Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Materializing Harappan identities: Unity and diversity in the borderlands of the Indus Civilization ⇑ Brad Chase a, , P. Ajithprasad b, S.V. Rajesh b,1, Ambika Patel b, Bhanu Sharma b a Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Albion College, 611 E. Porter St., Albion, MI 49224, United States b Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat 390002, India article info abstract

Article history: The widespread distribution of Harappan material culture throughout a vast expanse of northwestern Received 13 March 2013 South Asia is a defining characteristic of the Indus Civilization (2600–1900 BC). The social dynamics Revision received 5 April 2014 responsible for this material pattern, however, are not fully understood. While top-down perspectives Available online 29 May 2014 on interregional interaction explain some aspects of the material record in the Indian state of Gujarat, they do not explain the material diversity that we observe at Indus settlements in Gujarat. Here, we Keywords: undertake a bottom-up exploration of Harappan material culture at two small, recently excavated Indus Indus Civilization settlements in Gujarat. Our findings show that although the residents of both sites participated in the Complex society interregional economy and publically displayed a common Harappan identity, there is evidence for Interregional interaction Borderlands considerable variation in the domestic practices characteristic of each site. We interpret these to suggest Technology that the residents of these sites were integrated into the wider Indus Civilization by way of inclusionary Ornamentation ideologies that served to unify socially diverse borderland communities. These findings and interpreta- Domestic practice tions regarding the role of material culture in the mediation of local social dynamics in the Indus Materiality borderlands contribute to a more complete understanding of South Asia’s first urban society while Identity offering methodological and theoretical perspectives that further the exploration of these issues in early complex societies more generally. Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction alluvial heartland that came to be materially incorporated into the wider Indus Civilization, this material pattern has been taken Nearly a century of archaeological research in the context of the as evidence for the colonization of the region by communities hail- Indus Civilization (2600–1900 BC) has led to the generation of ing from the distant Indus cities (Bisht, 1989; Chakrabarti, 1999; increasingly detailed and sophisticated synthetic treatments of Dhavalikar, 1994; Possehl, 1992). We argue that although top- South Asia’s first experiment with urban society (Agrawal, 2007; down perspectives on interregional interaction such as these may Kenoyer, 1998; Lal, 1997; Possehl, 2002; Wright, 2010). Neverthe- explain some aspects of the material record, they do not explain less, critical features of the Indus Civilization remain incompletely the material diversity that we observe at Indus settlements in understood, hindering its contribution to more general discussions the region. Here, we seek to augment these perspectives through of early complex societies (e.g., Trigger, 2003). A defining charac- an explicitly bottom-up analytical perspective on the integration teristic of the Indus Civilization, for example, is the distribution of local communities into the wider Indus Civilization. Using data of a relatively homogenous corpus of distinctive material culture generated from recent and ongoing excavations at the Indus settle- throughout regions of India and Pakistan that were more or less ments of Bagasra2 and Shikarpur, we adopt a technological approach materially distinct during earlier periods. While this material pat- to the study of material culture that explores the ways in which tern is clear, the social dynamics that produced it are not. In the objects were involved with the materialization of social identities case of the Indian state of Gujarat, one such region outside of the at these neighboring settlements. Focusing on items of personal adornment and domestic practice, our analyses demonstrate that

⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Chase), [email protected] 2 The archaeological site referred to here as Bagasra, the name of the nearest (P. Ajithprasad), [email protected] (S.V. Rajesh), ambikamsu@yahoo. modern village, is also known as Gola Dhoro, the local name of the mound. Initially com (A. Patel), [email protected] (B. Sharma). referred to in the literature as Bagasra (Sonawane et al., 2003), it has been referred to 1 Current address: Department of Archaeology, University of Kerala, in subsequent publications as Gola Dhoro (Bhan et al., 2004, 2005; Chase, 2010). Here, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695581, India. we maintain convention and refer to it as Bagasra. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.04.005 0278-4165/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 64 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 displays of material unity at these sites masked considerable under- means of often implicit analogies with historical colonial episodes lying social diversity. These findings and interpretations regarding in which colonies are established in less materially sophisticated the role of material culture in the mediation of local social dynamics peripheral regions as a means to exploit locally available raw in the Indus borderlands contribute to a more complete understand- materials for the benefit of centrally-administered organizations ing of South Asia’s first urban society while offering methodological based in politically and technologically sophisticated urban cen- and theoretical perspectives that further the exploration of these ters. Dhavalikar (1994), for example, in his synthetic treatment of issues in early complex societies more generally. the Indus Civilization has explicitly invoked Wallerstein’s (1974) world-systems theory in his analysis of Harappan Gujarat. Portray- ing the integration of Gujarat as an example of ‘‘cultural imperial- Harappan Gujarat: life in the borderlands ism,’’ this interpretation is supported through comparisons to a variety of historically known European colonial contexts ranging The developmental trajectory of the Indus Civilization in Gujarat from British and Dutch colonialisms in 17th century India to Bel- stands in striking contrast to that known from the alluvial plains of gian colonialism in 19th century Africa. As discussed below, this the Indus and Ghaggar-Hakra river systems, where Harappa and top-down, macro-scale interpretive framework does not help us Mohenjodaro developed into urban centers around 2600 BC interpret the material variability that we observe at Bagasra and (Kenoyer, 1998; Possehl, 2002; Wright, 2010). Excavations in the Shikarpur, forcing us to take into serious consideration long-stand- alluvium at sites such as Harappa clearly indicate the gradual devel- ing theoretical critiques of its theoretical foundation. opment of Harappan material culture from local antecedents Critiques of world-systems theory as applied by Dhavalikar to (Kenoyer, 2008; Meadow and Kenoyer, 2005). Harappan material explain the distribution of Harappan material culture in Gujarat culture in the geographically distinct region of Gujarat, however have led to a reappraisal of its expectations and explanatory appears abruptly shortly after 2600 BC at the roughly 50 ha city power. The most consistent critiques of world-systems models in of Dholavira (Bisht, 2000) as well as at series of much smaller, archaeology have related to the nature of the power relationships mostly coastal settlements situated along waterborne travel corri- linking colonists and local peoples (Gosden, 2004: 7–23). Specifi- dors (Fig. 1). Although typically less than ten hectares in area, resi- cally, it is argued that premodern transport and military technolo- dential space at settlements such as Surkotada (Joshi, 1990), gies generally precluded the degree of political and economic Kanmer (Kharakwal et al., 2012), Bagasra (Sonawane et al., 2003), domination of peripheral regions as was so often the case the his- and Shikarpur (Bhan and Ajithprasad, 2008, 2009), the latter two torical colonialisms upon which world-systems theory was ini- sites under consideration here, was generally enclosed in square tially derived (Kohl, 1987; Schneider, 1977; Schortman and walled enclosures of monumental proportions. The residents of Urban, 1998; Stein, 1999). It follows that the rote application of these walled settlements used a full repertoire of Harappan mate- world-systems theories to ancient episodes of interregional inter- rial culture as known from sites in Sindh and the Punjab and were action often writes structures of the more recent past onto prehis- often involved in the manufacture Harappan-style ornaments from tory thereby precluding the construction of novel interpretations locally available raw materials. Many of these ornaments, such as of past social dynamics (Dietler, 1998). Further, it is argued that the shell bangles produced by the residents of Bagasra and Shikar- the presumption of core-dominance encapsulated in world-sys- pur, were among the most economically and ideologically impor- tems theory minimize the agency of the residents of so-called tant Indus ornaments found at settlements large and small peripheries to affect local trajectories of social change (Stein, throughout the Indus Civilization, demonstrating their residents’ 2002). Indeed, numerous case studies have highlighted episodes regular participation in interregional networks of trade and of intense interregional integration over the last 5000 years that exchange. These sites are typically referred to in the literature of do not, in fact, fit the model of classical world-systems theory Indus archaeology in Gujarat as Classical Harappan settlements dis- (Dietler, 2010; Dominguez, 2002; Jennings, 2011; Stein, 1999; tinguishing them from contemporaneous settlements where typi- Van Dommelen, 2005). Finally, archaeological studies of European cally Harappan material culture is largely absent and distinctively colonial encounters have clearly demonstrated the limitations of local ceramic forms predominate. These include the larger settle- world-systems models for predicting the specific economic and ments of Rojdi (Possehl and Raval, 1989), Kuntasi (Dhavalikar social relations in particular settings (Lightfoot, 2005; Lycett, et al., 1996), and Jaidak (Ajithprasad, 2008), as well as hundreds 2005; Silliman, 2001; Wynne-Jones, 2010). Attempts to modify of mostly inland sites known from survey (e.g., Bhan, 1986; the assumptions of world-systems theory in order to account for Possehl, 1980). Generally interpreted as a rural component of the such varied historical situations (Chase-Dunn and Hall, 2000; Indus Civilization in Gujarat (Bhan, 1994; Sonawane, 2005), sites Hall, 2000; Kardulias and Hall, 2008; Peregrine, 2000), however, of this nature are often referred to as Sorath Harappan settlements have left it as little more than ‘‘shorthand for ‘interregional interac- (Possehl, 1992). As described below for Bagasra and Shikarpur, tion system’’’ (Stein, 1999: 25). however, ceramics characteristic of these latter settlements are In this theoretical landscape, top-down analytical perspectives common at walled settlements where they generally appear along- such as have been applied to the Indus Civilization in Gujarat are side classically Harappan ceramics, challenging a simple dichotomy of little interpretive value for understanding material variation of of site types and complicating social interpretation and archaeolog- the type presented here. Rather, consideration of the dynamics of ical practice (e.g., survey methods, chronological development, etc.) interregional interaction in complex societies cross-culturally in the region (Rajesh and Patel, 2006). (e.g., contributions to Lydon and Rizvi, 2010; Lyons and This pattern has been interpreted as representing a colonization Papadopoulos, 2002; Stein, 2005) leads to an expectation of mate- of the region by immigrant Harappans hailing from the distant rial diversity in borderland regions such as Gujarat where residents Indus cities (Bisht, 1989; Chakrabarti, 1999; Dhavalikar, 1994; of various backgrounds and interests negotiated novel social iden- Possehl, 1992). While this model has its origins in culture-histori- tities in the context of ever-changing social, economic, and political cal ontologies of migration and diffusion characteristic of Indian networks. Specifically, we argue that only bottom-up empirical archaeology at the time of their discovery (Johansen, 2003), the research geographically situated in the borderland settings where reasonably discrete distribution of Harappan material culture at social identities were materialized through daily practice and well-planned and monumentally constructed settlements located interaction (Lightfoot and Martinez, 1995; Naum, 2010; Parker, along trade routes nevertheless superficially fits many examples 2006) will lead to more complete understandings of the social of colonial expansion. This interpretation has been developed by dynamics of complex societies such as the Indus Civilization. B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 65

Fig. 1. Map of the Indus Civilization showing archaeological sites mentioned in the text and the maximum distribution of Harappan material culture.

Bagasra and Shikarpur narrowest stretch of the Gulf of Kutch, they are approximately 100 km from Dholavira, the nearest Indus city, and are situated Bagasra and Shikarpur, two walled Indus settlements in Gujarat, at what may have been a central node in coastal trade and travel are ideal locations to explore the social dynamics that accompa- networks that linked Harappan settlements in Gujarat to the wider nied the use of Harappan material culture in the Indus borderlands. Indus Civilization (Fig. 1). Both were small: Bagasra was approxi- Bagasra, excavated from 1996 to 2005 by archaeologists from the mately 2 ha with 0.5 ha enclosed within the walls, while Shikarpur Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda (Sonawane et al., 2003), was approximately 5 ha with 1.5 ha enclosed within the walls. On and Shikarpur, excavated by the same team from 2008 to 2012, the basis of ceramic correlations and radiocarbon dates, both were exemplify many small Harappan settlements in Gujarat. Nearest founded towards the beginning of the Integration Era (2600– neighbors approximately 25 km apart on opposite shores of the 1900 BC) and were eventually abandoned sometime around the 66 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 end of this period. From their initial establishment, the residents of to generation. This despite the fact that, as is the case at most Indus both sites used a variety of Harappan material culture as known settlements, there is no evidence for the sumptuous residences, from the large urban centers of Harappa and Mohenjodaro. In addi- temples, or burials that are generally taken as evidence of political tion to using distinctively Harappan ceramic forms, the residents of authority in other early civilizations. This enigmatic fact suggests a each site wore distinctively Harappan ornament styles as indicated social organization quite different to that evidenced in most other by large quantities of broken and lost pieces recovered during early state-level societies (Possehl, 1998). The fact that wall con- excavations. Many of these Harappan ornaments were crafted from struction and maintenance activities were occurring concurrently raw materials available in the region, and as discussed in more at both Bagasra and Shikarpur, however, suggests the existence detail below, at least some of the residents at both sites were of similar social organizations at each. involved in the production of these ornaments (Bhan et al., 2004, 2005). At least some residents of each site also used Indus seals to administer transactions. At Bagasra, five square steatite seals A technological approach to intrasite material variation and several sealings featuring the famous Indus unicorn motif with Indus script have been found, and, as of the most recent 2013 exca- Each of the artifact classes considered here is an object of vations, a steatite seal featuring the rhinoceros motif with Indus human technology, the embodied practices by which natural mate- script along with series of sealings featuring the unicorn motif with rials have been crafted into objects of culture (Wright, 1993). This script have been found at Shikarpur. The manufacture of Harappan perspective takes as its starting point a consideration of the com- style ornaments and use of Harappan-style seals suggests that plete chaîne opératoire of artifacts, including consideration of the interregional trade was one of the ways in which the residents of raw materials from which they were crafted, the techniques by these sites were linked to the wider Indus Civilization. which these were transformed, and the ways in which they were As at most Harappan sites in Gujarat, however, the use of dis- distributed and used prior to discard or recycling (Miller, 2007). tinctive regional ceramic styles alongside Harappan material cul- As material objects, careful consideration of their physicality offers ture demonstrates residents’ participation in local networks of insights into the means and organization of material production as production and exchange. At both Bagasra and Shikarpur, for well as the configuration of regional and interregional interaction example, ceramics of the Anarta tradition, which has roots going networks by which raw materials or finished objects were back to the beginning of the fourth millennium in north Gujarat acquired. As material culture, they shed new light on the practice (Ajithprasad, 2002; Ajithprasad and Sonawane, 2011; Rajesh of everyday life at the sites while simultaneously speaking to more et al., 2013), are common from their initial establishments. Eventu- purely ideational concerns related to the use and manipulation of ally, these particular local ceramic forms declined in popularity objects in the construction and negotiation of individual and com- and Sorath Harappan ceramics as known from Rojdi in central Sau- munity identities (Dobres, 2000; Dobres and Hoffman, 1994). rashtra came to be used alongside Classical Harappan ceramics as While the full information potential of this approach can only be known from Harappa and Mohenjodaro. By the time of the sites’ realized through comprehensive, detailed studies of particular arti- abandonment at the beginning of the second millennium, local fact classes, we nevertheless believe that this initial examination varieties of ceramics were predominant and Classical Harappan provides important insights into social dynamics at Bagasra and material culture was no longer used. A similar mosaic of ceramic Shikarpur. types is common at other excavated Harappan settlements in Guj- Despite obvious similarity in their overall size, geographical set- arat such as Lothal (Rao, 1979), Surkotada (Joshi, 1990), Kanmer ting, architectural layout, sequence of development, and general (Kharakwal et al., 2012) and Dholavira (Bisht, 2000). This material use of a wide range of Harappan material culture, there are none- diversity is indicative of the social complexity present at these bor- theless striking differences in the relative abundance of different derland sites. While the social networks that linked them to the artifact classes at each site (Fig. 3). The materials considered here broader Indus Civilization were conduits through which goods, derive from a representative range of archaeological contexts from ideas, and at least some people flowed, the residents of these sites all major phases and residential areas of excavation at the sites maintained strong local connections as well (Ajithprasad and after ten seasons of excavation at Bagasra and five seasons of exca- Sonawane, 2011). vation at Shikarpur (Fig. 2). More detail regarding the nature of the The central residential areas at both Bagasra and Shikarpur recording system upon which these analyses are based has been were enclosed during most of their occupations by massive monu- presented elsewhere along with preliminary analyses after just mental perimeter walls constructed of mudbricks in the typical two seasons at Shikarpur (Chase et al., in press). The present anal- Harappan 1:2:4 proportions (Fig. 2)(Kenoyer, 2010). Despite yses largely confirm earlier observations, increasing our confidence enclosing relatively small areas, these structures were of monu- in the integrity of our data at the level of analysis undertaken here. mental construction: the tapering walls at Bagasra were approxi- While ongoing intra-site temporal and spatial analyses will surely mately 7 m thick at their base and those at Shikarpur were enrich our interpretations, the present analysis recognizes the nearly 10 m thick (after several episodes of renovation at each). palimpsest nature of the archaeological deposits at these sites. Prior to the establishment of these Harappan settlements, thinly The patterns that we identify are therefore best interpreted as rep- stratified, largely ephemeral archaeological sites occupied by some resenting broad trends characteristic of each site throughout the combination of agro-pastoralists and foragers characterize the period during which Harappan material culture was produced archaeological record of the region (Hegde and Sonawane, 1986; and used. Madella et al., 2010). The construction of walled enclosures at Our analyses of material culture at Bagasra and Shikarpur builds Harappan settlements thus represents the first evidence in the upon previous studies of Indus technology (e.g., Bhan et al., 2002; region for the organization of labor and space above the level of Kenoyer, 1997; Vidale, 2000). Specifically, we follow Vidale and the household. Approximately six meters of stratified cultural Miller’s (Miller, 2008b; Vidale and Miller, 2000) approach to accumulation with several episodes of structural renewal suggests cross-craft comparisons, based on Kenoyer’s (1989, 2000) classifi- that multiple generations called these places home. These were catory framework in which technologies can be evaluated along enduring social spaces as well as imposing physical places. During two axes of variation (1) raw material availability and (2) technical their period of occupation, the residents of the sites repaired and elaboration. At its simplest, this scheme involves four categories: rebuilt them several times, implying the existence of some form crafts involving locally available raw materials and relatively sim- of authority capable of organizing space and labor from generation ple technologies: B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 67

Fig. 2. Plans of Bagasra (1996–2005) and Shikarpur (2008–2012) showing excavated areas included in the present study.

Fig. 3. Registry entries at Bagasra (1996–2005) and Shikarpur (2008–2012).

1. Local materials/Elaborate techniques. Each of these different categories of technologies present pro- 2. Distant materials/Elaborate techniques. ducers with different opportunities for control of and profit from 3. Local materials/Simple techniques. the craft and are intimately related to the relative value of the fin- 4. Distant materials/Simple techniques. ished products (Miller, 2008b). The placement of any particular 68 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 technology along each of these axes, however, is relative and varies site. The major deviation from this general pattern of craft con- depending upon context. An object made from raw materials avail- sumption is the abundance of terracotta objects of all types at Shi- able locally near its point of manufacture, for example, will be karpur including terracotta bangles, beads, figurines, cart frames more valuable upon export to regions where those same materials and wheels, tops, and a wide variety of miscellaneous objects. are difficult to procure. Although these objects are formally similar to such objects from At Bagasra, crafts produced from locally available raw materials Harappan settlements throughout the Indus Civilization, these are particularly well represented (Fig. 4). As discussed in more objects were almost certainly produced at Shikarpur from locally detail below, an excavated shell bangle workshop is clear evidence available clays. for the local manufacture of these objects, and there is clear evi- In sum, is clear that while all major classes of Harappan mate- dence for the residents’ involvement in the faience as well as the rial culture are well represented at each site, significant variation stone bead industries (Bhan et al., 2004; Sonawane et al., 2003). in the relative frequency of different types of artifacts is indicative Little has been written on the perforated pottery discs so common of variation in economic practices of production and consumption at Bagasra, but they were certainly crafted locally from potsherds, undertaken by the residents of each site. In general, the residents and their form suggests that they may have been used as spindle of Shikarpur seem to have been involved in the manufacture of whorls. Descriptive and experimental studies are ongoing to better goods using raw materials available in the region. This is not to understand the function and context of manufacture and use of say that their craft output was in any way unskilled or of low vol- these objects. The major deviation from this general pattern of pro- ume. Shell bangles of the type produced at Bagasra, for example, duction relates to the high quantity and relative over-representa- were crafted from marine shells obtained from shell beds nearly tion of steatite beads at the site. Participation in interregional 100 km distant, involved the use of sophisticated bronze saws, trade networks is further attested by the presence of imported and were among the most highly valued and ideologically charged lapis and, to a lesser extent, amazonite beads, which although rel- Harappan ornaments (Kenoyer, 1991b, 2000). Similarly, evidence atively few in number are slightly more common at Bagasra. for the manufacture of faience beads at Bagasra is evidence that At Shikarpur, artifact classes involving prepared materials with at least some of its residents were manipulating one of the most restricted source areas that had been imported to the site are par- technologically sophisticated Indus manufacturing processes. Con- ticularly well represented. Lithic blades crafted of chert from the versely, the residents of Shikarpur seem to have had more ready Rohri Hills and other nearby deposits in Sindh (Biagi and access to imported goods and raw materials yet do not seem to Cremaschi, 1991; Biagi and Nisbet, 2010), for example, were likely have been as engaged in crafting activities as their neighbors at imported in their finished form given the paucity of prepared and Bagasra. There are clear exceptions to these patterns at each site, utilized cores in relation to blades at the site (Gadekar et al., 2014). however. The abundance of imported steatite beads at Bagasra Given the absence of nearby copper deposits and an absence of evi- and locally produced terracotta objects at Shikarpur are not minor dence for smelting (Patel, 2006), copper as well was likely deviations from the basic pattern, but are rather significant phe- imported as either finished products or prepared ingots, as was nomena that require explanation. Before presenting some hypoth- the case at most Indus settlements (Hoffman and Miller, 2009). eses that might explain these patterns and the exceptions thereof, While the source of raw Ernestite from which the drills used to we first present more detailed intersite comparative analyses of perforate hard stone beads were crafted (Kenoyer and Vidale, several of the most common artifact classes, beginning with the 1992) may have been somewhere in Gujarat (Law, 2011: 544– distinctively Harappan beads and bangles with which the residents 555), the distribution of this material was highly restricted of both sites adorned themselves. although the presence of several unworked ernestite nodules at Shikarpur suggests that they may have been crafted locally at the Technologies of adornment

Integral to the embodied daily practice of personal adornment, personal ornaments are instrumental to the construction and rep- resentation of individuals’ social identities as constituted in rela- tion to wealth or status, gender, life stage, community affiliation or other social fields (Fisher and Loren, 2003; Meskell and Preucel, 2004; White and Beaudry, 2009). All ornaments are not created equal, however. Rather, it is precisely variation in the materials and techniques involved in the crafting of ornaments that lead them to be particularly useful for social distinction and communication through public display (Kenoyer, 1991b, 2000). As the material properties of ornaments were highly symbolic and thus culturally idiosyncratic, specific interpretations of their emic meanings are particularly challenging. Here, we focus primar- ily on the physicality the objects themselves as technological prod- ucts. Below, having established some basic facts about the assemblage of ornaments from Bagasra and Shikarpur, we return to a discussion of ways in which these objects were implicated in the construction of social identities. While the analysis of registry entries above demonstrates clear differences in the relative abun- dance of different classes of artifacts at Bagasra and Shikarpur, each of these entries typically refers to a collection of similar objects from the same stratigraphic unit without a precise count. Here, we consider more detailed tabulation of beads and bangles Fig. 4. Common artifact classes at Bagasra and Shikarpur plotted following Vidale from the sites focusing on several of the most abundant ornament and Miller (2000). types (Fig. 5). B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 69

Steatite beads are the most common ornament type at both Bagasra and Shikarpur, comprising approximately 65% of the total assemblage of ornaments considered here (Fig. 6). Shell bangles as well are well represented in the ornament assemblages at both sites. While the above analysis of registry entries treats fragments of finished shell bangles together with unfinished shell circlets, the present analysis includes only fragments of finished (and presum- ably worn) objects. When this distinction is made, fragments of fin- ished shell bangles are actually more abundant at Shikarpur (contra registry entries presented in Fig. 5), despite the fact that Bagasra was a center for their manufacture. Faience beads are the second most abundant ornament at Bagasra, yet they are rela- tively rare at Shikarpur. Similarly, while terracotta beads and ban- gles are quite common at Shikarpur, they are exceedingly rare at Bagasra. In contrast to these ornaments, an assortment of other hard stone beads (including agate, carnelian, jasper, amazonite, and lapis) are relatively quite rare at both sites. It is challenging to come to clear conclusions regarding the rela- tive wealth of the residents of Bagasra and Shikarpur on the basis of Fig. 6. Ornament types at Bagasra and Shikarpur. this variation. Steatite beads and shell bangles, for example, are rea- sonably equally distributed between the two sites, with the former a Civilization, for example, shell bangles are most often associated bit more common at Bagasra and the latter a bit more common at with adult women as grave goods (Dales and Kenoyer, 1991; Shikarpur. The major differences apparent in this analysis are Kenoyer, 1991b). The relative greater abundance of both shell between the relative abundance of faience beads and terracotta and terracotta bangles at Shikarpur then might indicate that there ornaments. Considering the respective manufacturing processes, it were more women at Shikarpur than at Bagasra, or more accu- is expected that finely crafted faience beads would be more valuable rately, there were more women practicing Harappan modes of than simply made terracotta ornaments. While this supposition is adornment at Shikarpur than at Bagasra. fundamentally correct, it is also true that these ornaments are so dif- ferent from one another as to be almost incomparable. While it is known that stylistically similar Harappan ornaments were often Steatite beads crafted in a range of differently valued materials (Kenoyer, 1991b), with bleached carnelian and red and white faience beads Steatite was one of the most important materials used in the mimicking similar shapes in naturally white and red agate beads, Indus Civilization, Vidale (2000: 63) observing that ‘‘white disk for example, this phenomenon does not seem to be at play in this beads, already produced in several types during the Regionalization case. Terracotta ornaments are not imitations of faience beads, but Era of the Indus Period...are perhaps the most distinctive and ubiq- are rather a completely different category of object. uitous artifact of the Integration Era (ca. 2600–1900 BC)’’. These Within the category of bangles, however, both the shell and ter- observations are borne true at both Bagasra and Shikarpur, where racotta varieties are relatively more common at Shikarpur than at they are the most abundant ornament found at each site. The Bagasra. Given the symbolically charged nature of ornaments, this assemblage of steatite beads at both sites is highly standardized, pattern may relate to a variety of other social distinctions apart comprised primarily of tiny, white, unglazed cylindrical microbeads from simple wealth differentials. Cross-culturally, ornament styles (1 mm) and larger diameter disc varieties common throughout are often markers of personal identity. In the context of the Indus the Indus Civilization (Fig. 5). It is technically difficult to distinguish

Fig. 5. Ornaments at Bagasra and Shikarpur: steatite microbeads (a), steatite disc beads (b), faience beads (c), finished shell bangle fragments (d), and unfinished shell circlets (e). 70 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 between weathered beads crafted of massive talc bodies from those residents of Bagasra appear to have been accumulating the small- that may have been made of formed and fired talc paste est microbeads to a much greater extent than the residents of (Barthélemy de Saizieu and Bouquillon, 1997; Vidale, 2000). Many Shikarpur, where larger disc type beads are considerably more white talcose beads at Bagasra and Shikarpur, however, especially common. To the extent that (strings of) steatite beads represented the thin wafer-like types, demonstrate sawing marks on their per- standard units of exchange (Kenoyer, 2010), it is likely that these forated surfaces, indicating their having been cut from a cylinder relatively few distinct shapes and sizes had different associated of massive steatite as has been documented at Harappa (Kenoyer, values related to their physical properties and manufacturing pro- 1997, 2005) and Mohenjodaro (Vidale, 1989). Law’s analysis of cesses. While their values relative to one another are not presently one fired-white microbead from Bagasra (referred to in the text as known, these data nevertheless suggest that different patterns of Gola Dhoro) provides further evidence for the use of massive stea- wealth accumulation characterized the residents of Bagasra and tite for the production of microbeads found at the site (Law, 2011: Shikarpur. 649–651). All of the steatite beads from Bagasra and Shikarpur are all Faience beads bright white in color, indicating that they had been fired in a kiln or canister of some sort to over 900 °C, the point at which some Representing the height of Indus technological sophistication, varieties of steatite turn white and harden. While there are several faience beads, some with an intact blue-green glazed surface, are steatite sources in adjacent southern Rajasthan, research by Law present at both sites although they are much more common at has demonstrated that the only steatite available to Indus peoples Bagasra (Fig. 6). Although a variety of shapes are present at both that would regularly and reliably fire white is from dolomitic sites, the assemblage at each is dominated by the tubular variety deposits in the mountainous Hazara region north of Harappa (95% and Shikarpur and 90% at Bagasra). Detailed compositional (Law, 2011: 178–261). If white microbeads were comprised of talc studies of these objects have yet to be undertaken. Visual inspec- paste bodies, they nevertheless would have been constructed of tion, however, indicates that they are similar in composition to talc powder derived from white-firing parent materials. These Indus beads known from Harappa and other Indus settlements observations in conjunction with the absence of steatite manufac- (Kenoyer, 1994, 2005). Indus faience beads were formed from a turing debris at either Bagasra or Shikarpur, suggest that the stea- white paste, usually finely ground quartz, combined with fluxing tite beads at both sites had been imported in their finished form. agents and colorants that formed a glazed surface when fired Most likely, they were crafted in one of the major Indus cities such under controlled conditions to around 960 °C, perhaps in canisters as Harappa or Mohenjodaro, where steatite working, including the prepared with non-sticking surface treatments of powdered stea- mass production of beads, was undertaken by crafting communi- tite and finely crushed bone (Kenoyer, 2005; Miller, 2008a). At ties who in turn appear to have been indirectly controlled by urban Bagasra, a cache of misfired beads and grinding stones in associa- elites (Kenoyer, 1997, 2005). tion with ashy deposits that include chunks of locally available As has been noted by Vidale and Miller (2000), white-fired talc- quartz as well as quartz powder is evidence that the residents of ose beads were ‘‘ideal markers for an expanding population of stat- the site were involved with the faience industry (Bhan et al., used individuals.’’ Their manufacture could be relatively easily 2004; Sonawane et al., 2003). controlled given relatively restricted access to raw materials and the highly elaborated technological practices involved in their pro- Shell bangles duction. Moreover despite their high inherent value, they are incredibly small; excavated intact ornaments are typically com- Shell bangle fragments are remarkably common at both Bagasra prised of many beads, sometimes numbering into the hundreds, and Shikarpur, which is to be expected given that the Gulf of Kutch strung together. The practical value of single beads would have was an important regional source of the shells from which bangles therefore been quite low. This property, combined with restricted found throughout the Indus civilization were crafted (Kenoyer, access, render white-fired steatite beads ideal vehicles for the circu- 1984, 1991c). As with Harappan shell bangles found at all of the lation, accumulation, and display of wealth (Kenoyer, 2010). Fur- major Indus cities and towns, nearly all of the shell bangles from thermore, for both their users in the past as well as for both Bagasra and Shikarpur are made from circlets sawn from archaeologists in the present, they are clear evidence of some degree Turbinella pyrum shells that were then ground and polished. Both of participation in the long distance social networks that linked Bagasra and Shikarpur are situated along coasts of the Gulf of coastal regions of Gujarat to the alluvial plains during Indus times. Our analysis of a large, representative sample of steatite beads from Bagasra and Shikarpur follows a standard typology widely applied by archaeologists in South Asia. Micro beads are short cylindrical beads approximately 1 mm in diameter and length (Fig. 5a), disc beads are similarly shaped cylinders, but larger in both diameter (Fig. 5b). Tubular beads have small diameters around 1–2 mm but are typically 1–2 cm in length, similar in shape and size to the most widely distributed Harappan faience beads (Fig. 5d). Given their low frequency and the difficulty of distin- guishing weathered steatite and faience objects without instru- mental analyses, it is possible that some of the beads recorded as tubular steatite beads may in fact be crafted of faience. The great abundance of white-fired steatite beads at both Bagasra and Shikarpur is clear indication that the residents of both settlements were intensely engaged in the steatite economy of the Indus Civilization. The fact that they are roughly equally abundant amongst other ornament classes initially suggests a similar pattern of use at the two sites. The distribution of different shaped steatite beads, however, is not equal at both sites (Fig. 7). Rather, the Fig. 7. Steatite bead types at Bagasra and Shikarpur. B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 71

Kutch that are today seasonally inundated salt marshes. Today, T. pyrum shells are available only in deeper waters along the southern coast approximately 100 km to the west, although they may have been available closer to the sites with higher sea levels during the third millennium. Further along this coast at the tip of Saurash- tra near the prime habitat of T. pyrum, the Harappan settlement of Nageshwar was a center for the manufacture of shell bangles as well as shell objects from other locally available species (Bhan and Kenoyer, 1980; Hegde et al., 1991). Despite its location likely outside of the main shell collection areas in the Gulf of Kutch, Bagasra was nevertheless home to the most significant shell bangle workshop thus far excavated in the context of the Indus Civilization (Bhan and Gowda, 2003; Sonawane et al., 2003). This workshop occupied several contiguous rooms and contained hundreds of raw T. pyrum shells, sorted by size and quality into three piles and caches containing approxi- mately 2000 unfinished shell circlets (and an additional approxi- mately 3000 fragments thereof) alongside grinding stones Fig. 8. Finished bangle fragments and unfinished circlet pieces at Bagasra and Shikarpur compared to Nagwada. Note that this figure does not include the caches suitable for finishing these circlets into finished bangles. While it of shell bangles found in the workshop area at Bagasra. is not known why these particular circlets were never finished, the workshop area contains several distinct caches of unfinished objects along with evidence for structural maintenance and recon- struction, suggesting that it was in use over several generations. Fragments of unfinished bangles are found in nearly every layer of every trench at Bagasra. This widespread incorporation of shell working debris into domestic trash deposits is characteristic of urban shell workers’ neighborhoods documented by Kenoyer (1983: 306–369) in late 20th century West Bengal. While all of these types of shell manufacturing debris are also found at Shikar- pur, no workshop area has yet been discovered. More significantly, the ratio of unfinished bangle pieces to fragments of finished ban- gles from archaeological contexts throughout the site is consider- ably lower than at Bagasra, indicating a much lower overall intensity of production (Fig. 8). Moreover, the ratio of unfinished to finished bangle fragments at Bagasra is greater than that reported from the shell bangle manufacturing center of Nageshwar (Hegde et al., 1991: 263). During the period of the workshop’s operation, Bagasra appears to have been a particularly important Fig. 9. Chevron designs on fragments of shell bangles from Bagasra (a) and shell bangle manufacturing center exploiting Gulf of Kutch shell Shikarpur (b). for the mass-production and export of these distinctively Harap- pan ornaments to consumers throughout the Indus Civilization. of shell bangles at Bagasra is statistically significant, the degree dif- There is very little stylistic elaboration within the corpus of ference is relatively small. A reasonable interpretation of this data Harappan shell bangles. A single incised chevron, typically at the is that women wearing distinctively Harappan personal ornaments suture where the shell fuses to itself forming a circular ring, is were resident at both sites. the only form of regularly recorded decoration in Harappan con- Kenoyer (1991b, 1997) has argued on the basis of contemporary texts (Fig. 9). While the very few complete bangles recovered from ethnographic observations that thinner, more delicate bangles are these sites all exhibit the chevron motif, approximately 15% of the often worn by women from elite families who are not engaged in finished bangle fragments from Bagasra and 7% of those from Shi- manual labor, while women who are more regularly engaged in karpur bear this marking. This relatively low frequency of deco- potentially bangle-breaking physical labor tend to wear wider rated pieces is due to the fragmentation process; most pieces of styles. The mean widths of finished shell bangles at Bagasra, are a broken bangle are relatively small portions of originally complete greater on average than those from Shikarpur (Fig. 10). As thinner bangles and thus do not include the decorated portion. bangles break into a greater number of smaller pieces, this differ- Shell bangles of the type produced and worn at Bagasra and Shi- ence may account for the variation in the relative prevalence of karpur were among the very few ornaments buried with the dead, decorated pieces noted above. This pattern may also account for specifically with adult women, at cemeteries in inland cities and the slightly greater relative abundance of bangle fragments at Shi- towns such as Harappa (Kenoyer, 1991b) and Farmana (Shinde karpur (Fig. 6). As noted above, the residents of Bagasra appear to et al., 2011). This suggests that shell bangles had some important have been more heavily invested in crafting than were the resi- personal meaning for Indus women beyond their purely economic dents of Shikarpur, and it is inconceivable that the women of craft- valuation. Not all women were buried with shell bangles, however, ing families at Bagasra were not intimately involved in craft and it seems that their use was restricted to a particular set of production. While they were creating objects of wealth and value, Harappan women defined perhaps by life events, regional ancestry, hauling and preparing shells, cutting circlets, and grinding quartz wealth, or some other social distinction. From this perspective, the was ultimately physical labor sure to break the finest shell bangles. fact that, shell bangles are actually a bit more common among the If this behavioral pattern observed by Kenoyer holds true for ornaments at Shikarpur might be interpreted as their having been Harappan Gujarat, then it would appear that the people wearing more women at that site who followed ornamentation traditions shell bangles at Shikarpur were less likely to be engaged in manual that we recognize as Harappan (Fig. 6). While greater abundance labor than were their counterparts at Bagasra. 72 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78

Fig. 10. Widths of finished shell bangle fragments at Bagasra and Shikarpur.

Terracotta ornaments Very little has been written on these humble ornaments apart from basic descriptions of the type and the recognition that they Ornaments of terracotta, primarily beads and bangles, are more are, in fact, very common at Indus urban centers such as Harappa common at Shikarpur than they are at Bagasra (Fig. 11a and b). (Kenoyer, 1991b). As objects crafted of immediately available Over 900 terracotta bangle fragments have been recorded at Shi- materials and crafted with the most basic and perhaps least con- karpur, for example, while only 21 have been recorded at Bagasra, trollable technologies, it seems that these objects would have fewer even than either lapis or amazonite beads at that site. 96% of had little intrinsic value. This supposition is supported by their rel- bangle fragments from Shikarpur are simple round clay coils with atively irregular construction and general lack of decoration. Spe- no decoration of any kind. The remaining pieces often exhibit some cialist craftspeople at either site could simply do better than this combination of a fugitive red slip and simple black painted dots or had they valued the objects enough to put even a fraction of the stripes. Even the smallest fragments demonstrate considerable effort into their production as was regularly applied to other crafts. irregularity in form, deviating from circular to such an extent that This enigmatic feature of Harappan ornaments requires further diameter measurements were largely meaningless. Similarly, ter- exploration, but at present, it is enough to infer that it is unlikely racotta beads, while not particularly common at either site, are that the mass of terracotta ornaments were created to mimic other, more common at Shikarpur than at Bagasra. While some terracotta more valuable forms. While there are one or two examples of ter- beads may have been slipped or painted, they are undecorated. In racotta that could possibly be mistaken for the more precisely general they are and are not particularly well made (Fig. 11b). Few, crafted stoneware bangles, the vast majority of them are clearly if any, show signs of long-term wear as is common with stone of a different shape and quality and all are obviously incomparable beads. Crafted of commonly available pottery clay, these orna- to shell bangles. Similarly, while the terracotta beads are generally ments could have been fired along with pottery, which was likely similar in shape and size to some hard stone beads, it is challenging produced at each site or even in simple household firings. to interpret then as simple imitations of more valuable ornaments.

Fig. 11. Terracotta objects at Bagasra and Shikarpur representative of: bangles (a), beads (b), animal figurines (c), closed frame cart chassis (d), cart wheels (e), balls (f), and triangular cakes (g). B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 73

Regardless, they may have served similar or related symbolic roles (Fig. 12b and d). Both of these rather uncommon but highly distinct to those held by other more valuable ornaments for some seg- specimens have clear parallels to examples from Harappa (Clark, ments of society. If Harappan women of some particular status 2007) and other Indus settlements. Similarly, the terracotta carts wore shell bangles, for example, then perhaps their daughters at Bagasra (Rogersdotter, 2006) and Shikarpur are of only two dis- learned their mothers’ bodily habitus through mimetic play with tinct types, either hollow or solid chassis (e.g., Fig. 11d), with the cheap, expendable terracotta forms easily obtained from the local same general size, shape, and pattern of perforations as the major- potter. While this scenario is necessarily speculative, it is neverthe- ity of the terracotta carts at Harappa (Kenoyer, 2004, 2009) and less true that the residents of Shikarpur made and used terracotta most other Harappan settlements (e.g., Shinde et al., 2011). The bangles in a way that the residents of Bagasra rarely did. In fact, wheels that would have been used with these carts are equally these objects are so different in technological character from the similar between the two sites are also similar in size, shape, and other classes of finely crafted ornaments considered here that they (occasional) decoration to those known from most other Harappan are best considered in the context of other more mundane house- sites (Fig. 11e). Clay is a plastic medium that can be shaped into hold items. endless variety of forms. The fact that it was shaped into objects with clear parallels to objects similar to those known from the Indus cities and towns from the Punjab to Gujarat is testament Technologies of domestic practice to the social networks through which people, ideas, and goods moved during the period of Harappan integration. While a variety The diversity of the Harappan terracotta repertoire at Bagasra of social mechanisms may account for this pattern, it is neverthe- and Shikarpur is impressive including not only the terracotta orna- less clear that individuals familiar with the wider Harappan terra- ments discussed above, but also smaller quantities of zoomorphic cotta tradition were responsible for the production and use of figurines, miniature carts and wheels, balls, and a wide range of these objects at Bagasra and Shikarpur. miscellaneous objects (Fig. 11). They appear to be crafted of the While these objects are clearly identifiable as Harappan objects, same presumably local clay visually similar to that from which there is little evidence for any degree of standardization of manu- the vast majority of pottery at the sites was formed. They could facture within each category. Rather, there is evidence within the have been fired alongside pottery or fired alone in more ephemeral corpus of considerable diversity of technical skill and investment installations. In any case, they do not require any materials, tech- in the final product. While some carts or bull figurines are nicely niques, or installations that would not be present in the context formed, other programmatically similar objects are simply sloppy of pottery manufacture. with misshapen heads or signs of obvious mistakes such as incom- Many of the terracotta forms at Bagasra and Shikarpur are plete perforations. When compared to the obvious craftsmanship highly distinctive and show clear parallels to similar items found that went into the manufacture of the ornaments discussed above at towns and cities throughout the Indus Civilization. Among the or the wheel-based pottery industry likely practiced at both sites, relatively small assemblage of bull figurines, for example, are sev- the corpus of terracotta objects simply seems childlike. Whether eral examples from both sites of humped bulls with transverse per- this is because actual children were involved in the forming stages forations through their shoulders (Fig. 12a and c). Cattle heads of production is unknown, although personal experience suggests with perforated neck joints that were a moving part of a composite that any youngster with motivation could form reasonable facsim- figurine or puppet of some sort are also found from both sites iles of most of these objects. Alternatively, adults with no particular

Fig. 12. Figurines from Bagasra (a and b) and Shikarpur (c and d). 74 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 skill in the ceramic arts may have crafted them on particular occa- heated irregularly and at low temperatures. In short, Miller argues sions. Similar variation in the corpus of terracotta human and ani- that they served as ‘‘artificial stones’’ at Harappa, located in the mal figurines at Harappa has led Clark (2009: 246) to suggest that Indus alluvium where actual stone had to be imported from con- ‘‘the process of making Harappan figurines was as important as siderable distance. the figurines themselves.’’ The fact that only approximately 300 of these objects were While the terracotta corpus includes items such as carts that are recorded from Bagasra after ten seasons of excavation whereas often referred to informally as toys, it has often been argued that nearly 78,000 terracotta cake fragments have been recorded from figurines in particular may have been created and used in the con- Shikarpur after only five seasons is perhaps the most dramatic evi- text of Harappan ritual life (Ardeleanu-Jansen, 2002; Clark, 2009; dence for difference in practice between the two sites. As these Kenoyer, 1998). The precise function of these objects may not be objects have been found in association with pottery kilns at Harap- knowable, however, and individual objects may well have passed pa, this variation may relate to greater involvement in pottery through a series of roles in their use-life prior to discard along with manufacture at Shikarpur; although no intact kilns have yet been other domestic trash. Regardless of uncertainties regarding their discovered, there is ample evidence for the firing of pottery. As is precise meaning and function(s), a conservative interpretation is the case at Harappa, however, terracotta cake fragments are more that they are best interpreted as having been produced and used often found in undifferentiated domestic debris at Shikarpur, sug- in domestic contexts. Cross-culturally, domestic life is rife with rit- gesting that they were more often used in a range of domestic con- ual great and small, from the taking of meals to the celebration of texts. While we do not know exactly what they were used for, holidays and life events, and many of these involve the creation these practices were undertaken more often at Shikarpur than at of objects that may be recognized as toys. In small communities Bagasra. Obviously, the residents of Bagasra could have crafted with active pottery traditions such as Bagasra and Shikarpur, it is these humble objects had they desired to use them, yet they appar- expected that the clay forms of some such objects occasionally ently rarely did. Conversely, the residents of Shikarpur expended would have been fired, preserving them for posterity. From this per- time, energy, and resources to create ‘‘artificial stones’’ for use in spective, as well as their indiscriminate distribution alongside the the practice of basic household tasks when, unlike the alluvial set- domestic trash that comprises the majority of the archaeological ting of Harappa, copious real stone was available in the immediate record at Bagasra and Shikarpur, we argue that terracotta objects vicinity. Rather, the residents of Shikarpur apparently felt that the are best interpreted as the material correlates of private domestic use of triangular terracotta cakes was integral to the proper prac- practice (cf., Ardeleanu-Jansen, 2002; Clark, 2009; Kenoyer, 1998). tice of daily life. While we cannot know exactly why, we can spec- Terracotta objects of all types are more commonly encountered ulate that as with most elements of daily habitus, a range of at Shikarpur than they are at Bagasra (Fig. 3), where they are a rel- opinions and explanations for their practice likely existed in the atively rare find. Both sites likely had pottery industries, so terra- past just as a myriad of perspectives and mythologies surround cotta the terracotta objects common at Shikarpur could have regional cooking styles in the present. Further, just as cuisine prac- been produced with minimal cost and effort at Bagasra should they tices in the present often symbolically link us to family and ances- have been in demand there. Given limitations in our current under- try (Twiss, 2012), it seems that the use of triangular terracotta standing regarding the way these objects were actually used, a cakes linked the residents of Shikarpur to communities in the variety of explanations may be called upon to account for this pat- Indus alluvium, where such objects were most commonly used. tern. If the objects were indeed created and used as part of partic- The residents of Bagasra do not seem to have materialized these ular household rituals, then perhaps the residents of Shikarpur links in the same way. were practicing rituals that the residents of Bagasra were not. If fig- urines and such were indeed associated with children, then per- Harappan cooking pots haps Shikarpur may simply have been home to more young families, i.e., more young families following Harappan domestic While a detailed analyses of ceramics is outside the scope of this practices, than at the more intensely industrial Bagasra. While pos- paper, some preliminary findings regarding the frequency and dis- sible scenarios are diverse given our present level of knowledge, it tribution of distinctively Harappan-style cooking pots is relevant to nevertheless seems clear that the residents of Bagasra and Shikar- the argument developed above (Fig. 13). Research by Lindstrom pur maintained different sets of domestic practices over the course (2013, in press) at Bagasra has identified only 19 fragments of typ- of the generations during which the sites were occupied. ically Harappan-style cooking pots as known from Harappa and Mohenjodaro out of approximately 11,000 diagnostic sherds exam- Terracotta cakes ined from every excavation area at the site. In contrast, Ajithpra- sad’s study of the ceramics from a single index trench from Triangular terracotta objects referred to as ‘‘cakes’’ are ubiqui- inside the walled enclosure (Em13) at Shikarpur has shown 64 tous at Indus archaeological sites (e.g., Fig. 11g). While there is a diagnostic sherds of these distinctively Harappan cooking pots. long tradition in the literature discussing the possible ritual, While the analysis of the voluminous pottery assemblages from domestic, and industrial functions of these objects (for a detailed Bagasra and Shikarpur is ongoing, this is a first indication that review of this literature see Manuel, 2010), the fact that they have the residents of Shikarpur were at least occasionally cooking food been found in nearly every possible archaeological context sug- in a manner different from their neighbors at Bagasra. In conjunc- gests that they were multifunctional objects incorporated into tion with the overabundance of triangular terracotta cakes at the the archaeological record alongside other domestic debris. Miller site, this is again clear evidence that the regular use of Harappan (1999: 154–164), in one of the few detailed considerations of their cooking pots linked the residents of Shikarpur to Harappan com- typological and technological characteristics and contexts of depo- munities in the alluvium and distinguished them from the resi- sition, has shown that at Harappa these usually low- and irregu- dents of Bagasra. larly fired, chaff-tempered clay objects were used in association with pyrotechnologies of all sorts. They were used to secure pots in kilns during firing, but were more often used in the context of Discussion domestic hearths to stabilize pots, reflect and conserve heat during cooking, and possibly to keep food warm in serving vessels. Many The presence of a full range of Harappan material culture by the appear to have been fired in the course of their use having been residents of both Bagasra and Shikarpur demonstrates that the B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 75

while a greater number of individuals engaged in interregional trade and exchange seem to have been in residence at Shikarpur. While the residents of each site accumulated significant wealth in the form of steatite beads and shell bangles, variation in the rel- ative abundance of different sizes and forms of these suggests sig- nificant and systematic, albeit subtle, variation in patterns of wealth accumulation between the site—as is to be expected given their residents’ participation in different economic sectors. Despite subtle variation in their relative abundance within the assemblage of ornaments, steatite beads and shell bangles, two of the most distinctive Harappan ornaments, were in wide use at both sites demonstrating considerable unity in public self-presen- tation that linked residents of these small sites with their contem- poraries throughout the Indus Civilization. Marine shell bangles incorporating the single chevron motif, for example, are common at both Bagasra and Shikarpur, and the individuals who wore them, presumably women, can be expected to have shared a perception of common affiliation, symbolically linking them to women throughout the towns and cities of the Indus Civilization. While the overall abundance of shell bangles is roughly equivalent at each site, suggesting a general parity in the population of presum- ably adult women at each site, shell bangle fragments at Shikarpur are thinner, suggesting that the women of this site were less involved with manual labor as compared to their counterparts at Bagasra. This observation challenges the notion that terracotta bangles, found in great numbers at Shikarpur while quite rare at Bagasra, were less valuable imitations of shell bangles available to less elite communities (cf., Miller, 2008b). Rather, the abundance of these objects suggests that a class of terracotta bangle wearing people, perhaps children, was better represented at Shikarpur than Fig. 13. Harappan cooking pots from Shikarpur. at Bagasra—alongside more elite wearers of thinner shell bangles. This unity of public presentation, however, masks considerable residents of each site were linked to one another and the wider social diversity between the settlements. This is most clearly dem- Indus world by dense social networks through which goods, peo- onstrated by the relative greater abundance of items related to dis- ple, and ideas travelled. The relative abundance of different artifact tinctively Harappan domestic practice, especially terracotta types varies considerably between these two near neighbors, how- ornaments, figurines, ‘‘toy’’ carts, triangular terracotta cakes, and ever, suggesting the existence of considerable social diversity Harappan-style cooking pots, at Shikarpur as compared to Bagasra. beneath this superficial material uniformity. Given the palimpsest All of these terracotta objects were likely produced locally yet are nature of the archaeological contexts under consideration and the nearly identical in form to examples from the cities and towns of coarse contextual grain of our current analyses, we begin from a the Indus alluvium, suggesting that their makers and users per- minimalist interpretive position recognizing these objects as the ceived a shared connection to the heartland of Indus urbanism in material correlates of daily practice at each site throughout their a way that most of their neighbors at Bagasra did not. As they were occupations. From this perspective, it is quite possible to infer likely instrumental to the performance of daily practice in private the ways in which even the most mundane of household object household contexts, these objects would have been especially can be understood as integral to the materialization of an individ- important for the construction of reflexive social identities ual’s social identity (Fisher and Loren, 2003; Smith, 1999, 2007). (Smith, 2007) in contrast to the more public presentation of affili- Given that individual identities are dynamic, multivalent, and con- ation communicated through the wearing of distinctively Harap- textual constructs (Meskell and Preucel, 2004), interpreting spe- pan beads and bangles. In this regard, it is perhaps ironic that cific aspects of past individual and community social identities in while the residents of Bagasra were literally crafting Harappan lieu of written texts is particularly challenging. Here, we focus pri- identity in the form of shell bangles, it was rather Shikarpur’s trad- marily on evidence that speaks to similarity and difference ing communities who maintained their households in a more dis- between the residents of Bagasra and Shikarpur as relate to the fol- tinctly Harappan way. lowing interrelated social fields: (1) economic pursuits, (2) public This interpretation of unity and diversity challenges straightfor- representations of identity, and (3) variation in the performance ward interpretations of material diversity at Bagasra and Shikarpur of more private domestic practice. in terms of simple ethnic distinctions. While distinctive domestic Regarding economic pursuits, our analyses show that although practice is certainly characteristic of ethnic identities in many his- the residents of both sites participated in the steatite economy of torical and contemporary situations (Emberling, 1997), ethnicity is the Indus Civilization, there exists considerable variation in the multivalent and situational in practice and an individual’s concep- productive activities engaged in by the residents of each site. The tion and presentation of self may change from social setting to residents of Bagasra were more intensely involved in the produc- social setting, by way of marriage, or for more ideological or prag- tion of goods from locally available materials, most notably Harap- matic or political reasons (Bentley, 1987). The identification of eth- pan shell bangles and faience beads, while the residents of nic identities on the basis of material culture is therefore fraught Shikarpur were less heavily invested in craft manufacture, yet with interpretive difficulties (Jones, 1997). The evidence presented had greater access to a range of imported Harappan goods obtained above is therefore more pragmatically understood as relating to via interregional networks. It thus appears that a significant variation in the practice of family life. Representatives of multiple number of people engaged in crafting made their home at Bagasra, families following different economic interests, maintaining differ- 76 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 ent domestic practices, and perceiving different notions of shared Conclusions ancestry would have been present at different sites. As these com- munities negotiated shifting relationships of commerce—and likely Writing nearly two decades ago, Meadow and Kenoyer marriage—over the course of generations, their different modes of observed that the ‘‘typical Harappan’’ complex of material traits engagement with the material world in the form of production, such as we have documented here ‘‘can now be seen as something trade, and consumption, produced the varied material record that of a veneer of varying thickness overlying diverse local and regio- we have documented here. nal cultural expressions’’ that ‘‘leads us to look for the social corre- The specific patterns of variation that we have identified then lates of the veneer and of its expression, to examine the processes, relate primarily to demographics: how many of which families mechanisms, and timing of its development and spread’’ (Meadow were present at each site. Following the analyses and interpreta- and Kenoyer, 1997: 139). The findings that we have presented here tions presented above, it would seem that the families resident are perhaps an ideal example of the Meadow and Kenoyer’s veneer at Bagasra perhaps shared more local ancestry as indicated by a metaphor—while the residents of both Bagasra and Shikarpur pub- general lack of the material correlates of Harappan domestic prac- lically identified with one another, privately, in their homes, they tice as known from the alluvium. Conversely, more families at Shi- were materializing their social identities in very different ways. karpur appear to have been deeply invested in maintaining private, Top-down analytical perspectives such as the world-systems mod- reflexive identities that affiliated them with the wider Harappan els that have been called upon to explain the integration of Gujarat world. This interpretation is consistent with our findings that the into the Indus Civilization (e.g., Dhavalikar, 1994) can describe the residents of each site generally participated in different economic basic contours of the settlement system—locally-sourced raw pursuits. While the maintenance of local affiliations were neces- material were, for example, being processed at small peripheral sary for families at Bagasra to obtain the shells and other locally- settlements in response to demand in distant urban centers. They sourced materials essential to their livelihoods, more interregional cannot, however, explain the patterns of material unity and diver- affiliations were necessary for the families resident at Shikarpur to sity that we have identified here. Rather, our findings are commen- maintain theirs. This private diversity, however, was masked by surate with more bottom-up perspectives on the borderlands of the public communication of a unified Harappan identity through complex societies in which complex patterns of material diversity common conventions of ornamentation that facilitated the net- are interpreted as reflective of the negotiation and materialization works of interaction, exchange, and ultimately interdependence of novel hybrid personal and community identities (Stein, 2002). that necessarily linked the residents of these two very small bor- Specifically in this case, the residents of these two superficially derland communities to one another as well as their contemporar- similar walled settlements—that both might be interpreted as col- ies throughout the Indus Civilization. onies in a hierarchically ordered and centrally managed resource This perspective helps us to interpret several rather enigmatic extraction system—were privately maintaining different domestic features of Indus settlements in the borderlands that cannot be sat- practices while publically displaying their Harappan affiliation. isfactorily explained the top-down models as discussed above. The It is crucial to conclude, however, that further excavations and monumental walled enclosures at both Bagasra and Shikarpur, for analyses are needed to fully refine our interpretations and evalu- example, are clear evidence for the existence of authority capable ate our conclusions. Regardless, we feel that our model represents of organizing space and labor beyond the individual household. an important step in an ongoing process of inference to the best Moreover, the repeated maintenance of these structures through- explanation. As Fogelin (2007) argues, this philosophically prag- out the occupational sequence at the sites indicates that this matic epistemological position is, in fact, the way in which pro- authority was maintained for at least several generations. As at ductive archaeological interpretation has taken place throughout most Harappan settlements, however, there is a conspicuous lack the history of the discipline. Specifically, ‘‘explanations that are of evidence for distinct elite communities such as sumptuous empirically broad, general, modest, conservative, simple, testable, housing or marked class inequalities indicative of early state-level and address many perspectives are better than explanations that societies elsewhere. Following the model presented above, it was are not.’’ The scenario that we present above, namely that the rather extended families that provided the multigenerational variation in the production and use of Harappan material culture structures necessary organize space and labor to construct the in Gujarat can best be accounted for by the existence of multigen- walled enclosure and maintain order within the close residential erational kin groups with varied economic interests, domestic quarters within. Here, the rights and responsibilities of individual practices, and backgrounds is broadly and generally true of bor- residents were structured more by family ties than to other more derlands cross-culturally. It is supported by multiple independent state-like, non-kin organizations, as was often the case in historical datasets modestly interpreted from well-established materialist episodes of territorial expansion directed by centralized political as well as more ideational perspectives and fits well with broader authorities elsewhere (Smith, 2011). understandings of Indus society. As with earlier models of Indus Developed as an explanation of material variation at Bagasra society, however, we fully expect that ours will be modified as and Shikarpur, this model is broadly consistent with other contem- it is evaluated against the fantastic amount of new data that is porary interpretations of Indus social organization. Specifically, emerging from Harappan Gujarat and other regions of the Indus Kenoyer (1991a) has long argued that the widespread distribution Civilization. Further excavations, technical studies of specific of relatively uniform forms of Harappan material culture through- crafts such as the faience, steatite and lithic industries (Gadekar out the expanse of the Indus Civilization is more likely the result of et al., 2014), documentation of the inter- and intra-site distribu- kin-based communities of specialist traders and craftspeople tion of particular ceramic forms (Lindstrom, 2013, in press), and rather than standardization imposed by the centralized political analyses of faunal remains (Chase, 2010, 2012) will all provide authorities that may have been operative in the largest cities. new information about subsistence organization and domestic The present work is of course ultimately built upon a broadly sim- practice in the region. If this work spurs new research, analysis, ilar interpretive framework privileging objects’ technological and and debate, we have been successful in peeling back the Harap- stylistic characteristics. It is the first time, however, that this model pan veneer and are one step closer to understanding the social has been applied to empirical studies of multiple independent lines dynamics of the Indus Civilization. Finally, we believe that the of evidence generated from recently excavated archaeological sites methodological and theoretical perspectives advanced here in in Gujarat. the context of South Asia’s first urban society will productively B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 77 contribute to anthropological understandings of early complex Chakrabarti, D.K., 1999. India: An Archaeological History. Oxford University Press, societies more generally. New York. Chase, B.A., 2010. Social change at the Harappan settlement of Gola Dhoro: a reading from animal bones. Antiquity 84, 528–543. Acknowledgments Chase, B.A., 2012. Crafting Harappan cuisine on the Saurashtran frontier of the Indus Civilization. In: Graff, S., Rodriguez-Alegria, E. (Eds.), The Menial Art of Cooking: Archaeological Studies of Cooking and Food Preparation. The University Press of We would like to first acknowledge the Archaeological Survey Colorado, Denver. of India and the Gujarat State Department of Archaeology whose Chase, B.A., Ajithprasad, P., Rajesh, S.V., 2010. The identification of diversity: material culture and social practice in Harappan Gujarat. In: Klimburg-Salter, support has made possible the excavations upon which the present D., Widorn, V. (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology (in press). work is based. An American Institute of Indian Studies Senior Chase-Dunn, C., Hall, T.D., 2000. Comparing world-systems to explain social Research Fellowship and Albion College Faculty Development evolution. In: Denemark, R.A. (Ed.), World System History: The Social Science Grants have supported Chase’s participation in this work. A Global of Long-term Change. Routledge, London New York, pp. 85–112. Clark, S.R., 2007. The Social Lives of Figurines: Recontextualizing the Third Heritage Fund Post-doctoral Fellowship supported a portion of Millennium BC Terracotta Figurines from Harappa (Pakistan). Ph.D. Thesis, Rajesh’s work on this project. We would like to personally thank Harvard University. our colleagues and friends at the Maharaja Sayajirao University Clark, S., 2009. Material matters: representation and materiality of the Harappan body. J. Archaeol. Method Theor. 16, 231–261. of Baroda, specifically K. Krishnan, Kuldeep Bhan, V.H. Sonawane, Dales, G.F., Kenoyer, J.M., 1991. Summaries of five seasons of research at Harappa and S. Pratapchandran, and Charusmita Gadekar along with Mark (District Sahiwal, Punjab, Pakistan) 1986–1990. In: Meadow, R.H. (Ed.), Harappa Kenoyer, Heather Miller, Randall Law, Katie Lindstrom, and Gregg Excavations 1986–1990. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 185–262. Dhavalikar, M.K., 1994. Cultural Imperialism: Indus Civilization in Western India. Jamison for countless thoughtful discussions over many years as Books & Books, New Delhi. we’ve sought to better understand Harappan Gujarat. Any faults Dhavalikar, M.K., Raval, M.R., Chitalwala, Y.M., 1996. Kuntasi: A Harappan of fact or interpretation, however, are exclusively our own. Emporium on the West Coast. Deccan College Post-Graduate Research Institute, Pune. Dietler, M., 1998. Consumption, agency, and cultural entanglement: theoretical References implications of a Mediterranean colonial encounter. In: Cusick, J.G. (Ed.), Studies in Culture Contact. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, pp. 288–315. Agrawal, D.P., 2007. The Indus Civilization: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Aryan Dietler, M., 2010. Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and Books International, New Delhi. Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France. University of California Press, Ajithprasad, P., 2002. The pre-Harappan cultures of Gujarat. In: Settar, S., Korisettar, Berkeley. R. (Eds.), Indian Archaeology in Retrospect 2, Protohistory: Archaeology of the Dobres, M.-A., 2000. Technology and Social Agency. Blackwell, Oxford. Harappan Civilization. Monohar, New Delhi, pp. 129–158. Dobres, M.-A., Hoffman, C.R., 1994. Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric Ajithprasad, P., 2008. Jaidak (Pithad): a Sorath Harappan site in Jamnagar District, technology. J. Archaeol. Method Theor. 1, 211–258. Gujarat and its architectural features. In: Osada, T., Uesugi, A. (Eds.), Occasional Dominguez, A.J., 2002. Greeks in Iberia: colonialism without colonization. In: Lyons, Paper 4: Linguistics, Archaeology, and the Human Past. Research Institute for C.L., Papadopoulos, J.K. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism. Getty Research Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, pp. 83–99. Institute, Los Angeles, pp. 65–95. Ajithprasad, P., Sonawane, V.H., 2011. The Harappa Culture in North Gujarat: a Emberling, G., 1997. Ethnicity in complex societies: archaeological perspectives. J. regional paradigm. In: Osada, T., Uesugi, A. (Eds.), Occasional Paper 12: Archaeol. Res. 5, 295–344. Linguistics, Archaeology, and the Human Past. Research Institute for Fisher, G., Loren, D.D., 2003. Embodying identity in archaeology. Camb. Archaeol. J. Humanity and Nature, Kyoto. 13, 225–230. Ardeleanu-Jansen, A., 2002. The terracotta figurines from Mohenjo Daro: Fogelin, L., 2007. Inference to the best explanation: a common and effective form of considerations on tradition, craft and ideology in the Harappan Civilization (c. archaeological reasoning. Am. Antiq. 72, 603–625. 2400–1800 BC). In: Settar, S., Korisettar, R. (Eds.), Indian Archaeology in Gadekar, C., Rajesh, V., Ajithprasad, P., 2014. Shikarpur lithic assemblage: new Retrospect 2, Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization. questions regarding Rohri chert blade production. J. Lithic Stud. 1. http:// Monohar, New Delhi, pp. 205–222. dx.doi.org/10.2218/jls.v1i1.764. Barthélemy de Saizieu, B., Bouquillon, A., 1997. Evolution of glazed materials from Gosden, C., 2004. Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the chalcolithic to the Indus period based on the data of Mehrgarh and the Present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Nausharo. In: Allchin, R., Allchin, B. (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1995. Hall, T.D., 2000. A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, pp. 63–76. Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology. Rowman & Littlefield, Bentley, G.C., 1987. Ethnicity and practice. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 29, 24–55. Lanham, Md. Bhan, K.K., 1986. Recent explorations in the Jamnagar District of Saurashtra. Man Hegde, K.T.M., Sonawane, V.H., 1986. Landscape and settlement patterns of Harappa Environ. 10, 1–21. Culture villages in the Rupen Estuary. Man Environ. 10, 23–31. Bhan, K.K., 1994. Cultural development of the prehistoric period in North Gujarat Hegde, K.T.M., Bhan, K.K., Sonawane, V.H., Krishnan, K., Shah, D.R., 1991. with reference to western India. South Asian Stud. 10, 71–90. Excavations at Nageshwar: A Harappan Shell Working Site on the Gulf of Bhan, K.K., Ajithprasad, P., 2008. Excavations at Shikarpur 2007–2008: A Coastal Kutch. The Maharajao Sayajirao University, Vadodara. Port and Craft Production Center of the Indus Civilization in Kutch, India. Hoffman, B., Miller, H., 2009. Production and consumption of copper-base metals in Bhan, K.K., Ajithprasad, P., 2009. Excavations at Shikarpur 2008–2009. the Indus Civilization. J. World Prehist. 22, 237–264. Bhan, K.K., Gowda, D., 2003. Shell working at Nagwada (North Gujarat) with special Jennings, J., 2011. Globalizations and the Ancient World. Cambridge University reference to shell industries of the Harappan Tradition in Gujarat. Man Environ. Press, Cambridge, New York. 28, 51–80. Johansen, P.G., 2003. Recasting the foundations: new approaches to regional Bhan, K.K., Kenoyer, J.M., 1980. Nageshwar: a mature Harappan shell working site understandings of South Asian archaeology and the problem of culture history. on the Gulf of Kutch. J. Oriental Inst. 34, 115–120. Asian Perspect. 42, 193–206. Bhan, K.K., Vidale, M., Kenoyer, J.M., 2002. Some important aspects of the Harappan Jones, S., 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and technological tradition. In: Settar, S., Korisettar, R. (Eds.), Indian Archaeology in Present. Routledge, New York. Retrospect 2, Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization. Monohar, Joshi, J.P., 1990. Excavations at Surkotada 1971–1972 and Exploration in Kutch. New Delhi, pp. 223–272. Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. Bhan, K.K., Sonawane, V.H., Ajithprasad, P., Pratapchandran, S., 2004. Excavations of Kardulias, P.N., Hall, T., 2008. Archaeology and world-systems analysis. World an important Harappan trading and craft production center at Gola Dhoro Archaeol. 40, 572–583. (Bagasra), on the Gulf of Kutch, Gujarat, India. J. Interdiscipl. Stud. Hist. Kenoyer, J.M., 1983. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civilization: An Archaeol. 1, 153–158. Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bhan, K.K., Sonawane, V.H., Ajithprasad, P., Pratapchandran, S., 2005. A Harappan California-Berkeley. trading and craft production centre at Gola Dhoro (Bagasra). Antiquity 79, Kenoyer, J.M., 1984. Shell working industries of the Indus Civilization: a summary. . Paléorient 10, 49–63. Biagi, P., Cremaschi, M., 1991. The Harappan flint quarries of the Rohri Hills (Sindh- Kenoyer, J.M., 1989. Socio-economic structures of the Indus Civilization as reflected Pakistan). Antiquity 65, 97–102. in specialized crafts and the question of ritual segregation. In: Kenoyer, J.M. Biagi, P., Nisbet, R., 2010. The prehistoric flint mines at Jhimpir in Lower Sindh (Ed.), Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia. (Pakistan). Antiquity 84, . Department of Archaeology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, pp. Bisht, R.S., 1989. The Harappan colonization of the Kutch: an ergonomic study with 183–192. reference to Dholavira and Surkotada. In: Devi, K., Gopal, L. (Eds.), History and Kenoyer, J.M., 1991a. The Indus Valley Tradition of Pakistan and Western India. J. Art. Ramananda Vidya Bhavan, New Delhi, pp. 265–272. World Prehist. 5, 331–385. Bisht, R.S., 2000. Urban planning at Dholavira: a Harappan city. In: Malville, J.M., Kenoyer, J.M., 1991b. Ornament styles of the Indus Valley Tradition: evidence from Gujral, L.M. (Eds.), Ancient Cities, Sacred Skies: Cosmic Geometries and City recent excavations at Harappa, Pakistan. Paléorient 17, 79–98. Planning in Ancient India. Aryan Books International, New Delhi, pp. 11–23. 78 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78

Kenoyer, J.M., 1991c. Shellworking in the Indus Civilization. In: Jansen, M., Mulloy, Miller, H.M.-L., 2008b. Issues in the determination of ancient value systems: the M., Urban, G. (Eds.), Forgotten Cities on the Indus. Phillip von Zabern, Mainz am role of talc (steatite) and faience in the Indus Civilization. In: Olijdam, E., Spoor, Rhein, pp. 216–219. R.H. (Eds.), Intercultural Relations between South and Southwest Asia. Studies Kenoyer, J.M., 1994. Faience from the Indus Valley Civilization. Ornament 17, 36–39. in Commemoration of E. C. L. During-Caspers (1934–1996). Archaeopress, Kenoyer, J.M., 1997. Trade and technology of the Indus Valley: new insights from Oxford, pp. 145–157. Harappa, Pakistan. World Archaeol. 29, 262–280. Naum, M., 2010. Re-emerging frontiers: postcolonial theory and historical Kenoyer, J.M., 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Oxford archaeology of the borderlands. J. Archaeol. Method Theor. 17, 101–131. University Press, Islamabad. Parker, B.J., 2006. Toward an understanding of borderland processes. Am. Antiq. 71, Kenoyer, J.M., 2000. Wealth and socio-economic hierarchies of the Indus Valley 77–100. Civilization. In: Richards, J., Van Buren, M. (Eds.), Order, Legitimacy and Wealth Patel, A., 2006. Copper artifacts from Bagasra (Gola Dhoro), a Harappan site of in Early States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 90–112. Gujarat, western India. Puratattva 36, 222–231. Kenoyer, J.M., 2004. Die Karren der InduskuItur Pakistans und Indiens. In: Peregrine, P.N., 2000. Archaeology and world-systems theory. In: Hall, T.D. Burmeister, S., Fansa, M. (Eds.), Rad Und Wagen – Der Ursprung Einer (Ed.), A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Innovation; Wagen Im Vorderen Orient Und Europa. Philipp von Zabern, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Mainz-am-Rhein, pp. 87–106. Md, pp. 59–68. Kenoyer, J.M., 2005. Steatite and faience manufacturing at Harappa: new evidence Possehl, G.L., 1980. Indus Civilization in Saurashtra. B.R. Publishing, Delhi. from Mound E excavations 2000–2001. Museum J. (National Museum of Possehl, G.L., 1992. The Harappan Civilization in Gujarat: the Sorath and Sindhi Pakistan) III–IV, 43–56. Harappans. Eastern Anthropol. 45, 117–154. Kenoyer, J.M., 2008. Indus urbanism: new perspectives on its origin and character. Possehl, G.L., 1998. Sociocultural complexity without the state: the Indus In: Marcus, J., Sabloff, J.A. (Eds.), The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Civilization. In: Feinman, G.M., Marcus, J. (Eds.), Archaic States. School of Urbanism in the Old and New World. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 261–291. Fe, NM, pp. 183–208. Possehl, G.L., 2002. The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. AltaMira Kenoyer, J.M., 2009. Carts and wheeled vehicles of the Indus Civilizaton: new Press, New York. evidence from Harappa, Pakistan. In: Osada, T. (Ed.), Occasional Paper 9: Possehl, G.L., Raval, M.H., 1989. Harappan Civilization and Rojdi. Oxford & IBH, New Linguistics, Archaeology, and the Human Past. Research Institute for Humanity Delhi. and Nature, Kyoto, pp. 1–34. Rajesh, S.V., Patel, A., 2006. Excavated Chalcolithic sites in Gujarat: an appraisal. Kenoyer, J.M., 2010. Measuring the Harappan world: insights into the Indus order Purratatva 37, 47–69. and cosmology. In: Morley, I., Renfrew, C. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Rajesh, S.V., Krishnan, K., Ajithprasad, P., Sonawane, V.H., 2013. Evaluating the Measurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies. Anarta tradition in light of material culture from Loteshwar and other sites in Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 106–121. Gujarat, western India. Man Environ. XXXVIII, 10–45. Kenoyer, J.M., Vidale, M., 1992. A new look at stone drills of the Indus Valley Rao, S.R., 1979. Lothal: A Harappan Port Town. Archaeological Survey of India, New Tradition. In: Vandiver, P., Druzick, J.R., Wheeler, G.S., Freestone, I. (Eds.), Delhi. Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III. Materials Research Society, Rogersdotter, E., 2006. Negligible details? On a study of terracotta miniature carts Pittsburgh, pp. 495–518. from a Harappan site in Gujarat. Ancient Asia 1, 81–102. Kharakwal, J.S., Rawat, Y.S., Osada, T. (Eds.), 2012. Research Institute for Humanity Schneider, J., 1977. Was there a pre-capitalist world-system? Peasant Stud. 6, and Nature, Kyoto. 20–29. Kohl, P., 1987. The ancient economy, transferable technologies and the Bronze Age Schortman, E., Urban, P.A., 1998. Culture contact structure and process. In: Cusick, world system: a view from the northweastern frontier of the ancient Near East. J.G. (Ed.), Studies in Culture Contact. Center for Archaeological Investigations, In: Rowlands, M.J., Larsen, M.T., Kristiansen, K. (Eds.), Centre and Periphery in Carbondale, pp. 102–125. the Ancient World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–24. Shinde, V., Osada, T., Kumar, M. (Eds.), 2011. Excavations at Farmana; District Lal, B.B., 1997. The Earliest Civilization of South Asia: Rise, Maturity, and Decline. Rohtak, Haryana, India 2006–2008. Indus Project, Research Institute for Aryan Books International, New Delhi. Humanity and Nature (RIHN), Kyoto. Law, R.W., 2011. Inter-regional Interaction and Urbanism in the Ancient Indus Silliman, S.W., 2001. Theoretical perspectives on labor and colonialism: Valley: A Geologic Provenience Study of Harappa’s Rock and Mineral reconsidering the California missions. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 20, 379–407. Assemblage. Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto. Smith, M.L., 1999. The role of ordinary goods in premodern exchange. J. Archaeol. Lightfoot, K.G., 2005. The archaeology of colonization: California in cross-cultural Method Theor. 6, 109–135. perspective. In: Stein, G.J. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. School Smith, M.L., 2007. Inconspicuous consumption: non-display goods and identity of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 207–235. formation. J. Archaeol. Method Theor. 14, 412–438. Lightfoot, K.G., Martinez, A., 1995. Frontiers and boundaries in archaeological Smith, A.T., 2011. Archaeologies of sovereignty. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 40, 415–432. perspective. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 24, 471–492. Sonawane, V.H., 2005. Harappan Civilization in Western India with special Lindstrom, K.E., 2013. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison. reference to Gujarat. J. Interdiscipl. Stud. Hist. Archaeol. 1, 63–78. Lindstrom, K.E., 2014. The Harappan cooking pot in the borderlands of the Indus Sonawane, V.H., Ajithprasad, P., Bhan, K.K., Krishnan, K., Pratapchandran, S., Civilization: new data from Bagasra (Gola Dhoro mound), Gujarat. In: Majumdar, A., Patel, A.K., Menom, J., 2003. Excavations at Bagasra 1996– Kharakwal, J., Rawat, Y.S., Osada, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Bhuj Roundtable 2003: a preliminary report. Man Environ. 28, 21–50. 2010 on Gujarat Harappans and Rural Chalcolithic Cultures (in press). Stein, G.J., 1999. Rethinking World Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in Lycett, M.T., 2005. On the margins of peripheries: the consequences of differential Uruk Mesopotamia. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. incorporation in the colonial Southwest. In: Susan, K., Alexander, R.T. (Eds.), The Stein, G.J., 2002. From passive periphery to active agents: emerging perspectives in Postclassic to Spanish-Era Transition in Mesoamerica: Archaeological the archaeology of interregional interaction. Am. Anthopol. 104, 903–916. Perspectives. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 97–115. Stein, G.J. (Ed.), 2005. The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. School of American Lydon, J., Rizvi, U.Z. (Eds.), 2010. Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. Left Coast Research Press, Santa Fe. Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Trigger, B.G., 2003. Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Lyons, C.L., Papadopoulos, J.K. (Eds.), 2002. The Archaeology of Colonialism. Getty Cambridge University Press, New York. Research Institute, Los Angeles. Twiss, K., 2012. The archaeology of food and social diversity. J. Archaeol. Res. 20, Madella, M., Ajithprasad, P., Lancelotti, C., Rondelli, B., Balbo, A., French, C., 357–395. Rodríguez, D., et al., 2010. Social and environmental transitions in arid zones: Van Dommelen, P., 2005. Colonial interactions and hybrid practices. In: Stein, G.J. the North Gujarat Archaeological Project—NoGAP. Antiquity 84, . Press, Santa Fe, pp. 109–141. Manuel, J., 2010. The enigmatic mushtikas and the associated triangular terracotta Vidale, M., 1989. A Steatite-Cutting Atelier on the Surface at Moenjodaro. Ann. cakes: some observations. Ancient Asia 2, 41–46. Dell’Istituto Univ. Orient. 49, 29–51. Meadow, R.H., Kenoyer, J.M., 1997. Excavations at Harappa 1994–1995: new Vidale, M., 2000. The Archaeology of Indus Crafts: Indus Craftspeople and Why We perspectives on the Indus script, craft activities and city organization. In: Study Them. Is. A. I. O., Rome. Allchin, B., Allchin, R. (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1995. Oxford & IBH, New Vidale, M., Miller, H., 2000. On the development of Indus technical virtuosity and its Delhi, pp. 139–172. relation to social structure. In: Taddei, M., De Marco, G. (Eds.), South Asian Meadow, R.H., Kenoyer, J.M., 2005. Excavations at Harappa 2000–2001: new Archaeology 1997. Is. A. I. O, Rome, pp. 115–132. insights on chronology and city organization. In: Jarrige, C., Lefèvre, V. (Eds.), Wallerstein, I., 1974. The Modern World System. Academic Press, New York. South Asian Archaeology 2001. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations-ADPF, White, C.L., Beaudry, M.C., 2009. Artifacts and personal identity. In: International Paris, pp. 207–226. Handbook of Historical Archaeology. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 209–225. Meskell, L., Preucel, R.W., 2004. Identities. In: Meskell, L., Preucel, R.W. (Eds.), A Wright, R.P., 1993. Technological styles: transforming a natural material object into Companion to Social Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 121–141. a cultural object. In: Lubar, S.D., Kingery, W.D. (Eds.), History from Things: Miller, H.M.-L., 1999. Pyrotechnology and Society in the Cities of the Indus Valley. Essays on Material Culture. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 242–269. Miller, H.M.-L., 2007. Archaeological Approaches to Technology. Elsevier/Academic Wright, R.P., 2010. The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society. Cambridge Press, Amsterdam. University Press, Cambridge. Miller, H.M.-L., 2008a. The Indus talc-faience complex: types of materials, clues to Wynne-Jones, S., 2010. Lines of desire: power and materiality along a Tanzanian production. In: Raven, E.M. (Ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1999. Egbert Forsten, caravan route. J. World Prehist. 23, 219–237. Groningen, pp. 111–122.