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.

Highlights

  • The role of raw material procurement in hunter-gatherer and early farming societies has been a topic of many studies

  • 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

  • In the Levant, bifacials made on non-flint raw materials, were often entirely or partly polished, which together with their specific selection of raw material suggests greater symbolic content compared with flint bifacials (Rosen 1997: 93-97)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The role of raw material procurement in hunter-gatherer and early farming societies has been a topic of many studies These refer to issues such as mobility patterns, trade and exchange, the perception of the landscape as well as to the mythical powers often relating to quarries (e.g., Hayden 1987; Darvill 1989; Cooney 1998; Le Roux 1998; Pétrequin et al 1998; Özbek 2000; Wilson 2007; Risch 2011). No evidence for standardization in morphology or size was noted, pointing away from specialized craft production (e.g., Costin 1991; 2005; Shafer & Hester 1991; VanPool & Leonard 2002) Using these differences we attempt to provide guidelines to characterize varied exploitation patterns between raw materials with different social significance

Raw material and bifacial tools in the southern Levant
Giv’at Kipod
The waste
The rough-outs
Reconstructing Giv’at Kipod basanite bifacial reduction sequence
Discussion
Giv’at Kipod as a production centre for basanite bifacials
The unique focus of production in Giv’at Kipod on a single product
Does Giv’at Kipod reflect craft specialization?
Findings
Towards an ‘Alyawara day’ model of raw material extraction

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.