location of specialized copper production by the lost wax technique in the chalcolithic southern...

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 Mishmarhoard and elsewhere have indicated a dichotomy between simple tools, made of pure copperby open casting, and elaborate items made by the “lost wax” technique of copper alloys witharsenic, antimony, and nickel. While the first were considered local production of the northernNegev sites, the prestige objects were either considered as imports from the remote sources ofarsenic copper, or local to the southern Levant. The present paper presents the results of aresearch project that was aimed at examining this issue through the analysis of ceramic moldremains that were still attached to a large number of copper implements from Israel. TheEn Gedi area in the Judean Desert of Israel is identified as the place of origin of all copperobjects produced by this method. Based on the results, some new interpretations are suggestedto 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.4500–3600 cal B.C.) copper metallurgy have been continuously debated with dimin-ishing returns. Although some evidence of Chalcolithic metallurgy was noticed atTeleilat Ghassul and the Beer Sheva sites, the discovery of the hoard at the NahalMishmar “Cave of the Treasure” in 1962 (Bar-Adon, 1980) can be seen as the turn-ing point that triggered the ongoing debate about the possible function, the originof the raw materials, and the location of the production centers of the Chalcolithicmetallurgic industry. In addition to the Nahal Mishmar hoard, a significant numberof Chalcolithic copper objects have been found during other excavations in thesouthern 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 Ze’elim (Aharoni, 1961:14, Pl. 8B), theCave of the Sandal (Segal, Kamenski, & Merkel, 2002), Qarantal (Segal, 2002), andthe Lahat Cave (I. Gilead, personal communication); in Palmahim on the coastal

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, 374–397 (2008)© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/gea.20221

*Corresponding author; E-mail: [email protected]

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 374

plain (Gophna & Lifshitz, 1980), in the Nahal Qanah Cave and Giv’at Ha Oranim inthe western foothills of the Samarian anticline (Gopher & Tsuk, 1996:114–115; Namdaret al., 2004), and in the Peqi’in Cave in the Galilee (Gal, Smithline, & Shalem, 1997).

As a starting point for the discussion of the possible origin and function of theseartifacts, we may refer to the hypothesis raised by Ussishkin (1971, 1980:38–41), whoassociated the Nahal Mishmar hoard with the nearby Chalcolithic shrine of En-Gedi. Later, other attempts have been made to place the Chalcolithic copper indus-try in its cultural context. Moorey (1988), for example, suggested that by its typologyand overall archaeological context the hoard was derived from and manufactured in thenorthern Negev. Against this view, others considered at least the more elaborate objectsas exotic imports, following the pioneering archaeometallurgic study of some of the itemsfrom the Nahal Mishmar hoard by Key (1980). This point will be extended later.

Typological aspects and metallurgical examinations of the copper artifacts fromthe Nahal Mishmar hoard and elsewhere have indicated a rather clear dichotomybetween simple working tools (such as axes, adzes, and awls), made of relatively purecopper and manufactured by the process of open casting, and elaborate “prestigiousitems” (maceheads, standards, crowns, etc.) that were made by the “lost wax” tech-nique 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; Namdaret al., 2004). In most cases, it was concluded that the two different technologiesreflected two unrelated production traditions. While the simple working tools wereconsidered local production of the northern Negev sites, the more elaborate prestigeobjects, produced of alloyed copper by the lost wax technique, were considered asproducts of another, as yet unknown center that might have existed either near theremote sources of arsenic copper (in the Caucasus or eastern Anatolia) or some-where in the southern Levant. Over the past several decades it has been suggestedbased on typology and distribution that the elaborate copper objects were producedlocally in the southern Levant. If true, then arsenic-antimony rich ores or bars werebrought to the southern Levant through long-distance exchange, most likely fromAnatolia or the Caucasus, where such ores prevail, and used locally for the produc-tion of the objects in some highly specializing workshop. Another option is that onlythe alloying minerals were imported from these areas to be mixed with the local cop-per in order to supply the desired alloy. The last option presents many questionsabout the origin of the knowledge that enabled the development of such a complextechnology at this formative stage of metallurgy in an area where arsenic and antimonyminerals do not occur. Despite recent research (Shugar, 1998:115, 2001), this issueremains unresolved. Interestingly, this type of metallurgy is later abandoned duringthe Early Bronze Age, and only the simpler techniques are maintained (Shalev, 1994).

Evidence for smelting activities and simple casting were found in several northernNegev 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 forany production site of the elaborate prestige items. Despite the important discovery

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

THE LOCATION OF SPECIALIZED COPPER PRODUCTION

375

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 375

of arsenic-rich copper prills embedded in slags at Abu Matar, the first evidence forintentional 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 anyof the excavated Chalcolithic sites of this region. In this respect, the elemental analy-ses 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 theceramic materials that were associated with the production processes may offer abetter solution for this riddle.

Ceramic materials used in the lost wax technique include the clay cores that aresometimes embedded in the objects to reduce the amount of the metal or to createhollow artifacts, and the remains of the casting molds that were not always removedcompletely from the objects after their casting. Since refractory clays suitable forcores and molds are very widespread compared to the limited distribution of cop-per and its alloys, their composition is expected to reflect the naturally occurring claysfound near the location of the melting and casting workshop regardless of the sourceof the metal. Hence, their provenance is expected to reflect the location of the pro-duction center where the objects were created in their final form, regardless of thesource of the metal. This approach was first applied by the present author in somepreliminary 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 theworkshop where the renowned Lupa Capitolina (she-wolf suckling Romulus andRemus) from Rome was produced (Lombardi, 2002).

The present paper presents the results of a research project that was aimed atexamining this issue through the analysis of ceramic materials from a large numberof Chalcolithic copper implements from Israel in order to identify their possible pro-duction sites and propose some better solutions for this long debated puzzle. Basedon the results of this study, some new interpretations are suggested to the complextopic of Chalcolithic copper metallurgy.

BACKGROUND

The lost wax (French: cire perdu) casting technique is used today for certain indus-trial parts, dental restorations, fine jewelry, gas turbine blades, biomedical implants,and sculpture. The principles of the technique have been widely discussed in theliterature, especially with regard to its modern application (e.g., Sias, 2005).

While the Chalcolithic copper objects represent the earliest use of the lost waxcasting technique known so far, this technology has survived for thousands of yearsto produce objects in metal which could not be produced by any other method due tothe complexity of their form and the need to preserve undercut shapes. The tradi-tional application of this technique, which was used by many cultures throughout theworld, became almost extinct before and during the 20th century. While objects canbe found in museums and collections throughout the world, allowing for the studyof their metallurgy, the perishable aspects of the technology, namely the compositionof the wax and the technology of the casting molds and cores, remains ambiguousunless it had been recorded by ethnographers and art historians. Nevertheless, some

GOREN


GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM 76

historical sources of information do exist and provide valuable and relevant infor-mation. For example, according to a 16th-century manuscript by the Franciscan friarBernardino de Sahagún (1988), the Aztec goldsmiths of pre-Columbian Mexico usedthe lost wax technique to create many of their elaborate masterpieces in gold. Theymade their casting cores by mixing powdered charcoal and clay and shaping lumpsof this mixture into the desired form. After hardening, the cores were coated withputty made of a mixture of beeswax and resin. The wax model was covered by a thinlayer 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 metalpoured in to create the desired object. The apparently common habit of mixing ofthe clay with vegetal matter creates voids in the clay body that add to its refractoryproperties, 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 manyparts of the world, it has survived in some areas of India. The tradition is carried onin the manufacture of small pieces by tribal groups or by Hindu metalworkers. Thesetribal 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 east-ern Bihar and that stretches south through the state of Orissa and into MadhyaPradesh (Sen, 1992; Shah & Manohar, 1996; Kochhar, 2001). Some of these tribes inWest Bengal are known as Dhokra, and the statues made in this tradition are some-times called Dhokra after their producers. Other traditional household industries ofsomewhat 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 traditionalindustries have been undergoing some significant changes due to the increase oftourist interest in their products, and new methods and materials are being introducedthrough organized governmental aid (Horne, 1987:44–46; Kochhar, 2001; Smith &Kochhar, 2003). Therefore, only the traditional methods and materials, still recordedby some anthropologists, will be discussed here.

In the lost wax process as used by the Dhokra artisans of West Bengal before theintroduction of modern techniques (see Capers, 1989, for a video recording of it), afigure 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 ofpure beeswax or paraffin but of mixtures of several natural materials, providingmore suitable putty that is easier to shape because it does not become too soft in thehot 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 mustardoil (Smith & Kochhar, 2003:112). In Swamimalai (Tamilnadu), craftsmen prepare thewax mixture by mixing pure beeswax, resin from the tree Damara orientalis, andground nut oil (Pillai, Pillai, & Damodaran, 2002).

The mold is constructed in various ways over the wax model. The basic principleis first to coat the wax model with a thin layer of clay mixed with some very finetemper in order to preserve the delicate patterns of the wax model, then apply overit some increasingly coarser layers in order to build up a mold that can be handled



377

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 377

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 waxmodel. First, a thin clay paste is added and allowed to dry; then a layer of rougher claymixed with rice husks is added and also allowed to dry. A hole is sometimes cutthrough 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. Metalwires are then tied around the whole construction to keep it intact. The mold is heateduntil the wax is melted and poured out. As a variation of the investment castingprocess, 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 byusing a crucible. Yet it is not uncommon for the need for crucibles to be bypassed by asimple technique of mold construction, whereby the scrap metal is molten withina 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 integratedinto the rather spongy fabric of the mold. Then the heating continues until the metalis melted, made evident by a green tinge of the fire, at which point the molds areturned upside down and filled with the liquid metal from the flask. This point isextremely important for our discussion, because it indicates that crucibles are notnecessarily used in the process of lost wax casting, in contrast to open casting, wheretheir use is mandatory.

The molds containing the now molten metal are then allowed to cool. When theyare cool enough to be held by hand, the outer, rather crumbly layers of the mold arebroken away, revealing the fine inner layer, which is usually harder and more diffi-cult 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, whichare cut off and reused for the next casting. It is noteworthy that this technology leavesno 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 theinner layer that were carefully chipped off the final metal product. If no tuyèrs areused to protect the bellow nozzles, as in the case recorded by Capers (1989), thenthe only evidence of the furnace would be a stone-lined hearth and some fired claycrumbs. Moreover, if the smelting process is done elsewhere and the productionrelies 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 recordunless scientific methods are used in order to analyze the site deposits. This fact isvery significant for our interpretation of the analytical data below.

In modern workshops, the construction method of the mold is called “ceramicshell.” Instead of the traditional use of clay and grass or herbivore dung, silicaceousslurry or lime and gypsum plasters are used to cover the model by dipping and/orpouring. Special dry aggregate is then applied to the wet pattern, covering the wet areasuntil no more will adhere. The coated pattern is then left to dry for a while and anotherlayer of wet and dry material is applied. This is repeated using coarser aggregate onthe outermost layers, until a sufficient thickness has built up so the mold will hold

GOREN


GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 378

together through the burnout and pouring. The mold material is made nowadays byusing gypsum or lime plaster as a binder for sand, mixed with silica flour or anotherrefractory aggregate to add strength. The dry ingredients are mixed with water andpoured into a container or “flask” surrounding the gated model, which is either waxeddown to a board or attached to a commercially available rubber device, which holdsthe pattern and flask. Another method involving a new binding material for core andmold production is using organic aerogel as a binder and typical foundry sands suchas aluminium oxide and quartz sand as mold material (Brück & Ratke, 2003).

Potaszkin and Bar-Avi (1980:235–236), were the first to notice the presence ofnon-metallic materials within the Chalcolithic copper implements. They analyzed(semi-quantitatively) the chemical composition of a ceramic core found within onemacehead from the Nahal Mishmar hoard, which was sliced for the metallurgicalanalysis. Though they discussed its technical role, they never considered its possi-ble origin on the basis of the clay composition. More recently, this author examinedby 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 wereincorporated in one macehead from the site of Nahal Ashan (Beer Sheva), anotherobject from Nahal Ze’elim, and ceramic materials from ten maceheads and threestandards from the Nahal Mishmar hoard (Goren, 1995). Unexpectedly, the ceramiccomponents of all of these items (except the Shiqmim macehead) were made ofclays with the petrographic characteristics of the Moza Formation of central Israel(detailed below), or rendzina soils mixed with sand of chalk or limestone and abun-dant 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 assemblyof materials, reflecting a combination of lithological types and geological forma-tions, has been first interpreted as representing only core materials. Further exam-ination of two ceramic cores of items from Peqi’in in the Galilee and Giv’at Ha Oranimin 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 wasfirst suggested that this general area must have been the center of gravity ofChalcolithic copper production by the lost wax technique (Namdar et al., 2004:81–82).This suggested that the lion’s share if not all of these objects could have been pro-duced in a rather limited zone somewhere between the lower Shephelah region andthe western part of the Judean Mountains anticline in central Israel (with the uniqueexception of the Shiqmim macehead core, which originated in the Aravah valley).

These intriguing but still preliminary results called for an expansion of the study inorder to reveal the full picture. As a result, a comprehensive research program deal-ing with ceramic materials from many more copper objects was planned, with theobjective of examining a large number of items in order to provide better definition forthe workshop locations, with the potential of correlating between the technologicalaspects of the ceramic materials and the typological variability and/or spatialdistribution of the end products. With this purpose in mind, the current research was



379

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 379

GOREN


performed with the objective of examining the ceramic remains of as many items aspossible in order to make the picture clearer by refining the preliminary results.

METHODS

The ceramic components of 75 Chalcolithic copper implements from seven dif-ferent sites were studied (see Table I for details). The study was limited mainly bythe existence of the remains of ceramic materials on the objects, as in many casesthey were apparently removed by the producers. The studied population included 63

Table I. Inventory of the examined items.

Materials (see text No. Site Reg No Type BAE* for definition)

1 Abu Matar 58–590 Standard, short Perhaps C3 (heavily affected by copper corrosion)

2 Beer Safadi 82–1174 Standard A1 � C33 Beer Safadi 82–1175 Standard A24 G. Ha Oranim 3117/105 Standard A15 G. Ha Oranim 97–3468 Standard A16 G. Ha Oranim 97–3471 Macehead A27 G. Ha Oranim B. 1476 Standard A28 N. Ashan Macehead A29 N. Mishmar 61–002 Standard 50 A1

10 N. Mishmar 61–004 Standard 54 A111 N. Mishmar 61–009 Standard 27 A212 N. Mishmar 61–014 Standard 69 B13 N. Mishmar 61–016 Standard 99 B14 N. Mishmar 61–019 Standard 93 A215 N. Mishmar 61–021 Standard 53 A216 N. Mishmar 61–022 Standard 65 A217 N. Mishmar 61–023 Standard 96 B18 N. Mishmar 61–024 Standard 95 B19 N. Mishmar 61–025 Standard 94 A2 � B20 N. Mishmar 61–027 Standard 46 B21 N. Mishmar 61–031 Standard 29 B22 N. Mishmar 61–032 Standard 44 A2 � B23 N. Mishmar 61–033 Standard 71 B24 N. Mishmar 61–040 Standard 48 A125 N. Mishmar 61–043 Standard 63 A126 N. Mishmar 61–048 Standard 98 B27 N. Mishmar 61–051 Standard 83 A128 N. Mishmar 61–052 Standard 80 A229 N. Mishmar 61–055 Standard 34 B30 N. Mishmar 61–056 Standard 78 A1 � B31 N. Mishmar 61–063 Standard 59 B32 N. Mishmar 61–064 Standard 77 B33 N. Mishmar 61–065 Standard 55 B

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 380



381

34 N. Mishmar 61–066 Standard 86 B35 N. Mishmar 61–068 Standard 105 B36 N. Mishmar 61–070 Standard 106 B37 N. Mishmar 61–076 Standard 32 A1 � B38 N. Mishmar 61–077 Standard 108 A239 N. Mishmar 61–079 Standard 109 A240 N. Mishmar 61–081 Standard 107 A1/A341 N. Mishmar 61–082 Standard 64 A242 N. Mishmar 61–091 Standard 26 A143 N. Mishmar 61–099 Standard, short 133 A144 N. Mishmar 61–105 Standard, short 121 A145 N. Mishmar 61–108 Standard, short 119 A146 N. Mishmar 61–116 Macehead, pointed 151 A147 N. Mishmar 61–118 Standard 115 A248 N. Mishmar 61–122 Standard with axe 148 A149 N. Mishmar 61–123 Standard with axe 149 A150 N. Mishmar 61–166 Jar 158 B51 N. Mishmar 61–167 Horn-shaped object 157 A152 N. Mishmar 61–169 Horn-shaped object 155 A1 � B53 N. Mishmar 61–189 Macehead 270 A1/A254 N. Mishmar 61–205 Macehead 409 A1 � C155 N. Mishmar 61–214 Macehead 389 A156 N. Mishmar 61–223 Macehead 349 A157 N. Mishmar 61–232 Macehead 382 A1 � B58 N. Mishmar 61–233 Macehead 345 A159 N. Mishmar 61–242 Macehead 387 A160 N. Mishmar 61–249 Macehead 418 A361 N. Mishmar 61–310 Macehead 323 A162 N. Mishmar 61–314 Macehead 202 A1 � C263 N. Mishmar 61–336 Macehead 325 A164 N. Mishmar 61–352 Macehead 211 A165 N. Mishmar 61–364 Macehead 416 A166 N. Mishmar 61–371 Macehead 212 A167 N. Mishmar 61–373 Macehead 372 A268 N. Mishmar 61–400 Macehead 335 A269 N. Mishmar 61–402 Macehead 221 A170 N. Mishmar 61–404 Macehead 281 A171 N. Mishmar 61–409 Macehead 426 A272 N. Ze'elim n.d. Macehead A1 tempered with

crushed calcite and limestone sand

73 Peqi'in B. 3008 Standard A174 Peqi'in B. 3110 Macehead A2 � B75 Shiqmim 82–1413 Macehead C3

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

Table I. (Continued)

Materials (see text No. Site Reg No Type BAE* for definition)

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 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 Ze’elim in the Judean Desert (1); Peqi’in in theGalilee (2); and Giv’at Ha Oranim in the western foothills of the Samarian anticline(4). The sampling of these artifacts was made possible by a special sampling tech-nique that was developed during previous studies (e.g., Goren, Finkelstein, & Na’aman,2004:14–17), in which a small portion of the ceramic matter is extracted from theobject without causing it any visible outer damage. The sample is then graduallyimpregnated 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.

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 382



383

resin. The cups with the liquid epoxy are placed in a dessicator, from which the airis pumped to form a vacuum. This action is repeated until no more air bubbles areseen in the liquid and the sample is completely impregnated by the resin. After cur-ing at room temperature the epoxy pellet engulfing the sample is ground with a 400mesh diamond lap wheel to expose the maximal section of the sample and is usedfor the production of a petrographic thin section (see Courty, Goldberg, & Macphail,1989:57–59, 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 suchceramic materials were preserved, now stored in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem andthe State Treasuries of the Israel Antiquities Authority, could be sampled and exam-ined. Therefore, the results now include a large number of items, enabling betterobservations and, consequently, much better interpretations.

RESULTS

In the course of the petrographic analyses, three main classes of plastic materi-als that were attached to the copper implements were broadly categorized, togetherwith an interesting fourth material (a rock) that was found only within the above-mentioned macehead from Shiqmim (No. 82–1413). The plastic materials can bedivided into two classes of ceramic materials and a third class, which technicallywould better be defined as plaster, as follows:

Class A materials (Figures 2–4) include a variation of substances, all represent-ing variants of clay or marl assigned to the Moza Formation of the Judean-Samariananticline of Israel (Arkin, Braun, & Starinsky, 1965).1

1Under the petrographic microscope, the matrix is usually dense, yellowish-tan in PPL, calcareous withvarying amounts of foraminifers, containing hematite particles sizing up to 30 mm. The matrix is opti-cally active and oriented with striated b-fabric. Another variation of the matrix in this class is similar butrich 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 grassleaves but often coarser fragments (“straw”) are identified. Apart of these, other non-plastics includesand-sized particles of limestone, chalk, dolomite, and, more rarely, chert and chalcedony. The followingsubclasses 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, oftendarkened by the high contents of charred organic matter in the inclusions (or temper). The coarse fractionincludes 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 rareaddition of radiolaria, which occupy altogether about 10% of its volume. The sand inclusions in thissubclass tend to be coarser than in A1, often reaching 2 millimeters in size. In many cases badly sortedsand 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 bythe fact that previous studies by the author have shown that Ghassulian pottery from several sites wasdominated 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 sitesof different periods spread throughout the central hill country anticline of Israel. In the Chalcolithicperiod it typifies the sites of En-Gedi in the Judean Desert, Sataf near Jerusalem, and the Nahal Qanacave on the Samarian foothills (Goren, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1996), but is rare in other regions.

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 383

GOREN


Figure 2. Photomicrograph of macehead 61–364 (Nahal Mishmar), class A1, containing fine vegetal mate-rial (V) and limestone grains (L) in a fine, calcareous matrix with few foraminifers (crossed polarizers).

Figure 3. Photomicrograph of standard 61–22 (Nahal Mishmar), class A2, containing fine vegetal mate-rial (V) in a highly foraminiferous matrix (crossed polarizers).

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 384



385

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

Figure 4. Photomicrograph of macehead 61–249 (Nahal Mishmar), class A3, argillaceous matrix denselypacked with silt-sized rhombic dolomite crystals (crossed polarizers).

2After 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 maturequartz with the addition of few feldspar grains rather than the typical assembly of minerals of the coastalsands, 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 orig-inate from the sandstones of the Lower Cretaceous section of the southern Levant. Again in this case, alarge body of analytical data enables the identification of these materials due to the fact that they werealso used for the production of contemporary pottery from some Levantine Chalcolithic sites. At theChalcolithic site of Teleilat Ghassul, most of the locally made pottery is formed of this iron-rich clay(Goren, 1987:48–53, 1991:Appendix 2, 1995; Gilead and Goren, 1989), the typical pithoi being sintered toa 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 theJordan Valley and the Dead Sea basin east of the Jordan, the origin of this material should be looked forin this part of present-day Jordan.

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 385

GOREN


Class C materials (Figures 6–7) are made of lime plaster or clay packed with crushedbasaltic 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 appeartogether within the same artifact (Table I), indicating that they were applied in lay-ers. This point is very significant, since it testifies that the joint use of clay of the MozaFormation mixed with grass, Lower Cretaceous ferruginous clay mixed with quartzsand, or lime plaster mixed with crushed basalt or quartz sand, was intentional andpre-planned. Moreover, it testifies very clearly that these are neither natural claymixtures nor some artificial debris that were attached somehow to the items post-deposition. In the case of the maceheads and standards, these materials were usu-ally attached to the inner surfaces of their sockets. In the standards, they were oftenattached to the inner wall of the bulb, but in many cases they were still blockingparts of the shafts or even their entire hollow (see Bar-Adon, 1980:Nos. 48, 54, 61, 64,67, 68, 69, 71–73, 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

Figure 5. Photomicrograph of macehead B 3110 (Peqi’in), class B, quartz sand in nearly opaque, fer-ruginous matrix (crossed polarizers).

3The 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 naturalsand (Figure 6). The use of coprolites is indicated by the abundance of spherulites in one of the samplesbelonging to this class (macehead 61–314 from Nahal Mishmar). A variation of this class is a mixture oflime 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.

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 386



387

Figure 6. Photomicrograph of macehead 61–189 (Nahal Mishmar), class C1, coarsely crushed olivinebasalt in lime plaster matrix (crossed polarizers).

Figure 7. Photomicrograph of macehead 82–1413 (Shiqmin), class C3, quartzitic sand in lime plastermatrix (crossed polarizers).

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 387

GOREN


black incrustation were found, perhaps as remains of some matter which had servedto fix the macehead firmly to the staff.” Conversely, in a previous publication (Goren,1995) the present author interpreted samples of ceramic materials that were extractedfor examination from the shafts of a few maceheads and standards from the NahalMishmar hoard as belonging to ceramic cores.

However, all these interpretations must now be reviewed. The composition ofthese materials, mainly clay with vegetal matter and/or very high quantity of quartzsand, makes them inappropriate for serving as an adhesive for hafting. Their appli-cation in layers relates them directly with the above-mentioned ceramic shell tech-nique of mold building. Moreover, remains of exactly the same materials wereattached 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 thelast 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 NeveNoy/Beer Safadi, where remains of such materials were left both within the shaftof the object and at several points on the outer surface (Figure 8). Microscopic

Figure 8. Standard 82–1174 from Beer Safadi (Neve Noy, Beer Sheva), standard with remains of the cast-ing mold still attached to the outer surface (magnified at left), containing a basal layer of class A1 over-laid by class C3 (see text for details).

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 388



389

examination clearly reveals that this material is not a natural incrustation but a setof artificial materials, including a Class A1 material forming the inner surface and aClass C3 material overlaying it. Yet another support for this hypothesis was foundduring the re-examination of the Shiqmim macehead 82–1413, where the core wasfound to be made of polished stone (Shalev et al., 1992), thus undoubtedly repre-senting a core and not the remains of a casting mold. A closer look revealed that infact it also contained some remains of the mold (Figure 9). While the core is almostentirely engulfed by the copper shell, part of the latter is missing at one point in theshaft, most likely due to some production fault of the wax model. This void was seem-ingly filled by the mold material, a small part of which still remains due to the failureof the artisan to remove it from this hidden spot. A sample of this mold was found tobe 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 com-position of these materials indicate that, in fact, these are remains of the castingmolds that were not removed completely from the objects after they were cast.Naturally, in most cases these leftovers remained only in the hidden and innerparts that were more difficult to access. In this context it may be suggested thatthe thin wooden stick, pointed at one end and broken at the other, which wasfound 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 moldmaterial from inside the shaft but was broken, caught inside the shaft during thisaction, and left there due to some oversight. This fact, and the remnants of themold parts within the shafts of many standards, indicates that the shafts were not

Figure 9. Macehead 82–1413 (Shiqmin), cross section revealing a stone core (A) engulfed by the coppershell, and remains of the casting mold (B) within the socket.

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 389

GOREN


intended to hold any handle and at least these standards most likely functioned intheir present shape.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that all the examined materials were the remainsof the casting molds and not the ceramic cores, as previously interpreted by theauthor (in Goren, 1995, and Namdar et al., 2004). While the cores could have beenmade of polished stones, as in the Shiqmim macehead, in which it was made of glau-conitic chalk (Shalev et al., 1992), or of clay as in the Nahal Mishmar macehead thatwas examined by Potaszkin and Bar-Avi (1980), the molds were made of layers ofclay and fine grass overlain by mixtures of ferruginous clay with coarse quartziticsand, and in several cases with lime plaster or clay mixed with coarse, densely packedcrushed basalt or, alternatively, with quartzitic sand. This technology is consistentregardless of the site of discovery, from the Beer Sheva sites in the south, throughNahal Mishmar and Giv’at Ha Oranim around the central hill country of Israel, toPeqi’in in the north. This indeed indicates that the Chalcolithic technology of moldconstruction for the lost wax casting technique was well established and performedby specialists. Moreover, the emphasized homogeneity of the materials and tech-nology in use, regardless of the location of the find, stands against the possibility ofproduction by itinerary craftsmen and supports the idea that all of these items wereproduced by a single workshop or workshop cluster.

The results make it clear that, although Chalcolithic mold production and castingtechniques can be compared to some extent with the methods of traditional crafts-men such as the Dhokra of India, they are far more sophisticated and thus moreanalogous 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 innerand outer shells of the mold as in the ceramic shell technology used today. This tech-nology creates a rather thin-walled, multilayered mold in which different materialsmake each layer, rather than a thick-walled mold where the materials in use are basi-cally the same but differ mostly in their grain size and sorting. This fact also standsin contrast to the methods used during a previous attempt to reconstruct Chalcolithiccasting by the lost wax technique (Shalev, 1999). This aspect has some immediateimplications for the interpretation of Chalcolithic copper metallurgy. Since the clayand sand that were used for the construction of the ceramic shell molds were clearlyselected specifically for their refractory properties, they do not necessarily representthe geology of the immediate surroundings of the workshop, since they could havebeen brought specifically for this purpose from some distance in preference to localclay types and sands because of their better suitability for the task. Yet since refrac-tory clays, quartz sands, and alkali-olivine basalts are not scarce in the southernLevant, this distance is not expected to be hundreds of kilometers away from theworkshop. Moreover, since the molds produced by the ceramic shell method areusually thin walled and their outer layers rather crumbly, the mold remains could beeasily overlooked during a regular archaeological excavation. This is because during

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 390

removal, the mold was probably broken into small fragments and the inner layer ofit, only a few millimeters thick, would be scraped into dust. Moreover, if the copperwas melted from bars or scrap rather than smelted from ores, the leftovers ofthis 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 bevisible without the aid of micromorphological or other mineralogical investigations.Since tuyèrs were not found in the smelting workshops of Abu Matar, Shiqmim, andNevatim, it seems that the Chalcolithic metalworkers employed other methods toprotect their bellows pipes from the furnace fire. Therefore, the remains of the pro-duction sites where these objects were crafted might be negligible and easily over-looked 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 localChalcolithic ceramic industry of the southern Levant and therefore should be regardedlocal to this region. Of course, theoretically clays and rock fragments with similartraits could also have been found somewhere in the remote areas of the Caucasusor eastern Anatolia, but given the archaeological evidence together with their typo-logical 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 reflectedat 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 out-crop in the central hill country of Israel and Palestine, while Lower Cretaceous fer-ruginous shales are found in the Jordanian side of the Lower Jordan Valley and onlyin 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 beentraced, although in the Beer Sheva sites this soil was used for the production of cru-cibles and furnace walls (Shugar, 1998, 2001); hence, there is little doubt about itssuitability for refractory purposes. This point may indicate that the molds (and hencealso the specific metal objects cast in them) were not made in the Northern Negevarea but rather around east-central Israel or west-central Transjordan. Taking allthese details into account, it may be suggested that the location of the Chalcolithicspecialized copper industry using the lost wax technique should be looked for inthe contact zone between the central hill country of Israel, where the Moza Formationprevails, and the eastern part of the Lower Jordan Valley, where Lower Cretaceoussandstones and ferruginous clays, and Neogene to recent olivine basalts appear.Indeed, the basalt particles may be also achieved by hammering fragments of oldbasalt vessels into sand. But generally speaking, the best possible location for allthese materials should be looked for in the lower Jordan Valley or the Dead Seabasin, where they coexist in close proximity.

While a good candidate for this could have been the site of Teleilat Ghassul, thearchaeological data makes this option highly unlikely. During the numerous seasonsof investigation of this site, only meager metal or metallurgic remains were foundeither in the site or around it (Bourke, 2001:143–144). In fact, very little evidence formetallurgy or metal consumption have been found so far in sites east of the Jordan.



391

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 391

However, the great wealth of metal objects found west to the Jordan makes this areaa suitable source for such activity. In fact, the greatest concentration of such copperimplements, namely the Nahal Mishmar hoard, was found a short distance fromexposures of the Moza Formation (near En Gedi), Lower Cretaceous shales andsandstones, 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), whoattributed the Nahal Mishmar hoard to the nearby Chalcolithic shrine at En Gedi.Although there are petrographic dissimilarities between the pottery assemblages ofEn Gedi and Nahal Mishmar (Goren, 1995), a reexamination of the Nahal Mishmarpottery assemblage in its context shows that the habitation layers at the cave and thedeposition of the hoard seem to represent two separate events that might have takenplace generations apart, as Bar-Adon (1980) indeed suggested in his excavationreport.

All these data put together bring to mind the possibility that the sanctuary of EnGedi or an as yet unknown location nearby might have served as the central work-shop for the final production of prestigious copper artifacts using the lost waxtechnique. Although the En Gedi sanctuary was completely and rather hastily exca-vated under the direction of Mazar during the early 1960s and the report publishedyears later by his then student Ussishkin (1980), many of the finds, including sed-iment samples, faunal remains, and ground-stone artifacts, were lost in the courseof time and were not included in the publication. It is possible that if there hadbeen any tiny crumbs of molds around the site, they could easily have been over-looked or discarded. A very significant detail in the excavation report that may berelated to such an industry is the mention of the thick layer of dark ashy materialthat was found within the main building of the sanctuary, containing much crum-bly material and carbonized wood, which overlaid the pits where most of the cor-nets, bowls on fenestrated pedestals, and other finds were found. No samples ofthis debris from the original excavation have been preserved to date and the natureof its contents could not be subjected to laboratory examinations. Therefore, thishypothesis still awaits more tests. It should be noted that, while the excavationsat En Gedi were restricted only to the inside of the enclosure wall, several instal-lations 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 bepossible to examine by elemental and mineralogical methods or by micromor-phology the refuse concentrations that appear outside the main complex, wheretiny mold fragments could be deposited. It is also possible to search by the sameanalytical tools for slag minerals that were left by the secondary melting processesof the metal in the remaining sediments on the floors and within the pits of themain structure and around it. A licensed re-excavation and modern scientific exam-ination of all these features is obviously essential now, and we intend to do it in thenearest possible future.

If indeed the Chalcolithic site at En Gedi was related to advanced copper metal-lurgy, then the Chalcolithic copper industry must have been applied in differentforms in different locations, starting from primary smelting and open mold casting,which evidently took place within the habitation sites of Abu Matar, Beer Safadi,

GOREN


GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 392



393

Nevatim, and Shiqmim, to the elaborate production of composite items by the lostwax technique using alloyed copper, which took place in the remote area of theJudean Desert, in a site that was concealed from the public. In this respect, we mustplace the latter activity in the context of the role of a sophisticated, innovative tech-nology within a prehistoric world.

If sophisticated metallurgy was indeed performed in the remote landscape of theJudean Desert, some motifs that decorate many of the artifacts may be seen asrepresentations of this particular area. They specifically depict ibexes and vul-tures, two animal species that inhabit the cliffs of this wild environment but areabsent from the mild landscape of the Northern Negev plateau or the Shephelahhill country. It is likely that these animals were seen as the protectors of this highlyskilled metallurgy, and their representation on the objects was probably related tothe rituals that accompanied this secret activity. As mentioned before, the faunalassemblage from the En Gedi shrine was lost after the excavations and could notbe examined. However, Ussishkin (1980) reports that ibex horns were found inthe ashy layer of the main sanctuary in relation with the bowls on fenestratedpedestal. From the excavation and archaeozoological reports of the contempo-rary habitation sites, it is evident that securely identified ibex bones were notincluded in the usually insignificant amount of hunted fauna (Grigson, 1995:414,2006:241, 244–245). Hence, their representation in the En Gedi sanctuary might berelated to the special role of this animal in the decoration of the Chalcolithic metalartifacts as well as ossuaries.

After years of analyses of some of the earliest forms of pyrotechnology in thesouthern Levant, from pre-Pottery Neolithic plaster products, through early PotteryNeolithic ceramic vessels, to Chalcolithic metal objects, it has become clear thatthe emergence of any of these complex technologies cannot be explained any moreby evolutionistic, functionalistic, or modern economic approaches. The question ofwhether 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 apparentlyirrelevant to the mechanisms that triggered the emergence of the earliest forms ofpyrotechnology. In light of the analytical data, we often fail to find any functionalexplanation for many of the earliest forms and representations of plaster, ceramics,metal, and glass, whenever they appear, that would satisfy our modernist way ofthinking. It is only during the second phase of production, when the technologybecomes trivial, that these considerations seem to work better. In this respect, thetwo coexisting metallurgical technologies of the Chalcolithic period may representthe two faces of an early pyrotechnology in general. While a simple version of it wasperformed in some of the settlements in order to supply simple utilitarian tools, theextremely sophisticated manifestation of the technique could have been separatedfrom the public and carried out in a secret and remote area where the producers, thecomplicated production process, and the products themselves were concerned withmystic activities. Only during the following period, when the technology becametrivial, was the latter aspect of it abandoned and only the utilitarian expression of itremained in use.

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 393

GOREN


The author wishes to thank O. Misch-Brandl and Bella Gershovich, curators of the Chalcolithic and BronzeAge Antiquities in the Israel Museum, and H. Katz, head of the National Treasuries Division in the IsraelAntiquities Authority, for their permit to analyze the objects included in this study. T. E. Levy from theUniversity of San Diego, California, read the manuscript and made useful comments. The author wishesto thank S. Shalev from the Weitzman Institute of Science and Haifa University, I. Gilead from Ben-GurionUniversity of the Negev, A. Shugar from SCMRE–Smithsonian Institution, and Devorah Namdar from TelAviv University and the Weitzman Institute of Science for the fruitful discussions and comments that helpedin the fulfillment of this study.

REFERENCES

Aharoni, Y. (1961). Expedition B. Israel Exploration Journal, 11, 11–24.Arkin, Y., Braun, M., & Starinsky, A. (1965). Type sections of Cretaceous formations in the Jerusalem-Beit

Shemesh area. Israel Geological Survey Stratigraphic Section, 1, 1–59.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. 107–162). 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, 89–101. Brück, S., & Ratke, L. (2003). RF-aerogels: A new binding material for foundry application. Journal of

Sol-Gel Science and Technology, 26, 663–666. 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, 29–38. Edwards, W.I., & Segnit, E.R. (1984). Pottery technology at the Chalcolithic site of Teleilat Ghassul

(Jordan). Archaeometry, 26, 69–77.Eldar, I., & Baumgarten, Y. (1985). A Chalcolithic site of the Beer Sheva culture. Biblical Archaeologist,

48, 134–139.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 Peqi’in, Upper Galiliee. Israel

Exploration Journal, 47, 145–54.Gilead, I., & Goren, Y. (1989). Petrographic analyses of fourth millennium BC pottery and stone ves-

sels from the Northern Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 275,5–14.

Gilead, I., Rosen, S., Fabian, P., & Rothenberg, B. (1991). New archaeological evidence for the beginningof metallurgy in the southern Levant. Excavation at Tell Abu Matar, Beersheba (Israel) 1990/1. IAMS,18, 11–14.

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 mem-ory of David Alon (pp. 67–86) (Hebrew). Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press.

Golden, J. (1998). The dawn of the metal age: Social complexity and the rise of copper metallurgy dur-ing the Chalcolithic in the southern Levant, ca. 4500–3500 BC. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Pennsylvania.

Golden, J., Levy, T.E., and Hauptmann, A. (2001). Recent discoveries concerning Chalcolithic metallurgyat Shiqmim, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 951–963.

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, 1–8.

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 394

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-historicceramic assemblages in Eretz-Israel (6th–4th millennia B.C.E.) (Hebrew). Unpublished Ph.D. disser-tation. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University.

Goren, Y. (1995). Shrines and ceramics in Chalcolithic Israel: The view through the petrographic micro-scope. Archaeometry, 37, 287–305.

Goren, Y. (1996). Petrographic study of the pottery assemblage. In A. Gopher (Ed.), The Nahal QanahCave: Earliest gold in the southern Levant (pp. 147–154). Tel-Aviv: Monograph Series of the Instituteof Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Goren, Y., & Goldberg, P. (1991). Petrographic thin-sections and the development of Neolithic plasterproduction in Northern Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology, 18, 131–138.

Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I., & Na’aman, N. (2004). Inscribed in clay: Provenance study of the Amarna tabletsand other Near Eastern texts. Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel AvivUniversity.

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. 377–452). Beer Sheva: Studiesby 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. 215–318). Londonand Oakville: Equinox.

Horne, L. (1987). The brasscasters of Daraiapur, West Bengal—Artisans in a changing world. Expedition,29, 39–46.

Ilan O., & Sebbane, M. (1989). Copper metallurgy, trade and the urbanization of southern Canaan in theChalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age. In P. de Miroschedji (Ed.), L’urbanisation de la Palestine al’Age du Bronze ancien (pp. 139–162). Oxford: BAR International Series 527 (ii).

Key, C.A. (1980). The trace-element composition of the copper and copper alloy artifacts of the NahalMishmar hoard. In P. Bar-Adon (Ed.), The Cave of the Treasure: The finds from the caves ofNahal Mishmar (pp. 238–243). 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 andsocial perspectives. World Archaeology, 20, 352–72.

Levy, T.E., Levy, A., Radhakrishna Sthapathy, D., Srikanda Sthapathy, D., & Swaminatha Sthapathy, D. (inpreparation). In search of the “lost wax” method—Ethnoarchaeological perspectives on hereditarybronze 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, 601–612.

Moorey, P.R.S. (1988). The Chalcolithic hoard from Nahal Mishmar, Israel, in context. World Archaeology,20, 171–189.

Nahmias, J. (1969). Source rocks of the Saqiye Group sediments in the coastal plain of Israel—A heavymineral study. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences, 18, 1–16.

Namdar, D. Segal, I. Goren, Y., & Shalev, S. (2004). Chalcolithic copper artefacts. In N. Scheftelowitz &R. Oren (Eds.), Giv’at 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. Bulletinof the Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, 17, 4.

Perrot, J. (1955). The excavation of Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheva. Israel Exploration Journal, 5, 17–40,73–84, 167–189.

Perrot, J. (1984). Structures d’habitat, mode de vie et environnement: Les villages souterrains des pas-teurs de Beershéva dans la sud d’Israël au IVe millénaire avant l’ére chrétienne. Paléorient, 10, 75–96.

Pillai, R.M., Pillai, S.G.K., & Damodaran, A.D. (2002). The lost-wax casting of icons, utensils, bells, and otheritems in South India. JOM, 54, 12–16.



395

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 395

GOREN


Pomerancblum, M. (1966). The distribution of heavy minerals and their hydraulic equivalent in sedi-ments of the Mediterranean continental shelf of Israel. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 36,162–174.

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. 235–237).Jerusalem: Judean Desert Studies, Israel Exploration Society.

Sahagún, B. de. (1988). Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España. Color facsimile reproduction.Madrid: Alianza Editorial, D.L.

Segal, I. (2002). The copper axe from Cave V-49. Atiqot, 41, 99–100.Segal I., Kamenski, A., & Merkel, J. (2002). The Cave of the Sandal, Ketef Jericho: New evidence from recent

Chalcolithic copper finds. IAMS, 22, 7–10.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, 630–637.Shalev, S. (1995). Metals in ancient Israel: Archaeological interpretation of chemical analysis. Israel

Journal of Chemistry, 35, 109–16.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. Özer, & G.D. Summers (Eds.), Archaeometry94: The proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry (pp. 11–15). Ankara:Tubitak.

Shalev, S. (1996b). Metallurgical and metallugraphic studies. In A. Gopher (Ed.), The Nahal Qanah Cave:Earliest gold in the southern Levant (pp. 155–163). Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute ofArchaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Shalev, S. (1999). Recasting the Nahal Mishmar hoard: Experimental archaeology and metallurgy. InA. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka, T. Rehren, & U. Yalcin (Eds.), The beginning of metallurgy (pp. 295–299).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, 63–71.

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. 357–371). Oxford: BAR International Series 356.

Shalev S., & Northover, J.P. (1993). The metallurgy of the Nahal Mishmar hoard reconsidered. Archaeometry,35, 35–47.

Shugar, A.N. (1998). Recent research in Chalcolithic metallurgy: Investigation of Abu Matar, Israel.International Mining & Minerals, 1, 114–116.

Shugar, A.N. (2001). Archaeometallurgical investigation of the Chalcolithic site of Abu Matar, Israel: Areassessment of technology and its implications for the Ghassulian culture. Unpublished Ph.D. dis-sertation, University College London.

Sias, F.R., Jr. (2005). Lost-wax casting: Old, new, and inexpensive methods. Pendleton, SC: WoodsmerePress.

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.), Navigatinginnovations: Indo-European cross-cultural experiences (pp. 105–132). New Delhi: Indian ResearchPress.

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 NahalMishmar hoard from the Judean Desert: Technology, composition and provenance. Atiqot, 27, 95–148.

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 396



397

Tylecote R.F., Rothenberg, B., & Lupu, A. (1974). The examination of metallurgical material from AbuMatar. Bulletin of Historical Metallurgy, 8, 32–34.

Ussishkin, D. (1971). The “Ghassulian” temple in En-Gedi and the origin of the hoard from Nahal Mishmar.Biblical Archaeologist, 34, 23–29.

Ussishkin, D. (1980). The Ghassulian shrine at En-Gedi. Tel-Aviv, 7, 1–44.

Received 6 March 2007Accepted for publication 23 January 2008

Scientific editing by Gary Huckleberry

GEA233_20221.qxd 4/3/08 8:16 PM Page 397

location of specialized copper production by the lost wax technique in the chalcolithic southern...

Documents

copper artifacts

nahal qanah cave

northernnegev sites

nahalmishmar cave

peqiin cave

nahal mishmarhoard

wiley periodicals

beer sheva sites