FISH EXPLOITATION AT THE SEA OF GALILEE (ISRAEL ...primage.tau.ac.il/libraries/theses/lifemed/free/1967999.pdfAPPENDIX-IX: C. caninus skeletal elements in a complete fish. 190 APPENDIX-X:

FISH EXPLOITATION AT THE SEA OF GALILEE (ISRAEL) BY EARLY FISHER-

HUNTER-GATHERERS (23,000 B.P.):

ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMICAL AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by

Irit Zohar

SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE OF TEL-AVIV UNIVERSITY

November, 2003

This work was carried out under the supervision of

Prof. Tamar Dayan and Prof. Israel Hershkovitz

Copyright © 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Cultural setting 2

1.3 Environmental setting 4

1.4 Outline of research objectives 5

CHAPTER 2: FISH TAPHONOMY 6

2.1 Introduction 6

2.2 Naturally deposited fish 7

2.3 Culturally deposited fish 9

CHAPTER 3: SITE SELECTION AND FIELD TECHNIQUES 11

3.1. The archaeological site of Ohalo-II 11

3.2. Fish natural accumulation 13

3.3 Ethnographic study of fish procurement methods 14

CHAPTER 4: METHODS 18

4.1 Recovery bias 18

4.2 Sampling bias 18

4.3 Identification of fish remains 19

4.4 Fish osteological characteristics 20

4.5 Quantification analysis 20

4.5.1 Taxonomic composition and diversity 21

4.5.2 Body part frequency 22

4.5.3 Survival index (SI) 22

4.5.4 Fragmentation index 23

4.5.5 WMI of fragmentation 24

4.5.6 Fish exploitation index 24

4.5.7 Bone modification 25

4.5.8 Bone spatial distribution 26

Page

4.5.9 Analytic calculations 26

4.6 Osteological measurements 29

4.6.1 Body mass estimation 29

4.6.2 Vertebrae diameter 31

CHAPTER 5: FISH REMAINS RECOVERED AT OHALO-II 32

5.1. Taxonomic identification 32

5.2 Skeletal representation 35

5.2.1 Skeletal completeness in brush hut 1 37

5.2.2 Skeletal completeness in Locus-7 42

5.2.3 Skeletal completeness in Locus 8 46

5.3 MNI value 50

5.4 Bone Color 51

5.5 Fragmentation pattern 53

5.5.1 Bone fragmentation in locus 1 54



5.6 Fish remains spatial distribution 59

5.6.1 Fish spatial distribution in locus 1 59

5.6.2 Fish spatial distribution in locus 7 61

5.7 Vertebrae dimensions 62

5.8 Body mass estimation 64

5.9 Dietary value 65

5.10 Summary 66

CHAPTER 6: FISH NATURAL ACCUMULATION 69

6.1 Bones spatial distribution 69

6.2 Taxonomic identification 69


6.4 Bone modification 80

Page

6.5 Vertebrae dimension 80

6.6 Body size estimation 81

6.7 Summary 81

CHAPTER 7: FISH BUTCHERING METHODS 83

7.1 Butchering and utilization methods 83


7.3 Bone fragmentation patterns 88

7.4 Fracture typology 91

7.5 Summary 93

CHAPTER 8: OHALO-II NATURAL OR CULTURAL ACCUMULATION? 95

8.1 Taxonomic composition, richness and diversity 98


8.2.1 Body part representation 103

8.2.2 Skeletal completeness 107

8.3 Bone modification 108

8.4 Vertebrae dimensions 113

8.5 Fish Body size 113

8.6 Bone distribution patterns 116

8.7 Summary 116

CHAPTER 9: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 119

9.1 Environmental setting 119

9.2 Fish exploitation 121

9.3 Fish utilization 124

9.4 Fish exploitation in the context of Epi-paleolithic broad spectrum economy 127

9.5 Summary and conclusions 128

BIBLIOGRAPHY 131

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

APPENDIX-I : Fish remains recovered from prehistoric sites and lacustrine

environments in Israel. 152

APPENDIX-II: Levantine freshwater fish 154

II.1 Morphological and osteological characteristics 154

II.2. Cyprinidae 158

II.3. Cichlidae 174

APPENDIX-III: Cichlidae skeletal elements in a complete fish. 178

APPENDIX-IV: Cyprinidae skeletal elements in a complete fish. 180

APPENDIX-V: A. terraesanctae skeletal elements in a complete fish. 182

APPENDIX-VI: C. gariepinus skeletal elements in a complete fish. 184

APPENDIX-VII: H. nitidus skeletal elements in a complete fish. 186

APPENDIX-VIII: C. multiradiatus and A. kessleri skeletal elements

in a complete fish. 188

APPENDIX-IX: C. caninus skeletal elements in a complete fish. 190

APPENDIX-X: Frequency (NISP) of skeletal elements for loci 2, 3, and 9. 192

APPENDIX-XI: Frequency (NISP) of skeletal elements for locus 1 by taxa. 194

APPENDIX-XII: Frequency (NISP) of skeletal elements for locus 7 by taxa. 196

APPENDIX-XIII: Frequency (NISP) of skeletal elements for locus 8 by taxa. 198

APPENDIX-XIV: Skeletal elements fragmentation pattern in locus 1. 200

APPENDIX-XV: WMI of fragmentation calculated by taxa for bones from locus 1. 202

APPENDIX-XVI: Skeletal elements fragmentation pattern in locus 7 (ashes). 205

APPENDIX-XVII: WMI of fragmentation calculated by taxa for bones from locus 7. 207

APPENDIX-XVIII: Skeletal elements fragmentation pattern in locus 8. 209

APPENDIX-XIX: WMI of fragmentation calculated by taxa for bones from locus 8. 211

APPENDIX-XX: Vertebrae width dimensions mean (±SD) and range

Calculated by taxa for locus 1. 212

Page

APPENDIX-XXI: Frequency (NISP) of skeletal elements for naturally

deposited fish along the Sea of Galilee. 215

APPENDIX-XXII: Vertebrae dimensions (height, width, and length)

mean (±SD) and range calculated by taxa for naturally deposited fish. 221

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Frequency (NISP) and percentage of fish remains by loci at Ohalo-II.

Table 2: Morphometrics for butchered fish collected from traditional fishermen in Panama

(Central America) and southern Sinai (Egypt) by butchering method and body size.

Table 3: A list of freshwater fish from the Sea of Galilee, Jordan River, and Nile river (n=

324), that were prepared for the osteological reference collection.

Table 4: A list of Red Sea fish from Eilat and Egypt (n=71) that were prepared for the

osteological reference collection.

Table 5: Number (NISP) and percentage of bones, by anatomic regions, expected in complete

skeleton of five taxa of freshwater fish.

Table 6: Regression equations for body mass (BM) in Cyprinidae as a function of atlas and

axis dimensions.

Table 7: Regression equations for standard length (SL) in Cyprinidae as a function of atlas

and axis dimension.

Table 8: Frequency (NISP) and percentage of fish identified at Ohalo-II by family and loci.

Table 9: Frequency (NISP) and percentage of fish remains identified by genus and loci.

Table 10: NISP values of identified bones, species richness, Shannon Wiener Function, and

Brillouin Index, calculated for each locus, at Ohalo-II.

Table 11: NISP and percentage calculated by loci in four taxonomic groups.

Table 12: Ranking order of taxonomic groups identified in different loci.

Table 13: Identified NISP and number of skeletal elements identified (richness) by loci.

Table 14: NISP and ranking order of Cyprinidae and Cichlidae cranial and postcranial bones

from locus 1.

Table 15: Frequency (NISP) and percentage of skeletal elements recovered from locus 1 for

anatomic regions and taxonomic groups.

Table 16: Survival index (SI) and p (calculated by chi-square test) for fish remains from locus

1.

Table 17: Frequency (NISP), percentage, and SI calculated for cranial and postcranial bones

in four taxa at locus 1.

Table 18: Frequency (NISP) and percentage of skeletal elements recovered for anatomic

regions and taxonomic groups in locus 7.


7.


in four taxa at locus 7.

Table 21: Frequency (NISP) and percentage of skeletal elements by anatomic regions and

taxa in locus 8.


8.


for four taxa at locus 8.

Table 24: MNI values, by taxa and loci, for the identified fish remains.

Table 25: Comparison between ranking order calculated from NISP and MNI in five loci.

Table 26: Frequency (NISP) of bone colors by loci.

Table 27: Frequency (NISP) and percentage of bones state of fragmentation.

Table 28: Bones state of fragmentation by loci.

Table 29: An example of WMI calculated for Acanthobrama sp., by fragmentation classes.

Table 30: Ranking order by taxa of the best preserved bones (>80%) recovered from locus 1.

Table 31: Comparison between WMI and SI values in locus 1 by anatomic regions and taxa.

Table 32: Comparison between WMI and SI values in locus 7 by anatomic regions and taxa.

Table 33: WMI and SI values for locus 8 by anatomic regions and taxa.

Table 34: Scheffe post hoc tests between taxonomic groups and atlas dimensions (width,

length and height) in locus 1.

Table 35: Body mass (gr) and standard length (mm) estimated by taxa from loci 1 and 7.

Table 36: Estimation of fish dietary value from predicted mean body mass (BM) and MNI.

Table 37: Fish exploitation index by loci.

Table 38: Frequency (NISP) and percentage for naturally deposited fish remains by family.

Table 39: Frequency (NISP) for naturally deposited fish by family, depositional location, and

depth.

Table 40: Frequency (NISP) for naturally deposited fish by genus, depositional location, and

depth.

Table 41: NISP, species richness and Brillouin index calculated for naturally deposited fish.

Table 42: NISP and MNI calculated for naturally deposited fish by taxa and sampling area.

Table 43: NISP, standardized NISP, and richness values calculated for naturally deposited

fish in sampling areas.

Table 44: NISP of anatomic regions in random squares by taxa and depositional depth.

Table 45: NISP of anatomic regions in recent beach surface by taxa.

Table 46: NISP of anatomic regions in recent surface of Ohalo-II by taxa.

Table 47: Survival index (SI) calculated for naturally deposited fish by taxa and anatomic

regions.

Table 48: Observed and expected percentage and SI of cranial and postcranial bones in

naturally deposited fish (random squares) for four taxa.

Table 49 : Observed and expected percentage and SI of cranial and postcranial bones in

naturally deposited fish (recent shore) for five taxa.

Table 50: Mean state of fragmentation in naturally deposited fish by location and

sedimentation.

Table 51: Frequency (NISP) of bone color recorded in naturally deposited fish.

Table 52: Acanthobrama sp. estimated body mass (gr) and standard length (mm).

Table 53: Ratio of cranial to postcranial bones in butchered fish and the ratio expected in a

complete skeleton.

Table 54: Observed and expected NISP and their survival index (SI) for anatomic regions in

fish butchered by method-1.

Table 55: Observed and expected NISP and their survival index (SI) for anatomic regions in

fish butchered by method-2.

Table 56: The most commonly absent bones relative to the butchering method applied.

Table 57: The most frequently damaged bone according to butchering method.

Table 58: WMI of fragmentation calculated for highly damaged bones of fish butchered by

method-1.

Table 59: WMI of fragmentation calculated for highly damaged bones of fish butchered by

method-2.

Table 60: Types of fractures observed on the most frequently damaged bones of fish

butchered by method-1.

Table 61: Breakages typology for the frequently damaged bones by butchering method-2.

Table 62: Comparison between fish remains recovered in the natural accumulation and at the

various structures at Ohalo-II site.

Table 63: Statistics for the correspondence analysis plot outlined in figure 52.

Table 64: Stress factors and variance explained by MDS analyses of bone fragmentation

pattern for butchered fish, natural accumulation, and loci 1 and 7.

Table 65: Acanthobrama sp. estimated body mass (gr) and standard length (mm) for naturally

deposit fish and locus 1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Prehistoric sites in Israel from which fish remains were recovered.

Figure 2: Map showing the maximum aerial coverage of Lake-Lisan during its highstand of

180 m BSL, location of current lakes, and Ohalo-II.

Figure 3: Ohalo-II site covered with water (on left) and its exposure at -214.0 BSL in the

summer of 2000.

Figure 4: Excavated loci at Ohalo-II where fish remains were recovered.

Figure 5: Position of 24 random squares sampled along the southern shore of the Sea of

Galilee.

Figure 6: An excavated square from the Sea of Galilee present shoreline (observe the changes

from upper sandy layer to a dark clay layer at the bottom).

Figure 7: Map of Panama and Parita Bay showing location of the studied sites.

Figure 8: Fish drying and salting seasonal camp at the mouth of Rio Santa Maria (on left),

and fish processed for long-term preservation by Francisco at Partita Bay (on

right).

Figure 9: Map of Sinai, with the location of the studied site (Nabek Oasis) indicated.

Figure 10: Fish butchering by a Bedouin family in Nabek Oasis (Sinai).

Figure 11: A generalized fish skeleton presenting selected cranial and postcranial bones.

Figure 12: Fragmentation classes used for classification of bone state of preservation.

Figure 13: Measurements performed on vertebra centrum.

Figure 14: An hypothetical histogram of vertebra width normal distribution expected from

Acanthobrama sp. and large cyprinids (Barbus sp. and Capoeta sp.).

Figure 15: Relative abundance (%) of Cichlidae and Cyprinidae by loci.

Figure 16: Rarefaction curves for species richness and loci as a function of NISP.

Figure 17: Rarefaction curve for number of skeletal elements identified and loci as a function

of NISP.

Figure 18: Number of skeletal elements identified in locus 1 by taxa.

Figure 19: Observed and expected percent of anatomic regions in Acanthobrama sp. at locus

1.

Figure 20: Observed and expected percent of anatomic regions in Barbus sp./Capoeta sp. at

locus 1.

Figure 21: Observed and expected percent of cranial and postcranial bones in Acanthobrama

sp., large cyprinids, and cichlids at locus 1.

Figure 22: Number of skeletal elements identified for locus 7 (ashes) by taxa.

Figure 23: Observed and expected percent of anatomic regions in Barbus sp., Capoeta sp. and

small cyprinids at locus 7.

Figure 24: Observed and expected percent of anatomic regions in Cichlidae in locus 7.

Figure 25: Observed and expected percent of cranial and postcranial bones in Acanthobrama

sp., large cyprinids, and cichlids at locus 7.

Figure 26: Comparison between number of skeletal elements per taxa in locus 8.

Figure 27: Relative abundance (%) of anatomical regions in complete Cyprinidae compared

with those observed for large and small cyprinids remains in locus 8.

Figure 28: Relative abundance (%) of anatomical regions in complete Cichlidae compared

with those observed in locus 8.

Figure 29: Observed and expected percent of cranial and postcranial bones in large cyprinid

and cichlid at locus 8.

Figure 30: Bones fragmentation patterns for four taxa in locus 1.



Figure 33: Spatial distribution of fish remains in locus 1.

Figure 34: Spatial distribution of Acanthobrama sp., (on left), of large carps (on right top left

no.) and Cichlidae (on right the right no.) in locus 1.

Figure 35: Spatial distribution of fish remains in locus 7.

Figure 36: Atlas mean width by loci and taxa.

Figure 37: Frequency distribution (NISP) of Cyprinidae caudal vertebrae width in Locus 1.

Figure 38: Estimated standard length (mm) and body mass (gr) of Acanthobrama sp. in locus

1.

Figure 39: Estimated body sizes of Barbus sp./ Capoeta sp. from loci 1 and 7.

Figure 40: Spatial distribution of naturally deposited fish remains.

Figure 41: Comparison between skeletal elements richness by taxa and depositional depth in

the random squares.

Figure 42: Vertebrae mean width diameter (± SD) for fish natural accumulation by taxa.

Figure 43: Flow chart for fish butchering methods observed in Parita-Bay (Panama) and south

Sinai (Egypt).

Figure 44: Fish butchered by method-1 (left) and by method-2 (right).

Figure 45: Standard length frequency distribution of 573 fish belonging to 34 species

butchered by the two different techniques.

Figure 46: Multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot of SI of bones showing a separation between

butchering methods, regardless of fish taxonomy and anatomy.

Figure 47: Typical fractures observed on the cleithrum and coracoid of fish butchered by

method-1.

Figure 48: Typical fractures observed on the cleithrum and coracoid from fish butchered by

method-2.

Figure 49: Typical fractures observed on cranial bones situated along the longitudinal

transverse cut of catfish butchered by method-2.

Figure 50: Rarefaction curves of species richness in loci 1, 7, and the natural accumulation as

a function of NISP.

Figure 51: Taxonomic groups percentage (%) in the natural accumulation and Ohalo II.

Figure 52: Correspondence analysis of taxonomic groups relative abundance (%) in the

natural accumulation and loci 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8.

Figure 53: Survival index, (SI) by anatomical regions, for loci 1, 7, and 8 and the clay

deposits of the natural accumulation.

Figure 54: Frequency of cranial and post-cranial bones in Acanthobrama sp. and small

cyprinids recovered from the natural accumulation and Ohalo-II.

Figure 55: Frequency of cranial and postcranial bones in large Cyprinidae, and Cichlidae

recovered from the natural accumulation and Ohalo-II.

Figure 56: Percentage of burned and brown bones in the natural accumulation and various

loci.

Figure 57: MDS analysis plot for fish from the natural accumulation on the left and butchered

fish on the right.

Figure 58: MDS analysis plot for bone breakage pattern in the natural accumulation (blue)

and locus 1 (black).

Figure 59: MDS analysis plot for bone breakage pattern of fish remains in the natural

accumulation (blue) and locus 7 (black).

Figure 60: Comparison between Acanthobrama sp. atlas and axis mean width (mm, ±SD)

from recent reference collection, natural accumulation, and locus 1.

Figure 61: Acanthobrama sp. estimated SL from the natural accumulation vs. locus 1.

Figure 62: Plot of fish index based on aggregated NISP by locality at Ohalo-II and the natural

accumulation.

ABSTRACT

Fishing is an important economic aspect of many societies throughout the world today

and has played a significant role in the life and subsistence of many prehistoric societies. The

physical environment of Israel, surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, and the

Jordan rift system, undoubtedly could have contributed to the development of fishing

communities. Despite the appearance of fish remains in many prehistoric sites in Israel, most

archaeofaunal researchers focused on large and small game as markers of economical and

cultural changes, ignoring the fish.

The water-logged site of Ohalo-II recovered at the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee,

provides, at present, the earliest evidence of fish-based economy. This is a terminal Upper-

Paleolithic/early Epi-paleolithic site dated to ca. 23,000 cal B.P., with exceptional

preservation of several brush huts (loci 1, 2, 3), ashes (loci 7,9), human grave, stone

installations, pits (locus 8), flint tools, stone weights, botanical and faunal remains. Until the

recovery of Ohalo-II, evidence for fish exploitation in the Epi-paleolithic was recorded only

from the Natufian site of Mallaha (Eynan; ca.12,000 B.P.). Analysis of fish remains

recovered at Ohalo-II provides an outstanding opportunity to study fish exploitation by early

hunter-gatherers (23,000 cal B.P.) during the last glacial maximum (LGM).

The goals of this study were sixfold: 1) to reconstruct the paleoecology of the Sea of

Galilee; 2) to investigate fish exploitation at the Paleo-Sea of Galilee, during the LGM; 3) to

shed light on fishing and fish utilization techniques practiced by Epi-paleolithic hunter-

gatherers during the LGM; 4) to estimate the role fish played in the diet of Ohalo-II

inhabitants; 5) to correlate between fish remains and human activities at the site; and 6) to

develop a taphonomic model that provides criteria to distinguish culturally from naturally

deposited fish.

My study included 44,000 fish bones from three accumulations: archaeological (Ohalo-

II), natural and ethnographical. From Ohalo-II, I studied fish remains (19,799 bones) from

loci 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9. The naturally deposited fish (5,968 bones) were recovered from three

depositional layers (upper sand, median brown sand, and bottom clay) recovered from the

present southern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The ethnographic study included 17,862 bones

from 147 fish butchered for drying and salting by modern fishermen in Panama and South

Sinai (Egypt). The fish were butchered by two methods: along the back with the skull split or

along their belly with intact skull.

Fish were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible with a reference collection

housed at Tel-Aviv University, Israel; at the Royal museum of Africa in Tervuren, Belgium;

and at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama. Several qualitative and

quantitative criteria were used: taxonomic composition, breadth, richness, and diversity;

representation and completeness; bone modification and dispersion pattern; vertebrae

dimension and estimated fish body size. I here present the main results of my research,

according to environmental, taphonomical and cultural aspects.

Environmental aspect: Analyses of 19,799 fish remains from Ohalo-II showed the

presence of 8 species from two families of freshwater fish: Cichlidae (St. Peter fish) and

Cyprinidae (Carp). The taxa identified resembled the present day fish in the Sea of Galilee.

Moreover, two of the identified taxa were endemic to the Sea of Galilee: Tristamella sp.

(Tristram's St. Peter fish) and Acanthobrama terraesanctae (Kinneret Bleak). A.

terraesanctae is a primary freshwater fish and its appearance in Ohalo-II attests that despite

the climatological and geological changes salinity level did not change abruptly and the

Paleo-Sea of Galilee/ Lake Lisan was a freshwater lake similar with the present lake.

Taphonomical aspect: My research demonstrated that in lacustrine sites, such as Ohalo-

II, we can not assume, a priori, that all fish remains have resulted from human activity.

Moreover a model of fish natural accumulation must be developed for each depositional area.

Comparative analysis indicated that taxonomic breadth, richness and diversity, fish index,

and skeletal completeness vary between the natural and cultural accumulation. Cultural

deposits were characterized by a wider taxonomic breadth, higher species representation of

Barbus sp., Capoeta sp. Tilapia sp., and Tristamella sp.. Catfish remains (Clarias

gariepinus) were absent from Ohalo-II and appeared in low frequency for the natural

accumulation. Moreover A. terraesanctae remains were highly abundant in the natural

accumulation and loci 1 and 7.

At the natural accumulation fish bones (NISP) increased with depositional depth,

reaching their peak in the deepest clay deposits. However, species diversity (Brillouin index)

decreased with depositional depth, exhibiting a high value for the upper sand. Differential

preservation was observed in the different layers. For example, scales were abundant at the

natural accumulation, only in the upper sand and brown layers. However, they were absent

from the clay deposits. This preservation bias may explain their absence from Ohalo-II clay

deposits. Otoliths did not survive in natural accumulation, and appeared in low frequencies

at Ohalo-II site, mainly in locus-8. In the natural accumulation the cranial region was over-

represented for most taxa, while in Ohalo-II the cranial region was under-represented for all

species except for Acanthobrama sp. remains from locus 1. The branchial region was under-

represented in the natural and the cultural accumulation, and could not be used as marker for

fish gutting. Interestingly, bone high scatter frequency (BSF), clumped distribution, and

fragmentation did not vary between the natural and cultural accumulations.

Cultural aspect: My analysis has shown that Ohalo-II inhabitants exploited Barbus sp.,

Capoeta sp., Tilapia sp., and Tristamella sp. (MNI=342). The fish dietary contribution to the

inhabitants' daily diet was larger than all other faunal groups. From a small sample I

estimated that large cyprinids, contributed at least 22 kg of fish for the inhabitants of locus-1,

and 18 kg in locus-7.

Species diversity and the wide range of fish body sizes indicated that Ohalo-II

inhabitants used non-selective fishing techniques such as weirs, baskets, and nets. Such

activity could have taken place in the riverine and littoral zones during the fish breeding

season, or in the pelagic zone. However, the present data was insufficient to support

determination of seasonality or fishing area and technology. The absence of Clarias sp.

(catfish) may result from survival bias, as observed at the adjacent natural accumulation.

Other possibilities were that it either indicated a lack of preferable environmental habitats, or

human exploitation patterns and culinary habits.

Remains of A. terraesanctae and small cyprinids were unique for loci 1 and 7, and

resembled the adjacent natural accumulation. If the inhabitants of Ohalo-II did targeted A.

terraesanctae then this is the earliest evidence for small fish mass harvesting, which would

have required the use of new technologies. However, this economic trend differed from the

one observed in other loci examined, and appeared only in later periods. Therefore, the

present data did not provide sufficient evidence to support mass exploitation of A.

terraesanctae by Ohalo-II inhabitants, but rather support natural accumulation.

Another aspect of my research examined skeletal element representation and

fragmentation in comparison with butchering methods by present day fishermen. My

ethnographic study demonstrated that in modern-day Panama fish were butchered differently

depending on their body size. Skeletal element representation and fragmentation pattern from

Panama differed from the data obtained from Ohalo-II. This might have been due to different

butchering methods or due to the relatively small sample size of "large fish" obtained from

loci 1, 2 ,3 and 8.

At Ohalo-II, large cyprinid and cichlid cranium region were under-represented in all

excavated loci. However, the relative abundance of the cranium region varies between

structures. These differences may have resulted from differential preparation and

consumption methods applied according to fish taxa. The relatively high ratio of cranial

remains in locus-8 may be the earliest evidence, in Israel, for fish preservation and storage.

In sum, the large number of fish remains recovered at Ohalo-II indicate that fishing

activity played an important role in the inhabitants' daily life and diet, 23,000 years B.P. In

the absence of direct evidence for deep sea fishing, it is apparent that nearshore fishing was a

fundamental and optimal strategy used by the inhabitants, providing a stable food resource.

The large amount of fish catch was probably processed for later consumption, and provided

economic stability. From the ecological point of view, the composition of freshwater fish

23,000 years ago was found to be very similar to the present one. This clearly indicates that

the Paleo Sea of Galilee/Lake Lisan was at 23,000 B.P. (and probably much earlier) already a

fresh-water lake.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was born from the fascination and pleasure of entering the world of fish,

and of past human populations. The study could undoubtedly never have been accomplished

without the tremendous help and support that I received from many friends, researchers,

institutions and organizations in Israel and around the world, and I hope that I have

remembered to thank everyone.

First, I would like to thank my supervisors, Prof. Tamar Dayan and Prof. Israel

Hershkovitz, who agreed to dive with me into this ichtyological adventure, and who

supported me throughout the long and hard process. Identification of the freshwater fish

would have not been possible without the enormous help and hospitality of Dr. Wim Van

Neer and the Royal Museum for Central Africa, in Tervuren, Belgium.

Dr. Dani Nadel from the Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, is responsible

for the excavation of Ohalo-II, and I would like to express my gratitude for his enormous

work and effort. I am grateful too to all the students and volunteers who spent time in the

field and in the lab, digging, sieving and picking the material from the site.

From my very first step into the amazing world of fish remains, I have been constantly

supported and mentored by Prof. Ehud Spanier from the Department of Maritime

Civilizations and the Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, at the University of Haifa.

My research could not have been completed without the doctoral fellowships I received from

the University of Haifa and the Jacob Recanati fellowship from the Center of Maritime

Studies.

I also wish to thank all the wonderful staff of the Department of Maritime Civilizations

and the Center of Maritime Studies, especially Prof. Avner Raban, Prof. Michal Artzy, Prof.

Yossi Mart, Dr. Ezra Marcus, Dr. Dorit Sivan, Ada Vulkan, Nira Karmon, and Yossi Tur-

Caspa for their help and support.

Several institutions and organizations provided me with research grants: the Maria

Rossi Ascoli Fellowship, the Irene Levi Sala CARE Archaeological Foundation, the

Smithsonian Institution-Washington, the National Center for Collaboration between Natural

Sciences and Archaeology, Weizmann Institute of Science, the Morris M. Pulver Fellowship,

and the Aharon Katzir Center, Weizmann Institute of Science.

Dr. Richard Cooke and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute provided me with

the possibility and fascinating experience of working in tropical Panama. I gratefully

acknowledge assistance in the field from Conrado Tapia, Jose Tapia, Gonzalo Tapia, and the

various fishing folk from Aguadulce and Parita who kindly let us study their work.

I would like to thank the Department of Zoology, the I.Meier Segals Garden for

Zoological Research, the Zoological Museum, the Institute for Nature Conservation Research,

and the Department of Anatomy at Tel-Aviv University, for providing me with the facilities

to conduct my research and build my reference collection.

My fish reference collection could have not been established without the help of Dr.

Menachem Goren and Prof. Avital Gasith, from Tel-Aviv University, Oren Sonin from the

Israel Department of Fisheries, Guy Ayalon and Aharon Meroz from Coral World Eilat. I

would also like to thank my dear friends and colleagues Dr. Eli Geffen, Sigal Sheffer, Inbal

Ayalon, Shirley Cohen-Gross, and Dr. Wim Van Neer, who all kindly traveled with Egyptian

fish in their luggage, to help me expand my reference collection.

My particular thanks go to Prof. Naama Goren-Inbar, from the Institute of Archaeology,

Hebrew-University, Jerusalem, who introduced me to the fascinating world of prehistoric

communities, and supported, assisted and encouraged me throughout. Prof. Goren-Inbar and

the members of my Ph.D. committee Dr. Menahem Goren, Prof. David Wool and Prof. Avner

Bdolach, provided help and support that significantly improved my research.

I am also grateful to the late Prof. Eitan Tchernov at the Department of Evolution,

Systematics and Ecology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram. Prof. Tchernov

and his wonderful group generously offered me their help, support and facilities. I am

especially grateful to Miriam Belmaker who agreed to collaborate with me on the study of

natural accumulation of fish.

My special thanks to Prof. Steve Weiner and Dr. Elisabetta Boaretto, from the Weizmann

Institute of Science, for their help with FTIR analysis and radiocarbon dating; to Rachel Paz and

Dr.

Sarig Gafni, from the Institute for Nature Conservation Research at Tel-Aviv University, for their

help with every detail; to Josh Peabody and Naomi Paz for their editorial help; to Prof. Virginia

Butler, for her advice; and to Dr. Ruby Cerron-Carasco for contributing important data to my

study.

I am also grateful to Prof. Ofer Bar-Yosef, from Harvard University, for his help,

support and encouragement. My gratitude to Prof. Baruch Arensburg, Prof. Yoel Rak,

Avishag Ginsburg, and Dr. Sue Wish-Baratz from the Department of Anatomy, Tel Aviv

University, for their advice and support. Dr. Shmulik Marco from the Department of

Geophysics, Tel-Aviv University, and Alexander Tsatskin, from the Institute of Archaeology,

University of Haifa, patiently advised on the site geology. I would like to thank my friends

and colleagues in Prof. Dayan's lab for their support and encouragement. Asher Pinhasov,

from the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, spent many days photographing

fish bones. The good results are due to his patient hard work. Prof. Diane Gifford Gonzales

and the Department of Anthropology at University of California Santa-Cruz provided me

with their hospitality and support during the final stage of writing this dissertation.

Ultimately, this work would have never reached its final stage without the support, help

and encouragement of my loving family. My father, Yuval, introduced me into the

fascinating world of fish, and together with my brother, Avi, followed and encouraged me

from my first steps at the university. This work too would have never been completed

without the love and support provided by my dear mother, Miriam, who sadly didn't live to

see it finished.

My husband, Eli Geffen, patiently supported, encouraged, helped and assisted me in my

research in Sinai, as well as during the

archaeological and natural accumulation

excavations. He also spent many hours in

tedious and complicated mathematical

calculations of my data. Finally, all my love

to my daughter Orr, who lit up my days and

nights, and joined me in the field from her

own very first steps.

¨÷.B.P 23,000© קדומה לקטים-ציידים-דייגים אוכלוסית ידי על הכנרת דגי ניצול ותרבותיים טכנולוגיים ¬כלכליים ¬סביבתיים מאפיינים

לפילוסופיה׃ ׃דוקטור התואר קבלת לשם חיבור מאת

זהר עירית

אביב-תל אוניברסיטת לסנאט הוגש 2003 נובמבר

¨÷.B.P 23,000© קדומה לקטים-ציידים-דייגים אוכלוסית ידי לע הכנרת דגי ניצול ותרבותיים טכנולוגיים ¬כלכליים ¬סביבתיים מאפיינים

לפילוסופיה׃ ׃דוקטור התואר קבלת לשם חיבור מאת

זהר עירית

אביב-תל אוניברסיטת לסנאט הוגש 2003 נובמבר

בהדרכת נעשתה זו עבודה הרשקוביץ ישראל ופרופװ דיין תמר פרופװ

¨28 ¬א בראשית© ®®®¢הים בדגת ׃ורדו ÷תקצירי משאבים של ניצול החל מתי הינה אנושיות אוכלוסיות של בהתפתחות המענינות השאלות אחת

אוכלוסיות של להתפתחות רב פוטנציאל יש ישראל בארץ ®דיג טכנולוגיות של ופיתוח מייםשמ למרות ¨®הירדן ועמק הכנרת ¬סוף ים ¬תיכון ים© מים בגופי פתמוק והיא מאחר ¬ימיותה מרבית ¬דגים שרידי בהם ונמצאו מים למקורות בסמוך ממוקמים הפרהיסטורים האתרים רבית

.דגים עצמות של נוכחות מציינים מקצתם ורק יונקים בשרידי התמקדו הפאוניסטים מחקריםהישיבה עונת על ועקיפה ישירה עדות לספק יכול םהדגי שרידי של ולימוד מאחר מפתיע הדבר

¨מלוחים או מתוקים מים ¬עמוקים או רדודים מים© הדיג אזורי על ¬הדיג שיטות על ¬באתר ¬בנוסף ®ארוך זמן לפרק דגים לשמר היכולת ועל מידית לצריכה הדגים עיבוד שיטות על ¬

סד ¬זרמים ¬מליחות ¬טמפרטורה© הימית הסביבה של האקולוגיה על למדים אנו הדגים משרידי ®בעבר שהתקיימו האקלים תנאי ועל ¨ימנטיםמפלס ירידת בעקבות נוצרה קדומה לקטים-צידים לאוכלוסית הדגים תרומת על ללמוד הזדמנות

23,000-כ ללפני המתוארך ארכיאולוגי אתר של שרידים התגלו הדרומי בחופה ®בכנרת המים Last Glacial© האפיפליאולית ראשית /העליון הפליאולית מסוף אתר זהו ®II אוהלו-שנה

Maximum¨ לקטים-ציידים-דייגים לאוכלוסית ביותר הקדומה העדות את ¬להיום נכון ¬המהווה 1500>© יחסית גדול אתר הינו II אוהלו ®

sqm¨ בקתות של שרידים באתר התגלו בנוסף ®זמנו בני אחרים לאתרים בהשוואה ©Loci 1, Locus © מתקנים ¬אנושית קבורה ¨¬Loci 7,9© מוקדים ¨¬3 ,2

ופאו בוטאני וממצא ¬חבלים שרידי ¬אבן משקולות ¨¬מיקרוליתית תעשיה© וצור אבן כלי ¨¬8 ®טוב שימור במצב עשיר ניסטיאוהל© הקדומה הכנרת לחוף שישבה הדייגים חברת את לתעד ניסיון לראשונה נעשה זו בעבודה

- ו)II® ותרבותי טכנולוגי ¬כלכלי ¬סביבתי ÷בזה זה הקשורים רבדים בארבעה צעהתב זה מחקר® שנ 23,000-כ לפני בכנרת שהיו המינים מגוון של זיהוי ¨÷פליאואקולוגי© סביבתי רובד ®אהליסן ימת -מלוחה ימה קדמה הכנרת לאגם ®באגם ששררו האקולוגים התנאים לשחזור עוזר הששררו האקולוגים התנאים ®שנה 13,000-כ לפני עד ייםלהתק המשיכה כי הטוענים יש אשר ¬ primary fresh water© מתוקים למים של לדגים מתאימים אינם הליסן בימת

fish¨ לפי ®יציבה בילתי אקולוגית ובמערכת מלוחים במים לשרוד יכולים אשר למינים אלא לפני באזור ששרר להגידו בית לאופי עדות מהווים II-באוהלו שזוהו המינים מגוון ¬כך

®שנה 23,000ט ניתוח ידי על נעשה דגים II אוהלו תושבי ניצלו שבו האופן שיחזור ÷טאפונומי רובד ®ב

ט מתמותה דגים לעצמות והשוואתם באתר שונים באזורים העצמות פיזור דגם של מקיף פונומי .בעית

ח באתר ¨NISP© היחסית ותםוכמ משקלם ¬גודלם ¬הדגים מיני ועושר ממגוון ÷כלכלי רובד ®ג ®אוהלו אוכלוסית של המזון לסל הדגה של ¨בקלוריות© היחסית התרומה ושבה

ע או רדודים מים© הדיג אזורי שוחזרו וגודלם הדגים מיני ממגוון ±® ÷טכנולוגי רובד ®ד בסיני דייגים אוכלוסיות של אתנוגרפי ממחקר ®² ®הדיג ושיטות ¨נחלים או כנרת ¬מוקים

®ושימורם דגים לעיבוד שיטות לזיהוי מודל אציג נמהובפ תמותה של ממאסף ¬II אוהלו של הארכיאולוגי מהאתר דגים עצמות 44,000 על נערך זה מחקר

נ II מאוהלו ®זמננו בנות מסורתיות דייגים בחברות אתנוגרפי וממחקר הכנרת בחוף טבעית ,loci1, 2, 3, 7, 8© שונים אזורים בששה שנמצאו עצמות 19,799 דגמו

שכב© שכבות בשלוש והורבדו טבעית תמותה שמתו דגים עצמות 5,968 נדגמו הכנרת מחוף ¨®9 1,300 ללפני המתוארכת תחתונה חרסית ושכבת ¬אמצעית וחרסית חול שכבת ¬עליונה חולית ה

על ¬שונות בשיטות שנחתכו ¨עצמות 17,862© דגים 147 על התבצע האתנוגרפי המחקר ¨®שנה ®והמלחה לייבוש הכנה בתהליך ¬ובסיני בפנמה עכשווית דייגים אוכלוסית ידי

אוסף בעזרת התבצע ¬והמין הסוג ¬המשפחה לרמת הדג בשלד מיקומן לפי הדגים עצמות זיהויהשת ¬בנוסף ®הירדן בעמק ומנחלים מהכנרת אספתי אשר עכשויים מדגים משווה אוסטיאולוגי

,The Royal Museum of Africa© בבלגיה הנמצאים משווים באוספים משתיTervuren¨ ובפנמה ©Smithsonian Tropical Research

Institute¨ ו מגוון ¬טאקסונומי הרכב ÷ובהם קריטריונים מספר בעזרת נעשה הממצא עיבודג ושחזור החוליות מימדי ¬בשטח פיזור דגם ¬השתמרות מצב ¬עצמות של שכיחות ¬מינים עושרו הכלכלה ¬הטאפונומיה ¬לפליאואקולוגיה מתייחסות מחקרי של עיקריות תוצאות ®הדגים ודל

®II-באוהלו שהתקיימו החברהלבנ ÷את הכוללים מתוקים מים דגי של מינים שמונה זוהו II באוהלו ÷פליאואקולוגי שחזור

ואמנ ¬ייםהקרפיונ ממשפחת ¬ראש גדולת ובינית קשקש גדולת בינית ¬ישראלי חפף ¬הכנרת וןלב ¬המזוהים מהמינים ®האמנוניים ממשפחת וטברנון הגליל אמנון ¬הירדן אמנון ¬מצוי ון

לחבר דימיון על מעידה II באוהלו והופעתם לכנרת אנדמיים דגים הינם וטברנון הכנרת נוןשל ובעיקר ¨81%© הקרפיוניים של הגבוהה שכיחותם ¬בנוסף ®בהווה בכנרת הקיימת הדגים תכי לזו דומה מליחות ברמת היו הליסאן אגם¯הקדומה הכנרת שמי מעידה ¨15%© הכנרת לבנון

®האחרונות השנים 23,000-ב המליחות ברמת חדים שינויים חלו ולא וםהטבעי לתמותה הממצא השוואת לאחר נעשתה באוהלו הדגים ניצול דגם הבנת ÷טאפונומי שחזור

משר שחלק אפשרות קיימת טבוע או חופי באתרש מראות הטאפונומי המחקר תוצאות ®בכינרת תII-אוהלו לבין הטבעית התמותה אזור בין השוואה ®טבעית תמותה של תוצאה היו הדגים ידי© קטנים למינים גדולים דגים מיני בין ביחס ¬הדגים מיני ועושר במגוון הבדלים מראה

Fish index¬¨ מינ במגוון מאופיינת הטבעית שהתמותה מצאתי הכנרת בחוף ®העצמות שימור ובדגם

קרפיו של נמוכה ושכיחות התחתונה החרסית בשכבת הכנרת לבנון של גבוהה שכיחות ¬נמוך יםנמ בשכיחות הטבעית בתמותה הופיעו שפמנוניים ®ואמנוניים ¨ובינית חפף© ¢׃גדולים נייםלבי הטבעית בתמותה שנמצאו הדגים שרידי בין השוואה ®העליונה השטח פני בשכבת ורק וכהבש הגבוהה בריכוזיותם ¨¬מקובץ© העצמות פיזור בדגם דימיון על מצביעה II-מאוהלו אלו ן

לבנ של הגבוהה בשכיחות רב דימיון מצאתי ¬בנוסף ®הזימים אזור של הנמוכה ובשכיחות טחדימ ®II-באוהלו -·ו ± ובלוקוסים הטבעית בתמותה השלד חלקי מרבית של והופעה הכנרת ון®אנושית פעילות ולא טבעית תמותה של תוצאה הינם באוהלו הלבנונים ששרידי מצביע הז יוןב נמוכה בשכיחות מופיעים ואמנוניים ¢¨גדולים ׃קרפיוניים© ביניות ¬חפפים זאת לעומת

®בלבד אנושית פעילות על מעידה II-באוהלו הגבוהה שכיחותם ולכן הטבעית תמותהואמנו ביניום ¬חפפים© דגים 342 לפחות נצלה II אוהלו וכלוסיתא ÷וטכנולוגי כלכלי רובדובלוקוס בשר ג¢ק ²²-מ למעלה הגדולים הקרפיוניים תרמו ± שבלוקוס הראתה דגימה ¨®ניים

ד בשיטות שימוש על מצביע גופם מימדי וטווח הדגים מיני מגוון ® ®ג¢ק 18-מ למעלה ³ ה בתקופת בנחלים להתבצע יכלה הדיג פעילות ®ומלכודות סלים ¬רשתות כמו בררניות לא יג

®הפתוח באגם או ¬הדגים של רביהדימיון על מראים -·ו ± בלוקוסים שנמצאו ¨הכנרת סרדין© הכנרת לבנון של הרבים השרידים

הר ¬II אוהלו אוכלוסית ידי על נתפסו כן אלו דגים אם ®הטבעית בתמותה שנמצא לדגם רב ¨®מ¢ס 20 המקסימאלי אורכם© קטנים דגים של לדיג ¬בישראל ¬ותרבי הקדומה העדות שזוהי י

השאלה עולה אזי ¬דגים להקות לתפיסת והמיומנות השיטות את פיתחו אכן אוהלו תושבי אם ה בהיסטוריה ממשיכה אינה מדוע ¬ובנוסף האתר בכל מופיעה אינה כזו לפעילות עדות מדוע

¿ריות מאוחר שנה אלפי רק מופיעה אלא אנושיתבא השלד חלקי שכיחות מדגם ללמוד ניתן האתר תושבי של הכלכלית למערכת הדגים חשיבות על

¨crania© הגולגולת עצמות של נמוכה שכיחות מצאתי II-באוהלו ¸¨® לוקוס למעט© II-והלומת לנבוע יכולה זו תופעה ®חוליות בייחוד ¬קרניאליות פוסט עצמות של יתר ייצוג למול

עצ של יחסית גבוהה שכיחות ®הדגים וצריכת ¬בישול ¬חיתוך משיטות ¬או קרקעב שימור נאי®באתר להשתמר יכולות הגולגולת שעצמות ומעידה ¸ בלוקוס נמצאה ואוטוליטים גולגולת מותאתנוג מחקר ®הדגים וצריכת בישול משיטות נובע הגולגולת עצמות של נמוך שייצוג מכאן ש הראה ובסיני בפנמה זמננו בנות אוכלוסיות ידי על הדגים חיתוך שיטות על שביצעתי רפי

בלוק גולגולת עצמות של הגבוה הייצוג ®שלו החיתוך שיטת על משפיע הדג גוף גודל בפנמהלפנינו אזי נכונה זו סברה אם ®דגים ואיחסון לשימור מתקן שזהו האפשרות את מעלה ¸ וסכלכלי יציבות סיפקה כזו פעילות ®דגים ואיחסון לשימור ¬בישראל ¬ביותר הקדומה העדות ®II-אוהלו לתושבי ת

סדי אחד מצד המכילה מורכבת טאפונומית היסטוריה מציג II מאוהלו הדגים שרידי של לימוד ¬הקדום באגם טבעית תמותה תוצר ¨¬לבנונים בעיקר© קטנים דגים עצמות ובהם אגמיים מניםתו של אינטנסיבית דיג פעילות על המעידים ¬הבארטיקולצי לפעמים ¬גדולים דגים שני ומצדבשיטות הבדלים על המלמדים באתר שונים פעילות באזורי הבדלים נמצאו בנוסף ®האתר שבי ®ארוך זמן לטווח ואגירה שימור למול מידית צריכה ÷קרי ¬ועיבודם הדגים צריכת

העליו הפליאולית ופתתק בסוף הפרהיסטורי שהאדם ¬ספק ללא ¬מראים העבודה ממצאי ¬לסיכוםמז© מיקרי באופן זאת עשה לא הוא .מים במקןרות הקשורים מזון משאבי וניצל לנצל ידע ן

ולה הזו הדיג פעילות את לבצע היה יכול לא הוא .ואינטנסיבית מתוכננת בצורה אלא ¨דמןעי ¬דיג ובטכניקות המים גוף של באקולוגיה הבנה ללא הכלכלית התועלת מירב את ממנה פיקהכנרת באגם שהתנאים גם מוכיח הנוכחי המיקר .דגים ושימור בוד .היום בו הקיימים לאלה דומים היו העליון הפליאולית בסוף ¨הצפוני הלשון אגם)

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

"fish have the greatest potential for making subsistence

economy more secure and more abundant" (Hayden et al., 1987)

1.1 Introduction

Fishing is an important economic aspect of many societies throughout the world today

and has played a significant role in the life and subsistence of many prehistoric societies

(Belcher, 1998; Yesner, 1980). The physical environment of Israel, surrounded by the

Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, and the Jordan rift system, undoubtedly could have

contributed to the development of fishing communities. The antiquity of fish exploitation

may be detected from the early association between site selection and aquatic habitats (Figure

1), as well as from fish remains recovered at the sites (Appendix I).

Figure 1: Prehistoric sites in Israel from which fish remains were recovered.

Although fish remains appear in

archaeological sites since the lower Paleolithic

(Appendix I), little research was performed on

fish exploitation and fishing in prehistoric

societies. Surprisingly, most archaeofaunal

researchers focused on ungulates as markers of

economic and cultural changes, ignoring the fish

(Bar-Oz et al., 1999; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen,

1992; Haas, 1966; Tchernov, 1979; Tchernov,

1981; Tchernov, 1988). The scarcity of studies of

fish remains caused their significance to go

unrecognized, and the value of fishing was

questioned. In the last few years researchers have

emphasized the importance of fish to human diet

and to economic stability (Stewart, 1989; Van Neer, 1989; Yesner, 1980). These studies

indicate that the exploitation of marine resources was gradually developed beginning with

easy to collect littoral food such as shellfish and littoral fish, and only later on when more

sophisticated technology were developed, pelagic species were exploited (Kelly, 1996;

Lyman, 1991a; Stewart, 1989; Yesner, 1980). Ethnographic studies demonstrated that a wide

range of aquatic resources can be easily obtained all year round, regardless of technological

skills (Meehan, 1982). Skillful exploitation of aquatic resources could therefore provide

HaifaAtlit-YamNeve-Yam

Tabun CaveKebara Cave

Dead Sea

Jordan Rift Valley

Sea of Galilee

Hula Basin

Jerusalem

Tel-Aviv

Hatula Netiv Hagdod

Ubeidiya Ohalo-IIHaon I-IIIEin-Gev I-IV

Gesher Benot-Ya'aqov

EynanHayonim Cave

Kefar Ahoresh

0 5 0 k m

Mediterranean Sea

2

economic stability to prehistoric hunter-gatherer populations (Hayden et al., 1987; Nicholas,

1998).

We have little knowledge regarding the evolution of fishing. Until 1989 the earliest

evidence for the existence of a fishing community in Israel, was Atlit-Yam, dated ca. 8,000

years B.P. (PPNC) (Galili et al., 1993; Zohar et al., 1994). Fish exploitation by the Atlit-Yam

inhabitants was attributed to the diminution of the traditional food resources and the

opportunities offered by the Neolithic revolution. However, in 1989 a dramatic drop of the

Sea of Galilee water level exposed on its' southern shore a prehistoric site dated to 23,000

years B.P. (calibrated): Ohalo-II (Figure 1, Nadel, 2002). The recovery of Ohalo-II

strengthened my conviction that the scanty information on prehistoric fishing community is

due to dramatic changes in water level (Galili, 1985; Galili & Weinstein-Evron, 1985; Galili

et al., 1988; Nadel, 1993b), and that fishing communities were established long before the

Neolithic revolution. I strongly believe that the study of fish remains from Ohalo-II will

provides crucial information regarding human diet breadth and the development of a broad-

spectrum economy and fishing communities during the terminal Upper-paleolithic/ early Epi-

paleolithic.

1.2 Cultural setting The major projects that led to the recognition of early Epi-paleolithic sites in the Jordan

Valley began with earlier works by Bar-Yosef in Ein Gev I and II (Bar-Yosef, 1975). The

term Epi-paleolithic was introduced to the Levant by Perrot (Perrot, 1966) in his report on the

Natufian site of Mallaha (Eynan). At present, it is used in the Levant to refer to different

Levantine cultural complexes defined by geographic distribution of certain typological

features during the era of the last glacial maximum (LGM) and the end of the Pleistocene

(Bar-Yosef, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1990; Goring-Morris, 1987). Given the richness and variety of

Epi-paleolithic lithic industries, they are defined by a chronological frame, and by a

dominance of various types of backed bladelets which appear in lower frequencies in earlier

periods (Bar-Yosef, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1990; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen, 1992; Gilead, 1984).

Ohalo-II site is exceptional compared with other early Epi-paleolithic sites in Israel,

since it is a relatively large site (>1500 sqm), located on the coast of ancient lake, dated to

23,000 cal B.P. (terminal UP/early Epi-paleolithic), and posses clear architectural remains

(habitation structures) from several phases of occupation (Nadel & Zaidner, 2002; Tsatskin &

Nadel, 2003). A series of brush huts, a grave, several outdoors hearths, and a stone

installation were recovered (Nadel, 1993a; Nadel et al., 2002). Among the finds there were

three twisted fibers that were probably used as cordage (Nadel et al., 1994). All features were

3

originally dug into the Lisan formation, and where inundated in between phases of occupation

(Tsatskin & Nadel, 2003). The flint assemblage is distinguished by Ouchtata, backed and

pointed bladelets (Nadel & Zaidner, 2002). It also included uni-polar cores (used for the

production of bladelets), Falita points, and low frequencies of retouched blades, burin and

scrapers (Nadel, 1999; Nadel & Zaidner, 2002).

Given the richness of studies on Epi-paleolithic industries, the number of archaeofaunal

studies is surprisingly small (Bar-Oz et al., 1999; Bar-Yosef, 1990; Davis, 1974; Rabinovitch,

1998; Stiner et al., 2000; Stiner & Munro, 2002). They reflect activities of mobile hunter-

gatherers with a broad-spectrum economy. Their diet included small game (hares, turtles,

lizards, birds, fish etc.), ungulates (Gazella gazella and Dama mesopotamica), and marine

shellfish (Bar-Oz et al., 1999; Bar-Yosef, 1990; Davis, 1974; Rabinovitch, 1998; Stiner et al.,

2000; Stiner & Munro, 2002). Until the recovery of Ohalo-II, evidence for fish exploitation

in the Epi-paleolithic existed only from the site of Mallaha (Eynan) of the Natufian period (ca.

12,000B.P.) (Desse, 1987; Appendix I).

4

Environmental setting

Ohalo-II site is situated on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee, which is today the

largest fresh-water lake in Israel. The lake is located in the northern part of the rift valley.

During the development of the rift (last 5 m.y.), the landscape changed

dramatically and a series of north-south-trending axial lakes were formed

(Horowitz, 1979). Sedimentary deposits demonstrate that during the late

Pliocene and the Pleistocene, freshwater lakes covered parts of the northern

Dead Sea rift and the Kinarot basin (Bartov et al., 2002; Begin et al., 1974;

Horowitz, 1978; Horowitz, 1979; Horowitz, 1988; Hurwitz et al., 2000;

Rosenthal et al., 1989). From 70,000 to ca. 15,000 BP, the saline Lake Lisan

(Figure 2) occupied an area from south of today's' Dead Sea to the northern

Kinarot basin (Bartov et al., 2002; Hurwitz et al., 2000). During this period,

lake level fluctuated between a minimum of 500 m below sea level (BSL) and a

maximum of 180 m BSL (Yechieli et al., 1993).

Figure 2: Map showing the maximum aerial coverage of Lake-Lisan during its

highstand of 180 m BSL, location of current lakes, and Ohalo-II (after Hurwitz,

2000).

It is assumed that the lake attained its last highstand of 164 m BSL between 26,000 and

23,000 years B.P. (Bartov et al., 2002). During its highstand, Lake Lisan covered several

subbasins (Figure 2), such as the northern Kinarot basin that was connected through Yarmuk

river deltas (Hurwitz et al., 2000). The salinity level of Kinarot basin during this phase, was

lower than 100mg/L, but higher than the present (Hurwitz et al., 2000). Lake Lisan highstand

lasted for a short period of a few thousands years, dropping and reaching 300 m BSL at ca.

15,000 B.P. (Bartov et al., 2002). Upon it's decline, two separate lakes were formed: the

hypersaline terminal Dead Sea in the south, with ~340 g/ L TDS, and the Paleo Sea of Galilee

in the north with ~45 g/L TDS (Hurwitz et al., 2000). Following this event, the exposed

beach of Lake Lisan was settled by the early Epi-paleolithic population of Ohalo-II (Nadel,

1990). As primary freshwater fish are sensitive to changes in water salinity level (Banarescu,

1990; Banarescu & Coad, 1991), fish remains identified from Ohalo-II will attest to the

ecological conditions prevailing at the Paleo-Sea of Galilee, following the separation of the

two lakes.

1.4 Outline of Research Objectives

The aims of this study were fivefold:

5

1 Paleoecological: To identify to the lowest taxonomic level the fish remains recovered at

Ohalo-II, and to determine the changes in species richness and diversity following the

changes in water salinity.

2 Taphonomical: To characterize archaeological versus natural fish bone accumulations.

Through a taphonomic study, quantitative and qualitative criteria for distinguishing

naturally-derived vs. culturally-derived bone accumulations will be developed.

3 Economical: To identify fish utilization for immediate or long-term consumption. This

will be carried out by studying fish butchering methods in accordance with immediate and

long-term consumption methods. A set of quantitative and qualitative criteria to

characterize butchered fish, will be provided by an ethnographic study. In addition I will

calculate the dietary contribution of fish to the inhabitants daily economy.

4 Site Organization: By studying fish bone assemblages in different structures at Ohalo-II

site I will be able to better understand the type of human activities that took place at the

site: fish processing, consumption, waste areas, and food storage. The ability to identify

stored food is important as storage-based economy was a major step in human evolution.

5 Technological: Based on linear regressions, body size of fish captured at Ohalo-II will be

reconstructed. This will enable me to determine if fish were selected by their size and

what fishing methods (littoral or deep sea) were practiced by the Ohalo-II inhabitants.

One of the major obstacle in the study of fish remains from coastal sites that were

inundated by the sea is the possibility that the fish remains accumulated at the site resulted

from lacustrine deposition and not human activity. The next chapter, therefore, presents a

review of studies performed on fish taphonomy.

6

CHAPTER 2: FISH TAPHONOMY

“It can not be assumed that all split and fractured bones on an archaeological site

have been broken by man” (Clark, 1972)

2.1 Introduction

Actualistic taphonomic research has been developed in archaeology in order to

understand the processes that control formation of the archaeological record (e.g., Andrews,

1995; Binford & Bertram, 1977; Bonnichsen & Sorg, 1989; Gifford-Gonzales, 1989; Lyman,

1994). In its simplest form, taphonomy refers to the laws of burial (Efremov, 1940). There

are numerous factors that influence the formation of fossil deposits such as: mode of death,

substrate, decomposition, burial depth, chemical weathering, transformation and

accumulation mechanisms (e.g., Bonnichsen & Sorg, 1989; Lyman, 1994). Taphonomy is

primarily concerned with isolating the effects of such factors on fossil bone assemblages.

A basic problem in any zooarchaeological research is to decide whether or not human

agents are responsible for an observed pattern (i.e. bone distribution, fragmentation, burning

signs, species diversity, etc.) (Binford, 1981; Butler, 1987). Binford (1981:26) offered a

diagnostic signature that discriminates one agent or set of agents from another. The search

for criteria for distinguishing taphonomic agents produced various kinds of actualistic

research and analytic techniques (Binford, 1978; Bonnichsen & Sorg, 1989; Lyman, 1987;

Lyman, 1991b). These included studies of bone modification by nonhuman agents

(Behrensmeyer et al., 1989), mode of death (Weigelt, 1989), soft tissue decomposition, bone

disarticulation (Lyman, 1994), density, preservation (Butler, 1994; Lyman, 1984; Nicholson,

1992; Robinson et al., 2003), trampling (Fiorillo, 1989), transport, sorting (Behrensmeyer et

al., 1986; Behrensmeyer, 1991; Coard & Dennell, 1995), weathering, and skeletal part

representation (Behrensmeyer, 1991; Marshall & Pilgram, 1991; O'Connor, 1993). Other

actualistic studies concentrated on bone modification by human agents describing butchering

methods (Binford, 1978; Lyman, 1987; Noe-Nygaard, 1977; Shipman et al., 1981), fracture

types (Binford, 1978; Binford, 1981; Shipman & Rose, 1984), burning and cooking (Bennett,

1999; Nicholson, 1993; Shipman et al., 1984; Speth, 2000), as well as differences between

killing, butchering, and consumption sites (Binford, 1978; Rabinovitch et al., 1996).

Most taphonomic studies focused on large mammals and only few discussed fish

remains. Fewer studies dealt with fish bone deposition resulting from noncultural agents

versus human activity (Butler, 1990; Butler, 1993; Stewart, 1989). Wheeler and Jones

(1989:78) argued that "natural agencies depositing fish bones rarely produce substantial

concentrations of the kinds of fish preferred as human food". However, as I will demonstrate,

7

a similarity between fish natural and cultural accumulations may appear in coastal sites. As

the primary goal of my research is to study fish remains from the water-logged site of Ohalo-

II, it is essential to understand the depositional nature of the fish remains. Here I briefly

review taphonomic studies performed on naturally and culturally deposited fish.

2.2 Naturally deposited fish

Taphonomic studies of lacustrine sediments focused on fish remains as a proxy record of

past fish abundance (O'connell & Tunnicliffe, 2001), as well as on detecting environmental

and paleoecological conditions (Ferber & Wells, 1995; Whitefield & Elliot, 2002). Fish

taphonomy differs from mammal taphonomy as a wider set of factors are affecting bones

survivorship. These factors include: lake size, water temperature, water depth, pressure,

salinity level, oxygen level, oxygen stability, wave activity, currents, sedimentary structure,

rate of sedimentation, scavenger activity, bacterial degradation, and carcass flotation (Cutler

et al., 1999; Elder & Smith, 1988; Ferber & Wells, 1995; Martin, 1999; O'connell &

Tunnicliffe, 2001; Wilson & Barton, 1996). Many authors have discussed the influence of

these factors on fish remains: states of articulations, bone modification, species richness and

diversity. Disarticulations appear in various taphonomic modes such as: isolated scales,

clumps of scales, disarticulated cranial bones (fragmented and/or complete), body fragments,

and complete specimens, with and without skulls (e.g.,Mancuso, 2003). Postmortem

modifications such as bone cracking, breaks, and abrasion may indicate the length of surface

exposure prior to burial (Behrensmeyer, 1991; Mancuso, 2003).

Elder and Smith (1988) claimed that in fish taphonomy water temperature is the most

important factor in determining the carcass fate. At water temperature below 15oC, most fish

carcasses will remain on the bottom until buried. Sometimes they will be consumed and

disturbed by scavengers, and therefore their skeletons won't be articulated, and some cranial

bones might be lost. However, in water temperature above 15oC most fish carcasses will be

buoyed by bacterial decay gases and will be transported to the surface. There, the fish will

further decay and pieces will fall into deepwater or drift to the beach where they will be

consumed, disarticulated and scattered by scavengers and waves. In this case, only few bones

might be buried in the sediments. Clay sediments function as "glue like", by trapping the fish

carcasses and preventing their flotation. Therefore, fossil fish will be recovered mainly from

cold or deep water, with low oxygen level, in which the fish carcasses were prevented from

floating (Cutler et al., 1999; Elder & Smith, 1988; Ferber & Wells, 1995; Martin, 1999;

Wilson & Barton, 1996).

8

Wilson and Barton (1996) demonstrated that skull bones become disarticulated faster

than anal and dorsal fins. This pattern agrees with other studies demonstrating high

survivorship of postcranial element, especially vertebrae (Butler, 1993; Butler, 1996; Elder &

Smith, 1988; Ferber & Wells, 1995; Mancuso, 2003). O'conell and Tunnicliffe (2001)

showed that scales suffer degradation for record longer than 500 years. They have also

proved that when fish are naturally accumulated there is a taxonomic bias against less

abundant fish. In an aquatic habitat with over 100 species only 20 species were present

(O'connell & Tunnicliffe, 2001).

In view of the diverse preservation patterns of fish natural accumulation, it is clear that

similarity between naturally and culturally deposited fish may appear. Therefore, fish

remains recovered from lacustrine/ coastal archaeological sites, such as Ohalo-II, should not

be a-priori treated as culturally deposited and their nature must be examined.

2.3 Culturally deposited fish

Until recently culturally derived fish assemblages were identified based on anomalies in

skeletal element presentation. This approach predicts that three bone assemblages would be

generated during fish procurement: a processing waste assemblage; a product assemblage of

consumed fish, and a stored/unconsumed fish assemblage. Each assemblage is assumed to be

characterized by different skeletal element representation and fragmentation patterns

(Belcher, 1994; Belcher, 1998; Gifford-Gonzales et al., 1999; Hoffman et al., 2000; Stewart,

1991; Stewart & Gifford-Gonzales, 1994; Van Neer & Pieters, 1997). However, recent

ethnographic and taphonomic studies demonstrate that this approach is too simplified, and

that a number of factors must be considered as well.

For example, researchers viewed the absence of salmon skulls as evidence for fish

decapitation during processing for long term preservation (Hoffman et al., 2000; Lubinski,

1996). However, contemporary taphonomic studies demonstrate that in Salmon, bone density

is lower in cranial bones and therefore their survivorship is lower compared with postcranial

bones (Butler, 1994). Thus, anomalies in bone representation such as low frequencies of

Salmon cranial bones at archaeological site do not necessarily testify on human activity

(Butler, 1994).

Ethnographic studies demonstrated a wide variety of methods applied in fish butchering,

ranging from drying the whole fish to removal of all bones and drying cleaned fillet (Barrett,

1997; Belcher, 1994; Belcher, 1998; Burgess, 1965; Essuman & Diakite, 1990; Firth, 1975;

9

Hoffman et al., 2000; Locker, 2000; Michael, 1984; Stewart, 1982; Stewart, 1989; Walker,

1982a; Walker, 1982b). Although fish butchering rarely leaves distinctive cut marks on the

bones (Butler, 1996; Butler & Schroeder, 1998), each method is characterized by a distinctive

bone assemblage. Surprisingly, this issue has received little attention in the literature (Zohar

& Cooke, 1997).

Variation appears also in cooking methods applied (boiling, roasting, etc.) and their

effect on bone survival. Only few studies examined the effect of cooking methods on fish

bone survival (Fred et al., 2002; Lubinski, 1996; Nicholson, 1998). Nicholson (1998)

demonstrated that in cod, 66% of the skeletal elements (postcrania and crania) were destroyed

due to boiling. Lubinski (1996) demonstrated the effect of cooking methods and sediments

acidic and alkaline conditions on Salmon bones preservation.

In view of the scarcity of taphonomic studies on culturally deposited fish and the

possible resemblance with natural accumulations, fish remains from lacustrine/coastal

sediments should be analyzed cautiously, with a wide set of quantitative and qualitative

criteria developed for each habitat (Zohar et al., 2001).

11

CHAPTER 3: SITE SELECTION AND FIELD TECHNIQUES

"The stratigraphic record is certainly imperfect" (Martin, 1999)

In this chapter I describe the areas selected for this study, the field methodology applied,

and the sampling techniques. This study includes fish bone assemblages from three

accumulations: archaeological, natural, and ethnographical. The archaeological site is of an

early fishing community (23,000 cal B.P.) from the Sea of Galilee (Ohalo-II); the site for

natural fish accumulation is also located along the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee; the

ethnographical sites (for the study of traditional fish butchering methods for long-term

preservation) are two fishing communities: one from the Pacific coast of Panama and the

second from the Red Sea coast of south Sinai, Egypt.

3.1. The Archaeological Site of Ohalo-II

Ohalo-II is a submerged site located at the south-western shore of the Sea of Galilee,

Israel, at -212.5 meters below mean sea level (BSL) (Figure 1). This is a late Upper-

Paleolithic site, dated to 23,000 years B.P. (Nadel et al., 2001) . The site was exposed as a

result of a drop in water level in 1989 following several years of low precipitation, and was

excavated for six seasons (1989-1991; 1999-2001; Figure 3) (Nadel, 1990; Nadel, 1991;

Nadel, 2002; Nadel et al., 2002).

The site size is ca. 2000 square meters, of which 400m2 were excavated. The

excavation revealed the remains of six brush huts, several hearths, and a grave (Figure 4 ;

Nadel, 1997; Nadel et al., 1994). These features were clearly visible on the surface, as the

sediments were dark in color in comparison to the surrounding sediments (Nadel, 2002; Nadel

& Werker, 1999).

Figure 3: Ohalo-II site covered

with water (on left) and its

exposure at -214.0 BSL in the

summer of 2000.

Flint, mammals, rodents, reptiles, turtles, birds, mollusks, fish, botanical, and human

remains were recovered at Ohalo-II (Nadel, 2002; Nadel et al., 2002). Fish remains appeared

in large quantities in most of the excavated areas. In this study I focus on a sample of 19,799

fish remains recovered from seven different localities (Table 1). These included: loci 1, 2, 3

(brush huts), Loci 7 and 9 (ashes) and locus 8, an unidentified pit (Figure 4).

Table 1: Frequency (NISP) and percentage of fish remains by loci at Ohalo-II.

Excavated area Identified Unidentified Total

12

L.5

-211.90m

L.4

-212.20m

-212.28m

L.7

L.8L.3

L.2

L.1

-212.28m -212.44mL.11

L.16

L.15

L.17

L.12

L.6

L. 10

0 5m

AL AG AB S

110

80

70

AI AG AB D I N

757677

80

86

81

8485

87888990

919293

95

N

70

79

90

100

110

S

C D E F G H I J K L M N

8382

78

100

L.9

NISP % NISP % NISP Locus 1 11,676 92.7 921 7.3 12,597 Locus 2 58 100.0 - . 58 Locus 3 616 65.0 332 35.0 948 Between L.7 & L.9 29 72.5 11 27.5 40 Locus 7 4,110 75.0 1,368 25.0 5,478 Locus 8 537 88.3 71 11.7 608 Locus 9 47 67.1 23 32.9 70 Total 17,037 86.2% 2,726 13.8% 19,799

Locus 1 is the largest structure recovered at the site, it is 4.5 m long in its north-south

long axis, with a kidney-like shape (Figure 4). Remains of constructed wall were recovered

during the excavation of locus 1 (Nadel & Werker, 1999). Locus 2 is located close to locus 1

(Figure 4), its shape is similar to that of locus 1, but is smaller in size. Locus 3 is a pear like

shape, located close to loci 1 and 2 (Figure 4). All structures were of similar form (wide

shallow bowls) (Nadel et al., 2001).

Locus 7 is one of the largest excavated areas. It is 7 m long (north-south axis) and ca. 3

m wide (west-east axis). Its shape is not

regular though its boundaries were clearly

visible. It comprises of series of hearths

(Figure 4). The hearths were red, black or

gray in color and 5-10 cm in depth.

Figure 4: Excavated loci at Ohalo-II where

fish remains were recovered (after Nadel et

al., 1994).

Locus 8 is a small unidentified round

structure located north of locus 7 and south

of locus 2. Its diameter is 40 cm and its

depth is 25 cm. Locus 9 is similar to locus

7, and is comprised of several hearths, each

30-40 cm in diameter.

3.2. Fish Natural Accumulation

In order to gain insight into fish natural accumulation at the Sea of Galilee southern

shore, an in-situ beach area that does not carry any archaeological artifacts, was selected.

This was not an easy task as the sharp drop in water level, exposed many archaeological sites

along the lake shore (Nadel, 1993). Therefore, I conducted a survey along the southern shore

of the Sea of Galilee and consulted the site geologists and archaeologists to aid in identifying

13

50 meter

100

met

er

N

potential research areas. Based on the information gathered I selected an area of natural

lacustrine sediments, 150 m north of the Ohalo-II site.

Excavation of the natural site took place during July 2001, when water Sea level

dropped to -214 BSL. I marked an area of 100 meter in length and 50 meter in width, using

an eTrek global positioning system (GPS). The GPS provided accurate data on the position of

the excavated area, according to three dimensions (X,Y,Z).

Based on this information I used Excel (Office 98) for MAC

and calculated the position of 24 random squares, which were

then excavated (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Position of 24 random squares sampled along the

southern shore of the Sea of Galilee.

Each square was 0.5sq.m in size, (Figure 6), and was

excavated to the maximum depth of 30-50cm. The maximum

depth of each square varied according to its sedimentology. I divided the excavation into

three layers as follows (Figure 6): upper sandy layer (3-10 cm thick), median brown layer

(mixture of sand and clay : 5-10 cm thick), and dark anaerobic clay layer (10 cm thick). The

bottom clay layer was radiocarbon dated to 430-620 A.D. (University of Arizona, Tucson).

Figure 6: An excavated square

from the Sea of Galilee present

shoreline (observe the changes

from upper sandy layer to a dark

clay layer at the bottom).

In order to minimize collection

bias against smaller elements and

species (including micro-fauna), I

used fine mesh (0.5 mm) screens

for wet sieving. A total of 5795 fish remains from the 24 random squares, were recovered.

In addition I performed a survey along the beach, in areas that were heavily vegetated,

or farther away from the archaeological and natural digging area. I hand picked 72 fish

remains that were scattered in these areas. I also collected (hand-picked) 101 naturally

14

0 5 10 15Km

N

Agudulce

Cerro Mangote

Parita Bay

El Rompeo

Bocas de Parita

Caribbean Sea

Panama City

Parita bay

Pacific Ocean

Rio Santa Maria

Parita

La Villa

Rio Pocri

Rio Grande

accumulated fish bones from the present surface covering at the Ohalo-II site. Therefore, I

recovered a total of 5968 fish remains from the natural sediments along the Sea of Galilee.

3.3 Ethnographic Study of Fish Procurement Methods

In order to characterize fish remains associated with human activity, I examined fish

butchering methods applied by present day traditional fishing communities. I conducted this

research on fishermen from two geographical regions: Parita Bay (Panama; Figure 7) and

Nabek Oasis (South Sinai-Egypt; Figure 9).

Parita Bay is a small tidal embayment in the north-western corner of Panama Bay (Figure 7).

Modern fishing concentrates on littoral and estuarine waters. Individuals or small groups use

throw and gill nets, as well as hand-lines from dug-out canoes, with and without outboard

motors. Although most modern catches are sold fresh, a few families in the coastal

settlements of Aguaduce, El Rompio and Boca de

Parita still process considerable amounts of fish by

salting and wind and sun drying, throughout the

year. This process is performed either in their

houses or in seasonal huts (Figure 8).

Figure 7: Map of Panama and Parita Bay showing

location of the studied sites.

15

Eilat

0 100 200 km

Jerusalem

32o 36o

28oNabekOasis

Mediterranean Sea

South Sina i

Egyp t

Dead Sea

Red Sea

Bay of Eilat

Israe l

N

Figure 8: Fish drying and salting seasonal camp at the mouth of Rio Santa Maria (on left), and

fish processed for long-term preservation by Francisco at Partita Bay (on right).

Nabek Oasis rests on the south-eastern shore of the Gulf of Eilat in Southern Sinai

(Figure 9). It is situated at the end of a wide delta stretching 5-7 km east of the Red Sea

mountains. Several rivers including Wadi

Kid feed this long delta. Ten nomadic

Bedouin tribes are scattered throughout

the South Sinai peninsula, each exploiting

a different geographic area. The Muzeina

tribes exploit the eastern-shore line, and

therefore practice intensive fishing year

round using throw and gill nets in shallow

water (Kobyliansky & Hershkovitz,

1997).

Figure 9: Map of Sinai, with the location

of the studied site (Nabek Oasis) indicated.

Some of the Muzeina families seasonally move between the seashore and the

mountains, while other live in a sedentary fishing village situated in Nabek. Therefore,

Nabek Oasis constitutes a permanent Bedouin's fishing village, and some seasonal huts that

are scattered along the beach. These huts are exploited by different individuals or families for

few fishing days, all year.

Only a small amount of the catch is consumed fresh while most of it is processed by sun

drying (Figure 10). Dry fish are called "Chot", and they are either scattered on the hut roofs

or hanged for later consumption. The dry fish are later cooked with rice (Levi, 1987).

Figure 10: Fish butchering by a Bedouin

family in Nabek Oasis (Sinai).

Documentation of fish butchering

methods included in Sinai 72 fish from

9 species, butchered by a single method

(Method-2:longitudinal cut through the

skull). In Panama, I examined 573 fish

16

from 34 species, butchered by two methods (Method-1:whole, and Method-2:longitudinal cut

through the skull): 442 fish were butchered by method-1, and 131 fish were butchered by

method-2. In each locality I collected the most common species (171 fish from Panama, and

47 fish from Sinai; Table 2) and carried them back to the lab. At the lab, I separated the

bones (see next chapter) and examined the effect of fish butchering method on 17,862 skeletal

elements, according to: absent bone, damaged bone, and typical breakage pattern.

Table 2: Morphometrics for butchered fish collected from traditional fishermen in Panama

(Central America) and southern Sinai (Egypt) by butchering method and body size.

Panama-Parita Bay Butchering Method Body Size (Range)

Species Count 1 2 Body Mass Total Length Standard Length Caranx caninus 29 1 28 823-5760 gr 458-790 mm 370-610 mm Haemulopsis nitidus 32 32 0 112-242 gr 200-261 mm 164-210 mm Arius kessleri 41 13 28 453-1644 gr 395-560 mm 320-478 mm Cathorops multiradiatus 29 29 0 90-208 gr 223-305 mm 184-252 mm Sciadeops troschelii 40 10 30 108-2409 gr 227-580 mm 187-496 mm Total Count 171 85 86

Sinai-Nabek Bay Butchering Body Size (Range) Species Method-2 Body Mass Total Length Standard Length Acanthurus nigrofuscus 24 52-1130 gr 137-393 mm 100-300 mm Siganus luridus 23 63-316 gr 171-255 mm 132-202 mm Total Count 47

17

CHAPTER 4: METHODS

“Only a small part of what once existed was buried in the ground; only a part of what

was buried has escaped the destroying hand of time; of this part all has not yet come

to light again; and we all know only too well how little of what has come to light has

been of service to our science” (Montelius, 1888)

4.1. Recovery Bias

Recovery procedures, particularly screen size selection, have a significant effect on the

results of faunal analysis in general and on fish remains in particular (Zohar & Belmaker,

2003). Researchers have demonstrated the effect of screen size selection on the differential

recovery of taxa, their ordinal rank of abundance, and on skeletal representation (Butler,

1993; Butler, 1996; Cannon, 2001; Casteel, 1972; Fitch, 1967; Gobalet, 2001; Gordon, 1993;

James, 1997; Zohar & Belmaker, 2003). In this study I was concerned with taxonomic

representation, relative abundanc

Documents

FISH EXPLOITATION AT THE SEA OF GALILEE (ISRAEL ...primage.tau.ac.il/libraries/theses/lifemed/free/1967999.pdfAPPENDIX-IX: C. caninus skeletal elements in a complete fish. 190 APPENDIX-X: