Stone Bead Technologies and Early Craft
Specialization: Insights from Two Neolithic
Sites in Eastern Jordan
Katherine I. Wright, Pat Critchley and Andrew Garrard
With contributions by Douglas Baird, Roseleen Bains and Simon Groom
What social groups were involved in Neolithic craft production? What was the nature of early forms
of craft specialization, long before urban economies evolved? One way to look at this is to
investigate manufacture of Neolithic prestige goods. Seasonal camps in Wadi Jilat (eastern
Jordan) revealed unusually detailed evidence for manufacture of stone beads: debris, blanks,
finished beads, and tools for drilling, sawing and abrasion. The material is ‘Dabba Marble’, a
metamorphic rock of which the major source is nearby. This article describes lapidary technology
at Jilat 13 and Jilat 25, equivalent in age to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC). Mineral-chemical
characterization data on Dabba Marble are presented. These sites raise issues about early craft
specialization. These beadmakers seem to have been master craftsmen/women. We suggest that
these sites illustrate a particular form of ‘site specialization’, namely sites located in remote
territories and focused on special materials and intensive production of prestige goods. However,
these craft activities were also embedded in hunting, herding and, perhaps, ritual, as suggested
by figurines and pillars.
Keywords: technology, specialization, Neolithic, stone beads, Levant, Jordan
Introduction
The Neolithic in the Near East involved a technological revolution which included expansions in the use
of stone, clay and plaster. The social significance of
this expansion is still not understood. One example is
stone bead-making, which began to expand in the
Late Epipalaeolithic (cf. Natufian) and expanded
much further in the Neolithic. From the perspective
of use, personal ornaments have much potential for
questions about social identity and the body as a
medium of enculturation (Bourdieu 1977, 94). Dress
expresses and reproduces social identities such as
gender, age and group affiliation (Barnes and Eicher
1992; Eicher 1995; Meskell 2001; Sciama and Eicher
1998; Sorenson 1997; Treherne 1995).
However, from the perspective of manufacture, key
technical questions are still unanswered. Detailed
data on Neolithic stone bead-making may permit us
to identify individual artisans, skills, choices, chaines
operatoires (Roux et al. 1995; Vidale et al. 1992), and
help us to understand craft specialization better in its
earlier stages, as opposed to the later version seen in
urban societies (Kenoyer 1992a; Roux and Matarasso
1999; Vidale 1989).
One goal of this paper is to present the lapidary
techniques revealed in two Jordanian manufacturing
sites of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C / early Late
Neolithic (PPNC/ELN). A second goal is to consider
these data in terms of early forms of craft specialization. We consider issues of individual specialists,
specialist households and regional specialist sites.
Finally, we consider how these data relate to other
information on Neolithic stone beadmaking in the
southern Levant.
Stone Beads and the Near Eastern Neolithic
Katherine I. Wright (corresponding author), Pat Critchley, Andrew Garrard,
Roseleen Bains and Simon Groom, Institute of Archaeology, University
College London, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK; email:
[email protected]. Douglas Baird, School of Archaeology, Classics and
Egyptology, University of Liverpool, Abercromby Square, Liverpool, UK
ß Council for British Research in the Levant 2008
Published by Maney
DOI 10.1179/175638008X348016
In the Near East, stone beads are exceedingly rare in
pre-Natufian sites. Even in the Natufian, ornaments
made of shell, bone and teeth greatly outnumber
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
131
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Figure 1 Map of the southern Levant showing sites and raw material sources mentioned in the text
stone beads, and stone beads are known only from
selected sites (e.g., Bar-Yosef-Mayer 1991; Larson
1978; Maréchal 1991; Moore 2000; Reese 1991; Valla
et al. 2004). In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B,
stone ornaments expand widely in numbers and
forms (e.g., Critchley 2007; Gopher 1997; Talbot
1983; Wheeler 1983). From the PPNC onward, there
are hints of expanding trade networks in stone beads
(e.g., Wright and Garrard 2003; cf. Bar-Yosef Mayer
et al. 2004; Diamanti 2003; Dubin 1995; Hamilton
2005; Jackson 2005; Wright 2008; Wright 2006).
Neolithic stone beads are often found in contexts of
use or discard (houses, middens, graves). Of manufacturing areas and production techniques, we have
mostly brief reports (Berna 1995; Fabiano et al. 2004;
Finlayson and Betts 1990; Garfinkel 1987; Gorelick
and Gwinnett 1990; Hauptmann 2004; Jensen 2004;
Kaliszan et al. 2002; Rollefson 2002; Rollefson and
Parker 2002). We know more about other regions
(Barthelmy de Saizieu and Bouquillon 1994) or later
periods (e.g., Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2004; Calley
1989). How were Neolithic stone beads made? What
variations of material and technique do we see?
Substantial evidence on one tradition comes from
sites of the Jilat-Azraq project, eastern Jordan
(Fig. 1). A preliminary description of bead assemblages and typology has appeared (Wright and
132
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
Garrard 2003). Here we present details of manufacturing technology from two production sites, Jilat 13
and Jilat 25 (Fig. 2), equivalent in age to the PPNC
or ELN (c. 6950–6400 cal BC).
The Sites
Wadi Jilat lies in limestone steppe 30–40 km east of
the present-day margins of the Levantine Corridor,
where rain-fed cultivation is possible and where large
Neolithic villages emerged (Fig. 1). Azraq Oasis is
50 km north-east of Jilat, between limestone and
basalt steppe-desert. In this work, 18 Palaeolithic and
Neolithic sites were excavated (Baird et al. 1992;
Garrard et al. 1986; 1987; 1994a; 1994b; 1996;
Garrard 1998; Garrard in preparation; Garrard and
Byrd 1992).
Bone and shell beads were found at the majority of
the 10 late Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic
sites investigated, but no stone beads were discovered
— even at Azraq 18, which is a Natufian site. This
may be an accident of sampling/discovery; as some
Natufian sites have significant numbers of stone
beads (D. Bar-Yosef Mayer, personal communication; Cauvin 1974; Maréchal 1991; Moore 2000;
Valla et al. 2004). However, at the time of writing, no
stone beads have been found at pre-PPNB sites in
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Figure 2 (a) Plan of Wadi Jilat 13 Late Phase. Note location of workslab in the centre-left area of the oval structure; (b)
Plan of Wadi Jilat 25 Area A structure
eastern Jordan (Richter et al. 2008; T. Richter,
personal communication).
All eight Neolithic sites revealed stone bead
production, along with shell and bone beads. The
sites date to the PPNB (e.g., Jilat 7, 26, 32; Azraq
31) and PPNC/ELN (Azraq 31, Jilat 13 and 25). The
other two are ‘burin sites’ of either LPPNB or
PPNC/ELN age (Jilat 23, 24) (Garrard et al. 1994b).
All of these sites were seasonal camps of small
groups engaged in varying combinations of
hunting, trapping, foraging, cultivating, herding
(Garrard et al. 1996; Martin 1999). They lived in
shelters constructed of upright limestone slab
foundations.
The Neolithic sites yielded 10,547 artefacts of stone
beads or related debris from secure contexts. About
88% of these came from Jilat 13 and Jilat 25
(Table 1). They include finished ornaments, unfinished roughouts and bead blanks, and debitage
(Tables 2–5). Densities of beads, blanks and debris,
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
133
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Table 1 Summary of Dabba Marble artefacts at Jilat 13 and Jilat 25 (see also Wright and Garrard 2003, 279–80)
Jilat 13
Jilat 13
Jilat 25
Jilat 25
Artefact Category
Raw frequency (N)
Weight (grams)
Raw frequency (N)
Weight (grams)
Finished beads
(secure contexts)
Finished beads
(surface/mixed contexts)
Roughouts and blanks
(secure contexts)
Roughouts and blanks
(surface/mixed contexts)
Debitage
(secure contexts)
(5 all debitage from nodules
to microflakes and shatter)
TOTAL (secure contexts)
TOTAL (secure contexts
z beads and blanks from surface/mixed)
144
60
115
62
12
no data
4
no data
180
222
89
82
43
no data
4
no data
7369
6905
1381
976
7693
7748
7187
1585
1593
1120
and other data, indicate intensification of stone
beadmaking in PPNC/ELN sites in the Jilat-Azraq
region, relative to the PPNB (Wright and Garrard
2003). It is of interest that this coincides with the first
appearance of domestic sheep-goat in the Jilat sites
(see Garrard et al. 1996; Martin 1999).
Stratigraphy, site formation, and chronology of
Jilat 13 and 25 are discussed in more depth elsewhere
(Garrard et al. 1994a; Wright and Garrard 2003). The
sites were excavated as part of a regional programme
and areas of excavation vary. At Jilat 25, surface
artefacts extended across an area of 3200 sq m. From
the surface, one oval upright-slab structure (7 x
4.5 m) was visible (Fig. 2b). About 50% of this was
excavated, an area of 21 sq m and a total volume of
7.8 cu m. Three occupation phases were identified.
The early phase included an occupation fill (Aa19)
rich in primary refuse; this yielded a date of 8020 ¡
80 uncal BP (OxA-2408). Above this, the middle
phase involved addition of bins and hearths and
accumulation of an ashy occupation fill (Aa15), also
rich in primary refuse. A final occupation fill (Aa7)
accumulated and the building was filled with rubble
followed by a deposit of sand, which sealed the layers
below (Table 6). In each phase, artefact clusters on
occupational surfaces and within their fills were
identified, via 1 x 1 m horizontal units (i, ii, etc.);
we discuss these clusters selectively here. The chipped
stone assemblage from Jilat 25 is characterized by
debitage dominated by flakes, although both flake
and blade cores were found. However, 84–85% of
tools were made on blades. Prominent tools include
Nizzanim points (the sole point type), burins, drill
bits made from burin spalls, and other types (Baird
1993, 469, 521; Baird in Garrard et al. 1994a, 85,
table 1). Further details on the chipped stone
134
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
assemblages are available in a number of works
(Baird 1993; 1994; 1995; 2001a; 2001b).
Surface artefacts at Jilat 13 extended across an 800
sq m area. One large oval upright-slab building (10 x
6.5 m) was visible at surface. Almost all of this was
excavated, an area of 73.5 sq m (Fig. 2a). Three
phases were identified. In the early phase, the
excavated volume of deposit was 14.5 cu m; the
structure was built, and primary occupation deposits
accumulated, then a pavement was laid down in the
western area and hearths were constructed in the
south and east. Dates from this phase were 7920 ¡
100 uncal BP (OxA-1800) and 7870 ¡ 100 uncal BP
(OxA-1801). The middle phase exposed 8.7 cu m of
deposit and yielded no C14 dates. An interior
partition wall separated the western end of the
building and pits and stone-lined hearths were added
in the eastern area. The late phase, of which 17.4 cu m
of deposit was excavated, yielded two dates of 7900
¡ 80 uncal BP (OxA-2411) and 7830 ¡ 90 uncal BP
(UB-3462). At this time a new upper pavement was
added above a rubble foundation. In the western area
a large workbench, with evidence of drilling, abrasion
and flaking, is associated with this phase (Figs 2a,
14c). Primary refuse was found in all phases (selected
contexts are shown in Table 7), but the stratigraphy
is more complex than at Jilat 25. In the chipped stone
assemblage at Jilat 13, each phase revealed a
bladebased assemblage with blades or bladelets
making up 57% of debitage. Most tools are made
on blades (78–81% of all tools are blade based).
Major tool types include projectile points, burins,
piercers and drills, scapers and endscrapers, notches
and denticulates, and bifacial tools such as tile
knives. In the early phase, for which we have most
detailed information, burins and points are the most
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
-
Beads - N
Beads - %
Blanks - N
Blanks - %
Disc beads
Ring beads
Oval beads
Cylinder beads
Barrel beads
Irregular beads
Indeterminate or
fragment
Pendants - triangular
Pendants trapezoidal
Pendants - oval
Pendants rectangular
Pendants - square
Pendants - teardrop
Pendants - other or
indeterminate
Bracelets
6
1
24
20?2
1
6
1
9
38
40?9
4
1
21
Blanks
-N
Beads
-N
12
Green
Dabba
Marble
Green
Dabba
Marble
70
58?8
3
67
Beads
-N
Red
Dabba
Marble
Table 2 Beads and blanks: Jilat 25 (all contexts)
40
43?0
1
39
Blanks
-N
Red
Dabba
Marble
6
5?0
4
2
Beads
-N
Black
Dabba
Marble
10
10?8
10
Blanks
-N
Black
Dabba
Marble
14
11?8
7
7
Beads
-N
White
Chalk
4
4?3
4
Blanks
-N
White
Chalk
5
4?2
5
Beads
-N
White
Quartzite
1
1?1
1
Blanks
-N
White
Quartzite
0
0?0
Beads
-N
Other
Blanks
-N
Other
119
100?0
7
1
1
1
12
95
2
Beads
-N
Total
100?0
5?9
0?8
0?8
0?8
10?1
79?8
1?7
Beads
-%
Total
93
100?0
4
1
6
7
75
Blanks
-N
Total
100?0
4?3
1?1
6?5
7?5
80?6
Blanks
-%
Total
Wright et al.
Levant
2008
Stone Bead Technologies
VOL
40
NO
2
135
136
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
Disc beads
Ring beads
Oval beads
Cylinder beads
Barrel beads
Irregular beads
Indeterminate /
fragment
Pendants - triangular
Pendants - trapezoidal
Pendants - oval
Pendants - rectangular
Pendants - square
Pendants - teardrop
Pendants - other
/ indeterminate
Bracelets
TOTAL - Beads - N
TOTAL - Beads - %
TOTAL - Blanks - N
TOTAL - Blanks - %
94
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
2
62
40.4
1
1
57
1
36
202
90.6
11
1
36
Blanks
-N
Beads
-N
7
2
Green
Dabba
Marble
Green
Dabba
Marble
68
43.6
3
13
40
12
Beads
-N
Red
Dabba
Marble
Table 3 Beads and blanks: Jilat 13 (all contexts)
11
4.9
2
1
8
Blanks
-N
Red
Dabba
Marble
20
12.8
1
4
10
5
Beads
-N
Black
Dabba
Marble
4
1.8
1
1
2
Blanks
-N
Black
Dabba
Marble
1
0.6
1
Beads
-N
White
Chalk
2
0.9
2
Blanks
-N
White
Chalk
1
0.6
1
Beads
-N
White
Quartzite
0
0.0
Blanks
-N
White
Quartzite
3
1.9
1
2
Beads
-N
Other
4
1.8
1
2
1
Blanks
-N
Other
0
155
100.0
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
7
59
20
0
4
54
0
Beads
-N
Total
0.0
100.0
0.6
1.3
1.3
0.6
0.6
1.3
1.3
38.1
12.9
0.0
2.6
34.8
0.0
4.5
Beads
-%
Total
223
100.0
0
11
1
1
0
0
1
0
96
49
0
0
1
62
1
Blanks
-N
Total
100.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
4.9
22.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
27.8
0.4
43.0
Blanks
-%
Total
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Table 4 Finished disc beads: size data (complete or measurable beads) (na 5 not applicable)
Diameter (mm)
Height/Thickness (mm)
Perforation Diameter (mm)
Site
N
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Jilat 7 PPNB
Jilat 26 PPNB
Jilat 32 PPNB
Azraq 31 PPNB
Jilat 25 PPNC/ELN
Jilat 13 PPNC/ELN
Azraq 31 PPNC/ELN
13
0
0
2
66
47
34
8.7
na
na
9.8
8.3
6.9
6.8
3.6
na
na
4.6
1.6
2.4
1.6
3.0
na
na
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.8
na
na
1.4
0.8
0.9
1.1
2.8
na
na
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.0
na
na
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
frequently occurring types: burins constitute 29% of
tools and points 16%. Piercers and drills occur in
much lower numbers (4% of tools), as do other tool
types. Of projectile points, Nizzanim points are the
most frequent (39.7% of points), followed by Byblos
(31.3%), Herzeliya (12%), Amuq (8.4%), Transverse
(6%) and Haparsah (2.4%) points (Baird 1993, 469,
500–17, 625; Baird in Garrard et al. 1994a, 85,
table 1).
The 14C dates from these two sites have been
recalibrated using IntCal 2004 and the date ranges at
one standard deviation are as follows: Jilat 25 (early
phase) context Aa19a (OxA2408) 5 9020–8760 cal
BP; Jilat 13 (early phase) context A21a (OxA1800) 5
8980–8600 cal BP; Jilat 13 (early phase) context A15a
(OxA1801) 5 8980–8550 cal BP; Jilat 13 (late phase)
context C24 (OxA2411) 5 8980–8590 cal BP; Jilat 13
(late phase) context C22 (UB3462) 5 8780–8460 cal
BP.
Thus, stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates suggest
that we are dealing with two sites of reasonably good
temporal resolution, followed by abandonment and
sealing of primary refuse deposits. Five C14 dates
indicate occupation between about 7830 and 8020
uncal BP, with low standard deviations for each date.
In radiocarbon terms, this is about as precise as it
gets, and the two sites may overlap in time. However,
projectile points do suggest we are dealing with a
somewhat wider time span for the Jilat 13 sample
than the Jilat 25 sample.
Given different extents of excavation, comparisons
of these and other stone bead-making sites entail
challenges. Density data, however — as measured by
numbers of beads, blanks and debris per cu m volume
of excavated deposit — can be revealing. For
example, the PPNB occupations in Wadi Jilat (3
sites, 11 occupations) had low densities — an average
of 10.72 artefacts per cu m, and a maximum of 31.3
per cu m (Wright and Garrard 2003, table 2). In
contrast, the density data for Jilat 25 are 222.3 per cu
m (early phase), 331.2 per cu m (middle phase) and
56.2 per cu m (late phase). Density data for Jilat 13
are 310.2 stone bead artefacts per cu m (early phase),
161.5 per cu m (middle phase) and 109.9 per cu m
(late phase). This suggests greater intensity of beadmaking in Jilat 13 and 25.
Sources, Quarrying and Raw Materials
Most Jilat beads were made of Dabba Marble, which
occurs in green, pink/red, and black (Appendix A).
This is our focus here. A few other materials were also
used: other local sedimentary rocks and non-local
turquoise (nearest source Sinai), malachite (nearest
sources Faynan and Timna) and carnelian (nearest
source unknown). Non-local stones formed only 0.15%
of the materials (Wright and Garrard 2003).
The largest known sources of Dabba Marble lie
15–25 km west of Jilat 13 and 25; some may be
closer (Fig. 1 and Appendix A). These are bodies of
limestones, chalks and cherts, lightly metamorphosed
Table 5 Finished barrel beads: size data (complete or measurable beads) (na 5 not applicable)
Diameter (mm)
Height/Thickness (mm)
Perforation Diameter (mm)
Site
N
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Jilat 7 PPNB
Jilat 26 PPNB
Jilat 32 PPNB
Azraq 31 PPNB
Jilat 25 PPNC/ELN
Jilat 13 PPNC/ELN
Azraq 31 PPNC/ELN
1
2
0
1
6
28
13
4.5
7.5
na
11.5
6.3
6.8
10.9
na
na
na
na
1.4
2.8
5.6
4.0
6.5
na
10.0
6.4
7.1
13.3
na
na
na
na
1.7
3.9
9.1
1.5
2.5
0.0
4.0
2.1
2.2
2.9
na
na
na
na
0.9
0.9
0.9
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
137
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
and injected with various minerals, e.g. apatites, red
iron oxides (Fig. 3a). Outcrops show substantial
variations in mineralization even over small areas;
in Fig. 3b, the left side of the outcrop is soft green
Dabba Marble; the right side is red Dabba Marble.
The geology and mineralogy of Dabba Marble are
presented in Appendices A–B. The Neolithic Jilat
beads are consistent with this source (Appendix B).
Methods of Analysis
Comprehensive recovery of small beads, debitage and
micro-artefacts was possible due to intensive, finescale sieving. All excavated contexts were sieved
through a 5 mm mesh; many samples were dry sieved
or wet sieved through a 1.5 mm mesh (the latter after
flotation). Artefacts from floors were collected from 1
sq m horizontal grid units, to permit identification of
activity areas. Fine-grained spatial data and microartefacts are important in understanding lithic
technologies (Dunnell and Stein 1989; Cessford and
Mitrovic 2005). This is borne out by the Jilat data,
since micro-flakes are one byproduct of stone bead
retouch. In cases of intense housecleaning, microartefacts may reveal bead-making where macroartefacts do not (Wright and Bains 2007).
For each context, artefacts were separated by raw
material and classified into major groups: nodules
and debitage (Fig. 4), roughouts (Fig. 5), unfinished
blanks, and finished ornaments (Figs 6–10). We
counted and weighed each group to determine
relationships between debitage and finished beads.
Measurements (diameter, height, perforation diameter) were taken on beads and blanks, to assess
standardization and drilling techniques.
Finished ornaments were classified into 8 basic
types (Wright and Garrard 2003). Circular disc beads
are the most numerous, smallest, and most standardized (Figs 6d, 7e–f). They occur in the widest range
of materials; most red Dabba Marble beads were
discs. Barrelshaped beads are larger, more variable
and mostly made of green Dabba Marble (Fig. 9e–f).
Pendants are the largest, rarest and most diverse
items, shaped as triangles, rectangles and ovals; most
are of green Dabba Marble (Fig. 10d, f). Bracelets
were made of white chalk (Tables 2–3).
Unfinished beads (blanks) were classified according
to the same typology as finished beads, when the
intended final product could be ascertained (e.g., disc
blank) (Tables 2–3; Figs 6a–c, 7a–d, 8, 9a–d, 10c, e).
Within these categories, blanks were further classified
according to traces of flaking, grinding, perforation.
Figure 8 shows these stages for 3 sequences of disc
bead manufacture. Differences between Sequences A,
B and C are differences in the original blank (Stage 1:
thin flake, thick flake, tabular roughout) and presence
or absence of flaking retouch on edges (Stage 2).
Further analyses of sequences for these and other
bead types are still in progress.
Debitage was sorted into nodules, cores, roughouts, flakes, angular shatter, micro-flakes and
Table 6 Stone beads, blanks and debris, Jilat 25: all contexts
138
Phase Context Description
Beads Blanks Debris Comments / Selected associated artefacts
Early
Early
Early
Aa24
Aa27
Aa19
Fill of bedrock cut
Fill of bedrock cut
First occupation fill
0
0
29
0
0
23
2
1
384
Early
Early
Early
Early
Middle
Aa20
Aa21
Aa18
A 44
Aa15
First occupation fill
First occupation fill
Early fill in entrance area
Early fill in entrance area
Second occupation fill
1
4
1
0
47
5
1
5
0
31
6
4
8
3
544
Middle
Middle
Middle
Middle
Middle
Aa16
Aa13
Aa10
Aa11
Aa7
Hearth
Fill of stone feature
Fill of stone feature
Ash lense
Third occupation fill
1
1
0
3
17
1
0
0
0
15
0
81
3
17
109
Middle Aa8
Middle Aa14
Middle A 42
Third occupation fill
Fill in entrance area
Fill in entrance area
1
7
0
1
3
0
1
4
1
Late
Late
Late
Late
Late
Sandy late fill
Rubbly late fill
Late fill in entrance area
Late fill in entrance area
Fill of late intrusive feature
1
7
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
55
72
1
6
0
Levant
Aa 2
A6
A 33
A 36
A 34
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
1 cutmarked slab, 3 sandstone fragments,
probably handstones; 1 limestone handstone
1 limestone capstone; 1 grooved stone (basalt);
1 sandstone abrader
2 grooved stones (limestone and basalt);
2 basalt handstones; 1 sandstone fragment
1 sandstone abrader. Bead: 1 RDM disc. Debris: all GDM
Wright et al.
micro-shatter (Fig. 4). Definitions of these categories
are broadly similar to those established in chipped
stone analysis (Andrefsky 1998).
Flaking and Initial Reduction: Nodules, Cores,
Debitage and Roughouts
The soft limestone and hard chert in Dabba Marble
permits it to be worked via chipping, flaking,
grinding, sawing and drilling. To varying degrees,
the material has conchoidal fracture. Where chert
content is high, conchoidal fracture is excellent.
Limestone itself also has conchoidal fracture, particularly when fine-grained, as Dabba Marble is. The
tabular structure of the laminated limestones also
makes it possible to create flat faces easily.
The difficulty of shaping beads would have varied,
depending on specific material. Most green Dabba
Stone Bead Technologies
marble is fairly homogeneous, composed of calcite-rich
soft limestone (Mohs 5 3) and apatite (Mohs 5 5).
Red Dabba marble occurs in a soft pale pink variety
(Mohs 5 3–4); a dark pink variety of medium
hardness; and a dark red siliceous variety, essentially
red chert (Mohs 5 7). This red chert variant (Mohs 7)
will have been more difficult to modify. Flaking and
chipping were particularly important in working this
material, and abrasion will have been more difficult.
This may be why so many beads of the red, cherty
Dabba Marble were disc beads made on flakes (Fig. 7).
Flaking figured prominently in the making of
beads from softer materials. However, sawing and
abrasion played a greater role in modification of these
materials. Comparable variations in technique,
depending on material hardness, are seen at other
prehistoric sites (Gorelick and Gwinnett 1990).
Table 7 Stone beads, blanks and debris, Jilat 13: selected contexts
Phase
Context
Description
Beads
Blanks
Debris
Comments / Selected associated artefacts
Early
Early
Early
Early
C106
B77
B79
B71
Fill of bedrock cut
First occupation fill
Fill of hearth
Second occupation fill
0
1
0
10
0
5
0
11
1
752
6
750
1 circular limestone disk
Early
Early
Early
Early
A17
A15
A16
A18
Lower pavement
Third occupation fill
Third occupation fill
Third occupation fill
0
1
2
0
0
8
1
0
0
8
17
11
Early
Early
Early
Early
B44
B45
B69
C56
Third
Third
Third
Third
5
0
6
8
9
2
5
5
74
139
383
313
Middle
Middle
A3
A5
Fourth occupation fill
Fourth occupation fill
3
7
4
9
60
139
Middle
Middle
Middle
Middle
Middle
B31
B38
B54
B56
C39
Fourth
Fourth
Fourth
Fourth
Fourth
4
12
1
1
10
2
6
0
1
12
33
520
9
14
254
1 limestone figurine (bird?)
1 basalt grinding slab fragment
1 flint cutmarked slab; flaked limestone ’scraper’
Late
C14
0
5
65
1 basalt ground fragment
Late
Late
Late
B3
C4
A2
Foundation for upper
pavement
Upper pavement
Upper pavement
Fifth occupation fill
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
154
Late
B4
Fifth occupation fill
0
2
7
Late
B7
Fifth occupation fill
2
5
150
Late
Late
Late
B9
B21
C3
Fifth occupation fill
Fifth occupation fill
Fifth occupation fill
0
5
2
0
7
4
3
193
61
1 cutmarked limestone slab; 1 post-socket
1 drilling and abrading bench (Fig? 14c)
10 figurines or figurine preforms suggesting animals,
phalluses, arrows (flint, limestone, travertine). 1 pebble
mortar or capstone with ochre (limestone); 1 perforated
object, 1 handstone on flake (flint); 2 vessel fragments,
1 ochred pebble, burnt pebble (limestone); 1 ground
indeterminate stone (basalt). Beads are 2 barrels and
2 pendants; blanks are 1 barrel and 1 indeterminate
1 grooved limestone abrader (Fig 15c) Blanks are both
pendant blanks
1 cutmarked limestone; 1 basalt handstone/pestle
fragment
1 perforated pumice abrader
1 basalt handstone; 2 basalt fragments
occupation
occupation
occupation
occupation
fill
fill
fill
fill
occupation
occupation
occupation
occupation
occupation
fill
fill
fill
fill
fill
1 limestone handstone
1 drilled and grooved limestone object;
1 flaked limestone ’scraper’; 6 basalt fragments
1 cutmarked slab
1 worked limestone object; snake-shaped flint pebble
1 miniature pestle, basalt
Basalt fragments: 3 from vessels,
1 handstone/pestle fragment, 6 unidentifiable
1 basalt handstone fragment
No ground stone
1 double-grooved sandstone abrader (Fig? 15a)
1 limestone capstone (? 2 surfaces); 5 basalt fragments
1 cutmarked flint slab; 1 grooved limestone object;
ochred flints; figurines; pillars
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
139
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Figure 3 (a) View of the modern Dabba Marble quarry, west of Wadi Jilat, from which raw material samples were
obtained (see Appendices A–B); (b) Close-up view of metamorphosed deposits in situ, with interdigitating green
(left) and red (right) Dabba Marble
Five main stages of manufacture were identified,
although reduction sequences vary. These are (1)
reduction of raw nodules to cores, roughouts and
flakes, via flaking and chipping; (2) shaping of
roughouts and flakes into blanks, via further flaking,
chipping, sawing and rough grinding; (3) perforation,
via boring and/or drilling; (4) further grinding to
produce the final shape; (5) final polishing.
Nodules, cores and debitage were recovered in
large amounts at Jilat 13 (7369 artefacts, 6905 grams)
and Jilat 25 (1381 artefacts, 976 grams). The largest
unworked blocks are of green Dabba Marble. They
are about 15 cm in diameter, but most are about the
size of an adult human fist. Some nodules were
weathered, suggesting that they were picked up from
surface rather than quarried from bedrock layers
(Fig. 4, top).
Reduction of nodules by flaking resulted in (1)
cores, (2) tabular roughouts, (3) large flakes, (4) large
angular shatter fragments, (5) micro-flakes, and (6)
micro-shatter (Fig. 4). Cores, defined as nodules with
two or more flake scars, are not numerous or
consistent in form. Shatter, micro-flakes and microshatter were normally discarded as byproducts.
140
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
Tabular roughouts and larger flakes were used as
the basis for further reduction into bead blanks.
Roughouts are early stages in bead reduction
(Kenoyer 2003, 16). At Jilat 13 and 25, roughouts
are tabular, reflecting the bedded structure of the
material. They were flaked and chipped around the
edges into roughly symmetrical shapes (Figs 5a, 10a).
Roughouts were sometimes subjected to initial
drilling or sawing at an early stage, prior to any
intense abrasion (Fig. 5b). In other cases, roughouts
were abraded first (Fig. 5d) and then sawn or drilled
(Fig. 5c). Tabular roughouts were the basis for
making larger, thicker ornaments, such as most
pendants and barrel beads (Figs 9–10).
Small subcircular flakes were the basis of most disc
beads (Figs 6–7). The flakes have platforms, bulbs of
percussion on ventral surfaces, and often scars from
previous removals on dorsal surfaces. A certain
consistency in size, shape and morphology suggests
that a prepared-core technology was used to predict
and produce these flakes. Since cores are rare, we do
not yet know precisely how this was achieved.
Experiments are still needed, but we suspect that
chipping and flaking was accomplished by varying
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Clear indications of heat treatment were rare, but
burnt pieces do occur.
Sawing, Drilling and Abrasion: Bead Blanks and
Finished Beads
Figure 4 Example of raw material nodule (top), angular
shatter (upper centre), flakes (lower centre) and
micro-debitage (lower row) from a single context
at Jilat 13
uses of indirect percussion, soft-hammer percussion
and/or pressure flaking, since the small size of the
beads required precision. The use of antler or horn
for pressure flaking of soft stones is widely seen in the
ethnographic record and experimentally (Foreman
1978, 19). Even hard stones can be flaked with soft
hammers made of animal horn (Kenoyer 1986; 1994;
2003; Kenoyer et al. 1991). Cores and flakes do not
clearly indicate use of the Cambay technique of
inverse indirect percussion, as seen in carnelian beadmaking (Kenoyer 2003; Possehl 1981). Many blanks
display micro-retouch on the edges. On thicker disc
bead blanks, micro-flakes were removed by striking
downward at the edge of each bead face (Fig. 7c). The
retouch scars show that striking was bipolar, i.e. from
opposite directions. Products of this procedure were
micro-flakes (Fig. 4, bottom).
Bead blanks are the further reduction of a roughout
into a form closer to the final bead shape (Kenoyer
2003, 16). At Jilat 13 and 25, blanks were abandoned
at many different stages. The most extensive evidence
for lithic reduction concerns disc beads; it is possible
to identify some chaines operatoires (Fig. 8).
Figure 6 illustrates two of these paths, for green
Dabba Marble disc beads made on flakes.
Sometimes, circular flakes were perforated early,
before any abrasion (Fig. 6c). More often, flakes
were abraded slightly on ventral and dorsal surfaces,
before any drilling (Fig. 6a–b). At this stage, edges
were still rough. Perforation was added later (Fig.
6d). In such cases, a number of disc beads were
probably then strung together and abraded on the
edges, by rolling the string back and forth on abrasive
stones of varying textures, such as coarse sandstone,
fine sandstone, or limestone. The final products were
evenly smoothed disc beads, relatively standardized
in size. The procedure also resulted in edges that are
sharp, perpendicular to the bead faces, and flat rather
than convex (Figs 6d, 7e–f). Experiments indicate
that this procedure also contributes to the polishing
of faces and edges of beads (cf. Foreman 1978).
Figure 7 shows artefacts from one context at Jilat 25,
indicating a similar sequence for red Dabba Marble
disc beads, from subcircular flake to final disc.
For barrel beads, the starting point was typically
not a flake but a tabular roughout. A roughout was
often flaked into an approximately cylindrical form,
sometimes with a hexagonal transverse cross section
(that is, the section perpendicular to the perforation)
(Fig. 9a). Scars indicate that the hexagonal form was
accomplished by flaking. Sometimes, hexagonal
blanks were perforated before much abrasion (Fig.
9b). In many cases, hexagonal blanks were heavily
abraded to obliterate sharp angles before any
perforation was begun (Fig. 9c). Resulting bead
forms varied in cross section, from circular to
elliptical or lenticular (see Wright and Garrard
2003, fig. 3). Perforation of barrel beads was from
opposite directions, resulting in hourglass perforations (Fig. 9e) and, occasionally, perforation errors
(Fig. 9d).
Most pendants were begun as tabular roughouts
chipped into shapes anticipating the final form, such
as an asymmetrical triangular pendant (Fig. 10a, cf.
Fig. 5a for a rectangular pendant). Roughouts were
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
141
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
a
b
c
d
Figure 5 (a) Tabular roughout, rectangular; (b) Tabular roughout, subcircular, with drill mark; (c) Abraded roughout with
sawing mark at bottom; note that the sawing is incomplete; the groove and snap technique has resulted in both
the saw mark and an irregular protrusion of stone; (d) Abraded tabular roughout, subcircular
then abraded and sawing was sometimes applied (Fig.
10b). One unfinished pendant shows that perforation
preceded final abrasion (Fig. 10c). The most common
form is the asymmetrical triangular pendant (Fig.
10d), but there are also rectangular, square and oval
pendants. Not all pendants were made on tabular
roughouts; some were made on thin flakes, e.g.
rectangular and ‘teardrop’ forms (Fig. 10e–f).
Sawing
Disc beads were made individually, one by one, on
flakes, as opposed to being sawn from a perforated
cylinder, which is another possible way. However,
sawing was central to the production of pendants and
barrel beads (cf. Fig. 5c, 10b). In some cases, the
roughout was sawn only to a shallow depth,
permitting unwanted material to be snapped off,
leaving a protruding piece of stone — a kind of
groove and snap technique (Fig. 5c). The protruding
‘boss’ was then abraded.
142
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
A range of chipped stone tools in the sites might be
suitable for sawing. These include tabular chert knives,
sometimes also called tile knives (Fig. 11). These are
bifacially retouched cutting tools characteristic of the
eastern Jordanian Neolithic (Baird in Garrard et al.
1994a, 89). However, typically the bifacial retouch
produces an edge that is robust but somewhat sinuous
in profile (Fig. 11). In addition, many tile knife edges
have significant curvature in plan. Use of tile knives
would probably generate relatively wide and slightly
sinuous cut marks but this is an area worthy of
experimentation and use wear study. Alternative tools
that perhaps better match the relative scale and
precision of cut marks on bead blanks are a range of
relatively robust non-formal tools on blade or elongated flake blanks, with edges that are relatively
straight in profile and plan. These are found in some
numbers in conjunction with the bead making debris in
Jilat 13 and 25. It is also notable that despite the
purported dominance of flakes in many broadly
contemporary PPNC/ELN assemblages, significant
Wright et al.
a
b
c
d
Stone Bead Technologies
Figure 6 Green Dabba Marble disc bead blanks and finished beads. (a–b) Circular flakes, slightly abraded; (c) Unabraded
perforated flake; (d) Finished disc bead
proportions of Jilat 13 and Jilat 25 tool blanks are
blades (Baird 1993, 469 and figs 8.18–8.21) even
though the debitage assemblages are mostly flake
dominated. Other possible sawing tools include flaked
limestone artefacts with a thin edge (Fig. 12c).
Several cutmarked limestone slabs were found at
Jilat 13 and Jilat 25 (Fig. 12a–b). The cutmarks are
shallow or deep incisions. Interestingly, the cutmarked slabs do not display evidence of drilling.
Conversely, the Jilat 13 bench, with marks probably
resulting from drilling (Fig. 14c; see below), has no
cutmarks. This suggests segregation of drilling and
sawing activities. Some variability in spatial distribution of different stages in the bead making process
may be further borne out by the discrete distribution
of drills in Jilat 25 contexts where substantial bead
making debris was recovered. For example, in Jilat 25
Context A15, drills were found clustered in spatial
units towards the northern end of the structure.
evidence for drilling from bead perforations and
stone tools. Other experiments show that perforation
morphology reveals drilling methods and shape,
diameter and length of the drill used (e.g., Gwinnett
and Gorelick 1999). At Jilat, perforations indicate
that drilling methods varied and that choices were
probably affected by material hardness.
Drilling
Rotary Drilling From Two Directions, with Hafted Drills
Experiments in drilling of Dabba Marble are in
progress (Bains forthcoming). Here, we present
The most common method involved rotary drilling
from two directions. Drilling was almost always
Hand Drilling with Large Piercers and Borers
The simplest method used appears to have been hand
drilling. Soft Dabba Marble could have been drilled
using a borer or piercer held in the hand and not
hafted to a drilling stick. Drilling by this method
would produce rough, irregular and relatively large
perforations (Gorelick and Gwinnett 1990); we see
examples of this in broken beads. Borers and piercers
were found at the sites. They are relatively large
perforation tools made on blades, suitable for
manipulation by hand without a haft (Fig. 13, nos
9–11).
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
143
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
a
b
c
d
e
f
Figure 7 Red Dabba Marble disc bead blanks and finished beads from Jilat 25, Context Aa15. (a–b) Circular flakes,
slightly abraded; (c) Heavily abraded and perforated disc bead blank, edge abrasion incomplete; (d) Abraded
perforated blank, abrasion not complete on face; (e–f) Finished disc beads
bipolar. That is, the blank was drilled to roughly
halfway through, then turned and the perforation
completed from the opposite direction. As the two
perforations converged, the result was an hourglassshaped perforation (Fig. 9e). Experiments indicate
that this prevents chipping and flaking of the
alternate face which can occur if a blank is perforated
completely from only one direction (Possehl 1981).
Most hourglass perforations, on both soft and
hard stones, appear to have been produced by rotary
drilling. Rotary drilling results in regular perforations
and concentric striations on them (Gorelick and
Gwinnett 1990). We observed both traits on many
broken beads and blanks (Fig. 9b). Perforations of
hourglass form included very small drillholes, indicating that the drilling tools were smaller than
piercers and borers made on blades. The probable
drills in this case were small drills on bladelets, and
especially drill bits on burin spalls (Fig. 13, nos 1, 4,
5, 7). Microscopic examination of perforations is in
progress (Bains forthcoming).
144
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
Oddly, piercing and drilling tools were found in
relatively low absolute numbers at the two sites (e.g.,
Baird 1993, 505–06, 625; for Jilat 13 early phase,
about 4% of tools were piercers or drills; for the Jilat
25 which have concentrations of bead-making debris,
just under 3% of tools were spall drills). However,
specific contextual data, other technological considerations, and comparisons with other sites give us
confidence that these were the main tools involved in
the drilling, and that the low absolute numbers of
drills abandoned may sometimes relate to systematic
removal or discard of these tools by the artisans. For
example, burin spall drills were closely associated
spatially with bead-making debris in specific activity
areas in the Jilat 25 structure, e.g. Context Aa15, in
the building’s northern area (Baird 1993, 521; see
Table 6). In addition, Jilat 13 and 25 produced large
numbers of angle burins, including truncation burins,
from which burin spalls were detached (e.g., about
29% of all tools at J13’s early phase were burins)
(Baird 1993, 500, 516, 520–26, 625). Burins are
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Figure 8 Châines opératoires for disc beads. Sequence A refers to a disc bead made on a thin flake. Sequence B refers
to a disc bead made on a thick flake. Sequence C refers to a disc bead made on a tabular roughout, not a
flake
contextually closely associated with drills and beadmaking debris in occupation fills at Jilat 25 (c. 30% of
tools from relevant Jilat 25 contexts were burins) — a
situation also seen at Jebel Naja in the Basalt Desert —
where both experiments and microwear studies suggest
that drill bits on burin spalls were used for beadmaking (Baird 1993, 521; Finlayson and Betts 1990).
Burin spall drills would have had some technological advantages over bladelet drills. One advantage
is that the triangular or rectangular cross-sections of
burin spall drills make them stronger and less likely
to break during drilling. In addition, the manner of
their retouch from the same direction on each edge
creates a prismatic cross-section that probably served
to produce a neater hole and to make drilling more
efficient and possibly faster, and reduce breakage in
drilling. The tips of burin spall drills are blunted,
which is an advantage in drilling hard stone (Gorelick
and Gwinnett 1990). Predictability and miniaturization of burin spall drills may be relevant to an
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
145
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
a
b
c
d
e
f
Figure 9 Green Dabba Marble barrel bead blanks and finished beads. (a) Hexagonal blank, flaked but not abraded; (b)
Abraded hexagonal blank; (c) Abraded blank, not perforated; (d) Perforation error on abraded blank; (e)
Finished bead, broken, showing bipolar perforation and hourglass perforation shape; (f) Perforated barrel bead,
almost finished except for final abrasion to smooth out last surface irregularities
apparent increased standardization in perforation
size observed at Jilat 25 from an early phase to a later
phase (Critchley 2000).
Since we have evidence of rotary drilling from bead
perforations, we believe that drill bits were hafted to
sticks (probably made of wood). Drill bits on burin
spalls would have been too small to manipulate
effectively by hand alone.
To work efficiently, a drill needs to be weighted
and stabilized, and there must be some means of
protecting the artisan’s hand. Ground stone artefacts
support the idea that rotary drilling, with drill bits
hafted to drilling sticks, was in use. They include a
probable capstone, made of limestone, from Jilat 25.
The capstone would have been held in the hand,
enabling the beadmaker to manipulate the drilling
stick from the top (Fig. 14a). This artefact resembles
a miniature bowl and fits easily into one hand. The
interior surface displays use wear: circular striations
parallel to the rim and vertical striations perpendicular to the rim. The base of the interior converges to
a flat surface about 1 cm in diameter.
146
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
Some Levantine Neolithic sites have revealed
similar objects with similar wear (Banning 1998;
Wright 1992, fig. 5–15b), and a comparable item
was found at Jarmo (Moholy-Nagy 1983, fig. 129.13;
Gorelick and Gwinnett 1990, 30). Capstones are
characteristic of the use of bow drills (Banning
1998; Foreman 1978), but strictly speaking, they
are not necessarily diagnostic of the bow drill
(theoretically, simpler drilling techniques involving
hafting might have been facilitated by the use of
a capstone). For the moment, we can say that
at Jilat 13 and 15, the evidence for rotary drilling
is unequivocal. However, the evidence for the use
of the bow drill, while suggestive, is not quite
definitive.
Size data, considered carefully, support a link
between burin-spall drills and beads. To interpret
dimensions of drills and perforations, we must keep
in mind that stone bead drilling was overwhelmingly
bipolar and converging. Thus, drills did not have to
penetrate all the way through the full height of the
bead — only about half of it. Therefore, what matters
Wright et al.
a
b
d
e
Stone Bead Technologies
c
f
Figure 10 Green Dabba Marble pendant blanks and finished pendants. (a) Tabular roughout, flaked into approximately
trapezoidal shape, but not abraded; (b) Abraded trapezoidal blank with sawing mark at bottom; (c) Perforated
asymmetrical triangular pendant blank, incompletely abraded (note striations on face); (d) Finished asymmetrical triangular pendant; (e) Pendant blank made on a flake, unabraded; (f) Nearly-finished pendant made on a
flake
is the very tips of the drill bits — the upper few
millimetres — not the full length of the drills.
Since disc beads are consistently about 2.5 to
.
2 6 mm in height, only the upper 1.5 mm or so of the
drills — the most distal ends of the tips — had to
have been about 2.1 mm or less in thickness to
‘match’ the perforation diameters of disc beads
(Table 4). In the case of barrel beads, since barrel
beads were between 6.4 and 7.1 mm in height, about
3.2 to 3.6 mm of the most distal ends of the drill bits
have to have been about 2.1 mm or less in thickness
to ‘match’ the perforations of barrel beads (Table 5).
Measurements of the drill bit tips within these
small uppermost reaches show that the maximal
thicknesses of the drill bits’ distal tips fall within the
range of sizes indicated by the perforations (Fig. 13).
Multi-stage Drilling
Sometimes, drilling may have been accomplished in
several stages. Some beads, particularly those made of
harder stones, have smooth, cylindrical perforations
with parallel walls, displaying no hint of the
hourglass shape.
One way to achieve this is to create the hourglass
perforation, and then to turn it into a perfect
cylindrical perforation via the use of a second drilling
procedure. An example of this was cited by Calley
(1989), who proposed that two tools found in
carnelian bead workshops at Early Bronze Age
Kumartepe (Turkey) had complementary functions:
a drill bit for making the initial hourglass perforation,
and a borer for finishing and smoothing it into a
cylindrical perforation. Since both drill bits and
borers were found on the Jilat sites, this method of
finishing perforations could have been used.
At Jilat 13 and 25, evidence for multi-stage drilling
can be seen in some beads which have a depression on
one or both faces. The depression may be a result of
drilling with a larger drill bit first, in order to provide
a guide for the final perforation with a finer drill bit.
Such a technique is seen in India-Pakistan (Possehl
1981, 39; Kenoyer 1992b, 73).
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
147
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
wooden frame with cup-holes is sometimes used for
stabilizing beads (Kenoyer 1986; P. Wright 1982).
The holes are filled with beeswax and clay; the bead is
inserted into the wax-clay mixture, which hardens,
holding the bead steady. After drilling, beads are
released by breaking the wax-clay mixture (Allchin
1979; Stocks 1989). As wood was probably scarce in
Jilat, and as there are no indications of the use of
clay, we can probably rule out this technique.
However, stone items with cup-holes are seen in
Neolithic sites (Kirkbride 1966; Wright 1992,
fig. 5.27b).
Abrasion
Figure 11 Chipped stone artefacts from Jilat Neolithic
sites. Tile knives, or possible saws for beadmaking. From Baird 1993, fig. 8.5
Stabilizing Beads: Anvils and Drilling Benches
What method was used to stabilize a bead during
drilling? The simplest technique is to fix a bead to a
stone anvil with an adhesive. Ethnography and
experiments show that such anvils can be small (the
size of handstones) (Foreman 1978, figs 6–7). Use of
such an anvil should result in small, shallow
depressions, a form of use-damage resulting from
force exerted from above. Figure 14b shows a small
flat stone from Jilat 25, with a central depression of
the expected size and depth.
Figure 14c shows the limestone bench from Jilat 13
(previously discussed), with a number of such pits in
the centre. The marks are evenly spaced and are
concentrated in one small well-defined area on the
widest part of the bench; this wide area was also
finely abraded.
We see this bench as a multifunctional worktable/
anvil. We suspect that the beadmaker sat on the
narrow part of the bench (straddling it), placed bead
blanks on the pitted work surface, fixed them with
adhesive, and then drilled them. The bench also
displays evidence of other activities, including flaking
and grinding.
Adhesives for hafting chipped stone tools could
have been adapted for use in fixing beads to anvils.
Bitumen would be one candidate. In some cultures, a
148
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
Ground stone artefacts are crucial to bead production in traditional technologies (Foreman 1978;
Inizan et al. 1992; Kenoyer et al. 1991, 53; MoholyNagy 1983, 294; Roux and Matarasso 1999, 57–58).
Grinding of beads can be achieved by abrading
each bead individually, with a hand held abrader, or
by rubbing them on a large grinding slab. Either
method will produce linear striations of the type we
see on many unfinished beads (cf. Figs 7c–d and 10c).
However, final shaping of disc and cylindrical beads
was most likely achieved by stringing them or loading
them on to a thin rod capable of penetrating the
perforation (individually or in groups), and then
rolling them on a grinding slab, adding abrasives
(such as sand) and water to produce a smoother finish
(Foreman 1978; Moholy-Nagy 1983, 298). Some disc
beads, with parallel edges perpendicular to the faces,
would probably have been rolled on a flat, smooth
stone. Other beads, with facetted, sharply angled or
bevelled edges (e.g. many barrel beads), suggest that
they were rolled or abraded along a stone with
grooves and slanting sides (e.g., Fig. 15a, c).
Abrasion of bead blanks may have been a multistage process, involving a number of materials of
different textures and hardness. In an early stage,
grinding of bead materials on vesicular basalt would
have been the easiest way to abrade a large nodule
quickly. The pores of vesicular basalt and pumice
form natural cutting ‘teeth’, comparable to the metal
rasp used by present-day sculptors. At Jilat 13 and
Jilat 25, we found broken fragments of vesicular
basalt grinding slabs, but not large complete examples. The small fragments suggest two possibilities:
either there were large, complete slabs at one time,
which were then broken, worn out and discarded; or
only small fragments of these heavy duty grinding
tools were needed.
For finer abrasion, sandstone grinding slabs might
be expected. None were found. However, small
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
a
b
c
Figure 12 Ground stone artefacts probably for beadmaking in Jilat Neolithic sites. (a) Cutmarked slab (limestone), Jilat
13. The cutmarks are shallow and are concentrated in the left area, running parallel to the main axes of the
slab; (b) Cutmarked slab fragment (limestone), Jilat 13, showing deep cutmarks; (c) Flaked and ground abrasive cutting tool made of limestone, Jilat 13
handheld abraders made of sandstones with coarse,
hard quartz crystals were found at both sites (Fig.
15a–b). Sandstone is not local to Wadi Jilat and these
items were imported and probably used extensively
(resulting in the small size).
For even finer abrasion, limestone could have been
used. Such needs could have been met by the large
bench of Jilat 13 (Fig. 14c), which was finely ground
over a very large area (within which the possible
drilling marks were placed).
Some might see the grooved items made of
sandstone (Fig. 15a) and limestone (Fig. 15c) as
‘shaft straighteners’. One or two shaft straightener
fragments made of basalt occur at Jilat 13. Like other
basalt shaft straighteners in Neolithic Jilat (e.g. Jilat
7) (Garrard et al. 1994a; Wright 1993), the usesurfaces of these have U-shaped cross-sections. By
contrast, the cross sections of the use surfaces on the
sandstone and limestone grooved items are not Ushaped, but have sharp angles. We see these tools
mainly as abraders for grinding bead facets, especially on barrel beads. The widths of the use surfaces
are 11 mm for the sandstone tool and 13.8 mm for
the limestone one. These dimensions correspond to
the average diameter (5 width) of 31 measured green
Dabba Marble barrel bead blanks from Jilat 13 (N 5
31, Mean diameter 5 9.2 mm, standard deviation 5
2.8). Grooved stones are used in bead grinding in
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
149
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Figure 13 Chipped stone artefacts from Jilat Neolithic sites. Drilling and piercing tools. From Baird 1993, fig. 8.2
modern India (Roux and Matarasso 1999, 57–58); a
grooved sandstone tool was found with an unfinished
bead at Çatalhöyük (Wright and Bains 2007).
Tosi and Vidale (1990) regard failure resulting
from breakage or human error as more common in
the grinding stage than during perforation, although
this depends on material and opinion (Kenoyer 2003,
18). In some cases, it might be more efficient to shape
the bead first before attempting perforation. This
may explain why barrel beads tend to be shaped and
abraded prior to perforation.
Finished beads were always finely abraded and
sometimes polished, to the extent of reflecting light.
Ethnographic observations indicate that polishing is
sometimes done by placing beads en masse in a
leather bag, along with an abrasive, and shaking and
rolling the bags for long periods (Allchin 1979;
Kenoyer 2003). This simple method would have been
more likely than the method of rolling beads and
abrasives in a wooden barrel, which is also documented ethnographically (Kenoyer 2003).
150
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
However, shaking beads in a bag with an abrasive
tends to produce beads with rounded, convex edges
(Gwinnett and Gorelick 1989). Some beads at Jilat
have this form, but many — especially those made of
the hard cherty red Dabba Marble — have sharp
edges perpendicular to bead faces, indicating that
they were individually polished, or polished during
rolling on a string or stick. Alternative methods of
polishing can include rubbing with leather or wood,
with the addition of fine sand or chalk and water, or
with animal hair/wool and animal fat (Kenoyer 1986,
20). These methods would have been possible with
Jilat technology.
Craft Specialization and Comparisons with
Other Sites
Technology needs to be studied not only in terms of
materials and techniques, but also in terms of social
groups involved in artefact production, individual
artisans and skill (Dobres and Hoffmann 1999, 2–12).
In egalitarian societies, craft skill and knowledge of
Wright et al.
a
Stone Bead Technologies
b
c
Figure 14 Ground stone artefacts probably used for beadmaking in Jilat Neolithic sites. (a) Capstone made of limestone,
Jilat 25; (b) Handstone probably used as an anvil or hammer, Jilat 25; note depression in face and flake scars
at edges; (c) Limestone drilling bench, Jilat 13. Note evidence of use-wear on the left and widest area of the
bench: smooth abraded surface; drill marks in the centre-left face; small flake scars with negative bulbs of percussion close to the edge of the bench
special materials can enhance the power of an
individual or a group, encouraging hierarchy
(Dobres 2000, 119–20).
These questions force us to reconsider issues of
craft specialization, a term often used loosely or in
widely different ways. Three concepts of specialization are considered here: individual specialists;
specialization between households or domestic
groups within a given site; and site specialization
within a regional or social network of craft production and exchange.
Costin (1991) draws a contrast between independent specialization and attached specialization.
Independent specialization involves production of
utilitarian goods for nonélites, and can be householdbased or based in special workshops. Attached
specialization refers to production of prestige goods
under control of élites. Whilst Costin notes that
attached specialization can also be based in households or workshops, we often think of attached
specialization in connection with central institutions
and urban or state-level societies. It is of considerable
interest that in early urban societies, the making of
stone personal ornaments in association with central
institutions figures prominently (Stein 1996; Vidale
1989).
How earlier forms of craft specialization may have
evolved into large-scale attached specialization is
poorly understood. Most research has concentrated
on later stages in this process (e.g. Stein 1996); in
discussions of earlier forms of specialization, definitions and criteria for diagnosis could sometimes be
clearer (e.g., Quintero and Wilke 1998; Rollefson and
Parker 2002; Rosen 1997). If we are dealing with
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
151
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
a
b
c
Figure 15 Ground stone artefacts possibly used for beadmaking in Jilat Neolithic sites. (a) Grooved sandstone abrading
tool, Jilat 13; (b) Sandstone hand-held abrader, Jilat 25; (c) Grooved limestone abrading tool, Jilat 13
specialization in Neolithic societies, it is probably
independent specialization. Still, Neolithic societies
may fall between Costin’s two categories. Neolithic
groups were clearly producing prestige goods; personal ornaments are not strictly utilitarian; and there is
at least a possibility that élites were emerging (Byrd
1994; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Verhoeven
2002).
Individual Specialists
First, there is the issue of identifying individual
specialists. Some use ‘specialization’ to refer to any
situation in which some artisans have high levels of
skill, a view that has been criticized (Rice 1991). We
agree with Rice that identifying a high level of
technical skill in a craft is not on its own sufficient
for a diagnosis of specialization, since it robs the
concept of force in discussing long term change (by
this criterion, the Upper Palaeolithic was riddled
with craft specialists). However, we would argue
152
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
that if there are other indications of craft specialization, a search for levels of ability in different
individuals is appropriate — if the data permit.
Such data would be primary refuse from well-dated
sites of high temporal resolution, in which technical
processes (e.g., errors in chaines operatoires) can
reveal experts vs. novices (Pigeot 1990; Stout 2002;
Vanzetti and Vidale 1994).
In the case of Jilat 13 and 25, we are dealing with
much primary refuse and two closely dated sites (see
above and Tables 6–7) — with periodic use of the
sites over a time range on the order of 200 years at
most, and possibly much less. Jilat 25 yielded activity
areas with clear spatial clusters, as do a number of
contexts at Jilat 13. Space does not permit us to
present all details (this awaits the final site report),
but we feel confident that aggregate consideration of
the data from each site allows us to discuss general
questions of individual skills — master craftsmen vs.
novices.
Wright et al.
To explore this, we analysed unfinished blanks and
the frequency of perforation errors. Drilling is a
sensitive moment in bead production when many
things can go wrong (Kenoyer 2003). A low incidence
in perforation errors, combined with high numbers of
successfully finished beads and evidence of standardization, should be reasonably good indicators of an
artisan’s mastery. This is the situation seen at Jilat 25
(Fig. 7). In all, of 93 blanks from Jilat 25, only 2 were
perforation errors, a failure rate of only 2%.
On the other hand, a high incidence of perforation
errors would suggest that a beadmaker was a relative
novice. Jilat 13 produced more blanks with perforation errors than Jilat 25. We thought we might find
individual contexts with a high rate of error,
suggesting apprentices.
The data did not bear this out. Of 223 bead blanks
from Jilat 13 (all phases), 22 were perforation errors
— a failure rate of 9.8 %. All but two errors were on
barrel bead blanks of green Dabba Marble. The
others were one pendant blank and one irregular
bead blank. These 22 blanks were distributed across
20 different contexts, and no more than 2 perforation
errors were found in any one context.
A close look at those contexts reveals low error
rates. In Context B21, 2 green barrel bead blanks
with perforation errors were found with 5 other
blanks. The others included green and red barrel and
disc blanks. This context also yielded 5 successfully
finished beads, including black and red barrel beads
and a green disc. Black and green debitage and a
discoidal handstone were also found here. In Context
B71, 2 blanks with perforation errors were found
along with 9 other blanks and 10 successfully
finished beads, including green Dabba Marble barrel
beads but also black and red disc beads. Much
debitage was found, along with a flaked limestone
cutting tool (cf. Fig. 12c) and a limestone object with
a drill mark.
The higher rate of error at Jilat 13 compared to
Jilat 25 could be because artisans at Jilat 13 were
making more of the larger, more complex barrel
beads (as opposed to simple discs; see Tables 2–3),
which offer greater chances of failure due to the
longer drilling distance. However, at Jilat 13 the
overall failure rate was still quite low, particularly
considering the overall volume of material recovered
(Table 1).
We conclude that the beadmakers at Jilat 13
included few trainees. These appear to have been
skilled artisans, a small task force composed of
relative experts. This raises the question of whether
these beadmakers were examples of ‘producer
Stone Bead Technologies
specialists’ as traditionally defined, that is, people
involved in
production of a good by a relatively small number of
individuals (compared to the total output and
number of consumers) ... individuals who are, as a
result of this selectivity and the routinization or
repetition of their tasks, particularly skilled in
manufacture. (Rice 1991, 263)
Jilat 13 and 25 do suggest small numbers of
individuals and a certain selectivity in who was
involved in stone bead making. The quantity of
debitage/debris relative to (1) the number of finished
beads, and (2) the modest sizes of these structures,
collectively suggest that these craftsmen/women
served a larger number of consumers relative to the
number of craftsmen involved here. If so, who were
these consumers — other residents of Jilat, or groups
beyond?
Intra-site Specialization Between Domestic Groups
Several studies suggest ways of identifying different
forms of craft specialization between domestic groups
in a site. For later sites, Stein (1996) has explored
spatial data, particularly how craft production
facilities are dispersed among domestic units; or
located near special (or central) institutions. In
Neolithic sites, questions about dispersal between
households, and possible links between craft production and special buildings or special sites have been
underexplored.
For specialization, Costin (1991) suggests that we
would expect: (1) variability between production
units (e.g., households, occupations, regions) in
relevant artefacts; (2) high densities of craft production debris relative to some other generally used
item in some production units; (3) high ratios of
unfinished goods to finished goods in some production units. Kenoyer et al.’s (1991) ethnoarchaeological studies of modern stone bead-making in
Khambat (India) suggest something similar, in the
case of households as production units. There, nonspecialist households, engaging in casual, opportunistic bead production, revealed low quantities of
bead-making debris, few unfinished beads, and little
standardization in finished beads. By contrast,
households specializing in bead production were
characterized by stockpiling of large quantities of
raw materials, many unfinished beads, and more
standardized finished products.
In looking at whole occupations (i.e., phases within
sites) as a unit of observation, we argue elsewhere
(Wright and Garrard 2003) that artefact densities and
other data from 13 PPNB and 8 PPNC/ELN
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
153
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
occupations in the Jilat-Azraq region suggest that
PPNC/ELN producers were more specialized than
those of the PPNB — at least in the Jilat-Azraq
region. Unlike the PPNB sites, Jilat 13 and 25 have
very high densities of bead-making debris; specialized
tools for drilling and sawing; there is an abundance of
unfinished materials relative to finished products;
bead-making tools and debris are abundant relative
to normal domestic food processing equipment
(ground stone artefacts) (Wright and Garrard 2003;
cf. Costin 1991).
That argument is chronological, comparing the
PPNB to the PPNC/ELN occupations, and we stand
behind it for the Jilat-Azraq case (different trajectories may apply to south Jordan and the Negev, see
below). Still, it leaves open the issue of house-tohouse variation within Jilat 25 or Jilat 13. As we have
only one excavated structure per site, we cannot, on
present evidence, argue that each building housed a
group of specialists serving other households within
the same site. In fact, we have no direct evidence that
there were other structures on each site — the ones
excavated were the only ones visible on the surface.
There are nuances of material and typological
choices between the Jilat 25 structure (red disc beads)
and the Jilat 13 structure (larger, complex green
ornaments), but these nuances are beyond the scope
of this paper.
In all, we suspect that stone bead production at
Jilat 13 and 25 was geared not for other domestic
units ‘in camp’, but for use by these quite mobile
communities themselves — as well as export to other
sites, within the steppe and beyond (see below). In
Costin’s terms (Costin 1991), Jilat 13 and 25 might
each be an example of an independent, non-centralized, dispersed workshop, possibly ‘family run’ (Rice
1991, 262) — in which handling of Dabba Marble
was not routinely entrusted to novices.
There are hints of house-to-house variations in
bead-making in major villages, with larger samples of
domestic structures, as in PPNB Beidha. At PPNB
Beidha (earlier than Jilat 13 and 25), Building 14
stands out:
Other forms of production besides food preparation
were less common. Building 14 represented the best
example of artefact production in these basements.
A wide range of artefacts was recovered apparently
associated with building 14’s basement floor.
Particularly widespread were stone polishers, bone
tools, raw material (including hematite, malachite
and magnesium), more than 60 unmodified marine
shells, and at least two dozen beads of shell, stone
and bone, some of which were in various stages of
154
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
production. Some artifacts lay on stone slabs,
indicating that at least some slabs may have
functioned as work surfaces. (Byrd 2005, 117)
Such hints are intriguing. Still, macro-artefacts
from house floors are affected by problems of site
formation and house abandonment. Micro-artefact
data can help (Rainville 2005). House-by-house
exploration, with attention to micro-artefacts, is
needed (Wright and Bains 2007).
Site Specialization Within a Regional Network of Craft
Production and Exchange
Both sites, and other Neolithic sites in Jilat and
Azraq, exhibit resource specialization,
the selective use of particular resources in craft
manufacture, such as certain clays that are repeatedly used ... (Rice 1991, 262)
The Jilat artisans emphasized Dabba Marble from
a wider array of available stone types. The JilatAzraq sites collectively show that green Dabba
Marble was a special target. This is revealed in both
frequencies and weights (for debris data and weight
data see Wright and Garrard 2003; for frequency
data on beads and blanks see Tables 2 and 3). At
both sites, debris is greatly dominated by green
Dabba Marble — 80–95% of debris, by both weight
(grams) and frequency. Green Dabba Marble also
dominates blanks in terms of weight, at both sites —
indicating the use of green for making larger, heavier
and more conspicuous ornaments.
Turning to frequencies, at Jilat 13, about 90% of
blanks are green, and only 5% are red. However,
finished beads include both green and red forms in
comparable percentages (40.4% and 43.6% respectively) (Table 3), suggesting that finished red beads
were brought into the building from a place of
manufacture located somewhere else. At Jilat 25,
blanks of red and green Dabba Marble occur in
comparable proportions (40.9% green, 43% red),
whilst finished beads are predominantly red (58.8%)
(Table 2). If Jilat 13 and 25 were absolute contemporaries, this could suggest variations in choices and
exchange between residents of different structures.
Rice (1991) has defined site specialization as a
situation in which a site is located near a special
resource and the inhabitants emphasize production of
a craft based on that resource. Relative to other sites,
not so located, the range of site functions and
activities would be expected to be more limited.
Thus, site specialization
involves individual localities or sites having evidence
of limited functions or intensive productive activity,
Wright et al.
often determined by fortuitous environmental factors ... This includes proximity to mineral deposits
... and so forth. (Rice 1991, 262)
Do Jilat 13 and 25 fit this concept? In both sites,
15 km from the source, we have a wealth of evidence
for intensive stone bead production and scanty
evidence for routine food processing tools (Wright
and Garrard 2003). However, Jilat 25 may be closer
to the limited function model envisioned by Rice. In
Jilat 13, bead-making is clearly intensive, but we are
also dealing with a chipped stone assemblage of not
only drills and burins, but also projectile points and
other tools. Jilat 13 also reveals production of
figurines (of animals, phalluses and arrow-shaped
forms), and sculpted pillars (Baird 1993; Garrard
et al. 1994a; Martin 1999; Wright 1992, 1993).
In all, Jilat 13 and 25 suggest that we can apply
Rice’s ‘site specialization’, on the grounds of intensive
productive activity and proximity to source — but
with the qualification that this specialization was also
embedded in hunting-herding activities and, at Jilat
13, production of other special crafts, unique among
the sites, of a symbolic nature (figurines, pillars).
One possibility is that we are dealing with a camp
of hunter-herder corporate groups — part of a wider
regional network — engaged in special activities, in
remote areas, involving art, personal ornaments and
ritual. Such groups are suggested by other data from
the PPNB–PPNC time span, for example Nahal
Hemar (ornaments, masks, hunting tools), Dhuweila
(carving of hunters with dress variations),
Çatalhöyük (images of hunters with dress variations,
as in the bull hunt mural) and Gobeklitepe (sculpture
production, including a quarry; wild-animal iconography, hunting) (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988; Betts
1998; Mellaart 1967; Schmidt 2000). In all, these data
hint that craft production of special items was
embedded in hunting and/or herding activities in
remote areas; this may have been a key means by
which exotic materials reached major villages. In a
very broad way, this supports a sketch outlined by
Bar Yosef (Bar-Yosef 2001), although we do not
necessarily agree with specifics of his model, e.g. the
territories, boundaries, social groups and mechanisms
which he suggests (cf. Asouti 2006). Instead, we see
this as one example of diverse strategies of social
networking linking lineages, households and communities in the Neolithic (Wright forthcoming).
Returning to the stone bead data from Jilat 13 and
25, the apparent stockpiling of raw material and
intensive production activity hints at production of
the green material for export (see above and Wright
Stone Bead Technologies
and Garrard 2003). New data now add weight to this
idea, and suggest the following provisional picture of
regional specializations and exchanges in ornaments:
(1) Based on typology, technology and materials, there
appears to be a distinctive eastern Jordanian koine or
network of stone bead manufacture and exchange,
featuring Dabba Marble, and a probable regional
specialization in it.
Other Neolithic bead production sites are known
from eastern Jordan. Indications are that most of the
green bead materials are Dabba Marble, probably
from Jilat (further work is needed). In these sites,
diversity of materials used seems low, with few
imports from beyond the steppe. Shells, however,
testify to wider networks (Bar-Yosef-Mayer 1989;
Cooke and Reese in Betts 1998; Garrard et al. 1994a;
Reese 1991).
Azraq 31 (PPNB and ELN) is in our suite of study
materials (Baird et al. 1992; Garrard et al. 1994a;
Wright and Garrard 2003) and debris, blanks and
beads were found. Preliminary XRF analysis of green
samples (by Groom) indicates that the material is
consistent with Jilat Dabba Marble. Typology and
technology are also similar, and as at Jilat 25, burin
spall drills were closely associated with bead-making
in specific activity areas (Baird 1993, 521; Baird et al.
1992, 25). However, the ground stone revealed no
capstones, drilling benches or sandstone abraders
(Wright 1992, 1993; Wright in Baird et al. 1992).
Material used for beads at Dhuweila (PPNB and
ELN) has been called Dabba Marble (Cooke and
Reese in Betts 1998). It is consistent in appearance
with our material, although we have no details on
mineralogy or source. Typologically, these beads are
similar to those of Jilat 13 and 25. The ground stone
is very different from the suite at the Jilat sites
(Wright in Betts 1998); for comparisons of chipped
stone assemblages, see Baird (1993).
At Bawwab al-Ghazal (Late PPNB), Rollefson
et al. found drills bits on burin spalls, tile knives,
beads, bead blanks, and bead debris, some of which
they called green Dabba Marble (Rollefson et al.
1999; Quintero et al. 2004). They argued that there is
a possible source of this material outcropping near
the site — ‘For the last raw material [green Dabba
Marble], small nodules of the green limestone were
embedded in the local bedrock’ (Rollefson et al. 1999,
3). However, as shown in Appendix A, the true
Dabba Marble only occurs in a restricted area west of
Wadi Jilat. The ‘bedrock’ which outcrops near Azraq
31 and Bawwab al-Ghazal is travertine, and some of
this formed during the late Pleistocene and Holocene.
The nearby Epipalaeolithic site of Azraq 17 was
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
155
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
found partially embedded in travertine, and artefacts
including nodules of imported basalt were found in
the travertine at this site. It is possible that the
nodules of green limestone found at Bawwab alGhazal were imported Dabba Marble which subsequently became incorporated in a travertine near the
site. An alternative possibility is that the local
travertine is infused with green minerals. In Wadi
Jilat, travertines were noted with traces of green
minerals, and in the Siwaqa area to the south-west of
Jilat, there are extensive travertines, some of which
are infused with pale green minerals including
volkonskoite (Barjous 1986 — see also Appendix A).
In eastern Jordan, some Neolithic sites are greatly
dominated by burins (‘burin sites’). At a number of
these there is evidence for stone bead-making (e.g.,
Jebel Naja). These ‘burin sites’ typically reveal few
ground stone tools; we know of no examples of
capstones, drilling benches, or sandstone abraders
from them. It was argued that the main role of the
burins was production of spalls for drills used mainly
for beads (Betts 1987; 1998; Finlayson and Betts
1990). However, burin sites are not universally
associated with stone bead making. At Jilat 23, 24
and 26, burins were numerous, but other evidence for
bead-making is scanty (Baird 1993, 520).
Therefore, some have questioned whether
burins and burin spalls in such sites were solely or
primarily intended for making drills and beads,
noting that other functions are possible (Quintero
et al. 2004, 209). Given that these sites typically
represent short-term occupations, it is possible that
many sites might be spall manufacture sites, with
spalls transported to other settings where drill
manufacture and bead manufacture took place, such
as Jilat 13 and 25. Rollefson expressed doubt that
either bladelet or burin spall drills would have been
used in bow drills partly because of their fragility and
also because most of them have a pronounced curve
on the long axis which would have made high speed
drilling impossible (Rollefson and Parker 2002). But
Finlayson and Betts (1990) and Berna (1995)
successfully experimented using burin spalls with
bow drills, and Kenoyer (personal communication
2007) notes that drills made on burin spalls are the
most common type of drill in diverse prehistoric
stone bead-making sites (in India, Pakistan and
elsewhere).
In the case of Jilat 13 and Jilat 25, we believe burinspall drills were part of the bead-making repertoire,
for reasons noted above. This does not rule out other
uses of burin spalls. Nor does it rule out the use of
other perforating techniques. Drills do not have to be
156
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
made of stone when soft stones are being perforated
— wood, bone and abrasives can be used (Foreman
1978).
(2) There are hints of export of Dabba Marble to at least
some villages in the Levantine corridor. However, major
Neolithic villages display much diversity in materials and
especially more importing of exotic stones than is seen in
the eastern Jordanian sites.
Many writers report Neolithic beads made of
unspecified ‘greenstone’. This term is unfortunate,
since it can refer to metabasalt and similar altered
igneous rocks (Schumann 1992, 248). Some of these
‘greenstones’ may be limestone with apatite, or other
materials (e.g., Garfinkel 1987, 81–82; Hauptmann
2004; Talbot 1983, 789). Beads of green limestones
rich in fluorapatite were found at late PPNB Basta in
southern Jordan (Hauptmann 2004), as confirmed by
XRF and XRD. Green beads identified as Dabba
Marble were also reported from Ain Ghazal, a site
with both PPNB and PPNC occupations (Rollefson
et al. 1990, 103–04). Whether these are Dabba
Marble from the Jilat source (Appendices A–B) is
not yet fully clear. Ongoing research will sort out
these mysteries (e.g., D. Bar-Yosef Mayer personal
communication; Hauptmann 2004).
Major villages in the Levantine Corridor reveal
different degrees of emphasis in styles and materials;
often we see a certain emphasis on local materials and
preferences. However, considerable exchange networks are indicated in major villages, which display
much wider ranges of stone ornament materials
compared to the eastern Jordanian sites (such as
Ain Ghazal, Yiftahel, Basta, Ba’ja, Ghuwayr 1,
Fidan 1) — along with, of course, shells (Affonso
and Pernicka 2004; Bienert and Gebel 1998, 84–86;
Garfinkel 1987; Hauptmann 2004; Rollefson and
Simmons 1984; 1986; Rollefson et al. 1990; Simmons
and Najjar 1998; Starck 1988).
As the Neolithic evolved, stone bead-making
entailed increasingly diverse techniques and materials. One example may be drills. In early/middle PPNB
sites, most drills are made on bladelets. In the late
PPNB, PPNC and Late Neolithic there may have
been a gradual increase in drills made on burin spalls,
although perhaps not in all regions (Jensen 2004;
Rollefson and Parker 2002). Underlining increasing
diversity of technological practice between groups,
Baird (2001b) pointed out geographic variation in
this technology, with spall drills dominating in the
north-eastern Jordanian steppe from MPPNB
through Early Late Neolithic, whilst contemporary
sites to west and south use bladelet blanks for their
piercing tools.
Wright et al.
(3) South Jordanian stone bead-making sites involved
very different materials and different technologies local to
those regions — and may reveal a more intensive
exploitation of stone bead resources in the PPNB, i.e.,
earlier than in eastern Jordan.
In south Jordan, Jebel Arqa, Jebel Rabigh and Jebel
Salaqa revealed Middle PPNB beadmaking sites.
Published analyses are based on surface collections.
Around huts of upright stone foundations were
found large quantities of amazonite (microcline;
Mohs 5 6.5) debris, blanks and finished beads.
Thin borers constitute 60–80% of the chipped stone.
Awls are also numerous, as are ground stone tools
(not described). Beads and blanks are dominated by
disc beads made on thin flakes struck from the
tabular material (Fabiano et al. 2004, 266–72;
Vianello 1985). Fabiano et al. interpret these sites
as seasonal camps exploiting mineral resources in a
somewhat specialized way and that bead production
was geared largely to export (2004, 265). Although
materials and technologies differ from the Jilat sites,
certain elements (flake-based beads, architecture)
broadly mirror the Jilat situation, although Jilat
bead-making is modest until the PPNC/ELN.
Jebel Ragref also revealed amazonite bead production (Berna 1995). In experiments, Berna found that
drills of only 1.0–1.5 mm in diameter could produce
3 mm diameter perforations in amazonite beads.
Berna found that hand-drilling of hard amazonite
was difficult, whilst use of an experimental version of
a bow drill made this easier. However, drill bits
frequently became exhausted and worn out and had
to be replaced. Exhausted drill bits mimic different
types of borers, raising the possibility that many
borers and drill bits found on sites are in fact
exhausted, discarded tools (Fabiano et al. 2004, 272).
(We wonder if the low frequency of drill bits found in
the Jilat sites is due to careful discard of exhausted
drill bits.)
Al Basit, Late PPNB site near Petra (Fino 1998),
revealed drills made on bladelets, along with limestone and sandstone objects with drilling marks
(Rollefson 2002). Bladelet drills dominate a chipped
stone collection gathered from a spoil heap in one
area; the spoil heap also included shell beads and a
possible malachite fragment. Rollefson sees the
material from this spoil heap as indicating specialization in bead-making, in contrast to a more generalized chipped stone toolkit from an in situ domestic
area (Rollefson 2002, 5; Rollefson and Parker 2002,
22).
Bead-making debris was found in secondary refuse
(pits, middens) at Shkarat Msaied (Middle PPNB)
Stone Bead Technologies
(Jensen 2004; Kaliszan et al. 2002). Borers and green
beads were found in a concentration, and grinding
stones not far away. The material was provisionally
identified as turquoise and malachite. Asymmetrical
drills/borers made on bladelets dominate the chipped
stone, although a few drills/borers were also made on
burins and blades.
(4) Data from PPNB and ELN sites in the Negev and
Sinai indicate yet other specialities, and a wider array of
imported materials than seems to obtain in eastern
Jordan.
Some sites in Negev-Sinai are impressive in the
variety of stone bead materials (e.g., Nahal Issaron,
Negev) (Goring-Morris and Gopher 1983, 156) and
specialist shell bead-making sites have been described
in Sinai (Bar-Yosef-Mayer 1989; 1997). Nahal
Issaron revealed piercers with long thick bits; similar
tools were found at Jilat 13 (Baird 1993, 515–17).
Conclusions
Much work on early stone beads remains to be
done. The Jilat sites illustrate an expansion of stone
bead-making in the PPNC/ELN and suggest that an
early version of craft specialization emerged at that
time. In other regions, different processes may have
been at work. One question is the role of sheep-goat
herding in procurement of prestige minerals in remote
areas. Something like this is seen in the Early Bronze
Age (Rosen 2003). Its roots were earlier, though
views vary on timing, processes and goods involved
(cf. Bar-Yosef- Mayer 1997; Fabiano et al. 2004;
Garrard et al. 1996; Martin 1999; Quintero et al.
2004; Rollefson et al. 1999). It is worth investigating
whether there was a general expansion of trade
networks in the PPNC/ELN, when herding may also
have become more extensive.
Appendix A: Distribution, Nature and Origins of
Dabba Marble
Andrew Garrard
Dabba Marble (also spelled Dab’a, Dab’ah) occurs in
a restricted area of the Maestrichtian to Paleocene
(late Cretaceous–early Tertiary) Muwaqqar ChalkMarl (MCM) Formation in central Jordan. The
MCM formation outcrops in an arc from Sahab east
of Amman to the Wadi Sirhan east of the El Jafr
Basin in southern Jordan. However, the marbles
themselves are restricted to a north-west/south-east
trending fault zone lying to the east of Khan es Zabib
and Siwaqa stations on the former Amman to Ma’an
Railway line. The area covers about 25 km (NW-SE)
by 13 km (SW-NE) and lies between c. 36u06’–36u17’/
36u22’ E and 31u21’–31u34’ N (Barjous 1986; Jaser
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
157
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
1986; Powell 2006). The Neolithic sites of Wadi Jilat
13 and 25 lie adjacent to each other at 36u25’ E and
31u30’ N, some 7–15 km east of the nearest marble
outcrops (the exact location of the nearest sources
needs to be checked in the field). The modern quarry
source of marble used for comparative analysis lies at
c. 36u15’ E and 31u29’ N.
The Dabba Marbles occur within the upper unit of
the MCM Formation, which consists of chalky
limestones, chalks and micritic limestones, interbedded with dark grey to brownish chert (Bender
1974; Jaser 1986; Powell 1988). The MCM
Formation was deposited in moderate to deep water
on the southern margin of the Tethys Sea and
bituminous chalky marls (or oilshales) occur as lenses
in structural depressions within the formation. The
marbles formed as a result of metamorphosis and
recrystallization of the parent rocks along cracks and
fissures in this formation and range in colour between
black, violet, brown, red, pink, green and yellow
(Fig. 3). The coloration results from infusion with
bitumen and iron oxides, chromites and apatites. The
marbles are cross-cut with veins containing diverse
minerals (more than 50 were identified) (Jaser 1986;
Nassir and Khoury 1982). At present there are
many small quarries in the marble formations, as
the multi-coloured but fractured rocks (particularly
the green apatitic varieties) are popular for setting in
plaster for floor and wall tiles.
Much debate surrounds the origins of the marbles,
but there are no high level intrusive or volcanic
bodies in the area and thus no possibility of
metamorphism through contact with igneous formations. The marbles appear to have formed during the
late Tertiary — a major period of tectonic activity —
with the uplift of the Jordanian Plateau and the
formation of the Rift Valley. It is thought that the
high temperatures required for their formation was
the result of oxygen reaching bituminous lenses in
the MCM formation through fissures caused by
tectonic movements, and that this may have led
to the localized combustion of hydrocarbons.
Subsequently a rich array of minerals were circulated
through the faultlines and fissures in hot alkali-rich
ground waters (Jaser 1986; Khoury and Nassir 1982).
There are also extensive travertines in this area
(particularly to the east of Siwaqa) some of which
contain pale green volkonskoite. These suggest
hydrothermal activity (Barjous 1986).
Analogous marble formations are known elsewhere in the southern Levant. They include the
Maqarin Formation in the Yarmouk River Valley
north of Irbid, and the Hatrurim Formation
158
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
(formerly known as the Mottled Zone), west of the
Rift Valley. These are contained in facies containing
bituminous shales which are similar and timeequivalent with the MCM Formation in central
Jordan. In both areas there are localized occurrences
of lightly metamorphosed rocks with a rich array of
minerals resulting from what were probably similar
processes (Gross 1977; Moh’d 2000). For the location
of the two main exposures of the Hatrurim
Formation, see Fig. 1.
Appendix B: Mineralogy and Chemical
Composition of Dabba Marble
Simon Groom and Roseleen Bains
Six samples of Dabba Marble from a modern quarry
in the heart of the marble zone 15 km to the west of
the Neolithic sites of Jilat 13 and 25 were analysed to
determine mineral/chemical composition (Appendix
A and Fig. 3). In order to determine if the material
described as Dabba Marble from the prehistoric sites
in Wadi Jilat were from a similar source, 5 finished
bead fragments were analysed from the surface levels
at Jilat 13. Surface material was chosen for this pilot
study so as not to damage material from intact levels.
As a result of fine grain size and thin laminations,
thin section analysis proved problematic. Thus X-ray
fluorescence (XRF) and X-Ray diffraction (XRD)
were used in combination for the quarry samples and
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) for the finished beads.
Samples from the Quarry: XRF-XRD Analysis
(Simon Groom)
Materials
Seven surface nodules were collected by Andrew
Garrard from the scree slope at the modern quarry
(Fig. 3) which were regarded as being broadly
representative of the range of marbles exposed in
the quarry-face. Six of these were subjected to XRF
and XRD analysis.
The quarry samples were categorized into 3 groups
before analysis: green (G1-2), red (R1-2), and
laminated green (LG1-3). All but Sample R2 (a
bright red chert clearly composed of silica and iron)
were subjected to XRF and XRD.
G1 and G2 are fine grained materials with a similar
green colour but significantly different textures. G1 is
a rich green colour with a mottled appearance due to
the presence of fine white and maroon veins. G2 is
paler green and more uniform with very little
macroscopic variation.
R1 is texturally similar to G2, but pale pink in
colour and relatively uniform. R2 is a brecciated
Wright et al.
material consisting of large chunks of red chert
trapped inside a buff matrix. The macroscopic pitted
appearance of the matrix is sufficiently distinctive to
identify the material as a travertine or tufa. The chert
brecciated within this is mottled with a variation
between pale pink and typical white.
LG1-3, the laminated green materials, are distinctive,
commonly showing extremely fine scale parallel layers
of maroon through to a rich green. While some layers of
green material are several millimetres thick, this
layering is commonly at less than a millimetre scale.
All layered samples show non-parallel white veining.
Methods
Methods of analysis for quarry samples were as
follows. For homogenous samples, 20 g of representative material were removed using a diamond-coated
tile cutter blade and subjected to standard XRF and
XRD sample preparation procedures. Large heterogeneities, such as veins and chert fragments, were
ground from the sample surface using a hand sander.
The resulting bulk material was crushed using a steel
percussion mortar and pestle, then ground to a grain
size of ,60 mm using an agate planetary ball mill.
For quantitative XRF analysis, a sample of the
resulting powder was initially dried, then mixed with
a wax binding agent at a ratio of 8 g sample to 0.9 g
wax. This mixture was then pressed in a hydraulic
press and analysed in triplicate using the industrial
standard TurboQuant (TQ0261a) method on a
Spectro X-Lab 2000 (P)ED-XRF Spectrometer.
Pure chert samples (e.g., Sample R2) were analysed
Stone Bead Technologies
qualitatively as objects in the same instrument for
categorization. Due to its qualitative nature, these
data are not presented here.
XRD analysis was performed on the remaining
powder. The instrument used was a Philips 1720
diffractometer fitted with a curved graphite crystal
monochromator. Philips PC-APD software (version
1.6) was used to interpret the data.
Results
In terms of major elements, the 6 quarry samples are
all composed predominantly of calcium oxides
varying from 48 wt% to 58 wt% (Table 8). The most
variable component is phosphate, with concentrations between 13 wt% and 7 wt%. Minor element
concentrations are present of silica, iron oxides and
alumina in the 1 wt% to 7 wt% range.
Within the trace element data (Table 9), the
material shows unusually rich concentrations of
transition metals for a calcium carbonate based unit:
in particular chromium, nickel, zinc and cadmium.
Also notable are the low concentrations of alkali and
alkali earth metals for a calcium carbonate based
unit: with rubidium, potassium, sodium and magnesium all near the limits of detection.
The XRD data show that the samples contain the
major components calcite (CaCO3) and fluoroapatite
(Ca5(PO4)3F), with the LG1 sample containing traces
of margarite (CaAl2(Al2Si2)O10(OH)2): a less common member of the mica mineral group. The major
components fit exactly with what would be expected
from the chemical data. The margarite also fits the
Table 8 Proportional weights of major elements, obtained by XRF
Sample
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
P2O5
SO3
Cl
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
Fe2O3
Sum
Unit
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
G1
G2
LG1
LG2
LG3
R1
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.9
0
0
0.3
0.2
2.5
0.4
0.4
0
1.7
0.6
1.7
1.2
3.8
1.8
7.5
13.03
11.9
3.99
8.68
6.28
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
55.6
57.7
51.3
56.3
48.5
49.7
0.052
0.03
0.079
0.049
0.134
0.085
0.006
0
0.024
0.005
0.008
0.006
0.85
0.14
1.72
0.47
1.67
1.17
74.7
72.2
66.9
70.5
69.1
67.4
4
7.6
6.4
Table 9 Trace elements in parts per million (ppm), obtained by XRF
Sample V
Cr
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
As
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Cd
Sb
Ba
La
Pb
Th
U
Unit
ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm
G1
G2
LG1
LG2
LG3
R1
342
158
512
225
538
0
1424 5
409 5
695 35
810 2
1239 22
311 10
220
75
425
131
417
256
93
33
97
105
193
184
1311
644
2365
795
1893
2077
2
2
2
3
2
3
77
15
68
44
119
73
3
1
6
3
2
2
1239 112
1422 56
1141 29
1223 61
1290 108
953 95
19
4
16
5
32
18
52
63
64
18
64
210
10
1
9
1
10
9
69
312
1084
158
610
72
Levant
15
6
2
11
12
18
11
6
6
14
10
6
2008
3
1
3
2
4
2
VOL
42
9
18
30
39
28
40
NO
2
159
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
chemistry and is likely to be the mineral state in
which LG1’s slightly elevated alumina and silica
levels are resident.
By comparison to the macroscopic variation, these
analytical data are unexpectedly simple, suggesting
that the material is structurally varied but chemically
very similar. The categorization cited in Appendix A,
classifying these materials as hydrothermal deposits
and travertines, closely fits the composition of the
samples. The elevated levels of transition metals are
likely to have been dropped from solution by changing
fluid chemical conditions, and suggest that the macroscopic variation is structural rather than mineralogical.
The rich green colour appears to correlate closely
with increasing proportions of phosphate, likely to be
present in the form of fluoroapatite, a mineral which
is green in colour. The coloration in the red sample is
indicative of the iron oxides present at the 1% range.
This sample contains amongst the lowest concentrations of phosphate.
Manufactured Beads: SEM Analysis (Roseleen
Bains)
For this pilot study, five bead fragments from surface
levels of Jilat 13 were examined using a Scanning
Electron Microscope (SEM). SEM was used instead
of XRF and XRD, because (a) the size of each bead
sample was small and (b) we wanted to do as little
damage as possible to the beads.
Materials
The fragments encompass a range of materials as
identified with the naked eye, but do not necessarily
represent all variants of Dabba Marble used at Jilat
13. Four beads were green and one was pale pink/red.
At a macroscopic level, each bead appeared homogenous in colour.
Methods
The five samples were mounted in epoxy-resin and
polished and coated with carbon to create an
electrically conductive surface. They were analysed
under SEM (Model S-3400N Hitachi, with a
Backscattered Electron Detector and an Oxford
Instruments Energy Dispersive Spectrometer (EDS)
for semi-quantitative compositional spectrum) using
an accelerating voltage of 20 kV.
For each sample, images were captured under set
magnifications, using the secondary electron detector
and backscattered electron detector, to acquire topographical information on texture, surface features, and
crystallography. The backscattered detector revealed
images in which minerals or compounds with elements
higher in atomic number appeared lighter and brighter
160
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
Figure 16 Backscattered image of sample S6-S. The scale
is 50 microns long
in comparison to the other minerals or compounds also
present in the image, helping to differentiate the
minerals for better analysis. These data, combined
with data from EDS concerning elemental distributions, were used to compare with results obtained by
XRF and XRD on material from the modern quarry.
Each sample underwent repeated trials of bulk, box
and spot analysis.
Results
The four green beads revealed very similar results in
both surface studies and elemental analyses. Any
differences in micrographs were the result of varying
degrees of polishing or the type of rock formed by the
similar compounds present. We present detailed
results for one green and one red bead below.
Sample S6 (Green Bead)
SEM and backscattered analysis
Initial low magnification inspection, using a backscattered detector, reveals two distinct areas, one
light and the other darker in shade. The darker area is
represented by an anhedral crystal structure and the
lighter area has a hexagonal, euhedral, lathe crystal
structure. The former can be identified as calcium
carbonate (CaCO3), and the latter fluorapatite
(Ca5(PO4)3F). At high magnification we can see that
the fluorapatite is forming bands adjacent to the
fissures in the calcium carbonate (Fig. 16). Both
components appear in relatively equivalent ratios. As
with the other green bead samples, the mineral
fluorapatite has metamorphosed and recrystallized
with the calcium carbonate.
Elemental analysis and identification
Trials of box and spot analysis for sample S6
confirmed that the darker shaded area can be
identified as the compound calcium carbonate and
the lighter shaded hexagonal crystal structures as the
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Figure 17 Backscattered image of sample S4-C0. The scale is 10 microns long
mineral fluorapatite (Table 10). Fluorapatite’s chemistry, occurrence, and physical and optical properties,
as listed in The Handbook of Mineralogy Vol. 4
(Anthony 2000) are consistent with those observed in
all the green bead samples.
Sample S4 (Red Bead)
SEM and backscattered analysis
Sample S4 was the only red Dabba Marble bead to be
analysed. It is a relatively soft stone and was more
difficult to polish during preparation. Under lower
magnifications, the surface appears to be more
compact and using a backscattered detector two or
more different components become visible, once
again represented as lighter crystals within a darker,
more compact matrix (Fig. 17). The lighter euhedral
crystal habit has formed within an anhedral crystal
structure. Both minerals are much more intricately
fused in comparison to the green Dabba samples and,
consequently, SEM micrographs reveal a finer grain
in contrast to the green samples analysed (Fig. 17).
Each of two inclusions (Areas) present in sample
S4 was analysed under SEM and an elemental
spectrum was produced. The crystals which appear
lighter (Area 1) are dissimilar to the apatite crystals
which are found in the beads manufactured from the
green Dabba Marble. These crystals can be identified
as calcium carbonate with the addition of some
magnesium and silicon (Table 11).
Analysis of Area 2, or the darker anhedral mineral,
revealed a mineral with a significant presence of
calcium and silicon, and other elements in lesser
quantities such as iron, aluminum, magnesium and
chlorine (Table 11). In contrast to the samples of
beads made from green Dabba Marble, the red beads
have a greater amount of silica. The identification on
the basis of these elements is calcium carbonate
within a medium of silica and calcium.
Summary
SEM surface studies of the four green beads revealed
two components: (1) an euhedral hexagonal prismatic
Table 10 Table of elements present in sample S6
Elemental weight %
Compound/Mineral
C
O
Calcium carbonate
19.1
43.6
Fluorapatite
20.6
30.3
Number of analyses for each compound/mineral: 6
Ca
I
F
Si
P
S
37.0
30.8
0.5
0.3
0.0
4.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
12.6
0.0
0.3
Table 11 Table of elements present in sample S4
Elemental weight %
Compound/Mineral
C
O
Area 1 - Calcium carbonate
20.1
46.3
Area 2 - Matrix
26.2
33.5
Number of analyses for each compound/mineral: 3
Mg
Al
Si
S
Cl
K
Ca
Fe
0.3
1.9
0.0
0.8
0.4
9.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.2
32.7
26.0
0.0
0.7
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
161
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
crystal structure within (2) an anhedral crystal
structure. The EDS detector later identified these as
(1) the mineral fluorapatite (Ca5(PO4)3F) and (2) the
compound calcium carbonate (CaCO3) respectively.
Topographical studies of the red bead also exposed
two components: (1) an euhedral crystal structure
within (2) an anhedral crystal habit. Elemental
analyses revealed the euhedral crystal structures to
be calcium carbonate with two additional elements:
magnesium and silicon. The anhedral crystal habit
was more diverse in regards to the elements present,
the major difference being the high silicon and
calcium content and the presence of iron. The
minerals comprising the red Dabba Marble can be
identified as calcium carbonate within a silicon-rich
matrix.
The green Dabba Marbles used in bead production
were formed as a result of the fluorapatite metamorphosing and recrystallizing with the calcium carbonate along cracks and fissures. A similar process
could be found in regard to the red Dabba Marble
bead, but in this instance, it was the calcium
carbonate which formed the euhedral crystalline
structure.
Conclusions
The SEM results on the small sample of beads from
Jilat 13, indicate that they are very similar in terms of
mineralogy and geochemistry to the modern quarry
samples obtained from the heart of the Dabba marble
exposures 15 km to the west of the site, and are
probably from a source in the same general area.
However, to tie down possible sources further, it
would be useful to obtain samples from a wider range
of outcrops of raw material across the Dabba marble
region. Similarly, it would be helpful to undertake
SEM studies on a more varied selection of beads from
Neolithic sites in the Wadi Jilat.
In the past, comparison of stone bead materials
from Levantine prehistoric sites tended to be based
on macroscopic visual examination. This is now
changing (D. Bar-Yosef Mayer personal communication; Hauptmann 2004). Wider application of such
techniques would be enormously valuable in defining
the range of raw materials used and their likely
sources. This in turn would be of great benefit in the
reconstruction of group mobility patterns and of
wider exchange and social interactions in the region.
Acknowledgements
For supporting this research, we are grateful to the
Department of Antiquities of Jordan, the British
Institute at Amman (now Council for British
162
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
Research in the Levant), the British Academy and
the Wainwright Fund for Near Eastern
Archaeological Research. For photographs of artefacts we thank Ken Walton, Stuart Laidlaw and
Helena Coffey. For help and/or useful discussions, we
thank Kevin Reeves, Dafydd Griffiths, Thilo Rehren,
James Lankton, John Powell and Tobias Richter.
Any errors of fact or interpretation are our own.
Bibliography
Affonso, M.T.C. and Pernicka, E. (2004) Mineralogical analysis of
Late PPNB rings. Pp. 155–67 in H. J. Nissen, M. Muheisen and H.
G. Gebel (eds), Basta I: The Human Ecology. Berlin: Ex Oriente.
Allchin, B. (1979) The agate and carnelian industry of Western India
and Pakistan. Pp. 91–105 in J.E. van Lohuizen de Leeuw (ed.),
South Asian Archaeology: Papers from the Third International
Congress of the Association of South Asian Archaeology. Leiden:
E.S. Brill.
Andrefsky, W. (1998) Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anthony, J.W. (2000) Handbook of Mineralogy, Volume 4. Tucson,
Arizona: Mineral Data Publications.
Asouti, E. (2006) Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interaction
sphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20, 87–126.
Bains, R. (forthcoming) Procurement to Production: Manufacturing
Technologies of Stone Beads at Catalhoyuk, Turkey. PhD
dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.
Baird, D. (1993) Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages from the Azraq
Basin. PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University
of Edinburgh.
— (1994) Chipped stone production technology from the Azraq Project
Neolithic sites. Pp. 525–41 in H.G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski
(eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent.
Berlin: Ex Oriente.
— (1995) Chipped stone raw material procurement and selection in the
Neolithic Azraq Basin: implications for Levantine Neolithic
cultural development. Pp. 505–14 in K. ’Amr, F. Zayadine and
M. Zaghloul (eds), Studies in the History and Archaeology of
Jordan V. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan.
— (2001a) Explaining technological change from the 7th to the 6th
millennium BC in the southern Levant. Pp. 319–31, in I. Caneva,
C. Lemorini and D. Zampetti (eds), Beyond Tools. Berlin: Ex
Oriente.
— (2001b) The analysis of chipped stone in Jordanian Archaeology. Pp.
693–706 in R. Adams, P. Bienkowski and B. MacDonald (eds),
The Archaeology of Jordan. Sheffield: Sheffield Archaeology
Monographs.
— Garrard, A.N., Martin, L. and Wright, K.I. (1992) Prehistoric
environment and settlement in the Azraq Basin: an interim report
on the 1989 excavation season. Levant 24, 1–31.
Banning, E.B. (1998) The Neolithic period: triumphs of architecture,
agriculture and art. Near Eastern Archaeology 61, 188–237.
Bar-Yosef, O. (2001) Lithics and the social geographic configurations
identifying Neolithic tribes in the Levant. Pp. 437–48, in I.
Caneva, C. Lemorini, D. Zampetti and P. Biagi (eds), Beyond
Tools. Berlin: Ex Oriente.
— and Alon, D. (1988) Nahal Hemar Cave. Jerusalem: Atiqot 18, Israel
Department of Antiquities.
Bar-Yosef-Mayer, D. (1989) Late Paleolithic and Neolithic marine
shells in the southern Levant as cultural markers. Pp. 169–74 in
C.F. Hayes (ed.), Shell Bead Conference. Rochester, New York:
Rochester Museum and Science Center.
— (1991) Changes in the selection of marine shells from the Natufian to
the Neolithic. Pp. 629–36 in O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds), The
Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: Prehistory Press.
— (1997) Neolithic shell bead production in Sinai. Journal of
Archaeological Science 24, 97–111.
— Porat, N., Gal, Z., Shalem, D. and Smithline, H. (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.
Wright et al.
Barjous, M.O. (1986) The Geology of Siwaqa. Map Sheet 3252 IV
(1:50,000). Amman, Jordan: Jordan Natural Resources
Authority, Geology Division, Geological Bulletin 4.
Barnes, R. and Eicher, J.B. (1992) Dress And Gender: Making and
Meaning in Cultural Contexts. Oxford: Berg.
Barthelmy de Saizieu, B. and Bouquillon, A. (1994) Steatite working at
Mehrgarh during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods: quantitative distribution, characterization of material and manufacturing processes. Pp. 47–59 in A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio (eds),
South Asian Archaeology 1993, Volume I. Proceedings of the
Twelfth International Conference of the European Association of
South Asian Archaeologists, Helsinki University 5–9 July 1993.
Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Bender, F. (1974) Geology of Jordan. Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.
Berna, F. (1995) La lavarazione dell’amazzonite nel villagio neolitico di
Jebel Ragref (Giordania meridionale). L’ecologia del Quaternario
17, 41–54.
Betts, A.V.G. (1987) Recent discoveries relating to the Neolithic
periods in eastern Jordan. Pp. 225–30 in A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in
the History and Archaeology of Jordan III. Amman: Department
of Antiquities of Jordan.
— (1998) The Harra and the Hamad. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
Bienert, H. and Gebel, H. (1998) Archaeological investigations at Late
PPNB Ba’ja: a preliminary report on the 1997 season. Annual of
the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42, 75–90.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Byrd, B.F. (1994) Public & private, domestic & corporate: the
emergence of the village in southwest Asia. American Antiquity
59, 639–66.
— (2005) Early Village Life at Beidha, Jordan: Neolithic Spatial
Organization and Vernacular Architecture. Oxford: Oxford
University Press and the Council for British Research in the
Levant.
Calley, S. (1989) L’atelier de fabrication de perles de Kumartepe:
quelques observations technologiques. Anatolica 16, 157–84.
Cauvin, J. (1974) Troisième campagne de fouilles à Mureybet (Syrie),
1973: rapport préliminaire. Annales Archéologiques Arabes
Syriennes 24, 47–58.
Cessford, C. and Mitrovic, S. (2005) Heavy residue analysis. Pp. 45–64
in I. Hodder (ed.), Excavations at Çatalhöyük, Volume 5. Changing
Materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995–1999 seasons.
Cambridge and London: Monographs of the McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British
Institute for Archaeology at Ankara.
Costin, C.L. (1991) Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological
Method and Theory 3, 1–56.
Critchley, P. (2000) Stone Bead Production at Wadi Jilat 25, a Neolithic
Site in Eastern Jordan. MA dissertation, Institute of Archaeology,
University College London.
— (2007) The stone beads. In B. Finlayson and S. Mithen (eds), The
early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: Excavations at
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of Wadi Faynan 16 and
Archaeological Survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuweir and al-Bustan.
Oxford: Oxbow Press for the Council for British Research in the
Levant.
Diamanti, J. (2003) Beads, trade and cultural change. Pp. 8–13 in J.
Lankton (ed.), A Bead Timeline, Volume I: Prehistory to 1200 CE.
Washington, DC: The Bead Society of Greater Washington.
Dobres, M.A. (2000) Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a
Practice Framework for Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.
and Hoffmann, C.R. (1999) The Social Dynamics of Technology.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Dubin, L. (1995) The History of Beads, 30,000 B.C. to the Present.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Dunnell, R.C. and Stein, J.K. (1989) Theoretical issues in the
interpretation of microartifacts. Geoarchaeology 4, 31–42.
Eicher, J. (1995) Dress and Ethnicity: Change Across Space and Time.
Oxford: Berg.
Fabiano, M., Berna, F. and Borzatti von Löwenstern, E. (2004) PrePottery Neolithic amazonite bead workshops in southern Jordan.
Pp. 265–73 in Sécretariat du Congrès (ed.), Le Néolithique au
Proche-Orient et en Europe. The Neolithic in the Near East and
Europe. Acts of the XIVth UNESCO International Congress of
Stone Bead Technologies
Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, 208 September 2001,
Université de Liège. Oxford: BAR International Series 1303,
Archaeopress.
Finlayson, B. and Betts, A.V.G. (1990) Functional analysis of chipped
stone artifacts from the Late Neolithic site of Jebel Na’ja, eastern
Jordan. Paléorient 16/2, 13–20.
Fino, N. (1998) Al-Basit Neolithic site in southern Jordan. Annual of
the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42, 103–11.
Foreman, R. (1978) Disc beads: production by primitive techniques.
Bead Journal 3, 17–22.
Garfinkel, Y. (1987) Bead manufacture on the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B
site of Yiftahel. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society 20, 79–90.
Garrard, A.N. (1998) Environment and cultural adaptations in the
Azraq Basin, 24,000–7000 B.P. Pp. 139–48 in D.O. Henry (ed.),
The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan. Oxford: BAR
International Series 705.
— (in preparation) Beyond the Fertile Crescent: Late Palaeolithic and
Neolithic Communities of the Jordanian Steppe (4 volumes).
Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant, Levant
Supplementary Series, Oxbow Books.
— Baird, D., Colledge, S., Martin, L. and Wright, K.I. (1994a)
Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq Basin: an
interim report on the 1987 and 1988 excavation seasons. Levant
26, 73–109.
— Betts, A., Byrd, B.F. and Hunt, C. (1987) Prehistoric environment
and settlement in the Azraq Basin: an interim report on the 1985
excavation season. Levant 19, 5–25.
— and Byrd, B.F. (1992) New dimensions to the Epipalaeolithic of the
Wadi el-Jilat in Central Jordan. Paléorient 18/1, 47–62.
— Byrd, B.F. and Baird, D. (1994b) The chronological basis and
significance of the late Palaeolithic and Neolithic sequence in the
Azraq Basin, Jordan. Pp. 177–200, in O. Bar-Yosef and R.S. Kra
(eds), Late Quaternary Chronology and Palaeoclimates in the
Eastern Mediterranean. Tucson: Radiocarbon.
— Byrd, B.F. and Betts, A. (1986) Prehistoric environment and
settlement in the Azraq Basin: an interim report on the 1984
excavation season. Levant 18, 5–24.
— Colledge, S. and Martin, L. (1996) The emergence of cultivation and
pastoralism in the ’marginal zone’ of the southern Levant. Pp.
204–26 in D. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture
and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London: UCL Press.
Gopher, A. (1997) Ground stone tools and other stone objects from
Netiv Hagdud. Pp. 151–76, in O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher (eds),
An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University.
Gorelick, L. and Gwinnett, A.J. (1990) Innovative lapidary craft
techniques in Neolithic Jarmo. Archaeomaterials 4, 25–32.
Goring-Morris, A.N. and Gopher, A. (1983) Nahal Issaron: a Neolithic
settlement in the southern Negev. Israel Exploration Journal 33,
149–61.
Gross, S. (1977) The Geology of the Hatrurim Formation, Israel.
Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel, Bulletin 70.
Gwinnett, A.J. and Gorelick, L. (1989) Evidence for mass production
polishing in ancient bead manufacture. Archaeomaterials 3, 163–
68.
— (1999) A brief history of drills and drilling. Beads: Journal of the
Society of Bead Researchers 10–11, 49–56.
Hamilton, N. (2005) The beads. Pp. 325–32 in I. Hodder (ed.),
Excavations at Çatalhöyük, Volume 5. Changing Materialities at
Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995–1999 seasons. Cambridge and
London: Monographs of the McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British
Institute for Archaeology at Ankara.
Hauptmann, A. (2004) ’Greenstones’ from Basta: their mineralogical
composition and possible provenance. Pp. 169–76 in H.J. Nissen,
M. Muheisen and H.G. Gebel (eds), Basta I: The Human Ecology.
Berlin: Ex Oriente.
Inizan, M., Jazim, M. and Mermier, F. (1992) L’artisanat de la
cornaline au Yémen: premières données. Techniques et Culture 20,
155–74.
Jackson, B. (2005) Bead material identification. Pp. 373–76 in I.
Hodder (ed.), Excavations at Çatalhöyük, Volume 5. Changing
Materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995–1999 seasons.
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
163
Wright et al.
Stone Bead Technologies
Cambridge and London: Monographs of the McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge; British
Institute for Archaeology at Ankara.
Jaser, D.A. (1986) The Geology of Khan ez-Zabib. Map Sheet 3253 III
(1:50,000). Amman, Jordan: Jordan Natural Resources
Authority, Geology Division, Bulletin No. 3.
Jensen, C.H. (2004) Production areas at MPPNB Shkarat Msaied,
southern Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2/04, 22–25.
Kaliszan, L., Hermansen, B.D., Jensen, C.H., Skuldbol, T., Bille, M.,
Bangsgaard, P., Ihr, A., Sorensen, M.L. and Markussen, B. (2002)
Shaqarat Mazyad: the village on the edge. Neo-Lithics 1/02, 16–19.
Kenoyer, J.M. (1986) The Indus bead industry: contributions to bead
technology. Ornament 10, 18–21.
— (1992a) Craft specialization and the question of urban segregation
and stratification. Eastern Anthropologist 45, 39–54.
— (1992b) Lapis lazuli beadmaking in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ornament 15, 70–87.
— (1994) Experimental studies of Indus Valley technology at Harappa.
Pp. 345–62 in A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio (eds), South Asian
Archaeology 1993, Volume I. Proceedings of the Twelfth
International Conference of the European Association of South
Asian Archaeologists, Helsinki University 5–9 July 1993. Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
— (2003) The technology of stone beads: bead and pendant making
techniques. Pp. 14–19 in J. Lankton (ed.), A Bead Timeline,
Volume I: Prehistory to 1200 CE. Washington, DC: The Bead
Society of Greater Washington.
— Vidale, M. and Bhan, K. (1991) Contemporary stone beadmaking in
Khambat, India: patterns of craft specialization and organization
of production as reflected in the archaeological record. World
Archaeology 23, 44–63.
Khoury, H. and Nassir, S. (1982) A discussion on the origin of Daba’
Marble. Dirasaat, Engineering Sciences 9, 54–66.
Kirkbride, D. (1966) Five seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic village of
Beidha in Jordan: a summary. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98,
5–72.
Kuijt, I. and Goring-Morris, A.N. (2002) Foraging, farming and social
complexity in the pre-pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant: a
review and synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16, 361–439.
Larson, P. (1978) Ornamental beads from the Late Natufian of
Southern Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 5, 120–21.
Maréchal, C. (1991) Elements de parure de la fin du Natoufien. Pp.
589–612 in O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds), The Natufian Culture
in the Levant. Ann Arbor: Prehistory Press.
Martin, L. (1999) Mammal remains from the eastern Jordanian
Neolithic and the nature of caprine herding in the steppe.
Paléorient 25 (2), 87–104.
Mellaart, J. (1967) Catal Huyuk: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Meskell, L. (2001) Archaeologies of identity. Pp. 187–213 in I. Hodder
(ed.), Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Moh’d, B.K. (2000) The Geology of Irbid and Ash Shuna ash Shamaliyya
(Waqqas). Map Sheets 3155 II and 3155 III (1:50,000). Amman,
Jordan: Jordan Natural Resources Authority, Geology Division,
Geological Bulletin 46.
Moholy-Nagy, H. (1983) Jarmo artefacts of pecked and ground stone
and of shell. Pp. 290–346 in L. Braidwood (ed.), Prehistoric
Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, Oriental Institute Publications 105.
Moore, A.M.T. (2000) Stone and other artefacts. Pp. 165–87 in A.M.T.
Moore, G.C. Hillman and A. Legge (eds), Village on the
Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Nassir, S. and Khoury, H. (1982) Geology, mineralogy and petrology
of Daba’ Marble, Jordan. Dirasaat, Engineering Sciences 9, 107–
40.
Pigeot, N. (1990) Technical & social actors: flintknapping specialists &
apprentices at Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 9, 126–41.
Possehl, G. (1981) Cambay beadmaking: an ancient craft in modern
India. Expedition 23, 39.
Powell, J.H. (1988) Stratigraphy and Sedimentation of the Phanerozoic
Rocks in Central and Southern Jordan. Part B Kurnub, Ajlun and
Belqa Groups. Amman, Jordan: Jordan Natural Resources
Authority, Geology Division, Geological Bulletin 11.
164
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
— (2006) Personal communication, at British Geological Survey,
Keyworth, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Quintero, L., Rollefson, G.O. and Wilke, P. (2004) Highland towns and
desert settlements: origins of nomadic pastoralism in the
Jordanian Neolithic. Pp. 201–13 in H. Bienert, H. Gebel and R.
Neef (eds), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan. Berlin: Ex
Oriente.
Quintero, L. and Wilke, P. (1998) Evolution and economic significance
of naviform core and blade technology in the southern Levant.
Paléorient 21 (1), 17–33.
Rainville, L. (2005) The Organization of Domestic Activities in Upper
Mesopotamian Households and Neighborhoods during the Early
Bronze Age: A Micro-Archaeological and Architectural Approach.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1368.
Reese, D. (1991) Marine shells in the Levant: Upper Palaeolithic,
Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic. Pp. 613–28 in O. Bar-Yosef and F.
Valla (eds), The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor:
Prehistory Press.
Rice, P. (1991) Specialization, standardization and diversity: a retrospect. Pp. 257–84 in R. Bishop and F. Lange (eds), The Ceramic
Legacy of Anna O. Shepard. Boulder: University of Colorado
Press.
Richter, T., Colledge, S., Luddy, S., Jones, D., Jones, M., Maher, L.
and Kelly, R. (2008) (in press) Preliminary report on the 2006
season at Epipalaeolithic ’Ain Qasiyah, Azraq esh- Shishan.
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 51.
Rollefson, G.O. (2002) Beadmaking tools from LPPNB al-Basit,
Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2/02, 5–7.
— Kafafi, Z. and Simmons, A. (1990) The Neolithic village of Ain
Ghazal, Jordan: preliminary report on the 1988 season. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 27, 95–116.
— and Parker, M.C. (2002) Craft specialization at al-Basit, Wadi
Musa, southern Jordan. Neo-Lithics 1/02, 21–23.
— Quintero, L. and Wilke, P. (1999) Bawwab al-Ghazal: preliminary
report on the 1998 testing season. Neo-Lithics 1/99, 2–4.
— and Simmons, A. (1984) The 1983 Season at ’Ain Ghazal:
Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of
Jordan 28, 13–30.
— and Simmons, A. (1986) The 1985 Season at ’Ain Ghazal:
Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of
Jordan 30, 41–56.
Rosen, S.A. (1997) Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone
Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
— (2003) Early multi-resource nomadism: excavations at the Camel
Site in the central Negev. Antiquity 77 (298), 749–60.
Roux, V., Bril, B. and Dietrich, G. (1995) Skills and learning difficulties
involved in stoneknapping: the case of stone bead knapping in
Khambat, India. World Archaeology 27, 63–87.
Roux, V. and Matarasso, P. (1999) Crafts and the evolution of complex
societies: new methodologies for modelling the organization of
production, a Harappan example. Pp. 46–70 in M.A. Dobres and
C.R. Hoffmann (eds), The Social Dynamics of Technology.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Schmidt, K. (2000) Göbeklitepe, Southeastern Turkey: A Preliminary
Report on the 1995–1999 Excavations. Paléorient 26, 45–54.
Schumann, W. (1992) Rocks, Minerals and Gemstones. London:
HarperCollins.
Sciama, L.D. and Eicher, J. (1998) Beads and Bead Makers: Gender,
Material Culture and Meaning. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Simmons, A. and Najjar, M. (1998) Al-Ghuwayr 1, a pre-pottery
Neolithic village in WadiFaynan, southern Jordan: a preliminary
report on the 1996–1997 seasons. Annual of the Department of
Antiquities of Jordan 42, 91–102.
Sorensen, M.L.S. (1997) Reading dress: the construction of social
categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of
European Archaeology 5, 93–114.
Starck, J. (1988) Stone rings from Baga and Basta: geographical and
chronological implications. Pp. 137–73 in A. Garrard and H. Gebel
(eds), The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 396.
Stein, G.J. (1996) Producers, patrons, and prestige: craft specialists and
emergent élites in Mesopotamia from 5500–3100 BC. In V.G.
Childe and B. Wailes (eds), Craft Specialization and Social
Evolution: in Memory of V. Gordon Childe. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthroplogy.
Wright et al.
Stocks, D. (1989) Ancient factory mass-production techniques: indications of large-scale stone bead manufacture during the Egyptian
New Kingdom Period. Antiquity 63, 526–31.
Stout, D. (2002) Skill and cognition in stone tool production: a case
study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 45, 693–722.
Talbot, G. (1983) Appendix K: beads and pendants from the tell and
tombs. Pp. 788–801 in K.M. Kenyon and T. Holland (eds), Jericho
V. London: British School of Archaeology Jerusalem.
Tosi, M. and Vidale, M. (1990) Fourth millennium BC lapis lazuli
working at Mehrgarh, Pakistan. Paléorient 16/2, 89–99.
Treherne, P. (1995) The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self
identity in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology
3, 105–44.
Valla, F., Khalaily, H., Valladas, H., Tinerat-Laborde, N., Samuelian,
N., Bocquentin, F., Rabinovich, R., Bridault, A., Simmons, T.,
Dosseur, G., Miller-Rosen, A., DuBreuil, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer,
D. and Belfer-Cohen, A. (2004) Les fouilles à Mallaha en 2000 et
2001: troisième rapport préliminaire. Journal of the Israel
Prehistoric Society 34, 49–244.
Vanzetti, A. and Vidale, M. (1994) Formation processes of beads:
defining different levels of craft skill among the early beadmakers
of Mehrgarh. Pp. 763–76 in A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio (eds),
South Asian Archaeology 1993, Volume II. Proceedings of the
Twelfth International Conference of the European Association of
South Asian Archaeologists, Helsinki University 5–9 July 1993.
Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Verhoeven, M. (2002) Transformations of society: the changing role of
ritual and symbolism in the PPNB and the PN in the Levant, Syria
and southeast Anatolia. Paléorient 28, 5–14.
Vianello, F. (1985) La lavorazione dell’amazzonite a Wadi Hafir,
Giordania meridionale. Studi per l’Ecologia del Quaternario 7, 77–122.
Vidale, M. (1989) Specialized producers and urban élites: on the role of
craft industries in mature Harappan urban centres. Pp. 171–81 in
J.M. Kenoyer (ed.), Old Problems and New Perspectives in the
Archaeology of South Asia. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Stone Bead Technologies
— Kenoyer, J.M. and Bhan, K. (1992) A discussion of the concept of
the chaı̂ne opératoire in the study of complex societies. Pp. 181–94
in A. Gallay (ed.), Ethnoarchéologie: justification, problèmes,
limites. Juan-les-Pins.
Wheeler, M. (1983) Appendix J: greenstone amulets. Pp. 781–87 in
K.M. Kenyon and T. Holland (eds), Jericho V. London: British
School of Archaeology Jerusalem.
Wright, K.I. (1992) Ground Stone Assemblage Variations and
Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,000 to 5500 b.p. PhD
dissertation, Department of Anthropology (University Microfilms
International), Yale University.
— (1993) Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant.
Levant 25, 93–111.
— (2006) Stone bead technology studies at Çatalhöyük, summer 2006.
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2006/. Çatalhöyük
Website Archive Reports 2006.
— (forthcoming) Households, lineages and networks: a framework for
understanding Near Eastern social organization. In K.I. Wright
(ed.), The Ancient Levant: A Social Archaeology. London: in
preparation.
— (in preparation) Beads and the body: ornament technologies of
Building 3 at Çatalhöyük. In R. Tringham and M. Stevanovic
(eds), Çatalhöyük Building 3: the Excavations of the University of
California at Berkeley at Çatalhöyük (BACH). Los Angeles:
Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of
California at Los Angeles.
— and Bains, R. (2007) Stone bead technology at Çatalhöyük, summer
2007. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2007/.
Çatalhöyük Website Archive Reports 2007.
and Garrard, A.N. (2003) Social identities and the expansion of stone
beadmaking in Neolithic western Asia: new evidence from Jordan.
Antiquity 77 (296), 267–84.
Wright, P. (1982) The bow-drill and the drilling of beads, Kabul, 1981.
Afghan Studies 3–4, 95–101.
Levant
2008
VOL
40
NO
2
165