JIPS 2021 Fadida

JOURNAL OF THE ISRAEL PREHISTORIC SOCIETY Mitekufat Haeven Volume 51 Editors: Reuven Yeshurun Ianir Milevski Ofer Marder Isaac Gilead Supported by the Irene Levi-Sala CARE Archaeological Foundation and by the Bina and Moshe Stekelis Fund for Prehistoric Research, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem THE ISRAEL PREHISTORIC SOCIETY 2021 Table of Contents Editors’ foreword 5 Early Ahmarian Lithic Techno-Economy and Mobility at Al-Ansab 1, Wadi Sabra, Southern Jordan Hannah Parow-Souchon, Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter 6 The Role of Networks in the Connectivity of the Levantine Epipaleolithic Anna Belfer-Cohen and A. Nigel Goring-Morris 65 Netzer Sereni: A Geometric Kebaran Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel Ronit Lupu, Mae Goder-Goldberger, Oren Ackermann, Joel Roskin and Ianir Milevski 82 Pottery from Submerged Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic Settlements of the Carmel Coast, Israel: A Microarchaeological Study of Raw Material Procurement and Firing Technology Isaac Ogloblin Ramírez, Ehud Galili and Ruth Shahack-Gross Appendix by Isaac Ogloblin Ramírez, Ehud Galili, Roey Nickelsberg, Paula Waiman-Barak and Ruth Shahack-Gross 105 130 Additional Late Chalcolithic Shafts and Pits East of Namir Road, Tel Aviv Edwin C.M. van den Brink, Eriola Jakoel, Alla Yaroshevich, Karolina Hruby, Danny Rosenberg, Rivka Chasan, Oren Ackermann, Yaakov Anker, Joel Roskin, Vered Eshed, Ilana Peters, Reuven Kapul, Yotam Asscher, Lee Perry-Gal and Elisabetta Boaretto 136 A Ghassulian Chalcolithic Occupation at the Southern Margins of Tel Yavne Atalya Fadida, Ianir Milevski, Liat Nadav-Ziv, Lena Brailovsky-Rokser, Yoav Weingarten, Ilana Peters, Yotam Asscher, Sariel Shalev, Inbar Ktalav, Lee Perry-Gal and Elie Haddad 225 Excavations at the Early Bronze Age I Site Fazael 4: The 2017–2020 Seasons Shay Bar, Katia Zutovski, Karolina Hruby and Catherine Ujma 261 Book Reviews Not Just a Corridor: Human Occupation of the Nile Valley and Neighbouring Regions Between 75,000 and 15,000 Years Ago, edited by Alice Leplongeon, Mae Goder-Goldberger and David Pleurdeau Yamandú H. Hilbert The Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site at Nesher-Ramla Quarry (NRQN), Israel, by Micka Ullman Michal Birkenfeld The Mega Project at Motza (Moẓa): The Neolithic and Later Occupations up to the 20th Century, edited by Hamoudi Khalaily, Amit Re’em, Jacob Vardi and Ianir Milevski Bill Finlayson 304 307 312 In Memoriam Ram Gophna (1928–2021): From Historical Geography to the Archaeology of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Landscapes Ianir Milevski 321 Note for Authors 326 Hebrew abstracts *4 4 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 A Ghassulian Chalcolithic Occupation at the Southern Margins of Tel Yavne Atalya Fadida1, Ianir Milevski1, Liat Nadav-Ziv1, Lena Brailovsky-Rokser1, Yoav Weingarten1, Ilana Peters1, Yotam Asscher1, Sariel Shalev2,3, Inbar Ktalav1, Lee Perry-Gal1,3 and Elie Haddad1 1 2 3 Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586 Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. Email: atalya@israntique.org.il. Department of Maritime Civilizations, Charney School of Marine Sciences, and the Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, Israel. Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838, Israel. ABSTRACT In 2019, as part of rescue excavations by the Israel Antiquities Authority, remains dating to the Ghassulian Chalcolithic were found at the southern margins of Tel Yavne, a site located on the coastal plain near Nahal Soreq. Four areas were excavated – A, B, C, and G – though retrieved Ghassulian remains only in Area A. Two Chalcolithic phases were identified: remains of two walls, an oval stone feature in Subarea A3 and a concentration of finds overlying the kurkar bedrock in Subarea A2. In addition to these architectural features, Ghassulian artifacts were scattered throughout Area A, including pottery, flint, ground stone tools, and a copper axe. The ceramic assemblage is domestic and includes mainly bowls. There are also grinding tools and vessels made of basalt, including fragments of pedestal feet. The dominant flint tools are sickle blades and ad hoc tools. A copper axe and a few Canaanean blades were also found in different contexts. The size of the site is still unclear, and it seems to continue to the south beyond the confines of the excavated area, as indicated in test trenches. Chalcolithic-period remains had been uncovered in previous surveys and small-scale excavations in the vicinity of Yavne. Excavations of both habitation sites and cemeteries (e.g. Palmahim) have shown that the Mediterranean coastal plain was densely settled. The basalt vessels and copper axe found at the site indicate a long-distance exchange of goods in the Chalcolithic period, with the basalt arriving from north and east, and the copper axe from the south. KEYWORDS: Chalcolithic, Ghassulian, southern Levant, Mediterranean coastal plain, Nahal Soreq, Yavne INTRODUCTION The site is located on the southern and eastern margins of Tel Yavne, in the southeastern part of the city of Yavne. A salvage excavation was conducted at the site prior to constructing a new neighborhood called “Yavne East” (Figs. 1–3). Tel Yavne (ca. 60 m asl) is located on one of the kurkar ridges of the southern coastal plain, next to Nahal Soreq, which flows north along the tel’s northeastern periphery; within about 600 m of the tel, the stream turns sharply west, forming an alluvial plain. As with the majority of Chalcolithic sites, Yavne is located near a stream. Geomorphological and topographical observations by J. Roskin (2020) indicate that the site was seasonally inundated in the past. An ancient tributary of Nahal Soreq probably passed through a part of the excavation area (Fig. 2:1). The Chalcolithic occupation is located in a low depression between two kurkar hills of that ridge – one in the north where the tel is encountered and one on the hill south of it. The depression probably attracted rainwater from the flooding of the nearby channel or local groundwater, as occurred during the winter of the excavation season (Fig. 2:2). 225 Fadida et al. Below we refer to this site as Yavne and the period as the Chalcolithic or the Ghassulian Chalcolithic. No evidence of settlement during the Chalcolithic period has so far been uncovered at Tel Yavne, where the earliest finds are of the Middle Bronze Age II (e.g. Fischer and Taxel 2007). However, it is noteworthy that the site was previously investigated only through surface surveys and small-scale excavations (reviewed in Taxel 2005; Fischer and Taxel 2007; Kletter and Nagar 2015). The salvage excavations were conducted in a relatively flat terrain near the tel and exposed remains from the Middle Bronze Age IIB until 1948. In addition, a few remains of Ghassulian burials were found on the kurkar ridge, ca. 500 m southwest of Tel Yavne (Beit Gamliel, Shapira 1964), and Chalcolithic pottery at a small site on a kurkar hill (Hill 41) about 4 km northwest of Tel Yavne (Pipano 1983). The ongoing excavation near the tel is conducted in four areas to its northeast, east, and south: A, B, C, and G (Nadav-Ziv 2020; Haddad et al. 2021), nowadays separated from the tel by railroad tracks (Fig. 1). Areas A and B extend south of the tel. Areas C and G extend northeast and east of the tel and abut an area previously excavated by E. Yannai (2014). Area A comprises 106 excavated squares (5 × 5 m) divided into four subareas (A1–A4; Fig. 4). Two Chalcolithic occupation phases were unearthed in Stratum V (Haddad et al. 2021), as well as Middle/Late Bronze, Iron Age II/Persian, and Hellenistic remains. The upper occupation phase of Stratum V (Va) consists of two stone walls. One of these walls is a segment of a north-south foundation wall (W12055; 4.00 × 0.55 m), built of two rows and preserved to a height of 0.2 m. The typical stone size is between 0.30 × 0.15 and 0.15 × 0.15 m. Another wall (W12125; 2.15 × 0.40 m) is to the east and parallel of W12055. The fieldstones’ typical size is 0.15 × 0.15 m, and its foundation is below that of W12055, suggesting a slightly earlier date (Fig. 5). Figure 1. View of the excavations at Yavne with Area A in the foreground and Tel Yavne in the background, looking north (Photo: I. Jonish, courtesy of the IAA). 226 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 Figure 2. 1) Aerial view of the city of Yavne, the tel and the site with topographical lines (illustration produced by J. Roskin using an aerial view from www.govmap.gov.il). Key: dark blue rectangle, the excavation areas; yellow line: kurkar hills on the ridge; light blue lines, reconstructed water stream. 2) View of Area A during January 2020 with streams of water running on, view to the southeast (Photo: J. Roskin, courtesy of the IAA). 227 Fadida et al. The lower occupation phase of the Chalcolithic layer (Stratum Vb) consists of an oval arrangement of fieldstones – a small pit or the base of an installation – exposed within the virgin soil (Loc. 12101; Fig. 5) and located 0.8 m east of W12125. Excavation of the oval stone arrangement revealed that it comprises at least two tiers of stones and was probably deeper. The exposure of this feature was discontinued due to technical and safety restrictions. Diagnostic Chalcolithic pottery sherds of the Ghassulian culture were retrieved from accumulations abutting the two wall segments of Stratum Vb (Loc. 12075) and the stone feature of Stratum Va (Loc. 12101). Also found were a few animal bones and Glycymeris shells. A large quantity of Ghassulian pottery was also retrieved from Sq. J43 (Loc. 12099), located slightly to the north of the above-mentioned remains. A somewhat smaller quantity of such pottery was found in Sq. K43. Additional pottery, stone vessels, and flint artifacts dated to the Chalcolithic period were found atop bedrock in Sq. K37 (Loc. 11038; Fig. 4). Scattered artifacts without a stratigraphic context were unearthed across Area A, especially in Squares J37 and J38. Chalcolithic potsherds and flint items were also retrieved from mechanically dug test trenches ca. 30 m south of Area A, two meters below the surface. Figure 3. Location map with Yavne and other Chalcolithic settlements, burials, and other sites such as sanctuaries, hoard caves, in the central-southern regions of the southern Levant (map produced by A. Fadida using a base-map from ESRI). 228 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 Figure 4. Plan of Area A with subareas: Squares with exposure of Chalcolithic remains marked in brown (drawn by Y. Gumenny). 229 Fadida et al. Figure 5. 1) Plan of Subarea A3, Squares J–K/42–43. 2) Section of Sq. K42. 3) Sq. K42, looking south (drawings by Y. Gumenny; Photo: E. Haddad, courtesy of the IAA). 230 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 THE FINDS The typological description of the assemblage mainly follows Commenge-Pellerin (1987, 1990) and is based primarily on rims. The parallels for most of the sherds are given in the tables associated with the figures. The best parallels are from sites in the coastal plain, the Shephelah and the Beersheva valley, all typical of the Ghassulian culture. The small size of the assemblage did not merit statistical analysis although some comparisons with other assemblages will be discussed. The samples of all find categories are small; thus, we discuss them cautiously and point out the difficulties of interpretation. Chalcolithic artifacts were retrieved from in situ Chalcolithic occupations, later occupations and mixed loci. While the finds from late contexts were retrieved by handpicking, all the Chalcolithic loci were collected by handpicking and dry-sieving through a 5 × 5 mm mesh. The pottery Bowls (Figs. 6; 7:1–6) Eighty bowl rim fragments were found in Area A. Most of the sherds are small and consequently it is impossible to determine the diameter of the complete bowls or, in some cases, to identify the type of bowl they were part of. These sherds are either V-shaped bowls (N=23) or other bowls (N=57). It is possible that some of other bowls are V-shaped bowls, that cannot be identified due to their small size or poor state of preservation. Thus, the frequency of the V-shaped bowls may be underestimated. There are V-shaped bowls from this site with a straight or a diagonal rim. Several bowls include clay residues on the bases’ exterior part; this is a characteristic feature of the Ghassulian assemblages (Roux 2020: 31--33). The decorated bowl sherds comprise a rim with thumb impressions (Fig. 6:3) and another bearing a red stripe (Fig. 7:2). While Gilead and Goren (1995:153) contend that indented decoration on the rim only occurred on Chalcolithic basins and not on bowls, our example (Fig. 6:3) closely corresponds to a large bowl rather than a basin in its thickness and diameter. Almost 200 diagnostic Ghassulian sherds were retrieved from Area A. Most were made of orange and brittle clay, and their state of preservation is poor, which in some cases made identification challenging. The poor preservation is likely also the reason that painted decoration was rare in the assemblage, occurring mostly on the rim. The pottery assemblage includes mostly V-shaped bowls but also cornets and churns (Table 1). Sherds of holemouth jars and other jar types were also found. The other sherds include bases, some of which are of a relatively small diameter (ca. 5 cm), probably of bowls, and some of a larger diameter (> 10 cm) probably belonged to closed vessels, perhaps jars (Table 1). There are also several handles of unidentified vessel types. Most of the sherds (ca. 65 %, N=126) were found in Subarea A3, associated with the Chalcolithic architectural remains. Only 12 decorated sherds were found at the site: four rims bearing a red stripe and eight sherds with thumb impressions. Vessel Type Bowl Chalcolithic contexts (Vb) Chalcolithic contexts (Va) Later contexts 2 44 34 Total Total % 80 41.2 1 0.5 Basin 1 Cornet 8 8 16 8.2 Churns 1 1 2 1.0 Holemouth jars 4 10 14 7.2 Jars 2 2 4 2.1 Handles 5 8 13 6.7 Bases 1 35 28 64 33.0 Total 3 100 91 194 100 Table 1. Composition of Chalcolithic pottery types from Area A. 231 Fadida et al. Figure 6. Bowls from Yavne, Area A. No. Subarea Locus Basket/ item Description 1 A3 12072 120561/18 Brittle dark orange clay 2 A2 10019 100597/4 3 A3 12072 120561/3 4 A4 16057 160161/2 5 A2 11127 110230/1 6 A3 12075 120582/5 7 A3 12099 120804/7 232 Dark orange clay with many large white grits Brittle orange clay with various-sized white grits Brittle orange clay with many white grits of different sizes Brittle yellowish-orange clay with white grits Brittle light orange clay with small white grits and a few red grits Brittle clay with mostly white and gray grits and a few small red grits Stratum III III Parallels Itach et al. 2019: fig. 24:1, 6; Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.2:3; Commenge et al. 2006: fig. 10.7:2; CommengePellerin 1987: fig. 17:10, 13 Similar to Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 19:10 Va III Similar to Gophna et al. 2017: fig. 13.2:2; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 46:5 III van den Brink et al. 2016: fig. 56:13 Va van den Brink et al. 2016: fig. 42:10 III Similar to Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.3:6 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 Basin (Fig. 7:7) One basin rim, featuring a shelf edge and thumb indentation on the interior (Fig. 7:7), was found in Subarea A3. It is one of the few examples found in Chalcolithic assemblages known only from Bir esSafadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 27:5) and Nahal Patish (N. Ben-Ari, pers. com.; A.F., pers. observ.). It has been suggested that basins may have been used for food preparation, collective meals, and even for temporary storage (Commenge-Pellerin 1987:49; Gilead and Goren 1995:158), although in this case the function of the inner decoration is unclear. Figure 7. Bowls (1–6) and a basin (7) from Area A. No. Subarea Locus Basket/ item 1 A2 11080 110223/1 2 A3 12075 120606/4 Stratum Parallels Brittle orange clay with gray grits Brittle orange clay with small white grits; remains of red paint on the rim III Similar to Commenge et al. 2006: fig. 10.6:3; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 18:2, 14 III Va III A1 10009 4 A3 5 A1 12072 120584/13 Brittle yellow clay Brittle orange clay 10019 100227/2 with small white grits 6 A1 7 A3 12075 Va Brittle orange clay with small white grits 3 10019 100065/2 Description 100227/1 Sandy orange clay 120606/3 Orange clay; brownish-dark grey core with white grits Similar to Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.3:6; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 46:5; Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 23:3 Similar to van den Brink et al. 2016: fig. 56:6; Commenge et al. 2006: fig. 10.7:1, 4, 6; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 18:5, 11, 13; Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 19:11 Similar to van den Brink et al. 2016: fig. 42:8 III Va Similar to Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.7:5 (without decoration), Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 27:5 (basin with thumb indentation on its interior), N. Ben-Ari, pers. com. 233 Fadida et al. Cornets (Fig. 8) The base fragments found are mostly elongated; one specimen bears scrubbing marks typical of a type of cornet with an elongated base (Fig. 8:2; Ussishkin 1980:20; Gilead and Goren 1995:158). Although cornets appear in several regions of the southern Levant, and our exemplars are very fragmented, the closest parallels for such vessels were found in the coastal plain, Shephelah, and the Negev. Figure 8. Cornets from Area A. No. Subarea Locus Basket/item Description Stratum Parallels 1 A1 10019 110125/13 Brownish-orange clay with small grits, soot marks. III Milevski et al. 2013: 28:2-3, 7 2 A3 12075 120686/13 Orange clay with small grits Va Similar to Itach et al. 2019: 27:6, 7 3 A2 10009 110227/14 Brownish-orange clay with small grits III Similar to van den Brink et al. 2016: fig. 45: 9, 10 234 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 Holemouth jars (Figs. 9, 10) The holemouth jars from Area A can be divided into two groups: jars with small mouths and thin walls (rim diam. 10–15 cm; Fig. 9:1–3), and jars with large mouths and thick walls (rim diam. 20–42 cm; Figs. 9:4, 5; 10). Some of the small jars have soot marks on the exterior, indicating that they may have been used for cooking (Gilead and Goren 1995:174). Figure 9. Holemouth jars small (1–3) and large (4, 5) from Area A. No. Subarea Locus Basket/item Description Stratum III 1 A4 16063 160266/2 Orange clay with small white and black grits; soot marks on outer and inner parts 2 A2 11038 110169/7 Orange clay with gray and white grits III 3 A3 12075 120637/8 Brownish-orange clay with white grits Va 4 A3 12075 120606/1 5 A3 12072 120609/8 Orange clay with medium white and gray grits Orange and dark gray clay; light brownish-orange core with white grits Va Parallels Similar to Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 49:2 Smilar to Itach et al. 2019: fig. 30:3; Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.14:9; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 72:2 Similar to van den Brink et al. 2016: fig. 59:8; van den Brink and Lazar 2019: fig. 57:2; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 28:1, 2; Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 41:7 Similar to Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 25:10 Va 235 Fadida et al. Figure 10. Large holemouth jars from Area A. No. Subarea Locus Basket/item Description Stratum 1 A3 12051 120368/1 Brownish-orange clay with different sized white grits Va 2 A3 12060 120490/17 Gray clay with numerous various-sized white grits III 3 A1 10015 100199/2 4 A3 12075 120582/3 236 Orange clay with white and gray grits Brownish-orange clay with small white grits III Va Parallels Similar to Commenge et al. 2006: fig. 4.14:11 Similar to van den Brink et al. 2016: fig. 47:11, 12; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 28:7, 10; CommengePellerin 1990: fig. 41:7 van den Brink et al. 2016: fig. 47:10 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 Necked jars (Fig. 11) Necked jars from this excavation are of two types: pithoi, i.e. large jars with a wide opening of ca. 25 cm and a low neck (Fig. 11:2), and jars with an opening diameter of 12–15 cm and a short neck (Fig. 11:1). The necked jars of both types shown in Figure 11 have an outwardly sloping rim, while the pithos bears a wide red stripe on the rim exterior. A similar pithos was found at Yehud (Itach et al. 2019: fig. 36:3). Parallels for the jar with a narrow opening were found at Yehud (Itach et al. 2019: fig: 37:3, 4), Horbat Nevallat (van den Brink and Lazar 2019: fig. 61:2) and Bir Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 45:11). The 46 jar bases from this excavation are mostly flat and have margins with remnants of clay (Fig. 10:3–6). The excavation yielded more jar bases than rims, may be due to the greater fragility of jar rims compared to bases. Figure 11. Jars from Area A. No. Subarea Locus Basket/item 1 A3 12049 120301/5 2 A3 12099 120817/8 3 A3 12099 120817/10 4 A3 12072 120584/10 5 A3 12075 120582/2 6 A1 10019 100191/3 Description Orange clay with white and black grits Orange clay with medium white and gray grits White clay with black grits Orange clay with gray and white grits Orange clay with gray and white grits Orange clay with large white grits Stratum Va III Parallels Smithline 2001: fig 11:8; similar to Itach et al. 2019: fig. 37:3,4; van den Brink and Lazar 2019: fig. 61:2; Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 45:11 Similar to Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.15:7 III Va Va III 237 Fadida et al. Handles (Fig. 12) The handles comprise five lug handles (Fig. 12:1–5), four pierced handles (e.g. Fig. 12:6–8) and four loop handles, of which two belong to churns (see below). Similar handles were found in numerous Chalcolithic sites (and see table of Figure 12). Figure 12. Lug handles (1–5), pierced handles (6–8) and churn (9) from Area A. No. Subarea Locus Basket/item Description Stratum 1 A3 12072 120709/4 Light brown clay; dark gray core Va Orange clay with numerous small 2 A1 10009 100033/4 III white grits 3 A1 10009 100040/5 Brittle light orange clay III Light brownish-gray clay; dark 4 A4 16018 160051/17 III gray core with small grits Light brown clay with soot marks; 5 A2 11088 110172/14 orange core with mainly white and III black grits and a few small red grits 6 A3 12072 120561/6 Brittle yellowish-white clay Va 7 A3 12075 120582/8 Brittle orange clay Va Brittle dark brown clay; dark gray 8 A2 11054 110089/10 III core; orange interior coat 9 238 A1 10019 100597/1 Yellow clay with medium–small black, gray and white grits III Parallels Similar to Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 37:1, 2; CommengePellerin 1990: fig. 55:11, 13. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 flint utilization was uncommon. The typological and technological attributes of the assemblage are typically Chalcolithic, excluding a few items of later periods (see below). The flint artifacts are in a good preservation state, and less than 10% exhibit signs of abrasion while only ca. 3% are patinated. The very high ratio of tools vs. chip-sized debitage indicates the impact of selective collection. While the contexts associated with the Chalcolithic remains were systematically sifted, this was not the case with the remainder of the excavated deposits (see above). This being said, it is noteworthy that the assemblage includes items representative of all the categories expected to be found in a flint assemblage: debitage, core trimming elements, tool fashioning spalls, tools, cores, debris, and hammerstones, which represent all the different stages of core-reduction and tool-manufacturing sequences at the site. The typo-technological analysis of the lithic assemblage was based on Gilead et al. (1995) and Rosen (1997), with some modifications of this typological framework based on Vardi (2012). Churns (Fig. 12:9) Two handles of medium-sized churns were found in Area A (e.g. Fig. 12:9). Handles of similar churns were found at Abu Matar (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 37:1, 2) and Bir Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 55:11, 13). The flint assemblage The flint assemblage from Area A comprises 193 artifacts (Table 2). Most flint artifacts were retrieved from mixed contexts dated to the historical periods at the site, when Chalcolithic Later Total contexts* contexts % Primary Elements 4 9 13 6.7 Flakes 16 20 36 18.7 Blades 2 3 5 2.6 Bladelets 9 3 12 6.2 - 1 1 0.5 4 9 13 6.7 Core tablet 1 1 2 1.0 Burin spalls 1 1 2 1.0 Tools 19 43 62 32.1 Cores 6 6 12 6.2 Chunks 7 13 20 10.4 Chips 5 10 15 7.8 Total 74 119 193 100.0 Canaanean blades Core trimming elements Raw material The tools and cores were classified according to the color and texture of the raw material (Table 3). It is noted that all raw material types were used for both tools and cores, although the frequencies of these raw material types vary considerably. The most common raw material identified among the tools is an opaque, homogeneous, good quality beige flint, possibly from Eocenian outcrops. Somewhat less common is the Cretaceous Mishash Formation finegrained, non-homogeneous opaque flint, of beige-brown and brown colors. Table 2. Composition of the flint assemblage from Area A (*Chalcolithic contexts and mixed contexts with Chalcolithic pottery). Flint color and quality Cores Tools Total N % N % N % Beige 3 25.0 26 41.9 29 39.2 Beige-brown 3 25.0 8 12.9 11 14.9 Brown - - 7 11.3 7 9.4 Gray 1 8.3 5 8.1 6 8.1 Translucent and lustrous beige/brown 5 41.7 11 17.7 16 21.6 Burnt and patinated - - 5 8.1 5 6.7 12 100.0 62 100.0 74 100.0 Total Table 3: Breakdown of core and tool raw materials from Yavne. 239 Fadida et al. Among the cores, the dominant raw material is beige and brown fine-grained, translucent and lustrous flint (‘chalcedony’). These flints were probably also derived from the Mishash Formation. As no Eocene-age or Mishash Formation flint outcrops are known in the immediate surroundings of Yavne (Sneh and Rosensaft 2004), it is possible that the raw materials at the site were obtained in the nearby bed of Nahal Soreq, located 600 m from the site. The flint material was probably collected along the channel and traversed through the Judean Mountains and the Shephelah. Technological characteristics The flint assemblage from Area A is flake based, with flakes dominating the blanks among the debitage; flake production is most evident among cores, and furthermore, most tools were fashioned on flakes (see below). Only 8.5% of the assemblage comprises laminar elements, blades (ca. 2.5%) and bladelets (ca. 6%), and some evidence of laminar production could also be detected among the cores and core trimming elements. At Yavne, evidence of at least four different technological trajectories can be discerned: ad hoc flakes; bladelets; Canaanean blades; bifacial tools. While the first two were identified as almost complete reduction sequences knapped on site, the latter two were brought to the site as a finished end-products. One large geometric sickle segment represents a fifth technological trajectory. Cores The frequency of cores is relatively low (N=12), including four single platform cores, of which three were used for bladelet production (Fig. 13:1–3) and one for flake production; three of these cores were of translucent flint. Also found were three discoidal flake cores with a single central platform (Fig. 13:4, 5), of which two are made of translucent flint. One opposed platform core for producing flakes, one core with three striking platforms for flake production, one amorphous core for flake and blade production and two tested nodules were also found. Single platform bladelet cores are typical of the Figure 13. Cores. No. 1 2 3 4 5 240 Locus 12060 10019 10019 11070 10059 Basket 120517 100098 100248 110598 100545 Description Single platform; bladelet core Single platform; bladelet core Single platform; bladelet core Discoidal core Discoidal core Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 Chalcolithic microlithic industry, as is the utilization of translucent flint (Gilead 1984:6; Rosen 1997:65; Rowan 2006a; Hermon 2008:24; Milevski et al. 2015:175-176). Tools There are 62 tools, including non-diagnostic ad hoc tools and chronologically diagnostic items (Table 4). Sickle blades This is the largest and most technologically heterogeneous category among the formal tools (Table 4). It includes glossed thin, rectangular backed and truncated blades (N=5, which are typical Ghassulian implements (e.g. Gilead et al. 1995:245–255; Rowan 2006a:511–512, 539; Hermon 2008; Vardi 2012:206–244; Pinsky 2019). The cutting edge of these blades is finely denticulated by either unifacial or bifacial retouch. Four of the sickle blades were fashioned on blades and one on a bladelet. The sickle blades are made of various flint types. Their average sizes are 38.8 × 13.4 × 5 mm; the width of one of the items is rather large for a Ghassulian sickle blade (15 mm; Fig. 14:3). Types Sickle blades Another category of sickle blades is that of Canaanean blades (N=3), representing three different types: A simple glossed blade, a backed glossed blade and a backed and truncated glossed segment (Fig. 14:4). Of all three items, one is complete, and the rest are broken or snapped and missing both ends. The complete item is quite short and stubby (33 × 27 × 7 mm). The average width of the three items is 26 mm and the average thickness ca. 5.5 mm. Two items were made of beige flint, and another was fashioned from fine-grained brown flint. Out of the three items, two have a finely denticulated cutting edge. Both the Canaanean blades and sickle blades in the southern Levant are typically associated with the Early Bronze Age (EB hereafter) (Rosen 1982; 1983; 1997; Shimelmitz 2009; Manclossi and Rosen 2019), yet claims for their presence in late Ghassulian Chalcolithic contexts were raised before (Bar and Winter 2010; Pinsky 2019; but see Milevski et al. 2011; Vardi and Gilead 2013; Manclossi et al. 2016, 2019). Due to the contexts and number of items at Yavne, its assemblage could not help to build further assertations. Subtypes Chalcolithic contexts* Later contexts Total % Thin backed and truncated 2 3 5 - Canaanean 3 3 - Geometric sickle segment 1 1 - Varia 2 2 - 11 17.7 Subtotal Canaanean blade tools Bifacial tools 2 3 4.8 Polished chisel 1 1 1 - Varia 2 2 - 3 4.8 Subtotal Perforators 2 2 4 - Blade tools 2 3 5 - Scrapers 1 3 4 - Burins 1 3 4 - Notches and denticulates 2 1 3 - 5 5 - Multiple tools Flake tools 5 10 15 24.2 Subtotal 13 27 40 64.5 Varia and fragments 3 2 5 8.1 Total 19 43 62 99.9 Table 4. Composition of flint tool types. 241 Fadida et al. One large, geometric trapezoid sickle segment (Fig. 14:5) was also found. It has a finely denticulated cutting edge and measures 38 × 34 × 9 mm; this item was fashioned from beige-brown Mishash flint. Items of this type are known from Middle Bronze Age to Iron Age assemblages (Rosen 1997; Shimelmitz 2012; Manclossi et al. 2018; Manclossi and Rosen 2019). Simple nondiagnostic glossed blades are present as well (N=2). Canaanean blade tools This category includes three items: two retouched and truncated blades and one denticulated blade. The latter (Fig. 15:1) was fashioned on a Canaanean blade, which bears scars at its distal end, attesting to the partial removal of the bottom part of the core (i.e. an overshot). The blades were made of good quality, homogeneous beige or brown flint, as were the Canaanean sickle blades described above. One of the retouched and truncated Canaanean blades was found in a mixed context, including both Chalcolithic and later pottery. Bifacial tools This category includes one complete, polished chisel and two items of an unspecified type (varia), one complete and another broken. The complete chisel (Fig. 15:2) was fashioned from beige flint and measures 65 × 18 × 18 mm. The complete biface of the varia category is quite stumpy and measures 40 × 25 × 20 mm. Chisels are present in lithic assemblages since the Neolithic, yet the practice of polishing these tools was more common during the Chalcolithic period (Barkai 2005, 2011). Figure 14. Sickle blades. 242 No. Locus Basket Description 1 10002 100056 Thin backed and truncated ‘Ghassulian’ sickle segment 2 12038 120431 Thin backed and truncated ‘Ghassulian’ sickle segment 3 10039 100369 Thin backed and truncated ‘Ghassulian’ sickle segment 4 12071 120579 Canaanean backed and truncated sickle segment 5 16082 160347 Large geometric sickle segment Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 Figure 15. A denticulated Canaanean blade and a polished chisel. No. Locus Basket 1 11087 110604 Denticulated Canaanean blade 2 10049 100492 Polished chisel Ad hoc tools The ad hoc tools of Area A are varied and include: two borers and two awls; simple side- and end-scrapers and a single ‘thumb’ scraper; retouched and truncated blades; burins; notches and denticulates; multiple tools; flake tools, which form the largest category of ad-hoc tools. Ground stone tools and vessels The ground stone assemblage consists of nine vessels and twelve tools (Appendix). While stone vessels are a diagnostic category of Chalcolithic-period objects, other ground stone objects are harder to classify unless they were discovered in situ or in mixed contexts containing some Chalcolithic finds. The terminology adopted here generally follows Gilead (1995:309-333), Milevski (1998) and Rowan (1998, 2003, 2006b). Tools Grinding stones Grinding stones comprise both the upper movable stone and the lower fixed stone (de Beaune 2004). Three grinding stones were discovered in Chalcolithic contexts, one made of vesicular basalt and two of beachrock. One item (Fig. 16:1) is a relatively well-preserved longitudinal Description fragment of an oval/round upper grinding stone, typical of the Chalcolithic period. Two other items are represented by small non-diagnostic fragments (Fig. 16:2, 3), and their attribution to the Chalcolithic is based on the context in which they were found. Two additional fragments were found out of context but adjacent to Chalcolithic remains and diagnostic finds. One of these items (Fig. 16:4) was discovered in the topsoil of Sq. M42, near the Chalcolithic architectural remains in Sq. K42 and a Chalcolithic stone vessel in Sq. L42 (see below). Moreover, this item and the one shown in Figure 16:3, which was found in situ, are made of very similar raw material – vesicular basalt with uneven and relatively large vesicles – and have a similar appearance and thickness. An additional tool was found ex situ (not illustrated) was retrieved just below topsoil in Sq. J42, also near the Chalcolithic architectural remains. This object is made of compact basalt and appears to be burnt. It may have originated from an adjacent square, K43, in a burnt deposit containing Chalcolithic material. Similar grinding stones are known from Grar (Gilead 1995: fig. 7.4:3, 4), Qiryat Ata (Rowan 2003: fig.6.2:4–7) and ‘En Esur (Rowan 2006b: fig. 6.1:11–13). 243 Fadida et al. Hammerstones Six spherical or cubical broken hammerstones were found, of which five were fashioned from brecciated Mishash flint. Most of the items are relatively large, and the largest (Fig. 16:5) weighs 473 g. Such hammerstones are known from the Chalcolithic period and the Bronze Ages (Milevski 1998). One of the hammerstones bears evidence of knapping, indicating that it was recycled (not illustrated). Another small spherical hammerstone (86 g; not illustrated) was discovered in an accumulation overlying a Chalcolithicperiod context; the small size of this item indicates that it was continually reshaped over time. Handstone/pebble This small, roundish handheld stone or pebble was used for grinding and/or pounding; it is made of diorite and probably can be identified as a pebble-grinder (Fig. 16:6). The item was discovered out of context in Sq M37 (Subarea A2). Similar small items, albeit made of different materials, were unearthed at other sites where they originated in probable Chalcolithic contexts, such as Qiryat Ata (Rowan 2003: fig.6.2:4–7) and ‘En Esur (Rowan 2006b: fig. 6.1:11–13). Vessels All nine stone artifacts classified as vessels were made of compact basalt without vesicles. Most were pecked and ground. One of the vessels (Fig. 17:1) is intact, while the others are broken. The complete vessel, a miniature open form with a flat base, was probably used for fine grinding/ crushing activities. A similar vessel, although with ridges around the base indicating that it is an early Ghassulian Figure 16. Stone tools. 244 No. Locus Basket Type Subtype Raw material 1 12051 120380/1 Upper grinding stone Oval-round Beachrock 2 12051 120380/2 Lower grinding stone Oval-round Beachrock 3 12058 120650 Grinding stone 4 12040 120866 Grinding stone 5 10032 100207 Hammerstone Spherical? Flint; brecciated 6 11040 110436 Handstone/pebble Grinder/Pounder Diorite Vesicular basalt Vesicular basalt Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 type, was found at Gilat and described as a cup (Rowan et al. 2006: fig. 12.32:14). The vessel fragments include five rims (Fig. 17:2–6); two of these rims bear incised chevron decoration (Fig. 17:3, 6; cf. Rowan 1998:236), while two other items are fenestrated leg fragments (Fig. 18:1, 2). It is difficult to ascertain whether the rim fragments were parts of simple open forms with a flat base or of pedestaled vessels. A body fragment of a probable bowl with a ‘pierced’ handle was also found (Fig. 18:3). The handle was drilled biconically and had a triangular crosssection. A deep groove just below the handle, running Figure 17. Stone vessels. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Locus 10015 10019 16053 12071 16111 16111 Basket 100438 100250 160455 120557 160412 160416 Type Open form Open form or pedestaled Open form or pedestaled Open form or pedestaled Open form Open form or pedestaled Subtype Miniature bowl Vertical straight walls? Raw material Compact basalt Compact basalt Compact basalt Compact basalt Compact basalt Compact basalt 245 Fadida et al. Figure 18. Legs (1, 2) and a handle (3) of stone vessels from Area A. No. Locus Basket Type 1 12038 120643 Fenestrated bowl? Compact basalt 2 12054 120647 Fenestrated bowl? Compact basalt 3 12075 120965 Open form parallel to the drilled perforation, suggests a typical Chalcolithic pierced handle. The exterior walls exhibit incised decoration, consisting of parallel and diagonal lines, known only from sites south of the Yarkon River (Chasan et al. 2019). Vessels of this type were “elaborately designed,” according to Chasan et al. (2019). While perforated handles are a common feature of the Chalcolithic pottery types, examples made of stone are extremely rare. A few Chalcolithic bowls with perforated handles from the Golan were presented by Epstein (1998: pl. XXXV:13–18). However, these examples are larger than the Yavne vessel and lack its elaborate incised decoration pattern. Subtype Raw material Perforated handle Compact basalt broken and perhaps burnt item was found in a Chalcolithic context in Subarea A3. Close parallels for both artifacts are found, Peqi’in (Shalem et al. 2013: fig. 9.4:6, 7), Kaukab Springs (Getzov 2016: fig 22:10, 11), Asherat (Smithline 2001: fig 15:3), Yehud (Itach et al. 2019: figs. 46, 49:2), Grar (Gilead 1995: fig. 8.4:5–9), Bir es-Safadi (Levy and Gilead 2012: fig. 2). Weights Two items identified as weights (sensu Gilead 1995:335) were found. Items of a similar shape have been identified as spindle whorls. One of the items is made of light brown clay and bears signs of burning; this item has an orange-brown core (Fig. 19:1) and may be assigned to the Chalcolithic period, despite its occurrence in a later context of Subarea A2. The object weighs 64.4 g and appears unfinished as the drilling is incomplete. The other item of this type (Fig. 19:2) is also made of browncolored clay with numerous white and shiny grits. This 246 Figure 19. Clay weights from Area A. No. Subarea Locus Basket Stratum 1 A2 11025 110049 III 2 A3 12072 120964 Va Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 The copper axe A copper axe was found in Subarea A3, in the northeastern corner of Sq. J42 (Loc. 12032), above an installation of the Persian period (Stratum III) (Loc. 12103). The axe has a trapezoidal, fan-shaped, wide-flaring cutting edge, and a rectangular butt. Its length is about 12 cm, its maximum width is 3.5 cm at one end, and its minimum width is 2 cm at the opposite end; its maximum thickness is 2 cm (Fig. 20). Similar axes were found at Yiftahel (Shalev and Braun 1997), Fazael (Rosenberg et al. 2020: fig. 4:1), Teleilat Ghassul (Mallon et al. 1934: p. 34:2), Beit Shemesh (Ben-Yosef et al. 2016: fig 6: B1029), Shiqmim (Shalev and Northover 1987: pls. 14.3:1; 14.4:1) and Nahal Mishmar Cave (Bar-Adon 1980: nos. 172–173). Bifacial axes made of copper, although not necessarily of the same type as the Yavne axe, were found at Peqi’in (Shalem et al. 2013: fig. 9.4:9, 10), Yiftahel (Shalev and Braun 1997: fig. 11:3) and Metzer (Dothan 1957: pl. 37:C, D). In the latter two sites, the axes were found in contexts of EB IA (; see Shalev and Braun 1997:94). Based on the fact that similar items were found in many Chalcolithic-period contexts, and the proximity of layers dated to this period, we suggest it is of a Chalcolithic date. The function of the axe is unknown as no use-wear analysis was conducted. It has been suggested that relatively thin and long axes of this type functioned as ritual artifacts rather than everyday tools (Gošić and Gilead 2015:164). Three rounded indentations on one of the sides (Fig. 20:2) appear to be casting defects that may have originally been inclusions or gas bubbles trapped during the casting process due to humidity in the mold or its surrounding environment. These indentations probably did not exist when the axe was fashioned by surface hammering and annealing. They may have become visible as a result of the long burial time in the sediment and the impact of corrosion. The elemental composition of the axe was determined using a handheld Bruker Tracer 5i X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (XRF). The instrument is equipped with a Rh-anode, miniaturized X-ray tube operating at a maximum voltage of 50 kV and with a Peltier-cooled high-resolution silicon drift detector (SDD). The diameter of the X-ray spot on the sample is about 7–8 mm, and accurate positioning on the point to be analyzed is obtained using an integrated camera. Following the removal of the corrosion layer, two locations on the axe were measured. The XRF spectra reveal that copper (Cu) is the dominant component of the axe, as demonstrated by the combination of the K-alpha and K-beta peaks at higher energy levels (Fig. 21). Minor constituents comprise iron (Fe) and calcium (Ca). This composition suggests that the axe was a product of casting molten metal. The well-known casting techniques of the Chalcolithic period include open casts or specialized wax moulds (i.e. the ‘lost-wax’ technology; Figure 20. Copper axe. 247 Fadida et al. and Barzilai 2017:34, fig. 1.3:1). A possible production site of copper items was recently identified at Agamim (Ashqelon), where axes were found in foundation deposits (Abadi-Reiss and Varga 2019). Another probable distribution route from Feinan was through the Jordan Valley (Milevski and Barzilai 2017), as evidence of copper processing was unearthed at Fazael (Rosenberg et al. 2020). Fauna The Yavne faunal assemblage consists of mammal bones and shells retrieved from clear Chalcolithic contexts. Figure 21. Composition of the copper axe obtained by a handheld XRF device. Shalev and Northover 1987; Shugar 2000; Golden 2009). Copper alloys were commonly used in antiquity to reduce the melting temperature, which for pure copper is above 1,083 °C, and allow better casting conditions. Examples include copper artifacts of the Chalcolithic hoard of Nahal Mishmar, produced by the ‘lost-wax’ technique, including antimony and arsenic (Bar Adon 1980; Shalev and Northover 1987; Shugar 2000). Other additives such as lead were found in Chalcolithic copper artifacts from Beit Shemesh and Ashalim Cave (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2015; Ben-Yosef et al. 2016). The Yavne axe appears to present a different case. The composition and distribution of the minor elements of the axe indicate that they are the result of corrosion and not due to alloying. This means that the axe was made of unalloyed copper and was produced in an open mould. The copper ores of the unalloyed copper of the Chalcolithic period often originated at Feinan (Hauptmann 1989; Shugar 2000). It has been suggested that the finished products were prepared in the Beer Sheva area, possibly at Abu Matar or Shiqmim (Shalev and Northover 1987; Gilead et al. 1992; Shugar 2000; Golden et al. 2001; Golden 2009) and distributed north to sites along the coastal plain, including Yavne (Milevski 248 Mammals A small assemblage of mammal remains was retrieved from living layers of stratum Va in Subarea A3 dated to the Chalcolithic period. All these remains were found in Loc. 12072, aside from five metacarpi from Loc. 12075. The indicative specimens (i.e. the number of identified specimens, NISP) were identified using the reference collections of the Laboratory of Archaeozoology at the University of Haifa. The minimum number of individuals (MNI) is computed for each species based on the minimal animal units (MAU) considering the body side. Breakage patterns were described according to criteria in Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews (2016:283–309) and Karr (2015), according to which a “green” fracture refers to the breakage of a fresh bone, as opposed to a “dry” fracture inflicted on an already dry bone (Villa and Mahieu 1991). Diagenetic damage observed on bone surfaces was described according to Behrensmeyer (1978). Other taphonomic variables include butchery (Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews 2016:25–40; Soulier and Costamagno 2017), burning (Stiner et al 1995) and gnawing marks (Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews 2016: 101-112). Selected measurements (von den Driesch 1976) were taken for all the measurable identified specimens. The Chalcolithic faunal remains comprise a NISP of 24 bones and teeth. Most of the specimens are identified as large canines, i.e. wolf (Canis lupus) or dog (Canis familiaris) (Table 5). Few other remains indicate the presence of cattle (Bos sp.) and Sheep (Ovis aries) or goat (Capra hircus). The canine remains represent a minimum number of two individuals, based on the two left distal tibiae. Considering that all the post-cranial canine bones are Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 Element Provenance/context Canis Cattle Maxilla Living layer, Stratum Va dP4 Living layer, Stratum Va 1 M1/M2 Living layer, Stratum Va 2 M3 Living layer, Stratum Va Sheep/Goat 1 1* Humerus Living layer, Stratum Va 1 Radius/Ulna Living layer, Stratum Va 4 Tibia Living layer, Stratum Va 2 Calcaneus Living layer, Stratum Va 1 Metacarpus Living layer, Stratum Va 5 Phalanx I Living layer, Stratum Va 3 Phalanx II Living layer, Stratum Va 1 2 NISP 20 3 1 MNI 2 1 1 Table 5. Taxonomic representation and skeletal element distribution of the Chalcolithic faunal remains from Subarea A3. * indicates teeth embedded in the jaw. fused, and the only canine tooth found is a fully erupted upper third molar, indicating an age >5 months (Fig. 22), we infer that these are adult individuals. Interestingly, one of the tibiae was larger than the other and a similar metric difference was also detected for two radii bones (Table 6). Such a difference could imply that more than one race of dogs is represented in the assemblage or, alternatively, suggest the presence of both a dog and a wolf (see Horard-Herbin et al. 2014). The canine remains comprise a large variety of skeletal elements, mostly postcranial elements, suggesting the deposition of complete carcasses. Taxon Element GL Figure 22. Canine left maxillary third molar (Loc. 12072, Basket 120732). Locus Basket Bd 12072 120707 Canine Radius 12072 120707 Canine Radius 20.65 12072 120707 Canine Radius 21.83 12072 120707 Canine Tibia 22.30 12072 120707 Canine Tibia 26.11 12072 120707 Canine Humerus 28.38 12072 120707 Canine Calcaneus 12072 120732 Canine *M3 Bp BT Length Width 8.00 11.34 17.66 39.36 17.51 12.78 Table 6. Metric data for the canines remains (mm). GL = greatest length; Bd = greatest breadth of distal end; Bp = greatest breadth of proximal end; BT = greatest breadth of the trochlea. Measurements according to Von den Driesch (1976). 249 Fadida et al. The canine bones reveal no evidence of butchery, and all were broken when dry, probably by sediment compaction; some of the dry breaks were caused during the excavation. Another diagenetic damage observed on most bones is root etching after burial, while no apparent weathering was noted. These findings suggest that the canine bones were exposed on the surface for a very short time, if at all, and quickly buried. As the canine bones were not found in articulation, we cannot say whether the dogs/wolves were intentionally buried. Only one caprine bone, a distal humerus, reveals evidence for human impact – a fracture related to fresh breakage, which likely occurred during food preparation. This very same bone also bears the only evidence for carnivore damage, showing clear gnawing marks on its distal end. Cattle remains in the assemblage include three teeth, one of which is a deciduous tooth (dP4), indicating that there was at least one young/immature individual, probably a male calf exploited for meat. It is worth mentioning that other Chalcolithic sites located along the Mediterranean coastal plain have yielded finds of a similar nature to those from Yavne. Remains of dog and unidentified canines, mostly represented by skeletons, were found in Chalcolithic cemeteries at Quleh and Mazor (West) (Milevski et al. in Loci Species Complete press), settlement sites in Tel Aviv (Namir Road/Nissim Aloni, L. Perry-Gal, pers. observ.), Yehud (Itach et al. 2019:253–254, Perry-Gal pers. observ.), Holyland Park, Jerusalem (Milevski et al. 2015:183–185), Grar (Grigson 1995:406–407) and Gilat (Grigson 2006:237–239). The canine bones in these sites represent more parts of the canine skeleton than at Yavne. At the Tel Aviv and Yehud sites, the dog skeletons were found in anthropogenically dug deep shafts. We suggest that in those sites, the shafts may have functioned as burials, like the pits of Gilat. The metric data and bio-archaeological samples of the Yavne canine remains will be added to the data mentioned above to formulate broader, comprehensive conclusions pertaining to the role of these companion animals. Mollusks The shell assemblage contains 39 specimens. The description of identified species follows the WoRMS online database (http://www.marinespecies.org/), and the number of identified specimens (NISP) was used for taxonomic quantification (Lyman 1994; Reitz and Wing 1999). The presence of taphonomic damage was noted, including modifications caused by natural processes such as abrasion resulting from the wave action, versus anthropogenic modification such as working of the Broken Fragment Context Area A2 11038 3 burnt Accumulation on bedrock Stratum V? 2 1 Living layer ? Stratum Va 1 1 Stratum Va Glycymeris nummaria (Linnaeus, 1758) Area A3 12049 12075 12099 Total Glycymeris nummaria (Linnaeus, 1758) Donax trunculus (Linnaeus, 1758) Glycymeris nummaria 3 (2 with artificial holes in umbo) (Linnaeus, 1758) Glycymeris nummaria (Linnaeus, 1758) 2 (1 with a natural 14 (2 burnt), (1 with a hole in umbo) natural hole in umbo) 1 burnt 3 11 (1 burnt) 6 Archaeological accumulation Stratum Va 30 Table 7. Mollusks: taxonomic identification, taphonomic observations, and frequency and mode of fragmentation. 250 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 shells and burning marks (see Claassen 1998; Gordillo and Archuby 2014). The shell specimens were recorded either as ‘broken’, referring to incomplete valves of which more than half is preserved, or as a ‘fragment’, describing valves of which less than half is preserved. The shell assemblage contains two bivalve species, Glycymeris nummaria and Donax trunculus (Table 7), both of which live in sandy bottoms of the Mediterranean Sea (Poppe and Goto 1991). Abrasion marks caused by wave action were identified on all the shells, indicating that they had been collected as empty shells and were not a food source (Table 7). The assemblage, even if small, demonstrates the connections of the site with the nearby Mediterranean coast. Most of the fragments of Glycymeris nummaria and Donax trunculus could have reached the site along with sea sand. The two complete and artificially perforated bivalves of Glycymeris nummaria from Loc. 12075 could have been used as ornaments, such as pendants. These bivalves were perforated with a hammer blow aimed at a point on a shell, a method that was used for thick shells and tended to create a rather large hole with ragged surfaces (Francis 1989:27). Other Chalcolithic sites have yielded valves of Mediterranean shells used as pendants, e.g. Peqi’in (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2013:365), Sha’ar Efraim (Mienis 2008), Yehud (Mienis 2009), Palmahim (Ktalav 2018), Shoham (Mienis 2006), Teleilat Ghassul (Lee 1973), Site 66 (Rosenberg et al. 2020), Grar (Bar-Yosef Mayer 1995) and Gilat (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2006:324). DISCUSSION The excavations at the southern margins of Tel Yavne revealed at least two phases of occupation dating to the Ghassulian culture of the Chalcolithic period. Remains of the late phase (Stratum Va) – two wall segments, a stone feature and scattered ex situ finds – were uncovered in Area A, mainly in Subarea A3. An accumulation of Chalcolithic finds overlying the kurkar bedrock with no associated architectural remains was uncovered in Subarea A2. The early phase in Subarea A3 (Stratum Vb) is poorly represented. Test trenches and a small excavation conducted in the framework of a new project, ca. 100 m to the southwest (D. Varga, Y. Abadi-Reiss, pers. com.), indicate that the site continues beyond the present limits of the excavation. The material cultural assemblages The typical Ghassulian pottery assemblage is domestic, dominated by bowls, along with cornets, a few churns, holemouth jars and fragments of other rarely occurring vessels. The vessel types at Yavne are known from several parts of the country, but mainly from the coastal plain and the Beer Sheva region to the south and the Galilee region to the north. Other Chalcolithic sites that yielded pottery assemblages similar to those uncovered at Yavne are Nahal Patish and Shiqmim (Milevski et al. 2013:95–107, fig. 38, and further references therein). At Kaukab (Getzov 2016), although the frequencies of the vessels are similar – suggesting similar functions –the style of the same vessels is different (unlike at Nahal Patish and Shiqmim which have similar styles to Yavne’s assemblage). We therefore suggest that there could be socio-economic characteristics similar to these four sites, and the composition of the pottery assemblages could reflect these similarities. The copper axe indicates that the occupation dates to the late phase of the Ghassulian (Gilead 2011; Shugar and Gohm 2011; Rosenzweig 2020). The axe suggests ties with the Ashqelon area on the coast or Beer Sheva, where production of such products have been documented dated to the Chalcolithic period. Similarly, basalt was the dominant raw material for ground stone tools and vessels obtained through long-distance exchange networks (Milevski 2008). Only two pedestal fragments of basalt bowls, typical Ghassulian stone vessels, were found. The presence of Mediterranean seashells in the Chalcolithic contexts indicates obvious connections to the seashores, about 5 km to the west as part of the catchment area of Yavne, i.e. the area from which a certain component was brought to the site (sensu Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1978). Most of the flint material likely derives from a nearer catchment area, i.e. the western bank of Nahal Soreq. This assemblage is of particular importance for assessing the chronology of its Chalcolithic occupations. Although limited in size and found mostly ex-situ, this collection overall represents the Ghassulian lithic industry. It is dominated by sickle blades and ad hoc tools on flakes, typical of the Chalcolithic period, and comprises items 251 Fadida et al. made mostly of local raw material. Typically Ghassulian are also single platform bladelet cores, bladelets, sickle blades and bifacial tools. A few items attributed to later periods include a large geometric sickle segment; previous excavations at Yavne unearthed lithic items of the Middle and Late Bronze Age and Iron Age (Yannai 2014; Haddad et al. 2021). The presence of Canaanean blades suggests two scenarios: 1) the site could have been occupied during a very late phase of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic period; 2) the Canaanean blades are later intrusions. In both scenarios, their source was likely the Bet Shemesh area, ca. 40 km southeast of Yavne, the closest sources of Eocene flint. Canaanean blade production is a highly standardized and specialized industry, known mostly from Early Bronze Age sites across the southern Levant and beyond. Such items were manufactured in knapping centers within settlements or next to specific flint outcrops, and subsequently distributed to other sites (Rosen 1983; 1997; Shimelmitz et al. 2000; Shimelmitz 2009; Milevski 2013; Manclossi et al. 2016, 2019). Tabular scrapers are not frequent in Ghassulian sites (Rosen 1997), yet their absence in Yavne is noticeable. Mollusk species from sources other than the Mediterranean Sea were not unearthed in Yavne, although they have been documented at other Chalcolithic sites (e.g. Bar-Yosef Mayer 2006:324; 2013:365). The absence of such finds may be due to the relatively small sizes of the lithic and faunal assemblages at the site. The sickle blades and species of domestic fauna typical of Chalcolithic husbandry – ovicrapines and cattle – indicate that agro-pastoral activities were conducted at the site. The absence of pigs may result from the 252 small assemblage size. Interment of dogs is a known phenomenon among the Ghassulian communities in which this species is specially treated in communities. Yavne in the coastal plain context While no Chalcolithic remains have been uncovered at the nearby Tel Yavne, it is important to acknowledge that other sites dating to this period are known to the southeast and northwest of the tel, such as Yavne Sands Hill 41 (Shapira 1964) and Beit Gamliel (Pipano 1983). Somewhat farther afield, well-known Ghassulian sites in the region of Yavne include the Palmahim cemeteries in the coastal plain (Gophna and Lifshitz 1980; Scheftelowitz 2016; Gorzalczany 2018), and sites of the Shephelah to the east, such as those of the Bet Shemesh area in Wadi ‘Illin and Beqoa (Stark 1994; Golani et al. 2018). Other nearby sites include the burial caves at Beit Gamliel and Benaya (Gophna 1974:75; van den Brink 1998: table 1), and the remains of a cemetery as well as what may have also been an occupation site as represented by surface finds at Maghrar (Gophna et al. 2010). The research of the last decades has revealed connections between Chalcolithic settlements and the elaborate system of secondary burial sites of this period, based in part on the common petrographic origin of both the pottery vessels and ossuaries (Perrot and Ladiray 1980; Joffe 2003; van den Brink and Gophna 2005; Winter-Livneh et al. 2012; Nativ 2014:25–80; Boness et al. 2016; Scheftelowitz 2016; Milevski et al. in press). We suggest that the occupation at the southern margins of Tel Yavne was part of the extensive Ghassulian settlement network of habitation sites and cemeteries in the coastal plain. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 M42 Top soil; Chalcolithic pottery was discovered in a nearby square: K42 Grinding stone Vesicular basalt; unevenly sized, mostly large vesicles; amygdaloidal Thickness: 4 Small fragment K42 Burnt layer; near Loc.12051; Chalcolithic pottery Grinding stone Vesicular basalt; Thickness: 3 unevenly sized vesicles Small medial fragment; broken on all sides K42 Living floor; Chalcolithic pottery Lower Loaf Grinding stone Beachrock Thickness: 5 End fragment Living floor; Chalcolithic pottery Upper Oval-round grinding stone Beachrock Longitudinal Length: 15.5; fragment; one thickness: 3.5 grinding surface Upper Twogrinding stone handed Compact basalt; crumbly, low-quality; perhaps burnt Thickness: 2.9 Body fragment; red hue on ventral and dorsal surfaces due to mineral grinding; pecked; plano-convex section Hammerstone Spherical Flint; brecciated 6.2 × 4.7 × 2.1 Fragment Hammerstone Spherical? Flint; brecciated 7.5 × 7.0 × 5.8; mass: 473 Broken Milevski hammerstone; scars 1998 Hammerstone Spherical Flint; brecciated Diam: 4.2; mass: 86 Small; pecked; scarred Cubical Flint; brecciated 7.2 × 5.0 × 5.8 Broken hammerstone; scars Small fragment of hammerstone; knapped and recycled Broken hammerstone; scars I42 H40 I34 Surface soil down to kurkar bedrock; Chalcolithic? with some MB/ LB remains K42 Living floor Chalcolithic? J43 Archaeological accumulation under topsoil; Hammerstone Chalcolithic and Persian pottery P37, P38 Plastered installation; Chalcolithic? O37 Archaeological accumulation of brown soil; Chalcolithic? A3 A1 A1 A3 Brown-gray hard sediment; Chalcolithic? A3 Square Remarks K42 Area A3 A3 A3 Dimensions (cm) and mass (g) Type A4 A3 Raw material Context\ pottery Below topsoil; near Loc.12075 A4 Basket 120866 120650 120380/2 120380/1 100207 160402 160484 120821 120583 100049 120351 12058 12051 10032 16100 16068 12099 12075 10013 12052 12051 12040 Locus APPENDIX: LIST OF GROUND STONE TOOLS AND VESSELS FROM AREA A, ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO TYPES Subtype Hammerstone Spherical? Flint 6.0 × 3.0 × 2.2 Hammerstone Spherical? Flint; brecciated 6.5 × 4.5 × 4.4 Parallels 253 Square H41 H40 Area A1 L42 K43 O44, O45 K42 N41 M37 N41 Q40 A3 A3 A3 A4 A2 A4 A4 A3 A1 Basket 120643 120647 120557 120965 160416 110436 160412 16111 11040 16111 160455 Living floor 16053 Persian? 254 Type Topsoil; Chalcolithic pottery was discovered in adjacent and nearby squares: N40; O41; P41; Q41 Chalcolithic pottery was discovered in adjacent and nearby squares: N40; O41; P41; Q41 Chalcolithic pottery was discovered in adjacent and nearby squares: N40; O41; P41; Q41 Topsoil Subtype Raw material Vessel Miniature bowl; open form Compact basalt Vessel Open form bowl Compact basalt Fenestrated Compact basalt Fenestrated Compact basalt; burnt Topsoil; Chalcolithic pottery was Vessel discovered in an adjacent square: K42 Burnt layer; near Loc.12051; Vessel Chalcolithic pottery 12038 100438 Chalcolithic pottery 12054 100250 Chalcolithic pottery 12071 10015 Context\ pottery 12075 10019 Locus Fadida et al. Dimensions (cm) and mass (g) Diam. max.: 8.1; Diam. base: 6.3; Thickness: 4.6 Width: 4.7 Remarks Small bowl; flat base; round rim; fine delicate; battered base; ground, smooth interior, and ground, pecked exterior Three fragments; incisions on interior rim forming chevrons; round rim Parallels Rowan 1998, class 3, type 3c Rowan 1998, class 3, type b Leg fragment; Rowan 1998, plano-convex class 4, type section; one ground 4c face Leg/ring fragment Rowan 1998, class 4, type 4c Vessel Open form or pedestaled Compact basalt Vessel Perforated handle Compact basalt Grooved exterior; small fragment Epstein 1998 Compact basalt Small rim fragment; round Wall rim; incisions thickness: 1.6 on interior rim forming chevrons For incised decorations cf. Rowan 1998:236; rim type: Rowan 1998, R2 Vessel Vessel Open form or pedestaled Open form bowl Compact basalt Thickness: 1.9 Small fragment; pecked; broken rim Thickness: 2.2 Small rim fragment; round Rowan 1998, rim; pecked and class 2, rim ground exterior and type R1 smoother interior Small rim fragment; round rim; incisions on interior rim forming chevrons Vessel Open form or pedestaled Compact basalt Wall thickness: 2 Handstone/ pebble Grinder/ pounder Diorite Diam.: 6; Thickness: 3; Two ground faces mass: 135 For incised decorations cf. Rowan 1998:236; rim type: Rowan 1998, R2 Perhaps Chalcolithic? Cf. Rowan 2003, fig. 6.1:4–7; 2006b, fig. 6.1:11–13 Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The excavation of Yavne East (Permit Nos. A-8520, A-8561) was conducted by Elie Haddad and Liat NadavZiv on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). We wish to thank the Department of Publications of the IAA for the permission granted to publish this report in Mitekufat Haeven – Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. Thanks are also due to A. Freiberg for 3D scanning of the pottery and stone artifacts; M. Smeliansky for drawing the flint items; C. Hersch for drawing of the copper axe; and D. Gazit for the studio photographs. The authors also wish to thank the following individuals who participated and helped during the fieldwork: Y. Elisha, G. Tal, K. Serezo, L. Rauchberger and A. Reiss (area supervision), Y. Amrani, E. Bachar and Z. Lotan (administration), A. Dagot (GPS, GIS), M. Birkenfeld and D. Levi (GIS), M. Kahan, Y. Shimdov, R. Mishayev and S. Emanuelov (surveying and drafting, aerial photography and photogrammetry), Y. Gumenny (processing of plans and photogrammetry), A. Peretz (field and aerial photography), I. Jonish (aerial photography and photogrammetry), L. Kupershmidt (metallurgical laboratory), S. Krispin, A. Tamir and O. Drori (metal detection), Tamir A. and N. Zetuni (inspection), M. Shemer (flint sorting), D. Barkan, I. Radashkovsky, Y. Tepper and D. Ben-Ami (IAA Central District), as well as students from pre-military preparatory programs, and laborers from Ashqelon, Jenin and the southern Hebron Hills. Special thanks to Joel Roskin (formerly of the IAA) for giving us the unpublished report on and explaining the geomorphology of the site. Finally, the authors are also indebted to Lior Weissbrod for the English editing of the text, to two anonymous reviewers and the editors of Mitekufat Haeven for their critical comments on an earlier version of this paper. REFERENCES Abadi-Reiss Y. and Varga D. 2019. Inter-site complexity in the Ghassulian Chalcolithic site of Agamim, Ashkelon. In: Varga D., Abadi-Reiss Y., Lehman G. and Vainstub D. (eds.), Worship and Burial in the Shfela and the Negev Regions throughout the Ages (Proceedings of the 15th Annual Southern Congress), pp. 67–78. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew). Bar S. and Winter H. 2010. Canaanean flint blades in Chalcolithic context and the possible onset of the transition to the Early Bronze Age: A case study from Fazael 2. Tel Aviv 37(1): 33–47. Bar-Adon P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure: The Finds from the Caves in Naḥal Mishmar. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E. 1995. The molluscs from Grar. In: Gilead I., Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7), pp. 453–463. Beer Sheva: BenGurion University of the Negev Press. Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E. 2006. Marine and riverine shells at Gilat. In: T.E. Levy (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel, pp. 320–326. London: Equinox. Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E. 2013. Shell beads. In Shalem, D., Gal, Z. and Smithline, H. (eds.), Peqi’in. A Late Chalcolithic Burial Site, Upper Galilee, Israel, Land of Galilee, pp. 365–369. Tzemach: Institute for Galilean Archaeology, Kinneret College & Israel Antiquities Authority. Barkai R. 2005. Flint and Stone Axes as Cultural Markers: Socio-Economic Changes as Reflected in Holocene Flint Tool Industries of the Southern Levant (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment, Vol. 11). Berlin: ex oriente. Barkai R. 2011. The evolution of Neolithic and Chalcolithic woodworking tools and the intensification of human production: Axes, adzes and chisels from the southern Levant. In: Davis V. and Edmonds M. (eds.), Stone Axe Studies III, pp. 39–54. Oxford: Oxbow Books. de Beaune S. 2004. Invention of technology. Current Anthropology 45(2): 139–162. Behrensmeyer A. K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4: 150–162. Ben-Yosef E., Vassal Y., van den Brink E.C.M. and Be’eri R. 2016. A new Ghassulian metallurgical assemblage from Bet Shemesh (Israel) and the earliest leaded copper in the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9: 493–504. Boness D., Scheftelowitz N., Fabian P., Gilead I. and Goren Y. 2016. Petrographic study of the pottery 255 Fadida et al. assemblages from Ḥorvat Qarqar South, a Ghassulian Chalcolithic cemetery in the southern Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 375: 185–213. van den Brink E.C.M. 1998. An index to Chalcolithic mortuary caves in Israel. Israel Exploration Journal 48(3/4): 165–173. van den Brink E.C.M., Barzilai O., Vardi J., CohenWeinberger A., Lernau O., Liphschitz N., Bonani G., Mienis H.K., Rosenberg D., Tzin B., Katina A., Shalev S., Shilstein S. and Horwitz L.K. 2016. Late Chalcolithic settlement remains east of Namir Road, Tel Aviv. Mitekufat Haeven – Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 46: 20–121. van den Brink E.C.M. and Gophna R. 2005. Shoham (North): Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel (IAA Reports 27). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. van den Brink E.C.M. and Lazar D. 2019. Ḥorbat Nevallaṭ: A Chalcolithic habitation site and agricultural installations in the Shephelah foothills. ‘Atiqot 94: 1–88. Chasan R., van den Brink. E.C.M. and Rosenberg D. 2019. “Crossing the Lines”: Elaborately decorated Chalcolithic basalt bowls in the southern Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 381(1): 145–62. Claassen C. 1998. Shells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ‫‏‬ Commenge C., Alon D., Levy T.E. and Kansa E. 2006. Gilat’s ceramics: Cognitive dimensions of pottery production. In: Levy T.E. (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat (Israel), pp. 394–506. London: Equinox. Commenge-Pellerin C. 1987. La poterie d’Abou Matar et de l’Ouadi Zoumeili (Beersheva) au IVe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Cahiers du Centre Français de Jérusalem 3). Paris: Association Paléorient. Commenge-Pellerin C. 1990. La poterie de Safadi (Beershéva) au IVe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Cahiers du Centre Français de Jérusalem 5). Paris: Association Paléorient. Dothan M. 1957. Excavations at Meṣer, 1956. Israel Exploration Journal 7: 217–228. Epstein C. 1998. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan 256 (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Fernández-Jalvo Y. and Andrews P. 2016. Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications. Dordrecht: Springer. Fischer M. and Taxel I. 2007. Ancient Yavneh its history and archaeology. Tel Aviv 34: 204–284. Francis P. Jr. 1989. The manufacture of beads from shell. In: Hayes III C. F., Ceci L. and Bonder C.C. (eds), Proceedings of the 1989 Shell Bead Conference, pp. 25–35. Rochester, NY: Rochester Rochester Museum and Science Center. Getzov N. 2016. Remains from the end of the Early Chalcolithic and the Late Chalcolithic periods at Kaukab Springs in the Western Galilee. ‘Atiqot 87:103– 105 (Hebrew). Gilead I. 1984. The micro-endscraper: A new tool type of the Chalcolithic period. Tel Aviv 11: 3–10. Gilead I. 1995. Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7). Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Gilead I. 2011. Fifth millennium culture history: Ghassulian and other Chalcolithic entities in the southern Levant. In: Lovell J.L. and Rowan Y.M. (eds.), Culture, Chronology, and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition (Levant Supplementary Series 9), pp. 12–24. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Gilead I. and Goren Y. 1995. The pottery assemblages form Grar. In: Gilead I., Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7), pp. 137–221. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Gilead I., Hershman D. and Marder O. 1995. The flint assemblages from Grar. In Gilead I., Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7), pp. 223–280. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Gilead I., Rosen S. and Fabian P. 1992. New archaeometallurgical evidence for the beginning of metallurgy in the southern Levant: Excavations at Tell Abu Matar Beersheba (Israel) 1990/1991. Institute for ArchaeoMetallurgical Studies 18: 11–14. Golani A., Storchan B. and Eirikh-Rose A. 2018. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age IB site of Beqo’a. ‘Atiqot 90: 9–54. Golden J.M. 2009. Dawn of the Metal Age.: London Equinox. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 Golden J.M., Levy T.E. and Hauptmann A. 2001. Recent discoveries concerning Chalcolithic metallurgy at Shiqmim, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(9): 951–963. Gophna R. 1974. The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz Israel during the Early Bronze. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English abstract). Gophna R. and Lifshitz S. 1980. A Chalcolithic burial cave at Palmahim. ‘Atiqot 14: 1–8. Gophna R., Paz, Y. and Taxel, I. 2010. Al-Maghar – an Early Bronze Age walled town in the lower Soreq Valley and the EB IB-II sequence in the central coastal plain of Israel. Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 28: 9–38. Gophna R., Paz Y. and Kaplan J. 2017. Excavation at Slaughterhouse Hill (Giv’at Beit Ha-Mitbahaim), Tel Aviv (1950,1952) and Nordau boulevard, Tel Aviv (1950) in: Gopher A., Gophna R., Eyal R and Paz Y. (eds.) Jacob Kaplan’s Excavations of Prehistoric Sites 1950s–1980s (Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 36), pp. 563-587. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Gordillo S. and Archuby F. 2014. Live-live and livedead interactions in marine death assemblages: The case of the Patagonian clam Venus antiqua. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 59: 429–442. Gorzalczany A. 2018. The Chalcolithic cemetery at Palmaḥim (North): New evidence of burial patterns from the Central Coastal Plain. ‘Atiqot 91: 1–94. Gošić М. and Gilead I. 2015. 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, pp. 161–175. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Grigson C. 1995. Cattle keepers of the northern Negev: Animal remains from the Chalcolithic site of Grar. In: Gilead I. Grar. A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev, pp. 377–452. Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Grigson C. 2006. Farming? Feasting? Herding? Large mammals from the Chalcolithic site of Gilat., In: Levy T.E. (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult. The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel, pp. 215–319. London: Equinox. Haddad E., Nadav-Ziv L., Elisha Y., Tal G., Rauchberger L. and Sandhaus D. 2021. Tel Yavne, Area A. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 133. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng. aspx?id=25883&mag_id=133. Accessed 01/05/2021. Hauptmann A. 1989. The earliest periods of copper metallurgy in Feinan, Jordan. In: Hauptmann A., Pernicka E. and Wagner G.A. (eds), Old World Archaeometallurgy: Proceedings of the International Symposium “Old World Archaeometallurgy”, Heidelberg 1987, pp.119–136. Bochum: Selbstverlag des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums. Hermon S. 2008. Socio-Economic Aspects of Chalcolithic (4500–3500 BC) Societies in the Southern Levant: A Lithic Perspective (BAR International Series 1744). Oxford: Archaeopress. Horard-Herbin, M. P., Tresset, A. and Vigne, J. D. 2014. Domestication and uses of the dog in western Europe from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age. Animal Frontiers 4(3): 23–31. Itach G., van den Brink E.C.M., Golan D., Zwiebel E.G., Cohen-Weinberger A., Shemer M., Haklay G., Ackermann O., Roskin J., Regev J., Boaretto E. and Turgeman-Yaffe Z. 2019. Late Chalcolithic remains south of Wienhaus Street in Yehud, Central Coastal Plain, Israel. Mitekufat Haeven - Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 49: 190–283. Joffe, A. H. 2003. Slouching toward Beersheba: Chalcolithic mortuary practices in local and regional context. In: Alpert Nakhai B., (ed.), The Near East in the Southwest. Essays in Honor of William G. Dever (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 58), pp 45-67. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research Karr, L.P. 2015. Human use and reuse of megafaunal bones in North America: Bone fracture, taphonomy, and archaeological interpretation. Quaternary International 361: 332–341. Kletter R. and Nagar Y. 2015. An Iron Age cemetery and other remains at Yavne. ‘Atiqot 81: 1*–33*. Ktalav I. 2018. The Shells from a Chalcolithic Burial Site – Palmaḥim (North). ‘Atiqot 91: 103–104. Lee J.R. 1973. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Levy J. and Gilead I. 2012. Spinning in the 5th millennium 257 Fadida et al. in the southern Levant: Aspects of the textile economy. Paléorient 38 (1–2): 127–139. Lyman R. L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mallon A., Koeppel R. and Neuville R. 1934. Teleilat Ghassul I. Rome: Pontificial Biblical Institute. Manclossi F. and Rosen S.A. 2019. Dynamics of change in flint sickles of the Age of Metal: New insights from a technological approach. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 7(1): 6–22. Manclossi F., Rosen S.A. and Lehmann G. 2018. The Decline and disappearance of chipped-stone tools: New insights from Qubur el-Walaydah, a Late Bronze/ Iron Age site in Israel. Lithic Technology 43(2): 93– 124. Manclossi F., Rosen S.A. and Milevski I. 2019. Canaanean blade technology: New insights issued from Horvat Ptora (North), an Early Bronze Age I site in Israel. Mitekufat Haeven – Journal of Israel Prehistoric Society 49: 284–315. Manclossi F., Rosen S.A and de Miroschedji P. 2016. The Canaanean blades from Tel Yarmuth, Israel: A technological analysis. Paléorient 42(1): 49–74. Marder O. 1999. The flint assemblage. In: Golani A. and van den Brink E.M.C., Salvage excavations at the Early Bronze Age Ia settlement of Azor. ʻAtiqot 38: 24–30. Marder O., Braun E. and Milevski I. 1995. The flint assemblage of Lower Horvat ‘Illin: Some technical and economic considerations. ‘Atiqot 27: 63–93. Mienis H.K. 2006. The molluscs remains. In: van den Brink E.C.M. and Gophna R., Shoham (North) Late Chalcolithic burial caves in the Lod valley, Israel (IAA Reports 27), pp. 155–157. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Mienis H.K. 2008. Molluscs from a Late Chalcolithic site at Sha’ar Efraim. Israel. Triton 17:19–20. Mienis H.K. 2009. A Brief note on the molluscs from a Chalcolithic Site in Yehud, Israel. The Archeo+Malacology Group Newsletter 16:7‒8. Milevski I. 1998. The groundstone tools. In: Edelstein G., Milevski I. and Aurant S. , Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989 (IAA Reports 3), pp. 61‒77. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 258 Milevski I. 2008. The exchange of ground stone tools during the Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant. In: Rowan Y.M. and Ebeling J.R. (eds.), New Approaches to Old Stones. Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts, pp. 116‒129. London: Equinox Milevski I. 2013. The exchange of flint tools in the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age. Lithic Technology 38(3): 202‒219. Milevski I. and Barzilai O. 2017. Redes de intercambio en los finales de la prehistoria del Levante meridiona. In: Milevski I., Monti L. and Jaruf P. (eds.), Si un hombre desde el sur... Šumma awīlum ina šūtim... Homenaje a Bernardo Gandulla. Escritos sobre historia y arqueología de alumnos, Colegas y amigos (Vol. I), pp. 23–56. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Milevski I., Fabian P. and Marder O. 2011. Canaanean blades in Chalcolithic contexts of the southern Levant? In: Lovell J.L. and Rower Y.M. (eds.), Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition, pp: 149–159. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Milevski I., Lupu R. and Cohen-Weinberger A. in press. Excavations at Quleh and Mazor (West): Iconography and Burial Practices in Southern Levantine Chalcolithic Cemeteries. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Milevski I., Greenhut Z., Matskevich Z., Ad U., CohenWeinberger A. and Horwitz L.K. 2015. Excavations at Holyland Park: An underground Chalcolithic complex in Jerusalem. Mitekufat Haeven – Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45: 158–192. Milevski I., Vardi J., Gilead I., Eirikh-Rose A., Birkenfeld M., Mienis H.K. and Horwitz L.K. 2013. Excavations at Horbat ‘Illit B: A Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) site in the Haelah Valley. Mitekufat Haeven – Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43: 73–147. Nadav-Ziv L. 2020. Yavne. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 132. http:// w w w.h a d a shot e si.org.i l / Re p or t _ D e t a i l _ Eng. aspx?id=25743&mag_id=128. Accessed 02/05/2021. Nativ A. 2014. Prioritizing Death and Society: The Archaeology of Chalcolithic and Contemporary Cemeteries in the Southern Levant. Durham: Routledge. Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombes à Ossuaries de la Région Côtière Palèstinienne au IVe Millénaire avant Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 51 (2021), 225–260 l’ère Chrétienne (Mémoire et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 1). Paris: Association Paléorient. Pinsky S. 2019. The Late Chalcolithic Lithic Industries of the Fazael Sites and their Relations to other Late Chalcolithic Lithic Industries. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of Haifa, Haifa. Pipano S. 1983. Yavne Sands (Hill 41). Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 83: 49 (Hebrew). Poppe G.T. and Goto Y. 1991. European Seashells. Wiesbaden: Verlag Christa Hemmen. Reitz E.J. and Wing E.S. 1999. Zooarchaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rosen S.A. 1982. Flint sickle-blades of the late protohistoric and early historic periods in Israel. Tel Aviv 9: 139–145. Rosen S.A. 1983. The Canaanean blade and the Early Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal 33: 15–29. Rosen S.A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age. A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Rosenberg D., Buchman E., Shalev S. and Bar S. 2020. A large copper artifacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley: New evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy in the Southern Levant. Documenta Praehistorica 47: 246–261. Rosenzweig G. 2020. Absolute Chronology for the Ghassulian Culture: Case Studies from Ashkelon Agamim and Tel Sheva, and their Implication on the Overall Chronological Framework. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. Weizmann Institute of Sciences, Rehovot. Roskin J. 2020. Geological Research Proposal for the Yavne Excavations. Internal Report. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Roux V. 2019. The Ghassulian ceramic tradition: A single chaîne opératoire prevalent throughout the southern Levant Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies. 7 (1): 23–43. Rowan Y.M. 1998. Ancient Distribution and Deposition of Prestige Objects: Basalt Vessels during Late Prehistory in the Southern Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin. Rowan Y.M. 2003. The groundstone assemblage. In: Golani A. (ed.), Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata (IAA Reports 18), pp. 183–202. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Rowan Y.M. 2006a. The chipped stone assemblage at Gilat. In: Levy T.E. (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat (Israel), pp. 507– 574. London: Equinox. Rowan Y.M. 2006b. The groundstone assemblages. In: Yannai E., ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) I: Excavations at A Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel (IAA Reports 31), pp. 211–249. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Rowan Y.M., Levy T.E., Alon D. and Goren Y. 2006. Gilat’s ground stone assemblage. In: Levy T.E. (ed.), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat (Israel), pp. 575–684. London: Equinox. Scheftelowitz N. 2016. Chalcolithic Burial Customs in the Southern Levant: The Case Study of Horvat Qarqar South and Palmahim. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva (Hebrew with English summary). Shalem D., Gal Z. and Smithline H. 2013. Miscellaneous objects. In: Shalem D., Gal Z. and Smithline H. (eds.), Peqi`in: A Late Chalcolithic Burial Site, Upper Galilee, Israel (Land of Galilee 2), pp. 329–336. Tzemach: Ostracon and Israel Antiquities Authority. Shalev S. and Braun E. 1997. The metal objects from Yiftahe’el II. In: Braun E., Yiftaḥ’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel (IAA Reports 2), pp. 92–96. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Shalev S. and Northover P.J. 1987. Chalcolithic metal and metalworking from Shiqmim. In: Levy T.E. (ed.), Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982–1984) (BAR International Series 356), pp. 352–371. Oxford: Archaeopress. Shapira, Y. 1964. Cemetery from the period of the patriarchs near Beit Gamliel. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 10: 11–12 (Hebrew). Shimelmitz R. 2009. Variability in the specialized Canaanean blade production of the Early Bronze Levant. In: Rosen S.A. and Roux V. (eds.), Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-Historic 259 Fadida et al. and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant, pp. 135–156. Paris: De Boccard. Shimelmitz R. 2012. The flint finds and the character of the Middle Bronze Age sickle blades. In: Gadot Y. and Yasur-Landau A., Qiryat Shemona (S) Fort and Village in the Hula Valley (Salvage Excavation Reports 7), pp. 171–183. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Shimelmitz R., Barkai R. and Gopher A. 2000. A Canaanean blade workshop at Har Haruvim, Israel. Tel Aviv 27: 3–22. 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 copper metallurgy: A radiometric perspective changed the world. In Rowan Y.M. and Lovell J.L. Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and transition, 133–148. Oxford, Oxbow books Smithline H. 2001. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age caves at Asherat, western Galilee. ‘Atiqot 42: 35–78. Sneh A. and Rosensaft M. 2004. The Geological Map of Israel, 1:50,000: Sheet 7-IV, Rishon LeZion. Jerusalem: Israel Geological Survey. Soulier M.C. and Costamagno S. 2017. Let the cut marks speak! Experimental butchery to reconstruct carcass processing, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11: 782–802. Stark H. 1994. Ḥorvat ‘Illin, South. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12: 80–82 Stiner M.C., Kuhn S.L., Weiner S. and Bar-Yosef O. 1995. Differential burning, recrystallization, and fragmentation of archaeological bone. Journal of 260 Archaeological Science 22(2): 223–237. Taxel I. 2005. Ancient Yavne: Its history and archaeology. In: M. Fischer (ed.), Yavne, Yavne-Yam and its Vicinity, pp. 130–170. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Ussishkin D. 1980. The Ghassulian shrine at En-Gedi. Tel Aviv 7(1–2): 1–44. Vardi J. 2012. Sickles of the V–VI Millennia in the Southern Levant: Typology, Technology and Craft Specialization in Light of the New Finds from Beit Eshel, A Chalcolithic Sickle Blade Workshop. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva. Vardi J. and Gilead I. 2013. Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age I transition in the southern Levant: The lithic perspective. Paléorient 39(1): 111–123. Villa P. and Mahieu E. 1991. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21: 27–48. Vita -Finzi C. and Higgs E.S. 1978 Archaeological Sites and in their Setting. London: Thames & Hudson. von den Driesch A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (Peabody Museum Bulletin 1). Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Winter-Livneh R., Svoray T. and Giled I., 2012. Secondary burial cemeteries, visibility and land tenure: A view from the southern Levant Chalcolithic period. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31: 423–438. Yahalom-Mack N., Langgut D., Dvir O., Tirosh O., Eliyahu-Behar A., Erel Y., Langford B., Frumkin A., Ullman M. and Davidovich U. 2015. The earliest lead object in the Levant. PLOS ONE 10(12): e0142948. Yannai E. 2014. Yavne. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. https:// w w w.ha d a shot- esi.org.il / Re por t _ Det ail _ Eng. aspx?id=13677&mag_id=121. Accessed 02/05/2021.