During 2013–2014, several excavations were conducted in Dimona, revealing structures and installations (Paran and Aladjem 2014; Paran 2018a; Paran 2018b; Paran 2018c; Paran 2018d), part of a series of small sites dating from the Intermediate Bronze Age in the eastern Negev. These sites are characterized by meager construction of round or oval structures, pens, a variety of installations, tumuli and graves. The structures stand up to 1 m high, were most probably roofed with perishable material and served as seasonal structures of a nomadic population. In an excavation conducted in 2019 at the northeastern edge of Dimona (Permit No. A-8432), a flint scatter from the Middle Paleolithic period, field walls, a round tumulus, round installations and agricultural terraces with no clear dating were documented. 
The present excavation was conducted on the gentle, north-facing slope of a hill, in an area characterized by a limestone bedrock that is near the surface. Remains were exposed of four agricultural terrace walls (W103, W10015, W10017, W10019), a tumulus and a round structure. The structure yielded pottery from the Intermediate Bronze and flint objects dating mostly from the Chalcolithic period. 
 
Agricultural Terrace Walls
Terrace Wall 103 (length 8 m, width 0.3 m; Fig. 2). This is a northeast–southwest wall, constructed of a single row of large to medium-size fieldstones (average diam. 0.3 m). A probe east of the central portion of the wall (L104) revealed a single course. Also found was a cylindrical stone object (L104, B1007; Fig. 3), possibly part of a grinding stone of undeterminable date.
 
Terrace Wall 10015 (length 8 m, width 0.6 m, preserved height 0.5 m; Fig. 4). This is a circular wall, constructed of a single row of large to medium-size fieldstones. Probes on either side of the wall (L10016, L10022) revealed that the wall was built of a single course.
 
Terrace Wall 10017 (length c. 4 m, width 0.6 m, preserved height 0.4 m; Fig. 4). This is a poorly preserved circular wall, constructed of a single row of small to medium-size fieldstones. Probes on either side of the wall (L10018, L10023) revealed that the wall was built of a single course.
 
Terrace Wall 10019 (length 8 m, width 0.5–0.7 m, preserved height 0.5 m; Fig. 4). This is a circular wall constructed of two rows of small and large fieldstones. Probes on either side of the wall (L10020, L10031) revealed that the wall was built of two courses.
 
Tumulus
The tumulus was circular (L105; diam. 4 m; Figs. 2, 5) and constructed largely of medium-sized fieldstones. In the middle of the tumulus was a rectangular, east–west-oriented burial cell (L106; 0.7 × 1.5 m) built of large, flat stones standing on their narrow side and covered with stones; within the cell were several human bones (L108). The original position of the buried individual could not be determined, nor whether this was a secondary or a disturbed primary burial. The poor state of preservation of the bones prevented any assessment of gender or age. A circular copper-alloy object (B1030; Fig. 6) found next to the bones may be a bracelet, but it could not be dated or assigned to a specific culture. Among the few potsherds found on the surface among the tumulus’ stones, only one was indicative: a cooking pot fragment with a wide opening and a straight thickened rim with a thick prominent ridge below it (Fig. 7:7). Such cooking pots were common in the Judean mountains during Iron Age IIa. The vessel resembles the CP-III Group cooking pots at Tel Be’er Sheva‘, Strata VII–VI (Singer-Avitz 2016:490, Figs. 11.4:5, 11.6:6).
 
Structure
Remains of a round structure (Fig. 8) with apparently two construction phases were exposed at the bottom of the slope. A circular wall (W10026; diam. c. 3.7 m) is attributed to the early phase. It was constructed of fieldstones of various sizes (diam. 0.1–0.6 m) and was preserved to a maximum height of two courses; no opening was discerned. The wall was laid on a bedding (L10029) of light, semisoft loess mixed with small stones, flint objects and small potsherds. This bedding appears to have also served as the floor of the structure. A small circular installation (L10037; diam. 0.6 m) was located at the western side of the structure, constructed of small fieldstones.
A wide wall (W10040; exposed length 2 m, width 1.1 m) is attributed to the late phase. It is constructed of fieldstones of various sizes, and it abuts the structure to its northwest. Also attributed to the late phase are two cells built within the structure: an oval cell (L10036; 1.2 × 1.4 m) constructed of small and medium-sized fieldstones against the inner face of the southern wall of the structure; and a rectangular cell (L10028; c. 1 × 2 m) constructed of small and medium-sized fieldstones against the inner face of the northern wall of the structure.
 
Pottery. Six potsherds were found in the structure, all dating from the Intermediate Bronze. They were made of dark-orange clay with medium and large black, gray and white grits and of gray clay. The firing is good to coarse, with traces of straw observed in some. Four sherds belong to open bowls (Fig. 7:1–4) with rims drawn out at various angles. The rim of Bowl 1 is slightly folded, and that of Bowl 2 is drawn out and up. The bottom of bowl 4 shows traces of orange slip. One sherd belongs to a holemouth jar (Fig. 7:5) with a straight-cut rim, which unlike the other vessels is well fired and without any trace of straw. The sixth sherd is a handle of a large jar (Fig. 7:6). Similar assemblages were found at contemporaneous sites in Dimona (Paran and Aladjem 2014; Paran 2018a), in Nahal Nizana (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2000: Fig. 153:10) and at Horbat ‘En Ziq (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2000: Fig. 148).
 
The Lithic Assemblage. The flint assemblage from the structure comprises 3821 items (Table 1). These include 92 objects defined as tools, as they display deliberate retouching; 48 cores; and 3681 items defined as knapping debitage or core rejuvenation debitage. The assemblage contains items from the entire chaîne opératoire of knapping: chips, chunks, flakes, blades, bladelets, primary items, core trimming elements, cores and tools.
 
Table 1. The Flint Assemblage
Type
N
%
Chips
562
14.7
Chunks
623
16.5
Flakes
1962
51.6
Blades
141
3.6
Bladelets
21
0.5
Primary elements
319
8.3
Ridge blades
6
0.1
Core trimming elements
22
0.5
Core tablets
3
0.1
Overpasses
17
0.4
Burin spall
5
0.1
Total debris
3681
96.4
Cores
48
1.2
Tools
92
2.4
Total
3821
100
 
The cores (N=48; Table 2) include 29 with a single striking platform, 12 with two opposing striking platforms and seven unidentified core fragments. The most common type is the core for producing flakes (N=16). Also found were bladelet cores (N=13), cores for producing bladelets-small flakes (N=8; Fig. 9:1) and cores for producing flakes-blades (N=4). Hybrid cores for producing bladelets and flakes were common in ad-hoc desert industries in the Chalcolithic period (Rosen 1997:65).
 
Table 2. Cores
Type
Flakes
Bladelets-small flakes
Bladelets
Flakes-blades
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Single striking platform
11
23.0
4
8.3
11
23.0
3
6.2
29
60.5
Two opposing striking platforms
5
10.5
4
8.3
2
4.2
1
2.0
12
25.0
Fragment (unidentified)
 
 
 
 
7
14.5
Total
16
33.5
8
16.6
13
27.2
4
8.2
48
100
 
The tools (N=92; Table 3) are characterized by deliberate retouching. The most common type is the retouched flake (N=40; 43.5% of tools; Fig. 9:2). The retouching varies from delicate to semi-abrupt. Also found were 17 notches and 13 end scrapers. Most notches have one notch (Fig. 9:3); on some, the notches are delicately retouched. The most common end scrapers are steep scrapers (N=6); they were made on large, thick flakes with abrupt or semi-abrupt retouch (Fig. 9:4). Two end scrapers are simple, made on flakes bearing delicate inclined retouch, and one is tongue shaped, made on an oval flake with normal dorsal retouch on the two lateral ends and on the proximal end (Fig. 9:5). Tongue-shaped end scrapers were more common in the Chalcolithic period, while steep-end scrapers are found in desert industries in the Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze (Rosen 1997:87). Three fragments of tabular scrapers (Fig. 9:6) have a cortex on most of the dorsal side; it appears that the cortex was worked and smoothed, a common situation on tabular scrapers. Tabular scrapers were common mostly in the Chalcolithic and EB, and they are attributed to desert industries (Rosen 1997:73–75). These scrapers also bear pressure retouching.
The flint assemblage also includes five delicately retouched blades, one of which has abrupt retouching; five awls with an active end made mostly by two notches, some of which were retouched; four denticulates made on large flakes, bearing relatively deep denticulations; three side scrapers made on a variety of flakes of various sizes bearing abrupt or semi-abrupt retouch; a blade with a truncation on the distal end, made on semi-transparent, gray chalcedony flint (Fig. 9:7), and a backed sickle blade with gloss on the right dorsal side and backed retouch on the left lateral side (Fig. 9:8), both of which were common mostly in the Chalcolithic and were rare in the EB (Rosen 1982:140–141; 1997:50); a blade backed on the left lateral side; a burin on a blade; and a double tool of an awl and side scraper on a flake.
 
Table 3. Tools
Type
N
%
Retouched flakes
40
43.5
Retouched blades
5
5.5
Backed blade
1
1.0
Sickle blade
1
1.0
Notches
17
18.5
Denticulates
4
4.6
End scrapers
13
14.1
Side scrapers
3
3.3
Awls
5
5.5
Truncated item
1
1.0
Burin
1
1.0
Composite tool
1
1.0
Total tools
92
100
 
The dating of the round structure is ambiguous. On the one hand, the flint assemblage from the structure contains items characteristic of Chalcolithic-period desert assemblages and non-indicative items that are ad-hoc tools. The ad-hoc tools—varying in shape, dimension and preparation method—are also characteristic of desert industries, although they are found spread over a large region and during many periods (Rosen 1997:106–110). On the other hand, the pottery assemblage dates from the Intermediate Bronze and the architecture is similar to that at other contemporaneous sites around Dimona (Paran and Aladjem 2014). It is possible that the two periods observed in the structure represent the two distinguished construction phases. It is also possible that because of its location at the bottom of a slope, finds from other remains were washed down from the hill such as agricultural terraces, burial structures and installations.