DOCSLIB.ORG

Methods and Problems in the Site Census Approach: a View from Mewar Through Archaeology and Ethnohistory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Methods and Problems in the Site Census Approach: a View from Mewar Through Archaeology and Ethnohistory Methods and Problems in the Site Census Approach: A View from Mewar through Archaeology and Ethnohistory Namita Sugandhi1, Teresa P. Raczek2, Prabodh Shirvalkar3, Charles K. Brummeler2 and Lalit Pandey4 1. Hartwick College, One Hartwick Drive, Oneonta, NY 13820, USA (Email: [email protected]) 2. Kennesaw State University, 402 Bartow Ave, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA (Email: [email protected]; [email protected]) 3. Deccan College Post‐graduate and Research Institute, Yerwada, Pune –411006, Maharashtra, India (Email: [email protected]) 4. J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India (Email: [email protected]) Received: 30October 2015; Accepted: 08November 2015; Revised: 22 November 2015 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3 (2015): 163‐179 Abstract: The practice of conducting a regional census has some similarities but many differences from systematic archaeological survey. Both attempt to study “sites”, or material traces of human activities in the past, but the idea of an archaeological “census” utilizes a more informal approach to visiting sites that have been previously documented by earlier researchers. Archaeological census has the goal of assessing site destruction, degradation, and various issues associated with heritage management. The method can provide valuable data about the current status of sites and serve as an expedient tool for future research planning as well as in the development of community and cultural resource management strategies. In this paper, we present census details from a multi‐year project conducted in the Mewar Plain of Rajasthan, outlining our methods and the various conditions that shaped our approach and results, emphasizing in particular the role of ethnohistory. Keywords: Archaeological Census, Archaeological Survey, Oral History, Rajasthan Archaeology, Mewar, Ahar‐Banas, Gilund Introduction Field survey in its various forms has been an important research tool since the beginnings of the discipline of archaeology. The very title of the “Archaeological Survey of India” (ASI) demonstrates the place of priority that survey has held throughout the history of Indian archaeology. Initiated in 1862 by Alexander Cunningham as a temporary project with the goal of describing and documenting all archaeological remains encountered over two seasons of research(Cunningham 1972), the work remains ongoing today(Sengupta and Lambah 2012),despite the belief at ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015 Cunningham’s retirement in 1885 that the ASI’s work would be done in 5 years (Marshall 1903: 3). The ASI built on survey work of early researchers like Colin Mackenzie and Francis Buchanan who mapped and documentedsites and monuments for the British East India Company in order to examine “unknown territory,” Aurel Stein who undertook surveys as part of the “Great Game”(Chakrabarti 1981; Edney 1990; Ghosh 1953; Robb 1998; Roy 1961; Stein 1905, 1929), and Luigi P. Tessitori who identified the significance of Kalibangan(Tessitori 1917‐18, 1918‐19). Since that time, survey has continued to be an important research method for identifying sites and understanding ancient regional landscapes. Since the early years however, a number of variations of this technique have developed. Random exploration gave way to village‐ to‐village survey, systematic survey, and site catchment analysis. Archaeologists who focus on excavation also implement informal local surveys in the form of site visits to check on sites that have been previously documented. We refer to this practice as a “site census,” and argue that, like more formally developed survey methods, site censuses provide a valuable way of assessing and analyzing the archaeological record.Today, site census has become relevant in part due to increasing population and development, which has led to villagers encroaching upon previously identified sites. Thus, site census is an important element of salvage archaeology and has become an urgent need. In its most basic form, a census is an enumeration and collection of demographic data. An archaeological site census includes the counting of sites and the assessment of their condition. As a method, the sitecensus has some similarities but many differences from other forms of archaeological survey. Allattempt to locate “sites,” or material traces of human activities in the past, but asurvey typically emphasizes discovery of new sites while census assesses the status of those that have been previously documented. Surveys locate and record sites of archaeological importance, and fashion that data into a form of knowledge useful for individual, regional or comparative social, political, and economicanalyses of past society. Systematic archaeological survey can be exhausting, grueling and take an unforeseeable number of years to complete, but is a valuable tool for understanding not just where sites are located but also significant patterns of settlement, development and exchange that occurred over time. In contrast, the idea of an archaeological “census” suggests a more expedient and informal approach to revisiting and documenting sites. Archaeological censuses have the goal of assessing site destruction, degradation, and various issues associated with heritage management. They can also be used to re‐examinearchaeological assessments that were based on previous research or earlier paradigms, particularly at sites documented decades ago when archaeological techniques and theoretical frameworks may have been different from those used today. Archaeological census can provide valuable data about the current status of sites and serve as an expedient tool for future research planning as well as the development of community and cultural resource management strategies. The contingent and informal nature of site census also highlights the highly subjective nature of archaeological investigation in general, an 164 Sugandhi et al. 2015: 163‐179 important consideration in all archaeological research. In this paper, we present results from a small census project conducted in the Mewar Plain of southeastern Rajasthan over the course of multiple field seasons from 2009 through2015, outlining our methods and the various conditions that shaped our approach and results. The Mewar Plain Archaeological Assessment (MPAA) Archaeological research has documented a long sequence of occupation in Mewar, beginning with the Paleolithic era and continuing up until the present day(Misra 2007). By the 4th millennium BC the region was inhabited by sedentary agriculturalists as well as semi‐nomadic pastoral groups(Raczek 2016; Shinde and Sarkar 2014). Archaeological excavation at the settlement sites of Ahar, Balathal, Chatrikhera, Gilund, Ojiyana, Panchmata, and PuraniMarmihave documented evidence for a regional Chalcolithic tradition distinct from other Copper and Bronze Age societies in the surrounding regions such as the Ganeshwar‐Jodhpura Complex to the northeast, and the urbanized Indus civilization to the northwest(Meena and Tripathi 2001, 2001‐ 2002; Mishra 2003; Misra 1997; Misra, et al. 1995; Mohanty, et al. 2000; Raczek and Shinde 2010; Raczek, et al. 2015; Sankalia, et al. 1969; Shinde, et al. 2014; Sugandhi, et al. 2010).Research at the site of Bagor, often interpreted as a pastoral camp, revealed evidence for anoccupation that was contemporaneous with the early farming communities of the Ahar tradition(Misra 1973). Comparison between the lithic assemblages recovered from Bagor and Gilund has identified significant overlap in technological knowledge, suggesting important connections between the sedentary and mobile groups inhabiting Mewar during the Chalcolithic period(and see Possehl and Kennedy 1979; Raczek 2011). Between 2009 and 2015, the Mewar Plain Archaeological Assessment has conducted work to explore the archaeological sequence of pre‐, proto‐, and early historic Mewar while also investigating issues of community history and site preservation(Raczek, et al. 2015). Three sites were excavated as part of the MPAA:Chatrikhera, Jawasiya‐Arni and Panchmata. Oral histories collected from local residents demonstrated varying narratives tied to both village history and other aspects of identity(Raczek, et al. 2011). In addition to its archaeological goals, the MPAA was also designed to assess the level of site destruction at many archaeological sites in the vicinity. To this end, team members conducted interviews with residents at Chatrikhera, Jawasiya‐Arniand Panchmata about their plans for the archaeological remains in and around their villages, and documented artifact reclamation and re‐use(Raczek and Sugandhi 2010; Sugandhi, et al. 2010). The team also conducted a small scale archaeological census through a judgment sampling strategy that targeted sites in between the major settlements of Ahar and Gilund. It is this latter portion of the project that we outline here. Terminology and Methodology Before proceeding, it is important to clearly define what we mean by the terms “village 165 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015 to village survey,” “systematic archaeological survey,” “site catchment analysis,” and “archaeological census.” As mentioned above, the idea of “survey” indicates the search for new or undocumented archaeological sites through a variety of means.“Village to village survey” relies far more on the knowledge of local inhabitants and historical geography, and is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3-Art-Of-Indus-Valley.Pdf
    Harappan civilization 2 Architecture 2 Drainage System 3 The planning of the residential houses were also meticulous. 4 Town Planning 4 Urban Culture 4 Occupation 5 Export import product of 5 Clothing 5 Important centres 6 Religious beliefs 6 Script 7 Authority and governance 7 Technology 8 Architecture Of Indus Valley Civilisation 9 The GAP 9 ARTS OF THE INDUS VALLEY 11 Stone Statues 12 MALE TORSO 12 Bust of a bearded priest 13 Male Dancer 14 Bronze Casting 14 DANCING GIRL 15 BULL 16 Terracotta 16 MOTHER GODDESS 17 Seals 18 Pashupati Seal 19 Copper tablets 19 Bull Seal 20 Pottery 21 PAINTED EARTHEN JAR 22 Beads and Ornaments 22 Toy Animal with moveable head 24 Page !1 of !26 Harappan civilization India has a continuous history covering a very long period. Evidence of neolithic habitation dating as far back as 7000 BC has been found in Mehrgarh in Baluchistan. However, the first notable civilization flourished in India around 2700 BC in the north western part of the Indian subcontinent, covering a large area. The civilization is referred to as the Harappan civilization. Most of the sites of this civilization developed on the banks of Indus, Ghaggar and its tributaries. Architecture The excavations at Harappa and Mohenjodaro and several other sites of the Indus Valley Civilisation revealed the existence of a very modern urban civilisation with expert town planning and engineering skills. The very advanced drainage system along with well planned roads and houses show that a sophisticated and highly evolved culture existed in India before the coming of the Aryans.
    [Show full text]
  • Arts of the Indus Valley
    2 ARTS OF THE INDUS VALLEY HE arts of the Indus Valley Civilisation emerged during Tthe second half of the third millennium BCE. The forms of art found from various sites of the civilisation include sculptures, seals, pottery, jewellery, terracotta figures, etc. The artists of that time surely had fine artistic sensibilities and a vivid imagination. Their delineation of human and animal figures was highly realistic in nature, since the anatomical details included in them were unique, and, in the case of terracotta art, the modelling of animal figures was done in an extremely careful manner. The two major sites of the Indus Valley Civilisation, along the Indus river—the cities of Harappa in the north and Mohenjodaro in the south—showcase one of earliest examples of civic planning. Other markers were houses, markets, storage facilities, offices, public baths, etc., arranged in a grid-like pattern. There was also a highly developed drainage system. While Harappa and Mohenjodaro are situated in Pakistan, the important sites excavated in India are Lothal and Dholavira in Gujarat, Rakhigarhi in Haryana, Bust of a bearded priest Ropar in Punjab, Kalibangan in Rajasthan, etc. Stone Statues Statues whether in stone, bronze or terracotta found in Harappan sites are not abundant, but refined. The stone statuaries found at Harappa and Mohenjodaro are excellent examples of handling three-dimensional volumes. In stone are two male figures—one is a torso in red sandstone and the other is a bust of a bearded man in soapstone—which are extensively discussed. The figure of the bearded man, interpreted as a priest, is draped in a shawl coming under the right arm and covering the left shoulder.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews
    BOOK REVIEWS Indian Beads: A Cultural aud Technological Study. Shantaram Bha1chandra Deo. Pune: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, 2000. 205 pp., 7 color, 37 b/w plates, 3 maps, 24 figures, bibliography, no index. Paper 600 rupees. No ISBN. Distinctive Beads in Ancient India. Maurya Jyotsna. BAR International Series 864. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2000. 122 pp., 1 map, 10 figures, 7 tables, bibliography, index. Paper cover. ISBN 1-84171-067-9. Amulets and Pendants in Ancient Maharashtra. Maurya Jyotsna. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld, 2000. 102 pp., 4 maps, 12 figures, 3 tables, bibliography, index. Cloth 220 rupees. ISBN 81-246-0158-5. Reviewed by PETER FRANCIS JR. (1945-2003), former Director of the Centerfor Bead Research, Lake Placid, New York India is one of the world's largest countries rate with him on a book. That project with one of its most ancient civilizations. never happened, as Dikshit passed away in Blessed with immense natural and human 19(}9, just before his own History (?f Indian resources. It is no surprise that it is a lead­ Class was published. ing source of beads in both ancient and Deo received a fellowship from the In­ modern times. Only China is larger and as dian Council of Historical Research to ancient, but the Chinese have never been study and prepare a manuscript on Indian as interested in beads as have the Indians. beads during the years 1985 to 1988. He The Indian subcontinent has been unparal­ worked on the project for many years, long leled in terms of bead making, bead trad­ after the period of the fellowship.
    [Show full text]
  • Sculptures-Indus Period
    UNITl SCULPTURES-INDUS PERIOD Structure 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Objectives 1.3 The Indus Valley Civilization - Background 1.4 Sculptural Art Engraving - Seals Rounded Sculptures 1.5 Stylistic Features 1.6 Representational Examples 1.7 Summary 1.8 Self-Assessment Questions 1.9 Terminal Questions. 1.10 Answers to Terminal Questions 1.1 INTRODUCTION In the previous unit you have studied the different techniques followed by Indian sculptors during historical times. In every period the sculptures are created in different styles. This shows the artistic achievements of the respective period. In this unit we shall discuss the sculpture as developed in the Indus Valley civilization. 1.2 OBJECTIVES After reading this unit you will be able to: • describe the Indus civilization and the sculptures of the period; • discuss about the subjects chosen for sculptures; • explain the types of sculptures; and • discuss about the trends and approaches in sculpture of Indus period. 1.3 INDUS VALLEYCIVILIZATION -BACKGROUND The Indus Valley civilization, which flourished from 3000 BC, marked the beginning of a great civilization in the sub-continent. It was situated on the banks of the Indus and Saraswati rivers and their tributaries initially. Later it extended into Ganges- Yamuna Doab region and also into Afghanistan. Among the settlements were the major urban centres ofHarappa and Mohenjodaro located in Pakistan, Lothal, Rangpur, Surkothada, Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi, Dholavira, Daimabad, Kunal and many other places located .in India. The famous archaeologists who have discovered many of these sites and conducting research on various aspects are John Marshcll, a.B.Lal, S.R.Rao, Bhist, and others.
    [Show full text]
  • Kalibangan : Death from Natural Causes
    ANTIQUITY, XLII, 1968 Kalibangan : Death from Natural Causes by ROBERT RAIKES Mr R. L. Raikes is a hydrologist who is head of the firm of Raikes and Partners, consulting engineers in Rome. We recently published an article by him on ‘The Mohenjo-daro Floods’ (ANTIQUITY, 1965, 196), in which he concluded that Mohmjo-daro and ‘inevitably all other sites in the same general area of the Indus jlood-plain, were gradually engulfed by mud’. This article provoked discussion and comment in subsequent numbers. Mr Raikes now considers the end of Kalibangan some time in the 18thcentury BC and excludes the hypothesis of catastrophic climate change. As he has recently been accused of being a prophet of the New Catastrophism, he says that here it is rather a relief to him to be able, with conviction, to exclude catastrophic climate change. ALIBANGAN, which has been ex- Sind and the central Punjab-Mohenjo-daro, K cavated during recent years-and is still Harappa, Chanhu-daro, Judeir-jo daro, being excavated at the time of writing-by the Lohumjo-daro, to name but a few-may be of Archaeological Survey of India, is one of the significance. For, whereas the other ‘cities’ more important sites of the Harappan Civiliza- named were constructed largely of burnt brick, tion in India (FIG. I). Interim reports on it have Kalibangan was mainly of mud-brick construc- been published in Indian Archaeology. The tion. Some use of burnt brick there certainly subject of this short paper will in due course be was but the comparative rarity of it suggests the published in full, with the necessary technical possibility that the means of producing large details, in Ancient India.
    [Show full text]
  • Kalibangan (Pre – Harappan Settlement)
    Kalibangan (Pre – Harappan Settlement) Dr. Dilip Kumar Assistant Professor (Guest) Dept. of Ancient Indian History & Archaeology, Patna University, Patna Paper – CC-XI, Sem. – III Kalibangan is a town located at 29.47°N 74.13°E on the left or southern banks of the Ghaggar (Ghaggar - Hakra River) in Rajasthan. The Kalibangan pre-historic site was discovered by Luigi Pio Tessitori, an Italian Indologists (1887–1919). He was doing some research in ancient Indian texts and was surprised by the character of ruins in that area. He sought help from Sir John Marshall of the Archaeological Survey of India. At that time the ASI was conducting excavations at Harappa, but they were unaware of the significance of the ruins. In fact, Tessitori was the first person to recognize that the ruins were 'Prehistoric' and pre-Mauryan. Luigi Pio Tessitori also pointed out the nature of the culture, but at that time it was not possible to guess that the ruins of Kalibangan lay within the Indus Valley Civilization. He died five years before the Harappan culture was formally recognized. After India's independence, both the major Harappan cities together with the Indus became a part of Pakistan and Indian archaeologists were compelled to intensify the search for Harappan sites in India. Amlanand Ghosh (Ex. Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, or ASI) was the first person to recognise this site as Harappan and marked it out for excavations. Under the leadership of B. B. Lal (then Director General, ASI), Balkrishna (B.K.) Thapar, M. D. Khare, K. M. Shrivastava and S.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Book
    EXCAVATIONS AT RAKHIGARHI [1997-98 to 1999-2000] Dr. Amarendra Nath Archaeological Survey of India 1 DR. AMARENDRA NATH RAKHIGARHI EXCAVATION Former Director (Archaeology) ASI Report Writing Unit O/o Superintending Archaeologist ASI, Excavation Branch-II, Purana Qila, New Delhi, 110001 Dear Dr. Tewari, Date: 31.12.2014 Please refer to your D.O. No. 24/1/2014-EE Dated 5th June, 2014 regarding report writing on the excavations at Rakhigarhi. As desired, I am enclosing a draft report on the excavations at Rakhigarhi drawn on the lines of the “Wheeler Committee Report-1965”. The report highlights the facts of excavations, its objective, the site and its environment, site catchment analysis, cultural stratigraphy, structural remains, burials, graffiti, ceramics, terracotta, copper, other finds with two appendices. I am aware of the fact that the report under submission is incomplete in its presentation in terms modern inputs required in an archaeological report. You may be aware of the fact that the ground staff available to this section is too meagre to cope up the work of report writing. The services of only one semiskilled casual labour engaged to this section has been withdrawn vide F. No. 9/66/2014-15/EB-II496 Dated 01.12.2014. The Assistant Archaeologist who is holding the charge antiquities and records of Rakhigarhi is available only when he is free from his office duty in the Branch. The services of a darftsman accorded to this unit are hardly available. Under the circumstances it is requested to restore the services of one semiskilled casual labour earlier attached to this unit and draftsman of the Excavation Branch II Purana Quila so as to enable the unit to function smoothly with limited hands and achieve the target.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigrant Identity in the Indus Civilization: a Multi-Site Isotopic Mortuary Analysis
    IMMIGRANT IDENTITY IN THE INDUS CIVILIZATION: A MULTI-SITE ISOTOPIC MORTUARY ANALYSIS By BENJAMIN THOMAS VALENTINE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013 1 © 2013 Benjamin Thomas Valentine 2 To Shannon 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Truly, I have stood on the shoulders of my betters to reach this point in my career. I could never have completed this dissertation without the unfailing support of my family, friends, and colleagues, both at home and abroad. I am grateful, most of all, for my wife, Shannon Chillingworth. I am humbled by the sacrifices she has made for dreams not her own. I can never repay her for the gifts she has given me, nor will she ever call my debt due. Shannon—thank you. I am likewise indebted to the scholars and institutions that have facilitated my graduate research these past eight years. Foremost among them is my faculty advisor, John Krigbaum, who took a chance on me, an aspiring researcher with little anthropological training, and welcomed me into the University of Florida (UF) Bone Chemistry Lab. I have worked hard not to fail him, as he has never failed me. Under John Krigbaum’s mentorship, I have earned my chance to succeed in academe. During my time at UF, I have benefited from the efforts of many excellent faculty members, but I am especially grateful to James Davidson, Department of Anthropology and George Kamenov and Jason Curtis, Department of Geological Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Unpaid Dividend-17-18-I2 (PDF)
    Note: This sheet is applicable for uploading the particulars related to the unclaimed and unpaid amount pending with company. Make sure that the details are in accordance with the information already provided in e-form IEPF-2 CIN/BCIN L72200KA1999PLC025564 Prefill Company/Bank Name MINDTREE LIMITED Date Of AGM(DD-MON-YYYY) 17-JUL-2018 Sum of unpaid and unclaimed dividend 709686.00 Sum of interest on matured debentures 0.00 Sum of matured deposit 0.00 Sum of interest on matured deposit 0.00 Sum of matured debentures 0.00 Sum of interest on application money due for refund 0.00 Sum of application money due for refund 0.00 Redemption amount of preference shares 0.00 Sales proceed for fractional shares 0.00 Validate Clear Proposed Date of Investor First Investor Middle Investor Last Father/Husband Father/Husband Father/Husband Last DP Id-Client Id- Amount Address Country State District Pin Code Folio Number Investment Type transfer to IEPF Name Name Name First Name Middle Name Name Account Number transferred (DD-MON-YYYY) 49/2 4TH CROSS 5TH BLOCK MIND00000000AZ00 Amount for unclaimed and A ANAND NA KORAMANGALA BANGALORE INDIA Karnataka 560095 54.00 21-Feb-2025 2539 unpaid dividend KARNATAKA 69 I FLOOR SANJEEVAPPA LAYOUT MIND00000000AZ00 Amount for unclaimed and A ANTONY FELIX NA MEG COLONY JAIBHARATH NAGAR INDIA Karnataka 560033 72.00 21-Feb-2025 2646 unpaid dividend BANGALORE IN300394-13455837- Amount for unclaimed and A BASHKARAN NA 40 OLD MUNCHIFF COURT STREETINDIA Tamil Nadu 637001 10.00 21-Feb-2025 0000 unpaid dividend NO 198 ANUGRAHA
    [Show full text]
  • Copper Technology in India : a Review
    ©.2001 NML Jamshedpur 831 007, India; Metollurgy in India: A Retrospective; (ISBN: 81-87053-56-7); Eds: P. Ramachandra Rao and N.G. Goswami; pp. 143-162. Prehistoric -Copper Technology in India : A Review D.P. Agrawal* ABSTRACT Copper has been used by mankind from 5" to 2nd Millennia BC. The paper traced how metal technology has been part of the reparative of the technologies pertaining to ceramics, stone industry, and even architecture. No doubt, the first use of copper must have been of native copper. With the growth of urbanization, especially of'the Indus civilization, the abundance of metal and technology advance progressed by leaps and bounds. The Archaeo-Metallurgical studies help a lot to know about typology of artifacts, technologies used, source of metal, what techniques ,different cultures used to make them artifact, mining technology? A lot remains to be done: relating ore bodies to the artifact, metallographic studies to known techniques of artifact making, alloying pattern minerals used, geochemistry of ore bodies to devise ways to fingerprint them through trace impurity patterns and lead isotope geochemistry etc. No less important are the ethno-archaeological studies to understand the man behind the technology and his artifact. A lot more can be achieved with the joint effort of metallurgical labs. and the archeologists. Key words : Ancient Indian copper technology, Archaco-metallurgi-Gd1 study, Ethno-archacological study, Pre-Harappan site. INTRODUCTION In the greater Indus region, it is clear that the origin and development of copper metal technology occurred in conjunction with developments in other technologies. The Neolithic and early Chalcolithic pyrotechnologies included the firing of clays to make pots, and the heating of stone materials to enhance colour, workability *Address : 10, familial Park, Bopal Road, Ahmedabad - 380058 143.
    [Show full text]
  • Metals and Metallurgy in the Harappan Civilization
    Indian Journal of History of Science, 53.3 (2018) 279-295 DOI: 10.16943/ijhs/2018/v53i3/49460 Metals and Metallurgy in the Harappan Civilization Vibha Tripathi* (Received 27 February 2018) Abstract The Indus Valley also referred to as Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization excelled in variety of technologies, including metallurgy. Over the span of centuries, evolving from Pre/ Early Harappan to the Late Harappan cultural phases, the civilization evolved as an urban civilization. By the mature Harappan period (circa 2700 to 18/1700 BCE) metal technology attained great perfection. Several metallurgical innovations like the intricate ciré perdue or lost wax technique, true saw and the eye needle go to the credit of the metal smiths of that period. Exclusive objects of copper, gold, and silver came to be used. For special affects, minor metals like tin, arsenic, lead, antimony etc. came to be used for alloying. Although about 70% of the copper objects of the Harappan period are unalloyed, a judicious alloying pattern as per requirements may be discerned in the metal repertoire. Arsenic was found to be present in several statues probably with a specific reason. The sharp-edged cutting tools like razors, knives or daggers, arrowheads, spearheads, drills etc show a distinct alloying pattern with alloying of tin up to 12- 13%. The Harappan bronze tool repertoire comprised typical leaf-shaped arrowheads, spears with bent end, shaft-hole axe, double edged axes, the sword with amid-rib or the bronze female figurines like that of the ‘dancing girl’. In fashioning of pots and pans, technique of raising- sinking and drawing was employed.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Burial Practices in the Late / Post-Urban Harappan Phase During the Second
    A Survey of Burial Practices in the Late/Post-Urban Harappan Phase during the Second and First Millennium BCE V.N. Prabhakar1 1. Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, VGEC Campus, Ahmedabad – 382424, Gujarat, India (Email: [email protected]) Received: 03 September 2015; Accepted: 26 September 2015; Revised: 14 October 2015 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3 (2015): 54-83 Abstract: The Harappan civilization flourished during 2600 – 1900 BCE and among the several traits it is known for, burial practices one among them. A long tradition of burying the dead can be witnessed during the preceding phases of Harappan civilization, which could have contributed to a larger extent in the overall architecture and arrangement of burial furniture of Harappan phase. The patterns in which the burials were built indicate different socio-cultural belief systems in place quite distinct indifferent regions. A survey of the burial practices during the late/post-urban Harappan phase indicates not only re- emergence of certain traits in the form of urn burials/post-cremation burials, but also continuation of Harappan forms also. This paper is aimed to look into the evidence available so far from late / post-urban Harappan sites, a few examples from Iron Age context also, datable to second and first millennium BCE, to understand the pattern and regional distributions, if any. Keywords: Burial Practices, Pot Burials, Earth Burials, Chalcolithic, Harappan Civilization, Cemetery H, PGW Culture Introduction The disposal of dead and emergence of various burial customs in the south Asian context can be traced back to the Mesolithic period. It has been generally agreed that burials to intern the dead individuals was one among the several modes of disposal of dead during prehistoric and protohistoric times.
    [Show full text]