Paléorient

The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic

of the Levant
Daniella E. Bar-Yosef

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Bar-Yosef Daniella E. The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant. In: Paléorient, 2005,
vol. 31, n°1. Anciennes exploitations des mers et des cours d'eau en Asie du Sud-Ouest. Approches environnementales. pp.
176-185;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2005.4796

https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2005_num_31_1_4796

Fichier pdf généré le 24/04/2018

Résumé
Depuis le début du Paléolithique moyen, les coquillages sont délibérément ramassés mais leur
exploitation systématique pour la fabrication des perles n 'a débuté qu 'avec le Paléolithique supérieur.
Les petits gastéropodes, particulièrement Columbella rustica et Nassarius gibbosulus sont
communément choisis, certains d'entre eux étant naturellement abrasés et prêts à être utilisés comme
perle. Cette tradition se poursuit à travers tout l 'Èpipaléolithique. La culture natoufienne introduit des
changements exprimés par une plus grande quantité et une plus grande diversité des espèces
collectées et par une préférence plus marquée pour les Dentalium. Avec le passage d'une économie
de chasseurs-cueilleurs à une économie agricole qui caractérise le Néolithique, de nouvelles stratégies
d'exploitation des coquillages apparaissent. Celles-ci concernent un nombre d'espèces croissant dont
l'emploi n 'est plus uniquement dédié à la fabrication des perles mais à la confection d'objets divers.
Les coquillages sont manifestement utilisés dans un système d'échanges, plus particulièrement celui
qui concerne les denrées alimentaires. En outre, les méthodes de transformation des coquilles se
diversifient et permettent la confection d'objets de « prestige » tels que des pendentifs en nacre.
Plusieurs douzaines d 'espèces différentes sont utilisées à cette période, et tout particulièrement dans
les zones désertiques où les coquillages de la mer Rouge sont collectés. La zone méditerranéenne se
caractérise par des assemblages plus modestes, dominés par les Glycymeris et les Cerastoderma.

Abstract
Shells are first purposefully collected in the Middle Palaeolithic, but their first systematic exploitation to
serve as beads is in the Upper Palaeolithic. Small gastropods, especially Columbella rustica and
Nassarius gibbosulus are usually chosen, some of them naturally abraded ready-to-use beads. This
tradition continues throughout the Epi-Palaeolithic. The Natufian culture marks a change expressed in
both larger quantities and diversity of species, and an increased preference for Dentalium. The
economic changes from hunter-gatherers to farmers that characterize the Neolithic period are also
expressed in new strategies of shell exploitation. Those include larger numbers of species that are
collected, their use for making artifacts and not only simple shell beads, and their apparent use in
exchange systems whose purpose is to provide food. In addition, more diverse methods are used for
working the shells, resulting in such "prestige" items as Mother-of-Pearl pendants. Dozens of shell
species are made into beads during this period, especially in the desert areas where Red Sea species
are collected. The Mediterranean zone is distinguished by smaller assemblages dominated by
Glycymeris and Cerastoderma.
The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in

the palaeolithic and neolithic of the

LEVANT

D.E. BAR-YOSEF MAYER

Abstract : Shells are first purposefully collected in the Middle Palaeolithic, but their first systematic exploitation to serve as beads is in
the Upper Palaeolithic. Small gastropods, especially Columbella rustica and Nassarius gibbosulus are usually chosen, some of them
naturally abraded ready-to-use beads. This tradition continues throughout the Epi-Palaeolithic. The Natufian culture marks a change
expressed in both larger quantities and diversity of species, and an increased preference for Dentalium. The economic changes from
hunter-gatherers to farmers that characterize the Neolithic period are also expressed in new strategies of shell exploitation. Those
include larger numbers of species that are collected, their use for making artifacts and not only simple shell beads, and their apparent
use in exchange systems whose purpose is to provide food. In addition, more diverse methods are used for working the shells, resulting
in such "prestige" items as Mother-of-P earl pendants. Dozens of shell species are made into beads during this period, especially in the
desert areas where Red Sea species are collected. The Mediterranean zone is distinguished by smaller assemblages dominated by G\y-
cymeris and Cerastoderma.

Résumé : Depuis le début du Paléolithique moyen, les coquillages sont délibérément ramassés mais leur exploitation systématique pour
la fabrication des perles n 'a débuté qu 'avec le Paléolithique supérieur. Les petits gastéropodes, particulièrement Columbella rustica et
Nassarius gibbosulus sont communément choisis, certains d'entre eux étant naturellement abrasés et prêts à être utilisés comme perle.
Cette tradition se poursuit à travers tout l 'Èpipaléolithique. La culture natoufienne introduit des changements exprimés par une plus
grande quantité et une plus grande diversité des espèces collectées et par une préférence plus marquée pour les Dentalium. Avec le
passage d'une économie de chasseurs-cueilleurs à une économie agricole qui caractérise le Néolithique, de nouvelles stratégies
d'exploitation des coquillages apparaissent. Celles-ci concernent un nombre d'espèces croissant dont l'emploi n 'est plus uniquement dédié à la
fabrication des perles mais à la confection d'objets divers. Les coquillages sont manifestement utilisés dans un système d'échanges, plus
particulièrement celui qui concerne les denrées alimentaires. En outre, les méthodes de transformation des coquilles se diversifient et
permettent la confection d'objets de « prestige » tels que des pendentifs en nacre. Plusieurs douzaines d 'espèces différentes sont utilisées
à cette période, et tout particulièrement dans les zones désertiques où les coquillages de la mer Rouge sont collectés. La zone
méditerranéenne se caractérise par des assemblages plus modestes, dominés par les Glycymeris et les Cerastoderma.

Key- Words : Shells, Beads, Southern Levant.

Mots Clefs : Coquillages, Parures, Levant Sud.

Shells are among the oldest means of decoration used by
humans1. This is not surprising, as it is a raw material that
1. HENSHILWOOD et ai, 2004.
does not require special skills for collecting, and of a size that
is often suitable for use as decoration on the human body.
Most shells are made of Calcium Carbonate in the form of
Aragonite
b and are relativelyJ soft, with a hardness of 3-4 on the

Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 176-185 6 CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant
Mohs scale, thus they can easily be worked into beads.
Humans' familiarity with stone tools made it simple to
perforate holes by gouging, and later also by grinding and incising
holes2. The specific shapes of shells (usually rounded or
elongated), their overall smoothness, their often being naturally
perforated and ready-to-use as beads make them ideal to serve
as decorations. However, their source being mostly on the
seashore, may require either a special trip to the beach (or a
trip that is used also for other purposes such as fishing, shell-
fishing or for gathering other resources). Alternatively,
acquiring sea-shells required interaction with other groups
that had access to this environment. Whether shells are
obtained directly by their users, or indirectly, by
communicating with other human groups, an element of "adventure" or
"risk taking" is involved in obtaining them. Thus, wearing
them could manifest not only mere decoration, but has the
potential of depicting to their wearers a certain memory or
experience that the shells are associated with.
Several authors have dealt with the use of shells in various
human contexts in recent years3. In a previous paper I
suggested that shell species are typical of certain periods and can
therefore be used as cultural markers, just as certain stone
tools characterize certain periods4. While this basic concept
has not changed, we do have more data available to support it,
and here I present the current state of research.
MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC
The earliest occurrence of shells in a prehistoric site in the
Levant (and possibly in the world) are a few marine shells from
the Middle Palaeolithic burial grounds in Skhul Cave at Mt.
Carmel (110 ka BP uncalibrated). Those include Cardium sp.,
Nassarius gibbosulus and Pecten jacobaeus5 . Another
assemblage is that of five Glycymeris valves found in a burial context
at Qafzeh Cave, TL-dated to ca. 92000 years BP6. Ochre stains
on the interior (concave) side of one of the valves7 as well as
several use marks, leave little doubt as to the human handling
of the shell, even though the perforations of the umbones on all
2. E.g. TABORIN, 1974 ; FRANCIS, 1989 ; D'ERRICO et ai, 1993.
3. E.g. Taborin, 1993 ; CLAASSEN, 1998 ; Kárali, 1999 ; BAR-YOSEF
MAYER (éd.), 2005.
4. BAR-YOSEF, 1989.
5. GARROD and BATE, 1937 224.
6. Taborin, 2003.
:
7. Walter, 2003.
Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 176-185 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005
177
five valves are a result of natural abrasion. It should be noted
that in both cases shells appear in Middle Palaeolithic sites
associated with modern humans, while they do not appear in
Middle Palaeolithc sites associated with Neanderthals such as
Tabun Cave or Kebara Cave. Neanderthals have exploited
molluscs in Europe as food and for other utilitarian purposes, but
not for decorative purposes8.
UPPER PALAEOLITHIC
The Upper Palaeolithic is the period (45-20 ka BP
uncalibrated) in which shells are used for the first time in a more
systematic way and are found in many more sites. Their
quantities are variable but in most cases do not exceed several
dozens per site9. The relatively large numbers of shells from Ksar
Akil and Ûçagizh (hundreds of shells) is due to the fact that
these are multi-layered sites with repeated occupation that
spanned over 10000 years10, whereas most sites in the
southern Levant are either single or short occupation sites
(especially in the western Negev, northern Sinai, the Lower Jordan
valley and the Azraq basin in Jordan) or were used for shorter
periods (e.g. Kebara Cave, Hayonim Cave). The use of shell
beads (and beads in general, such as those made of bone or
ostrich egg shell) is considered to be a trait of modern human
behavior as attested also by their presence in contexts of
modern humans in the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone
Age и Whether the increase in shell numbers has to do with
an increase in human population size12 or with other qualities
inherent to Homo sapiens remains to be seen. The species
most commonly used include Nassarius gibbosulus, Colum-
bella rustica, Mitrella scripta, Dentalium sp.13, Glycymeris
insubrica (that was previously referred to as G. violacescens)
and Cerastoderma glaucum. The proportions between these
species vary from one site to another, and a few other species
are more rare. In a few isolated cases such as Kebara Cave and
Meged Rockshelter, the use of the freshwater snail Theod-
oxus, pierced as a bead, is worth mentioning14.
8. TABORIN, 2003.
9. E.g. GILEAD, 1998.
10. KUHNe/a/.,2001.
1 1 HENSH1LWOOD et al, 2004 ; AMBROSE, 1998.
12. KUHNe/a/.,2001.
.
13. Most Mediterranean shells of this family belong to the genus Antalis
sp., whereas Dentalium sp. is more common in the Red Sea. For the sake of
convenience all will be referred to as Dentalium in this paper.
14. KUHN et ai, 2004 ; BAR-YOSEF MAYER, in press-e.
178 D.E. Bar-Yosef Mayer

Mediterranean
Sea

AbuNetiv
Jerusalem
Gbbsh'
Hagdud. /hlericho
ЩиGilgal.Ain
* Amman
Ghazal
•

t Vl11 •• Rosh Woresha

Nahal Betsfet • Eynan ,Q

Hayohim ,tMeged
Hilazon Táchtit
Kefar Ha4Horeáh
Yiftah'eli*tQafzeh \
*Nahal Ohaloll>y
,

• Zehora Sha'ar Ha-Golan

• Iraq ed-Dubb

0 100
Fig. 1 : Sites mentioned in the text.

THE EPI-PALAEOLITHIC
This period (23-14.5 ka cal BP), divided into several
cultural complexes15 will be treated here as one unit, as we were
not able to find any significant differences in shell choice
between the various assemblages of this period. Moreover,
there does not seem to be any significant difference between
most Upper and Epi- Palaeolithic assemblages, with the
exception of the Natufian that is presented separately.
The Early Epi-Palaeolithic site of Ohalo II (ca 23 000 cal
BP) is of particular interest16. This water-logged site is
currently underwater in the Sea of Galilee thus the presence of

15. See GORING-MORRIS, 1998. 16. NADEL(eď), 2002.

Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 176-185 P CNRS EDITIONS 2005

The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant
Fig. 2 : Shell beads (from the Mediterranean, unless otherwise
mentioned)
1, 2. Dentalium spp. Red Sea or fossil ; 3. Antalis spp. (six
specimens) ; 4-6. Nassarius gibbosulus ; 7. Shell artifact from Gilgal
I ; 8. Cypraea spurca ; 9. Cypraea erosa nebrites Red Sea ; 10.
Columbella rustica ; 11. Conus mediterraneus ; 12. Theodoxus
jordanii (two specimens), Sea of Galilee ; 13. A worked "cassid lip "
ofPhalium granulátům ; 14. Glycymeris insubrica ;
15. Acanthocardia tuberculata ; 16. Donax trunculus ; 17. Pendant
ofPinctada margaritifera Red Sea
freshwater gastropods in it is evident and it could have been
the source for some of the Theodoxus shells found elsewhere.
More curious, though, is the use of Mediterranean Dentalium
sp. in this site. Dentalium shells present in several other sites
of the Upper Palaeolithic and Epi-Palaeolithic, are usually
within a range of 5-20 mm long, as they are found on the
beach. The natural posterior and/or anterior ends of the shell
are often removed, either intentionally or as a result of natural
abrasion (this phenomenon is well-known in Europe as
well17. At Ohalo, most of the Dentalium shells were cut into
thin slices of 1 -3 mm. The only other site where a similar
17. TABORIN, 1993 ; ALVAREZ FERNANDEZ, 2001 ; VANHAEREN et ai,
2004.
Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 176-185 P CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005
179
nomenon has been observed is at the Final Natufian level of
Eynan (about 12000 years later)18.
The role of Dentalium in Epi-Palaeolithic sites is
particularly distinct in desert sites. With the exception of Ohalo II
where the population was apparently more sedentary than
other contemporaneous societies, Dentalium seems to be
associated with groups that are highly mobile, and those are
common in desert sites, in northern Sinai (see below) and later
in the Harifian19, the PPNA-aged site of Abu Madi I and the
PPNB sites of South Sinai20. They then appear in large
quantities (about 1 8 000) in the nawamis burial sites of Chalcol-
ithic and Early Bronze Age pastoralists in southern Sinai21.
After this period they are rarely encountered in the
archaeological record of the Levant.
The shells of twenty seven sites from Gebel Maghara,
north Sinai22 were analyzed, dated to the Upper Palaeolithic
through Neolithic. Most of these sites have Dentalium sp. as
the dominant species, while Nassarius and Columbella are the
second most abundant group. About a dozen other species of
both gastropods and bivalves are present, usually represented
by a single specimen at an occasional site. A similar
phenomenon was observed in the Epi-Palaeolithic assemblages of the
Shunera area in the western Negev23, where Anachis miser
and Euplica turturina (both small indo-pacific gastropods)
are present in a few sites. Those can be considered in the
"small gastropod" category along with the Mediterranean
Columbella rustica and Mitrella scripta24. The Geometric
Kebaran site of Wadi Sayakh in southern Sinai contained
mostly the Mediterranean Nassarius gibbosulus (12 out of 18
shells, about 280 km away from their source)25.
By contrast, the shell assemblage (almost 100 shells) of
the Geometric Kebaran site of Neve David, located at the foot
of Mt. Carmel just a few km from the Mediterranean, is
dominated by Columbella rustica, which forms over a third of the
shells at the site, followed by Mitrella, Glycymeris and
Dentalium. A few isolated specimens of Nassarius are also
present. Thus, while the species present at the site are the
same ones as in other sites, their proportions seem to be
somewhat different.
18. VALLA et al, 2004 and see below.
19. E.g. MIENIS, 1977.
20. BAR-YOSEF MAYER, 1997a, 1999b.
21 BAR-YOSEF MAYER, 2002a, b.
22. BAR-YOSEF and PHILLIPS, 1977 ; BAR-YOSEF MAYER, in press-a.
.
23. BAR-YOSEF MAYER, in press-b.
24. CRABTREEeia/., 1991.
25. BAR-YOSEF and KILLEBREW, 1984.
180
THE NATUFIAN
The Natufian culture (14.5-1 1.6 cal В Р) dominates the end
of the Epi-Palaeolithic and is considered to be the precursor of
the "Neolithic Revolution"26, distinguished, among other
characteristics, by increased sedentism. This sedentism,
however, is accompanied by increased long distance exchanges.
Those are manifested by the occurrence of obsidian artifacts
(originating in Anatolia) and shells from the Red Sea and the
Nile River (Chambardia rubens, previously called
Aspatharia rubens)21', both found in the Upper Jordan Valley,
at Eynan. Basalt implements from the Golan heights are also
an important component in this elaborate exchange network.
One of the hallmarks of the Natufian culture is the occurrence
of Dentalium shells in large quantities28. Those were
collected mostly from the Mediterranean but also from the Red
Sea and from fossil exposures29.
Dentalium has been used in the preceding Upper
Palaeolithic and Epi-Palaeolithic cultures, but its abundance in
Natufian sites is more dramatic as it is found in larger numbers
(hundreds as opposed to dozens) and it is now found in
graves, adorning both crania and post-crania30. There are
clear differences in the use of Dentalium between Early and
Late Natufian : in the Early Natufian Dentalium shells are
long, approximately 8-25 mm long, and present in burials as
well as occupation levels (e.g. el-Wad Cave, Hayonim Cave
B, lower levels of Eynan)31, whereas in the Late and Final
Natufian levels they are absent in burials and become shorter.
This was observed especially in sites such as Eynan, Hilazon
Tachtit Cave and el- Wad Terrace. In some cases such as the
Final Natufian of Eynan most shells are as short as 1-3 mm32.
Natufian assemblages exhibit modest numbers of Nassar-
ius and Columbella, Glycymeris and Cerastoderma, as well as
26. E.g. BAR-YOSEF, 1998.
27. MlENIS, 1987.
28. GARROD, 1957.
29. E.g. AVNIMELECH, 1937 ; TCHERNOV, 1974. One such exposure was
recently noticed in the Hatay region in southeastern Turkey (Mary Stiner,
personal communication). Most exposures containing Dentalium in the Levant are
from Upper Cretaceous or Pliocene levels, where the shells are either too
mineralized or too fragmentary to serve as beads. (Zeev Levy, Israel Geological
Survey, pers. comm.).
30. E.g. GARROD and BATE, 1937 ; BELFER-COHEN, 1995.
31. Seventy-nine Dentalium shells from an as yet unpublished el-Wad
Terrace burial, were between 9-42 mm long (average 22 mm ; s.d. 5.3). These
beads were apparently associated with a male, 20-25 years old (ARENSBURG
:
and BELFER-COHEN, in prep.) labled by Garrod as Misc. # 15 (Peabody
Museum inventory N-10239 ; A. Belfer-Cohen, pers. comm.).
32. VALLAet ai, 2004.
D.E. BAR-YOSEF MAYER
various other gastropods and bivalves {e.g. muricids, cones,
Theodoxus, Unio, Mactra, Cypraea etc.) as is true for earlier
Epi-Palaeolithic assemblages.
One innovation that comes towards the end of the Natufian
is the production of an artifact, a bead, in which the original
shape of the shell from which it is made of cannot be
recognized. This was first observed in the Final Natufian at Eynan,
hence shell is now used as "raw material". At Eynan there
were a few disc beads33 made of both mother of pearl (of an
unidentifiable shell, but it is probably the local freshwater
Unio sp.), and of Cerastoderma glaucum from the
Mediterranean34.
PRE POTTERY NEOLITHIC A
New strategies characterize the onset of the Neolithic.
There is a fundamental change in the economic basis, i.e., the
domestication first of cereals, then of sheep and goat, that in
turn influences all other aspects of life, including the use of
shells and various other decorations.
Shell assemblages vary both in size, and in the species that
is dominant. However, a trend that seems to develop at this
point is a differentiation between populations living in the
desert from those in the Mediterranean climatic zone. The
former acquire more shells. During the PPNA period (11.6-
10.6 cal BP) we are familiar with three contemporaneous
cultures The Khiamian in the Mediterranean are, represented
:
by such sites as Jericho and Netiv Hagdud, and a number of
smaller sites (Gilgal, Iraq ed-Dubb), a number of Harifian
sites in the Negev, and one site in southern Sinai, Abu Madi
I35. The site of Netiv Hagdud resembles earlier sites in its
choice of shells, and the main difference is in the proportions
between the different species, especially a sharp decline in the
frequency of Dentalium, and an occasional new species that
was not in use before, like Nerita sp.36, as do the smaller sites
in the Gilgal area37. The Harifian sites manifest a much larger
variety of species and include a much higher frequency of
shells from the Red Sea, as could be expected. Dentalium
formed about half of the shells at Abu Madi I, but other com-
33. A disc bead according to BECK, 1928, is one in which the length is
less than a third of the diameter.
34. VALLA et al., 2004.
35. BAR-YOSEF MAYER, 1999b.
36. BAR-YOSEF, 1991 ; BAR- YOSEF MAYER, 1997b.
37. Bar-Yosef Mayer, in press-c
Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 176-185 © CNRS EDITIONS 2005
The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant
mon species were Pecten sp., Ancilla sp., Tonna sp. and
Conus sp. It should be noted that over 3000 shells were
retrieved in the PPNA levels of this site, and those contained
48 genera consisting of 69 different species. The Harifian site
of Ramat Harif (G-VIII) contained over 700 shells and had
similar large proportions of Dentalium sp., and Pecten sp. The
major difference between the desert sites and that of Netiv
Hagdud was in the density of shells : At Netiv Hagdud only
about a hundred shell beads were found.
PRE POTTERY NEOLITHIC В (AND C)
To date, there has been no study that can differentiate PPNB
from PPNC shell assemblages, and here I will refer to them as
one unit. This period (10.6-8.4/8.2 cal BP) is typified by an
increase in shell quantities, as well as a larger range of species
being used as beads. This is due to the increased exploitation of
shells from the Red Sea, a trend already observed during the
preceding period. One of the possible mechanisms responsible
for this situation is the "pushing" or segregating of parts of the
village society into the desert, where they continue to subsist on
hunting and gathering (as opposed to village dwellers
subsisting on agriculture). These hunter-gatherers rely on shells as a
means of exchange for obtaining domesticated cereals38. Shells
(either from the Mediterranean or the Red Sea) are used in
village sites for decorating plastered skulls and statues {e.g.
Jericho), indicating that they have now a new function : Not only
simple decoration of the body, clothes or objects, but also a
symbolic and spiritual one.
Of over 1 200 shells at the PPNB site of Kefar Ha-Horesh,
about half belong to the family Cardiidae (either Cerasto-
derma glaucum or Acanthocardia tuberculata), another 25 %
are formed by Glycymeris insubrica. The rest are various
bivalves (Donax, Venus, Mactrd) and gastropods {Colum-
bella, Nassarius, Conus, Murex) mainly from the
Mediterranean, but a few from the Red Sea {Nerita, Erosaria, Pinctada)
as well as a few freshwater species, (Melanopsis, Unio). To
date only one Dentalium was found at the site. The dominance
of Glycymeris and Cerastoderma in sites in the Mediterranean
zone, also seen at Yiftah'el, Jericho as well as smaller sites
like Nahal Betset and Abu Ghosh39 is significantly different
38. Bar- Yosef Mayer, 1997a, 1999b.
39. Bar- Yosef Mayer and Heller, 1987 ; Biggs, 1963 ; Bar-Yosef
MAYER, 1997c, 2003.
Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 176-185 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005
181
from the overall pattern of sites in the desertic regions. Sites
in southern Sinai (Ujrat el Mehed and Wadi Tbeik), the
southern Negev {e.g. Nahal Issaron), and south Jordan (Ain Abu
Nukheyla40) exhibit a dominance of Dentalium, Nerita,
Conus and Cypraea. It is important to note, though, that at the
Sinai sites 34 genera and 63 species were identified. A group
of "second in importance" shells included Clanculus, Strom-
bus, Lambis, Natica, Nassarius, Persicula, Ancilla, Pinctada,
Tridacna and Glycymeris and other species are found in just a
few isolated cases. Forming less than 3 % of the assemblages,
Nassarius gibbosulus is the biggest group of Mediterranean
species in the Sinai sites. Curiously, it is the only marine shell
found at Mureybet I A in Syria41.
Larger sites in Jordan such as Ain Ghazal, Beidha and
Basta, as well as in the Judean Desert (Nahal Hemar Cave)
tend to have a mixture of the two types of assemblages :
Those with Glycymeris and Cerastoderma, and those with
Dentalium, Nerita, Conus and Cypraea42. Fairly similar shell
assemblages were found in Syria at the sites of Aswad, Gho-
raife and El Kowm43.
A similar composition of the shell assemblage at the
Preceramic Neolithic site of Shillourokambos in Cyprus
enhanced the researchers' contention as to the Levantine
origin of the inhabitants of this site44.
An important feature of the PPN is the presence of a few
shell artifacts. One is an oval pendant from the PPNA site of
Gilgal I, 1 1 mm long45. Another is a tiny figurine made of
shell discovered at Ujrat el Mehed. Flint tools were most
probably used to manufacture these items, and blades were
probably used to make holes by sawing a groove in some
shells, especially in southern Sinai46. It is interesting that
sawn shells were not encountered in the Mediterranean zone.
"Cassid lip", i.e. the naturally abraded outer lip of a
Phalium shell, often appears in archaeological sites47, mainly
in later periods where it has been suggested that they may
have had an amuletic quality48. The earliest cassid lip was
discovered in Kefar Ha-Horesh where it was also worked by pol-
40. I thank Don Henry for allowing me to study this assemblage.
41. MARÉCHAL, 1991.
42. STARCK in GEBEL era/., 1988 ; ROLLEFSON, 1984 table 4 ; MlENIS,
1988 ; REESE, 1989b.
:
43. MARÉCHAL, 1995, 2000.
44. SERRAND et al, 2005.
45. BAR-YOSEF MAYER, in press-C.
46. YAMADA et al, 2001 discusses micro-wear studies of flint tools used
for this purpose.
47. REESE, 1989a.
48. E.g. in Megiddo, BAR- YOSEF MAYER, 2000a.
182
ishing and producing grooves near the two edges. Other shell
artifacts are a few mother of pearl pendants, of different
shapes, found in south Sinai49 and in the PPNB sites in
Jordan, especially Ain Ghazal, and Basta50.
LATE NEOLITHIC (8.4/8.2-7.2 CAL BP)
A large Late Neolithic site excavated in the last decade is
Sha'ar Ha-Golan, but unfortunately a report on the shells is
not available. A preliminary note, however, mentions
hundreds of shells from the Mediterranean, including Cerasto-
derma, Cypraea and Conus51. Another Late Neolithic site of
interest is that of Nahal Zehora52. Besides Glycymeris insub-
rica and Cerastoderma glaucum, the common Mediterranean
bivalves that often appear in archaeological sites hand in
hand, there was a selection of various shells, mostly
gastropods, in small numbers. One group among them that stands
out is 14 "cassid lips" of Phalium granulátům. Three of them
have been artificially processed. One had an incision carved
around one end, so that a string could be tied around it and the
shell could be suspended. Another was polished, and the
bottom part given a pointed shape. The third is burned, polished,
and a hole pierced in its bottom end. The rest of the Nahal
Zehora assemblage is characterized by Glycymeris and
Cerastoderma (together forming about 70 % of the assemblage of
about 200 shells), and a selection of various Mediterranean
gastropods and bivalves, often represented by just one
specimen each. Only two dentalia were found53.
CONCLUSIONS
This review focused on marine shells and their use as
beads and ornaments. The earliest use of molluscs as food is
encountered early on, for instance in South Africa, but the
phenomenon of shell middens on a global scale is noted
especially from the beginning of the Holocene54. In the Levant,
however, molluscs were used as a food source very rarely, but
49. Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1999b.
50. GEBEL et ai, 1988 ; ROLLEFSON, 1984.
51. Garfinkel, 2004 134.
52. GOPHER etal, 1998.
:
53. BAR-YOSEF MAYER, in press-d.
54. WASELKOV, 1987.
D.E. Bar-Yosef Mayer
the use of shells as beads is consistent, in particular from the
Upper Paleolithic on55.
It is important to mention also freshwater mollusc shells
that are sometimes found in archaeological sites. Some of
them, especially Theodoxus sp. are perforated and may have
been used as ornaments, as is evident from the fact that they
were discovered in sites distant from their source. T. jordanii
from the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River found at the
Western Galilee Meged Rockshelter was undoubtedly
brought there by humans for that purpose, as were similar
shells found at Rosh Horesha in the Negev Highlands56. Other
freshwater gastropods like Melanopsis buccinoidea, found
throughout Israel57 is often found in sites. Since they live in
local creeks and springs yet there are no signs of manipulation
on them, it is proposed that they were inadvertently brought to
the site along with drinking water.
The relative paucity of shells in the Upper and Epi-Palaeo-
lithic sites (by comparison to both the length of the period and
to their presence in later period sites) could indicate that shells
were 1 Not easily accessible, or, 2. Awareness of their
:
.
potential use was not high or, 3. They were considered so valuable
that only one (the head of the band ?) or just a few
distinguished individuals (the oldest woman ? the shaman ?) were
adorned with them. Conversely, their relative abundance from
the Natufian onwards indicates that shell beads were more
readily accessible and awareness of their potential as both
simple adornment or adornment of outstanding individuals was
much higher. Their temporary decline during the Final
Natufian where they are found in much smaller numbers by
comparison to the Early Natufian and to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
В may have to do with a somewhat depleted economy, also
testified to by other elements of the material culture.
The proportions between the different shell species in
various sites seem to be consistent over long periods, but there is
some variability between them. Such is the case of Neve
David where an especially large assemblage of C. rustica is
present and just a few Nassarius, whilst in some sites the
proportions between these two species, that go hand in hand, are
reversed. Since in most cases the shells are found scattered
within the site, and not in a specific context, we cannot
speculate as to the way they were used (as necklaces, clothes or
objects of decoration ?), and this, in turn, makes it impossible
to interpret the differences between the sites. If indeed shell
55. Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2000b.
56. MIENIS, 1977.
57. HELLER etal, 1999.
Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 176-185 © CNRS EDITIONS 2005
The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant 183

beads were used for populations to identify themselves BIBLIOGRAPHY

towards each other, then one would expect them to either use
a larger variety of shell, or each group (tribe ? band ?) would ALVAREZ FERNANDEZ E.
use them in a different way. 2001 L'axe Rhin-Rhône au Paléolithique supérieur récent
l'exemple des mollusques utilisés comme objets de parure.

:
Most of the examples cited in this review are based on L'Anthropologie 105 547-564.

:
excavated sites from Israel, Egypt (Sinai), and a few sites in Ambrose S.H.
Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, however it is impossible to 1 998 Chronology of the Later Stone Age and Food Production in
mention each and every site. A large number of assemblages was East Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 25 377-392.

:
recorded by D. Reese58 and their overall characteristics are AVNIMELECH M.
similar to the ones described above. 1 937 Sur les mollusques trouvés dans les couches préhistoriques et
protohistoriques de Palestine. Journal of the Palestine
It is interesting to note that apart for the Early Natufian, Oriental Society 17 81-92.
shell beads rarely occur in burials59. This may indicate the

:
Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E.
economic importance attributed to shell and their potential as 1 989 Late Palaeolithic and Neolithic Marine shells in the Southern
exchange items for food. Shells as grave goods become Levant as Cultural Markers. In HAYES CF. Ill (éd.),
Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference: 169-174.

:
prominent later, in the Chalcolithic period60.
Rochester Rochester Museum and Science Center
(Research Records 20).

:
Acknowledgements : I wish to thank the American 1 99 1 Changes in the selection of marine shells during the transition
School of Prehistoric Research at the Peabody Museum, from the Natufian to the Neolithic. In BAR-YOSEF O. and
VALLAF.R. (eds), The Natufian Culture in the Levant 629-

:
Harvard University, for facilitating a large portion of my research 636. Ann Arbor, Michigan International Monographs in

:
Prehistory (Archeological Series 1).

:
on which this paper is based, during the years 1989-2003, as
well as for allowing access to the el- Wad Terrace burial 1997a Neolithic Shell Bead Production in Sinai. Journal of
Archaeological Science 24 97- 111.
mentioned above. Thanks to Anna Belfer-Cohen for providing

:
1997b Miscellaneous Finds The Marine Shells from Netiv
further information on this burial. I wish to thank my Hagdud. In BAR-YOSEF O. and GOPHER A. (eds), An Early-
:
Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, Part I : The
:

colleagues who entrusted me with the shells from their

Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud 189-192. Cambridge MA Peabody
excavations. In particular I thank Nigel Goring-Morris, Avi Gopher, Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (American School of
:

:
Leore Grossman, Daniel Kaufman, Don Henry, Ian Kuijt, Jim Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43).
Phillips and Ofer Bar-Yosef, who kindly provided the 1997c The Molluscs of Horvat Galil and Nahal Beset. Tel-Aviv
calibrated dates. Thanks are due to Henk K. Mienis for his 24,2 223-228.
:

1999a Marine Shells at Saflulim and Rosh Horesha (New

guidance in shell identification, and to David Reese for providing Excavations) A Preliminary Report. Palestine Exploration
information on shell assemblages from Jordan. Special Quarterly January- June 62-64.
:

Thanks to Mina Weinstein-Evron for her support.
Daniella E. BAR-YOSEF MAYER
Zinman Institute of Archaeology
University of Haifa
1999b The Role of Shells in the Reconstruction of Socio-Economic
Aspects of Neolithic Through Early Bronze Age Societies in
Southern Sinai. Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
2000a Chapter 16 Mollusc Shells. In FlNKELSTElN I., USSISH-
KIN D. and HALPERN B. (eds), Megiddo III : The 1992-1996
:

Haifa 31905
Israel Seasons 478-486. Tel Aviv Tel Aviv University, Emery
and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
:

baryosef@research.haifa.ac.il
2000b The Economic Importance of Molluscs in the Levant. In
MASHKOUR M., CHOYKE A.M., BUITENHUIS H. and
:

POPLIN F. (eds), Archaeozoology of the Near East IV-A

218-227. Groningen Center for Archeological Research and
:

Consultancy (ARC Publication 32).

:

2002a The Shells of the Nawamis in Southern Sinai. In BUITEN-

HUIS H., CHOYKE A., MASHKOUR M. and AL-SHIYAB A.H.
:

(eds), Archaeozoology of the Near East V 166-180.

Groningen Center for Archeological Research and
:

Consultancy (ARC Publication 62).

:

58. E.g. REESE 1991, 1995. 2002b Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction during the Fourth and Third
59. With the possible exception of a few specimens at PPNB Kefar Ha- Millennia B.C. The Shell Connection. In VANDEN BRINK
Horesh ; GORING-MORRIS era/., 1994-1995 ; and another exception in Basta ; E.C.M. and LEVY Т.Е. (eds), Egypt and the Levant :
:

GEBELeřa/., 1988 116. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium
60. E.g. BAR-YOSEF MAYER, 2002a.
:

B.C.E : 129-135. London Continuum.

:

Paléorient vol. 3 1 /1 p. 1 76- 1 85 « CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

.
184 D.E. BAR-YOSEF MAYER

2003 A Third Shell Assemblage from Abu Ghosh. In KHALAILY Crabtree P.J., Campana D.V., Belfer-Cohen a. and Bar-Yosef
H. and MARDER O. (eds), The Neolithic Site of Abu Ghosh, D.E.

:
The 1995 Excavations 73-74. Jerusalem Israel Antiquities 1991 First results of the excavations at Salibiya I, Lower Jordan
Authority {IAA Reports 19).

:
Valley. In BAR-YOSEF O. and VALLA F.R. (eds), The
in press a Mollusc shells and « other » finds from the survey and Natufian Culture in the Levant 161-172. Ann Arbor, Michigan

:
excavations of Northern Sinai prehistoric sites. In PHILLIPS J.L. and International Monographs in Prehistory (Archeological

:
BAR-YOSEF O. (eds), Excavations in Northern Sinai, vol. II. Series 1).

:
in press b Molluscs from Prehistoric sites in the Shunera area, Western D'ERRICO F., JARDON-GINER P. and SOLER-MAYOR B.
Negev. In GORING-MORRIS A.N. (éd.), Survey in Shunera 1993 Critères à base expérimentale pour l'étude des perforations
Area, Western Negev.
:

naturelles et intentionnelles sur coquillages. In ANDERSON

in press с Chapter 13 The Shell Assemblages of the Gilgal sites. In P.C., BEYRIES S., OTTE M. et PLISSON H. (eds), Traces et

:
BAR-YOSEF O., GOPHER A. and GORING-MORRIS A.N.
:

:
fonction : les gestes retrouvés 243-254. Liège Université
(eds), Gilgal : Early Neolithic Occupations in the Lower de Liège, Service de préhistoire (ERA UL 50).

:
Jordan Valley, The Excavations ofTamarNoy. Boston Brill.
Francis p. jr.

:
in press d The shells of Nahal Zehora. In GOPHER A. (ed.), Village
Communities of the Pottery Neolithic Period in the Menashe 1989 The Manufacture of Beads from Shell. In HAYES CF. III
:

(éd.), Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference : 25-

:
Hills, Israel : Archaeological Investigations at the Nahal
Zehora Sites. Tel Aviv Emery and Claire Yass Publications 35. Rochester Rochester Museum and Science Center
in Archaeology. (Research Records 20).

:
:

in presse Shells. In MEIGNEN L. and BAR-YOSEF O. (eds), The Garfinkel Y.

Upper and Middle Paleolithic Archaeology ofKebara Cave,
:

2004 The Goddess ofSha 'ar Hagolan : Excavations at a Neolithic

Mt. Carmel. Volume II. Cambridge MA Peabody Museum Site in Israel. Jerusalem Israel Exploration Society.
of Archaeology and Ethnology (American School of
:

:
Prehistoric Research Bulletin XXX). GARROD D.A.E.
Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E. (ed.) 1957 The Natufian Culture The Life and Economy of a Mesoli-
thic People in the Near East. Proceedings of the British

:
2005 Archaeomalacology : Molluscs in Former Environments of Academy 43 21 1-227.
Human Behaviour. Oxford Oxbow Books.
:
GARROD D.A.E. and BATE D.M.A.
:

Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E. and Heller J.

1987 Mollusca from Yiftahel, Lower Galilee, Israel. Paléorient 1 937 The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Oxford Clarendon Press.

:
13,1 131-135. Gebel H.G., Muheisen M.S. and Nissen H.J.
:

Bar-Yosef O. 1988 Preliminary Report on the First Season of Excavations at

1998 The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins Basta. In GARRARD A.N. and GEBEL H.G. (eds), The
Prehistory of Jordan : The State of Research in 1986 101-134.
:

of Agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology 6 159-177.

Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 396).

:
:

Bar-Yosef O. and Killebrew A.

1984 Wadi Sayakh - a Geometric Kebaran site in southern Sinai. GlLEADl.
Paléorient 10,2 95-102. 1998 The Foragers of the Upper Paleolithic Period. In LEVY Т.Е.
(ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land 124-140.

: :
:

Bar-Yosef O. and Phillips J.L. London Leicester University Press.

1977 Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern
:

Sinai. Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew GOPHER A. ORRELLE E., BLOCKMAN N., BARKAI R., EYAL R. and
University (Qedem 7). Naveh D.
:

1998 The Nahal Zehora village sites Pottery Neolithic in the

BECK H. Menashe hills, Israel 465-468. Forli Abaco (XIII U1SPP
:

1928 Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants. Congress Proceedings, Vol. 3).
:

Archaeologia (2nd series) 1 1-76.

GORING-MORRIS A.N., GOREN Y., HORWITZ L.K., HERSHK.OVITZ I.,
:

BELFER-COHEN A. LIEBERMAN R., SAREL J. and BAR-YOSEF D.

1 995 Rethinking Social Stratification in the Natufian Culture The 1994-1995 The 1992 Season of Excavations at the Pre-Pottery
Evidence from Burials. In CAMPBELL S. and GREEN A. Neolithic В Settlement of Kfar Hahoresh. Journal of the
:

(eds), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East

:

Israel Prehistoric Society 26 74-122.

9-16. Oxford Oxbow books.
:

GORING-MORRIS N.
:

BIGGS H.E.J. 1998 Complex Hunter/Gatherers at the End of the Paleolithic

1963 On Mollusca Collected During the Excavations at Jericho, (20000-10000 BP).In LEVYT.E. (ed.), The Archaeology of
1952-1958, and their Archaeological Significance. Man Aug. Society in the Holy Land 141-168. London Leicester
:

1963 125-128. University Press.

:

:
:

Claassen С HELLER J., SlVAN N. and MOTRO U.

1 998 Shells. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 1999 Systematics, Distribution and Hybridization of Melanopsis
from the Jordan Valley (Gastropoda Prosobranchia).
:

Journal ofConchology 36,5 49-81.

:
:

Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 176-185 CO CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant 185

Henshilwood C, d'Errico F., Vanhaeren M., van Niekerk K. and 1995 Shells from the Wadi Hisma Sites. In HENRY D.O. (éd.),
JACOBS Z. Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution : Insights from

:
2004 Middle Stone Age Shell Beads from South Africa. Science Southern Jordan : 385-390. New York Plenum Press.

:
304 404. ROLLEFSON G.O.
:

KÁRALI L. 1984 'Ain Ghazal An Early Neolithic Community in Highland

Jordan, near Amman. Bulletin of the American Schools of

:
1999 Shells in Aegean Prehistory. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 761).
Oriental Research 225 3-14.
Kuhn S.L., Belfer-Cohen A., Barzilai O., Stiner M.C., Kerry

K.W., Munro N., Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E.
2004 The Last Glacial Maximum at Meged Rockshelter, Upper
lee, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 34 5-47.
:
SERRAND N. VIGNE J.D. and GUILAINE J.
2005 Early Preceramic Neolithic Marine Shells From Shillouro-
kambos, Cyprus (Late 9th-8th Mill, cal be) A
Mainly-Ornamental Set with Similarities to Mainland PPNB. In BAR-

:
:
Kuhn S.L., Stiner M.C., Reese D.S. and Guleç E. YOSEF MAYER D.E. (éd.), Archaeomalacology : Molluscs in

:
2001 Ornaments of the Earliest Upper Palaeolithic : New Insights Former Environments of Human Behaviour: 122-129.
from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Oxford Oxbow Books.
Science 98 7641-7646.

:
TABORIN Y.
:

Maréchal С. 1974 La parure en coquillage de Pépipaleolithique au Bronze

1991 Éléments de parure de la fin du Natoufien Mallaha niveau I, Ancien en France. Gallia Préhistoire 17 (1,2): 101-179,
Jayroud 1, Jayroud 3, Jayroud 9, Abu Hureyra et Mureybet 308-417.
:

IA. In BAR-YOSEF O. and VALLA F.R. (eds), The Natufian 1993 La parure en coquillage au Paléolithique. Paris CNRS
Culture in the Levant: 589-612. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Editions (Gallia Préhistoire, XXIXe supplément).
:

:
International Monographs in Prehistory (Archaeological 2003 La mer et les premiers hommes modernes. In : VANDER-
Series 1). MEERSCH B. (éd.), Échanges et dijfusion dans la préhistoire
1995 Les éléments de parure de Tell Aswad (Syrie). In CONTEN- méditerranéenne 113-121. Paris Éditions du Comité des
SON H. de (éd.), Aswad et Ghoraifé 129-162. Beyrouth
:

travaux historiques et scientifiques.

:
Institut Français d'Archéologie du Proche Orient. (BAH 137).
:

TCHERNOV E.
2000 Elements de parure et petits objets en pierre d'el Kowm 2.
In STORDEUR D. (éd.), El Kowm 2 : Une île dans le désert : 1974 The Animal Remains. In BAR-YOSEF O., ARENSBURG B.
and TCHERNOV E. (eds), Hayonim Cave : Natufian Ceme-

:
la fin du néolithique précéramique dans la steppe syrienne
:

209-220. Paris CNRS Éditions. teiy and Settlement Remains 49-57. Bemaaravo shel Galil.
:

(Hebrew).

:
:

MlENIS H. К.
Valla F.R., Khalaily H., Valladas h., Tinerat-Laborde n.,
1977 Marine Molluscs from the Epipaleolithic and Harifian of the Samuelian N., Bocquentin F., Rabinovich R., Bridault a.,
Наг Harif, Central Negev (Israel). In MARKS A.E. (éd.),
Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Simmons T., LE DOSSEUR G., MILLER-ROSEN A., DUBREUIL L., BAR-YOSEF
:

Israel. Vol. II 347-354. Dallas Southern Methodist Mayer D.E. et Belfer-Cohen a.,
University Press. 2004 Les fouilles à Mallaha en 2000 et 2001 3e rapport
:

naire. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 34 49-244.

:
1987 Molluscs from the Excavation of Mallaha (Eynan). In BOU-
:
CHUD J. (éd.), La Faune du Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha
:

VANHAEREN M., D'ERRICO F., BILLY I. and GROUSSET F.

(Eynan) Israel: 157-178. Paris: Association Paléorient 2004 Tracing the source of Upper Palaeolithic Shell Beads by
(Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Strontium Isotope Dating. Journal of archaeological science
Jérusalem 4). 31 1481-1488.
1988 Nahal Hemar Cave - The Marine Molluscs. 'Atiqot 1 8 47-49.
:

WALTER P.
:

NADEL D. (éd.) 2003 Caractérisation des traces rouges et noires sur les coquillages
2002 A 23000 Year Old Fisher-Hunter-Gatherers' Camp on the perforés de Qafzeh. In VANDERMEERSCH B. (éd.), Échanges
Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Haifa University of Haifa, et diffusion dans la préhistoire méditerranéenne 122. Paris
:

Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum. Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques.
:

Reese d.S. WASELKOV G. A.

1989a On Cassid Lips and Helmet Shells. Bulletin of the American 1987 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archaeology.
Schools of Oriental Research 275 33-39. ces in Archaeological Method and Theory 10 93-210.
:

1989b The Natufian Shells from Beidha. In BYRD B.F. (éd.), The
:

Natufian Encampment at Beidha 102-104. Moesgaard, Yamada S., Goring-Morris A.N., Gopher A. and Perron J.T.
: :

Aarhus The Carlsberg Foundation's Gulf Project (Jutland 2001 Analysis of Faintly Glossed Blades from Pre-Pottery
Archaeological Society Publications XXIII, 1). thic Nahal Issaron (Israel). In CANEVA I. (ed.), Beyond
:

Tools : Redifining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of the

:

1991 Marine Shells in the Levant Upper Palaeolithic, Epipalaeo-

lithic and Neolithic. In BAR-YOSEF O. and VALLA F.R. Levant 183-203. Berlin Ex Oriente.
:

(eds), The Natufian Culture in the Levant: 613-628. Ann

:

Arbor, Michigan University of Michigan (International

Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1).
:

Paléorient, vol. 31/1, p. 176-185 6 CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005