The Stone Tools

10 downloads 175 Views 223KB Size Report
The Stone Tools. David Eitam. Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel david[email protected]. INTRODUCTION.
(Appendix C on) editors

The Stone Tools David Eitam Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel [email protected]

INTRODUCTION Forty six stone tools (henceforth ST), the subject of this report, were divided into four categories: ground stone tools (henceforth GST; N 41), rock-cut installations (henceforth RCI; N 2) and stone objects (N 5), as well as raw material – unmodified stones with no manufacture marks or usewear (N 2). In addition, the report includes a typology list of the stone tool types found in En Gev (Appendix A)1 , as well as detailed catalog of the stone finds (Appendix B) and an excel table, easy-to-use and accessible to all (Appendix C, En Gev/Tel Rechesh website, WWW…,). The essence of stone-made utilities is determined by its usage. Consequently, a systematic functional study of ST applied in this report and other works of mine (e.g., Eitam 1979, 2007, 2013), focuses on the significance of the stone-tool, by focusing on its tasks and uses. The main problem in studying ST in general and RCI in particular, is the lack of a comprehensive and agreed-upon methodology, and lack of a comparative classification system. At first, a methodology and a general classification system, combining GST and RCI from various historical and prehistoric periods were established (Eitam 2010). Furthermore, a preliminary typology of ST in Iron Age Israel was determined as a base for the study of Tel Dor (area G, Eitam forth). The typology list in appendix A is based on the latter list, describes the types of 53 En Gev ST (including seven additional, see note 1 and Appendix B: 47-53). Another major problem of the study of ST and GST in particular, is rooted in the frequent changing of the artifact's usage to accomplish different tasks. GST (usually in regard to pottery vessel and flint artifact), is often a multi-tusk utility, by way of adding various working face/s along its lifetime, or by initial designing. This 1

Stone utilities – 'stone tools' (ST), are ground stone tools (GST) and simple rock-cut installations (RCI); the first are made of various kinds of stones, usually not flint; the latter are stone implements cut in bedrock, on boulders or stone slabs. However, beads, pendants, jewelry and figurines, are excluded from this report (see chapter/s***). For complex RCI (olive oil press, wine press and mill), as contrast to the current simple one, see Frankel 1999.

1

fundamental difference requests a more flexible classification system in order to comprehend the entire range of the device's functions and their significances (compere, Eitam 2010: 88 versus Adams and Adams 2005; Adams 2003). GST are can be examined by the naked eye and under a magnifying glass (x10), measured, described and sketched. The metric data of both RCI and GST is focused on several parameters: length, width and depth and/or diameter and depth, and is described according to the common technological order (Din 6, see Appendix B). This study does not deal in details with the geometric form of the utilities; neither does it attempt to define the concavity of the working surface or hollow by formulas (e.g., Wright 1992; Hovers 1996; Milevski 1998 and lately Sparks 2007). However special attention is focused on the working surfaces of the device. The classification system applied here basically follows Karen Wright's well accepted terminology and typology classification (1992; including criteria and many of the anatomical terms), retaining a unified terminology which is essential for facilitating further studies. Yet, necessary changes have been done to simplify the system, whereas extended it for the inclusion of RCI (and stone objects, see Appendix A), and for adjusting the system to different periods, prehistoric as well as historic. The description and presentation (drawing or scans, see Eitam 2010) of the ST follow the technical account and order (Din 6, see Appendix B) and includes morphological and technological parameters. The first are related to the SHAPE of the utility and its dimensions and the second parameters depict the ways the shape was designed, and the fashions of usage. Morphological and technological parameters incorporates fabrication marks and usewear (flaking, pecking and battering, grinding or abrading, smoothing, polishing, beside striations and hue patches) on working surface – FACE – or faces, whereas on external surface they merely portray manufacture.

STYLE

is related to a specific trend

or detail of a utility, like shape and wear of a particular rim or edge 2 . Measurement categories (of dimensions, diameter or length of RCI, lengths of ground stone tool, depth of installation or angles of conical installation) were set to form a short and clear description (e.g., small, medium, large and very large; shallow, medium deep or deep; expanding or right angle).

2

SHAPE, FACE

2

and STYLE are written in capital italic letters here and in Appendix A.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STONE TOOLS

The 46 En Gev ST were divided into two main groups: 34 of them were related to the IA occupations (strata J-IV and J-Va-b) in which 12 were located on the floors or in the debris of IA period, while the rest 22 were related to IA period on typological ground (see location of each stone in the catalog, Appendix B). Much of the 22 GST were found in mixed or uncertified context. Among the GST 18 were found in Hellenistic context, and four in Persian and Roman occupation. The study of En Gev ST focuses on GST related to the IA period, however in few aspects the collection is reviewed as a whole. Because of the scattered nature of the collection, no analyzes of distribution: typological or spatial, as well as chronological, could be done. Nevertheless, various aspects of the settlement's disposition and identity were drawn, due to significant and rare stone tool types found in the site, as well as the clear difference between the local collection found in Ein Gev to that found in the nearby site of Hazor.

Raw Material and the Location of the ST Production (Teveria, Geological Map 2008) The majority of IA En Gev ST was made of local (and preferable) rocks, available along and nearby the lower and upper stream of Nahal En Gev, (pebbles and rock exposures, respectively) and the Golan. Vesicular and porous basalt (N 4, 19%; PLIOCENE & PLEISTOCENE

cover and flows of upper basalt), scoria (N 3,14%; Bene

Yehuda formation), chert (flint core covered by limestone coat, N 4, 19%; in Nahal Mezar at a kirton (chalk) formation of the OLIGOCENE,

LOWER EOCENE),

hard limestone (N 2, 9%;

Susita formation), altogether 13 ST, 61% of the IA tools. 3 A few ST were

possibly produced at the site, like cupmarks made out of limestone, which did not demand a high standard of craftsmanship as implied by a nuddle (unfinished GST)

3

Raw materials are written in italics, while geological periods in CAP ITAL (small) letters; Highly vesicular, gray volcanic rock, common in the Golan, light in weight (although gravity greater than 1) not like pumice, which sinks in water. The latter, bright in color, is a different volcanic formation (crispy, brittle raw material) imported to the Levant, should n ot be associated with the first (Ebeling 2012), served other purposes.

3

of a small device (polisher or abrader, Appendixes A: I.T3, B: 967, henceforth number within brackets).4 39% of the utilities include mostly non-local raw material of good quality feldspar basalt. Two artifacts (1419, 499) were made of brownish grained volcanic rock (maybe lower basalt from basalt from

UPPER M IOCENE). The

M IDDLE M IOCENE, or

intermediate

dense sandstone, was often used (as in the case of

En Gev), for making sharpeners for bronze objects (wetstone, 1462-1). Most of the fine feldspar basalts utilities – well designed, fine and massive bowls (N 5, 24%) and other non-local raw material, although occurred in Nahal En Gev (large cobble at the lower stream and rock formation in the upper stream and in the wadi surroundings) were plausibly brought to En Gev as final products from a professional production center, located near a better and larger rock exposures. 15% of the utilities, including two fine and massive feldspar basalt bowls (909, 1380) and the two brownish basalt items were brought to the site from outer craftsmen workshops, indicating fine and prestige stone utilities. During the Hellenistic period the raw material distribution was different: 81% of the tools were made from local rocks, of which 50% was of inferior quality (chalk and soft limestone). These differences between preferable quality raw material and inferior one seem to reflect the balance between the needs and the available. It seems reasonable to suggest that this balance was directly influenced by the economical abilities of the settlement. The above suggestion is supported by the different ratios of quality and inferior raw material in other IA sites. The GST assemblage of el-Ahwat for example, a single-period IA I fortified site, were made of 42% (or less) basalt and 58% of local stones, including most crumbly calcite stones tools. Furthermore, much of the millstones, intensively reused stones were made from inferior quality basalt originated possibly in the Carmel nearby exposures.5 Seemingly the resources and trade facilities of the site were pretty limited in contrast to IA En Gev (Eitam 2003, but see, Zertal

4

The manufacture location and the craftsmen identity of En Gev millstones and of other sites within the basalt areas is another issue to consider; was it a self-manufacture within the site, or rather a massproduction at craft centers in main cities like Hazor? (Eitam forth: production and trade of ST). 5

Around 200 GST were found in the excavated areas; additional 78 GST were collected by us in 2003 from the surface, in non-excavated areas (to enlarge our knowledge on the ST types, raw material and other features of the assemblage). About 30% of the basalt tools (N 80) were constantly reused twice or three times till the complete warning out of the broken fragment. I took the last point into consideration, while calculated the percentages of the different raw materials.

4

1996).6 Socio-economical differences could be observed when comparing, through distribution analysis (unfeasible in our case), between the quality of possibly raw material of ST found in private houses and those found in public IA buildings. According to Cohen-Weinberger (2001) the number of basalt tools in privet houses at IAII Timnah was lower than those found in all strata (Cohen-Weinberger, 2001: 228231), partly because the IA, LB and MBII strata was comprised of quite few public buildings. The Tel Miqne-Ekron huge ST assemblage (N 2202) was comprised of ca. 60% of GST made from local inferior raw materials (mainly limestone or probably nari), compared to only ca. 40% tools made of exported superior material (mainly basalt), Milevski forth: Raw Material).7 This example may seemingly contradict my claim, as Tel Miqne-Ekron – an unpredictable huge olive oil enterprise in the in the Ancient Near East in the 7th century BC stratum (Eitam 1996b; where most of the GST came from) – most likely held high economic abilities. Furthermore, at the very large industrial inner zone of city, the ratio between quality and inferior raw material was even higher, estimated to about 20% compare 80%; the majority of dozens grinding stones, collected on the surface of the industrial inner-zone, were made of nari or beachrock (Eitam 1996a). The local mass production of inferior food implements throws some light on the social status of the hundreds of worker class in contrast to higher classes in Ekron kingdom-city, vassal of Assyria (see ratio of other IA sites, Eitam forth: raw material). It seems, therefore, that the socio-economic standard of the IA En Gev citadel was higher than the average city during the 9th -8th centuries BC Land of Israel.

Manufacture of ST and Pounding-Blending Utilities In contrast to most of IA ST, the majority of several Hellenistic utilities reflect a socio-economic decline. These ST, in spite of being indispensable utilities, were poorly made of chalk, an inferior (but easy to fabricate) local raw material. Not one pestle was found in En Gev, either made of basalt or limestone, nor modified or unmodified (oblong pebble; numerous in the nearby En Gev wadi). Furthermore, the absence of the most regular and widespread small conic and cylindrical pestle in IAII 6

This goes hand in hand with other characteristics of the settlement; poor building standard, no public structures, one (at least) unfortified entrance in contrast to a bulky surrounding wall, the absent of ornaments, artifacts or imported pottery; all point towards a poor sheltered settlement. 7 The high portion of 'beachrock' (ac. 11%) hints toward a nearer located of the rock formation. The additional ca. 10% local stones are probably pebbles, cobbles etc., likely collected at the nearby Sorek stream, which were not presented by percentages (Milevski forth).

5

Israel is odd and requires an explanation. Small and medium pestles were possibly mass-produced in specialized workshops (one of them maybe at Hazor) and extensively marketed all over the country, excluding the southern part of ancient Israel (Eitam forth: the geographical aspect). Yet, the total absence of stone pestles in IA En Gev, suitable to work with limestone cupmarks (see, specific wear on FACE in Appendix B: ac., 1103, 1286, PL 1: 11, 2: 2) may indicate a general use of a pestles made of dense local wood (Olive tree, Pistacia or Oak) in addition to stone pestles. The lack of this common tool in En Gev, situated in a basalt formation region and nearby Hazor, is noteworthy. Conversely, the frequency of open-shallow grinding utilities (like the massive bowls with 3 legs or solid base, vis-a-vis the almost absence of mortars) specifically in En Gev and customary allover IAII Israel, may point towards an alternative tool which may also indicate a geo-cultural trend in the north. The spheroid or ovoid pounders found frequently in En Gev in a massive form (1310, 1530-22, 1448, 1369-1) and in smaller size (1466-4, 1448, 1515-10 with dense striation, 1230), may be the local option for the small and medium size pestles. The latter cubic-spheroid pounder was probably a reused archaic scale weight (see the following functional aspect). An identical pounder with smooth face, visible in IA Hazor side by side with the small pestles, maybe followed earlier tradition that started in the Ugarit area, Elliot 1991). Most surfaces of the objects did not reveal any usewear as observed by the naked eye, but this does not necessarily contradict the above assumption which will be examined using advanced thechnics.8

Reuse of Fragment of Mill Stones Only three millstone fragments were secondarily used as handstones (two fragments of loaf handstones, 1321 and no. 50, and one of grinding slab, 1461). The secondary use of millstone fragments was a common tendency in IA, and is being observed at many IA sites (see follows). It seems more than plausible that the negligible number of reused basalt GST in En Gev goes hand-in-hand with the accessibility of this raw material. This tendency may also refer to the high economic standard of the Iron Age settlement of En Gev.

8

The face of flint spheroid pounders needs a microscopic observation, while the manners of operation (pounding-blending) of cereals grains/groats in different accretion stages should be examined through experimental operation.

6

The same logic appears to motivate the maintenance of the mills for upholding efficient grinding by re-roughening the lower millstone surface. Most of the IA grinding slabs I observed, from various Iron Age sites, showed no manmade roughening signs on the slabs working surface, other than the natural vesicular rough face of the basalt (possibly, for this reason, the preferable grinding slab, see typology list, Appendix A). The IA sites in which re-roughening of grinding slabs working face were observed are Tel Rehov (petit forth) and En Gev, both nearby quality basalt formations. Roughening was done by pecking straight, parallel, shallow and narrow widthwise lines (like in the En Gev grinding slab,1462-1, PL 3: 6) or in other ways. No doubt, repeated roughening accelerates the wear and eventually shortens the lifespan of the mill, a luxurious process possible only at the settlements surrounded by basalt region.

THE FUNCTIONAL ASPECT

Two major issues relate to the functional aspect of GST: first, in RCI and GS, it is difficult to differentiate between fabrication signs and use-wear, especially in cases where GST were later altered; second, the shape of the tool, while additional use is concerned, reflects to great extent, its final use. The functional question is examined in five ways: analyses of morphological and technological features of the stone tool; exploring the tool usages through historical records and ethnographical parallels; examining the ST supposed role, in accordance with the environmental conditions of the studied period and area; surveying diachronically the use/s of the same type of utility; reinforcing the suggested definition by experimental studies and measurable tests. IA period ST in general are simple in shape, coarsely designed and lack fineness or refined decorations. The

SHAPE

and

STYLE

of the tools were concentrated on the function of the

implement and the improvement of effective operation, spending lesser energy during fabrication and use.9 A considerably high standard of industrial design is exhibited in many tools, especially in millstones. A fine example of this norm is the most common household IA pair of millstones; the lower millstone is a fine designed loaf-shape 9

This trend can be observed in other daily implements such as local pottery, excluding few examples of finer manufacture of the small basalt bowls, calcite or votive vessels.

7

grinding slab (PL 3: 3, see Appendix A: I.H3 and note 9 therein), fit to be placed on one hip or on the floor (set on cloth or leather to save the scattered portion of the flour), while grinding with a small handstone (PL 4: 5, 6). Heavier types of household mills' grinding slab were placed on the floor beside or in front of the seated miller (PL 3: 1). The Larger IA, less frequent mill (mainly found in public structures and possibly also in more affluent households) consists of lower millstone. A large grinding slab was either placed horizontal on the floor or in diagonal position on high base within the installation for collecting the flour, and the large handstone. The oblong handstone, set perpendicularly on the grinding slab, was operated in to-and-fro motion, by two hands along its longwise axis. The upper, heavy duty millstone, skillfully and industrial designed, was regularly a narrow loaf-shape stone with pointed or rounded edges (PL 3: 5). The edges were carefully pecked and ground, while the convex upper part of the stone had fine abraded patches for better holding by the miller palms (sometime smeared by oily hands; Appendix B: 1251, 1320, 1433, 1461). All this stands in contrast to the coarse flaked and pecked surface of the noneffective parts of the device (but see, Liebowitz 2003). The asymmetrical upper mill (of the widthwise section) enabled a less effort and efficient milling (probably more effective in diagonal position of the grinding slab, PL 4: 5).10 At Dor, the frequency of asymmetric mill was more common in early IAI and becomes less frequent in late IAI and IAII. In our case not even one asymmetric loaf handstone was found in En Gev. The industrial design is evident in other common utilities, like massive bowls, including the 3 legs bowl, frequently irregular in shape and coarsely pecked on its exterior. Other examples of this trend revealed a tendency towards mass fabrication; the brisk appearance and wear of the archaic scale weight (even though carefully shaped as cuboid-spheroid by few flakes), the basalt and limestone bowls and the cosmetic bowls which are coarsely designed and sloppily painted, on top of precious objects like the four legs (cultic?) bowl types. Few exceptions of this norm are the pedestal fine bowls, the averted and other fine bowls (made of fine feldspar basalt) may also illustrate the difference between the upper class elite and the deprived poor majority,

10

The heavier, rectangular or oval, symmetrical handstones go better with horizontal, large grinding slab, slab (PL 3: 1, 4: 2).

8

Archaic Scale Weights One heavy spheroid-cuboids stone object, defined by me as archaic scale weight was found in En Gev (1230).11 Equivalent stone objects were found by the dozens, in many IAI and IAII sites, located in different parts of the Southern Levant. They were previously classified as sling stones (firstly by Tufnell, 1953: 396, PL 40: 5; followed by David Ussishkin and many other scholars), or as hammerstone by Michele Daviau (2002 and reference therein; and others), who convincingly denied the first classification. The second definition of the stone object as hammerstone (or pounder, grinding stone, abraders etc.) is widely accepted. This classification should be ruled out, as most of the objects, at Tel Dor and possibly in other IA sites bear no signs of usewear (but see note 10). The stone object, no doubt, served in IA period (not counting earlier and later periods) as a multi- function tool – polisher, abrader and sometime as a small anvils or hammer, and as heating objects (during the PPN). The stone object served also as effective weapon, as any field stone in the right size, in times of combat (vividly depicted in the Lachish relief and in other Assyrian siege scene, ibid). Nevertheless, none of those definitions seems to be the initial goal of the object as none of the En Gev scale weight stones, nor 41 out of 47 weight stones of tell Dor, area G (Eitam forth; LB to IAII periods) and in many other IA sites bear any visible usewear on the ST surfaces. It appears that this stone object was initially fabricated and served as a traditional balance weight in ancient Israel during IAI and AII periods, facing the noticeable equivalence in range of mass, and the fact that nine out of ten characteristics of a regular scale weight (from the 3ed millennium BC onwards, with or without inscription or sign, Rahmstore 2006 9-10) appeared on the archaic scale weighs. The archaic scale system existed side by side with the local and foreign states weights systems. It seems, according to the results of the preliminary research (Eitam forth and reference therein), that the archaic scale weights appeared in Iron Age Israel at least in four groups of size and mass: a. ~125g; b. 154g; c. 247g; d. 431g; and possibly, as in the case of En Gev and other sites, in additional group e. >500g (1230 and possibly also 1466-4).12

11

Two other heavy spheroid dome-shape stone objects made of hard gray limestone (1466-4, weight around 400g and 1530-22, weight more than 500g) may also be archaic scale weights. 12 The numbers and percentages in brackets (N 1, 4%) refer to the IA En Gev ST's collection (see part A.; the Hell ST are mentioned separately and is not included in the account.

9

The archaic metrology system seems to be the common barter and market scale weight, for exchange of measured foodstuff in sizable quantity, like flour and cereal grouts (vis-à-vis grain or beans), fruits and vegetables, meat and fish and other weighty commodities like wood or minerals.13 The current supposition contradict the well-accepted concept that consider the metrology formation as linked exclusively with the elite and with the foundation of the state, the production of bronze tools and the commerce of gold and silver and the use of the latter as a method of payment. The wave-like tendency of the archaic system usage from the Chalcolithic to the Late Bronze, points toward a nonlinearly pattern of socioeconomic evolution among early societies (from the early Neolithic onwards; see note 13) followed by what seems to be state-run affords to control it. This pattern continued in the IA, followed a high peak during IAI and abundant archaic scale weights in IAII periods stayed on with significant presence of the archaic metrology system or systems in the 7th -6th centuries BC, along with the newly Judean weighting system that was than formed and used.

DISCUSSION

The few dozen ST were found spread all over the site, not more than half a dozen in one building with many rooms, did not allow us to carry out a spatial distribution analysis. Still, the distinctive regular versus special GST types, found in the narrow chambers of the casemate wall and in the NE building and cells, enabled to draw some significant information. The ST of En Gev, as in other IA sites, are arranged in categories, according to six major daily activities.14 (1) Domestic utilities – 17 ST, 51% of total 34 IA ST – food and other ingredients production: cupmarks (Hell N 4; PL 1:10, 2: 2), grinding slabs (N 3; PL 3: 1, 2, 3) and handstones (N 3) (Hell N2; PL 3: 4, 5, 6, 4: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6), 13

Astonishingly, it appears, following a brief survey (Eitam forth and reference within), that the archaic scale weight has a very long history, starting at 11,511 BF cal. by people of first large farmer's PPNA communities, used in PPNB-C and by various groups in the Pottery Neolithic. The scale weights were widely-spread in the Southern Levant during the Chal and EBI sites, reaching Cyprus. They continued to be used in smaller number during EBII, simultaneously with the development of Early Bronze metrology systems, reduced in the MBI period and became common again in the MBII, continuing to be used in LB period simultaneously with the emerged of the Canaanite weight systems. 14

The numbers and percentages in brackets (N 1, 4%) refer to the IA En Gev ST's collection (see part A); the Hell ST are mentioned separately and not includes in the account.

11

grinding bowls (N 3; PL 1: 5, 7) spheroid-ovoid pounders (N 6; PL 2: 11-13), fine bowls (N 2; PL 1: 1, 4) (Hell N 1; PL 1: 2). (2) Handcraft implements – 4 ST, 12% – cottage manufacturing: abrader (N 1; PL 2: 6), polishers (N 1; PL 2: 7), small anvil or cup (N 1; PL 1: 11, 2), wet stone (N1). (3) Trade utilities – 4 IA ST, 12%: possible scale weights (N 1; PL 2: 10), archaic scale weights (N 1+ possible 2; PL 2: 11, 12). (4) Personal belongings – 7 ST, 21%: rubbing stones (N5; PL 2: 8, 9), lid of cosmetic box (N 1), ornament (N 1), spheroid or ovoid stones (Hell; N 2. (5) Ritual Artifacts – 2 IA, 6 %: leg of a figure or vessel (N 1), 4 legged bowl with cross bars (N 1; PL 1: 3), Oval shallow basin (Hell N 1; PL 1: 8). (6) Industrial tools – no IA agricultural or metallurgical items: weight of a stick hoe (Hell N 1). The suggested IA standard of living index, according the above group categories of ST was: 30% food; 30% craft; 30% trade; 10% artifacts and personal belongings (Eitam forth: summary). The En Gev citadel standard of living was clearly higher than average in IA; high production of foodstuff (51%) and eventually high food consumption vis-a-vis low craft and trade activities (12% each, as compare to the average of 30%). Personal belongings in En Gev were double then the average. These radical differences enable reconstructing some features in the history of the site, in spite of the lack of clear stratigraphy and uncertainty of the ST belonging. 15 The lack of some types of ST from the En Gev assemblage is an additional indicator to the character of the site. The IA inhabitants did not process raw material, neither had they cultivated the fields. The En Gev people did not produce an agricultural product in large quantities or for domestic, as proved by the absence of presses or simple installations for the production of wine and olive oil (important ingredients in the IA nutrition). They were not much engaged with cottage industries for supporting subsistence matters. The inhabitance kept a pretty minor trade activity, while being greatly busy with food preparations and possibly ate more than the average.16 The En Gev people, or at least great deal of them, invested much energy and means in their personal care (scrubbing the skin with rubber, while bathing, followed by perfuming the body with ointment (from cosmetic box, etc.), possessed high standard articles and a rare, probably cultic, stately artifact (the 4 legged bowl 15

The ratio of domestic utilities at the afloat central city of Hazor (as much as can be evaluated; area A. IA II [& Bronze age], Ebeling 2012) is similar, around 50% (including 29% millstones, 10% massive bowls, 4% mortars, 6% fine bowls & the rest are of pestles and pounders; excluded the 15% averded bowl as part of the workshop perform, waist & marketing items). 16 The majority of millstones at En Gev (60%) were large, mass -production grinding devices as compared to the average IA standard of grater part of the domestic smaller mills.

11

with cross bars). This way of living suites high rank statured dwellers (possibly royal) who obtained processed food stuff and other services from nearby source, and had the facilities for storing large amounts of food supply in a big storage building, vis-a-vis the small population. The En Gev ST collection also clarifies some other issues. The presence of the loaf-trapezoid handstone and the square heavy, trapezoid upper mill (Appendix A: 1250, 1320) points once more toward a linkage with the eastern-northern regions. The trapezoid upper mill resembles the IA rod mill from Horvat 'Ein Koveshim in the western Galilee and other versions of this type (see Appendix A). At the same time, the absence of the widespread, fine feldspar basalt averted-bowls, produced at Hazor's id most significant. At a recently discovered workshop around two hundreds of these bowls were found in area A at Hazor (Ebeling 2012). The absence of the small conic pestles in the current IA collection possibly also produced at Hazot, reinforces the partition between En Gev and Hazor, in spite the geographical proximity between the two sites. The ST Assemblage hint at some chronological sequence. First, it provides a proof for the continuation of the pedestal, averted bowl, solid base from LB to IAI as Wolff suggested (2007). Second, the similarity of the En Gev and Rosh Zayit stone assemblages (both dated to the 9th and probably10th centuries BC), especially the existence of the 4 legged bowl with cross bar in both sites (540, PL 1: 3), indicates that En Gev was a high rank strong hold, culturally connected to the Phoenician world.

SUMMARY

The functional study of En Gev GST enlightens some economical, sociological and geo-cultural aspects, as well as points towards the ethnical and political identity of the settlement. Even this modest stone tool collection, vividly spread light on certain significant issues in the daily life and history of the site and beyond it.

17

17

While the

Experimental studies (usewear analysis and experimental operations) and measurable tests of chemical, micro-botanical, fat residue and DNA analysis of the remains (now starting to be a regularity in prehistoric studies of GST, e.g., Adams 1989, 1999; Eitam 1979, 2013; Hard, Mauldin and Raymond 1996; Loy 2001; Piperno 2004; Shanks et. al 2005; Buonasera 2005, respectively) may bring the ST study to its full potential.

12

Hellenistic occupation was a modest village, maybe of fishermen and farmers, the Iron Age site, from the 9th and possibly the10th to the 8th centuries BC, was of a high class and rank stronghold. The cultural and political affairs unrelated to Hazor and the kingdom of Israel, strongly support the suggestion that En Gev was a royal citadel of an Aramaien Kingdom, plausibly overlooking an anchorage on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (see chapter*** and reference within). The similarity of En Gev assemblage, by the amount and variety of ST types to Rosh Zayit assemblage, clarified the cultural connections between Aram and Phoenicia in the 9th century BC. Both royal strongholds occupied small number of high rank settlers. However, while Rosh Zayit was a fortress equipped with small storing space, but was, at least in the 8th century BC, a royal olive oil mass-production center (contained more than half of IA oil presses in IA Galilee) in addition to being Phoenician administrative forte of the Land of Kabul (Gal and Alexander 2000), En Gev was a citadel with large storage capacity (the pillars building and other structures) with an adjoined lower city of 24 dunam.

13

Appendixes Appendix A. Typology Least of Stone Tools of IA En Gev. Appendix B. Catalog of Stone Tools of IA En Gev.

List of Plates Plate 1. 1, 2, 4: fine bowls (basalt); 3: fragment of horizontal and diagonal bars bowl (basalt); 5, 7: massive bowls (basalt); 6: Platter; 7: cupmarks (limestone). Plate 2. 1-3: cupmarks; 4: Nuddle; 5: Ovoid; 6: Abrader & anvil; 7: Polisher; 8, 9: Rubbing stone; 10: Possibly scale weight; 11-13: Ovoid and spheroid pounders (archaic scale weights?). Plate 3. 1: Rectangular grinding slab; 2: Grinding slab, slab; 3: Loaf grinding slab, symmetric; 4: Oval handstone, symmetric; 5: Handstone, reused fragment of symmetric loaf handstone; 6: plausibly basalt Plate 4. 1: Loaf handstone, symmetric, trapezoid? 2: Oval handstone, symmetric 3: Small oval handstone or palette (bifacial); 4: Rectangular, trapezoid hanstone, high & heavy; 5: Small rectangular handstone, trapezoid; 6: Handstone, reuse fragment of loaf handstone, trapezoid.

ABBREVIATIONS (used in the current report). ST-stone tool/s, GST-ground stone tool/s, RCI-rock-cut installation/s, (N 7)- number of ST, no-ordinal number of stone item in catalog (Appendix B). Abbreviation used in catalog (Appendix B), Periods: ChalChalcolithic, EB I-Early Bronze I, MBIb-Middle Bronze Ib, IA I, II- Iron Age I, II, Pr-Persian, Hell-Hellenistic, Ro-Roman. Measurements: diam-diameter, h-height. Directions: E-east, N-north, S-south, W-west, NE-north-east, etc. Miscellanies: Centcentury, face-working surface.

14

BIBLIOGRAPHY Avshalom-Gorni, D., Frankel, R. and Getzov, N. 2004

Grinding Stones of Saddle Quern in Israel Tel Aviv 31/2: 246-262. Journal of Archaeology 90: 269-296.

Ben-Ami, D. 2005

Miscellaneous Small Objects. In: A. Ben-Tor, A. Zarzecki-Peleg and S. Cohen-Anidjar (eds). Yoqne'am II—The Iron Age and the Persian Period. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations 1977-1988. Qedem Reports 7, Jerusalem: 377-394.

Buchholz, H.G. 1963. Steinerne DreifuBschalen des agaischen Kulturkreises und ihre Beziehungen zum Osten. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaeo!ogischen Instituts 78: 1-77. Buonasera, T. 2005

Fatty acid analysis of prehistoric burned rocks: a case study from central California. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 957-965.

Cohen-Winberger, A 2001

The Ground Stone. In: A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen (eds.). Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem: 225–237.

Daviau, P. M. M. 2002

Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, Volume 2: The Iron Age Artefacts. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 11/2. Leiden: Brill.

Din 6 2002 Din 6, Übereinstimmung mit ISO 128. Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V, Berlin. Ebeling, J.R. 15

2001

Utilitarian Objects in Sacred Spaces: Ground Stone tools in Middle and Late Bronze Age Temples in the Southern Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona at Tucson.

2007

Groundstone Objects. In Tel Mor – A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Outpost in Southern Canaan: The Excavations Directed by Moshe Dothan 1959-1960, ed. T.J. Barako. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

2012

The Ground Stone Artifacts from Area A at Hazor. In: A. Ben-Tor and S. Zuckerman (eds.) Hazor VI. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem: 1-23.

Ebeling, J., and Rowan, Y.M. 2004

The Archaeology of the Daily Grind: Ground Stone toolsand Food Production in the Southern Levant. Near Eastern Archaeology 67/2: 108–117.

Eitam, D. 1979

Olive Presses of the Israelite Period. Tel Aviv 3-4: 146-155.

1981

Oil Production during the Biblical Period in Mount Ephraim. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). 1985

Ground Stone Tools and other Small Finds, Survey of Tel MiqneEkron, 1984-1985, Unpublished Report, Oil Industry Museum, Haifa.

1987a

Khirbet Khadash –An Industrial Village for the Production of Olive Oil in the Kingdom of Israel. In: Longo O. and Scarpi P. (eds.) Il Dono e La Quiete il Mare Verde Dell’olio. Homo Edens V. Padova: 56-73.

1987b

Olive Oil Production during the Biblical Period. In: Heltzer M.and Eitam D. (eds.) Olive Oil in Antiquity, Israel and Neighboring Countries, from Neolith to Early Arab Period. Conference, University of Haifa, Israel Oil Industry Museum, Dagon Museum: 16-36.

1990

Royal Industry in Ancient Israel during the Iron Age Period. In: Klengel H. (ed.) The Town as a Regional Economic Center in the Ancient Near East, Tenth International Economic History Congress. Leuven: 56-73.

1996a

Survey of Agricultural Installations. In: A. Zertal (ed.). The Menasseh Hill Country Survey, The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert Vol. II: 681-738. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

16

The Olive Oil Industry at Tell Miqne –Ekron in the Late Iron Age. In:

1996b

Eitam D. and Heltzer M. (eds.). Olive Oil in Antiquity, Israel and Neighboring Countries, from Neolith to Early Arab Period. Sargon srl, Padova: 166-196. 2003

The Ground stone tools of el-Ahwat, Unpublished Report, Haifa University.

2004

The Ground stone tools of Mount Ebal, Unpublished Report, Haifa University.

2006

Survey of Agricultural Installations. In: Zertal A. The Menasseh Hill Country Survey, The Easern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert Vol. II. Tel Aviv (Hebrew): 681-738. 2007

The Stone Tools from Kh. Aujah el Foqa. "Up to the Gates of Ekron". In: S.W. Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J.P. Dessel, A., Dever A., Mazar, and J. Avigad (ed.). Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Symour Gitin.. The Israel Exploration Society ,Jerusalem: 93-106.

2008

Plant Food in the Late Natufian: The Oblong Conic Mortar as a Case Study. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 38: 133-151.

2009

Cereal in the Gassulian Culture in Central Israel: Grinding Installation as a Case Study. Israel Exploration Journal 59 (1): 63-79.

2010

Late Epipaleolithic Rock-cut Installations in the Southern Levant: Methodology and Typology. Paléorient 35/2.

2013

Archaeo-Industry of the Natufian Culture: Late Epipalaeolithic Rock-Cut Installations and Groundstone Tools in the Southern Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

forth

The Stone Tools. In: E. Stern (ed.). The Final Report of Tell Dor, Area G: The Late Periods. Qedem, Jerusalem.

Elliott, C.

17

1991

The Ground Stone Industry. In: M. Yon. (ed.). Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI: Art et Industries de la Pierre. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations: 9–99.

Frick, F.S. 2000

The Iron Age Cultic Structure. In: F. S. Frick (ed.). Tell Taannek 19631968. Excavations & Survey, Palestine Institute of Archaeology, Birzeit University.

Gal, Z. 1994

Basalt Tripod-Bowls and Three-Legged Bowls. Michmanim 7: 17*24*.

Gal, Z. and Alexander, Y. 2000

Horbat Rosh Zayit—An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 8. Jerusalem.

Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2001

Ground Stone Objects. In: A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen. (ed.). Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Hebrew University: 225–37.

Grosman, L, Smikt, O. and Smilansky, U. 2008

On the application of 3-D scanning technology for the documentation and typology of lithic artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 3101-3110.

Hovers, E. 1996

The Ground Stone Industry. In: D.T. Ariel and A. De Groot. (ed.). Excavations in the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh IV: Various Reports.Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Hebrew University: 171–92.

Liebowitz, H. 2003

Tel Yin'am I: The Late Bronze Age. Excavations at Tel Yin’am, 19751989. Studies in Archaeology. Texas Archaeological Research

Milevski, I. 1998

The Ground Stone Tools. In: G. Edelstein, I. Milevski, and S. Aurant. Villages, Terraces, and Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 3. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority: 61–77.

18

forth

The Stone tools and Vessels from Tel Miqne-Ekron—Final Report. In: S. Gitin (ed.). Tel Miqne-Ekron Objects and Material Culture Studies: Middle Bronze Age II–Iron Age II. Jerusalem: Albright Institute/Hebrew University.

Petit, L. P. 1999

Grinding Implements and Material Found at Tall Dayr ‘Alla, Jordan: Their Place and Role in Archaeological Research. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43, 145-167.

forth

The Grinding Stones, Chapter XY. In: A. Mazar, (ed.). The Final Report of Tel Rehov Excavations. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: 1-59.

Rahmstore, L. 2006

In Search of the Earliest Balance Weight, Scale and Weight Systems from the East Mediterranean, the Near East and Middle East. In: M.E. Albertu, E. Ascalone, L. Peyronel (eds.).Weights in Context. Studie Materiali 13, Roma: 9-46.

Runnels, C. 1981

A Diachronic Study and Economic Analysis of Millstones from the Argolid. Indiana University, Bloomingon. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International PhD Dissertation

Sass, B. 2002

The Small Finds. In: I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds.). Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 18, Tel Aviv: 349-387.

2004a Pre-Bronze Age and Bronze Age Artefacts. Section A: Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia. In: D. Ussishkin (ed.). The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) Volume III. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv: 1145-1524. 2004b Iron Age and Post-Iron Age Artefacts. Section A: Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia. In: D. Ussishkin, (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994)

19

Volume IV. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Tel Aviv. Sass, B. and G. Cinamon 2006

The Small Finds. In: I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, (eds.). Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. Volume 1. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University/Institute of Archaeology 24, Tel Aviv.

Shanks, O.C., Kornfield, M., Hodges, L., Tilley, L., Larson, M.L., and W. Ream 2005

DNA from ancient stone tools and bones excavated at Bugas

Holding, Wyoming. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 27-38. Singer-Avitz, L. 1989

Stone and Clay Objects. In: Z. Herzog, G. Rapp, and O. Negbi (ed.). Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 8. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota: 350–60.

Sparks, R. 2007

Stone Vessels in the Levant. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual VIII. London.

Tufnell, O 1953 Lachish III. The Iron Age. Oxford University Press, New York. Wright K. I. 1992

A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18/2, 53-81.

Wolff, S. 2007

Stone Pedestaled Bowls from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages in the Levant. In: A. Ben-Tor, J.P. Dessel, W.G. Dever, A. Mazar and J. Aviram (eds), ―Up to the Gates of Ekron:‖ Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Jerusalem: 305-312.

Yadin, Y., Aharoni, A., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. and Perrot, J 1958

Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Magnes, Jerusalem.

Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky I. and Perrot J.

21

1960

Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Magnes,..Jerusalem.

Yadin, Y., Aharoni, A., Amiran, R., Dothan, M., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. Perrot, J. 1961 Hazor III-IV, Plates. Magnes, Jerusalem. Yadin, Y., and Geva, S. 1986

Investigations at Tel Beth-Shean: The Early Iron Age Strata.

Qedem 23. Jerusalem: Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Yahalom-Mack, N. 2006

Groundstone Industry. In: N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, eds., Timnah (Tel Balatah) III: The Finds from the Second Millennium. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

2007. Groundstone Tools and 0bjects. I n: A. Mazar and R.A. Mullins (eds.). Excavations at Tel Beth Shean 1989-1996, Volume II. The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem: 639-660. Yahalom-Mack, N. and A. Mazar 2006

Various Finds from the Iron Age II Strata in Areas P and S. In: A. Mazar, ed., Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996, Volume I, From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Zertal, A. 1996

(Ed.) el-Ahwat, a Sea People fortified Site near Nahal 'Iron. A Preliminary Report of 1993-1995 Seasons. The Institute of Archaeology, Haifa University, Haifa (Hebrew).

21