Basalt bifacial tool production in the southern Levant: a glance at the quarry and workshop site of Giv'at Kipod, Israel

Ebeling

2016

JLS

Self Cite

Abstract:The discovery of a basalt vessel workshop at Tel Hazor, one of the most important Iron Age sites in the Near East, marks a turning point in our understanding of stone artefact production and distribution during the 1 st millennium BCE. It offers a rare opportunity to characterize ancient raw material sources, production sites, and study production, trade and distribution systems. The basalt vessel workshop, the only one of its kind in the Levant, produced large quantities of bowl preforms and production waste. To better understand the production and distribution systems behind this specialized production centre, in 2011 we initiated a focused geochemical project that concentrated on the products of this unique workshop. We measured the major and trace element composition of 44 unfinished basalt vessels from the workshop and other contexts at Hazor, and can demonstrate that the majority of these objects were derived from one specific, geochemically well-constrained, basaltic rock source. Only a few bowls clearly deviate from this geochemical composition and were produced using raw material from other sources. Thus, we believe that one major quarry existed that supplied the Hazor workshop with the majority of the basaltic raw material. The products from this specific extraction site provide us with a "Hazor reference group" that can be used to test whether or not finished vessels from Hazor and contemporary sites were produced in the Hazor workshop.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Raw material variability as archaeological tools: Preliminary results from a geochemical study of the basalt vessel workshop at Iron Age Tel Hazor, Israel

Gluhak¹,

Ebeling

2016

JLS

Self Cite

“…As no waste from basalt tool production was found, it is likely that all or at least a large part of the production sequence of these tools was conducted at quarry and production sites, and possibly transported as finished items to Ashqelon Barnea (e.g. Abadi-Reiss and Rosen 2008;Rosen 2002;Rosen and Schneider 2001;Rosenberg et al 2008;see Schneider 1993;1994 for discussions and additional data concerning quarry and production sites). Nonetheless, the possibility of nearly finished items reaching the site for their final finishing stage and later distribution to other sites (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundstone Tools of a Copper-Smiths’ Community

Golani²

2012

JMA

Self Cite

Extensive excavations at the site of Ashqelon Barnea, situated on the Mediterranean coast of southern Israel, have revealed a large and diversified groundstone assemblage, specific components of which reflect clear selection for raw material and uniformity in typological, morphometric and technological characteristics. These components, namely basalt bowls, potters' wheels and spindle whorls, form the focus of this paper, and are used to discuss raw material selection, long-distance Early Bronze Age exchange in stone and copper and the role of Ashqelon Barnea in this trade.

“…The use of a variety of raw materials to manufacture a specific tool type characterized the production of bifacial tools in the southern Levant. Although primarily made of flint (e.g., Barkai 2005), some were produced on basaltic rocks, limestone, and other more 'exotic' raw materials (e.g., Garfinkel & Dag 2006;Rosenberg et al 2008;Rosenberg & Gopher 2010;Gluhak & Rosenberg 2013;Rosenberg and Gluhak 2015;Vardi 2015).…”

Section: Raw Materials and Bifacial Tools In The Southern Levantmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20 km east of the Mediterranean Sea shoreline (Figure 1). The site has been explored since 2005 and both surveys and excavations revealed that it was a major extraction site for the production of bifacial tools (Shimelmitz et al 2005;Rosenberg et al 2008). The hill is one of several isolated igneous rock hills found along the southwestern margins of the Jezreel Valley.…”

Section: Giv'at Kipodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing on the results of our excavation, the organization of basalt bifacial production at the site of Giv'at Kipod (Shimelmitz et al 2005;Rosenberg et al 2008;Rosenberg & Shimelmitz 2010), is reconstructed. By way of comparison with other quarry and production sites in the southern Levant, differences in the organization and exploitation of raw materials are then defined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The organization of basanite bifacial production at Giv’at Kipod Quarry, Israel: Towards an ‘Alyawara Day’ model of extraction

Shimelmitz

2016

JLS

Self Cite

Abstract:Hunter gatherers as well as farmers used a variety of lithic raw materials to shape their world, in which some were perceived as having symbolic or mythical content. While the anthropological literature demonstrates that the extraction of raw materials of special significance was often performed differently from that of other more 'ordinary' raw materials, identifying this in the archaeological record is difficult. In this paper we wish to shed new light on this topic using the Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic basanite bifacial tool production site of Giv‛at Kipod, Israel. In the southern Levant basalt axes and adzes have long been understood to embody greater symbolic content than the flint axes and adzes that dominate the Neolithic and Chalcolithic bifacial assemblages. By comparing the results from our excavations at the site of Giv‛at Kipod to other production and extraction sites we exhibit how the organization of production was different than that related to the more common flint extraction in the region. While at most production and extractions sites the manufacture of various types of items is documented and the presence of tools, especially ad hoc tools, indicates that a variety of activities were performed at the locale of extraction, in the case of Giv‛at Kipod the production was focused solely on the manufacture of bifacials with a marked lack of evidence of other significant activities. We attempt to provide guidelines to characterize different exploitation patterns between raw materials of varied social significance using these differences.