sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cylinder seal, Harappa, Little Rann of Kutch, Meluhha, Shereen Ratnagar, Shortugai

INTERCULTURAL RELATIONS BETWEEN SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST . STUDIES IN COMMEMORATION OF E.C.L. DURING CASPERS (1934-1996) E. Olijdam & R.H. Spoor (eds) BAR International Series 1826 (2008): 19-28

Indus and Mesopotamian Trade Networks: New Insights from Shell and Artifacts

Jonathan Mark Kenoyer

Ever since the discovery of the Indus Valley , the question of trade contacts with outside has been a topic of con- siderable discussion. Among various controversial issues is the question of whether Mesopotamian merchants or other individuals were ever present in the Indus Valley itself. One of the leading scholars to contribute to this discussion was Elisabeth During Caspers. Although there is still no convincing evidence for the presence of Mesopotamians in the Indus (Chakrabarti 1990), the interpre- tations proposed by During Caspers (1982; 1984; 1994) and others have led to the critical analysis of the types of evidence for trade contacts in both major regions (Ratnagar 2001; Possehl 1997). In this article I review some of the evidence for Indus internal and ex- ternal trade and present some new information based on my comparative analysis of shell artifacts and beads from the Indus Valley and the Royal Cemetery at . Although my study of the carnelian beads has remained unfinished due to the current political situa- tion in , it is possible to make some suggestions for future research and the possible outcome of such studies.

Indus Trade and Exchange can assume that these adjacent regions were in fact a part of the internal trade networks, supplying the Indus cities Since all of the major urban centers of the Indus valley with rocks, minerals and processed metals such as cop- are located in the vast alluvial plains of the per, , lead and tin. and its tributaries, most essential raw materials for the The best indicators of this internal trade are the signifi- production of metal objects and luxury items would have cant quantities of materials from the resource areas that been traded from adjacent resource areas. Without the were being brought to the large urban centers. The most aid of written texts it is impossible to determine the na- commonly preserved materials include chert, various ture of territorial control exerted by individual cities or forms of grinding stones and pestles, various types of regional political powers. Consequently, scholars have agate, carnelian and , and numerous other miner- assumed that the distribution of sites with Harappan als. Processed metal, such as , bronze, , seals, architecture, pottery and other diagnostic artifacts and lead were also being brought to the cities from these represents the extent of economic and political control adjacent regions. Both raw and semi-processed marine by Indus communities. shell, dried fish and other marine resources were also Based on current evidence, the internal trade or inter- being taken inland to sites in the Indus plain and even as action sphere of the Indus would include the major allu- far north as . Internal trade and exchange is vial plains, the piedmont regions of Baluchistan to the further reflected in the widespread use of standardized west and the regions of Kutch, and much of weights and sealings that indicate aspects of economic modern [Fig. 1]. Isolated Harappan sites have and political control. The analysis of raw materials, been found as far north as Shortugai in manufacturing techniques and the discovery of actual (Frankfort 1984), but this does not mean the entire production areas makes it possible to trace specific arti- between Sarai Khola and the Oxus River was integrated facts to sites or regions. into the Indus interaction system. It is less clear what the Shell bangles made from various marine species have situation is to the south in Baluchistan, where Indus set- been particularly useful in determining the patterns of tlements and related Kulli culture sites (Dales 1976; internal trade networks, as well as the organization of Possehl 1986) have been found. The site of Sutkagen Dor production and trade (Kenoyer 1983; 1984). Both narrow (Dales 1962; Dales & Lipo 1992) was probably an import- and wide shell bangles were produced almost exclusively ant sea port and trading outpost, while the inland site of from the massive gastropod Turbinella pyrum, though Miri Kalat (Besenval 1994) probably dominated the up- occasionally thin and twisted bangles were made from land trade. Harappan sites are found all along the pied- the spiny Murex, Chicoreus ramosus [Fig. 2]. Another varia- mont zone of Kohistan and the Salt Range (Mughal 1974; tion in the manufacture of bangles is seen in the use of Dani 1970-71; Durrani 1988; Durrani, Ali & Erdosy 1991) the bivalve Tivela damaoides to produce ornaments that where passes lead through the hills to highland grazing look very similar to the more circular bangles produced areas. Based on the fact that the sites in Baluchistan are from gastropods. The production of bangles from various often within a few days journey of the Indus alluvium, we species in different regions has made it possible to recon-

19

Ur

Mohenjodaro

N

Fig. 1: Map of the Indus Valley and .

1

2

3

4

0 5 cm

Fig. 2: Bangle types of the Indus Valley. 1) Wide, Turbinella pyrum; 2) Narrow, Turbinella pyrum; 3) Narrow, Chicoreus ramosus; 4) Narrow, Tivela damaoides.

20

Fig. 3: Shell species and derived artifacts.

struct the actual internal trade networks and the types of interest in the context of this article are the long carnel- goods being traded. ian nodules used to produce equally long biconical car- For example, the manufacture of Tivela damaoides has nelian beads [Fig. 4]. So far, the actual production of such been documented at the site of (Dales & Kenoyer long beads can be documented only at the site of Chanhu- 1977) and other sites in this coastal region (Kenoyer daro (Mackay 1943), though there is possible evidence for 1983). Analysis of shell fragments at and more production at Mohenjodaro and Harappa. The exact recently at Harappa show that some of these bangles source of the large nodules is still unknown, but large were being worn or traded to distant sites within the carnelian nodules have been recovered from the Ratan- Indus region (Kenoyer 1997). Other shell objects, such as pur agate bearing gravels and they would have been partially finished bangles and ladles made from the Mu- available in many parts of Kutch, Saurashtra and Gujarat rex shell (Chicoreus ramosus) were being produced at the wherever this vast geological deposit is accessible site of Nageshwar (Bhan & Kenoyer 1980-81) and proba- (Kenoyer, Vidale & Bhan 1991). Current studies are being bly exported to Harappa and Mohenjodaro. Large colu- undertaken to see if PIXE analysis which has been suc- mella of Turbinella pyrum may have been shaped into cessful elsewhere (Theunissen, Grave & Bailey 2000) will cylinders and traded to Indus sites for use in the produc- work for the Indus carnelian characterization. While it is tion of beads or inlay, but they also may have been pre- possible to generally determine where the carnelian pared for external trade to Mesopotamia, where there is came from, the source of the unique material used to evidence for the use of shell cylinder seals made from produce stone drills for perforating these hard stones is Turbinella pyrum (Gensheimer 1984) [Fig. 3]. less clear. This material has been named “Ernestite” in While agate and carnelian beads were being produced honor of Ernest J. H. Mackay who first discovered the at most Indus sites using similar techniques, the raw drills at (Kenoyer & Vidale 1992). Electron materials were found only in limited areas. Of specific microprobe x-ray analysis of the drill raw material

21 cylindrical” drills [Fig. 5]. This type of drill was only pro- duced during the Harappan period (2600-1900 B.C.) and appears to have been unique to the Indus Valley (but see discussion below). Furthermore, there appears to be a limited distribution of these beads within the Indus Val- ley itself, since they have only been conclusively docu- mented at the sites of Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Chanhu- daro and possibly at Dholavira. Other types of stone drills have been found at all other Indus sites, but the specific nature of the material used to make the drills is not well documented. The distribution of Ernestite drills corre- sponds roughly to the distribution of long carnelian bead production. This pattern could indicate that the produc- tion of these beads and the drills needed to perforate them was being controlled by certain merchants or elites. Since long carnelian beads were clearly among the most valuable ornaments of the Indus region, this type of con- trol is not surprising. However, as is discussed in more detail below, this evidence for control does have bearing on the fact that many of the finished beads were being traded to Mesopotamia and other adjacent regions.

Models of Internal Trade

Various models for trade and exchange systems have Fig. 4: Bead manufacturing process: from nodule to bead. been discussed for the prehistoric period (Lamberg- Karlovsky 1975; Clark 1968), but without the support of written documents in the Indus Valley, it is not possible to adequately test most of these models. Based on the limited archaeological evidence from Indus excavations, it is possible to determine that internal trade networks were highly stratified (Kenoyer 1989). Larger cities ap- pear to have been more directly connected with external regions and to each other by inter-regional networks. These cities were in turn linked to smaller towns and villages with intra-regional networks. At the local level, subsistence items and locally produced commodities would have been redistributed without recourse to the larger networks. In addition to the stratification of networks, there ap- pear to be at least thee major systems of exchange during the final part of the Early Harappan period and through- 0 5 cm out the Harappan period (Kenoyer 1998). The use of stan- dardized weights reflects a centralized authority or a coalition of merchants that maintained control of the trade of specific commodities. It is unlikely that these Fig. 5: Ernestite constricted cylindrical drills. weights were used for everyday market trade, but were probably used for establishing rates of taxation, or actual taxation for merchants bringing a wide variety of other reveals a unique composition that it the result of human goods into the cities. Recent excavations at Harappa have modification of a natural rock using heat. The rock is indicated that most of the standardized weights are composed of a yellow brown matrix of quartz and silli- found near to the gateways of the walled mounds, a loca- manite with concentrations of iron/titanium oxide phase. tion where goods could be monitored and taxed while These concentrations of and iron-titanium ox- entering or leaving the (Kenoyer 1991). ides give the rock its cutting and polishing properties, The other two systems of exchange do not have any while the matrix provides a strongly bonded structure direct archaeological evidence and are somewhat hypo- capable of withstanding the stresses of drilling. The thetical. One was probably a system of barter that in- brown-black portion appears to be primarily quartz with volved the exchange of grain or other subsistence com- hematite and some sillimanite/mullite. modities for goods. Graffiti on pottery and inscribed tab- The types of Ernestite drills used in the manufacture of lets with what may be numerals or commodity names long carnelian beads have been classified as “constricted may reflect this type of trade. The use of sealings on jars

22 or bales of goods also indicates some form of verification that some elites were undoubtedly able to maintain con- of goods and contents of containers (Parpola 1994). At trol and engage in economic and political development present there are no distinct areas that can be identified without the use of seals or tablets. During the Late Harap- as markets, but large open spaces in some neighborhoods pan period we continue to see evidence for economic at Mohenjodaro and the open areas inside some of the activity and regional exchange, but there is no use of gateways at Harappa may have been locations for trade weights, seals or even (Kenoyer & Meadow 1999). and barter. The third system of exchange, and again one that is not External Trade and Exchange reflected archaeologically at all, is the reciprocal ex- change of goods for services. This type of exchange is While internal exchange was definitely an important commonly practiced throughout and in many factor in the emergence of Indus urban centers, there is parts of the world and was probably common in both no evidence that external exchange played a significant rural and some urban contexts (Kenoyer 1989). role in the rise of Indus cities. The most recent evidence Another important feature of the trading patterns that from Harappa indicates that the initial urban develop- must be considered is how they were maintained over ment was occurring during the period around vast regions and for such long periods of time. The study 2800-2600 B.C. There is no evidence for trade with Meso- of traditional shell and agate trade in South Asia and potamia at this time. The hypothesis that trade with between South Asia and external regions suggests that Mesopotamia was a major factor in the rise and mainte- much of the long distance trade is the result of entrepre- nance of the urban centers (Possehl 1990; Ratnagar 1981) neurial families and not due to state economic policies assumes that the Indus economy was directed towards (Kenoyer 1989). Furthermore, the long term maintenance external trade and this is not supported by the basic ar- of such trade networks is the result of extended kin rela- chaeological evidence from excavations in the Indus tions and ad hoc contracts between producers and con- Valley or in Mesopotamia (Shaffer 1982; and below). sumers rather than from state control. Various unsuccessful attempts to apply World Systems The role of elites and state officials in the establish- models to the external trade of either the Indus Valley or ment, maintenance and control of internal trade is still Mesopotamia have been based on a limited knowledge of not well defined. Clearly the rulers of the Indus cities the primary archaeological data from each region and the would have been the ones to establish and maintain the use of unjustified generalizations (for more specific walls and gateways of each city. The main mechanism for comments see Kohl 2001; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2001; Stein indirect control of economy would therefore have been 1999). through taxation of goods entering and leaving the city There is however clear evidence for external trade (Kenoyer 1998). In addition, there were probably addi- during the Harappan period. Various degrees of direct or tional social, economic and political links to the sur- indirect contact were established between the Indus rounding hinterland or other cities that would help in Valley, , , and even distant reinforcing and maintaining control. Mesopotamia. Considerable discussion of the evidence for The use of seals for trade is clearly one of the most contact with Mesopotamia is available, but it is often important indicators of elite control, but until it is possi- difficult to evaluate the interpretations, since most of the ble to decipher the script, the specific nature of that con- data derives from earlier excavations in Mesopotamia trol will be conjectural. In addition to seals, there are when detailed stratigraphic recording was not under- numerous inscribed and molded tablets made of steatite, taken. Other important finds were collected from art faience and even copper. The same mold was used to dealers or surface contexts and therefore the provenance make numerous tablets with identical inscriptions on one and dating are problematic (Moorey 1994; Potts 1997). side and what may be a numeral on the opposite side. Most of the Harappan-style artifacts that have been Identically inscribed steatite tablets were also produced recovered from sites in Mesopotamia presumably result in large quantities. It is possible that these tablets served from indirect overland trade or coastal trade dominated as a form of credit token for goods being brought into the by middlemen from the Gulf region. As is discussed be- city, exchanged or stored (Parpola 1994; Kenoyer 1998). low, there is also evidence to suggest that actual Indus The use of numerous identical copper tablets with raised traders were present in Mesopotamia. The period of con- script at Harappa is also important to note. The Harappan tact between the two regions has been dated from around style of copper tablet is distinct from the incised copper 2550 to 1300 B.C. (Chakrabarti 1990). The dating of the tablets at Mohenjodaro. It is not impossible that these earliest contacts are based on a relatively general date for standardized metal tablets with script were used as a the artifacts found in the Royal Cemetery at Ur. Recent form of local city coinage, since they are not found at studies of the chronology suggest that they may date other regional sites. somewhat later, possibly to around 2450 B.C. (Richard L. The contexts for the use of seals, and the changes in Zettler, pers. comm.). This dating actually fits much more and tablet types over time, suggest that there were closely with the evidence for carnelian bead production significant fluctuations in the power of elite communities at the site of Chanhudaro in the Indus valley. The Harap- using these objects. These fluctuations may correspond to pan occupation of Chanhudaro appears to date from experiments in different types of mechanisms for record- around 2450 to 1900 B.C. based on comparisons with the ng value or simply to changes in economic and political pottery styles and figurines from Harappa. control within the cities. It is important to note, however, On the basis of textual evidence as well as a limited

23 amount of artifactual data, we know that there were con- siderable fluctuations in the internal, as well as the ex- ternal trade of Mesopotamia (Gelb 1970; Stein 1999). There is also literary evidence that individuals from the Indus Valley (i.e. Meluḫḫa) were residing in Mesopotamia during the Akkadian period (ca. 2350-2200 B.C.) and had become acculturated (Parpola, Parpola & Brunswig 1977). In contrast, there is no direct evidence for Mesopotamian goods in the Indus region. All of the various objects that may derive from cultures outside the Indus region can be traced to either Central Asia or Oman, but not to Mesopo- tamia (Chakrabarti 1990). Any Mesopotamian goods traded to the Indus were probably perishable or consisted of raw materials that would be transformed in the work- shops of the Indus cities (Crawford 1973).

Indus Objects in Mesopotamia Fig. 6: Shell bangle from Susa (after Jarrige 1988: 48. Sb 14473, Fouilles de J. de Morgan).

One of the major shortcomings in the summary provided above is that most of the discussion of Indus objects found in Mesopotamia has been undertaken at a superfi- who were members of trading communities (Kenoyer cial level. Except for the seals, there is little photo- 1998). graphic documentation or detailed analysis of the many It is highly unlikely that the shell bangle from Susa was Harappan style objects found in Mesopotamia. In the dis- made at the site or anywhere in Mesopotamia, but rather cussion below I am only able to focus on two categories of it was probably worn or carried there by a trader. Based artifacts that have provided evidence for more specific on depictions of wide bangles on terracotta figurines at aspects of Indus-Mesopotamian interaction. Other cate- Harappa I would assume that this type of ornament was gories that have not yet been studied include shell inlay, worn primarily by women. If numerous shell bangles carved , copper tools, glazed steatite and faience were found in Susa or other sites in Mesopotamia, it beads, and gold ornaments. If traders were carrying shell would be easy to argue that they were a trade commod- cylinders, shell bangles and carnelian beads to Mesopo- ity. However, since only one example has been reported, tamia, it is not unlikely that many other objects were also it is more likely that it was an ad hoc trade item or per- being traded, but they have not been identified because haps actually worn by a Harappan woman. If the latter no one has been studying them in detail. scenario is proposed, it would imply that a Harappan In the course of my research on Indus shell industries, I female trader or perhaps a male trader with his wife made a study of Mesopotamian shell objects in order to traveled as far as Susa. Taking the speculation even fur- determine if any Indus objects were traded to Mesopota- ther, it is possible that the woman wearing this bangle mia. During the course of this research it became clear was part of a marriage alliance with a distant trading that some of the objects found in sites such as Susa and family in Susa. Such long distance marriage contracts can even the burials at Ur, were made in the Indus Valley and be documented historically and ethnographically. In the traded to Mesopotamia. A wide shell bangle with chevron absence of strong state control, long distance kin rela- motif from the site of Susa has been identified as being tionships would have been a form of insurance in trade comparable to Harappan bangles (Jarrige 1988: 198, A10) relations. [Fig. 6]. In the catalogue the bangle from Susa has been While this discussion is purely speculative, it does sug- identified as being made from Fasciolaria trapezium, a shell gest that we should be more open to looking for evidence species found along the Indus coast and as far as Bahrain. of such interactions between the Indus Valley and Meso- However, based on my comparative analysis of shell potamia. This is further warranted since Mesopotamian structure, it appears that this bangle was in fact made documents indicate the presence of Meluḫḫan or Indus from the Turbinella pyrum, a species found only along the boats presumably along with their traders, captains and Indus coast (i.e. the coast west of Karachi and the sailors, Meluḫḫan interpreters and even larger accultur- Little and coastal Gujarat) and the waters ated communities in some Mesopotamian cities (Parpola, of Southern and Sri Lanka. Parpola & Brunswig 1977). In the Indus Valley shell bangles with chevron motifs Studies of shell cylinder seals in burials of soldiers and are diagnostic of Harappan elites and are found through- attendants associated with the royal cemetery at Ur also out the Indus region (Kenoyer 1992) [Fig. 2]. Wide shell appear to have been made from columella of the Tur- bangles with chevron motifs have also been found at the binella pyrum shell (Gensheimer 1984). Since no carved site of Harappa, but no wide bangles were found with the cylinder seals of Mesopotamian style have been found at female burials in the Harappan cemetery. This discovery the sites of Lothal or Nageshwar, where similar columella of two wide bangles with a chevron motif on Mound F blanks were being produced, we must assume that the could indicate that these bangles were worn by different blank cylinders were traded from the Indus to Mesopo- ethnic community living in the city or possibly by women tamia. Once they had reached Mesopotamia, they would

24 1 2

0 5 cm

Fig. 7: Shell cylinder seals from Ur. 1) Shell cylinder seal found with groom in ’s tomb (PG 800), height 31 mm, dia. 16 mm, B 16747 (U.10530); 2) Shell cylinder seal found near skeleton (PG 1054), height 34 mm, dia. 16 mm, 30-12-8 (U.11528) (after Zettler & Horne 1998).

have been sent to local carvers to be inscribed with ap- als, tools and techniques. In the past scholars have as- propriate motifs. sumed that these beads were produced in the Indus Val- It appears that large shell cylinder seals made from ley and traded as finished items. This interpretation has Turbinella pyrum (as opposed to thin cylinders made from been based on the comparison of their overall appear- Fasciolaria trapezium) were used only for a short time dur- ance, but not on the basis of detailed analysis of the raw ing the Early Dynastic period, and they are found only in material, the manufacturing technology or the stylistic the royal cemetery at Ur and primarily during the Early attributes of the object. In order to confirm that these Dynastic period (Woolley 1934; 1955) [Fig. 7]. A recent beads were in fact from the Indus Valley a detailed study discussion of some of these cylinder seals and the con- of the beads from Ur was begun in 1993 (with Kuldeep texts in which they were found indicate that one was Bhan, M.S. University, Baroda), in conjunction with our found with a groom in the tomb of Queen Puabi (Zettler & long term study of the agate bead production in the Indus Horne 1998: 80, 21a) [Fig. 7a]. This seal as well as one valley (Vidale, Kenoyer & Bhan 1993). other from another burial are inscribed with what appear During our detailed analysis of beads from the Royal to be Mesopotamian names (Zettler & Horne 1998: 80, Cemetery at Ur in the collections of the University of 21a, 23a). One would assume that these individuals were Pennsylvania Museum, it was possible to confirm that all local inhabitants, but the presence of numerous items many of the long carnelian biconical beads and bleached from the Indus Valley and other distant resource areas carnelian beads from the royal cemetery were probably would suggest that Ur, being a major port city, was filled made in the Indus region and traded to Mesopotamia. with people from many different parts of the ancient However, it was also evident that some of the beads were world. not made in the style of Indus beads, but they were made Is it possible that the soldiers buried with shell cylinder using Indus raw materials, tools and techniques. seals and often wearing Indus beads were non-local mer- It is not possible in this article to go into all of the de- cenaries, either from the Gulf or from the Indus? If any of tails of drilling, coloring and polishing, but a few exam- the actual skeletons could be located it would be possible ples will illustrate the important discoveries. For exam- to test this hypothesis by comparative skeletal analysis ple, Woolley illustrates a variety of long carnelian bead (e.g. Hemphill, Luckas & Kennedy 1991) or through the that has six facets and notes that these types of carnelian study of trace elements (Price 2000). If the soldiers were beads are usually found on male headdresses (Woolley born and raised locally they would probably have differ- 1934: 369, Fig. 78) [Fig. 8]. While some of these beads are ent percentages of trace elements such as strontium in made of carnelian, they are also produced in . their teeth and bones than people from other external We were able to study one of the largest examples of this regions. Even without the more specific study of the type of carnelian bead at the University of Pennsylvania skeletons, the trade in shell blanks reflects a well struc- Museum (B 16792.1, length 61.54 mm) and determined tured system of exchange that involves middlemen or that it was drilled using a distinctive Indus technique. merchants who have a clear understanding of what is This type of drilling involved the use of the Ernestite being produced in one area and what is needed by con- constricted cylindrical drill that has only been found at sumers in the other. The question that remains is who sites such as Mohenjodaro, Harappa and Chanhudaro. instigated and maintained these trade contacts. At this However, the shape of this bead is not Harappan and no point it is not possible to answer this question, but the such bead has ever been found in any Indus site. Nodules study of carnelian beads may provide additional clues. of long carnelian are not reported from any of the agate producing regions of Egypt or West Asia and therefore Carnelian Beads: Production and Distribution this raw material most probably originated in the Ratan- pur deposits of Gujarat (Potts 1997). Both long carnelian beads and bleached (etched) carnel- The production of this specific bead and perhaps many ian beads found in Mesopotamian sites have been attrib- other shorter versions appears to have been directed uted to the Indus. Each type of bead reflects a distinctive specifically for the Mesopotamian market. Beads broken process of manufacture that involves specific raw materi- during manufacture or even good quality beads are often

25 these and other jasper beads using the “Ernestite” con- stricted cylindrical drills, but as with modern craftsmen, it must have taken much longer than for carnelian. Based on the analysis of the drill holes the bloodstone beads at Ur were perforated using a heavily worn constricted cylindrical drill. Since the beads were made in the classic Indus shape and are of such unique material, they may have been made at Dholavira or some nearby production center and traded to Mesopotamia in finished form. It is interesting however that the bloodstone beads from Ur are quite a bit longer (80-85 mm) than the examples that I Fig. 8: Carnelian bead types from Mesopotamia. was able to see from Dholavira (approximately 55 mm). The fact that no biconical bloodstone beads have been found at Mohenjodaro or Harappa could indicate exclu- found in the sites where specialized production is going sive trade contacts between some sites in Gujarat (e.g. on. Since no beads of this type have been found in the Dholavira) and consumers to the west. Indus production sites, it is assumed that they were being produced in Mesopotamia. Since the production of long Conclusion carnelian beads and the use of Ernestite drills was con- trolled in the Indus, it is unlikely that these techniques The various examples presented above indicate that would have diffused to Mesopotamian craftsmen. In other there is much work to be done to better understand the words, the access to high quality raw material, along with relationships between the Indus and Mesopotamia. Elisa- the technology needed to flake, grind, heat and drill beth During Caspers was one of the scholars who inspired beads suggests that actual Indus bead makers were living to look more closely at artifacts in order to make somewhere in Mesopotamia. more meaningful and precise comparisons. Her numer- It is unlikely that specialized craftsmen would have ous articles on figurines, script, seals and traders remain been able to finance long distance travel and maintain an important milestone in our attempts to unravel the access to distant raw materials for beads and drills. On complex relationships between these early . the other hand, if specialized craftsmen were brought to However, in order to move ahead it is necessary to under- Mesopotamia by entrepreneurial merchants to produce take detailed analysis of the primary data and develop commodities for local trade this would indicate a highly more complex interpretive models that address the new developed system of long distance trade. In order to bet- types of information being discovered. ter understand the nature of the Indus-Mesopotamia bead trade it is necessary to undertake specially focused Acknowledgements survey and excavation. Extensive surface surveys at Mo- henjodaro revealed the presence of numerous craft activ- My ongoing research at Harappa and the Indus Valley ity areas (Vidale & Balista 1988; Pracchia, Tosi & Vidale Civilization has been supported by numerous organiza- 1985) and it is not unlikely that similar discoveries would tions: the National Science Foundation, the National En- be possible at Ur. Manufacturing debris of short carnelian dowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic beads was found in the debris sealing the royal cemetery Society, the Smithsonian Institution, the American School (Woolley 1934), but there is no debris from the manufac- of Prehistoric Research (Peabody Museum of Archaeology ture of long carnelian beads. If long carnelian beads were and Ethnology, Harvard University), the University of being made at the site, the bead makers were probably Wisconsin, and private donors. Much of the data pre- living in a separate craft area or possibly even in a dis- sented in this paper derives from my early work on shell tinct settlement. industries under the guidance of the late George F. Dales. Another intriguing example are long biconical blood- I will forever be indebted to him for his support and stone beads found in the later Sargonid burials (ca. 2350- guidance. Other information derives from recent excava- 2200 B.C.). Bloodstone, a dark green jasper with red spots, tions at Harappa and I would especially like to thank the is currently acquired from gravel deposits in the Deccan Government of , Department of Archaeology for region of South India, but some examples have been facilitating our continued work at Harappa. Special found in the agate bearing gravel deposits in Gujarat. The thanks to all the colleagues who have participated in the only Indus site with long biconical bloodstone beads is research at Harappa and have helped to collect and ana- Dholavira in Gujarat (R.S. Bisht, pers. comm.). Other lyze data; Dr. Richard Meadow, Dr. Rita Wright, Dr. shapes of bloodstone beads have been found at Mohenjo- Rafique Mughal, Dr. Massimo Vidale, Dr. Kuldeep Bhan, daro and Harappa, but they do not have the distinctive Mrs. Barbara Dales, and Heather M.L. Miller for their red speckling on dark green that is seen on the beads support and stimulating discussions on Indus crafts and from Ur and from Dholavira. technology. I would also like to thank the University of Modern bead makers in used diamond- Pennsylvania Museum for allowing me to examine the tipped drills to perforate bloodstone and complain that it beads from Ur; with special thanks to the previous Direc- is extremely hard to work compared to carnelian. The tor Dr. Robert H. Dyson, Richard Zettler, Curator, and the ancient Indus craftsmen were clearly able to perforate staff.

26 References Excavations 1986-1990. (Monographs in World Archaeology, no. 3). Madison. Besenval, R. 1994. The 1992-1993 field-seasons at Miri Qalat: new ———. 1992. Ornament Styles of the Indus Tradition: Evidence contributions to the chronology of Protohistoric settlement from recent excavations at Harappa, Pakistan. Paléorient 17: in Pakistani Makran. Pp. 81-92 in A. Parpola & P. Koskikallio 79-98. (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1993. (Annales Academiae Scien- ———. 1997. Trade and technology of the Indus Valley: new tiarum Fennicae, Series B, vol. 271). Helsinki. insights from Harappa, Pakistan. World Archaeology 29: 262- Bhan, K.K. & J.M. Kenoyer. 1980-81. Nageshwar, an Industrial 280. Centre of the Chalcolithic Period. Puratattva 12: 115-120. ———. 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi. Chakrabarti, D.K. 1990. The external trade of the Indus Civilization. Kenoyer, J.M. & R.H. Meadow. 1999. Harappa: New Discoveries New . on its origins and growth. Museum Bulletin XII: 1-12. Clark, D.L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London. Kenoyer, J.M. & M. Vidale. 1992. A new look at stone drills of the Crawford, H.E.W. 1973. Mesopotamia’s invisible exports in the Indus Valley Tradition. Pp. 495-518 in P. Vandiver, J.R. third millennium B.C. World Archaeology 5: 232-241. Druzick, G.S. Wheeler & I. Freestone (eds) Materials Issues in Art Dales, G.F. 1962. Harappan Outposts on the Makran Coast. Antiq- and Archaeology, vol. III. Pittsburgh. uity XXXVI: 86-92. Kenoyer, J.M., M. Vidale & K.K. Bhan. 1991. Contemporary Stone ———. 1976. Shifting Trade Patterns Between the Iranian Plateau Bead Making in Khambhat India: patterns of craft specializa- and the Indus Valley in the Third Millennium B.C. Pp. 67-78 in tion and organization of production as reflected in the ar- J. Deshayes (ed) Le plateau iranien et l’Asie Centrale des origines à chaeological record. World Archaeology 23: 44-63. la conquête islamique. Paris. Kohl, P.L. 2001. Comment on Shereen Ratnagar. 2001. The Dales, G.F. & J.M. Kenoyer. 1977. Shell Working at Ancient Bala- : Unique Instance of a Pre-Industrial World Sys- kot, Pakistan. Expedition 19/2: 13-19. tem? Current Anthropology 42: 367-368. Dales, G.F. & C. Lipo. 1992. Explorations on the Makran Coast, Paki- Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1975. Third Millennium Modes of Ex- stan: A Search for Paradise. (Contributions of the Archaeological change and Modes of Production. Pp. 341-368 in J. Sabloff & Research Facility, no. 50). Berkeley. C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (eds) Ancient Civilization and Trade. Al- Dani, A.H. 1970-71. Excavations in the Gomal Valley. Ancient buquerque. Pakistan 5: 1-177. ———. 2001. Comment on The Bronze Age: Unique Instance of a During Caspers, E.C.L. 1982. Sumerian Traders and Businessmen Pre-Industrial World System? by Shereen Ratnagar 2001. Cur- Residing in the Indus Valley Cities: A Critical Assessment of rent Anthropology 42: 368-369. the Archaeological Evidence. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Na- Mackay, E.J.H. 1943. Chanhu-Daro Excavations 1935-36. (American poli 42: 337-379, Pl. I-VIII. Oriental Series 20). New Haven. ———. 1984. Sumerian Trading Communities Residing in Harap- Moorey, P.R.S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. pan Society. Pp. 363-370 in B.B. Lal & S.P. Gupta (eds) Frontiers Oxford. of the Indus Civilization. New Delhi. Mughal, M.R. 1974. Explorations in Northern Baluchistan, 1972: ———. 1994. Vanity portrayed in clay: the female terracotta New Evidence and Fresh Interpretation. Pp. 276-286 in F. figurines from Harappa. Pp. 183-192 in A. Parpola & P. Koski- Bagherzadeh (ed) Proceedings of the IInd Annual Symposium on kallio (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1993. (Annales Academiae Archaeological Research in . Tehran. Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B, vol. 271). Helsinki. Parpola, A. 1994. Deciphering the . Cambridge. Durrani, F.A. 1988. Excavations in the Gomal Valley: Rehman Parpola, S., A. Parpola & R.H. Brunswig. 1977. The Dheri Excavation Report No. 1. Ancient Pakistan 6: 1-232. Village: Evidence of Acculturation of Harappan Traders in Durrani, F.A., I. Ali. & G. Erdosy. 1991. Further Excavations at Late Third Millennium Mesopotamia? Journal of the Economic Rehman-Dheri, 1991. Ancient Pakistan 7: 61-151. and Social History of the Orient XX: 129-165. Francfort, H.-P. 1984. The Early Periods of Shortugai (Harappan) Possehl, G.L. 1986. Kulli: An Exploration of an Ancient Civilization in and the Western Bactrian Culture of Dashly. Pp. 170-175 in B. South Asia. Durham. Allchin (ed) South Asian Archaeology 1981. Cambridge. ———. 1990. Revolution in the Urban Revolution: The Emergence Gelb, I.J. 1970. Makkan and Meluhha in Early Mesopotamian of Indus Urbanism. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 261-282. Sources. Revue d’Assyriologie LXIV: 1-8. ———. 1997. Seafaring Merchants of Meluhha. Pp. 87-100 in B. Gensheimer, T.R. 1984. The Role of Shell in Mesopotamia: Evi- Allchin & F.R. Allchin (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1995. New dence for Trade Exchange with Oman and the Indus Valley. Delhi. Paléorient 10: 65-73. Potts, D.T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Founda- Hemphill, B.E., J.R. Lukacs & K.A.R. Kennedy. 1991. Biological tions. Cornell. Adaptations and Affinities of Bronze Age Harappans. Pp. 137- Pracchia, S., M. Tosi & M. Vidale. 1985. On the Type, Distribution 182 in R.H. Meadow (ed) Harappa Excavations 1986-1990. (Mono- and Extent of Craft Industries at Mohenjo-daro. Pp. 207-247 in graphs of World Archaeology, no. 3). Madison. J. Schotsmans & M. Taddei (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1983. Jarrige, J.-F. (ed). 1988. Les Cités oubliées de l‘Indus. Archéologie du (Series Minor 23). Naples. Pakistan. Paris. Price, T.D. 2000. Strontium isotopes and prehistoric human Kenoyer, J. M. 1983. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civiliza- movement. Scientific American 2000 (October): 26-31. tion: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective. Unpub- Ratnagar, S. 1981. Encounters. The Westerly Trade of the Harappa lished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Civilization. Delhi. ———. 1984. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civilization: A ———. 2001. The Bronze Age: Unique Instance of a Pre-Industrial Summary. Paléorient 10: 49-63. World System? Current Anthropology 42: 351-379. ———. 1989. Socio-Economic Structures of the Indus Civilization Shaffer, J.G. 1982. Harappan Commerce: An Alternative Perspec- as reflected in Specialized Crafts and the Question of Ritual tive. Pp. 166-210 in S. Pastner & L. Flam (eds) Anthropology in Segregation. Pp. 183-192 in J.M. Kenoyer (ed) Old Problems and Pakistan: Recent Socio-Cultural and Archaeological Perspectives. New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia. (Wisconsin Ar- Ithaca. chaeology Reports, vol. 2). Madison. Stein, G. 1999. Rethinking World Systems: , colonies and ———. 1991. Urban Process in the Indus Tradition: A Preliminary interaction in Mesopotamia. Tucson. Model from Harappa. Pp. 29-60 in R.H. Meadow (ed) Harappa Theunissen, R., P. Grave & G. Bailey. 2000. Doubts on diffusion:

27 challenging the assumed Indian origin of Iron Age agate and carnelian beads in . World Archaeology 32: 84- 105. Vidale, M. & C. Balista. 1988. Towards a Geo-Archaeology of Craft at Moenjodaro. Pp. 93-108 in M. Jansen & M. Tosi (eds) Interim Reports Vol. 3: Reports on Field Work Carried out at Mo- henjo-Daro, Pakistan 1983-86 by IsMEO-Aachen-University Mission. Aachen. Vidale, M., J.M. Kenoyer & K.K. Bhan. 1993. Ethno-archaeological Excavations of the Bead Making Workshops of Khambhat: A View From Beneath the Floors. Pp. 273-288 in A.J. Gail & G.J. Mevissen (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1991. Stuttgart. Woolley, C.L. 1934. Ur Excavations. Vol. II: The Royal Cemetery. London & Philadelphia. ———. 1955. Excavations at Ur. London. Zettler, R.L. & L. Horne (eds). 1998. Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia.

J.M. KENOYER, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison WI 53706, United States of America. [email protected]

28