Early line and hook fishing at the Epipaleolithic site of Jordan River Dureijat (Northern Israel)

Abstract

Nineteen broken and complete bone fish hooks and six grooved stones recovered from the Epipaleolithic site of Jordan River Dureijat in the Hula Valley of Israel represent the largest collection of fishing technology from the Epipaleolithic and Paleolithic periods. Although Jordan River Dureijat was occupied throughout the Epipaleolithic (~20–10 kya the fish hooks appear only at the later stage of this period (15,000–12,000 cal BP). This paper presents a multidimensional study of the hooks, grooved stones, site context, and the fish assemblage from macro and micro perspectives following technological, use wear, residue and zooarchaeological approaches. The study of the fish hooks reveals significant variability in hook size, shape and feature type and provides the first evidence that several landmark innovations in fishing technology were already in use at this early date. These include inner and outer barbs, a variety of line attachment techniques including knobs, grooves and adhesives and some of the earliest evidence for artificial lures. Wear on the grooved stones is consistent with their use as sinkers while plant fibers recovered from the grooves of one hook shank and one stone suggest the use of fishing line. This together with associations between the grooved stones and hooks in the same archaeological layers, suggests the emergence of a sophisticated line and hook technology. The complexity of this technology is highlighted by the multiple steps required to manufacture each component and combine them into an integrated system. The appearance of such technology in the Levantine Epipaleolithic record reflects a deep knowledge of fish behavior and ecology. This coincides with significant larger-scale patterns in subsistence evolution, namely broad spectrum foraging, which is an important first signal of the beginning of the transition to agriculture in this region.

Ecological-cultural inheritance in the wetlands: the non-linear transition to plant food production in the southern Levant

“…Phytolith and macrobotanical evidence suggests that the role of pre-domestic wild cereals, wheat and barley, in Epipalaeolithic diet has been overstated. Phytolith evidence from the Early Epipalaeolithic through to and during the Natufian period suggests that small-seeded grasses (non-cereal wild beads, ochre and other desirable items (Muheisen 1988;Nadel 1994;Byrd and Monahan 1995;Hershkovitz et al 1995;Simmons and Nadel 1998;Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005;Martin et al 2010;Richter et al 2011Richter et al , 2012Maher et al 2012bMaher et al , 2016Pedergnana et al 2021). The Natufian period provides the earliest published evidence for recognizably modern food innovations in the form of bread-like remains at Shubayqa 1, and potentially fermented beer-like drinks at Raqefet cave, although it must be acknowledged that there are ongoing questions about the identification of fermentation damage in archaeological starches.…”

After the Revolution: A Review of 3D Modelling as a Tool for Stone Artefact Analysis

“…Second is that these papers almost exclusively analyse non-flaked stone artefacts or non-artefactual tools (e.g. Cristiani et al 2021;Dietrich and Haibt 2020;Paixão et al 2021). The third is the strong link between functional studies and primate archaeology (e.g.…”

“…Boulanger, Miller and Fisher 2021;Lin et al 2010), non-flaked stone artefacts (e.g. Furey et al 2020;Hayes et al 2021;Pedergnana et al 2021), and non-artefactual stone tools (e.g. Benito-Calvo et al 2015;Haslam et al 2013).…”

Can models of evolutionary transition clarify the debates over the Neolithic Revolution?

“…barbs). Excellent technical knowledge is shared by all group members, but each executes this knowledge in a specific way [50]. The ETI model expects this high diversity, also at the group level, yet predicts relatively low fidelity in transmitting group culture, i.e.…”