Article
Household Rituals and Merchant Caravanners:
The Phenomenon of Early Bronze Age Donkey Burials
from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel
Haskel J. Greenfield 1,*, Jon Ross 2, Tina L. Greenfield 1, Shira Albaz 3, Sarah J. Richardson 1 and Aren M. Maeir 3
Department of Anthropology, St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2M6, Canada;
tlgreenfield@gmail.com (T.L.G.); srichardson162@gmail.com (S.J.R.)
2 Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel;
jon.ross521@gmail.com
3 Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology,
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel; shirakisos@gmail.com (S.A.); arenmaeir@gmail.com (A.M.M.)
* Correspondence: haskel.greenfield@umanitoba.ca; Tel.: +1-204-272-1591
1
Citation: Greenfield, H.J.; Ross, J.;
Greenfield, T.L.; Albaz, S.;
Richardson, S.J.; Maeir, A.M.
Simple Summary: The goal of this study is to increase our understanding of the role of ritual in the
domestic residences of commoners in early complex societies in the ancient Near East. Most archaeologists have concentrated their research on rituals taking place in the public and administrative
areas of early cities (e.g., temples and palaces). However, the bulk of the population lived in simple
domestic residences and were not involved in the public ritual displays except as onlookers. We
present the results of our recent excavations at the Early Bronze Age site of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel.
Our excavations at the site have uncovered the remains of early domestic donkeys and other goods
that were buried as the neighbourhood was constructed and houses were renovated. These provide
insight into the role of ritual in everyday life for most people in these early cities. As the donkey
burials are very limited in their location in these early cities, we propose that such residences were
inhabited by merchant families.
Household Rituals and Merchant
Caravanners: The Phenomenon of
Early Bronze Age Donkey Burials
from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ani12151931
Academic Editor: Lidar Sapir-Hen
Received: 19 May 2022
Accepted: 11 July 2022
Published: 28 July 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
Abstract: Most studies of ritual and symbolism in early complex societies of the Near East have
focused on elite and/or public behavioural domains. However, the vast bulk of the population
would not have been able to fully participate in such public displays. This paper explores the zooarchaeological and associated archaeological evidence for household rituals in lower-stratum residences in the Early Bronze Age (EB) of the southern Levant. Data from the EB III (c. 2850–2550 BCE)
deposits excavated at the site of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel, are illustrative of the difficulty in identifying the nature of household rituals. An integrated analytical approach to the architecture, figurines,
foundation deposits, and domestic donkey burials found in lower-stratum domestic residences provides insights into the nature of household rituals. This integrated contextual perspective allows
the sacred and symbolic role(s) of each to be understood and their importance for EB urban society
to be evaluated.
tral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: ritual; sacrifice; Early Bronze Age; southern Levant; Near East; zooarchaeology; Equus asinus;
donkey; animal figurines; building foundation deposits; trade; merchant homes
1. Introduction
The goal of this paper is to investigate ritual and symbolic behaviours that occur
within non-elite (lower stratum) households in early urban societies in the Near East. Data
from our recent excavations of an Early Bronze Age (EB) (Note: The abbreviations of EBA
and EB are used in different ways in this paper, largely according to their conventional
usage in the literature of the southern Levant. EB is used when we refer to a phase or
Animals 2022, 12, 1931. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12151931
www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
2 of 41
series of phases within the Early Bronze Age (e.g., EB II–III or EB III), while EBA refers to
the period as a whole) III domestic residential neighbourhood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel
are utilised to illustrate non-elite ‘ritual life’ and performance, both of which are poorly
understood within the EB urban populations. This holistic perspective includes a discussion of not only the traditional realms of archaeology (e.g., architecture, artefacts) but also
the zooarchaeology of the site. The results are subsequently grounded within a larger discussion on the nature of household rituals in the southern Levant during the EB.
The discussion centres on the excavation and analytical results of five complete and
several incomplete burials of domestic asses found under the floors of private residential
buildings exposed in an EB merchant neighbourhood (Area E). The unusually large number of donkey burials from a very limited number of EB buildings is unprecedented and
poses interesting questions regarding the identity of the inhabitants and the ritual, symbolic, and economic role(s) of asses in early urban society. Why were so many donkeys
buried in an urban environment/context in this small part of the settlement at Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath? Was this practice simply a form of ‘disposal’ for beloved pets and work animals
buried without ceremony, or did it have other meanings? While the ritual character of
some donkey burials from EB excavations has lately been called into question [1,2], only
a holistic treatment of the asinine burials from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath may allow for a fuller
investigation of the different ritual roles (sacred, symbolic, and economic) of asses in EB
III households. Therefore, this paper provides an opportunity to clarify the character of
the donkey burials recovered from Area E, with regards to the intersection of ritual life,
symbols, and the economy (outside of a temple and funerary setting) in a residential EB
neighbourhood. Such opportunities to investigate household rituals are rare during the
EB of the Levant since visible nonelite groups and practices are traditionally overshadowed by the focus on the priestly class in towering temples.
2. Cult, Symbols, and Ritual in Archaeology
Symbolic behaviour (e.g., cult and ritual practices and their associated symbols) are
inherent to daily economic and social life and play a fundamental role in structuring and
organising society, e.g., [3–10]. However, the query of such symbolic behaviour is far from
a simple and straightforward field of study. Exactly what qualifies as cult and ritual (how
it is defined and the interpretation of meaning) and how it should be studied (interpretive
frameworks) is the subject of continuous impassioned debate, particularly with regards
to the linkages between ritual and society (mechanisms for societal change) [3,7,11–14].
The archaeological study of cult and ritual is often neglected (considered a low priority), due in large part to “definitional uncertainty” and ambiguity over how best to conceptualise and study (objectify and materialise) cult and ritual objects. This is compounded
when limited to (or constrained by) the surviving material residues that make-up/(re)constitute the archaeological record [3,7,15]. This situation has clearly changed in recent years,
as more and more archaeologists have taken up the challenge [16–18]. Regardless of definitions, ritual behaviour is highly complex, for it encompasses the intangible, the ‘transcendent’, and the ‘indefinable’ [7,19]. Christopher Hawkes, for instance, considered ritual
life and ‘spiritual beliefs’ as the most difficult and problematic subject to access in archaeology and placed it at the top of his ‘ladder of inference’ [20]. This strong pessimism/scepticism was pervasive and encouraged by one of the foremost Assyriologists of the 20th
century, A. Leo Oppenheim. He stressed the fragmentary and indirect nature of the available evidence deemed inadequate for forming a picture of vanished polytheistic religious
practices that are far removed from the present experience of monotheistic religion in the
modern world [21,22]. The conceptual chasm was too vast to span. Cult and ritual were
placed beyond the conventional reach/ambit of the discipline and remained exiled to the
margins/periphery.
Archaeologists are trapped by a powerful paradox and (the all-too-familiar) materialist dilemma because the ritual landscape is far from a wholly physical one. Yet its study
in archaeological contexts is entirely constrained by the surviving material residues. How
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
3 of 41
we materialise the immaterial at this point becomes an epistemological (and ontological)
Gordian Knot. The iceberg analogy [23] to understanding the archaeological record is
probably most apt—very little is preserved and/or visible of behaviour, but this is what
we need to reconstruct ultimately. Taphonomy, both cultural and natural, as well as the
immaterial nature of most behaviour, prevents the easy reconstruction of much of the archaeological record.
For these reasons, the very terms ‘ritual’ and ‘ceremonial’ were (and still are) frequently invoked by archaeologists in ways that were/are problematic (and simplistic) to
reference the weird and wonderful or the odd and unexplained (fetishizing the exotic).
Yet many dimensions of material culture can be subsumed under cult and ritual and the
material implications are ‘profound’ [3,5,8,9,13,24–26]. Attitudes and paradigms in archaeological thought have swung from ignoring and downplaying cult, ritual, and ‘symbol-based approaches’ (such as in both processual and culture-historical frameworks
where it was a low priority and considered ‘epi-phenomenal’ and/or a ‘mentalist’ preoccupation/distraction) to treating religion and ritual as singular and near totalising (well
exemplified by traditional scholarship on Mesopotamian temple estates and the social organisation of early urban societies in the 4th and 3rd millennium BCE of the Near East
[22,27,28]). A new blend of determinism (and causality) has surfaced in recent scholarship
emphasising the centrality of cult and religion for driving unprecedented change (Neolithisation) following the Pleistocene. Hence, the new provocative rallying cry: ‘it all began
with ritual’ [6,19,25,29,30], even though there are claims for complex cultures prior to the
Holocene [31].
Nowhere else in the world have these themes/issues/debates been so intensely scrutinised than Hodder’s 25-year Neolithic excavation project at Çatalhöyük [5,32,33], followed by Schmidt’s excavations at Gobekli Tepe [24–26]. In a recent volume dedicated to
the memory of Klaus Schmidt, Hodder [19] defines religion as “a “transcendental social,”
an imagined communal identity of a social entity” realised/expressed through ritual theatre. The impact of religion on society is signalled by highly repetitious and habitual social
practice not conditioned by material/functional requirements (enduring continuity in the
layout and use of space over time), combined with meaningful delineation of place
(boundary markers) and numerous acts of commemoration and remembrance. Such commemorative acts typically include the frequent occurrence of foundation deposits and related activities attached to “the ending and starting of buildings”, as well as feasts, the
curation of ‘heirlooms’, the deliberate ‘deposition of things’, the continuity of iconographic traditions with highly charged symbolism, and the like [5]. These indicators are
not dissimilar from the generalised categories of traits listed by traditional cross-cultural
approaches to the archaeology of cult and religion, e.g., [e.g., 13,18].
Hodder takes his treatment of religion and ritual a step further by introducing the
concept of ‘history making’ [3,5]. History-making is composed of concerted acts to consolidate and intensify a community’s historical ties and ‘attachment to place’ through ritual (achieving a heightened sense of temporal depth and ‘long-term memory construction’), to reinforce and expand social ties and networks in the present. Thus, fostering
greater cooperation and solidarity for economies that were becoming increasingly dependent on delayed returns for labour investment. Hodder distinguishes two forms of
‘history-making practices’ held in constant tension and negotiation: (1) practices limited
to house-based descent groups (as is well exemplified by Çatalhöyük, and which are more
dominant in the PPNB after sedentarisation was complete even though it is doubtful if
“sedentarisation’ was ever “complete”—rather it became a dominant component of society); and (2) practices carried out at the level of the collective by solidarity-based groups
that converged on ‘public’ buildings as is well exemplified by Gobekli Tepe, and which
are more dominant in the PPNA in the earlier stages of sedentarisation). Both groups/entities invested in religious and ritual practices that involved ‘history making’. These dynamics open up a fresh perspective for making sense of ritual practice and the general
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
4 of 41
relationships between material culture and religion that extend far beyond the Neolithic
world of southwest Asia [30].
3. The EB of the Southern Levant
The EB of the southern Levant is divided into four major periods—EB I–IV. With the
advent of EB I (c. 3600–3100 BCE — the abbreviations CE and BCE are substituted in this
essay in place of the more commonly used AD and BC to follow the convention used in
the southern Levant), and synchronous with the Late Uruk period of Mesopotamia), we
see the rise of the first urban fortified centres that come to dominate the region. These are
in fact secondary states, as the primary states of Mesopotamia and Egypt probably influence the development of southern Levantine urbanism (Figure 1). Over time, such centres
come to dominate almost every part of the coastal plain and hill country of the southern
Levant during EB II (c. 3100-2900 BCE) and EB III (2900-2500 BCE). In the subsequent EB
IV/Intermediate Bronze (IB) (2500-2000/1900 BCE), the regional system of fortified urban
centres collapses. It is not until the subsequent Middle Bronze (MB) period (c. 2000-1750
BCE) that urban lifestyles are renewed in the region.
While there is a long running debate concerning whether the large fortified EB sites
were in fact truly urban and state-level [34–36], recent regional settlement patterns and
other evidence from archaeological excavations (monumentality, town planning, and craft
economies/specialisation) have largely put this issue to rest [37–39]. It is now widely accepted that the city-state is based on a centralised authority within a multitiered social
and political hierarchy, with a top-down redistributive economy [40,41]. Thus, during EB
II–III, there is increased (vis-à-vis earlier periods) intensification of agriculture [42,43],
trade and exchange across the region [44–46], productive specialisation [47–51], and economies characterised by delayed returns for high-labour investments [37,52–54].
Figure 1. Map showing location of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath and some other contemporary important sites
in the region. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
4. The Ritual Landscape of the EB Southern Levant
Discussion of EB cult and ritual in early urban Levantine societies has mostly followed cultural–historical and processual lines of thought, centred on typing similarities
and differences in building plans, with respect to the evolution/development of sacred
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
5 of 41
monumental architecture for time–space systematics [39,55–62]. Attention has primarily
focused on:
•
•
•
Early sacred public architecture—iterations of elite monumentality and collective expressions of institutionalised ritual and solidarities that crosscut individual households [63];
Mountain cult sites and open-air sanctuaries in remote locations presumably servicing pastoral nomads [64]; and
Tombs and mortuary/funerary practices (e.g., Bab edh-Dhra, Jericho, and the nawamis in the Sinai) [65,66];
EB temples and cultic compounds, such as the Area J temple sequence at Megiddo or
the temple sequence at Ai, are highly visible in the archaeological record and leave a
prominent material footprint/trace. They constitute the most conspicuous manifestation
of ritual behaviour in the archaeological record of the Early Bronze. However, they do not
provide a full picture of the sacred landscape and lack a full in situ cultic assemblage.
There are no surviving examples of cult statues found in situ (i.e., standing in niches or
altars within the temples or other buildings) in EB southern Levantine sites.
The temples themselves are found abandoned and empty of most of the valuable cult
objects/contents. Rarely are cult statues found, particularly outside of Mesopotamia. In
the southern Levant, representations and depictions of (anthropomorphic) deities, such
as the EB II cult stelae from Arad, are few and far between and may not be deities at all
[67]. There is a long history of stelae in the region extending back into the PrePottery Neolithic and down into the EB [68], but none have inscriptions. As a result, the identity of
the major EB deities and their specific religious rites/ceremonies is conjectural and not
securely known [63,67]. There is continued debate over whether smaller cultic buildings/shrines operating in early urban contexts (e.g., the so-called ‘Twin Temples’ at Arad
or the White Building at Yarmuth) functioned as communal/public shrines or were simply
‘domestic chapels’ and/or ‘patrician houses’ in EB II–III [58,59].
Consequently, cult and ritual life are notoriously difficult to access and investigate in
the absence of written records, artistic representations/depictions, and overt cultic equipment/realia (shrines, altars, podiums, masseboth, inscribed stele etc.) [69]. Hence, research
on the EB of the southern Levant in general continues to generally favour/privilege the
ritual performance of emergent elites (the top end of the social hierarchy) in early urban
contexts because of their visibility (e.g., monumental architecture)—they have more and
unique paraphernalia that is therefore more archaeologically visible. Even more apparent
is that ritual practices (and by extension ‘history-making’) are poorly understood (and
virtually non-existent) for house-based descent groups (most of the population) at early
urban centres. There are no texts and limited iconography to supplement the meagre archaeological record. Unlike the Neolithic, this demographic/group/substratum of early
urban society is ordinarily very difficult to target and access with regards to cult and ritual
practices, particularly in the Early Bronze Age Levant. The dataset of equid burials from
Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath provides a rare instance wherein it is possible to access the ritual life and
practice of nonelite social groups and households (at a major early urban community)
operating outside of traditional elite temple contexts and highly centralised institutions.
5. Material—the EB at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath
The site of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath is located on the western border of the Judean foothills
and overlooks the main east–west pass through the Elah valley connecting the central hills
with the southern coastal plain (Figures 1 and 2). A substantial fortification system rings
the site (Figure 3). At 24 hectares in size, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath is the same size, if not larger
than, other fortified EB III urban centres in the regional settlement system, such as at Erani
(c. 25 hectares) and Yarmuth (c. 18 ha.) [52–54].
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
6 of 41
Figure 2. Aerial photograph of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Area E is located on the east facing slope, as noted
by arrow. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
Excavation on the eastern slope (Area E) focused on the exposure of a late EB III
neighbourhood (Figure 4), with significant exposure of remains belonging to Strata E5a,
E5b, and E5c (Figures 5–10) [70–73]. The rich pottery assemblage from the E5 strata is
chronologically diagnostic of the EB IIIC repertoire, and radiocarbon dating for the termination of the final EB phase indicates a date range of ca. 2550–2600 cal. BC [70,71,73].
Figure 3. Map showing location of excavation areas and outline of EB fortification and city area.
Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
7 of 41
6. Materials and Results—Evidence for Ritual in the EB at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath
6.1. Architecture as Evidence for Ritual
Three rectilinear rows of buildings were exposed in Area E at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath (Figure 4). They are separated by a narrow street and gridded out on a NW to SE orientation.
They are clearly part of a larger neighbourhood that encompasses much of the east end of
the site, as the same orientation for building layout is found in excavations almost 100 m
distant on the site [74].
Figure 4. Aerial photograph of Area E excavations (2015) showing an outline of some of the EB
buildings. Site north is at top of photograph and in the following illustrations. Copyright @ Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
The Stratum E5 buildings undergo three phases of construction and renovation characterised as three strata: reconstruction of the neighbourhood (Stratum E5c/earliest), followed by two phases of renewal (Stratum E5b/middle and Stratum E5a/latest) before the
site is abandoned c. 2550 BCE. Buildings are given a new building number in subsequent
phases of occupation. For example, Building 134307 in E5c becomes Building 74512 in E5b
and Building 74505 in E5a. This allows us to distinguish deposits associated with each
phase of occupation—i.e., construction and renovation. (Figures 5–7). The three E5 Strata
include walls and floors from three phases, each one reusing earlier wall stubs, with minor
modification to building plans (the addition of partition walls, installations, and floor renewals), thus preserving the overall layout of the neighbourhood over time. The exterior
walls of buildings were built directly on top of earlier walls in the same alignment, with
narrow rooms flanking the alleyway and connecting to open courtyards.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
8 of 41
Figure 5. Plan of the EB III neighbourhood uncovered in Stratum E5a of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,
showing the location of the donkey burials. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
Figure 6. Plan of the EB III neighbourhood uncovered in Stratum E5b of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,
showing the location of the donkey burials (L144511 and L17E82D09). Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath
Archaeological Project.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
9 of 41
Figure 7. Plan of the EB III neighbourhood uncovered in Stratum E5c of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,
showing the location of the donkey burials (L114506, L19D82D04, L19D83C09, and L20D93A05).
Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
The Stratum E5a-c buildings are small but sturdy multi-roomed units consisting of a
courtyard and an ancillary room on a rectangular plan and sharing parti-walls with the
neighbouring building. The buildings are remarkably uniform in their layout and continue to be so in each phase.
Comparable southern Levantine EB house plans include Stratum IIIc1 (EB IIIA) in
Area F and IIIb2 (EB II) in Trench III at Jericho [75,76], Level G2 at Yarmuth [77], Period C
in Area EY at Tel Beth Yerah [78,79], Stratum 19 in Field X at Tall al-‘Umayri (Jordan) [80],
and Phase II in Area 2 at Tell Abu al-Kharaz [81,82].
All the above, in addition to the cultural continuity displayed by the ceramic inventories through each phase, are strong evidence for residential and cultural continuity over
time in the neighbourhood. While the exposures for the underlying (Strata E6–E9—Figures 8–10) were too limited to determine the full nature of continuity in the architectural
footprint from the very beginning of the neighbourhood (Stratum E9), there appears to be
no significant change in the overall orientation, layout, and material culture character of
the neighbourhood over time. Overall, the EB III occupation in Area E at the site was long
and dense, as indicated by the depth of a probe in Square 93B (c. 2.5m below Stratum E7)
excavated in the final season of 2017—it showed a long succession of surfaces and floor
renewals from the E5 to the E9 (Figure 10). At the bottom of the probe, ceramics from the
EB II were recovered [83].
Generally, the buildings appear to be non-elite/lower-stratum domestic residences.
All material remains within the Stratum E5a-c and underlying strata are related to the
household consumption of food or daily refuse and contain a variety of everyday items,
including both mundane and exotic trade goods [70–73,84].
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
10 of 41
Figure 8. Plan of the EB III neighbourhood uncovered in Stratum E6 of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath.
Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
11 of 41
Figure 9. Plan of the EB III neighbourhood uncovered in Stratum E7 of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath.
Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
12 of 41
Figure 10. Plan of the EB III neighbourhood uncovered in Stratum E8 and E9 in the deep probe of
Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
There appear to be three rows of buildings which descend in elevation as one moves
from northwest to southeast. In each row of buildings, the floor level declines in elevation
as one moves from west (e.g., 172.70m asl in Room 104311 of Building 104311) to east
(172.18m asl in Room 114402 of Building 114402 in Stratum E5a). This pattern is repeated
in each phase of the E5 Stratum. It appears that the neighborhood is built on a series of
terraces that compensates for the declining uneven natural slope of the underlying terrain.
This pattern probably began in the basal E9 stratum as the floors are always horizontal in
each of the ensuing EB strata. A small street or alley divides the buildings on either side
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
13 of 41
into western and eastern complexes. The easternmost row probably faced onto an alley as
well (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Plan of the EB III neighbourhood uncovered in Stratum E5b of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,
showing the three parallel rows of building, separated by a narrow alleyway. Copyright @ Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
6.2. Installations and Platforms as Evidence for Ritual
There is no evidence for niches or any special types of architectural features typically
associated with ritual/cultic activity within any of the Area E buildings at Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath. However, there are features and deposits that may play a role in ritual activities.
For example, Installation 94606 (in Building 134307 of Stratum E5c/in Building 74512 of
Stratum E5b) is a round/circular platform (1 m diameter and reminiscent of the large stone
altars at Megiddo) of solid construction built from three courses of large and roughly
dressed field stones and roughly 1.5 m in height (Figure 12). It is constructed in the centre
of Courtyard 114503 in Building 134307 from the E5c Stratum (Figure 7) and continues in
use into Stratum E5b (Figure 6). It is replaced in Stratum E5a by a raised square platform
(Installation 84109) of similar height and construction as the previous round platform (Figure 13). These installations were unique in Area E, and their precise function remains unknown. The proximity to a pebbled hearth, granary/silo, and whole vessels (related to the
storage, preparation, and consumption of food) suggests that both the solid round and
square platforms provided a raised work surface for everyday food preparation (among
other daily subsistence tasks) carried out in the courtyard (such as those possibly linked
to bread-making found at Tell Abu al-Kharaz) [81,85]. Such installations are only found
within the evolutionary sequence of Building 134307 from its very beginning during the
E5c Stratum to its abandonment at the conclusion of the E5a Stratum as Building 74505. It
is not found in any other building or their phases.
While the precise function of such solid installations is unclear, could the round and
square platforms that are consistently located in the same courtyard suggest/mark continuity in the ritual significance attached to this space? The round installation is situated
near the ritual donkey burial found buried below the dirt floor of this courtyard (see below—Figure 4). Perhaps, in addition to subsistence activities, this structure served as a
surface to encompass (perform?) ritual activities, in addition to subsistence.
While it is tempting to envision that these platforms were used for the ritual slaughter
and preparation of the donkeys found buried beneath the floors, we recognise that this is
wholly speculative and without definitive evidence.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
14 of 41
Figure 12. Photograph of round solid stone platform from Strata E5b and c of Area E, Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath (Installation 94606). Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
Figure 13. Photograph of solid square stone platform from Strata E5a of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath
(Installation 84109). Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
6.3. Figurines as Evidence for Ritual
There are no anthropomorphic representations in the figural corpus (and iconography) from Area E at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. This is consistent with the general finds from residential neighbourhoods at other EB II–III sites. There are a few rider figurines from sites
such as Khirbet ez-Zeraqōn and Jericho, but they are very infrequent. The rider is only
schematically portrayed as the emphasis is clearly on the animal being ridden [1,37].
While most figurines at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath are amorphous and therefore unidentifiable,
except as zoomorphic, two types are recognisable: donkeys and sheep, both of which are
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
15 of 41
represented in the zooarchaeological analysis [86]. The sheep and the zoomorphically ambiguous figurines are not distributed equally between all strata. Several were found in E5a
(n = 6), one in E5b, none in E5c and E6, and two in E7. There are an additional six figurines
from mixed EB stratigraphic context, though they are clearly EB because of their shape.
Included among them are also fragments of donkey figurines (see below).
In the E5a Stratum, figurines are found across much of the excavation area and in a
range of deposits, including walls, the alleyway, and in domestic deposits within buildings (Figure 14). Three are sheep-like, while the other three are only identifiable as zoomorphic. In Stratum E5b, an unidentifiable animal figurine fragment was found on a cobbled floor (144507) in an ancillary room (E15AQ09) of Building 74512 (Figure 15). In the
E7 Stratum, the two examples were recovered from inside a wall (one sheep-like and one
unidentifiable—Figure 16).
Figure 14. Plan showing the spatial distribution of animal figurines in the EB III neighbourhood
uncovered in Stratum E5a of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological
Project.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
16 of 41
Figure 15. Plan showing the spatial distribution of animal figurines in the EB III neighbourhood
uncovered in Stratum E5b of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological
Project.
Figure 16. Plan showing the spatial distribution of animal figurines in the EB III neighbourhood
uncovered in Stratum E7 of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological
Project.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
17 of 41
Why were so few found throughout the sequence and so many in the terminal EB
occupation? Could it be a by-product of settlement abandonment, wherein the domestic
space was not cleaned up beforehand, or something else (a change in ritual behaviour)?
Several of the EB figurines recovered in Area E appear to depict sheep (based on body
proportions, ears, and tails, etc.). This is the most common species represented among the
figurines. They closely parallel figurines recovered from the EB III round stone altar at
Megiddo in the 1940’s [87]. Could this be an indication that the round and square platforms at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath had some ritual significance? Or that a ritual (e.g., blessing) was
carried out as part of the normal domestic activities taking place on the platform? While
this is conjecture at this point, it is worthwhile considering that ritual blessings are a regular part of everyday life in most cultures. Many activities (e.g., food preparation and
consumption) are accompanied by such blessings and one would have a depiction of the
deity when saying the blessing, unless the ritual was aniconic [88].
Two figurine fragments of domestic donkeys carrying their loads were also recovered from Area E at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath (Figure 17). One donkey figurine was found in a
rubbish pit (L58040) dug deep down from the Late Bronze Age layers that disturbed the
underlying EB strata. The pit contained a mixture of EB and LB ceramics. The second figurine was found on the modern surface immediately proximate to the east edge of the
Area E excavations where the EB deposits rise close to the surface. Even though neither
were found in secure EB depositional contexts, their decoration, shape (typology), and
ceramic fabric suggest that they derive (and were disturbed) from the EB layers. They are
very similar to those found at other EB sites in the southern Levant region, such as Azor,
Khirbet el-Mahruq, Khirbet ez-Zeraqōn, and elsewhere in the region [1,45,89–91]. The
presence of similar well-preserved figurines of donkeys (and other domestic animals) recovered in mortuary contexts from other EB sites within the region suggest that they are
more than simple toy representations of economic animals [1].
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
18 of 41
Figure 17. Illustration of fragments of EB donkey figurines found in the EB III neighbourhood of
Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
In contrast to domestic residences, southern Levantine EB shrines have masseboth (sacred standing pillars/stones), altars, and other paraphernalia. However, even though there
is discussion of a ‘divine couple’, the promotion of a male divinity alongside a fertility
goddess, based on cylinder seal impressions [39,59] and cult processions occurring in
streets [92], there is a paucity of clear anthropomorphic representations of divinity in the
southern Levantine EB. Two exceptions are a cult stele that was found in EB II Arad [67]
and the enigmatic ‘bearded man’/aka ‘Lord of the Desert’ stelae found on Chalcolithic and
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
19 of 41
EB sites that extend from southern Jordan to Yemen [93]. The general paucity of clear
depictions of EB anthropomorphic deities suggests that deities were for the most part not
anthropomorphic. They were neither represented in a form that can be recognised nor
made in a form that has survived. The former is unlikely given the published literature
and previous developments in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic across the entire Near East
and Egypt. Aniconic traditions and taboos in figural representations of deity are also a
possibility [88]. Explanations that cannot be definitively ruled out also may be that the
figural representations of deities were fashioned from perishable and/or recyclable materials and/or disposed offsite in a special way. This question is further addressed in the
discussion section below. In any case, depictions of such deities do not appear in everyday
household assemblages in the southern Levantine EB.
6.4. Donkey Burials as Ritual Foundation Deposits
Foundation deposits are generally found under buildings and within walls. They are
buried in specific places to consecrate and dedicate the buildings to deities and to keep
the inhabitants and their contents safe from harm [94,95]. A variety of animals are found
in such deposits during the Bronze Age, including cattle, horses, and donkeys [96–99].
Three types of foundation deposits were recovered from the domestic buildings in
Area E at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath: votive vessels, animal figurines, and donkey burials. The animal figurines as foundation deposits were discussed already above; thus, the vessels and
donkeys are discussed here.
6.4.1. Votive Vessels
The votive vessel assemblage includes seven juglets, two of which are miniature objects and three are miniature bowls. All are associated with the various E5 Strata at Tell
eṣ-Safi/Gath, since comparable material is found in mortuary contexts elsewhere [83].
Five foundation deposits were found associated with Stratum E5b (whole vessels).
Two were found inside installations, while the other two were found inside walls. In Stratum E5a, six foundation deposits were identified, all of which were placed inside the walls
of various buildings. It is important to note that, when other walls and installations from
the different strata were dismantled, no artifacts were found inside the walls; hence, the
suggestion that the whole vessels found in walls and installations were foundation deposits.
Foundation deposits are also known in Egypt from the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom onwards. In Egypt, the placing of a foundation deposit was part of the initiation
ritual of a building and reflected the construction process. Due to the similarities between
Egyptian and Canaanite ritual ceremonies, it is possible that there was an Egyptian influence in the adoption of foundation deposits during the Early Bronze Age in Canaan [100–
102].
6.4.2. Donkey Burials
The donkey burials from Area E are outlined along with their significance as foundation deposits. In the E5 stratum and its various phases, seven completely articulated
domestic donkeys and one partially disarticulated skeleton were excavated from their
shallow pits located beneath the floors of the buildings (see Figures 5–7). The frequency
of burials is not consistent across the various E5 strata. There are four in the earliest stratum (E5c) when the neighbourhood of buildings is constructed (Figure 7). Subsequently,
two additional burials were found within each of the strata (E5a and E5b) when the buildings were renovated (Figures 5 and 6) [103,104]. In every instance, there was no evidence
of post-mortem disturbances or re-orientation of the skeleton, such as rodents, gnawing,
weathering from re-exposure, burning, etc. that would have damaged and/or moved the
skeleton. Nor is there any evidence of other objects placed within the pits containing the
donkey internments.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
20 of 41
In Stratum E5c, four donkey skeletons were found in buildings on either side of the
narrow alleyway (Figure 7) (Note: Donkeys 1–4 from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath have been previously discussed in other publications (e.g., [103,104] These data are summarised and integrated here with previously unreported data on several of the other donkeys.). Donkey 1
(L114506) was found in a shallow pit below the floor of Courtyard 114503 of Building
13407 to the east of the alleyway (L20E93A02—Figure 18). It is located at the south side of
the courtyard alongside and below the foundations of the wall of the building (W75611).
Figure 18. Photograph of the stratigraphic context of Donkey 1 (L114506), showing the location of
the shallow pit below the floor of Courtyard 114503 and Wall 74611 of Building 13407 in Stratum
E5c of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Senior author is shown cleaning the donkey burial. Copyright @
Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project and with the permission of Haskel Greenfield.
This donkey burial is the clearest example of ritual internment [103,104]. The skeleton
was carefully placed in the pit on its right side with the torso facing west (toward the
setting sun); the front and hind legs were tied together (trussed) below the abdomen, and
the upper neck (cervical) vertebra and cranium dismembered and placed on the abdomen
facing east (toward the rising sun) (Figure 19). There was no evidence of any other objects
found associated with the burial. It is evident the animal was sacrificed, the head fully cut
off, and carefully placed on the abdomen facing in the opposite direction [103]. Both front
legs are bent backwards at the humerus–radius/joint, and the hind legs are pushed forward so that they meet below the torso and parallel to the vertebral column. The only way
that the legs could have been placed in this position, which is contrary to their natural
state, would be if the legs were bound/trussed/tied together. It is likely that the donkeys
were carried here by a pole through its tied legs. However, no evidence of rope remains
were discovered in any of the burials. The skeleton was not buried in a haphazard manner
by being dumped into the pit, nor did it fall into a pit naturally. It was slaughtered, carefully laid in the pit on its side, and the dismembered head laid on the stomach facing
towards the rising sun before being covered up.
Donkey 1 (L114506) differed from all subsequent burials in Area E with regards to
the treatment and placement of the head in relation to the rest of the body. While most of
the skeleton is in normal articulation, the neck (cervical vertebrae) and head skeletal elements (cranium and mandible) are not in their normal position. Neither can their position
be accounted for as a result of natural decomposition. The first and obvious fact is that the
head and cervical vertebra are in reverse anatomical position in relation to the rest of the
skeleton. These elements appear to be disarticulated from the remainder of the skeleton
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
21 of 41
and are facing the opposite direction (Figure 19). The neck and head were carefully detached (severed) from the rest of the backbone (thoracic vertebrae) and placed on top of
the stomach/ribcage prior to burial. There is a space between the cervical and thoracic
vertebrae, implying that the head and neck were dismembered from the rest of the skeleton. This anatomical position is highly unusual and cannot be explained as a result of
natural death, being thrown or falling into the pit, etc.
Figure 19. Photograph of Donkey 1 (L114506) found in a shallow pit below the floor of Courtyard
114503 of Building 13407 in Stratum E5c of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath
Archaeological Project.
The animal was likely slaughtered by cutting the throat. Ultimately, the muscles that
hold the head in the anatomically correct orientation were severed to separate the cranium
and upper neck (cervical vertebrae) from the rest of the torso. It is impossible to twist the
neck of an animal this large into such a position and to maintain it afterwards (even if
broken) without severing the muscles first. It would simply bounce back into its proper
anatomical position. The neck must have been slowly and carefully severed after the animal was already dead, since there is no evidence for chop marks on the bones. The head
and neck were likely severed slowly by knives slicing carefully rather than a rapid chopping action that would have damaged the bones and been more obvious.
The depositional context, orientation, and layout of Donkey 1 provides the clearest
and most unambiguous evidence it was a sacrifice. It is clear from the carefully laid out
anatomical orientation of the donkey skeleton that it did not fall into the pit while alive.
Similarly, it was not thrown into the pit after death. It was purposely and carefully laid in
the pit after death by slaughtering and dismemberment. The position of the legs informs
us that it was bound at the hocks (carpal/tarsal joint), most likely before it was placed in
the pit. It likely died from a flesh wound, such as the cutting of the jugular of the neck, to
allow the blood to seep out so that it could be used in any associated rituals. As will be
shown below, the heads of all three donkey burials from the ‘House of Asses’ also faced
east even though they were not dismembered.
The other three donkey skeletons from Stratum E5c (Donkeys 2–4: L19D82D04,
L19D83C09, and L20D93A05, respectively) were found in similar shallow pits buried below the floor of Courtyard 17E82D02 in Building 17E82D08 (west of the alleyway) (Figure
20). Building 17E82D08 was nicknamed ‘the House of Asses’ as a result. Given the nature
of buildings in this area (courtyard and small adjacent room), only the eastern half of this
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
22 of 41
building was exposed. The western half of this building was not excavated, as it is sealed
by several metres of Bronze and Iron Age deposit/overburden. It cannot be certain if there
were more ass burials to the west, as it is sealed by a thick overburden (5–6 m) to the west
of Area E and must await a future generation of excavation.
Figure 20. Photographs of the location of the three donkey skeletons (Donkeys 2–4: L19D82D04,
L19D83C09, and L20D93A05, respectively) buried below the floor of Courtyard 17E82D02 in Building 17E82D08 in Stratum E5c of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Building 17E82D08 was nicknamed ‘the
House of Asses’ as a result. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project and with the permission of Elizabeth Arnold and Tina L. Greenfield.
The skeletal orientation of the three donkeys in the “House of Asses” differs from
that of Donkey 1 (L114506) across the alleyway in some significant ways. First, none of the
Donkey 2–4 heads were dismembered, contrary to Donkey 1. Second, their complete skeletons were laid out on their left sides while facing the rising sun. In contrast, only the head
of Donkey 1 was laid out in such a manner, while the rest of the body was laid out on its
right side and facing toward the west. Third, the fore and hind limbs of both sets of donkeys were in unnatural positions. The limbs of Donkey 1 were pulled tightly under the
torso so that they overlapped. In contrast, the fore and hind limbs of Donkeys 2–3 were
less bent and did not overlap. They appear to be bent only just enough at the elbow and
knee joints to fit into the shallow pit.
There are also similarities with respect to all four donkey burials beneath buildings
on either side of the alleyway that provide evidence for a common mode of treatment
during burial. First, the cranial orientation for each of the donkey skeletons was facing
east towards the rising sun. Second, while the head of Donkey 1 was clearly dismembered,
none of the donkeys from the House of Asses exhibited slicing marks (Note: In a previous
publication, it was mentioned that there was a butchering mark on the epistropheus (2nd
cervical vertebra) of one of the “House of Asses” donkeys - Donkey 4—L20D93A05 [105].
However, recent closer microscopic examination of modern donkey specimens curated at
Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University demonstrated that the so-called butchering
groove was in fact a natural morphological feature commonly found on this osteological
element.). Third, they were all buried in shallow pits below the dirt floors of the courtyards before the walls and floors of the buildings were constructed. It is assumed these
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
23 of 41
spaces were open courtyards due to the size of the rooms, the general absence of pillar
bases (c. 8 × 8 m), and the presence of adjacent narrow rooms, often with pebbled floors.
Crucially, there is no evidence or indication for pits that would have cut down through
the Stratum E5c floors when the rooms were subsequently occupied. In other words, the
burials are not intrusive from the overlying occupational levels.
Each of the Stratum E5c donkey skeletal deposits are securely dated to the construction phase of the Stratum E5c buildings—in other words to the archaeological “moment”
when the neighbourhood is being renewed. They are slaughtered as sacrifices in the time
between the demolition of the Stratum E6 buildings and before the construction of the
Stratum E5c buildings. All the burials stratigraphically predate the construction of the
overlying E5c architectural features and floors that seal the donkey skeletons and thus
represent foundation deposits.
The pattern of donkey burials is repeated in the E5b and E5a Strata but in modified
form. Two donkey burials were found in Stratum E5b—Donkeys 5 and 8. The former is
complete, and the latter is a partial skeleton. Donkey 5 (L144511) is a complete skeleton of
an infant found in a pit below a Stratum E5b hearth/cooking installation in Room
E15AQ09 (Figures 6 and 21) in Building 74512 on the east side of the alleyway
(L19E83C12). The inhabitants used this part of the room/building for cooking throughout
the entirety of the E5 Strata. The infant donkey was found in a pit directly below and
sealed by the E5b installation. Therefore, the internment of the donkey can be stratigraphically dated to when the room was renovated/renewed. It appears that the cranium of the
infant donkey was oriented toward the east in a direction similar to those in the E5c Stratum.
(a)
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
24 of 41
(b)
(c)
Figure 21. (a) in situ photograph of Donkey 5 (L14451) found in a shallow pit below the floor of a
complete skeleton of an infant found in a shallow pit below the hearth/cooking installation in Room
E15AQ09 in Building 74512 in Stratum E5b of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, and (b) all the fragments
after recovery—they fell apart as they were lifted out of the ground, and (c) the upper and lower
deciduous incisors showing how young the animal was (infant) since they are barely worn. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
Donkey 8 (L17E82D09) is a partial skeleton found in a small pit beneath the dirt floor
in Courtyard 16E82D05 in Building 1682D05 on the west side of the alleyway (L19E83C12)
(Figure 22a). It is composed of several disarticulated osteological elements (a cranium/maxilla and cheek teeth, scapula, and humerus) from a partial donkey burial. No
special orientation could be discerned. Based on the maxillary tooth eruption and wear
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
25 of 41
sequence, it belongs to a young juvenile (6–8 months old) since the upper dm2–4 are wellworn, while the UM1 is almost fully erupted but not worn (Figure 22b). It is interesting to
observe that the two E5b donkeys were very young animals, contrary to the Stratum E5c
specimens.
(a)
(b)
Figure 22. (a) Photograph of partial cranium (maxilla and cheek teeth) of Donkey 8 (L17E82D09)
being uncovered in a small pit beneath the dirt floor of Courtyard 16E82D05 in Building 1682D05 in
Stratum E5b of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. A few stray bones are also noted. It also points east. (b)
Photograph of maxillary teeth (upper dm2–4 and M1). Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological
Project.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
26 of 41
Stratum E5a produced evidence for two additional donkey burials. The first (Donkey
6—L74517) was a partial skeleton buried in a pit beneath the floor of Courtyard 94413 of
Building 94413 (Figures 5 and 23). It includes most of the skeleton. Most of the thorax (ribs,
costal cartilage, and vertebrae), forelimb (scapula, humerus, carpals, and phalanges) and
hindlimb (innominate, tibia, tarsals, and phalanges) were also present. While a loose tooth
from the mandible (LM1) was found, the rest of the cranium appears to be missing. This
individual was mistakenly published as a pig in the first volume of the excavation reports
on the site [106]. While the overall orientation of the skeleton appears to be from north to
south, it is impossible to reconstruct the cranial orientation given its absence. It belongs to
an old subadult given the state of epiphyseal fusion on the long bones and vertebrae.
Figure 23. Photograph of Donkey 6 (L74517) buried in a pit beneath the floor of Courtyard 94413 of
Building 94413 in Stratum E5a of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Arrow is pointing north. Richard Wiskin
photo credit for Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath project. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
The second Stratum E5a donkey burial (Donkey 15—L144506) was that of an older
infant. It was found poking out of the 5–6m high west baulk of the excavation area where
it meets Wall 104206 of Building 104311 (Figures 5 and 24). Only the distal (lower end) of
the legs (metapodia, carpals/tarsals, and phalanges) of three limbs were found. They are
in articulation which suggests that a complete donkey lies further in the baulk. The legs
extended slightly from the baulk into the alleyway (104306). The orientation of the legs
suggests that the torso of the animal would be beneath Wall 104206 of Building 104311 (or
more likely, the joint wall of the adjacent building, given the size of the rooms), as the wall
of the building appears to intersect where the torso would be. The rest of the donkey
awaits excavation by a future generation. Given the orientation of the legs, the donkey
skeleton would be in a northeast–southwest orientation, and the head would most likely
have pointed east toward the rising sun. This suggestion is purely conjectural at this point,
however.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
27 of 41
Figure 24. Photograph of the recovered osteological elements from three distal limbs of Donkey 15
(L144506) found extending out of the western balk of Area E. It was buried beneath Wall 104206 of
Building 104311 in Stratum E5a, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
In general, three of the four donkeys from the renovation strata (Strata E5a and b) are
of different age classes (infant—0–6 months) than the donkey deposits associated with the
construction of the buildings in Stratum E5c (old subadults/2.5–3 years old or young
adults/3+ years) in this neighbourhood. This could signal that household rituals are characterised by greater variability, hence flexibility.
Earlier phases of the EB III neighbourhood (Strata E6–E9) did not produce additional
donkey burials (Figures 8–10). However, this is not certain, as the size of the excavation
area in the underlying strata become progressively smaller than as one moves down in
the stratigraphic sequence from E5 to E9 Strata. Most of the floor deposits were excavated
for the E6 Stratum, but exposures were far more limited for the underlying phases. In
these earlier levels, only scattered elements of donkeys were found disbursed/distributed
amongst the food debris in the accumulations on/above the floors. It is plausible that more
donkey burials are present, but a firm conclusion must await further excavation.
In total, the E5 Strata from Area E produced eight complete and partial donkey skeletons buried in shallow pits dug into the layer created by the demolition of the E6 mudbrick buildings. The Stratum E6 building was pulled down, and the mudbrick superstructure was packed down before the construction of new stone foundations and new dirt
floors for the next stratum of occupation (Stratum E5c). The donkeys were intentionally
deposited by the occupants of the buildings. Only afterwards were the floors constructed,
thus sealing the donkey burial foundation deposits under the courtyards of the building.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
28 of 41
The donkey burials in Strata E5b and E5a were similarly buried as the buildings were
being renovated. It appears that, with each major construction or renovation stratum, donkeys were slaughtered and buried in shallow pits beneath their house floors.
Only one of the donkey burials had any clear evidence for slaughter. The head and
upper neck of Donkey 1 (L114506) from Stratum E5c was dismembered from the rest of
the body and placed on the thorax. There is no evidence that any of the donkeys were
otherwise dismembered, cooked, and/or eaten. Furthermore, no ceramics or other artefacts were placed in the pits.
Some clear and consistent patterns emerge with regards to the deposition of all the
donkey skeletons throughout the E5 Strata. First, where it was possible to identify, all the
Strata E5c, one E5b, and one E5a skeleton were either entirely oriented or only the cranium
was pointed toward the rising sun. Second, the age classes shift from the construction to
the renovation phases as well — more older subadults/young adults during the construction of the E5c Stratum, while more younger animals (infants and juveniles) were buried
during the Strata E5a and E5b renovations. All of the sexable individuals were female.
Third, in terms of layout, all the donkeys were placed in shallow pits immediately below
the dirt floors associated with the deposit. The legs of each were carefully folded to fit
within the shallow ellipsoid shaped pit. The four E5c donkey skeletons yielded the best
information on the special nature of the donkey deposits in this regard. Fourth, based on
the shape, depth, and orientation of the burial pits and their relationship to the surrounding deposits, the donkeys were interred when the buildings were renovated and the architecture renewed, but they predate the occupation of the buildings in each of the phases.
The timing is important because the deposits are not attributable to the ‘daily life’ of the
inhabitants when the rooms and courtyards were lived in/occupied. This burial context is
a key reason why we regard these burials as ‘foundation deposits’ interred during construction/renovation and not simply rapid ‘animal disposal’ during the subsequent use of
the buildings.
The pattern of donkey burials in this part of the site (Area E) is repeated through time
and thus qualifies as a habitual commemorative practice marking the foundation and renewal of buildings (not conditioned by material/functional constraints). When buildings
were renewed and remodelled, the old buildings were collapsed and packed down, before
new walls were laid down on earlier wall stubs. Complete or partial donkeys were sacrificed and buried in the interim before the floors were installed in each stratum of E5.
Therefore, not only was the construction of these buildings/dwellings consistently and
carefully planned (organised and built), but the entire process was embedded (sanctioned/punctuated) in ritual. Thus, the boundaries between the sacred and profane are
blurred, which reinforce each other. Arguably, these deposits signal a process of ‘commemorative history making’ (see discussion above) that consolidate long-term alliances/ties and social networks. These not only would have sustained the immediate
household in the present [97], but also made possible its reproduction over time. Thus,
they would have contributed to the larger social and economic configurations distinctive
of the early urban lifestyles and culture in the southern Levantine EB (thus making possible the intensification of agriculture, trade, and exchange, a landscape of fortified tells and
so forth in economies increasingly characterised by delayed returns for high-labour investments). The high number of donkey burials suggests community-oriented ritual activity (at the scale of a neighbourhood/cluster of houses?) akin to so-called ‘history houses’
[33]. This may explain why only some buildings produced evidence of donkey burials and
solid platforms in each of the strata.
7. Textual Analogies for Donkey Ritual Internments
While there is only clear evidence with regards to the mode of death for one of the
donkey burials from Area E, there is indirect evidence for the selection of certain donkeys
to be part of these ritual internments associated with the construction of the neighbourhood. First, there is their depositional context—all four E5c burials in shallow pits beneath
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
29 of 41
the floors of buildings about to be constructed. Second, the sex and age-at-death of each
of the four E5c donkeys is remarkably similar. All are relatively healthy females, either
young adults or older subadults. These are “expensive” and valuable animals given that
they were just at the age when they would be carrying loads and becoming sexually mature. In fact, they are a form of wealth that is being taken out of circulation, as they are
slaughtered prematurely as part of the rituals associated with the rebuilding of the neighbourhood in Stratum E5c. The chance that four donkeys of similar age and sex were buried
in similar ways in courtyards of domestic buildings on both sides of the alleyway at the
same time when the neighbourhood was being rebuilt seems remote and unlucky to say
the least (aside from the huge economic loss this would inflict). Moreover, even a quick
perusal of ancient Near Eastern or Egyptian literature demonstrates that one does not present to the gods an offering of sick, injured, or diseased animals. Thus, the burial as the
neighbourhood is being rebuilt of several healthy females facing the rising sun and just
beginning their reproductive years is in our opinion a smoking gun.
However, one cannot use the analogy from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) or
slightly later cuneiform sources to reconstruct the nature of the sacrifice of a young adult
donkey. In both the Iron Age Biblical traditions and MB Mari cuneiform documents,
wherein donkey sacrifice is mentioned, there is an emphasis upon foals. In the Hebrew
Bible, the first born must be redeemed or its neck broken (Exodus 13:13). At Mari, foals
are also clearly specified:
“They brought me a puppy and a hazii-bird to ‘kill’ the donkey foal (i.e., make peace)
between the Haneans and Idamaras but I feared my lord and did not give over the puppy
and hazu-bird. I had a donkey foal whose mother was a she-donkey killed (and) I established peace between the Haneans and Idamaras” (ARM 2 37:6-14). [107].
Furthermore, it is not possible to use analogies with the Hebrew Bible since males are
the animal of choice for sacrifices, and the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath donkey skeleton is a female.
“And every firstling [male in Hebrew] of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will
not redeem it, then you shall break his neck…” (Exodus 13:13).
Donkeys are the only non-kosher animals that are used in a sacrificial context. Sacrifices
are linked to the tradition of redemption of the first-born male donkey [97,108–110].
Clearly, the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath donkey skeleton does not fall into these categories. Additionally, the EB III long predates Biblical traditions, making any analogy difficult.
It is interesting to note that donkeys are generally female in most ancient literary
sources wherein the gender is noted. This is similar to the choice of sex for the EB donkeys
at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. It is possible to attribute this choice to donkey ethology, as female
donkeys tend to be more amenable than uncastrated male donkeys, who do not get along
well in mixed-gender herds because of issues of behavioural dominance. Further, donkeys
in general are highly territorial, and females are known for being very protective of individuals in their social group. Modern farmers still use female donkeys to protect their
herds in areas where predators are prevalent. Perhaps this quality was recognised and is
an additional reason why mature females were always chosen as foundation deposits.
However, we feel this is unlikely given the emphasis upon females just reaching their
reproductive years. Ancient Near Eastern religions prize animals that are not only healthy
but also that signify fertility [107,109,111–113].
In general, the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath donkey skeletons belong to young and healthy animals. They do not display any evidence that the animal was sick or suffered from any
major osteological injuries or deformities. For example, there are no broken and or healed
bones, dental abscesses, dental malocclusion, bone lesions, or severely arthritic joints. This
corresponds with the preferences for ritual sacrifices in ancient Near Eastern religions for
healthy (and conscious) animals. A healthy animal is needed to appease or placate the
gods and to sanctify agreements [107,114].
However, two types of pathologies were eventually discovered on the donkeys that
have implications for how the animal was used during the EB. These pathologies illustrate
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
30 of 41
evidence for bit wear on teeth (for riding) and foot malformations (distal limb) characteristic of carrying loads over uneven ground [91,115]. Both would be relevant for animals
used as pack animals, particularly in caravans over difficult terrain. The evidence from
the dental isotopes supports this conclusion, as some of the donkeys and goods found at
the site come from great distances, such as Egypt [44,116].
8. Discussion—Why Bury a Domestic Ass under Your Floor?
The increasing frequency of domestic asses coincides with the dramatic rise in trade
across the region beginning with the EB. Over time, asses play an important role in regional and inter-regional exchange and transportation, as goods are moved across all
kinds of terrain. During this period, there is an increase in the quantities of goods, such as
copper and other products (e.g., Canaanean blades), being transported across and between regions [45,46,117,118].
A donkey provides a mechanism to accrue and distribute wealth (whether ‘staple
wealth’ in the form of agricultural products or ‘finance wealth’ in the form of precious
exotics and metals with high exchange value etc.). Those with donkeys presumably had
far greater potential to be ‘socially mobile’ than those without. The use of the domestic ass
(Equus asinus) to transport goods across and between regions would have allowed a
change in the scale of economic systems. In contrast to the use of human carriers, this
would have lowered the costs of goods. Further, the larger quantities of goods that a train
of asses could carry with a single driver would generate economies of scale. The owners
of domestic asses would directly benefit. A consequence was the emergence of a new social class—i.e., merchants who had asses/donkeys that could transport goods over near
and long distances [1,45,46]. Their asses would be the source of their growing wealth and
power.
8.1. Donkey Caravaners and a Specialised Merchant Class
A class of specialised merchants, such as ‘donkey caravaners’, probably existed by
the beginning of EB I in the southern Levant. They would have specialised in the transportation of commodities. Donkeys, as with any large domestic animal, take years of investment in raising and feeding before they can be used for their secondary products—
pulling/draught and carrying/transport. It is possible that such merchants began to exist
toward the[119] end of the Chalcolithic, since there are examples of pre-EB laden animal
figurines [90,119,120]. The appearance of EB laden animal figures was probably closely
associated with spread of the domesticated ass throughout the Near East. At Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath, two fragments of laden donkey figurines were recovered from Area E (although
in poor chronological context—see above). However, they belong to a very common type
attested throughout the region during EB III on typological grounds [91].
Further, both fragments show the panniers attached to a donkey (Figure 17). The
donkey itself is mostly missing, but the straps to stabilise the loads/baskets are illustrated
in red paint, and as applied decoration. If loads/weights are evenly and securely distributed, donkeys can carry up to 20–25% of their own body weight. Such knowledge appears
to have been reflected in how donkeys were routinely depicted in the figurine corpus/figural world (and explains the pathologies identified on the skeletons of the burials at Tell
eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath) [91]. Similar donkey figurines are widely known/reported from other sites
and are found in a variety of contexts, especially mortuary/funerary deposits (e.g., Tombs
20 and 60 at Azor) [1].
Merchants and/or ass herders would have occupied specialised positions and roles
in the increasingly complex social structure of Near Eastern state and urban societies (as
evidenced by the extensive EB Mesopotamian [121] and MB (Old Assyrian) archives
[122,123]). As with all guilds or classes, there will be rituals or ceremonies associated with
their activities. While the ass was a means of transportation, it was also an important element in ritual and would represent a totem with an associated cult for groups who rely
upon them for their livelihood, i.e., merchants and/or donkey herders [45].
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
31 of 41
8.2. Sacred vs. Profane—Butchered Donkeys
Donkeys were an essential element in the system of transportation that moved goods
within and between regions. Donkeys are expensive to have and maintain. Contemporary
studies of donkey exploitation in the developing economies of the Third World, such as
exists across much of Sub-Saharan Africa, demonstrate that household ownership of a
donkey is a reflection of greater status and prosperity compared to households without a
donkey [124–126]. Donkeys are primarily used as a transportation animal for people and
to transport crops from the fields and goods to market. It was thought that donkeys were
not consumed and were never a major food source, given their relatively low frequency
in the zooarchaeological remains from this and other EB sites [1,86]. Milevski and Horwitz
(2019) go as far to suggest a dietary taboo on donkey meat was prevalent in EB society.
This was clearly not the case at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath in EB III, where, in addition to articulated
donkeys in burials below floors, there are loose donkey bones mixed with food debris on
and above the floors (at c. 3%). Several of these bones exhibit butchering marks, in clear
contrast with the articulated donkeys found in burials below the floors (Figure 25) [105].
In such situations, there is a demarcated boundary with a dichotomy between donkeys
chosen for inclusion as part of ritual foundation deposits versus donkeys exploited for
food and whose remains are found mixed with the remnants of other animals on the
menu. In other words, there are differences in context, deposition, treatment of the bones,
age-at-death, sex, etc. between those used for sacred and profane activities. No other animal in the faunal assemblage is characterised by this dichotomous split.
Figure 25. Photograph of slice mark on the first phalange of a donkey (Equus asinus) from
L19E83C06 (B19E83C262, Bone 2) from Stratum E5c of Area E, Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Photo credit for Tell
eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath project. Copyright @ Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
32 of 41
8.3. Neighbouring Parallels and the ‘Cult of the Beast of Burden’
Complete burials of young female donkeys in pits below floors are known from several EB sites across the Shephelah (coastal foothills) and neighbouring coastal plain (e.g.,
Azekah, es-Sakan, Nahal HaBesor, and Lod). At Tel Azekah, two decapitated infant donkeys were buried in a shallow pit below a slumped EB III floor [127]. The Tel Azekah
donkey were laid on their right side with the head turned around to face the tail. The tail
of each faced in opposite directions—Donkey 1 was oriented south (fore) to north (hind),
while Donkey 2 was oriented to the reverse. While the position of the Tel Azekah Donkeys
1 and 2 crania are reminiscent of the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Donkey 1 (pointing towards the tail),
they faced very different directions. The cranium of Donkey 1 from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath
pointed toward the east, while that of the two donkeys from Tel Azekah faced toward the
north and south, respectively. As with the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath E5c donkey burials (Donkeys
2–4), the hind and forelegs of the Tel Azekah donkeys were similarly positioned in a way
that suggests the pairs of legs were bound together but not front to back. Only the Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath Donkey 1 burial displays a pattern that suggests that front and hind legs were
bound together. Sites with high donkey bone counts in EB deposits are many (e.g.,
Lachish, Jericho, EB I Ashkelon, the Halif Terrace/Nahal Tillah), but it is not always clear
whether they originated from intentional burials in pits below structures. For a comprehensive survey, see [1].
As can be illustrated from the above data, domestic donkeys begin to be sacrificed
and buried beneath the foundations of non-elite residences during the EB and are not
simply beasts of burden. They also have a holy or symbolic role to play among the families
whose homes they are buried beneath. These donkey deposits are ritualised burials and
their use as foundation deposits suggests that they were intended to sanctify the household (both the physical structure and the well-being of the kin inhabiting these structures).
Milevski has long advocated for a “cult of beasts of burden” during this time period [45].
Such a cult occurs in segments of societies that rely upon asses for their livelihood. Such
practices are similar to those found elsewhere in the world, such as in the Andes, where
beasts of burden are associated with feasting (and other forms of social gathering) and
invocations of supernatural powers (such as to protect the owners and their animals and
to increase the prosperity of the owners) [1,45,46,128]. This is not as far-fetched a proposal
as one may suppose. As Mitchell notes:
“Within the Ancient Near East, three themes stand out: the donkey’s role as an indispensable vehicle for moving goods over both short and long distances, most conspicuously in the trade of metal and textiles between Assyria and Anatolia in the early second
millennium bc; its elite associations as a prized riding animal; and its religious significance as reflected in rituals governing the conclusion of treaties, the celebration of festivals linked to individual gods, and the curing of illness.” (p. 11 of [129])
The iconography of asses in the EB (in the southern Levant) is limited to a narrow
range of motifs that are found across much of the region. Milevski interprets this to signify
not only the role of the animal in daily life but also that the animal was a symbol for social
groups that relied on asses for their livelihood, such as merchants [45,46,118]. Asses as
totems represent commerce (trade more specifically or exchange more generally) and do
not represent simple obstinacy as they do in modern Western-oriented cultures.
The discovery of equid (asinine) burials with evidence for special treatment beneath
the floor of houses is unusual but not without precedence, given the evidence for ritualised donkey sacrifice at other domestic and nondomestic sites in the southern Levant and
Egypt during the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE [97–99,103,104,130–135]. This location is usually reserved for sacred deposits. Sacrificial animals are buried as foundation deposits to
appease the gods and to sanctify and protect the occupants [131]. It is therefore not a coincidence that such animals were singled out for such special roles [136], especially given
its known importance in later texts (as a purification sacrifice in Canaanite liturgy at Ugarit, for treaties at Mari, etc.). However, caution is necessary in projecting information from
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
33 of 41
later texts onto the archaeology of earlier periods, especially given the enormous time gap
(more than half a millennium) (Mari, i.e., ARM 2.37:11; A.1056:9–10; A.2226:17, 15)
[107,137,138].
The ritual and symbolism surrounding domestic asses during the EB have both elite
and private origins. EB ass burials (including hybrids) are not only associated with elite
burial and public contexts [97,139,140], they are also associated with commoner residences
where they are buried beneath floors and walls [1]. We believe that the asinine burials
from the E5 Strata at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath are such examples and fall into this category.
9. Conclusions
It is possible to pose several observations about the nature of domestic rituals in an
urban settlement, such as EB Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. First, household rituals are very personal,
as they are related to the immediate surrounding world. Second, household rituals are
implanted into the base fabric of their homes as ritual sacrifices of valuable animals and
creations of votive items, such as animal figures, planted into the floors and walls of
homes. Third, household rituals are intimately related to lifestyles—to what is important.
The occupants are choosing animals that are important to their lifestyle and economy—
shepherding of sheep and transporting goods and people with donkeys. Fourth, household rituals/cultic behaviour are not for the general public. They are private and intimate
and are unlikely to be formalised. Fifth, household rituals are not governed by the more
public rituals of temple and other elite institutions. Their diversity suggests that they manifest a religious independence or freedom.
The EB foundation deposits at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath and elsewhere (across the ancient
Near East) appear to be part of a very long and enduring tradition that reveres donkeys.
The veneration of donkeys is as old as the institution of the state itself and urbanism. This
is apparent given the presence of donkey skeletal material by the Late Chalcolithic Mesopotamia and EB I in the southern Levant, as well as their association with the burial rituals
of the earliest pharaohs. Even these dates may be too late, since there appears to be a depiction of a domestic donkey on a ceramic sherd from the 5th-millennium BC site of Tole Nurabad in Western Fars, Iran [141,142]. As such, the spread of the donkey appears to
coincide with the rise of social complexity across the Near East.
The donkey skeleton burials excavated in the later EB stratum of Area E at Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath were found in shallow pits sealed beneath the floors in each building stratum,
shortly before the dwellings were occupied. The animals were deliberately bound, possibly slaughtered, and buried as a foundation deposit to bless the construction of houses as
the EB III neighbourhood was rebuilt. In most cases (only one exception), the skeletons
belonged to young and healthy late subadult/early adult females.
The choice of a donkey for such a ritual activity implies that it was an important
religious symbol for the occupants of the neighbourhood. Given the distribution of these
donkeys, on both sides of the alley (and under/in courtyards), perhaps the constellation
of these deposits can be used as an indicator of the number of households in this area (as
opposed to calculating the number of households from the number of buildings/physical
structures). Transcending physical structures is obviously difficult, but evidence for ritual
activity could be a useful indicator in the study of household behaviour.
The asinine burials from Area E at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath are usually buried under courtyards (except for an infant donkey buried from Stratum E5b buried in the corner of a room
in a hearth after it has gone out of use—it is rapidly buried beneath the new floor of the
room) [104]. This suggests purposeful selection for this location, which does not appear to
be a coincidence. Courtyards are the locus of most household activities. It is the focal point
of the activities in the building—food preparation, consumption, tool making, and other
activities. Based on this information, burial location and treatment (of complete skeletons—since bones are not often found in articulation in a neighbourhood and since the
skeletal orientation implies special treatment) is suggestive that these asinine burials represent ritualised deposits and not simply ‘donkey disposals’. No other animal receives
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
34 of 41
comparable treatment in the entire faunal assemblage at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath or other EB sites
in the southern Levant.
The presence of items of non-local origins from the EB stratum in Area E at Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath, such as an ivory cylinder seal [143] and other exotic and quotidian items, such
as alabaster mace head, faience beads [73,144], and ground stone objects [145–148], alongside the donkey burials, suggests that the dwellers of this domestic neighbourhood were
not from the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder but rather belonged to an emergent/evolving merchant class [44]. The household assemblages from Area E reflect considerable mobility—a mix of varied local and long-distance trade and the exchange of
‘quotidian’ and ‘exotic’ objects used and needed in daily life. The EB III residents in Area
E had sufficient wealth and/or access to sacrifice an expensive animal, a young female
donkey. The residents of the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath ‘House of Asses’ commanded sufficient resources to lose at least three female donkeys.
It has been suggested here, and elsewhere, that these donkeys were slaughtered and
buried as a foundation deposits because the inhabitants of Area E may have been merchants, whose totem was a donkey [103]. The two zoomorphic vessels/donkey figurines
from this part of the site described in this paper strengthen the linkage of the donkey with
merchant behaviour. The presence of minor osteological pathologies related to injuries
from carrying heavy loads over uneven ground further supports our interpretation that
this is a neighbourhood of merchants [91]. In addition, evidence of dental wear on the
LPM2 suggests that a soft material bit was used on the donkey, possibly for riding. (Figure
26). It is possible that this young adult female animal was used in a special role, such as
for riding, and not for simply carrying heavy loads. This would explain both the bit wear
and the presence of low-level osteological pathologies on the lower rear extremities.
Hence, the use of such animals for riding was not limited to the elite.
Figure 26. Photograph of Donkey 1’s (L114506) lower right premolar showing bit wear on the mesial
face immediately below the occlusal surface. Photo credit for Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath project. Copyright @
Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath Archaeological Project.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
35 of 41
The evidence from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath and other EB sites across the Near East demonstrates that donkeys figured prominently in elite and commoner, and the public and private rituals of the peoples of the southern Levant and probably across much of the Near
East. The sacrifice and burial of donkeys is most likely part of a long tradition that extends
from at least from the Chalcolithic and Early Dynastic Mesopotamia across the Near East
to the Old Kingdom in Egypt. As the evidence presented here demonstrates, the importance of domestic donkeys extends beyond the economic into religious realms.
In keeping with the above, it is suggested that the donkey was a religious symbol for
a specific demographic social stratum and occupational group (merchant caravaners/guilds). The inhabitants of the Area E neighbourhood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath appear
to fit somewhere between traditional definitions of “elite” and “nonelite”. As noted elsewhere, there should be the recognition of a social stratum intermediate between the simplistic dichotomy of elite and nonelite, given the textual evidence of social complexity by
this time in neighbouring ancient Near East societies—there are “special positions or roles
for different segments of society” [127]. Thus, the excavated domestic residences of people
with non-elite status at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath suggest that these were residences of social
groups with unique and specialised status. They were wealthy enough to afford to sacrifice valuable animals—i.e., merchants. Thus, donkey burials beneath the floors of such
buildings may signify the presence of the homes of merchant families. They appear to be
located mostly on the periphery of urban settlements. A recent reanalysis of faunal remains from other EB sites in the Near East has also suggested something similar [149].
Therefore, such donkey burials are a previously unrecognised, but important, archaeological diagnostic of this emerging social group that has been traditionally overlooked by
most archaeologists. Travel on trade routes was highly dangerous in most/all periods, and
the nomadic lifestyle can be brutal and highly demanding, hence the need for supernatural/divine protection.
The many discoveries across the Near East show that the practice of sacrificing donkeys was not an isolated and unusual occurrence. They are foundation deposits clearly
linked with the physical renewal of dwellings. The deposits were presumably interred by
prospering households that repeated this tradition over time (strong continuity). Our research suggests that this consistent pattern signals the presence of merchant guilds/caravaners with specialist knowledge (a distinct social stratum), who were located in this part
of the city during the EB III of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath.
The donkey was not necessarily the focus of worship for the entire population. The
sacred landscape was presumably highly heterogeneous/plural (multi-layered) with different social groups or ‘communities of practice’ attached to, and associated with, specific
deities and ritual activities. For example, in the “Temple of the Serpents” at Jebel Mulawwaq in Jordan [61,150], the pottery was decorated with many depictions of snakes and
trees (the trees also resemble snakes). Distinctive horned bulls decorate many of the slabs
in the sacred ‘picture pavement’ of Stratum XIX at Megiddo (Slabs 1, 8, 14–18, 23) and are
thought to be symbolic of Egyptian-style royal power [151]. Even though these examples
are from the EB IB (not EB III), when there is a richer iconography related to cultic activities and temples, it is a reflection of what might be missing in the EB III archaeological
record. These ‘communities of practice’ would occasionally unify/converge under the umbrella of a major cult centre that was presumably the overarching ‘focal point’ for the majority of the population in a particular region. Hence, advances occurred in sacred architecture closely mirror/parallel developments in early urban town culture, spatial (re)organisation, and social complexity [61,152]. An integrated analysis of the phenomenon of
donkey burials remains from archaeological excavations allows for a more comprehensive
understanding of decentralised religious practices, ‘history making’ of household descent
groups, identities, and symbols of nonelite behaviour. Compared to the traditional fixation on the mostly empty shells of former EB temples and shrines, which has done little
to clarify the nature of religious practice for most of the population in the ancient Near
East, this holistic approach expands understanding early urban ritual behaviour.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
36 of 41
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, H.J.G. and J.R.; methodology, H.J.G., J.R., S.J.R., T.L.G.,
and S.A.; software, S.J.R., T.L.G., and H.J.G.; validation, T.L.G.; formal analysis, T.L.G., H.J.G., S.A.,
and S.J.R.; investigation, H.J.G., J.R., T.L.G., A.M.M., S.A., and S.J.R.; data curation, S.A., H.J.G., and
A.M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, H.J.G. and J.R.; writing—review and editing, H.J.G.,
J.R., T.L.G., and A.M.M.; visualisation, S.A., J.R., and S.J.R.; supervision, H.J.G. and A.M.M.; project
administration, S.A.; funding acquisition, H.J.G. and A.M.M. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, grant number 895-2011-1005 to Haskel J. Greenfield and Aren M. Maeir.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: All parties displayed in photographs have consented to their use.
Data Availability Statement: Origins faunal remains are curated in the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath laboratory
at Bar-Ilan University and are available for examination upon request.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial, intellectual, and physical
help of many individuals and institutions, who are too numerous to detail here. In particular, we
acknowledge the essential help of the Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath excavation team members (staff, students,
and volunteers) with its many hundreds of volunteers and professionals whose efforts enabled us
to realize the results described in this report. Administrative and financial support for the excavations and analysis leading to this study came from Bar-Ilan University, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (Canada—895-2011-1005 and 410-2009-1303), the University of Manitoba, and St. Paul’s College. Any errors are the responsibility of the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Milevski, I.; Horwitz, L.K. Domestication of the donkey (Equus asinus) in the southern Levant: archaeozoology, iconography
and economy. In Animals and Human Society in Asia: Historical, Cultural and Ethical Perspectives; Kowner, R., Guy, B.-O., Biran,
M., Shahar, M., Shelach-Lavi, G., Eds.; The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2019;
pp. 93–148.
Milevski, I.; Horwitz, L.K. Unpublished conference paper ‘Donkey Figurines and the “Cult of Exchange” in the Early Bronze
Age’. In Proceedings of the Cult and Interaction in the Early and Intermediate Bronze Ages, Bar-Ilan University, Israel, 2021.
Hodder, I. (Ed.) Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
2010.
Rappaport, R.A. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People, 2nd ed.; Yale University Press: New Haven,
CT, USA, 1974.
Hodder, I. (Ed.) Religion, History, and Place in the Origin of Settled Life; University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA, 2018.
Insoll, T. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion; Routledge: London, UK, 2004.
Insoll, T. Archaeology of cult and religion. In Archaeology: The Key Concepts; Renfrew, C., Bahn, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK,
2005; pp. 33–36.
Insoll, T. (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011.
Stowers, S.K. Theorizing the religion of ancient households and families. In Household and Family Religion in Antiquity; Bodel, J.,
Olyan, S.M., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 5–19.
Hodder, I. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1982.
Binford, L.R. Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Potential. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices; Brown,
J., Ed.; Society for American Archaeology: Washington, DC, USA, 1971; pp. 6–29.
Lewis-Williams, D.; Pearce, D.G. Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos, and the Realm of the Gods; Thames and Hudson:
London, UK, 2005.
Renfrew, C. (Ed.) The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi; British School of Archaeology at Athens: London, UK, 1985.
Shanks, M.; Tilley, C. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: A reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices.
In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology; Hodder, I., Ed.; New Directions in Archaeology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 1982; pp. 129–154.
Insoll, T. Introduction: ritual and religion in archaeological perspective. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and
Religion; Insoll, T., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 1–5.
Laneri, N. (Ed.) Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East; Oxbow: Oxford, UK, 2015.
Renfrew, C. Production and consumption in a sacred economy: the material correlates of high devotional expression at Chaco
Canyon. Am. Antiq. 2001, 66, 14–25.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
37 of 41
Renfrew, C. Towards a framework for the archaeology of cult practice. In The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi;
Renfrew, C., Ed.; British School of Archaeology at Athens: London, UK, 1985; pp. 11–26.
Hodder, I. Introduction: two forms of history making in the Neolithic of the Middle East. In Religion, History, and Place in the
Origin of Settled Life; Hodder, I., Ed.; University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA, 2018; pp. 3–32.
Hawkes, C. Archaeology theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World. Am. Anthropol. 1954, 56, 155–168.
Oppenheim, A.L. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1964.
Seymour, M. Mesopotamia. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion; Insoll, T., Ed.; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 775–794.
Hall, E.T. Beyond Culture; Anchor/Doubleday: Garden City, NY, USA, 1976.
Schmidt, K. Sie Bauten den Ersten Tempel: Das Rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger; C.H. Beck: Munich, Germany, 2006.
Schmidt, K. Göbekli Tepe—the Stone Age sanctuaries: new results of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures
and high reliefs. Doc. Praehist. 2010, XXXVII, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.37.21.
Schmidt, K. Göbekli Tepe. In The Neolithic in Turkey: The Euphrates Basin; Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., Kuniholm, P., Eds.; Archaeology and Art Publications: Istanbul, Turkey, 2011; Volume 2, pp. 41–83.
Childe, V.G. New Light on the Most Ancient East; Routledge and K. Paul: London, UK, 1954.
Stein, G.J. Producers, patrons, and prestige: craft specialists and emergent elites in Mesopotamia from 5500–3100 B.C. In Craft
Specialization and Social Evolution: in Memory of V. Gordon Childe; Wailes, B., Ed.; University Museum Symposium Series; The
University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1996; pp. 25–38.
Güneş, D. Sedentism and solitude: exploring the impact of private space on social cohesion in the Neolithic. In Religion, History,
and Place in the Origin of Settled Life; Hodder, I., Ed.; University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA, 2018; pp. 162–185.
Shults, F.L.; Wildman, W.J. Simulating religious entanglement and social investment in the Neolithic. In Religion, History, and
Place in the Origin of Settled Life; Hodder, I., Ed.; University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA, 2018; pp. 33–63.
Graeber, D.; Wengrow, D. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, 2021.
Hodder, I. (Ed.) Čatalhöyük Perspectives Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons; Monograph of the McDonald Institute and the British
Institutes of Archaeology at Ankara: Cambridge, UK, 2006.
Hodder, I.; Pels, P. History houses: a new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Catalhoyuk. In Religion in the Emergence
of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study; Hodder, I., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 163–186.
Richard, S. The Early Bronze Age of the southern Levant. In Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader; Richard, S., Ed.; Eisenbrauns:
Winona Lake, IN, USA, 2003; pp. 280–296.
Harrison, T.P.; Savage, H.H. Settlement heterogeneity and multivariate craft production in the Early Bronze Age southern Levant. J. Mediterr. Archaeol. 2003, 16, 33–57.
Philip, G. The Early Bronze Age I–III. In Jordan: An Archaeological Reader, 2nd ed.; Adams, R.B., Ed.; Equinox: London, UK, 2008;
pp. 161–226.
Greenberg, R. The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant: From Urban Origins to the Demise of City-States, 3700–1000 BCE; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019.
Miroschedji, P.D. Monumental architecture and sociopolitical developments in the southern Levant of the Early Bronze Age. In
New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant; Richard, S., Ed.; Eisenbrauns: University Park,
PA, USA, 2020; pp. 169–194.
Miroschedji, P.D. The urbanization of the southern Levant in its Near Eastern setting. Origini 2018, 42, 109–148.
Miroschedi, P.D. Les villes de Palestine de l’âge du bronze ancien à l’âge du fer dans leur contexte proche-oriental. In De la
maison à la ville dans l’Orient ancien: La ville et les débuts de l’urbanisation; Michel, C., Ed.; Cahier des Thèmes transversaux ArScAn;
CNRS: Nanterre, France, 2013; Volume 8.
Finkelstein, I. Two notes on Early Bronze Age urbanization and urbanism. J. Inst. Archaeol. Tel Aviv Univ. 1995, 22, 47–69.
Frumin, S.; Melamed, Y.; Maeir, A.M.; Greenfield, H.J.; Weiss, E. Agricultural subsistence, land use and long-distance mobility
within the Early Bronze Age southern Levant: archaeobotanical evidence from the urban site of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfī/Gath. J. Archaeol.
Sci. Rep. 2021, 37, 102873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102873.
Frumin, S.; Melamed, Y.; Weiss, E. Diet and environment at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath: the botanical evidence. In
Proceedings of the ASOR’s Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 19–22 November 2014.
Greenfield, H.J.; Greenfield, T.L.; Arnold, E.R.; Shai, I.; Albaz, S.; Maeir, A.M. Evidence for movement of goods and animals
from Egypt to Canaan during the Early Bronze of the southern Levant: a view from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Ägypten und Levante 2020,
30, 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1553/AEundL30s377.
Milevski, I. Local exchange in the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age: a political economy viewpoint. Antig. Oriente
2009, 7, 125–160.
Milevski, I. Early Bronze Age Goods Exchange in the Southern Levant: A Marxist Perspective; Equinox Publishing Ltd.: London, UK,
2011.
Milevski, I. Craft specialization and exchange of flint tools in the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age. Lithic Technol.
2013, 38, 202–219.
Manclossi, F.; Rosen, S. Flint Trade in the Protohistoric Levant: The Complexities and Implications of Tabular Scraper Exchange in the
Levantine Protohistoric Periods; Routledge: London, UK, 2021.
Manclossi, F.; Rosen, S.A. What we can learn from the flint industries from Tell eș-Șâfi/Gath. Near East Archaeol. 2017, 81, 84.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
38 of 41
Ross, J. What Makes a Pot: Transformations in Ceramic Manufacture and Potting Communities in Early Urban Societies of the
3rd Millennium BCE—a Chaîne Opératoire Perspective from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath (Israel). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manitoba:
Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2020; Unpublished.
Ross, J.; Greenfield, H.J.; Fowler, K.D.; Maeir, A.M. In search of Early Bronze Age potters Tell es-Sâfi/Gath: A new perspective
on vessel manufacture for discriminating Chaînes Opératoires. Archaeol. Rev. Camb. 2020, 35, 74–89.
Chadwick, J.R.; Uziel, J.; Welch, E.L.; Maeir, A.M. Walled up to heaven! Early and Middle Bronze Age fortifications at Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath. Near East. Archaeol. 2017, 80, 285–291.
Shai, I.; Chadwick, J.R.; Welch, E.; Katz, J.; Greenfield, H.J.; Maeir, A.M. The Early Bronze Age fortifications at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,
Israel. Palest. Explor. Q. 2016, 148, 42–58.
Welch, E.; Chadwick, J.R.; Shai, I.; Katz, J.C.; Greenfield, H.J.; Dagan, A.; Maeir, A.M. The limits of the ancient city: the fortifications of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath 115 Years after Bliss and Macalister. In Exploring the Holy Land: 150 Years of the F'alestine Exploration
Fund; Gurevich, D., Kidron, A., Eds.; Equinox Publishing: Sheffield, UK, 2019; pp. 151–166.
Kempinski, A. Fortifications, public buildings, and town planning in the Early Bronze Age. In The Architecture of Ancient Israel
from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, In Memory of Immanuel (Munya) Dunayevsky; Kempinski, A., Reich, R., Eds.; Israel Exploration Society: Jerusalem, Israel, 1992; pp. 68–80.
Mazar, A. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 B.C.E.; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
Mazar, A. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 BCE, 2nd ed.; Yale University Press Impression, Ed.; Yale University
Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2009.
Miroschedji, P.D. Cult and religion in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. In Proceedings of the Second International Congress
on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, Israel, June–July 1990; Biran, A., Aviram, J., Eds.; Israel Exploration Society & The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Jerusalem, Israel, 1990; pp. 208–220.
Miroschedji, P.D. The southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Early Bronze Age. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the
Levant c. 8000–332 BCE; Steiner, M.L., Killebrew, A.E., Eds.; Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology; Oxford University Press: New
York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 308–328.
Sala, M. Early Shrines at Byblos and Tell Es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho in the Early Bronze I (3300–3000 BC). In Byblos and Jericho in
the Early Bronze I: Social Dynamics and Cultural Interactions; Nigro, L., Ed.; Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan: Expedition to Palestine & Jordan; La Sapienza: Roma, Italy, 2007; pp. 47–68.
Sala, M. Sanctuaries, temples and cult places in Early Bronze I Southern Levant. Vicino Medio Oriente 2011, XV, 1–32.
Ussishkin, D. Megiddo-Armageddon: The Story of the Canaanite and Israelite City; Israel Exploration Society and Biblical Archaeology Society: Jerusalem, Israel, 2018.
Adams, M.J.; Finkelstein, I.; Ussishkin, D. The Great Temple of Early Bronze I Megiddo. Am. J. Archaeol. 2014, 118, 285–305.
Eisenberg-Degen, D.; Galili, R.; Rosen, S.A. Before God: Reconstructing ritual in the desert in proto-historic times. Entangled
Relig. 2021, 12, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.46586/er.12.2021.8943.
Chesson, M.S. Libraries of the dead: Early Bronze Age charnel houses and social identity at urban Bab edh-Dhra’, Jordan. J.
Anthropol. Archaeol. 1999, 18, 137–164.
Ortner, D.J.; Frohlich, B. The Early Bronze Age I Tombs and Burials of Bâb Edh-Dhrâ, Jordan. Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea
Plain, Jordan; AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD, USA, 2008; Volume 3.
Amiran, R. A cult stele from Arad. Isr. Explor. J. 1972, 22, 86–91.
Anonymous. Neolithic ritual complex discovered in Jordan: Two stelae are examples of some of the oldest artistic expressions
in the Middle East. The Past 2022. Available online: https://the-past.com/news/ritual-and-hunting-in-neolithic-jordan/ (accessed
on 16 April 2022).
Shai, I.; Uziel, J. The why and why nots of writing: literacy and illiteracy in the southern Levant during the Bronze Ages. Kaskal
2010, 7, 67–83.
Greenfield, H.J.; Shai, I.; Maeir, A.M. Understanding Early Bronze urban patterns from the perspective of an EB III commoner
neighbourhood: the excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel. In Proceedings of 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East, Basel, Switzerland, 9–13 June 2014; Stucky, R.A., Kaelin, O., Mathys, H.-P., Eds.; Harrassowitz Verlag:
Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016; Volume 1, pp. 479–485.
Greenfield, H.J.; Shai, I.; Maeir, A.M. The Early Bronze Age at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near East. Archaeol. 2017, 80, 249–255.
Greenfield, H.J.; Shai, I.; Maeir, A.M. Domestic life during the Early Bronze III: a view from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. In New Horizons
in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV in the Levant; Richard, S., Ed.; Eisenbrauns: University Park, PA, USA, 2020;
pp. 213–233.
Shai, I.; Greenfield, H.J.; Eliyahu-Behar, A.; Regev, J.; Boaretto, E.; Maeir, A.M. The Early Bronze Age remains at Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath, Israel: an interim report. J. Inst. Archaeol. Tel Aviv Univ. 2014, 41, 20–49.
Greenfield, H.J.; Wing, D.; Maeir, A.M. Terrestrial LiDAR survey as a heritage management tool: the example of Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath, Israel. In Challenges, Strategies and Hi-Tech Applications for Saving Cultural Heritage of Syria, Proceedings of the Workshop
held at the 10th ICAANE in Vienna, 25–26 April 2016; Silver, M.A., Ed.; Oriental and European Archaeology Series; Austrian
Academy of Sciences Press: Vienna, Austria, 2022; pp. 135–152.
Marchetti, N.; Nigro, L. Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell esSultan, Palestine (Quaderni Di Gerico 2); La Sapienza: Roma, Italy, 2000.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
39 of 41
Nigro, L.; with contributions by Sala, M. Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000–2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian
city—Synthesis of the Results of Four Archaeological Expeditions. Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan; Universita di
La Sapienza: Rome, Italy, 2010; Volume 5.
Sebag, D. The Early Bronze Age dwellings in the southern Levant. Bull. Du Cent. De Rech. Français À Jérusalem 2005, 16, 222–235.
Greenberg, R.; Paz, S.; Wengrow, D.; Iserlis, M. Tell Bet Yerah: Hub of the Early Bronze Age Levant. Near East. Archaeol. 2012,
75, 88–107. https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.75.2.0088.
Greenberg, R.; Paz, S. Early Bronze Age architecture, function, and planning. In Bet Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound Volume
II: Urban Structure and Material Culture 1933–1986 Excavations. IAA Reports 54; Greenberg, R., Ed.; Israel Antiquities Authority:
Jerusalem, Israel, 2014; pp. 15–52.
Herr, L.; Clark, D.R. From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in Jordan: Digging up Tall Al-‘Umayri. Near East. Archaeol. 2009,
72, 68–97.
Fischer, P.M. Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley Volume I: The Early Bronze Age; Verlage der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften: Vienna, Austria, 2008.
Yamafuji, M. Domestic Dwellings during Early Bronze Age, Southern Levant. In Decades in Deserts: Essays on Near Eastern Archaeology in Honour of Sumio Fujii; Nakamura, S., Adachi, T., Abe, M., Eds.; Rokuichi Syobou, Tokyo, Japan, 2019; pp. 119–152.
Albaz, S. Everyday Life in a Local Neighborhood at an Ancient Urban Settlement: Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath in the Early Bronze Age as
a Case Study (In Hebrew). Ph.D. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University: Givat Shmuel, Israel, 2019. (In Hebrew); Unpublished.
Greenfield, H.J.; Ross, J.; Albaz, S.; Greenfield, T.L.; Beller, J.A.; Frumin, S.; Weiss, E.; Maeir, A.M. Household archaeology during the Early Bronze Age of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. In Households in Levantine Archaeology; Steadman, S., Brody, A.J., Battini, L., Eds.;
Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, in press.
Fischer, P.M. Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: A bead in the Jordan Valley. Near East. Archaeol. 2008, 71, 196–213.
Greenfield, H.J.; Brown, A.; Shai, I.; Maeir, A.M. Preliminary analysis of the fauna from the Early Bronze Age III neighbourhood
at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel. In Bones and Identity: Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in
Southwest Asia. In Proceedings of the ICAZ-SW Asia Conference, Haifa, Israel, 23–28 June 2013; Marom, N., Yeshurun, R., Weissbrod,
L., Bar-Oz, G., Eds.; Oxbow Press: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 170–192.
Loud, G. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-1939, Volumes 1 (Text) and 2 (Plates). Oriental Institute Publication 62; Oriental Institute of
Chicago: Chicago, IL, USA, 1948.
Yekutieli, Y. The Early Bronze Age Southern Levant: the ideology of an aniconic reformation. In The Cambridge Prehistory of the
Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean; Knapp, A.B., Dommelen, P.V., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015; pp.
609–618.
Al-Ajlouny, F.; Douglas, K.; Khrisat, B.; Mayyas, A. Laden animal and riding figurines from Khirbet ez-Zeraqōn and their implications for trade in the Early Bronze Age. Z. Des Dtsch. Palästina Ver. 2012, 128, 99–120.
Hizmi, H. An Early Bronze Age saddle donkey figurine from Khirbet el-Mahruq and the emerging appearance of Beast of
Burden figurines. In Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria from the Bronze and Iron Ages; Hizmi, H., De-Groot, A., Eds.;
Jerusalem, Israel, 2004; pp. 309–324.
Shai, I.; Greenfield, H.J.; Brown, A.; Albaz, S.; Maeir, A.M. The importance of the donkey as a pack animal in the Early Bronze
Age southern Levant: A view from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Z. Des Dtsch. Palästina Ver. 2016, 132, 1–25.
Paz, S.; Greenberg, R. Conceiving the city: streets and incipient urbanism at Early Bronze Age Bet Yerah. J. Mediterr. Archaeol.
2016, 29, 197–223.
Peri, L.A. Lord of the Desert. Available online: https://www.imj.org.il/en/exhibitions/special-display-lord-desert (accessed on 8
March 2022).
Ambos, C. Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (in German)—cites source for Text: R. Borger, Symbolae Biblicae
et Mesopotamicae F.M.Th. de Liagre Böhl dedicatae, 1973; Islet Verlag: Glashütte, Germany, 2004; pp. 53–55.
Johnston, J. Objects and ancient religions. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Religion; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016.
Bartosiewicz, L. Cattle offering from the temple of Montuhotep, Sankhkara (Thebes, Egypt). In Archaeozoology of the Near East
IV B: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas; Mashkour,
M., Choyke, A., Buitenhuis, H., Poplin, F., Eds.; ARC: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 164–176.
Way, K.C. Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN, USA, 2011.
Klenck, J.D. The Canaanite Cultic Milieu: The Zooarchaeological Evidence from Tel Haror, Israel; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2002.
Katz, J.C. The Archaeology of Cult in Middle Bronze Age Canaan: The Sacred Area at Tel Haror, Israel; Georgias Press: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2009; Volume 40.
Mensan, R. Tuthmosid foundation deposits at Karnak. Egypt. Archaeol. 2007, 30, 21–25.
Sakr, F.M. New foundation deposits of Kom el-Hisn. Stud. Zur Altägyptischen Kult. 2005, 33, 349–355.
Weinstein, J.M. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1973;
Unpublished.
Greenfield, H.J.; Shai, I.; Maeir, A.M. Being an “ass”: an Early Bronze Age burial of a donkey from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel.
Bioarchaeology Near East 2012, 6, 21–52. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.019633.
Greenfield, H.J.; Greenfield, T.L.; Shai, I.; Albaz, S.; Maeir, A.M. Household rituals and sacrificial donkeys: Why are there so
many domestic donkeys buried in an Early Bronze Age neighborhood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near East. Archaeol. 2018, 81, 202–
211.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
40 of 41
105. Greenfield, H.J.; Ross, J.; Greenfield, T.L.; Maeir, A.M. Sacred and the profane: donkey burial and consumption at Early Bronze
Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. In Fierce Lions, Angry Mice and Fat-Tailed Sheep: Animal Encounters in the Ancient Near East; Recht, L., Tsouparopoulou, C., Eds.; McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 263–278.
106. Shai, I.; Uziel, J.; Maeir, A.M. The architecture and stratigraphy of Area E: Strata E1–E5. In Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–
2005 Seasons; Maeir, A.M., Ed.; Ägypten und Altes Testament 69; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2012; pp. 221–234.
107. Scurlock, J. Animal sacrifice in ancient Mesopotamian religion. In A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East; Collins,
B.J., Ed.; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 389–404.
108. Borowski, O. Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel.; AltaMira Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 1998.
109. Borowski, O. Animals in the religions of Syria-Palestine. In A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East; Collins, B.J.,
Ed.; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 405–426.
110. Hesse, B.; Wapnish, P.; Greer, J. Scripts of animal sacrifice in Levantine Culture-History. In Sacred Killing: The Archaeology of
Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East; Porter, A., Schwartz, G.M., Eds.; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN, USA, 2012; pp. 217–235.
111. Chahoud, J.; Vila, E. Food for the dead, food for the living, food for the gods according to faunal data from the Ancient Near
East. In Religion et Alimentation en Égypte et Orient Anciens; Arnette, M.-L., Ed.; Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale: Cairo,
Egypt, 2019; Volume 2, pp. 465–521.
112. Collins, B.J. Animals in the religions of ancient Anatolia. In A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East; Collins, B.J.,
Ed.; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 309–334.
113. Collins, B.J. (Ed.) A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2002.
114. Levinger, I.M. Modern Kosher Food Production from Animal Source. Institute for Agricultural Research According to the Tora; Yad
HaHamisha Printing: Kfar Chabad, Israel, 1978.
115. Greenfield, H.J.; Shai, I.; Greenfield, T.L.; Arnold, E.; Brown, A.; Eliyahu, A.; Maeir, A.M. Earliest evidence for equid bit wear in the
ancient Near East: The "ass" from Early Bronze Age Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi), Israel. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196335.
116. Arnold, E.R.; Hartman, G.; Greenfield, H.J.; Shai, I.; Babcock, L.E.; Maeir, A.M. Isotopic evidence for early trade in animals
between Old Kingdom Egypt and Canaan. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0157650. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157650.
117. Ilan, O.; Sebbane, M. Copper metallurgy, trade, and the urbanization of southern Canaan in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze
Age. In L’Urbanisation de la Palestine à l’Âge du Bronze Ancien; De Miroschedji, P., Ed.; British Archaeological Reports, International Series 527; BAR: Oxford, UK, 1989; pp. 139–162.
118. Milevski, I. Local Exchange in Early Bronze Age Canaan. Ph.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2005; Unpublished.
119. Epstein, C. Laden animal figurines from the Chalcolithic period in Palestine. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res. 1985, 258, 53–62.
120. Amiran, R. More about the Chalcolithic culture of the Palestine and Tepe Yahya. Isr. Explor. J. 1976, 26, 157–162.
121. Monroe, C.M. Money and traders. In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, 2nd ed.; Snell, D.C., Ed.; Blackwell Companions to
the Ancient World; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 145–164.
122. Atici, L.; Kulakoğlu, F.; Barjamovic, G.; Fairbairn, A. (Eds.) Current Research at Kültepe-Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative
Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity; Lockwood Press: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014; Volume 4.
123. Veenhof, K.R. Kanesh: an Assyrian colony in Anatolia. In Civilization of the Ancient Near East; Sasson, J.M., Baines, J., Beckman,
G., Rubinson, K.S., Eds.; Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall International: New York, NY, USA, 1995; Volume 2, pp. 859–871.
124. Sieber, N. The economic impact of pack donkeys in Makete, Tanzania. In Donkeys, People and Development. A Resource book of the
Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa; Starkey, P., Fielding, D., Eds.; ATNESA: Wageningen, The Netherlands,
2000; pp. 118–121.
125. Kidanmariam, G. The use of donkeys for transport in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. In Donkeys, People and Development: A Resource
Book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa; Starkey, P., Fielding, D., Eds.; ATNESA: Wageningen, The
Netherlands, 2000; pp. 53–56.
126. Wold, A.G.; Tegegne, A.; Yami, A. Research needs of donkey utilization in Ethiopia. In Donkeys, People and Development. A
Resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa; Starkey, P., Fielding, D., Eds.; ATNESA: Wageningen,
The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 77–81.
127. Sapir-Hen, L.; Gadot, Y.; Lipschits, O. Ceremonial donkey burial, social status, and settlement hierarchy in the Early Bronze III:
the case of Tel Azekah. In The Wide Lens in Archaeology: Honoring Brian Hesse's Contributions to Anthropological Archaeology; LevTov, J., Wapnish, P., Gilbert, A., Eds.; Lockwood Press: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2017; pp. 259–270.
128. Manclossi, F.; Rosen, S.A.; Milevski, I. Canaanean Blade Technology: new insights from Horvat Ptora (North), an Early Bronze
Age I site in Israel. JIPS 2019, 49, 284-315.
129. Mitchell, P.J. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018.
130. MacGinnis, J. A Neo-Assyrian text describing a royal funeral. State Arch. Assyria Bull. 1987, 1, 1–2.
131. Porter, A.M.; Schwartz, G.M. (Eds.) Sacred Killing: The Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake,
IN, USA, 2012.
132. Vila, E. Des inhumations d’équidés retrouvées à Tell Chuera (Bronze Ancien, Syrie du Nord-Est). In Les Équidés dans le Monde
Méditerranéen Antique: Actes du Colloque organisé par l’École Française d’Athènes, le Centre Camille Jullian, et l’UMR 5140 du CNRS,
Athens, Greece, 26–28 November 2003; Gardeisen, A., Ed.; Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne; Publication de
l'UMR 5140 du CNRS "Archéologie des Sociétés Méditerranéennes: Milieux, Territoires, Civilisations" Édition de l’Association
pour le Développement de l’Archéologie en Languedoc-Roussillon Lattes: Athens, Greece, 2005; pp. 197–205.
Animals 2022, 12, 1931
41 of 41
133. Clutton-Brock, J. Ritual burials of a dog and six domestic donkeys. In The Excavations at Tell Brak 2: Nagar in the Third Millennium
B.C.; Oates, D., Oates, J., McDonald, H., Eds.; The McDonald Institute of Archaeology, University of Cambridge: Cambridge,
UK, 2001; pp. 327–338.
134. de Miroschedji, P.; Sadek, M.; Faltings, D.; Boulez, V.; Naggiar-Moliner, L.; Sykes, N.; Tengberg, M. Les fouilles de Tell es-Sakan
(Gaza): Nouvelles données sur les contacts Égypto-cananéens aux IVe–IIIe millénaires. Paléorient 2001, 27, 75–104.
135. Silver (Lönnqvist), M. Equid burials in archaeological contexts in the Amorite, Hurrian and Hyksos cultural intercourse. Aram
Zoroastrianism Levant Amorites 2014, 26, 335–355.
136. Schwartz, G.M. Memory and its demolition: ancestors, animals, and sacrifice at Umm el-Marra, Syria. Camb. Archaeol. J. 2013,
23, 495–522.
137. Del Olmo Lete, G. Incantations and Anti-Witchcraft Texts From Ugarit; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2014.
138. Wyat, N. Religious Texts from Ugarit, 2nd ed.; Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, UK, 2002.
139. Bennett, E.A.; Weber, J.; Bendhafer, W.; Champlot, S.; Peters, J.; Schwartz, G.M.; Grange, T.; Geigl, E.-M. The genetic identity of
the earliest human-made hybrid animals, the Kungas of Syro-Mesopotamia. Sci. Adv. 2022, 8, eabm0218.
140. Way, K.C. Assessing sacred asses: Bronze Age donkey burials in the Near East. Levant 2010, 42, 210–225.
141. Goulder, J. Working Donkeys in 4th–3rd Millennium BC Mesopotamia; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
142. Potts, D.T. Equus asinus in highland Iran: evidence old and new. In Between Sand and Sea. The Archaeology and Human Ecology of
Southwestern Asia: Festschrift in honor of Hans-Peter Uerpmann; Conard, N.J., Drechsler, P., Morales, A., Eds.; Kerns Verlag: Tübingen, Germany, 2011; pp. 167–176.
143. Maeir, A.M.; Shai, I.; Horwitz, L.K. ‘Like a Lion in Cover’: A cylinder seal from Early Bronze Age III Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel.
Isr. Explor. J. 2011, 61, 12–31.
144. Eliyahu-Behar, A.; Albaz, S.; Shai, I.; Maeir, A.M.; Greenfield, H.J. Faience beads from Early Bronze Age contexts at Tell eṣṢâfi/Gath, Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2016, 7, 609–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.11.011.
145. Beller, J.A. Early Bronze Age basalt vessel remains from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath. Near East. Archaeol. 2017, 80, 279–281.
146. Beller, J.A.; Greenfield, H.J.; Fayek, M.; Shai, I.; Maeir, A.M. Raw material variety and acquisition of the EB III ground stone
assemblages at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel. In Stone Tools in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: Ground Stone Tools, Rock-cut Installations
and Stone Vessels from the Prehistory to Late Antiquity; Squitieri, A., Eitam, D., Eds.; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 121–152.
147. Beller, J.A.; Greenfield, H.J.; Fayek, M.; Shai, I.; Maeir, A.M. Provenance and exchange of basalt ground stone artefacts of EB III
Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2016, 9, 226–237.
148. Beller, J.A.; Greenfield, H.J.; Shai, I.; Maeir, A.M. The life-history of basalt ground stone artefacts of EB III Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath,
Israel. J. Lithic Stud. 2016, 3, 31–55.
149. Algaze, G.; Greenfield, H.J.; Hald, M.M.; Hartenberger, B.; Irvine, B.; Matney, T.C.; Nishimura, Y.; Pournelle, J.; Rosen, S.A.
Early Bronze Age urbanism in southeastern Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia: recent analyses from Titriş Höyük. Antatolica
2021, XLVII, 1–70.
150. Fernández-Tresguerrez Velasco, J.A. The “Temple of the Serpents”: a sanctuary in the Early Bronze Age I in the village of Jabal
Mutawwaq (Jordan). Annu. Dep. Antiq. Jordan 2008, 52, 23–34.
151. Yekutieli, Y. Symbols in action—the Megiddo Graffiti re-assessed. In Egypt at its Origins 2, Proceedings of an International Conference “Origins of the State: Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt” Toulousse, France, 5–8 September 2005; Midant-Reynes, B., Tristant,
Y., Eds.; Peeters: Leuven, Belgium, 2008; pp. 807–837.
152. Sebag, D. Architecture and building methods as an illustration of social differentiation in the Early Bronze Age city-states of the
southern Levant. In Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5–10 May 2009, Sapienza,
Italy, Volume 1: Near Eastern Archaeology in the Past, Present and Future, Heritage and Identity, Ethnoarchaeological and Interdisciplinary Approach, Results and Perspectives, Visual Expression and Craft Production in the Definition of Social Relations and Status; Matthiae, P., Pinnock, F., Nigro, L., Marchetti, N., Eds.; Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2010; pp. 973–982.