Walking with the Unicorn Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia

Jonathan Mark KenoyerAccess Felicitation Volume Open

Edited by Dennys Frenez, Gregg M. Jamison, Randall W. Law, Massimo Vidale and Richard H. Meadow

Archaeopress

Archaeopress Archaeology

ISBN 978 1 78491 917 7 ISBN 978 1 78491 918 4 (e-Pdf)

Front cover: SEM microphotograph of Indus unicorn seal H95-2491 from Harappa (photograph by J. Mark Kenoyer © Harappa Archaeological Research Project). Access Back cover, background: Pot from the Cemetery H Culture levels of Harappa with a hoard of beads and decorative objects (photograph by Toshihiko Kakima © Prof. Hideo Kondo and NHK promotions). Back cover, box: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer excavating a unicorn seal found at Harappa (© Harappa Archaeological Research Project). Open

ISMEO - Associazione Internazionale di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l'Oriente Corso Vittorio Emanuele II, 244 Palazzo Baleani Archaeopress Roma, RM 00186 www.ismeo.eu

Serie Orientale Roma, 15 This volume was published with the financial assistance of a grant from the Progetto MIUR 'Studi e ricerche sulle culture dell’Asia e dell’Africa: tradizione e continuità, rivitalizzazione e divulgazione'

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by The Holywell Press, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Jonathan Mark Kenoyer and ISMEO – Occasions in Continuum...... v Adriano V. Rossi Jonathan Mark Kenoyer – The Tale of Sikander and the Unicorn...... ix Dennys Frenez, Gregg Jamison, Randall Law, Massimo Vidale and Richard H. Meadow Jonathan Mark Kenoyer – Bibliography...... xi Fish Exploitation during the Harappan Period at Bagasra in Gujarat, India. An Ichthyoarchaeological Approach...... 1 Abhayan G. S., P. P. Joglekar, P. Ajithprasad, K. Krishnan, K. K. Bhan and S. V. Rajesh The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Terracotta Seals as Evidence of Imitation and Agency in Bronze Age Middle Asia...... 19 Marta Ameri Reflections on Fantastic Beasts of the Harappan World. A View from the West ...... 26 Joan Aruz Fish Symbolism and Fish Remains in Ancient South Asia...... 33 William R. Belcher Some Important Aspects of Technology and Craft Production in the IndusAccess Civilization with Specific Reference to Gujarat...... 48 Kuldeep K. Bhan Chert Mines and Chert Miners. The Material Culture and Social Organization of the Indus Chipped Stone Workers, Artisans and Traders in the Indus Valley (Sindh, Pakistan)...... 68 Paolo Biagi, Elisabetta Starnini and Ryszard Michniak Open Ceramic Analysis and the Indus Civilization. A Review...... 90 Alessandro Ceccarelli and Cameron A. Petrie Family Matters in Harappan Gujarat...... 104 Brad Chase Revisiting the Ornament Styles of the Indus Figurines: Evidence from Harappa, Pakistan...... 120 Sharri R. Clark The Harappan ‘Veneer’ and the Forging of Urban Identity...... 150 Mary A. Davis Private Person or Public ArchaeopressPersona? Use and Significance of Standard Indus Seals as Markers of Formal Socio-Economic Identities...... 166 Dennys Frenez Lithic Blade Implements and their Role in the Harappan Chalcolithic Cultural Development in Gujarat....194 Charusmita Gadekar and P. Ajithprasad Who Were the ‘Massacre Victims’ at Mohenjo-daro? A Craniometric Investigation...... 210 Brian E. Hemphill Indus Copper and Bronze: Traditional Perspectives and New Interpretations...... 251 Brett C. Hoffman A Short Note on Strontium Isotope Analysis of Human Skeletal Remains from the Site of Sarai Khola...... 265 Asma Ibrahim The Organization of Indus Unicorn Seal Production. A Multi-faceted Investigation of Technology, Skill, and Style...... 272 Gregg M. Jamison

i © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. The Size of Indus Seals and its Significance...... 292 Ayumu Konasukawa and Manabu Koiso The Art and Technology of Reserving a Slip. A Complex Side of Indus Ceramic Tradition...... 318 K. Krishnan and Sneh Pravinkumar Patel The Art of the Harappan Microbead – Revisited...... 327 Randall W. Law The North Gujarat Archaeological Project – NoGAP. A Multi-Proxy and Multi-Scale Study of Long- Term Socio-Ecological Dynamics...... 343 Marco Madella, P. Ajithprasad, Carla Lancelotti, J. J. García-Granero, F. C. Conesa, C. Gadekar and S. V. Rajesh Toponyms, Directions and Tribal Names in the Indus Script...... 359 Iravatham Mahadevan and M. V. Bhaskar Ganweriwala – A New Perspective...... 377 Farzand Masih Personal Reflections on some Contributions of Jonathan Mark Kenoyer to the Archaeology of Northwestern South Asia...... 384 Richard H. Meadow Invisible Value or Tactile Value? Steatite in the Faience Complexes of the Indus Valley Tradition...... 389 Heather M.-L. Miller and Jonathan Mark Kenoyer What Makes a Pot Harappan?...... 395 Heidi J. Miller Access Dilmun-Meluhhan Relations Revisited in Light of Observations on Early Dilmun Seal Production during the City IIa-c Period (c. 2050-1800 BC)...... 406 Eric Olijdam and Hélène David-Cuny Unicorn Bull and Victory Parade ...... Open 433 Asko Parpola Analytical Study of Harappan Copper Artifacts from Gujarat with Special Reference to Bagasra...... 443 Ambika Patel and P. Ajithprasad Looking beneath the Veneer. Thoughts about Environmental and Cultural Diversity in the Indus Civilization...... 453 Cameron A. Petrie, Danika Parikh, Adam S. Green and Jennifer Bates Decorated Carnelian Beads from the Indus Civilization Site of Dholavira (Great Rann of Kachchha, Gujarat)...... 475 V. N. Prabhakar Artifact Reuse and MixedArchaeopress Archaeological Contexts at Chatrikhera, Rajasthan...... 486 Teresa P. Raczek, Namita S. Sugandhi, Prabodh Shirvalkar and Lalit Pandey Pre-Prabhas Assemblage in Gujarat. An Assessment based on the Material Culture from Somnath, Datrana and Janan...... 495 Rajesh S. V., Charusmita Gadekar, P. Ajithprasad, G. S. Abhayan, K. Krishnan and Marco Madella The Indus Script and Economics. A Role for Indus Seals and Tablets in Rationing and Administration of Labor...... 518 Rajesh P. N. Rao Beads of Possible Indus Origin with Sumerian Royal Inscriptions...... 526 Julian E. Reade and Jonathan Taylor The Role of Archaeology in National Identity: Muslim Archaeology in Pakistan...... 530 Shakirullah The Smallest Scale of Stone. Pebbles as a Diminutive Form of Nature...... 536 Monica L. Smith Five Thousand Years of Shell Exploitation at Bandar Jissah, Sultanate of Oman...... 547 Christopher P. Thornton, Charlotte M. Cable, David Bosch and Leslie Bosch

ii © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain with a Focus on the Evidence from Farmana and Mitathal...... 568 Akinori Uesugi, Manmohan Kumar and Vivek Dangi Locard’s Exchange Principle and the Bead-Making Industries of the 3rd Millennium BC...... 592 Massimo Vidale, Giuseppe Guida, Gianfranco Priori and Anna Siviero Inscription Carving Technology of Early Historic South Asia. Results of Experimental Archaeology and Assessment of Minor Rock Edicts in Karnataka...... 605 Heather Walder The Volumetric System of Harappa...... 623 Bryan K. Wells An Harappan History of US Researchers in Pakistan. In Celebration of Jonathan Mark Kenoyer...... 628 Rita P. Wright Editors ...... 636 Authors Contacts...... 637

Access

Open

Archaeopress

iii © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Access

Open

Archaeopress

Akinori Uesugi, Manmohan Kumar and Vivek Dangi

This paper discusses the characteristics of stone beads of the Urban Indus period from the Ghaggar plain based on the evidence from Farmana and Mitathal. Our understanding of the stone beads of the Indus period have been so far limited to the samples from Harappa in Punjab, Pakistan, on which tremendous studies have been made by J. M. Kenoyer (Kenoyer 1991a, 1997, 2005). Needless to say, the site of Harappa is one of the most important urban centres of the Indus Valley Civilization and the evidence from this site have provided significant information for our understanding of the stone beads of the civilization. However, the holistic understanding of the stone beads of the urban society must include more evidence from other sites including minor urban centres and villages as well. The lack of basic information such as how many beads of what kind of forms and materials have been found at each site in the present state of our knowledge on stone beads still makes it difficult to understand the production and distribution system of stone beads during the Indus period and the stylistic and technological aspects of stone beads through time and across space.

Keywords: Indus Civilization, Stone Beads, Haryana, Ghaggar plain.

The Ghaggar plain, which is focused in this paper, is was excavated for a relatively larger area, provided a located to the east of Punjab and has a great number fair number ofAccess stone beads, while Phases 1-3, which of Indus sites, among which a dozen of sites have been were exposed in limited areas, gave a limited number excavated (Figure 1). Although it appears that stone of stone beads. Therefore, our current understanding beads were one of common artefacts in the cultural of stone beads from this site is based mainly on the assemblage of this region, well-reported evidence of evidence from Phases 4 and 5 and must be renewed in them, which can be compared with the case at Harappa, futureOpen when further areas of Phases 1-3 are exposed. are still limited for assessing their significance in this region. Therefore, this paper summarizes the evidence It should be noted that the cultural deposits of Phase from two sites, Farmana and Mitathal, which the author 5 were found to have partially been disturbed by pits was involved in the excavations, and provides basic data of the historical period (mainly of Gupta period). Some and understanding of stone beads in the Ghaggar plain. artefacts such as ceramics and terracotta figurines What is examined in this paper is materials, forms and found in association with these pits can clearly be technologies attested on the evidence from these two dated to the Gupta period in terms of their stylistic sites. traits, but for others like stone beads it is difficult to clearly determine the time periods to which they may Archaeological contexts of beads at Farmana belong, the Urban Indus period or the historical period. Therefore, it should be kept in mind that some of the The site of Farmana was excavatedArchaeopress by the joint team of beads, not many, that are discussed in this paper as Deccan College, Pune, Maharshi Dayanand University, belonging to the Indus period may belong to the later Rothak and the Indus Project, Research Institute for periods. Humanity and Nature, Kyoto between 2007 and 2009 revealing five structural phases (Shinde et al. eds. 2011). Archaeological contexts of beads at Mitathal Based on a series of C14 dates from various contexts and phases, Phase 1 can date to around 2500 BC and Phase The site of Mitathal, which is located 22 km southwest 5 to around 2300 BC. These chronometric dates can be of Farmana, consists of three mounds, on which corroborated by the ceramic evidence (Uesugi 2013, trenches were laid out during the excavations in 2017). Compared to the site chronology at Harappa, the 2011 and 2012 (Manmohan Kumar et al. 2011, 2012). entire phases at Farmana can be contemporary with Compared to Farmana, the excavated area is limited. Periods 3A and 3B at Harappa (Kenoyer 1991b). Among trenches excavated, the excavation at MTL-1 revealed eight structural phases with a series of C14 Stone beads, which counted 4,044 in the total number, dates, which exbihit a date around 2200 BC for the were unearthed in all phases (Figure 2) (Konasukawa et lowest level and 1900 BC for the uppermost level. At al. 2011), but the excavated area was the largest for Phase MTL-2 on the northeastern mound, four structural 5 and consequently the number of stone beads found phases were confirmed, the lowest level dating to was the most numerous for this phase. Phase 4, which 2200 BC and the upper level to 1900 BC based on C14

568 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Akinori Uesugi et al.: Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 1. Location of Farmana and Mitathal and the distributions of rocks (by the author) dates. The excavation at MTL-3 on the northwestern ceramic evidence from these trenches are similar with mound exposed two occupational phases, the lower each other showing the same sequence from the later level consisting of mud-brick structures dating to part of the Urban Indus period to the early part of the before 2000 BC and the upper level consisting of pits of Post-Urban Indus period. Based on the ceramic and various sizes dug after the desertion of the mud-brick chronometrical evidence, the occupational sequence at structural complex of the lower level. This upper level Mitathal can be correlated roughly with Periods 3C and was dated to around 2000 BC based on C14 dates. The 4 at Harappa.

569 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 2. Counts and weights of beads of various stones at Farmana (the rock crystal bead mentioned in these charts is likely to be a white agate as reported in footnote 1) (image by the author).

570 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Akinori Uesugi et al.: Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain

At Mitathal, 87 stone beads were unearthed at various Although it is not certain how the relatively small levels in all of the trenches (Figure 3; in this figure only number of stone beads from Mitathal reflects the actual the specimens from MTL-1 is shown); 48 beads from state of the amount of stone beads actually consumed MTL-1 (less than 11 beads from each phase), one from at the site, it is not unlikely that the number of stone MTL-2 (Structural phase 3) and 38 from MTL-3 (six beads beads produced and consumed and the variety of raw from the upper phase and 26 from the lower phase). materials used for bead production at sites across the Although it is difficult to make a simple comparison Indus region decreased towards the end of the Urban because of the limited areas of excavated trenches, the Indus period in the decline process of the urban society, differences in the number of beads from various levels although this hypothesis must be tested with more of various trenches may indicate differences of natures evidence from more sites. of occupations at each mound and each phase. Forms Raw materials – Farmana The formal classifications of stone beads from Farmana In terms of raw materials used for stone beads, 4044 and Mitathal are made based on the combination of plan specimens from Farmana consist of steatite, carnelian, shapes and side elevation shapes (Figures 4 and 5). Bead jasper, agate, chalcedony, lapis lazuli, amazonite, lengths are also taken into account in the classification limestone and siltstone.1 Steatite beads predominantly of bead forms (Figures 6 and 7; Tables 1 to 3) outnumber others followed by carnelian beads. Jasper beads are relatively abundant but very limited Carnelian beads – Farmana compared to steatite and carnelian. The total weight of steatite beads is small compared to their amount The carnelian beads from Farmana consist of 300 suggesting that they are comprised of smaller beads. beads with Plan Shape A (circular) and 21 beads with Carnelian, chalcedony and silicate stone beads have Plan Shape B Access(lenticular) clearly showing that the average weights heavier than steatite ones, but they former is the dominating type while the latter is rare are smaller than jasper, agate, amazonite and limestone in the assemblage (Figure 8: 1–19). Among various beads. Lapis lazuli beads are comparable with steatite formal types with Plan Shape A, Formal Type Ad is beads in weights. predominant, most of which belong to Length Class 2. ItOpen is followed by Formal Type Aa, among which Length In terms of structural phases in which beads were Class 3 is predominant although a few belong to Length unearthed, the predominance of steatite beads followed Classes 2 and 4. by carnelian is common through all phases. Among the specimens with Plan Shape B, Formal Type Raw materials – Mitathal Ba1 is outstanding, while Formal Types Bb and Bd count only one respectively and Formal Type Bc3, three. At Mitathal, the total number of stone beads found is Many specimens with Plan Shape B have wider faces on only 87, but the predominance of steatite beads is a both sides, on which bleached designs were executed. feature common to Farmana. It is followed by carnelian, For most of the specimens are relatively short in length, agate and jasper, which are extremely limited in number. it is likely that the bleached white design was regarded In terms of weights, the steatite beads is dominated by as more important than their sizes (especially length). smaller ones. Archaeopress Overviewing the beads with bleached designs from Based on the evidence in Trench A4 in which an Farmana, 23 specimens of the total number of 24 with entire stratigraphy from the natural deposits to the bleached designs are made of carnelian (one is made of latest occupation of the Post-urban Indus period was chalcedony), among which 20 beads have Plan Shape observed, carnelian beads concentrate in the lower B. Among three specimens with Plan Shape A, two of levels and agate beads in the upper levels, while steatite Formal Type Ad1 have bleached surface in an irregular beads occur across the stratigraphy. In MTL-3, which is shape that cannot be regarded as designs. The other roughly contemporary with Structural phases 6-8 in belonging to Formal Type Ac2 has a horizontal stroke Trench A4, 37 are of steatite and only one is of carnelian on the centre of its side. As to that with Plan Shape B, among the total number of 38 beads. 12 specimens have a white stroke around their edges, six have multiple circles, and two specimens have more complex geometric patterns. It appears that the beads with bleached designs were given some special value or meaning as their number is limited in the total bead 1 In the report of the Farmana excavations (Konasukawa et al. 2011), assemblage. one bead was identified as a rock crystal by Dr Randall Law, but it seems more likely that the example was made of whitish agate.

571 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 3. Counts and weights of beads of various stones at Mitathal (image by the author).

572 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Akinori Uesugi et al.: Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain

Access

Open

Figure 4. Classification of plan shapes and side shapes of beads in South Asia during Bronze Age, Iron Age and Early Historical period (image by the author).

Carnelian beads – Mitathal Agate beads – Mitathal

At Mitathal, two specimens with Formal Type Aa3, two Three agate beads were unearthed at Mitathal, all of with Formal Type Ac3 and six with Formal Type Ad2 which have Formal Type Aa3 made of banded agate were attested (Figure 8: 20–26). The predominance (Figure 8: 33–35). Thus, the feature of agate beads of of Form Ad2 is common Archaeopressto the assemblage seen at Mitathal is common to that of Farmana. Farmana. No bleached bead was unearthed in the excavations, although one specimen (Formal Type Bc3) Jasper beads was collected from the present surface of the site. Twenty-four beads of jasper from this site include 19 Agate beads – Farmana specimens with Plan Shape A and five specimens with Plan Shape B (Figure 8: 36–41, 43–49). While various Among six agate beads from Farmana, five have Plan colours can be observed such as red, black, yellow, white Shape A and one, Plan Shape B (Figure 8: 27–32). The and green, nine specimens are made of banded jasper. former is represented by Formal Types Aa3 and 4 and While the presence of various forms is noteworthy, it the latter belongs to Formal Type Bd2. It is a prominent is also important to note that two specimens of Formal feature of agate beads that they do not include short Types Aa5 and 6 that have length of more than 40mm beads (Length Classes 1 and 2). The predominance of are included. One of them is made of orbicular jasper banded agate (five in number) is also a characteristic showing a highly aesthetic appearance. The other is of feature of agate beads suggesting that the appearance a blackish colour. of banded agate was regarded as being aesthetically valuable. The ones with Plan Shape B include one of Formal Type Ba2 and four of Formal Type Ba3. It is worthwhile to

573 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 5. Formal classification of beads in South Asia during Bronze Age, Iron Age and Early Historical period (image by the author).

574 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Akinori Uesugi et al.: Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain

Access Figure 6. Measurement system and terminology for the description of beads (image by the author). note that they are distinguished from carnelian beads occupiesOpen the outstanding position among the forms of with Plan Shape B in length suggesting that the formal steatite beads. It can clearly be stated that the steatite designs were different from each other in spite of beads are characterized by mass production of extra- sharing the same plan shape. short and short ones that have uniform sizes.

Jasper beads – Mitathal Formal Type Bc counting five is distinctive in having painted decoration in red and white, which is notably Only one bead of jasper was found at Mitathal (Figure akin to the bleached carnelian beads suggesting that 8: 42). It belongs to Formal Type Aa3 made of banded these painted steatite beads were their imitation. jasper of black and white in colour. Black jasper with white bands is not seen at Farmana. Formal Type Cb, which has a square plan, is represented by only one example. Along with the amazonite beads Amazonite beads Archaeopress of the same shape, this form is a rare type in the bead assemblage at Farmana. Four amazonite beads were unearthed in the excavations only at Farmana (Figure 8: 83–86). Two of them belong to Another distinctive type of steatite beads is Formal Formal Type Aa, and two to Formal Type C. The former Type Db (eight in number), which is distinctive in includes two beads of Length Classes 3 and 4 and the having a peculiar form and incised concentric circles. latter belongs to Length Classes 2 and 4. For Plan Shape The uniformity in their size is also noteworthy. All the C can be observed only on one bead of steatite except specimens have a hole on their narrow side for being for these amazonite beads, it is obvious that Plan Shape threaded along with a short hole in the centre of flat C was a rare type in the bead assemblage at Farmana. side, which can be considered as a part of incised decoration. It appears that these distinctive beads were Steatite beads – Farmana given some special meaning or value.

Steatite beads dominate the bead assemblage at Steatite beads – Mitathal Farmana (Figure 8: 50–66). Most of the steatite beads have Plan Shape A, in which Formal Type Ab1 is Seventy-four steatite beads were unearthed in the predominant followed by a certain amount of Formal excavations at Mitathal (Figure 8: 67–77). All of them Types Ab2 and Ab3 suggesting that the cylindrical form

575 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 7. Scattergram of the sizes of beads (width/length) (image by the author).

576 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Akinori Uesugi et al.: Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain

Table 1. Length classification of beads. Total Formal Length No. No. type class Length Category Length Class 2 3 3 3 Extra-short 1 0.1 - 1.0 mm Aa 4 3 2 1.1 - 5.0 mm Short 6 1 3 5.1 - 10.0 mm 7 1 4 10.1 - 20.0 mm Jasper 22 2 2 Medium 5 20.1 - 30.0 mm Ab 3 1 6 30.1 - 40.0 mm 4 2 7 40.1 - 50.0 mm Long 8 50.1 - 60.0 mm Ae 3 1 3 1 9 60.1 - 70.0 mm Ba 10 70.1 - 80.0 mm 4 4 11 80.1 - 90.0 mm Aa 4 1 Extra-long Ab 3 1 12 90.1- 100.0 mm Amazonite 4 13 >100.1 mm 2 1 Cb Access 4 1 1 1,164 2 1,861 Table 2. Stone beads from Farmana in type-wise. Ab 3 206 Total Formal Length Open No. 4 52 No. type class Steatite 3,297 3 4 2 1 Bc 4 1 Aa 3 25 Cb 3 1 4 4 3 2 2 7 Db 4 6 Ab 3 5 Lapis lazuli 5 Ab 2 5 4 7 Aa 2 3 Ac 3 6 Archaeopress Chalcedony 5 Ab 2 1 2 218 Carnelian 295 Ad Ac 3 1 4 1 Limestone 1 Ba 4 1 Ah 2 1 Siltstone a Aa - 1 2 11 Ba 3 4 Bb 3 1 3 2 Bc 4 1 Bd 3 1 3 1 Aa Agate 6 4 4 Bd 3 1

577 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume

Table 3. Stone beads from Mitathal in type-wise. been treated as a main component of high value in an ornament composition. Bleached carnelian beads can Total Formal Length No. also be regarded as having high values. No. type class

Aa 3 2 Similarities in the bead assemblage noticed both at Carnelian 9 Ac 3 1 Farmana and Mitathal suggest that the similar ornament styles continued from the early part to the late part of Ad 2 6 the Urban Indus period at least in the southeastern part Agate 3 Aa 4 3 of the Ghaggar plain. Further evidence from other sites Jasper 1 Aa 4 1 and other regions will enrich our knowledge about the 1 37 bead assemblage and ornament style during the Urban Steatite 74 Ab 2 37 Indus period and its chronological changes from the beginning to the decline of the Indus urban society.

Evidence for bead production belong to Formal Type Ab1, which include short Both at Farmana and Mitathal, bead roughouts cylindrical and flat disc beads. and debitage were unearthed (Figure 9). They are important evidence for understanding the production Lapis lazuli beads – Farmana and distribution system of stone beads, not only in the Ghaggar plain but also in the entire Indus region, Lapis lazuli beads were found only at Farmana. All of since all of raw materials have their sources in specific the five specimens unearthed belong to Formal Type regions across the Greater Indus valley. Ab2, which show a similarity to steatite beads. Access At Farmana, 46 roughouts and debitage were found. Chalcedony beads – Farmana They are all of agate including black chalcedony and carnelian. The excavations at Mitathal yielded nine, Chalcedony beads were also unearthed only at Farmana in which three carnelian roughouts with retouches, (Figure 8: 78–82). Three of five beads found belong to oneOpen carnelian debitage, four quartz debitage and one Formal Type Aa1, one to Formal Type Ab1 and one to steatite debitage are included. For both roughouts and Formal Type Ac2, which exhibit distinctive formal debitage have nodule surface on some specimens, it assemblage, although limited in number. appears that nodules were imported into these sites and the whole manufacturing processes, at least of Limestone beads – Farmana some bead forms, were conducted at this site.

One bead of limestone unearthed at Farmana belongs The roughouts from Farmana consist of cuboid ones to Formal Type Ba3, which exhibits a form and a size and tabular ones with square or rectangular plan. The similar to that of agate and jasper beads (Figure 8: 87). former, which measures 7.4-17.6mm in length, 7.2- 18.4mm in width and 6.8-16.0mm in thickness, can Siltstone beads – Farmana be regarded as roughouts for Formal Type Aa. They Archaeopress represent a stage of fashioning by a chipping technique One fragment of siltstone bead was unearthed at as they bear some retouched areas. One specimen is Farmana, which may have been an extra-long bead as made of banded agate. its intact portion implies (Figure 8: 88). The tabular roughouts from Farmana measures 3.5- Thus, there is quite clear correspondence between 8.3mm in length, 3.2-7.7mm in width and 1.5-5.0mm stone varieties and forms. The number of beads of in thickness suggesting that they were prepared for each stone also varies. These features reflect functional making small short beads like Formal Type Ad2. While differences among bead types defined by forms and most of them have a square plan and some retouches stone variety in their arrangements and composition on their edges, one specimen (Figure 9: no. 8) of a round of ornaments like headdress, necklace, bracelet, tabular shape exhibits rough grinding on the surface. belt, anklets and so on. It is also likely that the bead types were given different meaning and value, one of The retouched roughouts from Mitathal include a the reasons of which seems to have been the socio- cuboid one, a round tabular one (Figure 9: 6) and a economic access to raw materials and finished items. specimen with irregular shape. The cuboid one seems While short beads made of steatite and carnelian were to have been for Formal Type Aa3 and the round tabular used in large amounts in one single ornament, medium one for Formal Type Ab2. or long beads made of agate and jasper might have

578 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Akinori Uesugi et al.: Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 8. Stone beads from Farmana and Mitathal (image by the author).

579 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 8. Stone beads from Farmana and Mitathal (image by the author).

580 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Akinori Uesugi et al.: Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 9. Reconstruction of bead production process at Farmana (nos. 1-5, 7-11), Mitathal (6) and Kanmer (12-24) (composed after drawings published in Konasukawa et al. 2011, Endo et al. 2012 and Manmohan Kumar et al. 2012).

581 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume

Based on the evidence from the bead workshops the chronological developments and technological exposed at Kanmer in Gujarat (Endo et al. 2012), the transfer of bead production, and socio-political or production stages can be reconstructed starting from socio-economic backgrounds behind the distribution of splitting nodules to make a blank (first stage), through stone beads. preparing a roughout with a chipping technique (second stage), grinding to make smooth surface (third stage), The surface conditions that are observed on the hole to perforating a hole and finally polishing (fourth surfaces using SEM can be classified into the following stage). The evidence from Farmana and Mitathal also patterns based on the studies by the scholars mentioned demonstrate a similar production process of beads. above and on the author’s analyses on samples from However, a striking difference between Kanmer and various sites across South Asia and from various time these two sites in the Ghaggar plain is the size of beads periods (Figure 10). produced. While the evidence from Kanmer clearly exhibits that long beads were remarkably produced at 1. Surface Pattern 1: Extraordinarily smooth this site, which is located closer to sources of various surface (on some examples very subtle stones in Gujarat, the evidence from Farmana and striations can be observed). This surface pattern Mitathal clearly show that only smaller and shorter generally occurs on drill holes that have straight beads were manufactured. The remarkable difference cylindrical or tapering profile. Kenoyer and in the amounts of roughouts and debitage at these Vidale (1991) identifies this surface pattern with sites also indicate that the bead production at Farmana the use of ernestite drills. and Mitathal was limited in scale compared to that at 2. Surface Pattern 2: Subtle parallel striations Kanmer. The absence of ernestite drills at Farmana and running perpendicular to the hole axis with an Mitathal may also reflect the limited bead production irregularly rugged surface. On some examples, activities or the limited nature of activities. no striations can be observed. This surface pattern generallyAccess occurs on drill holes that have Based on these evidence, it is evident that the bead straight cylindrical profiles. The rugged surface production activities were happening both at Farmana may be the results of the use of abrasives. and Mitathal, but it is most likely that the nature and 3. Surface Pattern 3: Shallow parallel striations scale of the activities were significantly different from running perpendicular to the hole axis with a that happening in Gujarat in which a number of stone Opencoarse surface. This surface pattern generally sources were located and large-scale bead production occurs on drill holes that have straight cylindrical was being conducted at many sites. Although the entire profile, but the surface tends to undulate in picture is still much unclear, it can be hypothesized that contrast with perfect straight profile of Surface the sub-urban settlements at Farmana and Mitathal Pattern 1. Kenoyer (2017) identifies this surface were provided with stone beads not only by the trading type as the use of copper tabular drills. activities, which may have focused on medium and long 4. Surface Pattern 4: Relatively deep parallel beads, but also by small-scale productions of beads of striations with an irregularly rugged surface. limited nature inside them. This is of great importance This surface pattern generally occurs on drill for our understanding of the production and holes that have straight cylindrical profile. distribution system of stone beads in the Indus urban Gwinett and Gorelick (1986) identify this surface society, which seems to haveArchaeopress been comprised of beads pattern with the use of a diamond drill based of special values that were produced at limited sites and on ethnographic evidence from Khambhat in regions and traded through trading networks and the Gujarat. ones locally made in a limited scale with limited access 5. Surface Pattern 5: Occasional striations running to raw materials and highly specialized technologies parallel to the hole axis. including the drilling technology using long cylindrical 6. Surface Pattern 6: Heavily and irregularly ernestite drill. rugged surface without striations. This can be identified as the application of a pecking Perforation techniques technique (Kenoyer 2017).

In order to examine the drilling technologies used for Perforation techniques – Farmana perforating beads, silicone impressions were made from 23 samples for Farmana and six samples for Mitathal. Among 23 samples from Farmana (Table 4, Figure 11), These silicone impressions were closely observed with 16 samples show Surface Pattern 1. Fourteen of them Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) taking account of have a straight cylindrical profile, while two (FRN-489, preceding studies (Gorelick and Gwinett 1988; Gwinett 13884) have a tapered profile. and Gorelick 1986, 1987; Kenoyer 1997, 2017; Kenoyer and Vidale 1992). This microscopic approach can Three specimens have Surface Pattern 2, among which reveal not only the drilling technology itself but also two samples (FRN-1714, 10705) are distinctive in

582 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Akinori Uesugi et al.: Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 10.1 Classification of bead hole surfaces (SEM images by the author).

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 10.2 Classification of bead hole surfaces (SEM images by the author).

584 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2017. Akinori Uesugi et al.: Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain having an irregular surface with prominently rugged to these stones common to both the sites, a few condition. The other specimen (FRN-15182) has parallel amazonite, chalcedony and lapis lazuli beads striations in parts running perpendicular to the hole were identified in the excavations at Farmana. axis along with a rugged surface. Similar assemblage can be attested at Kanmer in Gujarat and Harappa in Punjab. Based on these Three samples have striations parallel to the hole axis evidence, it can be stated that steatite, carnelian, (Surface Pattern 5). FRN-4177 has striations on the side jasper and agate were the most preferred stones of the proximal end, while the surface on the side of the used for beads in the Urban Indus society. In distal end exhibits a smooth surface (the rugged surface other words, beads made of these stones were in the middle may be due to the surface condition of valuable items that were widely shared by the the raw material). It is likely that these striations were society. The beads made of rare stones at these created by a kind of filing to finish the perforation. FRN- sites such as amazonite, lapis lazuli and so on 8584, which has a tapered profile, has a smooth surface can conversely be regarded as having been high but very subtle striations running perpendicular to the values because of their rarity. hole axis can be observed as well. For these striations 2. At both the sites, small-scale bead production can be regarded as having accidentally happened at the was evidenced, which probably focused on small time of taking out the drill from the hole. FRN-14115, and short beads. Raw nodules were imported which also has a slightly tapered profile, is distinctive into these sites for the bead production. in having blurred striations over a wide area. 3. In terms of the drilling technologies, Surface Pattern 1, which is likely to have been made Only one short bead (FRN-9522; Formal Type Ad2) using ernestite drill with a cylindrical profile or was examined showing Surface Pattern 6, which can a tapered profile, is predominant at Farmana, be identified as the use of a pecking technique. It is while a few specimens suggest a possible use difficult to conclude with confidence that short beads of abrasivesAccess (Surface Pattern 2). One sample were exclusively perforated with this technique, but of Formal Type Ad2 exhibits Surface Pattern the presence of the pecking technique on a short bead 6 or pecking technique. The predominance is noteworthy in assuming local production of these of Surface Pattern 1 corresponds with the short beads using non-drilling technique. evidence from Kanmer in Gujarat. At Mitathal, Openanother distinctive Surface Pattern 3 has been Perforation techniques – Mitathal attested along with Surface Patterns 1 and 6. Surface Pattern 3 is characterized by shallow Among six samples from Mitathal (Table 4, Figure 12), parallel striations and undulating surface, two specimens (MTL-289, 1105) exhibit Surface Pattern which is remarkably different from Surface 1, one of which has a straight cylindrical profile and the Type 1. According to J. M. Kenoyer (2017), this other, a tapered profile. surface pattern represents the use of copper tubular drills. This may suggest that those beads Three specimens (MTL-184, 440, 509) are distinctive in perforated with this surface pattern were locally having Surface Pattern 3, which has not been attested produced or that copper drills were introduced among the samples from Farmana. All of these samples in the later part of the Urban Indus period belong to Formal Type Aa4,Archaeopress quite long beads. that is contemporary with the occupations at Mitathal. Further evidence is needed to assess MTL-1080, a short truncated globular bead of Formal the presence of this surface pattern or copper Type Aa3, was found to have been perforated by a drills. pecking technique (Surface Pattern 6). It may suggest 4. The bead assemblages are comprised of various a continuity of this technique to the late phase of the forms, each of which was made of a specific Urban Indus period. stone. There is quite a clear correspondence between forms and stones used for them. While Summary steatite and carnelian are dominantly used for short beads suggesting that a large amount The discussions made above on the evidence from of them were used in one single ornament- Farmana and Mitathal can be summarized in the examples of the use of a number of steatite following points. short beads in ornaments can be observed in some burials at Farmana (Shinde 2011), agate 1. Both the sites yielded a number of beads made and jasper beads, which are remarkably limited of stones that have their sources in regions in number compared to steatite and carnelian, distant from these sites. Among them, steatite tend to be long, which may suggest that only a beads count the largest number followed by few beads or even one were used in ornaments. carnelian, jasper and agate beads. In addition

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 11.1 SEM images of bead holes of samples from Farmana (SEM images by the author).

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 11.2 SEM images of bead holes of samples from Farmana (SEM images by the author).

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 11.3 SEM images of bead holes of samples from Farmana (SEM images by the author).

Table 4. Samples selected for SEM observation.

Hole diam Hole Hole Form Hole pro- (mm) Site Sample no Site period Material surface length code file pattern (mm) Min Max

FRN-489 surface carnelian Ab4 Tapered 1 14.82 2.33 2.76 FRN-1220 Phase 5 carnelian Aa3 cylindrical 1 8.83 1.73 1.73 FRN-1399 Phase 5 carnelian Aa3 cylindrical 1 9.00 2.22 2.22 FRN-3390 Phase 5 carnelian Aa4 cylindrical 1 10.27 2.03 2.03 FRN-4177 Phase 5 carnelian Aa4 cylindrical 5 12.84 1.55 1.55 FRN-4466 Phase 5 carnelian Bb3 cylindrical 1 8.65 1.57 1.57 FRN-9522 Phase 5 carnelian Ba2 tapered 6 3.68 0.80 2.70 FRN-9609 Phase 5 carnelian Aa3 cylindrical 1 8.51 2.00 2.00 FRN-13884 Phase 5 carnelian Ad4 tapered 1 11.64 1.83 2.3 FRN-15060 Phase 5 carnelian Ab4 cylindrical 1 12.28 2.01 2.01 FRN-15182 Phase 5 carnelian Ab4 cylindrical 2 13.47 1.65 1.65 Farmana FRN-5873 Phase 5 agate Aa4 cylindrical 1 13.54 2.01 2.01 FRN-10027 Phase 5 agate Aa4 cylindricalAccess 1 15.13 2.04 2.04 FRN-11462 Phase 5 agate Aa3 cylindrical 1 9.23 1.95 1.95 FRN-12561 Phase 5 agate Aa4 cylindrical 1 12.85 2.37 2.37 FRN-12644 Phase 4 agate Aa4Open cylindrical 1 13.89 2.18 2.18 FRN-8584 Phase 5 jasper Ba4 tapered 5 14.66 2.18 2.18 FRN-10705 Phase 5 jasper Aa7 cylindrical 2 49.36 3.16 4.00 FRN-11404 Phase 5 jasper Aa3 cylindrical 1 9.63 2.35 2.35 FRN-14115 Phase 5 jasper Aa4 tapered 5 16.85 1.55 2.08 FRN-15398 Phase 5 jasper Aa6 cylindrical 2 39.87 3.10 3.39 FRN-15676 Phase 4 amazonite Cb4 cylindrical 1 15.06 2.18 2.18 FRN-1714 Phase 5 limestone Ba4 cylindrical 2 19.58 1.97 1.97 MTL-1080Archaeopress Phase 1 carnelian Aa3 tapered 6 6.10 4.20 1.00 MTL-289 Phase 5 carnelian Ac3 cylindrical 1 7.10 2.60 2.60 MTL-509 Phase 7 agate Aa4 cylindrical 3 12.90 2.20 2.20 Mitathal MTL-440 Phase 6 agate Aa4 cylindrical 3 13.00 2.20 2.20 MTL-184 Phase 7 agate Aa4 cylindrical 3 13.40 2.50 2.50 MTL-1105 Phase 1 jasper Aa4 tapered 1 15.30 3.00 3.00

This difference may reflect different meaning at these sites must be compared to case studies from or values given to different forms of different other sites including Rakhigarhi, the largest settlement materials of beads, which may have been based in the Ghaggar plain, in order to reconstruct the entire on differentiated access to raw materials or production and distribution system of stone beads in finished products. the region.

The settlements at Farmana and Mitathal can be The comparative analysis with other regions of the regarded as urban centres in the southeastern part Indus valley is also important to better understand the of the Ghaggar plain. The bead assemblages attested significance of stone beads in the Indus urban society.

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 12. SEM images of bead holes of samples from Mitathal (SEM images by the author).

For example, extra-long carnelian beads reported from materials through the production processes to the final Mohenjodaro (Mackay 1938; Marshall 1931), Harappa consumption is necessary to assess their role in the (Kenoyer 1991; Vats 1940), Chanhudaro (Mackay 1943) Indus urban society and in the developments of trading and so on, which are rare at Farmana and Mitathal, networks and the bead-making tradition in South Asia. can be regarded as extraordinarily high-value items among beads produced using highly specialized skills Acknowledgements and technologies, and it is important to examine their production system and their position in the entire bead The authors express their gratitude to Prof. Jonathan assemblage at those sites. A holistic understanding Mark Kenoyer for sharing his experiences and expertise of stone beads starting from the acquisition of raw of studying stone beads in South Asia.

Bibliography J. R. Druzik, G. S. Wheeler and I. C. Freestone (eds), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III: 495–518. Beck, H. C. 1933. Etched Carnelian Beads. The Antiquaries Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh. Journal 13(4): 384–398. Konasukawa, A., Endo, H. and Uesugi, A. 2011. Chapter Dangi, V., Uesugi, A., Manmohan Kumar, Shinde, 7. Minor Objects from the Settlement Area. In V. V. and Appu 2015. Bedwa. A Mature and Late Shinde, T. Osada and Manmohan Kumar (eds), Harappan Necropolis in the Upper Ghaggar Basin. Excavations at Farmana, Rohtak District, Haryana, India In Manmohan Kumar and A. Uesugi (eds), Harappan 2006-2008: 369–529. Research Institute for Humanity Studies, Vol. 1: 93–152. Aryan Books International, and Nature, Kyoto. New Delhi. Law, R. W. 2011. Inter-Regional Interaction and Urbanism in Dikshit, M. G. 1949. Etched Beads in India (Deccan College the Ancient Indus Valley. A Geologic Provenience Study Monograph Series 4). Deccan College, Poona. of Harappa’s Rock and Mineral Assemblage (Occasional Endo, H., Uesugi, A. and Meena, R. 2012. Chapter 7: Paper 11). Research Institute for Humanity and Minor Objects. In J. S. Y. Kharakwal, S. Rawat and Nature, Kyoto. T. Osada (eds), Excavations at Kanmer 2005-06 – 2008- Mackay, E. J. H. 1938. Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro. 09: 481–748. Research Institute for Humanity and Being an official account Archaeological Excavations at Nature, Kyoto. Mohenjo-daro carried out by the Government of India Gorelick, L. and Gwinnett, A. J. 1988. Diamonds from between the years 1927 and 1931. Government of India India to Rome and Beyond. American Journal of Press, Delhi. Archaeology 92: 547–552. Mackay, E. J. H. 1943. Chanhu-Daro Excavations 1935- Gwinnett, A.J. and Gorelick L. 1986. Evidence for the use 36 (American Oriental series, Vol. 20). American of a diamond drill for bead making in Sri-Lanka c. Oriental Society, New Haven. 700-1000 A.D. Scanning Electron Microscopy 11: 473– Manmohan Kumar, Uesugi, A., Dangi, V., Vijay Kumar 477. and Nagae T.Access 2012. Excavations at Mitathal, 2011-12. Gwinnett, A.J. and L. Gorelick 1987. The Change from Purātattva 42: 148–181. Stone Drills to Copper Drills in Mesopotamia. Manmohan Kumar, Uesugi, A., Shinde, V. S., Dangi, V., Expedition 29(3): 15–24. Vijay Kumar, Sajjan Kumar, Singh, A. K., Mann, R. Joshi, J. P. (ed.) 1993. Excavation at Bhagwanpura 1975- and Rajesh Kumar 2011. Excavations at Mitathal, 76 and Other Explorations and Excavations 1975-81 in OpenDistrict Bhiwani (Haryana) 2010-11: A Preliminary Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab (Memoirs Report. Purātattva 41: 168–178. of the Archaeological Survey of India 89). Marshall, J. H. 1931. Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization. Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. Being an official account of archaeological excavations at Kenoyer, J. M. 1991a. Ornament styles of the Indus Mohenjo-Daro carried out by the government of India Valley tradition. Evidence from recent excavations between the years 1922 and 1927. Arthur Probsthain, at Harappa, Pakistan. Paléorient 17(2): 79–98. London. Kenoyer, J. M. 1991b. Urban Process in the Indus Shinde, V. 2011. Chapter 8. Harappan Cemetery at Tradition. A Preliminary Model from Harappa. Farmana. In V. Shinde, T. Osada and Manmohan In R. H. Meadow (ed.), Harappa Excavations 1986- Kumar (eds), Excavations at Farmana, Rohtak District, 90. A multidisciplinary Approach to Third Millennium Haryana, India 2006-2008: 530–673. Research Institute Urbanism: 29–60. PrehistoryArchaeopress Press, Madison. for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto. Kenoyer, J. M. 1997. Trade and technology of the Indus Shinde, V. Osada, T. and Manmohan Kumar (eds) 2011. Valley. New insights from Harappa, Pakistan. World Excavations at Farmana, District Rohtak, Haryana, India. Archaeology 29(2): 262–280. 2006-2008. Research Institute for Humanity and Kenoyer, J. M. 2005. Bead Technologies at Harappa, Nature, Kyoto. 3300-1900 BC. A Comparative Summary. In C. Jarrige Uesugi, A. 2013. A Note on the Diachronic Changes of the and V. Lefèvre (eds), South Asian Archaeology 2001: Harappan Pottery. A Preliminary Analysis. Heritage: 157–170. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: Paris. 356–371. Kenoyer, J. M. 2017. Using SEM to study stone bead Uesugi, A. and Dangi, V. 2017. A Study on the technology. In A. Kanugo (ed.), Stone Beads of Developments of the Bara Pottery in the Ghaggar South and South-East Asia. Archaeology, Ethnography Plains. In Ajit Kumar, S. V. Rajesh and G. S. and Global Connections: 409–436. Indian Institute Abhayan (eds), Kailashnath Hetu. Essays in Prehistory, of Technology-Gandhinagar and Aryan Press, Protohistory and Historical Archaeology (Festschrift to Ahmedabad/Delhi. Shri K. N. Dikshit), Vol. 1: 177–197. New Bharatiya Kenoyer, J. M. and Vidale, M. 1992. A New Look at Stone Book Corporation, Delhi. Drills of the Indus Valley Tradition. In P. B. Vandiver,