Content uploaded by Omry Barzilai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Omry Barzilai on Jan 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Barzilai et al. 2013
22
Proto-Historic Ein Zippori: The 2007 Excavation Season
Omry Barzilai1
, Nimrod Getzov2
, Natalia Gubenko3
, Nimrod Marom4
, Ianir Milevski5
, Ariel Vered6 and Junfu
Zheng7
1 Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. omry@israntique.org.il.
2 Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. getzov@israntique.org.il.
3 Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. natalia.gubenko@gmail.com.
4 Zinman Institute of Archaeology and Department of Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel.
nmarom02@campus.haifa.ac.il.
5 Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. ianir@israntique.org.il.
6 Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. ariel_rosenblum@yahoo.com.
7 Center for East Asian Studies, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel.
zhengjunfu1984@163.com.
ABSTRACT
Recent excavations at Ein Zippori in the Lower Galilee revealed a complex proto-historic site dated to the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B, Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods. While the nature of the Neolithic occupation is not clear
and consists of few lithic artifacts, the density of the architectural remains and rich archaeological assemblages indicate
well established Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IB settlements. The recent excavations at Ein Zippori, together with
other investigations carried out at Yiftahel and Tell Mitzpe Zevulun North (Nahal Zippori 3) add insights into the proto-
historic settlement pattern within the Nahal Zippori basin. The early farming communities around Nahal Zippori founded
their villages within the alluvial lands along the stream. It is only with the rise of fortied towns during the Early Bronze
II that these settlements relocated from the fertile lands to the hilltops overlooking the Nahal Zippori Valley.
KEYWORDS: Proto-historic site, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, Early Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-73
INTRODUCTION
Until recently most of the available data regarding proto-
historic periods in the Nahal Zippori Basin relied mainly on
excavations at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh (Braun 1997;
Garnkel et al. 2012; Goring-Morris et al. 1995, 2001, 2008).
The 1980’s excavations at Yiftahel exposed settlement
remains dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) and
Early Bronze Age (EB) IA periods (Braun 1997). The data
from PPNB Yiftahel was extremely valuable for research
of plant domestication, ancient architecture and building
techniques (Garnkel 1987; Kislev 1985), and the EB IA
remains for comprehending early pottery typology and
village layout before the beginning of urbanization in the
region (Braun 1997; Getzov et al. 2001). The excavations
at Kfar HaHoresh exposed settlement remains dated to the
Early through Late PPNB with numerous human burials
(ca. 70 individuals; Goring-Morris et al. 1995, 2001,
2008). The density of burials and the unique geographical
location by the summit of Har Baharan (Nazareth hills) led
the excavator to suggest that the site served as a regional
ritual centre (Goring-Morris 2000, 2005).
Extensive salvage excavations carried out in the last ve
years under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority
provide new insights into the proto-historic cultures of the
Lower Galilee. New investigations were conducted within
the Nahal Zippori basin at Ein Zippori, Givat Rabi East,
Yiftahel, Hanaton, Kfar Kanna and Tell Mitzpe Zevulun
North (Barzilai 2010a; Barzilai and Milevski 2010;
Barzilai et al. 2013; Garnkel et al. 2012; Khalaily et al.
2008; Nativ n.d.; H. Smithline, pers. comm.). Notably
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
23
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
Figure 1. Ein Zippori and other proto-historic sites mentioned in the text.
these settlements, bearing long chrono-cultural sequences,
were founded in the alluvial lands by the stream (Fig. 1),
indicating that Nahal Zippori was an ideal locale for early
farming.
The current paper is concerned with the chrono-
cultural sequence at the proto-historic site of Ein
Zippori on the southern bank of Nahal Zippori (Fig. 2).
The site, estimated to extend over ca. 300 dunams, was
discovered in an archaeological survey in the 1990's
and was revisited in additional surveys which suggested
Early Chalcolithic (ECh) and EB occupations (Gal 2002;
Marder and Khalaily, pers. obs.). The initial excavation
at the site was conducted in 1995 south of route 79 by
D. Kaufman on behalf of the University of Haifa (Fig.
2). The excavation exposed settlement remains from the
EB (Gal, pers. comm.). In the spring of 2007 another
excavation was conducted north of and adjacent to the Ein
Zippori Junction by one of the authors (O.B.) on behalf
of the Israel Antiquities Authority (Barzilai 2010a). The
excavation revealed archaeological remains dated to the
PPNB, ECh and EB periods. For the purposes of this
paper, Early Chalcolithic consists of the Wadi Rabah
culture (Kaplan 1958) and “the following variants”
(Gopher and Gophna 1993), and includes what Garnkel
(1999) refers to as Middle Chalcolithic.
Ein Zippori was subjected to extensive excavations
between 2011–2013 by I. Milevski and N. Getzov on
behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The new
excavations were carried out on both sides of Route 79,
extending over an area of ca. 5,000 m2; the results are
reported elsewhere (Getzov and Milevski 2012; Milevski
and Getzov 2013). While this paper will report mainly
on the excavations of 2007, the conclusions take into
consideration eld observations from the 2011–2013
excavations as well as preliminary data from other proto-
historic excavations and surveys in the region.
Barzilai et al. 2013
24
THE 2007 EXCAVATION SEASON (O.B.)
The 2007 excavation area was located northwest of
Zippori Junction (the intersection between Route 79 and
Road 7926) (Fig. 2). A long and narrow excavation trench
(3x15 m) was opened (Fig. 3). The trench was divided into
three excavation units, two of which were partly excavated
(A3–A4) and one dug down to sterile sediments (A2). The
stratigraphy consists of six layers (I–VI). The uppermost
(Layers I–II) were recorded in all of the excavation area
whereas the rest were superimposed in excavation unit
A2. The volume of the excavation in Unit A2 narrowed
as excavations went deeper; Layer III was excavated
throughout Unit A2 (3x5 m), while Layers IV–VI were
excavated to a lesser extent (2x2 m).
Stratigraphy
Layer VI. A dark heavy clay sediment was recorded at 2.8
m below surface. It contains carbonated concretions likely
formed by post-depositional hydrological processes. The
sedimentological composition matches the description
of the regional alluvial gromosol (Dan and Raz 1970).
This sediment is almost sterile and contained a few lithic
artifacts that probably derive from Layer V.
Layer V. This dark heavy clay sediment is similar to that
of Layer VI but with archaeological nds, mostly PPNB
int artifacts (see below). The layer (0.3–0.4 m thick) was
sealed by an architectural element (L122) attributed to
Layer IV.
Layer IV. This light brown loose sediment (ca. 0.5 m
thick) contained ECh and EB potsherds and int artifacts
characteristic to the PPNB and ECh. Layer IV probably
represents a house level as attested by a stone pavement
(oor) adjoining an architectural element (L122; Fig. 4).
Despite the small size of the excavated area, this layer
was rich in nds; most were found on top of the stone
surface. Exceptional ndings were two complete late
Chalcolithic bowls found together which may attest to
another stratigraphic phase that was not recognized in the
excavation (and see discussion below).
Layer III. This is the richest layer in the excavation area.
It is composed of light brown clay ll (ca. 0.7 m thick) and
several stone foundations of at least two adjacent buildings
Figure 2. Ein Zippori: location of excavation areas from all seasons. Estimation of the extension of the site is marked in
grey.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
25
Figure 3. Plan of Layers II–IV (top) and stratigraphic section of the excavation area, looking east (bottom).
with round corners (Figs. 3, 5) which are characteristic of
EB IB (Golani 2003). This layer is subdivided into two
phases: (a) the remains of a “rounded-corner building”
(W18) with additional walls (W14; W15; W17) and, (b) a
stone surface (L111) and an installation (L112).
The pottery in both phases is abundant and includes
numerous potsherds with typical EB IB decorations such
as rope decoration and grain-wash surface treatment (see
below). The lithic assemblage is mixed as attested by
diagnostic artifacts characteristic of the PPNB, ECh and
EB periods.
Layer II. Layer II is composed of brown terra rossa soil
that contained small stones (ca. 0.55 m thick). The layer
was exposed in the south; it seems that its northern part,
closer to the Nahal Zippori channel, was eroded. Remains
of three walls were exposed (Figs. 3, 6), apparently
suggestive of a rectangular structure, because the contact
between the long wall (W10) and a smaller wall (W11)
to its west forms a right angle. Another wall fragment
(W12) and an installation (L103) were exposed east of the
structure. The pottery remains include EB IB types mixed
with few EB II types.
Layer I. Layer I is the surface level (0.7–1.0 m thick)
that sloped gently toward the north. It had been deeply
tilled and contained archaeological nds (potsherds and
int tools) mixed with modern artifacts.
The stratigraphic division into six layers relies on
clear differences in sedimentological composition and
architectural units. Still, all layers contained mixed
assemblages, mainly pottery and lithics which are attributed
Barzilai et al. 2013
26
Figure 4. Ein Zippori: Remains of an installation (L122) in Layer IV.
to several periods (see below). These disturbances are
probably due to the construction activities of digging wall
foundations for the buildings in Layers IV–II. Despite
the mixture the chrono-cultural attribution of each layer
within the current excavation is clear and is based on
cross-correlation between stratigraphy, architectural
elements, and pottery and lithic assemblages. Notably the
current chrono-cultural sequence was conrmed by the
new excavations (Getzov and Milevski 2012; Milevski and
Getzov 2013).
THE POTTERY (N.G.)
The pottery assemblages in all layers display considerable
mixture (Table 1). EB IB types are dominant in all layers
except for Layer IV where ECh types are more dominant.
EB II types are found in Layers II–III. Layer V, attributed
to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic contained ECh and EB IB
pottery sherds. Consequently, the pottery assemblages are
presented according to periods. The pottery sherds were
sorted in the eld, and all rims, handles and decorated
pieces were kept for further analysis.
Periods ECh EB Ib EB II Roman Total
Layers n % n % n % n % n %
II 6 3.9 135 88.8 6 3.9 5 3.4 152 100.0
III 106 19.4 411 75.1 30 5.5 547 100.0
IV 10 55.5 8 44.5 18 100.0
V5 22.7 17 77.3 22 100.0
Total 127 17.2 571 77.2 36 4.9 5 0.7 739 100.0
Table 1. Pottery assemblages at Ein Zippori by layers and periods.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
27
Figure 5. Ein Zippori: Remains of buildings with rounded corners in Layer III phase a (view to south).
Barzilai et al. 2013
28
Figure 6. Ein Zippori: Remains of a building from Layer II (view to south).
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
29
The Early Chalcolithic Pottery
The aim of the analysis of the Early Chalcolithic pottery
was to clarify the relative chronological position of the
Layer IV assemblage. The comparisons given in the
present report refer to two reports that include a systematic
typological list as well as detailed quantitative data:
Munhata (Horbat Minha; Garnkel 1992) and the ECh
of Horbat ‘Uza (Getzov 2009), where four successive
strata of this period were unearthed. Only in a few cases
comparisons were made with nds that did not appear in
these two reports.
The assemblage includes 127 rim fragments that
should be attributed to the ECh period. Unfortunately, the
assemblage is not large enough to permit a comprehensive
quantitative comparison.
Following is the typology of the vessels of the ECh:
Straight-sided bowls. Bowls with straight- or slightly
incurving sides are sometimes deep, as in Fig. 7:1, and
sometimes shallow. Given the small number of specimens,
the type was not divided into separate subtypes, as in the
excavation reports of Munhata and H. ‘Uza.
Shallow rounded bowls. These are shallow, rounded
bowls with a rounded prole (Fig. 7:2–3). At Munhata,
such bowls were classied as Type B2, dened as “a
shallow, rounded, open bowl” (Garnkel 1992a: g. 96:1–
16), while at H. ‘Uza they were included with the thin
bowls of Type Ch.Bo.2a (e.g. Getzov 2009: g. 2.53:3),
and were found in all the strata of the Early Chalcolithic
period.
Flaring-rim bowls. Included here are bowls whose rims
are out (Fig. 7:4). The Munhata bowls with aring rims
include Types A2, A4 and B3 (e.g. Garnkel 1992a: gs.
91; 97:1–14, 16–22). The H. ‘Uza, bowls with aring rims
include Types Ch.Bo.1 and Ch.Bo.2b that were found in
all Early Chalcolithic strata. The great similarity between
the example presented here (Fig. 7:4) and a complete bowl
found in Stratum 18 (Getzov 2009: g. 2.23:1) is of note.
Thick-walled bowls and basins. The bowls have thick
walls, slipped and burnished on the interior only (Fig. 7:5).
At Munhata, such bowls were included among the basins
of Type B4 (Garnkel 1992: g. 99), while at H. ‘Uza they
were designated as Type Ch.Bo.3 and were found only in
Stratum 19 (Getzov 2009: g. 2.21:7–8). The basins also
had thick walls and their rims, angular in prole, were
wider than the vessels’ walls (Fig. 7:6). At Munhata, they
were included in Type B4 (Garnkel 1992: g. 98:1), while
at H. ‘Uza they were counted as part of the pithoi of Type
Ch.Pi.1 (Getzov 2009: g. 2.24:3). The pithoi and the
basins with the wide rims were found in H. ‘Uza only in
Strata 19 and 18, but not in later strata.
Ridged-rim holemouth Jars. These holemouth jars have
a high ridge parallel to their rim (Fig. 7:7). At H. ‘Uza, such
holemouth jars were designated Ch.Ho.3 (Getzov 2009:
g. 2.26:12–13), while at Munhata they are absent. At H.
‘Uza they were found only in Stratum 17, and Garnkel
ascribes them to his “Middle Chalcolithic” (Garnkel
1999: g. 105:11).
Simple-rim holemouth jars. These holemouth jars have
a simple rim which is cut, sharp or rounded (Fig. 7:8).
Such holemouth jars are frequent in all strata at H. ‘Uza
(e.g. Getzov 2009: g. 2.23:13–24). Holemouth jars with
a wide variety of rim shapes are also common at Munhata
(Garnkel 1992: gs. 117–121).
Strap handles
Wide handles that widen at their joint with the body of the
vessel (Fig. 7:9–10) are characteristic of Early Chalcolithic
assemblages. At H. ‘Uza they are abundant in all strata
(e.g. Getzov 2009: g. 2.24:4), and they also dominate the
handles at Munhata (Garnkel 1992: g. 133:1–7).
Although, as noted, such handles are known from all the
stages of the Early Chalcolithic period, it should be noted
that the H. ‘Uza assemblages exhibit an increase in the
overall number of handles during the ECh period (Getzov
2009: table 2.6). In the present assemblage, the ratio of rim
to handle fragments is 12:1 (73 rim fragments and 6 handle
fragments; Table 1), which is higher than at H. ‘Uza Stratum
19 (27:1; 191 rim fragments and 7 handle fragments) and
considerably lower than that of H. ‘Uza Stratum 17 (3:1,
422 rim fragments and 145 handle fragments).
Decoration
Stabbed and Incised Decoration. There are diverse patterns
made by stabbing and impressing the clay while still in the
leather hard stage. In some cases, the decoration is found
under slip or burnish, in others on plain sherds. Stabbed
decoration was made using either a chisel or a roller (Fig.
8), and the incised decoration was made using a comb (Fig.
7:11–12).
Similar decorations are characteristic of the Munhata
assemblage (Garnkel 1992: gs. 134–139); at H. ‘Uza
they appear only in Stratum 19 (Getzov 2009: g. 2.22:11–
18).
At H. ‘Uza this decoration style is characteristic of Strata
Barzilai et al. 2013
30
18 and 17, where the diagonal decoration runs from the
rims of holemouth jars (Getzov 2009: g. 2.23:15). Sherds
decorated in a similar manner were probably also found
in Munhata, although the publication does not mention a
light slip beneath the red paint (e.g. Garnkel 1992: gs.
102:8, 133:6).
Red-on-light decoration. This decoration technique
describes vessels slipped in white paint on which wide
stripes or stains were drawn in red color (Fig. 7:8–9). Figure
7:8 presents an exceptionally well-preserved holemouth jar
whose rim was decorated with a red-painted stripe, from
which a wide stripe diagonally stretches toward the bottom
of the vessel. No such well-preserved example of red-on-
light decoration has hitherto been published.
Early Chalcolithic pottery – conclusion
Parallels to all the nds described above can be found in the
assemblage of the Wadi Rabah phase of Munhata, ascribed
by Garnkel to the chronological and cultural horizon of
the Wadi Rabah culture of the southern Levant (Garnkel
1999:107).
The parallels from Strata 19–17 at H. ‘Uza suggest that
the assemblage from Ein Zippori is mixed (see discussion
in Getzov 2009:68–72). The thick-walled bowls slipped on
the inside and the sherds with stabbed or incised decoration
are characteristic of Stratum 19. A ridged holemouth jar
and vessels with red-on-light decoration are characteristic
of Strata 18 and 17. The relative frequency of the handles
in our assemblages, falling between those of H. ‘Uza Strata
19 and 17, supports this conclusion.
It seems that the Early Chalcolithic layer of Ein Zippori
contains components contemporary with H. ‘Uza Stratum
19 and the site of Wadi Rabah on the one hand, and with
H. ‘Uza Stratum 17 and Jericho Stratum VIII (PNB) on the
other (Getzov 2009: table 2.43).
Late Chalcolithic pottery
Two complete small bowls should be dated to this period
(Fig. 7:14–15). The small bowls are V-shaped, have thin
walls and were made on a potter's wheel. The use of the
potter's wheel is unknown prior to the Late Chalcolithic
period. On the rim of one small bowl (Fig. 7:15) is a
strip of red color. Such bowls are characteristic of Late
Chalcolithic assemblages (Garnkel 1999: g. 127:1–8).
Early Bronze I pottery
The aim of the analysis of the Early Bronze I pottery
was to explore the relationship of Ein Zippori to
contemporary assemblages in neighboring sites.
Thus, all vessels and fragments dated to this period,
whether from Layers II or III, were used. Study of
the assemblage was based on a list of 25 vessel types.
Quantitative data used here were based on a count
of rim and handle fragments (Table 2). All denable
fragments were counted; conjoinable pieces were
counted as one piece.
No estimation of the minimum number of vessels
was made so the counts, as they appear in the nal
tables, do not indicate precisely the actual frequency
of each vessel type.
Typology of vessels
1. Simple bowls (Fig. 9:1–7). A variety of bowls with
straight or incurved walls and a simple pointed or
rounded rim. Such bowls were often used as lamps,
as is evident from burning marks on the rim. A special
specimen of this group is a bowl with an inner shelf
(Fig. 9:7), apparently made to avoid the slipping of
the wick to the bottom of the bowl.
2. Bowls with incurved rounded rim (Fig. 9:8–12).
These are bowls with incurved sides and rims.
3. Triangular-rim bowls (Fig. 9:13–15). These bowls
have a thickened rim and an inward facing triangular
cross section.
4. Gutter-rim bowls (Fig. 9:16). Similar in prole to
the previous type, these bowls have a thickened rim
on top of which is a kind of a gutter.
5. Bowls with incurved carinated rim (Fig. 9:17–18).
The tops of the walls and the rims of these bowls
are carinated inward. All bear a dark slip in which a
network of tiny cracks, similar to those that develop
in dry soil, was formed following its drying or ring.
These belong to the group of vessels known as
“Crackled Ware.” Esse (1989) dated these vessels to
EB IB and showed that their geographical distribution
is limited to the vicinity of Tel Bet Yerah.
6. Gray-burnished bowls (Fig. 9:19–21). These bowls
belong to the late phase of the gray-burnished ware
family (Wright 1958, Type 3) and are characterized
as having an inclined ledge rim and a carinated wall,
with no handles. These vessels are to be attributed to
the second phase of EB I.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
31
Figure 7. Early (1–13) and Late Chalcolithic (14–15) pottery.
Barzilai et al. 2013
32
No. Locus Basket Vessel Description
1 116 1116 Deep bowl Grayish-brown clay, pinkish-brown surface, large and light
temper, red slip
2 108 1077 Bowl Yellowish-brown clay, gray temper, red slip
3 108 1086 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, red slip,
burnish
4 101 1010 Bowl Brown clay, light temper
5 115 1150 Thick bowl Brown-gray clay, gray core, large-sized light temper, red slip,
burnish
6 111 1127 Krater Brown-gray clay, light surface, large-sized light temper
7 101 1065 Holemouth jar Light gray clay, gray core, calcite temper, traces of red slip
8 111 1137 Holemouth jar Light brown clay, much large-sized temper, whitish slip, red
paint ='red-on-light'?
9 121 1144 Handle Light brown clay, light temper, whitish slip, red paint ='red-on-
light' decoration?
10 111 1127 Handle Grayish-brown clay, pinkish-brown surface, red slip, light large-
sized temper
11 119 1128 Decorated sherd Brown-gray clay, gray core, light large-sized temper, combed
decoration, red slip
12 114 1123 Decorated sherd Brown-gray clay, gray core, light large-sized temper, wavy
combed decoration
13 119 1130 Spindle whorl Gray clay, dark temper
14 111 1133 Small bowl Grayish-white clay, varied temper
15 111 1125 Small bowl Grayish-white clay, few varied temper, red paint
Figure 8. Early Chalcolithic pottery with stabbed and incised decoration.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
33
7. Miscellaneous and unidentied bowls (Fig. 9:22).
8. Simple-rim holemouth jars (Fig. 10:1–5). Holemouth
jars with a simple, thickened rim.
9. Ridged-rim holemouth jars (Fig. 10:6, 7). Holemouth
jars with a simple rim, with a protruding ridge near the rim.
10. Drooping-rim holemouth jars (Fig. 10:8–9). Holemouth
jars with inward drooping rims.
11. Square-rim holemouth jars (Fig. 10:10). The rims of
these holemouth jars are straight in prole.
12. Cooking pots (Fig. 10:11). Vessels with a rounded
body and an everted rim. The outline of the vessels is very
similar to that of jars, but they were made of a different
ware, dark brown or reddish-brown in color.
13. Miscellaneous and unidentied holemouth jars.
14. Vertical-rim juglets (Fig. 11:1–2). Juglets with an
oval body and a high loop handle, drawn above the rim to
below the center of the body. The rim is plain and upright,
sometimes slightly everted.
Type
Description / Locus 101 102 104 105 107 109 111 113 114 115 116 117 Total
1Simple bowls 3 3 1 18 1 2 28
2 Bowls with incurved rounded
rim 15 20 5 3 21 1 2 2 69
3Triangular-rim bowls 4 1 5
4Gutter-rim bowls 2 5 1 3 11
5 Bowls with incurved carinated
rim 2 3 2 10 3 2 2 1 25
6Gray-burnished bowls 1 4 5
7 Miscellaneous and unidentied
bowls 1 1 2
8Simple-rim holemouth jars 62 65 36 49 4 2 2 1 2 1 224
9Ridged-rim holemouth jars 1 1 2
10 Drooping-rim holemouth jars 1 1 2
11 Square-rim holemouth jars 4 4 2 10
12 Cooking pots 1 1
13 Miscellaneous and unidentied
holemouth jars 11
14 Vertical-rim juglets 2 1 6 3 1 1 1 15
15 Everted-rim juglets 1 4 2 3 5 1 1 1 119
16 High-necked amphoriskoi 1 1 1 3
17 Low, simple rim jars 6 7 1 1 5 20
18 Molded-rim jars 1 7 5 1 7 2 1 24
19 High-rim jars 2 4 1 7
20 Rounded-rim jars 7 1 8
21 Decorated rounded-rim pithoi 10 29 5 3 2 2 51
22 Plain rounded-rim pithoi 3 4 7
23 Triangular-rim pithoi 1 1
24 Flaring-rim pithoi 1 3 4
25 Bow-rim pithoi 1 1 2
Total EBI rims 120 166 64 17 129 15 11 4 7 8 4 1 546
Chalcolithic rims 5 14 2 8 30 1 7 2 10 10 2 91
EBII rims 6 30 36
Post-EBII rims 55
Table 2. Pottery from Early Bronze Age I loci.
Barzilai et al. 2013
34
15. Everted-rim juglets and amphoriskoi (Fig. 11:3–5).
Small closed vessels that are very similar to the previous
ones but whose rims are everted. Only fragments were
found, so the prole of the body remains unknown; it is
also possible that these are actually fragments of spouted
teapots (e.g. Fig. 11:16, 17; cf. Yannai 1996: g. 4:14).
16. High-necked juglets (Fig. 11:6). Juglets with a high
neck and a simple aring rim.
17. Low, simple-rim jars (Fig. 11:7–12). Jars with a low
simple rim, usually everted.
18. Molded-rim jars (Fig. 11:13–14). Jars with a thickened
everted rim. In many cases, the fashioning of the rim results
in a triangular cross section.
19. High-rim jars (Fig. 11:15). Jars with a simple, high and
straight or slightly everted rim.
20. Rounded-rim jars (not drawn). Jars with a rounded
thickened rim.
21. Decorated rounded-rim pithoi (Fig. 12:1–6). Pithoi
with a thickened rim and a low neck. The rim is decorated
with a line of incisions or ngerprints that sometimes form
a rope pattern. At the base of the neck is a protruding ridge.
22. Plain rounded-rim pithoi (Fig. 12:7–10). Similar to the
previous type but with undecorated rims.
23. Triangular-rim pithoi (not drawn). Similar to the
previous types, but with rims triangular in cross section.
Such pithoi were not decorated by incision.
24. Everted-rim pithoi (Fig. 12:11). Pithoi whose rim is
high and everted; sometimes a protruding ridge occurs at
the base of the neck.
25. Bow-neck pithoi (Fig. 12:12). These pithoi have a high
neck, slightly swollen in the middle, resulting in a bow-like
section. The rim is simple or thickened.
26. Handle Types (Fig. 13). All handle fragments found in
the excavation were kept, sorted and counted. Decorated
handles are somewhat overrepresented in Figure 13 (e.g. 1,
2, 4), as their actual frequency in the assemblage is rather
small. Four types of handles were dened: 1) handles with
a round or oval cross section (Fig. 13:1–2); 2) pierced
handles (Fig. 13:3); 3) juglet loop handles (Fig. 13:4–5)
and 4) ledge handles (Fig. 13:6).
Comparable assemblages
Of the pottery assemblages excavated in northern Israel
and dated to the early stages of the EB period, ve were
fully published, including quantitative data comparable to
the EB IB nds from Ein Zippori: En Shadud, Tel Qashish,
Qiryat Ata, Abu edh-Dhahab and Tel Bet Yerah.
En Shadud. A site in the center of the Jezre’el Valley,
about 9 km south of Ein Zippori (Braun 1985).
Tel Qashish. A tell in the northwest of the Jezre’el
Valley, about 15 km west of Ein Zippori (Ben-Tor et al.
2003). Strata XV–XIII (including post-XIII), which were
at the base of the accumulation, were dated to the EB I.
Qiryat Ata. A large settlement situated on a low hill
to the south of the Plain of Akko. A series of salvage
excavations were conducted at the site, and most of them
were published in a comprehensive report (Golani 2003).
The discussion of the pottery assemblage was based on the
typological terms used in the Tel Qashish report.
Abu edh-Dhahab. A large settlement in the north of
the Plain of Akko. Remains of the EB IB were found in
a limited excavation conducted on the fringes of the site
(Getzov 2004).
Tel Bet Yerah. A large tell on the southwestern shore of
the Sea of Galilee, close to the outlet of the Jordan River.
The 1994–1995 excavations exposed strata of EB cities,
including Stratum V, dated to the EB IB. A comparison
with other sites showed that the Tel Bet Yerah assemblage
is very similar to those found in the central Jordan Valley,
but is different, mainly quantitatively, from those of the
Jezre’el and Bet She’an Valleys (Getzov 2006:37).
A quantitative comparison of the bowls and pithoi
from Ein Zippori to those from the above mentioned sites
(Tables 3–4), proves to be helpful in dening the regional
distribution of these vessels.
1. Gutter-rim bowls are characteristic of sites in the
Jezre’el Valley. On the basis of their appearance in the Tel
Qashish strata it appears that they existed during the EB
IB (Zuckerman 1996:32, 45). Such bowls appear, although
in small numbers, in all assemblages, as is also the case at
Ein Zippori (indeed, they are absent from the quantitative
summary of En Shadud, but many are present in the gures,
e.g. Braun 1985: g. 15). The situation is different in the
Tel Bet Yerah assemblage, where only a single specimen
was found.
2. Bowls with incurved carinated rims are absent from
Tel Qashish and En Shadud, but are frequent at Tel Bet
Yerah. These bowls belong to the group of vessels with
crackled slip (Crackled Ware), characteristic of the Tel Bet
Yerah region (Esse 1989). Bowls with a similar prole
were found in lesser numbers in Qiryat Ata, but there is
no information in the excavation report regarding crackled
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
35
Figure 9. EB IB bowls.
36
Barzilai et al. 2013
No. Locus Basket Vessel Description
1 107 1083 Lamp-bowl Pinkish-brown clay, traces of red slip, burn marks
2 101 1016/1 Small bowl Brown clay, white temper, red slip
3 111 1100 Lamp-bowl Brown clay, dark temper, red slip, burnt marks on rim
4 101 1020/3 Small bowl Brown clay, small-sized temper, red slip
5 107 1088 Small bowl Pinkish-brown clay, light surface, few white temper, red slip
6 107 1105 Bowl Gray clay, gray temper, black slip
7 108 1091 Lamp Grayish-brown clay, gray small-sized temper, red slip
8 101 1011/1 Bowl Brown clay, varied temper, red slip outside, brown slip inside
9 109 1078/1 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, red slip
10 107 1105/1 Bowl Pinkish-brown clay, Yellowish-gray core, varied temper,
brown slip
11 116 1113/1 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper, dark brown
crackled slip (CW)
12 114 1123 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, light gray core, dark temper, dark brown
crackled slip (CW)
13 101 1020/1 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, light gray core, small-sized temper
14 101 1011/3 Bowl Pinkish-brown clay, well levitated, light surface, red-brown
slip, burnish
15 102 1043/1 Bowl Pinkish-brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, traces of
red slip
16 101 1020/2 Bowl Brown clay, varied temper, red slip
17 107 1083 Bowl Grayish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper, dark brown
crackled slip (CW)
18 101 1011/2 Bowl Brown clay, varied temper, dark brown crackled slip inside,
red outside (CW)
19 107 1182/2 Bowl Gray clay, light gray core, small-sized temper, gray burnished
surface
20 107 1083 Bowl Gray clay, dark Calcite temper, gray surface, traces of burnish
21 107 1079 Bowl Gray clay, few light temper, light gray surface, burnish
22 101 1028/1 Bowl Pinkish-brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, red paint
slip. Interestingly, a few such bowls were found at Abu
edh-Dhahab.
3. Gray-burnished ware of Wright’s Type 3 (Wright 1958)
comprises a large group among the bowls at En Shadud,
Tel Qashish and Qiryat Ata. At Ein Zippori, only a few
items were found, while they were not found at all at Tel
Bet Yerah and Abu edh-Dhahab.
4. The distribution of pithos types in northern Israel is
clearly regional: at Tel Bet Yerah, most of the pithoi
have rounded rims; at En Shadud there are rounded-rim
pithoi alongside bow-rim pithoi; at Tel Qashish there
are only bow-rim pithoi; at Qiryat Ata, bow-rim pithoi
predominate but a few rounded-rim pithoi and aring-rim
pithoi are present; and at Abu edh-Dhahab, aring-rim
pithoi predominate and only a few rounded-rim pithoi are
present. It seems that aring-rim pithoi were frequent in
the western Galilee (Braun 1996:18–20), bow-rim pithoi
were frequent in the Jezre’el Valley and rounded-rim
pithoi were frequent in the Jordan Valley and the east of
the Jezre’el Valley. A few rounded-rim pithoi found their
way to the western Galilee along the commerce routes, as
they were found at Qiryat Ata, Abu edh-Dhahab and Rosh
Ha-Niqra (Tadmor and Prausnitz 1958: g. 6:1–4). Against
this background, the composition of the pithoi group at Ein
Zippori is very interesting: almost all had thickened rims,
as at Tel Bet Yerah, while bow-rim pithoi were surprisingly
nearly absent.
Most of the differences noted between the assemblage
of Ein Zippori and those of EB IB Tel Bet Yerah, En
Shadud, Tel Qashish and Abu edh-Dhahab relate to
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
37
Figure 10. EB IB holemouth jars.
Barzilai et al. 2013
38
No. Locus Basket Vessel Description
1 101 1066/1 Holemouth jar Dark brown clay, basalt temper
2 102 1056/1 Holemouth jar Brown clay, gray core, varied temper, red slip
3 101 1011/1 Holemouth jar Clay gray inside and brown outside, calcite temper, red slip
4 101 1065/1 Holemouth jar Dark brown clay, dark temper
5 111 1127 Holemouth jar Pinkish-brown clay, light gray core, calcite temper, brown-red
slip
6 109 1078 Holemouth jar Redish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper including calcite
7 104 1064/1 Holemouth jar Grayish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper including calcite,
red slip
8 117 1115 Holemouth jar Reddish-brown clay, varied temper and calcite, red slip
9 101 1020 Holemouth jar Light brown clay, yellowish-gray core, varied temper, red band
slip
10 101 1028 Holemouth jar Pinkish-brown clay, gray core, much varied temper, red slip
11 104 1064 Cooking pot Reddish-brown clay, dark gray core, much small-sized light
temper
varying frequencies of vessel types, while most of the
types appear at all six sites. It therefore seems that the sites
are contemporary, and that the quantitative differences
represent a regional diversity.
A comparison of the bowls and the pithoi from these
sites suggests that in many ways (the frequencies of bowls
with carinated walls, gray-burnished ware bowls and pithoi
with thickened rims), the Ein Zippori assemblage shows
greater resemblance to the Tel Bet Yerah assemblage,
characteristic of the Jordan Valley, rather than to
assemblages of neighboring sites in the Jezre’el Valley.
At Ein Zippori there are also a few vessels characteristic
of the Jezre’el Valley that are rare or even absent at Tel
Bet Yerah, such as gutter-rim bowls, gray-burnished ware
bowls and bow-rim pithoi. Their presence at the site reect
its proximity to the Jezre’el Valley, but does not change
the overall picture in which the Ein Zippori assemblage
resembles that of Tel Bet Yerah, but differs from those of
the Jezre’el Valley sites.
Early Bronze Age II pottery
Pottery dated to EB II was found only in Loci 101 and
102, where most of the nds were of EB IB (see Table 2).
Figure 14 presents some examples ascribed to this period,
including four vessels of the Metallic Ware family (Fig.
14:1–3, 7) shown by Greenberg and Porat (1996:12) to
include mainly types that are unique to the EB II period; a
brown holemouth jar (Fig. 14:4), characteristic of the EB
II assemblages in Tel Bet Yerah (Getzov 2006:76); and two
cooking pots (Fig. 14:5, 6) that appear in assemblages of
different stages of the period (e.g. Covello-Paran 2003:133)
and therefore there is no certainty concerning their place in
the EB II assemblage in Ein Zippori.
The occurrence of Metallic Ware sherds in the EB I
assemblage of Ein Zippori could be explained in two ways.
These sherds may have originated in EB II activity at the site.
Alternatively, they could hint at a relatively late date of the
EB IB assemblage, as Metallic Ware sherds were reported
from EB IB Beth Shean (Rotem 2012). However, all the
Metallic Ware sherds were found in the two uppermost loci
in the excavation area. Furthermore, no differences were
noticed between the EB IB pottery from these loci and
that from the remaining EB IB loci. Therefore, we suggest
these nds should be viewed as intrusive EB II elements,
and not as part of the EB I assemblage.
THE FAUNA (N.M.)
The faunal remains from Ein Zippori consist of bone
fragments from four layers (V–II), representing respectively
the PPNB, Early Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age
occupations at the site. Layers I (topsoil) and VI (sterile
sediment) were not included in the analysis.
An attempt was made to identify all specimens,
including long bone shaft fragments, according to skeletal
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
39
Figure 11. EB IB juglets, amphoriskoi and jars.
Barzilai et al. 2013
40
No. Locus Basket Vessel Description
1 101 1011 Juglet Grayish-brown clay, gray core, red slip
2 113 1106 Juglet Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper
3 119 1031 Juglet Grayish-brown clay, red slip
4 117 1115 Juglet Grayish-brown clay, dark temper, dark brown and red slip
5 107 1032 Juglet Pinkish-brown clay, red slip
6 101 1011 Amphoriskos Grayish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip
7 104 1064 Jar Yellowish-brown clay, dark temper, black paint
8 107 1105/2 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip
9 111 1127 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, gray core, dark temper, red slip
10 107 1083 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper
11 104 1045 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip
12 101 1011/1 Jar Clay pinkish-brown outside and yellowish-brown inside, dark
temper, brown slip
13 107 1105 Jar Yellowish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip
14 120 1142 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip
15 109 1078 Jar Pinkish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip
16 105 1070 Spout Brown clay, varied temper, red and brown slip
17 19 1078 Spout Gray clay, varied temper and calcite, dark brown slip
Qiryat Ata
Tel
Qashish
Ein
Shadud
Abu
a-Dhahab
Tel Beth
Yerah
Ein
Zippori
Ein
Zippori
Types
Qiryat
Ata
Types
Tel
Qashish
Types
Ein
Shadud
Types
Tel
Beth
Yerah
Types
%n%n%n%n%n%n
8.73840.9529.694.7331.412219.328
Simple Bowls
(1)
BIIa,
BIVa
BI, BIIa,
BIV
5,8,91, 9-11
50.222029.13748.94650.03233.913247.669
Bowls with
Incurved
Rounded Rim
(2)
BIIIb,
K1-2
BIIc, K
1, 2, 3,
10
2, 3
3.91731.2203.45
Bowls with
Incurved
Triangular
Rim (3)
BV
4.1183.953.120.2517.611
Gutter-Rim
Bowls (4)
BIIbBIIb64
7.3329.4632.412617.225
Bowls with
Incurved
Carinated
Rim (5)
BIa-b,
BIIc
6
18.78225.93334.0323.45
Gray-
Burnished
Bowls (6)
BIIIb-cBIII7, 4
7.1317.471.612.081.42
Varia and
Unidentied
(7)
BIC,
BIIIe-f,
BIVc
BVI,
KIII-IV
8, 5,
4, 7
100.043899.812799.9941006499.938999.9145Total
Table 3. Comparison of bowls in the EBI strata of Ein Zippori, Tel Beth Yerah, 'En Shadud, Abu a-Dhahab, Qiryat Ata and
Tel Qashish. Data after Getzov 2006: table 2.11; Getzov 2004: 48, table 3; Braun 1985: 148, table 2; Zuckerman 2003:
tables 2–5; Golani 2003: 157, table 4.9.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
41
Figure 12. EB IB pithoi.
Barzilai et al. 2013
42
No. Locus Basket Vessel Description
1 107 1085 Pithos Grayish-brown clay, gray core, dark temper
2 105 1070 Pithos Clay gray outside and pinkish-brown inside, brown temper, dark
brown slip, impressed decoration
3 109 1078 Pithos Clay pinkish outside and gray inside, varied temper, red slip,
impressed decoration
4 102 1022 Pithos Light brown clay, light gray core, light temper, red slip
5 101 1073 Pithos Grayish-brown clay, much varied temper, red slip
6 101 1028 Pithos Light brown clay, light gray core, varied temper, red slip
7 103 1053 Pithos Brown clay, gray core, much light temper
8 101 1010 Pithos Clay light gray inside and brown outside, varied temper, dark
brown slip
9 102 1032 Jar Grayish-brown clay, dark temper, red slip
10 101 1065 Pithos Grayish-brown clay, gray core, calcite and other temper
11 101 1011/3 Pithos Grayish-brown clay, gray core, varied temper, red slip
12 101 1011 Pithos Light brown clay, varied temper, red slip
Qiryat AtaTel QashishEn Shadud
Abu adh-
Dhahab
Tel Beth
Yerah
Ein Zippori
Ein Zippori
Types
Qiryat
Ata
Types
Tel
Qashish
Types
En
Shadud
Types
Tel Beth
Yerah
Types
%n
%
n%n%n%n%n
36
36.4412.5577249258
Rounded-rim
pithoi (21, 22)
SJVIII 2529
16521
Triangular-
rim pithoi
(23)
30
85.034 3.22
Flaring-rim
pithoi (24)
SJIV,
SJVI,
SJVII
811801005163.67
32
Bow-rim
pithoi (25)
SJIISJII26
16.637
2.5162 Varia pithoi 31
1002231005110011100401003110063Total
Table 4. Comparison of Pithoi in the EBI strata of Ein Zippori, Tel Beth Yerah, En Shadud, Abu adh-Dhahab, Qiryat Ata
and Tel Qashish. Data after Getzov 2006: table 2.11; Getzov 2004:48, table 3; Braun 1985:148, table 2; Zuckerman 2003:
tables 2–5; Golani 2003:157, table 4.9.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
43
No. Locus Basket Vessel Description
1 101 1028 Handle Brown clay, much dark temper, incised decoration
2 109 1082 Handle Gray-brown clay, gray core, varied temper, dark brown slip,
incised decoration
3 107 1083 Handle Gray clay, varied temper
4 107 1089 Handle Brown clay, dark small-sized temper, incised decoration, red slip
5 117 1115 Handle Grayish-brown clay, varied small-sized temper, incised
decoration, red and gray slip
6 101 1066 Handle Grayish-brown clay, varied temper, red and gray slip
Figure 13. EB IB miscellaneous pottery.
Barzilai et al. 2013
44
element, taxon or mammalian body size class. Mammalian
body size classes used are small-sized (cat), medium-sized
(large dog to pig) and large-sized (donkey, cow, or deer).
Out of 773 bone fragments in the assemblage, 270 were
thus identied. Sheep and goat remains were distinguished
following the list of criteria used by Boessneck (1969).
Osteological measurements were taken following von den
Driesch (1976), using Vernier calipers. Teeth wear patterns
were recorded using Grant's (1982) method. The state of
epiphyseal closure was recorded when relevant (Silver
1970).
All identied specimens were scanned for bone surface
modications using a ×2.5 hand-lens. State of bone
weathering (Behrensmeyer 1978), presence of butchery
marks (Olsen 1988), impact fractures, carnivore gnawing
(Binford 1981) and fracture morphology (Villa and Mahieu
1991) were recorded.
Taxonomic abundance was estimated based on the
number of identied specimens (NISP) (Lyman 1994).
Skeleton element abundance proles were constructed
based on NISP counts per body portion of body-size
classes. This method, while being analytically justied
(Grayson and Frey 2004; Lyman 2008), does not allow
ne-grained reconstruction of species-based skeletal
element utilization patterns. Minimum number of elements
(MNE) and skeletal element abundance (SEA) could not
be effectively employed due to sample size restrictions.
Statistics were performed using Paleontological Statistics
(PAST) ver. 1.92 (Hammer et al. 2001).
No. Locus Basket Vessel Description
1 101 1009 Bowl Orange-brownish clay, metallic ring
2 104 1053 Platter Pinkish-brown clay, metallic ring
3 102 1053 Platter Orange-brownish clay, metallic ring
4 topsoil 1000 Holemouth jar Brown clay, dark core, white temper
5 102 1039 Cooking pot Brown-red clay, varied temper
6 topsoil 1001 Cooking pot Dark gray clay, much small-sized white temper, red surface
Figure 14. EB II pottery.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
45
Period Locus/
taxon Sus Bos C/O Capra Ovis Canis Large Medium Small Total
EB II 101 5 2 8 9 12 36
106 1 3 1 3 8
109 2 1 1 2 6
Subtotal EB II 8 3 12 1 9 17 50
EB Ib 104 7 1 4 1 2 8 2 25
105 5 2 4 5 4 20
107 9 2 6 1 4 21 1 44
108 1 1 1 1 4 8
111 1 1 1 1 5 9
113 1 2 3
114 1 3 1 1 4 10
115 1 2 3 1 7
116 1 1
117 1 1 2
Subtotal EB Ib 26 5 22 3 1 1 15 52 4 129
Early Chalcolithic 119 5 4 6 7 12 34
120 4 5 10 1 6 26 1 53
121 2 2
Subtotal ECh 11 9 16 1 13 38 1 89
PPNB 123 1 1 2
Subtotal PPNB 1 1 2
Total 45 17 51 4 2 1 37 108 5 270
Table 5. Animal bone counts of the different taxa represented in the assemblage by context.
Results
The assemblage consists mainly of caprine (Capra hircus
and Ovis aries, n=51), suid (Sus scrofa cf. domesticus,
n=45) and taurine (Bos cf. taurus, n=17) remains (Table 5).
The frequency of these taxa does not change signicantly
between the different chrono-stratigraphic phases
(Cramer's V = 0.16, Pno association = 0.20).
Epiphyseal fusion data were collected in order to
reconstruct age-at-death data for suids, caprines and cattle
– an attempt that failed because of prohibitive sample
sizes (Table 6). Tooth wear data, pooled for the entire
assemblage, indicate pigs were culled at a very early age as
compared to caprines (Table 7). This may indicate that pigs
were kept at the site as domesticated stock throughout the
periods represented at the site, although caution is in place
due to the very small sample size.
Taphonomic analysis (Table 8) shows that 16% of the
bones found in Chalcolithic contexts were burnt, while
only 2% of the bones found in Bronze Age contexts were
similarly modied. This may suggest increased use of
cooking, as opposed to roasting, during the later periods at
the site. Fracture morphology was examined on 103 long-
bone shaft fragments of medium and large sized ungulates.
Most (86%) of the fractures recorded are morphologically
indicative of fresh breakage, presumably for bone marrow
removal. Carnivore gnawing was observed on 25% of the
specimens recovered from Chalcolithic contexts, and on
15% of the Bronze Age sample. Post-depositional, sub-
Barzilai et al. 2013
46
Element Sub Element Age (months) ECh EB
Unfused Fused Unfused Fused
Ovis/Capra
Scapula glenoid cavity 6–8 1 1
Pelvis acetabulum 6–10 1 1
Humerus distal 10 1
Radius proximal 10
1st palanx proximal 13–16 1 1
2nd palanx proximal 13–16
Tibia distal 18–24 1 1 1
Metacarpal distal 18–24 1
Metatarsal distal 20–28
Metapodial distal 18–28
Ulna proximal 30
Femur proximal 30–36 2 1
Calcaneum proximal 30–36 1 1
Radius distal 36 1
Humerus proximal 36–42
Femur distal 36–42 1
Tibia proximal 36–42
Bos taurus
Scapula glenoid cavity 7–10 1
Pelvis acetabulum 7–10
Humerus distal 12–18
Radius proximal 12–18
1st palanx proximal 18 1
2nd palanx proximal 18
Tibia distal 24–30 1
Metacarpal distal 24–30
Metatarsal distal 27–36
Metapodial distal 24–36 2 1
Calcaneum proximal 36–42
Femur proximal 42 1
Humerus proximal 42–48
Radius distal 42–48
Femur distal 42–48
Tibia proximal 42–48
Ulna proximal 42–48
Sus scrofa
Scapula glenoid cavity 12 1 1
Humerus distal 12 1 1
Radius proximal 12
2nd palanx proximal 12 1
1st palanx proximal 24 1
Tibia distal 24 1 1
Metacarpal distal 24 1
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
47
Table 6. Counts of fused and unfused epiphyses for sheep, goats, cattle and suids at Ein Zipori, by chronological phases
(Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages).
Element Sub Element Age (months) ECh EB
Unfused Fused Unfused Fused
Metatarsal distal 27
Calcaneum proximal 24–30
Ulna proximal 36–42 1
Femur proximal 42
Humerus proximal 42
Radius distal 42 1
Femur distal 42
Tibia proximal 42
Pelvis Acetabulum 72–84 1
Period Locus Basket Taxon Teeth Wear stage
EB II 101 1065 C/O M2…M3 x, e
EB II 101 1009 C/O M1/2 g
EB Ib 114 1121 C/O P3….M2 x, e, e
EB Ib 114 1123 C/O P4..M1 g, g
EB Ib 114 1123 C/O M2 a
ECh 119 1129 C/O M1/2 e
PPN 123 1151 C/O M1/2 e
EB II 101 1016 Sus dp4 b
EB Ib 104 1048 Sus dp4 b
EB Ib 105 1070 Sus M2 a
EB Ib 107 1079 Sus M1 a
ECh 119 1138 Sus dp4…M1 d, a
ECh 120 1143 Sus
Table 7. Teeth wear stage for sheep, goat and suids at Ein Zipori (after Grant 1982).
Period NISP Cut-marks Function n Burning Gnawing
ECh 80 10 Dismemberment 1 n = 13 n = 20
Filleting 9
EB Ib 127 11 n = 4 n = 21
Skinning 2
Dismemberment 2
Filleting 7
EB II 50 7 Filleting 7 n = 0 n = 7
ECh & EB Fracture Green 89
Dry 14
Weathering Stage 1 64
Stage 2 16
Stage 3 2
Table 8. Bone surface modications on specimens from Ein Zipori.
Barzilai et al. 2013
48
aerial destruction of bones is indicated to have been slight
by the low degree of weathering observed throughout the
assemblage.
The small assemblage from Ein Zippori shows the
economy was based on sheep, goat, pig and cattle
utilization. There is no signicant change in faunal
composition along the occupation periods at the site. Pigs
Size class Element EB II EB Ib ECh PPNB Total
Large Mandible 1 2 3
Maxilla 3 1 4
Vertebra 1 1 2
Rib 5 2 5 12
Pelvis 2 2
Scapula 1 1 2
Femur 1 2 1 4
Humerus 1 2 1 4
Tibia 1 2 1 4
Radius 1 1 2
Metacarpus 1 1
Metapodial 2 5 7
Carpal 1 1
Tarsal 1 1 2
Phalanx 2 2
Subtotal large 12 18 22 52
Medium Mandible 4 15 8 1 28
Maxilla 2 4 5 11
Vertebra 2 5 1 8
Rib 7 20 5 32
Pelvis 3 1 1 5
Scapula 6 7 3 16
Femur 3 9 8 20
Humerus 2 11 10 23
Tibia 4 6 9 19
Radius 3 15 4 1 23
Ulna 1 1 2
Metacarpus 1 3 1 5
Metapodial 3 3
Metatarsus 1 2 3
Tarsal 1 1 2
Phalanx 4 5 9
Subtotal medium 38 103 66 2 209
Total 50 121 88 2 261
Table 9. Animal bone counts listing frequencies (% NISP) of skeletal element by chronological phase.
appear to have been slaughtered very young, which hints
that pork meat was obtained from domesticated animals.
Skeletal element abundance proles (Table 9; Figs. 15–17)
show the presence of limb, axis and head remains, with
noticeably low numbers of feet. These low numbers may
show that primary butchery and skinning was carried
out away from the excavated area. Taphonomic analysis
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
49
Figure 16. Animal bone counts showing frequencies (%NISP) of skeletal element by size-class for mammals from the
EB IB sample.
Figure 15. Animal bone counts showing frequencies (%NISP) of skeletal element by size-class for mammals from the
Chalcolithic sample.
Barzilai et al. 2013
50
Figure 17. Animal bone counts showing frequencies (%NISP) of skeletal element by size-class for mammals
from the EB II sample.
shows a higher degree of bone burning in the Chalcolithic
than in the Bronze Age. This could indicate changes in
meat preparation habits, from roasting to cooking. Bones
in the assemblage were commonly cracked for marrow.
Carnivore gnawing was a signicant post-depositional
bone destruction agent.
THE FLINT ASEMMBLAGES (J.Z. and O.B.)
The lithic nds from Ein Zippori comprise 12,118 artifacts
obtained from ve layers (Table 10). Like the pottery, all
assemblages contained elements from several periods, thus
suggesting intrusions and disturbances (see explanation
below). The assemblage of Layer III is well represented
whereas the ones from Layers II, IV and V are less so.
Notably the assemblage from Layer I is underrepresented.
The differences in sizes of the assemblages between
Layer III and the layers above it (I–II) are probably due
to extensive knapping. Intrusive artifacts, mainly abraded
and patinated Middle Palaeolithic items, were found in all
layers. These were not subjected to further classication
and were counted within the debris (Table 11).
Layer V
The assemblage consists of 1,398 items and displays a
dominance of akes (53%) within the debitage, whereas
blade and bladelets comprise 15.1%. A total of 30 cores
were found, most extremely utilized. The core types consist
of ake cores (n=16), tested nodule (n=6), core fragments
(n=4), blade cores (n=2) and bladelet cores (n=2) (Table
11).
The tools comprise 103 items (Table 11). The most
frequent types are perforators (14.6%) followed by
retouched blades (13.6%), retouched pieces (13.6%) and
scrapers (12.6%). The perforators consist mainly of awls
and a few borers. It is important to note that one of the
borers (Fig. 18:1) displays invasive pressure retouch on its
lateral edges that is typical to the PPNB period (Barzilai
2010b: Type III4E). Among the retouched blades is a
pointed blade that may represent a projectile in preparation
(Fig. 18:2).
Burins, notches and denticulates comprise 9.7% each.
Among the burins there is a burin on a break made on a
bidirectional débordante blade (Fig. 18:3). Projectile
points comprise 7.8% of the tools and include two complete
pressure retouched Byblos points (Fig. 18:4–5) that are
characteristic of the Final PPNB (Barzilai 2010b; Gopher
1999). The rest of the projectiles include an atypical Amuq
point and ve tang fragments of which two were modied
by pressure aking (Fig. 18:6–7).
Bifaces and multiple tools each comprise 5.6% of the
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
51
tools. The bifaces consist of two axes, one of which is
complete (Fig. 19:1); a pick; and three bifacially retouched
items. The sickle blades (4.9%) consist of ve items.
One is a typical PPNB sickle blade that was modied
on a bidirectional blade (Fig. 18:8); one is a backed
fragment typical of the Early Chalcolithic period; and
three fragments. The remaining tools include a rectangular
microlith and a varia item.
In sum the lithic assemblage of Layer V clearly exhibits
PPNB types: projectile points, sickle blades, burins and
perforators on bidirectional blade blanks (e.g. Barzilai
2010b; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). The only exception
is a Chalcolithic sickle blade that probably represents an
intrusion from Layer IV.
Layer IV
The Layer IV assemblage consists of 552 artifacts (Table
10). Like Layer V, akes are dominant within the debitage
(55%) while blade and bladelets are less frequent (16%).
The 12 cores found in this layer are utilized and comprise
tested nodules (n=4), bladelet cores (n=3), cores on akes
(n=2), core fragments (n=2) and a ake core (Table 11).
The tools consist of 83 items and comprise 15% of the
total assemblage (Table 11). The most frequent tool type
is retouched pieces (42.2%). The perforators (14.5%)
are the second most frequent, followed by notches and
denticulates (10.8%) and retouched blades (9.6%). The
perforators mainly consist of awls; there are a few borers,
multiple borers and a massive borer. Scrapers and burins
comprise 8.4% each. The scrapers were mainly made on
ake blanks while the burins were mainly made on blade
blanks. Three burins were made on bidirectional blade
blanks (Fig. 19:2–3) typical of the PPNB and probably
representing an intrusion from Layer V.
The remainder of the tools include two sickle blades
(Fig. 19:4–5), two multiple tools and a biface. The
retouch type and morphometrics of the sickle blades are
characteristic of the Chalcolithic period (Vardi 2011). The
only biface is a fragment.
Layers I II III IV V Total
n%n%n%n%n%n%
Debitage
PE 10 27 65 29.7 1,439 29.5 55 19.6 131 22.8 1,700 28.4
Flakes 20 54.1 110 50.2 2,609 53.4 154 55 305 53 3,198 53.4
Blades 3 8.1 21 9.6 357 7.3 34 12.1 85 14.8 500 8.3
Bladelets 2 5.4 0 0 147 3 11 3.9 2 0.3 162 2.7
BS 0 0 0 0 29 0.6 7 2.5 0 0 36 0.6
RB 0 0 1 0.5 39 0.8 5 1.8 4 0.7 49 0.8
CT 1 2.7 1 0.5 12 0.2 1 0.4 2 0.3 17 0.3
CTE 0 0 12 5.5 161 3.3 12 4.3 30 5.2 215 3.6
BF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2.6 15 0.3
Overpassed 1 2.7 9 4.1 89 1.8 1 0.4 1 0.2 101 1.7
Subtotal
debitage 37 100.0 219 100.0 4,882 100.0 280 100.0 575 100.0 5,993 100.0
Debris
Chips 2 11.8 16 19.3 1,026 41.5 82 46.3 225 32.6 1,351 39.3
Chunks 4 23.5 21 25.3 482 19.5 18 10.2 116 16.8 641 18.6
Intrusive 11 64.7 46 55.4 963 39 77 43.5 349 50.6 1,446 42.1
Subtotal
debris 17 100 83 100 2,471 100 177 100 690 100 3,438 100
Debitage 37 32.7 219 29.8 4,882 52.4 280 50.7 575 41.1 5,993 49.5
Debris 17 15 83 11.3 2,471 26.5 177 32.1 690 49.4 3,438 28.4
Tools 57 50.4 391 53.1 1,695 18.2 83 15 103 7.4 2,329 19.2
Cores 2 1.8 43 5.8 271 2.9 12 2.2 30 2.1 358 3
Total 113 100.0 736 100.0 9,319 100.0 552 100.0 1398 100.0 12,118 100.0
Table 10. Flints breakdown by strata.
Barzilai et al. 2013
52
Layers I II III IV V Total
n%n%n%n%n%n%
Tools
Projectile
points 0 0 1 0.3 4 0.2 0 0 8 7.8 13 0.6
Perforators 4 7 51 13 209 12.3 12 14.5 15 14.6 291 12.5
Sickle blades 3 5.3 9 2.3 79 4.7 2 2.4 5 4.9 98 4.2
Retouched
blades 12 21.1 47 12 219 12.9 8 9.6 14 13.6 300 12.9
Retouched
pieces 15 26.3 153 39.1 640 37.8 35 42.2 13 12.6 856 36.8
Scrapers 4 7 42 10.7 130 7.7 7 8.4 14 13.6 197 8.5
Burins 0 0 7 1.8 55 3.2 7 8.4 10 9.7 79 3.4
Notches &
denticulates 12 21.1 50 12.8 227 13.4 9 10.8 10 9.7 308 13.2
Microliths 0 0 5 1.3 17 1 0 0 1 1 23 1
Bifaces 1 1.8 8 2 34 2 1 1.2 6 5.8 50 2.1
Multiples 5 8.8 15 3.8 53 3.1 2 2.4 6 5.8 81 3.5
Varia 1 1.8 3 0.8 28 1.7 0 0 1 1 33 1.4
Total tools 57 100.0 391 100.0 1,695 100.0 83 100.0 103 100.0 2,329 100.0
Cores
Flakes 1 50 15 34.9 100 36.9 1 8.3 16 53.3 133 37.2
Blades 0 0 2 4.7 29 10.7 0 0 2 6.7 33 9.2
Bladelets 1 50 1 2.3 35 12.9 3 25 2 6.7 42 11.7
Flake/bladelets 0 0 4 9.3 14 5.2 0 0 0 0 18 5
Flake/blades 0 0 2 4.7 7 2.6 0 0 0 0 9 2.5
Cores on ake 00375 1.8 2 16.7 0 0 10 2.8
Tested nodules 0 0 6 14 40 14.8 4 33.3 6 20 56 15.6
Fragments 0 0 10 23.3 41 15.1 2 16.7 4 13.3 57 15.9
Total cores 2 100.0 43 100.0 271 100.0 12 100.0 30 100.0 358 100.0
Table 11. Flint tools and cores breakdown by strata.
In sum, the small lithic assemblage of Layer IV exhibits
a mixture of PPNB and Chalcolithic components.
Layer III
The assemblage from both phases of Layer III is quite
large when compared to the other layers, comprising 9,319
items (Table 10). This layer is also dominated by akes
53.4% and the frequency of the total of blades and bladelet
is reduced to 10.3% of the debitage. A total of 271 cores
were found in Layer III (Table 11). The most frequent are
ake cores, (36.9%) some large enough for further ake
production. The other core types are fragments (15.1%),
tested nodules (14.8%), bladelet (12.9%), blade (10.7%),
ake/bladelet (5.2%), ake/blade (2.6%) and core on
ake (1.8%). Most of the blade cores are semi-pyramidal
single platform cores (Fig. 20:1–2). In addition there
are two recycled bidirectional cores. The bladelet cores
are composed of pyramidal and semi-pyramidal single
platform cores and seem to represent intrusive Chalcolithic
cores, probably from Layer IV. It should be noted that the
frequency of the sum of blade and bladelet cores is 23.6%,
which is quite near the frequency of the ake cores, and is
in contrast with the frequencies of akes and blade/bladelet
in the debitage.
Tools comprise 1,695 items (Table 11). Similar to Layer
IV, the frequency of tools is 18.2% of the total. The most
frequent tool type is retouched pieces (37.8%) followed
by notches and denticulates (13.4%), retouched blades
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
53
Figure 18. PPNB int tools from layer V. 1) borer; 2) pointed blade; 3) burin; 4–5) Byblos points; 6–7) projectile point
tang fragments; 8) sickle blade.
cm
Barzilai et al. 2013
54
Figure 19. PPNB and Chalcolithic int tools from layers V–IV. Layer V: 1) axe. Layer IV: 2–3) burins on bidirectional
blades; 4–5) backed and truncated sickle blades.
cm
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
55
Figure 20. Chalcolithic int tools and cores from layer III. 1) blade core; 2) bladelet core; 3–4) micro-borers; 5) tabular
scraper; 6) biface on tabular int.
cm
Barzilai et al. 2013
56
(12.9%) and perforators (12.3%). Most of the blades seem
to have been produced from single platform cores. The
perforators consist mainly of awls followed by becs and
borers. The few micro-borers (Fig. 20:3–4) that are typical
of the Chalcolithic period (Rosen 1997) are probably
intrusive from Layer IV. The remainder includes scrapers
(7.7%), sickle blades (4.7%), burins (3.2%), multiple tools
(3.1%), bifaces (2%), varia (1.7%), microliths (1%) and
projectile points (0.2%).
The projectile points include three tang fragments,
probably of Amuq points as attested by the collateral
pressure aking. These fragments are attributed to the PPNB
occupation at the site, probably intrusions from Layer V.
Another is a transversal arrowhead that is characteristic of
the ECh period (Gopher 1994). The scrapers were mostly
modied on akes. Among them are oval-shaped tabular
scrapers that are characteristic of the Chalcolithic and EB
(Rosen 1997) (Fig. 20:5). Most of the sickle blades were
backed with a ne denticulated working edge usually with
gloss. They consist mainly of Chalcolithic types that were
modied on unstandardized unidirectional blades (Vardi
2011) (Fig. 21:1–4). They include backed and truncated
sickles with various retouches on the working edge: ne
denticulation, coarse denticulation and wide denticulation.
The other sickles were made on Canaanean blades and are
typical of the Early Bronze Age (Rosen 1997). These are
much fewer (n=11) than the Chalcolithic ones and consist
mainly of fragments of reaping knives, and backed and
retouched items.
The burins were mainly made on ake and blades. They
consist of burins on a break, dihedral, on a truncation,
multiple and transversal. There are several intrusive
PPNB types that were modied on bidirectional blades.
The bifaces consist of six adzes, four chisels, four picks,
three axes and a few fragments and other types (Figs. 21:
5–6; 22:1–2; Fig. 22:1–2). One was a thin biface made on
tabular int resembling tabular scrapers (Fig. 20:6).
The diagnostic tools date to PPNB, ECh and EB
periods. The PPNB is represented by tang fragments and a
few burins that were modied on bidirectional blades. The
Chalcolithic is the most dominant and is represented by the
bifaces, backed and truncated sickle blades, a transversal
arrowhead, micro-borers, tabular knives and scrapers and
unidirectional blade/lets cores. The EB, dated according
to architecture and pottery, is represented only by a few
Canaanean sickle blades.
The lithic assemblage seems to be a mixture of ECh
and EB, with minor intrusions of PPNB that may be due
to disturbances from constructing stone foundations from
this layer.
Layer II
The Layer II assemblage consists of 736 artifacts (Table
10). Like Layer III, it is dominated by akes (50.2 %)
whereas the total blade component is 9.6%. A total of 43
cores were found in this layer (Table 11). These consist
of ake cores (34.9%), core fragments (23.3%), tested
nodules (14%), ake/bladelet cores (9.3%), cores on ake
(7%), blade cores (4.7%), ake/blade cores (4.7%) and
bladelet cores (2.3%). Notably some of the ake cores
were still large enough to produce additional blanks.
Tools comprise 391 items (53.1%, Table 11). This is an
extremely high frequency and represents quite a drastic
change compared to Layer III.
Retouched pieces are the most frequent tool type (39.1%)
followed by perforators (13%), notches and denticulates
(12.8%), retouched blade (12%) and scrapers (10.7%). The
remainder includes multiple tools (3.8%), sickle blades
(2.3%), bifaces (2%), burins (1.8%), microliths (1.3%),
varia (0.8%) and a projectile point (0.3%).
Diagnostic tools that could be assigned to specic time
periods include ECh and EB types. The ECh component
consists of a bifacial tabular knife, backed and truncated
sickle blades and bifaces (Fig. 23:1–2). The EB includes
retouched Canaanean blades and a complete Beth Shean
point (Fig. 23:3–5; see Bankirer 1999). Like Layer III, the
lithic assemblage of this layer is a mixture of ECh and EB.
Layer I
The Layer I assemblages consists of 113 artifacts (Table
10) and also exhibits a predominance of ake technology;
within the debitage the frequency of akes is 54.1 %, while
the total of blades and bladelets is only 13.5%. Only two
cores were found in this layer, a bladelet core and a ake
core (Table 11). Both are utilized. The bladelet core is
characteristic of the Chalcolithic period.
The tools comprise 57 items (50.4%, Table 11). This
high frequency is similar to that of Layer II. Retouched
pieces are the most frequent tool type (26.3%) followed
by retouched blades and notches and denticulates (21.1%
each). Multiple tools (8.8%), scrapers (7%) and perforators
(7%) are also common. The remainder includes three
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
57
Figure 21. Chalcolithic int tools from Layer III. 1–4) backed and truncated sickle blades; 5–6) bifaces.
cm
Barzilai et al. 2013
58
Figure 22. Chalcolithic int tools from Layer III. 1) adze; 2) pick.
cm
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
59
Figure 23. Flint tools from Layers II–I. 1) Chalcolithic biface on tabular int; 2) backed and truncated sickle blade; 3)
Beth Shean point; 4–5) Canaanean blades; 6) backed and truncated sickle on a ake.
cm
Barzilai et al. 2013
60
Type / Layer I III IV V Total
Grinding stones 5 1 6
Grinding slabs 5 1 6
Pounders 2 2
Vessels 4 1 5
Small mortars 3 3
Pestles 1 1 2
Perforated stones 1 1
Miscellaneous 2 1 3
Total 1 23 1 3 28
Table 12. Groundstone tools according to layers.
sickle blades, a biface and varia. One of the sickles seems
to represent a Late Bronze-Iron Age type on a ake, as it
is made on a wide and thick blade that was backed and
truncated and bears no gloss (Fig. 23:6; Rosen 1997).
In sum, the lithic assemblage of Layer I, like the rest
of the nds from this layer, is mixed and has hardly any
diagnostic tools.
Summary
The lithic assemblages from Ein Zippori are mixed due to
disturbances which could have occurred due to construction
activities and bioturbation. The diagnostic tools and formal
technologies attest to three periods. Projectile points,
sickle blades and burins and the use of bidirectional blade
technology are characteristic of the PPNB (Barkai 2005;
Barzilai 2010b; Gopher 1994). The Chalcolithic period
is represented by sickle blades and bifacial tools (Barkai
2005; Vardi 2011). The Early Bronze Age is represented
by Canaanean blades and by a Beth Shean point (Bankirer
1999; Rosen 1997).
Despite being mixed, Layer V can clearly be attributed to
the PPNB while Layers IV–II are dominated by Chalcolithic
elements. These cultural attributions correspond with
other nds: PPNB lithics with almost no pottery in Layer
V; Chalcolithic lithics and pottery in Layer IV. On the
other hand the diagnostic lithics in layers III–II do not
correspond with the pottery and architectural elements.
The lithic assemblages of Layers III–II are dominated
by Chalcolithic types although EB types were noted too.
The EB architecture and pottery types assign these layers
respectively to the EB I B and EB II periods with great
condence. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the
Chalcolithic lithic components represent refuse from Layer
IV that was redeposited in Layers III–II due to digging wall
foundations for the EB I B and EB II buildings.
THE GROUNDSTONE TOOLS AND VESSELS (A.V.)
The 2007 season of excavations at Ein Zippori yielded a
small assemblage of 28 groundstone tools. Most of the
items (n=23) were found in both phases of Layer III, dated
to EB IB, making it possible to analyze only the artifacts
from this layer.
Identied raw materials included limestone (n=7)
and int (n=1), which could have been obtained in the
immediate vicinity of the site, as well as basalt (n=7),
vesicular basalt (n=9), scoria (n=1) and sandstone (n=1).
Following Wright's terminology (Wright 1992), grinding
slabs, grinding stones, and vessels form the majority of the
items (Table 12).
Grinding stones
Together with grinding slabs, this is the most frequent tool
type in the assemblage. Of the six grinding stones, two
complete ones were made on at round limestone pebbles
and bear evidence for battering and aking along their
circumference (see Rosenberg et al. 2008); one (73x65x30
mm; 160 gr.; Fig. 24:1) was found in Layer III and the
other (78x69x21 mm; 155 gr.) originated just below Layer
V, probably deriving from that layer. Two others were
made on basalt and belong to large plano-convex grinding
stones. The remaining are a fragment of scoria (Fig. 24:2)
with two at surfaces, and the edge of a plano-convex
grinding stone made of sandstone. The relatively wide
variety of raw materials used for the making of grinding
stones is of note.
Grinding slabs
Two thick (>40 mm) objects made of vesicular basalt bear
slightly concave ground surfaces, characteristic of grinding
slabs. The better preserved one was found in Layer III (Fig.
24:3), the other in Layer V. Four additional items that bear
clear evidence of grinding were too small to determine
whether they represent grinding slabs or grinding stones.
However, as all were relatively thick (41–58 mm) and
made of vesicular basalt, it is probable that they represent
grinding slabs.
Pounders
A complete cuboid pounder (97x89x76 mm; 832 gr.; Fig.
24:4) had four ground facets and signs of battering on the
remaining two. A fragment made of dense basalt, with two
ground facets and a curved battered face, may represent
another pounder.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
61
No. Basket Locus Description
1 1151 123 Grinding stone, pebble
2 1103 107 Grinding stone, scoria
3 1112 102 Grinding slab, vesicular basalt
4 1109 114 Pounder, basalt
Figure 24. Groundstone tools.
Barzilai et al. 2013
62
No. Basket Locus Description
1 1099 107 Bowl, basalt
2 1030 102 Mortar, limestone
Figure 25. Groundstone tools and vessels.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
63
Vessels
Five fragments of vessels were found, all made of basalt.
Of the four fragments found in Layer III, three (e.g. Fig.
25:1) were bowl rims (estimated diameter 24–36 cm),
and one was a vessel's wall. No incisions in the form of
triangles, typical of Late Chalcolithic basalt vessels, were
noticed. The fth fragment, found in Layer IV, could have
belonged to a at base with a concave oor. However, as it
was made of coarse-grained basalt and lacks any evidence
of polish, it might actually belong to a grinding slab.
Mortars
Three small mortars were found. Two are rounded cavities
made on an amorphous stone (inner diameter 35 mm, depth
12 mm) and on a pebble (inner diameter ca. 40 mm, depth
8 mm). The third cavity is elongated in shape (73x42 mm,
depth 17 mm; Fig. 25:2) and was made on a int nodule
covered with limestone, probably taking advantage of an
existing natural cavity; battering signs on the bottom of
this last item may indicate the crude shaping of a base.
Pestles
Two items could, perhaps, be identied as pestles. One is
an elongated pebble (80x44x24 mm) of vesicular basalt
that was found on the surface of the site and bears battering
marks on both its ends and lateral sides. The other is a
medial fragment of an elongated limestone item, oval in
cross section (ca. 28x24 mm), with smoothed surface.
Perforated stones
The surface of a round basalt item (estimated diameter ca.
40 mm, height 51 mm; estimated weight 52 gr.) was nicely
polished and its center was drilled from both sides. The
perforation is quite steep, making the object similar to a
mace head but much smaller.
Miscellaneous
A at limestone pebble (ca. 40x21 mm) and a fragment of
another limestone item had their edges shaped by grinding
on both faces. The function of a small black pebble with a
surface that was well polished (intentionally or naturally)
remains unclear.
Discussion: the groundstones of Layer III
The composition of the Layer III groundstone assemblage
is comparable to those recovered from contemporary
nearby sites such as En Shadud (Braun 1985:89–99)
and Yiftahel (Braun 1997; Ch. 12), with regard to their
general typological composition, the specic types of tools
represented and in the raw materials used. Contemporary
strata at sites that are located at some distance from Ein
Zippori, such as Tel Bet Yerah and Qiryat Ata, also yielded
similar groundstone assemblages (Getzov 2006:26–27;
Rowan 2003). Thus, our assemblage seems to be typical
of those from sites in the northern part of the country in
the EB IB.
AN ANIMAL RELIEF (I.M.)
An almost unique example of what appears to be a
gurative depiction of an animal was found on the surface
of the broken base of a jar. The lines of the gure are in
relief (Fig. 26). The base (ca. 19 cm in diameter, ca. 1 cm
thick) was found on a probable stone oor or surface in
Layer III (Phase b) dated to the EB I. It seems that the base
was cut off after the vessel was broken. The clay is light
reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4) in color and has medium white
grits; the core is light gray (10YR 7/1; Fig. 26). In the inner
part of the base the coil marks are visible, showing the
way the base of the vessel was built (E. Kamaisky, pers.
observation).
The item seems to be EB I in date according to its fabric,
and was found in an EB I context. While it is possible
that in the past certain depictions were designed not to be
visible, the assumption that the gure was done purposely
on the base of the vessel is difcult to accept. Since the jar
would be standing on the oor or other surface the motif
would not be appreciated by passersby. Usually potter
marks or impressions on pottery vessels were made on the
exterior. Furthermore, the design was done while the clay
was leather-hard.
A parallel to our item is the relief of one or two oxen
from Beit Yerah (Sussman 1980) found on an EB (I?)
holemouth jar. The vessel was totally restored and the
suggestion by Sussman (1980:75) is that the holemouth
was positioned (deliberately or not) on an incised surface
(stone?) bearing the motif appearing in the base of the jar.
We will come back to this question.
Description of the relief
The design (Fig. 27) depicts an animal with an elongated
body; the head, to the left, is rounded-oval, slightly wider
than the body. From the lower part of the head, two small
arched lines appear, representing probably pincers. To the
right, at the lower extremity of the body there is a long
and up-curved tail or stinger. Three legs (in three pairs
of lines) are attached to the body from the left. The front
extremity is slightly arched at the front; the middle and
back extremities are angled to the back. The right legs are
not depicted.
Barzilai et al. 2013
64
Figure 26. Base of pottery vessel from Layer III with an animal depiction in relief.
While it is difcult to establish at rst glance which
animal is depicted, we suggest that it is a type of scorpion
because of the elongated body and the head attached to it
(the cephalothorax), the legs on the left, the frontal pincers
(pedipals?) and the possible stinger in the back. Scorpions
have eight legs and in our case it looks that we have only
three on the left side, while there are no legs on the right
site (but see below). The stinger appears more like a “tail”,
not suspended on the back of the animal with the tip
pointing forwards.
There are other possibilities, if one turns the gure
upside down; one is that it is a running mammal with an
elongated body and a long tail (a feline? a bull?), but its
number of legs and the lines in front of the head do not t
with any characteristic of the mammals. In any case we
must keep in mind that the rendering of naturalistic gures
does not always produce an exact replication of reality.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
65
Figure 27. Drawing of the suggested reconstruction of the motif on the base of the pottery vessel from Layer III.
Discussion
We suggest that in our case the motif on the base of the
jar was created (deliberately or not) while the vessel’s clay
was leather-hard and placed above an incised surface with
this motif, as suggested in the case of Bet Yerah (Sussman
1980:75). The fact that the right legs do not appear could be
because the jar was located only partially above the design
surface, and only the center and left sides of the scorpion
were registered in the base. A suggested reconstruction of
the original incised design is provided with dashed lines
(Fig. 27).
Except for the bull/s from Bet Yerah, relief depictions
of animals are unfortunately unknown during the EB in
the southern Levant on pottery vessels, and thus we could
only make comparisons on a stylistic basis to drawings
of animals on some tabular scrapers. One from Lower
Horvat `Illin (Marder et al. 1995:80, g. 11:1) seems
to portray an animal (a bird?) with an elongated body
similar to ours in style and the rounded head attached
to the left extreme. Another is from Gezer (Macalister
1912: pl. CXXXIX:22), representing a multi-legged
animal with tail and horns or ears. One example from
Barzilai et al. 2013
66
Tel Esdar (Kochavi 1969: g. 20.2) depicts an elongated
gure with a round end, probably the head. There are
other examples of tabular scrapers from Arad (Schick
1978: pl. 87:6) and Mizpe Shalem (Greenhut 1989: g.
G.22:1, 2, 4) but the designs are not clear.
The parallels in int objects only show that there is
some similarity in the motifs and style of EB artistic
expression. Unfortunately, the iconography of the EB
does not provide many examples of animals depicted on
pottery vessels. There are mainly seal impressions from
the EB I and EB II (Beck 1967, 1995; Ben-Tor 1978), the
latter on metallic ware vessels (Greenberg 2001; Joffe
2001).
Scorpions appear in the iconography of the Levant and the
Near East in earlier periods (Schmidt 2010; Stordeur 2010).
A seal impression from Choga Mish (Elam), containing
animals and humans working with churns, depicts a
scorpion (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: pls. 44:D, G; 146:E).
According to Amiran (1976: g. 2:1), this impression must
be paralleled with our Ghassulian Chalcolithic based on
the presence of these churns.
For periods contemporary to the Levantine EB, some
scorpions are represented in seals from Northern Syria,
the Upper Euphrates and Elam (e.g. Amiet 1963: gs. 8,
10). During the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Ages
the motif of the scorpion appears more often in seals and
scarabs in the southern Levant (Eggler 2008). In several
early and late cases it can be see that some of the scorpions
have only two or three pairs of legs (as in our example)
and some of them have no pincers. Further investigation
is needed to understand the iconography and probable
symbolic function of the relief on the base of the jar from
Ein Zippori.
OTHER FINDS (N.Gu.)
Shells
Five shells were discovered at the site. They include
two worn Glycymeris shells with naturally perforated
umbos and two broken specimens of Donax trunculus. In
addition, one unrecognizable shell fragment was found on
the surface of the site. Glycymeris is very abundant on the
sea shores of Israel and constitutes a signicant part of the
shell assemblages of Neolithic and EB sites like Yiftahel
and Jericho. Donax trunculus is an edible marine species
from the Mediterranean Sea which appears in much smaller
quantities (Bar-Yosef and Heller 1987).
Clay object
This is a lower part of a geometrical item with circular
section (measurements: 14×17 mm). The broken object was
made of pale brown clay with an uneven, eroded surface
that exhibits remains of polish. Very similar items were
found at the PPNB and PN levels at Munhata (Garnkel
1995: g. 19:11–13; g. 35).
Stone beads
Two stone beads were found at Ein Zippori. One is a
brown disk bead (8×4 mm), probably made of sandstone
with a small hole. The other is a black, cylinder-shaped
bead (10×7 mm) made of obsidian. Based on PXRF
analysis, the source of the obsidian comes from Bingöl
B in eastern Anatolia (E. Rice pers. comm.). Another two
or three obsidian beads were discovered in the extensive
excavations at Ein Zippori in 2011–2013 by Milevski and
Getzov (the materials are under study).
All the nds above were found in EB contexts.
However, the clay object and the obsidian bead are more
typical of Early Chalcolithic assemblages. Recent studies
of obsidian (Garnkel 2011; Gopher et al. 2011) note the
general decline of the obsidian trade by the end of the Pre-
Pottery Neolithic and the near absence of obsidian in Early
Bronze Age sites (Rosen et al. 2005). Obsidian beads are
a rather rare nd in the southern Levant. The majority of
obsidian artifacts recovered in excavations is debitage and
blanks, except for a few decorative items from the Early
Chalcolithic sites of Hagoshrim and Kabri (Gopher et al.
2011).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The 2007 salvage excavations at Ein Zippori have exposed
a multilayered proto-historic site that was inhabited
during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, Early Chalcolithic
and Early Bronze Age periods. The exposure of the
PPNB archaeological remains is too small for drawing
any explicit conclusions regarding the size, nature and
chronological sub-phasing of the Neolithic settlement.
Nevertheless, some suggestions may be offered if data is
correlated with two other Neolithic exposures, one near
Illut Junction exposed in the 2011–2013 project (Fig. 2),
the second during the 2008 excavation at Givat Rabi East,
ca.1.5 km to the east (Barzilai and Milevski 2010).
The latter revealed two PPNB lithic workshop dumps
containing bidirectional blades and bifacial tools on top of
int outcrops (Barzilai and Milevski 2010). Although no
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
67
absolute dates were available the lithic production at the
Givat Rabi East int outcrops was attributed to the Final
PPNB on the basis of techno-typological characteristics
(Barzilai and Milevski 2010). This corresponds to the
PPNB lithic component recovered in Layers V–III, in
particular the presence of pressure retouched Byblos
and Amuq points, characteristic of the Final PPNB (e.g.
Gopher 1999; Barzilai 2010b).
Limited evidence for PPNB architecture was recorded
in the 2011–2013 excavations in the form of lime-plastered
oor fragment at the southeastern excavation area adjacent
to Illut Junction (Area N; Milevski and Getzov pers.
comm.).
If indeed the Neolithic remains from Givat Rabi and
Ein Zippori are contemporary, then it is likely that the
Neolithic settlement extended from the Ein Zippori spring
in the west to the Givat Rabi int outcrops to the east.
The “domestic zone” with lime plastered structures was
centered at the area of Illut Junction, while the “industrial
zone” where specialized int knapping activities were
carried out near the int outcrops at Givat Rabi East.
The location of specialized int knapping workshops
nearby a large Neolithic settlement was recognized also
at Yiftahel and Ain Ghazal. The Givat Rabi East-Ein
Zippori afliation seems to reestablish the relationship
between the Triangulation Point 1 site (near Kibbutz
Hasolelim) and Yiftahel, located ca. one km apart (Oshri et
al. 1999). Apparently this outcrop was the major supplier
of int nodules and preformed cores to the PPNB village
(Garnkel 2007). An analogous pattern is also attested in
the Amman region in central Jordan where highly lustrous
purple-pink int blocks were quarried at Wadi Huweijir
and transported a distance of ca. 2 km to the village of Ain
Ghazal for further production (Quintero 1996). It seems
that in all three cases the dedicated workshops functioned
as “industrial zones” for the large settlements.
The Early Chalcolithic settlement at Ein Zippori, though
excavated in limited area in 2007, is well represented by
pottery (Layer IV) and lithic tools (Layers IV–II). Both
attest to an intensive occupation of the Wadi Rabah culture,
which continued through the next stage of the Early
Chalcolithic period. Notably this observation was later
conrmed by the new 2011–13 excavations which exposed
a large portion of the Early Chalcolithic village (Getzov
and Milevski 2012). Diagnostic Wadi Rabah lithic artifacts
were also recovered (Layers IV–II), including backed
and truncated sickle blades as well as thin axes made on
tabular int and adzes with trapezoid cross section (e.g.
Barkai 2005). The discovery of an obsidian bead sourced
to Bingöl, as well as chipped obsidian artifacts from the
2011–2013 seasons whose sources are also Anatolian (E.
Rice, pers. comm.), add to the accumulating archaeological
data on inter-regional networks between Anatolia and the
southern Levant during the Early Chalcolithic period (e.g.
Gopher et al. 2011).
The Early Bronze Age occupation at Ein Zippori was
very intensive as attested by the architectural remains and
rich pottery and ground stone tool assemblages. Like the
Early Chalcolithic, this observation was conrmed by new
excavations which exposed the outlines of a large EB IB
village (Milevski and Getzov 2013). Sporadic architectural
remains of the EB II existed at the site. It seems, however,
that the main town during the period was located at the
summit of Givat Rabi.
The Ein Zippori Early Bronze Age pottery and ground
stone tools shows similarities but also some regional
differences from other EB IB sites in northern Israel: Tel
Bet Yerah, En Shadud, Tel Qashish and Abu edh-Dhahab.
The discovery of the relief of a probable scorpion on the
base of a pottery vessel is noteworthy. Despite being rare
during the southern Levantine Early Bronze Age, this
known motif from other areas of the Near East could
have some symbolic meaning to the community of Ein
Zippori and possibly beyond. Scorpions may symbolize a
protective animal, reproduction capabilities in daily life,
and strengthening political power (Eggler 2008).
Facets of the local economy at the site of Ein Zippori
can be elucidated by the analysis of the faunal remains.
Faunal exploitation during the Early Chalcolithic and Early
Bronze Age periods is similar and emphasized caprine,
suid and cattle utilization.
The archaeological nds from Ein Zippori and data
obtained in other excavations presented below add
important information on the proto-historic settlement
pattern from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age periods
in the region. The earliest Neolithic occupation in the
region is found at the site of Bir al Maksur, which is the only
site dated to the PPNA (Malinski-Buller et al. 2009). The
nature of the settlement is not clear yet but it undoubtedly
exhibits spatial organization as revealed by a concentration
of human bones (probably burials) at one area of the site
and cobble surfaces at another.
Barzilai et al. 2013
68
The settlement pattern during the PPNB is better
understood thanks to the excavations at Yiftahel, Kfar
HaHoresh, Givat Rabi East, Hanaton, Tel Mitzpe Zvulun
North and Kfar Kanna (Fig. 1). It seems that the key PPNB
village in the region was Yiftahel, which is estimated
to extend over 40 dunams (Garnkel et al. 2012). The
various archaeological expeditions to Yiftahel revealed
an excellently preserved and securely dated PPNB village
with several mud brick buildings with lime-plastered oors,
great quantities of knapping waste attesting to large-scale
lithic production, burials and ritual activities and several
silos with charred remains of domesticated legumes (Vicia
faba and Lens culinaris).
Smaller villages in the region were found at Tel Mitzpe
Zevulun North, Hanaton and Kfar Kanna (Barzilai et al.
2013, Nativ n.d., H. Smithline pers. comm.). Their size
was probably smaller than Yiftahel - up to 10 dunams.
Notably all share similar lithic blade technology and
probably domestic architecture with Yiftahel. Interestingly
domesticated legumes (Vicia faba and Lens culinaris) were
recovered at Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North (V. Carracuta pers.
comm.).
The only exceptional PPNB site in the region is Kfar
HaHoresh, dated from the Early through Late PPNB
(Goring-Morris et al. 1995; 2001; 2008). Its exclusive
geographical location near the summit of the Nazareth Hills
and not within the lowland alluvial valley, as well as the
profusion of human burials (ca. 70) discovered there lead
the excavator to suggest it was a regional burial ground
for the neighbouring PPNB villages (Goring-Morris 2000;
2005).
Settlement in the region in the Pottery Neolithic
period is less known and seems to be more limited. The
discovery of Yarmukian and Jericho IX settlements at
Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North and Yiftahel respectively may
suggest uctuations of smaller settlements. The former
was exposed in 2011 when remains of what seems to be
a Yarmukian courtyard house were exposed (Barzilai et
al. 2013). Notably the Pottery Neolithic layer at the site
is characterized by Yarmukian lithics and pottery but the
most diagnostic nds were ca. two dozen Yarmukian clay
gurines (Barzilai et al. 2013). A Jericho IX settlement was
discovered in the 2007–8 excavations at Yiftahel in Area G
(Khalaily et al. 2008). This included an almost complete
rectangular structure associated with typical Jericho IX
pottery sherds and lithics.
During the Early Chalcolithic there is a peak in the size
of settlement as attested by the extremely large village at
Ein Zippori (Getzov and Milevski 2012). Another site was
identied and excavated at Hanaton (Nativ n.d.), but it
seems to be much smaller, perhaps a satellite site of Ein
Zippori. The nds from the new excavations at Ein Zippori
clearly indicate it was a large afuent village with strong
interregional relations as evidenced by imported items
(Getzov and Milevski 2012).
The Late Chalcolithic period (Ghassulian culture) is
present but is limited in nds and space within the sites
of Ein Zippori, Yiftahel, Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North and
Hanaton. It is mainly expressed in lithics and pottery;
hardly any structures have been revealed. For the moment
it is unclear if the nds attest to a large settlement in the
basin of Nahal Zippori whose remains have not yet been
identied.
The Early Bronze IA is represented at Yiftahel and
Kfar Kanna (Braun 1997; Smithline pers. comm.).
Complete domestic structures, silos and installations were
documented in the 1980's and 2007–2008 excavations at
Yiftahel, indicating its importance during that period in the
region (Braun 1997; Khalaily et al. 2008).
A considerable demographic expansion in the region
clearly occurred during the Early Bronze IB when large
settlements at Ein Zippori and Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North
were established (Barzilai et al. 2013; Milevski and Getzov
2012). At the end of the Early Bronze Age IB it seems
that these two sites, at least, were relocated to the upper
hilly area of the Nahal Zippori Basin and transformed into
fortied towns. A similar pattern was suggested to occur in
other regions within the Galilee (e.g. Getzov et al. 2001).
In sum, although the settlement patterns in the Nahal
Zippori basin demand further study, it is safe to state that
this region exhibits a cultural continuum from the PPNB
until the end of the Early Bronze IB. The continuity
succeeded thanks to favorable ecological conditions
around Nahal Zippori, in particular the presence of suitable
land for cultivation and available fresh water which were
the most essential resources for early village communities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The excavation (Permit A-5128/2007) was directed by
O. Barzilai on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority
(IAA). We wish to thank the IAA for permission to publish
the article in this journal. The authors wish to thank the
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
69
following people for their assistance during the eld work
and research: O. Marder (area supervision), Y. Laban
(administration), R. Mishayev, M. Kunin (surveying and
drafting), A. Shapiro, L. Barda and D. Levi (GPS), H.
Tahan-Rosen and C. Hersch (pottery drawing), C. Amit
(studio photography), M. Smelansky (int and groundstone
drawing) and E. Rice (obsidian sourcing). Thanks are
extended to S. Wolff for editing of this paper.
REFERENCES
Amiet P. 1963. La glyptique syrienne archaique. Notes sur
la diffusion de la civilization mésopotamienne en Syrie
du Nord. Syria 40: 57–83.
Amiran R. 1976. More about the Chalcolithic culture of
Palestine and Tepe Yahya. Israel Exploration Journal
26: 157–162.
Bankirer R. 1999. The "Beth-Shean point" - A new type of
tool from the Early Bronze Age I–II at Tel Beth Shean.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 29: 129–134.
Barkai R. 2005. Flint and Stone Axes as Cultural Markers:
Socio-Economic Changes as Reected in Holocene Flint
Tool Industries of the Southern Levant (Studies in Early
Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment
11). Berlin: ex-oriente.
Bar-Yosef D.E. and Heller J. 1987. Mollusca from Yiftah'el,
Lower Galilee, Israel. Paléorient 13(1): 131–135.
Barzilai O. 2010a. ‘En Zippori: Preliminary report.
Excavations and Surveys in Israel 122: http://
www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.
asp?id=1547&mag_id=117.
Barzilai O. 2010b. Social Complexity in the Southern
Levantine PPNB as Reected through Lithic Studies:
the Bidirectional Blade Industries (BAR International
Series 2180). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Barzilai O. and Milevski I. 2010. Giv‘at Rabi East. Middle
Palaeolithic and Neolithic workshop sites. Excavations
and Surveys in Israel 122: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.
il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1587&mag_id=117.
Barzilai O., Vardi J., Liran R., Yegorov D., Covello-
Paran K., van den Brink E.C.M., Yaroshevich A. and
Berger U. 2013. The Nahal Zippori excavation project.
Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125: http://www.
hadashot-esi.org.il/ Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=2305.
Beck P. 1967. Problems in the Glyptic Art of Palestine.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University,
New York.
Beck P. 1995. Issues in history of the Early Bronze Age
art in Eretz–Israel. Cathedra 76: 3–33 (Hebrew with
English abstract).
Behrensmeyer A. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic
information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4(1):
50–162.
Ben-Tor A. 1978. Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium
Palestine (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research Supplement 22). Winona Lake: American
Schools of Oriental Research.
Ben-Tor A., Bonl R. and Zuckerman S. 2003. Tel Qashish,
a Village in the Jezreel Valley (Qedem Reports 5).
Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Binford L.R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern
Myths. New York: Academic Press.
Boessneck J. 1969. Osteological differences between
sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and goat (Capra hircus Linné).
In: Brothwell D. and Higgs E., Science in Archaeology,
pp. 331–358. London: Thames and Hudson.
Braun E. 1985. En Shadud, Salvage Excavations at a
Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel (BAR
International Series 249). Oxford.
Braun E. 1996. Salvage excavations at the Early Bronze
Age site of Me‘ona: Final report. ‘Atiqot 28: 1–39.
Braun E. 1997. Yiftah‘el. Salvage and Rescue Excavations
at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel (IAA
Reports 2). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Covello-Paran K. 2003. The Early Bronze Age occupation
at Tel Gat-Hefer, lower Galilee, areas C and D. ‘Atiqot
44: 97–138
Dan J. and Raz Z. 1970. The Soil Association Map of
Israel (1: 250,000). Beit Dagan: Volcani Institute of
Agricultural Research (Hebrew with English abstract).
Delougaz P. and Kantor H.J. 1996. Chogha Mish I: The
First Five Seasons of Excavations 1961–1971. Part. 2.
Plates (Oriental Institute Publications 101). Chicago:
The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.
Driesch A. v.d., 1976. A Guide for the Measurements of
Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology). Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Eggler J. 2008. Scorpion. In: Iconography of Deities
and Demons in the Ancient Near East. http://www.
religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_
idd_scorpion.pdf.
Esse D.L. 1989. Village potters in Early Bronze Palestine:
Barzilai et al. 2013
70
A case study. In: Leonard A. and Williams B.B. (eds.),
Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene
Kantor (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47),
pp. 77–92. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Gal Z. 2002. Settlement location in Nahal Zippori as
a reection of cultural diversity from the Neolithic
through the Early Bronze Age II–III periods. In: van
den Brink E.C.M. and E. Yannai E. (eds.), In Quest of
Ancient Settlements and Landscapes: Archaeological
Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna, pp. 45–56. Tel Aviv:
Ramot.
Garnkel Y. 1992. The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha'ar
Hagolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata (Israel) (Les
Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français à Jerusalem
6). Paris: Association Paléorient.
Garnkel Y. 1995. Human and Animal Figurines of
Munhata (Israёl) (Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche
Français à Jerusalem 8). Paris: Association Paléorient.
Garnkel Y. 1987. Yiftahel: A Neolithic village from the
seventh millennium B.C. in Lower Galilee, Israel.
Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 199–212.
Garnkel Y. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of
the Southern Levant (Qedem 39). Jerusalem: Institute
of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Garnkel Y. 2007. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B naviform
industry of Yiftahel. In: Astruc L., Binder D. and Briois
F. (eds.), Technical Systems and Near Eastern PPN
Communities, pp. 203–213.Antibes: Editions APDCA.
Garnkel Y. 2011. Obsidian distribution and cultural
contacts in the southern Levant during the 7th
Millennium cal. BC. In: Healey E., Campbell S. and
Maeda O. (eds.), The State of the Stone. Terminologies,
Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics
(Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence
and Environment 13), pp. 403–409. Berlin: ex-oriente.
Garnkel Y., Dag D., Khalaily H., Marder O., Milevski I.
and Ronen A. (eds.). 2012. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B
Village of Yiftahel: The 1980s and 1990s Excavations.
Berlin: ex-oriente.
Getzov N. 2004. Studies in the material culture of the
western Galilee settlements in the Early Bronze IB in
light of the excavations at Abu edh-Dhahab. ‘Atiqot 48:
35–50.
Getzov N. 2006. The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994–
1995 (IAA Reports 28). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities
Authority.
Getzov N. 2009. The pottery from strata 19–16, C8–C7.
In: Getzov N., Lieberman-Wander R., Smithline H. and
Syon D. (eds.), Horbat ‘Uza, The 1991 Excavations,
Volume I: The Early Periods (IAA Reports 41), pp. 26–
72. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Getzov N., Paz Y. and Gophna R. 2001. Shifting Urban
Landscapes during the Early Bronze Age in the Land of
Israel. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Getzov N. and Milevski I. 2012. Ein Zippori, second season
of excavations. Paper presented at The 24th Annual
Meeting of the Israeli Prehistory Society. Weizmann
Institute, Rehovot, Israel.
Golani A. 2003. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze
Age Site of Qiryat Ata (IAA Reports 18). Jerusalem:
Israel Antiquities Authority.
Gopher A. 1994. Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant
(ASOR Dissertation Series 10). Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Gopher A. 1999. Lithic industries of the Neolithic period
in the southern/central Levant. In: Kozłowski S.K.
(ed.), The Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent: Late
Prehistory of Greater Mesopotamia Lithic Industries,
pp. 116–138 (BAR International Series 760). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Gopher A. and Gophna R. 1993. Cultures of the eighth and
seventh millennia BP in the southern Levant: A review
for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 297–353.
Gopher A., Marder O. and Barkai R. 2011. An obsidian
industry from Neolithic Hagoshrim, Upper Galilee. In
Healey E., Campbell S. and Maeda O. (eds.), The State
of the Stone Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts
in Near Eastern Lithics (Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence and Environment 13), pp. 395–
403. Berlin: ex-oriente.
Goring-Morris A.N. 2000. The quick and the dead: The
social context of aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices
as seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In: Kuijt I. (ed.), Life in
Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization,
Identity, and Differentiation, pp. 103–136. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Goring-Morris A.N. 2005. Life, death and the emergence
of differential status in the Near Eastern Neolithic:
Evidence from Kfar HaHoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel.
In: Clarke J. (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the
Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the
Eastern Mediterranean, pp. 89–105. Oxford: Oxbow.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43 (2013), 22-72
71
Goring-Morris A.N., Goren Y., Horwitz L.K. and Bar-
Yosef D. 1995. Investigations at an Early Neolithic
settlement in Lower Galilee: Results of the 1991 season
at Kfar Hahoresh. ‘Atiqot 27: 37–62.
Goring-Morris A.N., Boaretto E. and Weiner S. 2001.
Radiometric dating of the PPNB mortuary site of
Kfar Hahoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel: Problems and
preliminary Results. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society 31: 213–217.
Goring-Morris A.N., Ashkenazi H., Barzilai O., Birkenfeld
M., Eshed V., Goren Y., Horwitz L., Oron M. and
Williams J. 2008. The 2007–8 excavation seasons
at Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Kfar HaHoresh, Israel.
Antiquity 82: 318.
Grant A. 1982. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age
of domestic ungulates. In: Wilson B., Grigson C. and
Payne S. (eds.), Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from
Archaeological Sites, pp. 91–108 (BAR International
Series 109). Oxford.
Grayson D. K. and Frey C.J. 2004. Measuring skeletal
part representation in archaeological faunas. Journal of
Taphonomy 2: 27–42.
Greenberg R. 2001. EB II–III Palestinian cylinder seal
impression and the North Canaanite metallic ware.
In: Wolff S. (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel
and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse
(Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59 and ASOR
Books 5), pp. 189–197. Chicago and Atlanta: Oriental
Institute.
Greenberg R. and Porat N. 1996. A third millennium
Levantine pottery production center. Petrography and
provenance of the metallic ware of Northern Israel and
adjacent regions. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 301: 5–24.
Greenhut Z. 1989. Flint tools. In: Bar-Adon P., Excavations
in the Judean Desert. ‘Atiqot 9: 60–77 (Hebrew).
Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T. and Ryan P.D. 2001. PAST:
Paleontological statistics software package for education
and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4.
Joffe A.H. 2001. Early Bronze Age seal impressions
from the Jezreel Valley and the problem of sealing
in the southern Levant. In: Wolff S. (ed.), Studies in
the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in
Memoryof Douglas L. Esse (Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization 59 and ASOR Books 5), pp. 355–375.
Chicago and Atlanta: Oriental Institute.
Kaplan J. 1958. Excavations at Wadi Rabah. Israel
Exploration Journal 8: 149–160.
Khalaily H., Milevski I., Getzov N., Hershkovitz I.,
Barzilai O., Yarosevich A., Shlomi V., Najjar A., Zidan
O., Smithline H. and Liran R. 2008. Recent excavations
at the Neolithic site of Yiftahel (Khalet Khalladyiah),
Lower Galilee. Neo-lithics 2: 3–11.
Kislev M.E. 1985. Early Neolithic horsebean from Yiftahel,
Israel. Science 228: 319–320.
Kochavi M. 1969. Excavations at Tel Esdar. ‘Atiqot 5:
14–48 (Hebrew).
Kuijt I. and Goring-Morris A.N. 2002. Foraging, farming,
and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of
the southern Levant: A review and synthesis. Journal of
World Prehistory 16: 361–440.
Lyman R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lyman R.L. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer
1902–1905 and 1907–1909, Vol. 3. London: Palestine
Exploration Fund.
Malinsky-Buller A., Aldjem E. and Yeshurun R. 2009. Bir
el-Maksur. A new Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site in Lower
Galilee. Neo-Lithics 2: 13–16.
Marder O., Braun E. and Milevski I. 1995. The int
assemblage of Lower Horvat `Illin. Some technical and
economic considerations. ‘Atiqot 27: 63–93.
Milevski I. and Getzov N. 2013. Ein Zippori excavations:
The site during the Early Bronze Age. Paper presented
at The Annual Conference of the IAA and the University
of Haifa. Haifa, Israel (Hebrew).
Nativ A. n.d. Q-1 site – test excavation A-6123. Unpublished
report for the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.
Olsen S.L.1988. Surface modication on bones: Trampling
versus butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:
535–553.
Oshri A., Khalaily H., Milevski I. and Marder O. 1999.
Yiftah'el (Northeast; Triangulation Point Q-1).
Excavations and Surveys in Israel 110: 89.
Paz Y. and Iserlis M. 2009. Golanite production and
distribution center of cooking pots during the Early
Bronze Age II. In: Rosen S.A. and Roux V. (eds.),
Techniques and People, Anthropological Perspectives
on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-Historic
and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant
Barzilai et al. 2013
72
(Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français
à Jerusalem 9), pp. 99–110. Paris: De Boccard.
Quintero L.A. 1996. Flint mining in the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic: Preliminary report on the exploitation of
int at Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal in Highland Jordan. In:
Kozłowski S.K. and Gebel H.K.G. (eds.), Neolithic
Chipped Lithic Industries of the Fertile Crescent and
their Adjacent Regions (Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence and Environment 3), pp. 233–
260. Berlin: ex-oriente.
Rosen S.A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age. A handbook
of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek: Altamira
Press.
Rosen S.A., Tykot R.H. and Gottesman M. 2005. Long
distance trinket trade: Early Bronze Age obsidian from
the Negev. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 775–
784.
Rosenberg D., Assaf A., Getzov N. and Gopher A. 2008.
Flaked stone discs of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic
periods in the southern Levant. Paléorient 34(2): 137–
151.
Rotem Y. 2012. The Early Bronze Age IB pottery from
Area M. In: Mazar A. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean
1989–1996 IV: The 4th and 3th Millennia BCE, pp.
123–235. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Rowan Y.M. 2003. The groundstone assemblage. In:
Golani A. Salvage Excavations in the Early Bronze
Age Site of Qiryat Ata (IAA Reports 18), pp. 183–202.
Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Schick, T. 1978. Flint Implements, Strata V–I. In: Amiran
R., Paran U., Shiloh Y., Brown R., Tsafrir Y. and Ben-
Tor A. (eds.), Early Arad. The Chalcolithic Settlement
and the Early Bronze Age City, pp. 58–64. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society.
Schmidt K. 2010. Göbekli Tepe – the stone age sanctuaries.
New results of ongoing excavations with a special focus
on sculptures and high reliefs. Documenta Praehistorica
37: 239–256.
Silver I.A. 1970. The ageing of domestic animals. In:
Brothwell D. and Higgs E. Science in Archaeology, pp.
283–302. London: Thames and Hudson.
Stordeur D. 2010. Domestication of plans and animals,
domestication of symbols? In: Bolger D. and Maguire
L.C. (eds.), Development of Pre-State Communities in
the Ancient Near East, pp. 123–130. Oxford: Oxbow.
Sussman V. 1980. A bull from the Early Bronze Age.
Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research
238: 75–77.
Tadmor M. and Prausnitz M.1958. Excavations at Rosh
Haniqra. ‘Atiqot 2: 72–88.
Vardi J. 2011. Sickle Blades and Sickles of the Sixth and
Fifth Millennia BCE in Light of the Finds from the
Chalcolithic Sickle Blade Workshop Site of Beit Eshel.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Ben-Gurion University
of the Negev, Beer-Sheva (Hebrew).
Villa P. and Mahieu E. 1991. Breakage patterns of human
long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21: 27–48.
Wright G.E. 1958. The problem of the transition between
the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Eretz Israel 5: 37–45.
Wright K.I. 1992. A classication system for ground stone
tools from the prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18(2):
53–81.
Yannai E. 1996. A tomb of the Early Bronze Age I and
Intermediate Bronze Age near Tel Esur (Assawir).
‘Atiqot 30: 1–16 (Hebrew with English summary).
Zuckerman S. 1996. The Pottery of Tel Qashish and
Jezreel Valley in the Early Bronze Age. Unpublished
MA Thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Jerusalem. (Hebrew with English summary).
Zuckerman S. 2003. The Early Bronze Age I pottery. In:
Ben-Tor A., Bonl R. and Zuckerman S. (eds.), Tel
Qashish, A Village in the Jezreel Valley (Qedem Reports
5), pp. 35–56. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
