1 Animal Remains by Paul Croft Introduction This report concerns animal remains excavated from non-funerary contexts at Tell Jerablus Tahtani (henceforth Jerablus) between the years 1993 and 2000. For reasons outlined below, it is an incomplete study of the excavated faunal material, belatedly conducted, and its scope has been largely confined to a basic presentation of evidence. However, limited comparisons with other sites within a geographically circumscribed area have been drawn in order to situate the Jerablus faunal evidence within a regional context. The Jerablus faunal material that was studied comes primarily from archaeological contexts considered by the excavator to be of reasonable integrity, and the bones were exported from Syria to be studied at the Edgar Peltenburg Archaeological Research Centre in Lemba, Cyprus. i In accordance with the broader research priorities of the Jerablus project (Peltenburg et al. 2015: 6), faunal material from the earlier periods (Early Bronze Age and earlier) was preferentially exported for what was envisaged as an initial phase of study, and most of the animal remains from later periods were not sent to Cyprus. The intention, regrettably unfulfilled, had been to export and to incorporate the bulk of the later material in due course. Thus, the present report focuses strongly on the earlier periods and inevitably has comparatively little to say about the later periods. Bones excavated after the 2000 season at Jerablus were not exported and have not been studied, which is a particularly unfortunate omission. Archaeological contexts (units) at Jerablus were graded by the excavator according to their stratigraphic integrity, being allocated to one of four categories. In descending order of integrity these categories are: OK = in situ, undisturbed; M (mixed) = safely stratified, but not in situ; D (disturbed) = poorly defined, often affected by root or animal action; C (contaminated) = infiltrated by later material. Most Jerablus units are M (Peltenburg et al. 2015: 8). Accordingly, most of the animal bones come from M units, and this material, along with far fewer bones from OK units, forms the basis for this faunal report. Material from D and C units was deemed too unreliable to be included in the analysis although individual items of interest from such units are occasionally mentioned. The excavator doubtless relied on ceramic finds and stratigraphy in assessing integrity, but even in units that were assessed as M or OK it often became apparent during the faunal analysis that clearly intrusive animal (especially micro-mammalian) and bird bones were present. Contamination of bone samples by this means is manifestly a pervasive problem at Jerablus, and no sample can be considered free from this risk. A wide variety of burrowing creatures live in the region, as well as others that enter pre-existing burrows, and creatures of either sort may bring in the remains of other animals and birds with them. Indeed, contamination from animal burrows is a considerable and perhaps frequently under-acknowledged problem on Near Eastern sites in general, and Jerablus is almost certainly unexceptional in this regard. ii A further restriction on the material included in the diachronic analysis is imposed by the fact that only bones from units that could be allocated to a period of occupation could be considered. Unfortunately, quite a number of bone-yielding units of high integrity (OK or M) have not been so allocated. Had it been seen through to its conclusion, Eddie Peltenburg’s