fifty years later: a critical review of the stratigraphy, chronology and context of the nahal...

JOURNAL OF THE ISRAEL PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Mitekufat HaevenVolume 44

Editors:Dani Nadel

Danny RosenbergDaniel Kaufman

Guy Bar-Oz

Supported by the Irene Levi-Sala CARE Archaeological Foundation

THE ISRAEL PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

2014

ISSN: 0334-3839

© All rights reserved to the Israel Prehistoric Society

Graphic Design: Sapir Haad

Printed by Print Unit, University of Haifa

English cover: An anthropomorphic stone image from a Neolithic cult site in the Negev (site 263/10/9)

Hebrew cover: A decorated bowl from Tel Tsaf

Table of ContentsEditors’ forward 4

Renewed Excavations at Beisamoun: Investigating the 7th Millennium cal. BC of the Southern Levant 5Fanny Bocquentin, Hamoudi Khalaily, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Francesco Berna, Rebecca Biton, Doron Boness, Laure Dubreuil, Aline Emery-Barbier, Harris Greenberg, Yuval Goren, Liora K. Horwitz, Gaëlle Le Dosseur, Omri Lernau, Henk K. Mienis, Boris Valentin and Nicolas Samuelian

A Survey of Neolithic Cult Sites in the Eilat Mountains, Israel 101Uzi Avner, Moti Shem-Tov, Lior Enmar, Gideon Ragolski, Rachamim Shem-Tov and Omry Barzilai

Hanaton: Interim Report on a Neolithic-Chalcolithic Settlement in the Lower Galilee 117Assaf Nativ, Ron Shimelmitz, Nuha Agha, Inbar Ktalav, Danny Rosenberg

Back to Tel Tsaf: A Preliminary Report on the 2013 Season of the Renewed Project 148Danny Rosenberg, Florian Klimscha, Philip J. Graham, Austin (Chad) Hill, Lior Weissbrod, Inbar Ktalav, Serena Love, Sonia Pinsky, Emily Hubbard and Elisabetta Boaretto

Fazael 1, A Chalcolithic Site in the Jordan Valley: Report of the 2013-2014 Excavation Seasons 180Shay Bar, Guy Bar-Oz, Haggai Cohen-Klonymus and Sonia Pinsky

The Chalcolithic Settlement of Khirbet Dalhamiya: The 2007 Excavations 202Walid Atrash, Jacob Vardi, Nuha Agha and Ianir Milevski

Fifty Years Later: A Critical Review of the Stratigraphy, Chronology and Context of the Nahal Mishmar Hoard 226Isaac Gilead and Milena Gošić

The Bone Tools from the Cave of the Treasure in Nahal Mishmar 240Guy Bar-Oz and Reuven Yeshurun

Book reviewsBar S. 2014. The Dawn of the Bronze Age: The Pattern of Settlement in the Lower Jordan Valley and the Desert Fringes of Samaria during the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 72). Boston and Leiden: Brill. 248Eliot Braun

Nativ A. 2013. Prioritizing Death and Society. The Archaeology of Chalcolithic and Contemporary Cemeteries in the Southern Levant. Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: Acumen. 251Ianir Milevski

Note for authors 256

Hebrew abstracts 4*

226

Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 44 (2014), 226–239

Fifty Years Later: A Critical Review of the Stratigraphy, Chronology and Context of the Nahal Mishmar Hoard

Isaac Gilead1 and Milena Gošić2

1 Archaeological Division, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. [email protected] Archaeological Division, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. [email protected].

ABSTRACTThe discovery of the Nahal Mishmar hoard in 1961 is a milestone in the study of ancient metallurgy. While important aspects of the hoard have been studied since its discovery, especially the technology, composition, provenance of the ore, iconography and social implications, a critical review of the hoard’s spatial and stratigraphic position in the cave and its relation to other Chalcolithic and later remains has not been carried out. Our analysis of the available spatial and chronological data indicates that some common assumptions concerning the Chalcolithic remains should be questioned. For example, there were most probably no Chalcolithic woolen textiles in the cave; pomegranate and several other vegetal remains seem to be Roman; the current suggestions concerning social hierarchy and an organized cemetery, on the basis of the human remains, cannot be substantiated. The 14C dates and the nature of the pottery assemblages indicate that the occupation of the cave is Late Ghassulian (last quarter of the Fifth Millennium Cal BC). It therefore seems that the hoard was related to sites in the Nahal Beer Sheva area rather than to En Gedi. The symbolic nature of artifacts and their final ritual burial-like concealment, suggest that the production of the copper artifacts was part of a ritualized process.

KEYWORDS: Chalcolithic, Ghassulian, Cave of the Treasure, Judean Desert, Copper metallurgy, Ancient wool

INTRODUCTIONThe Nahal Mishmar copper hoard unearthed in the Judean Desert in 1961 is a milestone in research on ancient technology in general and metallurgy in particular. Now, fifty years after its discovery, the hoard attracts no less attention than in the previous decades, and in fact even more.

The technology, composition and provenance of the copper objects from the Nahal Mishmar hoard are naturally major topics of study (Anfinset 2010: 39–42; Golden 2009a; Goren 2008; Key 1980; Moorey 1988; Potaszkin and Bar-Avi 1980; Shalev 1991; Shalev and Northover 1993; Tadmor 1989; Tadmor et al. 1995). It is generally agreed that most ores are local, probably from Feinan, and that there are also exotic ores. It is proposed that Anatolia, the Iranian Plateau or southern Sinai were possible sources of some of the ores (Ilani and Rosenfeld 1994; Key 1980: 242; Rothenberg 1991: 7; Tadmor et al.

1995: 141–142). However, a specific location has not yet been demonstrated. According to Shugar (2000: 211), ores from Feinan were co-smelted with the exotic arsenic rich ores at the Beer Sheva sites. It was initially suggested that the lost-wax casting technique, a prominent characteristic of the hoard, points to the Caucasus as the place of their origin (Key 1980: 242), but it seems now that the hoard was locally produced in the southern Levant by Ghassulian metalworkers (Golden 1998: 79; Goren 2008; Moorey 1988: 186; Shalev et al. 1992: 67; Shugar 2000: 216).

Beyond technology, researchers who study the hoard also deal with social, economic and symbolic aspects. Worth noting are studies concerning the probable place(s) from where the hoard’s objects were transported to the cave (Davidovich 2008; Gates 1992; Goren 1995, 2008; Moorey 1988; Tadmor 1989; Tadmor et al. 1995; Ussishkin 1971), the radiometric chronology of the hoard (Aardsma 2001; Shugar and Gohm 2011; Weinstein 1984), the


227

typology and decorations of artifacts and their symbolic interpretations (Bar-Adon 1980; Beck 1989; Elliott 1977; Epstein 1978; Merhav 1993) and their social implications (Levy and Shalev 1989; Ziffer 2007). The hoard has so far been interpreted as hidden religious paraphernalia used in a nearby shrine (Epstein 1978; Goren 2008; Ussishkin 1971), as a trader’s hoard (Tadmor 1989; Tadmor et al. 1995), as a ceremonial burial of ritual artifacts no longer suitable for use (Garfinkel 1994), as a hoard of itinerant craftsmen (Gates 1992), as a burial offering (Golden 1998: 86; 2009b: 62) and as a treasure left by fleeing members of the Ghassulian elite (Davidovich 2008).

It is our intention to discuss below a number of aspects from perspectives other than those of the above mentioned research, ranging from specific problems in stratigraphy to wider questions of cultural interpretation. Most studies ask, justifiably, what can we learn from the hoard and the finds associated with it. However, we should be aware that there are certain spatial and temporal aspects that we cannot learn from the finds only. Thus, we start by critically examining the immediate context of the hoard, stressing the fact that there are serious stratigraphic and spatial lacunae that impede interpretation. We continue by discussing the place of the hoard in the broader context of the Ghassulian culture and its chronology and conclude by briefly discussing the cave and the hoard in terms of Ghassulian ritual-magic behavior.

NAHAL MISHMAR CAVE 1 – STRATIGRAPHY AND CHRONOLOGYContext and stratigraphy of the Nahal Mishmar hoard and other remainsIn the Hebrew publication of the Nahal Mishmar hoard, Bar-Adon devotes one brief sentence to the description of the niche in Cave 1 in which the hoard was found: “The niche, which is rather a natural rock-crevice, is situated in the northern wall of Hall B” (Bar-Adon 1971: 14, our translation). The locations of Halls B and A are not indicated on the plan (Bar-Adon 1971: 4). In the English publication of the hoard, the description of the niche is a translation of the Hebrew version (Bar-Adon 1980: 15) but the locations of Halls A and B are indicated in the plan (Fig. 1). The English version, however, includes one additional detail: the niche is feature No. 4, a feature that is indicated in the plan (Fig 1). It is situated in the southern

end of Hall A, not in the northern wall of Hall B.The inconsistency “Northern Wall of Hall B” – niche

“No. 4,” which obscures the exact provenance of the hoard within Cave 1, was left unnoticed. Moorey (1988: 172) states the hoard was found “…well within the cave in Hall B…” He probably referred to the text only, without considering the reference to niche “No. 4” in Hall A. Davidovich (2008) who recently studied the cave and its artifacts states that the hoard was found in the northern part of Hall A (Davidovich 2008: 242). The Hebrew text that Davidovich refers to as the source of his statement (Bar-Adon 1971: 15) explicitly states, as we indicate above, that the hoard was found in “Hall B”, and Davidovich does not explain why he mentions “Hall A” instead. Other recent treatments of the hoard (Golden 2009a, b; Goren 2008; Rowan and Golden 2009) do not refer to the inconsistency. Davidovich (personal communication) after recently revisiting the cave and studying the indications left by Bar-Adon’s dig, re-locates the place in which the hoard was found – the northern part of Hall A.

Beyond the issue of the exact provenance of the hoard, there are additional problems concerning aspects of stratigraphy and intra-site context. In describing the artifacts and layers of the cave, Bar-Adon refers to two periods of cave occupation: Chalcolithic and Roman. Bar-Adon divides the sequence into three layers: the uppermost layer, Layer I, the ‘Bar-Kohva’ layer, is of the Roman period, mostly second century AD, the lowermost, Layer III is of the Chalcolithic period, and both are separated by layer II. This layer is up to 15 cm thick with Chalcolithic and Roman remains. The actual stratigraphy of the cave is presented in the published section of the cave (Fig. 1). However, since layers I and III were disturbed by pits and other features, and since artifacts could not be attributed to their exact stratigraphic provenance, their date was determined on the basis of typology. If in the slightest doubt, they were attributed to the intermediate layer (Bar-Adon 1980: 2–3). Thus, Layer II was first described as an actual stratum, sediments that separate two layers, and later it became a “drawer” into which un-datable objects, either from I or III, were assigned.

The stratigraphy was more intricate than described above and Bar-Adon’s own descriptions indicate a sequence more complex than the Chalcolithic-Roman dichotomy. He indicates that the Chalcolithic occupation of the cave lasted for a certain period of time, only

Gilead and Gošić

228

towards the end of which was the treasure hidden. This is based on what he describes as a disturbance of earlier Chalcolithic deposits by the hoard (Bar-Adon 1980: 7). Moreover, although Bar-Adon (1980: 199) does not mention an occupation between the Chalcolithic and the Roman periods, he acknowledges the existence of pottery types that characterize the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, such as hole-mouth jars with thickened rims and painted bands (Bar-Adon 1980: 135). Davidovich (2008:

257–258; 2012) studied the published and unpublished Early Bronze Age sherds from Cave 1 and attributes them to the Early Bronze Age IB1, dated to ca. 3,300 BC (all the dates in the text are radiocarbon determinations calibrated to BC dates by OxCal 4.1: Bronk Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al. 2009). This implies that the earliest occurrences of the Early Bronze Age, EB Ia, are not represented in the cave and that there is no “transitional” Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age phase.

Figure 1. Plan and section of the Nahal Mishmar Cave of the Treasure (from Bar-Adon 1980: p. 4).


229

In addition to the objects of the hoard, the Nahal Mishmar Cave 1 yielded other unique finds including textiles, basketry, leather objects, burials of five individuals and vegetal remains. Because of the above mentioned difficulties in determining provenance and the poorly known inner stratigraphy, the understanding of certain finds and of their contexts is hindered, as illustrated below.

Textiles and plant remainsThe preservation of the Nahal Mishmar textiles is excellent. Of the 120 samples tested, 45 are attributed to the Chalcolithic period, 59 to the intermediate stratum (either actually or typologically) and the rest are of the Roman period (Bar-Adon 1980: 153). Since 45 pieces are dated to the Chalcolithic period, 37 linen fabrics and 8 woolen fabrics, one assumes that they originate from Layer III. A close examination of the fabrics, however, suggests that this is not the case. Wool from all three strata is characterized by single ply yarns, a feature characteristic of local Roman weaving (Levy and Gilead 2012 and references therein). In fact, the earliest archaeological evidence for wool in the southern Levant is from the Middle Bronze Age of Jericho (Shamir 2005: 23). Thus, it seems that the woolen fabrics are intrusive due to anthropogenic and natural disturbances. Only new radiocarbon dates of the textiles will solve this problem. The Nahal Mishmar textiles, thus, cannot support the claim for a Fifth Millennium wool industry as suggested by Levy et al. (2006: 715).

The possibility that plant remains recovered from the Chalcolithic layer (Zaitschek 1980), are also intrusive cannot be excluded. In addition to olives and dates, the list of plant remains from Nahal Mishmar are often cited to indicate that the Ghassulian diet included, among other things, pomegranates, walnuts, garlic and onion (e.g. Rowan and Golden 2009: 24). Pomegranate fruit peel fragments were recovered from all three levels of the cave: the Roman, the Intermediate and the Chalcolithic (Zaitschek 1980: 266). Zohary et al. (2012: 157), in their most recent survey of plant domestication, do not mention the case for Chalcolithic pomegranates in the cave. It is probable that the pomegranate remains are intrusions into the Chalcolithic layer of fruits consumed in Roman times rather than thousands of years earlier. Pomegranates were recovered from other Judean desert caves too, with

remains of both Chalcolithic and Roman periods, such as the Cave of the Pool in Nahal David (Avigad 1962). Here, pomegranates were “very numerous” and sometimes intact, and Avigad (1962: 180) dates them to the time of Bar Kokhva.

In general, it seems that none of the plant remains recovered from Cave 1, be it olives, dates, pomegranates, walnuts or garlic etc., can be positively attributed to the Chalcolithic period even if they originate in the “Chalcolithic level”. We therefore suggest that plant remains from Nahal Mishmar should be attributed to the Chalcolithic period only after they are radiometrically dated.

The human remainsHuman remains were uncovered in the Cave of the Treasure (Cave 1) and in the adjacent Cave 2 and Cave 3. The circumstances of their discovery and their locations were very briefly described by Bar-Adon (1980: 5–8). Additional details are available in the paper of Haas and Nathan (1973) who studied the osteology of the individuals buried in Caves 1–3. This paper is not cited in syntheses dealing with the hoard (i.e. Moorey 1988; Levy and Shalev 1989; Golden 2009; Golden and Rowan 2009) probably due to the fact it is published in Hebrew. The paper deals mainly with the nature and metrics of the bones and concludes that the individuals buried in Caves 1-3 are of the Southern Proto-Mediterranean type. Haas and Nathan (1973) also discuss the causes of death and make an attempt to interpret the burials in terms of social organization.

They suggest that the 21 individuals buried in the three caves were members of a sedentary Chalcolithic population who became refugees and their lives ended under tragic circumstances: “An examination of the bodily injuries discernible on [the?] skeletons demonstrate that the people suffered from severe blows before finding their refuge in the caves” (Haas and Nathan 1973: 143). They mention that the right hand of a man, H. 6 from Cave 2, was amputated and the wrappings were stained with blood. The blood stains, as well as blood stains on the wrap of the hoard, belonged to blood group B. In photographs, Hass and Nathan (1973: pl. 4–14) show a skull of another individual, H. 4 from Cave 3, with a blow, but do not discuss it in the text. These are the only individuals with injuries that are described.

Gilead and Gošić

230

The five burials in Cave 1 and the six burials in cave 2 are regarded by Haas and Nathan as family burials while the 10 burials of Cave 3 are of unrelated people. They conclude that in caves 1 and 2 the burials were of high status families since in the first cave the dead were buried with a hoard, and in Cave 2 the burials were associated with textiles, hides and mat remains. The burials in Cave 3 are defined as “very simple”, with no obvious “complex arrangements”, and were therefore of a lower social status (Haas and Nathan 1973: 144).

In addition to Haas and Nathan’s claim for social stratification, it has also been suggested that the hoard was cached with human burials and the cave is, in fact, a tomb (Ilan in Golden 2009b: 62–63; Rowan and Ilan 2007: 249). Unfortunately, the limited and problematic stratigraphic and spatial data available make such interpretations highly speculative. There is no solid evidence that relates the hoard to the graves – or to the other finds. Moreover, since the descriptions of the human remains are too brief, missing or contradictory, we doubt, as described below, if any conclusion related to the individuals as a group can be substantiated.

The remains of five humans were unearthed in Cave 1 in 1960, about a year before the hoard was found. The context and stratigraphy of the burials are described in a very short manner: “Five human burials were discovered in cornice No. 5 and in Hall B” (Bar-Adon 1980: 5). This is accompanied by a photograph of a human skull, probably of H. 1 (Bar-Adon 1980: 6). It is obvious that the context of the burials is problematic since, among other things, we do not know which of the burials was excavated in crevice 5 and which in Hall B. Moreover, as mentioned above, Bar-Adon attributed the hoard to niche 4 in Hall B, although it now seems that it originated in the northern part of Hall A. Are the burials also displaced, or did they originate in Hall B, away from the hoard? In addition to the spatial context, problematic also are the chrono-stratigraphic relations of the hoard and the burials. Bar-Adon, who mentions frequently the attribution of finds to either layer I, II or III, does not positively attribute the burial to any layer. This is probably due to the fact that Cave 1 burials were excavated in the first season, when “It was not possible to determine with any degree of certainty which finds belong to the lower floor and which to the upper level” (Bar-Adon 1980: 3).

Nathan was the first to publish human remains from

Cave 1 of Nahal Mishmar and mentions an important spatial detail: “The skeleton from cave 1 was found not far from the entrance. The skull was on the surface, the other bones at some distance from the skull, were covered by a layer of dust and birds’ droppings” (Nathan 1961: 65). There is only one photographic record of a skeleton with nearby bones (Fig. 2) in Cave 1 (Bar-Adon 1980: 6). It is clearly an out-of-context surface find, and its attribution to the Chalcolithic period should be regarded as hypothetical since the possibility that these are post-Chalcolithic bones cannot be excluded. The suggestions that this individual, first described as a Jewish refugee of the second century AD, is a member of a Chalcolithic family, and that there is such a family, are too speculative.

The suggestion that there is a family in Cave 2 is also problematic. The best preserved member of this alleged family is H. 6, with an amputated hand and wrapping with group B blood stains. Unfortunately, they do not mention the analytical procedure on which this statement is based. The wrappings have been radiometrically dated in the 1960s to approximately the middle of the fourth millennium (see below, date I-1819: 4,725±120 BP). Considering that the new set of dates indicates that the Chalcolithic remains of Cave 1 are not later than the Fifth Millennium (Aardsma 2001), we are skeptical of H. 6 being of a Chalcolithic date. Haas and Nathan (1973: 143) note that H. 6 was the uppermost skeleton among the six and that he was buried in an extended position (Haas and Nathan 1973: Pl. 2–9). Since the Ghassulians were buried mostly in flexed positions, as is the case with the four children found in Cave 2 (Davidovich 2008: 245), the extended position of H. 6 casts doubts on its attribution to the Ghassulian.

The occurrence in the same cave of Ghassulian burials from the Fifth Millennium along with second century AD Jewish refugees is well known in the Judean Desert caves. It is best illustrated in the Cave of Horror. Aharoni (1962) described the Chalcolithic stratum in the outer part of this cave, below the Bar Kokhva stratum. In the center of the cave he unearthed a highly flexed burial and remnants of a charred mat that were radiometrically dated to the second half of the Fifth Millennium (date I-616: 5,460±120 BP). In the inner part of the cave, numerous human remains of Bar Kokhva times were discovered.

To summarize, we cannot exclude the possibility that in Nahal Mishmar, like in other Judean Desert caves,


231

Ghassulians were interred and later, after thousands of years, people of the Roman period occupied the place and were buried nearby. The later occupants disturbed earlier features and burials, and since the available information is scanty, contradictory or entirely missing, it is not always possible to know which burial is of what period.

This warns against any conclusions based on groups of burials. There are only two skeletons with injuries (H. 6 Cave 2 and H. 4 Cave 3) and since they cannot be attributed positively to the Chalcolithic period, it cannot be concluded that the Ghassulian people were beaten brutally before their lives came to a tragic end (Haas and Nathan 1973: 143). Other conclusions based on such problematic data are also untenable. The idea that different families were buried in Caves 1 and 2 is hampered by the possibility that the “families” consist of individuals who lived thousands of years apart. The suggestions that there is a social hierarchy, or that Cave 1 is a tomb with exceptional burial offerings, cannot be supported either.

Dating of the hoard – archaeological considerations Immediately after the discovery of the Nahal Mishmar hoard it became clear that it is of the Chalcolithic period.

In his concluding remarks Bar-Adon notes the similarity of the hoard to the assemblages of Chalcolithic Beer Sheva and Teleilat Ghassul. He assigns all three to the same entity which he refers to as the Ghassulian culture. He also stresses the uniformity of the Ghassulian assemblages from all over the country and emphasizes that they share more similarities than differences (Bar-Adon 1980: 199–200).

For Bar-Adon the Ghassulian is a culture in its mature phase, past the phases of gradual growth and development, and its origins should be sought in the wider region, outside the country. He regards the decorations of the copper objects as ancient Near Eastern fertility cults and concludes therefore that the culture originated to the north. Concerning connections to other sites, Bar-Adon (1980: 200) emphasizes that the identical composition of the copper mace head found in Abu Matar (Perrot 1955) and those of the Nahal Mishmar is indicative of close links between the two sites. In addition he sees nothing that supports the idea that En Gedi (Ussishkin 1980), located in the vicinity of Nahal Mishmar, was the source of the Nahal Mishmar hoard (Bar-Adon 1980: 202).

The Ghassulian is defined today as a cultural entity similar in principle to the way other cultures, such as

Figure 2. Human remains from the Nahal Mishmar Cave of the Treasure (from Bar-Adon 1980: p. 6).

Gilead and Gošić

232

the Natufian or Yarmukian are defined (Gilead 2011). It is a cultural entity that consists of a number of similar assemblages, characterized by underground and surface architecture, rectangular rooms, pottery vessels such as churns, cornets, hole-mouth jars and V-shaped bowls, and flint tools such as bifacials, sickle blades and fan-scrapers. Worth noting also are the bone tools, the ground stone industry, ivory carving, spinning and weaving. Most significant, especially in the context of the Nahal Mishmar hoard, is the Ghassulian metallurgy and its copper artifacts.

The Ghassulian lasted for 500–600 years, between 4,500–4,000/3,900 BC, and the question to be asked is where in the Ghassulian sequence should the Nahal Mishmar hoard be placed? Is it early Ghassulian or late Ghassulian? New sites excavated in recent decades, as well as the growing numbers of radiocarbon dates, make it possible to outline the cultural variation within the Ghassulian, a variation that was less apparent in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Ghassulian sites of the northern Negev are a starting point for discussing Ghassulian cultural variability and sequencing. In this part of the country there are rich sites, relatively well studied assemblages, copper artifacts and remains of copper processing, along with numerous 14C dates. The sites here may be divided clearly into two clusters with differing cultural assemblages and subsistence economies. They probably represent two distinct chronological phases of the Ghassulian. This dichotomy has been discussed thoroughly more than once (Gilead 1989, 1995, 2009, 2011) and we summarize here only the aspects that are pertinent to the discussion of the Nahal Mishmar hoard.

The earliest cluster (or sub-culture) of the northern Negev Ghassulian is the Besor-Grar cluster that is characterized by mudbrick architecture, numerous cornets, raising of sheep, goats, pigs and cattle, with no evidence of copper processing. The Beer Sheva cluster is characterized by constructions of stone foundations, underground structures, few or no cornets, raising of sheep, goats and cattle but not pigs, and abundant evidence of copper processing. The clusters seem to differ also chronologically as is indicated by the radiometric dates: the Beer Sheva cluster which is late Ghassulian, mostly in the two centuries prior to 4,000 BC, and the Besor-Grar cluster, early Ghassulian, is a century or two earlier (Gilead

2011: 19–20). Raising pigs, the dominance of mudbrick architecture, the cornets and the lack of copper processing at Teleilat Ghassul suggest that this site is very similar to sites of the Besor-Grar cluster. Radiometric evidence from Teleilat Ghassul and Gilat supports the suggestion that it is earlier, along with the Besor-Grar sites, than the sites of Nahal Beer Sheva (see also Golden 2009b: 94–95).

The early Ghassulian (ca. 4,500–4,300/4,300 BC) of both Teleilat Ghassul and the northern Negev lack evidence of metallurgy, and Golden (1998: 58; 2009b: 47) labels them “Premetallic”. This, and the fact that copper appears in the Nahal Beer Sheva sites, suggest that the copper industry is of Late Ghassulian times and that the Nahal Mishmar is therefore a Late Ghassulian site.

The radiocarbon datesThere are now 13 14C determinations from Cave 1 in Nahal Mishmar, one from Cave 2 and one from Cave 3 (Fig. 3). Four dates for Cave 1 were obtained between 1961 and 1964: three for the mat in which the hoard was wrapped and one for remains of wood in a standard. The four samples were dated by three different laboratories and they form two distinct clusters: early, 5,390±150 BP (BM-140), and late, 4,880±250 BP, 4,780±100 BP and 4,760±120 BP (WR-1341, I-285, I-353 respectively). Bar-Adon (1980: 199) suggests that the early BM-140 date of the British Museum should be averaged with the late dates to get a date that agrees with the Bir es-Safadi dates known then. However, these dates cannot be averaged since they fail the x2 test carried out by OxCal.

It is worth noting that not all archaeologists in the 1960s were aware that tobacco or cigarette ashes can contaminate radiocarbon samples (Kra 1986: 768). There is more than one snapshot from the Nahal Mishmar dig indicating that the mat in which the hoard was wrapped was in close proximity to burning cigarettes (e.g. Tadmor 1989: Plate 45). We cannot be sure that the mat was actually contaminated; however, such an option cannot be excluded.

Nine additional 14C dates have been obtained from Cave 1 in the last two decades (Davidovich 2008: table 3): three by the laboratory of Weizmann Institute (RT dates) and six by the accelerator laboratory at the University of Arizona (AA dates). Excluding date RT-1407, the rest of the new dates fall within the limits of the Fifth Millennium BC, mainly in the second half of it (Fig. 3). The 13 Cave


233

1 dates cover about 1,500 years, from ca. 5,000 to about 3,500 BC which is unacceptable and there is no doubt that some of the dates are wrong. This is best illustrated when the six recent AA dates of the mat in which the hoard was wrapped are considered (Fig. 3).

Three samples of the mat dated by one laboratory (Aardsma 2001: table 1) yielded six dates which cover the span of about 1,000 years: 5,063 to 4,053 BC (2 sigma spread). Moreover, one sample of the mat, AA37206 (Fig. 3), produced two dates at the beginning of the Fifth Millennium and one date hundreds of years later, in the middle of the millennium. Thus, it seems that the spread of the Nahal Mishmar 14C dates is too large and the hoard cannot be precisely dated. However, it seems that the dating of the hoard to the Fifth Millennium is established since eight out of the nine recent dates are in the Fifth Millennium. On the basis of the numerous radiometric dates from other Late Ghassulian sites, mainly in the northern Negev, it seems that the hoard is of late Fifth

Millennium times.Mellaart (1979) was the first to consider calibration

in relation to Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology. In his summary table (Mellaart 1979: fig. 1) he suggests that Nahal Mishmar, and the Beer Sheva sites, which he regards as the latest Chalcolithic sites, existed prior to 4,000 BC An early termination of the Ghassulian at 4,000 BC or shortly after was endorsed by one of us (Gilead 1993, 1994) on the basis of the dates from the Beer Sheva Ghassulian sites. In the last decade the early termination of the Ghassulian is being supported by new series of radiocarbon dates from Teleilat Ghassul (Bourke et al. 2001; Bourke et al. 2004) and Shiqmim (Burton and Levy 2011). The combined radiometric evidence from Nahal Mishmar and the major Ghassulian sites fully corroborates the view that the hoard is contemporary with the Late Ghassulian of the Nahal Beer Sheva sites and not the Early Ghassulian of Gilat or Teleilat Ghassul which is earlier and predates the introduction of metallurgy.

Figure 3. Calibrated 14C dates from the Nahal Mishmar Cave of the Treasure (OxCal version 4.1).

Gilead and Gošić

234

THE NAHAL MISHMAR HOARD – THE CULTURAL CONTExTUssishkin (1971, 2012, 2014) was the first to integrate the Nahal Mishmar hoard into the local and regional contexts. He suggests that the hoard is the paraphernalia of the En Gedi shrine (i.e. temple) that were packed by the local priests after receiving alarming news about the arrival of an enemy, probably the new “Proto-Urban” settlers or an Egyptian army. They found refuge in the Nahal Mishmar cave where they hid the hoard before leaving the cave, never to return (Ussishkin 1971: 37–39; 1980: 40–41). Bar-Adon (1980: 202) rejects this idea and suggests that the hoard came from a nearby temple. He refers to the enclosure on the cliff-top above the cave which he dates to the Chalcolithic period and defines as “…an open-air cult place, which was used by the cave dwellers of this region” (Bar-Adon 1980: 13). Davidovich (2008: 49–51) recently studied the Judean desert enclosures, including the one adjacent to the cave. He concludes that the enclosures cannot be dated to the Chalcolithic period on the basis of current data, and that they were probably used as seasonal pens for herds.

Moorey (1988: 182) suggests that the hoard is from a religious context, but rejects the idea that En Gedi is the origin. He sees no links between the shrine and the hoard. On the basis of comparative typology, iconography and metallurgy, he suggests that all the objects were manufactured locally, perhaps in the Beer Sheva region.

In the framework of a comparative petrographic study carried out in the late 1980s, samples of pottery sherds from the Nahal Mishmar cave were studied along with samples from other sites, including the En Gedi shrine (Gilead and Goren 1989; Goren 1987, 1991). The results of this study do not accord with Ussishkin’s opinion, since the petrography of the En Gedi artifacts indicates exclusive production in Judea and/or the Judean desert and this differs considerably from the petrography of Nahal Mishmar. The raw materials used for the pottery in the cave originate from a number of locales: from three regions of Judea, from the northern Negev and from the Trans-Jordan (Goren 1995: 291–293). In addition to the petrography of ceramic assemblages, Goren also studied the petrography of a number of what he regarded as ceramic cores of mace heads. He concludes that the copper objects were produced by a number of workshops (or mobile specialists) and that the Nahal Mishmar copper

objects did not originate in En Gedi “but in a site of a different nature” (Goren 1995: 305).

Recently, Goren (2008) has modified his views. After studying additional ceramic mold remains, not ceramic cores as he previously thought, he concludes that the lost-wax technique was used by specialists in a single workshop, or a workshop cluster, located in the En Gedi shrine or nearby (Goren 2008: 390–393). Beyond the fact that this claim contradicts his previous results based on the petrography of the pottery assemblages, it is difficult to accept the suggestion that artifacts made by the lost wax technique were produced in the En Gedi shrine. There is nothing in the En Gedi remains that remotely relates to the possibility that a metallurgical workshop operated on the site.

Remains of a metallurgical workshop are obvious, and include dark ashes associated with reddish-baked earth, sometime with furnace and tuyeres fragments, lots of charcoal flecks, ore, crucibles, hammerstones, etc. (Shugar 2000: 88). Excluding ashes, which are common in most Ghassulian sites, none of the above was observed in En Gedi. The option that the excavators entirely missed it all is hard to accept. Moreover, Ussishkin (1980: 15) noticed a dark-colored material in the sanctuary which contained ashy material that merged with the material filling the pits below. Again, nothing in the ashy material and in the pits contains evidence of metallurgical activities, either of smelting copper or of melting it. Although the artifact assemblages and the overall layout of En Gedi were described in detail by Ussishkin (1980), important aspects of the site, such as its detailed stratigraphy, archaeozoology and absolute dating are missing. Thus, to suggest actual relations between the Nahal Mishmar hoard and En Gedi on the basis of partial data is unwarranted.

Another aspect to consider is the nature of the cultural entity associated with the occupation of the En Gedi shrine. We have demonstrated above that there are two distinct phases of the Ghassulian in the southern Levant during the Chalcolithic period: in the first one copper was not processed and numerous cornets were used, while during the second, copper was produced and processed and cornets were used scarcely. The cornets at En Gedi constitute 40% of the pottery assemblage (Gilead 2002: 206; Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4), the highest frequency of cornets in any Ghassulian site in the southern Levant. Since En Gedi lacks evidence of copper processing as


235

well, its attributes resemble those of sites of the Besor-Grar cluster and Teleilat Ghassul, and in all probability represent the early Ghassulian phase, at about 4,300 BC. Thus, En Gedi is most probably a site of pre-metallic times.

Nahal Mishmar is clearly in the tradition of the Beer Sheva sites and thus probably date to about 4,200–4,100 BC. Nahal Mishmar is similar to the Beer Sheva sites in lacking cornets and in having copper and ivory artifacts. The fact that the petrographic analysis indicates that the Nahal Mishmar pottery includes materials that originate in the Beer Sheva Valley (Goren 1995: 292) further substantiates our proposition. We agree with Moorey’s (1988) suggestion that the Nahal Mishmar artifacts are related to the communities in the northern Negev that produced copper objects, rather than to the cornet producers of En Gedi.

THE NAHAL MISHMAR HOARD AND THE TRANSITION TO THE LATE GHASSULIANIn the framework of discussing the cultural context of the Nahal Mishmar hoard, we now turn to briefly consider one of its behavioral facets. No other Ghassulian site, either a secondary burial cave or a settlement, comes close to the Nahal Mishmar in terms of both number and diversity of copper objects. Thus, it is not surprising that many studies and hypotheses concerning the hoard have been advanced (Gates 1992; Moorey 1988; Shalev 1991, 1999; Tadmor 1989; Tadmor et al. 1995). In a recent paper, we suggest (Gošić and Gilead in press a) that Ghassulian metalworking should be understood not only in terms of technology, but also in terms of ritual and magic. While it has been previously proposed that some of the artifacts should be understood as representations of deities (Elliott 1977; Merhav 1993), we propose that they symbolized aspects of the Ghassulian material and spiritual world. The master of the craft created copper artifacts as a master of ritual. By transforming the stones into metal and by further casting a sacred symbol out of it, he demonstrated his unprecedented control over the material world. Moreover, we propose that the transition between the Early to Late Ghassulian occurred along with, or is a result of, the introduction of metallurgy, the ritual change associated with it, and the establishment of formal off-site secondary burials, mainly in caves. These technological, ritual and

social changes may contribute to a better understanding of the Nahal Mishmar hoard.

The Nahal Mishmar hoard is the only hoard of the Ghassulian culture. Even though copper artifacts are encountered in caves, they come from the context of secondary burials (Gal et al. 1997; Gopher and Tsuk 1996; Gophna and Lifshitz 1980; Perrot and Ladiray 1980), and similarity between iconography of copper artifacts and ossuaries is not surprising (Gošić and Gilead in press b). Although those similarities are numerous, including anthropomorphic (Bar-Adon 1980: 30, 49, 104; Epstein 1978: 29, Pl. 6c-d; Gal et al. 1997: 149, fig. 3; Merhav 1993: 33, fig. 4.5) and zoomorphic motifs (Bar-Adon 1980: 32, 42, 102; Merhav 1993: 33, fig. 4.3; Milevski 2002: 138–140), especially interesting are representations of a doorway, found on the cylinder from Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: 24–25) and a copper standard from Giv’at ha-Oranim (Namdar et al. 2004: 71, fig. 5.1: 17). Doorways, as an iconographical element, are found exclusively on two copper artifacts and many ossuaries, thus connecting copper artifacts even more firmly to mortuary ritual. However, as we proposed above, the Nahal Mishmar hoard does not come from a burial context but from a niche in a cave chamber. Nonetheless, its location in the cave points to the significance of the cave as a ritual/sacred place.

We suggest that the copper artifacts should be understood in terms of their “life histories” and the ritual behavior of their makers. It is probable that, as a ritual cycle has come to an end, so did the “life” of the objects. Whatever the reason, artifacts were laid to rest and their concealed disposal in the cave signifies their vanishing from the community of the living, similar to the custom of concealing the dead in the secondary burial caves (Gošić and Gilead in press b).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe numerous and unique artifact types, the complex technologies, as well as the unusual circumstances of discovery and excavations, turned the Nahal Mishmar hoard into a major discovery of late prehistoric times in the southern Levant. However, despite the intensive research carried out until now, certain problems have gone unnoticed for decades, starting from the factual inconsistency regarding the exact location of the

Gilead and Gošić

236

hoard in Cave 1 and other stratigraphic and contextual problems. The “northern Wall of Hall B” – niche “No. 4” inconsistency seems to be solved now: the hoard was found in the northern part of Hall A. However, the stratigraphy of the cave and the relation of the hoard to other finds and to the burials is yet unknown. It seems that important artifact categories such as the woolen fabrics and some plant remains have been inaccurately attributed to the Chalcolithic strata.

The 14C dates of the hoard and major Chalcolithic sites suggest that the hoard is of the second half of the Fifth Millennium BC and is broadly contemporary with the Beer Sheva sites, in which abundant evidence of copper processing exists. In addition, it is contemporary with the custom of secondary burial in cemeteries, mainly in caves. It does not seem that the hoard originated in the En Gedi shrine, which is probably of a preceding, pre-copper, Ghassulian phase.

Finally, we suggest that the production of the copper objects is part of a ritualized process. We base this suggestion on the symbolic nature of artifacts, and on their final ritual burial-like concealment. Controlling and ritualizing the copper industry reflects the high social status of the coppersmiths. It is even plausible to assume that mastering this technology was the trigger behind the shift of the center of the Ghassulian cultural activity from the Gilat and Grar-Besor sites to the Nahal Beer Sheva sites.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSAn earlier version of this paper was submitted to a special volume dedicated to the Nahal Mishmar Hoard. We thank U. Davidovich who encouraged us to write the paper, and S. Rosen, E. Yannay and the anonymous reviewers who read a draft of the paper and made important comments. All the remaining mistakes are ours.

REFERENCESAardsma G.E. 2001. New radiocarbon dates from the reed

mat from the Cave of the Treasure. Radiocarbon 43: 1247–1254.

Aharoni Y. 1962. Expedition B - The Cave of Horror. Israel Exploration Journal 12: 186–199.

Anfinset N. 2010. Metal, Nomads and Culture Contact. The Middle East and North Africa. London: Equniox.

Avigad N. 1962. Expedition A - Nahal David. Israel Exploration Journal 12: 169–183.

Bar-Adon P. 1971. The Cave of the Treasure. The Finds in the Caves of Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute and the Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew).

Bar-Adon P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Beck P. 1989. Notes on the style and iconography of the Chalcolithic hoard from Nahal Mishmar. In: Leonard A.J. and Williams B.B. (eds.), Essays in Ancient Civilizations Presented to J. Helene Kantor, pp. 39–54. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Bourke S.J., Lawson E., Lovell J.L., Hua Q., Zoppi U. and Barbetti M. 2001. The chronology of the Ghassulian period in the Southern Levant: new 14C determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Radiocarbon 43: 1217–1222.

Bourke S.J., Zoppi U., Meadows J., Hua Q. and Gibbins S. 2004. The end of the Chalcolithic period in the south Jordan Valley: new 14C determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Radiocarbon 46: 315–323.

Bronk Ramsey C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–360.

Burton M.M. and Levy T.E. 2011. The end of the Chalcolithic period (4500-3600) in the northern Negev Desert, Israel. In: Lovell J.L. and Rowan Y.M. (eds.), Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic. Theory and Transition, pp. 178–191. Oxford: Oxbow.

Davidovich U. 2008. The Late Chalcolithic Period in the Judean Desert. Settlement Patterns and Characteristics of the Material Culture as a Basis for Environmental and Social Reconstruction. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Hebrew with English summary).

Davidovich U. 2012. The Early Bronze IB in the Judean Desert Caves. Tel Aviv 39: 3–19.

Elliott C. 1977. The religious beliefs of the Ghassulians c. 4000-3100 B.C. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 109: 3–25.

Epstein C. 1978. Aspects of symbolism in Chalcolithic Palestine In: Moorey R. and Parr P. (eds.), Archaeology in the Levant. Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, pp. 23–35. Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd.

Gal Z., Smithline H. and Shalem D. 1997. A Chalcolithic burial cave in Peqi’in, Upper Galilee. Israel Exploration


237

Journal 47: 145–154. Garfinkel Y. 1994. Ritual burial of cultic objects: The

earliest evidence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4(2): 159–188.

Gates M.-H. 1992. Nomadic pastoralists and the Chalcolithic hoard from Nahal Mishmar. Levant 24: 131–139.

Gilead I. 1989. Grar: a Chalcolithic site in Nahal Grar, northern Negev, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 16: 377–394.

Gilead I. 1993. Sociopolitical organization in the Northern Negev at the end of the Chalcolithic period. In: Biran A. and Aviram J. (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Proceeding of the Second International Congress of Biblical Archaeology, pp. 82–97. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Gilead I. 1994. The history of the Chalcolithic settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva area: the radiocarbon aspect. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296: 1–13.

Gilead I. 1995. Grar, A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7). Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press.

Gilead I. 2002. Religio-magic behavior in the Chalcolithic period of Palestine. In: Ahituv S. and Oren E.D. (eds.), Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, Aaron Kempinski Memorial Volume, pp. 103–128. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.

Gilead I. 2009. The Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition in the Southern Levant: Late Sixth-Fifth Millennium culture history. In: Shea J.J. and Lieberman D.E. (eds.), Transitions in Prehistory: Essays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef, pp. 339–359. Oxford: Oxbow Books for the American Schools of Prehistoric Research.

Gilead I. 2011. Chalcolithic culture history: the Ghassulian and other entities in the southern Levant. In: Lovell J.L. and Rowan Y.M. (eds.), Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic. Theory and Transition, pp. 12–24. Oxford and Oakville: The Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow Books.

Gilead I. and Goren Y. 1989. Petrographic analysis of fourth millennium B.C. pottery and stone vessels from the Northern Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 5–14.

Gilead I. and Goren Y. 1995. The pottery assemblages

from Grar. In: Gilead I., Grar, a Chalcolithic site in the Northern Negev, pp. 137–221. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Golden J.M. 1998. The Dawn of the Metal Age. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Golden J.M. 2009a. New light on the development of Chalcolithic metal technology in the Southern Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 22(3): 283–300.

Golden J.M. 2009b. Dawn of the Metal Age. Technology and Society during the Levantine Chalcolithic. London and Oakville: Equinox.

Gopher A. and Tsuk T. 1996. The Nahal Qanah Cave, Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant (Monographs Series of the Institute of Archaeology 12). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Gophna R. and Lifshitz S. 1980. A Chalcolithic burial cave at Palmahim. ‘Atiqot 14: 1–8.

Goren Y. 1987. Petrography of Chalcolithic Period Pottery Assemblages from Southern Israel. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew with English summary).

Goren Y. 1991. The Beginnings of Pottery Production in Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew with English summary).

Goren Y. 1995. Shrines and ceramics in Chalcolithic Israel: the view through the petrographic microscope. Archaeometry 37: 287–305.

Goren Y. 2008. The location of specialized copper production by the lost wax technique in the Chalcolithic southern Levant. Geoarchaeology 23(3): 374–397.

Gošić М. and Gilead I. in press a. Unveiling hidden rituals: Ghassulian metallurgy of the Southern Levant in the light of ethnohistorical record. Proceedings of the International Conference “Copper and Trade” in South Eastern Mediterranean.

Gošić М. and Gilead I. in press b. Casting the sacred - Chalcolithic metallurgy and ritual in the Southern Levant. In: Laneri N. (ed.), Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East. Oxford: Oxbow.

Haas N. and Nathan H. 1973. An attempt at a social interpretation of the Chalcolithic burials in the Nahal Mishmar caves. In: Aharoni Y. (ed.), Excavations and Studies, pp. 144–153. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew; English summary: pp. xVII–xVIII).

Gilead and Gošić

238

Ilani S. and Rosenfeld A. 1994. Ore source of arsenic copper tools from Israel during Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Terra Nova 6: 177–179.

Key C.A. 1980. The trace-element composition of the copper and copper alloy artifacts of the Nahal Mishmar hoars. In: Bar-Adon P. (ed.), The Cave of the Treasures, pp. 238–243. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Kra R. 1986. Standardizing procedures for collecting, submitting, recording, and reporting radiocarbon samples. Radiocarbon 28(2a): 765–775.

Levy J. and Gilead I. 2012. The emergence of the Ghassulian textile industry in the Southern Levant Chalcolithic period (c. 4,500-4,000 B.C.E.). In: Nosch M.-L., Koefoed H. and Andersson Strand E. (eds.), Textile Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East, pp. 26–44. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books.

Levy T.E., Conner W., Rowan Y. and Alon D. 2006. The intensification of production at Gilat: textile production. In: Levy T.E. (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult, the Sanctuary at Gilat, pp. 693–739. London: Equinox.

Levy T.E. and Shalev S. 1989. Prehistoric metalworking in the southern Levant: archaeometallurgical and social perspectives. World Archaeology 20: 352–372.

Mellaart J. 1979. Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology: a dilemma? Antiquity 53: 6–18.

Merhav R. 1993. Scepters of the divine from the Cave of the Treasure at Nahal Mishmar. In: Heltzer M., Segal A. and Kaufman D. (eds.), Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel in Honour of Moshe Dothan, pp. 21–42. Haifa: Haifa University Press (Hebrew).

Milevski I. 2002. A new fertility figurine and new animal motifs from the Chalcolithic in the southern Levant: finds from cave K-1 at Quleh, Israel. Paléorient 28: 133–141.

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

Namdar D., Segal I., Goren Y. and S. S. 2004. Chalcolithic copper artifacts. In: Scheftelowitz N. and Oren R., Giv’at ha-Oranim. A Chalcolithic Site, pp. 70–83. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Nathan H. 1961. The skeletons of the Nahal Mishmar Caves. Israel Exploration Journal 11: 65–69.

Perrot J. 1955. The excavations at Tell Abu Matar near Beersheba. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 17–40, 73–84, 167–189.

Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombes à Ossuaries de la Région Côtiere Palestinienne au IVe Millénaire Avant l’ère Chrétiene. Paris: Association Paléorient.

Potaszkin R. and Bar-Avi K. 1980. A material investigation of the metal objects from the Nahal Mishmar treasure. In: Bar-Adon P., The Cave of the Treasure, pp. 235–237. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Reimer P.J., Baillie M.G.L., Bard E., Bayliss A., Beck J.W., Blackwell P.G., Bronk Ramsey C., Buck C.E., Burr G.S., Edwards R.L., Friedrich M., Grootes P.M., Guilderson T.P., Hajdas I., Heaton T.J., Hogg A.G., Hughen K.A., Kaiser K.F., Kromer B.M., F. G., Manning S.W., Reimer R.W., Richards D.A., Southon J.R., Talamo S., Turney C.S.M., Van Der Plicht J. and Weyhenmeyer C.E. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4): 1111–1150.

Rothenberg B. 1991. The Ghassulian-Beersheva Chalcolithic enigma. Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 17: 6–7.

Rowan Y.M. and Golden J. 2009. The Chalcolithic period of the southern Levant: a Synthetic review. Journal of World Prehistory 22: 1–92.

Rowan Y.M. and Ilan D. 2007. The meaning of ritual diversity in the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. In: Barrowclough D.A. and Malone C. (eds.), Cult in Context. Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology, pp. 249–256. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Shalev S. 1991. Two different copper industries in the Chalcolithic culture of Israel. In: Eluere C. and Mohen J.-P. (eds.), Decouverte du Metal, pp. 413–424. Paris: Picard.

Shalev S. 1999. Recasting the Nahal Mishmar Hoard: Experimental archaeology and metallurgy. In: Hauptmann A., Pernicka E., Rehren T. and Yalçin Ü. (eds.), The Beginnings of Metallurgy, pp. 295–300. Bochum.

Shalev S., Goren Y., Levy T. and Northover J.P. 1992. A Chalcolithic mace head from the Negev, Israel: Technological aspects and cultural implications. Archaeometry 34: 63–71.

Shalev S. and Northover P.J. 1993. The metallurgy of the Nahal Mishmar hoard reconsidered. Archaeometry 35:


239

35–41. Shamir O. 2005. Textiles in the Land of Israel from the

Roman Period till the Early Islamic Period in the Light of aAchaeological Finds. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Shugar A.N. 2000. 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, London.

Shugar A.N. and Gohm C.J. 2011. Developmental trends in Chalcolithic ocpper metallurgy: A radiometric perspective. In: Lovell J. and Rowan Y.M. (eds.), Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic. Theory and Transition., pp. 133–148. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Tadmor M. 1989. The Judean Desert treasure from Nahal Mishmar: A Chalcolithic traders’ hoard? In: Leonard A.J. and Williams B.B. (eds.), Essays in Ancient Civilization presented to Helen J. Kantor, pp. 249–261. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Tadmor M., Kedem D., Begemann F., Hauptmann A., Pernicka E. and Schmitt-Strecker S. 1995. The Nahal Mishmar hoard from the Judean Desert: Technology, composition, and provenance. ‘Atiqot 27: 96–148.

Ussishkin D. 1971. The “Ghassulian” temple in Ein Gedi and the origin of the hoard from Nahal Mishmar. Biblical Archaeologist 34: 23–39.

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

Ussishkin D. 2012. The Chalcolithic temple at En Gedi: Fifty years to the excavation. Qadmoniot 144: 71–78. (Hebrew).

Ussishkin D. 2014. The Chalcolithic temple in En Gedi: Fifty years after its discovery Near Eastern Archaeology 77(1): 15–26.

Weinstein J.M. 1984. Radiocarbon dating in the Southern Levant. Radiocarbon 26: 297–366.

Zaitschek D.V. 1980. Plant remains from the Cave of the Treasure. In: Bar-Adon P. (ed.), The Cave of the Treasure. Finds from the Caves of Nahal Mishmat, pp. 223–228. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Ziffer I. 2007. A Note on the Nahal Mishmar “Crowns”. In: Cheng J. and Feldman M.H. (eds.), Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context. Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students, pp. 47–67. Boston and Leiden: Brill.

Zohary D., Hopf M. and Weiss E. 2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

fifty years later: a critical review of the stratigraphy, chronology and context of the nahal...

Documents