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

Abstract

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.

Back to the Source—Geochemical Data from Israel for the Provenance Analyses of Basaltic Rock Artefacts and Their Implications on Previous and Future Studies

“…Although they do not allow a clear distinction, the present study suggests that the elements SiO 2 , the alkali content, P 2 O 5 , TiO 2 , CaO and the trace elements La, Ce, Th and Nb offer at least some regional discrimination of the lavas in Israel. As, to date, only one extraction site for basaltic rock artefacts in the Southern Levant is known and studied (Rosenberg et al, ; Shimelmitz & Rosenberg, ) and others are so far unknown, the provenance of basaltic rock artefacts can only be determined by an artefact‐centred approach. The first step in locating potential extraction sites is to define the raw material variability within a specific group of basaltic artefacts; that is, the number of different raw materials used.…”

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

“…Previous geochemical-mineralogical studies of basalt artefacts in the southern Levant concentrated mainly on the determination of the provenance of the artefacts, but these studies always had rather limited results due to the fact that basaltic rock extraction sites had not been identified (apart from the Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic extraction site at Giv'at Kipod, see Rosenberg et al 2008;Gluhak & Rosenberg 2013;Rosenberg & Gluhak 2016;Shimelmitz & Rosenberg 2016) and that geochemical data from geological samples for comparison were, if available at all, only superficially included (e.g., Amiran & Porat 1984;Philip & Williams-Thorpe 1993;2000;2001;Rowan 1998;Rutter 2003;Rutter et al 2003;Watts et al 2004;Rutter & Philip 2008).…”

Exploring exchange and direct procurement strategies for Natufian food processing tools of el-Wad Terrace, Israel

“…Variation in procurement strategies and exchange among prehistoric societies has been linked to factors such as mobility, technological design, landscape use and cultural perceptions of the landscape 26 – 29 . The acquisition and movement of raw materials is often discussed and understood in terms of embedded and direct procurement strategies 30 . While the specific characteristics of raw material procurement vary in details among different societies, embedded strategies pertain to the collection of raw materials in an ancillary manner while moving through a landscape for other focal purposes such as foraging.…”

“…Direct procurement, on the other hand, represents specific travel to the sources of raw material or to obtain any desired goods 26 , 31 . While various modes of obtaining raw materials or tools may have different archaeological signatures (e.g., the number of sources used or the morphometric uniformity of the desired end product), differentiating between the various possible scenarios is not straightforward 30 .…”