Stone beads

This article examines stone beads from urn burials unearthed at Kunnukara in the Ernakulam district, Kerala, India. Eighty-eight stone beads of agate/carnelian and quartz (rock crystal) from this site, which are kept in the Archaeological Museum, Union Christian College, Aluva, are important for understanding the morphological and technological features of stone beads of the South Indian Megalithic culture, as the specimens exhibit diverse morphological types and unique drilling technologies. The evidence from this site, along with that from Niramakulam, suggests that further examination on stone beads from Megalithic contexts can provide invaluable information on the Megalithic society.

Several types of mineral beads can be found among the 11 th-12 th-century grave assemblages of the Carpathian Basin. This paper examines the distribution of fluorite beads representing one type in Central and Eastern Europe. The distribution patterns have enabled the identification of the source of the raw material and they also outline the period's main trade routes.

This paper explores a connection between Taxila and North India by examining stone beads from Taxila. Morphological and technological features of the beads from Bhir Mound and Sirkap point to close similarities to the examples from North India, which indicate the introduction of stone bead tradition from North India during the late first millennium BCE and early first millennium CE. Further studies on the archaeological remains from Taxila must be oriented to reveal understanding better how the connection with North India developed and examining different types of artefacts to reveal the strategic position and dynamic nature of the sites of Taxila connecting not only with North India but also with different parts of South Asia and Central Asia using scientific analyses.

An analysis of the Bronze Age beads from Tell F6 at Failaka Island, Kuwait, excavated from 2008-2012. The bead material were recovered from  excavation layers between the Bronze Age "Palace" and Temple dating to settlement phases between 2100-ca. 1350 BC.

Beads are the most common decorative element of jewelry found in excavations. They are commonly
used as components of chains and bracelets, whether as individual items or concentrated in small numbers.
The earliest beads are known from the Neolithic period, coupled with the development of various
industries related to jewelry production (see Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005; Sherr 2009). Over time, craftsmen
developed various technological changes in order to create more elaborate beads with special decorations,
using a variety of different raw materials.
Personal jewelry, including beads, is a useful tool for identifying social class or as a cultural
marker. It is often linked to traditional expression, with forms of jewelry almost never changing (Crowfoot
et al. 1957: 391; Golani 2009a, 2009b). According to Golani (2009a: 1-19, 207-209), in addition to the
archaeological/historical context of jewelry, multiple cultural contexts exist at several levels: social,
religious, economic and cultural.
Jewelry – including beads – is often discussed from a typological, stylistic and social perspective,
although it also holds chronological value. Despite this, due to the passing of heirlooms between
generations, it’s relative lack of commonality in excavations and the fact that often, common items only
change slightly, their use in dating is secondary, alongside other artifacts and parameters. Thus, some
scholars argue that beads are in general considered poor chronologically markers (Crowfoot et al. 1957:
391; Chin 1988: 60-61). The current paper examines the raw materials used in the production of beads
and its potential for understanding trade relationships, economic status and as a tool for broad
chronological determinations. The periods to be discussed are the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages.

Archaeological, historical, literary, scientific, technological and ethnographic evidence suggests that the present-day state of Gujarat in India has been active in producing stone beads in general, and of carnelian in particular, for the last 5000 years. The most intriguing fact about the Gujarat beads is that neither the style and shape of the beads have changed much in all these years nor the production technique has gone through any drastic makeover. Starting from the early Common Era, one gets reference to the export of carnelian from Bharuch. The base for this craft and trade shifted and got cornered to the city of Cambay in the medieval period and along with this increased the reference to the same. Starting from the 18th century, many scholars have been documenting the ethnographic aspects of this bead industry at Cambay/Khambhat with various objectives. The index work of recording the sources of raw materials as well as the then existing process of bead making was initially done by the surgeons/enthusiasts/amateurs having interests in minerals, ethnography and trades. Next, the geologists and economists gave ample references to this cottage industry while documenting the rich mineral resources and economic importance of the area. This was followed by the compilers of various gazetteers who elaborated this ancient craft in their records. With the discovery of Harappan civilization followed by a series of excavations at sites like Harappa, Mohenjodaro and Chanhudaro in the 1920s and 1930s, which yielded rich evidence
of ancient stone beads as well as their production, archaeologists started to study the ethnography of bead making in order to interpret the various aspects of Harappan bead-making. Meanwhile, the work of Horace C. Beck on beads from across the world brought the study of beads to the forefront of archaeological investigations. Eventually, archaeologists started referring to the Cambay bead industry to understand their archaeological finds. A detailed ethnographic recording of the entire cycle of this cottage industry in 1960s as part of the census opened the door for future scientific studies. In the 1980s and 1990s, bead specialists and ethnoarchaeologists made landmark contributions on this ancient craft, and one among them took the study of drill impression to its zenith. By revisiting the available literature and observing the presentday bead-making activities, this chapter attempts
to record the transition and shifts that have taken place in various aspects of this ancient craft of Gujarat, such as the source of raw materials, the technology, trade and organization since this craft
was reported for the first time. This transition is what anthropology aspires for before the contemporary becomes archaeology.

Analyses of a sample of 68 carnelian and agate beads from Korea’s late Proto-Three Kingdoms and Three Kingdoms period (C.E. 100–668) provide evidence for long distance exchange with South Asia. Three Kingdoms period elites were rejecting locally made stone beads made of local materials for stone beads obtained from long distance trade and made of non-local materials. Some of these beads may also be derived from South, Central, or Southeast Asia as well as from regions of modern China or Mongolia. The beads were recovered from burials at sites associated with the Paekche (RR: Baekje), Kaya (RR: Gaya), and Silla cultural traditions. There have been no local bead workshops found during the Three Kingdoms period and the carnelian beads were manufactured using different drilling technologies compared to earlier Korean drilling. Faceted hexagonal, spherical, and irregularly shaped carnelian beads were perforated using diamond drills, a technology originally developed in South Asia ca. 600 B.C.E. Quantitative analyses
of drill hole size and overall size and shape of the beads points to, multiple workshops supplying the imported beads. The distribution patterns of the beads in different polities may reflect changes in trade networks over time as well as stylistic choices of bead shapes used as a means of differentiating specific groups or individuals. Evidence for string wear and external weathering indicate that some beads were used for long periods of time enroute to Korea or in Korea itself before burial in mortuary contexts.

Recent large-scale excavations at the East St. Louis precinct of greater Cahokia revealed many unexpected temporal and material culture discoveries. This chapter provides a summary of the the nearly 9 tons of lithic material recovered in excavating an estimated four percent of the site. The lithic assemblage contained many novelties related to craft production, raw material acquisition,  exotic raw materials and goods, and pushed back the origin of several cultural markers. Provided here is a few pages and highlights from the chapter.

Beads were an important form of personal ornamentation in southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic societies and hold information on symbolic practices and exchange networks engaged by these communities. Establishing the exact mineralogical composition of stone beads and the precise methods used to manufacture beads are key to documenting shifts in these systems, but so far visual inspection has served as the primary mode of analysis for most assemblages. Here, we apply XRD and 3D digital optical microscopy to investigate raw material selection and bead manufacture at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) settlement of el-Hemmeh, Jordan. Analyses reveal that PPNA bead assemblages emphasize the color green but included a wide variety of mineral types. The LPPNB assemblage exhibits a greater diversity in shape and color, including an emphasis on the use of red minerals, but consist of a more restricted range of minerals and lack the rectangular beads found in the PPNA. Color rather than suitability of material properties for bead making appears to have motivated choices for mineral selection. Bidirectional perforation was codified into the technological system and was consistently used to produce beads during the PPNA regardless of their size, thickness, or hardness.

This section of the bibliography deals with beadmaking technology, ancient and modern, around the world. To facilitate searches, the entries have been assigned to the following categories: Glass; Faience; Metal; Stone; Shell; Eggshell; Bone, Ivory, Antler, and Horn; Seeds and Nuts; and Mixed Materials.

This section covers all the countries of South and Central America, including Mexico, and all the Caribbean islands. For lack of a better place, Bermuda has been included herein as well. See also the two specialized theme bibliographies and the General/Miscellaneous bibliography as they may also contain reports dealing with these countries.