How Harappan is a Harappan Site?

Mary A. Davis1

1. Faulkner House Drew University, 36 Madison Ave, Madison NJ – 07940, USA (Email: [email protected]; [email protected])

Received: 28 September 2015; Accepted: 19 October 2015; Revised: 07 November 2015 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3 (2015): 300‐329

Abstract: The identification of a site as Harappan or Non‐Harappan has been previously based on the presence of a few diagnostic pottery types. The assignment of these designations affects scholarly understandings by obscuring cultural variation, interactions and pluralism, particularly in borderland regions. Here a more nuanced approach is suggested for understanding the many ways “Harappan” might have existed at the site level. Sites may have been differentially integrated into the Harappan sphere politically, economically or ideologically. Archaeological correlates for each of these are evaluated and proposed. Alternative Harappan markers proposed include items such as terracotta cakes and Rohri‐like blades.

Keywords: Harappan, Site Identification, Archaeological Culture, Gujarat, Sorath, Classic Harappan, Borderlands

Introduction The Indus Civilization is amongst the earliest urbanized societies in the world. It is comprised of thousands of known sites that are of multiple sizes and levels of complexity. These sites share similar material culture and physical organization across a one million square kilometer area (Kenoyer 1989) that straddles the area of modern‐ day Pakistan and Northwest India. The Integration Era or the urban phase of the Indus Tradition is known as the Harappan Phase. It is characterized by widespread and common styles of pottery and other material culture including writing, seals, weights and uniform bricks and is characterized by extensive interregional trade including two areas such as Mesopotamia, and perhaps even greater distances (Vidale 2005).

The Harappan Phase is the most well‐studied of all the phases of the greater Indus Tradition. During this phase we have a largely urbanized landscape and the most complex arrangements of social interactions, political decision‐making and trade and interaction, many aspects of which we still strive to understand. The Harappan Phase is one that has been fairly well dated (2600‐1900 BCE) at sites such as Harappa. However the geographic borders of what is encompassed within the Harappan phase, the nature of these borders, and what is and is not truly Harappan can be disputed e.g. (Chase 2010; Fuller 2006; Law 2011; Possehl 1976, 2002a; Kenoyer 2008; Varma 1990). Davis 2015: 300‐329

What is Harappan? There is an archaeological tradition of naming a culture complex after the site in which those types of artifacts were first discovered. In this case the site of Harappa, on the Ravi River in the Pakistani Punjab. The suite of commonly cited materials include “Harappan” Black on Red decorated ceramics in various forms, such as S‐Shaped or Dish‐on –stand and other typically non‐decorated pottery such as perforated jars. Additional hallmarks include baked and raw bricks with a ratio of 1:2:4 (Kenoyer 1998), a shared script, stylistically similar seals, a standardized system of weights (Miller 2013; Kenoyer 2010), Rohri –like chert blade technology, terracotta figurines, terracotta “cakes” and similar ornaments such as steatite and carnelian beads and shell bangles. The material culture of the Indus Civilization is traditionally described as being very homogeneous, even lamentably monotonous (Mackay 1938a).

More recently the variation of the different cities, sub regions (Joshi, Bala and Ram 1984), polities (Smith 2004) or domains (Possehl 1998, 1999) is being increasingly investigated and understood diachronically and synchronically (Ameri 2013; Miller 2013; Possehl 1992, 2002a; Shaffer and Lichtenstein 1999; Shinde et al. 2008; Weber 1999; Uesugi 2013). Study of variation has been somewhat hindered due to recent modern political histories and limitations in international communication, scholarly collaboration and interaction with foreign sites and materials for Harappan scholars on both sides of the Indian‐Pakistani border. Many of the worlds’ leading scholars of the Harappan periods never have visited or viewed the bulk of materials from the urban centers of Harappa and Mohenjodaro in the Indus Valley proper. In turn the extremely important findings throughout the Ghaggar‐Hakra region and Gujarat which vary in size from large urban centers such as Rakhigarhi and Dholavira to towns, villages and hamlets are somewhat obscured for Pakistani scholars.

Identifying Harappan Sites On practical level most often Harappan sites are identified and classified based on the presence of the diagnostic red on black ceramic sherds. But when we classify a site as Harappan on this basis what are we really identifying?

Pots are not people. It is the critical hymn of archaeologist to remind others and themselves that pots do not equate to groups of people, cultures or ethnicities(Kramer 1977). This mantra is at odds with the culture historical approach and system of organizing archaeological materials into “culture areas” (Kroeber 1939). In many modern archaeologies, particularly Anglo‐American, the archaeological culture concept has been considered outdated (Binford 1965; Clarke 1968; Renfrew 1978; Hodder 1978), and are often rooted in nationalist and colonialist ideals (Kohl and Gollán 2002; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Kane 2003; Meskell 2002; Diaz‐Andreu and Champion 2014; Graves‐Brown, Jones and Gamble 2013). Other terms to replace culture i.e.(horizon, style, tradition, civilization) have been used in its place. These differently named but basically identical sets of features which were originally defined as cultures are still practically used for both regional chronologies and interpretive

301 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

lenses but without any further examination or assessment to what these wide spread similarities in time and space really mean (Roberts and Vander Linden 2011) or how they were maintained.

Harappan studies are not the only region of the world that falls into the trap of not marrying theory and practice. Worldwide ceramics, or occasionally burial practices, are most often used as the sole means of assigning a site to a culture area or tradition. More specifically, the stylistic aspects of ceramics, focusing on form and decoration, rather technological style (Lemonnier 1986, 1992), technology or function, have been used to recreate past social boundaries (Stark 1998) and identities and ethnicities. The processes of creating patterns of material culture distribution are complex, dynamic and can be due to a number of natural and cultural factors (Binford 1965; Hodder and Orton 1976; Schiffer 1976). Perhaps more importantly material culture style consumption and patterns have been shown not to reflect social boundaries, identities and ethnicities (Cruz 2011; Cordell and Yannie 1991; Shennan 2003).

To reveal the complex intra workings and dynamics of social, economic, and political interaction that form a “culture area” we need to examine not only variation in the styles of defining material culture (i.e. ceramics, diagnostic lithics or burials) but a wider range of archaeological material classes from stylistic, technological, and functional perspectives.

Harappan Borderlands An important key to understanding the relationship between the style, technology, and function in Harappan material culture and to begin to tease apart the issues of political, economic, and social affiliation and identity within the 3rd millennium in Northwest South Asia lies in the study of areas of the “Harappan Frontier”. Those areas that feature Harappan sites, non‐Harappan sites and those sites that are mixtures of more than one material culture tradition or display “hybridization”. These borderlands or frontiers would have been dynamic areas where social relationships and group interaction took place. The relationships and interaction that occur at a small scale can be reflected in larger material culture and other archaeological patterning, which would change over time to reflect shifts in social, economic and political relationships (Hu 2013).

Unlike areas along the Indus River system that are subject to sometimes violent flooding events, the sites in Cholistan, along the Hakra river system and in Gujarat represent many sized contemporary sites preserved in the archaeological record. While some small sites hint at the pastoral aspect within what is sometimes considered the Harappan heartland, such as Allahdino, have been explored we are yet to fully understand these dynamics and nature of interaction with pastoral and rural groups within Sindh and the Punjab. Gujarat is a key area of Harappan studies. This area is particularly important because it represents a cultural mosaic more so than any other area where Harappan material culture is found. The ceramic typologies and

302 Davis 2015: 300‐329 chronologies in Gujarat are notoriously complex, with styles consisting of Pre‐Prabhas, Prabhas, Padri, Anarta Wares, traditional Early Harappan such as KotDiji and Amri‐ Nal Wares, Micaceous Red Ware, Lustrous Red Ware, Sorath Harappan styles, Sindhi/Classic Harappan styles and Black and Red ware appearing in Gujarat during the Indus Tradition.

There is some ambiguity between these styles and wares, as well chronological and geographic overlaps and “leapfrogs”. Many sites have these phases that occur in different orders or co‐occur at various frequencies. Often the same site, such as Surkotada, has drastically different material culture in each of its phases (Herman 1997). In some cases sites are labeled as belonging to one material culture tradition even if other components are as plentiful or even makeup a larger percentage of the overall assemblage. Some scholars have attempted to systematize the assignment of sites to a tradition with set values, for example designating sites as part of the Anarata Tradition if those sites have at least 10% Anarta ware (Ajithprasad and Sonawane 1993).

There are also hybrid wares in which forms are made with different fabrics such as the stud‐handled bowl or Sindhi Harappan perforated jars in Gritty Red ware fabric (Harris 2011), Micaceous Red Ware forms in Harappan Red Ware fabrics (Rao 1985), and fast‐wheel made Dish‐on Stands made from fabrics associated with Anarta Gritty Redware (Ajithprasad and Sonawane 1993:13). To further complicate matters Microlithic components have been reported along Mature and Late Harappan deposits in Gujarat (Bhan 2011) which indicate that alongside Chalcolithic and urban traditions some communities were potentially maintaining aspects of hunter‐gatherer life ways at sites like Langhnaj (Clutton‐Brock 1965).

An overview of the historic and recent excavations and re‐evaluation of Gujarat as a integral part rather than in periphery of the Harappan system has recently been completed by several scholars (Rajesh 2011; Shirvalkar 2013; Bhan 2011). Old models concerning the Harappan phase in Gujarat were implicitly or explicitly connected to projections of colonialism or migration of Sindhi or other Harappans to Gujarat (Agrawal and Sood 1982; Bisht 1989; Joshi and Bala 1982; Rao 1979; Sankalia 1973; Soundarajan 1984; Dhavalikar 1994). However the views on 4th and 3rd millennium Gujarati landscape and archaeological cultures are evolving and these old ideas are being re‐evaluated.

The often now combined Padri‐ Anarta (Sonawane and Ajithprasad 1994; Shirvalkar 2013) ceramics of Gujarat are contemporary with Early Harappan Amrian (II) and Baluchi traditions in their respective regions and within their appearances in Gujarat. The sites with these Early Harappan wares at times have local variation in form or decor that are unique to their individual sites (i.e. Nagwada and MotiPipli) (Harris 2011). If we accept the Sorath Harappan as an indigenous Gujarati Harappan regional variation, and if the Padri‐Anarta tradition is indeed the precursor to the Sorath

303 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

Harappan, then the Padri‐Anarta can be considered an Early Harappan phase the equivalent to Kot Dijian, Sothi or Amerian phases. This relationship could explain why Anarta ware is associated with Early Harappan, Sindhi Harappan and post‐urban Rangpur wares but rarely with Sorath Harappan. If the Padri‐Anarta tradition is equivalent to other Early Harappan traditions the fact that Anarta wares are found alongside most of the Mature Harappan sites of Gujarat (Bhan 2011) and later sites would actually parallel other regions. Such as in Cholistan where Hakra wares continue throughout the Early, Mature and Late Harappan phases (Mughal 1990).

The Harappan sites of Gujarat vary from large urban centers like Dholavira (approximately 70 hectares) (Bisht 2015) to what can best be described as small pastoralist camps that are less than a hectare. The term Harappan has recently come to include Classic (or Sindhi) Harappan and Sorath Harappan sites. The type site for Sorath Harappan sites is Rojdi (Possehl and Raval 1989a) but also includes the important sites of Bokhira (Gaur and Joglekar 2006), Jaidak (Ajithprasad 2008), JuniKuran (Pramanik 2004), Pabumath (Joshi and Allchin 1972), Padri (Shinde 1992) and Rangupr (Rao 1963).

Unlike Indus Valley sites, Sorath sites have simple “non‐planned” architecture (Ajithprasad 2008)and buildings are stone and mud rather than baked bricks and mud brick. Sorath Harappan sites are typically small, Rojdi is 7 hectares and is the largest (Possehl and Raval 1989b). The average size about 5.3 hectares (Possehl 1980). They display relatively simple material culture compared to other urban regions with no stamp seals, and little or no writing i.e. (one sherd from Rojdi) (Possehl and Raval 1989c), and few ornaments. Sorath sites typically lack terracotta figurines, Indus goblets, S‐form jars, perforated handles, and tea cups. While the forms such as dish‐on‐ stand are similar, the black‐on red designs associated with Sindhi or classic Harappan sites are absent (Possehl and Rissman 1983). Additionally Sorath ceramics have unique forms such as the stud‐ handled bowls, convex sided bowls, the Saurashtra “lamp” and dish shapes (Herman 1997). Another striking difference between Sorath Harappan and Classic Harappan sites in Gujarat is the lack of any substantial craft activity at Sorath Sites (Bhan 2011); while even the small sites with Classic Harappan components such as Bagasra (GolaDhoro) (Bhan and Gowda 2003; Bhan et al. 2004), Nageshwar (Hegde et al. 1990a; Bhan and Kenoyer 1980; Sonawane et al. 2003), Lothal (Rao 1973), and Nagawda (Hegde et al. 1988; Hegde et al. 1990b; Bhan and Gowda 2003) (see also Sonawane 1992) have overwhelming evidence for craft production.

In Rajesh’s (2011:179) extensive overview of Gujarati sites, 546 sites were classified as “Urban Harappan”, with Sorath and Classic Harappan often not distinguished in the literature. However most of the Classic Harappan sites are concentrated in Kachchh (Kutch), nearby Kachchh or along the ancient coast. Whereas most of the Sorath Harappan sites are located within the interior of Saurashtra (Rajesh 2011; Bhan 2011). Within Gujarat as a whole, a majority of these “Urban Harappan” sites show more affinity to Sorath Harappan than Classic Harappan (Rajesh 2011). Classic Harappan

304 Davis 2015: 300‐329 sites in Gujarat also have Sorath, Anarta, and other components (Sonawane et al. 2003; Bisht 2015; Bhan et al. 2005; Kharakwal, Rawat and Osada 2009; Rao 1979, 1985; Dhavalikar, Raval and Chitalwala 1996; Hegde et al. 1990a; Bhan and Ajithprasad 2008; Herman 1997).

Harappan Pluralism Many of these sites are pluralistic in that they have multiple ceramic traditions and other markers of archaeological cultures contemporaneously. This pluralism is potentially highly informative about the dynamic and complex nature the sites. It also can be used to evaluate the very nature of political, economic and social organization and identity of each of the individual cultures. In the past we have perhaps downplayed or overlooked this pluralism in favor of labeling a site as Harappan because of the presence of some Harappan style material culture, even if it does not dominate the archaeological assemblage. While the moniker it is a useful chronological marker, it may also be done consciously or unconsciously to increase the prestige of the site. This idea of some cultures being more prestigious or superior to another is a deeply embedded remnant of the colonial mindset. Our emphasis on the “Harappan” aspect perhaps tells us more about our own prejudices about urban and rural people or written and oral traditions than it does about the realities and dynamics of the past.

In addition to regional variation, the Harappan society would have included various ethnicities, languages, religions, ideologies, and political and social groups. (Fairservis 1967; Kenoyer 1994, 2005; Lamberg‐Karlovsky 1999; Malik 1968; Miller 1985; Parpola 1994; Possehl 1998; Clark 2007). The urban nature of Harappan Phase sites would have a unique development in which diverse groups of persons with competing interests would be living in close quarters and dependent upon each other as a result of increased specialization. The development of urban environments with diverse and dense populations leads to a development of a fundamental transformation of human relations from exclusively kin‐based social networks or at least long‐known persons, to interactions that are based primarily with strangers and kin relationships are supplemented or supplanted by non‐kin interactions (Smith 2003).

The urbanized landscapes include both the city centers and the various sized villages and rural areas and these kin and non‐kin networks which extend beyond the centers and altered their economics, social, and political relationships over a greater distance. However the social interactions of these non‐ urban centers would not include the same level of complexities and unique urban experience as the centers. We should be careful therefore of applying the term “urban” as a descriptor for sites and cultures (e.g. Sorath Harappans) which may or may not have been engaged with a contemporary larger urbanized landscape to varying degrees but did not have the same complexities, challenges, and opportunities as within the large urban centers. Possehl’s use of “urban phase” rather than Indus Civilization accomplishes his goal of suggesting that all Harappan sites need not be like Indus Valley Harappan sites (Possehl 1999, 2002a) but it does impose a loaded term which should be used critically

305 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

and thoughtfully. In a recent publication by Chase et al. (2014), an excellent approach to studying identity in the Guajarati border regions of the Indus Tradition was undertaken. This study focused primarily on the ornaments and domestic practice. This focus is surely a more productive and intricate approach for understanding the complexity of identity in this region and should used as a guideline for understanding intra‐regional variation and the plurality of identities in other borderlands and within the heartland of the Indus Civilization.

Measuring the “Harappaness” At the individual and household level there is expected to be variation in the flexible and situational identity of individuals within sites. However at the site level a measure of “Harappaness” will be useful to understand regional and chronological variation. The exploration of geographic and diachronic variation one of the most important areas of research in contemporary Harappan studies, however we need to a way to distinguish between the various interpretations of Harappan and unique local traditions which may have been interacting with Harappans in varying degrees and adopting aspects of the Harappan culture, both material and otherwise, selectively and purposefully.

This paper is intended to instigate a critical evaluation of which sites are classified as Harappan and why. It is also intended to ignite explicit discussion of the meaningful adoption and inclusion of Harappan material culture within sites throughout the regions within and on the borderlands of the greater Indus Tradition. The adoption and presence of some aspects of the suite of Harappan material culture, and perhaps the absence of other aspects is important to understanding both how an individual site fits into the larger regional milieu and providing insight into larger diachronic and cultural processes in proto‐historic Northwest South Asia and beyond.

In order to evaluate the not only the degree of integration and interaction within the Harappan sphere but the nature of it, as well, I have created several gross categories of integration. These categories are political, ideological and economic. There is significant variation in the discernibility in each of these categories with economic integration being more readily appreciable than political and ideological integration. Within each of these categories I provide a discussion of examples of aspects of material culture and the archaeological record that relate the categories. These examples are not exhaustive and several important aspects of material culture are not included. Both these examples and the categories themselves are not isolated or independent and there is substantial overlap between these artificially imposed terms and concepts created to enhance clarity. Only some of this overlap is recognized within this article.

Features of Political Integration There little evidence for political integration of Indus cities in the traditional sense. However there is integration of cities and regions through ideological (Possehl 1990)

306 Davis 2015: 300‐329 and socio‐economic connections (Kenoyer 1992, 1994). However there are several artifact classes that are associated with control by authorities. There are many materials that could have been controlled through the monopolization or regulation of raw material sources, or the division of crafting stages and knowledge (Kenoyer 1989, 1994). However many everyday and utilitarian materials display no evidence of control. Here I will focus on two technologies that are the have the strongest evidence for control and political authority and salience. The presence of such technologies would be highly suggestive of the political centrality of a site within the greater Indus sphere.

One technology that was likely controlled through specialized knowledge would have been stoneware bangles (Kenoyer 1994). Black terracotta bangles are common in the KotDiji period but the black high‐fired stoneware was only developed at the end of the Harappan phase at Harappa and Mohenjo‐daro and a few other sites. The use of architecture, firing within a closed container and the use of sealings at Mohenjodaro suggest that physical obstruction was used to restrict the technology used to produce stoneware (Halim 1984). There is generally much more extensive evidence for stoneware bangles being made Mohenjodaro than at Harappa (Miller 2000) and they may have been to restricted use at the site since all the examined bangles at Mohenjodaro were also produced there (Blackman and Vidale 1992). The presence of stoneware bangles while restricted to major sites of the Indus may represent specific political exchanges that did not extend to minor sites.

Another technology that seems to have been controlled was seal manufacture (Rissman 1989). At this time there are no excavated seal workshops so the direct study of control of production cannot be investigated through analysis of archaeological context. Possible direct control has been seen in the excavated faience and steatite bead workshop that also was producing inscribed tablets at Harappa (Meadow, Kenoyer and Wright 2001). The waste of this production was not discarded but appear to have been kept in a single area (Kenoyer 2005; Kenoyer and Miller 2007).

Features of Economic Integration There are several potential lines of Harappan integration and interaction evidence that best fit under the economic description. Some artifact classes are traditionally associated with the act of exchange. Other artifact classes are trade goods that I argue have different implications into the nature and level of integration within the Harappan sphere. Two artifacts classes that are most readily associated with economic exchange include Harappan style weights and seals.

Artifacts of Exchange The Indus systems of weights, script and seals suggest that there was a unifying force or ideological agreement that allowed for extensive trade. Miller (2013) has argued that any organization that could set and enforce a weight system over an area larger than Egyptian and Mesopotamian Civilizations combined with more accuracy than

307 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

contemporary systems would have had considerable political power through this ability if nothing else. While the uniformity of this system is extremely standardized, it is possible that two systems were in use: the typical “pan‐Indus system” based on 1.2 grams and a separate base seven system seen at Lothal and Harappa. The latter may have been used for trade in the eastern extents of the Indus Tradition with non‐Indus groups located within Gujarat, northwestern India or Central Asia (Miller 2013). The use of the Harappan weight system however may not necessarily be a clear indication of economic integration or affiliation as applied to “Kulli” or “Sorath” Harappans. As it was present in clearly non‐Harappan sites, perhaps as an equivalent of a linga franca of measurement. Examples of Harappan style weights can be found in Oman (Potts 2000; Vogt 1996; Cleuziou and Vogt 1985), Bahrain(Carter 2001; Crawford 1997; Højlund, Andersen and Callot 1994; Roaf 1982), Mesopotamia (Ratnagar 1981), and Susa (Belaiew 1934; Amiet 1986). The widespread adoption of the weight system may instead be a testament of the increased interaction and the importance of economic exchanges across many cultures during the 3rd millennium and early 2ndmillennium, analogous to the widespread adoption of the metric system in the mid to late 1800s (Cox 1956). Alternatively the relatively low frequency of weights at such sites may indicate the presence of individual traders and not only economic exchanges but interregional social and political relationships (Ratnagar 2003).

The use of seals with script and animal motifs have invited a fair amount of speculation, however there is a general consensus that they functioned not only in practical economic matters but also as a marker of elite status (Frenez and Tosi 2005; Kenoyer and Miller 1999) and of clan membership, kinship or other identities (Fairservis 1986; Ratnagar 1991; Vidale 2005; Kenoyer 2011), including regional affiliation (Ameri 2013). The seals may have been worn by their owners (Kenoyer 1998) or by their representatives. These seals are the core examples of the writing system, with a few other extant examples

The general uniformity and relative rarity of seals and writing suggest that some control was exerted in the use and certainly the production of the technology. The script is associated with economic dealings, administration and ideology and was used by elite populations and perhaps merchants (, 2008). Seals are found at sites that are both large and small, but occur in limited numbers possibly suggesting that only a segment of society “owned” stamp seals (Possehl 1990). Square seals with Harappan style elements and script are also found in various sites that are unambiguously non‐ Harappan, such as those found throughout the Arabian Gulf, Iran, and Mesopotamia(Mackay 1925a; ʺThe Joint Hadd Project: summary report on the second season,ʺ 1988; Gibson 1976; Brunswig, Parpola and Potts 1983; Collon 1996a; Parpola 1994). Additionally Indus script was used on non‐Harappan gulf seals throughout Bahrain and other locations in the Gulf, Mesopotamia, Iran and other places in South Asia (Gadd 1932; Mackay 1938a; Kjaerum 1983; Kjærum 1994; Srivastava 1991; Langdon 1931; Amiet 1972; Winkelmann 1999; Collon 1996b; Parpola 1994; Vidale 2005; Larsen 2003; Ameri 2010).Like Indus system weights, the presence of seals and

308 Davis 2015: 300‐329 potentially writing itself in the form of graffiti may be an indication of interaction and the presence of Harappans but not that the site itself was necessarily economically fully integrated into the Harappan system.

Trade Goods There was a highly developed and extensive network of trade relationships within the Indus Valley and the surrounding regions. The geographic distribution of many these exchange networks have begun to be understood in large part to the provenience work of Randall Law and others (Law 2008a; Prabhakar, Garge and Law 2010; Law and Burton 2006; Nath, Law and Garge 2014).These trade goods included prestigious items with highly localized sources (i.e. carnelian, lapis lazuli, other hard stone beads, shell bangles, etc.), items that involved complex technologies or labor investment (i.e. black slipped jars) and those which were fairly utilitarian with relatively simple technologies (i.e. Rohri blades). The presence of prestigious or specialized finished goods certainly would indicate the social, political or economic power of the site and may be a good indication of access to Harappan exchange networks. However like seals, script, and weights such artifacts occur outside of the region in places like Oman (Méry and Blackman 1996) and may not be the best measure of the “Harappaness” of a site.

In contrast the presence of utilitarian items such as Rohri‐ like cherts and crested‐ridge blades maybe a better indicator of how fully integrated a site was into the Harappan economic exchange system. Rather than focusing on the presence of a few exotic and specialized goods that occur both within and outside the Harappan sphere, and may not be present small sites with low economic, political and social power. We should examine the far more common utilitarian exchange goods, the use of which would cross‐cut status and may reflect regular trade rather than relatively rare events. I suggest that the relative proportion of items like Rohri Hills blades could be taken as a direct indication of a site’s integration within the Harappan exchange networks.

The distribution of Rohri type long blades is extensive and nearly exclusively used within the core of the Harappan area during the Integration Era (Allchin 1979; Kenoyer 1984; Pelegrin 1994; Inizan and Lechevallier 1997; Cleland 1977; Hoffman and Cleland 1977; Bondioli et al 1984; Vidale 2000 Pelegrin 1994; Lechevallier 1979; Inizan and Lechevallier 1995, Inizan and Lechevallier 1997; Inizan, Lechevallier and Pelegrin 1994; Law 2008; Dales 1974) and is absent at sites that include those which are labeled as KotDijiand not Harappan in the northern extents of the region during the Integration Era such as the sites of Rehman Dheri (Durrani 1988), Lewan (Morris and Thomas 2002) Gumla, and Hathala (Dani 1970; Law and Baqri 2001; Khan 1983). When examining the lithic sub‐assemblage it not only the raw material is an indicator of exchange but the technological, stylistic and potentially the functionality of the artifact can be evaluated as “Harappan” or not. Within South Asian lithic traditions microlithic traditions are widespread chronologically (over 35,000 years) (Clarkson et al. 2009) and are non‐diagnostic (Sankalia 1962; Meadow and Patel 2003; Misra 2002). In the pre‐ Harappan levels of the Indus area many sites utilized various microlithic traditions

309 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

such as Sarai Khola (Cleland 1977c), Sheri Khan Tarakai (Hook, Ashton and Morris 2001), Kalibangan (Lal 1979) and Allahdino (Hoffman and Shaffer 1977).

This lithic strategy was largely replaced by crested ridged blades core preparation technique and a blade focused strategy in the Indus region. Though it is also reported to a lesser extent utilizing local quartzes in the Deccan Plateau at sites such as Gilund, which also utilized the burin spall technique (Raczek 2007). Gujarati sites widely considered to be “non‐Harappan”, such as Loteshwar (Ajithprasad 2004) and Orsang valley (Ajitprasad 2002) lack evidence for this method of core and blade preparation, and Rohri‐ like chert. In contrast sites in Gujarat that have been traditionally labeled as “Classic” Harappan often have assemblages dominated by Rohrichert blade technologies, sometimes with a smaller percentage of microliths made of local materials (Gadekar et al. 2014; Bisht 2014: 780; Joshi 1970; Rao 1985; Law 2007). At Dholavira chemical analysis suggests that 99% of the long blades were made of Rohri‐ like chert (Bisht 2015) and used in a “roughly equal degree” with milky white chalcedony, but there was a paucity in the Tan‐grey chert cores. This suggests that the Rohri‐like chert was arriving in Dholavira mostly as long blades, whereas the local material was being worked on site. The importation of the majority of the blades as finished or nearly finished goods is typical of Harappan sites, which generally lack a proportional representation of cores or production debris. However some production was taking place outside the immediate acquisition area, particularly at larger or regionally productive sites such as Harappa (Davis in press), Mohenjo‐daro (Kenoyer 1984; Cleland 1977a), Lothal (Rao 1985), Shikarpur (Gadekar, Rajesh and Ajithprasad 2014), Mehrgarh and Nasharo (Pelegrin 1994; Lechevallier 1979; Inizan and Lechevallier 1997; Inizan, Lechevallier and Pelegrin 1994), possibly at Rahkigarhi (Nath 2014a) and others.

There is a dominate pattern of the majority of production being near the raw material sources in chert chipped stone industries at sites such as KotDiji (Cleland 1977b; Khan 1965) and various Rohri Hills sites (Shaikh, Mallah and Veesar 2002; Negrino et al. 1996; Starnini and Biagi 2011; Biagi, Negrino and Starnini 1997; Negrino and Starnini 1995; Biagi and Pessina 1994). This pattern is replicated in other studies and highlights the importance of even some small sites as highly involved in larger Harappan exchange networks. Small sites with Classic Harappan and obvious non‐Harappan ceramic elements (Hegde et al. 1988; Bhan et al. 2004)in Gujarat have a unambiguous stone bead and marine shell (Bhan and Gowda 2003; Hegde et al. 1990a) specialized craft production well beyond the potential needs of the site and with limited evidence for consumption. This system of small sites supplying both finished goods and raw materials with other Harappan sites is one that is as important as economic networks in which sites were consuming Harappan goods however it should be considered a separate arrangement and type of economic integration.

Our models of the mechanisms and nature of these exchanges are still in the germinal stages. Law (2008:274‐5) has argued that certain communities may have held

310 Davis 2015: 300‐329 monopolies on certain raw material resources such as particular stones and minerals that could have been fashioned into ornaments, such as lapis or carnelian or used in craft production such as ernestite drills or Rohri chert. The preferential and often exclusive appearance of particular raw material sources such as Rohri chert and steatite which fires white, may indicate elite control of supply and supply chains (Law 2008a). More competitive raw material networks may have existed, particularly for copper that was potentially recycled, (Hoffman and Miller 2014) or the bulky ground stones with long use lives, which come for increasingly far distances in the Integration Era even when closer resources may be available (Law 2008b).

The breakdown of these trade and interaction networks during the Localization Era (1900‐1300 BC) may indicate the role that elites may have previously held in the creation and maintenance, if not control, over long distance trade. Alternatively it could be the loss of a demand for these goods due to changes in hegemony, mobility, and ideology rather than the loss of the existence of elites. Perhaps tellingly the decline in trade was not limited to the potentially ideologically laden goods such as white firing steatite or carnelian, but was also mirrored with the decline in accessibility of utilitarian goods such as Rohri cherts for stone tools.

Features of Ideological Integration In this discussion I use the concept of ideology to cover not only aspects of society that are traditionally considered ideological but use it as an umbrella term that covers social or many other aspects of culture. Here I am extending ideological integration to include indications of the value system, domestic signatures, public infrastructure and architecture.

Value System of Goods and Ornamentation The creation, consumption and escalating technology used in the creation of exotic or other luxury goods is a necessity of political rule and maintaining hierarchies. This may be because labor and technology are more important to control by elites in a complex state system (Bhan, Vidale and Kenoyer 2002). There is also evidence of clear expressions of trade secrecy and relatively constant renegotiation and competition between traders and craftspeople or those that controlled crafts (see discussion of control above).

Certain items of the traditional Harappan repertoire have been identified as valuable and the range of goods, particularly in artificial materials, expanded to meet the need to display status in the increasing social complexity of an urbanized environment during the Integration Era (Vidale 2000; Vidale and Miller 2001; Miller and Barton 2008; Moore et al. 1994). The relative value of objects can be gauged by the approach of Vidale and Miller (Vidale and Miller 2001), drawing from Kenoyer’s framework (Kenoyer 1989; Kenoyer and Meadow 2000), by plotting the availability of raw material on one axis of variation against the relative elaborateness of the technological processes. Within the Indus objects, which would be considered of low value because

311 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

of their low levels of technological elaboration and the ready availability of raw material, would include terracotta objects and simple pottery. Objects that were made from relatively available raw material that required elaborate technologies might include faience beads and specialized pottery. Stone tools could be considered a technology of moderate value because the raw material was not readily available but the technology that produced them, while specialized and skillful, was not elaborate.

The objects of highest value would have been fashioned by highly elaborate technologies from relatively rare or hard to access raw materials, such as the long carnelian beads. It should be kept in mind that the availability of raw material would change based upon site location and therefore such classification of Indus objects should be made for each site or region and not for the Indus Tradition as a whole. Likewise the relative elaboration of technology and fluctuation in the networks of exchange would make these classifications temporally dynamic. It has been suggested by Miller that labor and technological skill may have played a more important role than scarcity when establishing the value in the Integration Era ideology and system of symbolism (Miller and Barton 2008). Such a value system should be reflected at ideologically integrated Harappan site and variation or preference for exotic materials would be a sign of important variation. An example of extremely complex and labor intensive crafts would be the Harappan style micro bead. While steatite beads were extremely common throughout the greater region, only Harappan (Integration Era) beads achieved the incredibly small size (.0004‐.0006 g and .75 to .85 mm in diameter) (Kenoyer 2010). The smallest version of steatite beads may be limited in their distribution by economic, social and political power. However the existence of steatite beads at the site may be an indicator of a similar value system that has been outlined as typically described as Harappan. However the wide spread distribution of these beads to sites that not considered to be Harappan e.g (Dhavalikar and Ansari 1975; Vidale and Miller 2001)in the region suggest this might be a cross‐cultural common feature within South Asia.

Items of high value would be expected to be traded extensively among both Harappan and non‐Harappan elites. Items such as Indus carnelian beads were traded extensively in the Old World (Mackay 1925b; During‐Caspers 1971; Possehl 1996; Kenoyer 1986, 2001; Ludvik et al. 2015; Heskel 1984; Woolley 1934; Kenoyer 2008) along with many other items i.e. (Chakrabarti 1990; Méry and Blackman 1996; Kenoyer 2008; Kenoyer, Price and Burton 2013; Possehl 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002a; Laursen 2010; Ratnagar 1981, 2001, 2003; Reade 2001). The trade of such valuable items or items that were exotic in nature may or may not have been an indication of participation in a larger Harappan value system. Likewise the absence or rarity of such highly valuable objects may not be an indication of ideological integration but of political or economic status and connectivity.

Importantly there is extensive documentation of ornaments made of mid‐value raw materials with complex technology (i.e. faience) or low value raw materials with

312 Davis 2015: 300‐329 simple materials (i.e. terracotta) that are imitations of high value raw materials or are otherwise similar in style (Kenoyer 2006; Kenoyer and Meadow 2000). In addition to beads, terracotta bangles appear to have been imitations of shell bangles (Kenoyer 1992; Kenoyer and Meadow 2000). An alternative explanation of terracotta imitations offered by Chase et al. (2014) is that these objects could have been child mimicry of adult ornamentation. In the case of either explanation as the cause for imitation of higher valued objects, the presence of such items implies a familiarity and shared system of style and value.

An additional artifact class cross‐cut status is shell bangles. These shell bangles were widely distributed across Integration Era sites, are largely associated with women and whose status may be reflected in the thickness of the bangle (Kenoyer 1991, 1997). They also appear to have special personal or ideological significance as they are one of the few common ornaments found with burials(, 1991). The presence of “Harappan” style shell bangles would be a strong indicator of ideological integration.

Harappan Domestic Signatures There are many artifact classes that would fall under the broader classification of the “Harappan domestic signature”. Many of these artifact classes are only beginning to be studied in detail. This designation would include what Kenoyer has termed “private” expressions of ideological integration (, 1997) such as cooking pots. In the borderland regions of Gujarat, at the site of Bagasara, Lindstrom (Lindstrom 2013) has analyzed a relatively low frequency of “Harappan” cooking pots but did not find any significant spatial distributions of Harappan and non‐Harappan ceramics, both for vessels considered to be “private” and “public” ideological expressions. This suggests that ideology particularly when expressed through ceramics maybe more complicated than first envisioned. In addition to cooking pots the widespread and distinctive Harappan perforated jars may be an additional signature of domestic activities, which may have been adopted beyond our traditional designations of Harappan. One distinctive ceramic type that might not be included in this discussion of domestic wares but deserves special mention are the pointed based goblets so common in the latest layers of the Intergration Era at sites such as Mohenjodaro and Harappa, but lacking in their true form in Gujarat (Bhan 2011) or Makran (Dales and Lipo 1992).

The work with terracotta cakes in Gujarat (Rajesh 2011; Chase et al. 2014) suggests that these rough chaff‐tempered objects of various forms that were likely related to cooking or other domestic tasks (Manuel 2010; Miller 1999) could possibly distinguish sites with a “Harappan domestic profile” from those who did not but still incorporated some of the suite of other Indus Valley material culture. Further support of their domestic function is evidenced the finding of unfired circular terracotta cakes in one of the few “intact” domestic contexts found anywhere for the Indus at Harappa (Trench 9, 1995). These terracotta cakes, along with terracotta lumps and spheres, come in a variety of shapes and styles such as round or triangular which may relate to their use and/or identity of the producers or consumers. I would add another archaeological signature

313 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

of the “Harappan Domestic Signature” would be the absence of spindle whorls that are present in pre‐Harappan periods (Kenoyer 2004).

Iconography and Motifs Iconography and motifs can be found in seals and sealings, among other items. Research of the stylistic regional variation of seals is ongoing (Ameri 2013; Rissman 1989) with intriguing results of regional variation with deep roots. The motifs of ceramics do not have a great deal of similarities with those found on the seals. A consensus is yet to be reached on why these iconographies are distinct but indicate they were used in different fields and contexts. Ceramic Motifs have been of lesser importance to vessel fabric (Thapar 1973)and morphology (Dales and Kenoyer 1986; Jenkins 1994). However important analysis and attention to the motifs (Mackay 1938a; Marshall 1931; Starr 1941; Rao 1963; Manchanda 1972; Joshi and Allchin 1972) and how they vary geographically (Panjwani and Sen 2011; Uesugi 2013; Dangi and Uesugi 2013) or temporally (Quivron 2000) is increasingly emerging and will play a vital role in comprehending Harappan variation and the interplay between symbolism, technology and style across the landscape.

Infrastructure Other major features of Indus urbanism are the water control systems and the roughly orthogonal or grid‐like layout. These features are unique to the Indus in the early urban sites of the old world. While some sites exhibit segmentation, and various degrees of decentralization, most ancient cities of the Old World, until the Greek expansion (Castagnoli 1971), are “organic” or unplanned. Or if they planned were not done so in an orthogonal or geometric way (see (Smith et al. 2007) for more detailed discussion). Orthogonal planning was very rare in the New World as well, existing only at Middle Horizon Wari and Late Horizon Inka sites in the Andes (Gasparini 1993; Hyslop 2014) and Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan in central Mexico (Arnauld, Manzanilla and Smith 2012). This style of urban layout is unambiguously indicative of central urban planning and regulation (Grant 2001). It is important to note that different sectors of the cities, such as Mohenjodaro, have different individual alignments and may reflect expansion of the cities and temporal changes in cardinal direction reference points (Jansen 1980). At the site of Harappa the most recent excavations show that each of city sectors or mounds were founded at different times and followed their own growth trajectories ((Kenoyer and Meadow 1997).

Walls and the division of sites into two or more segments is a key part of this overall planning. One of the commonalties in all Indus cities and many of the larger villages and towns is the multi‐nodal nature of the sites. This was noted early in the investigations of these sites and due to “militaristic imperialism” (Shaffer 1995) that surrounded the age of discovery terms like “citadel” or the less militaristic but equally loaded terms “upper” and “lower” towns became fully engrained in the literature. Without using such loaded and unsubstantiated terms, the existence of walls at Indus sites is important. While particularly at sites such as Harappa the notion of a citadel is

314 Davis 2015: 300‐329 a myth (Kenoyer and Meadow 1997), walls were built at large sites such as Mohenjo‐ daro (Jansen and Urban 1984, 1987; Jansen 1989; Leonardi 1988; Marshall 1931), Harappa (Kenoyer 1994; Wheeler 1947), Dholavira (Bisht 1989), Rakigarhi (Nath 1998, 2014b), and at small sites such as Bagasra, Kanmer (Kharakwal, Rawat and Osada 2009), Surkotada (Joshi and Allchin 1972), Kot Diji (Khan 1965), and Amri (Casal 1964).

Walls could have been used for many functions, and likely not limited to one. They would have acted as protection from natural forces such as flooding and humanistic forces (Kenoyer 2009; 2012; Smith 2008). At this time we have little evident for large scale militaristic attacks on the walls and most walls outside Gujarat lack defensive design or features (Kenoyer 1993, 1997, 2008; Possehl 2002b; Wright 2010) despite the aforementioned implications. The walls also functioned as important symbols and were socially significant. They would have forged social connections and contacts (Smith 2003) in practice and visually. In South Asia (Erdosy 1995; Smith 2003) and other parts of the world have walls as a symbol of identity, wealth and durability (Abrams 1998; Kenoyer and Meadow 2000; Kim 2013; Smith 2003).The walls themselves are important monuments and act as a visual demarcation of urban or elite identity. Walls would have controlled access to craft activities, ritual areas, and services (Kenoyer and Meadow 2000; Vidale 2010). This aspect of control in wall functionality is vital to the understanding the political, social and economic organization of Indus cities.

The characteristic Indus systems of drains, sump pots and the control of waterways and the segmentation of dirty and clean water is often said not to have parallels until the Roman Empire two thousand years later (Jansen 1989). At the site of Dholavira river or seasonal runoff was channeled into large tanks (Bisht 2000). There were not only large and small public water control and drainage systems but nearly all homes at Harappa and Mohenjodaro had special rooms with bricks‐ on‐edge that appear to be bathing platforms and latrine rooms that would drain into sump pot in the street or a brick drain (Kenoyer 2012). Many homes, but not all, at Mohenjodaro had their own private well (Mackay 1938b). As well planned as these drains of various scales were, they were most likely occasionally cleansed or emptied by hand (, 1928). These drains, tanks, and wells and the separation of clean water from latrine, bathing and waste water indicate how much energy was expended in mitigating social conflict in a diverse community and the very real threat of disease and pollution which would have been vital to supporting and sustaining large dense and diverse populations. While climate, economic status, and population size would dictate the water needs and feasibility of water based infrastructure, water control was clearly a priority to urban Harappans.

Discussion This article is not intended to be a complete evaluation of Harappaness over space and time, nor a checklist, but the start of a larger conversation. I have proposed an incomplete overview of some of the facets of sites’ assemblages and features to be

315 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

considered and discussed as Indus scholars strive to reach a consensus on the many different ways to be Harappan. A critical evaluation of the meanings of these different features and how they vary within and between sites is a roadmap to explore the patterns and mechanisms behind regional variation. What is important is that we critically assess and perhaps abandon our strict labels of sites, particularly based primarily or solely on particular vessel forms or the presence or absence pottery (i.e. red on black Harappan) that has been established as a diagnostic but never the most abundant style at any site.

References Abrams, E. 1998. Structures as sites: The Construction Process and Maya Architecture. Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture123‐140. Agrawal, D P and R K Sood. 1982. Ecological Factors and the Harappan Civilization. In Harappan Civilization. Ed. G L Possehl. New Delhi: Oxford &IBH and AIIS. Ajithprasad, P. 2004. Holocene Adaptations of the Mesolithic and Chalcolithic Settlements in North Gujarat. Monsoon and Civilization115‐132. Ajithprasad, P. 2008. Jaidak (pithad): A Sorath Harappan Site in Jamnagar District, Gujarat and its Architechtural Features. In Linguistics, Archaeology and Human Past. . Ed. Toshiki Osada and Akinori Uesugi. Kyoto: Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Ajithprasad, P and V H Sonawane. 1993. The Harappa Culture in North Gujarat: A Regional Paradigm. Unpublished) Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Barodadoi:ajithprasad. Ajitprasad, P. 2002. The Pre‐Harappan Cultures of Gujarat. In Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume 2 (Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization). Ed. S Settar and Ravi Korisetttar. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research. Ameri, Marta. 2010. Middle Asian Interconnections at the Turn of the Second Millenium BC: Locating the Foreign Elements in the Gilund Seals and Seal Impressions. In The Gilund Project: Excavations in Regional Context. Ed. Teresa Raczek and Vasant Shinde. Oxford: Archaeopress. Ameri, Marta. 2013. Regional Diversity in the Indus: The Evidence of the Seals. In Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archaeology of South and Central Asia, Studies in Honor of Gregory L. Possehl. Ed. S Abraham, P Gullapali, T Raczek, and U Rizvi. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Amiet, Pierre. 1972. Glyptique Susienne. Mémoires De La Délégation Archéologique En Iran 43:258. Amiet, Pierre. 1986. Lʹâge Des Échanges Inter‐iraniens: 3500‐1700 Avant J.‐C. Ministère de la culture, Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux. Arnauld, M Charlotte, Linda R Manzanilla, and Michael E Smith. 2012. The Neighborhood As a Social and Spatial Unit in Mesoamerican Cities. University of Arizona Press.

316 Davis 2015: 300‐329

Belaiew, N T. 1934. Métrologie élamite. Examen préliminaire des documents pondéraux. In Fouilles De Suse 1921‐1933. Bhan, K K, V H Sonawane, P Ajithprasad, and S Pratapchandran. 2005. A Harappan Trading and Craft Production Centre at Gola Dhoro (Bagasra). Antiquity 79 (304). Bhan, K K, V H Sonawane, P Ajithprasad, and S Prathapchandran. 2004. Excavations of an Important Harappan Trading Craft Production Center at Gola Dhoro (Bagasra), on the Gulf of Kutch, Gujarat, India. Journal Interdisciplinary and Archaeology 1:153‐158. Bhan, K K and Dakshayini Gowda. 2003. Shell Working at Nagwada (North Gujarat) with Special Reference to Shell Industries of Harappan Tradition in Gujarat. Man and Environment 28 (2): 51‐80. Bhan, K K and J M Kenoyer. 1980. Nageshwar, an Industrial Centre of the Chalcolithic period. Puratattva, no. 12:115‐120. Bhan, K K and P Ajithprasad. 2008. Excavations at Shikarpur, Gujarat 2007‐2009. Bhan, Kuldeep K. 2011. Review of Prehistoric Cultures of Gujarat and Need to Develop Accurate Settlement Gazetteer. In Changing Persepctive of Japan in South Asia in the New Asian Era: The State of Japanese Studies in India and Other SAARC Countries. Ed. Takao Uno. Bhan, Kuldeep K, Massimo Vidale, and J M Kenoyer. 2002. Some Important Aspects of the Harappan Technological Tradition. In Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume 2 (Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization). Ed. S Settar and Ravi Korisetttar. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research. Biagi, P, F Negrino, and E Starnini. 1997. New Data on the Harappan Flint Quarries of the Rohri Hills (Sindh‐Pakistan). In Man and Flint. Ed. R Schild and Z Sulgostowska. Warszawa: Warszawa Insitutute of Archaeology and Ethnology. Biagi, Paulo and A. Pessina. 1994. Surveys and Excavations in the Rohri Hills (sindh‐ pakistan): A Preliminary Report on the 1993 Campaign. Ancient Sindh 1. Binford, Lewis R. 1965. Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity203‐210. Bisht, R. S. 2015a. The . In The Excavations at Dholavira (1989‐90 to 2004‐2005). New Delhi : Archaeological Survey of India. Bisht, R S. 1989. The Harappan Colonization of Kutch: An Ergonomic Study with Reference to Dholavira and Surkotada. In History and Art. Ed. Krishna Deva, Lallanji Gopal, and Shri Bhagwan Singh. Delhi: Ramanand Vidhya Bhawan. Bisht, R S. 2000. Urban Planning at Dholavira: A Harappan City. In Ancient Cities, Sacred Skies: Cosmic Geometries and City Planning in Ancient India. Ed. J McKim Malville and Lalit M. Gujral. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. Blackman, M J and M Vidale. 1992. The Production and Distribution of Stone Ware Bangles at Mohenjo‐daro and Harappa as Monitored by Chemical

317 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

Characterization Studies. In South Asian Archaeology 1989. Ed. C Jarrige. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press. Brunswig, Robert H, Asko Parpola, and Daniel T Potts. 1983. New Indus Type and related Seals from the Near East. In Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain. Ed. Daniel T Potts. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Carter, R A. 2001. Saar and its External Relations: New Evidence for Interaction between Bahrain and Gujarat during the Early Second Millennium BC. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 12 (2): 183‐201. Casal, J M. 1964. Fouilles DʹAmri. Paris: Commission des Fouilles Archaeologiques. Castagnoli, Ferdinando. 1971. Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity. The MIT Press. Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1990. The External Trade of the Indus Civilization. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Pub.. Chase, Brad. 2010. Social Change at the Harappan Settlement of Gola Dhoro: A Reading from Animal Bones. Antiquity 84 (324): 528‐543. Chase, Brad, P Ajithprasad, S V Rajesh, Ambika Patel, and Bhanu Sharma. 2014. Materializing Harappan Identities: Unity and Diversity in the Borderlands of the Indus Civilization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35:63‐78. Clark, S R. 2007. Harvard University. Clarke, D L. 1968. Analytical Archeology. New York: Columbia University Press. Clarkson, C, M Petraglia, R Korisettar, M Haslam, N Boivin, A Crowther, P Ditchfield, et al. 2009. The Oldest and Longest Enduring Microlithic Sequence in India: 35 000 years of Modern Human Occupation and Change at the Jwalapuram Locality 9 Rock Shelter. ANTIQUITY 83 (320): 326‐348. Cleland, James Hur. 1977a. Chacolithic and Bronze Age Chipped Stone Industries of the Indus Region: An Analysis of Variability and Change. University of Virginia. Cleuziou, S and B Vogt. 1985. Tomb A at Hili North (UAE) and its Material Connections to Southeast Iran and the greater Indus valley. In South Asian Archaeology, 1983. Ed. J Shotsmans and M Taddei. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Collon, Dominique. 1996a. Mesopotamia and the Indus: The Evidence of the Seals. The Indian Ocean in Antiquity, London. Cordell, Linda S and Vincent J Yannie. 1991. Ethnicity, Ethnogenesis, and the Individual: A Processual Approach toward Dialogue. Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale96‐107. Cox, Edward Franklin. 1956. A History of the Metric System of Weights and Measures: With Emphasis on Campaigns for Its Adoption in Great Britain and in the United States Prior to 1914. Indiana University. Crawford, Harriet. 1997. Dilmun revisited: Excavations at Saar, Bahrain. Archaeology International 1:37‐39. Cruz, M Dores. 2011. Pots are pots, not people: Material Culture and Ethnic Identity in the Banda Area (Ghana), Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries..

318 Davis 2015: 300‐329

Dales, George F and J Mark Kenoyer. 1986. Excavations at Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan: The Pottery. Philadelphia: University Museum Press. Dales, G F and Carl Lipo. 1992. The Makran Coast of Pakistan: A Search for Ancient Seaports. Berkeley: Archaeological Research Facility, Univ. of California. Dangi, Vivek and Akinori Uesugi. 2013. A Study on the Harappan Painted Pottery from the Ghaggar Plains. Purātattva 43:195‐215. Dani, A H. 1970. Excavations in the Gomal Valley. Ancient Pakistan 5:1‐177. Dhavalikar, Madhukar Keshav, M R Raval, and Y M Chitalwala. 1996. Kuntasi, a Harappan Emporium on West Coast. Deccan College Post‐Graduate Research Institute. Dhavalikar, M K. 1994. Cultural Imperialism: Indus Civilization in Western India. New Delhi: Books and Books. Dhavalikar, M K and Z D Ansari. 1975. Excavations at Kayatha. Pune. Diaz‐Andreu, Margarita and Timothy Champion. 2014. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. Routledge. During‐Caspers, E C L. 1971. New Archaeological Evidence for Maritime Trade in the Persian Gulf during the Late Protoliterate Period. East and West 21 (1‐2): 21‐ 44. Durrani, Farzand Ali. 1988. Excavations in the Gomal Valley: Rehman Dheri Excavation report no. 1. Ancient Pakistan 6:1‐232. Erdosy, George. 1995. City States of North India and Pakistan at the Time of the Buddha. In The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia. Ed. Frank Raymond Allchin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hegde, K T M, K K Bhan, V H Sonawane, Y Krishan, and D R Shah. 1988. ʺExcavation at Nagwada 1986 and 1987: A Preliminary Report.ʺ. 1988. Excavation at Nagwada 1986 and 1987: A Preliminary Report. Man and Environment 12:55‐ 65. Fairservis, W. 1986. Cattle and the Harappan Chiefdoms of the Indus Valley. Expedition 28 (2): 43‐50. Fairservis, W A Jr. 1967. The Origin, Character and Decline of an Early Civilization. Novitates, no. No. 2302:1‐48. Frenez, D and M Tosi. 2005. The Lothai Sealings: Records from an Indus Civilization Town at the Eastern End of the Maritime Trade Across the Arabian Sea. Studies Presented to Enrica Fiandra. Fuller, Dorian Q. 2006. Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 20:1‐86. Gadd, C J. 1932. Seals of Ancient Indian Style Found at Ur. Proceedings of the British Academy 18:3‐22. Gadekar, Charusmita, S V Rajesh, and P Ajithprasad. 2014. Shikarpur Lithic Assemblage: New Questions Regarding Rohri Chert Blade Production. Journal of Lithic Studies1 (1): 137‐149.

319 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

Gasparini, Graziano. 1993. The Pre‐Hispanic Grid System: The Urban Shape of Conquest and Territorial Organization. Settlements in the Americas: Cross‐ Cultural Perspectives, University of Delaware Press, Newark78‐109. Gaur, AS and PP Joglekar. 2006. Excavation at Bokira (Porbandar) on the South Western Coast of Saurashtra. Man and the Environment 31:33‐39. Gibson, McGuire. 1976. The Nippur Expedition. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Grant, Jill. 2001. The Dark Side of the Grid: Power and Urban Design. Planning Perspectives 16 (3): 219‐241. Graves‐Brown, Paul, Siân Jones, and Clive S Gamble. 2013. Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities. Routledge. Halim, A ; Vidale, M. 1984. Kilns, Bangles and Coated Vessels: Ceramic Production in Closed Containers at Mohenjo‐daro. In Interim Reports Vol. 2. Ed. G Urban M. Jason. Aachen: IsMEO/RWTH. Harris, Susanne H. 2011. Mobility and Variation in Chalcolithic North Gujarat, India (ca 3600‐‐1800 BC). PhD Dissertation Hegde, K T M, K K Bhan, V H Sonawane, Y Krishan, and D R Shah. 1990a. Excavations at Nageshwar, Gujart: A Harappan Shell Working Stie on the Gulf of Kutch. Archeaology Series 18. Baroda: M. S. University. Hegde, K T M, V H Sonawane, D R Shah, K K Bhan, Ajitprasad Ajitprasad, K Krishnan, and S Pratapa Chardnan. 1988. Excavation at Nagwada ‐ 1986 and 1987: A Preliminary Report. Man and Environment 12:55‐65. Herman, C F. 1997. ʺHarappanʺ Gujarat: The Archaeology‐Chronology Connection. Paleorient 22 (2): 77‐112. Heskel, D L. 1984. Iran‐Indus Valley Connections: A Reevaluation. In Frontiers of the Indus Civilization. Ed. B B Lal and S P Gupta. New Delhi: Books and Books. Hodder, Ian. 1978. The Spatial Organisation of Cutlure. Ed. C Renfrew. New Approaches in Archaeology. London: Duckworth. Hodder, I and C Orton. 1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge. Hoffman, Brett C and Heather M‐L Miller. 2014. Production and Consumption of Copper‐Base Metals in the Indus Civilization. In Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective. Springer. Hoffman, M A and J G Shaffer. 1977. The Harappan Settlement at Allahdino: Analyzing the Sociology of an Archaeological Site. In Ecological Backgrounds of South Asian Prehistory. Ed. K A R Kennedy and G L Possehl. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hook, D, N Ashton, and Craig Morris. 2001. The Lithic Assemblage from the Neolithic Site of Sheri Khan Tarakai, NWFP, Pakistan: The Technological Interpretation and the Resultant Socio‐Economic Implications. Paleorient 27 (1). Hu, Di. 2013. Approaches to the Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Past and Emergent Perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Research 21 (4): 371‐402. Hyslop, John. 2014. Inka Settlement Planning. University of Texas Press.

320 Davis 2015: 300‐329

Højlund, Flemming, H Hellmuth Andersen, and Olivier Callot. 1994. Qalaʹat Al‐ Bahrain. Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Inizan, M ‐L, M Lechevallier, and J Pelegrin. 1994. The Use of Metal in the Lithics of Sheri Khan Tarakai, Pakistan: Evidence Provided by the Technological Approach of Pressure Debitage. In South Asian Archaeology, 1993. Ed. Asko Parpola and Petteri Koskikallio. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Inizan, M ‐L and M Lechevallier. 1997. A Transcultural Phenomenon in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Lithics of the Old World: Raw Material Circulation and Production of Standardized Long Blades. The Example of the Indus Civilization. In South Asian Archaeology 1995. Ed. Bridget Allchin and Raymond Allchin. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH. Jansen, M and G Urban. 1984. Interim Reports Vol. 1: Reports on Field Work Carried Out at Mohenjo‐Daro, Pakistan 1983‐84 by IsMEO‐Aachen University Mission. Aachen: IsMEO/RWTH. Inizan, M ‐L and M Lechevallier. 1997. 1987. Interim Reports Vol. 2: Reports on Field Work Carried Out at Mohenjo‐Daro, Pakistan 1983‐84 by IsMEO‐Aachen University Mission. Aachen: IsMEO/RWTH. Jansen, Michael. 1980. Public Spaces in the Urban Settlements of the Harappa Culture. In Art and Archaeology Research Papers. Ed. Dalu Jones and George Michell. London: AARP. Jansen, Michael. 1989. Some Problems Regarding the Forma Urbis Mohenjo‐daro. In South Asian Archaeology, 1985. Ed. K Frifelt and P Sørensen. London: Curzon Press. Jenkins, P C. 1994. Cemetery R 37: New Perspectives on Style and Chronology. In From Sumer to Meluhha: Contributions to the Archaeology of South and West Asia in Memory of George F. Dales, Jr. Ed. J M Kenoyer. Madison: Department of Anthropology. Joshi, J P. 1970. The characteristics of the Pleistocene Climatic Events in the Indian Subcontinent‐ A Land of Monsoon Climate. Indian Antiquary 4:53‐63. Joshi, J P, Madhu Bala, and Jassu Ram. 1984. The Indus Civilization: A Reconsideration on the Basis of Distribution Maps. In Frontiers of the Indus Civilization. Ed. B B Lal and S P Gupta. Delhi: Books and Books. Joshi, J P and F R Allchin. 1972. Malvan. In Fourth Annual Indian Archaeological Congress. Ed. S B Deo. Nagpur. Joshi, J P and M Bala. 1982. Manda: A Harappan Site in Jammu and Kashmir. In Harappan Civilization. Ed. G L Possehl. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH. Kane, Susan. 2003. The Politics of Archaeology and Identity in a Global Context. Archaeological Inst of Amer. Kenoyer, J. Mark. 2008. Indus Urbanism: New Perspectives on its Origin and Character . In The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World. Santa Fe, NM : School for Advanced Research Press. Kenoyer, J M. 1992. Harappan Craft Specialization and the Question of Urban Segregation and Stratification. Eastern Anthropologist 45 (1‐2): 39‐54.

321 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

Kenoyer, J M. 1991. Urban Process in the Indus Tradition: A Preliminary Model from Harappa. In Harappa Excavations 1986‐1990. Ed. Richard H Meadow. Madison: Prehistory Press. Kenoyer, J M.1993. Excavations on Mound E, Harappa: A Systematic Approach to the Study of Indus Urbanism. In South Asian Archaeology, 1991. Ed. A J Gail and G J R Mevissen. Stuttgart: F. S. Verlag. Kenoyer, J M.2001. Review of ʺIndian Beads: A Cultural and Technological Perspective, by S. B. Deo Deccan College, Pune. Beads: Journal of the Society for Bead Researchers 12‐13:77‐79. Kenoyer, J M. 2004. Ancient Textiles of the Indus Valley Region. In Tana Bana: The Woven Soul of Pakistan. Ed. Noorjehan Bilgrami. Karachi: Koel Publictions. Kenoyer, J M. 2005. Indus Urbanism: New Perspective on its Origin and Character. In Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences; Early Cities: New Perspectives on Pre‐Industrial Urbanism. Washington D.C.. Kenoyer, J M. 2012. Households and Neighborhoods of the Indus Tradition: An Overview. In New Perspectives in Household Archaeology. Ed. B J Parker and C P Foster. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kenoyer, J M. 2014. New Perspectives on the Indus Tradition: Contributions from Recent Research at Harappa and other Sites in Pakistan and India. In Sindhu‐Sarasvati Valley Civilization: New Perspectives: A Volume in Memory of Dr. Shikaripur Ranganatha Rao. Ed. Nalini Rao. DK and Nalanda International. Kenoyer, J M and H M L Miller. 2007. Multiple Crafts and Socio Economic Association in the Indus Civilization: New Perspectives from Harappa, Pakistan. In Craft Production in Complex Societies. Ed. I Shimada. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Kenoyer, J M and R H Meadow. 2000. The Ravi Phase: A New Cultural Manifestation at Harappa. In South Asian Archaeology 1997. Ed. Maurizio Taddei and Giuseppe De Marco. Rome/Naples: Istituto Italiano per lʹAfrica e lʹOriente/Istituto Universitario Orientale. Kenoyer, J Mark. 1984. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civilization: A Summary. Paleorient 10 (1): 49‐63. Kenoyer, J M. 1986. The Indus Bead Industry: Contributions to Bead Technology. Ornament 10 (1): 18‐23. Kenoyer, J M. 1989. Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia. Ed. J Mark Kenoyer. Madison: Department of Anthropology, U. W. Madison. Kenoyer, J M. 1994. The Harappan State: Was it or Wasn’t it? In From Sumer to Meluhha: Contributions to the Archaeology of South and West Asia in Memory of George F. Dales, Jr. Ed. J M Kenoyer. Madison: Department of Anthropology. Kenoyer, J M. 2010. Measuring the Harappan World: Insights into the Indus Order and Cosmology. The Archaeology of Measurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies106‐22.

322 Davis 2015: 300‐329

Kenoyer, J Mark, T Douglas Price, and James H Burton. 2013. A New Approach to Tracking Connections Between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia: Initial Results of Strontium Isotope Analyses from Harappa and Ur. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (5): 2286‐2297. Kenoyer, J Mark and Heather M.‐L Miller. 1999. Metal Technologies of the Indus Valley Tradition in Pakistan and Western India. In The Emergence and Development of Metallurgy. Ed. V C Pigott. Philadelphia: University Museum. Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark. 1997. Trade and Technology of the Indus Valley: New Insights from Harappa, Pakistan. World Archaeology 29 (2): 262‐280. Kenoyer, J M. 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Kenoyer, J M. 2006. Cultures and Societies of the Indus Tradition. Historical Roots in the Making of the Aryan,National Book Trust, New Delhi21‐49. Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark and Richard H Meadow. 1997. Excavations at Harappa 1986‐ 97: A brief overview. Punjab Journal of Archaeology and History 1:61‐73. Kenoyer, M J. 2011. Changing Perspectives of the Indus Civilization: New Discoveries and Challenges. Puratattva 41:1‐18. Khan, F A. 1965. Excavations at Kot Diji. Pakistan Archaeology no. 2:13‐85. Khan, Guizar M. 1983. Hathial Excavation (A Preliminary Account). Journal of Central Asia 6 (2): 35‐44. Kharakwal, J S, Y S Rawat, and Toshiki Osada. 2009. Excavations at Kanmer: A Harappan Site in Kachchh, Gujarat. Puratattva. Kim, Nam C. 2013. Lasting Monuments and Durable Institutions: Labor, Urbanism, and Statehood in Northern Vietnam and Beyond. Journal of Archaeological Research 21 (3): 217‐267. Kjaerum, P. 1983. The Stamp and Cylinder Seals: Plates and Catalogue Descriptions; Danish Archaeological Investigations on Failaka, Kuwait. Aarhus: JASP. Kjærum, P. 1994. Stamp‐Seals, Seal Impressions and Seal Blanks. Qalaat Al‐Bahrain 1:319‐350. Kohl, Philip L and Clare P Fawcett. 1995. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Kohl, Philip L and J A Pérez Gollán. 2002. Religion, Politics, and Prehistory. Current Anthropology 43 (4): 561‐586. Kramer, Carol. 1977. Pots and Peoples. In Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Ed. L D Levine and T C Young. Kroeber, Alfred Louis. 1939. Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lal, M. 1979. A New Copper Hoard from Bithur, District Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Archaeological Studies 4:34‐37. Lamberg‐Karlovsky, C C. 1999. The Indus Civilization: The Case for Caste Formation. JEAA 1:87‐113. Langdon, S H. 1931. The Indus Script, in Mohenjo‐daro and the Indus Civilization. Ed. Sir John Marshall. London.

323 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

Larsen, E L. 2003. Integrating Segregated Urban Landscapes of the Late‐Nineteenth and Early‐Twentieth Centuries. HIST ARCHAEOL 37 (3): 111‐123. Laursen, Steffen Terp. 2010. The Westward Transmission of Indus Valley Sealing Technology: Origin and Development of the Gulf Type seal and other Administrative Technologies in Early Dilmun, c. 2100‐‐2000 BC. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 21 (2): 96‐134. Law, Randall. 2008. Inter‐Regional Interaction and Urbanism in the Ancient Indus Valley: A Geologic Provenience Study of Harappaʹs Rock and Mineral Assemblage. Law, Randall and Syed Baqri. 2001. Black Chert Source Identified at Nammal Gorge, Salt Range. Ancient Pakistan 14:34‐40. Law, Randall W and James H Burton. 2006. Non‐destructive* pb isotope Analysis of Harappan Lead Artifacts Using Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and ICP‐ MS.(* Practically). In 34th International Symposium on Archaeometry. Law, Randall William. 2011. Inter‐regional Interaction and Urbanism in the Ancient Indus Valley: A Geologic Provenience Study of Harappaʹs Rock and Mineral Assemblage. Vol. VIII, Parts 1 and 2 of Current Studies on the Indus Civilization. New Delhi: Manohar. Lechevallier, M. 1979. Lʹindustrie Lithique Dʹamri, Pakistan. Paleorient 5:281‐295. Lemonnier, Pierre. 1986. The Study of Material Culture Today: Toward An Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5 (2): 147‐186. Lemonnier, Pierre. 1992. Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Leonardi, Giovanni. 1988. New Problems of Surface Archaeology: Sampling in HR East Area of Moenjodaro (pakistan). In Interim Reports Vol. 3: Reports on Field Work Carried Out at Mohenjo‐Daro, Pakistan 1983‐86 by IsMEO‐Aachen‐ University Mission. Ed. Giovanni Leonardi. Aachen: IsMEO/RWTH. Lindstrom, Katie. 2013. Pottery Preferences and Community Dynamics in the Indus Pottery Preferences and Community Dynamics in the Indus Civilization Borderlands. PhD Dissertation Ludvik, Geoffrey, J Mark Kenoyer, Magda Pieniężek, and William Aylward. 2015. New Perspectives on Stone Bead Technology at Bronze Age Troy. Anatolian Studies 65:1‐18. Mackay, E J H. 1928. Excavations at Mohenjodaro. Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India67‐75. Mackay, E J H. 1938. Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro. New Delhi: Government of India. Mackay, Ernest John Henry. 1925. Report on the Excavation of the ʺAʺ Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia. Chicago. Malik, S C. 1968. Indian Civilization: The Formative Period; A Study of Archaeology As Anthropology. Simla, Indian Institute of Advanced Study. Manchanda, O. 1972. A Study of the Harappan Pottery. Delhi.

324 Davis 2015: 300‐329

Manuel, J. 2010. The Enigmatic Mushtikas and the Associated Triangular Terracotta Cakes: Some Observations. Ancient Asia 2. Marshall, Sir John. 1931. Mohenjo‐daro and the Indus Civilization. London: A. Probsthain. Meadow, R H, J M Kenoyer, and R P Wright. 2001. Harappa Archaeological Research Project: Harappa Excavations 2000‐2001 Meadow, R H and Ajita K Patel. 2003. Prehistoric Pastoralism in Northwestern South Asia from the Neolithic through the Harappan Period. In Ethnobiology and the Indus Civilization. Ed. Steven Weber and William R Belcher. Lanham, ML: Lexington Books. Meskell, Lynn. 2002. The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31. Méry, Sophie and M J Blackman. 1996. Black‐Jars of Meluhha: Production and Diffusion of Indus Pottery Ware during the Second Half of the 3rd Millennium B. C. Harappan Studies 3 (in press). Miller, A and C M Barton. 2008. Exploring the Land: A Comparison of Land‐Use Patterns in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of the Western Mediterranean. J ARCHAEOL SCI 35 (5): 1427‐1437. Miller, D. 1985. Ideology and the Indus Civilization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4 (1): 34‐71. Miller, Heather M.‐L. 1999. Reassessing the Urban Structure of Harappa: Evidence from High Temperature Crafts. In South Asian Archaeology 1997. Ed. Maurizio Taddei. Rome: Is. I. A. O.. Miller, Heather M.‐L. 2000. Reassessing the Urban Structure of Harappa: Evidence from Craft Production Distribution. In South Asian Archaeology 1997. Ed. Maurizio Taddei and Giuseppe De Marco. Rome: Is. I. A. O.. Miller, Heather M‐L. 2013. Weighty Matters: Evidence for Unity and Regional Diversity from the Indus Civilization Weights. Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archaeology of South Asia161. Misra, V N. 2002. The Mesolithic Age in India. In Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume 1 (Protohistory: Archaeology of South Asia). Ed. S Settar and Ravi Korisetttar. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research. Moore, Katherine M, Naomi F Miller, Frederik T Hiebert, and Richard H Meadow. 1994. Agriculture and herding in the Early Oasis Settlements of the Oxus Civilization. Antiquity 68:418‐427. Morris, Justin C and Kenneth D Thomas. 2002. Excavations at the Later Prehistoric Site of Lewan, North‐West Frontier Province, Pakistan. Papers From the Institute of Archaeology 13:94‐100. Mughal, M R. 1990. The Protohistoric Settlement Patterns in the Cholistan Desert. In South Asian Archaeology 1987. Ed. M Taddei and P Callieri. Rome: IsMEO. Nath, Amarendra. 1998. Rakhigarhi: A Harappan Metropolis in the Saraswati‐ Drishadvati Divide. Puratattva 28 (1997‐98): 39‐45. Nath, Amarendra. 2014. Excavations at Rakhigarhi (1997‐98 to 1999‐2000). New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.

325 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

Nath, Amarendra, Randall Law, and Tejas Garge. 2014. Initial Geologic Provenience Studies of Stone and Metal Artifacts from Rakhigarhi. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2. Negrino, F., C. Ottomano, E Starnini, and G. M. Veesar. 1996. Excavations at Site 862 (Rohri Hills, Sindh, Pakistan): A Preliminary Report of the 1995 and 1997 Campaigns. Ancient Sindh 3. Negrino, Fabio and Elisabetta Starnini. 1995. A Preliminary Report of the 1994 Excavations on the Rohri Hills (Sindh‐ Pakistan. Ancient Sindh 2. Panjwani, Preeti and Bratati Sen. 2011. Painted Decorations on Pottery from Chalcolithic Sites of Gujarat: A Preliminary Study. Ancient Asia 2. Parpola, Asko. 1994. Indus Script. In The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics. Ed. R E Asher and J M Y Sipson. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Pelegrin, Jacques. 1994. Lithic Technology in Harappan Times. In South Asian Archaeology, 1993. Ed. Asko Parpola and Petteri Koskikallio. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Possehl, G L. 1976. Lothal: A Gateway Settlement of the Harappan Civilization. In Ecological Background of South Asian Prehistory. Ed. K A R Kennedy and G L Possehl. Ithica: Cornell Univ. Press. Possehl, G L. 1992. The Harappan Civilization in Gujarat: The Sorath and Sindhi Harappans. Eastern Anthropologist 45 (1‐2): 117‐154. Possehl, G L. 1996. Meluhha. The Indian Ocean in Antiquity. Possehl, G L. 2002a. Fifty Years of Harappan Archaeology: The Study of the Indus Civilization since Indian Independence. In Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume 2 (Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization). Ed. S Settar and Ravi Korisetttar. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research. Possehl, G L. 2002b. The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Possehl, Gregory L. 1980. Indus Civilization in Saurashtra. Delhi: B.R. Pub.. Possehl, G L. 1990. Revolution in the Urban Revolution: The Emergence of Indus Urbanism. Ann. Rev. Anthro.Annual Review of Anthropology 19:261‐282. Possehl, G L. 1993. Harappan Civilization: A Recent Perspective. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Co. Pvt. LTD.. Possehl, G L. 1995. Seafaring Merchants of Meluhha. In South Asian Archaeology. Possehl, G L. 1998. Socio Cultural Complexity without the State: The Indus Civilization. In Archaic States. Ed. G and J Marcus Feinman. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Possehl, G L. 1999. Indus Age: The Beginnings. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Lt. Possehl, Gregory L and M H Raval. 1989. Harappan Civilization and Rojdi. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH and AIIS. Possehl, Gregory L and Paul Rissman. 1983. Excavations at Rojdi. Man and Environment. Potts, DT. 2000. Ancient Magan Secrets of Tell Abraq. London.

326 Davis 2015: 300‐329

Prabhakar, V N, T Garge, and R Law. 2010. Mitathal: New Observations Based on Surface Reconnaissance and Geologic Provenance Studies. Man and Environment 35 (1): 54‐61. Pramanik, S. 2004. Excavations at Juni Kuran 2003‐04: A Preliminary Report. Puratattva 34:45‐67. Quivron, Gonzaque. 2000. The Evolution of the Mature Indus Pottery Style in the Light of the Excavations at Nasharo, Pakistan. East and West 50 (1‐4): 157‐190. Raczek, Teresa P. 2007. Shared Histories: Technology and Community at Gilund and Bagor, Rajasthan, India (c. 3000‐‐1700 BC).. Rajesh, SV. 2011. A Comprehensive Study of the Regional Chalcolithic Cultures of Gujarat. PhD Thesis. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History. The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara. Rao, S R. 1963. A ʹPersian Gulfʹ Seal from Lothal. Antiquity 37:96‐99. Rao, S R. 1973. Lothal and the Indus Civilization. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. Rao, S R. 1979. Lothal: A Harappan Port Town (1955‐62), Vol.1. Vol. 78 of Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Rao, S R.1985. Lothal: A Harappan Port Town (1955‐62), Vol. 2. Vol. 78 of Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Rao, S R. 1985. Marine Archaeologists Find Evidence of Ancient Town off Dwarka. India News, February 18. Ratnagar, S. 1981. Encounters, the Westerly Trade of the Harappa Civilization. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ratnagar, S. 2003. Theorizing Bronze‐Age Intercultural Trade: The Evidence of the Weights. Paleorient 29 (1). Ratnagar, Shareen. 2001. Understanding Harappa Civilization in the Greater Indus Valley. New Delhi: Tulika. Ratnagar, Shereen. 1991. Enquiries Into the Political Organization of Harappan Society. Pune: Ravish Publishers. Reade, Julian. 2001. Assyrian King‐Lists, the Royal Tombs of Ur, and Indus Origins. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60 (1): 1‐29. Renfrew, Colin. 1978. Space, Time and Polity. In The Evolution of Social System. Ed. Friedman Friedman and Rowlands Rowlands. Duckworth. Rissman, Paul C. 1989. The Organization of Seal Production in the Harappan Civilization. In Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia. Ed. J Mark Kenoyer. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Archaeological Reports. Roaf, M D. 1982. The Hamrin Sites. In Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery. Ed. J E Curtis. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Roberts, Benjamin W and Marc Vander Linden. 2011. Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission. Springer. Sankalia, H D. 1962. From Food Collection to Urbanisation in India. In Indian Anthropology: Essays in Memory of D. N. Majumdar. Ed. T N Madan and G Sarana. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. Sankalia, H D.1973. Prehistoric Colonization in India. World Archaeology 5 (1): 86‐91.

327 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015

Schiffer, Michael B. 1976. Behavioral Archeology. ʺThe Joint Hadd Project: Summary Report on the Second Season.ʺ. 1988. The Joint had Project: Summary Report on the Second Season. Ed. S Cleuziou and M Tosi. Shaffer, J G and D.A Lichtenstein. 1995. The Concepts of ʺCultural Traditionʺ and ʺPaleoethnicityʺ in South Asian Archaeology. In The Indo‐Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. Ed. G Erdosy. Berlin: W. DeGruyter. Shaffer, Jim G and Diane A Lichtenstein. 1999. Migration , Philology and South Asian Archaeology. In Aryan and Non‐Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, Interpretation and Ideology. Ed. Johannes Bronkhorst and Madhav M Deshpande. Columbia, MO: South Asia Books. Shaikh, Nilopher, Q. H. Mallah, and G. M. Veesar. 2002. Recent Discoveries of Sites/Industrial Complexes in Thar, Rohri Hills and Adjacent Plains: Regional Perspective. Ancient Sindh 7. Shennan, Stephen. 2003. Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity1‐32. Shinde, V. 1992. Padri and the Indus Civilization. In South Asian Studies. Shinde, V, T Osada, M M Sharma, A Uesugi, T Uno, H Maemoku, P Shirvalkar, Sh S Deshpande, A Kulkarni, and A Sarkar. 2008. Exploration in the Ghaggar Basin and Excavations at Girawad, Farmana (Rohtak District) and Mitathal (Bhiwani District), Haryana, India. Occasional Paper 3:77‐158. Shirvalkar, Prabodh. 2013. Harappan Migrations: A Perspective about the Gujarat Harappans. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplindary Studies in Archaeology 1. Smith, M, J Coppard, R Herrington, and H Stein. 2007. The Geology of the Rakkurijarvi cu‐(au) prospect, Norrbotten: A New Iron Oxide‐Copper‐Gold Deposit in Northern Sweden. ECON GEOL 102 (3): 393‐414. Smith, Michael E. 2004. The Archaeology of Ancient State Economies. Annual Rev. Anthropology 33:73‐102. Smith, Monica L. 2003. Introduction: The Social Construction of Ancient Cities. In The Social Construction of Ancient Cities. Ed. M L Smith. Washington: Smithsonian Books. Smith, Monica L. 2003. The Social Construction of Cities. Washington: Smithsonian Books. Smith, Monica L. 2008. Urban Empty Spaces. Contentious Places for Consensus‐ Building. Archaeological Dialogues 15 (02): 216‐231. Sonawane, V H. 1992. Fresh Light on the Specialized Crafts of the Harappans in Gujarat. Eastern Anthropologist 45 (1‐2): 155‐172. Sonawane, V H, P Ajithprasad, Kuldeep Kumar Bhan, K Krishnan, S Prathapachandran, Abhijit Majumdar, Ajita K Patel, and Java Menon. 2003a. Excavations at Bagasra 1996‐2003: A Preliminary Report. Man and Environment 28 (2): 21‐50. Sonawane, V H and P Ajithprasad. 1994. Harappa Culture and Gujarat. Man and Environment 19 (1‐2): 129‐39.

328 Davis 2015: 300‐329

Soundarajan, K V. 1984. Kutch Harappan A Corridor of the Indus Phase. Frontiers of the Indus Civilization, Books and Books, Delhi217‐226. Srivastava, Krishna M. 1991. Madinat Hamad: Burial Mounds, 1984‐85. Ministry of Information, State of Bahrain. Stark, Miriam T. 1998. Technical Choices and Social Boundaries in Material Culture Patterning: An Introduction. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Ed. Miriam T Stark. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Starnini, Elisabetta and Paolo Biagi. 2011. The Archaeological Record of the Indus (Harappan) Lithic Production: The Excavation of RH862 Flint Mine and Flint Knapping Workshops on the Rohri Hills (Upper Sindh, Pakistan). Journal of Asian Civilizations 34 (2). Starr, Richard FS. 1941. Indus Valley Painted Pottery. Princeton, NJ. Thapar, Romila. 1973. The Past and Prejudice: Patel Memorial Lectures. New Delhi: Publication Division, Ministry of Information And Broadcasting, Government of India. Uesugi, Akinori. 2013. A Note of the Diachronic Changes of the Harappan Pottery‐ A Preliminary Analysis. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1:356‐371. Varma, Supriya. 1990. Changing Settlement Patterns in Kathiawar. Studies in History 6 (2 (ns): 139‐161. Vidale, Massimo. 2000. The Archaeology of Indus Crafts: Indus Craftspeople and Why We Study Them. Rome: Istituto Italiano per lʺAfrica e lʹOriente. Vidale, Massimo. 2005. La formazione degli stati arcaici nella valle dellʹindo: Le ipotesi ei dati archeologici. Annali DellUniversità Degli Studi Di Napoli LOrientale. Rivista Del Dipartimento Di Studi Asiatici E Del Dipartimento Di Studi E Ricerche Su Africa E Paesi Arabi 2005 (65): 197‐255. Vidale, Massimo. 2010. Aspects of Palace Life at Mohenjo‐daro. South Asian Studies 26 (1): 59‐76. Vidale, Massimo and Heather Miller. 2001. On the Development of Indus Technical Virtuosity and its Relation to Social Structure. In South Asian Archaeology 1997. Ed. Maurizio Taddei and Giuseppe De Marco. Rome: IsIAO. Vogt, Burkhard. 1996. Bronze Age Maritime Trade in the Indian Ocean: Harappan Traits on the Oman Peninsula. The Indian Ocean in Antiquity107‐132. Weber, Steven. 1999. Seeds of Urbanism: Palaeoethnobotany and the Indus Civilization. Antiquity 73 (282): 813‐826. Wheeler, R E M. 1947. Brahmagiri and Chandravalli. Ancient India 4:181‐310. Winkelmann, Sylvia. 1999. Some New Ideas about the possible Origin of the Anthropomorpic and Semi‐human‐creature Depictions on Harappan Seals. In South Asian Archaeology 1997. Ed. M Taddei. Rome: Is. A. I. O. Woolley, C Leonard. 1934. Ur Excavations, Volume II, the Royal Cemetery: A Report on the Predynastic and Sargonid Graves Excavated Between 1926‐1931. London and Philadelphia: British Museum and University of Pennsylvania Museum. Wright, R P. 2010. The Ancient Indus: Urbanism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

329