Geochemical discrimination of basaltic sources as a tool for provenance analyses of bifacial tools in the southern Levant: first results from the Jezreel Valley, Israel

Gluhak, Tatjana M.; Rosenberg, Danny

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.11.003

Cited by 20 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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%

“…The heavily eroded and decalcified flint items are similar to Palaeolithic material in the region (e.g., Olami 1984). The only reliable information concerning the dating of the Giv'at Kipod quarry and production site is based on the provenance study (Gluhak & Rosenberg 2013), which identified bifacials made of Giv'at Kipod basanite in a series of sites spanning from the PPNA to the Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic period.…”

Section: Giv'at Kipodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, Giv'at Kipod is the only known quarry and production site for basaltic bifacial tools in the southern Levant, although a recent geochemical study showed that other locals also served this purpose (Gluhak & Rosenberg 2013;Rosenberg and Gluhak 2015). Similar sites, exploiting non-flint resources, are also rare and include three larnite quarry and bifacial production sites in the Negev of Israel (Vardi 2015), and others, much northern sites in Turkey, Thrace (e.g., Özbek 2000Özbek , Özbek & Erol 2001.…”

Section: The Uniqueness Of Giv'at Kipod In Terms Of the Extraction Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, a provenance study recently showed that the site operated for several millennia, from the PPNA through the period of the Wadi Rabah culture (Gluhak & Rosenberg 2013). Nevertheless, the distribution range of Giv'at Kipod bifacials was limited (Rosenberg & Gluhak 2015).…”

Section: Giv'at Kipod As a Production Centre For Basanite Bifacialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Shimelmitz

Rosenberg

2016

JLS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard 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.

show abstract

Section: Raw Materials and Bifacial Tools In The Southern Levantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Giv'at Kipodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Uniqueness Of Giv'at Kipod In Terms Of the Extraction Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Giv'at Kipod As a Production Centre For Basanite Bifacialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Shimelmitz

Rosenberg

2016

JLS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One such trend that was reflected in the papers presented during the 1 st AGSTR meeting at the University of Haifa, and visible in this JLS issue, is an increase in the number of papers dealing with ground stone quarries, production, and design (e.g. Another trend gaining strength is a focus on geochemistry and provenance, distribution, and exchange (e.g., Williams-Thorpe 1988;Philip & Williams-Thorpe 2001;Watts et al 2004;Antonelli & Lazzarini 2010;Tsoraki 2011;Rosenberg & Golani 2012;Gluhak & Rosenberg 2013;Gluhak & Schwall 2015;Gluhak et al 2016;Reniere et al 2016). Efforts to understand the functions of stone items continue through increasingly sophisticated functional use-wear analyses (e.g., Hamon 2008;Risch 2008;Verbaas & van Gijn 2008;Delgado-Raack et al 2009;Bofill 2012;Adams 2014;Asryan et al 2014;Adams 2015;Delgado-Rack & Risch 2016;Groman-Yaroslavski et al 2016;Hamon 2016) and residue studies (e.g., Yohe II et al 1991;Hard et al 1996;Fullagar & Field 1997;Veth et al 1997;Piperno & Holst 1998;Perry 2004;Aranguren et al 2007;Barton 2007;Fullagar et al 2008;Buonasera 2016;Öğüt 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction. Leave no stone unturned: Perspectives on ground stone artefact research

Rosenberg

Rowan

Gluhak

2016

JLS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Ground stone tools served in many physical and social contexts through millennia, reflecting a wide variety of functions. Although ground stone tool studies were neglected for much of early archaeology, the last few decades witnessed a notable international uptick in the way archaeologists confront this multifaceted topic. Today, with the advance of archaeology as a discipline, research into ground stone artefacts is moving into a new phase that integrates high resolution documentation with new methodological, analytical techniques, and technological approaches. These open new vistas for an array of studies and wide-ranging interpretive endeavours related to understanding ground stone tool production and use. Inspired by these diverse analytical approaches and interpretive challenges, we founded the international Association for Ground Stone Tools Research (AGSTR) in order to promote dialogue and create an optimal, inclusive arena for scholars studying various aspects of ground stone artefacts. Scholars from around the globe met for a five day conference at the University of Haifa, for the first meeting of the newly founded AGSTR. This included the presentation of 47 papers and 17 posters. The current paper serves as an introduction to this special issue of JLS, devoted to the proceedings of the founding conference of the Association for Ground Stone Tool Research, held at the University of Haifa during July 2015.Keywords: ground stone tools; food production; archaeology; anthropology; AGSTR Ground stone artefacts served in widely divergent physical and social contexts through millennia, reflecting a variety of functions documented through a century of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical research. An ill-defined group of archaeological artefacts ranging from portable items to large immobile equipment and bedrock features, this broad artefact category cross-cuts geographic and chronological boundaries, from generalized grinding and pounding tools, to more task-specific tools, such as weapons, vessels, and single-function items. For this reason, precise definitions of "ground stone artefacts" are difficult and frequently pertain to a specific assemblage or group of assemblages (Gopher & Orrelle 1995: 13; Sparks 2007: 1-3; Rosenberg & Garfinkel 2014: XIII). Scholars define ground stone objects in different ways, producing complex typological and classificatory systems (e.g., Warren 1969;Wright 1991Wright , 1993Gopher & Orrelle 1995;Rowan 1998;Adams 2002;Beven 2007;Sparks 2007;Rosenberg & Garfinkel 2014). These definitions typically include any item of stone which was manufactured through abrasion, polish, or pounding (impact), or a stone item used for these activities to create some other object. Such definitions rely heavily on the study of discarded finished tools (items in their 'post-production' and often 'post-use' stage) and thus the role of flaking, so central to the manufacturing of many ground stone tool types ) is commonly neglected or its importance under-valued. Moreover, while the pr...

show abstract

TERMITE: An R script for fast reduction of laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry data and its application to trace element measurements

Mischel

Mertz‐Kraus

Jochum

2017

Rapid Comm Mass Spectrometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RATIONALE: High spatial resolution Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICPMS) determination of trace element concentrations is of great interest for geological and environmental studies. Data reduction is a very important aspect of LA-ICP-MS, and several commercial programs for handling LA-ICPMS trace element data are available. Each of these software packages has its specific advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: Here we present TERMITE, an R script for the reduction of LA-ICPMS data, which can reduce both spot and line scan measurements. Several parameters can be adjusted by the user, who does not necessarily need prior knowledge in R. Currently, ten reference materials with different matrices for calibration of LA-ICPMS data are implemented, and additional reference materials can be added by the user. TERMITE also provides an optional outlier test, and the results are provided graphically (as a pdf file) as well as numerically (as a csv file). RESULTS: As an example, we apply TERMITE to a speleothem sample and compare the results with those obtained using the commercial software GLITTER. The two programs give similar results. TERMITE is particularly useful for samples that are homogeneous with respect to their major element composition (in particular for the element used as an internal standard) and when many measurements are performed using the same analytical parameters. In this case, data evaluation using TERMITE is much faster than with all other available software, and the concentrations of more than 100 single spot measurements can be calculated in less than a minute. CONCLUSIONS: TERMITE is an open-source software for the reduction of LA-ICPMS data, which is particularly useful for the fast, reproducible evaluation of large datasets of samples that are homogeneous with respect to their major element composition.

show abstract

Geochemical discrimination of basaltic sources as a tool for provenance analyses of bifacial tools in the southern Levant: first results from the Jezreel Valley, Israel

Cited by 20 publications

References 27 publications

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

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

Introduction. Leave no stone unturned: Perspectives on ground stone artefact research

TERMITE: An R script for fast reduction of laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry data and its application to trace element measurements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About