PALEORIE;>;T voi.8/I 1982

SHEEP BONES FROM THE NEGEV EPIPALAEOLITHIC

S. DAVIS, N. GORING-MORRIS and A. GOPHER

ABSTRACT. - Several unmistakable sheep bones are identified from Epipalaeolithic sites in the central Negev. Israel. They probably derive from wild sheep. This finding represents a southern extension of the prehistoric distribution o f sheep.

RESUME. - Des osseme111s provena111 de plusieurs sites epipateo/ithiques du Neguev central Usrae/) Will idellli{hls a••ec certitude comme appartena/11 a 1111 Mouton der i•·e probablemf!/11 du 111011/0n SQUI'age. Ceue deCOII I't'r/t' etend l'ers le sud et les regions ar ides Ia =one de distribution du M outon prehistorique.

INTRODUCTION

The sheep in common w ith the goat. cow and pig appears to have been domesticated very early by man in the Old World probably in the Near East. All such farmyard animals were bred from wild forebears. and it is of course important to determine the original distribu· tion of these when studying patterns of earl y domestica­tion.

M odern distributions o f wild species are not altoge­ther helpful in this respect. for since the advent of agriculture and the intensification of hunting in more recent times. the habitat and populations of many large mammals w ill naturally have been reduced. For exam· pie : in the Near East the wi ld bezoar goat (the ancestor of the present-day domestic goat) did once inhabit nor­thern Israel ( I) but within the ear East is now restr ict· ed to northern Syria. T urkey and I ran.

Today wi ld sheep are found in Turkey. northern I raq and I ran, and extend east into the Panjab, w hile a relict population exists in Oman (2). In former times their distribution must have been more widespread : Payne (in press) has found sheep bones at a Mousterian site in Syria (Douara cave. near Palmyra) and Clutton-Brock and Uerpmann ()) found 14 sheep bones in Aceramic

eolithic levels at Jericho.

Could this have represented the limits of prehistoric sheep distribution ? The absence of sheep bones from Palaeolithic-Epipalaeolithic sites in northern and centra l Israel led one of us (SO) to believe that w ild sheep never extended that far south in the Near East : and that any

• \\' e thank Joachim Bocssneck and Sebastian Payne for identi· fyi ng casts of the metacarpi fro m Ramat Harif. and Anthony ~1arks fo r sending SD the bone material from his excavations at Rosh ll oresha and Abu Salem. Abraham N iv took the photographs .

(I) BATE. 1937 and DAV IS 1974. (2) HARRISO'I 1968 a and b. (.1) CLLTfO'I·BROCK and UERPMA'I'I 1974.

87

presence in an archaeological assemblage would signify the introduction o f domestic sheep by man . T his belief now has to be questioned.

W e can now report findings o f unmistakable sheep bones from three Epipalaeolithic sites in the central Negev desert. A nd we are inclined therefore to think that wild sheep may have had a distribution which included the semi-arid steppe skirting the fertile western parts (the coastal strip) of the Levant.

ARCHAEOLOGY

Ramal Harif (G 8) and Abu Salem are two terminal Epipalaeolithic occupation sites located in the central

egev highlands in Israel. The sites were originally discovered and investiga ted by an expedit ion from Southern Methodist University (4). and were used as the basis for the definition o f the 9th millennium BC Hari­fian culture. w hich appears to have been restricted to the Negev and Sinai. It w as argued that these two sites were sizeable villages and that whi le A bu Salem con­tained substantial in situ deposits. the nearby site of Ramat Harif (G 8) was totally deflated. The abundant faunal sample recovered from Abu Salem was interpreted as consisting predominantly of gazelle and goat (5).

However. two seasons of intensive excavations at both sites in 1980 and 198 1. conducted under the direc­tion of two of us (N G -M and AG) as part of the emergency archaeological survey of the Negev. have revealed that extensive in situ deposits are present in both sites. and that both sites probably represent resi· dential base camps rather than villages (6).

(4) \lARKS and SCOTT 1976: SCOTT 1977. (5) BUTLER. TC HER NOV. II IETA I.A. and DA VIS 197 7. (61 GOR I 'G ·:\10RRIS and GOPH ER 198 1: GORING -\10R RIS.

GOI'II ER and GOL in preparation.

SII EEP BOI\:ES FR0\1 THE ;\!EGEV EPIPALAEOU TIIIC

T ABLE

The sheep di.vtul m l!tacarpus meu, url!ments in mil/emetre,,

'-0

·~ Site Number .:: .; 2

<..... ·~ -~ 0 >, .., .:: '! - 0. .,._

"' -o. 0 til <.>

Rosh Horesha B 1.6 F 28.2 " " B 1.6 F 25.5 " " B 1.6 F

Ramat Ha rif Q45 275 F 27.5 ... " Q45 245-250 ? .. " Q45 210-215 F .. " R45 200-2 10 F .. " Q45 260-265 F

Both sites yielded abundant faunal samples in addi­tion to architectural features. and rich lithic. ground stone tool and marine mollusc assemblages. The faunal sample from Ramat Harif derives from locus 3. a 3.5 m diameter p it dwelling buill into the loess. The dwell ing was preserved to a depth of 1.2 m. below the present surface of the site. and the edge of the pit was lined w ith limestone slabs. On the eastern side of the structure a raised workbench had been constructed by means o f a massive horizontal slab supported by several vertical slabs. The surface of the workbench was covered with numerous cupmarks. incisions and line cut-marks. Ad­jacent to the workbench. discarded bones had been piled on top of the wall of the structure. w hich was subse­quently partially collapsed. As a result. bone finds were scattered from the top of the structure's wall down to the noor.

The small faunal sample from Abu Salem described below was recovered from a 2 m2 test pit excavated in 1980 in squares P 13 and P 14. Extensive excavations in 198 1 revealed that the sample derives from a structure similar to the one in Ramal Harif just described. How­ever. the structure at Abu Salem (Locus 22) had been abandoned and subsequently used as a trash pit : it is to this later Harilian fill of the structure that the sample described below belongs.

The three specimens from the nearby I Oth / 9th mil­lennium B.C. atulian site o f Rosh Horesha in Table I deri ve from the Southern :vlethodist niversity excava­tions (7}.

(7) .\ lARKS and LARSOI'. 1977.

~

<> <:; E "' :0 " "' " "' >- ~ >- ~ ,!!,_ §' "" u "0 '£ ·c::; c g c

~ -::::; ·- 0 0 o.t: () <.>

" " '- '- '- '-"0 > 0 0 0 0

-" 5 5 ~.c

"" "" "" "0 .,-o'o ~ ~ ~ ~

17.8 11.7 10.8 13.0 11.4 15.7 10.5 10.7 9,7 10.2

12.6 11.0

17.0 12.3 12. 1 12.0 11.3 II. 7 12.8 13.1 11.7 11.8 11.8 13.7 12.3

THE SHEEP 80:\ES

One of the chief technical problems w hich con front palaeontologists studying archaeological material is that o f distinguishing between sheep and goat bones. In this respect the criteria recommended by Boessneck (8) are often useful. and reference is made below to these.

ASTRAGALI (Abu Salem ; Plate I ). Both are probably sheep because : a) in medial aspect the projecting lobe is rather high : and b) the mid-dorsal / medial ridge is weakly developed (being usually much more prominent in goat).

CALCAt\'El/.\1 (Abu Salem : Plate I). 1ote : a) that the condyle in the centre o f the articular facet for the os malleolare is rather well developed : and b) that the depth of the body increases somewhat in the dorsopla­nar direction. These are typical sheep characteristics.

MET APODIA (Ramal Harif: Plate 2) (see also table I). Of all the post-cranial bones. the metacarpus is the one which provides the best distinct ion between sheep and goat. and the two examples from Ramal Harif shown here belong very obviously to sheep. a) The peripheral parts o f the trochlear condyles in distal view are relati­vely wide (this forms the basis of the metric separation o f Payne (9): see below). b) So too the trochlear condyles are not 'notched-in· at the region w here they j o in the verticillus. as they usually are in the goat. c) At

(8) BOESS~ECK 1969. (9) PA Y:\E 1969

PI.ATE I

Astragalu; from Abu Salem CPJ J 130· 135) in lateral. plantar. dorsal and medial view, . Astragalus from Abu Salem (P I 3 130- 1 35) in lateral. plantar. dorsal and medial view, .

Calcaneum from Abu Salem CP 13 135·140) in dorsal and lateral view,_ (S~ale in millimetrcs!

88

SIIEEP BO~ES FR0\1 THE NEGE\ EPIP.-\L.-\EOLITHIC

89

c

b

PLATE 2

a . Metatarsus fro m Ramal Harif(Q44c 220-225): b . :Vfctacarpus fro m Ramal Harif (Q45 275) : c. \ •fetacarpus half from Ram at Harif (Q45 260-265).

(Scale in m !l limetres)

SHEEP BO:'\ES FR0\1 THE :'\EGEV EPIPALAEOLJTHIC

a b c d PLATE J

Fi rst phalanx fro m Ramal lfarif (Q46 245 -250 ) in lateral a nd posterior views . Third phalanges : a a nd c. Abu Salem (I>IJ 130-1 35): band d . Ra mal lfarif (Q44 230-235 ): !Scale in milli mctrcs)

the epi-diaphyseal j unction. the lateral pointed projec­tions in the two fused specimens are relatively pronoun­ced. T he sheep-l ike slender shaft is apparent in the complete fused specimen.

Casts of the two adull metacarpi fragments were examined independently by S. Payne and J. Boessneck. who both identified them as sheep.

PHALA.\'GES PRI.\1AE (Ramat Harif: Plate 3). First phalan­ges are not easy to discriminate. This is panly due to intra-skeletal variation (for example between medial and lateral specimens. and between fore and hindlimbs). However. the specimen shown here does appear to be very sheep-like. a) The vertic il lar groove on the proxi-

9 1

mal face viewed poster iorly is rather shallow: and b) in lateral v iew. curvature of the prox imal face is slight. Both these character istics reOect the "deeper' distal meta­podia! condyles in sheep.

PIIALA.\'GI:"S Tt.RTIAE (Abu Salem and Ramal Harif: Plate 3). Third phalanges are generally easy to distinguish (I 0). Goat third phalanges. tend to be ·wafer' thin. Sheep third phalanges are wider (ie: more gazelle-l ike). Note then the sheep-like tri-angular distal su r face shown by the speci men in plate 3.

(I 0) ,\ n exception may be the Cypru!. mo unon. which ha.'> very go at-like third phalanges.

SHEEP BO~ES FR0\1 TilE '\EGE\' EPIP:\1..\EOUTHIC

\-let rica l sepa ration of the metacarpi

Application o f Payne's (II) method provides a clear discrimination between sheep and goat metacarpi . This method has the added advantage of being applicable to damaged as well as juven ile specimens. Consider. for example. figure I - a scatter plo t of recent sheep and goat metacarpi from Kermanshah Oran) and Israel. '-.'o te the separation of sheep from goal. as well as the large degree of sexual size-dimo rph ism in the goat.

13

9

11

e<:< ............. . :s;-e ... ······· \

0 ....... :::·::::::........... .J

.. ·:: \::

/( ./::: f . ,rJ ·· ........ ·.::.:.:.·· /,/GD~\~·~

. ·· OJ a : .., . ..:' n / ······ .. ·:·.·.::·.·:>::·oft i ...... .. ··· ; ····.nt -if'

/~ ';A,\ :-/ ~ ~ : ~~+ · .. · : ··.. +r. ...... ·····~C:J 3 0 ! .......... ~0 4 .

13 W. Cond

5 v 6+

15

FIG. I. - :"ear Eastern recent caprine metacarpi plo" to ' how the separa tion of sheep from ~:oat . a nd their rc,pecti\·c wx ual dimor·

phism (method of .,,,,f 1969). I . Ibex from the Negev and Dead Sea regions: 2. fle7oar goat' from i\ sia \-1inor lB!\1N II 1876.8.7.1 & 2): 3. ~ ! amber goat' fro m Israel -I 8 month' old : 4. Old male goat from h rael : 5. 1\ ilkc.:i goat~. 1\ara·

man Turkey : 6. Female domc,ti<: goat>. from l'racl.

The dotted line ellipse' cndo~ plot' of modern domc,ti<: 'hcep <abm el and goat' (below) from the 1\crmanshah region in we,tern Iran. ~l aic' and females for each arc shown as 'cparmc areas of di,pcr, ion : note

the greater degree of ~xual 'cpa ration in the goat' I I 7 ).

I n figure 2 the metacarpi plo ts fro m Ramal llari f and Rosh Ho resha fall quite clearly with in the area o f sheep dispersion. wh ile caprine material from the PP:"J -B si te~

W adi T'beik (southern Sinai) and l'ahal b saron (sou­thern egev) are clearl y goat. Note also that measure­ments taken on the gazelle metacarpi such as those fro m Ramal Harif fall into a quite separate region. so there ca n be no possibi lity o f confu~i ng ~heep and gazelle.

(I I) PA \':-! !·. I 969.

92

13 •

• • 0- • • .c. 0

u 11 0 ~0 • •• 0 '""' 0 0

9 ~ 0 L.. + + • + f- 0 •• • ~ • •

• • + 7 0

~.: ... 8 • 9 • •• . .. + +

9 0 •• + • 10 • +

11 +

9 11 13 15 W. Cond

FJ( ;. 2. - \ 1ctaca rpi pints (as in fi~. 1) for caprinc~ and gazelles from the :\cgc• a nd ~outhcrn Sinai:

7 Gatclk" from Ramat llarif kcntral :"cgevJ: 8. Sheep from Ramat ll arif kcntral '\cgcvl . 9 Sheep from Ro~h llorc,ha lccntra1 :\cgcv): I 0 Goal\ from \\"adi Tbcik (,outhcrn Sina i): I I . Goat>. from :-.I a hal

h-.;oron bouthern :-.lcgcv. Arava val ley) .

IT RTH ER RE:\I A RI\S

Epipalaeoli thic man i n the :\ear East is not known to have possessed any domestic an imals apart from the dog (1 2). li e was. in economic terms. a hunter and gatherer. E vidence from prehistoric f~tunal a:-.~t.: r nb lage~ 10 the north Uericho and northern Israel) indicates that the earliest dome~ticated farmya rd animal w as the goat. Its domest ication may have occurred in the PPN-B (I J).

Thus the north braeli archaeofau nal succession start ing in PP:\-B time~ contains pr imarily capri nes rather than cervid~ and gazelle - the laner two characteristic of L"pper and Epipalaeolithic a~semblage~ .

I n the '\egev however. the paucity of archaeo-faunal a~~emblages is more acu te. and it is proportionally more difficult to a~cena in the w ild/ domest ic status o f the fossil species. L ntil ev idence to the contrary is forth­comi ng. our assumption here is that the animals were wild. both at the :\awfian ~ite o f Rosh lloresha and at the l larifian ~i te:-- (contemporary w ith the PP;-..1-A culture to the north) of Ramal Hari f and :\bu Salem. The presence of 01•is bones a! these sites ca n be taken to indicate the presence of wi ld sheep in the cem ral :'\!egev. I 2-9.000 year~ ago.

According to Schmidt-:'\ ielsen (14) "among sheep. we probabl y find some of the most drought- and heat­re~i~tanl of any medium-to-large size an imal. outdone only by the camel and some wild antelopes and gazel­le!> .. . Sheep were ab~e111 from the fertil e coastal strip of the l .evant in the Lpper to Epipalaeol ithic. and were

lin ))\\"IS and \ ' :\I.I.A 197X ( J 1) CI.L "110'\· BROC I\ 197X and IM\ IS J97X and 1),\\"IS in

prcpar\ttion. IJ~l SCII\IIDl ·'\II.LSE'\ 1964 94

present in Syria ( 15). and Jericho ( 16). as well as in the central Negev : th is suggests that in prehistoric times w ild sheep were widespread in the semi-arid periphery of the Levant. though perhaps not in the really arid regions.

What we a re being offered here perhaps is some prelimina ry clue as to the original arena of the domesti ­cation of the sheep.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BATE D.M.A.

Simon J.M. DAVIS. Department of Zoology.

Univer~ity Collexe. Gower Street,

London WC IE 6BT. England. and

Nigel GORING-MORRIS. and Abraham GOPHER,

Laboratory of Prehi~tory, In stitute of Archaeology.

The Hebrew Uni••er~ity of Jeru~lem. Jeru.salem 'II- 'IIU.

J.srael.

1937 Palaeontology: the fossil fauna of the Wady ei-Mug· hara Caves. h 1 GA RROD . D.A. and BATE . D.M.A. (eds) The Swne Age of Mount Carmel 2: I 37-240. Oxford : Clarendon Press.

BOESSNECK J . 1969 Osteological differences between Sheep (Ovi.s arie., LJ

and Goat (Capra hircus LJ In BROTHW ELL. D. and HIGGS. E. (cds) Science in Archaeology . revised ed . · 331 -358 Lo ndo n : Thames and Hudson.

BUTLER B .. TC HERNOV E. HI ETALA H. and DAV IS S. I 97 7 Faunal exploitation during the Late Epipalacolithic in

the l-I ar Harif. In MARKS. A . (ed ). Prehi.srury and Palaeuenvirunmellls in the C elllral Negev. Israel. vol. 2 : 327-346 . Dallas : Southern Methodist Universi ty Press.

(15) PAYNE in press. (16) C LUTTON-BROCK and UERPMA N ' 1974. ( I 7) A mmotragus - the Barbary sheep of North Africa - plots

fall within the Capra scatter. Osteologicall y the barbary sheep is very goat-like.

93

SHEEP BO:-.IES FR0\1 THE NEGEV EPIPALAEOLITHIC

C LuTTO]'.;-BROCK J . 1978 Early domestication and the ungulate fauna of the Le·

vant during the Prepouery Neolithic Period. h1 BRICE . \\'.C. (cdJ. Till! Envirunmenral History u( the Near and Middle East since the Last Ice Age .. 29-40 London : Academic Press.

CLUTTON BROCK J . and UE RP\-1Ai':N 1-f·P. 1974 The Sheep of early Jericho. Juumal u( Archaeological

Science.- 26 1-274.

DA V IS SJ .\1. 1974

1978

Animal remains fro m the Kebaran Site o f Ein Gev I . Jo rdan Valley . Israel. Paleorielll 2 : 45 3-462 . Etude de Ia faune. In LECHEVA LLIER. \1. Abou Gosh et Beisamoun. Memoires er Travaux du Cenrre de Recherches pnlhistoriques (ranr;ais de Jeru.wlem. 2 : 195-197 . Paris : Association Paleorient.

Di\ VIS SJ .\1 . and VALLA F.R . 1978 Evidence for domestication of the dog 12.000 years ago

in the :--latufian of Israel. Nature 276: 608-610 .

GORI:'-IG ·MORRIS A.N. and GOP HER A . 198 1 Har Harif 1980. Israel Ex{Jiuration Joumal 3 1 133-

134.

HA RRISSON DL 1968a The Mammals u( Arabia. Volume 2. London: E. Benn. 1968b On three mam mals new to the fauna of Oman. Arabia.

with the description of a new subspecies of bat. Mum· malia 32: 317 -325.

\1ARKS A .E. and LARSO PA 1977 Test Excavations at the Natu fia n Site of Rosh Horesha.

In \<!ARKS. A .E. (cd.). Prehi.~tory and Palaeuenvirrm· ment in rile Central Negev. Israel. vol. 2 : 191 -23 2. Dal­las: Southern \1ethodist University Press.

\ ,!ARKS A E. and SCOTT T.R . 1976 Abu Salem : Type site of the 1-l arifian Industry of the

Southern Levant. Journal ol Field Ardweolog•' 3 : 43-60.

PAYNES 1969 A metrical distinction bet ween sheep and goat mctacar·

pals. In UCKO. P.J . and D!\IBLEBY. G.W. (eds). The domestication and exploiration u( plants and animals .-295 -305. London : Duckworth .

SCH\ 11DT·N IELSEN K. 1964 Desert Anima/.,. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

SCOTT T.R. 1977 The 1-larifian of the Central Negev. In M ARKS. A .E.

(ed.). Prehisrory and Palaeoem,irownenls in the Cenrral Nege••. Israel. Vol. 2 : 27 1-322 . Dalla~: Southern Me­thodist University Press.