Yellin_New Evidence on Prehistoric Trade Routes-The Obsidian Evidence From Gilat, Israel

7/28/2019 Yellin_New Evidence on Prehistoric Trade Routes-The Obsidian Evidence From Gilat, Israel

1/9

Maney Publishing

New Evidence on Prehistoric Trade Routes: The Obsidian Evidence from Gilat, IsraelAuthor(s): Joseph Yellin, Thomas E. Levy and Yorke M. RowanReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 361-368Published by: Maney PublishingStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530487 .

Accessed: 03/03/2013 19:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Field

Archaeology.

http://www jstor org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maneyhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530487?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530487?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maney


2/9

361

New Evidence on Prehistoric TradeRoutes:The ObsidianEvidencefrom Gilat, IsraelJoseph YellinThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalem, IsraelThomas E. LevyThe University of California,San DiegoLa Jolla, CaliforniaYorke M. RowanThe University of Texas at AustinAustin, TexasObsidianartifacts are rarefinds in prehistoric ites in Israel. Thescarcityof the materialand the absenceof obsidian sources n Israel makes uchartifacts especially mportantforunderstanding ancient exchangepatterns. The closest ourcesof obsidian ound in Israelare in the CycladicIslands of Greece o thewestand Anatolia to thenorth. Using neu-tron activation analysis (NAA), we identify theorigin ofsevenobsidianartifactsfromtheChalcolithicca.4500-3500B.C.) iteofGilatin Israel'snorthernNegevdesert.Thesefinds have been traced to theNemrut Dagarea of easternAnatolia, G6illiiDagincentralAnatolia, and, mostnterestingly, otamisDa' also n centralAnatolia.

IntroductionRecentexcavations t the Chalcolithic ca. 4500-3500

B.C.) site of Gilatin Israel'snorthernNegev deserthaverevealedan astonishinglywide rangeof objectsmade ofimported minerals(Alon and Levy 1989; Levy 1992,1995). Some of theseartifacts,uchasviolin-shapedigur-ines, palettes,votive axes, fenestrated"incenseburner"stands,and standingstones,are linkedto cult-related c-tivities.These importedartifacts upportthe centrality fGilat as a lateprehistoric egionalcenterfor the exchangeof exotic and cultic materialsAlonandLevy1989). Dur-ing the recent 1990-1992 excavation easonsat Gilat,sixobsidianpieceswerediscovered. n addition, wo obsidianbladeletswererecovered rom earlier xcavations t Gilatduring he 1975-1977 seasons.The context n which sixof theeightobjectswere foundplaces them securely n the Chalcolithicperiod;all theartifactsare summarizedn Table 1. Seven strataweredefined at Gilat, all dated securelyto the Chalcolithicperiod.The paucityof obsidianat Chalcolithic ites n thesouthern Levant makes these materialsespeciallysig-nificant n helping to identify long-rangeexchange pat-ternsalongthe easternMediterraneanittoral.

Site Location and Regional ContextGilat s locatedin the northernNegev Desert of Israelsome 25 km Nwof the cityof Beersheva. ituatedon theinterfacebetween the Negev coastalplainand the morearid nland oothillzone, the site is located on the edge ofthe bestgrazing andin the Negev (FIG. ).The landscapeismostlyanundulating, entlyslopingplateaudissectedbya nearbyseasonaldrainagecalled the Nahal Patish.Theclimate n this area borderson arid;wintersarecool andsummers hot. The averageannualrainfallranges from250-350 mm, allof which fallsduringthe winterseason.This region has been cultivated or thousandsof years,beginning n the late Neolithicperiod,andthere are few

remnants f the natural egetation eft.Due to long-term agriculturalexploitation of the region,the main plants in the area are Leopoldia eburnea andLolium multiflorum (weeds in cultivated land). The pri-mary crops grown both in prehistoric and historical timeswere wheat, barley,and most recently, sorghum. Most ofthese crops were grown under dry-farming regimes withoccasional supplementary irrigation,even during the Chal-colithic.

Extending over an areaof some 10 hectares, Gilat is one

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 19:01:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

362 PrehistoricTradeRoutes/Yellin,Levy,and Rowan

Table 1. Summary of information on obsidian artifacts from Gilat.Text Dimensions (mm)reference HUAL no. Locus Basket Stratum Context Artifact type L x W x Th NAA sourceGilat 1 14508 60 222 III Floor Bladelet 29 x 8 x 3 Hotamis DagGilat 2 14509 55 174 II Pit Retouched bladelet 23 x 10 x3 Hotamis DagGilat 3 41210 609 5040 IIA Fill Debitage 20 x 9.5 x 3 Nemrut DagGilat 4 41211 1124 3572 IIC Pit Debitage 17 x 15 x 15 Nemrut DagGilat 5 41212 624 5134 IIA Pit Debitage 28 x 15,5 x 5 Gollu DagGilat 6 41209 854 2449 IIIA Pit Retouched bladelet 23 x 8.5 x 3 Gollu DagGilat 7 41208 1168 3729 IIC Pit Debitage 17 x 18 x 9 Nemrut DagGilat 8 not analyzed 806 2381 IIA Pit Micro-endscraper 34 x 10.5 x 4 Unknown

of the largest Chalcolithic sites in Israel. The site is madeup of two main components: a low mound extending overan area of ca. 30,000 sq m and rising about 2 m above thesurrounding plain; and the flat, loessial plain that includesan area of approximately70,000 sq m, where Chalcolithicpottery sherds, flint tools, debitage, and other artifactshave been found. All of the excavations at the site haveconcentrated on the low mound located roughly in thecenter of the site. Gilat is a well-stratified site with sevenmajorstrata dentified to date (StrataI, IIA, IIB, IIC, IIIA,IIIB, IV).The total area excavated at the site is 1,200 sq m, arelatively small sample compared to some other Chal-colithic excavations in Israel. For example, at Shiqmim atotal of ca. 5,000 sq m has been opened and at Bir es-Safadi over 10,000 sq m (Levy et al. 1991; Commenge-Pellerin 1990). The earliest occupation at Gilat (StratumIV) is characterized mostly by pits and some small plat-

forms. Beginning in StratumIIC, the presence of the maincult area became apparent with the discovery of a smallgroup of structures filled with exotica (Alon and Levy1989). For example, in Room A more than 70 objectsrelated to cult activities were found. These include anthro-pomorphic and zoomorphic statuettes, fenestrated stands,violin-shaped figurines, pendants, and unusual potterytypes. When this structure was destroyed, the cult complexwas moved to the west where large numbers of cult-relatedfinds came to light as well as four non-domestic circularplatforms and a multiple gravein a well-built burial monu-ment. Stratum IIA represents a more ephemeral occupa-tion which may reflect a period of social disintegrationfollowing the destruction or abandonment of the previousStratum IIB.

Unfortunately, the last occupation phase (Stratum I)was thoroughly disturbed by deep ploughing during theearly 1950s. The centrality of the site in the northern

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Gilat and obsidian sources relevant to theGilat obsidian artifacts.

NEMRUT DA& -/HOTAMISDA .VANGOLLUDAG

OGILAT SOURCELOCATIONMAPOBSIDIAN SOURCE

0 500 km



4/9

Journal of FieldArchaeology/Vol.3, 1996 363

Figure 2. Obsidian microendscraper(Gilat 8).

Negev and the archaeological context suggest that Gilatfunctioned as a prehistoric sanctuary.The obsidian artifactsreported on here add another dimension to the study ofthe exchange of rareraw materialsin the Southern Levantduring the Chalcolithic period.The Obsidian Pieces

Both the context and the technological elements of theobsidian artifacts suggest a Chalcolithic manufacture anduse. Dimensions and contextual numbers are presented inTable 1, with other summarized data. The best example isa micro-endscraper (FIG. ) that was not subjected to NAAbecause of the destructive nature of the analysis. Thoughdata collected on micro-endscrapers from Gilat are underanalysis, the obsidian bladelet clearly follows the samemanufacturing techniques as the standard Chalcolithicmicro-endscraperspreviouslyreported (Gilead 1984). Thisbladelet has an asymmetriccross-section that resulted fromthe complete dorsal retouch on one lateralmargin (right)to the proximal area near the bulb of percussion. Thedistal, dorsal aspect was retouched creating a convex distaltip.This piece (Gilat 8; see TABLE)was found in a StratumIIA pit; all of the artifacts n this pit were Chalcolithic. Themicro-endscraper was found with a violin-shaped figurinefragment, at roughly 0.30 m above a complete semi-flexedburialof an adult.

Gilat 6, a proximal bladelet fragment with unilateraldorsal fine retouch, was recovered from an older StratumIIIA pit in a clear Chalcolithic context. This piece exhibitsa triangular cross-section and probably represents theproximal fragment of a micro-endscraper.Gilat 1, recovered from the 1975 excavation, is a medialfragment, recovered from a Chalcolithic floor in StratumIII. The fragment is un-retouched, although there may beuse-wear damage on one lateral edge. No bulb of percus-sion or striking platform remains.Gilat 2, also a tool fragment from Stratum II, was

recovered in 1975 from a shallow stone-lined pit. Thisbladelet retains the bulb of percussion and has fine dorsal,unilateralretouch. The distal end is snapped, and, based onthe typical micro-endscraperretouch on the lateralmarginand the standardized size, we speculate that this is theproximal fragment of another micro-endscraper.The remaining four obsidian pieces appear to be debi-tage fragments. Gilat 7 is probably a bladelet core trim-ming element, perhaps a striking-platform fragment. Thispiece was found in a Stratum IIC pit that was sealed by alater StratumIIB surface.

Gilat 4 dates to Stratum IIC and was also found in a pitsealed by the same Stratum IIB surface. This piece was atriangular flake fragment with two parallel dorsal flakeridges, indicating a previous bladelet probably was re-moved before this flakewas struck. This flakefragment wasfound during sieving of the pit's contents. Because the topof the pit was sealed by a Stratum IIB surface, the artifactcannot be considered intrusive.

Another obsidian bladelet core trimming element (Gilat5) was recovered from Stratum IIA. This piece was astriking platform with numerous bladelets removed fromalong a right-angle corner on the dorsal side of the piece.The piece was found in fill about 0.60 m below the groundsurface. Because no other intrusive materialwas found atthis depth in the fill, it seems unlikely that this piece couldbe intrusive, but the possibility cannot be ruled out.The final obsidian piece was a flake fragment (Gilat 3),also recovered from fill in StratumIIA about 0.50-0.55 mbelow ground surface. The dorsal aspect of the fragmenthad two non-parallel flake ridges. Because this piece wasfrom the top of the fill, below the disturbed topsoil hori-zon, it cannot be positively placed in an undisturbed Chal-colithic context.Chemical Characterization of the GilatObsidian by NAA

The method employed to measure the elemental abun-dances of the obsidian artifacts by Neutron ActivationAnalysis has been previously reported (e.g., Yellin andGarfinkel 1986; Yellin and Frachtenberg 1992; YellinandGopher 1992). Table 1 gives the correspondence betweenthe textual numbers, the objects analyzed, the HebrewUniversity Archaeometry Laboratory (HUAL) sampleidentification, and the provenience of each obsidian ana-lyzed. Table 2 shows the analyticalresults for each sample.

Only a few of the 24 elements measured for each obsid-ian are given, enough to differentiate the compositions(see Yellin and Perlman 1981). For the complete set ofelements measured for the source obsidians see Yellin(1995). The elements measured are arsenic, barium, cal-



5/9

364 PrehistoricTradeRoutes/Yellin,Levy,and Rowan

Table 2. Analytical results for the Gilat samples with values normalized to the Cl values, which are in parts per mil-lion. Unavailable values are indicated by "na."Element Atomic weight Gilat 7 Gilat 3 Gilat 4 Gilat 5 Gilat 6 Gilat 1 Gilat 2 ClLa 139 396.3 389.3 396.3 57.8 33.3 116.5 116.8 0.23Ce 140 321.8 382.9 320.8 91.4 93.8 91.4 92.2 0.59Nd 144 192.7 210.7 197.8 38.4 38.4 40.2 38.8 0.42Sm 150 128.1 na 130.7 27.3 28.0 23 23.4 0.13Eu 152 10.5 13.2 9.8 7.0 7.4 6.02 7.08 0.05Tb 159 135.0 136.9 135.6 20.1 19.4 na na 0.032Yb 173 81.7 na 83.0 19.5 17.7 19.1 19.3 0.15Lu 175 77.3 na 79.7 17.8 20.2 20.2 18.2 0.023

cium, cerium, cobalt, chromium, cesium, europium, iron,hafnium, potassium, lanthanum, lutetium, sodium, neo-dymium, nickel, rubidium, antimony, scandium, samar-ium, tantalum, terbium, thorium, uranium, and yitter-bium. In the case of Gilat 3 there are a few missing valuesbecause of an instrumental problem in data recording. Theelements shown, plus the many other elements measuredbut not shown, confirm that Gilat 3 is of the same compo-sition as Gilat 7. Table 2 is organized so that obsidians ofsimilarcomposition are adjacent. Relevant obsidian sourcecompositions are given in Table 3.Gilat 1 and 2

The composition of Gilat 1 and 2 was measured by NAAin the 1970s along with hundreds of source and archae-ological obsidian samples. Measurements were carried outby I. Perlman and J. Yellin in the then newly establishedArchaeometry Laboratory in Jerusalem. It was noted thenthat the Gilat obsidians were enigmatic in terms of theircomposition (Yellinand Perlman 1979). They are the onlyarchaeological finds linked to the Hotamis Dag source incentral Anatolia. Perlman and Yellin (1980) noted that allPre-Pottery Neolithic obsidian finds from prehistoric sitesin present-day Israel could be traced to the Gollii Dagsource, also in central Anatolia, but that Chalcolithic pe-riod obsidians had many origins, including Gllii Dag andsources in eastern Turkey,as well as yet undefined sources(Yellinand Perlman 1979).

No obsidian artifact, however, other than those fromGilat, was ever traced to Hotamis Dag The question as towhy the overwhelming majorityof obsidian artifacts oundin Palestine originate in the Gllii Dagsource when thereare several other sources in the vicinity of Gllii Dagis anintriguing one. Perhaps an examination of obsidian arti-facts nearer to these sources will throw some light on thisquestion. It was also noted that obsidian found in Palestineand attributed to the Neolithic periods came from anAnatolian source calledAgigol (Renfrew, Dixon, and Cann1966, 1968), named after the nearby village of Agigol.Agigol corresponds, we believe, to the G611tiDagvolcanicsource. Figure 1 shows the location of Gilat in relation tothree Anatolian sources.

The Hotamis Dagsource is just severalkilometers northof G6lli Dag but its composition is easily differentiatedfrom that of Gllu Dagas well as other Anatolian sources.Figure 3 shows the differences in the above-mentionedcompositions. Measures of error are not shown in thisfigure but may be seen in Table 3, where the root-mean-square-deviation is given for each of the sources shown(i.e., the spread in composition observed in our measure-ments). Figure 4 compares the composition of Gilat 1 withthe sources Gllii Dag(GLD) and Hotamis Dag(HTMD).Gilat 2 is of the same composition. The rareearth patternshown in Figure 4 and subsequent figures may not be thebest way to differentiate among sources of obsidian, but it

Table 3. Selected source compositions for the Gilat samples. Values are normalized to Cl chrondrite composition.Atomic NMRD1 NMRDI GLD GLD HTMD HTMDElement weight N = 34 RMSD N = 83 RMSD N = 61 RMSD

La 139 397 9.1 98.7 3 129.6 3.1Ce 140 348.6 8.4 77.6 1.9 95.8 1.9Nd 144 200.7 4.8 34 1.9 42.8 1.9Sm 150 136.5 2.1 21.3 0.5 24.1 0.5Eu 152 10.1 0.2 3.04 0.36 8.12 0.36Tb 159 99.1 1.9 13.4 1.2 13.6 0.8Yb 173 87.6 1.7 15.7 0.6 19.3 0.5Lu 175 82 1.7 14.9 0.6 18.6 0.8



6/9


. 400C.

200

La Ce Nd Sm Eu Tb Yb LuElementsMGLD 1 NMRD1 l HTMD

Figure 3. Differences in composition between central Anatolian (HotamisDaW=HTMDand G6llfi DaW=GLD)and eastern Turkey (Nemrut DaW=NMRD1)obsidian sources.

has special meaning to geochemists studying fractionationprocesses within the earth and for this reason is used.Gilat3-7

Gilat 3-7 fall into two compositional groups. Gilat 3, 4,and 7 have a composition that matches most closely asource we call Nemrut Dag 1 (NMRD1), after the moun-tain on the western side of Lake Van. There are manyobsidian sources in the Lake Vanregion of modern Turkey;these have been summarized by Altinli (1964). OurNMRD1 is a particular source whose location is notknown, except that it is in the Lake Van region. A secondsource composition (Pullar, Yellin, and Perlman 1986)likewise cannot be identified more precisely than "NemrutDag/Lake Van." Tables 2 and 3 and Figure 5 show why

Gilat 4 and 7 are assigned to NMRD1 and Figure 6 showswhy Gilat 5 and 6 are assigned to G6llii Dag Gilat 3 is notshown in Figure 5 because of missing values (see TABLE2).

Comparing Figures 5 and 6 shows the great dissimilaritybetween the source obsidians of central Anatolia and theNemrut DagLake Van areas. Note that there are threecurves in Figure 5-Gilat 7, Gilat 4, and NMRD1. How-ever, Gilat 7 is so close in composition to Gilat 4 that it ishardly visible (see TABLE2). Based on analyticalwork re-ported thus far there is little chance that an archaeologicalobsidian will be assigned to the wrong geographical re-gion. We cannot, however, rule out the possibility that theGilat obsidian will match better some as yet unidentifiedsource in a different geological region, but this is extremelyunlikely.

Figure 4. Composition of Gilat 1 obsidian artifact and the G6llfi Dag'(GLD) and Hotamis Da'g(HTMD) sources. Gilat 2 is of the samecomposition as Gilat 1.

1000

O 100o =

1

130 140 150 160 170 180Atomic WeightE GLD 0 Gilat 1 0 HTMD



7/9

366 PrehistoricTradeRoutes/TYellin,evy,and Rowan

1000

0 100

0c

139 140 144 150 152 159 173 175La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, Tb, Yb, LuE Gilat 7 0 Gilat 4 O NMRD1

Figure 5. Composition of Gilat 4 and 7, and the NMRD1 (NemrutDag obsidian source.

100

Co

1000

130 140 150 160 170 180La,Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, Tb, Yb, Lu

E Gilat 5 E Gilat6 O GLDFigure 6. Composition of Gilat 5 and 6, and the G6llii Dag(GLD)obsidian source.

DiscussionLiterature n obsidianfrom the southernLevantsug-

gests that sources n Chalcolithic itesvaryextensivelyncomparisono the Neolithicobsidian hathasbeentestedby NAA. One of the most intriguingaspectsconcerningobsidian exploitationduring the Chalcolithicperiod inPalestine s its rarity n the archaeological ecord.Com-paredwith the earlierPre-PotteryNeolithic Period,andsites such as NahalLavan109, where some 356 obsidianartifactswerefoundin a remotedesert site withno archi-tecture(Burianand Freedman1988), there is a realpau-cityof obsidianduring he ChalcolithicYellin ndFracht-enberg1992: 139). One of thereasons orthisdiscrepancymayrelateto technologicalchangeand the gradual ffectof earlymetallurgy n Chalcolithic conomies n Palestine.With the additionof metal tools to the Chalcolithicoolkit, the attractionof high qualityraw materialsor lithictool productionmayhavewaned.This is consistentwiththe small sample of obsidian found at Gilat, where itappearsrelatively arlyand then goes into decline. Oneenigmatic aspect of this problem is that while copperartifactsare common from sites in the BeershevaValleysome 16 km south of Gilat,no metalremainshave beenfound at Gilat tself.

Giventhe smallnumberof obsidianartifactsromGilat,however, t is difficult o generalizeaboutverybroad-scalepatternsof procurementand exchangemechanisms.Fu-ture excavationsat more southern Levantinesites andbettersievingmethods should providelargersamplestoclarifyhesepatterns.As noted above,the three sources or the Gilatobsidianare Gllu Dagand Hotamis Dagin centralAnatoliaandNemrut Dag 1 near Lake Van. During the Pre-PotteryNeolithic(PPNA),most sites suchasJericho,Beisamoun,NetivHagedud,Yiftahel,Munhatta,Beidha,andElKhiam

received most of their obsidian from Golli Dagand centralAnatolia (Bar-Yosef 1991; Dixon, Cann, and Renfrew1979: 113). The same basicexploitation pattern continuedduring the following Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period(PPNB). The small sample of five pieces of PPNB obsidianfrom Beidha analyzed by M.-C. Cauvin reveals sources inthe Cappadocia region, where Renfrew and his colleaguesfirst noted the main Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sourcearea, and from eastern Anatolia (B. Byrd, personal com-munication). Recent studies by Cauvin (1991) and Cauvinet al. (1991) show that Bingol was an additional importantobsidian source for PPNB and Chalcolithic villages in theTaurus mountains and in upper Mesopotamia and also tothe south at El Kowm, an oasis in the Syriandesert.Cauvin's studies are important because they suggest theroute of obsidian trade, which began in the Pottery Neo-lithic and continued in the Chalcolithic for the easternAnatolian obsidians. El Kowm is located on an old Romanroad that no doubt followed a prehistoric trade routecrossing the northern Syrian desert. Dilleman's (1962)study of the historical geography of northern Mesopota-mia allows us to hypothesize a route for the movement ofobsidian from northern Mesopotamia into the southernLevant. Movement would have been across the DhyarbakirPlateau, through the Tur Abdin (Maszi Dao Mountains,and into the upper Habur Valley (probably via the tradi-tional Roman road along the Jagh Jagh branch of theupper Habur). From there, the route would have gonethrough the El Kowm oasis, westward into the OrontesValley,and into the Levantine corridor.

During the Chalcolithic, we see a shift in the exploita-tion of obsidian not only within the Cappadocia region ofcentral Anatolia, but also from the volcanic source atNemrut Dagi on the western shore of LakeVan some 600km away in eastern Anatolia. Bearing in mind the small



8/9


sample size of NAA-sampled obsidian from Gilat, thestratigraphy of the site provides a tentative view of thedevelopment of exchange relations that ultimately reachedAnatolia. In the earlyStrataIII and IIIA, centralAnatoliansources were exploited following the earlier PPNA andPPNB pattern. The later Stratum IIC at Gilat, the occupa-tion horizon associated with the construction of the firstsanctuary complex at the site, shows the firstevidence thatexchange relations extended to eastern Anatolia and theregion around Lake Van.These indirect relationships with Anatolia continue inthe following Strata II and IIa. The small quantity ofobsidian found in Chalcolithic contexts suggests a "down-the-line" model of exchange as outlined by Renfrew(1975). For the northern Negev and the very southernLevant, these relationships are quite interesting and prob-ably point to the concern, or at least curiosity, of theinhabitants of Gilat in exploring the fullest range of ex-change relationships in their Levantine world. This is espe-cially interesting when cast in the light of the followingEarlyBronze I period when exchange with these "remote"northern regions disappears and the focus of exchangeshifts to Egypt and the Nile Valley.Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Soreq Nuclear ResearchCenter for the neutron radiations, particularlyA. Naglerand S. Diga. Thanks are also owed to R. Asia for help withelectronics, and R. Borosh for technical support. Theauthors thank G. Algaze, D. Alon, B. Byrd, and C. Com-menge for many useful discussions concerning this paperand D. Ladirayfor the drawing of the obsidian blade. Weare grateful for generous support from the C. PaulJohnson Family CharitableFoundation of Chicago.

JosephYellin is a professorof archaeometryand physicsand director of Hebrew University'sArchaeometryLabo-ratory. He has publishedextensivelyon theprovenienceofancient ceramicsand obsidian. Mailing address:Instituteof Archaeology,TheHebrew Universityof Jerusalem,91905 Jerusalem, Israel.ThomasE. Levyis a professor n the Department of An-thropology nd Judaic Studies Program at the Universityof California, San Diego. He has directed archaeologicalprojectsat Gilat, Shiqmim, and Nahal Tillah in Israeland conductedethnoarchaeologicalresearchnear LakeChad in northern Cameroon. Mailing address:Depart-ment of Anthropology,Universityof California at SanDiego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92903-0101.email: [email protected]. Rowan is a doctoral candidate at the Univer-

sity of Texas at Austin. He has conducted ield work in Is-rael, Jordan, Italy, and Texas,and is currentlycomplete-ing doctoral researchon late prehistoriccraft specializa-tion and trade in the southern Levant. Mailing address:Department of Anthropology,Universityof TexasatAustin, Austin, iX 78712-1086.

Alon, D., and Levy,T. E.1989 "TheArchaeologyfCultand he Chalcolithicanctuaryat Gilat,"Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology: 163-221.Altinli, I.1964 GeologicalMap of Turkey-Van rea.M.T.A(MadenTeknikArama) nkara.Bar-Yosef, .1991 "TheEarlyNeolithicof the Levant:RecentAdvances,"

TheReviewof Archaeology2(2): 1-18.Burian, .,andFriedman, .1988 "A Note on the Obsidian Finds from the Pre-PotteryNeolithic B Site 109 nearNahalLavan,Negev," Journalofthe IsraelPrehistoric ociety 1: 95-98.Cauvin,M.1991 "L'obsidienneu Levantprehistorique:rovenance tfonction," Cahiersdel'Euphrate -6: 163-190.Cauvin,M. C., Y.Besnus, . Tripier,ndR. Montigny1991 "Nouvellesanalysesd'obsidiennesdu Proche-Orient:Modele de geochimiedes magmasutilisepour la recher-che archeologique,"Paleorient17/2: 5-20.Commenge-Pellerin,.1990 La PoterieD'Bir es-Safadi(Beersheva) u IVeMillinaire

Avant L'ereChretienne.Paris:AssociationPaleorient.Dillemann, .1962 Haute MisopotamieOrientaleet PaysAdjacents.Paris:Li-brairieOrientalistePaulGeuthner.Dixon,J.E., J. R. Cann,andC. Renfrew1979 "Obsidianandthe Originsof Trade," n C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky,d., Readings rom ScientificAmerican:Hunt-ers, Farmersand Civilizations-Old WorldArchaeology.SanFrancisco:W.H. Freeman ndCompany,08-116.Gilead,I.1984 "The Microendscraper: New Tool Type of the Chal-colithic Period,"TelAviv 11: 3-10.Levy,T. E.1992 "The GilatSanctuary, orthernNegevDesert, Israel,"NationalGeographicesearch Exploration:372-374.

1995 "Cult,Metallurgynd RankSocieties-Chalcolithice-riod(ca. 4500-3500 B.C.E.),"n T. E. Levy,ed., TheArchaeologyfSocietyn theHolyLand.New York: actson File,Inc.,226-244.Levy,ThomasE.,AlonD., C. Grigson,Y.Rowan,A. Holl,andP. Smith1991 "Subterraneanettlement ndAdaptationn the North-ern NegevDesert,ca. 4500-3700 B.C." NationalGeo-graphicResearch& Exploration National Geographico-ciety)7: 394-413.



9/9

368 Prehistoric Trade Routes/Yellin, Levy, and Rowan

Perlman,I., and J. Yellin1980 "The Provenience of Obsidian from Neolithic Sites inIsrael,"IsraelExplorationournal 30: 83-88.

Pullar,J., J. Yellin,and I. Perlman1986 "Sourcesof Obsidianfrom Tepe Abdul Hosein as Deter-minedby NeutronActivationAnalysis,"n J.S. Olin andJ. Blackman,eds., Proceedings f the 24th InternationalArchaeometry ymposium,Washington:Smithsonian nsti-tution, 389-402.Renfrew,C.1975 "Tradeas Action at a Distance," n J.A. Sabloffand C. C.Lamberg-Karlovsky,ds., AncientCivilizationand Trade.Albuquerque:Universityof New MexicoPress,3-59.Renfrew,C., J. E. Dixon, and J. R. Cann1966 "ObsidianandEarlyCulturalContacts n the Near East,"Proceedings fthe Prehistoric ociety 2: 30-72.

1968 "FurtherAnalysisof Near EasternObsidians,"Proceed-ingsofthe Prehistoric ociety 4: 30-72.Yellin,J.1995 "TraceElement Characteristics f CentralAnatolianOb-sidian Flows and their Relevance to Prehistory,"IsraelJournalof Chemistry 5: 175-190.Yellin,J., and F. Frachtenberg1992 "A Re-Examination of Nahal Lavan Obsidian," inM. Waelkens,N. Herz, and L. Moens, eds., AncientStones:Quarrying, Trade and Provenance.Acta Archae-ologicaLovaniensia.Leuven,Belgium:LeuvenUniversityPress.Yellin,Joseph,and Y. Garfinkel1986 "The Source of ArchaeologicalObsidian from a Pre-

PotteryNeolithic B Site atYiftahel, srael,"Paleorient12:99-104.Yellin,J., and A. Gopher1992 "The Originof the ObsidianArtefacts romMujahiya-APPNB Site in the GolanHeights," TelAviv 19: 94-99.Yellin, J., and I. Perlman1979 "Characterization f AnatolianObsidianFlows and theProvenienceof ObsidianArtifactFinds from Israel,"He-brewUniversityArchaeometry aboratoryReportHUAL 6Jerusalem.

1981 "SourceObsidianRareEarth Patternsand ObsidianArti-factProvenience,"RevueD'Archeometrie, olumeII Sup-plement, Actes Du XX Symposium InternationalD'Archeometrie,Paris26-29 Mars1980, 325-330.

This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 19:01:33 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Documents

Yellin_New Evidence on Prehistoric Trade Routes-The Obsidian Evidence From Gilat, Israel