeological Science 26 : 67-82.

BARTOSIEWICZ L.

1998 Interim report on the Bronze Age animal bones from Arslan-tepe (Malatya, Anatolia). In : BUITENHUIS H., BARTO-

SIEWICZ L. and CHOYKE A.M. (eds), Archaeozoology of theNear East III : 221-232. Groningen : Center for ArcheologicalResearch and Consultancy (ARC Publication 18).

BAR-YOSEF O., GOPHER A., TCHERNOV E. and KISLEV M.

1991 Netiv Hagdud : An Early Neolithic village site in the Jordanvalley. Journal of Field Archaeology 18 : 405-424.

BECKER C.

1991 Erste Ergebnisse zu den Tierknochen aus Tal ¬“h Hamad -Die Funde aus Raum A des Gebäudes P. In : KÜHNE H.(Hrsg.), Die rezente Umwelt von Tal ¬“h Hamad und Datenzur Umweltrekonstruktion der Assyrischen Stadt D_r-Katlimmu : 117-132. Berlin : Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

BINFORD S.R.

1966 Me’arat Shovakh (Mugharet esh-Shubbabiq). Israel Explo-ration Journal 16 : 96-103.

BÖKÖNYI S.

1983 Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I animal remainsfrom Arslantepe (Malatya), Turkey, a preliminary report.Origini (Roma) 12 : 581-598.

BÖKÖNYI S. and FLANNERY K.V.

1969 Faunal remains from Sakheri Sughir. In : WRIGHT H.T. (ed.),The administration of rural production in an Early Mesopo-tamian town : 143-149. Ann Arbor : Museum of Anthropo-logy, University of Michigan (Anthropological Papers 38).

BOESSNECK J.

1992a Besprechung der Tierknochen- und Molluskenreste von Has-sek Höyük. Istanbuler Forschungen 38 : 58-74.

1992b Anhang 1. Tierknochenfunde aus Warka, Iraq (Nachtrag).In : VAN ESS M. und PEDDE F. (Hrsg.), Uruk. Kleinfunde 1 :267-270. Mainz : von Zabern (Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte 7).

1993 Appendix A. Tierknochenfunde aus Nippur : 13. Saison. In :ZETTLER R.L. (ed.), Nippur III. Kassite building in area WC-1. Excavations at Nippur : 269-298. Chicago, Illinois : TheOriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Oriental Ins-titute Publications 111).

BOESSNECK J. and KOKABI M.

1993 Appendix B. Tierknochenfunde aus Nippur. 14. Saison. In :ZETTLER R.L. (ed.), Nippur III. Kassite building in area WC-1. Excavations at Nippur : 299-340. Chicago, Illinois : TheOriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Oriental Ins-titute Publications 111).

BOESSNECK J. and PETERS J.

1988 Tierknochen- und Molluskenfunde aus dem Grabungsbe-reich ‘Kuppe’ in Tall Munb°qa. Mitteilungen der DeutschenOrient-Gesellschaft 120 : 51-58.

BOESSNECK J. and VON DEN DRIESCH A.

1974 Part IX : The animal remains. Journal of Near Eastern Stu-dies 33 : 109-112.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



1976 Die Wildfauna der Altınova in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit, wiesie die Knochenfunde vom Nor„un-Tepe und anderenSiedlungshügels erschliessen. Keban Projesi 1972 : 91-100.

1978 Tierknochenfunde aus Nippur. Excavations at Nippur,Twelfth Season. Oriental Institute Communications 23 : 153-187.

1986 Tierknochen- und Molluskenfunde aus Munb°qa. Mitteilun-gen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118 : 147-160.

1987 Analyse der Vogel-, Reptilien-, Amphibien- und Fisch-knochen. In : KORFMANN M. (Hrsg.), Demercihüyük. DieErgebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1978. Band II.Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen : 43-52. Mainz :Philipp von Zabern.

1989 Die Faunenreste vom Tell Halawa am Assad-See/Nord-syrien (Drittes und Anfang zweites Jahrtausend v. Chr.).In : ORTHMANN W. (Hrsg.), Halawa 1980 bis 1986.Vorläufiger Bericht über die 4.-9. Grabungskampagne :113-152. Bonn : R. Habelt (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Alter-tumskunde 52).

1992 Tierknochenfunde IV. Serie 1986 und 1988. In : HROUDA B.(Hrsg.), Isin-I„°n Bahry:°t IV. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgra-bungen 1986-1989 : 176-187. München : Bayerische Akade-mie der Wissenschaften (Philosophische-Historische KlasseAbhandlungen – Neue Folge 105).

BOESSNECK J., VON DEN DRIESCH A. und STEGER U.

1984 Tierknochenfunde der Ausgrabungen des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts Bagdad in Uruk – Warka, Iraq.Baghdader Mitteilungen 15 : 149-189.

BOESSNECK J. und ZIEGLER R.

1987 Tierknochenfunde III. Serie 1983-1984 (7.-8. Kampagne).In : HROUDA B. (ed.), Isin-I„°n Bahry:°t III. Die Ergebnisseder Ausgrabungen 1983-1984 : 137-150. München :Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Philosophische-Historische Klasse Abhandlungen – Neue Folge 94).

BUITENHUIS H.

1986 The animal remains of Tell Sweyhat, Syria. Palaeohistoria25 : 131-144.

1988 Archeozoölogisch onderzoek langs de Midden-Eufraat.Onderzoek van het faunamateriaal uit zes nederzettingen inZuidoost-Turkije en Noord-Syrië daterend van ca. 10000 BPtot 1400 AD. Groningen : University of Groningen, Doctoralthesis.

1997 Asıklı Höyük : a “protodomestication” site. Anthropozoolo-gica 25-26 : 655-662.

BUITENHUIS H. and CANEVA I.

1998 Early animal breeding in south-eastern Anatolia : Mersin-Yumuktepe. In : ANREITER P., BARTOSIEWICZ L., JEREM E.and MEID W. (eds), Man and the Animal World. Studies inArchaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeolin-guistics in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi : 121-130. Budapest :Archaeolingua.

BUTLER V.L.

2000 Resource depression on the Northwest coast of North Ame-rica. Antiquity 74 : 649-661.

2001 Changing fish use on Mangaia, Southern Cook Islands :Resource depression and prey choice model. InternationalJournal of Osteoarchaeology 11 : 88-100.

CAVALLO C.

1997 Animals in the Steppe. A Zooarchaeological Analysis of laterNeolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Amsterdam : University ofAmsterdam, Doctoral thesis.

CLASON A.T.

1980 The animal remains from Tell es Sinn compared with thoseof Bouqras. Anatolica 7 : 35-48.

CLASON A.T. and BUITENHUIS H.

1978 A preliminary report on the faunal remains of Nahr el Homr,Hadidi and Ta’as in the Tabqa dam region in Syria. Journalof Archaeological Science 5 : 75-83.

CRAWFORD H.E.W.

1973 Mesopotamia’s invisible exports in the Third MillenniumB.C. World Archaeology 5 : 232-241.

CROCKFORD S.

1994 New archaeological and ethnographic evidence for an extinctfishery for giant bluefin tune (Thunnus thynnus orientalis) onthe Pacific Northwest coast of North America. In : VAN

NEER W. (ed.), Fish exploitation in the Past. Proceedings ofthe 7th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group :163-168. Tervuren (Annales du Musée Royal de l’AfriqueCentrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274).

CROS G., HEUZEY L. et THUREAU-DANGIN F.

1910 Nouvelles fouilles de Tello. Paris : Ernest Leroux.

DAVIS S.J.M.

1985 A preliminary report of fauna from Hatula : a Natufian-Khia-mian (PPNA) site near Latroun, Israel. In : LECHEVALLIER

M. et RONEN A. (éd.), Le site Natoufien-Khiamien deHatoula, près de Latroun, Israël : 71-118. Paris : AssociationPaléorient (Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français deJérusalem 1).

DAYAN T., TCHERNOV E., BAR-YOSEF O. and YOM-TOV Y.

1986 Animal exploitation in Ujrat el-Mehed, a Neolithic site insouthern Sinai. Paléorient 12,2 : 105-116.

DE MOOR J.

1998 In the beginning was fish. Fish in the ancient Near East. In :WALKER H. (ed.), Fish. Food from the waters. Proceedingsof the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 1997 : 84-93.Totnes, Devon : Prospect Books.

DENIZ E. and TA≠KIRAN H.

1989 Karain ma*arasi pleistocen faunasın ili„kin preliminer göz-lemler. V. Arkeometri Sonuçlari Toplantısı, Ankara 18-23Mayis 1989 : 77-86.

DESSE J.

1984 L’ichthyofaune du site néolithique de Khirokitia (Chypre).In : LE BRUN A. (éd.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chy-pre) 1977-1981 : 167-168. Paris : ERC.

1987 Mallaha : L’ichtyofaune. In : BOUCHUD J. (éd.), La Faunedu Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan) Israël : 151-156.Paris : Association Paléorient (Mémoires et Travaux du Cen-tre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 4).

DESSE J. et DESSE-BERSET N.

1989 Les poissons de Khirokitia (campagnes 1983, 1984 et 1986).In : LE BRUN A. (éd.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chy-pre) 1983-1986 : 223-233. Paris : ERC.

1993 Pêche et surpêche en Méditerranée : le témoignage des os.In : DESSE J. et AUDOIN-ROUZEAU F. (éd.), Exploitation des

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



animaux sauvages à travers le temps : 327-339. Actes desXIIIe Rencontres internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoired’Antibes, octobre 1992. Antibes : APDCA.

1994a Osteometry and fishing strategies at Cape Andreas Kastros(Cyprus, 8th millennium BP). In : VAN NEER W. (ed.), Fishexploitation in the Past : 69-79. Tervuren (Annales du MuséeRoyal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274).

1994b Stratégies de pêche au 8e millénaire : les poissons du CapAndreas-Kastros (Chypre). In : LE BRUN A. (éd.), Fouillesrécentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1988-1991 : 335-360. Paris :ERC.

2003 Les premiers pêcheurs de Chypre. In : GUILAINE J. et LE

BRUN A. (éd.), Le Néolithique de Chypre : 279-291. Paris :De Boccard (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, sup-plément 43).

DOBNEY K., JAQUES D. and VAN NEER W.

2003 Diet, economy and status : Evidence from the animal bones.In : MATTHEWS R. (ed.), Excavations at Tell Brak vol. 4.Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian regional centre, 1994-1996 : 417-430. Cambridge : McDonald Institute and BritishSchool of Archaeology in Iraq.

ENGLUND R.K.

1990 Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur-III-Fischerei. Berlin :Reimer (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 10).

FIELD H.

1936 Fish in Mesopotamian “flood” deposits. Man 36 : 56.

FINNEGAN M.

1976 Faunal Remains from Bab edh-Dhra, 1975. Annual of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research 43 : 51-54.

FLANNERY K.V. and WHEELER J.C.

1967 Animal bones from Tell as-Sawan level III (Samarranperiod). Sumer 23 (1/2) : 179-182.

GALILI E.

1985 Clay exposures and archaeological finds on the sea bottombetween Haifa and Atlit. Haifa : Haifa University, M.A. The-sis (in Hebrew).

GALILI E., WEINSTEIN-EVRON M., HERSHKOVITZ I., GOPHER A., KISLEV M., LERNAU O., HORWITZ L.K. and LERNAU H.

1993 Atlit-Yam : a prehistoric site on the sea floor off the Israelicoast. Journal of Field Archaeology 20 : 133-157.

GALILI E., ROSEN B., GOPHER A. and HORWITZ L.K.

2002 The emergence and dispersion of the eastern Mediterraneanfishing village : evidence from submerged Neolithic settle-ments off the Carmel coast, Israel. Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology 15 : 167-198.

GALILI E., LERNAU O., SHARVIT J. and ZOHAR I.

2004 Fishing and coastal adaptations at Atlit-Yam. A submergedPPNC fishing village off the Carmel Coast, Israel. Atiqot 48 :1-34.

GALILI E., GOPHER A., ROSEN B. and HORWITZ L.K.

2004 The emergence of the Mediterranean fishing village in theLevant and the anomaly of Neolithic Cyprus. In : PEL-

TENBURG E. and WASSE A. (eds), Neolithic revolution. Newperspectives on southwest Asia in light of recent discoverieson Cyprus : 91-101. Oxford : Oxbow Press (Levant supple-mentary studies I).

GARFINKEL Y., DAG D., HORWITZ L.K., LERNAU O. and MIENIS H.K.

2002 Ziqim, a Pottery Neolithic site in the southern coastal plain ofIsrael. A final report. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society32 : 73-145.

GARSON A.G.

1980 Comment upon the economic potential of fish utilization inriverine environments and potential archaeological biases.American Antiquity 45 : 562-567.

GAUTIER A. and VAN NEER W.

1989 The animal remains from the Late Paleolithic sequence inWadi Kubbaniya. In : WENDORF F., SCHILD R. and CLOSE

A.E. (eds), The prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya. Vol. 2, Stra-tigraphy, paleoeconomy and environment : 119-161. Dallas :Southern Methodist University Press.

GAYET M.

1993 L’ichthyofaune de Latamné (Syrie). In : SANLAVILLE P.,BESANÇON J., COPELAND L. et MUHESEN S. (éd.), LePaléolithique de la vallée moyenne de l’Oronte (Syrie). Peu-plement et environnement : 183-188. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser.587).

GORDON E.A.

1993 Screen size and differential faunal recovery : A Hawaiianexample. Journal of Field Archaeology 20 : 453-460.

GORING-MORRIS A.N., GOREN Y., HORWITZ L.K., HERSHKOVITZ I., LIEBERMAN R., SAREL J. and BAR-YOSEF D.

1994-1995 The 1992 season of excavation at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic BSettlement of Kfar Hahoresh. Journal of the Israel Prehisto-ric Society 26 : 74-121.

GREENFIELD H.J.

2002 Preliminary report on the faunal remains from the EarlyBronze Age site of Titris Höyük in southeastern Turkey. In :BUITENHUIS H., CHOYKE A.M., MASHKOUR M. and AL-SHIYAB A.H. (eds), Archaeozoology of the Near East V : 251-260. Groningen : Center for Archeological Research and Con-sultancy (ARC Publication 62).

GUNDA B. (ed.)

1984 The Fishing Culture of The World. Budapest : AkadémiaiKiadó.

HAAS G.

1966 On the vertebrate fauna of the lower Pleistocene site Ubei-diya. In : STEKELIS M. (ed.), The Lower Pleistocene of theCentral Jordan Valley, the Excavations at ’Ubeidiya, 1960-1963 : 68. Jerusalem : The Israel Academy of Sciences andHumanities.

HALES L.S. and REITZ E.J.

1992 Historical changes in age and growth of Atlantic croakerMicropogonias undulatus (Perciformes ; Sciaenidae). Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 19 : 73-99.

HODDER I. and ORTON C.

1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge : CambridgeUniversity Press.

HONGO H.

1998 Patterns of animal husbandry at Kaman-Kalehöyük, Turkey :continuity and changes during the second and first millenniaB.C. In : H.I.H. PRINCE TAKAHITO MIKASA (ed.), Essays onAncient Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C. : 239-278.Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz Verlag.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



HORWITZ L.K.

1987 Animal offerings from two Middle Bronze Age tombs. IsraelExploration Journal 37 : 251-255.

HORWITZ L.K., GALILI E., SHARVIT J. and LERNAU O.

2002 Fauna from five submerged Pottery Neolithic sites off theCarmel coast. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 32 :147-174.

HORWITZ L.K. with a contribution by LERNAU O.

2003a Temporal and spatial variation in neolithic caprine exploita-tion strategies : a case study from the site of Yiftah’el(Israel). Paléorient 29,1 : 19-58.

2003b Fauna from Tel Qashish. In : BEN-TOR A., BONFIL R. andZUCKERMAN S. (eds), Tel Qashish. A village in the JezreelValley. Final report of the archaeological excavations(1978-1987) : 427-438. Jerusalem : The Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem (Qedem Reports 5).

HUOT J.-L., ARNAUD D., BACHELOT L., BRAUN J.-P., CALVET Y., CHE-

VALIER J., COURTOIS L., DESSE J., FOREST J.-D., GIRARD M., INIZAN M.-L., SEIGNE J. and TIXIER J.

1981 Larsa. Rapport préliminaire sur la huitième campagne àLarsa et la deuxième campagne à Tell el ‘Oueili (1978). Syria58 (1/2) : 7-148.

JAMES S.R.

1997 Methodological issues concerning screen size recovery ratesand their effects on archaeofaunal interpretations. Journal ofArchaeological Science 24 : 385-397.

JELINEK A.J., FARRAND W.R., HAAS G., HOROWITZ A. and GOLDBERG P.

1973 New excavations at Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel,1967-1972 : A preliminary report. Paléorient 2 : 151-183.

KÖHLER-ROLLEFSON I., GILLESPIE W. and METZGER M.

1988 The fauna from Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal. In : GARRARD A.N.and GEBEL H.G. (eds), The Prehistory of Jordan. The stateof research in 1986 : 423-430. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 396).

KÖHLER-ROLLEFSON I., QUINTERO L. and ROLLEFSON G.O.

1993 A brief note on the fauna from Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal. Palé-orient 19,2 : 95-97.

KOZ∂OWSKI S.K.

1998 M’lefaat. Early Neolithic site in northern Irak. In : Cahiersde l’Euphrate 8 : 179-273. Paris : ERC.

KOZ∂OWSKI S.K., KUÁMA K. and SZYMCZAK K.

1991 La reprise des fouilles à M’lefaat (saison 1989/1990). In :ARCHAEOLOGY P.C.O.M. (eds), Polish archaeology in theMediterranean : 112-118. Warsaw : University of Warsaw.

KREUZER R.

1984 Fish in religion and myths of ancient Mesopotamia andEgypt. In : GUNDA B. (ed.), The fishing culture of the world :593-618. Budapest : Akadémiai Kiadó (Studies in Ethnology,Cultural Ecology and Folklore III).

KUSSINGER S.

1988 Tierknochenfunde vom Lidar Höyük in Sudostanatolien(Grabungen 1979-1986). München : University of München,Doctoral thesis.

LAFFER J.P.

1983 The faunal remains from Banahilk. In : BRAIDWOOD L.S.,BRAIDWOOD R.J., HOWE B., REED C.A. and WATSON P.J.(eds), Prehistoric Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks :

629-647. Chicago : The Oriental Institute of the University ofChicago (OIP 105).

LE BRUN A.

1981 Un site néolithique précéramique en Chypre : Cap Andreas-Kastros. Paris : Editions ADPF.

LEGGE A.J.

1975 Appendix B. The fauna of Tell Abu Hureyra : preliminaryanalysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41 : 74-77.

LERNAU H.

1986/87 Subfossil remains of Nile perch (Lates cf. niloticus) ; firstevidence from ancient Israel. Israel Journal of Zoology 34 :225-236.

1988 Fish remains. In : ROTHENBERG B. (ed.), The EgyptianMining Temple at Timna : 241-246. London : Institute ofArchaeology, University College London.

LERNAU H. and LERNAU O.

1992 Fish remains. In : DE GROOT A. and ARIEL D.T. (eds), Exca-vations at the City of David 1978-1985 : Final Report : 131-148. Jerusalem : Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Univer-sity.

1994 The fish remains. In : LECHEVALLIER M. and RONEN A.(eds), Le site de Hatoula en Judée Occidentale, Israël : 111-124. Paris : Association Paléorient (Mémoires et Travaux duCentre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 8).

LERNAU O.

1996 Fish remains from Tel Harassim. In : GIVON S. (ed.), TheSixth season of Excavation at Tel Harassim (Nahal Barkai)1995 : 14-23. Tel Aviv : Bar-Ilan University.

2000a Fish bones. In : FINKELSTEIN I., USSISHKIN D. and HAL-

PERN B. (eds), Megiddo III – the 1992-1996 Seasons : 463-477. Tel Aviv : Emery and Claire Yass Publications inArchaeology, Institute of Archaeology.

2000b Fish remains from Early Bronze Age Ashqelon, Afridar. Ati-qot 45 : 299-303.

2002 Fish bones. In : KEMPINSKI A. (ed.), Tel Kabri. The 1986-1993 excavation seasons : 409-427. Tel Aviv : Emery andClaire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute ofArchaeology.

in press Fish remains in Neolithic Ashkelon. Jerusalem : The HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem (Qedem Monograph).

LERNAU O. and GOLANI D.

in press The Osteological Remains (Aquatic). In : USSISHKIN D.(ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish1973-1994. Tel Aviv : Tel Aviv University (MonographSeries of the Institute of Archaeology).

LEV-TOV J.

2000 Late prehistoric faunal remains from new excavations at TelAli (northern Israel). In : MASHKOUR M., CHOYKE A.M.,BUITENHUIS H. and POPLIN F. (eds), Archaeozoology of theNear East IV-A : 208-217. Groningen : Center for Archeolo-gical Research and Consultancy (ARC Publication 32).

LLOYD S. and SAFAR F.

1947 Eridu. Sumer 3 : 85-111.

MANHART H. and VON DEN DRIESCH A.

2004 Tierreste der Bronze- und Eisenzeit von Kinneret (Tell el-Oreme), Israel. Documenta Archaeobiologiae 2 : 161-203.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



MAZAR A.

1990 Archaeology of the land of the Bible (10000-586 BCE). New-York : Doubleday.

MCARDLE J.

1990 Halafian fauna at Girikihaciyan. In : WATSON P.J. andLEBLANC S.A. (eds), Girikihaciyan – a Halafian Site insoutheastern Turkey : 109-120. Los Angeles : University ofCalifornia (Institute of Archaeology Monograph 33).

MCGRAIL S.

2001 Boats of the World. From the Stone Age to Medieval Times.Oxford : Oxford University Press.

MIROSCHEDJI P. DE, SADEQ M., FALTINGS D., BOULEZ V., NAGGIAR-MOLINER L., SYKES N. and TENGBERG M.

2001 Les fouilles de Tell es-Sakan (Gaza) : nouvelles données surles contacts égypto-cananéens aux IVe-IIIe millénaires.Paléorient 27,2 : 75-104.

MORALES A. and ROSELLÓ E.

2004 Fishing down the food web in Iberian prehistory ? A newlook at the fishes from Cueva de Nerja (Málaga, Spain). In :BRUGAL J.-P. et DESSE J. (éd.), Petits animaux et sociétéshumaines. Du complément alimentaire aux ressources utili-taires. Actes des XXIVe Rencontres Internationalesd’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, octobre 2003 : 111-123. Antibes : Éditions APDCA.

MORALES A., ROSELLÓ E. and RUÍZ M.

2001 A renewable fish exploitation model for application onichthyoarchaeological assemblages. In : BUITENHUIS H. andPRUMMEL W. (eds), Animals and Man in the Past : 44-52.Groningen : Center for Archeological Research and Consul-tancy (ARC Publication 41).

MUDAR K.

1982 Early Dynastic III animal utilization in Lagash : a report onthe fauna of Tell Al-Hiba. Journal of Near Eastern Studies41 : 23-34.

NADEL D.

1993 Submerged archaeological sites on the shores of Lake Kinne-ret. Atiqot 22 : 1-12.

NADEL D. and ZAIDNER Y.

2002 Upper Pleistocene and Mid-Holocene net sinkers from theSea of Galilee, Israel. Journal of the Israel PrehistoricSociety 32 : 49-71.

NADEL D., DANIN A., WERKER E., SCHICK T., KISLEV M.E. and STEWART K.

1994 19000 year old twisted fibres from Ohalo II. Current Anthro-pology 35 : 451-458.

NÖLDEKE A., HEINRICH E. und LENZEN H.

1939 Zehnter vorläufiger Bericht über die von den DeutschenForschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka unternommenenAusgrabungen. Berlin : Walter de Gruyter (Abhandlungender Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philoso-phisch-historische Klasse 2).

NÖLDEKE A. und LENZEN H.

1940 Elfter vorläufiger Bericht über die von den Deutschen Fors-chungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka unternommenen Aus-grabungen. Berlin : Walter de Gruyter (Abhandlungen derPreussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 3).

O’CONNELL J.M. and TUNNICLIFFE V.

2001 The use of sedimentary fish remains for interpretation oflong-term fish population fluctuations. Marine Geology 174 :177-195.

PAYNE S.

1983 The animal bones from the 1974 excavations at Douara Cave.The University Museum, The University of Tokyo, Bulletin21 : 1-108.

PELTENBURG E. and WASSE A. (eds)

2004 Neolithic revolution. New perspectives on southwest Asia inlight of recent discoveries on Cyprus. Oxford (Levant Sup-plementary Series 1).

PERROT J.

1966 Le gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan) Israël. L’Anthro-pologie 70 : 427-483.

PERROT J. and GOPHER A.

1996 A late Neolithic site near Ashkelon. Israel Exploration Jour-nal 46 : 145-166.

PETERS J., PÖLLATH N. and VON DEN DRIESCH A.

2002 Early and Late Bronze Age transitional subsistence at Tall al-‘Umayri. In : HERR L.G., CLARK D.R., GERATY L.T., YOU-

NKER R.W. and LABIANCA Ø.S. (eds), Madaba Plains Pro-ject 5 : The 1994 Season at Tall al-‘Umayri and SubsequentStudies : 305-347. Michigan : Andrews University Press.

POLLOCK S.

1990 Political economy as viewed from the garbage dump : JemdetNasr occupation at the Uruk mound, Abu Salabikh. Palé-orient 16,1 : 57-75.

REDDING R.W.

1981 The faunal remains. In : WRIGHT H.T. (ed.), An early townon the Deh Luran plain. Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad :233-261. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan (Memoirs ofthe Museum of Anthropology 13).

REITZ E.

2003 Resource use through time at Paloma, Perú. Bulletin FloridaMuseum of Natural History 44 : 65-80.

RICK T.C. and ERLANDSON J.M.

2000 Early Holocene fishing strategies on the California coast :Evidence from CA-SBA-2057. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 27 : 621-633.

RICK T.C., ERLANDSON J.M. and VELLANOWETH R.L.

2001 Paleocostal marine fishing on the Pacific coast of theAmericas : Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California. Ameri-can Antiquity 66 : 595-613.

ROSE M.J.

1994 With line and glittering bronze hook : fishing in the AegeanBronze Age. Bloomington : Indiana University, Doctoral the-sis.

1999 Fish. In : SIMMONS A.H. (ed.), Faunal Extinction in anIsland Society. Pygmy Hippopotamus Hunters of Cyprus :187. New York : Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.

ROSELLÓ IZQUIERDO E. and MORALES MUÑIZ A.

2002 Fish offerings from Tell Brak ? Comments on an articulatedspecimen found in the 1990 field season. In : OATES D.,OATES J. and MCDONALD H. (eds), Excavations at TellBrak. Vol. 2 : Nagar in the Third Millennium BC : 339-345.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



Ankara : The British Institute of Archaeology / Cambridge :McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

ROSENBERG M., NESBITT R.M., REDDING R.W. and PEASNALL B.L.

1998 Hallan Çemi, pig husbandry, and post-pleistocene adapta-tions along the Taurus-Zagros arc (Turkey). Paléorient 24,1 :25-41.

SAFAR F., MUSTAFA M.A. and LLOYD S.

1981 Eridu. Baghdad : Ministry of Culture and Information, StateOrganization of Antiquities and Heritage.

SAHRHAGE D.

1999 Fischfang und Fischkult im alten Mesopotamien. Frankfurtam Main : Peter Lang.

SALONEN A.

1970 Die Fischerei im Alten Mesopotamien nach Sumerisch-akka-dischen Quellen. Helsinki (Annales Academiae ScientiarumFennicae Serie B, 166).

SAXON E.C.

1974 The mobile herding economy of Mt. Carmel : an economicanalysis of the faunal remains. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 1 : 27-45.

SIRACUSANO G.

2004 Animal husbandry and centralized cultures. How social andpolitical factors can influence rural lifestyle. In : O’DAY S.J.,VAN NEER W. and ERVYNCK A. (eds), Behaviour BehindBones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status andIdentity : 190-197. Oxford : Oxbow Books.

STEWART K.M.

1989 Fishing Sites of North and East Africa in the Late Pleistoceneand Holocene. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 521).

STINER M.C.

2001 Thirty years on the “Broad Spectrum Revolution” and paleo-lithic demography. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 98 : 6993-6996.

STINER M.C. and MUNRO N.D.

2002 Approaches to prehistoric diet breadth, demography, andprey ranking systems in time and space. Journal of Archaeo-logical Methods and Theory 9 : 181-214.

STINER M.C., MUNRO N.D. and SROVELL T.A.

2000 The Tortoise and the Hare : small-game use, the broad spec-trum revolution and Paleolithic demography. CurrentAnthropology 41 : 39-59.

TCHERNOV E.

1979 Quaternary Fauna. In : HOROWITZ A. (ed.), The Quaternaryof Israel : 260-292. New York : Academic Press.

1994 An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part II : TheFauna of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge : Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (AmericanSchool of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 44).

TCHERNOV E. and BAR-YOSEF O.

1982 Animal exploitation in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period atWadi Tbeik, southern Sinai. Paléorient 8,2 : 17-37.

TURNBULL P.F.

1983 The faunal remains from M’lefaat. In : BRAIDWOOD L.S.,BRAIDWOOD R.J., HOWE B., REED C.A. and WATSON P.J.(eds), Prehistoric Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks :

693-695. Chicago, Illinois : The Oriental Institute of the Uni-versity of Chicago (OIP 105).

UERPMANN M. and VAN NEER W.

2000 Fischreste aus den neuen Grabungen in Troia (1989-1999).Studia Troica 10 : 145-179.

VALLA F.R., BAR-YOSEF O., SMITH P., TCHERNOV E. et DESSE J.

1986 Un nouveau sondage sur la terrace d’El Ouad, Israël. Palé-orient 12,1 : 21-38.

VAN BUREN E.D.

1941 Book review of NÖLDEKE A., HEINRICH E. und LENZEN H.(1939) Zehnter vorläufiger Bericht über die von den Deuts-chen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka unternomme-nen Ausgrabungen. Abhandlungen der PreussischenAkademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. Hist. Klasse nr. 2.Berlin : Walter de Gruyter ; and of NÖLDEKE A. und LEN-

ZEN H. (1940) Elfter vorläufiger Bericht über die von denDeutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka unter-nommenen Ausgrabungen. Abhandlungen der PreussischenAkademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. Hist. Klasse nr. 3.Berlin : Walter de Gruyter. Archiv für Orientforschung 14 :72-75.

1948 Fish offerings in ancient Mesopotamia. Iraq 10 : 101-121.

VAN NEER W.

1986 Some notes on the fish remains from Wadi Kubbaniya(Upper Egypt, Late Palaeolithic). In : BRINKHUIZEN D.C.and CLASON A.T. (eds), Fish and Archaeology : 103-113.Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 294).

2004 Evolution of prehistoric fishing in the Nile Valley. Journal ofAfrican Archaeology 2,2 : 251-269.

VAN NEER W. and DE CUPERE B.

2000 Faunal remains from Tell Beydar (excavation seasons 1992-1996 and 1997 partim). In : VAN LERBERGHE, K. and VOET

G. (eds), Tell Beydar Environmental and Technical Studies :69-115. Turnhout : Brepols (Subartu 6).

VAN NEER W. and UERPMANN M.

1998 Fish remains from the new excavations at Troy. In : BUITEN-

HUIS H., BARTOSIEWICZ L. and CHOYKE A.M. (eds),Archaeozoology of the Near East III. Proceedings of the thirdinternational symposium on the archaeozoology ofsouthwestern Asia and adjacent areas : 243-254. Groningen :Center for Archeological Research and Consultancy (ARCPublication 18).

VAN NEER W. and WAELKENS M.

in press Fish remains from Bronze Age to Byzantine levels. In :POSTGATE J.N. and THOMAS D.C. (eds), Excavations atKilise Tepe, 1994-1998. Ankara : The British Institute ofArchaeology / Cambridge : McDonald Institute for Archaeo-logical Research.

VAN NEER W., ERVYNCK A., BOLLE L.J., MILLNER R.S. and RIJNSDORP A.D.

2002 Fish otoliths and their relevance to archaeology : an analysisof medieval, post-medieval and recent material of plaice, codand haddock from the North Sea. Environmental Archaeo-logy 7 : 65-81.

Tiré

à p

art C

NR

S ÉD

ITIO

NS



VAN NEER W., LERNAU O., FRIEDMAN R., MUMFORD G., POBLOME J. and WAELKENS M.

2004 Fish remains from archaeological sites as indicators of for-mer trade connections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Palé-orient 30,1 : 101-147.

VOGLER U.

1997 Faunenhistorischen Untersuchungen am Sirkeli Höyük/Adana, Türkei (4.-1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.). München : Institutfür Pälaoanatomie, Domestikationsforschung undGeschichte der Tiermedizin der Tierärtzlichen Fakultät derLudwig-Maximillians-Universität München, Doctoral thesis.

VON BRANDT A.

1972 Fish Catching Methods of the World. London : FishingNews.

VON DEN DRIESCH A.

1981 Fischknochen. In : HROUDA B. (ed.), Isin-I„°n Bahry:°t II.Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1978 : 157-167.München : Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Philo-sophische-Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen – Neue Folge87).

1986 Fischknochen aus Abu Salabikh/Iraq. Iraq 48 : 31-38.

1993 Faunal remains from Habuba Kabira in Syria. In : BUITEN-

HUIS H. and CLASON A.T. (eds), Archaeozoology of the NearEast I : 52-59. Leiden : Universal Book Services.

1996 Faunenhistorische Untersuchungen am prähistorischen Tier-knochenmaterial vom Sirkeli Höyük, Adana/Turkey.Istanbuler Mitteilungen 46 : 27-39.

1999 Archäozoologische Untersuchungen an Tierknochen ausdem dritten und ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend vomBe„ik-Yassıtepe, Westtürkei. Studia Troica 9 : 439-474.

VON DEN DRIESCH A. und BOESSNECK J.

1981 Reste von Haus- und Jagdtieren aus der Unterstadt vonBo*azköy-Hattu¬a. Grabungen 1958-1977. In : BITTEL K.(Hrsg.), Bo*azköy-Hattu¬a. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen11 : 1-71. Berlin : Mann Verlag.

VON DEN DRIESCH A. und PETERS J.

2001 Früheste Haustierhaltung in der Südosttürkei. In : BOEHMER

R.M. und MARAN J. (eds), Lux Orientis. Archäologie zwis-chen Asien und Europa. Festschrift für Harald Hauptmannzum 65. Geburtstag : 113-120. Rahden/Westfalen : VerlagMarie Leidorf GmbH.

VON DEN DRIESCH A. und PÖLLATH N.

2004 Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Nutztierhaltung und Jagd aufBüyükkaya in Bo*azköy-Hattu¬a, Zentralanatolien. Mainzam Rhein : Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

WATTENMAKER P.

1987 Town and village economies in an early state society. Palé-orient 13,2 : 113-122.

WATSON J.P.

1980 The vertebrate fauna of Arpachiyah. Iraq 42 : 152-153.

WENDRICH W.

in press Chapter 13 : The Çatal Höyük Basketry. In : HODDER I.(ed.), Changing Materiality. Cambridge : Mac Donalds Ins-titute for Archaeology

WHITCHER KANSA S. and CAMPBELL S.

2004 Feasting with the dead ? – a ritual bone deposit at Domuz-tepe, south eastern Turkey (c. 5 500 cal BC). In : O’DAY S.J.,VAN NEER W. and ERVYNCK A. (eds), Behaviour BehindBones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status andIdentity : 2-13. Oxford : Oxbow Books.

WHITCHER KANSA S., GRIGSON C. and LEVY T.E.

1998 Recent faunal analyses at Shiqmim, Israel : a preliminaryanalysis on the 1993 assemblage. In : BUITENHUIS H., BAR-

TOSIEWICZ L. and CHOYKE A.M. (eds), Archaeozoology ofthe Near East III : 103-116. Groningen : Center for Archeolo-gical Research and Consultancy (ARC Publication 18).

WRESCHNER E.E.

1977 Sea level changes and settlement location in the coastal plainof Israel during the Holocene. In : ARENSBURG B. and BAR-YOSEF O. (eds), Eretz-Israel : 277-282. Jerusalem : TheIsrael Exploration Society.

YESNER D.R.

1980 Maritime hunter-gatherers : ecology and prehistory. CurrentAnthropology 21 : 727-750.

ZEDER M.A.

1994 After the revolution: post-Neolithic subsistence in northernMesopotamia. American Anthropologist 96 : 97-126.

ZEDER M.A. and ARTER S.R.

1994 Changing patterns of animal utilization at Ancient Gordion.Paléorient 20,2 : 105-118.

ZIEGLER R. und BOESSNECK J.

1990 Tierreste der Eisenzeit II. In : FRITZ V. (Hrsg.), Kinneret.Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell-el’Oreme am SeeGennesaret 1982-1985 : 133-158. Wiesbaden : Harras-sowitz.

ZOHAR I.

2002 Fish and fishing at Ohalo II. In : NADEL D. (ed.), Ohalo II :A 23,000 Year Old Fisher-Hunter-Gatherers’ Camp on theShore of the Sea of Galilee : 28-32. Haifa : Reuben and EdithHecht Museum, University of Haifa.

2003 Fish exploitation at the Sea of Galilee (Israel) by earlyfisher-hunter-gatherers (23 000 BP) : Ecological, economi-cal and cultural implications. Tel Aviv : Tel-Aviv Univer-sity, Unpublished PhD thesis.

ZOHAR I., DAYAN T., GALILI E. and SPANIER E.

2001 Fish processing during the early Holocene : a taphonomiccase study from coastal Israel. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 28 : 1041-1053.

ZOHAR I. and BELMAKER M.

2005 Size does matter : methodological comments on sieve sizeand species richness in fishbone assemblages. Journal ofArchaeological Science 33,4 : 635-641.

ZOHAR I., DAYAN T., SPANIER E., GALILI E. and LERNAU O.

1994 Exploitation of grey triggerfish (Balistes carolinensis) by theprehistoric inhabitants of Atlit-Yam, Israel : a preliminaryreport. In : VAN NEER W. (ed.), Fish exploitation in thePast. : 231-237. Tervuren (Annales du Musée Royal del’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274).

Documents

Emergence of fishing communities 2005