Early Iron Age Beads at Tel Dor: a Comparative Study

Home , Tel Hazor, Tel Qiri

EARLY IRON AGE BEADS AT TEL DOR:

A COMPARATIVE STUDY

HAGAR BEN BASAT

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER DEGREE

University of Haifa Faculty of Humanities Department of Archaeology November 2011

EARLY IRON AGE BEADS AT TEL DOR:

A COMPARATIVE STUDY

HAGAR BEN BASAT

Supervised by: Dr. AYELET GILBOA and Dr. DANIELLA BAR-YOSEF MAYER

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER DEGREE

Department of Archaeology Faculty of Humanities University of Haifa 0211 Approved by: ______Date: ______

(Supervisor)

Approved by: ______Date: ______

(Supervisor)

Approved by: ______Date: ______

(Chairperson of M.A Committee)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like above all to express my gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. Ayelet Gilboa and Dr. Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer for their encouragement, support and uncompromising guidance along the way. I would like to thank the external reader of my thesis for his/her time and effort and useful comments. Several scholars assisted me in the identification of the different materials and I thank them for sharing their knowledge and experience: Prof. Sariel Shalev of the Department of Maritime Civilizations, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Haifa, for giving me the opportunity to use the XRF and study its archaeological implementations; Naomi Porat, of the Geological Survey of Israel, for the identification of the various minerals in the collection; Noa Raban-Gerstel, for the identification of the bone beads; David Hadash, for the identification of the egg-shell beads. Writing this thesis would not have been possible without the willingness of so many curators and scholars to share their knowledge and data (published as well as unpublished) from numerous excavated sites with me: The Tel Dor Excavation Project: Prof. Ephraim Stern, of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who directed the Tel Dor excavations from 1980 to 2000; Prof. Ilan Sharon, of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Dr. Ayelet Gilboa, of the Archaeology Department, Faculty of Humanities, of the University of Haifa, the Directors of the Tel Dor expedition from 2001 and all the Tel Dor team. The Beth-Shean Valley Archaeological Project: Prof. Emeritus Amihai Mazar, of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Director of the excavation, Yael Rotem and all the Tel Rehov team. The Tel Hazor Excavation Project: Prof. Emeritus Amnon Ben-Tor and Dr. Sharon Zuckerman, of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Directors of the excavation, and all the Tel Hazor team.

The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project: Prof. Aren M. Maeir, the director of the project, Itzhaq Shai and Joe Uziel of the Institute of Archaeology, University of Bar Ilan, and all the Tell es-Safi/Gath team. The Tell Rekhesh Project: A. Tsukimoto, of Rikkyo University, Tokyo, H. Kuwabara, of Tenri University, Tenri, Japan, and Y. Paz, of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, the Directors of the project, and all the Tell Rekhesh team. The Iron Age Collection Curator of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Debora Ben Ami; the Prehistoric Periods Collection Curator of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Galit Litany; and to the Curator of the Rockefeller depots, Alegre Savariego. Dr. Irit Ziffer and Nitza Bashkin Yosef of the Eretz Israel Museum. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Amir Golani and Yael Gorin-Rosen of the Israel Antiquities Authority, for their helpful comments and advice. I am grateful to the Hecht Museum and to the Wendy J. Goldhirsh Tel Dor Archaeological Fellowships for their generous contribution that assisted me in carrying out this project. Lastly, my deepest gratitude goes to my family and friends who supported me all through the project: my parents, Riki and Shimon, my brothers Erez and Aner, Nitzan Shemla, Morag Wilhelm, and many others, who read, commented, photographed, measured, documented, accompanied, carried, babysat, and gave me all the support I needed – and to my beloved family, Roey and Alon, thank you!

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 1 1. Study goals ...... 4 2. Outline of thesis ...... 6 3. The study of beads ...... 8 3.1. Studies of beads worldwide ...... 8 3.1.1. Classifications and typologies ...... 9 3.1.2. Technology and production of beads...... 10 3.1.3. Personal and collective identity ...... 15 3.1.4. Daily uses of beads ...... 16 3.1.5. Symbolic properties of beads ...... 17 3.1.6. Ritual uses of beads ...... 17 3.1.7. Beads as currency ...... 18 3.1.8. Beads as trade indicators ...... 18 3.2. The study of Bronze and Iron Age beads from the southern Levant ………………………………………………………………………………20 4. The Tel Dor early Iron Age bead corpus and its significance ...... 25 5. Chronological and geographical background ...... 27 5.1. The Bronze/Iron Age transition in the southern Levant ...... 27 5.2. Tel Dor in the early Iron Age ...... 33 6. Research methods ...... 36 6.1. Recovery methods ...... 36 6.2. Database ...... 37 6.3. Typology ...... 41 6.4. Raw material analysis ...... 43 6.5. Comparative study ...... 44 6.6. Methodological and other problems ...... 45 7. Results ...... 47 7.1. The Tel Dor corpus ...... 47 7.1.1. Materials, decorations and preservation ...... 47 7.1.1.1. Stone beads ...... 48

7.1.1.2. Bone and ivory beads and pendants ...... 51

7.1.1.3. Shell beads ...... 51 IV

7.1.1.4. Egg-shell bead ...... 53

7.1.1.5. Clay bead ...... 53

7.1.1.6. Metal beads ...... 53

7.1.1.7. Egyptian Blue beads ...... 54

7.1.1.8. Faience beads ...... 55

7.1.1.9. Glass beads...... 56

7.1.1.10. Discussion ...... 59

Faience beads ...... 60

Glass beads ...... 60

Stone beads ...... 61

Bone and ivory beads ...... 62

Shell beads ...... 63

Metal beads ...... 63

Clay beads ...... 64

Perforation types ...... 64

7.1.2. Colors ...... 65 7.1.3. Morphology ...... 66 7.1.3.1. Stone beads and pendants ...... 66

7.1.3.2. Bone and ivory beads and pendants ...... 69

7.1.3.3. Shell beads ...... 71

7.1.3.4. Egg-shell bead ...... 72

7.1.3.5. Clay bead ...... 73

7.1.3.6. Metal beads and pendants ...... 73

7.1.3.7. Egyptian Blue beads ...... 74

7.1.3.8. Faience beads ...... 76

7.1.3.9. Glass beads...... 77

7.1.3.10. Discussion ...... 81

7.1.4. Contextual analysis ...... 83 7.1.4.1. Area G ...... 85

Phase G/11 ...... 85

Phase G/10 ...... 86

Phase G/9 ...... 87

Phase G/8 ...... 91

Phase G/7 ...... 92

Phase G/6 ...... 93

7.1.4.2. Area B ...... 95

Phase B/12 ...... 95

Phase B/8 ...... 95

7.1.4.3. Area D2 ...... 96

Phase D2/13 ...... 97

Phase D2/8b-c ...... 98

7.1.4.4. Area D5 ...... 99

Phase D5/12 ...... 99

Phase D5/11 ...... 100

7.1.4.5. Discussion ...... 101

7.2. Comparative regional study ...... 102 7.2.1. Tel Beth She’an ...... 104 7.2.2. Beth She'an northern cemetery ...... 107 7.2.3. Megiddo ...... 109 7.2.4. Megiddo burials ...... 114 7.2.5. Tell el-Far‘ah North ...... 116 7.2.6. Tell Qasile ...... 118

7.2.7. The cemetery of Azor ...... 120

7.2.8. Tel Miqne-Ekron ...... 123

7.2.9. Ashdod ...... 125

7.2.10. Tel ‘Eton tombs ...... 128

7.2.11. Tell el-Far‘ah South ...... 130

7.2.12. Discussion ...... 139

7.2.12.1. Materials ...... 139

Faience beads ...... 139

Stone beads ...... 140

Shell beads ...... 142

Glass beads ...... 143

Metal beads ...... 143

Clay beads ...... 144

Bone and ivory beads ...... 144

Egyptian Blue beads ...... 144

Egg-shell beads ...... 145

Wood beads ...... 145

7.2.12.2.Colors……...………………………………………………….145

7.2.12.3.Morphology...... 146

7.2.12.4.Sites and contexts ...... 149

Tel Beth She’an ...... 153

The coffin burials of Beth She’an ...... 153

Megiddo ...... 153

Tell Qasile ...... 156

The cemetery of Azor ...... 156

Ashdod ...... 156

Tell el-Far‘ah South ...... 156

7.3. Comparative temporal study ...... 157 7.3.1.1. Materials ...... 159

7.3.1.2. Colors ...... 163

VII

7.3.1.3. Morphology...... 164

7.3.1.4. Regional analysis ...... 166

Beth She’an ...... 167

Beth She’an coffin burials ...... 169

Megiddo ...... 171

Tel Miqne-Ekron ...... 174

Tell el-Far‘ah South ...... 175

77.3.1.5. Discussion ...... 178

8. Discussion and conclusions ...... 180 8.1. Work process ...... 181 8.2. The Tel Dor assemblage ...... 181 8.2.1. Materials ...... 181 8.2.2. Typology ...... 184 8.2.3. Contextual analysis ...... 185 8.3. Other early Iron Age sites ...... 186 8.4. The Late Bronze Age – early Iron Age comparison ...... 190 8.5. Future prospects ...... 191 Bibliography ...... 194 Appendix A: Tel Dor beads ...... CD attached Appendix B: early Iron Age beads ...... CD attached Appendix C: Late Bronze Age II beads ...... CD attached Appendix D: XRF results...... CD attached

VIII

ABSTRACT

Introduction This study examines the bead assemblage of the early Iron Age (1200-900 BCE) from Tel Dor, located on the Carmel coast, Israel, and compares it with assemblages from other areas, and mainly the Late Bronze Age. This is the first detailed study of this bead assemblage, and it is one of the first general studies of Iron Age beads of the southern Levant.

Beads are among the earliest non-utilitarian objects created by mankind, and are made of numerous materials and in numerous shapes. In this study beads are defined as small perforated artifacts, suitable for stringing, made of various materials, in different shapes and sizes. Archaeological and anthropological studies show that beads were used as status symbols that represented age, gender, and social or economic status (for example: Boram-Hays, 2005; Dubin, 1995; Roach and Eicher 1979: 12-18). Beads were also used as amulets, protecting the wearer, and even as currency (Pokornowski, 1979: 104; Graeber, 1996).

Personal and collective identities may be reflected in many objects carried on a person, such as clothes, head-gear or tattoos, but most of these items decomposed and are not available for archaeological research. Jewelry, however, including beads, was usually made from inorganic materials, and is more available to archaeologists. Unlike complex jewelry that may represent only certain strata of society, beads are relatively simple objects that might have been used by more individuals in the society. Furthermore, complex jewelry is usually found in hoards or burial contexts, while beads are found in a larger range of archaeological contexts, which may assist us in understanding their role in society. It is commonly held that beads were used as parts of items of jewelry: necklaces, earrings and rings. However, many finds indicate other uses of beads, such as in clothes and furniture. These items are familiar from archaeological research, mostly from Egypt. In order to avoid imprecise terms, in this work the term 'beadwork' will be used in order to describe any object that is composed of one or more beads.

Study goals

The study goals of this research are presented in Chapter 1. The early Iron Age beads from Tel Dor, as well as other bead assemblages from the southern Levant, have never been studied systematically. Most of the recently published beads were studied as a part of larger jewelry assemblages. Due to the pioneering character of this study, its primary goal was to examine what we, as archaeologists, can learn about a certain site from a close observation of its bead assemblage, and whether we can identify private or collective characteristics of its culture.

The early Iron Age assemblage of Tel Dor was chosen as the main assemblage to be studied, and several research questions were examined through it: 1. What raw materials were used for beads? A wide range of materials was in use in the production of Tel Dor beads. Some of the materials, such as stone, were natural, and others, such as clay, were artificial; some, such as bone or shell (some of them), can be found locally, and others, such as gold, silver and various minerals, were imported. This variety may reflect several cultural phenomena: a. Trade routes of Tel Dor during the early Iron Age; many finds testify to the international connections of Dor, especially with Egypt and Cyprus. Is this phenomenon reflected in Dor beads? b. Technological abilities of the early Iron Age craftsmen (not necessarily from Dor) in making artificial raw materials, in bead production and decoration. In the period discussed there is a decrease in the glass finds, which some scholars have described as the 'dark age' of glass. Does this include glass beads? c. Cultural choices made by the people of Dor: what materials could have been in use by the Dor inhabitants, and what materials did they choose to use? Was there a meaning to the materials from which beads were made? 2. What were the common shapes of the beads? The morphology of the beads might reflect local preferences, as well as international connections (or presence) in the presence of exotic motifs and symbols. 3. The contextual examination of the beads in the site is important for the fact that the Dor bead assemblage was found in 'living' strata, and not, as in many other cases, in burial contexts or hoards. This examination has two main goals:

a. To identify bead clusters according the find spots of the beads, and thus to attempt to determine which of them were part of the same ornament. b. To compare the contextual information we have from other finds with the beads. Are beads found in domestic contexts different than beads found in 'elite' or cultic contexts? All these factors were examined in the light of Tel Dor beads and early Iron Age beads from other sites in the southern Levant. The specific cultural phenomena that characterized the period under discussion were considered in the comparison between the bead assemblages of the various early Iron Age sites: 1. Can we identify differences between bead assemblages from different geo-political units of the early Iron Age; for example, what is the difference between a bead assemblage from a Philistine site and one from the Northern coastal region? 2. Can we identify similarities between bead assemblages from sites of the same geo- political unit? Beads from the southern Levant dated to the Late Bronze Age were also studied. The transition between the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age was characterized by fundamental changes: politically, there was a gradual retreat of the Egyptians from Canaan; technologically there was a drastic decline in many specialized crafts such as ivory and glass artifacts. Another phenomenon was that gold objects became rare, while silver objects became much more common; and economically, trade connections were reduced drastically. Because of these fundamental differences, specific research issues were dealt with:

1. Was there a decrease in the quantity of beads between the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age?

2. Was the Egyptian presence (and absence) in Canaan reflected in the shapes or raw materials of beads? Were Egyptian raw materials more common during the Late Bronze Age? Can we identify Egyptian motifs among the beads?

3. Can we identify a preference of silver over gold during the early Iron Age?

4. Were the cosmopolitan styles of the Late Bronze Age compared to the cultural fragmentation of the early Iron Age reflected in the bead assemblage?

The study of beads In Chapter 3, the main bead studies by scholars in Israel and worldwide are presented according to the different research aims. Some of the aims were typological bead studies; technology and bead production; personal and collective identities; daily uses of beads; symbolic properties of beads; ritual uses of beads; beads as currency, and beads as trend indicators. This chapter demonstrates the many possible ways beads can assist in our understanding of ancient and contemporary cultures.

Research methods Thousands of beads were registered and studied in this research in different documentation, analysis and comparison methods which are presented in Chapter 6.

All the information regarding the beads was united in a database as an Excel table which is presented in Appendices A, B and C. This database includes the following data: archaeological site, no. of beads, material, color, sizes, registration no., locus no. excavation season, stratigraphic attribution, date of context, IAA data, reference, and images. In this study several methods were used for the analysis of the raw material of the Tel Dor beads: Firstly, observation using a stereoscopic microscope with a maximum magnification of 40x of all the Dor beads and pendants; then X-ray fluorescence spectrometry analysis (XRF) of selected finds by Sariel Shalev (University of Haifa) and Sana Silshtein (Weizmann Institute of Science). Further identifications were made by Naomi Porat (Geological Survey of Israel) using the XRF analytical data; The identification of the different bone and ivory beads was made by Noa Gerstel-Raban (University of Haifa); the shell species were identified by Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer (University of Haifa); and the egg-shell bead was identified by David Hadash (University of Haifa). For the typology I used terms that were defined by Beck (1928).

Results In this study 171 early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age beads and pendants were examined.

Materials XII

Most of the Dor beads were made of siliceous materials: faience (64; 37%) and glass (57; 33%). An especially large and varied group of beads and pendants was made of different minerals (23; 13%), and a surprisingly low number of beads were made of shell (8). The rest of the beads art Dor were of Egyptian Blue (8); bone and ivory (5); metal (4), silver (1), gold (2) one gold pendant; egg-shell (1); and clay (1).

Typology Forty morphological types were defined, based on their material, length, general shape, diameter, and decoration. Special decorations were noted among the glass beads (eye decorations; trail decorations, and twisted trail decorations).

Contextual analysis The beads at Dor were mostly found in domestic contexts. One of the large definite clusters of beads was found in Phase G/9 in a courtyard structure, dated to Early Iron Age 1a (late, according the terminology used at the Dor expedition). About 100 beads were found in loci related to this structure; they are elaborate and bear complex decorations. In a similar context at Megiddo (the courtyard house of Phase K-4) only seven beads were found. The excavators of Dor related this structure to a masculine activity and not to feminine, which may be important for the interpretation of the beads.

Early Iron Age beads from the southern Levant To compare the early Iron Age Dor beads with those from other sites, 6,875 beads were studied from 31 sites. Beads from 11 sites were chosen for more detailed study: Beth She’an, the northern cemetery of Beth She’an, Megiddo, Megiddo cemetery, Tell el-Far‘ah North, Tell Qasile, Tell Miqne-Ekron, Ashdod, Tel ‘Eton, the cemetery of Azor, and Tell el-Far‘ah.

The main findings of this study were: – Faience beads were the most common among early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant (2,877; 42%). – Stone beads were also very common (2,363; 34%). Carnelian beads represent 85% of all the stone beads.

XIII

– The third most common material was shell (802; 12%). Two types of shells were mainly used for beads: 60% cowrie and 38% conus shells. – Glass beads were not very common (483; 7%). However, due to the fact that this period is considered to be the 'dark age' of glass, this find is of importance. – Very few metal beads were found (201; 3%). Of these were gold (158, 74%), bronze and other copper alloys, (2; 1%), electrum (30; 14%), and silver (24; 11%). – Other materials used in bead production were clay (44), bone (39), Egyptian Blue (16), and wood (3). – The most common morphological types were Disk tubular and Short tubular. – In the regional comparison no characteristics were found that could have defined the different bead assemblages of the geo-political regions of the period. Nevertheless, some results can be noted: – In most of the hill region sites, very few beads were found, mostly of stone. – In most of the sites in Philistia a large number of shell beads were found. - One third of all the stone beads in the anthropomorphic coffins at Beth She’an are Lotus seed pendants made of carnelian. This fact matches the other Egyptian characteristics of the site. A large number of beads were found at Megiddo in clear stratigraphic contexts, allowing a comparison between the different contexts: domestic, 'elite', cultic, and burial. Faience beads were found in all of the contexts; shell beads were found only in domestic ones. Metal beads were found only in 'elite' and burial contexts. Stone beads were found in all contexts except the cultic, and glass beads were found in all contexts except the 'elite'.

Late Bronze Age beads from the southern Levant For the comparison with the Late Bronze Age, 20,881 beads were studied from 24 sites in Canaan. Several insights resulted from this study:

- Faience was the most common material used for beads in both the early Iron and the Late Bronze Ages. The difference was in its percentage: 78% in the Late Bronze age and 44% in the early Iron Age. - The percentage of stone beads was much lower during the Late Bronze Age (12%) than the early Iron Age (33%).

XIV

- Despite the reduction in international trade and the retreat of the Egyptians from Canaan, there is no significant reduction in the quantity (2,557 in the Late Bronze and 2,312 in the early Iron Age) and diversity of stone beads. - The ratio between gold and electrum beads changes. During the Late Bronze age it was 45% and 46% respectively, while in the early Iron Age it was 70% and 16% respectively. - The quantity of silver beads rose between the periods as expected, but not drastically (3% to 13%). - No morphological differences between the periods were identified. - One of the most significant sites for the study of beads in the Late Bronze Age was Beth She’an, where the largest bead assemblage, containing 10,623 beads, was found. Most of the beads were produced at the site as a consequence of the Egyptian presence.

Conclusions The beads found at Tel Dor reflect several aspects of its culture. The stone beads that were found at Dor were made of 12 different materials. This variety, which was not found in the other sites, testifies to the international connections of Dor during the early Iron Age. Glass beads, many of which were decorated, were also popular at Dor, unlike at the other sites.

Very few beads were made of local materials, such as bone or clay. The dearth of shell beads is even more surprising, considering the fact that Dor is a coastal site, and the fact that shell beads were very popular in the southern sites of Canaan. One may interpret this difference by saying that the inhabitants of Dor did not produce beads, but only imported them. However, they could still have imported bone, shell and clay beads. Therefore, I believe that this finding reflects the clear preference of Dor's inhabitants for specific types and materials of beads. Technologically, it can be said that the perforation type was determined by the material from which the bead was made, and not by its shape. Three beads (nos. 192513, 98086 and 186504) are evidence of a possible local production of beads in the courtyard house of Area G, as there were few finds, but this conclusion is not final.

In the typological analysis beads with Egyptian and Cypriot motifs were identified. These beads are another testimony to the trade connections (or maybe presence of foreigners) with these regions. The contextual analysis at Dor emphasized the study of the glass beads, because most of them were found in the same stratum in the same structure. The diversity of the bead materials and decorations is undoubtedly unique, and even more interesting, considering the archaeologists' interpretation of this structure as a simple domestic one, and not palatial or cultic. The regional comparison demonstrates clearly that there are no significant similarities between bead assemblages that were found at sites of the same geo- political unit (for example Ashdod and Tell Qasile in Philistia). Furthermore, no significant differences were identified between bead assemblages that were found at sites of different geopolitical units (for example Ashdod and Dor). Nevertheless it may be noted that: 1. The bead assemblages found at sites in the hill region are very poor and are made mostly from stone. This phenomenon correlates with the other known material culture from this region. 2. The comparison between the early Iron Age and the Late Bronze Age emphasized the differences between the periods, which are reflected mainly in the raw materials used. The main difference occurs in the percentage of the faience beads, which is significantly higher during the Late Bronze Age. Another interesting fact is that despite the major changes in international trade connections, the percentage of stone beads (made mostly from imported minerals), is higher during the early Iron Age. 3. A phenomenon that does not correlate to the known characteristics of the period relates to the gold and silver finds. The gold and silver beads examined show an increase in the gold beads during the early Iron Age and a decrease in the electrum beads. The silver beads examined represent a very low percentage in both periods. 4. The attempts to identify regional differences among the bead assemblages and to identify personal and collective characteristics of the beads were not successful. This might be accomplished in the future, by expanding the comparative study to further areas, such as Egypt, the Aegean, Cyprus, and even Syria, and by better registration and documentation of beads found in excavations in Israel.

XVI

I hope that I have succeeded in demonstrating the many potentials of research of this kind, which may encourage excavation directors to dedicate more time and effort to the proper recovery of beads in the field, and in their registration and publication.

XVII

LIST OF TABLES

5.1 Comparison between Tel Dor Horizons and stratigraphy at other sites 30 6.1 Perforation types defined by Beck (1928: plate IV) 42 5.1 Distribution of perforation types of Tel Dor beads 64 7.2 Distribution of colors of Tel Dor beads 65 7.3 Beads found in Phase G/11 85 7.4 Beads found in Phase G/10 65 7.5 Beads found in Phase G/9 66 7.6 Beads found in Phase G/9/10?? 72 7.7 Beads found in Phase G/8 70 7.8 Beads found in Phase G/7 93 7.9 Beads found in Phase G/6 73 7.10 Beads found in Phase B/12 95 7.11 Beads found in Phase B/8 74 7.12 Bead found in Phase D2/13 75 7.13 Beads found in Phase D2/8c 76 7.14 Bead found in Phase D2/12 77 7.15 Beads found in Phase D5/11 022 7.16 Morphology of the beads at Tel Beth She’an 024 7.17 Morphology of beads from Tel Beth She’an coffin burials 026 7.18 Morphological description of beads at Megiddo 001 7.19 Morphology of beads from the Megiddo tombs 004 7.20 Morphology of beads from Tell el-Far‘ah North 117 7.21 Morphology description of beads from Tell Qasile 007 7.22 Azor cemetery strata 002 7.23 Morphology of beads from the Azor tombs 000 7.24 Morphology of beads from Tel Miqne 002 7.25 Morphology of beads from Ashdod 005 7.26 Morphology of beads from Tel ‘Eton 007

XVIII

7.27 Morphology of Tell el-Far'ah South beads 015 7.28 Percentage of Lotus seed pendants in nine sites 026 7.29 Beads found in early Iron Age domestic contexts at Megiddo 032 7.30 Beads found in early Iron Age cultic contexts at Megiddo 032 7.31 Beads found in an early Iron Age burial contexts at Megiddo 033 7.32 The Late Bronze Age strata in the studied sites 035 7.33 Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant 037 7.34 Distribution of materials of early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age in the southern Levant excluding Tel Beth She’an 040 7.35 Distribution of metals among Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant 040 7.36 The four most common shapes of the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant 043 7.37 Early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age Lotus Seed Pendants 043

XIX

LIST OF FIGURES IN TEXT

2.0 Hassock found in Tutankhamun's tomb (Friedman, 1998, fig. 12) 0 2.0 Egyptian doll dated to the 12th Dynasty (Friedman, 1998: fig. 65) 0 3.0 Mining process of stone beads in western India (After Kenoyer et al., 1991: fig. 2) 10 3.0 Manufacturing stages (After Kenoyer et al., 1991: fig. 2) 00 3.3 Egyptian wall painting of bead makers (Tait, 1991: 14) 12 3.4 Rod-forming method (Spaer, 2001: fig. 10a-b) 03 3.5 Drawn bead method (Spaer, 2001: fig. 11a-d) 02 3.6 Spiral trail decoration (Spaer, 2001: fig. 21) 05 3.7 Combed trail decoration (Spaer, 2001: fig. 22) 05 4.1 Tel Dor, topography and excavation areas (Zorn et al. in press: 3) 05 6.1 Terminology of bead description proposed by Beck (Beck, 1928: fig. 3) 22 5.1 Distribution of materials of the Tel Dor beads 42 5.2 Distribution of minerals of the Tel Dor stone beads 42 7.3 Tel Dor, topography and excavation areas 64 7.4 Artist’s view of the bronze-working area and activities in the courtyard of Phase G/10c (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 20) 86 7.5 Plan of Phase G/10 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 15) 66 7.6 Plan of Phase G/9 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 44) 68 7.7 An artist's view of Phase G/9 house (Gilboa et al., in press: Fig. 53) 72 7.8 Plan of Phase G/8 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 54) 70 7.9 Plan of Phase G/7 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 55) 73 7.10 Plan of Phase G/6 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 59) 74 7.11 Plan of Phase B/8b 76 7.12 Artist's view of the 'bastion' 75 7.13 Plan of Phase D2/13 78 7.14 Plan of Phase D2/8 79 7.15 Plan of Phase D5/12 022 7.16 Distribution of materials of Beth She’an beads 026

7.17 Distribution of materials of Beth She’an coffin burial beads 028 7.18 Distribution of materials of Megiddo beads 002 7.19 Distribution of colors of Megiddo beads 001 7.20 Distribution of materials of Megiddo tomb beads 003 7.21 General distribution of materials of Megiddo tomb beads 003 7.22 Distribution of materials at Tell el-Far‘ah North 005 7.23 Distribution of materials of Tell Qasile beads 007 7.24 Distribution of materials of the Azor beads 000 7.25 Distribution of materials of the Tel Miqne beads 002 7.26 Distribution of beads by materials in the Ashdod strata 003 7.27 Distribution of materials of the Ashdod beads 005 7.28 Shell bead no. 151326 from Tel Dor 006 7.29 Shell bead IAA no. 91-516 from Ashdod 006 7.30 Distribution of materials of the Tel ‘Eton beads 007 7.31 Distribution of materials in Tomb 960 012 7.32 Distribution of materials in Tomb 532 031 7.33 Distribution of materials in Tomb 552 031 7.34 Distribution of materials in Tomb 562 012 7.35 Distribution of materials in Tomb 643 012 7.36 Distribution of materials in Tomb 542 012 7.37 Distribution of materials in Tomb 825 013 7.38 Distribution of materials in Tomb 107 013 7.39 Distribution of materials in Tomb 534 013 7.40 Distribution of materials in Tomb 853 014 7.41 Distribution of materials in Tomb 540 014 7.42 Distribution of materials in Tomb 506 014 7.43 Distribution of materials of the Tell el-Far‘ah South beads 015 7.44 Distribution of stones of the Tell el-Far'ah South 016 7.45 Distribution of shells of the Tell el-Far‘ah beads 016 7.46 Distribution of metals of the Tell el-Far‘ah beads 017 7.47 Distribution of materials of the early Iron Age beads in Canaan 019 7.48 Distribution of colors of faience beads 022

XXI

7.49 Distribution of minerals of early Iron Age beads 020 7.50 Distribution of shells of early Iron Age beads 020 7.51 Distribution of metals of early Iron Age beads 021 7.52 Distribution of colors of early Iron beads 023 7.53 Most common morphologies of early Iron Age beads 024 7.54 Distribution of early Iron Age bead materials in the studied sites 032 7.55 Distribution of early Iron Age bead colors in the studied sites 030 7.56 Distribution of materials of the Late Bronze Age and early Iorn Age beads in the southern Levant 042 7.57 Mineral types in the use of bead production during the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age southern Levant 040 7.58 Distribution of metals of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age Age beads in the southern Levant 041 7.59 Distribution of colors of the Late Bronze AgeI and early Iorn Age in the southern Levant 042 7.60 Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Tel Beth She’an 045 7.61 Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Tel Beth She’an 046 7.62 Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Tel Beth She’an coffin burials 069 7.63 Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Tel Beth She’an coffin burials 070 7.64 Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Tel Beth She’an coffin burials 052 7.65 Distribution of minerals of the Late Bronze Age beads found at Tel Beth She’an 050 7.66 Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Megiddo 050 7.67 Distribution of materials among Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Megiddo 051 7.68 Distribution of minerals of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Megiddo 051

XXII

7.69 Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Tel Miqne- Ekron 054 7.70 Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Tel Miqne-Ekron 055 7.71 Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Tell el-Far‘ah south 056 7.72 Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Tell el-Far‘ah south 056 7.73 Distribution of minerals of the Late Bronze Age beads found at Tell el-Far‘ah south 057 7.74 Comparison between the beads materials in the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age sites studied 058

XXIII

INTRODUCTION

Beads are among the first non-utilitarian objects created by Mankind (Bednarik, 2005; d'Errico et al., 2009). Beads may be simply defined as small artifacts with a hole, suitable for stringing, made of numerous different materials, in different shapes and sizes. Archaeological and anthropological studies on the subject demonstrate that beads often symbolize beliefs, identity, or status: age, gender, wealth, social position, and group membership (for example, Boram-Hays, 2005; Dubin, 1995; Roach and Eicher 1979: 12–18). Additional functions include protection, (for example, amulets), individual identification (for example, name seals), and in certain societies beads were even used as currency (Pokornowski, 1979: 104; Graeber, 1996). Various other items that people carry on their persons, such as clothes or head- gear, may also express ethnic identity, social standing, and in fact serve various purposes, such as those listed above for beads. More often than not, however, these items were made of perishable materials, and thus decompose and cannot be found in the archaeological record; while beads and jewelry in general are mostly made of materials, such as minerals, shells, bones, etc., which survive, and are thus among the few artifact classes associated with personhood more available to archaeologists. The relation between styles of artifacts and people, either individuals or societies, is of course, one of the fundamental topics studied in archaeology and anthropology. A classic example, for example, is Wiessner’s attempt to extract social information from stylistic aspects of Kalahari San projectile points (Wiessner, 1983). Wiessner defined two aspects of style: emblemic style, which refers to collective identities, and assertive style, which refers to personal identities. Because beads may represent either emblemic or assertive styles, we shall use these definitions in this study. In this work, 'bead' is defined as an object which is perforated at its center, is relatively small, and can be easily worn on the body or garment. The bead was usually threaded by itself or alongside other beads to create an item of beadwork. When the object is perforated, but not at its center, it is defined as a 'pendant'. The common convention according to which beads are used as personal ornament items might, however, be deceptive. In many cases beads were indeed 1 threaded into necklaces or bracelets, but these items are not the only known types of beadwork. Archaeological finds from the Levant, as well as, for example, from Egypt, shed light on the vast variety of uses of beads in ancient societies. Beads were integrated into different kinds of artifacts, and sometimes the beads were the main element of which an object was made, for example, the hassock found in Tutankhamun's tomb (Figure 0.1) and sometimes they are combined with other elements, as in the Egyptian doll dated to the 12th Dynasty (Figure 0.2). For this reason the term 'beadwork' is applied in this work to describe any artifact composed of, or including, beads.

Figure 0.1: Hassock found in Tutankhamun's tomb Figure 0.2: Egyptian doll dated to the (Friedman, 1998, fig. 12) 12th Dynasty (Friedman, 1998: fig. 65)

Beads may shed light on various aspects of ancient material cultures and the societies that produced them. However, the archaeological research of beads is still in its infancy, especially when compared with that of other archaeological media. In the framework of the historical periods in the Levant, beads and pendants are presented in most site reports under ‘miscellaneous’, and are not analyzed, but only appear in catalog form (for example, Dothan and Porath, 1993; Sass, 2000; Guzowska, 2009). Only in recent years have an increasing number of excavation reports dedicated special chapters to jewelry, and also included detailed analysis (for example, Golani and Ben Shlomo, 2005; Golani, 2009b).

In this work I have tried to present a different approach to the analysis of the medium of beads. I believe that a study that includes physical, morphological and contextual analysis, with a thorough comparison of the Tel Dor bead assemblage with other bead assemblages from other sites and other periods, will provide new insights into society and its material culture at Tel Dor during this period.

9. STUDY GOALS

The variety of the Tel Dor beads is impressive, and enables us to examine them from different aspects. The morphological variety may have had symbolic significance (for example the lotus-seed pendant and its origin). The different colors may attest to the society's perception of luxury (for example, the decrease in number of blue lapis lazuli beads compared with the great increase in blue faience beads). The wide range of materials used in the production of the beads is important for the study of ancient technologies (for example, glass or faience) and trade in raw materials (for example, imports of amethyst). The first aim of this study is to describe and define the Tel Dor bead corpus, (which had not been studied previously), and compare it with other bead corpora from early Iron Age sites in the southern Levant. These bead corpora will be analyzed in order to address several issues: 1. Issues of procurement of raw material and production Several research questions include all phases of manufacturing. Firstly is the question of the acquisition of raw materials. It is commonly acknowledged (see Chapter 4) that the international widespread trade that existed during the Late Bronze Age decreased drastically at its close. Was this decline manifested in the imported raw materials used for bead production? What were the most common materials from which early Iron Age beads were made? What were the least common materials? Are natural materials, for example, to be found in nearby regions? Were beads of artificial materials manufactured locally? Was there a narrower range of materials compared to those in the Late Bronze Age? One of the materials of particular interest is carnelian. Carnelian pebbles can be found in the eastern desert of Egypt. However, it is conventionally held that trade relations with Egypt, as well as other international commercial relations, declined drastically during the Early Iron Age, and that Egypt's retreat from Canaan also had a negative effect on the procurement of beads from this region (Golani, 2009a). Was there indeed also a drastic decline in the number of carnelian beads? Many scholars have noted an increase in the use of silver and a decrease in the use of gold, due to the decline in trade connections with Egypt in the Early Iron Age. Were these phenomena reflected in the number of early Iron Age beads?

The second aspect regarding bead production is related to production techniques. What were the known techniques for the manufacturing of beads? What techniques are attested in the bead corpora? Were the beads produced locally? What were the most/least common morphological types of beads? Is there a difference in these respects between the late Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age? Is the latter period a 'dark age' in these respects, parallel to the decline in other Bronze Age technologies? What colors were chosen for beads made of artificial materials, and what is the significance of this choice? 2. Context In order to understand the different social roles of beads in ancient societies one must study the context in which they were found. Are most of the beads found in cultic or domestic contexts? Are beads in burial contexts different from those in habitation areas? Are beads found in 'rich' contexts different from those found in 'poor' contexts? Is there a difference in the distribution of beads between different contexts of the same nature (for example domestic)? Another subject for discussion is the spatial distribution of the beads. Were the beads found together? Were they scattered unsystematically, or concentrated in specific areas? 3. Issues of identity ‘ethnicity’ In order to assess the possible roles of beads in these issues, some basic questions need to be asked. Are there any differences between the beads at the different sites? During the early Iron Age, new populations settled in the southern Levant, the most notable being the Philistines. This arrival is attested to in several aspects of the local material culture. Do these changes also appear in the beads? Can we see new techniques, morphologies, or decorations that were not previously known in Canaan? Is it possible to distinguish, for example, Philistine bead assemblages from those of other regions? Previous comparative bead studies indeed claimed to have identified differences in bead assemblages originating in different cultural regions.

10. OUTLINE OF THESIS

This study is divided into the following parts: The first two chapters provide a background to the current state of research into beads. Firstly, a selection of studies of beads conducted world-wide is introduced, according to the various research questions of each work. Following this, bead studies related to the chronological and geographical framework of the present work (the Early Iron Age in the southern Levant) are presented. The second part of the background relates to the chronological/geographical/cultural scope of this study. The main characteristics and research questions regarding the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition and the Early Iron Age dealt with in recent years are reviewed briefly. This is followed by a presentation of the Tel Dor corpus, the focus of this study, in the period under discussion. The second part of the work presents the goals and research methods of this work, starting with the various techniques of recovery of the beads, followed by a presentation of the various criteria chosen for the creation of the database, the typology, and the comparative study. The third part presents the results of this study. The Tel Dor corpus is presented first. Several issues regarding the Dor beads are addressed: a) Physical characteristics of the artifacts presented according to raw material: stone, bone and ivory, shell, egg-shell, clay, metal, Egyptian Blue, faience, and glass. The beads are described for each material, with their colors, decorations, perforations, and states of preservation. b). Morphological characteristics of the assemblage and a typology. The typology is also presented according the raw material of the beads. c). Spatial/contextual analysis of the beads. Following the analysis of the Tel Dor beads, a comparative study is presented. This analysis is divided into two: a). Comparison between bead assemblages from various Early Iron Age sites (including Dor). In this comparison several aspects of the beads are examined: stratigraphic context, raw materials, colors, and morphology. This analysis includes comparisons between beads from different sites, between beads from burial contexts

6 and from domestic contexts at the same site, and between different locations at specific sites. b). Temporal comparison between early Iron Age beads and those preceding them, from the end of the Late Bronze Age, and, in a more cursory manner, between them and those of the later Iron Age. In this comparison the criteria examined are: raw materials, colors, and morphology. Thus the discussion and conclusions are based on an evaluation of the Dor beads and their place in the broader Late Bronze Age/early Iron Age bead assemblages of the Levant, and their contribution to a better understanding of the importance of beads in the archaeological record.

3. THE STUDY OF BEADS

This chapter presents and reviews some published bead studies which are relevant to the current work, and which will serve as its background. The chapter is divided into two:

3.1 The Study of Beads Worldwide presents a selection of bead studies that are important for understanding the main themes, methods and research goals of such studies conducted around the Globe. It includes a selection of ethnographic studies which are relevant to this work, concerned with the manufacture and use of beads in different cultures. The studies in this part of the chapter are presented according to their scientific goals, in order to emphasize the numerous objectives of various bead researches.

3.2. The Study of Bronze and Iron Age Beads from the Southern Levant summarizes those publications that are closest to the subject of this work. The publications are presented in chronological order, in order to emphasize the development of this particular field of research.

3.1 Studies of beads worldwide

Many studies dealing with beads have been conducted, examining their raw materials, production techniques, the commercial routes they indicate, and the social and symbolic roles that these objects fulfilled in ancient cultures.

In addition, for many years, beads (as well as other items of jewelry) were studied, not only from archaeological aspects, but also from anthropological, artistic, or simply esthetic aspects. These aspects have been presented in various publications, some scientific and some popular. One publication is The History of Beads from 30,000 B.C. to the Present (Dubin, 1995). This book includes thousands of examples of beads through which Dubin viewed thousands of years of bead utilization worldwide. Despite its popular nature, this work presents a very broad view that illustrates the potential of bead research. For example, Dubin relates the appearance of beads in human history (40,000 years B.P.) to the growing need for expressing

8 personal identity. This may be our earliest evidence of ‘abstract thinking’ (Dubin, 1995: 22). Recent studies show, however, that the appearance of beads goes back 100,000 years in the Near East, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa (d'Errico et al., 2009: 16051).

As mentioned, several scholars used beads in archaeological or anthropological studies to reach a better understanding of certain aspects of cultures. These studies, inter alia, published numerous corpora of beads, which were classified, analyzed, and compared to other corpora, as summarized below. The examples presented below are mainly intended to survey the main studies regarding beads on which this work relies, and also to demonstrate the potential of beads, an under-studied medium in the context of the Iron Age.

3.1.1 Classifications and typologies

One of the first bead classification studies was completed by Beck (1928, republished in 2006). Beck classified the morphology of Egyptian, Etruscan, Anglo-Saxon, Roman, and Syrian beads, in order to generate more uniformity in the description of beads in archaeological research. Beck’s study provides several significant basic typological tools, and is cited and used in many studies of beads to this day. In the present study Beck's terminology (but not necessarily his typology) will be used for the morphologic description and classification of the beads (see paragraph 5.1.).

Beck's research provides us with a complete classification of beads. He divided the beads, firstly into simple shape classes, with subdivisions based on proportion between axis and diameter and shape of the perimeter (see below), and only then by materials. One of the main criticisms of Beck's work has been that it was not a classification of a real assemblage, and that no assemblage of beads exists that can incorporate all of his proposed types (Golani, 2009a: 277). Nevertheless, Beck's work is important, even in the present study, for the classification of hundreds of possible geometric forms, and their presentation in a systematic order. Golani (1996; 2009a) criticized Beck’s work, claiming that in many manufacturing methods, the form of the bead (or any other object) derives directly from the material used; and therefore many bead forms in Beck’s classification are theoretical and do not exist in reality. A form that can be produced in metal is often

9 impossible to produce in stone (My comments on this issue are presented in paragraph 5.3). Another scholar who published a classification of beads that is of some relevance to this work is Eisen (1916). Eisen studied eye beads from museums in Italy, Switzerland, Germany, New York, and Egypt, mostly originating in the Near East, and those of unclear provenance. He classified the beads according to the technique employed in producing the eyes. Eisen chose this typology because it is the only one, according to him, that showed a chronological sequence. This typology cannot be applied in the present study because in Eisen's typology the sequence of the early periods (those studied here) is not precise, and most of the dates are the presumed earliest periods in which a certain bead existed.

3.1.2 Technology and production of beads

Several scholars have studied the production technologies of beads. Some applied experimental archaeology, and others used ethno-archaeological observations. The following paragraphs present some of the different production methods known, listed according to material. The operational sequence in the manufacturing process of stone beads (and pendants) may be divided into several phases. Kenoyer et al. (1991), for example, studied traditional techniques of stone bead making in Khambhat, Gujarat, in western India, where stone bead production can be traced back to 2500 BCE. The raw material (especially agate, carnelian, and jasper in this case) is mined and taken to the local workshops as nodules (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Mining process of stone beads in western India (After Kenoyer et al., 1991: fig. 2)

In the workshop, the nodule is heated and treated in several phases: primary chipping, heating (in terracotta vessels or simple pit kilns in order to make the nodule

10 homogeneous and easy to flake), fine chipping, grinding, polishing, drilling, and final heating (Figure 3.0).

Figure 3.2: Manufacturing stages (After Kenoyer et al., 1991: fig. 2)

Other experimental bead production using ancient techniques showed that the perforation of the bead was the most difficult phase in the production process (for example, Stocks, 1989: 530; Dubin, 1995: 30). In some cases, archaeologists found beads that were perforated, but not polished (for example Barker, 2001: 209). Apparently, drilling from both ends of the bead facilitated the boring process and prevented breakage of the stone (Lucas, 1989: 42). Other advantages of drilling from both ends are minimizing breakage of the drill bit, and permitting a shorter drill bit (Gorelick and Gwinnett, 1981: 25). Some scholars suggested that the holes were drilled using an abrasive such as sand, with a drill made of copper or a hard vegetal stalk (Gorelick and Gwinnett, 1981: 25; 1987: 37). Further documentation of the drilling process was found in Egypt. Bow-drilling is represented in a number of tombs in the Theban necropolis dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Figure ). The bow was used to drive one or more holes in the beads at once (Stocks, 1989: 526; Lucas, 1989: 43). Stocks suggested that the drill rods, painted yellow in Egyptian wall paintings, were made of bronze (Stocks, 1989).

Figure 3.3: Egyptian wall painting of bead makers (Tait, 1991: 14)

The last stage in bead making was the final polishing of the bead, which could be done by several methods. For example, globular beads were rolled between flat rubbers of an abrasive stone such as quartzite (Aldred, 1978: 30); and long beads were held firmly and were slid back and forth in a groove in a sandstone block (Gorelick and Gwinnett, 1981: 22) (Figure ). Faience beads were formed either on a rod, from which disks (or tubes) were cut, or in open-face molds (Tite and Shortland, 2008: 43). The use of molds, a technique that allowed rapid and inexpensive mass-production, was in employed in Egypt from the Eighteenth Dynasty (Patch, 1998: 32). Molding not only reduced costs, but also enabled symmetry in shape (Patch, 1998: 33). Lucas accepted Petrie's assumption that the beads were threaded before firing, and the thread burned during the firing process. A thread was coated with the paste and rolled into a long cylinder on a board. While still moist, the cylinder was cut into sections, parallel to the axis of the beads. The beads were then dried and baked (Lucas, 1989: 45). In most cases, the last phase in the faience processing was the glazing. Nicholson and Peltenburg (2000: 189) described three glazing methods.

12 a). Efflorescence: the glazing materials were mixed with the crushed quartz of the body. Once the water evaporated the salts migrated to the surface of the object and later they are fused in the firing process. b). Cementation: the object was buried in a glazing powder inside a vessel. The vessel was heated and the powder fused. c). Application: the glazing materials were ground and mixed with water to form a slurry, which was applied to the quartz core of the object. Once the beads were glazed, they were fired again (Nicholson and Peltenburg, 2000: 191). Glass beads were produced in several ways, and the following short comments relate only to production methods actually observed in the assemblage under study here. Rod-formed beads: in this method, a gob (a drop of molten glass) was wound on a rod while the glass was hot (Figure 3.4; Spaer, 2001: 45).

Figure 3.4: Rod-forming method (Spaer, 2001: fig. 10a-b)

Drawn beads: in this technique the artisan trapped an air bubble in a gob of glass and then drew the gob out, creating a long tube. In this method, the air bubble created the perforation of the bead. Subsequently, the tubes were sliced into sections, and a wire was threaded through the perforations to keep them open until the glass was cold and hard. Some of the beads were separated from the tubes one by one, but others were separated by a different method: the hot tubes were rolled over grooved

13 stone molds of the desired size and shape, and the tubes were split into individual beads (Figure ; Spaer, 2001: 46).

Figure 3.5: Drawn bead method (Spaer, 2001: fig. 11a-d)

There are many ways of decorating glass beads, and here too I discuss only those relevant to this study. Eye decorations (producing beads that look like a human eye) were made by one of two techniques: either a trail was added around the eye, or several glass circles of diminishing size were superimposed one on top of the other to create the pupil, the iris, and the white part of the eye ball (Spaer, 2001: 52). There is no doubt that eye beads had an amuletic value, and they were worn as protection from the evil eye. This custom was prevalent throughout the Near East and Mesopotamia in Antiquity, and still is in some regions of the Mediterranean (Spaer 2001: 77; Mershen, 1989: 44). Trail decorations (linear motifs) can be divided into three groups: a). Spiral trail decorations: This decoration was made by adding thin rods of glass to the bead, fused with the glass of the bead itself, thus creating a linear decoration on the bead (Figure 3.6; Spaer, 2001: 52).

Figure 3.6: Spiral trail decoration (Spaer, 2001: fig. 21) b). Combed trail decoration: like the simple trail decoration, this decoration was also made by adding strings of glass to the bead, but in this case, the spiral was combed (or dragged) to form a zigzag or scallop pattern (Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7: Combed trail decoration (Spaer, 2001: fig. 22) c). Twisted cane decorations: two glass threads of different colors were attached to each other, and the cylinder was drawn out and turned continuously in one direction. The thread was then added to the bead (Spaer, 2001: 49).

3.1.3 Personal and collective identity

As mentioned above, the different items that people carry on their persons may express personal information that the owner chooses to present (Wobst, 1977: 324). Therefore, one would expect that personal identity would be a major subject for

15 analysis in beads and general jewelry research: however, very few researchers have tried to confront this issue, and even fewer have succeeded.

Hughes-Brock, for one, studied different assemblages of Mycenaean beads: their raw materials (Hughes-Brock, 1985), their manufacturing technology (Hughes- Brock, 1995), and their social significance (Hughes-Brock, 1999). She specifically claimed that relief beads and amber beads found in a tomb in Crete may indicate the Mycenaean identity of their owners (Hughes-Brock, 1999: 291). However, she did not give any further details that may have corroborated this statement.

Younger studied 134 representations of Minoan and Mycenaean jewelry items in frescoes and statuettes of the Middle Minoan and Mycenaean periods (Younger, 1992). Although Younger demonstrates in his research that certain types of people wore certain types of jewelry, no concrete conclusions were reached regarding beads and identity. Bloch-Smith (1992) referred to this aspect in her research regarding burial practices.

Anthropological studies were more successful than archaeological ones in connecting bead types and personal identity. Twala, for example, conducted research among the Zulu and the Swazi tribes in South Africa, and noted that in these societies, beads mark certain stages in infants' and children's development, as well as marital status (Twala, 1968: 366). People wearing the beads declare their age, marital status, etc. Moreover, different bead colors represent words that articulate, on a string, a full sentence used usually as 'love letters' composed by young girls (Twala 1968: 368). If a Zulu man were caught wearing a certain type of bead considered as royal, he would have been sentenced to death (Twala, 1968: 377).

3.1.4 Daily uses of beads

The first evidence of the use of beads as necklaces, including one or more beads, dates to 28,000 BCE (Dubin, 1995: 26). This might be the first evidence of the use customarily associated with beads. However, anthropological studies regarding beads and other ornaments are crucial for our understanding of the range of possibilities regarding the ways in which a bead can be used.

An especially illuminating example regarding possible uses that would probably never have been imagined by archaeologists, was presented in a documentary film by Mead showing the process of bathing babies in three different societies (Mead, 1988). 16

The film documents mothers in Bali and in New Guinea, wearing beads made of soft natural materials, such as sponge or seaweed. The babies, carried by their mothers, are biting these beads to relieve teething pain. This study (similarly to other anthropological studies) demonstrates the wide range of possibilities dictating the materials of the beads, and their uses, which we, as archaeologists, must be aware of.

3.1.5 Symbolic properties of beads

Bar-Yosef Mayer dedicated a major part of her work to beads in the earliest phases of human history. Her study deals mainly with mollusks found in archaeological sites, shell-beads as reflecting past styles, technology and economies (for example Bar- Yosef Mayer, 1989; Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2000a). Recently, Bar-Yosef Mayer colligated the sudden increase in the use of different green minerals in bead production during the Late Natufian and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, to the onset of agriculture (Bar- Yosef Mayer and Porat 2008).

Bednarik also studied the origins of the human abstract thinking. In his work about Middle Pleistocene beads, Bednarik produced egg-shell beads using ancient techniques, and argued that any piece of egg-shell or field stone can be tied with a string and be worn as an ornament. Therefore, he argued that the holes in the beads (usually at their centers) and their round morphology, or at least their elaborated rims, were not important for the practical use of the bead, but had a symbolic role (but he does not conclude what role). Furthermore, the choice of producing beads in such perfect geometric forms displays the capabilities of early humans (Bednarik, 2005).

3.1.6 Ritual uses of beads

Beads used as amulets are familiar from texts and artistic depictions of the Old World, mainly in the Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures. Many studies (as well as popular publications) of Egyptian magic dedicate special chapters to the amuletic powers of beads and pendants, as well as that of the raw materials from which they were made (for example, Budge, 1981; Jack, 1985; Pinch, 1995).

Goff studied the role of amulets in Mesopotamian ritual texts from the Pre- and Old Babylonian periods and the 1st millennium BCE. She divided the amulets into three groups: amulets bearing written texts, amulets with a few magical words, and amulets with no texts at all (which use only the magical power of the object itself)

(Goff, 1956: 38). Budge, who studied Egyptian amulets, presented the same division as Goff (Budge, 1981: 26)

Anthropological studies shed light on the role of amulets. Mershen, who studied the function and meaning of beads and amulets in Jordan in the 19th–20th centuries CE, used the same division as Goff and Budge (Mershen, 1989: 43). This is one of very few anthropological studies concerning beads in our region. Mershen, studying necklaces, noted for example that the significance of the bead or the amulet (as any other object) may differ from one wearer to another (Mershen, 1989: 44). Furthermore, Mershen examined in detail every single bead in Bedouin necklaces, the names of the different beads, their meanings, the different ways the beads were worn, and their symbolic significance. She divided the amulets into two groups (very similar to those of Goff's division, see above): amulets bearing written texts, and amulets without inscriptions.

Other ethnographic examples of the meaning of beads come from the Kikuyu tribe (Kenya), where a sacred bead was used in the ceremony of oath-taking. In the Thonga tribe (South Africa), white beads were used as protective amulets, strung on children's hair or forehead (Pokornowski, 1979: 104). The Yoruba, a large ethnic group in Nigeria, believe that different types of beads are associated with different gods. It is interesting to note that after some members of Yoruba were taken to Cuba as slaves, the practice of wearing beads of a certain color did not change, although the gods became identified with Catholic saints (Pokornowski, 1979: 108).

3.1.7 Beads as currency

In certain areas and cultures beads were used as currency. Battel bought cattle in 1600 in Southwest Africa for 15 blue glass beads (Pokornowski, 1979: 104). The purchase of Manhattan by Dutch settlers from the local Native Americans is said to have been for $24 worth of beads (Graeber, 1996: 4).

Graeber, who studied numerous documents about money in primitive societies, noted that many of the objects in use as currency were originally used as ornaments, gold and silver among them. Silver was used in the Near Eastern Iron Age, both as currency and as personal ornaments (Graeber, 1996: 4).

3.1.8 Beads as trade indicators

Caubet and Yon conducted research regarding the possible origin of two carnelian bead types found at the sites of Mari, Ugarit, Assur, Emar, and Tell Brak, dated from 1300 to 1200 BCE (Caubet and Yon, 2006). One is an elongated tubular bead, and the other is the type termed by Beck; the ‘Lotus seed vessel pendant’. While most scholars identified these beads as Egyptian (including Beck, who attributed the second type to the 18th Dynasty of Egypt), Caubet and Yon attributed the beads to an Indian origin, and argued for exchange between Mesopotamia and India during the Late Bronze Age.

Wright and Garrard studied 10,528 beads from PPN sites in eastern Jordan. They showed a correlation between greater specialization in bead making and wider long-distance trade networks (Wright and Gerrard, 2003: 282).

For many years, several scholars naturally attributed agate and carnelian beads found in Southeast Asia to an Indian origin. However, two studies showed that there is more than one reason to doubt this assumption. Bellina (2003) was the first to analyze actual archaeological finds in order to examine such a theory. Bellina examined 1,420 agate and carnelian beads found at 16 sites in Indian, and another 28 in Southeast Asia, in Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Java, Bali, and the Philippines, dated to the first millennium BCE. She classified the beads morphologically, and deduced their origin based on a comparison between the technologies used for the production, ethnological observations, and documentation of bead production in the various sites. Her study demonstrated that the manufacturing sites, as well as the sources of the raw materials (which may have been in more than one location), were widely spread over Indonesia, West Java, and East Sumatra, and not only in India as was previously thought.

Theunissen et al. also doubted the assumed Indian origin of Iron Age agate and carnelian beads in Southeast Asia (Theunissen et al., 2000). Unlike Bellina, who carried out only stylistic analyses, they used non-destructive geochemical analysis (PIXE) in order to detect the different geological sources. Their research, like that conducted by Bellina, supported a multi-source origin of beads of Southeastern Asian sites.

Bvocho is one of the scholars who studied beads in Zimbabwe dated from the 8th to 18th centuries CE. He studied 1,944 beads from the archaeological sites of

Malumba and Mwenezi in southeast Zimbabwe, found during surveys and excavations, classifying and comparing them with anthropological documentation. According to his research, glass beads were traded in the 8th century CE between Africa and the Indian Ocean area (Bvocho, 2005: 416).

These studies, and many others, both enrich our knowledge regarding beads and their roles in different societies, and demonstrate the various methods and goals of research concerning beads around the world.

3.2 The study of Bronze and Iron Age beads from the southern Levant

To date, no detailed study has been made of the Tel Dor bead corpus, and in general, very few studies specific to Iron Age beads in the Levant have been conducted, and even fewer relate to Iron Age I beads. Moreover, most of the published Iron Age bead studies concentrated only on morphological aspects of these finds, and almost none on other aspects, such as materials, provenance or contextual aspects.

In the 1970's, several studies of Iron Age beads were conducted by Platt. Her doctoral dissertation dealt with Iron Age jewelry of the southern Levant derived from 14 sites. Unfortunately, this work was unavailable to the author. In 1978 she published an article focusing on Iron Age Palestinian bone pendants (Platt, 1978).

McGovern (1985) published a study regarding Late Bronze Age pendants from Canaan. He classified more than 840 pendants into six classes, which he examined from different perspectives: geographical, contextual and technological. McGovern also tried to construct a morphological typology to serve for archaeological dating, and used it for a reevaluation of Levels IX–VII at Beth She’an. This pioneering work is, however, largely irrelevant for the present study because it only deals with pendants. The only common item in both studies is the ‘lotus seed pendant’ (see Typology, paragraph 6.3.).

Bloch-Smith, in her book on Judahite burial practices, which deals mainly with tomb types and their contents in the southern Levant during the 12th–6th centuries BCE, devotes a chapter to the contents and grave goods of burials, among them jewelry, including beads (Bloch-Smith, 1992: 81). According to Bloch-Smith, the jewelry found in the graves indicates neither the sex of the deceased, nor their age. 20

According to her, the same variety of jewelry appears in burials of women, men, infants, children and adolescents. Beads are the most common category of jewelry in Late Iron Age burials, and appear in one third of them; and the least common articles of jewelry attested in burials are pendants (Bloch-Smith, 1992: 82). Beads, however, were a very marginal part of her research, and she carried out no in-depth studies of them.

In most excavation reports, even those published very recently, the beads were mentioned only in a catalog format, together with other artifacts: usually under the title: "small finds" or "miscellaneous". In most cases, no analyses were done, and neither discussions nor conclusions were published (for example Tufnell, 1953; Mazar, 1985; Dever, 1986; Harrison, 2004).

However, this situation is slowly starting to change, and in recent years several studies regarding Iron Age beads and jewelry from the southern Levant in general have been published. In some of the site reports the authors dedicate a special chapter that presents the jewelry found, alongside a typological analysis and relevant conclusions, several of which are referred to below (for example Leibowitz and McGovern 2004; Levy et al., 2004). In Israel, this is mostly through the work of Golani (see below).

In his MA thesis, Golani classified the jewelry (including approximately 130 beads) discovered at Tel Miqne-Ekron in four hoards of silver jewelry dated to the 7th century BCE, and in one Egyptian faience hoard dated to the end of Iron Age I (Golani, 1996; Golani and Sass, 1998). Golani constructed a morphological typology, and discussed the stratigraphic and textual context (Old Testament and Neo-Assyrian texts), the sources of the raw materials, and the methods used for the production of the jewelry. One of Golani's main conclusions was that jewelry is one of the indicators of impact of surrounding cultures in Miqne. Furthermore, Golani demonstrated that the break in occupation levels between Late Iron Age I and Iron Age II in some sites, is reflected in the jeweler's craft, in the material choices for the manufacture of the beads, and in the degree of influence from neighboring cultures. The jewelry dated to Iron Age I, for example, reveals minimal Egyptian influence, and, according to Golani, it represents local styles and techniques. On the other hand, the jewelry dated to the later part of Iron Age II demonstrates considerable influences, mainly of Phoenician origin, together with Egyptian elements and minor Neo-Assyrian 21 influence (Golani, 1996: 156). However, since Golani was mostly interested in more complex and elaborate jewelry items, most of his conclusions were based on these classes of artifacts, and beads were a lesser consideration.

The typology that Golani presented in his thesis for Tel Miqne-Ekron, was the main analytical tool used in his comparative study of further jewelry assemblages. In the Tell Beit Mirsim report (Golani, 2004), he published 297 beads, dated to the Bronze and Iron Ages, according to a morphological list. In the latest Ashdod report, Golani and Ben Shlomo published 335 beads, dated to Iron Age I and II, also according to the same typology (Golani and Ben Shlomo, 2005). Their main conclusions related to trade relations and Egyptian stylistic influences versus local stylistic trends.

In the recent publication of the hoards from the Egyptian strata at Beth She’an (Golani, 2009b), Golani published a typology of 135 jewelry items, among them 12 pendants and 97 beads. Golani's main observation was that the jewelry demonstrates Egyptian influence, but is not necessarily of Egyptian manufacture (Golani, 2009b: 168).

One important outcome of Golani's work is his typology. Golani suggested classifying items of jewelry, first by their material, and only then by their shape. However, the beads and pendants classified by Golani were found in hoards among more complex silver jewels, and beads were only a small percentage of the jewelry he dealt with. Therefore, Golani’s classification dealt mainly with other items of jewelry, and is mostly not applicable to this research. Another aspect of Golani's typology which does not correspond to the typology used in this study (see below) is the fact that he classified all siliceous beads as one group (Golani, 2009a: 437), unlike the present typology that classifies them according to specific materials: Egyptian Blue, faience, and glass, because of the significant differences in manufacturing methods, and hence the morphology of beads of each material.

McGovern et al. conducted analytical research on the siliceous finds found in the 'Egyptian garrison' at Beth She’an, dated to the Late Bronze Age, Strata VIII and VII. They analyzed the composition of the pigments of 54 small glass and glazed artifacts, among them 21 beads and 8 pendants, using X-ray emission (PIXE) spectrometry. The results of this analysis were compared to those of other glass and

22 faience objects from Egypt: Thebes, Tell el-Yahudiyeh, and el-Amarna. Their study shows that different compositions were used during different periods, and that the glass and faience industries operated independently (McGovern et al., 1993: 22).

Spaer published a detailed catalog of glass beads and other glass objects in the Israel Museum (Spaer, 2001). Unfortunately many objects in it are of uncertain provenance and date. The importance of Spaer's research, however, lies not only in the very fact that numerous beads are presented in her catalog, but also in her comprehensive study, presented in further publications, regarding the development of glass manufacturing in ancient times (for example Spaer, 1984), with an emphasis on finds from Israel.

Levy et al., (2004) published 2,004 beads found in the early Iron Age II cemetery attributed to the Shasu nomads at Jabel Hamrat Feidan in Jordan. In this study, although the scholars implemented numerous quantitative analyses, the beads themselves were neither described, classified, nor illustrated, and thus this study is of limited use. However, in a preliminary study, by analyzing the quantities of beads and their contexts, these scholars reached various conclusions regarding the population that occupied the site, such as gender (mostly women were buried with beads) or wealth (indicated by the presence of metallic jewelry in the burials).

Limmer recently published an extensive study regarding Iron Age II Jewelry (Limmer, 2007). She examined jewelry (including 3,508 beads) from sites in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, that represented neighboring polities: the capitals Jerusalem and Samaria, Hazor and Dan representing the far north, Tell en-Nasbeh and Megiddo representing the northern and southern central hills, Lachish and Tell Batash representing the Shephelah, and Tell Hesban in Transjordan. Her aim was to examine the social and ritual significance of jewelry, based on the finds and biblical texts. The main conclusions in Limmer's study relate to the differences between bead assemblages of the various Iron Age II sites. According to her, with but a few exceptions (for example bone pendants), "Most of the jewelry found in ancient Israel is similar to that of the surrounding areas, particularly Phoenicia; Egypt exerted a strong influence on both of them" (Limmer, 2007: 25).

The two main reservations I have regarding Limmer's methods of research, concern the fact that she chose to base her study on publications, instead of examining

23 the finds themselves, and that her analyses of the colors of the jewelry (a major component of her work), and of materials were mostly based on black-and-white photographs.

In a recent M.A. thesis, Shifris studied Phoenician Iron Age II beads from the cemeteries of Achziv (Shifris, 2010). In her study, which also included a quantitative aspect, Shifris presented the characteristics of the Phoenician beads (based mainly on finds from Achziv, but also from Sarepta, Tyre, Rachidieh and Tell Keisan), distinguishing them from bead assemblages of other cultural entities of Iron Age II: Megiddo in Israel, and Lachish in Judah. Shifris indeed showed differences between the three regions/polities examined: southern Phoenicia, Judah and Israel, which were expressed in the material, shape, and color of the beads. However, she found the same differences between the five Phoenician sites, and it is thus unclear whether the characteristics of the Achziv beads indeed represent Phoenician cultural preferences, or other phenomena. For example, silver beads comprise 3.4% of the Achziv beads (Shifris, 2010: 124); while no silver beads were found either at Megiddo or in Lachish. According to Shifris, this phenomenon represents the relative access the Phoenicians had to silver sources in the western Mediterranean. If so, we would expect to find the same phenomenon in the other Phoenician sites. However, no silver beads were found in the other Phoenician sites examined by Shifris. An alternative interpretation for this phenomenon is presented in paragraph 4.2.13. The main drawback, to my mind, in Shifris' analyses is that Judah and Israel are represented by one site each, but it has not been demonstrated that these sites can indeed serve as 'type sites' for beads in these two polities.

The most recent and comprehensive work published regarding Iron Age jewelry in the Levant, including beads, is Golani's PhD dissertation (2009a). The objective of Golani's study was to collect the relevant data (mainly Iron Age II jewelry from the land of Israel) and elaborate it into one typology in order to analyze the development, significance and function of ancient jewelry in this region (Golani, 2009a: VIII). Golani noticed several interesting developments in jewelry morphology and manufacturing during Iron Age II (Golani, 2009a: 204). However, most of these insights and conclusions were based more on the complex jewelry objects, and less on the beads. As Golani published only selected beads from his data base and did not specify bead quantities, it is impossible to evaluate his conclusions. 24

4. THE TEL DOR EARLY IRON AGE BEAD CORPUS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE

Archaeological excavations have been carried out at Tel Dor since 1980, under the direction of Ephraim Stern of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and since 2003 under the direction of Ilan Sharon of the Hebrew University and Ayelet Gilboa of the University of Haifa. Between 1983 and 2009, 188 early Iron Age beads and pendants were recovered at Dor, in Areas B1, D2, D5, and G (Figure ), attributed to the 11th and 10th–9th centuries BCE. These beads were made in more than a dozen different shapes and from various materials, such as stone, bone, shells, various metals, glass, and faience.

Figure 4.1: Tel Dor, topography and excavation areas (Zorn et al. in press: 3)

Beads at Dor, including those of the Iron Age, have not been studied in detail in the past, beyond descriptions here and there. It is thus time that this collection be studied to investigate whether it may reveal additional aspects of the society of Dor during the early Iron Age, inter alia, in the context of other relevant bead corpora. 26

The characteristics of the site in which the beads were found are also important. Many studies of bead assemblages have focused on beads found in buried hoards or in burial sites (see Chapter 2). This study examines beads that were found in various contexts of well-stratified occupational levels of an urban site, and thus they were worn by living, 'ordinary' people (and not only after their deaths), who were most likely the average inhabitants of Dor. These reasons and others, detailed in subsequent chapters, render the Dor bead assemblage a suitable instrument through which many research questions regarding early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant may be tested.

5. CHRONOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

5.1. The Bronze/Iron Age transition in the southern Levant

This research deals with one of the periods in the archaeology of the southern Levant most comprehensively studied for many decades: the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the (Early) Iron Age. In the following paragraphs, I briefly review the main characteristics of this time-span, and the main scholarly debates regarding this period, relevant to the present study. The political system of the Late Bronze Age in the Levant was characterized by regional political units at several levels of hierarchy, from the 'great kings' to the 'small kings'. During this period, Canaan was dominated by the Egyptian Empire, and the Empires of Mittani (for a while) and Hatti ruled the territories of Syria and Anatolia (Liverani, 1987: 66). These complex societies had a well-defined system of customs, according to which communication, trade, and the exchange of knowledge, gifts, and specialist craftsmanship, were conducted (Liverani, 1987: 66). The main trade routes crossed Canaan, and 'Canaanite waters' by land or sea, and a vast variety of raw materials, artifacts, and knowledge regarding technologies and styles is reflected in rich archaeological finds and texts. These political, economic and demographic networks, that characterized the empires of the Mediterranean basin and their vassals during the Late Bronze Age, were undermined at the end of this period, and crucial and destructive changes affected their stability. The archaeological evidence, as well as historical texts revealed in Ugarit and at Medinat Habu, for example, testify to a catastrophe (Mazar, B., 1988: 2; Drews, 1993: 16). Between the 13th and 12th centuries BCE the Hittite and Mycenaean empires collapsed, and the Egyptian domination of Canaan gradually declined, finally ending about the mid-12th century. Many scholars have tried to explain these changes by evoking natural, social, demographic, or economic causes (Drews, 1993; Mazar, A., 1990: 288). Massive demographic shifts caused major political modifications, and the dominance of the great empires was replaced by city- states and by small territorial (so-called national) kingdoms, mainly in Iron Age II (Mazar, B., 1988: 3).

Because of regional variability during the early Iron Age, our understanding of this period and its developments would be incomplete without mentioning the regional variability within Canaan. In some sites, such as Megiddo (Stratum VIIA) or Tel Taanach (Period IA), there is clear evidence that points to social and political continuity (Gilboa, forthcoming). This continuity represents, according to Dever, the endurance of Egyptian dominance of these sites (Dever, 1992: 101), but this is not unanimously accepted. In other sites, mainly in the coastal region of Canaan, such as Tel Keisan, Ashdod or Ashkelon, drastic changes in material culture occurred, together with actual destructions (Dever, 1992: 102), though perhaps not as dramatic as previously believed. Conventionally it is held that the main reason for this change was the massive immigration of new populations to the area, among them the ‘Sea Peoples’. 'Sea Peoples' is a modern term that regroups different 'populations', documented in Egyptian sources (Singer, 1988: 239; Mazar, 1990: 301). According to the common interpretation of the main textual source, inscribed on the walls of the temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu, these populations immigrated and settled in the Levant during this period. Some of these populations are archaeologically well known, such as the Philistines, whose material culture has been identified in different sites in Philistia, and studied for many years (for example Dothan, T., 1982; Yasur-Landau, 2010), and their possible origin is identified with the west: the Aegean region or Cyprus. Some scholars related other groups of the 'Sea Peoples' with occupations along the Levantine coast, for example, the ŠKL with Tell Zeror (Singer, 1988) or with Tel Dor (Stern, 1992), the Shardana with Akko (Dothan M., 1986) or with El Akhwat. However, historical and archaeological details concerning these groups and their material culture are still vague. Thus, the cultural map of Canaan during the early Iron Age may be divided into several sub-regions. The southern Israeli coast and lowlands, the region of Philistia, includes sites such as Tell Qasile, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Tel Miqne-Ekron; the hill region and its margins includes sites such as Izbet Sarta, Timnah and Beth Shemesh; and the northern valley region includes sites such as Yoqneam, Megiddo and Beth She'an, the latter undisputedly under Egyptian administration. These sites became part of the Kingdom of Israel in Iron Age II. The northern coastal plain and its hinterland,

29 traditionally identified with the northern Sea People, include sites such as Akko, Tel Dor and Tell Zeror. This division will serve in this study for the comparative analysis. The chronological outline of the Early Iron Age is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary archaeological research, as opposed to the general convention regarding the geographical outline presented above. The absolute chronology of this period is crucial for understanding the link between Biblical 'events' and archaeological phenomena, especially since the rest of the archaeological chronology around Mediterranean basin is largely based on this dating. The main chronological peg for the beginning of the Early Iron Age in Canaan is the end of the Egyptian dominance during the regime of Ramesses III or one of his successors, about the mid-12th century BCE. Archaeologically, the main change in the region's material culture is the almost complete disappearance of Cypriot and Mycenaean imports (Gilboa, forthcoming). In the southern coastal regions the appearance of Philistine Monochrome (later to be replaced by Philistine Bichrome) is associated with the withdrawal of the Egyptians, though how exactly these cultural manifestations are to be assigned an absolute chronology is far from being unanimously agreed upon. In the 1980's, the principal theory regarding the absolute dating of the Iron Age was based on Yadin's paradigm of the archaeology of the United Monarchy (Mazar, A., 2005: 17). The excavation of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer led Yadin to build a theory according to which Stratum VIA in Megiddo was destroyed around 1000 BCE by King David, Stratum VB was attributed to the time of David, and Stratum VA-IVB was attributed to the times of Solomon (Mazar, A., 2005: 17). Thus, the Iron I pottery assemblages of Megiddo VIA, Tell Qasile X, Tel Masos II, and others, were attributed to the late 11th or early 10th century BCE. The pottery assemblages of Megiddo VA-IVB, Taanach IIB, Yokneam XIV, Beth She’an S-1, Lachish V, Arad XII, and others, were attributed to the 10th century (Mazar, A., 2005: 18). This stance is commonly called the 'high chronology'. During the 1990's, other views regarding the dating of this period were put forward by scholars, such as D. Ussishkin, and later by I. Finkelstein (Finkelstein, 2005: 31). Based on the absence of the Philistine pottery at Lachish (Stratum VI) and at Tel Sera (Stratum IX), Ussishkin and Finkelstein suggested that the appearance of the Philistine pottery (Bichrome as claimed by Ussishkin, and even Monochrome, as

later claimed by Finkelstein), was in the last quarter of the 12th century BCE. This assumption is not commonly accepted (Mazar, A., 2005: 18). Consequently, Finkelstein suggested, for example, lowering the dates of late Iron Age I assemblages from the late 11th century to the 10th ('the low chronology'). Mazar now suggests that Iron IIA pottery was of very long duration. He still places the transition between Iron I and Iron II in the first quarter of the 10th century BCE (Mazar, A., 2005: 21), but the end of the Iron Age II at about 840/830 BCE. This chronology is termed 'the modified conventional chronology' (Mazar, A., 2005: 21). It may be thus said that there is a certain agreement regarding the dating of the Iron Age IIA pottery assemblages to the first 70 years of the 9th century BCE. The debate centers on the cultural entity (late Iron I following the low chronology, or early Iron IIA following the modified conventional one, that 'occupies' the 10th century BCE. However, despite the quantity of publications that tackle this controversial issue, inter alia using radiometric dates from several early Iron Age sites (for example Gilboa and Sharon, 2003; Boaretto et al, 2005; Bruins et al, 2003), no consensus has been reached. Thus, in the present study, only the relative chronology will be referred to. Because of the fact that the Tel Dor beads are the reference point to which all the other assemblages are compared, the Tel Dor 'horizons' (Table 5.1) will be used as the chronological phases of reference.

Table 5.1.: Comparison between Tel Dor horizons and stratigraphy at other sites

Period LBIIB IR IA IR IB IR IIA IR IIA late (Mazar, 2005: Table early 2.2) Conventional 1300- 1200- 1160- 1120- 1090- 1050- 980-950/900 950/900-c. 'high': absolute 1200 1160 1120 1090 1050 980 830 dating (Gilboa and Sharon, 2003: 55) Dor horizon - LB|IR Ir1a Ir1a Ir1a|b Ir1b Ir1|2 Ir2a (Gilboa and Sharon, (early) (late) 2003: 55) Tel Dor (Area B) B/14? B/13 B/12 B/11 B/10, B1/9a B/8 (Gilboa and Sharon, Gap? 9b 2003: 55) Tel Dor (Area G) G/11, Gap G/10 G/9 G/8, G/7d,c 7a, 7b, 6b G/6a (Gilboa and Sharon, 12 2003: 55) 31

Tel Dor (Area D2) Gap 14, 13 12 D2/11- D2/8c D2/8b (Gilboa and Sharon, 15? 9 2003: 55) Hazor XIII - XII, XI ? X, IX, VIII (Mazar, 1990:301) Tel Beth She’an (N N-4 N3a-b N-2 UNCLEAR N-1? North) (Mazar, 2009: 13) Tel Beth She’an (N N-3b-4 N-3a-b End of N3a? Part of N1? South) Part of N1 (Mazar, 2006: 13) Tel Beit She'an (S) S5? S-2 S-1a (Mazar, 2006: 13) S4 S-1b S3b S3a Tel Beit She'an (Q) Q-3 Q-1 (Mazar, 2006: 13) Q-2

Beit She'an Coffin Earlier Later burials burials burials (Oren, 1973) Tel Beit She'an VIII- Lower Upper VI, parts of Lower V Parts of Lower V (UME) VII VI (Mazar, 2006: 13) Tel Rehov D-7, D-5, VI V, IV (Mazar, 2005: D-6 D-4, D-3, VII Tel Keisan 13 12-10 9c 9a-b 8c? 8a-b (Gilboa and Sharon, 2001: 55) Tel Megiddo (OIC VIIB VIIa VIb* VIa Vb? Vb? VA- strata) IVB (Finkelstein et al., 2006) Tel Megiddo (Area 8 7 6 5 F) (Finkelstein et al., 2006) Tel Megiddo (H) 9 8? 7 (Arie, E. pers. comm.) 6 5 Tel Megiddo (K) 6 5 4 Early stages 3 (Arie, E. pers. comm.; of 3? 2 Gilboa and Sharon, 2001) Tel Taanach Pre- Period Period IB (1150-1125) Period IIA Period IIB (Frick, 2000) Period IA (1020-960) (960-918) LBII- (1200- IR 1150)

Tel Yoqne'am XIX XVIII XVII XVI? XV? Ben Tor et al., 2005) XV? XIV Tell Qiri - IX-VIII VIIa (Mazar, 2005: Table 2.2) Tel Mevorakh VIII VII (Gilboa and Sharon, 2003, table 21) Tell el-Far‘ah 4 - VIIa VIIb, VIIc North (period (Mazar, 2005: Table VI) 2.2) Tell Qasile XII, XI X IX (Mazar, 2005: Table 2.2) Tel Beit Shemesh IV Unclear III IIa, IIb (Mazar, 2005: Table 2.2) Tel Beit Shemesh 7 6 3 (New) 5 (Mazar, 2005: Table 4 2.2) Tell Batash V IV (Mazar, 2005: Table 2.2) Azor VI Unclear IV-V Unclear III (Mazar, 1990:301) Tel Miqne VIIIA VII VI, V IV Unclear Possibly (Gilboa pers. comm.) continuation of IV and possibly III Tel Ashdod XIV XIII XII Part of X (Ben Shlomo, 2005) Part of XI? XI Tel Zafit E4 E3 A4-5 A3 (Mazar, 2005: 24) Gezer XV- XIV XIII, XII, XI, X IX, VIII (Mazar, 2005: Table XIV 2.2) Tel Lachish VII VI - - - - V (Mazar, 1990: 242; Mazar, 2005: Table 2.2) Tel Masos III? III II (Gilboa pers. comm.)

In this thesis the period studied was from the beginning of Ir1a to Ir2a (according to the Tel Dor horizons). Therefore the term ‘early Iron Age’ is used to describe a longer period than the accepted 'Early Iron Age', and it is written with a 33 lower case e. The end of the Late Bronze Age was also studied, but to a much lesser degree, and will be referred to only in comparison with the early Iron Age.

5.2. Tel Dor in the early Iron Age

Before reviewing the characteristics of Tel Dor in the Iron Age, it is necessary to present some of its geographical characteristics. The ancient city of Dor is located on the Carmel coast in Israel, near the present Kibbutz Nahsholim. Dor was built on a kurkar (calcareous sandstone) ridge, part of a series of natural ridges that stretch parallel to the Israeli coastline both above and below sea level. To the north and south sides of the tel are two bays that served as the harbors of the city in ancient times. Thus, on three sides; to the north, west and south, Dor had the Mediterranean as a natural boundary. To its east Tel Dor continues beyond the kurkar ridge, on a sand spit (Stern, 2000; Sharon and Gilboa, in press: 2). The area east of Dor was flooded, with swamps between the Carmel ridge and the eastern kurkar ridge. These swamps were dried out only during the early 20th century, as confirmed by archaeo-zoological finds from the site (Raban-Gerstel et al., 2008). Other studies have suggested the presence of a lagoon in this area, connected to the sea, making the area of Dor a peninsula (Raban, 1995). Tel Dor has been studied and excavated since the beginning of the 20th century by various archaeologists, and numerous studies have been published concerning the material culture of the site and its significance (for an updated publication list see Gilboa et al., 2009). In the following paragraphs, I present the main excavations, publications, and views of the scholars who studied Dor, emphasizing those relevant to the current study. Garstang was the first to conduct an archaeological excavation at Tel Dor. In 1924 he excavated two trenches, on the western and southern sides of the tel, down to bedrock (Sharon and Gilboa forthcoming). Since 1980, another large-scale excavation project has been conducted by Stern, from 2003 under the directorship of Sharon and Gilboa. Today, this site offers one of the fullest stratigraphic sequences of the early Iron Age on the southern Levantine coast, which enables an accurate study of the finds revealed in these strata (Gilboa and Sharon, 2001).

During the early Iron Age, the modest Late Bronze Age town of Dor was supplanted by 8 hectares of a densely built town. This early Iron Age town is one of the most important sites for our understanding of the ‘northern Sea People’ phenomenon, for it is the only site specifically associated with a non-Philistine ‘Sea People’ (the ŠKL) by an ancient source – the Wenamun account (Goedicke 1975: 175). This document is attributed to the 23rd year of the reign of Ramesses XI, and is considered to be a copy of a literary version of an administrative report. Its value as a historical source is therefore limited (Goedicke 1975: 4). However, because of the scarcity of historical sources from this period, this document is of significant importance. The ŠKL were not the only actors in the history of Dor during the period under discussion; the archaeological remains revealed were also associated with Canaanite, Phoenician, and Israelite material culture. After more than twenty years of research, however, the identification of Dor's inhabitants in the early Iron Age is still controversial. Stern argues for distinct 'ethnic'/cultural changes between the periods: The first period starts with the Late Bronze Age Canaanite town. The second, characterized by the ŠKL domination, was destroyed by the Phoenicians during the 3rd period. The 4th and last period was characterized by the capture of the town by the Israelites, under David (Stern, 1992). Raban supported most of this hypothesis, but did not include a period of Phoenician dominance. Sharon and Gilboa argue for a more continuous nature of the early Iron Age settlement, which was characterized by a gradual transformation from one horizon to another (Sharon and Gilboa, forthcoming), but they too recognize a significant shift in material culture, layout of the town, and possibly also population, at some stage during Iron IIA – a shift to an Israelite center (Gilboa and Sharon, pers. comm.). Despite the termination of the intensive east-west international trade between the Levant, the Aegean and Cyprus (Mazar, A., 1990: 287), archaeological finds from Dor testify to a continuation in traffic within the eastern Mediterranean, especially with Cyprus. According to the excavators, there are different phenomena at Dor that represent an intensive bilateral trade with Cyprus, and they claim a Cypriot presence at the site. Finds such as bi-metallic knives, notched bovine scapulae and most of all, west Cypriot influences on the local pottery, especially in the Ir1b horizon (Sharon and

Gilboa, forthcoming) emphasize the movement of either artifacts or stylistic influences. Thus, a comparative chronological and spatial analysis in the framework of the study of the beads found at Tel Dor is of special interest. Apart from the traffic between Dor and its neighbors to the west, Egyptian- made jars found at Dor testify to exchange between Dor and Egypt during the early Iron Age (Sharon and Gilboa, forthcoming). The imported jars (and possibly other goods) were most probably shipped to Dor, because no Egyptian pottery of this period has been found along the coast to the south (though reportedly, a fair number of Egyptian jars were found at Ashkelon, but have not yet been published; D. Master, pers. comm.). This assumption is even more interesting in light of the Wenamun tale, according to which the first harbor north of Tanis, in the Egyptian Delta that Wenamun visited was that at Dor (Goedicke, 1975: 27). All these testimonies for trade during the early Iron Age are relevant to this study, and touch on some of its main research questions regarding the origin, style, and raw material of the beads. The specific excavation areas at Tel Dor discussed in this thesis, and their stratigraphy, are presented in paragraph 7.1.4, in conjunction with the analysis of the contextual distribution of the beads at the site.

6. RESEARCH METHODS

6.1. Recovery methods

The Tel Dor beads were found during systematic archaeological excavation at the site, conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the University of Haifa from 1980 to 2009. This study benefits from the excavation methods used in the field by the Dor expedition. Though most of the beads were handpicked, the high resolution of the work permitted a good documentation of the locations and stratigraphic positioning of the beads on site. The discovery of very small items was made possible by repeated sifting processes (for example, 1.3 mm. glass beads, see below). Dry sieving through a 1 mm mesh in the field was not done systematically, but only for specific contexts. In 2003, when only limited excavations of Iron Age strata were conducted in Area G, all the dirt was wet-sieved (producing, inter alia, a large collection of micro-beads, see below). Wet sieving was conducted according to a pre- set protocol from 2005 to 2009, in order to study the faunal and botanical remains of the site. In this process, the finds (with the excavated dirt) were sifted in seawater, dried, and handpicked. Not all the dirt, however, was sifted even then. Together with the eco-facts, artifacts, including beads, were found in this process. After collection, the stone, bone, shell, egg-shell, and clay beads were washed in fresh water, dried and stored in the Mizgaga Museum, located near the site. The metal, Egyptian Blue, faience, and glass beads were not washed (in most cases), but only lightly cleaned from dirt, and stored. Neither temperature nor humidity were controlled in the museum. Almost 30 years of accurate field work provides us with one of the most detailed stratigraphic sequences of the early Iron Age in this area. This Dor sequence allows us a more precise analysis regarding location, stratigraphy and contexts than is possible for most other sites.

6.2. Database

In order to analyze the bead assemblages from Dor and the other sites, a unified database was constructed. The database was the core of this study, and its purpose was to unify all the information in the same manner. This facilitated the presentation of the results and the different comparisons conducted in this study. The database is presented in three different Appendixes in the attached CD: Appendix A: Includes all the beads studied from Tel Dor (dated to the early Iron Age and the Late Bronze Age). All the beads from Tel Dor were seen and examined by the author, and they are presented with their drawings and photographs. Appendix B: Includes all the early Iron Age beads studied from the Israel Antiquities Authority stores, from archaeological expedition's stores, from museum stores (all studied by me) and from publications (not seen by me). Appendix C: Includes all the Late Bronze Age beads, studied from the Israel Antiquities Authority's stores, from archaeological expedition's stores, from museum stores (all studied by me), and from publications (not seen by me). The database contains the following sections: general information regarding the object, stratigraphic and dating information, physical description of the beads, location of the beads, and reference. Within each paragraph various characteristics are presented as follows (Characteristics marked with an asterisk below represent information provided for the Tel Dor beads only.)

General data Refers to data registered during the excavation: Site: The archaeological site in which the beads were found. Quantity: Number of beads found. Object: Defined as one of three categories: bead, beads, or pendant. When several beads with similar morphological and physical characteristics were found together in the same archaeological context, they are grouped together under the title 'Beads' or 'Pendants', as appropriate. Basket no; Locus no.; Locus description*: Locus in which the object was found (pit/floor, etc.) and its quality; Square no.; Area; Date*: Date on which the object was

38 found in the excavation; Season: Year (and excavation license when known) in which the object was found; Tomb no, Stratigraphic phase/level; Material:

Archaeological data Registration no.; Locus; Stratigraphic context; Square; Area; Season.

Dating information Date of context: Presents the period assigned to the locus, according to the pottery found in it. Phase/ strata: Mazar Period and Dor Horizon: Each item is attributed to one of the Tel Dor horizons according to Table 4.1:  Transitional phase Late Bronze Age/Iron Age.  Ir1a (early).  Ir1a (late).  Transitional phase Iron Age 1a/b.  Ir1b.  Transitional phase Ir1/2.  Ir2a.  Another group of beads is defined just as 'early Iron Age' when the specific phase within the early Iron Age is unknown (this occurs mainly for the beads in the IAA storage, and in the beads studied in the different expeditions' storage due to insufficient stratigraphic information - unlike beads that were studied from excavation reports). Quantity: If one or more beads are presented. In this thesis, all the beads studied are quantified (other than some of the beads from Tell el-Far‘ah South, see below). Thus, precise quantitative analyses and comparisons could be made.

Physical description The physical description of the beads includes information regarding the following properties:

Material: Raw material from which the object was made. The procedures for material identification are described below. Color: Main color of the object. The colors are defined by me only where I actually saw the objects. No color charts (for example the Munsell chart) were used. The use of color charts does not assist studying finds from different sources, because lighting conditions in the places where the beads are examined have to be identical at all times in order for the results to be meaningful. Therefore any attempt to define and compare colors of beads would generally be based on imprecise primary data. Regarding the comparative assemblage, numerous objects were studied from publications that were usually accompanied by black and white photographs only. In these cases, the color that was published in the report is the one mentioned in the database. The range of colors noted is: black, gray, beige, brown, yellow, orange, red, pink, purple, blue, green, light blue, white, and translucent. 'No color' describes objects of which the color was not preserved, such as some of the glass or faience objects. 'Unidentified' is noted in cases where the color was not mentioned in the archaeological report or publication. Description: Short description of the general morphology of the bead. Comments: Further information regarding the object, such as additional colors or decorations. Length: Length of the bead: disk, short, standard or long, according the parameters note in the typology (Figure ). (see below) Height*: Exact measured height of the bead (see 'Typology', below). Diameter of perforation*: Minimum and maximum diameter of the object's perforation. Diameter of object*: Minimum and maximum diameter of the object. Varia: Other measurements if appropriate, especially for pendants. Type*: Morphological type of the bead (see below). Beck Type*: Morphological type of the object, based on the classification made by Beck (2006: plates II, III). Perforation type*: Morphological type of the object's perforation, based on the classification made by Beck (1928: plate IV).

Figure 6.1: Terminology of bead description proposed by Beck (Beck, 1928: fig. 3)

Preservation conditions Completeness: Percentage of the physical preservation of the object. One hundred percent preservation is denoted by 'complete', 100%-50% by 'partial', and below 50% by 'fragmentary'. Objects that were analyzed based only on publications are treated as 'complete', unless other information was noted in the publication. In cases of broken beads the 'Beck type' is assumed according to the available information.

Published information References: Reference of the publications in which the object is mentioned. Drawing: Plate and image no(s) of the drawing of the object(s), if published. Photograph: Plate and image no(s). of the object's photograph if published. All the photographs of the Tel Dor beads were taken by the author using a Nikon D80 digital camera. Other photographs were taken by the author using an Olympus SZX7

41 microscope, with a magnification of 8-56x. The microscopic photographs were taken by an Olympus UTV1X-2. All the photographs are presented with a scale. Location: Current location of the object. Objects that were studied from a publication are noted as 'publication'.

6.3. Typology

The typology used for the Tel Dor bead assemblage organizes the beads and displays them in a manner that facilitates their analysis in several ways. A number of basic criteria were chosen to build this typology. The Tel Dor Iron Age bead corpus is first classified by material, and then by shape, since the basic assumption is that in many cases the shape of the bead is determined by the material from which it was made. The material is denoted in the prefix of the type numbers as follows: stone (1); bone (2); shell (3); egg-shell (4); clay (5); metal (6); Egyptian Blue (7); faience (8), and glass (9). In each category of material the beads are presented according to their size (from short to long). Firstly, the disk beads are presented, followed by the standard- shaped beads (see below), and then by the long beads. Beads with special morphology and pendants are presented at the end of each category. These characteristics are represented in the type prefix by a letter (A, B, C, etc.). Decoration on the bead is considered to be a component of the typology, and is noted as a sub-type (especially for the glass beads). The color of the beads, however, is not considered in this typology. The terminology used for the description of the beads is based on the studies of Beck (1928) and Spaer (2001). In the following paragraph I briefly repeat some of the terms relevant to the present typology. Transverse section (Figure ): the section perpendicular to the axis of the bead’s perforation that includes the maximum radius. Longitudinal section (Figure ): the section parallel to the axis of the bead’s perforation. Perimeter (Figure ): the perimeter is the exterior line or lines bordering the transverse section of the bead.

Profile (Figure ): the perimeter is the line or lines bordering the longitudinal section of the bead (parallel to the perforation). Height (Figure ): the height of a bead is an imaginary line that passes through the center of the perforation (equals the stringing line). Beck suggested dividing the beads into four groups: disk beads, short beads, standard beads and long beads, by the ratio between their height and their maximum external diameter. This division is also used in this work, but with some modifications: Disk Bead: The ratio between the height of the bead and its maximum external diameter is less than 1:3 Short Bead: The ratio between the height of the bead and its maximum external diameter is between 1:3 and 4:5. Standard Bead: The ratio between the height of the bead and its maximum external diameter is between 4:5 and 6:5. Long Bead: The ratio between the height of the bead and its maximum external diameter is greater than 6:5. The perforation types as defined here were also defined by Beck (1928: Plate IV). The types existing in the studied corpus are presented in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Perforation types defined by Beck (1928: plate IV)

Fig. Type no. Perforation

I Double cone perforation. Drilled from both ends of the bead.

II Drilled from both ends, the bead creating two parallel tubes.

III Single cone perforation. Drilled from one end of the bead.

IV Plain perforation. Approximately horizontal drilling.

V Chamfered perforation. Conical at ends, parallel at center.

Medium large plain perforation. The hole measures more VIa than 1/4 and less than 1/2 of the bead diameter.

Extra large plain perforation. The hole measures more than VIb 1/2 of the bead diameter.

Tubular plain perforation. VII

6.4. Raw material analysis

Material analysis in this study has a crucial role. Typology, technological analysis, and decay analysis are all based on a precise identification of the raw material from which the beads were made. Previous material analyses of archaeological finds (for example, Asher-Greve and Stern, 1983: 157), emphasize the need to adhere to several criteria. The analysis should be, in most cases, be non-destructive, and yet examine precisely the material itself, and not the impurities accumulated on the object's surface over time. Another important criterion of the material analysis is its cost. In order to achieve uniformity in the research, all examined objects should be analyzed by the same methods. In the present study, several methods were used for the analysis of the raw material of the Tel Dor beads. Firstly, examination of all the Dor beads and pendants was conducted using a stereoscopic microscope with a maximum magnification of 40x. In some cases this procedure was sufficient to determine the raw material, and it allowed observations on manufacturing, use or decomposition marks to be documented. As a next step, an X-ray fluorescence spectrometry analysis (XRF) was employed on selected finds, in order to achieve more accurate material identification for some of the beads. The XRF analyses were carried out by Sariel Shalev (University of Haifa) and Sana Silshtein (Weizmann Institute of Science), whose results are presented in Appendix D.

Because some different minerals have the same chemical composition, and therefore produce the same results in the XRF analysis, further identifications were made by Naomi Porat using the XRF analytical data (Geological Survey of Israel). The identification of the different bones in the Dor bead assemblage, as well as the identification of ivory, was made by Noa Gerstel-Raban (University of Haifa); the shell species were identified by Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer (University of Haifa); and the egg-shell bead was identified by David Hadash (University of Haifa). An attempt to identify the provenance of the beads according to their material was made for only some of the stone beads and pendants, and some of the shell beads. The metallic beads, as well as the siliceous ones (Egyptian Blue, faience or glass) could have been made anywhere, using primary blocks or ingots of the raw material, that in many cases may have been produced elsewhere. These could have been identified by lead isotope analyses of the colorants of the raw material (Tite and Shortland, 2008: 45), but this technique was not used in this study.

6.5. Comparative study

In order to place the Tel Dor bead assemblage in a regional and diachronic context, to indicate whether there are any similarities or differences between the beads of Dor and those from other sites, two comparative studies were conducted. As mentioned above, this is necessary first step, without which 'higher level' cultural questions cannot be answered. Firstly, the Tel Dor corpus was compared with selected bead corpora from several key sites from different regions/geo-political units of the Levantine Early Iron Age. Only sites in which a sufficient number of beads were found (accompanied by sufficient stratigraphic and physical information) were compared. Some of the data presented below regarding the comparative assemblages were studied in the IAA's stores. The IAA beads were examined by the author, measured and documented. Other beads, as yet unpublished, were studied in the different expeditions' storage rooms, and examined, measured and documented by the author. The rest of the beads were studied from publications, and all of the information is based on the published data and photographs (mainly black and white).

The second comparative study examined the entire early Iron Age corpus, from all the studied sites, from a chronological point of view. This study compared and contrasted the characteristics of this corpus with bead corpora dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age. Because of the difference between the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, manifested on the social, political, and especially the economic, level, it was expected to find diversity between the bead corpora as well. Only sites that were studied in the regional comparative analysis were included here. Furthermore, as in the previous analysis, only sites in which a sufficient number of beads were found were studied. To sum up, the methods used in this study include typological and material analyses, as well as a broad comparative study with bead assemblages from other sites and periods.

6.6. Methodological and other problems

During this work the author encountered several problems that should be taken into consideration when evaluating the results. Some were caused by site formation processes, and therefore cannot be avoided, some concern the archaeological work in the field and stores, and others concern the documentation of the beads. Small artifacts, among them beads, tend to be more vulnerable to various depositional and post-depositional processes than larger artifacts – especially re- depositions and intrusions. In addition, it is practically impossible to determine when a bead is in situ, other than in rare cases, such as clusters of beads. In addition, the physical characteristics of the beads may change; their colors (especially of glass objects) and their shapes occasionally change, especially with use, post-depositional processes, and inadequate conservation. Other reasons that might cause unintentional bias in the results are the different recovery processes of the expeditions. Some of the objects studied were excavated decades ago, while others are recent, reflecting the drastic changes in excavation techniques over the years. Again, this affects small objects more than other classes of finds. Even today, different excavations employ different methods, and this may well tip the balance regarding the quantity of beads found. There is a significant difference 46 in the quantity of beads found between excavations which did not sift, and those which systematically sifted a certain percentage or all of the dirt (although this work does not include this examination). The sifting process may also have influenced the type of beads found. Beads of a certain color or size may be more likely to be missed if the dirt is not sifted. Another aspect of field work that may influence this study is material identification, which in most cases was done in the field, and not by specialists (archaeozoologists, geologists, etc.). For example, working in the IAA stores, I noticed that many of the red stone beads are documented as carnelian, while some might in fact be made of other minerals. The familiarity of archaeologists with carnelian as a common material probably caused this phenomenon, resulting in imprecise documentation. The documentation process has other problems that should be noted. In many cases, no quantitative data have been noted; in others, the raw material is not mentioned; and in still other cases the beads are recorded as a complete jewelry piece, such as a necklace, even though they were not found strung together, but only adjacent. In a few cases, mainly in old excavation reports, the beads are not even mentioned. All the above-mentioned is true for several bead assemblages, and I encountered them both in archaeological reports, and among the finds kept in the IAA stores. Finally, while working on this study cases of mismatch between the IAA records and the archaeological reports were found, supposedly describing the same finds. In addition many of the beads stored by the IAA lack registration details, or chronological notation, beyond "Iron Age". These cases are noted below where relevant, next to the best possible solution chosen by the author.

7. RESULTS

The data upon which the results of this study are based are presented in Appendix A: Tel Dor beads; Appendix B: Early Iron Age beads; and Appendix C: Late Bronze Age beads.

7.1 The Tel Dor corpus

In this study, 171 early Iron Age and five Late Bronze Age beads and pendants from Tel Dor were analyzed. The Dor beads from both periods are presented in Appendix A and discussed here. In the following comparative chapters a separation is maintained between Dor beads of the Bronze Age and those of the Iron Age.

7.1.1. Materials, decorations and preservation

The material from which a bead is made is crucial to its morphology. This chapter presents the materials from which the Dor beads were made: stone, bone and ivory, shell, egg-shell, clay, metal, Egyptian Blue, faience and glass; the manufacturing processes of the beads to the extent known; the colors and decorations applied to the material; morphological types common to the various materials, and an evaluation of the bead preservation level. In many jewelry studies a detailed background on each material is generally presented: characteristics, origin, periods of intensive use, and common technologies (used for the raw material production, as well as for bead production). Due to the fact that these are not the main research questions of this study, and to avoid repeating information that is presented in numerous studies and publications, these aspects will be noted briefly. In most cases it is impossible to determine the location of manufacture of the beads. Stone beads could have been be processed either next to the mineral mining location, or in other production centers after the mineral had been transported. The beads may have been produced, either in specialized production centers for beads, or in workshops that specialized in other crafts and produced beads as a secondary product. There is no definite evidence of bead production as a cottage industry at Dor. Following is a description of the beads, ordered by distribution of raw material. 48

7.1.1.1. Stone beads

In the Tel Dor assemblage there were 23 stone beads and pendants, dated to the early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age. The type of stone of one red bead has not been identified (no. 06D1-1280 – perhaps carnelian), and the rest of the beads are made of the following minerals: carnelian, agate, calcite, basalt, jasper, opal, amethyst, hematite, lapis lazuli, limestone, alabaster, and quartz. The different stones and their characteristics are presented below according the quantity of beads found, in descending order. Carnelian is the most common mineral in the Dor assemblage. Three beads and two pendants are made of this material (nos. 98086, 182711, 172340, 08D2-2794, and 178324). All of these have a translucent orange-red color. All the three carnelian beads have a simple geometric shape, for example Type 1A. Globular bead, or Type 1C. Cylindrical bead. One of the more special morphological types is 1G. Lotus seed pendant, of which four beads were found. One of the carnelian Lotus seed vessel pendants (bead no. 98086) is broken, and its shape has not been completely smoothed (Plate 4: Figs. 15, 16). Carnelian pebbles can be found in Sinai and the eastern desert of Egypt (Aldred, 1978: 16; Aston et al., 2000: 27). Carnelian is one of the earliest gemstones used in Egyptian and Levantine bead production (Aston et al., 2000: 27) and it was still in use even after the widespread use of artificial silicate materials in jewelry production during the New Kingdom (Aston et al., 2000: 27). As in Egypt, in the southern Levant during the Iron Age, carnelian is one of the most common materials attested among the beads (for example Golani, 2009a: 163). There is no doubt regarding the popularity of carnelian beads during the Iron Age. However, there might be further explanations of the prolific presence of carnelian beads in bead assemblages of that period: stone beads cannot be reused (unlike metal beads), their red color is highly noticeable in excavation (unlike for example, limestone beads) and more importantly, the material is easily identified by scholars. During this study, it was noticed that in many cases red beads made of jasper, for example (which is opaque rather than translucent) were identified incorrectly as carnelian, while carnelian beads were predominantly identified correctly.

Agate is a form of chalcedony characterized by a banded appearance caused by thin layers of quartz fibers (Aston et al. 2000: 26). Two beads in the assemblage (nos. 151830.1 and 151577) are made of agate. The beads are very similar in color (red with brown and translucent veins) and morphology (Type 1D.2. Long Convex Bicone bead). These beads were found in Square AM/13 at Tel Dor, in the same context (see below), and they were probably part of the same ornament. Agate is found in the Eastern desert of Egypt (Aston, et al., 2000: 26). Two beads and one pendant (nos. 192513, 306224 and 197442) were identified as made of calcite. Bead no. 192513 is a translucent brown color. It is broken next to its perforation, and only half of it was found. On the break two drilled parallel holes can be seen. The drilling process was not completed, and it might have been the cause of the break. Despite the layering that can be seen in the stone structure, the stone is very well preserved, except for the breakage. The pendant (no. 197442) is translucent. Its perforation (like the perforation of the calcite bead) was bored from two ends. Bead no. 306442 has two darker stripes at each end. These marks might indicate that it was set in metallic bands. Pendant no. 197442 is very worn, and there are many cracks in the stone structure. Two beads (nos. 188322 and 04G0-0267) are made of basalt, which can be found in the northern regions of Canaan. The beads are different in their morphology, but the color, opaque black, and texture are very similar. Both beads have a whitish patina. Two beads (nos. 177330 and 27672) are made of jasper. Both have the same brown-red color. Bead no. 27672 is much more polished, and therefore the stone is better preserved than bead no. 177330, even though the bead itself is broken. Jasper, which is a colored form of chert (see below) and flint, occurs as nodules in limestone. Jasper can be found in the Eastern Desert of Egypt (Aston et al., 2000: 29). Two pendants (nos. 181015 and 153739) are made of opal. Both have the same morphology as Type 1G. Lotus seed pendant, and similar pendants are present in the Dor assemblage also in carnelian. Both beads have the same pale pinkish color, but in one of them (no. 153739) the veins of the stone are more distinguishable, while the other pendant (no. 181015) is more homogeneous in its color. In both pendants (unlike the rest of the stone beads) the perforations were drilled from only one side of the pendant, creating a Beck perforation Type no. III (Beck, 2006: plate IV).

One limestone bead (no. 110603) was identified. The stone was well preserved, apart from several noticeable cracks. Rotary drilling marks were noted inside the perforation (Plate 2: Figs 3–6). There is one amethyst bead (no. 197679) in the Dor assemblage. The stone is well preserved, apart from several visible cracks. Drilling marks were noted in the perforation (Plate 1 Fig. 17). Amethyst can be found in the Aswan district and in the region of Abu Simbel (Aldred, 1978: 17). There is one hematite pendant (no. 300021). During Pre-Roman periods, hematite was quarried in the Sinai Peninsula and in the Aswan district of Egypt (Aston et al., 2000: 38). Lapis lazuli is the common name of the mineral lazurite, and is a semiprecious stone of a blue hue with specks of pyrite. One lapis lazuli bead (no. 92386) was found. Lapis lazuli was imported from Badakhshan (in Sar-i Sang) in Afghanistan via the Euphrates to the Levant and Egypt (Aldred, 1978: 16). One quartz bead was found in the Dor assemblage (no. 191281). Quartz can be found in Sinai, in southern Jordan, and in the eastern desert of Egypt (Aston et al., 2000: 27). One alabaster bead (no. 153516) was found. It is heavily eroded at both ends, next to the perforation, probably due to intensive use. In Egypt, only one ancient alabaster quarry is known, Umm el-Sawwan in the north-east Fayum area (Aston et al., 2000: 22). From the technological viewpoint, some of the Dor stone beads are worked, but not polished (for example no. 172340). This phenomenon raises the assumption that the beads were locally made. See further discussion below. There are six perforation types in the Dor stone beads (Table 5:1). Nine beads (nos. 98086, 177330, 181015, 197679, 08D2-2794, 172340, 27672, 153739 and 300021) are bored from one end, creating a 'single cone' perforation (Beck perforation Type III). Another boring technique, common in the Dor assemblage, is the 'double cone' perforation (Beck perforation Type I). Eight beads (nos. 04G0-0267, 06D1-1280, 151577, 92386, 151830.1, 153516, 191281 and 197442) have a double cone perforation. This boring technique prevents the breaking of the bead that occasionally occurs when the bead is bored from one side.

Two beads (nos. 182711 and 192513) are bored from both ends, with a cylindrical, not conical, perforation (Beck perforation Type II). One bead (no. 188322) has a 'plain' perforation (Beck Type IV). This is a Disk bead, which definitely facilitates the drilling process. The perforations of the other beads were not identified. One bead (no. 110603) has a chamfered perforation (Beck Type V). Two stone beads (nos. 306224 and 188322) have a medium large plain perforation (Beck Type VI). This distribution emphasizes the almost total preference of the craftsmen for the single and double cone perforation techniques for making stone beads.

7.1.1.2. Bone and ivory beads and pendants

There are five bone beads in the Tel Dor assemblage: nos. 198118 and 06D5-1045 which are of Type 2A. Cone bone bead; bone bead; and one ivory pendant, no. 94500 Type 2D, Mallet-shaped pendant. One bead (no. 173289) is decorated with linear incisions. 2.5 mm from each end is a 5 mm stripe that consists of two parallel incised lines, perpendicular to the beads' axis, and between them there is an incised net pattern (Plate 5: Figs. 1–4). Color might have been expected to be applied to an uninteresting material such as bone. However, no color remains were visible on the beads. There are three types of perforations in the bone beads. Three beads (nos. 198118, 06D5-1045 and 94500) have a plain perforation (Beck Type IV), while two (nos. 98705 and 173289) were drilled from both ends (Beck Type II). An interesting find that might shed light on the elaboration of the bone beads is a bone plaque (no. 186540). This broken plaque has an unfinished round incision with a hole drilled at its center. It seems that this item was intended as a Disk bead or button, but broke in the drilling process, before it was cut out of the plaque completely. This find joins the incomplete stone beads mentioned above, which have drilling marks on them, in demonstrating that drilling was the first stage in the manufacture of beads.

7.1.1.3. Shell beads

The identification of shell beads in an archaeological excavation is not always simple, because they may be naturally perforated by marine carnivores, or naturally abraded 52 in the sea or on the beach (Francis, 1982: 713). Nevertheless, shells were also often made into beads by various methods of artificial perforation. Beads are considered far more common than any other artifact made of shell (Claassen, 1998: 197). There are only eight shell beads in the Dor collection. Of these, six are Conus shells (nos. 110331, 06D5-1080, 09D2-9036, 96917, 98853, and 151326), one is a Nerita sanguinolenta shell (no. 182070), and one is an operculum of a Trochidae shell (no. 188184). The operculum of a snail of the family Trochidae is heavier than the other shell beads, and there is a possibility that it was intended to be a weight of some sort, and not a bead. However, this item is broken (probably during drilling, see below), no use marks were noted on it, and its identification as a bead is uncertain. The Conus shells are heavily abraded, and therefore it is impossible to identify their origin. They could have originated in either the Mediterranean or the Red Sea. However, Nerita and Trochidae do not live in the Mediterranean, only in the Red Sea. The simple shell beads, Type 3B. Perforated shell bead, are perforated shells, usually bored at the apex (nos. 110331, 06D5-1080, 09D2-9036 and 182070, all Conus shells). The Conus shells were cut next to the embryonic whorl of the shell or the apex, creating a disk bead naturally decorated by the whorl of the shell. This type occasionally appears as a round bead, Type 3A.1. Round Conus shell bead, (nos. 151326 and 178878), but occasionally its borders were cut to make it a rectangular bead, Type 3A.2. Rectangular Conus shell bead (no. 98853). In several samples of the shell beads (nos. 96917, 98853, both Conus shells) no drilling marks are noted and the hole could have resulted from natural abrasion (Plate 5: Figs. 13–16). It is uncertain whether the perforation was created while breaking the bead, or it broke during use. In another example (no. 182070, Nerita sanguinolenta), the shell was not bored, but ground, and thus, due to its natural spherical morphology, it was perforated. One of the beads (no. 188184, the operculum of a Trochidae shell) is broken. Since the bead is only half-way perforated (Plate 6: Figs. 1–2) I assume that it broke during the drilling process. Four shell beads (nos. 09D2-9036, 96917, 98853 and 188184) have a plain perforation (Beck Type IV). Three shell beads (nos. 110331, 06D5-1080 and 182070) are perforated from one side (Beck Type III). One shell bead (no. 151326) has a chamfered perforation (conical at ends, parallel at center) (Beck Type V).

7.1.1.4. Egg-shell bead

One egg-shell bead (no. 187194), in the Dor collection, dated to the early Iron Age, was identified as Type 4A. Disk egg-shell bead. This bead was cut from an ostrich (Struthio camelus syriacus) egg-shell. Its profile was polished, and the bead was drilled through its center from each side. This might have been done by rubbing the threaded bead on an abrasive surface, as suggested by Aldred (1978: 30). Like the form of the shell beads, the form of the egg-shell beads is imposed by the characteristics of the material, and therefore most egg-shell beads are the disk type. The Egg-shell bead has a chamfered perforation (Beck Type V).

7.1.1.5. Clay bead

One well preserved clay bead (no. 09D2-6564, Type 5A. Incised round clay bead) was found in the early Iron Age stratum of Dor. It was perforated, then baked. The bead is spherical and decorated with incised parallel linear lines and dots (Plate 6: Figs. 6–7). It has a plain perforation (Beck Type IV). It is interesting to note that despite the widespread use of clay in the manufacture of many different objects, and the simple manufacturing techniques for clay, only one clay bead was found at Dor; and in general, not many clay beads are known from this period (for example Golani, 2009a: 156).

7.1.1.6. Metal beads

Only three early Iron Age metal beads (nos. 04G0-0260, 194323 and 91342) and one pendant (no. 198157) were found. Two of the beads are of gold, of Type 6A. Folded ring gold bead, and are extremely small (2.06 mm diameter and 4.4 mm diameter). Bead no. 04G0-0260t, the smaller one, was found during the sifting process. It was made by an involution of a gold foil, the attachment was not fused, and thus the ends of the foil still protrude. In gold bead no. 194323 (the larger one) no attachment was identified, which might be for one of two reasons: either, which is more likely, the ends of the foil were very well attached, or the bead was made of a gold tube and not foil. One bead (no. 91342) is made of silver. Its morphology is tubular and not annular, but it is made in the same technique of involute silver foil. The silver foil is thicker than the gold foil; this may be due to one of two reasons: either that that in 54 order to create a tubular bead, a thicker foil was needed, or that silver foil could be made as thin as gold foil. The attachments of the foil can be seen only at the ends of the bead. Thus, the bead probably had a cap at each end, and this bead is only the middle part of a bead in which the visible center was smoothed, either from wear or during production. The silver bead (no. 91342) and the small gold bead (no. 04G0-0260) were very well preserved. The larger gold bead (no. 194323) is bent in a few places; however, its shape is still clear. All three metal beads have a tubular hole (Beck Type VII). The gold pendant, Type 6C. Bull's head gold pendant is one of the most unusual pendants found at Dor. The representation of the bull's head is a common motif in the west, especially in Cyprus (see paragraph 7.1.4 Typology).

7.1.1.7. Egyptian Blue beads

Egyptian Blue frit is an artificial material whose color is due to the presence of calcium-copper tetrasilicate crystals, which are produced by firing a mixture of quartz, lime, a copper compound and an alkali flux (Tite and Shortland, 2008: 147). The differences between the components of Egyptian Blue (and other frits), faience and glass, which are all silica-based materials, are the varying amounts of alkali, lime and copper. In some cases, the texture of Egyptian Blue is so fine that it is confused with glass. Differentiating Egyptian Blue and faience is easier; Egyptian Blue beads have the same color and texture on their surface and in their core, while faience beads have a different color and texture in their core than on their surface. Thus, they can be easily identified in a broken section (Nicholson and Peltenburg, 2000: 178). The production of Egyptian Blue was probably made by firing the components for 24 hours at 950°C (Tite and Shortland, 2008: 150). There are eight early Iron Age Egyptian Blue bead types in the Tel Dor assemblage: Type 7A. Incised globular Egyptian Blue bead: no. 171108; Type 7B. Bicone Egyptian Blue bead: no. 150790; Type 7C. Long cylindrical Egyptian Blue bead: nos. 110307 and 160075; Type 7D. Long faceted Egyptian Blue bead: nos. 172353 and 178487; and Type 7D. Long segmented Egyptian Blue bead: nos. 27689 and 183738.

Only one bead (no. 171108) is decorated with vertical incisions. No other decorations or colors are seen on the beads. Most of the beads are well preserved, but most are worn on the exterior as the material had a soft surface. Some have a grayish patina, nevertheless, their deep blue color was retained in the core. Four of the Egyptian Blue beads (nos. 110307, 160075 and 17108) have a plain perforation (Beck Type IV). Of the remaining beads, one (no. 150790) has a medium- large plain perforation (Beck Type VIa), another (no. 27689) has an extra-large plain perforation (Beck Type VIb), and one (no. 183738) has a tubular perforation (Beck Type VII).

7.1.1.8. Faience beads

Faience is a glazed non-clay ceramic material, composed of crushed quartz or sand with small amounts of lime, and either natron or plant ash. This material served as a core that was covered with a soda-silica-lime glaze (Nicholson and Peltenburg, 2000: 186; Friedman, 1998: 15). Faience was used in Egypt for various artifacts, including figurines and scarabs, but the earliest objects made of faience were beads (Patch, 1998: 42). The value of the faience, together with other artificial materials, has often been compared to the value of precious stones (for example Sherratt, 2008: 211). There is no doubt that faience, due to a theoretically unlimited supply, was supposed to be the cheaper material. However, as this is not the only factor to be considered (for example variety of decorations or forms), and it is not always simple to decide. The Tel Dor assemblage contains 64 early Iron Age faience beads. The glaze of 53 of these was not preserved (nos. 186954, 190297 (a cluster of 3 beads), 190313, 04G0-0171 (a cluster of 44 beads), 04G0-0318.1/1, 04G0-0318.1/2, 04G0-0318.1/3, and 07D2-0470). It is impossible to know the original glaze color of these beads. I assume that once the glaze has gone, the bead wears out more easily, and therefore these beads were not preserved as well as the glazed ones. The colors of faience (core and glaze) are either due to the incorporation of metal ions, such as copper, cobalt, manganese, and iron (which result in translucent glazes), or are due to the presence of colored particles, such as manganese, iron oxides, and lead antimonite (which result in opaque glazes) (Tite and Shortland, 2008: 43).

A light blue glaze, conventionally associated with copper ions, remains on eight beads (Tite and Shortland, 2008: 43; nos. 184329, 172338, 180037, 184453, 04G0- 0318.3, 06D5-1239, 07D5-1517.1 and 07D5-2058). This color is the most common among the faience beads of Dor. Some scholars explain the development of the faience industry as an inexpensive substitute for minerals such as lapis lazuli (see paragraph 5.1.2.1.) or turquoise (Friedman, 1998: 15), which might explain the widespread use of the blue color. One faience bead (no. 07D2-0600) has a yellow glaze, associated with lead antimonite (Tite and Shortland, 2008: 43). This bead is very small, and was found during dry sifting. Two faience beads (nos. 08D5-7379 and 186818) have a white glaze. All of the faience beads but one (no. 180037) have a plain perforation (Beck Type IV). Bead no. 180037 has a medium large perforation (Beck Type VIa). In some of the beads found at Tel Dor it is possible to see traces of glaze that dripped towards the surface on which the beads were placed (Plate 9: Figs. 1–2). However, most of the beads were perfectly glazed.

7.1.1.9. Glass beads

In this study, 57 early Iron Age glass beads were examined, but no glass pendants were found. Beads nos. 151830/2, 183998/1, 151915, 172462, 186953 and 07D5-1356 were probably rod-formed (see paragraph 2.1.2.). Beads nos. 04G0-0282, 04G0-0312, 04G0-0318.2, 04G0-0320 and 04G0-0336 are probably 'drawn beads' (see paragraph 2.1.2). This technique can be used for the production of very small beads, and it is therefore possible that this was the technique used in the production of the small ring beads. These black beads are uniform in their minuscule size (height about 0.85 mm and external diameter about 2.5 mm) and shape (Type 9A. Disk glass bead). Bead no. 04G0-0336 is a long segmented bead. Only one bead of this type was found at Dor. It is not certain whether the artisan broke the segments intentionally in order to create a segmented bead, or unintentionally. Another interesting object found at Dor might be a derivative of the production of the beads. It is a small globular glass artifact with two cavities, much larger than the minuscule black disk beads (height about 3 mm and external diameter of about 5.7

57 mm). It was possibly made of the same glass, since it has exactly the same color and it was found in the same state of preservation, both of the object's core and its surface. If indeed this is a derivative of the bead production, then the minuscule black beads were made on site (see further discussion below). This object was not included in the bead assemblage because it is not perforated. Glass artifacts from the periods under discussion are usually either a pale aqua- green, or amber, if no colorants were deliberately added (Zorn and Brill, 2007: 258). Among the glass beads under study here, however, there is a large variety of colors. In 11 beads (nos. 151915, 172462, 182049, 182065, 182066, 182149, 183547, 184327, 187433, 183998/1 and 183998/2) the original color of the glass did not survive, and they are currently white. Very few white glass beads are known from the early Iron Age (for example Spaer, 2001), and it is not easy to determine whether this was the original coloration, or it was due to the deterioration of the glass (Rosen, pers. comm.). Therefore it was decided to refer to all the white glass beads in this work as 'colorless'. The most common color among the glass beads is black (or deep blue). There are 42 black beads in the Dor assemblage (nos. 151830.2, 04G0-0282, 04G0-0312, 04G0-0318.2/1, 04G0-0318.2/2, 04G0-0318.2/3, 04G0-0320 (a cluster of 34 beads), 04G0-0167 and 04G0-0336). All the black beads but two are of Type 9A. Minuscule ring glass beads, all of which were probably part of the same ornament (see paragraph 4.1.3). Bead 04G0-0336 might also belong to the above group, but it is of Type 9F, Segmented glass bead. The last black bead studied is no. 151830.2, which is Type 9D.1, Simple long glass bead. Four other beads in the Dor assemblage are colored. No. 08D5-5265, which is gray, no. 07D5-1356, which is light blue, no 186953, which is an eye bead and has three colors: yellow, blue and white, and no. 177665, which is also an eye bead and has three colors: blue, green and white (see below, Eye beads). Of the 57 glass beads, nine are decorated. Different kinds of decorations were applied on the beads, and even if, in some cases, the colors of the decorations did not survive (and they are currently white), the decoration pattern can still be seen. Eye decorations (circular motifs) were applied on five beads (nos. 186953, 182066, 183547, 182049 and 177665). The eye sometimes protrudes out of the bead (for example, no. 182049), and sometimes it is fused into the bead itself (for example, no.

177665). In most cases the decoration consists of a single eye. Three beads (fragments) have a stratified eye decoration (Plate 10: Fig. 22). Both stratified eye beads found at Tel Dor were made by the second technique, as can be seen in Plate 13 Fig. 2. Trail decorations (linear motifs) were applied on several beads at Tel Dor. They can be divided into three groups: – Spiral trail decoration, applied on two beads (nos. 187433, and 182149). – Combed trail decoration, applied on one bead (no. 184327). The colors of this bead did not survive, but on close observation the decoration can still be seen (Plate 10: Figs. 9, 12, 13). – Twisted trail decoration, applied on three beads (nos. 187433, 182149 and 182065). As with no. 184327, the color of the beads did not survive. The deterioration of the glass Tel Dor beads consists of several processes. The most common phenomenon in the deterioration processes is the discoloration of the glass. Twelve beads in the Dor assemblage have an opaque yellowish white color, which can be considered colorless. The only early Iron Age beads that are colored no. 177665 and the minuscule black beads (nos. 04G0-0167, 04G0-0282, 04G0-0336, 04G0-0312, 04G0-0318.2/1, 04G0-0318.2/2, 04G0-0318.2/3 and 04G0-0320). Deterioration of glass that causes black discoloration is a well-known phenomenon. This does not seem to be the case here. In black discoloration the object is typically coated by an opaque black layer, due to the oxidation of iron and manganese ions present in the glass (Davison and Newton, 2003: 186). The minuscule beads found at Dor are black all the way through, and are not covered by a black layer (Plate 9: Fig. 20), and it is therefore assumed that this is their original color and they are well preserved. Milky surface: in this deterioration process white spots gradually progress into the object's body or over its surface. In some cases the spots are light brown or dark brown instead of white (Davison and Newton, 2003: 184). This phenomenon occurred in two beads: no. 172462, which has a white enamel-like surface with irregular cracks, and no. 183998.1, which also has white coating with very pale light blue marks, possibly traces of the original color. A break in the bead (Plate 10: Fig. 6) shows its core and the relatively thick white layer which accumulated on it.

In a few cases, different areas of the same bead present different levels of deterioration: Bead no. 183998.2 has a trail decoration twisted around it. Despite the fact that no colors were preserved on the bead, due to the fact that the decoration and the background of the bead had different colors, I assume that they were made of different glasses (see Fig. 3.6). The glass of which the bead itself is made is covered with an orange patina that does not appear to be the same glass of which the decoration is made (Plate 10: Figs. 4–7) Beads 182065 and 187433 have a twisted trail decoration. In both beads only one of the glass canes of the decoration was preserved (Plate 10; Fig. 13). These beads demonstrate the large variability that may occur in glass deterioration. Under similar environmental conditions, one type of glass completely disappears, while another is well preserved. There are four different perforation types among the glass beads. Most of the glass beads (52 beads out of 57) have a plain perforation (Beck Type IV), these are: nos. 04G0-0336, 186954, 04G0-0320 (which is a cluster of 34 beads), 04G0-0318.2/2, 04G0-0318.2/1, 04G0-0318.2/3, 172462, 183547, 183998.1, 182065, 187433, 182049, 07D5-1356, 151830.2, 08D5-5265, 04G0-0282, 04G0-0167, 04G0-0312, and 182066. Two beads (nos. 182149 and 184327) have a single cone perforation, probably caused by a conical rod (Beck Type III). Two other beads (nos. 151915 and 183998.2) have a medium large perforation (Beck Type VIa). One bead (no. 177665) is broken, and it is impossible to know the shape of its perforation.

7.1.1.10. Discussion

A large variety of materials, especially minerals, is documented at Dor. There are nine different materials in the Dor bead assemblage (Figure 7.1); natural materials, such as stone, bone, shell and egg-shell; and artificial materials, such as clay, metal (silver and gold), Egyptian Blue, faience and glass. The materials of Tel Dor beads and their distribution are as presented in Figure 7.1, and are discussed below in descending order of distribution:

13% Stone (23) Bone (5) 3% 33% 5% Shell (8) 1% Egg shell (1) 1% 2% Clay (1)

5% Metal (4)

Egyptian blue (8)

Faience (64)

37% Glass (57)

Figure 7.1: Distribution of materials of the Tel Dor beads

Faience beads

The most common (64 beads) material of the Tel Dor beads is faience, of which 44 were found together, and are probably part of the same item of beadwork. Most of them are very simple Disk beads (see below, Typology), and in more than 80% the glaze did not survive. The Egyptian term for faience is ṯḥnt, or ḫsbḏ. It is interesting to note that ḫsbḏ is the same word that was used to describe lapis lazuli. This might support the assumption that faience was originally developed as a substitute for lapis lazuli or turquoise (Friedman, 1998: 15; Tite and Shortland, 2008: 57; Aldred, 1978: 17). The vast majority of faience beads in Egypt are blue or green. However, black, red, yellow, and white beads were produced as well, especially in the New Kingdom (Aldred, 1978: 30). At Dor, the glaze color of more than 82% of the faience beads did not survive. The most common color of the rest is light blue (12.5%). Very few beads have other colors: two beads have a white glaze, and one bead has a yellow glaze. The faience beads completely lack decoration.

Glass beads

In addition to faience, glass was very common: 57 glass beads were found in early Iron Age Dor. This phenomenon may shed some light on the enigmatic 'dark era' in the glass industry, expressed as a drastic decline in the manufacturing and trade of

61 glass artifacts occurring at the beginning of the Iron Age (for example Spaer, 2001: 27; Aldred, 1978: 30). At Dor, however, glass, even in non-elite contexts, is one of the most common materials in the bead assemblage. The glass beads join other 'personal' glass objects found at Dor from the early Iron Age (Zorn and Brill, 2007), and underline the fact that glass objects were in continuous use through the end of the Late Bronze Age into the Iron Age. It may, of course, be suggested that these objects were 'heirlooms' from the Late Bronze Age. However, I think that due to the high percentage of these objects in the assemblage, their scattered distribution in the site (see below), and the varied manufacturing techniques attested in the assemblage, these beads were made and used during the early Iron Age. Glass beads are sometimes considered simple objects (unlike, for example, glass vessels), but the Dor beads testify to high skills and knowledge of glass production, reflected in the shaping techniques, such as in rod-formed or drawn beads, in the decorating techniques, such as trail decorations and eye decorations (simple and complex), and in size, such as in the case of the minuscule glass beads which are not very common and very difficult to made (Rosen, pers. comm.). A large group of extremely small ring glass black beads was found at Dor. This cluster raises several questions regarding bead production and role. If the beads cannot be seen on the person who wears them, then they must have had another function. The value of the vitreous materials issue presented by scholars in the light of the Dor beads (see paragraph 7.1.1.5; Sherratt, 2008: 211) was re-estimated in the light of the Dor beads. There is a large number of faience beads at Dor, but they are relatively simple and have no decoration at all, while there are fewer glass beads (although more than stone beads), but these are made in various forms and bear complex decorations (noted also by Golani, 2009a). I think that this phenomenon testifies that glass was considered more valuable than faience.

Stone beads

Twenty-three stone beads were found at Dor, made from a wide range of minerals, carnelian predominating.

Alabaster (1) Hematite (1) 5% Lapis-lazuli (1) 22% 4% 4% Quartz (1) 4% Amethyst (1) 4% Limestone (1) 13% 4%4% Unidentified stone (1) Agate (2) Basalt (2) 9% 9% Jasper (2) 9% 9% Opal (2) Calcite (3) Carnelian (5)

Figure 7.2 presents the distribution of stones in the Dor bead assemblage.

Figure 7.2: Distribution of minerals of the Tel Dor stone beads

Carnelian beads are most common during the Iron Age for several reasons: stone beads cannot be reused (unlike metal beads), they survived for a longer period (unlike faience beads or glass beads), their red color is highly noticeable in excavation 63

(unlike for example limestone beads), and more importantly, they are easily identified by scholars. Other local minerals were used in the production of the Dor beads, such as quartz, limestone, basalt and calcite, as well as exotic ones, such as alabaster, hematite, lapis lazuli, amethyst, agate, jasper, opal and carnelian. The high percentage of imported materials (whether imported as raw materials or as beads) emphasizes the continuity in the trade between Dor and its neighbors (mainly Egypt, as also attested for example, by the large quantities of Egyptian jars and fish at the site).

Bone and ivory beads

At Dor, very few bone beads were found in comparison to other materials. In contrast, bone and ivory were commonly used for the production of relatively simple objects, such as spindle whorls and spatulas, and also for more elaborate objects, such as pyxis lids and figurative plaques (Ben Basat, in press). Also, it is clear that hippopotamus ivory was locally available (Raban-Gerstel et al., 2008). The discrepancy between the very common use of bone and ivory in mundane 'personal' objects and the lack of it in beads at Tel Dor may be caused by the excavation recovery techniques (when the sifting process is not systematic, small items such as bone beads might be missed), or may indicate a cultural choice of the inhabitants, which has yet to be explained. Platt (1978) noted a contradiction in the ratio between the Iron Age metal jewelry and bone jewelry found in different sites, and assumed that rich communities in which jewelry was made of precious metals (for example Beth She’an or Megiddo), would not use bone jewelry, as would 'poor' communities (Platt, 1978: 24; Hughes- Brock, 1999: 279). This assumption is not corroborated by the Dor assemblage, because most of the bone beads either have complex morphology (such as the mallet- shaped pendant), or complex incised decorations. The time and skills applied in the elaboration of such artifacts do not define them as 'cheap' artifacts.

Shell beads

More than any other material, the form of shell beads is dictated by their original shape. The perforation of shell beads is in most cases the only artificial modification made by the craftsman. After several experiments, Francis defined, in addition to

64 drilling, five methods used to perforate shells: gouging, scratching, sawing, grinding, and hammering (Francis, 1982: 713). The small number of shell beads (8 beads) in a coastal site is very surprising. Because of the ready availability of this material in the vicinity, the absence of shell beads has to be explained by cultural reasons (and not, for example, technological ones). Most of the shell beads at Tel Dor were drilled, with the exceptions of nos. 174073 and 182070, which were probably ground. Beads nos. 92274, 96917, and 98853 are broken at the perforation, and it is impossible to know whether they broke as a part of the bead manufacturing process, or during use.

Metal beads

Surprisingly, only three metal beads and one pendant were found at Dor: two gold beads, one silver bead, and one gold pendant. There is no doubting the popularity of silver among other metal objects in early Iron Age Phoenicia (Thompson, 2003), and specifically at Tel Dor (Stern, 2001), and therefore the absence of this material in the corpus (both at Dor as well as at other sites, see below) is surprising. Golani (2009) studied 180 silver beads dated to the 12th–4th centuries BCE, but did not present the distributions in the various periods comprising this long time span. The gold pendant, in the shape of a bull's head, is very elaborate (see below, Typology). Pendants of this kind are known from other Mediterranean sites, and especially from Cyprus. One of the best known examples is a pair of earrings found in a grave at Enkomi, dated to the 13th century BCE (Karageorghis, 1991: plate 35).

Clay beads

Only one clay bead was found at Dor. The lack of clay beads at Dor, as well as in other Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age sites, is still unexplained. Clay was a common material, used in the creation of a wide range of everyday and cultic objects. Unlike other materials, such as stone or shell, clay beads can be decorated in many ways: incised, painted, glazed or burnished. The choice not to use clay beads is even more remarkable when noting the widespread use of other artificial materials, such as faience or glass.

Perforation types 65

The distribution of the perforation types of the Tel Dor beads, presented in , reflects the definite connection between the perforation type and the bead material. Stone is the only material for which several perforation methods were used.

Table 7.1: Distribution of perforation types of Tel Dor beads

Beck Type Stone Bone Shell Egg-shell Clay Metal Egyptian Blue Faience Glass I Double cone 8 II Drilled from both ends 2 2 III Single cone 9 3 3 IV Plain 1 5 4 1 4 61 49 V Chamfered 1 1 1 VIa Medium - large 2 1 1 5 3 VIb Extra large 1 VII Tubular 3 1 3 Unknown 2

7.1.2 Colors

The colors of the Tel Dor beads are presented in Table

Table 7.2: Distribution of colors of Tel Dor beads

Color Quantity % Black 44 25.7 White 20 11.7 Red 10 5.8 Blue 9 5.3 Light blue 9 5.3 Gold 3 1.8 Transparent 3 1.8 Brown 2 1.2 Gray 2 1.2 Yellow 2 1.2 Green 1 0.6

Orange 1 0.6 Purple 1 0.6 Not preserved 64 25.7 Total 171 100

The colors of most of the Tel Dor beads (64 out of 171) were not preserved. This group includes faience and glass beads. The predominant color among the Dor beads is black. However, 40 of these 44 glass beads are part of one assemblage, and therefore these data are biased. Ten beads are red. All of these ten beads are made of stone: carnelian, agate, or jasper. There are no red beads made of artificial materials such as faience or glass. Red faience beads are known from Egypt, and one red faience bead was found at Dor (dated to the Persian period). Nine beads are light blue, and all of them were made of glazed materials, faience, or glass. Nine beads are blue. This group consists of 8 Egyptian Blue beads, and one lapis lazuli bead.

7.1.3. Morphology

The typology of the early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age beads from Tel Dor is presented below. For every type there is a description, the equivalent Beck (1928) or Spaer (2001) type, the number of beads assigned to the type in the Dor corpus, and sub-types, if such were defined. The methods used in the creation of the present typology are explained in Chapter 3. The color of the beads, their preservation status, and technological aspects are discussed in paragraph 4.1.1.

7.1.3.1. Stone Beads and Pendants

Nine morphological types of stone beads are defined in the Dor corpus:

Type 1A. Disk stone bead

Type 1A.1. Disk stone bead is a disk bead with a round perimeter. It parallels Beck Type I.A.2.b. One bead of this type (no. 188322) was found at Dor. This bead is made of black basalt. It has a deep incision (Plate 1: Fig. 2) that might have been caused by the string. If indeed this incision was caused by a string, it may indicate that the bead was suspended as a single pendant, and not as a part of a necklace.

Type 1B. Globular stone bead

Type 1B. Globular stone bead is globular. Five beads of this type were found at Dor. No. 08D2-2794 is a spherical standard bead and parallels Beck Type I.C.1.a. The other four samples of Type 1B, a parallel to Beck Type 1.B.1.a. (nos. 177330, 197679, 27672 and 06D1-1280), are short, with a 'doughnut' shape. Despite their relative variability, all these forms are grouped under the same type, because it is not always clear whether the differences in length or smoothness are deliberate, or due to use or wear.

Type 1C. Standard truncated convex bicone stone bead

Type 1C. Standard truncated convex bicone stone bead is of standard length, with a round perimeter, and parallels Beck Type I.C.1.f. Three beads of this type (nos. 92386, 110603, and 04G0-0267) were found at Dor.

Type 1D. Long tubular stone bead

Type 1D. Long tubular stone bead is long, with a round transverse cross-section, and parallels Beck Type I.D.2.b. Two beads of this type (nos. 306224 and 178324) were found at Dor. No. 178324 is broken at both ends, and therefore it is not certain whether its ends were indeed perpendicular to its axis. Bead no. 306224 has two parallel darker stripes on each end of the bead. These marks might indicate the presence of metal caps.

Type 1E. Long oblate stone bead

Type 1E. Long oblate stone bead is long, thicker at the center and narrower at the edges. Type 1E differs from Type 1C in the length of its axis, and more importantly in its ends, which are pointed rather than truncated. Type 1E parallels Beck Type I.D.1.e. Three beads of this type (nos. 151577, 182711, and 151830.1) were found at Dor. The ratio between the diameter of the center and that of the ends of the bead varies: bead no. 151577 it is 3.5:1, and is thus more globular, and bead no. 182711 has a ratio of 2:1, and is thus more tubular.

Type 1F. Faceted stone bead.

Type 1F.1. Round faceted stone bead

Type 1F. Faceted stone bead This type is long and has a round perimeter. Its longitudinal and transverse sections, however, are 'flat', and the bead consists of four parallel facets. One bead of this type (no. 192513) was found at Dor. It is broken along its perforation, and only half of it was found. If the bead's original shape were symmetrical it would have been parallel to Beck Type XVI.D.1.a.

Type 1F.2. Elliptical stone bead with rectangular cross-section

Type 1F. This type is long and has an oval transverse cross-section and rectangular longitudinal cross-section. It parallels Beck Type II.C.2.b. Two beads of this type (nos. 191281 and 153516) were found at Dor.

Type 1G. Elongated stone pendants

Type 1G. Elongated stone pendants. Two beads of this type (nos. 197442 and 300021) were found at Dor.

Type 1H. Lotus seed pendant

Type 1H. Lotus seed pendant. This type parallels Beck Type B. Four beads of this type (nos. 98086, 153739, 181015, and 172340) were found at Dor:

7.1.3.2. Bone and ivory beads and pendants

Four morphological types of bone beads were defined in the corpus:

Type 2A. Cone bone bad

Type 2A. Cone bone bead. This is a short bead and parallels Beck Type I.B.1.c. Two beads of this type (nos. 198118 and 06D5-1045) were found at Dor. Both might in fact be spindle whorls (or small models of spindle whorls) because of their shape. However, their relatively small size and light weight support the assumption that they might be beads.

Type 2B. Bone barrel bead

Type 2B. Bone barrel bead. This type is an elongated barrel bead, with parallel incisions along the bead's circumference at both ends. One bead of this type (no. 98705) was found at Dor.

Type 2C. Long cylindrical bone bead

One bead (no. 173289) is Type 2C. This is a cylindrical bead paralleling Beck Type I.D.2.b. It has a decoration on both ends of the bead that covers almost a third of the bead with an incised net pattern.

Type 2D. Mallet-shaped ivory pendant

Type 2D. Mallet-shaped ivory pendant. This pendant, also named 'Gavel' (Platt, 1978: 24), is composed of two parts. The mallet handle includes the perforation of the pendant, and it is fitted into a small hole in the mallet head. One pendant of this type (no. 94500), of which the handle is broken at the point where it is attached to the head, was found at Dor.

7.1.3.3. Shell beads

Three morphological types of shell beads were defined in the corpus.

Type 3A. Conus shell bead. These beads are made of the spire of the Conus shell: their axis is very short, and therefore they are considered here as Disk beads. This type was produced in the ancient Near East starting in the Neolithic (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 9). Like the ring and dot motifs in bone pendants (see Platt, 1978), and the eye motifs in the glass beads (see Spaer, 2001), the spiral motif perforated at its center might be the representation of an eye. 72

Type 3A.1. Round Conus shell bead

Type 3A.1. Round Conus shell bead. is made by cutting the end of the shell spire and drilling a hole at its center. Two beads of this type (nos. 151326, and 96917) were found at Dor.

Type 3A.2. Rectangular Conus shell bead

Type 3A.2. Rectangular Conus shell bead. This type was probably made in the same way as Type 3A.1, but it requires another production phase in which the bead is cut into a rectangular shape. One bead of this type (no. 98853) was found at Dor.

Type 3B. Perforated shell bead

Type 3B, Perforated shell bead is a shell with a ground or drilled perforation. This bead is made from a Nerita Sanguinolenta species, originating in the Red Sea (Bar- Yosef Mayer, 1999). Technologically, this bead is similar to bead Type 1A.2, in which the natural form of the raw material does not change, and only a perforation is made. For shells that are naturally perforated it is not always certain whether they were used

73 as beads. Four beads of this type were found at Dor. Three (nos. 110331, 06D5-1080, and 09D2-9036) are drilled, and one (no. 182070) is ground.

Type 3C. Perforated Operculum

Type 3C, Perforated Operculum is an operculum, probably drilled (see discussion above). One bead (broken) of this type (no. 188184) was found at Dor.

7.1.3.4. Egg-shell bead

One morphological type of egg-shell bead was defined in the corpus:

Type 4A. Disk egg-shell bead

Type 4A. Disk egg-shell bead. The only egg-shell bead found at Dor is no. 187194. It was made of an ostrich (Struthio camelus syriacus) egg-shell, and has a simple disk shape.

7.1.3.5. Clay bead

One morphological type of clay bead was defined in the Dor corpus:

Type 5A. Incised round clay bead

Type 5A. Incised round clay bead. Only one clay bead (no. 09D2-6564) was found at Dor. It is a round bead of standard length with striations and small pierced dots, parallel to the bead's longitudinal axis, as well as dots near the ends.

7.1.3.6. Metal beads and pendants

Three morphological types of metal beads are defined in the Dor corpus:

Type 6A. Folded ring gold bead

Type 6A. Folded ring gold bead. This type is a short ring bead, made of short involute gold leaf. Two beads of this type (nos. 04G0-0260 and 194323) were found.

Type 6B. Folded cylindrical silver bead

Type 6B. Folded cylindrical silver bead. This type is a long bead, made of an involute silver leaf. The edges of the silver foil are folded at both ends of the bead. I assume that the center was smoothed. The ends of the bead were not worked, and might have been covered with a different material. One bead of this type (no. 91342) was found at Dor. 75

Type 6C. Bull's head gold pendant

Type 6C. Bull's head gold pendant. One gold pendant (no. 198157) was found at Dor. It is made of gold foil and shaped as a bull's head. This type is familiar from the West, mainly from Cyprus. Two earrings with very similar gold pendants were found in a 13th century grave at Enkomi (Karageorghis, 1991).

7.1.3.7. Egyptian Blue beads

Five morphological types of Egyptian Blue beads are defined in the corpus:

Type 7A. Incised globular Egyptian Blue bead

Type 7A. Incised globular Egyptian Blue bead. This type is of standard length. It is round with linear incisions all around it, parallel to the bead's axis. This type might be a simplification of the morphology of the 'Melon beads' described by Beck as group XXIII (Beck, 1928: 10), or the 'Ribbed beads' described by Spaer (2001: 67). One bead of this type (no. 171108) was found at Dor. Other than in Egyptian Blue, this type is known in faience, and rarely in bone and in clay (see above Type 5A.).

Type 7B. Biconical Egyptian Blue bead

Type 7B. Biconical Egyptian Blue bead is a short bead, parallel to Beck Type I.B.2.e. One bead of this type (no. 150790) was found.

Type 7C. Long cylindrical Egyptian Blue bead

Type 7C. Long cylindrical Egyptian Blue bead. This type has a round perimeter, and parallels Beck Type I.D.2.b. Two beads of this type (nos. 160075 and 110307) were found at Dor.

Type 7D. Long faceted Egyptian Blue bead

Type 7D. Long faceted Egyptian Blue bead. This type has a hexagonal perimeter, and parallels Beck Type XIII.C.2.b. Two beads of this type (nos. 178487 and 172353) were found at Dor.

Type 7E. Long segmented Egyptian Blue bead

Type 7E. Long segmented Egyptian Blue bead is a long bead, divided into three segments. This type parallels Beck Type A.I.a. Two beads of this type (nos. 183738 and 27689) were found at Dor, both with three segments.

7.1.3.8. Faience beads

Faience is the most common material among the Dor beads. Nevertheless, only two morphological types of faience beads are defined in the corpus:

Type 8A. Disk faience bead

Type 8A. Disk faience bead. This type has a round perimeter, and parallels Beck Type I.A.1.b. This type may be divided into two sub-types: Disk faience beads and Minuscule disk faience beads, which differ from each other only in their dimensions. Sixty-three disk faience beads were found at Dor: 08D5-7379, 180037, 184329, 184453, 186954, 186818, 190297 (a cluster of three beads), 190313, 04G0-0318.1/1, 04G0-0318.1/2, 04G0-0318.1/3, 04G0-0318.3, 06D5-1239, 07D5-1517.1, 07D5- 2058, 172338, and no. 04G0-0171, which is an assemblage of 44 beads. In addition to the 63 disk beads, one Minuscule disk faience bead (no. 07D2-0600) was found at Dor. The diameter of the bead is 2.47 mm.

- Type 8B. Long segmented faience bead

Type 8B. Long segmented faience bead has a round perimeter, and is in six segments. It parallels Beck Type A.I.a. One bead of this type (no. 07D2-0470) was found at Dor.

7.1.3.9. Glass beads

Eleven morphological types of faience beads were defined in the corpus.

Type 9A. Disk glass bead

Type 9A. Disk glass bead. This type parallels Beck Type I.A.2.b. Forty beads of this type were found at Dor (nos. 04G0-0167, 04G0-0282, 04G0-0312, 04G0-0318.2 (three beads), and 04G0-0320 – 34 complete beads and many bead fragments). All the beads of this type are minuscule, and their diameters range from 2 mm. to 3.37 mm.

Type 9B. Globular glass beads. This type (Beck Type I.C.1.a) is divided into three sub-types that differ in their decorations.

Type 9B.1. Simple globular glass bead

Type 9B.1. Simple globular glass bead. This type is of standard length, and parallels Beck Type I.C.1.a. Four beads of this type (nos. 151915, 172462, 183547 and 183998.1) were found at Dor.

Type 9B.2. Decorated globular glass bead

Type 9B.2. Decorated globular glass bead. This type is of standard length, and like the previous type it also parallels Beck Type I.C.1.a. Type 9B.2 differs from Type 9B.1 in its decorations: it has a trail decoration (see further information on this decoration in paragraph 4.1.1.9). In some beads at Dor, the beads have another decoration, of a single trail alongside the twisted one. Three beads of this type (nos. 182065, 182149, and 187433) were found at Dor.

Type 9B.3. Globular glass Eye-bead

Type 9B.3. Globular glass Eye-bead beads differ in length, and therefore they can be paralleled to several of Beck's types. The common characteristic of all the beads of Type 9B.3 is the eye decoration (for a discussion regarding eye beads and the related terminology see paragraph 2.1.2). However, the decoration itself also varies. Three beads of Type 9B.3 were found at Dor: the only complete one is No. 182049, which includes two eyes composed of one layer. No. 182066 is broken, and includes only one eye of one layer. No. 177665 is a bead fragment, and includes six eyes of two layers.

Type 9C. Standard Biconical glass bead

Type 9C. Standard Biconical glass bead. This type is of standard length, and parallels Beck Type I. C.1.e. One bead of this type (no. 07D5-1356) was found at Dor.

Type 9D. Long glass bead.

No image Type 9D.1. Simple Long glass bead

Type 9D.1. Simple long glass bead. This type has a round perimeter, and parallels Beck Type I.C.2.b. One bead of this type (no. 151830.2) was found.

Type 9D.2 Decorated long glass bead

Type 9D.2 Decorated long glass bead. This type has a round perimeter, and parallels Beck Type I.C.2.b. However, it differs from Type 9D.1 in its decoration – a trail decoration diagonal to the axis of the bead. There is only one bead of Type 9D.2 – (no. 183998.2).

Type 9E. Long biconical glass bead.

Type 9E.1. Simple long biconical glass bead

Type 9E.1. Simple long biconical glass bead. This type is long, pointed at both ends, and parallels Beck Type I.D.2.e. One bead of this type (no. 08D5-5265) was found at Dor.

Type 9E.2. Decorated long biconical glass bead

Type 9E.2. Decorated long biconical gass bead. This type is also elongated and is similar to Beck Type I.D.2.e. One bead of this type (no. 184327) was found at Dor. It has a 'trail decoration' made of two or more twisted canes (Spaer, 2001: 53) (Figure 3.7).

Type 9F. Segmented glass bead

Type 9F. Segmented glass bead. This type has a round perimeter and three segments. It parallels Beck Type XVII.A.I.a. One bead of this type (no. 04G0-0336) was found at Dor. Morphologically, this type is similar to Type 7E. However, Type 7E is faience and Type 9G is glass. Due to the similarity between the bead's minuscule diameter 82

(1.5 mm) and the diameter of ring beads of Type 9A, this 'bead' may in fact be a phase in their manufacturing process and not a final product (Rosen, pers. comm.). For further discussion see paragraph 4.1.1.9.

Type 9G. Flat glass eye bead

Type 9G. Flat glass eye bead. This type has an oval perimeter, and parallels Beck Type XVI.C.1.a. and Spaer's 'Flattened eye bead' (Spaer, 2001: 88). One broken bead of this type (no. 186953) was found at Dor. It has an eye decoration on one side, composed of two layers.

7.1.3.10. Discussion

Forty bead types are defined in the Dor assemblage. The two most common types are Type 8A, Disk faience bead (64 beads) and Type 8A, Disk glass bead (40 beads). The bead types can be divided into two groups: of simple geometric morphology, and complex morphology. Sixteen types have a simple geometric morphology: Type 1a. Disk stone bead, Type 1b; Globular stone bead, Type 1d; Long tubular stone bead, Type 1g; Elongated stone pendants, Type 2c; Long cylindrical bone bead, Type 3b; Perforated shell bead, Type 3c; Perforated operculum, Type 4a; Disk egg-shell bead, Type 6a; Folded ring gold bead, Type 6b; Folded cylindrical silver bead, Type 7b; Biconical Egyptian Blue bead, Type 7c; Long cylindrical Egyptian Blue bead, Type 8a; Disk faience bead, Type 9a; Disk glass bead, Type 9b.1; Simple globular glass bead, Type 9c; Standard biconical glass bead; and Type 9d.1; Simple long glass bead. The other 24 defined types have a more complex geometric shape or decorations: Type 1c; Standard truncated convex bicone stone bead; Type 1e; Long oblate stone bead, Type 1f.1; Round faceted stone bead, Type 1f.2; Elliptical stone bead with rectangular section, Type 1h; Lotus seed pendant, Type 2a; Cone bone bead, Type 2b; Bone barrel bead, Type 2d; Mallet-shaped ivory pendant, Type 3a.1; 83

Round Conus shell bead, Type 3a.2; Rectangular Conus shell bead, Type 5a; Incised round clay bead, Type 6c; Bull's head gold pendant, Type 7a; Incised globular Egyptian Blue bead, Type 7d; Long faceted Egyptian Blue bead, Type 7e; Long segmented Egyptian Blue bead, Type 8b; Long segmented faience bead, Type 9b.2; Decorated globular glass bead, Type 9b.3; Globular glass eye-bead, Type 9d.2; Decorated long glass bead, Type 9e.1; Simple long biconical glass bead, Type 9e.2; Decorated long biconical glass bead, Type 9f; Segmented glass bead and Type 9g; Flat glass eye bead. Examination of the bead morphology and material reveals several interesting phenomena. Most of the stone beads generally have a simple morphology; however, their esthetic value is high, due to the color variability of the different minerals. Nevertheless, one pendant has a unique morphology: Type 1H. Lotus seed pendant, is referred to in other publications as 'Poppy Seed Pendant' (McGovern, 1985: 47), and occurs in two varieties: flat backed (for example at Tel Rehov, dated to the Iron Age IIA, unpublished) or rounded (for example at Tell el Far‘ah South, dated to the 13th– 12th centuries BCE, Starkey and Harding 1932: pl. 72:50). The Lotus Seed Pendant was usually made of carnelian or other red stone (Golani, 2009a: 94; for example agate) but it was also made from other materials, such as faience, glass, gold, and ivory (Golani, 2009a: 166). It is not clear why this pendant is termed the 'Lotus Seed Pendant'. It seems that since 1985, when McGovern published it under this title, claiming that "the current consensus is that of a lotus seed vessel rather than a poppy head, lotus bud, pomegranate, or thistle head" (McGovern, 1985: 47), only a few scholars have addressed this issue. The resemblance of this pendant to the lotus seed vessel (or capsule), as well as to the poppy capsule, is indeed close, but another parameter should be considered: the color of the pendant. All four pendants from Dor are red (for further discussion regarding the color of these pendants see paragraph 8.2.13). Therefore, undoubtedly, the red color was significant in these pendants. I assume that the red color represents the red poppy petals, and therefore this pendant should be named Poppy pod pendant. Nevertheless, in this thesis the title Lotus seed pendant is retained to maintain uniformity in the terminology. The bone beads at Dor have a general simple shape, but they were defined as 'complex', due to their incised decorations. One ivory pendant is especially elaborate:

84 the Type 2D, Mallet-shaped ivory pendant was made of two different ivory pieces joined together. This type is familiar from other sites (see paragraph 7.2), and definitely had some symbolic meaning. The shell beads found at Dor are considered elaborate, in that their original characteristics result in a complex morphology, and they are decorated. The metallic beads that were probably expensive, are very small, hardly visible, and other than one complex gold pendant, are very simple. The beads in the most common material, faience, are of few morphological types, and most of them are very simple. As mentioned before, there is a very narrow range of colors of faience beads, and they are simple and lack decoration (see paragraph 7.1.1.5). Thus, it is possible to assume, and support previous suggestions, that faience beads were a cheap artificial substitution for beads that were made of more expensive materials (for example see paragraph 7.1.1.7.; Tite and Shortland, 2008: 57),. Unlike faience, the glass beads of Tel Dor exhibit a large variation of types and decorations that mark them as elaborate, and therefore possibly somewhat more valuable.

7.1.4. Contextual analysis

The last subject to be discussed regarding the Dor corpus is the contextual analysis. The Dor beads were found in four different areas, G, B, D2, and D5 (Figure ). This is the first time in which a detailed contextual analysis has been made regarding beads, especially in 'simple', mostly domestic, urban contexts, and not in 'elite' or public structures or burials.

Figure 7.3: Tel Dor, topography and excavation areas

The architectural affinities of the different excavation areas at Tel Dor are important to this study because they represent the heterogeneous character of the contexts in which the beads were found. None of the beads from Tel Dor were found as a definite articulated ornament. In a stratified site such as Dor even beads found in proximity cannot usually be demonstrated to have been part of a single piece of beadwork, because of their small size and the high incidence of objects shifting due to depositional and post- depositional processes. However, several possible clusters of beads were identified, which may have belonged to the same piece of beadwork. During the writing of this thesis, Area G was being prepared for publication and therefore its description is the most detailed one. Area B is in the process of being prepared for publication, and thus significant information is available regarding the Area B phases. Area D (D2 and D5) is still being excavated. Much of the information noted below is taken from the Tel Dor expedition database and from personal communications with the excavation directors, and therefore lacks references. Only 86 beads that were found in loci that were attributed with certainty to a certain stratigraphic phase are included in this chapter.

7.1.4.1. Area G

Area G is located at the center of Tel Dor (Figure ), and offers the most complete stratigraphic sequence of the period under discussion. The phases relevant to the present study are G/11 to G/6a. In this area, the architecture is not of public nature as in Areas B and D, but is domestic (Gilboa et al., in press). Area G is characterized by continuous development throughout the early Iron Age, in which the material culture of one period emerges from the previous one (Gilboa et al., in press).

Phase G/11

Phase G/11 is the earliest phase in which beads were found, and is dated to the Late Bronze Age IIB. Phase G/11 is an open industrial area. The bottom of Phase G/11 consists of an accumulation of phytolith layers, above which multiple sequential layers of compacted sand, gravel, ash, mud-brick material, and fragments of tabun slope towards the south-west (Gilboa et al., in press). The only architectural evidence in this phase was found in Square AJ/32. The eastern end of a shell floor was found along three field-stone walls. This phase includes copper industry waste and rare pieces of iron. In this phase five beads were found (Table 7.3: Beads found in Phase G/11):

Table 7.3: Beads found in Phase G/11

Sq. Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color no. no. no. Type 8A. Disk Faience 1 G/11a blue (light) AJ/33 L18340 184329 Bead 1 G/11 Type 9A. Disk Glass Bead white AJ/32 L18455 186818 Type 9G. Flat Glass Eye 1 G/11 yellow AI/32 L18494 186953 Bead Type 8A. Disk Faience not 1 G/11 AI/32 L18494 186954 Bead preserved AI- Type 4A. Disk Egg-shell 1 G/11 white AJ/32- L18513 187194 Bead 33

Note that two beads were found together in L18494: nos. 186953 and 186954.

Phase G/10

There is a temporal gap between Phase G/11 and Phase G/10, the latter attributed to early Ir1a. Nevertheless, there is a continuation in the metal industry in this area. This time, the activity was identified in the center of the excavation area that was interpreted as the courtyard of a building. Several installations and numerous metallurgical artifacts found in situ documented the metallurgical workshop (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Artist’s view of the bronze-working area and activities in the courtyard of Phase G/10c (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 20)

The main feature excavated in the later strata of phase G/10 (G/10b–a) is a courtyard with rooms to its north, west, and south (Figure ).

Figure 7.5: Plan of Phase G/10 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 15)

Five beads were found in loci attributed to Phase G/10 (Table 7.4: Beads found in Phase G/10.4).

Table 7.4: Beads found in Phase G/10

Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color Sq. no. no. no. G/10c Type 7E. Long 1 / Segmented Egyptian Blue blue AI/32-33 L18313 183738. 10b? Bead Type 9E.2. Decorated not 1 G/10c Long Biconical Glass AI/32 L18345 184327 preserved Bead Type 9B.1. Simple not 1 G/10b AI/32 L18289 183547 Globular Glass Bead preserved Type 9B.1. Simple not 183998. 1 G/10b AI/31 L18316 Globular Glass Bead preserved 1 Type 9D.2 Decorated not 183998. 1 G/10b AI/31 L18316 Long Glass Bead preserved 2

Beads 183998.1 and 183998.2 might be part of the same piece of beadwork. They are both made of glass that has the same preservation characteristics (metallic patina). Both were found in L18316, which was defined by the excavators as accumulation above floor in a room south of the courtyard. Bead 183547 was found in the same phase, but its context is not entirely clear. Its physical characteristics cannot be compared with those of the other two beads because bead 183547 is completely fragmented. Some of these beads are very elaborate, and were not expected to be

89 found in a manufacturing context. This is certainly not an 'elite' context; but does that mean that these beads were considered simple, everyday, or cheap?

Phase G/9

At the end of Phase G/10, the metallurgical industry stopped, and the architecture of the Area G building is now clearly a courtyard house (Figure , Gilboa et al., in press).

Figure 7.6: Plan of Phase G/9 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 44)

Phase G/9 is attributed to late Ir1a, and it is the best phase preserved, due to its violent destruction (Gilboa et al., in press). Most of the beads may be attributed to the same stratum as the previous one. This destruction layer is evidenced in other areas of Tel Dor. Most loci in this phase contained in situ finds, and several clusters of beads were found in this phase. The beads found in Phase G/9 are presented in Table 7.5: Beads found in Phase G/9:

Table 7.5: Beads found in Phase G/9

Sq. Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color no. no. no. L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9 Type 9A. Disk Glass Bead black AJ/33 004 0167

Type 8A. Disk Faience not L04G0- 04G0- 44 G/9 AJ/33 Bead preserved 004 0171 Type 6A. Folded ring L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9 gold AJ/33 Gold Bead 004 0260 Type 1C. Standard L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9 Truncated Convex Bicone black AJ/33 004 0267 Stone Bead Type 9F. Segmented L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9 black AJ/33 Glass Bead 004 0336 Type 1H. Lotus Seed 1 G/9 white AJ/33 L18067 181015.0 Pendant Type 9B.3. Globular not 1 G/9 AJ/32 L18242 182049.0 Glass Eye-Bead preserved Type 9B.2. Decorated not 1 G/9 AJ/32 L18242 182065.0 Globular Glass Bead preserved Type 9B.3. Globular not 1 G/9 AJ/32 L18242 182066.0 Glass Eye-Bead preserved Type 3B. Perforated Shell 1 G/9 white AJ/32 L18242 182070.0 Bead Type 9B.2. Decorated not 1 G/9 AJ/32 L18242 182149.0 Globular Glass Bead preserved

Beads from this phase were found in three specific rooms of the house of Phase G/9: Room 04G0-004, Room 18067, and Room 18242, located in the western and northern wings of the house. The other rooms did not produce any beads at all, and thus it seems that this spatial distribution is significant.

Room 04G0-004 was stone-paved, and above the pavement a thick layer of phytoliths had accumulated, with hardly any pottery. The presence of the phytoliths together with the absence of spherulites led the excavators to assume that this room was used for the storage of grain (Gilboa et al., in press: 104). It is not easy to explain the presence of 48 beads in such a context. It is possible that a person who worked in the assumed granary lost these beads in the grain. The excavators, conversely, assume that these beads originated in the collapse of the second floor. Beads nos. 182066, 182065, 182049, 182149, and 182070 were found in Room 18242, located at the south-west corner of the house. The excavation directors assumed that this section of the house had a second floor, because unlike in the other rooms (Room 18242, inter alia), part of the restored pottery was found above a mud brick collapse, and not on the floor itself. Originally, the beads found in Room 18242 led the excavators to believe that this was a 'feminine' section of the house (and therefore this is how it is represented in Figure 7.7: An artist's view of Phase G/9 house

(Gilboa et al., in press: Fig. 53). Finally they interpreted this part of the house as the 'men's lounge', due to the discovery of several (and unique as far as the entire Iron Age sequence at Dor is concerned) decorated serving vessels, game bones, game horns, flint implements, and evidence of flint knapping. If this assumption is correct, the nicely decorated glass beads (for example Plate 10: Fig. 9) may have been a part of a man's garment or adornment (further discussion following; Gilboa et al., in press: 103).

Figure 7.7: An artist's view of Phase G/9 house (Gilboa et al., in press: Fig. 53)

Bead no. 181015 was found in Room 18067, located to the east of Room 04G0- 004. This room is considered to be a food processing area, owing to the find of several dozen fish skeletons in this room (Gilboa et al., in press: 105) Forty-three additional beads were found in Area G between the phytolith layers, in Locus L04G0-013, which represents the makeup of the phytolith layers, and was attributed to Phase G/9/10??. Because of their vicinity to each other, and due to their similar morphology (they are all either tiny black glass beads, or large decorated glass beads), this group of beads may be part of a single piece of beadwork.

Table 7.6: Beads found in Phase G/9/10??

Sq. Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color Locus no. no. no. L04G0- 1 G/9/10?? Type 8A. Disk Faience Bead blue (light) AJ/33 04G0-0318.3 013 L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9/10?? Type 9A. Disk Glass Bead black AJ/33 013 0318.2/3 L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9/10?? Type 9A. Disk Glass Bead black AJ/33 013 0318.2/2 L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9/10?? Type 9A. Disk Glass Bead black AJ/33 013 0318.2/1 L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9/10?? Type 8A. Disk Faience Bead not preserved AJ/33 013 0318.1/3 L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9/10?? Type 8A. Disk Faience Bead not preserved AJ/33 013 0318.1/2 L04G0- 04G0- 1 G/9/10?? Type 8A. Disk Faience Bead not preserved A/32 013 0318.1/1 L04G0- 1 G/9/10?? Type 8A. Disk Glass Bead black AJ/32 04G0-0312 013 L04G0- 1 G/9/10?? Type 9A. Disk Glass Bead black AJ/32 04G0-0282 013 L04G0- 34 G/9/10?? Type 9A. Disk Glass Bead black AJ/33 04G0-0320 016

Phase G/8

Phase G/8 represents a transitional phase attributed to the Ir1a/b horizon (Figure 47.8; Gilboa et al., in press: 111). The building of Phase G/9 was rebuilt in Phase G/8 about 80cm above the previous floor levels. Some of the walls were rebuilt in exactly the same manner as before (especially in the northern area of the house), and other walls continued to be in use. The room in Sq. AJ/34 (Room no. 9903) is the one identified by the excavators as a cultic room, due to its (primary) context, which included among other vessels, a skyphos, votive bowls, decorated flasks, a decorated goblet, and a figural cut-out chalice. Because of these finds, among others, the excavators think that ceremonial activity of some sort went on in this room.

Figure 4: Plan of Phase G/8 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 54)

No bead clusters were found in Phase G/8. Six beads are attributed to Phase G/8 and G/8?:

Table 7.7: Beads found in Phase G/8

Sq. Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color no. no. no. 1 G/8c Type 1A. Disk Stone bead black AH/33 L18564 188322 Type 1E. Long oblate Stone 1 G/8a red AH/33 L18278 182711 Bead Type 9B.2. Decorated not 1 G/8?/9? AJ/33 L18919 187433 Globular Glass Bead preserved Type 3A.2. Rectangular 1 G/8?/7??/9?? white AJ/34 L9881 98853 Conus Shell Bead Type 2D. Mallet-Shaped 1 G/8 white AJ/32 L9525 94500 Ivory Pendant Type 3C. Perforated 1 G/8 white AH/33 L18563 188184 Operculum

Bead no. 188184 was found in Room 18563, which is located in the northern wing of the courtyard house. Bead no. 98853 was found in Locus L9881 in Room 9903 in the northern part of the building. Ivory pendant no. 94500 was found in Room 9525 on the southwest corner of the house. Due to the large size of the room (as big as the courtyard), the excavators 94 believe that it was an open space. Pendant no. 94500 is a Mallet-shaped pendant, similar to a pendant found in Ashdod, in the same locus as the famous Musician's stand (Golani and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 160). Despite the interesting possible connection between the two objects, it was not noted in the report. Only one bead was found in each of the other contexts. Because of the strong possibility that this was not their 'original' location they are not discussed here.

Phase G/7

Phase G/7 is similar to the overall characteristics of Phase 8 (Figure 7.9). In Phase G/7 the floor levels were raised by 10 cm, and it is attributed by the excavators to the period from Ir1b (sub-phases 7d-c) to the Ir1/2 transition (sub-phases 7b-a) (Gilboa et al., in press: 118). During this phase the plan of the house was changed, and the courtyard was divided by two walls into three parts.

Figure 7.9: Plan of Phase G/7 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 55)

Three beads were found in Phase G/7: none were found together.

Table 7.8: Beads found in Phase G/7

Sq. Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color no. no. no. AH- 1 G/7c Type 2B. Bone Barrel Bead white L9878 98705 AI/33

Type 1H. Lotus Seed 1 G/7? red AI/33 L9815 98086 Pendant 1 G/7 Type 8A. Disk Faience Bead blue (light) AI/32 W9728 180037

One bead (no. 98705) was found in Locus 9878, which is the floor (pavement) of Room 9300, the remaining courtyard. One bead (no. 98086) was found in fill L 9815, which is located above floor 9823 in the northern wing of the house of Phase G/7. The last bead which is attributed to Phase G/7 was found in mud-brick wall W9728, and thus could well be earlier than Phase G/7.

Phase G/6

Phase G/6 is attributed to the period spanning the Ir1/2 transition (Phase G/6b) to the Ir2a (Phase G/6a) (Figure ).

Figure 7.17: Plan of Phase G/6 (Gilboa et al., in press: fig. 59)

Some of the loci of this phase are not as 'clean' as those of the previous ones. The walls of Phase G/6 were (in most parts) re-established with slight modifications, and the floor level was raised by about 70 cm. (Gilboa et al., in press: 128). Three beads were found in Phase G/6 (

Table 7.9: Beads found in Phase G/6): 96

Table 7.9: Beads found in Phase G/6

Sq. Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color no. no. no. Type 3A.1. Round Conus 1 G/5/6a? white AI/33 L9709 96917 Shell Bead Type 6B. Folded Cylindrical 1 G/6 gray AJ/32 L9154 91342 Silver Bead Type 7C. Long Cylindrical 1 G/6b blue AG/33 L9986 160075 Egyptian Blue Bead

One bead (no.96917) was found in L9709, which is mud-brick debris below W9278. One bead (no. 91342) was found in L9154, which is a stratified accumulation above Floor 9154. The last bead attributed to Phase G/6 (no. 160075) was found in L9986, which is an unsealed fill surrounded by later (Persian) pits. Nevertheless, a 'clean' restorable pottery assemblage dated to the Iron Age was found.

7.1.4.2. Area B

Area B, located on the eastern fringes of the site (Figure 7.3), has 14 m of occupational strata spanning the Iron to Roman Ages. The phases relevant to this study are B/13 to B/8. The main architectural feature dated to Ir2a (attributed to Phase B/8) is an open street that crosses the area. On one side of the street, several walls were found, and on the other side was a domestic structure, nicknamed by the excavators 'Isabelle's house'. It is important to note that Area B was excavated relatively rapidly during the 1980's, and none of the loci were sifted. These excavation methods might explain the small quantity of beads found in this area.

Phase B/12

One bead is related to Phase B/12, which is attributed to Late Ir1a (Table .

Table 7.10: Beads found in Phase B/12

Sq. Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color no. no. no. Type 1C. Standard J/31- 1 B1/12 Truncated Convex Bicone white L11065 110603 32 Stone Bead

Bead no. 110603, was found in Locus 11065, part of a glacis that abutted the city wall. This context is not of a high value because it contained pottery of the Middle Bronze Age.

Phase B/8

As mentioned above, 'Isabelle's house' is the main feature of Phase B/8 (Figure ).

Figure 7.11: Plan of Phase B/8b

Three beads are related to Phase B/8 which is attributed to Ir2a.

Table 7.11: Beads found in Phase B/8

Sq. Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color no. no. no. Type 7E. Long Segmented 1 B/8c blue K/31 L2787 27689 Egyptian Blue Bead Type 1B. Globular Stone 1 B/8 red K/31 L2777 27672 Bead Type 7C. Long Cylindrical 1 B1/8b blue I/31 L11160 110307 Egyptian Blue Bead

Beads nos. 27689 and 27672, were found in Loci 2787 and 2777 respectively, both located west of the street, and are generally part of the same context, above the so-called 'white floor' here – a large open space. Bead no. 110307 was found in L11160, which denotes ash layers outside a tabun in "Isabelle's house".

7.1.4.3. Area D2

Area D2 is located on the southern perimeter of the mound, and contains extensive early Iron Age remains. In this area, bedrock was reached at a depth of 8.3 m. The early Iron Age occupational sequence in Area D/2 extends from Phase D2/15 to Phase D2/8b. During the period discussed here, several massive monumental stone and brick buildings (probably public) were exposed, among them one of the largest Iron Age public buildings in the southern Levant (named by the excavators the 'Bastion', Figure 7.12). Nine beads were found in Area D/2, from three different phases.

Figure 7.12: Artist's view of the 'bastion'

Phase D2/13

Phase D2/13 (Figure 7.13) ended in destruction. The burnt layer of this phase is parallel to that of Phase G/9 of the Ir1a horizon. One bead (no. 150790) is attributed to this phase.

Table 7.12: Bead found in Phase D2/13

Sq. Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color no. no. no. Type 7B. Biconical Egyptian 1 D2/13 blue AN/13 L15102 150790 Blue Bead

Figure 7.13: Plan of Phase D2/13

Phase D2/8b-c

It is important to note that no beads were found in 5 stratigraphic phases (D2/13-8) that were excavated over a relatively large area. This is might be due to the excavation methods, by which the dirt was not sifted. Between the monumental building and another domestic structure ('Benni's house') a large open area was revealed. In this area, two mud-brick platforms were identified in Phase 8, one above the other, and therefore the phase was divided into three sub-phases: 8a, 8b and 8c (center of Figure 7.13). An impressive collection of pottery was found in this context, and thus it is not surprising that in this phase a relatively large quantity of beads was found. Five beads were found in Phase D2/8 of the Ir1/2 horizon.

Table 7.13: Beads found in Phase D2/8c

100

Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color Sq. no. no. no. Type 7D. Long Faceted 1 D2/8b blue AL/AM12 L17224 172353.0 Egyptian Blue Bead blue AM- 1 D2/8b Type 8A. Disk Faience Bead L17224 172338.0 (light) AN/12 not 3 D2/8c Type 8A. Disk Faience Bead AM/13 L17333 190297.0 preserved not 1 D2/8c Type 8A. Disk Faience Bead AM/13 L17335 190313.0 preserved

Figure 7.14: Plan of Phase D2/8

7.1.4.4. Area D5

The main early Iron Age structure found in Area D5 is the 'Ir1a house' (see below). The relevant phases of this area are D5/12 and D5/11. Phase D5/12

Phase 12, apparently to be dated to early Ir1a, was assigned to the collapse below the Ir1 house (see below). This phase includes a few mud-brick walls and robber trenches (Figure ). One bead was found in Phase D5/12 (Table ).

Table 7.14: Bead found in Phase D2/12

101

Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color Sq. no. Locus no. no. 1 D5/12 Type 8A. Disk Faience Bead white AV/09 L08D5-633 08D5-7379

Bead no. 08D5-7379 was found in L08D5-633, which is a fill above a thick mud floor.

Figure 7.15: Plan of Phase D5/12

Phase D5/11

In Phase D5/11 the excavators exposed an Ir1a (late) house that was destroyed by fire. Most of the walls of this house were robbed, and the house was reconstructed according to the robber trenches. Most of the pottery vessels found in situ in this house were storage containers, which may indicate its function.

Table 7.15: Beads found in Phase D5/11

Sq. Locus Reg. Quantity Phase Type Color no. no. no. Type 9E.1. Simple Long L08D5- 1 D5/11 gray AV/9 08D5-5265 Biconical Glass Bead 605

102

Type 9C. Standard Biconical AV/8- L07D5- 1 D5/11 blue (light) 07D5-1356 Glass Bead 9 206

Bead no. 08D5-5265 was found in L08D5-605, which is one of the robber trenches of the Ir1a house. The material in these trenches clearly belongs to the house itself, as indicated by restorable pots in them – matching vessels found on the floors of the house.

7.1.4.5. Discussion

Of the 171 early Iron Age beads from Tel Dor, 122 were found in reliable loci. None of the beads were found on a skeleton, and therefore I assume that they were stored, lost, or dumped by their owners. The most important aim of a contextual analysis of this kind is to trace possible clusters of beads that might have originally belonged to the same item of beadwork. A few clusters were identified in Areas D5 and D2. Only one possible cluster of two beads was found in Area B, in L2777 (Type 7E. Long segmented Egyptian Blue bead) and L2787 (Type 1B. globular stone bead), which were defined as the same context. However, this may not be a cluster as the beads were not found close together. Other possible clusters were found in Area G. In Phase G/11 beads nos. 186953 (Type 9G. Flat glass eye bead) and 186954 (Type 8A. Disk faience bead) were found close together in L18494, which was defined by the excavators as an outdoor deposit. In Phase G/10 two beads (nos. 183998.1 and 183998.2) were found together: in L18316. It is interesting to note that inside bead no. 183998.2 another small glass bead can be seen (Plate 11: Figs. 15–17) (the small bead was not counted among the studied beads) and it must have been part of the same piece of beadwork. A large group of glass and faience beads was found in phase G/9/10?? in Loci L04G0-013 and L04G0-016, which are parts of the same phytolith layers one on top of the other. Between the phytoliths, 80 Disk glass beads (Type 9A) and 5 Disk faience beads (Type 8A) were found. The glass beads are extremely small (see above, Type 9A), found thanks to a systematic sifting process done in this area. Due to their close resemblance in their morphology, color and material, and their relative rarity, I think that they all belonged to the same item of beadwork.

103

Two other large clusters were identified in Area G, in Phase G/9 in the western wing of the courtyard house, and belong to the same context as L04G0-013 and L04G0-016 (above): one in L04G0-004 and the other in L18242. In L04G0-004 48 beads of various materials and types were found (Type 1C. Standard truncated convex bicone stone bead; Type 6A. Folded ring gold bead; Type 8A., Disk faience bead; Type 9A. Disk glass bead; and Type 9F. Segmented glass bead). In L18242 only shell and glass beads were found (Type 3B. Perforated shell bead; Type 9B.2. Decorated globular glass bead; Type 9B.2. Decorated globular glass bead; Type 9B.3. Globular glass eye-bead; and Type 9B.3. Globular glass eye- bead). Another fact that may support the possibility that this is a single piece of beadwork is that the decorations of the glass beads are very similar in their linear motifs. This cluster is especially interesting because of its context. The context of the Area G's courtyard is not 'rich' or 'royal', but nevertheless, high quality beads, made of valuable materials, were found in it. Furthermore, if it is indeed a 'men's lounge', then there is a possibility that this beadwork was worn by men. To conclude, several interesting contexts were defined at Dor. All of these are of 'simple' domestic, or even industrial, character, which raises further questions regarding the use of these objects. Thus, it may be said that the more information we have regarding the beads and their physical and contextual characteristics, the more complex is their interpretation. The common assumption according to which contexts that contain more than a few beads are recognized as belonging to 'the lady of the house' or 'the women's section' is imprecise. Further results of this study are based on the regional and temporal studies presented in the following chapters.

7.2. Comparative regional study

The evaluation of the Tel Dor bead assemblage cannot be completed without viewing its characteristics in the context of other assemblages from contemporary sites and those of the preceding LB IIB period. This comparative study is presented in the following chapters. For the comparative regional study 6,875 early Iron Age beads were studied from 31 sites from the following regions: 104

The Hula valley: Hazor (only one early Iron Age stratum was identified at Hazor). The northern valleys and Galilee: Tel Beth She’an (93 beads), Beth She’an coffin burials (36 beads), Tel Rehov (24 beads), Tel Rechesh (5 beads), Afula (2 beads), Tel Taanach (2 beads), Yoqne’am (5 beads), Tell Qiri (7 beads), Megiddo (740 beads), Megiddo burials (138 beads). The northern coastal plain: Tel Keisan (4 beads). The Sharon plain: Tel Zeror (39 beads). The central hill country and foothills: Tell el-Far‘ah (North) (33 beads), Bethel (9 beads), Shiloh (1 bead), Izbet Zartah (3 beads). Philistia and its borderss: Tell Qasile (812 beads), Aphek (4 beads), the cemetery of Azor (46 beads), Ashdod (431 beads), Gezer (38 beads), Tel Miqne-Ekron (209 beads), Tel Batash (7 beads), Beth Shemesh (2 beads), Tell es-Safi-Gath (18 beads), Tel Zippor (11 beads), Tell ‘Eton (100 beads), Lachish (10 beads), Tell el-Far‘ah (South) (4033 beads), and Tel Masos (2 beads). All the descriptive information regarding these beads is presented in Appendix B in the attached CD. Two large bead assemblages were not studied. Those of the cemetery of Akhziv were not studied because no beads were found that could be dated with certainty to the early Iron Age. Another large site with important early Iron Age strata that was not studied is Ashkelon. About 5,000 beads were found there, and they are currently being studied, which, unfortunately, prevents my incorporating them here. From the 33 assemblages studied, I chose 13 assemblages that had a sufficient number of beads and sufficient information on them, to study several phenomena, as follows: Tel Beth She’an, the northern cemetery of Beth She’an, Megiddo and the cemetery of Megiddo. These four sites were chosen to study the characteristics of the bead assemblages in the northern valleys, and to compare beads found in 'living' sites with those found in burial sites. Another aspect that was examined at Tel Beth She’an is the possible influence of the Egyptian presence on the bead assemblage. Tel el Far‘ah North was chosen to study the characteristics of the central hill region. Tell Qasile, Tel Miqne-Ekron, Ashdod, Tell ‘Eton and the cemetery of Azor were studied in order to understand the characteristics of the beads found in Philistia,

105 and to understand whether the bead assemblages in the sites in Philistia are similar to or different from beads found in sites outside this region. Within Philistia, Tell el Far‘ah South was studied for the insights this site may provide regarding beads that might be related to Egyptians or to Philistines. Furthermore, a large quantity (3,891) of beads was found in the cemetery and they were published recently in detail by Limmer (2007). The analysis regarding each site is presented in the tables below. First, a chart (7.16-7.46) that presents the distribution of materials in each site is presented, followed by a table (7.14-7.24) that presents the morphological description of the beads occurring in each site (presented in order of length). For beads that were studied from publications, the information presented in the database (Appendix B in the attached CD) was taken from the publication. When the information was insufficient, it was noted in the database as 'not specified'. For beads that were studied in the expeditions' store-rooms or IAA stores, the beads were seen by me and I gathered the information on them (mainly physical information: size, color, morphology). Contextual analysis was added only regarding sites that published enough information. No contextual analysis was done for most of the beads that were studied in the various stores because of insufficient information. Many of the studied beads (from publications) were not attributed to one stratum, but to a range of strata. Thus, comparison between the various chronological phases within the early Iron Age at each site is almost impossible.

7.2.1. Tel Beth She’an

Tel Beth She’an is located on the southern bank of the Harod stream, at the junction of two important roads: one from the Jezreel Valley in the west to the Gilead highlands in the east, and the second from north to south along the River Jordan (Mazar, 1993: 214). Beth-She’an was an important Egyptian center during the Late Bronze Age. Towards the end of the 13th century BCE. (Stratum VII) the residency of Beth-Shean was destroyed, and was then rebuilt in the 12th century BCE (as attested in Stratum VI, termed 'Lower VI' in earlier publications; Mazar, 1990: 298). After Stratum VI an Egyptian presence is no longer evident. For this study, beads were studied from two publications (and were not seen by me): James, 1966 and Golani, 2009b. In the excavation report relating to the Hebrew

106

University excavations at Beth She’an between 1989 and 1996 (Mazar, 2006) no early Iron Age beads were reported. Another group of 24 beads of the Iron Age strata of Beth She’an, excavated from 1921 to 1933, was studied from the publication of James (1966). Beads from Oren's publication of the Northern Cemetery of Beth She’an are discussed below. Beads from James' and McGovern's publication of the Late Bronze Age Egyptian levels (1993) are discussed in paragraph 7.3 dedicated to the Late Bronze Age beads. The most recent bead corpus was published by Golani (2009: 163) in the latest report of the Hebrew University Excavations at Tel Beth She’an (Panitz-Cohen et al., 2009). In this report Golani studied 135 jewelry items found in nine excavation seasons in Areas S and N, among which were 68 beads. Several of the Beth She’an beads were found in clusters (Golani, 2009b): Of special interest are the beads in L68703, including one carnelian pendant, one carnelian bead and one faience bead (Panitz-Cohen, 2009: 786). They were found alongside clay figurines, a bronze knife, a bronze chisel, a seal, a clay stopper and an upper grinding stone. This locus is a part of building SN, which is a large residence, in which many functions, such as cooking and living rooms, were identified. In its western area, building SN has two rooms, a large courtyard to their west, and a space to their east. L68703 is located in the building's 'eastern space', and it is the upper floor of the room that was covered by a burnt destruction layer. A group of pottery vessels described by the excavators as 'cultic' were also found in this room (Killebrew and Mazar, 2009: 160). L68703 may be attributed by its pottery either to Stratum S-3 ('Egyptian', LB/Ir, according to the terminology employed in this study) due to its stratigraphic position, or to S-2 ('post-Egyptian', Ir1a, according to the terminology employed in this study). A concentration of 18 beads and two pendants was found in L78711 next to a piece of gold foil in the shape of a ram's head (Panitz-Cohen, 2009: 634). This locus is located in building SL, which is located to the west of building SN. A north-South Street was uncovered between the two buildings (28848/28829). Building SL is a massive structure, of which only one large rectangular hall partially survives, cut through its north-west corner by a Byzantine pit (Killebrew and Mazar, 2009: 150). L78711 is defined as destruction debris, accumulated on Floor 78733, on which five

107 more beads were found. These loci were attributed to Stratum S-3a of the LB/Ir transition, the late phase of the Egyptian occupation. Eight carnelian beads were found in L10812 in building SJ, also attributed to Stratum S-3a. In this building grain storage, baking, and cooking facilities were identified (Killebrew and Mazar, 2009: 144). Two carnelian beads, one glass bead and one carnelian pendant were found on Floor 88866, together with three hoards of silver and other jewelry objects (Golani, 2009b: 612). This locus was attributed to Stratum S-4, LB/Ir, the early phase of the Egyptian occupation The distribution of materials among the Beth She’an beads is presented in Figure 7.16.

3.2% Stone (48) 19.4% Bone (3)

Shell (2) 51.6% Egyptian blue (1)

Faience (18) 19.4% Glass (18)

1.1% Unidentified (3) 2.2% 3.2%

Figure 7.16: Distribution of materials of Beth She’an beads

The most common material among the Beth She’an beads is stone. There are eight unidentified stones, one crystal, one steatite and one lapis lazuli. However, the most common stone of all is, like at other sites, carnelian. Thirty-six of the 47 stone beads are made of carnelian. Table 7.14 (below) presents the morphology of the beads found in Tel Beth She’an.

Table 7.16: Morphology of the beads at Tel Beth She’an

108

Morphological description Quantity Disk Ring Bead 5 Short Globular Bead 20 Short Biconical Bead 13 Short Eye Bead (Oblate) 1 Short Tubular Bead 1 Short Irregular Bead 1 Standard Globular Bead 4 Standard Melon Bead 1 Standard Biconical Bead 1 Standard Flat Square Bead 1 Long Biconical Bead 9 Long Irregular Bead 1 Long Melon Bead 1 Long Oblate Bead 2 Long Segmented Bead 6 Long Spacer Bead 1 Long Tubular Bead 8 Pendant Lotus Seed Pendant 12 Unidentified 5

Many of the beads have a simple morphology, for example, Short globular beads or Short biconical beads. Many Lotus seed vessel pendants were found at Tel Beth She’an (see further discussion below).

7.2.2. Beth She'an Northern Cemetery

The beads found in the Northern Cemetery of Beth She’an are discussed separately in order to compare the beads found on the site with beads found in funerary contexts. More beads, from Late Bronze Age contexts, are presented in the following chapter. The beads presented here were studied from the publication of Oren (1973). The Northern Cemetery of Beth She’an is located on the northern bank of the Harod stream (Mazar, 1993: 218). The cemetery was excavated for four seasons; in 1922, under the direction of Fisher; in 1926, under the direction of Rowe; and in 1930–1931, under the direction of FitzGerald. More than 200 tombs have been excavated, and the cemetery contained over 50 fragments of anthropoid coffins in the Egyptian style. 36 beads and pendants were found in the coffin burials in the Northern Cemetery. These objects were not seen by the author, and were studied based on Oren's report (1973). Early Iron Age coffins in which beads were found are Tomb 66 A–C, Tomb 90, and Tomb 219 A–B. 109

Tomb 66 A–C is a single tomb comprising three chambers. It is similar in plan to some tombs in Cemeteries 900 and 500 at Tell el-Far‘ah South (Oren, 1973: 10). Thirteen beads were found in this tomb. Tomb 90 was not well preserved, and many parts of it had collapsed. There are two ledges (A and B), and two square chambers (C and D) (Oren, 1973: 12). Four beads were found. Tomb 219 A–B is composed of two rock ledges originating from two Early Bronze Age chambers that were reused later for the coffin burials. The grave goods were scattered around the broken sarcophagus, and therefore it is impossible to determine the original positions of the beads for certain. Seventeen beads were found in Tomb 219 A–B. The distribution of materials in the Beth She’an Northern Cemetery beads is shown in Figure 7.17.

2.8%

19.4%

Stone (27) Shell (1) 2.8% Metal (7) Faience (1)

75.0%

Figure 7.17: Distribution of materials of Beth She’an coffin burial beads

In the Beth She’an coffin burials, as in Tel Beth She’an, stone is the most common material, of which 75% of the beads are made. The morphology of the beads in the Beth She’an coffin burials is presented in Table 5.15.

Table 7.17: Morphology of beads from Tel Beth She’an coffin burials

110

Morphological description Quantity Short Globular Bead 1 Short Melon Bead 1 Standard Globular Bead 3 Standard Melon Bead 1 Standard Biconical Bead 2 Long Globular Bead 5 Long Tubular Bead 1 Pendant Elongated 2 Lotus Seed Pendant 9 Pomegranate Pendant 1 Unidentified 3

The most common shape is the Lotus seed pendant (see further discussion below). The otherwise very common Disk bead was not found at all.

7.2.3. Megiddo

Several expeditions have conducted archaeological studies at Megiddo, since Schumacher first excavated there at the beginning of the 20th century (for a complete list of excavations and publications see Finkelstein et al., 2006: 1). The early Iron Age strata at Megiddo are characterized by a continuation of Canaanite material culture (Finkelstein et al., 2006: 849). The site in Stratum VIA (parallel to Dor Horizon Ir1b) was occupied by major domestic structures, with evidence of elite occupation (Finkelstein et al., 2006: 849). In this study, 735 early Iron Age beads from Megiddo were considered. Some are from the IAA stores, and others from publications (see Appendix B in the attached CD). Early Iron Age beads have been presented in very few excavation reports. In the first archaeological report published by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Megiddo I; Lamon and Shipton, 1939), dealing mainly with Iron Age strata, no early Iron Age beads were published at all. The Megiddo II report (Loud, 1948), deals with material from the Oriental Institute seasons of 1935–1939, mainly of the Bronze Age, but also from Stratum VI of the early Iron Age. In all, 614 beads were included in the present study from this publication (see Appendix B). Stratum VIIA (parallel to Dor Horizon LB|Ir): Two hundred forty-eight beads were found in Locus 3073, Area AA. This locus is located on the western wing of the 111 palace, and was defined by the excavators as the 'treasury room'. One hundred forty- eight stone beads (133 carnelian beads, and the rest unidentified), 54 gold beads, 44 faience beads and 2 glass beads were found in this locus (Loud, 1948: 29). This rich and large assemblage well represents the context in which it was found. One faience bead was found in Room 2089 in Area BB (Loud, 1948: Fig. 404). Stratum Va (parallel to Dor Horizon Ir2a): Eleven faience beads and 10 glass beads were found in Locus 2081 in Area AA, which was defined by the excavators as 'cultic' (Loud, 1948: 45), due to a large assemblage of pottery vessels, including offering stands, figurines, scarabs and seals, and a horned altar (Loud, 1948: 161). Stratum IVB (parallel to Dor Horizon Ir2a): one faience bead and one glass bead were found in Room 2054. This is one of four rooms of a monumental building (Loud, 1948: 46) located in a row south-west of the city gate (Loud, 1948: Fig. 389). No further early Iron Age beads (other than those already published in Megiddo II) were published in Megiddo 3 (Harrison, 2004), a re-study of Stratum VI. Megiddo III (Finkelstein et al., 2000) published material from the first seasons of the Tel Aviv University expedition (1992–1996). Sass published the 'small finds', among them 51 beads. In the present study 16 early Iron Age beads were studied from this publication. All the beads were discovered in Area K, located in the south-eastern part of Megiddo, close to the highest point of the tel (Lehmann et al., 2000: 123). Thirteen beads (out of 19) were found in Level K-3 (parallel to Dor Horizon Ir2a). The architecture of this level is modest in size and in character, and can probably be defined as 'domestic'. It was built from un-worked field stones, with floors of beaten earth (Lehmann, et al., 2000: 131). None of the beads found in this level were found in clusters, apart from one group of four beads (made of faience, Egyptian Blue, glass and stone) found in Room 96/K/54, attributed Level K-3A2 (Lehmann et al., 2000: 128). Level K-2 (parallel to Dor Horizon Ir2a), has the same modest structures, of field-stone walls and beaten earth floors. Another chapter in the Megiddo III report (Finkelstein et al., 2000) which is relevant to the present study was published by Bar-Yosef Mayer (2000: 478). She published 1,241 shells, of which 5 early Iron Age shells are perforated, and were included in this study.

112

Material from Tel Aviv University's 1998–2002 seasons was published in Megiddo IV (Finkelstein et al., 2006). As in the previous report, Sass and Cinamon published the 'small finds', among them 146 beads. Twelve beads from this publication were studied. Seven beads were found in Phase Level K-4 (parallel to Dor Horizon Ir1b). The main architectural structure in this phase is Building 00/K/10. This building has a large courtyard and nine surrounding rooms. The excavators of this building described it as an ordinary house, the residence of an extended family unit (Gadot and Yasur- Landau, 2006: 596). One (unidentified) stone bead, one faience bead and one glass bead were found in Room 98/K/77, in the northern corner of the building. One carnelian bead was found in Room 00/K/5 in the southern wing of the building. One stone and one glass bead were found outside, to the west of the building (Gadot et al., 2006: 93). This building is very similar to the courtyard house in Area G at Tel Dor (especially in Phase 9), and therefore a comparison between the beads found in the two structures is presented in the Discussion of this chapter. Three beads were found separately in Phase H-5 (parallel to Dor Horizon Ir2a), and two beads were found also separately as well in Phase K-5? (apparently parallel to Dor Horizon Ir1a). While studying the Megiddo beads I encountered some stratigraphic problems. Occasionally, baskets that were attributed in the Tel Aviv reports (Megiddo III and IV) to one of the above levels, also contained pottery from periods other than those in the LB/Ir – Ir2a range. In these cases the date of the level decided whether or not to study the bead. For example, a glass bead, no. 96/K/9/AR3 (Sass, 2000: 392) was associated with pottery dated to the Middle Bronze Age II, Late Bronze Age, and Iron Age II. Nevertheless, the bead was attributed to Level K-3, and was therefore included in this study. The information regarding the pottery associated with the bead studied here can be found in Appendix B in the column 'Pottery reading'; and information regarding the phase or level to which the bead was attributed can be found in Appendix B, in the column 'Phase/stratum'. I studied more beads found at Megiddo in the IAA storage facilities; 144 at the Rockefeller Museum, and 17 at IAA’s Beth Shemesh storage facility. Unfortunately, it was very difficult to compare the beads stored with the IAA with those in the

113 publications for several reasons. Some of the beads that were studied in the IAA storage were identified in the various reports, but not all of them, and vice versa, and many of the beads studied from the published reports could not be found in the IAA stores. It is thus important to emphasize that duplication in the Megiddo beads under study might have occurred; and some may have been registered in this study twice; once with the excavation registration number ('basket number'), and once with the IAA number. We had, however, no way of overcoming this problem. It was therefore decided to analyze the beads as follows: The analysis of the bead materials included all the studied beads, while the stratigraphic attributions and contexts included only beads studied from publications (only those that had a specific stratigraphic attribution). To sum up the Megiddo bead characteristics, three parameters were chosen: material, color and morphology. The distribution of materials of the Megiddo beads is as follows (Figure 7.18):

5.1%

10.3% Stone (538) Bone (1) 0.3% Shell (21) 8.6% Metal (64) 2.8% Egyptian blue (2) 72.7% 0.1% Faience (76) Glass (38)

Figure 7.18: Distribution of materials of Megiddo beads

The dominant material used in Megiddo beads was stone. Twenty-two stones have not been specified in the publications. There are two serpentine beads and 513 carnelian beads. Though carnelian beads have a significant representation in all the sites studied here, at Megiddo their distribution is especially high. 114

At Megiddo there was also a relatively high percentage of metal beads, all of gold. A group of 44 gold beads was found in the Palace of Phase VIIa, which may explain this high number. This is the only one of the sites examined that is not a burial site, and yielded such a quantity (64) of gold beads. The distribution of colors of the Megiddo beads is presented in Figure 7.19:

Light blue (1) 17% 9% Gray (1) Green (1) Blue (2) Black (7) White (23) Gold (64) Red (515) 70% Not specified (126)

Figure 7.19: Distribution of colors of Megiddo beads

The morphological descriptions of the beads studied from Megiddo are presented in Table 7.16.

Table 7.18: Morphological description of beads at Megiddo

Morphological description Quantity Disk Conus Shell (Round) Bead 1 Disk Cut Cowrie Bead 8 Disk Tubular Bead 58 Short Globular Bead 77 Short Eye Bead (Globular) 1 Short Oblate Bead 9 Short Biconical Bead 69 Short Tubular Bead 3 Short Segmented Bead 5 Short Irregular Bead 1 Standard Globular Bead 276 Standard Melon Bead 2 Standard Melon Bead (Double) 3

115

Standard Oblate Bead 1 Standard Biconical Bead 7 Standard Flat Oblate Bead 1 Standard Tubular Bead 20 Long Melon Bead 1 Long Oblate Bead 89 Long Biconical Bead 24 Long Perforated Shell Bead 7 Long Tubular Bead 36 Long Segmented Bead 8 Long Irregular Bead 2 Elongated Pedant 2 Lotus Seed Pendant 11 Unidentified 13

Due to the large quantity of beads studied there is a wide range of morphologies. The most common morphologies at Megiddo are simple geometric shapes, such as Standard globular, Short globular or Long oblate. However, special shapes and decorations, such as Eye bead and Melon bead were also found among the Megiddo beads.

7.2.4. Megiddo burials

As in the chapter regarding Beth She’an, here too it was decided to consider the beads found in tombs separately, in order to compare habitation and funerary contexts. The Megiddo Tombs, excavated from 1927 to 1932, were published by Guy and Engberg (1938). About 800 beads were found in these tombs (Guy and Engberg, 1938: 77), and 138 attributed to the Early Iron Age were studied here from their publication. Further chronological information was presented only regarding Tomb 39, which was attributed to Phase H-5 (parallel to Dor Horizon Ir2a). These beads originated in the following tombs: Tomb 37C2. Due to tectonic movements in the chamber of Tomb 37, much of the original location details are lost. Sixteen burials were identified in Cave 37. Only in Tomb 37C (burial 2) were 69 beads found. This burial contained an early Iron Age jar in which lay an infant, less than a year old (Guy and Engberg, 1938: 77). Tomb 39. The shaft of the tomb is a relic of the Middle Bronze Age. However, the tomb contained a fine group of Early Iron Age pottery, and was therefore assigned to Phase H-5 (Guy and Engberg, 1938: pl. 117). Many grave goods were found in Tomb 39: 11 scarabs (six with their metallic settings), four golden plaques, and 26 beads. 116

Tomb 62. This tomb contained an adult skeleton, placed with its head to the south- west (Guy and Engberg, 1938: 119). Forty-two beads were found in this tomb. The materials of the beads found in each tomb are presented in Figure 5.20.

60 Stone 50 Shell

40 Metal Egyptian blue 30 Faience 20 Glass 10

0 Tomb no. 39 Tomb no. 37C2 Tomb no. 62

Figure 7.20: Distribution of materials of Megiddo tomb beads

Each of the three tombs displays different frequencies of material. The general distribution of bead materials in all the Megiddo tombs is shown in Figure 5.21.

10.1%

29.7% Stone (41) Shell (1) Metal (11) Egyptian blue (1) 0.7% Faience (70) Glass (14) 50.7% 8.0% 0.7%

Figure 7.21: General distribution of materials of Megiddo tomb beads

117

The most common material of the Megiddo tomb beads (in contrast to the situation on the tel) is faience. However, 67 faience beads were found as a cluster in Tomb 37C2, and therefore might be part of the same item of beadwork, and thus these results may be skewed. It is interesting to note the relatively low number of metal beads compared to those found at Megiddo (on the tel itself). Very few shell beads and Egyptian Blue beads were found, and no bone or ivory beads in the Megiddo tombs. The morphologies occurring in the Megiddo tombs are presented in Table 7.19.

Table 7.19: Morphology of beads from the Megiddo tombs

Morphological description Quantity Disk Conus Shell Bead (Rectangular) 1 Disk Tubular 70 Short Globular 13 Short Biconical 7 Short Tubular 3 Standard Globular 6 Standard Oblate 1 Standard Tubular 1 Long Globular 1 Long Melon Bead 1 Long Oblate 26 Long Biconical 7 Long Flat Biconical 1

The most common shapes among the beads found in the Megiddo tombs are the Disk bead and the Long oblate bead.

7.2.5. Tell el-Far‘ah North

Tell el-Far‘ah North is located 11 km northeast of Shechem (de Vaux, 1993: 433). Iron Age remains were uncovered in all excavation areas on the tel. Five successive periods within the Iron Age were defined, VII a–e (Chambon, 1984: 439). Thirty- three beads were found in Stratum VIIb (parallel to Dor Horizons Ir1|2 and Ir2a), and were studied from Chambon's publication (1984). Despite the small number of beads, I decided to present them here, because of the generally small number of beads found in the entire central hill region.

118

One stone bead was found at Shiloh. It is a (partial) carnelian bead that was found in the Iron Age I building of Area C (Sass, 1993: 266). Three stone beads were found at Izbet Sartah (Finkelstein, 1983: 87). Nine beads were found at Bethel (one bone bead, one faience bead and seven stone beads). None of them were found together (Kelso and Albright, 1968: 85). The distribution of materials among the Tell el-Far‘ah North beads is shown in Figure 7.22.

12.1%

18.2% Stone (21) Bone (2) Clay (6)

63.6% Faience (4) 6.1%

Figure 7.22: Distribution of materials at Tell el-Far‘ah North

Most of the beads at Tell el-Far‘ah North were made of stone. Three beads are of limestone, seven of carnelian, two are amber, and one is agate. Most remarkable in Tell el-Far‘ah North and in the entire hill region is the absence of glass. Other materials that do not appear are metal, Egyptian Blue, and exotic materials, such as imported stones (other than amber and carnelian), and shells. One material which is not very common at the other sites, but present at Tell el-Far‘ah (North) in a relatively high percentage is clay, which may, of course could have been produced cheaply on site. The morphologies of the beads from Tell el-Far‘ah North are presented in Table 5.20:

Table 7.20: Morphology of beads from Tell el-Far‘ah North

119

Morphological description Quantity Disc Ring Bead 3 Disc Irregular Bead 1 Short Globular Bead 1 Short Biconical Bead 3 Short Tubular Bead 3 Standard Globular Bead 5 Standard Biconical Bead 1 Standard Faceted Bead 1 Long Oblate Bead 1 Long Biconical Bead 4 Long Faceted Bead 1 Long Tubular Bead 7 Long Segmented Bead 1 Long Irregular Bead 1

There is a relatively high number of morphologies at Tell el-Far‘ah north, most being simple and lacking decoration. All of the characteristics presented above underline the relatively poor material culture of the hill region, known from studies of other media (for example, pottery).

7.2.6. Tell Qasile

Tell Qasile is located on the northern bank of the River Yarkon, within the modern city of Tel Aviv (Dothan and Dunayevsky, 1993: 1204). Its early Iron Age strata (Strata XII-IX, parallel to Dor Horizons Ir1a (early) Ir2a), are considered to represent a Philistine settlement (Mazar, 1980), in Area C, of which a sequence of temples was excavated. The beads found at Tell Qasile were published in the report only in a general note. Therefore, the Tell Qasile beads (812 beads) were studied from the PhD dissertation of A. Mazar (1977), and were seen by me at the Eretz Israel Museum. Almost all the beads were found in cultic contexts. In Stratum XI, in Temple 200, 810 beads were found, and in Temple 300, one stone bead was found. Another stone bead was found on the tel. The distribution of the materials of the Tell Qasile beads is shown in Figure 7.23.

120

0.4%

Stone (3) Faience (809)

99.6%

Figure 7.23: Distribution of materials of Tell Qasile beads

Almost all of the beads (809 out of 812) are made of faience (the other three are of stone) and they are all Short tubular beads (longer than the common Disk beads; Table 7.21), and are all similar in shape and degree of conservation. All the faience beads and another stone bead were found in Locus 227, in Temple 200, which might indicate that the beads were all part of the same piece of beadwork. This fact should be remembered when comparing the distribution of the Tell Qasile materials with those at other sites. There is a large variety of colors in the faience beads of the piece of beadwork found in the Tell Qasile temple. Most of the beads are dark green, but there are red, yellow, pink, white, and a few black beads as well. Surprisingly, there are only seven turquoise faience beads in this item, although this is the most common color of early Iron Age faience beads (about 65%). The majority of the beads are well preserved, and their glaze is still intact.

Table 7.21: Morphology of beads from Tell Qasile

Morphological description Quantity Standard Biconical 2 Short Tubular 810

The lack of metal beads and the small quantity of stone beads is very surprising. Considering the 809 faience beads as one item of beadwork, the small number of beads in the Tell Qasile temples is remarkable. 121

7.2.7. The cemetery of Azor

Tell Azor is located 6 km southeast of Jaffa, within what is considered, in the early Iron Age, to have been Philistine territory. The mound itself has not been excavated: however, several excavations took place in the large cemetery, located on the kurkar hills south and west of the tel (Perrot, 1993: 126): Perrot and M. Dothan (in the 1950s); Shapira, Gophna, Druks, Ovadiah and Broshi (in the 1960s); Ben Tor, Broshi, Negbi and Ayalon (in the 1970s); and Ayalon and Fani (in the 1980s), and lately Bushnino excavated the site. Not much of these excavations has been published. The strata defined in the Azor cemetery are dated as follows (Table 5.22; Ben Shlomo, 2008: 31):

Table 7.72: Azor cemetery strata

Stratum Period I Islamic II Iron Age IIB–C III Iron Age IIA IV Iron Age I V Iron Age I VI Late Bronze Age

Only beads attributed to Strata V, IV, and III are considered here. Two beads attributed to Stratum VI are presented in the following paragraph (7.3; bead corpora dated to the Late Bronze Age). In the Azor cemetery, a new cultural element (interpreted as Philistine) developed and matured alongside the previously existing local Canaanite culture in Stratum V (dated to the Iron Age I, which was attributed to the 12th–11th centuries BCE). The appearance of the classic Philistine Bichrome Ware was the most outstanding characteristic of these strata, prominently represented in the excavations (Golani, 2009c: 183), roughly Stratum V parallel to the Ir1a horizon at Dor. Six beads from Azor were examined by me in the IAA storage facilities. They all have one of two prefixes: 1958 or 1960, which might indicate the year of their discovery. Some of the beads studied in the IAA stores were identified in the report published by Golani (see below). Other beads studied in the IAA depots were not 122 identified in Golani's publication (2009c), and it is not certain whether these beads are included in his publication or not. Therefore, some duplication may have occurred. One IAA registration number appears three times in this study; 1960-518. In Golani's report, it refers to two different beads: one carnelian Disk bead and one brown-gray faience Short oblate circular bead. In the IAA storage rooms, however, it refers to a carnelian Lotus seed vessel pendant. All three beads are presented in the present study under the same IAA number. Eighty beads from Azor were published recently by Golani (2009c) who presents the finds from the 1958 and 1960 excavations by M. Dothan. Among the published beads, 46 early Iron Age beads were studied here. Tomb finds were: Tomb no. D15, dated to Iron Age I (Phase IV), one stone bead; Tomb no. D22, dated to Iron Age I (Phase IV), one faience bead; Tomb no. D25, dated to Iron Age I (Phase IV), one stone bead; Tomb no. D28, dated to Iron Age IIA (Phase III), two stone beads, 3 faience beads and one glass bead; Tomb no. D30, dated to Iron Age IIA (Phase III), three stone beads, one Egyptian Blue bead and two glass beads; Tomb no. D35, dated to Iron Age IIA (Phase III), four stone beads; Tomb no. D36, dated to Iron Age I (Phase IV), one faience bead; Tomb no. D56, dated to Iron Age I (Phase IV), two stone beads; Tomb no. D7, dated to Iron Age I (Phase IV), one faience bead; Tomb no. D78, dated to Iron Age I (Phase IV), one stone bead and one shell bead. The largest quantity of beads was found in Tomb no. D79, dated to Iron Age I (Phase IV): One stone bead, one bone bead, three Egyptian Blue beads, nine faience beads and one glass bead. Golani suggested attributing some of the beads from Tomb D79 to a complete necklace (see Appendix B), but it is not clear what criteria this is based on. Golani's publication does not supply information regarding the number of tombs at Azor that did not have jewelry at all. The distribution of materials of the Azor beads is presented in Figure 5.24.

123

10.9%

39.1% Stone (18) Bone (1) Shell (3) 32.6% Egyptian blue (4) Faience (15) Glass (5)

2.2% 8.7% 6.5%

Figure 7.24: Distribution of materials of the Azor beads

The two most common materials among Azor beads are stone and faience. Of the stone beads, the majority (11 beads out of 18) are made of carnelian, one is unidentified stone, two are malachite, two are limestone, one is serpentine and one is sard (Golani, 2009c). The faience beads at Azor are of various colors: four beads are brown, three are beige, two are light blue, two are green, one is gray, one is red, and one is yellow (the color of one bead has not been identified).

The Cemetery at Azor is the only burial site (with Megiddo, Beth She’an, and Tell el-Far‘ah south) where no metallic beads were found.

The morphology of the beads in Azor cemetery is presented in Table 7.23.

Table 7.23: Morphology of beads from the Azor tombs

Morphological description Quantity Disk Tubular Bead 1 Disk Conus Shell (Rectangular) Bead 1 Disk Flat Bead 3 Short Biconical Bead 1 Short Melon Bead 3 Short Oblate Bead 11 Standard Biconical Bead 1 Long Globular Bead 1 Long Melon Bead 1 Long Segmented Bead 4 Long Spacer Bead 1

124

Long Tubular Bead 13 Pendant Lotus Seed Pendant 1 Unidentified 4

The two most common morphologies in the cemetery of Azor are Short oblate and Long tubular.

7.2.8. Tel Miqne-Ekron

Tel Miqne is located east of Kibbutz Revadim in the Shephela, and is identified with biblical Ekron, one of the five cities of the Philistines. Fourteen seasons of excavation were conducted during the years 1981–1996 under the direction of T. Dothan and Gitin, resulting in very large exposures of early Iron Age levels (Dothan and Gitin, 1993: 1052). Early Iron Age beads have been published in two reports. Thirteen early Iron Age beads were published from the excavations of Field INE/SE in 1984 (Killebrew, 1986). Another seven beads were published in the report of the excavations of Field INE during the seasons 1995–1996 (Meehl et al., 2006). These beads were published among other various 'selected objects' (Ben Shlomo and Golani, 2006). The most recent publication, which includes 180 early Iron Age beads, was by Golani (forthcoming). It is possible that some of these beads had been published previously, and therefore this information appears in this study twice. No early Iron Age beads from Miqne were found in the IAA storage. In total, 200 Early Iron Age beads from Tel Miqne-Ekron were analyzed. No contextual analysis could be performed on the Tel Miqne beads due to insufficient published information. The distribution of materials of the Tel Miqne beads is presented in Figure 7.25.

125

2.9% 16.7% Stone (35) 16.7% Bone (8) 3.8% Shell (46) Clay (3) Metal (1) 22.0% Egyptian blue (3) Faience (72) Glass (35) 34.4% 1.4% Unidentified (6) 1.4% 0.5%

Figure 7.25: Distribution of materials of the Tel Miqne beads

Almost all of the materials from which beads were made in the early Iron Age are present in this assemblage (missing is wood, which appears only in the tombs of Tell el-Far‘ah South). Only one metal (gold) bead was found at Miqne. The most common materials at the site are faience, shell and glass. The morphological characteristics of the Tel Miqne beads are presented in Table 7.24.

Table 7.24: Morphology of beads from Tel Miqne

Morphological description Quantity Disk Conus Shell Bead 36 Disk Conus Shell (Rectangular) Bead 3 Disk Flat Bead 45 Disk Ring Bead 1 Disk Tubular Bead 2 Short Biconical Bead 2 Short Convex Biconical Bead 1 Short Oblate Bead 24 Short Oblate Circular Bead 1 Standard Globular Bead 3 Standard Eye Bead (Globular) 1 Long Biconical Bead 19 Long Segmented Bead 3 Long Oblate Bead 1 Long Spacer Bead 5 Long Tubular Bead 28 126

Pendant Lotus Seed Pendant 11 Pendant Mallet-Shaped Bead 1 Unidentified 22

The most common morphologies among the Tel Miqne-Eqron beads are the Flat disk bead, Short oblate bead, and Long tubular bead. Surprisingly, a relatively large group (36) of Conus shell beads was found, 22 of which were found together (Golani, forthcoming), and might be part of the same item of beadwork.

7.2.9. Ashdod

Tel Ashdod was excavated by M. Dothan between 1968 and 1969; unearthing extensive early Iron Age remains. For the present analysis, 24 beads were studied in the IAA depots, and 405 beads and pendants were studied based on the publication of Golani and Ben Shlomo (2005). These beads were discovered during 1968–1969 in Strata XIII–X of Areas H and K. No early Iron Age beads were reported in any other publication of Ashdod. Nevertheless, the detailed publication of Ashdod enabled us to examine the finds according to their stratigraphic attribution, and to analyze them contextually. The distribution of the beads in the different strata is shown in Figure 7.26.

100% 90% Glass 80% Faience 70% Egyptian blue 60% Metal 50% Clay 40% Egg shell 30% Shell 20% Bone 10% 0% Stone X X-XI XI XII XIIb

Figure 7.26: Distribution of beads by materials in the Ashdod strata

Stratum XIII is the earliest stratum exposed in Area H at Ashdod, and represents the LB/Ir transition, Iron Age IA in the terminology used by the excavators (Ben 127

Shlomo, 2005: 9). This stratum marks the earliest Philistine occupation level, and contains local Monochrome Myc. IIIC pottery (Mazar and Ben Shlomo, 2005: 13). Ashdod in this period was a well-planned city with a paved East-West street. Fourteen beads were found in Stratum XIII (Figure 7.26). Very few changes occurred in the city plan in Area H in the transition between Stratum XIII and Stratum XII (Mazar and Ben Shlomo, 2005: 20). In the inner plans of the buildings, however, major changes took place. It is important to note that unlike Stratum XIII, floor levels of Stratum XII were reached, which might explain the large quantity of beads found in it (see Figure 7.26). In particular, 325 beads were found in Building 5337. Two beads were found in L5329 and 3 beads in L5337 (which are both kurkar floors) in the main hall of this building. Four beads were found in Room 5318, 27 beads in Room 5332, and 292 in Room 5312. Building 5337 is considered by Mazar and Ben Shlomo to be a typical Philistine house, and the beads in Room 5312 alongside other unusual finds led them to think that this was the treasury of Building 5337, or the chamber of the 'lady of the house' (Mazar and Ben Shlomo, 2005: 30). The general plan of the urban area was also maintained in Stratum XI. The main East-West street was retained alongside the buildings to its north and south. Stratum XI was divided by Mazar and Ben Shlomo into two constructional phases: XIb and XIa (Mazar and Ben Shlomo, 2005: 30). In Stratum XI, 39 beads were found. In Building 5184 of Phase XIb, 29 beads and one pendant were found in Room 5170b. Another large group of beads was found in the subsequent phase (XIa) of the same building: Three beads were found in Locus 5315, two beads in Locus 5324 and one bead in Locus 5304, all concentrated in the northern area of the building (Mazar and Ben Shlomo, 2005: 35). Only two beads were found in Stratum X in Area H. One faience bead was found in Locus 5338, and assigned to a human (probably a male) burial. The other object that was found in Stratum X was a Mallet-shaped pendant that was found in the same locus as the musician's stand (5361). For a discussion of this type of pendant see paragraph 7.1.3.2. The distribution of materials of the Ashdod, Area H beads (all early Iron Age strata combined) is shown in Figure 7.27.

128

3.9% 21.6% 7.2% 0.9% Stone (17) Bone (1) Shell (31) Egg shell (4) Egyptian blue (1) Faience (284) Glass (93) 65.9%

Figure 7.27: Distribution of materials of the Ashdod beads

Of the 26 shell beads, 23 were found in one assemblage, and may be part of the same piece of beadwork, and therefore these data may be misleading. The other three are Conus disk whorl beads, two round and one rectangular. The morphologies defined in the Ashdod beads are presented in Table 7.23.

Table 7.25: Morphology of beads from Ashdod

Morphological description Quantity Disk Tubular Bead 268 Disk Melon Bead 2 Disk Cut Cowrie Bead 1 Disk Conus Shell (Rectangular) Bead 1 Disk Conus Shell (Round) Bead 2 Short Globular Bead 71 Short Biconical Bead 3 Standard Globular Bead 7 Standard Irregular Bead 1 Standard Melon Bead 1 Long Globular Bead 2 Long Tubular Bead 17 Long Biconical Bead 9 Long Cubical Bead 1 Long Eye Bead (Oblate) 13 Long Flat Circular Bead 1 Long Oblate Bead 4 Long Segmented Bead 1 Long Irregular Bead 1 Pendant Mallet-Shaped 1

129

Unidentified 24 The most common shape among the Ashdod beads is the Disk bead. Short globular beads are also common. A relatively large quantity of Long glass eye beads was also found (found together in L5312, see above). The Whorl beads from Ashdod have a significally larger perforation than the other Disk whorl beads I examined. The diameter of the hole in these beads varies between 1/3 and 1/2 of the diameter of the bead itself (for example Figure 7.28). In Whorl beads from other sites, the diameter of the perforation is only 1/5 (or less) of the diameter of the bead (for example Figure 7.29). However, like the other Whorl beads examined, the perforations are not drilled but broken.

Figure 7.28: Shell bead no. 151326 from Tel Dor Figure 7.29: Shell bead IAA no. 91-516 from Ashdod

The ostrich egg-shell bead is of the same type as the one found at Tel Dor (a Disk bead). As mentioned above (paragraph 4.1.2.4.), this is, obviously, the most common type made of ostrich egg-shell.

7.2.10. Tel ‘Eton tombs

Tel ‘Eton is located in the Shephela, south of modern Moshav Shekef, not far from Tel Lachish. The excavations of the tombs at Tel ‘Eton were published by Tsaferis (1982) and Ussishkin (1974). In some of them the material culture was attributed to the Philistines. One hundred Iron Age I beads from Tel ‘Eton were studied. All were found in the IAA storage facility at Beth Shemesh. One assemblage of beads that repeats itself in the Tel ‘Eton tombs beads consists of several Short globular (or biconical) carnelian beads, several Cut cowrie

130 shells, and one Flat rectangular black stone pendant. One group of beads of this kind is registered as no. 1969-68 in the IAA database. For lack of contextual information, it is not clear whether this group of beads was originally the same piece of beadwork. Figure 5.30 presents the distribution of materials of the Tel ‘Eton tombs beads.

2% 1% 6% 1%

14% Stone (75) Bone (1) Shell (14) 1% Egyptian blue (1) Faience (6) Glass (2)

75% Unidentified (1)

Figure 7.30: Distribution of materials of the Tel ‘Eton beads

Most of the beads from Tel ‘Eton are made of stone. In 21 beads the stone has not been identified. One stone was identified (by me) as agate, and the rest (53 beads) were identified as carnelian. No metal beads were found in the Tel ‘Eton assemblage. The artificial silicate materials too, both faience and glass, appear in a very low percentage compared the other sites. The shapes represented are listed in Table 5.04.

Table 7.26: Morphology of beads from Tel ‘Eton

Morphological description Quantity Disk Tubular Bead 3 Standard Globular 4 Standard Melon Bead 1 Short Biconical 9 Short Globular 11 Short Irregular 1 Short Oblate 1 Short Tubular 2 Pendant Elongated 3 Long Biconical 2

131

Long Globular 1 Long Oblate 3 Long Tubular 2 Disc Cut Cowrie 12 Disc Irregular 1 Disc Oblate 1 Unidentified 43

7.2.11. Tell el-Far‘ah South

Tell el-Far‘ah South is located 24 km south-east of Gaza. In the Late Bronze Age it was undoubtedly an Egyptian administrative center (Laemmel, 2003: 38). Its early Iron Age, known mainly (though not only) from tombs, is usually associated with the Philistines. The excavation relevant to our topic is the main excavation conducted at the site, by Petrie in 1928 and 1929. For the present research, 3,602 early Iron Age beads from 162 different tombs were studied based on a more recent publication. All the beads found in Petrie's excavations in the cemeteries of Tell el-Far‘ah were recently published in the PhD dissertation by Laemmel (2003). Only beads from early Iron Age tombs (dates determined by Laemmel) were included in the present study. Numbers of beads that were registered by Laemmel as "more than…" were counted in this study as the minimal possible number. For example, "more than three" were registered as three. Unknown bead quantities were treated as one. The following charts present selected tomb assemblages. The rest of the data are presented in Appendix B.

In Tomb 960 (Figure 7.31), dated to 1200–1150 4% 15% Stone (67) BCE, 19 beads were found. 2% Shell (9) This tomb is constructed from Faience (347) two chambers. It contained 10 Glass (17) skeletons, including 3 children. 79% Wood (1) This tomb is attributed by

Laemmel to the 'Egyptian Figure 7.31: Distribution of materials in Tomb 960 period' of the site.

132

The so-called Philistine

Tomb 532 (Figure 7.32), dated 1% to 1175–1100 BCE, is a 26% Stone (114) Shell (2) trapezoidal bench tomb with 9 1% Metal (42) burials (Laemmel, 2003: 69). 72% Glass (2) One of the burials was found undisturbed in the central depression. Funerary offerings Figure 7.32: Distribution of materials in Tomb 532 were found on the benches and around the bodies. Four clusters of beads were found threaded on strings: 1. Two Long tubular gold beads and one Standard biconical gold bead were found on a string about 12.2 cm long. 2. Seventeen Long tubular gold beads and 17 Standard tubular red (unidentified) stone beads were found on a string about 7.7 cm long. 3. One Disk Conus shell bead and 6 Standard globular red carnelian beads were found on string about 5.5 cm long. 4. Twenty-nine Standard globular red (unidentified) stone beads were found on a string about 7.0 cm long. Tomb 552 is a bench tomb, also attributed to the 2% Philistines, dated to 1175–1100 18% Stone (165) BCE. Only one skeleton was Metal (38) found in an anthropoid coffin Egyptian blue (3) (Laemmel, 2003: 73). Twenty 80% beads were found in Tomb 552 at the distribution described in Figure 7.33. Figure 7.77: Distribution of materials in Tomb 552

133

Tomb 562 is another 'Philistine' bench tomb dated to 1175–1100. No bone remains were found, only an anthropoid Stone coffin (Laemmel, 2003: 73). Eighteen stone beads were 100.0% found, distributed as

in Figure 7.34. Figure 7.7.: Distribution of materials in Tomb 562

One cluster of beads was found in Tomb 562: 1 long oblate red carnelian bead, one standard tubular red carnelian bead, 2 standard globular red carnelian beads, 4 short biconical red carnelian beads and 1 long oblate white limestone bead were found on string about 6.6 cm long. Tomb 643 is a shaft Stone (48) tomb, dated to 1150–1125 3% Shell (46) BCE, which contained probably 25% 30% Clay (21) one burial (Laemmel, 2003: 1% Metal (1) Table 4). 162 beads were 13% Faience (41) 28% found, of a varied range of Glass (5) materials (Figure 5.35).

Figure 7.35: Distribution of materials in Tomb 643

Tomb no. 542 is a bench tomb, attributed to the 4% 7% Stone (8) Philistines, dated to 1150–1100 Shell (92) BCE. Eleven skeletons were Clay (2) identified (Laemmel, 2003: 69). Faience (4) In all, 106 beads were found 87% (see distribution of material in

Figure 7.36). Figure 7.36: Distribution of materials in Tomb 542

134

In Tomb 542 one cluster of beads was found. One Disk tubular clay bead, 1 Long biconical faience bead, 1 Standard globular faience bead, 1 Long oblate shell bead, 40 Conus shell beads, 5 Cut cowrie shell beads, 1 Short biconical red carnelian bead, 2 Standard globular stone red carnelian beads and 1 Short globular brown flint (?) bead were found on a string about 24.1 cm long. Tomb 825 is a shaft tomb, dated to 1125–1075 Stone (67) BCE. One body was identified Shell (61) 47% 51% in this tomb. Altogether 130 Metal (2) beads were found, (see distribution of material in Figure 7.37). Figure 57: Distribution of materials in Tomb 825

Tomb 107 is a shaft tomb, dated to 1100–1050 8% BCE. One burial was identified Stone (19) 26% Shell (61) in this tomb. In all, 232 beads 66% Faience (152) were found (see distribution of material in Figure 7.38).

Figure 7.38 :Distribution of materials in Tomb 107

Tomb 534 is a shaft tomb, dated to 1075–900 BCE. 9% Stone (43) Eleven burials were identified 26% Bone (1) in this tomb, lying one on top Shell (2) of the other. 168 beads were Faience (106) found (see distribution of 63% Glass (16) material in Figure 7.39).

Figure 7.39: Distribution of materials in Tomb 534

135

Tomb 853 is a shaft tomb, dated to 1050-950 BCE. 1% 12% Stone (5) One burial was identified in 1% Shell (40) this tomb and 340 beads were Metal (2) found. (see distribution of 86% Faience (293) material in Figure 7.40).

Figure 7.40: Distribution of materials in Tomb 853

Tomb 540 is a shaft tomb, dated to 1050–900. One Stone (9) burial was identified in this Shell (2) tomb and 146 beads were found Faience (1) (see distribution of material in Glass (134) Figure 7.41).

Figure 7.41: Distribution of materials in Tomb 540

Tomb 506 is a shaft tomb, dated to 1050–1000. One Stone (184) 15% burial was identified in this Shell (33) tomb and 225 beads were found Metal (1) (see distribution of material in Faience (3) 82% Figure 7.42). Glass (4)

Figure 7.42: Distribution of materials in Tomb 506

Combining the above information, the distribution of materials in all the early Iron Age tombs in Tell el-Far‘ah south is as follows (Figure 721.).

136

Stone (1402) 5.9% Bone (14) Shell (633) 34.5% Clay (29) Metal (105) 40.1% Egyptian blue (3) Faience (1629) Glass (238) 15.6% Wood (3) Not specified (4) 2.6%

Figure 7.43: Distribution of materials of the Tell el-Far‘ah South beads

There are relatively high numbers of shell and clay beads at Tell el-Far‘ah South. Only at Tell el-Far‘ah South were wooden beads found. There are few glass and Egyptian Blue beads. This might be surprising because of the proximity (physically and culturally) to Egypt. The distribution of minerals of the Tell el-Far‘ah South beads is presented in Figure 5.22.

137

Calcite (1) Chalcedony (1) Serpentine (1) 8% Feldspar (2) Flint (2) 5% Rock crystal (13) Hematite (14) Jasper (28) Quartz (32) Agate (34) Granite (38)

73% Diorite (46) Limestone (68) Carnelian (1054) Unidentified stone (122)

Figure 7...: Distribution of stones of the Tell el-Far'ah South

As expected, the most common mineral of the Tell el-Far‘ah South beads is carnelian. Despite the vast variety of minerals presented here, other materials that were in use for bead production during the early Iron Age (see below), such as amethyst, lapis lazuli, malachite, opal, basalt, and sard, are missing. A relatively high percentage of shell beads was found at Tell el-Far‘ah South. The shell species identified are presented in Figure 5.45.

Unidentified shell (32)

37% Conus shell (248) Cowrie shell (396) 58% Nerita (2)

Figure 7.45: Distribution of shells of the Tell el-Far‘ah beads

138

The two most common shells among the Tell el-Far‘ah South beads are the Cowrie and the Conus. The distribution of metals in the Tell el-Far‘ah South beads is presented in Figure 7.46.

1% 24% Copper (1) Electrum (30)

57% Silver (23) 18% Gold (72)

Figure 7.46: Distribution of metals of the Tell el-Far‘ah beads

The most common metal is gold. Electrum beads and silver beads were also found in relatively large quantities. The morphologies of the Tell el-Far‘ah South beads are presented in Table 7.25

Table 7.27: Morphology of Tell el-Far'ah South beads Morphological description Quantity Disk ring 51 Disk tubular 556 Disk biconical 17 Disk Conus shell 248 Disk cut cowrie 394 Disk melon bead 3 Disk triangular 4 Short globular 607 Short melon bead 4 Short oblate 9 Short biconical 221 Short flat eight 3 Short irregular 1 Short perforated shell 1 Short tubular 125 Short segmented 3

139

Standard globular 629 Standard melon bead 10 Standard eye bead 13 Standard oblate 20 Standard biconical 89 Standard flat 1 Standard flat biconical 1 Standard flat circular 1 Standard irregular 1 Standard perforated shell 3 Standard tubular 71 Standard segmented 2 Long globular 56 Long melon bead 4 Long oblate 159 Long biconical 181 Long cubical 9 Long flat 1 Long flat biconical 3 Short flat eight 1 Short flat eight 1 Long flat oblate 1 Long flat rectangular 1 Long fossil shell 1 Long Horus eye 1 Long perforated shell 8 Long segmented 16 Long spacer 2 Long tubular 368 Long zoomorphic 1 not specified globular 4 Elongated pendant 55 Lotus seed vessel pendant 26 Pendant oblate 1 Not specified 42 There are various morphologies among Tell el-Far‘ah south beads, the simplest being the most common (highlighted in Table 7.25), as is known from other sites. These include Disk tubular beads, Standard globular beads, and long tubular beads. Nevertheless, there are a few bead types with a more complex morphology (underlined in Table 7.25) such as: Eye bead, Segmented bead or Lotus seed vessel pendant.

140

7.2.12. Discussion

In the following pages I discuss the results of the comparative regional study. First I summarize the characteristics of the early Iron Age beads resulting from this study. This analysis includes the sites mentioned in paragraphs 7.2.1. to 7.2.11, and further data not presented in the previous paragraphs, which but can be found in Appendix B: early Iron Age beads in the attached CD. Secondly, I emphasis the main characteristics, similarities and differences of the beads from the sites I focused on.

7.2.12.1. Materials

Summaries of the materials of all the early Iron Age beads examined in this research are presented in the charts below, from the most common to the least common. The distribution of materials in the early Iron Age beads in the region under study is presented in Figure 7.47.

Stone (2363) Bone (39) 7% Shell (802) Egg shell (6) 34% Clay (44) Metal (210) 42% Egyptian Blue (16) Faience (2877) Glass (483) 12% 3% Wood (3) Amber (2)

Figure 7.47: Distribution of materials of the early Iron Age beads in Canaan

Faience beads

Faience is the most common material of early Iron Age beads (42%). Most faience beads are green or light blue, but other faience beads in a wide scale of colors were studied here. The distribution of colors among the faience beads in the early Iron Age is presented in Figure 7.48.

141

Purple (1) Brown (6) 5% 6% Gray (33) Black (52) 7% Red (99) 52% Blue (108) 12% White (132) Light blue (241) 13% Yellow (246) Green (990)

Figure 7.48: Distribution of colors of faience beads

Stone beads

In all, 34% of the studied early Iron Age beads are made of stone. Figure 7.49 presents the distribution of the different types of stones among the early Iron Age beads. Despite the vast variety of stones in use in bead production, carnelian beads represent 84% of the stone beads. Some of the stones, such as basalt, limestone or quartz, may be found in the southern Levant, but others, such as lapis lazuli or amethyst, were brought from a distance, and may testify to ongoing long-distance trade between the southern Levant and its neighboring regions. Carnelian, which is the most common stone in use, and was found in almost every site, is found in Sinai and in the Eastern Desert of Egypt, as well as in Mesopotamia and the Indus valley. The import of carnelian pebbles (or beads), is another indication that commercial connections did not stop during the early Iron Age.

142

100%

Fossil (1) Chert (1) Amethyst (1) 95% Alabaster (1) Steatite (2) Flint (2) Feldspar (2) Opal (2) 90% Lapis lazuli (2) Calcedony (2) Basalt (2) Calcite (3) Malachite (4) Serpentine (5) 85% Rock crystal (15) Hematite (16) Quartz (34) Jasper (34) Granite (38) 80% Agate (42) Diorite (48) Limestone (81) Carnelian (1829)

75% Quantity

Figure 7.49: Distribution of minerals of early Iron Age beads

Contrary to some common notions (see Chapter 5), that the decline in international trade during the early Iron Age also involved contacts between the southern Levant and Egypt, the presence of these large numbers alongside beads made of other stones originating in these regions, such as carnelian, amethyst, alabaster, malachite, and many more, is significant for a re-evaluation of Egyptian

143 trade with the Levant in the early Iron Age. This information adds to the other evidence for these contacts which have been accumulating in recent years, such as the import of Egyptian fish and Egyptian jars with as yet unknown contents (Gadot and Yasur-Landau, 2006; Gilboa et al., in press).

Shell beads

Altogether, 12% of the studied beads are made of shells. Two species are very common; Cowrie (60%) and Conus shell (38%). All of the other seven species that were used in the bead production represent only 2% of the shell beads (see distribution of shell species in Figure 7.50).

Cypraea annulus (397)

Conus (252)

38% Nerita (4)

Glycymeris (2) 61% Dentalium (1)

Phalium (1)

Trochidae operculum (1)

Figure 6: Distribution of shells of early Iron Age beads

Shell beads, similarly to stone beads, may indicate trade connections; Cowrie shells and Nerita, for example, originate in the Red Sea (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1999). The extremely selective range of species occurs in the morphology of the shell beads as well (see below). It seems that, unlike beads made of other materials, such as stone or glass, which had wide variety of shapes, colors and decorations, shell beads were made in very few ways, from very few species, and in very few shapes. I think that this phenomenon indicates the importance (and perhaps symbolic meaning) these beads had in the society of the early Iron Age southern Levant.

144

Glass beads Only 8% of the studied beads were made of glass (n = 483). Still, these data are important due to the common assumption that the early Iron Age was a 'dark Age' for glass artifacts. Furthermore, the glass beads studied here testify to a wide variation of decorations, colors and manufacturing techniques that were common during the early Iron Age. Beads with trail decoration were found in Tel Miqne-Ekron (4), Tel Dor (3), the cemetery of Azor (1), Tel Rehov (1), Megiddo (1), Hazor (1), Tell el-Far‘ah South (1), and at Ashdod (1). Three beads with twisted trail decoration were found at Tel Dor and another one at Megiddo. One bead with feather-like decoration was found at Tell el-Far‘ah south and another at Tel Dor. Altogether, 34 eye beads were found: 13 at Tell el-Far‘ah South, 13 at Ashdod, 4 at Tel Dor, 3 at Megiddo, and 1 at Beth She’an. These finds suggests that glass beads were produced during this period, in Egypt and/or Canaan.

Metal beads

Only 3% of the documented beads were made of different metals. There is, however, a drastic difference between relative quantities in burial sites and 'living' contexts on the tels (see below). This low pecentage is surprising because it is conventionally held that precious metals were popular materials in jewelry production of this period (Golani, 2009a: 22). It might indeed be that metals were reserved only for the production of more complex jewelry pieces, such as complex pendants and earrings.

11% Copper alloy (2) 14% Silver (24) Electrum (30)

74% Gold (158)

Figure 71: Distribution of metals of early Iron Age beads

145

Most of the metallic beads (74%, n = 158, see Figure 7.51) were of gold. A large group of electrum beads was found in the cemetery of Tell el-Far‘ah South. Silver beads are quite rare, and represent only 11% of the metal beads. This, again, is surprising, since one of the phenomena that is usually believed to have taken place during the transition between the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age was a decrease in the quantity of gold objects and an increase in the quantity of silver objects (Golani, 2009a: 63). The extensive use of silver in the early Iron Age is also attested by the numerous silver hoards (not gold) found (Thompson, 2003). Figure 7.51, however, demonstrates that this phenomenon did not occur with the metal beads.

Clay beads

The lack of clay beads in most of the sites (other than at Tell el-Far‘ah North, where six clay beads were found, and Tell el-Far‘ah South, where 30 clay beads were found) clearly indicates that clay, generally, was not considered a material worthy of beads. This fact may emphasize the importance, common in the early Iron Age, of the choice of the bead material (see discussion on clay beads in paragraph 4.1.1.5.).

Bone and ivory beads

Neither bone nor ivory were very popular materials for bead-making during the early Iron Age. Among the corpus studied, only six objects were made of ivory. Only two of these are beads (the other four are pendants). This material, like clay, is available, familiar, and yet was not chosen to be used for beads. It is clear that the choice not to use bone and ivory to make beads, similarly to that of not choosing to use clay beads, and the reason was cultural, not technical.

Egyptian Blue beads

Beads made of Egyptian Blue are not very common; only 24 beads in the corpus. It is interesting to note that 8 of these were found at Tel Dor, and the others at the cemetery of Azor (4), at Megiddo (2), at the cemetery of Megiddo (1), at Tel Beth She’an (1) and at Tell el-Far‘ah South (1). It is not certain whether this phenomenon is caused by erroneous identifications of the bead material (for example, beads registered as faience were actually made of Egyptian Blue), or that this phenomenon reflects the actual rare use of Egyptian Blue. The lack of Egyptian Blue is by no 146 means an indicator of the extent of trade relations with Egypt as (mistakenly) held. Egyptian Blue objects were produced in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and also at Beth She’an (James and McGovern 1993: 151).

Egg-shell beads

Only seven beads were identified as being made of ostrich egg-shell. Four of these were found at Ashdod.

Wood beads

Wooden beads were found only at Tell el-Far‘ah South (3); this might be due to preservation conditions, and not necessarily due to cultural preferences.

7.2.12.2. Colors

red (2020) white (1124) green (1004) black (336) 4% yellow (302) 35% 5% light blue (255) gold (185) 6% blue gray (154) orange (116) 18% brown (46) 20% transparent (21) pink (5) purple (2)

Figure 8: Distribution of colors of early Iron Age beads

The most common color by a large margin is red. Other colors that are well attested during the early Iron Age are white, green, black, yellow, and light blue (see distribution in Figure 7.52). 147

Many studies have attempted to deal with the symbolic roles or meanings of the different colors in Antiquity. For lack of information, many scholars simply use the symbolism attributed to the colors in Egyptian, Mesopotamian or biblical records, ignoring the chronological, geographical and cultural differences. I believe that this approach is flawed, and consider the issue of color symbolism as a separate topic beyond the scope of this study, and therefore it will not be dealt with here.

7.2.12.3. Morphology

All the beads studied were regrouped according to their length (see Chapter 3) and general shape, which was determined in most cases by the circumference. For example, Disk tubular, Standard tubular, Standard globular, or Short globular, etc. A full list of the morphological descriptions of the beads may be found in Appendix D: Morphological descriptions of the early Iron Age beads sorted by materials in the attached CD. The most common shapes are presented in Figure 7.53:

Disc tubular (N=965)

Short tubular (N=947)

Stone Standard globular (N=944) Bone Short globular (N=808) Shell Egg-shell Long tubular (N=486) Clay Disc cut cowrie (N=415) Metal Egyptian blue Short biconical (N=333) Faience Disc conus whorl (N=294) Glass Wood Long oblate (N=290)

Long biconical (N=259)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 9: Most common morphologies of early Iron Age beads

148

The two most common shapes among early Iron Age beads are Disk tubular and Short tubular (which are also known simply as Disk bead'). The only difference between them is the height of the bead. Altogether 1,912 beads of these types were found. As expected, almost all (1,835) are made of faience. In all, 1,081 beads were defined as Standard globular. A total of 611 beads of that type are made of stone (among them 506 of carnelian). Another large group of Standard globular beads is made of glass (182 beads). Short globular beads occur in faience (421 beads), stone (258 beads, of which 191 are carnelian) and glass (93 beads). Long tubular beads may be produced by hand or in molds, and this might explain the production of this shape both in stone (166 beads, of which 131 are carnelian), and faience (186 beads). Cut cowrie is a common shape. Altogether 415 beads were found of this type. Some of these beads were found in clusters as pieces of beadwork. Most Long oblate beads were made of stones (220), some of faience (34), and some of glass (26). Short biconical beads were made almost exclusively from stones. Out of 333, 318 are of stone. Similarly to the previous type, Long biconical shaped beads were also made almost exclusively from stone. Of the 259 beads of this type, 203 were of stone, 24 of faience, 22 of glass, and 1 of bone. Lastly, 294 Conus shell beads were found. A special pendant that was studied here is the Lotus seed vessel pendant. Eighty-one Lotus seed pendants were found in early Iron Age contexts, 67 of carnelian. Two pendants are made of opal, one pendant is made of jasper, three from unidentified stone, one of ivory, two of faience, and only one of glass. Large numbers of Lotus seed vessel pendants were found in the Northern cemetery of Beth She’an. In the coffin burials in this cemetery, 15 early Iron Age Lotus seed vessel pendants were found (about a quarter of the published beads and pendants from this cemetery). The high concentration of these pendants might be explained by the Egyptian presence at this site. In the other sites examined here the percentage of the Lotus seed vessel pendants is much lower, and Table 7.28 presents the data for some of the sites.

149

Table 7.28: Percentage of Lotus seed pendants in nine sites

Site Lotus seed pendants All beads and pendants % Tel Dor 4 177 2 Cemetery of Azor 1 46 2 Beit She'an coffin burials 9 36 25 Tel Beth She’an 12 91 13 Tell el-Far‘ah South 26 3703 1 Megiddo 11 733 2 Tel Miqne 11 200 6 Tel Rehov 2 24 8 Tell es-Safi 1 18 6

Clearly then, this shape is associated with an Egyptian presence, and it had a limited distribution at other sites. Another interesting pendant studied here is the Type 2D. Mallet-shaped ivory pendant. The Mallet-shaped pendant at Tel Dor was found in Phase G/8 in the same building (though not in the same room) as a figural cut-out votive chalice (see further discussion in paragraph 7.1.4.5.). A similar pendant to the one from Dor was found in Area H, Stratum X, of the early Iron IIA at Ashdod, in the same locus as the famed musician's stand (Golani and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 160). The strong similarity of the pendants of this type emphasizes the importance of this specific morphological shape, and may indicate that this form was determined by social or cultural considerations rather than technological ones. This similarity in the cultic context may emphasize the possible cultic role of this pendant. Golani suggested that this pendant symbolized the profession of its wearer (Golani, 2009a: 109). According to Golani these pendants are common from the end of Iron Age I to early Iron Age II. Another important phenomenon that may be deduced from this analysis is the correlation between specific types and specific materials: it can be said that each material was mainly used in the production of one certain bead shape. Examination of

150 the different materials shows that various shapes of beads were produced from each material, but only one shape was produced in large quantities: Of 69 bone and ivory beads, 10 are Long tubular and 7 are Disk tubular. All the egg-shell beads are of the Disk tubular type. One may claim that these shapes are imposed by the characteristics of the materials, yet other types demonstrate differently: In all, 1,835 faience beads (out of 2,877, around 65%) are either Disk tubular beads or Short tubular beads. In all, 275 glass beads (out of 483) are either Short globular or Standard globular. These last three examples emphasize the fact that the shape of the beads may indeed depend on the physical and chemical properties of the material, but only up to a point. Most of the shapes of the beads were determined by cultural considerations. In other words, the materials can constrain the range of bead shapes one may produce, but they do not dictate them, and practically the artisans of the early Iron Age chose to produce only certain shapes in large quantities.

7.2.12.4. Sites and contexts

Due to the fact that this part of the southern Levant was not one homogeneous cultural unit during the early Iron Age, it is more accurate to examine the materials of the beads at each site (see Figure 7.54. Unidentified materials are not included in this chart).

151

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Tel Hazor (N=1) Tel Beth She'an (N=93) Beth She'an coffin burials (N=36) Tel Rehov (N=24) Tel Rechesh (N=5) Afulla (N=2) Tell Ta'anach (N=2) Yoqne’am (n=5) Tel Qiri (n=7) Megiddo (n=740) Cemetery of Megiddo (n=138)

Tel Keisan (n=4) Stone Bone Tel Dor (n=171) Shell Tel Zeror (n=39) Egg-shell Clay Tell el-far'ah North (n=33) Bethel (n=9) Metal Shiloh (n=1) Egyptian blue Izbet Sartah (n=3) Faience

Tell Qasile (n=812) Glass Aphek (n=4) Wood Cemetery of Azor (n=46) Ashdod (n=431) Gezer (n=38) Tel Miqne (n=203) Tel Batash (n=7) Tell Zafi (n=18) Tel Beth Shemesh (n=2) Tel Zipor (n=11) Tell 'Eton (n=99) Lachish (n=10) Tell el-Far'ah S (n=4033) Tel Masos (n=2)

Figure 1054: Distribution of early Iron Age beads materials in the studied sites

The bead assemblages under study in the various sites differ in many aspects, as is evident from Figure 5.54. No regional groupings may be defined according to the bead materials. The only 'group' of sites that has some common characteristics is the central hill region. The total absence of glass there and the relatively limited number

152 and poor variety of materials, as well as colors, underline yet again the poor nature of the material culture of these sites and their divergence from the other sites, such as those in the northern valleys or in Philistia. No other group of sites (for example, those of the northern valleys or the Philistine sites) presents such a set of definable characteristics. At Tel Dor, Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell el-Far‘ah South a large variety of materials was recorded. At Tell el-Far‘ah South an extremely large number of beads was found, which might explain the variation in the raw materials. However, at Tel Dor and Tel Miqne-Ekron fewer beads were found. I think that the large variation of raw materials at Tel Dor and Tel Miqne-Ekron is due to the more thorough studies of the beads in both sites. This emphasizes the importance of precision in studies of this kind in documentation of archaeological records. The frequencies of colors in the different sites are presented in Figure 7.55. No regional grouping can be identified according the colors of the beads. However, there is a larger variety of colors in the southern sites than in the northern sites. Red is most common, and represents 50% or more of the colors of the beads.

153

0% 50% 100% Tel Beth She'an (N=87) Beit She'an coffin burials (N=35) Tel Rehov (N=16) Tel Rechesh (N=5) Afulla (N=2) Tel Taanach (N=1) Tell Qiri (N=5) Red Megiddo (N=614) Cemetery of Megiddo (N=55) Blue Light blue Tel Keisan (N=1) Green Tel Dor (N=107) Yellow Orange Tel Zeror (N=39) Brown Tel el far'ah N (N=31) Transparent Bethel (N=8) Shiloh (N=1) Pink Izbet Sartah (N=3) Purple

Tell Qasile (N=812) Gray Aphek (N=3) Gold Cemetery of Azor (N=42) Black Ashdod (N=415) Gezer (N=25) White Tel Miqne (N=112) Tell Zafi (N=18) Tel Beth Shemesh (N=2) Tel Zipor (N=10) Tel Eton (N=99) Tel Lachish (N=7) Tell el far'ah S (N=3179) Tel Masos (N=1)

Figure 11: Distribution of early Iron Age beads colors in the studied sites

(The colors of one bead from Hazor, 5 beads from Yokne'am and 7 beads from Tel Batash are unknown, and therefore they do not appear in Figure 7.55).

154

Tel Beth She’an

Most of the early Iron Age beads were found at Tel Beth She’an. One group of beads was found in a 'cultic context' (Locus no. 68703), but no special characteristics, such as those found in other 'cultic' contexts, were identified.

The coffin burials of Beth She’an

All the stone beads found in the Northern cemetery of Beth She’an are made of carnelian. One third of all the stone beads (9 out of 27) are Lotus seed vessel pendants, and the others are Short, Standard and Long globular and Disk ring beads. The Egyptian style of the burial coffins and the Egyptian attribution of the Lotus seed pendants complement each other, and reinforce the other Egyptian characteristics known from this period from Tel Beth She’an. When comparing the beads found at Tell Beth She’an to those found in the coffin burials, several interesting phenomena may be pointed out: The percentage of the metal beads in the Beth She’an cemetery is the highest of all the sites examined in this study. Seven (19%) of the beads are made of metal, one of bronze and the other six of gold (on the tel itself no metal beads were found). This phenomenon may be due to the fact that the metal beads, being buried, were not melted for secondary use, as could have happened in a continuously inhabited site. This phenomenon may testify that metal beads were indeed in common use, but due to preservation issues (relatively fast wear of metal objects and reuse of broken ones), fewer metal beads were found in habitation contexts. However, this should be treated with caution, since exceptions are documented. For example, there is a relatively high percentage of metal beads at Tel Megiddo, and none in the cemetery of Azor. Another fact that contradicts this explanation is that no metal beads were found in the destruction layer (Locus 68703, see above) on the tel.

Megiddo

At Megiddo, the percentage of the metallic beads in the occupation contexts (8.7%) is slightly higher than the percentage of the metallic beads in the burial sites (8%). This might be explained by the context in which the beads were found, in the 'Treasury' (Locus 3037). Another group of beads was found in a domestic context. Thus,

155

Megiddo is a site in which we can see the differences in the bead assemblages of cultic, domestic, and burial contexts: In a domestic context:

Table 7.29: Beads found in early Iron Age domestic context at Megiddo

N Color Length Description Material Object 1 White Short Tubular Stone Bead 1 Not specified Standard Globular Glass Bead 1 Not specified - - Glass Bead 1 Not specified - - Faience Bead 1 Red Short Biconical Carnelian Bead 1 Not specified Short Tubular Stone Bead 1 Red Short Globular Glass Bead

In a cultic context:

Table 7.77: Beads found in early Iron Age cultic context at Megiddo

N Color Length Description Material Object 1 Gold Long Melon bead Metal (gold) Bead 7 Gold Standard Biconical Metal (gold) Beads 5 Gold Short Segmented Metal (gold) Beads Melon bead 3 Gold Standard Metal (gold) Beads (double) 38 Gold Standard Globular Metal (gold) Beads 44 Not specified Disk Tubular Faience Beads Eye bead 1 Not specified Short Glass Bead (globular) 1 Not specified Long Tubular Glass Bead 2 Not specified Long Biconical Stone Beads 11 Not specified Standard Globular Stone Beads 2 Not specified Long Oblate Stone Beads Stone 3 Red Long Biconical Beads (carnelian) 7 Red Short Biconical Carnelian Beads 34 Red Standard Globular Carnelian Beads 8 Red Pendant Lotus seed pendant Carnelian Pendants 47 Red Long Oblate Carnelian Beads 10 Red Disk Tubular Carnelian Beads 24 Red Long Tubular Carnelian Beads

And burial context:

156

Table 7.31: Beads found in an early Iron Age burial context at Megiddo

N Color Length Description Material Object Conus shell 1 White Disk Shell Bead (rectangular) 67 Not preserved Disk Tubular Faience Beads 1 White Long Oblate Glass Bead 3 Red Standard Globular Carnelian Beads 1 Red Long Oblate Carnelian Bead 1 Red Short Biconical Carnelian Bead 1 Red Long Globular Carnelian Bead 1 Red Short Globular Carnelian Bead 1 Red Long Biconical Carnelian Bead 11 Not preserved Long Oblate Glass Beads 1 Not preserved Disk Tubular Faience Bead 1 Blue Short Tubular Egyptian Blue Bead 1 Not preserved Long Melon bead Faience Bead 2 Not preserved Long Oblate Glass Beads 1 Yellow Short Globular Chalcedony Bead 1 Not preserved Short Globular Faience Bead 1 Gold Standard Tubular Gold Bead 1 Red Long Flat biconical Carnelian Bead 2 White Long Oblate Diorite Beads 6 Red Short Biconical Carnelian Beads 9 Red Long Oblate Carnelian Beads 6 Red Long Biconical Carnelian Beads 2 Red Disk Tubular Carnelian Beads 2 Red Short Tubular Carnelian Beads 1 Red Standard Oblate Carnelian Bead 3 Red Standard Globular Carnelian Beads 10 Gold Short Globular Gold Beads

It is seen that there are more silicate materials in the domestic context, more gold and carnelian in the cultic context, and the carnelian beads are very common in the burial context. Furthermore, in the cultic context the shapes are more complex: Eye beads, Lotus seed pendants, Melon beads and Segmented beads were found. Almost no bone beads were found in Megiddo (except for one in the burial context). Shell beads were found only in the domestic context, other than one bead which was found in the burial context. Two Egyptian Blue beads were found in the 157 domestic context. Only in the burial and elite contexts were metal beads found, which indicates their value. Faience was found in all of the contexts in great quantities. Stone beads were found in all contexts except the cultic.

Tell Qasile

Despite the fact that the context studied at Tell Qasile is cultic, very simple beads were found, almost all Disk faience beads. The documentation is not complete, and therefore some information is lacking. Only one necklace was found at Tell Qasile, and it is not clear whether the beads were found together, or whether they were threaded in the laboratory. The only special characteristic regarding these beads is their range of colors, which is very rich, and their state of preservation, which is very good.

The cemetery of Azor

Unlike the coffin burials at Beth She’an, no metal beads were found at Azor. Many carnelian beads and a relatively large number of Egyptian Blue beads were found in the tombs of Azor.

Ashdod

The beads from Ashdod were published in detail, and it was therefore possible to analyze this assemblage better. Large quantities of faience and glass beads were found at Ashdod. An especially large assemblage was found in Phase XII in a context that was defined by the excavators as a 'Treasure room'.

Tell el-Far‘ah South

The study of the beads from Tell el-Far‘ah South was very successful, due to a combination of three factors: extremely large quantities of beads were preserved in the cemetery; the preservation conditions of the relatively dry climate were very good and thus materials such as wood could survive and testify to their use in bead production; and the new publication by Laemmel that collected all the material is well organized and clearly presented (Laemmel, 2003).

158

An examination of the tombs at Tell el-Far‘ah shows that the bead assemblage in each tomb is completely different from those in the others. As at Beth She’an, carnelian was a very popular material at Tell el-Far‘ah South. Very few metal beads (less than 3%) were found at the site, and in contrast a large percentage (15.6%) of shell beads was found.

7. 3. Comparative temporal study

Due to the significant cultural differences between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, it was decided to compare the beads found in these two periods. Unlike in the previous chapter, the LB beads were not analyzed according to context. The three parameters for comparison are: materials, colors and morphology. As stated, only LBII beads are included in this chapter, following these parameters:  Beads registered in the IAA stores as dated to the LBII.  Beads registered in the various expeditions' data bases, dated to LBII.  Beads that were published as belonging to one of the LB strata. The full list of strata is presented in Table 7.32.

Table 7.32: The Late Bronze Age strata in the studied sites

(Mazar, 1990) LBIIB Conventional 'high' absolute dating (Gilboa and Sharon, 2003: 55) 1300-1200 Tel Dor (Area G) (Gilboa and Sharon, 2003: 55) G/11, 12 Hazor (Mazar, 1990: 301) XIII Tel Beth She’an (N North) (Mazar, 2009: 13) N-4 Tel Beit Shean (N South) (Mazar, 2006: 13) N-3b-4 Tel Beit Shean (Q) (Mazar, 2006: 13) Q-3, Q-2 Beit Shean coffin burials (Oren, 1973) Earlier burials Tel Beit Shean (UME) (Mazar, 2006: 13) VIII-VII Tel Megiddo (OIC strata) (Finkelstein et al., 2006) VIIB Tel Megiddo (Area F) (Finkelstein et al., 2006) 8 Azor (Mazar, 1990: 301) VI Tel Miqne (Gilboa, pers. comm.) VIIIA Tel Ashdod (Ben Shlomo, 2005) XIV Tel Zafit (Mazar, 2005: 24) E4 Tel Lachish (Mazar, 1990: 242; Mazar, 2005: 24) VII

159

A total of 20,881 LB beads were studied (presented from north to south). The full data collected regarding the beads is presented in Appendix C in the attached CD: Tel Dan: 66 beads studied by me at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh. Hazor: 2 beads were studied by me at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh. Tel Yinam: was studied by me at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh. Megiddo: 21 beads were studied, of which, 3 at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh, 7 from one publication (Loud, 1948), and 11 from another (Guy and Engberg, 1938). Tel Beth She’an: 10,517 beads were studied from publication (Frances and McGovern, 1993). Beth She’an coffin burials: 50 beads were studied from publication (Oren, 1973). Tel Rehov: 6 beads were studied by me at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Tel Ashturi: 1 bead was studied by me at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh. Huzuk Musa: 28 beads were studied from publication (Beeri and Cohen, in press). Tell es-Saidiyeh: 107 beads and pendants were studied, 72 beads from publication (Pritchard, 1980), and 35 pendants were studied from publication (Tubb, 1988). Tell Rumeideh: 11 beads were studied from publication (Peleg and Eisenstadt, 2004). Tel Mevorah: 62 beads were studied. 29 beads were studied at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh, and 33 were studied from publication (Stern, 1978). Tel Michal: 2 beads were studied by me at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh. Tel Aphek: 230 beads were studied, of which 108 were studied by me in the IAA store at Beit Shemesh, and the others were studied from publication (Guzowska, 2009). Tel Batash: 56 beads were studied, of which 55 were studied by me in the IAA store at Beit Shemesh and 1 was studied from publication (Kelm and Mazar, 1995). Tel Beth Mirsim: 85 beads were studied, of which 77 were studied by me in the IAA store at Beit Shemesh, and 8 were studied from publication (Golani, 2004). Tel Miqne: 12 beads were studied from publication (Golani and Sass, 1998). Cemetery of Azor: 4 beads were studied from publication (Golani, 2009c). Tell Zafi: 3 beads were studied by me at Bar Ilan University. Ashdod: 4 beads were studied by me at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh. Lachish: 29 beads were studied by me at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh. Deir al-Balah: 252 beads studied from publication (Dothan, 1979). Amudei Shlomo: 747 beads were studied at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh. Timna: 506 beads were studied at the IAA store at Beit Shemesh.

160

Tell el-Far‘ah South: 7,968 beads were studied, 6,293 from publication (Laemmel, 2003), and 1,675 by me at the Rockefeller Museum.

7.3.1.1. Materials

The distribution of materials among the LB from the Southern event is presented in Table 7.33 and Figure 7.56.

Table 7.33: Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant

Material early IR early IR% LB LB% Stone 2,312 34% 2,551 12% Bone 39 1% 15 0 Shell 766 11% 612 3% Egg-shell 6 0 2 0 Clay 43 1% 13 0 Metal 130 2% 159 1% Egyptian Blue 16 0 2 0 Faience 3,026 44% 16,325 78% Glass 482 7% 1,154 6% Wood 3 0 0 0 Amber 0 0 2 0 Unidentified 20 0 46 0 Total 6,843 100% 20,881 100%

161

100% 482 1154 90% Amber 80% Wood

70% 3026 Glass Faience 60% 16325 Egyptian blue 50% Metal 40% 766 Clay 30% Egg shell

20% Shell 2312 Bone 10% 2551 Stone 0% early IR LB

Figure 7.56: Distribution of materials of the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant

The most common material in the LB and early IR is faience. However, while 44% from the early IR are made of faience, 78% from the LB are made of faience. Stone beads represent 12% of the LB beads and 34% of the early IR beads. The percentage of glass beads among LB and early IR is very similar (6% and 7% respectively). Shell beads represent a very low percentage (3%) of LB beads. During the early IR the use of shell as raw material in the beads production rises to 11%. The percentages of metal beads in the LB and the early IR are not significantly different (1% and 2% respectively). One may claim that the data presented above are biased, especially regarding the siliceous beads, due to the extremely large assemblage (10,656 beads, more than half of the studied beads) of silicate beads found in Beth She’an in Phases VII and VIII (James and McGovern, 1993: 125). Therefore, it was decided to analyze the distribution of the materials from Later Bronze Age sites excluding Tel Beth She’an (see Table 7.34).

162

Table 7.34: Distribution of materials of early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age in the southern Levant excluding Tel Beth She’an

Material early IR early IR% LB LB% Stone 2,312 34% 2,454 24% Bone 39 1% 12 0 Shell 766 11% 610 6% Egg shell 6 0 2 0 Clay 43 1% 13 0 Metal 130 2% 144 1% Egyptian Blue 16 0 1 0 Faience 3,026 44% 6,198 60% Glass 482 7% 795 8% Wood 3 0 0 0 Amber 0 0 5 0 Unidentified 20 0 19 0 Total 6,843 100 10,253 100

Faience was the most common material in the production of beads during the LB (60%). Its percentage of beads declined during the early IR in favor of stone: however, it remained the most frequent material in use. It is certain that there was an increase in the use of stone beads in the transition between the LB and the early IR (many of which were imported from Sinai and the eastern desert of Egypt, see below). This phenomenon contradicts the general convention, according to which there was a decrease in the import of stones from Egypt. The minerals from which LB beads were made are: carnelian, hematite, quartz, jasper, limestone, lapis lazuli, rock crystal, agate, amethyst, diorite, steatite, chalcedony, sardonyx, calcite, crystal, feldspar, granite, sandstone, and serpentine. The distribution of stone types among LB beads is presented in Figure 7.57:

163

100% Malachite Opal 90% Basalt Alabaster 309 80% 206 Fossil Flint

70% Chert Serpentine

Sandstone Granite 60% Feldspar Calcite 50% Sardonyx Chalcedony 40% 1948 1899 Steatite Diorite

30% Amethyst Agate Rock Crystal Lapis Lazuli 20% Limestone Jasper 10% Quartz Hematite

0% Unknown stone Carnelian Late Bronze Age early Iron Age

Figure 7.57: Mineral types in the use of bead production during the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age southern Levant

Carnelian is the most common mineral in use for beads during the LB. This phenomenon continues during the early IR, as well as during the Late Iron Age (Golani, 2009a: 212). Surprisingly, there is a larger variety of minerals during the early Iron Age; chert, flint, fossil (one bead each), alabaster, basalt, opal (1 bead each), and malachite (4 beads). The metals used in bead production during the LB are presented in Table 7.35 and Figure 7.58:

Table 7.35: Distribution of metals among Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant

Material LB LB% early IR early IR% Lead 0 0 1 1 Iron 1 1 0 Copper 4 3 2 1 Silver 4 3 24 13 Bronze 6 4 0 Gold 71 45 135 70 Electrum 73 46 30 16 Total 159 100 192 100

164

100% 90% 80% Electrum 70% Gold 60% Bronze 50% Silver 40% Copper 30% Iron 20% Lead 10% 0% Late Bronze Age early Iron Age

Figure 7.58: Distribution of metals of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age Age beads in the southern Levant

The above charts show that in both periods, LB and early IR, gold and electrum were the most common metals used for beads. There was a higher percentage of gold beads in the early IR than in the LB IR; 70% against 45%. This contradicts the general assumption that there was a drastic decrease in the presence of gold in jewelry during the Iron Age I with the end of the Egyptian domination of Canaan (Golani, 2009a: 210). Nevertheless, it is important to remember that only beads were studied here, and no other jewelry pieces, and a low absolute amount of metal beads were found. There is an increase in the use of silver during the early IR. Only 3% of the metal beads during the LB were made of silver, compared to 13% during the early IR. Nevertheless, silver during the early IR was still far from being the predominant metal in use for beads that would have been expected. The abundance of silver hoards found in this period in the southern Levant is not reflected in bead production.

7.3.1.2. Colors

The frequency of colors among the beads in the Southern Levant is presented in Figure 7.59.

165

100% 306 Pink 90% 1004 Transparent 80% 754 Orange 301 Purple 70% 938 Brown 60% Gold 1069 1122 50% Green Yellow 40% 1400 254 Black 30% Blue White 20% 2020 2436 Gray 10% Light blue

0% Red Late Bronze Age early Iron Age

Figure 7.59: Distribution of colors of the Late Bronze Age I and early Iron Age in the southern Levant

It can be said that the same colors appear in the LB and early IR beads. However, it can be noted that during the early Iron Age there were three main colors: red, the most common, white, and green. During the Late Bronze Age, red was very common, as in the early Iron Age. Besides the red color, there were five common colors (light blue, gray, white, blue, and black).

7.3.1.3. Morphology

Eighty-three different shapes were identified among the LB beads (Appendix E in the attached CD). The five most common shapes in the LB are exactly those that were common in the early IR (see Table 7.36). This is not surprising because these shapes have basic geometric forms.

166

Table 7.36: The four most common shapes of the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant

LB Early IR Description No. Description No. Disc tubular 3,696 Disc tubular 1,004 Short tubular 10,978 Short tubular 987 Short globular 637 Short globular 901 Standard globular 1,039 Standard globular 1,081 Long tubular 1,265 Long tubular 455

Another shape that was common during the LB was the Lotus seed pendant. There are 220 Lotus seed pendants (see Table 7.37), which is 1% of the LB beads, the same as in the early IR.

Table 7.37: Early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age Lotus Seed Pendants

Period No. Site Material color Early IR 2 Tel Dor Carnelian Red Early IR 2 Tel Dor Opal Red Early IR 1 Azor (cemetery) Carnelian White Early IR 9 Beth She’an coffin burials Carnelian Red Early IR 12 Megiddo Carnelian Red Early IR 1 Tel Beth She’an Ivory White Early IR 2 Tel Beth She’an Stone White Early IR 9 Tel Beth She’an Carnelian Red Early IR 2 Tel Rehov Carnelian Red Early IR 25 Tell el-Far’ah South Carnelian Red Early IR 1 Tell el-Far’ah South Jasper Red Early IR 1 Tel Miqne Faience Green Early IR 1 Tel Miqne Faience Not specified Early IR 1 Tel Miqne Glass Not specified Early IR 9 Tel Miqne Carnelian Red Early IR 1 Tell es-Safi Stone Red LB IIB 7 Deir el-Balah Stone (carnelian) Red LB IIB 1 Tel Beth She’an Faience Blue (light) LB IIB 7 Tel Beth She’an Stone (carnelian) Red LB IIB 2 Tell el-Far’ah South Faience Yellow LB IIB 2 Tell el-Far’ah South Faience Black LB IIB 9 Tell el-Far’ah South Glass Unknown LB IIB 2 Tell el-Far’ah South Glass Green (light) LB IIB 2 Tell el-Far’ah South Stone Yellow LB IIB 148 Tell el-Far’ah South Stone (carnelian) Red LB IIB 5 Tell el-Far’ah South Stone (jasper) Red LB IIB 35 Tell es-Saidiyeh Stone (carnelian) Red

167

Decorations of LB glass beads were: trail, twisted trail and crumb. Twenty glass Eye beads were found; 17 at Tell el-Far‘ah South and 3 at Tel Beth She'an. The shell beads: Cut cowrie shell bead and Conus shell bead, very common during the early IR, were not common at all during the LB. 5.7% of the early IR beads are Cut cowrie shell beads, compared to only 0.4% during the LB. 3.5% of the early IR beads are Conus shell beads, compared to only 0.78% during the LB. Another interesting characteristic that differentiates LB beads from those of the early IR is their size. Although I do not have the exact measurements of all the LB beads, I denoted 249 of them in the data base (see Appendix C in the attached CD) as 'large', which means that their diameter measures 2 cm or more. These large beads remind me of the early IR, though I must say that this assumption should be rechecked quantitatively.

7.3.1.4. Regional analysis

As the LB beads of Canaan are not the focus of this study, only five sites were chosen from Appendix C to be presented here. All five are sites that produced bead assemblages in the LBII and in the early IR (see paragraph 4.2.): Megiddo, Tel Beth Shea’n, the coffin burials at the northern cemetery of Beth She'an, Tel Miqne-Ekron, and Tell el Far‘ah South. Two of these are burial sites. Several bead assemblages, not included in this study, are worth mentioning. An important bead assemblage of the LB coastal area was found at Tyre. In Strata XVI, XV and XIV, a large quantity of beads was found (Bikai, 1978: 8). In all there were 1,890 red faience disk beads, and 59 other beads, made of stone, bone, faience, and glass (see Appendix C in the attached CD). These finds, including 15 kiln wasters, were interpreted by the excavators as part of a bead workshop. However, it is important to note that no manufacturing tools were found in situ, apart from a 'work table' which Bikai assumed was used in the preparation of the faience paste, and a kiln pithos, which she assumed was used in the firing of the beads. Another important jewelry hoard not discussed below was found in the Fosse temple at Lachish, mainly in a pit in Room E alongside the ivory mask and hand (Tufnell, 1940: 31). Among the finds were found more than 500 colorful faience beads. This special find was comparable to the jewelry objects found in Tell el-

168

Amarna due to its style and quality. However, this statement was based on the elaborate pendants made in various natural (botanical) motifs, such as lotus and other flowers and buds, known from Egypt, and less on the beads themselves.

Beth She’an

During the LB, Beth She’an was one of the most important Egyptian bases in Canaan, a situation continuing in the 12th century. Thus, culturally, there is no significant difference between the 13th and 12th century levels. One of the largest bead assemblages ever uncovered in Canaan was found in Strata VIII-VII (James and McGovern, 1993: 136). A total of 10,658 beads were found in these strata. Furthermore, some of the beads and other small silicate objects were probably made on site (McGovern et al., 1993: 290). Unfortunately, one of the assemblages that yielded the highest number of beads (8,800 faience beads) was not available for investigation. The materials of the LB beads of Beth She’an are shown in Figure 5.60.

3.5% 1.0%

Stone (103) Bone (3) Shell (3) Metal (15) Egyptian Blue (2) Faience (10129) 95.3% Glass (368)

Figure 7.60: Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Tel Beth She’an

It is important to remember that one (possible) item of beadwork consisted of several thousand faience beads. Along with these, glass beads were found, 17 bearing elaborate decorations. These are: 2 Short globular glass eye beads, 1 Long tubular glass bead with eye decorations; 2 Short globular glass beads with incisions; 14 Long oblate glass beads, 1 Long tubular glass bead, 7 Standard globular glass beads and 4 Short globular with trail decorations.

169

3 Long oblate glass beads have feather-like decorations; 3 Short globular glass beads and 2 Long tubular glass beads have crumb decorations. Two hundred twenty-six especially large beads were found at Tel Beth She’an (made of faience, glass and stone): most (204) are Short globular, 16 are Long tubular, 3 are Standard globular, 2 are Standard biconical, and 1 is Standard tubular. The enormous quantity of silicate beads, their relatively high number compared to the other materials, and their vast variety of decorations fit the assumption that there was local faience production controlled by the Egyptians (James and McGovern, 1993: 125). A comparison between the LB beads and early IR beads found at Tel Beth She’an is presented in Figure 7.61. However, some reservations are in order: Many more beads were found in LB strata than in early IR strata. Although the percentage of LB stone beads is lower (less than 1%) among the LB beads than the percentage of the early IR (50%), their absolute number is twice as large; 104 LB beads, and only 44 early IR beads. Therefore the comparison presented in Figure 7.61 might be misleading. The same is true regarding the glass beads which appear in the chart below in smaller percentage in the LB, although their number is much higher.

100% 369 90% 17 Wood 80% Glass 70% 18 Faience 60% Egyptian Blue 50% 10129 Metal 40% Clay 30% 48 Egg-shell 20% Shell 10% Bone 0% Late Bronze Ageearly Iron Age Stone

Figure 7.61: Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Tel Beth She’an

170

Examination of the stone types of the LB beads from Tel Beth She’an (Figure 7.62) shows that in both periods more than 60% of the stone beads were made of carnelian. Lapis lazuli was in use in both periods. Agate was in use only during the LB, while minerals such as rock crystal and steatite were in use only during the early IR.

100% 90% 80% Carnelian 70% 68 36 60% Not specified 50% Lapis lazuli 40% Agate 30% Steatite 28 20% 9 Rock crystal 10% 0% LB early IR

Figure 7.62: Distribution of minerals of the Late Bronze Age beads found at Tel Beth She’an

Beth She’an coffin burials

Very few beads from the northern cemetery of Beth She’an are attributed to the LB. Four beads were found in Tomb 1062, 24 beads were found in Tomb 421 and 22 were found in Tomb 1068. The distribution of materials among the beads is presented in Figure 7.63. The ratio between the high percentage of faience beads and the low percentage of the beads made of other materials, attested at the site itself, is mirrored in the burial site.

171

11% 8%

Stone (4) Faience (39) Glass (5)

81%

Figure 7.63: Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Tel Beth She’an coffin burials

Surprisingly, no metal beads were found in the LB burials (compared with 7 beads that were found in the early IR burials). A comparison between the material frequencies of the LB and the early IR is presented in Figure 7.64.

1 100% 5 90% 7 80% Glass 1 70% Faience 60% Metal 39 50% 40% 27 Shell 30% Stone 20%

10% 4 0% early Iron Age Late Bronze Age

Figure 7.64: Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Tel Beth She’an coffin burials

Unlike the situation at Tel Beth She’an, in the cemetery, the bead quantities found in LB and early IR burials are more or less the same. Thus, the differences seen in Figure 7.64 are fundamental. There is a large percentage (more than 90%) of silicate beads in the LB burials, while in the early IR burials there are only a few. Fewer than 10% of the LB beads are made of stone, while more than 70% of the early 172

IR are of stone (their absolute number is much higher as well). No bone beads, Egyptian Blue beads, clay beads and ostrich egg-shell beads were found in either period. No shell beads were found in LB burials, and very few in the early IR burials. Examination of the different minerals that were found in the northern cemetery of Beth She’an is presented in Figure 7.65.

100% 90% 80% 2 70% 60% 27 50% Carnelian 40% 30% Not specified 2 20% 10% 0% early Iron Age Late Bronze Age

Figure 7.65: Distribution of minerals of the Late Bronze Age beads found at Tel Beth She’an

Despite the very low number of beads found in the Beth She’an coffin burials, the results are very clear. Carnelian is the only material used for stone beads in the coffin burials of Beth She’an. An interesting assemblage was found in Tomb 421, where only Segmented tubular beads were found: 16 Long tubular segmented beads made of light blue faience, 6 Standard tubular segmented beads made of light blue faience and 2 Short tubular segmented beads (material and color were not specified).

Megiddo

The Canaanite LB strata at Megiddo (VIIB and VIIA) are rich in public structures and domestic courtyard houses. However, surprisingly, very few beads (23) were found in the LB strata of Megiddo. Eight carnelian beads were found in three LBII tombs (877, 989 and 912). These tombs were found on the tel, and therefore were not registered together with the

173

Megiddo cemetery beads. On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to analyze them with the beads from occupational contexts. Therefore it was decided not to include them in the following analysis. 15 beads were found in occupational strata at Megiddo, the materials of three of which were not identified. The distribution of the rest of the beads is presented in Figure 7.66.

17% 25% Stone (3) Bone (1) Faience (6) 8% Glass (2)

50%

Figure 7.66: Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Megiddo

Most of the LB beads from Megiddo were made of faience. The assemblage studied is too small to draw any definite conclusions. It can be said, however, that the small number of beads found at Megiddo is surprising, and does not correspond to the rich finds in these strata. This is even more conspicuous when comparing it to the early Iron Age beads found at the site (Figure 7.67).

174

100% 38 76 2 90% 64 80% 21 70% Glass

60% Faience 6 Metal 50% Shell 40% 538 Bone 30% Stone 1 20%

2 10% 0% early Iron Age Late Bronze Age

Figure 7.67: Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Megiddo

While during the LB 50% of the beads were of faience, during the early IR their percentage fell to about 10%. The stone beads, on the other hand, became much more popular during the early IR, rising from 25% to more than 70% of the total.

100% 90% 80% 1 70% 60% Carnelian 515 50% Lapis lazuli 40% Not specified 30% 1 20% 10% 22 0% early Iron Age Late Bronze Age

Figure 7.68: Distribution of minerals of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Megiddo

Figure 5.46 does not include 8 LB carnelian beads found in three tombs at the tel. There is an overwhelming majority of carnelian beads during the early IR. There are insufficient data regarding the LB beads at Megiddo to make general assumptions. 175

Considering the 8 additional carnelian beads, there seems to be a similar situation to that of the Megiddo Late Bronze Age beads, where carnelian is the major mineral used.

Tel Miqne-Ekron

At Tel Miqne there is a significant cultural change between Stratum VIIIA, the small LBIIB settlement, and the Philistine city of Stratum VI (Dothan and Gitin, 1993: 1053). There are few LB beads at Tel Miqne. The distribution of their materials is presented in Figure 5.69.

5% 16% stone (3) Bone (3) 16% Egyptian blue (1) Faience (11) 58% 5% Glass (1)

Figure 7.69: Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Tel Miqne-Ekron

Tel Miqne is one of the few sites in which bone beads were found. The distribution of materials among the LB beads at Tel Miqne is very similar to that of the early IR (Figure 7.70).

176

100% 1 35 90% Glass 80% Faience 70% 72 Egyptian blue 60% 10 Metal 50% Clay 40% Shell 46 30% Bone 8 20% Stone 1 35 10% 1 0% early Iron Age Late Bronze Age

Figure 7.70: Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Tel Miqne-Ekron

The percentage of faience beads was much higher in the LB, and the percentage of shell beads was higher in the early Iron Age (two phenomena that repeat themselves in other sites), and the distribution of materials remained similar. The lack of stone beads compared to the rich variation of minerals that exists in the early Iron Age (20 carnelian beads, 3 agate beads, 3 jasper beads, 1 rock crystal bead, and 1 chert bead) is not surprising, considering the drastic cultural change that occurred at Miqne during this period.

Tell el-Far‘ah South

The LBIIB beads at this site (according the dating of Laemmel, 2003), originate in Tombs 537 (15 beads), 539 (41 beads), 543 (2 beads), 831 (9 beads), 834 (81 beads), 901 (10 beads), 902 (212 beads), 903 (2 beads), 905 (318 beads), 910 (9 beads), 914 (463 beads), 415 (5 beads), 916 (3 beads), 918 (1 bead), 920 (66 beads), 922 (347 beads), 925 (18 beads), 928 (44 beads), 929 (1015 beads), 930 (11 beads), 931 (44 beads), 932 (4 beads), 933 (4 beads), 934 (949 beads), 935 (18 beads), 936 (1348), 937 (132 beads), 939 (132), 940 (3 beads), 942 (2 beads), 945 (3 beads), 946 (2 beads), 947 (5 beads), 949 (276 beads), 952 (9 beads), 953 (49 beads), 957 (5 beads), 958 (5 beads), 961 (12 beads), 963 (67 beads), 964 (6 beads), 966 (1 bead), 967 (1

177 bead), 969 (1 bead), 971 (195 beads), 978 (18 beads), 979 (2 beads), 980 (163), 981 (1 bead), 982 (9 beads), 983 (5 beads), 984 (279 beads), and 985 (2 beads). The tomb number of another 1,673 beads that were studied in the Rockefeller Museum is unknown. The distribution of materials among the LB beads at Tell el-Far‘ah south is presented in Figure 7.71.

Stone (2158) Bone (4) 8% 27% Shell (74) Clay (13) Metal (19) Faience (5212) Glass (659) 64% Amber (1) Wood (3)

Figure 7.71: Distribution of material of Late Bronze Age beads at Tell el-Far‘ah south

Similar changes to those occurring at Tel Miqne, occur at Tell el-Far‘ah South. During the LB, there were many more faience beads than in the early IR. Three materials that are almost completely absent from the bead assemblage are bone, shell, and metal (Figure 7.72).

178

100% 238 659 90% Wood 80% Glass 1629 70% Faience 5212 60% Egyptian blue 50% Metal 633 40% Clay 30% Shell 20% 1402 Bone 2159 10% Stone 0% early Iron Age Late Bronze Age

Figure 7.72: Distribution of materials of Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads at Tell el- Far‘ah south

The percentage of the stone beads among the beads at Tell el-Far‘ah South is about 30% during the LB and early IR. In both periods, the carnelian is the most common mineral (70%–80%; Figure 7.73). During the early IR, however, there are types of minerals that are not present in the LB, such as limestone, granite, hematite, flint, and serpentine.

100% 122 Not specified 303 90% Limestone 80% Granite 70% 60% Hematite 50% Flint 1687 1054 40% Serpentine 30% Carnelian 20% Quartz 10% Jasper 0% Lapis lazuli Late Bronze Age early Iron Age

Figure 123: Distribution of minerals of the Late Bronze Age beads found at Tell el-Far‘ah south

The most common bead shapes at Tell el-Far‘ah south, with their most common materials, are: 179

Short tubular: faience (2058 beads). Disk tubular: faience (1859 beads). Long tubular: stone and faience (1013). Standard globular: stone, faience and glass (792 beads). Short biconical: carnelian (412 beads). Short globular: stone, faience and glass (284 beads). Standard tubular: stone (264 beads). Standard biconical: stone (209 beads). Long biconical: carnelian (144 beads). Long oblate: stone, faience and glass (195 beads). Two more special shapes were found in large quantities: Lotus seed pendant: carnelian (148 pendants), but also glass (11 pendants), faience (2 black and 2 yellow pendants), jasper (5 pendants), and unidentified yellow stone (2 pendants). Long segmented: with 2-5 segments, faience (83 beads).

7.3.1.5. Discussion

An examination of all the sites studied (Figure 7.74) emphasizes several phenomena.

180

100% 1 368 38 1 656 238 90% 5 76 18 7 35 80% 2 64 1629 Unidentified 70% 18 72 Wood 60% 6 5064 Glass 50% 10129 10 39 Faience 40% 27 538 Egyptian blue 30% Metal 48 10 20% 1402 Clay 2138 10% 35 Egg shell 4 0% Shell Bone Stone

Figure 7.74: Comparison between the beads materials in the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age sites studied

The most significant difference concerns the quantity of the faience beads. In all sites, to various degrees, there were many more faience beads during the LB than during the early IR. Another definite phenomenon is that the relative number of stone beads in the early Iron Age is equal or greater than in the Late Bronze Age, which may indicate the relatively continuous use of trade routes. Glass beads, which were considered to be a scarce item during the early IR, are well represented. In fact, in two out of the five sites, glass beads comprise a larger portion of the bead assemblage than in the LB. According to Spaer, glass beads found in Early IR sites showed stratigraphic continuity between the two periods (Spaer, 2001: 27). Here it can be seen that glass beads were in continuous use from the LB to the early IR. In both periods carnelian is by far the most common mineral in use (about 75%), and other materials appear in very low quantities or not at all: these include shell beads, which are present in early Iron Age assemblages in large quantities (the

181 third most common material used), but are almost completely absent from the LB ones. Tel Miqne is the only site in which (more than one) bone and clay beads were found. The metal beads were found in small quantities during the early IR, but they are almost totally lacking in the LB. 45% of the metal beads dated to the LB were made of gold. The percentage of this material is much higher during the early Iron Age, when it reaches 65%. Differences in the morphology of the beads are not significant, but it seems that large beads (with a diameter over 2 cm) were more common during the Late Bronze Age. Due to their large size, it does not seem that they were used as personal ornaments, such as necklaces, but rather decorations for furniture, other large artifacts, or maybe for animals. In the comparison between the Late Bronze Age strata of the site of Beth She’an and its cemetery, the materials used and the morphology was very similar. The studied corpora of beads from the early Iron Age and the Late Bronze Age showed several differences between the periods, reflected in the quantity and diversity of raw materials, the morphology, and the distribution of the beads on the site.

182

8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The Tel Dor bead assemblage of the early Iron Age provided the basic data for this work. In all, 177 beads were studied and compared with 6,785 early Iron Age beads and 20,881 Late Bronze Age beads from sites in Canaan/Israel. Despite the fact that several studies regarding Iron Age jewelry from the southern Levant have been published in recent years (see paragraph 2.2), the medium of beads during the early Iron Age has been very little independently studied until now, and even then beads are usually studied alongside other jewelry items, which are in most cases more elaborate and technically complex than the beads. Thus, in some cases, the impact of the beads on the general conclusions has not been completely understood. In this thesis, the beads were studied with a quantitative approach in mind. Cases in which quantities are unknown were noted. In most previous studies, a detailed database was not presented, and thus it is very difficult to understand the basis for some of the conclusions. The main aim of this thesis was to begin to understand what beads might contribute to the understanding of general cultural phenomena of this period, such as trade routes, 'ethnic' identities, Egyptian associations, persistence and development of technological know-how, and the status of beads in society. These cultural aspects may be examined through phenomena that occurred in the chronological frame of the early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age; the presence and absence of the Egyptian dominance in Canaan; arrival of new populations that settled in the southern Levant; and increase and decrease of international trade connections (especially with Egypt and Cyprus). A study of these phenomena as reflected in the bead assemblages is another goal of this research. For the reasons explained in Chapter 4 the Dor assemblage was deemed a good starting point for this assessment. Therefore, the first step was to characterize the Dor assemblage physically and contextually in order to better evaluate it in comparison to other bead corpora. Bead assemblages from various sites/regions were compared to understand whether different geo-political units (clearly present in the early Iron Age) produced typical bead assemblages. In addition, a temporal comparison with LB IIB bead assemblages was conducted to understand processes across the LB/Iron Age transition.

183

A contextual analysis, mainly at Dor, but also at other sites, was conducted in order to try and indicate the differences between bead assemblages found in domestic 'simple' structures, 'elite' structures, cultic contexts, and burial sites. Such comparisons were applied on a site-by-site basis.

8.1. Work process

Of the 171 beads from Tel Dor studied here, 166 beads were found in early Iron Age strata, and 5 beads were found in Late Bronze Age strata. None of these had been previously studied or published. All the beads were inspected, and their materials, colors, morphology and archaeological contexts were recorded and studied in detail. The Tel Dor beads were compared with 6,785 other early Iron Age beads originating in 31 sites in Canaan/Israel. Some were studied from publications; others were seen by me in the IAA depots, or in the various expeditions' storage. A detailed study was conducted regarding beads from seven selected sites: Tel Beth She’an, the Beth She’an coffin burials, Megiddo, Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell el-Far‘ah South were compared with each other and with the Tel Dor assemblage. A second comparison was conducted between Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age beads in the region. In this comparison 20,881 beads from 24 LB II sites in Canaan were studied from excavation reports, or in IAA storage and other expeditions’ stores (the latter two were seen by me). All the data that resulted from this study are presented in three appendixes: Appendix A: Tel Dor beads. Appendix B: Early Iron Age beads from the southern Levant. Appendix C: Late Bronze Age beads from Canaan.

8.2. The Tel Dor assemblage

8.2.1. Materials Most of the beads found in the early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age strata of Tel Dor are made of silicate materials: 37% (n = 64) were made of faience, and 33% (n = 57) were made of glass. The glass beads found at Dor are especially elaborate, and demonstrate a vast variety of sizes, shapes, colors and decorations.

184

Stone beads represent 13% (n = 23) of the beads with five carnelian beads, making it the most common mineral. The popularity of carnelian beads might indicate the importance of carnelian (and the red color) in the cultural symbolism of the society. Other than carnelian, an exceptionally large variety of local minerals was used in the production of the Dor beads: quartz (n = 1), limestone (n = 1), basalt (n = 2), and calcite (n = 3); alongside 'exotic' ones, such as alabaster (n = 1), hematite (n = 1), lapis lazuli (n = 1), amethyst (n = 1), agate (n = 2), jasper (n = 2), and opal (n = 2). Eight Egyptian Blue beads and eight shell beads were found. The quantity of shell beads at Dor is surprisingly low. Other than the fact that Dor is a coastal site, there is a general increase in the use of shell beads during the early Iron Age, especially at Tel Miqne-Ekron and at Tell el-Far‘ah South, that is not reflected in the Dor beads. Shell (n = 8), bone (n = 5), metal (n = 4), clay (n = 1) and egg-shell (n = 1) beads are the least common at Dor. This is interesting, because there is no doubt that these materials were in use by Dor's inhabitants for other objects, and the decision not to use them to produce beads (or simply not to use beads made of these materials) is a cultural matter. The lack of shell beads is especially surprising because of the relative increase in the use of beads made of this material during the early Iron Age. Thirteen beads at Dor bear decorations. Some of them are simple, for example incisions (on Egyptian Blue bead no. 171108 and on clay bead no. 09D2-6564), and others are more complex, such as the decorations on the glass beads: spiral trail decorations (applied on 2 beads), twisted trail decorations (3 beads), combed trail decorations (1 bead), and eye decorations (5 beads). I think that these beads (of which some were found in clusters) represent valuable jewelry pieces, made by specialized craftsmen who were familiar with complex glass work. These finds, undoubtedly dated to the early Iron Age, are an important testimony to our understanding of the glass technology of the period that was considered to be the 'dark age of glass'. Three artifacts found at Dor may indicate local production: Bead no. 192513, Type 1F.1. Round faceted stone bead is made of brown calcite. This bead is broken in its perforation, and from a closer look it may be

185 observed that its perforation is not complete. I think that this bead broke during its preparation. Another object is Carnelian pendant no. 98086, which seems to be a Lotus seed pendant that was not completed. It seems that the pendant was roughly cut and then drilled. During the drilling process the pendant broke next to its perforation, and therefore it was never polished and finished. Another artifact is a bone plaque, no. 186504, found in Area G. This plaque has a round incision with a hole in its center along which the plaque broke. It seems that again, while trying to make a disk bone bead the plaque broke during the drilling process. These three finds are isolated, and cannot indicate widespread production; nevertheless, they may represent some bead-making activity conducted on site. Examination of the colors of the Tel Dor beads shows that 44% of the Dor beads are black. These data are biased, due to a large assemblage of tiny black glass beads that most probably were part of a single item of beadwork (paragraph 7.1.4.). In this context it is perhaps worth mentioning that Shifris (2010), who examined beads from Iron Age II Phoenicia, found that black beads were the commonest in Phoenicia: an unknown number from Sarepta and 34 beads from Akhziv, of which 27 were glass beads (compared to 4 beads from Megiddo and 3 from Lachish). She concluded that Phoenicians preferred black beads for cultic reasons during the 10th–6th centuries BCE (Shifris, 2010: 134). Still, I do not believe that this may explain the phenomenon in early Iron Age Dor, because very few beads at Dor, other than the main cluster mentioned above, are black. Other than black (25.7% of the beads), white (11.7%) and red (5.8%) are the most common colors of the Dor beads. Ten more colors were identified at Dor: blue (n = 9; 5.3%), light blue (n = 9; 5.3%), gold (n = 3; 1.8%), transparent (n = 3; 1.8%), brown (n = 2; 1.2 %), gray (n = 2; 1.2 %), yellow (n = 2; 1.2 %), green (n = 1; 0.6%), orange (n = 1; 0.6%), and purple (n = 1; 0.6%). In a significantly large number of beads (n = 64; 25.7%) the color was not preserved.

186

8.2.2. Typology Forty bead types were defined in the Dor assemblage. The most common morphological type at Tel Dor is the Simple disk bead. Sixty-three beads of this type were found at Dor: 64 are faience (Type 8A. Disk faience bead) and 40 are glass (Type 9A. Disk glass bead). Other special morphological types from Tel Dor are: Type 3A. Conus shell beads: these are present at Dor in two versions; round (Type 3A.1) and rectangular (Type 3A.2); Type 1H, Lotus Seed Pendant (four pendants); and Type 2D. Mallet-shaped ivory pendant (one pendant). All these types were found in other sites in the southern Levant, and are therefore discussed below (paragraph 7.4). Type 6C. Bull's head gold pendant: this special gold pendant is unique among the studied beads. Neither such pendants, nor other jewelry types bearing this motif, were found in the region under study. Exactly the same types, together with many other representations of the bull motif, are known from the Aegean, and especially from Cyprus. One almost identical pendant, part of an earring, was found in a tomb at Enkomi in Cyprus (Karageorghis, 1991: 41). Though only one example of this type was found, it represents, along with many different finds in other media, the connections of Dor's inhabitants with Cyprus. The perforation of the beads is summarized here only for Dor, as this is the only site where I could examine all the beads From the examination of the perforation types present at Tel Dor it seems that the perforation method is strictly related to the material of the beads, rather than to its morphology, for example: Of 60 glass beads, 49 are perforated. Due to the difficulty in drilling holes in glass, the holes were probably made using a rod while the glass was still hot. In the few instances (3 beads) of single cone perforations the rod was probably conical. The same is true for the faience beads. Of 66 faience beads, 61 have plain perforations; and similarly for the Egyptian Blue beads: of 7 Egyptian Blue beads, 4 have plain perforations. All the metal beads (3) have tubular perforations. This is a result of the use of metal foils in the bead production. The only exception to this pattern is with the stone beads: out of 8 perforation types defined, 6 are present among the stone beads. Single cone perforations (9 beads), double cone perforations (8 beads), perforations drilled from both ends (2

187 beads), medium large perforations (2 beads), plain perforation (1 bead) and chamfered perforation (1 bead).

8.2.3. Contextual analysis Of the 171 early Iron Age beads from Tel Dor, 122, with all due caution, were found in reliable loci. None of them was found on a skeleton, and I therefore assume that they were stored, lost, or dumped by their owners. The most significant cluster of beads identified at Dor was found in Area G, in the destroyed Courtyard house. In Phase G/9, 54 beads were found, and in Phase G9/10?? 43 beads were found in the context of a domestic structure with several storage areas. Due to the location of the beads, the excavators assumed that most of them fell from a second floor that collapsed during the destruction. Most of the beads are made of faience and glass, but some are of stone, gold, and shell. The glass beads of this cluster are especially rich in decorations, such as eye decorations, trail decorations, twisted trail decorations, and feather-like decorations: all were very similar to each other. One of the most interesting aspects regarding this cluster is that despite the large quantity and the presumably high quality of the beads, it was not found in a 'rich' or 'royal' context. Furthermore, the archaeologists believe that in this context they can identify masculine activity, and not feminine, as one would have expected. Another interesting context from Dor in which rich decorated glass beads were found is the industrial (mainly metallurgical activity) area of Phase G/11. These samples emphasize the fact that the almost immediate connection most of the scholars make between beads and 'feminine activities' has to be reconsidered. To conclude, the assemblage of beads from Tel Dor is varied in materials and shapes that reflect early Iron Age technologies, especially in stone, shell, metals and glass. The large variety of minerals indicates the activity of the trade routes during the early Iron Age, especially with Egypt, Cyprus and the Aegean. Considering the relatively minor international commercial activity of the period, the consistent preference for exotic stones, such as lapis lazuli or amethyst over local materials, such as bone or clay, emphasizes even more the importance of the raw material of the bead. Another aspect that might be reflected in the beads is the clear preference of Dor's inhabitants for specific raw materials for beads.

188

8.3. Other early Iron Age sites

In addition to the Tel Dor beads, 6,875 early Iron Age beads were studied in this thesis. For the regional comparison only 5,831 beads were chosen. Only sites with a sufficient number of beads and sufficient information regarding them were included in the comparison. These were Tel Beth She’an, the coffin burials of Beth She’an, Megiddo, Tell el-Far‘ah North, Tell Qasile, the cemetery of Azor, Tel Miqne-Ekron, and Tell el-Far‘ah South. One of the main goals of this comparison was an attempt to identify a 'representative' bead assemblage for each region in early Iron Age southern Levant. As mentioned in Chapter 3, in two recent studies by Shifris, (2010) and Limmer, (2007), who studied beads and other jewelry of Iron Age II in Phoenicia, Israel and Judah, several sites were chosen as the representatives of the regional/political unit in which they were located. Thus, the sites were regrouped into three main regions: the northern valleys, the hill region, and Philistia. This comparison was also meant as a first step in assessing whether beads of this period could be used as some indication of identity. The results of the present study did not allow the definition of any regional characteristics, and each site, when examined quantitatively, was different. For example, the bead assemblages of the Philistine sites differ in materials, morphologies, and colors; therefore, a Philistine bead assemblage cannot yet be defined. Nevertheless, two regional characteristics were determined: 1. One of the regions that can possibly be defined as a 'group' is the hill region. Four sites were examined: Tell el-Far‘ah North (33 beads), Bethel (9 beads), Shiloh (1 bead) and Izbet Zartah (3 beads). In most of these sites the number of beads is very small. In all four sites the major material is stone, and no shell, metal, Egyptian Blue or glass beads were found. The small number of beads found and the poor range of materials correlate with the poor material culture typical of these sites during the early Iron Age. 2. Shell beads are more common in Philistia than in the other regions examined. The most common material of early Iron Age beads in the southern Levant is faience (42%). However, these data may be biased, due to the large quantity of faience beads (n = 809) found at Tell Qasile, which may be part of one item of beadwork. The quantity of stone beads is also large (32%). The third most common

189 material is shell (11%). Other materials that occur are glass (8%), metal (3%), bone (1%), clay (1%), egg-shell, Egyptian Blue, and wood (less than 1%). Stone beads were found in almost every site (other than Hazor and Yoqne'am). A wide range of minerals were in use, some of them brought from a long distance. These imported minerals indicate that, despite the common assumption regarding the discontinuation of the Late Bronze Age international trade, some traffic did continue. Shell beads were quite popular during the early Iron Age, especially in the Philistine region. Some of the shells used in bead production originated in the Mediterranean, and others were brought from the Red Sea. This may be another testimony to the early Iron Age trade routes. Some materials were relatively rare. Despite its being one of the most common materials available in every site (and frequently used for small tools), bone was not very popular as raw material for beads. Bone beads were found in relatively small quantities. Similarly, clay was common and familiar, yet it was almost never used in bead production. Egg-shell beads are very rare; only 17 being found. Similarly, clay beads are also rare, which raises many questions. This material was of course most common and familiar, and yet was almost never used in bead production. Metal beads are also not very common, and were found mostly in cemeteries, such as in the Tel Beth She’an coffin burials, the Megiddo tombs and the Tell el- Far‘ah South tombs. The only 'living' site in which more than a few metal beads were found is Megiddo. At Megiddo the metal beads were found in cultic and elite contexts (see paragraph 6.2.3), which reflects their prestige value. Egyptian Blue beads were not very popular in the early Iron Age. In this study, Egyptian Blue beads were discovered at Beth She’an, Megiddo, the cemetery of Megiddo, Tel Dor (the largest quantity, 8 beads), the cemetery of Azor, Ashdod, Tel Miqne-Ekron, Tel ‘Eton, and Tell el-Far‘ah South. Glass beads were found at almost every site, other than those in the central hill region. Especially large quantities were found at Tel Dor, Ashdod, and Tell el-Far‘ah. The most common morphological types among the early Iron Age beads studied are quite simple: Disk tubular and the Short tubular are the most common shapes (1,912 beads; both are also known simply as 'Disk bead'), Standard globular (1,081

190 beads), Short globular (421), Long tubular (352), Cut cowrie (415), Long oblate (280), Short biconical (333), Long biconical (259) and Conus shell (294). One of these types, the Disk conus shell bead, was very common during the early Iron Age. Two versions of this type are known: round and rectangular. The round version can be further subdivided into two versions: with a large hole and with a small hole (see paragraph 6.2.9). In order to make these beads the shells were cut next to their apex, revealing their whorl. It seems that the artisans who made these beads attributed some importance (whether symbolic or aesthetic) to the shell whorl. However, it is important to remember that if these beads were simply threaded on a string and worn, the spiral motif of the whorl was not visible. Therefore I suggest that the beads were worn in one of two ways: 1. The bead was tied to a string as a single pendant. 2. The bead was threaded as usual, and thus the whorl was not seen, which emphasizes the symbolic role over the aesthetic one. I believe that this unique type is another representation (like the eye decorations) of an eye. What remains unclear to me is the rectangular variation that totally contradicts and 'breaks' the spiral motif. A very common early Iron Age pendant is the Lotus seed pendant. These pendants were extremely common also during the Late Bronze Age, and remained very popular during the later Iron Age (Golani, 2009a: 375). In this study, 79 early Iron Age and 220 Late Bronze Age IIB Lotus seed pendants were recorded. More than 90% of the pendants are red, and many (n = 248) were found in burial sites (the cemetery of Azor, the coffin burials at Beth She’an, Tell el-Far‘ah south, Deir el- Balah and Tell es-Saidiyeh). A large number of pendants (n = 244) were found in sites that had some sort of Egyptian presence during the Late Bronze Age (Beth She’an, Tell el-Far‘ah South, Deir el-Balah and (possibly) Megiddo) (Table 7.35). There is no doubt that these pendants played an important role in Egyptian culture, yet, as already mentioned above (paragraph 6.1.3.10), I think that these pendants do not represent lotus seeds or buds, but poppy buds, due to their shape and color. Another interesting item is the Mallet-shaped ivory pendant. Four pendants of this type were studied, from Phase G/8 (Ir1a|b) at Tel Dor, Stratum IVB-VC (probably Ir1b) at Tel Miqne, Stratum X (Ir2a) at Ashdod, and Stratum VIIa or later

191

(LB|Ir or later) at Megiddo. According to Golani (2009a: 109) these pendants were common from the end of Iron Age I to early Iron Age II. These pendants are all almost identical, which may emphasize the importance of this specific morphological shape. Golani suggested that this pendant symbolized the profession of its wearer (Golani, 2009a: 109). The contextual study of the selected sites led to important insights. In some sites, the bead assemblages reflect the known cultural phenomena of the site, such as trade connections, or economic status, while others contradict them. The new insights are presented below. Firstly, the general conclusions are presented, followed by a few examples from the detailed examination of each site. Generally, in burial contexts there are more metal beads than in the 'living' strata of the same sites. I believe that this is not a cultural preference, but rather due to reuse of precious materials in the occupational strata. The examination of the beads found at Tel Beth She’an focused on the identification of Egyptian characteristics in the assemblage, because of the Egyptian presence at the site. The only phenomenon that may be noted is the preponderance of carnelian beads (36 of 47 stone beads). Another phenomenon that might be related to the Egyptian character of the site is the presence of a relatively high number (n = 12) of Lotus seed pendants. A comparison between the Egyptian strata of Tel Beth She’an and the post-Egyptian strata was unsuccessful, due to imprecise attribution of loci to the different stratigraphic phases. At the Tell Qasile sacred area, surprisingly, there is a very simple assemblage of beads. Although a large number of beads were found, they were all probably part of the same ornament, and all except three are Simple disk faience beads. In such a definite cultic context one would have expected to find a wider range of materials (metal beads?), shapes (special pendants?) or decorations (Eye beads?), but these were not found. Megiddo is one of the sites in which (almost only for beads found in the Tel Aviv University excavations) precise information of the loci was presented, and thus a contextual comparison could be made. Four contexts were defined at Megiddo (including Megiddo Tombs): domestic, elite, cultic, and burial (including tombs in the cemetery and tombs on the tel).

192

Thus, it is possible to define differences between different contexts at the same site, but for the time being very limited information can be extracted from such an analysis. Contextual analyses of this kind are being conducted for the first time. I believe that the more analyses will be presented, the more will we understand the assemblages.

8.4. The Late Bronze Age – early Iron Age comparison

The comparison of the early Iron Age data to further data pertaining to beads of the Late Bronze Age IIB allowed a wider view of some of the developments and phenomena that occurred in the early Iron Age. Several general changes occurred in the bead assemblages between the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age. Stone beads became more common during the early Iron Age (34% of the beads) than in the Late Bronze Age (12%). Faience beads, in contrast, became less common during this transition. This phenomenon reflects beyond doubt the continuation of trade goods in this area, from the east, from the west, and from the south. In three sites (the cemetery of Beth She’an, Megiddo and the Tell el-Far‘ah South tombs) there are metal beads in the early Iron Age, but none during the Late Bronze Age. Other than in Beth She'an (the tel as well as the burials), in all other sites glass beads are more common during the early Iron Age. All this notwithstanding, it is important to note that due to the extremely large quantities of faience found in Late Bronze Age strata, all the other materials are represented in a smaller percentage. However, in some cases, despite the fact that the percentage of a certain material is lower in the Late Bronze Age strata than in the early Iron Age strata, its absolute number is higher. For example, the percentage of glass beads among the Late Bronze Age beads is lower than in early Iron Age beads (see paragraph 7.3), but the absolute number of beads is higher All the mineral types of which Late Bronze Age beads were made were also found among early Iron Age beads. Furthermore, beads made of malachite, basalt, fossil chart, alabaster, flint, opal, sandstone, and crystal were found only in early Iron Age strata.

193

Regarding precious metals; it is conventionally held that during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age, silver became more popular than gold: among other things, several silver hoards found in the Southern Levant may testify to this. However, this phenomenon does not occur with beads, and moreover, the percentage of the gold beads rises. Altogether 71 gold beads (45% of the metallic beads) were found in the LBIIB contexts compared to 135 gold beads (70%) found in the early Iron Age strata. The quantity of silver beads also increases, from 6% during the LBIIB to 12% in the early Iron Age. The only material becoming less popular is electrum: 45% of the metallic beads during the LB were made of electrum, and only 15% in the early Iron Age. The morphology of the beads does not change drastically in the transition from the Late Bronze to the early Iron Age. The most common morphologies during the Late Bronze are also common during the early Iron Age. Nevertheless, more 'large' beads were documented in LB strata. In the end, as expected, the main disappointment, perhaps due to the pioneering character of this study (in the context of the early Iron Age Levant), is my inability to identify the use of beads in the communication of personal and collective identity, and the other uses of beads. However, I hope to have demonstrated the potential of the information embodied in the beads for this (and other) periods. Eventually, even symbolic issues, such as identity, may be illuminated.

8.5. Future prospects

While this study emphasizes a quantitative analysis focused on raw materials, as well as bead typology, other issues, presented at the beginning of this work (Chapters 1 and 3) despite their importance, were finally not addressed; some, due to technical problems, some due to time constraints, and others due to more fundamental reasons. The data-base constructed in this study was the source of all the above conclusions. Nevertheless, further research questions may be addressed using it. For example: the relation between the morphology of the beads and their color, the colors used in the production of beads and those used in the production of their decorations, or the characteristics of the different sub-periods within the early Iron Age. 194

In addition, the research may expand in the following directions: 1. Further comparative examination. Examining important early Iron Age assemblages that were unavailable to me, such as those from Ashkelon, which includes about 5,000 beads, or from the cemetery of Jabal Harmat Feidan in Jordan (Levy et al., 2004), attributed to the Shasw nomads, where 2,000 beads were found. The regional comparison within this thesis is limited (the northern valleys, the hill region, and the coastal region of Israel). A more comprehensive comparison might reveal further information. Comparison with Egyptian bead assemblages could be very useful for understanding many aspects: raw materials and their transportation, manufacturing techniques, the use of beads (in better preserved complete ornaments or other objects), and the archaeological (Egyptian) context of the beads (burial sites in comparison to occupational strata, etc.). This comparison is especially important regarding the two periods discussed here – the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, due to the Egyptian presence or absence in some of the regions, and in light of the re-evaluations regarding trade with Egypt during the early Iron Age. A comparison with Aegean and Cypriot bead assemblages is another interesting aspect that may prove fruitful in future research, and it may shed light on the question of the origins of Philistine culture. For Dor, where a claim has been made for a Cypriot presence, a comparison with Cyprus is important. There is also no doubt that continuous collection of data from other periods may emphasize the characteristics of the early Iron Age beads, and contribute to our understanding of the developments in bead technologies and styles over a long period. In a primary analysis, I compared the beads I studied (early Iron Age and Late Bronze Age) with Late Iron Age bead characteristics, studied by Shifris, Limmer and Golani. It seems that the diversity and variety of beads dated to the early Iron Age are much richer than those dated to the Late Iron Age, when the large variation in materials that was present in early Iron Age bead assemblages was reduced mostly to stone and faience. As with other aspects, this issue needs to be examined quantitatively. 2. Issues regarding physical characterization of the beads. Color analysis was conducted to a certain degree, but its results were not emphasized for several reasons, and some of the information presented here was

195 gleaned from publications. Color determinations of the beads, as published, were made by more than one scholar, which resulted in lack of uniformity of the definitions. For example, the most common color of faience beads is described by different scholars as blue, light blue, light green, etc. This prevents a real comparison of their colors. The same happens with the wide range of red-orange-white shades of carnelian. The use of color charts (for example Munsell) does not assist in this case, because lighting conditions in the places where the beads are examined must be identical at all times in order for the results to be meaningful. Therefore any attempt to define and make meaningful comparisons of colors of beads is in most cases based on imprecise primary data. Another issue is the characterization of materials. In order to identify the materials of the beads from Tel Dor I used XRF analysis, and the professional assistance of scholars from different fields of research was employed in identifying materials. Further study may not only identify the materials, but also trace their origin, especially of minerals and metals. The same may be said regarding the shells. A precise identification of the species of the shells can indicate their origin in the Mediterranean or in the Red Sea, and thus trace ancient trade routes. Other methodological issues are: I believe that the key to further studies of beads in Israel lies in the merging of the data published by the individual excavations and the IAA. This will provide a more reliable database that will make more beads available for future studies, with results of a higher degree of certainty. Generally, all these goals, and more, may be accomplished when on the one hand, a growing number of scholars deal with this subject and publish more finds at a better resolution; and on the other, if a growing number of excavation directors understand the importance of this medium, and dedicate more time and effort to the proper recovery in the field, registration and publication of beads.

196

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldred, C. 1978 Jewels of the Pharaohs: Egyptian Jewelry of the Dynastic Period. N.Y.

Asher-Greve, J. M. and Stern, W. B. 1983 A New Analytical Method and its Application to Cylinder Seals. Iraq 45/1: 157-162.

Aston, G. J., Harrell, A. and Shaw, I. 2000 Stone. In P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge. Pp. 5-77.

Barker, D. 2001 Stone, Paste, Shell and Metal Beads from Sharm. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 12/2: 202-222.

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E. 1989 Late Paleolithic and Neolithic Marine Shells in the Southern Levant as Cultural Markers. In C. F. Hayes, L. Ceci and C. C. Bonder (eds.) Proceedings of the Shell Bead Conference Selected papers. New York. Pp. 169-173. 1999 Shells from Archaeological Contexts in Israel. Qadmoniot XXXII/117: 45-51 (Hebrew).

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., and Porat, N. 2008 Green stone Beads at the Dawn of Agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 105/25: 8548-8551.

Beck, H. C. 1928 Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pedants. Reprinted 2006 by Beads 18.

Bednarik, R. 2005 Middle Pleistocene Beads and Symbolism. Anthropos 100/2: 537-552.

Bellina, B. 2003 Beads, Social Change and Interaction between India and South East Asia. Antiquity 77: 285-298.

Ben Basat, H. In Press Ornaments and Utilitarian Objects of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Area G. In E. Stern, A. Gilboa, I. Shron, and J. Zorn Excavations at Tel Dor III. Area G: The Bronze and Iron Ages. Qedem. Jerusalem (order of authors and title not yet finalized).

Ben Shlomo, D. 2005 Chapter I: Introduction. In M. Dothan, and D. Ben-Shlomo, Ashdod VI: Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969). Israel Antiquity Authority reports 24. Jerusalem. Pp. 1-10. 197

2008 The Cemetery of Azor. Levant 40/1:29-54.

Ben Shlomo, D. and Golani, A. 2006 Chapter 5: Selected Objects. In M. W. Meehl, T. Dothan and S. Gitin Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995–1996. Field INE East Slope. Iron Age I (Early PhilistIne Period). Tel Miqne-Ekron Final Field Report Series 8. Jerusalem. Pp. 189-206.

Ben Tor, A., Zarezecki-Peleg, A. and Cohen-Anidjar, S. 2005 Yoqne‘am II: The Iron Age (Qedem Reports 6), Jerusalem.

Bikai, P. M. 1978 The pottery of Tyre. Warminster

Bloch-Smith, E. 1992 Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 123. Sheffield.

Boaretto, E., Jull, A. J. T., Gilboa A. and Sharon I. 2005 Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel First Intercomparison Results. Radiocarbon 47:39-55.

Boram-Hays, C. 2005 Borders of Beads: Questions of Identity in the Beadwork of the Zulu- Speaking People. African Arts 38/2: 38-95.

Bruins, H. J., Van Der Plicht, J. and Mazar, A. 2003 C14 Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron- Age Chronology, Pharaohs and Hebrew Kings. Science 300:315-318.

Budge, E. A. W. 1981 Egyptian Magic. London.

Bvocho, G. 2005 Ornaments as Social and Chronological Icons: A Case Study of Southeastern Zimbabwe. Journal of Social Archaeology 5: 409-424.

Caubet, A. and Yon, M. 2006 Quelques perles de cornaline. In A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji eds., I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies. Winona Lake. Pp. 137-148.

Chambon, A. 1984 Tell el-Far‘ah I l'Age du Fer. Paris.

Claassen, C. 1998 Shells. New York.

Davison, S., and Newton R. G. 2003 Conservation and Restoration of Glass. Oxford.

De Vaux, R. 198

1993 Far‘ah, Tell el- (North). In E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2. New York. Pp. 433.

Dever, W. G. 1992 The Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Horizon in Syria-Palestine: Egyptians, Canaanites, "Sea People" and Proto-Israelites. In W.A Ward and M.S Joukowsky (eds.) The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. from Beyond the Danube to the Tigris. Dubuque. Pp. 99-109.

Dever, W. G. (ed.) 1986 Gezer IV the 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the "Acropolis". Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem.

Dothan, M. 1986 Sardina at Akko? In Studies in Sardinian Archaeology: Sardinia in the Mediterranean, Vol. 2. University of Michigan Press. 105-115.

Dothan, M. and Porath, Y. 1993 Ashdod V Excavation of Area G, The Fourth-Sixth Seasons of Excavations. ‘Atiqot XXIII. 1968-1970

Dothan, T. 1979 Excavation of the Cemetery of Deir el-Balah. Qedem 10. Jerusalem. 1982 The Philistines and their Material Culture. Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem.

Dothan, T. and Dunayevsky, I. 1993 Tel Qasile. In E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 4. New York. 1204-1207.

Dothan, T. and Gitin, S. 1993 Tel Miqne In E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 3. New York. 1051-1059.

Drews, R. 1993 The End of the Bronze Age: Changes In Warfare and the Catastrophe CA. 1200 B.C. Princeton.

Dubin, L. S. 1995 The History of Beads from 30,000 B.C. to the Present. New York.

Eisen, G. 1916 The Characteristics of Eye Beads from the Earliest Times to the Present. American Journal of Archaeology 20/1:1-27.

Errico d', F., Vanhaeren, M., Barton, N., Bouzouggar, A., Mienis, H., Richter, D., HublIn, J. J., McPherron, S. P. and Lozouet, P. 2009 Additional Evidence on the Use of Personal Ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 106/38: 16051–16056. 199

Finkelstein, I. 1983 The ’Izbet Sartah Excavations and the Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country. Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 2005 A Low Chronology Update: Archaeology, History and Bible. In T. Levy and T. Higham (eds.) The Bible and Radiocarbon DatIng: Archaeology, Text and Science. London 2005. Pp. 31-42.

Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin D., and Halpern, B. (eds.) 2000 Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University No. 18. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. 2006 Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University No. 24. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv.

Frances, F. J. and McGovern P. E. 1993 The Late Bronze Age Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Philadelphia.

Francis, P. 1982 Experiments with Early Techniques for Making Whole Shells into Beads. Current Anthropology 23/ 6: 713-714.

Frick, F. S. 2000 Tell Taannek 1963-1968 IV/2 The Iron Age Cultic Structure Birzeit.

Friedman, F. D. 1998 Faience: The Brilliance of Eternity F. D. Friedman (ed.) Gifts of the Nile. London. Pp. 15-21.

Gadot Y., and Yasur-Landau, A. 2006 Beyond Finds: Reconstructing Life in the Courtyard Building of Level K-4. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern eds. Megiddo IV the 1998-2002 Seasons. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. Pp. 583-600.

Gadot, Y. M., Blockman, M. N. and Arie, E. 2006 Area K (Levels K-5 and K-4, the 1998-2002 seasons. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern eds. Megiddo IV the 1998-2002 Seasons. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. Pp. 87-104.

Gilboa, A. Forthcoming Israel and the Palestinian Territories. In M. Steiner and A. E. Killebrew (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of The Levant Circa 8000-332 BCE. Oxford.

Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2001 Early Iron Age Radiometric Dates from Tel Dor: Preliminary Implications for Phoenicia and Beyond. Radiocarbon 43: 1343-1351. 200

2003 An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 332:7-80.

Gilboa, A., Sharon I. and Boaretto, E. 2009 Tel Dor and the Chronology of Phoenician "Pre-Colonization" stages. In C. Sagona (ed.) Beyond Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology Ancient Near Eastern Supplemented Series 28. Leuven. Pp. 113-204.

Gilboa, A., Sharon I. and Zorn, J. In press The Late Bronze and Iron Ages in Area G: An Architectural, Contextual, Functional and Chronological Synthesis. In E. Stern, A. Gilboa, I. Shron, and J. Zorn Excavations at Tel Dor III. Area G: the Bronze and Iron Ages. Qedem. Jerusalem (order of authors and title not yet finalized).

Goedicke, H. 1975 The Report of Wenamun Baltimore and London.

Goff, B. L. 1956 The Role of Amulets in Mesopotamian Ritual Texts. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 19/1-2:1-39.

Golani, A. 1996 The Jewelry and the Jeweller’s Craft at Tel Miqne-Ekron during the Iron Age. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Jerusalem. 2004 The Jewelry. In S. Ben-Arieh, Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim. IAA Reports 23. Pp. 189-202. 2009a* The Development, Significance and Function of Jewelry and the Evolution of the Jeweler's Craft In the Land of Israel during the Iron Age II. Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Tel Aviv. 2009b Metallic and Non-Metallic Jewelry. In N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar (eds.) Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996 Volume III: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata In Areas N and S The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem. Pp. 612-633. 2009c The Non-Metallic Jewelry Objects from the Iron Age and Late Bronze Age Tombs. In D. Ben-Shlomo The Cemetery of Azor: Moshe Dothan's Excavations (1958, 1960) (IAA Reports). 161-180. Forthcoming The Jewelry Objects. In S. Gitin ed. Tel Miqne-Ekron Objects and Material Culture Studies. Jerusalem

Golani, A. and Sass, B. 1998 Three Seventh-Century B. C. E. Hoards of Silver Jewelry from Tel Miqne-Ekron. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311: 57-81.

Golani, A. and Ben Shlomo, D. 201

2005 The Jewelry. In M. Dothan and D. Ben Shlomo Ashdod VI the Excavations of Area H and K (1968-1969) Israel Antiquity Authority. Pp. 247-264.

Gorelick, L. and Gwinnett, L.J. 1981 The Origin and Development of the Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder seal. Expedition 23/4: 25-26. 1987 Ancient Seals and Modern Science. Expedition 20/2: 39[p. 37 in text].

Graeber, D. 1996 Beads and Money Notes towards a Theory of Wealth and Power American Ethnologist 23/1:4-24.

Guy, P. L. O. and Engberg, R. M. 1938 Megiddo Tombs. Chicago.

Guzowska, M. 2009 Figurines and Small Finds. In Y. Gadot and E. Yadin Aphek-Antipatris II the Remains on the Acropolis The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations. Emery and Claire Yass Publications In Archaeology Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. Pp. 396-415.

Harrison, T. P. 2004 Megiddo 3: Final Report on the Stratum VI Excavations. Chicago.

Hughes-Brock, H. 1985 Amber and the Mycenaeans. In J. M. Todd, (ed.) Studies in Baltic Amber. Journal of Baltic Studies 16, special issue. New York. Pp. 257- 267. 1995 Seals and Beads: Their Shapes and Materials Compared. In J. C. Poursat, (ed.), Sceaux Minoans et myce´niens: IVe Symposium International 1992: 5. Berlin. Pp. 105-116. 1999 Mycenaean Beads Gender and Social contexts. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18: 277-296.

Jack, C. 1985 Egyptian Magic. Wiltshire.

James F. W. and McGovern, P. E. 1993 The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII I-II. Philadelphia.

James, F. W. 1966 The Iron Age at Beth She’an. Philadelphia.

Karageorghis, V. 1991 Cyprus Museum and Archaeological Sites of Cyprus. Athens. 41.

Kelm G. L. and Mazar, A. 1995 Timnah (Tel Batash) I: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Qedem 37. Jerusalem. 202

Kelso, J. L., with chapters by Albright, W. F. 1968 The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960). Cambridge.

Kenoyer, J. M., Vidale, M. and Bhan, K. K. 1991 Contemporary Stone Beadmaking in Khambhat, India: Patterns of Craft Specialization and Organization of Production as Reflected in the Archaeological Record. World Archaeology 23/1:44-63.

Killebrew, A. E. and Mazar, A. 2009 Area N North: Stratigraphy and Architecture. In N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar (eds.) Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996 Volume III The 13th-11th Century BCE Strata In Areas N And S. Jerusalem. Pp. 33-71.

Killebrew, A. E. 1986 Report of the 1984 Excavations - Field INE/SE. Jerusalem.

Laemmel, S. 2003 A Case Study of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Cemeteries of Tell el-Far‘ah (South). Thesis submitted for the PhD in Archaeology. Oxford.

Lamon, R. S. and Shipton, G. M. 1939 Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34 Strata I–V. Chicago.

Lehmann, G., Killebrew, A. and Gadot, Y. 2000 Area K. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, (eds.), Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University No. 18. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. Pp. 123-139.

Leibowitz, H. and McGovern, P.E. 2004 Chapter 8: Beads and Pendants. In H. Liebowitz (ed.) Tel Yin'am I The Late Bronze Age. Austin. Pp. 181-190.

Levy, T. E., Adams, R. B. and Muniz, A. 2004 Archaeology and the Shasu Nomads — Recent Excavations in The Jabal Hamrat Fidan, Jordan. In W. H. Pro and R. E. Friedman (eds.) Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman. California. Pp. 63-89.

Limmer, A. S. 2007 The Social Functions and Ritual Significance of Jewelry in the Iron Age II Southern Levant. PhD Dissertation. Arizona.

Liverani, M. 1987 The Collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the end of the Bronze Age: The Case of Syria. In M. Rowland, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen (eds.) Centre and Periphery In the Ancient World. Cambridge. 66-73. 203

Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II Seasons of 1935-39. Oriental Institute Publications 62. Chicago.

Lucas, A. 1989 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries J. R. Harris (ed.) London.

Mazar, A. 1977 The Temples of Tell Qasile, the Excavations and their Implications for the Study of the Cult and Material Culture in Eretz-Israel during the 12th-10th Cent. B.C.E. PhD Thesis. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1980 Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part One. The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem. 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible – 10,000-586 B.C.E. 1993 Beth She’an in the Iron Age: Preliminary Report and Conclusions of the 1990-1991 Excavations. Israel Exploration Journal 43: 201-229. 2005 The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant, Its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution. In T. E. Levy and T. Higham The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating Archaeology Text and Science. London. Pp. 15-30. 2006 Excavation at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996, Volume I. From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. The Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem. 2009 Introduction and Overview. In N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar (eds.) Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996 Volume III The 13th-11th Century BCE Strata In Areas N And S. The Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem.

Mazar, A. (ed.) 1985 Excavation at Tell Qasile II. Qedem 20. Jerusalem.

Mazar, A. and Ben Shlomo D. 2005 Stratigraphy and Building Remains. In M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo (eds.), Ashdod VI, The Excavations of Areas H-K (1968-1969) Israel Antiquities Authority Monograph Series No. 24. Jerusalem. Pp. 11-61.

Mazar, B. 1988 Introduction. In M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski eds. Society and Economy In the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C). Leuven. Pp. 1-7.

McGovern, P. E. 1985 Late Bronze Palestinian Pendants Innovation In a cosmopolitan Age. American Schools of Oriental Research monograph 1. Winona Lake.

McGovern, P. E., Fleming, S. J. and Swann, C. P. 1993 The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: Glass and Faience Production and Importation in the Late New Kingdom Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 290-91: 1-28.

Mead, M.

204

1988 Bathing Babies in Three Cultures (1952) [video recording] Producer: Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead.

Meehl, M. W., Dothan, T. and Gitin, S. 2006 Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations, 1995-1996, Field INE, East Slope: Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period). Final Field Reports series 8. Jerusalem.

Mershen, B. 1989 Amulets and Jewelry from Jordan - a Study on the Function and Meaning of Recent Bead Necklaces. Tribus 38: 43-58.

Nicholson, P. T. 1998 Materials and Technology. In F. D. Friedman (ed.) Gifts of the Nile. London. Pp. 50-64.

Nicholson, P. T. and Peltenburg, E. 2000 Egyptian Faience. In P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge. Pp. 178-194.

Nodet, É. [not in text] 1980 Perles. In J. Briend and J. B. Humbert Tell Keisan Une cite Phoénicienne en Galilée. Fribourg.

Ohata, K. (ed.) [not in text] 1967 Tel Zeror II Preliminary Report of the Excavation Second Season 1965. Tokyo.

Oren, E. 1973 The northern cemetery of Beth Shan. Leiden.

Panitz-Cohen, N., Yahalom-Mack, N. and Mazar, A. 2009 chapter 16 Various Finds: Clay, Stone, Ivory Bone and Faience Objects and Vessels. In N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar (eds.) Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996 volume III the 13th-11th century BCE strata In areas N and S. The Beth-Shean Valley Archaeological Project Publication Series. Jerusalem. Pp. 472-763.

Patch, D. C. 1998 By Necessity or Design: Faience use in Ancient Egypt. In Gifts of the Nile F. D. Friedman (ed.). London. Pp. 32-45.

Peleg Y. and Eisenstadt, I. 2004 A Late Bronze age Tomb at Hebron (Tell Rumeideh). In H. Hizmi and A. de Groot (eds.) Burial Caves and Sites In Judea and Samaria from the Bronze and Iron Ages. JSP 4. Jerusalem. Pp. 231-255.

Perrot, J. 1993 Azor. In E. Stern (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1. New York. 125-129.

Pinch, D.

205

1995 Magic in Ancient Egypt. Austin.

Platt, E. E. 1976 Triangular Jewelry Plaques. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 221: 103-111. 1978 Bone Pendants. Biblical Archaeologist. 4123-4128.

Pokornowski, I. 1979 Beads and Personal Adornment. In J. M. Cordwell and R. A. Schwarz, (eds.) The Fabrics of Culture The Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment. New York. Pp. 103-118.

Pritchard, J. 1980 The Cemetery of Tell es-Saidiyeh Jordan. Philadelphia.

Raban, A. 1995 Dor- Yam: Maritime and Coastal Installation at Dor in their Geomorphological and Stratigraphic Context. In E. Stern (ed.) Excavation at Dor, Final Report. Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy. Volume Ia. Jerusalem. Pp. 285-350.

Raban-Gerstel, N., Bar-Oz, G., Zohar, I., Sharon, I. and Gilboa, A. 2008 Early Iron Age Dor (Israel): A Faunal Perspective. Bulletin of the American Scholl of Oriental Research 349: 25-59.

Roach, M. E. and Eicher, J. B. 1979 The Language of Personal Adornment. In J. M. Cordwell and R. A. Schwarz (eds.) The Fabrics of Culture, The Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment. New York. Pp. 7-21.

Sass, B. 1993 Chapter 10: Personal Accessories and Ornaments. In I. Finkelstein, S. Bonimovitz and Z. Lederman Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical site. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. 2000 Chapter 12: the Small Finds. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds.) Megiddo III The 1992-1996 seasons. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. Pp. 349-423.

Sass, B. and Cinamon, G. 2006 Chapter 18: the small finds. In. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds.) Megiddo IV The 1998-2002 seasons. Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. Pp. 353-425.

Sharon, I. and Gilboa, A. Forthcoming The SKL Town Dor In the Early Iron Age. In M. Artzy, A. Killebrew, and G. Lehmann (eds.) Philistines and Other Sea Peoples. Leiden.

Sherratt, S. 206

2008 Vitreous Materials in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Some Questions of Values. In C. M. Jackson and E. C. Wager (eds.) Vitreous Materials in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford. Pp. 209-232

Shifris, N. 2010 Iron Age II Phoenician Beads at the Akhziv Cemeteries. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Haifa (Hebrew).

Singer, I. 1988 The Origin of the Sea Peoples and their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan. In M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski (eds.) Society and Economy In the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C). Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta; 23. Leuven. Pp. 239-250.

Spaer, M. 1984 On some of our Earliest Glass finds. Israel Museum Journal III: 14-16. 2001 Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum, Beads and Other Small Objects. Jerusalem.

Starkey, J. L. and Harding L. 1932 Beth-Pelet Cemetery. The Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt 52. London.

Stern, E. 1978 Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976), Part One: From the Iron Age to the Roman Period. Qedem 9. Jerusalem. 1992 The many masters of Dor. Biblical Archaeology Review. 19(1): 22-31, 76-78. 2000 Dor — Ruler of the Seas (2nd ed.) Jerusalem. 2001 The Silver Hoard from Tel Dor. in M. S. Balmuth (ed.) Hacksilber to Coinage: New Insights into the Monetary History of the Near East and Greece. Numismatic studies no. 24. New York. Pp. 19-26.

Stocks, D. A. 1989 Ancient Factory Mass-Production Techniques Indications of Large- Scale Stone Bead Manufacture during the Egyptian New Kingdom Period. Antiquity 63. 526- 531.

Tait, H., 1991 Five thousand years of glass Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Press. London.

Theunissen, R., Grave, P. and Bailey, G. 2000 Doubts on Diffusion: Challenging the Assumed Indian Origin of Iron Age Agate and Carnelian Beads in Southeast Asia. World Archaeology 32(1): 84-105.

Thompson, C. M. 2003 Sealed Silver in Iron Age Cisjordan and the ‘Invention’ of Coinage. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22: 67-107.

207

Tite, M. S. and Shortland, A. J. 2008 Production Technology of Faience and Related Early Vitreous Materials. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 72. Oxford.

Tsaferis, V. 1982 Iron Age Tombs at Tell 'Eitun. Atiqot 8: 7-10, 1 (Hebrew).

Tubb, J. N. 1988 Tell es-Saidiyeh: Preliminary Report on the First Three Seasons of Renewed Excavations. Levant 20: 23-88.

Tufnell, O. 1940 Lachish II: The Fosse Temple. London. 1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age. London.

Twala, R. G. 1968 Beads as Regulating the Social Life of the Zulu and Swazi. In Dundes, A. (ed.) Every Man his Way: Readings in Cultural Anthropology. New Jersey. Pp. 364-379.

Ussishkin, D. 1974 Tombs from the Israelite Period at Tel ‘Eton. Tel Aviv 1: 109-127, pls. 21–24.

Vaux de, R. 1969 Les fouilles de tell El-Far’ah. Tel Aviv.

Wiessner, P. 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2): 253–276.

Wobst, H. M. 1977 Stylistic Behaviour and Information Exchange. In E. H. Cleland, (ed.) For the Director: Research Essays In Honor of James B. Griffen. Ann Arbour. Pp. 317-342.

Wright, K. and Garrard, A. 2003 Social Identities and the Expansion of Stone Beads. Antiquity 77. 267- 284.

Yasur-Landau, A. 2010 The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age. New York.

Younger, J. C. 1992 Representations of Minoan-Mycenaean Jewelry. Aegaeum 8: 257–292.

Zorn, J., Sharon, I. and Gilboa, A. In Press Introduction: History of the Area G Excavations (1986-2004), Post Excavation Analysis (1993-2010) and Introduction Remarks on

208

Excavation, Documentation and Methods. In E. Stern, A. Gilboa, I. Shron, and J. Zorn Excavations at Tel Dor III. Area G: the Bronze and Iron Ages. Qedem. Jerusalem (order of authors and title not yet finalized).

Zorn, J. R. and Brill, R. H. 2007 Iron Age I Glass from Tel Dor, Israel. Journal of Glass Studies 49: 256–259.

*Golani's PhD was consulted by the author before it was submitted, and page numbers may have changed after submission.

209

Plate 1

Figure Bead number

1:1 188322.0 1:2 188322.0 1:3 188322.0 1:4 188322.0 1:5 06D1-1280 1:6 06D1-1280 1:7 08D2-2794 1:8 08D2-2794 1:9 08D2-2794 1:10 08D2-2794 1:11 177330.0 1:12 177330.0 1:13 177330.0 1:14 177330.0 1:15 197679.0 1:16 197679.0 1:17 197679.0

Plate 2

Figure Bead number

2:1 27672.0 2:2 27672.0 2:3 27672.0 2:4 04G0-0267 2:5 04G0-0267 2:6 04G0-0267 2:7 04G0-0267 2:8 110603.0 2:9 110603.0 2:10 110603.0 2:11 110603.0 2:12 92386.0 2:13 92386.0 2:14 92386.0 2:15 92386.0 2:16 178324.0 2:17 178324.0 2:18 178324.0 2:19 178324.0

Plate 3

Figure Bead number

3:1 306224.0 3:2 306224.0 3:3 151577.0 3:4 151577.0 3:5 151577.0 3:6 151577.0 3:7 151577.0 3:8 151830.1 3:9 151830.1 3:10 182711.0 3:11 182711.0 3:12 182711.0 3:13 182711.0

Plate 4

Figure Bead number

4:1 192513.0 4:2 192513.0 4:3 192513.0 4:4 192513.0 4:5 192513.0 4:6 192513.0 4:7 153516.0 4:8 153516.0 4:9 153516.0 4:10 191281.0 4:11 191281.0 4:12 197442.0 4:13 197442.0 4:14 197442.0

Plate 5

Figure Bead number

5:1 300021.0 5:2 300021.0 5:3 300021.0 5:4 153739.0 5:5 153739.0 5:6 153739.0 5:7 153739.0 5:8 172340.0 5:9 172340.0 5:10 172340.0 5:11 181015.0 5:12 181015.0 5:13 181015.0 5:14 181015.0 5:15 98086.0 5:16 98086.0

Plate 6

Figure Bead number

6:1 06D5-1045 6:2 06D5-1045 6:3 198118.0 6:4 198118.0 6:5 198118.0 6:6 198118.0 6:7 98705.0 6:8 98705.0 6:9 173289.0 6:10 173289.0 6:11 173289.0 6:12 173289.0 6:13 94500.0 6:14 94500.0

Plate 7

Figure Bead number

7:1 151326.0 7:2 151326.0 7:3 96917.0 7:4 96917.0 7:5 96917.0 7:6 96917.0 7:7 98853.0 7:8 98853.0 7:9 98853.0 7:10 98853.0 7:11 06D5-1080 7:12 110331.0 7:13 110331.0 7:14 182070.0 7:15 182070.0 7:16 182070.0 7:17 182070.0 7:18 188184.0 7:19 188184.0

Plate 8

Figure Bead number

8:1 187194 8:2 187194 8:3 187194 8:4 09D2-6564 8:5 09D2-6564 8:6 04G0-0260 8:7 04G0-0260 8:8 04G0-0260 8:9 194323.0 8:10 194323.0 8:11 91342.0 8:12 91342.0 8:13 91342.0 8:14 198157.0 8:15 198157.0 8:16 198157.0 8:17 198157.0 8:18 198157.0 8:19 198157.0

Plate 9

Figure Bead number

9:1 171108.0 9:2 171108.0 9:3 171108.0 9:4 171108.0 9:5 150790.0 9:6 110307.0 9:7 110307.0 9:8 110307.0 9:9 160075.0 9:10 160075.0 9:11 160075.0 9:12 178487.0 9:13 178487.0 9:14 172353.0 9:15 172353.0 9:16 183738.0 9:17 183738.0 9:18 183738.0 9:19 27689.0

Plate 10

Figure Bead number

10:1 04G0-0171 10:2 04G0-0171 10:3 04G0-0318.3 10:4 04G0-0318.1/3 10:5 06D5-1239 10:6 07D2-0600 10:7 07D2-0600 10:8 07D2-0600 10:9 07D5-2058 10:10 08D5-7379 10:11 172338.0 10:12 190297.0 10:13 190313.0 10:14 184329 10:15 186954

Plate 11

Figure Bead number

11:1 180037.0 11:2 07D5-1517.1 11:3 07D5-1517.1 11:4 184453.0 11:5 04G0-0312 11:6 07D2-0470 11:7 07D2-0470 11:8 186818 11:9 186818 11:10 04G0-0167 11:11 04G0-0167 11:12 04G0-0318.2/3 11:13 04G0-0318.2/3 11:14 04G0-0282 11:15 04G0-0282 11:16 04G0-0320 11:17 151915.0 11:18 151915.0

Plate 12

Figure Bead number

12:1 172462.0 12:2 172462.0 12:3 183547.0 12:4 183998.1 12:5 183998.1 12:6 183998.1 12:7 182149.0 12:8 182149.0 12:9 182149.0 12:10 182149.0 12:11 182065.0 12:12 182065.0 12:13 182065.0 12:14 182065.0 12:15 187433.0 12:16 187433.0 12:17 187433.0 12:18 187433.0

Plate 13

Figure Bead number

13:1 177665.0 13:2 177665.0 13:3 177665.0 13:4 182066.0 13:5 182066.0 13:6 182049.0 13:7 182049.0 13:8 182049.0 13:9 182049.0 13:10 07D5-1356 13:11 07D5-1356 13:12 07D5-1356 13:13 151830.2 13:14 151830.2 13:15 151830.2 13:16 151830.2

Plate 14

Figure Bead number

14:1 183998.2 14:2 183998.2 14:3 183998.2 14:4 08D5-5265 14:5 08D5-5265 14:6 08D5-5265 14:7 08D5-5265 14:8 184327.0 14:9 184327.0 14:10 184327.0 14:11 04G0-0336 14:12 04G0-0336 14:13 04G0-0336 14:14 186953 14:15 186953 14:16 186953 14:17 186953