Ancient Lead Mining on the Halkidiki Peninsula & Alexander's Conquest of the Levant

[sumskilz]

So say you find some arrowheads at an archaeological site in the Southern Levant in a stratum dating to about the time of Alexander's conquest. The position of the arrowheads suggest that they were fired by an attacking army who destroyed the settlement, but the arrowheads are of a form well-associated with Achaemenid armies. Isotope analysis suggests that that lead in the arrowheads came from the Halkidiki Peninsula in Northern Greece. Now I can speculate on what might have happened here, but I'm interested in other opinions. Most importantly, I'm interested in anything from the historical record that might help in interpreting the archaeological evidence. You've probably figured out that this isn't a hypothetical situation. It's not my project, but I intend to pass on anything helpful to the researchers.

[Akrotatos]

Damn, interesting topic. First time I heard of this but is it this far-fetched that the armies stationed in the west of the empire would buy minerals from Greece?

[sumskilz]

Damn, interesting topic. First time I heard of this but is it this far-fetched that the armies stationed in the west of the empire would buy minerals from Greece?

It's my understanding that Halkidiki was within the very western edge of the Persian empire for awhile, but I'm interested in primary sources on that. It is a little weird though because there are lead mines much closer to the Levant. There is an Achaemenid fortress along the coast where they appear to have been casting these types of arrowheads, but the metal from that fortress hasn't been analyzed and it might be impossible to get permission to do so. If it was an Achaemenid army using them, it's also a little weird that they attacked and destroyed a local settlement.

[Cyclops]

Isn't there a series of civil wars in the Persian Empire immediately prior to Alexander's conquest? Darius III had problems in Egypt, and from his Arab neighbours as well, so "southern Levant" (which I imagine is in modern Israel) may have seen local troubles that may not appear in the historical record.

IIRC Phillip II controlled the Chalkidike and exploited mines throughout his domains. He maintained close diplomatic ties (including marriage to a satraps daughter IIRC) to the Satraps in Asia Minor as well as partaking in extensive trade (including trade with the Persian Empire). These satraps may have supplied forces for Alexander's invasion and certainly made the administrative assimilation smoother.

Persian shaped arrowheads made of Makedonian metal make perfect sense in both a pre- (Darius suppression of rebellions) and post- (Diadochi wars) Alexander milieu when trade with Hellas and Persian provinces flourished, and also in an Alexandrian context where a force supplied from Hellas containing various ethnicities invaded the region.

Are you not sure if the arrow heads are actually a Persian shape or another ancillary force's preferred shape? If they are say a Skythian form those guys served as mercenaries across the region (eg they were the police in Athens).

[Abdülmecid I]

It's my understanding that Halkidiki was within the very western edge of the Persian empire for awhile, but I'm interested in primary sources on that.

A very recent work concerning the subject is Vasilev's work about the satrapy of Skudra, which most probably wasn't in fact a satrapy. Honestly, if by primary sources, you mean archaeological material, we probably possess nothing, I am afraid, with the exception of household items of clear "oriental" influence, such as that bracelet (late classical, early hellenistic era) found in Europus, the homeland of Seleucus I Nicator, a bit north of Chalcidice. We are almost completely dependent on Herodotus' account on determining the role of the region inside the Achaemenid Empire.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Anyway, that's probably only a sufficient indication of cultural exchanges not strong Achaemenid presence in the area. However, there's also a clay tablet discovered in Gherla, a small town in Transylvania, where the following is written:

[...] king [Darius] son of Hystaspes [...]
[...] did [...]

Not particularly enlightening. Especially considering that a clay tablet is not very likely to be found in situ. To conclude, the general consensus is that despite the undeniable role of the Achaemenid administration in Thrace and Macedonia, the region was probably never organised as a satrapy, despite the fact that at least two centers of Achaemenid military power (essentially fortresses) are known, Doriscus, the largest one near the river Maritsa and Eion, near the river Struma, which is apparently relatively close to northern Chalcidice. It was probably a department of the satrapy of Dascyleium, with the kingdom of Macedonia as a protectorate/buffer-state.
However, the Persian annexation of Thrace, initiated by the campaigns of Darius, Megabazus, Mardonius and Xerxes pretty much collapsed after the failure of the latter's invasion to Greece. Doriscus is reported to have lasted at least until the reign of Artaxerxes I, thanks to the inspired defense of Mascames, the stronghold's governor, but Eion fell shortly after Xerxes' departure. I doubt that in the last third of the 4th century B.C. the Achaemenid army had much access to Chalcidicean lead, other than trade, which doesn't make much sense, in the particular case.
I am totally ignorant about arrowhead types, but are we sure that there were clear differences between the Macedonian and the Persian one. Because the Argeads were the indisputable rulers of the peninsula after the destruction of Olynthus, in 348 B.C.. Alternatively, could it be possible that the armies of the Successors copied the persian techniques for their own needs. Perhaps, the siege in question could be related to campaigns between Ptolemy I and Antigonus I.

[sumskilz]

I can't say much specific about the site yet, but I can give some context. It's within the Persian province of Yehud (the red border on the map below) within a few kilometers of Azekah. Yehud was roughly the core area of the Iron Age Kingdom of Judah. The Ashdod province was basically Philistia. Almost all the known Persian Period governors of Yehud had Hebrew names.

Isn't there a series of civil wars in the Persian Empire immediately prior to Alexander's conquest? Darius III had problems in Egypt, and from his Arab neighbours as well, so "southern Levant" (which I imagine is in modern Israel) may have seen local troubles that may not appear in the historical record.

You may be on to something with this. I looked into a bit. Local textual sources are almost non-existent in the late Persian Period, but according to what I could find, in about 350 Artaxerxes III attempted to reconquer Egypt but was defeated by Nectanebo II, which was followed by rebellions in Phoenicia, Asia Minor and Cyprus. Dan Barag argues in an old BASOR article from 1966 (which I haven’t looked at yet) that Artaxerxes III exiled some Jews to Hyrcania in response to their support for Tennes of Sidon’s rebellion.

IIRC Phillip II controlled the Chalkidike and exploited mines throughout his domains. He maintained close diplomatic ties (including marriage to a satraps daughter IIRC) to the Satraps in Asia Minor as well as partaking in extensive trade (including trade with the Persian Empire). These satraps may have supplied forces for Alexander's invasion and certainly made the administrative assimilation smoother.

Yeah, Persian defectors from Asia Minor is a possibility I was thinking of, but this gives some more context.

Are you not sure if the arrow heads are actually a Persian shape or another ancillary force's preferred shape? If they are say a Skythian form those guys served as mercenaries across the region (eg they were the police in Athens).

There are too types, the predominate one is associated with ethnic Iranians and Achaemenid empirical garrisons, for example the garrison fortress built next to the Ashdod administrative center and the barracks at Persepolis. The second type is an armor piercing form which evolved from the other and was used well into the Hellenistic period. It's possible that the later type was a Greek innovation based on the Achaemenid type. This type has a lineage that can be traced back to the Skythian type, but local forms were already being manufactured in Mesopotamia before the Persian period. The actual Skythian types are very rare in the Southern Levant and usually from earlier strata.

I am totally ignorant about arrowhead types, but are we sure that there were clear differences between the Macedonian and the Persian one. Because the Argeads were the indisputable rulers of the peninsula after the destruction of Olynthus, in 348 B.C.. Alternatively, could it be possible that the armies of the Successors copied the persian techniques for their own needs. Perhaps, the siege in question could be related to campaigns between Ptolemy I and Antigonus I.

I think it's possible that the destruction is from a successor conflict, but it's my understanding that numanistic evidence really best supports that particular phase being right on the break between the Persian and Hellenistic periods. There is however a limited resolution to this sort of dating.

Thanks for the rest, all helpful, and I'll check out or recommend the book depending on if I can get free access to it.

[+Marius+]

How about this;

They are Greek arrows used by Greek archers;

1) Macedonia is arming up and building a large army(for some reason).

2) News spreads around that blacksmiths can find good work and good pay in Macedonia because of the rapid armament.

Finally;

3) Some smiths from Asia Minor accept the call, move to Macedonia, get the job, and start making arrowheads they are used to making, just this time with local ore.

[conon394]

(eg they were the police in Athens0

Not really.

------

Isotope analysis suggests that that lead in the arrowheads came from the Halkidiki Peninsula in Northern Greece

That is a vague comment indeed -'suggests' with what kind of parameters, with no sample size nor other possible locations what comment can anyone make? Also be a little more careful you mean to say analysis suggests the lead content implies an origin for the lead. Lead had to injected in many smelting process to achieve desired ore differentiation in the classical era. Thus the process of it might just indicated it was export product. Was the lead a functional part of the arrow head - part of desired alloy or remnant of processing. For that matter the the material in question might simply be the result of finished wares that were traded many times as ingots of finished metal.

Also seeing people by type is dicey to me. A good arrow head is a good arrow head reused by anyone unless they have the time and inclination to alter it for some reason.

Compare say the American civil war. The US/Union government issued a standard Union produced fire rifles musket and ammunition and kit to soldiers in practice/theory - the Springfield Model 1861. In this context you would certainly call it a 'Union type' and or anything associated with it. However given that that every soldier in every army of every major power used well nigh the same kit at the time be it a Enfield or Lorenz or Springfield or Witworth and all operated on more or less the same principal and caliber and parts. That creates a real problem since we know for a fact the desperate needs of both South and North to equip armies that were widely in excess of and beyond the scope of anything the US had seen before and do it quickly meant that there was no 'type' - there was in general simply the need for rifled mini ball style muskets from any source or any quality immediately. Thus we are left with the fact that any one soldier might be using any musket of any 'type' on any day for much of the war. A CSA trooper using a captured good quality Union issued Springfield or a bored Union soldier firing ramrods from anywhere across the lines at the Petersburg just because he could or any soldier taking good quality weapons/parts/ammunition/or kit from the battlefield as needed.

I am happy to source that paragraph but the point remains - I can write that because I have vastly more evidence for a war circa 1860 in the US than a one off n-1 type archeology event many thousands of years ago. That almost descends into churlishness I would say on my part. It is true however, a single example is sufficient to contend or oppose vs absolutes, as in 'the first known X at time Y' for example. But arrow heads of some 'a type' and implied guesses about origin and use are not so solid and not being marshaled in a sufficiently binary rejection of an absolute assertion thus I can't really see a conclusion to be made on the data you offer except the arrow heads were there. What is an Iphone but a clear indication of an eastern type or the the existence of local Chinese style production.?

[sumskilz]

How about this;

They are Greek arrows used by Greek archers;

1) Macedonia is arming up and building a large army(for some reason).

2) News spreads around that blacksmiths can find good work and good pay in Macedonia because of the rapid armament.

Finally;

3) Some smiths from Asia Minor accept the call, move to Macedonia, get the job, and start making arrowheads they are used to making, just this time with local ore.

They are cast copper-alloy arrows, but I didn't make that clear. Regardless, that certainly doesn't falsify the main point of your hypothesis which seems as good as any to me.

That is a vague comment indeed -'suggests' with what kind of parameters, with no sample size nor other possible locations what comment can anyone make? Also be a little more careful you mean to say analysis suggests the lead content implies an origin for the lead. Lead had to injected in many smelting process to achieve desired ore differentiation in the classical era. Thus the process of it might just indicated it was export product. Was the lead a functional part of the arrow head - part of desired alloy or remnant of processing. For that matter the the material in question might simply be the result of finished wares that were traded many times as ingots of finished metal.

Yes, I'm only talking about the source of the lead. Chalkidiki is the best fit for all of the arrowheads (N=12 so far). The second best fit is Tunisia for some, Anatolia along the Black Sea for others. The copper in the arrowheads doesn't all come from the same place, and it's hard to identify which suggests that copper from multiple sources ended up in single arrowheads. One appears to be of Cypriot copper, both Greece and Anatolia are possible copper sources, but interestingly it seems that none of the copper came from the nearby copper mines in modern southern Jordan and Israel. I'm told that a small amount of the lead usually comes from the copper source, meaning that Anatolia along the Black Sea as a second best fit could come from the trace amounts in the copper.

As far as what comment anyone can make, they've been pretty good so far, and sometimes you get lucky and someone happens to know about some explicit reference in a textual source. I was speaking to someone who is a bit of an expert on arrowheads about the controversy regarding whether certain arrowheads associated with Babylonian conquests were fired by Babylonians or by allied or mercenary groups such as the Skythians and Cimmerians. I pointed out that there is a cuniaform document that specifically refers to Babylonian soldiers being issued "Cimmerian arrows".

Also seeing people by type is dicey to me. A good arrow head is a good arrow head reused by anyone unless they have the time and inclination to alter it for some reason.

Well yeah, this is the old "pots vs people" debate, and see the reference I just made, but that said, sometimes you can really tell when an arrowhead is an imitation, like the basic form being copied but with a local style of mold that differs in some identifiable ways.

[Roma_Victrix]

IIRC Phillip II controlled the Chalkidike and exploited mines throughout his domains. He maintained close diplomatic ties (including marriage to a satraps daughter IIRC) to the Satraps in Asia Minor as well as partaking in extensive trade (including trade with the Persian Empire). These satraps may have supplied forces for Alexander's invasion and certainly made the administrative assimilation smoother.

According to Treister (1996), Macedonia as well as Ptolemaic Egypt and Pergamon had complete, monopolistic state control over mining activities. This was not disrupted until the Romans defeated Macedonia in 168 BC and nominally forced the four client states (replacing the monarchy) to abandon their gold and silver mines, although copper and iron mines were reopened in 167 BC and the Roman Senate's ban on silver and gold mining was lifted in 158 BC. So yes, Philip II would have had complete control over the extraction of ores in Macedonia at the very least, including the copper-alloy now mentioned above by Sumskilz.

[Cyclops]

I guess this story won't be published for a while, and the archaeologist involved has to navigate the usual minefields that digging in the Holy Land involves.

There's a crazy Christian "everything is a map to Jesus" view ("An amphora? Must've had wine in it from the wedding at Cana!"), and a similar "everything is a map to Zion" narrative ("funny, every pot I find is Jewish and all the ones that aren't are clearly imported!"), and I'm sure there's a nascent Palestinian national narrative ("no, the inscription clearly says "the Philistinians should have self determination"").

Fitting the fragments found in a mound in Israel into the (at best) fragmentary puzzle of history is a tough job, I would be very interested for an update if/when this does get published. The discussion about sources of copper vs sources of lead, the concentrations of examples inside and "perhaps" attacking a fortified position etc are all highly suggestive.

Not really.

I'm pretty sure they were.

http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/a...&greekEncoding

It may be that like the Varangians they began as one ethnic lump and became a more diverse group over time, but the existence in classical Athens of a body of Skythian slaves who acted as a police force is well attested.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Isn't it spelled "Khalkidiki" or "Khalkidike"?

[Cyclops]

Isn't it spelled "Khalkidiki" or "Khalkidike"?

Χαλκιδική

[sumskilz]

I guess this story won't be published for a while, and the archaeologist involved has to navigate the usual minefields that digging in the Holy Land involves...

Fitting the fragments found in a mound in Israel into the (at best) fragmentary puzzle of history is a tough job, I would be very interested for an update if/when this does get published. The discussion about sources of copper vs sources of lead, the concentrations of examples inside and "perhaps" attacking a fortified position etc are all highly suggestive.

The arrowheads and metallurgical analysis might be published wthin the next year. The context, which I haven't seen (not close up anyway) might not be published until the final report is complete, which might be awhile. I'm told that the arrowheads were clearly fired by the attackers rather than dropped by the garrison, but I haven't been able to judge that for myself and I wasn't given any details about what made that so clear. As far as minefields, I'd say the head excavator is one them, but the rest of the team is good.

There's a crazy Christian "everything is a map to Jesus" view ("An amphora? Must've had wine in it from the wedding at Cana!"), and a similar "everything is a map to Zion" narrative ("funny, every pot I find is Jewish and all the ones that aren't are clearly imported!"), and I'm sure there's a nascent Palestinian national narrative ("no, the inscription clearly says "the Philistinians should have self determination"").

I think working in the biblical period Levant is more a blessing than a curse because of the extra funding, and you can play to that without losing scientific integrity (though not everybody does). Here is a good example of handling it with integrity:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A small stone seal found recently in the excavations of Tel Beit Shemesh could be the first archaeological evidence of the story of the biblical Samson.

The seal, measuring 1.5 centimeters, depicts a large animal next to a human figure. The seal was found in a level of excavation that dates to the 11th century B.C.E. That was prior to the establishment of the Judean kingdom and is considered to be the period of the biblical judges - including Samson. Scholars say the scene shown on the artifact recalls the story in Judges of Samson fighting a lion.

But excavation directors Prof. Shlomo Bunimovitz and Dr. Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University say they do not suggest that the human figure on the seal is the biblical Samson. Rather, the geographical proximity to the area where Samson lived, and the time period of the seal, show that a story was being told at the time of a hero who fought a lion, and that the story eventually found its way into the biblical text and onto the seal.

Not far from Beit Shemesh is Tel Batash, which is the biblical Timna, where Samson's wife lived. As the Bible tells it, Samson was on his way to his engagement party when "a young lion roared against him" (Judges 14:5 ).

According to the Bible, after Samson kills the lion, it becomes the source of one of the most famous riddles in history, with which Samson regales the guests at his bachelor party: "Out of the eater came forth food, and out of the strong came forth sweetness" (Judges 14:14 )

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/s...egend-1.454504

That seal will bring in more funding, but Bunimovitz doesn't overstate the evidence. According to the story, Samson was born between Tzorah and Eshtaol and met his first wife in Timnah. Both Tzorah and Timnah are within sight of Beit Shemesh and Samson would have had to walk past Beit Shemesh to get to Timnah.

Now an example of lacking integrity is when a certain well-known archaeologist claimed to have found the serving ware from Saul's coronation because he had a broken piece of pottery with the word mlk (king) on it, but archaeologists can see through that sort of thing because anyone working in the area could recognize the piece was probably from a storage jar and knows that taxes paid to the king in olive oil and the like had the word lmlk (for the king) written on them, and that this particular sherd just had the preposition l (for the) broken off.

The bigger threat is sloppy archaeology, usually due to slackass assistant area supervisors not paying enough attention to their volunteer workers who usually outnumber the archaeology students by quite a bit. The result is that the correct answer to any question is probably an answer that doesn't match all the data, because some of that data is wrong. Bump that bulk with your ass or one of your tools without noticing and something falls out of it to the ground a few centuries back in time, then turn around later and notice it and say "hey, look I think I just found something!"

Isn't it spelled "Khalkidiki" or "Khalkidike"?

I transliterated it with an H because that's how the Hebrew/Phoenician equivalent is usually transliterated, though academically it's Ḥ. I think the second one is trying to emulate the Greek spelling better, but maybe not the sound because I don't know for sure.

This:

Χαλκιδική

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yeah the Khalkidike peninsula, X (Chi) is best transliterated as "Kh" since there's no soft C in Greek (at least Attiki/Romeika).

[Cyclops]

The arrowheads and metallurgical analysis might be published wthin the next year. The context, which I haven't seen (not close up anyway) might not be published until the final report is complete, which might be awhile. I'm told that the arrowheads were clearly fired by the attackers rather than dropped by the garrison, but I haven't been able to judge that for myself and I wasn't given any details about what made that so clear. As far as minefields, I'd say the head excavator is one them, but the rest of the team is good.

I'd love to read more when its published, if its not too much trouble?

I think working in the biblical period Levant is more a blessing than a curse because of the extra funding, and you can play to that without losing scientific integrity (though not everybody does)...

Yes its tricky, nicer to see the first bloke resist the temptation.

The bigger threat is sloppy archaeology, usually due to slackass assistant area supervisors not paying enough attention to their volunteer workers who usually outnumber the archaeology students by quite a bit. The result is that the correct answer to any question is probably an answer that doesn't match all the data, because some of that data is wrong. Bump that bulk with your ass or one of your tools without noticing and something falls out of it to the ground a few centuries back in time, then turn around later and notice it and say "hey, look I think I just found something!"

There's a bit of it about. Then again I heard a story about Arthur Evans excavating at Knossos, who was brought an interesting artefact. He asked the digger 'where did that come from?" and when told stated "It shouldn't be there" and threw the item into the sea.

I transliterated it with an H because that's how the Hebrew/Phoenician equivalent is usually transliterated, though academically it's Ḥ. I think the second one is trying to emulate the Greek spelling better, but maybe not the sound because I don't know for sure.

Its very interesting to see the foreign transliterations of ancient words, gives a sidelight on possible pronunciations.

[sumskilz]

I'd love to read more when its published, if its not too much trouble?

Sure, no problem. I'll let you know, and probably update the thread.

[sumskilz]

Now that I was reminded of this thread, I suppose a bit of an update is in order. As it turns out, I'm glad I wrote this caveat:

The arrowheads and metallurgical analysis might be published wthin the next year. The context, which I haven't seen (not close up anyway) might not be published until the final report is complete, which might be awhile. I'm told that the arrowheads were clearly fired by the attackers rather than dropped by the garrison, but I haven't been able to judge that for myself and I wasn't given any details about what made that so clear. As far as minefields, I'd say the head excavator is one them, but the rest of the team is good.

I, among others, am now of the opinion that no attack took place. At least there is no clear sign of it. The settlement was completely abandoned for awhile right at the time of Alexander's conquests. The coins in the relevant layer end with the end of the Achaemenid period. The apparent damage in this layer could simply be the result of the settlement falling into disrepair. It's also hard to tell the difference between an evacuation and looting. Nothing was set on fire anyway.

The head excavator in this case is known for "creative" interpretations to put it politely, but others were fooled. Most (but not all) of the arrowheads were found in debris on a floor of a building just inside the gate. Supposedly it looked like they had come down onto the roof and then fell to the floor when the roof collapsed. In fact, they were in the basement and may have fallen there when the floor above collapsed. There were no bent tips as typically occurs when such arrowheads strike stone. Therefore, it seems most likely to me that the arrowheads belonged to the garrison.

The metallurgical analysis is currently in peer-review. However, we now know that lead mined from the western coast of Anatolia is isotopically indistinguishable from the lead mined at Khalkidike. The lead used could have come from either or both.

[Cyclops]

Lead from the North and East Aegean are almost equally remote from the Southern Levant, but are related to one another as being in the Hellenic and Thrakian cultural spheres, as well as the Persian, Athenian and Makedonian political horizon.

The most likely scenario to my mind is these arrowheads are manuactured by mercenaries from material either brought with them or bought for them. The Persians had brief control of Makedonia over a century before Alexander's time: it seems unlikely they stockpiled a mass of metal before they left and doled it out, although the Persian economy seems to have included a lot of tribute (typically foodstuffs for occupying troops and coin for the treasury) so there was an architecture of accumulation, storage and reallocation. More likely it was traded for as needed, quite plausible as Phillip II monetised his mineral resources through export.

Were the mercenaries Hellenic? From the period of the Persian and Peloponnesian wars until the Diadochi here was a mass of displaced mercenaries which constituted a political, military and social problem for Hellas solved by Alexander in his usual cavalier way "all exiles to return home". That fits the abandoned fort if they went home in the wake of Alexanders conquest. However the Makedonians dismantled the Persian military apparatus and replaced it with their own, so an abandoned fort is not a slam dunk ethnic identification.

Displaced Hellenes serving as mercs could have been aristoi (not sure if they served as hoplites but they may have had attendants serving as psiloi) as well as democrats/isonomes (hoplites and/or psiloi, the navy could be a hotbed of democratic activism eg at Athens).

Thrakian mercenaries were another common type, although the stereotypical red-haired wildmen might have made less effective garrison troops than Hellenes. they certainly came from the likely areas around the Aegean littoral.

If the state issued arms to its mercenaries then we have no way to know who the archers were. The architecture might no tell you either, I think you'd need to locate an associated burial with some nice Corinthian funereal pottery or some other bonanza: not likely.

[sumskilz]

The arrowheads themselves are mostly of a form typically associated with Achaemenid armies, like these:



Literally thousands were found in the armory at Persepolis for example. This specific type aren't really found in the core Hellenic areas except at the battlefields from the Greco-Persian Wars. They were probably manufactured locally. Some were found at an Achaemenid Period fortress just north of Ashdod along with what appeared to the excavators to be some of the same alloy melted. It hasn't been analysed. They're cast in molds in the old Scythian style, so they can be mass produced anywhere the metals can be melted.

Initially they appeared to have been used by the attackers and that along with their apparently containing lead from Khalkidiki pointed to them maybe having been used by soldiers formerly in Achaemenid service who switched sides. Now it just looks like they were used by the defenders, but it's interesting that the lead was from an Aegean source. There are plenty of lead sources in Persia. The copper is ambiguous, maybe mixed. The Taurus Mountains, Cyprus, and the Southern Levant itself are all possible contributing sources. Although there is no evidence of active copper mining in the Southern Levant in this period despite the sites being well-excavated, so local copper could have made it into the arrowheads via recycling.

This site was actually a settlement, not just a fort, although in a very strategic position, overlooking one of the only two easy paths for an army from the coast to move up into the Judean Highlands. I guess the garrison fled, and so did the entire population.

About Greek mercenaries, there is no clear archaeological evidence of them in the Southern Levant during the Achaemenid Period, which is in contrast to plenty of evidence of them during the Saite Period Egyptian occupation. A possible exception is at Tell Keisan, but that evidence is allegedly from the reign of Cambyses II. It isn't published yet, but an expert on Aegean material culture I know seems to think what was found is a few pieces residual from the Saite Period. I doubt the excavators would have been so sure to make the claim if it wasn't that Tell Keisan is basically where Strabo claims Cambyses assembled his army for his campaign against Egypt. Archaeologists who are deliberately looking for something specific usually seem to find it.

The Achaemenid type arrowheads stayed in use during the Hellenistic Period, but this is the type most likely associated with Greek mercenaries:



Which I posted about before in a somewhat recent thread, just to make things more confusing.