Bead jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine time in the province of Arabia. The beads and pendants of glass, stone, and organic materials from the rock chamber necropolis at Khirbat Yajuz.

Christoph  Eger

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.

This portion of the bibliography deals with the determination of the chemical properties and composition of beads of all materials from around the world, as well as their dating and sourcing.

Of the more than 2,150 beads and pendants examined in this article, the overwhelming majority come from a ceramic vessel found on the northern side of the lower church at Banganarti, in a layer dated to the eighth to tenth centuries. The remaining objects were collected from other Banganarti contexts dated between the sixth/seventh and fourteenth centuries. The beads and pendants were made of organic and inorganic materials (resin, ostrich eggshell, stone, faience, glass) using diverse techniques. Combined macroscopic and chemical compositional analyses show raw sources in India and possibly Yemen for carnelian and rock crystal beads. While the glass of some specimens was sourced in Egypt and the Levant, most beads were made of glass produced in the Middle East.

Sonderdruck aus 2013 BAND 6 Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie © 2013 Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Der Autor/die Autorin hat das Recht, für den eigenen wissenschaftlichen Gebrauch unveränderte Kopien dieser PDF-Datei zu erstellen bzw. das unveränderte PDF-File digital an Dritte weiterzuleiten. Außerdem ist der Autor/die Autorin berechtigt, nach Ablauf von 24 Monaten und nachdem die PDF-Datei durch das Deutsche Archäologische Institut der Öfentlichkeit kostenfrei zugänglich gemacht wurde, die unveränderte PDF-Datei an einen Ort seiner/ihrer Wahl im Internet bereitzustellen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut • Orient-Abteilung Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Orient-Abteilung Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie Band 6 • 2013 Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Herausgeber Ricardo Eichmann • Margarete van Ess Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Orient-Abteilung Podbielskiallee 69–71 D-14195 Berlin www.dainst.org Mitherausgeber Karin Bartl, Außenstelle Damaskus • Iris Gerlach, Außenstelle Sanaa Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Reinhard Bernbeck, Berlin • Nicholas J. Conard, Tübingen • Eckart Frahm, New Haven • Andreas Hauptmann, Bochum • Michaela Konrad, Bamberg • Lorenz Korn, Bamberg • Daniel T. Potts, New York • Klaus Rheidt, Cottbus • Christian Robin, Paris • Thomas Schäfer, Tübingen • Aleksander Sedov, Moskau • Dieter Vieweger, Wuppertal Redaktion: Claudia Bührig, Kristina Pfeifer, Susanne Kuprella, Franziska Bloch, Mechthild Ladurner (DAI, Orient-Abteilung) Arabische Übersetzung: Hala Attoura, Tübingen Standard-Layout und Umschlaggestaltung: Beyer foto.graik, Berlin Titelvignette: Lehmpfanne Qaʾ Bakhita mit einmündendem Wadi in der Basaltwüstensteppe in Jordanien (DAI Orient-Abteilung/ Bernd Müller-Neuhof) Aufmachergestaltung: Susanne Kuprella (DAI, Orient-Abteilung) Satz: Punkt.Satz, Zimmer und Partner, Berlin Druck und buchbinderische Verarbeitung: BELTZ Bad Langensalza GmbH ISSN 1868-9078 ISBN 978-3-8030-0220-4 Bibliograische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliograie; detaillierte bibliograische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ⑧ © Copyright 2013 Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen • Berlin Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier, das die US-ANSI-Norm über Haltbarkeit erfüllt. Printed in Germany www.wasmuth-verlag.de Collage of objects from Pl. 1–3 in this article. Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia The Beads and Pendants of Glass, Stone, and Organic Materials from the Rock Chamber Necropolis at Khirbat Yajuz, Jordan Christoph Eger – Lutfi Khalil Abstract/Kurzfassung/ The excavation of a rock chamber necropolis at Khirbat Yajuz, northern Jordan, yielded i. a. more than 360 beads and pendants from the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods. Because Late Antique bead jewellery of this region is largely unknown, this article presents a typo-chronological overview as well as a sociological evaluation of this important group of inds. Die Ausgrabung der Felskammernekropole von Khirbat Yajuz, Nordjordanien, erbrachte neben anderen Kleinfunden auch mehr als 360 Perlen und Anhänger spätrömischer und byzantinischer Zeit. Da spätantiker Perlenschmuck aus der Region nahezu unbekannt ist, gibt der vorliegende Artikel einen formenkundlich-chronologischen Überblick und eine soziologische Bewertung dieser bedeutenden Fundgruppe. Northern Jordan · Late Roman and Byzantine Period · Neck Jewellery · Beads · Pendants Nordjordanien · Spätrömische und Byzantinische Zeit · Halsschmuck · Perlen · Anhänger During the 1996 excavations at Khirbat Yajuz, a Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad site situated around 11 km north-east of Amman, on the ancient road between Philadelphia and Gerasa, the excavators found a rock chamber tomb below an Early Christian church in sector B (Fig. 1).1 The chamber had been cut into the solid bedrock and was found in a sealed condition, so that it was hoped for a largely undisturbed ind context spared at least by medieval and modern tomb robbers.2 Indeed, its total number of thirteen graves contained rich inventories including pottery lamps and vessels, glass containers, several tools, 1 The excavations were conducted by L. Khalil from the Department of Archaeology and Tourism, The University of Jordan. The history and topography of the site need not to be discussed here in more detail thanks to preliminary reports and studies of selected ind groups that have already been published, cf. Khalil 1998; Khalil 2001 a; Khalil 2001 b; Khairy – Khalil 2004. 2 However, it is likely that some disturbance still occurred in Late Antiquity. As it turned out during the excavation of the graves, they had not been spared from disturbing interference: Hardly any skeletons were found in their natural context of sinews. Mostly, the bone remains were irregularly scattered within the grave or skull and long bones were each deposited at opposing ends. On the one hand, such disturbances can be explained by the common practice of multiple ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 158 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil Fig. 1 Khirbat Yajuz. Areal B20, rock chamber necropolis (after Khalil 1998, 465, ig. 10). and in particular, elements of jewellery and dress accessories dating mainly to the late 4th to 6th centuries. A substantial ind group among the jewellery consisted of more than 360 beads and pendants.3 Since necklaces of Roman and Byzantine times from the Arabian provinces have received little attention so far besides being hardly known until now, the authors decided to present the spectrum of beads and pendants from Khirbat Yajuz (pls. 1–3) in a preliminary report.4 A complete analysis of the material will be published in the framework of an envisaged monograph on the rock chamber tombs. material may be expected. Two factors however, considerably restrict the state of the source material and the potential of bead research. One is the intensive looting of innumerable graves ever since Late Antiquity and continuing until the present day, which, although concentrating mainly on valuable objects made from precious metals, has resulted in the reduction of the number of original grave goods down to total loss and destroyed ind contexts. The second one is connected to the widely practised funerary customs of the region in those periods to collectively bury in Ever since the ancient times, beads threaded into necklaces or more rarely, bracelets, have together with earrings, arm-rings and inger-rings been among the most popular types of jewellery. In the Roman and Byzantine periods, bead necklaces were a common type of female jewellery beside the more precious gold chains. The main materials for the production of beads were glass and semi-precious stones and also organic materials such as shell limestone, coral, ebony, bone, and wood. The different raw materials, production techniques, shapes, and ornaments resulted to an almost ininite number of bead types and variants, which can be investigated according to different criteria such as chronology, distribution, trade relations, and sociology. The most important archaeological source for bead jewellery are graves. Further indications can be obtained from igural representations (Fig. 2).5 From the 1st to 7th centuries AD, people in the Near East were frequently buried with some of their jewellery so that theoretically, a considerable wealth of burials within a single tomb; on the other, chambers might have been partly robbed towards the end of their use period or might even have been cleared to some extent (no skeletal remains in two of the thirteen graves). 3 Beads and pendants are distinguished by the position of their perforation (cf. Sasse – Theune 1995, 78 ig. 3). Whenever the drill hole is centered, respectively forming the long axis of the object, it is considered a bead. Whenever it is not centered and clearly shifted towards one end or even lugshaped, the object is a pendant. This classiication remains valid for the material from Khirbat Yajuz, but must be extended. It turned out, that some beads with a longitudinal drilling had been threaded on bronze wire and thus mounted as pendants. 4 The type plates provide a irst reference for future comparative analyses of beads found in the region. With regard to this, the present authors would like to suggest a similar procedure for other ind sites. It is only by a denser network of type spectra from known Late Antique sites that a suficient basis is created for solving problems of chronology and distribution of individual bead types, of the bead trade, and of changing fashions of bead necklaces in female costume. 5 Deppert-Lippitz 1984, 6: with reference to picture representations, e.g. at Palmyra and in mummy portraits from Egypt. On necklaces in mummy portraits cf. Borg 1996, 169–170. In Jordan, we have to take into account the numerous mosaics with richly adorned female igures and busts, e.g. Piccirillo 1993, 53–57. ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia tombs with its negative effects for the investigation of all small inds. Graves were often used over generations and the dead were either placed on top of each other, or else earlier remains were shifted to the ends of a grave before a new corpse was inserted. It is particularly in this last case that small inds were completely removed from their original position and mixed with objects from other contexts so that, in the case of beads, neither an exact reconstruction of the necklace nor an attribution of single beads to speciic individuals is possible. In the case of a superimposition of corpses, the original ind position is often not guaranteed either, because the decomposition process allows smaller items like beads to tumble down between the different skeletal remains and to mix with inds belonging to other burials. Unless the yet rare event of an undisturbed, single burial with precise observation of the grave goods’ positions is given,6 research on beads from the Near East is therefore limited to concentrate on the description of local and regional type spectra and questions relating to the distribution of individual types and (long-distance) trade. Although chronological and sociological problems should not be neglected altogether, they are only of subordinate signiicance in comparison to this, since potential results will necessarily be much more wide-meshed than for individual burials, because only the entire bead complex of a grave can be considered.7 However, as will be demonstrated, respectable results can be obtained on this basis, too. Extremely unsatisfactory is the state of publication and research on Roman and Byzantine period beads in the province of Arabia and neighbouring regions, due to the almost complete absence of systematic publications of grave inds and small inds from the 3rd/4th to 7th centuries. Exceptions are the excavations at Dhiban, Pella, and Tell Hesban. Particularly careful treatment was given to the relatively limited number of beads from Byzantine graves at Dhiban. In this respect, A. D. Tushingham did not only provide a complete list and a brief description, but also published both, drawings and (black-and-white) photographs.8 At Pella, the inventories of several chamber tombs with relatively large numbers of beads were published among other things.9 At Tell Hesban as well, most of the 365 beads were found in graves. In addition to these, some specimens were encountered in settlement layers. In the context of an analysis of the jewellery, E. E. Platt compiled a complete catalogue of the beads, but did not furnish all of their drawings.10 M. Ibrahim und R. L. Gordon followed a similar procedure for the numerous beads from the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport, south of Amman.11 All beads were registered in ind lists, but 159 Fig. 2 Madaba. Mosaic of Hippolytus-hall; detail with adorned lady (after Piccirillo 1993, 57 ig. 9). only a minority were illustrated on plates. Additional beads from Roman and Byzantine times were published in various other excavation reports, but mostly without closer comments on individual pieces.12 The 6 For the Late Antique province of Arabia attention must be called to the preliminary publications of the cemeteries in Wadi Faynan (Findlater et al. 1998) and Khirbet es-Samra (most recently Nabulsi et al. 2009; Nabulsi et al. 2011). 7 Hereby, the precision of statements depends on the utilisation time and the number of buried individuals. The shorter the period of use of a grave and the fewer buried individuals, the more precise are the obtainable chronological and sociological results. 8 Tushingham 1972, 106–114 igs. 25–28 pls. 34–36. 9 Smith 1973, pls. 79–80. From later excavation campaigns at Pella, however, only individual beads from graves have been published: McNicoll – Smith – Hennessy 1982, 148–149. 10 Platt 2009, 227–242 ig. 13.1–2. 11 Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, 57–70 (brief description of inds); 71–92 (ind lists of graves); pls. 31–34. 12 Cf. e.g. Hadidi 1979, 258 pl. 56; Abbadi 1973, 136 pl. 42 bottom; Pappalardo 2006, 397 igs. 6,5–8. ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 160 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil Fig. 3 Khirbat Yajuz. The different materials of beads and pendants on a percentage basis. basic problem with almost all quoted studies is that only arbitrary samples of beads were illustrated and if so, only by means of drawings or black-and-white photographs. Additionally, information on materials, colours, ornaments, and decoration techniques were often omitted. Remarkable in this context are the 1:1 scale colour illustrations of some beads from Yamun, although even in this case closer descriptions are lacking.13 For the beads from Hesban, Platt took over H. Beck’s supra-regional bead typology of 1928 which, however, disregards the regional peculiarities of the Near East.14 Ibrahim and Gordon deined the most important bead types from the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport, but did not derive a typological classiication of the entire material from this.15 Therefore, an independent typological classiication of the beads from the province of Arabia and further considerations based on this remain a desideratum. Consequently, the analysis of the beads and pendants from Khirbat Yajuz provides an opportunity for the irst systematic publication of a Late Antique bead complex from the province of Arabia, as well as for commenting on the signiicance of bead jewellery for chronology, cultural contacts, trade, and social structure of the community buried at Khirbat Yajuz. The raw materials of the beads and pendants Somewhat more than half of the beads and pendants from the rock chamber tomb at Khirbat Yajuz consisted of glass or a glass-like material (51 %; while beads made from an opaque, slightly porous glass mass called frit only played a minor role with a share of 8 %; Fig. 3). However, among the beads whose materials ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 were not clearly determined (5 % altogether) some are likely to consist of glass or glass frit, too. A considerable percentage of beads were made from different gemstones or semi-precious stones (42 %). By far the largest group of stone beads was that of amber, a fossil tree gum, traditionally included to the gemstone group, although it strictly speaking is neither a mineral nor a rock. Amber beads represent more than 50 % of the stone beads and 23 % of the totality of beads. They are followed by beads and pendants of carnelian (8 %), rock crystal including milky-white quartz (5 %), and agate (3 %). Another 3 % consist of semi-precious stones without yet any detailed classiication. With a total of some 95 % glass and stone were the dominant materials for both beads and pendants at Khirbat Yajuz (Fig. 3). Bone, shell limestone, and metal apparently played no signiicant role in the bead and pendant production. Their proportions vary from 2 % to less than 1 %. Objects secondarily altered into pendants, such as coins, also had sporadic occurrences only among the inds from Khirbat Yajuz.16 Stone beads Beads and pendants from gemstones have a long tradition in the Levant and were already known in Ancient Oriental times. Amber and certain materials such as carnelian, mainly mined in India, testify to trade routes over long distances that persisted over 13 Al-Bataineh – el-Najjar – Burke 2011, 88–89 igs. 1–5. Additional, but very small colour illustrations of beads of the Byzantine Period in Piccirillo – Alliata 1994, 325 pl. 28,2; Mittmann 1987, 285 no. 265. 271–272. 14 On this cf. the remarks in Platt 2009, 227. 15 Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, pl. 50. 16 Coin pendants are not dealt with in the present paper nor are they included to the statistics. Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia 161 Fig. 4 Khirbat Yajuz. Selected beads (drawings: Ch. Eger and A. Darwich-Eger). centuries or were repeatedly re-established with success. The stone beads usually have a smooth surface obtained through burnishing, whereas the facet cut is rare and limited to a few polyhedral types and one club-shaped pendant (Pl. 1,7–8. 13. 22). The type spectrum of stone beads is narrow and underwent little change over time.17 Therefore, stone beads can hardly be used for chronological purposes. Popular types were conical or drop-shaped pendants as well as spherical, barrel-shaped and elongated barrelshaped beads. Only the relatively soft amber with a resistance value between 2 and 2.5 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness (quartzes such as rock crystal and agate possess a hardness of 7) was worked into more variants. Agate beads At Khirbat Yajuz there were cone-shaped pendants, hemispheric-ovoid, barrel-shaped, and elongated, barrel-shaped beads (Pl. 1,1–5; Fig. 4,1). Two broad, disc-shaped ‘eye stones’ (Pl. 1,6) also consist of agate. A parallel ind from the Byzantine Period for the cone-shaped pendant with a lattened upper end (Pl. 1,1) comes from grave 4 at Khirbat al-Kerak.18 Similar pendants were already known in Roman times in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea Region.19 The elongated barrel-shape (Pl. 1,4) is attested to locally in grave 36 of the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport as well as in grave IIH 7 at Pella.20 What is unusual is the occurrence of two ‘eye stones’ at Khirbat Yajuz (Pl. 1,6). They are considered as popular Near Eastern amulet forms, mainly during the Bronze Age and Iron Age. In a recently published paper however, T. Clayden doubted their apotropaic function and suggested a merely decorative purpose.21 According to Clayden, the production of eye stones ceased with the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, but written sources seem to conirm their use until Roman times.22 This is now veriied by the presence of the two perforated ‘eye stones’ threaded on bronze wire from Khirbat Yajuz, 17 Examples of pre- and protohistoric stone beads from Jordan: Yassine 1984, 112–131 igs. 10–14 (Tell Mazar, Iron Age); Pritchard 1980, 56–59. 64–65. 68–71 (Bronze Age); A. Wilkinson in: Schaub – Rast 1989, 302–310 (Early Bronze Age). – Among the characteristics datable with some precision are e.g. double or triple perforations of carnelian beads (Pritchard 1980, 57 ig. 19,11–13.15–17; Yassine 1984, ig. 13,51). These were unknown in Roman and Byzantine times. 18 Delougaz – Haines 1960, pl. 46,6. 19 Alekseeva 1982, 20; pl. 36,20 (type 8, 1st to 2nd c. AD). 20 Cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport: Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, pl. 32,1 bottom row, 2nd from left; Pella: Smith 1973, pl. 80C. 21 Clayden 2009, 54. 22 Clayden 2009, 55. ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 162 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil and the use of ‘eye stones’ can even be extended until Late Antiquity. Since we are dealing with the only examples of the late 4th to 6th centuries for the time being, it remains however uncertain, whether the Khirbat Yajuz pieces must be considered antiques or whether they attest to a continued or revived production in (Late) Roman times. Beads of rock crystal and milky to whitish quartz A total number of nineteen pendants and beads consist of uncoloured rock crystal or milky-white, translucent to opaque quartz. The raw material was broken down into bead-, club-, and axe-shaped pendants as well as polyhedral, oval to spherical, semi-conical, and semi-oval beads (Pl. 1,7–15; Fig. 4,2–3). The closest parallels to the drop-shaped rock crystal pendant with a broad proile (Pl. 1,8) come from Tell Hesban and a Late Roman to Early Byzantine grave at Ashqelon, Palestine.23 Identical pendants were also made from different materials such as onyx and white quartz; they spread into the southern periphery of the Mediterranean Basin.24 For other rock crystal beads too, long-distance geographical contexts can be established, which probably indicates that only few workshops were able to cut and polish these extremely hard minerals. Their products were distributed by barter and (stage wise) trade throughout the entire Eastern Mediterranean and beyond. Thus, the small rock crystal bead from Khirbat Yajuz (Pl. 1,9), oval to barrel-shaped if viewed from the top and a bi-conical in proile, can be attributed to type 7a of the rock crystal beads of the northern Black Sea Region as deined by E. M. Alekseeva.25 Semi-conical (Pl. 1,10) and large semi-ovoid beads (Pl. 1,11; Fig. 4,3) were also distributed over vast areas, as demonstrated by parallels from Northern Sudan.26 Apparently very popular were polyhedral rock crystal and quartz beads as represented by three specimens at Khirbat Yajuz (graves A4, C2, D1). All had been threaded on bronze wire, the example from grave C2 ending in a loop indicates the use of the polyhedron as a pendant (Pl. 1,12). As for the other pieces, their use on a chain may be surmised. Thanks to an example from arcosolium 4 in the hypogeum of Qiryat Ata, Palestine, rock crystal polyhedrons are attested to in the region from the 4th century onwards.27 This agrees with their duration in the Black Sea Region, since in the 2nd half of the 4th century such pieces occurred in the Abkhaz cemetery of Tsibilium/Tsebelda where they remained common until its inal occupation phase in the 7th century.28 ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 Among the other quartz pendants there is a large axe-shaped piece (Pl. 1,14), a globular bead of white opaque quartz or chalcedony, which is also identiied as a pendant by a wire fragment still sticking inside the perforation (Pl. 1,15), and a long club-shaped piece with facets (Pl. 1,13). This last form strikingly resembles club-shaped pendants from different materials (bone, gemstone, and pottery coated with bitumen) found in Iron Age contexts of the Near East29, once more substantiating the persistence of some gemstone bead and pendant types. Carnelian beads The female population at Khirbat Yajuz preferred orange to dark red carnelian from North-West India or the Sassanid Empire in beads to agate or rock crystal.30 A total number of 29 beads and pendants were found inside the chamber tomb. The most common shapes are spherical and compressed spherical beads in different sizes (Pl. 1,20–21. 24. 26). Unique shapes are represented by an elongated barrel (Pl. 1,23), a lentil (Pl. 1,25), a polyhedron (Pl. 1,22), and a coneshaped pendant (Pl. 1,27). In the wider surroundings globular beads are also represented by several specimens31 but are not dominant everywhere. Narrow double cones for example, which are completely absent at Khirbat Yajuz were very popular in the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport.32 It is likely that in this case the evidence not only relects 23 Hesban: Platt 2009, 299 ig. 14.1,10; Ashqelon: Varga 2002, 87–88 ig. 136,26. 24 Cf. the pendants from the Meroitic royal necropolis at Qustul and Ballana: Emery 1938, pl. 44,84–85. 25 Alekseeva 1982, pl. 35,12. 26 Emery 1938, pl. 44,62. 64. 27 The life span of the hypogeum is dated to the late 3rd to late 4th centuries by F. Vitto (2008, 159). 28 Kazanski – Mastykova 2007, 49; 145 pl. 44,10. – Additional examples in the Northern Caucasus with a very late dating from the 6th to 9th centuries in Deopik 1961, 214 ig. 2,32. On rock crystal polyhedrons in the Black Sea Region, see Alekseeva 1982, pl. 35,40 (type 11 of rock crystal beads). 29 Spaer 2001, 164; 357 pl. 24,295; Vitto 2001, 164 ig. 4,1. 30 On the natural deposits of carnelian see G. Weisgerber in: Stöllner – Slotta – Vatandoust 2004, 72. 31 Spherical or compressed spherical carnelian beads, e.g. in the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport grave 65 (Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, pl. 34,2, and according to autopsy); Pella IIH, grave 7 (Smith 1973, pl. 80C,b); Khirbat alKerak grave 4 (Delougaz – Haines 1960, pl. 46,7); Samaria/ Sebaste grave E220 (Crowfoot 1957, 393 ig. 92,60; 396 no. 60); Gezer grave 40 (MacAlister 1912, pl. 78 centre left); several specimens were found in the cemetery of Khirbet es-Samra (unpublished). 32 Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, pl. 34,1–2, and according to an autopsy in Yarmouk University Museum, Irbid. Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia 163 Fig. 5 Distribution of etched carnelian beads of group C after Beck 1933 (after Eger 2012, 239 ig. 10). local, but also chronological differences, because the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport is dated to the mid-2nd to the end of the 3rd century.33 In contrast, a shape mainly occurring as late as the 4th and 5th centuries is the polyhedron made of carnelian. It is missing among Early to Middle Imperial beads from the Levant and seems also to have existed in the remaining Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea Region only in Late Roman times. Thus, its presence in the Abkhaz cemetery of Tsibilium/Tsebelda is with two exceptions limited to its phase III, which comprised the period from the mid-4th to mid-5th centuries.34 Two carnelian beads from Khirbat Yajuz are characterised by special white ornaments (Pl. 1,24– 25; Fig. 4,9) consisting not only of simple arches and stars, but also of tamga motifs. It is an etched decoration produced by means of an alkaline solu- tion.35 In the Southern Levant such beads are known from a dozen ind sites, most of them in the provinces of Arabia and Palaestina II and dated to the 5th to 6th/7th centuries.36 The decorative technique itself is far older and may be traced back to the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BC when it appeared in the lower Indus Valley. Two earlier horizons of etched carnelian beads date to the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium and the 2nd half of the 1st millennium. They are clearly distinct from the Late Antique specimens, which 33 Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, 35. 34 Kazanski – Mastykova 2007, 48; 145 pl. 44,5. Other Late Antique carnelian polyhedrons e.g. at Viminacium, Serbia, graves 43 and 100 (Ivanišević – Kazanski – Mastykova 2006, 67–68 ig. 50,1.13–16; 66,27–29); Qustul and Ballana, Northern Sudan: Emery 1938, pl. 43,45–46. 35 Most recently Eger 2012, 224 with further references. 36 Eger 2012, 237 ig. 9. ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 164 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil H. Beck called “group C” in 1928.37 The latter are characterised by their different patterns and their almost exclusive restriction to spheres and disc shapes. They are found along virtually the entire periphery of the Sassanid Empire, which indicates a shift of the production sites from India and respectively Pakistan to Persian areas (Fig. 5). After a yet faintly marked formative phase in the 3rd to 5th centuries, classical carnelian bead types of group C with an etched decoration are known from the 4th/5th centuries onwards. Apart from plain arch and dot patterns mostly found on small spherical beads, there is a clear dominance of tamga signs and tendrils. Whether the beads reached the Levant within a context of an oficialised trade between Byzantium and the Sassanids or that of an inner-Arabian exchange as prestige goods is yet unclear on grounds of insuficient evidence. The fact that etched carnelian beads were relatively rare and precious elements of jewellery is relected at Khirbat Yajuz and elsewhere by their scarcity in each grave as they hardly ever exceed one or two in number.38 The remaining stone beads and pendants Among the few other beads of (semi-precious) stone a large rectangular pendant of obsidian (Pl. 1,19) stands out and remains without parallels. An elongated and sharply carinated bi-conical bead of reddish brown stone (agate?) has a counterpart in grave 65 of the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport.39 Amber beads The percentage of amber beads at Khirbat Yajuz is remarkably high in comparison to other Late Antique necropoleis in the closer vicinity.40 Whence the amber was obtained remains to be clariied by scientiic analyses. Although the closest and one of the earliest known exploited amber deposits are located in Lebanon, Mediterranean amber jewellery was marked by the preponderance of that from the Baltic. The same is also likely to be true for the entire Near East. Analyses of selected Palestinian amber objects from the Bronze Age to the Islamic Middle Ages revealed that 80 % consisted of Baltic amber (succinite). In samples of the Roman and Byzantine Periods it even reached more than 90 %.41 Among the well-attested types from Khirbat Yajuz there are relatively large lentil-shaped to cylindrical beads of varying widths. They were only coarsely worked and often had an uneven, barely ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 polished surface (Pl. 2,6.8). Several other types received the same treatment, such as spherical (Pl. 2,4) and annular beads with a conical section (Pl. 2,5) as well as an elongated triangular bead (Pl. 2,10). They too, had an uneven shape and had not been fully burnished. The poor quality is surprising insofar as amber is relatively soft and thus easy to work. It is possible that in these cases not only the raw material, but even prefabricated amber beads were procured in the northern barbarikon.42 But this is also the case for some more carefully cut and polished types whose parallels are found in Eastern Europe from the Late Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period, as well as the Balkans and the Black Sea Region. Small biconical beads with a lat section (Pl. 2,1; Fig. 4,6) are known e.g. from the Crimean Gothic cemetery of Lučistoe and the cemeteries at Singidunum and Viminacium on the Middle Danube, Serbia.43 The large cylindrical bead from Khirbat Yajuz (Pl. 2,7; Fig. 4,8) is characterised by an inlay of two bronze platelets. For their insertion, the bead was entirely drilled through at right angles to its longitudinal axis and then equipped with the bronze pads.44 A comparable bead with the characteristic cross-hole, but without the inlays, is known from the Black Sea Region.45 The question as to a foreign origin arises particularly with respect to a mushroom-, or eight-shaped amber bead from Khirbat Yajuz (Pl. 2,13; Fig. 4,4). It consists of a conical, lattened head with a perforation, a short, but clearly separate central section, and a protruding lower part in the shape of an hemisphere. Only isolated parallels from the entire South-Eastern Mediterranean are known, of which some are of amber,46 glass, or stone. Grave 33 in the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport contained a narrow 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Beck 1933, 385 and pl. 71. Compare Eger 2012, 228–235; 257. Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, 78; pl. 34,2 rightmost in top line. To the knowledge of the present authors, the only other necropoleis with large numbers of amber beads are those at Darayya near Damascus. Todd 1993, 236. With the small lion head from the royal crypt at Qatna, Late Bronze Age evidence for Baltic amber is now also known from Syria: Pfälzner – Roßberger 2009, 213–214. Pfälzner – Roßberger 2009, 214 had already arrived at the same result for Bronze Age amber beads of the Eastern Mediterranean. Lučistoe: Ajbabin – Chajredinova 2009, pl. 175,13 (chamber tomb 42, grave 1); Singidunum, Viminacium: Ivanisevic – Kazanski – Mastykova 2006, ig. 59,2–3.33; 66,20 (type 11, e. g. Singidunum III grave 2, 8). The bronze inlays only survive on one side. Alekseeva 1978, 25; pl. 24,12. Kazanski – Mastykova 2007, 47 quote a specimen from Palestine without any further information; they probably refer to a bead from Jerusalem-Dominus levit: Bagatti – Milik 1958, pl. 41 photo 127,13. Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia 165 Fig. 6 Druzhnoe, Crimea, Ucrania. Grave 85: inventory (detail). No. 17: two eightshaped amber beads (after Khrapunov 2002, 306 Abb. 206). elongated variant made of orange glass, which obviously was chosen in order to imitate amber or carnelian.47 In contrast to the Mediterranean, eight-shaped amber beads (amber trinkets, so-called “berlocks”) are found in large numbers in graves of the 3rd to early 5th centuries in the northern Black Sea Region, the continental Germanic barbarikon, and Scandinavia.48 The earliest representatives, whose distribution is limited to the Danish islands of Zealand and Bornholm and the Baltic coast of Poland, are dated to the 2nd quarter and the middle of the 3rd century (phase C1b of the Roman Iron Age in the Central and Northern European barbarikon).49 During the 2nd half of the 3rd century the type rapidly spread westwards to the River Rhine and south-east towards the Black Sea Region where it also was well known in the 4th century AD (Fig. 6). With the mentioned bead from the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport, eightshaped beads from this period are also sporadically represented in the Levant. However, their shape does cast some doubt as to their derivation from the northern barbarikon specimens. Both, the latter bead with its very narrow and elongated head section as well as the one from Khirbat Yajuz with its shorter, strictly conical head and the plump lower part have no immediate parallels within the main distribution areas of amber trinkets. They therefore may be regional imitations,50 in which case their extreme rarity would nevertheless remain perplexing. Among the amber pendants there are also two relatively large fragmented ones (Pl. 2,14–15; Fig. 4,5), the latter of which is reminiscent of a small, though not precisely identiiable sculpture. At Khirbat Yajuz the amber beads not only include the usual basic 47 Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, pl. 32,2 bottom left. – A carnelian bead of similar shape comes from grave 93/95 of the Parthian-Roman necropolis at Magdala/Tall Šēh Hamad (Novák – Oettel – Witzel 2000, ig. 959,18). However, the dating of the grave already to the 1st to mid-2nd c. AD (idem 149–172) prevents a derivation of the bead type from the barbarikon and might hint to an independent development. 48 Kazanski – Mastykova 2007, 46–47; Lund Hansen 1995, 218; Koch 1985, 480. 49 Lund Hansen 1995, 217. 50 This is also indicated by the early dating of the aforementioned (note 47) bead from Magdala/Tall Šēh Hamad. ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 166 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil shapes like ovoids, cylinders, and bi-cones known from different materials (Pl. 2,2–3.9), but also additional types, such as elongated and ribbed ones with a narrow oval section (Pl. 2,11). To date they are unique both in the Near East and beyond. Equally unusual for Late Roman and Byzantine contexts in the Near East is a large, whorl-shaped bead almost 5 cm long (Pl. 2,12). Whether it served as a jewellery pendant or a symbolic tool (spindle whorl) is uncertain due to the unsatisfactory ind situation. However, its narrow drill hole measuring 4 mm would disprove a practical function as a tool.51 at Khirbat Yajuz on a badly preserved ovoid bead (not illustrated). Next to such ‘secondary’ decorations there are beads revealing much more sophisticated techniques, such as milleiori and mosaic by which the bead body itself is composed of different and variegated glass components that had been fused together through melting (Pl. 3,29–39. 41–44. 46–48). For the coloured glass beads, the search for regional parallels is particularly dificult, due to the inadequate state of publication and the reasons initially explained, whence the following comments cannot provide much more than a irst, sketchy impression of the really existing parallels and distribution of the types. Beads of shell limestone and bone Monochrome glass beads Only very few beads and pendants from Khirbat Yajuz were made from organic materials like shell limestone or bone. With the exception of a cuboid bone bead mounted as a pendant (Pl. 1,31) they show no typological peculiarities. There are examples of both elongated and short ovoid barrel-shapes (Pl. 1,28–29) as well as a bi-conical bead threaded on wire (Pl. 1,30). It is surprising that there is no evidence at Khirbat Yajuz for pendants made from perforated snail shells, in that case mainly cowry shells which were very popular in neighbouring regions.52 Many monochrome beads belong to widely distributed and long-lived standard types, such as e.g. small black beads in compressed spheres, or ring shapes (Pl. 3,1–3), or the larger black-brown variant already known from regional Roman contexts.54 Equally popular were bi-conical beads of translucent glass in different shades of green (recorded only in one case at Khirbat Yajuz, although in olive-green: Pl. 3,9) e.g. attested in the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport and Khirbat el-Ni’ana, Palestine, but also in Roman and Byzantine ind contexts at Shabwa,Yemen, in South Arabia.55 There also is ample evidence for glass polyhedrons, but mainly of blue colour,56 while regional parallels for the translucent, Glass beads At Khirbat Yajuz there are monochrome, bichrome, and polychrome glass beads produced in different methods.53 Beads formed on rods are well documented. They were manufactured by folding the heated and ductile glass paste around a stick. Depending on the quality of the work, a issure may remain visible over parts or the entire length of the bead’s longitudinal axis, as for instance perceptible on two striped mosaic beads (Pl. 3,38. 47). Alternatively, the heated glass paste was formed manually or in moulds and subsequently perforated in case the mould had no projection for sparing out the hole (as in the annular bead Pl. 3,12). The third technique recorded at Khirbat Yajuz is drawing, by which the glass paste was drawn into a bar. The latter was then perforated while still malleable and cut into individual segments after its solidiication. Beads produced by this method have straight and sharp edges (e.g. Pl. 3,7. 15). As to the decorative techniques of bichrome and polychrome beads, we distinguish between the application of ‘warts’ (Pl. 3,40), the melting-on of eyes (Pl. 3,27–28) and threads (Pl. 3,45. 49), as well as in one case, an applied plastic thread so far attested only ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 51 Comparatively large amber beads of whorl-shape are known e.g. from the cemetery at Tsibilium/Tsebelda (Kazanski – Mastykova 2007, 145 pl. 44,2–3) and the early Merovingian Empire in the 5th century. There they are found in both female and male graves, in the latter serving as magical sword pendants, cf. Schach-Dörges 2004, 47. 52 Whether these were overlooked during the excavation, because of the bad state of preservation, or not worn by the female inhabitants of Khirbat Yajuz cannot be established with certainty. – On pendants of snail shells cf. e.g. Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, 48–49; Smith 1973, pl. 80C, ac.ae.ag. Large numbers are also known from the cemetery of Khirbet es-Samra (unpublished). Comparatively few shell and snail pendants are known from Tell Hesban: Platt 2009, 280–281 ig. 13.24. 53 On the different techniques in detail: Spaer 2001, 38–39; 43–56. 54 Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, 65; 75–76; pl. 31,2: nineteen specimens from grave 40 alone. 55 Queen Alia International Airport: not illustrated in Ibrahim – Gordon 1987; according to an autopsy at the Archaeological Museum of Yarmouk University; due to severe corrosion it was impossible to recognize the colour precisely; Khirbat el-Ni’ana: Gorin-Rosen – Katsnelson 2007, 119–120 no. 10 ig. 23,10; Shabwa, Yemen: Morrison 1991, 380–381 ig. 1,2. Also cf. an example from an unknown Eastern Mediterranean site: Spaer 2001, 74; 338 pl. 5,45a–b. 56 Gezer, grave 40 (MacAlister 1912, pl. 78 centre right); Khirbat el-Ni’ana (Gorin-Rosen – Katsnelson 2007, 119 Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia pale green variant from Khirbat Yajuz (Pl. 3,14) have yet to be found. Small beads in the shape of a sixsided prism (Pl. 3,15) are found in various sizes at Pella, IIG grave 5 and at Gezer.57 The elongated biconical, faceted bead of opaque blue glass may be compared to very similar pieces from grave 97 of the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport and from Pella, IIE grave 5.58 This type is also found on a supra-regional level in the 5th/6th centuries, e.g. in graves from the Migration Period along the Lower Danube.59 The published evidence from the Palestinian-Arabian provinces concerning some other bead types from Khirbat Yajuz is somewhat scantier, although these too, are very likely to have belonged to common types. The small, annular and translucent bead of milky, white to beige glass (Pl. 3,8) has a counterpart at Pella, IIH grave 7,60 while the small ribbed bead of translucent glass with a rosette-shaped section (Pl. 3,10) has a parallel at Samaria/Sebaste, which however in the present case is not mauve, but pale blue.61 Among the different pendants of monochrome glass a large perpendicular-shaped piece of opaque black glass paste stands out (Pl. 3,23). Originally, it was nearly 3 cm long (tip broken). An exact parallel is known from a grave of the Middle Imperial Period at Palmyra, Syria.62 Other small pendants of a translucent glass paste are rendered in colours which intriguingly are reminiscent of certain gemstones to a point of confusion. Noteworthy in this respect are an amethyst-like, pale violet and cone-shaped pendant (Pl. 3,24), a drop-shaped pendant resembling amber (Pl. 3,25; Fig. 4,7) ,63 and a pointed, milky quartzcoloured pendant (Pl. 3,26).64 Bi- and polychrome glass beads No local parallels are known for green beads with a bicoloured, layered eye in yellow and red (Pl. 3,27– 28). The fact that this motif is actually layered and not a mosaic ornament, can be recognized on a weathered specimen from Khirbat Yajuz whose colour layers have partly laked off, thereby revealing that the coloured glass paste had been melted onto the bead. However, despite their seemingly similar eye decoration, a group of small beads (Pl. 3,29–32) on the other hand, display the use of the mosaic technique. They all come in the same barrel shape but have different colour combinations and are decorated with a striped pattern beside the two large eyes. A counterpart for another bead (Pl. 3,29) is known from a grave at Abila/Qweilbeh.65 Such beads are also well known from the northern Black Sea Region, where they have been dated to the 2nd to 4th centuries AD 167 by E. M. Alekseeva.66 Two beads with a yellow and green striped mosaic, but no eyes (Pl. 3,33–34) have the same small barrel shape.67 The three spherical, respectively compressed spherical beads (Pl. 3,35–37) consist of polychrome mosaic glass with length-wise stripes. Two similar pieces are kept in the collection of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. One of them probably originates from Persia and was dated to the Early Roman Period by Spaer. She considered the other piece to be post-Roman.68 Comparable specimens are also found in the Black Sea Region69 and even in graves of the Merovingian Period in Southern Germany, where they certainly had been obtained through import from the Mediterranean.70 The threecoloured, spindle-shaped bead with a striped mosaic (Pl. 3,38) was also distributed into these far-off regions71. There, several grave inventories seem to date the type from well into the 6th century to around AD 600.72 Another spindle-shaped bead, which had been formed or folded around a rod consists of translucent, honey-coloured and opaque, white glass (Pl. 3,47) that seems to imitate agate. The same goes 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 ig. 23,31–32; 121 no. 31–32); Shabwa (Morrison 1991, 381 ig. 1,15; 382–383). – Glass polyhedrons are also known at Tell Deir ʾAlla from Medieval Muslim graves: Steiner – van der Stehen 2008, 261 ig. 5,11. Pella, IIG grave 6, corpse 2: Smith 1973, pl. 80B,h; Gezer grave 40 (MacAlister 1912, pl. 78 centre right); grave 65–73 (ibid. pl. 76 centre left). Queen Alia International Airport grave 97: Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, pl. 33,1 top right; Pella, IIE grave 5: Smith 1973, pl. 80A,l. Singidunum/Viminacium type 19: Ivanišević – Kazanski – Mastykova 2006, 79; ig. 67,58; Piatra Frecăţei: Petre 1987 pl. 151 type VII,1D. Smith 1973, pl. 80C,x. Crowfoot 1957, 393 ig. 92,58; 396 no. 58. Higuchi – Izumi 1994, 91 ig. 67,47. Comparable, but bichrome pendants exist at Tell Hesban: Platt 2009, 235 no. 1482–1483; 241 ig. 13.1,6–7; both unstratiied, but considered Byzantine by Platt (2009, 227); cf. also a yellowish piece from Khirbat el-Niʾana: Gorin-Rosen – Katsnelson 2007, 123 ig. 24,1. For an analogue to the last mentioned pendant from an unknown ind site in the collection of the Israel Museum see: Spaer 2001, 164; pl. 24,295. Abila/Qweilbeh grave 1–15/1959; autopsy in the Archaeological Museum of Jordan University, Amman. Alekseeva 1982, 43; pl. 49,19–24. Types attested in the northern Caucasus: Deopik 1961, ig. 5,65. Spaer 2001, 117; 348 pl. 15,198–199. Alekseeva 1978, pl. 29,67. Koch 1977, colour pl. 6,M74 (Schretzheim, grave 35, dated to period 2 = AD 545/50–560/70). Black Sea Region: Ajbabin – Chajredinova 2009, pl. 183,25; Southern Germany: Koch 1977, 217; colour pl. 6,M66–67; eadem 2001, 620; colour pl. 8,M92–94 (each with different colour combinations). Correspondent to periods 3 and 4 at Schretzheim (Koch 1977, 21–29) respectively phases SD 5–7 (Koch 2001, 75–79). ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 168 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil Fig. 7 Main types of juglet-shaped pendants. a. Openwork (with zigzag trail), one handle. – b Closed corpus, one handle. – c. Closed corpus, two handles (after Spaer 2001, 178 no. 342 and 345; Vitto 2008, 157 ig. 18,1). for two barrel-shaped beads with a brown and white colour combination (Pl. 3,46. 48).73 A spherical and green-blue mosaic bead (Pl. 3,39) composed of several segments with ields lined in white, bright green, and red is badly corroded. It resembles a bead from burial layer III in chamber tomb 6 at Lučistoe, Crimea which the excavator dates as late as to the Medieval Period.74 However, such beads have been recorded in Southern Germany as early as the mid-6th century.75 The beginnings of blue mosaic beads with white eyes containing a blue dot (Pl. 3,41–42) are evidently earlier. A relatively large number of similar types from the Black Sea Region distinguishable by their shape and their eye decoration, though all bichrome (blue and white), were dated by Alekseeva to the irst centuries AD, especially to the Early to Middle Roman Imperial Period.76 In contrast, V. B. Deopik still listed some of these beads among those types current in the Northern Caucasus in the 6th to 9th centuries.77 So far, a bead from Tell Hesban, supposedly from Hellenistic ind contexts, furnishes the only known, similar mosaic bead from the study area.78 A bichrome pendant of black and white glass (Pl. 3,50) from Khirbat Yajuz deserves special attention. It is a juglet-shaped pendant, whose body is formed by an openwork trail decoration. Beside this, there is a variant with a closed body and one handle known from Jordan, as represented by two pendants from Ya’mum,79 and a variant with a closed body and two handles from Yajuz (Fig. 7).80 Jugletshaped pendants are widely distributed and found not only in the whole Mediterranean Basin from the Near Eastern provinces to the Iberian Peninsula, but also in the north-western provinces of Rome and in the barbarikon farther to the north (Fig. 8). A slightly outdated list of all specimens discloses a clear clustering ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 in the Near East.81 Particularly numerous inds come from Palestine, although they often are in collections and lack attributed ind sites, therefore only loosely deining the production area of these pendants. Until recently, examples from east of the River Jordan were restricted to four old inds from Gadara/Umm Qays and a grave from es-Salt.82 Together with these, the recent inds from Ya’mum and Khirbat Yajuz demonstrate that relatively large numbers of juglet-shaped pendants must also be expected in the Arabian provinces. In terms of chronology, these pendants date chiely to the 4th century, but they continued into the 5th century, as already pointed out by Schulze.83 A grave with a single burial from Lohamei Hageta’ot in Israel, is of great importance for their dating in the Near Eastern provinces, because its inventory of ive juglet-shaped pendants with an open-worked body also contained coins from the 1st half of the 4th century. The youngest of them gave a terminus post quem for the grave of 337–340 AD.84 Glass frit and faience Several glass beads consist of a slightly porous, opaque glass paste conventionally termed as frit, or faience.85 Among the typical Roman period products distributed throughout the Mediterranean Basin are pale green to turquoise-green beads, which because their spherical shape is ribbed lengthwise are referred to as melon-shaped beads or short, melon beads.86 Two specimens whose glaze layer was essentially 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 See above for this. A. D. Tushingham also considered a related piece from Dhiban, grave R14, a glass imitation of a banded agate bead (Tushingham 1972, 112 R14 no. 9; ig. 27,22). Ajbabin – Chajredinova 2009, pl. 18,16; pl. 184,15; on the dating ibid. 75 ig. 35. cf. Koch 2001, 619; colour pl. 8,M77 (Klepsau, grave 15). Alekseeva 1975, pl. 15,12–20. 22–40. 42–49. Deopik 1961, ig. 5,6.44. Platt 2009, 227; 241 ig. 13.1,3. Najjar 2011, 89 ig. 5. Khalil 2001b, 135 ig. 10,5. Schulze-Dörrlamm 1978, 57 ig. 6. – Since then, numerous new items haven been found and published. For Israel/Palestine cf. the inds at Israel Museum: Spaer 2001, 171–178 with further references; pl. 28. A more detailed study on the juglet-shaped pendants is in preparation by the authors. Missing on the distribution map of 1978 (see above): Gadara/ Umm Qays: Mittmann 1987, 285 no. 271–272 (F. Baratte); es-Salt: Hadidi 1979, pl. 56,1 bottom centre; lug missing. Schulze-Dörrlamm 1978, 67–68 (ind list with items dating to the Migration Period/”Völkerwanderungszeit”). Spaer 2001, 172 ig. 80. However, cf. the critical remarks by Spaer 2001, 35, on this. Ivanišević – Kazanski – Mastykova 2006, 72; on different types of melon beads in Germania: TempelmannMączyńska 1985, pl. 3,155–171. Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia 169 Fig. 8 Distribution of juglet-shaped pendants (after Schulze 1978, 57 ig. 6). Black star: Yajuz. lost through weathering were found at Khirbat Yajuz (Pl. 2,17). They are known in somewhat larger numbers in the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport.87 In a shade of bright turquoise blue, several melon beads can also be identiied among the inds of the 1959 excavations in the necropolis at Abila/ Qweilbeh and from Tell Hesban.88 That the type survived until ca. AD 400 and both beads from Khirbat Yajuz therefore need not be considered as antiques, is attested to by numerous inds recovered from graves dating to the 2nd half of the 4th and the 5th/6th centuries along the Lower Danube, in the Black Sea Region, and the Northern Caucasus.89 The same is true for opaque black melon beads (Pl. 2,19).90 Of the remaining frit and faience beads only one other specimen will be discussed here: the compressed spherical bead of yellow frit with three eyes in vigorous blue and white (Pl. 2,20). This combination of colours and patterns is most unusual, not only for the beads from Khirbat Yajuz but also all Late Antique beads of the region, but then typical for layered eye beads from the Persian Period. This specimen can therefore be attributed to the “yellow layered eye beads with isolated eyes” (gelbe Schichtaugenperlen mit Einzelaugen) belonging to group 4 of pre-Roman, layered eye beads according to K. Kunter.91 Kunter narrowed the production period of group 4 chiely down to the 5th–4th centuries BC and considered in particular the yellow types to be relatively short-lived.92 However, she hinted at isolated antique occurrences in postChristian ind contexts. The specimen from Khirbat Yajuz certainly also is an antique piece; it might have been obtained either by mere accident or by grave looting. The re-use of Ancient Egyptian scarabs in other graves in the province of Arabia demonstrates that such archaic pieces were treasured jewellery objects and hence likely to have been ascribed an apotropaic function.93 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Grave 40: Ibrahim – Gordon 1987, pl. 31,1; also autopsy in the Archaeological Museum of Yarmouk University, Irbid: grave 36; at least four other beads without known grave number, among them inv.-no. A1821. Abila/Qweilbeh: autopsy in the Archaeological Museum of Jordan University, Amman; among them inv.-no. U541, U570; Tell Hesban: Platt 2009, 240 (15 specimens, including a hint to the different colours from different grades of weathering). Ivanišević – Kazanski – Mastykova 2006, 72–73. Two parallels are known at Tell Hesban: Platt 2009, 240–241 ig. 13.1,16; cf. also Pella IIG, grave 6, burial 2: Smith 1973, pl. 80B,l. Kunter 1995, 145; 152 ig. 21: yellow beads with isolated eyes represent some 15 % of the layered eye beads of group 5 in the Near East. Kunter 1995, 161; 165. On Ancient Egyptian scarabs in Romano-Byzantine graves recently Eger – Nabulsi – Ahrens 2011. ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 170 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil Metals The only metal object of this overview a the small, bi-conical pendant from copper alloy but severely corroded (Pl. 3,51). An identical parallel has not yet been found in the region. Similar sheet metal pendants, consisting of two slightly concave bowls soldered together, were found in two Byzantine graves at Dhiban.94 Summary of the typo-chronological analysis Despite the somewhat limited total of 360 pieces, the type spectrum of beads and pendants from the rock chamber tomb at Khirbat Yajuz, area B20, is markedly manifold. It comprises some 110 types, for which an even more detailed classiication according to variants of shape and colour would be possible, although not thought useful at the present state of research. With regard to gemstone beads, comparatively plain forms dominate. They tend to be relatively constant over time and a considerable part of them was already known in pre-Roman periods. This however, is not valid for two carnelian beads with a white etched decoration of group C according to Beck (Pl. 1,25–26). Such beads which are very likely to have been produced under the Sassanid Empire, only occurred from the 4th/5th centuries onwards and remained common until the 7th/8th centuries. Another type datable with some precision is the eight-shaped amber trinket (Pl. 2,13). It is found in large numbers in ind contexts of the 3rd to 5th centuries in Northern, Central, and South-Eastern Europe.95 In contrast, the two ‘eye stones’ (Pl. 1,6) belong to a much older tradition. According to Clayden, the type was mainly produced in the Achaemenid Period, although he did not exclude a sporadic production in later times. Without doubt, the layered eye bead of yellow glass frit was an antique from the Persian Period (Pl. 1,19). Plain monochrome glass beads as well as ones from gemstones were usually very long-lived types. The present state of research hardly allows for their closer dating within Hellenistic-Roman to Byzantine times. In general terms, this should be easier for bicoloured and polychrome beads with their more elaborate production techniques, although even in this respect, the number of well dated parallels from the region under research seems insuficient. Only types with a supra-regional distribution found in graves along the northern periphery of the Mediterranean offer some clues. According to them, Khirbat Yajuz had both beads already known in Roman and Late Roman ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 times, such as the barrel-shaped mosaic beads with an eye decoration (Pl. 3,29–32. 41–42), as well as beads mainly found in contexts of the 5th/6th centuries (Pl. 3,36–39). Among the pieces with a relatively precise dating there is last but not least also the lagon bead (Pl. 4,50) of the 4th/5th centuries. When compared to the type spectrum of the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport and the graves of the 1959 campaign at Abila/Qweilbeh, the Khirbat Yajuz assemblage is clearly distinct despite certain common features96. At the present state of research it is however impossible to establish whether this contrast results from purely chronological or local differences, or just from mere chance on grounds of the relatively low ind density. Certain peculiarities at Khirbat Yajuz, such as the absence of cowry pendants have been pinpointed. What may be added is that very small bead types of less than 0.5 cm in diameter are also unknown at Khirbat Yajuz, but then found in relatively large numbers e.g. at Pella and Khirbet es-Samra.97 The social signiicance of beads After his irst examination of the grave goods from Khirbat Yajuz, L. Khalil immediately recognized the inds’ uneven distribution over the graves and considerable differences among them as to their quality and quantity per grave. Graves A1 to A7 were characterised by far more modest equipment than the graves in the two arcosolia and the apse-shaped extension. This fundamental difference even persists if taking into account the highly differing number of corpses in each grave. This is exempliied by a compilation of the vessels with pedestals (‘candle sticks’), oil lamps, and glass vessels.98 The dead buried in graves A1 to A6 did not receive any intact glass vessels at all. They also were missing in the bone complex at 94 95 96 97 98 Dhiban, graves R2 and K-C: Tushingham 1972, 108 no. 10; 114; ig. 26,25; 28,11. In this respect, however, we need to mention the parallel ind of Tall Šēh Hamad which, if its early dating to the 1st to mid2nd centuries is accepted, might lead to another result as to the dating and origin of this type. Beads of the cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport: Ibrahim – Gordon 1987. – The beads of the 1959 campaign at Abila/Qweilbeh are kept in the Archaeological Museum of Jordan University and unpublished (apart from an old black and white photo of all items: Barbet – Vibert-Guigue 1994, 354 ig. 370). Pella: Smith 1973, pls. 80A,s; 80B,d; 80C,j–h; Khirbet esSamra: unpublished. Khalil 1998, 467 table 1. Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia 171 Fig. 9 Khirbat Yajuz. Number of beads found in the different graves of the rock chamber necropolis. the ground level (ossuary?) called grave A7, although it did contain a few grave goods.99 Apart from two exceptions, vessels with pedestals were also uncommon in the graves of the main chamber, but they were present in each grave of the arcosolia and in the apselike extension. This clear separation of ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ graves is slightly modiied by the distribution of beads (Fig. 9). Beads were found in graves A2 to A4, in arcosolia B and C, and in grave D3. The numbers of beads in graves A2 and A4 exceed those of graves B1 and C1, in which grave A2 admittedly contained at least 39 individuals, but graves A4 and B4 only four individuals each, while grave C1 comprised at least 10 deceased. In restricting ourselves to the number of beads, at least grave A4 did not rank behind graves B1 and C1. Disproportionately larger, however, are the numbers of beads in grave B2 in which only a single female individual had been buried, to judge by the jewellery, and grave D1 with at least ive other corpses. It is dificult to explain the scarcity of inds in graves D2 and D3, which, although prominent by their position, also concerns their remaining equipment with jewellery and supplies, which might hint to partial looting or a clearance of the tombs (no bone remains whatsoever in grave D3). It yet remains to be established that the possession, respectively of the endowment with bead jewellery was apparently less linked to social rank than the deposition of glass and pedestal vessels. This is supported by a breakdown into the different bead materials. Unlike what might have been expected, graves A2 to A4 also contained beads made of semi-precious stones (rock crystal, agate [only in grave A3], carnelian) and amber. Their percentage of the total number of beads per grave varies and is relatively low in graves A3 and A4 (less than one third), but clearly higher in grave A2 (more than 50 %). In the graves of the arcosolia and the apse-shaped extension the proportion of gemstone beads also varied and was only about one third in the particularly rich grave B1, while grave D1 possessed almost two thirds of gemstone beads, thanks to a large number of amber beads. This result demonstrates well that the simple equation “poorer graves = glass beads, richer graves = glass beads plus gemstone beads” is false. Even though it can hardly be doubted, that graves A1 to A7 contained poorer people of lower social standing, because of the distribution of vessels and the remaining jewellery, there were at least some female relatives among them who were well able to afford bead necklaces with more precious gemstones. The possession of imported gemstone beads (agate, rock crystal, carnelian, amber) was therefore not generally restricted to a small ruling class within the local elite, but also open to members of inferior circles, of whom the social position and function we are unable to determine. Exclusiveness, however, is implied by the size of gemstone beads and the possession of certain 99 The result alters when broken glass vessels, as documented in graves A2 to A7, are taken into account. In no case was it possible, however, to reconstruct a complete vessel from the surviving fragments. ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 172 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil rare types. It is therefore hardly a coincidence that the large agate ‘eye stones’ (Pl. 1,6), the large rock crystal pendant (Pl. 1,11), the whorl-shaped amber bead (Pl. 2,12) and the two carnelian beads with an etched decoration (Pl. 1,25–26) were all found in arcosolia graves and the apse-like extension.100 Addresses PD Dr. Christoph Eger Christliche Archäologie und Byzantinische Kunstgeschichte Universität Göttingen Nikolausberger Weg 15 37073 Göttingen Germany chr_eger@yahoo.de Prof. Dr. Luti Khalil The University of Jordan Amman 11942 Jordan lakhalil@ju.edu.jo 100 On the social appraisal of etched carnelian beads, see Eger 2012, 257. ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia 173 Bibliography Abbadi, S. 1973 A Byzantine Tomb from Na’ur, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 18, 69–71. Ajbabin, A. I. – Chajredinova, E. A. 2009 Das Gräberfeld beim Dorf Lučistoe. Übersetzt von D. Šalyga (Mainz). Delougaz, P. – Haines, R. C. 1960 A byzantine Church at Khirbat al-Karak (Chicago). Deopik, V. B. 1961 Klassiikacija bus jugo-vostočnoj Evropi VI–IX vv, Sovetskaja archeologija 3, 202–233. Alekseeva, E. M. 1975 Antičnye busy severnogo Pričernomor’ja (I). Archeologija SSSR. Svod archeologičeskich istočnikov G 1,12. H.1 (Moskau). 1978 Antičnye busy severnogo Pricernomor’ja (II). Archeologija SSSR. Svod archeologičeskich istočnikov G 1,12. H.2 (Moskau). 1982 Antičnye busy servernogo Pričernomor’ja (III). Archeologija SSSR. Svod archeologičeskich istočnikov G 1,12. H.3 (Moskau). Deppert-Lippitz, B. 1984 Goldschmuck der Römerzeit. Ausgewählte Stücke aus den Sammlungen des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums (Mainz). Bagatti, P. B. – Milik, J. T. 1958 Gli scavi del “Dominus levit” (Monte Oliveto – Gerusalemme) I. La necropoli del periodo romano (Jerusalem). Eger, Ch. – Nabulsi, A. I. – Ahrens, A. 2011 Ein spätrömisches Grab mit Glasschale E.216 und Skarabäus aus Jordanien: Khirbet es-Samra Grab 310. Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- u. Frühgeschichte 44, 215–231. Barbet, A. – Vibert-Guigue, C. 1994 Les peintures des nécropoles romaines d’Abila et du nord de la Jordanie I. Texte (Beyrouth). al-Bataineh, M. – el-Najjar, M. – Burke, D. L. 2011 Artifacts of Ya’mun, in: M. el-Najjar (ed.), Ya’mun. An Archaeological Site in Northern Jordan (Irbid) 87–106. Beck, H. C. 1933 Etched Carnelian Beads, The Antiquaries Journal XIII, 384–398. Borg, B. 1996 Mumienporträts. Chronologie und kultureller Kontext (Mainz). Clayden, T. 2009 Eye-stones, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 2, 36–86. Crowfoot, J. W. 1957 The Objects from Samaria. Samaria – Sebaste III (London). Eger, Ch. 2012 Indisch, persisch oder kaukasisch? Zu den Karneolperlen mit Ätzdekor der Gruppe C nach Beck und den östlichen Fernkontakten der Provinz Arabia, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 57, 221–278. Emery, W. B. 1938 The royal tombs of Balana and Qustul 1. Texts; 2. Plates (Cairo). Findlater, G. – el-Najjar, M. – al-Shiyab, A-H. – O’Hea, M. – Easthaugh, E. 1998 The Wadi Faynan Project: The South Cemetery Excavation, Jordan 1996: A Preliminary Report, Levant 30, 69–83. Gorin-Rosen, Y. – Katsnelson, N. 2007 Local Glass Production in the Late Roman–Early Byzantine Periods in Light of the Glass Finds from Khirbet el-Ni’ana, ‘Atiqot 57, 73–154. Hadidi, A. 1979 A Roman Family Tomb at es-Salt, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 23, 129–160. ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil 174 Higuchi, T. – Izumi, T. 1994 Tombs A and C. Southeast Necropolis Palmyra, Syria. Surveyed in 1990–92 (Nara). Ibrahim, M. – Gordon, R. L. 1987 A cemetery at Queen Alia International Airport (Wiesbaden). Ivanišević, V. – Kazanski, M. – Mastykova, A. 2006 Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l’époque des Grandes Migrations (Paris). Kazanski, M. – Mastykova, A. 2007 Tsibilium. La nécropole apsile de Tsibilium (VII av. J.-C.–VIIe ap. J.-C.), Abkhazie, Caucase. L’étude du site 2, BAR Int. Ser. 1721 (Oxford). Khairy, N. I. – Khalil, L. 2004 Byzantine Pottery Lamps from the Yajuz cemetery, Jordan, Damaszener Mitteilungen 14, 167–182. Khalil, L. 1998 University of Jordan Excavations at Khirbat Yajuz, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42, 457–472. 2001 a Pottery Candlesticks from the Byzantine Period at Yajuz, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 7 (Amman) 617–627. 2001 b Glass Vessels and Miniature Jugs from Khirbat Yajuz Cemetery, Jordan, Levant 33, 127–138. Koch, R. 1985 Koch, U. 1977 2001 Die Tracht der Alamannen in der Spätantike, in: H. Temporini (Hrsg.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2,12/3 (Berlin, New York) 456–545. Das Reihengräberfeld bei Schretzheim. Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit Ser. A,13 (Berlin). Das alamannisch-fränkische Gräberfeld bei Pleidelsheim (Stuttgart). Kunter, K. 1995 Glasperlen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit 4. Schichtaugenperlen. Nach Unterlagen von Th. E. Haevernick. Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 18 (Espelkamp). ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 Lund Hansen, U. 1995 Himlingøje – Seeland – Europa. Ein Gräberfeld der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit auf Seeland, seine Bedeutung und internationalen Beziehungen (Kopenhagen). MacAlister, R. A. S. 1912 The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909 I–III (London). McNicoll, A. – Smith, R. H. – Hennessy, B. 1982 Pella in Jordan 1. Plates and Illustrations. An Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and The College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979–1981 (Canberra). Mittmann, S. 1987 Der Königsweg. 9000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur in Jordanien und Palästina. Katalog der Ausstellung Köln (Mainz). Morrison, H. M. 1991 The Beads and Seals of Shabwa, Syria 68, 379–393. Nabulsi, A. J. –Abbadi, A. –Shami, A. – Askar, H. 2009 Khirbet as-Samra Ancient Cemetery: Preliminary Discussion of site C, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 53, 167–172. Nabulsi, A. J. – Eger, Ch. – Abu Shmeis, A. – Khasawneh, Kh. 2011 The Ancient Cemetery of Khirbet as-Samra: 2010 Excavations at Site A2, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 55, 25–31. Novák, M. – Oettel, A. – Witzel, C. 2000 Der parthisch-römische Friedhof von Tall Šēh Hamad/Magdala 1 (Berlin). Pappalardo, C. 2006 Ceramica e piccolo oggetti dallo scavi della chiesa del reliquiario ad Umm al-Rasas, Liber Annuus 56, 389–398. Petre, A. 1987 La romanité en Scythie Mineure (IIe–VIIe siècles de notre ère). Recherches archéologiques (Bukarest). Piccirillo, M. 1993 The Mosaics of Jordan (Amman). Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia 175 Piccirillo, M. – Alliata, E. 1994 Umm al-Rasas Mayfa’ah 1. Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano (Jersualem). Spaer, M. 2001 Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum. Beads and Other Small Objects (Jerusalem). Pfälzner, P. – Roßberger, E. 2009 Das Gold des Nordens – Die Bernsteinobjekte, in: Schätze des alten Syrien (Stuttgart) 213–215. Steiner, M. L. – van der Stehen, E. J. 2008 Sacred and Sweet: Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir ‘Alla and Tell Abu Sarbut, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 24 (Leuven, Paris). Platt, E. E. 2009 The Jewelry from Tell Hesban and Vicinity, in: P. J. Ray, jr. (ed.), Hesban 12. Small inds: Studies of Bone, Iron, Glass, Figurines, and Stone Objects from Tell Hesban and Vicinity (Berrien Springs) 225–294. Pritchard, J. B. 1980 The cemetery at Tell Es-Sa’idiyeh, Jordan (Philadelphia, Pa.). Sasse, B. – Theune, C. 1995 Merovingian Glass Beads – A Classiication Model, in: M. Rasmussen – U. Lund Hansen – U. Näsman (eds.), Cultural History, Technology, Experiment and Analogy. Proceedings of the Nordic Glass Bead Seminar 16.–18. October 1992 at the Historical-Archaeological Experimental Centre in Lejre, Denmark (Lejre) 75–82. Schach-Dörges, H. 2004 Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld bei Aldingen am mittleren Neckar (Stuttgart). Schulze-Dörrlamm, M. 1978 Zur Interpretation spätkaiserzeitlicher Glasperlen, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 8, 51–68. Schaub, R. Th. – Rast, W. E. (eds.) 1989 Bâb edh-Dhrâ’: Excavations in the Cemetery directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67) (Winona Lake). Smith, R. H. 1973 Pella of the Decapolis 1. The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella (Wooster). Stöllner, Th. – Slotta, R. – Vatandoust, A. (eds.) 2004 Persiens antike Pracht. Bergbau, Handwerk, Archäologie. Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums vom 28. November 2004 bis 29. Mai 2005 (Bochum). Tempelmann-Mączyńska, M. 1985 Die Perlen der römischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen Phase der Völkerwanderungszeit im mitteleuropäischen Barbaricum, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 43 (Mainz). Todd, J. M. 1993 The Continuity of Amber Artifacts in Ancient Palestine: From the Bronze Age to the Byzantine, in: C. W. Beck – J. Bouzek (eds.), Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of the second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology, Liblice 1990 (Prag) 236–248. Tushingham, A. D. 1972 The excavations at Dibon (Dhībān) in Moab. The third campaign 1952–53 (Cambridge, Mass.). Varga, D. 2002 Vitto, F. 2001 2008 Asquelon, Afridar and Barnea, Hadashot Ark. 114, 87–88, Hebrew section 105–108. An Iron Age Burial Cave in Nazareth, ‘Atiqot 42, 159–170. A Late Third-Fourth-Century CE Burial Cave on Remez Street, Qiriyat Ata, ‘Atiqot 60, 131–164. Yassine, Kh. 1984 Tell el Mazar I: Cemetery A (Amman). ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 176 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil Appendix List of the types Beads and pendants represented in the rock chamber necropolis of Khirbat Yajuz (Pendants are explicitly indicated, all other items are beads) Beads and pendants made of agate Pl. 1,1 Pendant, cone-shaped Pl. 1,2 Hemispheric Pl. 1,3 Barrel-shaped/ovoid Pl. 1,4 Elongated barrel-shaped Pl. 1,5 Barrel-shaped Pl. 1,6 Discoid, so-called eye stone Beads and pendants made of rock crystal and milky white quarz crystal Pl. 1,7 Plain drop-shaped, polished Pl. 1,8 Drop-shaped Pl. 1,9 Spherical Pl. 1,10 Cone-shaped, plain proile Pl. 1,11 Hemispheric, ovoid Pl. 1,12 Polyhedral, mounted like a pendant Pl. 1,13 Pendant, cone-shaped facetted Pl. 1,14 Pendant, axe-shaped; semi-transparent; corned surface, not polished Pl. 1,15 Spherical; white, opaque; quartz or chalcedony Other beads and pendants made of semi-precious stones Pl. 1,16 Pendant, slightly cone-shaped; rose and white Pl. 1,17 Calyx-shaped; cream-coloured Pl. 1,18 Elongated biconical; reddish brown Pl. 1,19 Pendant, rectangular prism (one corner missing); black, obsidian Beads made of carnelian Pl. 1,20 Spherical Pl. 1,21 Compressed spherical Pl. 1,22 Polyhedral Pl. 1,23 Barrel-shaped, not polished Pl. 1,24 Spherical, small size, etched decoration Pl. 1,25 Lense-shaped Pl. 1,26 Spherical, mounted like a pendant Pl. 1,27 Drop-shaped; reddish with white striping (carnelian?) Beads made of (shell) lime or bone Pl. 1,28 Barrel-shaped Pl. 1,29 Barrel-shaped/ovoid Pl. 1,30 Biconical, mounted like a pendant Pl. 1,31 Cuboid ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 Material unknown Pl. 1,32 Compressed spherical Pl. 1,33 Ring-shaped Pl. 1,34 Pendant, lense-shaped with acentrical perforation Beads and pendants made of amber Pl. 2,1 Biconical, plain proile Pl. 2,2 Ovoid Pl. 2,3 Barrel-shaped Pl. 2,4 Spherical Pl. 2,5 Ring-shaped with conical proile Pl. 2,6 Discoid, medium-sized and large Pl. 2,7 Cylindric, large Pl. 2,8 Short cylindric, large Pl. 2,9 Biconical Pl. 2,10 Triangular/cone-shaped Pl. 2,11 Tube-shaped, ribbed Pl. 2,12 Compressed spherical/whorl-shaped, large Pl. 2,13 Pendant, mushroom-shaped Pl. 2,14 Pendant, lense-shaped, moulded Pl. 2,15 Pendant, moulded Beads made of glass frit or faience Pl. 2,16 Pendant, barrel-shaped; pale blue and yellowishwhite striping Pl. 2,17 Spherical; pale blue Pl. 2,18 Hexagonal prismatic; light green/turquois Pl. 2,19 Barrel-shaped ribbed; black Pl. 2,20 Compressed spherical; yellow with eyes in blue and white Pl. 2,21 Ring-shaped; yellowish/ivory white Pl. 2,22 Biconical; grey-brown (?) Pl. 2,23 Compressed spherical; dark brown Pl. 2,24 Ring-shaped, small-sized; blue Beads made of glass frit or ceramics (?) Pl. 2,25 Biconical; reddish brown Pl. 2,26 Elongated barrel-shaped; reddish-orange Glass beads, monochrome Pl. 3,1 Compressed spherical/calyx-shaped, small-sized; opaque, black Pl. 3,2 Compressed spherical, small-sized; opaque, black Pl. 3,3 Compressed spherical/ring-shaped; opaque, black Pl. 3,4 Compressed spherical; opaque, dark brown Pl. 3,5 Barrel-shaped, small-sized; translucid light green/ yellow Pl. 3,6 Barrel-shaped/cylindric; opaque, light green Pl. 3,7 Cylindric; opaque, turquois Pl. 3,8 Ring-shaped; translucid, beige Pl. 3,9 Irregular biconical; translucid, olive-green Pl. 3,10 Barrel-shaped ribbed; translucid light violet Pl. 3,11 Discoid; opaque, black Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia Pl. 3,12 Ring-shaped; opaque, black Pl. 3,13 Irregular barrel-shaped; translucid dark-green, traildecorated Pl. 3,14 Polyhedral; translucid light green Pl. 3,15 Hexagonal prismatic, small-sized; translucid darkgreen Pl. 3,16 Barrel-shaped/ovoid; opaque, black Pl. 3,17 Tube-shaped; opaque, black Pl. 3,18 Irregular barrel-shaped; opaque, light green Pl. 3,19 Biconical, facetted; opaque, metallic blue Pl. 3,20 Double bead; opaque Pl. 3,21 Tube-shaped; opaque, greenish/yellow Pl. 3,22 Constricted tube-shaped; translucid, yellowish (?) Pl. 3,23 Pendant, lead-shaped; opaque, black Pl. 3,24 Pendant, cone-shaped; translucid, rose Pl. 3,25 Pendant, seal-shaped; translucid, honey-coloured Pl. 3,26 Pendant, prismatic with pointed ends; translucid, white/yellowish Glass beads, bi- and polychrome Pl. 3,27 Compressed spherical; opaque, green with eye decoration in yellow and red Pl. 3,28 Barrel-shaped; opaque, green with eye decoration in yellow and red Pl. 3,29 Barrel-shaped; opaque, white with brown-black striping; red-rimmed eye in yellow Pl. 3,30 Barrel-shaped; opaque, dark-red and white striping; red-rimmed eye in pale blue Pl. 3,31 Barrel-shaped; opaque, white with red and dark brown striping; large, dark brown-rimmed eye in white Pl. 3,32 Barrel-shaped; opaque, dark-red and white striping; rose-rimmed eye in white Pl. 3,33 Barrel-shaped; opaque, green and yellow striping Pl. 3,34 Barrel-shaped; opaque, green and yellow striping 177 Pl. 3,35 Compressed spherical; opaque, white, red and yellow striping, partially also black-rimmed Pl. 3,36 Compressed spherical; opaque, striping in white, red, black and yellow Pl. 3,37 Compressed spherical; opaque, striping in yellow, green, red, blue and white; colours partially bleeding Pl. 3,38 Elongated barrel-shaped; opaque, pale blue with central stripe in yellow and red Pl. 3,39 Spherical; opaque, dark-green with light green and red-rimmed eye in white Pl. 3,40 Cone-shaped with nipple; opaque, white with brown and white-rimmed nipple in brown Pl. 3,41 Barrel-shaped; opaque, blue with eye in white and blue Pl. 3,42 Compressed barrel-shaped; opaque, blue with eyes in blue and white Pl. 3,43 Tube-shaped; opaque, black with polyhedral eyes in different colours: white-rimmed in blue; white and red-rimmed in blue Pl. 3,44 Spherical/calyx-shaped; opaque, black and white striping Pl. 3,45 Compressed spherical; brown up to black; decorated with white crossing trails Pl. 3,46 Barrel-shaped; opaque, dark brown with vertical white stripe Pl. 3,47 Elongated barrel-shaped; translucid; honey-coloured with vertical white stripe Pl. 3,48 Elongated barrel-shaped/biconical; opaque, white with vertical stripes in dark brown at the ends Pl. 3,49 Barrel-shaped/biconical; opaque, black with white trails Pl. 3,50 Juglet pendant, openwork; opaque, white and black (?) Pendant made of copper alloy Pl. 3,51 Pendant, biconical ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia TAFEL 1 Khirbat Yajuz. Types of beads (photos: Ch. Eger). 1–6 agate 7–15 rock crystal and quartz 16–19 different stones (19 obsidian) 20–27 carnelian 28–31 organic material (shell?) 32–34 stone or frit ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 TAFEL 2 Khirbat Yajuz. Types of beads (photos: Ch. Eger). 1–15 amber 16–26 frit and fayence ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 Christoph Eger – Luti Khalil Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia TAFEL 3 Khirbat Yajuz. Types of beads (photos: Ch. Eger). 1–26 monochrome glass 27–50 bi- and polychrome glass 51 copper alloy ZOrA 6, 2013, 156–181 Inhaltsverzeichnis IN MEMORIAM ABDULILLAH FADHIL MOHAMMED NOURI Margarete van Ess – Ricardo Eichmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VORwORT DER HERAUSGEBER / PREFACE BY THE EDITORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ricardo Eichmann – Margarete van Ess 10 13 Mesopotamien und regional übergreifende Themen HEATHER D. BAKER, Beneath the Stairs in the Rēš Temple of Hellenistic Uruk. A Study in Cultic Topography and Spatial Organization … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Levante DAVID L. KENNEDY, Remote Sensing and ‘Big Circles’. A New Type of Prehistoric Site in Jordan and Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 BERND MÜLLER-NEUHOF, Nomadische Ressourcennutzung in den ariden Regionen Jordaniens und der Südlichen Levante im 5. bis frühen 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 FLORIAN KLIMSCHA, Another Great Transformation: Technical and Economic Change from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 MICHEL AL-MAQDISSI – EVA ISHAQ, Notes d’Archéologie Levantine XXXVII. Tombeau construit du Bronze moyen à Tell Hamidiyeh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 MARKUS GSCHwIND – HAYTHAM HASAN, Investigating the castra hiberna of legio III Gallica. Ground Penetrating Radar Surveys Conducted in Raphaneae in 2008 . . . . . . . 130 KRZYSZTOF JAKUBIAK, Via Sacra or Sacral Space in Palmyra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 CHRISTOPH EGER – LUTFI KHALIL, Bead Jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine Time in the Province of Arabia. The Beads and Pendants of Glass, Stone, and Organic Materials from the Rock Chamber Necropolis at Khirbat Yajuz, Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 MARTIN GUSSONE – DOROTHéE SACK, Resafa (Syrien). Militärstation, Pilgerstadt und Kalifenresidenz im Spiegel von Kulturaustausch und Mobilität . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 FRANZISKA BLOCH, Mobility during the Early Islamic Period. A Means of Power Preservation for the Ruling Elite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 ZOrA 6, 2013, 5–8 6 Inhaltsverzeichnis Arabische Halbinsel und der Region verwandte Themen PHILIPP DRECHSLER, Beyond the Dichotomy of Migration and Acculturation. The Dispersal and Development of the Neolithic on the Arabian Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 GUNNAR SPERVESLAGE, Ägyptische Einlüsse auf der Arabischen Halbinsel in vorislamischer Zeit am Beispiel der Oase von Tayma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 IRIS GERLACH, Cultural Contacts between South Arabia and Tigray (Ethiopia) during the Early 1st Millennium BC. Results of the Ethiopian-German Cooperation Project in Yeha. . . . . 254 HOLGER HITGEN, Aspects of Mediterranean Inluence on the Material Culture of South Arabia during the Early Himyarite Period (1st Century BC – 3rd Century AD) on Example of Ğabal al-ʿAwd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 SARAH JAPP, Cultural Transfer in South Arabia during the First Half of the First Millennium CE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 MICHAEL M. RAITH – RADEGUND HOFFBAUER – HARALD EULER – PAUL A. YULE – KRISTOFFER DAMGAARD, The View from Ẓafār – An Archaeometric Study of the ʿAqaba Pottery Complex and its Distribution in the 1st Millennium CE . . . . . . . . . 320 HINwEISE FÜR AUTOREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 ZOrA 6, 2013, 5–8 Inhaltsverzeichnis 7 ZOrA 6, 2013, 5–8 8 ZOrA 6, 2013, 5–8 Inhaltsverzeichnis

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Bead jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine time in the province of Arabia. The beads and pendants of glass, stone, and organic materials from the rock chamber necropolis at Khirbat Yajuz.

Bead jewellery of Late-Roman and Byzantine time in the province of Arabia. The beads and pendants of glass, stone, and organic materials from the rock chamber necropolis at Khirbat Yajuz.

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS