Fishing, Fish Consumption, Urbanism and Migrants at Tel Bet Yerah, 3200-2700 BC

Antiquity 2021 Vol.
95 (382): 885–899
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.70
Research Article
Fishing, fish consumption, urbanism and migrants at

Tel Bet Yerah, 3200–2700 BC
Omri Lernau1, Jamie Shapiro2, Sarit Paz3 & Raphael Greenberg4,*
1
Zinmann Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Israel
2
Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa, Israel
3
Unit of Culture Research, Tel Aviv University, Israel
4
Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University, Israel
* Author for correspondence: ✉ grafi@tauex.tau.ac.il
The role and significance of fish and fishing in the

ancient Near East has been little studied. A new
assemblage of fish remains and fishing gear recovered
from Bronze Age Bet Yerah on the Sea of Galilee,
however, offers insights into the transition from vil-
lage to town life, and illuminates interactions between
local populations and incoming groups. The assem-
blage also reveals temporal and spatial variations in
the utilisation of local fish resources. As the first
such assemblage obtained from a systematically
sampled Early Bronze Age stratigraphic sequence in
the Southern Levant, it highlights the contribution
of secondary food-production and -consumption
activities to the interpretation of socio-cultural
change.
Keywords: Israel, Bet Yerah, Bronze Age, Khirbet Kerak, fishing, urbanism
Introduction
Despite the location of many archaeological sites along the rivers and streams and on the
coastlines and freshwater lakes of Western Asia, fish and fishing have rarely featured in studies
of ancient Near Eastern food economies. In one of the few archaeological overviews devoted
to fish consumption and supply in this region, Potts (2012: 221) observes that there are few
systematically recorded assemblages of fish remains, and that often “their underrepresentation
reaches a level of absurdity” at sites located close to water. The Bronze Age Levant is no excep-
tion, with few systematic collections undertaken at sites on or near the Mediterranean coast,
even where fish remains are reported (van Neer et al. 2005: tab 1), and interpretation limited
primarily to the discussion of Nilotic imports (e.g. Lernau 2002; van Neer et al. 2004). An
Received: 8 June 2020; Revised: 1 September 2020; Accepted: 9 September 2020

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd. This is an
Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
885
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.70 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Omri Lernau et al.
assemblage of freshwater fish bones and fishing gear recovered during recent excavations at the
Early Bronze Age site of Tel Bet Yerah (Kh. el-Kerak), on the southern shore of the Sea of
Galilee, now offers an initial means with which to address this long-overlooked subject.
The Levantine Early Bronze Age (c. 3700–2400 BC) has long been recognised as a time of
significant change, when small agricultural societies adopted some of the attributes of the pol-
itical and economic centralisation that transformed neighbouring Egypt and Mesopotamia at
this time (Greenberg 2019: 128–31). It is also marked by the appearance of an unmistakably
intrusive ceramic tradition associated with the Kura-Araxes Culture of the Southern Caucasus
and Eastern Anatolia in a handful of sites in the Jordan River catchment (Sagona 2017:
213–80). Little consensus, however, has been reached on the extent of social change and
urbanisation in the earlier part of this period, or on the specific context within which the
Kura-Araxes cultural elements were introduced. We argue that striking changes in fishing
practices and fish consumption combine with other components in the material assemblage
of Early Bronze Age Bet Yerah to reflect the profound impact on task-scapes and sense-scapes
of the transition from village to town life in Early Bronze I and II (c. 3200–3000 BC), and to
illustrate a mode of cultural negotiation between local and incoming migrant groups in the
first half of Early Bronze III (c. 2850–2700 BC).
Tel Bet Yerah

Tel Bet Yerah (Kh. el-Kerak) is a large, archaeological mound formed around a small, natural hill
at the south-west corner of the Sea of Galilee. Excavated intermittently since the 1930s, the 25ha
mound contains the remains of a large Early Bronze I village that was rebuilt as an Early Bronze II
walled town (for a review of earlier excavations, see Greenberg et al. 2012). Detailed studies of
Early Bronze II architecture and public spaces indicate that, although the town walls and basic
plan were established from the outset, the imposition of urban discipline was a gradual process,
resulting in a dense grid of streets and houses by the end of the period, c. 2850 BC (Greenberg &
Paz 2014: 38–39; Paz & Greenberg 2016). During Early Bronze III, following a partial depopu-
lation, Bet Yerah was the destination for incoming groups associated with the Kura-Araxes cul-
tural tradition (Sagona 2017: 213–80). Settling in proximity to the local population, these
groups left a ceramic legacy that has established Bet Yerah/Khirbet el-Kerak as the type-site
for their characteristic ceramic assemblage: Khirbet Kerak Ware. This ware anchors a cultural
assemblage that diverges in many notable respects, including those of food production and con-
sumption, from pre-existing local tradition (Greenberg et al. 2014; Greenberg 2019: 117–22).
A major goal of the Tel Aviv University excavations of 2003–2015 was the retrieval of a
detailed dataset on human-environment interactions and on human foodways (not addressed
by previous investigations at the site) by means of small-scale (450m2) excavation in and
around the previously excavated monumental granary, or ‘Circles Building’, in the northern
part of the mound (Figure 1; for interim reports, see Greenberg et al. 2013, 2017; Regev et al.
2020). The fine-screening of approximately half of all sediments excavated over seven seasons
provides—alongside extensive assemblages of mammalian fauna, microfauna, plant remains
and flint-knapping waste—substantial evidence for the consumption of fish. That the people
of Bet Yerah practised fishing was already known, due to the discovery, by every earlier excava-
tion at the site, of numerous stone net-sinkers. This indirect evidence is now augmented by an
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
886
Fishing, fish consumption, urbanism and migrants at Tel Bet Yerah, 3200–2700 BC
Figure 1. Location map of sites mentioned in this paper and general plan of the 2003–2015 excavations at Tel Bet
Yerah (courtesy of the Tel Bet Yerah Archaeological Project).
assemblage of fish remains. The two complementary datasets, concerning consumption (fish
bones) and acquisition (fishing gear), are presented below.
The fish assemblage

The strata sampled were predominantly from areas of domestic occupation and refuse dis-
posal situated to the north and west of the previously excavated Circles Building—a large
887
Omri Lernau et al.
public structure built in early Early Bronze III (c. 2800 BC; Greenberg et al. 2017). The west-
ern area of excavation (area SA-S; grid squares L–N/11–15 and N/8-9), provided a contigu-
ous sequence, primarily from the Early Bronze II and III periods, with a few soundings
reaching the latest layer of Early Bronze I occupation. The northern area, area SA-M, con-
sisted predominantly of large refuse deposits in an open plaza (grid squares P–T/7–8) asso-
ciated with an Early Bronze III Khirbet Kerak Ware cultural assemblage and separated from
contemporaneous local tradition Early Bronze III occupation deposits by a paved street.
Radiocarbon dates (Regev et al. 2020) from Bet Yerah suggest that the late Early Bronze
I–II sequence should be bracketed between 3200 and 2850 BC, while the two Early Bronze
III communities were contemporaneous, both apparently coexisting in the first half of Early
Bronze III (c. 2850–2700 BC). The two areas of excavation thus provide insights into
economic change or divergence on both temporal and spatial/cultural axes: from Early
Bronze I–III in the local tradition and between deposits associated with the local tradition
and those associated with Khirbet Kerak Ware.
In total, 594 fish bones were obtained from secure contexts: 134 associated with the
Khirbet Kerak Ware-bearing deposits in the plaza (and from one pit outside of the plaza),
458 in local tradition Early Bronze I–III deposits, and two bones in a Hellenistic pit
(c. 250–100 BC). The bones were collected from samples that were either dry-sieved (on a
2mm mesh) or recovered from flotation and placed on stacked 5–0.5mm sieves. The overall
state of bone preservation was poor. Most bones were very small and were photographed
through a Leica Binocular to facilitate identification. They were identified with the aid of
modern fish-reference collections belonging to the first author, and collections of present-day
specimens prepared for this project by the second author. Taxonomic nomenclature follows
www.fishbase.se. The better preserved identified bones were measured to estimate the sizes of
the original fish by comparing with modern fish in the reference collections. Size estimations
by this method are subject to a margin of error of roughly 15 per cent, which, while relatively
large, we have deemed sufficient for the current purpose. The sizes of fish provided below are
therefore approximate and figures are rounded.
Of the total of 594 fish bones (see Table S1 in the online supplementary material (OSM)),
the specific skeletal element was identified for 399 bones (67 per cent of the total assem-
blage); the rest were unidentifiable fragments. There were 326 skeletal elements of the meat-
bearing part of the fish—predominantly vertebrae (Figure 2)—and 73 bones of the neuro-
and branchiocranium. The most common elements were vertebrae, which comprised 69
and 81 per cent of the identified skeletal elements from areas SA-S and SA-M, respectively.
Taxonomic identification was achieved for 219 bones (55 per cent of the 399 identified
skeletal elements). Six families of fish were identified (Table 1). The low proportion of
identifications is due to the small size and relatively poor preservation of the bones. Most
identified bones (212) belong to three families of freshwater fish found in the Sea of Galilee:
Cyprinidae (carp), Cichlidae (cichlids) and Clariidae (catfish). Among the cyprinid bones, 11
could be further identified to the species: three as Jordan himri (Carasobarbus canis); four as
Kinneret bleak (Mirogrex terraesanctae); two as Jordan barbell (Luciobarbus longiceps); and
two as Mesopotamian barb (Capoeta damascina).
Among the cichlid bones, four can be identified as mango tilapia (Sarotherodon galilaeus),
and one as Jordan St Peter’s fish (Oreochromis aureus). All the catfish bones relate to North
888
Figure 2. a) Cyprinidae: anterior vertebra, left lateral view; b) Cichlidae: posterior vertebra, left lateral view; c) Clarias
gariepinus: posterior vertebra, left lateral view; d) Serranidae: left dentary, superior view; e) Serranidae: first vertebra,
anterior view (photographs by O. Lernau).
African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Measurements of 66 cyprinid bones and 25 cichlid bones
yield estimated sizes ranging between 60mm and 0.36m, with averages of 0.14 and 0.16m,
respectively (Figure 3). Measurements of four catfish bones provide estimated sizes of 70mm,
0.12, 0.24 and 0.63m, respectively.
Seven bones relate to three marine families: Sparidae (porgies), Serranidae (groupers) and
Mugilidae (mullets). One sparid bone was identified as gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). All
three families originate in the Mediterranean Sea, approximately 50km to the west of Bet
Yerah. The same types of marine fish have been recovered in small quantities at
several other Early Bronze Age coastal sites, such as Ashkelon-Afridar (Lernau 2004; Early
Table 1. Taxonomic identifications of fish bones (NISP = number of identified specimens).

Family NISP %
Freshwater fish
Cyprinidae 145 66
Cichlidae 34 16
Clariidae 33 15
Total 212
Marine fish
Sparidae 4 1.8
Serranidae 2 0.9
Mugilidae 1 0.6
Total 7 100
Not identified 375
Total 594
889
Omri Lernau et al.
Figure 3. Size distribution of cichlids and cyprinids (figure by O. Lernau).
Bronze I) and Megadim (Early Bronze I; unpublished), and from Kabri (Lernau 2002; Early
Bronze I–II), Megiddo (Early Bronze I & III; Lernau 2006) and Tel Qashish (Early Bronze
I–III; Lernau 2003) farther inland; the latter may be attributed to small-scale trade in cured
fish. In later periods, especially during the Late Bronze and the Iron Ages, the importation
and consumption of fish became more intensive and widespread, encompassing the entire
Eastern Mediterranean, with the addition of imported fish from the Bardawil hypersaline
lagoon in northern Sinai and from the Nile (van Neer et al. 2004; Sisma-Ventura et al.
2018). To date, Bet Yerah is the farthest site from the Mediterranean to have provided evi-
dence for Early Bronze Age marine fish consumption.
Temporal and cultural distribution of the fish bones

At Bet Yerah the fish-bone assemblage is distributed across the three principal periods of
occupation on this part of the mound: late Early Bronze I, Early Bronze II and early Early
Bronze III. The fish bones in the deposits west of the Circles Building represent Early Bronze
I–III activity associated with domestic occupation and the local ceramic tradition (except for
two bones from a Khirbet Kerak Ware pit). The remaining fish bones are all associated with
Early Bronze III Khirbet Kerak Ware ceramics. Table 2 shows the identified bones in the
domestic, local tradition deposits and in the refuse deposits containing Khirbet Kerak
Ware in the plaza. Both areas have yielded the same three types of freshwater fish, with a larger
proportion of cyprinids and a lower proportion of clarids in the local tradition contexts. The
latter also yielded three types of marine fish, while the Khirbet Kerak Ware contexts yielded
only one bone of the marine Sparidae family.
890
Table 2. Taxonomic identifications by cultural context (NISP = number of identified specimens).

Family NISP %
Khirbet Kerak Ware deposits Cyprinidae 27 57.5
Cichlidae 9 19.1
Clariidae 10 21.3
Sparidae 1 2.1
Total 47
Local tradition deposits Cyprinidae 118 68.6
Cichlidae 25 14.5
Clariidae 23 13.4
Sparidae 3 1.7
Serranidae 2 1.2
Mugilidae 1 0.6
Total 172
Total 219
Table 3 shows the relative frequency of fish bones (both identified and unidentified), by
period. The frequency is calculated in relation to the total screened volume of material from
the relevant contexts, as fish remains were almost exclusively identified in screened sediments
(Figure 4). These numbers should be treated with some caution given the probability of
residual material and of the different circumstances of deposition for each period
(e.g. Early Bronze I and early Early Bronze II deposits in area SA-S, as well as Early Bronze
III deposits from SA-M, are primarily from midden contexts, whereas late Early Bronze II
and Early Bronze III contexts in area SA-S are predominantly from house floors and mud-
brick collapse). The numbers, however, do suggest significant quantitative differences in rela-
tive fish consumption, as can be seen in Table 3. From an Early Bronze I maximum of 42.5
bones per 1000 sifted litres of sediment, a fall-off occurs in late Early Bronze II and local-
tradition Early Bronze III (approximately 9.2 and 19.5 bones per 1000 litres, respectively).
While early Early Bronze II may well be affected by a high proportion of Early Bronze I
residual bone, the steep decline in late Early Bronze II correlates with the intensification
of urbanisation at Bet Yerah. It should be noted that the late Early Bronze II numbers are
skewed due to their peculiar distribution: more than half were recovered from refuse pits
Table 3. Frequency of fish bones in screened sediments; EB = Early Bronze.

Volume of screened sediment n = number of fish n/1000
Period (litres) bones litres
EB I 1600 68 42.5
EB II, early 5120 193 37.7
EB II, late 12350 97 7.8
EB III (local) 4050 78 19.3
EB III (Khirbet Kerak 15450 134 8.7
Ware)
891
Omri Lernau et al.
Figure 4. Frequency of fish bones in the screened sediments by period (figure by O. Lernau).
that occur in this period alone, suggesting that house floors were periodically swept clean. A
second divergence can be seen in the relationship between local tradition and Khirbet Kerak
Ware contexts, where the latter demonstrate consistently fewer fish bones (approximately 8.5
bones per 1000 litres). These data suggest that the community producing and using Khirbet
Kerak Ware relied less on the exploitation of fish from the Sea of Galilee than their contem-
poraneous neighbours.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of taxonomic identifications along a temporal axis. The
proportion of Cyprinidae was highest in the Early Bronze I, but subsequently diminished.
The proportions of the fish varieties from the Sea of Galilee were roughly the same for the
local Early Bronze III population and their Khirbet Kerak Ware-using neighbours, albeit
with a slight increase in Clariidae. Size estimates from the measurement of 97 bones show
that the average size of the fish caught in the Sea of Galilee remained constant over time,
at approximately 0.15–0.17m (Table 4). This may indicate that fishing techniques were
unchanged during the time covered by the assemblage. The seemingly wide range in size
in early Early Bronze II is due to one cyprinid vertebra (0.36m) and one from a catfish
(0.63m); no other examples in the assemblage exceed an estimated size of 0.23m.
Fishing gear
While only the most recent excavations at Bet Yerah were conducted at a resolution sufficient
to recover fish remains, indirect evidence for fish consumption has emerged from earlier exca-
vations at the site in the form of small, carefully notched or grooved stone net-sinkers, found
mainly in open courtyards (Getzov 2006: 26–28; Rosenberg & Greenberg 2014: 208). Simi-
lar artefacts have also been found in the most recent excavations, along with two copper fish
hooks—rare finds in the Levant (Figure 6).
Twenty-one of 26 net-sinkers from the recent excavations come from stratified deposits
(see Table 5): 14 from Early Bronze I and II contexts and seven from Early Bronze III
892
Figure 5. Families of fish (%) by period and culture (figure by O. Lernau).
contexts (including five associated with Khirbet Kerak Ware). Data from the earlier excava-
tions show a pronounced drop in the frequency of stone weights during Early Bronze II, from
48 in Early Bronze I and early Early Bronze II, to seven in late Early Bronze II, to six in Early
Bronze III. Together, the numbers indicate a marked decline in the on-site use or mainten-
ance of fishing nets during Early Bronze II. This conclusion is consistent with our observa-
tions on the relative quantities of fish remains. Net-sinkers found in Early Bronze III,
contexts are therefore most likely residual, and should not be attributed to the continuing
use of fish nets by inhabitants of the walled settlement.
The two copper hooks, which are remarkably similar in form and proportion, although
of different size (Figure 6), were found in association with Khirbet Kerak Ware ceramics.
They are both made from round-sectioned copper pins (differing from the common South-
ern Levantine pins, which are square in section; Ilan & Sebbane 1989) that were bent twice
Table 4. Estimated sizes of fish by period; EB = Early Bronze.

Period No. of size estimates Average size (m) Range of sizes
EB I 15 0.16 90mm–0.37m
EB II, early 45 0.15 70mm–0.63m
EB II, late 19 0.15 60mm–0.27m
EB III, local 11 0.16 0.11–0.24m
EB III, Khirbet Kerak Ware 6 0.17 70mm–0.27m
Hellenistic 1 0.10
Total 97
893
Omri Lernau et al.
Figure 6. Fishing gear from Bet Yerah: a) notched and grooved net-sinkers; b) copper hooks (photographs by P. Shrago,
the Tel Bet Yerah Archaeological Project).
from the midpoint of each pin, at 90° angles. The larger hook, 3–4mm in section, has a
37mm-long shank, a width (gap) of 13mm and an 18mm-long barb. The hook appears
to preserve mineralised remains of vegetal fibre, presumably belonging to the fishing line.
The smaller hook is half the size of its larger counterpart: it is 1mm in section, has a
21mm-long shank, an 8mm gap and a 9mm-long barb. These are the only such hooks so
far found in the Southern Levant, and we are yet to identify comparable right-angled copper
hooks in the broader West Asian region.
Table 5. Distribution of net-sinkers by period; EB = Early Bronze.

EB I–early EB III EB III
EB II Late EB II (local) (Khirbet Kerak Ware)
Tel Aviv University excavations 6 8 2 5
Earlier excavations1 58 7 7
Total 64 15 14
1
Based on Rosenberg and Greenberg (2014) and Getzov (2006); cultural affiliation of the Early Bronze III finds is unclear.
894
The use of net-sinkers made of notched or grooved pebbles had a long history around the
Sea of Galilee and in the Jordan Valley (Nadel & Zaidner 2002; Rosenberg et al. 2016)—a
history that appears to have ended with the onset of Early Bronze Age urbanisation. Cast nets
or suspended gill nets ( Jawad 2006: 6–8, figs. 2 & 4) were probably used for catching carp
and cichlids (these dominated the fish assemblage at nearby Ohalo II; Zohar et al. 2018).
Fishing hooks would probably have been used for targeting catfish, as they are more apt to
bite than other species. Unusual as they are, the appearance of hooks and line in the Bet
Yerah plaza supports the possibility that the Early Bronze III Khirbet Kerak Ware-using new-
comers were unacquainted with the use of nets for fishing in open water. Instead, they pre-
ferred to fashion fishing hooks of different sizes and to target catfish, with which they would
have been familiar from the rivers and streams in their presumed regions of origin. Given the
absence of systematic screening in most excavations, however, the evidence for fishing and
fish consumption at Kura-Araxes sites in the Southern Caucasus and other areas of
Kura-Araxes presence is scarce. The important Kura-Araxes site of Kvastkhelebi in Georgia,
for example, has yielded a single bone fishing hook (Dzhavakhishvili & Glonti 1962:
fig. IV.424) and only two fish bones from domestic contexts (unpublished). No evidence
for fishing is reported at other Kura-Araxes sites, or in the isotopic evidence of human diet
in the Southern Caucasus (Herrscher et al. in press). Fish are also notably absent in the
rich corpus of Kura-Araxes zoomorphic iconography (Sagona 1984).
Discussion
Bet Yerah is the first Early Bronze Age site in the Levant to provide firm evidence for fresh-
water fish consumption. The site shows significant trends that can be related to cultural and
economic changes associated with the transition from a village lifestyle to one with elements
of urbanism—a transition still fiercely debated (see Chesson 2015; Greenberg 2019:
128–31). In Early Bronze I, when Bet Yerah was a large, sprawling village composed of walled
compounds and communal areas, fishing was widespread. Net-sinkers have been found in
abundance in most excavation areas, and fish formed a significant part of the diet, as attested
by the relatively high proportion of fish bones in the sieved deposits of this period. This does
not imply that Early Bronze I Bet Yerah relied solely on fishing: mammal remains heavily
outnumber fish remains, and charred cereals indicate thriving agriculture (Berger 2013:
79, 92–93 & 101, 2018: 17–21). Indeed, even at the waterlogged late Upper Palaeolithic
Ohalo II fishing village, which lies at the foot of the Bronze Age mound, fish were a compo-
nent, albeit an important one, in a varied diet that included hunted mammals and birds, and
plant foods (Rabinovich & Nadel 2005: 47; Zohar et al. 2018: 20). Still, the ubiquity of fish
and expertly prepared fishing gear suggests that the lakeshore residents of Early Bronze I Bet
Yerah were competent fishers. Following the abandonment of the village and the foundation
of the walled settlement in Early Bronze II, fishing and fish consumption seem to have been
maintained at the same level for a time (even assuming residuality in early Early Bronze II
contexts), before declining rapidly.
The decline in fishing seems to correlate with the marked increase in housing density in
late Early Bronze II, when the urban template, followed initially only in portions of the site,
expanded to every excavated sector. As noted in the detailed architectural reports (Greenberg
895
Omri Lernau et al.
& Paz 2014: 38–39 & 49–50; Paz & Greenberg 2016: 211–13), there was a lag between the
initial stage of fortification in early Early Bronze II Bet Yerah, during which the principles of
spatial organisation appear to have been determined, and the extension and imposition of
these principles across all parts of the site in late Early Bronze II. It is in this latter phase
that open spaces between houses were filled with new structures, streets were kept clear of
the accumulation of material and domestic refuse was swept into small pits. Concomitantly,
the ceramic industry was standardised (Greenberg & Iserlis 2014: 92), archaeobotanical
remains indicate the managed, off-site processing of cereals (Berger 2013: 80 & 99) and
mammal remains indicate specialised herd management (Berger 2018: 10; cf. Gaastra
et al. 2020). These developments are consistent with the gradual adoption of an urban hab-
itus that would probably have encouraged both specialisation in fishing and its relocation
from domestic and public areas in the centre of the town to more distant spots.
Notably, however, fishing did not return in Early Bronze III, when parts of the town lay
unoccupied for extended periods, or when groups of Khirbet Kerak Ware producers/users
began to settle in them, apparently alongside the pre-existing inhabitants. As it appears
that both communities were still consuming some fish, we can assume that net fishing was
the domain of the same extra mural specialists mentioned above who supplied the town
with their catch. Moreover, we may surmise that Khirbet Kerak Ware-using groups also
acquired the cichlids and cyprinids that they consumed (albeit in small quantities) from
the same extra mural source as their neighbours, whether directly or through exchange.
Hook-and-line fishing may have been used to supplement their diet with catfish, which
were consumed only in limited numbers in Early Bronze I–II, and not at all in nearby earlier
settlements (Zohar et al. 2018). A Clarias gariepinus head and vertebrae found in the area
SA-M plaza could indicate in situ butchering, as this species has a large, inedible head that
accounts for a third of its body length (Ben Tuvia 1978); its preparation would entail remov-
ing and discarding the head and part of the attached anterior vertebral column. These
nuanced differences between local tradition and Khirbet Kerak Ware communities resemble
differences observed in other realms of food consumption, such as a preference by the new-
comers for stewed rather than roasted meat (Greenberg 2019: 119).
We have noted that the use of stone-weighted nets in Early Bronze Age Bet Yerah
(c. 3200–2700 BC) marks the end of a deeply rooted tradition of fishing in the Upper
Jordan valley that dates to at least as far back as the late Upper Palaeolithic (c. 21 000 BC;
see Figure 1). It is not entirely clear how and where continuity in the use of stone-weighted
nets was preserved over time, although several sites bridge parts of this timeframe: Natufian
‘En Gev (fish remains), ‘Ain Mallaha and Jordan River Dureijat (net-sinkers); Pre-Pottery
Neolithic A ‘Ain Dishna; and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B to Pottery Neolithic Beisamun and
Sha‘ar Hagolan (net-sinkers) (Grosman et al. 2016: 19; Rosenberg et al. 2016). Given the
marked diachronic reduction in the size and weight of net-sinkers, there seems to have
been a significant change in the quality of nets in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (c. 8500–
6500 BC), which coincides with the domestication of flax and the frequent use of linen fibres
(Levy 2020: 164–65). Finer fibres would have permitted finer nets and smaller, lighter
weights, facilitating the catching of smaller fish. The termination of such an ancient tradition
at Early Bronze II–III Bet Yerah emphasises the deep change that must have occurred when
people began to live in walled towns, resulting in a loss of diversity not only in the economy
896
but in the ‘sense-scape’ of the settlement. The exclusion or marginalisation of fishing specia-
lists and fish-markets, resulting in the loss of their characteristic spaces, sounds and smells, as
well as the impoverishment of the local cuisine, can be counted among the changes induced
as a result of early urbanisation.
Conclusion
Systematic sieving of Early Bronze I–III contexts at Tel Bet Yerah, complemented by a sub-
stantial assemblage of artefacts associated with fishing, has provided a unique window into
fishing and fish consumption at an Early Bronze Age Levantine site on the southern shore
of the Sea of Galilee. The finds suggest that the Early Bronze I village marks the end of a long-
lived tradition of lake fishing, focused on cyprinids and cichlids, using cast or suspended gill
nets weighted with grooved or notched pebbles. As urban lifeways became entrenched and
their effects on domestic and economic life more profound, net fishing was pushed out of
the town, and fish—including marine species obtained from a distance—became only a
minor feature in the diet. Subtle differences between the Khirbet Kerak Ware-rich plaza
deposits and local tradition domestic deposits suggest that the people associated with the
incoming cultural tradition had limited access to fish, and may have augmented their diets
by angling for catfish. The Bet Yerah copper fishhooks are the first of their kind recorded
in the Southern Levant, and add to the distinct cultural repertoire that characterised the
‘Khirbet Kerak’ manifestation of the Kura-Araxes diaspora.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks to Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer and Ehud Spanier for their contributions to this
study.
Funding statement
This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grants 310/12 & 681/19).
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.
2021.70
References
Ben Tuvia, A. 1978. Fishes, in C. Serruya (ed.) Lake S. Pilaar Birch (ed.) Archaeozoology of the Near
Kinneret (Monographiae Biologicae 32): 407–30. East, volume 12: 13–25. Groningen: Barkhuis.
The Hague: Dr W. Junk. Chesson, M. 2015. Reconceptualizing the Early
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9954-1_17 Bronze Age Southern Levant without cities: local
Berger, A. 2013. Plant economy and ecology in histories and walled communities of EB II–III
Early Bronze Age Tel Bet Yerah. Unpublished society. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology
MA dissertation, Tel Aviv University. 28: 51–79.
– 2018. ‘Feeding cities’? Preliminary notes on the https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v28i1.27501
provisioning of animal products at Tel Bet Yerah, Dzhavakhishvili, A.I. & I.I. Glonti. 1962.
Israel, in C. Çakırlar, J. Chahoud, R. Berthon & Urbnisi I: arkheologicheskiie raskopi provedennye v
897
Omri Lernau et al.
1952–1961 gg na selishche Kvatskhelebi Grosman, L., N.D. Munro, I. Abadi,

(Tvlenia-Kokhi). Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in E. Boaretto, D. Shaham, A. Belfer-Cohen &
Georgian and Russian). O. Bar-Yosef. 2016. Nahal Ein Gev II, a Late
Gaastra, J.S., T.L. Greenfield & Natufian community at the Sea of Galilee. PLoS
H.J. Greenfield. 2020. There and back again: a ONE 11(1): e0146647.
zooarchaeological perspective on Early and https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146647
Middle Bronze Age urbanism in the Southern Herrscher, E. et al. In press. Dietary practices,
Levant. PLoS ONE 15: e0227255. cultural and social identity in the Early Bronze
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227255 Age Southern Caucasus: the case of the
Getzov, N. 2006. The Tel Bet Yerah excavations Kura-Araxes Culture. Paléorient.
1994–1995 (IAA Reports 28). Jerusalem: Israel Ilan, O. & M. Sebbane. 1989. Copper metallurgy,
Antiquities Authority. trade and the urbanisation of southern Canaan in
Greenberg, R. 2019. The archaeology of the Bronze the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, in P. de
Age Levant: from urban origins to the demise of Miroschedji (ed.) L’urbanisation de la Palestine à
city-states, 3700–1000 BCE. Cambridge & l’âge du Bronze Ancien (British Archaeological
New York: Cambridge University Press. Reports International Series 527): 139–62.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316275993 Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Greenberg, R. & M. Iserlis. 2014. The Early Jawad, L.A. 2006. Fishing gear and methods of the
Bronze Age pottery industries, in R. Greenberg lower Mesopotamian plain with reference to
(ed.) Bet Yerah—the Early Bronze Age mound II: fishing management. Marina Mesopotamica
urban structure and material culture, 1933–1986 Online 1: 1–39.
excavations (IAA Reports 54): 53–149. Jerusalem: Lernau, O. 2002. Fish bones, in A. Kempinski,
Israel Antiquities Authority. N. Scheftelowitz & R. Oren (ed.) Tel Kabri: the
Greenberg, R. & S. Paz. 2014. Early Bronze Age 1986–1993 excavation seasons: 409–27. Tel Aviv:
architecture, function and planning, in Emery and Claire Yass Publications in
R. Greenberg (ed.) Bet Yerah—the Early Bronze Archaeology.
Age mound II: urban structure and material culture, – 2003. Fish, in A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonfil &
1933–1986 excavations (IAA Reports 54): 15–52. S. Zuckerman (ed.) Tel Qashish, a village in the
Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Jezreel Valley: final report of the archaeological
Greenberg, R., S. Paz, D. Wengrow & M. Iserlis. excavations (1978–1987) (Qedem Reports 5):
2012. Tel Bet Yerah: hub of the Early Bronze Age 435. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Levant. Near Eastern Archaeology 75: 88–107. – 2004. Fish remains from Early Bronze Age
https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.75.2.0088 Ashqelon, Afridar. ‘Atiqot 45: 299–303.
Greenberg, R., Y. Rotem & S. Paz. 2013. The earliest – 2006. Fish remains, in I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin
occupation at Tel Bet Yerah. Tel Aviv 40: 197–225. & B. Halpern (ed.) Megiddo IV: the 1998–2002
https://doi.org/10.1179/ seasons: 474–96. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
033443513X13753505864287 Publications in Archaeology.
Greenberg, R., R. Shimelmitz & M. Iserlis. Levy, J. 2020. The genesis of the textile industry from
2014. New evidence for the Anatolian origins of adorned nudity to ritual regalia: the changing role of
‘Khirbet Kerak Ware people’ at Tel Bet Yerah, fibre crafts and their evolving techniques of
Israel, c. 2800 BCE. Paléorient 40: 185–204. manufacture in the ancient Near East from the
https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2014.5642 Natufian to the Ghassulian. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Greenberg, R., H. Ashkenazi, A. Berger, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10qqz8b
M. Iserlis, Y. Paz, Y. Rotem, R. Shimelmitz, Nadel, D. & Y. Zaidner. 2002. Upper Pleistocene
M. Tan & S. Paz. 2017. The Circles Building and Mid-Holocene net sinkers from the Sea of
(granary) at Tel Bet Yerah (Khirbet el-Kerak): a Galilee, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
new synthesis (excavations of 1945–1946, 2003– Society—Mitekufat Haeven 32: 49–72.
2015). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental van Neer W., O. Lernau, R. Friedman,
Research 378: 163–202. G. Mumford, J. Poblome & M. Waelkens.
https://doi.org/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.378. 2004. Fish remains from archaeological sites as
0163 indicators of former trade connections in the
898
Eastern Mediterranean. Paléorient 30: 101–47. Early Bronze Age mound II: urban structure and
https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2004.4775 material culture, 1933–1986 excavations (IAA
van Neer W., I. Zohar & O. Lernau. 2005. The Reports 54): 189–234. Jerusalem: Israel
emergence of fishing communities in the Eastern Antiquities Authority.
Mediterranean region: a survey of evidence from Rosenberg, D., M. Agnon & D. Kaufman. 2016.
pre- and protohistoric periods. Paléorient 31: Conventions in fresh water fishing in the
131–57. prehistoric Southern Levant: the evidence from
https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2005.4793 the study of Neolithic Beisamoun notched
Paz, S. & R. Greenberg. 2016. Conceiving the city: pebbles. Journal of Lithic Studies 3: 457–78.
streets and incipient urbanism at EBA Bet Yerah. https://doi.org/doi:10.2218/jls.v3i3.1639
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 29: 197– Sagona, A. 1984. The trans-Caucasian region in the
223. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v29i2.32572 Early Bronze Age (British Archaeological Reports
Potts, D.T. (ed.). 2012. Fish and fishing, A International Series 214). Oxford: British
companion to the archaeology of the ancient Near Archaeological Reports.
East: 220–35. Oxford: Blackwell. – 2017. The archaeology of the Caucasus: from earliest
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444360790.ch12 settlements to the Iron Age. Cambridge &
Rabinovich, R. & D. Nadel. 2005. Broken New York: Cambridge University Press.
mammal bones: taphonomy and food sharing at Sisma-Ventura, G., T. Tütken, I. Zohar, A. Pack,
the Ohalo II submerged prehistoric camp. D. Sivan, O. Lernau, A. Gilboa & G. Bar-Oz.
Archaeozoology of the Near East 6: 34–50. 2018. Tooth oxygen isotopes reveal Late Bronze
Regev, J., S. Paz, R. Greenberg & E. Boaretto. Age origin of Mediterranean fish aquaculture and
2020. Radiocarbon chronology of the EB I–II trade. Scientific Reports 8: 14086.
and II–III transitions at Tel Bet Yerah and its https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32468-1
implications for the nature of the social change in Zohar, I., T. Dayan, M. Goren, D. Nadel &
the southern Levant. Levant 52: 54–75. I. Hershkovitz. 2018. Opportunism or aquatic
https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2020. specialization? Evidence of freshwater fish
1727238 exploitation at Ohalo II, a waterlogged Upper
Rosenberg, D. & R. Greenberg. 2014. The stone Paleolithic site. PLoS ONE 13: e0198747.
assemblage, in R. Greenberg (ed.) Bet Yerah—the https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198747
899

Fishing, Fish Consumption, Urbanism and Migrants at Tel Bet Yerah, 3200-2700 BC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fishing, Fish Consumption, Urbanism and Migrants at Tel Bet Yerah, 3200-2700 BC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fishing, Fish Consumption, Urbanism and Migrants at Tel Bet Yerah, 3200-2700 BC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antiquity 2021 Vol.

Fishing, ﬁsh consumption, urbanism and migrants at

The role and significance of fish and fishing in the

Received: 8 June 2020; Revised: 1 September 2020; Accepted: 9 September 2020

Tel Bet Yerah

The ﬁsh assemblage

Table 1. Taxonomic identifications of fish bones (NISP = number of identified specimens).

Figure 3. Size distribution of cichlids and cyprinids (ﬁgure by O. Lernau).

Temporal and cultural distribution of the ﬁsh bones

Table 2. Taxonomic identiﬁcations by cultural context (NISP = number of identiﬁed specimens).

Table 3. Frequency of ﬁsh bones in screened sediments; EB = Early Bronze.

Figure 5. Families of ﬁsh (%) by period and culture (ﬁgure by O. Lernau).

Table 4. Estimated sizes of ﬁsh by period; EB = Early Bronze.

Table 5. Distribution of net-sinkers by period; EB = Early Bronze.

1952–1961 gg na selishche Kvatskhelebi Grosman, L., N.D. Munro, I. Abadi,

You might also like