246
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
A large copper artefacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley>
new evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy
in the southern Levant
Danny Rosenberg 1, Eli Buchman 2, Sariel Shalev 3, and Shay Bar 2
1 Laboratory for Ground Stone Tools Research, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa, IL
drosenberg@research.haifa.ac.il
2 Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa, IL
eli_buchman@yahoo.com< bar.inbal.shay@gmail.com
3 Department of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa, IL
sariel.shalev@univ.haifa.ac.il
ABSTRACT – Late Chalcolithic metallurgy developed in the southern Levant simultaneously with other
crafts and new social institutions, reflecting advances in social organization, cults and technology.
Until recently, copper items were mostly found in the Negev and Judean Desert, while other areas,
specifically the Jordan Valley, were considered poor, with limited copper finds. Recent excavations
at Late Chalcolithic Fazael in the Jordan Valley yielded dozens of copper items that allow for the first
time a comprehensive study of copper items from this area. The assemblage is one of the largest of
any site in the Late Chalcolithic period and includes most of the known components of the Late Chal-
colithic copper industry. The current paper presents the new metallurgical discoveries from the Fazael
Basin and discusses their significance to our understanding of the Late Chalcolithic copper industry.
IZVLE∞EK – Pozno halkolitska metalurgija se je razvila v ju∫ni Levanti so≠asno z drugimi obrtmi in
novimi dru∫benimi in∏titucijami, kar odra∫a napredek v dru∫beni organizaciji, kultu in tehnologiji.
Do nedavnega so bakrene predmete ve≠inoma na∏li v Negevski in Judejski pu∏≠avi, medtem ko so
druga obmo≠ja, med njimi zlasti dolina reke Jordan, veljala za prostor z omejenimi najdbami iz bak-
ra. Nedavno so izkopavanja na pozno halkolitskem najdi∏≠u Fazael v dolini reke Jordan prinesla na
desetine bakrenih predmetov, ki nam prvi≠ omogo≠ajo celovito ∏tudijo bakrenih izdelkov s tega ob-
mo≠ja. Ta zbir je eden najve≠jih iz kateregakoli najdi∏≠a iz ≠asa poznega halkolitika in vklju≠uje ve≠i-
no znanih sestavnih delov industrije bakra iz tega obdobja. V ≠lanku predstavljamo nove izsledke o
metalurgiji bakra iz bazena Fazael in razpravljamo o pomenu teh najdb pri razumevanju te indus-
trije v poznem halkolitiku.
KEY WORDS – Fazael; Late Chalcolithic; copper metallurgy; Jordan Valley
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – Fazael; pozni halkolitik; metalurgija bakra; dolina reke Jordan
Velik zbir najdb iz najdi[;a Fazael v dolini reke Jordan>
novi dokazi o pozno halkolitski metalurgiji bakra v ju/ni Levanti
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.14
A large copper artefacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley> new evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy in the southern Levant
247
Introduction
The Late Chalcolithic period of the southern Levant
(c. 4500–3900 cal BC) marks significant changes
from its predecessors, specifically within various
aspects of social organization, subsistence economy,
cult and religion (van den Brink 1998; Gilead
1988; Ilan, Rowan 2012; Joffe, Dessel 1995; Levy
1986; 2014; Perrot 1955a; Rowan, Ilan 2007; Sha-
lem 2015), and technologies (e.g., Albright 1932;
Ben-Yosef et al. 2016; Bourke 2001; Gilead 1992;
Rosenberg et al. 2016; Rowan, Golden 2009). With-
in this system there is increased evidence for the
development of craft specialization, apparent prima-
rily in the appearance of metallurgy (e.g., Golden
2009), standardized ceramics (Roux 2003; Kerner
2010), specific components in the flint (e.g., Gilead
et al. 2004; Rosen 1983; 1993; Rosenberg, Shimel-
mitz 2017; Vardi 2011) and ground stone tool as-
semblages (e.g., Chasan, Rosenberg 2018; 2019;
Chasan et al. 2019; Rosenberg et al. 2016; Rowan
1998), and probably also in the production of ivory
objects and figurines (Perrot 1959a; Rosenberg,
Chasan in press).
The chronology of the Late Chalcolithic is debated,
but it seems that if we accept the Ghassulian as the
main entity of this period then we can divided this
time span into two phases (e.g., Gilead 2011; Go∏i≤
2015): the earlier phase (c. 4500–4300/4200 cal BC)
that consists of most strata at Teleilat Ghassul (and
sites in the northwestern Negev such as Gilat, a few
of the Nahal Besor sites, and Grar) and the later
phase (c. 4300/4200–3900 cal BC) which is repre-
sented by sites along Nahal Beer Sheva (Gilead 2011;
Go∏i≤ 2015). Most of the sites in the Fazael Basin
may be attributed to this later phase (see below).
This later phase is characterized by extensive metal-
lurgical activities (Eldar, Baumgarten 1985; Perrot
1955b; Shalev, Northover 1987; Shugar 2000),
while the earlier sites show no such finds and were
thus ascribed as ‘premetallic’ (Golden 2010).
Metallurgy seems to be the most sophisticated among
the Late Chalcolithic technologies, exemplifying the
extraordinary achievements of the Late Chalcolithic
communities, including a high investment in raw
material acquisition and technological knowhow.
These Late Chalcolithic advances were unparalleled
among other cultures in the area and those of the
succeeding Early Bronze Age I. Furthermore, it seems
that at least some of the copper objects were cultic
paraphernalia that were integrated into the Late
Chalcolithic cultic practices with little or no utilita-
rian function (e.g., Bar-Adon 1980; Ben-Yosef et al.
2016; Go∏i≤ 2015; Go∏i≤, Gilead 2015 and see Sha-
lem 2015 for further discussion about the motifs de-
picted in copper artefacts).
Late Chalcolithic metallurgy comprised two discrete
production techniques that refer to the later stages
production, namely the open cast technique, usually
using pure copper, probably originating from Fay-
nan (Adams, Genz 1995; Golden 2010; Hauptmann
1989; 2007; Shalev 1991; 2008; Shugar 2003; Shu-
gar, Gohm 2001), and the considerably more sophi-
sticated ‘lost wax’ technique, frequently using non-
local copper-based alloys with significant arsenic,
nickel, and antimony content (Golden 2010; Goren
2014; Key 1980; Levy 1993; Levy, Shalev 1989; Levy
et al. 2008; Shalev 1991; 2008; Shalev, Northover
1987; 1993; Shugar 2000; Tadmor et al. 1995).
Other metals found at Late Chalcolithic sites in the
southern Levant include gold, electrum (Shalev
1993), and lead (Ben-Yosef et al. 2016; Yahalom-
Mack et al. 2015). While tools such as axes, chisels,
and awls were typically made using relatively pure
local copper, other objects, such as maceheads, stan-
dards, and crowns were commonly made of copper
alloys (Shalev 2008). The origin of these copper al-
loys is currently unknown; however, the nearest suit-
able ores are in the Trans-Caucasus and Azerbaijan,
more than 1500km from the sites where these ob-
jects were found (however see also Shugar 2018;
Zwicker 1977). While some studies suggest that cop-
per production took place at the Beer Sheva sites
(Shugar 2000; 2018), recent studies (Goren 2008;
2014) suggest that the final production of the cop-
per artefacts occurred closer to the copper sources,
possibly in the Judean Desert.
Intriguingly, until recently most of the knowledge
regarding Late Chalcolithic copper objects stemmed
from several sites in the southern parts of Israel (the
Negev, Shephelah, and Judean Desert) and a few
sites in Jordan. However, little or no copper was
found in other areas, including the Golan Heights,
the Galilee, the northern Coastal Plain, and parts of
the Jordan Valley (Buchman 2018; Rowan, Golden
2009; Shalev 2008). Thus, it seems that our current
knowledge regarding the copper industry of the Late
Chalcolithic period is focused on a relatively limited
geographic region, while other regions still call for
further research and analyses. Recent excavations at
Late Chalcolithic Fazael in the Jordan Valley yielded
dozens of copper items that allow for the first time
a comprehensive study of such objects from this
area. The assemblage is one of the largest of any site
Danny Rosenberg, Eli Buchman, Sariel Shalev, and Shay Bar
248
in the Late Chalcolithic period, and includes most
of the known components of the Late Chalcolithic
copper industry.
The Late Chalcolithic of the Fazael Basin
Fazael is located in the Fazael Basin, in the central
Jordan Valley (Fig. 1). The site was first described
briefly by Nelson Glueck (1951). Salvage excava-
tions were later conducted in the eastern part of
the area by Yosef Porath (1985) and Yuval Peleg
(2000). The area was then surveyed in the frame-
work of the Manasseh Hill Country Survey (Zertal,
Bar 2019) and further explored in the Fazael Valley
Regional Project in the last 12 years (Bar 2013;
2014). Fazael is in fact a concentration of sites (Fig.
2) along the northern terrace of Wadi Fazael. While
Fazael 1 was ascribed to an earlier phase of the Late
Chalcolithic and Fazael 4 to the Early Bronze Age I,
Fazael 2, 5, and 7 (regarded as separate sites within
one large site) were attributed to the late phase of
the Late Chalcolithic period, based on the lithic, pot-
tery, and ground stone tool assemblages (Bar 2013;
2014; Bar et al. 2013; 2014; 2015). Fazael 2, 5, and
7 also yielded copper items. Interestingly, in two of
the three sites (Fazael 2 and 7) Canaanean blades, a
characteristic of the Early Bronze Age, were found
(Pinsky 2019), although produced using Late Chal-
colithic technology (Pinsky 2019; see also Bar, Win-
ter 2010; Rowan, Levy 1994 in this regards).
Fazael 2 is located in the northern area of the greater
Late Chalcolithic Fazael site (Bar et al. 2013). Stra-
tum II of this three-stratum site was dated to a late
stage in the Late Chalcolithic continuum, with radio-
metric dates falling within the 1st century of the 4th
millennium BC (Bar 2014.319–320). The main fea-
ture discovered in Stratum II is a large courtyard
house, covering an area of approx. 620m2. The court-
yard itself is 560m2 in area (28x20m), bounded by
80–100cm thick stone walls. Most of the courtyard
has not yet been excavated. One broad room (62m2;
4x15.5m) was found abutting the southeastern sec-
tion of the courtyard. The room was divided into
two large cells, and its entrance faced east. At least
five successive beaten-earth floors were detected,
all abutting the room’s walls, implying a long period
of habitation. The second room was excavated in
the western part of the courtyard. It was 60m2 in
area (4x15m) and divided into two large cells. An
entrance flanked by two standing monoliths was set
at the southern part of the room. This room was built
in the early phase of Stratum 2, and in the later
phase of this stratum it went out of use, becoming
part of the main courtyard. The pottery assemblage
matches other contemporaneous sites, although
churns were not recovered, only one cornet was
found, and the flint assemblage is also typical of the
Late Chalcolithic, but with notable evidence for the
presence of the Canaanean industry (Bar, Winter
2010; Pinsky 2019).
Fazael 5 is located at the middle of the presumed
area of the ancient settlement (Fig. 2), c. 250m south-
east of Fazael 2, and c. 70m west of Fazael 7. The
area of this site was estimated to be 3ha. (Bar et al.
2015). Three layers were identified (Stratum I–III).
Stratum I consists of two pits cutting most of the
eastern part of a building identified in Stratum II.
The finds in these pits are similar to the Stratum II
assemblages, and therefore suggest that the pits were
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of Fazael and
other Late Chalcolithic sites where metal items were
found.
A large copper artefacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley> new evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy in the southern Levant
249
formed close to the abandonment of the Stratum II
building. Stratum III was discovered in two trench-
es below the foundations of the Stratum II building.
Pottery dated to the Late Chalcolithic period was
found, but there were no architectural remains apart
from a single ash pit. It seems that there was some
activity here before the construction of the Stratum
II broad room. Two large courtyard houses were do-
cumented in Fazael 5, including a large broad room
in Stratum II, the main habitation level of the site
(Bar et al. 2015). The pottery assemblage of Stratum
II has many parallels to other Late Chalcolithic sites
(churns and cornets, however, are missing altogeth-
er), and the flint assemblage is also typical of the pe-
riod (Pinsky 2019).
Fazael 7, east of Fazael 5, exposed one of the largest
architectural complexes ever uncovered in the south
Levantine Late Chalcolithic (Bar et al. 2017). The
architectural elements were designated Stratum II,
as they are stratigraphically below a flimsy con-
struction attributed to the Roman period (Stratum
I). Two probes below the Stratum II foundation lev-
els revealed Late Chalcolithic remains which pre-
date the large architectural complex and were thus
designated as Stratum III (Bar et al. 2017). The
architectural complex in Stratum II is unique, dissi-
milar to typical Late Chalcolithic broad room struc-
tures, like those found at Fazael 2 and Fazael 5. The
architectural complex was likely roofed, and it con-
sists of four almost identical rectangular rooms cre-
Fig. 2. The Fazael sites.
Danny Rosenberg, Eli Buchman, Sariel Shalev, and Shay Bar
250
ated by the division of two roughly square units
(Fig. 2). Its overall dimensions, about 8 x 15m and
120m2, make it one of the largest Late Chalcolithic
structures in the southern Levant. The structure is
massively built, with walls about 1m thick, pre-
served to more than 1m high in places and typical-
ly made of two rows of medium and large-sized field-
stones with smaller stones and sediment in between.
This is surrounded by three wide courtyards, which
contain a subsidiary structure and adjoin the main
structure on the east and north, altogether covering
an area of about 1300m2. The pottery assemblage of
Stratum II parallels other Late Chalcolithic sites
(however, here also it lacks some of the common
types such as churns and cornets), and the flint as-
semblage is also typical of the period, but with pre-
sence of Canaanean blades (Pinsky 2019).
A large group of copper items and a few related
finds were noted (Buchman 2018). These mark an
important discovery and the first copper finds found
in this area. Moreover, the assemblage is one of the
largest Late Chalcolithic copper assemblages in
southern Levant (with only the ‘Cave of the Trea-
sure’ in the Judean Desert and sites in the Beer Sheva
Basin having more). The present paper focuses on
Late Chalcolithic metalworking in the Fazael Basin.
While the chemical and isotopic analyses are ongo-
ing, we present here the assemblage and offer pre-
liminary insights, discussing their significance to our
understanding of the management of copper items
during the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern
Levant.
Methodology
The copper artefacts from Fazael were found during
the 2007–2018 excavation seasons. The items were
handpicked during the excavations, sometimes using
the aid of a metal detector, or during sifting (5mm
mesh) of the sediments. These were documented,
cleaned, and studied at the Zinman Institute of Ar-
chaeology in the University of Haifa. The cleaning
process was performed by plastic media blasting
(PMB), using plastic particles 50 microns in size with
Barcol hardness values of 40–60. The artefacts were
cleaned with a Model-2 Ze-
ro Production Instrument
(CYSTRIP®). After clean-
ing, morphometric data
was obtained from each ar-
tefact using digital calipers
with ±0.0mm accuracy, and
each find was weighed with
laboratory scales with ±0.01g accuracy. The artefacts
were then typologically classified and measured.
While chemical data were collected (with pXRF) to
classify the artefacts into chemical groups, this ana-
lysis should be regarded as preliminary, and a more
thorough chemical analysis that includes stable lead
isotope analysis that can further characterize the as-
semblage and its origin is ongoing.
The Fazael copper industry
Altogether 52 copper artefacts and seven copper-re-
lated artefacts (crucibles and burnt glazed sediments
with no metal processing remains) were found at Fa-
zael (2, 5, and 7, see Tables 1–3). These were main-
ly found at Fazael 2, featuring the largest excavated
area so far (n = 34 copper items), but also at Fazael
5 (n = 4) and Fazael 7 (n = 14). Five crucibles and
two burnt glazed sediments containing no metal
processing remains were also found at Fazael 2. Ex-
cluding these, no additional tools related to metal-
lurgy or high temperature fire sources have yet to
be exposed at any of the Fazael sites. Among the
copper artefacts found, only three were found com-
plete (a chisel, a standard, and a macehead); the rest
are fragments or pieces and chunks of copper items.
As these sites are near one another and represent
segments of one larger site, we present and discuss
the three assemblages as a single assemblage.
Following the common terminology (Bar-Adon
1980; Klimscha 2013; Levy, Shalev 1989; Shalev
2008), Fazael’s copper assemblage (Tab. 2) includes
‘utilitarian’ objects as well as ‘prestige’ objects. These
include chisels, axes/chisels, and picks/awls, as well
as crown fragments, maceheads, and standards. Also
included are unidentified copper tool fragments and
Site
Copper
Crucibles
Burnt glazed
Total
items sediments
Fazael 2 34 5 2 41
Fazael 5 4 4
Fazael 7 14 14
Total 52 5 2 59
Tab. 1. Distribution of copper and related artefacts
at the Fazael sites.
Site Celts Maceheads Crowns Standards
Unidentified
Chunks Totalfragments
Fazael 2 3 2 6 5 6 12 34
Fazael 5 2 1 1 4
Fazael 7 1 1 2 1 9 14
Total 6 3 8 6 8 21 52
Tab. 2. Distribution of types in the copper assemblages of the Fazael sites.
A large copper artefacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley> new evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy in the southern Levant
251
Cat.
Type Site Fig. No.
Dimensions (mm)
Weight (g)
No. l w t d
207 axe Fazael 2 4.3 23.40 16.41 4.35 9.68
234 axe Fazael 2 4.4 25.64 16.76 7.96 15.24
240 axe Fazael 2 4.1 145.70 12.71 5.96 113.10
502* axe Fazael 5 8 54.40 22.50 4.30
503* awl Fazael 5 8 102.00 8.50
701 chisel Fazael 7 4.2 140.34 10.61 3.38–6.89 108.92
202 macehead Fazael 2 5.1 27.30 27.30 49.10 34.50
241 macehead Fazael 2 5.2 40.73 36.27 55.60 44.20
704 macehead Fazael 7 5.3 40.52 40.63 206.42
201 crown Fazael 2 6.1 61.60 49.10 6.60 53.80
210 crown Fazael 2 6.2 14.35 17.16 7.79 6.54
230 crown Fazael 2 6.3 31.2 25.56 3.95 15.26
231 crown Fazael 2 6.4 39.29 49.10 5.31 32.71
232 crown Fazael 2 6.8 29.48 23.93 3.30 10.04
238 crown Fazael 2 6.5 33.09 32.38 7.46 17.78
702** crown Fazael 7 6.6 38.04 1.81–12.65 2.34–4.09 9.08
705 crown Fazael 7 6.7 50.69 29.54 32.15 67.12
203 standard Fazael 2 7.1 23.50 3.3 34.70 41.90
204 standard Fazael 2 7.2 39.96 12.90 6.74 9.76
209 standard Fazael 2 7.3 18.17 5.32 5.08 5.32
211 standard Fazael 2 7.4 14.06 20.10 5.06 7.46
217 standard Fazael 2 7.5 31.34 11.09 5.54 9.78
501* standard Fazael 5 8 67.90 38.3
206 unidentified fragment Fazael 2 9.1 20.48 19.10 6.80 9.42
212 unidentified fragment Fazael 2 9.2 14.17 20.21 3.50 2.81
216 unidentified fragment Fazael 2 9.3 10.57 7.7 4.93 1.36
220 unidentified fragment Fazael 2 9.4 31.66 22.25 12.07 26.11
233 unidentified fragment Fazael 2 9.5 24.86 24.25 8.68 22.08
239 unidentified fragment Fazael 2 9.6 11.53 10.21 5.56 1.2
504* unidentified fragment Fazael 5 8
703 unidentified fragment Fazael 7 9.7 10.5 0.79 3.11 2.4
205 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.1 35.84 12.82 7.11 8.92
208 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.2 20.27 16.22 8.32 9.28
213 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.3 19.34 11.96 8.72 6.32
214 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.4 11.23 7.84 6.27 2.14
215 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.5 11.43 7.3 5.59 1.18
218 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.6 14.1 9.13 3.25 1.52
226 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.7 21.61 4.73 5.66 0.92
227 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.8 8.84 4.45 2.76 0.22
235 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.9 11.45 7.64 4.75 1.02
236 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.10 4.22 25.71 7.32 4.22
237 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.11 9.58 8.96 2.96 0.22
242 copper chunk Fazael 2 10.12 16.70 9.83 7.60 2.26
706 copper chunk Fazael 7 10.13 7.89 3.66 3.29 0.10
707 copper chunk Fazael 7 10.14 15.55 9.66 5.11 0.68
708 copper chunk Fazael 7 11.1 50.29 25.71 4.81 17.86
709 copper chunk Fazael 7 11.2 29.20 16.35 8.93 6.40
710 copper chunk Fazael 7 11.3 13.56 6.26 4.51 0.34
711 copper chunk Fazael 7 11.4 7.38 5.10 2.35 0.10
712 copper chunk Fazael 7 11.5 13.66 5.42 4.15 0.24
713 copper chunk Fazael 7 11.6 10.59 9.02 5.43 0.54
714 copper chunk Fazael 7 11.7 11.84 9.79 3.39 0.42
*   Part of the items found together as a group in Fazael 5
** Ibex horn|
Tab. 3. The copper assemblages of Fazael.
Danny Rosenberg, Eli Buchman, Sariel Shalev, and Shay Bar
252
copper chunks of various sizes, shapes, and weights.
A rare find from Fazael 5 is a standard in which a
chisel, awl, and an unidentified bent item were in-
serted.
Spatial distribution of the copper items
Copper artefacts were found in various loci at Fa-
zael 2. Some of these were found in primary con-
texts in the rooms and courtyard (Fig. 3). Of note
is Locus 225, where three copper artefacts, four cru-
cible fragments, and the two slags were found. The
fifth crucible fragment, without traces of copper or
slag, was found in the north-eastern room that also
yielded an axe, two unidentified copper objects frag-
ments, and four copper chunks. The interior room
yielded seven items: three crown fragments, a chisel
fragment, a macehead fragment, fragments of an un-
identified copper tool, and a copper chunk. A frag-
ment of a standard was found hidden in wall W270.
The standard with the three inserted items from
Fazael 5 was found in the southern cell of a broad
room, the only room so far excavated at this site. At
Fazael 7, most of the copper artefacts were found in
two rooms of the southwestern building, the main
structure excavated in this area.
Axes and an awl
Of these, two are whole. All items in this group are
characterized by a cutting edge that is wider than
the body (Fig. 4, Tab. 3). Both items found at Fa-
zael 5 – an axe and an awl – were inserted in the
standard. Similar items were found at other Late
Chalcolithic sites in the southern Levant and reflect
a somewhat limited number of types and sub-types
Fig. 3. Distribution of copper items at Fazael 2.
A large copper artefacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley> new evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy in the southern Levant
253
(e.g., Bar-Adon 1980; Ben-Yosef et al. 2016; van
den Brink et al. 2016; Eldar, Baumgarten 1985;
Klimscha 2013; Lee 1973; Namdar et al. 2004; Per-
rot 1955a; 1959b; Segal, Goren 2013; Segal, Ka-
menski 2002).
Maceheads
Three maceheads were recovered (Fig. 5, Tab. 3):
two fragments and one complete item. The two
macehead fragments (Fig. 5.1–2) are globular, and
the complete item is piriform (Fig. 5.3). No core ma-
terial survived in the holes. Similar items were found
at other Late Chalcolithic sites in the southern Le-
vant, reflecting a preference for specific morpholo-
gies (e.g., Bar-Adon 1980; Ben-Yosef et al. 2016;
Dothan 1959; Golden 2010; Goren 2008; Namdar
et al. 2004; Perrot 1955b; 1959b; Segal, Goren 2013;
Segal, Kamenski 2002 and see Sebbanne 2009).
Crowns
Seven flat slightly convex fragments that seem to
be parts of crowns (Fig. 6.1–7) were found (Tab. 3)
although not in all examples it is entirely clear that
this are in fact crown fragments. A single ibex horn
(Fig. 6.8) that was probably part of a crown (or a
standard, see Bar-Adon 1980) was also found. The
crown rims appear to have a rounded end, facing
outward and at least one may bear some kind of de-
coration (e.g., Fig. 6.4). Similar finds were found at
only limited additional sites (Golden 2010; Klim-
scha 2013).
Standards
Five standard fragments and one complete standard
were found (Figs. 7 and 8, Tab. 3). Two fragments
were parts of upper and lower disc-shaped rims with
a short straight plain neck and a hollow cylindrical
shaft (Fig. 7.1,4). Three other fragments were parts
of a straight hollow cylindrical shaft. No decoration
was observed on any of the external surfaces. Stan-
dards were found at a few addi-
tional Late Chalcolithic sites in
the southern Levant (e.g., Bar-
Adon 1980; Golden 2010; Do-
than 1959; Eldar, Baumgarten
1985; Israel et al. 2014; Klim-
scha 2013; Lee 1973; Milevski et
al. 2013; Perrot 1955b; Shalev
1996).
The complete standard from Fa-
zael 5 (Fig. 8) contained a chisel,
awl, and a bent item with a rec-
tangular section that were insert-
ed into the standard through the base (the chisel
and awl protrude). The standard’s base was pressed,
preventing the inserted items from falling out. The
upper area of the standard has an opening. The stan-
dard is adorned with a large protruding nose and
two eyes with three or four eyelashes. A horizontal
groove encircled the body near the base. This stan-
dard bears some resemblance to the famous figu-
rine-standard from the Cave of the Treasure (Bar-
Adon 1980.49); however, clear stylistic differences
in the standard morphology and figure design are
Fig. 4. Copper axes.
Fig. 5. Copper maceheads.
Danny Rosenberg, Eli Buchman, Sariel Shalev, and Shay Bar
254
noted as well, including two elongated pro-
trusions on the sides (ears?), the remains of
a third one on the back of the head, and a
potential mouth.
Unidentified fragments
These comprise fragments and various cop-
per pieces that could not be included in the
former groups (Fig. 9, Tab. 3). These frag-
ments vary in size, shape, and density. One
of these is a bent fragment that was found in-
side the standard at Fazael 5 (seen through
the hole in the standard head and in an X-ray
image).
Copper chunks
Copper chunks could be remnants of the cast-
ing process (Figs. 10 and 11, Tab. 3). They
are of various sizes and shapes.
Crucibles
Among the pottery assemblage of Fazael 2,
there are five crucible fragments (Fig. 12, Tab.
4). The Fazael crucibles are similar to finds
from the Negev (Eldar, Baumgarten 1985; Notis et
al. 1984; Shalev, Northover 1987). Four of the cru-
cible fragments were found in close proximity to in-
stallation Locus 225, located in one of the western
rooms of Fazael 2, and they contained slag and cop-
per remains. The fifth crucible fragment was found
on the eastern side of Fazael 2 and contained no slag.
Burnt glazed sediments
The two burnt glazed sediments (Fig. 13) are char-
acterized by melted or partially melted local sedi-
ment that contacted an extremely hot heat source
(for similar burnt glazed sediments see Notis et al.
1984; Shalev, Northover 1987). These were found
in installation Locus 225 (which contained no signs
of fire or ash remains). They are porous, and the
cross-section is black in colour.
Preliminary chemical analysis of the copper
artefacts
While still preliminary, it seems that the copper ar-
tefacts from Fazael show a clear division into two
main chemical groups (Buchman 2018). The groups
are characterized by the absence or differences in
quantities of elements in the copper alloys. Group I
Fig. 6. Copper crown fragments.
Fig. 7. Copper standards.
A large copper artefacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley> new evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy in the southern Levant
255
is characterized mainly by copper and iron, while
arsenic, antimony, and nickel are absent. The con-
centration of iron and iron oxides depends mainly
on the purity of the copper in the alloy. Group II is
characterized by copper alloys, and it can be further
separated based on typology and chemical composi-
tion (see Buchman 2018). In a few artefacts in this
group, the concentration of some elements (e.g., ar-
senic, bismuth, lead, and antimony) seems higher
than in the natural ores, however, in general the
average concentrations of antimony, arsenic, lead,
and nickel are lower than those found in natural ore
(Buchman 2018). The lack of control over the cop-
per composition of some of these (nine items) pro-
duced copper alloys that differed from those pro-
duced directly from the copper ore, and seems to sug-
gest recycling of copper artefacts (Buchman 2018).
Most of the analysed ‘prestige’ objects at Fazael have
lead concentrations higher than about 0.5wt.% and
the artefacts that generally contain high lead concen-
trations lack one of the other elements (nickel, arse-
nic, or antimony). In this regard, Miriam Tadmor et
al. (1995) suggested that the exotic copper-arsenic-
antimony alloys were chosen to facilitate production
using the lost wax technique, which requires highly
fluid liquid metal that can be obtained using alloys.
The metallic lead was probably obtained from dif-
ferent sources than the polymetallic ore used for the
copper-arsenic-antimony alloys (e.g., Yahalom-Mack
et al. 2015). Our preliminary chemical analysis also
seems to suggest that in the Fazael copper assem-
blage some artefacts have lead or bismuth added to
pure copper or copper alloys. This may have been
used to improve the quality of the final alloys; alter-
natively, this may represent a break in the trade of
Fig. 8. The copper standard containing copper ob-
jects from Fazael 5.
Fig. 9. Unidentified fragments of copper items.
Cat. Dimension (mm) Internal wall Depth
no. inner rim external rim coating (mm)
diameter diameter
221 58.60 82.00 slag 45.30
222 slag
223 65.00 81.00 slag + copper 43.65
224 65.40 87.80 slag
225
Tab. 4. Crucibles.
Danny Rosenberg, Eli Buchman, Sariel Shalev, and Shay Bar
256
copper-arsenic-antimony al-
loys and an attempt to find al-
ternatives (see also Ben-Yo-
sef et al. 2016). At Fazael, four
items contain lead in concen-
trations above 1.2wt.%. How-
ever, only one item (an uni-
dentified tool fragment) con-
tains mainly copper and lead,
while another item, a chunk,
contains 2.76wt.% bismuth.
The distinction between cop-
per objects with more ‘utilita-
rian’ characteristics and more
prestigious and less utilitarian
forms is still debated (e.g.,
Barkai 2011; Golden 2009;
Kerner 2001; Potazkin, Bar-
Avi 1980; Shalev, Northover
1987). Our preliminary che-
mical study shows that the
traditional classification of
copper items into these two
typological groups, characteri-
zed by different manufactur-
ing techniques and chemical
compositions (e.g., Key 1980; Shalev 1991; Shalev,
Northover 1993; Tadmor et al. 1995), does not al-
ways apply. This pattern, while characteristic of
most of the Late Chalcolithic copper industry, is
challenged by the presence of copper items (such as
a few of the Fazael objects) that are commonly as-
sociated with one functional group (‘utilitarian’ or
‘prestige’) yet are produced from ore typically asso-
ciated with the other functional group. Similar exam-
ples are observed at Giv’at Ha-Oranim (Namdar et
al. 2004), Peqi’in Cave (Segal, Goren 2013), and the
Cave of the Sandal (Segal, Kaminski 2002). It is in-
teresting to note that most of the objects that cross
the proposed guidelines are (unalloyed) maceheads,
and this may relate to their function.
Discussion and conclusion
The new information accumulated
from the recent excavations in the
Late Chalcolithic Fazael Basin sites
adds critical evidence for the disper-
sal of copper metallurgy into the Jor-
dan Valley and furthers our under-
standing of this time span and its re-
flection in this region. The Fazael
sites are characterized by large court-
yard structures, pottery assemblages that lack cer-
tain key components (e.g., churns and cornets), mi-
nimal basalt vessels, Canaanean blades typical of the
Early Bronze Age and the later stages of the Late
Chalcolithic period (Pinsky 2019; Rosen 1997), per-
forated discs that are found mainly in the Golan,
northern Jordan Valley, and Galilee (see Rosenberg,
Shimelmitz 2017), and the general absence of bifa-
cial tools and ivory objects, the later are found main-
ly in southern Israel (see Rosenberg, Chasan in
press). Based on the available data, all three sites
(Fazael 2, 5, and 7) had a phase that pre-dates the
construction of the large courtyard houses. Notably,
in the more extensively researched sites of Fazael 2
and 7 these layers were rich in finds, including com-
Fig. 10. Copper chunks.
Fig. 11. Copper chunks.
A large copper artefacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley> new evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy in the southern Levant
257
plete vessels and a few copper artefacts. Although
we should be cautious in stating this, as the division
between the pre-architecture and the main architec-
ture phases is not always clear, this suggests that cop-
per artefacts may have been present in the Fazael
Basin sites before the onset of the major construc-
tion phases.
The significance of the new copper assemblage found
at Late Chalcolithic sites in the Fazael Basin lays in
its size and geographic location, as well as in its com-
position and chemical attributes. The assemblage is
currently one of the largest copper assemblages for
the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant,
and Fazael is the richest site in copper objects be-
yond the borders of the northern Negev and the Ju-
dean Desert. The Fazael assemblage reveals that ty-
pologically varied copper objects and waste mate-
rials (e.g., copper chunks) found their way to Fazael,
probably as scrap metal, reflecting the complexity of
this industry in the region at the very end of the Late
Chalcolithic period. The results of the current study
and our preliminary chemical analysis indicate that
Fazael is the first Late Chalcolithic site in the Jordan
Valley with evidence for a local metallurgical indus-
try, one that probably involved the recycling of cop-
per items that were produced or, at least in some
cases, brought from elsewhere to Fazael when they
went out of use. This conclusion is based on the large
number of fragments and pieces of copper objects,
as only a few items were found whole or undam-
aged, and on our preliminary chemical analysis. It is
further supported by the many copper chunks found
as well as the presence of the crucibles and burnt
glazed sediments.
Thus, the results suggest that the Fazael Basin was
well integrated into the circulation of copper objects
during the very end of the Late Chalcolithic period,
and Fazael also seems to have been an important
site for copper objects that were no longer suitable
for use in their original function, possibly in cultic
activities. While the social, economic, and technical
mechanisms behind the extensive metallurgical in-
dustry must await further study of the site, the pre-
sent study reflects the complexity and centrality of
the copper industry in the Fazael Basin. The copper
assemblage found at Fazael expands the distribution
of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy into an area
nearly devoid of copper objects, while the typologi-
Fig. 12. Crucibles from Fazael 2.
Fig. 13. Burnt glazed sediments from Fazael 2.
Adams R. B., Genz H. 1995. Excavation at Wadi Fidan 4:
A Chalcolithic village complex in the copper ore district of
Feinan, Southern Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quar-
terly 127: 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1179/peq.1995.127.1.8
Albright W. F. 1932. The Chalcolithic age in Palestine.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
48: 10–17.
Bar-Adon P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure: The Finds
from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. Israel Exploration So-
ciety. Jerusalem.
Bar S. 2013. Yogvim Venokdim I. Seker. Haifa. (in He-
brew)
2014. The Dawn of the Bronze Age. Culture and Hi-
story of the Ancient Near East 72. Brill. Leiden and Bo-
ston.
Bar S., Bar-Oz G., Ben Yosef D., Boaretto E., Raban-Gerstel
N., and Winter H. 2013. Fazael 2, One of the latest Chalco-
lithic sites in the Jordan Valley? Report of the 2007–2008
excavation seasons. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric So-
ciety 43: 5–23.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266672831
Bar S., Bar-Oz G., Cohen-Klonymus H., and Pinsky S. 2014.
Fazael 1, A Chalcolithic site in the Jordan Valley: Report
of the 2013–2014 excavation seasons. Journal of the Is-
rael Prehistoric Society 44: 180–201.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266672606
Bar S., Cohen-Klonymus H., Pinsky S., Bar-Oz G., and Shal-
vi G. 2015. Fazael 5, Soundings in a Chalcolithic site in
the Jordan Valley. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric So-
ciety 45: 193–216. www.jstor.org/stable/26572637
Bar S., Cohen-Klonymus H., Pinsky S., Bar-Oz G., Zuker-
man R., Shalvi G., and Davidovich U. 2017. Fazael 7: A
large Chalcolithic architectural complex in the Jordan Val-
ley, the 2009–2016 excavations. Journal of the Israel Pre-
historic Society 47: 208–247.
Bar S., Winter H. 2010. Canaanean Flint blades in Chalco-
lithic context and the possible onset of the transition to
the Early Bronze Age: A case study from Fazael 2. Tel Aviv
37: 33–47. www.jstor.org/stable/26572673
Barkai R. 2011. The evolution of Neolithic and Chalco-
lithic woodworking tools and the intensification of human
production: axes, adzes, and chisels from the southern Le-
vant. In V. David, M. Edmonds (eds.), Stone Axe Studies
III. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 39–53.
Ben-Yosef E, Vassal Y., van den Brink E. C. M., and Beeri
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.08.010
Bourke S. J. 2001. The Chalcolithic period. In B. MacDo-
nald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski (eds.), The Archaeo-
logy of Jordan. Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield: 107–
163.
van den Brink E. C. M. 1998. An index to Chalcolithic mor-
tuary caves in Israel. Israel Exploration Journal 48 (3/4):
165–173. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27926516
van den Brink E. C. M. and 13 co-authors. 2016. Late Chal-
colithic settlement remains east of Namir Road, Tel Aviv.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 46: 20–121.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26572646
Buchman E. 2018. Copper finds in the Fazael sites and
their Meaning in Understanding the Copper Industry in
the Chalcolithic Period in the South of the Levant. Un-
published MA thesis. University of Haifa. Haifa. (in He-
brew)
Chasan R., Rosenberg D. 2018. Basalt vessels in Chalcoli-
thic burial caves: Variations in prestige burial offerings
during the Chalcolithic period of the southern Levant and
their social significance. Quaternary International 464:
226–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.02.026
Danny Rosenberg, Eli Buchman, Sariel Shalev, and Shay Bar
258
cal variability and discard patterns of the assem-
blage, its size, and chemical characteristics suggest
that Fazael was an important depot in the produc-
tion/recycling of copper objects during the period.
This accumulated data combined with the massive
architecture suggests that the site, located along the
main trading routes, had special significance within
the Late Chalcolithic social and economic systems.
We would like to thank S. Haad, A. Regev-Gisis, and
R. Chasan for all their help with the graphics and to
J. Tresman for perusing and editing the text. We also
would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their
most helpful comments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
∴
A large copper artefacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley> new evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy in the southern Levant
2019. Getting into shape: The significance of decorated
basalt vessels during the Chalcolithic period of the
southern Levant. Paléorient 45(1): 53–68.
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 Ame-
rican Schools of Oriental Research 381: 145–162.
https://doi.org/10.1086/703077
Dothan M. 1959. The excavations at Horvat Beter (Beer-
sheva). ‘Atiqot 2: 1–42.
Eldar I., Baumgarten Y. 1985. Neve Noy: A Chalcolithic
site of the Beer Sheva culture. Biblical Archaeologist 48:
134–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3209928
Gilead I. 1988. The Chalcolithic period in the southern Le-
vant. Journal of World Prehistory 2(4): 397–443.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-009-9016-4
1992. Farmers and herders in southern Israel during
the Chalcolithic period. In O. Bar-Yosef, A. Khazanof
(eds.), Pastoralism in the Levant. Prehistory Press. Ma-
dison, WI: 29–42.
2011. Chalcolithic culture history: The Ghassulian and
other entities in the southern Levant. In J. L. Lovell, Y.
M. Rowan (eds.), Culture, Chronology, and the Chalco-
lithic: Theory and Transition. Oxbow Books. Oxford:
12–24.
Gilead I., Marder O., Khalaily H., Fabian P., Abadi Y., and
Yisrael Y. 2004. The Beit Eshel Chalcolithic flint work-
shop in Beer Sheva: A preliminary report. Journal of the
Israel Prehistoric Society 34: 245–263.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23380638
Glueck N. 1951. Exploration in Eastern Palestine IV
(Part I: Text). American Association of Oriental Research.
New Haven, CT.
Golden J. 2009. New light on the development of Chalco-
lithic metal technology in the southern Levant. Journal of
World Prehistory 22: 283–300.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-009-9022-6
2010. Dawn of the Metal age: Technology and Society
during the Levantine Chalcolithic. Equinox. London.
Goren Y. 2008. The location of specialized copper pro-
duction by the lost wax technique in the Chalcolithic
southern Levant. Geoarchaeology 23(3): 374–397.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20221
2014. Gods, caves, and scholars: Chalcolithic cult and
metallurgy in the Judean Desert. Near Eastern Archa-
eology 77(4): 260–266.
https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.77.4.0260
Go∏i≤ M. 2015. Skeumorphism, boundary objects and so-
cialization of the Chalcolithic metallurgy in the southern
Levant. Issues in Ethnology Anthropology 10: 717–740.
https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v10i3.8
Go∏i≤ M., Gilead I. 2015. Casting the sacred: Chalcolithic
metallurgy and ritual in the southern Levant. In N. Laneri
(ed.), Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeo-
logy of Religion in the Near East. Oxbow Book. Oxford:
161–175.
Hauptmann A. 1989. The earliest period of copper metal-
lurgy in Feinan, Jordan. In A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka, and
G. A. Wagner (eds.), Old World Archaeometallurgy. Selbst-
verlang des Deutschen Bergbau-Museum. Bohum: 119–135.
2007. The Archaeometallurgy of Copper: Evidence
from Feynan, Jordan. Springer. Berlin.
Ilan D., Rowan Y. M. 2012. Deconstructing and recom-
posing the narrative of spiritual life in the Chalcolithic of
the southern Levant (4500–3600 B.C.E). In Y. M. Rowan
(ed.), Beyond Belief: The Archaeology of Religion and
Ritual. Wiley. Hoboken, New York: 89–113.
Israel Y., Aladjem E., and Milevski I. 2014. Nahal Shalva.
Hadashot Arkheologiyot 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.
org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=12656
Joffe A., Dessel J. 1995. Redefining chronology and termi-
nology for the Chalcolithic of the southern Levant. Cur-
rent Anthropology 36(3): 507–518.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/204388
Kerner S. 2001. Das Chalkolithikum in des Südlichen Le-
vante. Die Entwicklung Handwerklicher Spezialisierung
und ihre Beziehung zu Gesellschafticher Komplexität.
Orient-Archäologie 8. Verlag Marie Leidorf. Rahden.
2010. Craft specialization and its relation with social
organization in the late 6th to early 4th millennium BCE
of the southern Levant. Paléorient 36(1): 179–198.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41496894
Key C. A. 1980. Trace element composition of the copper
and copper alloys of the Nahal Mishmar hoard. In P. Bar-
Adon (ed.), The Cave of the Treasure. Israel Exploration
Society. Jerusalem: 238–243.
Klimscha F. 2013. Another great transformation: Techni-
cal and economic change from the Chalcolithic to Early
Bronze Age in the southern Levant. In R. Eichmann, M.
van Ess (eds.), Zeitschrift für Orient-Archaologie, Vol. 6.
German Archaeological Institute. Berlin: 82–112.
259
Danny Rosenberg, Eli Buchman, Sariel Shalev, and Shay Bar
260
Lee J. R. 1973. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and
Master Typology. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Depart-
ment of Archaeology. Hebrew University. Jerusalem.
Levy T. E. 1986. Social archaeology and the Chalcolithic
period: Explaining social organizational change during
the 4th Millennium in Israel. Michmanim 3: 5–20.
1993. Production, space and social change in protohi-
storic Palestine. In A. Holl, T. E. Levy (eds.), Spatial
Boundaries and Social Dynamic: Case Studies from
Food Producing Societies. International Monographs
in Prehistory. Ann Arbor: 63–68.
2014. Cultural transformations – The Chalcolithic south-
ern Levant. In J. Chi (ed.), Faces of the Chalcolithic.
Princeton University Press. Princeton: 40–60.
Levy T. E., Shalev S. 1989. Prehistoric metalworking in
the southern Levant: Archaeometallurgical and social per-
spectives. World Archaeology 20(3): 352–372.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1989.9980078
Levy T. E., Levy A., Sthapathy R., Sthapathy S., and Stha-
pathy S. W. 2008. Masters of Fire – Hereditary Bronze
Casters of South India. German Mining Museum. Bochum.
Milevski I., Vardi J., Gilead I., Eirikh-Rose A., Michal B.,
Mienis H. K., and Horwitz L. K. 2013. Excavations at Hor-
bat ‘Illit B: A Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) site in the Haelah
Valley. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43: 73–
147. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23784048
Namdar D., Segal I., Goren Y., and Shalev S. 2004. Chal-
colithic copper artifacts. In N. Scheftelowitz and R. Oren
(eds.), Giv’at Ha-Oranim: A Chalcolithic Site. Salvage Ex-
cavation Reports No. 1. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv: 70–
83.
Notis M. R., Moyer H., Barnisin M. A., and Clemens D.
1984. Microprobe analysis of early copper artifacts from
the northern Sinai and the Judean Caves. In A. D. Roming
and J. Goldstein (eds.), Microbeam Analysis – 1984. San
Francisco Press. San Francisco: 240–242.
Peleg Y. 2000. Fasa’el (North). Hadashot Archaeologiot
112: 67–68. (in Hebrew)
Perrot J. 1955a. Bir es Safadi (Notes and news). Israel Ex-
ploration Journal 5: 125–126.
1955b. The excavation at Tell Abu Matar near Beershe-
ba. Israel Exploration Journal 5(3): 167–189.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27924619
1959a. Statuettes en ivoire et autres objets en ivoire et
en os provent des gisements préhistoriques de la région
de Béershéba. Syria 36(1/2): 8–19.
1959b. Bir es Safadi (Notes and news). Israel Explora-
tion Journal 9: 141–142.
Pinsky S. 2019. The Late Chalcolithic Lithic Industries of
the Fazael Sites and their Relations to Other Late Chal-
colithic Lithic Industries. Unpublished MA thesis. Univer-
sity of Haifa. Haifa.
Porath Y. 1985. A Chalcolithic building in Fasa’el. ‘Atiqot
17: 1–19.
Potazkin R., Bar-Avi K. 1980. A material investigation of
metal objects from the Nahal Mishmar hoard. In P. Bar-
Adon (ed.), The Cave of the Treasure. Israel Exploration
Society. Jerusalem: 235–237.
Rosen S. 1983. The tabular scraper trade: a model for
material culture dispersion. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 249: 79–86.
1993. Metals, rocks, specialization, and the beginning
of urbanism in the northern Negev. In A. Biran and J.
Aviram (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Pro-
ceedings of the Second International Congress of Bibli-
cal Archaeology. Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem:
4–56.
1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone
Tools from the Levant. Altamira Press. Walnut Creek,
CA.
Rosenberg D., Shimelmitz R. 2017. Perforated stars – Net-
works of prestige item exchange and the role of perfo-
rated flint objects in the late Chalcolithic of the southern
Levant. Current Anthropology 58(2): 295–306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/690646
Rosenberg D., Chasan R. in press. Ivories in the Late Chal-
colithic period and their significance for understanding
the contacts between Egypt and the southern Levant. Eu-
rasian Prehistory.
Rosenberg D., Chasan R., and van den Brink E. C. M.
2016. Craft specialization, production and exchange in
the Chalcolithic of the southern Levant: Insights from the
study of the basalt vessel assemblage from Namir Road
(Tel Aviv, Israel). Eurasian Prehistory 13(1/2): 105–128.
Roux V. 2003. A dynamic systems framework for studying
technological change: Application to the emergence of the
potter’s wheel in the southern Levant. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory 10(1): 1–30.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022869912427
Rowan Y. M. 1998. Ancient Distribution and Deposition
of Prestige Objects: Basalt Vessels during Late Prehistory
in the Southern Levant. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
University of Austin. Austin.
A large copper artefacts assemblage of Fazael, Jordan Valley> new evidence of Late Chalcolithic copper metallurgy in the southern Levant
261
Rowan Y. M., Golden J. 2009. The Chalcolithic period of
the southern Levant: A synthetic review. Journal of World
Prehistory 22(1): 1–92.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-009-9016-4
Rowan Y. M., Ilan D. 2007. The meaning of ritual diversi-
ty in the Chalcolithic of the southern Levant. In C. Malone,
B. Barrowclough (eds.), Cult in Context: Reconsidering
Ritual in Archaeology. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 249–254.
Rowan Y. M., Levy T. E. 1994. Proto-Canaanean blades of
the Chalcolithic period. Levant 26: 167–174.
https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.1994.26.1.167
Sebbanne M. 2009. The Mace in Israel and the Ancient
Near East from the Ninth Millennium to the First. Unpub-
lished PhD dissertation. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv.
Segal I., Goren Y. 2013. A Chemical, Metallurgical, Isoto-
pic and Petrographic Study of the Copper finds. In D. Sha-
lem, Z. Gal, and H. Smithline (eds.), Peqi’in. A Late Chal-
colithic Burial Site, Upper Galilee, Israel. Kinneret Aca-
demic Collage. Ostracon.
Segal I., Kamenski A. 2002. Chalcolithic copper Objects
from Cave VIII/28. ‘Atiqot 41(2): 157–162.
Shalem D. 2015. Motifs on the Nahal Mishmar Hoard and
the ossuaries: Comparative observations and interpreta-
tions. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45: 217–
237. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26572638
Shalev S. 1991. Two different copper industries in the
Chalcolithic culture of Israel. In C. Eluère, J. P. Mohen
(eds.), Découverte du Metal. Picard. Paris: 413–424.
1993. The earliest gold artifacts in the southern Levant:
Reconstruction of the manufacturing process. In C. Elu-
ère (ed.), Outils et Ateliers D’orfèvres des Temps An-
ciens. Antiquités Nationales Memoire 2. Saint Germain
en Laye. Paris: 9–12.
1996. Copper objects. In A. Gopher, T. Tsuk (eds.), The
Nahal Qanah Cave: Earliest Gold in the Southern Le-
vant. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology
12. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv: 155–163.
2008. A brief outline summary of nonferrous archaeo-
metallurgy in Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences
56: 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1560/IJES.56.2-4.133
Shalev S., Northover P. J. 1987. Chalcolithic metal and
metalworking from Shiqmim. In T. E. Levy (ed.), Shiq-
mim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the
Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982–1984). British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 356. Archaeopress. Oxford: 357–
371.
1993. Metallurgy of the Nahal Mishmar hoard reconsi-
dered. Archaeometry 35: 35–47.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1993.tb01022.x
Shugar A. 2000. Archaeometallurgical Investigation of
the Chalcolithic site of Abu Matar, Israel: A Reasses-
sment of Technology and its Implications for the Ghas-
sulian Culture. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University
College London. London.
2003. Reconstructing the Chalcolithic metallurgical pro-
cess at Abu Matar, Israel. In International Conference
on Archaeometallurgy in Europe, Milan, 24–26 Sep-
tember 2003. Italian Association for Metallurgy. Milan:
449–458.
2018. Extractive metallurgy in the Chalcolithic southern
Levant: Assessment of copper ores from Abu Matar. In
E. Ben-Yosef (ed.), Mining for Ancient copper, Essays
in Memory of Beno Rothenberg. Tel Aviv University.
Tel Aviv: 276–296.
Shugar A., Gohm C. J. 2001. Developmental trends in
Chalcolithic metallurgy: A radiometric perspective. In J.
L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan (ed.), Culture, Chronology and
the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Levant Supple-
mentary Series 9. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 133–149.
Tadmor M., Kedem D., Begeman F, Hauptmann A., Per-
nicka E., and Schmitt-Strecker S. 1995. The Nahal Mish-
mar hoard from the Judean Desert: Technology, composi-
tion, and provenance. ‘Atiqot 27: 95–148.
Vardi J. 2011. Sickle Blades and Sickles of the Sixth and
Fifth Millennia BCE in Light of the Finds from the Chal-
colithic Sickle Blade Workshop Site of Beit Eshel. Un-
published PhD Dissertation. The Ben-Gurion University of
the Negev. Beer-Sheva.
Yahalom-Mack N., Langgut D., Dvir O., Tirosh O., Eliyahu-
Behar A., Erel Y., Langford B., Frumkkin A., Ulman M., and
Davidovich U. 2015. The earliest lead object in the Le-
vant. PLoS ONE 10(12): e0142948.
https://doi.org/10.1371/Journal.pone.0142948.
Zertal A., Bar S. 2019. Manasseh Hill Country Survey.
Vol. 5. Brill. Boston and Leiden.
Zwicker U. 1977. Investigations on extractive metallurgy
of Cu/Sb/As ore and excavated smelting products from
Norsuntepe (Keban) on the Upper Euphrates (3500–2800
BC). In W. A. Oddy (ed.), Aspects of Early Metallurgy. The
British Museum. London: 13–26.