Download pdf - R. Shimelmitz and M.J. Adams, Flint Knapping and the Early Bronze Age I Temple of Megiddo, Israel: Some Aspects of the Organization of Late Prehistoric Cult

Introduction

Tel Megiddo holds a central place in Levantine archaeology, with extensive remains from the Chalcolithic period to the Iron Age (Figure 1). Excavations by the University of Chicago in the 1930s and by Tel Aviv University in the 1990s and 2000s revealed a sequence of four cultic buildings from the Early Bronze Age I–III

Flint Knapping and the Early Bronze Age I Temple of Megiddo, Israel: Some Aspects of the Organization of Late Prehistoric Cult

Ron Shimelmitz1,2 and Matthew J. Adams3

1 Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Haifa, IsraelE-mail: [email protected] David Yellin Academic College of Education, Jerusalem 91035, Israel3 W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, 26 Salah ed-Din St., PO Box 19096, Jerusalem, IsraelE-mail: [email protected]

AbstractThe Early Bronze (EB) Ib Temple of Megiddo Level J-4, with its complex architecture, marks an important threshold in the development of complex societies that characterized the Early Bronze Age of the Levant. The temple was abandoned at the end of the EB Ib, leaving behind few traces of the activities performed within—the primary remains being deposits of animal-bone sacrificial waste found in different localities within the structure and its vicinity. Chipped stone tools and production waste were found together with these and other deposits nearby. Considering the paucity of other finds among the temple’s assemblages, the chipped stone items constitute important evidence for activities within its vicinity, and perhaps its role in relation to the community within which it functioned. The lithic assemblage includes a wide range of tool types and waste indicating that knapping and a variety of activities occurred nearby the temple. The range of activities represented is characteristic of earlier Neolithic and Chalcolithic, as well as Bronze Age, cult build-ings in the Mediterranean world. Overall, the architectural and lithic evidence demonstrates that while the Great Temple of J-4 represents major innovations in the organization of cult that will become characteristic of the Bronze Age, there were also certain profane activities associated with the temple, as in other early sacred spaces. Furthermore, this study emphasizes the potential that lithic assemblages have for contributing to the understanding of the dynamic roles of cult buildings in general from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age and how the mundane and sacred commingle.

Keywords: Early Bronze Age, evolution of cult, Levant, lithic technology, Megiddo

Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27.1 (2014) 51-78 ISSN (Print) 0952-7648 ISSN (Online) 1743-1700

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v27i1.51

(hereafter EB, ca. 3300–2500 bc; Loud 1948; Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000; Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Peersman 2006; Adams 2013; Adams et al. 2014).1 The most dramatic devel-opment in the evolution of this complex is the monumental temple of Level J-4 (see Figures 2-3, below). This 1100 sq m temple was built late in EB Ib (ca. 3100 bc) to replace the 120

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

52 Shimelmitz and Adams

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014

sq m Level J-3 sanctuary and foreshadows (but exceeds in many respects) the monumental public buildings associated with the ‘urban revolution’ of the succeeding EB II–III Levant (Kempinski 1992; Adams et al. 2014). This temple adds further data with which to address questions about the role of cult in the broader transition from the village-based societies of EB I to the ‘urban’ societies of EB II–III.

The temple was deserted at the end of EB Ib, leaving behind few traces of the activities performed in relation to it; the primary remains were significant deposits of animal bones found at different localities within the structure and its vicinity. Among these bone deposits, numerous articulated specimens were found, demonstrat-ing a good state of preservation and supporting a

primary depositional context following butcher-ing and consumption (Wapnish and Hesse 2000; 2001). Significant assemblages of chipped stone tools and production waste were found together with these and other deposits around the temple. Considering the paucity of other finds among the temple’s assemblages, the bones and the lithics constitute essential evidence for the organization of cult and its role in relation to the community within which it functioned. While the bones have been treated elsewhere (Wapnish and Hesse 2000; 2001), this study focuses on the lithic assemblages within and around the temple.

Two preliminary reports on the lithics have been published. Blockman and Groman- Yeroslavski (2006) refer to the 1992–2000 sea-sons, when only a rudimentary understanding

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Megiddo.

Flint Knapping and the Early Bronze Age I Temple of Megiddo, Israel 53


of the stratigraphy was in place. The 2004–10 excavation seasons added significant new strati-graphic data that revised the preliminary views of the Level J-4 temple (Adams 2013; Adams et al. 2014). Ellis (2013) deals predominantly with finds from the period of the temple’s aban-donment (Level J-4a), during which squatters occasionally visited its ruins.

The present study is based on a new analysis of the chipped stone assemblages specifically retrieved from the floors and bone deposits in the temple and its surroundings. Still unpub-lished radiocarbon analyses of samples from the temple indicate that it was built, occupied and abandoned within the maximum range of 170 years (3090–2920 bc). During this time the floors were probably cleaned regularly and the waste discarded elsewhere, a practice known from many other religious and domestic spaces (Renfrew 1994; Pollock 2008). Therefore the bone and chipped stone assemblages were likely deposited at the end of the life of the structure, immediately prior to and/or in conjunction with its abandonment (e.g. Marcus and Flannery 1994).

The archaeology of cult and ritual and the rela-tionship between the material remains and reli-gious practice have been the subject of numerous studies (e.g. Renfrew 1985; 1994; Insoll 2004; Kyriakidis 2007a; 2007b; Rowan 2011). Within these studies, the subject of the sacred and the profane (or mundane) is often one of conse-quence, especially since in the realm of mate-rial culture the distinction between sacred and profane may be difficult to ascertain. Indeed, Insoll (2004) has argued that the dichotomiza-tion of the sacred and the profane is a relatively modern phenomenon, and that activities (and spaces) we might consider profane may overlap with the sacred. The complex and entwined relationship between the sacred and the profane and the challenges this creates for archaeologi-cal interpretation—particularly as regards pre- and protohistoric societies—have long been acknowledged and studied (e.g. Renfrew 1985;

Garwood et al. 1991; Insoll 2004; Bradley 2005; Kyriakidis 2007b).

Cultic contexts at pre- and protohistoric sites around the Mediterranean have yielded lithic assemblages (e.g. Torrence 1985; Mazar and de Miroschedji 1996; Rosen 1996; Rowan 2006; Schmidt 1996; Graves-Brown 2010; Vella 2011). While lithic finds could be the product of either sacred or profane activities, the variable character of a lithic assemblage and the distri-bution of tools within a cultic complex might provide clues for separating sacred and profane activities and for understanding better how such activities together characterize the organiza-tion of cult. This study makes use of the lithic assemblage from Megiddo Level J-4 as a tool to examine whether the chipped stone items indeed represent a range of mundane activities and, if so, in what social and organizational con-texts they occurred within the cultic compound.

The study assumes three hypothetical models for interpreting the chipped stone within a cultic context:

1. An assemblage characterized by a limited range of items that are consistent with spe-cialized activities such as butchering would likely be related directly to ritual activi-ties. Examples of such cases include un-retouched sharp blanks as best represented by the prismatic blades in Mesoamerica (there often relating to bloodletting as well; e.g. Marcus and Flannery 1994). Clearer cases are where the assemblage consists of implements of superb specialist craftsman-ship, such as the pressure retouched knives of Mesoamerica and, closer to our region, the variety of high quality chipped stone knives and knapped figurines from Early and Predynastic cult and cemetery sites in Egypt (e.g. Hikade 2003; Graves-Brown 2010: 173-79). Such implements, when found with no other lithics, would reinforce an interpretation of a strict segregation of profane activities from the sacred space.



2. A limited range of items might also indi-cate a suite of activities related to cult, but not directly connected to ritual or, per-haps, indicative of shared space in which mundane activities are performed alter-natively with cultic. Kyriakidis (2007b) highlighted several ethnographic and archaeological cases in which mundane and ritual activities were performed within the same contexts. In some of these exam-ples, mundane activities associated with logistical activities were performed at dif-ferent stages in ceremonies.

3. An assemblage characterized by a vari-ety of components, the production of various implements, a large range of tool types, and lithic waste similar to contem-porary settlement/domestic assemblages would indicate a low level of differentia-tion between sacred and mundane spaces and activities. The Chalcolithic cult site of Gilat, for example, has a highly variable lithic assemblage alongside evidence for ritual activity (Rowan 2006).

In order to assess the lithic remains from the Megiddo cult complex within the context of these models, this study comprises three meth-odological steps. The first identifies the range of tool types and technologies. The second examines spatial differences between the areas outside of the temple and those within (Figure 2). The third compares the temple assemblages to those from other EB Ib sites in order to deter-mine whether they represent similar or unique types of activities. Following this, the results are put into a broader perspective of the Levant and other relatively contemporary cases in the Mediterranean.

Materials and Methods

Our first concern was to select material from ‘clean’ contexts. Because the period of aban-donment (Level J-4a) exhibited both squatter

activity and deposits of dissolved mud-brick material, only unambiguous contexts contain-ing material judged by the excavators to be directly deposited on floors were selected for this study. All contexts fitting this description had been sieved at 25-50%. The material stud-ied here comes from six discrete localities within and around the temple, where we made obser-vations on the spatial distribution (Figure 3).

The analysis herein covers typological and technological aspects and follows the chaîne opératoire approach (e.g. Bar-Yosef and van Peer 2009). Both blanks and shaped items were included in the attribute analysis; this enabled both the eliminating and the highlighting of particular aspects of the selection (e.g. Shimel-mitz et al. 2011). Additionally, correlation between the various items in the assemblage within the broader framework of the chaîne opératoire provides a further check on the integ-rity of the assemblage.

The lithic material is almost exclusively flint, as the term is commonly understood in the Levant (Rosen 1997). In addition to flint, two other types of knapped lithic raw material were retrieved. Obsidian, rarely found in EB assem-blages (Rosen et al. 2005), is represented by a small number of miniature knapped pieces (Blockman and Groman-Yeroslavski 2006), and a green siliceous material of unknown origin is represented by two flakes. Neither of these mate-rials is included in the tables, since they represent the outcome of different and distinct reduction sequences than those applicable to flint.

The Early Bronze Age Ib and the Level J-4 Temple

The 1100 sq m ‘Great Temple’ was constructed late in the EB Ib (ca. 3000 bc; Boaretto 2006) as part of an ambitious overhaul of an earlier 120 sq m temple (Adams 2013; Adams et al. 2014). The temple itself is a 47.5 × 22 m broad-room sanctuary with two interior corridors (Figure 3). Its 3.45-m-thick walls are composed of



mud-bricks on a 1.5-m-tall limestone socle. The sanctuary was entered through a basalt-lined doorway in the northern wall on the central axis of the building directly opposite the ‘altar’. A row of 12 column bases is sited along the longitudinal axis of the sanctuary. Flanking this axis are 12 basalt tables carved into rectangular and circular shapes socketed into the floor; with a thickness of 20 cm, each stone weighs around one ton. The interior corridors functioned archi-tecturally as stairwells built into the main edifice. Whatever other function they may have served during the life of the structure, they were found with significant animal bone deposits, waste

products of sacrificial activities that apparently were deposited at the end of the structure’s life (Wapnish and Hesse 2000; Adams et al. 2014). Two exterior corridors were excavated along the southern and western sides and appear to have been exterior spaces. The former, of similar width to that of the corridors of the main edi-fice and connected to them by doorways, was bounded by a 2-m-thick wall separating the tem-ple from an apparently open space to the south.

The temple was only one aspect of this ambi-tious construction project. On the eastern slope of the mound a massive 4-m-thick buttressed wall supported a large terrace. The temple was

Figure 2. Tel Megiddo and the J-4 temple.



Figu

re 3

. Te

mpl

e pl

an sh

owin

g six

sect

ors o

f the

spat

ial s

tudy

.



constructed some 40 m up the slope from this terrace and was itself supported by terracing on its east and possibly on its west. South of the temple, the ‘Open Court’ had an area of more than 500 sq m.

The Great Temple complex is extraordinary in a number of ways. At 1100 sq m, it is com-parable in size to the largest known buildings in the Levant at the end of the 4th millennium bc, and its scale stands in stark contrast to contemporary buildings in the southern Levant (Adams et al. 2014: fig. 9). The building is also laid out with great precision, utilizing a linear measurement of 0.525 cm (a ‘cubit’) deployed in 6-cubit modules. These modules dictated the specific size of the building and the placement of the furniture such as the basalt tables and the column bases, and these architectural plans were followed through with great accuracy—the centers of the one-ton basalt tables, for example, are exactly placed within the specification of the module scheme.

Late in the 4th millennium bc, contem-porary with the construction of the Great Temple, the Jezreel Valley witnessed a regional settlement explosion and the development of a settlement-size hierarchy consisting of relatively evenly distributed small and large sites (Finkel-stein, Halpern et al. 2006). As the largest site, Megiddo appears to have been the primary set-tlement in this system.

Outside the Jezreel Valley, others have identi-fied a handful of sites that appear to provide evidence for significant investment of labor and resources in construction projects in the EB Ib Period. The evidence is primarily in the form of fortifications (Paz 2002), and in estimations of site sizes (Getzov et al. 2001). While some (e.g. Paz 2002) have taken this to be an indicator of urbanization and the development of a strong social and political hierarchy, others have argued for a heterarchial political model (e.g. Harrison and Savage 2003) or models defined within the framework of ‘corporate villages’ (Philip 2001) or ‘household societies’ (Chesson 2003). Ulti-

mately, these models did not have the oppor-tunity to take into account the new data from Megiddo. The excavators of the Great Temple have drawn parallels between the specialized labor evident in the construction of the Great Temple and that in evidence in contemporary state-level societies, but have stressed that the implications of this effort for the social and political organization of the southern Levant are not yet fully understood (Adams et al. 2014).

The Flint Assemblage

The Megiddo J-4 flint assemblage includes 1608 items, 784 of which are debitage and tools while the rest are chunks and chips. The mate-rial retrieved from the various loci was grouped according to the six architectural spaces (Tables 1-2; Figure 3, above). Only eight items were identified as clear intrusive elements and thus were excluded from this analysis (four patinated items and four Neolithic sickle blades).

The assemblage is comprised of various types of flints, in which almost all are fine grained, highly siliceous and homogenous in structure. The cortical surfaces present on the flint items are mostly calcareous and in pristine condition (Table 3).

Primary elements (PE) have at least 30% cortex on their dorsal face. A cortical cover extending over three-quarters or more of the dorsal face is found on 28.3% of the PE flakes. Flakes are the dominant blank in the assemblage (Tables 1-2). The scar patterns on the flakes are predominantly unidirectional (67.1%). Some of the PE flakes (14.3%) and flakes (19.2%) bear blade/bladelet scars on their dorsal face.

The blades were divided into simple blades (Figure 4.4) made by direct percussion and Canaanean blades, which are long prismatic blades made by indirect or levered percussion (e.g. Rosen 1997; Pelegrin 2006). The majority of the blades are of the simple type. The few Canaanean blades are represented by fragments or segmented items (see Figure 6.1-2, below).



O

pen

Cou

rt

Sout

hern

Ex

terio

r C

orrid

or

West

ern

Exte

rior

Cor

ridor

Sa

nctu

ary

West

ern

Inte

rior

Cor

ridor

Easte

rn

Inte

rior

Cor

ridor

al

l

n=

%

n=

%

n=

%

n=

%

n=

%

n=

%

n=

%

prim

ary

elem

ent f

lake

29

7.

5 10

11

.0

4 10

.3

7 8.

3 11

7.

5 1

2.9

62

7.9

prim

ary

elem

ent b

lade

7

1.8

2 2.

2 1

2.6

4 4.

8

0.0

1 2.

9 15

1.

9 pr

imar

y el

emen

t bla

dele

t2

0.5

1 1.

1

0.0

1 1.

2

0.0

1 2.

9 5

0.6

flake

11

5 29

.6

29

31.9

14

35

.9

20

23.8

46

31

.3

11

31.4

23

5 30

.0

blad

e 27

7.

0 11

12

.1

2 5.

1 11

13

.1

13

8.8

4 11

.4

68

8.7

blad

elet

23

5.

9 3

3.3

1 2.

6 5

6.0

9 6.

1 5

14.3

46

5.

9 C

anaa

nean

bla

de

4 1.

0 1

1.1

0.

0 1

1.2

2 1.

4 1

2.9

9 1.

1 C

ore

trim

min

g el

emen

t 36

9.

3 5

5.5

4 10

.3

7 8.

3 6

4.1

2 5.

7 60

7.

7 co

re

18

4.6

1 1.

1 2

5.1

2 2.

4 4

2.7

1 2.

9 28

3.

6 sc

rape

r spa

ll 10

2.

6

0.0

3 7.

7 1

1.2

1 0.

7 5

14.3

20

2.

6 bu

rin sp

all

6 1.

5 1

1.1

0.

0

0.0

2 1.

4

0.0

9 1.

1 to

ol

111

28.6

27

29

.7

8 20

.5

25

29.8

53

36

.1

3 8.

6 22

7 29

.0

sum

38

8 10

0 91

10

0 39

10

0 84

10

0 14

7 10

0 35

10

0 78

4 10

0 ch

unk

126

16.2

40

23

.8

20

27.4

42

25

.1

107

30.7

21

27

.6

356

22.1

ch

ip*

262

33.8

37

22

14

19

.2

41

24.6

94

27

20

26

.3

468

29.1

to

tal s

um

776

100

168

100

73

100

167

100

348

100

76

100

1608

10

0 al

l bla

de**

11

6 32

.6

34

38.2

6

17.1

35

43

.2

49

34.5

13

44

.8

253

34.6

al

l fla

ke**

* 24

0 67

.4

55

61.8

29

82

.9

46

56.8

93

65

.5

16

55.2

47

9 65

.4

all b

lade

and

flak

e 35

6 10

0 89

10

0 35

10

0 81

10

0 14

2 10

0 29

10

0 73

2 10

0 Ta

ble

1.

The

flin

t ass

embl

age

of M

egid

do J-

4.

* ch

ips:

smal

ler t

han

1.5

cm.

**

incl

udes

PE

blad

es, b

lade

, bla

dele

ts, C

anaa

nean

bla

des,

core

trim

min

g el

emen

ts (C

TEs

: cre

sted

blad

es a

nd o

verp

ass i

tem

s), b

urin

spal

l and

tool

s sha

ped

on th

ese

item

s (Ta

ble

2).

**

* in

clud

es P

E fla

kes,

flake

s, C

TE-

varia

, scr

aper

spal

ls an

d to

ols s

hape

d on

thes

e ite

ms (

Tabl

e 2)

.



Table 2. The tools from Megiddo J-4. * refers to the percentage of items shaped out of each blank type.

reto

uche

d fla

ke

reto

uche

d bl

ade

sickl

e bla

de

back

ed b

lade

trunc

atio

n

dent

icula

te/

notch

scrap

er

bore

r

burin

micr

olith

bifa

cial

varia

unid

entif

ied to

ol

fragm

ent

sum

Eastern Interior Corridor 1 1 1 3

% 33.3 33.3 33.3 100

Sanctuary 5 2 1 1 9 2 1 2 2 25

% 20.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 36.0 8.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 100

Open Court 18 17 5 2 31 8 6 1 3 2 2 15 110

% 16.4 15.5 4.5 0.0 1.8 28.2 7.3 5.5 0.9 2.7 1.8 1.8 13.6 100 Southern Exterior

Corridor 2 7 2 1 6 3 1 1 1 2 26

% 7.7 26.9 7.7 3.8 0.0 23.1 11.5 3.8 3.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 7.7 100 Western Interior

Corridor 9 9 9 1 9 4 5 0 4 6 56

% 16.1 16.1 16.1 1.8 0.0 16.1 7.1 8.9 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 10.7 100 Western Exterior

Corridor 3 2 1 1 7

% 42.9 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 100

sum 38 38 17 3 2 57 17 12 3 10 2 2 26 227

% 16.7 16.7 7.5 1.3 0.9 25.1 7.5 5.3 1.3 4.4 0.9 0.9 11.5 100

A: A division into tool types according to location area.

reto

uche

d fla

ke

reto

uche

d bl

ade

sickl

e bla

de

back

ed b

lade

trunc

atio

n

dent

icula

te/ n

otch

scrap

er

bore

r

burin

micr

olith

bifa

cial

varia

unid

entif

ied to

ol

fragm

ent

sum

; n=

sum

; %

% o

f sha

ping

*

primary element flake 12 8 4 1 1 7 33 14.5 34.7

primary element blade 8 2 10 4.4 40.0

primary element bladelet 1 1 0.4 16.7

flake 24 39 8 7 1 2 17 98 43.2 29.4

blade 22 14 3 2 2 3 1 47 20.7 40.9

bladelet 9 9 4.0 16.4

Canaanean blade 6 3 1 1 11 4.8 55.0core trimming

element 2 2 6 4 2 16 7.0 21.1

core-tool 2 2 0.9 \

sum 38 38 17 3 2 57 17 12 3 10 2 2 26 227 100

B: A division into tool types according to types of blanks.



Of the bladelets that were found, only 18.5% were made of the semi-translucent flint, as is typical of the EB (Gilead 1984).

The core trimming elements (CTEs) include two core tablets, 15 crested blades, 11 overshots and 32 CTE-varia. Sixteen additional CTEs (2 crested blades, 2 overshots and 12 CTE-varia) were shaped into tools. The crested blades (including those shaped into tools) were divided into ‘primary’ (n=4), rejuvenation (n=11) and unifacial (n=2). The overshots were divided into ‘initial’ (n=3), characterized by extensive corti-

cal cover and lacking previous blade/bladelet scars, and ‘regular’ (n=10), bearing clear blade/bladelet scars.

The cores include nine single-striking plat-form cores, 12 multi-striking platforms cores (Figure 4.1-2), one tested nodule and six core fragments. Eight of the single-striking platform cores were used for bladelet production, while the rest of the cores in the assemblage were used for flake production.

Tabular scraper spalls (Figure 5) are the flakes removed during the retouching of tabular

pristine calcareous rolled patinated sum % n= Eastern Interior Corridor 72.7 18.2 9.1 100 11

Sanctuary 65.0 15.0 20.0 100 20 Open Court 75.3 9.7 15.1 100 93

Southern Exterior Corridor 75.0 14.3 10.7 100 28 Western Interior Corridor 73.8 11.9 14.3 100 42 Western Exterior Corridor 75.0 12.5 12.5 100 8

all 73.8 11.9 14.4 100 202 Table 3. Types of raw material from Megiddo J-4.

Table 4. Striking platform types.

thin plain thick plain faceted dihedral punctiform natural n=

primary element flake 20.5 37.0 11.0 6.8 0.0 24.7 73 primary element blade 36.4 36.4 0.0 18.2 0.0 9.1 11 flake 27.6 38.5 14.8 12.1 0.8 6.2 257 blade 42.2 33.3 8.9 4.4 6.7 4.4 45 bladelet 57.9 15.8 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 19 A: blank types.

Eastern Interior Corridor 18.2 9.1 27.3 27.3 0.0 18.2 11 Sanctuary 19.2 46.2 23.1 11.5 0.0 0.0 26 Open Court 31.1 41.0 11.5 9.8 0.8 5.7 122 Southern Exterior Corridor 30.0 16.7 26.7 16.7 0.0 10.0 30 Western Interior Corridor 25.5 39.2 13.7 15.7 0.0 5.9 51 Western Exterior Corridor 23.5 41.2 23.5 0.0 5.9 5.9 17 B: Striking platforms of flakes from the excavations’ sectors.

blank 38.0 29.2 13.4 12.0 0.9 6.5 153 tool 31.7 19.5 31.7 12.2 0.0 4.9 33 C: Striking platforms of flakes on blanks and tools.



scrapers, either in primary shaping or during resharpening. The tabular scrapers of the south-ern Levantine EB are the products of trade and are characterized by a distinctive range of raw material (Rosen 1983; Quintero et al. 2002). The resharpening of scrapers has been discussed frequently (e.g. Dibble 1988; Hiscock and Clarkson 2005), and the potential for identify-ing tabular scraper spalls has been raised in a recent, as-yet unpublished study of the material from Bet Yerah (in collaboration with R. Green-berg). The spalls have several characteristics that indicate their origin from tabular scrapers:

1. They are made from the same range of raw materials distinctive of tabular scrapers. This raw material is highly siliceous, fine grained, has a chocolate brown color, and

is characterized by a distinctive red thin strip between the inner siliceous flint mass and the calcareous cortical surface (e.g. Shimelmitz and Rosen in press).

2. They have a scaled scar pattern indicative of the active edge of scrapers, a type of retouch that is rare on other tools of this period.

3. Along their distal end, they have remnants of the perfectly flat cortical surface that char-acterize tabular scrapers—a flat surface that was ground in some cases (e.g. Rosen 1997: 73). In all, 20 such items were found (Fig-ure 5). It is of note that no tabular scrapers were found among the analyzed loci, although several were found in the later contexts of the EB of Area J (Blockman and Groman-Yeroslavski 2006; Ellis 2013).

Table 5. End termination of flakes.

area feathered hinged overpassed sum n=

Eastern Interior Corridor 66.7 33.3 0.0 100 9

Sanctuary 60.0 20.0 20.0 100 20

Open Court 71.1 22.7 6.2 100 97

Southern Exterior Corridor 77.8 16.7 5.6 100 18

Western Interior Corridor 83.7 9.3 7.0 100 43

Western Exterior Corridor 58.3 41.7 0.0 100 12

A: End termination of flakes (including blanks and tools) from the excavations' sectors.

blank 71.3 23.6 5.1 100 157

tool 76.2 9.5 14.3 100 42

B: End terminations on blank flakes and shaped flakes.

Table 6. Metrics of PE flakes and flakes (including blanks and tools).

n= Length s.d. width s.d. thickness s.d.

Open Court 141 25.6 8.5 20.1 7.5 6 3.1

Southern Exterior Corridor 35 31.2 12.5 22.4 7.9 6.4 2.2

Western Exterior Corridor 17 25.9 7.6 21.2 7.4 5.9 3.3

Sanctuary 36 29.3 10.7 18.3 6.5 5.9 2.4

Western Interior Corridor 57 24.9 9.5 18.8 5.1 5.3 2.2

Eastern Interior Corridor 15 30.4 12.3 19.3 5.7 7.0 3.6



Table 2 (above) shows the division of the tools into types and the blanks on which they were made. Notches and denticulates are the most common. Together with the retouched flakes and scrapers (Figure 6.5), they form the group of tools usually referred to as ‘ad hoc’ in Levantine proto-historic assemblages (Rosen 1997: 86-92). Most of the blade tools were made on simple blades and only a few on Canaanean blades. The blade tools mainly include retouched blades (Figure 6.2-4) and

sickle blades (Figure 6.1). The microliths are mostly represented by fragments and only one of these is whole.

The sickle blades include two types. The first is made on medial segments of Canaannean blades (Figure 6.1) (for an alternate explana-tion of the gloss, see Anderson et al. 2004); the second is made on simple blades with the adjustment of a retouched back and trunca-tions. The latter type is typical of the EB I of the region (Rosen 1997: 44-55). Their width

Figure 4. Cores (1-3), blade (4), bladelet (5) and burin spall (6).



varies between 10-20 mm, with an average of 14.85 mm (s.d. 3.11), with only three items in the lower scale of 10-12 mm. The latter resem-bles the width of Chalcolithic sickle blades (e.g. Hermon 2008; Vardi and Gilead 2009) and may be intrusive elements or else may indicate variation within the Gaussian distribution of the metrics of the EB I simple sickle blades. Among

the items of the backed and truncated type we also included four items that bear no gloss and were probably only lightly used.

The presence of borers (Figure 6.7-8) that appear in different shapes and sizes is also sig-nificant, since this widens the possible range of activities performed in the area. A small-size deformed bifacial tool (42 × 21 × 12 mm) and

Figure 5. A tabular scraper from Area J (1; not part of the analyzed material) and tabular scrapers spalls (2-7). Gray marks ground/polished surfaces are common on tabular scrapers. Upper view is placed in a way that the flat cortical surface is horizontal; the profile at the upper view was placed accordingly and gives the angle of the retouched edge before and after it was reduced/rejuvenated.



an additional fragment of a bifacial tool were also found (Figure 4.3, above). Although bifacial tools were not used during the EB, but rather in earlier periods (Rosen 1997: 93-98), we did not exclude them as intrusive since bifacial tools were commonly recycled as raw material (e.g. Barkai 1999; Shimelmitz 2007), and their small size and deformed state suggest they have been used as such. Recycling of old items has been noticed at several EB sites (e.g. Nishiaki 2010).

Since most of the blade tools are either bro-ken or originally made on blade segments, we

discerned patterns of selection from the utiliza-tion of flakes and PE flakes. In all, larger flakes and PE flakes were shaped into tools (Table 7). Flakes with a faceted or dihedral butt, indica-tive of concentrated effort in controlling their shape (e.g. Hovers 2009: 72), were also more commonly used for secondary modification (χ²=8.42, df=1, p=0.0037). Another pattern is that items with a feather end termination were more often used for tools, as indicated by the fewer items with a hinge end termination (Table 5; χ²=8.42, df=1, p=0.0037).

Figure 6. Sickle blade (1), retouched blades (2-4), scraper (5), burin (6), borers (7-8).



The Lithic Technologies Represented in the Assemblages

Considering the fact that very few intrusive ele-ments were identified and that the blanks and tools show a correlation that fits selection pat-terns, we see the assemblage as a single integral unit. Traces of the five technologies that are typi-cal to the EB sites are found at the site, namely (1) flakes, (2) simple blades, (3) bladelets, (4) Canaannean blades and (5) tabular scrapers (Rosen 1997).

FlakesVarious types of flint were used for the produc-tion of flakes. The reduction was simple and no complex preliminary shaping of the cores was observed in the CTEs and discarded cores. The small size of the flake tools, and not just of the blanks (Table 7), demonstrates that this reduc-tion sequence was originally planned to produce relatively small flakes. This expedient reduction constituted the main type of lithic knapping conducted at J-4, according to the amount of products, cores and CTEs.

Blades and BladeletsBlade and bladelet production by direct percus-sion was combined here, since the blade and bladelets grade into each other in terms of their metrics (Figure 7). Furthermore, our ability to distinguish between the by-products of these reduction sequences (e.g. crested blades) is lim-ited. The selected raw material was fresh flint nodules. While only ‘bladelet’ cores were found,

it is possible some started as ‘blade’ cores. The flakes bearing blade/bladelet scars on their dor-sal face are indicative of the combined produc-tion of both flakes and blades/bladelets from the same cores, demonstrating a relatively simple technique of blade production. Blade/blade-let manufacture also constituted a significant part of the production in this area and is best indicated by the percentages of bladelet cores (38.1%, excluding tested raw material and core fragments). Another sign of this is that 34.6% of the entire debitage (with no cores) and tools are blades or bladelets and their derivatives (PE blades, PE bladelets, crested blades and over-shots). Blade and bladelet production, however, is always associated with a flake reduction that either originated from the shaping and/or maintenance of the cores (e.g. Eren et al. 2008). While it is impossible to correlate the various flakes into a specific reduction sequence with-out refitting, we can attribute the flakes with the blade scars as side-products of blade/bladelet production. On these bases, we can conclude that blade and bladelet production forms a sig-nificant component of the assemblage.

Canaanean BladesThe Canaanean blade technology (Rosen 1997: 44-55; Shimelmitz 2009) is a variant of the large prismatic blade technologies that flourished throughout the Old World in the 4th and 3rd millennia bc (Pelegrin 2006). No by-products or cores relating to this technology were found at the site. Canaanean blades were produced at

blank tools t= df= p=

n= mean s.d. n= mean s.d.

Length 201 24.15 7.29 45 28.89 9.28 3.73 244 <0.001

Width 199 20.9 6.49 50 23.94 7.61 2.84 247 0.005

Thickness 210 5.71 2.42 59 7.93 3.31 4.81 76.22 <0.001

Length/width 181 1.24 0.64 54 1.41 0.92 1.27 69.07 0.21

Width/thickness 210 3.84 1.78 59 2.88 1.78 3.67 267 <0.001

Table 7. Metrics of PE flakes and flakes: blanks vs. tools.



several specialized centers throughout the south-ern Levant (Shimelmitz et al. 2000; Shimelmitz 2009) and appeared at Megiddo in Level J-4. In most EB sites, they appear as end-products only, which were deliberately segmented and further used or shaped into tools (Rosen 1997: 44-55). It is these segments that are found in Megiddo Level J-4.

Tabular ScrapersOnly a fraction of the chaîne opératoire of these tools is present within the excavated loci, namely the waste from their shaping and/or resharpening. In general, tabular scrapers were made on large flat cortical flakes produced at several flint outcrops in southern Israel and Jordan by the hands of specialized craftsmen (Rosen 1983; Quintero et al. 2002). These large flakes were shaped into scrapers by intense retouch (e.g. Rosen 1997: 71-80). The scrapers were resharpened at habitation sites and the variety of shapes found at such sites is a result of this rejuvenation action (following the model for transformation of Palaeolithic scrapers by Dibble 1988). Within the studied contexts, no tabular scrapers were found, but the small flakes reduced from them during shaping and resharp-nening were detected. Use-wear studies have found that tabular scrapers were used for various

activities, including butchering (McConaughy 1980). A correlation with ritual activity has also been noted as a result, in particular, of their quantities (hundreds of specimens) at the EB cultic site of Mitzpe Shalem (Greenhut 1989).

A Spatial Perspective

The six localities within Level J-4 vary in both the number of lithic finds and in the composi-tion of their assemblages (Table 1, above). All sectors include not only tools but also blanks and production waste such as CTEs, albeit in varying frequencies. It should be noted that expedient production was not aimed just at blanks for tools but also at creating dispensa-ble cutting implements that did not require retouch, and, to this end, most blanks were suitable, including the more irregular blanks such as the CTEs.

In terms of quantity, the ‘Open Court’ is the main area in which lithic knapping took place. This is further supported by the fact that the court area is characterized by relatively high percentages of cores and CTEs (the difference in CTEs between the ‘Open Court’ and the ‘West-ern Interior Corridor’ is statistically significant: χ²=3.98, df=1, p=0.046). Another indication that the ‘Open Court’ was the main locus of

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21%

Figure 7. Width of blades and bladelets (n= 42; 24 blades and 18 bladelets).



knapping activity lies in the frequency of items relating to the first stages of production. These items are less regular and often lack a potential cutting edge and thus are less likely to be selected and carried elsewhere. Of the seven CTEs directly relating to opening the cores (‘initial’ overshots and ‘primary’ crested blades), five are in the ‘Open Court’. In addition, the PE flakes with 80% or more cortical cover are also more common in the ‘Open Court’ (35.7% of the PE flakes; ‘Southern Exterior Corridor’: 12.0%; ‘Western Exterior Corridor’: 33.3%; ‘Sanctuary’: 25.0%; ‘Western Interior Corridor’: 18.2%; and ‘Eastern Interior Corridor’: 0%).

The percentage of blades is spatially variable (Table 1, above), with the ‘Sanctuary’ showing the highest percentage and the ‘Western Exte-rior Corridor’ the lowest, with a statistically significant difference (χ²=7.20, df=1, p=0.007). The frequency of tools shows the highest rate in the ‘Western Interior Corridor’ and the low-est rate in the ‘Eastern Interior Corridor’, with a statistically significant difference (χ²=11.34, df=1, p<0.001). Differences in tool types are also of importance (Table 2, above), one of the clearest being the relatively high percentage of sickle blades in the ‘Western Interior Corridor’, statistically different from that of the ‘Open Court’ (χ²=4.98, df=1, p=0.026).

The frequency of spalls of tabular scraper also differs, with a relatively high representation among the small concentration of lithic finds within the ‘Eastern Interior Corridor’ (14.3%). In the other areas it constitutes a much smaller fraction: the ‘Eastern Interior Corridor’ is statistically different from the ‘Open Court’ (χ²=8.87, df=1, p=0.003), the ‘Western Interior Corridor’ (χ²=117.845, df=1, p<0.0001) and the ‘Sanctuary’ (χ²=74.929, df=1, p<0.0001).

The evidence reviewed above shows that the spatial distribution of lithic finds is not arbitrary. Most importantly, it suggests that knapping was mainly conducted in the ‘Open Court’, although it may also have been con-ducted to a smaller degree at some of the

other localities, especially those outside the main temple building. The items within the temple corridors show that their accumulation represents a more limited range of activities than that represented in the exterior sectors, as reflected by the higher frequency of tools and blades in the ‘Western Interior Corridor’ and the relatively small quantity of lithics in the ‘Eastern Interior Corridor’, yet with a high frequency of tabular scraper spalls. The blanks found within the corridors might not be mere ‘waste’ from production, but rather items used without retouch. Nevertheless, the presence of a variety of lithic items within the corridors, including cores, indicates that waste is part of the assemblage. It is unlikely that lithic knap-ping took place within these confined spaces, and more likely that the lithic contents of the corridors, along with the animal bones, resulted from activities that took place outside of the temple (Wapnish and Hesse 2000). The quan-titative and compositional differences between the ‘Western Interior Corridor’ and the ‘Eastern Interior Corridor’ indicate that they represent waste from different activities.

The spatial patterns observed in lithic distri-bution may correlate to the strong contrasts in carcass-part distribution among the different sectors detected by Wapnish and Hesse (2000). They found, for example, that the ‘Western Interior Corridor’ contained relatively large amounts of bones with cut marks compared to the other corridors, suggesting that these bones came from early stages of carcass process-ing. The ‘Eastern Interior Corridor’ contained a high proportion of burned bone, and more articulations than the Western, indicating that these were ‘the remains from later stages of car-cass processing and utilization, i.e. discards from meals and burned detritus’ (Wapnish and Hesse 2000: 446). Many more important differences within the fauna were noted between the six sectors, suggesting a highly structured pattern of discard (Wapnish and Hesse 2000; 2001). While for now we cannot discern the meaning



of these patterns of variation between chipped stone and bones, we do think they demonstrate the complexity of activities or chain of activities within Megiddo J-4.

Comparison to other EBI Chipped Stone Assemblages

Tools from a cluster of sites from the EB Ib of northern Israel are presented in Table 8. Although the comparison suffers some distor-tion as a result of the unsystematic collection of lithic finds among some of the sites, several observations can be made.

1. Raw material: At most EB sites low-quality flint was exploited, occasionally obtained from secondary geological contexts such as river banks (e.g. Friedmann 1996; Bankirer 2003: 172; Nishiaki 2010). Megiddo is different in its preference for the selection of fresh nodules. This is due, in part, to

the presence of a raw material outcrop near the site. The assemblage, however, is also characterized by its variety in raw mate-rial types. Therefore the sharp contrast in raw material selection between Megiddo and other sites demonstrates an effort to acquire good quality raw material. The presence of obsidian in small quantities represents an even more significant differ-ence from most EB Ib sites, where lithic raw material other than flint is notably lacking. Further, the green material, in light of the discovery of more such items at the adjacent settlement of Tel Megiddo East, demonstrates a unique reduction sequence.

2. Production and use of simple blades: Backed and truncated sickle blades made from simple blades are frequently found at EB Ib sites (Rosen 1985; 1997: 44-55). Megiddo is characterized by a relatively

Bet Yerah

V % Yiftahel

II % Qiryat Ata

III % En

Shadod %

Lower Horvat

Illin % Canaanean sickle blade 11 20.0 18 16.1 31 7.8 108 26.0 simple sickle blade 2 2.0 6 5.4 8 2.0 13 3.1 retouched Canaanean blade 9 16.4 5 4.5 16 4.0 11 2.7 tabular scraper 1 1.8 3 2.7 2 0.5 44 10.6 notch/denticulate 13 23.6 23 23.0 21 18.8 134 33.6 68 16.4 scraper 5 9.1 7 7.0 13 11.6 94 23.6 49 11.8 borer and awl 5 9.1 7 7.0 9 8.0 31 7.8 27 6.5 burin 1 1.8 10 10.0 3 2.7 7 1.8 4 1.0 truncation 1 1.8 1 0.9 3 0.7 retouch flake 5 9.1 28 28.0 11 9.8 63 15.8 44 10.6 retouched blade 18 18.0 6 5.4 6 1.5 20 4.8 microlith 1 1.0 * multiple tool 4 7.3 varia 4 4.0 16 14.3 7 1.8 24 5.8 sum 55 100 100 100 112 100 399 100 415 100

% of tools out of the assemblage 12.9 14.0 24.7 10.2

Table 8. Tools from various EB Ib sites. * ‘retouched bladelets’ are mentioned, although they were added to the ‘retouched blades’ (Bankirer 2003:

172, table 5.3). Intrusive elements were excluded; Bet Yerah V: Bankirer 2006; Yiftahel II: Rosen and Grinblat 1997; Qiryat

Ata III: Bankirer 2003; En Shadod: Rosen 1985; Lower Horvat ‘Illin: Marder et al. 1995.



high proportion of simple blades as well as tools made on these blades. While the extent of simple blade production is not well documented at many of the EB Ib sites (partly the result of a lack of empha-sis on technological studies), the available data seem to suggest that simple blades are better represented at Megiddo.

3. Production and use of bladelets and micro-liths: Bladelets and microliths are found in many EB Ib contexts, usually in lower percentages than at Megiddo. However, the representation of bladelet production in the assemblages of EB Ib sites is greatly affected by unsystematic collection and by the small size of most of the elements (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1970: 42-43). A better perspec-tive might be achieved through study of the bladelet cores commonly found at EB sites (e.g. Friedmann 1996: 140; Rosen and Grinblat 1997: 136). At some sites these cores appear in notable frequency, suggesting that bladelet production was commonly practiced within EB Ib (e.g. En Shadud: 12.5% of the cores [Rosen 1985]; Qyriat Ata: 17.0% of the cores [Bankirer 2003:172]).

4. Canaanean blades: These are a common feature in EB Ib assemblages, usually arriving at sites as end-products (Rosen 1983). At Megiddo and elsewhere, they are mainly represented by discarded tools, especially sickle blades, made on medial segments (Rosen 1997). A low percentage of Canaanean blades has been noted at several sites in northern Israel (e.g. Rosen and Grinblat 1997), and Megiddo fits this pattern well.

5. Tool frequencies: The percentages of tools differ among sites, with Megiddo showing a relatively high percentage of about 30%. While a similar percentage was also found at En Shadud (just across the valley), it has been argued that this result is from a lack of systematic collection of flint (Rosen

1985: 153). The fact that lithics were meticulously collected at Megiddo high-lights their high percentage in comparison to other EB Ib sites.

6. Tool types: The distribution of tool types at Megiddo shows a strong similarity to other sites. Tabular scrapers are found in most EB Ib sites, although in smaller numbers in northern Israel (Rosen 1983; 1997: 75). As noted above, only spalls of tabular scrapers were found in Megiddo J-4. This is paralleled at Bet Yerah, where several loci demonstrated spalls with no tabular scrap-ers (Shimelmitz, personal observation).

The above comparison primarily shows that the Megiddo J-4 assemblage is similar to other EB Ib assemblages retrieved from residential sites representing everyday activities. Nevertheless there are several important differences, includ-ing a more meticulous selection of high quality raw material, a higher use of blade and bladelet production (perhaps related to the previous), and a stronger representation of tools.

Previously Identified Egyptian Lithic Tech-nologies

Previous studies of EB Ib Megiddo argued for the presence of Egyptian elements within the chipped stone assemblage because of backed and truncated thin sickle blades, and twisted blades and bladelets (Blockman and Groman-Yeroslavski 2006; Ellis 2013). Our recent study found no evidence of Egyptian elements and it appears that those previously identified as Egyptian are, in fact, intrusive Chalcolithic elements from contexts containing weathered brick material in Level J-4a. The similarity between Egyptian and Chalcolithic lithic mate-rial and the difficulties this creates at sites where both Chalcolithic and EB material is present has been noted before (Rosen 1988). Backed and truncated thin sickle blades are found in both industries. Although blades and bladelets



with twisted profile are found at sites with an Egyptian presence (e.g. Gophna and Friedmann 1993), the problem with ultimately identify-ing them as ‘Egyptian technology’ is that these items are a common outcome of direct percus-sion and no methodological framework has been suggested to clarify how ‘Egyptian twisted blades’ are distinctive. At the same time, defini-tive Egyptian flint tool types are not found in the assemblage. For example, flat bifacial knives and bi-truncated sickle blades (without a retouched back) found at several sites with Egyptian presence in the Shephelah region are absent at Megiddo (e.g. Rosen 1988; Gophna and Friedmann 1993).

Discussion

This analysis of the flint assemblage from Megiddo J-4 has attempted to provide a novel perspective on the organization of cult and the possible inclusion of mundane activities in rela-tion to it during EB Ib. The study provides a number of important observations:

1. The integrity of the assemblage: Only pris-tine contexts were selected for this analysis in order to avoid intrusive lithics that are a common feature of tell sites. Our analysis identified various patterns in the selection of items for secondary modification, quan-titative and compositional differentiation between sectors, and evidence for various stages of production. These points strongly suggest that the flint items do not represent an arbitrary cluster of finds resulting from intrusive material, but a well-integrated lithic assemblage. In short, although not commonly expected, flint knapping and a variety of activities utilizing chipped stone took place in the vicinity of the temple.

2. Local production of tools: Chipped stone items were found in all sectors of Area J, although quantity and relative percentages indicate that knapping occurred mainly

in the ‘Open Court’ south of the temple. This is further supported by the presence of most of the cores and CTEs therein.

3. The use of simple technologies: Simple flake, blade and bladelet production formed the main source for tools. While more sophis-ticated lithic technologies are known from the Early Bronze Age, as reflected in the Canaanean blade technology (e.g. Pelegrin 2006; Shimelmitz 2009) or the manufac-ture of blanks for tabular scrapers (Quin-tero et al. 2002), these are rarely represented at the site. In all, the production of tools in the temple complex did not focus on the production of elaborate or heavily invested items, but rather on simple technologies best characterized by the flake production relating to ad hoc or expedient use (e.g. Parry and Kelly 1987; Rosen 1997).

4. The performance of varied activities: Pro-duction was not devoted to a specific tool type nor to a limited range of tool types. Rather, the character of the assemblage is diverse and comparable in this respect to assemblages found at contemporary EB Ib residential sites. The presence of sickle blades, burins and perforators, for exam-ple, reveals a much larger set of activities than those dealing with the butchering that clearly occurred in the temple’s vicin-ity (Wapnish and Hesse 2000).

5. Exceptional characteristics within the assem-blage: While the Megiddo J-4 flint assem-blage shows some resemblance to those found in residential sites, there are several notable differences: (a) a use of high qual-ity raw material; (b) an exceptional use of exotic raw material (obsidian and the greenish stone); (c) a relatively high per-centage of tools; and (d) an emphasis on blade and bladelet production.

In short, the analysis of the lithic assemblage from the Great Temple at Megiddo shows, on the one hand, characteristics common to



domestic contexts and, on the other, several important and unique features. The latter attributes fit into the first and second models discussed above (tools relating to or secondarily associated with ritual). However, the assemblage is otherwise characterized by its similarity to mundane settlement contexts, which argues for the third model in which the lithics indicate a commingling of sacred and profane activities.

Although several features of public buildings, elite residences and shrines have been identified within the Levantine EB (Herzog 1997: 67-73; Paz 2010: 169-71; Adams et al. 2014), no sub-stantial data concerning the presence of lithic finds within them has been noted. For most of the direct architectural parallels to the Megiddo temple, for example, no flint assemblages have yet been published, including the Acropolis Temple at ‘Ai (Marquet-Krause 1935), the ‘bâti-ment blanc’ at Yarmuth (de Miroschedji 1988), and the F1 temple at Khirbet al-Batrawy (Nigro 2008). The same is true for later Bronze Age cultic features (Alpert Nakhai 2001, and refer-ences therein). Take, for example, the relatively recently excavated Middle Bronze Age temple at Tel Haror, the publication of which con-tains no mention of lithic items (Katz 2009). It is worth noting, however, that flint declines dramatically as a raw material for tools in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Rosen 1997), when new metal tools took over the activities formerly done with flint tools. One exception to the pattern of underreported lithic finds is the Stratum II sanctuary at Hartuv (Mazar and de Miroschedji 1996; Rosen 1996), where the lithics from Area A (the sanctuary) showed no significant differences from those in Area B (domestic).

Further, while we lack Bronze Age compara-tive data from the Levant, the practice of flint knapping in and around cult buildings is known from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the region where chipped stone items, including waste, have been documented in such contexts (e.g. at Nevali Çori, Turkey: Schmidt 1996;

and Gilat, Israel: Rowan 2006). Pre-pottery Neolithic Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, moreover, exhibits cultic features in the form of mono-liths carved with symbols and animal figures alongside items relating to daily activities, as represented by a variety of stone tools (e.g. Schmidt 2009). The presence of the latter, along with other evidence, has been used to argue that the megalithic buildings from Gobekli are, in fact, domestic in nature (Banning 2011). In the Chalcolithic ‘Ein Gedi Shrine near the Dead Sea, where no systematic collection of chipped stone was conducted, five lithic items were recorded, none of which is a tool: they comprise two blades, two flakes and a small core (Ussishkin 1980: fig. 13).

The well-documented Chalcolithic cultic center at Gilat yielded flint items of a diverse character scattered throughout the excavated area (Rowan 2006). Like EB Ib Megiddo, sim-ple flake production was dominant and Rowan (2006: 507) argued accordingly that ‘the chipped stone assemblage probably represents the most profane dimension of material culture found at the site’. A common feature of such assem-blages retrieved from contexts relating to cultic activities is the presence of lithic items relating to domestic activities alongside the presence of exotic raw material and special-function tools (e.g. Yellin et al. 1996; Rowan 2006; see also above), suggesting that while ‘ordinary’ knap-ping was taking place, elements of the procedure and some tool-types were complementary to the special nature of the locality.

While in the Levant lithic material, includ-ing end products and waste, has rarely been documented in cultic contexts in the proto-historic and early historic periods, it is known from several sites in the Mediterranean. Since, however, religious structures often have non-religious spaces within them used for everyday life and bureaucracy (Kyriakidis 2007b), one must be careful in interpreting the various cases (e.g. Mateny et al. 2011). In some cases, they appear with clear correlation to the center of the



cultic activities even in these late periods. In the Aegean, for example, lithics appear extensively in the Late Helladic sanctuary of Phylakopi (Renfrew 1985); Torrence (1985) notes the lack of significant difference between the character of the lithic assemblage in the cultic area and those characterizing the domestic areas sur-rounding it. In Malta, chipped stone material, including tools and waste, is also an integral part of many of the buildings interpreted as bearing ritual elements (e.g. Vella 2011). At the 4th millennium site of Hierakonpolis in Egypt, lithics including well-crafted specialized items along with simple tools and waste are frequent in a variety of ritual contexts (Holmes 1992; Hikade 2004; Graves-Brown 2010: 191-213).

These examples demonstrate that the pres-ence of lithic material in the cultic complex of Megiddo J-4 is neither a unique nor a new phenomenon, and that the assemblage matches well the character of those retrieved from similar contexts in the broader Mediterranean world—a wide range of lithic items representing a wide range of activities supplemented by exotic raw materials and special-function tools.

At both Gilat and Phylakopi, lithic diver-sity was interpreted as demonstrating a sig-nificant overlap of the sacred and the profane (Renfrew 1985; Torrence 1985; Rowan 2006). The lithics from the sanctuary area at Hartuv (Rosen 1996), too, conform to this pattern. The Megiddo assemblage, with its sickle blades and perforators, fits the general character of set-tlement/domestic assemblages, and appears to attest to profane activities taking place within the sacred complex.

But who are the individuals responsible for such activities? One possibility is the cult prac-titioners active in the temple. In this case, the presence of sickle blades and perforators would suggest that the organization of cult was not particularly specialized, but that its participants engaged in a variety of activities. A second possi-bility includes a broader group of people, possi-bly demonstrating that specialization in cult was

not necessarily a prerequisite for participation in the activities within the cult complex. In either case, it appears that activity within the precinct was not restricted to the sacred nor to special-ists in cult, and activities normally considered domestic were performed in the temple vicinity.

While the data do not allow us to be more spe-cific about knapping activity taking place directly inside the main temple, the fact that knapping occurred primarily in the ‘Open Court’ is of sig-nificance. This area appears to be a central space in which sacred and profane activities took place, possibly involving a large segment of society. This conclusion brings with it a number of new questions. Were these activities conducted at the same time, or was there a temporal component to the use of this space? Was ritual conducted regularly or did other activities take place in gaps between rituals? While for now we cannot answer these questions, we think that the relative similarity between the assemblages within the temple and that in the open court suggests some overlap in these activities. As for reconstructing the precise processes leading to the presence of chipped stone within the temple interior, we still lack data for interpretation. Nevertheless, its incorporation in the bone deposits that were most likely the product of activities occurring outside of the temple (probably also in the Open Court), is of note.

Concluding Remarks

The sociopolitical landscape of the 4th and 3rd millennia bc Levant went through processes that were different from those occurring at the same time in Mesopotamia and Egypt (e.g. Joffe 1993; 2004; Frangipane 1997). While most scholars agree that the transition into urban life in the region occurred within the EB II period (Greenberg 2003; Paz 2010), scholarly understanding of the southern Levantine EB Ib period within the spectrum of sociopoliti-cal developments from the earlier agricultural villages of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic to



the complex societies of the Early Bronze Age II–III remains in flux, with varying arguments for urbanization, state formation, heterarchy and corporate villages (Philip 2001; Chesson 2003; Harrison and Savage 2003). While it is tempting to suggest that the results of this study support a less formalized and hierarchi-cal organization of cult, the fact that lithics are found in various cultic contexts throughout the Mediterranean indicates that their presence is more complex and that more studies of chipped stone in cultic contexts are needed to under-stand this phenomenon.

While it is clear that the character of lithic assemblages from cultic contexts varies from one case to another, the intra-site spatial study and inter-regional comparative study conducted here can provide a useful tool for examining the long-term development of the relationship between sacred space and profane practices. This may prove especially useful in late pre-historic and early historic contexts, where we might expect to see the relationship evolving in response to the rise (or fall) of hierarchical social and political structures. If lithics are not just the residue of mundane activities, but also (or alter-natively) of activities performed by non-spe-cialists attending ritual space—as we presume to be the case in Megiddo—it is of significance to our understanding of social organization to examine whether one can detect such patterns throughout late prehistory. For most of the Bronze Age in the Near East, temples are often seen as sacred structures dedicated to housing a deity (e.g. Alpert Nakhai 2001; Mazar 1992). As such, access to these buildings was selec-tive, attainable only by an empowered elite and restricted from the ordinary public. If this is the product of the evolution of ritual space going back to the simple cult/public buildings of the Neolithic (e.g. Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998), then tracking mundane activities within them over that span of time can provide significant data for examining this process of change.

Note

1. The Megiddo Expedition is carried out by Tel Aviv University, with George Washington University as senior Consortium Member, and Chapman Univrsity, Gettysburg College, Loyola Marymount University, Vanderbilt University and the Jezreel Valley Regional Project as Con-sortium Members. The Expedition directors are Israel Finkelstein and Eric H. Cline. Also impor-tant for our understanding of the Great Temple of EB Ib Megiddo are the coeval developments at the adjacent settlement of Tel Megiddo East, currently under excavation by the Jezreel Valley Regional Project, directed by Matthew J. Adams. www.jezreelvalleyregionalproject.com.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Israel Finkelstein for his sup-port and encouragement to perform this study. Flint drawings are by R. Pinhas.

About the Authors

Ron Shimelmitz’s interests concern the evolu-tion of human behavior and he is an expert in lithic technology. Currently his main focus is the study of Tabun Cave, covering the transi-tion between the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. He also conducts research on the organization of lithic production from protohistoric periods, with the aim of uncovering various aspects in the formation of complex societies. He is a co-excavator of Sefunim Cave, Mount Carmel and Giv’at Kipod.

Matthew Adams is the incoming Dorot Direc-tor of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeolog-ical Research in Jerusalem (2014). While he has broad interests in space and time throughout the ancient world, his primary research focus is on the development of urban communities in 3rd millennium Egypt and the Levant. His early work focused on the Early Dynastic to Middle Kingdom stratigraphic sequence at Mendes,

http://www.jezreelvalleyregionalproject.com



Egypt. As a member of the Megiddo Expedition in Israel, he has recently overseen the publica-tion of the Early and Middle Bronze Age cult and palatial area at Megiddo. Now Director of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project, he and his team are engaged in survey and excavation pro-jects at sites from a variety of periods.

References

Adams, M.J. 2013 Area J (The 2004-2008 Seasons). Part III: the

Early Bronze Age, stratigraphy and architecture. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, E. Cline, M. Adams, E. Arie, N. Franklin and M. Martin (eds.), Megiddo V: The 2004-2008 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeol-ogy, Tel Aviv University 31: 47-118. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

Adams, M.J., I. Finkelstein and D. Ussishkin 2014 The Great Temple of Early Bronze I Megiddo.

American Journal of Archaeology 118: 285-305.Alpert Nakhai, B. 2001 Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and

Israel. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Anderson, P.C., J. Chabot and A. van Gijn 2004 The functional riddle of ‘glossy’ Canaanean

blades and the Near Eastern threshing sledge. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17: 87-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.17.1.87.56076

Bankirer, R.Y. 2003 The flint assemblage. In A. Golani (ed.), Sal-

vage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata, 171-82. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority.

2006 Beit Yerah—the flint assemblage. In N. Getzov, The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations 1994-1995, 171-82. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority.

Banning, E.B. 2011 So fair a house: Göbekli Tepe and the identifica-

tion of temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East. Current Anthropology 52: 619-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661207

Bar-Yosef, O. 1970 The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures of Palestine.

Unpublished PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Bar-Yosef, O., and P. van Peer 2009 The chaîne opératoire approach in Middle Paleo-

lithic archaeology. Current Anthropology 50: 103-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/592234

Barkai, R. 1999 Resharpening and recycling of flint bifacial tools

form the Southern Levant Neolithic and Chal-colithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 303-18.

Blockman, N., and I. Groman-Yeroslavski 2006 The Early Bronze Age flint assemblage. In I.

Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds.), Megiddo IV: The 1998-2000 Seasons. Mono-graph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24: 315-42. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

Boaretto, E. 2006 Radiocarbon dates. In I. Finkelstein, D.

Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds.), Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv Univer-sity 24: 550-57. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

Bradley, R. 2005 Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe.

London: Routledge.Chesson, M.S. 2003 Households, houses, neighborhoods and corpo-

rate villages: modeling the Early Bronze Age as a house society. Journal of Mediterranean Archae-ology 16: 79-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v16i1.79

de Miroschedji, P 1988 Yarmouth I. Rapport sur les trois premières

campagnes de fouilles à Tel Yarmouth (Israël) (1980-1982). Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Dibble, H.L. 1988 The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper

reduction patterns. In L.R. Binford and J.-P. Rigaud (eds.), L’Homme de Néandertal, Vol. 4. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Uni-versité de Liège 31: 45-58. Liège: Université de Liège.

Ellis, J. 2013 The chipped stone assemblage. In I. Finkelstein,

D. Ussishkin, E. Cline, M. Adams, E. Arie, N. Franklin and M. Martin (eds.), Megiddo V: The 2004-2008 Seasons. Series of the Institute of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.17.1.87.56076

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661207

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/592234

http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v16i1.79




Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 31: 829-65. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

Eren, M.I., A. Greenspan and C.G. Sampson 2008 Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores more produc-

tive than Middle Paleolithic discoidal cores? A replication experiment. Journal of Human Evo-lution 55: 952-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.07.009

Finkelstein, I., B. Halpern, G. Lehmann and H.M. Nie-mann 2006 The Megiddo hinterland project. In I. Fin-

kelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds.), Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. Mono-graph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24: 705-76. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

Finkelstein, I., and D. Ussishkin 2000 Area J. 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: 25-74. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

Finkelstein, I., D. Ussishkin and J. Peersmann 2006 Area J (The 1998-2000 Seasons). In I. Fin-

kelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds.), Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. Mono-graph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24: 29-53. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

Frangipane, M. 1997 A 4th-millennium temple/palace complex at

Arslantepe-Malatya. North–south relations and the formation of early state societies in the northern regions of greater Mesopotamia. Paléo-rient 23(1): 45-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1997.4644

Friedmann, E. 1996 The flint assemblage. In R. Gophna (ed.), Exca-

vations at Tel Dalit, 135-42. Tel Aviv: Ramot.Fogelin, L. 2007 The archaeology of religious ritual. Annual

Review of Anthropology 36: 55-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094425

Garwood, P., D. Jennings, R. Skeates and J. Toms (eds.) 1991 Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference

on Archaeology, Ritual, and Religion. Oxford: Oxbow.

Getzov, N., Y. Paz and R. Gophna 2001 Shifting Urban Landscapes during the Early Bronze

Age in the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv: Ramot.

Gilead, I. 1984 The micro-endscraper: a new tool type of the

Chalcolithic period. Tel Aviv 11: 3-10.Gophna, R., and E. Friedmann 1993 The flint impalements from ‘En Besor. Tel Aviv

20: 147-63.Graves-Brown, C.A. 2010 The Ideological Significance of Flint in Dynastic

Egypt. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

Greenberg, R. 2003 Early Bronze Age Megiddo and Bet Shean: dis-

continuous settlement in sociopolitical context. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16: 17-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v16i1.17

Greenhut, Z. 1989 Flint tools. In P. Bar-Adon, Excavations in the

Judean desert. ‘Atiqot 9: 60-77. (in Hebrew)Harrison, T.P., and S.H. Savage 2003 Settlement heterogeneity and multivariate craft

production in the Early Bronze Age southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16: 33-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v16i1.33

Hermon, S. 2008 Socio-Economic Aspects of Chalcolithic Societies

in the Levant. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1744. Oxford: Archaeo-press.

Herzog, Z. 1997 Archaeology of the City—Urban Planning in

Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Mono-graph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 13. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

Hikade, T. 2003 Getting the ritual right—fishtail knives in

Predynastic Egypt. In S. Meyer (ed.), Ancient Egypt—Temple of the Whole World, 137-51. Leiden: Brill.

2004 Some thoughts on Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age flint scrapers in Egypt. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 60: 57-68.

Hiscock, P., and C. Clarkson 2005 Experimental evaluation of Kuhn’s geometric

index of reduction and the flat-flake problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1015-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.02.002

Holmes, D.L. 1992 Chipped stone-working craftsmen, Hierakon-

polis and the rise of civilization in Egypt. In R.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.07.009


http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1997.4644

http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1997.4644

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094425

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094425



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.02.002



Friedman and B. Adams (eds.), The Followers of Horus, 37-44. Oxbow: Oxford.

Hovers, E. 2009 The Lithic Assemblage of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Insoll, T. 2004 Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: Rout-

ledge.Joffe, A.H. 1993 Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I

and II, Southern Levant: Complementarity and Contradiction in a Small-Scale Complex Society. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

2004 Athens and Jerusalem in the third millennium: culture, comparison, and the evolution of social complexity. Journal of Mediterranean Archae-ology 17: 247-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.17.2.247.65538

Katz, J. 2009 The Archaeology of Cult in the Middle Bronze

Age Canaan. The Sacred Area at Tel Haror, Israel. Gorgias Dissertations, Near Eastern Studies 40. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press.

Kempinski, A. 1992 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age temples. In

A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds.), The Archi-tecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, 53-59. Jerusalem: Israel Explo-ration Society.

Kyriakidis, E. 2007a (ed.) The Archaeology of Ritual. Cotsen Advanced

Seminars 3. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.

2007b Finding ritual: calibrating the evidence. In E. Kyriakidis (ed.) The Archaeology of Ritual. Cot-sen Advanced Seminars 3: 9-22. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.

Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39. Chicago: Orien-

tal Institute.Marcus, J., and K.V. Flannery 1994 Ancient Zapotec ritual and religion: an appli-

cation of the direct historical approach. In C. Renfrew and E.B.W. Zubrow (eds.), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, 55-74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marder, O., E. Braun and I. Milevski 1995 The flint assemblage of Lower Horvat ‘Illin:

some technical and economic considerations. ‘Atiqot 27: 63-94.

Marquet-Krause, J. 1935 La deuxième campagne de fouilles a Ay (1934).

Syria 16: 325-45.Matney, T., T. Greenfield, B. Hartenberger, C. Jalbr-zikowski, K. Köroĝlu, J. MacGinnis, A. Marsh, M.W. Monroe, M. Rosenzweig, K. Sauer and D. Wicke 2011 Excavations at Ziyaret Tepe, Diyabakir prov-

ince. Anatolica 37: 67-114.Mazar, A. 1992 Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages

and the Iron Age. In A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, 161-90. Jerusa-lem: Israel Exploration Society.

Mazar, A., P. de Miroschedji and N. Porat 1996 Hartuv, an aspect of the Early Bronze I culture

of Southern Israel. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 302: 1-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357126

McConaughy, M.A. 1980 Chipped stone tools. In W.E. Rast and R.T.

Schaub, Preliminary report of the 1979 expedi-tion to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 240: 21-62.

Nigro, L. 2008 Area F: The EB II–III broad-room temple and

the Early Bronze IV village on the easternmost terrace. In L. Nigro (ed.), Khirbet Al-Batrawy II: The EB II City-Gate, the EB II–III Fortifica-tions, the EB II–III Temple. Preliminary Report of the Second (2006) and Third (2007) Seasons of Excavations, 269-316. Rome: La Sapienza.

Nishiaki, Y. 2010 Early Bronze Age flint technology and flake scat-

ters in the North Syrian Steppe along the Middle Euphrates. Levant 42: 170-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/175638010X12797237885730

Özdoğan, M., and A. Özdoğan 1998 Buildings of cult and the cult of buildings. In

G. Arsebük, M.J. Mellink and W. Schirmer (eds.), Light on the Top of the Black Hill, Studies presented to Halet Çambel, 257-65. İstanbul: Ege Yayinlari.

Parry, W.J., and R.L. Kelly 1987 Expedient core technology and sedentism. In

J.K. Johnson and C.A. Morrow (eds.), The



http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357126

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357126

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/175638010X12797237885730

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/175638010X12797237885730



Organization of Core Technology, 285-304. Boul-der: Westview.

Paz, S. 2010 Life in the City: The Birth of an Urban Habitus

in the Early Bronze Age of Israel. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (in Hebrew with English summary).

Paz, Y. 2002 Fortified settlements of the EB Ib and the

emergence of the first urban system. Tel Aviv 29: 238-61.

Pelegrin, J. 2006 Long blade technology in the Old World: an

experimental approach and some archaeological results. In J. Apel and K. Knutsson (eds.), Skilled Production and Social Reproduction, 37-68. Upp-sala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis.

Philip, G. 2001 The Early Bronze I–III Ages. In B. MacDon-

ald, R. Adams and P. Bienkowski (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan. Levantine Archaeology 1: 163-232. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Pollock, S. 2008 Rubbish, routines, and practice: chopped stone

blades from Uruk-period Sharafabad. Iran 46: 43-68.

Quintero, L.A., P.J. Wilke and G.O. Rollefson 2002 From flint mine to fan scraper: the Late Pre-

historic Jafr industrial complex. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 327: 17-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357856

Renfrew, C. 1985 The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phyla-

kopi. London: Thames and Hudson. 1994 The archaeology of religion. In C. Renfrew

and E.B.W. Zubrow (eds.) The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, 47-54. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosen, S.A. 1983 The tabular scraper trade: a model for mate-

rial culture dispersion. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 249: 79-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1356563

1985 The En Shadud lithics. In E. Braun (ed.), En Shadud, Salvage Excavations at a Farming Com-munity in the Jezreel Valley. British Archaeologi-cal Reports, International Series 249: 153-67. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

1988 A preliminary note on the Egyptian compo-nent of the chipped stone assemblage from Tel ‘Erani. Israel Exploration Journal 38: 105-16.

1996 The chipped stone assemblage from Har-tuv. Bulletin of the American Schools of Ori-ental Research 302: 41-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357127

1997 Lithics After the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Thousand Oaks, Califor-nia: Altamira Press.

Rosen, S.A., and M. Grinblat 1997 The chipped stone assemblages from Yiftah’el.

In E. Braun (ed.), Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Gali-lee, Israel. Israel Antiquity Authorities Reports 2: 133-54. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authori-ties.

Rosen, S.A., R.H. Tykot and M. Gottesman 2005 Long distance trinket trade: Early Bronze Age

obsidian from the Negev. Journal of Archae-ological Science 32: 775-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.01.001

Rowan, Y.M. 2006 The chipped stone assemblage at Gilat. In T.E.

Levy (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult. The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel, 507-74. London: Equinox.

2011 Beyond belief: the archaeology of religion and ritual. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 2: 1-10. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1551-8248.2012.01033.x

Schmidt, K. 1996 Nevali Çori: chronology and intrasite distribu-

tion of lithic classes. Preliminary results. In S.K. Kozlowski and H.G.K. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, 363-76. Berlin: Ex Oriente.

2009 Göbekli Tepe: eine Beschreibung der wichtig-sten Befunde erstellt nach den Arbeiten der Grabungsteams der Jahre 1995-2007. In K. Schmidt (ed.), Erste Tempel: Frühe Siedlungen: 12000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur: Ausgrabungen und Forschungen zwischen Donau und Euphrat, 187-223. Oldenburg, Germany: Isensee.

Shimelmitz, R. 2007 The Chalcolithic lithic assemblage (Kafr ‘Ana).

Salvage Excavation Report 4: 77-87. 2009 Variability in the specialized Canaanean blade

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357856

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1356563

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1356563

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357127

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357127



http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-8248.2012.01033.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-8248.2012.01033.x



production of the Early Bronze Levant. In S. Rosen and V. Roux (eds.), Techniques and Peo-ple, 135-56. Jerusalem: Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem.

Shimelmitz, R., R. Barkai and A. Gopher 2000 A Canaanean blade workshop at Har Haruvim,

Israel. Tel Aviv 27: 3-22. 2011 Systematic blade production at late Lower

Paleolithic (400-200 kyr) Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 61: 458-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.06.003

Shimelmitz, R., and S.A. Rosenin press The flint assemblages of Beth Yerah. In R.

Greenberg (ed.), Bet Yerah the Early Bronze Age Mound, Vol. 2. Monograph Series of the Insti-tute of Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

Torrence, R. 1985 The chipped stone. In C. Renfrew (ed.) The

Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi, 469-78. London: Thames and Hudson.

Ussishkin, D. 1980 The Ghassulian shrine at En-Gedi. Tel Aviv 7:

1-44.Vardi, J., and I. Gilead 2009 On the definitions of errors on contexts of craft

specialization: Krukowski microburins from

Beit Eshel Chalcolithic flint workshop. In S. Rosen and V. Roux (eds.), Techniques and Peo-ple, 125-34. Jerusalem: Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem.

Vella, C. 2011 The lithics. In D. Tanasi and N. Vella (eds.),

Site, Artefacts and Landscape. Prehistoric Borg in-Nadur, Malta, 173-94. Monza, Malta: Poli-metrica.

Wapnish, P., and B. Hesse 2000 Mammal remains from the Early Bronze sacred

compound. 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: 429-62. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.

2001 Commodities and cuisine: animals in the Early Bronze Age of northern Palestine. In S.R. Wolff (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59: 251-82. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Yellin, J., T.E. Levy and Y.M. Rowan 1996 New evidence on prehistoric trade routes: the

obsidian evidence from Gilat, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 361-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/009346996791973873



http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/009346996791973873

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/009346996791973873