The Location of Specialized Copper Production by the Lost Wax Technique in the Chalcolithic Southern Levant

Yuval Goren*
Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel-Aviv University, Israel 69978
The origins of southern Levantine Chalcolithic copper metallurgy have been debated for decades. Typological and metallurgical examinations of the copper artifacts from the Nahal Mishmar hoard and elsewhere have indicated a dichotomy between simple tools, made of pure copper by open casting, and elaborate items made by the lost wax technique of copper alloys with arsenic, antimony, and nickel. While the first were considered local production of the northern Negev sites, the prestige objects were either considered as imports from the remote sources of arsenic copper, or local to the southern Levant. The present paper presents the results of a research project that was aimed at examining this issue through the analysis of ceramic mold remains that were still attached to a large number of copper implements from Israel. The En Gedi area in the Judean Desert of Israel is identified as the place of origin of all copper objects produced by this method. Based on the results, some new interpretations are suggested to the complex topic of Chalcolithic copper metallurgy. 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION For nearly half a century, the origins and nature of Levantine Chalcolithic (ca. 45003600 cal B.C.) copper metallurgy have been continuously debated with diminishing returns. Although some evidence of Chalcolithic metallurgy was noticed at Teleilat Ghassul and the Beer Sheva sites, the discovery of the hoard at the Nahal Mishmar Cave of the Treasure in 1962 (Bar-Adon, 1980) can be seen as the turning point that triggered the ongoing debate about the possible function, the origin of the raw materials, and the location of the production centers of the Chalcolithic metallurgic industry. In addition to the Nahal Mishmar hoard, a significant number of Chalcolithic copper objects have been found during other excavations in the southern Levant. Metal objects were found in the northern Negev sites of Abu Matar (Perrot, 1955; Gilead et al., 1991; Shugar, 1998, 2001), Beer Safadi (Perrot, 1984; Eldar & Baumgarten, 1985), Nevatim (Gilead & Fabian, 2001), and Shiqmim (Shalev & Northover, 1987; Shalev et al., 1992; Golden, 1998; Golden, Levy, & Hauptmann, 2001); in the Judean Desert sites of Nahal Zeelim (Aharoni, 1961:14, Pl. 8B), the Cave of the Sandal (Segal, Kamenski, & Merkel, 2002), Qarantal (Segal, 2002), and the Lahat Cave (I. Gilead, personal communication); in Palmahim on the coastal
*Corresponding author; E-mail: ygoren@post.tau.ac.il Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, 374397 (2008) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/gea.20221

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

plain (Gophna & Lifshitz, 1980), in the Nahal Qanah Cave and Givat Ha Oranim in the western foothills of the Samarian anticline (Gopher & Tsuk, 1996:114115; Namdar et al., 2004), and in the Peqiin Cave in the Galilee (Gal, Smithline, & Shalem, 1997). As a starting point for the discussion of the possible origin and function of these artifacts, we may refer to the hypothesis raised by Ussishkin (1971, 1980:3841), who associated the Nahal Mishmar hoard with the nearby Chalcolithic shrine of En-Gedi. Later, other attempts have been made to place the Chalcolithic copper industry in its cultural context. Moorey (1988), for example, suggested that by its typology and overall archaeological context the hoard was derived from and manufactured in the northern Negev. Against this view, others considered at least the more elaborate objects as exotic imports, following the pioneering archaeometallurgic study of some of the items from the Nahal Mishmar hoard by Key (1980). This point will be extended later. Typological aspects and metallurgical examinations of the copper artifacts from the Nahal Mishmar hoard and elsewhere have indicated a rather clear dichotomy between simple working tools (such as axes, adzes, and awls), made of relatively pure copper and manufactured by the process of open casting, and elaborate prestigious items (maceheads, standards, crowns, etc.) that were made by the lost wax technique of copper alloys, mainly with significant levels of arsenic, antimony, and nickel (Tylecote, Rothenberg, & Lupu, 1974; Key, 1980; Potaszkin & Bar-Avi, 1980; Levy & Shalev 1989; Shalev, 1995, 1996a, 1996b; Shalev & Northover, 1987, 1993; Shalev et al., 1992; Notis et al., 1991; Tadmor et al., 1995; Segal, Kamenski, & Merkel, 2002; Namdar et al., 2004). In most cases, it was concluded that the two different technologies reflected two unrelated production traditions. While the simple working tools were considered local production of the northern Negev sites, the more elaborate prestige objects, produced of alloyed copper by the lost wax technique, were considered as products of another, as yet unknown center that might have existed either near the remote sources of arsenic copper (in the Caucasus or eastern Anatolia) or somewhere in the southern Levant. Over the past several decades it has been suggested based on typology and distribution that the elaborate copper objects were produced locally in the southern Levant. If true, then arsenic-antimony rich ores or bars were brought to the southern Levant through long-distance exchange, most likely from Anatolia or the Caucasus, where such ores prevail, and used locally for the production of the objects in some highly specializing workshop. Another option is that only the alloying minerals were imported from these areas to be mixed with the local copper in order to supply the desired alloy. The last option presents many questions about the origin of the knowledge that enabled the development of such a complex technology at this formative stage of metallurgy in an area where arsenic and antimony minerals do not occur. Despite recent research (Shugar, 1998:115, 2001), this issue remains unresolved. Interestingly, this type of metallurgy is later abandoned during the Early Bronze Age, and only the simpler techniques are maintained (Shalev, 1994). Evidence for smelting activities and simple casting were found in several northern Negev sites: in Abu Matar (Gilead et al., 1991, Shugar, 1998, 2001), Shiqmim (Shalev & Northover, 1987; Shalev et al., 1992; Golden, 1998; Golden, Levy, & Hauptmann, 2001), and Nevatim (Gilead & Fabian, 2001). However, no evidence has been found so far for any production site of the elaborate prestige items. Despite the important discovery
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3 375

GOREN

of arsenic-rich copper prills embedded in slags at Abu Matar, the first evidence for intentional alloying taking place in any of the northern Negev Chalcolithic sites (Shugar, 1998, 2001), no solid evidence has been found for the manufacture of such items in any of the excavated Chalcolithic sites of this region. In this respect, the elemental analyses of the copper per se can be of limited help since the metal could have been imported, used, and reused in any given location. However, a detailed provenance study of the ceramic materials that were associated with the production processes may offer a better solution for this riddle. Ceramic materials used in the lost wax technique include the clay cores that are sometimes embedded in the objects to reduce the amount of the metal or to create hollow artifacts, and the remains of the casting molds that were not always removed completely from the objects after their casting. Since refractory clays suitable for cores and molds are very widespread compared to the limited distribution of copper and its alloys, their composition is expected to reflect the naturally occurring clays found near the location of the melting and casting workshop regardless of the source of the metal. Hence, their provenance is expected to reflect the location of the production center where the objects were created in their final form, regardless of the source of the metal. This approach was first applied by the present author in some preliminary tests that were conducted during the early 1990s (Shalev et al., 1992; Goren, 1995). More recently, it was adopted in order to identify the location of the workshop where the renowned Lupa Capitolina (she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus) from Rome was produced (Lombardi, 2002). The present paper presents the results of a research project that was aimed at examining this issue through the analysis of ceramic materials from a large number of Chalcolithic copper implements from Israel in order to identify their possible production sites and propose some better solutions for this long debated puzzle. Based on the results of this study, some new interpretations are suggested to the complex topic of Chalcolithic copper metallurgy. BACKGROUND The lost wax (French: cire perdu) casting technique is used today for certain industrial parts, dental restorations, fine jewelry, gas turbine blades, biomedical implants, and sculpture. The principles of the technique have been widely discussed in the literature, especially with regard to its modern application (e.g., Sias, 2005). While the Chalcolithic copper objects represent the earliest use of the lost wax casting technique known so far, this technology has survived for thousands of years to produce objects in metal which could not be produced by any other method due to the complexity of their form and the need to preserve undercut shapes. The traditional application of this technique, which was used by many cultures throughout the world, became almost extinct before and during the 20th century. While objects can be found in museums and collections throughout the world, allowing for the study of their metallurgy, the perishable aspects of the technology, namely the composition of the wax and the technology of the casting molds and cores, remains ambiguous unless it had been recorded by ethnographers and art historians. Nevertheless, some
376 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

historical sources of information do exist and provide valuable and relevant information. For example, according to a 16th-century manuscript by the Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagn (1988), the Aztec goldsmiths of pre-Columbian Mexico used the lost wax technique to create many of their elaborate masterpieces in gold. They made their casting cores by mixing powdered charcoal and clay and shaping lumps of this mixture into the desired form. After hardening, the cores were coated with putty made of a mixture of beeswax and resin. The wax model was covered by a thin layer of a mixture of clay and charcoal, then by a thicker layer of clay mixed with chaff. After hardening, the molds were heated, the wax drained out and the molten metal poured in to create the desired object. The apparently common habit of mixing of the clay with vegetal matter creates voids in the clay body that add to its refractory properties, contributing to its impact and thermal-shock resistance (Bronitsky & Hamer, 1986). For this reason, crucibles were also made by this method. While the traditional manifestation of the technology has vanished from many parts of the world, it has survived in some areas of India. The tradition is carried on in the manufacture of small pieces by tribal groups or by Hindu metalworkers. These tribal people live in the districts of Bankura, Burdwan, and Midnapore in West Bengal. This area is part of a larger tribal belt that includes some sections of neighboring eastern Bihar and that stretches south through the state of Orissa and into Madhya Pradesh (Sen, 1992; Shah & Manohar, 1996; Kochhar, 2001). Some of these tribes in West Bengal are known as Dhokra, and the statues made in this tradition are sometimes called Dhokra after their producers. Other traditional household industries of somewhat different characteristics are also recorded from Swamimalai (Tamilnadu) and Mannar (Kerala) (Sivaramamurti, 1981; Pillai, Pillai, & Damodaran, 2002; Smith & Kochhar, 2003; Levy et al., in preparation). During the last decades, these traditional industries have been undergoing some significant changes due to the increase of tourist interest in their products, and new methods and materials are being introduced through organized governmental aid (Horne, 1987:4446; Kochhar, 2001; Smith & Kochhar, 2003). Therefore, only the traditional methods and materials, still recorded by some anthropologists, will be discussed here. In the lost wax process as used by the Dhokra artisans of West Bengal before the introduction of modern techniques (see Capers, 1989, for a video recording of it), a figure is first roughly modeled in clay mixed with soaked and finely sieved cow dung. Next, the wax model is formed over the core. The wax layer is never made only of pure beeswax or paraffin but of mixtures of several natural materials, providing more suitable putty that is easier to shape because it does not become too soft in the hot Indian climate (Capers, 1989). In some cases, the craftsmen use boiled, strained, and cooled resin from the saal or sarai tree (Shorea robusta) mixed with mustard oil (Smith & Kochhar, 2003:112). In Swamimalai (Tamilnadu), craftsmen prepare the wax mixture by mixing pure beeswax, resin from the tree Damara orientalis, and ground nut oil (Pillai, Pillai, & Damodaran, 2002). The mold is constructed in various ways over the wax model. The basic principle is first to coat the wax model with a thin layer of clay mixed with some very fine temper in order to preserve the delicate patterns of the wax model, then apply over it some increasingly coarser layers in order to build up a mold that can be handled
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3 377

GOREN

and that the molten metal can be poured into. This process is often referred to as investment casting. The Dhokra apply two or more layers of clay on top of the wax model. First, a thin clay paste is added and allowed to dry; then a layer of rougher clay mixed with rice husks is added and also allowed to dry. A hole is sometimes cut through the top of the clay coverings to allow for the entrance of the molten metal. Likewise, a channel is made in the bottom to let the wax flow out of the mold. Metal wires are then tied around the whole construction to keep it intact. The mold is heated until the wax is melted and poured out. As a variation of the investment casting process, this can be termed the clay molded investment casting process (Datta, 2001). The molten metal is poured into the mold in various ways. In some parts of India, gates are left for the metal to fill the mold, which is first heated in an open-ground oven (Pillai, Pillai, & Damodaran, 2002). The molten brass is then poured into the mold by using a crucible. Yet it is not uncommon for the need for crucibles to be bypassed by a simple technique of mold construction, whereby the scrap metal is molten within a special chamber in the mold (Capers, 1989). Once the mold mixture has set hard, the molds are placed in a furnace and heated until the wax is melted and integrated into the rather spongy fabric of the mold. Then the heating continues until the metal is melted, made evident by a green tinge of the fire, at which point the molds are turned upside down and filled with the liquid metal from the flask. This point is extremely important for our discussion, because it indicates that crucibles are not necessarily used in the process of lost wax casting, in contrast to open casting, where their use is mandatory. The molds containing the now molten metal are then allowed to cool. When they are cool enough to be held by hand, the outer, rather crumbly layers of the mold are broken away, revealing the fine inner layer, which is usually harder and more difficult to remove (Capers, 1989). This layer is carefully chiseled off the metal artifact, which reproduces every detail of the original wax, including the gates and vents, which are cut off and reused for the next casting. It is noteworthy that this technology leaves no visible remains except for crumbs and small fragments of the outer mold layers (which do not preserve the imprints of the wax model), and small crumbs of the inner layer that were carefully chipped off the final metal product. If no tuyrs are used to protect the bellow nozzles, as in the case recorded by Capers (1989), then the only evidence of the furnace would be a stone-lined hearth and some fired clay crumbs. Moreover, if the smelting process is done elsewhere and the production relies only on the use of scrap or metal bars, no slags are likely to remain either. Therefore, this technology might be almost invisible in the archaeological record unless scientific methods are used in order to analyze the site deposits. This fact is very significant for our interpretation of the analytical data below. In modern workshops, the construction method of the mold is called ceramic shell. Instead of the traditional use of clay and grass or herbivore dung, silicaceous slurry or lime and gypsum plasters are used to cover the model by dipping and/or pouring. Special dry aggregate is then applied to the wet pattern, covering the wet areas until no more will adhere. The coated pattern is then left to dry for a while and another layer of wet and dry material is applied. This is repeated using coarser aggregate on the outermost layers, until a sufficient thickness has built up so the mold will hold
378 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

together through the burnout and pouring. The mold material is made nowadays by using gypsum or lime plaster as a binder for sand, mixed with silica flour or another refractory aggregate to add strength. The dry ingredients are mixed with water and poured into a container or flask surrounding the gated model, which is either waxed down to a board or attached to a commercially available rubber device, which holds the pattern and flask. Another method involving a new binding material for core and mold production is using organic aerogel as a binder and typical foundry sands such as aluminium oxide and quartz sand as mold material (Brck & Ratke, 2003). Potaszkin and Bar-Avi (1980:235236), were the first to notice the presence of non-metallic materials within the Chalcolithic copper implements. They analyzed (semi-quantitatively) the chemical composition of a ceramic core found within one macehead from the Nahal Mishmar hoard, which was sliced for the metallurgical analysis. Though they discussed its technical role, they never considered its possible origin on the basis of the clay composition. More recently, this author examined by petrography another core from a copper macehead unearthed at Shiqmim (No. 82-1413 below), providing some data about its petrology and possible provenance (Shalev et al., 1992). Further examination included ceramic materials that were incorporated in one macehead from the site of Nahal Ashan (Beer Sheva), another object from Nahal Zeelim, and ceramic materials from ten maceheads and three standards from the Nahal Mishmar hoard (Goren, 1995). Unexpectedly, the ceramic components of all of these items (except the Shiqmim macehead) were made of clays with the petrographic characteristics of the Moza Formation of central Israel (detailed below), or rendzina soils mixed with sand of chalk or limestone and abundant vegetal matter. In two cases, dark clay, mixed with quartzitic sand, was observed, and in two other cases crushed coarsely crystalline basalt was seen. This assembly of materials, reflecting a combination of lithological types and geological formations, has been first interpreted as representing only core materials. Further examination of two ceramic cores of items from Peqiin in the Galilee and Givat Ha Oranim in the western foothills of the Judean-Samarian anticline (Namdar et al., 2004), yielded similar results. Since the Moza Formation, rendzina soils, chalk, and quartzitic (apparently coastal) sand coexist only in a rather restricted zone in central Israel, roughly between Tel Gezer to the west and the Judean Mountains to the east, it was first suggested that this general area must have been the center of gravity of Chalcolithic copper production by the lost wax technique (Namdar et al., 2004:8182). This suggested that the lions share if not all of these objects could have been produced in a rather limited zone somewhere between the lower Shephelah region and the western part of the Judean Mountains anticline in central Israel (with the unique exception of the Shiqmim macehead core, which originated in the Aravah valley). These intriguing but still preliminary results called for an expansion of the study in order to reveal the full picture. As a result, a comprehensive research program dealing with ceramic materials from many more copper objects was planned, with the objective of examining a large number of items in order to provide better definition for the workshop locations, with the potential of correlating between the technological aspects of the ceramic materials and the typological variability and/or spatial distribution of the end products. With this purpose in mind, the current research was
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3 379

GOREN

performed with the objective of examining the ceramic remains of as many items as possible in order to make the picture clearer by refining the preliminary results. METHODS The ceramic components of 75 Chalcolithic copper implements from seven different sites were studied (see Table I for details). The study was limited mainly by the existence of the remains of ceramic materials on the objects, as in many cases they were apparently removed by the producers. The studied population included 63
Table I. Inventory of the examined items. No. 1 Site Abu Matar Reg No 58590 Type Standard, short BAE* Materials (see text for definition) Perhaps C3 (heavily affected by copper corrosion) A1 C3 A2 A1 A1 A2 A2 A2 A1 A1 A2 B B A2 A2 A2 B B A2 B B B A2 B B A1 A1 B A1 A2 B A1 B B B B

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Beer Safadi Beer Safadi G. Ha Oranim G. Ha Oranim G. Ha Oranim G. Ha Oranim N. Ashan N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar

821174 821175 3117/105 973468 973471 B. 1476 61002 61004 61009 61014 61016 61019 61021 61022 61023 61024 61025 61027 61031 61032 61033 61040 61043 61048 61051 61052 61055 61056 61063 61064 61065

Standard Standard Standard Standard Macehead Standard Macehead Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard

50 54 27 69 99 93 53 65 96 95 94 46 29 44 71 48 63 98 83 80 34 78 59 77 55

380

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION Table I. (Continued) No. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Site N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Mishmar N. Ze'elim Reg No 61066 61068 61070 61076 61077 61079 61081 61082 61091 61099 61105 61108 61116 61118 61122 61123 61166 61167 61169 61189 61205 61214 61223 61232 61233 61242 61249 61310 61314 61336 61352 61364 61371 61373 61400 61402 61404 61409 n.d. Type Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard, short Standard, short Standard, short Macehead, pointed Standard Standard with axe Standard with axe Jar Horn-shaped object Horn-shaped object Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead Macehead BAE* 86 105 106 32 108 109 107 64 26 133 121 119 151 115 148 149 158 157 155 270 409 389 349 382 345 387 418 323 202 325 211 416 212 372 335 221 281 426 Materials (see text for definition) B B B A1 B A2 A2 A1/A3 A2 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A2 A1 A1 B A1 A1 B A1/A2 A1 C1 A1 A1 A1 B A1 A1 A3 A1 A1 C2 A1 A1 A1 A1 A2 A2 A1 A1 A2 A1 tempered with crushed calcite and limestone sand A1 A2 B C3

73 74 75

Peqi'in Peqi'in Shiqmim

B. 3008 B. 3110 821413

Standard Macehead Macehead

Note: *BAE inventory number, as in Bar-Adon (1980).

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

381

GOREN

items from the Nahal Mishmar hoard and 12 additional objects from other sites (Figure 1): Nahal Ashan (1), Neve Noy/Beer Safadi (2), Abu Matar (1), and Shiqmim (1) in the northern Negev; Nahal Zeelim in the Judean Desert (1); Peqiin in the Galilee (2); and Givat Ha Oranim in the western foothills of the Samarian anticline (4). The sampling of these artifacts was made possible by a special sampling technique that was developed during previous studies (e.g., Goren, Finkelstein, & Naaman, 2004:1417), in which a small portion of the ceramic matter is extracted from the object without causing it any visible outer damage. The sample is then gradually impregnated within a small polyvinyl cup in Buehler Epo-Thin low-viscosity epoxy

Figure 1. Map of the southern Levant with the sites mentioned in the text. 382 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

resin. The cups with the liquid epoxy are placed in a dessicator, from which the air is pumped to form a vacuum. This action is repeated until no more air bubbles are seen in the liquid and the sample is completely impregnated by the resin. After curing at room temperature the epoxy pellet engulfing the sample is ground with a 400 mesh diamond lap wheel to expose the maximal section of the sample and is used for the production of a petrographic thin section (see Courty, Goldberg, & Macphail, 1989:5759, for more details). As a consequence of this nearly nondestructive method, most of the artifacts from the Nahal Mishmar hoard and the other sites where such ceramic materials were preserved, now stored in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem and the State Treasuries of the Israel Antiquities Authority, could be sampled and examined. Therefore, the results now include a large number of items, enabling better observations and, consequently, much better interpretations. RESULTS In the course of the petrographic analyses, three main classes of plastic materials that were attached to the copper implements were broadly categorized, together with an interesting fourth material (a rock) that was found only within the abovementioned macehead from Shiqmim (No. 821413). The plastic materials can be divided into two classes of ceramic materials and a third class, which technically would better be defined as plaster, as follows: Class A materials (Figures 24) include a variation of substances, all representing variants of clay or marl assigned to the Moza Formation of the Judean-Samarian anticline of Israel (Arkin, Braun, & Starinsky, 1965).1
1

Under the petrographic microscope, the matrix is usually dense, yellowish-tan in PPL, calcareous with varying amounts of foraminifers, containing hematite particles sizing up to 30 mm. The matrix is optically active and oriented with striated b-fabric. Another variation of the matrix in this class is similar but rich in silt-sized, rhombic dolomite crystals, commonly termed by us the Moza fine dolomitic marl matrix. This clay is tempered with high proportions of vegetal matter, usually identified as chopped, fine grass leaves but often coarser fragments (straw) are identified. Apart of these, other non-plastics include sand-sized particles of limestone, chalk, dolomite, and, more rarely, chert and chalcedony. The following subclasses were included in this category: A1 (Figure 2): Fine, calcareous matrix with few foraminifers (1%), containing very few (1%) silt-sized rhombic crystals of dolomite and silty quartz, typified by speckled or crystallitic b-fabric, often darkened by the high contents of charred organic matter in the inclusions (or temper). The coarse fraction includes charred grass or its remains in the shape of elongated voids with sharp edges and phytoliths, together with sand of rounded limestone, quartz, and rarely chert grains. A2 (Figure 3): The matrix is similar to that of A1 but considerably richer in foraminifers, with the rare addition of radiolaria, which occupy altogether about 10% of its volume. The sand inclusions in this subclass tend to be coarser than in A1, often reaching 2 millimeters in size. In many cases badly sorted sand grains of foraminiferous chalk dominate the inclusions. A3 (Figure 4): The matrix is similar to A1 but densely packed with silt-sized rhombic dolomite crystals (20%30%). The inclusions are made of coarse sand grains, reaching 2 millimeters in size, of limestone, dolomite rock, chert, and chalcedony. The most significant aspect of this class is the identification of the clay type, which was made easy by the fact that previous studies by the author have shown that Ghassulian pottery from several sites was dominated by exactly these types of clay (but usually without the addition of the chopped grass). Moreover, the use of this clay formation for ceramic production is well known from pottery assemblages from sites of different periods spread throughout the central hill country anticline of Israel. In the Chalcolithic period it typifies the sites of En-Gedi in the Judean Desert, Sataf near Jerusalem, and the Nahal Qana cave on the Samarian foothills (Goren, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1996), but is rare in other regions.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

383

GOREN

Figure 2. Photomicrograph of macehead 61364 (Nahal Mishmar), class A1, containing fine vegetal material (V) and limestone grains (L) in a fine, calcareous matrix with few foraminifers (crossed polarizers).

Figure 3. Photomicrograph of standard 6122 (Nahal Mishmar), class A2, containing fine vegetal material (V) in a highly foraminiferous matrix (crossed polarizers).

384

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

Figure 4. Photomicrograph of macehead 61249 (Nahal Mishmar), class A3, argillaceous matrix densely packed with silt-sized rhombic dolomite crystals (crossed polarizers).

Class B materials (Figure 5) are typified by dark, ferruginous clay with very high proportions of rounded, well-sorted quartz sand with very few feldspars, with varying amounts of charred vegetal material. Both the ferruginous clay and the mature quartzitic sand that it contains originate from the sandstones of the Lower Cretaceous section of the southern Levant.2

After the examination of many samples of this class, rather than the three that were inspected before (Goren, 1995), it became clear that this was not sand from the Israeli coastal plain, as it contains only mature quartz with the addition of few feldspar grains rather than the typical assembly of minerals of the coastal sands, which are always accompanied by smaller amounts of heavy minerals, of which hornblende, mica minerals, zircon, and augite are common (Slatkine and Pomerancblum, 1958; Pomerancblum, 1966; Nahmias, 1969). Therefore, both the ferruginous clay and the mature quartzitic sand that it contains originate from the sandstones of the Lower Cretaceous section of the southern Levant. Again in this case, a large body of analytical data enables the identification of these materials due to the fact that they were also used for the production of contemporary pottery from some Levantine Chalcolithic sites. At the Chalcolithic site of Teleilat Ghassul, most of the locally made pottery is formed of this iron-rich clay (Goren, 1987:4853, 1991:Appendix 2, 1995; Gilead and Goren, 1989), the typical pithoi being sintered to a surprisingly high quality (Edwards and Segnit, 1984). Since Lower Cretaceous sandstones, siltstones, and shales of the Kurnub Formation (in Jordan) or the Hatira Formation (in Israel) expose mainly in the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea basin east of the Jordan, the origin of this material should be looked for in this part of present-day Jordan.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

385

GOREN

Figure 5. Photomicrograph of macehead B 3110 (Peqiin), class B, quartz sand in nearly opaque, ferruginous matrix (crossed polarizers).

Class C materials (Figures 67) are made of lime plaster or clay packed with crushed basaltic fragments and with vegetal material or coprolites, or with quartz sand.3 The most important feature is that in many cases two of these classes appear together within the same artifact (Table I), indicating that they were applied in layers. This point is very significant, since it testifies that the joint use of clay of the Moza Formation mixed with grass, Lower Cretaceous ferruginous clay mixed with quartz sand, or lime plaster mixed with crushed basalt or quartz sand, was intentional and pre-planned. Moreover, it testifies very clearly that these are neither natural clay mixtures nor some artificial debris that were attached somehow to the items postdeposition. In the case of the maceheads and standards, these materials were usually attached to the inner surfaces of their sockets. In the standards, they were often attached to the inner wall of the bulb, but in many cases they were still blocking parts of the shafts or even their entire hollow (see Bar-Adon, 1980:Nos. 48, 54, 61, 64, 67, 68, 69, 7173, 75, 78, 80, 81, 87, 94, 104, 105, 109). Indeed, Bar-Adon (1980:116) noticed this phenomenon and interpreted it as follows: In many cases traces of
3

The lime plaster matrix was identified as such due to its petrographic properties (Goren and Goldberg, 1991). The basalt particles are fresh and angular, indicating the use of crushed rocks rather than natural sand (Figure 6). The use of coprolites is indicated by the abundance of spherulites in one of the samples belonging to this class (macehead 61314 from Nahal Mishmar). A variation of this class is a mixture of lime plaster with quartz sand, similar to that of Class B (Figure 7). The following subclasses were defined: C1: Coarsely crushed olivine basalt in lime plaster matrix. C2: Coarsely crushed olivine basalt in class A1 clay matrix. C3: Quartzitic sand in lime plaster matrix.

386

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

Figure 6. Photomicrograph of macehead 61189 (Nahal Mishmar), class C1, coarsely crushed olivine basalt in lime plaster matrix (crossed polarizers).

Figure 7. Photomicrograph of macehead 821413 (Shiqmin), class C3, quartzitic sand in lime plaster matrix (crossed polarizers).

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

387

GOREN

black incrustation were found, perhaps as remains of some matter which had served to fix the macehead firmly to the staff. Conversely, in a previous publication (Goren, 1995) the present author interpreted samples of ceramic materials that were extracted for examination from the shafts of a few maceheads and standards from the Nahal Mishmar hoard as belonging to ceramic cores. However, all these interpretations must now be reviewed. The composition of these materials, mainly clay with vegetal matter and/or very high quantity of quartz sand, makes them inappropriate for serving as an adhesive for hafting. Their application in layers relates them directly with the above-mentioned ceramic shell technique of mold building. Moreover, remains of exactly the same materials were attached to items that could not house any handle, namely the jar (Bar-Adon, 1980:No. 158) and two horn-shaped vessels (Nos. 155, 157). For exactly the same reasons, these materials are highly unlikely to serve as casting cores for the items, since the last vessels were obviously intended to be hollow and contain no ceramic cores. One more support for this hypothesis can be seen on standard 82-1174 from Neve Noy/Beer Safadi, where remains of such materials were left both within the shaft of the object and at several points on the outer surface (Figure 8). Microscopic

Figure 8. Standard 821174 from Beer Safadi (Neve Noy, Beer Sheva), standard with remains of the casting mold still attached to the outer surface (magnified at left), containing a basal layer of class A1 overlaid by class C3 (see text for details). 388 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

examination clearly reveals that this material is not a natural incrustation but a set of artificial materials, including a Class A1 material forming the inner surface and a Class C3 material overlaying it. Yet another support for this hypothesis was found during the re-examination of the Shiqmim macehead 821413, where the core was found to be made of polished stone (Shalev et al., 1992), thus undoubtedly representing a core and not the remains of a casting mold. A closer look revealed that in fact it also contained some remains of the mold (Figure 9). While the core is almost entirely engulfed by the copper shell, part of the latter is missing at one point in the shaft, most likely due to some production fault of the wax model. This void was seemingly filled by the mold material, a small part of which still remains due to the failure of the artisan to remove it from this hidden spot. A sample of this mold was found to be made of a Class C3 mixture of lime plaster and a high proportion of quartzitic sand (Figure 7). In conclusion, the micromorphology, the setting, and the mineralogical composition of these materials indicate that, in fact, these are remains of the casting molds that were not removed completely from the objects after they were cast. Naturally, in most cases these leftovers remained only in the hidden and inner parts that were more difficult to access. In this context it may be suggested that the thin wooden stick, pointed at one end and broken at the other, which was found within one of the standards from Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon, 1980:No. 107), might be interpreted as the remains of a stick that was used to clear the mold material from inside the shaft but was broken, caught inside the shaft during this action, and left there due to some oversight. This fact, and the remnants of the mold parts within the shafts of many standards, indicates that the shafts were not

Figure 9. Macehead 821413 (Shiqmin), cross section revealing a stone core (A) engulfed by the copper shell, and remains of the casting mold (B) within the socket. GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3 389

GOREN

intended to hold any handle and at least these standards most likely functioned in their present shape. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate that all the examined materials were the remains of the casting molds and not the ceramic cores, as previously interpreted by the author (in Goren, 1995, and Namdar et al., 2004). While the cores could have been made of polished stones, as in the Shiqmim macehead, in which it was made of glauconitic chalk (Shalev et al., 1992), or of clay as in the Nahal Mishmar macehead that was examined by Potaszkin and Bar-Avi (1980), the molds were made of layers of clay and fine grass overlain by mixtures of ferruginous clay with coarse quartzitic sand, and in several cases with lime plaster or clay mixed with coarse, densely packed crushed basalt or, alternatively, with quartzitic sand. This technology is consistent regardless of the site of discovery, from the Beer Sheva sites in the south, through Nahal Mishmar and Givat Ha Oranim around the central hill country of Israel, to Peqiin in the north. This indeed indicates that the Chalcolithic technology of mold construction for the lost wax casting technique was well established and performed by specialists. Moreover, the emphasized homogeneity of the materials and technology in use, regardless of the location of the find, stands against the possibility of production by itinerary craftsmen and supports the idea that all of these items were produced by a single workshop or workshop cluster. The results make it clear that, although Chalcolithic mold production and casting techniques can be compared to some extent with the methods of traditional craftsmen such as the Dhokra of India, they are far more sophisticated and thus more analogous with the mold construction techniques used today by modern workshops. This is reflected in the use of a combination of materials and mixtures for the inner and outer shells of the mold as in the ceramic shell technology used today. This technology creates a rather thin-walled, multilayered mold in which different materials make each layer, rather than a thick-walled mold where the materials in use are basically the same but differ mostly in their grain size and sorting. This fact also stands in contrast to the methods used during a previous attempt to reconstruct Chalcolithic casting by the lost wax technique (Shalev, 1999). This aspect has some immediate implications for the interpretation of Chalcolithic copper metallurgy. Since the clay and sand that were used for the construction of the ceramic shell molds were clearly selected specifically for their refractory properties, they do not necessarily represent the geology of the immediate surroundings of the workshop, since they could have been brought specifically for this purpose from some distance in preference to local clay types and sands because of their better suitability for the task. Yet since refractory clays, quartz sands, and alkali-olivine basalts are not scarce in the southern Levant, this distance is not expected to be hundreds of kilometers away from the workshop. Moreover, since the molds produced by the ceramic shell method are usually thin walled and their outer layers rather crumbly, the mold remains could be easily overlooked during a regular archaeological excavation. This is because during

390

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

removal, the mold was probably broken into small fragments and the inner layer of it, only a few millimeters thick, would be scraped into dust. Moreover, if the copper was melted from bars or scrap rather than smelted from ores, the leftovers of this industry would contain only very modest furnaces, some crucible fragments (if indeed they were used), and tiny slag and mold remains that are not likely to be visible without the aid of micromorphological or other mineralogical investigations. Since tuyrs were not found in the smelting workshops of Abu Matar, Shiqmim, and Nevatim, it seems that the Chalcolithic metalworkers employed other methods to protect their bellows pipes from the furnace fire. Therefore, the remains of the production sites where these objects were crafted might be negligible and easily overlooked during routine archaeological excavations. Another drawback of the present study concerns the question of provenance. Clearly, the clay types observed in the mold remains are well known from the local Chalcolithic ceramic industry of the southern Levant and therefore should be regarded local to this region. Of course, theoretically clays and rock fragments with similar traits could also have been found somewhere in the remote areas of the Caucasus or eastern Anatolia, but given the archaeological evidence together with their typological traits, the absence of such objects from any contemporary site outside Israel, and the ophiolithic association of arsenic copper in these areas, which is not reflected at all in the mold and core mineralogy, this possibility should be readily refuted. Within the southern Levant, the clay and marl members of the Moza Formation outcrop in the central hill country of Israel and Palestine, while Lower Cretaceous ferruginous shales are found in the Jordanian side of the Lower Jordan Valley and only in scanty exposures in the craters of the Central Negev of Israel (Sneh, Bartov, & Rosensaft, 1998). Significantly, no use of the Northern Negev loess soil has been traced, although in the Beer Sheva sites this soil was used for the production of crucibles and furnace walls (Shugar, 1998, 2001); hence, there is little doubt about its suitability for refractory purposes. This point may indicate that the molds (and hence also the specific metal objects cast in them) were not made in the Northern Negev area but rather around east-central Israel or west-central Transjordan. Taking all these details into account, it may be suggested that the location of the Chalcolithic specialized copper industry using the lost wax technique should be looked for in the contact zone between the central hill country of Israel, where the Moza Formation prevails, and the eastern part of the Lower Jordan Valley, where Lower Cretaceous sandstones and ferruginous clays, and Neogene to recent olivine basalts appear. Indeed, the basalt particles may be also achieved by hammering fragments of old basalt vessels into sand. But generally speaking, the best possible location for all these materials should be looked for in the lower Jordan Valley or the Dead Sea basin, where they coexist in close proximity. While a good candidate for this could have been the site of Teleilat Ghassul, the archaeological data makes this option highly unlikely. During the numerous seasons of investigation of this site, only meager metal or metallurgic remains were found either in the site or around it (Bourke, 2001:143144). In fact, very little evidence for metallurgy or metal consumption have been found so far in sites east of the Jordan.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

391

GOREN

However, the great wealth of metal objects found west to the Jordan makes this area a suitable source for such activity. In fact, the greatest concentration of such copper implements, namely the Nahal Mishmar hoard, was found a short distance from exposures of the Moza Formation (near En Gedi), Lower Cretaceous shales and sandstones, and olivine basalts (east and northeast of the Dead Sea). In this respect, we may revive the old interpretation raised years ago by Ussishkin (1971, 1980), who attributed the Nahal Mishmar hoard to the nearby Chalcolithic shrine at En Gedi. Although there are petrographic dissimilarities between the pottery assemblages of En Gedi and Nahal Mishmar (Goren, 1995), a reexamination of the Nahal Mishmar pottery assemblage in its context shows that the habitation layers at the cave and the deposition of the hoard seem to represent two separate events that might have taken place generations apart, as Bar-Adon (1980) indeed suggested in his excavation report. All these data put together bring to mind the possibility that the sanctuary of En Gedi or an as yet unknown location nearby might have served as the central workshop for the final production of prestigious copper artifacts using the lost wax technique. Although the En Gedi sanctuary was completely and rather hastily excavated under the direction of Mazar during the early 1960s and the report published years later by his then student Ussishkin (1980), many of the finds, including sediment samples, faunal remains, and ground-stone artifacts, were lost in the course of time and were not included in the publication. It is possible that if there had been any tiny crumbs of molds around the site, they could easily have been overlooked or discarded. A very significant detail in the excavation report that may be related to such an industry is the mention of the thick layer of dark ashy material that was found within the main building of the sanctuary, containing much crumbly material and carbonized wood, which overlaid the pits where most of the cornets, bowls on fenestrated pedestals, and other finds were found. No samples of this debris from the original excavation have been preserved to date and the nature of its contents could not be subjected to laboratory examinations. Therefore, this hypothesis still awaits more tests. It should be noted that, while the excavations at En Gedi were restricted only to the inside of the enclosure wall, several installations that appear outside of it, including hearths, grinding and hammer stones, and other finds that can be still seen on the surface, were never studied. It may be possible to examine by elemental and mineralogical methods or by micromorphology the refuse concentrations that appear outside the main complex, where tiny mold fragments could be deposited. It is also possible to search by the same analytical tools for slag minerals that were left by the secondary melting processes of the metal in the remaining sediments on the floors and within the pits of the main structure and around it. A licensed re-excavation and modern scientific examination of all these features is obviously essential now, and we intend to do it in the nearest possible future. If indeed the Chalcolithic site at En Gedi was related to advanced copper metallurgy, then the Chalcolithic copper industry must have been applied in different forms in different locations, starting from primary smelting and open mold casting, which evidently took place within the habitation sites of Abu Matar, Beer Safadi,
392 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

Nevatim, and Shiqmim, to the elaborate production of composite items by the lost wax technique using alloyed copper, which took place in the remote area of the Judean Desert, in a site that was concealed from the public. In this respect, we must place the latter activity in the context of the role of a sophisticated, innovative technology within a prehistoric world. If sophisticated metallurgy was indeed performed in the remote landscape of the Judean Desert, some motifs that decorate many of the artifacts may be seen as representations of this particular area. They specifically depict ibexes and vultures, two animal species that inhabit the cliffs of this wild environment but are absent from the mild landscape of the Northern Negev plateau or the Shephelah hill country. It is likely that these animals were seen as the protectors of this highly skilled metallurgy, and their representation on the objects was probably related to the rituals that accompanied this secret activity. As mentioned before, the faunal assemblage from the En Gedi shrine was lost after the excavations and could not be examined. However, Ussishkin (1980) reports that ibex horns were found in the ashy layer of the main sanctuary in relation with the bowls on fenestrated pedestal. From the excavation and archaeozoological reports of the contemporary habitation sites, it is evident that securely identified ibex bones were not included in the usually insignificant amount of hunted fauna (Grigson, 1995:414, 2006:241, 244245). Hence, their representation in the En Gedi sanctuary might be related to the special role of this animal in the decoration of the Chalcolithic metal artifacts as well as ossuaries. After years of analyses of some of the earliest forms of pyrotechnology in the southern Levant, from pre-Pottery Neolithic plaster products, through early Pottery Neolithic ceramic vessels, to Chalcolithic metal objects, it has become clear that the emergence of any of these complex technologies cannot be explained any more by evolutionistic, functionalistic, or modern economic approaches. The question of whether a technology was invented in some given time and space by chance, or whether it was pre-planned through a process of trial and error, is apparently irrelevant to the mechanisms that triggered the emergence of the earliest forms of pyrotechnology. In light of the analytical data, we often fail to find any functional explanation for many of the earliest forms and representations of plaster, ceramics, metal, and glass, whenever they appear, that would satisfy our modernist way of thinking. It is only during the second phase of production, when the technology becomes trivial, that these considerations seem to work better. In this respect, the two coexisting metallurgical technologies of the Chalcolithic period may represent the two faces of an early pyrotechnology in general. While a simple version of it was performed in some of the settlements in order to supply simple utilitarian tools, the extremely sophisticated manifestation of the technique could have been separated from the public and carried out in a secret and remote area where the producers, the complicated production process, and the products themselves were concerned with mystic activities. Only during the following period, when the technology became trivial, was the latter aspect of it abandoned and only the utilitarian expression of it remained in use.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

393

GOREN The author wishes to thank O. Misch-Brandl and Bella Gershovich, curators of the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Antiquities in the Israel Museum, and H. Katz, head of the National Treasuries Division in the Israel Antiquities Authority, for their permit to analyze the objects included in this study. T. E. Levy from the University of San Diego, California, read the manuscript and made useful comments. The author wishes to thank S. Shalev from the Weitzman Institute of Science and Haifa University, I. Gilead from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, A. Shugar from SCMRESmithsonian Institution, and Devorah Namdar from Tel Aviv University and the Weitzman Institute of Science for the fruitful discussions and comments that helped in the fulfillment of this study.

REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y. (1961). Expedition B. Israel Exploration Journal, 11, 1124. Arkin, Y., Braun, M., & Starinsky, A. (1965). Type sections of Cretaceous formations in the Jerusalem-Beit Shemesh area. Israel Geological Survey Stratigraphic Section, 1, 159. Bar-Adon, P. (1980). The cave of the treasure: The finds from the caves of Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem: Judean Desert Studies, Israel Exploration Society. Bourke, S.J. (2001). The Chalcolithic period. In B. MacDonald, R. Adams, & P. Bienkowski (Eds.), The archaeology of Jordan (pp. 107162). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Bronitsky, G., & Hamer, R. (1986). Experiments in ceramic technology: The effects of various tempering materials on impact and thermal-shock resistance. American Antiquity, 51, 89101. Brck, S., & Ratke, L. (2003). RF-aerogels: A new binding material for foundry application. Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology, 26, 663666. Capers, D. (1989). Dhokra: The lost wax technique in India. Orissa. (Video film.) Courty, M.A., Goldberg, P., & Macphail, R. (1989). Soils and micromorphology in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Datta, P. (2001). Thermal behavior and solidification times of clay molded investment castings. Indian Foundry Journal, 47, 2938. Edwards, W.I., & Segnit, E.R. (1984). Pottery technology at the Chalcolithic site of Teleilat Ghassul (Jordan). Archaeometry, 26, 6977. Eldar, I., & Baumgarten, Y. (1985). A Chalcolithic site of the Beer Sheva culture. Biblical Archaeologist, 48, 134139. Eliade, M. (1962, ed. 1978). The forge and the crucible: The origins and structure of alchemy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gal, Z., Smithline, H., & Shalem, D. (1997). A Chalcolithic burial cave in Peqiin, Upper Galiliee. Israel Exploration Journal, 47, 14554. Gilead, I., & Goren, Y. (1989). Petrographic analyses of fourth millennium BC pottery and stone vessels from the Northern Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 275, 514. Gilead, I., Rosen, S., Fabian, P., & Rothenberg, B. (1991). New archaeological evidence for the beginning of metallurgy in the southern Levant. Excavation at Tell Abu Matar, Beersheba (Israel) 1990/1. IAMS, 18, 1114. Gilead, I., & Fabian, P. (2001). Nevatim: A site of the Chalcolithic period in the northern Negev. In A. M. Maeir & E. Baruch (Eds.), Settlement, civilization and culture: Proceedings of the conference in memory of David Alon (pp. 6786) (Hebrew). Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press. Golden, J. (1998). The dawn of the metal age: Social complexity and the rise of copper metallurgy during the Chalcolithic in the southern Levant, ca. 45003500 BC. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Golden, J., Levy, T.E., and Hauptmann, A. (2001). Recent discoveries concerning Chalcolithic metallurgy at Shiqmim, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 951963. Gopher, A., & Tsuk, T. (1996). The Nahal Qanah Cave: Earliest gold in the southern Levant. Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Gophna, R., & Lifshitz, S. (1980). A Chalcolithic burial cave at Palmachim. Atiqot, 14, 18.

394

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION Goren, Y. (1987). Petrography of Chalcolithic period pottery assemblages from southern Israel (Hebrew). Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. Goren, Y. 1991. The beginnings of pottery production in Israel: Technology and typology of proto-historic ceramic assemblages in Eretz-Israel (6th4th millennia B.C.E.) (Hebrew). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. Goren, Y. (1995). Shrines and ceramics in Chalcolithic Israel: The view through the petrographic microscope. Archaeometry, 37, 287305. Goren, Y. (1996). Petrographic study of the pottery assemblage. In A. Gopher (Ed.), The Nahal Qanah Cave: Earliest gold in the southern Levant (pp. 147154). Tel-Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Goren, Y., & Goldberg, P. (1991). Petrographic thin-sections and the development of Neolithic plaster production in Northern Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology, 18, 131138. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I., & Naaman, N. (2004). Inscribed in clay: Provenance study of the Amarna tablets and other Near Eastern texts. Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Grigson, C. (1995). Cattle keepers of the northern Negev: Animal remains from the Chalcolithic site of Grar. In I. Gilead (Ed.), Grar, a Chalcolithic site in the northern Negev (pp. 377452). Beer Sheva: Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East, Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Grigson, C. (2006). Farming? Feasting? Herding? Large mammals from the Chalcolithic of Gilat. In T.E. Levy (Ed.), Archaeology, anthropology and cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel (pp. 215318). London and Oakville: Equinox. Horne, L. (1987). The brasscasters of Daraiapur, West BengalArtisans in a changing world. Expedition, 29, 3946. Ilan O., & Sebbane, M. (1989). Copper metallurgy, trade and the urbanization of southern Canaan in the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age. In P. de Miroschedji (Ed.), Lurbanisation de la Palestine a lAge du Bronze ancien (pp. 139162). Oxford: BAR International Series 527 (ii). Key, C.A. (1980). The trace-element composition of the copper and copper alloy artifacts of the Nahal Mishmar hoard. In P. Bar-Adon (Ed.), The Cave of the Treasure: The finds from the caves of Nahal Mishmar (pp. 238243). Jerusalem: Judean Desert Studies, Israel Exploration Society. Kochhar, R. (2001). Dhokra brass artefacts from Bankura. Pamphlet published for CSIR Foundation Day, 2001. New Delhi: NISTADS. Levy, T.E., & Shalev, S. 1989. Prehistoric metalworking in the southern Levant: Archaeometallurgical and social perspectives. World Archaeology, 20, 35272. Levy, T.E., Levy, A., Radhakrishna Sthapathy, D., Srikanda Sthapathy, D., & Swaminatha Sthapathy, D. (in preparation). In search of the lost wax methodEthnoarchaeological perspectives on hereditary bronze casters in Swamimalai, South India. Lombardi, G. (2002). A petrographic study of the casting core of the Lupa Capitolina bronze sculpture (Rome, Italy) and identification of its provenance. Archaeometry, 44, 601612. Moorey, P.R.S. (1988). The Chalcolithic hoard from Nahal Mishmar, Israel, in context. World Archaeology, 20, 171189. Nahmias, J. (1969). Source rocks of the Saqiye Group sediments in the coastal plain of IsraelA heavy mineral study. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences, 18, 116. Namdar, D. Segal, I. Goren, Y., & Shalev, S. (2004). Chalcolithic copper artefacts. In N. Scheftelowitz & R. Oren (Eds.), Givat ha-Oranim, a Chalcolithic site (Salvage Excavations Reports No. 1). Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of the Tel Aviv University. Notis, M.R., Moyer, H., Branisi, M.A., & Clemens, D. (1991). A mace head from a cave in N. Seelim. Bulletin of the Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, 17, 4. Perrot, J. (1955). The excavation of Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheva. Israel Exploration Journal, 5, 1740, 7384, 167189. Perrot, J. (1984). Structures dhabitat, mode de vie et environnement: Les villages souterrains des pasteurs de Beershva dans la sud dIsral au IVe millnaire avant lre chrtienne. Palorient, 10, 7596. Pillai, R.M., Pillai, S.G.K., & Damodaran, A.D. (2002). The lost-wax casting of icons, utensils, bells, and other items in South India. JOM, 54, 1216.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

395

GOREN Pomerancblum, M. (1966). The distribution of heavy minerals and their hydraulic equivalent in sediments of the Mediterranean continental shelf of Israel. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 36, 162174. Potaszkin, R., & Bar-Avi, K. (1980). A material investigation of metal objects from the Nahal Mishmar Cave. In P. Bar-Adon (Ed.), The Cave of the Treasure: The finds from the caves of Nahal Mishmar (pp. 235237). Jerusalem: Judean Desert Studies, Israel Exploration Society. Sahagn, B. de. (1988). Historia general de las cosas de Nueva Espaa. Color facsimile reproduction. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, D.L. Segal, I. (2002). The copper axe from Cave V-49. Atiqot, 41, 99100. Segal I., Kamenski, A., & Merkel, J. (2002). The Cave of the Sandal, Ketef Jericho: New evidence from recent Chalcolithic copper finds. IAMS, 22, 710. Sen, P. (1992). Crafts of West Bengal. Ahmedabad: Grantha Corporation. Shah, S., & Manohar, A. (1996). Tribal arts and crafts of Madhya Pradesh. Living traditions of India. Ahmedabad: Mapin Pub. in Association with Vanya Prakashan, Bhopal. Shalev, S. (1994). Change in metal production from the Chalcolithic period to the Early Bronze Age in Israel and Jordan. Antiquity 68, 630637. Shalev, S. (1995). Metals in ancient Israel: Archaeological interpretation of chemical analysis. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 35, 10916. Shalev, S., (1996a). Archaeometallurgy in Israel: The impact of the material on the choice of shape, size and color of ancient products. In S. Demirci, A.M. zer, & G.D. Summers (Eds.), Archaeometry 94: The proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry (pp. 1115). Ankara: Tubitak. Shalev, S. (1996b). Metallurgical and metallugraphic studies. In A. Gopher (Ed.), The Nahal Qanah Cave: Earliest gold in the southern Levant (pp. 155163). Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Shalev, S. (1999). Recasting the Nahal Mishmar hoard: Experimental archaeology and metallurgy. In A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka, T. Rehren, & U. Yalcin (Eds.), The beginning of metallurgy (pp. 295299). Bochum: Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 9. Shalev S., Goren, Y., Levy, T.E., & Northover, J.P. (1992). A Chalcolithic mace from the Negev, Israel: Technological aspects and cultural implications. Archaeometry, 34, 6371. Shalev S., & Northover, J.P. (1987). Chalcolithic metal and metalworking from Shiqmim. In T.E. Levy (Ed.), Shiqmim I: Studies concerning Chalcolithic societies in the northern Negev desert, Israel (pp. 357371). Oxford: BAR International Series 356. Shalev S., & Northover, J.P. (1993). The metallurgy of the Nahal Mishmar hoard reconsidered. Archaeometry, 35, 3547. Shugar, A.N. (1998). Recent research in Chalcolithic metallurgy: Investigation of Abu Matar, Israel. International Mining & Minerals, 1, 114116. Shugar, A.N. (2001). Archaeometallurgical investigation of the Chalcolithic site of Abu Matar, Israel: A reassessment of technology and its implications for the Ghassulian culture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University College London. Sias, F.R., Jr. (2005). Lost-wax casting: Old, new, and inexpensive methods. Pendleton, SC: Woodsmere Press. Sivaramamurti, C. (1981). South Indian bronzes. New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi. Slatkine, A., & Pomerancblum, M. (1958). Unstable heavy minerals as criteria of depositional enviroment. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel (GSI Bulletin 19). Smith, D., & Kochhar, R. (2003). The Dhokra artisans of Bankura and Dariapur, West Bengal: A case study and knowledge archive of technological change in progress. In D. Brandt (Ed.), Navigating innovations: Indo-European cross-cultural experiences (pp. 105132). New Delhi: Indian Research Press. Sneh, A., Bartov, Y., and Rosensaft, M. (1998). Geological map of Israel 1:200,000 Sheet 2. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. Tadmor M., Kedem, D., Begemann, F., Hauptmann, A., Pernicka E., & Schmitt-Strecker, S. (1995). The Nahal Mishmar hoard from the Judean Desert: Technology, composition and provenance. Atiqot, 27, 95148.

396

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION Tylecote R.F., Rothenberg, B., & Lupu, A. (1974). The examination of metallurgical material from Abu Matar. Bulletin of Historical Metallurgy, 8, 3234. Ussishkin, D. (1971). The Ghassulian temple in En-Gedi and the origin of the hoard from Nahal Mishmar. Biblical Archaeologist, 34, 2329. Ussishkin, D. (1980). The Ghassulian shrine at En-Gedi. Tel-Aviv, 7, 144.

Received 6 March 2007 Accepted for publication 23 January 2008 Scientific editing by Gary Huckleberry

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 23, NO. 3

397