Spinning Through Time: an Analysis of Pottery Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze I Spindle Whorl Assemblages from the Southern Levant

Spinning through Time: An Analysis of Pottery Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze I Spindle Whorl Assemblages from the Southern Levant

A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Anthropology of the College of Arts and Sciences 2018

Blair Heidkamp

B.A. The College of Wooster May 2015

Committee: Alan P. Sullivan, Chair Susan E. Allen

Abstract

Spindle whorls, which are used for the production of thread, are one of the only artifacts related to the textile industry which survives in the archaeological record. At the crossroads of Anatolia,

Mesopotamia, and Egypt, the southern Levant is at the intersection of cultural and technological change, particularly throughout the chronological scope of my study: the Pottery Neolithic (PN),

Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze I (EBI) periods. This study, conducted as research for my master’s thesis, is the first comprehensive diachronic study of spindle whorls on the prehistoric southern Levant. I collected data from published sources, as well as personally analyzed the spindle whorl assemblages from the Chalcolithic site of Marj Rabba and the Early Bronze I site of Tel Yaqush to create a database of whorls. From this compiled diachronic dataset, I noticed specific trends in the data, most notably, a shift with primarily ceramic whorls in PN assemblages to a majority of EBI whorls made of stone. Evaluating the observed trends in spindle whorls, along with identifying the materials and potential processes individuals were using to spin thread, I propose there was a shift from primarily wool spinning in the earlier periods to primarily linen spinning by the EBI.

ii

iii Acknowledgments

I would first like to acknowledge the patience and guidance of my advisors, Dr. Alan P.

Sullivan and Dr. Susan Allen. Their time, effort, and edits allowed for the completion of this thesis. I also have to thank the Taft Research Center for awarding me a Taft Graduate

Enrichment Grant, allowing me to complete data collection for this thesis. Additionally, the

American Center of Oriental Research in Amman and the Albright Institute of Archaeological

Research in Jerusalem allowed me to use their libraries for research. Dr. Yorke Rowan has helped guide my research in archaeology and first introduced me to spindle whorls through my internship with him studying ground stone at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research.

Last, I thank Eric Hubbard for reading early drafts of this thesis and for continued help throughout the writing process.

iv Table of Contents

Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents v List of Figures vi List of Tables vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Examining the Existing Literature 3 Research Aims 3 Organization of Thesis 4 Chapter 2: The Archaeological Investigation of Prehistoric Textile Production 5 Archaeological Evidence of Spindle Whorls 5 Materials Used for Spindle Whorls 8 Fibers Used for Spinning 9 Experimental Archaeology: Spinning 13 Chronological Aspects of Prehistoric Spindle Whorl Assemblages 15 Pottery Neolithic (Late Neolithic) 23 Chalcolithic 24 Early Bronze Age I 24 Chapter 3: Analysis of Spindle Whorl Variability 26 Data Collection 26 Materials Used for Spindle Whorls 27 Analysis of the Complete Assemblage 27 Analysis of the Pottery Neolithic Assemblage 34 Analysis of the Chalcolithic Assemblage 37 Analysis of the Early Bronze Age I Assemblage 43 Chapter 4: Comparative Analysis 49 Comparing the PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI Analyses 49 Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions 54 Diachronic Changes in Materials used for Spindle Whorls 54 Evaluating an Increase in Linen Production 56 Summary 57 Understanding Changes in Prehistoric Levantine Spindle Whorls 58 Future Research 58 Conclusion 59 References Cited 61

v List of Figures Figure 1.1 Satellite Imagery of the Southern Levant (Photo Courtesy of Google Maps) 2 Figure 2.1 Map of Pottery Neolithic Sites with Spindle Whorls 20 Figure 2.2 Map of Chalcolithic Sites with Spindle Whorls 21 Figure 2.3 Map of Early Bronze I Sites with Spindle Whorls 22 Figure 3.1 Frequency Distribution of Spindle Whorl Variables 29 Figure 3.2 Scatter Plots of Spindle Whorl Variables of the Complete Assemblage 33 Figure 3.3 Frequencies of Material Types from 18 PN Assemblages 34 Figure 3.4 Frequency Distributions of Diameter and Thickness Measurements for the PN Spindle Whorls 36 Figure 3.5 Scatter Plot of Diameter and Thickness for PN Period Spindle Whorls 37 Figure 3.6 Variation of Material Types for 20 Chalcolithic Period Spindle Whorl Assemblages 37 Figure 3.7 Frequency Distributions of Measurement Data of the Chalcolithic Assemblage 40 Figure 3.8 Scatter Plots of Variables from Chalcolithic Period Spindle Whorls 42 Figure 3.9 Distribution of Material Types of EBI Period Spindle Whorls 43 Figure 3.10 Frequency Distribution of Spindle Whorl Variables of the EBI Assemblage 45 Figure 3.11 Scatter Plots Comparing Spindle Whorl Variables of the EBI Assemblage 48

vi List of Tables Table 2.1 Chronology of Southern Levant (Sharon 2014) 16 Table 2.2 Pottery Neolithic Sites Examined for Spindle Whorls 17 Table 2.3 Chalcolithic Sites Examined for Spindle Whorls 18 Table 2.4 EBI Sites Examined for Spindle Whorls 19 Table 3.1 Proportions of Stone and Ceramic Whorls by Period 27 Table 3.2 Descriptive Statistics of Spindle Whorl Measurement Data 28 Table 3.3 Independent Samples T-Test of Complete Assemblage Parametric Variables 30 Table 3.4 Independent Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test of Complete Assemblage Non-Parametric Variables 31 Table 3.5 Pearson r and Spearman Rho Tests on the Complete Assemblage 33 Table 3.6 Frequencies of Stone and Ceramic Whorls from PN Period Sites 35 Table 3.7 Descriptive Statistics of the PN Spindle Whorls 35 Table 3.8 Frequencies and Percentages of Stone and Ceramic Whorls from Chalcolithic Period Sites 38 Table 3.9 Measurement Data Divided by Material for the Chalcolithic Assemblage 39 Table 3.10 Independent Samples T Test and Mann-Whitney U Test of Measurement Data from Chalcolithic Period 41 Table 3.11 Pearson R and Spearman Rho Correlations of Variables from Chalcolithic Period Spindle Whorls 42 Table 3.12 Frequencies and Percentages of Stone and Ceramic Whorls from EBI Period Sites 44 Table 3.13 Measurement Data Divided by Material for the EBI Assemblage 44 Table 3.14 Independent Samples T Test of Measurement Data of the EBI Assemblage 46 Table 3.15 Pearson R and Spearman Rho Correlations of Spindle Whorl Variables for the EBI Assemblages 47 Table 4.1 Comparison of Average Dimensional Data between Time Periods 49 Table 4.2 Kruskal-Wallis Test Between Stone and Ceramic Whorls Among All Time Periods 50 Table 4.3 Tukey HSD of the Complete Assemblage 51 Table 4.4 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U Test of Stone Spindle Whorls 51 Table 4.5 Tukey HSD Test of Stone Spindle Whorls 52 Table 4.6 Kruskal-Wallis Test for Ceramic Spindle Whorls 52 Table 4.7 Tukey HSD Test for Ceramic Spindle Whorls 53

vii Chapter 1 Introduction

Spindle whorls are one of the few artifact types pertaining to textile production that exist in the archaeological record. They are, therefore, immensely important in the interpretation of thread and textile production, particularly in prehistoric periods when fewer artifacts survive the millennia. Spindle whorls, a type of flywheel, are circular objects that are centrally perforated and attached to a straight stick called a spindle. The whorl and spindle combination is used to pull and twist fiber into threads. The whorl’s particular function is to increase the number of spins per maneuver by the human spinner.

Archaeological investigations in the southern Levant, corresponding to the area of modern Israel, Jordan, and Palestine (Figure 1.1), have been ongoing for over a century. Textile production, however, has not been studied extensively largely due to the lack of evidence found in the archaeological record. Most elements of textile production, such as spindles, looms, and the textiles themselves are made of organic material that do not survive in the archaeological record. In contrast, spindle whorls made of ceramic and stone are often preserved in archaeological contexts. Spindle whorls can provide insight to the ancient Levantine textile industry based on wool and linen textiles.

Elizabeth J. W. Barber (1991) and Orit Shamir (2003, 2004) have previously investigated what can be inferred about textile production or society from spindle whorls. Issues arose, however with these studies because of small sample sizes and the lack of any compiled dataset of spindle whorls. Appreciating the lack of any existing dataset, my aim was to construct a diachronic dataset by using published site reports. The impact of analyzing prehistoric spindle whorls would be

1

Figure 1.1 Satellite Imagery of the Israel, Jordan, Palestine and Surrounding Area (Photo Courtesy of Google Maps).

2 greater than that for later periods, for which written sources or better preservation of textile related artifacts exist. The Pottery Neolithic (PN), Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze I (EBI) periods, dating 6500-3000 BCE, in the southern Levant exhibit changes in agricultural practices and social dynamics, which is why they were selected as the periods under investigation for this project. Diversity in subsistence and settlement patterns may be reflected in textile production and in spindle whorl variability. This reflection may be exhibited in the materials used for whorls, as well as the resulting materials produced by the whorls.

Examining the Existing Literature

While textile production has not been studied as extensively as other aspects of prehistoric society, there are a number of scholars who have researched the subject. The study of prehistoric textile production by Elizabeth J. W. Barber (1991) remains the definitive source on the subject. The book examines the stages of production for thread and textiles and explores interpretations that can be made from textile evidence. Barber (1991) calls for an expansion of reporting of spindle whorls and other artifacts related to the textile industry because of the interpretations that can be based off of their material and measurement data. Comparative datasets from the region help to inform this study. For example, Janet Levy and Isaac Gilead’s

(2012) discussion of spindle whorls from the Chalcolithic period in the southern Levan provides an induction of spindle whorl norms during this specific period. However, evaluating diachronic changes in spindle whorl assemblages has heretofore not been possible due to lack of thorough assessments of assemblages from before and after the Chalcolithic.

Research Aims

This study developed the first compiled diachronic dataset of spindle whorls from the southern Levant for the PN, Chalcolithic and EBI. A second aspect of my study is to identify

3 diachronic changes in spindle whorl form during these prehistoric time periods in the southern

Levant. Observations of changes in spindle whorl variables can then be interpreted as responses to various facets of prehistoric technology and society. In order to accomplish these objectives, I created a dataset of 880 published ceramic and stone spindle whorls from 51 southern Levantine sites dating from the PN through EBI periods. My hypothesis, based on previous observation, is that there is a change in proportions of materials used for spindle whorls, with a higher frequency of ceramic whorls in the PN and a higher frequency of stone whorls in the EBI. In addition to material, measurement data were also available in publications for a portion of the spindle whorls. In order to supplement inconsistently published measurement data on spindle whorls, I conducted analysis of the assemblages from Chalcolithic Marj Rabba and EBI Tel Yaqush. A key finding of this research is statistically significant differences in specific variables, such as weight, as demonstrated through the analysis of measurement data. This finding aids in the interpretation of the changes seen in material among the three time periods.

Organization of the Thesis

In Chapter 2, I investigate the current state of research on spindle whorls, early textile manufacture, and the prehistory of the southern Levant. Chapter 3 presents the results of statistical analysis of the spindle whorl measurement data. Chapter 4 is an assessment of the observed changes in spindle whorl variability among the PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI. Chapter 5 contains concluding remarks about what this thesis has accomplished and details the projection of further research on prehistoric spindle whorls from the southern Levant.

4 Chapter 2 The Archaeological Investigation of Prehistoric Textile Production

Archaeological Evidence of Spindle Whorls

Spindle whorls are a type of flywheel used in the production of thread. The whorl, which is attached to a spindle or straight shaft typically made of wood or bone, acts as a weight. The weight of the whorl assists in elongating the amount of time the spindle spins, allowing the thread producer to spin more thread per movement. There are three distinct spindle and whorl combinations: low-whorl spindles, high-whorl spindles, and drop spindles. Low-whorl spindles have the whorl placed near the bottom of the shaft and are spun like a top with fingers (Crockett

1997; Barber 1991). High-whorl spindles have the whorl placed at the upper end of the spindle and are spun along the user’s leg. Drop spindles spin free hanging from the thread wound up on the spindle. These combinations are illustrated in ancient depictions of spinning from Egypt and

Mesopotamia and are described in ethnographic sources (Kissel 1918; Crowfoot 1931, 1941,

1943, 1944, 1954; Weir 1970; Koster 1977; Liu 1978; Vogel 1989; Barber 1991).

Because the perishable materials from which the spindle and some whorls were made rarely survive, the archaeological evidence of spinning in the southern Levant is limited. There are only two surviving examples of spindles with attached whorls from the time periods and regions within the scope of this project, one from Ashalim Cave and one from Abu Kharaz.

Ashalim Cave is a burial cave located in the Negev desert west of the Dead Sea. Radiocarbon determinations from the cave yield calibrated dates of 4325-4000 BCE, identified as Late

Chalcolithic (Langgut et al. 2016: 981). The spindle made of wood measures approximately 25 cm in length with a notch near the end with the whorl. The whorl is made of lead, an uncommon material for whorls, and weighs 155.6 g (Langgut et al. 2016: 983). The lead whorl in question is argued to be the earliest recovered spindle with attached whorl in the southern Levant (Langgut

5 et al. 2016: 973). However, “it is often difficult to be sure whether any given round object with a hole in it is an actual spindle whorl or is instead a bead or weight” (Barber 1991:51). This is a continuing issue, as a recent publication argues this artifact is a macehead, a ritual or cultic stick, based on evidence of copper alloy mace heads from the Chalcolithic Cave of Treasure in Israel, as well as depictions of maceheads in Mesopotamia and Egypt millennia after the Chalcolithic in the southern Levant (Bar-Yosef et al. 2017). Langgut et al. (2017) provide a rebuttal to this claim, asserting the original interpretation of the grouping of artifacts as spindles and whorls.

In another burial cave located nearby, Qina Cave, four spindles were found near three basalt whorls (Langgut et al. 2016: 983); hence, it can be inferred the shafts and whorls are associated. At the site of Tell ‘Abu al-Kharaz, east of the Jordan Valley, there is ample evidence of textile production, including a spindle whorl attached to a wooden stick from an Early Bronze

IB context (Fischer 2006). In addition, the site has evidence of a loom, other spindle whorls and loom weights (Fischer 2006, 2008), which are indicative of the process of spinning thread.

Other evidence of spinning and weaving include depictions of spinning, textiles, and additional artifacts associated with textile production. Depictions of spinning are found in later periods from sites in Egypt and Mesopotamia (Barber 1991). Textile and fiber remains from archaeological contexts are rare because they are organic material, and the environment of the southern Levant does not lend itself to organic preservation. At the Early Epipaleolithic site of

Ohalo II twisted fibers were discovered in relation to fish bones on the floor of a hut structure

(Nadel et al. 1994; Boyd 2018). Twisted fibers from Ohalo II were likely hand spun and used as a storage bags or nets, textile examples appear in later periods. These twisted fibers were preserved due to a consistently damp environment, adjacent to Sea of Galilee. The earliest linen textile in the southern Levant is from the site of Nahal Hemar (Schick 1988). Additional linen

6 textile examples are attested in later caves in the desert at Nahal Mishmar and Nahal Hemar

(Schick 1998; Levy and Gilead 2012). Unlike Ohalo II, the caves in the Judean desert are consistently very dry which allows for the preservation of organic materials. Other artifacts arguably associated with spinning and textile production include projectile points with shafts, needles, fishnet weights, pierced shells, and in later periods, the appearance of distaffs. These artifacts indicate the use of thread, or cordage, based on their individual functions.

A key problem for the analysis of spindle whorls is that they have been inconsistently identified or reported in publications, making it difficult to attempt a comparative study(Barber

1991; Mårtensson et al. 2006a, 2006c, 2007). Liu (1978) and Barber (1991) propose specific dimension ranges for the identification of objects as spindle whorls. Spindle whorls range in diameter from 20 to 150 mm; those under 20 mm are typically classified as beads. Perforation diameter has generally been reported at 3-10 mm (Liu 1978; Barber 1991). Spindle whorl weights have an upper limit of 140-150 g as heavier whorls would likely break the fibers (Liu

1978; Barber 1991). Diameter and weight are the most important metrics for consideration because they directly affect the resulting thread that is produced. Whorl diameter affects the speed of the spin, smaller diameter means a faster spin and more twists per unit of length. Wider diameter spindle whorls spin slower resulting in fewer twists per unit of length. Hochberg (1980) uses the analogy of an ice skater with arms outstretched the ice skater twists slowly, when the skater brings their arms in, they spin faster. Whorl weight is an important variable because it influences the speed that thread is spun, which is directly related to the length of fibers it can spin effectively. Longer fibers need heavier weights, while shorter fibers need lighter weights

(Barber 1991). The thread producer would be aware of these effects and would choose certain whorls for specific fibers or certain types of end- products. Material choice for spindle whorls,

7 therefore, is important. Ceramics and organic materials are generally lighter than stone, with the exception of chalk. Knowing the weights of whorls can therefore help to indicate the type of fibers being spun at a site or within a region.

Even with metrical standards for determining which artifacts are spindle whorls, identifying whorls from publications is difficult because their measurements are often not reported. For this study, I relied on form and relative size based on drawings or photos in publications. The general definition of form is that the spindle whorl must have symmetrical, circular circumference with a central perforation. If a whorl’s perforation is off center the spindle

“will spin with a counterproductive amount of wobble” (Barber 1991:52).

Publication reports often misidentify spindle whorls as loom weights. Justification for labeling spindle whorls as loom weights comes from lack of contextual information, such as presence of a spindle. However, Barber argues, “loom weights are seldom as small or as light as the largest whorls, and need not be pierced centrally” (1991:52). In the same way a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares, a spindle whorl may additionally function as a loom weight but not all loom weights can function as spindle whorls.

Materials Used for Spindle Whorls

Ceramic whorls are first seen in the archaeological record in the Late Neolithic, with the exception of a few examples from the PPN (Wheeler 1982). While the majority of the whorls are fired ceramic, some of them are unfired dried clay. There is also a distinction between the fired ceramic whorls, some are purpose-built and some are repurposed sherds from previously whole vessels. The ceramic whorls that are purpose-built typically have a biconical or spherical shaped with a central perforation formed before firing. Spindle whorls that are made from repurposed sherds have a disc form with ground edges, a drilled central perforation, and a curved profile.

8 The variability of form can indicate the intent and consideration of the producer, however, most published reports of spindle whorls do not indicate the form of the whorls in their description.

Stone whorls are made from a wide variety of stones including limestone, basalt, chalk, and many others (Chapter 3), and come in forms such as biconical, spherical, pear-shaped, and disc. Seemingly all stone spindle whorls were purpose formed.

Ethnographic reports from Palestine and Africa indicate a variety of organic materials were used for expedient whorls including bone, ivory, wood, shell, or fruits and vegetables

(Frödin and Nordenskiöld 1918; Crowfoot 1931; Hochberg 1980; Levy and Gilead 2012).

Whorls made of organic material, if used in prehistory, have not survived and, therefore, are not represented in this study.

Fibers Used for Spinning

The two fibers primarily used for thread production in the prehistoric southern Levant are flax and sheep or goat wool: “Silk and cotton seem to have been relative latecomers into the

Mediterranean, both arriving during classical Greek times” (Barber 1991:30).

Wild flax is indigenous to the Mediterranean basin, southwest Asia, and Caucasia (Weiss and Zohary 2011). The earliest known evidence of flax fibers, which were twisted and dyed, have recently been discovered at the Upper Paleolithic Dzudzuana Cave in Georgia, dating to ca

30,000 BP (Kvavadze et al. 2009; Bergfjord et al. 2010; Weiss and Zohary 2011; Levy and

Gilead 2012). These fibers are undomesticated flax specimens (Linum bienne) (Dempsey 1975).

Other utilized wild flax specimens from southwest Asia are from Tell Mureybit in Iraq, dated from ca 10,900-9,900 cal. BP (van Zeist and Casparie 1968; Weiss and Zohary 2011), with similar examples also at Çayönü, Tell Aswad, Jericho and Ein Ghazal (Levy and Gilead 2012).

The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), the period associated with the agricultural revolution,

9 shows the first evidence of domesticated flax (Linum usitatissimum) at the site of Jericho

(Zohary et al. 2012). Nahal Hemar, a PPNB site produced the first woven cloth in the southern

Levant. The cloth is made of linen, although it is unknown whether it was made of wild or domesticated flax (Barber 1991). It is also important to note that flax was also utilized for its oil

(linseed oil) and was domesticated for oil production in addition to fiber. The domesticated oil varieties of flax are “relatively short (30-70cm) and branched and usually bear large seeds”

(Weiss and Zohary 2011: S249). The domesticated fiber varieties are “taller and sparsely branched and usually produce small seeds” (Weiss and Zohary 2011: S249).

Processing flax fibers is a labor-intensive process. For wild flax, the beginning of this process is harvesting. For domesticated flax, the process starts at sowing seeds. When to harvest either wild or domesticated flax is determined by which finished linen product the producer wants. The younger the plant is, the finer and paler the fibers will be; the older it is, the coarser and stronger (Hess 1954, 1958; Geijer 1972). Once harvested, the flax is then left to dry. This is followed by a step called retting, meaning “to make rot,” to remove the majority of plant material binding the fibers of the stem (Barber 1991). This step is done either by using dew accumulation or by placing the flax in a body of water (Barber 1991). When retted with dew, the flax becomes brittle with a silvery grey color (Bellinger 1962); when retted in a river or pond, the flax takes on a golden blond color (Barber 1991). After the process of retting, the flax is dried again: “The remaining unwanted pieces of stem material need to be broken up (a process called braking) and beaten free (scutching)” (Barber 1991:13). After the flax is scutched, it is combed to eradicate any remaining unwanted fragments, called hackling (Hammond 1845; Hess 1958):

“During scutching and hackling, the short, broken fibers known as tow come loose from the long strands, or line. These (tow) are spun separately, producing lower grades of linen” (Barber

10 1991:13). The resulting bast fibers used for spinning range from 30 to 75 cm long (Mårtensson et al. 2006b).

The other fiber thought to be primarily used in prehistoric textile production in the southern Levant is wool. In the present day, wool is most commonly associated with sheep; however, wool can originate from both sheep and goats (Davis 1982; Barber 1991). In modern contexts, goat hair is primarily used for the production of Bedouin tent coverings. There is no prehistoric evidence of goat wool textiles (Levy 1983; Waetzoldt 2007), which may suggest that most wool in the prehistoric southern Levant originated from sheep. It has been suggested that wool was the first utilized fiber, and that early wool utilization most likely was in the form of unspun felting (Barber 1991). Felting only requires the wetting and rubbing of wooly fibers together and can happen naturally while still attached to the animal (Barber 1991). Early use of wool fibers is plausible because of the yearly molting of sheep and goats. The animals naturally shed fibers from their hides, making the raw material easily accessible to herders. The freed fibers were plucked from the animal, a practice which continued until shearing became common by the Bronze Age (Barber 1991). The process of plucking results in a fine product, “since hairs and kemps molt a bit later than the wool fibers” (Barber 1991:20). The wool fibers range in length depending on how fine or coarse they are, with fine wools in the 4 to 7.5 cm range and coarse fibers as long as 35.5 cm (Encyclopedia Britannica 2018).

Sheep are considered one of the first domesticated animals, all derived from the Asiatic mouflon (Ovis orientalis) (Arbuckle 2014). Domestication of sheep and goats is clearly underway by 7000 BCE in southwest Asia, during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (Horwitz et al.

1999). Analysis of zooarchaeological remains has been helpful in identifying herd characteristics and animal management practices from early periods. It is known that castrated male sheep,

11 called wethers, are best for wool, female sheep, ewes, are the second best, and rams have the worst fleeces (Barber 1991). It is often difficult to determine the sex of sheep from zooarchaeological remains, which leads to a reliance on herd age to help indicate herd intentions.

The economics of herd proportions show the objectives of the herders. Older herds indicate production of milk and wool, while younger herds indicate meat and hide (Barber 1991). Written accounts from Mesopotamia show significant proportions of wethers in herds of sheep starting in the fourth millennium BCE (Cross 1937; Waetzolt 1972; Green 1980; McCorriston 1997).

Animal economies with larger numbers of older sheep, suggesting the beginning utilization of secondary products, are known in the fringes of Mesopotamia by the fifth millennium BCE:

“Wool-bearing sheep probably spread from the Zagros to the lowland steppe and semi-desert margins (southern Levant) where significant changes were also taking place in the fifth millennium” (Sherratt 1983: 99). Southern Levantine sites, such as Gilat in the northern Negev, support the conjecture of a rise in sheep populations during the fifth millennium.

Zooarchaeological evidence from Gilat indicates a high survival rate of sheep to adulthood, and thus suggests a herding strategy directed at wool production (Grigson 1995; Levy et al. 2006).

Others, however, have argued against this proposition, claiming that only flax was used for textiles in the fifth millennium BCE (Levy and Gilead 2012). Without many surviving finished textiles from these contexts, the issue is still a matter for debate: “Vegetable fibres survive only in alkaline contexts such as the calcareous muds of Neolithic Switzerland, while woolen fibres survive only in acid contexts such as the oligotrophic peat-bogs of northern Europe” (Sherratt

1983: 93). With limited examples of final products from this time period, it is important to assess thread material and production is by analyzing related artifacts such as spindle whorls.

12 Experimental Archaeology: Spinning

In the past two decades, some archaeologists have focused on testing hypotheses of spinning and textile production through experimental archaeology. The Danish National

Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research (CTR) at the University of Copenhagen has investigated aspects of processing different fibers, created spinning and weaving tools, and produced thread and textile. Their study was modeled off of Bronze Age European examples of textile tools and processing procedures but is still indicative of the industry as a whole

(Mårtensson et al. 2006a). Knowledge of prehistoric textile techniques still exist and are used in

Scandinavia, specifically spinning with a drop spindle and weaving on warp weighted looms

(Mårtensson et al. 2006a). These methods were tested by experienced spinners of the CTR while adjusting certain variables, such as weights of whorls, to measure rate and ease of production.

The first task undertaken was the preparation of the fibers that would be used for spinning and textile production, namely wool and flax. A sheep’s fleece contains many different types of fiber, some which are preferred for thread production, and some that need to be removed, such as the underwool (Mårtensson et al. 2006a). Written sources indicate separation of the various fibers was done with a “wool-carder” but it is unclear what the tools may have looked like (Mårtensson et al. 2006a).

The experiments involved purpose made ceramic spindle whorls of various sizes and weights manufactured at the Lejre Experimental Centre meant to replicate biconical and conical whorls from Nichoria (Mårtensson et al. 2006a, 2006b). They used whorls of two weights, 8 g and 18 g, to test differences in production between the types (Mårtensson et al. 2006a). The whorls were attached to wooden spindles, a 2 g spindle for the 8 g weight and a 3.5 g spindle for the 18 g weight (Mårtensson et al. 2006a). Two participants conducted a total of 30 tests with the

13 8 g whorl and 12 tests with the 18 g whorl. The results of the tests when spinning wool showed the 8 g whorl produced longer and thinner thread, taking many hours to produce. The 18 g whorl tests produced slightly less thread, but in a shorter amount of time (Mårtensson et al. 2006a). It was observed that it was very difficult to spin with the 8 g whorl, and other activities may not be possible to do simultaneously (Mårtensson et al. 2006a). The CTR study also experimented with spinning flax, conducting 20 tests by two people (Mårtensson et al. 2006b). The experiment was only conducted with the 8 g whorl with 44.8 g of fiber, producing 516 meters of yarn in 18 hours. It was noted that spinning flax with an 8 g whorl worked well and could be done in a relaxed way (Mårtensson et al. 2006b).

Shahal Abbo and others conducted a separate experiment focused on the collection, processing, and spinning of wild flax, which was acquired in the spring from two sites in the

Galilee region of Israel (Abbo et al. 2014). The plants were subjected to retting and scutching to expose the flax fibers before spinning with a spinning wheel, rather than a spindle and whorl combination (Abbo et al. 2014). The purpose was to compare the thread quality between wild flax and domesticated flax. The results of spinning wild flax were coarse and non-uniform thread, compared to fine and uniform thread that can be produced with domesticated flax. Their estimated timeline of production is “forage for 11-15 minutes and engage in extraction for an additional 2-3 hours in order to produce raw material for yarn spinning for the production of 115-

201 cm squared” (Abbo et al. 2014:10). As previously stated, wild flax was domesticated in the

PPNB, allowing for suitable material for the onset of textile production in later periods (Abbo et al. 2014; Shamir 2015).

14 Chronological Aspects of Prehistoric Spindle Whorl Assemblages

This study compares Late Neolithic (LN), also referred to as the Pottery Neolithic (PN),

Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze I (EBI) spindle whorl assemblages. Spindle whorls are not generally found in earlier Pre-Pottery Neolithic periods. Although isolated cases are reported from Jericho, this apparent pattern may be more indicative of the limited publications regarding ground stone from this period (Crowfoot 1960, 1964; Kenyon 1982). This study, starting with the PN, has enough cases to document changes in spindle whorl technology. Ending the scope of the study with the EBI was determined because the EBII indicates the beginning of urbanism in the southern Levant (Joffe 1994). This marks a radical change in the subsistence strategy and social configuration of the region and is more comparable to later periods of the region than to earlier ones.

The three periods selected for this study, the PN, the Chalcolithic, and the EBI, each have a multitude of sites excavated and published from the last century, which allowed the formation of a large data set of spindle whorls. It is important to first elucidate the calibrated dates framing each time period, as well as to indicate the associated period of the sites analyzed in this study.

As previously stated, debates are ongoing in regard to the exact dates associated with each period. The dates shown in Table 2.1 represent a general chronological framework for which to understanding developments during these periods. When categorizing spindle whorl cases into chronological groups, reference was given to the period designated in the publications.

15 Table 2.1 Chronology of Southern Levant (Sharon 2014). Period Dates Alternative Period Further Division of Categorizations Chronology

Pottery 6500-4500 BCE PNA 6500-6000 BCE Neolithic PNB 6000-5500? BCE (Late Neolithic) Middle Chalcolithic 5500-4500? BCE

Chalcolithic 4500-3900/3700 BCE (Late Chalcolithic)

Early Bronze I 3900/3700-3200/3000 EBIa 3700-3150/3070 BCE (Proto-Urban) BCE EBIb 3150/3070-3100/2940 BCE

The sites evaluated in this study all lie within Jordan, Palestine, and Israel, the modern political entities of the southern Levant. My intention was to create a comprehensive list of sites that had been excavated and published from these time periods in the southern Levant.

Publications from each site were examined for information about spindle whorls. The sites in the tables below are categorized depending on whether the site publications contained information about spindle whorls.

A total of 49 sites have publications indicating the presence of spindle whorls, along with the analysis I conducted of the spindle whorl assemblages from Marj Rabba and Tel Yaqush.

These sites are distributed throughout a variety of cultural periods and micro-environments.

Evaluating and interpreting the changes seen in the spindle whorl assemblages requires the understanding of these related factors. Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 show the distribution of sites in the PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI that have published spindle whorl assemblages.

16 Table 2.2 Pottery Neolithic Sites Examined for Spindle Whorls. With Spindle Whorls Without Spindle Whorls Abu Gosh1 Adh Dhra2 Ain Rahub3 Ain Ghazal4 En Esur/Asawir5 Ain Waida6 Horbat Uza7 Ayn Jammam8 Jebel Abu Thawwab9 Azraq 3110 Jericho11 Beisamoun12 Nahal Beset13 Beth Shan14 Nahal Yarmut15 Burqu16 Nahal Zehora17 Dhuweila18 Neve Ur19 es-Sifiya20 Neve Yaraq21 Jilat22 Qidron23 Lydda (Lod)24 Sha’ar Hagolan25 Nahal Hemar26 Tel Hannan27 Tell Abu Suwwan28 Tel Kabri29 Tell Wadi Feinan30 Tel Teo31 Telvliot Batashi32 33 34 Wadi Ziqlab/Basatin Wadi Faynan 35 Wadi Rabah 36 Wadi Shueib 37 Yiftahel Ziqim38

1 Lechevallie 1978; 9 Gillet and Gillet 21 Gopher and 31 Eisenberg 2001 Khalaily and Marder 1983; Obeidat 1995; Blockman 2004 32 Kaplan 1958b 2003 Kafafi 2001 22 Garrard and Byrd 33 Banning et al. 1987, 2 Finlayson and Kuijt 10 Garrard and Byrd 2013 1989, 1992, 1996, 2001, 2004 2013 23 Rosenberg and van 1998, 2005, 2010; 3 Garrard and Gebel 11 Wheeler 1982 den Brink 2005 Kadowaki et al. 2008 1988 12 Rosenberg 2006b, 24 Schwartz 1991 34 Wright 1998 4 Kafafi 1990; 2010 25 Garfinkel et al. 35 Kaplan 1958a ; Rollefson 1994 13 Gopher 1992 1992 Banning 2007 5 Yannai and Ariel 14 Braun 2004 26 Schick 1988; 36 Simmons et al. 2006; Yannai and 15 Khalaily 2011 Rosenberg 2015 1989, 2001; Cooper Braun 2001 16 Betts 1990 27 Khalaily 2013 1997 6 Kuijt and Chesson 17 Gopher and Barkai 28 al-Nahar 2010, 37 Braun and Bar 2002 2012 2013 Yosef 1997 7 Getzov et al. 2009 18 Betts 1987, 1988 29 Kempinkski 2002; 38 Garfinkel 2002 8 Rollefson 2005 19 Perrot 1967 Oren 2002 20 Mahasneh 2003 30 Najjar et al. 1990

17

Table 2.3 Chalcolithic Sites Examined for Spindle Whorls. With Spindle Whorls Without Spindle Whorls Abu Hamid39 Abu Mater40 al-Khawari41 Abu Snesleh42 Arad43 Beth Shean44 Asherat45 Bir es Safadi46 En Esur/Asawir47 Ein Gedi48 Gezer49 Teleilat Ghassul50 Gilat51 Golan Heights52 Grar53 Iraq al-Amir54 Horbat Duvshan55 Tall Fendi (Wadi Ziqlab)56 Jawa57 Tell Yarmouth (Azor)58 Marj Rabba59 Wadi Hudruj60 Nahal Mishmar61 Yehud62 Nesher Ramla63 Peqi’in64 Shiqmim Hamlets65 Tell esh-Shuna North66 Tel al-Hibr67 Tell el-Handaquq68 Tell Um Hammad69

39 Dollfus and Kafafi 44 Mazar and Amitai- 52 Kafafi 2010 62 Van den Brink 2001 1986 ; Centre Preiss 2012 53 Gilead 1995 63 Avrutis 2012 National de la 45 Smithline 2001 54 Chang-Ho 1997 64 Gal 1997 Recherche 46 Gilead 1994 55 Smithline 2013 65 Levy 1987; Levy et Scientifique 1988; 47 Yannai 2006 56 Blackham et al. al. 2006 Lovell et al. 2004, 48 Hadas 2005; Stern 1998 66 Gaube 1985a, 2007b ; Ali 2005 2007; Hirschfeld 2007 57 Helms 1987; Betts 1985b, 1986a, 1986b, 40 Perrot 1995; Gilead 49 Dever et al. 1974 and Helms 1991 1987a, 1987b; Baird 1991 50 North 1961; 58 Ben-Tor 1975 and Phillip 1992, 41 Lovell et al. 2005, Hennessy 1969; Lee 59 Y. Rowan and M. 1993, 1994 2006, 2007b 1975; Bourke 1997a, Kersel, personal 67 Betts et al. 2013 42 Lehman 1991 2000, 2007; Blackham communications 68 Mabry 1989 43 Amiran et al. 1999; Lovell 2001; 60 Wasse and 69 Helms 1987; Betts 1978a, 1978b; Bourke and Lovell Rollefson 2005, 2006 et al. 1992 Finkelstein 1990 2004, 2007 61 Pesah 1980; Moory 51 Levy 2005 1988

18

Table 2.4 EBI Sites Examined for Spindle Whorls. With Spindle Whorls Without Spindle Whorls ‘Ai (Ay) (et Tell)70 Assawir71 Arad72 En Besor (site H)73 Ashqelon74 Jabal al-Mutawwaq75 Bab edh-Dhra76 Kataret es Samra77 Bet Yerah78 Modi’in79 En Esur/Asawir80 Moza81 En Shadud82 Numeira83 Gezer84 Palmahim Quarry85 Jebel Abu Thawwab86 Shoham87 Megiddo88 Tel Dalit89 Qiryat Ata90 Tell es-Safi91 Tel el-Hammam92 Tel Halif93 Tel Kabri94 Yiftahel95 Tel Lod96 Yaqush

70 Callaway 1965, Alvarex and Polcano 82 Braun and Gibson 91 Maeir 2012 1969, 1970, 1972a, 2013 1984; Braun 1985 92 Collins et al. 2009; 1972b 76 Rast and Schaub 83 Coogan 1984 Collins and Aljarrah 71 Yannai and Braun 1989; Ortner and 84 Dever 1974 2011 2001 Frohlich 2008 85 Braun 2000 93 Dessel 2009 72 Amiran 1978b 77 Leonard 1983 86 Kafafi 2001 94 Kempinkski 2002; 73 Gophna 1990, 78 Greenberg et al. 87 Van den Brink et al. Oren 2002 1995; Gopher 1995 2014 2005 95 Braun and Bar 74 Golani 2004, 2008, 79 Van den Brink 2013 88 Engberg and Yosef 1997 2013; Rowan 2004; 80 Yannai and Ariel Shipton 1934; 96 Schwartz 1991; Shamir 2004 2006 Finkelstein et al. 2000 Gopher and 75 Fernez-Tresguerres 81 Greenhut et al. 89 Gophna et al. 1996 Blockman 2004; Van Valesco 2001, 2005; 2009 90 Golani 2003; den Brink 2015 Shamir 2003

19

Figure 2.1 Map of Pottery Neolithic Sites with Spindle Whorls.

20

Figure 2.2 Map of Chalcolithic Sites with Spindle Whorls.

21

Figure 2.3 Map of Early Bronze I Sites with Spindle Whorls.

22 Pottery Neolithic (Late Neolithic)

The Pottery Neolithic in the southern Levant succeeds the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) period. The introduction of ceramics is the key factor differentiating the PN from the PPN

(Rollefson 1993). At the site of ‘Ain Ghazal, layers with PN ceramics were found directly above

Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) layers, suggesting the PN closely followed the PPNC. The first

PN ceramic, Yarmoukian style pottery, are most commonly designed with herringbone incisions

(Garfinkel 1993). Later PN ceramics, described as Wadi Rabah ceramics, show decoration of black or red burnishing (Gilead 2009).

Architectural styles in the PN reflect a change in settlement culture from the PPN sites which have dense compact villages, whereas the Yarmoukian sites have “open loosely-knit villages” (Garfinkel 1993). Continuity between the PPNC and the Yarmoukian can be seen in the subsistence economies of both groups (Rollefson 1993; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993).

Both the PPNC and PN showed the hunting of game animals contributed to less than 10% of the faunal remains, while domesticated animals constituted the overwhelming bulk of the diet

(Rollefson 1993; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993). Additional sites, such as Jebel Abu

Thawwab and Munhata, also show a high percentage of domesticated animals in their fauna assemblages, with more than half of the assemblages being domestic sheep and goat (Gopher and

Gophna 1993). The faunal assemblages of PN sites in the Jezreel Valley indicate a dominance of domesticated sheep and goat, followed by cattle and pigs (Gopher and Gophna 1993). It is suggested by finds of spindle whorls and loom weights from these sites that there was a preference for goat hair for spinning, based on the high frequency of goat bones in the assemblages (Gopher and Gophna 1993).

23 Chalcolithic

The Chalcolithic period sees some changes in the ceramic assemblages, such as the beginning of wheel-made pottery in the form of V-shaped bowls (Baldi and Roux 2016). Churns also become more prevalent in Chalcolithic contexts, perhaps signaling an increased reliance on secondary animal products in the form of yogurt or cheese (Levy et al. 2006). In contrast to the

Wadi Rabah tradition, there is little evidence of burnished wares during the Chalcolithic. Basalt vessels appear in the Chalcolithic period, sometimes accompanied by fenestrated stands, indicating a high degree of technical skill in shaping stone (Rowan and Ebeling 2008).

Settlements in the Chalcolithic period become quite large, sometimes as large as 10 ha in certain regions (Epstein 1977, 1998; Levy 1998). Newly established Chalcolithic sites are distributed in previously unoccupied areas such as the Northern Negev, suggesting either a climatic shift or a change in people’s ability to adapt to their environment (Rowan and Golden

2009).

Early Bronze Age I

There is not one definite ceramic style that classifies the EBI culture, which is argued to indicate a low level of interaction between regions of the southern Levant (Joffe 1993). The subsistence economy is the aspect most indicative of the connections forming between Egypt and the southern Levant during this period, specifically in regard to animal husbandry and plant cultivation (Joffe 1993). Formal exchange systems emerged, particularly for the trade of copper

(Ilan and Sebbane 1989), although it can be assumed that other goods, such as secondary products, were being traded through these exchange networks.

The EBI is described as a time of significant sociopolitical and cultural change laying the foundations of the earliest urban cultures, leading to the appearance of the first fortified cities in

24 EBII (Mazar et al. 1996; Bourke 1997b). The EBI is also greatly influenced by the emergence of a large Egyptian polity (Joffe 1993). The EBI starts at approximately 3500 BCE, though some argue for an earlier date of 3700 BCE (Mazar et al. 1996). The EBI is seen as a time of regional collapse after the Chalcolithic period, with a significant drop in the number of sites and abandonment of Chalcolithic centers (Burton and Levy 2001). Non-centralized site distribution and the large variance in artifact types together show the level of fragmentation of sociopolitical organization during this period (Joffe 1993). This fragmentation suggests the social unit of the

EBI was comprised of independent kin or lineage-based groups rather than larger city units

(Joffe 1993).

25 Chapter 3 Analysis of Spindle Whorl Variability

The previous chapter outlined what is currently known about spindle whorls, materials used for spinning, the act of spinning, and the prehistoric textile industry of the southern Levant.

All of the aspects of spinning and spindle whorls provide the framework for what can possibly be addressed with this study. The dimensions of spindle whorls have a significant effect on the resulting products that they are used to produce. Weight of the spindle whorl in particular has a correlation to which material is being spun, either wool or linen, and weight is closely tied to the material used for the spindle whorl, either ceramic or stone. I therefore set up my study to collect information on both the material used for the spindle whorl, as well as whorl measurement data.

Data Collection

In order to address the hypothesis of a change in materials used for spindle whorls among prehistoric periods in the southern Levant, it was necessary to create a comprehensive dataset of whorls. Time and funding constraints allowed only for the collection of spindle whorl data from published reports. Relying on published reports presented difficulties as there are inconsistencies in the reporting of spindle whorls and textile technology in general. Therefore, I reviewed each publication for descriptions of whorls or drawings fitting the specifications of their typology, as indicated in the previous chapter. While I assume there are spindle whorls that do not appear in the literature, a dataset of 880 (877 with identified material) spindle whorls from Pottery

Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze I contexts in the southern Levant was created. This dataset includes 144 whorls I analyzed personally from the sites of Tel Yaqush and Marj Rabba with the help and permission of Yorke Rowan of The Oriental Institute at the University of

Chicago. The dataset allows for the assessment of my hypothesis, as well as addressing other characteristics of spindle whorls including the analysis of their measurements. Of the 880

26 whorls, 383 have at least one measurement for diameter, thickness, weight, estimated total weight (calculated when a whorl is known to be fragmentary), and perforation diameter. The goal of this analysis is to determine if there is a diachronic change in the materials used for this artifact type and, if so, attempt to further hypothesize why this change occurred by analyzing other spindle whorl characteristics.

Materials Used for Spindle Whorls

The breakdown of spindle whorl materials by period confirms my hypothesis, i.e., the proportions of ceramic and stone change through time (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Proportions of Stone and Ceramic Whorls by Period. Period Stone Ceramic Total

Pottery Neolithic 64 227 291 22% 78%

Chalcolithic 156 133 289 54% 46%

Early Bronze I 192 105 297 64.7% 35.3%

Total 412 465 877

For the PN, ceramic is the dominant material used; during the Chalcolithic, there is almost an even split between stone and ceramic whorls. Then, during the EBI stone greatly surpasses ceramic as the predominant material type. While the data show this significant change, analyzing the descriptive statistics and breaking down the assemblage by period will aid in interpreting this change.

Analysis of the Complete Assemblage

Less than half of the spindle whorls in the overall assemblage were published with measurement data (n=383). The mean, median, and standard deviation of measurement data from

27 the complete assemblage of spindle whorls are found in Table 3.2. Knowing the average measurements of all the spindle whorls provides an overview of what is to be expected from spindle whorl data measurements. From this benchmark, comparisons of the differences between each period’s assemblages can be identified.

Table 3.2 Descriptive Statistics of Spindle Whorl Measurement Data.

Diameter Thickness Weight* Estimated Total Perforation (mm) (mm) (g) Weight* (g) Diameter (mm)

Overall Valid Cases 383 367 341 224 260

Overall Missing Cases 588 604 630 747 711

Overall Mean 44.71 18.88 32.75 46.06 10.74

Overall Median 42.00 18.00 25.00 31.00 10.00

Overall Standard 14.99 9.78 29.04 53.50 5.53 Deviation

Stone Valid Cases 257 258 228 171 129

Stone Missing Cases 155 154 184 241 283

Stone Mean 44.99 20.00 36.195 55.99 12.36

Stone Median 43 18 31 38 11

Stone Standard 13.23 8.00 28.97 57.59 5.51 Deviation

Ceramic Valid Cases 119 101 112 53 29

Ceramic Missing Cases 346 364 353 412 436

Ceramic Mean 42.63 16.57 59.56 28.48 7.17

Ceramic Median 40 12 12 12 8

Ceramic Standard 13.23 11.57 26.71 12.11 3.31 Deviation *skewed variable

28 The histograms of the measurement data (Figure 3.1) for the entire assemblage show expected distributions. The diameter histogram is the closest to a normal curve. Thickness is also close to a normal distribution but has a slight skew due to outliers pulling the data to thicker measurements. Weight and estimated total weight are both heavily skewed to the right.

Perforation diameter is centralized around a tight range of measurements with a few individual measurements slightly skewing the curve.

Figure 3.1 Frequency Distributions of Spindle Whorl Variables for the Complete Assemblage.

29 Inferential statistics were employed to determine whether statistically significant differences occur between different characteristics of the assemblage. Also, understanding the metric correlations of spindle whorls may reveal discrepancies between different period’s assemblages. Changes in the patterns of differences and associations between the periods can also help interpret why material of spindle whorls changed over time.

The Independent Samples T-Test determines if there are statistically significant differences in the means for diameter, thickness, and perforation diameter between ceramic and stone spindle whorls of the overall assemblage, as Table 3.3 shows.

Table 3.3 Independent Samples T-Test of Complete Assemblage Parametric Variables. Measurement Variable T-Test p- T-Test t- Interpretation Value Value

Diameter (mm) (n=376) .001 3.224 Significant: (stone n= 257; ceramic n=119) stone>ceramic

Thickness (mm) (n=359) .030 2.195 Significant: (stone n=258; ceramic n=101) stone>ceramic

Weight (g) (n=341) .000 4.432 Significant: (stone n=229; ceramic n=112) stone>ceramic

Estimated Total Weight (g) .000 5.092 Significant: (n=224) stone>ceramic (stone n=171; ceramic n=53)

Perforation Diameter (mm) .000 6.101 Significant: (n=157) stone>ceramic (stone n=128; ceramic n=29)

Weight and estimated total weight are assessed using the Independent Samples Kruskal-

Wallis test because they are skewed variables (Table 3.4). Both weight and estimated total weight have a Significance value of .000, allowing for the rejection of the null hypothesis which is that the distribution of weight and estimated total weight are the same across the categories of

30 stone and ceramic whorls. This means that there is a statistically significant difference in weight and estimated total weight between stone and ceramic whorls.

Table 3.4 Independent Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test of Complete Assemblage Non-Parametric Variables. Measurement Variable Sig. Interpretation

Weight (g) (n=341) .000 Weight of stone and ceramic (stone n=229; ceramic n=112) are not the same.

Estimated Total Weight (g) .000 Weight of stone and ceramic (n=224) are not the same. (stone n=171; ceramic n=53)

The Pearson Correlation Coefficient (denoted as r) and Spearman Rho test for the level of correlation between variables. Pearson’s r is for normally distributed data, and Spearman Rho is for skewed data. Both correlation coefficients are given in Table 3.5, and visually represented in

Figure 3.2. The strong positive correlations observed are in line with what is to be expected with diameter and thickness explaining weight and estimated total weight. The remaining associations have a weak positive correlation which signals the possibility that one variable could be explained by the other, however, the chances are not high. None of the tested variables show that there is no correlation between them.

31 Table 3.5 Pearson r and Spearman Rho Tests on the Complete Assemblage. Variable Pearson r r2 Interpretation Spearman Rho Interpretation Comparison Correlation Correlation (p- (p-value) value)

Diameter x .464 (.000) .215 Weak Positive .361 (.000) Weak Positive Thickness

Diameter x .719 (.000) .517 Strong Positive .707 (.000) Strong Positive Weight

Diameter x Est. .754 (.000) .569 Strong Positive .833 (.000) Strong Positive Total Weight

Diameter x .290 (.000) .084 Weak Positive .037 (.278) Weak Positive Perforation Diameter

Thickness x .722 (.000) .521 Strong Positive .695 (.000) Strong Positive Weight

Thickness x Est .694 (.000) .481 Strong Positive .687 (.000) Strong Positive Total Weight

Thickness x .251 (.000) .063 Weak Positive .238 (.000) Weak Positive Perforation Diameter

Weight x .157 (.019) .024 Weak Positive .138 (.020) Weak Positive Perforation Diameter

Est Total Weight .292 (.000) .085 Weak Positive .308 (.000) Weak Positive x Perforation Diameter (Diameter n=382, Thickness n=366, Weight n=340, Est Total Weight n=224, Perforation Diameter n=260)

32

Figure 3.2 Scatter Plots of Spindle Whorl Variables of the Complete Assemblage.

33 Analysis of the Pottery Neolithic Assemblage

Eighteen sites of the overall assemblage date to the PN period, accounting for 291 spindle whorls. Figure 3.3 shows the proportions of ceramic and stone whorls of the period, as well as the specific types of stone used.

Figure 3.3 Variation of Material Types from 18 Pottery Neolithic Period Spindle Whorl Assemblages.

The distribution of whorls among PN sites is shown in Table 3.6. It is important to note that the majority of the PN spindle whorl assemblage is attributed to a large group of whorls published from Nahal Zehora (Orrelle et al. 2012). This sampling bias may disproportionately influence the PN assemblage. Sha’ar Hagolan is the only site in the PN period with only stone spindle whorls; this situation is attributable to the fact that the data came from the published ground stone assemblage (Rosenberg and Garfinkel 2014), whereas the ceramic whorl data from

Sha’ar Hagolan have yet to be published.

34 Table 3.6 Frequencies and Percentages of Stone and Ceramic Whorls from PN Period Sites. Site No. Stone Site Percentage of No. Ceramic Site Percentage of Total whorls Stone Whorls (%) Whorls Ceramic Whorls Number (%) Abu Gosh 0 0 42 100 42 Ain Rahub 1 100 0 0 1 En Esur/Asawir 1 100 0 0 1 Horbat Uza 3 75 1 25 4 Jebel Abu 0 0 2 100 2 Thawwab Jericho 2 6 29 94 31 Nahal Beset 0 0 1 100 1 Nahal Yarmut 3 100 0 0 3 Nahal Zehora 4 3 130 97 134 Neve Ur 5 71 2 29 7 Neve Yaraq 1 17 5 83 6 Qidron 0 0 3 100 3 Sha’ar Hagolan 35 100 0 0 35 Tel Hanan 0 0 1 100 1 Tel Kabri 0 0 6 100 6 Tel Teo 6 67 3 33 9 Wadi 3 71 2 29 7 Ziqlab/Basatin

Published measurement data for PN period were available for only 26 whorls. Even though only three of the whorls with measurement data are stone, I considered it important to note that stone whorls are both wider and thicker than ceramic whorls (Table 3.7).

Table 3.7 Descriptive Statistics of Pottery Neolithic period Spindle Whorls.

Material N Mean Median Std. Deviation Diameter (mm) Stone 3 45.00 45 5.00 Ceramic 23 41.83 42.5 6.13 Thickness (mm) Stone 3 23.67 26 17.61 Ceramic 19 12.80 11.5 9.46 Weight (mm) Stone 1 22.37 22.37

Ceramic 0

35 The frequency distributions (Figure 3.4) of diameter and thickness for the PN whorls are difficult to interpret because of the small sample size. Both diameter and thickness have some skew because of outliers.

Figure 3.4 Frequency Distributions of Diameter and Thickness Measurements for the Pottery Neolithic Spindle Whorls.

With a limited number of PN whorls with measurement data (n=26), the inferential statistics may not be representative of the period. The correlation between diameter and thickness is shown to be not significant (Figure 3.5). The Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficient value comparing diameter and thickness is .060 (p=.393) meaning there is not a correlation between the two variables. In the complete assemblage, there is a correlation between these variables, marking a potential (unclear due to small sample size) difference during the PN period. Only one spindle whorl from the PN assemblage has an attributed weight, from which no assumptions can be drawn to reflect the PN assemblage.

36

Figure 3.5 Scatter Plot of Diameter and Thickness Values for PN Period Spindle Whorls.

Analysis of the Chalcolithic Assemblage

The twenty sites in the study that are attributed to the Chalcolithic period produced 295 spindle whorls. Of these 53.98% made of stone (Figure 3.6), and 46.02% are ceramic.

Figure 3.6 Variation of Material Types for 20 Chalcolithic Period Spindle Whorl Assemblages.

37

The sites of Gilat, Grar, and Marj Rabba dominate the Chalcolithic whorl assemblage

(Table 3.8). Thirteen Chalcolithic sites’ spindle whorl assemblages have more than 50% stone, while only 9 sites have over 50% ceramic whorls in their assemblages. This is a shift from the predominance of ceramic whorls in the PN assemblages.

Table 3.8 Frequencies and Percentages of Stone and Ceramic Whorls from Chalcolithic Period Sites. Site No. Stone Site Percentage of No. Ceramic Site Percentage of Total whorls Stone Whorls (%) Whorls Ceramic Whorls (%) Number Abu Hamid 1 100 0 0 1 al-Khawarij 1 25 3 75 4 Arad 2 100 0 0 2 Asherat 1 100 0 0 1 En 2 12 14 88 16 Esur/Asawir Gezer 1 33 2 67 3 Gilat 87 63 51 37 138 Grar 34 65 18 35 52 Horbat 0 0 1 100 1 Duvshan Jawa 1 100 0 0 1 Marj Rabba 5 12 36 88 41 Nahal 2 33 4 67 6 Mishmar Nesher Ramla 1 50 1 50 2 Peqi’in 4 57 3 43 7 Qina Cave 3 100 0 0 3 Shiqmim 1 100 0 0 1 Hamlets Tel esh-Shuna 3 100 0 0 3 North Tell al-Hibr 1 100 0 0 1 Tell el- 2 100 0 0 2 Handaquq Tell Um 3 100 0 0 3 Hammad

38 The descriptive statistics of Chalcolithic period spindle whorl assemblages (Table 3.9) show large variation between stone and ceramic whorls in diameter and weight. Frequency distributions of diameter, thickness, and weight (Figure 3.7) show similar distributions as the overall assemblage distributions (Figure 3.1). Diameter is normally distributed, while thickness and weight are skewed.

Table 3.9 Measurement Data Divided by Material for the Chalcolithic Assemblage.

Material N Mean Median Std. Deviation

Diameter (mm) Stone 102 44.05 45 11.87

Ceramic 62 38.29 37 10.20

Thickness (mm) Stone 96 14.82 14 6.29

Ceramic 53 16.93 11 12.49

Weight (g) Stone 92 29.40 25.5 19.69

Ceramic 86 17.15 10 24.97

Estimated Total Stone 87 37.95 35 24.12 Weight (g) Ceramic 51 13.96 12 10.94

Perforation Stone 78 9.51 8.5 4.50 Diameter (mm) Ceramic 18 5.61 5.75 2.26

39

Figure 3.7 Frequency Distributions of Measurement Data of Chalcolithic Period Spindle Whorl Assemblages.

Inferential statistics for the Chalcolithic assemblages can be assumed to be reliable because a large proportion of whorls are accompanied by measurement data. The Independent

Samples T Test for the Chalcolithic period whorls tests for difference of means between measurements of diameter, thickness, weight, and estimated total weight based on material

(stone/ceramic) (Table 3.10). The Mann-Whitney U test, which indicates difference of means in non-normally distributed data, indicates distributions of weight and estimated total weight are not the same between stone and ceramic whorls from this period. The results indicate statistically significant differences in the diameter, weight, and estimated total weight with stone whorls being wider and heavier than ceramic whorls.

40 Table 3.10 Independent Samples T Test and Mann-Whitney U Test of Measurement Data from the Chalcolithic Period.

Measurement Independent Independent Independent Samples Interpretation Variable Samples T Samples T Mann-Whitney U Test Test t Value Test p Value p value

Diameter (mm) 3.172 .002 Significant: (n=164) stone>ceramic (stone n=102; ceramic n=62)

Thickness (mm) -1.375 .252 Not Significant: no (n=149) difference (stone n=96; ceramic n=53)

Weight* (g) .000 Significant: (n=178) stone>ceramic (stone n=92; ceramic n=86)

Estimated Total .000 Significant: Weight* (g) stone>ceramic (n=138) (stone n=87; ceramic n=51) *Independent Samples Mann-Whitney U Test used for skewed data.

Correlations between different variables are assessed with Pearson r or Spearman Rho

(Table 3.11). All of the correlations between Chalcolithic period whorl variables are positive, indicating the increase in one variable means the increase in the other (Figure 3.8), and all are moderately strong with the exception of diameter and thickness.

41 Table 3.11 Pearson R and Spearman Rho Correlations of Variables from Chalcolithic Period Spindle Whorls. Variable Pearson r r2 Interpretation Spearman Rho Interpretation Comparison Correlation Correlation (p- (p-value) value)

Diameter x .298 (.000) .089 Weak Positive .351 (.000) Weak Positive Thickness

Diameter x .671 (.000) .450 Strong .811 (.000) Strong Weight Positive Positive

Diameter x Est .683 (.000) .467 Strong .834 (.000) Strong Total Weight Positive Positive

Thickness x .577 (.000) .332 Strong .577 (.000) Strong Weight Positive Positive

Thickness x Est .544 (.000) .296 Strong .544 (.000) Strong Total Weight Positive Positive (Diameter n=164, Thickness n=149, Weight n=178, Est Total Weight n=138)

Figure 3.8 Scatter Plots of Variables from Chalcolithic Period Spindle Whorls.

42 Analysis of the Early Bronze Age I Assemblage

Sixteen sites of the overall assemblage are of the EBI period, accounting for 315 spindle whorls. The primary stone used is basalt, followed by limestone, chalk, unidentified stone, gypsum, alabaster, quartzite, and dolomite (Figure 3.9).

Figure 3.9 Variation of Material Types from 16 EBI Period Spindle Whorl Asseblages.

The sites of Yaqush, Qiryat Ata, and Tel el-Hammam make up the majority of the EBI spindle whorl assemblage. Although EBI spindle whorls are primarily made of stone, seven EBI period sites have a greater proportion of ceramic spindle whorls, such as Bab edh-Dhra, En Esur,

En Asawir, Tel el-Hammam, and Tel Kabri (Table 3.12). The descriptive statistics of EBI period assemblages (Table 3.13) show the averages of variables are closer between stone and ceramic whorls than in other periods. The frequency distributions show diameter, weight, and estimated

43 total weight are skewed, whereas thickness and perforation diameter are normally distributed

(Figure 3.10).

Table 3.12 Frequencies and Percentages of Stone and Ceramic Whorls from EBI Period Sites. Site No. Stone Site Percentage of No. Ceramic Site Percentage of Total whorls Stone Whorls (%) Whorls Ceramic Whorls (%) Number Ai’ 0 0 1 100 1 Arad 2 100 0 0 2 Ashqelon 12 92 1 8 13 Bab edh-Dhra 6 46 7 54 13 Bet Yerah 21 100 0 0 21 En 7 30 16 70 23 Esur/Asawir En Shadud 3 75 1 25 4 Gezer 0 0 1 100 1 Jebel Abu 1 25 3 75 4 Thawwab Megiddo 5 71 2 29 7 Qiryat Ata 36 69 16 31 52 Tel Bet Yerah 2 100 0 0 2 Tel el- 4 9 39 91 43 Hammam Tel Kabri 1 17 5 83 6 Tel Lod 2 100 0 0 2 Yaqush 89 87 13 13 102

Table 3.13Measurement Data Divided by Material for the EBI Assemblage.

Material N Mean Median Std. Deviation

Diameter (mm) Stone 152 45.92 42 14.17

Ceramic 34 47.74 42 18.75

Thickness (mm) Stone 159 21.50 21 7.68

Ceramic 29 19.99 22 10.64

Weight (g) Stone 136 42.99 36.6 32.94

Ceramic 26 42.41 41.16 23.23

Estimated Total Weight Stone 84 74.04 36.6 74.30 (g) Ceramic 2 43.00 43 4.24

Perforation Diameter Stone 129 12.36 12 4.26 (mm) Ceramic 29 7.17 4 3.96

44

Figure 3.10 Frequency Distributions of Spindle Whorl Variables of the EBI Assemblage.

45 The inferential statistics for EBI assemblage variables exhibit some interesting differences when compared to PN and Chalcolithic assemblages. The Independent Samples T

Test shows no statistically significant differences between stone and ceramic whorls for diameter, thickness, weight, and estimated total weight (Table 3.14). Evidently the type of material, ceramic or stone, does not affect the metrics of spindle whorls in EBI assemblages with the exception of perforation diameter, which is larger for stone whorls than for ceramic whorls

(Table 3.14).

Table 3.14 Independent Samples T Test and Independent Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test of Measurement Data of the EBI Assemblage. Measurement Independent Independent Independent Samples Interpretation Variable Samples T Samples T Kruskal-Wallis Test Test p Value Test t Value p Value

Diameter (mm) (n=186) .527 -.634 Not Significant (stone n=152; ceramic n=34)

Thickness (mm) .470 .730 Not Significant (n=188) (stone n=159; ceramic n=29)

Weight*(g) (n=162) .860 Not Significant (stone n=136; ceramic n=26)

Est Total Weight* (g) .796 Not Significant (n=86) (stone n=84; ceramic n=2)

Perforation Diameter .000 6.006 Significant: (mm) (n=158) stone>ceramic (stone n=129; ceramic n=29) *Independent Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test Used for skewed data

46 Correlations between different variables of the EBI assemblage are assessed with Pearson r or Spearman Rho (Table 3.15). Strong Positive correlations between EBI period whorl variables include diameter and weight, as well as thickness and weight. Weak Positive correlations exist between diameter and thickness and weight and perforation diameter. No correlation exists between diameter and perforation diameter as well as thickness and perforation diameter. These correlations are visually represented in Figure 3.11.

Table 3.15 Pearson r and Spearman Rho Correlations of Spindle Whorl Variables for the EBI Assemblages. Variable Pearson r r2 Interpretation Spearman Rho Interpretation Comparison Correlation Correlation (p- (p-value) value)

Diameter x .426 (.000) .182 Weak Positive .399 (.000) Weak Positive Thickness

Diameter x .720 (.000) .518 Strong Positive .650 (.000) Strong Positive Weight

Diameter x Est .728 (.000) .530 Strong Positive .862 (.000) Strong Positive Total Weight

Diameter x .035 (.662) .001 No Correlation -.012 (.442) No Correlation Perforation Diameter

Thickness x .722 (.000) .521 Strong Positive .737 (.000) Strong Positive Weight

Thickness x Est .697 (.000) .486 Strong Positive .756 (.000) Strong Positive Total Weight

Thickness x .057 (.477) .003 No Correlation .075 (.175) No Correlation Perforation Diameter

Weight x .237 (.007) .056 Weak Positive .175 (.024) Weak Positive Perforation Diameter

Est Total .310 (.017) .096 Weak Positive .294 (.012) Weak Positive Weight x Perforation Diameter (Diameter n=186, Thickness n=188, Weight n=162, Est Total Weight n=86, Perforation Diameter n=158)

47

Figure 3.11 Scatter Plots Comparing Spindle Whorl Variables of the EBI Assemblage.

The spindle whorl data of the EBI, Chalcolithic, and PN assemblages show variance in metrics such as weight, diameter, thickness, and particularly in the materials used. Chapter 4 will interpret these differences and provide provisional explanations for the observed changes.

48 Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis and Interpretation

The statistical analysis of spindle whorl data for PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI period assemblages shows a change in proportions of material used over time. The PN assemblage have a majority of ceramic whorls, the Chalcolithic has a relatively even split between stone and ceramic, and the EBI has a majority of stone whorls. This chapter compares variation among the three time periods in order to explain differences in material choice and spindle whorl form over time.

Comparing the PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI Descriptive Statistics

Evaluating the changes in spindle whorl measurement variables based on material shows which group changed more and in regard to which variables (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Comparison of Variable Means Among Time Periods. Pottery Neolithic Chalcolithic EBI Overall Diameter (mm) 42.19 (n=26) 41.87 (n=164) 46.23 (n=187) Overall Thickness (mm) 14.28 (n=22) 15.57 (n=149) 21.22 (n=189) Overall Weight (g) N/A 23.48 (n=178) 42.82 (n=163) Overall Est Total Weight (g) N/A 29.08 (n=138) 73.31 (n=86) Overall Perforation Diameter (mm) N/A N/A 11.40 (n=158)

Stone Diameter (mm) 45.00 (n=3) 44.05 (n=102) 45.92 (n=152) Stone Thickness (mm) 23.67 (n=3) 14.82 (n=96) 21.50 (n=159) Stone Weight (g) N/A 29.40 (n=92) 42.99 (n=136) Stone Est Total Weight (g) N/A 37.95 (n=87) 74.03 (n=84) Stone Perforation Diameter (mm) N/A N/A 12.36 (n=129) Ceramic Diameter (mm) 41.83 (n=23) 38.29 (n=62) 47.76 (n=34) Ceramic Thickness (mm) 12.80 (n=19) 16.93 (n=53) 19.99 (n=29) Ceramic Weight (g) N/A 17.15 (n=86) 42.41 (n=26) Ceramic Est Total Weight (g) N/A 13.96 (n=51) 43.00 (n=2) Ceramic Perforation Diameter (mm) N/A N/A 7.17 (n=29)

49

The values of spindle whorl diameter, thickness, weight, and estimated total weight from all three time periods were tested to see if differences in medians among stone and ceramic populations are statistically significant. The Kruskal-Wallis test determined that populations of stone and ceramic whorls have statistically significant differences in medians among all measurement variables (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Kruskal-Wallis Test between Stone and Ceramic Whorls among All Time Periods.

Kruskal-Wallis H-value Kruskal-Wallis p-value

Diameter 7.54 0.00

Thickness 6.90 0.00

Weight 28.82 0.00

Estimated Total Weight 56.10 0.00

The Tukey HSD tests for the difference of means between each pair of available groups of all spindle whorls. As shown in Table 4.3, the Tukey HSD determined no statistically significant difference of means between PN and Chalcolithic spindle whorl assemblages with respect to diameter, thickness, weight, and estimated total weight. In contrast, the test shows a statistically significant difference of means for the PN and EBI assemblages in regard to thickness but not diameter; as for the Chalcolithic and EBI assemblages, all of the variables showed statistically significant difference of means.

50 Table 4.3 Tukey HSD of the Complete Assemblage.

PN vs. Chalcolithic PN vs. EBI Chalcolithic vs. EBI

Tukey Tukey Signific- Tukey Tukey Signific- Tukey Tukey Signific- HSD Q- HSD p- ant HSD Q- HSD p- ant HSD Q- HSD p- ant value value value value value value

Diameter .4106 .899 not 1.8126 .408 not .0074 .000 yes

Thickness 1.0092 .736 not 5.1716 .001 yes 8.3611 .001 yes

Weight N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.194 .001 yes

Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.278 .001 yes Total Weight

The Mann-Whitney U test of stone spindle whorls shows that diameter is not statistically different among the PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI assemblages (Table 4.4). Thickness, however, shows a statistically significant difference among the time periods. The Kruskal-Wallis test of stone spindle whorls shows both weight and estimated total weight have statistically significant differences in medians among the PN, Chalcolithic and EBI assemblages.

Table 4.4 Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U Test of Stone Spindle Whorls.

Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis p- Mann-Whitney U H-value value

Diameter .261

Thickness .001

Weight 13.14 0.00

Estimated 10.47 0.00 Total Weight

The Tukey HSD test of stone spindle whorls shows statistically significant differences among the means for thickness, weight, and estimated total weight between the Chalcolithic and

EBI time periods (Table 4.5).

51 Table 4.5 Tukey HSD Test of Stone Spindle Whorls.

PN vs. Chalcolithic PN vs. EBI Chalcolithic vs. EBI

Tukey Tukey Signific- Tukey Tukey Signific- Tukey Tukey Signific- HSD Q- HSD p- ant HSD Q- HSD p- ant HSD Q- HSD p- ant value value value value value value

Diameter .173 .899 not .154 .899 not 1.497 .539 not

Thickness 2.907 .101 not .736 .847 not 9.879 .001 yes

Weight N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.000 .000 yes

Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.084 .001 yes Total Weight

The Kruskal-Wallis test of ceramic spindle whorls shows statistically significant differences in medians of diameter, thickness, and weight among the PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI assemblages (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Kruskal-Wallis Test for Ceramic Spindle Whorls.

Kruskal-Wallis H-value Kruskal-Wallis p-value

Diameter 12.58 0.00

Thickness 12.90 0.00

Weight 43.64 0.00

Estimated Total Weight N/A N/A

A statistically significant difference of means for diameter exists between the

Chalcolithic and EBI periods, but not for the PN and Chalcolithic, or PN and EBI pairings (Table

4.7).

52 Table 4.7 Tukey HSD Test for Ceramic Spindle Whorls.

PN vs. Chalcolithic PN vs. EBI Chalcolithic vs. EBI

Tukey Tukey Signific- Tukey Tukey Signific- Tukey Tukey Signific- HSD Q- HSD p- ant HSD Q- HSD p- ant HSD Q- HSD p- ant value value value value value value

Diameter 1.888 .380 not 2.136 .290 not 4.795 .003 yes

Thickness 1.974 .348 not 3.085 .079 not 1.640 .482 not

Weight N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.492 .001 yes

Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.251 .001 yes Total Weight

The patterns of variation in statistically significant differences of means highlights greater change in spindle whorl form between the Chalcolithic and EBI periods. This finding is also attributed to the fact the PN period does not have many spindle whorls with measurement data. One key finding to note is that the diameter of ceramic whorls changes significantly between the Chalcolithic and EBI time periods; in contrast stone spindle whorls diameter does not change. Thickness increases significantly in stone whorls between the Chalcolithic and EBI time periods, but not in ceramic whorls. Both stone and ceramic whorls have a statistically significant increase in weight and estimated total weight between the Chalcolithic and EBI time periods. Weight is the most indicative variable for marking change in the act and intention of spinning. The observed changes of spindle whorl weight over time suggest a shift in the type of fibers being spun. This conclusion will be further explored in Chapter 5.

53 Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions

By analyzing the spindle whorl data in the previous chapter, it was discovered that there are specific variables such as weight which are statistically significant between ceramic and stone whorls among time periods. By focusing on changes in whorl weight, along with changes in whorl material, it can be concluded that there was a purposeful shift in the materials used for spindle whorls and the resulting change in weight would determine what fibers were being spun.

This chapter delves into the possible changes in the textile industry among the PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI periods based on statistically significant patterns in the spindle whorl data.

Diachronic Changes in Materials used for Spindle Whorls

The assemblage of spindle whorls brought together by this study allows for multiple avenues of interpretation. The primary focus was to analyze the materials used for production of spindle whorls through the PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI periods. It has been determined there was a definitive change in materials used, with ceramic whorls overwhelmingly dominating earlier period assemblages, superseded by stone by the EBI period. Evaluation of the form measurement data showed significant changes in whorl diameter and weight through these periods, most notably between the Chalcolithic and EBI. The trend towards heavier stone whorls takes place over nearly three millennia, indicating a slow or incremental shift of material and weight of spindle whorls. An increase in the use of stone correlates with an increase in weight of spindle whorls. The question that arises as to whether the changes in whorl weight occurred because of a preference in material, or if material changed for preference of weight.

As spinners choose their tools and methods in consideration of the final product, considerations of this issue may help in understanding the documented changes in spindle whorls over time in the prehistoric southern Levant. As stated in Chapter 2, flax fibers are long, ranging

54 from 50-100 cm (Mårtensson et al. 2006b), whereas wool fibers are shorter, the length of a sheep or goat fleece. The character of domesticated wool is suggested to change to a finer quality in later periods, possibly indicating even more delicate fibers which could break with a heavy whorl

(Ryder 1969). Fiber length matters because heavier whorls are better suited for spinning longer fibers (Barber 1991). In contrast, shorter fibers may break during spinning with a heavier weight, as they would have less time and fewer spins to bind together due to the faster spinning speed produced with a heavier whorl. The data show an overall increase in average weight of both ceramic and stone spindle whorls in later periods. Given the associations of heavier whorls with long fiber, such as flax, it is reasonable to argue that flax was used more in the Chalcolithic and

EBI than in the PN. A trend towards preference of linen textiles would explain the change in weight of spindle whorls, as well as the change in whorl material.

Alternatively, another possible explanation for the increase in whorl weight is the greater amount of control the spinner has during the spinning process with a heavier whorl. Previous research suggests that individuals can spin thread while performing other tasks simultaneously

(Barber 1991). From the experimental work, it was noted that heavier whorls required less attention from the spinner and produced lengths of yarn faster than lighter whorls (Mårtensson et al. 2006a). If this is the case, heavier whorls allow individuals to be more efficient at the task of spinning and make it easier to perform other tasks at the same time, which would likely be more desirable.

Another explanation for the observed changes in material and weight of spindle whorls might be a commitment to specialized or standardized thread production. From the published data, the amount of variability in measurement variables decreases over time. A more limited range in size, material, and weight could show a more uniform practice of spinning. A more

55 uniform practice could be the result of finding the most efficient method of spinning. Less variability in the later spindle whorl assemblages could also indicate a more centralized industry, with few individuals engaged in the practice of spinning. This specialization could also be connected with a shifting position of the southern Levant in its greater geographical and political context. For example, it is suggested that in Mesopotamia there is a shift from flax to wool in later periods (McCorriston 1997). Further research on the southern Levant’s place within the greater region and specifically in regard to fiber, thread and textile manufacture is outside the scope of this project but would be beneficial research to addressing these interpretations.

Evaluating an Increase in Linen Production

An increase in flax production in EBI does not mean flax was exclusively used by people during the EBI. Zooarchaeological remains, specifically those of older sheep, argue for continued wool production in the Chalcolithic and EBI (Levy 1983). Confirming the proposed increase in linen production, as suggested by changes in spindle whorl material and form over time, requires consideration of other evidence that can further support this hypothesis. As stated in Chapter 2, there is limited evidence for the prehistoric textile industry, as most tools for textile working are made of organic materials that endure in the archaeological record only in special preservation settings. Because they are often made of stone or ceramic, spindle whorls are one of the only elements that do survive such that they must be relied upon to infer the other aspects of the textile industry during early periods.

Linen textiles from the Chalcolithic sites of Nahal Hemar and the Cave of the Warrior are the only evidence of finished textiles during the time range under study (Schick 1988, Schick

1998, 2002). The presence of linen does confirm the use of flax for spinning, at least by the

56 Chalcolithic period. As stated previously, conditions for wool preservation are not favorable in the southern Levant, however lack of evidence does not prove no wool was being produced.

The process of preparing flax fibers for spinning takes effort and time. Once the fibers are processed, they can be stored for some time before spinning (Mårtensson 2006b). Spinning could therefore happen year-round and not just when the flax was harvested and processed. The additional effort to turn flax into a workable product for spinning, means spinners considered linen production was worth the added effort. The maintenance of a flock, sheep shearing, and wool combing also take considerable time and effort. It is possible the added effort shown in an increase of stone spindle whorls, which take more time to produce than ceramic whorls, mirrors the additional effort required to process flax for linen.

Summary

The analysis of spindle whorls, as well as other artifacts from the textile industry, is underrepresented in the literature. Little emphasis has been put on researching this artifact type, particularly for those that date to the early periods of occupation in the southern Levant. No previous comparative dataset of spindle whorls existed, which prompted this study. My initial hypothesis suggested a change in the material used for spindle whorls over the course of the PN,

Chalcolithic, and EBI periods in the southern Levant, with a shift from more ceramic whorls in the PN to more stone whorls by the EBI. The compilation of data on 877 spindle whorls from publications of PN, Chalcolithic, and EBI sites in the southern Levant made it possible to test this hypothesis. The material distribution of spindle whorls from the PN is 22% stone and 78% ceramic. My results show a slight increase in stone whorls during the Chalcolithic, with 54% stone and 46% ceramic, and a more substantial increase in the EBI, with 64.7% stone and 35.3% ceramic. Of the whorls in the dataset, measurements were available for 383. Analysis of these

57 measurements aided in the explanation of the shift of material for this artifact type. Statistically significant differences in diameter, thickness, and especially weight, showed metrical changes in addition to the shift from ceramic to stone previously discussed. I interpret the increase in weight of spindle whorls to be attributed to an increase in flax production and demand for linen.

Understanding the Change in Prehistoric Levantine Spindle Whorls

The intent of this study was to bring together spindle whorl assemblages from PN,

Chalcolithic, and EBI sites in the southern Levant to create a compiled diachronic dataset.

Forming this dataset allowed me to investigate the change in material of spindle whorls and analyze form data. The interpretation that stone (heavier) whorls were produced to enable an increase in the production of linen is one conclusion that can be drawn from previous research and this study.

This newly created comparative collection of spindle whorl data provides a foundation for future studies to explore the factors influencing this change. Some possibilities include abstract factors, such as change in style preference that could have created a greater demand for linen. Additional influencers could relate to geographic location because the southern Levant is at the intersection of Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Relations with each of these groups, in terms of society, trade, or colonization, brings in greater complexity. Specifically, there are emerging connections between the southern Levant and the rising Egyptian polity during the

Chalcolithic and EBI period. The scope of this thesis does not allow me to delve into these avenues for interpretation but serve as hypotheses for future studies.

Future Research

Future research can expand on both the dataset and the interpretation of a shift to flax in the Chalcolithic and EBI periods in the southern Levant. The time and funding constraints of this

58 project did not allow me to investigate unpublished assemblages, which if analyzed would increase the sample size of the dataset and improve the viability of my assumptions. Expanding the time frame of the dataset into later periods may also prove an interesting exercise. With the onset of urbanism by the Early Bronze II in the southern Levant, I suspect even more changes can be observed in spindle whorls and the textile industry (Joffe 1994). An expanded experimental study, including the testing of a larger variety in weight, form, and materials used for spindle whorls would provide valuable information which can be used for a more refined interpretation on prehistoric spindle whorl assemblages.

An expanded comparative study would be another possible way to understand the shift in material and form of spindle whorls, at the regional level and within connecting regions.

Interactions between the southern Levant and its neighbors in Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt would influence many parts of society, including textile production. The possibility of a shift of spinning as a more specialized industrial skill or craft is indicative of much more than spinning itself. The production of textiles may change to a more regionalized industry and further research on the regionality of spindle whorls could indicate this. The above stated paths of further research would provide more context to the changes observed in this study.

Conclusion

Overall, the efforts of this project are directed at changing the perception of spindle whorl artifacts; after all, spindle whorls are a valuable asset of the archaeological record that give insight to larger issues in understanding the past. Their significance extends beyond their direct functional purpose of creating thread, revealing more about the people and groups who created and used them. Not only should spindle whorls be reported in excavation publications, but measurement data, specifically weight and diameter, should also be consistently recorded. The

59 inclusion of more data on spindle whorls from the southern Levant, as well as other regions, will help to further our understanding of the evolution of the textile production and related aspects of society.

60 References Cited

Abbo, Shahal, Inbar Zezak, Simcha Lev-Yadun, Orit Shamir, Toni Friedman, and Avi Gopher 2014 Harvesting Wild Flax in the Galilee, Israel and Extracting Fibers-Bearing on Near Eastern Plant Domestication. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences:1-13. al-Nahar, Maysson 2010 Tell Abu-Suwwan; A Neolithic Site in Jordan: Preliminary Reports 2005-2006. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 357:1-18. 2013 A Typo-Chronological and Analytical Lithic Study of the Neolithic Period in Jordan: Case Study of Tell Abu Suwwan. Jordan Journal for History and Archaeology 7:119-143.

Ali, Nabil 2005 The Development of Pottery Technology from the Late Sixth to the Fifth Millennium BC in North Jordan: Ethno and Archaeological Studies: Abu Hamid. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1422, Oxford.

Alvarez, Valentin, and Juan Muniz Andrea Polcano 2013 Jabal al-Mutawwaq Dolmen Field. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 57:409-424.

Amiran, Ruth, H. Amiran David, and Orit Ilan 1978 Early Arad II-Architecture and Town Planning. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Amiran, Ruth, Uzzi Paran, Yigal Shiloh, Yoram Tsafrir, Rafi Brown, and Amnon Ben-Tor 1978 Early Arad I-Chalcolithic and Early Bronze 1st-5th Season Excavations. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Arbuckle, Benjamin S. 2014 Pace and Process in the Emergence of Animal Husbandry in Neolithic Southwest Asia. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 8:53-81.

Avrutis, Vladamir Wolff 2012 Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I Remains at Nesher-Ramla Quarry. Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa.

Baird, D., and G. Phillip 1992 Preliminary Report on 1st (1991) Season of Excavations Tell esh-Shuna North. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 36:71-88. 1993 Preliminary Report on 1992 Excavations. Levant 25:13-36. 1994 Preliminary Report on the 2nd (1992) Season of Excavations at Tell esh-Shuna N. Levant 26:111-134.

Baldi, Johnny, and Valentine Roux 2016 The Innovation of the Potter’s Wheel: A Comparative Perspective Between Mesopotamia and the Southern Levant. Levant 48(3):236-253.

61 Banning, Edward B. 2007 Wadi Rabah and Related Assemblages. Paleorient 33(1): 77-101.

Banning, Edward B., R. Dods, J. McCorriston, and S. Monckton 1987 Report on the Wadi Ziqlab Project 1986. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31:321-342.

Banning, Edward B., R. Dods, and John Field 1989 Wadi Ziqlab Project 1987. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33:42-58. 1992 Tabaqat al-Buma: 1990 excavations at Kebarm and Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 36:43-69. 1996 The 1992 Season of Excavations in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40:29-49. 1998 Excavations at WZ121, Chalco, Tubma, Wadi Ziqlab. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42:141-159. 2005 Excavations at Late Neolithic al-Basatin, Wadi Ziqlab. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49:229-243.

Banning, Edward B., Kevin Gibbs, and Seiji Kadowaki 2010 Excavations at al-Basatin, Late Neolithic and EBI. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 54:461-476.

Bar-Adon, Pessah (ed.) 1980 The Cave of the Treasure: The Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. The Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Barber, Elizabeth J. Wayland 1991 Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Bellinger, Louisa 1962 Textiles from Gordion. The Bulletin of the Needle and Bobbin Club 46:4-33.

Ben-Yosef, Erez, Orit Shamir, and Janet Levy 2017 On Early Metallurgy and Textile Production Technologies in the Southern Levant: a Response to Langgut et al. (2016). Antiquity 91(357:765-776.

Bergfjord, Christian, Sabine Karg, Antoinette Rast-Eicher, ML Nosch, Ulla Mannering, R.G. Allaby, B.M. Murphy, and Bodil Holst 2010 Comment on “30,000-year old Wild Flax Fibers.” Science 328(5986):1634.

Betts, Alison V.G. 1987 1986 Excavations at Dhuweila, Eastern Jordan: Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31:121-128. 1988 1986 Excavations at Dhuweila: Preliminary Report. Levant 20:7-22. 1990 The Burqu/Ruweishid Project: Preliminary Report of the 1988 Season. Levant 22:1-20.

62 Betts, Alison V.G., D. Cropper, L. Martin, and C. McCartney 2013 The Later Prehistory of the Badia Excavations. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Betts, Alison V.G., and S.W. Helms 1991 Excavations at Jawa 1972-1986. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Betts, Alison V.G., S.W. Helms, and C. O’Tool 1992 Excavations at Tell Um Hammad 1982-1984: The Early Assemblages (EBI-EBII) Volume 1. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Blackham, M. 1999 Telaylat Ghassul: An Appraisal of Robert North’s Excavations. Levant 31:19-64.

Blackham, M., K. Fischer, D. Lasby 1998 Tall Fendi: A Late Chalcolithic Settlement in the Lower Wadi Ziqlab. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42:161-177.

Bourke, Stephen 1997a The “Pre-Ghassulian” Sequence at Teleilat Ghassul: Sydney University Excavations 1975-1995. In The Prehistory of Jordan II: Perspectives from 1997, edited by Hans Georg Gebel and Zeidan Kafafi, pp. 395-416. Ex Oriente, Berlin. 1997b Urbanization Process in the South Jordan Valley (1994-1995). Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 6:249-259. 2000 The 2nd and 3rd Season of Renewed Excavations (1995-1997). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44:37-89. 2007 The Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic Transition at Teleilat Ghassul. Paleorient 33(1):15-32.

Bourke, Stephen and Jaimie L. Lovell 2004 Ghassul, Chronology, and Cultural Sequencing. Paleorient 30(1):179-182. 2007 The 4th Season of Renewed Excavations at Teleilat Ghassul. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 51:35-80.

Boyd, Brian 2018 Ecologies of Fiber-work: Animal Technologies and Invisible Craft Practices in Prehistoric Southwest Asia. Quaternary International 468: 250-261.

Braun, Eliot L. 1985 En Shadud: Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley. British Archaeological Reports International Series 249, Oxford. 2000 Post Mortem: A Late Prehistoric Site at Palmahim Quarry. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 17:17-28. 2004 Early Beth Shan (Strata XIX-XIII): G.M. FitzGerald's Deep Cut on the Tell. Volume 121. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology, Philadelphia.

63 Braun, Eliot L., and Daniella E. Bar Yosef 1997 Yiftahel: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Braun, Eliot L., and Shimon Gibson 1984 ‘En Shadud: An Early Bronze I Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253:29-40.

Burton, Margie, and Thomas E. Levy 2001 The Chalcolithic Radiocarbon Record and its Use in the Southern Levantine Archaeology. Radiocarbon 43(3):1223-1246.

Callaway, Joseph A. 1965 The 1964 ‘Ai (et Tell) Excavations. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 178:13-39. 1969 The 1966 ‘Ai (et Tell) Excavations. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 196:13-39. 1970 The 1968-1969 ‘Ai Excavations. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 198:7-32. 1972a The Early Bronze Age Citidel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 207:41-53. 1972b The Early Bronze Age Houses. Palestine Expedition Quarterly Jan-Jun:5-25.

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 1988 “Abu Hamid:” Village du 4e Millenaire de la Vallee du Jordaine. Institut d'Archeologie et d'Antropologie de L'Universite du Yarmouk, Amman.

Chang-Ho, C. Ji 1997 The Chalcolithic and EB Cemeteries Near Iraq-al-Amir. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 41:49-68.

Collins, Steven, and Hussein Aljarrah 2011 Tall Al-Hammam Season Six 2011: Excavation, Survey, Interpretations and Insights. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (55):581-607.

Collins, Steven, Khalil Hamdan, and Gary A. Byers 2009 Tall Al-Hammam: Preliminary Report on Four Seasons of Excavation (2006-2009). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (53):385-414.

Coogan, Michael David 1984 Numeira 1981. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 255:75-82.

Cooper, Jason Brandon 1997 Unwrapping the Neolithic Package: Wadi Shu’eib and Kholetrian-Ortos in Perspective. M.A. Thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

64 Crockett, C. 1977 The Complete Book of Spinning. Watson-Guptill, New York.

Cross, Dorothy 1937 Moveable Property in the Nuzi Documents. American Oriental Society, New Haven.

Crowfoot, Elisabeth 1960 Appendix A: Textiles, Matting, and Basketry. In Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 1, edited by Kathleen Kenyon, pp. 519-526. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London. 1964 Appendix G: Textiles, Matting, and Basketry. In Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 2, edited by Kathleen Kenyon, pp. 662-664. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London.

Crowfoot, Grace M. 1931 Methods of Hand Spinning in Egypt and the Sudan. Bankfield Museum Notes, Halifax. 1941 The Vertical Loom in Palestine and Syria. Palestine Exploration Quarterly: 141-151. 1943 Handicrafts in Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly: 75-88. 1944 Handicrafts in Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly: 121-130. 1954 Textile, Basketry, and Mats. In A History of Technology, Vol. 1, edited by C. Singer, E. Holmyard, and A. Hall, pp. 413-455. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Davis, S. 1982 Some Evidence of the Origin of Wool and Milk Production in the Near East Based upon a Sequence of Faunal Assemblages from Western Iran. Paper presented at Fourth International Conference on Archaeozoology. London.

Dempsey, James M. 1975 Fiber Crops. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Dessel, J. P. 2009 Lahav: I: Pottery and Politics: The Halif Terrace Site 101 4th Millennium BCE. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Dever, William G., Hubert Darrell Lance, and George Ernest Wright 1974 Gezer IV. Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem.

Dollfus, Genevivee, and Zeidan Kafafi 1986 Preliminary Results of the First Season at Abu Hamid. Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan 30:353-376.

Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica 2018 Wool: Animal Fiber. https://www.britannica.com/topic/wool, accessed May 22, 2018.

Eisenberg, Emanuel 2001 Tel Teo: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Site in the Hula Valley. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

65 Epstein, Claire 1977 The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan. The Biblical Archaeologist 40(2):56-62. 1998 The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Engberg, Robert, and Geoffrey Shipton 1934 Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery from Megiddo. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Fernez-Tresguerres Valesco, Juan 2001 Jabal al-Mutawwaq at the End of the 4th Millenium BC. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 7:173-178. 2005 Jabal al-Mutawwaq. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49:365-372.

Finkelstein, Israel 1990 Early Arad-Urbanism of the Nomads. Zeitschrift des Deutschan Palastina 106:34-50.

Finkelstein, Israel, David Ussishkin, and Baruch Halpern 2000 Megiddo III:The 1992-1996 Seasons. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Finlayson, Bill, and Ian Kuijt 2001 Excavations at adh-Dhra. Munjazat 2:63. 2004 Adh-Dhra Excavation Project. Munjazat 5:33.

Fischer, Peter 2006 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley Volume 1: The Early Bronze Age. Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wein. 2008 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley Volume 2. Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wein.

Frödin, Otto Vilhelm Anders, and Erland Nordenskiöld. 1918 Über Zwirnen und Spinnen bei den Indianern Südamerikas. 4(3).

Gal, Zvi 1989 Excavations at Afula. ‘Atiqot 30:25-67. 1997 A Chalcolithic Burial in Peqi’in. Israel Exploration Journal 147:145-154.

Galili, Ehud, Baruch Rosen, Vered Eshed, Mordechai E. Kislev, Orit Simchoni, Israel Hershkovitz, and Avi Gopher 2009 Evidence for a Separate Burial Ground at the Submerged Pottery Neolithic Site of Neve-Yam, Israel. Paleorient 35(1):31-46.

Garfinkel, Yosef 1993 The Yarmoukian Culture in Israel. Paléorient 19(1):115-134. 2002 Ziqmim, A Pottery Neolithic Site in the Southern Levant. Journal of the Prehistoric Society 32: 73-145.

66 Garfinkel, Yosef, Yuval Goren, Daniel Ladiray, and Marjolaine Barazani. 1992 The Pottery Assemblages at Sha’ar Hagolan and Rabah Stages at Munhata. Association Paléorient, Jerusalem.

Garrard, Andrew N., and Brian F. Byrd 2013 Beyond the Fertile Crescent: Late Paleolithic and Neolithic Communities of the Jordanian Steppe, The Azraq Basin Project Volume 1: Project Background and the Late Paleolithic. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Garrard, Andrew N., and Hans Georg Gebel 1988 The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986. British Archaeological Reports Limited (396).

Gaube, C.G. 1985 Tell esh-Shuna North 1984: A Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 29:43-87. 1986 Tell esh-Shuna North 1985: A Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 30:69-113. 1987 A Preliminary Analysis of the Chipped Stone from 1985 Tell esh-Shuna North. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31:461-480. 1987 Tell esh-Shuna North: 1984-1985. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 1987:237-240.

Gaustavson-Gaube, Carrie 1985 Tell esh-Shuna North 1984. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 29:43- 87. 1986 Tell esh-Shuna North, 1985. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 30:69- 113. 1987 Tell esh-Shuna North:84-85. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 3:237- 240.

Geijer, Agnes 1972 A History of Textile Art. Pasold Research Fund, London.

Getzov, Nimrod, Ronny Lieberman-Wander, Howard Smithline, and Danny Syon 2009 Horbat ‘Uza: 1991 Excavations: The Early Periods. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

67 Gilead, Isaac 1991 Excavations at Tell Abu Mater. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society:173-179. 1994 History of the Chalcolithic Settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296:1-13. 1995 Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, Beer-Sheva, Israel. 2009 The Neolithic-Chalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant: Late Sixth-Fifth Millennium Culture History. In Transitions in Prehistory: Essays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef, edited by John J. Shea and Daniel E. Lieberman, pp.335-355. Oxbrow Books, Oxford.

Gillet, Elizabeth, and Colin Gillet 1983 Jebel Abu Thawwab, Jordan. Levant 15:187-191.

Golani, Amir 2003 Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem. 2004 The Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon, Afridar-Area E. ‘Atiqot 45:9-62. 2008 The Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon-Area M. ‘Atiqot 60: 19-51. 2013 Transition from Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I: Ashqelon’s Cave Study. Paleorient 39(1):95-110.

Gopher, Avi 1995 Excavations at ‘En Besor. Ramot Publishing House, Jerusalem. 1992 The Pottery Assemblage of Nahal Beset I: A Neolithic Site in the Upper Galilee. Israel Exploration Journal 42(1/2): 4-16.

Gopher, Avi, and Ran Barkai 2012 Village Communities of the Pottery Neolithic Period in the Menashe Hills, Israel: Archaeological Investigations at the Sites of Nahal Zehora. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv.

Gopher, Avi, and Noga Blockman 2004 Excavations at Lod (Neve Yaraq) and the Lodian Culture of the Pottery Neolithic Period. ‘Atiqot 47: 1-50.

Gopher, Avi, and Ram Gophna 1993 Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7(3):297-353.

Gophna, Ram 1990 The Early Bronze I Settlement at ‘En Besor Oasis. Israel Exploration Journal 40(1):1- 11. 1995 Excavations at ‘En Besor. Ramot Publication House, Tel Aviv.

68 Gophna, Ram, Bruce Cresson, and Eric Freidmann 1996 Excavations at Tel Dalit: Early Bronze Age Walled Town. Ramot Publishing House, Tel Aviv.

Green, E. W. 1980 Animal Husbandry at Uruk in the Archaic Period. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39:1- 36.

Greenberg, Raphael, Sarit Paz, Daniel Wengrow, and Mark Isrelis 2014 Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound I: Excavation Reports 1933-1986. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Greenhut, Zvi, A. De Groot, and E. Zapassky 2009 Salvage Excavations at Tel Moza. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Grigson, C. 1995 Plough and Pasture in the Early Economy of the Southern Levant. In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by Thomas Levy, pp.245-268. Leicester University Press, London.

Hadas, Gideon 2005 Excavations at the Village of En Gedi. ‘Atiqot 49:136-137.

Hammond, H. B. 1845 The History of Silk, Cotton, Linen and Wool. Harper & Brothers, New York.

Helms, Svend W. 1987 Jawa, Tell Um Hammad and the EBI/Late Chalcolithic Landscape. Levant 19:49-82.

Hennessy, J. Basil 1969 Preliminary Report on a First Season of Excavation at Teleilat Ghassul. Levant 1:1-24.

Hess, Katharine P. 1954 Textile Fibres and Their Uses (Fifth Edition). J.B. Lippincott, Chicago. 1958 Textile Fibres and Their Uses (Sixth Edition). J.B. Lippincott, Chicago.

Hirschfeld, Yizhar 2007 En Gedi II: Final Report (1996-2002). Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Hochberg, Bette 1980 Handspindles. Bette and Bernard Hochberg, Santa Cruz, California.

Horwitz, Liora Kolska, Eitan Tchernov, Pierre Ducos, Cornelia Becker, Angela Von Den Driesch, Louise Martin, and Andrew Garrard 1999 Animal Domestication in the Southern Levant. Paleorient 25(2):63-80

69 Ilan, Ornit, and Michael Sebbane 1989 Copper Metallurgy, Trade, and the Urbanization of Southern Canaan in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’age du Bronze Ancient:139-162.

Joffe, Alexander 1994 Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze I-II:Complementarity and Contradiction in a Small-Scale Complex Society. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, England.

Kadowaki, Seiji, K. Gibbs, A. Allentuck, and E.B. Banning 2008 Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jaba al-Basatin. Paleorient 34(1):105-130.

Kafafi, Zeidan A 1990 Early Pottery Contexts from ‘Ain Ghazal. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 280:15-30. 2001 Jebel Abu Thawwab (Er-Rumman), Central Jordan: the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze I Occupations. Ex Oriente, Berlin. 2010 The Chalcolithic Period in the Golan Heights. Paleorient 36(1):141-157.

Kaplan, J. 1958a Excavations at Wadi Rabah. Israel Exploration Journal 8(3):149-160. 1958b Telvliot Batashi. Eretz Israel 5:9-24.

Kempinkski, Aharon 2002 Tel Kabri: 1986-1993 Seasons. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Kenyon, Kathleen 1982 Archaeology in the Holy Land. Ernest Benn: London.

Khalaily, Hamoudi 2011 Nahal Yarmut: LPN site. ‘Atiqot 67:1-29. 2013 Tel Hannan: Site of Wadi Rabah Culture. ‘Atiqot 73:1-17.

Khalaily, Hamoudi, and Ofer Marder 2003 The Neolithic Site of Abu Gosh: the 1995 Excavations. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Kissel, M. 1918 Yarn and Cloth Making: an Economic Study. Macmillan, New York.

Koster, J. 1977 From Spindle to Loom. Expedition 19(2):29-39.

Kuijt, Ian, and Meredith Chesson 2002 Excavations at ‘Ain Waida, Jordan: New Insights to Pottery Neolithic Lifeways in Southern Levant. Paleorient 28(2):109-122.

70 Kvavadze, Eliso, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Anna Belfer-Cohen, Elisabetta Boaretto, Nino Jakeli, Zinovi Matskevich, and Tengiz Meshveliani 2009 30,000-year-old Wild Flax Fibers. Science 325(5946):1359.

Langgut, Dafna, Naama Yahalom-Mack, Simcha Lev-Yadun, Eitan Kremer, Micka Ullman, and Uri Davidovich 2016 The Earliest Near Eastern Wooden Spinning Implements. Antiquity 90(352):973-990. 2017 On Chalcolithic Maceheads and Spinning Implements. Antiquity 91(357):777-782.

Lechevallie, Monique 1978 Abu Gosh et Beisamoun: 7e mill avant. Association Paléorient, Paris.

Leonard, Albert, Jr. 1983 The Proto-Urban/EBI Utilization of Kataret es-Samra. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 251:37-60.

Lee, John Robert 1975 Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Lehman, G. 1991 The 1990 Excavations at Abu Snesleh: Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 35:41-65.

Leonard, Albert 1983 The Proto Urban/EBI Utilization of Kataret es Samra. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 251:37-60.

Levy, Janet, and Isaac Gilead 2012 Spinning in the 5th Millennium in the Southern Levant: Aspects of the Textile Economy. Paléorient: 127-139.

Levy, Thomas E. 1983 The Emergence of Specialized Pastoralism in the Southern Levant. World Archaeology 15(1):15-36. 1987 Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel. British Archaeological Reports, London. 1998 Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Bloomsbury Publishing, London. 2005 Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: Gilat. Routledge, New York.

Levy, Thomas E., M. M. Burton, and Yorke M. Rowan 2006 Chalcolithic Hamlet Excavations Near Shiqmim, Negev Desert, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(1): 41-60.

Liu, Robert K. 1978 Spindle Whorls: Part 1 Some Comments and Speculations. Bead Journal 3:87-103.

71 Lovell, Jaimie L. 2001 The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant: New Data from the Site in Telielat Ghassul. British Archaeological Reports International Series 974, Oxford.

Lovell, Jaimie L., Genevieve Dollfus, and Zeidan Kafafi 2004 The Middle Phases at Abu Hamid and the Wadi Rabah Horizon. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 8:263-274. 2007a The Ceramics of the Late Natufian and Chalcolithic: Abu Hamid. Paleorient 33(1):51- 76.

Lovell, Jaimie L., T. Richter, P. B. McLaren, K. MuRae, Adeib Abu-Shuweis 2005 The 1st Preliminary Report of the Wadi ar-Rayuum Archaeological Project Survey Al- Khawarj. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49:189-200. 2006 The 2nd Preliminary Report: 1st Season of Excavation at Al-Khawarj. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 50:33-59. 2007b The 3rd Preliminary Report: 2nd Season of Excavation at Al-Khawarj. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 51:103-140.

Mabry, Jonathan 1989 Investigations at Tell el-Handaduq, Jordan (1987-1988). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33:59-95.

Maeir, Ahron M. 2012 Tell es Safi/Gath I: 1996-2005 Seasons. Harrassowitz, Weisbaden, Germany.

Mahasneh, Hamzeh 2003 Archaeological Investigations at the Neolithic Site es-Safiya/Waid Mujib. Adumatu 7:7- 28.

Mårtensson, L., E. Andersson, M.L. Nosch, and A. Batzer 2006a Technical Report, Experimental Archaeology, Part 1, 2005-2006. Tools and Textiles- Texts and Contexts Research Program. The Danish Nation Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, University of Copenhagen. 2006b Technical Report,Part 2:1 Flax, 2006. Tools and Textiles-Texts and Contexts Research Program. The Danish Nation Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, University of Copenhagen. 2006c Technical Report, Part 2:2 Whorl or Bead? 2006. Tools and Textiles-Texts and Contexts Research Program. The Danish Nation Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, University of Copenhagen. 2007 Technical Report, Part 3 Loom Weights, 2007. Tools and Textiles-Texts and Contexts Research Program. The Danish Nation Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, University of Copenhagen.

Mazar, Amihai, and Nitzan Amitai-Preiss 2012 Excavations at Beth-Shean 1989-1996 IV. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

72 Mazar, Amihai, Pierre de Miroschedji, and Naomi Porat 1996 Hartuv, an Aspect of the Early Bronze I Culture of Southern Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302:1-40.

McCorriston, Joy 1997 The Fiber Revolution: Textile Extensification, Alienation, and Social Stratification in Ancient Mesopotamia. Current Anthropology 38(4):517-549.

Moory, Peter Roger Stewart 1988 Chalcolithic Hoard from Nahal Mishmar. World Archaeology 20(2):171-189.

Nadal, Dani, Avinoam Danin, Ella Werker, Tamar Schick, Mordechai E. Kislev, and K. Stewart 1994 19,000-year-old Twisted Fibers from Ohalo II. Current Anthropology 35(4):451-458.

Najjar, M. 1995 The EBA at Faynan. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5:519-521.

Najjar, M., A. Abu Dayya, and E. Suleiman 1990 Tell Wadi Feinan: The First Pottery Neolithic Tell in the South of Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 34:27-56.

North, Robert 1961 Ghassul 1960: Excavation Report. Gregorian Biblical Book Shop, Rome.

Obeidat, Daifallah 1995 Die Neolithische Keramic aus Abu Thawwab Jordanien. Ex Oriente, Berlin.

Orrelle, Estelle, Ruth Eyal, and Avi Gopher 2012 Spindle Whorls and Their Blanks. In Village Communities of the Pottery Neolithic Period in the Menashe Hills, Israel. Archaeological Investigations at the Sites of Nahal Zehora. Edited by Avi Gopher and Ruth Eyal, pp.632-656. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv.

Oren, Ronit 2002 Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls. In Tel Kabri: 1986-1993 Seasons. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Ortner, Donald, and Bruno Frohlich 2008 The EBI Tombs and Burials of Bab edh-Dhra. Rowman Altamira, New York.

Perrot, Jean 1955 Excavations at Tell Abu Mater. Israel Exploration Journal 5(3):167-189. 1967 Neve Ur: Un Nouvel Aspect du Ghassoulien. Israel Exploration Journal 17(4):201-232.

73 Pesah, Bar Adon 1980 Cave of Treasures: The Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Rast, Waller, and R. Thomas Schaub 1989 Bab edh-Dhra: Excavations of Cemetery (1975-1981). Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Rollefson, Gary O. 1993 The Origins of the Yarmoukian at ‘Ain Ghazal. Paléorient 19(1):91-100. 1994 The 1993 Season at ‘Ain Ghazal: Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan 38:11-32. 2005 Stone Tools from ‘Ayn Jammam, Near Rasen-Naqb. NEOLITHICS 1:17-23.

Rollefson, Gary O., and Illse Köhler-Rollefson 1993 PPNC Adaptations in the First Half of the 6th Millennium BC. Paléorient 19(1) :33-42.

Rosenberg, Daniel 2006b Beisamoun, The Wadi Rabah Occurrence. Journal of the Israel Prehistory Society (36):129-137. 2010 An Early Pottery Neolithic Occurrence at Beisamoun, Hula Valley, Israel. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2015 Ground Stone Assemblage, Cave of Treasure. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 373:151-165.

Rosenberg, Daniel and Yosef Garfinkel 2014 The Groundstone Industry of Sha’ar Hagolan: Stone Working at the Dawn of Pottery Production in the Southern Levant. The Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Exploration Fund, Jerusalem.

Rosenberg, Daniel, and Edwin C.M. van den Brink 2005 Qidron: A Wadi Rabah Culture Site. Salvage Excavation Reports (2):93-103.

Rowan, Yorke M. 2004 The Ground Stone Assemblage: Ashqelon. ‘Atiqot 45: 85-96.

Rowan, Yorke M., and Jennifer Ebeling 2008 New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts. Routledge, New York.

Rowan, Yorke M., and Jonathan Golden 2009 The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant: a Synthetic Review. Journal of World Prehistory 22:1-92.

74 Ryder, Michael L. 1969 Changes in the Fleece of Sheep Following Domestication. In The Domestication of Exploitation of Plants and Animals. Edited by P.J Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby, pp.495-521. Duckworth, London.

Schick, Tamar 1988 Nahal Hemar Cave: Cordage, Basketry and Fabrics. ‘Atiqot 18:31-43. 1998 The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert. Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA Reports 5), Jerusalem 2002 The Basketry and Textiles from Caves in the Northern Judean Desert. ‘Atiqot 41(2):223- 239.

Schwartz, Joshua J. 1991 Lod(Lydda): from Origins to Byzantine, 5600 BCE - 640 CE. British Archaeological Reports International Series S571, Oxford.

Shamir, Orit 2003 Spindle Whorls. In Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata, edited by Amir Golani, pp. 203-223. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem. 2004 Spindle Whorls from Ashqelon. ‘Atiqot 45:97. 2015 Textiles from the Chalcolithic Period, Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Archaeological Textiles Review 57:12-25.

Sharon, Illan 2014 Levantine Chronology. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE, edited by Margreet L. Steiner and Ann E. Killebrew, pp.44-68. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sherratt, Andrew 1983 The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World. World Archaeology 15(1):90- 104.

Simmons, Alan H., Gary O. Rollefson, Zeidan Kafafi, Rolfe D. Mandel, Maysoon al-Nahar, Jason Cooper, Ilse Köhler-Rollefson, and Kathy Roler Durand 2001 Wadi Shu’eib: A Large Neolithic Community. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 231:1-39.

Simmons, Alan H., Zeidan Kafafi, and Gary O. Rollefson 1989 Test Excavations at Wadi Shu’eib, A Major Neolithic Settlement. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33:27-42.

Smithline, Howard 2001 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Caves at Asherat ‘Atiqot 42:35-78. 2013 Horbat Duvshan: A ‘Golan’ Chalcolithic Site. ‘Atiqot 73:19-35.

75 Stern, Eihraim 2007 En Gedi 1: Final Report (1961-1965). Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Van den Brink, Edwin C. 2001 Yehud and Some Chalcolithic Finds. ‘Atiqot 42:25-34. 2013 A Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I Site at Buchman South Qarter in Modi’in. Paleorient 39(1):47-61. 2015 Excavations at Tel Lod: PNA, Chalcolithic, and EBAI. Atiqot 82:141-218.

Van den Brink, Edwin C., Ram Gophna, and Israel Carmi 2005 Shoham (North): Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in Lod. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Van Zeist, Willem, and W.A. Casparie 1968 Wild Einkorn Wheat and Barley from Tell Mureybit in Northern Syria. Acta Bontanica Neerlandica 17(1):44-53.

Vogel, T. 1989 Village Weaving in the Southern Hebron Hills. Ariel 75:75-87.

Waetzoldt, H 1972 Die Neo-Sumerische Textilindustrie. Rome. 2007 The Use of Wool for the Production of Strings, Ropes, Braided Mats and Similar Fabric. In Ancient Textiles, Production, Craft and Society, edited by C. Gillis and M.L. Nosch, pp.112- 121. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Wasse, Alexander, and Gary Rollefson 2005 The Wadi as-Sirhan Project Notes from 2002. Levant 37:1-20. 2006 The Wadi as-Sirhan Project Notes from 2002. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 50:69-81.

Weir, Shelagh 1970 Spinning and Weaving in Palestine. British Museum, London.

Weiss, Ehud, and Daniel Zohary 2011 The Neolithic Southwest Asian Founder Crops: Their Biology and Archaeobotany. Current Anthropology 52(S4):S237-S254.

Wright, Karol 1998 The Wadi Faynan 4th and 3rd Millenia Project, 1997. Levant 30:33-60.

76 Wheeler, M. 1982 Loomweights and Spinning Whorls. In Excavations at Jericho IV, edited by Kathleen Kenyon, pp.523-637. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London. Yannai, Eli, and Donald T. Ariel 2006 En Esur (ʻEin Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA Report 31), Jerusalem.

Yannai, Eli, and Eliot Braun 2001 Anatolian and Egyptian Imports from Late Early Bronze I Ain Assawir. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 321:41-56.

Zohary, Daniel, Maria Hopf, and Ehud Weiss 2012 Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origins and Spread of Domesticated Plants in South-West Asia, Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, Vol. 4. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

77