Stone Beads from Kunnukara Urn Burial in

Akinori Uesugi1 and Jenee Peter2

1. Kanazawa University, Kakuma-cho, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920 1192, Japan (Email: [email protected]) 2. Department of History, Union Christian College, – Paravoor Road, Aluva, Kerala – 683 102, (Email: [email protected])

Received: 25 August 2019; Revised: 22 September 2019; Accepted: 06 October 2019 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7 (2019): 29-69

Abstract: This article examines stone beads from urn burials unearthed at Kunnukara in the , Kerala, India. Eighty-eight stone beads of agate/carnelian and quartz (rock crystal) from this site, which are kept in the Archaeological Museum, Union Christian College, Aluva, are important for understanding the morphological and technological features of stone beads of the South Indian Megalithic culture, as the specimens exhibit diverse morphological types and unique drilling technologies. The evidence from this site, along with that from Niramakulam, suggests that further examination on stone beads from Megalithic contexts can provide invaluable information on the Megalithic society.

Keywords: Stone Beads, Drilling Technology, South Indian Megalithic Culture, Urn Burial, Cist Burial, Kunnukara, Niramakulam

Introduction The site of Kunnukara is located in the Ernakulam district of Kerala (10.154N, 76.295E) (Figure 1). The excavation conducted in 1996-97 brought some urn burials to light, although the details of the excavations are not available (IAR 1996-97: 56-57). About 150 stone beads were retrieved from some of the urn jars (Cherian 1999: 83). Eighty- eight of them are kept in the Archaeological Museum of Union Christian College, Aluva. This paper examines these 88 stone beads to understand their basic features and significance.

Materials for the Stone Beads from Kunnukara Urn Burial The stone beads from the Kunnukara Urn Burial include agate and quartz (rock crystal), the former counting 85 and the latter, three (nos. 71-73). Quartz (rock crystal) was identified based on the transparent colourless appearance. The agate beads include the ones having a red colour, which can be classified as carnelian and the ones with a cream white opaque colour. The former is generally paler, duller and less transparent compared to typical carnelian, which can be found in the other parts of the subcontinent. The latter includes some specimens slightly reddish or having a reddish colour beneath the whitish surface. ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 1: Location of Kunnukara and relevant sites

For identifying stones, analyses of chemical compositions and trace elements are needed; however, it can be pointed out that the carnelian beads from the Kunnukara Urn Burial remarkably differ from the ones from the Niramakulam Cist Burial (Figure 5) that are more reddish and transparent, suggesting different sources of stone for the beads from these two sites.

Morphological Features of the Stone Beads from Kunnukara Urn Burial Eight morphological types were identified for the stone beads from the Kunnukara Urn Burial (Table 1; Figures 2 - 4).

30 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Type Aa (circular plan/truncated lenticular elevation), which is dominant in the assemblage from the site counting 50 in number (nos. 1-50), can be divided into two size groups; the smaller group (nos. 1-4) has a range of 3.04 mm - 3.36 mm in length and 3.41 mm - 5.24 mm in diameter, and the larger group (nos. 5-50) includes the ones of 5.50 mm - 12.59 mm in length and 3.96 mm to 7.25 mm in diameter. The ratios between length and diameter are 0.63 - 0.89 in the smaller group and 1.19 - 2.17 in the larger group.

Table 1: List of the Stone Beads from Kunnukara Urn Burial

31 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Type Ad (circular plan/hexagonal elevation) has nine specimens (nos. 51-59), although some specimens are difficult to be discerned from Type Aa. Two size groups can be distinguished; the small group (nos. 51-54) includes the ones of 2.21 mm - 2.79 mm in length and 3.17 - 4.85 mm in diameter (the ratios between length and diameter = 0.51 - 0.85), and the specimens of the large group (nos. 55-59) vary from 5.93 mm - 7.13 mm in length and 4.16 mm - 4.87 mm in diameter (the ratios between length and diameter = 1.36 - 1.50).

32 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 2: Morphological variations of stone beads from the Kunnukara Urn Burial (indicated by shaded boxes)

33 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 3: Size distribution of the beads from the Kunnukara Urn Burial

Type Bb (truncated lenticular plan and rectangular elevation) has only one specimen (no. 60). It measures 18.1 mm in length, 15.69 mm in width and 6.56 mm in thickness. On both sides, white patterns consisting of parallel short strokes and rectangles divided by straight strokes.

Type Bc (truncated lenticular plan and circular elevation) is represented by eight specimens (nos. 61-68), having the length of 15.15 - 18.74 mm, 15.86 - 18.32 mm in width and 5.40 - 7.51 mm in thickness. All the specimens are decorated with white patterns using the bleaching technique. While all the specimens have short strokes around the edge, two (nos. 63 and 68) have a square, and one (no. 64) has a criss-cross in the centre on both sides.

Type Jd (oblong plan/hexagonal elevation) has only two specimens (nos. 69 and 70) of 10.16 mm - 11.18 mm in length, 11.87-12.32 mm in width and 5.43 mm - 6.12 mm in thickness. Their plan shape is rounded.

For Type Ca (square plan/truncated lenticular elevation), all of the three specimens (nos. 71-73) are made of quartz (rock crystal). They have dimensions of 8.86 mm - 11.67 mm in length, 5.41 mm - 5.91 mm in width and 5.26 mm - 5.81 mm in thickness.

34 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4: Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

35 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

36 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

37 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

38 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

39 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

40 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

41 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

42 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

43 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

44 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

45 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

46 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

47 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

48 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

49 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

50 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

51 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

52 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

53 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

54 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

55 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

56 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

57 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

58 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

59 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

60 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

61 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

Figure 4 (contd.): Stone beads from Kunnukara and SEM images of their holes

62 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Type Di (rectangular plan/waterdrop elevation) is represented by six specimens (nos. 74-79). Their shape indicates that they were used as pendants. The examples measure 8.57 mm - 12.79 mm in length, 4.75 mm - 8.45 mm in width and 2.70 mm - 4.33 mm in thickness.

Type Dk (rectangular plan/pointed elevation) has eight specimens (nos. 80-87) ranging 9.09 mm - 13.29 mm in length, 3.82 mm - 6.88 mm in width and 2.40 mm - 4.67 mm in thickness. The upper parts on which a hole was drilled have either a flat surface (nos. 82, 83, 86) or a shallow cavity (nos. 80, 81, 84, 85, 87). These features may have been made it easier to drill a hole. It appears that this type was also used as pendants.

Only one specimen (no. 88) represents Type Fa (triangular plan/truncated lenticular elevation). It measures 3.27 mm in length, 7.82 mm in width and 6.57 mm in thickness.

Comparing with the ones from the Niramakulam cist burial (Uesugi et al. 2019), the stone beads from the Kunnukara Urn Burial are distinctive in exhibiting a diverse range of morphological types consisting of eight types, while the ones from Niramakulam comprise of three (Types Aa, Ad and Bc). In terms of sizes, the specimens of Type Aa from Niramakulam are of 10 mm to 12 mm in length and 5 mm - 7 mm in diameter, the examples from Kunnukara include larger ones of 5 mm to 10 mm in length and 3 mm to 7 mm in diameter and shorter ones of less than 5 mm in length. For Type Bc, while the ones from Niramakulam has the length between 9 mm and 11 mm and the width between 9 mm and 11 mm, the examples from Kunnukara exhibit larger sizes of 15 mm - 20 mm in length and 15 mm - 20 mm in width. In terms of decoration made with the bleaching technique, the examples from both sites are common in having short strokes around the edges, although the motifs placed in the centre are different. Type Ad also shows differences in size; while the ones from Niramakulam are of 3 mm - 9 mm in length and 5 mm - 12 mm in diameter, the examples from Kunnukara are relatively small as they measure 2 mm - 8 mm in length and 3 mm - 5 mm in diameter. Thus, the beads from Kunnukara and Niramakulam show differences not only in the morphological varieties but also in size.

Drilling Technology used on the Stone Beads from Kunnukara Urn Burial Many studies have been done on the drilling technologies in South Asia (e.g. Kenoyer 1997, 2005, 2017; Kenoyer and Vidale 1992; Uesugi et al. 2018; Gwinnett and Gorelick 1986; Gorelick and Gwinnett 1988; Barthélemy de Saizieu and Rodière 2005), especially for the examples from the Indus Valley Civilization, but very few analyses have been conducted on the examples from South India. It should be stressed that more examinations on the drilling technologies for the samples from Peninsular India are needed to better understand the historical significance of stone beads in the region.

As the previous studies (Kenoyer 2017) demonstrate, in conducting the Replica-SEM examination on the drilling technologies, the profiles of holes and the surface patterns

63 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

are important. The profiles of holes exhibit two different types of drills, tapered or straight. The sides of profiles, straight or winding, are also important for understanding the drill types. The surface patterns also show different patterns, a very smooth surface, irregular striations, a rugged surface and parallel striations or grooves running perpendicular to the main axis of the hole. It appears that these elements observable on the internal surfaces of holes are related to the shapes and materials of drills, and the motion of drills during the drilling process. Experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies are needed to identify the actual drill types and technologies, but the examination of the surface patterns of the archaeological beads are also important for better understanding the diachronic changes and the spatial variations of drilling technologies.

Figure 5: Representative specimens of the stone beads from Niramakulam Cist Burial (After Uesugi et al. 2019b; the numbers of the beads correspond with that of the cited reference)

Silicone replicas (impressions) were made from 82 out of 88 beads from Kunnukara, as the holes of six beads were too small to make silicone replicas. In terms of the hole profile, 79 specimens were found to have a tapering profile, while only three have a straight profile. As these three specimens are all short in size of less than 4 mm in

64 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69 length, it is possible that the drills actually used for these were tapered. In any case, the predominant use of tapered drills is a distinctive feature of the beads from Kunnukara.

The hole surfaces exhibit parallel striations running perpendicular to the hole axis or an irregularly rugged condition on all examples. These features can be classified as the Surface pattern Type 4 (Uesugi et al. 2018; Uesugi and Rienjang 2018). In focusing on the depth of striations, two sub-types can be distinguished; the Surface pattern Type 4a having shallow striations and the Surface pattern Type 4b having deeper striations or grooves (Uesugi et al. 2019). While the former is commonly accompanied by a rugged surface, the latter has a smooth surface even at higher magnifications. This feature observed on the specimens with the Surface pattern Type 4b is common to the ones from Niramakulam.

This Surface pattern Type 4b is notably observed in the specimens of Type Bc, which have relatively long sizes among the beads from Kunnukara and bleached white decorations. Also among the beads from Niramakulam, this surface pattern is noticeable only on the specimens of Types Aa and Bc that have white decorations (Figure 5: 2 and 13), suggesting that this surface pattern is closely connected with the beads with white decorations. It further suggests that Surface Patterns 4a and 4b were connected to different technological groups or different workshops. This is a hypothetical remark for further examination on the beads from South India.

The rugged surface remarkably observable in association with the Surface pattern Type 4a can be regarded as the result of the use of abrasives. Compared to the specimens with the Surface pattern Type 4a from Niramakulam (Figure 5: 8), the rugged conditions are more prominent, indicating a difference in the abrasive types or the amount of abrasives.

Sixty-nine specimens were found to have been drilled from both ends, and 13 were drilled from one end. The specimens of the latter are all short in size of less than 4 mm in length. Among the former, most of the specimens were pierced by two holes, but some specimens (nos. 5, 25, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 69) exhibit three holes to complete drilling, as two holes from both ends did not connect with each other during the drilling process. This third drilled hole looks straight cylindrical in profile and has a smoother surface compared to the other two drilled holes.

No specimens exhibit the use of drills of clearly different sizes. In the case of the beads of the Urban Indus period, long beads were perforated with several drills of different sizes (Kenoyer and Vidale 1992: 511), and for the beads from the Iron Age/Early Historic period, two different drills were occasionally used to make two holes from the ends (Uesugi et al. in press). It seems that the relatively short sizes of the beads from Kunnukara did not require the use of different drills. It is also possible that the use of tapered drills was a technological choice for shorter beads dominant in South India.

Many specimens of agate beads show a number of short, thin striations on the hole

65 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

surface, most of which run diagonal or parallel to the hole axis, which can be observable at higher magnifications (nos. 3, 7, 9-11, 15-18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28-31, 33, 36, 43, 44, 80, 82). These striations are likely of the texture of the stones used for beads. This feature, which is not observed on the examples from Niramakulam, may also suggest that the stones used for the beads from Kunnukara and Niramakulam were different types of agate/carnelian from different sources.

Importance of Implications of the Stone Beads from Kunnukara Urn Burial This section discusses the importance and implications of the stone beads from Kunnukara based on the examination made above.

The stone beads from Kunnukara are characterised by 1) being made of agate including carnelian and quartz (rock crystal), 2) consisting of eight morphological types, 3) the drilling technology defined by the predominant use of tapered drills and the Surface pattern Type 4.

For the stone variety, carnelian was predominantly used for the beads of the Megalithic period in South India (Uesugi et al. 2019). While the ones from Niramakulam are made of relatively fine carnelian, which is more reddish and semi-transparent, the beads from Kunnukara are remarkably of white agate and carnelian that is paler or duller in colour. Although any conclusion cannot be reached without chemical analyses on them, it is possible that the fine variety of carnelian was not available for the beadmaker who produced the beads found in the Kunnukara Urn Burial.

Quartz, bauxite, steatite, paste and so on have been identified on beads from South Indian Megalithic contexts so far (Uesugi et al. 2019), carnelian is dominant among the beads from Kerala, while the other materials have not been found. Therefore, it is not unlikely that the quartz beads from Kunnukara are the imports from the surrounding regions. The unique shape (Type Ca) of the quartz beads from this site may also point to this possibility. As the stone sources and the stone varieties used for bead production in South India have not closely been examined so far, the examination using the trace element analyses on stone beads from South India to characterise the stone varieties used is an important issue for future study.

The diverse morphological varieties in the stone beads from Kunnukara are contrasting to the simple composition attested at Niramakulam that consists of three types. While it is not certain whether the composition attested at the Niramakulam Cist Burial was the primary one (or undisturbed) or not, the difference in the morphological composition between Kunnukara and Niramakulam may be regarded as exhibiting variations in the morphological composition of stone beads of the South Indian Megalithic culture. Micro-morphological differences, especially in size, can also be attested in the beads from two sites. Future examination on the stone beads from the South Indian Megalithic contexts must focus on these morphological variations, which

66 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69 may be connected to different aspects of the Megalithic society, such as chronological changes, spatial variations including the access to stones and beadmakers, the socio- cultural preferences to different types of beads and the political structure which might have affected on the access to specific types of beads. Studies on stone beads can provide various clues to better understand the Megalithic society.

While the importance of the examination on variations is stressed, the widespread occurrence of the beads with white decorations like Type Bc from Kunnukara across the peninsula is also important for our understanding of the stone beads of the Megalithic period. Such widespread types can be regarded as an interregional style that was regarded as having a common value by the Megalithic society. The regional variations and homogeneity are both keywords to understand the Megalithic society (Uesugi 2018), and the study on stone beads can also be done from these two viewpoints.

Although it is admitted that further examination on the stone beads from South India must be conducted to understand the drilling technologies that developed in the region, it is noteworthy at this stage of research that the use of tapered drill with similar surface patterns was identified on the examples from the Kunnukara Urn Burial and the Niramakulam Cist Burial. Moreover, the Surface pattern Type 4b that is distinct in having parallel grooves is somehow similar to that of 'diamond drill' from North India, suggesting that the tapered drill used in Kunnukara and Niramakulam had projections on the tip of drills that caused parallel grooves, while the tapered profile of drilled holes is rarely seen in the samples from North India. The use of abrasives is also predominant in the samples from Kunnukara, especially in the specimens with the Surface pattern Type 4a, which is also common to that in North India. Whether these similarities indicate technological connections between the north and the south or not, it can be stressed that the study on stone beads can provide good evidence to understand the relationship between the two regions during the Iron Age.

The discussions made above indicate that the stone beads from Kunnukara, along with that from Niramakulam, are important for understanding various features, morphological and technological, of the stone beads of the Megalithic period and for revealing variations of beads of the period. As stated above, the variations and homogeneity in the material culture of the Megalithic period must be understood in terms of the socio-cultural aspects of the Megalithic society, which is an important issue for future studies.

One of the issues to be more focused regarding the Megalithic culture is the internal chronology of this culture. Diachronic changes and spatial variations of the Megalithic culture that was widespread across Peninsular India have been focused by some scholars (Leshnik 1974; Uesugi et al. 2019), but still is one of the hurdles to be solved for understanding the diachronic developments of the Megalithic culture. The material culture of the Megalithic period, which flourished over a thousand years across a vast

67 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 2019

area, must be examined in terms of its diachronic changes as well as its regional variations. More 14C dates from the excavations should carefully be scrutinised along with the material culture. The urn burials at Kunnukara also have no clue for its date. The artefacts and 14C date (Beta-377787: 360-170 cal BC) from the Niramakulam Cist Burial can be one of the evidence for the chronological studies (Uesugi et al. 2019), but systematic sampling and careful examination of both 14C dates and artefacts are needed to develop the discussion on the chronology. The differences in materials, morphological composition and micro-morphology of the beads from Kunnukara and Niramakulam may reflect different chronological positions of these two sites. Further discussions on more evidence regarding the chronology are essential not only for beads but also for the entire Megalithic culture.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Dr Rajesh SV and Dr Abhayan GS for their help in writing this article. It is noted that this article is a part of the research project "Establishing the Chronology of South Indian Prehistory" funded by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Project no.: 15H05164; Principal Investigator: Akinori Uesugi).

References Barthélemy de Saizieu, B. and J. Rodière. 2005. Bead-Drilling: A Look from Mehrgarh and Nausharo: Preliminary Results of Micro-trace Analysis. In C. Jarrige and V. Lefèvre. (Eds.) South Asian Archaeology 2001, pp. 40-48. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris. Cherian, P. J. 1999. Archaeology of Death: The Urn Burials of the Belt. In T. Jamal Mohammed (Ed.) Perspectives of Kerala Studies, pp. 72-86. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, . Gorelick, L. and A. J. Gwinnett 1988. Diamonds from India to Rome and Beyond. American Journal of Archaeology 92: 547-552. Gwinnett, A. J. and L. Gorelick 1986. Evidence for the Use of a Diamond Drill for Bead Making in Sri-Lanka c. 700-1000 A.D. Scanning Electron Microscopy 11: 473- 477. IAR 1996-97: Indian Archaeology - A Review 1996-97. Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. Kenoyer, J. M. 1997. Trade and Technology of the Indus Valley: New Insights from Harappa, Pakistan. World Archaeology 29(2): 262-280. Kenoyer, J. M. 2005. Bead Technologies at Harappa, 3300-1900 BC: A Comparative Summary. In C. Jarrige and V. Lefèvre (Eds.) South Asian Archaeology 2001. pp. 157-170. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris. Kenoyer, J. M. 2017. Using SEM to Study Stone Bead Technology. In A. K. Kanungo. (Ed.) Stone Beads of South and Southeast Asia: Archaeology, Ethnography and Global Connections, pp. 409-436. Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar/Aryan Books International, Gandhinagar/New Delhi.

68 Uesugi and Peter 2019: 29-69

Kenoyer, J. M. and M. Vidale 1992. A New Look at Stone Drills of the Indus Valley Tradition. In P. B. Vandiver, J. R. Druzik, G. S. Wheeler and I. C. Freestone. (Eds.). Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III, pp. 495-518. Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh. Leshnik, L. S. 1974. South Indian 'Megalithic' Burials: The Pandukal Complex. Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden. Uesugi, A. 2018. An Overview on the Iron Age in South Asia. In A. Uesugi (Ed.) Iron Age in South Asia. Research Group for South Asian Archaeology, Archaeological Research Institute, pp. 1-49. Kansai University, Osaka. Uesugi, A. and K. Rienjang 2018. Stone Beads from Stupa Relic Deposits at the Dharmarajika Buddhist Complex, Taxila. Gandharan Studies 11: 53-80. Uesugi, A., C. S. Ambily, A. Kumar, G. S. Abhayan and S. V. Rajesh. 2019. Stone Beads from Megalithic Burial at Niramakulam, Kerala. In S. V. Rajesh, G. S. Abhayan, P. Nayar and E. R. Ilahi (Eds.). Human and Heritage: An Archaeological Spectrum of Asiatic Countries (Felicitation to Professor Ajit Kumar), pp. 1-22. New Bharatiya Book Corporation, New Delhi. Uesugi, A., C. S. Ambily, A. Kumar, S. V. Rajesh and G. S. Abhayan 2019. A Study on Ceramic Sequence in the Megalithic Culture of Kerala. Man and Environment 44(1): 21-32. Uesugi, A., M. Kumar and V. Dangi 2018. Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain with a Focus on the Evidence from Farmana and Mitathal. In D. Frenez, G. M. Jamison, R. W. Law, M. Vidale and R. H. Meadow (Eds.) Walking with the Unicorn: Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia, Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume, pp. 568-591. Archaeopress, Oxford. Uesugi, A., V. Sontakke, S. Vaidya and S. Ganvir. in press. Drilling Technology on Stone Beads from Nagardhan. In V. Sontakke, S. Vaidya and S. Ganvir. (Eds.) Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Nagardhan.

69