Who Dunnit? New Clues Concerning the Development of Chalcolithic Metal Technology in the Southern Levant

Golden, Jonathan

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-9017-3_21

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alloys containing more than 7 wt% of antimony cause antimony to separate from the matrix causing a weakening in the material [2: p.171-172]. Alloys with an antimony content between 10-25 wt% are brittle but make casting alloys of tempting appearance [5][6]. Antimony provides hardness to metals like tin and lead while decreasing the degree of oxidation.…”

Section: Materials Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why did the use of antimony-bearing alloys in Bronze Age Anatolia fall dormant after the Early Bronze Age?: A Case from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey)

Dardeniz

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The archaeometallurgical and archaeological research carried out in Anatolia has provided numerous examples of diverse alloying practices representing different levels of societal interaction, from the extraction of ores to the trade of finished goods and high level gift exchange among elites. While discussions abound about the exploitation of mines, mining settlements, possible origins of artifacts, resources of copper, arsenic, and especially tin to improve our knowledge about Anatolian Bronze Age mining and metallurgy, uncommon alloying practices including the use of antimony, nickel, or lead have long remained in the shadows of scholarly research. With the aim of bringing attention to the diversity in alloying practices in Anatolian metallurgy, this article focuses on the use of antimony through an appraisal of archaeological and textual evidence from Bronze Age Anatolia. Archaeometric data from several Early Bronze Age sites are re-examined alongside new data emerging from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey) to explain the reduction of the variety of alloy types used. Portable-XRF analysis of artifacts from Resuloğlu and mineralogical analysis of an antimony-bearing ore fragment present evidence of use of antimony at the region during the Early Bronze Age. This period is followed by disappearance of antimony in material record until the Iron Age, while textual records weakly refer to its circulation within the region. This paper considers geological, technological, and socio-economic factors to explain why the use of antimony alloys falls dormant after the Early Bronze Age. The political and economic change towards centralization over geological and technological factors is proposed as an explanation.

show abstract

Section: Materials Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why did the use of antimony-bearing alloys in Bronze Age Anatolia fall dormant after the Early Bronze Age?: A Case from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey)

Dardeniz

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Metallurgy emerged in the Southern Levant many centuries after the first attestations of metalworking in the neighboring areas (Balkans, Anatolia, Upper Euphrates, Caucasus, and the Iranian plateau). Some authors deny that metallurgy was introduced in the Southern Levant from one of these homelands, because we find no sign of external influence on the early development of the Ghassulian metallurgy ( [15], p. 562) and because the earliest use of furnaces for copper production is attested in the Southern Levant [12]. On the other hand, the rapid development of techniques of smelting and metalworking in the Southern Levant is easy to justify by the introduction of mature technical knowledge from another homeland [16].…”

Section: The Question Of Origin Of the South Levantine Metallurgymentioning

confidence: 54%

Technopoiesis in the Southern Levantine Metallurgy and Its Implications on the Rise and Fall of the Ghassulian Society

Amzallag¹

2023

Antiquity - Including the “East” as “Western Identity”

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of mental shifts on societal transformations in antiquity is frequently minimized due to the difficulty of evaluating them. However, even in the absence of written sources, some of these changes are traceable in the material culture, through a special type of implements produced for revealing the technique bringing them forth. Defined as processual artifacts, they inform us about the ‘juvenile phase’ of complex techniques with strong cosmological dimension (technopoiesis), their evolution, and their societal influences. This paper exposes the heuristic power of this approach through the analysis of the early metallurgy in the Southern Levant. It shows how the evolution of this craft and its cosmological resonances contribute to clarify the singularity of the Ghassulian culture and its disappearance during the transition to the Early Bronze Age.

show abstract

“…Consequently, the petrographical and typological data indicate the secondary use of a V-shaped bowl and a hole-mouth jar in a metallurgical context. The secondary use of domestic vessels was so far reported only for a V-shaped bowl from J. Perrot's excavation in Abu Matar (Golden, 2014a). Additionally, Eldar and Baumgarten (1985) suggest the use of a vessel with about 16 cm diameter as a furnace in Neve Noy but do not provide any details about the vessel type.…”

Section: Metallurgical Ceramicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The hot ceramic lid covering the furnace (Golden et al, 2001) would have needed to be moved permanently to add fuel and ore into the furnace and probably would have left visible wear on the rim of the furnace walls. However, such wear is not mentioned (Golden, 2014a;Golden et al, 2001;Shugar, 2000). Melting copper in a crucible in such a pit furnace seems cumbersome as well because the crucible is difficult to access.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bellows and furnace covers in the unalloyed copper metallurgy of the Chalcolithic Southern Levant: reassessing the evidence from Abu Matar

Rose,

Natali,

Brotzu

et al. 2023

Archaeometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unalloyed copper objects were produced in the Chalcolithic Southern Levant in a two‐step process. Copper ore was smelted in pit furnaces, and the mechanically extracted copper prills melt in crucibles and cast into objects. However, the air supply remained unknown, and practical considerations shed doubt on the validity of some of the reconstructed practices. To refine the reconstruction, the metallurgical material from Abu Matar was reassessed. Most importantly, several previously unreported fragments suggest the use of bellows and covering the furnace with large pottery fragments. Our results provide probably the earliest evidence for the use of bellows.

show abstract

Who Dunnit? New Clues Concerning the Development of Chalcolithic Metal Technology in the Southern Levant

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

Why did the use of antimony-bearing alloys in Bronze Age Anatolia fall dormant after the Early Bronze Age?: A Case from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey)

Why did the use of antimony-bearing alloys in Bronze Age Anatolia fall dormant after the Early Bronze Age?: A Case from Resuloğlu (Çorum, Turkey)

Technopoiesis in the Southern Levantine Metallurgy and Its Implications on the Rise and Fall of the Ghassulian Society

Bellows and furnace covers in the unalloyed copper metallurgy of the Chalcolithic Southern Levant: reassessing the evidence from Abu Matar

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About