This book focusses on ground stone tools, stone vessels, and devices carved into rock across the Near East and Egypt from prehistory to the later periods. The aim is to explore all aspects of these tools and stimulate a debate about new methodologies to approach this material.

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents Page
• List of Figures and Tables
• List of Authors
• David Eitam and Andrea Squitieri
• Introduction
• Methodology and Classification
• D. Mudd: The archaeology of discard and abandonment
• David Mudd
• The archaeology of discard and abandonment: presence and absence in the ground stone assemblage from Early Neolithic Bestansur, Iraqi Kurdistan
• Figure 1. Plan of the Bestansur site. Image – CZAP.
• Figure 2. Composite plan of excavated walls, spaces and features in Trench 10, end of Spring 2017 season. Walls of Building 5 follow the alignment and plan of earlier Building 8. Image – CZAP.
• Figure 3. Net sinkers SF0317 in situ. Image – CZAP.
• Figure 4. Stone from SF0317 showing worm casing and boring. Image – author.
• Figure 5. Debitage from stoneworking C1752. Note the smaller quantities of harder sandstone (darker colour) from the tools used to work the softer limestone (lighter). The opinion of the excavator should be ignored. Image – author.
• Figure 6. Plan of Trench 7. Image – CZAP.
• Figure 7. Space 16, before excavation, facing northwest, showing gridlines. Image – CZAP.
• Figure 8. Space 16 C1243 and C1255, showing ground stone classes and identification numbers. Some very small fragments omitted. Image – CZAP.
• Figure 9. Flat oval river cobbles BF520 and BF522 in situ. Image – CZAP.
• Figure 10. Possible stages in the life history of a stone tool. The artefact could enter the archaeological record from any of these stages.
• D. Eitam: Survey of Rock-Cut Installations at Tel Bareqet (Israel)
• David Eitam
• Survey of Rock-Cut Installations at Tel Bareqet (Israel): Food Processor devices in Epipaleolithic, PPNA and the Early Bronze
• Figure 1. General plan of the Tel and excavations areas.
• Figure 2. General plan of the rock-cut installations.
• Figure 3. L. 3020: EB winepress with pressing surface drained to collecting vat, adjacent vat on the west of the press, and 2 cupmarks on the east.
• Figure 4. L. 3020: collecting vat of EB winepress (side of vat was cut in recent time).
• Figure 5. L. 3030: round large basin cut into oblong bedrock (possibly EB), a cupmark, and a small round basin.
• Figure 7. Plan of L. 3039: PPNA threshing floor with cupmarks cut on an unlevelled oblong bedrock exposure.
• Figure 8. L. 3039: PPNA threshing floor with many rock-cut cupmarks and 4 shallow basins.
• Figure 10. L. 3041.20: Natufian narrow conical mortar halted by a hard stone at bottom (part of rock formation).
• Figure 11. L. 3042.21: Natufian narrow conical mortar, reused and cut into an EB oval deep basin.
• Figure 9. General plan of L. 3041: complex RCI with Late Natufian narrow conical mortar, reused during the EB as a collection vat for a large basin, Natufian small wide conical mortar, and cupmarks.
• Figure 12. L. 3941.22: EB deep concave basin.
• Figure 13. L. 3942.24: Natufian small concave conical mortar.
• Figure 15. L. 3042.1: deep concave EB basin, with reused Natufian narrow conical mortar.
• Figure 16. Plans of L. 3042.1: with EB round deep basin, reused narrow conical mortar, and small mortar eroded in bottom; L. 3063.1: oval deep EB basin, reused Natufian narrow conical mortar, 2, 3 and 5: small deep basins with cup at bottom.
• Figure 17. L. 3053: cupmarks cut on top of a rock.
• Figure 19. L. 3948: oval deep basin cut by a shallow small bowl (both possibly EB).
• Figure 20. L. 3063: EBII oval basin which reuses a Natufian narrow conical mortar as collection vat.
• Table 1. Types of rock-cut installations; average measurements in cm; abbreviations: NCM – narrow conical mortar; RCI – rock-cut installation.
• Rock-cut installations at Tel Bareqet.
• Ayn Asil and Elephantine (Egypt): remarks on classification and function of ground stone implements
• C. Jeuthe: Ayn Asil and Elephantine (Egypt)
• Clara Jeuthe
• Figure 1. Overview Balat and research areas (D. Laisney, G. Soukiassian, after Jeuthe in print c, figure 1, Laisney 2011, figure 12, copyright IFAO).
• Figure 2. Overview Elephantine Island and research areas (after Kopp et al. in print, figure 1, Ziermann 2003, figure 1, Ziermann 1993, figure 2, Laisney 2011, figure 12, copyright DAI).
• Figure 3. Tools of the first category from Ayn Asil: ‘wheel hammer’ 2666-7, ‘cubit hammer’ 3655-11, ‘pebble hammer’ 3688-14, 3652-1, 3579-2, ‘pick-like’ 3567-32, ‘adze-like’ 3318-1 (scale 1:2, drawn by A. Hussein, C. Jeuthe, copyright IFAO).
• Figure 4. Tools of the second category from Ayn Asil: slab 3576-1, handstone 3623-22 (scale 1:2, drawn by A. Hussein, copyright IFAO).
• Figure 5. Tools of the third category from Ayn Asil: abrasive stones 3635-25, 3906-13, 3535-2, 3906-12 and whetstones 3567-11, 3927-37, 2667-1 (scale 1:2, drawn by E. Gossens, A. Hussein, C. Jeuthe, copyright IFAO).
• Figure 6. Tools of the fourth category from Ayn Asil: netherstones 3621-16, 3527-24, 3824-5 (scale 1:2, drawn by E. Gossens, A. Hussein, copyright IFAO).
• Table 1. Ayn Asil: raw materials of stone implements attested and their frequency rates within the individual categories.
• Table 2. Elephantine: raw materials of stone implements attested and their frequency rates within the individual categories.
• Table 3. Balat/Sheikh Muftah: raw materials of stone implements attested and their frequency rates within the individual categories.
• Table 4. Frequency rates of functional categories within the sites and individual research areas.
• Documentation: Non-Archaeological and Archaeological Sources in Comparison
• Figure 1. Susa. Uruk period. Clay sealing with grinding scene (after Ellis 1995: Fig. 1).
• L. Bombardieri: Mill-songs
• Luca Bombardieri
• Mill-songs. The soundscape of collective grinding in the Bronze and Iron Age Near East and eastern Mediterranean
• Figure 2. Balawat/Imgur-Enlil. Neo-Assyrian period. Scene incised on decorated bronze bands, with two soldiers in the Assyrian camp of king Shalmaneser III (after Trokay 2000: Fig. 5).
• Figure 4. Ninive. SW Palace. Room XXXIII. Particular of the wall relief with two Babylonian prisoners forced to grind their father’s bones (adapted from Layard 1853: Pl. XLV-XLVI; drawn by G. Albertazzi).
• Figure 5. Provenace unknown. RP amphora with modelled complex scenic composition. Musée National de Céramique at Sèvres (after Morris 1985: fig. 493).
• Figure 6. Provenance unknown. Red Slip terracotta. Musée du Louvre, Paris (adapted from Caubet et al. 1992: 34-35; drawn by G. Albertazzi).
• Figure 7. Provenance unknown. Red Slip terracotta. Musée du Louvre, Paris. Detail of the standing woman holding her child (adapted from Caubet et al. 1992: 34).
• Figure 8. Thebes, Boeotia. Terracotta. Musée du Louvre, Paris (after Pottier 1899: Fig. 8).
• J. Ebeling: Rotary Querns and the Presentation of the Past
• Jennie Ebeling
• Rotary Querns and the Presentation of the Past
• Figure 1. ‘Two women at the mill.’ Matson Photographic Collection, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-matpc-07552].
• Figure 2. A rotary quern still in use in northern Jordan. Photograph by Dia’a Mazari Gharaibeh.
• Figure 4. Joe Alon Museum of Bedouin Culture, Lahav, Israel. Photograph by Jennie Ebeling.
• Figure 5. Museum of Jordanian Heritage at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan. Photograph by Jennie Ebeling.
• Figure 7. Palestinian Heritage Center, Bethlehem, Palestine. Photograph by Jennie Ebeling.
• Figure 8. Image from the collection of the Palestinian Heritage Center, Bethlehem, Palestine. Photograph copyright Maha Saca, Palestinian Heritage Center.
• Figure 9. Bedouin Heritage Center, Shibli, Mt. Tabor, Israel. Photograph by Jennie Ebeling.
• Figure 10. Rotary quern from the Golan Heights. Man and His Work Center in the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv, Israel. Photograph by Jennie Ebeling.
• Figure 12. Beit Al-Turath Handicraft Company, Amman, Jordan. Photograph by M. Rogel.
• Figure 14. Embroidered artwork of a woman with a rotary quern. Photograph by Jennie Ebeling.
• Bourgul in Talmudic and Classical Literature, and Today1
• R. Frankel: Bourgul in Talmudic and Classical Literature, and Today
• Rafael Frankel
• Figure 1. Crushing the grain, Yarka, Western Galilee.
• Figure 2. The four sieves of the Salman abu Yusef family from Yarka, Western Galilee.
• T. Lewit and P. Burton: Wine and oil presses in the Roman to Late Antique Near East and Mediterranean
• Tamara Lewit and Paul Burton
• Wine and oil presses in the Roman to Late Antique Near East and Mediterranean: Balancing textual and archaeological evidence
• Figure 1. Lever and drum press, reconstructed according to Cato’s description in 1996 under the supervision of J.-P. Brun at Beaucaire (Gard), copyright Mas des Tourelles www.tourelles.com. Reproduced with permission.
• Figure 3. Traditional direct screw press, similar to that used in ancient southern Levant and elsewhere. Probably from Western Galilee. Upper nut beam made from Atlantic Terebinth, with oak screw. Reconstructed stone piers. Collection of Eretz Israel Muse
• Figure 4. Reconstruction of the lever and weights press at Oilery FVIII, Chhîm, Lebanon, by Marek Puszkarski. Reproduced from Waliszewski, T. (2014). Elaion. Olive Oil Production in Roman and Byzantine Syria – Palestine, PAM Monographs 6. Warsaw, Fig. 4
• Figure 5. Typical limestone weight from a Levantine style lever and weights press, probably Byzantine, probably from the Galilee (Collection number MHW83.2011). Collection of Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv, Israel. Reproduced with permission.
• Figure 6. View of late 5th-6th century lever and weights press at Oilery FVIII, Chhîm, Lebanon (photo by Kazimierz Kotlewski). Reproduced from Waliszewski, T. (2014). Elaion. Olive Oil Production in Roman and Byzantine Syria – Palestine, PAM Monographs 6.
• Raw Material and Manufacture
• L. Jirásková: Tool marks on Old Kingdom limestone vessels from Abusir
• Lucie Jirásková
• Tool marks on Old Kingdom limestone vessels from Abusir – production of canopic jars and model vessels
• Figure 1. Base of the canopic jar 24/AS37/2007 with copper chisel cut marks (photo L. Jirásková).
• Figure 2. Cross-section of the canopic jar 5/AS37/2007. The lower part remained narrow after the application of a copper shaft drill and probably of figure-of-eight stone drills, whereas the upper part was widened using a copper chisel (drawing L. Jirásko
• Figure 3a. Cross section of the canopic jar 24/AS37/2007, which was completely gouged out using a copper chisel (drawing L. Jirásková)
• Figure 3b. Detail of the interior of 24/AS37/2007 with unsmoothed cut marks (photo L. Jirásková).
• Figure 4. Wavy interior of the canopic jar 388_1/AS68/2014, which was modelled by a figure-of-eight stone drill (photo M. Frouz).
• Figure 5. Roughly shaped unsmoothed exterior of the bowl 19_9/AS37/2007 with planes left after the use of a copper adze (photo L. Jirásková).
• Figure 6a. Depression of the bowl 6_27/AS67/2012 with triangular boring traces (photo L. Jirásková).
• Figure 6b. Depression of the bowl 16_30/AS67/2012 with circular boring traces (photo L. Jirásková).
• Figure 7. Depression of the bowl 19_25/AS37/2007 which was not bored but gouged out using a copper chisel (photo L. Jirásková).
• Figure 8. The symbolic shallow interior of the jar 383_16/AS68/2014 was worked with a copper chisel or a pick (photo L. Jirásková).
• J. A. Beller et al.: Raw material variety and acquisition of the EB III ground stone assemblage
• Jeremy A. Beller, Haskel J. Greenfield, Mostafa Fayek, Itzhaq Shai, and Aren M. Maeir
• Raw material variety and acquisition of the EB III ground stone assemblage of Tell es-Safi/Gath (Israel)
• Figure 1. Notable sites of the EB II-III southern Levant.
• Figure 2. Excavation areas of Tell es-Safi/Gath.
• Figure 3. Typology of ground stone assemblage (by count).
• Figure 4. Typology of ground stone assemblage (by % frequency).
• Figure 5. Lower grinding stone (Basket #16E94A011).
• Figure 6. Upper grinding stone (Basket #16E84A007).
• Figure 7. Perforated stone weight (Basket #16E83C087).
• Figure 8. Vessel (Basket #1143010).
• Figure 9. Pounder (Basket #748124).
• Figure 10. Mortar/socket (Basket #748122).
• Figure 11. Material of ground stone objects.
• Figure 12. XRD results of limestone artefact (Basket #845008).
• Figure 13. Breakdown of material and select ground stone types.
• Figure 14. Selected basalt sources of Near East.
• Figure 15. Total alkali-silica diagram of samples for sources.
• Figure 16. Total alkali-silica diagram of source averages.
• Figure 17. SiO2 vs. Na2O+K2O scatter plot of sources and artifacts samples.
• Figure 18. SiO2 vs. Na2O+K2O plot of source averages and artifact samples along with baskets associated with the discussed groups.
• Figure 19a. TiO2 vs. SiO2 plot of selected source averages and artifact samples (baskets). 19b. TiO2 vs. Fe2O3(t) plot of selected source averages and Basket #1042042.
• Table 4. Association between Near East basalt sources and Tell es-Safi/Gath artifacts.
• Function and Uses
• The ground stone assemblage from the Early Bronze Age I site Wadi Fidan 4: Gender aspects
• Y. Abadi-Reiss et al.: The ground stone assemblage from the Early Bronze Age I site Wadi Fidan 4
• Yael Abadi-Reiss, Mohammad Najjar and Thomas E. Levy
• Figure 1. Site location map.
• Figure 2. Grinding stones: A, B, Lower grinding slabs. C, D, Upper grinding stone.
• Figure 3. Selected hammer stones.
• Table 4. Hammerstone subtypes from WFD4 (n=21).
• Cereal processing in stone agri-technological system at late Natufian Huzuq Musa in the Jordan Valley
• D. Eitam: Cereal processing in stone agri-technological system at late Natufian Huzuq Musa
• David Eitam
• Figure 1. Huzuq Musa, view to the south: front, a large central structure and cliff; left, northern dwelling area; centre, southern dwelling area and possible cemetery; in front of cliff with caves, large open-space zone with terrace wall on left; far-lef
• Figure 2. Map of Natufian sites with rock-cut installations in the Southern Levant, including Hruq Musa (another name of Huzuq Musa).
• Figure 3. Map of Huzuq Musa with surface architectural remains and rock-cut installations (marked by black dots). These include stone-wall huts (A-J, N-T); a central large structure (VII, K, L); terrace wall (double-wall line X1-X, Y and single-wall line
• Figure 4. Plan and sections of the northern dwelling area with huts (A-I, O), double terrace wall and installations cut on large rock surface.
• Figure 5. Plan and sections of central dwelling huts area IV (N, P-T), part of the large structure (K, L) and terrace wall; marked and numbered installations cut in rocks and boulders; additional zone surrounded by huts (perhaps a burial area).
• Figure 6. Legend of ground stones and rock-cut installations with fabrication marks, usewear and striations; up: pestles and pounder (see also Figure 11); wide conical mortar of threshing floor II, the pierced bottom was redesigned but work halted because
• Figure 7. Boulder pierced-bottom narrow conical mortar: (1) Bottom of repaired, pierced rock-cut narrow conical mortar with pebble adjusted to hole by flaking, pecking and fine abrading; (2a) narrow conical mortar broken in half with a fine-pecked funnel
• Figure 8. Huzuq Musa, selection of flint tools collected on surface: 1-8: Borers; 9-12: Sickle blades; 13-15: Microlithes; 16: Micro-end scraper; 17: End scraper; 18. Burin (after Winter 2005: Figs. 418-420).
• Figure 9. Rock-cut installations of Huzuq Musa: (1) Narrow conical mortar with eroded upper part; (2) Narrow conical mortar with funnel upper part; (3) Narrow conical mortar halted by hard stone at bottom; (4) Narrow conical mortar with pierce bottom by w
• Figure 10. Threshing floors at complex VI: (L) Threshing floor I on top of the cliff: straitened rock surface with wide conical mortar (in front of the photo); (R) Threshing floor II, located on 2nd rock step, includes: rock-straitened surface with wide c
• Figure 11. Ground stone tools found on the surface of the site: (1) Small conical basalt pestle, grooved, reused as anvil; (2) Small cigar-shaped basalt pestle; (3) Hard sandstone pounder reused as handstone; (4) Limestone pebble possibly used for polish
• Cuboid-Spheroid Stone Object – an Archaic Scale Weight – Public Weighting-Systems in Iron Age Israel
• D. Eitam: Cuboid-Spheroid Stone Object – an Archaic Scale Weight
• David Eitam
• Figure 1. Five Cuboid-Spheroid Objects:
• Figure 2. Cuboid-Spheroid Objects: four Groups: Fig. 2.2-4. Large weights of ca. 431 g, chert, B98828, fine feldspar basalt, B185323, flint, B99022; Fig. 2.5-6, 8-10, 15. Medium–large weights of ca. 247 g, 2 made of hard limestone, B96136, B96450 and 4 ma
• Table 1. Cubic-Spheroid Stone Objects.
• A. Greener and E. Ben-Yosef: Groundstone Tools from Site 35 – an Early Iron Age Copper Smelting Site
• Aaron Greener and Erez Ben-Yosef
• Groundstone Tools from Site 35 – an Early Iron Age Copper Smelting Site in the Timna Valley (Israel)
• Figure 1. Map of major copper production sites in the Southern Levant; the production intensity is illustrated by the size of the red dots (this map was created using ArcGIS software by ESRI). Sources: US National Park Service, ESRI, DeLorme, MaymyIndia,
• Figure 2. Archaeological sites in Timna Valley and the location of Site 35 (after Rothenberg 1990: 2).
• Figure 4. Slag Scatter at Site 35.
• Figure 5. Site 35 excavation areas, major architectural elements and slag scatter.
• Figure 7. Area B4, storage pit.
• Figure 8. Timna Valley Geological Map with the location of the sites studied as part of the current research. The nearest outcrops of PSC sandstone (#1) and granite (#2) are marked. Key for major rock types in the map: Klam (light green) = Amir Formation
• Figure 9. Area A grinding stones, anvils and abraders. (1) 13149: lower grinding stone; (2) 13009b: lower grinding stone; (3) 13134: anvil; (4) 13171: abrader; (5) 13092: anvil.
• Figure 10. Area A pounders. (1) 13174; (2) 13138; (3) 13005; (4) 13042; (5) 13310.
• Figure 11. Areas B and C pounders. (1) 18124; (2) 18165; (3) 19015; (4) 19049.
• Figure 12 & 13. Ground stone and rock type distributions at the different excavation areas of Site 35.
• Figure 14. Area B4 pit during the excavations. The tools and stones can be seen inside.
• Figure 15. Area B4 (pit) anvils and grinding stones. (1) 18236: upper grinding stone; (2) 18196: anvil; (3) 18178: lower grinding stone; (4) B4-4: anvil; (5) B4-5: anvil; (6) 18199: upper grinding stone; (7) 18197: anvil.
• Figure 16. Area B4 (pit) pounders. (1) B4-1; (2) B4-2; (3) B4-7; (4) 18237; (5) B4-3.
• Figure 17. The occurrence of ‘ad hoc’ tools in Areas A and B4 (one ad hoc pounder and one pounder/anvil from Area B4 were originally grinding stones. This is also the case with two of the ad hoc pounders from Area A).
• Figure 18. Ground stone tools collected during the survey. (1) 64: grooved lower grinding stone; (2) 50: upper grinding stones; (3) 117: grinding stone; (4) 2: abrader; (5) 110: abrader.
• Figure 19. Pounders collected during the survey. (1) 129; (2) 130; (3) 38; (4) 138; (5) 133.
• Figure 20. Ground stone and rock type distributions of the Site 35 survey collection (N=143).
• Figure 21. Modern experiments using grinding stones used to grind the local copper ore.
• Figure 22. Grinding slab with traces of malachite from the Chalcolithic site of Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan near Aqaba (from Pfeiffer 2009: Fig. 1; courtesy of Irmgard Wagner and Kristina Pfeiffer).
• Figure 23. Crushed slag fragments from Timna.
• Figure 24. The small dimpled pounders (situated by us) on top of an anvil with multiple cup marks.
• Figure 25. Ground stone and rock type distributions at the different areas of Site 34.
• Figure 27. Ground stone and rock type distributions at the Site 34 survey (N=1171).
• A. Squitieri: The Iron Age stone tool assemblage of Gird-i Bazar
• Andrea Squitieri
• The Iron Age stone tool assemblage of Gird-i Bazar, in the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq
• Figure 1. The location of Gitrd-i Bzaar in the Peshdar Plain. Inset: the location of the Peshdar Plain in Iraq. Source: Google Earth Satellite Image, accessed in August 2018.
• Figure 2. Drone image showing the excavations (in yellow) conducted by the Peshdar Plain Project in the Bora Plain overlying J. Fassbinder’s megnetogram of the lower town of the Dinka Settlement Complex. Drone image by ICONEM (Paris), courtesy of Un Fil
• Figure 3. Drone image by ICONEM (courtesy of Un Film à la Patte (Strasbourg) and Jessica Giraud) overlaid by the orthophoto prepared by Andrea Squitieri showing the 2015-2017 excavated areas at Gird-i Bazar. The letters indicate the building names.
• Figure 4. A. The western part of the excavated area at Gird-i Bazar. B: Room 46 where the pivoted stone for the potter’s slow-wheel was found; C: Courtyard 18 where a large amount of smashed pottery vessels and stone tools was found. Photo A by Andrea Squ
• Figure 5. Pebble mortars from Gird-i Bazar. Photo by Peter Bartl.
• Figure 6. Pounder from Gird-i Bazar. Photo by Peter Bartl.
• Figure 7. Polisher from Gird-i Bazar. Photo by Peter Bartl.
• Figure 8. A pounder/polisher from Gird-i Bazar. Photo by Andrea Squitieri.
• Figure 10. A perforated stone from Gird-i Bazar. Photo by Andrea Squitieri.
• Figure 9. A weight from Gird-i Bazar. Photo by Andrea Squitieri.
• Figure 11. The pivoted stone found at Gird-i Bazar used in combination with a socketed stone for a potter’s slow-wheel. Photo by Jean-Jacques Herr.
• Figure 12. Distribution map of the small finds from western part of Gird-i Bazar. Prepared by Andrea Squitieri.
• Sites and Tools
• Macrolithics and the on-going use of stone tools in Qantir-Piramesse and Tell el-Dabʿa-Avaris, Eastern Delta/Egypt1
• S. Prell: Macrolithics and the on-going use of stone tools in Qantir-Piramesse and Tell el-Dabʿa-Avaris
• Silvia Prell
• Figure 1. Location of Qantir-Piramesse and Tell el-Dabʿa – Avaris in the Eastern Delta (after Herold 1999: Figure 2).
• Figure 2. Location of site Q I and Q IV south of the modern village of Qantir (after Herold 2006: Figure 11).
• Figure 3. Overall distribution of stone tools in site Q I (plot: S. Prell).
• Figure 4. Examples for hammerstones and pounders from site Q I (photographs A. Krause).
• Figure 5. Examples for abrasive stones from site Q I (photographs A. Krause).
• Figure 6. Examples for polishing stones from site Q I (photographs A. Krause).
• Figure 8. Tools of comparable shape are used for: a) Embossing metal vessels; b) Smoothing wood; c) Embossing metal sheets (after Davies 1943: pl. LIII and pl. LV and Herold 2006: 61).
• Figure 10. Polishing tool for bone pins/arrowheads made from steatite (photograph A. Krause).
• Figure 11. Pressure stone for wooden bow drill (photograph A. Krause).
• Figure 9. Polishing tool for bone pins/arrowheads made from phyllite (photograph A. Krause).
• Figure 13. Overall distribution of stone tools in site R/III (plot: S. Prell).
• Figure 14. Quern from site R/III with concave grinding surface and diagonal grooves (drawing S. Prell).
• Figure 15. Examples for grinding equipment from site R/III showing extremely bad stone quality with inclusion of big flint and quartz pebbles (photograph S. Prell).
• Figure 17. Combined hammerstone made from gneiss deriving from earlier layers in site R/III; from the trench in square R/III-r/5 (photograph A. Krause).
• Millstones, Mortars, and Stone Bowls from Tel Dover and the Southern Levant1
• R. Frankel: Millstones, Mortars, and Stone Bowls from Tel Dover and the Southern Levant
• Refael Frankel
• Figure 1. Saddle Querns Nos. 1-8. Appendix A: photo nos. 603265 (1), 603308 (2).
• Figure 2. Mortars and Bowls Nos. 10-19. Appendix A: photo nos. 603306 (10), 601544 (11), 601553 (12), 603314 (13), 603315 (14), 603318 (15), 603330 (16), 603331 (17), 603271-2 (18), 603275 (19).
• Figure 3. Mortars and Bowls Nos. 20-24. Appendix A: photo nos. 603285 (20), 603274 (22), 601554 (23), 603307 (24).
• Figure 4. Mortars and Bowls Nos. 25-28. Appendix A: photo nos. 603332 (25), 603309 (26), 603310 (28).
• Figure 5. Footed Stone Bowls Nos. 30-32. Appendix A: photo nos. 603326 (30), 603269 (32).
• Figure 6. Footed Stone Bowls Nos. 33-35.
• Figure 7. Olynthus Mulls Nos. 36-37. Appendix A: photo no. 603322 (37).
• Figure 8. Olynthus Mills Nos. 39-43. Appendix A: photo nos. 603327 (39), 603324 (40).
• Figure 9. Rotary Hand Mills Nos. 45-47. Appendix A: photo nos. 603317 (45), 603266 (46), 603264 (47).
• Figure 10. Rotary Hand Mills Nos. 48-52. Appendix A: photo nos. 603323 (48).
• Figure 11. Rotary Hand Mills Nos. 53-58. Appendix A: photo nos. 603628 (54), 603329 (55), 603263 (56), 603312 (57), 603286 (58).
• Figure 12. Rotary Hand Mills Nos. 59-63. Appendix A: photo nos. 603286 (59), 603283 (60), 603321 (61), 603284 (63).
• Figure 13. Pompeian Donkey Mills Lower Stones Nos. 64-66. Appendix A: photo nos. 601542 (64), 601547 (66).
• Figure 14. Pompeian Donkey Mills Lower Stones Nos. 67, 68. Appendix A: photo nos. 601548 (69)
• Figure 15. Pompeian Donkey Mills Lower Stones Nos. 70-72. Appendix A: photo nos. 601550 (70), 603267 (71).
• Figure 16. Pompeian Donkey Mills Lower Stones Nos. 73-76. Appendix A: photo nos. 601540 (73), 603290 (76).
• Figure 17. Pompeian Donkey Mills Upper Stones Nos. 81-83. Appendix A: photo nos. 601542 (81), 601541 (82), 601548 (83).
• Figure 18. Pompeian Donkey Mills Upper Stones Nos. 84-87. Appendix A: photo nos. 601545 (84), 601557 (85).
• Figure 19. Pompeian Donkey Mills Lower Stones Nos. 88-90. Appendix A: photo nos. 601546 (89), 601550 (90).
• Figure 20. Pompeian Donkey Mill Upper Stones Nos. 91-92. Appendix A: photo nos. 601556 (91), 601540 (92).
• Table 1. Stone tools from Tel Dover.
• Appendix A.
• D. Eitam: Stone Tools of the Iron Age Ein Gev and their Implication
• David Eitam
• Stone Tools of the Iron Age Ein Gev and their Implication. The Japanese Excavation Project
• Plate 1. 1, 2, 4: fine bowls (basalt); 3: fragment of horizontal and diagonal bars bowl (basalt); 5, 7: massive bowls (basalt); 6: Platter; 7: cupmarks (limestone).
• Plate 2. 1-3: cupmarks; 4: Nuddle; 5: Ovoid; 6: Abrader & anvil; 7: Polisher; 8, 9: Rubbing stone; 10: Possibly scale weight; 11-13: Ovoid and spheroid pounders (archaic scale weights?).
• Plate 3. 1: Rectangular grinding slab; 2: Grinding slab, slab; 3: Loaf grinding slab, symmetric; 4: Oval handstone, symmetric; 5: Handstone, reused fragment of symmetric loaf handstone; 6: plausibly basalt
• Plate 4. 1: Loaf handstone, symmetric, trapezoid? 2: Oval handstone, symmetric; 3: Small oval handstone or palette (bifacial); 4: Rectangular, trapezoid hanstone, high & heavy; 5: Small rectangular handstone, trapezoid; 6: Handstone, reuse fragment of l
• Appendix A.
• Appendix B.
• Figure 2. Fragment of a selenite panel; this was the approximate shape and size made at the workshop. Specimen is about 1.4 cm-thick and 24.0 cm in width. There is an asphaltum stain on one edge. (Archaeological specimen from D-52).
• Figure 3. Waste fragment of selenite showing the precipitate cortex that was removed during trimming of a larger block at the workshop. (Archaeological specimen from D-52).
• J. S. Schneider et al.: Selenite (gypsum) from the North Sinai collection
• Joan S. Schneider, David Valentine, Avraham Gabay, and Eliezer D. Oren
• Selenite (gypsum) from the North Sinai collection: likely function and technology of production
• Figure 4. Magnified view of saw marks on the cut edge of an archaeological selenite fragment. Also note the clearly defined foliation of the crystal structure of the selenite.
• Figure 6a. Saw used to replicate selenite panel production.
• Figure 6b. Piece of replicated selenite panel production.
• Figure 7. Experimentally split panels of selenite. Slight pressure of knife blade inserted between foliations of a thicker block easily split it into thinner panels.
• I. Milevski: The stone tools and vessels from Tel Miqne-Ekron
• Ianir Milevski
• The stone tools and vessels from Tel Miqne-Ekron: a report on the Bronze and Iron Ages
• Figure 1. Location map with Miqne and main sites mentioned in the text.
• Figure 2. Tel Miqne – Ekron, top plan with fields of excavation (adapted from Dothan and Gitin 2008).
• Figure 3. Stone tools and vessels from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages.
• Figure 4. Stone tools from the Iron I, Strata VII-IV. Lower and Upper Grinding Stones and a Basin.
• Figure 5. Stone tools from the Iron I, Strata VII-IV. Mortars, Pestle, Hammer Stone and Rubbing Stone.
• Figure 6. Stone tools from the Iron I, Strata VII-IV. Rings, Pounders, Multiuse and Recycled Stones.
• Figure 7. Stone tools from the Iron I, Strata VII-IV. Vessels.
• Figure 8. Stone tools from the Iron II, Stratum IB. Lower Grinding Stone.
• Figure 9. Stone tools from the Iron II, Stratum IB. Lower Grinding Stones.
• Figure 10. Stone tools from the Iron II, Stratum IB. Lower and Upper Grinding Stones.
• Figure 11. Stone tools from the Iron II Stratum IB. Mortars.
• Figure 12. Stone tools from the Iron II, Strata IB-C IA. Pestles, Rubbing and Hammer Stones, a Pounder and Pierced Stones.
• Figure 13. Stone tools from the Iron II, Strata IB-C. Potter’s Wheels and Rollers.
• Figure 14. Stone objects from the Iron II, Strata III, IB-C. Pommels, Palette and Lid.
• Figure 15. Stone vessels from the Iron II, Strata IB-C. Bowls.
• Figure 16. Stone vessels from the Iron II, Stratum IB. Basins.
• Figure 17. Ground stone types frequency by period at Tel Miqne – Ekron from the LB II and Iron I.
• Figure 18. Ground stone types frequency by period at Tel Miqne – Ekron from the Iron II.
• Figure 19. Ground stone raw materials frequency by period at Tel Miqne – Ekron from the LB II and Iron I.
• Figure 20. Ground stone raw materials frequency by period at Tel Miqne – Ekron from the Iron II.
• E. Adama et al.: El-Khirba: Food processing and other ground stone tools
• El-Khirba: Food processing and other ground stone tools from a Roman, Abbasid and Mamluk period site near Nes Ziyyona, Israel
• Erez Adama, Uzi ‘Ad and Danny Rosenberg
• Figure 1. Lower grinding stone from stratum VII.
• Figure 3. Lower Olynthian mills from stratum VII.
• Figure 4. Upper Olynthian mills from stratum VII.
• Figure 5. Vessels from stratum VII.
• Figure 6. Mortars from stratum VII.
• Figure 7. Pestle from stratum VII.
• Figure 8. Vessels from stratum VI.
• Figure 10. Striation marks on lower rotary hand mill (EK38) – (mag. x80).
• Figure 9. Lower rotary hand mill from stratum IV.
• Figure 11. Upper rotary hand mills from stratum IV.
• Figure 12. Vessels from stratum IV.
• Figure 13. Varia object from stratum IV.
• Table 6. Distribution of tool types and raw materials in the Stratum III (Mamluk period) assemblage.
• Table 7. Distribution of tool types and raw materials in the indistinct contexts assemblage.