Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Dec 20;16(12):e0260518. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260518

Copper technology in the Arabah during the Iron Age and the role of the indigenous population in the industry

David Luria 1,*
Editor: Anwar Khitab2
PMCID: PMC8687555  PMID: 34928961

Abstract

Following the Egyptian withdrawal in the mid-12th century BCE from their involvement in the Arabah copper production, and after an additional period of organization, the degree of copper efficiency and production at Timna and Faynan increased in the Early Iron Age (11th–9th centuries), rendering the region the largest and most advanced smelting centre in the Levant. The existing paradigm offered as an explanation for this technical and commercial success is based on extraneous influence, namely, the campaign of Pharaoh Sheshonq I near the end of the 10th century BCE that spurred a renewed Egyptian involvement in the Arabah copper industry. An alternative paradigm is suggested here, viewing the advances in Arabah copper technology and production as a linear development and the outcome of continuous and gradual indigenous improvements on the part of local craftsmen, with no external intervention. Behind these outstanding technical achievements stood excellent managerial personnel, supported by an innovative technical team. They employed two techniques for copper-production optimization that can be defined based on concepts taken from the world of modern industrial engineering: (i) "trial and error", in which the effect of each production variable was tested individually and separately, and (ii) "scaling-up", in which the size of some production elements (i.e., tuyère) was increased by using existing techniques which required minimum developmental costs and experimental risks.

Introduction and background

Large-scale copper production in the Arabah is known from extensive excavations and surveys that focused mainly on the sites of Timna on the western side of the valley, in Israel, and Faynan, ca. 100 km to the north on the eastern side of the valley, in Jordan [1,2]. Recently, the area of Wadi Amram, south of Timna, has been explored as well [35]. The rich data accumulated pertains both to the archaeological and to technological aspects of the copper production.

In the Late Bronze Age (LBA), the operations at Timna were part of a wider industrial establishment controlled by Egypt from the end of the 14th until the mid-12th centuries BCE [68]. Following the Egyptian withdrawal from Canaan in the 12th century BCE, local copper production in the Arabah not only continued into the Early Iron Age (11th–9th centuries BCE), but also expanded to include the site of Faynan, reaching an unprecedented scale, particularly at the latter site: the quantity of slag produced from 1200–1150 BCE was only ca. 1,600 tons; from 1100–1050 BCE this gradually increased to ca. 5,600 tons, and from 1000–950 BCE to ca. 15,600 tons. The peak of production was achieved during 900–850 BCE, at ca. 23.000 tons. This widespread operation ceased quite abruptly towards the end of the 9th century BCE [9,10].

The existence paradigm of the organization of production of the Arabah copper industry assumes that Egypt played a central technological and organizational role in the Late Bronze Age and then again, after a period of absence in ca. 925 BCE. This paradigm assumed that there had been no major change or innovation following the departure of the Egyptians in the 12th century BCE, with local craftsmen utilizing existing ’Egyptian’ LBA technology, which underwent minor improvements until a major technological leap occurred in the late 10th century due to the renewed regional involvement of the Egyptians of the 22nd Dynasty, in wake of the Sheshonq I (Shishak) campaign. This led to the introduction of innovations in technology and production organization that resulted in a significant increase in the efficiency of copper production [11], The existing paradigm was purportedly supported by the discovery of a scarab of Sheshonq I at Faynan [12], Furthermore, the advocates of the existing paradigm suggested that Egypt became involved not only in the technical part of the copper industry, but also exercised direct influence on the organization of production and trade at this time [11].

Ben-Yosef et al. 2019 [11] attempted to explain the assumed technological ’leap’ caused by the extraneous intervention of the Egyptians following Sheshonq I’s campaign through the lens of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory [13] assumes stasis periods followed by brief intervals of rapid evolutions. Thus, they suggest that the technological leap in the Arabah occurred: "After generations of internal efforts to better the technology—with limited success—the techno-social system was receptive of extraneous influences that facilitated the same cause" [11].

However, a close look at the involvement of the Egyptians shows that while there is no question of their present at Timna during the latter part of the LBA, their exact role in Faynan remains unclear. It has been shown [14,15] that the Hathor shrine (Site 200) was added on top of and incorporated into an existing Semitic shrine, suggesting that the Egyptians took control of the local, ongoing, copper-production activity, but were not its initiators. Avner et al. [5] also suggested that the indigenous people were the geologists, the mining engineers and the physicists behind this industry.

This article questions the assumed critical impact of these external factors on the Arabah copper production in the Early Iron Age. An alternative scenario is proposed, emphasizing indigenous processes in which local craftsmen utilized high levels of engineering and managerial skills acquired and improved over years of continuous production, resulting in the huge success of this industry. The main sites discussed in this paper are shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Map with sites mentioned in the text.

Fig 1

The archaeometallurgical data

“Production Systems (PS)”. Ben Yosef et al. [11, Fig 5] assess copper-production quality in the Arabah from the LBA to the end of the 9th century BCE and define four stages in the development of smelting, designated "Production Systems" (PS) (see Fig 2).

Fig 5. Schematic representation of a typical tuyère in a clogging process.

Fig 5

Fig 2. Average Cu content in slag samples plotted against their radiocarbon dates.

Fig 2

Taken as is from Ben-Yosef et al. [11, Fig 3], the three distinct groups (marked by the rectangular frames) demonstrate the gradual development from PS I, PS II, and PS III. The dashed lines at 1140 and 925 BCE represent historical events: The Egyptian withdrawal in 1140 BCE and the Sheshonq I campaign in 925 BCE. Ken = Khirbet en-Nahas, KAJ = Khirbet al-Jariye, T = Timna.

Ben Yosef et al. assume that the first stage, PS 0 (1300–1140 BCE), relates to the LBA and refers to the small-scale production at Timna under Egyptian control, briefly noted above. At this time, activities in the Faynan area were limited; evidence of moderate copper production found only in the deepest layers of the excavations at KEN Area M (Layer M5) were considered "ephemeral and opportunistic".

The second stage, PS I (1140–1000 BCE), following the Egyptian withdrawal, relates to a prolonged period that witnessed an increase in the efficiency in rate of copper production, as well as the beginning of a process of centralization, in which the cooperation between Timna and Faynan was established.

The third stage, PS II (1000–925 BCE), relates to a continuation of the gradual technological improvement. Thus, both PS I and PS II show continuous and gradual improvement, but they differ in regards to archaeological considerations, namely, the investment in fortifications that were established at Khirbet en-Nahas in this phase.

The fourth stage, PS III (925–830 BCE), relates to a major reorganisation of the industry and the most advanced stage of the technical development, in which new, larger furnaces and tuyères were utilized and a change of flux was initiated at Timna, from Fe-oxides to the more effective Mn-oxides [11]. In addition, production was centralized at fewer sites—Timna, where only one smelting site (Site 30) was active, while three sites operated at Faynan (Khirbat en-Nahas, Faynan 5 and Barqa al-Hetiye). This high level of standardization and centralization led to increased internal production dependence and is one possible explanation for the ultimate simultaneous collapse of the Arabah copper production system towards the end of the 9th century [16].

The evidence for technical efficiency and standardization: Residual copper content

Evidence for the improvement of technical standardization during these four stages is shown in Fig 2, which presents the average residual copper content within slag attained from 143 samples, along with the Standard Deviation (STD); decrease of STD means a high degree of standardization that reflects better skill in the monitoring of the production process, and vice versa.

The results of PS O include only one site at Timna, T3, dated to LBA, showing a relatively high-quality production of copper, with 1.1% of residual copper in the slag (n = 45) and a high level of standardization (STD = 0.77%) [17, p. 52–53]. The results of PS I show a residual copper content of 1.65% Cu ± 0.87% (n = 56). Throughout the PS I–PS II stages, the production rate increased significantly (see [18, p. 93] for calculation of slag amounts), followed by a gradual improvement in efficiency, evidenced by the residual copper in PS II (n = 46) being reduced to 1.03% and the STD decreased to 0.57%. The mean copper content measured in the PS III slag dropped to 0.51%, but more importantly, the STD decreased to a new low of 0.18%.

The improvement in efficiency and standardization of copper production over the course of the Early Iron Age (11th–9th centuries BCE) was accompanied by additional technical advancements, including the initiation of slag crushing for the extraction of copper prills, i. e., copper-iron droplets trapped within the slag material. [10, p. 734, 831], and the secondary smelting of Early Bronze Age slag that served for exploitation of an additional available copper source [19]. It was also suggested that the changes in efficiency may be the result of changing the flux from iron oxides to manganese.

An alternative approach to the technological stages in copper production

The distinction between the Production Systems described above involved mainly archaeological considerations, some unrelated to the technology, such as building activity at Khirbet e-Nahas, as well as historical events [11]. However, in this unique case the focused should be given to technology development, mostly carried out by a limited number of personnel. Therefore, in our view, the developmental stages should be based only on technological considerations. Such a consideration yields a division into two main Technological Phases: TP I and TP II. Table 1 shows the correlation between the two proposed "Technological Phases" to the paradigm of the four "Production Systems". TP I (= PS O—PS II) basically includes the technology used at Timna during the LBA, which continued to exist until the change in the technological tool kit in the 10th century BCE. TP II (= PS III) is the final and most advanced production phase.

Table 1. Comparison between the "technological phases" to the "production systems".
Geo-political situation Sites Production System (PS) after: Ben-Yosef et al. 2019 Number of Samples Mean copper (%) Standard Deviation (STD) (%) References Technological Phases (TP)
Egyptian presence (LB IIB) Timna 3 PS 0
1300–1140 BCE
45 1.1 0.77 [7,8] TP I
Smelting is based on LBA technological principles
LBA–10th century
Indigenous Arabah population (Early Iron Age) Timna & Faynan PS I
1140–1000 BCE
56 1.65 0.87 [11]
PS II
1000–925 BCE
46 1.03 0.57
TP II
New smelting system
Mid-late 10th cent.–late 9th
PS III
925–830 BCE
41 0.51 0.18

The residual copper concentrations in the slag samples from the Arabah sites and their average dates (as presented above in Fig 2, as shown in ref. [11]) were subjected to Cluster Analysis. The statistical procedure selected here was K-means [20], and the number of clusters were determined using the Elbow Method. The outcome is shown in Fig 3. It presents three clusters: Clusters 1 and 2 include samples that are related to the first Technological Phase (TP I), whereas Cluster 3 correlates to the second Technological Phase (TP II).

Fig 3. Results of the cluster analysis.

Fig 3

Cluster 1 shows a decrease in copper-production efficiency after the withdrawal of the Egyptians from Timna. Cluster 2 shows a gradual and continued improvement, which reaches roughly the same values achieved at Timna during the LBA. Cluster 3 shows advanced copper production of TP II. Cluster data information provided in S1 Table.

The two clusters included in TP I present a complex development from the end of LBA and throughout the early Iron Age, showing that following the withdrawal of the Egyptians from Timna, there was a large decrease in efficiency, from ca. 1.1% Cu to 2.5% Cu, as indicated in Cluster 1 and the lowest point of Cluster 2. This phenomenon can be explained by the expansion of the industry to include Faynan–a step that resulted in decreased control over the mining and smelting activities, and possibly a shortage in trained personnel at this initial stage. Thus, the duration of Cluster 1 can be defined as an adaptation phase. Thereafter, the duration of Cluster 2 (ca. 1050–960 BCE) was characterized by continuous and gradual improvement in efficiency.

Ben-Yosef et al. [11] postulated that the interface between PS I to PS II took place at ca. 1000 BCE. However, Fig 3 demonstrates continuous technological improvement throughout the period of Cluster 2. At the end of TP I, for the first time in the Iron Age, copper efficiency reached the value already attained in LBA (ca. 1.1% Cu), with an even lower STD. In the following Technological Phase (TP II), the copper concentration in the slag dropped (0.38% Cu) and the STD decreased even more significantly to an unprecedented level (0.18% Cu), as clearly shown by Ben Yosef et al. [11].

The Cluster Analysis shows that a significant decrease in copper content in the slag, attesting to improved production efficiency, took place already at the time of KAJ C1. According to the excavators, KAJ C1 was abandoned in the second half of the 10th century [10, pp. 370–372]. Nevertheless, the wide range of radiocarbon dates does not allow precise dating if this event which may or may not have preceded the Sheshonq I campaign in 925 BCE. However, despite the fact that KAJ C1 was assigned by our analysis to Cluster 3, there are several technical reasons pointing to its affinity to Cluster 2:(i) The copper contents in the slag is considerably higher than the rest of the samples included in this cluster 3, and very similar to that measured in slag from KAJ A1, which is included in Cluster 2. (ii) The STD is considerably higher than that of the rest of the samples in cluster 3, (iii) The improved tool kit of TP II was not identified among the remains in this site. It thus appears that the evidence from KAJ C1 may be taken to reflect a crucial step towards the initial development of TP II: i.e., an unsuccessful attempt to increase efficiency using the same hardware of TP I. This interface between the clusters appears to demonstrate the reason why the local craftsmen decided to develop a new technology, TP II. Such a process is naturally invisible in the archaeological record.

Punctuated equilibrium or gradual improvement?

Analysis of the grand averages of PS I–PS III, marked by the enlarged triangles in Fig 2, shows a gradual and linear improvement of production efficiency over time (Y = 15X+808, R2 = 0.99). Nevertheless, this simplified calculation fails to satisfy the following requirements: it ignores the adaptation period of Cluster 1, in which production efficiency had declined before it increased, and is also limited to the mean results of each PS, thus, failing to take into consideration the results of each individual site.

Fig 2 in Ben Yosef et al. [11] brings three separate sites (Fig 2A–Khirbet e-Nahas [KEN]; Fig 2B–Timna site 30 [T30]; Fig 2C–Khirbet al-Jariya [21, KAJ]) in support of the proposed paradigm of "punctuated equilibrium" which, as stated above, assumes that there had been a period of relative stasis in the quality of copper production until a critical leap occurred at the beginning of PS III, triggered by the Egyptian campaign. However, two of the figures, Fig 2B and 2C, cannot be used for this analysis: Fig 2B shows results from T30, where only two layers exist, which are not sufficient to show any trend/nature of the development; Fig 2C shows the results from KAJ, where none of the strata post-date the Sheshonq I campaign and thus, these results are incapable of supporting the punctuate equilibrium paradigm. The only relevant stratigraphic evidence brought by Ben-Yosef et al. [11, Fig 2A] is from Area M in KEN. However, the results from KEN show linear behavior (R2 = 0.98) for the entire range of dates (11th–9th centuries), with no signs of "stasis" or "leaps" before or after Sheshonq I’s campaign in ca. 925 BCE (see Fig 4).

Fig 4. Linear improvement in copper production at Timna and Faynan.

Fig 4

Based on ref. [11, Fig 2A–2C].

Summing up, in the data presented in Ben-Yosef el al. [11], there is no any indication for periods of "stasis" or for sudden "leaps", but rather, a gradual and continuous improvement in copper efficiency that is mostly linear in form. Thus, the proposed suggestion to apply the "punctuated equilibrium theory", to explain the developments of copper production in the Arabah seems unsuitable in this case.

Advanced techniques and managerial capabilities in the Arabah industry

The production of copper requires four basic requirements: (i) adequate raw materials, i.e., ores and flux; (ii) a constant supply of fuel, i.e., charcoal; (iii) a smelting protocol; (iv) the proper equipment to execute the process, particularly bellows, tuyères and furnaces.

It is assumed that for the development and production optimization, the following advanced means were used:

  1. trial and error: an empirical method in which the final routine conditions are reached through a series of optimisations of the production variables through strict monitoring of the final yield.

  2. scaling-up: a developmental technique intended for increasing the size of an existing production component (i.e., tuyère, furnace) according to a predetermined scale by using known production techniques. This procedure is beneficial for reducing experimental costs and developmental risks.

  3. managerial quality: an efficient management cooperating closely with the technical team, monitoring and advancing the technical developments and day-by-day operation.

This terminology has been coined during the modern era within the discipline of industrial engineering, whereas the Arabah people might simply have referred to it as "common sense", "intuition" or "good engineering and managerial practices". Nevertheless, such conclusions need a further discussion.

Anthropologists have shown that ancient peoples showed "good practices" guided by "common sense", "intelligence", "intuition" and "rationality". Such practices would allow them to accomplish and to maximize their best of interests [22]. Israel Aumann [23], recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, assumes that advance achievements could have been reached through a rational intuition he designates as "rules of thumb". Evidence presented by Henshilwood et. al. [24] shows that humans living at least as early as 35,000 years ago had cognitive abilities similar to that of modern humans. Schiffer and Skibo [25] describe behavioral chains of activities by which craftsmen of earlier periods operated: through the integration of technical choices within a process of "trial and error". The set of integrated technical choices that arises from this "trial and error" process is termed by Schiffer and Skibo as "primary technology". This is exactly what was demonstrate in the Arabah—how small and successive steps could lead to advanced technologies in the metallurgy of copper. It is also be assumed that such an advanced thinking was also demonstrated at the managerial level of the Arabah, as will be discussed later. Warburton [26, p. 170, 173] sums up his view on the advanced ancient Egyptian economic:

Even the fragmentary evidence from ancient Egypt confirms the interlocking markets where prices resulting from general equilibrium were available. The fact that the copper and silver appearing in these transactions were themselves parts of the international market economy […] [and] international equilibrium prices […] confirming the general lines of Keynes’s General Theory.

Thus, through clever and practical thinking provided by intuitive “rules of thumb”, ancient people–were already able to apply advanced thinking such as the "trial and error" method and the principles of Keynes’s General Theory thousands of years ago.

Trial and error and its assumed implementation in the Arabah industry

In the attempt to specify the exact technique used by the Arabah craftsmen for monitoring production, a crucial question arises: today, the gradual improvement and efficiency of the production process is detected, indirectly and inversely, by using advanced analytical techniques that measure the residual copper left in the slag; the lower the copper contents, the better and more efficient was the production. However, how was the quality of the smelting procedure monitored 3,000 years ago? In antiquity, production efficiency could have been tested directly by weighing refined copper, using a simple balance scale, well known from the 3th millennium BCE and whose accuracy is most appropriate for this task [27]. The use of a balance scale is depicted, for example, in wall paintings from the Old Kingdom Tomb of Mereruka, Saqqara [28]. Our principle assumption suggests that trial and error could successfully lead to the gradual, step-by-step improvement in smelting by changing one variable in the production process at a time, while keeping all the other variables constant. It is assumed that only one change could be implemented at each step, since otherwise the interpretation of the results would not be possible. For example, should, in one experiment, both the tilting angle and the specific location of the tuyère within the furnace be changed, resulting in a 2% improvement in copper yield, it would not be possible to discern between the individual effects of each of the independent variables, and the test would be useless. Hence, presumably, in each trial, the specialists started from the latest working procedure, allowing for a minor and successive change of one variable. This empirical approach was a remarkably long and tedious process, but would eventually lead to significant improvements in copper production.

Naturally, such a development process would not leave detectible evidence, as limited amounts of slag would have been produced during the trial and error experiments in relation to the huge amounts of slag produced during ongoing production. Thus, identifying the “experimental” slag among the “conventional” pieces would be akin to “finding a needle in a haystack”.

Significantly, at the end of TP I, when residual copper in slag reached only ca. 1%, it became more and more difficult to achieve additional improvement and drastic measures were needed. Assumingly, this led the local craftsmen to the necessary developments in the hardware of TP II.

Scaling-up technique and the origin of the TP II tuyère

Before LBA, copper production in the region was based on wind-operated furnaces, rather than on forced draft using bellows, pipes and tuyères [19,29]. The "short tuyère" used throughout the LBA and the Iron Age I in the Arabah was the same as the tuyère used in Sinai during the LBA [6, p. 29], [10, pp. 702, 989], [30, p. 26], while the long tuyère was introduced in the late 10th century BCE at Timna Site 30 and at Khirbat en-Nahas [6, pp. 36–48], [10, p. 888]. Al-Shorman [29, pp. 115–116] describes a third tuyère type, designated a "reused tuyère"; such tuyères, dated to the Iron Age, were unearthed at Bir Nasib, Sinai. This innovative device has never been found in the Eastern Desert nor in the Arabah, suggesting that this was a local innovation at Bir Nasib. All three tuyère types are described in Table 2.

Table 2. The three types of tuyères used in LBA and iron age.
Type & Technological Phase (TP) Period Found location & Reference Length (cm) Diameter (cm) Air flow diameter (cm) Inclination (degrees)
Short tuyère
TP I
LBA & Early Iron Age until mid-late 10th century BCEa Southern Levant, Egypt and the Arabah [10, p. 989] 4–9.2 5–8 2 25–40
Long tuyère
TP II
Mid-late 10th century-late 10th century Arabah [10, p. 720] 32 13–16.5 2.5 20–25
Reused tuyère
(A unique Sinai type)
Iron Age Bir Nasib, Sinai [29, pp. 115–116] 10 10 2 20–25

aBen-Yosef et al. [11, p. 9] suggest 925 BCE.

The main problem with the operation of the short tuyère was its tendency to become clogged, thus preventing the continuation of airflow from entering the furnace [6, pp. 35, 36], [29, pp. 114–115, Fig 4.26]. This inherent problem is a direct result of the considerably large temperature difference acting upon the tuyère. The inner nozzle’s tip is exposed to very high temperatures (up to 13500 C) and to the superheated particles of the slag. At the same time, air enters into the chamber at a relatively low temperature (ca. 400 C). Therefore, the air tends to cool the tuyère and its surroundings, causing the superheated particles to solidify, resulting in slag formation in the nozzle surroundings, as demonstrate schematically in Fig 5, ultimately leading to nozzle clogging. Heat flow considerations show that enlarging the dimensions of the tuyère leads to a better temperature isolation of the nozzle, which reduces the likelihood of clogging. For example, increasing the length of the nozzle by 10 mm reduces the temperature gradient by ca. 1500 C (estimated from [29, p. 222, Fig 7.15]).

The existence of reused tuyères indicates that the craftsmen at Bir-Nasib, Sinai faced the same clogging problem that existed in the short tuyère in the Arabah. However, they arrived at different solutions: (i) replacing the clogged nozzle with a new one, up to seven times and (ii) increasing the dimensions of the short tuyère, although not to the same large dimensions selected for the "long tuyère" in the Arabah (Table 2).

The small and long tuyères are similar in their principle design and raw materials and had a very similar production technique [10, pp. 702–705]. Both are composed of two primary components: a front part ("nozzle") made of refractory clay, and a back part made of reddish clay, rich in crushed-slag inclusions. Notably, the long tuyères lack finishing marks, such as cloth-wiping, on their exterior, as do the small ones. Instead, in the same location, there are marks of organic material such as grass, or weeds. In addition, the long tuyère required a multi-layered construction because of its increased size [10, pp. 702–705]. It seems probable that the different tuyère prototypes were tested through trial and error for optimization of the design parameters. It is assumed that the same scaling-up technique was also used for increasing the dimensions of the furnace, intended to improve the productivity.

The role of the managerial quality of the Arabah on the economic success

It has already been shown that humans living thousands of years ago had cognitive abilities similar to those of modern ones [24], and that their economic perspective conformed with the general lines of Keynes’s General Theory [26]. In a similar way, Schiffer and Skibo [25] demonstrate the importance of "trial and error" in the ancient past, while in the modern era, "experimentation" and "trial and error" remains an important and emphasized ideology for more than 400 of the world’s largest and most successful firms as shown by Patel and Pavitt [31] using "experimentation" and "trial and error".

Two main questions will be addressed in this discussion: (i) is it possible to recognize the existence of a competent managerial team at Timna and Faynan based on the archaeological evidence? And, (ii) what was the mandate of such a management?

Similarity in paraphernalia and by-products revealed a centralized management that controlled both Faynan and Timna [11]. Naturally, the main objective of the management was to increase copper production. To this end, the managerial team had the mandate to close unproductive mines and smelting sites, to open new more efficient ones and to search for alternative sources, i.e., secondary smelting of existing slag [10,19].

The decision to employ secondary smelting of EBA slag was, most likely, a very difficult choice to make. This would have required considering the following subjects: how does the copper content in the mineral sources compare to the EBA slag? What is the amount of energy (defined by volume of charcoal) needed by each of these alternatives in order to produce one unit of copper? If the assumption is made that the content of copper in a natural mineral is much higher than that left in the EBA slag, the question is raised of whether or not it would be advantageous to save on the cost of mining in return for the additional energy costs required for smelting the lesser quality slag? It is logical to assume that the management of the copper industry in the Arabah was able not only to raise these questions but also to have a technical team that could help answer them. It is notable that excavation in Timna (T34, “Slave Hill”) showed evidence for the existence of high level personnel [32], probably from the technical and the managerial teams, that enjoyed high-quality food sources and fine items of clothing.

An essential task of the management was to develop, by themselves or through proxies, new international markets for the copper. The Arabah succeeded doing so via the King’s Highway, which led Moab to establish lines of fortresses along her Eastern border as shown by Homès-Fredericq [33], Finkelstein and Lipschits [34] and Lev-Tov et al. [35]. Recent evidence demonstrates that the markets of the Arabah extended as far as Olympia and other Aegean destinations [36].

Summing up: The main tasks and the mandate of the managerial level of the Arabah were: (1) day-by-day operation, (2) expanding production and improving efficiency in Timna and Faynan, (3) closing unproductive mines and smelting sites and opening more efficient ones, (4) finding alternative sources like secondary smelting, (5) developing international markets.

It would be very difficult to accept the possibility of an Egyptian involvement in the managerial level during the period between Early to Late Iron Age because such presence would have required the physical presence of qualified Egyptian personnel in the Arabah. However, such evidence has not been found.

Discussion

Regional copper production

Most of the operating sites in the Sinai can be dated to the Early Bronze, Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages, while only a few can be dated within the Iron Age [30,37,38]. Rothenberg [6] reported that after the 15th century BCE, the Egyptians failed to continue the operation of their largest copper-production center near Bir Nasib, Sinai, however, it was operated during part of the Iron Age and later during the Nabataean, Roman and Byzantine periods [30,39]. Additional copper-smelting sites were operated in the northern part of the Eastern Desert of Egypt. These sites are dated to the Late Prehistoric, Old Kingdom and Ptolemaic/Roman periods in Egypt [30, p. 50]. Smaller copper production sites were also located at Qurayyah and Tayma in the Arabian Peninsula. The Qurayyah site was active during the Late Bronze Age, while that of Tayma was dated to the Roman/Late Roman periods; neither of them were operational during the Iron Age [40]. However, it must be noted that the archaeology of northwestern Arabia is only in its infancy and very little is known about its copper ores [41].

Throughout the LBA, in addition to Egyptian-local production, copper was imported from Cyprus, which was one of the richest copper sources during this time [18]. At the end of the LBA, Egypt withdrew from many of the smelting regions and was also affected by the collapse of the Mediterranean copper trade. Kassianidou [42, p. 267] assumes that after the trade collapsed, the Cypriots turned their interest to the Aegean and beyond to the Central Mediterranean, where they found new markets. In addition, the process of iron dissemination to Egypt was slower than in the Levant and reached its peak only in the second half of the first millennium BCE [43, pp. 167–168]. Therefore, the need for copper consumption inside Egypt during the Iron Age did not decrease, as it had in other areas throughout the Levant where copper was replaced by iron. All these factors most probably led to a copper deficiency in Egypt during the first millennium BCE [44]. Under these circumstances, it would be expected that Egypt would increase its internal copper production, but just the opposite happened. Furthermore, since copper production in Egypt increased considerably in later periods, such as the Nabataean, Roman and Byzantine periods [30, p. 50; 49, p. 17–18], the deficiency in Egyptian copper production during the Iron Age cannot be related to the exhaustion of local mineral sources. Alternatively, poor managerial capabilities and lack of technical skills may have prevented the Egyptians from exploiting inner copper resources and fulfilling their internal demand.

Thus, the macro historical circumstances support the assumption that after the withdrawal of the Egyptians from Canaan, the indigenous people of the Arabah had no other alternative rather than to take the initiative to develop their own technical and managerial capabilities, benefitting from the advantage of having few copper competitors, if any, in the arena. Thus, I agree with Fantalkin and Finkelstein [44] who argued that the objective of Sheshonq I’s campaign was to "preserve and promote" the copper production in the Arabah, as, at that time, the Arabah source "must have been the major—if not only- source of copper for Egypt". As Sheshonq I was aware of the huge reduction in copper production in Egypt during the Iron Age [30,37,38] he decided to secure a steady copper supply from the Arabah to Egypt.

Egyptian involvement

In general, the policy of Egypt in regards to external production sites ranged from indirect influence to direct involvement in the production and/or the organization of production [1,16]. Petrie [45, pp. 109–110] describes some of the Egyptian procedures with the locals, such as dividing the labour into numerous different tasks and camps for "obtaining great results from small minds". The recent publication by Ben Yosef et al. [11] describes the Egyptian’s doctrine as "imposed or triggered". However, if true, this would require at least some degree of their physical presence at the copper-production sites, which is not supported by the archaeological evidence at hand.

A scarab bearing the name of Sheshonq I [12], and other Egyptian artefacts, were reported from Faynan. These include glass beads, small figurines and seals as well as 10 Egyptian amulets (mostly dated from the reigns of Siamun and Sheshonq I), covering most of the 10th century BCE (ca. 980 to 900 BCE) [46, p. 759]. However, none of these artifacts can serve as solid proof of Egyptian physical presence at Faynan and may have reached the region as a result of trade. Similar finds from other sites in the southern Levant were not taken as proof for Egyptian presence (e.g., numerous Egyptian amulets unearthed at Tel Rehov [17]. The archaeological evidence for the physical presence of Egyptians in the southern Levant is well known from the time of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, when at sites such as Jaffa and Beth Shean, such presence was reflected in the architecture, inscriptions, sculptures, cult and the robust occurrence of Egyptian and Egyptianizing pottery, all of which were present at Timna during LBA, but completely lacking at Faynan (e.g. [47,48]).

Concerning the technological and managerial aspects of Egyptian involvement in the period between Early and Late Iron Age, It seems difficult to accept the paradigm that the advanced TP II technology was introduced by the Egyptians following the military campaign of Sheshonq I, for the following reasons:

(i) TP II technology was never identified in Egypt or Sinai, therefore, most probably, could not have been introduced by the Egyptians.

(ii) If TP II was an Egyptian technology, it would have required the physical presence of qualified Egyptian personnel in the Arabah. However, as noted above, no substantial evidence [49] for such a presence can be gleaned from the finds.

Summary and conclusions

The prevalent explanation for the processes that took place following the Egyptian departure from the Arabah in the mid-12th century BCE suggests that for most of this period there was a continuation of LB technology with a small degree of local development. This lasts until an external event, the Sheshonq I campaign to Canaan in ca. 925 BCE, introduced innovated technologies and a new organization, thus resulting in a major qualitative change in the copper smelting technology. This was suggested to have taken place according to the model of ’’punctuated equilibrium’’, which emphasizes a dramatic change (or ’leap’) following periods of stasis [11].

In contrast, this work suggests that the gradual and continuous developments in copper technology in the Arabah during the course of the Early Iron Age, following the departure of the Egyptians in ca. 1140 BCE and up to the abandonment of the site in the late 9th century, were attained independently through ongoing investment and innovation by the local craftsmen. This process was accomplished by the continuous application of techniques that can be defined, according to modern industrial engineering terminology, as "trial and error" and "scaling-up". It is assumed that sometime during the 10th century BCE, when the local craftsmen achieved the peak quality attainable by the original Egyptian technology (understood by the residual ca. 1% copper in the slag), they decided to enhance the basic hardware, TP I, and set forth development on a new tool kit (mostly new tuyères and large furnaces), defined here as TP II. This developmental stage left no archaeological evidence. After the developmental stage was successfully terminated, sometime in the middle of the 10th century BCE, the large tuyère and enhanced furnace were introduced simultaneously at the smelting sites in a "sudden event".

On the other hand, it is not possible to find any tangible evidence for the existing parallel paradigm, which suggests that such changes and other improvements were the result of extraneous or sudden intervention by foreign powers.

I accept the alternative explanation of Fantalkin and Finkelstien [44] regarding the impact of the Sheshonq I campaign on the Arabah copper industry; namely, that the Egyptian endeavor was, in fact, the result of an existing copper shortage in Egypt at that time. Thus, the technological advances in the Arabah industry during the course of the 10th century BCE were most likely implemented for the sake of coping with the growing demands for copper in the Egyptian market, rendering the Egyptians the consumers rather than the producers and innovating technologists.

Supporting information

S1 Table

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Naama Yahalom-Mack for assisting me in writing this paper, Nava Panitz-Cohen for her editing and valuable comments, Ruhama Bonfil compiled Figs 3 and 4, and Itamar Ben Ezra illustrated Fig 1. Oded Luria kindly assisted with the statistics.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Full information for the specific specimens considered for this study (including specimen numbers, repository information, and geographic locations) are provided within their original publication, Ben-Yosef et al. 2019, including Supporting Information (S1 Table). No new samples were examined for the sake of this study. No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.

Funding Statement

No specific funding was received for this work.

References

  • 1.Levy TE, Najjar M, Ben-Yosef E. Conclusion. In: Levy TE, Najjar M, Ben-Yosef E (eds.). New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. UCLA. 2014; 977–1002 [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Levy TE, Najjar M, Higham T, Arbel Y, Muniz A, Ben-Yosef E, et al. Excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas 2002–2009: unearthing an Iron Age copper production center in the lowlands of Edom (Southern Jordan). In: Levy TE, Najjar M, Ben-Yosef E (eds.). New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. 2014; 9–245. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Avner U, Ginat H, Shalev S, Shilstein S, Langford B, Frumkin A, et al. Ancient Copper Mines at Nahal Amram, Southern Arabah. In: Ben-Yosef E. (ed.), Mining for Ancient Copper–Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg, Tel Aviv. 2018; 147–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shilstein S, Kan-Cipor-Meron T, Avner U, Shalev S. Detecting changes in copper technology by analyzing slag from Nahal Amram Israel. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 2020; 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Avner U, Ginat H, Shem-Tov R, Lang FB, Frumkin A, Shalev S, et al. Ancient copper mines at Nahal Amram, a new study. Negev, Dead Sea and Arava Studies. 2014; 6 (4): 1–16. (Hebrew). [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rothenberg B. The Ancient Metallurgy of Copper. London. 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yagel OA, Ben-Yosef E, Craddock PT. Late Bronze Age Copper Production in Timna: New Evidence from Site 3, Levant. 2016; 48: 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yagel OA. Late Bronze Age Copper Smelting Technology at Timna: Site 3 as a Case Study. M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. 2016.
  • 9.Finkelstein I. The Southern Steppe of the Levant ca. 1050–750 BCE: A Framework for Territorial History. Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 2014. 146: 89–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ben-Yosef E. Technology and Social Process: Oscillations in Iron Age Copper Production and Power in Southern Jordan. Ph. D. dissertation. University of California, San Diego; 2010.
  • 11.Ben-Yosef E, Liss B, Yagel OA, Tirosh O, Najjar M, Levy TE. Ancient technology and punctuated change: Detecting the emergence of the Edomite Kingdom in the Southern Levant. PLOS ONE. 2019; 18: 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Levy TE, Münger S, Najjar M. A newly discovered scarab of Sheshonq I: recent Iron Age explorations in southern Jordan. Antiquity. 2014; 341. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Matthew W, Pennell MW, Harmon LJ, Uyeda JS. Is there room for punctuated equilibrium in macroevolution? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2014; (29): 23–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rothenberg B. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna. London. 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Avner U. Egyptian Timna–Reconsidered. In: Tebes J. M. (ed.), Unearthing the Wilderness–Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Studies, Supplement 45). Leuven. 2014; 103–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ben-Yosef E, Sergi O. The Destruction of Gath by Hazael and the Arabah Copper Industry: A Reassessment. In: Itzhaq S, Jeffrey R. Chadwick L (eds.) Tell it in Gath—Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel, Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. 2018; 461–80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328968669 [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Herrmann C. Faience A, Statuettes A. In: Mazar A and Panitz-Cohen N. Tel Rehov Excavations, 1997–2012. Qedem. In press. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rademakers FW, Rehren T, Pernicka E. Copper for the Pharaoh: Identifying multiple metal sources for Ramesses’ workshops from bronze and crucible remains. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2017; 80: 50–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hauptmann A. The Archaeometallurgy of Copper–Evidence from Faynan, Jordan. Springer, Heidelberg. Berlin, New York; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lloyd SP. Least Squares Quantization in PCM. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. 1982; 28: 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ben-Yosef E, Levy TE, Higham T, Najjar M, Tauxe L. The beginning of Iron Age copper production in the southern Levant: new evidence from Khirbat al-Jariya, Faynan, Jordan. Antiquity. 2010; 84: 724–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Runciman WG. Stone age sociology. Journal of the Royal anthropological Institute. 2005; 11: 129–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Aumann RJ. Rationality and bounded rationality. Games and Economic Behavior. 1997; 21: 2–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Henshilwood CS, d’Errico F, Yates JZ, Tribolo C, Duller GA, Mercier S, et al. Emergence of Modern Human Behavior: Middle Stone Age Engravings from South Africa. Science. 2002; 295: 1278–79. doi: 10.1126/science.1067575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Schiffer MB., Skibo JM. The Explanation of Artifact Variability. American Antiquity, 1997; 62: 27–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Warburton DA. The Egyptian economy: sources, models and history. In: Hudecz, A, Metrik, M. (Eds.), Commerce and Economy in Ancient Egypt. Proceedings of the Third International Congress for Young Egyptologists 25–27 September 2009, Budapest. BAR International Series 2131. Hadrian Books. 2010; 165–75.
  • 27.Alberti ME, Asccalone E, Peyronel L. Weights in Context: Bronze Age Weighing Systems of Eastern Mediterranean: Chronology, Typology, Material and Archaeological Contexts, Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Roma 22nd–24th November 2004. 2006.
  • 28.Davey CJ. Early Bronze Age Refining of Copper, in Ben-Yosef E(ed.), Mining for Ancient Copper–Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg. Tel Aviv; 2018; 495–502. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Al-Shorman AH. Refractory Ceramic Through the Ages: An Archaeometric Study from Faynan, Jordan and Other Sites. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Bochum, Bochum. 2009.
  • 30.Abdel-Motelib A, Bode M, Hartmann R, Hartung U, Hauptmann A, Pfeiffer K. Archaeo Metallurgical Expeditions to the Sinai Peninsula and the Eastern Desert of Egypt (2006, 2008). Metalla. 2012; 19: 3–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Patel P, Pavitt K. Technological Competencies in the World’s Largest Firms: Characteristics, Constraints and Scope for Managerial Choice, Laxenburg Austria. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ben-Yosef E. Back to Solomon’s Era: Results of the First Excavations at "Slave Hill" (Site 34, Timna, Israel). American Schools of Oriented Research. 2016; 376: 98–169. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Homès-Fredericq D. Late Bronze and Iron Age evidence from Lehun in Moab, In: Bienkowski P. (Ed.), Early Edom and Moab, the Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan. Collins Publications. 1992; 187–202. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Finkelstein I, Lipschits O. The Genesis of Moab: A Proposal. Levant. 2011; (43): 139–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lev-Tov JS, Porter BW, Routledge B. Measuring local diversity in early Iron Age animal economies: a view from Khirbat al-Mudayna al-‘Aliya (Jordan). BASOR. 2011; (361): 67–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kiderlen M, Bode M, Hauptmann A, Bassiakos Y. Tripod cauldrons produced at Olympia give evidence for trade with copper from Faynan (Jordan) to South West Greece, c. 950–750 BCE. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2016; (8): 303–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Beit Arieh I. An Early Bronze Age II Site near Sheikh ‘Awad in Southern Sinai. Tel Aviv 1981; 8: 95–127. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pfeiffer K. The Technical Ceramics for Metallurgical Activities in Tal Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Comparable Sites in the Southern Levant. Prehistoric Aqaba. 2009; 305–419. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rothenberg B. An Archaeological Survey of South Sinai: Preliminary Report, Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 1970; 102: 4–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Liu S, Rehren T, Pernicka E, Hausleiter A. Copper Processing in the Oases of Northwest Arabia: Technology, Alloys and Provenance. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2015; 53: 492–503. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ben-Yosef E. Provenancing Egyptian metals: A methodological comment, Journal of Archaeological Science. 2018; 96: 208–215. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kassianidou V. Cypriot Copper for the Iron Age World of the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. 2014; 261–271. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ogden J. Metals. In: Nicholson PT, Shaw I (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge; 2000; 149–176. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Fantalkin A, Finkelstein I. The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th Century BCE Earth Quake, More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I-IIA. Tel Aviv. 2006; 33: 18–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Petrie MF, Currelly CT. Researches in Sinai. London. John Merkay. 1906. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Munger S, Levy TE. The Iron Age Egyptian Amulet Assemblage. In: Levy TE, Najjar M, Ben-Yosef E (eds.). New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. UCLA. 2014; 741–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Panitz-Cohen N, Mazar A. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996. Jerusalem. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Martin AS. Egyptian-Type Pottery in the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Levy TE, Münger S, Najjar M. A newly discovered scarab of Sheshonq I: recent Iron Age explorations in southern Jordan. Antiquity. 2014; 341. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bradford Dubik

28 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-15801

Copper technology in the Arabah during the Iron Age: Punctuated equilibrium by extraneous intervention or gradual improvement by local craftsmen?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yahalom-Mack,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In particular, reviewers raised concerns with both the methods and framing of the paper. Additionally, there was concern that some conclusions may not be fully supported by the results, and that some interpretations may not be fully grounded in the existing literature.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 12 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bradford Dubik

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General Comment: This is a response to a bad paper published in PLoS One in 2019. While I agree with your substantive criticisms of that paper, I am not recommending that PLoS One accept your response. I have two reasons for this. The first is that both the original paper and your response are not of sufficiently wide interest for publication in a leading general science journal – they belong in either a regional archaeological journal, or in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. My second criticism is that many of your archaeological conclusions seem to me to be speculations that bear no necessary relationship to the evidence or analysis actually presented in the paper.

Detailed comments:

Lines 35-41. This is not an introduction! You need to provided context. Where is the Arabah? Why should anyone be interested in this topic? Why is Feynan significant in the history of metallurgy? Why was there a copper industry in such a remote area? What is the chronological and geological relationship between Timna and Feynan? Provide citations to prior research here.

Line 57. There were no geologists, mining engineers or physicists in the LBA! This is reading the present back into the past - what historians call the “presentist fallacy”.

Lines 60-62. We actually do know something about Egyptian mining technology (from gold mining in the Eastern Desert) that is contemporary with the Egyptian presence in the Arabah! You should read about it and compare with the technology at Feynan.

132-133. It would be helpful to have a table of amounts of slag in each period so that the reader doesn’t have to go to the study cited. These changes in output are really important to your argument.

152-153. I agree with your criticism here – arguments about technological innovation should be based solely upon the evidence from studies of the technology.

174-176. This is a valid criticism. The ores at Feynan are not identical to those at Timna, so there would clearly have been some experimentation at the beginning of their exploitation.

Fig. 5. Correct label (“furnance”).

230-235. You ignore here the evidence that they present in their Figure 2D and their Figure 4, which suggests to me that the “leap” in efficiency may simply be a consequence of the discovery that using manganese rather than iron oxides greatly improved the fluidity of the slag. This cannot be attributed to superior Egyptian technology – it is simply a consequence of the fact that some Faynan ores contain manganese. Discuss this with respect to your periods TPI and TPII.

236-253. This is another instance of the “presentist fallacy”. It is completely inappropriate to apply concepts from modern business schools to production more than 3000 years ago! A better place to look for suitable ways of thinking about this in ethnographic and historical studies of indigenous African metallurgy. If you look for example at the work of Philip de Barros at Bassar in Togo, or of the Swiss group (Eric Huysecom, Vincent Serneels, etc.) among Dogon ironworkers in Mali, you will find that “scaling up” requires neither the involvement of a state, nor even a managerial elite. (You can find these easily through Google).

254-283. There is a much simpler way to monitor copper losses, which is to look at freshly fractured surfaces of copper slag under low magnification (10x-20x). The size of metallic copper prills retained in slag is closely proportional to viscosity of the liquid slag; the smaller the prills, the better the recovery.

Table 2. Can I suggest that you use “short tuyere” instead of “small tuyere” and “long tuyere” instead of “large tuyere”? It will make your discussion much easier to understand.

Lines 331-355. This section is absurd, and another example of the “presentist fallacy” to which I referred above. How can the findings of a study of modern (late capitalist) management possibly be relevant to the management of copper smelting in the Bronze and Iron Ages?

342-344. This is not evidence of “management”! Techniques can, and do spread, by imitation – they do not have to be imposed by “management”. You provide no evidence whatever of the existence of “management” at this time.

392-394. “Furthermore, since copper production in Egypt increased considerably in later periods, such as the Nabataean, Roman and Byzantine periods, the deficiency in Egyptian copper production during the Iron Age cannot be related to the exhaustion of copper mineral sources.” I don’t know of any evidence for such an increase in Egypt – and you provide no citations. The main problem with metal production in Egypt has always been lack of fuel, not scarcity of ore. This is why the Egyptians imported copper from the Sinai, the Arabah and Cyprus, and iron from Nubia.

404-405. This is wild speculation on your part. We know essentially NOTHING about Egyptian copper smelting technology around 1000BC except for a couple of depictions of bellows in use on carved or painted panels.

422-432. This is your best counter-argument. One would expect to find material evidence for an Egyptian presence, in the form of buildings, shrines, etc. – as with the earlier Egyptian presence.

476-478. “It was a combination of innovative individuals, excellent local managerial quality and

emerging market demands that dictated the impressive surge and success of the technology and organization of the Arabah industry at this time.” This conclusion is unsupported by any evidence presented in the paper. Innovative individuals? Yes, that seems likely. Excellent local managerial quality? No evidence at all. Emerging markets? Not even mentioned before this sentence!

In summary, I think that you effectively destroy the arguments of Ben-Yosef et al. for a revolution in production because of the introduction of new technology by the Egyptian state. You do not however provide any evidence in support of your anachronistic claims for modern systems of management at Faynan during the Iron Age. I think that this article should be revised and then sent to a regional archaeological journal.

Reviewer #2: First of all, congratulations for the well-structured and well written paper. It does not happen very often to be able to accept a paper for publication with no modifications.

The text flows smoothly and all your theories and conclusions are properly supported by a sound and well-argued reasoning, as well as by updated and relevant bibliography.

One small remark: In Figure 1, it would be good to have both a general map of the region and the map of the area with the sites mentioned in the text (that you already have). This would allow a reader who is not fully familiar with the region to better understand how it is situated with respect to Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula.

And one personal thought: I feel that this type of articles focused on “counterstriking” someone else’s theory can be perceived in a very sensitive way. Although I do not believe that your writing style is offensive at all, sometimes reading through the text again (especially the first part) may help to smoothen the tones even more and giving the reader the clear feeling that the paper is just proposing an alternative theory, and that it does not want to be in any way an attack to other authors.

Congratulations again for the great work!

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is effectively a response and rebuttal to a 2019 PLoSONE paper, by Ben-Yosef et al., “Ancient technology and punctuated change: Detecting the emergence of the Edomite Kingdom in the Southern Levant.” Briefly, the authors of the present manuscript argue that there is insufficient evidence for an abrupt technological shift precipitated by the arrival of Egyptians.

I am generally in agreement that there are significant issues with the Ben-Yosef et al argument, certainly from the perspective of metallurgical technology, and also perhaps from the perspective of other evidence. It is productive to these discussions to see some pushback from among those working on archaeometallurgy in the Southern Levant. Given that the original paper was published in PLoSONE, it makes sense that the rebuttal should be published in the same venue to aid discoverability.

However, I think that the critique could be better formulated. There are methodological and framing issues with some of the critiques, others seem less relevant, while other avenues of critique are unexplored. Below, I note several areas for improvement.

150-160. This framing of the critique, claiming that only “technological” evidence should be used in creating models of production system, not “archaeological and historical considerations,” is ineffective. The point seems to be that the focus should only be on analysis of direct production residues—slags, tuyères, and the like.

Most scholars of technology would agree that technological systems consist of much more than just the immediate techniques and behavioral sequences involving the act of production. In discussing organizational and management aspects, the authors themselves seem to acknowledge this. Thus, it seems problematic to claim that archaeological and historical considerations shouldn’t be included, with the goal of producing a “purely technological viewpoint.” Broader social, political, and economic considerations, revealed through analysis of the broader archaeological and historical evidence, are very much an important part of analyzing a technological system.

I suspect the authors realize all this, but the framing here could be improved.

It seems the multivariate statistical techniques (161ff) are being done on averages, rather than on the primary data, which is available as supplementary information alongside the Ben-Yosef et al paper. This is potentially problematic. Aside from a justification of the use of averages, I’d also want to see some methodological discussion about applying the cluster analysis to a dataset with a combination of continuous chemical data (Cu%) and radiocarbon data, which are calibrated date ranges with probability density distributions that are not normal.

The Ben-Yosef et al. 2019 figure has its own problems (the use of only 1σ error bars for the date ranges, when 2σ is pretty much standard for reporting in archaeology).

Given these potential issues, I’m not sure that the statistical analysis is helpful or necessary to build the critique. What can and should be stated (without any need for statistical analysis), is that there is really no abrupt shift in the copper content of the slags as shown in the Figure 2 of this paper (Figure 3 of Ben-Yosef et al.). Lines 208ff makes this point quite effectively without recourse to cluster analysis. What you see is really a gradual linear trend, one that would likely appear even more gradual if the individual analyses were plotted rather than just averages. Visualizing this by recreating that figure with raw data rather than averages would actually quite useful, and would probably help the authors state their case. The data are available as supplementary information on the Ben-Yosef et al 2019 paper, so it should not be difficult to do.

Furthermore, a critique of the Ben-Yosef et al. paper would do well to point out some potential limitations on the use of Cu content as a proxy for smelting efficiency.

--First, slags from pre-modern smelting slags are often quite heterogeneous. Because copper is heavier than the silicate matrix, it will tend to sink, so samples of slag taken from the top of a furnace slag cake will have less copper than a sample taken at the bottom. Many of these differences will be large compared to the average differences measured chronologically (a total range of about 1.5 wt% for the averages shown in figure 2.) For similar reasons, tap slags may differ in consistent ways from furnace slags. It may be worth looking into the Ben-Yosef et al 2019 supplementary data and methods information to see whether they took this into consideration. At the very least, it would be nice to have reassurance that they compared like to like (e.g. tap slags to tap slags).

--Second, slag composition is dependent significantly on the composition of the ore. Ben-Yosef et al mention this briefly, but it is worth discussing more fully. If the copper content of the ore used declined over time, which one might expect as individual mines are worked out, the copper content of the slags would also decease. Could the decreasing copper content of the slags be explained by the progressive working out of the mines exploited during the Iron Age? This is probably worth considering.

Discussion of these issues would strengthen the critique.

260-273. This discussion is not well supported. We have very little idea whether ancient smelters would have approached invention and experimentation in the same controlled way that R&D firms do today, only modifying one element of a procedure at a time. It is entirely possible that improvements were the result of post-hoc modification upon noticing an improved yield after an accidental modification of established procedure (i.e. copy errors, to use the term from evolutionary theory), rather than a goal-oriented, controlled experimental testing.

278-280. This speculation about the copper-iron chunks goes too a bit too far. These copper iron chunks are referenced periodically, but they have not been studied well enough, especially with respect to their microstructure, to be able to say what process they come from.

In the section “Advanced Techniques and Managerial capabilities in the Arabah industry” the authors do not do a good job of explaining how these processes (trial and error, scaling up, administration) differ from those proposed in the 2019 paper. After all, the 2019 paper does argue for a gradual improvement in Cu smelting technologies prior to the alleged sharp break corresponding with Sheshonq’s arrival. Trial and error, and scaling up can all be incorporated into the evolutionary model proposed by Ben-Yosef et al. It’s the “punctuated” part of the “punctuated equilibrium” concept where the models differ. In particular, the sub-section discussing the importance of managerial quality doesn’t help us distinguish whether the relevant administrative team was of local extraction or foreign.

380-381. This final sentence is important. Given the adjustments to the Timna chronologies over the last 15 years, how accurate are the chronological designations for the Sinai copper exploitations, particularly LBA/EIA?

389-390. It doesn’t quite follow how the slower adoption of iron in Egypt contributed to the copper deficiency. Further elaboration needed.

404-405. What is the evidence that copper technologies in the Arabah were superior to those in Egypt? Missing here is a discussion of local Egyptian copper smelting technologies for comparison.

437-438. Similarly: could it be that TPII technologies haven’t been found in Egypt or Sinai because the Arabah has been the subject of far more intensive and extensive archaeological research? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, especially given the disparities in archaeological research.

440-441. “No evidence for such a presence can be gleaned from the finds.” I would rephrase this, because proponents of an Egyptian presence could counter that the presence of a few overseers or a small military detachment might not leave a massive archaeological signature, and there are a handful of Egyptian objects as noted above. What the authors could reasonable say is that evidence for a substantial Egyptian presence is limited or equivocal.

Figure 5. I think “Slag buildup” is what is intended, not “slag built up.” And it’s Furnace not Furnance.

Overall, I think that once these revisions have been made, this critique will form a useful contribution to the literature on technological change.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: David Killick

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 20;16(12):e0260518. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260518.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jan 2021

Response to the Reviewers

The new title:

Copper Technology in the Arabah during the Iron Age and the Role of the Indigenous Population in the Industry

The change in the title is a direct result of a remark received from the second reviewer, as discussed in the following.

The original title deleted:

Copper technology in the Arabah during the Iron Age: Punctuated equilibrium by extraneous intervention or gradual improvement by local craftsmen?

Reviewer #1:

General Comment: This is a response to a bad paper published in PLoS One in 2019. While I agree with your substantive criticisms of that paper, I am not recommending that PLoS One accept your response. I have two reasons for this. The first is that both the original paper and your response are not of sufficiently wide interest for publication in a leading general science journal – they belong in either a regional archaeological journal, or in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. My second criticism is that many of your archaeological conclusions seem to me to be speculations that bear no necessary relationship to the evidence or analysis actually presented in the paper.

Faynan and Timna were some of the largest copper production facilities excavated in the ancient world. They have the potential to shed light on important questions such as the mode of operation in such industrial venues, how technology changed and how this complex industry was run successfully. Contrary to the reviewer comments I believe that such questions are of wide interest to a diverse range of scholars.

Among these important issues discussed here are: (i) the role of the managerial team in Arabah, (ii) the use of cluster analysis in identification of the complex stages of the technical development along LBA-Iron Age, (iii) a detailed technological explanation of why the new technical development of TP II was mandatory, (iv) presenting a different view regarding the important issue of the scarab bearing the name of Sheshonq I,(v) a reconstruction of the main development procedures used in the Arabah, the "trial and error", and running operation, (vi) introducing the importance of the "scaling up" procedure, (vii) criticizing the paradigm of "punctuated equilibrium", (viii) the conclusion that the advances in the industry were achieved by the locals.

An utmost effort was made in this revised version to provide all the evidence needed for each of the issues discussed.

In addition, I completely share the third reviewer’s opinion saying: "it makes sense that the rebuttal should be published in the same venue to aid discoverability."

Detailed comments:

Lines 35-41. This is not an introduction! You need to provided context. Where is the Arabah? Why should anyone be interested in this topic? Why is Feynan significant in the history of metallurgy? Why was there a copper industry in such a remote area? What is the chronological and geological relationship between Timna and Feynan? Provide citations to prior research here.

The reviewer is right.

The "Introduction and Background" was revised; see lines 34-80 in the new version.

Line 57. There were no geologists, mining engineers or physicists in the LBA! This is reading the present back into the past - what historians call the “presentist fallacy”.

The above statement was made by Avner el al., (2014). I don’t accept it but it was important to quote this paradigm. Unfortunately, I ignored writing the reference of Avner el al., (2014) and the reviewer had the reasons to think that this quotation is mine.

Please see line 73 in the new version:

Avner et al. [5] also suggested that the indigenous people were the geologists, the mining engineers and the physicists behind this industry.

Lines 60-62. We actually do know something about Egyptian mining technology (from gold mining in the Eastern Desert) that is contemporary with the Egyptian presence in the Arabah! You should read about it and compare with the technology at Feynan.

My paper is focused on advanced, high temperature technology of copper and not on mining technology. As gold is found in nature in its final metallic form without a need for "production" it was not discussed here.

132-133. It would be helpful to have a table of amounts of slag in each period so that the reader doesn’t have to go to the study cited. These changes in output are really important to your argument.

The reviewer is right.

See line 43-46:

Following the Egyptian withdrawal from Canaan in the 12th century BCE, local copper production in the Arabah not only continued into the Early Iron Age (11th–9th centuries BCE), but also expanded to include the site of Faynan, reaching an unprecedented scale, particularly at the latter sit: the quantity of slag produced during 1200-1150 BCE was only ca. 1.600 tons, this was gradually increased during 1100 - 1050 BCE into ca. 5.600 tons and in 1000- 950 BCE to ca. 15.600 tons. The peak of production was achieved during 900-850BCE, with ca. 23.000 tons

152-153.

I agree with your criticism here – arguments about technological innovation should be based solely upon the evidence from studies of the technology.

No change is needed

174-176. This is a valid criticism. The ores at Feynan are not identical to those at Timna, so there would clearly have been some experimentation at the beginning of their exploitation.

No change is needed

Fig. 5. Correct label (“furnance”).

It was corrected

230-235.

You ignore here the evidence that they present in their Figure 2D and their Figure 4, which suggests to me that the “leap” in efficiency may simply be a consequence of the discovery that using manganese rather than iron oxides greatly improved the fluidity of the slag. This cannot be attributed to superior Egyptian technology – it is simply a consequence of the fact that some Faynan ores contain manganese. Discuss this with respect to your periods TPI and TPII.

Manganese flux, being an inherent part of the ore, was used in Faynan throughout the period. While it is true that a change in flux, introduced to Timna in the final phase, may explain the improvement, it cannot explain the similar improvement that occurred at Faynan.

236-253.

This is another instance of the “presentist fallacy”. It is completely inappropriate to apply concepts from modern business schools to production more than 3000 years ago! A better place to look for suitable ways of thinking about this in ethnographic and historical studies of indigenous African metallurgy. If you look for example at the work of Philip de Barros at Bassar in Togo, or of the Swiss group (Eric Huysecom, Vincent Serneels, etc.) among Dogon ironworkers in Mali, you will find that “scaling up” requires neither the involvement of a state, nor even a managerial elite. (You can find these easily through Google).

While Barros et al. (2020) show convincingly a change in iron technology in Togo between the Early and Late Iron Age, they do not discuss the origin of the later technology, which was introduced after a gap. In the present study the subject discussed was gradual changes and improvements in an existing technology.

Study of iron production in Mali revolved mainly around the question of how small-scale domestic iron production, utilizing traditional low-tech methods co-existed with (and without being influenced by) large-scale iron production using advanced technology. This is not the case in the Arabah.

Nevertheless, I was convinced that this subject needs more clarifications:

See lines 241 - 267:

This terminology has been coined during the modern era within the discipline of industrial engineering, whereas the Arabah people might simply have referred to it as "common sense", "intuition" or "good engineering and managerial practices". Nevertheless, such conclusions need a further discussion.

Anthropologists have shown that ancient peoples showed "good practices" guided by "common sense", "intelligence", "intuition" and "rationality". Such practices would allow them to accomplish and to maximize their best of interests [19]. Israel Aumann [20], recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, assumes that advance achievements could have been reached through a rational intuition he designates as "rules of thumb". Evidence presented by Henshilwood et al. [21] shows that humans living at least as early as 35,000 years ago had cognitive abilities similar to that of modern humans. Schiffer and Skibo [22] describe behavioral chains of activities by which craftsmen of earlier periods operated: through the integration of technical choices within a process of "trial and error". The set of integrated technical choices that arises from this "trial and error" process is termed by Schiffer and Skibo as "primary technology". This is exactly what was demonstrate in the Arabah - how small and successive steps could lead to advanced technologies in the metallurgy of copper. It is also be assumed that such an advanced thinking was also demonstrated at the managerial level of the Arabah, as will be discussed later. Warburton [23, pp. 170, 173] sums up his view on the advanced ancient Egyptian economic:

Even the fragmentary evidence from ancient Egypt confirms the interlocking markets where prices resulting from general equilibrium were available. The fact that the copper and silver appearing in these transactions were themselves parts of the international market economy […] [and] international equilibrium prices […] confirming the general lines of Keynes's General Theory.

Thus, through clever and practical thinking provided by intuitive “rules of thumb”, ancient people were already able to apply advanced thinking such as the "trial and error" method and the principles of Keynes's General Theory thousands of years ago.

Therefore, I would better regard what is called by this reviewer as a “presentist fallacy” into "intuition" or “rules of thumb” that are common to both modern and ancient human logical thinking.

254-283.

There is a much simpler way to monitor copper losses, which is to look at freshly fractured surfaces of copper slag under low magnification (10x-20x). The size of metallic copper prills retained in slag is closely proportional to viscosity of the liquid slag; the smaller the prills, the better the recovery.

This seems to be a valuable method to test in details in the future. Unfortunately, at this time, the only results available are residual copper in the slag.

No change is needed

Table 2.

Can I suggest that you use “short tuyere” instead of “small tuyere” and “long tuyere” instead of “large tuyere”? It will make your discussion much easier to understand.

This remark was accepted and changed in the whole document.

Lines 331-355.

This section is absurd, and another example of the “presentist fallacy” to which I referred above. How can the findings of a study of modern (late capitalist) management possibly be relevant to the management of copper smelting in the Bronze and Iron Ages?

Again, I don’t accept your term “presentist fallacy”.

1. Please see: the correction started in lines 241 – 267 above.

2. Please see the beginning of the "The Role of the Managerial Quality of the Arabah on the Economic Success" in lines 347 - 353.

It has already been shown that humans living thousands of years ago had cognitive abilities similar to those of modern ones [21], and that their economic perspective conformed with the general lines of Keynes's General Theory [23]. In a similar way, Schiffer and Skibo [22] demonstrate the importance of "trial and error" in the ancient past, while in the modern era, "experimentation" and "trial and error" remains an important and emphasized ideology for more than 400 of the world's largest and most successful firms as shown by Patel and Pavitt [28] using "experimentation" and "trial and error".

342-344.

This is not evidence of “management”! Techniques can, and do spread, by imitation – they do not have to be imposed by “management”. You provide no evidence whatever of the existence of “management” at this time.

It is true that ideas do spread by imitation.

Nevertheless, here we deal with a completely different issue: who was responsible to the day-by-day operation, monitoring and controlling of the huge and the complex copper industry?

Namely: how much ore, flux, water, food, trees and donkeys were necessary to carry out operations day-to-day, week-to-week? Is the number of miners sufficient to carry out the work or shall new ones be recruited? and so on.

For such activities imitation cannot help but rather should be decided and imposed by intelligent managers devoted to these tasks.

Please see lines 380 – 363 for the management's responsibilities:

Summing up: The main tasks and the mandate of the managerial level of the Arabah were: (1) day-by-day operation, (2) expanding production and improving efficiency in Timna and Faynan, (3) closing unproductive mines and smelting sites and opening more efficient ones, (4) finding alternative sources like secondary smelting, (5) developing international markets.

Direct archaeological evidence was given to each of these subjects in the text.

392-394.

I don’t know of any evidence for such an increase in Egypt – and you provide no citations. The main problem with metal production in Egypt has always been lack of fuel, not scarcity of ore. This is why the Egyptians imported copper from the Sinai, the Arabah and Cyprus, and iron from Nubia.

The citation was added.

See: line 396

Furthermore, since copper production in Egypt increased considerably in later periods, such as the Nabataean, Roman and Byzantine periods [27, 49],

This relates to: Abdel-Mutelib et al. 2012: 50; Rothenberg 1970: 17–18

404-405.

This is wild speculation on your part. We know essentially NOTHING about Egyptian copper smelting technology around 1000BC except for a couple of depictions of bellows in use on carved or painted panels.

The reviewer is right.

The attempts to compare slag results from the Arabah with the slag results from Sinai and the Northern Eastern Desert were found to be very difficult as only few results are reported at present.

The results found (n=16) were shown by Abdel-Motelib et al. (2012: 37, 40). The average residual copper was 18.8% (!) and the variation between the results was enormous.

As I didn't find more supporting evidence I decided not to publish these results.

Therefore, it is justified to change the wording in this case.

See lines 424 - 429:

I agree with Fantalkin and Finkelstein [39] who argued that the objective of Sheshonq I’s campaign was to "preserve and promote" the copper production in the Arabah, as, at that time, the Arabah source "must have been the major - if not only- source of copper for Egypt". As Sheshonq I was aware of the huge reduction in copper production in Egypt during the Iron Age [33; 34; 27] he decided to secure a steady copper supply from the Arabah to Egypt.

422-432.

This is your best counter-argument. One would expect to find material evidence for an Egyptian presence, in the form of buildings, shrines, etc. – as with the earlier Egyptian presence.

No change is needed

476-478.

“It was a combination of innovative individuals, excellent local managerial quality and emerging market demands that dictated the impressive surge and success of the technology and organization of the Arabah industry at this time.”

This conclusion is unsupported by any evidence presented in the paper. Innovative individuals? Yes, that seems likely. Excellent local managerial quality? No evidence at all. Emerging markets? Not even mentioned before this sentence!

The remark was accepted and the sentence was deleted.

It was a combination of innovative individuals, excellent local managerial quality and

emerging market demands that dictated the impressive surge and success of the technology and organization of the Arabah industry at this time.

In summary, I think that you effectively destroy the arguments of Ben-Yosef et al. for a revolution in production because of the introduction of new technology by the Egyptian state. You do not however provide any evidence in support of your anachronistic claims for modern systems of management at Faynan during the Iron Age. I think that this article should be revised and then sent to a regional archaeological journal.

The needed changes were made.

Reviewer #2:

First of all, congratulations for the well-structured and well written paper. It does not happen very often to be able to accept a paper for publication with no modifications.

The text flows smoothly and all your theories and conclusions are properly supported by a sound and well-argued reasoning, as well as by updated and relevant bibliography.

One small remark: In Figure 1, it would be good to have both a general map of the region and the map of the area with the sites mentioned in the text (that you already have). This would allow a reader who is not fully familiar with the region to better understand how it is situated with respect to Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula.

FIG. 1 was corrected

And one personal thought: I feel that this type of articles focused on “counterstriking” someone else’s theory can be perceived in a very sensitive way. Although I do not believe that your writing style is offensive at all, sometimes reading through the text again (especially the first part) may help to smoothen the tones even more and giving the reader the clear feeling that the paper is just proposing an alternative theory, and that it does not want to be in any way an attack to other authors.

Congratulations again for the great work!

I fully accept the recommendation of the second reader to "smoothen the tones even more". To this end the title of the paper was changed to a less offensive wording. Doing so will signal to the readers that the paper is focused on technology and managerial issues rather than “counterstriking” Ben-Yosef et. al.,

Reviewer #3:

The manuscript is effectively a response and rebuttal to a 2019 PLoSONE paper, by Ben-Yosef et al., “Ancient technology and punctuated change: Detecting the emergence of the Edomite Kingdom in the Southern Levant.” Briefly, the authors of the present manuscript argue that there is insufficient evidence for an abrupt technological shift precipitated by the arrival of Egyptians.

I am generally in agreement that there are significant issues with the Ben-Yosef et al argument, certainly from the perspective of metallurgical technology, and also perhaps from the perspective of other evidence. It is productive to these discussions to see some pushback from among those working on archaeometallurgy in the Southern Levant. Given that the original paper was published in PLoSONE, it makes sense that the rebuttal should be published in the same venue to aid discoverability.

However, I think that the critique could be better formulated. There are methodological and framing issues with some of the critiques, others seem less relevant, while other avenues of critique are unexplored. Below, I note several areas for improvement.

This introduction is accepted.

150-160.

This framing of the critique, claiming that only “technological” evidence should be used in creating models of production system, not “archaeological and historical considerations,” is ineffective. The point seems to be that the focus should only be on analysis of direct production residues—slags, tuyères, and the like.

Most scholars of technology would agree that technological systems consist of much more than just the immediate techniques and behavioral sequences involving the act of production. In discussing organizational and management aspects, the authors themselves seem to acknowledge this. Thus, it seems problematic to claim that archaeological and historical considerations shouldn’t be included, with the goal of producing a “purely technological viewpoint.” Broader social, political, and economic considerations, revealed through analysis of the broader archaeological and historical evidence, are very much an important part of analyzing a technological system.

I suspect the authors realize all this, but the framing here could be improved.

It seems that the wording was not clear enough. It is not that building activities should be ignored, but rather - that changes in copper smelting technology should be evaluated based only on technological issues while building activities are not related to this aspect.

Thus, in spite of the fact that I fully accept the opinion of the first reader saying:

"I agree with your criticism here [against the paradigm of Ben-Yosef] – arguments about technological innovation should be based solely upon the evidence from studies of the technology",

I accept the concerns raised by the third reader and thus changed the text in order to mention the contra opinion too:

Lines 141 - 145:

The distinction between the Production Systems described above involved mainly archaeological considerations, some unrelated to the technology, such as building activity at Khirbet e-Nahas, as well as historical events [11]. However, in this unique case the focused should be given to technology development, mostly carried out by a limited number of personnel. Therefore, in our view, the developmental stages should be based only on technological considerations

Cluster Analysis Lines 161-165:

It seems the multivariate statistical techniques (161ff) are being done on averages, rather than on the primary data, which is available as supplementary information alongside the Ben-Yosef et al paper. This is potentially problematic. Aside from a justification of the use of averages, I’d also want to see some methodological discussion about applying the cluster analysis to a dataset with a combination of continuous chemical data (Cu%) and radiocarbon data, which are calibrated date ranges with probability density distributions that are not normal.

The Ben-Yosef et al. 2019 figure has its own problems (the use of only 1σ error bars for the date ranges, when 2σ is pretty much standard for reporting in archaeology).

The reviewer is correct.

Nevertheless, I think that Ben-Yosef et, al., should be praised for their important role in collecting all the available data in the field. However, they were not able to find a C14 result from an adjacent or associated location for each slag sample, and naturally, they had fewer C14 results than slag results, see Figs. S1, S2 and S3 [11].

So they had to use averages which seem to be the only practical solution possible in this case.

As a direct result, (lines: 151-156):

The residual copper concentrations in the slag samples from the Arabah sites and their average dates (as presented above in Figure 2, as shown in ref. [11]) were subjected to Cluster Analysis. The statistical procedure selected here was K-means [17], and the number of clusters were determined using the Elbow Method. The outcome is shown in Figure 3. It presents three clusters: Clusters 1 and 2 include samples that are related to the first Technological Phase (TP I), whereas Cluster 3 correlates to the second Technological Phase (TP II).

Continuation of the remark of the third reviewer:

Given these potential issues, I’m not sure that the statistical analysis is helpful or necessary to build the critique. What can and should be stated (without any need for statistical analysis), is that there is really no abrupt shift in the copper content of the slags as shown in the Figure 2 of this paper (Figure 3 of Ben-Yosef et al.). Lines 208ff makes this point quite effectively without recourse to cluster analysis. What you see is really a gradual linear trend, one that would likely appear even more gradual if the individual analyses were plotted rather than just averages. Visualizing this by recreating that figure with raw data rather than averages would actually quite useful, and would probably help the authors state their case. The data are available as supplementary information on the Ben-Yosef et al 2019 paper, so it should not be difficult to do. Furthermore, a critique of the Ben-Yosef et al. paper would do well to point out some potential limitations on the use of Cu content as a proxy for smelting efficiency.

It is true that the statistical analysis is not necessary for critiquing or denying Ben-Yosef et. al.’s, paradigm: a presentation of time vs. residual copper content will make it simpler.

Nevertheless, there are 4 important reasons for introducing the Cluster Analysis: presenting hidden information that is not included in the conventional presentation:

1. Cluster 1 reveals for the first time an unknown stage, or an "adaptation period", in which production efficiency had declined before it was increased. The reasons were explained in the text.

2. Cluster 3 differs from Cluster 2. This means that Cluster 3 represents a new and different stage of development (TP II).

3. The interface between Cluster 2 to 3 gives an assessment for estimating the time at which TP II was introduced.

4. Ben-Yosef et al, claim that PS I and PS II are two different stages in copper development. This is refuted by Cluster 2 - based only on technical issues - which demonstrates that, technically, PS I and PS II are part of the same development.

First, slags from pre-modern smelting slags are often quite heterogeneous. Because copper is heavier than the silicate matrix, it will tend to sink, so samples of slag taken from the top of a furnace slag cake will have less copper than a sample taken at the bottom. Many of these differences will be large compared to the average differences measured chronologically (a total range of about 1.5 wt% for the averages shown in figure 2.) For similar reasons, tap slags may differ in consistent ways from furnace slags. It may be worth looking into the Ben-Yosef et al 2019 supplementary data and methods information to see whether they took this into consideration. At the very least, it would be nice to have reassurance that they compared like to like (e.g. tap slags to tap slags).

--Second, slag composition is dependent significantly on the composition of the ore. Ben-Yosef et al mention this briefly, but it is worth discussing more fully. If the copper content of the ore used declined over time, which one might expect as individual mines are worked out, the copper content of the slags would also decease. Could the decreasing copper content of the slags be explained by the progressive working out of the mines exploited during the Iron Age? This is probably worth considering.

Discussion of these issues would strengthen the critique.

I have checked these intriguing issues in Ben-Yosef el al., 2019 and could not find any clue. However, in Ben - Yosef 2012 described 2 slag types:

(See: Ben-Yosef E, Shaar R, Tauxe L, Ron H. A New Chronological Framework for Iron Age Copper Production at Timna (Israel), Bulletin for the American Schools of Oriental Research 2012; 367: 31–71.)

"Type A consists of relatively large fragments (or slab) of Mn rich slag, sometimes more than 20 cm in diameter; the other (“Type B”) consists of small fragments of Fe-rich slag (cf. fig. 8); both are the result of tapping technology, and each corresponds to a distinct stratigraphic context. Type A, the Mn-rich slag, is present only in Layer I (in Area S only in Section S-2, Horizon 0) and represents the latest phase of copper production at the site, while the small Fe-rich fragments of Type B.”

260-273.

This discussion is not well supported. We have very little idea whether ancient smelters would have approached invention and experimentation in the same controlled way that R&D firms do today, only modifying one element of a procedure at a time. It is entirely possible that improvements were the result of post-hoc modification upon noticing an improved yield after an accidental modification of established procedure (i.e. copy errors, to use the term from evolutionary theory), rather than a goal-oriented, controlled experimental testing.

Please see my answer to the first reader on the same issue, lines 241 – 267.

In addition:

Statistically, it is unlikely to expect an "accidental modification" because of the numerous variables involved (ore type, ore quantity, flux type, flux quantity, temperature variation, air flow rate, oven type, tuyère location and inclination, etc...) that have to participate properly and optimally in such events.

If the event was spontaneous – it would be impossible to repeat it afterwards. On the other hand, thousands of random trials would be needed to cover only few successive "trial and error" attempts.

Therefore, as explained in the text, a "trial and error" with a single change in each testing stage, seems the preferred solution for a gradual development.

278-280.

This speculation about the copper-iron chunks goes too a bit too far. These copper iron chunks are referenced periodically, but they have not been studied well enough, especially with respect to their microstructure, to be able to say what process they come from.

I agree. The following was deleted.

However, it is possible that by-products denoted “chunks” (copper-iron mixtures with up to 70% iron), reported by Ben-Yosef [7, 278 pp. 711, 832] as "failed smelting cycles" are, in fact, slag remains from such unsuccessful trial and error episodes.

236-252

In the section “Advanced Techniques and Managerial capabilities in the Arabah industry” the authors do not do a good job of explaining how these processes (trial and error, scaling up, administration) differ from those proposed in the 2019 paper. After all, the 2019 paper does argue for a gradual improvement in Cu smelting technologies prior to the alleged sharp break corresponding with Sheshonq’s arrival. Trial and error, and scaling up can all be incorporated into the evolutionary model proposed by Ben-Yosef et al. It’s the “punctuated” part of the “punctuated equilibrium” concept where the models differ.

Ben-Yosef is not clear in this issue:

First he wrote that the locals were not involved in "any stages of "trial and error" or slow technological developments that might indicate local innovations" (Ben-Yosef 2010: 973). In his 2019 paper he discussed a gradual improvement, without specifying how it was achieved, but says: "After generations of internal efforts to better the technology—with limited success—the techno-social system was receptive of extraneous influences that facilitated the same cause" [p. 11].

My attempt was intended to explain and to reconstruct the developmental achievements. Also to reject the model of “punctuated equilibrium”

In order to improve the explanations in the technological and the managerial issues – the text was revised.

Please see: Advanced Techniques and managerial capabilities in the Arabah Industry, lines 227 - 266.

....In particular, the sub-section discussing the importance of managerial quality doesn’t help us distinguish whether the relevant administrative team was of local extraction or foreign.

A clarification was added in lines 384 386:

It would be very difficult to accept the possibility of an Egyptian involvement in the managerial level during the period between Early to Late Iron Age because such presence would have required the physical presence of qualified Egyptian personnel in the Arabah. However, such evidence has not been found.

380-381

This final sentence is important. Given the adjustments to the Timna chronologies over the last 15 years, how accurate are the chronological designations for the Sinai copper exploitations, particularly LBA/EIA?

Some assume: +25 years to -25 years

389-390.

It doesn’t quite follow how the slower adoption of iron in Egypt contributed to the copper deficiency. Further elaboration needed.

Line 412:

In addition, the process of iron dissemination to Egypt was slower than in the Levant, reaching its peak only in the second half of the first millennium BCE [29, pp. 167–168).

Therefore, the need for copper consumption inside Egypt during the Iron Age did not decrease, as it had in other areas throughout the Levant where copper was replaced by iron. All these factors most probably led to a copper deficiency in Egypt during the first millennium BCE

404-405

What is the evidence that copper technologies in the Arabah were superior to those in Egypt? Missing here is a discussion of local Egyptian copper smelting technologies for comparison.

This issue was revised and discussed above:

Our attempts to compare slag results from the Arabah with the slag results from Sinai and the Northern Eastern Desert - was found to be very difficult as only few results were reported.

The results found (n=16) were shown by Abdel-Motelib et al. (2012: 37, 40). The average residual copper was 18.8% (!) and the variation between the results was enormous.

As we didn't find more supporting evidence we decided not to publish these results.

Therefore, it is justified to change our wording on this subject.

I agree with Fantalkin and Finkelstein [39] who argued that the objective of Sheshonq I’s campaign was to "preserve and promote" the copper production in the Arabah, as, at that time, the Arabah source "must have been the major - if not only- source of copper for Egypt". As Sheshonq I was aware of the huge reduction in copper production in Egypt during the Iron Age [33; 34; 27] he decided to secure a steady copper supply from the Arabah to Egypt.

437-438.

Similarly: could it be that TPII technologies haven’t been found in Egypt or Sinai because the Arabah has been the subject of far more intensive and extensive archaeological research? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, especially given the disparities in archaeological research.

It is always possible that the TP II technology might be found in Sinai and/or in Egypt (or Saudi for that matter!). On the other hand, as was shown in the original text (lines 309-313) that the Egyptians succeeded to develop their own tuyère, most probably developed due to the same problems of clogging that existed in the Arabah:

See line 324:

The existence of reused tuyères indicates that the craftsmen at Bir-Nasib, Sinai faced the same clogging problem that existed in the small tuyère in the Arabah. However, they arrived at different solutions: (i) replacing the clogged nozzle with a new one, rendering it suitable for multiple operations and (ii) increasing the dimensions of the small tuyère, although not to the same large dimensions selected for the "long tuyère" in the Arabah (Table 2.).

Thus, as the Egyptians had their own solution, the possibility of finding TP II in Sinai or in Egypt are very low.

440-441

“No evidence for such a presence can be gleaned from the finds.” I would rephrase this, because proponents of an Egyptian presence could counter that the presence of a few overseers or a small military detachment might not leave a massive archaeological signature, and there are a handful of Egyptian objects as noted above. What the authors could reasonable say is that evidence for a substantial Egyptian presence is limited or equivocal.

As was shown, evidence for Egyptian presence is lacking. Egypt was “present” in the entire region during this time, is not taken as evidence for an actual presence. Nevertheless, the word 'substantial' has been added.

However, as noted above, no substantial evidence for such a presence can be gleaned from the finds.

Figure 5. I think “Slag buildup” is what is intended, not “slag built up.” And it’s Furnace not Furnance.

Thank you, these mistakes have been corrected.

Overall, I think that once these revisions have been made, this critique will form a useful contribution to the literature on technological change.

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: David Killick

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response PLOS ONE 12011_MGC.docx

Decision Letter 1

Anwar Khitab

12 Nov 2021

Copper Technology in the Arabah during the Iron Age and the Role of the Indigenous population in  the Industry

PONE-D-20-15801R1

Dear Dr. Luria,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Anwar Khitab

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Anwar Khitab

17 Nov 2021

PONE-D-20-15801R1

Copper Technology in the Arabah during the Iron Age and the Role of the Indigenous Population in the Industry

Dear Dr. Luria:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Anwar Khitab

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response PLOS ONE 12011_MGC.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Full information for the specific specimens considered for this study (including specimen numbers, repository information, and geographic locations) are provided within their original publication, Ben-Yosef et al. 2019, including Supporting Information (S1 Table). No new samples were examined for the sake of this study. No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES