A Carpenter's Tool Kit From
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Iranica Antiqua, vol. XLVI, 2011 doi: 10.2143/IA.46.0.2084414 A CARPENTER’S TOOL KIT FROM THE GODIN CEMETERY (CENTRAL-WESTERN IRAN) BY Alaen DELLOVIN (Ghent University) Abstract: Godin Tepe is an archaeological site in central-western Iran, excavated by the late Professor T. C. Young in the 1960s and 70s. Just outside the buried ruins of the city, the excavators found a Late Bronze Age cemetery (Young 1969: 19) which had also been used by the Hiatus period squatters and passing Iron Age I people. The inhumations include men, women, and new-born infants neatly laid out and placed with food offering and grave goods such as pottery, tools, weapons, and personal ornaments. On the west-end edge of the excavated area of the cem- etery, a carpenter’s tool kit including a remarkable green stone hammer was uncovered. Keywords: Burial Archaeology, Carpentry Tools, Stone Hammers, Late Bronze Age, Central-western Iran In the 1967 season, the excavators at Godin cemetery uncovered a car- penter’s tool kit (fig. 1a) comprising a saw, a blade, four chisels (2 gravers, 1 gouge, and 1 flat chisel), all made of bronze (copper alloy), and one handheld stone hammer. The blade was propped up against the largest damaged spot on the hammer at the time of the burial, presumably to cover or hide the flaw. Joints of meat, probably sheep leg and loin (tibia or femur and dorsal vertebrae), were placed beneath and around the tools. Since the assemblage was located by the west-end border of the excavation area (fig. 1b), it is not clear whether the tools were a part of the burial goods in a grave that could be lying just behind the border. However, the pres- ence of food offering suggests that the tools might have belonged to a proper burial that was not excavated. Although the lack of supporting evi- dence does not allow objective dating, on the basis of the published com- paranda and the stratigraphy of the cemetery, the Godin tools can roughly be assigned to the Late Bronze Age, that is, the later Period III occupation on the mound. IA46003.pdf 1 24/06/11 11:33 94066_Iran_Antiqua_46_03.indd 107 21/06/11 11:39 108 A. DELLOVIN ab Fig. 1. a. The carpenter’s tool kit in situ (only the larger bones are shown), the lower edge of the saw is facing up; b. The arrow points to the location of the tools found on a level with the bottom of burials 8, 9, and 10 (burial 10 is shown). The Godin carpenter’s tool kit is significant in two ways. First, it com- prises a rather complete set of woodworking implements including a stone hammer, not attested elsewhere; second, it shows an aspect of the belief in afterlife that requires a perfectly working set of tools, and not funerary models or miniature replicas, to be buried with the dead. The placement of the tools on top of the food offering, rather than beside it, is also noteworthy. Similar woodworking devices of metal have been recovered from many Near Eastern sites. Ur (Woolley 1934: 303, 309-10, 356, pl. 158), Uruk (Pedde 2000: 22-24, pl. 18-21), Kish (Moorey 1978: 108-09, pl. XVIII 2-3), Gubba (Fujii 1981: 162, fig. 23 no. 12), Abu Salabikh (Martin et al 1985: 141-42, 148, 168, fig. 92a, 108b, 143, no. 19-22, pl. XXIX e, g), and Tell Madhhur (Roaf 1982: 45-6) in Mesopotamia, Saqqara (Emery 1949: 33-48, pl. 9A-B, 10; Emery 1954: 59-63, pl. XXVI, XXX) and Theban tombs (Petrie 1917: 46-7, pl. XLVI; de Garis Davies 1933: pl. XLIX) in Egypt, and several Anatolian and Talish sites (Schaeffer 1948: 59-69, 267- 69, 306-08, 516-19, 622, 648, 650-52, fig. 293 no. 2-3, 61y, 172 no. 8-9, 183 no. 34, 226 no. 5, pl. LX, LIX) have yielded woodworking tools. In Iran, other than Godin, many large and small settlements and burials such as Susa (de Mecquenem et al 1943: 56, fig. 47, no. 13; Tallon I 1987: IA46003.pdf 2 24/06/11 11:33 94066_Iran_Antiqua_46_03.indd 108 21/06/11 11:39 A CARPENTER’S TOOL KIT FROM THE GODIN CEMETERY 109 184-87; Tallon II 1987: 62-64, 252-54), Marlik (Negahban 1996: 304, pl. 134), Khurvin (Vanden Berghe 1964: 28, pl. LXIII no. 317), Dailaman (Fujii et al 1965: 20, pl. LV 53, XXX 1), Tepe Hissar (Schmidt 1937: 119, 205, 310, 421, 453, pl. LII, XXIX), Turang Tepe (Wulsin 1938: 166, pl. 24J), Shah Tepe (Arne 1945: 305, pl. LXXIX no. 662), Shahdad (Hakemi 1972: pl. XX-c, no. 268), Sialk (Ghirshman 1938: 54, LXXXIV S.1698, S.178, S.161, XCV S.535; Ghirshman 1939: 54, pl. LXXI S.893b), Tepe Yahya (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1970: pl. 36; Lamberg-Karlovsky & Beale 1986: 213-14, fig. 8.2b), War Kabud (Vanden Berghe 1968: 11, 36, fig. 5 no. 1, 3), Mehr War Kabud (Haerinck & Overlaet 2010: 25-26, fig. 12), and Bani Surmah (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 32-39, fig. 17, pl. 11-13, 43) have been the sources of woodworking implements. Comprehensive accounts of saws, blades, and chisels from Iranian sites can be found in the Luristan Excavation Documents, volumes VI (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 32-9, pl. 11-13, 43) and VIII (Haerinck & Overlaet 2010: 25-6, fig. 12), Deshayes’ typological study (1960: chapters 3, 4, 16, pl. 9-11, 40, 48, 55-6, 62), and Schaeffer’s comparative and chronological work (1948: 59-68, 267-69, 306-08, 421-22, 516-19, fig. 61, 172, 183, 226, 296, pl. LX, LIX). With regard to the Godin assemblage, the short-stem socketed gouge has many close parallels from north and northeast Iranian sites where gouges are more common than gravers or flat chisels. The Godin specimen has a U-shaped ‘sweep’ (shape of the curve) that tapers gently towards the end (fig. 2d), which is suitable for a variety of works from scooping out wood to smoothing hollows. In comparison, the longer gouges from Marlik (Negahban 1996: 304, pl. 134 no. 936) and Dailaman (Fujii et al 1965: 20, pl. LV 53, XXX 1) have deeper curves that taper only slightly at the end, suggesting straight cutting and turning. In general, larger gouges are formed by forging from a narrow bar of copper or hammering sheet metal around a cylindrical object, such as the above specimens from Marlik and Dailaman, whereas smaller gouges could be made by casting, such as the two examples from Tepe Hissar (Schmidt 1937: 205, pl. LII no. H3131, H3562; Deshayes 1960: 106, pl. XII no. 11-12). The two engraving chisels or gravers from Godin (fig. 2e-f) have points of similarity with the three examples from Abu Salabikh burials (Martin et al 1985: 141-42, fig. 108b and 143, pl. XXIX e, g) in shape and size. The Godin gravers are 7.2 ≈ 0.4 and 7.7 ≈ 0.5 cm whereas the Abu Salabikh specimens are 5.5 ≈ 0.5, 6.1 ≈ 0.4, and 6.5 ≈ 0.3 cm; both groups show a IA46003.pdf 3 24/06/11 11:33 94066_Iran_Antiqua_46_03.indd 109 21/06/11 11:39 110 A. DELLOVIN consistent range of thickness at 0.3 to 0.4 cm. They are all straight blades with square sections and slightly splayed cutting edges. Despite the sim- plicity of the shape, gravers often appear in a variety of forms such as the spindly specimens from Tepe Sialk (Ghirshman 1938: 54, pl. LXXXIV S.178) and Tepe Gawra (Tobler 1950: 213, pl. XCVIII a6) with a slightly larger middle section, which is meant to provide a better grip. The flat elongated tool with a curved cutting edge (fig. 2c) belongs to a rather large category of narrow axes, adzes, or chisels whose identity is dif- ficult to establish in the absence of handles. Haerinck and Overlaet (2006: 32) note that in order to be a chisel, a tool of this particular type should have a grip fixed along the blade. The Godin example is incomplete, so it is not clear how long it had originally been, nor do we know about the shape of its missing butt. However, based on the size and form of the cutting edge, it is closely related to the examples from Bani Surmah burials in Pusht-i Kuh (Haerinck & Overlaet 2006: 32, fig. 15 A2-12, A2-13) as well as the specimen from Chogha Zanbil (de Mecquenem 1953: pl. XVII no. 31). It should be borne in mind that the length-to-width ratio is not a reliable criteria to help distinguish a chisel from an axe or adze. Long and narrow examples, which are expected to be chisels, may have been used as axes; the Bronze Age axe-head surmounted by a seated camel from Khurab in Baluchistan (fig. 3) shows how extremely slim and wand-like an axe can be (Stein 1937: 121, pl. XVIII; Gordon 1955: 169, pl. LXXVI). The Godin saw, which has a peculiar double-edged blade, is an uncommon type, indeed (fig. 2a). Deshayes (1960: 356) believes that such double-edged saws were probably shaped after the earlier flint prototypes (fig. 3, a-c). Few double-edged saws have been recovered from ancient Near Eastern sites including one with a curved blade from Tello (Cros 1910: 99), possibly a pruning saw like the specimen from Mehr War Kabud (Haerinck & Over- laet 2010: 25-26, fig. 12), a saw from Uruk (Pedde 2000: 63, pl. 51 no.