Understanding faunal contexts of a complex Tell: Tel Dor, Israel, as a case study Lidar Sapir-Hen a, * , Guy Bar-Oz b , Ilan Sharon c , Ayelet Gilboa b , Tamar Dayan a a Department of Zoology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel b Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel c Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel article info Article history: Received 12 July 2011 Received in revised form 22 September 2011 Accepted 23 September 2011 Keywords: Taphonomy Context Tell Site formation processes Deposition Faunal remains abstract The complex stratigraphy of the large Levantine tells and the complexity of human behavior that took place on them, poses a major challenge in understanding site formation processes and their reflection in the faunal remains. We studied the contextual deposition of faunal remains in Tel Dor, as a model for complex tell sites, and the possibility of using faunal remains as a tool to distinguish between context types. In addition, we asked how can we use this knowledge to elucidate site formation processes. Our results demonstrate that most loci defined in the field as primary refuse or purposive disposal are indeed different from the loci defined as secondary refuse. Different types of contexts can be differentiated, to a degree, from one another based upon multivariate analysis of faunal remains. Statistical as well as spatial analyses may help elucidate site formation processes and the use of space. Bones can, and in many cases do, reflect primary activities. Lumping zooarchaeological data into a single ‘assemblage’, as done in most zooarchaeological studies today causes major loss of information. Consideration of the specific location of faunal remains can be used as further indication for context identity and for understanding specific activities in a site, with care this can be done even in complex sites such as the ‘urban mounds’ of the Levant. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In recent years there is a growing realization that the analysis of ancient populations’ economic and cultural activities, as reflected in animal bone remains, requires understanding of site formation processes (e.g. Lyman, 1994; O’Connor, 2000). Among these processes, the final deposition of artifacts, such as bones, may be influenced by both anthropogenic and natural factors. We studied potential differences between characteristics of faunal remains in different depositional units in a complex, stratified and continu- ously inhabited urban tell. Our main goal was to determine whether any of the faunal remains may be considered primary (reflecting the activities that took place where they were found), or whether they all reflect secondary disposal (material transferred after discard; see below). This distinction is especially crucial for assessing the potential contribution of animal bones to identifying activity areas and the functions of specific architectural units in tell sites. The tells (mounds) of the Levant play a significant role in archaeological studies of the history and evolution of human cultures and economies. The major tells are the town sites from the Bronze Age to the classical periods and as such provide us with unique insight into the workings of what are primarily urban societies. The constant use of a site creates over time a complex depositional history and stratigraphy, resulting from recurrent cycles of construction, use, re-use, destruction and occasionally abandonment processes over millennia. These involve the transfer of sediments (and artifacts within them) in order to be used in construction fills, foundation trenches, walls, etc. Hence, archaeo- logical remains can be found at a certain location due to several factors: discard, abandonment, deliberate transfer, and to a lesser degree, natural agents. Study of the major tells provide us with significant insight into past societies and their daily lives. An important aspect of the daily life is human diets and livestock management, which also reflect culture and identity. These issues have been studied extensively in the past 15 years in the southern Levant, focusing mainly on Bronze and Iron Age strata, and to a much lesser extent on later periods (e.g. Bar-Oz et al., 2007; Cope, 2006; Dayan, 1999; Hellwing and Feig, 1989; Hesse and Wapnish, 1998; Horwitz, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2006; Horwitz and Tchernov, 1989; Horwtiz and Dahan, 1996; Horwitz et al., 1990, 2005; Lev-Tov, 2000, 2003; Maher, 2005; Marom et al., 2009; Raban-Gerstel et al., 2008; * Corresponding author. Present address: Institute of Archaeology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel. Tel.: þ972 3 6407217; fax: þ972 3 6407237. E-mail address: lidarsap@post.tau.ac.il (L. Sapir-Hen). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas 0305-4403/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.09.027 Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 590e601