stone, paste, shell and metal beads from sharm
TRANSCRIPT
Arab. arch. epig. 2001: 12: 202–222 Copyright C Munksgaard 2001Printed in Denmark. All rights reserved
ISSN 0905-7196
Stone, paste, shell and metal beads fromSharm
DIANE BARKERSchool of Archaeology, The University of Sydney, NSW Australia
Eighty-seven beads of various materials are discussed according to the twelvetypological groups into which they are divided. This typology is largely basedon bead shapes, although manufacturing techniques and materials are alsodiscussed. The beads are also compared to other assemblages in southeasternArabia.
IntroductionA total of eighty-seven beads made froma variety of materials was recovered fromthe excavations at Sharm, Fujairah. Thedistribution was highly concentrated inthe southern end of the tomb, particularlywith respect to the ubiquitous stone andpaste beads (Fig. 1). A selection of thesebeads is displayed in Figure 2. Sub-sequent analysis and comparisons con-firmed that these artefacts conform to thegenerally homogenous corpus of beadsproduced in the Oman Peninsulathroughout a number of archaeologicalperiods. An inventory of the beads ondisplay in the Museums of Fujairah, Rasal-Khaimah, Dubai and Sharjah, attests tothe popularity of particular bead formsand materials during the Hafit Horizon,the Umm an-Nar and Wadi Suq periodsand the Iron Age. As a result of the broadchronological ubiquity of this artefactclass, the beads are generally unhelpful inthe determination of the Sharm chron-ology, a matter best left to the architec-tural style, as well as to certain more di-
202
agnostic artefacts including the pottery,soft stone and metal objects (1).
Methodology of classificationThe beads were grouped on the basis ofmorphology since scientific methods wereunavailable in the U.A.E. to determine theprecise nature of the materials. Themorphological divisions of the bead assem-blages from Harappa (2) and Shimal Sites1 and 2 (3) provided guidance for the majorshapes.
There are twelve general shapes, in ad-dition to a further group containing twobeads of uncertain shape. In some in-stances, materials cross-cut shape, whereasin other instances, such as in the case ofthe flat disc beads, the material is largelyuniform with respect to shape. In the lattercase, nearly the entire group consisted ofthe same or similar material. This materialwas of uncertain origin and was thereforeclassified tentatively as either stone orpaste, or in some cases, shell. It is im-portant in and of itself that the material
BEADS FROM SHARM
Fig. 1.Spatial distribution of the beads in Tomb I.
used for this particular bead shape is ap-parently uniform. Such an occurrence islikely to be related to the manufacturingprocess. In terms of those bead types withdifferent materials constituting the same
203
shape, the taxonomic importance of thisobservation is undermined somewhat be-cause of the relatively few beads withineach of the remaining groups. The numbersin all groups, apart from the flat disc beads,only range from one to four beads. Obvi-ously, in terms of those groups containingone bead, there is an absolute coincidenceof both shape and material. As such, obser-vations on this correlation are superficialand hardly statistically relevant. Table 1summarises the correlation between beadshapes and their corresponding materials.The descriptive criteria used in the classifi-cation of the beads are outlined below. Theregistration database (Table 2) appears atthe end of this paper.
Flat disc (or micro-)beads (Fig. 3.1–4)These largely unremarkable beads arerounded or generally rounded in shape(with several exceptions), measuring nomore than 8 mm in diameter and 3.5 mmin thickness. Most examples are, however,between 6–7 mm in diameter and 1.5–3mm thick. Each bead was originally flat onboth surfaces, although many worn andchipped examples were noted in the as-semblage, possibly as a result of post-depo-sitional erosion and breakage. The perfor-ation consists of either a vertical or steppedhole, the latter feature possibly indicatingan aperture drilled from either end andmeeting in the centre (see below). The av-erage size of the perforations is between 2–3 mm, although most fall within the rangeof 2–2.5 mm. As noted, the beads appear tobe made of the same or similar material,probably stone, paste or shell, althoughsuch a claim is tentative in the absence ofdefinitive analysis. All of the examples ap-pear to have originally been creamy/whitein colour, although the surfaces are nowgreatly discoloured.
Flat disc beads are by far the mostcommon type in the collection, making up
D. BARKER
Fig. 2.A selection of beads excavatedfrom Tombs I and II at Sharm.Left to right: Row 1: S-391, 279,334, 333, 332, 338, 336, 335, 340,281. Row 2: 171, 280, 282, 228,174, 119, 275, 283, 153, 170. Row3: 10, 342, 350, 288, 246, 152, 287,351, 289. Row 4: 5, 42, 136, 325,327, 349, 326. Row 5: 11, 6, 2, 81.
75.9% of the total, with sixty-six individualspecimens. Such a figure is unsurprisinggiven the ubiquity of this type in differentassemblages from the Oman Peninsula andthroughout a number of different archae-ological periods in prehistory. They werefound in Shimal tomb SH 102 (4), and tomb
Table 1. Sharm beads, showing the correlation between shape and material.
Uncertain:(Other) stone, shell
Type Carnelian stone Shell Paste or paste Metal Total
FD – 5 3 2 56 – 66T – – – – 1 – 1SBC 1 – – – 1 1 3LBC 1 – – – – – 1SB 2 – – – 1 – 3TLB 1 – – – – – 1TSB – – 4 – – – 4S – 1 – – – – 1TT 2 – – – – – 2L 1 – – – – – 1PC – 1 – – – – 1PB – 1 – – – – 1Not – – – – 1 1 2discernibleTotal 8 8 7 2 60 2 87
Note: For a list of abbreviations see end of paper.
204
6 (5), and earlier at Site 2 (6), made both ofshell and stone. Similar beads dated to theIron Age are also on display in the Na-tional Museum of Ras al-Khaimah. In com-parison, the disc beads excavated fromQidfa tomb 1 and on display in FujairahMuseum were given a date in the second
BEADS FROM SHARM
half of the second millennium BC (ie. theend of the Wadi Suq period or the begin-ning of the Iron Age). This type was alsorecovered from the T-shaped tomb atBithnah and is thought to have been madeof shell, bone or ivory (7).
Tube bead (Fig. 3.5)Only one example of this type (S-42) wasrecovered from Tomb I at Sharm, makingup just over 1% of the bead assemblage.This form was defined on the basis of itselongated shape, its uniform diameteralong the length of the bead and its flatbase and apex. The perforation was drilledthrough the vertical axis, although it wasimprecisely executed, being slightly off-centre. It is similar in shape to a bead foundin Shimal tomb SH 102 (8).
Squat biconical beads (Fig. 3.6)This group consists of those small, stoutbeads with a definite carinated mid-sectionseparating a lower and an upper portion.The point of carination represents thewidest part of each bead, whilst the trunc-ated apex and the base are the narrowest.The general shape can be likened to twotruncated cones attached end-to-end. Theperforation extends through the long (ver-tical) axis. The four beads in this categoryare made from several different materials(carnelian, gold and stone or paste), andconsist of 3.5% of the total bead count fromthe site. The maximum diameters rangefrom 4.5–8 mm and the lengths range be-tween 3 and 9 mm, although the lattercomes from a badly broken gold bead (S-325) which was difficult to measure withany great degree of accuracy. This beadwas originally cast, and was found split inhalf, connected only by a small join to-wards one end (see Fig. 2). A find fromShimal tomb SH 102, consisting of amounting, hammered from a gold sheet,which was intended to cover a spherical
205
Fig. 3.A selection of beads from Sharm, organised accordingto morphological types. Flat disc. 1: S-229; 2: S-174; 3: S-230; 4: S-120. Tube. 5: S-42. Squat biconical. 6: S-289. Longbiconical. 7: S-5. Squat Barrel. 8: S-395; 9: S-2; 10: S-349.Truncated squat barrel. 11: S-287; 12: S-288; 13: S-350.Truncated long barrel. 14: S-327. Truncated triangular. 15:S-394; 16: S-326. Spherical. 17: S-6. Lenticular. 18: S-10.Plano-convex. 19: S-246. Pillbox. 20: S-152.
bead (9), may indicate the original functionof the gold artefact from Sharm. In terms ofshape, the squat biconical bead, althoughsporting different names such as ‘truncatedbicone’, was quite common in the OmanPeninsula. It was found in tombs 102 and103 at Ghalilah (10) and earlier at Site 1, thelatter probably being made from carnelianor another form of chalcedony (11). Several
D. BARKER
carnelian examples were also found in thesettlement areas at Shimal (12). The squatbiconical beads from Bithnah, made fromcarnelian or agate, are directly comparableto Sharm’s S-289 (13). This shape was alsoattested at Qidfa tomb 1, as the beads ondisplay in Fujairah Museum testify.
Long biconical bead (Fig. 3.7)This category consists of a single bead(1.15% of the total) with an elongated, bi-conical profile. Like the squat biconicalbeads, it possesses a central carinationwhich is the widest part of the object. Thetruncated apex and the base are also thenarrowest areas and the central perforationcuts through the vertical (long) axis. Just asit was a rare shape at Sharm, so too was thelong biconical bead scarce at Shimal. Oneexample has been published from SH 102(14), with several more coming fromBithnah (15).
Squat barrel beads (Fig. 3.8–10)These stout, barrel-shaped beads withtruncated base and apex and bulging sidesconsist of a mere two examples or some3.5% of the total. The base and apex repre-sent the narrowest part of each bead,reaching a maximum width around thecentre of the bead’s body. The overallshape is reminiscent of the squat biconicalbeads, minus the prominent carination.The diameters for these two beads did notexceed 10 mm, with the minimum andmaximum thickness ranging between 5and 10 mm. As with the variation in size,the nature of the perforation differs foreach bead. S-2 possesses a central perfor-ation of approximately 2 mm in diameter,drilled directly through the material,whereas S-349’s 3–3.5 mm perforation wasapparently bored from both ends as evi-denced by the stepped platform in thecentre of the perforation where the twodrill operations met. There is no correlation
206
between shape and fabric, with S-2 beingmade from veined carnelian andS-349 being made from some type of palestone or paste. The squat barrel was alsoknown from such sites as SH 102 (16) andBithnah (17).
Truncated squat barrel beads (Fig. 3.11–13)This type of bead is similar to the squatbarrel shape, but with a truncated base andapex which produces an even squatterform. Like the former type, the truncatedsquat barrel beads possess the bulgingbody that characterises the barrel shape.However, since this category includes someexamples with hollowed-out interiors, theclassification is based upon the generalshape. Four beads, all made of shell, com-prise this group and make up some 4.6%of the total bead count. The fact that thebeads were only (apparently) slightlymodified from a naturally-occurring formmeant that a degree of variation wasnecessary in the broad classification ofthese artefacts. Although each bead pos-sesses unique and natural spirals on itsunderside, the minor differences presentedby these features do not detract from thegeneral shape. A range of sizes is howeverapparent, despite the small number ofartefacts in this shape class, as shown bythe registration database (Table 2).
The perforation of S-350 is quite unlikethe others in this group. The spirals visibleon the underside of the shell constitute theouter edges of the perforation itself. Thehole, although narrow at the apex, becomesprogressively broader until it reaches itsmaximum diameter at the base of the bead.The spiraled perforation naturally results inthe stepped cross-section of the hole. Theperforations of the other beads in this groupare similar to the beads already discussed,with the holes being drilled on an angle tomeet in the centre and forming a slight stepbecause of the dual drilling operations.
BEADS FROM SHARM
Truncated long barrel bead (Fig. 3.14)The single bead in this category is a variantof the truncated squat barrel types, with itsconcave sides and narrower truncated apexand base. However, it is distinguished fromthe squat barrel beads by its more elon-gated shape. This particular group, repre-sented by S-327 and making up 1.15% ofthe collection, consists of a well-preservedcarnelian specimen, with dark veinsthrough the material. The shape is quiteregular, with the apex and the base havingbeen carefully cut and polished. The per-foration is approximately 2 mm in diam-eter, with a central step indicating the holewas drilled in from either side through thevertical axis.
Truncated triangular beads (Fig. 3.15–16)An unusual shape, the truncated triangularcategory is comprised of two examples,both made of polished carnelian. The apexof both S-326 and S-394 are the narrowestpart of each bead, where the tip has beenremoved to form the truncation. Althoughthe front faces of each bead are similar, theprofiles are the reverse of each other. Thenarrow apex forms the tip of S-326,whereas the apex forms the widest part ofS-394, at 3.5 mm. However, each beadshares a similarly-executed perforation,which is cut horizontally through the apex.Each hole is approximately 1.5 mm in di-ameter, although the hole through S-394displays a stepped profile, indicating adouble drilling action. Both are relativelywell preserved, although the base of S-326appears to have broken off. Furthermore,the two faces of S-394 contain severalgrooves, possibly sustained during themanufacturing process. This particularspecimen is remarkably similar in appear-ance to a human tooth, and was in fact re-covered from the human skeletal materialduring study. Only one parallel for thisshape exists in the form of an Iron Age car-
207
nelian bead from the Shimal settlement,displayed in the National Museum of Rasal-Khaimah.
Spherical bead (Fig. 3.17)The single spherical bead (S-6) recoveredfrom Tomb II was fashioned from a whitishstone, possibly crystal, and was recoveredin an excellent state of preservation. Itseven shape gives it a regular maximumthickness of 11 mm, with a centrally-posi-tioned perforation of 2.5 mm. This beadmakes up just over 1% of the assemblage.
Lenticular bead (Fig. 3.18)This category again comprises only one ex-ample (S-10) made from veined andpolished carnelian. The top view reveals alenticular-shaped cross-section, with theedges curving inwards to form the nar-rowest part of the bead. It was found inexcellent condition, and has retained itsvery regular shape. The 1.5 mm perforationwas drilled through the vertical axis, poss-ibly in a single action. Although the hole isrelatively well centred at one end, theangled nature of the perforation resulted ina slightly off-centre opening at the otherend. A similar-shaped bead was found atSite 2 at Shimal, but it is distinguishable byits double perforation (18).
Plano-convex bead (Fig. 3.19)One of the most interestingly shaped speci-mens in this category of artefacts is theplano-convex bead (S-246), with its flatbase, concave body and slightly truncatedends. It is made from a smooth, mottledgrey, black and white stone. It is quite reg-ular in shape, with a minimum thicknessof 7.5 mm and a maximum thickness of 14mm. The perforation, which ranges be-tween 3 and 3.5 mm, was drilled horizon-tally through the stone, with a stepped as-pect suggesting a double drilling action.The closest comparable example in terms
D. BARKER
of shape comes from SH 102, although itwas made from soft stone (19).
Pillbox bead (Fig. 3.20)This unusual shape is similar to the trunc-ated cone in the fact that the base has agreater diameter than the apex, yet thepillbox bead (S-152) has a more squatshape, with rounded sides and a hollowed-out interior. This is the only bead out of theentire collection made of soft stone. It hasthree perforations of 2 mm in diameter, onebeing on the top and two on opposite sidesof the bead. The perforation on the top ofthe bead is irregularly shaped, whereas theside holes are more regularly shaped, al-though one is broken. These latter holes re-duce the roundness of the bead when seenfrom the top view. Its presence in the tombmay be considered somewhat surprisinggiven that soft stone beads were unknownafter the third millennium in the OmanPeninsula (20). However, when one con-siders that a serie ancienne soft stone vesselwas also found at Sharm (21), the place-ment of older, or perhaps ‘family heirloom’style, objects in the tomb does not seem im-plausible. No parallel could be found forits unusual shape.
MiscellaneousThe two beads in this group were imposs-ible to classify because of their poor stateof preservation. S-136 (see Fig. 1) was orig-inally manufactured from a very fine goldleaf. However, the thinness of the materialmeant that it was easily crushed after de-position. Although the shape is not dis-cernible, the material itself remains in goodcondition. The perforation (in its currentcondition) is some 3.5 mm in diameter. Thesecond bead (S-235) was extremely brittleat the time of excavation, and unfortu-nately soon disintegrated. However, its di-mensions were recorded before its disinte-gration. It appears to have been made from
208
a greenish paste that was once coated in abrown glaze.
Materials and manufacturing techniquesAs a result of the ubiquity of styles and ma-terials of beads in the Oman Peninsulathroughout the different archaeologicalperiods, it is more useful to examine themanufacturing techniques employed tomake the beads, and the materials fromwhich they were produced. These manu-facturing processes and the materials areoften linked, and it appears that differentmethods were employed according to thematerial used.
Carnelian and other stone beadsCarnelian sources have been traced toIndia, Afghanistan, eastern Iran and se-lected parts of the Arabian Peninsula but,so far, no sources have been identifiedspecifically in the Oman Peninsula (22).The lack of available sources may explainthe relative scarcity of carnelian beadscompared with the paste beads, for in-stance. In contrast, at Shimal, the majorityof the 906 beads from tomb SH 102 weremade from this type of stone (23).
Carnelian, a form of chalcedony, is a rela-tively hard stone, with a score of 7 on theMohs scale (24). It therefore requires a par-ticular type of lithic technology in order toproduce the type of beads found at Sharm.The method of production, according toVogt and Kastner, ‘...is fairly complicatedand tedious’ (25). It involves the initialcrushing of the stone in order to obtainworkable pieces. These were roughlyshaped, and finally polished, by rubbingthem back and forth against a harder ma-terial such as an abrasive (26). Benton sug-gests that the drilling of the perforationoften occurred between the formation ofthe blank and the rough shaping of thebead. However, several bead types from al-
BEADS FROM SHARM
Sufouh were produced using an alteredmethod. They were roughly shaped fromthe blank and polished before they weredrilled using a rotating motion. Even then,the drilling was only partial. Indirect per-cussion was used to remove flakes on theopposite end of the partially-drilled hole,which was completed by rotating a tool towiden the hole (27). A different order isagain presented by Gwinnett and Gorelick,with the possibility that the nucleus wasfirst detached from a larger block orpebble, which was then shaped andsmoothed (in two separate actions), beforebeing perforated and polished. However,on the basis of their analysis of carnelianbeads from Iran, Gwinnett and Gorelickwere inclined to disagree with this method.Rather, they found that a number of beadshad been drilled prior to smoothing, butafter shaping. This method appears moreefficient given that less time would havebeen wasted on a bead which broke duringthe early stages of drilling, compared witha bead which broke after it had beendrilled, shaped and smoothed (28). It is dif-ficult to determine which method was usedfor the Sharm beads, although one cansafely assume that at least one of themethods was employed.
The existence of conchoidal fractures onsome of the beads, albeit small, indicatesthat the beads were fashioned using a chip-ping motion, in order to cleave flakes awayfrom the core (29). Drilling has been de-scribed as the most difficult aspect of themanufacturing process because of thehardness of the stone which required a toolmade of a material harder than the car-nelian itself (30). It was often achieved bya method of ‘double-perforation’. This in-volved the partial perforation of the stoneon one side, followed by a similar actionfrom the other end, with the result that thetwo drilling actions met in the centre of thebead (assuming, of course, that the perfor-
209
ations were aligned). This form of drillingaction was consistently noted on the beadsfrom Sharm, evidenced by a step or ashoulder inside the perforation where thetwo drilling actions met. This ‘axial mis-alignment’ was perhaps due to a degree ofmovement during drilling and wear of thetool (31). The double-perforation methodwas used to avoid the possibility of frac-turing the material, which was likely if thebead was only bored from one end. Fur-thermore, the use of a conical, rather thana cylindrical point, had the practical func-tion of limiting the width of the hole inorder to avoid fracturing. The result is abiconical hole that reduced the amount ofmaterial which needed to be removed (32).This biconical bore also exists on many ofthe beads in the Sharm collection, but is notlimited solely to the carnelian ones. Beadsfeaturing such a ‘stepped’ bore are indi-cated in the registration.
Another common feature noted on thecarnelian and other stone beads from theSharm assemblage is the presence of a dis-tinct bevel surrounding the perforation ofthe bead. This feature is, in all likelihood,directly related to the manufacturing pro-cess and the nature of the materials. Be-cause of the hardness of the carnelian, onewould expect a high degree of lithic wearduring the drilling process. Thus, it hasbeen suggested that a small ‘well’ wasformed on either end of the bead prior tothe drilling action. The well is thought tohave held the abrasive material, whichwould increase the effectiveness of thedrilling action and the life of the tools. Thewell was only necessary during the initialstages of drilling since, as the hole deep-ened, the abrasive material would havebeen more easily contained. It was alsoused to help begin the drilling process (33).This feature was also noted on the car-nelian and sardonyx beads from ShimalSite 1 (34). Gwinnett and Gorelick have
D. BARKER
also suggested that the hardness of thestone is a chronological indicator in itself.They argue that softer stones were usedearlier in the Near East for the productionof beads and seals because of the lack ofmetal drills at this stage. It was not untillater, when metal drills were believed tohave been more common, that stonesranging in hardness from 4 to 7 wereworked. According to the authors, the timespans in which harder stones were usedencompass both the Wadi Suq period andthe Iron Age (35).
On stones within the Mohs range of 1 to6, including soft stone, it is likely that flintwas adequate for the drilling process. Onsuch stones, Gwinnett and Gorelick havefound that wood and copper drills aresimilarly efficient, even in conjunction withabrasive material. However, it is difficult toconfirm this assertion with respect toSharm’s single soft stone bead (S-152) be-cause of a lack of scientific analysis.
Paste beadsThe delicate nature and the small size of thepaste (flat disc) beads makes it unlikely thatthey were carved in the same manner as thestone beads. Rather, it is possible that theywere manufactured in a manner similar tothat of the Harappan microbeads. However,it must be remembered that the Harappan-type beads themselves do not continue be-yond the third millennium (36). Thus, itmust remain a tentative conclusion until aproper analysis is performed.
If the Sharm paste beads were manufac-tured in a manner similar to the Harappanmicrobead, the first step would have in-volved the crushing of a suitable soft stone,such as steatite, into a paste. The paste wasthen fed through a hole and cut to formindividual beads (37). Alternatively, thebeads may have been made from a fritpaste, as was the case at the third-millen-nium site of al-Sufouh (38). Whatever the
210
exact composition of the paste, this scen-ario for the production of Sharm’s beads ispossible given the small size range for theexternal diameters of the beads and theperforations. The registration bears witnessto the similarities in sizes, which makes ithighly likely that a standardised form ofproduction was employed.
The only difficulty with this scenario isthe fact that many of the paste beadsshowed evidence of a step, or biconicalcore. This would seem to indicate that eachwas drilled separately. This is not imposs-ible, despite the small size of the beads,given that microliths were found earlier atShahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Hissar, which cor-responded to perforations in beads of lessthan a 1 mm in diameter (39). The use ofstandard drill heads would account for thesimilar perforation sizes evident in theSharm assemblage. How does one then ex-plain the apparent uniformity of externaldiameters of the beads? It is possible thatthe beads were formed from a paste, fedinto a long tube and then cut. From there,each individual bead may have beendrilled. Although this represents a morecomplicated method than merely drillingthe long tube bead, it may have been easierto drill small flat beads, as opposed to onelong bead. The apparent irregularity of anumber of the paste beads is explainableby the effects of several thousand years ofpost-depositional environmental factors,including the character of the soil and theapparent robbing of the tomb, which led toa greatly disturbed collection.
Shell beadsGiven the relative proximity of Sharm tothe coast, it is surprising that only fourbeads were definitely identified as shell.This is to be contrasted with the situationat Shimal tomb SH 102, where shell beadswere the second largest category in thatartefact class (40). However, this figure
BEADS FROM SHARM
does not take into account the beads classi-fied as paste/stone or shell, and it also doesnot include those larger shell artefactswhich have been classified as ‘pendants’(41). The shells forming part of the flat disccategory were worked to form that shape,whereas in the case of the pendants, theapex was merely removed to form the per-foration, a distinction also seen at Bithnah(42).
Metal beadsOnly two metal beads were recovered fromthe Sharm excavations. Their poor preser-vation makes them of little use from amorphological perspective, although theywere useful for mineralogical analysis (43).Similar looking gold beads are displayed inDubai Museum and have been dated to thefirst half of the second millennium BC.
ConclusionThe inability to study the beads properlyhas left many questions unanswered, par-ticularly regarding the materials andmethods of manufacture. Furthermore, thebeads are generally unhelpful from achronological perspective. However, theparallels adduced from such sites as Shimaland Bithnah may lead to the conclusionthat the beads fit within the second- orfirst-millennium framework already sug-gested by the analysis of other, more diag-nostic materials from the tomb, such as thesoft stone and the ceramics. Thus, the pot-tery from Shimal was used to date Site 1 tothe second millennium BC, largely con-sisting of the Wadi Suq period, whereasSite 2 was dated to the early first millen-nium, or the Iron Age II period (44). Bothof these dates fit within the periods of useof the tombs at Sharm. However, thesimple shapes and common materials ofmany of the beads from Bithnah are notdatable in a precise manner because of the
211
use of such beads from the second millen-nium well into the Islamic period. Suchartefacts were recognised as having a verydubious chronological value (45). As a re-sult of the chronological difficulties facedin the study of such a bead assemblage, theSharm beads are more useful in a study ofthe materials and manufacture, as well asfor a source of the different bead shapesused in the Oman Peninsula.
References1. See Vogt B & Kastner J-M. Tomb SH 102. In: B
Vogt & U Franke-Vogt, eds. Shimal 1985/1986: Ex-cavations of the German Archaeological Mission in Rasal-Khaimah, U.A.E.: A Preliminary Report. Berlin:BBVO, 8: 1987: 32, where it was determined thatthe beads from Shimal tomb SH 102 were chrono-logically irrelevant, despite similarities with beadsfrom graves at al-Qusais and Qattarah. See alsoCorboud P, Castella A-C, Hapka R & im-OberstegP. Les Tombes protohistoriques de Bithnah, Fujairah,Emirats Arabes Unis. Mainz: von Zabern, 1996: 84,on the chronological irrelevance of the beads fromBithnah.
2. Vats MS. Excavations at Harappa: Being an Accountof Archaeological Excavations at Harappa carried outBetween the Years 1920–21 and 1933–34, Volume II:Plates. Calcutta: Government of India Press, 1940:Pl. CXXIX and CXXX. The visual representationswere particularly helpful, despite the difference inchronology between Harappa and Sharm.
3. Donaldson P. Prehistoric Tombs of Ras al-Khaimah. OA 23: 1984: 210–212, 260–265.
4. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: 31–32, Fig. 16–17.5. de Cardi B. The Grave Goods from Shimal Tomb
6, Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E. In: Potts DT, ed. Arabythe Blest: Studies in Arabian Archaeology. Copen-hagen: CNIP 7: 1988: Fig. 14.19–21.
6. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: Fig. 29.62, 64.7. Corboud et al., Les Tombes protohistoriques: Pl. 28,
3–5; Pl. 29.17–18.8. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: Fig. 16.3.9. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: 32.
10. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: Fig. 16.8, 12, 13.Vogt B & Velde C. Ghalilah tomb SH 103. In:Vogt & Franke-Vogt, Shimal: Fig. 28.7, 9.
11. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: Fig. 13.13, 17, 19–20.
12. Velde C, Franke-Vogt U & Vogt B. Area SX.Franke-Vogt U. Area SY. In: Vogt & Franke-Vogt,Shimal: Fig. 48.12–13.
D. BARKER
13. Corboud et al., Les Tombes protohistoriques: Pl. 29.5–6, especially the former.
14. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: Fig. 16.8.15. Corboud et al., Les Tombes protohistoriques: Pl. 29.1–
4.16. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: Fig. 16.7, 17.4–5.17. Corboud et al., Les Tombes protohistoriques: Pl.
29.10.18. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: Fig. 29.59.19. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: Fig. 17.9.20. Benton JN. Excavations at al-Sufouh: A Third Millen-
nium Site in the Emirate of Dubai. Brepols: ABIEL:I, 1996: 120.
21. See M. Ziolkowski, this volume.22. Benton, Excavations at al-Sufouh: 126.23. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: 31.24. Benton, Excavations at al-Sufouh: 122. Gwinnett
AJ & Gorelick L. Beadmaking in Iran in the EarlyBronze Age. Expedition 24/1: 1981: 11.
25. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: 31.26. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: 31. Gwinnett & Go-
relick, Beadmaking in Iran: 23.27. Benton, Excavations at al-Sufouh: 36, Table 14.
Chevalier J, Inzian ML & Tixier J. Une techniquede perforation par percussion de perles en corna-line (Larsa, Iraq). Paleorient 8/2: 1982: 57, Fig. 1;62, Fig. 7.
28. Gwinnett & Gorelick, Beadmaking in Iran: 11,Table 2, after Tosi M & Piperno M. Lithic Tech-nology Behind the Ancient Lapis Lazuli Trade. Ex-pedition 16: 1973.
29. Gwinnett & Gorelick, Beadmaking in Iran: 23.30. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: 31.31. Gwinnett & Gorelick, Beadmaking in Iran: 14, Fig.
9. Gwinnett AJ & Gorelick L. Ancient Lapidary.Expedition 22/1: 1979: 20, Fig 8A, B, 21, 23. This iscalled the ‘terracing effect’ in the latter article.
32. Piperno M. Micro-drilling at Shahr-i Sokhta: themaking and use of lithic drill-heads. In: Ham-mond N, ed. South Asian Archaeology: Papers from
212
the First International Conference of South Asian Ar-chaeologists Held at the University of Cambridge.London: Duckworth, 1973: 126–127.
33. Gwinnett & Gorelick, Beadmaking in Iran: 18.Gwinnett & Gorelick, Ancient Lapidary: 32.
34. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: 210.35. Gwinnett & Gorelick, Ancient Lapidary: 31, Fig.
29.36. Benton, Excavations at al-Sufouh: 118.37. Benton, Excavations at al-Sufouh: 118. Hedge K. The
Art of the Harappan Microbead. Archaeology 36/2: 1983: 70, 72.
38. Benton, Excavations at al-Sufouh: 128.39. Gwinnett & Gorelick, Beadmaking in Iran: 10, 21.40. Vogt & Kastner, Tomb SH 102: 31.41. See the paper on the perforated objects by the
author (this volume).42. Corboud et al., Les Tombes protohistoriques: 83–84.43. See L. Weeks, this volume.44. Donaldson P. Prehistoric Tombs of Ras al-
Khaimah. OA 24: 1985: 131.45. Corboud et al., Les Tombes protohistoriques: 83–84.
Address:Diane BarkerSchool of Archaeology A14The University of SydneyNSW 2006Australia
Abbreviations (Table 1 and Table 2)FD: flat disc; T: tube; SBC: squat biconical; LBC: long bi-conical; SB: squat barrel; TLB: truncated long barrel;TSB: truncated squat barrel; S: spherical; TT: truncatedtriangular; L: lenticular; PC: plano-convex; PB: pillbox;D: diameter; MD: maximum diameter; L: length; T:thickness; MiT: minimum thickness; MT: maximumthickness; H: height; W: width; MiW: minimum width;MW: maximum width; int: interior; ext: exterior.
BEADS FROM SHARM
Tabl
e2.
Reg
istr
atio
nd
atab
ase
for
the
Shar
mbe
ads.
Reg
Dim
ensi
ons
Hol
eN
oD
ate
Tom
bSq
uare
Lay
erE
ast
Nor
thL
evel
Mat
eria
l(m
m)
Shap
e/Ty
pe(D
iam
eter
,mm
)N
otes
213
/01
/97
II04
/06
104
–06
06–1
1su
rf-2
0cm
carn
elia
n7¿
5(M
iT),
SB2,
cent
rally
-E
xcel
lent
(2¿
5)7
(MT
)po
siti
oned
,co
ndit
ion,
fair
lyst
raig
htth
roug
hre
gula
rsh
ape
bead
518
/01
/97
I01
/13
31.
9613
.08
9.03
carn
elia
n12
¿4
(MiT
),L
BC
2,st
raig
htfa
irly
7.5
(MT
)th
roug
hve
rtic
alsy
mm
etri
cal
axis
thou
ghsl
ight
lyir
regu
lar
618
/01
/97
II04
/06
44.
607.
008.
73st
one-
crys
tal
11(D
)S
2.5,
cent
red
exce
llent
(2¿
5)(w
hite
-co
ndit
ion,
vein
ed)
high
lysp
heri
cal
1021
/01
/97
I02
/16
42.
0516
.56
8.70
carn
elia
n10
¿9¿
L1.
5,th
roug
hre
gula
rsh
ape,
0.5
(MiT
),lo
ngax
is,
exce
llent
2.5
(MT
)sl
ight
lyan
gled
cond
itio
n
1123
/01
/97
II04
/09
64.
989.
198.
45st
one
or2.
5(T
)¿6
(D)
FD2.
5,st
eppe
d,
wel
l-pr
eser
ved
,pa
ste
cent
red
slig
htly
wor
nan
dch
ippe
ded
ges
4227
/01
/97
I01
/15
501
158.
70–9
.60
past
e(?
)cl
ay12
.5(L
)¿T
c.2.
5,of
f-ce
ntre
irre
gula
rsh
ape,
(?):
very
soft
,5
(MiT
)¿d
impl
edsu
rfac
ew
hite
vein
s6
(MT
)
4928
/01
/97
I01
/17
41.
6817
.40
8.75
ston
eor
7(D
)¿FD
2,an
gled
and
chip
ped
onon
epa
ste
(?)
2(M
iT),
step
ped
sid
e,po
or2.
5(M
T)
cond
itio
n
8130
/01
/97
II05
/05
65.
845.
858.
38st
one
(?)
7(D
)¿FD
2.5,
step
ped
,ir
regu
larl
y-pa
ste
(?)
1(M
iT),
angl
edsh
aped
,ver
y1.
5(M
T)
wor
ned
ges
972/
02/
97I
00/
09su
rfac
e0.
979.
479.
30st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2.5,
cent
red
,ve
rycr
ude
past
e(?
)1.
5(M
iT),
mar
gina
lly2
(MT
)st
eppe
d
119
4/02
/97
I01
/04
31.
684.
908.
87st
one
or6
(D)¿
FD2,
slig
htly
chip
ped
and
past
e(?
)2
(MiT
),st
eppe
d,c
entr
edw
orn,
very
poor
3(M
T)
cond
itio
n
213
D. BARKER
Tabl
e2.
Con
tinu
ed
Reg
Dim
ensi
ons
Hol
eN
oD
ate
Tom
bSq
uare
Lay
erE
ast
Nor
thL
evel
Mat
eria
l(m
m)
Shap
e/Ty
pe(D
iam
eter
,mm
)N
otes
120
4/02
/97
I01
/09
301
099.
00–8
.80
ston
e7
(D)¿
FD2.
5,st
eppe
dan
dfa
irly
circ
ular
,2.
5(M
iT)
angl
edsl
ight
lyw
orn
3.5
(MT
)ed
ges,
exce
llent
cond
itio
n
121
4/02
/97
I00
/13
70.
9513
.93
8.40
ston
eor
5(D
)¿FD
2.5,
cent
red
,not
fair
lyci
rcul
ar,
past
e(?
)1.
75(M
iT),
step
ped
som
ew
orn
2(M
T)
edge
s
136
5/02
/97
I01
/16
61.
6216
.49
8.57
gold
6(L
)¿3.
5(W
)no
t3.
5(?
)po
orco
ndit
ion
¿3
(H)
(?)
dis
cern
ible
(cru
shed
)
152
5/02
/97
I00
/12
30.
522.
308.
92st
one
12(D
)¿5
(T)
PB
thre
eho
les,
each
good
cond
itio
n2m
m,i
rreg
ular
,on
ebr
oken
153
5/02
/97
I01
/16
61.
9116
.66
8.55
ston
e5
(D)¿
2(T
)FD
1.5,
very
slig
htly
irre
gula
r(p
olis
hed
?)st
eppe
dan
dci
rcul
arsh
ape,
angl
edd
isti
nct
edge
s,ex
celle
ntco
ndit
ion
170
7/02
/97
I01
/15
71.
4215
.09
8.42
ston
eor
7.5
(D)¿
FD2.
5,an
gled
and
regu
lar,
wel
lpa
ste
(?)
3(M
iT),
step
ped
roun
ded
,goo
d3.
5(M
T)
cond
itio
n
171
7/02
/97
I00
/04
41.
674.
088.
70st
one
(?)
7(D
)¿FD
3,sl
ight
lyex
celle
ntpa
ste
(?)
2.5
(MiT
),st
eppe
dan
dco
ndit
ion
3.5
(MT
)an
gled
172
7/02
/97
I00
/07
40.
857.
838.
70st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2.5,
step
ped
,not
wor
nan
dpa
ste
(?)
2(M
iT),
angl
edch
ippe
ded
ges,
2.5
(MT
)po
orco
ndit
ion
173
7/02
/97
I01
/09
41.
479.
838.
70st
one
(?)
7(D
)¿FD
2.5–
3,sl
ight
lygo
odco
ndit
ion
past
e(?
)2.
5(M
iT),
step
ped
and
3(M
T)
angl
ed
174
7/02
/97
I01
/09
41.
579.
158.
69st
one
(?)
7(D
)¿FD
3,ce
ntre
d,
wor
ned
ges,
past
e(?
)0.
5(M
iT),
slig
htly
step
ped
very
poor
2.5
(MT
)co
ndit
ion
214
BEADS FROM SHARM
228
8/02
/97
I02
/10
surf
ace
0210
9.51
ston
e(?
)7.
5(D
)¿FD
2.5,
step
ped
and
wor
ned
ges,
av-
past
e(?
)3
(MiT
),sl
ight
lyan
gled
erag
eco
ndit
ion
3.25
(MT
)
229
8/02
/97
I01
/09
61.
909.
378.
50st
one
(?)
7(D
)¿FD
2.5,
cent
ral,
not
aver
age
past
e(?
)2
(MiT
),st
eppe
dco
ndit
ion
shel
l(?
)2.
5(M
T)
230
8/02
/97
I00
/04
50.
804.
638.
61st
one
(?)
8(D
)¿FD
2.5,
step
ped
and
fair
lyre
gula
rpa
ste
(?)
2(M
iT),
angl
edd
isc
shap
e,2.
5(M
T)
good
cond
itio
n
231
8/02
/97
I00
/04
50.
774.
238.
61st
one
(?)
6.5
(D)¿
FD1.
5,of
f-ce
ntre
,ex
celle
ntpa
ste
(?)
2.5
(MiT
),st
eppe
dco
ndit
ion,
3(M
T)
regu
larl
y-cu
rved
exte
rior
235
8/02
/97
I01
/04
51.
774.
608.
61gr
eeni
sh-
9(D
)un
know
nN
/A
red
uced
togl
azed
past
e(c
rush
ed)
frag
men
ts
237
8/02
/97
I01
/04
51.
304.
108.
68st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2,sl
ight
lyof
f-po
orco
ndit
ion,
past
e(?
)1
(MiT
),ce
ntre
wel
l-ro
und
ed1.
5(M
T)
but
very
wor
non
one
sid
e
238
8/02
/97
I01
/05
41.
565.
658.
72st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿1.
5(T
)FD
2,ce
ntre
d,
very
poor
past
e(?
)st
eppe
dco
ndit
ion,
shel
l(?
)re
mna
nts
ofbu
ff-c
olou
red
glaz
eor
oute
rsu
rfac
eof
shel
l(?
)
239
8/02
/97
I01
/05
501
058.
62st
one
(?)
5.75
(D)¿
FD1.
5,st
eppe
d,
very
poor
past
e(?
)1.
25(M
iT),
slig
htly
off-
cond
itio
n,w
orn
shel
l(?
)1.
5(M
T)
cent
rean
dch
ippe
ded
ges
onon
esi
de
240
8/02
/97
I00
/06
40.
676.
018.
71st
one
(?)
5.5
(D)¿
FD2.
5,ce
ntre
d,
aver
age
past
e(?
)2
(MiT
),sl
ight
lyst
eppe
dco
ndit
ion
2.5
(MT
)
Tabl
e2.
Con
t.
215
D. BARKER
Tabl
e2.
Con
tinu
ed
Reg
Dim
ensi
ons
Hol
eN
oD
ate
Tom
bSq
uare
Lay
erE
ast
Nor
thL
evel
Mat
eria
l(m
m)
Shap
e/Ty
pe(D
iam
eter
,mm
)N
otes
241
8/02
/97
I00
/06
40.
756.
588.
77st
one
(?)
5.5
(D)¿
FD2,
step
ped
and
circ
ular
wit
hfl
atpa
ste
(?)
2(M
iT),
angl
edba
sean
dsl
ight
ly2.
5(M
T)
conc
ave
top,
dis
tinc
ted
ges,
good
cond
itio
n
242
8/02
/97
I01
/05
41.
025.
958.
72sh
ell
5(D
)¿FD
1.5,
cent
red
,ve
ryir
regu
lar,
1(M
iT),
step
ped
due
tow
orn,
poor
2.5
(MT
)na
tura
lsp
iral
sco
ndit
ion
243
8/02
/97
I00
/08
60.
560.
998.
64st
one
(?)
5.5
(D)¿
FD2,
step
ped
and
chip
ped
and
past
e(?
)2.
25(M
iT),
angl
edab
rad
ed,
2.5
(MT
)av
erag
eco
ndit
ion
246
8/02
/97
I01
/06
41.
806.
558.
72m
ottl
ed21
(L)¿
PC
3–3.
5,th
roug
hex
celle
ntst
one
7.5
(MiT
),ho
rizo
ntal
axis
,co
ndit
ion,
14(M
T)¿
step
ped
,slig
htly
regu
lar
10.5
(H)
angl
ed
251
8/02
/97
I01
/08
61.
378.
928.
58st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2–3.
5,st
eppe
d,
roug
hly
circ
ular
,pa
ste
(?)
1(M
iT),
wid
eron
one
flat
onon
esi
de,
2(M
T)
sid
eth
anon
the
unev
enan
dot
her
chip
ped
onth
eot
her
252
8/02
/97
I02
/11
72.
1011
.62
8.34
ston
e(?
)7
(D)¿
FD2.
5,st
eppe
dbu
tsl
ight
lyw
orn
past
e(?
)2.
5(M
iT),
not
angl
eded
ges,
aver
age
3(M
T)
cond
itio
n
253
8/02
/97
I01
/11
71.
2411
.38
8.42
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD1.
5–2,
step
ped
chip
ped
and
past
e(?
)2
(MiT
),an
dan
gled
wor
ned
ges,
2.25
(MT
)ot
herw
ise
aver
age
cond
itio
n
270
9/02
/97
I01
/18
61.
7718
.06
8.6
ston
e(?
)5.
5(D
)¿FD
2.5,
cent
red
,sl
ight
lypa
ste
(?)
2(M
iT),
slig
htly
step
ped
irre
gula
r,w
orn
2.5
(T)
edge
s,po
orco
ndit
ion
216
BEADS FROM SHARM
271
9/02
/97
I00
/07
70.
557.
998.
45st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2,st
eppe
d,n
otch
ippe
d,w
orn
past
e(?
)1.
5(M
iT),
angl
eded
ges,
aver
age
2.5
(T)
cond
itio
n
272
9/02
/97
I01
/07
51.
477.
548.
65st
one
(?)
7.5
(D)¿
FD2,
angl
edan
dav
erag
epa
ste
(?)
2.5
(MiT
),st
eppe
dco
ndit
ion
3(M
T)
273
9/02
/97
I00
/07
70.
507.
558.
49sh
ell
(?)
5.5
(D)¿
1.5
(T)
FD2,
cent
red
,ve
ryab
rad
edst
eppe
dan
dch
ippe
don
edge
san
dfa
ces
274
9/02
/97
I01
/05
51.
445.
778.
68st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
1.5,
step
ped
but
regu
lar
wit
hpa
ste
(?)
2(M
iT),
not
angl
edw
orn
edge
s,2.
5(M
T)
aver
age
cond
itio
n
275
9/02
/97
I01
/05
51.
735.
98.
68st
one
or6
(D)¿
FD2.
5,st
eppe
d,n
otve
rysm
ooth
past
e(?
)1.
25(M
iT),
angl
edan
dci
rcul
ar,
1.75
(MT
)sl
ight
lyco
ncav
eto
pan
dbo
ttom
,ve
rygo
odco
ndit
ion
276
9/02
/97
I01
/05
51.
365.
358.
62sh
ell
6(D
)¿FD
1.5,
step
ped
and
poor
cond
itio
n1.
5(M
iT),
angl
ed2
(MT
)
277
9/02
/97
I01
/06
51.
356.
388.
60st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2,st
eppe
d,b
utsl
ight
lyw
orn,
past
e(?
)2
(MiT
),no
tan
gled
good
cond
itio
n2.
5(M
T)
278
9/02
/97
I00
/07
70.
867.
978.
41st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2–3.
5,an
gled
slig
htly
past
e(?
)1.
5(M
iT),
and
step
ped
irre
gula
r,ve
ry2
(MT
)w
orn
edge
s
279
9/02
/97
I01
/06
51.
766.
78.
70st
one
6.5
(D)¿
FD2.
5,st
eppe
dan
dw
ell-
roun
ded
,2.
5(M
iT),
slig
htly
angl
edd
isti
nct
edge
s,3
(MT
)ex
celle
ntco
ndit
ion
280
9/02
/97
I00
/05
50.
195.
068.
61st
one
(?)
7.5
(D)¿
FD3.
25,s
light
lyve
rycr
ude,
past
e(?
)1
(MiT
),st
eppe
d,
bad
lypr
eser
ved
2.25
(MT
)ce
ntre
d
Tabl
e2.
Con
t.
217
D. BARKER
Tabl
e2.
Con
tinu
ed
Reg
Dim
ensi
ons
Hol
eN
oD
ate
Tom
bSq
uare
Lay
erE
ast
Nor
thL
evel
Mat
eria
l(m
m)
Shap
e/Ty
pe(D
iam
eter
,mm
)N
otes
281
9/02
/97
I01
/10
71.
0610
.12
9.49
ston
e(?
)8
(D)¿
FD2,
step
ped
and
abra
ded
and
past
e(?
)3
(MiT
),sl
ight
lyan
gled
wor
n3.
5(M
T)
282
9/02
/97
I00
/09
70.
709.
368.
50st
one
(?)
8(D
)¿FD
2.5,
slig
htly
wor
ned
ges,
past
e(?
)1.
5(M
iT),
step
ped
,ang
led
good
cond
itio
n2.
5(M
T)
283
9/02
/97
I00
/05
50.
905.
878.
61st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2,ce
ntre
d,
roug
hly
circ
ular
,0.
75(M
iT),
slig
htly
step
ped
very
crud
e,1.
5(M
T)
unev
en,
chip
ped
and
wor
ned
ges/
sid
es
284
9/02
/97
I00
/05
50.
935.
888.
63st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
1.5,
step
ped
,not
slig
htly
wor
n,pa
ste
(?)
1.5
(MiT
),an
gled
aver
age
2(M
T)
cond
itio
n
285
9/02
/97
I00
/05
60.
655.
448.
56st
one
(?)
7(D
)¿FD
3.5,
angl
edan
dir
regu
larl
y-pa
ste
(?)
2.5
(MiT
),st
eppe
dsh
aped
,wor
n2.
75(M
T)
edge
s
286
9/02
/97
I00
/07
70.
547.
288.
48st
one
(?)
7.5
(D)¿
FD2.
5,sl
ight
lych
ippe
dan
dpa
ste
(?)
2.5
(MiT
),an
gled
and
wor
n,ve
rypo
or3
(MT
)st
eppe
dco
ndit
ion
287
9/02
/97
I00
/05
50.
805.
688.
60sh
ell,
very
10(D
)¿T
SB5–
5.5,
step
ped
very
crud
e,pa
sty
to3.
5(M
iT),
due
tona
tura
lir
regu
larl
y-to
uch
6(M
T)
spir
als,
off-
shap
ed,p
itte
dce
ntre
and
surf
ace,
poor
angl
edco
ndit
ion
288
9/02
/97
I01
/04
71.
264.
158.
47sh
ell
11(D
)¿T
SB4
for
hole
,re
gula
rin
5(M
iT),
thou
ghw
iden
ssh
ape,
wel
l-6
(MT
)d
ueto
step
ped
roun
ded
,pr
ofile
;off
-ex
celle
ntce
ntre
and
cond
itio
nan
gled
218
BEADS FROM SHARM
289
9/02
/97
I00
/06
60.
706.
58.
59ca
rnel
ian
7.5
(D),
SBC
1.5,
stra
ight
fair
ly5
(MD
)¿th
roug
hbe
adsy
mm
etri
cal
7(L
)th
ough
slig
htly
irre
gula
r;sm
ooth
wit
hfe
wgo
uges
325
10/
02/
97I
01/
057
1.62
5.27
8.44
gold
8(D
)¿9
(H)
SBC
(?)
4.5
(?)
poor
lypr
eser
ved
,now
intw
oha
lves
326
10/
2/97
I01
/05
71.
335.
628.
45ca
rnel
ian
9T
T1–
1.5,
hori
zont
alB
ase
brok
en,
(L-b
roke
n)¿
thro
ugh
apex
othe
rwis
e5
(W)¿
6(H
)re
gula
r
327
10/
02/
97I
01/
057
1.41
5.50
8.40
carn
elia
n5
(MiT
),T
LB
2,st
eppe
d(i
nt),
exce
llent
6.25
(MT
)¿sl
ight
lyan
gled
cond
itio
n,fa
irly
7(L
)re
gula
r,ca
refu
llycu
tan
dpo
lishe
d
328
10/
02/
97I
01/
057
1.11
5.34
8.45
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
1.5
(T)
FD1.
5,ve
ryw
orn
edge
s,pa
ste
(?)
irre
gula
r,an
gled
aver
age
and
step
ped
cond
itio
n
329
10/
02/
97I
00/
057
0.65
5.64
8.44
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD1.
5,st
eppe
d,
chip
ped
,wor
npa
ste
(?)
1.5
(MiT
),sl
ight
lyan
gled
edge
s,po
or2.
5(M
T)
cond
itio
n
330
10/
02/
97I
00/
056
0.57
5.89
8.46
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
1.5
(T)
FD1.
5,be
velle
dir
regu
lar
dis
c,pa
ste
(?)
and
step
ped
chip
ped
,wor
n,ho
le,c
entr
edve
rypo
orco
ndit
ion
331
10/
02/
97I
01/
076
1.77
7.49
8.51
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD2.
25,c
entr
ed,
very
good
2(M
iT),
only
mar
gina
llyco
ndit
ion,
2.5
(MT
)st
eppe
dd
isti
nct
edge
s
332
10/
02/
97I
01/
086
1.07
8.66
8.55
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD2.
5,sl
ight
lysl
ight
lych
ippe
dpa
ste
(?)
2(M
iT),
angl
edan
dan
dw
orn,
2.5
(MT
)st
eppe
dav
erag
eco
ndit
ion
Tabl
e2.
Con
t.
219
D. BARKER
Tabl
e2.
Con
tinu
ed
Reg
Dim
ensi
ons
Hol
eN
oD
ate
Tom
bSq
uare
Lay
erE
ast
Nor
thL
evel
Mat
eria
l(m
m)
Shap
e/Ty
pe(D
iam
eter
,mm
)N
otes
333
10/
02/
97I
01/
087
1.22
8.92
8.49
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD2.
5–3,
step
ped
very
wor
npa
ste
(?)
1.75
(MiT
),an
dan
gled
edge
s,po
or2.
5(M
T)
cond
itio
n
334
8/02
/97
I00
/06
40.
656.
498.
76st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2,st
eppe
dan
dgo
odco
ndit
ion
past
e(?
)2
(MiT
),ce
ntre
d2.
25(M
T)
335
10/
02/
97I
00/
077
0.76
7.30
8.57
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD2–
3.5,
step
ped
,qu
ite
circ
ular
,pa
ste
(?)
2.25
(MiT
),no
tan
gled
slig
htly
wor
n,2.
5(M
T)
aver
age
cond
itio
n
336
10/
02/
97I
00/
036
0003
8.50
–8.3
5st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿FD
2.5,
step
ped
but
very
circ
ular
,pa
ste
(?)
1(M
iT),
not
angl
edsl
ight
lyw
orn
1.75
(MT
)ed
ges,
aver
age
cond
itio
n
337
10/
02/
97I
00/
057
0.86
5.54
8.45
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD2.
5,sl
ight
lych
ippe
ded
ges,
past
e(?
)1.
75(M
iT),
angl
edan
dpo
orco
ndit
ion
2.5
(MT
)st
eppe
d
338
10/
02/
97I
01/
076
1.38
7.17
8.59
ston
e(?
)7
(D)¿
FD2.
5,st
eppe
d,
slig
htly
wor
npa
ste
(?)
2.25
(MiT
),sl
ight
lyan
gled
wit
ha
chip
off
3(M
T)
one
edge
339
10/
02/
97I
01/
056
1.07
5.84
8.57
ston
e(?
)6.
5(D
)¿FD
2.5,
step
ped
,go
odco
ndit
ion,
past
e(?
)2.
5(M
iT),
slig
htly
angl
edso
me
wor
n3
(MT
)ed
ges
340
10/
02/
97I
01/
076
1.69
7.68
8.51
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD1.
5,ce
ntre
d,
very
wor
nan
dpa
ste
(?)
1.75
(MiT
),st
eppe
d,n
otch
ippe
ded
ges,
2(M
T)
angl
edre
mna
nts
ofbu
ffgl
aze
orsh
ell
(?)
341
10/
02/
97I
01/
097
1.13
9.32
8.47
ston
e(?
)6.
5(D
)¿FD
2.5,
mar
gina
llyve
ryw
orn
and
past
e(?
)2
(MiT
),st
eppe
dan
dch
ippe
d,w
ith
2.5
(MT
)an
gled
both
face
sha
ving
area
sof
conc
avit
y
220
BEADS FROM SHARM
342
10/
02/
97I
01/
036
0103
8.50
–8.4
0st
one
(?)
6(D
)¿SB
C2,
slig
htly
off-
irre
gula
rsh
ape,
past
e(?
)3
(MiT
),ce
ntre
,ste
pped
mul
ti-f
acet
ed4
(MT
)
343
10/
02/
97I
00/
057
0.32
5.08
8.50
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD2,
angl
edan
dqu
ite
circ
ular
,pa
ste
(?)
1.5
(MiT
),sl
ight
lyst
eppe
dfa
irly
dis
tinc
t2
(MT
)ed
ges,
good
cond
itio
n
344
10/
02/
97I
01/
056
0105
8.50
–8.4
0st
one
(?)
6.5
(D)¿
FD2,
step
ped
,not
wor
n,ch
ippe
d,
past
e(?
)2.
5(M
iT),
angl
edpi
tted
,poo
r2.
75(M
T)
cond
itio
n
345
10/
02/
97I
01/
066
1.76
6.16
8.50
ston
e(?
)7
(D)¿
FD2,
slig
htly
chip
ped
and
past
e(?
)1.
5(M
iT),
angl
ed,v
ery
wor
ned
ges,
3(M
T)
step
ped
othe
rwis
eav
erag
eco
ndit
ion
346
10/
02/
97I
01/
066
1.15
6.42
8.52
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD2,
step
ped
and
aver
age
past
e(?
)1.
5(M
iT),
angl
edth
roug
hco
ndit
ion
2.5
(MT
)be
ad
347
10/
02/
97I
00/
066
0.63
6.70
8.55
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
FD2.
5,st
eppe
dan
dw
orn
and
past
e(?
)1.
5(M
iT),
angl
edch
ippe
don
one
2.5
(MT
)ed
ge,o
ther
wis
eav
erag
eco
ndit
ion
348
10/
02/
97I
01/
066
1.40
6.42
8.55
ston
e(?
)7
(D)¿
FD2,
cent
red
,ch
ippe
dan
dpa
ste
(?)
1.25
(MiT
),st
eppe
dw
orn
edge
s,2.
5(M
T)
othe
rwis
eav
erag
eco
ndit
ion
349
10/
02/
97I
01/
067
1.50
6.37
8.42
ston
e(?
)8
(MiD
),SB
3–3.
5,fa
irly
irre
gula
rsh
ape,
past
e(?
)10
(D)¿
cent
red
,ste
pped
lops
ided
11(H
)in
teri
or
350
10/
02/
97I
01/
057
0105
8.50
–8.4
0sh
ell
8(D
)¿T
SB2.
5–6
due
tona
tura
lsp
iral
s4.
5(M
iT),
spir
als,
step
ped
(int
),qu
ite
5.5
(MT
)pr
ofile
,slig
htly
regu
lar
angl
ed
Tabl
e2.
Con
t.
221
D. BARKER
Tabl
e2.
Con
tinu
ed
Reg
Dim
ensi
ons
Hol
eN
oD
ate
Tom
bSq
uare
Lay
erE
ast
Nor
thL
evel
Mat
eria
l(m
m)
Shap
e/Ty
pe(D
iam
eter
,mm
)N
otes
351
10/
02/
97I
00/
047
0.74
4.82
8.39
shel
l6
(D)¿
TSB
2.5–
3,of
f-ce
ntre
,na
tura
lsp
iral
s,2.
5(M
iT),
slig
htly
angl
ed,
irre
gula
rsh
ape
3.5
(MT
)st
eppe
dpr
ofile
wit
hth
ree
due
tosp
iral
svi
sibl
eco
rner
s
369
10/
02/
97I
00/
046
0.56
4.94
8.51
ston
e(?
)6
(D)¿
1.5
(T)
FD1.
5–2.
5po
orco
ndit
ion,
past
e(?
)she
llin
clud
ing
very
smal
lan
d(?
)be
velle
ded
geir
regu
lar,
thre
ean
dho
le,a
ngle
ded
ges
and
step
ped
391
8/02
/97
I01
/06
41.
386.
888.
70st
one
(?)
7.5
(D)¿
3(T
)FD
2,st
eppe
d,
oval
insh
ape,
past
e(?
)sl
ight
lyan
gled
slig
htly
wor
nan
dch
ippe
d
394
10/
02/
97I
01/
057
0105
8.50
–8.4
0ca
rnel
ian
16.5
(L)¿
TT
1.5,
hori
zont
ally
good
cond
itio
n,3.
5(M
iW),
thro
ugh
apex
,se
vera
lin
cise
d7.
5(M
W)¿
not
angl
ed,o
ff-
groo
ves
onea
ch2
(MiT
),ce
ntre
,ste
pped
face
,bro
ken
3.5
(MT
)(i
nt)
edge
(?)
395
8/02
/97
I01
/06
401
068.
80–8
.70
carn
elia
n4.
5(D
)¿SB
1.5,
not
step
ped
,sl
ight
ly2.
5(M
iT),
but
slig
htly
off-
irre
gula
rsh
ape,
3(M
T)
cent
rero
und
ed,g
ood
cond
itio
n,th
ough
som
ewha
tpi
tted
222