Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Different Vegetation Restoration Types on Soil Quality in Mountainous Areas of Beijing
Next Article in Special Issue
Extraction of Soluble Salts and Iron Sulfides from the Wood of the “Huaguangjiao I” Shipwreck
Previous Article in Journal
Assembly and Comparative Analysis of the Complete Mitochondrial Genome of Ilex macrocarpa
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analyses of Sulfur and Iron in Waterlogged Archaeological Wood: The Case of Polyethylene-Glycol-Treated Yenikapı 12 Shipwreck
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/f14122373
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Unseen Record: Ninth–Seventh Millennia Cal. BP Wooden and Basketry Objects from Submerged Settlements off the Carmel Coast, Israel

by
Danny Rosenberg
1,*,
Ehud Galili
2,3 and
Dafna Langgut
4
1
Laboratory for Ancient Food Processing Technologies (LAFPT), Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel
2
Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel
3
Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel
4
Laboratory of Archaeobotany and Ancient Environments, Institute of Archaeology and The Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2023, 14(12), 2373; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14122373
Submission received: 24 October 2023 / Revised: 30 November 2023 / Accepted: 30 November 2023 / Published: 5 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Collection Historical Wood: Structure, Properties and Conservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Wood and basketry artefacts rarely survive in the prehistoric record since they require exceptional conditions for preservation; as a result, the current knowledge about when and how prehistoric societies used these basic organic raw materials is limited. Focusing on the southern Levant, we discuss for the first time a collection of 16 late prehistoric organic artefacts found in underwater research conducted in the last forty years off the coast of the Carmel Ridge (Israel). The waterlogged finds, including bowls, shafts, a wedge, a trough, a pitchfork, logs, a mat, and a basket, were found at sites spanning from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to Middle Chalcolithic periods (ninth–seventh millennia cal. BP), constituting an unprecedented record of prehistoric wood and other perishable materials, providing us with new information about raw material preferences and manufacturing technologies.

1. Introduction

Wood and other organic materials were an essential part of the daily life of almost all human societies. Yet, in many cases, these materials are not preserved in the archaeological record due to their tendency to rapidly decay in most environments, resulting in their omission from scholarly discourse [1]. So far, the earliest known wooden artefacts in the world were reported from the southern Levant at the 780 ka Acheulean waterlogged site Gesher Benot Ya’aqov [2,3]. A recent discovery of the earliest structural use of wood originated from a slightly less than 500 ka waterlogged site in Zambia [4]. Other Paleolithic wooden artefacts were found in China [5] and Europe (e.g., [6,7,8,9,10,11]). These perishable artefacts speak for a rich and versatile array of functions as well as technical cognition. As such, they can be used to study a variety of themes: raw material preferences, wood carving technologies, ecological and environmental circumstances, provenance, and skeuomorphs (e.g., [12,13]).
In the southern Levant and Israel in particular, wooden artefacts are infrequent in late prehistoric (Epipaleolithic to Chalcolithic periods) sites, and therefore the archaeological record is predetermined against the preservation of organic materials. Some perishable waterlogged artefacts were recovered from the 23 ka cal. BP Ohalo 2 submerged site in the Sea of Galilee [14], and several other finds were discovered at the Chalcolithic Judean Desert caves in a desiccated form (e.g., [15,16,17,18,19]). The scarcity of wooden artefacts inevitably produced a skewed prehistoric record, biased towards lithic, pottery, and, to some extent, ground stone tool assemblages (e.g., [20]).
Nonetheless, some depositional environments provide conditions favourable to the survival of organic materials (e.g., anaerobic and dry), leading to better preservation of otherwise perishable artefacts [1]. The seabed is such an environment, and submerged archaeological sites near the Israel Mediterranean Coast often offer good conditions for preserving wooden artefacts and other organic materials (e.g., [21]). Over the past decades, a series of submerged late prehistoric settlements flooded as part of the Holocene sea-level rise were discovered along a 15 km strip of the northern Carmel Coast (Figure 1) [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. The earliest of these sites is dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (ca. 9300–8500 cal. BP), but most are assigned to the Early to Middle Chalcolithic (ca. 8000–6600 cal. BP). Following their inundation, the sites were covered by a 1–2 m thick layer of sand that prevented disturbance and intrusions and produced anaerobic conditions. In recent decades, the combination of human activities—mainly sand quarrying and construction of marine structures—and seasonal sea storms have removed this sand layer and exposed these submerged settlements.
The aims of the current study are to explore the characteristics of 16 wooden, matting, and basketry artefacts and other plant materials recovered from the submerged sites along the Carmel Coast. Next, we discuss their significance for understanding how organic artefacts were used, their manufacturing procedure, and their contribution to the reconstruction of the early Holocene environment of the Carmel Coast.

2. Methods

2.1. Field

The Neolithic sites off the Carmel coast, where the wooden and basketry artefacts were recovered, are submerged in the surf zone at 1–12 m depth. The sites are embedded in clay paleosol and are usually covered by a protective layer of sand, up to 2 m thick. Storms often remove the sand and expose the prehistoric remains. Soon after exposure, site features and artefacts can be damaged by rapid erosion.
Underwater surveys aimed at locating, rescuing, and documenting the archaeological remains were carried out following storms. The surveyors were using standard scuba diving equipment and often, in shallow water, free diving (snorkelling). The exposed features and artefacts were mapped, documented, and photographed using underwater cameras and measuring devices used in underwater archaeology. Finds at risk of erosion (e.g., wooden artefacts) were retrieved.
Underwater excavations were carried out in structures and installations that were at risk of destruction due to the action of waves and currents. During excavation, a dredging system operated by a water pump was used. The pump was mounted on a boat, pumping water to the dredger on the sea floor. On one side of the dredger, material was suctioned up from the site, and on the other end, the suctioned material was ejected into a collection box. Sand and loose material that covered the excavation area were sucked up through the hose, until the clay paleosol layer containing the archaeological remains was reached. The archaeological material was excavated in 0.5 × 0.5 m squares, in spits 5–10 cm thick. The material excavated manually or by the dredger was removed whenever excavation of a sub-square or a layer of 10 cm was completed. The excavated material from each sub-square was placed in a marked plastic bag. The bags were transferred to a laboratory on land. Organic materials were placed in plastic containers with sea water.
The waterlogged wooden objects are currently stored in the IAA (Israel Antiquities Authority) treasury facilities, kept in sea water or freshwater, at a temperature of 4° Celsius. The wooden bowl from Kfar Samir South (KS4) was soaked with polyethylene glycol solution to replace the sea water and was dried. It is currently displayed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem under controlled temperature and humidity conditions.

2.2. Wood Identification and 14C Dating

Analysis of wood was performed on the basis of the tissue structure examined beneath a Zeiss SteREO Discovery V20 epi-illuminated microscope and a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM; Tescan Vega 3, TESCAN, Brno, Czech Republic). Samples were cut using razor blades and examined along three axes (transverse, radial, and tangential), and the arrangement, size, and abundance, along with a number of other characteristics of certain diagnostic features of a wood sample’s anatomy, were noted. In order to make a determination to the most detailed systematic level, the samples were compared with a wood reference collection of the southern Levant (provided by the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University), as well as wood anatomy atlases [31,32,33,34,35,36] and the “InsideWood” database [37].
Because of the possibility of the samples being analysed for 14C dating, the samples were carefully handled with plastic gloves and set on aluminium foil to prevent carbon cross-contamination. The waterlogged samples were returned to the source waters to maintain consistent pH and chemical balances and to avoid hastened deterioration or the introduction of fungal spores. The samples that were chosen for 14C dating were sent to the Beta Analytic Laboratory (Miami, FL, USA), following the laboratory instructions for the preparation and delivery of waterlogged archaeological materials. The dates were generated by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). The radiocarbon ages were reported in conventional radiocarbon years (before present = 1950), calibrated to calendar years (cal. BP; with the OxCal 4.4 program IntCal 20) [38,39].

3. Results: The Sites and Their Wooden and Other Organic Artefacts

So far, five submerged sites off the Carmel Coast yielded 16 wood or braided twig objects (Table 1, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15 and Figure 16). Below, we offer a concise description of the sites and their associated artefacts.

3.1. Atlit-Yam

Atlit-Yam is a ca. 4 ha Pre-Pottery Neolithic C site located in the north bay of Atlit, ca. 10 km south of Haifa (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site is located 200–400 m offshore, 8–12 m below sea level [27], and is dated to ca. 9100–8500 cal. BP. Architectural remains include stone foundations of rectangular dwellings, hearths, megalithic structures, circular stone-lined water wells and pits, straight walls up to 60 m long, concentrations of burnt mudbricks, and stone-paved surfaces [27,47,48,49,50,51].
Forests 14 02373 g002
Figure 2. (a) A plan of Atlit-Yam and the location of Well S.11 and Pit S.32/A; (b) Well S.11 (E. Galili and I. Grinberg).
Figure 2. (a) A plan of Atlit-Yam and the location of Well S.11 and Pit S.32/A; (b) Well S.11 (E. Galili and I. Grinberg).
Forests 14 02373 g002
Well S.11 (Figure 2) was fully excavated. It is a stone-lined cylindrical shaft, 5.7 m deep and ca. 1.5 m in diameter. Its fill contained numerous faunal remains, flint and other stone artefacts, and considerable amounts of waterlogged and charred plant remains. Significant for our concerns, it also produced five wood artefacts: two bowl fragments, two shafts, and a wedge (AY1–AY5; Table 1) (see [27] (p. 127–128: Figure 130), [52]). All five were found at the lower parts of the well, and preliminary analysis indicates that they were made of oak [53]. A sixth specimen is a storax shaft (AY6) recovered from a 1 m deep and 0.95 m wide round pit (S.32/A; Figure 2) (see [27] (pp. 55–63, 367–368)). The pit was lined with fieldstones and contained large quantities of botanical remains, mainly herbaceous species and tree branches.
AY 1 (a wooden bowl fragment) is a broken, partly charred oak bowl fragment recovered from Well S.11. It comprises a small section of the bowl’s flat base. About 30% of the fragment’s surface is covered with parallel striations, probably the result of surface smoothing or polishing. Additionally, a few sets of parallel scratches are observed on the outer surface.
AY 2 (a wooden bowl fragment) is a broken oak bowl found in Well S.11. The item consists of the bowl’s upper part, including the rim, which is estimated to have been 12 cm in diameter (Figure 3a). The rim’s inner face is curved, while the outer is straight. Parallel lines cover its surface, probably polish marks. The item was analysed as for AY 1 above.
Forests 14 02373 g003
Figure 3. Wooden artefacts recovered from Well S.11: (a) bowl fragment AY 2, (b) shaft fragment AY 3, and (c) wooden wedge AY 5, and (d) a schematic depiction of the use of a wedge to split a wooden log (E. Galili and IAA).
Figure 3. Wooden artefacts recovered from Well S.11: (a) bowl fragment AY 2, (b) shaft fragment AY 3, and (c) wooden wedge AY 5, and (d) a schematic depiction of the use of a wedge to split a wooden log (E. Galili and IAA).
Forests 14 02373 g003
AY 3 and 4 (wooden shaft fragments) are oak shaft fragments recovered from Well S.11 (Figure 3b). They have round sections and are broken on both ends. AY3 is 7.0 cm long and 1.5 cm across, while AY4 is 6.5 cm long and 2.5 cm across. Both are thoroughly polished and feature longitudinal planning marks 3–4 cm long and 0.4–0.8 cm wide, suggesting that the bark was removed with a sharp flint blade. The two specimens may be parts of a single object.
AY 5 (a wooden wedge) is an oak wedge recovered from Well S.11. It is broken at the middle and measures 8 cm long, 2 cm wide, and 1.5 cm thick (Figure 3c,d). It has a triangular cross-section and features no shaping or modification marks on its surface, probably due to its poor state of preservation. While this item is undoubtedly modified, it is unclear whether it is a by-product of wood processing or an intentionally produced wedge (e.g., for splitting purposes).
AY 6 (a wooden shaft) consists of eight 1 cm thick storax shaft fragments (Figure 4) found in Pit S. 32/A, 50–60 cm below the site surface. Their similarity in dimension, material, and context of recovery suggests that they derived from a single ca. 50 cm long shaft. Notably, besides the shaft, the installation produced only vegetal materials, indicating that it may have served as a storage place for herbal substances (e.g., fodder for domestic animals, straw left over after threshing, or hay brought to the site). Perhaps the shaft was part of the pit’s cover or a broken object (an arrow or other type of shaft) that was thrown or fell into the pit.
Forests 14 02373 g004
Figure 4. Fragmented wooden shaft AY 6 from Pit S.32/A (E. Galili).
Figure 4. Fragmented wooden shaft AY 6 from Pit S.32/A (E. Galili).
Forests 14 02373 g004

3.2. Kfar Samir

Kfar Samir (Figure 1) is an elongated concentration of artificial features scattered over 2.5 km along the shallow breakers zone (ca. 200 m wide) of the southern municipal beaches of Haifa. Given its length, the site was randomly divided into three sectors: north, centre, and south [21] (Figure 1). Three water wells were found in the central sector, 5.5 m below sea level and some 200 m offshore. Their walls were constructed of alternating courses of wooden beams and undressed stones, mostly limestone pebbles (Figure 5). These wells are among the earliest known wooden structures in the world [21]. The site’s central and southern sectors also produced pits in the clayish ground, containing sizeable concentrations of olive stones. Many of them were crushed and interpreted as representing various stages of olive oil extraction [21,30,41,51,54,55]. Large stone basins and weaved strainers (see below) were also recovered and are thought to have been part of the olive processing industry at the site. The wooden artefacts presented below derive from a ca. 50 × 50 m area in Kfar Samir’s central sector (KS 1, 2, and 3) and a much smaller 3 × 3 m area in the site’s southern sector (KS 4, 5, and 6).
Forests 14 02373 g005
Figure 5. A well in Kfar Samir lined with altering courses of wooden branches and stones: (A) the well before the excavation, (B) The well during excavation, and (C), a schematic drawing of the well (E. Galili).
Figure 5. A well in Kfar Samir lined with altering courses of wooden branches and stones: (A) the well before the excavation, (B) The well during excavation, and (C), a schematic drawing of the well (E. Galili).
Forests 14 02373 g005
KS 1 (a wooden bowl with a pierced, elongated, vertical handle) (Figure 6a,b) was found in Kfar Samir’s central sector, some 15 m from the coast, at a water depth of 0.5 m below sea level (32°47′36.19″ N, 34°57′19.42″ E). It was embedded in a pavement of small, undressed stones (Figure 6c). The bowl has slightly concave walls, and its inner space widens toward the rim. The base is thick and slightly convex. The recovered specimen is 22 cm high and 20 cm wide and constitutes ca. 30% of the original vessel. Originally, the bowl is likely to have been 22.5 cm high and 26 cm across the rim. A vertical, elongated, and pierced handle on the outer wall may suggest that there once was another across from it. This handle is 12.5 cm long, 2 cm wide, and perforated with a 0.5 cm hole. No production traces were noted on the bowl (see [41]). Based on the general chronological framework of the site, the date of the item is suggested to be between the early eighth to the late seventh millennia cal. BP [21,41].
Forests 14 02373 g006
Figure 6. Wooden bowl KS 1 with a pierced handle from Kfar Samir’s central sector: (a,b) the bowl and (c) a schematic illustration of the bowl’s context of recovery (IAA).
Figure 6. Wooden bowl KS 1 with a pierced handle from Kfar Samir’s central sector: (a,b) the bowl and (c) a schematic illustration of the bowl’s context of recovery (IAA).
Forests 14 02373 g006
KS 2 (basket braided fragments) comprises three fragments of a braided basket made of twigs of an unidentified plant (Figure 7). They were recovered in Kfar Samir’s central sector, 2.5 m below sea level and ca. 80 m from the coastline (65 m west of wooden bowl KS 1). The fragments were deposited in a pit (0.90 m in diameter, 0.55 m deep) dug into the clayish paleosol and filled with soft grey clay. Besides the braided basket, the pit also contained dozens of olive pits and fragmented tree branches. KS2 is indirectly dated by the range of dates from the site as KS 1.
Forests 14 02373 g007
Figure 7. Fragments of basket KS 2 from Kfar Samir’s central sector: (a) the basket in context, (b) the basket after cleaning, and (c) a schematic drawing of the basket’s braiding technique (E. Galili and IAA).
Figure 7. Fragments of basket KS 2 from Kfar Samir’s central sector: (a) the basket in context, (b) the basket after cleaning, and (c) a schematic drawing of the basket’s braiding technique (E. Galili and IAA).
Forests 14 02373 g007
One of the fragments is round and probably derives from the basket’s base, while the other two probably originate from its walls. The vessel was braided by the alternate pair-twining method. The warps emerge from the centre of the base and extend outwards perpendicularly to its rim. The wefts are alternately twined around two warps and cross over after each pass (Figure 7b,c). Usually, the wefts are twined around warps made of a single twig. However, in a few places, the warps consist of three twigs or a pair of twigs next to each other. The complete basket was likely over 30.0 cm in diameter and may have been used as an aqal, a woven container for holding and pressing olives during oil production [55].
KS 3 (a mat/basketry fragment) is a fragment of a mat or basket (Figure 8a,b) made of straw of an unidentified plant. It was found in a pit in Kfar Samir’s central sector [29,32,33], 1.5 m below sea level and some 35.0 m from the coastline (32°47′33.79″ N, 34°57′19.19″ E). The pit was 0.6 m in diameter and 0.5 m deep; it was dug into the site’s clay paleosol and filled with soft grey clay.
Forests 14 02373 g008
Figure 8. Mat fragment KS 3 from Kfar Samir’s central sector: (a) the mat and (b) a schematic illustration of the mat’s braiding technique (IAA).
Figure 8. Mat fragment KS 3 from Kfar Samir’s central sector: (a) the mat and (b) a schematic illustration of the mat’s braiding technique (IAA).
Forests 14 02373 g008
The specimen measures 12.0 × 22.0 cm. The stitches are ca. 2.5 cm long and 0.6 cm wide, and the intervals between them are 0.8–1.2 cm. The fragment consists of four longitudinal bundle foundations (Figure 8b). The stitches are wrapped in a flask knot around its standing portion [56] (Figure 64) and then incorporated into the foundation (Figure 8b). The foundation bundles and the stitches are made of the same raw material (straw of an indeterminate species). While this method may be described as “coiled basketry with an intricate stitch” [56] (Figure 62), the knobs of the Kfar Samir specimen do not separate the bundles as usually the case with this category of production. Instead, it may be classified as Type 4 of the coiled basketry subclass as defined by Crowfoot [57] (p. 416, Figure 258D).
KS 4 is a wooden bowl (Figure 9a–d) recovered in Kfar Samir’s southern sector, 2 m below sea level and some 50 m from the coast (32°47′4.6″ N, 34°57′10.6″ E) (see [33]). It was found in a shallow pit containing grey clay with other waterlogged finds, including tree branches, olive pits, and straw.
Forests 14 02373 g009
Figure 9. Wooden bowl KS 4 from Kfar Samir’s southern sector: (a,b) the bowl, (c) the outer face of the base with production marks on the wall (marked in arrow), (d) a drawing of the bowl, (e) tool mark scars on the bowl’s exterior, and (f) a proposed reconstruction of the bowl’s shaping (E. Galili and IAA).
Figure 9. Wooden bowl KS 4 from Kfar Samir’s southern sector: (a,b) the bowl, (c) the outer face of the base with production marks on the wall (marked in arrow), (d) a drawing of the bowl, (e) tool mark scars on the bowl’s exterior, and (f) a proposed reconstruction of the bowl’s shaping (E. Galili and IAA).
Forests 14 02373 g009
The bowl is made of a carob tree trunk or bough cut perpendicular to the fibre’s direction [42]. Carob is relatively uncommon in the south Levantine Mediterranean maquis/forest. Nevertheless, carob remains were also identified at Atlit-Yam [53], and carob pollen grains were reported from sediments retrieved from other submerged settlements nearby [21]. The bowl is 12.5 cm high, and its maximum diameter at the top of the rim is 22.5 cm; it has a flat 12 cm wide base and straight diverging walls.
The bowl’s surfaces feature production traces in the form of carving-tool scars (Figure 9b–d). The scars on the outer surface are shallow, produced by a sharp flint tool with a curved working edge, probably an adze. It was operated in arc-like motions to achieve a smooth face. Thin ridges inside the scars (Figure 9e) indicate that the tool’s working end had a small fracture. The scars on the inner walls suggest that a different tool was used for this part of the bowl, producing rough marks and steps. As the space was too narrow to operate an adze whose blade is perpendicular to the haft, a chisel could have been used linearly to hollow out the vessel (Figure 9f). The use of different tools resulted in the inner and outer faces’ distinct finishing qualities. Unlike the walls, the base and the rim are thoroughly smoothed and bear no marks of production. They may have been polished with fine sand to achieve a perfect finish.
KS 5 (a wooden trough) is a concentration of three flat terebinth pieces found in a shallow pit filled with soft grey clay at Kfar Samir’s southern sector, 1.0 m below sea level and some 50 m from the coastline (32°47′1.85″ N, 34°57′12.78″ E; Figure 10a,b; see KS6 below). The three pieces fit together and seem to belong to a single artefact, probably a trough. It is 67.5 cm long, 17.5 cm wide, and 3 cm thick (Figure 10c) and features a slightly curved section. The complete trough seems to have been much larger and may have been used as a container for feeding livestock or various household uses. Alternatively, it may have been a fragment of a log-made canoe.
Forests 14 02373 g010
Figure 10. Wooden trough KS 5 and two-pronged fork KS 6 from Kfar Samir: (a) the trough and the two-pronged fork in situ, (b) a schematic depiction of their position at the time of recovery, and (c) trough KS 5 (E. Galili).
Figure 10. Wooden trough KS 5 and two-pronged fork KS 6 from Kfar Samir: (a) the trough and the two-pronged fork in situ, (b) a schematic depiction of their position at the time of recovery, and (c) trough KS 5 (E. Galili).
Forests 14 02373 g010
KS 6 (a two-pronged wooden fork) is a two-pronged kermes oak fork found in the same pit as wooden trough KS5. It is 50 cm long, 17 cm wide, and 5 cm thick (Figure 11a); it features no use wear and could have been used for various purposes (e.g., Figure 11b).
Forests 14 02373 g011
Figure 11. Two-pronged fork KS 6 from Kfar Samir: (a) the fork after recovery and (b) a possible function as part of a fishing net (Alexandria, Egypt) (E. Galili).
Figure 11. Two-pronged fork KS 6 from Kfar Samir: (a) the fork after recovery and (b) a possible function as part of a fishing net (Alexandria, Egypt) (E. Galili).
Forests 14 02373 g011

3.3. Hishuley Carmel

The Hishuley Carmel site is located ca. 1.0 km south of the Haifa municipal beach (Figure 1), 0–100 m from the shore and 0.0–4 m below the present sea level [21,30]. A survey of the site’s shallow sector discovered two elliptical structures constructed of upright stone slabs and containing thousands of waterlogged olive pits. Additional round stone structures were documented some 100 m offshore in the site’s deeper sector (2–4 m deep; [30]).
HC 1 (a wooden bowl) is a wooden kermes oak bowl (Figure 12) found some 50.0 m northwest of the elliptical structures, 1.5 m below sea level [21] (Figure 1), [30]. The recovered specimen is 13.5 cm long, 10 cm wide, and 0.6 cm thick, constituting ca. 60% of the original artefact. The bowl is heavily worn, and no production marks are discernible on its surface.
Forests 14 02373 g012
Figure 12. Wooden bowl KC 1 from Hishuley Carmel (K. Alaverdian and E. Galili). (a) a photo of the bowl and (b) drawing of the bowl and sections.
Figure 12. Wooden bowl KC 1 from Hishuley Carmel (K. Alaverdian and E. Galili). (a) a photo of the bowl and (b) drawing of the bowl and sections.
Forests 14 02373 g012

3.4. Kfar Galim

Kfar Galim is located west of the eponymous modern settlement, ca. 2.0 km south of Haifa (Figure 1), some 30–100 m offshore and ca. 1.5–4 m below sea level. Two rows of undressed stones, forming a right angle, suggest the existence of at least one rectangular structure. Other architectural remains include stone-lined pits, probably wells, 1 m in diameter. The other six pits, probably water wells as in Kfar Samir, are lined with stones and tree trunks. Excavations in two revealed fills containing sherds, flint, waterlogged plant remains, and animal bones [26].
KG 1 (a worked wooden log) is one of three shaped wooden logs found in one of the wooden structures (32°46′3.16″ N, 34°57′5.77″ E), each measuring ca. 25 cm long and ca. 15 cm in diameter (Figure 13); two were left in their original location. The retrieved wooden log is 24 cm long, 14 cm wide, and 12 cm thick; it is made of tamarisk and is roughly oval in cross-section (Figure 14).
Forests 14 02373 g013
Figure 13. A structure in Kfar Galim made of wooden branches (possibly a water well) containing three wooden logs. The retrieved log (KG 1) is marked with an arrow (E. Galili).
Figure 13. A structure in Kfar Galim made of wooden branches (possibly a water well) containing three wooden logs. The retrieved log (KG 1) is marked with an arrow (E. Galili).
Forests 14 02373 g013
Forests 14 02373 g014
Figure 14. Worked wooden log KG 1 (K. Alaverdian and E. Galili).
Figure 14. Worked wooden log KG 1 (K. Alaverdian and E. Galili).
Forests 14 02373 g014
The original bark still covers the central part of the log, while its two ends are worked into points, which clearly feature traces of cutting. Wooden logs intended for building and construction are usually longer. Firewood is broken or split with the minimal investment required to fit an open fire. The three logs are incommensurable with either. Perhaps they constitute an early preparatory stage in the production of wooden tools, vessels, or other objects.

3.5. Tell Hreiz

The site of Tel Hreiz (Figure 1) is located ca. 4.5 km south of Haifa. The site revealed evidence of rectangular structures, rectangular stone-built boxes (installations or graves?), human burials, stone paving, and hearths containing charred remains of wood and animal bones. An over 100 m long stone wall was discovered parallel to the present coast, 3–4 m below sea level. It was built of boulders, up to 1 m across, and may have served as a seawall to protect the village from wave action and rising sea levels [46]. Two concentrations of vertical wooden poles made of tree branches were recovered, probably representing fence or hut foundations.
TH 1 (a wooden bowl) is a Mt. Tabor oak bowl (Figure 15) found in a small round hearth, 60.0 cm in diameter, west and immediately adjacent to the seawall, 3.5 m below sea level [46] (Figure 2A: 2). The recovered specimen is 16 cm long, 14 cm wide, and 1–1.5 cm thick, comprising ca. 35% of the complete bowl. A long flint blade was found inside the bowl (Figure 15). The bowl’s surface is eroded, and no production marks are discernible.
Forests 14 02373 g015
Figure 15. Wooden bowl TH 1 from Tel Hreiz: (a,b) the bowl and the flint blade found in it; (c) the flint blade; and (d) a drawing of the bowl and the flint blade in it (K. Alaverdian).
Figure 15. Wooden bowl TH 1 from Tel Hreiz: (a,b) the bowl and the flint blade found in it; (c) the flint blade; and (d) a drawing of the bowl and the flint blade in it (K. Alaverdian).
Forests 14 02373 g015
TH 2 (a braided circle made of twigs) is a circular element made of twigs of an unidentified plant. It is 18.0 × 17.0 cm in size, and the twigs are 0.6–0.8 cm thick, twisted on each other (Figure 16) (see [46]). It was found in the northern parts of the site, 2.5 m below sea level [46] (Figure 2A: 14).
Forests 14 02373 g016
Figure 16. Braided circle TH 2 from Tel Hreiz in situ (E. Galili).
Figure 16. Braided circle TH 2 from Tel Hreiz in situ (E. Galili).
Forests 14 02373 g016

4. Discussion

Vegetal resources were among the earliest raw materials used by humans for the production of implements, tools, matting and basketry, cloths, and containers. They occur in the archaeological record as early as the Palaeolithic period (e.g., [4]) and in increasing frequencies from the Neolithic period onwards [12,58,59]. Nevertheless, these materials are highly vulnerable and susceptible to decay in most depositional environments and are, therefore, relatively rare. Consequently, many scholars avoid incorporating them in their discussions of early material culture, although they acknowledge that artefacts made of wood and other perishable materials were central to past daily life [1,60].
While south Levantine sites produced some wooden artefacts and braided objects (e.g., [14,15,16,17,18,19,61,62], [63] (p. 197), [64,65,66,67]), the number and variety of finds retrieved from the submerged sites off the coast of the Carmel Ridge are unprecedented. Thus, they significantly contribute to our understanding of how local communities employed organic materials, and specifically timber, for purposes other than fuel and construction, adding another layer to our understanding of their use of their environment.

4.1. Environmental Consideration

The arboreal taxa used to manufacture the abovementioned artefacts and the fossil pollen and wood remains recovered from the submerged sites along the Carmel Coast [21,25,68] suggest that the same arboreal components prevailed in the region during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods as today. Generally, wood for everyday use, including the production of wooden objects, was usually obtained from areas close to the settlements (e.g., [1,69]). Assuming that the wooden objects presented here indeed derived from vegetation in the sites’ vicinity, it seems that the early Holocene Carmel Coast was characterised by a Mediterranean maquis/forest.
The two species of oak—kermes and Mt. Tabor (Quercus calliprinos and Q. ithaburensis)—and the carob (Ceratonia silique) and the terebinth (Pistacia palaestina) are faithful representatives of the Mediterranean maquis/forest, in general, and the area of the Carmel, in particular [21,25,47,53,68,70]. The tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) is somewhat equivocal in this respect. While ubiquitous in many south Levantine phytogeographic regions, it is especially prevalent in arid, saline, and wetland environments [70,71]. Accordingly, one might suggest that the tamarisk and bowl and trough were fashioned away from the Mediterranean Coast and only later brought to their respective sites. However, the log found at Kfar Galim is likely to have been brought from nearby. This shrub was also used for the preparation of Chalcolithic wooden objects recovered from the arid parts of the southern Levant (e.g., [19]).

4.2. Artefactual Consideration

The wooden objects described above represent different functions and uses, frequently unparalleled with other materials. They include a trough, various bowls, shafts, a wedge, a fork, and a shaped log, representing various functions.
Interestingly, the wooden bowls bear some similarities to pottery and stone containers (see [72,73]). At least two species of oak were used to produce most of them, while one was made of carob. Although similar wood vessels probably predate the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, the bowls from the submerged sites of the Carmel Coast are the earliest to be reported to date. Stone containers are known from the Upper Palaeolithic onwards (e.g., [74,75,76]); plaster-based white ware (vaisselles blanches) emerged during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period (e.g., [77,78,79]), and large pottery assemblages first appeared in the Pottery Neolithic period (e.g., [73,80]). The typological and morphometric relations between vessels made of clay, wood, and stone were probably tight, and they are likely to have influenced each other [73,80,81]. Interestingly, the use of several wood species is suggestive concerning the flexibility of production, the availability of wood, and, possibly, the vessels’ functions.
Mats and baskets have a long history in the region, appearing mainly at sites dating from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (e.g., [16,18,57,63]). Mat and mat impressions have been recorded on a clay product from Atlit-Yam [27] (pp. 142, 143: Figure 149) and on the bases of pottery vessels dating from the Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (e.g., [80,82,83,84]). The current assemblage comprises three items: a basket, a mat, and a braided circle. While the mat is too small to reconstruct its original shape, size, and function, it features a specific coiling technique, which was unpopular compared to the simpler stitch variety. Although rare, this technique was used as early as the 8th millennia BP and lasted several thousand years, as indicated by funerary deposits from Tarkhan, Egypt, and the Cave of Treasure in the Judean Desert, Israel ([33], and references therein).

4.3. Dating Consideration

The new and old radiocarbon dates presented here (Table 1) (see [29]) (Table 23.2) suggest that four of the five sites discussed here—Kfar Samir, Hishuley Carmel, Kfar Galim, and Tel Hreiz—thrived during the Early to Middle Chalcolithic periods, which had begun at ca. 7800 cal. BP and ended at ca. 6700/6600 cal. BP (e.g., [80,85,86]). Thus, the occupational history along the Carmel Coast lasted from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C period, through the Wadi Raba culture of the Early Chalcolithic period, and into the Middle Chalcolithic period, when sites such as Tel Tsaf, Tel Abu Habil, Qatart a Samra, and Tel a-Shuna (N) thrived in the Jordan Valley (e.g., [87,88]). Interestingly, some evidence for contact between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Coast was noted based on Mediterranean Sea shells at Tel Tsaf (D. Rosenberg, pers. obs.) and Dead Sea bitumen on sickle blades from Atlit-Yam [89]. Furthermore, it was recently argued that evidence for olive horticulture in the vicinity of Tel Tsaf, where the tree does not occur naturally, speaks for the exchange of knowledge and genetic material between the Carmel Cost and the central Jordan Valley [90,91].

5. Conclusions

Objects made of wood and other vegetal materials are uncommon in the prehistoric archaeological record of the southern Levant. Against this background, the small assemblage of wooden and basketry objects from the submerged sites along the Carmel Coast acquires special significance. It suggests that the use of wood and other plants was common practice during the Neolithic and Early-to-Middle Chalcolithic periods in this area, augmenting finds from various sites in the Judean Desert and underscoring the range of artefact types and functions associated with wood and vegetal resources. Furthermore, the assemblage’s wealth strongly indicates how severely underrepresented wooden objects are in the archaeological record and that under appropriate depositional environments (dry, waterlogged, or anaerobic conditions), they can be much better preserved than under others.
Finally, the data presented in this study demonstrate that wood was a widely accessible and amenable raw material. Thus, we should re-evaluate the place wooden objects occupied for past communities in the region. In this regard, the submerged sites off the Carmel Coast offer a unique opportunity to glimpse into the frequently invisible component of the region’s archaeological record, assess its role, and incorporate it into the archaeological discourse of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods of the southern Levant.

Author Contributions

Underwater excavations and surveys, E.G.; Conceptualization, D.R., E.G. and D.L.; Methodology, D.R. and E.G.; Validation, D.R., E.G. and D.L.; Formal analysis, D.R., E.G. and D.L.; Investigation, D.R., E.G. and D.L.; Resources, E.G.; Data curation, D.R., E.G. and D.L.; Writing—original draft, D.R., E.G. and D.L.; Writing—review & editing, D.R., E.G. and D.L.; Visualization, D.R. and E.G.; Project administration, E.G.; Funding acquisition, E.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No further data to the data in the paper is available.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), The University of Haifa, and the Tel Aviv University for their institutional support of the underwater photographers J. Galili, I. Grinberg, and G. Arbel. Thanks are also due to M. Rasovski from the Israel Museum for conserving the wooden bowl from Kfar Samir and K. Alaverdian and the IAA for drawing the artefacts and A. Nativ for helpful comments on the draft version of the text. E. Kremer and M. Cavanagh helped with wood anatomical identification. N. Sukenik of the IAA is acknowledged for her help in providing some of the materials presented here. We are also thankful to the following foundations and projects for their financial support: Honor Frost Foundation, the Shelby White and Leon Levy Foundation, the BEFOREtheFLOOD project of the European Research Council (ERC) granted to D. Priesm, and the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (ILIAD) 101037643 project granted to E. Galili.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Langgut, D.; Lev-Yadun, S. Wood and charcoal remains from archaeological excavations. In Encyclopedia of Archaeology, 2nd ed.; Nikita, E., Thilo, R., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2024; pp. 674–686. [Google Scholar]
  2. Belitzky, S.; Goren-Inbar, N.; Werker, E. A Middle Pleistocene wooden plank with man-made polish. J. Hum. Evol. 1991, 20, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Goren-Inbar, N.; Werker, E.; Feibel, C.S. The Acheulian Site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel: The Wood Assemblage; Oxbow: Oxford, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barham, L.; Duller, G.A.T.; Candy, I.; Scott, C.; Cartwright, C.R.; Peterson, J.R.; Kabukcu, C.; Chapot, M.S.; Melia, F.; Rots, V.; et al. Evidence for the earliest structural use of wood at least 476,000 years ago. Nature 2023, 622, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gao, X.; Liu, J.H.; Ruan, Q.J.; Ge, J.; Huang, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, S.; Guan, Y.; Shen, H.; Wang, Y.; et al. 300,000-year-old wooden tools from Gantangqing, southwest China. Res. Square 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carbonell, E.; Castro-Curel, Z. Palaeolithic wooden artefacts from the Abric Romani (Capellades, Barcelona, Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 1992, 19, 707–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rosendahl, G.; Beinhauer, K.-M.; Löscher, M.; Kreipl, K.; Walter, R.; Rosendahla, W. The oldest bow in the world? An interesting piece from Mannheim, Germany. L’Anthropologie 2006, 110, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schoch, W.H.; Bigga, G.; Böhner, U.; Richter, P.; Terberger, T. New insights on the wooden weapons from the Paleolithic site of Schöningen. J. Hum. Evol. 2015, 89, 214–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Aranguren, B.; Revedin, A.; Amico, N. Wooden tools and fire technology in the early Neanderthal site of Poggetti Vecchi (Italy). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 2054–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rios-Garaizar, J.; López-Bultó, O.; Iriarte, E.; Pérez-Garrido, C.; Piqué, R.; Aranburu, A.; José Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.; Ortega-Cordellat, I.; Bourguignon, L.; Garate, D.; et al. A Middle Palaeolithic wooden digging stick from Aranbaltza III, Spain. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Conard, N.J.; Serangeli, J.; Bigga, G.; Rots, V. A 300,000-year-old throwing stick from Schöningen, northern Germany, documents the evolution of human hunting. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 4, 690–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Meiggs, R. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lev-Yadun, S. Wood remains from archaeological excavations: A review with a Near Eastern perspective. Isr. J. Earth Sci. 2007, 56, 139–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nadel, D.; Grinberg, U.; Boaretto, E.; Werker, E. 2006 Wooden objects from Ohalo II (23,000 cal BP), Jordan Valley, Israel. J. Hum. Evol. 2006, 50, 644–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Schick, T. Nahal Hemar Cave: Cordage, basketry and fabrics. Atiqot 1988, 38, 31–43. [Google Scholar]
  16. Schick, T. The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert; IAA Reports 5; The Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem, Israel, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  17. Davidovich, U.; Porat, R.; Boaretto, E.; Liphschitz, N.; Mazar, A.; Frumkin, A. Nahal Asa’el Cave: A unique 6000-year-old wooden installation and the Late Chalcolithic presence in hardly accessible caves in the Judean Desert, Israel. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Speleology, Brno, Czech Republic, 21–28 July 2013; Filippi, M., Bosák, P., Eds.; Czech Speleological Society: Prague, Czech Republic, 2013; Volume 1, pp. 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  18. Shamir, O. Textiles, basketry and other organic artefacts of the Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant. In Masters of Fire: Copper Age Art from Israel; Sebbane, M., Misch-Brandl, O., Master, D.M., Eds.; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 139–152. [Google Scholar]
  19. Langgut, D.; Yahalom-Mack, N.; Lev-Yadun, S.; Kremer, E.; Ullman, M.; Davidovich, U. The earliest Near-Eastern wooden spinning implements. Antiquity 2016, 90, 973–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rosenberg, D.; Rowan, Y.; Gluhak, T. Introduction—Leave no stone unturned: Perspectives on ground stone artefact research. JLS 2016, 3, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Galili, E.; Cvikel, D.; Benjamin, J.; Langgut, D.; McCarthy, J.; Cavanagh, M.; Sapir, Y.; Weinstein-Evron, M.; Chaim, S.; Rosen, B.; et al. Coastal paleoenvironments and prehistory of the submerged Pottery Neolithic settlement of Kfar Samir (Israel). Paléorient 2018, 44, 113–132. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wreschner, E. Neve Yam: A submerged late Neolithic settlement near Carmel. Eretz Israel 1977, 13, 260–271. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ronen, A.; Olami, J. Atlit Map; The Archaeological Survey of Israel 26: Jerusalem, Israel, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  24. Galili, E. Clay Exposures and Archaeological Finds on the Sea Bottom. between Haifa and Atlit. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, (In Hebrew). Department of Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  25. Galili, E.; Weinstein-Evron, M. Prehistory and paleoenvironments of submerged sites along the Carmel coast of Israel. Paléorient 1985, 11, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Galili, E.; Inbar, M. Underwater clay exposures along the Israeli coast, submerged archaeological remains and sea-level changes in the northern Carmel coast. Horiz. Geogr. 1987, 22, 3–34. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
  27. Galili, E. Submerged Settlements of the Ninth to Seventh Millennia BP off the Carmel Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, 2004. (In Hebrew). [Google Scholar]
  28. Galili, E.; Kolska Horwitz, L.; Eshed, V.; Rosen, B. Submerged Pottery Neolithic settlements off the coast of Israel: Subsistence, material culture and the development of separate burial grounds. In Under the Sea: Archaeology and Palaeolandscapes of the Continental Shelf; Bailey, G., Harff, J., Sakellariou, D., Eds.; Coastal Research Library 20; Springer International: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 105–130. [Google Scholar]
  29. Galili, E.; Rosen, B.; Weinstein Evron, M.; Hershkovitz, I.; Eshed, V.; Kolska Horwitz, L. Israel: Submerged prehistoric sites and settlements on the Mediterranean coastline—The current state of the art. In The Archaeology of Europe’s Drowned Landscapes; Bailey, G., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 443–481. [Google Scholar]
  30. Galili, E.; Langgut, D.; Terral, J.F.; Barazani, O.; Dag, A.; Kolska Horwitz, A.; Ogloblin, I.; Rosen, B.; Weinstein-Evron, M.; Chaim, S.; et al. Early production of table olives at a mid-7th millennium BP submerged site off the Carmel coast (Israel). Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fahn, A.; Werker, E.; Baas, P. Wood Anatomy and Identification of Trees and Shrubs from Israel and Adjacent Regions; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Jerusalem, Israel, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wheeler, E.; Baas, P.; Gasson, P. IAWA List of Microscopy Features for Hardwood Identification. IAWA J. 1989, 10, 219–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Schweingruber, F.H. Anatomy of European Woods; Verlag Paul Haupt: Bern, Switzerland, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  34. Riclıter, H.G.; Grosser, D.; Heinz, I.; Gassson, P.E. IAWA list of microscopic features for softwood identification. Repr. IAWA J. 2004, 25, 1–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Akkemik, U.; Yaman, B. Wood Anatomy of Eastern Mediterranean Species; Remagen-Oberwinter: Kessel, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Crivellaro, A.; Schweingruber, F.H. Atlas of Wood, Bark and Pith Anatomy of Eastern Mediterranean Trees and Shrubs with a Special Focus on Cyprus; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  37. INSIDEWOOD. 2004. Available online: http://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search (accessed on 7 July 2023).
  38. Bronk Ramsey, C. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 2009, 51, 337–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Reimer, P.J.; Austin, W.E.N.; Bard, E.; Bayliss, A.; Blackwell, P.G.; Bronk Ramsey, C.; Butzin, M.; Cheng, H.; Edwards, R.L.; Friedrich, M.; et al. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 2020, 62, 725–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liphschitz, N.; (Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel). Personal communication, 1990.
  41. Galili, E.; Rosen, B.; Buaretto, E. Artefacts Made of Plant Material, Kfar-Samir, Submerged Neolithic Site off the South Coast of Haifa. Excav. Surv. Isr. 2007, 119. Available online: https://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=552&mag_id=112 (accessed on 8 August 2023).
  42. Galili, E.; Schick, T. Basketry and a wooden bowl from the Pottery Neolithic submerged site of Kefar Samir. JIPS 1990, 23, 142–151. [Google Scholar]
  43. Carmi, I.; Segal, D. 14C dates of samples from an underwater site in Kefar Samir. JIPS 1990, 23, 152. [Google Scholar]
  44. Carmi, I.; Segal, D. 14C dates of olive stones from an underwater site at Kfar Samir. JIPS 1994, 26, 146–147. [Google Scholar]
  45. Boaretto, E.; (Weizmann Institute, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel). Personal communication, 2023.
  46. Galili, E.; Benjamin, J.; Eshed, V.; Rosen, B.; McCarthy, J.; Kolska Horwitz, L. A submerged 7000-year-old village and seawall demonstrate earliest known coastal defence against sea-level rise. PLoS ONE 2020, 14, e0222560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Galili, E.; Weinstein-Evron, M.; Hershkovitz, I.; Gopher, A.; Kislev, M.; Lernau, O.; Kolska-Horwitz, L.; Lernau, H. Atlit-Yam: A prehistoric site on the sea floor off the Israeli coast. J. Field Archaeol. 1993, 20, 133–156. [Google Scholar]
  48. Galili, E.; Lernau, O.; Zohar, I. Fishing and marine adaptations at Atlit-Yam, a submerged Neolithic village off the Carmel coast, Israel. Atiqot 2004, 48, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  49. Galili, E.; Eshed, V.; Gopher, A.; Hershkovitz, I. Burial practices at the submerged PPNC site of Atlit-Yam, northern coast of Israel: What do they tell us about the final phase of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic culture? BASOR 2005, 339, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  50. Galili, E.; Benjamin, J.; Herskovitz, I.; Weinstein-Evron, M.; Zohar, I.; Eshed, V.; Cvikel, D.; Melamed, J.; Kahanov, Y.; Bergeron, J.; et al. Atlit-Yam: A unique 9000-year-old prehistoric village submerged off the Carmel coast, Israel. In Under the Sea: Archaeology and Palaeolandscapes of the Continental Shelf; Bailey, G., Harff, J., Sakellariou, D., Eds.; Coastal Research Library 20; Springer International: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 85–102. [Google Scholar]
  51. Galili, E.; Rosen, B. Submerged Neolithic settlements off the Mediterranean Carmel coast of Israel and water mining in the Southern Levant. Neo-Lithics 2011, 2, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  52. Galili, E.; Rosen, B. Submerged Neolithic settlements off the Mediterranean coast of Israel. In Submerged Prehistory; Benjamin, J., Bonsall, C., Pickard, C., Fischer, A., Eds.; Oxbow: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 272–286. [Google Scholar]
  53. Liphschitz, N.; Biger, G. The ancient dominance of the Quercus callprinos Pistacia palaestina association in Mediterranean Israel. J. Veg. Sci. 1990, 1, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Galili, E.; Weinstein-Evron, M.; Zohary, D. Appearance of olives in submerged Neolithic sites along the Carmel coast. JIPS 1989, 22, 95–97. [Google Scholar]
  55. Galili, E.; Stanley, D.J.; Sharvit, J.; Weinstein-Evron, M. Evidence for earliest olive-oil production in submerged settlements off the Carmel coast, Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1997, 24, 1141–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Adovasio, J.M. Basketry Technology; Aldine: Chicago, IL, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  57. Crowfoot, G. Textiles, basketry and mats. In A History of Technology; Singer, C., Holmyard, E.J., Rupert Hall, A., Williams, T.I., Jaffé, E., Thomson, R.H.G., Donaldson, J.M., Clow, N.L., Peel, Y., Petty, J.R., et al., Eds.; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1958; pp. 411–447. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gale, R.; Cutler, D. Plants in Archaeology: Identification Manual of Vegetative Plant Materials Used in Europe and the Southern Mediterranean to c. 1500; Westbury and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Otley, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  59. Asouti, E.; Austin, P. Reconstructing woodland vegetation and its exploitation by past societies, based on the analysis and interpretation of archaeological wood charcoal macro-remains. Environ. Archaeol. 2005, 10, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kabukcu, C.; Chabal, L. Sampling and quantitative analysis methods in anthracology from archaeological contexts: Achievements and prospects. Quat. Int. 2021, 593, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mellaart, J. The Neolithic of the Near East; Scribner: London, UK, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  62. Mortensen, P. A note on a small box with flint blades and arrowheads from Beidah, and its implications. In The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of the Research; Garrard, A.N., Gebel, H.G., Eds.; BAR International Series 396: Oxford, UK, 1986; pp. 199–207. [Google Scholar]
  63. Schick, T. Miscellaneous finds: A note on the perishable finds from Netiv Hagdud. In An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, Part 1: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud; Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A., Eds.; American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43; Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 197–200. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sitry, Y. The wooden bowl. In The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert; Schick, T., Ed.; IAA Reports 5; The Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem, Israel, 1998; pp. 54–58. [Google Scholar]
  65. Werker, E. Plant identification of wooden objects. In The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert; Schick, T., Ed.; IAA Reports 5; The Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem, Israel, 1998; pp. 92–97. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sitry, Y.; Langgut, D. Wooden objects from the Colt collection—Shivta. Michmanim 2019, 28, 31–46. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ashkenazi, H.; Langgut, D.; Lev-Yadun, S.; Weiss, E.; Liphschitz, N.; Kahila Bar-Gal, G.; Goren, Y. Microhistory in archaeology and its contribution to the archaeological research: The burial from “the Cave of the Warrior” as a test case. JEMAHS 2021, 9, 377–395. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kadosh, D.; Sivan, D.; Kutiel, H.; Weinstein-Evron, M. Late quaternary paleoenvironments in Dor, Carmel Coastal Plain, Israel. Palynology 2004, 28, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Marguerie, D.; Hunoth, J. Charcoal analysis and dendrology: Data from archaeological sites in north-western France. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2007, 34, 1417–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zohary, M. Plant Life of Palestine: Israel and Jordan; Ronald Press Company: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  71. Benzaquen, M.; Finkelstein, I.; Langgut, D. Vegetation History and Human Impact on the Environs of Tel Megiddo in the Bronze and Iron Ages (ca. 3,500-500 BCE): A Dendroarchaeological Analysis. Tel Aviv 2019, 46, 42–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rosenberg, D. Development, Continuity and Change: The Stone Industries of the Early Ceramic Bearing Cultures of the Southern Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  73. Rosenberg, D.; Garfinkel, Y. Alternating mediums? The introduction of pottery to the southern Levant and its impact on the production of stone vessels: Sha‘ar Hagolan as a case study. In Containers of Change: Ancient Container Technologies from Eastern to Western Asia; Nieuwenhuijse, O., Bernbeck, O., Berghuijs, K., Eds.; Sidestone Press: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 121–137. [Google Scholar]
  74. Wright, K. Ground-stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in southwest Asia: Implication for the transition to farming. Am. Antiq. 1994, 59, 238–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Spivak, P. 2008 The Limestone and Basalt Assemblage of the Epi-Palaeolithic Ohalo II: A 23,000 Hunter/Gatherer/Fishermen’s Site. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  76. Rosenberg, D.; Nadel, D. The sounds of pounding: Boulder mortars and their significance to Natufian burial customs. Curr. Anthropol. 2014, 55, 784–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kafafi, Z. White Objects from “Ain Gh̊azāl, near Amman”. Bull. American Sch. Oriental Res. 1986, 261, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rollefson, G.O. The uses of plaster at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Archaeomaterials 1990, 4, 33–54. [Google Scholar]
  79. Nilhamn, B. Revealing Domesticity: White Ware as an Indicator of Change in Near Eastern Archaeology. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  80. Garfinkel, Y. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant; Qedem 39; Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Jerusalem, Israel, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  81. Rosenberg, D.; Garfinkel, Y. The Groundstone Industry of Sha‘ar Hagolan: Stone Working at the Dawn of Pottery Production in the Southern Levant; The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Israel Exploration Fund: Jerusalem, Israel, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  82. Crowfoot, G. Mat impressions on pot bases. In The Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology; Kraus Reprint: New York, NY, USA, 1938; Volume XXV, pp. 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  83. Lee, J.R. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  84. Rosenberg, D.; van den Brink, E.C.M.; Shimelmitz, R.; Nativ, A.; Mienis, H.K.; Shamir, O.; Chasan, R.; Shooval, T. Pits and their Contents: The Wadi Rabah Site of Qidron in the Shephela, Israel. JIPS 2017, 47, 33–147. [Google Scholar]
  85. Rosenberg, D.; Klimscha, F.; Graham, P.; Hill, C.; Weissbrod, L.; Katlav, I.; Love, S.; Boaretto, E.; Pinsky, S.; Hubbared, E. Back to Tel Tsaf: A preliminary report on the 2013 season of the renewed project. JIPS 2014, 44, 148–179. [Google Scholar]
  86. Streit, K.; Garfinkel, Y. Tel Tsaf and the impact of the Ubaid culture on the southern Levant: Interpreting the radiocarbon evidence. Radiocarbon 2015, 57, 865–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rosenberg, D.; Garfinkel, Y.; Klimscha, F. Large scale storage and storage symbolism in the ancient Near East: A clay silo model from Tel Tsaf. Antiquity 2017, 358, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Garfinkel, Y.; Ben-Shlomo, D.; Freikman, M. Excavations at Tel Tsaf 2004–2007: Final Report; Ariel University Press: Ariel, Israeli, 2020; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  89. Oron, A.; Galili, E.; Hadas, G.; Klein, M. Early maritime activity on the Dead Sea: Bitumen harvesting and the possible use of reed watercraft. J. Marit. Archaeol. 2015, 10, 65–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rosenberg, D.; Klimscha, F. Social complexity and ancient diet: The renewed research project at Tel Tsaf, Jordan Valley. Qadmoniyut 2021, 161, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  91. Langgut, D.; Garfinkel, Y. 7000-year-old evidence of fruit tree cultivation in the Jordan Valley, Israel. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 7463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Forests 14 02373 g001
Figure 1. A map of the study area and the sites mentioned in the text; (a) general regional map with the study area marked by a red square, and (b) the Carmel Coast and the submerged settlements (modified after [30]).
Figure 1. A map of the study area and the sites mentioned in the text; (a) general regional map with the study area marked by a red square, and (b) the Carmel Coast and the submerged settlements (modified after [30]).
Forests 14 02373 g001
Table 1. The artefacts included in the study. Italicised dates were obtained from the artefact directly.
Table 1. The artefacts included in the study. Italicised dates were obtained from the artefact directly.
#ObjectSiteArtefactsLaboratory and Sample Reference No.TaxaReferencesDate
Cal. BP*		Figure
1AY1Atlit-Yam, Well S. 11BowlRT 1431,
RT 2477, RT 2478		Quercus spp. (oak)[27] (pp. 127–128), [29,40]Dated according to the well’s fill: ~8374–7933 to 8336–8540 (2σ range, 95.4%)Not available
2AY2Atlit-Yam, Well S. 11BowlRT 1431,
RT 2477, RT 2478		Quercus spp. (oak)[27] (pp. 127–128; Figure 130: 1), [29,40]Dated according to the well’s fill: ~8374–7933 to 8336–8540 (2σ range, 95.4%)Figure 3a
3AY3Atlit-Yam, Well S. 11ShaftRT 1431,
RT 2477, RT 2478		Quercus spp. (oak)[27] (pp. 127–128; Figure 130: 2), [29,40]Dated according to the well’s fill: ~8374–7933 to 8336–8540 (2σ range, 95.4%)Figure 3b
4AY4Atlit-Yam, Well S. 11ShaftRT 1431,
RT 2477, RT 2478		Quercus spp. (oak)[27] (pp. 127–128), [29,40]Dated according to the well’s fill: ~8374–7933 to 8336–8540 (2σ range, 95.4%)Not available
5AY5Atlit-Yam, Well S. 11WedgeRT 1431,
RT 2477, RT 2478		Quercus spp. (oak)[27] (pp. 127–128; Figure 130: 3), [29,40]Dated according to the well’s fill: ~8374–7933 to 8336–8540 (2σ range, 95.4%)Figure 3c
6AY6Atlit-Yam, Pit S.32/AShaftRT 2681Styrax officinalis
(storax)		[This study]Dated by charcoal extracted from Pit S.32: 7563–7427 (2σ range, 95.4%)Figure 4
7KS1Kfar Samir, central sectorBowl Undetermined[21,41]Dated by the general range of dates from the site: 7964–7431 to 6531–6299 (2σ range, 95.4%)Figure 6
8KS2Kfar Samir, central sectorBasketBETA 3821, RT 1929AUndetermined[21,41]Dated by the general range of dates from the site:
7964–7431 to 6531–6299 (2σ range, 95.4%)		Figure 7
9KS3Kfar Samir, central sectorMatRT 855Undetermined[41,42]7568–7027 (2σ range, 95.4%)Figure 8
10KS4Kfar Samir, southern sectorBowlRT 1360Ceratonia silique (carob)[42,43] (p. 152), [44] (p. 147)8275–7872 (2σ range, 95.4%)Figure 9
11KS5Kfar Samir, southern sectorTroughRT 2499Pistacia palaestina (terebinth)This study, [45]Dated wooden sample taken from the artefact to 6750–6490 (2σ range 95.4%)Figure 10
12KS6Kfar Samir, southern sectorPitchforkRT 2498Quercus calliprinos (kermes oak)[45]6680–6400 (2σ range 95.4%)Figure 10 and Figure 11
13HC1Hishuley CarmelBowlBeta—657406Quercus calliprinos (kermes oak)[30]6797–6665
(2σ range 92.3%)		Figure 12
14KG1Kfar GalimWorked logBeta—657407Tamarix spp. (tamarisk)[This study]Dated wooden sample taken from the artefact to 7002–6845 (2σ range 88.8%)Figure 13 and Figure 14
15TH1Tel HreizBowlBeta—657405Quercus ithaburensis (Mt. Tabor oak)[46]7159–6937 (2σ range 94.4%)Figure 15
16TH2Tel HreizBraided circleRT 799A,
RT 799		Unidentifiable[46]Dated by the general range of dates from the site: 8379–7952 to 7440–6791 (2σ range, 95.4%)Figure 16
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rosenberg, D.; Galili, E.; Langgut, D. The Unseen Record: Ninth–Seventh Millennia Cal. BP Wooden and Basketry Objects from Submerged Settlements off the Carmel Coast, Israel. Forests 2023, 14, 2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14122373

AMA Style

Rosenberg D, Galili E, Langgut D. The Unseen Record: Ninth–Seventh Millennia Cal. BP Wooden and Basketry Objects from Submerged Settlements off the Carmel Coast, Israel. Forests. 2023; 14(12):2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14122373

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rosenberg, Danny, Ehud Galili, and Dafna Langgut. 2023. "The Unseen Record: Ninth–Seventh Millennia Cal. BP Wooden and Basketry Objects from Submerged Settlements off the Carmel Coast, Israel" Forests 14, no. 12: 2373. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14122373

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop