Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard*
From their research in Jordan, the authors show that the appearance of early farming and
herding communities in western Asia coincided with a large expansion in stone bead
production. This reflects a new social role for personal ornament.
Keywords: Western Asia, Neolithic, beads, identity, exchange
Introduction
In the study of the beginnings of farming and herding in western Asia, many questions
remain unanswered, but two stand out. First, important changes in craft production and
exchange attended the Neolithic, but what stimulated them? Second, what were the effects
of changing economies on social organisation, or vice versa? Beads and bead-making are
important signals of social values, and can shed light on both issues. In this paper, we explore
the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic western Asia, using workshops in the JilatAzraq Basin, eastern Jordan. By ‘workshops,’ we mean simply bead production areas.
Body ornaments first appear in the archaeological record in the early Upper Palaeolithic
(45,000–20,000 BP), in East Africa (Enkapune ya Muto), Europe (Bacho Kiro), and western
v
Asia (Ksar Akil, Uçagizli).
Upper Palaeolithic beads, pendants and bracelets imply new attitudes
to body decoration that probably had evolutionary implications. The vast majority of Upper
Palaeolithic ornaments were made from ivory, shells, animal bones and teeth. By contrast,
Upper Palaeolithic stone beads are rare (Kuhn et al. 2001: 7642–5; White 1993:279–80;
1995: 29). In western Asia, at the end of the Palaeolithic (Natufian period), most body
ornaments were made of shells, gazelle phalanges, deer bones and fox teeth (D. Bar-Yosef
1991; O. Bar-Yosef 1997:166; Goring-Morris 1989:175–6; Reese 1991). Stone beads,
however, continue to be rare, although Natufian hunter-gatherers were fully capable of making
elaborate stone items (e.g. figurines). Stone beads become numerous and diverse only in the
Neolithic (conventionally divided into several sub-periods, see Table 1). In the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic A (PPNA) stone body ornaments begin to appear in abundance. By the Middle
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) most sites contain them and they become more numerous
and diverse in the PPNB and Early Late Neolithic (ELN).
In this paper, we address six questions:
*Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY
(Email: [email protected]; [email protected])
Received: 2 April 2002; accepted: 1 October 2002
267
Research
Social identities and the expansion of
stone bead-making in Neolithic Western
Asia: new evidence from Jordan
Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard
Table 1 Chronology of the southern Levant. Dates calibrated using INTCAL 98. Figures are rounded
off to the nearest 25 years.
Period
Upper Palaeolithic
Epipalaeolithic (Early and Middle)
Natufian (=Late Epipalaeolithic)
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)
Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB)
Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB)
Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (LPPNB)
Early Late Neolithic (ELN) (= PPNC)
Late Neolithic (LN) (=Pottery Neolithic)
Chalcolithic
Early Bronze Age
14
C BP
Cal BC
45000–20000
20000–12500
12500–10250
10250–9600
9600–9200
9200–8500
8500–8000
8000–7500
7500–6500
6500–5500
5500–4000
21750–12750
12750–10050
10050–9000
9000–8400
8400–7550
7550–6950
6950–6400
6400–5450
5450–4350
4350–2500
1
2
3
4
5
What stimulated the initial expansion of stone bead manufacture in the Neolithic?
What can early stone ornaments tell us about social identities?
What do aesthetic choices in stone bead-making tell us about cognition?
What were the social units of bead production?
To what degree can we speak of intensification and specialisation in Neolithic beadmaking?
6 How was exchange in stone beads integrated into changing economies?
To answer such questions, the ideal evidence would come from excavations of several welldated, contemporary sites in a defined region. Some, but not all, of the sites should have
special access to a source of a localised raw material used for ornaments. Such sites would
have in situ bead production areas, excavated with a view to maximum recovery of microartefacts and biological evidence. The Jilat-Azraq Basin Project in Jordan provided just such
an opportunity. Here, Neolithic stone bead workshops were found along with evidence for
the beginnings of cultivation and sheep or goat herding.
Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Jilat-Azraq Basin
The Jilat-Azraq Basin is a region of dry steppe-desert (Wadi Jilat) and oasis (Azraq), where
rainfall farming is not possible today (Figure 1). Wadi Jilat lies 30–40 km east of the presentday margins of the ‘Levantine Corridor’ (the Jordan Valley and adjacent highlands) where
rain-fed cultivation is possible and where large Neolithic villages emerged. Azraq Oasis lies
50 km north east of Wadi Jilat in this region, on the edge of the Basalt Desert. In all, 16 late
Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites have been excavated (Figure 2) (Garrard 1998, in preparation;
Garrard et al. 1994a–b; Baird et al. 1992).
The earliest steps in Levantine plant cultivation took place in the Levantine Corridor in
the PPNA. In the Jilat-Azraq Basin, cultivated plants appeared only later, in the Early-Middle
PPNB (Jilat 7, Azraq 31), when agricultural villages in the adjacent Levantine Corridor were
already well established (Garrard 1999). Similarly, while domestic goat and sheep first appeared
in Levantine Corridor villages in the Middle-Late PPNB (Horwitz et al. 1999), goat and
sheep were introduced (by human populations) into the Jilat-Azraq Basin only later, in the
268
Research
Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia
Figure 1 Map of the southern Levant.
Figure 2 Map of Wadi Jilat showing prehistoric sites (numbered)
269
Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard
ELN (Jilat 13, 25, Azraq 31) (Garrard et al. 1996). By then, in the Levantine Corridor many
PPNB villages were abandoned and many of the successive ELN settlements were much
smaller. This so-called PPNB collapse has been the subject of environmental, economic and
social interpretations (Kuijt 2000; Rollefson & Kohler-Rollefson 1989).
The Jilat-Azraq Neolithic sites may be interpreted as seasonal camps occupied by small
groups engaged in hunting, trapping, foraging, plant cultivation and – starting in the ELN –
sheep or goat herding. Most buildings are circular or oval, cut into bedrock, with flimsy walls
made of upright limestone slabs that supported lightweight roofs. The interiors contained
partitions, bins, hearths, postholes, benches, and worktables. The buildings are similar to
those of other steppe-desert Neolithic sites and those used by present-day nomads.
The beads
All contexts from all 16 excavated sites were sieved through a 5 mm mesh and substantial
samples were either dry or wet sieved through a 1.5 mm mesh (the latter after flotation).
Artefacts from rich contexts were separated by 1m square units. Despite these procedures,
not one stone bead was found in the 10 excavated late Palaeolithic sites. However, all six of
the excavated Neolithic (or later) sites produced stone beads and related debris from secure
contexts – a total of 10 528 items (Table 2).
Details of the bead technology will be published elsewhere (Wright, Garrard & Critchley
in preparation), but we present initial observations. Debris was classified into nodules, cores,
flakes, microflakes and shatter. Finished ornaments occurred in eight basic types (Figure 3).
Unfinished ornaments (blanks) occurred in the same forms, but have retouch scars or
incomplete or absent perforations. Some contexts yielded tools clearly used in bead-making:
flint drills, knives or saws, miniature mortars, sandstone abraders and limestone worktables.
The beads were made from ‘Dabba Marble’ of which the main sources lie between 10–20
km west of Wadi Jilat. These ‘marbles’ are localised Maastrichtian-Palaeocene limestones,
chalks and cherts which have undergone light metamorphosis and injection with green
chromites and apatites, red, dark brown and black bitumens and iron oxides (Bender 1974;
Jaser 1986). Similar materials may occur in isolated pockets west of the Dead Sea (Hatrurim
Formation; Gross 1977) (Figure 1).
The Dabba Marble used for ornaments occurs in several colours. Green, brown/black and
pale red variants are recrystallised and mineralised limestones; bright red variants derive
from altered cherts. Other materials used were dark brown/black flint, black silicified
sandstone, white limestone/chalk, white quartz/calcite, and white flint (Figures 4–6). Only
two long-distance imports (turquoise and malachite) were found. The nearest malachite
sources are Faynan (south Jordan) or Timna (south Israel) and the nearest source of turquoise
is southern Sinai (Figure 1).
The workshops
Most contexts of manufacture were found inside buildings and consist of true activity areas
and fills above floors (Table 2). Specifics of site formation can be found in the primary
reports (e.g. Garrard et al. 1994b; Baird et al. 1992), but most of the sites represent relatively
short-term occupations abandoned and buried fairly quickly.
270
B
B
E
B
C
A/C
A/C
T. 1
T. 2
Area
271
Str. 2
Str. 1
Str. 5
Str. 5
Outdoor
Outdoor
Str. 1
Str. 1–3
Str.4
Outdoor
Str. 6
Features
MPPNB
MPPNB
MPPNB
M-LPPNB
MPPNB
MPPNB
MPPNB
EPPNB
MPPNB
MPPNB
MPPNB
Phase
TOTAL – all sites
8720 +/– 100 BP (OxA–2407)
8690 +/– 110 BP (OxA–1802)
8740 +/– 110 BP (OxA–2969)
14.0
2.1
6.0
6.0
6.3
5.0
8.0
10.0
13.5
2.0
2.1
Volume
excavated (m3)
8810 +/– 110 BP (OxA–526)
8520 +/– 110 BP (OxA–527)
C14 Dates (Uncal BP)
Key: T. = Trench; Str. = Structure. For phase abbreviations, see Table 1.
Jilat 26
A
Jilat 32
A
Azraq 31 T.
Jilat 7
Jilat 7
Jilat 26
Jilat 26
Jilat 26
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Jilat 7
Jilat 7
Jilat 7
Jilat 7
1
2
3
4
Occupation
No.
Site
10,528
20
55
173
17
43
8
8
313
83
19
5
(N)
(100)
1.4
26.2
28.8
2.8
6.9
1.6
1.0
31.3
6.1
9.5
2.4
Density
(N/m3)
Stone Beads, Blanks, Debris
(100)
0.1
3.3
3.0
3.2
0.2
2.0
0.3
7.7
5.9
0.0
0.0
Density
(N/m3)
Research
333
2
7
18
19
1
10
2
77
80
0
0
(N)
Ground Stone
Table 2 Neolithic sites in the Jilat-Azraq Basin, indicating numbers (N) and densities (N/m3) of bead-making artefacts (beads, blanks and debris) and
ground stone tools from excavated contexts. Volumetric data are approximations.
Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia
Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard
Figure 3 Typology of stone ornaments from Jilat-Azraq sites.
The sites and their contexts illustrate changes in bead-making from the PPNB to the ELN.
The PPNB workshops were found at Jilat 7, Jilat 26, Jilat 32 and Azraq 31 (Table 2,
Occupations 1–13). In general, PPNB bead production seems to have been modest in scale
and associated with evidence for routine domestic activities (e.g. food processing).
At Jilat 7, bead workshops were found in a house cluster (Area A/C) and in an oval dwelling
with a bedrock shelf, a bin, post-holes or bedrock mortars and two hearths (Area B) (Figure
7). The most common stone ornaments were of dark brown silicified sandstone, a non-local
material that occurs only as finished beads, and only at Jilat 7 (Figure 4). Bone ornaments
and shell beads (of either Mediterranean or Red Sea origin) were also found (Martin &
Reese, in Garrard et al. 1994b and Baird et al. 1992). These buildings contained well-made,
unbroken basalt vessels, and caches of robust grinding slabs and handstones.
272
Research
Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia
Figure 4 Unfinished bead blanks and finished beads from
Jilat 7 (PPNB). Left column: bead blanks, green Dabba
Marble. Middle column: irregular beads, dark brown
silicified sandstone. Right column: disc beads, red Dabba
Marble (top and middle), and white chalk bead blank
(bottom right).
Figure 5 Unfinished bead blanks and finished beads from
Jilat 13 (ELN), in red and green Dabba Marble. Top 3
rows: unfinished bead blanks; Bottom 2 rows: finished beads.
Note the red flint variant of Dabba Marble (at top right).
Figure 6 Pendants from Jilat 13 (ELN), green Dabba
Marble.
At Jilat 26, two workshops were excavated amongst the 20 buildings revealed (Garrard et
al. 1994b: Figure 3). Area C revealed a sunken, circular dwelling, with a hearth, a posthole/
mortar and work-tables inside. Area A revealed a rectangular structure partitioned into four
niches. In plan (but not building technique), this structure resembles ‘pier houses’ in Levantine
Corridor villages (Byrd & Banning 1988). Dabba Marble debris, worked bone and shells
and ground stone artefacts were present but scarce. At Jilat 32, a small oval house was exposed
with ashy deposits inside. A few Dabba Marble debris fragments were found, along with a
complete mortar and pestle. At Azraq 31, Trench 1 revealed Late PPNB hearths in an outdoor
area, with beads and debris found in situ. The debitage shows that Dabba Marble was imported
273
Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard
as raw material and worked on site. Only three bone beads and two marine shells (of
Mediterranean origin) were recovered.
In the Early Late Neolithic sites, changes could be observed, especially at Azraq 31, Jilat
25, and Jilat 13 (Table 2, Occupations 14–21). Generally, ELN bead production seems to
have been larger in scale and associated with evidence for more specialised, craft–related
activities.
The ELN occupation at Azraq 31 consisted of large outdoor pits (Area B) and two oval
buildings (Area C). Much more bead-making debris was recovered in the ELN phase, in
comparison to the PPNB at this site. Debris and blanks indicate that Dabba Marble was
imported as raw material. Of the shell beads, mother-of-pearl appears for the first time, as do
shells native only to the Red Sea – evidence of wider exchange networks. Ground stone
artefacts were scanty, but included a miniature mortar with ochre residue. At Jilat 25, a single
oval building was exposed (Figure 8b), with postholes, stone-lined pits, and hearths. The
most common finished beads were red Dabba Marble discs; there were also white chalk
bracelets. Marine shells included species native only to the Red Sea. Ground stone items
were small sandstone abraders and work-slabs with cut-marks and percussion marks.
Jilat 13 was contemporary with Jilat 25 and ELN Azraq 31 (see 14C dates in Table 2). Areas
A–C at Jilat 13 revealed an oval structure, the largest Neolithic building found (Figure 8a).
The interior contained partition walls, postholes, pavements and hearths. Finished body
ornaments displayed the widest range of materials of all the sites, including two imported
beads, one of malachite (from Faynan or Timna) and one of turquoise (from Sinai). More
bone and shell beads were found here than at any other Neolithic site; the shells include
mother-of-pearl and four species of Red Sea origin. Ground stone artefacts were mainly
miniature mortars and pestles, limestone handstones, cut-marked slabs, small sandstone
abraders, and pebbles with ochre residues. Limestone pillars carved into statues were also
found, along with animal and phallic figurines. Finally, a large limestone work-slab was
found near a bin. Similar working surfaces have been found with bead-making debris in
houses at PPNB Beidha (Kirkbride 1966:25).
Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in the
Neolithic
What underlay the new demand for stone body ornaments in the Neolithic? One clue lies in
the diversity of early stone beads. Of the few Natufian stone beads, most are circular discs or
oval pendants, smaller than the predominant bone and shell ornaments. The PPNA and
PPNB stone ornaments are larger and much more diverse. Beads are discoidal, barrel-shaped,
cylindrical, and spherical; pendants are square, rectangular, or triangular (e.g., Gopher
1997:170; Talbot 1983:789–90; Wheeler 1983:782–4). In the Jilat-Azraq workshops, (Early
PPNB to ELN), there are eight basic forms (with variations), in eleven materials (eight local,
three exotic) and four colours (green, red, dark brown/black, white) (Figures 3 and 9). They
include relatively standardised circular disc beads (mostly of red Dabba Marble); variable
barrel beads (mostly green Dabba Marble); large pendants in several shapes (mostly green
Dabba Marble); and bracelets (of white chalk).
274
Research
Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia
Figure 7 Jilat 7 (PPNB): (a) structures in Area A/C; (b) structures in Area B and Trench 2. For site plan see Garrard et al.
1994: figure 2.
275
Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard
Figure 8 (a) Jilat 13 (ELN), Areas A–C (late phase).(b) Jilat 25 (ELN), Area A. For site plans see Garrard et al. 1994:
figures 5–6.
276
Used alone, bone and shell ornaments limit the visual impact conveyed by the wearer. By
adding stone ornaments to the repertoire, variations can be much greater, in colour, size and
shape. A greater diversity in individual beads also makes possible a greater diversity in bead
combinations. Consequently, it becomes possible to define a greater number of ‘signatures’
or non-verbal messages conveying an individual’s place in his or her social milieu. A greater
number of statuses, roles and social personae (such as age, gender and group affiliations)
could be defined for a given individual.
Ethnographies show that permissible dress often marks key stages and transitions in an
individual’s life. Examples include coming of age; membership in sodalities (e.g. hunting
groups, cf. ‘war paint’); chastity (cf. veiling); marriage (cf. wedding rings) (Turner 1969).
Rules governing such customs can be quite rigid as a means of ensuring social control of the
individual. Treatment of an individual’s hair is often also used to convey the degree of social
control (Hallpike 1969) and Australians use body painting for political purposes (Layton
1989). In fact, social control of the human body may be the mechanism par excellence of
enculturation, the imprinting of a culture on an individual (Bourdieu 1977:94; cf. Meskell
1996). Dress and body decoration can serve to construct social identities such as gender and
ethnicity; they can also form an arena for individual expression (Eicher 1995; Jones 1996;
Sφrenson 1997, 2000; Strathern & Strathern 1971).
Early Neolithic villagers were increasingly sedentary, living in close year-round contact
and depending on specific arable territories. This situation must have affected neighbouring
(arid-zone) groups as well. In these circumstances, social controls were probably becoming
more important, to define individuals, social boundaries, territories, group affiliations and
shared values. The ‘presentation of the self in everyday life’ (Goffman 1956) seems to take on
a new emphasis and a new degree of complexity in the Neolithic. The human body may also
be used to symbolise cosmologies (Douglas 1996). By adding stone ornaments to bone and
shell ornaments, it becomes possible to express a wider range of meanings.
There is other evidence that variations in dress conveyed important information about an
individual’s identity. Anthropomorphic art, very rare in Natufian sites, proliferates in the
Neolithic. Figurines, statues, paintings, and plastered adult skulls all testify to a profound
interest in the human body. Figurines and statues have decorations indicating clothing,
ornaments, hair. Depictions of hunters carefully delineate variations in clothing (especially
head-dress), and caches of special objects implying males and hunting activities indicate
something similar (e.g. from Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, Dhuweila, Nahal Hemar, cf. Çatalhöyük:
Bar-Yosef & Alon 1988; Betts 1998; McAdam 1997; Mellaart 1966; Tubb & Grissom 1995;
Wright 2000).
Aesthetic choices, cognition and value
Despite the available diversity of the Neolithic stone beads, the Jilat-Azraq beadmakers had
certain colour preferences. Green Dabba Marble overwhelmingly dominates the bead-making
debitage at each site and accounts for most of the unfinished bead blanks (Figures 9–10).
Green Dabba Marble was also used to make the largest, most conspicuous, and most diverse
ornaments (barrel beads, pendants), which, when worn, would have made the strongest
visual impact (Figures 5–6). Consequently, it appears that the green colour was emphasised.
There seems to have been a particular, and widespread, interest in green-coloured ornaments
277
Research
Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia
Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard
across the Levant and beyond. Unspecified ‘greenstone’ and other green beads are widely
reported and sometimes dominate bead assemblages from the PPNA onward (e.g. Garfinkel
1987:79; Gopher 1997:167; Talbot 1983:788; Wheeler 1983:781). Generally, body
ornaments are a rich but under-developed source for investigating colour classifications and
other aspects of cognition. Red, the second most common colour in the Jilat ornaments,
perhaps formed a structural opposition to green (and perhaps similarly for dark brown/black
versus white). It is tempting to infer certain meanings (e.g. green/ fertility/vegetation/life vs.
red/blood/animals/death) but we cannot substantiate them.
Thus, symbolic value (Appadurai 1986) probably played a role in Neolithic bead choices.
A high cultural value placed on green beads may have affected the eventual development of
copper metallurgy (A. Hauptmann, pers. comm.). Neolithic villagers in Wadi Faynan (a
copper source) specialised in green beads made of local copper ores (Simmons & Najjar
1998). Bead-making continued as a ‘sideline’ of early copper-working villages in Faynan in
the Early Bronze Age, when settlements proliferated there (Adams & Genz 1995; Wright et
al. 1998). By contrast, in Wadi Jilat the wave of Dabba Marble exploitation peaked in the
ELN and declined thereafter. Jilat 27 (Early Bronze Age) produced only a tiny amount of
(green) Dabba Marble debris. By then, mere stone beads were perhaps no longer enough and
green-coloured minerals had to be of a very particular kind.
Household production, intensification and specialisation
To what degree can we speak of craft specialisation in early stone bead-making? Obviously,
the large-scale specialisation characteristic of urban societies does not apply here, but
prehistorians have often wondered whether there was specialisation amongst Neolithic groups.
Costin (1991) suggests that archaeological patterns left by specialist craftsmen should show
three characteristics: (1) artefacts are differentially distributed among production units
(households, communities, regions); (2) there is a high density of craft production debris
relative to some other generally used item; (3) there are high ratios of unfinished goods to
finished goods. What patterns occur in the Jilat-Azraq sites?
In the PPNB sites the buildings occur in small clusters and the structures and assemblages
imply that small domestic households were the social units of ornament production. Assuming
that the samples are representative, variability between sites implies that in this period beadmaking was an opportunistic activity emphasised by some groups (Jilat 7) but not others
(Jilat 26, 32). Bead-making in PPNB Jilat-Azraq was not on a very large scale; the PPNB
sites account for only 7.6% of all stone bead-making artefacts from the Neolithic sites. The
overall densities of beads and related debris are also consistently low (Table 2). However, the
PPNB sites account for 66.7% of all Neolithic ground stone artefacts (58.3% from Jilat 7
alone) and the densities of ground stone are high. Shaft straighteners and food processing
tools (handstones, grinding slabs) overwhelmingly dominate the ground stone (Wright 1992).
Thus, bead-making appears to be embedded in – a sideline of – routine domestic activities.
By contrast, the ELN bead-makers’ buildings are isolated, not clustered, and one (Jilat 13)
is unusually large. Finished ornaments are diverse; for the first time, the full range of forms
shown in Figure 3 is seen. Bead-making was conducted on a much larger scale than in the
PPNB. Of all stone beads and related artefacts recovered in the project, 92.4% came from
ELN sites (88.1% from Jilat 25 and Jilat 13 alone), and the densities of bead-making artefacts
278
Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia
100
90
80
Research
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
J7
(n=564)
J25
(n=1381)
J13
(n=7369)
AZ31–PPN
(n=48)
AZ31–ELN
(n=376)
AZ31–PPN
(n=0)
AZ31–ELN
(n=23)
Debitage (n)
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
J7
(n=23)
J25
(n=88)
J13
(n=180)
Unfinished blanks (n)
100
90
80
70
Percentage
are at their highest (Table 2).
However, ground stone
artefacts from ELN sites
account for only 33.3% of all
Neolithic ground stone. The
ground stone artefacts are also
very different, with very few
(mainly fragmentary) food
processing tools. Instead,
sandstone abraders (not
found in PPNB contexts),
miniature tools, and
worktables dominate, whilst
statues and figurines also
occur, all signalling a greater
emphasis on bead-making
and other crafts (Wright
1992). Thus, relative to the
PPNB, the ELN sites indicate
intensification in craft
production, with an increased
element
of
(site)
specialisation.
The ratios of unfinished
goods (debris and blanks) to
finished beads are enormous,
by both number and weight
(Figures 9–10). Debris and
unfinished bead blanks
greatly emphasise green
Dabba Marble, whilst
finished ornaments occur in
a much broader range of
materials. In short, the
beadmakers were making a
much narrower range of bead
materials than they were
actually using (consuming) at
these sites. From these data,
we venture that the JilatAzraq beadmakers were
specialising in green Dabba
Marble, and producing
surpluses (stockpiles) of the
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
J7
(n=23)
J25
(n=116)
J13
(n=144)
AZ31–PPN
(n=5)
AZ31–ELN
(n=54)
Finished ornaments (n)
Green Dabba Marble
Red Dabba Marble
Black Dabba Marble
White Limestone/Chalk
Sandstone
Other
Figure 9 Frequency of debris, unfinished blanks, and finished ornaments, by raw material,
at Jilat 7, Jilat 25, Jilat 13, PPNB Azraq 31 (A31–P) and ELN Azraq 31 (A31–E). ‘Other’
includes dark brown/black flint, white flint, white quartz/calcite, malachite, turquoise.
279
Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
J7
(n=864g)
J25
(n=976g)
J13
(n=6905g)
AZ31–PPN
(n=79g)
AZ31–ELN
(n=370g)
Debitage (weight in grams)
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
J7
(n=21g)
J25
(n=82g)
J13
(n=222g)
AZ31–PPN
(n=0g)
AZ31–ELN
(n=75g)
Unfinished blanks (weight in grams)
100
90
80
70
Percentage
raw material, possibly for
export in that form (see
previous page).
How much time was
necessary to produce these
beads? We have not yet begun
experiments to measure this,
but an ethnoarchaeological
study of agate bead-making in
Khambat (India) is thoughtprovoking (Kenoyer et al.
1991:50–59).
With
traditional techniques, the
time required for beadmaking in Khambat was
formidable, from initial
production stages (3–4
months); hand sawing of one
nodule (3–4 hours);
handgrinding (4 hours to 4
days); drilling (2–10 hours
per centimetre); and
polishing with abrasives (15
days).
The Khambhat project was
designed to compare
archaeological patterns
produced
by
both
entrepreneurial households
making beads on a small scale
to supplement income, and
elite families specialising in
bead-making. Houses of
small-scale entrepreneurs
were characterised by low
quantities of debris and
unfinished beads and rapidly
fluctuating bead styles, with
little standardisation over
time. By contrast, houses of
elite bead merchants were
characterised by stockpiling
of raw materials and
unfinished blanks (often
recycled or sold) and long-
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
J7
(n=11g)
J25
(n=62g)
J13
(n=60g)
AZ31–PPN
(n=2g)
AZ31–ELN
(n=47g)
Finished ornaments (weight in grams)
Green Dabba Marble
Red Dabba Marble
Black Dabba Marble
White Limestone/Chalk
Sandstone
Other
Figure 10 Weight of debris, unfinished blanks, and finished ornaments, by raw material, at
Jilat 7, Jilat 25, Jilat 13, PPNB Azraq 31 (A31–P) and ELN Azraq 31 (A31–E). ‘Other’
includes dark brown/black flint, white flint, white quartz/calcite, malachite, turquoise.
280
Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia
Regional variation and exchange networks
Systematic sourcing studies do not yet exist for Levantine stone body ornaments, but we can
make some preliminary observations, focusing on the Jilat sites (closest to the Dabba Marble
source) and their relationships to other regions.
Of the thousands of stone beads and manufacturing debris recovered from the Jilat sites,
fewer than 25 items are exotics. The source of the silicified sandstone items from PPNB Jilat
7 is unknown. Apart from one possible blank, we have no clear evidence for the manufacture
of silicified sandstone beads at Jilat 7. The only other exotics are the two finished beads of
malachite and turquoise from Jilat 13, which derive from Faynan/Timna and Sinai (Figure
1). In short, the exotics in the Jilat sites appear to have arrived on the sites as finished beads.
On the other hand, there is evidence for export of Dabba Marble to sites far from Wadi Jilat
(see below). It seems likely that the Jilat stone beadmakers were producing some Dabba
Marble for export as raw material. In turn, they acquired a very few exotic finished beads,
and perhaps other commodities (e.g., sheep and goat in the ELN; cf. Martin 1999). In the
ELN, the exotic beads were acquired from wider exchange networks (turquoise, malachite,
mother of pearl, Red Sea shells).
As the Jilat sites were seasonal (probably occupied in the wet season, autumn to spring),
where were the complementary, dry-season sites? The candidates are Azraq Oasis and the
Basalt Desert, to the east, and the Levantine Corridor, to the west. Dabba Marble from Wadi
Jilat was certainly exported as raw material to points east (Azraq 31; Dhuweila). The closest
stylistic parallels to the Jilat ornaments also come from these sites (Cooke & Reese, in Betts
1998:138–140). Thus the Jilat beads fall within a common eastern desert style of beadmaking (and similarly for lithics; Baird 1993).
Ornaments from the Levantine Corridor villages differ sharply from this eastern desert
style. Here, ornaments were made mainly of local materials, whilst the forms of finished
ornaments seem to differ from site to site. ‘Ain Ghazal has mostly chalk pendants, tubular
and butterfly-shaped beads, and bone finger rings. Thick sandstone bracelets dominate at
Basta and Ba’ja; agate beads at Beidha; painted wooden beads at Nahal Hemar (Rollefson et
al. 1990; cf. Bar-Yosef & Alon 1988; Gebel et al. 1997; Kirkbride 1966; Nissen et al. 1987;
Talbot 1983; Wheeler 1983).
However, small quantities of exotic stones also occur in the villages (e.g. Garfinkel 1987).
These stones occur as raw nodules, debris, unfinished beads, and finished beads made into
local Levantine Corridor styles. Thus, some of these exotics were clearly imported in the
form of the raw material. For example, at ‘Ain Ghazal, manufacturing debris of green Dabba
Marble was found, along with other foreign materials (e.g. carnelian). Green Dabba Marble
and carnelian were both made into butterfly-shaped beads, a local style with no parallels in
Jilat (see Rollefson 1984:10; 1985:52; Rollefson and Simmons 1986:160; Rollefson et al.
1990:103–104). Similarly, Neolithic stone beads from Negev and Sinai display distinctive
characteristics not seen in eastern Jordan (e.g. Mayer 1997; Goring-Morris & Gopher
1983:156). Elsewhere in western Asia, stone bead repertoires are also very different from
region to region and site to site (Wright, Garrard & Critchley in preparation).
281
Research
term standardisation in the materials and types of ornaments produced. The ELN workshops,
especially Jilat 13 and Jilat 25, display patterns closer to the second category.
Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard
These regional specialisations and small-scale exchanges probably testify to the role of
trade in forming alliances and creating ‘social storage’ or social capital stored for harder times
(cf. Mayer 1997; O’Shea 1981). Early territorial food producers probably needed such
strategies. Dependence on annual rainfall, which in the Levant varies enormously from year
to year and place to place, meant that crop failures could occur unpredictably and might be
disastrous without some sort of risk-buffering. For early food producers, one way to counteract
the risks of dependence on specific territories would have been to form exchange relationships
and strategic alliances with other villages and with nomadic communities in neighbouring,
arid regions such as Jilat-Azraq.
Conclusions
In western Asia, the beginnings of stone bead-making on a significant scale coincided with
the appearance of plant domestication and village life in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. By the
ELN, evidence from eastern Jordan shows a correlation between greater specialisation in
bead-making and wider trade networks on the one hand and the introduction of domestic
sheep/goat on the other. Domestication of sheep and goat may have opened up wider regional
trade networks in exotic items from remote, distant, and arid areas – well before domestication
of pack animals (cf. Sherratt 1981). Early stone beadmaking can therefore be understood in
terms of new social and economic needs created by sedentary life.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, the British Academy, the Council for British Research
in the Levant, and the Wainwright Fund. For useful discussions we thank Douglas Baird, Brian Byrd, Pat Critchley,
Susan Colledge, Jack Green, Andreas Hauptmann and Louise Martin.
–1997. Symbolic expressions in later prehistory of the
Levant. In M. Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratmann &
N. Jablonski (eds.), Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image
and Symbol: 161–187. Berkeley, California:
California Academy of Sciences.
BAR-YOSEF, O. & D. ALON. (eds.) 1988. Nahal Hemar
Cave. Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities,
Atiqot 18.
BENDER, F. 1974. Geology of Jordan. Berlin: Borntraeger.
BETTS, A. (ed.) 1998. The Harra and the Hamad.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
BOURDIEU, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BYRD, B. & E. B. BANNING. 1988. Southern Levantine
pier houses. Paléorient 14 (1): 65–72.
COSTIN, C. 1991. Craft specialisation: issues in
defining, documenting and explaining the
organisation of production. In M. Schiffer (ed.),
Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 3: 1–56.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
DOUGLAS, M. 1996. Natural Symbols. New York:
Random House
References
ADAMS, R. B. & H. GENZ. 1995. Excavations at Wadi
Fidan 4. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 127: 8–20.
APPADURAI, A. 1986. The Social Life of Things.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BAIRD, D. 1993. Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages
from the Azraq Basin. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Archaeology, University of
Edinburgh.
BAIRD, D., A. GARRARD, L. MARTIN & K. WRIGHT.
1992. Prehistoric environment and settlement in
the Azraq Basin: the 1989 season. Levant 24: 1–31.
BAR-YOSEF, D.E. 1991. Changes in the selection of
marine shells from the Natufian to the Neolithic.
In O. Bar-Yosef & F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian
Culture in the Levant: 629–636. Ann Arbor:
International Monographs in Prehistory.
–1984. Seasonality among Neolithic hunter-gatherers
in southern Sinai. In J. Clutton-Brock & C.
Grigson (eds.), Animals and Archaeology 3: Early
Herders and their Flocks: 145–160. Oxford: BAR
International Series.
282
GORING-MORRIS, A.N. & A. GOPHER. 1983. Nahal
Issaron: A Neolithic settlement in the southern
Negev. Israel Exploration Journal 33: 149–161.
GROSS, S. 1977. The Geology of the Hatrurim Formation,
Israel. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel,
Bulletin 70.
HALLPIKE, C. 1969. Social hair. Man 4: 256–264.
HORWITZ, L., E. TCHERNOV, P. DUCOS, C. BECKER, A.
DRISCH, L. MARTIN & A. GARRARD. 1999. Animal
domestication in the southern Levant. Paléorient
25 (2): 61–78.
JASER, D.A. 1986. The Geology of Khan ez-Zabib.
Amman: Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Resources, Geology Division, Bulletin No. 3.
JONES, S. 1996 The Archaeology of Ethnicity. London:
Routledge.
KENOYER, J., M. VIDALE & K. BHAN. 1991.
Contemporary stone bead-making in Khambat,
India. World Archaeology 23(1):44–63.
KIRKBRIDE, D. 1966. Five seasons at the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic village of Beidha in Jordan. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 98: 5–72.
KUHN, S., M. STINER, D. REESE, & E. GULEC. 2001.
Ornaments of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic.
Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences
98 (13): 7641–7646.
KUIJT, I. 2000. People and space in early agricultural
villages. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:
75–102.
LAYTON, R. 1989. The political use of Australian
aboriginal body painting and its archaeological
implications. In I. Hodder (ed.), The Meanings of
Things: 1–11. London: HarperCollins.
MACADAM, E. 1997. The figurines from the 1982–
1985 seasons at ‘Ain Ghazal. Levant 29: 115–146.
MARTIN, L. 1999. Mammal remains from the eastern
Jordanian Neolithic and the nature of caprine
herding in the steppe. Paléorient 25 (2): 87–104.
MAYER, D.E. 1997. Neolithic shell bead production in
Sinai. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 97–111.
MELLAART, J. 1966. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük 1965.
Anatolian Studies 16: 165–191.
MESKELL, L. 1996 The somatization of archaeology.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 29(1):1–16.
NISSEN, H., M. MUHEISEN, H.G. GEBEL, C. BECKER, R.
NEEF, H. PACHAR & N. QADI. 1987. Report on the
first two seasons of excavations at Basta 1986–
1987. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of
Jordan 31: 79–119.
O’SHEA, J. 1981. Coping with scarcity: exchange and
social storage. In A. Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds.),
Economic Archaeology: 167–183. Oxford: BAR
International Series 96.
EICHER, J. (ed.) 1995. Dress and Ethnicity. Oxford:
Berg.
GARFINKEL, Y. 1987. Bead manufacture on the PrePottery Neolithic B site of Yiftahel. Mitekufat
Haeven 20: 79–90.
GARRARD, A. 1998. Environment and cultural
adaptations in the Azraq Basin, 24,000–7000 BP.
In D. Henry (ed.), The Prehistoric Archaeology of
Jordan: 139–148. Oxford: BAR International
Series 705.
–1999. Charting the emergence of cereal and pulse
domestication in south west Asia. Environmental
Archaeology 4: 57–76.
–(ed.) in preparation. Beyond the Fertile Crescent:
Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic Communities of the
Azraq Basin. London: British Academy
Monograph Series.
GARRARD, A., D. BAIRD & B. BYRD. 1994a. The
chronological basis and significance of the late
Palaeolithic and Neolithic sequence in the Azraq
Basin, Jordan. In O. Bar-Yosef and R. Kra (eds.),
Late Quaternary Chronology and Palaeoclimates of
the Eastern Mediterranean: 177–200. Tucson:
Radiocarbon.
GARRARD, A., D. BAIRD, S. COLLEDGE, L. MARTIN & K.
WRIGHT. 1994b. Prehistoric environment and
settlement in the Azraq Basin: the 1987–1988
seasons. Levant 26: 73–109.
GARRARD, A., S. COLLEDGE & L. MARTIN. 1996. The
emergence of cultivation and pastoralism in the
‘marginal zone’ of the southern Levant. In D.
Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture
and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 204–226. London:
UCL Press.
GEBEL, H., H. BIENERT, T. KRAMER, B. MULLERNEUHOF, R. NEEF, J. TIMM & K. WRIGHT. 1997.
Ba’ja hidden in the Petra mountains. In H. G.
Gebel, Z. Kafafi, & G. Rollefson (eds.), The
Prehistory of Jordan II: 221–262. Berlin: Ex
Oriente.
GOFFMAN, E. 1956. The Presentation of the Self in
Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh.
GOPHER, A. 1997. Ground stone tools and other stone
objects from Netiv Hagdud. In O. Bar-Yosef & A.
Gopher (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the
Jordan Valley: 151–176. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: American School of Prehistoric
Research.
GORING-MORRIS, N. 1989. Sociocultural aspects of
marine mollusc use in the terminal Pleistocene in
the Negev and Sinai. In C. Hayes (ed.), Proceedings
of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference, Selected Papers:
175–188. Rochester, New York: Rochester
Museum and Science Centre.
283
Research
Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia
Katherine Wright & Andrew Garrard
TALBOT, G. 1983. Appendix K: beads and pendants. In
K. Kenyon & T. Holland (eds.), Jericho V: 788–
801. London: British School of Archaeology
Jerusalem.
TUBB, K. & C. GRISSOM. 1995. ‘Ayn Ghazal: a
comparative study of the 1983 and 1985 statuary
caches. In K. ‘Amr, F. Zayadine, & M. Zaghloul
(eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of
Jordan V: 437–448. Amman: Department of
Antiquities of Jordan.
TURNER, V. 1969. The Ritual Process. Chicago: Aldine.
WHEELER, M. 1983. Appendix J: greenstone amulets. In
K. Kenyon & T. Holland (eds.), Jericho V: 781–
787. London: British School of Archaeology
Jerusalem.
WHITE, R. 1993. Technological and social dimensions
of Aurignacian age body ornaments across Europe.
In H. Knecht, A. Pike–Tay, & R. White (eds.),
Before Lascaux: The Complex Record of the Early
Upper Palaeolithic: 277–299. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Press.
–1995. Ivory personal ornaments of Aurignacian age.
In J.Hahn et al. (ed.), Le travail et l’usage de l’ivoire
au Paléolithique supérieur: 29–62. Rome: Istituto
Poligrafico e Zecco dello Strato.
WRIGHT, K. 1992. Ground Stone Assemblage Variations
and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,000–
5,500 bp. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University,
Dept. of Anthropology. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University Microfilms International.
–2000. The social origins of cooking and dining in
early villages of western Asia. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 66: 1–33.
WRIGHT, K., A. GARRARD & P. CRITCHLEY. in prep.
Neolithic bead–making assemblages from the JilatAzraq Basin. Paper to be submitted to Paléorient.
WRIGHT, K., M. NAJJAR, J. LAST, N. MOLONEY ET AL.
1998. The Wadi Faynan 4th–3rd millennia
project, 1997. Levant 30: 33–60.
REESE, D. 1991. The trade of Indo-Pacific shells into
the Mediterranean Basin and Europe. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 10: 159–196.
ROLLEFSON, G. 1984. ‘Ain Ghazal: An early Neolithic
community in highland Jordan. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 255: 3–14.
–1985. The 1983 season at the early Neolithic site of ‘Ain
Ghazal. National Geographic Research 1 (1): 44–62.
ROLLEFSON, G., Z. KAFAFI. & A. SIMMONS. 1990. The
1988 season at ‘Ain Ghazal. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement
27: 95–116.
ROLLEFSON, G. & I. KOHLER-ROLLEFSON. 1989. The
collapse of early Neolithic settlements in the
southern Levant. In I Hershkovitz (ed.), People and
Culture in Change: 73–90. Oxford: BAR
International Series 508.
ROLLEFSON, G. & A. SIMMONS. 1986. The Neolithic
village of ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan: the 1984 season.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Supplement 24: 145–164.
SHERRATT, A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of
the secondary products revolution. In I. Hodder,
G. Isaac and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the
Past: 261–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
SIMMONS, A. & M. NAJJAR. 1998. Al-Ghuwayr 1,
Faynan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of
Jordan 42: 91–100.
SORENSEN, M. 2000. Gender Archaeology. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
–1997. Reading dress: the construction of social
categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe.–
Journal of European Archaeology 5(1):93–114.
STRATHERN, A. & M. STRATHERN. 1971. Body
Decoration in Mount Hagen. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
284