southwest asian late chalcolithic/early bronze age ...

SOUTHWEST ASIAN LATE CHALCOLITHIC/EARLY BRONZE AGE DEMAND FOR “BIG-TOOLS”: SPECIALIZED FLINT EXPLOITATION BEYOND THE FRINGES OF SETTLED REGIONS BERND MÜLLER-NEUHOF Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Germany

Cortical scrapers (“fan scrapers”) and large blades (“Canaanean blades”) belong to the characteristic larger-sized types in Southwest-Asian lithic tool assemblages in the fourth to early third millennium (Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age). However, the provenance of the raw material of the respective tools and the locality of their production are almost unknown; related workshops and mines have rarely been identified. Following the presentation of two hitherto unknown mining areas for large blades and cortical tools, the factors limiting our ability to identify such production sites and the probable socio-economic reasons for the locations of these mines are discussed. KEYWORDS: flint mines, cortical scrapers, large blades (Canaanean blades), SW-Asia, Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age

INTRODUCTION

AND

CHRONOLOGICAL ISSUES

The fourth to the early third millennium B.C. was a crucial period in the cultural history of Southwest Asia. It was a period in which major social developments such as urbanization took place. Additionally, this time span is characterized by important technological developments, namely the implementation of developed metal technologies. The full introduction of copper metallurgy, which was invented in the fifth millennium, and the invention of bronze at the end of the fourth millennium, led to the division of this era into two separate archaeologically defined periods, the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age (EBA). However, due to the fact that social and technological developments ran differently throughout Southwest Asia, the length and therefore the beginning and the end of the Late Chalcolithic and the EBA varied in the different parts of this region. A good example is the Uruk culture, which geographically expanded over vast regions of Southwest Asia, namely Mesopotamia, Southwest Iran (Susiana), Northern Syria and parts of Southeast Anatolia, but additionally had contacts with Egypt and central Iran. The Uruk culture existed from around  until  B.C. and dates in archaeological terms into the Late Chalcolithic (LC). In the Southern Levant, however, the Early Bronze Age (EBA I) began around  © W. S. Maney & Son Ltd  DOI: ./Z.

B.C. That means that when, for instance, cortical scrapers are discovered in Late Uruk (– B.C.) sites in Syria, they can be labeled as LC artifacts, while similar scrapers discovered in Jawa (Jordan) (mid- to end of fourth millennium B.C.) they have to be labeled as EBA artifacts. Due to the fact that the following discussion focus geographically on a region from the eastern fringe of the southern Levant to Central Iran and refers chronologically especially to the fourth and the early third millennium B.C., the combined term Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age (LC/EBA) is used here for labeling this specific period in the entire region. Although metal technologies were already fully introduced in LC/EBA, lithic tools still played a major role in the tool kits of the LC/EBA societies. These lithic assemblages are characterized by so-called ad hoc tools and specific implements, especially large tools, showing a high specialization and standardization in their production and utilization. Among these large LC/EBA tools, large blades, so called “Canaanean blades,” and cortical scrapers, also known as “fan scrapers,” “tabular scrapers,” “racloir en éventail,” or “Jafr tools,” were widely needed items in large parts of Southwest Asia. However, although these tools occur in abundance in the archaeological assemblages of many Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –

SOUTHWEST ASIAN LATE CHALCOLITHIC/EARLY BRONZE AGE DEMAND FOR

LC/EBA sites, little is known about their places of origin, which in almost all cases was not the settlement itself where they have been found. This can be explained by the circumstance that no cores or primary products, proving the onsite production of these items in the settlements, have been discovered. The geographical provenance of these items seems in most cases to have been located away from the place of consumption, the settlements. One of the reasons for that was the need for specific high quality raw material for such blanks, which was not always obtainable close to the (sedentary) settled areas. Thus, these blanks were items of long-distance trade. Obviously due to the large blank sizes and the long transport distances, the production of fully finished blanks on the mining sites was necessary, which was especially the case in the cortical tool production.

DEFINITION AND PROBABLE FUNCTIONS OF CORTICAL SCRAPERS Cortical scraper blanks are thin, flat flakes and are often palm-sized. They are usually fan-shaped, elongated fan-shaped, or elongated shaped with curved proximal and distal ends (Müller-Neuhof ). Intensive edge modification by retouching modified the shape of the blanks into round, oval, or irregular shaped cortical scrapers. The dorsal face is usually entirely covered with cortex; the ventral face shows the typical flaking attributes like the bulb and sometimes distinctive Wallner-lines. Initial preparation of the plain platforms can be observed, but unprepared platforms are not unusual as well. Platforms are flat and the angle of percussion is mostly near ° (Schmidt : ). After detachment, the edges of the cortical flakes are usually acute, which means that these tools initially have been suitable for use as knives. However, after several resharpenings, which caused a reduction in their size, the edges became steeper and the function of these tools was modified into the function of a scraper. This is usually the shape in which these items are found in archaeological contexts, which is the reason for the nomination of these items as cortical scrapers. It is assumed that cortical scrapers were primarily used in pastoral contexts of caprine herding especially for processing animal products, like sheep shearing, hide working and slaughter (Barkett and Bell ; Henry : ) or, animal sacrifice (e.g., McConaughy : ). Cortical scrapers as described here are common in

“BIG-TOOLS”



the Levant in the Chalcolithic and the EBA, when they disappear around the middle of the third millennium B.C. (end of EBA III; Rosen : ).

LOCALITIES OF CORTICAL SCRAPER BLANK PRODUCTION The only hitherto known large mines where cortical scraper blanks were produced literally on an “industrial” scale are localized in the southeastern part of Jordan (Figure ). To date, such sites have not been identified west of this region apart from some small quarry sites in the Negev and the Sinai, where just a small number of cortical tool blanks were produced (Rosen : ), which probably were more workshops than mines. Cores for the production of cortical scrapers on the northern rim of the Jafr basin were first noted by Rollefson in the late s (Rollefson ); however, without recognition of their importance for the Chalcolithic and EBA (Quintero et al. : ). Since this observation the terms “Jafr flakes” and “Jafr cores” are also in use for such items (cf. Quintero et al. : ). In  and  Leslie Quintero and Philip Wilke intensively surveyed this region and recognized these sites as large scale cortical scraper blank production sites dating into the Chalcolithic and EBA (Quintero et al. ). Additionally, in the late s comparable mines were identified by Sumio Fujii on the northwestern fringe of the Jafr basin (Fujii , ). In , a flint mine with evidences for cortical scraper blank production was identified by Ricardo Eichmann and the author in the northeastern Badia on the western escarpment of the ar-Risha limestone plateau in the greater Wadi ar-Ruwayshid region ca.  km west of the Jordan-Iraq border, southeast of the modern town of Ruwayshid. During surveys in  (Müller-Neuhof ),  (Müller-Neuhof a) and  (Müller-Neuhof b), a mining region consisting of three mining districts, was identified here (Figure ).

CHARACTER AND EXTENSION OF THE GREATER WADI RUWAYSHID MINING REGION The greater Wadi ar-Ruwayshid region is located in the flint and gravel paved al-Hamad on the western escarpment of the ar-Risha plateau, east of the basalt desert al-Harra. Three mining districts were identified on the plateau, which ascends toward the southeast and is dissected by Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –



MÜLLER-NEUHOF

FIGURE . Map showing the two major LC/EBA flint mining and cortical scraper production regions Jafr and Ruwayshid (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, N. Marquardt and B. Müller-Neuhof).

several wadis draining in a western direction, therefore shaping promontories on which western ends most of the mines are located. On the slopes of most of these promontories several layers of Eocene flint crops out, which is characterized by a fine texture and dark grey to dark brown color. Interestingly, the mining activities were restricted to flint seams occurring at altitudes between  and  m above sea level with a notable preference for seams between  and  m (Figures  and ). No mining activities were observed in outcropping flint layers below and above this altitude. For some reason they seem to have been unsuitable for the cortical scraper blank production. Due to this observation the eastern and western borders of this mining

region could be defined, which are determined by the altitude of the western escarpment of the al-Risha plateau, limited to areas within the range – m. The northern limit of the entire mining region and simultaneously of the northern mining district Ruwayshid I is defined by the Wadi Umm Qunaynah. This limit is determined by changes in the topography, characterized by much gentler slopes caused by ancient colluvial processes, covering the outcropping flint seams. This makes them invisible and therefore inaccessible for mining (Figure ). The southern limit of the entire mining region, which is also the limit of the southern mining district Ruwayshid III is defined by the area south of the southern bank of the Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –


“BIG-TOOLS”



FIGURE . Map of the Northern Badia with the location of the Wadi ar-Ruwayshid mining complex (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, J. Meister and B. Müller-Neuhof).

Wadi Ruwayshid Abu Hafnah (Figure ). Although the slope conditions are steep enough in this region and theoretically should show evidences for outcropping flint layers, mining activities could not be traced, due to the fact that these areas are covered by heavy ancient reddish aeolian sediments, obscuring all possible flint outcrops. The entire mining region with the three mining districts and the wadi areas between the mining districts extends over an area of ca.  km. In these mining districts mines, workshops and exploratory sites were identified.

LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF MINES, WORKSHOPS AND EXPLORATORY SITES Altogether,  sites related to flint mining with cortical scraper blank production were identified. These  sites include ca.  exploratory sites, a number of workshops where mining and blank production was carried out on a smaller scale,

probably for domestic needs of some herders, and a large number of different types of open-cast mines. These mines can be differentiated as outcrop mines, possible pit mines, and large trench mines. All the mines are localized exclusively on top of the promontories. Outcrop mines are located usually close to the ridges on the upper parts of the slopes partly along outcropping flint layers. These layers lie beneath the uppermost ca.  cm thick limestone layer, which was broken out on the fringes in order to reach the flint nodules (Figure ). Pit mines are located more on top of the elevations and rarely on their edges (Figure ). The pits are now not visible on the surface due to intentional or natural (sedimentation) back fill, after mining ended. The largest mines are trench mines, located on top of the promontories and mostly following the course of the escarpment. These mines reach lengths of nearly , m, their width is between  and  m, Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –



MÜLLER-NEUHOF

FIGURE . Map with the location of the three mining district (Ruwayshid I-III) in the Wadi ar-Ruwayshid mining region (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, J. Meister and B. Müller-Neuhof).

the original depth was mostly not more than  m, due to the location of the flint seam close to the surface (Figures  and ).

CORTICAL SCRAPER BLANK PRODUCTION In direct vicinity to the mines and workshops, latter are characterized by evidences for small scale outcrop mining in their proximity, the core preparation and cortical scraper blank production took place. The entire chaîne opératoire of the cortical scraper blank production is documented at the sites by specific primary products, including flint nodules, smaller managable chunks of broken nodules, large platform preparation crest blades/flakes, smaller platform preparation flakes and eventually cortical flake negatives on the cores (Figures  and ). Additionally, abundant production wastage, especially broken cortical scraper blanks and rejects of blanks of improper size and thickness,

is present on the sites and documents clearly the intention of producing cortical scraper blanks that had to be as thin and as large as possible. The mining and flint knapping tool kit consisted of spheroid hammerstones and Kerbschlägel (notched extraction tools) made out of basalt, discovered in some mines.

ECONOMIC OUTPUT AND MANNERS OF PRODUCTION The entire mining and cortical scraper blank production area, which includes mines as well as workshops, encompasses a surface area of , m ( ha). Counts of cortical scraper negatives on the cores lying on the surface in several mines and workshops revealed an average concentration of five cortical scraper blank negatives per m. In pit- and trench-mine areas the concentration goes up to  negatives per m, in workshop areas the average was much Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –


“BIG-TOOLS”



FIGURE . D visualisation of the western escarpment of the Risha limestone plateau with location of the three mining districts (I-III) (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, J. Meister and B. Müller-Neuhof).

FIGURE . Distribution of mines, workshops and exploratory sites according to their altitude (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, J. Meister and B. Müller-Neuhof).

Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –



MÜLLER-NEUHOF

FIGURE . Detail of an outcrop Orient-Abteilung, B. Müller-Neuhof).

(©DAI

FIGURE . Trench floor of a trench mine (RUW) (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, B. Müller-Neuhof).

lower with . negatives per m. Workshops cover ca. , m, which is about . percent of the entire mining and cortical scraper blank production area. Taking the mentioned average of five negatives per m into account, which is a very low average assumption, the output of cortical flake production in the entire Wadi Ruwayshid mining region was at least ,, blanks. This makes the greater Wadi ar-Ruwayshid region, like the Jafr region in southeast Jordan, one of the major flint mining regions in Southwest Asia, where flint mining and associated cortical scraper blank production was carried out in an “industrial” scale. The hypothesis that such an “industrial” scale, was only manageable after the introduction of the domesticated donkey around that time (first half of the fourth millennium), resolving the logistical problem of the transport

of large amounts of blanks from the mines to consumer areas, which was already assumed by Quintero et al. for the Jafr mines (Quintero et al. : –), sounds plausible and can be projected to the Ruwayshid mines. The lack of evidence for long-term human residency and the problem with water provision during most times of the year hint at temporally restricted mining and blank detachment activities, carried out within a specific time frame during a year. Within this time frame, as many cortical scraper blanks as possible were produced. This task was probably executed by groups of miners, who most probably simultaneously were pastoralists, visiting this region in a regular cycle in spring with their herds. While grazing them in the wadis, flint mining and cortical tool blank production was carried out in the adjacent mines. However, the organized character of the flint mining and cortical scraper blank production, may also point to a more organized raw material obtainment and blank production, maybe carried out by specialized groups comparable to the Egyptian mining expeditions on the Sinai in the times of the Old Kingdom (Beith-Arieh : ).

mine

DATING OF THE MINES IN AR-RUWAYSHID REGION

FIGURE . Overview on a pit mine (RUW.) (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, B. Müller-Neuhof).

THE

GREATER WADI

So far, no dating finds like pottery sherds have been found in context with the mining and production activities. The high amount of produced blanks reflects a great demand for such items, which refers to the LC/EBA. Additionally, the likely use of the domesticated donkey for transport dates these mining activities into the LC/ Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –


FIGURE .

“BIG-TOOLS”



Satellite image and map of a trench mine (RUW) (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, J. Meister and B. Müller-Neuhof).

EBA, probably from the first half of the fourth millennium to the beginning of the third millennium. This is supported by the fact that during our transect surveys in the neighboring basalt desert several pastoral campsites were encountered dating to the LC/EBA and into much later periods, starting with the Roman Byzantine period (Müller-Neuhof

). The entire region is characterized by a hiatus of archaeologically traceable human activities at least from the MBA up to the end of the Iron Age. Additionally, the closest settlement to these mines, which is Jawa in the western part of the basalt desert, dates with its earlier and major occupation phase into the LC/EBA I. These

FIGURE . Core with fan shaped cortical scraper blank negatives (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, B. Müller-Neuhof).

FIGURE . Core with elongated cortical scraper blank negatives (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, B. Müller-Neuhof).




MÜLLER-NEUHOF

observations may support the limitation of the flint mining and cortical scraper production activities in the Ruwayshid flint mines to the fourth millennium B.C., the LC/EBA.

DISCUSSION The existence of mines, where cortical tool blanks were produced, is so far only proven in the greater Wadi ar-Ruwayshid and the Jafr region. Taking into account the wide distribution of cortical tool blanks, it is expected that further mining regions existed elsewhere in Southwest Asia. However, it seems to be the case that such large mines do not exist in the western part of the Transjordan plateau and west of the Jordan River, namely in today’s Palestine and Israel. Additionally, our observations south of the Ruwayshid mining region revealed that areas that, according to their altitude and slope gradient, were possible candidates for mining activities, are covered by aeolian sediments since millennia. This observation might reduce the chance to encounter comparable mines on the Arabian peninsula, which theoretically is a region in which further mines might be expected. Additional possible mining regions may exist in the southeast of Jordan, where preliminary investigations are underway. It is not yet clear if such mines existed on the eastern slope of the ar-Risha plateau, which is in Iraqi territory, and also the existence of such mines in the Sinai cannot be excluded. Another region that is almost unexamined concerning the identification of flint mines and cortical scraper production sites is Syria. However, it has to be considered that in spite of the isolated location of the known mining regions Jafr and Ruwayshid, where the lack of year round water availability furthermore restricted the access to and the presence in the regions, the mining process, consisting out of exploration, establishing of large dimensioned mines and an extensive cortical tool blank production, was highly organized. From this follows that the cortical tool blank production in the Jafr and the Ruwayshid regions did not serve the primary needs of local consumers, namely pastoral nomads frequenting the region in times of available pasture. Instead, it was an organized enterprise in order to supply societies much further away. Therefore it can be stated that these mines have to be considered as components of an interregional trade network in the LC/EBA.

DEFINITION AND FUNCTIONS OF LARGE BLADES (“CANAANEAN BLADES”) Large blades (or Canaanean blades) are standardized tool blanks characterized by parallel lateral edges, a width of at least  cm and up to  cm in length (Rosen : ). Further characteristics are small facetted platforms indicating indirect percussion with a punch, and a pronounced bulb (Rosen : ; Schmidt : ). The cross section is mostly trapezoid (Rosen : ; Schmidt : ); however, triangular cross section occurred as well (Rosen : ). Large blades were used entirely as tools for cutting, especially as reaping knives (Rosen : ). Additionally, large blades snapped in several segments have been used as sickle implements placed into a sickle handle (Rosen : ). The utilization of these implements as sickles for cereal harvesting is proven by the abundant occurrence of sickle sheen on the working edges of several of these items (see Rosen : –; Van Gijn : –). In the Levant, large blades were in use from the beginning of the EBA (EBA I; mid-fourth millennium) until the end of the EBA/beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (EBA IV/MBA I; end of the third/beginning of the second millennium; Rosen : ). As already mentioned, the large blade’s region of origin is not the Levant but most probably southeast Anatolia. The earliest known evidences for large blades in this region are known from Norsuntepe, where they start to be in use from the Late Chalcolithic on around  B.C. until the end of the EBA (EBA III; around  B.C.; Schmidt : –).

LOCALITIES OF LARGE BLADE BLANK PRODUCTION A similar phenomenon like the LC/EBA production of cortical scraper blank production on mining sites can be observed in connection with the production of large blades, which occur in almost all LC/EBA sites in the entire southwest of Asia. Although some rare finds of associated cores are documented, see for instance Tell Halif (Futato ), Tell Brak (Oates and Oates : ; Oates : ), Hassek Höyük (BehmBlancke ; Pélegrin and Otte ) and Farukhabad (Wright : ), most of the blades discovered in LC/EBA settlements were not produced there, but were imported. The identification of open air large blade blank production sites Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –


associated with flint mines, where the respective cores were produced, in Titris Höyük (Matney et al. ) and Har Haruvim (Shimelmitz et al. ) allows the suggestion that the production of large blade blanks was accomplished in a specialized (“industrial”) mode, comparable to the production of cortical scraper blanks. With this contribution another hitherto unpublished site, where such large blades were produced will be presented. This site is located in Southwest Iran in the southeastern part of the Kermanshah province, south of Harsin, respectively southeast of the city of Kermanshah and close to the village of Pasar (Figure ). The site was identified in July  by Peder Mortensen and Philip Smith on a

“BIG-TOOLS”



survey in the southeastern part of the Kermanshah province and was named “site ,” according to the sequence of identified sites during this survey. In the following discussion “site ” is named “Pasar,” due to its immediate location to the village of that name. At this point I have to emphasize that I am very much indebted to Peder Mortensen, who left me his records for publication.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site of Pasar is located on a gentle slope of an uncultivated area close to the bank of the Gamasab river. On a low, natural hill an outcrop of coarse, red-brown flint, appearing in large quantities, was observed (Figure ). On a

FIGURE . Map of SW-Iran with the location of Pasar (“Site ”) (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, P. Mortensen, B. Müller-Neuhof and N. Marquardt).




MÜLLER-NEUHOF

FIGURE . Overview of the quarry site of Pasar (“Site ”) (©P. Mortensen).

FIGURE . Detailed view on the quarry site Pasar (“Site ”) with prismatic cores lying on the surface (P. Mortensen).

field below this hill a knapping area was identified, having a size of ca.  ×  m (, m). This area is densely covered by large prismatic cores (Figure ), mostly made out of the red-brown tabular flint, originating in the adjacent outcrops, and blades with trapezoid section. Just two cores and  blades were made out of a greenishyellowish flint of better quality, whose origin has to be sought somewhere else. In addition, a small number of Uruk pottery sherds have been identified as well.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PASAR LITHIC INDUSTRY The blade cores vary in size and shape (Figure a–g). Very large and heavy triangular cores were found as well as smaller and flatter

cores. Usually only one face of a core was used for blade detachment, followed by the abandonment of the core. Interestingly among the identified large blade cores, one has two opposed platforms, which seems to be the only evidence so far for the application of the opposed platform strategy in LC/EBA large blade production (Figure a). All preserved striking platforms on the cores and blades are faceted. The blade industry is characterized by the production of parallel sided blades, mostly with trapezoidal cross section, showing a maximum length of  cm (judged from the negatives on the cores),  cm width and . cm thickness. Only three complete blades have been found (Figure h–j) in contrast to about  incomplete ones, which were mostly medial fragments knapped perpendicular to their long axis with a maximal width of . and . cm thickness (Figures k–l and a–f). It is not clear if they were snapped whilst being detached from the core or later in post-depositional contexts. The bulb of percussion is medium to small in size; the terminal end of the blades is splayed and feathered. Striking platform angles vary between  and °. It is unclear whether direct or indirect percussion was employed for blade detachment (Figure g–m). Additionally, no hammerstones have been found. Small nibblings and notches on the edges might hint to post-depositional retouches, probably because of the poorer chert quality. In seven cases deliberate retouches on blade fragments could be observed. Additionally, some retouched flakes were also found (Figure n–p).

PRESUMED DATE AND SITE FUNCTION Beside of the character of these blades which allows their probable dating into the fourth millennium, such a date gains support by the associated sherds of Uruk-ware found on the site, which are probably contemporary with the blade production (Mortensen, personal communication ). Here the entire chaîne opératoire of the blade production from on-site raw material obtainment (mining or quarrying), via core preparation to the blade detachment is documented. And it seems obvious that the major aim was the production of highly standardized large blade blanks and segments as blanks for knives or sickle blades, for export to other Late Uruk/Godin VI communities in the region, which were identified on the survey on a plain north of Pasar and in Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –


“BIG-TOOLS”



FIGURE . Selection of blade cores (a–g) and large blades (h–l) from Pasar (“Site ”) (©Initial drawing P. Mortensen, Inking B. Müller-Neuhof).

Godin Tepe itself (Mortensen, personal communication ). DISCUSSION

Pasar (“Site ”) is the first and hitherto only LC/ EBA flint mine with an adjacent large blade production workshop identified in Southwest Iran, and the third one known in the entire region of Southwest Asia (see above) (Figure ).

Furthermore, Pasar is the oldest known large blade production site, which is located on the flint source itself, in the entire Southwest Asia, dating into the fourth millennium. Although evidence for large blade blank production within settlements are known — for example, from Hassek Höyük (Behm-Blancke ; Pélegrin and Otte ) — we can expect that the production of such blades in the vicinity of their raw material deposits was the norm. Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –



MÜLLER-NEUHOF

FIGURE . Selection of small blades (a–f), retouched blades (g–m) and retouched flakes (n–p) from Pasar (“Site ”) (©Initial drawing P. Mortensen, Inking B. Müller-Neuhof).

Large blade cores, which were found within settlements, especially if they appear in higher numbers (see Hassek Höyük) hint rather to appropriate flint deposits in their vicinity than to an import of these cores, which would have been an inefficient task due to their weight. The identification of just three of these mines and adjacent workshops in all of Southwest Asia so far, might not be a perfect support for such a hypothesis. However, it seems that the rarity of such sites

is explainable by the hitherto accomplished research strategies; focusing more on settlements themselves than on the closer and wider vicinity with a specific attention on geological resources.

CONCLUSION Cortical tool blank and large blade production show strong similarities in terms of raw material procurement and blank production. It is clear Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –


“BIG-TOOLS”



FIGURE . Map with hitherto identified quarry sites for large blade core production in SW-Asia (©DAI Orient-Abteilung, B. Müller-Neuhof and N. Marquardt).

that only specific flint sources were selected for raw material procurement, as the raw material had to meet specific requirements in terms of flint material quality (homogenous structure, hardness and density), the size of the nodules and a good access to the flint seams, which enabled an intense exploitation of the source. Similarities in blank production may be seen in the location of core preparation and blank detachment, which took place at the mines themselves, presumably in order to reduce the weight of material requiring transportation. However, clear differences can be observed in the location of these sites in terms of their environment, relationship to permanent settled regions, as well as in the different socioeconomic backgrounds of the groups involved in the

exploitation, distribution and utilization of these blanks. The production of large blade blanks occurred within permanent settled regions where rainfed agriculture was possible. On the contrary, the cortical tool blank production sites are located far beyond such permanent settled regions in arid environments. This distinction can be explained by the function of large blades related to a sedentary agricultural context, where they served as blanks for sickle blades and threshing sledge implements (see Anderson and Inizan ; Anderson et al. ). Instead, cortical scrapers are mainly related to animal husbandry and processing of animal products, which were in a large scale practiced by (semi)nomadic pastoralists,




MÜLLER-NEUHOF

often existing beyond permanent settled regions and at least temporarily in arid environments. However, the cortical scraper might originally have been a “pure” tool of pastoral nomads probably in the early Chalcolithic period, but the large quantity of cortical scrapers discovered in LC/EBA settlements, located in non-arid environments, shows that these tools became more and more common also in settled regions as important components of the LC/EBA lithic tool kits. Future research must be dedicated to the all important identification of further mines and workshops where either large blades or cortical scraper blanks were produced. In addition several other problems relating to these mining activities should be adressed: () the variable relationship between raw material choice and intended tool function; () the probable territorial control of such raw material resources; () the reconstruction of the long distance trade routes of these items, which implies the need for an individual geochemical characterization of each source.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Wadi ar-Ruwayshid mining region survey project is part of the larger archaeological project “Arid habitats in the fifth to the early third millennium B.C.: Mobile Subsistence, Communication and Key Resource Use in the Northern Badia (NE-Jordan)” has been carried out since  and has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (AZ MU /-) (Müller-Neuhof c). Participants of the diverse survey seasons in the flint mines were beside of the author, Dr. Jenny Bradbury (Durham University), Dipl. Geogr. Jan Krause (Freie Universität Berlin), Wisam Esaid B.A. (Department of Antiquities of Jordan), and Johannes Köhler (Freie Universität Berlin). Maps and diagrams were produced by Dipl.-Geogr. Nicole Marquardt and Julia Meister MsSc. I am very indebted to Professor Peder Mortensen (Carsten Niebuhr Institute, Copenhagen) for providing me with the documentations on the site in Pasar and allowing me the publication of the content of this documentation. Finally, I would like to thank Philip Wilke for his valuable comments on an earlier draft of this contribution and for his proofreading.

NOTES . Meanwhile it became clear that some large blades (“Canaanean blades”) originated in SE-Anatolia instead of the Levant and that the earliest examples of these large blades date to the beginning of the Late Chalcolithic of SE-Anatolia (ca.  B.C.) (Schmidt : ; Edens : ).

. The few exceptions of settlement where large blade cores are proving the production of large blades will be discussed later in this contribution. . I thank Philip Wilke who called my attention to this point. . The initial version of this paper, which was presented as a paper on the workshop on Bronze Age Near Eastern lithic assemblages on the th International Conference of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE) in April  in London, based on the preliminary results of the survey season in the Ruwayshid mining region in March . Due to the delay of the publication of this workshop, I took the opportunity to include also the result of the last and final survey season in this mining region in March/April  and therefore rewrote parts of this contribution. . The study of the results of the surveys on these sites is still in progress. An overview of the results of these surveys is given in Müller-Neuhof (b) and detailed results will be published in Müller-Neuhof (). . Similar observations have been made by S. Fujii on a mining site (No. W-) in Qa’ Abu Tulayha West on the northwestern fringe of the Jafr plain. Here such pits were identified during the excavation (Fujii : ). . In contrast to that, Fujii denies the “industrial production” hypothesis and states that the production was carried out much slower and with a smaller output per visit, which could easily be transported by the producers themselves (Fujii : ) . The utilization of donkeys in the LC and EBA is archaeologically also proven by figurines depicting laden donkeys (see Epstein : , fig. , ). Earliest evidences for the domestic donkey in the southern Levant are known from Hujayrat al Ghuzlan near Aqaba (Benecke ). . Personally communicated by Dr. Wael Abu-Azizeh and Dr. Mohammed Tarawneh. . However, hitherto examinations of satellite images produced yet no evidences for such mines in this region. . Geochemical analyses of flint raw material from the Jafr mines and the Ruwayshid mines were recently carried out by applying PXRF. The evaluation of the data is still in process; however, it can already be stated that the flint raw material of Jafr and the Ruwayshid mining region seems to be different based on concentration of specific trace elements. Additionally, PXRF analyses of cortical scrapers from different Chalcolithic and EBA sites in Jordan were carried out last winter. The evaluation of these data is in progress as well. It is hoped that preliminary data will be available by the end of . . Longer blades were also observed in, for instance, Hassek Höyük with lengths up to  cm (Otte and Behm-Blancke : ). . The large blade blank production at Titris Höyük dates into the Middle EBA around – B.C. (Matney et al. : ), the production at Har Haruvim is dating into EBA II/III (Shimelmitz et al. : ) between  and  B.C. . Other more or less contemporary flint mines with adjacent open air workshops in the greater Kermanshah region, where small blade cores and blades were produced, were discovered at Tepe Muriyan (Hole, Flannery, and Neely : , quoting Braidwood : ) and



in Ban-Asiab (Mehmeh-phase, Middle Chalcolithic, ca. late fifth millennium) (Pollock et al. ). . PXRF analyses of the raw material of the cortical tool mines in the Ruwayshid and Jafr region have been carried out recently. Additionally, cortical tools form diverse C/EBA sites in Jordan, which are stored in Jordanian museums and warehouses, have been analysed as well. The procession of the data is on its way.

REFERENCES Anderson, Patricia C., Chabot Jacques, and Annelou van Gijn  The Functional Riddle of ‘Glossy’ Canaanean Blades and the Near Eastern Threshing Sledge. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology (): –. Anderson, Patricia C., and Marie-Luise Inizan  Utilisation du Tribulum au Début du IIIe Millénaire: des Lames «Cananéennes» Lustrées à Kutan (Ninive V) dans la Région de Mossul, Iraq. Paléorient (): –. Barkett, Theresa M., and Coleen A. Bell  Tabular Scrapers: Function Revisited. Near Eastern Archaeology (): –. Behm-Blancke, Manfred R.  Die Fundumstände. In Hassek Höyük. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithischer Industrie, edited by Manfred R. BehmBlancke. pp. –. Istanbuler Forschungen, No. . Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Tübingen. Beit-Arieh, Itzaq  A Chalcolithic Site Near Serâbît el-Khâdim. Tel Aviv : –. Benecke, Norbert  Faunal Remains of Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Excavations –). In Prehistoric Aqaba I, edited by Schmidt Klaus and Khalil Lutfi. pp. –. Orient Archäologie No. . Leidorf, Rahden Westf. Braidwood, Robert  Seeking the World’s First Farmers in Persian Kurdistan: A Full-scale Investigation of Prehistoric Sites Near Kermanshah. Illustrated London News (): –. Edens, Christopher  The Chipped Stone Industry at Hacınebi: Technological Styles and Social Identity. Paléorient (): –. Epstein, Clair  Laden Animal Figurines from the Chalcolithic Period in Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research : –. Fujii, Sumio  Qa' Abu Tulayha West: An Interim Report of the  Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan : –. Fujii, Sumio  Qa' Abu Tulayha West,  an Interim Report of the Sixth And Final Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan : –. Futato, Eugene M.  Early Bronze III Canaanean Blade/ Scraper Cores from Tell Halif, Israel. In Retrieving the Past. Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honour of Gus W. van Beek, edited by Joe D. Seger. pp –. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Starkville, MI. Henry, Donald O.  Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution. Insights from Southern Jordan. Plenum Press, New York — London. Hole, Frank, Kent V. Flannery, and James A. Neely  Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain.

“BIG-TOOLS”



Memoirs No. . Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Matney, Timothy, Guillermo Algaze, and Steven A. Rosen with contributions by Sumru Aricanli, and Britt E. Hartenberger  Early Bronze Age Urban Structure at Titris Höyük, Southeastern Turkey: The  Season. Anatolica : –. McConaughy, Mark A.  . Chipped Stone Tools at Bab edh Dhrah. In Bab edh-Dhrah: Excavations at the Town site (–), edited by Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub. pp –. Winona Lake, In., Eisenbrauns. Müller-Neuhof, Bernd  Tabular Scraper Quarry Sites in the Wadi Ruwayshid region (N/E Jordan). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan : –. Müller-Neuhof, Bernd a Preliminary Results of the  Cortex Scraper Mine Survey in the Greater Wadi arRuwayshid Region (N/E Jordan). Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan : –. Müller-Neuhof, Bernd b The Wadi ar-Ruwayshid Mining Complex: Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Cortical Tool Production in N/E Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan : (in press). Müller-Neuhof, Bernd c Jawa’s Hinterland: The Northern Badia in the th to rd millennium BC (Jordan) http://www.dainst.org/en/project/badia-jordan. Müller-Neuhof, Bernd (editor)  The Jawa Hinterland: Studies on Chalcolithic / Early Bronze Age Mobile Subsistence, Communication and Key Resource Use in the Northern Badia (NE-Jordan). Unpublished manuscript. Oates, David, and Joan Oates  Excavations at Tell Brak –. Iraq : –. Oates, Joan  Tell Brak: the th Millenium Sequence. In Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, edited by Nicolas Postgate. pp. –. Iraq Archaeological Reports No. . British School of Archaeology in Iraq, London. Otte, Marcel, and Manfred R. Behm-Blancke  Die Rekonstruktion technischer Verfahrensweisen. In Hassek Höyük. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithischer Industrie, edited by Manfred R. BehmBlancke. pp. –. Istanbuler Forschungen No. . Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Tübingen. Pélegrin, Jacques, and Marcel Otte  Einige Bemerkungen zur Präparations- und Ausbeutungstechnik der Kernsteine aus Raum . In Hassek Höyük. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie, edited by Manfred R. Behm-Blancke. pp –. Istanbuler Forschungen, No. . Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Tübingen. Pollock, Susan, Reinhard Bernbeck, Elham Ghasidian, and Saman Heydari  Ban Asiab a Middle Chalcolithic Lithic Production Site in the Mahidasht. In Archaeological Reports , edited by Hamid Fahimi. pp. –. Iranian Center for Archaeological Reports, Tehran. (In Farsi with English summary). Quintero, Leslie, Phillip Wilke, and Gary O. Rollefson  From Flint Mine to Fan Scraper: The Late Prehistoric Jafr Industrial Complex. Bulletin of the American Society of Oriental Research : –.




MÜLLER-NEUHOF

Rollefson, Gary O.  Albright Fellow at American Center of Oriental Research Reports – in Amman. American Schools of Oriental Research Newsletter : –. Rosen, Steven A.  Tabular Scraper Trade: A Model of Material Cultural Dispersion. Bulletin of the American Society of Oriental Research : –. Rosen, Steven A.  Lithics after the Stone Age. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Schmidt, Klaus  Nors¸untepe. Kleinfunde I. Die lithische Industrie. Archaeologica Euphratica, No. . Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz.

NOTE

ON

Shimelmitz, Ron, Ran Barkai, and Avi Gopher  A Canaanean Blade Workshop at Har Haruvim, Israel. Tel Aviv .: –. Van Gijn, Annelou  The Ninivete  Chipped Stone Assemblage from Tell Leilan: Preliminary Results. In The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninivite  Chronology, Economy, Society, edited by Elena Rova and Harvey Weiss. pp. –. Subartu No. . Brepols Publisher, Turnhuot. Wright, Henry T.  Early Town in the Deh Luran Plane. Memoirs No. . Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

CONTRIBUTOR

Correspondence to: Bernd Müller-Neuhof, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orientabteilung, Podbielskiallee -, D- Berlin, Germany. Email: [email protected]
