From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the Decline of Chipped Stone Tool Production. A Case Study from the Southern Levant (5th–1st Millennia BCE)

Abstract

The shift from stone to metal has been considered one of the main technological transformations in the history of humankind. In order to observe the dynamics underlying the disappearance of chipped stone tools and their replacement with metal implements, we adopt an approach which combines two different levels of analysis. At the first, by focusing on the Southern Levant as a case study, we consider the developmental forces internal to the technology itself and the conditions favorable to the invention, spread, continuation, or disappearance of technical traits. At the second, by considering specific historical scenarios, we test the existence of general principles which guide technological changes. Flint knapping and metallurgy, and notably their relationship, are particularly appropriate to observe regularities which operate at different scales, the first one within the developmental lines of objects, techniques and technologies, and the second one within the conditions of actualization of technological facts. On the one hand, following the “rules” of technical tendencies, a techno-logic perspective allows observation of how metal cutting objects, overcoming the “limits” of knapping technology, represent the logical development of flint tools. On the other hand, the analysis of the socioeconomic contexts in which chipped stone tools were produced permits identification of regularities which conditioned changes in lithic production systems, their decline, and the final replacement with metal tools.

Full text

From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change
in the Decline of Chipped Stone Tool Production. A Case
Study from the Southern Levant (5th–1st Millennia BCE)
Francesca Manclossi
1
&Steven A. Rosen
2
&Eric Boëda
3
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
The shift from stone to metal has been considered one of the main technological
transformations in the history of humankind. In order to observe the dynamics under-
lying the disappearance of chipped stone tools and their replacement with metal
implements, we adopt an approach which combines two different levels of analysis.
At the first, by focusing on the Southern Levant as a case study, we consider the
developmental forces internal to the technology itself and the conditions favorable to
the invention, spread, continuation, or disappearance of technical traits. At the second,
by considering specific historical scenarios, we test the existence of general principles
which guide technological changes. Flint knapping and metallurgy, and notably their
relationship, are particularly appropriate to observe regularities which operate at dif-
ferent scales, the first one within the developmental lines of objects, techniques and
technologies, and the second one within the conditions of actualization of technological
facts. On the one hand, following the “rules”of technical tendencies, a techno-logic
perspective allows observation of how metal cutting objects, overcoming the “limits”of
knapping technology, represent the logical development of flint tools. On the other
hand, the analysis of the socioeconomic contexts in which chipped stone tools were
produced permits identification of regularities which conditioned changes in lithic
production systems, their decline, and the final replacement with metal tools.
Keywords Technological c hange .Technological development .Evolutionary forces .
Lithics .Flint .Metal .Levant
Journal of Archaeo logical Method and Theory
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09412-2
*Francesca Manclossi
francesca.manclossi@gmail.com
Steven A. Rosen
rosen@bgu.ac.il
Eric Boëda
boeda.eric@gmail.com
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

Introduction
Influenced by modern emphases on ideas of progress (e.g., Marx 1987), it is often
assumed that later-developing forms of technology are necessarily superior to previous
ones and that the replacement of “old-fashioned”objects by newer ones is the result of
obvious, if not necessarily linear, processes. Although this deterministic vision of
technological change has been deeply criticized (e.g., Guchet 2005), the advantages
between technological alternatives, usually perceived in term of effectiveness, are
largely considered as the main criteria for explaining technological change (e.g.,
Bamforth 1986; Bleed 1986;Haydenet al.1996;Jeske1992; Praciunas 2007;
Torrence 1989). Historical narratives, however, have shown that sequences of techno-
logical changes are not so obvious.
Inspired by anthropological and sociological studies, numerous researches have
observed the intervention of many factors which do not necessarily refer to the
techno-economic domain (e.g., Godelier 2000; Lemonnier 2010) but vary according
to the socioeconomic and cultural contexts within which technological changes oc-
curred and new technologies developed (e.g., Akrich 1989; Collin and Latour 1981).
These studies consider the social and historical contingencies within which certain
objects are retained and others rejected, and how one technology rises against another
(e.g., Bijker et al.1989;Callon1989;Dosi1982; Latour 1992;Lemonnier1993;
Mackenzie and Wajcman 1985). It is not possible to understand a technology without
the social (in the broadest sense including economic, political, cultural, ideological
aspects, etc.) and historical particularities which orient and determine its development
(Bensaude-Vincent 1998). The success or failure of a technology is a social fact
(Cresswell 2003), and technological changes can only be explained by actors’roles
in specific socioeconomic and cultural realities (Basalla 1998). Chronological se-
quences of objects show great variability of trajectories and situations; the histories
of technological change are not linear, predictable, or determined.
By way of example, electric- and gasoline-powered combustion engine cars,
invented at the same time, show different histories connected primarily to specific
social, economic, and political factors (for similar examples, see also O’Brien and
Bentley 2011; Schiffer et al.1994). Electric and gasoline carriages appeared in mid-
nineteenth century and developed until the invention of the first gasoline combustion
engine car in 1886 by K. Benz and the creation of the first electric car in 1891 by W.
Morris. At the turn of the twentieth century, the number of electric vehicles was almost
a third of the automobiles, which included both steam- and gasoline-driven vehicles
(Georgano 1990). Although electrically powered cars were a popular method of
propulsion, their common use did not last long. If the range of gasoline-powered
vehicles, easily refueled, partially justified their success, it was the development of
their mass production, and especially the introduction of the Ford Model T (which cost
half of the price of contemporary electric cars due to the moving assembly line), which
sealed the decline of electric vehicles (Hounshell 1984). Although they never complete-
ly disappeared, automobile markets were dominated by gasoline-powered cars which
spread all over the world (Kay 1998). The increasing utilization of gasoline cars cannot
be disconnected from economic aspects, such as the creation of factories, roads, gas
stations, and fuel acquisition-distribution systems, as well as the construction of a
specific cultural world where the automobile played an important role not only for its
Manclossi et al.

practical use but also for its social meaning (Setright 2004). The development of this
socio-technical system, to the exclusion of alternative systems, has also been closely
connected to other economic, ideological, and geopolitical aspects, such as the control
and exploitation of oilfields, with major impact on government strategies and policies
(Bresnahan 1987;Douglas1996). In this regard, it is interesting to observe that after the
shock of the oil embargo in 1973, interest in alternate power systems, such as electric
engines, emerged again. The lessened availability of gasoline, its cost and accessibility,
and the political involvement of states and nations as well pushed automobile industries
to adopt other types of energy and incentivized technological research (Roby 2006).
More recently, and especially after the Tokyo Protocol in 1997, interest in global
pollution has resulted in increasing efforts to reduce gas emissions and has stimulated
the adoption of other kinds of engines, such as the electric one (Durand 2009). These
elements, not necessarily related, indicate that factors such as the automobile price, the
cost and availability of gasoline or electricity, car autonomy, and range are only some of
the criteria which, along with environmental evaluations and ideological perceptions,
influence both individual choices and institutional strategies (Eckermann 2001).
Given the uniqueness of historical contingencies conditioning the narratives of
technological change, different theoretical and methodological approaches have been
developed for analyzing and understanding technological changes. Recognizing that
variations in material culture are conditioned by a number of contextual factors and
different agencies, descriptive grids have been suggested, such as those used by the
behavioral archaeology analyzing the mechanisms and processes of invention, adop-
tion, and selection in specific contexts (for a synthesis, see Schiffer 2011). Given the
variety and complexity of interactions between people and technology, behavioral
archaeology focuses on changing selective conditions (Schiffer 1996). Cultural changes
depend on compromises between performance characteristics, that is, the formal
properties of objects/technologies in relation to specific activities, and other interactions
influenced by lifeways and social organizations (e.g., Kameda and Nakanishi 2002;
Schiffer 1990,2007; Schiffer and Skibo 1987). Cultural selection is not the only
approach for analyzing technological changes, and other evolutionary frameworks have
been developed. Darwinian archaeologists have elaborated quantitative models (e.g.,
Lipo et al.2006) to describe and explain the mechanisms of cultural transmission and
its effects on the variability of cultural traits (e.g., O’Brien and Shennan 2010).
Historical sequences of objects are analyzed as lineages of descendent with modifica-
tions (Lyman and O’Brien 1998; Shennan 2011). Explanations of continuity and
discontinuity are related to the mechanisms which generate variation (e.g., Eerkens
and Lipo 2005; Lyman and O’Brien 2000), to their mode of transmission (e.g., Bentley
and Shennan 2003; Feldman et al.1996), and to the selection of variants, which drive
much evolutionary process and serve as testable explanations of change (e.g., Bentley
et al.2004;MesoudiandO’Brien 2008a,b;O’Brien and Holland 1990).
In order to study technological changes, we adopt another perspective which
combines two different levels of analysis. The first one considers the developmental
forces internal to the technology itself, while the second one refers to the conditions
favorable to the invention, spread, continuation, or disappearance of technical traits.
Starting from the assumption that technological changes are, by definition, particular
historical scenarios (Gallay 1986), our aim is to highlight regularities which, although
they occur and act in the course of the history, might represent “evolutionary laws”.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

The Techno-Logic Approach
The first approach, called here techno-logic (Boëda 2013), considers the logical order
of development of objects, techniques, and technologies and refers to general tenden-
cies (Leroi-Gourhan 1943). From this perspective, it is possible to recognize an order in
technological development which, independently of historical narratives, reflects reg-
ularities or “law”(e.g., Château 2010; Ellul 1977; Gille 1978;Lafitte1972). Each
object has sense according to its position within technological or “genealogical”paths
in relation to what precedes and follows it (Deforge 1985; Simondon 1989). Here, we
must introduce two concepts, the “developmental line”and the “development cycle.”
Described in evolutionary terms by Simondon (1989) and Deforge (1985) who first
defined them, we prefer not to use their terms “lineage”and “evolutionary cycle”in
order to differentiate them by the concepts used to characterize cultural filiations in
other evolutionary approach (e.g., Barton and Clark 1997;O’Brien and Lyman 2000).
Within a techno-logic perspective, the development of objects and techniques is not
analyzed by using morphological or typological affinities as proxies (as in Darwinian
archaeology) but on their “internal technological structure”(see below). Moreover,
their logical sequences, which do not necessarily follow historical trajectories, are not
the result of selection or other external factors but follow their own internal coherence
which defines the potentials and possibilities of change (Guchet 2005,2008;Deforge
1985; Simondon 1989; see also Boëda 1997,2005,2013).
Objects/techniques that share the same function and the same principle of operation
are comparable and define a “developmental line”(Deforge 1985,p.72).Withineach
developmental line, the concept of “development cycle”describes how objects/
techniques follow one another (Simondon 1989, pp. 20, 40). Every object/technique
is perceived in structural terms as a system composed of different elements/operations
which, all together, permit it to function. Throughout a development cycle, the degree
of synergy between these components changes following a sequence which consists of
increasing integration fed by additive elements. There is a logical order which reflects
different levels of structural organization. Objects/techniques logically develop from a
state where the components are first juxtaposed to a state where these components are
related and cannot be separated from each other, given their interaction in a synergetic
fashion. Following this perspective, the dynamics of change are conditioned by the
structure of the technical milieu and so, by some inherent capacity for transformation.
For each line of objects/techniques, at every stage of development, there is a latent
potential for change related to the possible combinations between structural compo-
nents. If we consider the case of the bicycle, for example, we can recognize a logical
development which, from the first specimens composed of two wheels connected to a
wooden frame and activated by the thrust of the feet, through the invention of pedals
which powered the front wheel, finally culminates with the chain and gears which,
integrated with both the wheels and the pedals, allow a synergy between all the
elements (Fig. 1). The sequence of developmental stages can theoretically continue
until the “endpoint”of its potential, after which the structure of the objects/techniques
cannot change. When the integration between the elements composing an object/
technique reaches a perfect synergy, the structure cannot be modified anymore, and
the development cycle is completed. Nevertheless, introducing new functioning prin-
ciples, technical development can continue with new developmental lines and new
Manclossi et al.

development cycles. Taking up the previous example, the logical development of the
bicycle reaches a stage of “pause”in its sequence with the system composed of chain
and gears. In order to better adequate the bicycle with specific functions, minor
adjustments (Simondon 1989, p. 39), that is, improvements, can also be made; thus,
lighter materials can be used for racing bicycles or larger wheels can be adopted for
mountain bikes. However, only a new principle of function permits continuation of
technical development, as shown by the introduction of the engine in electric bicycles
which originates a new developmental line.
The recognition of a logical path in technological development does not mean that
these changes are predetermined and inevitable, nor that they are the same everywhere,
but indicates a theoretical sequence. This structural approach permits definition of a
framework within which technological choices can be made. There are external factors
or “needs”(i.e., social, political, economic, environmental, etc.) that act on techno-
historical trajectories. Thus, different developmental lines and development cycles can
coexist in the same historical context, some lines can disappear while others remain, or
some technical solutions, which previously had disappeared or were abandoned, can
reemerge (Deforge 1985).
The Actualizing Conditions of Technological Change
The second approach focuses on the external factors which condition technological
changes. By analyzing specific historical scenarios, we focus on the socioeconomic
processes which permit actualization of technological facts. We intend to highlight
what might reflect cross-cultural regularities (Gallay 1986).
Empirical observations of anthropological and archaeological case-studies have
shown the existence of recurrent patterns relating to the conditions favorable to the
innovation, adoption, diffusion, conservation, or disappearance of technical traits (e.g.,
Gallay 2011;Gelbert2003;Gosselain2000,2008,2010;Roux2013,2015a;Rouxand
Courty 2013). According to these studies, the analysis of the context of craft
Fig. 1 The techno-logic approach. Within each developmental line, technological changes are conditioned by
the structural characteristics of the technical milieu. Objects logically develop through an increasing synergy
between their components, theoretically until the “endpoint”of their potential
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

production, that is, its organization, and modes of transmission allows identification of
the regularities which operate as “evolutionary forces”(Roux 2007a,p.167).Techno-
logical changes are dynamic phenomena (Roux 2003) for which direct comparisons are
not possible because each historical scenario has its own particularities. However, by
focusing on the structure of the production systems (i.e., domestic versus specialized,
attached versus independent artisans, etc.), it is possible to recognize the regularities
underlying technological change. By way of example, innovations are often associated
with periods of new sociopolitical formations, and new technologies may be actualized
not for their techno-economic advantages but for symbolic/social reasons (e.g.,
Cresswell 1994,1996; Roux et al.2013). The fragility of technological systems, related
to the size of networks in which they are transmitted, conditions the processes of
continuity/discontinuity during changes of sociopolitical structures (e.g., Roux 2007b);
rapid and radical changes in technological and economic systems are often related to
the expansion of one social group to the detriment of another (e.g., Roux 2013). Given
the limited number of studies that analyzes these regularities (the actualizing contexts),
our study intends to test previously defined regularities with new historical scenarios.
The Decline of Stone Tools and the Replacement by Metals: a Case
Study of Technological Change
The transition from stone to metal implements is traditionally considered as one of the
major technological changes in the history of humankind. Nevertheless, there are few
studies dealing with the relationship between the decline of lithics and the development
of metallurgy (e.g., Rosen 1984,1996,1997; beyond the Near East, see Bailly 2009;
Edmonds 1995; Eriksen 2010; Ford et al.1984;Runnels1982; Young and Humphrey
1999). In the study of the shift from stone to metal, the general indifference to late lithic
industries and the idea that the stone-metal replacement was a self-evident and auto-
matic process (e.g., Childe 1951) explain why the main focus has been on the new
materials and technologies. The emergence and development of metallurgy have
always been more attractive, and lithic production systems were usually neglected,
considered relicts of prehistoric traditions.
However, metallurgy appeared, developed, and was adopted into a pre-existing
technical system. The fact that flint tools disappeared, apparently in favor of metal
objects, suggests a correlation between the decline of one technology and the devel-
opment of the other. For a long time, archaeologists believed thatthe decline of chipped
stone tools and their replacement with metals was automatic and implicitly explained
by the greater efficiency of metal (e.g., Forbes 1971). But archaeological record shows
great variability, and the modalities of substitution were not always the same. The
replacement of stone by metals can be recognized by comparing these two “cutting-
edge”technologies, analyzing one in relation with the other. In this regard, a compar-
ison of these technological systems can offer new insights and suggests new perspec-
tives of analysis.
In the Near East, and especially in the Southern Levant, the transition from the
use of stone to metal has been tackled by considering metals as a privileged subject
(e.g., Golden 2010;Heskel1983; Ilan and Sebbane 1989;McNutt1990;Muhly
1982a;Rowlands1971). However, the development of analyses of chipped stone
Manclossi et al.

tools of the Age of Metals has shown potentials not only for the characterization of
those societies producing and using flint tools (e.g., Caneva 1993; Coqueugniot
2006;Edens1999;Hartenbergeret al.2000;Hermon2008;Manclossiet al.2016,
2018;Perrot1952;Pollock2008;Rosen1997; Shimelmitz and Zuckerman 2014;
and beyond the Near East: van Gijn 1988; Högberg 2009; Humphrey 2004;
Kardulias 2003;Lechet al.2015; McLaren 2008) but, above all, to tackle the issue
of technological change, notably the abandonment of chipped stone tools and their
replacement by metal(s).
In the Southern Levant, after a long period of technological overlap, metallurgy
became dominant and chipped stone essentially disappeared; however, this was not a
sudden change but occurred over a long period of almost four millennia, from the
Chalcolithic (late 5th millennium BCE) to the Iron Age (early 1st millennium BCE).
The decline of flint has been mainly measured in terms of quantitative decline,
typological or functional restriction, and an increase in expedient production and ad
hoc use (Rosen 1996). But measuring decline is not automatically understanding the
mechanisms of decline, a long and complex process showing different trajectories and
rhythms. The description and analysis of lithic transformations, following a diachronic
study over the long term and observing the contemporaneous changes in metallurgy,
permit us to observe how they changed, evolved, remained stable, or declined, one in
relation to the other. These elements are indispensable in order to understand techno-
logical changes during one of the key moments in the history of technological
development, the transition from the Stone Age to the Metal Ages.
In order to highlight the conditions underlying the disappearance of chipped
stone tools and their replacement with metal implements, we apply the two ap-
proaches previously described. Flint knapping and metallurgy, and notably their
relationship, are particularly appropriate to observe regularities which operate at
different scales, the first one within the developmental lines of objects, techniques
and technologies, and the second one within the social conditions of actualization of
technological facts. On the one hand, following the “rules”of technical tendencies,
the techno-logic perspective permits observation of how metal cutting objects,
overcoming the “limits”of knapping technology, represent the logical development
of flint tools. On the other hand, the analysis of the socioeconomic contexts in
which chipped stone tools were produced allows identification of regularities which
conditioned changes in lithic production systems, their decline, and the final
replacement with metal tools.
Methodology
The basis of our study is the technological approach developed in France, which
combines the technical actions and activities implied in the production of tools with
their organization in terms of socioeconomic systems (Inizan et al.1995). However,
according tothe dual perspective adopted, the criteria considered vary. In the case of the
techno-logic approach, the analysis is focused on the internal technical constraints
characterizing knapping technologies and tools manufacture, while the reconstruction
of the actualizing conditions of technical change is based on the socioeconomic
contexts of production and on the modalities of transmission.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

The Structural Analysis
As all other objects/techniques, chipped stone artifacts and knapping technologies can
be analyzed in structural terms (i.e., the techno-logic approach previously defined).
According to their own developmental line, the integration of the elements/operations
composing each object/technique allows identification of their developmental stages
and thus, of their position within their own development cycles. Following the studies
of E. Boëda and his team, lithic industries can be divided into two main lines of objects:
the cores (i.e., the production systems including the by-products of reduction) and the
tools, each one offering independent insights on developmental paths (e.g., Boëda
1988,1997,2001,2005,2013;Boëdaet al.2013; Bonilauri 2010;Chevrier2012;Da
Costa 2017; De Weyer 2016; Frick and Herkert 2014;Li2011; Lourdeau 2010;
Manclossi 2016; Pagli 2013;Rocca2013;Roccaet al.2016;Soriano2000).
The intent is not to present an exhaustive study of all developmental lines and
development cycles of knapping technologies and chipped stone tools, but to focus on
the examples which can better show the “endpoint”of the potentials of the flint system.
By considering its “limits,”we are able to place the metal implements within the
developmental line of cutting-edge tools and to show how metallurgy triggers a new
development cycle.
The Lithic Production System
In the study of lithic production systems, two main developmental lines can be
recognized by considering the knapping concepts which differ for their function and
functioning: the procurement of a tool from a block of flint in the case of the façonnage
and the procurement of blanks from a core in the case of the débitage. Within this last
conception, it is possible to distinguish different developmental lines according to the
target products which can be obtained: flakes, blades, and bladelets.
The structural approach analyzes the modalities defining the technical criteria of
tools manufacture (in the case of the façonnage) and blank production (in the case of
débitage). For each developmental line, the relationship between the effects of each
removal and the criteria permitting the continuation of the reduction sequence allows
characterization and definition of the structure of the production system, that is, the
level of integration between the elements allowing the débitage itself. They change
according to the volumetric exploitation of the cores, the criteria permitting the control
of blank morphometric characters, and the modalities allowing blank detachment.
Using these elements, and considering their degree of synergy, it is possible to
recognize different developmental stages. Thus, the structural analysis of the débitage
considers the target products (i.e., their qualitative and quantitative characters), how the
technical criteria necessary to obtain them are created and maintained during the
reduction sequence, and what is their reciprocal relationship. If the goal of the
production is to obtain blanks transformable into tools, the débitage is possible only
if the core accords with the technical requirements specific to the débitage itself (i.e.,
lateral and distal convexities, guide-ridges, angle between the striking platform and the
knapping surface, etc.).
Previous researches have shown the existence of a logical sequence of development
from the line of the façonnage to the débitage of flake, to the débitage of blades (for a
Manclossi et al.

synthesis, see Boëda 2013). In attempting to analyze the relationship between lithics and
metals, it is this last line, and specifically its latest developmental stage, which proves to be
the most relevant to show the “endpoint”of the potential of the lithic production system.
The Stone Tools
The structural approach considers chipped stone tools beyond a typological classifica-
tion. It does not consider the specific functions of the tools but focuses on the
relationship between the technical characters which make them functional (i.e., the
cutting-edge, the hafted part, etc.) and the modalities used to create them (Boëda 1997,
2001,2013; Lepot 1993). As for the production systems, the structural analysis of tools
places them within their own developmental lines, observing the specifics of their
developmental stages. According to the role that lithic artifacts occupy in the construc-
tion of the objects, their “functioning mode”(Boëda 2013,p.91),itispossibleto
distinguish two main developmental lines: (1) the objects “directly”gripped, where the
hand-held stone artifact coincides with the tool en toto and (2) the objects “indirectly”
gripped, where the hafted stone artifact no longer represents the entire tool, but only a
part, usually the working edge.
Considering the degree of integration between the technical features which characterize
chipped stone tools (i.e., the morphology of the blank, the delineation of the edges, their
section and angle, etc.) and the modalities used for their manufacture (i.e., directly from the
reduction sequence, the retouch, etc.), for each line, it is possible to recognize a sequence of
developmental stages. Previous researches have shown the existence of a logical sequence
from the line of hand-held tools to that of hafted artifacts (for a synthesis, see Boëda 2013)
and, although in historical contexts, different development cycles and developmental lines
can coexist, in our study, we focus on the line of the hafted tools, which is the most
pertinent to show the “endpoint”of the chipped stone tools.
The Comparison Between Lithic and Metal
Flint knapping and metallurgy can be perceived as opposing technical systems, the one
replaced by the other. However, in order to pursue the idea of “competing technolo-
gies,”it is necessary to identify the properties permitting their comparison. Following a
techno-logic perspective, lithic and metal tools are placed within the same develop-
mental line because, despite the exploitation of different materials, their function as
cutting-edge tools is the same. Although stone and metal can be used for other types of
objects clearly produced without this intent (e.g., the zoomorphic Egyptian figurines
made on flint (Holmes 1992) or the Ghassulian copper crowns and scepters (Bar-Adon
1980), both produced during the 5th–4th millennia BCE), and despite different specific
actions (i.e., cutting, trimming, slicing, chopping, scraping, piecing, etc.), it is this
“cutting-edge”character which permits a technical comparison and which allows us to
analyze them together.
1
1
The invention of metallurgy is not the subject of this paper. However, it is important to stress that their
cutting-edge properties were not discovered with the first manipulation of metals, mainly used for the
production of beads and pendants (e.g., Birch et al. 2013), but were exploited only after the development
of smelting, melting, and casting. At the beginning of its history, metallurgy was not comparable with the lithic
system, and their “antagonism”emerged only after a functional convergence.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

However, the comparison between lithic and metal systems is justified only if we
consider the tools (i.e., their structural analysis) because the mechanical principles
which characterize their production systems (i.e., the conchoidal fracture in the case
of flint knapping and the processes of melting/casting-molding/forging in the case
of the metals) are not comparable. This means that if the metal tools can be placed
within the same developmental line of those made of flint, in the case of the
production systems, there is a clear break, a change which determines a new
development cycle. But, by recognizing the existence of links between the tools
and their production systems (Boëda 1997), the comparison between the structure
of lithic and metal implements will permit the reconstruction of the stages of this
logical development.
The Chaîne Opératoire
The study of the socioeconomic contexts of lithic industries is based on the concept of
chaîne opératoire (Lemonnier 1976; Leroi-Gourhan 1964), which considers the
methods and techniques implied in the production process and tool manufacture, the
knowledge and skills required in knapping procedures, and the spatial and temporal
organization of technical activities (Inizan et al.1995;Karlinet al.1991; Pelegrin et al.
1988). Beyond typological classifications and morphometric tool variations, in our
analysis, we use knapping methods (i.e., the intentional process which refers to the
organization of lithic reduction) and techniques (i.e., the execution modalities of the
flaking) as the main criteria for recognizing different technical systems which coexisted
and changed through time.
The reconstruction of the contexts of craft production and transmission is based on
the combination of the analysis of the knowledge and skill implied in chipped stone
tool production systems, their “technical level”(Pelegrin 1991,2007), with that of the
organization of the production. By considering the relations between the natural
resources, the needs for finished products, and the technical possibilities (i.e., the
procurement or raw materials, the reduction sequence, the operations used to modify
the blanks into finished elements, the processes of tool manufacture and maintenance,
etc.), each lithic industry is contextualized in wider scenarios. Qualitative characters
(i.e., knapping technology), quantitative evaluations (i.e., intensity of production), and
spatial data (i.e., distribution of artifacts) are used to identify different socioeconomic
contexts: domestic or specialized production systems (e.g., Allard and Burnez-Lanotte
2012; Astruc 2005;Astrucet al.2006; Binder and Perlès 1990;Brunet al.2006;Hirth
2009;Perlès1991,1992,2009) and different forms of specialization (e.g., Brumfiel and
Earle 1987; Clark and Perry 1990; Costin 1991,2001).
The Stone-Metal Replacement
The analysis of the historical processes of substitution which occurred during the
transition from the use of flint to the metals requires some preliminary observations:
1. Metallurgy was not invented and did not develop as an alternative to the lithic
system. If these technologies are considered as competing, their competition
emerged only after a functional convergence.
Manclossi et al.

2. The intrinsic properties of metals are significantly different from those of flint, and
they played an important role both in the manufacture and use of cutting imple-
ments. However, the idea that metals implements were more efficiently used than
those made of flint is not always true. This depends on the metal (i.e., copper,
bronze, iron) and on the specific activities involved (i.e., chopping, cutting,
reaping, etc.). Equally, advantages (in terms of relationship between costs and
benefits) during the manufacturing processes are related to a multitude of factors
which consider both the specificities of the raw materials (e.g., the differences
between the casting of bronze and the forging of iron) and the socioeconomic
contexts.
3. The skills, knowledge, and abilities required for the production of metals and the
manufacture of metal implements are not comparable with those of flint knapping.
Evaluations of the technical level can be made within the same technical domain
(i.e., in all technical systems, there are simpler and more complex techniques and
methods, technologies that can be easily learnt, and others that require longer
apprenticeship), but they cannot be applied to technologies referring to different
crafts (see also Rosen 1993).
4. The chaîne opératoire of metal working is generally longer than that of flint
knapping, and it can be schematically divided in two different, although comple-
mentary, technical systems, the production of metal (i.e., melting, smelting,
alloying, etc.) and the manufacture of objects (i.e., casting, forging, hammering,
etc.). The sequence of technical actions necessary for the production of metal
objects, thus, is usually more articulated in time and space, and it can involve a
large number of participants. As for other craft production, however, the socioeco-
nomic contexts of production can vary and actually changed through time.
In our analysis focused on the stone-metal replacement, we consider the processes of
change as evident in the disappearance of specific lithic production systems. This
means that we do not directly focus on the development of metallurgy, but on the
effects that the availability of metals and metal implements had on the lithics. Each
lithic industry (defined on the basis of its knapping technology and target products) is
individually considered in order to observe if and how its decline is related to the
introduction of specific metal and tool types. However, given the diversity of the
chaînes opératoires between stone and metal production systems, the incompatibility
of technical levels, and the impossibility of directly comparing them, our analysis
considers their socioeconomic contexts in the broadest sense. Thus, our analysis of the
disappearance of flint tools focuses on the conditions for the substitution of one
socioeconomic system by another one.
Body of Data
Lithic industries during the Age of Metals can be divided in three principal chrono-
logical groups: (1) the Chalcolithic Period (ca.4500–3900/3800 BCE), (2) the Early
Bronze Age (ca. 3900/3800–2000/1900 BCE), and (3) the post-Early Bronze Age,
Middle Bronze Age through the early stages of the Iron Age (ca. 2000/1900–980/
940 BCE). According to their techno-typological characters, chipped stone tool
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

productions can be divided into five different main industries: the bifacial tools, the
bladelets, the tabular scrapers, a blade-oriented production mainly used for the manu-
facture of sickle blades, and a flake-oriented production of ad hoc tools (Rosen 1989).
Through time, these industries remained stable or changed at different rates, and if
some production systems well coincided with specific chronological horizons, to the
point that they can be considered as type fossils, others did not follow the same
chronological periodization. In our analysis, we do not consider in details the disap-
pearance of bladelets and tabular scrapers, neither of which can be directly associated
with the development of metallurgy (Rosen 1996). We focus on the bifacial tools, on
the blade-oriented production systems, and on the flake-oriented ad hoc industry which
each shows some interaction with metal implements.
Bifacial Tools This group is composed of tools defined as axes, adzes, and chisels on the
basis of their morphology and metric aspects. Despite different morphometric characters,
these tools share the same knapping procedures of manufacture, and they were produced
by façonnage. Relatively common in all the Chalcolithic sites (Hermon 2008), they often
had polished edges that were re-sharpened during use, by removing the damaged and/or
blunt extremities (Barkai 1999). According to some use-wear analyses, they were used
for tree-felling and wood working (Yerkes and Barkai 2004), although other functions
cannot be ruled out (Rosen 1997, p. 97). Known since the Natufian, in the Southern
Levant, they disappeared at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age(Rosen 1997, p. 157).
Blade Tools The production of blades mainly used for the manufacture of composite
sickles is one of the diagnostic lithic industries of the Age of Metals (Rosen 1982,
1997). According to their morphological and technological characters, it is possible to
distinguish three main production systems (Fig. 2).
Chalcolithic blades were knapped using the direct percussion with organic hammerstone,
for the most part on cobble and nodule cores (Davidzon and Gilead 2009). The blanks were
transformed into standardized sickle elements (ca. 2–4 cm long; 0.8–1.2 cm large; 0.5 cm
wide) through two principal operations; truncations shortened the blades and regulated their
extremities, while backing reduced their width and created an abrupt edge necessary for
hafting (Vardi and Gilead 2011). Then, these elements were inserted lengthwise into a
handle in order to create a continuous, long, composite blade. Flint teeth were fixed with
bitumen, re-sharpened to a minor degree in the haft, and substituted with others when the
working edge was no longer useable and became too blunt (Vardi and Gilead 2013).
At the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age, Chalcolithic blades were replaced
by a new large blade technology, the Canaanean blades (e.g., Rosen 1983,1997).
Observations of morphometric parameters and technical attributes indicate the use of
the lever-pressure technique for the removal of these blades from the cores (Manclossi
et al.2016). Once knapped, Canaanean blades were snapped with a controlled and
intentional breakage and/or truncated. Length varied considerably without any sign of
standardization (from 2–4cmto10–12 cm), as this was determined according to the
position of segments in curved hafts (e.g., Fischer 2008, p. 184). Their use was
prolonged first by re-sharpening the working edge and then by reversing the blades
in the haft, as the elements with two glossy edges suggest.
At the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, Canaanean blades were replaced by a
new type of sickle blade, the large geometrics (e.g., Rosen 1997). These elements were
Manclossi et al.

manufactured from relatively large blade-flake blanks, produced by direct percussion
using hard hammers. These blanks were fashioned into sickle elements through abrupt
retouch which gave them the final shape and size varying according to their position into
the haft (Coqueugniot 1991; Mozel 1983). The truncations reduced and regularized their
extremities, guaranteeing the perfect joint between the continuous pieces of composite
sickles. The treatment of the side opposite the working edge, the back, was more varied
because its nature (cortical, natural, retouched, etc.) was not so determinant in the hafting
process (Manclossi et al.2018). Deeply inserted in a layer of plaster, which immobilized
the flint teeth and was more than a simple glue, the working edges of these elements
(which were not reversible) were re-sharpened though repeated cycles of retouch, and
when re-sharpening was no longer possible, they were replaced with new pieces.
Flake Tools During the Age of Metals, lithic industries were dominated by a flake-
oriented production of ad hoc tools (e.g., Rosen 1997) which show little techno-
typological variation through time (Fig. 3). Although simple, the ad hoc tools com-
prised a coherent industry resulting from basic knapping strategies based on a few rules
and simple flaking schemes (Manclossi and Rosen 2019a). Without any specific
preparation and using direct percussion with hard hammers, this production system
was characterized by short sequences of flakes showing a large range of shapes and
sizes, all useable as tools. Among the retouched flakes (which generally show simple
retouch varying in delineation, extent, distribution, and position), only a small percent-
age can be defined using typological lists as notches, crude scrapers, drills, borers, or
denticulates. Generally, the retouch did not significantly modify the original blanks, and
Fig. 2 Sickle blade production systems (not in scale). (The photo of the Chalcolithic blade core is a courtesy
of I. Gilead [Gilead et al.2010;Fig.5], the photo of the Chalcolithic sickle blade is a courtesy of J. Vardi
[Vardi 2011, p. 383], the photo of the Canaanean core is a courtesy of P. Jacobs [Lahav Research Project])
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

it was present on the more suitable edges which required little transformation
(Manclossi 2016). The high percentage of flakes without intentional retouch might
also indicate that this unretouched group composed the majority of flakes effectively
used. Retouch was probably not the first intent of the knappers, and flakes were
retouched only when necessary to create suitable edges which were not produced
during the detachment of the blanks. The low incidence of re-sharpening retouch seems
to indicate that these tools, after their utilization, were quickly discarded.
Metal Tools In the Southern Levant, the first metal cutting tools appeared during the
Chalcolithic when they seem to have comprised only a small proportion of copper
objects; the majority of which were related to cult (e.g., Golden 2010; Levy and Shalev
1989;Moorey1988). The “utilitarian”tools were piercing instruments (i.e., awls, drills,
etc.) and other tools belonging to the family of axes and chisels, both reproducing
chipped stone tools which already existed in flint. Through the millennia, from the
Chalcolithic to the beginning of the Iron Age, these objects followed different trajec-
tories of development. If we consider the metals exploited for their manufacture, it is
possible to recognize a sequence which, in general, characterized all cutting tool types,
first copper, then bronze, and finally iron/steel.
2
If we consider the morphological
aspect of these tools, instead, it is possible to discern two different paths. On the one
Fig. 3 Flake-oriented production of ad hoc tools
2
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age cutting tools wereusually madeof pure copper (e.g., Shalev 1991,1994;
but for arsenic/antimony alloyed-copper tools, see, e.g., Maddin et al. 2003; Nadmar et al. 2004); bronze
(copper/tin) tools appeared at the end the 3rd millennium BCE (e.g., Richard 2006) and became dominant
during the Middle Bronze Age (e.g., Philip 1991; Philip et al.2003;Shalev2009); iron/steel substituted the
bronze implements at the beginning of the Iron Age (e.g., Bauvais 2008; Stech-Wheeler et al. 1981; Yahalom-
Mack and Eliyahu-Behar 2015).
Manclossi et al.

hand, some tools, such as the awls, did not display any transformation and their
morpho-technical characters were maintained unchanged over long period (e.g.,
Chambon 1984; Ilan and Sebbane 1989;Khalil1980). On the other hand, other objects,
such as the axes and adzes, showed morphological and typological variations which
can be used to recognize different chronological periods (e.g., Miron 1992;Philip
1989).
But metal cutting tools (Fig. 4) were also and mostly characterized by new objects
which did not have any lithic antecedents. They appear during the 3rd millennium BCE
(Early Bronze Age), and through time, they showed important morphological, typo-
logical, and stylistic variations (e.g., Gernez 2007,2008; Philip 1989; Shalev 2004).
These objects, commonly called spearheads, daggers, swords, knives, battle-axes, saws,
etc., did not have clear flint parallels (for a synthesis of all metal cutting tools, see
Manclossi 2016). The only exceptions were the iron sickles which replaced the flint
equivalents by the end of the 10th–9th centuries BCE.
Results
According to the approach we used here, the analysis of late lithic industries and their
relationship to the development of metallurgy allows us to outline different processes.
On the one hand, the techno-logic analysis identifies the “limits”(or “endpoints”)ofthe
lithic system and its logical relationship to the production of metal cutting tools. On the
other hand, the socioeconomic contexts of different production systems, each one
placed in a diachronic perspective, permit us to explain continuity or discontinuity
through time, allowing identification of the conditions underlying technological
change.
The Techno-Logic Approach
The logical development of knapping technologies and cutting-edge implements per-
mits differentiation of two main paths which, although related, respectively concern the
production systems and the tools.
The Lithic Production System
Within the developmental line of the débitage of blades, the latest stage is represented
by reduction characterized by the lever-pressure technique, as well shown by the
Canaanean blade system (Manclossi 2016). If we consider the volumetric exploitation
of the cores, the criteria permitting the control of blank morphometric characters, and
the modalities allowing blade detachment, we can recognize a perfect synergy between
the various components of the production system. After the creation of the technical
characters necessary for the detachment of the first blades, each blade is not only the
objective of the production (i.e., the target blanks) but also an element which acts on the
entire system, simultaneously contributing to the maintenance and the continuation of
the reduction itself (Fig. 5). This structural configuration is not a trait which character-
izes only the débitage using the pressure technique (e.g., a similar exploitation is
recognizable also on the Chalcolithic blade cores), but the use of this knapping
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

technique allows continuous reduction without other adjustments. On the one hand, the
order and the rhythm of detachments guarantee the complete volumetric exploitation of
the cores without the need to recreate specific configurations (as for example, in the
case of the Chalcolithic blade technology or in the large geometric production system).
On the other hand, the lever-pressure technique permits detachment of regular blades
Fig. 4 Metal cutting-edge tools and implements from the Southern Levant. On the top, metal tools with flint
antecedents, on the bottom implements without stone parallels (not in scale)
Manclossi et al.

from orthogonal striking platforms and plain knapping surfaces and, differently from
other flaking techniques, it does not require other forms of preparation (e.g.,beyondthe
initial core preparation, core-trimming-elements are extremely rare, and they are not
structurally necessary for the success of the reduction sequence).
From this perspective, the function of the core is accomplished (i.e., the mass
production of standardized blades) and the use of the pressure-technique reflects a sort
of hyper-specialization of the débitage itself. As well shown with the Canaanean blade
system, the production of blades reaches a state of “saturation”which does not permit
modification; once the production sequence is initiated, it is not possible to produce
other types of blanks. Between all the components of the débitage, there is a sort of
autoregulation which guarantees the functioning of a closed system. For example, if
knapping mistakes occurred (e.g., the detachment of hinged blades), the cores were
often abandoned; a reconfiguration permitting reconstruction of the technical criteria
necessary for the débitage is not inscribed in the structure of the cores. With the lever-
pressure technique, the development cycle of the débitage of blades is completed. At
this point, the knapping structure is perfectly integrated, and further developmental
stages are not possible within the parameters of the technology as it was available.
Nevertheless, as a knapping conception, its “limits”must be researched in the technical
requirements of the tools which represent the other pole of the same phenomenon.
The Stone Tools
The latest stage in the logical development of composite tools is represented by
“multiple composite tools”(Boëda 2013, p. 214) and, specifically, by tools with a
continuous working edge, as well shown by the use of flint blades as sickle elements.
Fig. 5 The pressure technique is the latest stage in the developmental line of the débitage of blades. Once the
criteria allowing the beginning of the production are created (e.g., lateral and distal convexities, guide-ridges,
angle between the striking platform and the knapping surface), the reduction sequence effectively can continue
until the exhaustion of the raw material without the necessity of other operations. Each blade represents both
the goal of the production and the element which permits the functioning of the reduction process. (The photo
of the refitted pressure-blade core is a courtesy of J. Pelegrin, Technothéque de l’UMR 7055)
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

This tool conception is an independent developmental line originating from that of
simple “composite tools,”and is characterized by a higher structural integration
between all the components (Manclossi 2016). In the construction of composite tools,
the lithic artifact simply interacts with a “holder”(e.g., haft, handle); in the construction
of multiple composite tools, instead, each lithic piece, representing only one element of
the working edge, is integrated both with the holder (e.g., the frame within with the
stone pieces are fixed) and with the other lithic artifacts which, juxtaposed, create the
continuous working edge. Despite different technologies and type artifacts (e.g.,the
techno-morphological features of flint sickle blades), the construction of multiple
composite tools represents the outcome of the potential of chipped stone tools, the
“endpoint”of their development cycle. However, it is important to make some remarks.
1. In the developmental line of multiple composite tools, considering the degree of
integration between the technical features of chipped stone artifacts and the
modalities used to obtain them, it is possible to recognize different developmental
stages. Thus, the Chalcolithic sickle elements are quite integrated within their
reduction sequence because the target blanks maintain their configuration and are
little modified by truncations and backing. The Canaanean sickle segments, in-
stead, are better integrated because all the technical features demanded for their use
are directly produced during their reduction and, with the exception of an inten-
tional segmentation, no other modifications are necessary. The large geometric
elements, instead, are the less integrated within their lithic reduction sequence as
shown by the modifications, truncations, and backing, which significantly trans-
form the original blanks (Fig. 6).
2. The developmental stage of lithic artifacts does not necessarily coincide with the
developmental stage of the multiple composite tools. Thus, sickles made with large
geometric elements are more integrated than those made by Canaanean blades,
although large geometric segment production is less integrated than the Canaanean
blade system (Fig. 7). Even though in both the cases chipped stone segments are
used to create continuous and curved working edges, the rectangular shape of the
Canaanean blades permits only partial contact between contiguous elements which
are simply juxtaposed at one corner of their extremities. The truncations of the
large geometric elements, instead, allow perfect joints between the pieces, and the
composite blade does not present any empty space. That is, the development of the
multiple composite tools does not necessarily follow the development of specific
lithic production systems. The example of the Canaanean blade and large geomet-
ric elements well shows that, faced with the impossibility of adapting a given
production system to new requirements (e.g., the creation of large pieces having
perfect joints at their extremities), the return to a less integrated lithic system (e.g.,
from the Canaanean blade lever-pressure system to the débitage of large geometric
elements) may be the only possible technical solution (Manclossi 2016).
3. Technical features required by multiple composite tools, that is, a continuous and
long working edge, cannot always be directly obtained from the lithics themselves.
Particularly, flint knapping is not able to provide blades that are increasingly long,
wide, or even curved. The longest blades found in the Southern Levant reach about
25 cm in length and 3 cm in width, but they are quite exceptional items (e.g.,Oshri
Manclossi et al.

Fig. 6 Structuralanalysis of lithic artifacts. According to the relationship between the target technical features
(i.e., general shape, delineation of the edges, angles, sections) and the modalities used to obtain them (i.e.,
directly from the reduction sequence, segmentation, retouch), it is possible to recognize different degrees of
integration. (The photo of the Chalcolithic blade core is a courtesy of I. Gilead [Gilead et al.2010;Fig.5]; the
photo of the Chalcolithic blade is a courtesy of J. Vardi [Vardi 2011, p. 383]; the photo of the Canaanean core
is a courtesy of P. Jacobs [Lahav Research Project])
Fig. 7 Relationship between the structure of flint artifacts and the structure of multiple composite tools
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

and Schick 1998). Moreover, the utilization of these blades seems to pose some
functional problems because of the physical properties of the material (i.e.,its
fragility, brittleness, etc.), which might explain their lateral hafting and/or their
segmentation. Thus, for tools requiring long cutting-edge, the technical solution is
that of deconstructing the tool into several juxtaposed elements.
The Metal Cutting Tools
The invention of metallurgy triggers a new developmental line which is not directly
comparable with that of lithics. However, the exploitation of metals for creating cutting-
edge implements permits logical comparison between them and the stone tools. In this
regard, observing the development of metal objects, it is possible to recognize two
processes. The first one, characterized by the use of metals for reproducing objects
which already existed in other materials, is a “technological transfer,”while the second,
characterized by the creation of new objects without lithic antecedents, is the expres-
sion of the new potentials inherent in the raw material. The recognition of these new
characters allows observation of general trends which permit definition of the “limits”
of lithics, and to explain the logical relationship between stone and metal tools. In this
regard, it is possible to make several considerations.
1. The potential to produce bigger implements than those made of flint represents one
of the new possibilities offered by the metals. Although their morphology and size
change and vary according to their specific functions, cutting-edge metal tools are
usually characterized by long blades. Thus, for example, the copper Chalcolithic
axes can reach 30 cm in length and 5 cm in width (Miron 1992), the Bronze Age
spearheads are 20–40 cm long and 8–10 cm wide (Philip 1989), while the Bronze
and Iron Age daggers can exceed 50 cm in length (Shalev 2004)andupto1m,
such as in the case of the sword found at Jericho (Eitan 1994), all significantly
longer and larger than flint blades.
2. The use of metal implements permits multiplication and differentiation of the
techno-functional characters of the blades. If within the lithic system, only the
creation of multiple composite tools allows the extension of the working edge
beyond a certain length; the use of metal offers a variety of tools not only longer
and larger but especially characterized by two continuous and parallel cutting-
edges convergent in a point. The blade of multiple composite flint tools has
inevitably only one cutting-edge because the other side of the lithic artifacts has
to be inserted into the haft. Metal blades, instead, not only can be longer and wider
but, used following their longitudinal axis, they can exploit both cutting-edges and
their pointed extremity.
3. The plasticity of metals allows the development of new hafting systems character-
ized by a greater integration between the artifacts and the hafts. In the potential to
take on many shapes, metal can combine and integrate techno-functional characters
that in chipped stone tools required multiple elements and technologies. Thus, for
example, metal fastening system does not require elaborate shaped haft and adhesive,
but metal implements can be socketed (El Mor and Pernot 2011) or directly inserted
in their shafts, thanks to the creation of holes or collars (Gernez 2007; Philip 1989).
Manclossi et al.

Metal implements are not simply sharp blades, but the same item can also be
integrated with other parts connected with handles or grips, until the creation of
finished of long cutting-edge tools composed of a single piece of metal (Fig. 8).
The Socioeconomic Conditions of Tool Production Systems
Changes (or not changes) of lithic industries during the Age of Metals can be divided in
two categories, the first one concerning the processes that took place within the lithic
system and the second one referring to their disappearance and substitution with metal
“equivalents”(Fig. 9). With respect to internal processes, the analysis of the lithic
industries from the 5th to the 1st millennium BCE suggests two main trajectories: (1)
the discontinuity of the sickle blade production systems through time and (2) the
continuity of the production of ad hoc tools which qualitatively did not change. With
regard to the replacement of chipped stone tools by metal ones, instead, is possible to
observe other two trajectories: (1) the ax and the sickle production systems both
terminated abruptly, albeit at different times and (2) the ad hoc system exhibited a
gradual decline, ultimately disappearing at roughly the same time as flint sickles.
Although the final result was the same, that is, the eclipse of stone tools, the processes
in the replacement of flint by metals varied and changed according to the specific tool
category and associated socioeconomic contexts.
The Ax Production System
Flint bifacial tools (i.e., the group including axes, adzes, and chisels) and copper
equivalents coexisted during the Chalcolithic period. However, if stone axes have been
Fig. 8 The new technical potentialities of metal tools (not in scale) refer to the possibility of releasing the
working edge of the blade (e.g., longer and wider than those made of flint) and also to develop new fastening
systems
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

virtually found in all the sites, sometimes in relatively high frequencies, copper axes
were rare. At the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE, during the Chalcolithic/Early
Bronze Age transition, the situation completely changed, and not only did copper axes
increased in number, but flint axes completely disappeared.
The Chalcolithic Systems Despite their similarity (but great morphological and metric
variability), flint and copper axes were not real competing types because they addressed
different domains, the first more utilitarian and the second more symbolic. This is
suggested by the abundance of flint bifacial tools (from one-two specimens to several
tens in every Chalcolithic site [data in Barkai 2005;Hermon2008]) and the rarity of
copper axes (so far, only 46 copper axes, corresponding ca. 8.5% of the total of the
metal artifacts of the period have been discovered [data in Gošić2014]), by the
frequency of damaged/broken flint axes (e.g., Barkai 2005) in opposition to the
apparently unused copper artifacts (e.g., Tadmor et al.1995), and by the particular
contexts in which copper axes have been discovered (most of them have been found in
hoards, caches, or burials, and only a few come from settlements [data in Gošić2014]).
During the second half of the 5th millennium BCE, the production of flint axes was
carried out in domestic contexts within habitation sites, or in specialized production loci
usually nearby flint sources locally available. In these areas, axes were not only
manufactured but also repaired and recycled (e.g.,Barkai1999; Milevski et al.
2013). The technical skills required for their manufacture differed from those employed
Fig. 9 From stone to metal tools. Each flint industry (e.g., axes, composite sickle, ad hoc tools) was replaced
by metal objects following different trajectories and rhythms. Despite different historical contingencies, the
context of production acted as “evolutionary force”
Manclossi et al.

in the production of ad hoc tools and, in terms of flint knapping, the production of
bifacial tools reflects a higher degree of expertise, as indicated by the use of the
façonnage (the procurement of a tool from a block of flint which requires a coherent
volumetric exploitation of raw material), by the predetermined planning of the reduc-
tion sequence (with anticipation of the effects of each removal for the continuation of
the façonnage itself), and by a better control of the knapping movements (which, if not
mastered, would compromise the production of the ax and would require restarting the
production process). However, the limited use of polishing, usually restricted to the
working edge and finalized at improving the effectiveness and duration of the tools,
does not show high investment, again suggesting more practical function than symbolic
value (contra Barkai 2005,2006). The intensity of production was always low and
there is no evidence indicating manufacture for external exchange or trade. Craftspeo-
ple, often defined as semi-specialists, operated within household contexts producing for
their own needs or those of the immediate community.
Copper axes were probably not used for practical tasks (Golden 2009;Gošić2014).
Behind their extreme low number and the contexts of discovery, this hypothesis is also
supported by the fact that pure copper was soft and not especially efficient for most
tasks. Although the technology used for their production (i.e., smelting/melting of pure
copper and casting in open molds [Golden 2009]) was simpler than that used for the
manufacture of other contemporary copper objects (i.e., casting of arsenic/antimony/
copper alloys using the lost-wax technique [Goren 2008]), the tools with simple shapes
nevertheless seem to represent a component of ritual equipment (Rowan and Golden
2009). Only a few sites in the Beersheva area show evidence of metal working, from
the smelting of ores to the casting of finished objects which were locally produced. At
Abu Matar and Shiqmim, copper-related artifacts are randomly distributed within the
site, suggesting household contexts of craft production, with apparently little intensifi-
cation at the end of the period (Golden 2009). Scholars agree about the symbolic aspect
of the Chalcolithic metallurgy, probably connected with ritual or religious practices
(Gošić2014), but different interpretations about the sociopolitical contexts have been
suggested. Levy claims the existence of elites that monopolized this specialized craft in
the context of emerging chiefdoms (Levy 1995; Levy and Shalev 1989), while Gilead
and others defend the hypothesis of highly specialized craftsmen that were not attached
or controlled by any political authority (Gilead 1988;Golden2009; see also Rosen
1993).
In our analysis, we stress that the adoption of metallurgy for the production of
“equivalent”flint tools was not actualized for techno-economic advantages but for
symbolic-social reasons. Independently of the sociopolitical interpretation gave to the
adoption of metallurgy, the two technologies addressed different domains; flint and
copper axes were not really competing types, and there were virtually no points of
overlap or intersection where replacement could be conceived (Rosen 1997).
The Early Bronze Age Systems At the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE, flint axes
disappeared, apparently in a short time, and only the copper ones continue to be
attested. During the EBA, the production of copper objects, previously addressed to
the symbolic/ritual sphere, penetrated and extended to the more utilitarian one (Rosen
1996). This process was actualized by the development of more economic-oriented
form of specialization resulting from the emergence of a copper trade–market system
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

completely different from that of the Chalcolithic period (Golden 2009;Rosen1993,
1997). Evidence of this new system, that fully developed during the EBA II–III, can be
recognized from the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE (EBA I) when sites like Tell
Hujarat al-Ghuzlan and Tall al-Magass in ‘Aqaba (Klimscha 2011; Hauptman et al.
2009) or Wadi Fidan 4 in the Feinan (Genz 2000) show systematic production of
copper for export indicating the emergence of regular exchange and distribution system
between the desert areas, rich in copper ores, and the settled zone where the demand of
this metal seems to have increased. According to Genz (2000), during the EBA I,
copper objects were cast in small quantities in several sites. The intensity of production
seems to reflect household level of production for exchange, probably involving part-
time specialists that traded and distributed the final objects. Copper, imported into the
region in form of bars and ingots or collected recycling scraps and damaged objects
(Ilan and Sebbane 1989), was melted and quickly casted in molds permitting augmen-
tation of the productivity of the artisans.
The disappearance of flint axes was one of the consequences of the development of
this new socioeconomic system. The production of axes changed from a situation of
one of self-reliance to one of dependence. The intra-community production of axes was
replaced by a market, which not only modified the relationship between producers and
the users of tools but also altered the value of flint and copper axes, ultimately resulting
in the end of the chipped-stone axe socioeconomic system (Rosen 1996). However,
despite the availability of copper,
3
which increased during the EBA II–III as shown by
the intensification of copper extraction systems (e.g., Hauptman et al.2009;Hauptman
and Pernicka 1999;Levyet al.2002) and the development of more organized trade-
networks (e.g.,Milevski2009,2011;deMiroschedji1986; see also Rosen 2017), the
stone-metal substitution affected only the axes, and other chipped-stone tools
continued.
The Sickle Blade Production Systems
The blade-oriented technology for the manufacture of composite sickles showed
profound techno-typological changes which occurred respectively at the beginning of
the 4th millennium BCE (Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age transition), at the beginning of
the 2nd millennium BCE (Intermediate Bronze/Middle Bronze Age transition), and
finally at the 10th–9th centuries BCE (Iron Age IIB/IIC) when flint sickle segments
disappeared, replaced by iron equivalents. The technological analysis of these different
production systems shows that every industry reflects a specific specialized craft and
that technological changes were conditioned by the emergence of new socioeconomic
contexts.
The Chalcolithic System During the second half of 5th millennium BCE, sickle blades
were produced by direct percussion with organic hammerstones, and both the knapping
technique and method significantly contrastedwiththoseusedinthedomestic
3
During the entire EBA, copper was used also to produce other objects not directly comparable with flint
“equivalents”such as, for example, the daggers, swords, spearheads, and battle axes (e.g., Hestrin and Tadmor
1963; Maddin et al. 2003;Miron1992)
Manclossi et al.

production of ad hoc tools, indicating a higher level of expertise. Although sickle
blades were manufactured on local raw materials, the high productivity of flint blades
then transformed into sickle elements, the standardization in shape and size of lithic
pieces, and their interchangeable nature indicate that the production of sickle elements
was a specialized “intra-community”activity (Fig. 10a). In each community, only a
few knappers participated to the production of sickle blades, each one manufacturing
thousands of blades as well indicated by the workshop of Beit Eshel, where in a limited
area, hundreds of cores and blades have been found (Gilead et al.2010). These
Fig. 10 The sickle blade production systems during the Age of Metals in the Southern Levant
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

knappers were village-based artisans that could integrate the intensive manufacture of
sickle blades carried out in workshops with smaller scale episodes within domestic
contexts in habitation sites (Hermon 2008). The knappers, probably family-based
groups (Gilead et al.2004), seasonally produced flint segments and finished tools for
the other farmers of the community, who took care of the maintenance of the composite
sickles, quickly and easily replacing the flint inserts which were little re-sharpened
(Vardi and Gilead 2013). This system seems to reflect regular and differentiated
technical tasks between villagers (Manclossi and Rosen 2019b) and well corresponds
to a division of labor and interdependence between households of rural semi-
autonomous communities (Gilead 1988).
The Early Bronze Age At the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE, Chalcolithic sickle
blades were replaced by a new technological type. Canaanean blades were produced
using the lever-pressure technique, one of the most complex knapping technologies
requiring long apprenticeship and regular practice. If we consider the time necessary to
master and learn this technique, the skills that have to be regularly maintained, and the
investment in time and tools (implying high productivity and intensive production), we
suggest that only a few specialists were contemporaneously active, supplying the
demand of Canaanean blades in the region (Manclossi et al.2016). The limited number
of craftspeople producing Canaanean blades, probably on the order of dozen knappers
with their apprentices for all the Southern Levant (Manclossi and Rosen 2019b),
implies a different relationship between the specialists (knappers and traders of blades)
and the farmers (users of blades and producers of sickles). The Canaanean system with
a few knappers able to meet the demand of the mass consumption of blades implies the
existence of an “inter-community”production systems characterized by socioeconomic
relationships between individuals who did not necessarily belong to the same commu-
nity (Fig. 10b).
In this regard, the spatial segmentation of the chaîne opératoire in different sites,
with unworked nodules of high-quality flint, cores in different stages of reduction (e.g.,
Futato 1996), waste of small knapping episodes (e.g., Manclossi et al.2016), caches of
unworked blanks (e.g.,Marderet al.1995;Rosen1997), and/or partially used blades
(e.g., Fischer 2008), seems to indicate that the specialists not only produced the
majority of blades in workshops (e.g., Hartenberger et al.2000) but they probably
moved between sites. During their trips, the knappers brought with them a few cores,
producing Canaanean blades on demand, and traded the blades directly to the con-
sumers (Manclossi and Rosen 2019b). Once acquired, the farmers manufactured their
own sickles snapping the blades and fixing each segment in the haft, and then
intensively used and reused them, sharpening the edges and reversing the flint teeth
(Rosen et al.2014). Thus, the emergence of the Canaanean blades determined a new
specialized system which coincided with a new socioeconomic structure; not only were
the blades distributed within larger exchange networks (Milevski 2013;Rosen1997),
but the relationship between artisans (few) and consumers (many) reflects new socio-
economic ties.
If the socioeconomic context which favored the technological change of the sickle
blade production system was the emergence of an “inter-community”specialization,
another aspect related to the Canaanean blade system concerns how the lever-pressure
technique was introduced into the Southern Levant. Given the absence of requisite
Manclossi et al.

technological precursors to this technique, that is, the simpler modalities of pressure
flake removal (Pelegrin 2012), and the lack of a technological background able to
support local development, the emergence of the Canaanean blade technology reflects
the movement of expert knappers (Manclossi et al.2016), and it cannot be considered a
local invention (per contra Shimelmitz 2009).
The Post-EBA System At the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, Canaanean blades
disappeared, apparently within a short time, and they were replaced by the large
geometric sickle elements produced by direct percussion with hard hammerstone.
The manufacture of sickle blades continued to be a specialized system, as indicated
by the use of high-quality raw materials different from those used for the ad hoc tools
and often not available in the proximity of the sites (e.g., Manclossi et al.2018), the
absence of flaking waste and cores in most of the sites, and the concentration of
hundreds of unworked and partially modified blanks in specific production loci
(Rosen 1997).
The spatial organization of the chaîne opératoire suggests that the artisans knapped
large flake blades in workshops, probably at quarry sites, and then transported these
blanks to secondary workshops where finished flint elements were produced (e.g.,
Coqueugniot 2010; Rosen 1986). The great morphometric variability of the large
geometric sickle elements indicates that they were modified, through truncations and
backing, according to their specific position in the composite sickles, and it is likely that
these operations were conducted by the same people who placed and fixed the flint
teeth in the haft. This production system, which quantitatively exceeds the needs of
simple domestic production, reflects a new form of organization in which the specialists
were not only flint knappers but artisans who produced complete sickles for the farmers
who, in turn, lost their role as manufacturers of their own tools (as in the previous
period) and became simple consumers of finished implements (Manclossi et al.2018).
From the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age until the Iron Age II, the large geometric
sickle blade system reflects a specialized “vertical”integration (Fig. 10c). That is, we
see a new form of socioeconomic structure tied to a different relationship between
artisans and farmers based on a changed division of the labor.
The Disappearance of Flint Sickles Despite the increasing availability of metals during
the 3rd–2nd millennia BCE, sickles continued to be manufactured as composite tools
made of flint elements. During the 10th–9th centuries BCE, however, flint sickles
disappeared, replaced by iron ones which, as indicated by experimental tests, were
more efficient (Steensberg 1943). This substitution did not take place with the earliest
introduction of iron into the region (Yahalom-Mack and Eliyahu-Behar 2015), but
occurred when the new metal became more accessible and probably cheaper. Despite
functional and economic advantages, however, the conditions which favored the sickle
stone-metal replacement were related to its socioeconomic context.
In the shift from flint to iron sickles, it is interesting to observe that the step
preceding this ultimate replacement was characterized by a form of specialization
where the users of these objects, the farmers, were no longer the producers, but
acquired the finished tools from artisans. When iron technology appeared and devel-
oped, sickles were already manufactured by artisans in a vertical production sequence.
Thus, once iron technology was available, the socioeconomic structure necessary for its
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

large-scale adoption (i.e., a clear division of the labor between producers and users of
utilitarian tools) has already been present for almost a millennium. Obviously, the
intrinsic properties of metal must have played an important role, but it was the
socioeconomic structure which facilitated the replacement.
The Ad Hoc Industry
Simple irregular flake tools, either unmodified or retouched blanks, are quantitatively
dominant in lithic assemblages from the proto- and early historic periods. Although this
type of production is often defined as occasional, opportunistic, or expedient (e.g.,
Binford 1979;ParryandKelly1987), we prefer to use the term “ad hoc.”This was not
makeshift production (such as, for example, one that would exploit the by-products of
other knapping activities), but a specific production system mobilizing its own con-
cepts, methods, and techniques and following a coherent and repeated logic (Manclossi
and Rosen 2019a). Importantly, it was not the result of random technical behaviors, but
referred to all daily activities requiring cutting tools (e.g., McConaughy 1980).
Technological Continuity Ad hoc tools are associated with unspecialized and domestic
contexts of production and use. In this case, the users are identified with the knappers
who produced tools as needed, with little technical investment or special effort.
Knappers produced a series of flakes and then selected the blanks with properties that
make them appropriate for the technical activity intended. In relation to the organization
of tool production and consumption (and probably to the tasks for which they were
used), ad hoc tools reflected individual technical activity. In this regard, knapping
technology and tool design offer us important insights. On the one hand, the low
technical level is well evident in the solutions adopted by the knappers. The high
frequency of knapping mistakes, usually associated with an incorrect gesture of the
knapping movements, indicates the low level of expertise of the knappers who were not
expert craftspeople. On the other hand, the lack of morphological standardization of the
tools, to the point that typological lists are almost unusable as analytical instruments,
suggests that flint knapping, although performed by all the members of the community,
was carried out and transmitted within domestic units without influence from external
contacts. This might indicate that technical tasks implying production and use of ad hoc
tools were not carried out at the level of the community, within which people shared
common technical features, but reflected individual (as opposed to group) activities.
The persistence of this unspecialized and domestic context of production and use
explain the long continuity of the ad hoc production system through several millennia.
Despite important transformations evident in other domains, the production of flint
cutting tools used for daily tasks remained a domestic activity individually performed.
A Gradual Decline Ad hoc tools represent the main component of the lithic assemblages
of the Age of Metals. However, the decrease of absolute number of tools and flaking
waste from the 2nd millennium BCE seems to indicate a gradual decline of this
industry (Rosen 1996). Knowing that ad hoc tools were used for many daily tasks
(e.g.,McConaughy1979,2003), their decrease actually seems linked to the gradual
introduction of bronze implements. If the rarity of metal artifacts in archaeological
Manclossi et al.

records cannot completely confirm this hypothesis,
4
other arguments seem to support it.
For example, the analyses carried out on bone cut marks show that from the Middle
Bronze Age, the tools most frequently used for this activity were no longer flint flakes,
but metal blades (Greenfield 2013). However, bronze was still rare and relatively
expensive and, as indicated by the quantity of chipped stone tools recorded in archae-
ological sites, most of the domestic activities demanding cutting tools continued to be
carried out with stone implements.
The Disappearance of the Ad Hoc Industry The situation completely changed with the
introduction of iron. If, on the one hand, the greater availability of iron, which was
probably cheaper than bronze as raw material, facilitated its penetration into all
functions requiring cutting implements, on the other hand, this process was favored
by the complete disappearance of the domestic production system, where stone tools
were individually produced and used. The disappearance of ad hoc tools (which
chronologically coincides with the cessation of flint sickle production) well reflects
this change. Thus, the end of chipped-stone tools was not only related to the efficiency
of iron implements, but it was favored by a structural change in the relationship
between tool producers and consumers (Rosen 1996). This distinction, first reflected
in certain tools (notably, the flint sickles), came to an end with iron technology, which
encompassed all other production systems, at all levels of society including specialized
and domestic production.
Discussion
The transition from chipped stone to metals has generally been analyzed with emphasis
on new technologies and materials, that is metallurgy. Archaeological studies have
tended to focus on innovation, on new elements that did not previously exist. However,
metallurgy fitted into a preexisting technical system and, although the lithic industries
of the Age of Metals have often been considered uninformative, their study contributes
to the analysis of technological change in the sense that they provide the essential
background to the innovation. By combining two different levels of analysis, we
suggest a “non-historical”and logical path in the development of cutting-edge imple-
ments, and we identify some socioeconomic conditions favorable to the adoption,
continuation, or disappearance of technical traits.
The “Endpoint”of Lithics and Their Logical Relationship with Metal Cutting Tools
Following the techno-logic approach, the structural analysis of the lithic industries of
the Age of Metal identifies their latest developmental stages. With regard to the
production systems, this stage is represented by the débitage of blades detached by
using the lever-pressure technique. In the construction of chipped stone tools, instead,
the final phase in their developmental line is expressed by multiple composite tools.In
4
Most of the metal objects dated to the Bronze Age derives from tombs (e.g., Philip 1988), and only a small
percentage of items, usually awls and some axes, comes from villages and cities.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

both the cases, lithics arrived at the “endpoint”of their development cycles which seem
to have exhausted their potential for further transformation. Lithic industries reached a
stage of “pause,”a plateau in the development beyond which new innovations were
possible only by adopting metallurgy.
With regard to the production systems, the developmental line of the débitage of
blades seems to have concluded its development cycle, realizing its potential through
great integration. In the production of Canaanean blades, the lever-pressure technique
represents the apogee of flaking technology because all the elements permitting the
knapping are perfectly in synergy with the others. The core, whose function is the
provision of blanks, reached the maximum of its potential due to the intensification of
production and the extreme standardization of the blades. Once the reduction sequence
has started, the system is auto-regulated, and the synergy between all its components
(i.e., each removal) guarantees its functioning. However, this is a hyper-specialized
closed system not only because its structure cannot be modified, but also because the
lever allows detachment of the biggest blades that can be obtained by pressure (Pelegrin
2012). The system perfectly achieved its function, that is, obtaining of blanks with
specific technical and morphometric features then directly useable as elements for
multiple composite tools.
This tool conception has the potential to increase the length of the cutting-edge
beyond the size that can usually be obtained from any knapping system. Thus, although
very large and long blades can be produced using different knapping techniques,
5
and
they have been found in several archaeological contexts, these examples are excep-
tional (Pelegrin 2007). Their utilization as complete blades seems to pose some
functional problems, perhaps explaining their segmentation. Thus, for tools requiring
long cutting-edges, the technical solution is that of deconstructing the tool into several
juxtaposed elements. As in the construction of composite sickles, these can show
different levels of integration between the components of the composite tools and
between the individual lithic artifacts and their production system.
Although lithic production systems and tool construction are deeply related (Boëda
1997,2013), their development cycles can show different developmental stages. In
particular, it is interesting to observe that the developmental line of multiple composite
tools continued even if the specific lithic production system had already achieved its
latest stage, as in the Canaanean blade technology (for similar phenomena involving
other lithic technologies, see Boëda 2013). The case of sickles made of large geometric
elements well reflects this phenomenon, where the adoption of a less-integrated lithic
production system permits development of more integrated multiple composite tools.
However, despite the increasing synergy between all the components, no knapping
system can produce long, wide, even curved blades, such as those made of metal. Thus,
the conception of composite tools of multiple lithic segments represents a stopping
point in the logical developmental path of cutting-edge implements. Blades of different
shapes and sizes can be created with greater integration between all the lithic compo-
nents, but in one sense, these can never achieve the full optimization seen in single-
5
For example, in Europe, at the Grand Pressigny, blades produced by indirect percussion can reach 40 cm in
length (Pelegrin 2002), at Etiolles, some blades are 60 cm long (Olive et al. 2005), or in Varna necropolis, the
longest blade produced by pressure reaches 43.3 cm (Manolakakis 2002).
Manclossi et al.

piece metal blades. They will always have unexpressed possibilities, and the develop-
ment cycle of the chipped stone tools finds a natural “endpoint.”
Simpler composite tools made of one lithic element and a handle seem to reflect
a similar phenomenon and, even if our analysis did not consider in the detail the
structure of bifacial tools, the chipped stone axes also were part of the same trend.
Stone axes, which were attached to wooden hafts with cord (e.g., Benoit et al.
1961), were structurally composed of different elements simply juxtaposed. Lithics,
differently from metal whose plasticity allowed development of more integrated
hafting systems (such as those characterized by shaft, holes or rivets), was not
adaptable for further technological development. Thus, not only the multiple com-
posite tools but more generally all composite flint tools represent a stage of “pause”
in their developmental path.
The case of the axes is interesting also for another point of view. Although in our
study we have not considered the developmental line of the façonnage and bifacial
tools, other researches have shown the existence of different developmental stages
defined by considering how the techno-functional units are organized and created
within the volumetric structure of the bifacial tools (e.g., Boëda 2013; Chevrier
2012). Placed within their developmental line, in the first stages, bifacial tools resulted
from a juxtaposition of parts differently arranged and independently created during the
façonnage (i.e., the first bifacial tools were a sort of assembly of tools), while in their
latest stages, the artifacts were conceived as a single tool, whose different techno-
functional parts were concurrently manufactured (for a synthesis, see Boëda 2013).
Flint axes reflected this latest developmental stage because their structure is well-
integrated; each artifact was perceived from the beginning as a specific tool, and the
façonnage was oriented toward the progressive and simultaneous production of all its
techno-functional units. For example, in the case of the façonnage of axes and adzes,
which differ in their cross-section, the reduction sequence was specifically conducted
according to the desired tool. From the beginning, the façonnage was oriented toward
the manufacture of an ax or adz, and their production was differently organized without
the possibility of modification (i.e., an ax cannot become an adz during the reduction
sequence and the re-sharpening processes maintained the same function of the tools
unless to completely modify the original shape). This integrated structure characterizes
different types of bifacial tools, not only the axes/adzes (e.g.,Chevrier2012). However,
in the case of Chalcolithic axes/adzes, the use of the polishing reflected the existence of
technical adjustments specifically adopted for improving the specific function of the
tools. The abrasion of the working edge (which exploits a physical principle other than
that of the conchoidal fracture) created homogeneous surfaces that favored the even
distribution of forces, reduced drag and friction, and reduced the formation of cracks
and fractures. This treatment made the cutting-edge more resistant, increasing the
endurance of the tools (Le Roux 1999). Despite these improvements, the structural
“limits”of the façonnage and of the bifacial tools were not overcome. Lithic elements,
whose structure was well-integrated and whose function was accomplished, thanks to
technical adjustments, remained one of the components of composite tools made of
juxtaposed parts (i.e., the stone blade and the wooden haft fastened with cord). Lithics
were not adapted to create tools with more integrated structure, as shown by metal
implements in which there were “potentials”for greater integration and further new
developments.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

Metal cutting implements can be placed within the techno-logic sequence of flint
tools because, in a sense, they continue their developmental paths. Metal objects
represent the development of the flint tools because, by exploiting the properties of
new materials, the “limits”of lithics can be overcome. This development is visible in
two parallel, but complementary trajectories: on the one hand, by the possibility of
creating bigger blades with longer cutting-edges and, on the other, through new
constructions of tools characterized by a greater integration between the cutting-edge
element and the haft. In the first case, longer and larger blades represent a further
development of the phenomenon of “externalization”of the cutting-edge which,
beginning with the first hafted tools and continued by exploiting the potentials of the
blades, developed into the line of multiple lithic elements composite tools (Boëda
2013). In the second case, metal artifacts become more integrated within the construc-
tion of the tool from a global point of view. Due to the possibility offered by metals to
increase the length of the cutting-edge, the distance between the hand and the cutting-
edge, and the potentials to better integrate the cutting-edge with the haft, new and
original implements, without lithic precedents, developed.
The use of metal not only permitted cutting-edge tools to improve on previous
conceptions of forms and functions, but their structural properties allowed development
and expression of new technical characters that, inscribed within the line of flint cutting
tools, had remained unexpressed until then. New evolutionary paths opened up, literally
inconceivable using the lithic technical systems. Although the structure of the first
metal implements was similar to that of flint tools (i.e., the first copper axes were
structurally similar to the chipped stone ones, as indicated by the fact that blades made
of both the materials were fixed to the handle with cords), metals were mainly used to
create new objects. Despite different forms and morphologies adapted to the specific
functions for which these implements were used, metal cutting tools were characterized
by new technical features which permitted exploitation of new gestures. With the
metals, there is a further development of a whole range of implements which make it
possible to carry out new manual movements and exploit new forms of energy. Thus,
long metal blades were used according to their longitudinal axis, which permitted
simultaneous exploitation of the two cutting-edges and the point (in contrast to the flint
system where long composite blades were hafted laterally, resulting in a single cutting-
edge). Moreover, the better integration of the cutting-edge within its handle (e.g.,the
collar attachment, the socket or rivet fixing systems), until the potential to create cutting
implements made of a single piece of metal, is the expression of new forms of kinetic
energy (for a similar tendency in other lithic technologies, see Boëda 2013). From this
perspective, one understands why the use of increasingly hard and resistant materials
accompanies this development. As soon as the morphology of the tools is no longer a
direct function of the material (i.e., metal objects can assume the same morphologies
independently of the metal used), the specific properties of each metal (i.e.,its
mechanical and physical qualities), often modified through manipulation processes
(e.g., hammering, alloys, carbonization), influence their hardness and strength (e.g.,
Lechtman 1996;Pleiner2006), and thus, the possible movements and gestures.
Finally, the use of metals overcomes another “limit,”that of the raw material. Flint
cores can be completely exhausted. However, even though in some cases it is possible
to use almost all the material, there is always a “limit”that the débitage cannot
overcome because the block/nodule cannot be exploited in its entirety. With metals,
Manclossi et al.

this limit no longer exists because, theoretically, the exploitable raw material is not only
no longer bound to a given volume but it can be continuously transformed. A mass of
metal is an unlimited reservoir of tools: not only it can take any form by transforming
into any type of tools but it has the potential to retransform without limits into other
similar or different objects.
The Socioeconomic Conditions for Technological Changes
The evolutionary trajectories of lithic industries during the Metal Ages, their continu-
ities and transformations until the final replacement by metal implements, were condi-
tioned by different factors involving the availability and cost of metals and their
production and functional efficiency (e.g., Rosen 1984,1996,1997). Our analysis,
however, has specifically focused on the socioeconomic contexts which favored the
adoption, continuation, and disappearance of different technical systems. By consider-
ing historical scenarios and the conditions for technological change, we distinguish
between those occurring within the lithic systems and those involving the stone-metal
substitution. With respect to the flint systems, our study concerns the sickle blade
production system and the ad hoc industry.
The Sickle Production System
The first change took place during the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age transition, at the
beginning of the 4th millennium BCE. Technological change was not simply the
substitution of knapping technologies, but it was determined by the replacement of
an entire production system with another. Historically, the introduction of the
Canaanean blades resulted from the arrival of foreign artisans who brought a new
and sophisticated knapping technology, the lever-pressure system, into the region. This
adoption of the Canaanean blades was facilitated by the creation of a new socioeco-
nomic structure which, compared to the previous period, was based on different
division of the labor and roles between flint knappers and farmers. The emergence of
this new production system occurred during a period of important transformations
involving the abandonment of settlements, the displacement of population, profound
modifications of the material culture and cultural traits and, as suggested by some
scholars, sociopolitical organizations (for a synthesis, e.g., Braun and Roux 2013;
Rowan and Golden 2009). The adoption of the Canaanean blade system characterized
by a few specialized knappers who mass-produced blades, then exchanged with the
farmers who manufactured their own sickles, was concomitant with these transforma-
tions. In this regard, the rapid replacement of the Chalcolithic sickle blade production
system with the Canaanean seems to attest the expansion of one socioeconomic group
(i.e., the specialized Canaanean blade knappers that operated within inter-community
trade-networks) to detriment of another one (i.e., the knappers existing within
Chalcolithic communities).
Canaanean blades were a hallmark of Early Bronze Age, a long period characterized
by the emergence (EBA I–II), establishment (EBA II–III), and collapse (EBA IV) of
the first urban society of the Southern Levant (for a synthesis, e.g.,deMiroschedji
2014). In the case of the Canaanean blade production system, archaeological evidence
indicates that flint specialists were independent of specific sociopolitical structures.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

Thus, Canaanean blades were introduced before the emergence of urban centers and
continued after their collapse. Moreover, during the urbanized phase, there is no
evidence indicating that palaces/elites controlled the production of Canaanean blades,
even though other specialized production systems, such as that of wheel-made pottery,
were attached to them (Roux and de Miroschedji 2007). The specific function for
which Canaanean blades were used, that is, the manufacture of sickles (e.g.,Gurova
2013;contra Anderson et al.2004) employed in agricultural activities involving most
of the population, might explain why elites were not involved into this production
system, which remained independent.
Innovations involving sophisticated technologies are often connected with “elites”
and/or symbolic reasons (e.g.,Rouxet al.2013). Numerous archaeological cases attest
this association and within the lithic industries, for example, European large blades
detached by using the lever-pressure technique and discovered in burials follow this
trend (e.g.,Manolakakis2002; Morgado Rodríguez et al.2008; Skakun 2008). The
case of Canaanean blades is interesting because, although the knapping technology was
similar, the socioeconomic context was completely different. The contrast with other
historical scenarios seems to suggest that the adoption of the Canaanean blades,
reflecting a new socioeconomic system, was facilitated by the emergence of an
incipient market economy which modified the relationship between producers and
users of quotidian and utilitarian tools. During the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age
transition, the availability of blades, mass-produced and exchanged by specialized
artisans within supra-local reginal networks, broke off the intra-community specialized
system of sickle blades. However, the domestic production of composite sickle did not
disappear, and the farmers continued to manufacture their own tools in domestic
contexts, even as they acquired the flint elements from specialized markets involving
trade and exchange.
Another aspect of the Canaanean blade production system is that, although the
specialized knappers were a small group of artisans, within which the lever-pressure
technique was transmitted though long apprenticeship and practice, the system was not
fragile. Even through significant fluctuations over time and across the region, the
persistence of the Canaanean blade system from the beginning of the 4th to the end
of the 3rd millennium BCE attests to the stability of this specialized inter-community
and supra-local reginal system, independent of any specific sociopolitical structure, and
addressed to the manufacture of utilitarian tools used in basic subsistence activities.
The second technological change within sickle production systems occurred at the
beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, in the early 2nd millennium BCE, when sickles
made of Canaanean blade segments were replaced by those composed of large geo-
metric elements. The substitution of one lithic technology with another one was
effected by a change in the socioeconomic contexts of production; a “vertical”form
of specialization emerged, and the Early Bronze Age “inter-community”specialization
disappeared. The main difference is that the artisans were not only flint knappers, as in
the previous period, but producers of finished sickles, then used by the farmers who no
longer manufactured their own composite sickles.
Historically, the introduction of this new socioeconomic system occurred during a
period of important transformations involving the emergence of a new urban system
and associated sociopolitical structures, modifications of the material culture and
cultural traits (for a synthesis, e.g.,Burke2014). Many of these changes are associated
Manclossi et al.

with the arrival of foreign groups with their own technical traditions. For example, the
emergence of wheel-coiling vessels having morphological affinities with northern
assemblages has been interpreted as the arrival of potters who produced ceramics in
a few specialized workshops (Roux 2015b). Although the hypothesis that the new
sickle production system resulted from the arrival of foreign artisans cannot be ruled
out, the possibility of a local evolution is suggested by several considerations. The hard
hammer direct percussion technique was always present in the region (it is similar to
that used in the ad hoc tool industry), and its use for the production of sickle blades
does not necessarily imply the arrival of external flint knappers with new technical
traditions. Moreover, the use of plaster as binding material for the manufacture of
sickles represents a feature typical of the Southern Levant and absent in other regions,
notably in the north, where large geometric elements were fixed with bitumen
(Coqueugniot 1991). If the socioeconomic contexts which facilitated the technological
change of the sickle blade production system was the emergence of a “vertical”form of
specialization, the processes acting on the technical sphere seem to reflect a local
phenomenon, perhaps inspired by some foreign influences. Typologically, large geo-
metric elements are attested in a large geographical area of the Eastern Mediterranean
(from Greece, to Anatolia, to the Northern Levant, to the Egypt), and they appeared
roughly at the same time (early 2nd millennium BCE). The similarity of shapes
between sickles found in different regions might indicate some stylistic inspirations;
archaeological data, however, are not sufficient to distinguish the modalities and
directions of diffusion. Given the simplicity of the knapping technology and the
morphological heterogeneity of these flint elements, techno-typological criteria are
not the most appropriate for identifying technical traditions which, furthermore, might
reflect different production systems (i.e., Hartenberger and Runnels 2001).
Another possibility, which does not invalidate the previous one, is that the local
emergence of large geometric sickles might have been influenced by other contempo-
rary socioeconomic systems involving similar contexts of production. In this regard, the
decline of domestic craft activities and the expansion of a market economy with
specialized workshops producing for the entire population, such as those involved in
ceramic or metal production, might have stimulated the emergence of a similar
socioeconomic system for the manufacture of flint sickles. Archaeological data are
not adequate for reconstructing how the innovation process took place, but two possible
scenarios can be suggested. Either the Canaanean blade specialists abandoned the lithic
technological over-investment and adopted a simpler knapping technology because the
exchanged products were no longer the flint blades but the final composite sickles, or
some knappers (operating in domestic contexts) started to produce the flint blades
necessary for the manufacture of sickles and augmented their production for exchange.
In the first case, the flint knappers might have adapted their production to a new market
reflecting the decrease of domestic production systems. In the second individuals, who
were users of flint elements and manufactured their own sickles, their production
increased and complete tools were traded, developing new markets. Considering the
number of secondary workshops discovered in several sites (e.g.,Gersht2006; Rosen
1986,1997,2004; Rosen and Vardi 2014), and the technical skills required for their
manufacture, it is likely that the craftspeople involved in this specialized system were
more numerous than those of the previous period, and they probably produced finished
tools for smaller and more localized markets (Manclossi et al.2018).
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

The persistence of the production of large geometric sickle blades over one thousand
years, despite the rise and fall of different economic and political identities (i.e.,rural
societies, city-states, periods of foreign domination, small kingdoms, etc.), indicates
that this production system was independent of any specific socio-political formulation
(for a synthesis, e.g., Steiner and Killebrew 2014). Sickle artisans were craftspeople
operating within a market not attached to any specific political/administrative power
system, and they were able to adapt to different social and political structures
(Manclossi et al.2018). As in the previous period, the nature of sickles as mass-
produced and mass-consumed utilitarian tools used in agriculture could explain why
elites made no effort to control their production; the adaptability of this vertical
integration to different contexts (e.g., cities, villages, estates, farms) is another impor-
tant aspect which favored the long persistence of this specialized system.
The Ad Hoc Industry
Contrasting with the sickle blades, the continuity of the ad hoc industry through several
millennia reflects the persistence of a domestic and unspecialized context of production
and use. Despite the socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and cultural transformations which
occurred from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age, individuals continued to produce and
use the simple chipped stone tools they needed. Even though this system remained
stable, from the early 2nd millennium BCE, the quantitative decrease of flint tools
indicates a gradual introduction of metal implements within the utilitarian and domestic
sphere. In this regard, it is worth noting that this process was initiated at the beginning
of the Middle Bronze Age, concomitant with the establishment of a market economy
characterized by a clear division of the labor between producers and users of tools.
Individuals started to acquire metal tools made by specialists and used them in domestic
activities. However, these objects (for which we had only indirect clues such as the
bone cut marks [Greenfield 2013]) comprised only one part of the domestic toolkit, and
most of the cutting implements continued to be produced and employed within
unspecialized contexts. This socioeconomic structure persisted for almost another
millennium under its own inertia. Here, it is interesting to note that although the users
of ad hoc tools and sickles were basically the same individuals, only a few categories of
implements were acquired from a market that, during its development, was “selective.”
The Stone-Metal Replacement Process
We have considered the socioeconomic contexts which determined the abandonment of
lithics in parallel with the adoption of metallurgy. The development of different
production systems involving the use of metals from the late 5th to the beginning of
1st millennium BCE is not the subject of our analysis. However, by observing the
effects that these systems had on the lithic industries, it is possible to make some
observations. The development of metallurgy, with the discovery of metals and the
invention of metal working technologies, had its own dynamics and rhythms which
were independent of the lithics. The overlap between chipped stone tools and metals
occurred only in a few cases: (1) with the copper axes which replaced the stone axes at
the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE, (2) with the bronze blades or knives which
progressively replaced some components of the flint ad hoc tools during the 2nd
Manclossi et al.

millennium BCE, and (3) with the iron implements which finally replaced the flint
sickles and all ad hoc tools in the 10th–9th centuries BCE. Although the historical
circumstances differed, the conditions of their disappearance present some regularities.
The disappearance of each lithic production system resulted from the demise of the
socioeconomic context oftheir production, occurring in conjunction with the expansion
of another system of production.
The stone-copper axes replacement occurred in the early 4th millennium BCE, after
several centuries during which the two production systems coexisted, seemingly with
little functional overlap. During the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age transition, signifi-
cant transformations occurred within the metallurgical system for which many aspects
are still unclear and are beyond the scope of this paper. However, with respect to the
production of (pure) copper axes, archaeological evidence indicates that these tools not
only continued to be manufactured by using the same technology as in the previous
period, but they replaced the flint equivalents. This change was facilitated by the
development of a proto-market economy supported by the growth of specific inter-
regional trade-networks involving both the acquisition of copper from the desert, and
the trade of objects within the settled zone (e.g.,Genz2000;Milevski2009; Rosen
1993,1997). The local production of flint axes was replaced by a specialized system
characterized by artisans that produced metal tools for exchange. This process was
accompanied by a change in the function of metal axes which penetrated into the
utilitarian sphere. At the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE, the production of
copper axes, manufactured by specialists and exchanged within larger trade-networks,
ended the more local production of flint axes, reflecting the expansion of one socio-
economic group to the detriment of another one. This new production system, although
involving different technologies and different “markets,”had some similarities with the
Canaanean blade specialized system that, in the same period, replaced the intra-
community production of sickle blades. In the case of copper axes, the hypothesis of
itinerant craftspeople or even larger groups of nomads or semi-nomads involved in their
production has also been suggested (Genz 2000; see also Rosen 1993).
During the Early Bronze Age (4th–3rd millennia BCE), except for the axes,
sometime found in very high frequencies (such as in the case of Arad where copper
axes have been discovered in virtually every excavated house [Ilan and Sebbane
1989]), no other production systems were involved in the stone-metal replacement
process. Despite the increase availability of metal, especially during the EBA II–III
when people from the settled zone directly participated in the extraction of copper
(probably sponsored by city-states or elites [Milevski 2009]), lithic industries continued
their own development (see above). Metal was used for other categories of objects little
overlapping with lithics, such as the weapons (Gernez 2007;Philip1989).
In the 2nd millennium BCE, the organization of metal production systems changed
involving long-distances trade-networks of copper and tin; copper was primarily
imported from Cyprus (Philip et al.2003), while tin came from Anatolia (Muhly
1985). Historical sources inform us about the role of political and administrative
institutions in monopolizing metal production and use (e.g.,Michailidou2001;Muhly
1982b; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991,2001; Zaccagnini 1987). Despite this control,
however, the use of metals for utilitarian and common tools is well attested not only
by the axes, but also by the bronze blades/knives which progressively replaced the
domestic use of ad hoc tools (see above). This means that, despite different metal
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

production systems affected by sociopolitical fluctuations during the Middle and Late
Bronze Age, a market oriented to the production of common and utilitarian tools
expanded, progressively assimilated into the socioeconomic structure of the society.
In this regard, several scholars have suggested the existence of “secondary markets,”
independent of the elite monopoly, that mainly used recycled scraps and damaged
objects and operated within different trade-networks (Sherratt 2000). However, this
market was limited to specific categories of tools or functions, and the domestic
production systems continued for almost another millennium.
Sometime around the end of the 10th–beginning of the 9th century BCE, the system-
atic production of chipped stone tools disappeared, completely replaced by iron imple-
ments. Both the specialized production system of flint sickles and the domestic ad hoc
tool production ceased. If within the lithic production systems, the manufacture of sickles
and ad hoc tools represented two distinct sub-systems, as especially reflected by their
different production structures, the large-scale adoption of iron implements suggests the
emergence of a single specialized system producing different types of cutting tools, then
used for different tasks. In terms of socioeconomic structure, this means that the users of
cutting tools, both sickles and other types of implements, acquired them from a market
which absorbed all other production systems, specialized and not (Manclossi et al.2018).
When iron technology appeared and developed, however, the socioeconomic structure
necessary for its large-scale adoption (i.e., a clear distinction of roles between producers
and users of ordinary and utilitarian tools) has already been present for almost a
millennium, even though limited to a few categories of tools/functions. Thus, it was
the preexisting socioeconomic structure which facilitated the replacement.
If the substitution of flint with iron sickles was actuated within a similar socioeco-
nomic structure, the disappearance of the domestic production of ad hoc tools attests
that the division of the labor in craft production became a structural component at all
levels of the society. The independent production of ordinary cutting tools disappeared,
replaced by a specialized market. However, considering previous technological chang-
es, we can observe that this was a gradual development anticipated by specific tools.
Historically, it is interesting to observe that this occurred, first, for implements used in
specific contexts/activities (i.e., the axes, the sickles, the blades used for butchering),
and later become a diffuse process (i.e.,thead hoc tools).
Although in the Southern Levant the systematic manufacture and use of chipped
stone tools ceased in the 10th–9th centuries BCE, flint implements never completely
disappeared, and simple flakes have been found in many historical sites. However, the
evidence in archaeological records is insufficient to support the hypothesis of system-
atic lithic production system, and these flakes are often intrusion/infiltration from
previous periods, reuses and recycling of older tools, or opportunistic and occasional
activities. Two exceptions must be cited, although their derivation from Bronze and
Iron Age lithic industries is not clear. The first one concerns flint threshing sledge teeth,
well known from ethnographic (e.g., Whittaker 2000) and historical sources (e.g.,
Littauer and Crouwel 1990), whose technological origin in the Southern Levant,
however, is still debated (e.g.,Andersonet al.2004 contra Rosen et al.2014). The
second example is the gun flints invented and used during the 17th–19th centuries AD
(e.g.,Coutier1952; Kent 1983) and probably derived from strike-a-lights known from
Greek and Roman sources (e.g.,Sherwoodet al.1998), but probably invented in older
times (e.g.,Pawlik2004;Runnels1994).
Manclossi et al.

Conclusions
Technological changes that occurred in the decline and disappearance of chipped stone
tools can be analyzed by observing two different levels of regularities. The same
phenomenon, thus, requires a different sort of explanation depending on the scale at
which it is apprehended.
Following the techno-logic approach, the stone-metal replacement process follows
the internal “rules”of the development of objects, techniques, and technologies; the
lithics completed a development cycle. The structural analysis of flint knapping
technologies and chipped stone tools has underlined that both the production systems
and the construction of cutting implements reached a plateau in their logical develop-
ment, and that the adoption of metallurgy, introducing new chemical-physical princi-
ples, triggered a new development cycle.
With respect to the production systems, flint knapping and metallurgy cannot be
directly compared because they refer to different developmental lines. However, their
use for producing cutting tools permits us to consider the techno-logic relationship
between flint and metal implements. Compared to chipped stone tools, the structure of
metal objects is characterized by a greater synergy of its components, and this integra-
tion favored the development of new technical features. This development was
“inscribed”in the lithics themselves, but it was not supported by flint technologies,
both within the production systems and the construction of tools. Thus, for example, no
knapping technology can produce blades longer beyond a certain length, and multiple
composite tools have necessarily only one cutting-edge. With the metals, the develop-
ment line of cutting tools continues because the new production system is better
adapted to support it. Thanks to their plasticity, metals have the potential to assume
any shape and many morpho-metric characters, allowing development of new concep-
tions of objects. Thus, very long blades with two cutting-edges or new hafting systems
can be created. With the exploitation of metals, cutting implements continued their
development, and the new materials were used for new tools which exploited and
developed new gestures, movements, and forms of energy.
Even if the basic functions for which stone tools were produced remained the same,
metal objects were not simple replicas of already existing implements but represented
novelties that acquired increasing importance in proto- and early and historic societies.
Although our analysis is limited to cutting-edge objects, it nevertheless reflects how
technology was actively involved in the structuring of society, not only in the socioeconomic
and cultural implications that the organization of the production/consumption systems
entailed, but also in the new functional roles that these new objects developed. The case
of weapons is probably the best example of this phenomenon (e.g.,Gernez2007;Philip
1989). It seems significant that for much of the history of metallurgy, the development of
cutting-edge tools was stimulated by weapons which could not have existed prior to
metallurgy.
However, lithic industries did not completely disappear and, during the Metal Ages,
stone tools continued to be a component of technical, socioeconomic, and cultural
systems. They continued to be subject to changes which varied from one production
system to another one. The analysis of their socioeconomic contexts has allowed
recognition that, despite different historical contingencies, the contexts of production
acted as “evolutionary forces,”conditioning technological changes. Thus, the different
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

sub-systems of lithics did not changed simultaneously but according to their socioeco-
nomic structure, and technological changes were determined by the substitution of one
production system with another one.
The recurrent pattern that we can outline is that much of the technological changes
which occurred in chipped stone tool production systems were conditioned by the
appearance of a market economy, based on a division of roles between producers and
users of tools. The fact that flint cutting-edge tools were used for activities involving the
majority of the population (either within domestic contexts or more specialized prac-
tices, such as in the case of the sickles used in agriculture) probably contributed to the
development of a sequence of increasingly specialized production systems, which
progressively differentiated the roles between producers and users. The emergence of
specialized systems did not immediately result in a marked division of the labor, and
the users of cutting tools continued to participate to the manufacture of their own tools
for a long period. Observing the historical sequence of change, it is interesting to note
that systems which were already specialized, in a form or another, were the first one to
change, while the domestic and unspecialized production system took more time. The
adoption of a market economy was “selective,”and the division of roles between
producers and users of utilitarian tools was a gradual process, occurring by subsequent
steps. Similar contexts have been identified also in the disappearance of chipped stone
tools in America after the contact with Europeans. These studies have shown that the
patterns of adoption of metal and the abandonment of stone were catalyzed by the
development of markets and trade-networks (Cobb 2003). Further researches are
necessary to confirm these regularities, but it is interesting to observe that the adoption
of metal tools was slow and selective, even though the metallurgy arrived in America in
the 16th century AD already completely well-developed (Rodríguez-Alegria 2008).
Despite different scenarios and historical contingencies, common conditions can be
recognized to the socioeconomic contexts of production and use, which have to be
assimilated by the structure of the society.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the former journal editors Cathy Cameron and Jim Skibo,
Valentine Roux, Michael O’Brien, and the other anonymous referees whose relevant comments considerably
improved an earlier draft of the paper.
Funding Information This work was funded by the Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem, the Ben-
Gurion University of the Negev, and the Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre- La Défense.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
References
Akrich, M. (1989). La construction d’un système socio-technique. Esquisse pour une anthropologie des
techniques. Anthropologie des techniques, 13(2), 31–54.
Manclossi et al.

Allard, P., & Burnez-Lanotte, L. (Eds.). (2012). Productions domestiques versus spécialisées au Néolithique et
au Chalcolithique, finalités techniques et fonctions sociales: question d’échelle. Paris: Bulletin de La
Société Préhistorique Française.
Anderson, P. C., Chabot, J., & van Gijn, A. L. (2004). The functional riddle of “glossy”Canaanean blades and
the near eastern threshing sledge. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 17(1), 87–130.
Astruc, L. (Ed.). (2005). Au-delà de la notion de technologie expédiente: outillages lithiques et osseux au
Néolithique. Nanterre: Cahiers des thèmes transversaux d’ArScAn.
Astruc, L., Bon, F., Léa, V., Milcent, P. Y., & Philbert, S. (Eds.). (2006). Normes techniques et pratiques
sociales: de la simplicité des outillages pré- et protohistoriques. Antibes: APDCA.
Bailly, M. (2009). Stone tools and copper tools in Late Neolithic Western Europe: what relationship, what
substitution? From common sense to research agenda. In P. Jockey (Ed.), Interdisciplinary studies on
Mediterranean ancient marble and stone (pp. 865–877). Paris: Miasonneuve & Larose.
Bamforth, D. B. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity, 51,38–50.
Bar-Adon, P. (1980). The cave of the treasure. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Barkai, R. (1999). Resharpening and recycling of flint bifacial tools from the Southern Levant Neolithic and
Chalcolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 65, 305–318.
Barkai, R. (2005). Flint and stone axes as cultural markers: socio-economic changes as reflected in Holocene
flint tool industries of southern Levant. Berlin: Ex Oriente.
Barkai, R. (2006). The earliest tree fellers: on axes, people and ideology during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic
periods in Israel. Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, 3,5–21 (in Hebrew).
Barton, C. M., & Clark, G. A. (1997). Rediscovering Darwin: evolutionary theory in archaeological
explanations. Arlington: American Anthropological Association.
Basalla, G. (1998). The evolution of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauvais, S. (2008). Prolégomènes à une histoire de la métallurgie du fer au Levant Sud. Bulletin du Centre de
Recherche français à Jérusalem 19. http://bcrfj.revue.org/5996; Accessed 12 March 2017.
Benoit, P., Milik, J. T., & de Vaux, R. (1961). La grotte de Mabbaât. Discoveries in the Judean Desert II.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (1998). Eloge du mixte. Matériaux nouveaux et philosophie ancienne. Paris: Hachette.
Bentley, R. A., & Shennan, S. J. (2003). Cultural transmission and stochastic network growth. American
Antiquity, 68, 459–485.
Bentley, R. A., Hahn, M. W., & Shennan, S. J. (2004). Random drift and culture change. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B, 271,1443–1450.
Bijker, W. E., Hughies, T. C., & Pinch, T. (1989). The social construction of technological systems.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Binder, D., & Perlès, C. (1990). Stratégies de gestion des outillages lithiques au Néolithique. Pa léo, 2,257–
283.
Binford, R. L. (1979). Organization and formation process: looking at curated technologies. Journal of
Anthropological Research, 35(3), 255–273.
Birch, T., Rehren, T., & Pernicka, E. (2013). The metallic finds from Catalhöyük: a review and preliminary
new work. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Substantive technologies at Catalhöyük: reports from 2000–2008 seasons
(pp. 307–318). London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
Bleed, P. (1986). The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity, 5,
737–747.
Boëda, E. (1988). De la surface au volume: analyse des conceptions des débitages Levallois et laminaire. In C.
Farizy (Ed.), Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe (pp. 966–968).
Nemours: APRAIF.
Boëda, E. (1997). Technogenèse des systèmes de production lithique au Paléolithique inférieur et moyen en
Europe occidentale et au Proche -Orient. Habilitation dissertation. Nanterre: Université de Paris X-
Nanterre.
Boëda, E. (2001). Détermination des unités techno-fonctionnelles de pièces bifaciales provenant de la couche
acheuléenne C’3 base du site de Barbas. In D. Cliquet (Ed.), Les industries à outils bifaciaux du
Paléolithique moyen d’Europe occidentale (pp. 51–75). Liège: ERAUL.
Boëda, E. (2005). Paléo-technologie ou anthropologie des techniques? Arob@se, 1,46–64.
Boëda, E. (2013). Techno-logique & technologie: une paléo-histoire des objets lithiques tranchants. @rchéo-
éditions.com.
Boëda, E., Hou, Y. M., Forestier, H., Sarel, J., & Wang, H. M. (2013). Levallois and non-Levallois blade
production at Shuidonggou in Ningxia, North China. Quaternary International, 295, 191–203.
Bonilauri, S. (2010). Les outils du Paléolithique moyen: une mémoire technique oubliée? Approche techno-
fonctionnelle appliquée à un assemblage lithique de conception Levallois provenant du site d’Umm el Tlel
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

(Syrie centrale). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Nanterre: Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre- La
Défense.
Braun, E. & Roux, V (Eds.) (2013). The transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern
Levant. Paléorient 39(1).
Bresnahan, T. (1987). Competition and collusion in the American automobile oligopoly: the 1955 price war.
Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, 437–455.
Brumfiel, E. M., & Earle, K. (Eds.). (1987). Specialization, exchange and complex societies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brun, P., Averbouh, A., Karlin, C., Méry, S., & de Miroschedji, P. (2006). Les liens entre la complexité des
sociétés traditionnelles et le niveau de spécialisation artisanale: bilan et perspective. In A. Averbouh, P.
Brun, C. Karlin, S. Méry, & P. de Miroschedji (Eds.), Spécialisation des taches et société (pp. 325–347).
Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme.
Burke, S. J. (2014). The Southern Levant (Transjordan) during theMiddle Bronze Age. In M. L. Steiner & A.
E. Killebrew (Eds.), The archaeology of the Levant (pp. 526–541). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Callon, M. (1989). Réseaux technico-économiques et irréversibilité. In R. Boyer, B. Chavanne, & O. Godard
(Eds.), Figures d’irréversibilité en économie (pp. 195–230). Paris: Editions EHESS.
Caneva, I. (1993). From Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age III at Arslantepe: a lithic perspective. In M.
Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, & M. Mellink (Eds.), Between rivers and over the
mountains: Archaeologica anatolica et mesopotamica Alba Palmieri dedicata (pp. 319–339). Roma:
Università La Sapienza di Roma.
Chambon, A. (1984). Tell e l- F ar ’ah I: l’Age du Fer.Paris:ERC.
Château, J.-Y. (2010). La technique: genèse et concrétisation des objets techniques dans Du mode d’existence
des objets techniques de Gilbert Simondon. Philopsis. http://www.philopsis.fr/IMG/pdf_Technique-
Simondon-Chateau.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2017.
Chevrier, B. (2012). Les assemblages à pièces bifaciales au Pléistocène inférieur et moyen ancien en Afrique
de l’Est et au Proche Orient. Nouvelle approche du phénomène bifacial appliquée aux problématiques de
migration, de diffusion et d’évolution locale. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Nanterre: Université de
Paris Ouest Nanterre- La Défense.
Childe, V. G. (1951). Man makes himself: man’s progress through the ages. New York: New American
Library.
Clark, J., & Perry, W. J. (1990). Craft specialization and cultural complexity. Research in Economic
Anthropology, 12,289–346.
Cobb, C. R. (Ed.). (2003). Stone tool traditions in the Contact Era. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama
Press.
Collin, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan; or howactors macrostructurereality, and how
sociologists help them to do so. In K. D. Knorr & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and
methodology: toward an integration of micro- and macro- sociologies (pp. 277–303). London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Coqueugniot, E. (1991). L’outillage de pierre taillée au Bronze Récent. Ras Shamra 1978-1988. In M. Yon
(Ed.), Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI: arts et industries de la pierre (pp. 127–204). Paris: ERC.
Coqueugniot, E. (2006). Mari, Larsa, Ugarit et les outillages en silex de l’Age du Bronze. Réflexions sur le
rôle et le statut du travail du silex aux IIIeet IIemillénaire. In P. Butterlin (Ed.), Les espaces syro-
mésopotamiens, dimensions de l’expérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancien, volume d’hommage offert
à Jean-Claude Margueron (pp. 323–338) SUBARTU 17.
Coqueugniot, E. (2010). Ras Shamra-Ougarit. Un atelier de travail du silex dans une maison du secteur «
Grand Rue » (campagne 2005-2007). Syria, 87,37–40.
Costin, L. (1991). Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting and explaining the organization of
production. Archaeological Method and Theory, 3,1–56.
Costin, L. (2001). Craft production system. In G. M. Feinman, T. D. Price, & T. Douglas (Eds.), Archaeology
at the millennium: a sourcebook (pp. 273–327). New York: Springer.
Coutier, L. (1952). Notes sur les pierres à feu. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France, 49(7), 327–328.
Cresswell, R. (1994). La nature cyclique des relations entre la technique et le social. Approche technologique
de la chaîne opératoire. In B. Latour & P. Lemonnier (Eds.), De la préhistoire aux missiles balistiques:
l’intelligence sociale des techniques (pp. 275–289). Paris: La Découverte.
Cresswell, R. (1996). Prométhée ou Pandore? Propos de technologie culturelle. Paris: Kimé.
Cresswell, R. (2003). Geste technique, fait social total. Le technique est-il dans le social ou face à lui?
Technique & Culture,40.http://journals.openedition.org/tc/1576;https://doi.org/10.4000/tc.1576.
Accessed 13 Jan 2017.
Manclossi et al.

Da Costa, A. (2017). Rupture technique et dynamiques d’occupation au cours de l’Holocène moyen au Brésil.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Nanterre: Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre- La Défense.
Davidzon, A., & Gilead, I. (2009). The Chalcolithic workshop at Beit Eshel: preliminary refitting studies and
possible socio-economic implications. In S. A. Rosen & V. Roux (Eds.), Techniques and people:
anthropological perspectives on technology in the archaeology of the proto- historic and early historic
periods in the Southern Levant (pp. 25–41). Paris: De Boccard.
de Miroschedji, P. (1986). Céramique et mouvement de population: le cas de la Palestine au IIIemillénaire. In
M. T. Barrelet & J. Gardin (Eds.), A propos des interprétations archéologiques de la poterie: questions
ouvertes (pp. 10–46). Paris: ERC.
de Miroschedji, P. (2014). The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Early Bronze Age. In M. L. Steiner &
A. E. Killebrew (Eds.), The archaeology of the Levant (pp. 357–379). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Weyer, L. (2016). Systèmes techniques et variabilité fonctionnelle des industries lithiques anciennes.
Universaux et variabilité en Afrique de l’EstetenEurope. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Nanterre:
Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre- La Défense.
Deforge, Y. (1985). Technologie et génétique de l’objet industriel. Paris: Maloine.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the
determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11,147–162.
Douglas, N. (1996). The political economy of U.S. automobile protection. In A. O. Krueger (Ed.), The
political economy of American trade policy (pp. 133–196). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Durand, B. (2009). La crise pétrolière. Paris: EDP Science.
Eckermann, E. (2001). World history of the automobile. New York: SEA.
Edens, C. (1999). The chipped stone industry at Hacinebi: technological styles and social identity. Paléorient,
25(1), 23–33.
Edmonds, M. (1995). Stone tools and society. Working stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. London:
Batsford.
Eerkens, J. W., & Lipo, C. P. (2005). Cultural transmission, copying errors, and the generation of variation in
material culture and the archaeological record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 24, 316–334.
Eitan, A. (1994). Rare sword of the Israelite period found at Vered Jericho. Israel Museum Journal, 12,61–62.
El Mor, Z., & Pernot, M. (2011). Middle Bronze Age metallurgy in the Levant: evidence from the weapons of
Byblos. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 2613–2624.
Ellul, J. (1977). Le système technique.Paris:Calmann-Lévy.
Eriksen, B. V. (Ed.). (2010). Lithic technology in metal using societies. Højbjerg: Aarhus University Press.
Feldman, M. W., Aoki, K., & Kumm, J. (1996). Individual versus social learning: evolutionary analysis in a
fluctuating environment. Anthropological Science, 104, 209–231.
Fischer, P. M. (Ed.). (2008). Tell Abu Al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley: the Early Bronze Age. Wien: Austrian
Academy of Science Press.
Forbes,R.J.(1971).Studies in ancient technologies (Vol. VIII, 2nd ed.). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Ford, H. S., Bradley, R., Hawkes, J., & Fisher, P. (1984). Flint-working in the metal age. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology, 3,157–173.
Frick, J. A., & Herkert, K. (2014). Lithic technology and logic of technicity. Meitteilungen der Gesellschaft für
Urgeschichte, 23, 129–172.
Futato, E. M. (1996). Early Bronze Age III Canaanean blade/scraper cores from Tell Halif, Israel. In J. D.
Seger (Ed.), Retrieving the past. Essays on archaeological research and methodology in honor of Gus W.
Va n Br e ek (pp. 61–74). Cobb Institute of Archaeology: Starkville.
Gallay, A. (1986). L’archéologie demain. Paris: Belfond.
Gallay, A. (2011). Une ethnoarchéologie théorique. Paris: Errance.
Gelbert, A. (2003). Traditions céramiques et emprunts techniques dans la vallée du fleuve Sénégal. Paris:
Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
Genz, H. (2000). The organization of Early Bronze Age metalworking in the Southern Levant. Paléorient,
26(1), 55–65.
Georgano, G. N. (1990). Cars: early and vintage, 1886–1930. London: Grange Universal.
Gernez, G. (2007). L’armement en métal au Proche et Moyen Orient: des origines à 1750 Av. J.-C.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Paris: Université de Paris I Panthéon- Sorbonne.
Gernez, G. (2008). La question des mécanismes évolutifs des productions métallurgiques: l’exemple des
armes au Proche-Orient. In C. Oberweiller, B. Quilliec, & V. Verardi (Eds.), La métallurgie de transfor-
mation des alliages cuivreux: approches méthodologiques et applications archéologiques récentes (pp.
133–138). Nanterre: Cahiers des thèmes transversaux d’ArScAn.
Gersht, D. (2006). The flint assemblage from area K. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, & B. Halpern (Eds.),
Megiddo IV: the 1998–2002 seasons (pp. 343–349). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

Gilead, I. (1988). The Chalcolithic period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory, 2(4), 397–443.
Gilead, I., Marder, O., Khalaily, H., Fabian, P., Abadi, Y., & Yisrael, Y. (2004). The Beit Eshel Chalcolithic
flint workshop in Beer Sheva: a preliminary report. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society, 34, 245–263.
Gilead, I.,Davidzon, A., & Vardi, J. (2010). TheGhassulian sickle blade workshop of Beit Eshel, Beer Sheva,
Israel. In B. V. Eriksen (Ed.), Lithic technology in metal using society (pp. 221–230). Højbjerg: Aarhus
University Press.
Gille, B. (Ed.). (1978). Histoire des techniques.Paris:Gallimard.
Godelier, M. (2000). Aux sources de l’anthropologie économique. Socio-Anthropologie 7. http://socio-
anthropologie.revues.org/98. Accessed 4 July 2018.
Golden, J. (2009). New light on the development of Chalcolithic metal technology in the Southern Levant.
Journal of World Prehistory, 22,283–300.
Golden, J. (2010). Dawn of the metal age: technology and society during the Levantine Chalcolithic. London:
Equinox.
Goren, Y. (2008). The location of specialized copper production by the lost wax technique in the Chalcolithic
Southern Levant. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 23,374–397.
Gošić,M.(2014).Metallurgy, magic and social identities in the Ghassulian culture of the Southern Levant
(ca. 4500-4000 BC). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Beersheba: Ben Gurion University of the Negev.
Gosselain, O. P. (2000). Materializing identities: an African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory, 7,187–217.
Gosselain, O. P. (2008). Mother Bella was not Bella. Inherited and transformed traditions in southwestern
Niger. In M. Stark, B. Bower, & L. Horne (Eds.), Cultural transmission and material culture. Breaking
down boundaries (pp. 150–177). Tucson: Arizona University Press.
Gosselain, O. P. (2010). De l’art d’accommoder les pâtes: Espaces sociaux et échelles d’analyse au Niger. In C.
Manen, F. Convertini, D. Binder, & I. Sénepart (Eds.), Premières sociétés paysannes de la Méditerranée
orientale (pp. 249–263). Paris: Société Préhistorique Française.
Greenfield, H. (2013). The fall of thehouse of flint’: a zooarchaeological perspective on the decline of chipped
stone tools from butchering animals in the Bronze and Iron Ages of the Southern Levant. Lithic
Technology, 38(3), 161–178.
Guchet, X. (2005). Les sens de l’évolution technique. Paris: Editions Léo Scheer.
Guchet, X. (2008). Evolution technique et objectivité technique chez Loroi-Gourhan et Simondon. Appareil,
2. http://journals.openedition.org/appareil/580.Accessed13Dec2017.
Gurova, M. (2013). Tribulum inserts in ethnographic and archaeological perspective: case studies from
Bulgaria and Israel. Lithic Technology, 38(3), 179–201.
Hartenberger, B., & Runnels, C. (2001). The organization of flaked stone production at Bronze Age Lerna.
The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 70(3), 255–283.
Hartenberger, B., Rosen, S. A., & Matney, T. (2000). The Early Bronze Age blade workshop at TitrişHöyük:
lithic specialization in an urban context. Near Eastern Archaeology, 63(1), 51–58.
Hauptman, A., & Pernicka, E. (Eds.). (1999). The beginnings of metallurgy. Bochum: Deutschen Bergbau-
Museum.
Hauptman, A., Khalil, L., & Schmitt-Strecker, S. (2009). Evidence of Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age I
copper production from Timna ores at Tall al-Magass, ‘Aqaba. In L. Khalil & K. Schmidt (Eds.),
Prehistoric ‘Aqaba (pp. 295–304). Rahden: Mari Leidorf.
Hayden, B., Franco, N., & Spafford, J. (1996). Evaluating lithic strategies and design criteria. In G. Oddel
(Ed.), Theoretical insights into human prehistory (pp. 9–45). New York: Plenum Press.
Hermon, S. (2008). Socio aspect of Chalcolithic (4500–3500 BCE) societies in Southern Levant: a lithic
perspective. Oxford: BAR International Series.
Heskel, D. L. (1983). A model of the adoption of metallurgy in the ancient Middle East. Current
Anthropology, 24,362–366.
Hestrin, R., & Tadmor, M. (1963). A hoard of tools and weapons from Kfar Monash. Israel Exploration
Journal, 13,265–288.
Hirth, K. (Ed.). (2009). Housework: craft production and domestic economy in ancient Mesoamerica.
Arlington: American Anthropological Association.
Högberg, A. (2009). Lithic in the Scandinavian Bronze Age. Sociotechnical change and persistence. Oxford:
BAR International Series.
Holmes, D. L. (1992). Chipped-stone working craftsman, Hierakonopolis and the rise of civilization in Egypt.
In R. F. Friedman & B. Adams (Eds.), The followers of Horus: studies dedicated to Michael Allen
Hoffman, 1944–1990 (pp. 37–44). Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Hounshell, D. (1984). From the American system to the mass production, 1800–1932: the development of
manufacturing technologies in the United States. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Manclossi et al.

Humphrey, J. (2004). Iron Age flint utilization in central and southern Britain: the last ‘Stone Age?’An
integrated theoretical end empirical study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Leicester: University of
Leicester.
Ilan, O., & Sebbane, M. (1989). Copper metallurgy, trade, and the urbanization of southern Canaan in the
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. In P. de Miroschedji (Ed.), L’ubanisation de la Palestine à l’Age du
Bronze Ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (pp. 139–162). Oxford: BAR International
Series.
Inizan, M.-L., Reduron, M., Roche, H., & Tixier, J. (1995). Technologie de la pierre taillée. Meudon: CREP.
Jeske, R. L. (1992). Energetic efficiency and lithic technology: an Upper Mississippian example. American
Antiquity, 57(3), 467–481.
Kameda, T., & Nakanishi, D. (2002). Cost-benefit analysis of social/cultural learning in a nonstationary
uncertain environment: an evolutionary simulation and an experiment with human subjects. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 23,242–260.
Kardulias, P. N. (2003). Stone in the age of bronze: lithics from Bronze Age contexts in Greece and Iran. In P.
N. Kardulias & R. W. Yerkes (Eds.), Written in stone: the multiple dimensions of lithic analysis (pp. 113–
124). Lenham: Lexington Books.
Karlin, C., Bodu, P., & Pelegrin, J. (1991). Processus techniques et chaînes opératoires. Comment les
préhistoriens s’approprient un concept élaboré par les ethnologues. In H. Balfet (Ed.), Observer l’action
technique. Des chaînes opératoires, pour quoi faire ? (pp. 101–117). Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Kay, J. H. (1998). Asphalt nation: how the automobile took over America, and how we can take it back.
Oakland: University of California Press.
Kent, B. C. (1983). More on gunflints. Historical Archaeology, 17(2), 27–40.
Khalil, L.A.H. (1980). The composition and technology of copper artifacts from Jericho and some related
sites. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. London: University of London.
Klimscha, F. (2011). Long-range contacts in the Late Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. Excavations at Tell
Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tall al-Magrass near Aqaba, Jordan. In J. Mynárova (Ed.), Egypt and the Near
East- the Crossroads (pp. 177–209). Prague: Charles University.
Lafitte, J. (1972). Réflexions sur la science des machines. Paris: Vrin.
Latour, B. (1992). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), Sociology of monster: essays on
power, technology and domination (pp. 103–130). London: Routledge.
Le Roux, C. T. (1999). L’outillage de pierre polie en métadolérite du type A. Les ateliers de Plussulien (Côte
d’Armor): Production et diffusion au Néolithique dans la France de l’ouest et au-delà. Rennes: Université
de Rennes I.
Lech, J., Piotrowska, D., & Werra, D. H. (2015). Between economy and symbol: flint in the Bronze Age in
eastern central Europe. In P. Suchowska-Ducke, S. Scott Reiter, & H. Ehrhardt (Eds.), Forging identities:
the mobility of culture in Bronze Age Europe (pp. 221–229). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Lechtman, H. (1996). Arsenic bronze: dirty copper or chosen alloy? A view from the Americans. Journal of
Field Archaeology, 23,477–514.
Lemonnier, P. (1976). La description des chaînes opératoires: contribution à l’analyse des systèmes techniques.
Techniques & Cultures, 1,100–151.
Lemonnier, P. (Ed.). (1993). Technological choices: transformations in material culture since the Neolithic.
London: Routledge.
Lemonnier, P. (2010). L’étude des systèmes techniques: une urgence en technologie culturelle. Tec h niq ue &
Culture, 54-55,46–67.
Lepot, M. (1993). Approche techno-fonctionnelle de l’outillage lithique moustérien : essai de classification
des parties actives en termes d’efficacité techniques. Application à la couche M2e sagittale du Grand Abri
de la Ferrassie (fouille Henri Delporte). Unpublished Master dissertation. Nanterre: Université de Paris
X- Nanterre.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1943). Evolution et technique. L’homme et la matière. Paris: Albin Michel.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le geste et la parole. I, technique et langage. Paris: Albin Michel.
Levy, T. E. (1995). Cult, metallurgy and ranked societies: the Chalcolithic period (ca. 4500-3500 BCE). In T.
E. Levy (Ed.), The archaeology of society in the Holy Land (pp. 226–245). London: Leicester University
press.
Levy, T. E., & Shalev, S. (1989). Prehistoric metalworking in the Southern Levant: archaeometallurgical and
social perspectives. World Archaeology, 20(3), 352–372.
Levy, T. E., Russell, B., Adams, R. B., Hauptmann, A., Prage, M., Schmitt-Strecker, S., & Najjar, M. (2002).
Early Bronze Age metallurgy: a newly discovered copper manufactory in southern Jordan. Antiquity, 76,
425–437.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

Li, Y. (2011). Etude technologique de l’industrie lithique du site de Guanyindong dans la province de
Guizhou, sud-ouest de la Chine. @rcéo-éditions.com.
Lipo, C. P., O’Brien, M. J., Collard, M., & Shennan, S. J. (Eds.). (2006). Mapping our ancestors: phylogenetic
approaches in anthropology and prehistory. Brunswick: Aldine Transition.
Littauer, M. A., & Crouwel, J. H. (1990). Ceremonial threshing in the ancient near east. Iraq, 52,19–23.
Lourdeau, A. (2010). Le technocomplexe Itaparica. Définition techno-fonctionelle des industries à pièces
façonnées unifacialement à une face plane dans le centre et le nord-est du Brésil pendant la transition
Pléistocène-Holocène et l’Holocène ancien. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Nanterre: Université de Paris
Ouest Nanterre- la Défense.
Lyman, R. L., & O’Brien, M. J. (1998). The goals of evolutionary archaeology: history and explanation.
Current Anthropology, 39,615–662.
Lyman, R. L., & O’Brien, M. J. (2000). Measuring and explaining change in artifact variation with clade-
diversity diagrams. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 19,39–74.
Mackenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1985). The social shaping of technology. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Maddin, R., Muhly, J. D., & Stech, T. (2003). Metallurgical studies on copper artifacts from Bâb Edh-Dhrâ. In
W. E. Rast & R. T. Schaub (Eds.), Bâb Edh-Dhrâ’: Excavations at the town site, 1977–1981 excavations
(pp. 513–521). Winnona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Manclossi, F. (2016). De la pierre aux métaux: dynamiques des changements techniques dans les industries
lithiques au Levant Sud, IVème-I
er millénaire av. J.-C. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Nantere: Université
de Paris Ouest Nanterre- La Défense ; Beersehava: Ben Gurion University of the Negev.
Manclossi, F., & Rosen, S. A. (2019a). The importance of being ad hoc: patternsand implications of expedient
lithic production in the Bronze Age in Israel. In R. Horowitzn & G. S. McCall (Eds.), Global perspectives
on lithic technology in complex societies. Utah: University Press of Colorado.
Manclossi, F., & Rosen, S. A. (2019b). Dynamics of change in flint sickles of the age of metals: new insights
from a technological approach. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies,
7(1).
Manclossi, F., Rosen, S. A., & de Miroschedji, P. (2016). The Canaanean blades from Tel Yarmuth, Israel: a
technological analysis. Paléorient, 42(1), 49–74.
Manclossi, F., Rosen, S. A., & Lehmann, G. (2018). The decline and disappearance of chipped-stone tools:
new insights from Qubur al-Walaydah, a Late Bronze-Iron Age site in Israel. Lithic Technology, 43(2),
93–124.
Manolakakis, L. (2002). The function of the big blades from Varna necropolis. Archaeologiâ, 43(3), 5–17.
Marder, O., Braun, E., & Milevski, I. (1995). The flint assemblage of Horvat ‘Illit. Some technical and
economic considerations.’.Atiqot, 27,63–93.
Marx, L. (1987). Does improved technology mean progress? Technology Review, 90,32–41.
McConaughy, M. (1979). Formal and functional analysis of chipped stone tools from Bâb Edh-Dhrâ.Ann
Arbor: University Microfilm.
McConaughy, M. (1980). Chipped stone tools from Bâb Edh-Dhrâ. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research, 240,53–58.
McConaughy, M. (2003). Chipped stone tools from Bâb Edh-Dhrâ. In W. E. Rast & R. T. Schaub (Eds.),Bâb
edh-Dhrâ’: excavations at the town site, 1975–1982 (pp. 473–512). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
McLaren, A. (2008). Flintworking in the British Late Bronze and Iron Ages: a critical review and statement of
research potential. Lithic Technology, 33(2), 141–159.
McNutt,P.(1990).The forging of Israel: iron technology, symbolism, and tradition in ancient society.
Sheffield: The Almond Press.
Mesoudi, A., & O’Brien, M. J. (2008a). The cultural transmission of Great Basin projectile-point technology I:
an experimental simulation. American Antiquity, 73,3–28.
Mesoudi, A., & O’Brien, M. J. (2008b). The cultural transmission of Great Basin projectile-point technology
II: an agent-based computer simulation. American Antiquity, 73,627–724.
Michailidou, A. (2001). Recording quantities of metal in Bronze Age societies in the Aegean and the near east.
In A. Michailidou (Ed.), Manufacture and measuring: counting, measuring and recording craft items in
early Aegean societies (pp. 85–119). Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Milevski, I. (2009). The Copper Age and inequality in the Southern Levant. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society, 39,1–28.
Milevski, I. (2011). Early Bronze Age good exchange in the Southern Levant: a Marxist perspective. London:
Equinox.
Milevski, I. (2013). The exchange of flint tools in the Southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age. Lithic
Technology, 38(3), 202–219.
Manclossi et al.

Milevski, I., Vardi, J., Gilead, I., Eirikh-Rose, A., Birkenfeld, M., Mienis, H. K., & Horwitz, L. K. (2013).
Excavations at Horbat ‘Illit B: a Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) site in the Haeleah Vallay. Journal of Israel
Prehistoric Society, 43,73–147.
Miron, E. (1992). Axes and adzes from Canaan. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.
Moorey, P. R. S. (1988). The Chalcolithic hoard from Nahal Mishmar, Israel, in context. World Archaeology,
20,171–189.
Morgado Rodríguez, A., Pelegrin, J., Martínez Fernandez, G., &Alfonso Marrero, J. A. (2008). La production
de grandes lames dans la péninsule ibérique (IVe-IIIemillénaire). In M.-L. Dias-Meirinho, V. Léa, K.
Gernigon, P. Fouéré, F. Briois, & M. Bailly (Eds.), Les industries lithiques taillées des IVeet IIIe
millénaires en Europe occidentale (pp. 309–330). Oxford: Bar International Series.
Mozel, I. (1983). A reconstructed sickle from Lachish. Tel Av i v, 1 0 ,182–185.
Muhly, J. D. (1982a). How irontechnology changed the ancient world and gave the Philistines a military edge.
Biblical Archaeological Review, 8(6), 42–54.
Muhly, J. D. (1982b). The nature of trade in the LBA eastern Mediterranean: the organization of metals trade
and the role of Cyprus. InJ. D. Muhly, R. Maddin, & V. Karageorghis (Eds.), Early metallurgy in Cyprus,
4000–500 BC (pp. 251–266). Nicosia: Pierides Foundation.
Muhly, J. D. (1985). Sources of tin and the beginning of the Bronze Age. American Journal of Archaeology,
89,275–291.
Nadmar, D., Segal, I., Goren, Y., & Shalev, S. (2004). Chalcolithic copper artifacts. In N. Scheftelowitz & R.
Oren (Eds.), Giv’at ha-Oranim. A Chalcolithic site (pp. 70–83). Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology.
O’Brien, M. J., & Bentley, R. A. (2011). Stimulated variation and cascades: two processes in the evolution of
complex technological systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 18,309–335.
O’Brien, M. J., & Holland, T. D. (1990). Variation, selection and the archaeological record. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory, 2,31–79.
O’Brien, M. J., & Lyman, R. L. (2000). Evolutionary archaeology: reconstructing and explaining historical
lineages. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Social theory in archaeology (pp. 126–142). Salt Lake City: The
University of Utah Press.
O’Brien, M.J., & Shennan, S. J. (Eds.). (2010). Innovation in cultural system: contribution from evolutionary
anthropology.Cambridge:MITPress.
Olive, M., Pigeot, N., Taborin, Y., & Yvon, J.-M. (2005). Toujours plus longue, une lame à crête
exceptionnelle à Étiolles (Essone). Revue Archéologique de Picardie, 22,25–28.
Oshri, A., & Schick, T. (1998). The lithics. In T. Schick (Ed.), The cave of the warrior. A 4th millennium burial
in the Judean desert (pp. 59–62). Israel Antiquities Reports: Jerusalem.
Pagli, M. (2013). Variabilité du Moustérien au Proche-Orient. Approche géographique des dynamiques de
changement en milieu méditerranéen et en milieu steppique. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Nanterre:
Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre- La Défense.
Parry, W. J., & Kelly, R. L. (1987). Expedient core technology and sedentism. In J. K. Johnson & C. A.
Morrow (Eds.), The organization of core technology (pp. 285–304). Boulder: Westview Press.
Pawlik, A.(2004). An Early Bronze Age pocket lighter. In E. A. Walker, F. Wenban-Smith, & F. Healy (Eds.),
Lithics in action: papers from the conference lithic studies in the year 2000 (pp. 149–151). Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Pelegrin, J. (1991). Les savoir-faire: une très longue histoire. Ter rains , 1 6 ,106–113.
Pelegrin, J. (2002). La production des grandes lames de silex du Grand-Pressigny. In J. Guilaine (Ed.),
Matériaux, productions, circulations du Néolithique à l’Age du Bronze (pp. 131–148). Paris: Errance.
Pelegrin, J. (2007). Réflexion sur la notion de « spécialiste » dans la taille de la pierre au Paléolithique. In R.
Desbrosse & A. Thévenin (Eds.), Arts et cultures de la préhistoire, hommage à Henri Delporte (pp. 315–
318). Paris: Edition du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques.
Pelegrin, J. (2012). New experimental observation for the characterization of pressure blade production
technique. In P. M. Desrosiers (Ed.), The emergence of pressure blade making: from origin to modern
experimentation (pp. 464–500). New York: Springer.
Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C., & Bodu, P. (1988). Chaînes opératoires: un outil pour le préhistorien. InJ. Tixier (Ed.),
Technologie préhistorique (pp. 55–62). Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Perlès, C. (1991). Economie des matières premières et économie du débitage: deux concepts opposés? In 25
ans d’études technologiques en préhistoire: bilan et perspectives. Actes des XIerencontres internationales
d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, 18-20 octobre 1990 (pp. 35–46). Juan-les-Pins: APDCA.
Perlès, C. (1992). In search of lithic strategies: a cognitive approach to prehistoric chipped stone assemblage.
In J.-C. Gardin & C. S. Peebles (Eds.), Representations in archaeology (pp. 223–247). Indiana: Indiana
University Press.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

Perlès, C. (2009). Les industries lithiques néolithiques: logiques techniques et logiques sociales. In De
Méditerranée et D’ailleurs... Mélanges offerts à Jean Guilaine (pp. 557–571). Toulouse: Archives
d’Ecologie Préhistorique.
Perrot, J. (1952). Les industries lithiques palestiniennes de la fin du Mésolithique à l’Age du Bronze. Israel
Exploration Journal, 2,73–81.
Philip, G. (1988). Hoards of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. World Archaeology, 20(2), 190–
208.
Philip, G. (1989). Metal weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine. Oxford: BAR
International Series.
Philip, G. (1991). Tin, arsenic, lead: alloying practices inSyria-Palestine around 2000 BC. Levant, 23,93–104.
Philip, G., Glog, P. W., & Dungworth, D. (2003). Copper metallurgy in the Jordan valley from the third to the
first millennia BC. Chemical, metallographic and lead isotope analyses of artifacts from Pella. Levant, 35,
71–100.
Pleiner, R. (2006). Iron in archaeology. Early European blacksmiths. Praha: Archaeologický ústav.
Pollock, S. (2008). Rubbish, routines, and practice: chipped stone blades from Uruk-period Sharafabad, Iran.
Iran, 46,43–68.
Praciunas, M. M. (2007). Bifacial cores and flake production efficiency: an experimental test of the techno-
logical assumption. American Antiquity, 72,334–348.
Richard, S. (2006). Early Bonze Age IV transition: an archaeometallurgical study. In S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, &
J. P. Dessel (Eds.), Confronting the past: archaeological and historical essays on ancient Israel in honor
of Williams G. Dever (pp. 119–132). Eisenbrauns: Winnona Lake.
Roby, F. (2006). Vers la voiture sans pétrole. Paris: EDP Science.
Rocca, R. (2013). Peut-on définir des aires culturelles au Paléolithique inférieur? Originalité des premières
industries lithiques en Europe centrale dans le cadre du peuplement de l’Europe. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation. Nanterre: Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre- La Défense.
Rocca, R., Abruzzese, C., & Aureli, D. (2016). European Acheuleans: critical perspective from the east.
Quaternary International, 411,402–411.
Rodríguez-Alegria, E. (2008). Narratives of conquest, colonialism, and cutting-edge technology. American
Anthropologist, 110(1), 33–43.
Rosen, S. A. (1982). Flint sickle blades of the late proto-historical and early historical periods in Israel. Tel
Aviv, 9,139–145.
Rosen, S. A. (1983). The Canaanean blade and the Early Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal, 33,15–29.
Rosen, S. A. (1984). The adoption of metallurgy in the Levant: a lithic perspective. Current Anthropology,
25(4), 504–505.
Rosen, S. A. (1986). Note on the Gezer flint caches. In W. G. Dever (Ed.), Gezer IV (pp. 259–263). Jerusalem:
Hebrew Union College.
Rosen, S. A. (1989). The analysis of Early Bronze Age chipped stone industry: a summary statement. In P. de
Miroschedji (Ed.), L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’Age du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des
recherches actuelles (pp. 199–221). Oxford: BAR International Series.
Rosen, S. A. (1993). Metals, rocks, specialization, and the beginning of urbanism in the northern Negev. In A.
Biran & J. Aviram (Eds.), Biblical archaeology today, 1990: Proceedings of the second international
congress on Biblical archeology (pp. 41–56). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Rosen, S. A. (1996). The decline and fall of flint. In G. H. Odell (Ed.), Stone tools, theoretical insights into
human prehistory (pp. 129–152). New York: Plenum Press.
Rosen, S. A. (1997). Lithic after Stone Age: a handbook of stone tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek:
Altamira Press.
Rosen, S. A. (2004). The chipped stone assemblage. In D. J. Ussishkin (Ed.), The renewed archaeological
excavations at Lachish (Vol. 5, pp. 2197–2225). Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in
Archaeology.
Rosen, S. A. (2017). Revolutions in the desert: the rise of mobile pastoralism in the Southern Levant.New
York: Routledge.
Rosen, S. A., & Vardi, J. (2014). Chipped stone assemblage from Tell Jemmeh. In D. Ben-Shlomo & W. Van
Beek (Eds.), The Smithsonian Institution excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990 (pp. 987–1003).
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
Rosen, S. A., Shugar, A., & Vardi, J. (2014). Function and value in sickle segment analysis: Odellian
perspective. In M. J. Shott (Ed.), Works in stone. Contemporary perspectives on lithic analysis (pp.
116–130). Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Manclossi et al.

Roux, V. (2003). A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change: application to the
emergence of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory, 10,1–30.
Roux, V. (2007a). Ethnoarchaeology: a non historical science of reference necessary for interpreting the past.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(2), 153–178.
Roux, V. (2007b). Non-emprunt du façonnage au tour dans le Levant Sud entre le Veet le IVemillénaire av. J.-
C.: des régularités pour des scénarios historiques particuliers. In P. Rouillard, C. Perlès, & E. Grimaud
(Eds.), Mobilités, immobilisme. L’empruntetsonrefus(pp. 202–213). Paris: Boccard.
Roux, V. (2013). Spreading of innovative technical traits and cumulative technical evolution: continuity or
discontinuity? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20,312–330.
Roux, V. (2015a). Standardization of ceramic assemblages: transmission mechanisms and diffusion of
morpho-functional traits across social boundaries. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 40,1–9.
Roux, V. (2015b). Cultural transmission, migration and plain wheel-made pottery in the Middle Bronze Age II
Southern Levant. In C. Glatz (Ed.), Plain pottery traditions of the eastern Mediterranean and near
eastern: production, use and social significance (pp. 68–88). London: UCL Institute of Archaeology
Publication.
Roux, V., & Courty, M.-A. (2013). Introduction to discontinuities and continuities: theories, methods and
proxies for a historical and sociological approach to evolution of past societies. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory, 20, 187–193.
Roux, V., & de Miroschedji, P. (2007). Revisiting the history of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant.
Levant, 41(2), 155–170.
Roux, V., Mille, B., & Pelegrin, J. (2013). Innovations céramiques, métallurgiques et lithiques au
Chalcolithique: mutations sociales, mutations techniques. In J. Jaubert, N. Fourment & P. Depaepe
(Eds.), Transitions, ruptures et continuité durant la Préhistoire: Evolution des techniques, comportements
funéraires, Néolithique ancien (pp. 61–74). Société Préhistorique Française.
Rowan, Y. M., & Golden, J. (2009). The Chalcolithic period of the Southern Levant: a synthetic review.
Journal of World Prehistory, 22,1–92.
Rowlands, M. (1971). The archaeological interpretation of prehistoric metalworking. World Archaeology, 3(2),
210–224.
Runnels, C. (1982). Flakes-stone artifacts in Greece during the historical period. Journal of Field Archaeology,
9, 363–373.
Runnels, C. (1994). Tinderflint and firemaking in the historical period. Lithic Technology, 19(1), 7–16.
Schiffer, M. B. (1990). The influence ofsurface treatment on heating effectiveness of ceramic vessels. Journal
of Archaeological Science, 17(4), 373–381.
Schiffer, M. B. (1996). Some relationship between behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies. American
Antiquity, 61, 643–662.
Schiffer, M. B. (2007). Some thoughts on the archaeological study of social organization. In M. Skibo, M.
Graves, & M. Stark (Eds.), Archaeological anthropology: perspectives in methods and theories (pp. 57–
71). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Schiffer, M. B. (2011). Studying technological change: a behavioral approach. Salt Lake City: The University
of Utah Press.
Schiffer, M. B., & Skibo, J. M. (1987). Theory and experiment in the study of technological change. Current
Anthropology, 28,594–622.
Schiffer, M. B., Butts, T. C., & Grimm, K. K. (1994). Taking charge: the electric automobile in America.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Setright, L. J. K. (2004). Drive on! A social history of the motor car. London: Granta Books.
Shalev, S. (1991). Two different copper industries in the Chalcolithic culture of Israel. In C. Eluère & J. P.
Mohen (Eds.), La découverte du métal (pp. 413–424). Paris: Picard.
Shalev, S. (1994). The change in metal production from the Chalcolithic period to the Early Bronze Age in
Israel and Jordan. Antiquity, 68, 630–637.
Shalev, S. (2004). Swords and daggers in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften
und der Literatur.
Shalev, S. (2009). Metal and society: production and distribution of metal weapons in the Levant during the
Middle Bronze Age II. In S. A. Rosen & V. Roux (Eds.), Techniques and peoples: anthropological
perspectives on technology in the archaeology of the proto-historic and early historic periods in the
Southern Levant (pp. 69–80). Paris: De Boccard.
Shennan, S. J. (2011). Descend with modification and the archaeological record. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B, 36, 1070–1079.
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...

Sherratt,S. (2000). Circulation of metals and the end of the Bronze Age in the eastern Mediterranean. In C. F.
E. Pare (Ed.), Metals make the world go round: the supply and circulation of metals in Bronze Age
Europe. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997 (pp. 82–98).
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Sherratt, A., & Sherratt, S. (1991). From luxuries to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age
trading system. In N. H. Gale (Ed.), Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean: papers presented at the
conference held at Rewley House, Oxford in December 1989 (pp. 351–386). Jonsered: P. Åström.
Sherratt, A., & Sherratt, S. (2001). Technological change in the East Mediterranean Bronze Age: capital,
resources and marketing. In A. J. Shortland (Ed.), The social context of technological change. Egypt and
near east, 1650–1050 (pp. 15–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sherwood, A. N., Nikolic, M., Humphrey, J. W., & Oleson, J. P. (Eds.). (1998). Greek and Roman technology:
a sourcebook. Annotated translation of Greek and Latin texts and documents. London: Routledge.
Shimelmitz, R. (2009). Variability in specialized Canaanean blade production of the Early Bronze Age Levant.
In S. A. Rosen & V. Roux (Eds.), Techniques and people. Anthropological perspectives on technology in
the archaeology of the proto-historic and early Historic periods in the Southern Levant (pp. 135–156).
Paris: De Boccard.
Shimelmitz, R., & Zuckerman, S. (2014). Flint knapping in the Late Bronze Age, a dying technology? A
perspective from the lower city oh Hazor. Levant, 46(1), 43–57.
Simondon, G. (1989). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques.Paris:Aubier.
Skakun, N. N. (2008). Les grandeslames de silex dumobilier funéraire des proto-éleveurs du sud del’Europe
orientale. Préhistoire Méditerranéenne, 14.http://pm.revues.org/353. Accessed 28 Feb 2018.
Soriano, S. (2000). Outillage bifacial et outillage sur éclat au Paléolithique ancien et moyen: coexistence et
interaction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Nanterre: Université de Paris X- Nanterre.
Stech-Wheeler, T., Muhly, J. D., Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R., & Maddin, R. (1981). Iron at Taanach and early iron
metallurgy in the eastern Mediterranean. American Journal of Archaeology, 85(3), 245–268.
Steensberg, A. (1943). Ancient harvesting implements. Copenaghen: Nationalmuseets Skrifter.
Steiner, M. L., & Killebrew, A. E. (Eds.). (2014). The archaeology of the Levant. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tadmor, M., Kedem, D., Begemann, F., Hauptmann, A., Pernicka, E., & Schmitt-Strecker, S. (1995). The
Nahal Mishmar hoard from the Judean Desert: technology, composition, and provenance. Atiqot, 27,95–
148.
Torrence, R. (Ed.). (1989). Time, energy and stone tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Gijn, A. L. (1988). The use of Bronze Age flint sickles in the Netherlands: a preliminary report. In S.
Beyries (Ed.), Industries lithiques: tracéologie et technologie (pp. 197–218). Oxford: BAR International
Series.
Vardi, J. (2011). Sickle blades and sickles of the sixth and fifth millennia BCE in light of the finds from the
Chalcolithic sickle blade workshop site of Beit Eshel. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Beersheba: Ben
Gurion University of the Negev.
Vardi, J., & Gilead, I. (2011). Side-blow blade-flakes from the Ghassulian sickle blade workshop of Beit
Eshel: a Chalcolithic solution to a Neolithic riddle. In E. Healy, S. Campbell, & O. Maeda (Eds.), The
state of the stone terminologies, continuities and contexts in neareastern lithics (pp. 343–356). Berlin: Ex
Oriente.
Vardi, J., & Gilead, I. (2013). Keeping the razor sharp: hafting and maintenance of sickles in the southern
Levant during the 6th and 5th millennia BC. In F. Borrell, J. Ibáñez, & M. Molist (Eds.), Stone tools in
transition: from hunter-gatherers to farming societies in the near east (pp. 377–393). Barcelona: Servei
de Publicacions.
Whittaker, J. C. (2000). The ethnoarchaeology of threshing in Cyprus. Near Eastern Archaeology, 63,62–69.
Yahalom-Mack, N., & Eliyahu-Behar, A. (2015). The transition from bronze to iron in Canaan: chronology,
technology, and context. Radiocarbon, 57(2), 285–305.
Yerkes, R. W., & Barkai, R. (2004). Microwear analysis of Chalcolithic bifacial tools. In N. Scheftelowitz &
R. Oren (Eds.), Giv’at Ha-Oranim. A Late Chalcolithic site (pp. 110–124). Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire
Yass Publications in Archaeology.
Young, R., & Humphrey, J. (1999). Flint use in England after the Bronze Age: time for a re-evaluation?
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 65, 231–242.
Zaccagnini, C. (1987). Aspect of ceremonial exchange in the near east during the late second millennium BC.
In M. J. Rowland, M. T. Larsen, & K. Kristiansen (Eds.), Centre and periphery in the ancient world (pp.
57–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manclossi et al.

Affiliations
Francesca Manclossi
1
&Steven A. Rosen
2
&Eric Boëda
3
1
Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
2
Department of Bible, Archaeology and Near Eastern Studies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,
Beersheva, Israel
3
Département d’Anthropologie, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre- La Défense, Nanterre, France
From Stone to Metal: the Dynamics of Technological Change in the...