A BASALT CHIPPING FLOOR FROM LEVEL VI (PPNC) AT HAGOSHRIM A Basalt Chipping Floor from Level VI...

A BASALT CHIPPING FLOOR FROM LEVEL VI (PPNC) AT HAGOSHRIM 117

A Basalt Chipping Floor from Level VI (PPNC)

at Hagoshrim

DANNY ROSENBERG1

NIMROD GETZOV2

1 Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa

2 Israel Antiquity Authority

INTRODUCTION

The site of Hagoshrim is situated at the northern margins of the Hula Basin (Israel map ref.

2923-2085), northern Israel, near Kibbutz Hagoshrim (Fig.1). It lies on a travertine ledge,

elevated some 20m above the former level of Hula marshes, prior to their drainage in the

1950’s.

The site was excavated in the past (Noy 1978; 1980) and has been subjected to intensive

surface collection in the last fifty years1. Site size is estimated to be about eight hectares.

During 1996-7 two salvage excavation seasons were conducted in anticipation of the

repaving of the road leading from Qiryat Shmone to Mt. Hermon and the Golan Heights.

The renewed excavations at the site on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (Getzov

1999) concentrated in the South-Western margins of the site, and covered an area of ca.

0.2 hectares, in four excavation areas (E; N; W and M). Six levels were identified (VI-I).

These were dated from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (hereafter PPNC, level VI) through Late

Chalcolithic (Level I). Three levels (VI-IV) yielded most of the archaeological material:

Level VI (PPNC); level V (Jericho IX) and level IV (Wadi Rabah).

Jurnal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 36 (2006), 117-128

1 This collection is stored at Kibbutz Ma’ayan Baruch Regional Museum. It was studied by one of us

(D. R.), courtesy of A. Assaf the curator of the museum.

117

ROSENGERG et al.118

Figure 1: Map showing the location of Hagoshrim and other PPNC sites in the Southern Levant


THE PPNC OF HAGOSHRIM

PPNC Level VI remains were found mainly in excavation areas N and M, situated in the

center of the excavation, and presenting three successive habitation stages (c-a) in which

the earliest lay on virgin travertine. The excavations produced a wealth of archaeological

material including architectural features such as straight walls, pits, and pavements. The

interior surfaces of the latter are made of pounded limestone and broken pebbles, mainly

of basalt for the courts and open surfaces (Figs. 2-3). Burials were also found in the PPNC

level, as well as many flints, obsidian, stone and bone tools, and a large faunal assemblage

(Haber 2001).

Large numbers of stone implements were found in all excavation areas, and collected from

the site surface as well (Rosenberg 2004; Rosenberg and Shlomi in press). This assemblage

includes nearly 3000 stone items of which ca. 150 were retrieved from PPNC contexts.

On the whole Hagoshrim stone assemblage is dominated by the use of basalt, mainly fine-

grained and compact. The second most frequent raw material in the assemblage is limestone,

followed by sandstone, and with the rare appearance of more exotic raw materials. Among

the PPNC finds, a unique feature, designated as Locus 131, was noted in the 1996 season,

characterized by a thick concentration of basalt fragments.

Locus 131

Locus 131 was exposed in Area M (Sq. G19), 40-50 cm below the present surface. It is

comprised of a thick concentration of basalt fragments superimposed on a thin sandy layer.

The latter covers a pavement made mainly of basalt pebbles, which lies above the travertine

bedrock (Fig. 4).

The basalt surface covered an area2 of more than 25 sq.m. It is 20-35 cm thick and its upper

surface slanted due west. While most of the L. 131 matrix is of chipped basalt, a relatively

small quantity of limestone and travertine fragments was also found, along with a few flint

tools and bones. The sandy sediment between the basalt flakes and fragments is dark brown-

black and it represents a relatively small portion of the matrix. This basalt concentration

clearly represents a new phenomenon, distinct from any previously discovered fills, floors,

or pavements at the site.

In the north-eastern part of the square, a concentration of charcoals was found (L.133)

incorporated in the upper part of the basalt layer. A sample of the charred material produced a

2 Excavations were halted before the entire surface was exposed, yet judging from the sections, the

true area of this surface was considerably larger.

ROSENGERG et al.120

Figure 2: Level C, building floor made of crushed limestone and the court pavement made

of basalt fragments (note the turned over grinding stone near the wall)

Figure 3: A close-up on a basalt pavement (note the broken pebbles)


terminus ante quem for the surface of 6591-6469 Cal. BC3 (Segal and Carmi 2004: 125-126).

A sample from the basalt mass collected during the excavation (15 liters weighing ca. 20 kg.)

was taken for analysis. The sample was selected as representative of the entire basalt mass,

which possibly amounts to hundreds of thousands of chipped basalt items.

The Sample

The sample taken from L. 131 includes 1196 basalt objects, as well as a few travertine and

limestone fragments (n=31 and 9 respectively).

The Basalts

The majority of the basalts could be characterized as high quality – compact and fine-

grained (rich in olivine) basalt. Rare appearances of porous basalt were also noted. Basalt

sources bearing similar characteristics are found in abundance in the immediate vicinity of

Hagoshrim, for example, in the Koren stream situated on the western margins of the site and

on the slopes of the Golan Heights east of the site.

Most of the core-blanks used for producing the waste material at L. 131 are hard to

reconstruct or define, since most items are intensively flaked, shattered, or broken. Though

relatively large boulders and cobbles were probably used as core-blanks, some small pebbles

present in the sample and in the overall mass also appear to have been used.

Figure 4: Sq. G29, Southern section, showing the L. 131

3 RT 2828; Another sample (RT-2826) taken from the lower parts of layer VI produced a calibrated

C14 date of 7045-6787 BC, being the terminus post quem for L. 131. Samples were tested at the

Weitzmann Institute, Rehovot

ROSENGERG et al.122

Figure 5: Flaked basalt items (1-3 flakes; 4. A thick fragment; 5-7. Elongated fragments/”blades”; 8.

Fragment of a flaked disc)


While siliceous raw material such as flint tends to produce a clear bulb of percussion when

a direct blow is inflicted on the raw material, the basalt typical of this assemblage, as well

as other coarser rock types do not always produce such physical indications on the ventral

face of the flaked or battered item. Their appearance depends particularly on raw material

characteristics as well as hammerstone traits, flaking force and angle.

Over 85% of the basalt artifacts in the sample are thus fragments and chips, bearing no

clear signs of bulbs of percussion. Primary elements, flakes, elongated fragments, flaked

(possibly tested) pebbles, and tool fragments were also found, altogether comprising less

then 15% of the entire basalt assemblage.

Table 1: Breakdown of the Basalt Sample from L. 131

Type Primary

Element

Flakes

Flakes Angular,

Amorphous

Fragments

Elongated

Fragments

Chips Flaked

Pebbles

Broken

Tools

Total

N 22 83 537 31 495 3 25 1196

% 1.84 6.94 44.9 2.59 41.39 0.25 2.09 100

Primary Element Flakes (n=22; 1.84% of the basalt assemblage)

These are flakes with cortex or cortex-like texture that covers more then 60% of their dorsal

face or at least one facet. Most of these have a relatively straight profile while others exhibits

a more curved profile. The majority show a smooth, convex dorsal face. End terminations are

missing or are thin and feather-like. A few of these are angular.

Flakes (n=83; 1.84% of the basalt assemblage)

Here we include items bearing a clear bulb of percussion, or items in which the direction of

the terminal blow (the blow removing the item from the original blank) could be discerned

(Fig. 5:1-3). However, the difficulties caused by the rough surface of the basalt, prevent

a clear distinction between ‘fragments’ and ‘flakes’ in many cases. Thus, when analyzing

basalt assemblages from a technological point of view, this distinction should be carefully

approached.

The flakes were divided between small flakes (25-35 mm across, Fig. 5:1) and larger

flakes (35-95 mm, Fig. 5:2-3). Most of the small flakes are thin while the majority of the

large flakes are relatively thick. Both small and large flakes are angular and have a straight

or curved profile. It is hard to distinguish dorsal face scar patterns yet it appears that both

unidirectional and multidirectional scars are present. In a few examples the striking platform

is observable, but preparation of the latter is rarely represented. End terminations are thin,

feather-like, missing or less frequently thick resembling over-shot.

ROSENGERG et al.124

Angular, Amorphous Fragments (n=537; 44.9 % of the basalt assemblage)

Fragments measuring between 20 and 115 mm were included weighing between 20 and 620

g. The vast majority of these fragments measure between 40 to 80 mm and weigh 50 to 400 g.

These are mainly thick, angular fragments (Fig. 5:4), bearing no clear sign of a bulb of

percussion. Many are cortical fragments, featuring one or more facets of the original blank.

The majority of these fragments show 3-5 multidirectional scars, which occasionally cut

the ventral face. This suggests reduction continued after the removal of the chunk from the

original core-blank. In some examples it appears that reduction was performed prior to the

detachment of the item.

Scars sizes vary. Some are small and thin, seemingly related to detachment and include

striking platform preparations; others are larger and thicker, possibly related to removal of

earlier flakes or fragments from the original blank.

Elongated Fragments (n=31; 2.59% of the basalt assemblage)

These are elongated pieces, 23-73 mm long; 6-28 mm wide and 2-23 mm thick (Fig. 5:5-7).

Three size groups were discerned including small fragments (with length ranging between 24

and 35 mm and width ranging between 7 and 13 mm; n=12), medium size fragments (ranging

in length between 30 and 41 mm and 12-18 mm wide; n=11), and large fragments (ranging in

length between 48 and 73 mm and 15-28 mm wide; n=8).

No clear technological attribution of these elongated fragments could be made, thus their

place in the production sequence is unclear. Nonetheless, it is clear that the majority seems to

represent a spontaneous production of elongated blank, possibly by-products of the general

production sequence, while a small number of these are definitive blades or bladelets (see

Fig. 5:7), bearing a clear central dorsal ridge.

Chips (n=495; 41.39% of the basalt assemblage)

Here we include items smaller than 20 mm. While most of these are thin (4-8 mm), others are

thicker and more angular. Presence of a clear bulb of percussions was noted in ca. 10% of the

chips and some bear traces of cortex.

Flaked Basalt Pebbles (n=3; 0.25% of the basalt assemblage)

These pebble fragments, were broken by a single blow. Two of them are from elongated

pebbles while one has an amorphous shape. The two elongated fragments are smoothed and

could be broken polishers or burnishers, while the amorphous fragment has a rougher surface.

Broken Tools (n=25; 2.09% of the basalt assemblage)

These are fragments bearing at least one facet ostensibly worked (n=20); items bearing

depression or concaved modification (n=4) and a preform of a chipped disc (n=1).


Most of the worked fragments (n=19) are broken pieces bearing at least one smooth or

ground surface while one item is a fragment bearing apparent chipping marks. Here we

include only pieces bearing a ‘clear’ worked surface, while additional fragments bearing

partly smooth facet or showing only a small surface bearing smoothing were not included but

noted among other groups. Of these, 13 are thicker and seven are relatively thin.

While it is reasonable that many of these are in fact broken tools, representatives of some

sort of grinding or burnishing implements, or fragments of unidentified worked tools, it

should be stated that the morphology and surface textures of these items prevents a clear

distinction between ‘worked’ items and items shaped and weathered by natural agents. The

smooth surfaces in these fragments are flat, concaved or convex, and some surfaces seem

more abraded then others. Pecking was also noted, yet its density and the level of penetration

from the surface vary considerably.

Four items in the tool fragment group are fragments designated as ‘items bearing

depression’. These are too fragmentary to allude on their primary form, yet they could be

assigned both to the small and crude vessels or small shallow bowls.

An exception in this group is a fragment of a chipped disc (Fig. 5:8). This is broken by

at least two blows (one of these broke the disc transversely). It is bifacially flaked and has a

plano-convex cross-section. Though this is a relatively small fragment, the rounded periphery

of the disc is evident. Chipped discs are present in many sites in the Hula basin and beyond,

dated from the PPNB through the Chalcolithic (Rosenberg et al. forthcoming). Over 330

chipped discs were retrieved from the site of Hagoshrim; among theme over a hundred came

from stratified contexts (Rosenberg and Shlomi in press). Of the latter, nearly seventy were

found in PPNC contexts. Intriguingly, most of the PPNC discs found during the excavations

were made of limestone, while basalt discs are less common.

Other finds

Travertine (n=31) and Limestone (n=9) fragments

Travertine pieces are mostly small fragments though a few small pebble-like items were

found as well. The travertine pieces range in size between 12-86 mm, weighing between 2

and 100 g. None of these have a regular shape or bear any sign of use or shaping.

The limestone pebbles include six pebbles bearing a single scar (broken transversely),

two pebbles that are more “exhausted” bearing several flake scars, and a single small pebble

fragment. The pebbles range in size between 38 and 65 mm. Eight of these could have

been used as hammerstones (three clearly shows battering marks), while one is made of a

relatively soft limestone.

ROSENGERG et al.126

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The puzzling nature of L. 131 lies both in the characteristics of the material and the rarity of

basalt chipping loci in the Southern Levant and the Near East as a whole (but see Shimelmitz

et al. 2005; Rosenberg et al. forthcoming). No comparable basalt feature is known from any

other Neolithic site in the area.

Intensive concentration of production waste is usually regarded as characteristic of stone

quarries (Burton 1984; Huckell; 1986; Jones 1984; Röder 1955; Rosen and Schneider 2001;

Schneider 1993; 1994; 1996; 2000; Schneider et al. 1995; Shimelmitz et al. 2005; Wallace

1962). These quarry sites were also the initial reduction locations, where the quarried (or

surface collected) stones underwent their first modification, reducing the original stone mass

and volume during shaping of a preform or roughout.

The finds from L. 131 suggest that during the mid parts of the 7th millennium (Cal BC)

intensive basalt reduction was conducted at Hagoshrim. This chipping locus exhibits many

similarities to production loci at quarry sites, mainly in terms of high find densities and

production intensities and in the high frequency of fragments. The nearby Koren stream and

the massive exposures of the Golan Heights, offer high quality sources for raw materials of

different characteristics, morphologies, and sizes. This allowed craftsmen to modify core-

blanks on-site permitting a greater degree of failure in production. That is, the presence of

close, accessible sources of basalt near Hagoshrim may explain why the intensive basalt

reduction took place within the site and not in a separate location.

The broken basalt pebbles and many of the fragments noted in the sample suggest that

original raw material pebbles/cobbles used in L. 131 as core-blanks were small and probably

not suitable for the production of large tools. However, the majority of the fragments in the

sample are extremely broken or flaked, indicating the possibility that such items were also

manufactured in L. 131. This idea is supported by the relatively small quantity of cortical

items in the sample. This could suggest that the initial shaping of the large quarried blocks

was done elsewhere, possibly in a quarry site or at collection spots, leaving much of the

cortical waste near the quarry localities and the primary modification loci, while the small

core-blanks were reduced on-site.

To sum up, it appears that at one locality (production area) at PPNC Hagoshrim a mass

reduction and production of basalt items took place. Though it is hard to assert the primary

function of this chipping/flaking floor or its exact dimensions, a few primary observations

can be made:

1. L. 131 is exceptional feature within the widely excavated PPNC level (0.1 hectare of

exposure), suggesting a particular (specialized?) production area within the PPNC habitation.

2. While the use of fire in L. 131 is evident, it could not be directly associated with the


splitting of basalt4. Thus, the charcoal concentration found on top of the stone mass might be

related to cooking or other uses, and only few fragments bear apparent soot marks. 3. Pebbles

and cobbles of limestone and basalt, observed in the field and in the sample, could be suitable

candidates for hammerstones. It is possible that both hard limestone and basalt pebbles were

used as percussion tools for the flaking of the original block. 4. Most of the items in the

sample are debris items, including mainly large fragments and small chips. Debitage items

and formal tools are rare. However, the fact that these items were not tested for use-wear

analysis so far prevents a determination whether these are actually used pieces or unused

broken fragments.

The nature of the analyzed sample does not appear to indicate specific production activities

of preforms or formal tools, rather it suggests that basalt pebbles and cobbles were brought

to the site and worked within its perimeters. These may have been intensively worked at one

center at the site, producing an abundance of fragments (and flakes), which frequently were

used as paving material for the courts outside buildings.

Though many sites present accumulations, floors and pavements which include basalt

fragments, L. 131 at Hagoshrim Level IV is the first opportunity to pinpoint an actual

locus where a mass of basalt was reduced within a Neolithic site in the Southern Levant.

It is even more intriguing to note that the products of these chipping activities were used

distinctively for the pavement making of buildings courts, separating the internal whitish

floors of the buildings from that the external basalt-based pavements. Whether the reason

for this phenomenon is merely functional5 or whether it supplies us with hints for symbolic

distinction between internal and external spaces is unknown. However, it is likely that the

worked basalt material used in the building courts of the PPNC level at Hagoshrim were

produced in L. 131.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like express our thanks to D. Nadel, E. Orrelle and anonymous reviewers for their

suggestions and remarks. R. Getzov conducted the operations in Area M and collected the

studied sample from L. 131 and I. Rosenberg edited the figures.

4 However, following Röder’s (1955) experiments for cracking stones with the aid of fire, and

experiments made by one of us (D.R.) for the use of fire for splitting basalt boulders from the

vicinity of Hagoshrim, it is possible to suggest that fire could have been used for cracking basalt in

L. 131.5 Crushed lime floors are possibly more convenient for bare foot walking, and at the same time

helping in “lighting” the relatively dark spaces of buildings, reflecting more light then dark

material. Furthermore, it seems that basalt-based pavements are more durable in rainy winter and

ROSENGERG et al.128

REFERENCEBurton, J. 1984. Quarrying in tribal society. World Archaeology 16(2): 235–247.

Getzov, N.1999. Ha-Goshrim. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 110: 2-3.

Haber, A. 2001. The Faunal Analysis of Hagoshrim: Biological and Economical Aspects of Prehistoric

Agricultural Societies and the process of domestication. Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis. Department of

Zoology. Tel-Aviv University. Tel-Aviv (in Hebrew).

Huckell, B. B. 1986. A Ground Stone Implement Quarry on the Lower Colorado River, Northern

Arizona. Cultural Resource Series No. 3. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona.

Jones, K. L. 1984. Polynesian quarrying and flaking practices at the Samson Bay and falls Creek

argillite Quarries Tasman Bay, New Zealand. World Archaeology 16(2): 248-266.

Noy, T. 1978. HaGoshrim. Israel Museum News 14: 20.

Noy, T. 1980. A limestone statuette from HaGoshrim. ‘Atiqot 14: 93-4.

Röder, J. 1955. The quern-quarries of Mayen in the Eifel. Antiquity 29(114): 68-75.

Rosen, S. A. and Schneider, J. S. 2001. Early Bronze Age milling stone production and exchange in the

Negev: Preliminary report. Mitekufat Haeven 31: 201-212.

Rosenberg, D. 2004. The Pestle: Characteristics and changes of stone pounding implements in the

Southern Levant from the Early Epipaleolithic through the Pottery Neolithic period. Unpublished

M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).

Rosenberg, D. and Shlomi, V. n.d. The Stone Assemblage of Hagoshrim – Continuity and change in the

Neolithic of Northern Israel In: Getzov, N. (ed.) IAA Reports.

Rosenberg, D., Assaf, A. and Gopher, A. forthcoming. The flaked stone discs industry of the Levant:

Characteristics, attributes and chronology.

Rosenberg, D., Shimelmitz, R. and Nativ, A. forthcoming. Stone bifacials production in the Southern

Levant: A glance at the basalt quarry and workshop of Giv’at Kipod, Israel.

Schneider, J. S. 1993. Aboriginal Milling-Implement Quarries in the Eastern California and Western

Arizona: A Behavioral Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California,

Riverside.

Schneider, J. S. 1994. Milling Implement quarrying and production bordering the Lower Colorado

and Lower Gila Rivers: Archaeological, ethnographic, and historical evidence for an aboriginal

industry. In Ezzo, J. A. (ed.) Recent Research along the Lower Colorado River. pp. 101-117. Tucson:

Statistical Research, Technical Serious No. 51.

Schneider, J. S. 1996. Quarrying and production of milling implements at Antelope Hill, Arizona.

Journal of field Archaeology 23: 299-311.

Schneider, J. S. 2000. Project background. In: Schneider, J. S. and Altschul, J. H. (eds.) Of Stones and

Spirits. pp. 11-20. Tucson. Technical Serious 76, Statistical Research, Inc.

Schneider, J. S., Lerch, M. K. and Smith, G. A. 1995. A milling-implement Quarry at Elephant

Mountain, California. Journal of California and the Great Basin Anthropology 17(2): 191-221.

Segal D. and Carmi I. 2004. Rehovot Radiocarbon Date List VI. Atiqot 48: 125-148.

Shimelmitz, R., Rosenberg, R. and Nativ, A. 2005. Giv’at Kipod: A Basalt Quarry and a workshop for

the production of bifacial tools in the Manasseh Hills, Israel. Neo-Lithics 1/05: 9-12.

Wallace, W. J. 1962. Two basalt quarries in the Death Valley. Archaeology 15(1): 46-49.

A BASALT CHIPPING FLOOR FROM LEVEL VI (PPNC) AT HAGOSHRIM A Basalt Chipping Floor from Level VI...

Documents

Transcript of A BASALT CHIPPING FLOOR FROM LEVEL VI (PPNC) AT HAGOSHRIM A Basalt Chipping Floor from Level VI...