See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262690486

Materializing Harappan identities: Unity and diversity in the borderlands of

the Indus Civilization

Article  in  Journal of Anthropological Archaeology · September 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.jaa.2014.04.005

CITATIONS READS

13 627

5 authors, including:

Brad Chase S.V. Rajesh

Albion College University of Kerala
23 PUBLICATIONS   69 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   94 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

North Gujarat Archaeological Project (NoGAP) View project

Indian Ocean Trade View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S.V. Rajesh on 15 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Materializing Harappan identities: Unity and diversity

in the borderlands of the Indus Civilization
Brad Chase a,⇑, P. Ajithprasad b, S.V. Rajesh b,1, Ambika Patel b, Bhanu Sharma b
a
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Albion College, 611 E. Porter St., Albion, MI 49224, United States
b
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat 390002, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The widespread distribution of Harappan material culture throughout a vast expanse of northwestern
Received 13 March 2013 South Asia is a defining characteristic of the Indus Civilization (2600–1900 BC). The social dynamics
Revision received 5 April 2014 responsible for this material pattern, however, are not fully understood. While top-down perspectives
on interregional interaction explain some aspects of the material record in the Indian state of Gujarat,
they do not explain the material diversity that we observe at Indus settlements in Gujarat. Here, we
Keywords: undertake a bottom-up exploration of Harappan material culture at two small, recently excavated Indus
Indus Civilization
settlements in Gujarat. Our findings show that although the residents of both sites participated in the
Complex society
Interregional interaction
interregional economy and publically displayed a common Harappan identity, there is evidence for
Borderlands considerable variation in the domestic practices characteristic of each site. We interpret these to suggest
Technology that the residents of these sites were integrated into the wider Indus Civilization by way of inclusionary
Ornamentation ideologies that served to unify socially diverse borderland communities. These findings and interpreta-
Domestic practice tions regarding the role of material culture in the mediation of local social dynamics in the Indus
Materiality borderlands contribute to a more complete understanding of South Asia’s first urban society while
Identity offering methodological and theoretical perspectives that further the exploration of these issues in early
complex societies more generally.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction alluvial heartland that came to be materially incorporated into

Nearly a century of archaeological research in the context of the
Indus Civilization (2600–1900 BC) has led to the generation of
increasingly detailed and sophisticated synthetic treatments of
South Asia’s first experiment with urban society (Agrawal, 2007;
Kenoyer, 1998; Lal, 1997; Possehl, 2002; Wright, 2010). Neverthe-
less, critical features of the Indus Civilization remain incompletely
understood, hindering its contribution to more general discussions
of early complex societies (e.g., Trigger, 2003). A defining charac-
teristic of the Indus Civilization, for example, is the distribution
of a relatively homogenous corpus of distinctive material culture
throughout regions of India and Pakistan that were more or less
materially distinct during earlier periods. While this material pat-
tern is clear, the social dynamics that produced it are not. In the
case of the Indian state of Gujarat, one such region outside of the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bchase@albion.edu (B. Chase), ajit.karolil@gmail.com
(P. Ajithprasad), rajeshkeraliyan@yahoo.co.in (S.V. Rajesh), ambikamsu@yahoo.
com (A. Patel), bhanu_arch@yahoo.com (B. Sharma).
1
Current address: Department of Archaeology, University of Kerala,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695581, India.
the wider Indus Civilization, this material pattern has been taken
as evidence for the colonization of the region by communities hail-
ing from the distant Indus cities (Bisht, 1989; Chakrabarti, 1999;
Dhavalikar, 1994; Possehl, 1992). We argue that although top-
down perspectives on interregional interaction such as these may
explain some aspects of the material record, they do not explain
the material diversity that we observe at Indus settlements in
the region. Here, we seek to augment these perspectives through
an explicitly bottom-up analytical perspective on the integration
of local communities into the wider Indus Civilization. Using data
generated from recent and ongoing excavations at the Indus settle-
ments of Bagasra2 and Shikarpur, we adopt a technological approach
to the study of material culture that explores the ways in which
objects were involved with the materialization of social identities
at these neighboring settlements. Focusing on items of personal
adornment and domestic practice, our analyses demonstrate that
2
The archaeological site referred to here as Bagasra, the name of the nearest
modern village, is also known as Gola Dhoro, the local name of the mound. Initially
referred to in the literature as Bagasra (Sonawane et al., 2003), it has been referred to
in subsequent publications as Gola Dhoro (Bhan et al., 2004, 2005; Chase, 2010). Here,
we maintain convention and refer to it as Bagasra.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.04.005
0278-4165/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
64 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78
displays of material unity at these sites masked considerable under-
lying social diversity. These findings and interpretations regarding
the role of material culture in the mediation of local social dynamics
in the Indus borderlands contribute to a more complete understand-
ing of South Asia’s first urban society while offering methodological
and theoretical perspectives that further the exploration of these
issues in early complex societies more generally.
Harappan Gujarat: life in the borderlands
The developmental trajectory of the Indus Civilization in Gujarat
stands in striking contrast to that known from the alluvial plains of
the Indus and Ghaggar-Hakra river systems, where Harappa and
Mohenjodaro developed into urban centers around 2600 BC
(Kenoyer, 1998; Possehl, 2002; Wright, 2010). Excavations in the
alluvium at sites such as Harappa clearly indicate the gradual devel-
opment of Harappan material culture from local antecedents
(Kenoyer, 2008; Meadow and Kenoyer, 2005). Harappan material
culture in the geographically distinct region of Gujarat, however
appears abruptly shortly after 2600 BC at the roughly 50 ha city
of Dholavira (Bisht, 2000) as well as at series of much smaller,
mostly coastal settlements situated along waterborne travel corri-
dors (Fig. 1). Although typically less than ten hectares in area, resi-
dential space at settlements such as Surkotada (Joshi, 1990),
Kanmer (Kharakwal et al., 2012), Bagasra (Sonawane et al., 2003),
and Shikarpur (Bhan and Ajithprasad, 2008, 2009), the latter two
sites under consideration here, was generally enclosed in square
walled enclosures of monumental proportions. The residents of
these walled settlements used a full repertoire of Harappan mate-
rial culture as known from sites in Sindh and the Punjab and were
often involved in the manufacture Harappan-style ornaments from
locally available raw materials. Many of these ornaments, such as
the shell bangles produced by the residents of Bagasra and Shikar-
pur, were among the most economically and ideologically impor-
tant Indus ornaments found at settlements large and small
throughout the Indus Civilization, demonstrating their residents’
regular participation in interregional networks of trade and
exchange. These sites are typically referred to in the literature of
Indus archaeology in Gujarat as Classical Harappan settlements dis-
tinguishing them from contemporaneous settlements where typi-
cally Harappan material culture is largely absent and distinctively
local ceramic forms predominate. These include the larger settle-
ments of Rojdi (Possehl and Raval, 1989), Kuntasi (Dhavalikar
et al., 1996), and Jaidak (Ajithprasad, 2008), as well as hundreds
of mostly inland sites known from survey (e.g., Bhan, 1986;
Possehl, 1980). Generally interpreted as a rural component of the
Indus Civilization in Gujarat (Bhan, 1994; Sonawane, 2005), sites
of this nature are often referred to as Sorath Harappan settlements
(Possehl, 1992). As described below for Bagasra and Shikarpur,
however, ceramics characteristic of these latter settlements are
common at walled settlements where they generally appear along-
side classically Harappan ceramics, challenging a simple dichotomy
of site types and complicating social interpretation and archaeolog-
ical practice (e.g., survey methods, chronological development, etc.)
in the region (Rajesh and Patel, 2006).
This pattern has been interpreted as representing a colonization
of the region by immigrant Harappans hailing from the distant
Indus cities (Bisht, 1989; Chakrabarti, 1999; Dhavalikar, 1994;
Possehl, 1992). While this model has its origins in culture-histori-
cal ontologies of migration and diffusion characteristic of Indian
archaeology at the time of their discovery (Johansen, 2003), the
reasonably discrete distribution of Harappan material culture at
well-planned and monumentally constructed settlements located
along trade routes nevertheless superficially fits many examples
of colonial expansion. This interpretation has been developed by
means of often implicit analogies with historical colonial episodes
in which colonies are established in less materially sophisticated
peripheral regions as a means to exploit locally available raw
materials for the benefit of centrally-administered organizations
based in politically and technologically sophisticated urban cen-
ters. Dhavalikar (1994), for example, in his synthetic treatment of
the Indus Civilization has explicitly invoked Wallerstein’s (1974)
world-systems theory in his analysis of Harappan Gujarat. Portray-
ing the integration of Gujarat as an example of ‘‘cultural imperial-
ism,’’ this interpretation is supported through comparisons to a
variety of historically known European colonial contexts ranging
from British and Dutch colonialisms in 17th century India to Bel-
gian colonialism in 19th century Africa. As discussed below, this
top-down, macro-scale interpretive framework does not help us
interpret the material variability that we observe at Bagasra and
Shikarpur, forcing us to take into serious consideration long-stand-
ing theoretical critiques of its theoretical foundation.
Critiques of world-systems theory as applied by Dhavalikar to
explain the distribution of Harappan material culture in Gujarat
have led to a reappraisal of its expectations and explanatory
power. The most consistent critiques of world-systems models in
archaeology have related to the nature of the power relationships
linking colonists and local peoples (Gosden, 2004: 7–23). Specifi-
cally, it is argued that premodern transport and military technolo-
gies generally precluded the degree of political and economic
domination of peripheral regions as was so often the case the his-
torical colonialisms upon which world-systems theory was ini-
tially derived (Kohl, 1987; Schneider, 1977; Schortman and
Urban, 1998; Stein, 1999). It follows that the rote application of
world-systems theories to ancient episodes of interregional inter-
action often writes structures of the more recent past onto prehis-
tory thereby precluding the construction of novel interpretations
of past social dynamics (Dietler, 1998). Further, it is argued that
the presumption of core-dominance encapsulated in world-sys-
tems theory minimize the agency of the residents of so-called
peripheries to affect local trajectories of social change (Stein,
2002). Indeed, numerous case studies have highlighted episodes
of intense interregional integration over the last 5000 years that
do not, in fact, fit the model of classical world-systems theory
(Dietler, 2010; Dominguez, 2002; Jennings, 2011; Stein, 1999;
Van Dommelen, 2005). Finally, archaeological studies of European
colonial encounters have clearly demonstrated the limitations of
world-systems models for predicting the specific economic and
social relations in particular settings (Lightfoot, 2005; Lycett,
2005; Silliman, 2001; Wynne-Jones, 2010). Attempts to modify
the assumptions of world-systems theory in order to account for
such varied historical situations (Chase-Dunn and Hall, 2000;
Hall, 2000; Kardulias and Hall, 2008; Peregrine, 2000), however,
have left it as little more than ‘‘shorthand for ‘interregional interac-
tion system’’’ (Stein, 1999: 25).
In this theoretical landscape, top-down analytical perspectives
such as have been applied to the Indus Civilization in Gujarat are
of little interpretive value for understanding material variation of
the type presented here. Rather, consideration of the dynamics of
interregional interaction in complex societies cross-culturally
(e.g., contributions to Lydon and Rizvi, 2010; Lyons and
Papadopoulos, 2002; Stein, 2005) leads to an expectation of mate-
rial diversity in borderland regions such as Gujarat where residents
of various backgrounds and interests negotiated novel social iden-
tities in the context of ever-changing social, economic, and political
networks. Specifically, we argue that only bottom-up empirical
research geographically situated in the borderland settings where
social identities were materialized through daily practice and
interaction (Lightfoot and Martinez, 1995; Naum, 2010; Parker,
2006) will lead to more complete understandings of the social
dynamics of complex societies such as the Indus Civilization.
 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 65

Fig. 1. Map of the Indus Civilization showing archaeological sites mentioned in the text and the maximum distribution of Harappan material culture.

Bagasra and Shikarpur
Bagasra and Shikarpur, two walled Indus settlements in Gujarat,
are ideal locations to explore the social dynamics that accompa-
nied the use of Harappan material culture in the Indus borderlands.
Bagasra, excavated from 1996 to 2005 by archaeologists from the
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda (Sonawane et al., 2003),
and Shikarpur, excavated by the same team from 2008 to 2012,
exemplify many small Harappan settlements in Gujarat. Nearest
neighbors approximately 25 km apart on opposite shores of the
narrowest stretch of the Gulf of Kutch, they are approximately
100 km from Dholavira, the nearest Indus city, and are situated
at what may have been a central node in coastal trade and travel
networks that linked Harappan settlements in Gujarat to the wider
Indus Civilization (Fig. 1). Both were small: Bagasra was approxi-
mately 2 ha with 0.5 ha enclosed within the walls, while Shikarpur
was approximately 5 ha with 1.5 ha enclosed within the walls. On
the basis of ceramic correlations and radiocarbon dates, both were
founded towards the beginning of the Integration Era (2600–
1900 BC) and were eventually abandoned sometime around the
66 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78
end of this period. From their initial establishment, the residents of
both sites used a variety of Harappan material culture as known
from the large urban centers of Harappa and Mohenjodaro. In addi-
tion to using distinctively Harappan ceramic forms, the residents of
each site wore distinctively Harappan ornament styles as indicated
by large quantities of broken and lost pieces recovered during
excavations. Many of these Harappan ornaments were crafted from
raw materials available in the region, and as discussed in more
detail below, at least some of the residents at both sites were
involved in the production of these ornaments (Bhan et al., 2004,
2005). At least some residents of each site also used Indus seals
to administer transactions. At Bagasra, five square steatite seals
and several sealings featuring the famous Indus unicorn motif with
Indus script have been found, and, as of the most recent 2013 exca-
vations, a steatite seal featuring the rhinoceros motif with Indus
script along with series of sealings featuring the unicorn motif with
script have been found at Shikarpur. The manufacture of Harappan
style ornaments and use of Harappan-style seals suggests that
interregional trade was one of the ways in which the residents of
these sites were linked to the wider Indus Civilization.
As at most Harappan sites in Gujarat, however, the use of dis-
tinctive regional ceramic styles alongside Harappan material cul-
ture demonstrates residents’ participation in local networks of
production and exchange. At both Bagasra and Shikarpur, for
example, ceramics of the Anarta tradition, which has roots going
back to the beginning of the fourth millennium in north Gujarat
(Ajithprasad, 2002; Ajithprasad and Sonawane, 2011; Rajesh
et al., 2013), are common from their initial establishments. Eventu-
ally, these particular local ceramic forms declined in popularity
and Sorath Harappan ceramics as known from Rojdi in central Sau-
rashtra came to be used alongside Classical Harappan ceramics as
known from Harappa and Mohenjodaro. By the time of the sites’
abandonment at the beginning of the second millennium, local
varieties of ceramics were predominant and Classical Harappan
material culture was no longer used. A similar mosaic of ceramic
types is common at other excavated Harappan settlements in Guj-
arat such as Lothal (Rao, 1979), Surkotada (Joshi, 1990), Kanmer
(Kharakwal et al., 2012) and Dholavira (Bisht, 2000). This material
diversity is indicative of the social complexity present at these bor-
derland sites. While the social networks that linked them to the
broader Indus Civilization were conduits through which goods,
ideas, and at least some people flowed, the residents of these sites
maintained strong local connections as well (Ajithprasad and
Sonawane, 2011).
The central residential areas at both Bagasra and Shikarpur
were enclosed during most of their occupations by massive monu-
mental perimeter walls constructed of mudbricks in the typical
Harappan 1:2:4 proportions (Fig. 2) (Kenoyer, 2010). Despite
enclosing relatively small areas, these structures were of monu-
mental construction: the tapering walls at Bagasra were approxi-
mately 7 m thick at their base and those at Shikarpur were
nearly 10 m thick (after several episodes of renovation at each).
Prior to the establishment of these Harappan settlements, thinly
stratified, largely ephemeral archaeological sites occupied by some
combination of agro-pastoralists and foragers characterize the
archaeological record of the region (Hegde and Sonawane, 1986;
Madella et al., 2010). The construction of walled enclosures at
Harappan settlements thus represents the first evidence in the
region for the organization of labor and space above the level of
the household. Approximately six meters of stratified cultural
accumulation with several episodes of structural renewal suggests
that multiple generations called these places home. These were
enduring social spaces as well as imposing physical places. During
their period of occupation, the residents of the sites repaired and
rebuilt them several times, implying the existence of some form
of authority capable of organizing space and labor from generation
to generation. This despite the fact that, as is the case at most Indus
settlements, there is no evidence for the sumptuous residences,
temples, or burials that are generally taken as evidence of political
authority in other early civilizations. This enigmatic fact suggests a
social organization quite different to that evidenced in most other
early state-level societies (Possehl, 1998). The fact that wall con-
struction and maintenance activities were occurring concurrently
at both Bagasra and Shikarpur, however, suggests the existence
of similar social organizations at each.
A technological approach to intrasite material variation
Each of the artifact classes considered here is an object of
human technology, the embodied practices by which natural mate-
rials have been crafted into objects of culture (Wright, 1993). This
perspective takes as its starting point a consideration of the com-
plete chaîne opératoire of artifacts, including consideration of the
raw materials from which they were crafted, the techniques by
which these were transformed, and the ways in which they were
distributed and used prior to discard or recycling (Miller, 2007).
As material objects, careful consideration of their physicality offers
insights into the means and organization of material production as
well as the configuration of regional and interregional interaction
networks by which raw materials or finished objects were
acquired. As material culture, they shed new light on the practice
of everyday life at the sites while simultaneously speaking to more
purely ideational concerns related to the use and manipulation of
objects in the construction and negotiation of individual and com-
munity identities (Dobres, 2000; Dobres and Hoffman, 1994).
While the full information potential of this approach can only be
realized through comprehensive, detailed studies of particular arti-
fact classes, we nevertheless believe that this initial examination
provides important insights into social dynamics at Bagasra and
Shikarpur.
Despite obvious similarity in their overall size, geographical set-
ting, architectural layout, sequence of development, and general
use of a wide range of Harappan material culture, there are none-
theless striking differences in the relative abundance of different
artifact classes at each site (Fig. 3). The materials considered here
derive from a representative range of archaeological contexts from
all major phases and residential areas of excavation at the sites
after ten seasons of excavation at Bagasra and five seasons of exca-
vation at Shikarpur (Fig. 2). More detail regarding the nature of the
recording system upon which these analyses are based has been
presented elsewhere along with preliminary analyses after just
two seasons at Shikarpur (Chase et al., in press). The present anal-
yses largely confirm earlier observations, increasing our confidence
in the integrity of our data at the level of analysis undertaken here.
While ongoing intra-site temporal and spatial analyses will surely
enrich our interpretations, the present analysis recognizes the
palimpsest nature of the archaeological deposits at these sites.
The patterns that we identify are therefore best interpreted as rep-
resenting broad trends characteristic of each site throughout the
period during which Harappan material culture was produced
and used.
Our analyses of material culture at Bagasra and Shikarpur builds
upon previous studies of Indus technology (e.g., Bhan et al., 2002;
Kenoyer, 1997; Vidale, 2000). Specifically, we follow Vidale and
Miller’s (Miller, 2008b; Vidale and Miller, 2000) approach to
cross-craft comparisons, based on Kenoyer’s (1989, 2000) classifi-
catory framework in which technologies can be evaluated along
two axes of variation (1) raw material availability and (2) technical
elaboration. At its simplest, this scheme involves four categories:
crafts involving locally available raw materials and relatively sim-
ple technologies:
 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 67

Fig. 2. Plans of Bagasra (1996–2005) and Shikarpur (2008–2012) showing excavated areas included in the present study.

Fig. 3. Registry entries at Bagasra (1996–2005) and Shikarpur (2008–2012).

1. Local materials/Elaborate techniques. Each of these different categories of technologies present pro-
2. Distant materials/Elaborate techniques. ducers with different opportunities for control of and profit from
3. Local materials/Simple techniques. the craft and are intimately related to the relative value of the fin-
4. Distant materials/Simple techniques. ished products (Miller, 2008b). The placement of any particular
68 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78
technology along each of these axes, however, is relative and varies
depending upon context. An object made from raw materials avail-
able locally near its point of manufacture, for example, will be
more valuable upon export to regions where those same materials
are difficult to procure.
At Bagasra, crafts produced from locally available raw materials
are particularly well represented (Fig. 4). As discussed in more
detail below, an excavated shell bangle workshop is clear evidence
for the local manufacture of these objects, and there is clear evi-
dence for the residents’ involvement in the faience as well as the
stone bead industries (Bhan et al., 2004; Sonawane et al., 2003).
Little has been written on the perforated pottery discs so common
at Bagasra, but they were certainly crafted locally from potsherds,
and their form suggests that they may have been used as spindle
whorls. Descriptive and experimental studies are ongoing to better
understand the function and context of manufacture and use of
these objects. The major deviation from this general pattern of pro-
duction relates to the high quantity and relative over-representa-
tion of steatite beads at the site. Participation in interregional
trade networks is further attested by the presence of imported
lapis and, to a lesser extent, amazonite beads, which although rel-
atively few in number are slightly more common at Bagasra.
At Shikarpur, artifact classes involving prepared materials with
restricted source areas that had been imported to the site are par-
ticularly well represented. Lithic blades crafted of chert from the
Rohri Hills and other nearby deposits in Sindh (Biagi and
Cremaschi, 1991; Biagi and Nisbet, 2010), for example, were likely
imported in their finished form given the paucity of prepared and
utilized cores in relation to blades at the site (Gadekar et al., 2014).
Given the absence of nearby copper deposits and an absence of evi-
dence for smelting (Patel, 2006), copper as well was likely
imported as either finished products or prepared ingots, as was
the case at most Indus settlements (Hoffman and Miller, 2009).
While the source of raw Ernestite from which the drills used to
perforate hard stone beads were crafted (Kenoyer and Vidale,
1992) may have been somewhere in Gujarat (Law, 2011: 544–
555), the distribution of this material was highly restricted
although the presence of several unworked ernestite nodules at
Shikarpur suggests that they may have been crafted locally at the
Fig. 4. Common artifact classes at Bagasra and Shikarpur plotted following Vidale
and Miller (2000).
site. The major deviation from this general pattern of craft con-
sumption is the abundance of terracotta objects of all types at Shi-
karpur including terracotta bangles, beads, figurines, cart frames
and wheels, tops, and a wide variety of miscellaneous objects.
Although these objects are formally similar to such objects from
Harappan settlements throughout the Indus Civilization, these
objects were almost certainly produced at Shikarpur from locally
available clays.
In sum, is clear that while all major classes of Harappan mate-
rial culture are well represented at each site, significant variation
in the relative frequency of different types of artifacts is indicative
of variation in economic practices of production and consumption
undertaken by the residents of each site. In general, the residents
of Shikarpur seem to have been involved in the manufacture of
goods using raw materials available in the region. This is not to
say that their craft output was in any way unskilled or of low vol-
ume. Shell bangles of the type produced at Bagasra, for example,
were crafted from marine shells obtained from shell beds nearly
100 km distant, involved the use of sophisticated bronze saws,
and were among the most highly valued and ideologically charged
Harappan ornaments (Kenoyer, 1991b, 2000). Similarly, evidence
for the manufacture of faience beads at Bagasra is evidence that
at least some of its residents were manipulating one of the most
technologically sophisticated Indus manufacturing processes. Con-
versely, the residents of Shikarpur seem to have had more ready
access to imported goods and raw materials yet do not seem to
have been as engaged in crafting activities as their neighbors at
Bagasra. There are clear exceptions to these patterns at each site,
however. The abundance of imported steatite beads at Bagasra
and locally produced terracotta objects at Shikarpur are not minor
deviations from the basic pattern, but are rather significant phe-
nomena that require explanation. Before presenting some hypoth-
eses that might explain these patterns and the exceptions thereof,
we first present more detailed intersite comparative analyses of
several of the most common artifact classes, beginning with the
distinctively Harappan beads and bangles with which the residents
of both sites adorned themselves.
Technologies of adornment
Integral to the embodied daily practice of personal adornment,
personal ornaments are instrumental to the construction and rep-
resentation of individuals’ social identities as constituted in rela-
tion to wealth or status, gender, life stage, community affiliation
or other social fields (Fisher and Loren, 2003; Meskell and
Preucel, 2004; White and Beaudry, 2009). All ornaments are not
created equal, however. Rather, it is precisely variation in the
materials and techniques involved in the crafting of ornaments
that lead them to be particularly useful for social distinction and
communication through public display (Kenoyer, 1991b, 2000).
As the material properties of ornaments were highly symbolic
and thus culturally idiosyncratic, specific interpretations of their
emic meanings are particularly challenging. Here, we focus primar-
ily on the physicality the objects themselves as technological prod-
ucts. Below, having established some basic facts about the
assemblage of ornaments from Bagasra and Shikarpur, we return
to a discussion of ways in which these objects were implicated in
the construction of social identities. While the analysis of registry
entries above demonstrates clear differences in the relative abun-
dance of different classes of artifacts at Bagasra and Shikarpur,
each of these entries typically refers to a collection of similar
objects from the same stratigraphic unit without a precise count.
Here, we consider more detailed tabulation of beads and bangles
from the sites focusing on several of the most abundant ornament
types (Fig. 5).
 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 69

Steatite beads are the most common ornament type at both

Bagasra and Shikarpur, comprising approximately 65% of the total
assemblage of ornaments considered here (Fig. 6). Shell bangles as
well are well represented in the ornament assemblages at both
sites. While the above analysis of registry entries treats fragments
of finished shell bangles together with unfinished shell circlets, the
present analysis includes only fragments of finished (and presum-
ably worn) objects. When this distinction is made, fragments of fin-
ished shell bangles are actually more abundant at Shikarpur
(contra registry entries presented in Fig. 5), despite the fact that
Bagasra was a center for their manufacture. Faience beads are
the second most abundant ornament at Bagasra, yet they are rela-
tively rare at Shikarpur. Similarly, while terracotta beads and ban-
gles are quite common at Shikarpur, they are exceedingly rare at
Bagasra. In contrast to these ornaments, an assortment of other
hard stone beads (including agate, carnelian, jasper, amazonite,
and lapis) are relatively quite rare at both sites.
It is challenging to come to clear conclusions regarding the rela-
tive wealth of the residents of Bagasra and Shikarpur on the basis of Fig. 6. Ornament types at Bagasra and Shikarpur.

this variation. Steatite beads and shell bangles, for example, are rea-
sonably equally distributed between the two sites, with the former a
bit more common at Bagasra and the latter a bit more common at
Shikarpur. The major differences apparent in this analysis are
between the relative abundance of faience beads and terracotta
ornaments. Considering the respective manufacturing processes, it
is expected that finely crafted faience beads would be more valuable
than simply made terracotta ornaments. While this supposition is
fundamentally correct, it is also true that these ornaments are so dif-
ferent from one another as to be almost incomparable. While it is
known that stylistically similar Harappan ornaments were often
crafted in a range of differently valued materials (Kenoyer,
1991b), with bleached carnelian and red and white faience beads
mimicking similar shapes in naturally white and red agate beads,
for example, this phenomenon does not seem to be at play in this
case. Terracotta ornaments are not imitations of faience beads, but
are rather a completely different category of object.
Within the category of bangles, however, both the shell and ter-
racotta varieties are relatively more common at Shikarpur than at
Bagasra. Given the symbolically charged nature of ornaments, this
pattern may relate to a variety of other social distinctions apart
from simple wealth differentials. Cross-culturally, ornament styles
are often markers of personal identity. In the context of the Indus
Civilization, for example, shell bangles are most often associated
with adult women as grave goods (Dales and Kenoyer, 1991;
Kenoyer, 1991b). The relative greater abundance of both shell
and terracotta bangles at Shikarpur then might indicate that there
were more women at Shikarpur than at Bagasra, or more accu-
rately, there were more women practicing Harappan modes of
adornment at Shikarpur than at Bagasra.
Steatite beads
Steatite was one of the most important materials used in the
Indus Civilization, Vidale (2000: 63) observing that ‘‘white disk
beads, already produced in several types during the Regionalization
Era of the Indus Period. . . are perhaps the most distinctive and ubiq-
uitous artifact of the Integration Era (ca. 2600–1900 BC)’’. These
observations are borne true at both Bagasra and Shikarpur, where
they are the most abundant ornament found at each site. The
assemblage of steatite beads at both sites is highly standardized,
comprised primarily of tiny, white, unglazed cylindrical microbeads
(1 mm) and larger diameter disc varieties common throughout
the Indus Civilization (Fig. 5). It is technically difficult to distinguish

Fig. 5. Ornaments at Bagasra and Shikarpur: steatite microbeads (a), steatite disc beads (b), faience beads (c), finished shell bangle fragments (d), and unfinished shell circlets (e).
70 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78
between weathered beads crafted of massive talc bodies from those
that may have been made of formed and fired talc paste
(Barthélemy de Saizieu and Bouquillon, 1997; Vidale, 2000). Many
white talcose beads at Bagasra and Shikarpur, however, especially
the thin wafer-like types, demonstrate sawing marks on their per-
forated surfaces, indicating their having been cut from a cylinder
of massive steatite as has been documented at Harappa (Kenoyer,
1997, 2005) and Mohenjodaro (Vidale, 1989). Law’s analysis of
one fired-white microbead from Bagasra (referred to in the text as
Gola Dhoro) provides further evidence for the use of massive stea-
tite for the production of microbeads found at the site (Law, 2011:
649–651).
All of the steatite beads from Bagasra and Shikarpur are all
bright white in color, indicating that they had been fired in a kiln
or canister of some sort to over 900 °C, the point at which some
varieties of steatite turn white and harden. While there are several
steatite sources in adjacent southern Rajasthan, research by Law
has demonstrated that the only steatite available to Indus peoples
that would regularly and reliably fire white is from dolomitic
deposits in the mountainous Hazara region north of Harappa
(Law, 2011: 178–261). If white microbeads were comprised of talc
paste bodies, they nevertheless would have been constructed of
talc powder derived from white-firing parent materials. These
observations in conjunction with the absence of steatite manufac-
turing debris at either Bagasra or Shikarpur, suggest that the stea-
tite beads at both sites had been imported in their finished form.
Most likely, they were crafted in one of the major Indus cities such
as Harappa or Mohenjodaro, where steatite working, including the
mass production of beads, was undertaken by crafting communi-
ties who in turn appear to have been indirectly controlled by urban
elites (Kenoyer, 1997, 2005).
As has been noted by Vidale and Miller (2000), white-fired talc-
ose beads were ‘‘ideal markers for an expanding population of stat-
used individuals.’’ Their manufacture could be relatively easily
controlled given relatively restricted access to raw materials and
the highly elaborated technological practices involved in their pro-
duction. Moreover despite their high inherent value, they are
incredibly small; excavated intact ornaments are typically com-
prised of many beads, sometimes numbering into the hundreds,
strung together. The practical value of single beads would have
therefore been quite low. This property, combined with restricted
access, render white-fired steatite beads ideal vehicles for the circu-
lation, accumulation, and display of wealth (Kenoyer, 2010). Fur-
thermore, for both their users in the past as well as for
archaeologists in the present, they are clear evidence of some degree
of participation in the long distance social networks that linked
coastal regions of Gujarat to the alluvial plains during Indus times.
Our analysis of a large, representative sample of steatite beads
from Bagasra and Shikarpur follows a standard typology widely
applied by archaeologists in South Asia. Micro beads are short
cylindrical beads approximately 1 mm in diameter and length
(Fig. 5a), disc beads are similarly shaped cylinders, but larger in
both diameter (Fig. 5b). Tubular beads have small diameters
around 1–2 mm but are typically 1–2 cm in length, similar in shape
and size to the most widely distributed Harappan faience beads
(Fig. 5d). Given their low frequency and the difficulty of distin-
guishing weathered steatite and faience objects without instru-
mental analyses, it is possible that some of the beads recorded as
tubular steatite beads may in fact be crafted of faience.
The great abundance of white-fired steatite beads at both
Bagasra and Shikarpur is clear indication that the residents of both
settlements were intensely engaged in the steatite economy of the
Indus Civilization. The fact that they are roughly equally abundant
amongst other ornament classes initially suggests a similar pattern
of use at the two sites. The distribution of different shaped steatite
beads, however, is not equal at both sites (Fig. 7). Rather, the
residents of Bagasra appear to have been accumulating the small-
est microbeads to a much greater extent than the residents of
Shikarpur, where larger disc type beads are considerably more
common. To the extent that (strings of) steatite beads represented
standard units of exchange (Kenoyer, 2010), it is likely that these
relatively few distinct shapes and sizes had different associated
values related to their physical properties and manufacturing pro-
cesses. While their values relative to one another are not presently
known, these data nevertheless suggest that different patterns of
wealth accumulation characterized the residents of Bagasra and
Shikarpur.
Faience beads
Representing the height of Indus technological sophistication,
faience beads, some with an intact blue-green glazed surface, are
present at both sites although they are much more common at
Bagasra (Fig. 6). Although a variety of shapes are present at both
sites, the assemblage at each is dominated by the tubular variety
(95% and Shikarpur and 90% at Bagasra). Detailed compositional
studies of these objects have yet to be undertaken. Visual inspec-
tion, however, indicates that they are similar in composition to
Indus beads known from Harappa and other Indus settlements
(Kenoyer, 1994, 2005). Indus faience beads were formed from a
white paste, usually finely ground quartz, combined with fluxing
agents and colorants that formed a glazed surface when fired
under controlled conditions to around 960 °C, perhaps in canisters
prepared with non-sticking surface treatments of powdered stea-
tite and finely crushed bone (Kenoyer, 2005; Miller, 2008a). At
Bagasra, a cache of misfired beads and grinding stones in associa-
tion with ashy deposits that include chunks of locally available
quartz as well as quartz powder is evidence that the residents of
the site were involved with the faience industry (Bhan et al.,
2004; Sonawane et al., 2003).
Shell bangles
Shell bangle fragments are remarkably common at both Bagasra
and Shikarpur, which is to be expected given that the Gulf of Kutch
was an important regional source of the shells from which bangles
found throughout the Indus civilization were crafted (Kenoyer,
1984, 1991c). As with Harappan shell bangles found at all of the
major Indus cities and towns, nearly all of the shell bangles from
both Bagasra and Shikarpur are made from circlets sawn from
Turbinella pyrum shells that were then ground and polished. Both
Bagasra and Shikarpur are situated along coasts of the Gulf of
Fig. 7. Steatite bead types at Bagasra and Shikarpur.
 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 71

Kutch that are today seasonally inundated salt marshes. Today, T.

pyrum shells are available only in deeper waters along the southern
coast approximately 100 km to the west, although they may have
been available closer to the sites with higher sea levels during
the third millennium. Further along this coast at the tip of Saurash-
tra near the prime habitat of T. pyrum, the Harappan settlement of
Nageshwar was a center for the manufacture of shell bangles as
well as shell objects from other locally available species (Bhan
and Kenoyer, 1980; Hegde et al., 1991).
Despite its location likely outside of the main shell collection
areas in the Gulf of Kutch, Bagasra was nevertheless home to the
most significant shell bangle workshop thus far excavated in the
context of the Indus Civilization (Bhan and Gowda, 2003;
Sonawane et al., 2003). This workshop occupied several contiguous
rooms and contained hundreds of raw T. pyrum shells, sorted by
size and quality into three piles and caches containing approxi-
mately 2000 unfinished shell circlets (and an additional approxi-
Fig. 8. Finished bangle fragments and unfinished circlet pieces at Bagasra and
mately 3000 fragments thereof) alongside grinding stones
Shikarpur compared to Nagwada. Note that this figure does not include the caches
suitable for finishing these circlets into finished bangles. While it of shell bangles found in the workshop area at Bagasra.
is not known why these particular circlets were never finished,
the workshop area contains several distinct caches of unfinished
objects along with evidence for structural maintenance and recon-
struction, suggesting that it was in use over several generations.
Fragments of unfinished bangles are found in nearly every layer
of every trench at Bagasra. This widespread incorporation of shell
working debris into domestic trash deposits is characteristic of
urban shell workers’ neighborhoods documented by Kenoyer
(1983: 306–369) in late 20th century West Bengal. While all of
these types of shell manufacturing debris are also found at Shikar-
pur, no workshop area has yet been discovered. More significantly,
the ratio of unfinished bangle pieces to fragments of finished ban-
gles from archaeological contexts throughout the site is consider-
ably lower than at Bagasra, indicating a much lower overall
intensity of production (Fig. 8). Moreover, the ratio of unfinished
to finished bangle fragments at Bagasra is greater than that
reported from the shell bangle manufacturing center of Nageshwar
(Hegde et al., 1991: 263). During the period of the workshop’s
operation, Bagasra appears to have been a particularly important Fig. 9. Chevron designs on fragments of shell bangles from Bagasra (a) and
shell bangle manufacturing center exploiting Gulf of Kutch shell Shikarpur (b).
for the mass-production and export of these distinctively Harap-
pan ornaments to consumers throughout the Indus Civilization. of shell bangles at Bagasra is statistically significant, the degree dif-
There is very little stylistic elaboration within the corpus of ference is relatively small. A reasonable interpretation of this data
Harappan shell bangles. A single incised chevron, typically at the is that women wearing distinctively Harappan personal ornaments
suture where the shell fuses to itself forming a circular ring, is were resident at both sites.
the only form of regularly recorded decoration in Harappan con- Kenoyer (1991b, 1997) has argued on the basis of contemporary
texts (Fig. 9). While the very few complete bangles recovered from ethnographic observations that thinner, more delicate bangles are
these sites all exhibit the chevron motif, approximately 15% of the often worn by women from elite families who are not engaged in
finished bangle fragments from Bagasra and 7% of those from Shi- manual labor, while women who are more regularly engaged in
karpur bear this marking. This relatively low frequency of deco- potentially bangle-breaking physical labor tend to wear wider
rated pieces is due to the fragmentation process; most pieces of styles. The mean widths of finished shell bangles at Bagasra, are
a broken bangle are relatively small portions of originally complete greater on average than those from Shikarpur (Fig. 10). As thinner
bangles and thus do not include the decorated portion. bangles break into a greater number of smaller pieces, this differ-
Shell bangles of the type produced and worn at Bagasra and Shi- ence may account for the variation in the relative prevalence of
karpur were among the very few ornaments buried with the dead, decorated pieces noted above. This pattern may also account for
specifically with adult women, at cemeteries in inland cities and the slightly greater relative abundance of bangle fragments at Shi-
towns such as Harappa (Kenoyer, 1991b) and Farmana (Shinde karpur (Fig. 6). As noted above, the residents of Bagasra appear to
et al., 2011). This suggests that shell bangles had some important have been more heavily invested in crafting than were the resi-
personal meaning for Indus women beyond their purely economic dents of Shikarpur, and it is inconceivable that the women of craft-
valuation. Not all women were buried with shell bangles, however, ing families at Bagasra were not intimately involved in craft
and it seems that their use was restricted to a particular set of production. While they were creating objects of wealth and value,
Harappan women defined perhaps by life events, regional ancestry, hauling and preparing shells, cutting circlets, and grinding quartz
wealth, or some other social distinction. From this perspective, the was ultimately physical labor sure to break the finest shell bangles.
fact that, shell bangles are actually a bit more common among the If this behavioral pattern observed by Kenoyer holds true for
ornaments at Shikarpur might be interpreted as their having been Harappan Gujarat, then it would appear that the people wearing
more women at that site who followed ornamentation traditions shell bangles at Shikarpur were less likely to be engaged in manual
that we recognize as Harappan (Fig. 6). While greater abundance labor than were their counterparts at Bagasra.
72 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78

Fig. 10. Widths of finished shell bangle fragments at Bagasra and Shikarpur.

Terracotta ornaments
Ornaments of terracotta, primarily beads and bangles, are more
common at Shikarpur than they are at Bagasra (Fig. 11a and b).
Over 900 terracotta bangle fragments have been recorded at Shi-
karpur, for example, while only 21 have been recorded at Bagasra,
fewer even than either lapis or amazonite beads at that site. 96% of
bangle fragments from Shikarpur are simple round clay coils with
no decoration of any kind. The remaining pieces often exhibit some
combination of a fugitive red slip and simple black painted dots or
stripes. Even the smallest fragments demonstrate considerable
irregularity in form, deviating from circular to such an extent that
diameter measurements were largely meaningless. Similarly, ter-
racotta beads, while not particularly common at either site, are
more common at Shikarpur than at Bagasra. While some terracotta
beads may have been slipped or painted, they are undecorated. In
general they are and are not particularly well made (Fig. 11b). Few,
if any, show signs of long-term wear as is common with stone
beads. Crafted of commonly available pottery clay, these orna-
ments could have been fired along with pottery, which was likely
produced at each site or even in simple household firings.
Very little has been written on these humble ornaments apart
from basic descriptions of the type and the recognition that they
are, in fact, very common at Indus urban centers such as Harappa
(Kenoyer, 1991b). As objects crafted of immediately available
materials and crafted with the most basic and perhaps least con-
trollable technologies, it seems that these objects would have
had little intrinsic value. This supposition is supported by their rel-
atively irregular construction and general lack of decoration. Spe-
cialist craftspeople at either site could simply do better than this
had they valued the objects enough to put even a fraction of the
effort into their production as was regularly applied to other crafts.
This enigmatic feature of Harappan ornaments requires further
exploration, but at present, it is enough to infer that it is unlikely
that the mass of terracotta ornaments were created to mimic other,
more valuable forms. While there are one or two examples of ter-
racotta that could possibly be mistaken for the more precisely
crafted stoneware bangles, the vast majority of them are clearly
of a different shape and quality and all are obviously incomparable
to shell bangles. Similarly, while the terracotta beads are generally
similar in shape and size to some hard stone beads, it is challenging
to interpret then as simple imitations of more valuable ornaments.

Fig. 11. Terracotta objects at Bagasra and Shikarpur representative of: bangles (a), beads (b), animal figurines (c), closed frame cart chassis (d), cart wheels (e), balls (f), and
triangular cakes (g).
 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78
Regardless, they may have served similar or related symbolic roles
to those held by other more valuable ornaments for some seg-
ments of society. If Harappan women of some particular status
wore shell bangles, for example, then perhaps their daughters
learned their mothers’ bodily habitus through mimetic play with
cheap, expendable terracotta forms easily obtained from the local
potter. While this scenario is necessarily speculative, it is neverthe-
less true that the residents of Shikarpur made and used terracotta
bangles in a way that the residents of Bagasra rarely did. In fact,
these objects are so different in technological character from the
other classes of finely crafted ornaments considered here that they
are best considered in the context of other more mundane house-
hold items.
Technologies of domestic practice
The diversity of the Harappan terracotta repertoire at Bagasra
and Shikarpur is impressive including not only the terracotta orna-
ments discussed above, but also smaller quantities of zoomorphic
figurines, miniature carts and wheels, balls, and a wide range of
miscellaneous objects (Fig. 11). They appear to be crafted of the
same presumably local clay visually similar to that from which
the vast majority of pottery at the sites was formed. They could
have been fired alongside pottery or fired alone in more ephemeral
installations. In any case, they do not require any materials, tech-
niques, or installations that would not be present in the context
of pottery manufacture.
Many of the terracotta forms at Bagasra and Shikarpur are
highly distinctive and show clear parallels to similar items found
at towns and cities throughout the Indus Civilization. Among the
relatively small assemblage of bull figurines, for example, are sev-
eral examples from both sites of humped bulls with transverse per-
forations through their shoulders (Fig. 12a and c). Cattle heads
with perforated neck joints that were a moving part of a composite
figurine or puppet of some sort are also found from both sites
Fig. 12. Figurines from Bagasra (a and b) and Shikarpur (c and d).
73
(Fig. 12b and d). Both of these rather uncommon but highly distinct
specimens have clear parallels to examples from Harappa (Clark,
2007) and other Indus settlements. Similarly, the terracotta carts
at Bagasra (Rogersdotter, 2006) and Shikarpur are of only two dis-
tinct types, either hollow or solid chassis (e.g., Fig. 11d), with the
same general size, shape, and pattern of perforations as the major-
ity of the terracotta carts at Harappa (Kenoyer, 2004, 2009) and
most other Harappan settlements (e.g., Shinde et al., 2011). The
wheels that would have been used with these carts are equally
similar between the two sites are also similar in size, shape, and
(occasional) decoration to those known from most other Harappan
sites (Fig. 11e). Clay is a plastic medium that can be shaped into
endless variety of forms. The fact that it was shaped into objects
with clear parallels to objects similar to those known from the
Indus cities and towns from the Punjab to Gujarat is testament
to the social networks through which people, ideas, and goods
moved during the period of Harappan integration. While a variety
of social mechanisms may account for this pattern, it is neverthe-
less clear that individuals familiar with the wider Harappan terra-
cotta tradition were responsible for the production and use of
these objects at Bagasra and Shikarpur.
While these objects are clearly identifiable as Harappan objects,
there is little evidence for any degree of standardization of manu-
facture within each category. Rather, there is evidence within the
corpus of considerable diversity of technical skill and investment
in the final product. While some carts or bull figurines are nicely
formed, other programmatically similar objects are simply sloppy
with misshapen heads or signs of obvious mistakes such as incom-
plete perforations. When compared to the obvious craftsmanship
that went into the manufacture of the ornaments discussed above
or the wheel-based pottery industry likely practiced at both sites,
the corpus of terracotta objects simply seems childlike. Whether
this is because actual children were involved in the forming stages
of production is unknown, although personal experience suggests
that any youngster with motivation could form reasonable facsim-
iles of most of these objects. Alternatively, adults with no particular
74 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78
skill in the ceramic arts may have crafted them on particular occa-
sions. Similar variation in the corpus of terracotta human and ani-
mal figurines at Harappa has led Clark (2009: 246) to suggest that
‘‘the process of making Harappan figurines was as important as
the figurines themselves.’’
While the terracotta corpus includes items such as carts that are
often referred to informally as toys, it has often been argued that
figurines in particular may have been created and used in the con-
text of Harappan ritual life (Ardeleanu-Jansen, 2002; Clark, 2009;
Kenoyer, 1998). The precise function of these objects may not be
knowable, however, and individual objects may well have passed
through a series of roles in their use-life prior to discard along with
other domestic trash. Regardless of uncertainties regarding their
precise meaning and function(s), a conservative interpretation is
that they are best interpreted as having been produced and used
in domestic contexts. Cross-culturally, domestic life is rife with rit-
ual great and small, from the taking of meals to the celebration of
holidays and life events, and many of these involve the creation
of objects that may be recognized as toys. In small communities
with active pottery traditions such as Bagasra and Shikarpur, it is
expected that the clay forms of some such objects occasionally
would have been fired, preserving them for posterity. From this per-
spective, as well as their indiscriminate distribution alongside the
domestic trash that comprises the majority of the archaeological
record at Bagasra and Shikarpur, we argue that terracotta objects
are best interpreted as the material correlates of private domestic
practice (cf., Ardeleanu-Jansen, 2002; Clark, 2009; Kenoyer, 1998).
Terracotta objects of all types are more commonly encountered
at Shikarpur than they are at Bagasra (Fig. 3), where they are a rel-
atively rare find. Both sites likely had pottery industries, so terra-
cotta the terracotta objects common at Shikarpur could have
been produced with minimal cost and effort at Bagasra should they
have been in demand there. Given limitations in our current under-
standing regarding the way these objects were actually used, a
variety of explanations may be called upon to account for this pat-
tern. If the objects were indeed created and used as part of partic-
ular household rituals, then perhaps the residents of Shikarpur
were practicing rituals that the residents of Bagasra were not. If fig-
urines and such were indeed associated with children, then per-
haps Shikarpur may simply have been home to more young
families, i.e., more young families following Harappan domestic
practices, than at the more intensely industrial Bagasra. While pos-
sible scenarios are diverse given our present level of knowledge, it
nevertheless seems clear that the residents of Bagasra and Shikar-
pur maintained different sets of domestic practices over the course
of the generations during which the sites were occupied.
Terracotta cakes
Triangular terracotta objects referred to as ‘‘cakes’’ are ubiqui-
tous at Indus archaeological sites (e.g., Fig. 11g). While there is a
long tradition in the literature discussing the possible ritual,
domestic, and industrial functions of these objects (for a detailed
review of this literature see Manuel, 2010), the fact that they have
been found in nearly every possible archaeological context sug-
gests that they were multifunctional objects incorporated into
the archaeological record alongside other domestic debris. Miller
(1999: 154–164), in one of the few detailed considerations of their
typological and technological characteristics and contexts of depo-
sition, has shown that at Harappa these usually low- and irregu-
larly fired, chaff-tempered clay objects were used in association
with pyrotechnologies of all sorts. They were used to secure pots
in kilns during firing, but were more often used in the context of
domestic hearths to stabilize pots, reflect and conserve heat during
cooking, and possibly to keep food warm in serving vessels. Many
appear to have been fired in the course of their use having been
heated irregularly and at low temperatures. In short, Miller argues
that they served as ‘‘artificial stones’’ at Harappa, located in the
Indus alluvium where actual stone had to be imported from con-
siderable distance.
The fact that only approximately 300 of these objects were
recorded from Bagasra after ten seasons of excavation whereas
nearly 78,000 terracotta cake fragments have been recorded from
Shikarpur after only five seasons is perhaps the most dramatic evi-
dence for difference in practice between the two sites. As these
objects have been found in association with pottery kilns at Harap-
pa, this variation may relate to greater involvement in pottery
manufacture at Shikarpur; although no intact kilns have yet been
discovered, there is ample evidence for the firing of pottery. As is
the case at Harappa, however, terracotta cake fragments are more
often found in undifferentiated domestic debris at Shikarpur, sug-
gesting that they were more often used in a range of domestic con-
texts. While we do not know exactly what they were used for,
these practices were undertaken more often at Shikarpur than at
Bagasra. Obviously, the residents of Bagasra could have crafted
these humble objects had they desired to use them, yet they appar-
ently rarely did. Conversely, the residents of Shikarpur expended
time, energy, and resources to create ‘‘artificial stones’’ for use in
the practice of basic household tasks when, unlike the alluvial set-
ting of Harappa, copious real stone was available in the immediate
vicinity. Rather, the residents of Shikarpur apparently felt that the
use of triangular terracotta cakes was integral to the proper prac-
tice of daily life. While we cannot know exactly why, we can spec-
ulate that as with most elements of daily habitus, a range of
opinions and explanations for their practice likely existed in the
past just as a myriad of perspectives and mythologies surround
regional cooking styles in the present. Further, just as cuisine prac-
tices in the present often symbolically link us to family and ances-
try (Twiss, 2012), it seems that the use of triangular terracotta
cakes linked the residents of Shikarpur to communities in the
Indus alluvium, where such objects were most commonly used.
The residents of Bagasra do not seem to have materialized these
links in the same way.
Harappan cooking pots
While a detailed analyses of ceramics is outside the scope of this
paper, some preliminary findings regarding the frequency and dis-
tribution of distinctively Harappan-style cooking pots is relevant to
the argument developed above (Fig. 13). Research by Lindstrom
(2013, in press) at Bagasra has identified only 19 fragments of typ-
ically Harappan-style cooking pots as known from Harappa and
Mohenjodaro out of approximately 11,000 diagnostic sherds exam-
ined from every excavation area at the site. In contrast, Ajithpra-
sad’s study of the ceramics from a single index trench from
inside the walled enclosure (Em13) at Shikarpur has shown 64
diagnostic sherds of these distinctively Harappan cooking pots.
While the analysis of the voluminous pottery assemblages from
Bagasra and Shikarpur is ongoing, this is a first indication that
the residents of Shikarpur were at least occasionally cooking food
in a manner different from their neighbors at Bagasra. In conjunc-
tion with the overabundance of triangular terracotta cakes at the
site, this is again clear evidence that the regular use of Harappan
cooking pots linked the residents of Shikarpur to Harappan com-
munities in the alluvium and distinguished them from the resi-
dents of Bagasra.
Discussion
The presence of a full range of Harappan material culture by the
residents of both Bagasra and Shikarpur demonstrates that the
 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78
Fig. 13. Harappan cooking pots from Shikarpur.
residents of each site were linked to one another and the wider
Indus world by dense social networks through which goods, peo-
ple, and ideas travelled. The relative abundance of different artifact
types varies considerably between these two near neighbors, how-
ever, suggesting the existence of considerable social diversity
beneath this superficial material uniformity. Given the palimpsest
nature of the archaeological contexts under consideration and the
coarse contextual grain of our current analyses, we begin from a
minimalist interpretive position recognizing these objects as the
material correlates of daily practice at each site throughout their
occupations. From this perspective, it is quite possible to infer
the ways in which even the most mundane of household object
can be understood as integral to the materialization of an individ-
ual’s social identity (Fisher and Loren, 2003; Smith, 1999, 2007).
Given that individual identities are dynamic, multivalent, and con-
textual constructs (Meskell and Preucel, 2004), interpreting spe-
cific aspects of past individual and community social identities in
lieu of written texts is particularly challenging. Here, we focus pri-
marily on evidence that speaks to similarity and difference
between the residents of Bagasra and Shikarpur as relate to the fol-
lowing interrelated social fields: (1) economic pursuits, (2) public
representations of identity, and (3) variation in the performance
of more private domestic practice.
Regarding economic pursuits, our analyses show that although
the residents of both sites participated in the steatite economy of
the Indus Civilization, there exists considerable variation in the
productive activities engaged in by the residents of each site. The
residents of Bagasra were more intensely involved in the produc-
tion of goods from locally available materials, most notably Harap-
pan shell bangles and faience beads, while the residents of
Shikarpur were less heavily invested in craft manufacture, yet
had greater access to a range of imported Harappan goods obtained
via interregional networks. It thus appears that a significant
number of people engaged in crafting made their home at Bagasra,
75
while a greater number of individuals engaged in interregional
trade and exchange seem to have been in residence at Shikarpur.
While the residents of each site accumulated significant wealth
in the form of steatite beads and shell bangles, variation in the rel-
ative abundance of different sizes and forms of these suggests sig-
nificant and systematic, albeit subtle, variation in patterns of
wealth accumulation between the site—as is to be expected given
their residents’ participation in different economic sectors.
Despite subtle variation in their relative abundance within the
assemblage of ornaments, steatite beads and shell bangles, two
of the most distinctive Harappan ornaments, were in wide use at
both sites demonstrating considerable unity in public self-presen-
tation that linked residents of these small sites with their contem-
poraries throughout the Indus Civilization. Marine shell bangles
incorporating the single chevron motif, for example, are common
at both Bagasra and Shikarpur, and the individuals who wore them,
presumably women, can be expected to have shared a perception
of common affiliation, symbolically linking them to women
throughout the towns and cities of the Indus Civilization. While
the overall abundance of shell bangles is roughly equivalent at
each site, suggesting a general parity in the population of presum-
ably adult women at each site, shell bangle fragments at Shikarpur
are thinner, suggesting that the women of this site were less
involved with manual labor as compared to their counterparts at
Bagasra. This observation challenges the notion that terracotta
bangles, found in great numbers at Shikarpur while quite rare at
Bagasra, were less valuable imitations of shell bangles available
to less elite communities (cf., Miller, 2008b). Rather, the abundance
of these objects suggests that a class of terracotta bangle wearing
people, perhaps children, was better represented at Shikarpur than
at Bagasra—alongside more elite wearers of thinner shell bangles.
This unity of public presentation, however, masks considerable
social diversity between the settlements. This is most clearly dem-
onstrated by the relative greater abundance of items related to dis-
tinctively Harappan domestic practice, especially terracotta
ornaments, figurines, ‘‘toy’’ carts, triangular terracotta cakes, and
Harappan-style cooking pots, at Shikarpur as compared to Bagasra.
All of these terracotta objects were likely produced locally yet are
nearly identical in form to examples from the cities and towns of
the Indus alluvium, suggesting that their makers and users per-
ceived a shared connection to the heartland of Indus urbanism in
a way that most of their neighbors at Bagasra did not. As they were
likely instrumental to the performance of daily practice in private
household contexts, these objects would have been especially
important for the construction of reflexive social identities
(Smith, 2007) in contrast to the more public presentation of affili-
ation communicated through the wearing of distinctively Harap-
pan beads and bangles. In this regard, it is perhaps ironic that
while the residents of Bagasra were literally crafting Harappan
identity in the form of shell bangles, it was rather Shikarpur’s trad-
ing communities who maintained their households in a more dis-
tinctly Harappan way.
This interpretation of unity and diversity challenges straightfor-
ward interpretations of material diversity at Bagasra and Shikarpur
in terms of simple ethnic distinctions. While distinctive domestic
practice is certainly characteristic of ethnic identities in many his-
torical and contemporary situations (Emberling, 1997), ethnicity is
multivalent and situational in practice and an individual’s concep-
tion and presentation of self may change from social setting to
social setting, by way of marriage, or for more ideological or prag-
matic or political reasons (Bentley, 1987). The identification of eth-
nic identities on the basis of material culture is therefore fraught
with interpretive difficulties (Jones, 1997). The evidence presented
above is therefore more pragmatically understood as relating to
variation in the practice of family life. Representatives of multiple
families following different economic interests, maintaining differ-
76 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78
ent domestic practices, and perceiving different notions of shared
ancestry would have been present at different sites. As these com-
munities negotiated shifting relationships of commerce—and likely
marriage—over the course of generations, their different modes of
engagement with the material world in the form of production,
trade, and consumption, produced the varied material record that
we have documented here.
The specific patterns of variation that we have identified then
relate primarily to demographics: how many of which families
were present at each site. Following the analyses and interpreta-
tions presented above, it would seem that the families resident
at Bagasra perhaps shared more local ancestry as indicated by a
general lack of the material correlates of Harappan domestic prac-
tice as known from the alluvium. Conversely, more families at Shi-
karpur appear to have been deeply invested in maintaining private,
reflexive identities that affiliated them with the wider Harappan
world. This interpretation is consistent with our findings that the
residents of each site generally participated in different economic
pursuits. While the maintenance of local affiliations were neces-
sary for families at Bagasra to obtain the shells and other locally-
sourced materials essential to their livelihoods, more interregional
affiliations were necessary for the families resident at Shikarpur to
maintain theirs. This private diversity, however, was masked by
the public communication of a unified Harappan identity through
common conventions of ornamentation that facilitated the net-
works of interaction, exchange, and ultimately interdependence
that necessarily linked the residents of these two very small bor-
derland communities to one another as well as their contemporar-
ies throughout the Indus Civilization.
This perspective helps us to interpret several rather enigmatic
features of Indus settlements in the borderlands that cannot be sat-
isfactorily explained the top-down models as discussed above. The
monumental walled enclosures at both Bagasra and Shikarpur, for
example, are clear evidence for the existence of authority capable
of organizing space and labor beyond the individual household.
Moreover, the repeated maintenance of these structures through-
out the occupational sequence at the sites indicates that this
authority was maintained for at least several generations. As at
most Harappan settlements, however, there is a conspicuous lack
of evidence for distinct elite communities such as sumptuous
housing or marked class inequalities indicative of early state-level
societies elsewhere. Following the model presented above, it was
rather extended families that provided the multigenerational
structures necessary organize space and labor to construct the
walled enclosure and maintain order within the close residential
quarters within. Here, the rights and responsibilities of individual
residents were structured more by family ties than to other more
state-like, non-kin organizations, as was often the case in historical
episodes of territorial expansion directed by centralized political
authorities elsewhere (Smith, 2011).
Developed as an explanation of material variation at Bagasra
and Shikarpur, this model is broadly consistent with other contem-
porary interpretations of Indus social organization. Specifically,
Kenoyer (1991a) has long argued that the widespread distribution
of relatively uniform forms of Harappan material culture through-
out the expanse of the Indus Civilization is more likely the result of
kin-based communities of specialist traders and craftspeople
rather than standardization imposed by the centralized political
authorities that may have been operative in the largest cities.
The present work is of course ultimately built upon a broadly sim-
ilar interpretive framework privileging objects’ technological and
stylistic characteristics. It is the first time, however, that this model
has been applied to empirical studies of multiple independent lines
of evidence generated from recently excavated archaeological sites
in Gujarat.
Conclusions
Writing nearly two decades ago, Meadow and Kenoyer
observed that the ‘‘typical Harappan’’ complex of material traits
such as we have documented here ‘‘can now be seen as something
of a veneer of varying thickness overlying diverse local and regio-
nal cultural expressions’’ that ‘‘leads us to look for the social corre-
lates of the veneer and of its expression, to examine the processes,
mechanisms, and timing of its development and spread’’ (Meadow
and Kenoyer, 1997: 139). The findings that we have presented here
are perhaps an ideal example of the Meadow and Kenoyer’s veneer
metaphor—while the residents of both Bagasra and Shikarpur pub-
lically identified with one another, privately, in their homes, they
were materializing their social identities in very different ways.
Top-down analytical perspectives such as the world-systems mod-
els that have been called upon to explain the integration of Gujarat
into the Indus Civilization (e.g., Dhavalikar, 1994) can describe the
basic contours of the settlement system—locally-sourced raw
material were, for example, being processed at small peripheral
settlements in response to demand in distant urban centers. They
cannot, however, explain the patterns of material unity and diver-
sity that we have identified here. Rather, our findings are commen-
surate with more bottom-up perspectives on the borderlands of
complex societies in which complex patterns of material diversity
are interpreted as reflective of the negotiation and materialization
of novel hybrid personal and community identities (Stein, 2002).
Specifically in this case, the residents of these two superficially
similar walled settlements—that both might be interpreted as col-
onies in a hierarchically ordered and centrally managed resource
extraction system—were privately maintaining different domestic
practices while publically displaying their Harappan affiliation.
It is crucial to conclude, however, that further excavations and
analyses are needed to fully refine our interpretations and evalu-
ate our conclusions. Regardless, we feel that our model represents
an important step in an ongoing process of inference to the best
explanation. As Fogelin (2007) argues, this philosophically prag-
matic epistemological position is, in fact, the way in which pro-
ductive archaeological interpretation has taken place throughout
the history of the discipline. Specifically, ‘‘explanations that are
empirically broad, general, modest, conservative, simple, testable,
and address many perspectives are better than explanations that
are not.’’ The scenario that we present above, namely that the
variation in the production and use of Harappan material culture
in Gujarat can best be accounted for by the existence of multigen-
erational kin groups with varied economic interests, domestic
practices, and backgrounds is broadly and generally true of bor-
derlands cross-culturally. It is supported by multiple independent
datasets modestly interpreted from well-established materialist
as well as more ideational perspectives and fits well with broader
understandings of Indus society. As with earlier models of Indus
society, however, we fully expect that ours will be modified as
it is evaluated against the fantastic amount of new data that is
emerging from Harappan Gujarat and other regions of the Indus
Civilization. Further excavations, technical studies of specific
crafts such as the faience, steatite and lithic industries (Gadekar
et al., 2014), documentation of the inter- and intra-site distribu-
tion of particular ceramic forms (Lindstrom, 2013, in press), and
analyses of faunal remains (Chase, 2010, 2012) will all provide
new information about subsistence organization and domestic
practice in the region. If this work spurs new research, analysis,
and debate, we have been successful in peeling back the Harap-
pan veneer and are one step closer to understanding the social
dynamics of the Indus Civilization. Finally, we believe that the
methodological and theoretical perspectives advanced here in
the context of South Asia’s first urban society will productively
 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78 77

contribute to anthropological understandings of early complex Chakrabarti, D.K., 1999. India: An Archaeological History. Oxford University Press,
New York.
societies more generally.
Chase, B.A., 2010. Social change at the Harappan settlement of Gola Dhoro: a
reading from animal bones. Antiquity 84, 528–543.
Acknowledgments Chase, B.A., 2012. Crafting Harappan cuisine on the Saurashtran frontier of the Indus
Civilization. In: Graff, S., Rodriguez-Alegria, E. (Eds.), The Menial Art of Cooking:
Archaeological Studies of Cooking and Food Preparation. The University Press of
We would like to first acknowledge the Archaeological Survey Colorado, Denver.
of India and the Gujarat State Department of Archaeology whose Chase, B.A., Ajithprasad, P., Rajesh, S.V., 2010. The identification of diversity:
material culture and social practice in Harappan Gujarat. In: Klimburg-Salter,
support has made possible the excavations upon which the present D., Widorn, V. (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology (in press).
work is based. An American Institute of Indian Studies Senior Chase-Dunn, C., Hall, T.D., 2000. Comparing world-systems to explain social
Research Fellowship and Albion College Faculty Development evolution. In: Denemark, R.A. (Ed.), World System History: The Social Science
of Long-term Change. Routledge, London New York, pp. 85–112.
Grants have supported Chase’s participation in this work. A Global Clark, S.R., 2007. The Social Lives of Figurines: Recontextualizing the Third
Heritage Fund Post-doctoral Fellowship supported a portion of Millennium BC Terracotta Figurines from Harappa (Pakistan). Ph.D. Thesis,
Rajesh’s work on this project. We would like to personally thank Harvard University.
Clark, S., 2009. Material matters: representation and materiality of the Harappan
our colleagues and friends at the Maharaja Sayajirao University
body. J. Archaeol. Method Theor. 16, 231–261.
of Baroda, specifically K. Krishnan, Kuldeep Bhan, V.H. Sonawane, Dales, G.F., Kenoyer, J.M., 1991. Summaries of five seasons of research at Harappa
and S. Pratapchandran, and Charusmita Gadekar along with Mark (District Sahiwal, Punjab, Pakistan) 1986–1990. In: Meadow, R.H. (Ed.), Harappa
Kenoyer, Heather Miller, Randall Law, Katie Lindstrom, and Gregg Excavations 1986–1990. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 185–262.
Dhavalikar, M.K., 1994. Cultural Imperialism: Indus Civilization in Western India.
Jamison for countless thoughtful discussions over many years as Books & Books, New Delhi.
we’ve sought to better understand Harappan Gujarat. Any faults Dhavalikar, M.K., Raval, M.R., Chitalwala, Y.M., 1996. Kuntasi: A Harappan
of fact or interpretation, however, are exclusively our own. Emporium on the West Coast. Deccan College Post-Graduate Research
Institute, Pune.
Dietler, M., 1998. Consumption, agency, and cultural entanglement: theoretical
References implications of a Mediterranean colonial encounter. In: Cusick, J.G. (Ed.), Studies
in Culture Contact. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, pp.
288–315.
Agrawal, D.P., 2007. The Indus Civilization: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Aryan
Dietler, M., 2010. Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and
Books International, New Delhi.
Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France. University of California Press,
Ajithprasad, P., 2002. The pre-Harappan cultures of Gujarat. In: Settar, S., Korisettar,
Berkeley.
R. (Eds.), Indian Archaeology in Retrospect 2, Protohistory: Archaeology of the
Dobres, M.-A., 2000. Technology and Social Agency. Blackwell, Oxford.
Harappan Civilization. Monohar, New Delhi, pp. 129–158.
Dobres, M.-A., Hoffman, C.R., 1994. Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric
Ajithprasad, P., 2008. Jaidak (Pithad): a Sorath Harappan site in Jamnagar District,
technology. J. Archaeol. Method Theor. 1, 211–258.
Gujarat and its architectural features. In: Osada, T., Uesugi, A. (Eds.), Occasional
Dominguez, A.J., 2002. Greeks in Iberia: colonialism without colonization. In: Lyons,
Paper 4: Linguistics, Archaeology, and the Human Past. Research Institute for
C.L., Papadopoulos, J.K. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism. Getty Research
Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, pp. 83–99.
Institute, Los Angeles, pp. 65–95.
Ajithprasad, P., Sonawane, V.H., 2011. The Harappa Culture in North Gujarat: a
Emberling, G., 1997. Ethnicity in complex societies: archaeological perspectives. J.
regional paradigm. In: Osada, T., Uesugi, A. (Eds.), Occasional Paper 12:
Archaeol. Res. 5, 295–344.
Linguistics, Archaeology, and the Human Past. Research Institute for
Fisher, G., Loren, D.D., 2003. Embodying identity in archaeology. Camb. Archaeol. J.
Humanity and Nature, Kyoto.
13, 225–230.
Ardeleanu-Jansen, A., 2002. The terracotta figurines from Mohenjo Daro:
Fogelin, L., 2007. Inference to the best explanation: a common and effective form of
considerations on tradition, craft and ideology in the Harappan Civilization (c.
archaeological reasoning. Am. Antiq. 72, 603–625.
2400–1800 BC). In: Settar, S., Korisettar, R. (Eds.), Indian Archaeology in
Gadekar, C., Rajesh, V., Ajithprasad, P., 2014. Shikarpur lithic assemblage: new
Retrospect 2, Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization.
questions regarding Rohri chert blade production. J. Lithic Stud. 1. http://
Monohar, New Delhi, pp. 205–222.
dx.doi.org/10.2218/jls.v1i1.764.
Barthélemy de Saizieu, B., Bouquillon, A., 1997. Evolution of glazed materials from
Gosden, C., 2004. Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to
the chalcolithic to the Indus period based on the data of Mehrgarh and
the Present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nausharo. In: Allchin, R., Allchin, B. (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1995.
Hall, T.D., 2000. A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender,
Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, pp. 63–76.
Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology. Rowman & Littlefield,
Bentley, G.C., 1987. Ethnicity and practice. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 29, 24–55.
Lanham, Md.
Bhan, K.K., 1986. Recent explorations in the Jamnagar District of Saurashtra. Man
Hegde, K.T.M., Sonawane, V.H., 1986. Landscape and settlement patterns of Harappa
Environ. 10, 1–21.
Culture villages in the Rupen Estuary. Man Environ. 10, 23–31.
Bhan, K.K., 1994. Cultural development of the prehistoric period in North Gujarat
Hegde, K.T.M., Bhan, K.K., Sonawane, V.H., Krishnan, K., Shah, D.R., 1991.
with reference to western India. South Asian Stud. 10, 71–90.
Excavations at Nageshwar: A Harappan Shell Working Site on the Gulf of
Bhan, K.K., Ajithprasad, P., 2008. Excavations at Shikarpur 2007–2008: A Coastal
Kutch. The Maharajao Sayajirao University, Vadodara.
Port and Craft Production Center of the Indus Civilization in Kutch, India.
Hoffman, B., Miller, H., 2009. Production and consumption of copper-base metals in
Bhan, K.K., Ajithprasad, P., 2009. Excavations at Shikarpur 2008–2009.
the Indus Civilization. J. World Prehist. 22, 237–264.
Bhan, K.K., Gowda, D., 2003. Shell working at Nagwada (North Gujarat) with special
Jennings, J., 2011. Globalizations and the Ancient World. Cambridge University
reference to shell industries of the Harappan Tradition in Gujarat. Man Environ.
Press, Cambridge, New York.
28, 51–80.
Johansen, P.G., 2003. Recasting the foundations: new approaches to regional
Bhan, K.K., Kenoyer, J.M., 1980. Nageshwar: a mature Harappan shell working site
understandings of South Asian archaeology and the problem of culture history.
on the Gulf of Kutch. J. Oriental Inst. 34, 115–120.
Asian Perspect. 42, 193–206.
Bhan, K.K., Vidale, M., Kenoyer, J.M., 2002. Some important aspects of the Harappan
Jones, S., 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and
technological tradition. In: Settar, S., Korisettar, R. (Eds.), Indian Archaeology in
Present. Routledge, New York.
Retrospect 2, Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization. Monohar,
Joshi, J.P., 1990. Excavations at Surkotada 1971–1972 and Exploration in Kutch.
New Delhi, pp. 223–272.
Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.
Bhan, K.K., Sonawane, V.H., Ajithprasad, P., Pratapchandran, S., 2004. Excavations of
Kardulias, P.N., Hall, T., 2008. Archaeology and world-systems analysis. World
an important Harappan trading and craft production center at Gola Dhoro
Archaeol. 40, 572–583.
(Bagasra), on the Gulf of Kutch, Gujarat, India. J. Interdiscipl. Stud. Hist.
Kenoyer, J.M., 1983. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civilization: An
Archaeol. 1, 153–158.
Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Bhan, K.K., Sonawane, V.H., Ajithprasad, P., Pratapchandran, S., 2005. A Harappan
California-Berkeley.
trading and craft production centre at Gola Dhoro (Bagasra). Antiquity 79,
Kenoyer, J.M., 1984. Shell working industries of the Indus Civilization: a summary.
<http://antiquity.ac.uk/Projgall/bhan/index.html>.
Paléorient 10, 49–63.
Biagi, P., Cremaschi, M., 1991. The Harappan flint quarries of the Rohri Hills (Sindh-
Kenoyer, J.M., 1989. Socio-economic structures of the Indus Civilization as reflected
Pakistan). Antiquity 65, 97–102.
in specialized crafts and the question of ritual segregation. In: Kenoyer, J.M.
Biagi, P., Nisbet, R., 2010. The prehistoric flint mines at Jhimpir in Lower Sindh
(Ed.), Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia.
(Pakistan). Antiquity 84, <http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/nisbet325/>.
Department of Archaeology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, pp.
Bisht, R.S., 1989. The Harappan colonization of the Kutch: an ergonomic study with
183–192.
reference to Dholavira and Surkotada. In: Devi, K., Gopal, L. (Eds.), History and
Kenoyer, J.M., 1991a. The Indus Valley Tradition of Pakistan and Western India. J.
Art. Ramananda Vidya Bhavan, New Delhi, pp. 265–272.
World Prehist. 5, 331–385.
Bisht, R.S., 2000. Urban planning at Dholavira: a Harappan city. In: Malville, J.M.,
Kenoyer, J.M., 1991b. Ornament styles of the Indus Valley Tradition: evidence from
Gujral, L.M. (Eds.), Ancient Cities, Sacred Skies: Cosmic Geometries and City
recent excavations at Harappa, Pakistan. Paléorient 17, 79–98.
Planning in Ancient India. Aryan Books International, New Delhi, pp. 11–23.
78 B. Chase et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014) 63–78
Kenoyer, J.M., 1991c. Shellworking in the Indus Civilization. In: Jansen, M., Mulloy,
M., Urban, G. (Eds.), Forgotten Cities on the Indus. Phillip von Zabern, Mainz am
Rhein, pp. 216–219.
Kenoyer, J.M., 1994. Faience from the Indus Valley Civilization. Ornament 17, 36–39.
Kenoyer, J.M., 1997. Trade and technology of the Indus Valley: new insights from
Harappa, Pakistan. World Archaeol. 29, 262–280.
Kenoyer, J.M., 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Oxford
University Press, Islamabad.
Kenoyer, J.M., 2000. Wealth and socio-economic hierarchies of the Indus Valley
Civilization. In: Richards, J., Van Buren, M. (Eds.), Order, Legitimacy and Wealth
in Early States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 90–112.
Kenoyer, J.M., 2004. Die Karren der InduskuItur Pakistans und Indiens. In:
Burmeister, S., Fansa, M. (Eds.), Rad Und Wagen – Der Ursprung Einer
Innovation; Wagen Im Vorderen Orient Und Europa. Philipp von Zabern,
Mainz-am-Rhein, pp. 87–106.
Kenoyer, J.M., 2005. Steatite and faience manufacturing at Harappa: new evidence
from Mound E excavations 2000–2001. Museum J. (National Museum of
Pakistan) III–IV, 43–56.
Kenoyer, J.M., 2008. Indus urbanism: new perspectives on its origin and character.
In: Marcus, J., Sabloff, J.A. (Eds.), The Ancient City: New Perspectives on
Urbanism in the Old and New World. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa
Fe, NM, pp. 183–208.
Kenoyer, J.M., 2009. Carts and wheeled vehicles of the Indus Civilizaton: new
evidence from Harappa, Pakistan. In: Osada, T. (Ed.), Occasional Paper 9:
Linguistics, Archaeology, and the Human Past. Research Institute for Humanity
and Nature, Kyoto, pp. 1–34.
Kenoyer, J.M., 2010. Measuring the Harappan world: insights into the Indus order
and cosmology. In: Morley, I., Renfrew, C. (Eds.), The Archaeology of
Measurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 106–121.
Kenoyer, J.M., Vidale, M., 1992. A new look at stone drills of the Indus Valley
Tradition. In: Vandiver, P., Druzick, J.R., Wheeler, G.S., Freestone, I. (Eds.),
Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III. Materials Research Society,
Pittsburgh, pp. 495–518.
Kharakwal, J.S., Rawat, Y.S., Osada, T. (Eds.), 2012. Research Institute for Humanity
and Nature, Kyoto.
Kohl, P., 1987. The ancient economy, transferable technologies and the Bronze Age
world system: a view from the northweastern frontier of the ancient Near East.
In: Rowlands, M.J., Larsen, M.T., Kristiansen, K. (Eds.), Centre and Periphery in
the Ancient World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–24.
Lal, B.B., 1997. The Earliest Civilization of South Asia: Rise, Maturity, and Decline.
Aryan Books International, New Delhi.
Law, R.W., 2011. Inter-regional Interaction and Urbanism in the Ancient Indus
Valley: A Geologic Provenience Study of Harappa’s Rock and Mineral
Assemblage. Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto.
Lightfoot, K.G., 2005. The archaeology of colonization: California in cross-cultural
perspective. In: Stein, G.J. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. School
of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 207–235.
Lightfoot, K.G., Martinez, A., 1995. Frontiers and boundaries in archaeological
perspective. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 24, 471–492.
Lindstrom, K.E., 2013. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Lindstrom, K.E., 2014. The Harappan cooking pot in the borderlands of the Indus
Civilization: new data from Bagasra (Gola Dhoro mound), Gujarat. In:
Kharakwal, J., Rawat, Y.S., Osada, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Bhuj Roundtable
2010 on Gujarat Harappans and Rural Chalcolithic Cultures (in press).
Lycett, M.T., 2005. On the margins of peripheries: the consequences of differential
incorporation in the colonial Southwest. In: Susan, K., Alexander, R.T. (Eds.), The
Postclassic to Spanish-Era Transition in Mesoamerica: Archaeological
Perspectives. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 97–115.
Lydon, J., Rizvi, U.Z. (Eds.), 2010. Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. Left Coast
Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Lyons, C.L., Papadopoulos, J.K. (Eds.), 2002. The Archaeology of Colonialism. Getty
Research Institute, Los Angeles.
Madella, M., Ajithprasad, P., Lancelotti, C., Rondelli, B., Balbo, A., French, C.,
Rodríguez, D., et al., 2010. Social and environmental transitions in arid zones:
the North Gujarat Archaeological Project—NoGAP. Antiquity 84, <http://
antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/madella325/>.
Manuel, J., 2010. The enigmatic mushtikas and the associated triangular terracotta
cakes: some observations. Ancient Asia 2, 41–46.
Meadow, R.H., Kenoyer, J.M., 1997. Excavations at Harappa 1994–1995: new
perspectives on the Indus script, craft activities and city organization. In:
Allchin, B., Allchin, R. (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1995. Oxford & IBH, New
Delhi, pp. 139–172.
Meadow, R.H., Kenoyer, J.M., 2005. Excavations at Harappa 2000–2001: new
insights on chronology and city organization. In: Jarrige, C., Lefèvre, V. (Eds.),
South Asian Archaeology 2001. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations-ADPF,
Paris, pp. 207–226.
Meskell, L., Preucel, R.W., 2004. Identities. In: Meskell, L., Preucel, R.W. (Eds.), A
Companion to Social Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 121–141.
Miller, H.M.-L., 1999. Pyrotechnology and Society in the Cities of the Indus Valley.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Miller, H.M.-L., 2007. Archaeological Approaches to Technology. Elsevier/Academic
Press, Amsterdam.
Miller, H.M.-L., 2008a. The Indus talc-faience complex: types of materials, clues to
production. In: Raven, E.M. (Ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1999. Egbert Forsten,
Groningen, pp. 111–122.
View publication stats
Miller, H.M.-L., 2008b. Issues in the determination of ancient value systems: the
role of talc (steatite) and faience in the Indus Civilization. In: Olijdam, E., Spoor,
R.H. (Eds.), Intercultural Relations between South and Southwest Asia. Studies
in Commemoration of E. C. L. During-Caspers (1934–1996). Archaeopress,
Oxford, pp. 145–157.
Naum, M., 2010. Re-emerging frontiers: postcolonial theory and historical
archaeology of the borderlands. J. Archaeol. Method Theor. 17, 101–131.
Parker, B.J., 2006. Toward an understanding of borderland processes. Am. Antiq. 71,
77–100.
Patel, A., 2006. Copper artifacts from Bagasra (Gola Dhoro), a Harappan site of
Gujarat, western India. Puratattva 36, 222–231.
Peregrine, P.N., 2000. Archaeology and world-systems theory. In: Hall, T.D.
(Ed.), A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism,
Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham,
Md, pp. 59–68.
Possehl, G.L., 1980. Indus Civilization in Saurashtra. B.R. Publishing, Delhi.
Possehl, G.L., 1992. The Harappan Civilization in Gujarat: the Sorath and Sindhi
Harappans. Eastern Anthropol. 45, 117–154.
Possehl, G.L., 1998. Sociocultural complexity without the state: the Indus
Civilization. In: Feinman, G.M., Marcus, J. (Eds.), Archaic States. School of
American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 261–291.
Possehl, G.L., 2002. The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. AltaMira
Press, New York.
Possehl, G.L., Raval, M.H., 1989. Harappan Civilization and Rojdi. Oxford & IBH, New
Delhi.
Rajesh, S.V., Patel, A., 2006. Excavated Chalcolithic sites in Gujarat: an appraisal.
Purratatva 37, 47–69.
Rajesh, S.V., Krishnan, K., Ajithprasad, P., Sonawane, V.H., 2013. Evaluating the
Anarta tradition in light of material culture from Loteshwar and other sites in
Gujarat, western India. Man Environ. XXXVIII, 10–45.
Rao, S.R., 1979. Lothal: A Harappan Port Town. Archaeological Survey of India, New
Delhi.
Rogersdotter, E., 2006. Negligible details? On a study of terracotta miniature carts
from a Harappan site in Gujarat. Ancient Asia 1, 81–102.
Schneider, J., 1977. Was there a pre-capitalist world-system? Peasant Stud. 6,
20–29.
Schortman, E., Urban, P.A., 1998. Culture contact structure and process. In: Cusick,
J.G. (Ed.), Studies in Culture Contact. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Carbondale, pp. 102–125.
Shinde, V., Osada, T., Kumar, M. (Eds.), 2011. Excavations at Farmana; District
Rohtak, Haryana, India 2006–2008. Indus Project, Research Institute for
Humanity and Nature (RIHN), Kyoto.
Silliman, S.W., 2001. Theoretical perspectives on labor and colonialism:
reconsidering the California missions. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 20, 379–407.
Smith, M.L., 1999. The role of ordinary goods in premodern exchange. J. Archaeol.
Method Theor. 6, 109–135.
Smith, M.L., 2007. Inconspicuous consumption: non-display goods and identity
formation. J. Archaeol. Method Theor. 14, 412–438.
Smith, A.T., 2011. Archaeologies of sovereignty. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 40, 415–432.
Sonawane, V.H., 2005. Harappan Civilization in Western India with special
reference to Gujarat. J. Interdiscipl. Stud. Hist. Archaeol. 1, 63–78.
Sonawane, V.H., Ajithprasad, P., Bhan, K.K., Krishnan, K., Pratapchandran, S.,
Majumdar, A., Patel, A.K., Menom, J., 2003. Excavations at Bagasra 1996–
2003: a preliminary report. Man Environ. 28, 21–50.
Stein, G.J., 1999. Rethinking World Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in
Uruk Mesopotamia. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Stein, G.J., 2002. From passive periphery to active agents: emerging perspectives in
the archaeology of interregional interaction. Am. Anthopol. 104, 903–916.
Stein, G.J. (Ed.), 2005. The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. School of American
Research Press, Santa Fe.
Trigger, B.G., 2003. Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Twiss, K., 2012. The archaeology of food and social diversity. J. Archaeol. Res. 20,
357–395.
Van Dommelen, P., 2005. Colonial interactions and hybrid practices. In: Stein, G.J.
(Ed.), The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. School of American Research
Press, Santa Fe, pp. 109–141.
Vidale, M., 1989. A Steatite-Cutting Atelier on the Surface at Moenjodaro. Ann.
Dell’Istituto Univ. Orient. 49, 29–51.
Vidale, M., 2000. The Archaeology of Indus Crafts: Indus Craftspeople and Why We
Study Them. Is. A. I. O., Rome.
Vidale, M., Miller, H., 2000. On the development of Indus technical virtuosity and its
relation to social structure. In: Taddei, M., De Marco, G. (Eds.), South Asian
Archaeology 1997. Is. A. I. O, Rome, pp. 115–132.
Wallerstein, I., 1974. The Modern World System. Academic Press, New York.
White, C.L., Beaudry, M.C., 2009. Artifacts and personal identity. In: International
Handbook of Historical Archaeology. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 209–225.
Wright, R.P., 1993. Technological styles: transforming a natural material object into
a cultural object. In: Lubar, S.D., Kingery, W.D. (Eds.), History from Things:
Essays on Material Culture. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp.
242–269.
Wright, R.P., 2010. The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Wynne-Jones, S., 2010. Lines of desire: power and materiality along a Tanzanian
caravan route. J. World Prehist. 23, 219–237.