Bronze and Iron Age carnelian bead production in the UAE ......Etched carnelian and classical Harappan beads are considered, rightly, as cultural hallmarks of the Indus Civilization

Archaeopress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Bronze and Iron Age carnelian bead production in the UAE and Armenia: new perspectives Author(s): Olivier Brunet Source: Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, Vol. 39, Papers from the forty-second

meeting of the Seminar for Arabian Studies held in London, 24-26 July 2008 (2009), pp. 57-68Published by: ArchaeopressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41223969Accessed: 10-01-2016 20:16 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:16:26 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/publisher/archaeopress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41223969

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39 (2009): 57-68

Bronze and Iron Age carnelian bead production in the UAE and Armenia: new perspectives

Olivier Brunet

Summary During the Bronze Age, the Harappan civilization was characterized by its great production of carnelian beads, widely exported in the Middle East. Etched carnelian and classical Harappan beads are considered, rightly, as cultural hallmarks of the Indus Civilization. Indeed, this theory has become so firmly rooted that many believe that all carnelian beads come from the Indus valley. But were there other sources? Did bead production on a more local scale exist, outside these vast circulation networks?

This study examines beads that originated from two distinct geographical and cultural areas: the UAE and Armenia. In the third millennium ВС, workshops in the Indus Valley produced most of the carnelian beads found in the UAE. In contrast, in the second millennium ВС, another network of exchange came into existence. This study focuses on the material from the Shimãl and Dãyah necropoleis, which comprises more than 2300 objects. On the other side of Iran, in Armenia, carnelian beads are equally common. Where did they come from? The study of material from six sites distributed throughout the country, constituting a total of more than 1300 artefacts, raises a number of interesting questions about the products of this region.

This technological study reveals the existence outside the Indus Valley of different productions and levels of technical skill. It suggests that we should revise our understanding of Bronze and Iron Age exchange networks, by offering another reading of carnelian production in this part of the world.

Keywords: carnelian, technology, protohistory, UAE, Armenia

Introduction

Carnelian beads first appear during the Neolithic (fifth millennium ВС) in the Oman peninsula (Kiesewetter, Uerpmann & Jasim 2000; Kiesewetter 2006: 121-125; de Beauclair, Jasim & Uerpmann 2006: 177), but it is only in the Bronze Age (third millennium ВС), with the appearance of the Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley, that we observe an increase of this type of ornament in Oman. Indeed, this civilization is notably characterized by the manufacture of these beads, which were widely exported. This can be explained partially by the presence in this region of the world's biggest source of carnelian, in the central part of the Indian subcontinent, on the Deccan Plateau, in the Gujarat (Inizan 1999; 2000) (*Fig. 1).

The great majority of objects connected to the Indus appear in the Oman peninsula at the end of the third and beginning of the second millennium ВС (see e.g. Cleuziou & Tosi 1989; Potts 1993; Vogt 1996), although the origins

of this trade appear to be earlier (Cleuziou 1986). Carnelian beads are an integral part of a characteristic group of artefacts imported from the Indus to Oman, much in the same way as Indus weights or ivory combs (see Potts 1993 for an example of these artefacts). Etched carnelian beads (During Caspers 1971; Francis 1980; Kenoyer 1986: 22; Possehl 1996: 153-154; De Waele & Haerinck 2006) and classical Harappan beads (Inizan 1999; 2000) are considered, rightly, to be cultural hallmarks of the Indus civilization (Fig. 2).1 This has led to a strongly held belief that the origin of all carnelian beads can be traced back to the Indus Valley. But are there not other sources? Did bead production exist on a much more local scale, outside these vast circulation networks?

Within the framework of my PhD thesis concerning the study of ornaments, especially those in carnelian from the Oman peninsula, I had the opportunity to study beads from two distinct geographical and cultural areas.

Firstly, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) the necropoleis of Shimãl and Däyah, situated in the RaDs



58 Olivier Brunet

Figure 1. A map showing the location of the regions mentioned in the text.

al-Khaymah Emirate, which include twelve graves and more than 2300 beads (Vogt & Franke-Vogt 1987). These archaeological sites date back to the Wãdí Süq and Late Bronze Age periods, i.e. between 2000 and 1250 ВС (Velde 2003).

Secondly, Armenia, a volcanic region situated in the Transcaucasus,2 has an abundance of carnelian. Beads in this material first appeared in the Kura basin at the end of the local Neolithic period (sixth millennium ВС),3 but the most ancient pieces in Armenia date from the Bronze Age (end of the fourth millennium BC) (Santrot 1996; Sintès 2007). The study made in this territory is based on six archaeological sites distributed throughout Armenian territory,4 which date from the Bronze Age (late fourth to late second millennia ВС) and the Iron Age (twelfth to eighth centuries ВС), thus being largely contemporary with the sites in the UAE. The Armenian group comprises more than 1300 beads. Most of the carnelian artefacts were found in graves, and those from the Talin, Kalavan,

Figure 2. A necklace found in Tello (Mesopotamia), a classical Harappan bead is located at the top. (From

Inizan 2000: fig. 3).



Bronze andiron Age cornelian bead production in the UAE and Armenia: new perspectives 59

Figure 3. A map of the location of Armenian archaeological sites where carnelian beads were present in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

and Sisian sites in particular supplied the majority of the material (Fig. 3).5 This material was essentially used to make ornaments, accompanying the deceased in their afterlife.

Carnelian is a volcanic stone of the chalcedony family. It is an agate but with a red colour. It can be knapped, abraded, and polished like flint. We can undertake a technological study of carnelian using the same methods that we use on flint, since these two materials have the same hardness as well as the same concoidal fracture due to their structure.6

Various ethno-archaeological studies on the manufacture of carnelian beads, made in India and Yemen, all agree on the following working process (Possehl 1 98 1 ; Kenoyer, Vidale & Bhan 1991; Inizan, Jazim & Mermier 1992; Inizan 2000; Roux & Pelegrin 1989). The beads are made in six stages: extraction, heat treatment, knapping, abrasion, perforation, and polishing/glossing. From this analytical principle is it possible to know where the UAE and Armenian beads come from? Is the treatment of the carnelian in the various stages of the working process identical to that practised in the Indus Valley?



60 Olivier Brunet

Figure 4. A map showing the surveyed sites and the four main areas into which they can be grouped (black ellipses). (Dimitri Arakelyan & Olivier Brunet).

Extraction of the raw material

In nature, carnelian can be present in two forms: as a primary deposit in the form of veins or as a secondary deposit in the form of pebbles.

Primary deposit

United Arab Emirates Only one carnelian source has been detected in the UAE

to date. This source is in RaDs al-Khaymah Emirate near the village of al-Ghayl (Vogt 1996: 112), in a mountain with veins which run for the greater part of its west side. Its formation seems sedimentary because the chalcedony shows internal vacuoles and carbonate powder. The observed veins sometimes extend over more than 20 m: it is thus a deposit of significant quantity. The carnelian there is naturally of an orange-red colour, pale and opaque. It is often mixed with other minerals, such as agate or flint, or



Bronze andiron Age carnelian bead production in the UAE and Armenia: new perspectives 61

with various impurities.

Armenia

As a region of ancient volcanoes, Armenia has a number of carnelian deposits throughout the country. In 2007, I was able to make a survey across Armenia to find the sources of this material.7

Primary deposits of carnelian constitute about 90% of the sources of this chalcedony. The carnelian seems to be broken by the frost and is present in cracks in the rock (diaclase), which allows it to be collected in small manageable pieces. Some of the veins of these geological sites have a range which stretches to several hectares.

The Armenian carnelian has certain similarities with chalcedony of an especially fibrous nature. It is for the greater part pale pink, opaque, with white veins. It is often mixed with other minerals such as agate or jasper. However certain veins, very rarely, deliver carnelian of an orange-red colour, which is translucent. Of lower quality than its Indian counterpart, it approximates much more closely to the RaDs al-Khaymah carnelian.

The fifteen carnelian deposits found can be grouped into four main areas: three in the north, and one in the south of Armenia (Fig. 4). In most of the villages, several outcrops are concentrated within a very small territory (a few square kilometres); it is, in fact, the same veins of carnelian, which run for several kilometres, with carnelian blocks appearing at intervals. These blocks measure from 0.20x0.20 m (Metsavan 3) for the smallest, to 2x1 m for the biggest (Tsater).

Of the fifteen deposits, four offer translucent, red- orange carnelian in its natural state (even if in small quantity); others contain opaque, pale-pink carnelian.

These two materials can be seen in beads from Armenian archaeological sites in the same proportions as the raw material in nature, and on all the sites studied we found some carnelian of inferior quality. In contrast, only the Talin, Sisian, and Nor Khachakap (formerly, Sarai) sites yielded superior-quality material.

The quantity of material on the mineral outcrops is sufficient to have been the subject of large-scale exploitation. These deposits very probably correspond to the pro to-historical mines used to produce carnelian ornaments. It should also be noted that eight supplementary sources were discovered, which they are too small to have been exploited on a large scale but they could have been used occasionally.

The same quality of carnelian can be seen as far afield as the Nagorno-Karabakh region.8 The geographical

extension of this stone is therefore several hundreds of kilometres.

Secondary deposit

The secondary deposits consist of pebbles that generally roll from the mountain to the riverbed, as is the case with the most important source of carnelian in the world, the Ratampur basin in the Indus Valley (Inizan 1999: 130; 2000: 477). In Armenia, this type of deposit represents less than 10% of sources. In the UAE, it has yet to be detected.

The quality of the archaeological beads

The Indus beads are generally translucent and homogeneous with a red-orange colour. Transparency is one of the qualities that is looked for in carnelian beads.9 The beads from Shimãl and Dãyah are not of very good quality. Rather opaque, they possess numerous impurities, including traces of limestone. The Armenian beads are for the greater part pale pink or red in colour but also very opaque. The carnelian of these ornaments is mixed with

Figure 5. UAE carnelian bead (Shimal grave 103), showing the poor quality of these artefacts.



62 Olivier Brunet

Figure 6. Armenian carnelian beads (Talin grave 75), showing the poor quality of these artefacts.

other minerals or chalcedony. We thus observe a similar quality in the carnelian of these two regions (Figs 5 & 6).

Those who made the UAE and Armenian beads for the greater part used a material of inferior quality. It demonstrates either that there was a shortage of the raw material - so that the craftsmen were forced to choose all types of material, even of bad quality - or that there was a poor ability to recognize the best raw material.

Heat treatment

The second stage of the working process is the heat treatment, a very important stage that has a double aesthetic and technical objective. It allows the red colour of the stone to be enhanced, and it is by this method that the Indus red carnelian is produced from what were originally yellow pebbles. It is the heat treatment that creates this orange-red or bright red colour. This stage also enhances the shine of the material, but only on the inside. Thus in practice it is only observed when the beads are broken, which is one of the criteria by which heat treatment on an archaeological piece can be recognized.

From a technical point of view, the heat treatment makes the grains of the siliceous matrix somewhat finer, especially in micro-fibrous rocks such as carnelian. The pressure that one would need to exert on the rock to get the same final result of parallel touching can be twice as much in the absence of heat treatment: from 20 kg when exerting the pressure on a heated item to 40-50 kg, on the

Figure 7. The colour difference produced by the heat treatment is remarkable, as can be seen on the unheated

control flake, visible at the bottom on the right.

same non-heated item (Inizan & Tixier 2000: 26). This process also facilitates the polishing to a certain degree.

Finally, it should be stated that the heat treatment does not alter the translucency of the carnelian. If the heat treatment makes the knapping easier, it nevertheless results in a more fragile and more breakable stone.

Experimental archaeology

A heat treatment experiment on samples from the UAE and Armenia was carried out by Dr J. Pelegrin.10 The UAE samples came from the RaDs al-Khaymah source and the Armenian samples were taken from two outcrops situated some kilometres from one another, Tsaghkavan and Varagavan. Located in the east of Armenia, carnelian may involve two outcrops of the same geological formation, in which case, the deposit would potentially extend several kilometres.

Two major problems guided this experiment. Do these two groups of materials, from two different regions, react in the same way? Once heated, are they similar to proto- historical carnelian beads found in these territories?

The methodology used was as follows: fragments of carnelian taken from the samples were placed in an iron box filled with ash, then placed in a fireplace under approximately 4 cm of ash. A fire was then lit and maintained for a period of four to five hours. We know that the temperature reached by a heap of red live charcoals is of the order of 300 °C. The box was extracted still warm from the fireplace about ten hours after the fire was extinguished, and the samples were recovered by means of a fine sieve.

It turned out that the carnelian of the Emirates




Figure 8. The colour difference produced by the heat treatment on this chalcedony is less visible, as is

apparent on the unheated control flake, visible at the bottom.

reacted very well to heat treatment. The colour changed significantly and was sharply enhanced, from a yellow- orange to a red colour. Furthermore, the knapping was greatly facilitated. We were able to observe a shine, which appeared after removal of a flake (Fig. 7).

In contrast, the Armenian carnelian reacted less well than its UAE counterpart. The colour did not evolve on the Varagan sample. On the other piece (Tsaghkavan), the opaque red-pink material became opaque pink. The material seemed shinier but only very slightly and was much less apparent than on the UAE carnelian. The highly fibrous nature of this chalcedony does not therefore perceptibly alter during heat treatment (Fig. 8).

Overheating

Heat treatment needs to be carefully controlled and requires a certain level of skill and knowledge of the nature of the raw material. When beads are left at a high temperature for too long, they overheat. This overheating is evident from a white film on the surface of the bead. Shimãl and Däyah present an abnormally high rate of overheated beads.11

This excessive heat treatment does not seem to have occurred during the utilization of the ornament. The people who wore the beads are unlikely to have voluntarily put

them in the fire. This also did not occur a posteriori in the grave, since the practice of cremation had already disappeared by the WädTSüq period and the Late Bronze Age. It would not have been caused by an accident either, as it is much too systematic. Logically, it is therefore a question of overheating during the manufacturing phase by people who showed too little care about the quality of their production. These people demonstrate a very low skill level, with poor knowledge of the heating treatment in particular. It should also be noted that the Armenian beads showed no trace of heat treatment (shine, cracking from heat treatment), or a white film from overheating.

Knapping and finishing phases

The knapping and finishing phases present numerous similarities in the quality of execution.12 The Shimäl and Dãyah beads are badly knapped, with irregular shapes and a lot of visible knapping traces. Knapping scars are of two types: pre-form negatives and knapping negatives. The first relate to remains of the knapping techniques, which are so fresh that one can very easily imagine the pre-form. They involve longitudinal jointed knapping, either on the whole length or on only half of the artefact. The knapping leaves significant removal scars that cannot be erased during the phase of abrasion without making the artefact considerably smaller.

These knapping traces are sharply marked because abrasion and polishing are absent or little practised. These operations consist of forcefully rubbing the bead with an abrasive to erase knapping traces. Ethno- archaeological studies made in India (Cambay) indicate that abrasion polishing was done by bow-polishing with grindstones (d'Errico, Roux & Dumond 2000). In Yemen, these various procedures were executed on stone, certain grindstones being more abrasive than others (Inizan, Jazim & Mermier 1992). The main evidence consists of "bundles" of parallel lines visible on the bead.

Fine polishing is also practically absent. Its principle and its process are the same as for abrasion polishing. Its aim is to increase the beads' shine still further.

The same observations can be made for carnelian beads from Armenia. For the greater part, only the simplest forms (spheres and discs) were made, but the numerous knapping traces result in irregularly shaped beads. Their non-homogeneous morphology as well as the absence of abrasion streaks, reveal that these beads were not abraded. There is also an absence of fine polishing on all the beads.



64 Olivier Brunet

The perforation process

The perforation process most often used in Armenia and in the Oman peninsula in protohistory was the rotary drilling technique - more than 90% in both cases. This technique is seen in the Neolithic in Anatolia, at the site of Kumar Tepe (sixth millennium ВС) (Calley 1990). In the Chalcolithic, it was notably associated with Mehrgarh (fifth millennium ВС) (Barthélémy de Saizieu 2000: 442).

Before drilling, both sides of the bead were dotted, so as to prepare the surface before it was bored with the drill. The dotting flakes are rarely visible on the truncations because, as a general rule, they are polished. We can observe concentric, quite regular, and circular grooves inside the bead. Two techniques may be used for the drilling: manual drilling and bow-drilling (Sela & Roux 2000: 178). Concentric grooves would be characteristic for drilling with a bow.

In Armenia, the majority of beads were drilled by bipolar rotary drilling. However, another perforation technique is also present. Called the "Larsa Technique", it was discovered by J. Chevalier, M-L. Inizan, and J. Tixier on the Larsa site in Iraq (1982). It involves dotting only one side of the bead and, when close to the opposite side, using the same tool as a "punch" to complete the perforation (Fig. 9).

In Shimäl and Dãyah , 95% of the beads were drilled using the bipolar rotary drilling technique but with a noticeable difference: two drills were in fact used, one drill to perforate the surface of the bead (arrow 1 on Fig. 10), then the craftsman used a second smaller drill to reach the centre of the bead (arrow 2 on Fig. 10), and this process was repeated on both sides. This technique is present on a large majority of beads and I have called this "double bipolar rotary drilling".

This process is present in the UAE in the previous Umm an-Nar (Umm al-När) period, but on an extremely

low percentage of beads. In the Wãdi Suq and Late Bronze Age period, this practice is too systematic to be a mistake but shows that they managed the perforation of the beads in a different way. Did they employ a second drill which had already been extensively used, and was thus more worn and smaller, for the centre of the bead? Did it depend on the drill or on the shape of the bead? Even if it results in a neater perforation, the use of two drills to drill beads that are no more than 3 mm in length indicates a relatively low skill level.

Discussion

Throughout this study, two groups of very different beads were evident. The first group consisted of carnelian beads originating from the Indus Valley, which have a technical level and a raw material quality that is far superior to the beads that we are concerned with here.

The second group consists of second-millennium UAE and Armenian Bronze and Iron Age beads, which reflect a technical and skill level that was much lower. Firstly, the quality of the raw material, whether average or poor, does not correspond to that of the Indus, where the carnelian is translucent and orange-red. Secondly, the knapping phase is badly executed in the UAE and Armenia. Finally, the finishing phases are clearly insufficient, or even absent, while the Indo-Pakistani region shows finishing phases

Figure 9. The different phases of the "Larsa Technique" perforation process. (From Chevalier, Inizan & Tixier

1982: fig. 1).

Figure 10. An example of the double bipolar rotary drilling technique on a carnelian bead (Dãyah grave 2).




which are highly successful. Thus, while the second group of beads is totally

different from the Indus ones, there are very strong similarities within the group, whether considered in terms of the quality of the raw material, or in terms of the skill level of the working process. Only a fundamental difference separates them. Heat treatment does not seem to have been applied to the Armenian carnelian, while it is very evident in the UAE samples.

If they do not come from the Indus Valley, where do they come from?

If, for the majority of the third millennium ВС an Indus origin is very likely for beads found in the UAE (Inizan 1999; Brunet 2006; 2007), it is debatable for the second millennium ВС. Although beads presenting all the Indus characteristics exist in Shimãl and Dãyah, they are in very insignificant quantity,13 and the majority of the ornaments are of a much lower technical level. On the one hand, the quality of the raw material as well as the techniques employed on most beads from Shimãl and Dãyah do not credibly correspond to beads imported from the Indus Valley. On the other hand, the proximity of a deposit of carnelian in Ra3s al-Khaymah would indicate a local production of these beads. What is the proportion of the local production? Others carnelian deposits also occur, situated in a wider geographical scale, and are present in Yemen (Inizan, Jazim & Menni er 1992: 163-164) and in Iran (Frifelt 1991: 116; Inizan 1999: 130), but were they used to produce these beads?

Although certain carnelian beads found in Armenia could have come from the Indus, I think that the majority of them entered through another more internal network of circulation. The Armenian carnelian sources yield a raw material that is visually similar to that used for the manufacture of ornaments in the same region. Furthermore, the local stone's lack of reaction to heat treatment coincides with the absence of traces of heat treatment on archaeological beads. The same material could be involved in both cases. The technical and skill level confirms that we should not seek for the origin of these beads in the Indian subcontinent, and local manufacture of carnelian beads seems highly probable.

According to the first results of this study, a more internal, more regional circulation of the carnelian would have to be envisaged in the Middle East during the Bronze and Iron Ages, whether it is in the Oman peninsula or in the Lower Caucasus. The technological study of carnelian ornaments allows us to question current ideas about their networks of circulation in the East, something that will be further explored in the next stage of the study.

Acknowledgements

I would very much like to thank C. Velde and I. Moellering (RaDs al-Khaymah, UAE) for inviting me to RaDs al- Khaymah and for their help and support. My thanks also go to the French Archaeological Mission in the UAE (Dir. Dr. S. Méry) for all their support. My thanks go also to Dr Christine Chataigner (CNRS, Lyon) for giving me the opportunity to visit Armenia and for her generous encouragement. Dimitri Arakelyan (Geological Institute, Yerevan) helped me a great deal during the survey, as did Hovik (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Yerevan). Special thanks should also go to Dr. M.- L. Inizan for her constant help and to Dr J. Pelegrin (CNRS, Nanterre) who undertook the archaeological experimentation on the heat treatment and contributed to the related lecture.

Notes

* Unless otherwise stated, the illustrations are from the author.

1 There are carnelian beads that measure more than 10 cm long. The Indus Valley is the only region in the world capable of producing such beads.

2 The Transcaucasus is the region that includes the territories of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

3 In particular on the Arukhlo site, in Georgia; see S. Hansen, www.dainst.org/index 4364 en.html.

4 This study relies on the material of archaeological sites of Kalavan (UF 8), Talin (Graves 6, 35, 43, 44, and 75), Sisian (Grave 6), Mastara (Grave 24), Artashavan fGrave fì'. япН Nor КЬягЬякяп

5 Talin, Kalavan, and Sisian sites group 1209 beads from a total of 1377.

6 Carnelian and flint have a hardness of 7 on the Mohs scale, diamond - the hardest stone - being set at a hardness of 10.

7 To begin the survey, we referred to the works of the following researchers: Chukhov 1955; Jrbashyan 1935; Mezhlumyan 1949.

8 Nagorno-Karabakh is a territory situated east of Armenia, within Azeri territory.

9 This deduction is made from the translucence of the classical Harappan beads. They are the most sophisticated beads to have been manufactured. They also had the most value, were the most exported, and were the most imitated (Kenoyer 2001: 164). In Mesopotamia, translucent beads are also those most commonly found.



66 Olivier Brunet

10 Dr J. Pelegrin, CNRS, UMR 7055, "Préhistoire et Technologie", Nanterre.

11 The percentage can reach 83%, as in the Shimal grave 96, for example.

12 The finishing phases include abrasion, polishing, and

glossing. 13 These beads, of a high quality of raw material and

very well produced in all the stages of the working process, account for less than ten individuals within a total of 2300 beads.

References

Barthélémy de Saizieu В. 2000. Les perles en roches dures du site de Nausharo (Baluchistan pakistanais) 2800-2000 av. J.-C. Pages

439^71 in V. Roux (ed.), Cornaline de l'Inde, Des pratiques techniques de Cambay aux techno-sys- tèmes de rindus. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme.

Beauclair R. de, Jasim S.A. & Uerpmann H-P. 2006. New results on the Neolithic jewellery from al-Buhais 18, UAE. Proceedings of the Seminar for Ara-

bian Studies 36: 175-187. Brunet O.

2006. Results of the 2005-2006 technological study of the carnelian beads of Hili N. In S. Méry (ed.), French Archaeological Mission to the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), Report on the research completed during the winter of 2005-2006 at Hili for the attention of the AD ACH. Paris. [Unpublished].

2007. Ornament from Hili M, Hili North A and Hili N. In S. Méry (ed.), French Archaeological Mission to the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), Report on the research completed during the winter of 2006 at Hili for the attention of the AD ACH. Paris. [Unpublished].

Calley S. 1990. L'atelier de fabrication des perles de Kumartepe: quelques observations technologiques. Anatolica 16:

157-184. Chevalier J., Inizan M-L. & Tixier J.

1982. Une technique de perforation par percussion de perles en cornalin (Larsa, Iraq). Paléorient 8/2: 55- 65.

Chukhov F.V. 1955. Colloids in the Earth s Crust. Moscow: Akad. SSSR. [In Russian].

Lleuziou b. 1986. Dilmun and Makkan during the third and early second millennia ВС. Pages 143-155 in S.H. Al Khalifa

& M. Rice (eds), Bahrain through the Ages. The Archaeology. London: Taylor & Francis. Cleuziou S. & Tosi M.

1989. The South-Eastern Frontier of the Ancient Near East. Pages 15^7 in K. Frifelt & P. Sorensen (eds), South Asian Archaeology 1985. London: Routledge/Curson.

d Errico F., Roux V. & Dumond Y. 2000. Identification des techniques de finition des perles en calcédoine par l'analyse microscopique et ru-

gosimétrique. Pages 95-169 in V. Roux (ed.), Cornaline de l'Inde, Des pratiques techniques de Cam- bay aux techno-systèmes de VIndus. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme.

De Waele A. & Haennck E. 2006. Etched (carnelian) beads from northeast and southeast Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 17:

31^0. During Caspers E.C.L.

1 97 1 . Etched Carnelian Beads. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 10: 83-98. ť rancis P.

1980. Bead Report II: Etched Beads in Iran. Ornament 4/3: 24-28.




Frifelt K. (ed.) 1991 . The Island ofUmm An-Nar: Third millennium graves, i. (Jutland Archaeological Society Publications,

26/1). Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society. Imzan M-L.

1999. La cornaline de l'Indus et la voie du Golfe au Illème millénaire. Pages 125-138 in A. Caubet (ed.), Cornaline et pierres précieuses . Paris: Musée du Louvre/La documentation française.

2000. Importation de cornalines et d'agates de l'Indus en Mésopotamie, le cas de Suse et Tello. Pages 475- 501 in V. Roux (ed.), Cornaline de l'Inde, Des pratiques techniques de Cambay aux techno-systèmes de l'Indus. Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme.

Inizan M-L. & Tixier J. 2000. L'émergence des arts du feu: le traitement thermique des roches siliceuses. Paléorient 26/2: 23-36.

Inizan M-L., Jazim M. & Mermier F. 1992. L'artisanat de la cornaline au Yémen: premières données. Techniques et cultures 20: 155-174.

Jrbashyan T.R. 1935. Preliminary report of the groups of prospecting on the fine stones of Armenia. Summer, 1935. Doklady

Akademii Nauk Ann. SSR, sessia Geologu (Report of Science Academy of the Soviet Republic of Armenia, Geological Department [Erevan]). [In Russian].

Kenoyer J.M. 1986. The Indus Bead Industry: Contributions to Bead Technology. Ornament 10/1: 18-23. 2001. Bead Technologies at Harappa, 3300-1900 ВС: a comparative summary. Pages 157-170 in C. Jarrige

& V. Lefèvre (eds), South Asian Archaeology, i. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations/ ADPF. Kenoyer J.M., Vidale M. & Bhan K.K.

1991. Comptemporary Stone Beadmaking in Khambhat, India: Patterns of Craft Specialization and Organization of Production as reflected in the Archaeological Record. World Archaeology 23/1 : 44-63.

Kiesewetter H. 2006. Analyses of the human remains of the Neolithic cemetery at al-Buhais 18 (Excavations 1996-2000).

Pages 103-267 in H.-P. Uerpmann, M. Uerpmann & A.J. Sabah (eds), The Archaeology ofJebel al- Buhais, Funeral Monuments and Human Remains from Jebel al-Buhais. i. Kernsverlag: Tübingen.

Kiesewetter H., Uerpmann H-P. & Jasim S.A. 2000. Neolithic Jewellery from Jebel al-Buhais 18. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 30: 137-

146. Mezhlumyan B.G.

1949. The mineral resources of Armenia, ii. Non-metallic minerals. Erevan. [In Russian]. Possehl G.L.

1981. Cambay Beadmaking. Expedition 23/4: 39-47. 1996. Meluhha. Pages 133-208 in J. Reade (ed.), The Indian Ocean in Antiquity. London/New York: Kegan

Paul International in association with the British Museum, London. Potts D.I.

1993. Rethinking some aspects of trade in the Arabian Gulf. World Archaeology 24: 423^40. Roux V. & Pelegrin J.

1989. Taille des perles et spécialisation artisanale: enquête ethnoarchéologique dans le Gujarat. Techniques et cultures 14: 23^9.

Santrot J. (éd.) 1996. Arménie: Trésors de Г Arménie ancienne, des origines au Vie siècle. Paris: Somogy.

Sela A. & Roux V. 2000. La perforation des perles en calcédoine : approche mécanique des techniques harapéennes. Pages 171-

204 in V. Roux (ed.), Cornaline de l'Inde, Des pratiques techniques de Cambay aux techno-systèmes de l'Indus. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme.

Sintès С (ed.) 2007. Au pied du mont Ararat - Splendeurs de l'Arménie antique. Arles: Éditions du Musée d'Arles et de la



68 Olivier Brunet

Provence antiques. Velde C.

2003. Wadi Suq and Late Bronze Age in the Oman Peninsula. Pages 102-1 13 in D. Potts, H. Al Naboodah & P. Hellyer (eds), Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates, Proceedings of the First Archaeology of the UAE. London: Trident Press.

Vogt B. 1996. Bronze Age Maritime Trade in the Indian Ocean: Harappan Traits on the Oman Peninsula. Pages 107-

132 in J. Reade (ed.), The Indian Ocean in Antiquity: London/New York: Kegan Paul International in association with the British Museum, London.

Vogt В. & Franke- Vogt U. (eds) 1987. Shimal 1985-1986 Excavations of the German Archaeological Mission In Ras al-Khaimah, UAE: A

Preliminary Report. (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, 8). Berlin: D. Reimer.

Author s address Olivier Brunet, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, UMR 7041 CNRS, Maison de l'Archéologie et de l'Ethnologie R. Ginouvès, 21 allée de l'Université, 92023 Nanterre Cedex, France.

e-mail [email protected]



Documents

Bronze and Iron Age carnelian bead production in the UAE ......Etched carnelian and classical Harappan beads are considered, rightly, as cultural hallmarks of the Indus Civilization