Exchange and Economy as Reflected from the Weights at the Harappan Site of KotadaBhadli, Kachchh,

Tejal Ruikar1, Prabodh Shirvalkar1 and Y.S. Rawat2

1. Department of Archaeology, Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, Pune – 411006, Maharashta, (Email: [email protected]; [email protected]) 2. Gujarat State Archaeology Department, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India (Email: [email protected])

Received: 13August 2015; Accepted: 03October 2015; Revised: 29October 2015 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3 (2015): 724‐737

Abstract: Kotada Bhadli is a Late Mature Harappan site located in Nakhatranataluka of Kachchh district, Gujarat. As we find weights on other Harappan sites, likewise Kotada Bhadli also yielded weights. An effort is undertaken here to study weights from different perspectives and an attempt is made to understand its function. In this process, an attempt to estimate the purpose of the site and its importance has also been done.

Keywords: KotadaBhadli, Kachchh, Harappan, Weights, Importance, Utility, Co‐ relation

Introduction When humans began to realise the usefulness of weights and measures in their daily life, there was only one series of standards they could have resort to– a series of standards related to their own body. The terms like fingers (digits), nails, hands, fists, palms spans, feet, forearms (ells and cubits), arm stretches (fathom) and paces were used by them. The natural standard of length used from the earliest times is the height of a man and the stretch of his arms. This system of measurement is still in vogue after its first introduction though their form and standards changed from time to time. When it became desirable to use smaller weights, humans turned to the weights of organic seeds like wheat, barley, Rati or Gunja seed etc. in ancient Indian context. Eventually, a relation was arrived at between a number of seeds and weight of the standard (Warren 1913).

Weights are one of the important antiquities unearthed from a number of archaeological sites. The evidence of standardized weights was found for the first time during the Harappan period in the Indian subcontinent. The Harappan Civilization was one of the most highly organized urban societies in the third millennium B.C. which can be seen through the well planned architecture and layouts of the cities, Ruikar et al. 2015: 724‐737 uniform proportions of bricks and massive fortifications, etc. (Kenoyer 2010). Weights have been reported from the Harappan sites of Mohenjo‐daro (Marshall 1931, Mackay 1938), Chanhu‐daro (Mackay 1943), (Vats 1999), (Rao 1985), (Bisht 2015; IAR 1990‐91,1991‐92, 1992‐93), Surkotada (Joshi 1990), Kuntasi (Dhavalikar et al.1996), Kanmer (Kharakwal et al. 2012), Rojdi (Possehl and Raval 1989), (Shinde et al. 2011), Rangpur (Rao 1962‐63), Bet Dwarka (Gaur et al. 2005), (Lalet al. 2003), Nageswar (Hegde et al. 1990), Khirsara (Nath 2012), Desalpur (IAR 1963‐64), Taraghda (IAR 1978‐79), Nagwada (IAR 1986‐87, 1988‐89), (IAR 1987‐88), Dholavira (IAR 1990‐91, 1991‐92, 1992‐93),Bagasra (IAR 1995‐96, 1996‐97, 1997‐98), Juni Kuran(Pramanik 2003‐04), (IAR 1997‐98, 1999‐2000), Dhalewan (IAR 1999‐2000), Tarkhanewala Dera (Trivedi and Patnaik 2003‐04; Trivedi 2009).

While the weights from Harappa, Mohenjo‐daro, Chanhu‐daro, Lothal and Dholavira were studied in detail by various scholars, but weights from other sites just found mentions in the reports. Hemmy (1931, 1935, 1938, 1943) conducted a detailed study on weights of Harappa, Mohenjo‐daro and Chanhu‐daro.Hendrickx‐Baudot (1972) restudied the weights of Harappa, Mohenjo‐daro and Chanhu‐daro.Mainkar (1984) worked on weights of Lothal and reconsidered weights of Harappa and Mohenjo‐daro. Miller (2013) restudied the weights from Chanhu‐daro and Lothal.

Weights from Recent Excavations at Kotada Bhadli Kotada Bhadli (Lat. 23˚20ʹ N, Long. 69˚25ʹ E) is located in Nakhatranataluka of Kachchh district in Gujarat (Fig. 1). It was first discovered by J.P. Joshi (IAR 1965‐66). It is approximately 3.11 acres in size. The site is completely intact and is not represented by typical mound which is a rare feature for the Harappan sites. The site is flat and is marked by the fortification on all sides. The site is located near the confluence of two rivers flowing on the eastern and western side (Kotadi and Thraudi respectively). Both these rivers confluence on the northern side of the site; and joins the river Bhurud (Fig. 2). The river Bhurud empties out in the Banni plains of the Greater Rann of Kachchh. This site was subjected to excavation for three seasons i.e. from 2010‐11 by Prabodh Shirvalkar of Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, and in 2011‐12 and 2012‐13 by Prabodh Shirvalkar and Y.S.Rawat of Gujarat State Department of Archaeology, Gandhinagar(Shirvalkar and Rawat 2012, 2012‐2013a, 2012‐13b).

The site of Kotada Bhadli has yielded evidence of Late Mature Harappan culture. It has yielded structural evidences in the form of residential complex and fortification wall. The residential complex (Fig. 3) consists of various small rooms and inter‐connecting doors. The fortification wall has four bastions at the corner (Fig. 4) and middle bastions (Fig. 5).

A few weights produced in various shapes using different materials were unearthed from the excavations. Table 1 shows the location, material, width, height and weight of Kotada Bhadli weights.

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

Classification of Weights Weights from Kotada Bhadli have been divided into eight groups on the basis of their shapes with the help of Dholavira excavation report (Bisht 2015). The shapes identified are Cuboid, Truncated Spherical, Pebble, Discoid, Bi‐convex, Plano‐convex, Lentoid and Elliptical.

Figure 1: Location Map of KotadaBhadliand other Archaeological Sites in Kachchh

Figure 2: Google Earth Image of Kotada Bhadli

726 Ruikar et al. 2015: 724‐737

Figure 3: Residential Complex

Figure 4: Corner Bastion

Figure 5: Middle Bastion

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

Table 1: Details of Weights from Kotada Bhadli Antiquity Trench No. Material Width in Height in Weight in No. mm (extant) mm (extant) gm (extant) 360 ‐XD2 Limestone 57.63 37.73 160.109 261 ‐XH2 Sandstone 38.5 31.3 66.907 593 ‐XN1 Limestone 35.11 23.81 48.053 232 ‐XG2 Limestone 39.72 24.39 36.559 16 ‐YK2 Limestone 28.22 23.44 31.282 159 ‐XH2 Dolerite 27.14 23.46 30.876 357 ‐XD2 Limestone 34.91 14.86 20.569 348 ‐XD2 Sandstone 28.71 15.12 15.565 342 ‐XD2 Sandstone 22.89 14.97 9.470 505 ‐XB4 Chert 13.73 _ 9.176 347 ‐XD2 Sandstone 23.78 12.86 7.985 340 ‐XC2, ‐XC3 Steatite 18.38 8.73 5.140

Cuboid The cubical weights are most commonly found on the sites of Harappan period. It is generally seen that most of the cube or cuboid weights are made of banded or mottled chert. However, the cuboid weight (Antiquity no. 505) found at Kotada Bhadliis made of black chert. It is well polished but its corners and edges are worn out probably due to its continuous use. It is 13.73mm in width and height and weighs 9.176g (Fig 6).

Truncated Spherical This is the second commonly found shape of weight after cube. Two specimens (Antiquity no. 16 and 159) of this shape are unearthed at Kotada Bhadli. Both the specimens are made of quartzite. One of the weights (Antiquity no. 16) is made of limestone. It is well polished and perfectly spherical with its base and top flattened, but the other specimen (Antiquity no. 159) which is made of dolerite is not well polished and probably worn out due to use. Only some part of the flattened base and the top is visible. Antiquity no. 16 is 28.22mm in width and 23.44mm in height and weighs 31.282g. Antiquity no. 159 is 27.14mm in width and 23.46mm in height and weighs 30.876g (Figs. 7a and 7b).

Pebble This shape of weight is reported from the Harappan sites of Chanhu‐daro (Mackay 1943) and Dholavira (Bisht 2015). The weight from Kotada Bhadli is specifically spherical with flattened base and not hemispherical in shape. A single specimen (Antiquity no. 261) of this shape is found at the present site and it is made from sandstone. It is 38.50mm in width and 31.30mm in height and weighs 66.907g (Fig. 8).

Discoid This shape of weight is reported only from Dholavira (Bisht 2015). Two specimens (Antiquity nos. 340 and 342) of discoid shape were recovered from Kotada Bhadli. One

728 Ruikar et al. 2015: 724‐737 of the weights is made of steatite. It is 18.38mm in width and 8.73mm in height and weighs5.140g. This is the lightest weight recovered from Kotada Bhadli. Other weight is made of sandstone. It is broad at one end and narrow at the other end. It is 22.89mm in width and 14.97mm in height and weighs 9.470g (Fig. 9a and 9 b).

Figure 6: Figure 7a: Figure 7b: Figure 8: Cuboid Weight Truncated Spherical Truncated Spherical Pebble Weight

Figure 9a: Figure 9b: Figure 10: Figure 10: Discoid Weight Discoid Weight Bi‐convex Weight Bi‐convex Weight

Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Bi‐convex Weight Plano‐convex Lentoid Weight Elliptical Weight

Bi‐convex This type of weight is reported only from Dholavira (Bisht 2015). Three specimens (Antiquity nos. 360, 348, 347) of bi‐convex (convex profile on both the sides) shape were recovered from Kotada Bhadli. Among the three weights, two are made of sandstone and remaining one is made of limestone. Antiquity no. 360 is the heaviest weight found in the excavations. This weight is 57.63mm in width, 37.73mm in length and weighs 160.109g. The other two weights i.e. antiquity nos. 348 and 347 are 28.71mm in width, 15.12mm in length and weighs 15.565g and 23.78mm in width, 12.86mm in height and weighs 7.985g respectively (Fig. 10a, 10b and 10c).

Plano‐convex This shape of weight is reported only from Dholavira (Bisht 2015). A sole specimen (Antiquity no. 357) of plano‐convex (plano‐convex in shape) was unearthed from

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

Kotada Bhadli. It is made of limestone and it is 34.91mm in width, 14.86mm in height and weighs 20.569g (Fig. 11).

Lentoid This shape of weight is reported only from Dholavira (Bisht 2015). A solitary specimen (Antiquity no. 232) of lentoid (lenticular shape) shape was found in the excavations. It is made of limestone and it is 39.72mm in width, 24.39mm in height and weighs 36.559g. Only this specimen is chipped, rest all of them are complete specimens (Fig. 12).

Elliptical This shape of weight is not reported from any site and it is assigned by the authors of this paper. A single specimen (Antiquity no. 593) of elliptical (having a shape of ellipse) shape was recovered from the excavations. It is made of limestone and it is 35.11 mm in width, 23.81 mm in height and weighs 48.053 g (Fig. 13).

The weights from Kotada Bhadli were recovered from three different areas of the site i.e. residential area, fortification area and open area between fortification and residential area. Distribution of weights in various areas of the site is shown in table 2 and distribution of the material and shape of the weights is shown in table 3.

Table 2: Distribution of weights in various areas of the site Different Areas Fortification area Residential area Open area Weights found in the areas 2 7 3

Table 3: Number of weights and its raw material Material of the Weights Number of weights found in the site Limestone 5 Sandstone 4 Chert 1 Steatite 1 Dolerite 1

From the Table 3, it can be seen that limestone and sandstone is the most preferred raw material for making weights. This could be due to its availability in the vicinity. Similar situation is seen at many other sites. For example, at Dholavira, maximum number of weights are made of shell (237 specimens), followed by sandstone (148 specimens). Both shell and sandstone are locally available material and could have been brought into use more frequently (Bisht 2015). Similar situation can be seen at Mohenjo‐daro (162 specimens) and Harappa (138 specimens), where chert is the most preferred raw material due to the proximity of these sites to Rohri hills (Law 2008).

Kenoyer (2010: 117) opines that even if the weights are not absolutely standardized throughout the Harappan region, there is a general standard that was followed by the Harappan settlements. This is not seen at Kotada Bhadli. It is

730 Ruikar et al. 2015: 724‐737 important to note that the weights obtained from excavated sites are bound to lose their original weights due to wear and tear of use, accidental damage and lose due to chemical erosion (Hemmy 1935).

The weights from Kotada Bhadli are compared with the weights recovered at the sites of Harappa, Mohenjo‐daro, Chanhnu‐daro, Dholavira, Lothal, Surkotada, Farmana, Rangpur, Kanmer and Nagwada (Table 4). But for detailed study, these weights will be compared to Dholavira weights as these two sites fall in the same ecological zone with similar kind of natural resources.

Table 4: Comparison of weights from Kotada Bhadli and other Harappan sites

Lothal Harappa Farmana Dholavira Surkotada Chanhudaro Mohenjodaro KotadaBhadli

A. W. A. W. A. W. A. W. A. W. A. W. A. W. A. W. N. G. N. G. N. G. N. G. N. G. N. G. N. G. N. G. 360 160.109 1072 30.28 DK 31.96 B1461 36.85 47867 66.19 10 7.603 SKTD 31.8 St 7.09 6778 1554 297 261 66.907 2545 30.39 DK 30.81 278 15 30898 30.65 16 5.226 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6693 593 48.053 1482 20.24 DK 20.37 B82 9.6 15221 20.36 10862 232 36.559 1750 20.89 DK 15.94 10522 7.9 5999 15.59 3746 16 31.282 1260 9.13 VS 7.27 19776 9.795 1281 159 30.876 921 7.457 DK 7.900 19761 9.100 10790 357 20.569 4900 5.471 20062 7.820 348 15.565 47915 5.028 342 9.470 15654 5.257 505 9.176 347 7.985 340 5.140 A. N.‐ Antiquity Number; W.G.‐ Weight in Gram

This table shows the comparison of Kotada Bhadli weights with the weights recovered from other Harappan sites. The sites into consideration for this comparison are Harappa, Mohenjo‐daro, Chanhu‐daro, Lothal, Farmana, Surkotada, Kanmer, Rangpur and Dholavira. At first, the artifact numbers and weight of the Kotada Bhadli weights are given in the table. Later, in the table weights for comparable artifacts are given. For example, if we consider artifact no 159 from Kotada Bhadli weighs 30.876g, artifact of similar weight is found in Chanhu‐daro, Mohenjo‐daro and Dholavira i.e. artifact no. 1072 weighs 30.28g from Chanhu‐daro, artifact no. DK 6693 weighs 30.813g from Mohenjo‐daro and artifact no. 30898 weighs 30.654g from Dholavira.

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

Utilitarian Purpose of the Weights from Kotada Bhadli From the entire weights being unearthed from different sites in the Harappan domain, the weights belonging to the weight group of below 50g outnumber those weighing above 50g (Table 5). Thus it can be safely said that the utility of the weights was more in the affairs related to the finished goods/commodities with smaller amount of mass. This can be seen from the following table.

Table 5:Weights from different Harappan sites which fall within and above 50g Sl. No. Sites Number of weights Number of weights within 50g above 50g 1. Dholavira 636 37 2. Mohenjo‐daro (FEM) 182 41 3. Harappa 156 43 4. Mohenjo‐daro (MIC) 104 17 5. Chanhnu‐daro 92 26 6. Lothal 23 4 7. Rangpur 6 0 8. Surkotada 6 0 9. Kanmer 5 1 10. Nagwada 2 1 11. KotadaBhadli 10 2

The smallest weight from Harappa, Mohenjo‐daro (MIC), Chanhnu‐daro and Dholavira are 0.95g, 0.87g, 0.5695g and 0.07g respectively. Other smaller sites like Lothal, Surkotada, Kanmer, Nagwada and Rangpur have also yielded comparatively more number of weights in the category of below 50g. Similarly, the present study of weights from Kotada Bhadli highlights the same aspect.

What were these small weights used for? Which commodity in the Harappan period was so important or expensive or rare that it was exchanged (procured or distributed) in such a small quantity?

In this study, weights of smaller antiquities like shell bangles, shell net sinkers, terracotta beads, beads of other semi‐precious stones, steatite beads, copper objects, sling balls was taken. Later their average weights were calculated which is given in Table 6.

The above Table helps in co‐relating the utility of weights from Kotada Bhadli to the finished commodities/goods. All the above commodities weigh below 50g whereas the weights from Kotada Bhadli also range between 5.140 g to 160.109 g. Even if there is no correlation of weight with standard (13.65g) set by the Harappans, the weights from Kotada Bhadli conform to the weight of other antiquities found on the site. This suggests the interaction underlying between the weights and the used/exchanged commodities.

732 Ruikar et al. 2015: 724‐737

Table 6: Average weight of antiquities found from KotadaBhadli Antiquities Average weight (in grams) Steatite beads 0.061 Carnelian beads 0.078 Bone beads 0.225 Jasper beads 0.408 Shell beads 0.614 Agate beads 1.053 T.C. hopscotch/disc 4.581 Copper objects 5.028 T.C. beads 15.840 Sling balls 25.589 Shell bangles 26.818 Net sinkers 34.564 Gamesmen 38.408 Copper bangles 39.262

The smallest weights found from all the Harappan sites though fit in the series suggested by earlier scholars, only Miller and Kenoyer tried to estimate the function of these weights. Miller (2013: 168) opines that there are one or more primary functions of the weights. Most of the researchers working on weight systems of Harappan civilization emphasis that the weights were used for international exchange. But these could be used for internal exchange too. Kenoyer (1998: 98‐99, 2010: 117) suggests another probable function of these standardized weights. He proposes that the weights were probably used for taxation. He puts forth two reasons for this. First, he doubts that there are sufficient weights found to supply the likely large number of trade merchants. Second, he notes the unusually large number of weights found inside a main gateway at the site of Harappa which was an appropriate location for taxation of merchants and visitors. But, both these scholars have studied the weights as separate entities and were unable to understand the interaction between weights and other antiquities/commodities found from the site.

Commodities like beads of semiprecious stones, copper objects, shell objects were considered as prestige goods because the raw material like carnelian, agate, lapis lazuli, jasper, steatite, copper, shell etc. are not always locally available to all Harappan sites as well as Kotada Bhadli. The production of prestige goods is connected to emerging chiefly elites (Earle 1991), whereas the development of mass‐produced utilitarian craft is an indication towards the evolution of states (Rice 1981, 1991). Organization of craft production involves attached vs. individual craft, prestige vs. utilitarian goods, craft specialization vis‐à‐vis social stratification and state involvement in craft production (Brumfiel and Earle 1987). These aspects need to be identified from the archaeological record. For example, the development of craft specialization and exotic or luxury goods produced with the locally available material can be seen at Harappa (Bhan et

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

al.1994). It suggests the control over craft production by the elites and therefore a long distance contact was not depended on extra‐local factors. Hence, the approach that the exotic and scarce origin goods were controlled through a polity which was influenced by the exchange networks (Rowland et al. 1987) needs to be restudied. Due to this, the exchange of such specialized craft produce was carefully monitored with the help of smaller mass of weights. This can be an added aspect to look towards weights along with the opinion given earlier by Kenoyer and Miller.

Discussion and Observations Harappan society is a complex society and to understand this society, weights and other antiquities can play a significant role.

Firstly, the standard cubical weight used in all Harappan sites is represented with only one specimen at Kotada Bhadli. The weights of other shape are represented more at the site. Even the raw material used is locally available. Not much attention is paid to make the weights in perfect shape. Secondly, the unit weight of the weights does not follow the standardised unit weights represented at Harappa, Mohenjo‐daro, Chanhu‐ daro, Lothal and Dholavira except the examples given above. From this it could be said that Kotada Bhadli weights were probably made in order to weigh other material culture found on the site.

Several generalizations were made related to the rigorous standardizations and state’s control over craft production and trade. But according to Kenoyer (2010:120), this standardization seen in various crafts and measurement systems is related to proportions rather than absolute measurements. Probably, the basic measurements themselves are at the root of the standardization and not some central or supreme authoritarian political or economic force. He further adds that “the width of hands or the weight of specific types of grains would have been generally uniform throughout the greater Indus valley and consequently the measures derived from them would have been relatively uniform” (Kenoyer 2010:120). By considering Kenoyer’s statements, the authors would further add that probably these proportions were decided according to the function and nature of the site or for weighing some particular commodity that is being exchanged at the site. The evidence of this is already seen at Kotada Bhadli.

From the above analysis, it can be clearly seen that there is a co‐relation between weights and other material culture found at the site. It can be interpreted that the site could be a part of trading complex or a place of exchange of goods and commodities as there is no strong evidence of any manufacturing activity, though some evidence of crucible and slag is found. The site of Kotada Bhadli could be a part of exchange network. In fact, Kotada Bhadli is one very good example where one can see the actual economic activities and their monitoring by specialized and privileged groups. The weights found, point towards this control. Since the elite goods and hierarchical structures are not evident through excavations, there may be a tendency to link it with

734 Ruikar et al. 2015: 724‐737 rural/poor economy (Ruikaret al. 2013). Though this may not be completely false, the site shows some different nature as revealed from the study of weights.

However, as discussed above, the weights found show the interaction between finished goods, their transport and exchange site‐wise and the influence of the authority over their movement in the Harappan landscape. Therefore all categories of weights were not present as well as the goods obtained as artifacts also do not show the need for presence of all types of weights. Thus the weights at this site help us to understand its role in the Harappan hinterland exchange and also the stratified nature of economic activities which were active based on the nature of any site in the region. Thus, Kotada Bhadli can be placed in the group of centers/sites which were either specialized production centers or exchange centers which are not always affluent. Similar exercise is needed at many other sites, especially at the sites in Kachchh region.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Dr. Pankaj Goyal, Dr. Shantanu Vaidya and Dr.Krushnath Shirke for their help at various stages in preparing this manuscript.

References Bhan, K., Vidale, M. and Kenoyer, J.M. 1994.Harappan Technology: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Man and Environment 19(1‐2): 141‐157. Bisht, R.S. 2015.Excavations at Dholavira (1989‐90 to 2004‐2005). New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Brumfiel, E. and Earle, T. (eds.) 1987.Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dhavalikar, M.K., Raval, M.R., and Chitalwala, Y.M. 1996.Kuntasi – A Harappan Emporium on West Coast. Pune: Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute. Earle, T. 1991. Property Rights and the Evolution of Chiefdoms. In Earle, T. (ed.). Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gaur, A.S., Sundaresh and Vora, K.H. 2005.Archaeology of Bet Dwarka Island: An Excavation Report. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. Hegde, K.T.M., Bhan, K.K., Sonawane, V.H., Krishnan, K. and Shah, D.R. 1990.Excavation at Nageswar, Gujarat: A Harappan Shell Working Site in the Gulf of Kutch. Baroda: Department of Archaeology & Ancient History, Faculty of Arts, M.S. University of Baroda. Hemmy, A.S. 1931. Systems of Weights at Mohenjo‐daro. In Marshall, John (ed.). Mohenjo‐daro and Indus Civilization,London: Arthur Probsthain. Hemmy, A.S. 1935. Statistical Treatment of Ancient Weights. Ancient Egypt. 1935(2): 83‐ 93. Hemmy, A.S. 1938. System of Weights. In Mackay,E.J.H. (ed.). Further Excavations at Mohenjo‐daro, Delhi: Manager of Publications.

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

Hemmy, A.S. 1943. Weights at Chanhu‐daro. In Mackay,E.J.H. (ed.) Chanhu‐daro Excavations 1935‐1936, Connecticut: American Oriental Society. Hendrickx‐Baudot, M.P. 1972. The Weights of Harappa‐culture. OrientaliaLovaniesiaPeriodica 3: 5‐34. IAR: Indian Archaeology ‐ A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Joshi, J.P. 1990.Excavation at Surkotada 1971‐72 and Exploration in Kutch. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Kenoyer, J.M. 1998.Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Kenoyer, J.M. 2010. Measuring the Harappan World: Insights into the Indus order and Cosmology. In Morley, Iain and Renfrew, Colin (eds.). The Archaeology of Measurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kharakwal, J.S., Rawat, Y.S. and Osada, T. 2012.Excavation at Kanmer. Kyoto: Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Lal, B.B., Joshi J.P., Thapar, B.K. and Bala, Madhu. 2003.Excavations at Kalibangan: The Early Harappans (1960‐1969). New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Law, Randall. 2008.Inter Regional Interaction and Urbanism in the Ancient Indus Valley: A Geologic Provenience Study of Harappa’s Rock and Mineral Assemblage.Ph.D Dissertation, University of Wisconsin‐Madison. Mackay, E.J.H. 1938.Further Excavations at Mohenjo‐daro Vol. I. Delhi: Manager of Publications. Mackay, E.J.H. 1943.Chanhu‐Daro Excavations 1935‐36. Connecticut: American Oriental Society. Mainkar, V.B. 1984. Metrology in the Indus Civilization. In Lal, B.B. and Gupta, S.P. (eds.). Frontiers of the Indus Civilization, New Delhi: Books and Books. Marshall, John. 1931.Mohenjo‐Daro and the Indus Civilization Vol. II. London: Arthur Probsthain. Miller, Heather M.L. 2013. Weighty Matters: Evidence for Unity and Regional Diversity from the Indus Civilization Weights. In Abraham, Shinu Anna, Gullapalli, Praveena, Raczek, Teresa P. and Rizvi, Uzma Z. (eds.). Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archaeology of South Asia, California: Left Coast Press. Nath, Amarendra. 2014.Excavations at Rakhigarhi (1997‐98 to 1999‐2000). New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Available from: http://asi.nic.in/pdfdata/ Rakhigarhi excavationreportnew.pdf [Accessed: 29th May, 2015] Nath, J. 2012.Khisara: An Important Harappan Post in Western Kachchh. ItihasDarpan 17(1): 58‐69. Possehl, G.L. and Raval, M.H. 1989.Harappan Civilization and Rojdi. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ld. Pramanik, Shubhra. 2003. Excavation at Juni Kuran 2003‐2004: A Preliminary Report. Puratattva 34: 45‐67.

736 Ruikar et al. 2015: 724‐737

Rao, S.R. 1962‐63. Excavation at Rangpur and other Explorations in Gujarat, Ancient India 18‐19: 5‐207. Rao, S.R. 1985.Lothal – A Harappan Port Town (1955‐62) Volume II. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Rice, P. 1981. Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model, Current Anthropology 22: 219‐240. Rice, P. 1991. Specialization, Standardization and Diversity: A Retrospective. In Bishop, R. and Lange, F. (eds.). The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. Rowlands, M., Larsen, M. and Kristiansen, K. (eds.) 1987.Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruikar, Tejal. Shirvalkar, Prabodh, Rawat Y.S. and Naik, Satish. 2013. A Preliminary Study of the beads from Harappan Site of Kotada Bhadli, Kachchh, Gujarat. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 486‐499. Shinde, V.S., Osada, T. and Kumar, Manmohan. 2011.Excavations at Farmana, District Rohtak, Haryana, India 2006‐2008. Kyoto: Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Shirvalkar, Prabodh. 2012‐2013a. A Preliminary Report of Excavations at Kotada Bhadli, Gujarat: 2010‐11, Bulletin of Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute 72‐73: 55‐68. Shirvalkar, Prabodh and Rawat, Y.S. 2012. Excavations at KotadaBhadli, District Kachchh, Gujarat: A Preliminary Report. Puratattva 42: 182‐201. Shirvalkar, Prabodh and Rawat, Y.S. 2012‐13b.Kotada Bhadli: A Fortified Harappan Settlement. Heritage India 5 (4): 70‐77. Trivedi, P.K. 2009.Excavations at TarkhanewalaDera and Chak 86 (2003‐2004). New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Trivedi, P.K. and Patnaik, J.K. 2003‐04. Tarkhanewala Dera and Chak 86 (2003‐2004). Purattatva 34: 30‐34. Vats, M.S. 1999.Excavations at Harappa Vol. I. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Warren, Charles. 1913. The Early Weights and Measures of Mankind. London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund.

737