Iron Age grinding stones in Israel

Introduction

Ground stones throughout prehistory served to produce, process and store sources of subsistence as well as to manufacture other stone tools (Fig. 1). Many of these tasks involved resorting specifically to ground stones and to-and-fro driven querns, at least at some stage of their operational sequence. Numerous records in Mesopotamia shed light on the preparation of staples, notably barley and wheat (Postgate 1984; Wright 1992, 33), beans and lentils (Wright 1991, 35, footnotes 91-93) and other materials such as ores and pigments. Wall paintings and other representations in Egypt likewise offer information on bread preparation and beer brewing (Wilson 1988; Tooley 1995; Samuel 1999). Classical writers such as Cato, Pliny and Varro likewise describe the use of mortars and grinding tools mainly to prepare foodstuffs (On Agriculture, Ch. II 14; Nat. Hist., Vol V, book XVIII, Ch XXIX, 109-116: 256-263; On Agriculture, Ch. 138, 145), uses that are also bolstered by ethnographic research (Dalman 1933; Avitzur 1972; Hillman 1984, 1985; Turkowski 1996). Thus the systematic study of their function in daily life among ancient societies yields vital economic, social and cultural data.

The subject of stone tools in the ancient Near East remained marginal until the 1990s (Wright 1992, footnote 1; Ebeling & Rowan 2004). Eighty years ago, Albright exemplified this neglect when stating that there is no particular need to study these artefacts as they afford “little chronological significance” (Albright 1938, 84). Yet a minority of other early archaeologists bemoaned this attitude. The celebrated Gordon Childe, in his early and seminal molinological article, states that this type of research

unfortunately it is still rather thin; excavators of classical and barbarian sites have generally been too preoccupied with statuary and art objects on the one hand, with types accepted as chronologically significant on the other, to provide the historian of science with the data he craves. (Childe 1943, 19).

Unfortunately, few past archaeologists in the study region have recognised the crucial role of grinding stones hewn from blocks or carved into bedrock (Macalister 1912; Amiran 1956; Kraybill 1977). Only the past few decades have seen a systematic change in attitude towards stone tools as essential elements of archaeological reports (e.g., Elliott 1991). Hence today, most excavations regularly collect and accurately record ground stones by means of more orderly methods (see Baysal & Wright 2002 for what remains a utopian method).

As a result, detailed reports on ground stone assemblages initiated by excavators (although still under revision) are becoming more common. Examples are the comprehensive publications from the City of David and Manahat (Hovers 1996; Milevski 1998) and subsequent site reports by Amihai Mazar for the studies of the sites of Tel Batash-Timnah, Beth Shean and Tel Rehov (Cohen-Weinberg 2001; Yahalom-Mack 2006, 2007; Yahalom-Mack & Mazar 2006; Yahalom-Mack 2007; Petit 2020). Others include Tel Yoqneʿam (Ben-Ami 2005a, 2005b) and Tel Miqne-Ekron (Milevski 2019). Less common are thematic surveys such as those by Wright (1991, 1992) and Dubreuil (2002, 2004, 2008) for the prehistoric periods and later periods (Frankel 1999; Eitam 1979, 1980, 1996, 2005; Eitam et al. 2015; Eitam & Schoenwetter 2021). Nonetheless, certain excavators of major ancient historical sites in Israel still relegate these types of tools to simply a catalogue accompanied by illustrations devoid of analyses. These include the listings for the sites of Megiddo, Lachish and Hazor, which at times include drawings (e.g., Sass 2000, 2004; Sass & Ussishkin 2004; Sass & Cinamon 2006; Ebeling 2012; Rosenberg 2013; Yadin et al. 1958; Yadin et al. 1960; Yadin et al. 1961). This approach, unfortunately, ignores a significant amount of data (probably equal in importance to that of the pottery) from which it is possible to glean information on several key economic and cultural aspects.

A major problem linked to ancient Near East stone tool research is the need for more consensus on a critical analytic methodology, an absence that has hampered investigating and determining their function (see criticism in Squitieri & Eitam 2019, 1-8; for other questions see Alonso & Frankel 2017, 1-2). Furthermore, stone tools usually were intentionally designed for specific usage. However, they were often multifunctional or reusable, altering their function throughout their “lives.” A critical issue of ground stones study is thus to attempt to grasp the function and the significance of the range of tasks of any single object. A more flexible approach can thus be attained by applying a multi-variable typology (Eitam 2009a, 88) differing from a system based on single variables (Adams & Adams 1991; Adams 2013). For the same reason, it is insufficient to only publishing catalogues of ground stones devoid of observations of the changes throughout their lifespan (see Appendix A for a detailed description).

This article thus presents a short history of grinding tools from a number of sites in Israel (Fig. 2) an overview of the raw materials serving to make them, and the “industrial” design of certain from the Iron Age. This involves a description of their types, their potential reuse, and their context. This is followed by a summary of their technological developments and socio-economical, cultural and at times political implications. For a better understanding of their contexts, this study advances a typological classification of the cases from the Iron Age and a detailed catalogue of the tools three sites, notably Area G of Tel Dor (Eitam, unpublished c; Eitam in press a), Ein Gev and Khirbet ‘Auja el-Fuqa (Appendix A).

A short history of grinding tools

There are few cases of grinding tools in the Southern Levant during the Upper Palaeolithic (Wright 1991). They gain in prevalence in the subsequent Natufian Culture of the Late Epipalaeolithic. These narrow oblong sandal-shaped implements were either hewn into the bedrock or portable stones were combined with small oval handstones. They attained a high point in the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age I (4000-3000 BC) as manifest by dozens carved into bedrock outcrops within the sites, a practice that continued in rural areas as late as the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1550 BC; Eitam 2009b).

More efficient querns with larger upper and lower stones (henceforth, handstones and slabs) date to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B coinciding with the early domestication of cereals and legumes. Only a few earlier cases of rather large oval slabs coupled with a loaf-shaped handstones are recorded in the Early Bronze II (3000-2700 BC; Sass 2000, fig. 12.4). It is a type that became common in the Pottery Neolithic with the expansion of the cultivation of cereal.

After the introduction of the grooved mill characterised by shallow longitudinal cuttings on the back of their upper stones (serving to insert a rod to drive the mill) in the middle of the 1st millennium BC, the diversity of milling systems increased considerably. These included the introduction of the Olynthus mill originating in the Phoenician Late Iron Age II, a type known in Israel as late as the 6th century AD (Frankel 2003). Noteworthy is also the introduction into the Southern Levant during the Hellenistic Period of the rotary quern and the subsequent larger Pompeian mill in the 1st century BC (Frankel 2003; Alonso & Frankel 2017). However, it must be noted that manual grinding with a to-and-fro motion was still widely in use until the introduction of the watermill into the region in the Late Arabic period (Lewis 1997; Ad et al. 2005), a complex mechanism that endured in Israel well into the 19th and 20th centuries.

Raw materials

The choice of the raw material serving to manufacture the grinding stones varied according to their properties (hardness and bite) and the distance of the outcrop. Most of the rocks serving as grinding stones at the site of Ein Gev (Iron Age I and IIA; 11th until the 8th century BC; Sugimoto 2015) on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee are basalts (67%) from nearby outcrops (Fig. 3). Other rock types, such as hard limestones (more suitable for abraders and polishers) and soft limestones are less frequent (24%). Flint (including calcareous flint) is even less used (6%), while the remaining were hewn from several unusual rocks.

Tel Dor is located along the northern seashore of Israel about 50 km from the nearest basalt outcrops. The Early Iron Age courthouse of Area G (phases 9-6) ranging from the 11th to the first half of the 10th centuries BC (Gilboa’, Sharon & Zorn 2014, 46) yielded a corpus of 343 stone tools marked by a high ratio of basalts. These volcanic stones can be broken down into vesicular basalts (16%) (Fig. 1: 7-8), porous basalts (27%) (Fig. 1: 5), feldspar basalts (31%) (Fig. 1: 1 below) and undetermined basalts (26%) (Eitam, unpublished c). From this lot, one can conclude that vesicular basalts were preferred for grinding tools (as opposed to pounding tools), whereas feldspar and porous basalts served more for lower stones while porous basalt was the choice for the upper handstones. The numerous imported basalts and other high-quality tools unearthed at in Area G of Tel Dor¹ point to far-reaching trade networks and suggest that the settlement was prosperous during Iron Age I.

The ratios of these three groups of raw materials of Stratum V of Tel Dor dated to the 9th century BC are similar: basalt (69%), limestone (22%) and calcareous flint (9%). The relatively rich assemblage (28 items) of this site delving into the ratio of the different types of basalt and its use. It is notable that 47% of the vesicular basalt served to manufacture slabs (including a massive bowl and a basin), whereas 32% of the porous basalt served for handstones, slabs and a pounder. Feldspar basalt (21%), in turn, served for other items such as a fine bowl, a pounder and a figurine (Eitam in press). These proportions of basalt and limestone are similar to the ground stone assemblage of Tel Batash (Cohen-Weinberger 2001, table 47) and reflect a balance between need and circumstance.

A different situation applies to the stone tools of the single-period Iron Age I fortified site of El-Ahwat, 15 km to the northeast of Tel Dor. The general ratio at this site is 44% basalt compared to 56% of local, mainly crumbly, calcitic stones (Eitam unpublished a). Moreover, many of its basalt tools are of inferior quality, possibly collected from nearby Zichron outcrops (Segev & Sass 2009) suggesting limited access to resources and trade networks. Another small yet significant cultic site from the Iron Age I is Mount Ebal in the Samaria Highland (Zertal 1987). It reveals a relatively high ratio (48%) of quality basalt primarily in the form of loaf-shaped querns (Eitam, unpublished b, see conclusion).

More than half of all the stone tools (20) collected on the surface of the Iron Age II site of Khirbet ‘Auja el Fuqa, a fortified city near Jericho (Eitam 2007), were hewn from local rocks (limestone, chalk with flint breccia) poorly suited for grinding (Fig. 2 and 3). The remaining are of more suitable imported materials, notably hard sandstone (4) and basalt (9). The tool’s shape was determined by the nature of the local softer raw material (e.g., the oval slab, Fig 4: 1). Others retained the standard Iron Age features (e.g., a loaf-shaped lower stone and a small oval-shaped handstone (Fig. 4: 2 and Fig. 5: 4). This evidences a flexible approach by the craftsmen while simultaneously retaining traditional forms.

Tel Miqne, an Iron Age IIC city and the Philistine kingdom of Ekron on the southern seashore of Israel, reveals a ratio of about 75% of inferior local rocks compared to 25% of superior imported materials (Milevski 2019). The inferior stones consist mainly of limestoneand probably also nari (crumbly limestone) (Eitam 1996). This appears to confirm the low socio-economic state of the thousands of workers taking part in the olive oil enterprise of Ekron in the 7th century BC.

The assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa, a fortified city from the end of the 11th-10th century BC (single short occupation) on the western edge of the Low Hill region of Judea, differs radically from other Iron Age sites. Most of its querns (80%) are roughly made of hard and soft limestone, flint, and chalk, while only about ten are of basalt (Cohen-Klonymus 2014). This high proportion of less suitable stones is unusual and contrasts with Early Iron Age assemblages elsewhere in Iron Age I Israel (see conclusions).

Mill types

Three types of hand querns are common to the Iron Age of Israel: 1) narrow, loaf-shaped slabs (Fig. 6: 1-3 and fig. 9: 4) coupled with small, oval, square, or irregular handstones (Fig. 5: 4 and Fig. 7: 1-2) and 2) large square slabs (Fig. 9: 7) associated with loaf-shaped handstones (Fig. 6: 2). The latter type can be broken down into two subtypes: 3a) the longitudinal section of the first is narrow and square with bifacial grinding surfaces (i.e., top and bottom) (Fig. 9: 6) mainly operated with loaf-shaped handstones (Fig. 8: 4) that cover the width of the slab without leaving lateral margins; and 3b) The second subtype is thicker and diagonal in the longitudinal section, at times revealing lateral margins (Fig. 9: 7).

Loaf-shaped mills

Most of quern slabs dating to the Late Bronze and Iron Age in Israel were loaf-shaped and coupled with small handstones. They were driven with a to and fro motion over a narrow surface.² These slabs reveal concave or flat longitudinal sections (Fig. 6: 1-2 and Fig. 9: 4), while the grinding surfaces of their handstones reveal flat or convex longitudinal and transversal sections (Wright 1992).

Numerous loaf-shaped lower stones were “transformed” into loaf-shaped handstones by flipping them upside-down (see Wright 1992 for the definitions of loaf slab and handstone).³ This is the case of 150 (!) stones from the site of Tel Rehov corresponding to 38% of all complete mills. Petit described mill type 1b1 as being “asymmetric two hands grinding slab…”. About one-third of the [52] stones of this type reveal “…a concave grinding face along the longitudinal axis” (Petit 2020, fig. 7:2, fig. 3, fig. 8:2, fig. 9:2; pl. 17.2). Unfortunately, archaeologists have not adopted the correct classification system of loaf grinding slabs established by the first excavators of Hazor (Yadin et al. 1958, 1960, 1961). It is also necessary to add 100 items to the 13 “lower narrow” stones identified correctly in Area A of Hazor (Ebeling 2012).⁴

Yahalom-Mack described seven as “concave and slightly concave upper grinding slabs” (2007, table 11.5: from Reg. n° 791055 until the end of the table), which are in fact lower loaf-shaped stones, as is the case of one among the assemblage of the Iron Age site of Beth Shean (Yahalom-Mack & Mazar 2006, fig. 13.6:3).⁵ This erroneous classification led Cohen-Weinberger to the unreasonable conclusion that communal milling was carried out at Iron Age II Tel-Batash-Timnah by means of large communal slabs at three “grinding stations” (Cohen-Weinberger 2001, 228).

To summarise, the typical loaf-shaped mill, operated in tandem with a small oval handstone, existed during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages alongside less frequent larger models. It would appear that a regular use of large lower stones began in the Middle BronzeII, although an early version of a rather large oval slab, operated by a loaf-shaped handstone, appeared in the Early Bronze II (Sass  2000, fig. 12.4).

Trapezoidal sub-type

A sub-type of loaf-shaped stones characterised by trapezoid transversal and at times longitudinal sections (Fig.  9: 4, 8) is evidenced by three handstones and two slabs recovered in Stratum IV of Ein Gev dating to the Early Iron Age (11th until the first half of the 10th century BC) (Eitam 2019a, plates 3.4; 4.3). It is a type that was not common in Israel and potentially represents a foreign influence. It began to appear more regularly in the Late Bronze Age, notably at Tel Yin’am, in the form of three small trapezoidal sectioned handstones (Liebowitz 2003, fig 32: 12, 20). The type was identified at Tel Jawa as handstones reused as slabs in Iron Age I and II contexts (Daviau 2002, fig. 2.112: 3; fig. 21.14.1; fig. 21.15.1), at Tel Rehov in the Iron Age IIA (Petit 2020, fig. 7.4, 7) and Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Late Iron Age II (Milevski 2019, plates 16.2; 20.13). The spatial distribution of this subtype in the Transjordan and eastern Israel and at Tel Miqne-Ekron suggests an eastern origin.

Slab-shaped mills

The linear to and fro motion of this quern type is evidenced by linear use-wear striations on both hand and lower stones. Numerous Egyptian, Cypriot and Greek statuettes, as well as Egyptian reliefs and wooden models (all-female operators, e.g., Pritchard 1954; Tooley 1995, 28-29, fig. 19-20), depict oblong (a times loaf-shaped) handstones coupled with large flat slabs. One may challenge the suggestion that in addition to the lower working surface, the top and left and right edges of loaf-shaped handstones served for grinding (Liebowitz 2008). While this assumption finds evidence in the preparation of maize tortillas in Central America (Liebowitz 2008), local ethnographical parallels reveal the conservative nature of food preparation methods. The smooth, shiny coating often visible on the convex face and at times on the abraded pointed edges, possibly corresponds to fat residue impregnated into the stone due to contact with the human palms (Daviau 2002). This is an issue that could be clarified by chemical analyses. Natufian use-wear on the working surfaces of handstones was the object of experimentation by Laure Dubreuil (2004) who determined that the shiny polish on working surfaces of certain handstones (with ochre) resembled the use-wear of processing hide. It must be noted, however, that the differences between hide-processing use-wear and human palm stains have yet to be established (Laure Dubreuil, pers. comm.).

Symmetric (Fig. 6: 1 and Fig. 5) and asymmetric (fig. 6: 2-4 and Fig. 6) transversal sections of loaf-shaped handstones suggest two different ways of milling with large lower stones. The first is from a horizontal position, possibly on a flat floor. The miller kneels in a horizontal bent-over position with two hands driving a symmetric handstone on a slab (Pritchard 1954, fig. 149; Tooley 1995, compare fig. 19 and 20). The slab that corresponds to this position is a thin rectangular type with a rectangular section. The working face of the handstone covers the whole upper area of the slab. However, there are cases characterised by shallow lateral margins indicative of shorter handstones. This rectangular, thin shape stems from grinding with both sides of the stone (Hovers 1996) and reworking its surface. Its surface was probably dressed (pecked), as is the case of later Olynthus and rotary mills (Petit 2020, type 2a; Frankel 2003).

The second method assumes a diagonal position with the slab positioned at ca. 30-40 degrees, at times supported by a mud brick platform (Petit 2020, fig. 3-4) or on the floor. In this case, the miller crouches, presumably pushing the asymmetric, thick handstone downwards and pulling it upwards along a slanted slab (e.g., Karageorghis 2006, fig. 100). This type is at times present at Tel Dor and elsewhere and frequently is marked by a triangular lengthwise section with projecting back (Fig. 9: 7).

Grooved mills

Grooved mills characterised by a shallow longitudinal cutting on the back of their upper stones serving to lodge a rod to drive the mill are rare in Israel. Two variations are the Assyrian Type A upper stone associated with an oblong slab (Bombardieri 2010, 78-85). The two are from the sites of Tel Qasile and Tel Tannim (Avshalom-Gorni et al. 2004). Assyrian-type mills appeared in the 9th century and endured until the 5th-4th centuries BC. They were common in northern Mesopotamia (Tel Half and Nimrud) and Syria (Tel Barri and Tel Ahmar) (Alonso & Frankel 2017).

A third type of rod driven mill (Fig. 9: 8) was discovered during the excavations of Ein Gev (Eitam 2019a) led by the Japanese Mission (Eitam 2019). Although unearthed in the company of Hellenistic pottery (L. 501, B1584), it potentially dates to the Iron Age IIA. It consists of an almost complete heavy upper stone measuring 225 x 165 x 98 mm with a groove 50 mm wide and ca. 100 mm deep. The position of this cutting, along the short side of the stone, differs from the common Assyrian type. The stone is a vesicular basalt bearing straight angles and a trapezoidal section. The front external wear is fine and smooth, while the remaining is roughly pecked. It is dressed with eight deep parallel furrows (a later type of dressing that contrasts with the shallow thin striations typical of the IA period). This quern from Ein Gev resembles the Assyrian upper stones common to Mesopotamia and Syria (although the groove here is parallel to the long side). Another local case of the large, heavy, grooved loaf-shaped upper stone coupled with a rectangular oblong slab was found in levels IA II of Tel Batash.

Otherwise, a Phoenician-type mill with lateral cuttings and grips was found in Sarepta (Pritchard 1978, 88, fig. 73) and Horvat ’Ein Koveshim (Avashalom-Gorni et al. 2004). The first probably dates to the Iron Age, while the second is Hellenistic. Another version with hand-grips to be added to this group is a small grooved upper stone unearthed at Horvat ‘Ein Koveshim.

Querns produced following
an “industrial design”

The narrow loaf-shaped handstones are characterised by pointed or rounded ends intended to facilitate the miller’s grip rendering a more efficient milling. On the other hand, the nonactive edges and base of these slabs were left roughly knapped and pecked (Fig. 8:3). The majority of loaf-shaped upper and lower stones were relatively thick and heavy (excluding those of beachrock from the Area G of Tel Dor). Their thickness was probably intended to prevent breakage. This appears to be case of certain fragmented examples, probably resulting from a reduction of their width due to intensive grinding over a long period (Fig. 8: 5-6). The width of loaf-shaped lower stones changed over time. The Late Bronze Age models were narrower than the later Iron Age I models (Liebowitz 2003, 2008). A similar trend appears at Area G of Tel Dor among the loaf-shaped handstones (28), even though those of the Late Bronze Age could not be measured. Moreover, asymmetric handstones at Tel Dor became more frequent in Iron Age I and then decrease in Iron Age II (Fig. 10). This preliminary observation requires future verification by finds from other areas of Tel Dor and elsewhere.

Grinding stone lifespan
and patterns of use

The traditional lifespan of basalt metate handstones in Baja California and Mayan Guatemala ranges from 15 to 30 years (Aschmann 1949). This information does not appear to apply to calculating the average lifespan of Iron Age querns due to the many factors involved such as the raw material, dressing, manner of use (e.g., adding water while grinding) and grain type (Hayden 1987). The lifespan of stone tools is in fact another subject for future experimental studies in our region (Adams 1999). The data nonetheless contradicts the old view familiar to certain Israeli archaeologists claiming that querns and heavy-duty mortars served long periods. Intensive grinding led querns (and mortars) to taking on a “saddle” shape and their bases were eventually pierced or broken. Furthermore, there is evidence that handstones often break along the middle thicker point when new (Fig. 8.5), possibly due to faults in the rock.

Although dressing (pecking or furrowing) of the working surfaces improved their bite, it also shortened their lifespan. There is, nevertheless, no evidence at Tel Dor or Ein Gev of dressing. It appears that the vesicular basalt slabs coupled with porous or feldspar basalt handstones combined with the downward pressure of the miller sufficed for efficient grinding (Delgado-Raack et al. 2009). If so, the working life of the stones could have been longer as there was no loss due to dressing, even though there are a few examples of exogenous grooved handstones in Iron Age Israel. These include the Assyrian mill (with one local variant) operated with a rod and the Phoenician type with lateral handgrips (Alonso & Frankel 2017, 465). Dressing is visible on 8 to 13% of the slabs of the Iron Age II (10th-9th century BC) site of Tel Rehov (Petit, 2020). The site’s location near basalt outcrops which facilitated their replacement may explain the higher level of dressing.

There is evidence that grinning tool fragments were reused in Israel during the Iron Age II (Fig. 1.8). This observation is based on the many large handstone and slab fragments bearing secondary traces of use-wear at Iron Age Dor and other sites (Eitam, unpublished c). One may speculate that the reuse of fragments was less common in sites near the basalt outcrops such as Tel Rehov and Ein Gev, as opposed to the intensive reuse of local low-quality basalt grinder fragments in El-Ahwat. Thus, it is necessary also to consider such reused fragments when calculating the number of active querns among any stone assemblage as otherwise, the resulting spatial distribution distorts the reconstruction of human activity (Petit 2020, fig. 2; Rosenberg 2009). Although eight of the 19 fragments of Area G of Tel Dor are of a workable size and could have been reused, observing these fragments by the naked eye reveals little evidence of reuse. Only two cases at Ein Gev reveal a use-wear oriented perpendicular to the original traces (see Appendix A: oval slab B6493 and asymmetrical loaf handstone B5179-1, Eitam, in press a). It is possible that the few cases (2 of 9) are linked to the accessibility of basalt and the high economic standards of the site. The same logic appears to motivate the dressing the lower stones. Another example of the reuse of a slab fragment and handstone bears linear striations along the width of its surface varying 90 degrees from the original wear (at times identified by dark-linear marks, Eitam 2019a). These are issues that micro-use-wear analyses could resolve.

Grinding stones in their context

The quantifications of the proportion of querns in household contexts is based on spatial distribution analyses of specific mill types as well as on the seven categories of stone tools listed below. These tools form part of the category “food preparing devices”, along with mortars, massive bowls, pestles and pounders (see Appendix A). The spatial distribution of the seven categories is in line with domestic activities, whereas their ratios can shed light on certain ancient socio-economic aspects. Comparing the distribution of the groups with the spatial distribution of specific querns may shed light on their role among the different food devices and help pinpoint the location of flour making in Iron Age “kitchens”. The more common spatial distribution analyses of individual stone tools appears ineffective, as the individual items do not represent the range of domestic activities in a structure, area, or site. The weakness of this analysis is emphasised by the dull portrait of the daily life of Building 3245 at Megiddo (Rosenberg 2009) compared to a vivid picture obtained by the analysis taking into account the total material record (Gadot & Yasur-Landau 2006).

It is for this reason that the stone tools were organised into the following seven categories:

• food processing tools such as querns, mortars, large pestles, massive bowls, and spheroid pounders;
• craft tools such as abraders, pounders, small pestles, hammerstones, polishers, anvils (Fig. 1: 6) and small cupmarks;
• trade tools such as inscribed, uninscribed and archaic scale weights (Fig. 1: 3- 4; Eitam 2019a), and other stone artefacts, including storage jarcovers;
• personal belongings such as cosmetic palettes, ornaments, cosmetic bowls and rubbing stones (Eitam 2019b: pl. 1. 8-9);
• art and ritual objectssuch as figurines, sculptures, ceremonial objects, and stelae;
• industrial mechanisms suchas olive oil and wine presses, pottery wheels, and net fishing weights;
• service ware such as fine bowls and plates.

The ratios of the different groups can reflect lifestyle and standard of living in a structure, area or site, potentially shedding new light on ancient socio-economic aspects.

Conclusions

Mortars, common tools in the periods preceding the Late Bronze Age, decreased during the Iron Age. This trend may point to an extensive alteration of cereals processing in Iron Age Israel in the form of grinding and groating with querns to produce bread and groats meals, as opposed to crushing/pounding of pigments in mortars. The peeling of glume and husk cereals in mortars was not frequent in Iron Age Israel as most cultivated grains were husk free, while burley was probably consumed as groat meal of dehusked grains as oppose, for example, to the case of ancient Egypt (Eitam et al. 2015). The only Iron Age site with a relatively high quantity of mortars as opposed to querns is Khirbet Qeiyafa (11th-10th century BC). Its assemblage of 174 stone tools comprises around 55 elements of irregular querns hewn from inferior raw materials and 10 of basalt (Cohen-Klonymus 2014). Ten rough conical-concave mortars (about 15 cm in diameter and 20 cm in depth) were carved into the limestone floors of certain dwellings (Fig. 11) (pers. obs., June 2013), while 19 mobile mortars, cupmarks, and pestles were brought to light during the excavations. This untypical phenomenon, the result of limited access to basalt outcrops in eastern and northern Israel, may have stemmed from the political weakness of the newly built city in an early stage of the Judaean kingdom.

Loaf-shaped slabs operating in tandem with small handstones were Israel’s most common type of quern during the Iron Age. This mill was generally associated with the domestic sphere. On the contrary, larger grinding lower stones, frequently placed in a diagonal position and operated with heavy, asymmetric loaf-shaped handstones, were mostly linked to public buildings.

The assemblage of stone tools from Area G at Tel Dor may suggest typological changes during the Iron Age II with the appearance ofa flat, thin rectangular handstones (in both shape and section hewn from dense beachrock. Operating this tool requires less energy than the thick, dense basalt loaf-shaped handstones. This potential technological change occurred alongside the adoption of grooved and hopper mills.

Apart from the small assemblage of grooved mills, an upper stone of this type unearthed at Ein Gev bears a stark resemblance with the upper stone of an Assyrian mill from Tel Tannim in the Galilee (Avshalom-Gorni et al. 2004) and may date to the Iron Age.

Resorting to inferior raw materials at specific sites distant from basalt outcrops suggests poorer conditions stemming from a more meagre economic status (e.g., El-Ahwat) or due to questions of distance such as the case of remote border garrisons of fortified cities such as Khirbet ‘Auja el-Fuqa or the case of the hundreds of olive oil workers of Tel Miqne-Ekron. They initially resorted for these tools to chalk with local flint breccia, while at Ekron they turned to local beachrock. The residents of the upper levels of Ekron, in turn, had access to basalt (Eitam 1986) as did the Dor courthouse inhabitants from the Early Iron Age, an affluent Phoenician city that imported a variety of basalts to fit the specific needs of grinding and pounding tools.

A final note worth highlighting is that querns also took part in cultic rituals by providing flour to bake bread. This role is evidenced by the fact that the querns were intentionally broken into halves and carefully buried in ritual pits, probably avoiding the mandate defined by the sacred tools. These ritual pits were discovered at the foot of a large altar at the Early Iron Age I cultic site of Mount Ebal (Eitam, unpublished b; Zertal 1987).

Acknowledgments

The study of the stone assemblages of El-Akwat, Mount Ebal and Khirbet ‘Auja el-Fuqa’ was carried out in the framework of the Mount Menasha Project, directed by the late Prof. Adam Zertal. I thank Profs. A. Gilboa’, I. Sharon and Zorn, J.R., the excavators of Tel Dor, for the permission to study and publish part of the stone assemblage of area G. Thanks to Prof. David Sugimoto of Kioto University for permitting publishing here part of the Ein Gev stone tools report. Nevertheless, I alone am responsible for any errors in this article. 

---

Bibliography

• Ad, A., S’abd, Al- Salam and Frankel, R. (2005): “Water Mills with Pompeian-Type Millstones at Nahal Tanninim”, Israel Exploration Journal, 55, 156-171.
• Adams, J. L. (1999): “Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding Tools as Correlates for Subsistence Strategies in the US Southwest”. American Antiquity, 64, 475-498.
• Adams, J. L. (2013): Ground Stone Analysis. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
• Adams, W. Y. and Adams, E. W. (1991): Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
• Albright, W. F. (1838): The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol. 2: The Bronze Age. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 17. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.
• Alonso, N. and Frankel, R. (2017): “A Survey of Ancient Grain Milling Systems in the Mediterranean”. Revue archéologique de l’Est, supplément 43, 461-478.
• Amiran, R. (1956): “The Millstone and the Potter’s Wheel”. Eretz-Israel 4 (Ben Zvi volume), 46-49 (in Hebrew).
• Aschmann, H. (1949): “A Metate Maker of Baja, California”. American Anthropologist 51, 682-686.
• Avitzur, S. (1972): Daily Life in Eretz Israel in the XIX Century. Am Hasefer (in Hebrew).
• Avshalom-Gorni, D., Frankel, R. and Getzov, N. (2004): “Grooved Upper Grinding Stones of Saddle Querns in Israel”, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 31, Issue 2, 262-267.
• Baysal, A. and Wright, K. I. (2002): “Analysis of Ground Stone Artefacts from the Excavations of 1995-1999”. Catalhoyuk Website Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2002/ar02_10.html
• Ben-Ami, D. (2005a): “Miscellaneous Small Objects”, in: Ben-Tor, A. Zarzecki-Peleg, A. & Cohen-Anidjar, S. (eds), Yoqneʿam II: The Iron Age and the Persian Period. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977-1988), Qedem Reports 6. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 377-394.
• Ben-Ami, D. (2005b): “Stone Objects”, in: Ben-Tor, A., Ben-Ami, D., Livneh, A. (eds), Yoqneʿam III: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages, Qedem Reports 7. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 363-369.
• Ben-Tor, A. (1987): “The Small Finds,” in: Ben Tor, A, Portugali, Y. (eds), Tel Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Report of the Archaeological Excavations 1975-1977, Qedem 24. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 236-243.
• Bennett, C.-M. and Bienkowski, P. (1995): Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 8, Oxford.
• Bombardieri, L. (2005): “The Millstones and Diffusion of New Grinding Techniques from Assyrian Mesopotamia to the Eastern Mediterranean Basin during the Iron Age”, in: Monozzi, O., Di Marzio, M.L. & Fossataro, D. (eds), Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Chieti, Oxford, 487-494.
• Cato (1936): M. P. Cato, On Agriculture, Chapters I-CLXII, trans. Hooper, W. D. and rev. Ash, H. B. The Loeb Classical Library 283. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
• Childe, V. G. (1943): “Rotary Querns on the Continent and in the Mediterranean Basin”. Antiquity 17, 19-26.
• Cohen Kolonymus, H. (2014): The Iron Age Groundstone Tools Assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Typology, Spatial Analysis and Sociological Aspects. MA Thesis, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Cohen-Weinberger, A. (2001): “The Ground Stone,” in: Mazar A. & Panitz-Cohen, N. (eds), Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE, Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 225-237.
• Dalman, G. (1933): Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Vol. 3: Von der Ernte zum Mehl. Beiträgezur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 2nd series, Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Monographien, 29. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.
• Daviau, P. M. M. (2002): Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, Vol. 2: The Iron Age Artefacts. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 11/2. Leiden: Brill.
• Delgado-Raack, S., Gomez-Gras and D., Risch, R. (2009): “The Mechanical Properties of Macrolithic Artifacts: a Methodological Background of Functional Analysis”, Journal of Archaeological Science, 39, 9, 1823-1831.
• Dubreuil, L. (2002): Etude fonctionnelle des outils de broyage natoufiens: nouvelles perspectives sur l’émergence de l’agriculture au Proche-Orient. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université de Bordeaux 1.
• Dubreuil, L. (2004): “Long-Term Trends in Natufian Subsistence: A Use-Wear Analysis of Ground Stone Tools”. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31, 1613-1629.
• Dubreuil, L. (2008): “Mortar versus grinding slabs function in the context of the Neolithization process in the Near East”, in: L. Longo (ed.) ‘Prehistoric technology’ 40 years later: functional analysis and the Russian legacy: 169-177. Verona: Museo Civico di Verona and Universita degli Studi di Verona.
• Dubreuil, L. and Grosman, L. (2009): “Ochre and Hide-working at a Natufian Burial Place”, Antiquity, 83, 935-954.
• Ebeling J. R. (2012): “Ground Stone Artifacts”, in: Ben-Tor, A., Ben-Ami, D. & Sandhaus, D. (eds), Hazor VI: The 1990-2009 Excavations, The Iron Age, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 542-558.
• Ebeling, J. R. and Rowan, Y. M. (2004): “The Archaeology of the Daily Grind: Ground Stone Tools and Food Production in the Southern Levant”, Near Eastern Archaeology, 67, 108-117.
• Eitam, D. (1980): The Production of Oil and Wine in Mt. Ephraim in the Iron Age. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).
• Eitam, D. (1996): “The Olive Oil Industry at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Late Iron Age”, in: Eitam, D. & Heltzer, M. (eds), Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighboring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period, History of the Ancient Near East Studies 7. Padova: Sargon, 167-196.
• Eitam, D. (unpublished a): “The Ground Stone Tools of El-Ahwat”, University of Haifa.
• Eitam, D. (unpublished b): “The Ground Stone Tools of Mount Ebal”, University of Haifa.
• Eitam, D. (unpublished c): “The Stone Tools of Tel Dor, Area G”.
• Eitam, D. (2005): “The Food Preparation Installations and the Ground Stone Tools”, in: Zertal, A. (ed.), The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, Vol. 4: From Nahal Bezek to the Sartaba, Haifa: Haifa University and the Ministry of Defense (in Hebrew), 648-723.
• Eitam, D. (2007): “The Stone Tools from Khirbet ‘Aujah el-Foqa’”, in: Crawford, S. W., Ben-Tor, A., Dessel, J. P., Dever, W., Mazar, A. & Aviram, J. (eds), Up to the Gates of Ekron: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and Israel, 93-100.
• Eitam, D. (2009a): “Late Epipaleolithic rock-cut installations and ground stone tools in the Southern Levant: Methodology and typology”, Paléorient 31, 77-104.
• Eitam, D. (2009b): “Cereal in the Ghassulian culture in central Israel: grinding installation as a case study”, Israel Exploration Journal 59/1, 63-79.
• Eitam, D. (2013): Archaeo-Industry of the Natufian Culture: Late Epipaleolithic Rock Cut Installations and Ground Stone Tools in the Southern Levant. PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
• Eitam, D., Kislev, M., Karty, A. & Bar-Yosef, O. (2015): “Experimental Barley Flour Production in 12,500-Year-Old Rock-Cut Mortars in Southwestern Asia”. PLoS ONE 10.7: e0133306.
• Eitam, D. and Schoenwetter, J. (2020): Feeding the living, feeding the dead: Natufian low-level food production societies in the Southern Levant (15,000-11,500 Cal BP) Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 50, 44-78.
• Eitam, D. (2019a): “Stone Tools of the Iron Age Ein Gev and their Implication, The Japanese Excavation Project”, in: Squitieri, A. & Eitam, D. (eds), Stone tools in Ancient Near East and Egypt. Ground stone tools and rock-cut installations from Late Epipaleolithic to Late Antiquity (Near Eastern Archaeology 4). Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 278-298.
• Eitam, D. (2019b): “Cuboid-Spheroid Stone Object – an Archaic Scale Weight – Public Weighing-Systems in Iron Age Israel,” in: Squitieri, A. & Eitam, D. (eds), Stone tools in Ancient Near East and Egypt. Ground stone tools and rock-cut installations from Late Epipaleolithic to Late Antiquity (Near Eastern Archaeology 4). Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 179-188.
• Eitam, D. (in press a): “Catalogue of the Stone Tools from Area G”, Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Qedem Reports. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Israel Exploration Society.
• Eitam, D. (in press b): “Chapter IV/1: Stone Tools”, in: Sugimoto, D. T. (ed.), ‘En Gev on the Eastern Shore of the Sea of Galilee: Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1998–2004). Keio University.
• Elliott, C. (1991): “The Ground Stone Industry”, in: Yon, M (ed.), Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI: Art et industries de la pierre, Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations, 9-99
• Frankel, R. (1999): Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and other Mediterranean Countries. JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 10, Sheffield.
• Frankel, R. (2003): “The Olynthus Mill, Its Origin and Diffusion: Typology and Distribution”, American Journal of Archaeology, 107, 1-21.
• Gadot, Y. and Yasur-Landau, A. (2006): “Beyond Finds: Reconstructing Life in the Courtyard Building of Level K-4”, in: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D & Halpern B. (eds), Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons, 2 vols. Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 24. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 583-600.
• Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. & Zorn, J. R. (2014): “An Iron Age I Canaanite/Phoenician Courtyard House at Tel Dor: A Comparative Architectural and Functional Analysis”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 372, 39-80.
• Hayden, B. (1987): “Traditional Metate Manufacturing in Guatemala Using Chipped Stone Tools”, in: Hayden, B (ed.), Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, Tucson: University of Arizona, 8-119.
• Hillman, G. C. (1984): “Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: part I, the glume-wheats”, Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture, I, 131-152.
• Hillman, G. C. (1985): “Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times, part II: the free-threshing wheats”, Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture, II, 1-31.
• Hovers, E. (1996): “The Groundstone Industry”, in: Ariel, D.T. & De Groot, A. (eds), Excavations in the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 4: Various Reports, Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 171-192.
• Kraybill, N. (1977): “Pre-Agricultural Tools for the Preparation of Foods in the Old World”, in: C. A. Reed, (ed.), World Anthropology. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 485-521.
• Lewis, M. J. T. (1997): Millstone and Hammer – The Origin of Water Power, Hull: University of Hull Press.
• Liebowitz, H. A. (2003): Tel Yin’am I: The Late Bronze Age. Excavations at Tel Yin’am, 1975-1989, Studies in Archaeology, 42. Austin: Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin.
• Liebowitz, H. A. (2008): “Wear Patterns on Ground Stone Implements from Tel Yin’am”, in: Rowan, Y. M. & Ebeling, J. R. (eds), New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts London and Oakville: Equinox, 182-195.
• Macalister, R. A. S. (1912): Excavation of Gezer, 1902‒1905 and 1907‒1909, Vol. 1. London: Murray.
• Milevski, I. (1998): “The Ground Stone Tools”, in: Edelstein, G., Milevski, I. & Durant, S. (eds), Villages, Terraces, and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987-1989, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 3. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 182-195.
• Milevski, I. (2019): “The stone tools and vessels from Tel Miqne-Ekron: a report on the Bronze and Iron Ages”, in: Squitieri, A. & Eitam, D. (eds), Stone tools in Ancient Near East and Egypt, Ground stone tools and rock-cut installations from Late Epipaleolithic to Late Antiquity (Near Eastern Archaeology 4). Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 305-344.
• Petit, L. P. (2020): “Chapter 43: The Grinding Stones”, in: Mazar, A. & Panitz Cohen, N. (eds), Excavations at Tel Rehov Vol. V: Various Objects and Natural-Science Studies, Qedem 63. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Pliny (1938-1962): Pliny, Naturalis Historiae, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 37 books in 10 volumes, 1938-1962.
• Postgate, J. N. (1984): “Processing of Cereals in the Cuneiform Record”, Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture, 1, 103-113.
• Pritchard, J. B. (1954): The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton.
• Pritchard, J. B. (1978): Recovering Sarepta. A Phoenician City. Princeton.
• Rosenberg, D. (2009): “Spatial Distribution of Food Processing Activities at Late Iron I Megiddo”, Tel Aviv, 35: 96-113.
• Rosenberg, D. (2013): “The Groundstone Assemblage”, in: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. & Cline, E. H. (eds), Megiddo V, The 2004‒2008 Seasons, Vol. III, Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 31. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 930-976.
• Samuel, D. (1999): “Bread Making and Social Interactions at the Amarna Workmen’s Village. Egypt”, World Archaeology, 31, 121-44.
• Sass, B. (2000): “The Small Finds” in: Finkelstein, I, Ussishkin, D. & Halpern, B. (eds), Megiddo III: The 1992‒1996 Seasons, Vol. 2, Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 18. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 349-428.
• Sass, B. (2004): “Pre-Bronze Age and Bronze Age Artefacts. Section A: Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia”, in: Ussishkin, D. (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), Vol. 3, Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 1405-1524.
• Sass, D.and Cinamon, G. (2006): “The Small Finds”, in: Finkelstein, I, Ussishkin, D. & Halpern, B., (eds), Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons, Vol. 1. Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 24. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 353-436.
• Sass, B. and Ussishkin, D. (2004): “Iron Age and Post-Iron Age Artefacts. Section A: Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia”, in: Ussishkin, D. (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973‒1994), Vol. 4, Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 1983-2057.
• Segev, A. and Sass, E. (2009): The Geology of the Carmel Region. Albian-Turonian volcano–sedimentary cycles on the Northwestern Edge of the Arabian Platform. Report GSI/7/2009. Jerusalem: The Geological Survey of Israel. (in Hebrew).
• Squitieri, A. and Eitam, D. (eds) (2019): Stone tools in Ancient Near East and Egypt ground stone tools and rock-cut installations from Late Epipaleolithic to Late Antiquity, (Near Eastern Archaeology, 4). Oxford, Archaeopress Archaeology.
• Sugimoto, D.T. (2015): “History and Nature of Iron Age Cities in the Northeastern Sea of Galilee Region: A Preliminary Overview”, Orient, 50, 91-108.
• Stroulia, A. Dubreuil, L., Robitaille, J., Nelson, K. (2017): “Salt, Sand, and Saddles: Exploring an Intriguing Work Face Configuration among Grinding Tools”, Ethnoarchaeology, DOI: 10.1080/19442890.2017.1364053.
• Tooley, A. M. J. (1995): Egyptian Models and Scenes, Shire Egyptology, 22, Princes Risborough: Shire.
• Turkowski, L. (1996): “Peasant Agriculture in the Judean Hills”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 101, 101-13.
• Varro, M. T. (1936): On Agriculture, Books I-III, trans. Hooper, W. D. and rev. Ash, H. B. The Loeb Classical Library 283. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
• Wilson, H. (1988): “Egyptian Food and Drink”, Shire Egyptology, 9. Princes Risborough: Shire.
• Wright, K., (1991): “The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in late Pleistocene southwest Asia”, Paléorient, 17(1), 19-45.
• Wright, K. (1992): “A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant”, Paléorient 18.2, 53-81.
• Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. and Perrot, J. (1958): Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Jerusalem: Magnes.
• Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I., Perrot, J. (1960): Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Magnes.
• Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, M., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I., Perrot, J. (1961): Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957-1958, Plates. Jerusalem: Magnes.
• Yadin, Y., Geva, S. (1986): Investigations at Tel Beth-Shean: The Early Iron Age Strata, Qedem, 23. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Yahalom-Mack, N. (2006): “Groundstone Industry”, in: Panitz-Cohen, N. & Mazar, A. (eds), Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE, Qedem, 45. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 267-274.
• Yahalom-Mack, N. (2007): “The Groundstone Tools and Objects”, in: Mazar, A. & Mullins, R. A. (eds), Excavations at Tel Beth Shean 1989‒1996, Vol. 2, The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R., Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 626-638.
• Yahalom-Mack, N., Mazar, A. (2007): “Various Finds from the Iron Age II Strata in Areas P and S”, in: Mazar, A. (ed.), Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989‒1996, Vol. 1, From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University in Jerusalem, 468-504.
• Zertal, A. (1987): “An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 1982-1987”, Tel Aviv, 14-14 (2), 105-160.

Appendix A

Locus

Basket

Stratum

Description

Interior measure

Working face section

Exterior measure

Preservation

Rock formation

Figure3

Notes

Type

Sub-type

Upper axis 1

Upper axis 2

Length

Lower wear

Longwise section

Lateral section

1 Axis

Axis 2

Length

Weight

Tel

Dor

area

G

9025

90985

1a

Grinding slab

complete

Basalt

Stone not found

9037

90543

1

Grinding slab

loaf

coarse abraded

S concave

S convex

120

58

Porous basalt

Heavy

9249

92633

1b

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

convex

S convex

240(300)

110

40

Porous basalt

Symmetric

9298

96447

5 / 6 ?

Grinding slab

Not identical

concave

concave

fragment

Basalt

St not found

9305

92732

6a

Grinding slab

slab

V fine abraded

S concave

S concave

71

55

29

fragment

Feldspar basalt

Symmetric

9328

9?952

6a

Handstone

rectangular

fine abraded

De concave

De concave

-110

93

50

Feldspar basalt

9380

93779

7

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded&smooth end

S convex

S convex

165(240)

150

51

Porous basalt

Symmetric

9390

937790

0

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

S convex

convex

175(250)

100

30

Porous basalt

Symmetric

9472

94413

2 b

Grinding slab

loaf

fine abraded

V S concave

V S concave

320

137

48

375

Porous Basalt

9515

182865

1

Handstone

loaf

coarse abraded

S convex

S convex

123(190)

86

45

Porous basalt

Ass-L  section

9607

96543

Clean locus

HS oval

150

98

44

Calcareous flint

9631

96178

5 ?

Handstone

loaf ?

V fine abraded

convex

concave

120

66

38

fragment

Vesicular basalt

St not found

9651

90796

4

Handstone

oval

coarse abraded

S convex

flat

270

175

62

complete

Vesicular basalt

Fig. 6:1

Symmetric

9671

96985

6

Grinding slab

loaf

fine abraded

S concave

S convex

130(330)

150

49

Porous basalt

Symmetric

9679

96718

Grinding slab

slab

V fine abraded

S concave

flat

400

86

66

300

Feldspar basalt

9679

96782 / 2

6a

Grinding slab

slab

X fine abraded

350

240

62,5

280

Feldspar basalt

Thick

9679

96985

6a

Grinding slab

slab

V fine abraded

flat

flat

145(400)

80

62

35

Porous basalt

9679

96782

6a

Handstone

V fine abraded

convex

350

240

62,5

250

Feldspar basalt

Asymmetric

9679

96782 / 1

6a

Handstone

loaf / abrader/ grinding slab

carved

concave

concave

260

120

96

fragment

Hard limestone

R-concave

9679

96782 / 3

6a

Handstone

irregular

fine carved

S concave

S concave

-140

65

47,5

fragment

Kurkar

9684

97785

5 ? 6-9

Grinding slab

loaf

160

76

36

fragment

Soft limestone

Reused handstone ?

9684

97785

5 ? 6-9

Grinding slab

loaf

160

76

36

fragment

Soft limestone

Reused handstone ?

9691

96797

Clean locus

Handstone

loaf

V fine abraded

flat

flat

120(250)

110

45

Porous basalt

Asymmetric

9703

?

7 d

Grinding slab

slab

fine abraded

concave

flat

253(320)

245

43

250

9712

97005

5 / 6a?

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

V S convex

S convex

70(200)

87

34

Vesicular basalt

Asymmetric

9722

97086

6 b

Handstone

loaf/ Symmetric

fine abraded

De concave

flat

230

87

50

Porous basalt

smoothed by hands

9733

97140

Clean locus

Grinding slab

loaf

fine abraded

S concave

flat

244(350)

125

42

Porous basalt

flat bottom

9788

87873/1

4/5!

Grinding slab

loaf

concave

flat or S convex

110(350)

140

36

Basalt

Symmetric

9788

97873/2

5/4!

Handstone

oval

fine abraded

flat

fault

110(160)

90

45

130

Porous basalt

Asymmetric /

9796

98064

4/5?

Grinding slab

slab

fine abraded

concave

S convex

250(300)

140

60

Porous basalt

9798

98068

5

Grinding slab

slab

V fine abraded

S concave

fault

150(270)

85

34

250

Porous basalt

9798

98259/1

5?

Handstone

loaf

coarse abraded&fine abraded

concave

S convex

170(280)

135

30

fragment

Beachrock

Fig. 6:6

Asymmetric tool with shells.

9819

98276

7a

Handstone

oval

fine abraded

flat

flat

289

139

44

Hard limestone

Fig. 6:3

Oval

9814

7a

Handstone

loaf / Grinding slab

fine abraded

flat

S convex

100(180)

95

55

fragment

Porous basalt

Symmetric

9816

99035

7

Grinding slab

slab or irregular loaf

fine abraded

S concave

flat

250

175

98,5

fragment

Porous basalt

9816

99080

7

Grinding slab

slab

abraded

S concave

Plato

110(400)

940

55

300

Vesicular basalt

9816

99235

7

Grinding slab

slab

fine abraded

flat

S convex

353

385

53

386

Feldspar basalt

9850

98527

7a/6

Handstone

oval

fine abraded

S convex

S convex

100(170)

90

47

Porous basalt

9874

98654

7a?/6?

Grinding slab

slab

150(350)

90

44

300

Basalt

9894

98938

7 ?/6?

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

flat

concave

120

78

36

vesicular basalt

St not found

9895

99319

7 ?/6?

Handstone

loaf ?

V fine abraded-L fine abraded-Midd coarse abraded-L

concave

S concave

fragment

Vesicular basalt

St not found

9903

99570

8

Grinding slab

slab or oval

fine abraded

flat

flat

250

102,5

49

fragment

Feldspar basalt

Well  eroded

9932

99579

6a

Grinding slab

slab

?

convex

230

132

34

170

Limestone

9937

99571/1

7

Grinding slab

slab or  oval

fine abraded

concave

flat

230(240)

155

48

200

fragment

Porous basalt

Point end

9937

99738

7

Grinding slab?

fine abraded

Irr flat

Irr flat

-350

119

39

fragment

basalt

9937

99571

7

Grinding slab

Non identical

fine abraded

flat

flat

48

33

20

Feldspar basalt

Pointed edge in T-sec

9945

99552

7

Grinding slab

loaf

fine abraded

S convex

S convex

225(300)

114

48

Porous basalt

Convex sec due to crispy Nat

9949

99666

7

Handstone

loaf

V fine abraded

convex

convex

180

82

48

Vesicular basalt

9950

99689 / 1

7

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded & coarse abraded

S convex

S concave

200

99

50

Vesicular basalt

9950

99689 / 2

7

Handstone

loaf

fine&coarse abraded

V S concave

V S concave

160

900

50

Feldspar basalt

Asymmetric T-sec

9950

99693

7

Handstone

loaf/ symmetrical

fine abraded

S convex

S convex

80(250)

87

50

Vesicular basalt

for better hold

9963

181704

7

Handstone

oval

fine abraded

S convex

flat

220

128

101

Feldspar basalt

Asymmetric T-sec

9982

181516

9

Grinding slab

slab  or oval / Grinding slab

abraded

flat

S convex

300

103

47

280

fragment

Porous basalt

Thick

9985

160070

9

Handstone

loaf/ Grinding slab

slab

fine abraded

flat

S convex

180

82

56,5

86

fragment

Vesicular Basalt

Asymmetric T-sec

9986

160026

6 b

Grinding slab

slab  / slab ?

V fine abraded/coarse abraded

V S concave

flat

440(460)

270

41

280

fragment

Porous basalt

9987

160058

7

Handstone

loaf / Grinding slab

fine abraded

S concave

flat

280

92

55

fragment

Porous basalt

Reused

9994

160145

7

Grinding slab

slab

fine abraded

S concave

flat

350

105

36

350

Feldspar basalt

18005

180032

6

handstone

loaf

No use-wear

flat

flat

200

126,5

80

fragment

Kurkar

Fig. 6:5

Not used tool.

18058

181326

9 or 8?

Grinding slab

slab

fine abraded

S concave

V S convex

400

81

56

300

Vesicular basalt

18058

181310

9

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

flat/S convex ends

S convex

475

102

65,5

complete

Basalt

Fig. 6:4

Very long loaf handstone, probably overlap slab width.

18058

181309

9 or 8?

Handstone

oval ?

fine abraded

flat

S convex

fragment

Feldspar basalt

In Museum

18069

181031

9

abrader

Non identical

84

66

41

fragment

Feldspar basalt

Burned St

18074

181075

6    b

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded/  coarse abraded

flat

flat

120(220)

110

84

fragment

Porous basalt

half tool

18074

181074

6 b

Handstone

HS Sm

fine abraded

flat

flat

82

44

34

Soft limestone

Fig. 5:2

18086

181295

10 b -10c?

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

flat

flat

113(220)

102

60

Vesicular basalt

Asymmetric T-sec

18090

181399

9

Grinding slab

Not identical

fine abraded

S convex

S convex

Soft limestone

St not found

18221

181550 / 1

10 a

Grinding slab?

300

240

40

250

fragment

Soft limestone

Reused

18221

181550 / 2

10 a

Grinding slab

slab  / abrader slab

300

240

40

250

Hard limestone

Top and front- pecked& abraded

18221

181551

10 a

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

flat

flat

104(230)

105

48

Porous basalt

Asymmetric T-sec

18223

182667

6 a/5?

Handstone

loaf / Grinding slab

V fine abraded

flat

flat

119(200)

88

47

fragment

Porous basalt

Reused

18229

186021

10

Grinding slab

Not identical

fragment

Hard limestone

St not found

18240

18?670

9

Grinding slab

Not identical

fragment

Hard limestone

18241

181702 / 1

9

Grinding slab

slab or oval

245

119

63

160

fragment

Hard limestone

18241

181702 / 2

9

Grinding slab

slab

350

163

54

200

Hard limestone

18241

181709

9

Handstone

loaf

345

96

65

Calcareous flint

Fig. 6:2

Industrial design

18252

181743

10

Grinding slab

slab

fine abraded

S concave

flat

140(280)

106

33

190

Vesicular Basalt

18313

184017

10 b -10c?

Handstone

loaf symmetrical

polish

convex

flat

56

56

38

Beachrock ?

Pebble

18316

183796

10 b

Grinding slab

Not identical/ palette?

fine abraded

convex/concave

convex/concave

65(130)

62

32

Feldspar basalt

bifacial tool

18322

18?818

10

Grinding slab

oval symmetrical

polish

S convex

S convex

230

93

45

190

fragment

Porous basalt

18322

10c

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

flat

flat

68(220)

90

44

120

fragment

Feldspar basalt

18323

183981

10

Grinding slab

Not identical

shine

flat

flat

fragment

Limestone

St not found

18331

184284

10

Handstone

loaf

polish

S convex

S convex

220

105

51

Basalt

18333

181588

10 c

Handstone

loaf / Grinding slab

polish

Irr

Irr

250

184

43

fragment

Basalt

Reused

18334

184136

11 / 10c

Grinding slab

Grinding slab

fine abraded

S convex

flat

86

58

39

fragment

Basalt

18334

184129

11 / 10c

Grinding slab

Not identical / handstone/ abrader

77

50

25

fragment

limestone

Fig. 5:1

Symmetric

18335

184321

10 c

Handstone

oval

polish+linear striae

flat

flat

110

63

32

Feldspar basalt

18339

184233

9

Grinding slab

loaf

polish

flat

Flat (F)

290

85

5

Soft limestone

18339

184232

9

Handstone

loaf

polish

flat

flat

300

120

88

Hard limestone

Fine abraded on L

18344

184091

10

Handstone

HS loaf / abraded slab

polish

S convex

S convex

200

121

68

fragment

Basalt

Reused

18350

184562

11 / 10c

Grinding slab

Not identical

fine abraded

flat

flat

75

42

fragment

Hard limestone

18355

182199

10 c

Handstone

loaf

coarse abraded

flat

S convex

48(280)

112

60

Porous basalt

Asymmetric T-sec

18364

181514

7

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

flat

flat

Feldspar basalt

St not found

18370

185121

9

Grinding slab

slab or oval

concave

S concave – due to change direction in 2nd use

112(300)

137

61

210

fragment

Porous basalt

Reused

18374

185164

10 c

Grinding slab

Not identical

fragment

Limestone

St not found

18374

185265 / 2

10 c

Handstone

loaf

long carried

70

50

Basalt

St not found

18378

185239

11

Handstone

loaf?

fragment

Basalt

St not found

18392

185446

12a

Handstone

loaf

Basalt

St not found

18411

185977

11 b

Grinding slab

slab ?/ not identical

91

85

fragment

Basalt

Reused

18443

186292

11

Grinding slab

slab or oval

V smooth

300(350)

170

39

205

fragment

Porous basalt

18455

186813

11 b

Grinding slab

loaf

fine abraded

V S concave

flat

205(300)

129

53

Feldspar basalt

18496

187140

11

Grinding slab

slab or oval

200

106,5

39

130

fragment

Basalt

Thin tool

18518

187279

9 b

Grinding slab

loaf

350

99

49

Feldspar basalt

Curved striae along axle

18564

188335

8

Handstone

loaf

coarse abraded/fine abraded

flat

flat

94(170)

69

45

Feldspar basalt

Asymmetric T-sec

18564

1883345

8 c

Handstone

loaf

flat

flat

170

64

44

69

Basalt

for better hold

18570

188445

9

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded

flat

S convex

300

87

53

Porous basalt

Asymmetric T-sec

18570

188440

9

Handstone

oval / handstone

130

88

52

fragment

Basalt

Pec on breaks

?

181099

Grinding slab

slab

290

140

41

220

Basalt?

fine abraded on T

?

92327

Handstone

loaf

fine abraded+V fine abraded

flat

flat

150(300)

115

41

Porous basalt

Asymmetric

18 0/2 32

184198

9

Handstone

loaf

Vesicular basalt

St not found

9049 ?

90403 or 9 ?

1 b?

Grinding slab

Not identical

fragment

Basalt

St not found

9561 ?

94697?

1?

Handstone

loaf symmetrical

fine abraded

concave

concave

120

76

36,5

83

Flint pebble

Multi-facial

974/16

98032

2 ?

Grinding slab

slab

240

155

41

190

Limestone

97503 ?

70392?

Clean locus

Handstone

disc

fine abraded

S convex

flat

122

120

50

Beachrock

Bifacial tool

AI/32

181515

9 /

Grinding slab

loaf ?

339

142

82

fragment

Basalt

St not found

W9909

186023

09-oct

Grinding slab

loaf

268

99

54

Basalt

Asymmetric T-sec

7514

baulk

Grinding slab

slab ?

Feldspar basalt

St not found

6 b

Grinding slab

loaf

330

112

55

Beachrock

Simm

182300

Grinding slab

loaf

fine abraded

flat

flat

160

88

32

basalt

St not found

184607 / 2

Grinding slab

loaf

fine abraded

concave

concave

236

108

55

Feldspar basalt ?

St not found

181809

Grinding slab

loaf/ handstone

168

118

69

fragment

Vesicular basalt

St not found

185801

11 a ?

Grinding slab

Non identical

fragment

Basalt

St not found

181546

Grinding slab

Non identical

fragment

basalt

St not found

181999

Grinding slab

Non identical

hand shine

fragment

Limestone

St not found

En

Gev

Kioto

Excavations

Locus

Basket

Stratum

Description

Interior measure

Working face section

Exterior measure

Preservation

Rock formation

Notes

Type

Sub-type

Upper axis 1

Upper axis 2

Length

Lower wear

Longwise section

Lateral section

1 Axis

Axis 2

Length

Weight

564

5179-1

KIVa

Handstone

Asymmetrical loaf

fine abraded

flat

very slightly convex

167

132,00

51,00

1479

workable fragment

porous basalt

Fine abraded work-face patch only on left front; reuse of fragment.

577

5243

KIVb

Handstone

Small

fine abraded

flat

slightly convex

96

74

37

641

workable fragment

porous basalt

Probably a fragment of an oval-shape small handstone (possibly trapezoid).

587

5267

KIVb

Grinding slab

rectangular profile

fine abrader

flat

flat

204

159

61

2000

small fragment

basalt

Description based on original drawing.

587

5289

KIVb

Grinding slab

Asymmetrical loaf

fine abraded

flat

107

100

45

workable fragment

porous basalt

Fig. 7:2

Description based on original drawing.

640

6128

surface

Unfinished tool

Handstone, small, oval

coarse abraded

sightly convex

157

138

57

1357

large fragment

porous basalt

Fig. 7.1

Coarse work-face and unfinished shape hint that the tool was not used.

647

6137

KIII

Handstone

Symmetrical loaf

fine abraded

very slightly convex

205,00

147,00

64

2000

workable fragment

basalt

Description based on original drawing.

663

6308

KIV

Handstone

Asymmetrical loaf

153

55

fine abraded

flat

slightly convex

153

113

66

1350

small fragment

porous basalt

Back: fine abraded shined patches (possibly due to palm holding of handstone); front: fine abraded left use-face.

663

6309

KIV

Grinding slab

rectangular profile

coarse, fine abraded

flat

flat

195,00

150,00

70,00

small fragment

vesicular basalt

663

6342

KIV

Handstone

Asymmetrical loaf

fine abraded

very slightly convex

138

114

50

1148

small fragment

basalt

Estimated weight of complete; description  base on drawing.

676

6343

surface

Quern

Round, shallow

335

328

27

abraded

very slightly concave

586,00

550,00

79

complete

limestone

Unmodified irregular round, squashed pebble; description based on original drawing.

703

6417-2

KIV

Grinding slab

Trapeze profile

slightly concave

slightly concave

151

130

78

large fragment

vesicular basalt

Description based on original drawing.

703

6432

KIV

Grinding slab

Irregular oval, reuse

fine abraded

slightly concave

very slightly concave

260

190

100

fragment

vesicular basalt

Reuse of large slab along lateral axis, perpendicular to original use.

711

6337

KII

Handstone

Asymmetrical loaf

fine abraded

very slightly convex

flat

252,00

135,00

83

fragment

basalt

Fig. 7:3

Irregular triangular lateral profile.

723

6372

KIV

Grinding slab

Trapezoid loaf

fine abraded

slightly concave

363,00

115,00

70

complete

porous basalt

Fig. 7: 4

The only complete grinding mill in the assemblage.

744

6493

KII

Grinding slab

Oval, reused

fine abraded

slightly concave

flat

381

328

108

workable fragment

basalt

Fig. 7: 5

Work-face on back ends 30 ahead left edge; probable reuse.

744

6495

KII

Grinding slab

Symmetrical loaf

fine abraded

slightly concave

very slightly concave

240

143

58

workable fragment

vesicular basalt

Lateral section very slightly concave, not like in drawing.

744

6476

KII

Handstone

Symmetrical loaf

fine abraded

slightly convex

flat

175

124

47

1514

workable fragment

basalt

Estimated weight of complete GST 3 kg.

744

6498

KII

Handstone

Symmetrical loaf

fine abraded

slightly convex

flat

187

131

64

1867

workable fragment

porous basalt

Estimated weight of complete handstone 3.5 kg, fits grinding on large slab (public device?).

747

6490

KIV

Grinding slab

Trapeze profile

fine abraded

slightly convex

flat

352

343

180

workable fragment

vesicular basalt

Work-face end 90 ahead of back-edge evident by pecked & coarse abraded stripe on front.

166

1206

KI

Grinding slab

Oval

220

200

fine abraded

flat

227

203

53

complete

basalt

Fig. 7: 6

171

1216

KII

Grinding slab

slab

225

165

abraded

flat

177

152

87

2000

small fragment

porous basalt

Fig. 7: 7

Japanese

Mission

Excavations

401

1320

Groove handstone

square/ trapezoid

smooth

flat

very slightly convex

193

118

63

almost complete

vesicular basalt

Fig. 7:8

In soil deposit with Hellenistic pottery; Assyrian type B

Khirbet

Auja

el-Fuqa

Locus

Basket

Stratum

Description

Interior measure

Working face section

Exterior measure

Preservation

Rock formation

Notes

Type

Sub-type

Upper axis 1

Upper axis 2

Length

Lower wear

Longwise section

Lateral section

1 Axis

Axis 2

Length

Weight

Surface

Grinding slab

loaf

concave

125

<130>

57,00

Limestone

Asymmetric

Surface

Grinding slab

concave

concave

60

55

85

small fragment

sandstone

Surface

Grinding slab

slab

concave

concave

180 (280)

-175

190

fragment

Breccia

Fig. 2:1

Rectangular, rounded

Surface

Grinding slab

Loaf

flat

flat

-270

-123

-55

almost complete

Limestone

Fig. 2:2

Asymmetric

Surface

Handstone

small oval

concave

concave

60(130)

(100.00

-30

fragment

Feldspar basalt

Fig. 2:4

Lens, asymmetrical/ bifacial

Surface

Grinding slab

Loaf

concave

concave

220(250)

((153)

-57

almost complete

Limestone

Convex, symmetrical

Surface

Grinding slab

Loaf

concave

concave

110(200)

(135)

-57

fragment

Gray basalt

Lens

Surface

Grinding slab

oval

concave

flat

225(300)

-180

-110

fragment

Convex, beveled

Surface

Grinding slab

oval

137(230)

-130

-40

fragment

Limestone

Convex, arc

Surface

Handstone

small oval

concave

concave

113(140)

-90

-29

fragment

Hard sandstone

Lens/ bifacial

Surface

Grinding slab

flat

flat

12,00

50,00

85,00

fragment

Hard sandstone

Surface

Grinding slab

slab?

concave

concave

140

110

-70

fragment

Vesicular basalt

Surface

Grinding slab

oval

concave

convex

180(280)

-175

-90

fragment

Breccia

Rectangular, rounded

Surface

Grinding slab

Loaf

concave

flat

-225

-130

-460

fragment

Limestone

Lens rectangular

Surface

Grinding slab

slab

concave

flat

170(370)

225(300)

<(105)

fragment

Basalt

Fig. 2:1

Ridge on end

Surface

Grinding slab

Loaf

concave

convex

150 (220)

-133

-840

fragment

Limestone

Convex, asymmetrical

Surface

Grinding slab

nodule

concave

concave

(270)

(180)

<100>

fragment

Breccia

Irregular rectangle

Surface

Grinding slab

oval

concave

flat

58(300)

-178

-98

fragment

Breccia

rectangular, convex

Surface

Grinding slab

slab

flat

flat

200

150

45

fragment

Flint breccia

Flat

Surface

Grinding slab

Loaf

concave

convex

200(<220)

(<120)

-57

fragment

Limestone

Convex, symmetrical

Surface

Handstone

small rectangular

concave

concave

(<-275>)

-156

-95

almost complete

Flint breccia

Fig. 2:2

Convex, rectangular, asymmetrical

Notes

1. Many are of Cypriot origin and possibly brought to Tel Dor by ship as ballast and unloaded to make space for local cargo (Eitam unpublished c; Gilboa’, Sharon & Zorn 2014).
2. It seems that some type of material was placed under the narrow slab to collect the flour. Moreover, although the term “saddle quern” is still common among archaeologists, it is misleading as the concave “saddle” form results from intensive, prolonged use of a slab initially with a flat grinding surface.
3. The upper stones with lateral grips with a concave longitudinal section and a convex longitudinal section coupled with convex slabs (Stroulia et al. 2017, 9, fig. 6) common to Greece during the Neolithic and to the Western Mediterranean and Egypt in the Iron Age is unknown in Israel.
4. Other researchers have come to the same incorrect interpretation (Milevski 2019, pl. 4.4, pl. 5.2, pl. 3, pl. 17.1; Sass 2000, fig. 12.4: 3 [Early Bronze period], fig. 12.5:4, fig. 12.6:3, fig. 12.8:3; Sass & Cinamon 2006, fig. 18.8:107, 111, 117, fig. 18.10:138, 154; Ben-Ami 2005b, fig. V.6:2 [very likely a drawing error] 4, 5; Ben-Ami 2005a, fig. III.19:10; Bennet & Bienkowski 1995, fig. 9.2:5; Yadin & Geva 1986,fig. 38:12, fig. 39:1, 8, 9).
5. Unfortunately, relatively few archaeologists have adopted the criteria of Elliott (1991) and Wright (1992) in defining lower and upper stones (slabs and handstones). Wright (1992) and Hovers (1996) based on the concavity of the lower and convexity of the handstone working faces stem from simple measurements. Yahalom-Mark’s criterion is based on the incorrect assumption that the handstone is 50% narrower than its lower counterpart. This is disproved even among her assemblage where the width of one lower stone is equal to that of an upper one (Yahalom-Mark 2007, 651; Yahalom-Mark & Mazar 2006, 487; see fig. 13.6:3 compared to fig. 13.6:2).