Kovács, Z.E., Berthon, R., Van Neer, W., Cucchi, T. (2013) What is inside this pit? In: De Cupere, B., Linseele, V., Hamilton-Dyer, S. (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East X. Ancient

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

ARCHAEOZOOLOGY OF THE NEAR EAST X

Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the

Archaeozoology of South-Western Asia and Adjacent Areas

Edited by

Bea DE CUPERE, Veerle LINSEELE and Sheila HAMILTON-DYER

PEETERSLEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA.

2013

SUPPLEMENT 44

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixBea DE CUPERE, Veerle LINSEELE, Sheila HAMILTON-DYER

Faunal remains from Wadi Abu Tulayha: a PPNB outpost in the steppe-desert of southern Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Hitomi HONGO, Lubna OMAR, Hiroo NASU, Petra KRÖNNECK and Sumio FUJII

Evaluating differences in animal consumption patterns from PPNB houses at Tell Halula (Euphrates Valley, Syria) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Carlos TORNERO, Miquel MOLIST and Maria SAÑA

Changing animal use at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Nerissa RUSSELL, Katheryn C. TWISS, David C. ORTON and G. Arzu DEMIRERGI

Herding and settlement identity in the central Anatolian Neolithic: herding deci-sions and organisation in Çatalhöyük, elucidated through oxygen isotopes and microwear in sheep teeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Elizabeth HENTON

Chalcolithic pig remains from Çamlıbel Tarlası, Central Anatolia . . . . . . . . . 101László BARTOSIEWICZ, Roz GILLIS, Linus GIRDLAND FLINK, Allowen EVIN, Thomas CUCCHI, Rus HOELZEL, Una VIDARSDOTTIR, Keith DOBNEY, Greger LARSON and Ulf-Dietrich SCHOOP

Bronze and Iron Age subsistence changes in the Upper Tigris: zooarchaeology of Operation E at Ziyaret Tepe, south-eastern Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Tina L. GREENFIELD-JONGSMA and Haskel J. GREENFIELD

New data on the exploitation of animal resources in the Upper Tigris River area (Turkey) during the second and first millennia BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Rémi BERTHON

What is inside this pit? Micro- and macrofaunal investigations at Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Ovçular Tepesi (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan) . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Zsófia E. KOVÁCS, Rémi BERTHON, Wim VAN NEER and Thomas CUCCHI

Royal tombs with horse sacrifices in Nerkin Naver, Armenia (Middle Bronze Age) 173Hakob SIMONYAN and Ninna MANASERYAN

viii CONTENTS

The mysteries of Egyptian Nile perch (Lates niloticus). The case of Tell Tweini (Syria, Middle Bronze Age–Iron Age) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Veerle LINSEELE, Wim VAN NEER and Joachim BRETSCHNEIDER

Zooarchaeology and social identity in Bronze Age and Iron Age Israel: a research framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Nimrod MAROM and Guy BAR-OZ

Persian period dog burials in the Levant: new evidence from Tell el-Burak (Lebanon) and a reconsideration of the phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Canan ÇAKIRLAR, Verena AMER, Jens KAMLAH and Hélène SADER

Environmental influence on animal exploitation and meat consumption during the Early Islamic period in Syria. A case study from Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi and al-Hadir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Jacqueline STUDER, Denis GENEQUAND and Marie-Odile ROUSSET

A leopard in the Predynastic Elite Cemetery HK6 at Hierakonpolis, Egypt . . . . 283Wim VAN NEER, Bea DE CUPERE and Renée FRIEDMAN

A tale of two sites: Old Kingdom subsistence economy and the infrastructure of pyramid construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Richard W. REDDING

Animal bone assemblages from a Bronze Age palace at Tell el-Dab’a, Egypt . . . . 323Günther Karl KUNST

Tomb of the Dogs in Gebel Asyut al-gharbi (Middle Egypt, Late to Ptolemaic/Roman period): preliminary results on the canid remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Chiori KITAGAWA

Pampered puss? Cats from the Roman port of Myos Hormos at Quseir, Egypt . . . 357Sheila HAMILTON-DYER

The goats (Capra hircus L.) from Kerma (Sudan) (2050–1750 BC) – A contribu-tion to the knowledge of African goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

Louis CHAIX

New evidence for dog butchering from prehistoric coastal sites in the Sultanate of Oman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

Elena MAINI and Antonio CURCI

List of all contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

* We would like to thank Dr. Catherine Marro (CNRS–UMR 5133), Prof. Veli Bakhshaliyev (AMEA–Nakhchivan), Dr. Safar Ashurov (AMEA–Baku) and Prof. Ismail Haciyev (AMEA–Nakhchivan) for giving us the possibility to work on this material. This project is supported by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), the Eco-Net Programme, the ATM (ex PPF) Programme “Formes possibles, Formes réalisées” of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN) Paris, the UMR 7902 CNRS/MNHN in Paris, the French Institute for Anatolian Studies (IFEA) in Istanbul and the Azerbaijani National Academy of Sciences (AMEA) in Nakhchivan. The contribution of Wim Van Neer to this paper presents research results of the Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme – Belgian Science Policy.

1 Marro et al. 2009, pp. 31–87; see also 2011, pp. 53–100.

WHAT IS INSIDE THE PITS? MICRO- AND MACROFAUNAL INVESTIGATIONS

AT CHALCOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE OVÇULAR TEPESI (NAKHCHIVAN, AZERBAIJAN)

Zsófia E. KOVÁCS, Rémi BERTHON, Wim VAN NEER and Thomas CUCCHI

ABSTRACT

The site of Ovçular Tepesi is located in the southern Caucasus (Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic). Two main archaeological phases were recognised at the settlement, namely Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. More than 1160 litres of soil samples from pits and circu-lar stone structures belonging to the different occupation layers were processed by flotation and analysed. This paper focuses on the zoological finds from these samples, in particular the remains of fish, large mammals and micromammals, in order to determine the function of the pits and structures. Moreover, the material gives an insight into the animal economy, hunting and fishing practices of the inhabitants, as well as the local environment. Thus far, it could not be established whether the differences detected in the species composition between the phases are related to chronology alone or if other factors, such as sample sizes and type of deposits, also played a role. Fish bones were very frequent at the site with cyprinids domi-nating. Among the large mammals, domestic animals were the most frequent while hunted species were rare. Sheep and goat herding seems to have been the principal subsistence strategy at this site. The small mammal community is composed of synanthropic taxa and, as a conse-quence, the species diversity was very low (six taxa). House mouse was the most abundant in each feature on the site.*

KEYWORDS

Caucasus, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, archaeozoology, flotation, animal economy, fishing, commensalism

INTRODUCTION

The site of Ovçular Tepesi is located in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in the southern Caucasus, on a natural hill in the valley of the Arpaçay River (Fig. 1). This is a strategic point at the foot of the highlands and at the crossroads of major routes linking the Iranian plateau to Anatolia and the Caucasus to North Mesopotamia.1

164 Z. E. KOVÁCS – R. BERTHON – W. VAN NEER – T. CUCCHI

2 Marro et al. 2009, 2011. 3 Marro et al. 2009, p. 48, fig. 8. 4 Marro et al. 2011, p. 62, fig. 6.

The site was excavated by three different Azerbaijani teams between 1980 and 2001. Excavations were resumed in 2006 and are still ongoing by an Azerbaijani-French team under the direction of Veli Bakhshaliyev (AMEA-Nakhchivan) and Catherine Marro (CNRS–UMR 5133).

The archaeological deposits belong to the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. The earliest phase dates to the second half of the fifth millennium BC. It is characterised by small squarish domestic houses, partly dug into the virgin soil (=Phase I, Chalcolithic). The second phase comprises multicellular mudbrick houses (=Phase II, Chalcolithic). The occu-pation layers of Phase II are usually thin (between 5 and 10 cm), indicating short and sea-sonal occupations. Only one house belonging to the Early Bronze Age, a circular building, has been found so far.2

This article focuses on the faunal material recovered from pits and from circular stone structures outside the houses. Pits, all dated to the Chalcolithic, are approximately 60 cm in diameter and more than one and a half metres deep. One circular structure made of stone belongs to the Chalcolithic phase while the others are dated to the Early Bronze Age. They have almost the same dimensions as the pits. The difference is that their walls are made of stones. The faunal remains were collected and studied in order to define the function of these pits and structures. This analysis will also provide a first insight into the subsistence strategy of the inhabitants of the settlement during the different occupation periods, as well as into the former environment around the site.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

More than 1160 litres of soil were floated and analysed from three Chalcolithic pits (loci 2070, 1171 and 8051) (c.4350–4250 cal BC)3 belonging to Phase I and one circular stone structure belonging to Phase II (locus 13045) (c.4250–3950 cal BC). Two half-buried cir-cular stone structures dating to the Early Bronze Age (loci 13117–13119, 12089) were also excavated and sampled (c.3100–2750 cal BC) (Fig. 2).4 We first performed flotation to recover the charred materials, keeping the heavy fraction on a 1 mm mesh. The heavy frac-tion was then water sieved on 8, 2 and 1 mm screens. After sorting the heavy fraction, bone assemblages were analysed in the laboratories of the Natural History Museums in Paris, Budapest and Brussels.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the volume of soil samples we processed from the different features. All of them contained fish as well as mammalian remains. We also found remains of molluscs, reptiles, amphibians and eggshells, as well as different kinds of artefacts (such as beads in different stages of working, bone tools and flakes from obsidian reshaping).

WHAT IS INSIDE THE PITS? 165

Fig. 2. Location of pits and structures within the site.

Fig. 1. Location of Ovçular Tepesi.


Chalcolithic pitsChalcolithic

structureEBA structures

Locus 2070 1171 8051 13045 12089 13117-13119

Sediment volume 70 285 445 90 167 109

Macromammals + + + + very few very few

Micromammals + + + + + +

Fish + + + very few + +

Table 1. Overview of the investigated features, the volumes in litres of analysed sediment, and the animal groups present.

Macromammals

The Early Bronze Age structures contained only a handful of macromammalian remains and are not considered here. We assume that the lack of remains from large to small-sized mammals in these structures means that they were not used to dispose of waste at any time. In contrast, the pits and structure dating to the Chalcolithic period contained a large amount of mammalian remains. It is likely that these deposits are consumption and butch-ery refuse, at least in the last phase of use of these Chalcolithic pits and structure. The Chalcolithic pits from Phase I (2070, 1171 and 8051) present a rather clear pattern in terms of macromammal remains (Table 2). If the refuse is representative of the animal-based economy at that time, then sheep and goat herding seems to have been the principal subsist-ence strategy. Sheep (Ovis aries) and goat (Capra hircus) represent more than 90 per cent of the mammalian remains in these contexts. Cattle (Bos taurus) remains are rare and not more numerous than those of dogs (Canis familiaris). Wild mammals are at about five per cent and represented by beaver (Castor fiber), red deer (Cervus elaphus), fox (Vulpes vulpes) and wild boar (Sus scrofa). They did not significantly contribute to the diet but might represent opportunistic catch and provided valuable materials (e.g. fur and antler).

Chalcolithic pits Chalcolithic structure

2070 1171 8051 13045

Castor fiber (beaver) – – 3 1

Canis familiaris (dog) 1 1 4 –

Vulpes vulpes (fox) 1 3 1 2

Sus scrofa (wild boar) 2 1 – –

Cervus elaphus (red deer) 2 – 4 1

Bos taurus (cattle) 3 1 3 10

Gazella sp. (gazelle) – – – 2

Caprinae (sheep/goat) 97 70 163 87

including Capra hircus (goat) 4 1 8 10

including Ovis aries (sheep) 14 6 27 5

Total 106 76 178 103

Table 2. Macromammals found in the Chalcolithic features (NISP).


5 Kovács et al. in prep.

The assemblage recovered from the circular stone structure 13045, which belongs to Phase II, is slightly different. Even if sheep and goat are still the most numerous species, the importance of cattle increases to represent ten per cent of the remains and is therefore more important than wild mammals (Fig. 3). Gazelle remains were also identified for the first time at Ovçular Tepesi in locus 13045. Dog remains are absent in the assemblage. How-ever, dogs must have been present in the settlement as attested by the amount of bones (around five per cent) gnawed or digested by carnivores. These modified remains indicate that the assemblage recovered in the circular stone structure probably corresponds to waste of various activities or cleaning operations. Whatever was the primary function of this struc-ture, it was used finally for waste disposal.

Fig. 3. Relative representation of cattle, sheep/goat, and other mammalian remains in the Chalcolithic assemblages.

Micromammals

Almost 2500 small mammalian bone fragments are present in the samples, of which about 600 are identifiable. Despite the large number of remains, species diversity appears to be low with only six taxa being identified. The dominant taxa are rodents belonging to the Muridae and Cricetidae families (Table 3). The most frequent micromammal is the house mouse, identified through geometric morphometrics of the molar shape as the Mus muscu-lus domesticus subspecies.5 Some remains of jird and grey hamster were also identified and


6 Evstafiev 2006, pp. 111–119; see also Savarin 2006, pp. 133–135. 7 George Willcox pers. comm. 8 Marro et al. 2009, pp. 31–87.

two fragments of voles were also found. The samples contain a few insectivores as well, namely two white-toothed shrew taxa. All of the micromammals identified here are consid-ered as synanthropic animals.6

Chalcolithic pitsChalcolithic

structureEBA structures

2070 1171 8051 13045 12089 13117-13119

Suncus etruscus (pygmy white-toothed shrew)

– 5 – – – –

Crocidura sp. – 9 – – – –

Soricidae indet. (shrew) – – 1 1 – –

Cricetulus migratorius (grey hamster) – 8 1 – 1 –

Microtus sp. – – – – 1 –

Arvicolinae indet. (vole) – – 1 – – –

Meriones sp. (jird) – 2 38 2 1 3

Mus musculus domesticus (house mouse) 77 245 171 24 4 9

Total 77 269 215 27 7 12

Micromammalia indet. (hamster size) 17 3 88 13 – 4

Micromammalia indet. (mouse size) 7 264 1190 168 23 83

Total Micromammalia indet. 24 267 1278 181 23 87

Table 3. Micromammals found in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age features (NISP).

As Table 3 shows, the samples of the pits contained more micromammals than the samples of the other structures. The minimum number of individuals in the samples illus-trates these differences even more clearly. Differences appear, not only in the MNI, but also in the species composition (Fig. 4). Discrepancies between the phases could be due to chronology but other factors such as sample sizes and type of deposits may have also played a role. The pits were full of mice while the structures contained only a few individuals. It seems that the micromammal remains in the pits mostly correspond to pit-fall accumula-tion. Rodents and insectivores that fell into the open pits, or animals that tried to find nest/feeding places may have died inside. This hypothesis is confirmed by some burnt rodent droppings discovered among the botanical remains.7 In the case of the structures this “natu-ral trap” function is not so clear. In each feature the presence of plants, bones, eggshells and artefacts shows that the deposits originated from different activities: they contained domes-tic refuse, remains of cleaning harvested plants, bone-tools and remnants of lithic industry. Some bones of small and large mammals (c.200 fragments for all features together) were burnt, which can perhaps be explained as the deliberate burning of garbage.8


Fish

Despite the large number of fish remains (more than 2500 identified bones) the species diversity is very limited. Very few fish bones were retrieved from the Chalcolithic stone structure and are therefore not discussed. The fish fauna consists almost exclusively of cyprinids (carp family). There are only six bones from other fish (Table 4). The catfish (Silurus glanis) is represented by three bones of fish measuring about one metre in length and there is also a vertebra of a smaller individual of 30–40 cm standard length (SL). Two vertebrae belong to a salmonid and these were attributed to Stenodus leucichthys, the only salmonid that lives in this region. Although this species commonly reaches sizes of 60 cm SL, the remains found here are of fish measuring between 10–20 cm SL. Among the iden-tified cyprinid remains two bones belonged to the barbel (Barbus sp.) but all the others (180 in total) are from Sevan khramulya (Capoeta capoeta). It can be concluded that fishing mainly concentrated on this Capoeta species, which is also the one that villagers catch today. The cyprinids were also rather small. The smallest specimens are between 5–10 cm SL, the largest between 30–35 cm SL. However, most of the fish were in the lower range (20 cm or smaller). This is small, taking into account that Capoeta capoeta reaches lengths of up to 40 cm SL and barbels can grow up to a metre. A fish hook has been found in a Late Chalcolithic level showing that angling was practised. However, given the small aver-age size of the fish, it is likely that other fishing implements were more often used, such as small sized nets or other gear with small meshes (e.g. baskets). Inshore areas of the river near the site would seem the most likely place for easy access to juvenile and medium-sized fish.

Fig. 4. MNI (minimum number of individuals) of micromammals in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age features.


9 Berthon et al. in prep. 10 Tchernov 1991, pp. 153–160. 11 Kovács et al. in prep. 12 Cucchi et al. 2005, pp. 429–445; see also Cucchi et al. 2011.

Chalcolithic pits EBA structures

2070 1171 8051 12089 13117-13119

Silurus glanis (catfish) 1 2 1 – –

Stenodus leucichthys (sheefish) – 1 1 – –

Barbus sp. (barbel) – 1 1 – –

Capoeta capoeta (Sevan khramulya) 14 38 121 – 7

Cyprinidae indet. 319 693 1334 52 93

Total 334 735 1458 52 100

Table 4. Fish remains found in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age features (NISP).

CONCLUSIONS

In the Chalcolithic features, the deposits originated from different activities and whatever was their primary function they were finally used to dispose of waste.9 Pits were probably left open at the settlement and acted as a natural trap for synanthropic rodents. In the case of the Early Bronze Age stone structures, the main accumulation process is not clear.

At the site of Ovçular Tepesi the animal economy was mostly focused on sheep and goats during the first phase of the settlement (Late Chalcolithic Phase I). The amount of cattle remains then tripled without, however, much changing the importance of sheep and goats in the subsistence system. Whether this change came together with an increase of sedentary installations will have to be discussed in the near future with interdisciplinary studies. Hunt-ing played a minor role in both phases. However, the diet was complemented by fish, which were regularly caught close to the site, probably from the banks of the Arpaçay River.

Among the micromammals six taxa of commensal species were identified. Since it was an anthropogenic habitat, the small mammal community displays low species diversity.10 House mouse was the most frequent rodent at the site. Ongoing investigations on the origin of this mouse population11 will provide important insights into the expansion routes of the house mouse towards Transcaucasia and new bio-indicators of the Neolithic emergence in this area.12 The micromammals sample from Ovçular Tepesi is of prime importance in this respect. No other archaeological excavation in the area provided such an important population of insectivores and rodents, especially mice. The good preservation of micromammals in the features at Ovçular Tepesi probably played a role. However, the recovery of the microremains is mainly due to the time and efforts we spent on large-scale flotation and sieving procedures.

According to the species composition, the surrounding environment of this site should be mostly dry and open habitat. In addition there were moist, wet, habitats with trees or shrubs near the settlement, as indicated by the presence of beaver.


REFERENCES

BERTHON, R., DECAIX, A., KOVÁCS, ZS. E., VAN NEER, W., TENGBERG, M., WILLCOX, G. and CUCCHI, T.

in prep. “A bioarchaeological investigation of refuse disposals in Chalcolithic pits at Ovçular Tepesi (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan).”

CUCCHI, T., VIGNE, J.-D. and AUFFRAY, J.-C. 2005 “First occurrence of the house mice (Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz,

1943) in the western Mediterranean: a zooarchaeological revision of subfossil occur-rences,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 84: 429–445.

CUCCHI, T., BALA≤ESCU, A., BEM, C., RADU, V., VIGNE, J.-D. and TRESSET, A.2011 “New insights into the invasive process of the eastern house mouse (Mus musculus

musculus): evidence from the burnt houses of Chalcolithic Romania,” The Holocene 21: 1195–1202.

EVSTAFIEV, I.2006 “Fauna of mammals and naturally-hearths infections in Crimea,” Proceedings of the

Theriological School 8: 111–119.KOVÁCS, ZS. E., BERTHON, R., MARRO, C., BAKHSHALIYEV, V., ASHUROV, S. and CUCCHI, T.

in prep. “On the dispersal track of Neolithic mice and men towards Transcaucasia: clues from Chalcolithc site of Ovcular Tepesi (Nakhitchevan, Azerbaijan).”

MARRO, C., BAKHSHALIYEV, V. and ASHUROV, S.2009 “Excavations on Ovçular Tepesi (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan). First preliminary report:

the 2006–2008 seasons,” Anatolia Antiqua 17: 31–87.MARRO, C., BAKHSHALIYEV, V. and ASHUROV, S.

2011 “Excavations at Ovçular Tepesi (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan). Second preliminary report: the 2009–2010 seasons,” Anatolia Antiqua 19: 53–100.

SAVARIN, A.2006 “About the record of Crocidura suaveolens Pallas, 1811 in Gomel city,” Proceedings

of the Theriological School 8: 133–135.TCHERNOV, E.

1991 “Of mice and men. Biological markers for long-term sedentism; a reply,” Paléorient 17: 153–160.

Zsófia E. KOVÁCS

Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, Hungary

Rémi BERTHON

UMR 7209 CNRS-InEE, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, FranceUniversity of Aberdeen, Scotland

Wim VAN NEER

Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, BelgiumKU Leuven, Belgium

Thomas CUCCHI

Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, GermanyUniversity of Aberdeen, Scotland

Kovács, Z.E., Berthon, R., Van Neer, W., Cucchi, T. (2013) What is inside this pit? In: De Cupere, B., Linseele, V., Hamilton-Dyer, S. (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East X. Ancient

Documents