The Significance of the Earliest Beads

Abstract

This paper attempts to explore beyond the predictable and banal archaeological explanations relating to early beads and pendants. It recounts replication experiments to establish aspects of technology so as to better understand what can be learnt from the quantifiable properties of these artifacts. The article also scrutinizes the available empirical record in the light of taphonomic logic to translate the known spatial and temporal distributions of such remains into epistemologically meaningful pronouncements about the significance of the primary evidence. It is shown that numerous reasonable deductions become possible by engaging such avenues of inquiry. For instance some beads, in which production has been pushed to the limits allowed by the medium, seem to express a sense of perfection, and it is contended that beads are among the most informative forms of exograms that could possibly have survived from these very early times. A key requisite for the use and appreciation of all beads and pendants is a level of hominin self-awareness that essentially expresses full cognitive modernity.

A systematic review of animal predation creating pierced shells: implications for the archaeological record of the Old World

“…Some researchers claim that shell beads from the Middle and Lower Palaeolithic could have been perforated by natural processes. For example, Bednarik (2015) proposed that predators and parasitic organisms commonly perforate mollusc shells and that it should be expected that naturally perforated shells were used as beads and pendants. Hahn (1972) emphasized that the signs of human manipulation in shells from Aurignacian sites such as Krems-Hundssteig, Willendorf, Kostienki 1 and Sjuren, are not always present and that some holes could have been made by predators.…”

“…Usually the deposits are associated with graves (Vanhaeren et al, 2004; Vanhaeren & D’Errico, 2005), human shelters (Kuhn et al, 2001) and hearths (Douka et al, 2014). Some of the earliest forms of body adornment are shell beads that date back to ∼75 Kya (Henshilwood et al, 2004) and ∼82 Kya (Bouzouggar et al, 2007), possibly even 100–130 Kya (Vanhaeren et al, 2006) or earlier (Bednarik, 2015). However, some researchers argue that this “modern behaviour” was probably established earlier than is reflected in the archaeological record, and is simply not visible due to taphonomic processes (Bowdler & Mellars, 1990; Noble & Davidson, 1996; Botha, 2008; Botha, 2010).…”

A systematic review of natural processes in creating pierced shells: implications for the archaeological record

“…Type number 9 was the most frequent hole location in this class 300 (hole placed in the middle of the umbo) and rare types were number 10 (hole near the 301 umbo but closer to the centre of the shell) and 4 (hole at the centre of the shell 373 Similar examples could have been fish vertebrae or crinoid discs with natural apertures for 374 threading (e.g., see (Bednarik, 2015)). This study highlights how natural piercings and their 375 placement on the shell can mimic human activity and, as such, emphasises the importance 376 of other methods for investigating the tell-tale signs of anthropogenic manipulation.…”

Untitled

“…Some researchers claim that shell beads from the Middle and Lower Palaeolithic could be perforated by natural process. For example, Bednarik (Bednarik, 2015) proposed that predators and parasitic organisms commonly perforate mollusc shells (e.g. (Kelley & Hansen, 1993;Li, Young & Zhan, 2011;Gorzelak et al, 2013)).…”

“…Usually the deposits are associated with graves (Vanhaeren et al, 2004;, human made-shelters (Kuhn et al, 2001) and hearths (Douka et al, 2014). Some of the earliest forms of body adornments are in the form of shells beads and date back to ~75 Kya (Henshilwood et al, 2004)and ~82 Kya (Bouzouggar et al, 2007), possibly even 100-130 Kya (Vanhaereny et al, 2006)or earlier (Bednarik, 2015).…”