At Jericho, bronze knives arrived in the butcher’s toolkit later than once thought
Source: “Mea culpa: revisiting the zooarchaeological perspective on the origins of metal use for quotidian activities at Jericho (Tel es-Sultan)” — Frontiers ↗, 28 August 2026
Archaeonews Summary
A reanalysis of animal bones from Kathleen Kenyon’s 1952–1958 excavations at Jericho (Tel es-Sultan), beside the modern city of Jericho, finds no convincing evidence that metal knives were routinely used for butchery during the Early Bronze I–III or Intermediate Bronze periods. Haskel J. Greenfield of the University of Manitoba re-examined the Natural History Museum, London collection in 2022, revisiting work he first published more than two decades ago. ([Frontiers][1])
The study used light microscopy, silicone moulds of cut marks and scanning electron microscopy to distinguish grooves made by chipped stone from those made by metal blades. Contexts were reassigned using Kenyon’s excavation records and a newer southern Levantine chronology, although the paper notes that these absolute dates are not universally accepted. Metal slicing becomes substantial only in the Middle Bronze Age. ([Frontiers][1])
Why It Matters
The result matters because it removes Jericho as an apparent exception to the wider southern Levantine pattern. Greenfield’s earlier analysis had seemed to place everyday metal butchery unusually early, in the Early Bronze Age; the revised sequence instead shows prolonged reliance on chipped stone and a later, uneven uptake of metal knives. That makes technological change look gradual rather than like a clean replacement of stone by bronze. ([Frontiers][1])
The paper is also a useful reminder that old excavation collections can change meaning when chronology and microscopy improve. It is peer-reviewed original research, and unusually, the author explicitly retracts his own earlier interpretation. The limitations are equally important: only 237 specimens could be assigned to stone or metal in the key analysis, many period-level samples are small, some provenances are coarse, and museum conservation treatment obscured numerous cut marks. The Middle Bronze pattern is therefore persuasive as a correction, but its finer sub-period fluctuations should remain provisional until larger, better-contextualised assemblages are tested. ([Frontiers][1])