The life-history of basalt ground stone tools from early urban domestic contexts: A chronicle from the EBA III of Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel

Abstract

Abstract:Recent archaeological excavations at the early urban settlement of Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel present the opportunity to reconstruct the life-history of basalt ground stone artefacts of an early urban domestic neighbourhood. Tell es-Safi/Gath is a multi-period site located on the border between the Judean foothills and the southern coastal plain of central Israel. Survey and excavations over the last two decades demonstrated that it was a major urban centre for the region during the Early Bronze Age (EBA) III. At the eastern end of the site, a neighbourhood of commoner residences (some perhaps associated with mercantile activities) have been exposed. This paper describes and analyses the basalt ground stone tools found in association with this domestic neighbourhood. It seeks to establish the nature of production, distribution, consumption, and discard associated with ground stone tools within a domestic context. The study involved several forms of analysis including typology, macroscopic observations, and excavation data. It is suggested that basalt sources from the northeastern regions of the southern Levant were exploited for the small-scale production of basalt artefacts by nonspecialised craftsmen. These commodities were then transported in more or less finished form to Tell es-Safi/Gath where they were further redistributed or sold to the settlement residents. The residents of the Tell es-Safi/Gath neighbourhood utilised the basalt artefacts for traditionally domestic tasks, and ultimately intentionally discarded or recycled them in a few depositional contexts. In summary, this paper presents a unique investigation into the life-history of basalt ground stone artefacts discovered in the EB III occupation levels of Tell es-Safi/Gath. It further demonstrates the potential of ground stone tools for understanding the behaviour and daily life of non-elite people.

Household Rituals and Merchant Caravanners: The Phenomenon of Early Bronze Age Donkey Burials from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel

“…The presence of items of non-local origins from the EB stratum in Area E at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, such as an ivory cylinder seal [ 143 ] and other exotic and quotidian items, such as alabaster mace head, faience beads [ 73 , 144 ], and ground stone objects [ 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 ], alongside the donkey burials, suggests that the dwellers of this domestic neighbourhood were not from the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder but rather belonged to an emergent/evolving merchant class [ 44 ]. The household assemblages from Area E reflect considerable mobility—a mix of varied local and long-distance trade and the exchange of ‘quotidian’ and ‘exotic’ objects used and needed in daily life.…”

Bronze Age stone tools in Nuragic Sardinia: The case of the ground-stone tools from Nuraghe Cuccurada-Mogoro (Sardinia, Italy)

“…The study of ground-stone tools and their role in prehistoric societies has become a central topic in the last two decades (e.g. Risch, 1995;Dubreuil, 2002;Mori, 2005, Beller et al, 2016, Tsoraki, 2018. In fact, several studies stress the crucial role of these artefacts in the everyday life of prehistoric communities, showing new elements related to their social and economic organization, especially regarding the subdivision of tasks among men and women in everyday activities (Wright, 1992b;Carter, 2004;Antonovic, 2006;Pérez Jordà et al, 2007;Alonso Martinez, 2016;Beller et al, 2016).…”

“…Risch, 1995;Dubreuil, 2002;Mori, 2005, Beller et al, 2016, Tsoraki, 2018. In fact, several studies stress the crucial role of these artefacts in the everyday life of prehistoric communities, showing new elements related to their social and economic organization, especially regarding the subdivision of tasks among men and women in everyday activities (Wright, 1992b;Carter, 2004;Antonovic, 2006;Pérez Jordà et al, 2007;Alonso Martinez, 2016;Beller et al, 2016). However, an overview of the literature in many European and extra-European contexts shows how this specific area of research remains incomplete, even though the necessity of integrating the studying of the ground-stone tools has been emphasized by some (e.g.…”

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

“…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). In addition to functional and sourcing analyses, studies dealing with the role of the object in day-to-day activities, and in ritual and their symbolic dimensions, are gaining traction (e.g., Rosenberg & Nadel 2014, Rowan 1998Duwe 2016;Nadel & Rosenberg 2016).At the same time, growth in the number of ground stone tool assemblage reports (typological and others) is noted, and suggests an increasing acceptance that description is a basic necessity of a complete archaeological report (e.g., Baysal & Wright 2005;Rowan et al 2006;Stroulia 2010;Rosenberg and Garfinkel 2014;Beller et al 2016;Cohen-Klonymus & Bar 2016;Greener & Ben-Yosef 2016;Levy et al 2016;Pedersen et al 2016;Schneider et al 2016;Spivak & Nadel 2016). In a...…”

“…At the same time, growth in the number of ground stone tool assemblage reports (typological and others) is noted, and suggests an increasing acceptance that description is a basic necessity of a complete archaeological report (e.g., Baysal & Wright 2005;Rowan et al 2006;Stroulia 2010;Rosenberg and Garfinkel 2014;Beller et al 2016;Cohen-Klonymus & Bar 2016;Greener & Ben-Yosef 2016;Levy et al 2016;Pedersen et al 2016;Schneider et al 2016;Spivak & Nadel 2016). In addition, specific studies dealing with particular segments of the ground stone tool repertoire, some with specific function or functions, are becoming more common (e.g., Takaoǧlu 2006;Basgall 2008;Beaumont & Bednarik 2015;Nadel & Rosenberg 2015;Reich 2015;Bekker & Garfinkel 2016;Breglia et al 2016;Ilan 2016;Larocca 2016;Thiébaux et al 2016;Usacheva 2016).…”