Towards a typology of stone beads in the Neolithic Levant

Towards a typology of stone beads in the Neolithic Levant Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel This study is an attempt to develop a comprehensive typology of the earliest stone bead assemblages in the southern Levant from Late Natufian and Neolithic sites. I propose this typology as a tool for studying stone beads almost a century after Horace Beck published his monumental bead typology. Beads are often neglected artifacts in archaeological excavations, but a bead typology can contribute to definitions of relative chronology and to a broader understanding of social and economic aspects of certain prehistoric societies. Keywords: personal ornaments, stone beads, typology, Neolithic, Levant, Natufian

Introduction Almost a century ago Horace Beck published his monumental study, ‘‘Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants’’ (Beck 1928). Over the last few years, beads have gained considerable attention as valuable and significant artifacts that can contribute to the understanding and interpretation of past human behavioral patterns. Previously, beads, usually small artifacts, were not always found in archaeological sites due to insufficient rigor in recovery techniques, and when they were discovered, they were often classified as ‘‘small finds’’ and treated as ‘‘marginal,’’ and were overlooked in the general interpretation of the site. Unlike lithics or ceramics, beads were often described superficially. Consequently, in many archaeology textbooks, ceramic and lithic analyses are discussed at length, while terms such as ‘‘bead,’’ ‘‘pendant,’’ ‘‘jewelry,’’ and ‘‘ornament’’ rarely appear in indices. Recently, beads have been researched in the context of craft specialization or symbolism in various parts of the world (Barthe´lemy de Saizieu and Casanova 1991; Kenoyer 1991; Sciama 1998; Roux 2000; Kuhn et al. 2001; Barthe´lemy de Saizieu 2003; Beck et al., 2003; Wright and Garrard 2003; Wright et al. 2008). Considerable research on personal ornaments has been conducted in New World contexts (e.g., Jernigan 1978). DeCorse and colleagues (2003), in a study of glass beads from historical periods in West Africa, stress the relevance of beads in establishing temporal sequences. Other valuable contributions to bead research are based in the non-academic sphere and Correspondence to: Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Zoological Museum, Steinhardt National Collections of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. Email: [email protected]

ß Trustees of Boston University 2013 DOI 10.1179/0093469013Z.00000000043

are indirectly related to archaeological research, as they focus more on the beads themselves and sometimes on their ethnographic contexts (Dubin 2009; Lankton 2003; Allen and Hector 2007). In light of these recent advances, we should consider the methods of bead research. As with other types of artifacts, the basic tools available to the archaeologist are typology and technology, which can be enhanced by additional methodologies: actualistic or experimental studies focusing on the replication of beads using ancient techniques in order to assess the processes involved in bead manufacture; micro-wear studies, which provide data on manufacturing processes and on how the beads were used; and ethnoarchaeological research, which speaks to what beads mean to their wearers in different societies and how they are manufactured and used. Study of the archaeological context of the beads is also critical as exemplified in the recent discovery of beads and pendants in foundation deposits in Neolithic Cyprus (Vigne et al. 2012: S3). Various disciplines contribute to the investigation of the raw materials from which beads are made, including zoology, botany, mineralogy, and metallurgy. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, typology is defined as, ‘‘a classification according to general type, especially in archaeology, psychology, or the social sciences,’’ but in an archaeological context typology most often addresses specific physical characteristics of the artifact, such as size, proportions, overall geometric shape, and the shapes of crosssections. Physical characterization may help in the understanding of both the technology used for producing the artifact and the chronology of production

Journal of Field Archaeology

2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

129

Bar-Yosef Mayer

Towards a typology of stone beads in the Neolithic Levant

and use. Pioneered by Petrie (1899) and expanded upon by others (e.g., Amiran 1969; Bordes 1979), the use of typology has been contested by some archaeologists (Bisson 2000; Hayden 1984; Read 1974, 1989). The aim of this paper, however, is not to debate the perceived usefulness (or lack thereof) of typology in general, but to determine if a bead typology can further the interpretation of their spatial and chronological contexts and aid in our understanding of these artifacts. Stone beads are the focus of the case study below. The study of beads is usually limited to particular sites. In the study presented here, I, for the first time, gather different assemblages from a specific region to first study each as an individual assemblage and then to compare them. I chose assemblages dating to the Late Epi-Palaeolithic (Late Natufian) and Neolithic periods from the southern Levant, not only because it is an area I am most familiar with, but also because it represents a well-defined archaeological region studied in depth with good chronological controls and represents a time when major changes in human adaptation occurred, namely, the onset of agriculture (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1992; Bar-Yosef 1998; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2011). These qualities made the research of personal ornaments of this period especially suitable as a test case. The study included both beads that are not distinctive and forms that changed through time and were specific to particular periods. One finding was that there seems to be a correlation between access to different raw materials and the occurrence of specific types, some of which require special manufacturing skills; thus, beads and pendants suggest the presence of specific interaction networks.

A Brief Survey of Beads in the Palaeolithic Record A survey of the earliest use of beads prior to the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene, and from hunting and gathering to agriculture, is necessary as a background to what follows. The earliest beads known to date, made of seashells, were discovered at Skhul Cave and Qafzeh Cave in Israel and date to ca. 100,000 years ago (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005; Vanhaeren et al. 2006; Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2009). The study of shell and shell beads from archaeological sites has received increasing interest in recent years (Taborin 1993; d’Errico et al. 2009) especially because they seem to be found at sites with remains of early modern humans (d’Errico et al. 2005; Vanhaeren et al. 2006; Golovanova et al. 2010). Yet, some authors believe that Neanderthals also used shell beads as personal ornaments (Zilhaõ et al. 2010; Riel-Salvatore 2010; Higham et al. 2010). Beads made of materials of biological origin (shell, bone, eggshell, ivory, etc.) were occasionally used by

130


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

hunter-gatherers in the Middle Palaeolithic or Middle Stone Age and more commonly in the Upper Palaeolithic or Late Stone Age onwards in different parts of the Old World (Jerardino and Marean 2010; Balme and Morse 2006; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Qu et al. 2013; Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2006). Ostrich eggshell beads from the site of Enkapune Ya Muto in Kenya, dated to about 40,000 years ago (Ambrose 1998), are the earliest known beads of this material type to be used as personal ornaments. Pendants made of bone and other animal remains (e.g., teeth, antler, and ivory) are known from the Aurignacian culture of Europe (White 2007) and in western Europe several mineral types were occasionally fashioned into beads as well (White 1992, 2007; Taborin 2004). Of the materials mentioned above, beads of biological materials seem to have received much attention; by comparison very little is known of the earliest stone beads. Humans have used rocks and stones for the production of stone tools since the emergence of the genus Homo about 2.5 mya and possibly earlier (McPherron et al. 2010). However, the use of minerals for manufacturing beads and ornaments started much later in the Upper Palaeolithic of western Europe (White 1992, 2007; Taborin 2004; ´ lva´rez Fernandez and Jo¨ris 2008). A considerable A shift occurs during the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene, around 12,000 years ago, when stones and minerals emerged as the preferred materials for producing ornaments. Examples are beads of amber, which looked like stone to residents of Starr Carr, England (Grimaldi 1996: 145), or jade beads that appear in Japan for the first time in Early Jomon sites (Habu 2004: 157). In an attempt to explain why humans decorate themselves, Lois Sherr Dubin states that following the Neolithic Revolution and the move to settled life, the ability to store surplus food allowed time for craft specialization. ‘‘Made of scarce, durable, and easily recognizable raw materials to which commercial value could be easily assigned, and produced in small standardized, and readily portable sizes, beads became a major commodity for traders’’ (Dubin 2009: 30). She assumes that beads were primarily precious commodities. Another bead study claims that ‘‘jewelry was man’s answer to the profound human need for self-adornment…[that] can be traced from the centers of the earliest known civilizations in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Egypt’’ (Tait 1986: 11). A recent study by Wright and Garrard (2003) also claims that settled life is key to understanding the abundance of stone beads. In 1991, I wrote that ‘‘the Dentalium sp. shells, used as body decorations, might have served as a

Bar-Yosef Mayer

means of group identification…thus, with the presumed increase in population density, there was more need for personal identification and this could explain the augmented amount of shells’’ (Bar-Yosef 1991: 630). Kuhn and colleagues (2001: 7645) concur that beads may have been used ‘‘to communicate social identity, such as group membership, gender and individual life-history characteristics’’ as a result of population growth in the Upper Palaeolithic. Ambrose, however, proposes that ‘‘ostrich eggshell beads reflect an enhanced symbolic system of socially mediated risk-minimization and social solidarity; this may have facilitated population increase in Africa, the spread of modern humans out of Africa and the replacement of archaic human populations in Eurasia’’ (Ambrose 1998: 389). In other words, while Kuhn and colleagues suggest that the use of beads is the result of population expansion, Ambrose thinks that the invention of beads may be linked to the causes of population expansion. While efforts to understand the right order of events concerning population increase and the need for self-adornment continue (d’Errico et al. 2009; Zilhaõ et al. 2010), it becomes increasingly clear that there is a direct correlation between the emergence of modern humans and the emergence of beads. This, however, still does not explain why stone beads, as opposed to those made of materials of biological origin, emerge so late in the archaeological record. The use of stone for producing personal ornaments in the Levant seems to correlate with the onset of the Agricultural Revolution. This major transitional phase is expressed in technological and social changes. At the end of the Epi-Palaeolithic period, beginning with the Late Natufian culture, beads became an integral part of the material culture in the Levant, with the transition from hunting and gathering to farming and herding. Thus, the Palaeolithic record in the Levant contains personal ornaments from biological sources, which are mostly shell and bone, however, at the end of the Epi-Palaeolithic, stone is used to produce beads and pendants for the first time. Furthermore, mollusk shells are used for the first time as raw material in order to create geometric beads so that the original shape of the shell is no longer identifiable. The indistinct shapes of the rocks and minerals, when compared to shell or bone, require more planning before the artifact is produced, because of their relative rarity, and to make maximum use of the material. This means that all three dimensions of the end result are a function of human choice, which is usually not the case with shell beads. Therefore, because the production of stone beads seems to be well controlled, they were deemed worthy of examining for a typology.


The Levant: A Bead Typology Case Study The prehistory of the Levant has been intensively studied over the past century, and the cultural sequence is now very well understood (Bar-Yosef and Garfinkel 2008). The detailed knowledge of all other archaeological aspects of the periods under review in this region (e.g., lithics, architecture, fauna, chronology, human remains) made it especially suitable for studying a new aspect, while ensuring that lack of information was not an obstacle. The present project was designed to study the bead corpus of Late Natufian and Neolithic sites in the Levant in a systematic way while incorporating the information from other sites in Israel to clarify aspects of raw materials and their sources, technological procedures, typological classification, and chronology and to trace the broader cultural and economic contexts that gave rise to this phenomenon. It was presumed that by developing standard methods of measurement, analysis, and description for beads from different assemblages, it would be possible to carry out inter- and intra-site comparisons. Tight control over the stratigraphic contexts and chronology using increasingly available calibrated 14C dates in which the beads were found, enabled a comparison across time and space. The study of the stone bead assemblages described below will elucidate how typology can provide information on aspects of long distance exchange systems and population interactions within the broader socioeconomic context of the transition from primarily hunting and gathering to agriculture.

Methods All beads were measured using a digital caliper (Mitutoyo digimatic) as follows. Two measurements were taken of the outer diameter of the bead; two measurements were taken of the inner diameter or the perforation; and the length of the bead (parallel to the axis of the hole) was measured. Length is the most prominent feature taken into consideration in developing a bead typology (Beck 1928). Furthermore, all beads were weighed in order to provide an estimate of the amount of raw material required for their manufacture. Lumps of raw material collected from a few sites were also weighed and measured to provide a baseline to compare with the finished products. Color is one element that distinguishes stone beads from beads made of other types of raw materials, especially those of biological origin. Several methods of color definition were considered for this project, particularly the Munsell chart and the Pantone color chart. Subsequently, many of the beads have combinations of colors such as different shades of green or black with white spots, which makes it difficult to determine a single color. Furthermore, according


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

131

Bar-Yosef Mayer


to Kay and MacDaniel, color perception in most human populations is confined to white, black, red, green, yellow, blue, and brown, and to a lesser extent pink, purple, orange, and grey (Kay and MacDaniel 1978). In other words, color was a subjective matter for prehistoric humans who chose it. Because color did not assist in defining the raw material (see below), I abandoned the precise definitions of the charts mentioned above, and relied on the basic colors that I observed, subjective as they may have been. I did on occasion wrestle with whether to call a certain bead color brown or red, and in other cases gray or black, or gray or green. This was resolved by showing the item to several individuals, and picking the color which was most agreed upon. A preliminary analysis of raw material was published (Bar-Yosef Mayer and Porat 2008), and the technological aspect awaits publication at a later date. To store, manage, and manipulate the data, an Access database was created that included the following fields: site, artifact registration number, and information from the excavation (square, depth, locus, etc.). As noted above, the following were also incorporated into the database: outer and inner diameter ‘‘measuremetns’’ height/length of bead, weight, and color. To these were added degree of preservation, type according to Beck’s typology, verbal description of bead shape, perforations according to Beck’s typology, quantity, additional remarks and observations, description of raw material, and results of laboratory tests. The proposed typology, discussed in detail below, was based initially on Beck’s typology following visual observations (Beck 1928). By determining the ratio of the length of the bead to its diameter, Beck created a typology based on four length categories (disk, short, standard, and long). A disk bead is one in which the length is less than one third of the diameter; a short bead in which the length is more than one third but less then 9/10 of the diameter; a standard bead in which the length is more than 9/10 and less than 1 and 1/10 of the diameter (i.e., the length and diameter are almost equal); a long bead in which the length is more than 1 and 1/10 of the diameter. Within the various length categories, cylindrical beads are those that have more or less round transverse sections (perpendicular to the longitudinal section) ranging from round to elliptical. Pendants differ from beads in that their holes are often not in the center of the artifact. They are most often elongated and are typically perforated at one end and may have more than one perforation. Individual characterizations were sometimes corrected after examination under a low power binocular microscope. This is pertinent especially for small beads, i.e. smaller than 10 mm, in which the detail of

132


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

Figure 1 Map of the main sites whose assemblages are included in this study, their dates, and possible sources of raw materials.

the profile and the hole cannot be determined with the naked eye. Beck’s typology is the only convention currently in use, however, some of the types I discovered, especially pendant forms and irregular or asymmetric beads, did not fit into any existing type and were described verbally.

Typology A total of 453 beads were studied from 22 sites (FIG. 1, TABLE 1), mostly from the Neolithic period (representing various cultures and phases), but also from the Late Natufian and Wadi Rabah cultures, representing the ‘‘ends’’ before and after the Neolithic period (TABLE 2). Table 1 presents the main types that were identified. I chose to present here the most significant types without specifying the more detailed ‘‘Beck types.’’ The most prominent bead types are: disk beads and short to standard cylinders, which together form almost 70% of the total. Additional types include short to standard beads with lenticular to rectangular transverse sections, short cylinders with lenticular sections and two parallel holes, long cylinders, long beads with rhomboid longitudinal sections, oval double-holed pendants, single-holed pendants, and beads and pendants that are unique or appear in very small numbers. In addition, there were stone elements that were clearly worked but not perforated, and other elements that were perforated but not filed. Beads and pendants in Figures 5 and 6 are enlarged and displayed at 2:1.

Late Natufian Final Natufian Final Natufian Harifian Harifian Natufian-Neolithic Natufian-PPNA PPNA PPNA PPNA PPNB PPNB PPNB PPNB PPNB PPNC PPNB-PN PPNC-Yarmoukian Yarmoukian-Wadi Rabah Late Wadi Rabah

Period/culture*

– 85 5 1 4 9 19 8 1 – 3 14 1 8 – – 23 6 10 1 198

– 3 1 – 1 – 10 3 2 – 2 18 1 12 – – 51 2 2 3 111

– – – – – – – – – – – 2 1 6 1 – – – – – 10

– 6 – – – 2 11 2 3 – 2 8 1 4 – – 4 2 3 – 48

– – – – – – – – – – – 1 – 2 1 1 – 2 – – 7

– 6 9 1 2 – – – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – 19

*PPNA: Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; PPNB: Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; PN: Pottery Neolithic. {Based on published and newly analyzed material from old excavations. {{Exact stratigraphy not available. 1Irregular shapes refer to perforated elements that are not necessarily beads or pendants or to partially perforated items.

El Wad Cave Eynan Gilgal II Abu Salem Ramat Harif (G-VIII) Nahal Oren{{ Hatoula{{ Netiv Hagdud{ Gilgal I and III{ Ain Darat Motza Kefar Ha-Horesh Yiftah’el{ Nahal Hemar Cave En Miri Atlit Yam Nahal Issaron{{ Sha’ar Hagolan Nahal Zehora II Nahal Zehora I Totals

Site – – – – – – 1 – – – – – – 1 – – – – – – 2

7 1 1 – – – 1 – 1 – – – – – – – 1 – 1 – 13

– 4 – 1 2 1 1 – – – – 3 – 1 – – 2 1 – – 16

– 2 1 – – – 4 – 9 – – – – 2 – – – – – – 18

– 3 – – – – 1 – – – 1 – – – – – 4 – 2 – 11

7 110 17 3 9 12 48 13 16 1 8 46 4 36 2 1 85 13 18 4 453

Short Short bead, Long bead, Oval Disc cylinder/ lenticular Long rhom-boid double-holed Short cylinder, Single-holed Unique Unperforated Irregular holed Total artifacts bead standard section cylinder section pendant two holes pendant shapes bead elements1

Table 1 Main types of prehistoric beads included in this study by site and period.

Bar-Yosef Mayer Towards a typology of stone beads in the Neolithic Levant


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

133

Bar-Yosef Mayer


Figure 2 Selection of disk beads from various sites. 1–13) Eynan; 14–19) Hatoula; 20–21) Netiv Hagdud; 22) Motza; 23– 25) Kefar Ha-Horesh; 26–32) Nahal Issaron; 33–35) Nahal Zehora II.

Disk beads Disk beads form the largest group, accounting for 43% of all beads (FIG. 2). Within this group, the site of Eynan provided the largest number of beads, a third of which were broken. Disk beads appear mostly in green, white, or red colors and, are usually 3–7 mm in outer diameter. To those that are made of stone, one should add about 20 beads made of shell, usually white, and in the same size range. Likewise, five additional disk beads at Ramat Harif were also made of shell. The latter are made of the Mediterranean bivalve Cerastoderma glaucum, and can be distinguished from limestone beads by the typical ribs that appear on one side, as well as by the mollusk shell structure visible under magnification. One unique shell disk bead was made of the local freshwater Unio bivalve that looks like mother-ofpearl. Long cylinders Long cylindrical beads were encountered at most sites (FIG. 3). However, they are most prominent in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) levels of Hatoula (Lechevallier 1994), Gilgal I and Gilgal III (BarYosef Mayer 2010), Netiv Hagdud (Gopher 1997:

Figure 3 Selection of long cylinders from various sites. 1–4) Hatoula; 5) Motza; 6–8) Kefar Ha-Horesh; 9) Nahal Hemar Cave; 10–11) Nahal Issaron; 12–13) Nahal Zehora II.

170), Jericho (Wheeler 1983), WF 16 (Finlayson et al. 2008: Fig. 6), as well as at Mureybet (Marećhal and Alarashi 2008). Their transverse sections are round to oval and their lengths range between 20–30 mm, considerably larger than the disk beads. One such bead was found at Eynan; it is made of apatite, the same raw material used to produce the others. An interesting subtype is the unperforated long bead ‘‘blank’’ (FIG. 4). The shapes, sizes, and raw materials of the blanks are similar to those of the perforated beads. They are well filed all around and do not show evidence of perforation. Most of these blanks are made of the same apatite identified as the most common raw material in the earliest periods with varying shades of green as the predominant color. Long cylinders in later periods, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B–Pottery Neolithic (PPNB–PN) are usually considerably smaller than the PPNA ones

Table 2 Chronological chart of Late Natufian, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic periods and cultures of the Levant.* Period

Culture and/or phase

Epi-Palaeolithic Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) Pottery Neolithic (PN) Early Chalcolithic Middle Chalcolithic Late Chalcolithic

Late Natufian Khiamian and Sultanian Early, Middle and Late PPNB Final PPNB Yarmoukian, Lodian, etc. Wadi Rabah, Qatifian, etc. Tsafian, Besorian, etc. Ghassulian

Date

CAL B.P.

13500–11500 11500–10500 10500–8700/8600 8800/8600–8400/8300 8400/8300–7900/7700 7700–7300/7000 7300/7000–6500 6500–5900/5600

*Compiled from information in: Garfinkel and Ben-Shlomo 2009; Gilead 2009; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Rollefson 2001; Rowan and Golden 2009; Simmons 2007.

134


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

Bar-Yosef Mayer

Figure 4 Unperforated long cylinders from three sites. 1–4) Gilgal I or Gilgal III; 5) Hatoula.

(FIG. 3: 6–11). The somewhat larger cylinders from the Wadi Rabah culture at Nahal Zehora II (Gopher et al. 2012) are enigmatic due to a lack of comparable assemblages (FIG. 3: 12–13). Short to standard cylinders This group has been elsewhere referred to as ‘‘barrel beads’’ (Wright et al. 2008), which are much more variable than the disk beads, because they appear in many more colors, their sizes are variable, as well as their profiles, and raw materials from which they are made are also variable (FIG. 5). Short to standard beads with lenticular to rectangular transverse sections These are not numerous, but seem to have been made deliberately that way. Indeed, they appear only in PPNB sites and seem to reflect a certain style (FIG. 6). Long beads with rhomboid longitudinal sections This type occurs for the first time in the PPNB sites of Kefar Ha-Horesh, En Miri, Nahal Hemar Cave, and at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) site of Atlit Yam (FIG. 7). Two more are from Sha’ar Hagolan, both of which were identified under the SEM as made of calcite: one complete brown piece and fragment in white, very similar to an example from Atlit Yam also probably calcite. The specimen from Nahal Hemar Cave is made of carnelian. These beads are markedly large with a length of 20–30 mm and have elliptical to lenticular transverse sections. Because they are long and relatively thin, their drilling required special care and expertise to avoid breaking the long drill or the bead. This is especially the case with carnelian, a harder material.


Oval double-holed pendants Oval double-holed pendants occur at five sites (FIG. 8: 1–12). Nine specimens were found at Gilgal II and six at Eynan. In the Negev highlands, an example was found at the Harifian site of Ramat Harif (also known as G-VIII) (Goring-Morris 1991: 200) where an almost complete pendant and a small fragment were also found. In nearby Abu Salem, a very weathered specimen of this type was also found. In addition, Salibiya IX (not included in this study) produced two pendants (Enoch-Shilo and Bar-Yosef 1997: 30). All are made of apatite; most are green but a few are brown-black. One specimen from ‘Ain Darat is slightly different, having pointed ends and a deep groove along it. Yet one of the specimens from Gilgal II also has a deep groove between the two holes and several incisions perpendicular to the groove. This type was found to be a clear chronological marker. The age of these sites seems to span a period of about 200 years at the transition from Final Natufian to PPNA (see below). Short cylinders with lenticular sections and two parallel holes This form is a different type of double-holed pendant in that the holes are along the narrow transverse section (FIG. 8: 13–14). Such items are known from Hatoula (FIG. 8: 13), Salibiya IX (Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997: 30), WF16 (Finlayson et al. 2008: fig. 6), all dated to the PPNA. Only one sample from Nahal Hemar Cave is of PPNB age and could represent an heirloom from the PPNA. Single-holed pendants and unique shapes By definition, this is a very diverse group, and here we describe just a few of the specimens (FIG. 9). Singleholed pendants are usually oval pendants with a hole near one end. A specific type found exclusively at the Late Natufian site of El Wad Cave is a trapezoidal shaped pendant made of apatite (FIG. 9: 1) (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. in press). Another unique type is a double-holed pendant found at Kefar Ha-Horesh. It differs from the oval double-holed pendants in the distance between the holes, as well as the raw material (a yellow material covered with a white crust) (FIG. 9: 11). Another unique pendant was found at Sha’ar Hagolan. It is an elongated pendant with a round section, perforated at one end. It has 21 parallel incisions along it from top to bottom. The raw material is dark red limestone (FIG. 9: 14) (Bar-Yosef Mayer in press). Unperforated beads and irregular holed elements The unperforated beads referred to in Table 1 are the long and robust cylinders, typical to the PPNA, and are referred to above as unperforated long bead blanks in the discussion on long cylinders. The two


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

135

Bar-Yosef Mayer


Figure 5 Selection of short to standard cylinders from various sites. 1) Gilgal II; 2–4) Hatoula; 5–7) Nahal Hemar Cave; 8–10) Kefar Ha-Horesh; 11–15) Nahal Issaron; 16–18) Nahal Zehora II.

specimens from Nahal Hemar are small turquoise pebbles, one very smooth and not worked at all, but could serve as a potential bead by perforation. The other is partially polished but seems to have been abandoned before perforation. Irregular holed elements mentioned in Table 1 are various small stones with perforations, where the exterior is not worked. It was not always possible to determine if the perforations were natural or artificial, and this awaits a technological study. Nonetheless these elements could have served as beads as well or as an as yet undetermined perforated artifact.

Discussion The detailed typological study of stone beads from Neolithic sites in the Levant emphasizes how valuable

136


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

a ‘‘classic’’ typology may be as a tool for determining cultural affiliation and chronology. Like any other type of artifact, beads vary regionally and temporally. Many researchers have attempted to develop a typology of beads, first and foremost Horace Beck (1928). Beck’s system is detailed and contains 1500 possible combinations of shapes and proportions, many of them theoretical. The combination of Roman numerals, letters, and numbers suggested by Beck, which are cumbersome and hard to work with, has resulted in the modification of the typology by many researchers based on real beads found at their sites (e.g., Barthe´lemy de Saizieu 2003; Wright et al. 2008), and the assignment of names that are ‘‘user-friendly.’’ A recent review further explains the difficulties of various bead typology systems (Hopwood 2012). Yet, some of the beads within the typology proposed here

Bar-Yosef Mayer


Figure 6 Selection of short to standard beads with a rectangular to lenticular transverse sections from various sites. 1) Kefar Ha-Horesh; 2–10) Nahal Hemar Cave; 11) Yiftah’el.

for the Levantine Neolithic can serve as chronological markers. This is important especially in sites where absolute chronology is not available, and it can also help in defining connections between populations that were contemporaneous. These ties may point to

Figure 7 Long beads with rhomboid longitudinal sections from various sites. 1) Nahal Hemar Cave; 2) En Miri; 3) Kefar Ha-Horesh; 4) Atlit Yam; 5–6) Sha’ar Hagolan.

economic and cultural exchanges that existed during the important period that was the Neolithic. Prior to this research, beads and personal ornaments were simply described at each site in the Levant and sometimes their symbolic role was discussed (e.g., Wheeler 1983; Marećhal 1991; Kuhn et al. 2001; BarYosef Mayer 2005, 2008). The case study presented here, based on 453 beads from 22 sites, differs from previous research on beads in that it integrates information from several sites and treats them in a comprehensive way, enabling a broad view of the role of beads in early farming societies. Table 1 presents the main types of beads from various sites. Most beads (about 80%) have round or almost-round transverse sections. These are the disk beads, short to standard cylindrical beads, and long cylindrical beads. As a cautionary note, there is great variability in size among them. Some were not necessarily suitable for use as personal ornament; the larger specimens may have been used to decorate objects or animals. They could also have served in other capacities for utilitarian purposes, but at this point neither use-wear analysis, nor contextual information is available to help speculations on their possible


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

137

Bar-Yosef Mayer


Figure 8 Oval double-holed pendants from various sites. 1–4) Eynan; 2–11) Gilgal II; 12) Ramat Harif; 13) Hatoula; 14) Nahal Hemar Cave.

uses. A single exception is a bead sewn to fabric from Nahal Hemar Cave (Schick 1988). The following discussion is concerned with the most common types that undoubtedly served as personal ornaments. The picture that emerges indicates that some types can serve as chrono-cultural markers. Possibly the oldest stone beads in the Levant are the trapezoidal pendants from El Wad Cave (FIG. 9: 1) (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. in press). Despite some doubt (Garrod and Bate 1937: 40) and based on archival information from Lambert’s test excavations, the raw material determined to be apatite, and the shape that resembles that of bone pendants from the same site, the beads appear to be Late Natufian. No parallels are known from other Natufian sites, so these trapezoidal pendants are interpreted as signature artifacts of the Natufians at El Wad (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al., in press). The final Natufian site of Eynan yielded a very large number of personal ornaments with over 100 stone beads in addition to numerous ornaments made of bone and shell (Valla et al. 2007: 357–360; Le Dosseur and Marećhal, in press). Most prominent among the beads of Eynan are disk beads that continue to be an important component throughout all periods. Although disk beads occur as early as the Upper Palaeolithic in a few locations in Africa and Asia, they are made of ostrich eggshell (Ambrose 1998; Bednarik 2011). Here, for the first time, they are made of stone as well as shell, but because these beads were in constant use from the time of their invention, they cannot serve as chronological markers.

138


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

Figure 9 Unique beads and pendants from various sites. 1) El-Wad cave; 2–4) Eynan; 5–6) Ramat Harif; 7) Abu Salem; 8) Hatoula; 9–11) Kefar Ha-Horesh; 12–13) Nahal Issaron; 14) Sha’ar Hagalon.

A type of pendant that typified the earliest assemblages is the oval double-holed pendant, which can serve as a chronological marker because it is confined to Final Natufian and early PPNA and Harifian sites that co-existed in the central and southern Levant (Goring-Morris 1991). This is a strong indicator of ties between populations from the upper and central Jordan Valley, the Judean Mountains, and the Negev highlands. Similar pendants are known from much later periods in Egypt (Andrews 1994: 71) where they are considered to imitate cowries. It is possible that this was indeed their function in the Levant during the transition to agriculture, when cowries also appear for the first time in significant numbers (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005). Oval double-holed pendants and cowrie beads might both represent fertility charms. Further support comes from the single artifact from Gilgal II (FIG. 8: 5) that is grooved and looks like a cowrie imitation. The oval double-holed pendants seem to be followed in time or replaced by large cylindrical beads. Cylindrical beads (that are longer than the disk beads) exhibit changes through time. The PPNA is characterized by a predominance of long cylinders, while in the PPNB, the cylinders are short or standard-sized. The latter group is highly variable

Bar-Yosef Mayer

in size, profile, and raw material. The differences could reflect either regional variability or different artisans. Only additional samples may clarify whether they are indeed different variants of the same type or should be separated to different categories. Long cylinders, and especially unperforated long cylinders, are made of the same raw material as the disk beads, primarily green apatite. Because the unperforated cylinders do not show any attempt at perforation, and they are most common in the Jordan Valley sites of Gilgal I, Gilgal III, and Netiv Hagdud. At Jericho, Wheeler (1983) may have been right in calling them amulets. In addition, their large size could indicate that in the PPNA raw material became more available, by comparison to the previous Final Natufian period. I have suggested elsewhere that green beads served as fertility charms that represent the hope for abundant crops amongst agriculturalists (Bar-Yosef Mayer and Porat 2008) and the significantly larger green beads of the PPNA could suggest the greater need for their use as charms. Cylindrical beads of varying lengths, but smaller than the PPNA examples overall, are known from much later periods and are made of glazed enstatite which is green in color (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2004; Bar-Yosef Mayer and Porat 2010), followed in still later periods by faience and then glass. Green beads that serve as fertility charms are also known in 20th century rural societies in the Levant (Mershen 1989), thus suggesting a continuation of the same concept. Short cylinders, with round, elliptical, rectangular, and lenticular transverse sections seem to characterize PPNB and PPNC assemblages. This is further supported by their presence in sites of the same period in Jordan where workshops of such beads have been discovered (Wright et al. 2008). Long beads with rhomboid longitudinal sections, which appeared for the first time in PPNB sites, are also known from later Chalcolithic sites (Bar-Yosef Mayer and Porat in press). They also appear at various sites in Syria and Mesopotamia, apparently dating from the 3rd to 2nd millennia B.C. (Lankton 2003). Thus, rhomboid beads cannot serve as chronological markers. Because of their very thin and long holes, they resemble ‘‘butterfly’’ beads, which are better known from the northern Levant (Cos¸kunsu 2008) and which also date to the end of the PPNB. Yet because these are robust beads one should consider the possibility that at least some of the specimens found in later periods were heirlooms that could have been in use for many generations. Only future detailed research on beads in the archaeological record of the Levant can ascertain this. The manufacture of this type of bead requires


highly skilled artisans able to drill such long holes without breaking the beads or the drills. Highly skilled artisans of the PPNB produced other items as well, such as elongated and naviform blades and there seems to be a shift towards part-time or full-time artisans at that time (e.g., Khalaily et al. 2007; Marder et al. 2011). Uniquely shaped beads form 4% of the total number studied, which means that they are probably important components of material culture. This is not surprising as beads are non-utilitarian artifacts that are meant to be displayed. Displaying unique types probably signified such concepts as prestige, rank in society, and identity. A few examples include the double-holed pendant from Kefar Ha-Horesh (FIG. 9: 11), which somewhat resembles a group of pendants from the PPNB site of Ayn Abu Nukheyla in Jordan that have a ‘‘key-hole’’ shape (Spatz et al. in press).

Conclusions To conclude, the past two decades has seen a significant increase in studies of beads and other personal ornaments of different types from many regions around the globe. Further studies of beads from other regions and periods will provide additional insights into the lives of past societies, be they hunter-gatherers, farmers, pastoralists, or urban dwellers. Interactions among different societies are very often expressed in beads, especially when one looks at pastoralists who tend to wear especially large numbers of beads acquired from the urban world around them (Wiessner 1984). The case study presented here shows that there are clear trends in the use of personal ornaments during the Late EpiPalaeolithic and Neolithic periods of the Levant. The typological characteristics shed light on both chronological and cultural aspects of those societies. Further studies of beads and pendants from Natufian and Neolithic sites of the Levant will provide more information on changes through time. Careful scrutiny of the dating as well as the contexts in which the beads are discovered will provide additional chronological markers. The presence or absence of certain bead types can inform us about long distance contacts as the result of exchange of raw materials and finished products, the diffusion of ideas or the movement of artisans along specific routes, and the possible value of unique types either economic or symbolic. The future development of local or regional typologies of beads and their incorporation into regional studies may reveal cultural trends and local traditions that can assist us in the interpretation of the archaeological record in more detail. A typology of beads is a basic tool that provides the foundation for obtaining


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

139

Bar-Yosef Mayer


additional information on chronology, technology, and symbolism.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to the archaeologists who provided beads for study and for their permission to mention as yet unpublished data: Ofer Bar-Yosef, Ehud Galili, Yosef Garfinkel, Avi Gopher, Nigel Goring-Morris, Hamudi Khalaily, Avraham Ronen, François Valla, and Mina Weinstein-Evron. I also thank Natalia Gubenko, Mikki Sebbanne, Hava Katz, and Orit Shamir of the Israel Antiquities Authority for enabling the study of the beads of Hatoula and Nahal Hemar Cave. Debby Hershmann enabled the study of beads at the Israel Museum and Fawzi Ibrahim enabled the study of beads at the Rockefeller Museum. The beads of Jericho were studied in the U.K. with the assistance of Helen Whitehouse (Ashmolean Museum), Katherine Wright (University College London), and Anne Taylor (Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge). Thanks go to Naomi Porat, Geological Survey of Israel, for mineralogical analysis. Thanks also go to Yoram and Malka Weinberg and to J. J. Gotlieb for photography and Sapir Ad for illustrations and layout. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 62/05) and by the American School of Prehistoric Research at the Peabody Museum at Harvard University. Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer (Ph.D. 2000, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) is a researcher at the Zoological Museum, Steinhardt National Collections of Natural History, Tel Aviv University. She is also an associate of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University and a senior researcher at the Institute of Maritime Studies at the University of Haifa. She has been studying mollusk shells from archaeological sites in the Near East for the past 30 years, ranging from the Palaeolithic to historical periods. Over the last decade she has also studied stone bead assemblages in the Levant. Her research interests include the archaeozoology of mollusks, environmental reconstruction based on malacological assemblages, marine resources exploitation, technological innovations in shell and stone bead manufacture, beads as reflections of human cognitive abilities, past economies based on trade and exchange networks, and shellfish consumption.

References Allen, J., and Hector, V., eds. 2007. International Bead and Beadwork Conference. Istanbul: Rezan Has Museum. ´ lvarez Fernańdez, E., and O. Jo¨ris. 2008. ‘‘Personal Ornaments in A the Early Upper Paleolithic of Western Eurasia: An Evaluation of the Record,’’ Eurasian Prehistory 5: 31–44. Ambrose, S. H. 1998. ‘‘Chronology of the Later Stone Age and Food Production in East Africa,’’ Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 377–392. Amiran, R. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Massada Press.

140


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

Andrews, C. 1994. Amulets of Ancient Egypt. Austin: University of Texas Press. Balme, J., and K. Morse. 2006. ‘‘Shell Beads and Social Behaviour in Pleistocene Australia,’’ Antiquity 80: 799–811. Barthe´lemy de Saizieu, B. 2003. Les parures de Mehrgarh: Perles et pendentifs du neólithique preće´ramique a` la pe´riode pre´-Indus. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Barthe´lemy de Saizieu, B., and M. Casanova. 1991. ‘‘Semi-precious Stones Working at Mundigak: Carnelian and Lapis Lazuli,’’ South Asian Archaeology 11: 17–30. Bar-Yosef, D. E. 1991. ‘‘Changes in the Selection of Marine Shells During the Transition from the Natufian to the Neolithic,’’ in F. Valla and O. Bar-Yosef, eds., The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, 629–636. Bar-Yosef, O. 1998. ‘‘The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture,’’ Evolutionary Anthropology 6: 159–177. Bar-Yosef, O., and A. Belfer-Cohen. 1992. ‘‘From Foraging to Farming in the Mediterranean Levant,’’ in A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price, eds., Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Madison: Prehistory Press, 21–48. Bar-Yosef, O., and Y. Garfinkel. 2008. The Prehistory of the Land of Israel. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: Ariel. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E. 2005. ‘‘The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Paleolithic and Neolithic of the Levant,’’ Paleórient 31(1): 176–185. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E. 2008. ‘‘Dentalium Shells used by HunterGatherers and Pastoralists in the Levant,’’ Archaeofauna 17: 103–110. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E. 2010. ‘‘The Stone Beads of the Gilgal Sites,’’ in O. Bar-Yosef, A. N. Goring-Morris, and A. Gopher, eds., Gilgal: Early Neolithic Occupations in the Lower Jordan Valley, the Excavations of Tamar Noy. Oxford: Oxbow, 223– 237. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E. in press. ‘‘Sha’ar HaGolan Stone Beads Report,’’ in Y. Garfinkel and D. Rosenberg, eds., Sha’ar Hagolan Volume IV. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., and N. Porat. 2008. ‘‘Green Stone Beads at the Dawn of Agriculture,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 8548–8551. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., and N. Porat. 2010. ‘‘Glazed Steatite Paste Beads in the Chalcolithic of the Levant: Long Distance Trade and Manufacturing Processes,’’ in S. A. Rosen and V. Roux, eds., Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the ProtoHistoric and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant. Jerusalem: Centre de Recherche Français de Je´rusalem, 111– 123. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., and N. Porat, in press. ‘‘Stone beads at Peqi’in,’’ in Z. Gal, D. Shalem, and H. Smithline, eds., Peqi’in: A Late Chalcolithic Burial Cave, Upper Galilee, Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., N. Porat, Z. Gal, D. Shalem, and H. Smithline. 2004. ‘‘Steatite Beads at Peqi’in: Long Distance Trade and Pyro-Technology During the Chalcolithic of the Levant,’’ Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 493–502. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., N. Porat, and M. Weinstein-Evron. in press. ‘‘Natufian Green Stone Pendants from el-Wad: Characteristics and Cultural Implications,’’ in F. R. Valla and O. Bar-Yosef, eds., The Natufian Culture in the Levant II. Proceedings of the Second Natufian Conference, Paris 11–17 September 2009. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., B. Vandermeersch, and O. Bar-Yosef. 2009. ‘‘Shells and Ochre in Middle Paleolithic Qafzeh Cave, Israel: Indications for Modern Behavior,’’ Journal of Human Evolution 56: 307–314. Beck, C. W., I. B. Loze, and J. M. Todd, eds. 2003. Amber in Archaeology. Riga: Institute of the History of Latvia Publishers. Beck, H. C. 1928. ‘‘Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants,’’ Archaeologia, Second Series 1: 1–76. Bednarik, R. G. 2011. ‘‘About Ostrich Eggshell Beads,’’ The Bead Forum 59: 2–8. Bisson, M. S. 2000. ‘‘Nineteenth-Century Tools for Twenty-first Century Archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced,’’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1–48. ´ ditions du Bordes, F. 1979. Typologie du paleólithique. Paris: E Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

Bar-Yosef Mayer

Cos¸kunsu, G. 2008. ‘‘Hole-Making Tools of Mezraa Teleilat with Special Attention to Micro-Borers and Cylindrical Polished Drills and Bead Production,’’ Neo-Lithics 1: 25–36. d’Errico F., C. Henshilwood, M. Vanhaeren, and K. van Niekerk. 2005. ‘‘Nassarius kraussianus Shell Beads from Blombos Cave: Evidence for Symbolic Behaviour in the Middle Stone Age,’’ Journal of Human Evolution 48: 3–24. d’Errico, F., M. Vanhaeren, D. Barton, A. Bouzouggar, H. K. Mienis, D. Richter. 2009. ‘‘Additional Evidence on the Use of Personal Ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 109: 16051–16056. DeCorse, C. R., F. G. Richard, and I. Thiaw. 2003. ‘‘Toward a Systematic Bead Description System: A View from the Lower Falemme, Senegal,’’ Journal of African Archaeology 1: 77–110. Dubin, L. S. 2009. The History of Beads: From 100,000 B.C. to the Present. New York: Abrams. Enoch-Shiloh, D., and O. Bar-Yosef. 1997. ‘‘Salibiya IX,’’ in O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher, eds., An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, 13–40. Finlayson, B., S. Mithen, M. Najjar, E. Jenkins, and S. Smith. 2008. ‘‘New Excavations at WF16, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site in Southern Jordan,’’ Antiquity 83: 319. Garfinkel, Y., and D. Ben-Shlomo. 2009. ‘‘Part I: Analysis and Interpretation,’’ in Y. Garfinkel and D. Ben-Shlomo, eds., Sha’ar HaGolan, Vol. 2. The Rise of Urban Concepts in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1–45. Garrod, D. A. E., and D. M. A. Bate. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gilead, I. 2009. ‘‘The Neolithic-Chalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant: Late Sixth-Fifth Millennium Culture History,’’ in J. J. Shea and D. E. Lieberman, eds., Transitions in Prehistory: Essays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 335–355. Golovanova, L. V., V. B. Doronichev, and N. E. Cleghorn. 2010. ‘‘The Emergence of Bone-Working and Ornamental Art in the Caucasian Upper Paleolithic,’’ Antiquity 84: 299–320. Gopher, A. 1997. ‘‘Ground Stone Tools and Other Stone Objects from Netiv Hagdud,’’ in O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher, eds., An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Harvard University, 151–176. Gopher, A., R. Eyal, and D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer. 2012. ‘‘Stone and Clay Personal Ornaments from the Nahal Zehora Sites,’’ in A. Gopher, ed., Village Communities of the˙ Pottery Neolithic Period in the Menashe Hills, Israel: Archaeological Investigations at the Sites of Nahal Zehora. Monograph Series 29. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 1245–1254. Goring-Morris, A. N. 1991. ‘‘The Harifian of the Southern Levant,’’ in F. Valla and O. Bar-Yosef, eds., The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, 173–216. Goring-Morris, A. N., and A. Belfer-Cohen. 2011. ‘‘Neolithization Processes in the Levant: The Outer Envelope,’’ Current Anthropology 52: S195–S208. Grimaldi, D. A. 1996. Amber: Window to the Past. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Habu, J. 2004. Ancient Jomon of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hayden, B. 1984. ‘‘Are Emic Types Relevant to Archaeology?’’ Ethnohistory 31: 79–92. Higham, T., R. Jacobi, M. Julien, F. David, L. Basell, and R. Wood. 2010. ‘‘Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and Implications for the Context of Ornaments and Human Remains within the Chaˆtelperronian,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 20234–20239. Hopwood, L. 2012. ‘‘Bead Classification Methods: An Archaeological Case Study from a Shipwreck in Elmina, Ghana,’’ The Bead Forum, Newsletter of the Society of Bead Researchers 61: 1–12. Jerardino, A., and C. W. Marean. 2010. ‘‘Shellfish Gathering, Marine Palaeoecology and Modern Human Behavior: Perspectives from Cave PP13b, Pinnacle Point, South Africa,’’ Journal of Human Evolution 59: 412–424. Jernigan, E. W. 1978. Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest. Albuquerque: School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press.


Kay, P., and C. K. McDaniel. 1978. ‘‘The Linguistic Significance of the Meanings of Basic Color Terms,’’ Language 54: 610–646. Kenoyer, J. M. 1991. ‘‘Ornament Styles of the Indus Valley Tradition: Evidence from Recent Excavations at Harappa, Pakistan,’’ Paleórient 17(2): 79–98. Khalaily, H., O. Marder, and O. Barzilai. 2007. ‘‘An Early PrePottery Neolithic B Blade Cache from Motza, West of Jerusalem, Israel,’’ in L. Astruc, D. Binder, and F. Briois, eds., Technical Systems and Near Eastern PPN Communities. Antibes: Editions APDCA, 269–276. Kuhn, S. L., M. C. Stiner, D. S. Reese, and E. Gu¨leç. 2001. ‘‘Ornaments of the Earliest Upper Paleolithic: New Insights from the Levant,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 7641–7646. Kuijt, I., and A. N. Goring-Morris. 2002. ‘‘Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis,’’ Journal of World Prehistory 16: 361–438. Lankton, J. W. 2003. A Bead Timeline. Washington, D.C.: The Bead Society of Greater Washington. Le Dosseur, G., and C. Marećhal. in press. ‘‘The Bone Jewels and Decorated Items in Mallaha, from Early to Final Natufian,’’ in O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, eds., The Natufian Culture in the Levant II. Proceedings of the Second Natufian conference, Paris 11–17 September 2009. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. Lechevallier, M. 1994. ‘‘Les e´le´ments de parure et petits objets en pierre,’’ in M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen, eds., Le gisement de Hatoula en Judeé occidentale, Israe¨l. Jerusalem: Centre de Recherche Français de Je´rusalem, 227–232. McBrearty, S., and A. S. Brooks. 2000. ‘‘The Revolution That Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human Behavior,’’ Journal of Human Evolution 39: 453–563. McPherron, S. P., Z. Alemseged, C. W. Marean, J. G. Wynn, D. Reed, and D. Geraads. 2010. ‘‘Evidence for Stone-ToolAssisted Consumption of Animal Tissues Before 3.39 Million Years Ago at Dikika, Ethiopia,’’ Nature 466: 857–860. Marder, O., H. Khalaily, and I. Milevski. 2011. ‘‘Parallel Lives: Abu Ghosh and Yiftahel, Economic Strategies of Two PPNB Sites in the Southern Levant,’’ in E. Healey, S. Campbell, and O. Maeda, eds., The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. Berlin: Ex Oriente, 421–427. Marećhal, C. 1991. ‘‘Elements de parure de la fin du Natoufien: Mallaha niveau I, Jayroud 1, Jayroud 3, Jayroud 9, Abu Hureyra et Mureybet IA,’’ in O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla, eds., The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, 589–612. Marećhal, C., and H. Alarashi. 2008. ‘‘Les e´le´ments de parure de Mureybet,’’ in J. J. Iban˜ez, ed., Le site neólithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie du nord). En hommage a` Jacques Cauvin. BAR International Series 1843. Oxford: B.A.R., 575–617. Mershen, B. 1989. ‘‘Amulets and Jewelry from Jordan–A Study on the Function and Meaning of Recent Bead Necklaces,’’ Tribus 38: 43–58. Oxford Dictionaries. 2010. ‘‘Typology.’’ Oxford University Press. (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/typology). Petrie, W. M. F. 1899. ‘‘Sequences in Prehistoric Remains,’’ Journal of the Anthropological Institute 29: 295–301. Qu, T., O. Bar-Yosef, Y. Wang, and X. Wu. 2013. ‘‘The Chinese Upper Paleolithic: Geography, Chronology and TechnoTypology,’’ Journal of Archaeological Research 21: 1–73. Read, D. W. 1974. ‘‘Some Comments on Typologies in Archaeology and an Outline of a Methodology,’’ American Antiquity 39: 216–242. Read, D. W. 1989. ‘‘Intuitive Typology and Automatic Classification: Divergence or Full Circle?’’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 158–188. Riel-Salvatore, J. 2010. ‘‘A Niche Construction Perspective on the Middle–Upper Paleolithic Transition in Italy,’’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17: 323–355. Rollefson, G. O. 2001. ‘‘The Neolithic Period,’’ in B. MacDonald, R. M. Adams, and P. Bienkowski, eds., The Archaeology of Jordan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 67–105. Roux, V. 2000. Cornaline de l’Inde. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Rowan, Y., and J. Golden. 2009. ‘‘The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant: A Synthetic Review,’’ Journal of World Prehistory 22: 1–92. Schick, T. 1988. ‘‘Nahal Hemar Cave - Cordage, Basketry and Fabrics,’’ Atiqot 18: 31–43.


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

141

Bar-Yosef Mayer


Sciama, L. D. 1998. ‘‘Gender in the Making, Trading and Uses of Beads: An Introductory Essay,’’ in L. D. Sciama and J. B. Eicher, eds., Beads and Bead Makers: Gender, Material Culture and Meaning. Oxford: Berg, 1–46. Simmons, A. H. 2007. The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Spatz, A., D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, A. Nowell, and D. O. Henry. in press. ‘‘Ornaments of Shell and Stone: Social and Economic Insight,’’ in D. O. Henry, ed., The Sands of Time: The Desert Neolithic Settlement at Ayn Abu¯ Nukhayla. Berlin: Ex Oriente. Taborin, Y. 1993. La parure en coquillage au paleólithique. Paris: CNRS Editions. Taborin, Y. 2004. Language sans parole: La parure aux temps pre´historiques. Paris: La Maison des Roches. Tait, H., ed. 1986. 7000 Years of Jewellery. London: British Museum Press. Valla, F. R., H. Khalaily, H. Valladas, E. Kaltnecker, F. Bocquentin, T. Cabellos, et al. 2007. ‘‘Les fouilles de Ain Mallha (Eynan) de 2003 a` 2005: Quatrie`me rapport pre´liminaire,’’ Journal of the Israel Prehistoirc Society 37: 135– 383. Vanhaeren, M., and F. d’Errico. 2006. ‘‘Aurignacian EthnoLinguistic Geography of Europe Revealed by Personal Ornaments,’’ Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1105–1128. Vanhaeren, M., F. d’Errico, C. Stringer, S. L. James, J. A. Todd, and H. K. Mienis. 2006. ‘‘Middle Paleolithic Shell Beads in Israel and Algeria,’’ Science 312: 1785–1788. Vigne, J., F. Briois, A. Zazzo, G. Willcox, T. Cucchi, S. Thie´bault, I. Carre`re, Y. Franel, R. Touquet, C. Martin, C. Moreauf, C. Comby, and J. Guilaine. 2012. ‘‘First Wave of Cultivators

142


2013

VOL .

38

NO .

2

Spread to Cyprus at Least 10,600 years ago,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 8445–8449. Wheeler, M. 1983. ‘‘Greenstone Amulets,’’ in K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland, eds., Excavations at Jericho V. Jerusalem: British School of Archaeology, 781–787. White, R. 1992. ‘‘Beyond Art: Toward an Understanding of the Origins of Material Representation in Europe,’’ Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 537–564. White, R. 2007. ‘‘System of Personal Ornamentation in the Early Upper Paleolithic: Methodological Challenges and New Observation,’’ in P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, and C. Stringer, eds., Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 287–302. Wiessner, P. 1984. ‘‘Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study Among the Kalahari San,’’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3: 190–234. Wright, K., and A. Garrard. 2003. ‘‘Social Identities and the Expansion of Stone Bead-Making in Neolithic Western Asia: New Evidence from Jordan,’’ Antiquity 77: 267–284. Wright, K. I., P. Critchley, and A. Garrard. 2008. ‘‘Stone Bead Technologies and Early Craft Specialization: Insights from Two Neolithic Sites in Eastern Jordan,’’ Levant 40: 131– 165. Zilhaõ, J., D. E. Angelucci, E. Badal-Garcıá, F. d’Errico, F. Daniel, and L. Dayet. 2010. ‘‘Symbolic Use of Marine Shells and Mineral Pigments by Iberian Neandertals,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 1023– 1028.