Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the
innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
Talia YashuvID*
☯
, Leore GrosmanID
☯
The Computational Archaeology Laboratory, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, Israel
☯These authors contributed equally to this work.
*Talia.Yashuv@mail.huji.ac.il
Abstract
‘The wheel and axle’ revolutionized human technological history by transforming linear to
rotary motion and causing parts of devices to move. While its ancient origins are commonly
associated with the appearance of carts during the Bronze Age, we focus on much earlier
wheel-shaped find–an exceptional assemblage of over a hundred perforated pebbles from
the 12,000-year-old Natufian village of Nahal Ein-Gev II, Israel. We analyze the assemblage
using 3D methodologies, incorporating novel study applications to both the pebbles and
their perforations and explore the functional implications. We conclude that these items
could have served as spindle whorls to spin fibres. In a cumulative evolutionary trend, they
manifest early phases of the development of rotational technologies by laying the mechani-
cal principle of the wheel and axle. All in all, it reflects on the technological innovations that
played an important part in the Neolithization processes of the Southern Levant.
Introduction
Circular objects with a hollowed centre connected to a bar make one of the most important
inventions of all time. By causing parts of devices to move, wheels brought about inventions
that have revolutionized human transportation, energy exploitation, engineering and the
mechanical industry [1]. From carts, cars, potter’s wheels and power mills, oil/wine-pressers,
lathes, spinning wheels and many other applications, each invention has had its distinct foot-
print on the history and evolution of technology [2]. At the core of it all, the importance of ‘the
wheel and axle’ lies in a relatively simple rotational mechanism capable of transforming linear
to rotary motion and vice versa [3].
Gordon V. Childe [4] was interested in rotation motion technologies, as he believed that
the Industrial Revolution’s main innovations were extensions of earlier rotary applications. He
distinguished instruments and actions of ’partial’ rotary motion from ’continued, true, com-
plete’ rotary motion. While the former includes drilling and fibre-spinning known from pre-
historic times, the latter addresses the superiority of the wheel–“a disc equipped with bearings
to allow it to spin freely” (p. 194) [4]. The substrate of the rotation mechanism existed long
before the wheel and axle of a vehicle, and Childe paved the way to explore a broad evolutional
quest for the wheel’s antecedents.
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 1 / 22
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Yashuv T, Grosman L (2024) 12,000-
year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of
wheeled rotational technologies. PLoS ONE 19(11):
e0312007. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0312007
Editor: Iris Groman-Yaroslavski, University of
Haifa, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, ISRAEL
Received: June 18, 2024
Accepted: September 29, 2024
Published: November 13, 2024
Copyright: ©2024 Yashuv, Grosman. This is an
open access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All files are available
at: https://zenodo.org/records/11124677
Methodology available at: https://sourceforge.net/
projects/artifact3-d/.
Funding: Israel Science Foundation grants #2034/
19 and #703/23 (LG), the Irene Levy Sala CARE
Archaeological Foundation (LG), the Bina and
Moshe Stekelis Foundation for prehistoric research
in Israel (TY). The funders had no role in study
design, data collection and analysis, decision to
publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
However, while investigations usually focus on the evolution of functionally related tech-
nologies, a broad evolutional quest should also look at mechanical principles. As with other
evolutionary processes, the ‘mechanical kingdom’ [5] is assembled by combinatorial steps, the
evolution through recombination [6]. Its basic idea states that new technologies (i.e., inven-
tions) do not come out of nowhere and that these arose as a "combination of other technolo-
gies" (p. 2) [7] or are “the constructive assimilation of pre-existing elements into new
synthesis” (p. 11) [8]. In this process of recombination, elements that were previously uncon-
nected are combined, or associated components are joint in new ways. Recombination forms a
central concept in modern industrial systems that study innovations to evaluate potential inte-
gration, economic value and social effect [9,10]. The concept of recombination also paved its
way into the archaeological frame of thought of artifact analysis, joining other theoretical mod-
els that explain technological change [11–13].
On this occasion, we present and focus on a specific technology at a particular point in
time: an extraordinary early assemblage of perforated stones from the Late Natufian site of
Nahal-Ein-Gev II (NEG II), dating to 12,000 years ago. We draw the prehistoric context of the
site and describe several properties of the assemblage–including the raw material, shape and
modification marks. Followed by 3D computational analysis, we reconstruct these items as
spindle whorls, a tool used for spinning fibres into yarn. As we delve into the properties of the
NEG II spindle-whorls assemblage, we show these objects’ rotational potential as intrinsic to
the mechanical properties of wheels and discuss how this sheds light upon understanding the
dynamics of the rotational technologies’ innovation processes.
The assemblage
The site of Nahal Ein-Gev II is located in the Jordan Valley, about 2 km east of the Sea of Gali-
lee, on the banks of the Ein-Gev wadi. Excavations exposed a multi-layered sedentary village of
a single cultural entity, the Late Natufian, dated to the very end of the Epipaleolithic (12k BP),
just before the Neolithic [14]. Various aspects of technology, style and symbolism mark NEG
II as continuing Epipaleolithic traditions but also point to the Neolithic changes to come. This
me
´lange is reflected in the characteristics of the flint and ground stone tools, the architecture,
burial customs and art objects [14–18].
The excavations at NEG II yielded 113 perforated stones. Six items were retrieved from the
test excavation in 1972 [19] and 107 from seasons 2010–2021. The assemblage is classified to
three groups according to the state of perforation: 48 items with complete perforation (42%),
36 broken items with partial holes (32%), and 29 unfinished items with one or two drill marks
(36%) (Fig 1A), which suggest the local production of the items. Preliminary analyses of the
Ground Stone Tools (GST) show overall high frequency of this category (ca. 15%), being the
most abundant formal tool category.
Traditional naked-eye characterization of the assemblage (Fig 1B) revealed that the raw
material is dominantly limestone (95.5%), mostly of soft chalky pebbles (74%), with a few
items made of basaltic minerals. Similar soft-limestone-pebbles raw material is available close
to the site in a few localities: some at the Ein-Gev Wadi, a few meters away from the site, and
large concentrations at the Sea of Galilea lakeshore, which was approximately at a similar dis-
tance as today from the site (about 1.5 km away). Moreover, the shape variability of the arti-
facts seems to reflect that of the natural pebbles. Of the identifiable shapes of the pebbles, 60%
are round and symmetrical in form, while the rest are represented by more angular and irregu-
lar shapes. The majority of the pebbles (78%) have two parallel platforms/faces that form three
different profile: plano-convex, bi-plano/flat, and bi-convex.
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 2 / 22
Competing interests: NO authors have competing
interests
Respectively, we find that the collected pebbles were not standardly modified. Extensive
shaping was applied only to 11 pebbles (10%), mostly producing round smoothed shapes and
flattened profiles. Random modification signs are observed on 21% of the pebbles (N = 24,
21%), including flaking and pecking percussion marks, along with abrasive rounding and
faceting marks, and the rest (69%) have no clear modification marks (N = 78,).
3D methodology
The morphology of the perforated stones was examined from two perspectives: the complete
shape of the stones and the perforations themselves. The shape of the perforated stones was
captured using a structure-light scanner (Polymetric–PT-M Scanner), which produced high-
resolution 3D models [20,21]. From the 3D digital mesh of the complete artifacts, a designed
algorithm extracted 3D models only of the perforations (all 3D models available at https://
zenodo.org/records/11124677). The digital-based methods available with the Artifact3-D soft-
ware (available at https://sourceforge.net/projects/artifact3-d/) [22] were used to automatically
and manually extract metric parameters.
Fig 1. Perforated stones breakdown. (a) Classification (b) Characterization (photographed by Laurant Davin).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.g001
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 3 / 22
Complete shape analysis
The 3D models of the complete artifacts were automatically positioned based on the direction
of the normal vectors [23]. For broken items, the correct positioning followed consistent
movement applied digitally to all axis. Based on the standard positioning, metric parameters
were automatically extracted, including maximum length, width and thickness, volume and
centre of mass (Fig 2A).
Perforation shape analysis
The perforations were studied with a designed algorithm that transformed the geometrical
mesh of the artifacts’ internal scanned surface into separate 3D models. The algorithm
extracted the most distanced points from the convex hull of the artifact’s mesh, which marks
the relevant inner surface of the hollowed space. Next, it exported this mesh as an independent
3D model, producing a negative model of the perforations (Fig 2B). The findInner algorithm,
designed for the current research purposes, is nevertheless applicable to various perforated
Fig 2. 3D analysis of the perforated pebbles and the perforations. a) An example of the analysis procedure for
perforated stones using the Artifact3-D software of the Computational Archaeological Laboratory, Institute of
Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. b) The designed algorithm for producing a 3D negativeof the
perforations. Left-to-Right: The 3D mesh of the object, including its detailed scanned hole; The algorithm calculates
the convex hull of the artifact’s mesh (black lines) and marks the most distanced points within a defined interval (in
purple) to produce a negative 3D model of the perforation. c) The model of the perforation is analyzed using
Artifact3-D software.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.g002
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 4 / 22
artifacts (available within the MATLAB code of Artifact3-D software, https://sourceforge.net/
projects/artifact3-d/).
The full 360˚ view of the perforations allowed us to describe and measure attributes unat-
tainable otherwise. Descriptive parameters of the perforation’s shape included its drilling
shape (bi-conic, flat), the meeting point between opposite drills (central, edge, offset), the aper-
tures’ shape (circle, round, asymmetric, oval), and the degree of similarity in the shape of the
two artifact’s apertures (similar, identical, large & small).
Moreover, accurate metric parameters were taken (Fig 2C). The 3D models of the perfora-
tions were automatically positioned based on the eigenvectors of the inertia tensor [23]. The
minimum width of the hole was manually measured in 3D, visually selecting the thinnest spot.
An additional measurement was taken in the 2D section to ascertain the perforation’s thinnest
location.
Results
Complete shape analysis
The artifacts are all light weighted in the range of 1–34 gr, with an average of 9 gr. ±7 gr. The
majority of the artifacts (70%) fall in the range of 2–15 gr (Fig 3A). The item’s centre (the bind-
ing box, CoBB) and the centre of mass (CoM [22]) points are close, with an average distance of
0.8 mm ±0.3 mm between one another (Fig 3B). The ratio between the maximum length and
maximum width, calculated based on the 3D binding box properties, shows a standard mea-
sure of 1.22 ±0.14. These two parameters complement the information regarding the pebbles
(Fig 1B), which are mostly round or slightly oval, with an even distribution of mass.
The location of the perforation is always positioned at the centre of the pebble. In 97.5% of
the complete perforated items (N = 41), the perforation is located within or near the CoBB and
the CoM points. Only a single perforation was completed farther from the item’s centre
(Fig 3C). Interestingly, four of the unfinished items (28.5%) have drill marks outside the centre
and were perhaps discarded due to this inappropriate offset location of the hole.
Perforation analysis
Another protocol was identified in the drilling procedure. In 95% (N = 81) of the complete
and broken items, the holes are drilled bi-directionally (from two opposite directions)
(Fig 4A). After trying drilling similar soft limestone pebbles picked near the site, we found that
drilling from one direction all through the pebble is easily attainable, yet only 5% of the assem-
blage clearly shows this perforating method. The fact that one aperture is larger than the other
in many items (40%, (Fig 4B) signifies that the larger one was initially drilled to a deeper
depth, as the depth of the drilling affects the size of the aperture [24]. Still, the meeting point of
the two opposite drills, meaning, the location of the minimal width of the perforation, was
preferably the centre point, as it is usually located at the pebble’s mid-thickness (77%, (Fig 4C).
Moreover, the meeting point was only slightly widened, as shown by the dominance of
biconical shapes. Only in 9 items (11%) was the minimal point of the bi-directional drilling
widened to form a straight profile. Among 89% of the complete and broken items, the initial
shape of the perforation was maintained, either as a sharp V-biconic-shaped (41%), a soft U-
biconic-shaped (42%) or unidirectional conic-shape (5%) that reflects a minimal widening of
the meeting point between the opposite drills (Fig 4D). Measurements of the minimal width
(in 3D and 2D) were found to be in a limited interquartile range of only 3–4 mm, 3.6 ±1.3 on
average (min = 2.1 mm; max = 8 mm, one extreme value of 13.7 mm). These confirm a stan-
dardized measure not affected by the perforation’s shape or the pebble’s thickness (Fig 4E).
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 5 / 22
Fig 3. Complete shape 3D analysis of the perforated pebbles. (a) Selected artifacts that present the main weight range (photographed by Laurant
Davin) (b) The binding box of a perforated pebble, with the millimetric scale and the centre of mass marked in red. (c) The location of the perforation
in relation to the item’s Centre of Mass (red) and Centre of Binding Box (blue).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.g003
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 6 / 22
Fig 4. Perforation analysis. (a) direction of drilling, (b) aperture sizes, (c) location of minimal width, (d) shape of
minimal width, (e) size of minimal width.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.g004
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 7 / 22
Summing up the results, the assemblage seems to reflect a natural variability in pebble
shapes with little intentional modification. However, the finds point to a selective collection of
preferably soft limestone pebbles with specific attributes, possibly from a close-by location.
The essential sought-after qualities were light stones, generally round-oval in shape, with two
parallel platforms and an even distribution of mass. The perforation was notably located at the
item’s centre, which is also its mass centre. It was drilled bi-directionally, and the meeting
point between the two drills was preferably at the item’s mid-thickness. The shape of the bi-
directional drilling was also kept, preserving the un-uniform rotational qualities of the drilling
process. The minimal hole opening was not widened much and was found to be of a standard-
ized width—3 to 4 mm.
Spindle whorls?
In this section, we wish to explore the function of the perforated pebbles from NEG II, given
the suggested interpretations in the literature. Early perforated stones are commonly under-
stood as beads, loom weights, fishing nets, mace heads and spindle whorls [25–27]. We
extracted the function-related features of each tool type to confirm or negate our hypothesis
that the NEG II tools functioned as spindle whorls (Fig 5).
Beads? (Fig 5A). Typically, beads are distinguished by their extensive modification, highly
regular shapes, tiny size and light weight. The highly homogenized disc beads retrieved in
NEG II [14] are noticeably different from the perforated stones. Even the first six perforated
pebbles found during the 1970’s test excavation stood out from the Natufian ornamental tradi-
tion and evoked other explanations [19]. Important to note, that some of the lightest perfo-
rated pebbles that do not exceed 2 grams may have been beads, but this cannot explain the
Fig 5. NEG’s perforated stones characteristics compared to functional interpretations. (a) beads, (b) fishing weights, (c) loom weights, (d) mace heads, (e)
spindle whorls.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.g005
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 8 / 22
complete assemblage, only its smallest specimens. Although there are occasions of the use of
soft raw materials for the production of beads, the use of chalky limestone is not common.
Natufian beads are usually produced from sea shells, fossils, and exotic minerals [28]. Last,
other than the shared attribute of having small central perforations, beads are mostly shaped
after the initial drilling as part of the effort to modify their aesthetic form [29].
Fishing weights? (Fig 5B). When considering fishing tools, lightweight items could theo-
retically suit cast nets rather than a vertical net [30], with the support of having ethnographic
and modern cast-net counterparts weighting about 9 grams with a 1–3 mm hole [31,32]. How-
ever, there is no archaeological evidence for the use of this technique and associated imple-
ments in prehistoric times, with the only available perforated fishing weights from Atlit Yam
being much heavier [32,33]. In contrast, many notched and incised weights are understood to
function as fishing net sinkers at water-close sites, particularly from the Epipaleolithic and the
Neolithic Jordan Valley (e.g. Ohalo II, JRD, Beisamoun [34], and Sha’ar Hagolan [35]). Most
of those fishing weights were made of hard minerals, possibly due to their heavy mass and long
durability. Identical items were recovered from NEG II, all but one made of hard minerals
(Dubreuil, personal communication). The fact that limestone and surely chalk are considered
relatively soft minerals that are more fragile and may disintegrate in water [36] makes the per-
forated pebbles assemblage less prone to be used as aquatic gear.
Loom weights? (Fig 5C). The warp-weighted loom is considered to have been widely
used only from the Bronze Age onward, and in earlier weaving frames like the ground loom,
no use was made of perforated weights [37,38]. It is possible that, in-between developments of
looms may have used weights even if just for holding the strings [39], but no supporting evi-
dence for this has been found to date. Nevertheless, a large assemblage of ‘perforated pebbles’
(Type G2) from Sha’ar Hagolan was suggested as net or loom weights [35]. However, while the
natural pebbles are similar in shape, as is the perforation size, these are almost always edge-per-
forated, contrary to the NEG II items, and present a higher weight range that match that of
loom weights from later periods [40]. Moreover, suspension stone tools/weights will best per-
form by having uneven shapes, with the centre of mass located at their base and the perfora-
tions at the farther end [41].
Spindle whorls? (Fig 5E). The persisting choice of perforating pebbles at their centre of
mass suggests that the composite tool is balanced and use of stick rather than string [35].
While drilling flywheels are noticeably heavier [42], and mace heads are mostly piriform in
shape and weigh more than 150 g (Fig 5D) [43,44], spindle whorls that act as flywheels to
enhance rotation momentum when spinning fibres to yarn, fit best.
Spindle whorls must have a central perforation, also demonstrated in experiments [38,40,
45]. Commonly, they are standardly rounded, resembling the more carefully modified NEG II
perforated pebbles. Most importantly, the central location of the centre of mass and perfora-
tions, even among the non-standardized, natural, pebbles (see Figs 1and 3), supports the
notion that this characteristic relates to the functional requirements of the objects, most proba-
bly for balancing the items.
During the fibre spinning process, the whorls’ weight affects the thickness of the produced
yarn. The weight of these whorls usually range between 15 and 35 g, with the lightest, 2 g, used
to make extra fine yarn, and the heaviest, 50 g, used to spin thick strings [46–48]. Weights that
are too heavy would tear the delicate fibres in the spinning process aimed at making durable
threads.
The NEG II items are (a) bi-directionally drilled; (b) have a minimal meeting point between
the opposing drills that is preferably centered at their mid-thickness; (c) have a relatively con-
stant minimal width. These specific characteristics were probably purposely chosen to help
with the tool’s balance. Interesting to add, that in spindle whorls, the perforation shape is
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 9 / 22
related to the production technology. In general, bi-directional drilling in stones or pottery
sherds produces biconical shapes, while a stick inserted into plastic clay results in a straight
shape [49]. Either way, the perforation must keep the balance by having a symmetrical shape
[50]. This choice is strengthened as the softness of the raw material makes it easy to perforate
in a single drilling direction, as well as straightening the perforations shape.
In the literature, the hole size is one of the leading characteristics differentiating perforated-
items functions [42,51]. Liu [52], who surveyed ethnographic accounts of spindle whorls,
reported the smallest perforation width to be 2–4 mm, the most common width being 7–8 mm
and the largest—10 mm. Archaeological finds show the same width range, even for rare
wooden spindles [48,53,54]. We compared the available information on various perforated
items by hole size and weight, and the resulting graph (Fig 6) shows how the NEG II assem-
blage falls within the lower range amid other spindle-whorl assemblages from all periods, dis-
tinct from all the other types of perforated specimens.
Considering all functional parameters: the central location of the perforation, the size and
weight of the stones, their shape, raw material, the shape of the holes and their size, it seems
that the perforated pebbles from NEG II are best suited to have functioned as spindle whorls.
This could be strengthened with use-wear analysis, yet it is beyond the scope of the present
article. Nevertheless, our initial step was to conduct a feasibility test, that resolved the uncer-
tainties and showed that these perforated pebbles could serve to spin fibres.
Feasibility test. Unassisted spinning, a slow spinning technology, is carried out by twist-
ing fibres with parts of the operator’s body: between the fingers, the palm of the hand, the
thigh or the toe (Fig 7A) [64,65]. A more advanced technology, fast spinning, uses the ’spin-
dle-and-whorl,’ where the raw fibres are tied to a wooden spindle inserted into an end-weight.
When operating as a ‘supported spinning’ method (Fig 7B), the operator’s hand rotates the
spindle on the ground (similar to a children’s spinning-top toy) while the other draws out
unspun fibres. When operating a ‘drop-spinning’ technique, the spindle is rolled on the thigh
and then dropped, continuing to rotate as it hangs in the air, and both hands are free to man-
age the unspun fibres [46,66] (Fig 7C). Either way, using this implement results in a much
faster and more efficient spinning process because the whorl enhances the rotation momen-
tum of the manual twisting, meaning that the fibres continue to spin with each manual twist. It
also produces a stronger and more uniform thread, with the spindle acting as a neat packaging
solution for collecting the prepared thread [38,67].
We conducted a feasibility test to further verify if the NEG II perforated pebbles could have
been used as spindle whorls. The goal was to assess whether replicas of similar tools, imper-
fectly modified, can function for spinning fibres with the spindle-and-whorl techniques by the
following protocol and criteria:
1. The replicas:
i. Local raw Material: similar soft limestone pebbles were collected from the Sea of Galilee
Ein-Gev shore.
ii. No shape modification: a similar variety of shapes were chosen without modifying their
shape contour.
iii. Small sized: similar small-sized pebbles were chosen, of light and medium weight.
iv. Biconic perforation: holes were made with flint perforators by bi-directional manual
perforation, and without widening the meeting point to imitate the biconic-shaped
perforation with minimal sized width.
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 10 / 22
v. Diversity: The replicated whorls chosen for the spinning test were round, oval and irreg-
ular-shaped, of light and medium weight (4.3 g, 4.7 g, 8.8 g, 11.8 g, 15.8 g).
2. The Expert—we approached Ms Yonit Kristal, an acknowledged expert in traditional craft-
making, to try and use our replicas of perforated stones to spin fibres. We asked her to lead
the spinning attempts with her practical knowledge, and recorded her technical choices.
3. The spindles—We requested to maintain the relatively narrow minimum aperture of the
NEG II stones by inserting thin sticks as spindles. An industrial skewer (5 mm wide) was
Fig 6. Distribution graph of perforated tools according to their published weight and minimum aperture size.
Numbers = Sites & References.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.g006
1) NEG II 5) Gilat [50]9) Kadesh Barnea
[55]
13) Ohalo [56]
2) Beisamoun [57]6) Qina Cave
[53]
10) Tell Abu
Kharaz [58]
14) Mace heads from Israel [59]
3) Atlit Yam [32,60]7) Ashalim
Cave [53]
11) Tell Rehov
[61]
*UP perforation size is reported [62]; weight is estimated
based on the reported dimensions
4) Sha’ar Hagolan
[35,43]
8) Cowboy
Cave [54]
12) Gamla [63]
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.t001
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 11 / 22
tested as a straightened stick, yet the whorl needed to be fixed by inserting fibres into the
hole, without any glue. With the other four whorls, it was found easier to use natural rela-
tively straight branches of a nearby olive tree, 2–4 mm wide (Fig 7D). Ms Kristal pointed
the edges of the sticks for easy insertion into the whorls, which got well secured without fur-
ther assistance.
The test. The first spinning, Yonit used wool, the material she knows the best, but it did not
work well, surely when compared to the modern whorls Yonit uses for her work. However, as
she got a better grip and yarn started to gather around the spindle, she said that spinning, even
just with this kind of whorl, is indeed faster and more efficient than spinning manually without
any implements. Similar observations were reached also in other comprehensive experiments
that compared thigh and finger spinning with spindle spinning [64]. In the next three tests,
Yonit used flax, alternating supported and suspended spinning techniques and adjusting the
effect of the whorl’s weight to the thread’s thickness. She expressed satisfaction with the pace
of work.
Results. The current feasibility test did not control all the possible variables [40,64,69], as
we focused only on verifying whether the morphological qualities of the NEG II perforated
stones enabled them to function as spindle whorls. The experiment demonstrated that not
only do the replicas function well as spindle whorls but that the parameters we suspected as
disadvantageous were actually beneficial for this purpose.
Fig 7. Spinning methods. (a) Manual thigh-spinning [64]; (b) Spindle-and-whorl “supported spinning” [68]; (c) “drop spinning” [66]; (d) the
experimental spindles and whorls, the 3D scans of the pebbles and their negative perforations. The bottom pictures show Yonit Kristal experimenting
spinning fibres with replicas of the perforated pebbles, using supported spinning and drop spinning techniques (photographed by Talia Yashuv).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.g007
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 12 / 22
Firstly, while the heavier whorl (12 g.) was the easiest for maintaining a swirl, the lighter
whorls (4 g.) managed to produce thinner threads, as previous experiments established [46],
and the challenge surpassed as thread piled on the spindle adding weight to the entire imple-
ment. Secondly, although biconical holes were questioned as befitting spindle whorls [45], the
feasibility test also showed that the biconical rather than straight hole shape of the perforations
is useful for easily setting the whorl onto the spindle. If needed, a small quantity of fibre or
woodchip is enough to fix the whorl to the spindle, an action also recorded with straight holes
[48]. This practice of inserting the spindles defines the perforation size and may also explain
the standard minimal width of the NEG II stones.
Most importantly, we found out that perfectly round artifacts are not a prerequisite. The
fact that the hole and the centre of mass are located at the item’s centre was enough for the
task. The Natufian inhabitants of NEG II could have modified standard round artifacts, as
exemplified by several perfectly rounded stones and the bead industry recovered on site, yet
they chose not to. It is therefore suggested that the selected pebbles’ natural shapes functioned
well and that the few nicely shaped items were modified due to other, perhaps aesthetic,
considerations.
Discussion
Small, centrally perforated, lightweight, un/modified stones, were also found in other archaeo-
logical sites. Accurately monitoring their distribution is a challenging task due to inconsistent
documentation and different typological classifications missing, in some cases, the raw data.
For example, they fall into a wide range of categories, including descriptive classifications such
as ’perforation on disc,’ ’perforated discs,’ ’pebbles with central perforation,’ and ’perforated
items,’ and also in functional categories such as ‘weights’ and ‘spindle whorls.’ Given these lim-
itations, we present the assemblages of small centrally perforated stones from the Southern
Levant relative to the general perforated stones (Fig 8).
The NEG II perforated pebbles assemblage stands out in frequency, with only sporadic
specimens from other Natufian and PPNA sites (Fig 8). As the increasing number of sites in
the PPNB are mostly reported as to have dissimilar perforated stones, parallel assemblages
appear only from the Pottery Neolithic, with a wide geographic distribution around the Levant
[103]. From this point in time, the perforated artifacts made of stones or ceramics, mostly
reported as spindle whorls, are recovered through all the periods up to historical times [104].
The absence of spindle whorls before the Neolithic led to the idea that manual spinning was
used until spindle whorls started appearing in the PPNB [38], first recognized in Jericho [93].
Levy suggests an even later technological leap: “PPNB sites do not show any unequivocal evi-
dence for spindle whorls," and therefore, "the yarn was twisted and counter twisted/doubled
(spun and plied) on the thigh” (p. 63) [67]. She considers the following, Pottery Neolithic, as
the “earliest culture in the southern Levant with unequivocal evidence for tool assisted, spin-
dle-spun yarn” (p. 78) [67]. The flourishing of spindle whorls in the Late Neolithic was under-
stood to indicate a change in spinning technology that is associated with the shift from long
vegetal fibres to short animal hair spinning [38,103].
However, while the presence of spindle whorls certainly marks the use of a fast-spinning
technology, the lack of spindle whorls does not necessarily imply an unassisted manual spin-
ning technique. In principle, this cannot be accepted in light of the range of spinning artifacts
made of perishable materials known from ethnographic records. These technologies include,
for example, using a spindle without a whorl, which acts as manual thigh spinning, or using a
rock as a weight attached directly to the fibres without a spindle, which acts as ’drop-spinning’
[66,105]. Additional implements, such as a wooden spindle with wooden ‘cross’ weights, a
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 13 / 22
wooden spindle thickened at its end, and the use of organic whorls such as roots, coconuts or a
small green potato, are also documented [47,106,107].
As shown earlier, during the post-Natufian period, there is a sharp decrease in the number
of spindle whorls, although there is substantial evidence for fibrecraft [67]. For example, the
unique comb piece from Wadi Murabba’at Cave (10k BP), which suggests that mastering the
spinning process seems to have started earlier than previously thought [108,109]. Further-
more, Bar-Yosef had stated that if this comb indeed records the presence of domesticated flax,
Fig 8. Perforated stones and spindle whorls from the Southern Levant. Left: Counts of all perforated stones, regardless of sub-typologies and morphological
variations (light green) and perforated stones with similar morphological characteristics as those from NEG II (dark green): centrally perforated, small (<5
cm). Right: A map with the location of NEG II, and sites with spindle whorls or alike that are mentioned in the text and figures [27,26,50,60,70–94].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.g008
1) NEG II 11) Baja 21) Tel Yosef 31) Tell Rehov
2) Eynan 12) Basta 22) Tel Ali 32) Gamla
3) Wadi Hammeh
27
13) Ghwair I 23) Nahal Zehora I,
II
4) Gilgal II 14) Jilat 7 24) Abu Hamid
Mentioned sites with spindle whorls but out of map scope:Abu-Hureira 1,Cowboy Cave Utah,EU UP
roundelles.
5) Rosh Zin 15) Ain Gazal 25) Grar
6) Dhra 16) Ashkelon 26) Gilat
7) Hatula 17) Atlit Yam 27) Ashalim Cave
8) Wadi Faynan 16 18) Sha’ar
Hagolan
28) Qina Cave
9) Jericho 19) Munhata 29) Kadesh Barnea
10) Beysamoun 20) Hamadiya 30) Tell Abu Kharaz
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.t002
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 14 / 22
it possibly also marks why flax domestication preceded that of edible plants and animals, sug-
gesting it was domesticated by the Natufian culture or even earlier [110].
We conclude that the perforated stones from NEG II represent early evidence for the adop-
tion of spinning with the “spindle and whorl” device. Following the above, we find two possi-
ble explanations for their function–either assisting fast spinning using, for the first time, these
centrally perforated stone whorls replacing manual spinning, or these artifacts replaced some
’invisible/perishable’ implement of fast spinning.
The non-linear dynamics of innovation processes can be explained by the many potential
points of acceptance and rejection of any new idea. Meanwhile, changes through inventions
modifications are integral to this process of innovation, i.e., adoption and diffusion [111]. One
factor shown to affect the successful integration of new technology is the ability to recombine
existing knowledge in new ways [112–114]. Ultimately, after an innovation is adopted and
firmly integrated, it becomes common knowledge. Thus, combinatorial evolution can be
examined from two directions: first, regarding how an invention came into being, and second,
how its components construct future technologies that evolved and developed further [115].
In light of the above, the technological knowledge witnessed at NEG II probably did not dis-
appear. However, it is only when spindle whorls reappear extensively in the PN that this spin-
ning method is thoroughly assimilated. At this point in time, spinning with a spindle-and-
whorl could have become common knowledge, thus creating the technological grounds for
future innovations. With the notion that “any innovation in a cultural lineage is cladogenetic,
creating a new branch in an evolutionary tree” (p. 12) [116], we look at how the prehistoric
knowledge of one rotational technology had an impact on facilitating the evolution of addi-
tional rotation-based technologies that became essential soon after (Fig 9).
The rotating potter’s wheel was introduced during the Chalcolithic (5000–3700 CalBP), and
in its initial stages, the slow ‘tournette’ was used only for the final modification stages, for a
selective type of vessel [117]. With time, the use of kinetic energy onto the clay to modify it,
revolutionized ceramic production when the ‘wheel-throwing technique’ was created, possibly
during the Middle Bronze Age in the 2nd millennium BC [118,119].
During the 6th millennium BP, there was a simultaneous appearance of wheeled vehicles in
several regions of the Near East, the Balkan and Europe [120,121], mostly believed to have
developed from using sledges and animal draught traction for agricultural works [122–124].
As with the evolution of the potter’s wheel, wheeled vehicles were created by integrating a rota-
tional mechanism into an existing functional form, that is, through a recombination process.
The essential mechanical element of ‘the wheel and axle’ is being capable of transforming
linear to rotary motion and vice versa [2,3], a concept that is exercised by spinning fibres as
the hands move linearly while the fibres rotate and spin (see Fig 7A). The importance of using
a whorl lies not only in its contribution to pacing up the spinning process itself but in integrat-
ing a circular object connected at the centre to a bar–a wheel and axle. Once the mechanical
principle was routinely used in various applications, it was expanded, recombined, and incor-
porated with minimal modifications within other domains, which in turn resulted in a cumu-
lative evolutional trend [9,125] of the rotation group of technologies (Fig 9).
In the current study, we have shown how the perforated pebbles from NEG II provide evi-
dence of a 12,000 years old wheeled-shaped tool harnessed in a rotational mechanism. We sug-
gest, therefore, that spindle whorls, including those from NEG II, relate to the evolution of the
ensuing rotational technologies by laying the mechanical principle of the wheel and axle, thus
supporting the notions presented by Childe [4,122,126].
Material culture from NEG II in particular portrays innovations also in other domains,
including the production of high-quality lime plaster [16], the presence of storage installations
[17], the use of hafted flint perforators for fast drilling [18], the production of disc-beads [14],
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 15 / 22
and hunting habits that show how with the diversification of task-specific activities there
appeared growing specialization and possibly a greater division of labour [127]. Hence, all of
those including the spindle whorls promote the idea that the inventiveness of a social group
"implies that the more minds in one generation, the more novel recombinations, insights, and
lucky mistakes will exist for the next generation to recombine, refine, and extend across
domains” (p. 111) [128]. This notion reinforces that technological innovations are an impor-
tant driving force in the Neolithization processes [129–131]. In light of the above, the innova-
tion trends of both spindle whorls and rotational technologies provide an additional facet that
reflects how Natufian innovations created realities that could not be reversed.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Laure Dubreuil, who greatly assisted the process with constructive thoughts,
practical experiments, and microscopic observations of the perforated stones; Nir Dick for
designing the algorithm for producing 3D negative models of the perforations; Avshalom Kar-
asik for assisting in the 3D analysis; and Yonit Kristal, a traditional craft specialist who experi-
mented with spinning fibres with our replicas, which brought about fruitful insights. Thank
Fig 9. Rotational technologies: The evolution from ‘wheel-less’ to ‘wheel-based’ rotational technologies. Insert: centrally perforated small stones
and ceramic spindle whorls. Figures based on: UP bone Roundelles [62]; NEG II perforated pebble photographed by Talia Yashuv; Ceramic spindle
whorl [95]; Potter’s wheel [96,97]; Wheeled animal and cart illustration [98,99]; Golden Chariot [100]; Vitruvius water mill illustration [101];
Spinning wheel illustration [102].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007.g009
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 16 / 22
you goes to Erela Hovers for early discussions, and Anna Belfer-Cohen for her insightful com-
ments on the last draft. We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments.
Our thanks also go to the members of the Nahal Ein-Gev II excavation project and the
Computational Archaeology Laboratory of the Hebrew University: Antoine Muller, Hadas
Goldgeier, Keren Nebenhaus, Timna Raz, Francesco Valletta, Ortal Harush, and Laurent
Davin who also photographed the artifacts
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Data curation: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Formal analysis: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Funding acquisition: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Investigation: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Methodology: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Project administration: Leore Grosman.
Resources: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Software: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Supervision: Leore Grosman.
Validation: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Visualization: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Writing – original draft: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
Writing – review & editing: Talia Yashuv, Leore Grosman.
References
1. Bulliet RW. The Wheel: Inventions and Reinventions. New-York: Columbia University Press; 2016.
2. Roser C. “Faster, Better, Cheaper” in the History of Manufacturing: From the Stone Age to Lean
Manufacturing and Beyond. Boca Raton, Florida: Productivity Press; 2016.
3. Vogel S. Why the Wheel is Round: Muscles, Technology, and how We Make Things Move. London:
University of Chicago Press; 2016.
4. Childe VG. Rotary motion. In: Singer C, Holmyard EJ, Hall AR, editors. A History of Technology Vol 1:
From Early Times to the Fall of Ancient Empires. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1954. pp. 187–215.
5. Butler S. Darwin Among the Machines. Christchurch Press. 1863;June 13: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.
28937/zmk-9-1
6. Ziman J. Evolutionary models for technological change. In: Ziman J, editor. Technological Innovation
as an Evolutionary Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 3–12.
7. Arthur BW. The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves. New-York: Free Press; 2009.
8. Usher AP. A History of Mechanical Invention. New-York: Dover Publications; 1954.
9. Youn H, Strumsky D, Bettencourt LMA, Lobo J. Invention as a combinatorial process: Evidence from
US patents. J R Soc Interface. 2015; 12. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0272 PMID: 25904530
10. Nelson RR, Winter SG. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press of Harvard Uni-
versity Press; 1982.
11. Charbonneau M. Modularity and recombination in technological evolution. Philos Technol. 2016; 29:
373–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0228-0
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 17 / 22
12. Winters J. Is the cultural evolution of technology cumulative or combinatorial? SocArXiv. 2020; 1–15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/aypnx
13. Kuhn SL. The Evolution of Paleolithic Technologies. London & New York: Routledge; 2020.
14. Grosman L, Munro ND, Abadi I, Boaretto E, Shaham D, Belfer-Cohen A, et al. Nahal Ein Gev II, a Late
Natufian community at the Sea of Galilee. PLoS One. 2016; 11: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0146647 PMID: 26815363
15. Shaham D, Grosman L. Engraved stones from Nahal Ein Gev II—portraying a local style, forming cul-
tural links. In: Astruc L, McCartney C, Briois F, Kassianidou V, editors. Near Eastern Lithic Technolo-
gies on the Move Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions 8th International Conference on
PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East. Nicosia: Astrom; 2019. pp. 133–142.
16. Friesem D, Abadi I, Shaham D, Grosman L. Lime plaster cover of the dead 12,000 years ago–new evi-
dence for the origins of lime plaster technology. Evol Hum Sci. 2019; 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.
2019.9 PMID: 37588409
17. Grosman L, Raz T, Friesem DE. Tomorrow’s mundane is today’s extraordinary: A case study of a plas-
tered installation during Neolithization. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2020; 7: 87. https://doi.org/10.
1057/s41599-020-00579-8
18. Yashuv T, Grosman L. Drilling tools at the end of the Natufian: Suggesting a technological innovation.
In: Nishiaki Y, Maeda O, Arimura M, editors. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on PPN
Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East, Tokyo. Leiden: Sidestone Press; 2022. pp.
17–32.
19. Bar-Yosef O, Belfer-Cohen A. Nahal Ein Gev II—A late Epi-Paleolithic site in the Jordan Valley. J Isr
Prehist Soc. 2000; 30: 49–71.
20. Grosman L, Karasik A, Harush O, Smilanksy U. Archaeology in three dimentions: Computer-Based
Methods in Archaeological Research. J East Mediterr Archaeol. 2014; 2: 48–64.
21. Dubinsky L, David M, Grosman L. Recognizing technique variation in rock engravings: ArchCUT3-D
for micromorphological analysis. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2023; 10: 1–20.
22. Grosman L, Muller A, Dag I, Goldgeier H, Harush O, Herzlinger G, et al. Artifact3-D: New software for
accurate, objective and efficient 3D analysis and documentation of archaeological artifacts. PLoS
One. 2022; 17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268401 PMID: 35709137
23. Grosman L, Smikt O, Smilansky U. On the application of 3-D scanning technology for the documenta-
tion and typology of lithic artifacts. J Archaeol Sci. 2008; 35: 3101–3110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.
2008.06.011
24. Werner JJ, Miller JM. Distinguishing stone age drilling techniques on ostrich eggshell beads: An exper-
imental approach. J Archaeol Sci Reports. 2018; 22: 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.
09.020
25. Wright KI. A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant. Pale
´orient. 1992;
18: 53–81.
26. Rosenberg D. Development, Continuity and Change: The Stone Industries of the Early Ceramic-Bear-
ing Cultures of the Southern Levant (in Hebrew). University of Haifa. 2011.
27. Gopher A, Orrelle E. The Ground Stone Assemblage of Munhata. A Neolithic Site in the Jordan Valley
—Israel, a Report. Paris: Association Pale
´orient; 1995.
28. Bar-Yosef Mayer DE. Towards a typology of stone beads in the Neolithic Levant. J F Archaeol. 2013;
38: 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1179/0093469013Z.00000000043
29. Bains R, Vasic M, Bar-Yosef Mayer DE, Russell N, Wright KI, DohertyC. A technological approach to
personal ornamentation and social expression at C¸atalho
¨yu¨k. In: Hodder I, editor. Substantive Tech-
nologies from C¸atalho
¨yu¨k: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. London: British Institute at Ankara;
2013. pp. 331–363.
30. Cavulli F, Scaruffi S. Fishing kit implements from KHB-1: Net sinkers and lures. Proc Semin Arab
Stud. 2011; 41: 27–34.
31. Deb D. Of cast net and caste identity: Memetic differentiation between two fishing communities of Kar-
nataka. Hum Ecol. 1996; 24: 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02167963
32. Galili E, Zemer A, Rosen B. Ancient fishing gear and associated artifacts from underwater explorations
in Israel—A comparative study. Archaeofauna. 2013; 22: 145–166.
33. Galili E, Lernau O, Zohar I. Fishing and coastal adaptions at A
´tlit-Yam—A submerged PPNC fishing
village off the Carmel Coast, Israel. Atiqot. 2004; 48: 1–34.
34. Pedergnana A, Cristiani E, Munro N, Valletta F, Sharon G. Early line and hook fishing at the Epipaleo-
lithic site of Jordan River Dureijat (Northern Israel). PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0257710. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0257710 PMID: 34613991
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 18 / 22
35. Rosenberg D, Garfinkel Y. Sha’ar Hagolan 4. The Ground Stone Industry: Stone Working at the Dawn
of Pottery Production in the Southern Levant. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; 2014.
36. Duperret A, Taibi S, Mortimore RN, Daigneault M. Effect of groundwater and sea weathering cycles on
the strength of chalk rock from unstable coastal cliffs of NW France. Eng Geol. 2005; 78: 321–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.01.004
37. Amsden C. The loom and its prototypes. Am Anthropol. 1932; 34: 216–235.
38. Barber EJW. Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1991.
39. Giner CA. Textiles from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Tell Halula (Euphrates Valley, Syria). Pale
´ori-
ent. 2012; 38: 41–54.
40. Olofsson L, Andersson-Strand E, Nosch M-L. Experimental testing of Bronze Age textile tools. In:
Andersson-Strand E, Nosch M-L, editors. Tools, Textiles and Contexts: Investigating Textile Produc-
tion in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age. Oxford: Oxbow books; 2015. pp. 75–100.
41. Coleman GF. A Functional and Distributional Analysis of Certain Notched, Grooved and Perforated
Stone Artifacts from North America. University of Tennessee. 1982.
42. Ilan D. The ground stone components of drills in the Ancient Near East: Sockets, flywheels, cobble
weights, and drill bits. J Lithic Stud. 2016; 3: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v3i3.1642
43. Rosenberg D. Early maceheads in the Southern Levant: A “Chalcolithic” hallmark in Neolithic context.
J F Archaeol. 2010; 35: 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1179/009346910X12707321520512
44. Sebbane M. Mace in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Ancient Near East. Tel Aviv. 2023; 50: 126–143. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2023.2190285
45. Crew L. Spindle Whorls: A Study of Form, Function and Decoration in Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus.
Jonsered: Paul Åstro
¨ms fo
¨rlag; 1998.
46. Andersson-Strand E. The textile chaı
ˆne ope
´ratoire: Using a multidisciplinary approach to textile
archaeology with a focus on the Ancient Near East. Pale
´orient. 2012; 38: 21–40. https://doi.org/10.
3406/paleo.2012.5456
47. Rahmstorf L. An introduction to the investigation of archaeological textile tools. In: Andersson Strand
E, Nosch ML, editors. Tools, Textile and Contexts Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and
Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age. Oxbow books; 2015. pp. 1–23.
48. Spinazzi-Lucchesi C. The Unwound Yarn. Birth and Development of Textile Tools Between Levant
and Egypt. Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari; 2018.
49. Boertien J. A simulation experiment in the context of a technological study of Levantine Iron Age clay
loom weights. Leiden J Pottery Stud. 2009; 25: 31–45.
50. Levy TE, Conner W, Rowan Y, Alon D. The intensification of production at Gilat: Textile production. In:
Levy T, editor. Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel. New-York: Rout-
ledge; 2006. pp. 705–738.
51. Kletter R. Pyramidal lead objects: Scale weights, loom weights, or Sinkers? J Econ Soc Hist Orient.
2013; 56: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685209-12341279
52. Liu RK. Spindle whorls. Part I. Some comments and speculations. Bead J. 1978; 3: 87–103.
53. Langgut D, Yahalom-mack N, Lev-yadun S, Kremer E, Ullman M, Davidovich U. The earliest Near
Eastern wooden spinning implements. Antiquity. 2016; 90: 973–990. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.
2016.99
54. Hilbish JF. Archaic spindle whorls of Cowboy Cave and Walters Cave in Utah. Kiva J Southwest
Anthropol Hist. 2019; 85: 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00231940.2019.1642983
55. Shamir O. Textiles, loom weights and spindle whorls. In: Cohen R, Bernick-Greenberg H, editors.
Excavation at Kadesh Barnea 1976–1982. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority; 2007. pp. 255–
258.
56. Nadel D, Zaidner Y. Upper Pleistocene and Mid-Holocene net sinkers from the Sea of Galilee, Israel. J
Prehist Isreal Soc. 2002; 32: 49–71.
57. Rosenberg D, Agnon M, Kaufman D. Conventions in fresh water fishing in the prehistoric southern
Levant: The evidence from the study of Neolithic Beisamoun notched pebbles. J Lithic Stud. 2016; 3:
457–478. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v3i3.1639
58. Fischer PM. Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley Volume I: The Early Bronze Age. Wein: Austrian
Academy of Science Press; 2008.
59. Sebbane M. The Mace in Israel and the Ancient Near East from the Ninth Millenium to the First: Typol-
ogy and Chronology, Technology, Military and Ceremonial Use, Regional Interconnections (in
Hebrew). Tel Aviv University. 2009.
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 19 / 22
60. Galili E. Submerged Settlements of the Ninth to Seventh Millenia BP Off the Carmel Coast (in
Hebrew). Tel-Aviv University. 2004.
61. Amihai M. Weaving in Iron Age Tel Rehov and the Jordan Valley. J East Mediterr Archaeol Herit Stud.
2019; 7: 119–138.
62. Bellier C, Bott S, Cattelain P. Fiche rondelles. In: Camps-Fabrer H, editor. Fiches Typologiques de
I’industrie Osseuse Pre
´historique Cahier IV Objets de Parure. de l’Universite
´de Provence; 1991. pp.
1–25.
63. Cassuto D. Textile production tools. In: Syon D, editor. Gamla III The Shmarya Gutman Excavations
1976–1989 Finds and Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority; 1989. pp. 261–282.
64. Tiedemann EJ, Jakes KA. An exploration of prehistoric spinning technology: Spinning efficiency and
technology transition. Archaeometry. 2006; 48: 293–307.
65. Gleba M, Harris S. The first plant bast fibre technology: Identifying splicing in archaeological textiles.
Archaeol Anthropol Sci. 2019; 11: 2329–2346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0677-8
66. Hochberg B. Handspindles. Canta Cruz: Bette and Bernard Hochberg; 1977.
67. Levy J. The Genesis of the Textile Industry from Adorned Nudity to Ritual Regalia: The Changing Role
of Fibre Crafts and their Evolving Techniques of Manufacture in the Ancient Near East from the Natu-
fian to the Ghassulian. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology; 2020.
68. Teague LS. The fabric of their lives. KIVA J Southwest Anthropol Hist. 2006; 71: 349–366. https://doi.
org/10.1179/kiv.2006.71.3.007
69. Hudson TP. Variables and assumptions in modern interpretation of ancient spinning technique and
technology through archaeological experimentation. EXARC. 2014; 1. http://journal.exarc.net/issue-
2014-1/ea/variables-and-assumptions-modern-interpretation-ancient-spinning-technique-and-
technology
70. Moore AMT. Stone and other artifacts. In: Moore AMT, Hillman G, Legge AJ, editors. Village on the
Euphrates From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureya. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. pp.
165–188.
71. Edwards PC. Limestone artefacts. In: Edwards PC, editor. Wadi Hammeh 27: An Early Natufian Set-
tlement at Pella in Jordan. Leiden: Brill; 2012. pp. 235–248.
72. Edwards PC, Webb J. The basaltic artefacts and their origins. In: Edwards PC, editor. Wadi Hammeh
27: An Early Natufian Settlement at Pella in Jordan. Leidan: Brill; 2012. pp. 205–234.
73. Weinstein-Evron M. Early Natufian el-Wad Revisited. Liège: Universitde
´de Liège; 1998.
74. Rosenberg D, Kaufman D, Yeshurun R, Weinstein-evron M. The broken record: The Natufian ground-
stone assemblage from El-Wad Terrace (Mount Carmel, Israel). Attributes and their interpretation.
Euroasian Prehistory. 2012; 9: 93–128.
75. Henry DO. A Natufian settlement near Avdat. In: Marks AE, editor. Prehistory and Paleoenvironments
in the Central Negev, Vol I. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press; 1976. pp. 317–349.
76. Perrot J. Le Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. Anthropologie. 1966; 70: 437–484.
77. Valla FR, Khalaily H, Samuelian N, March R, Bocquentin F, Valentin B, et al. Le Natoufien final de Mal-
laha (Eynan), deuxième rapport pre
´liminaire: les fouilles de 1998 et 1999. J Isr Prehist Soc. 2001; 31:
43–184.
78. Valla FR, Khalaily H, Samuelian N, Bocquentin F, Delage C, Valentin B, et al. Le Natoufien Final et les
Nouvelles Fouilles a Mallaha (Eynan), Isreal 1996–1997. J Isr Prehist Soc. 1999; 28: 105–176.
79. Perrot J. Excavations at Eynan (Ein Mallaha): Preliminary reports on the 1959 season. Isr Explor J.
1960; 10: 14–22.
80. Bar-Yosef Mayer DE. Stone beads of the Gilgal sites. In: Bar-Yosef O., Goring-Morris N.A, Gopher A,
editor. Gilgal Early Neolithic Occupation in the Lower Jordan Walley: The Excavations of Tamar Noy.
Oxford: Oxbow; 2010. pp. 223–238.
81. Kuijt I. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A settlement variability: Evidence for sociopolitical development in the
southern Levant. J Mediterr Archaeol. 1994; 7: 165–192.
82. Lechevallier M. Les e
´le
´ments de parure et petits objets en pierre. In: Lechevallier M, Ronen A, editors.
Le site de Hatoula en Jude
´e occidentale, Israe
¨l Me
´moires at Travaux de Cetnre de Recherche de
Je
´rusalem, 8. Paris: Association Pale
´orient; 1994. pp. 227–232.
83. Mithen S, Finlayson B, MaričevićD, Smith S, Jenkins E, Najjar M. Excavations at an Early Neolithic
Settlement in Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan. Oxford: The Council for British Research in the Levant;
2018.
84. Kenyon KM, Holland TA. Excavations at Jericho Vol V. The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other
Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem; 1983.
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 20 / 22
85. Ullman M, Brailovsky L, Schechter HC, Weissbrod L, Zuckerman-Cooper R, Toffolo MB, et al. The
early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Nesher-Ramla Quarry, Israel. Quat Int. 2021.
86. Nissen HJ, Muheisen M, Gebel HG. Report on the first two excavation seasons at Basta (1986–1987).
Annu Dep Antiq Jordan. 1987; 19: 79–119.
87. Gebel HGK, Bienert HD, Kra
¨mer T, Mu¨ller-Neuhof B, Neef R, Timm J, et al. Ba’ja hidden in the Petra
mountains: Preliminary report on the 1997 excavations. In: Gebel HGK, Kafafi Z, Rollefson GO, edi-
tors. The prehistory of Jordan II Perspectives from 1997 Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence and Environment 4. Berlin: ex oriente; 1997. pp. 221–262.
88. Wright KI. Ground Stone Assemblage Variations and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,000 to
5,500 B.P. Yale University. 1992.
89. Lechevallier M. Abou Gosh et Baisamoun, deux gisements du VIIème mille
´naire avant l’ère chre
´tienne
en Israe
¨l. Paris: Association Pale
´orient; 1978.
90. Woodman CC. An analysis of Ground Stone Artifacts from Ghwair I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site in
Southern Jordan. University of Navada. 2005. http://search.proquest.com/docview/305389893?
accountid=15572
91. Orrelle E, Eyal R, Gopher A. Spindle whorls and their blanks. In: FinkelsteinI, editor. Village Communi-
ties of the Pottery Neolithic Period in the Menashe Hills, Israel Archaeological Investigations at the
Sites of Naḥal Zehora, Vol II. Tel-Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology; 2012. pp. 632–656.
92. Garfinkel Y, Goldman T, Rosenberg D, Eirikh-rose A, Matskevich Z. Hamadiya in the Central Jordan
Valley: A Yarmukian Pottery Neolithic site (1964). In: Gopher A, Gophna R, Eyal R, Yitzak P, editors.
Jacob Kaplan’s Excavations of Protohistoric Sites 1950s – 1980s. Tel-Aviv: The Institute of Archaeol-
ogy; 2017. pp. 455–502.
93. Wheeler M. Loomweights and spindle whorls. In: Kenyon KM, Holland TA, editors. Excavation at Jeri-
cho 4 The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem;
1982. pp. 623–637.
94. Gilead I. Grar. Beer Sheva VII. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; 1995.
95. Pottery Neolithic ceramic spindle whorl from Sha’ar Hagolan, Israel Antiquities Authority. Available:
https://www.antiquities.org.il/t/Item.aspx?pic_id=2&CurrentPageKey=1&q= שער+הגולן &searchcond=
and&mosaics_dict_id=759%2C974%2C229
96. Roux V, Corbetta D. The Potter’s Wheel: Craft Specialization and Technical Competence. New-Delhi:
Oxford and IBH Publishing; 1989.
96. Roux V, Corbetta D. The Potter’s Wheel: Craft Specialization and Technical Competence. New-Delhi:
Oxford and IBH Publishing; 1989.
97. Potter’s wheel with lumps of clay from Beth Yerah. The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Available: https://
www.imj.org.il/en/collections/392918-0
98. Bonda
´r M. Prehistoric Wagon Models in the Carpathian Basin (3500–1500 BC). Budapest: Archaeo-
lingua Foundation; 2012.
99. Avilova LI, Gey AN. on the Construction Features of Wheeled Vehicles in Iran and Mesopotamia
(Third To First Millennia Bc). Archaeol Ethnol Anthropol Eurasia. 2018; 46: 41–48. https://doi.org/10.
17746/1563-0110.2018.46.3.041–048
100. Golden chariot from Takht-i Kuwad, 7th-6th century BC, the British Musem. Available: https://www.
britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1897-1231-7
101. Smil V. World history and energy. Encycl Energy. 2004; 6: 549–561.
102. Feldman-Wood F. The spinning wheel as a tool: A pictorial history. Chron Early Am Ind Assoc Inc.
2001; 160: 5.
103. Rooijakkers CT. Spinning animal fibres at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria? Pale
´orient. 2012; 38:
93–109. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2012.5461
104. Heidkamp B. Spinning Through Time: An Analysis of Pottery Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze
I Spindle Whorl Assemblages from the Southern Levant. University of Cincinnati. 2018.
105. Montell G. Spinning tools and methods in Asia. In: Sylwan V, editor. Woolen Textiles of the Lou-lan
People. Stockholm: Archaeology; 1941. pp. 109–125.
106. Bouza Koster J. From spindle to loom: Weaving in the Southern Argolid. Expedition. 1976; 19: 29–39.
107. Horner J. The evolution of the flax spinning spindle. Proc Inst Mech Eng. 1912; 83: 185–706.
108. Schick T. A 10,000 year old comb from Wadi Murabba’at in the Judean Desert. Atiqot. 1995; 27: 199–
202.
109. Shamir O. Continuity and discontinuity in Neolithic and Chalcolithic linen textile production in the south-
ern Levant. In: Schier W, Pollock S, editors. The Competition of Fibres Early Textile Production in
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 21 / 22
Western Asia, South-East and Central Europe (10,000–500 BC). Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow;
2020. pp. 27–37.
110. Bar-Yosef O. The Neolithic Revolution in the Fertile Crescent and the origins of fibre technology. In:
Schier W, Pollock S, editors. The Competition of Fibres Early Textile Production in Western Asia,
South-East and Central Europe (10,000–500 BC). Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow; 2020. pp. 5–15.
111. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New-York: Free Press; 1995.
112. Weitzman ML. Recombinant growth. Q J Econ. 1998; CXII: 331–360.
113. Schoenmakers W, Duysters G. The technological origins of radical inventions. Res Policy. 2010; 39:
1051–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.013
114. Arts S, Veugelers R. Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention. Ind
Corp Chang. 2015; 24: 1215–1246. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtu029
115. Arthur WB. The structure of invention. Res Policy. 2007; 36: 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.
2006.11.005
116. O’Brien MJ, Shennan SJ. Issues in anthropological studies of innovation. In: O’Brien MJ, Shennan SJ,
editors. Innovation in Cultural Systems Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology. Massachu-
setts: The MIT Press; 2010. pp. 3–18.
117. Roux V. A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change: Application to the emer-
gence of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. J Archaeol Method Theory. 2003; 10: 1–30. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1022869912427
118. Roux V, De Miroschedji P. Revisiting the history of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. Levant.
2009; 41: 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1179/007589109X12484491671095
119. The
´r R, Mangel T, Gregor M. Potter’s wheel in the Iron Age in central Europe: Process or product inno-
vation? J Archaeol Method Theory. 2017; 24: 1256–1299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9312-0
120. Bonda
´r M. Prehistoric innovations: Wheels and wheeled vehicles. Acta Archaeol Acad Sci Hungari-
cae. 2018; 69: 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1556/072.2018.69.2.3
121. Burmeister S. Early wagons in Eurasia: Disentangling an enigmatic innovation. In: Maran J, Stockham-
mer PW, editors. Appropriating Innovations Entangled Knowledge in Eurasia, 5000–1500 BC. Oxford:
Oxbow books; 2017. pp. 69–77.
122. Childe VG. The first waggons and warts—from the Tigris to the Severn. Proc Prehist Soc. 1951; 17:
177–194.
123. Bakker JA, Kruk J, Lanting AE, Milisauskas S. The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles in Europe
and the Near East. Antiquity. 1999; 73: 778–790. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00065522
124. Klimscha F. Transforming technical know-how in time and space. Using the Digital Atlas of innovations
to understand the innovation process of animal traction and the wheel. J Anc Stud. 2017; 6: 16–63.
https://doi.org/10.17169/FUDOCS
125. Mesoudi A, Thornton A. What is cumulative cultural evolution? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2018; 285:
2018712. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0712 PMID: 29899071
126. Childe VG. Wheeled vehicles. In: Singer C, Holmyard EJ, Hall AR, editors. A History of Technology
Vol 1: From Early Times to the Fall of Ancient Empires. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1954. pp. 716–729.
127. Munro ND, Petrillo A, Grosman L. Specialized aquatic resource exploitation at the Late Natufian site of
Nahal Ein Gev II, Israel. Archaeol Anthropol Sci. 2021; 13: 1–15.
128. Henrich J. The evolution of innovation-enhancing institutions. In: O’Brien MJ, Shennan SJ, editors.
Innovation in Cultural Systems Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology. Massachusetts: MIT
Press; 2010. pp. 99–120.
129. Dow GK, Reed CG. The origins of sedentism: Climate, population, and technology. J Econ Behav
Organ. 2015; 119: 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.07.007
130. de Saulieu G, Testart A. Innovations, food storage and the origins of agriculture. Environ Archaeol.
2015; 20: 314–320. https://doi.org/10.1179/1749631414y.0000000061
131. Zeder MA. The Neolithic macro-(r)evolution: Macroevolutionary theory and the study of culture
change. J Archaeol Res. 2009; 17: 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-008-9025-3
PLOS ONE
12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312007 November 13, 2024 22 / 22
Content uploaded by Talia Yashuv
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Talia Yashuv on Nov 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.