Food for the Dead, Food For the Living, Food for the Gods According to Faunal Data from the Ancient Near East
p. 465-521
Résumé
The study of animal bones from archaeological sites in the Levant and Mesopotamia which date to the Bronze Age (3rd and 2nd millennia BC), such as necropolises and other funerary contexts, enables the reconstruction of food practices carried out for the gods, the dead and the living. Analysis of the species killed, the ages of slaughter, the cuts of meat selected, the culinary preparations, and the consumption practices reveal models for selection, which may vary according to the nature of the deposit. These models reflect the traditional values and norms that dictated range of rituals, locations for ceremonies, food selected and meat offered, depending on the beneficiary.
Analysis of the data demonstrates the existence of well-defined rituals for food consumption and for depositing food offerings in funerary contexts in the Levant and in Mesopotamia throughout the Bronze Age. However, the practices were not always consistent. Their heterogeneity suggests the absence of a single secular or religious authority and of common traditions over the long term, as well as the influence of multiple cultures and religions in this region.
Texte intégral
Introduction: Archaeozoological Approach to Funerary Studies
1In the Near East, the funerary archaeology has long focused on two types of evidence: the architecture of the tombs and the grave goods (pottery, ornaments, tools, weapons, objects). Bone remains, especially faunal remains, were often omitted.1 However, all archaeological materials associated with the funerary context provide us with valuable information contributing to suggest interpretative hypotheses of funeral rites. Hence, the study of animal remains enables a better understanding of animals’ roles in funerary rites. Funeral ceremonies are cultural systems involving the living and the deceased through collective practices that could include animals in one way or another. In this contribution we are particularly interested in food relating to funerary contexts of both the living and the dead. The archaeological evidence of faunal remains provides several categories of information, zoological, sociological, and cultural, all illustrating very concrete aspects (species and ages selected, meat parts consumed, rituals used, etc.) as well as abstract ones (beliefs and systems of representation).2 The development of archaeozoological studies in the Near East has opened new perspectives. Ideally, the analysis of funerary contexts should include archaeozoological studies along with other archaeological research. However, excavation circumstances and procedure were not always been followed up by careful collection of faunal remains, and sieving was not carried out regularly. Without sieving, the spectrum of species associated with burial contexts could be severely reduced, with the loss of small bone remains such as those of fish, birds, shellfish and other microfauna.
2The comparative study and analysis of animal deposits from Bronze Age funerary contexts in the Near East dating to the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC face various problems: the impact of several post-mortem events (differential preservation of archaeological remains, pillage in Antiquity, etc.), incomplete collection of faunal remains, and the absence of sieving on site, methodological differences, inequality, and incompleteness of published data, all prevent the validation and interpretation of results. Our understanding of funerary contexts, ceremonies and celebrations taking place such as sacrificial slaughter,3 cooking and consumption of funeral or memorial banquets, deposition of food offerings etc., is also limited when archaeological information is missing and anthropological studies of human remains are absent. Thus the data available for the successive periods of the Bronze Age (Early Bronze, Middle Bronze and Late Bronze) and their different phases in the Near East are disparate, obliging them to be handled on different scales according to each specific case. In some instances, comparison between sites is only possible by combining faunal data over broad chronological sequences so as to obtain statistically representative samples.
I. Animal Remains in Funerary Contexts of the Ancient Near East
3For the purpose of the present paper regarding funerary practices of the Bronze Age, the Near East is divided into three regions: Mesopotamia (southern Iraq and Hamrin), Syria (Jezireh and western Syria) and the Levant (fig. 1). The data on funerary contexts and animal deposits for the ancient Near East are for the most part old and scarce. Publications related to Mesopotamian,4 Syrian, and Levantine burials, and recording animal offerings are scarce. The presence of faunal remains is frequently simply mentioned without further detail. Our analyses consider the already published data along with new archaeozoological studies from 18 sites in Mesopotamia, 30 sites in Syria, and 29 sites in the Levant.
4This selection of sites is based on the faunal data available to us. Animal species were not recorded by the number of identified remains due to the lack of available data from most of the published sites. Therefore, in order to analyse the faunal distribution from burial contexts, the frequency of burials with animal remains have been counted for each species. The limited number of burials with animal remains in the Late Bronze Age prevented frequency quantification (less than 20 burials per region). The difference between complete and almost-complete skeletons was not clear in most faunal reports.
5In order to avoid overlapping in the text, site references are essentially listed in table 1. In this article, the term “caprines” refers to sheep and/or goats and “equids” to asses/donkeys and/or onagers and/or hybrids. Shell remains are not included in this burial inventory. During the excavations, shells are often subject to different sampling and study protocols than other faunal remains. Shells from burials could be interpreted as part of food offerings, consumed meals, ornaments or symbolic objects.
I.1. Early Bronze Age
Mesopotamia (Southern Iraq and Hamrin)
6Among the many funerary contexts dating to the 3rd millennium BC (Early Dynastic I–IV, Ur III period, Akkadian period), 14 sites were analysed. In Iraq and the Hamrin two types of burials are dominant: the most common are pit graves and stone chamber tombs (there are also shaft graves in northern Iraq). These are usually single primary burials, but there are also examples of multiple burials and mass graves, such as at Ur. In most cemeteries and funerary areas, faunal remains have been recorded from only a limited number of burials: 154 out of 2,533 (fig. 1). In most cases, the presence of fauna is simply noted with the names of the species involved, but the determination methods are not indicated. This is the case for the necropolises of Kheit Qasim, Ahmad al-Hattu and Assur, for example. Often, the only anatomical parts mentioned are cranial fragments, due to the better chances of identification (presence of teeth, horn core), as in the publication of the Ur cemetery.5 Exceptions are burials at Abu Salabikh, Abu Tbeirah, and Tell Yelkhi, where animal remains were thoroughly analysed.
7In general, faunal remains provide evidence of the important diversity of animal species, most of which are domestic (fig. 2). Sheep and goats are dominant in burial deposits on most sites (around half of the total burials reveal caprine deposits). Given the difficulties of identification between sheep and goats, it is not possible to determine whether one of the two species is predominant. Deposits of cattle and pig parts are common at five sites (respectively in at least 17 % and 25 % of total burials). Equid remains were recorded at nine sites in at least 16 % of the total burials.6 Less frequent remains of dogs and gazelles (horn cores and vertebrae from Abu Salabikh and Ur) were recorded in respectively 3 % and 4 % of the burials. Bird remains are found at three sites in 4 % of the total burials, whereas fish remains appear in most funeral contexts (in 16 % of the burials spread over eight sites) (fig. 8).
8In terms of the type of deposit, most of the data seems to correspond to isolated skeletal elements reflecting the deposit of small portions and different cuts of meat (limb bones, foot bones), as is the case at Abu Salabikh. Some deposits are in vessels, i.e. ceramic pots (Abu Salabikh, Ur) or on plates (fish at Isin). Deposit of the whole (or almost whole) carcass is attested for equids, dogs, caprines (Abu Tbeirah, Abu Salabikh, Khafajeh, Kish, Maddhur, Nippur, Razuk, Ur) and cattle (Kish, Ur). Apart from a grave at Abu Salabikh and one pit tomb at Ur, the whole-carcass deposits are found in prestigious and often collective graves (royal tombs of Ur, multiple burials at Nippur, chariot burials at Kish).
Syria (Jezireh and Western Syria)
9In Syria, archaeological sites with partly excavated cemeteries of the Early Bronze Age (Early Dynastic I–IV, Akkad period, Ur III period) are numerous in the Euphrates Valley. However, only 18 sites have been analysed, even though 105 burials out of 618 yielded faunal deposits (fig. 1). Various types of single and multiple burials were recorded: pit burials, stone chamber tombs, shaft graves but also sarcophagi and jar burials. The diversity of animal species in the burials is fairly large. Caprines largely predominate in 73 % of burials, with a ratio of one goat to three sheep attested at all sites (fig. 2). Cattle and equids are attested respectively at eight and ten sites in 16 % and 14 % of the total burials, whereas pig remains are less frequent and were recorded only on three sites in at least 5 % of burials. Dog remains are rare, with isolated bones and whole skeletons found in 8 % of the burials spread over seven sites. Gazelles have only been identified at Halawa, Jerablus Tahtani, and Rawda, and in only 5 % of total site burials (tab. 2). Hares have been found in five sites only and in 6 % of site burials, and are sometimes considered to be intrusive although some limb parts were seen as intentional deposits at Halawa. Foxes (Abu Hamad, Jerablus Tahtani, Khirbet el-Umbashi) and mustelid remains were also identified and probably considered as intrusive animals (marbled polecats and weasels at Jerablus Tahtani, weasels at Umm el-Marra). Fish remains are rare and were sampled at three sites. A great diversity of bird species is present in 11 % of the total burials (tab. 3; fig. 8): pigeons at Tell es-Sweyhat; pigeons, doves, crows, ravens, Chukar partridges, and chicken at Jerablus Tahtani; ducks at Halawa; ducks and geese at Umm el-Marra; cranes at Tell Beydar and Qara Quzaq; possibly chicken at Khirbet el-Umbashi.
10At Halawa, multiple burials contain significantly more faunal remains than single burials. The most frequent deposits consist of skulls, limbs, and foot bones of caprines. All age groups are represented, from juvenile to mature individuals. The remains consist of either isolated pieces of meat or high-quality quarters (hindquarters or shoulders) representing significant amounts of meat (Abu Hamed, Halawa). An unusual deposit of sheep and goat feet (metapodials and phalanges) was identified in a tomb at Tell Beydar.7 Furthermore, deposits of whole caprines were found at several sites (a sheep in a sarcophagus at Mari, a young goat and a sheep at Halawa, a goat at Tell Ahmar, and a caprine at Umm el-Marra). Most equid deposits are those of whole bodies placed in the grave with the deceased (fig. 7; tab. 3). In some funerary contexts, such as at Banat, Jerablus, and Rawda, the association between equid remains and the deceased is unclear. The graveyard at Umm el-Marra consists of multiple burials with structures revealing entire equids with or without skulls, a cow, pigs, and dogs along with children in close proximity to the burials.
11The faunal deposits in EBA Syrian sites are generally placed inside the burial (tabs. 2–3). Nevertheless, some are also found outside the grave (Mari, Selenkahyie, Jerablus Tahtani, Umm el-Marra). Little information is available on the location of the deposits inside the graves. However, according to some observations, faunal deposits at Tawi were placed near the legs (two cases) or the face (one case) of the deceased. At Selenkahyie, sheep deposits were placed in a bowl inside a shaft grave. At Tell Banat, animal bones were sometimes burned and deposited in ceramic containers inside shaft graves.8 At Tell es-Sweyhat, bird deposits in jars and caprine and piglet skulls were both recorded.
The Levant
12Various burial types are attested in the Levant during the Early Bronze Age: jar burials underneath houses, chamber tombs dug into the rock or in caves, and, in rare cases, megalithic tombs. Single jar burials and multiple secondary burials characterize this period. In the Levant, archaeozoological data from funerary contexts are rare.
13According to the “Fond Dunand” archives, faunal remains were rare in the Byblos necropolis, which contained more than 2,000 tombs, mostly single jar burials. Some fish remains, as well as bones and teeth of caprines and cattle, were identified in the contents of the jars and sometimes in the pottery placed in the tombs.9
14In the southern Levant, the graves of the EBA I, II, and III are lacking in faunal deposits, but EBA IV burials contain animal remains.10 The majority of the burials dating back to EBA IV were used in the early Middle Bronze Age (MBA I) and some, such as those at Jebel Qa’aqir, Jericho, Tel Efrata, and Giv at Massua, date back to the EBA–MBA transition period.11 At Efrata, five multiple burials in caves (EBA IV) contained faunal remains, young and sub-adult caprines in three burials, donkey remains in one burial and tortoise, hare and dog remains (considered intrusive) in another burial.
I.2. Middle Bronze Age
Mesopotamia (Southern Iraq)
15There is little data on faunal remains in MBA funerary contexts (Old Babylonian, Old Assyrian, Isin period) in Iraq. There are several burial types: pit graves, stone chamber tombs, jar burials, and sarcophagi. Out of ten sites investigated, only a few burials revealed faunal remains (49 out of 718) (fig. 3). Caprine remains were the most frequent in 61 % of burials distributed on seven sites, but cattle (three sites) and pigs (three sites) also occurred in the funerary deposits in 14 % and 16 % of the total burials (fig. 4). Less frequent remains of dogs (a skull at Uruk, a complete skeleton at Tell Hassan), equids (Assur, Tell Hassan, Tell ed-Der, Isin), birds (Uruk), and fish (Isin, Nippur, Uruk) are present as well. In the case of caprine, cattle and pig remains, deposits consisted of skulls and mandibles, trunk and limbs. In some cases, meat quarters were deposited (Uruk) or sometimes only skull parts (horn of a ram at Tell ed-Der, mandible of ox at Isin, a dog’s skull at Uruk). Some cases of offering a whole animal are recorded: a goat in a mass grave at Tell ed-Der, a sheep at Tell Yelkhi, and a dog at Tell Hassan (tab. 3; fig. 7). In addition, the use of vessels for meat offerings at Assur has been described.
Syria (Jezireh and Western Syria)
16Animal remains were recorded at ten sites, in 79 burials out of a total of 652 (fig. 3). Caprine are recorded in 70 % of total burials spread over nine sites (fig. 4). Cattle remains are found in at least 6 % of the burials recorded on three sites. Pig remains were found at Tell Arbid, Chagar Bazar, Tell Mozan, and Ebla (one astragalus), in 21.5 % of the total burials. Equid bones were attested from burials at Tell Arbid, Umm el-Marra, Mari, and Ebla while dog remains were found in one burial at Tell Arbid and at Umm el-Marra. Other animals, such as birds (Chagar Bazar, Mari, Umm el-Marra) and fish (Chagar Bazar, Mari), were also recorded (fig. 8).
17At Tell Arbid, high-quality parts of sheep and goat meat, as well as skull and foot elements (metapodials, phalanges) were selected for the deposits. The offerings were usually placed near the head of the deceased, except in a child’s grave where the remains were found near the feet as well as the head. Entire goats (one adult, one juvenile) and sheep were placed in some burials; a dog was deposited in the shaft of a burial chamber with an equid nearby. At Chagar Bazar, ritual butchering practices were different for sheep and for pigs. For sheep, the body was divided and deposited in two locations: high-quality cuts of meat (trunk and limbs) inside the burial, skulls and feet outside in the shaft. Unlike the sheep deposits, the pig deposits were found only inside the burial, meat quarters (limbs) were deposited complete with foot parts. The same type of caprine butchering and placing of meat parts was observed at Tell Shiyukh Tahtani. The cuts of caprine meat were sometimes placed in vessels at Ebla and Qatna, and near the head of the deceased at Qatna. At Ebla, a tomb of a child aged 2 years or less revealed a large number of astragali (144 caprines, two cervids, and a pig).12 A special case was noted from the MBA shaft burial of Umm el-Marra, where whole and disarticulated animal remains were attested in 11 layers on top of the deceased remains. Human remains were found in the lower layers with bird and dog remains, whereas other animal remains were deposited in the upper layers. These remains consist mainly of caprine, equids, dogs, and vultures.13
The Levant
18There are more than 30 funerary contexts with faunal remains dated to the Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, but only 22 sites provided data with animal offerings, from 150 out of 359 burials (fig. 3). The types of MBA graves vary considerably. Some of the faunal remains were found in individual burials, multiple burials, and from multiple burial complexes. Sidon is the main site in the Levant with the highest proportion of burials with animal deposits (80 burials with animal remains out of 100).
19A great diversity of species is recorded from the MBA burials of the Levant (fig. 4; tab. 3). Caprine are the predominant species found at all sites in 100 % of the total burials with faunal remains. Cattle remains are attested from 41 % of the total burials spread over seven sites, while pig remains are recorded on five sites in 17 % of the burials. Equid remains were attested at four sites in 10 % of total burials, and cervid remains at four sites in 7 % of burials. Gazelles, through horn cores, are attested only in three burials at Sidon and one at Tel Dan. Lion remains were identified at Tel Dan. Birds are present on four sites (Gezer; Efrata: Chukar partridge; Tel Dan: goose and pigeon; Sidon: pigeon in a pit). Fish are quite common in deposits, in 57 % of burials (Tell Fadous,14 Al-Hourriyé, Sidon,15 Tel Kabri,16 Tel Dan, Megiddo,17 and Sasa18). Tortoise shell (Refaim Valley, Sidon), fox remains (Efrata), hare bones (Sidon), crab shells, and cuttlefish bones (Sidon) are very rare.
20Faunal remains are usually found inside tombs and mixed with human remains in the case of secondary burials (Tel Hazor, Efrata, Gezer, Beth Shean, Jebel QaꜤaqir). In only a few cases, they were treated in the same way as the human remains (Al-Hourriyé cave: incineration of 23 human bodies mixed with burned caprine and fish bones). On some sites faunal remains were found outside the tomb, as at Tell Fadous (limbs and trunk of a lamb), Tel YoqneꜤam (a lamb in the entrance of the burial chamber), Tel Dan (faunal remains above the burials), Jebel QaꜤaqir (one antler in the entrance of a tomb), and Sidon. According to Sidon data, faunal deposits outside tombs are evidenced from the end of MBA I onwards, clearly indicating activities related to funerary contexts. These faunal remains outside the burials become more numerous in MBA II and MBA III, and are related to structures such as tannour ovens, pits, platforms, channels, and spaces to prepare and perform funerary rituals.19 The animal remains identified in the outside areas are mainly caprines and fish. However cattle and pigs are also present, and even more frequent than within the burials.
21The analysis of the Sidon burials provides information on faunal deposits according to burial types: simple pit graves and jar burials show no difference in their deposits, whereas the built tombs are richer in number of animal bone remains and in the diversity of species. In the case of jar burials, the faunal deposits are located in the pits and above the sides of the jars. Burials of children generally contain fewer faunal remains and indicate a preference for sheep deposits rather than goat, along with fish and shellfish offerings. Nonetheless, infant burials also contain animal offerings (e.g. Tell el-Ghassil).20
22The spatial distribution of faunal deposits in the burials is related to the type of burial and the gender of the deceased. Based on case sites at Sidon, Tell Tweini, Kamid el-Loz, Gesher, Gezer, Megiddo,21 and Jericho, animal offerings could be found near the head, next to the body or near the feet of the deceased (mostly in adult men burials at Sidon).22 The practice of using a vessel for a deposit is recorded on many sites: pottery vessels (Tell Arqa, Kamid el-Loz, Sidon, Tel Hazor, Kafer-Garra, Gesher, Gezer, Ashkelon, Tell el-Ajjul, Beth Shean, Tel Dan) and containers in perishable materials— wood or basketry (Jericho). Tables were used to place the offerings (Jericho).
23A selection of animal body parts was observed when looking at funerary rites in the Levant (tab. 2). The presence of skulls or cranial parts (mandibles, horns, antlers) was sometimes noted (Tell Arqa, Al-Hourriyé, Tell Tweini, Sidon, Tel Kabri, Jericho, Efrata, Lachish, Jebel Qa aqir). At Sidon, pigs are mostly represented by cranial elements.
24The presence of meat quarters and trunks of sheep and goats, which were probably still connected anatomically when the deposit occurred, is also mentioned for several sites inside burials (Megiddo, Gesher, Jebel Qa aqir, Sasa, Jericho, and Sidon). In addition, whole cuts of fish and quarters of beef were found at Sidon, but rarely quarters of pigs. Most of the faunal remains are often described as disarticulated, and no bones in anatomical connection are mentioned (Al-Hourriyé, Tell el-Ghassil, Tell Tweini, Byblos, Kafer-Garra, Tel Dan, Refaim Valley, Tel Hazor, Efrata, Tel Kabri, Gezer, Beth Shean, and Ashkelon). Nevertheless, some sites revealed deposits of complete bodies of animals, mainly caprine (Sidon, Jericho, and Tel Dan). Complete fish were also placed in the burials (at least seven cases at Sidon). In addition, complete bodies of caprine deposited with one missing limb are frequently attested at Sidon and recorded at Fassuta and Tel YoqneꜤam.
I.3. Late Bronze Age
Mesopotamia (Southern Iraq)
25Animal deposits are extremely rare in the cemeteries of southern Iraq, which can be dated to the MBA–LBA transition (Middle and Neo-Babylonian, Middle Assyrian, Mitannian). Only four sites were recorded with 363 pit and jar burials, with only 18 burials yielding animal deposits (figs. 5–6).
26The species identified are caprine (Babylon, Uruk, Isin), equids (Babylon), cattle (Uruk, Isin), pigs (Uruk), fish (Babylon, Uruk, Isin), birds (Uruk), and tortoise shells (Isin). In the case of Isin, most of the remains are body part selections of caprine and cattle limbs, revealing an intentional deposit of small portions of meat (tab. 2).
Syria (Jezireh and Western Syria)
27Scarce information is available concerning the role of animals in funerary practices during the LBA in the Syrian Jezireh. Due to climatic deterioration and difficult political turmoil, a large number of settlements were abandoned in the LBA. Two sites were recorded (Sabi Abyad and Mohammed Diyab). Meanwhile, in western Syria three sites were recorded (Qatna, Al-Nasriyah, Tell Tuqan). Only 13 burials were attested with faunal remains, out of a total of 59 (figs. 5–6). At Sabi Abyad, the skull, shoulder bones, and one leg of a sheep were found near the head of the deceased, whereas three limbs of sheep were found underneath the deceased body. It is possible that the deceased were originally wrapped in sheep skin. A cremation contained remains of burnt limbs and the skull of a caprine, and the third phalanx of a lion, possibly indicating the presence of a lion skin. Tombs carved into the rock and built tombs are characteristic of the LBA at Qatna. The study of the royal tomb of Qatna provided information on animal deposits, in a particular LBA funerary context where four chambers were attested. The faunal remains consist mainly of sheep, cattle and birds. The diversity of birds is exceptional (ducks, geese, pigeons, Phasianidae, Strigidae, Accipitridae, domestic chicken). The skeleton of a weasel, together with bone remains of hares and dogs, tortoise shells and a deposit of ten deer astragali, were also sampled. Remains of fish were noted at the entrance of the tomb. The offerings were distributed in all four chambers, mixed, or not, with the human remains, near ceramic vases, on stone and wooden tables and in the sarcophagi. Hind quarters, forelimbs, and trunk parts of sheep and cattle of all age groups were found in anatomical connection. In one chamber, an “ossuary” contained a large number of disarticulated foot (phalanges) and skull elements, which were absent, or very rare, in the other chambers (tab. 2). The analysis of the remains revealed a chaîne opératoire for the offering preparation: cattle carcasses were cut up outside the royal tomb and meat parts (hind quarters, shoulders, ribs) were then deposited inside. However, sheep were probably butchered inside the central chamber of the grave, the poor-quality cuts of meat, feet, and skull, gathered in the “ossuary,” and the high-quality cuts of meat deposited in the other chambers for the dead or prepared for the living.
28Simple pit graves recorded at Tell Tuqan contained deposits of caprine and pig limbs and skulls, as well as remains of cattle, equids, and birds. The jar burial of a child (8–10 years of age) contained 38 caprine astragali. Cremation urns containing animal astragali and human remains appeared at the end of the LBA and the beginning of the Early Iron Age at Tell al-Nasriyah.
Levant
29Tombs carved into the rock and built tombs are characteristic of the LBA at Ugarit, Tell Dothan, and Tel es-SaꜤidiyeh. The faunal remains from one of Ugarit’s tombs were studied. Domestic animals (sheep, goats, and cattle), wild mammals (boar metapodial, two deer astragali, and bear canine), Nile perch, and tortoise shells were found. Forelimbs of sheep are the most frequent part found in the burials and hind limbs of goats and cattle are absent (tab. 2; fig. 6).
30In the Bekaa Valley, cave burials contained remains of caprines (many astragali), cattle, equids, and dogs. In the southern Levant, faunal remains are quite rare in the burials. The deposit of skulls in the collective tomb of Tell Dothan clearly indicates a selection of species: skulls, jaws, and horns of caprines and cattle, a wild boar tooth, a horn of gazelle, and one bone of Nile perch. In the tombs of Gezer, caprine and fish remains were placed on ceramic plates. In Tel es-SaꜤidiyeh burials, the deposits were mostly cattle remains and, to a lesser extent, those of caprine, pigeons and Nile perch, usually located near the head of the deceased (tab. 2; fig. 8).
II. Discussion: the Choice and Type of Offering, a Comparison between Regions and Periods
31The interpretation of animal remains in funerary contexts goes beyond the study of grave contents and includes the analyses of the outer burial space in graveyards linked to the living performing the mortuary practices. Moreover, these faunal remains reflect two main categories: food deposits and grave goods’ deposits. This analysis focuses on the food deposit category regarding the ritual of food offering and consumption inside and outside the graves. Therefore, animal remains considered as grave goods’ deposit are classified. Hence, several deposit cases of complete and selected parts of certain species are not classified as meat offerings or consumption categories.
32The complete skeletons recorded from burials or graveyards do not generally bear traces of skinning, dismembering or filleting (fig. 7). This is the case for dogs, a species that is not mentioned in ancient texts of mortuary practices, although they are recorded in grave contexts, mainly in the Syrian Jezireh and Mesopotamia (Khafadjeh, Halawa, Jerablus Tahtani, Tell Mardhuk,23 Tell Arbid, Umm el-Marra). Their presence could be related to the notion of ownership and relationship between the deceased and the animal, but could also indicate the dog’s role as guardian or protector. In addition, cattle skeletons discovered from EBA burials only, with or without remains of chariots (collective tombs at Kish, royal tombs of Ur, Umm el-Marra), could have been linked to prestigious sacrifices of valuable draft animals intended as property of the deceased in the afterlife.24
33Likewise, the equids, donkeys or donkey/onager hybrids25 were probably related to notions of prestige and property, personal equipment of the dead, or to ensure the transportation of the deceased into the afterlife.26 These equid deposits are relatively common in northern Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BC, at the very beginning of the phase of domestication of donkeys (fig. 7; tab. 3). They are found in pit graves and in constructed stone or brick burials at EBA sites in Iraq (Tell Madhhur, Tell Razuk, Tell Abu Qasim, Al-ꜤUsiyah, Abu Salabikh, Kish, Lagash, Nippur, Abu Tbeirah), as well as in Syria (Mari, Tell Bi a, Abu Hamed, Halawa, Tell Banat, Umm el-Marra).27 The oldest instance of a complete equid deposit is attested at Mari, and has been dated to the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC.28 In general, one or two equids were found, sometimes associated with chariot burials. Three or more equid deposits are rarely attested, with the exception of numerous equids at Umm el-Marra burial complexes.29 These latter equids are identified as donkey/onager hybrids and have been found buried in pits isolated from human remains or in special structures (compartments or rooms, with walls of brick or stone), and sometimes accompanied by children or dog remains outside the human graves. In the Levant, equid burials are frequent30 but their association with human remains is not clear (fig. 7; tab. 3). From funerary contexts, very few are known especially from the end of the MBA and LBA at the southern Levant (Tell el-Ajjul).31 In western Syria and the Jezireh, this tradition continues into the 2nd millennium BC (Ebla, Tell Arbid, Tell Mozan).
34Other deposits of complete skeletons, especially of dogs and piglets, were attested (fig. 7; tab. 3). These were found in situ in burnt structures associated to the Umm el-Marra tombs32.
35In addition, body parts of dogs and equids are recorded from several Bronze Age sites (tabs. 2–3). Theses remains are difficult to interpret; whether they are related to grave goods’ or food deposits is difficult to ascertain. Other body parts are more difficult to relate to food deposits—without nutritional value hence not for consumption (parts without meat)—and should be considered as grave goods’ deposits: skulls, mandibles, horns, antlers, and astragali. Mainly, these elements were selected from wild animals: cervid antlers, gazelle horns, lion bones, and mandibles of wild boar.
36Following this brief description of animal remains related to the category of grave goods’ deposits, it is difficult to determine their meaning without additional data on religious beliefs. The complete animal deposits (equid, cattle, dog) may be linked either to the concept of property, or to the prestige status of the deceased expressed via the sacrifice of valuable animals in order to honour the dead.33 They may also refer to the magico-religious sphere and hold symbolic value related to sacrifice of atonement or purification, propitiatory offering, and substitute offering. Complete animal offerings could be interpreted as ritual closure of the funerary context, especially when the deposit is found sealing the grave: in the upper fill of the tomb or covering the top of the burial or in external structures (Umm el-Marra).34 The selected body parts (head elements, astragali, etc.) could have played a role as symbolic objects or possibly a substitute deposit of the whole animal hence a symbol of a food offering in funerary contexts. The worked bones and shells are also included among the symbolic objects, as these were personal objects or served as adornment of the deceased (nevertheless, certain mollusc species belong to the category of food offerings).
37Regarding the category of food deposit and offering, the fauna of funerary contexts are discussed in relation to the subject receiving or performing the deposit. Three main entities are acknowledged: the dead, the living involved in the funeral ceremony, and the worshiped figures (deities, ghosts, ancestors, priests, etc.). Nevertheless, evidence linking the deposit and the subject is difficult to discern, especially regarding the case of deposits for the dead and those for the worshipped figures. However, we consider that “food for the dead” are the deposits found inside of burials, in association with human remains, and “food for the living” are the remains of food consumption in the outer graveyard. Concerning the latter, few remains found outside the burials in special contexts could be assigned, whether to the dead or to the living. The discussion below will be focused on distinguishing and analysing food for the dead and food for the living.
II.1. Food for the Dead
38Beyond the category of grave goods’ deposits, animal remains identified from inside burials and in association with human remains are considered as food deposits for the dead according to several criteria. A compilation or a selection of criteria regarding the depositing of particular species from the actual diet, the choice of meat cuts (portions or quarters), the lack of filleting marks especially on articulated remains, and the association of remains with vessels, could indicate food deposits for the dead rather than rejected consumed remains. Nevertheless, the association of food offerings with human remains is considered as a deposit buried together with the deceased during the burial process. In addition, food deposits resulting from repetitive commemorative rituals after the burial process inside or outside the burials can also be considered as food offering for the dead.
39These offerings, not consumed by the living, could be deposited in close proximity to the human body or isolated (pits, jar burial pits, compartment, shaft, ceramic vessels, etc.).
40In the Near East, the preferred species deposited in Bronze Age burials were domestic animals—especially sheep and goats—while wild mammals are scarce. However, fishing products and hunted birds were often among the offerings (tab. 3).
41Although sheep and goats were the main preferred animals for food offerings in all regions throughout the Bronze Age, especially in Syria and the Levant, during the EBA and MBA, sites of Mesopotamia reveal a clear preference for cattle and pigs together with caprines (figs. 2, 4, 6; tab. 3). As regards the sheep and goat ratio, the former tend to be more important, particularly in Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age. By contrast, during the EBA in Syria, goats represent one third of caprine deposits. In addition, no clear preference was noted for the Levant, particularly during the MBA. Pigs were part of food offerings in all periods in Mesopotamia, in the EBA and MBA burials of Syria and those of the MBA Levant. In fact, the absence of pigs in the LBA funeral offerings is related to the absence of pork consumption in the regular diet of LBA Levantine societies.35 Cattle are common in the funerary offerings of the EBA and MBA of Mesopotamia but become rare in the LBA. They were part of food offering deposits in Syria throughout the entire Bronze Age (tab. 3). As for the Levant, an increase in the diversity of species is noted over time, with a more frequent use of cattle and the integration of wild mammals, birds and fish (local and imported species) from the MBA onwards (fig. 8; tab. 3). The estimated slaughter ages of various domestic species do not suggest a selection strategy; no preference for one age group or another was distinguished in the various studied areas, except perhaps for a slight preference for young individuals, particularly noteworthy in the MBA of the Levant.
42Wild mammals are attested in burials as food deposits with high-quality meat cuts of gazelle (four EBA sites in Mesopotamia and Syria), cervid (five MBA and two LBA sites in the Levant), and hare (three EBA, two MBA, and one LBA sites in Syria and Levant) (tabs. 2–3). As for birds, a variety of taxa were commonly used in the Bronze Age food deposits of Mesopotamia, Syria, and the Levant (tab. 2). A substantial diversity of birds was identified wherever detailed archaeozoological studies were carried out (Qatna, Jerablus Tahtani, Umm el-Marra). Deposits of marine and freshwater fish were very common practice, and were recorded all over Mesopotamia and the Levant, though such a phenomenon is rare in Syria.
43Deposits of body parts or meat cuts are the most common form of food offerings found in funerary contexts.36 These consist of quarters and small portions of meat. Deposits of meat quarters made up of high-quality meat cuts (i.e. shoulders, leg, ribs, loin), occur in Syria and the Levant, and begin in the EBA to continue until the MBA only (tab. 3). By contrast, they are attested in the LBA of western Syria, for instance at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna (tabs. 2–3). However, small portions with high-quality meat (i.e. chops, cutlets, foreshank, hindshank) were observed in all regions, particularly in Mesopotamia. All the above-mentioned meat cuts were attested for sheep and goat, whereas only small portions of pigs, cattle, and wild animals were recorded from burials.
44Exceptional preservation of mummified meat cuts in the Jericho burials demonstrates that meat was deposited with and without bones.37 An important quantity of food offerings were recovered placed in ceramic plates and vessels, emphasizing their food value. This begins in the EBA and continues in the MBA in the Levant, becoming particularly frequent during that period (tabs. 2–3). In the case of Sidon, an association between the gender and/or the age of the deceased and the location of food deposit was recorded.38 This indicates that the deposit was customized according to the deceased. However, little data from the entire region are available as regards the spatial distribution of food deposit inside burials; only general mentions of deposits near the head, legs or on top of body of the deceased are noted or, in the case of disturbed or secondary burials, mixed with human remains. During the entire Near Eastern Bronze Age, food offerings are attested for all the different age groups of the deceased: infants, then young, and adult individuals.
45Along with body parts of meat found in burials, complete or almost complete skeletons of particular species attributed to the actual diet such as caprine, fish, and more rarely birds (pigeon, duck, goose) were attested (tab. 3). One instance of a complete pig carcass was recorded at Chagar Bazar in MBA levels (fig. 7). The skeletal remains of complete bodies sometimes show traces of disarticulation. The animal remains are deposited whole in the tombs, in close proximity or isolated from human remains. Deposits of complete sheep and goats are attested in Mesopotamia, in Syria, and the Levant, from the EBA and the beginning of the MBA, and seem to disappear in the LBA (fig. 7; tab. 3). Complete fish were mainly recovered in Mesopotamia and the Levant,39 while entire birds were recorded mainly from Syria and the Levant (fig. 8; tab. 3). The exceptional presence in tombs of two complete cranes at Tell Beydar from the EBA, and of complete vultures from the MBA of Umm el-Marra could be related to the ethological peculiarities of these species; their placing in the grave perhaps reflects symbolic action rather than food deposit.
46In contrast, food deposits from within funeral contexts did not include whole carcasses of other consumed mammal species (for instance wild animals: boar, cervid, gazelle, and hare). Few exceptions of cattle carcasses from the EBA of Mesopotamia and Syria are considered through this analyses as grave goods’ deposits and excluded from food offerings due to their association with special objects (chariots) or in an isolated context (pit of burial).40
47This series of food deposits reveals a variety in the quantity of meat placed inside burials and of the quantity of sacrificed animals: from one chop to meat quarters of one or several animals to complete animals. These portions represent deposits of high-quality meat that could be food offerings or reflect complete sacrifice (pars pro toto). Regarding the available data, we notice several cases of deposits with portions in EBA Mesopotamia, and meat cuts in the EBA and MBA of Syria, and the Levant’s MBA (tab. 3). However this observation is not conclusive, due to the lack of detailed studies (tab. 2). In a few cases, whole carcasses were divided into quarters; high meat quarters deposited as food offerings with the deceased, whereas feet and skulls were deposited as votive offerings in grave shafts (Chaghar Bazar) or in special compartments (Tell Shioukh Tahtani). By contrast, deposits of articulated whole carcasses raise the question of their significance (tab. 3). Unlike dogs and equids, sheep and goats were bred for milk, meat, hair, and wool, and they are considered as the meat species par excellence in the actual diet. In that sense, they could be part of the food offering for the dead in funeral contexts.
48In general, the deposits of this category, considered here food deposits, could be attributed to the deceased but could also be offered to the spirits worshipped. Nevertheless, they were not consumed by the living.
II.2. Food for the Living
49Analyses of food remains in burials reveals that, very often, only portions or meat quarters are deposited, while the remainders of carcasses are missing. This observation raises questions about the disposal of the remaining meat: was it consumed on site in the graveyard, distributed among the participants of rituals, used for other cultic means or burnt and discarded for ritual practices?
50By analysing funerary practices and food offerings, the main interest is on the content of tombs, the belongings of the deceased, and burial traditions. However, the outer space in the graveyard should be included in the study of funerary practices, as it could reflect evidence of activities related to funerary rites, including food consumption conducted by the living. Meanwhile, animal remains recalling refuse from food consumption in clear association with graveyards and tombs are rare and not often identified. Hence, when animal remains are found outside burials in the graveyard and/or not in association with human remains in burials and/or in structures within the graveyard space and reflecting evidence for consumption (butcher’s marks, disarticulation, and meat cuts), they can be considered part of the category of food for the living. This consumption could be the result of meals occurring during the interment rituals or afterwards. Therefore, refuse from food consumption can be found outside the tombs in graveyards, or in various components of the burials themselves (shaft, chamber, pit, entrance, etc.).
51This food consumption is considered and mentioned in ancient texts and stelae, and has been interpreted by scholars as the result of feasting activities.41 Nevertheless, archaeological evidence for these banquets or feasting is scarce in Bronze Age sites and is hardly associated with graveyards.
52Judging from analysed sites, few cases were noted of animal remains outside burials identifiable as food consumption refuse (tabs. 2–3). In particular, Sidon’s graveyard represents clear evidence of food for the living in the sense of food consumption outside burials in the MBA graveyard.42 Disarticulated bones with cut marks were found, these being mainly of sheep, goats, and cattle. They reflect high meat value elements, together with discarded feet and skulls (of low meat value) found in open space structures, platforms, taboun ovens, floors, channel, pits, and tables identified in the graveyard premises. These remains suggest that ritual activities consisting of slaughtering, carcasses, and meal processing, food consumption and refuse, took place outside burials during and after burial, beginning in particular as from the MBA II.43 These activities could indicate feasting or commemorative meals taking place recurrently in the graveyard. The correlation between food for the dead and food for the living was noted in Sidon’s graveyard, with selection of the same species’ pattern for offering (food for the dead) and consumption (food for the living), preference for high meat value cuts from young individuals, and distribution of animal remains in the burial ground. Yet the association between food leftovers from inside and outside burials remains difficult to establish.
53Animal remains—particularly articulated or disarticulated bones— reflecting quarters of high meat value were recorded in the tomb chambers at Qatna and from above burials in Tel el-Tin, Tell Fadous, and Sidon (tab. 2). These remains could suggest food deposits for the dead or leftovers of recurrent feasting (commemorative meals). However commemorative offerings, especially when no consumption is recorded, are generally considered as a component of food for the dead.
54In certain cases, disarticulated animal remains were identified in the shafts of Tel Arbid and Umm el-Marra tombs, and in the entrance of graves at Jerablus Tahtani, Tel Yoqne am, and the Qatna chamber tombs (tabs. 2–3). These remains could reflect offering deposits of the closure ceremony, or alternatively those thrown after burial as commemorative deposits, but might just as well reflect food for the living or commemorative feasting refuse. Animal remains attested from the fill of several tombs are difficult to identify, due to the fact that certain remains in the grave could be intrusive or accidental (e.g. Abu Salabikh, Mari, Jebel QaꜤaqir, and Tel YoqneꜤam).
55Same species selections were attested in the category of food for the living as well as that for the dead. They consist mainly of caprine meat together with a selection of cattle, pigs, cervid, birds, and fish, depending on periods and sites. Several deposits are disarticulated bones from high meat value cuts, revelatory of meat consumption. Nevertheless, low meat value remains (feet, skulls) were also recorded. These could indicate leftovers of meat processing, but also evidence of skin and wool deposits inside graves,44 or moreover metaphorical offerings for the actual act of sacrifice.
56Other indirect clues of food for the living related to funerary rituals are the missing parts of carcasses from inside burials. At several sites a deposit of meat cuts reflecting large quantities of meat missing from burials (hence consumed by the living) was found (tabs. 2–3). When detailed studies are available, carcasses—especially of caprine—were noted as lacking certain body parts of high meat value. Two types were recorded: either the deposit of an almost complete carcass with one meat cut missing, or the deposit of one or more meat cuts from various carcasses (tab. 2). These types were recorded from all caprine carcasses in the Sidon burials dating to the beginning of the MBA, with one limb missing from one individual in each burial, and starting as from MBA II, with several meat cuts on various caprines.45 These missing parts were also detected from burials at EBA Abu Hamad (case of five sheep slaughtered and only nine limbs deposited, out of 20) and in MBA levels at Chagar Bazar (case of 26 sheep slaughtered and only 74 meat cuts). Meat cuts of cattle and pigs probably follow the same pattern as caprine deposits, with in particular deposits of one or several meat cuts per burial.
Conclusion
57According to the available archaeological data, animals featured strongly during the Bronze Age in the burial traditions of the Near East. Preference for specific species in funerary offerings, meant either for the dead or for the living, was based on the contemporary diet of societies. Nevertheless, this did not include wild mammals, except in some infrequent cases. The main species selected for food for the dead and the living were sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs, together with fish and birds (tab. 3). The offering deposits consist of body parts of animals that are simultaneously major components of the diet of the time. Chops or portions of meat were selected as food offerings. The sacrifice of animals of a selected age group was probably dictated more by secular and practical constraints than by religious requirements.46 A major finding of this study is the importance of birds and fish in the funerary rituals. Birds are mostly found in deposits in Syria, and fish mostly in Mesopotamia and the Levant. Fish symbolism in Mesopotamia appears in various forms. Fish are not only food for men but also for the gods as illustrated in the Sumerian sacrifice lists.47 Fish were connected with the underworld and had chthonic associations: Lugal-URU.a. Ki, god of the commemoration festival of the dead, received on this celebration a sacrifice of a fish.48 Fish have been used in funerary contexts first as symbol of life, than possibly of re-birth. In Egyptian religion, certain types of fish are related to the concept of rebirth, especially Tilapia during the New Kingdom.49
58Depending on the context of the discovery, these deposits may have been intended as food for the dead in the afterlife50 but perhaps also as offerings for deities or other spiritual entities. The deposits may also be food waste from funeral or memorial meals, particularly those faunal remains close to burial places and inside funeral complexes. Food for the dead is a frequent tradition attested by animal bone remains in the Ancient Near Eastern funerary rituals during the Bronze Age, as opposed to food for the living, which is related to mortuary practices, the latter appearing more difficult to obviate from archaeozoological data.
59Faunal remains from funerary complexes are incomplete evidence of funerary rituals because they only provide a glimpse of the meat parts that the bones still contained (bone in-meat), and not of the boned meat or other meat preparations. However, they illustrate several kinds of offering. First of all, the food category corresponds to deposits of real pieces of meat, i.e. high-quality meat consisting in limbs and trunks of animals, which was food for the dead, for the gods or for ancestors. Secondly, the symbolic category can be seen as operating on two levels: metaphorical food offerings—the deceased’s share consisted of one or more “small” pieces of meat that could be termed pars pro toto, as the study of the necropolis at Sidon suggests;51 and the complete animal as symbol of the sacrifice and food offering itself.
60The analysis of animal remains suggests a participation of the living in the funeral meal and a sharing of meat offerings between the dead (food) and the bereaved (secondary deposit of food consumption). Repetitive funeral or memorial meals would have occurred in the graveyard or somewhere else. The management of post-consumption waste and leftovers from the offerings to the dead involved specific processing: thrown into an “ossuary” located in a side room, the food and offering waste were kept inside the funerary complex and did not leave the dead’s resting place and scene of feasting activities occurring outside burials.
61However, the choices made by the societies during the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC took different forms over time, probably due to changes in cultural systems concerning the representation of death, the place of animals, consumption practices, and meat offerings. It does appear that a need to eat in the afterlife was attributed to the dead, and that the living were expected to feed them occasionally or to share a meal with them. Epigraphic sources are not explicit concerning burial practices. The act of providing food for the dead implies for some authors that the afterlife was considered “infertile.”52 Sumerian administrative texts indicate that the deceased was not only provided with food supplies, but also given meals like the living in funeral chapels.53 These textual sources reveal that animals, including sheep and goats, were not just “food items” but also “symbolic representations,” because their sacrifice was not always linked to consumption. They could be sacrificed at different times in the funeral process, in particular as offerings to the spirits and underworld deities.54
62However, texts of the late 3rd and 2nd millennium BC (Ur, Drehem, Sippar, Nippur, Mari, Ugarit) show that food was part of the funerary ritual and that the dead were provided with food in various circumstances.55 In ancient texts, food possesses three roles: as food provisions for the deceased at the time of the burial (and perhaps also to appease deities), as food for the living during the funeral, and as food offerings during commemorative ceremonies when libations were performed (Sumerian KI.A.NAG, “where one pours water”) and meals were shared (Sumerian KI. SI. GA, “putting down”; Akkadian kišpum, “breaking of the bread”). The texts concern kings and members of the royal family, and as it is likely that the frequency and abundance of offerings were related to the social rank of the deceased, the offerings would therefore not always have included only meat.
63The synthesis of the data shows the existence of well-defined rituals of food consumption and food deposits in the funerary contexts of the Levant, Syria, and Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age periods. However, the practices are not uniform. Their heterogeneity suggests the importance of secular impact rather than the existence of a single religious authority and the lack of singular common tradition over the long term, and underlines the influence of the different cultures and religions that existed in this region despite the political boundaries.
Bibliographie
Alhaique et al. 2015a
Alhaique, F., Romano, L., Gabbianelli, F., Valentini, A., D’Agostino, F., “A Sumerian Equid Burial from Abu Tbeirah (Southern Iraq)”, poster from the 8th Symposium of the Associazione Italiana di ArcheoZoologia (Lecce, 11–14 November 2015) [available from: Kuldoc.com], <https://kuldoc.com/download/a-sumerian-equid-burial-from-abu-tbeirah-southern-iraq-poster-_594816771723dde2abed3c97_pdf>.
Alhaique et al. 2015b
Alhaique, F., Tafuri, M.A., Romano, L., D’Agostino, F., “Cibo per i morti e cibo per i vivi, una prospettiva dalla Mesopotamia meridionale all’alba della storia”, in Preistoria del cibo. 50ma riunione scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: tra ritualità e potere, Florence, 2015 [available from: Dokupdf.com], <https://dokupdf.com/download/cibo-per-i-morti-e-cibo-per-i-vivi-una-prospettiva-dalla-mesopotamia-meridionale-allalba-della-storia-_5a01f916d64ab2b9bd87ab2d_pdf>.
Akkermans, Smits 2008
Akkermans, P.M., Smits, E., “A Sealed Double Cremation at Middle Assyrian Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria”, in D. Bonatz, R.M. Czichon, F.J. Kreppner (eds.), Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens. Ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, Wiesbaden, 2008, pp. 251–261.
Baffi 1988
Baffi, F., “Les sépultures d’Ébla à l’Âge du Bronze moyen”, in H. Waetzoldt, H. Hauptmann (eds.), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla. Akten der Internationalen Tagung Heidelberg, 4.-7. November 1986, Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient 2, Heidelberg, 1988, pp. 3–20.
Baker 2012
Baker, J., The Funeral Kit: Mortuary Practices in the Archaeological Record, Philadelphia, 2012.
Bate 1938
Bate, D., “Animal Remains”, in P. L.O. Guy, R. Engberg (eds.), Megiddo Tombs, OIP 33, Chicago, 1938, pp. 209–213.
Bate 1953
Bate, D., “The Animal Bones”, in O. Tufnell (ed.), Lachish (Tell ed-Durveir), vol. III: The Iron Age, Oxford, 1953, pp. 410–411.
Beayno et al. 2002
Beayno, F., Mattar, C., Abdul-Nour, H., “Mgharet al-Hourriyé (Karm Saddé, Casa de Zgharta). Rapport préliminaire de la fouille de 2001”, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 6, 2002, pp. 135–178.
Blöme 1934
Blöme, F., Die Opfermaterie in Babylonien und Israël, BiBor 4, Rome, 1934.
Boessneck, von den Driesch 1986
Boessneck, J., von den Driesch, A., “Eine Equidenbestattung in spätfrüdynastischer Zeit”, MDOG 118, 1986, pp. 45–50.
Boessneck, Kokabi 1981
Boessneck, J., Kokabi, M., “Tierknochenfunde”, in W. Orthmann, Halawa 1977 bis 1979: vorläufiger Bericht über die 1. bis 3. Grabungskampagne, SBA 31, Bonn, 1981, pp. 89–104.
Bökönyi 1985
Bökönyi, S., “Tierknochen-funde aus den Bereich der Werkstatt von Kamil el-Loz”, in B. Frisch, G. Mansfeld, W.R. Thiele (eds.), Kamid el-Loz, vol. VI: Die Werkstätten der spätbronzezeitlichen Paläste, SBA 33, Bonn, 1985, pp. 199–205.
Browaeys 2010
Browaeys, E., Dieren begraven. De praktijk van het begraven van volledige dieren en dierlijke resten in Mesopotamië vanaf de Ubaid tot en met de Neo-Babylonische periode toegelicht, Master Thesis, Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte, Vakgroep Archaeologie, Ghent University, 2010.
Millan, Villate 2001
Millan, M., Villate, E., “Anexo: restos de macrofauna en la tumba Locus 12 de Tell Qara Quzaq”, in G. del Olmo Lete, J.-L. Montero Fenollós, C. Valdés Pereiro (eds.), Tell Qara Quzaq, vol. II: Campanas IV-VI (1992-1994), Barcelona, 2001, pp. 489–492.
Chahoud 2013
Chahoud, J., Diversité faunique, économie alimentaire et pratiques socio-culturelles au Levant à l’Âge du Bronze: une approche archéozoologique, PhD Thesis, université Lumière Lyon 2, Beyrouth University, 2013.
Chahoud 2014–2015
Chahoud, J., “L’aspect archéozoologique des pratiques funéraires à l’Âge du Bronze au Liban”, Archaeology & History in Lebanon 40–41, 2014–2015, pp. 4–90.
Chahoud 2016–2017
Chahoud, J., “L’offrande et l’animal: une approche archéozoologique des pratiques funéraires à Sidon, Liban (2000-1500 av. J.-C.)”, Archaeology & History in Lebanon 44–45, 2016–2017, pp. xx–xx.
Chahoud, Vila 2017
Chahoud, J., Vila, E., “Exploitation of Fauna at Ras Shamra: Case Study of the ‘Maison aux Albâtres’, Late Bronze Age, Northern Levant”, in M. Mashkour, M. Beech (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East, vol. IX, Oxford, 2017, pp. 197–215.
Chudzik 2007
Chudzik, K.J., Multiple Interment Loculi Tombs at Tell Dothan. Burial Behaviour as Cultural Process in the Late Bronze/Early Iron I Levant, Master Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, 2007.
Clutton-Brock 1986
Clutton-Brock, J., “Osteology of the Equids from Sumer”, in R.H. Meadow, H.P. Uerpmann (eds.), Equids in the Ancient World, vol. I, Wiesbaden, 1986, pp. 209–229.
Cordy, Léon, Tunca 2009
Cordy, J.M., Léon, S., Tunca, Ö., “Les offrandes animales dans les tombes ordinaires de l’Âge du Bronze à Chagar Bazar (chantiers F, H et I). Rapport préliminaire”, Akkadica 130, 2009, pp. 53–73.
Croft 1995
Croft, P., “Faunal Remains from Tomb 302 at Jerablus-Tahtani”, Levant 27, 1995, p. 25.
Croft 2015
Croft, P., “Animal Remains”, in E. Peltenburg et al. (eds.), Tell Jerablus Tahtani, Syria, vol. I: Mortuary Practices at an Early Bronze Age Fort on the Euphrates River, Levant Supplementary Series 17, Oxford, 2015, pp. 201–210.
De Cupere, Van Neer 2014
De Cupere, B., Van Neer, W., “Consumption Refuse, Carcasses and Ritual Deposits at Tell Beydar (Northern Syria)”, in L. Milano (ed.), Paleonutrition and Food Practices in the Ancient Near East. Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach, Padua, 2014, pp. 187–206.
Delougaz, Hill, Lloyd 1967
Delougaz, P., Hill, H.D., Lloyd, S., Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region, OIP 88, Chicago, 1967.
Dohmann-Pfälzner, Pfälzner 2001
Dohmann-Pfälzner, H., Pfälzner, P., “Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkes. Bericht über die in Kooperation mit dem IIMAS durchgefürhte Kampagne 2000”, MDOG 133, 2001, pp. 97–140.
Doumet-Serhal 1996
Doumet-Serhal, C., Les fouilles de Tell el-Ghassil de 1972 à 1974. Étude de matériel, BAH 146, Paris, 1996.
Dunand 1964
Dunand, M., “Rapports préliminaires sur les fouilles de Byblos”, BMBeyr 17, 1964, pp. 21–35.
Dunand 1973
Dunand, M., Fouilles de Byblos, vol. V: L’architecture, les tombes, le matériel domestique: des origines néolithiques à l’avènement urbain, Études et documents d’archéologie 6, Paris, 1973.
Düring, Visser, Akkermans 2015
Düring, B.S., Visser, E., Akkermans, P.M., “Skeletons in the Fortress: The Late Bronze Age Burials of Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria”, Levant 47, 2015, pp. 30–50.
Eickhoff 1993
Eickhoff, T., Grab und Beigabe. Bestattungssitten der Nekropole von Tall Aḥmad al-Ḥattū und anderer frühdynastischer Begräbnisstätten im südlichen Mesopotamien und in Luristān, Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien herausgegeben von Barthel Hrouda 14, Munich, 1993.
Falsone, Sconzo 2012
Falsone, G., Sconzo, P., “Tell Shiyukh Tahtani, Syria Report of the 2006– 09 Seasons”, in R. Matthews, J. Curtis (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12 April–16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, vol. III, Wiesbaden, 2012, pp. 167–190.
Finnegan 1986
Finnegan, M., “The Faunal Remains Cave Khirbet Umm ad-Danamir”, in P.E. McGovern (ed.), The Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age of Central Transjordan. The Baqah Valley Project, Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 315–316.
Fiorina 2007a
Fiorina, P., “L’area di Tell Yelkhi: le sepolture”, Mesopotamia 42, 2007, pp. 2–115.
Fiorina 2007b
Fiorina, P., “Kheit Qasim: les tombes de la fin du IIIe jusqu’à la fin du IIe millénaire A.C.”, Mesopotamia 42, 2007, pp. 151–165.
Forest 1983
Forest, J.-D., Les pratiques funéraires en Mésopotamie du cinquième millénaire au début du troisième: étude de cas, Bibliothèque de la Délégation archéologique française en Iraq 2, Paris, 1983.
Frank 2016
Frank, C., Le statut de l’enfant en Mésopotamie à l’Âge du Bronze d’après la documentation archéologique et textuelle, PhD Thesis, université Lumière Lyon 2, 2016.
Fugmann 1958
Fugmann, E., Hama: fouilles et recherche 1931-1938, vol. II: L’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistiques, Nationalmuseets skrifter. Større beretningen 4, Copenhagen, 1958.
Gabbianelli et al. 2015
Gabbianelli, F., Alhaique, F., Romano, L., D’Agostino, F., Valentini, A., “mtDNA Analysis for the Characterisation of Sumerian Equids”, Italian Journal of Animal Science 14, suppl. 1, 2015, p. 112 [available from: ResearchGate], <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291343829_mtDNA_anlysis_for_the_characterisation_of_Sumerian_equids>.
Garfinkel, Cohen 2007
Garfinkel, Y., Cohen, S.L., “Chapter 3. The Burials”, in Y. Garfinkel, S.L. Cohen (eds.), The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher. Final Report, AASOR 62, Boston, 2007, pp. 15–65.
Gautier 1895
Gautier, J., “Note sur les fouilles entreprises dans la haute vallée de l’Oronte pour retrouver l’emplacement de l’ancienne ville de Kadech”, CRAIBL 39/5, 1895, pp. 441–464.
Genz et al. 2010
Genz, H., El-Zaatari, S., Cakirlar, C., Badreshany, K., Riehl, S., “A Middle Bronze Age Burial from Tell Fadous Kfarabida, Lebanon”, Egypt and the Levant 20, 2010, pp. 183–205.
Gibson, Sanders, Mortensen 1981
Gibson, M., Sanders, J.C., Mortensen, B., “Tell Razuk: Stratigraphy, Architecture, Finds”, in M. Gibson (ed.), Uch Tepe, vol. I: Tell Razuk, Tell Ahmed al-Mughier, Tell Ajamat, Chicago, 1981, pp. 28–87.
Green 2006
Green, J.D.M., Ritual and Social Structure in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Southern Levant: The Cemetery at Tell es-Sa֝idiyeh. Jordan, PhDThesis, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 2006.
Grosvenor-Ellis, Westly 1965
Grosvenor-Ellis, A., Westly, B., “Appendix J. Preliminary Report on the Animal Remains in the Jericho Tombs & Appendix K. Observations on the Occurrence of Animal Bones in the EB–MB Tombs”, in K.M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, vol. II: The Tombs, London, 1965, pp. 694–703.
Guigues 1937
Guigues, P.E., “LébéꜤa, Kafer-Garra, Qrayé, nécropoles de la région sidonienne”, BMBeyr 1, 1937, pp. 35–76.
Guigues 1938
Guigues, P.E., “LébéꜤa, Kafer-Garra, Qrayé, nécropoles de la région sidonienne”, BMBeyr 2, 1938, pp. 27–72.
Haller 1954
Haller, A., Die Graber und Grufte von Assur, WVDOG 65, Berlin, 1954.
Horwitz 1987
Horwitz, L.K., “Animal Offerings from Two Middle Bronze Age Tombs”, IEJ 37, 1987, pp. 251–255.
Horwitz 1989
Horwitz, L.K., “Faunal Remains from Middle Bronze Age Tel TeꜤenim”, Tel Aviv 25/1, 1989, pp. 105–115.
Horwitz 1996
Horwitz, L.K., “Animal Bones from the Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Tel Dan”, in A. Biran, D. Ilan, R. Greenberg (eds.), Dan. A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, vol. I, Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, 1996, pp. 268–276.
Horwitz 1997
Horwitz, L.K., “The Animal Bone Assemblage from the Middle Bronze II Tomb (T1181, Area L) at Hazor”, in A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonfil (eds.), Hazor, vol. V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation 1968, Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 344–347.
Horwitz 2001a
Horwitz, L.K., “Animal Offerings in the Middle Bronze Age: Food for the Gods, Food for Thought”, PEQ 133, 2001, pp. 78–90.
Horwitz 2001b
Horwitz, L.K., “Animal Remains from Efrata”, in R. Gonen (ed.), Excavation at Efrata. A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 12, Jerusalem, 2001, pp. 110–118.
Horwitz 2002
Horwitz, L.K., “Archaeozoological Remains I. Animal Bones”, in A. Kempinski, N. Scheftelowitz, R. Oren (eds.), Tel Kabri. The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 20, Tel Aviv, 2002, pp. 395–401.
Horwitz 2005
Horwitz, L.K., “Faunal and Malacological Remains from the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age Levels at Tel YoqneꜤam”, in A. Ben-Tor, D. Ben-Ami, A. Livneh (eds.), Yoqne֝am, vol. III: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Final Reports of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988), Qedem Reports 7, Jerusalem, 2005, pp. 395–436.
Horwitz 2007
Horwitz, L.K., “Chapter 10. The Faunal Remains”, in Y. Garfinkel, S. Cohen (eds.), The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher. Final Report, AASOR 62, Boston, 2007, pp. 125–129.
Horwitz 2010
Horwitz, L.K., “Animal Bone Remains from Fassuta”, Atiqot 62, 2010, pp. 51–52.
Horwitz 2014
Horwitz, L.K., “Appendix IB: Faunal Remains from Jebel Qa aqir”, in W.G. Dever (ed.), Excavations at the Early Bronze IV Sites of Jebel Qa֝aqir and Be’er Resisim, Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 6, Winona Lake, 2014, pp. 243–248.
Ilan 2002
Ilan, D., “Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan”, NEA (ASOR) 65/2, 2002, pp. 92–104.
Kampschulte, Orthmann 1984
Kampschulte, I., Orthmann, W., Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal, vol. I: Ausgrabungen bei Tawi 1975 und 1978, SBA 38, Bonn, 1984.
Katz 2007
Katz, D., “Sumerian Funerary Rituals in Context”, in N. Laneri (ed.), Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, Proceedings of Symposium, University of Chicago Oriental Institute, Febr. 17–18, 2006, OIS 3, Chicago, 2007, pp. 167–188.
Kenyon 1960
Kenyon, K.M., Excavations at Jericho, vol. I: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4, London, 1960.
Kharobi 2015
Kharobi, A., Approche archéo-anthropologique des tombes de Tell Hamoukar et Tell Mozan (Syrie de 3700 à 1600 av. J.-C.): taphonomie et diversité des pratiques funéraires, PhD Thesis, EDSciences et Environnements, université de Bordeaux, 2015.
Lernau 2002
Lernau, O., “Fish Bones “, in A. Kempinski, N. Scheftelowitz, R. Oren (eds.), Tel Kabri. The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 20, Tel Aviv, 2002, pp. 409–426.
Lev-Tov, Maher 2001
Lev-Tov, J., Maher, E.F., “Food in Late Bronze Age Food Offerings: Faunal Evidence from Tomb 1 at Tell Dothan”, PEQ 133, 2001, pp. 91–109.
Limet 2000
Limet, H., “Le contenu archéozoologique des tombes ‘royales’ d’Ur: réflexions sur son interprétation”, in L. Bodson (ed.), Ces animaux que l’homme choisit d’inhumer. Contribution à l’étude de la place et du rôle de l’animal dans les rites funéraires, Colloques d’histoire des connaissances zoologiques 11, Liège, 2000, pp. 41–61.
Lewis 2014
Lewis, T.J., “Feast for the Dead and Ancestor Veneration in Levantine Tradition”, in V.R. Herrmann, J.D. Schloen (eds.), In Remembrance of Me. Feasting with the Dead in the Ancient Middle East, OIMP 37, Chicago, 2014, pp. 69–74.
Lion 2009
Lion, Br., “Nourrir les morts, d’après la documentation épigraphique”, in C. Michel (ed.), L’alimentation dans l’Orient ancien: de la production à la consommation, Cahier des thèmes transversaux ArScAn 9, Paris, 2009, pp. 465–473.
Loud 1948
Loud, G., Megiddo, vol. II: Seasons of 1935–39, OIP 62, Chicago, 1948.
Macalister 1912
Macalister, S.R.A., The Excavation of Gezer. 1902–1905 and 1907–1909, London, 1912.
Mazar 1977
Mazar, A., “Thousand Years of History at Tel Beth-Shean”, BiblArch 60/2, 1977, pp. 62–76.
Mcclellan 1998
McClellan, T., “Tell Banat North: The White Monument”, in M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu. Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, vol. I: Landscape, Archaeology, Settlement, Subartu 4/1, Turnhout, 1998, pp. 243–271.
Mcmahon 2006
McMahon, A., Nippur, vol. V: The Early Dynastic to Akkadian Transition: The Area WF Sounding at Nippur, OIP 129, Chicago, 2006.
Marinova et al. 2012
Marinova, E., Linseele, V., Vandorpe, P., Van der Valk, J., “Middle Bronze Age Ritual, Subsistence and Environment at Tell Tweini Inferred from Bioarchaeological Evidence”, in T. Boiy, J. Bretschneider, A. Goddeeris, H. Hameeuw, G. Jans, J. Tavernier (eds.), The Ancient Near East. A Life, OLA 220, Leuven, 2012, pp. 345–363.
Martin, Moon, Postgate 1985
Martin, H.P., Moon, J., Postgate, J.N., Abu Salabikh Excavations, vol. II: Graves 1 to 99, London, 1985.
Martin 1988
Martin, L., “The Faunal Remains from Tell es-SaꜤidiyeh”, Levant 20, 1988, pp. 83–84.
Matthiae 1980
Matthiae, P., “Campagne de fouilles à Ébla en 1979: les tombes princières et le palais de la ville basse à l’époque amorrhéenne”, CRAIBL 124/1, 1980, pp. 94–118.
Minniti 2006
Minniti, C., “I resti ossei animali provenienti da Tell Tuqan (Siria): campagna di scavo 1993”, in Fr. Baffi (ed.), Tell Tuqan. Ricerche archeologiche italiane nella regione del Maath (Siria), Collana del Dipartimento, Università di Lecce, Dipartimento di beni culturali 13, Lecce, 2006, pp. 313–328.
Minniti 2011
Minniti, C., “Animal Bones from Tell Tuqan (2007–2009 Excavation Seasons)”, in Fr. Baffi (ed.), Tell Tuqan Excavations 2008–2010, Collana del Dipartimento, Università di Lecce, Dipartimento di beni culturali 18, Lecce, 2011, pp. 323–334.
Minniti 2014
Minniti, C., “Reassessing Animal Exploitation in Northern Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period: The Evidence from Tell Tuqan”, in Fr. Baffi, R. Fiorentino, L. Peyronnel (eds.), Tell Tuquan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian-Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference, May 15th–17th 2013, Lecce, Congedo, 2014, pp. 459–484.
Morandi-Bonacossi 2011
Morandi-Bonacossi, D., “The Middle Bronze Age Necropolis at Mishrifeh”, in P. Pfälzner, M. Al-Maqdissi (eds.), Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Königsgruft von Qatna, Qatna-Studien 1, Wiesbaden, 2011, pp. 11–37.
Nassar 2010
Nassar, J., Les espaces funéraires infra-urbains de Mari (Moyen-Euphrate, 2900-1760 av. J.-C.): analyse archéo-anthropologique, PhD Thesis, ED Sciences et environnements, université de Bordeaux, 2010.
Orthmann, Rova 1991
Orthmann, W., Rova, E., Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal, vol. II: Ausgrabungen in Wreide, Schriften zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie 2, Saarbrücken, 1991.
Pardee 1996
Pardee, D., “Marzihu, Kispu, and the Ugaritic Funerary Cult: A Minimalist View”, in N. Wyatt, W.G.E. Watson, J.B. Lloyd (eds.), Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Edinburgh 1994. Essays Presented in Honour of Pr. J.C.L. Gibson, Münster, 1996, pp. 273–287.
Pardee 2014
Pardee, D., “The Katumuwa Inscription”, in V.R. Herrmann, J.D. Schloen (eds.), In Remembrance of Me. Feasting with the Dead in the Ancient Middle East, OIMP 37, Chicago, 2014, pp. 45–48.
Piątkowska-Małecka, Wygnańska 2012
Piątkowska-Małecka, J., Wygnańska, Z., “Animal Remains from Middle Bronze Age Graves at Tell Arbid (Syria)”, Światowit 9 (L)/A (2011), 2012, pp. 67–80.
Pollock 2007
Pollock, S., “Death of a Household”, in N. Laneri (ed.), Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, Proceedings of Symposium, University of Chicago Oriental Institute, Febr. 17–18, 2006, OIS 3, Chicago, 2007, pp. 209–222.
Poplin 1989
Poplin, F., “Matière, animal, homme, esprit. Introduction à l’animal dans les pratiques religieuses”, in P. Méniel (ed.), L’animal dans les pratiques religieuses: les manifestations matérielles. Actes du colloque international de Compiègne, 11-13 novembre 1988, Anthropozoologique NS 3, Paris, 1989, pp. 13–21.
Reuther 1926
Reuther, O., Die Innenstadt von Babylon (Merkes), WVDOG 47, Leipzig, 1926.
Sang 2010
Sang, L., Burial Practices of the Third Millennium BCE in the Middle Euphrates Region: An Interpretation of Funerary Rituals, PhD Thesis, Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, 2010.
Sahrhage 1998
Sahrhage, D., Fischfang und Fischkult im alten Ägypten, KAW 70, Mainz, 1998.
Sauvage 2005
Sauvage, M., “Incinération et inhumation à l’époque médio-assyrienne (xiiie-xiie s. av. J.-C.): le cas de Tell Mohammed Diyab”, Ktéma 30, 2005, pp. 47–54.
Schwartz 2012
Schwartz, G.M., “Era of the Living Dead: Funerary Praxis and Symbol in Third Millennium BC Syria”, in P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, A. Wissing (eds.), (Re-) Constructing Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Tübingen Post-Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead” in May 2009, Qatna-Studien Supplementa 1, Wiesbaden, 2012, pp. 59–78.
Schwartz 2013
Schwartz, G.M., “Memory and Its Demolition: Ancestors, Animals and Sacrifice at Umm el-Marra, Syria”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23/3, 2013, pp. 495–522.
Schwartz et al. 2003
Schwartz, G.M., Curvers, H., Dunham, S., Stuart, B., “A Third-Millennium B.C. Elite Tomb and Other New Evidence from Tell Umm el-Marra, Syria”, AJA 107/3, 2003, pp. 325–361.
Schwartz et al. 2006
Schwartz, G.M., Curvers, H., Dunham, S., Stuart, B., Weber, J.A., “A Third-Millennium B.C. Elite Mortuary Complex at Umm El-Marra, Syria: 2002 and 2004”, AJA 110/4, 2006, pp. 603–641.
Scurlock 2002
Scurlock, J., “Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Mesopotamian Religion”, in B.J. Collins (ed.), A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2002, pp. 361–388.
Sołtysiak, Tomczyk 2008
Sołtysiak, A., Tomczyk, J., “Tell Ashara (Syria), Seasons 1999–2007. Short Fieldwork Reports”, Bioarchaeology of the Near East 2, 2008, pp. 63–107.
Strommenger, Kohlmeyer 1998
Strommenger, E., Kohlmeyer, K., Tall Bi’a/Tuttul, vol. I: Die Altorientalischen Bestattungen, WVDOG 96, Berlin, Leipzig, 1998.
Tenu, Rottier 2010
Tenu, A., Rottier, S., “Le cimetière à crémation de Nasriyah, Syrie (mission syro-française de l’Oronte)”, Studia Orontica 7-8, 2010, pp. 21–32.
Thalmann 2006
Thalmann, J.-P., Tell Arqa, vol. I: Les niveaux de l’Âge du Bronze, BAH 177, Paris, 2006.
Thureau-Dangin, Dunand 1936
Thureau-Dangin, F., Dunand, M., Til-Barsib, BAH 23, Paris, 1936.
Tufnell (ed.) 1958
Tufnell, O. (ed.), Lachish (Tell ed-Durveir), vol. IV: The Bronze Age, Oxford, 1958.
Tufnell 1962
Tufnell, O., “The Courtyard Cemetery at Tell el-‘Ajjul, Palestine”, BIA (L) 3, 1962, pp. 1–37.
Van Buren 1948
Van Buren, E.D., “Fish-Offerings in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Iraq 10, 1948, pp. 101–121.
Van Loon 2001
Van Loon, M.N., Selenkahiye: Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir. Northern Syria 1967–1975, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 91, Istanbul, 2001.
Van Neer 2000
Van Neer, W., “Faunal Remains from an Akkadian Grave in Tell Beydar”, in K. Van Lerberghe, G. Voet (eds.), Tell Beydar. Technical and Environmental Studies, Subartu 6, Turnhout, pp. 61–64.
Vila 2004
Vila, E., “La faune récoltée dans les sépultures de la nécropole est”, in F. Braemer, J.-C. Échallier, A. Taraqji (eds.), Khirbet al Umbashi. Villages et campements de pasteurs dans le « désert noir » (Syrie) à l’âge du bronze, BAH 171, Paris, 2004, pp. 214–216.
Vila 2005
Vila, E., “Réflexions sur les offrandes animales dans des tombes de la nécropole de Abu Hamad sur les piémonts du Bischri (Syrie, 3e millénaire av. J.-C., Bronze ancien)”, in C. Falb, K. Kraznik, J.W. Meyer, E. Vila, Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal, vol. IV: Der Friedhof von Abu Hamed (Syrien), Schriften zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, Saarwellingen, 2005, pp. 335–357.
Vila 2011
Vila, E., “Les restes de faune dans le complexe funéraire royal de Qatna”, in P. Pfälzner, M. Al-Maqdissi (eds.), Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Königsgruft von Qatna, Qatna-Studien 1, Wiesbaden, 2011, pp. 383–402.
Vila 2014
Vila, E., “L’âne domestique en Syrie: réflexions sur les données nouvelles de Mari”, in P. Butterlin, J.-C. Margueron, B. Muller, M. Al-Maqdissi (eds.), Mari, ni est, ni ouest. Actes du colloque « Mari, ni est ni ouest » tenu les 20-22 octobre 2010 à Damas, Syrie, Syria-Suppl. 2, Beyrouth, 2014, pp. 425–436.
Vila, Al-Besso, forthcoming
Vila, E., Al-Besso, M., “Chapitre 4. L’homme et la steppe, exploitation des animaux et économie pastorale à Al-Rawda”, in C. Castel et al. (eds.), Des villes neuves aux marges du désert de Syrie à la fin du 3e millénaire av. J.-C., TMO, Lyon, forthcoming.
Vila, Dalix 2004
Vila, E., Dalix, A.-S., “Alimentation et idéologie: la place du sanglier et du porc à l’âge du bronze sur la côte Levantine”, in P. Bonte, A.-M. Brisebarre, D. Helmer, H. Sidi Maamar (eds.), Domestications animales. Dimensions sociales et symboliques, Anthropozoologica 39/1, Paris, 2004, pp. 219–236.
Wapnish 1997
Wapnish, P., “Middle Bronze Equid Burials at Tell Jemmeh and Reexamination of a Purportedly ‘Hyksos’Practice”, in E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia University Museum Monograph 96, Philadelphia, 1997, pp. 335–367.
Way 2011
Way, K.C., Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol, Winona Lake, 2011.
Weber 2008
Weber, J., “Elite Equids: Redefining Equid Burials of the Mid- to Late 3rd Millennium BC from Umm el-Marra”, in E. Vila, L. Gourichon, A. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East, vol. VIII: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas, TMO 49, Lyon, 2008, pp. 499–520.
Wilhelm 2006
Wilhelm, S., “Ancestral Bones: Early Bronze Age Human Skeletal Remains from Tell Banat, Syria”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 37, 2006, pp. 359–380.
Woolley 1934
Woolley, C.L., Ur Excavations, vol. II: The Royal Cemetery, London, 1934.
Zarins 1986
Zarins, J., “Equids Associated with Human Burials in Third Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia: Two Complementary Facets”, in R.H. Meadow, H.P. Uerpmann (eds.), Equids in the Ancient World, vol. I, Wiesbaden, 1986, pp. 164–193.
Zettler 1996
Zettler, R., “Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989–1995. A City in Northern Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millenium B.C.”, Expedition 38/1, 1996, pp. 14–26.
Zettler 1997
Zettler, R., Subsistence and Settlement in a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat. 1989–1995 Preliminary Report, MASCA 14, Philadelphia, 1997.
Annexe
Fig. 1. EBA burial sites with animal remains (number of burials). When the number of burials is missing, presence of fauna is illustrated by a square (tab. 1).
Fig. 2. Frequency of domestic animals occurrence (caprine, cattle and pigs) inside EBA burials (number of burials). When the number of burials is missing, the presence of species is shown by a square. All EBA sites with animal remains are listed (tab. 2).
Fig. 3. MBA burial sites with animal remains (number of burials). When the number of burials is missing, presence of fauna is shown by a square (tab. 1).
Fig. 4. Frequency of occurrence of domestic animals (caprine, cattle and pigs) inside MBA burials (number of burials). When the number of burials is missing, presence of species is shown by a square. All MBA sites with animal remains are listed (tab. 2).
Fig. 5. LBA burial sites with animal remains (number of burials). When the number of burials is missing, presence of fauna is shown by a square (tab. 1).
Fig. 6. Frequency of occurrence of domestic animals (caprine, cattle and pigs) in LBA burials (number of burials). When the number of burials is missing, presence of species is shown by a square. All LBA sites with animal remains are listed (tab. 2).
Fig. 7. Occurrence of a complete mammal skeleton in burials from all sites (tab. 2). Sites with animal remains are marked with white dots.
Fig. 8. Occurrence of fish and bird remains in burials (bones and skeleton) (tab. 2). Complete fish skeletons were attested from EBA (Isin, Mari), MBA (Meggido, Sidon, Mari), and LBA burials (Tel es-SaꜤidiyeh). Complete birds were recorded from EBA (Abu Salabikh, Tell Beydar, Halawa, Jerablus Tahtani), MBA (Sidon, Umm el-Marra), and LBA burials (Tel es-SaꜤidiyeh, Qatna). Sites with animal remains are marked with white dots.
Tab. 1. Number of burials with animal remains attested on Bronze Age sites. EBA: Early Bronze Age – MBA: Middle Bronze Age – LBA: Late Bronze Age.
Tab. 1. Number of burials with animal remains attested on Bronze Age sites. EBA: Early Bronze Age – MBA: Middle Bronze Age – LBA: Late Bronze Age.
Tab. 1. Number of burials with animal remains attested on Bronze Age sites. EBA: Early Bronze Age – MBA: Middle Bronze Age – LBA: Late Bronze Age.
Tab. 1. Number of burials with animal remains attested on Bronze Age sites. EBA: Early Bronze Age – MBA: Middle Bronze Age – LBA: Late Bronze Age.
Tab. 2. Number of burials with animal remains by species and deposit types. p = present.
Tab. 2. Number of burials with animal remains by species and deposit types. ** Sus scrofa wild board; p = present.
Tab. 2. Number of burials with animal remains by species and deposit types. p = present.
Tab. 2. Number of burials with animal remains by species and deposit types. p = present.
Tab. 2. Number of burials with animal remains by species and deposit types. ** Sus scrofa wild board; *** Astragalus; p = present.
Tab. 2. Number of burials with animal remains by species and deposit types. p = present; ° Third phalange of a lion (inclusion of a lion-skin cloak).
Tab. 3. Occurrence of animal deposits in Bronze Age burials of Mesopotamia, Syria, and the Levant (by number of burials with bone remains).
Notes de bas de page
1 For example, in the publication of the famous tombs of Ur, the frequent presence of animal bones in the tombs is simply noted, sometimes with specific determinations, but without a thorough analysis (Woolley 1934).
2 Poplin 1989.
3 The terms “sacrifice” and “sacrificial slaughter” are used here in the sense of killing as part of the funeral ritual.
4 For Mesopotamia, the study of E. Browaeys (2010) was consulted for most site references.
5 Woolley 1934.
6 Most of the equid remains have been identified as donkeys. Nevertheless an onager was recorded at Abu Tbeirah (Alhaique 2015a).
7 De Cupere, Van Neer 2014. This type of deposit is exceptional in burials and would appear to indicate a ritual known for in antis temples at Tell Chuera and Halawa (ongoing study by E. Vila).
8 Wilhelm 2006.
9 Dunand 1973. Whether these deposits represent funerary offerings or intrusive elements due to the strong erosion on the site is unclear.
10 Ilan 2002.
11 Horwitz 2001a, pp. 79–80. We have regrouped the data from EBA IV, MBA I, transition EBA–MBA as the contemporary period for the Levant area.
12 Minniti 2006.
13 Schwartz 2013.
14 Groupers, sea bream, parrot fish (Genz et al. 2010).
15 Freshwater fish (tilapia, perch, Cyprinidae) and marine fish (grouper, Carangidae, Mugilidae, parrot fish, Sphyraenae, sharks, sea needle, Gobiidae, rays, Clupeidae, Labridae, Sparidae): Chahoud 2013.
16 Grouper, Carangidae, sea bream, Ciclidae, and Nile perch (Horwitz 2002; Lernau 2002).
17 A single example of Nile perch remains (Bate 1938).
18 Clarias sp. (Horwitz 1987).
19 Chahoud 2013; Chahoud 2014–2015; Chahoud 2016–2017.
20 Identified by J. Desse (Doumet-Serhal 1996).
21 At Megiddo, the photographic record of the excavation shows that the deposits were placed next to the head of the deceased (Loud 1948).
22 Chahoud 2013; Chahoud 2014–2015; Chahoud 2016–2017.
23 Clutton-Brock 1986 (it could be a jackal and not a dog).
24 Woolley 1934. Cattle have been found in tombs PG 580, PG 789, PG 800, and PG 1232. The presence of equids in tomb PG 1232, noted by Woolley, is uncertain, especially as there was confusion, later corrected, between equids and cattle in the remains of tomb PG 800 (Zarins 1986).
25 According to the specific determinations that could be made, equids in burials are in most cases domestic donkeys or donkey/onager hybrids, except for an equid in a Tell Arbid burial, identified as an onager (Piątkowska-Małecka, Wygnańska 2012). At Abu Tbeirah, the mtDNA of a complete equid not clearly associated to a human burial belonged to E. asinus, and the mtDNA of another one associated with a human burial belonged to E. hemionus (Gabbianelli et al. 2015).
26 Schwartz 2012.
27 Cf. Zarins 1986; Vila 2005; Schwartz 2012.
28 The funerary context in this case is unclear (Vila 2014).
29 Weber 2008; Schwartz 2012.
30 Wapnish 1997.
31 One burial was identified with a complete equid skeleton (Wapnish 1997; Way 2011).
32 Schwartz 2013.
33 Limet 2000.
34 Schwartz 2013.
35 Vila, Dalix 2004.
36 For that topic, concerning Ancient Egypt, see Ikram, in this volume.
37 Kenyon 1960, pp. 433, 765.
38 Chahoud 2013; Chahoud 2014–2015; Chahoud 2016–2017.
39 On the question of fish as food for the dead in Ancient Egypt, see Volokhine, in this volume.
40 One case of a cattle carcass was attested in the Umm el-Marra burial.
41 Scurlock 2002; Katz 2007; Pollock 2007; Lewis 2014; Pardee 1996; Pardee 2014.
42 Chahoud 2013; Chahoud 2014–2015; Chahoud 2016–2017.
43 Chahoud 2013; Chahoud 2014–2015; Chahoud 2016–2017.
44 Düring, Visser, Akkermans 2015.
45 Chahoud 2013; Chahoud 2014–2015; Chahoud 2016–2017.
46 An example of a practical constraint: a lamb a few weeks old can only be sacrificed at a certain point in the year.
47 Van Buren 1948.
48 Blöme 1934.
49 Sahrhage 1998; Volokhine, in this volume.
50 Limet 2000.
51 Chahoud 2013; Chahoud 2014–2015; Chahoud 2016–2017.
52 Lion 2009.
53 Katz 2007.
54 Katz 2007.
55 Lion 2009.
Auteurs
Chercheure associée, laboratoire Archéorient (UMR 5133), Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée ;
Chercheure, laboratoire Archéorient (UMR 5133), Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Écrire, initier et transmettre
Identité locale et tradition confrérique dans la Ḥāfiẓiyya Ḫalwatiyya, une confrérie soufie de Moyenne-Égypte (xixe et xxe siècles)
Renaud Soler
2021
Soufisme et Hadith dans l’Égypte ottomane
ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Munāwī (952/1545 - 1031/1622)
Tayeb Chouiref
2020
Cultes et textes sacrés dans l’Égypte tardive
Diffusion, circulation et adaptation
Marion Claude et Abraham Ignacio Fernández Pichel (éd.)
2023
Recenser l’Égypte
Dette publique et politiques de quantification à l’ère impériale (1875-1922)
Malak Labib
2024
Écrire, initier et transmettre
Identité locale et tradition confrérique dans la Ḥāfiẓiyya Ḫalwatiyya, une confrérie soufie de Moyenne-Égypte (xixe et xxe siècles)
Renaud Soler
2021
Soufisme et Hadith dans l’Égypte ottomane
ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Munāwī (952/1545 - 1031/1622)
Tayeb Chouiref
2020
Cultes et textes sacrés dans l’Égypte tardive
Diffusion, circulation et adaptation
Marion Claude et Abraham Ignacio Fernández Pichel (éd.)
2023
Recenser l’Égypte
Dette publique et politiques de quantification à l’ère impériale (1875-1922)
Malak Labib
2024
