The Affect of Crafting : Third Millennium BCE Copper Arrowheads from Ganeshwar, Rajasthan [1 ed.] 9781789690040

Citation preview

The Affect of Crafting Third Millennium BCE Copper Arrowheads from Ganeshwar, Rajasthan

Uzma Z. Rizvi

The Affect of Crafting Third Millennium BCE Copper Arrowheads from Ganeshwar, Rajasthan

Uzma Z. Rizvi

Rivizi text.indd 1

20/09/2018 11:12:52

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-003-3 ISBN 978-1-78969-004-0 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and Uzma Z Rizvi 2018

Design by Asad Pervaiz

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Rizvi text.indd 2

24/09/2018 10:56:59

The Affect of Crafting Third Millennium BCE Copper Arrowheads from Ganeshwar, Rajasthan

Uzma Z. Rizvi Archaeopress Archaeology

Rivizi text.indd 3

20/09/2018 11:12:52

Rivizi text.indd 4

20/09/2018 11:12:52

This volume is dedicated to the memory of Abba and Nana. For all the time we did not spend together, I spend my time now, imagining time.

Rivizi text.indd 5

20/09/2018 11:12:52

Table of Contents

8 List of Figures

& Tables 10 Acknowledgements 13 Preface

Part One





Chapter One

16 Introduction to the

Affect of Crafting

18 Crafting Theory: Thinking about the Affect of Crafting

Chapter Two

Chapter Three



30 Contextualising

44 GJCC Material

58 The Affect of

the Ganeshwar Copper Corpus: Archaeological Practice and Research

18 The Affective Artefact: 31 Paleo-climate, Irrigation, Objects of Colonial Desire and Subsistence and Objects of Science Agriculture 19 Technology and Crafting 33 Ganeshwar Jodhpura Cultural Complex: 20 Style and Form: Archaeological Surveys Thinking about the Function of Aesthetics 33 Survey Methodology in Archaeology 35 GJCC Survey 21 Craft Specialization and 38 Ganeshwar Complex/ Production Ladala Ki Dhani 21 Distinguishing Crafts: 38 Jodhpura Complex Rituals, Aesthetics, and Metallurgy 38 Cheeplata/Neerja Complex

23 Contextualising Crafting: Materiality and New 39 Kilarli Complex Materialisms 39 Khetri Complex 24 On Crafting Resonance 40 Archaeological 25 On Crafting Materials Excavations and Places at Ganeshwar 26 The Copper Collection from Ganeshwar 28 Chapter Summary and Introduction to Other Chapters

Culture and Chronological Implications

44 Material Culture of the GJCC 44 Ceramics 47 Copper Artefacts 47 Arrowheads 49 Celts 50 Fishhooks 50 Bangles 50 Miscellaneous Shapes 50 Microliths

Chapter Four Crafting and Ancient Sociality

59 Crafting Bodies 60 Labouring Places 61 Crafting Complexity 62 Crafting Resonance 64 Crafting Place 65 Belonging in the GJCC 66 Many Forms of Belonging: The Copper Hoards 66 The Affect of Crafting and Ancient Sociality

50 Small Finds 50t Chronology 53 Comparison of Copper Material: Regional Context 53 Comparison of Copper Material: Bagor, Rajasthan 54 A Short Note on the Copper Arrowheads from Chichali 54 Chronological Comparisons with Early Harappan Material 56 Chronological Connections with Kayatha Culture 56 A Short Note on Painted Grey Ware (PGW) and Chronological Connections 56 Proposed Chronology for GJCC

6

Rivizi text.indd 6

20/09/2018 11:12:52

Part Two

Appendices



Catalogue of

Arrowheads by Type

70 Type A 78 Type B 86 Type C 88 Type D 90 Type E 92 Type F 94 Type G 98 Unclassified



Images of All

Artefact Sheets from the Copper Collection of the Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums

112 Bangles 113 Blades 114 Celts 115 Chisels

Appendix I

Appendix II

128 List of all GJCC Survey Sites

146 Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the 140 List of Sites with Vitrified State Department Waste Materials of Rajasthan 144 List of Metal Production Sites—2003 Survey Results 145 List of Mining and Raw Material Sites—2003 Survey Results

116 Hairpins 117 Hooks 119 Rings 120 Rods 121 Sawpiece 122 Spearheads

166

Bibliography

123 Wires

174

Index

124 Miscellaneous 125 Sikar Museum

7

Rivizi text.indd 7

20/09/2018 11:12:52

List of Figures & Tables All figures and tables are the author’s unless otherwise noted on figure and table captions

Figures Figure 1.1

Figure 2.1

Figure 3.1

Satellite map of Rajasthan with explored GJCC sites

Map of region with GJCC, Ahar Banas, and Harappan sites marked

GJCC ceramic sample from 2000 Survey

Figure 2.2

GJCC incised ware, Hawa Mahal Museum

Figure 1.2 Map of Rajasthan with district lines and explored GJCC sites

Figure 1.3

Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites

Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites based on 2003 Survey that document vitrified metal waste material.

Figure 2.3

Figure 1.4

Ladala ki Dhani, vitrified metal waste deposits

Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites with evidence of smelters

Figure 1.5 Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites with evidence of raw material procurement

Sarpanj, Patwari and others discussing mapping at Jodphura

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5 Section of mound covered in vitrified metal waste, Singhana

Figure 2.6 Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites based on 2003 Survey that document vitrified metal waste material

Figure 2.7 Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites with evidence of smelters

Figure 2.8 Metal production feature, Rasali

Figure 2.9 Metal production feature, Burjiwala

Figure 2.10 Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites with evidence of raw material procurement

Figure 2.11 Copper source, Dhowri ki Dongri

Figure 2.12

Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3 GJCC reserved slip ware, Hawa Mahal Museum

Figure 3.4 Copper artefacts from Ganeshwar excavations

Figure 3.5 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations

Figure 3.6 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations, Type A

Figure 3.7 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations, Type B

Figure 3.8 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations, Type C

Figure 3.9 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations, Type D

Figure 3.10 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations, Type E

Figure 3.11 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations, Type F

Figure 3.12 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations, Type G

Map of site of Ganeshwar, drawing with community members

8

Rivizi text.indd 8

20/09/2018 11:12:52

Tables Figure 3.13

Table 2.1

Table 3.1

Copper celt from Ganeshwar excavations

Summary of estimated dates and studies for paleo-climate of Northern India during mid/late Holocene

Metallurgical analysis: percentage of copper in artefact from Ganeshwar

Table 2.2

Ganeshwar-Jodhpura periodisation based on excavation reports

Figure 3.14 Copper fish hooks from Ganeshwar excavations

Figure 3.15 Copper bangle from Ganeshwar excavations

Figure 3.16 Copper floral piece from Ganeshwar excavations

Figure 3.17 Copper half wheel piece from Ganeshwar excavations

Figure 3.18 Barrel shaped stone mottled bead, Ganeshwar

Estimate of settled area for the GJCC (in hectares)

Table 2.3 Percentage of types of sites (based on 2003 Survey)

Table 2.4 Comparisons of number of GJCC multifunctional sites

Table 2.5 Periodisation of Ganeshwar based on excavations

Table 3.2

Table 3.3 Radiocarbon dates from Jodhpura— Charcoal Samples

Table 3.4 Projected dates for Ganeshwar and Jodhpura chronology

Table 3.5 Chronological comparisons between Ganeshwar and Bagor

Table 3.6 Calibrated dates and relative chronological markers for the GJCC

Figure 3.19 Arrowheads from Bagor

Table 3.7

Figure 3.20

GJCC chronological framework in regional context

Copper tools from the site of Nal

Table 3.8

Figure 3.21

Chronological comparisons with examples used—GJCC in regional context

Copper tool from Ganeshwar excavations

Figure 3.22 Copper material from Kalibangan

Figure 3.23 Copper arrowheads from Banawali

Figure 3.24 Copper celts from Kayatha

9

Rivizi text.indd 9

20/09/2018 11:12:52

Acknowledgements

This volume has benefitted from the collaborative efforts of friends and colleagues here in the United States and in India. I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues at the Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums: Arvind Mayaram (Indian Administrative Service), Dr. Lalit Panwar (Indian Administrative Service), Mrs. Naseem Hussein (Deputy Secretary), Mr. A. K. Jaghadari (Director, Department of Archaeology and Museums), Mr. Zaffar Khan (Excavation Officer, Department of Archaeology and Museums), Shri Daya Ram, and for all the years of friendship, support, and endless cups of tea, Pankaj Dharendra. I would be remiss if I did not mention the officers from the Archaeological Survey of India, Jaipur office, who were always helpful. I would also like to acknowledge the intellectual guidance of Shri R. C. Agrawala, Shri V. J. Kumar, Dr. Rima Hooja and Dr. R. C. Swarnkar (Department of Anthropology, University of Rajasthan). This study is indebted to Harphool Singh, Dr. Ambika Dhaka, H. C. Misra, and Nidhi Misra—all of whom were integral to its success. The late Gregory L. Possehl, University of Pennsylvania, was invaluable to this project (and my career), as have been my continued conversations with Robert Preucel. Integral to these projects have also been my research assistants, Clare Constantine (Stanford University), Erin Silverstein, Samudyatha Mysore Subbarama, and Julia Rittenberg (Pratt Institute), and designer, Asad Pervaiz. Sections of this book have been refitted from other sources, including my PhD dissertation, Configuring the Space In-Between: Redefining the Ganeshwar Jodhpura Cultural Complex in Chalcolithic Northeastern Rajasthan, India (Anthropology, UPenn 2007); “Crafting Communities and Producing Places: Copper, Settlement patterns, and Social Identity in the Ganeshwar Jodhpura Cultural Complex, Rajasthan, India,” in Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archaeology of South Asia (edited by S. Abraham, P. Gullapalli, T. Raczek, and U. Rizvi, pp. 315–340, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2013), and “Crafting Resonance: Empathy and Belonging in Ancient Rajasthan” (Journal of Social Archaeology, 2015).  Versions of sections have also been presented at conferences: first, at the 2007 Society for American Archaeology Meetings and continuing through to 2008 during my post-doctoral work at Stanford University. Parts of it appeared again at Theoretical Archaeological Group meetings in 2010, at the Society for American Archaeology

Meetings in 2011, and most recently at the Annual South Asia Archaeology workshop in 2013. This book emerges from research that was made possible by the financial support of the FulbrightHayes Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA PR/Award No. P022A020048) Grant, the George F. Dales Fellowship, the Zwicker Fellowship (UPENN), and the Mellon Foundation Fellowship for Faculty Research (Pratt Institute). Preliminary work was funded by the Department of Anthropology (UPENN) Summer Field Funds (2000). I would also like to acknowledge the institutional support of the American Institute of Indian Studies (AIIS) and the American Institute of Pakistan Studies (AIPS). Additionally, I have benefitted greatly from the support of Richard Meadow and his colleagues at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, for access to and help with the Paul Yule archives. I thank my colleagues who work on the archaeology of South Asia with whom I have established a vibrant intellectual community, whose support and debates have seen me through many a difficult turn. Those with whom I have worked most closely over the years and require special mention are Shinu Abraham, Praveena Gullapalli, Teresa Raczek, Namita Sugandhi and Marta Ameri. I have often bent the ear of Heather Miller, who has always been gracious in her guidance and assistance and to whom I owe a great deal for her insight, as well as Mark Kenoyer and Richard Meadow. In addition to these individuals, Josh Wright and Benjamin Porter have interacted with this material through the 10 year wait to publish and have influenced and supported my work in crucial ways. And at my home institution, Pratt Institute, the following individuals have contributed enormously to ensuring this volume came to completion: Ann Holder, Lisabeth During, Gregg Horowitz, Carl Zimring, Francis Bradley, Josiah Brownell and Sophia Straker-Babb. For her graciousness and support, I would like to also thank Gina Shelton, our reference librarian at the Pratt Library. The Ganeshwar Jodhpura Cultural Complex (GJCC) survey project was possible with the undying support of key individuals in New Delhi, Pune, Udaipur, Baroda and Jaipur, India. I must thank and acknowledge the following: Dr. R. S. Bisht (Archaeological Survey of India) for all the hours and discussions he obliged me with while in Delhi, Dr. A. Nath (Archaeological Survey of India) for his open-door policy, quick survey methodology classes on cold January mornings, and his ability

10

Rivizi text.indd 10

20/09/2018 11:12:52

to touch the hearts of students worldwide. I will always remember debating the third millennium BCE while simultaneously learning how to navigate the Delhi bus system with Shri B. M. Pande, who taught me so much. In Pune, my primary advisor at Deccan College, Dr. V. Shinde, intellectually shaped my research; and Mr. Bhandare (AIIS-Pune), who was instrumental in setting my work up during my first year there. In Udaipur: Drs. L. Pandey, and J. Kharakwal—both of whom continue to inspire and support my work in the region. In Baroda: at M.S. University, Drs. V. N. Sonawane, K. Krishnan, K. K. Bhan and A. Prasad—each of whom helped tremendously in the preliminary stages of this research project. Of course, this survey would not have been possible without my core survey team, whose diligence, good humor and archaeological expertise were invaluable to this project: H. C. Misra, Rakesh Sharma, John Tennyson, Nidhi Misra, Zehra Rizvi, Ambika Dhaka and Ashish Nagar. It is also important to acknowledge the institutional support in India that I received from both the American Institute of Indian Studies, where Dr. Pradeep R. Mehendiratta and Purnima Mehta have always been supportive and kind, and the Fulbright India office, where Ms. Bharati and Girish Kaul made all the paperwork just a little easier to deal with, and to Professor Jane Schukoske for her unending support and good cheer. More over and beyond, there are the superfriends: Sunila Kale, Naisargi Dave, and Surabhi Kukke—each of whom has had a hand in making me the scholar/woman/mother/friend I am today. Many thanks also to the editors at Archaeopress, in particular David Davison, whose patience, good humor and willingness to let Asad and me experiment with form was much appreciated. This volume has benefitted enormously from early edits by Murtaza Vali and copyediting by Michael Jennings. Last, but not least, I must thank my family for their years of unrelenting support, understanding and willingness to put up with all of my shenanigans: thank you, Amie, Abbu, Zehra and Sakina. And my other family—particularly Shakir Uncle and Nargis Aunty—thank you for always supporting me unconditionally in my ambition and research; Fatubai and Zahra, you are sisters to both me and my daughter; and Moose, we are bereft and miss you unconditionally. I could not have done any of this without the light of my eyes, the loves in my heart, my critically engaged, supportive and wonderful family: Murtaza Vali and Zainab Sophia.

11

Rivizi text.indd 11

20/09/2018 11:12:54

12

Rivizi text.indd 12

20/09/2018 11:12:57

Preface

The material presented in this book has waited a long time to be published. In 2003 I presented the director of the State Department of Archaeology and Museums, Rajasthan, A. K. Jagdari, with three copies of a CD of images of the copper material from the Ganeshwar excavations (1978–79), along with a final report of work in Rajasthan. I was indebted to him and the department for providing me the opportunity to document the landscape and the copper material. As such, and in the spirit of decolonization, I felt I should provide the department the first chance to publish the images of copper material, and only if they were unable to do so within a certain span of time would I publish the images. We agreed to a couple things that day: first, we negotiated a time frame. I agreed to wait 10 years before publishing the images. Second, we agreed that every image of the arrowheads would be represented if possible. A decade later I visited the department’s offices in order to see if a publication of this material was in process, and as none was, I am honoured to present this material for publication. With this publication, I have fulfilled, to the best of my ability, both of my promises to the State Department of Archaeology and Museums, Rajasthan. In the years 2000 and 2003 when I was conducting my doctoral dissertation research, while I had very little guidance on how to decolonize archaeological practice, it was clear to me that it had to happen. In retrospect, in some instances I gave up too much power, authorship, and authority; and in other moments, not enough. But that was to be expected, because archaeology as a discipline had yet to really understand, engage with or work through decolonization. There was, by then, some sense of community archaeology, and with the help of that scholarship, and with a look to history, in particular to the subaltern studies group, I figured out a methodology, an ethic, a community based research practice, and what a postcolonial archaeology might look like. I have, since conducting this research, published on

all of those aspects, but one aspect that I continued to wait upon was a more detailed discussion of the copper artefacts from the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Jaipur collection. In many ways, a decade passing has been useful because I approach this material from a mature stance, and I have a different relationship with my discipline, with the materials and with ancient South Asia. This decade between research and publishing has taught me the value of slow analysis and thoughtful research. This is a very simple project, with both the crux and crisis located in the same space. In making things, subjectivities are also constructed, places are also crafted, aesthetic empathy creates resonances and senses of belonging, and everything involved is transformed for having experienced each other. In much the same way this project has transformed me and my research interests. And for that, I am grateful.

Uzma Z. Rizvi Brooklyn, NY January 2015

13

Rivizi text.indd 13

20/09/2018 11:12:57

Rivizi text.indd 14

20/09/2018 11:12:57

Part One The Affect of Crafting

Rivizi text.indd 15

16

Chapter One Introduction to the Affect of Crafting

30

Chapter Two Contextualising the Ganeshwar Copper Corpus: Archaeological Practice and Research

44

Chapter Three GJCC Material Culture and Chronological Implications

58

Chapter Four The Affect of Crafting and Ancient Sociality

20/09/2018 11:12:57

Chapter One Introduction to the Affect of Crafting

This book provides an interdisciplinary lens to the copper material collected and excavated from Ganeshwar, while reconceptualising the GaneshwarJodhpura Cultural Complex (GJCC) in third millennium BCE India. The GJCC are communities of copper producers. Located in Northeastern Rajasthan, these settlements are bound together by a shared cultural vocabulary that encompasses similarities in material culture, production of copper tools, and geographic proximity to copper mines (Figure 1.1: map of region). For over a decade, the focus of my research has been on establishing links between technological complexity and socio-political complexity (2007, 2010, 2013a). I have demonstrated how the GJCC is an indigenous development that sustains a larger regional economic need for copper products in the Ancient South Asian landscape (2007). The underpinnings for regional economic organization are resource specialized complexes located in highly circumscribed regions where copper is a natural resource (Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning 2003). These copper producing communities may have come together through variables, such as population increase—technological knowhow, or a simple adaptation to a landscape, but central to understanding them is their relationship to copper. This book is about the relationships between copper and humans that produce practices, forms, styles, and traces on a landscape. It is through those relationships that material, humans, and cultures are transformed and through which we might understand ancient sociality. ‘Ancient sociality’ describes the many simultaneous social relationships that exist among all things (human, animal, mineral, and so

forth). This book interrogates how the (intangible) social is produced through material relations. It illustrates how affective responses of belonging emerge in those material moments linking an evocative intimacy to specific things and landscapes. This volume presents an interrogation of materiality and crafting, a consideration of the situatedness of the technological practice of crafting itself, and the forms of relationships that exist between all things transformed in the act of crafting: bodies, minerals and landscapes. Linked to those transformations, this volume presents an argument for cultural resonance as a manner through which to understand the resilience and repetition of certain styles and forms of copper arrowheads across the region during the third millennium BCE. Morphological consistency is theorized as producing affective responses that engender belonging: one belongs through things. Prior to this study, the GJCC had predominantly been considered in relation to the Indus Civilization as a resource area, a marginal and frontier region (Agrawala 1978a and b, 1979a and b; Agrawala and Kumar 1982; Hooja 1994; Sinha 1997). This

argument reflects early interpretations of the region as a hunting-gathering society based on the presence of microliths and copper arrowheads (Agrawala and Kumar 1982, 127). These interpretations are also based on comparative evidence for sedentary agrarian practices, as seen at sites like Kalibangan, Ahar, and Gilund (Agrawala and Kumar 1982,127; Hooja 1994,128). I challenged this interpretation in my PhD dissertation (2007) and will present a brief discussion of paleoclimate, ancient irrigation studies and material culture that index agricultural practices

16

Rivizi text.indd 16

20/09/2018 11:12:57

Rajasthan

Explorations Rajasthan Border India

N

0

62.5

125

250 Kms

Figure 1.1 Satellite map of Rajasthan with explored GJCC sites marked

in the GJCC in chapter two. The excavations at Ganeshwar and Jodhpura do not suggest a lack of sedentary agricultural practice; rather, the evidence suggests different agro-cultural practices in antiquity. The lack of architecture for the storage of surplus is more likely an issue related to the scale of excavations at these various sites. As early as 2900 BCE, the GJCC emerges as a community with subsistence strategies, including fishing and hunting, as evidenced by fishhooks and faunal remains, as well as some early farming suggested by paleo-climate reconstructions, burnt grains/seeds and grinding stones, found in early contexts (Rizvi 2007, 186). A core argument that has run through all my work on the GJCC is that these communities were not politically or economically weak as they maintained their autonomy from adjoining larger political forces (such as the cultures of the Ahar Banas to the south/southwest and the Harappan to the north/northwest). The GJCC are complex communities, and this book interrogates how these communities maintained themselves as distinct cultural units (Porter 2013). Utilizing primary research conducted in the region and the documentation of

the copper corpus from Ganeshwar, I argue that the affect of crafting can be understood through the relationships between bodies, minerals and landscapes as they co-constructed senses of belonging through form and practice during the third millennium BCE. This book is focused on two acts of crafting in the GJCC: one of resonance and the other of place, and both through copper. The shift from thinking about crafting as primarily linked to economy and the production of material objects to a consideration of the affect of crafting allows this analysis to run parallel to discussions of craft specialization. Within the archaeology of South Asia, craft specialization highlights economics, technology, and material culture studies, dominating the archaeological literature (for example, Agrawal 2000; Agrawal and Kharakwal 2003; Biswas 1996; Kenoyer, Vidale, and Bhan 1991; H. L. Miller 2007; Ratnagar 2007; Sher and Vidale 1985; Sinopoli 2003; Wright 1991).

I am not suggesting that craft specialization and material culture studies are insignificant to this analysis. Rather, I believe that the analysis presented in this volume should be considered in addition to the more conventional forms of archaeological

17

Rivizi text.indd 17

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Chapter One

analysis; that is to say, there may be complimentary ways to look at the same material. Resonance and placemaking as theoretical tools developed in this book are situated between and intertwined with the literature of craft specialization (economics/ technology/complexity) and material culture studies/ materiality/new materialisms. The development of crafting as resonance and placemaking is influenced by all of these discourses. For example, it is through the exploration of economic specialization and technology that a focus on placemaking was possible and through thinking about objects as things in relation to theories of new materialism that a consideration for resonance as empathy and belonging emerged. A theory related to affect of crafting allows for multiple considerations and reconstructions of past socialities.

Crafting Theory: Thinking About the Affect of Crafting At the core of the affect of crafting is that what is crafted is not only a material object, but rather that a transformation is crafted in all manners (tangible/ intangible), experienced by everything involved. The archaeological literature of South Asia tends to focus on the finished craft object, the systems by which that object becomes a commodity, and the intersections of craft specialization studies with a material science approach to technology. The focus on the affect of crafting is a conscious move away from an analysis of such systems and materialities, providing, instead, an alternative appreciation of such processes, decision making, and transformations. It should be noted that there is methodological and philosophical promiscuity necessarily embedded within this framework, primarily as a means to disturb how these systems of knowledge have been created allowing for a different perspective on the same material. However, developing such a lens continues to be predicated upon a specific history of the artefact in archaeological theory within a regional (South Asian) archaeological literature. The following sections provide a framework which has informed the manners in which this particular study has developed. The Affective Artefact: Objects of Colonial Desire and Objects of Science Artefacts have a long history of having been constructed through discourses of desire, fetish, and collection. The excitement or thrill of holding, touching and possessing a relic or an artefact creates as its subtext a desire to expand systems of control to encompass

1 www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/history-nsf/ timeline/index.jsp (last accessed Sept. 28, 2015)

past times. The creation of a colonial desire for the artefact, links between coloniality and collections, as well as the manner in which the postcolonial nation has dealt with the artefact have been well documented in different contexts (de Jong 2008; Gosden 2004; Gullapalli 2008; Harrison 2006; Lahiri 2005). The artefact emerges as the desired object

not only in terms of collection but following, and arguably prompted by, that as the primary object of archaeological inquiry. The development of archaeology as a field or method of study and its link to modernity is an important framework within which to understand this project. Moreover, archaeology has a deep relationship with colonialism, which entangles the discipline with capitalism, nation building, and the development of a particular form of science that provides a basis for Western liberalism (Rizvi 2016; J. Thomas 2004). The transformation of these colonial spaces in the post-colonial time period creates the context within which artefact study emerges in distinct manners within the developing fields of anthropological archaeology, art history and ancient history. This moment is marked by the establishment of postcolonial nations with heterogeneous populations, and the development of these fields in these new contexts (Gullapalli 2008; Paddayya 2002; Trautmann and Sinopoli 2002). Global politics became explicitly technopolitical, and the importance of science as defending rational, progress oriented and secular ideals was reinstated with additional emphasis, mobilizing war time efforts for peace time research. The linking of national developmental agendas with science can be seen, for example, in the United States, through the establishment of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF emerged as a post war effort, first articulated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944. Legislation was put forward to Congress in 1945, and by 1950 the NSF was established.1 A key shift within anthropological archaeology at this time was the recognition that civilisational sweeps as grand narratives based on race/language/culture were no longer sufficient, and in fact, had problematic contemporary outcomes (Erdosy 1995; Johansen 2003; Rizvi 2013a; Shaffer 1984). As archaeology refocused its lens on the artefact with science and technology in mind, the distance that took place with colonial othering inherent in the ethnographic frameworks was replaced with that of scientific objectivity. This led to a reifying of a static object as artefact to be studied, and within South Asia, has defined how archaeology is valued and practiced by postcolonial nation-states

18

Rivizi text.indd 18

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Introduction to the Affect of Crafting

(Chadha 2010). The reliance on the objective distancing

of scientific analysis and method led to the artefact being coded first and foremost as empirical evidence of ancient cultures, effectively removing any connection to the present. Steeped in this core belief in science and its unquestioned benefit for archaeology, Lewis Binford placed Archaeology within Anthropology, relying upon the artefact to illustrate the significance of how one might understand the larger system of culture: ‘Artefacts having their primary functional context in different operational sub-systems of the total cultural system will exhibit differences and similarities differentially, in terms of the structure of the cultural system of which they were a part’ (1962, 18). Such a perspective promoted the idea that there was material culture and that there was an intangible aspect of the artefact that connected to a larger cultural system, although the latter was not expressed as such. In the archaeology of South Asia, much of the literature was based on systems theories developed primarily to understand social evolutionary models of civilisation (Fairservis 1971; Malik 1968). In a shift away from considerations based on such models of power, Binford’s system based approach to material culture applied a scientific method to similar questions and permitted archaeologists to focus in on certain systems of production—of material, of meaning, of ethnicities, and most significantly, for the Indus world, of the link between artefacts and complexity (Dales 1986; Dales and Kenoyer 1986; Fuller and Boivin 2002; Shaffer 1984; see Paddayya 2010 for a review of Binford’s impact on Indian archaeology). The idea that artefacts were a part of a larger system, and that by studying them one could speak to the culture, was also addressed specifically in relationship to social contexts of technology (Dobres 1995; Sherratt and Sheratt 2001). Perhaps most cited in relation to the social context of technology is André Leroi-Gourhan’s work on chaîne-opératoire or operational sequence (1964), in which the highly routinised practice, the step-by-step description of movement and gesture, is placed within a social space, and the life cycle of the crafted object is taken into account. This is distinct from later work on the cultural biography of things and their relationships to commoditisation by Igor Kopytoff (1986), or from Chris Gosden and Yvette Marshall’s work on the cultural biography of objects that locates and interprets the accumulation of meanings performed between people and objects (1999). Leroi-Gourhan’s work focuses on the systems of technology as

systems of culture. For him, such a focus is related to a philosophy of technology as it relates to the cognitive cultural worlds inhabited by individuals. For archaeologists, Leroi-Gourhan’s work is significant as a systemic approach to past culture, a system in which certain types of technologies existed based on the finished objects. Moreover, his theoretical framework provides a socio-cultural element to the study of technological processes of the past through a link with cognitive psychology (see Boivin 2008; Malafouris 2013; Renfrew 1994). Leroi-Gourhan’s philosophy of technology is a philosophical inquiry of the social symbolic; however, the vast majority of citations of chaîne-opératoire within archaeological literature of South Asia tend to be within a materialist perspective of technology. The material science approach allows archaeological discussion to embed technological happenings within a social fabric, with social implications (Gullapalli 2013; Vidale and Miller 2000). However, early materialist approaches in Indus archaeology challenged the utility of focusing on the operational sequence as it limited ‘the understanding of wider implications of technology’, and these archaeologists tend to look to paleotechnology to elaborate on the ancient world, establishing their interpretation in the material sciences (Vidale 1998, 179).

Technology and Crafting In the past two decades, paleotechnology (i.e., the study of ancient technology) has dominated the South Asian archaeological literature and imagination. This approach utilizes archaeology, stratigraphy, archaeometry, and ethnoarchaeology, arguing that technical systems are most consistently and reliably documented in the archaeological record (Bhan, Vidale, and Kenoyer 1994; Kenoyer, Vidale, and Bhan 1991; Vidale 1995). The significance of

paleotechnology in Indus studies also provided the platform for work on the provenance and sourcing of minerals and stones, allowing for tangible, scientific data related to the movement of resources (Law 2005; Law and Baqri 2003; Law and Burton 2006). The need for archaeological information to be placed in a socially viable interpretation provided the impetus to merge considerations of paleotechnology with technological systems (Lemonnier 1986; H. L. Miller 2007; Vidale and Miller 2000). The link between Indus technological systems as a value and social hierarchies became a very important conceptual bridge allowing for a merging of significant bodies of literature on technology and politics (Miller 2007; Rizvi 2011). Current studies related to technology and crafting within the

19

Rivizi text.indd 19

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Chapter One

South Asian context now assume the social context of technology, the use of technological systems, and their interrelationship, whether it is to interrogate specific technological applications like lamination of iron in ancient India (Gullapalli 2013) or to investigate the relationship of lithics to mobility and subsistence on the Mewar plains (Raczek 2011). The implicit interconnectivity of the discourses of technology to economics is what allows for resource extraction, provenance, and thus, the mineral itself to inform consequences of social hierarchy (Rizvi 2007; Sinclair 1995). In particular, this acuity of the mineral or raw material also informs the technological system as different levels of resistance of the material may require distinct processes. Within a technological system, whether specialized or not, while the operational sequence may be one aspect within many steps of technological production, it is a crucial one as it focuses on the incorporation of body techniques (Mauss 1979), making the act of production a social phenomenon (Dobres 2000; Gullapalli 2013; H. L. Miller 2007; Raczek 2013; Rizvi 2013b; Vidale and Miller 2000). Often

implicit, but profoundly significant to this study, is the idea that through an analysis of technical systems both body and raw material become mediums of negotiation among technology, society, materiality, and economy. The relationship between technology and crafting thus allows us to see how bodies and raw materials are simultaneously mired in various transformations, resistances and reformations within a shifting social system that accommodates those changes while informing the negotiations.

Style and Form: Thinking about the Function of Aesthetics in Archaeology The focus on systems within scientific approaches in archaeology begs the question of functionality, and within technology oriented archaeological work, a refocusing on aesthetics of style and form has recently emerged. Early archaeological work on style and form had established that there was functionality to style, i.e., the communication of cultural information (Wobst 1977), which led to social knowledge informing complexity (Conkey 1978). Despite cautions reminding archaeologists that though social information may be contained in material culture, that the relationship between the two cannot be thought of as one-to-one and may have more to do with social conditioning and context (Hodder 1979), there was still a clear desire on the part of archaeology to better understand the linkage between complexity and the artefact.

Ethnoarchaeological studies posited individual producers as conscious decision makers of style in the production of particular objects, linking both producers and users of each object to specific language groups or groups that hold similar values (Wiessner 1983). For other archaeologists, decisions of individuals were shaped by the traditions within which they were acculturated and, thus, had more to do with the social context within which the producers produced (Sackett 1985). Located somewhere between those two possibilities, ancient Indus social units began to be thought of as possible ethnic groups whose ‘salient cultural traits are material cultural symbols, such as distinctive ceramic styles, used to indicate membership in cooperative social units, and organized to facilitate access to sources of production and reproduction’ (Shaffer and Lichtenstein 1989, 119; see Hodder 1979). There were few after Jim Shaffer and Diane Lichtenstein willing to discuss Indus ethnicity because of its contemporary political implications in India, but certainly the idea of community memberships as cooperative social units and their relationship with economies of production and reproduction have informed the framework for many a South Asianist and have had a lasting impact on the ways that belonging to a social group is understood. In this equation, the significance of material cultural symbols as aesthetic choices assumes a tacit collective agreement contextualized within questions of religious ideology (Possehl 2002; Wright 2010). The exceptions to this trend include studies of seals that depict Indus unicorn ideology in which Mark Kenoyer posits a relationship between aesthetic forms of the unicorn and stages of urbanism (2013), and an argument put forward by Marta Ameri for Harappan regional diversity based on aesthetic choices, i.e., the style and iconography of seals (2013). Not traditionally coded in discussions of style and form or aesthetics in archaeology is the literature related to figurines. Discussions of style and form have predominantly been focused upon non-human forms, assuming that human representation could be taken as a potential one-to-one ideal. It was the feminist and queer approach to gender, sex and sexuality that allowed for representation to be problematised. Within the Indus context, Sharri Clark’s work has articulated the significance of these figurines as not explicitly rendering sex/gender/ sexuality, but rather that they ‘implicitly embody conceptions of sex, gender, and sexuality in Indus society’ (2003, 308). Clark’s study utilizes ‘shape, the presence of sex attributes, dress, ornamentation,

20

Rivizi text.indd 20

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Introduction to the Affect of Crafting

and certain postures’ to talk through possible gender roles and the fluidity of identity (2003, 323). There is an aesthetic dimension to implicit embodiment (Geller 2009; Joyce 2005; Voss 2008). Following the early work on gender, inspired by the continued feminist critique, archaeology has also understood the body as central in the discussions of crafting (Dobres 1995; Hendon 1996; Joyce 1998; Joyce and Hendon 2000). The tension between an embodied artefact and the process of crafting is pivotal to the analysis of the affect of crafting. Clark deals with this tension when referring to how the ‘Harappans physically engaged with and inserted themselves into the fabric of their world through terracotta figurines’ (2009, 235). Embodiment and weaving one into terracotta have been primarily discussed in relation to human or anthropomorphic figures. The affect of crafting imbues that possibility in all craft.

Craft Specialization and Production As bodies, materials, and technologies are enmeshed in a social fabric of reconstructed antiquity, archaeological analysis of craft production hones in on intentionality. Crafting presupposes a level of expertise and intention on the part of makers and of producers (Costin 1991; Sinopoli 2003). These two factors underlie the archaeological desire to understand crafting as a specialized activity, particularly focused on questions related to trade, exchange, and the structures of governance in place to support those relations. Craft specialization became a way by which archaeologists entered into discussion about the organization of production, which included the distribution of raw materials, the nature of technology and the divisions of labour. Cathy Costin argued for the distinction of specialization to be understood as ‘a differentiated, regularized, permanent, and perhaps institutionalized production system in which producers depend on extra-household exchange relationships at least in part for their livelihood, and consumers depend on them for acquisition of goods they do not produce themselves’ (1991, 4). Importantly, she drew our attention to issues the scale and contexts of production. As mentioned previously, these questions were and continue to be vital in the archaeology of South Asia (Bhan, Vidale, and Kenoyer 1994; Kenoyer, Vidale, and Bhan 1991; Law et al. 2012; Rizvi 2007). In a South Indian context, Shinu Abraham utilizes the study of craft production ‘to materially reconstitute the still-poorly understood social, political and economic systems of early Tamil South’ (2013, 240).

Within Indus scholarship this manifests as a focus on complexity and its impact on society, politics and the economy through an investigation of intensification, diversification and specialisation of the region’s agro-pastoral and craft-producing economy (Wright 2010, 145). It is through such foundational studies that broader questions related to craft specialization and the relationships between divisions of labour, questions of identity, and social value can be investigated (Clark 2007; Clark and Parry 1990; Costin and Wright 1998; Shaffer and Lichtenstein 1989). The concept

of identity allowed archaeologists interested in gender and division of labour to consider the relationship between the state and the individual (Costin 1996). Carla Sinopoli, in discussing the crafting of empire in Vijayanagra, highlights the significance of political economy when thinking about specialized craft labour, specifically demonstrating how they impact one another. Sinopoli articulates how different scales of craft may have differing levels of sociocomplexity and political economy associated with them (2003). Along similar lines, Teresa Raczek draws attention to everyday, non-specialist craft production in relation to Mewar lithic manufacture, focusing on objects ‘produced primarily for use by the maker and his or her household instead of for circulation’ (2013, 342). Circulation in this capacity does not mean the movement of things, but rather their explicit movement within economic systems, and presumes a direct relationship between the complexities of economic and political systems. In so far as there is specialisation of craft, there is intentionality to the use and labour of the body, and I would argue, the mineral/raw material and the landscape within which the crafting occurs. Thus, labouring bodies and minerals are circulating in the same social, political and economic systems as finished objects/ commodities, which inform the identity of those bodies and their relationship to materials.

Distinguishing Crafts: Rituals, Aesthetics, and Metallurgy It is assumed that although the economic processes and systems within which craft specialization occurs may have similar impacts on complexity, each form of crafting is itself distinct and involves various actants in multiple capacities. Compared to most other crafts, the crafting of metals has a unique position within archaeological worlds. Christian Jürgensen Thomsen introduced the three age system (stone, bronze, and iron) into archaeological discourse, intertwining typologies with chronologies and

21

Rivizi text.indd 21

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Chapter One

materiality with progress (1836). However, the high status given to metals within techno-archaeological imaginaries can be specifically traced back to V. Gordon Childe’s Huxley Memorial Lecture for the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland in 1944, entitled Archaeological Ages as Technological Stages. In this lecture, Childe posited stages of human technological evolution as cultural evolution linked primarily to metallurgical acuity, illustrating the sociological implications of each process of crafting tools. For Childe, the technological tradition as seen in material culture could be understood as social tradition (for more on Childe and cultural history, see J. Thomas 2004, 112–113). Implicit in the materially linked categorization of the Ages was an evolutionary, progress oriented, and scientific aspiration that categorized prehistory worldwide. The impact of these archaeological ages continues to be felt even in contemporary populations in the postcolony and with othered populations. I have argued elsewhere that there is a clear connection between the continued uncritical use of such archaeological labels to describe the behaviour of populations of people, exemplified by the common phrase ‘they still live in the Stone Age,’ and contemporary indigenous/Adivasi politics in India (Rizvi 2013a). Ironically, although Childe’s framework found its basis in tradition, the cultural historical framework did not encourage any non-technical aspect to crafting metal, such as cultural rituals associated with crafts—and archaeological interpretations about ancient smithing and smelting became resolutely about scientific metallurgy. Science, technology, and the industrial nature of the person, the ore, and the socio-political landscape became inextricably linked to each other, impacting archaeological interpretations and assessments of civilisational strength. The erasure of the non-technical elements in the deep past, however, could not erase the history of metallurgy in, for example, Britain prior to the industrial revolution, which had magic and ritual as a central aspect of crafting (Budd and Taylor 1995). By the time ethnoarchaeological research became mainstream within the archaeological imaginary (the 1990s), many examples, particularly from the global south, provided counter-balance, and technological research could include traditional and ritualized aspects. For example, in some cases in Sub-Saharan Africa, the transformation of ore into metal and subsequently into an object, indexing a control of fire, is coded as a dangerous act, with possible interference of ancestral spirits and acts of sorcery of fellow mortals

(Childs and Killick 1993; Cooper 2006). Smelting operations were carried out far from villages, required special protective charms and medicines, and were restricted to specific individuals, usually those with particular kin ties and with specialised training. While mining and smithing were more public enterprises, they also often required special precautions and rituals (Childs and Killick 1993, 325). In terms of craft specialization, intentionality, and questions of identity related to the labouring bodies and minerals, Reid and MacLean’s (1995) ethnoarchaeological study of smelting in Igurwa, an iron smelting centre in Karagwe, a nineteenth century kingdom in contemporary northwestern Tanzania, outlines precautions taken during crafting that have to do with gender and exclusion. In this context, the smelter and the smith are always male, the act of smelting is conceptualized as a procreative act, and the smelters, the furnace, and bellows take on the roles of sexual partners. Women, in particular fertile women, threaten the act of smelting, and they are excluded, except postmenopausal women. Children, male and female, are not excluded. The exclusion of women manifests spatially through the isolation of smelting sites away from settlements (1995, 149; see also Schmidt 1997). The materiality of the raw material is also significant as it carries socio-symbolic referents (Sinclair 1995). Dorothy Hosler’s work in western Mexico provides an example in which the raw material is considered in relation to the sound and aesthetics of the metal (1995). Analyzing the crafting of bells, Hosler uses ethno-historic and linguistic evidence to argue that the sound of the bells was linked to protection during conflict and war. Furthermore, the particular sound also played a significant role in structuring rituals around fertility and regeneration. Specific metallic colours, in particular gold and silver, were associated with solar and lunar deities, and the shimmering quality of these metals represented a form of sacred paradise. In this particular case, both aural and optical qualities of the metals engendered a sacred experience. Shereen Ratnagar’s work on early Indian technology draws our attention to the specificity of the raw material and how the distinction of each object is contingent upon the types of material utilized (2007). Ratnagar’s focus maintains the technological apparatus as co-determining the outcome and an assumption of a utilitarian/functional aspect to the understanding of the raw material. One of the key studies on the socio-symbolic aspects of copper and

22

Rivizi text.indd 22

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Introduction to the Affect of Crafting

Ancient India is Nayanjot Lahiri’s ethnographic work on metals and metal related artefacts as cultural signifiers (1995). She posits the purity of the copper alloy as representing conscious decision-making, as cultural signifiers evoking symbolic capital and individual agency to choose, produce, and consume pure copper alloy vessels. Laihiri outlines three positions upon which she constructs an argument for a particularly Indian cultural situation. First, the dominant tradition of working in copper of high purity recorded in the early Indian archaeological record fits in with what she indicates is the ritual importance of pure copper in ancient Indian texts. The continuity of this tradition and the relative position of superiority of craft-persons working in pure copper over those working with various alloys in the caste hierarchy are highlighted in her study. Second, Lahiri draws our attention to traditions of recycling objects and scraps of old metal, arguing that it must be considered a factor in the variation of elemental compositions of Indian metal artefacts. Finally, she draws attention to how metal or metal related objects are focused around specific historical events and folk beliefs; the stories/ myths and artefacts are linked in ways that suggest that the artefacts function as signifiers of social and cultural beliefs. Her study allows for an understanding of the production of symbolic value in which the materiality of the artefacts contains meanings and manifestations of social relationships and social control (1995).

Contextualising Crafting: Materiality and New Materialisms Deeply influencing this project is the concept of objectification or the view that people make themselves in the process of making things. Daniel Miller, borrowing this idea from Hegel, argues that objectification is the foundation for a dialectical theory of culture, and so the dualities that exist are the ways in which culture is constituted and vice versa (1987). This core concept repeats in many other forms, particularly within gender/sexuality studies that analyse ancient figurines as representations of the body (S. Clark 2009; Meskell 1998; Nakamura 2005). Particularly in the study of figurines, there is a tension between the politics of representation and intentionality. Framing the question of intentionality within an analysis of materiality allows both cognitive and psychological studies to be utilized as they inform behaviour. Lynn Meskell posits materiality to be how we meaningfully engage with the world, intermingling, negotiating, constituting, and shaping culture in both embodied and disembodied ways

(2004). What is unique about the idea of representa-

tion of the body as figurine is precisely the issue of intentionality of crafting a form of representation. In looking at Harappan figurines, Clark argues that in hand modelling the representations of human bodies from two clay pieces, the makers were actually more focused on the process and ideology rather than the more pragmatic aspects of the craft, thus suggesting an intentionality to the form (2009). Complicating that apriori assumption related to intentionality, Carrie Nakamura and Lynn Meskell’s work on figurines from Çatalhöyük points out that in the act of making, either in terms of deification or self-making, there are potentially other concerns that might inform the manner in which the representation is formed (2009). Theorising figurines in relation to intentionality forces one to contend with meaning embedded in materiality. Artefact design is then a distinct behavioural approach to material culture, which not only provides a biography of the artefact but contextualizes it within interactions and technical choices made, and what the behavioural significance of such choices might be (Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Skibo and Schiffer 2008). Related to fields of behavioural science, psychological studies related to skills acquisition, particularly through apprenticeships, have been considered in relation to Harappan carnelian beads and knapping practices (Roux, Bril, Dietrich 1995). In that particular study, ancient skill sets were reconstructed based on contemporary bead knapping in Khambhat, India. These psychological studies looked at value constructed and relationship to socio-economic status through an examination of how the actors handled the complexity of the tasks and their duration, and how this impacted apprenticeship (Roux, Bril, Dietrich 1995). However, some caution needs to be taken when considering these questions of intentionality in relation to behaviour and its link to psychology or cognition. As Lambros Malafouris has pointed out, the question of intentionality, causality and action stems from a Cartesian mode of thought (2013, 234). ‘Intentional states’, he argues, ‘are of or about things, whereas things in themselves may not be of or about anything’ (2013, 235, italics in original). By placing the conditions of intentionality upon the thing, the thing becomes a passive recipient of human intention, thus losing its agency (Rizvi 2015). Also utilizing knapping as an example, Malafouris argues that intentionality ‘is essentially constituted through an act of collaboration between human and material

23

Rivizi text.indd 23

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Chapter One

agency’, which supports ontology that thinks through and with matter (2013, 236). Malafouris’s claim impacts discourses of craft specialization with regards to the production of tools, crafts, spaces, and bodies. Although he is prescient in his discussion of intentionality, it is somewhat difficult to utilize his theoretical tools critically within current archaeological frameworks. Be that as it may, the caution related to intentionality is very important, and lingers around the affect of crafting. Within this mesh of thinking through and with matter, the human body maintains a distinct relationship with what it produces. An argument posited by philosopher Per Otnes focuses on the bodily components of production, in which, for example, one’s hands may be thought of as tools but are not in the same categories as other tools since they themselves (hands) are not produced or consumed (1997, 64–65). This nuanced distinction allows us to consider a skilled hand as a relation, rather than as a product unto itself. This shift places technology and tools in a separate category from the body and argues for distinct manners of contending with each. It is significant to conceptualize the body as whole, moving away from the mind/body split, in particular when considering representations of internalized schema. A representation cannot only be thought of in terms of what the craftsperson wants it to say, but rather, must be conceptualized as a dialog or a relation between bodies and materials. During the act of crafting, the craftsperson may be thinking through and with matter, and it is up to archaeological interpretation to attempt the same in its reconstruction of the past. In considering the relationship of power to materiality, Elizabeth DeMarrais (1997) argues that materialization is related to the production, control, and manipulation of highly visible, elaborate symbols and icons, events, and monumental architecture within the context of elite ideology and power. For DeMarrais, the materialization of ideology is the materialisation of culture (see also Sinopoli 2003). Materialisation is conceived of as a transformation of intangible values into material being (DeMarais, Castillo, and Earle 1996). Leroi-Gourhan’s chapter on Technics and Language (1993) explores this transformation as a relationship between emotion and graphic expression. His work compliments the focus on intentionality of process and its relationship to cognitive, psychological, and behavioural archaeological approaches, and links well with Alfred Gell’s work on art and the agentive properties of things (1992, 1998).

Within a framework of Peircean semiotics, Gell’s theory of art easily influenced archaeological research (see Graves-Brown 1995). Gell encouraged archaeology to consider art as a technology in its own right that creates an aura of enchantment, magic, and fetish around the thing itself. Art’s ‘technical virtuosity’ is embedded in its ability to elicit affective responses. Archaeological research has subsequently utilized Gell’s theories to consider various forms of archaeological artefacts and features thought to embed within themselves capacities to evoke emotions, from pilli miti as building material in households in Balathal, India (Boivin 2008) to the materiality of Indian Buddhism (Fogelin 2015). The influence of Charles Sander Pierce within archaeology is well demonstrated by Robert Preucel in his book on archaeological semiotics (2006). Three points made by Preucel are significant in framing my approach to this study: first, that archaeological interpretations themselves are a social semiotic act; second, that material culture can be understood not as a passive reflection of human behaviour but as an active social practice constitutive of social order; and finally, that materiality or material agency can be defined as the social constitution of self and society by means of the object world. Preucel argues that by looking at materiality, our focus shifts from material culture to material engagements with the world, and a Peircean framework provides a manner of sense making that is cognizant of these concerns. Most relevant for the approach adopted in this study is the manner by which Peircean semiotics provides a deeply contextual, situated, experiential and sensorial approach to the past (for other sensorial approaches to the past see Hamilakis 2015; Ryzewski 2012; Witmore 2005).

On Crafting Resonance The act of crafting produces an affective and embodied response. This volume focuses on one type of affective response, that of resonance. Resonance is theorized as an intangible affect that the material thing has beyond its formal physical boundaries within larger planes of perception, creating dynamic relationships among humans/ nonhumans and illustrating cultural decisions of material as vibrant matter. This definition of resonance is indebted to concepts of power and vibrant matter discussed in Jane Bennett’s work, specifically her use of Spinoza’s ascription of vitality to bodies as thing-power, even though I do not use that phrase explicitly (2010, 2–3).

24

Rivizi text.indd 24

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Introduction to the Affect of Crafting

If material has vibrancy and frequency it has the capacity to evoke an emotional and affective response to similar material, style and/or form. Such response may be coded as a sensory aesthetic empathy that relates to constituting subjective belonging in the ancient world. Such a framing creates a space within which to take into account our various entanglements, whether related to shifts in value from crafted artifact to meaningful signifying sets of relations (N. Thomas 1991) or the many ways in which things, humans and actions are dependent/co-dependent on each other to create meaning (Hodder 2011). Recognizing the scales of entanglements with ancient things provides insight into the development of ancient subjectivities. This aspect will be further developed in chapter four.

On Crafting Materials and Places Ruth Tringham has argued (1991, 1994) that archaeological places should be understood as deliberate creations of past actors that, as places, are in a continuous process of becoming. The simultaneity of a crafting of both material and place is unique in that in links the act of placemaking to specific technological motions and movements, each repetitive practice in the space helping to produce the place. If the location of a site is determined with special regard to function within a production system (however loosely defined), the craft practiced there becomes a significant framework/subtext to most, if not all, aspects of the individuals who live, operate in, and move through these spaces, and the place itself can be defined by its function (Binford 1982). The materiality of the craft and the processes of production are intricately linked to the ways in which the craftspeople and associated populations who inhabit the site begin to identify themselves (Sinopoli 2003). In this manner, producing place is directly linked to forms of social identity (Kealhofer 1999). The place becomes personal as the body is intimately involved in social practices undertaken in that area, even if they are not technologically or functionally relevant. Often placemaking in archaeological scholarship is linked to more sensual and memory-based stimuli (e.g., Ingold 1993; Tilley 1994; Witmore 2006). Within contemporary archaeological practice, placemaking, as a theoretical consideration, has also been linked to an act in the present of recognising or acknowledging the past (e.g., Rubertone 2008). Places become on a continuum of experience; on one hand, places are formed through locally specific daily usage, and on the other

are interventions of control enacted by political elite. It is the constant reproduction of experience at multiple scales in the place that situates and engenders a sense of belonging, producing sensorial and affective meanings that link bodies to local geographies (Harmansah 2014). Current research in South India has paved the way for linking past actors to landscapes (e.g., Bauer 2010, 2011; Johansen 2011; Morrison 2009; Sugandhi 2008). Kathleen Morrison’s study of water reservoirs

and the production of landscape histories in the Daroji Valley highlight how places are constructed and reconstructed through time, linking archaeology, land use and social history (2009). Building upon the ability to utilize landscapes’ connections to political and social decision making, Andrew Bauer’s work (2010, 2011) highlights the link between the social significance of landscape creation and the (re)production of social relationships, specifically in terms of megalithic ritual spaces at the Iron Age (c. 1200–300 BCE) site of Hire Benakal. In a related study, Peter Johansen (2011) investigates the Iron Age settlements in the Tungabhadra Corridor in order to better enunciate the political architectonics— specifically the politics of constructing, maintaining and contesting social differences—of the region. In each of these studies, the past social actors’ active decision making with regards to placemaking is highlighted in an effort to better contextualise their cultural traces upon the landscape. Critical social theory on space and place focuses on urban formations (e.g., de Certeau 1984; Harvey 1990; Lefebvre 1991; Soja 1989). However, demonstrated by the work discussed above, there is no reason to assume that placemaking can only occur in such contexts. The relationship between spatial definition and placemaking allows for a multi-scalar and multi-contextual framework in which, particularly in the case of the GJCC, the functionality of the site as a site of crafting may be a possible indicator for the way in which space is defined and place is made by active decisions undertaken by community members, even in a non-urban, ancient context. Recognizing the nature of community decisions in an archaeological context is contingent upon recognizing the functionality of the site; if one is producing copper artefacts and requires specific types of raw materials, where the site is placed is an active decision. Through these interwoven discourses I have established a framework that allows us to better understand how things shape and are shaped by cognition, sensorial experiences, materiality and place. These

25

Rivizi text.indd 25

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Chapter One

mutual transformations are at the core of understanding the complexity of ancient sociality and allow us to situate the study on resonance and placemaking within an interdisciplinary archaeological scholarship.

The Copper Collection from Ganeshwar This volume documents the largest copper corpus from the Indian subcontinent from the third to second millennium BCE. These artefacts were collected from the site of Ganeshwar (Tehsil Neem Ka Thana; District Sikar; geo coordinates N 27° 40’ 46”, 75° 48’ 93” E), Rajasthan. The site of Ganeshwar is one of the two type-sites of the GJCC. Each artifact listed in the 1978–79 Ganeshwar excavation register is documented in this volume (see Appendix 2 for a list). There are many different artefact types in this collection, and I have chosen to honour the original naming of the artefacts to maintain the interpretive stance taken at the initial moment of the registry construction. This study focuses on the artefact type described as “arrowheads” because it constitutes almost half of the collection. The records utilized in this project are the original reports recorded in the official excavation registers at the offices of the State Department of Archaeology and Museums in Jaipur, Rajasthan, between 8 March and 10 June, 1979. In 2003, I was granted access to this collection between 21 February and 10 April, dependent upon the availability of two museum personnel, Zafarullah Khan (acting excavation officer) and Daya Ram Shankar (assistant to the officer), who were required to be present with me at all times during the documentation process. After the documentation of this material, I presented the State Department of Archaeology and Museums with multiple copies of the data (as CDs), along with the (negotiated) agreement that I would wait a decade before publishing the material myself. This register includes 943 copper artefacts of which 432 are noted as arrowheads in the original document; of those, only 133 were used to construct the typology presented in chapter three. The region of focus is the northeastern sector of the state of Rajasthan, India, between the contemporary cities of Jaipur and Delhi. In 2003, I conducted a series of collaborative and cooperative archaeological surveys with villages in this region (Rizvi 2006, 2007). Because of its history of excavation, one of the main sites surveyed was Ganeshwar (Rizvi 2007). The GJCC Survey 2003 provides some context for the collection documented and analysed in this 2 volume as it was recorded from For colonial accounts Ganeshwar during the 1978–79 of copper exploitation in this region, see: excavation field season.

The GJCC settlements cluster within the regions of the Aravalli Hill Range, primarily along the Kantli, Sabi, Sota, Dohan and Bondi rivers. This part of India is known for its farming and pastoral resources, as well as for minerals, the most important of which is copper. Khetri, the largest copper source in Rajasthan, has been exploited since antiquity and continues today as one of the major resources for copper production in India.2 This region tends to be sandy, with some areas of alluvium underneath the topsoil. Due to soil type, vegetation tends to be thorny and with short trees. These thorny forests are scattered mainly in the arid areas, covering the districts of Nagaur, Pali, Sikar, Jhunjhunu, Ajmer, Jodhpur and Jaisalmer. Some of the dominant species of plant cover in this region include: Prosopis, Capparis deciduas, Acacia, Leucophloca, Acacia nilotica, Salvadora oleoides, Balanites, Ziziphus, and Calatropis. During the rainy season, the vegetation also includes: Tephrosia purpurea, Boeharrvia diffusa, Tribulus terrestes, Crotolaria, Achyranthus aspera, Lecus molussiama, Corchrus depresus, Heliotropium strigosum, Digera; grasses like Setaria glauca, Digitaria, Sangunials. Tetrapogon tenellus, Brachina ramose and Eragosties pilosa; climbers and twines like Cocculus pendulus, Vallaris solinacea, Cryptostegia grandifolia, Ipomea, pestigrides, Rhychosia minima and Vigna catjag; and finally, the winter annuals are Argemone maxicana, Pontella supine, Chenopodium alubum, Polygorum plebeguin, Heliotropium ecchwaldii and grasses like Eragostis ciliaii, Cymbopogon and Sporobulus tremulis (Jain 1992, 68–69; Saxena 1995, 34–45). By far, the most prevalent bird species in the region today are the grey partridge (Francolinus pondicerianus), two specimens of quails (Coturnix coturnix and C. coromendelica), and a common sandgrouse (Pterocles exustus) (Rana and Mittal 1992, 104). Archaeological evidence for the GJCC has been primarily located in the districts of Jaipur, Sikar and Jhunjhunu in Rajasthan (Figure 1.2: map of survey area). The sites are found in and around the Aravalli hill range and in close proximity to copper resources. This hill range is broader in the south, while the northern track is more akin to separate hills, resulting in lower elevations. The range is composed of Delhi System rock formations that start in Delhi in the north and run through Ajmer to Palanpur in the south. In the north, between Delhi and Jaipur, the ridges composed of Delhi quartzite and schist comprise an intricate system of hill masses convex to the southeast. The main axis of the ridge is in the region of Khetri and Sambhar (Dave 1995, 21). The Delhi System rock formation is recognized as the primary source of copper mineralization.

Imperial Gazetteer of India: Rajputana 1908, pp. 52, 71.

26

Rivizi text.indd 26

20/09/2018 11:12:59

Introduction to the Affect of Crafting

Rajasthan

Explorations Rajasthan Border India

N

0

62.5

125

250 Kms

Figure 1.2 Map of Rajasthan with district lines and explored GJCC sites marked

The main copper deposits occur in Khetri and Singhana in Jhunjhunu District and Dariba and Kho in Alwar District. Some of these copper deposits are associated with small co-deposits of cobalt minerals. Among the non-metals present in the Delhi System are deposits of barites at Sainpuri and Bhankher in Alwar District and steatite near Dausa (Dave 1995, 22). In total, 385 GJCC sites have been recorded; the compilation of these sites comes from the survey conducted by the GJCC Survey team (myself and collaborating partners) and other archaeologists, and is roughly spread over 34,000 square kilometres, with an estimated settled area at 12.51 square kilometres (see Appendix 1; Hooja and Kumar 1997). The survey includes settlement sites, vitrified metal waste sites, mining sites and raw material processing sites, often found in close proximity to each other, each providing a different specialized activity or resource (Figures 1.3–1.5: GJCC survey maps). The integration of the various types of sites contextualizes their clustering. The high number of recorded sites in a relatively small geographic region suggests a high density of population and activity. Further, increased social and political complexity

is reflected by the spatial practices of the GJCC communities that formed around copper extraction and production technologies (Rizvi 2007). The placement of sites is a decision that can be documented archaeologically through site patterns. The GJCC site patterns illustrate a separation of smelting sites and settlements index active decision making by the community of producers. The Ganeshwar copper arrowheads are products of a cultural context that provides meaning and value to the artefact. Their process of production is infused with a practice that is also culturally specific and may have roles and rituals associated with it that fall along gender or age lines— making each corporeal experience equally significant to the larger process of production. Also important to keep in mind is the community-based aspect of production which, as Ratnagar has argued, ‘was a technology that no single household could manage on its own’ (2007, 121). Thus, spaces in which copper production took place were spaces in which the roles from society and culture mapped on to those of production. These roles could possibly be negotiated in ways that in turn affected society, thus impacting our understandings of ancient sociality.

27

Rivizi text.indd 27

20/09/2018 11:13:01

Chapter One

Sites with Vitrified Metal Waste Materials

Sites w. Vitrified Metal Waste Rajasthan Border Rajasthan

N

0

12.5 25

50

75

100 Kms

Figure 1.3 Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites based on 2003 Survey that document vitrified metal waste material

Metal Production Sites

Metal Production Sites Rajasthan Border Rajasthan

N

0

12.5 25

50

75

100 Kms

Figure 1.4 Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites with evidence of smelters

Mining and Raw Material Sites

Mining and Raw Material Sites Rajasthan Border Rajasthan

N

0

12.5 25

50

75

100 Kms

Figure 1.5 Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites with evidence of raw material procurement

Chapter Summary and Introduction to Other Chapters This introduction sets the framework within which this volume will now unfold. Shifting the focus of research in this region from solely determining settlement complexity, the GJCC is analysed through site placement and a study of the copper corpus, in particular the copper arrowheads. In doing so, this research illuminates the many relationships and forms of communication between copper and humans that produce practices, styles and traces on bodies, materials and landscapes. The chapter began with a consideration of the artefact as part of the discourses of colonialism as an object of desire and its transformation to an object of science. By situating technology and crafting within the South Asian context, this chapter presented the function of aesthetics in archaeology, and the heightened focus on craft specialization within regional literature. In order to place the crafting of copper within those discourses, this introduction then moved through scholarship about metallurgy and the role of symbolic, cognitive and behavioural models for interpreting crafting. This volume chooses to engage with crafting through discourses related to materialism and new materialisms in order to posit the crafting of resonance. Resonance is only one of two affective conditions related to crafting considered in this volume. The second is placemaking delivered through the crafting of materials, bodies and landscapes. To take into account the latter, this introductory chapter ends with a short note on the copper corpus from Ganeshwar. It is the following two chapters (chapters two and three) that provide much of the archaeological data relevant to the discussion of crafting in the GJCC. Chapter two provides basic archaeological information related to the GJCC, as well as a section specifically dedicated to paleo-climate, irrigation and subsistence agriculture. This section specifically challenges the notion that the GJCC was not a sedentary agricultural community. Archaeological evidence in the form of storage space, grinding stones and saddle querns, in addition to favourable conditions for agriculture based on the climatic indices and the suggestion of irrigation canals, all index the possibility of agriculture as a form of subsistence. Their sedentary lifestyle, however, may have been a result of investment in a landscape not just for agriculture but also for mineral resources, and it is important to recognize that these stakes are not mutually exclusive.

28

Rivizi text.indd 28

20/09/2018 11:13:02

Introduction to the Affect of Crafting

In order to understand the relationships among sites and how they link to notions of placemaking, chapter two also provides primary data of the 2003 GJCC survey. Different kinds of sites were coded based on their functionality as a mining site, habitation site, vitrified metal waste site, or raw material processing site. These type sites were selected because this was what was visible on the surface for survey. The sites also clustered in specific formations, and based on cluster analysis and discussions with community members in the villages of both Ganeshwar and Jodhpura, five complexes were identified. The context of the copper corpus represented in this volume is the final section of chapter two, which synthesises the excavation reports from the site of Ganeshwar. The excavation reports provide context for chapter three, which focuses specifically on the material culture and regional comparisons of form, utilized to build chronology. Providing an overview of the ceramics, with short notes on microliths and some miscellaneous finds, the bulk of chapter three discusses the copper material from the site of Ganeshwar. It provides a typology for the arrowheads and shorter descriptions of the other copper material found at the site. This detailed description is necessary as it allows us to then contextualise and compare it to other copper material from the region and analyse similarities not only as indicators of politics, but also as forms engendering belonging. The chronological comparisons of copper found in different contexts suggest cultural resonance is produced as an affective response to crafting. And this resonance may have been influenced by bodies, minerals and landscapes as each plays an important role in intersectional identity formation. The data and chronology lead us into the final chapter (chapter four) that focuses on the affect of crafting and its relationship to ancient sociality. This final chapter first contends with the ontology of the corpus prior to investigating crafting bodies. The first section of the chapter deals not only with issues related to labour and craft, but also the ways in which the labour of crafting crafts the labouring body itself. Moving through all the steps of production, this section illustrates the corporeality of each body situated in the act of crafting. Keeping in mind that embodied practices unfold in specific places, the section that follows analyses the labour of landscapes. Using the survey data and focusing on the ways in which the land is transformed by, and works in relation to, the labouring and crafting body provides an intertextual understanding of the

many simultaneous affects involved in the production of the copper corpus. These links between the labouring bodies and landscapes aid our understanding of complexity of the third millennium BCE GJCC. These concerns are all related to those crafting the materials and cannot, on their own, account for those not engaged in such labour. Even if one did not craft copper, one existed in the space of an affect that was simultaneously crafted. This aesthetic empathetic response evoked a sense of belonging to a crafting community, or to the vibrancy of the mineral itself. The intimate evocative sense of belonging to a community is what I argue is the crafting of resonance. Also linked to this larger conceptual framework, which accounts for bodies involved and not involved in crafting, are ways to understand the crafting of place. The discussion of crafting place can be considered a metadiscursive element of the labouring places, maintaining within it the ability to talk about place complexity as one more form of crafting community. The larger project that this volume addresses is the question of how one belongs to the GJCC, and that is the final aspect of chapter four. In this section, I parse through the many ways in which things belong within sets of relations, collective memory, and social life. That sense of belonging might also give rise to forms of nostalgia and ways in which a material diaspora might be understood. All of these possible analyses exist around the vibrancy of the copper mineral and the corpus itself. In order to visually re-present the copper vibrancy and aesthetic form, Part Two of this book is a catalogue of copper artefacts. In the first section of the catalogue each copper arrow head is reproduced individually, but grouped based on typology. The second section catalogues all copper pieces from the 1978–79 collection.

29

Rivizi text.indd 29

20/09/2018 11:13:03

Chapter Two Contextualising the Ganeshwar Copper Corpus: Archaeological Practice and Research The collection of copper material analyzed in this volume was collected from the site of Ganeshwar, one of the type sites for the GJCC. This chapter outlines the archaeological research which informs and contextualizes the interpretation of the collection. GJCC is synonymous with the Ganeshwar Culture, Jodhpura Culture, Ganeshwar-Jodhpura Copper Complex, and the Ganeshwar-Jodhpura Culture (Agrawal, Dhir, and Krishnamurthy 1978; Agrawala and Kumar 1982, 130; Dikshit and Sinha 1982, 120; Hooja and Kumar 1997, 323–324). The

name ‘GJCC’ is based upon the initial reports by R. C. Agrawala and V. J. Kumar about a complex based on the two type sites, Ganeshwar (Tehsil Neem Ka Thana; District Sikar; geo coordinates N 27° 40’ 46”, 75° 48’ 93” E) and Jodhpura (Tehsil Kot Putli; District Jaipur; geo coordinates: N 27° 35’ 51”, E 76° 06’ 85”). Choosing to name the cultural area as a complex simultaneously honours Agrawala and Kumar’s terminology and does not limit the understanding of the area as connected to one site or function. Archaeological research conducted by the Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology, under R. C. Agrawala as director and Vijay Kumar as excavation officer, at the site of Jodhpura, commenced with a field season in 1972–73. The initial documentation of copper material from Ganeshwar took place in 1977, which led to three seasons of excavations at the site between 1979 and 1984 (Agrawala 1978a, 72–75;

1 It should be noted that access was not granted to study ceramics from the excavations of Ganeshwar or Jodhpura at the Department of Archaeology and Museums during the time of this study.

Indian Archaeological Review 1972–73, 29–30; 1979–80, 62–65; 1981–82, 61–62; 1983–84, 71–72;

Kumar 1977, 28–33). Both sites are multiperiod, large settlement sites. With no final excavation reports published, information about these sites is primarily drawn from reports in the Indian Archaeological Review (IAR), along with discussions of the material culture and excavations in other select publications. Most of the material from the excavations is available at the Jaipur office of the Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums, with examples of some ceramics and copper artefacts on display at Hawa Mahal Museum (Jaipur) and the Sikar Museum (Sikar).1 The complex is defined as a discrete cultural entity based on a distinctive ceramic sequence and the use of copper. Scholars date this archaeological culture to the third millennium BCE (c. 2500–2200 BCE) based on carbon samples from the upper levels at Jodhpura, which corroborate the stylistic chronological marker based on copper implements found at Ganeshwar that resemble those of the Harappan culture (Agrawala 1978b, 123–124; 1979a, 91–92; 1979b, 159–160; Agrawala and Kumar 1982, 123, 127; Sinha 1997, 264–274). A detailed discussion about material culture

and chronology is provided in chapter three. The links created by the stylistic resemblance of copper implements found at Ganeshwar-Jodhpura and the Indus simultaneously signify many sets of relations taking place in antiquity. The archaeological literature has predominantly understood the GJCC as a hunting gathering society due to the evidence of microliths and copper arrowheads (Agrawala and Kumar 1982, 127). I argue elsewhere (2007) that the GJCC illustrates

30

Rivizi text.indd 30

20/09/2018 11:13:03

an indigenous development that sustains a larger regional economic need for copper products. As early as 2900 BCE, the GJCC emerges as a community with subsistence strategies, including fishing and hunting, evidenced by fishhooks and faunal remains, as well as some early farming as suggested by paleo-climate reconstructions, burnt grains and seeds, and grinding stones found in early contexts (Rizvi 2007, 186). This region’s relationship with both the Harappan and the Ahar Banas cultures makes it particularly interesting. By occupying the space between two major cultural forces of the time, the GJCC emerges as a resource specialised community, a complex community that has connections with both of the larger cultures (Figure 2.1: map of region; Porter 2013). Active interactions with surrounding cultures (Harappan, Ahar Banas, and at an earlier time period, Bagor) are indicated through copper materials excavated in these disparate contexts. In particular, c. 2500 BCE (shift from Period II phase I to Period II phase II) at Ganeshwar indicates a substantial hike in the copper production at the site, also illustrated through the higher percentages of stylistically similar copper implements documented from these surrounding areas (see chapter three for stylistic comparisons). This time period also marks an increase in the production of copper based on the more complex organization of the resource specialized community complexes within the GJCC. The maintenance of some form of cultural cohesion seems to stem from the creation of an economic niche, a sensory aesthetic empathy coded as cultural resonance, and community placemaking as a mode of belonging. The copper corpus presented in Part Two of this volume is chronologically linked to this specific time period (c. 2500–2200 BCE). As the GJCC moves into later phases there seems to be a shifting of cultural emphasis, especially c. 1800 BCE (Rizvi 2007, 72–73).

Paleo-climate, Irrigation, and Subsistence Agriculture The western districts of Rajasthan (Jaisalmer, Barmer, Bikaner, Ganganagar, Choru, Jhunjhunu, Sikar, Nagaur, Jodhpur, Pali, and Jalore) are considered to have arid climate. This region has low and highly variable levels of rainfall (50mm to 100mm). In contrast, the semiarid districts to the east (Alwar, Jaipur, Bharatpur, Ajmer, Tonk, Sawai Madhopur, Bhilwara, Bundi, Kota, Chittorgarh, Udaipur, Sirohi, Dungarpur, and parts of Jhalawar) have a higher level of rainfall (Khurana 1992, 124; Rao 1992, 38). Attempts to reconcile the paleo-climate with the

Figure 2.1 Map of region with GJCC, Ahar Banas, and Harappan sites marked. Map courtesy of G. L. Possehl

archaeological record have been problematic. In a general sense, studies conducted on paleo-climate of the northern part of the Indian subcontinent suggest a shift from wetter to drier climate which most paleo-climatologists posit as the reason for the ‘collapse’ of the Mature Harappan culture (Pant and Rupa Kumar 1997; Staubwasser et al. 2003). In contrast, archaeologists discuss the shift from an Urban Harappan culture to a Post-Urban Harappan culture as one marked by changes in settlement pattern, number of sites, and wide spread drycropping (Possehl 1997). This is not to suggest that these paleo-climatic studies are incorrect, but to assert that such changes did not result in the devastating ‘collapse’ effects posited in the scholarship. More significant, however, is the incompatibility of the assumptions of this data with the archaeological record and palynological studies of the specific sites. Studies conducted at the sites of Balakot (McKean 1983, v), Malvan (Vishnu-Mittre and Sharma 1973), Nal Lake (Vishnu-Mittre 1974), Mehrgarh (Costantini and Biasini 1985), Sindh Kohistan area (Harvey and Flam 1993), and Rojdi (Weber 1991) suggest that the environmental conditions and climate in the mid to late Holocene were not inconsistent with contemporary conditions in those same regions.

31

Rivizi text.indd 31

20/09/2018 11:13:03

Chapter Two

Table 2.1 Summary of estimated dates and studies for paleo-climate of Northern India during mid/late Holocene

BP date

c. BCE

Environment

Source/Study

2000–500

Increase in rainfall/monsoon

Ramaswamy, 1968

3500 (uncal)

1900–1800

Dry/desiccated Lake—aridity that continues to today

Singh, Joshi, and Singh, 1972; Agrawal & Sood, 1982; Swain, Kutzbach, and Hastenrath, 1983; Pant and Rupa Kumar, 1997

4000 (uncal)

2550

Ephemeral Lake

Singh, Wasson, and Agrawal, 1990

4000–3500 (cal) 2150–1750

Decrease in summer monsoons— weakest monsoon event of Holocene record

Phadtare, 2000

4200 (cal)

2800 (uncal) or 2250 (cal)

Reduction in Indus River discharge and isotopic analysis suggests drier conditions

Staubwasser et al., 2003

5300 (cal) onwards

7150

Aridity starts, number of short term climatic events from then on

Prasad and Enzel, 2006

Table 2.1 illustrates published paleo-climate studies in terms of the environment and a range of dates posited for the mid to late Holocene. These studies broadly indicate that during the Holocene, Northern India went from a wetter to a dry and arid climate, which continues today. These studies also demonstrate climatic variability, and so it is difficult to identify or create consensus about when this variability occurred and how dramatic its effect may have been. The archaeological record illustrates a shift from cities to smaller towns in c. 2000 BCE, a disruption to the economy practiced, a shift in the systems of settlement and subsistence, and in material culture—which taken together indicate a larger change in the cultural form of the Harappan civilisation. These shifts, however, cannot solely be attributed to a change in climate. Whether the changes in the lakes came from lack of monsoonal rains, increase in evaporation due to solar variability, a tectonic shift causing rivers to shift courses, or subsurface drainage, it is clear that there were events that took place in the mid to late Holocene that altered the environmental landscape. How directly those environmental changes affected, or altered, human cultures is yet to be determined (For current, interdisciplinary, and robust approaches see Petrie et al. 2017).



Based on the arguments presented above it is clear that we need a more rigorous 2 chronological comparison. Indo-French Expedition Palynological work conducted at included the following persons: R. S. Bisht, archaeological sites suggests that M. A. Courty, H. P. the paleo-climate of the GJCC Francfort, P. Gentelle, region, in fact, was very similar K. P. Gupta, V. Roux, to the climate in the area today. A. K. Sharma, J. R. Batra, A. K. Sinha, Given that framework, it is easy to P. Singh, S. Singh. imagine sustainable dry-cropping

agricultural practices in place in Northeastern Rajasthan during the third millennium BCE. These climatic data contextualize the excavation reports which, in addition to the faunal material from Ganeshwar, also include information about structural features, including mud platforms with partitions, storage pits and floors with post-holes. A deposit of burnt material over floors appears to be an indication of fire at various levels of occupation (IAR 1983–84, 71–72). Storage pits suggest the existence of a grain surplus. Although there has been little written about agricultural subsistence, the large number of mortar and pestles, saddle querns and other grinding stones suggests that there were, in fact, agricultural subsistence strategies in place. In an effort to shed more light on agricultural subsistence in the region, an Indo-French expedition aimed to study ancient drainage and agricultural irrigation systems, conducting an overview of archaeological sites, visiting known sites like Kalibangan, Banawali, Siswal, Mitathal, Agroha, Ganeshwar, Jodhpura, Didwana, Paoli, and Rakhigarhi. 2 In 1983, this group investigated the Kantli and Dohan valleys, examining 69 wells and sections found there. Preliminary analysis of this area suggests that the natural drainage systems in these valleys dried up during the Early Holocene. Drier phases followed during which dunes were formed and Aeolian deposits and monsoon flooding progressively filled up the river paleo-channel. The major alleviation phase was over before the Pre-Harappan period (sites like n. 144 and n. 197 are lying on eight to ten meters of deposits filling the paleo-channel).3 In general, there has been no import alleviation since this period, except locally by monsoon floods in the Bhadra depression. And finally, soils of different fertility were well cultivated by the population through time (IAR 1983–84, 95–96).

3 The report does not specify what sites n.144 and n.197 are.

32

Rivizi text.indd 32

20/09/2018 11:13:03

Contextualising the Ganeshwar Copper Corpus: Archaeological Practice and Research

Distribution patterns of Pre-Harappan, Late Harappan, and Painted Grey Ware (PGW) sites illustrate higher density along branches of irrigation canals as these sites were in lines not necessarily following the paleo-channels of the Chautang (IAR 1983–84, 97). This report published by the Indo-French expedition suggests that there were agricultural subsistence strategies in place. In addition to these studies, investigations of paleo-climate in this region have also suggested a high potential for agricultural subsistence. These studies have relied on analysis conducted on sediment samples from Malhar Rann, Gudlai, Chamu and Chirai (for example, Agrawal et al. 1978). The analysis from Malhar Rann sediments in the region shows significant fluctuations in the lake levels, reflecting climatic changes in the past. Gudlai, Chamu and Chirai sediment profiles reveal an alternation of wet and dry phases that can be dated to 7,000 +- 500, 15,000 +- 2000 and > 40,000 (B.P.) respectively. At 7,000 B.P. there is a wet phase in the northern salt lakes of Rajasthan coinciding with the wet phase period at Gudlai (Rao 1992, 42; Singh et al. 1972). In a similar vein, Pant and Maliekal (1987) reported that the climate of Rajasthan and Northwest India was subjected to large-scale fluctuations during the last 10,000 years and that the recent arid phase goes back about 3,000 years. Singh (1971) reconstructed the climate of Rajasthan through pollen analysis taken from deposits from bogs and lakes and has indicated that during the third millennium BCE, the mean rainfall was between 500 and 800 mm. These indices point to the high potential for an agricultural base for this region. Archaeological evidence in the form of storage space, grinding stones and saddle querns, in addition to the favourable conditions for agriculture based on climatic indices and the suggestion of irrigation canals, all index the possibility of agriculture as a form of subsistence. This is important because it allows us to situate the copper arrowheads in an environment that was capable of agricultural subsistence and storage. This challenges earlier interpretations of the GJCC being a hunting and gathering community and allows us to place the crafting of the copper material in a complex community.

Ganeshwar Jodhpura Cultural Complex: Archaeological Surveys Archaeological surveys in northeastern Rajasthan first reported sites in 1972-73 with GJCC material culture near the site of Jodhpura (IAR 1972–73, 28–30). This was followed by the first season of excavations

there by the State Department of Archaeology and Museums, headed by R. C. Agrawala and V. J. Kumar (IAR 1972–73, 28–30). Since then various scholars have continued to conduct surveys in this region in an effort to better understand the cultural area and settlement patterns of the GJCC. Spread over roughly 34,000 square kilometres, with an estimated settled area of 12.51 square kilometres, the GJCC sites documented during the 2003 survey (directed by the author) include settlement sites, vitrified metal waste sites, mining sites and raw material processing sites (Figure 2.2: map of 2003 GJCC Survey). These sites are often found in close proximity to each other, with archaeological evidence of different specialized activity or resources. Although a very basic ground survey methodology was employed in the 2003 survey, in which five by five meter transects were walked in high density artefact regions and ten by ten meter transects between those areas, it was an enriching experience, yielding different kinds of research questions because a decolonized methodology was put in practice, thus impacting the interpretation of the region.

Survey Methodology The methodology employed in the 2003 Survey was developed as a mode of decolonization (Rizvi 2006). Decolonizing methodology through conversations with individuals and communities was an active decision that was realized by incorporating community-based archaeology and public archaeology, and involved a change in the education and training of archaeologists (Atalay 2006; Little 2002; Marshall 2002; Merriman 2004a&b; Rizvi 2006, 2008). A collaborative, community-based model

worked very well in the village-to-village survey. Preliminary survey work took place in the summer of 2000, and in 2003 the full survey project commenced with 10 team members, including doctoral students from the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, and the New School University, New York. Collaborative projects were formed with participating villages and communities in order to conduct the archaeological survey. Collaboration was realized through archaeological practices of survey, but also included eight after school programs, 64 panchayat4 meetings, and countless discussions with individuals of all ages who joined us on our surveys. Publics formed around the discourse of tourism, heritage management and the use of archaeology in the 4 contemporary world (Rizvi 2006). Panchayat is the

village council made of five villages. It is an official body recognized by the state.

33

Rivizi text.indd 33

20/09/2018 11:13:03

Chapter Two

Sites Explored

Sites Explored Rajasthan Border Rajasthan

N

0

12.5

25

50

75

100 Kms

Figure 2.2 Satellite map of GJCC survey sites based on 2003 Survey

Each new survey began with a visit to the village sarpanj5 to discuss the overall project. This visit would often result in a discussion with other panchayat members and interested community leaders, including farmers. Through such discussions these individuals became stakeholders in the overall project. In most cases, local history teachers would also join in the discussion, and their classes would join our surveys. In some instances, these students would actually become part of after-school programs in which the GJCC survey team would teach them survey techniques and give lessons in the general archaeology of South Asia. Our work involved interacting with a range of persons: officers of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI); the state government of Rajasthan; the secretary of Tourism, Art and Culture; the Directorate of Archaeology and Museums; the district magistrate; the assistant district magistrate; tehsildars; patwaris; police officers at the stations where artefacts were stored after a chance find; the panchayat; individual sarpanj; school teachers; community leaders; elders; heads of households and farmsteads; interested

passersby, and most of all, children (Figure 2.3: Reading maps with the sarpanj, patwari and others, Jodphura). Working on archaeological projects with communities has proven to be an effective dismantling of research-based power structures (Greer, Harrison and McIntyre-Tamwoy 2002; Marshall 2002; Moser et al. 2002; Rizvi 2006, 2008). Such methodology

necessitates active engagement with community concerns. In many of these cases, simultaneous to the archaeological research is a development of heritage and tourism. The management and public presentation of archaeological and other heritage resources created a situation in which heritage tourism might have been able to directly benefit local communities rather than multinational corporations. For example, the Neem Ka Thana Development Project, a public interest archaeology/heritage initiative, emerged from the many workshops and meetings held during our work at Ganeshwar (Rizvi 2006). As I have written about this project elsewhere, I will not go into details here, except to say that it was rare that we ever met with indifference during our discussions of archaeology and heritage in these communities. Even though public interest projects

5 The Sarpanj is the head of the panchayat. This is an elected office.

34

Rivizi text.indd 34

20/09/2018 11:13:04

Contextualising the Ganeshwar Copper Corpus: Archaeological Practice and Research

Figure 2.3 Sarpanj, Patwari and others discussing mapping at Jodphura, Rajasthan

did not develop in every context, that was not reflective of a lack of interest, rather it was more indicative of livelihood priorities in that moment, such as a focus on the lack of water during the drought or on generational issues in relation to passing on craft. It was through these experiences of running workshops and engaging in conversations while conducting survey work that I owe much of my theoretical underpinnings for this study. In particular, there was one instance that stood out among many: outside the village of Tiskola in northeastern Rajasthan, I was speaking to metal smiths about their interaction with materials and asked how they knew which piece of ore was better to use. Their response underlined heavily in my field notebook, is something I have since revisited many times: (translated from Hindi) ‘You know when you pick up the piece of ore; it tells you what it can become. You just have to listen to it. You have to take the time to listen to it. This is what our children do not have the time to hear’. At the time I could not have predicted how this conversation would lead me to contextualise third millennium BCE copper artefacts. But ever since I heard this statement, the idea that there is a

communicative interaction between the materials and the metalsmiths, one that could be passed on through and link generations, has stayed with me, transforming my approach to materiality and the past.

GJCC Survey As mentioned previously, in total there are 385 sites surveyed and reported as GJCC sites in Rajasthan (Appendix 1). These sites are located in the districts of Sikar (244 sites), Jaipur (99 sites), Jhunjhunu (32 sites), Bharatpur (3 sites), Bhilwara (3 sites), Tonk (1 site), Sawai Madhopur (1 site), and Jaisalmer (1 site). The 2003 survey was conducted primarily in three districts: Sikar (48 sites), Jhunjhunu (30 sites), and Jaipur (51 sites). Additionally, sites were also documented in the districts of Tonk (4 sites) and Alwar (2 sites). In all, 135 sites were documented during the 2003 survey (Figure 2.2: map of GJCC survey sites). Sixty-one sites are attributed to the GJCC based on the presence of diagnostic ceramics. One hundred and ten sites have vitrified metal waste material (like slag, fuel ash, etc.). Sites with vitrified metal waste were documented in Sikar

35

Rivizi text.indd 35

20/09/2018 11:13:04

Chapter Two

Figure 2.4 Ladala ki Dhani VI (GJC #012). Vitrified metal waste deposits in activity area

Figure 2.5 Section of mound covered in vitrified metal waste. Singhana, Jhunjhunu District

Sites with Vitrified Metal Waste Materials

Sites w. Vitrified Metal Waste Rajasthan Border Rajasthan

N

0

12.5 25

50

75

100 Kms

Figure 2.6 Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites based on 2003 Survey that document vitrified metal waste material

(60 sites), Jhunjhunu (25 sites), Jaipur (24 sites), and Tonk (1 site) (Appendix 1; Figures 2.4, 2.5, 2.6). Seventy-one of the 110 sites have been recorded as having both characteristic GJCC ceramics and vitrified metal waste material. Related to the sites just mentioned are sites that have evidence of furnaces or smelters in situ. Of the 27 such sites documented in the 2003 survey season, 15 have characteristic GJCC ceramics associated with pyrotechnical features. These sites are located in Sikar (14 sites), Jaipur (9 sites), and Jhunjhunu (4 sites) (Figures 2.7, 2.8, 2.9). There are also sites with evidence of raw material procurement or processing. In total, 14 such sites were documented in Sikar (4 sites), Jaipur (4 sites), and Jhunjhunu (6 sites) (Figure 2.10, 2.11). The site sizes vary, with most settlements being larger in area than the specialized activity sites. Clustering the sites by size, the GJCC has 50 sites less than one hectare in size, a second grouping of 30 sites between one and three hectares, a third grouping of 21 sites between 3 and 14 hectares, and eight sites between 19 to 21 and 25 to 80 hectares. The large number of less-than-one-hectare-size sites is due to the large number of vitrified metal waste material sites in the region. Only 66 sites have an estimated site size. Based on those sites, the average site size of GJCC sites is 3.25 hectares, with an estimated settled area of 1,251.34 hectares (Table 2.2). There are four different site types often found in proximity to each other, each providing a different specialized activity or resource. The site typology includes GJCC settlement sites, vitrified metal waste material sites, raw material processing sites and mining sites. These sites are generally found adjacent to a water source, as water is required for metal production. Mark Kenoyer and Heather Miller have provided indicators for metal processing at sites, including fragments of ore; kilns or fragments of kilns attributed to metal processing; metallurgical slag from the reduction of ore to metal; tools used for metal processing, such as crucible fragments with metal prills, moulds, anvils, stakes, hammers, chisels, and so forth; and metal objects, including smelting and melting ingots and semi-finished and finished objects (Kenoyer and Miller 1999, 121; H. L. Miller 1994). Based on this typology, only 31 percent of sites are settlement sites, 44 percent showed evidence for vitrified metal waste, and only 14 per cent had visible surface evidence for furnaces (Table 2.3). Table 2.4 illustrates the overlap between these sites. Out of 61 GJCC sites, 56 had evidence for vitrified material/

36

Rivizi text.indd 36

20/09/2018 11:13:04

Contextualising the Ganeshwar Copper Corpus: Archaeological Practice and Research

Metal Production Sites

N

0

12.5 25

Mining and Raw Material Sites

50

75

Metal Production Sites

Mining and Raw Material Sites

Rajasthan Border

Rajasthan Border

Rajasthan

Rajasthan

100 Kms

N

0

12.5 25

50

75

100 Kms

Figure 2.7

Figure 2.10

Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites based on 2003 Survey that document evidence of furnaces or smelters

Satellite map of GJCC Survey sites based on 2003 Survey that document evidence of raw material procurement

Figure 2.8

Figure 2.11

Metal production feature. Rasali, Sikar District

Copper source. Dhowri ki Dongri, Jaipur District

Total Sites

385

Sites with Size Estimate

66

Settled Area of Sites with Known Sites

214.59

Sites with Size Unknown

319

Average Site Size

3.25

Estimated Settled Area of Sites without Size

1,036.75

Estimated Total Settled Area

1,251.34

Figure 2.9

Table 2.2

Metal production feature. Burjiwala, Jaipur District

Estimate of settled area for the GJCC (in hectares)

37

Rivizi text.indd 37

20/09/2018 11:13:05

Chapter Two

Table 2.3 Percentage of types of sites (based on 2003 Survey)

Table 2.4 Comparisons of number of GJCC multifunctional sites

7%

31%

14%

44%

4%

Mining Sites / Raw Material

GJCC Settlement Sites

Production Centers (Furnaces)

VMW

Cu Hoards

GJCC Sites

61

GJCC & VMW

56

GJCC & Production Area

10

waste, and 18 of those had visible furnaces. The multifunctionality of the sites suggests that in many cases there was little separation of life and labour, which suggests a centrality of the copper as a material. Copper is entangled with the production of copper artefacts, labouring bodies, and placemaking in the GJCC. The significance of copper can also be seen in the clustering of the different types of sites that together make up complexes. Each complex consists of multiple sites in proximity, including settlement and production centres. These complexes were determined through cluster analysis and in tandem with discussions with community members from Ganeshwar and Jodhpura. There are five main complexes identified in the GJCC:

Ganeshwar Complex/Ladala Ki Dhani This complex is located in the geographic proximity of the site of Ganeshwar (GJC 001), Neem Ka Thana, Sikar. The site of Ganeshwar is 8.4 hectares and is the largest habitation site within the complex. Within a kilometre are associated sites, including vitrified metal waste sites of Ganeshwar I-V (GJC 002, 006), Ladala Ki Dhani I-VI (GJC 007–012, see Figure 2.4) and the habitation site southeast of Ganeshwar, Tuma’at (GJC 013). Outside this radius are the sites of Maliyavali (GJC 021), Umrawala (GJC 022), Salawala (GJC 023) and Bhojpura (GJC 024). These sites are habitation sites with evidence for production of metals, illustrated through vitrified metal waste material, pieces of furnaces, and the existence of copper implements. The site of Baleshwar (GJC 088, 089) is a large copper resource near Ganeshwar; the two sites are separated by a hill. Littered all around the base of the hills near Baleshwar are vitrified metal waste scatters and evidence of furnaces.

Jodhpura Complex This complex is located off the site of Jodhpura (GJC 031), Kot Putli, Jaipur. The site of Jodhpura is approximately 7.4 hectares in size. The complex is distinct from others in that there are fewer metal production sites associated with it. Sites in this complex include Mandha (GJC 057), Bhankri (GJC 059) and Kiradot (061), where 28 copper bangles were discovered during construction of the road between Kot Putli and Jodhpura (site/village). Found along the side of the new road, the copper hoard was sent to the local police station, and subsequently to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, State Department of Rajasthan. We were unable to gain access to this hoard for documentation and study. Cheeplata/Neerja Complex This complex is just south of the Ganeshwar complex and is comprised of a number of habitation and metal processing sites. The primary sites are Cheeplata (also spelt, Chiplota)/Neerja (GJC 091–093) in Neem Ka Thana, Sikar. Together the Cheeplata/Neerja sites (GJC 091–093) are approximately 80 hectares in area. This is the largest complex of interrelated sites combining habitation, mining, processing, smelting activity areas in one coherent site. The Cheeplata sites associated with GJCC ceramics and metal production include Chokhali Dhani (GJC 094), Na’al(d)a (GJC 095), Dharora (GJC 096), Bor Deowra (GJC 097), Dharora (GJC 098), Manjhaira (GJC 099), Rasali (GJC 100), Johadri (GJC 102), and Motawali ki Dhani (GJC 103). In stark contrast to all the other complexes in this region, this complex is demonstrative of economic complexity based on site sizes.

38

Rivizi text.indd 38

20/09/2018 11:13:05

Contextualising the Ganeshwar Copper Corpus: Archaeological Practice and Research

Kilarli Complex Close to the Jodhpura complex, the Kilarli complex is comprised of the main sites Kilarli I–III (GJC 035– 037). Though just under a hectare, each is comprised of clearly demarcated copper smelting and processing activity areas. Kilarli I (GJC 035) has five activity areas identified, each with its own radial configuration emanating out from the circular smelter remains. Sites in this complex also include Khatiwala Dhani (GJC 033), Tiskola (GJC 042), Kali Dantali (GJC 034), Khag (GJC 038), Bhurjiwala (GJC 039), and Bhariya (GJC 041). Evidence of copper smelting was found on the surface of each of these sites. Khetri Complex This complex is situated in and around the KhetriSinghana region in Jhunjhunu District, an area that has a history of copper production.6 There are 20 surveyed sites from the third millennium BCE in this region (GJC 111–134, see Figure 2.5). This is the most loosely constructed of the complexes. Its comparable lack of concentration of sites is likely due to the fact that not all parts of it have been surveyed. Surveying has also been complicated due to the history and contemporary nature of constant occupation in this region. This complex is defined more as a region of copper mining than habitation. Each production complex within the GJCC is economically self-organized and self-sufficient. It has its own distinct formation and number of sites, with all the sites providing key functions for the production of copper implements, from mining to their use. For example, within the Ganeshwar Complex, Ganeshwar and Tuma’at are the two main habitation sites with documented evidence of finished copper implements and bangles. The sites at Ladala Ki Dhani evidence production through extensive vitrified metal waste products, sections of smelters/ furnaces, and evidence of copper ore that could potentially have been mined from the nearby hills. Evidence for a complete simple economic system—including production, distribution and consumption—is found within the complex itself. This evidence of an economic system suggests three key points: 1. Although each complex may have had a distinct organizational aspect, in terms of number of sites, site sizes, and so forth, the centrality of copper in their lives would be similar.

2. Copper implements found at the habitation sites suggest that the residents of the GJCC sites were producers and consumers of the copper implements. 3. The segmented, individual complexes of differential copper production suggest that this activity happened on the household to community-based level rather than under the control of a larger centralized authority. These complexes are resource specialized communities, defined as communities that emerge within highly circumscribed natural resource localities (Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning 2003, xvi). The study of the GJCC communities relies on data collected from copper crafting activity areas in the most basic form. While the present data make it difficult to conceptualize the activity at the level of the household, connections between settlement plans and craft production allow us to hypothesise at the level of community, and it is within this framework that complexity may also be addressed, specifically in relation to crafting. These communities developed through copper production. The production of the craft simultaneously produced their identities/bodies and sites. The GJCC seems to display attributes characteristic of ‘communal complexity’ where ‘small scale societies possess flexible production routines and leadership strategies that allow them to adapt to shifting contingencies’ (Porter 2013, 134). Within a heterarchical framework, the complexes within the GJCC can be understood to operate as multiple interconnected groups which provide the possibility of many different lateral arrangements of power. Though all the complexes lie within 6 the larger cultural framework of John Percy (1861) rethe GJCC, each has the potential lates how nineteenth of escalating political power. These century copper smelting practices in Khetri used complexes are formulated based cow dung as an organic on economic activity and spatial reagent mixed in with clustering; each is able to internally a reducing agent, which control levels of production and mixture served to stick the crushed ore together site planning. The economic in order to retain autonomy arising from being a some space between the resource specialized community reagents. Once the probased in copper production allows cess was underway in the retorts, the organic for enough power to ensure that, material would char and as it was during the third millenlose its adhesive propnium BCE at least, the cultural erty. Percy’s narrative integrity of the GJCC is maintained. is significant also for its aid in reconstructing the practice of copper smelting.

39

Rivizi text.indd 39

20/09/2018 11:13:05

Chapter Two

If the GJCC were economically regressive or in a different political arrangement, it is likely that either of the two adjacent contemporary cultural forces, the Harappan and the Ahar Banas, would have been able to subsume the GJCC and control the minerals, bodies, and landscapes.

Archaeological Excavations at Ganeshwar The sites of Ganeshwar and Jodhpura were explored and excavated in 1972 and the early 1980s (Agrawala 1978a, 72–75; 1978b, 123–124; IAR 1972–73, 29–30; 1979–80, 62–65; 1981–82, 61–62; 1983–84, 7172; Kumar 1977, 28–33). While the sites have been reported in IAR, with characteristic material culture discussed in a series of publications, no final excavation report of either site has been published. However, most of the material from the excavations is available at the Jaipur office of the State Department of Archaeology and Museums, with some examples of ceramics and copper artefacts on display at Hawa Mahal, Jaipur, and the Sikar Museum. The copper corpus that is the subject of this study was documented from the excavation registers from the site of Ganeshwar. The site of Ganeshwar was first discovered in late 1977, when archaeologists from the State Department of Archaeology examined the area where the ‘Neem-ka Thana Treasury Hoard’ was found. This hoard consisted of 58 flat copper celts and two barbed arrowheads (Agrawala 1978b, 123–124; IAR 1981–82, 61). In the sub-sequent excavations of the site, over 1,000 copper implements have been uncovered in association with characteristic GJCC ceramic assemblages. These copper artefacts included arrowheads, beads, rings, bangles, fishhooks, pins, spearheads, celts and balls. The excavators contend that these artefacts were made from local copper sources, as chalcopyrite ore is prevalent in the region (IAR 1981–82, 61). A conservative estimate of the size of the ancient site of Ganeshwar is approximately 8.4 hectares and 500 meters in elevation (Figure 2.12). The modern village of Ganeshwar interrupts the ancient site as it sits between the ancient habitation and metal activity areas. The full size of the ancient site is difficult to establish. The excavation reports for the site have been published in IAR, and they provide initial periodization and cultural characteristics (IAR 1981–82, 61–62; 1983–84, 71–72; 1987–88, 101–102; 1988–89, 76–78). While the first report is not 7 specific about the number or In conversation during location of trenches at the site, the 2003 survey,

subsequent reports provide that information.7 The second excavation report includes a discussion of seven trenches laid out, three on mound 3, two on mound 4 (eastern slope hillock), and two on mound 5. Excavations revealed a 1.4 meter deposit (IAR 1983–84, 71–72). During the third season of excavations at Ganeshwar, six trenches were laid out (Q, R, S, T, U, and V) on the eastern and central part of the main mound with the aim of re-examining the sequence of cultures in the lower levels (IAR 1987–88, 101–102). Additionally, two sections were scrapped on the mound’s southwest corner. In the fourth season, five trenches were excavated (near the contemporary area of Galvashram) exposing 4.5 meters of habitation (H. C. Mirsa, personal communication, 2003; IAR 1988–89, 76). The aim of the fourth season of

excavation was to understand the metallurgical aspect to copper production at Ganeshwar. There are three main periods at Ganeshwar, with the second period further subdivided into two phases, based on corresponding excavations conducted at Galvashram-Ganeshwar (IAR 1988–89, 76–78). This is in contrast to the three phases described by Hooja and Kumar (1997), in which Period I is Phase I; Period II phase I, is Phase II; and Period II phase II, is Phase III. The table (Table 2.5) illustrates the overlap. This volume utilizes the terminology provided in the IAR publication. Period I is marked by a deposit of 30 to 50 cm. This layer is characterized by a large number of microliths and animal bones, which lead the excavators to identify it as the Mesolithic or Late Stone Age level (Hooja and Kumar 1997, 328; IAR 1987–88, 101–102). The raw materials used for the microliths were primarily chert and quartz (IAR 1987–88, 101–102). There is a noticeable lack of ceramics in this early level. The tool industry includes types that are retouched, and blunted back blades, obliquely blunted blades, triangles, points, crescents, trapezes and arrowheads. Scrapers and burins made of flakes occur in small numbers. A distinctive feature of the industry is the complete absence of the crest guided ridge technique. The excavation reports suggest that the manufacturing of these tools most likely took place on site, due to the close proximity of the finished tools to the waste and debris (Hooja and Kumar 1997, 329; IAR 1981–82, 61–62; 1987–88, 101–102). While the lowermost levels of Period I contain a high number of bones of small game and birds, the later levels have larger animal bones present. The bones recovered from the excavation have been

H. C. Misra reported that only one trench was opened during the first season.

40

Rivizi text.indd 40

20/09/2018 11:13:05

Contextualising the Ganeshwar Copper Corpus: Archaeological Practice and Research

Road to Neem Ka Thana

Ganeshwar Site Plan 2003 Survey 0

25

75 m Nala 3

N

Mound 1

Nala 2

Mound 3

Nala 1

Mound 2

Bhudoli Road

Gopal’s Tea Shop

School Yard

Road to Ganeshwar Village

Figure 2.12 Map of site of Ganeshwar, drawing with community members

41

Rivizi text.indd 41

20/09/2018 11:13:06

Chapter Two

Table 2.5 Periodisation of Ganeshwar based on excavations

Chronological Affiliation

IAR Reports

Hooja and Kumar 1997

Mesolithic/ Late Stone Age

Period I

Phase I

Chalcolithic

Period II Phase I

Phase II

Chalcolithic

Period II Phase II

Phase III

Iron Age

Period III

attributed to wild fauna. Unlike the smaller bones, the larger ones are nearly always charred and broken and often split open, which is suggestive of marrow extraction (Hooja and Kumar 1997, 329; IAR 1981–82, 61–62; 1987–88, 101–102). Period II is a deposit of 40 to 60 cm, and is distinct due to the change in material artefacts uncovered. Based on the Galvashram-Ganeshwar excavations, this period has been subdivided into two phases. Period II phase I continues to document high numbers of microliths and animal bones, has few documented copper implements, and has a distinct ceramic assemblage. Additionally, the excavations uncovered evidence of circular hut outlines and floors paved with river pebbles and schist slabs, most likely quarried from the nearby rocks (Hooja and Kumar 1997, 329; IAR 1981–82, 61–62; 1983-84, 71–72; 1987–88, 101–102). The copper from this phase is not in very large quantities. The finds include five arrowheads, three fishhooks, one spearhead and an awl (IAR 1987–88, 101–102). The excavators concluded that this phase marks the introduction of copper to Ganeshwar, and a transition from a predominantly Mesolithic to a Chalcolithic way of life (Hooja and Kumar 1997, 329). Two major ceramic types were documented in Period II phase I. The first was a pink to buff coloured, thin walled, lightly fired ware. Small to medium size kitchen vessels, including vases and jars, which are footed and ring based, with narrow and short incurved rims. The painted decoration on the ceramics includes a black base coat overlaid with dots, dashes, and curves in white to highlight the underlying layer. Primarily illustrating geometrical motifs, 8 the designs on these vessels inThe dating of the iron/ clude volutes, wavy lines, oblique iron slag is a contentious issue. I was unable lines, balls, triangles, crosses and to access the original broad bands. The second type reports or documents was a thicker, sturdy ware best related to the excavation represented by basins. These red to gain additional clar-

ware vessels are decorated with incised designs. With a finer texture and surface treatments, the colour of the ware seems brighter and well distributed. Other forms include dish on stand, troughs, jars, vases and bowls (IAR 1988–89, 76–78). Period II phase II at Ganeshwar is distinguished by the high percentage of copper implements found in the excavations; a remarkable 99 percent of the entire artefact assemblage from this phase is copper. The copper artefacts include arrowheads, rings, bangles, chisels, balls and celts (IAR 1981–82, 61–62; 1988–89, 76–78). The ceramic assemblage from this phase includes goblets, beakers, handled bowls, elliptical vases, cylindrical vases, lids, jars, offering stands, dishes, basins, and miscellaneous pottery. Scholars have assumed these forms to have some Pre-Harappan influence/affinity (Hooja and Kumar 1997, 329). Period II phase II also documents the presence of round terracotta cakes, an artefact often used to denote Harappan pyro-technology (IAR 1987–88, 101–102). Period III at Ganeshwar is represented by second millennium BCE material (based on the ceramic index) at Galvashram, with the presence of iron smelters and iron slag (IAR 1988–89, 78).8 The excavators have documented two smelters that included open hearths and bellows (IAR 1988–89, 78). There is some confusion in the reports as to whether the iron smelting was from the second millennium BCE or, more likely, from the context of the monastery on the site dated to the middle of the first century AD (Kharkawal, personal communication, 2003). The ceramics documented from this period are wheel thrown, red ware, with medium to fine fabric, treated with a wash or slip. Initial excavation reports documented three stone platforms in successive phases, leading the excavators to speculate about protective measures against flooding (IAR 1981–82, 61–62). This feature was a 3.08 meter structure running across the

ity on the chronology or on what sorts of evidence much of the IAR reporting was based upon.

42

Rivizi text.indd 42

20/09/2018 11:13:06

Contextualising the Ganeshwar Copper Corpus: Archaeological Practice and Research

mound from north to south, parallel to the river Kantli, with an estimated length of 30 meters and an average thickness of four meters (IAR 1988–89, 78). Although the reports suggest the wall can be dated to the third millennium BCE, the excavators now say that the stone wall was a modern addition (V. J. Kumar, H. C. Misra, personal communication, 2003). This chapter has provided multiple scales of context in both method and research for the copper corpus material that is the focus of this book. On a regional scale, this chapter provided research results related to the paleo-environment, paleo-climate, irrigation, sustainable agriculture. As the scale of analysis became more focused on the GJCC, a decolonised survey methodology was discussed in order to better situate access to the copper as material and to the landscape. The 2003 survey was discussed in detail in order to establish the entangled nature of labouring minerals, bodies and landscapes and the centrality of copper in imagining ancient sociality. And finally, the synthesis of the Ganeshwar excavation reports focused this book on the site itself. The excavations provide a relative chronology and context that situate the copper arrowheads and how the ancient communities belonged to the landscape through the production of the copper itself. In the next chapter the material culture of the GJCC will be presented in an effort to provide even more nuance to the centrality of copper, particularly in relation to an aesthetic form, and how that form is related to bodies, minerals and landscapes.

43

Rivizi text.indd 43

20/09/2018 11:13:06

Chapter Three GJCC Material Culture and Chronological Implications This chapter will focus on the material culture of the GJCC in order to better understand the material context within which the copper arrowheads existed. The arrowheads catalogued in this volume are from the excavations at the site of Ganeshwar and were discovered during the 1978–79 field season. The chapter will end with a brief discussion on chronology and stylistic comparisons with other arrowheads found in a regional context in order to provide a robust framework for the discussion of cultural resonance and placemaking in the following chapter (chapter four).

Material Culture of the GJCC This section discusses the material culture characteristic of the GJCC, which includes ceramics, copper, microliths and small finds. Each sub-section will provide the context of the finds and descriptions and discussions of form and typology. Ceramics The ceramics from the GJCC are described based on excavation reports, primary publications about the cultural area, and the 2000 and 2003 surface surveys (Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3). Access to the collections in the go-down at the State Department of Rajasthan Archaeology Museum, Jaipur, was not granted, thus photographs or illustrations of the types and fabrics reported in publications continue to be unavailable. However, photographs from the 2000 and 2003 surveys are included in this study. The characteristic GJCC ceramic corpus is specific to Period II at Ganeshwar and Period I at Jodhpura. Although often referred to as Ochre Coloured Pottery (OCP), it is important to re-emphasize that the GJCC material

is distinct from Gangetic OCP, which is later in time and has different vessel forms. GJCC vessels are largely wheel-made, with a few examples cited as handmade (IAR 1987–88, 101–102). The corpus is broadly divided into three categories based on ware types (coarse, medium and fine): Coarse Ware: Coarse ware makes up a small percentage of the corpus. These vessels tend to be made of micaceous coarse clay, are inadequately fired with a dark smoky core, and tend to be fragile and crumble easily. These wares often bear remnants of a reddish brown slip (IAR 1987–88, 101–102). Vessel forms include jars and basins. No coarse wares with decorative motifs have been recorded. Medium Ware: The medium wares are well-fired and sturdy vessels (IAR 1987–88, 101–102). They tend to be manufactured with finely levigated clay, with some examples of mica as a tempering agent. These vessels have a fine texture and their forms include dish-on-stand, basins, troughs, lids, jars, vases and bowls, all decorated with incised designs (IAR 1988–89, 76–78). Typically, the vases have vertical handles attached between rim and shoulder (IAR 1981–82, 61–62). These red wares have painted decorations with brighter and evenly distributed colour, suggesting a faster and heavier wheel. Ceramics from Ganeshwar have painted decoration on the rim, neck, and shoulder; only in a few cases does the painting go below the body of the vessel. Designs include a thick band on the neck, thick parallel lines on the shoulders, a horizontal band between two wavy lines, oblique parallel lines, and a crescent-shaped comb pattern. Incised pottery from Ganeshwar has long deep

44

Rivizi text.indd 44

20/09/2018 11:13:06

Figure 3.1 GJCC ceramic sample from 2000 Survey

Figure 3.2 GJCC incised ware. On display at Hawa Mahal Museum, Jaipur

incisions, including oblique strokes on cords, crescent like notches, chevrons, herring bone patterns, crisscross, deep dashes, oblique and straight lines, and check patterns (IAR 1981–82, 62; 1987–88, 101–102; see Figure 3.2). In addition to the painted and incised decorations from Ganeshwar, there are important examples of sherds with graffiti marks (trident, hatched quadrangle, ladder) on the exterior shoulders of vessels (IAR 1981–82, 62). From the excavation of Galvashram, Ganeshwar, there are additional ceramic shapes, including “s” shaped jars, perforated jars, beakers, basins, goblets,

Figure 3.3 GJCC reserved slip ware. On display at Hawa Mahal Museum, Jaipur

and handled cups. According to the excavators, the pottery from Period II phase II is profusely painted, and designs include floral and faunal motifs, intersecting circles, peacocks, papal and banana leaves, trees, deer, fish, and flowers (IAR 1988–89, 76–78). Fine Ware: Fine wares are wheel-made and lightweight (IAR 1987–88, 101–102). Made of finely levigated clay, most of the early (Period II phase I) fine wares are pink to buff coloured, thin walled, small to medium sized vessels. Vessel shapes include vases and jars that are footed and ring based, with

45

Rivizi text.indd 45

20/09/2018 11:13:06

Chapter Three

Figure 3.4 Copper artefacts from Ganeshwar excavations. Artefact sheet, serial number 433-438. Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums

Figure 3.5 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations. Artefact sheet, serial number 211 (reverse). Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums

46

Rivizi text.indd 46

20/09/2018 11:13:06

GJCC Material Culture and Chronological Implications

Table 3.1 Metallurgical Analysis: percentage of copper in artefact from Ganeshwar (Agrawala and Kumar 1982, 127-128)

Object

Cu

Sn

Fe

Pb

Zn

Ni

As

Ag

Celt

97.0

0.1

-

1.0

0.1

0.6

0.3

0.2

Arrowhead

96.5

0.2

0.2

0.03

0.25

0.04

1.0

0.3

narrow and short incurved rims. The painted decoration on the ceramics includes a black base coat overlaid with dots, dashes, and curves in white to highlight the underlying layer. Primarily illustrating geometrical motifs, the designs on these vessels include volutes, wavy lines, oblique lines, balls, triangles, crosses and broad bands (IAR 1988–89, 76–78). There are also some fine red ware vessels. Also made of finely levigated clay, these vessels are lightweight and manufactured with thin walls. There are three types of the fine red wares: 1. Dull Red Ware: Thin, dull red ware with paintings in black with white strokes. According to the excavators, these vessels bear an Early Harappan (Sothi) affiliation (IAR 1983–84, 71–72). 2. Fine Red Ware: Fine red ware ceramics consist of narrow and wide mouth jars, small squat handis, lota-like carinated vessels of various sizes, shallow pans, bowls of various sizes, and deep basins. Additionally, there are a few miniature forms also found. Some of the corpus bears incised decorations, like groups of straight or wavy lines, chevrons, herring bone patterns and crisscross markings. These vessels are unpainted (Hooja and Kumar 1997, 329; IAR 1983–84, 71–72).

3. Reserved Slip Wares: These fine wares are distinct due to the specific decorative technique applied to the vessels. Predominantly, vessel shapes include jars and vases. These vessels are red wares with decoration primarily on the shoulder. Reserved Slip Ware is a technique in which two slips of different colours are used in the decorative process. The first step involves applying one of the two slips on the surface of the vessel. After this dries, a second slip is applied. Before the second slip dries completely, designs are made on the surface of the vessel, using a comb-like implement that lifts the second layer off the surface, providing an interesting contrast between the two slips. In addition to the double slip, the surface of the vessel is usually burnished, thus polishing the second slip and reserving the first slip underneath. In the GJCC, this technique is documented in reference to red-slipped wares,

with a darker red as the contrasting second slip. Although there are examples of this technique in various other forms from other sites in Rajasthan (such as at Early Harappan levels at Kalibangan and Ahar Banas sites and at Balathal and Ojiyana); at the GJCC there are few examples of this technique in any form other than the vase/jar (see Figure 3.3). Copper Artefacts Copper artefacts from the GJCC are a hallmark of the material culture associated with this culture, specifically the forms of the copper arrowheads, celts, fishhooks and bangles (Figure 3.4). For example, the copper corpus from one season of excavation (1978– 79) includes over 1,000 pieces from Ganeshwar alone. Approximately 30 percent of the corpus consists of arrowheads, clearly marked as a special craft industry on site (Appendix 2; Figures 3.4, 3.5). Copper material culture was first discovered in the area of Ganeshwar in late 1977. Although some copper material was recovered from Jodhpura, the sheer number of copper implements documented from the site of Ganeshwar clearly marks the latter as a craft industry site. One of the more important documented copper finds from Ganeshwar includes a double spiral headed copper pin that the excavators suggest has parallels in central and western Asia (IAR 1983–84,71–72).1 The copper corpus is first documented in Period II phase I at Ganeshwar in small amounts, with only a few implements noted: five arrowheads, three fishhooks, one spear head and an awl (IAR 1987–88, 101–102). It is in Phase II that there is an overhaul of copper crafting, with implements like arrow heads, spear heads, chisels, fish hooks, razor blades, rings, bangles, hairpins, antimony rods (IAR 1988–89, 76–78). Metallurgical analyses of an arrowhead and celt show a high percentage (96 percent and 97 percent) of pure copper content. There are trace amounts of lead and arsenic in the ore that was smelted (Table 3.1). In order to better situate the artefacts focused upon in this volume, associated materials, such as arrowheads, celts, fishhooks, bangles 1 and miscellaneous shapes, are I was unable to gain discussed in the following section. visual access to this pin, and thus cannot comment on the stylistic affinity to either central or western Asia.

47

Rivizi text.indd 47

20/09/2018 11:13:06

Chapter Three

Arrowheads There are over 400 arrowheads documented from the 1978–79 excavations, and over 800 reported from the site (Kumar 1985, 7). These thin and light arrowheads seem to be cut from single sheets, as there is evidence of cutting and no indication of mold use on their surfaces. They weigh approximately two grams, are between one and two millimetres in width and between two and five centimetres in length. Most arrowheads are barbed, distinguished by the angle of the tip/edge. Whitish remains on the surface and a wood-like imprint suggest that the arrowheads were attached to a wooden stick by an adhesive (see Figure 3.5). Of the 432 copper pieces identified as being arrowheads (fragments to whole pieces), 133 may be used in the construction of a typology (just over 30 percent of the corpus) as they have a tip, an inseam cut, and enough of the wings to calculate angles. I have proposed seven types2 (A–G) based on stylistic criteria that include the distance between the tip and the inseam, the angle of the tip, the distance between the ends, the angle of the inseam, and the curvature of the lines.

Type B These arrowheads are less than five centimetres in length with an acute angle inseam. There is a sharpness to the features of these arrowheads. There are 43 examples of Type B. (Figure 3.7)

Type A A key identifying feature of this type is the angle inseam, which is a right angle tending towards obtuse angle inseam. There are 44 examples of Type A. Over 90 percent of the examples in this type are less than five centimetres in length. (Figure 3.6)

Type C These arrowheads are similar to equilateral triangles, with roughly equal distance between ends, tips and cut. These arrowheads are smaller than a majority of the others. There are nine examples of Type C.

Figure 3.6

Figure 3.8

Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations. Type A. Artefact sheet, serial number 132. Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale.

Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations. Type C. Artefact sheet, serial number 433. Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale.

Figure 3.7 Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations. Type B. Artefact sheet, serial number 353. Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale.

(Figure 3.8)

2 This is in contrast to earlier publications in which I only proposed six types (Rizvi 2010).

48

Rivizi text.indd 48

20/09/2018 11:13:07

GJCC Material Culture and Chronological Implications

Type D These arrowheads are under five centimetres in length. They are equilateral triangles, with a concave inseam. There is also a slight curvature to the edges. There are three examples of Type D. (Figure 3.9)

Type F Similar to Type A, these arrowheads typically have elongated bodies, an obtuse angle inseam, and short ends. However, these arrowheads differ in that they are curved at the tip and have a convex cut on the inseam, almost like a petal. There are nine examples of Type F. (Figure 3.11)

Figure 3.9

Figure 3.11

Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations. Type D. Artefact sheet, serial number 145. Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale.

Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations. Type F. Artefact sheet, serial number 275. Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale.

Type E The distinctive feature of this type is the curvature of the acute angle inseam. Copper arrowheads from the Harappan phase in Banawali are similar in shape and style. There are 10 examples of Type E.

Type G Similar to Type B, these arrowheads have longer wings with the acute angle, thus giving the main body of the arrow head a small size. The shapes of the wings are distinctive from all other types due to their length. Stylistically similar examples have been found in Harappan contexts, specifically at MohenjoDaro and Harappa. There are 15 examples of these in the collection (Figure 3.12).

(Figure 3.10)

Figure 3.10

Figure 3.12

Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations. Type E. Artefact sheet, serial number 133. Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale.

Copper arrowhead from Ganeshwar excavations. Type G. Artefact sheet, serial number 89. Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale.

49

Rivizi text.indd 49

20/09/2018 11:13:07

Chapter Three

Celts Copper celts have been documented from Ganeshwar, with researchers paying particular attention to indentation (usually circular) marks on the blunt edge of the celt (Figure 3.13—circular indentation marks on bottom left edge of celt). The number and placement of these marks is significant. They are generally aligned in sets of four, five, six, nine, twelve and fifteen in combinations of one, two, three, four and six per row. The excavators of Ganeshwar have proposed comparisons between celts from the GJCC and those from Navdatoli and Kayatha (Agrawala 1987, 115; Kumar 1985, 10). Comparisons of these celts have also been made to those at Hasni (Haryana), Western Uttar Pradesh, and Harappa (Agrawala 1987, 115). This discussion is complicated by the fact that many of these artefacts are documented as parts of collections or hoards away from habitation areas and are easily conflated with the Gangetic Copper Hoards. But the celts from GJCC are distinct. While the Gangetic Copper Hoards tend to have celts that are longer and heavier in weight, often with flayed edges, the GJCC celts are lighter (one kilogram) and shorter (Kumar 1985, 10). Most copper celts documented in Rajasthan seem to follow the GJCC traits (Dhaka 2002, 2002–3, and 2005). Chemical analysis of the Ganeshwar celt provided the following results: Copper 97 percent, Silver 0.2 percent, Arsenic 0.3 percent, Lead 1.0 percent, Tin 0.1 percent, Nickel 0.6 percent, and Zinc 0.1 percent (Kumar 1985, 9). Fishhooks The site of Ganeshwar has documented approximately 50 copper fishhooks, of varying sizes (Kumar 1985, 8; Figure 3.14). Most of the fishhooks are surface finds or very close to the surface/humus layers. The fishhooks are looped at the top to form an eye of varying diameter, a relatively straight shank, a short bend, and a sharp point. Bangles Copper bangles are an important yet often overlooked artefact because they are difficult to date. They traverse the line between what is valuable enough to be part of a ‘hoard’ and what might just be passed down through generations. Over 30 bangles, of which 20 are complete, were recorded from the 1978–79 season at Ganeshwar (Figure 3.15). There are two widths to the circular part of the bangle: four to six centimetres across and two to three centimetres in the thickness of the actual bangle. The diameters of these bangles vary both in their original and corroded forms.

Miscellaneous Shapes Other shapes include rings, chisels, spears, blades, wires, antimony rods, and decorative copper pieces in the shapes of a flower and a small spiked wheel, both displayed in the Sikar Museum (Figures 3.16 and 3.17). Microliths Microliths at Ganeshwar demonstrate a highly evolved geometric industry, with the principle tool types being blunted back blades, obliquely blunted blades, lunates, triangles, trapezes and points, as well as evidence of flakes and cores. The raw material for the microliths includes quartz, chert, chalcedony and jasper (IAR 1981–82, 61–62). Small Finds The small finds from the GJCC sites include beads, grinding stones, terracotta cakes/lumps, and various bone/shell objects such as bangles and beads. Examples of beads from GJCC contexts include those made from terracotta, mottled stone, carnelian, steatite and copper (IAR 1981–82, 61–62; 1988–89, 76–78; Figure 3.18). Grinding stones, saddle querns, mortars and pestles are found at most GJCC sites (IAR 1981–82, 61–62). Based on these descriptions of its material culture, it is clear that the GJCC is a culturally distinct community of individuals. Simultaneously, the remains of this cultural complex demonstrate active interactions with the surrounding cultural areas, aligning stylistic elements of the material culture as chronological indicators. In addition to creating a material context within which to situate the arrowheads, it is also important to locate them in time. The following section will utilise the material culture to discuss relative time.

Chronology Chronological reconstructions for the GJCC presented in this section are based primarily on carbon-14 dates from Jodhpura and artefact analysis from Ganeshwar material. Additional evidence for securing chronological brackets is provided by a stylistic comparison of copper materials from the surrounding cultural regions. In order to contextualise the Jodhpura dates, the following periodisation (Table 3.2) from Ganeshwar provides additional insight into the different categories, creating a more complete chronological framework for the GJCC. The excavations at Jodhpura have provided the basis for both relative chronological frameworks and

50

Rivizi text.indd 50

20/09/2018 11:13:07

GJCC Material Culture and Chronological Implications

Figure 3.13 Copper celt from Ganeshwar excavations. Serial number 129 A. Collection from Sikar Museum. Measure equal to 25cm and image displayed at 50% scale

Figure 3.14

Figure 3.16

Copper fish hooks from Ganeshwar excavations. Serial numbers 119 A & B. Collection from Sikar Museum. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale

Copper floral piece from Ganeshwar excavations. Serial number 128 B. Collection from Sikar Museum. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale

Figure 3.17 Copper half wheel piece from Ganeshwar excavations. Serial number 128 A. Collection from Sikar Museum. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale

Figure 3.15 Copper bangle from Ganeshwar excavations. Serial number 120 A. Collection from Sikar Museum. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale

Figure 3.18 Barrel shaped stone mottled bead. GJCC 2003 Survey, from site of Ganeshwar. Measure equal to 5cm and image displayed at 100% scale

51

Rivizi text.indd 51

20/09/2018 11:13:08

Chapter Three

Table 3.2 Ganeshwar-Jodhpura periodization based on excavation reports

Ganeshwar

Jodhpura

Period I (microlithic) Period II - Phase I (Microliths, Incised Red Wares, Red Ware, some Copper artifacts)

Period I (Incised Red Ware, Red Ware)

Period II - Phase II (90% of artifacts are copper)

Period I (Incised Red Ware, Red Ware)

Period III (iron age)

Period II (B&R)

Period III (iron age/PGW)

Period III (PGW) Period IV (NBP) Period V (Sunga Kushan)

Table 3.3 Radiocarbon dates from Jodhpura – Charcoal Samples (Possehl 1994, 52; IAR 1975-76, 82)

Sample #

Cultural Assoc.

5568 BP

5730 BCE

Calib-3

PRL-275

GJCC

4360 + 160 bp

2540 + 165 bce

1 Σ cal BCE 3309 (2921) 2709 2 Σ cal BCE 3499 (2921) 2504

PRL-278

GJCC

4060 + 170 bp

2230 + 175 bce

1 Σ cal BCE 2879 (2577) 2348 2 Σ cal BCE 3029 (2577) 2048

PRL-272

PGW

2670 + 150 bp

800 + 155 bce

1 Σ cal BCE 976 (814) 765 2 Σ cal BCE 1197 (814) 401

PRL-277

GJCC

2610 + 110 bp

740 + 115 bce

1 Σ cal BCE 838 (799) 559 2 Σ cal BCE 988 (799) 405

PRL-273

PGW

2310 + 140 bp

430 + 145 bce

1 Σ cal BCE 519 (389) 193 2 Σ cal BCE 795 (389) 8

PRL-212

BR/PGW

2270 + 100 bp

390 + 105 bce

1 Σ cal BCE 401 (372) 193 2 Σ cal BCE 753 (372) 49

PRL-274

PGW

2250 + 110 bp

370 + 115 bce

1 Σ cal BCE 399 (365,275,264) 173 2 Σ cal BCE 753 (365,275,264) 8

PRL-213

PGW

2210 + 110 bp

325 + 115 bce

1 Σ cal BCE 391 (347,316,205) 101 2 Σ cal BCE 481 (347,316,205) cal AD 20

Table 3.4 Projected dates for Ganeshwar and Jodhpura Chronology

Dates - BCE

Ganeshwar

> 2900

Period I (microlithic)

Jodhpura

2900-2500

Period II - Phase I (Microliths, Incised Red Wares, Red Ware, some Copper artifacts)

Period I (Incised Red Ware, Red Ware)

2500-2000

Period II - Phase II (90% of artifacts are copper)

Period I (Incised Red Ware, Red Ware)

2000-1800

Period II Phase II/Period III

Period I/Period II

1800

Period III (iron age)

Period II (B&R)

Period III (iron age/PGW)

Period III (PGW) Period IV (NBP) Period V (Sunga Kushan)

absolute dates for the GJCC. The excavators report stratigraphic positioning of five periods, based on ceramic affiliation: Period I: OCP; Period II: unpainted Black and Red Ware; Period III: Painted Grey Ware; Period IV: Northern Black Polished Ware; and Period V: Sunga and Kushan Pottery (IAR 1972–73, 30). 3 Based on the excavation report in IAR, the GJCC Red Ware is the earliest level at Jodhpura. Carbon samples from the upper levels of Period I provided a range from 2500 to 2200 BCE, pushing the beginning of Period I at Jodhpura back to 2800–2700 BCE (Agrawala and Kumar 1982, 125; Allchin and Allchin 1982, 253). In later publications, Agrawala has argued for even earlier dates, i.e., 3000–2800 BCE (1984, 160) (see Table 3.3). ware reported at

3 The OCP Jodhpura is red slipped ware; this should not to be confused with the Gangetic OCP.

The calibrated dates from Jodhpura provide a slightly different picture, placing ‘the upper levels’ of the GJCC strata at Jodhpura between c. 2900 and 2500 cal. BCE (see Sample Numbers PRL- 275 and 278). As the excavators have reported to have collected samples from ‘upper levels’, it is difficult to ascertain precisely where on the mound, in which trenches and at what elevation or depth, these samples were collected. Based on the calibrated dates, the GJCC is contemporary with the Early Harappan and Early Ahar/Banas. As with all radiocarbon dates, there is room for error based on sampling strategies, problems at the lab and inconsistent recording technique, which should all be taken into account as factors determining chronology. In these specific samples, the significant deviation in the range of dates is a concern as it points to inconsistencies with sampling or testing procedures.

52

Rivizi text.indd 52

20/09/2018 11:13:08

GJCC Material Culture and Chronological Implications

With that in mind, the following table links the calibrated dates to the periodisation of the two type sites of Ganeshwar and Jodhpura, listing their associated material culture (Table 3.4). With a clearer sense of a chronological framework within which to situate the copper arrowheads, the last section of this chapter provides some regional comparisons with Bagor and Harappan material that support the proposed chronology presented at the end of this chapter. This chronological framework has also been supported by ceramic stylistic connections between the Ahar Banas and GJCC (Rizvi 2010). Comparison of Copper Material: Regional Context The corpus of copper artefacts provides another source of chronological bracketing. Most identifiable and specific are the arrowheads, celts and spears. Artefacts that comprise the Copper Hoards of the Gangetic Doab are distinct (larger and heavier) from the copper material from the GJCC. Therefore, those materials are not mentioned in this analysis.

Comparison of Copper Material: Bagor, Rajasthan The discovery of three copper arrowheads within a burial context at Bagor and the microlithic association between early Ganeshwar and Bagor Phase I make this site a relevant comparison. The amended chronology for Bagor has been presented by Possehl (1999, 481) as Phase I ca. 5500–2800 BCE; Phase II ca. 2800–600 BCE; and Phase III ca. 600 BC–200 AD. The site of Bagor provides some examples of copper material from two Phase II burials. The arrowheads from burial no. 5, trench GIII were excavated on or near the left arm of the skeleton, with associated goods, including animal bones, and two groups of eight clay pots each lying near the head and feet. A third arrowhead appeared in burial no. 2, trench G, also near the left arm of the skeleton, with associated material, including a broken flat blade, a copper awl, a broken terracotta spindle whirl, a necklace of stone and bone beads, and two groups of four clay pots each (Figure 3.19). The copper arrowheads from Bagor do not find direct and easy comparisons in the GJCC corpus, although there is some similarity to types C, E and G. Each Bagor arrowhead has two holes for tying the shaft and a crude shape that does not compare to the complexity and specificity of shapes found in the GJCC arrowheads. However, the overall shape does indicate a rough imitation of, or a precursor to, the GJCC shapes.

Figure 3.19 Arrowheads from Bagor. After Misra 1970, 222. Image reproduced with permission, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, The University of Chicago Press

V. N. Misra compares the Bagor arrowheads to those found in Harappan contexts, as well as those found in larger regional contexts outside of the Harappan and Ahar Banas spheres (1970, 225–226). Although they are of a different time period, stylistic connections with the Aegean and the Caucasian regions are more apparent than with the Harappan culture (1970, 226). In his comparison, Misra points to two minor distinctions: first, the Harappan arrowheads are elongated and narrow; and second, the existence of the two holes on the Bagor samples distinguishes them from those found in Harappan context, which appear to have utilized adhesive to secure the shaft (1970, 226). The description of the comparison actually links the Harappan samples more closely to the GJCC types than to the Bagor forms. What is most compelling about the connection between the GJCC and Bagor is the coincidence of both microlith industry and copper use, albeit limited. The assumption that the copper artefacts from Bagor were made in Bagor is difficult to fully accept, especially since they are specifically located in a burial context and not in a contemporary use context (see also Misra 1970, 221–232). The use of copper in the burial was not accidental, and the placement of the artefacts seems intentional. The technique of production seems to indicate that the arrowhead was cut from a metal sheet, with sloppy angles. This can only be proven with more detailed, hands on study, which may be included in future work. The coeval nature of copper and microlithic technology is important, even though the scale of each is distinct at the two sites, allowing for the possibility for comparisons between Ganeshwar and Bagor to be drawn. The following proposal must be supported with additional study of the lithic assemblage from Ganeshwar before it can be treated as conclusive. As the excavations from Ganeshwar have not provided any carbon-14 dates, the following framework is based

53

Rivizi text.indd 53

20/09/2018 11:13:08

Chapter Three

Table 3.5 Chronological comparisons between Ganeshwar and Bagor

Dates – BCE

Ganeshwar

Bagor

> 2900

Period I (microlithic)

Period I (5500-2800) (microlithic)

2900-2500

Period II Phase I (Microliths, Incised Red Wares, Red Ware, some Copper artifacts)

Period II (Microlithic, and incised ware ceramics, burials with copper arrowheads, and beads)

2500-2000

Period II Phase II (90% of artifacts are copper)

Period II

2000-1800

Period II Phase II/Period III

Period II

on the extension of Jodhpura dates presented earlier in this chapter. Table 3.5 demonstrates a comparative link between the sites of Ganeshwar and Bagor. The links between Bagor and Ganeshwar begin in the early phases at Ganeshwar, during Period I, in which there is only microlithic evidence available from the site. There might be a lithic connection between Bagor and Ganeshwar that deserves further study. The association between Period II phase I at Ganeshwar and Bagor Period II is predicated on the copper arrowheads from the burials at Bagor, their rudimentary shape, and the continuation of a microlithic industry suggesting similarities between the two periods. Additionally, both Bagor Period II (2800–600 BCE) and Ganeshwar Period II phase I (2900–2500 BCE) ceramics have similar incised wares, as do the Ahar IA-IC samples (2700–2500 BCE) (see Rizvi 2010 for ceramic analysis). However, though these three ceramic comparisons line up neatly, it is important to remember that the Bagor ceramic assemblage is handmade, unlike those from Ahar and Ganeshwar. In this manner, the mimicked form of the incised ceramic is similar to the rudimentary copper arrowheads in burial contexts. This evidence suggests that material from Bagor may be a precursor to the ceramics and copper material at Ganeshwar.

A Short Note on Copper Arrowheads from Chichali The finding of copper arrowheads in a burial context is noteworthy as there are few such reported examples in the literature. Other than at Bagor, two copper arrowheads have been documented in a grave pit at the site of Chichali, in District Khargone, Nagpur (IAR 1999–2000b, 92–96). S. K. Mittra and his team, with the assistance of Excavation Branch I, Nagpur, carried out excavations of this megalithic burial site. The burial pit in which the arrowheads were found was on the northern side of the site and cut through the bedrock at a depth of 65 cm, 170 cm east-west and 75 cm north-south. In the pit there were fragmentary skeletal remains (a few bone pieces and a portion of a lower mandible) oriented east-west. Two barbed copper arrowheads (Type E) were placed next to the mandible with marks on the inseam that suggest the location of the connecting staff (IAR 1999–2000b,

96). Although the form of the arrowhead is similar to

the form types of the GJCC, the staff marking is not found in the corpus from the 1978–79 excavations at Ganeshwar, which suggests a differential use pattern. Moreover, the megalithic burial context does not provide adequate chronological support to consider these samples as linked to the GJCC. Further research on this connection and the sites must be conducted before anything conclusive can be said; however, it was important to note this remarkable similarity in form and style within this larger regional analysis.

Chronological Connections with Early Harappan Material The Early Harappan site of Nal provides comparisons for the material from GJCC. Excavations at Nal conducted by H. Hargreaves in 1925 reveal copper implements on what he calls the necropolis of the site. Although most of the copper material was found in burial context, it was not found within the funerary material, rather in association with it in Areas A, D, F, and G (1929, 40; Figure 3.20). To establish the correlations between the GJCC material and the Nal material, an in-person study of the Nal material is required. Based on a visual study of plate XIV (reproduced in Figure 3.20) available from the excavation reports of Nal material, there are remarkable similarities in the copper adzes’ curved splayed cutting edge (specifically nos. 19 and 43), the copper chisels (nos. 44 and 52), and similar examples from the GJCC contexts (compare Figures 3.20 and 3.21). These similarities suggest an Early Harappan chronological affinity. There are 56 copper objects documented from the Early Harappan excavation levels from the site of Kalibangan in Rajasthan. These include four blades, eleven rods, three bangles, nine rings, four arrowheads, four chisels, three wires, five pins, four lumps, two hooks, four needles and three fragments. Of the four arrowheads, the two published in the report bear a very close resemblance to GJCC type arrowheads, based on the angles of the cuts and the shape of the tip (Figure 3.22). The chronological context for the arrowheads is mid to late levels of Period I (Early Harappan) (Madhu Bala 2003, 228–229). Based on the calibrated dates from the site, B. B. Lal has

54

Rivizi text.indd 54

20/09/2018 11:13:08

GJCC Material Culture and Chronological Implications

placed the Early Harappan settlement at Kalibangan broadly between 3000 and 2700 BCE (2003, 26). There are three examples of copper arrowheads from the Harappan levels from Banawali (Figure 3.23). These examples have similar attributes to GJCC shapes of types A, E, and G. The chronological framework for Banawali, based on carbon-14 samples from Period II (Urban Harappan) layers, is broadly 2200–1500 cal. BC (Possehl 1994, 16). Copper material from the Harappan site of Dholavira, Gujarat, also provides examples of arrowheads and chisels from a similarly later date (IAR 1999–2000a, 22–27). More recent work done at Dabli vas Chugta has also reported ‘an arrowhead reminiscent of Ganeshwar types,’ as well as a fish hook (Singh et al. 2012,145) Although these dates are later than those for the other material examined, they reconstruct continued use of GJCC type material during later time periods. Further artefact analysis, specifically chemical analysis (such as lead isotope analysis) to determine origin, is needed to fully comprehend the relationship between the later uses of GJCC type shapes. During this later time period, there are other examples of additional copper artefacts that look GJCC influenced, like celts and bangles, available, for example, from sites to the east of the GJCC, belonging to the Kayatha Culture. Figure 3.22 Copper material from Kalibangan. After Madhu Bala 2003, 230. Image reproduced with permission, Archaeological Survey of India

Figure 3.20 Copper tools from the site of Nal, excavated by H. Hargreaves.

After Hargreaves 1929, Plate XIVa. Image reproduced with permission, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, The University of Chicago Press

Figure 3.21 Copper tool from Ganeshwar excavations. Serial number 122 B. Collection from Sikar Museum. And copper tool from Ganeshwar excavations. Serial number 533. Collection from Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums

Figure 3.23 Copper arrowheads from Banawali. After Agrawala and Kumar 1982, 127. Courtesy G.L. Possehl and reproduced with permission from the American Institute of Indian Studies

55

Rivizi text.indd 55

20/09/2018 11:13:09

Chapter Three

Chronological Connections with Kayatha Culture Similarities between the GJCC and the Kayatha culture bar celts and bangles may be assessed through morphological comparisons. K. N. Dikshit and B. P. Sinha were the first to draw attention to the similarities between the GJCC and Kayatha material (1982, 122). The key similarity is the impressed circular marks on the top end of the celt (Figure 3.24). These marks are found on many celts from the GJCC. The meaning of these marks has not yet been determined; however, though the shapes of the celts themselves vary morphologically, the presence or absence of these marks is distinctive. The context for these celts is in the Kayatha levels of the site of Kayatha, which stratigraphically is under both the Ahar and Malwa layers and, based on calibrated carbon-14 dates, can broadly be placed between 2300 and 1900 cal. BCE (Possehl 1994, 58–59). This seems, in light of discussions earlier in this chapter, to be late, especially considering the stratigraphic location of Ahar Banas material at the site. If there is some significance to the indentations that link the GJCC and Kayatha, it supports the possibility that the GJCC may have been a longer cultural horizon than previously thought. Or there might have been something intangible produced in the indentations that linked the cultures to each other through time and space. To push this line of thought a little further, the Painted Grey Ware (later) strata from Jodhpura are now briefly discussed in order to suggest another chronological bracketing for the GJCC.

Figure 3.24 Copper celts from Kayatha. After Yule 1985, plate 6. Courtesy of G. L. Possehl

Short Note on Painted Grey Ware (PGW) and Chronological Connections In addition to the ceramics and materials from the GJCC layers, it is useful to compare dates against other stratigraphic layers to frame chronological brackets. The site of Noh has a similar stratigraphic layering as Jodhpura and, although the dates do not seem

very stable, the calibrated range for the carbon-14 dates listed is c. 800–600 cal. BCE (Possehl 1994, 77). The dates from Jodhpura, also unstable, roughly correspond with the PGW layers as calibrated broadly between 800 and 300 cal. BCE (Possehl 1994, 54). The important bracket for these dates is the earlier year, that is, 800 BCE, as one of the later calibrated dates for the GJCC level at Jodhpura also comes in around the same time. These data suggest that the GJCC may have existed in later phases that transitioned from GJCC specific to a regional variety of ceramics, like the PGW. This interpretation is also supported by the 2003 survey data from Ganeshwar, in which a couple of sherds of PGW were documented at the site.

Proposed Chronology for GJCC The carbon samples used for carbon-14 analysis from the site of Jodhpura are, based on the standard deviations, slightly unstable. Thus, in the previous sections, additional information was analyzed in order to establish chronological bracketing. This was achieved through the stylistic analysis of ceramics and copper material. Before the material is compiled and reviewed in this section for a complete chronological discussion there are some caveats to keep in mind. First, future excavation work is necessary in order to provide a larger sample size and additional contexts for carbon dating. Second, comprehensive ceramic analysis must be done specifically on the GJCC Red Wares, Incised Wares, Reserved Slip Wares and the later Black and Red Ware. Third, a more detailed analysis of the copper material is necessary. This includes not only chemical analysis but also stylistic analysis comparing and contrasting the material from the GJCC and neighbouring areas. It is important to keep each of these points in mind while contextualising chronological brackets for the GJCC, because each speaks to a potential area that could strengthen the framework presented. To summarize, taking into account the calibrated dates from Jodhpura, the ceramic comparisons with Ahar Banas Complex, the copper comparisons with Bagor, Early Harppan Material (from Kalibangan and Banawali) and Kayatha material, and the additional bracketing with PGW material from Jodhpura and Noh, leads to the following proposed chronological framework: Table 3.6 can be summarized as follows:

Late GJCC: 2000—1800 BCE (B&R overlap to 800 BC?) Middle GJCC: 2500—2000 BCE Early GJCC: 2900—2500 BCE

56

Rivizi text.indd 56

20/09/2018 11:13:09

GJCC Material Culture and Chronological Implications

This proposed chronological framework for the GJCC is tentative. As mentioned previously, excavations in the GJCC area are necessary in order to re-examine these dates and provide new carbon-14 samples before this issue may be resolved. This framework borrows from both the north and the south of the GJCC, and is informed by other regional developments. The following tables summarize the chronological overlaps as discussed in this section.

phases—Early, Middle, and Late—is artificially created in order to help separate the phases in relation to activities in the north and south. These divisions can only be verified with continued work in the region. The archaeological context having been provided in the previous chapter and the material cultural corpus and chronology in this chapter, the final chapter (chapter four) will focus on the interpretation of copper crafting and its impact on cultural resonance, through an investigation of aesthetic empathy, belonging and placemaking.

Tables 3.7 and 3.8 illustrate the comparisons that aided

in contextualizing the chronological framework for GJCC. The separation of GJCC into three distinct

Table 3.6 Calibrated dates and relative chronological markers for the GJCC

Dates – BCE

Relative Chronology

> 2900

Ganeshwar

Jodhpura

Period I (microlithic)

2900-2500

Early GJCC

Period II Phase I (Microliths, Incised Red Wares, Red Ware, some Copper artifacts)

Period I (Incised Red Ware, Red Ware)

2500-2000

Middle GJCC

Period II Phase II (90% of artifacts are copper)

Period I (Incised Red Ware, Red Ware)

2000-1800

Late GJCC

Period II Phase II/Period III

Period I/Period II

Period III (iron age)

Period II (B&R)

Period III (iron age/PGW)

Period III (PGW)

1800

Period IV (NBP) Period V (Sunga Kushan)

Table 3.7 GJCC chronological framework in regional context

Dates (Cal.)

GJCC

Ahar Banas

Harappan

Bagor (site)

Kayatha (site)

3000 BCE

Early

Early

Early

Period I

2500 BCE

Early

Early

Early

Period II

2200 BCE

Middle

Middle

Urban

Kayatha

2000 BCE

Middle

Middle

Urban

Kayatha

1800 BCE

Late

Late

Post Urban

Ahar Banas

Table 3.8 Chronological comparisons with examples used—GJCC in regional context

Dates (Cal.)

GJCC (Jodhpura)

3000 BCE

Incised ware, Reserved Slip ware, Incised Ware, Reserved Copper Arrowheads Copper Arrowheads Copper Arrowheads & Celts Slip ware—Ahar from Kalibangan from Burial Period II Period IA

Ahar Banas

Harappan

2500 BCE

Incised ware, Reserved Slip ware, Reserved Slip Copper Arrowheads & Celts ware & Incised ware—Balathal

Reserved Slip ware from Kalibangan

2200 BCE

Copper Arrowheads & Celts

(Middle)

Copper Arrowheads from Banawali

Copper Celts (Kayatha)

2000 BCE

Copper Arrowheads & Celts

(Middle)

Copper Arrowheads from Banawali

Copper Celts (Kayatha)

1800 BCE

(Late)

Incised ware— Ahar IB, GLD-2

(Post Urban)

(Ahar Banas)

1800-900 BCE (GJCC/B&R) 800 BCE

Bagor

Kayatha

Noh

Copper Arrowheads from Burial Period II

(Malwa)

(PGW)

(PGW)

57

Rivizi text.indd 57

20/09/2018 11:13:09

Chapter Four The Affect of Crafting and Ancient Sociality This chapter focuses on how theories of crafting create the frameworks within which we interpret ancient sociality, that is, the everyday lives and interactions between, and experiences through, things. Thinking about the affect of crafting is contingent upon the many facets of practice, behaviour, cultural meaning and technology that are embedded and entangled with bodies, minerals and landscape. There are two loci that allow for such an analysis: the first is found on the landscape (survey data), and the second in the transformation of the mineral itself into the copper arrowhead. The Ganeshwar collection consists of approximately 1,000 copper artefacts. Approaching it as a collection of things, rather than individual artefacts, requires a moment of theoretical consideration. These things are not analyzed out of context per se but certainly now exist in a context different from their archaeological past. By creating this new space for artefacts that may have been roughly coterminous in the past but are now certainly together, we must acknowledge an ontological effect whereby these artefacts now exist within new sets of relations that are internal and peculiar to the collection itself (Moutu 2006). The collection simultaneously indexes both third millennium BCE crafting and the act of creating a collection in the early 1980s. In both instances there are choices and decisions being implemented with an eye toward what types might be valued. This is not a collection of evocative objects (like one’s mother’s books, trinkets, souvenirs or photographs tucked away in a closet), as Sherry Turkle notes, that upon interaction produce affective responses

linked to love and memory, underscoring ‘the inseparability of thought and feeling in our relationship to things’ (2007, 5). Nor is this a collection of the mundane, like those brought to our attention by Pierre Lemonnier’s work with fences, traps and drums of the Ankave and Baruya peoples of Papua New Guinea (2012). The Ganeshwar collection falls somewhere in between the exceptionality of love and the underappreciated everyday. Engaging with the corpus invites a discussion of similar theories related to entanglement, interwoven existences complicated with the thoughts and feelings in relation to things, and the thingness of things (see Appadurai 2006; Brown 2001; Heidegger 2008; Hodder 2011; Ingold 2007; Olsen 2010). This project also exists in the messiness of acknowledging the simultaneity of the collection and its affective properties. The copper itself may even dictate an aesthetic. Copper, in its materiality, has its own intrinsic properties (thermal conductivity, heat and pressure resistance, antibacterial properties, to name just a few) that are not dependent upon my reconstruction of an ancient aesthetic. It seems easier to accept that certain characteristic traits, such as thermal conductivity, are ontologically sound because they are considered scientifically sound, and thus empirical. This is in contrast to characteristics that are embedded in copper in unique and particular ways, to distinct worlds of meaning and value, or what can be glossed as ‘culture’. To understand that world, the copper material can be viewed as an illustration of the communication and relationship between humans and nonhumans. It can be theorized as an engagement, a trap, a pragmatic exchange, an entanglement, or a

58

Rivizi text.indd 58

20/09/2018 11:13:09

dance (Bernstein 2009; Hodder 2011). It is a simple acknowledgement of each other as having the ability to inform the other of preference or ability that results in particular types of things that make up a particular collection. In the crafting of a thing, all things involved are transformed. As mentioned earlier, such a framing provides a space in which we may account for our various entanglements, from shifts in value to crafted artefact signifying meaningful sets of relations (N. Thomas 1991) to the many ways in which things, humans and actions are dependent on each other to create meaning (Hodder 2011). Recognizing the scales of entanglements with ancient things provides insight into the development of ancient subjectivities.

Crafting Bodies To gain clarity on how the body might be engaged and entangled in crafting, and how this process might produce an intangible affect, I offer below possible scenarios for those members of the GJCC who were crafting copper and, with it, a sense of self. Each technological process incorporated bodies of these community members in particular manners; and this repeated, self-aware process created specific social structures that influenced the construction of distinct subjectivities. By its very nature, copper-based metallurgy entails some degree of specialization; the complexity and effort of production and the nucleated distribution of the raw materials dictate that there must be fewer producers than consumers (White 1995). The crafting of copper is one of the defining features for this community. Crafting, thus, becomes an identifying feature for social cohesion and community identity (Bartlett and McAnanay 2000). The technology of copper production involves repeated actions and movements through the same spaces, delimiting a range of movements and practices through which community identity becomes incorporated into the body (Joyce 1998; Joyce and Hendon 2000). The corporeal situatedness of technological practice creates a strong relational link between the techniques of the body, the technology of the craft, and the landscape upon which practice is crafted. In so far as the body creates and recreates itself as it engages with specific forms of technology on a specific landscape, it disciplines all things into their own subjectivity. An intersectional understanding of the ancient craftsperson’s subjectivity layers identities related to community, gender, class or status, ethnicity. Intersectional identities all play a role in creating the self of an ancient subject.

However, this is not only about the craftsperson. The agency of the body, the mineral and the land-scape are a part of this equation and none can claim to be at the core of the craft (see Malafouris 2013). Each is equally significant and necessary for the craft to happen. That this craft happens with this body, this mineral and in this place are all significant to its practice. Generally, there are five steps to copper production: raw material procurement, materials preparation, primary production of metal from ore (that is, smelting), secondary production of melting/casting, and fabrication (Kenoyer and Miller 1999; Miller 2007). Each technological step in this process of copper production marks a specific location with a specific action. At the point of raw material procurement, while mining for ore would be the main product-based activity, the larger pyrotechnological process also requires the procurement of waxes and resins, sand, clay, stones, tempering agents for the manufacture of crucibles, molds, and cores and models (Hoffman and Miller 2009; Miller 2007). Moreover, every pyrotechnological activity requires the participation of parallel industry, such as for the collection of fuel materials and the making of the crucibles and molds, etc. In order to locate possible local and smaller sources for the ore, the GJCC Survey 2003 documented 14 mining and raw materials sites (Rizvi 2007, 237; Appendix 1). Each site required specific movements and body techniques in order to extract the mineral. These included climbing, which requires physical fitness that the individuals become accustomed to, walking into and working in dark spaces, which requires sight, and repeated action with specialized tools, which suggests muscle memory for the continued use of a quick but careful range of motions. There is a distinct physicality to each of the movements associated with mineral extraction, creating an embodied response to place. Cognitive relationships between prior knowledge and the construction of new knowledges of new places to mine influence each step in this process. These relationships impact the decisions related to the physical world and the subsequent mental maps that are created. Based on conversations with metal specialists during the survey in 2003, knowing which mine one might be able to extract from is based on tacit agreements, that are both social and political, among those mining in contiguous areas. These invisible boundaries are well known to all the practitioners in the area and are the result of agreements that span generations. Knowing the landscape is not only

59

Rivizi text.indd 59

20/09/2018 11:13:09

Chapter Four

a geographic and geologic epistemic form, it is also social and political knowledge of the body’s relationship both to the soil and to other surrounding bodies. The next step in the process of copper production has to do with materials preparation. Again, specific to the copper itself, sites where materials were prepared were flat clearings where remnants of crushed mineral are embedded into the landscape and continue to be visible. The preparation of materials also extended into the crafting of crucibles and molds, etc., and the preparation of fuel, either as charcoal or dung cakes. Again, specific actions and bodily motions were enacted within particular places, preparatory spaces distinct from the location of the previous and following stages of the primary production of copper. This particular stage seems to have allowed for additional individuals to collectively engage in these activities, whether it be by sitting together to crush the mineral or through collaborations with potters to create crucibles and molds. The level of social interaction is reflected in the technological process. Knowing how to clear a space and being able to identify which space would be most conducive to cooperative crushing of materials both become part of technological habitus (see Dobres 2000). The act of clearing may not be thought of, however, as something based purely in technology. The act of clearing space, knowing how many bodies might fit, knowing which bodies might be engaged, and/or knowing the social aspect of such work shifts the focus from technology to socially meaningful actions that, while they may be in the service of the craft, engage with different meanings in practice. The preparations of materials and landscape, in this capacity, involve intangible affective practices that are both embodied and intergenerational. Perhaps the most conspicuous stage of copper production is the smelting of the ore. This process leaves an obvious accumulation of manufacturing debris and remnants of firing apparatus. Vitrified waste is visible all around the furnaces. The GJCC Survey 2003 documented 110 sites with vitrified waste material (Rizvi 2007, 226–235; Appendix 1); this dense, heavy and very dark vitrified material tended to be uniform in shape and size (it possibly contains iron, see Cooke and Aschenbrenner 1975; Hegde 1964). On occasion there would be some mixed scoria but rarely lightweight glassy slag. More so than the previous stages, this specific mode of production required very precise and careful motions that determined the quality of the craft. From monitoring

the fuel and temperature to the pouring of the smelted metal into the crucible, the primary production of copper was time consuming and required very controlled body movements. This precision and specificity is replicated to a degree in the secondary stage of production in which the fabrication of the final product takes place. The processes of casting, melting, alloying, reusing, all require a similar finesse in terms of pyrotechnological control, but in the last stages of production there is the creation of the final piece that, in the case of arrowheads, includes hammering out of sheets of copper and cutting techniques. Once again, the reliance on the muscle memory of the individuals engaged in the process of crafting each piece is significant. Also significant is the manner in which each body is transformed by inhaling fumes, dealing with high heat, and the many other ways in which the body accommodates itself in the service of the craft. Given that each body in the vicinity of production may also inhale various fumes, each body is viscerally linked to the larger co-existence of a community within the places marked by these activities. Copper production highlights the interrelationships between bodies, minerals and landscapes.

Labouring Places Locating the collection within a living, active, vibrant past illuminates the ways in which the affective production of copper objects creates place. The GJCC has very specific formations of sites around resource-high regions particular to this landscape and time period that demonstrate a focus on copper production and indicate a high level of socio-cultural and political complexity (Rizvi 2007). Site development is a controlled, planned and materially articulated strategy that requires community mobilization, craft specialization and placemaking, and high levels of political, social and economic self-realization (Rizvi 2013). These levels of control are negotiated by and through value placed on new forms of material culture that emerge from high levels of craftsmanship that provide specific forms of sociality to the members of the GJCC community. One of the points of emphasis in the quest for an understanding of ancient sociality is a consideration of the landscape. To think of the land as labouring, as an active participant in the larger crafting event, allows for a different kind of relationship to be understood between landscapes, minerals and bodies. Rather than only thinking of the human agent as exercising control over a landscape, we might consider

60

Rivizi text.indd 60

20/09/2018 11:13:09

The Affect of Crafting and Ancient Sociality

how the landscape dictates where the human agent might place itself. The evidence of settlements clustering in and around copper mineral deposits suggests that the landscape plays an active role in determining human activity, and the manner and formation in which the settlements cluster is evidence of the human in dialog with or working with the landscape. The human agent, the body, knows that landscape intimately—in labouring on and with a landscape, the body links itself to that soil, to that earth through knowledge and practice. There is a sense of belonging that affirms itself to bodies that labour with landscapes, a sense of belonging that merges with a sense of place to affectively connect that body to that place. Moreover, we should keep in mind the various bodies in these communities and how they might themselves be negotiating their own places and sense of belonging. The construction of a community place is an active, participatory process, in which ancient populations decide on specific plans and locations based on, in some measure, the functionality of the site. The notion of an ancient community is conceptualized on multiple and overlapping scales. We can study the communities on the site level based on their placemaking and craft specialization, but those same socio-economic decisions might also link these communities to larger communities within the GJCC as a whole. Obviously, we also cannot homogenize the communities on any scale and must be wary of that tendency. However, in terms of documenting patterns of human behaviour, specifically using regional survey data, there are certain constraints that the data require us to abide by, which include, in this case, the lack of micro-scale data that might allow for a more nuanced understanding of community. In this study, the notion of community is multi-scalar and interactional within a spatio-temporal framework that determines the manner in which community is understood contextually (Yaeger and Canuto 2000). This understanding provides a model within which past actors maintain agency even if the available data do not allow us to decipher all forms of possible identity formation. The GJCC copper production centres operated complex economic systems; labouring bodies, minerals and places are reflected in the degree of technological advancement and the organization of the complexes. A more detailed understanding of the socio-political complexity of the GJCC, however, is difficult to map due to the nature of survey data. This does not, however, negate discussions about the specialization of the craft, of the

crafting of the body and of placemaking. Each of the complexes (Ganeshwar/Ladala Ki Dhani Complex, Jodhpura Complex, Cheeplata/Neerja Complex, Kilarli Complex and Khetri Complex, see chapter two) is a resource specialized community; that is to say, a community that emerges either within a highly circumscribed natural resource locality, in this case near copper sources, or as a consequence of filling a regional economic niche once an area has developed an interdependent network between communities (Porter 2013; Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning 2003, xvi). As a collective of copper-based resource-

specialized communities, the cultural identity of the GJCC can be understood as being intricately linked to crafting by labouring bodies, minerals and places. Ancient subjectivity, then, is not only about gender, class, status, etc., but rather is intersectional among those categories, and takes into account ways of affective belonging to mineral and place. In this manner, it acknowledges the significance of belonging to a copper crafting community and how doing so might influence, symbolically or physically, the social identity of the people living in this region during the third millennium BCE.

Crafting Complexity The study of the GJCC communities relies on data collected from activity areas in the most basic form. These activity areas were the locus for either copper mining, preparation of the ore, or smelting. The 2003 survey documented these distinct activity areas on the outskirts of the habitation areas or in separate sectors of the site. With the present data it is difficult to conceptualize the activity on the level of the household; however, the connections between settlement plans and craft production allows us to focus on the level of community at the site. It is within the framework of community that complexity may also be addressed, specifically in relation to craft specialization. Joyce White and Vincent Pigott, in their work on copper production in pre-state Thailand, provide insight into what forms of evidence are useful to investigate complexity (1996, 151–175). They argue that archaeological evidence from Thailand (c. 2000–300 BCE) suggests that independent specialists undertook metal production and that these specialists often aggregated into communities. Adopting Cathy Costin’s work on the organization of production, in which community specialization is a distinct genre of production organization in which ‘autonomous individual or household-based

61

Rivizi text.indd 61

20/09/2018 11:13:09

Chapter Four

production units, aggregated within a single community, (produce) for unrestricted regional consumption’ (1991, 8), White and Pigott argue that the evidence from Thailand shows that the intensity of production and the volume of output from these specialized metal-producing communities can vary from a less intense level that could be termed ‘community craft’ to a highly intense level with remarkable output that can be termed ‘community industry’ (1996, 151–152). White employs heterarchy to further the understanding of socio-political development in Southeast Asia. She argues that the evidence for the development of copper production reveals patterns of intensification and elaboration that are not hierarchically but laterally differentiated (1995, 107; for a New World example, see Joyce and Hendon 2000). Within a heterarchical framework, the complexes within the GJCC can be understood to have operated as multiple interconnected groups, as this provided the possibility of many distinct lateral arrangements of power. All of the five complexes were within the larger cultural framework of the GJCC, and yet, each had the potential of escalating political power. As these groups were formulated based on economic activity and spatial clustering, each complex was able to internally adjust levels of production and site planning. The economic autonomy that resulted from emerging as a resource-specialized community based in copper production ensured that during the third millennium BCE, at least, the cultural integrity of the GJCC was maintained, particularly in relation to the two larger contemporary cultural forces, the Harappan and the Ahar Banas. The relationship between these complexes and the question of precisely how these communities maintained the larger cultural complex is still undefined if looked at only through an economic lens.

Crafting Resonance The many relationships among the labouring bodies, minerals and places may be understood through the lens of crafting. However, those crafting communities also included ancient subjects who neither engaged in the craft nor had the embodied knowledge related to the minerals and the landscape. Through copper crafting, something intangible was simultaneously crafted that had in it an aesthetic response that evoked a sense of belonging to a crafting community, even for those who did not personally craft copper. The crafting of that intangible aspect is what I am referring to as ‘crafting resonance’. While scholarship about resonance is readily

sourced to applied mathematics, quantum physics and sound/music studies, fields such as comparative literature and sociology have utilized the notion to consider both tangible and intangible aspects of resonance. The idea that texts (as material) might have an immaterial/intangible affect through time and that may code as resonance is a useful approach to thinking through intergenerational and generally diachronic approaches to the longevity of form within archaeology (for resonance and text, see Dimock 1997). Resonance has also been strategically employed to discuss how social policy may be influenced; however, it is often glossed over and under theorized (Ferree 2003). In other disciplines, emotional resonance has been utilized to contextualize interpersonal ‘emotion work’, for example, in framing transgendered communities (Schrock, Holden, and Reid 2004). Within archaeological literature resonance becomes a nuanced lens through which to view the constituting of ancient subjectivities in relation to the things with which they are entangled. Ian Hodder’s recent work on the entanglement of things has dealt with resonance as a ‘bodily affinity… across domains that developed contextually’ (2012, 127). In his discussion, he utilizes music and how it makes one feel as one of the main examples through which to understand this possibility. The affective relationship between the sound of the music and the bodily response to it is the location of a form of resonance. I want to push this line of thinking further, and away from Hodder’s consequent discussion of ‘transmission process as random drift’ (2012, 146), to posit resonance as the space within which frequent modes of communication exist between human and nonhuman elements. Resonance does not only live within the human body in reaction to, or by accommodating, an abstraction, it becomes a relational code, a language shared between things with material ramifications. As such, it may be crafted, negotiated, altered, contested, etc. and exist between, through, and with bodies, minerals, and landscapes. Pierre Lemonnier’s (2012) work also reflects upon the idea of objects with capacity for nonverbal forms of communication. This idea of resonant objects appears in relation to perissology, which he contextualizes through the French use of the word as a ‘figure of style that consists in emphasizing an idea by repeating it in different terms’ (2012, 128, italics in original). In his study of the Anga cultures, such classes of artefacts are not only polysemous but the reasons they are so are also multiple and overlapping. He refers to such objects as ‘perissological resonators’,

62

Rivizi text.indd 62

20/09/2018 11:13:09

The Affect of Crafting and Ancient Sociality

arguing that the durability of their materiality is ‘fundamental to the stability of the sociocultural configuration the basic relations of which they help render visible in a nonverbal manner’ (2012, 129; for a critique of this work see Ingold 2014). Resonance studies also consider the ways in which the brain processes specific forms of information. One such model, proposed by Hodder, synaesthesia, is a sensory based, often automatic and involuntary cognition (2012, 125–126). We might also consider Adaptive Resonance Theory (ART), which observes how and why things resonate as an affective response within a body (Carpenter and Grossberg 2003). ART focuses on the simplest of unsupervised learning interactions related to object identification and neurological processing based on observation (top-down) and sensory (bottom-up) information. Life, of course, does not adhere to singular moments of processing, and thus, the utility of ART modelling is in its ability to separate the memory template (or prototype) from the moment of interaction with the material— if there is an overlap, it creates a resonance which then fosters a sense of belonging (Carpenter and Grossberg 2003). The notion of resonance may also be understood as an after-effect, a post action, a trace, the background noise of the thing itself that emits a specific frequency. The repetitive nature of a trace is significant. It is the iterative quality of a frequency that establishes familiarity. In The Poetics of Space, Gaston Bachelard calls this the reverberation of resonances: ‘In the resonance we hear the poem, in the reverberation we speak it, it is our own’ (1994, xxii). In this book, resonance is theorized not functionally, but through aesthetics and aesthetic responses. For this study, resonance is fundamentally about crafting an aesthetic response that is linked to sensory based values and emotions. This assertion is certainly not meant as apolitical or out of context; rather, the aesthetic framed within cultural resonance is bound by contingencies of belonging. Aesthetics, in this sense, is understood not only as visual, but also affective. This formulation allows for an arbitrariness of what might resonate and what might build a resonant context within which to understand the meaning of things (see also Dimock 1997; Dorsey 2012; Greenblatt 1990). However, I would argue that in the case of the GJCC copper corpus, what resonates is not arbitrary but is an affective response steeped in aesthetic empathy. The collective empathetic response towards a specific aesthetic (sensory emotion linked

to style/form) is what enables cultural cohesion. It is a collective aesthetic empathy that formulates belonging to a particular cultural milieu (see Landsberg 1997). Prior to its place within psychotherapy and general use, the study of empathy was an issue related to aesthetics and then to ‘a psychology that rigidly separated the perceiving and understanding subject from its objects’ (Pigman 1995, 238). The manner in which empathy was related to objects had much to do with the power to project one’s personality into, and thus fully understand, the object of contemplation (Ames 1943; Titchener 1915; see Koss 2006). The ontological turn allows empathy to emerge as an affective response to a form or, as Robert Vischer has argued, as an optical feeling for a form that taps into the ‘“deep, dark, secure, intimate, yet free, unifying, and contractive feeling’ (1994 [1873], 90). In these early discussions of empathy there was a growing focus on human experience as primary data for psychoanalysis. Revisiting these texts allows us to re-imagine the relationship between things (humans/ nonhumans/institutions as subjects rather than objects, as per social ontology. See Searle 2006).

Things can make us feel certain ways, thus making us into certain beings who find connection with others things who/which feel familiar. Familiarity allows for a sense of belonging and may also engender forms of nostalgia. Separating belonging from nostalgia is complicated in the ancient record (as it is in the contemporary moment) as the link between the two is deep and complex, often simultaneous, and sometimes also contradictory. Investigating a ‘micro-politics of belonging’, Joost Fontein’s work on contextualizing land reform around Lake Mutirikwi in Southern Zimbabwe considers the affective presence of graves and ruins and their various complex relationships with the state, as related to selfhood, citizenship and belonging (2011). The ability to consider things as having affective presences and the ability to communicate with a variety of other factors that may be contradictory in purpose but integrated and simultaneous in their entanglement is a very important contribution to our understanding of how ‘agency, intention and racial subjectivation co-emerge through everyday physical encounters with the material world’ (Bernstein 2009, 69). My focus on the aesthetic is not meant as a return to formalism, to beauty, or the seductions of the ornament. Rather, it is to revisit formalism with a social ontological and material lens, thus allowing entanglement to be based in a sensory aesthetic.

63

Rivizi text.indd 63

20/09/2018 11:13:09

Chapter Four

Instead of othering the artefact as a point of observation (as per early style/form debates), we approach it while acknowledging its own vibrancy and kinesthetic quality, and reconstruct ways in which materiality may have had culturally resonant aspects that informed its relationships with other things (human and non-human) in the landscape. This approach also provides space for a decolonized aesthetic relationship to emerge (see Rojas-Sotelo, 2014). This necessarily shifts our understanding of material and its relationship with the copper producing communities of the GJCC, because an ontological lens does not suggest a lack of interest in the human experience, but rather, that it informs the kind of human experience we reconstruct. A collective aesthetic empathy towards a culturally resonant form engenders a sense of belonging that is materially contingent within a community, each experience relevant to the things entangled (both human and non-human).

Crafting Place Each activity involved in craft production, in its repeated format, makes the place specific to the people who occupy it (see Bauer 2011). The materiality of the craft production transforms the landscape through permanent markings that include bellows, tuyeres, furnaces, etc. These are the result of conscious actors utilizing their practice to create their place, inscribing it with their community identity, social memory and embodied practice (Joyce and Hendon 2000). The production of places is thus linked to the creation of communities of people and vice versa. There is an internal logic to site formation that is apparent in the ways the GJCC communities create place. For example, raw material processing is often close to the area of procurement, and those two are relatively close to the location of smelting, suggesting a certain form of site planning, most likely on the community level during the third millennium BCE. If the patterns of each of the complexes were similar, an argument could have been made for a more centralized level of planning and control. There is variability in site clustering, and complexes are not identical; however, there is a pattern of site functionality that is found in each, suggesting an agreement of plan. Community based planning as a concept provides the flexibility of varied complex arrangements, but suggests that the tacit agreement around which membership is formed is similar and cohesive. Each complex organized itself differently while selecting locations based on similar considerations that were agreed upon by all in the community.

Each of these sites also indexes place complexity, that is, the ability of a place to have ‘multiple roles, forces, norms, processes, internal spatial divisions, and external links to other kinds of places and to the processes that bring together multiple forces and systems’ (Kolb 2008, 54). David Kolb outlines three dimensions of place complexity: ‘the space of a place and its social norms’; ‘the processes of local interpretation and reproduction that maintain a place’s structure’; and the ‘relation with the remote systemic and political processes that shape a place’ (2008, 54–56). In so far as the five GJCC complexes maintain a space and their social norms by repeated craft and settlement based practices that also mirror and are a part of larger economic and political processes, the settlement patterns of the GJCC reflect place complexity. The third millennium BCE GJCC provides data for the ways in which embodied practices create places. Sites have specific social and cultural norms associated with the behaviour of the individuals and how they relate to the landscape, which provides a first dimension of place complexity. This may be linked to the possibility that copper might have a clear symbolic value within the communities (Lahiri 1995). The continued maintenance and reproduction of and local approach to the production of copper maintain a culturally specific social structure. The active and self-aware aspect of the reproduction of this specific craft technology gives the social structure both the fixity and possibility of change necessary for place complexity (Giddens 1998, 81–90). That technology and craft provide support to social structure also indexes a certain level of political process within which places are situated. This political framework is articulated within the GJCC through the organization of the various complexes, the cultural unity amongst them, and their ability to somehow maintain autonomy from and exchange relationships with the Harappans to the west/northwest and the Ahar Banas to the east/southeast (Rizvi 2007). Demonstrating that the GJCC settlement patterns maintain the three dimensions of place complexity challenges the traditional interpretation of the GJCC as a simple society, dependent on rudimentary subsistence strategy (i.e., hunter-gatherer). Communities of individuals, through self-awareness of practice complemented their ideas of selfhood with spacehood as they walked through spaces of embodied practice and craft. Thus, copper production and settlement patterns were directly linked to communities of individuals, and more specifically to the subjectivity of those in the GJCC.

64

Rivizi text.indd 64

20/09/2018 11:13:09

The Affect of Crafting and Ancient Sociality

Belonging in the GJCC Rather than considering how things belong to people, this analysis acknowledges that one belongs through things. A sense of belonging through a thing can be considered contextual and in place. In so far as place complexity can be linked to placemaking, it is important to keep in mind that the creation and maintenance of cultural constructs occurs through reiterative practice and performance of the self. In thinking through space and place in relation to architecture and these otherwise fluid categories of self and subject in relation to belonging, Neal Leach argues that ‘identification with a particular place may therefore be perceived as a mirroring between the subject and the environment over time’ (2002, 132). Utilizing Christian Metz’s (1982) psychoanalytical study on mirroring and identification, Leach provides a compelling argument linking identification with place, complicating theories proposed by Michel de Certeau (1984), Judith Butler (1990,1993) and Walter Benjamin (1979). Anne-Marie Fortier’s (1999) work on belonging through an imagined community that is attached to place also plays a role in Leach’s analysis. His analysis considers a way to extract how places are re-membered, the role of the embodied subject’s memory, and how those are related to performances of and in space, which Leach considers in relation to a location of culture (see Bhabha 1990). One of the key impasses Leach contends with is the assumed fixity of architecture. By considering intersubjective body and performance, he is able to entangle the fixed into the fluid, thereby engendering identification and belonging into architecture. Extending Leach’s argument to consider the architecture of crafting, in particular the materiality and apparent fixity of the various instruments utilized, one might consider a similar entanglement with fluidity that allows for identification to emerge upon engagement. Thus, the sight of, or interaction with, a tuyere or a bellow might elicit a sense of self and belonging for a member of a copper producing community (or even for a metallurgist). The sight of something familiar on the landscape evokes an emotional response coded in affective belonging to the architecture of that craft. An affective sense of belonging to a place is constructed by crafting place. The materiality and purity of the copper and the empathetic links to sensory aesthetics create a resonant process that engenders a feeling of belonging to the technological process. The space of crafting resonance is a space of communicative action, a normative affective space, a space where

all sorts of other things might get involved/entangled. Maintaining a consistency or frequency to that space illustrates a desire of crafting something specific, repeatedly. The repetition of that desire is empathetic affective resonance. The communicative action between the pure copper and self enables one to feel comforted, secure, and most importantly, normal. Feeling normal is not often discussed because it can be glossed over as feeling nothing. It is only in its absence or disruption, or a disruption in the ability to create that cultural resonance, that something might feel abnormal, thus highlighting difference. Cultural resonance is precisely that normal-ness for the people of third millennium BCE Ganeshwar; it is the implicit assumption that the crafting of copper occurs in particular ways, with particular smells and particular bodily technologies that allow us to link to ancient subjectivity and belonging. The specialized cultural labour involved in crafting resonance is, significantly, not a form of labour only linked to the human body and landscape. The copper itself labours (changing its states from solid to liquid and back to solid) through this process. Acknowledging the labour of copper allows for the possibility of the copper, the human body, and the landscape as all equally engaged in this communicative action, and the set of relations that craft resonance through generations. This sort of subjectivity becomes intergenerational because it is based in the culturally informed ability to craft resonance, and the purity of a certain kind of copper. Crafting cultural resonance was not arbitrary in this moment; rather it was the embodied practice of a community of copper crafters engaged in communicative action through the sets of relations they maintained with copper as a material that laboured alongside human and landscape. Crafting cultural resonance requires a shared cultural language. This is not limited to the visual register but, in the broadest sense, a flexibility of meaning to be generated within a realm of possible shared meanings. These meanings are triggered by the copperness of copper creating feelings of empathy and familiarity with the material, form or context. Based on this assertion, an argument could be made for the third millennium BCE that posits that there were shared understandings of the purity of copper that had the ability to generate different meanings but similar resonances, across the GJCC, the Harappan, and other communities in the greater northern and central Indian region, particularly those areas where Copper Hoards were later found. The decision to maintain a pure copper artefact and have that be

65

Rivizi text.indd 65

20/09/2018 11:13:09

Chapter Four

locatable in disparate places and cultures suggests that the crafting of cultural resonance may allow for a connected constitution of self, rather than a focus on regional cultural distinctions. The crafting of the copper piece into specific forms may not have been the key connection between these regions; rather, the cultural resonance of the copper itself may have linked distinct cultures together; even if the way they utilized copper or the forms they gave it may have differed significantly. As mentioned in the previous chapter, GJCC arrowhead types are found in non burial Harappan contexts and in burial contexts at Bagor and Chicholi. These finds are neither chronologically linked nor identical in form. There is, however, a similarity of form and material to the GJCC in all cases. The utilization of similar forms and material in different contexts through time suggests that while other cultural aspects change, the forms are resonant and resilient. In much the same way the copperness of the copper indexed belonging, so did the maintenance of a similarity of form. The meaning may continue to be negotiated and mediated through time and cultural change. Cultural resonance homologizes formal relations between objects; it is, as Gell argues, reflective of the ‘axis of coherence’ (1998). This axis of coherence maintains the relational, communicative and discursive quality of entanglement between and among things. In a simple sense, things look similar because they reflect similar social relations and intertextual systems between and among the objects and people (Lau 2010). These materials contain bundled meanings (Keane 2003). The arrowheads contain multiple qualities and possibilities for meaning that are engendered through the process of crafting, the aesthetics and cultural resonance that can be evoked synchronically through objects (see Gosden 2013 for diachronic approach). The material (i.e., copper) is malleable in that it can take on a multiplicity of forms responding to the requirements of the relationship or communicative action taking place. And yet, we find in this specific example of a copper corpus that both material and form are replicated both within and outside this specific collection of materials. To find similarities in form evokes a sense of belonging but also indexes an aspect of collective memory. Collective memory might be triggered by the similarity of form but also, importantly, catalyzes contextualized social relations (Feldman 2014). However, it is important to keep in mind that while these styles and aesthetic forms affectively allow for people to belong, they simultaneously also

create difference and separation. But in so far as these forms create some sense of belonging, of place and of self, they make all things toggle between the social relations and the cognitive engagements produced and maintained through these acts of crafting.

Many Forms of Belonging: The Copper Hoards In addition to arrowheads, the GJCC corpus also includes celts, fish hooks, chisels and bangles that are similar in shape to examples found at Harappan sites, Kayatha and other north Indian contexts (see Yule 1997). For example, copper hoards found in northern India posit an alternative case study through which to interrogate the many relations between bodies, minerals and landscapes. Paul Yule has posited that the communities that buried the copper hoards might have been refugees or displaced persons scattered upon the landscape in a post Urban Harappan moment (1997, 25). Whatever the case may have been, it is clear that those objects, brought together as a collection or hoard, created a new space for themselves as artefacts. This bringing together produces an ontological shift as these artefacts exist within new sets of relations internal to and peculiar to the collection itself (Moutu 2006). As such, these hoards must be approached in a manner similar to approaching the corpus of the GJCC. These collections bundle meaning and affect. The hoards mirror intertextual choices from the time of their deposit. If hoarding has meaning, it literally bundles affect through a collection of copper material. In contrast to the Ganeshwar corpus, these hoards may very well be evocative objects (Turkle 2007), things that upon interaction produce affective responses linked to security, memory, nostalgia and belonging. In that respect, the shift in meaning of belonging, for the bodies, minerals and landscapes, ontologically bears witness to them being distinct from those who are of the landscapes, minerals and bodies that may have initially produced them. The expansive landscape and nonfixed identity make them fluid in time, which poses a difficult question for archaeologists trying to temporally locate the members of this community. The copper hoards provide an excellent example of diaspora artefacts—those that move away from their origin but carry with them the affective properties of having been crafted within a particular sensory aesthetic in mind and the ability to enable a unique and meaningful sense of place, belonging and self. The Affect of Crafting and Ancient Sociality This book is about the many relationships between bodies, minerals and landscapes. It has focused on

66

Rivizi text.indd 66

20/09/2018 11:13:09

The Affect of Crafting and Ancient Sociality

the collection of copper from Ganeshwar, and on the act of crafting that produces two interrelated affective spheres, one of resonance and the other of place. Reconstructing ancient sociality as the relationship among all the bodies, animals, minerals, landscapes, etc., we are also confronted with trying to place the artefactual record within a nuanced understanding of the past. By considering the intangible affective responses to the act of crafting, we challenged the instrumental forms of crafting that underline the discourses of craft specialization. Of course, aspects of crafting related to economics, politics and technology are integral but should not dominate the discussion or analysis. Through an investigation of resonance and placemaking, senses of place, self and belonging all emerge in relation to the labouring bodies, minerals and landscapes. This study argues that the significance of copper and the specific forms it took across the region were neither limited to, nor reliant upon, political or economic self-realization. There is a regional subjectivity linked to the vibrancy of copper, the aesthetic empathy through which it engenders feelings of belonging and a sense of place in the world. That these shapes and minerals were resilient and replicated through time and across geography is significant and suggests that rather than a single political entity dominating the landscape, there existed a commonality that was forged through a mineral and its manipulation. The mineral and its cultural resonance became the node around which sets of relationships emerged that spanned the region during this time. These were lessons that I was taught in 2003 and that took over a decade to understand. As I mentioned earlier in this book, my conversation with metalsmiths outside the village of Tiskola in northeastern Rajasthan left an indelible mark on the ways in which I thought about ores, minerals, and more broadly, things. This book has, in some manner, tried to make sense of their comment (translated from Hindi): ‘You know when you pick up the piece of ore; it tells you what it can become. You just have to listen to it…’ I have had no choice but to contend with this assertion. My intention in this book was to take the time to hear and feel what these metal-smiths had invited me to consider, and I want to acknowledge and thank them for their time and the stories about their families that entangled bodies, minerals, landscapes and technologies.

67

Rivizi text.indd 67

20/09/2018 11:13:10

Rivizi text.indd 68

20/09/2018 11:13:10

Part Two Copper Artifacts from the Ganeshwar Excavations 1978-1979, State Department of Archaeology and Museums, Rajasthan, India In the second part of this book all the copper artefacts documented from the Ganeshwar Excavations 1978–79 are reproduced as images. An emphasis has been placed on the copper arrowheads, and so they are more prominently placed. However, all the copper material available in the collection from the State Department of Archaeology and Museums, Jaipur, Rajasthan, has been reproduced with permission, as per our agreement in 2003. Appendices that follow contain the list of GJCC sites and a duplication of the registrar’s list of the copper collection.

Rivizi text.indd 69

20/09/2018 11:13:10

Copper Arrowheads—Type A Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 3

GNR 1978-1979 – 31

Surface Find Length 34 mm; Width 23 mm; Thickness 1-1.2 mm

Trench A; Locus 1.35 × 1.95-0.25 Length 30 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 2 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 51

GNR 1978-1979 – 53

Locus 0.80 × 2.39-0.35 Length 25 mm; Width 14 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 15 mm; Width 13 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 132

GNR 1978-1979 – 181

Trench GNR.I (A); Locus 0.40 × 3.08-0.60 (2) Length 54 mm; Width 27 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 25 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1 mm

70

Rivizi text.indd 70

20/09/2018 11:13:10

Copper Arrowheads—Type A Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 185

GNR 1978-1979 – 189

Surface Find Length 25 mm; Width 17 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 38 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 195

GNR 1978-1979 – 206

Surface Find Length 21 mm; Width 17 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 27 mm; Width 12 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 219

GNR 1978-1979 – 240

Trench GNR.I (B); Locus 1.80 × 1.25-0.75 Length 31 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench GNR.IV; Surface Find Length 26 mm; Width 22 mm; Thickness 1 mm

71

Rivizi text.indd 71

20/09/2018 11:13:11

Copper Arrowheads—Type A Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 278

GNR 1978-1979 – 301

Trench GNR.II; Surface Find Length 22 mm; Width 14 mm; Thickness 1 mm

On Display.

GNR 1978-1979 – 305

GNR 1978-1979 – 312

Surface Find Length 35 mm; Width 21 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 32 mm; Width 16 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 355

GNR 1978-1979 – 358

Near Roadside Length 40 mm; Width 23 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Near Roadside Length 38 mm; Width 25 mm; Thickness 1 mm

72

Rivizi text.indd 72

20/09/2018 11:13:13

Copper Arrowheads—Type A Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 493

GNR 1978-1979 – 490

Trench TR.B; Locus II 0.80 × 1.37-1.22 M.B.S. Length 41 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 2 mm

Trench TR.B; Locus II 0.36 × 1.40-1.12 M.B.S. Length 30 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 503

GNR 1978-1979 – 535

Surface Find Length 24 mm; Width 16 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench TR.C1; Locus 0-I (1) 0.60 × 2.00-0.60 Length 25 mm; Width 16 mm; Thickness 2.5 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 570

GNR 1978-1979 – 573

Surface Find Length 24 mm; Width 12 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench TR.B; Locus VIII-IX Clearance Length 38 mm; Width 23 mm; Thickness 1 mm

73

Rivizi text.indd 73

20/09/2018 11:13:13

Copper Arrowheads—Type A Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 591

GNR 1978-1979 – 593

Trench TR.C2; Locus (2) II 0.85 × 1.46-0.95 M.B.S. Length 40 mm; Width 22 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench TR.C2; Locus II 0.68 × 0.57-0.75 M.B.S. Length 46 mm; Width 30 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 594

GNR 1978-1979 – 647

Trench TR.B; Locus (3) IX 0.90 × 1.34-1.24 M.B.S. Unable to gain access for measurements.

Surface Find Length 45 mm; Width 24 mm; Thickness 2-3 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 688

GNR 1978-1979 – 700

Surface Find Length 37 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 21 mm; Width 14 mm; Thickness 1 mm

74

Rivizi text.indd 74

20/09/2018 11:13:14

Copper Arrowheads—Type A Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 757

GNR 1978-1979 – 772

Surface Find Length 43 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 2 mm

Trench TR.B; Locus (6)II-III 0.30 × 0.45-2.53 Length 44 mm; Width 23 mm; Thickness 5.5 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 773

GNR 1978-1979 – 780

Surface Find Length 38 mm; Width 17 mm; Thickness 5 mm

Surface Find Length 36 mm; Width 18 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 823

GNR 1978-1979 – 832

Trench GNR.I; Surface Find Length 24 mm; Width 11 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench TR.B; Locus (6) IV-V Length 29 mm; Width 22 mm; Thickness 1 mm

75

Rivizi text.indd 75

20/09/2018 11:13:15

Copper Arrowheads—Type A Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 833

GNR 1978-1979 – 853

Trench TR.B; Locus (5) I 0.20 × 1.65-3.50 M.B.S. Length 50 mm; Width 36 mm; Thickness 2 mm

Surface Find Length 57 mm; Width 31 mm; Thickness 3 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 858

GNR 1978-1979 – 921

Surface Find Length 36 mm; Width 25 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 31 mm; Width 16 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 923

GNR 1978-1979 – 937

Surface Find Length 37 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

Surface Find Length 35 mm; Width 21 mm; Thickness 3 mm

76

Rivizi text.indd 76

20/09/2018 11:13:16

Copper Arrowheads—Type A Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 940

GNR 1978-1979 – 685 A

Surface Find Length 26 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Unable to gain access for measurements.

77

Rivizi text.indd 77

20/09/2018 11:13:16

Copper Arrowheads—Type B Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 1

GNR 1978-1979 – 4

Surface Find Length 27 mm; Width 11 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 36 mm; Width 21 mm; Thickness 1.5-2 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 11

GNR 1978-1979 – 39

Surface Find Length 20 mm; Width 13 mm; Thickness 1.2 mm

Trench GNR II; Surface Find Length 30 mm; Width 12 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 49

GNR 1978-1979 – 50

Trench A; Locus III-40 × 1.70-0.25 Length 31 mm; Width 18 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench A; Locus 0.80 × 2.37-0.35 Length 24 mm; Width 16 mm; Thickness 1 mm

78

Rivizi text.indd 78

20/09/2018 11:13:17

Copper Arrowheads—Type B Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 59

GNR 1978-1979 – 74

Surface Find Length 41 mm; Width 24 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

Trench A; Locus 0.78 × 1.57-0.25 (1) Length 38 mm; Width 23 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 92

GNR 1978-1979 – 96

Surface Find Length 24 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 24 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 1mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 121

GNR 1978-1979 – 122

Trench GNR.II (B); Locus 0.92 × 6.85-0.05 (1) Length 26 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench GNR.II (B); Locus 0.60 × 1.03-0.07 (1) Length 36 mm; Width 17 mm; Thickness 1 mm

79

Rivizi text.indd 79

20/09/2018 11:13:18

Copper Arrowheads—Type B Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 194

GNR 1978-1979 – 211

Surface Find Length 34 mm; Width 21 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench GNR I TR.A; Locus III-IV Pit B Cut Into (5) Length 36 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 216

GNR 1978-1979 – 221

Surface Find Length 42 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

Trench GNR.I (A); Locus 0.15 × 1.00-0.27 Length 46 mm; Width 17 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 239

GNR 1978-1979 – 250

Trench TR.C; Locus 1.60 × 1.70-0.20 (1) Length 29 mm; Width 14 mm; Thickness 2 mm

Surface Find Length 40 mm; Width 21 mm; Thickness 1 mm

80

Rivizi text.indd 80

20/09/2018 11:13:19

Copper Arrowheads—Type B Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 263

GNR 1978-1979 – 299

Surface Find Length 52 mm; Width 23 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

Surface Find Length 35 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 326

GNR 1978-1979 – 344

Surface Find Length 20 mm; Width 13 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench GNR.I; Surface Find Length 44 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 352

GNR 1978-1979 – 353

Trench GNR.V; Surface Find Length 38 mm; 23 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench GNR.V; Surface Find Length 36 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1 mm

81

Rivizi text.indd 81

20/09/2018 11:13:20

Copper Arrowheads—Type B Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 432

GNR 1978-1979 – 470

Surface Find Length 30 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 34 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 471

GNR 1978-1979 – 476

Surface Find Length 26 mm; Width 13 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 46 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 491

GNR 1978-1979 – 494

Trench TR.B; Locus II 0.65 × 1.95-1.28 M.B.S. Structure No.1 Length 37 mm; Width 18 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 37 mm; Width 26 mm; Thickness 1 mm

82

Rivizi text.indd 82

20/09/2018 11:13:20

Copper Arrowheads—Type B Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 502

GNR 1978-1979 – 572

Surface Find Length 35 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench TR.B; Locus VIII-IX Clearance Length 29 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 576

GNR 1978-1979 – 577

Trench TR.B; Locus VIII-IX Clearance Length 35 mm; Width 17 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 25 mm; Width 14 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 579

GNR 1978-1979 – 595

Trench TR.B; Locus VIII-IX (1) Length 44 mm; Width 30 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench TR.B Length 34 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

83

Rivizi text.indd 83

20/09/2018 11:13:22

Copper Arrowheads—Type B Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 604

GNR 1978-1979 – 626

Trench TR.C2; Locus III 0.08 × 1.16-0.75 in B.S. Floor 1 Length 36 mm; Width 21 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench TR.B; Locus (2) V 0.45 × 1.33-0.83 M.B.S. Length 35 mm; Width 18 m; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 637

GNR 1978-1979 – 725

Surface Find Length 24 mm; Width 11 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

Trench TR.B; Locus (6)II 0.30 × 2.08-2.25 Length 33 mm; Width 12 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 759

GNR 1978-1979 – 852

Surface Find Length 39 mm; Width 16 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 38 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1 mm

84

Rivizi text.indd 84

20/09/2018 11:13:23

Copper Arrowheads—Type B Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 856

Surface Find Length 32 mm; Width 13 mm; Thickness 1 mm

85

Rivizi text.indd 85

20/09/2018 11:13:23

Copper Arrowheads—Type C Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 251

GNR 1978-1979 – 360

Surface Find Length 23.5 mm; Width 16 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

Trench GNR.VI; Near Roadside Length 18 mm; Width 16 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 400

GNR 1978-1979 – 431

Surface Find Length 29 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 27 mm; Width 21 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 433

GNR 1978-1979 – 663

Surface Find Length 30 mm; Width 24 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 35 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

86

Rivizi text.indd 86

20/09/2018 11:13:24

Copper Arrowheads—Type C Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 683

GNR 1978-1979 – 855

Trench TR.C2; Locus II-III (3) Length 29 mm; Width 23 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

Surface Find Length 38 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 2 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 860

Surface Find Length 28 mm; Width 18 mm; Thickness 1 mm

87

Rivizi text.indd 87

20/09/2018 11:13:24

Copper Arrowheads—Type D Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 2

GNR 1978-1979 – 145

Surface Find Length 26 mm; Width 24 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench GNR.III; Surface Find Length 32 mm; Width 24 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 804

Surface Find Length 29 mm; Width 21 mm; Thickness 1 mm

88

Rivizi text.indd 88

20/09/2018 11:13:24

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

89

Rizvi text.indd 89

24/09/2018 09:33:22

Copper Arrowheads—Type E Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 38

GNR 1978-1979 – 76

Trench GNR II; Surface Find Length 41 mm; Width 23 mm; Thickness 4 mm

Trench A; Locus 0.70 × 1.40-0.39 (1) Length 18 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 123

GNR 1978-1979 – 130

Arrowhead Thickness 2mm

Trench GNR.I (A); Locus 0.15 × 2.93-0.49 (2) Length 42 mm; Width 13 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 133

GNR 1978-1979 – 350

Trench GNR.II; Surface Find Length 31 mm; Width 18 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 39 mm; Width 14 mm; Thickness 1 mm

90

Rivizi text.indd 90

20/09/2018 11:13:26

Copper Arrowheads—Type E Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 682

GNR 1978-1979 – 763

Trench GNR.II; Surface Find Length 42 mm; Width 22 mm; Thickness 2 mm

Surface Find Length 23 mm; Width 10 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 –

GNR 1978-1979 – 936

On Display Sikar Museum

Surface Find Length 33 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

91

Rivizi text.indd 91

20/09/2018 11:13:26

Copper Arrowheads—Type F Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 131

GNR 1978-1979 – 147

Trench GNR.I (A); Locus 0.40 × 3.08-0.60 (2) Length 40 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 5 mm

Surface Find Length 37 mm; Width 24 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 249

GNR 1978-1979 – 275

Surface Find Length 29 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

Trench GNR.II; Surface Find Length 30 mm; Width 22 mm; Thickness 1.5 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 316

GNR 1978-1979 – 472

Surface Find Length 23 mm; Width 19 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 24 mm; Width 16 mm; Thickness 1 mm

92

Rivizi text.indd 92

20/09/2018 11:13:27

Copper Arrowheads—Type F Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 489

GNR 1978-1979 – 685

Surface Find Length 38 mm; Width 18 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench TR.B; Locus (4) IX 0.65 × 0.63-1.37 M.B.S.

GNR 1978-1979 – 827

Trench TR.B; Locus (6) II-III Length 37 mm; Width 25 mm; Thickness 5 mm

93

Rivizi text.indd 93

20/09/2018 11:13:27

Copper Arrowheads—Type G Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 89

GNR 1978-1979 – 163

Surface Find Length 30 mm; Width 14 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 28 mm; Width 20 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 229

GNR 1978-1979 – 238

Surface Find Length 18 mm; Width 11 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 20 mm; Width 17 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 446

GNR 1978-1979 – 477

Surface Find Length 31 mm; Width 11 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 27 mm; Width 17 mm; Thickness 1 mm

94

Rivizi text.indd 94

20/09/2018 11:13:28

Copper Arrowheads—Type G Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 504

GNR 1978-1979 – 519

Surface Find Length 22 mm; Width 13 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 20 mm; Width 13 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 630

GNR 1978-1979 – 686

Surface Find Length 24 mm; Width 17 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 36 mm; Width 12 mm; Thickness 1 mm

GNR 1978-1979 – 765

GNR 1978-1979 – 819

Surface Find Length 15 mm; Width 12 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Trench GNR.I; Surface Find Length 24 mm; Width 15 mm; Thickness 1 mm

95

Rivizi text.indd 95

20/09/2018 11:13:28

Copper Arrowheads—Type G Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 868

GNR 1978-1979 – 938

Surface Find Length 23 mm; Width 13 mm; Thickness 1 mm

Surface Find Length 14 mm; Width 10 mm; Thickness 1 mm

96

Rivizi text.indd 96

20/09/2018 11:13:29

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

97

Rizvi text.indd 97

24/09/2018 09:34:08

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 12

GNR 1978-1979 – 34

GNR 1978-1979 – 35

GNR 1978-1979 – 40

GNR 1978-1979 – 41

GNR 1978-1979 – 42

GNR 1978-1979 – 44

GNR 1978-1979 – 57

GNR 1978-1979 – 61

GNR 1978-1979 – 62

GNR 1978-1979 – 63

GNR 1978-1979 – 67

GNR 1978-1979 – 70

GNR 1978-1979 – 71

GNR 1978-1979 – 72

GNR 1978-1979 – 73

GNR 1978-1979 – 75

GNR 1978-1979 – 77

GNR 1978-1979 – 78

GNR 1978-1979 – 79

98

Rivizi text.indd 98

20/09/2018 11:13:33

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 83

GNR 1978-1979 – 84

GNR 1978-1979 – 87

GNR 1978-1979 – 90

GNR 1978-1979 – 91

GNR 1978-1979 – 93

GNR 1978-1979 – 94

GNR 1978-1979 – 95

GNR 1978-1979 – 97

GNR 1978-1979 – 98

GNR 1978-1979 – 100

GNR 1978-1979 – 101

GNR 1978-1979 – 103

GNR 1978-1979 – 104

GNR 1978-1979 – 105

GNR 1978-1979 – 109

GNR 1978-1979 – 111

GNR 1978-1979 – 123

GNR 1978-1979 – 124

GNR 1978-1979 – 125

99

Rivizi text.indd 99

20/09/2018 11:13:35

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 126

GNR 1978-1979 – 127

GNR 1978-1979 – 138

GNR 1978-1979 – 139

GNR 1978-1979 – 140

GNR 1978-1979 – 141

GNR 1978-1979 – 142

GNR 1978-1979 – 143

GNR 1978-1979 – 144

GNR 1978-1979 – 151

GNR 1978-1979 – 154

GNR 1978-1979 – 155

GNR 1978-1979 – 156

GNR 1978-1979 – 157

GNR 1978-1979 – 158

GNR 1978-1979 – 164

GNR 1978-1979 – 165

GNR 1978-1979 – 176

GNR 1978-1979 – 180

GNR 1978-1979 – 184

100

Rivizi text.indd 100

20/09/2018 11:13:36

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 186

GNR 1978-1979 – 191

GNR 1978-1979 – 192

GNR 1978-1979 – 193

GNR 1978-1979 – 196

GNR 1978-1979 – 197

GNR 1978-1979 – 198

GNR 1978-1979 – 199

GNR 1978-1979 – 200

GNR 1978-1979 – 214

GNR 1978-1979 – 218

GNR 1978-1979 – 224

GNR 1978-1979 – 228

GNR 1978-1979 – 231

GNR 1978-1979 – 241

GNR 1978-1979 – 247

GNR 1978-1979 – 252

GNR 1978-1979 – 253

GNR 1978-1979 – 254

GNR 1978-1979 – 255

101

Rivizi text.indd 101

20/09/2018 11:13:38

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 256

GNR 1978-1979 – 257

GNR 1978-1979 – 259

GNR 1978-1979 – 260

GNR 1978-1979 – 261

GNR 1978-1979 – 276

GNR 1978-1979 – 277

GNR 1978-1979 – 280

GNR 1978-1979 – 289

GNR 1978-1979 – 300

GNR 1978-1979 – 302

GNR 1978-1979 – 303

GNR 1978-1979 – 304

GNR 1978-1979 – 306

GNR 1978-1979 – 307

GNR 1978-1979 – 317

Object Unavailable for Observation

GNR 1978-1979 – 321

GNR 1978-1979 – 323

GNR 1978-1979 – 322

GNR 1978-1979 – 324

102

Rivizi text.indd 102

20/09/2018 11:13:40

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified .

Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 325

GNR 1978-1979 – 327

GNR 1978-1979 – 328

GNR 1978-1979 – 329

GNR 1978-1979 – 338

GNR 1978-1979 – 339

GNR 1978-1979 – 340

GNR 1978-1979 – 341

GNR 1978-1979 – 351

GNR 1978-1979 – 357

GNR 1978-1979 – 362

GNR 1978-1979 – 365

GNR 1978-1979 – 369

GNR 1978-1979 – 371

GNR 1978-1979 – 374

GNR 1978-1979 – 375

GNR 1978-1979 – 376

GNR 1978-1979 – 379

GNR 1978-1979 – 380

GNR 1978-1979 – 384

103

Rivizi text.indd 103

20/09/2018 11:13:41

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 392

GNR 1978-1979 – 393

GNR 1978-1979 – 403

GNR 1978-1979 – 417

GNR 1978-1979 – 418

GNR 1978-1979 – 419

GNR 1978-1979 – 420

GNR 1978-1979 – 421

GNR 1978-1979 – 422

GNR 1978-1979 – 423

GNR 1978-1979 – 424

GNR 1978-1979 – 425

GNR 1978-1979 – 426

GNR 1978-1979 – 439

GNR 1978-1979 – 440

GNR 1978-1979 – 441

GNR 1978-1979 – 449

GNR 1978-1979 – 455

GNR 1978-1979 – 463

GNR 1978-1979 – 464

104

Rivizi text.indd 104

20/09/2018 11:13:43

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 465

GNR 1978-1979 – 466

GNR 1978-1979 – 468

GNR 1978-1979 – 469

GNR 1978-1979 – 475

GNR 1978-1979 – 478

GNR 1978-1979 – 495

GNR 1978-1979 – 499

GNR 1978-1979 – 500

GNR 1978-1979 – 505

GNR 1978-1979 – 513

GNR 1978-1979 – 514

GNR 1978-1979 – 517

GNR 1978-1979 – 526

GNR 1978-1979 – 528

GNR 1978-1979 – 529

GNR 1978-1979 – 530

GNR 1978-1979 – 531

GNR 1978-1979 – 532

GNR 1978-1979 – 534

105

Rivizi text.indd 105

20/09/2018 11:13:44

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 536

GNR 1978-1979 – 537

GNR 1978-1979 – 540

GNR 1978-1979 – 541

GNR 1978-1979 – 543

GNR 1978-1979 – 549

GNR 1978-1979 – 551

GNR 1978-1979 – 553

GNR 1978-1979 – 555

GNR 1978-1979 – 566

GNR 1978-1979 – 567

GNR 1978-1979 – 568

GNR 1978-1979 – 569

GNR 1978-1979 – 571

GNR 1978-1979 – 578

GNR 1978-1979 – 584

GNR 1978-1979 – 585

GNR 1978-1979 – 587

GNR 1978-1979 – 598

GNR 1978-1979 – 602

106

Rivizi text.indd 106

20/09/2018 11:13:46

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 603

GNR 1978-1979 – 606

GNR 1978-1979 – 609

GNR 1978-1979 – 621

GNR 1978-1979 – 622

GNR 1978-1979 – 623

GNR 1978-1979 – 624

GNR 1978-1979 – 628

GNR 1978-1979 – 631

GNR 1978-1979 – 632

GNR 1978-1979 – 633

GNR 1978-1979 – 639

GNR 1978-1979 – 640

GNR 1978-1979 – 642

GNR 1978-1979 – 643

GNR 1978-1979 – 646

GNR 1978-1979 – 648

GNR 1978-1979 – 650

GNR 1978-1979 – 652

GNR 1978-1979 – 660

107

Rivizi text.indd 107

20/09/2018 11:13:47

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 661

GNR 1978-1979 – 662

GNR 1978-1979 – 664

GNR 1978-1979 – 665

GNR 1978-1979 – 677

GNR 1978-1979 – 681

GNR 1978-1979 – 686

GNR 1978-1979 – 687

GNR 1978-1979 – 696

GNR 1978-1979 – 697

GNR 1978-1979 – 698

GNR 1978-1979 – 702

GNR 1978-1979 – 703

GNR 1978-1979 – 705

GNR 1978-1979 – 706

GNR 1978-1979 – 712

GNR 1978-1979 – 718

GNR 1978-1979 – 723

GNR 1978-1979 – 740

GNR 1978-1979 – 742

108

Rivizi text.indd 108

20/09/2018 11:13:49

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 743

GNR 1978-1979 – 744

GNR 1978-1979 – 745

GNR 1978-1979 – 746

GNR 1978-1979 – 748

GNR 1978-1979 – 760

GNR 1978-1979 – 761

GNR 1978-1979 – 762

GNR 1978-1979 – 764

GNR 1978-1979 – 775

GNR 1978-1979 – 778

GNR 1978-1979 – 787

GNR 1978-1979 – 788

GNR 1978-1979 – 792

GNR 1978-1979 – 793

GNR 1978-1979 – 794

GNR 1978-1979 – 795

GNR 1978-1979 – 802

GNR 1978-1979 – 803

GNR 1978-1979 – 808

109

Rivizi text.indd 109

20/09/2018 11:13:50

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 815

GNR 1978-1979 – 816

GNR 1978-1979 – 817

GNR 1978-1979 – 820

GNR 1978-1979 – 822

GNR 1978-1979 – 826

GNR 1978-1979 – 831

GNR 1978-1979 – 834

GNR 1978-1979 – 835

GNR 1978-1979 – 837

GNR 1978-1979 – 838

GNR 1978-1979 – 840

GNR 1978-1979 – 842

GNR 1978-1979 – 857

GNR 1978-1979 – 859

GNR 1978-1979 – 861

GNR 1978-1979 – 862

GNR 1978-1979 – 863

GNR 1978-1979 – 864

GNR 1978-1979 – 865

110

Rivizi text.indd 110

20/09/2018 11:13:52

Copper Arrowheads—Unclassified Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 866

GNR 1978-1979 – 867

GNR 1978-1979 – 869

GNR 1978-1979 – 870

GNR 1978-1979 – 871

GNR 1978-1979 – 872

GNR 1978-1979 – 873

GNR 1978-1979 – 875

GNR 1978-1979 – 878

GNR 1978-1979 – 894

GNR 1978-1979 – 895

GNR 1978-1979 – 907

GNR 1978-1979 – 908

GNR 1978-1979 – 909

GNR 1978-1979 – 912

GNR 1978-1979 – 913

GNR 1978-1979 – 926

GNR 1978-1979 – 941

GNR 1978-1979 – 942

111

Rivizi text.indd 111

20/09/2018 11:13:53

Copper Bangles Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 54

GNR 1978-1979 – 335

GNR 1978-1979 – 404

GNR 1978-1979 – 405

GNR 1978-1979 – 836

112

Rivizi text.indd 112

20/09/2018 11:13:54

Copper Blades Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 37

GNR 1978-1979 – 66

GNR 1978-1979 – 68

GNR 1978-1979 – 69

GNR 1978-1979 – 102

GNR 1978-1979 – 150

GNR 1978-1979 – 159

GNR 1978-1979 – 168

GNR 1978-1979 – 177

GNR 1978-1979 – 179

GNR 1978-1979 – 747

GNR 1978-1979 – 777

GNR 1978-1979 – 812

GNR 1978-1979 – 879

113

Rivizi text.indd 113

20/09/2018 11:13:56

Copper Celts Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 126

GNR 1978-1979 – 129 Measure equals 25cm Objects Displayed at 100% scale

114

Rivizi text.indd 114

20/09/2018 11:13:56

Copper Chisels Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 115

GNR 1978-1979 – 533

GNR 1978-1979 – 910

GNR 1978-1979 – 548

GNR 1978-1979 – 689

GNR 1978-1979 – 930

GNR 1978-1979 – 122

Measure equals 5cm

GNR 1978-1979 – 125

115

Rivizi text.indd 115

20/09/2018 11:13:57

Copper Hairpins Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 233

GNR 1978-1979 – 394

GNR 1978-1979 – 592

GNR 1978-1979 – 701

116

Rivizi text.indd 116

20/09/2018 11:13:58

Copper Hooks Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 152

GNR 1978-1979 – 187

GNR 1978-1979 – 242

GNR 1978-1979 – 262

GNR 1978-1979 – 264

GNR 1978-1979 – 311

GNR 1978-1979 – 330

GNR 1978-1979 – 346

GNR 1978-1979 – 348

GNR 1978-1979 – 377

GNR 1978-1979 – 378

GNR 1978-1979 – 382

GNR 1978-1979 – 445

GNR 1978-1979 – 454

GNR 1978-1979 – 458

GNR 1978-1979 – 459

GNR 1978-1979 – 460

GNR 1978-1979 – 484

GNR 1978-1979 – 507

GNR 1978-1979 – 521

117

Rivizi text.indd 117

20/09/2018 11:14:01

Copper Hooks Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 574

GNR 1978-1979 – 600

GNR 1978-1979 – 614

GNR 1978-1979 – 629

GNR 1978-1979 – 636

GNR 1978-1979 – 781

GNR 1978-1979 – 798

GNR 1978-1979 – 825

GNR 1978-1979 – 893

GNR 1978-1979 – 917

GNR 1978-1979 – 922

GNR 1978-1979 – 925

GNR 1978-1979 – 935

SIKAR MUSEUM – 119

118

Rivizi text.indd 118

20/09/2018 11:14:03

Copper Rings Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 8

GNR 1978-1979 – 9

GNR 1978-1979 – 30

GNR 1978-1979 – 52

GNR 1978-1979 – 80

GNR 1978-1979 – 81

GNR 1978-1979 – 129

GNR 1978-1979 – 167

GNR 1978-1979 – 223

GNR 1978-1979 – 320

GNR 1978-1979 – 333

GNR 1978-1979 – 430

GNR 1978-1979 – 498

GNR 1978-1979 – 582

GNR 1978-1979 – 616

GNR 1978-1979 – 666

GNR 1978-1979 – 692

GNR 1978-1979 – 704

119

Rivizi text.indd 119

20/09/2018 11:14:05

Copper Rods Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 23

GNR 1978-1979 – 202

GNR 1978-1979 – 243

GNR 1978-1979 – 294

GNR 1978-1979 – 203

GNR 1978-1979 – 230

GNR 1978-1979 – 444 Measure equals 5cm

120

Rivizi text.indd 120

20/09/2018 11:14:06

Copper Sawpiece Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 244

121

Rivizi text.indd 121

20/09/2018 11:14:06

Copper Spearheads Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 10

GNR 1978-1979 – 64

GNR 1978-1979 – 110

GNR 1978-1979 – 112

GNR 1978-1979 – 245

GNR 1978-1979 – 308

GNR 1978-1979 – 385

GNR 1978-1979 – 436

GNR 1978-1979 – 679

GNR 1978-1979 – 758

GNR 1978-1979 – 854

122

Rivizi text.indd 122

20/09/2018 11:14:08

Copper Wires Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 48

GNR 1978-1979 – 290

GNR 1978-1979 – 291

GNR 1978-1979 – 372

GNR 1978-1979 – 398

GNR 1978-1979 – 427

GNR 1978-1979 – 452

GNR 1978-1979 – 597

GNR 1978-1979 – 635

GNR 1978-1979 – 736

GNR 1978-1979 – 796

GNR 1978-1979 – 813

GNR 1978-1979 – 897

GNR 1978-1979 – 906

123

Rivizi text.indd 123

20/09/2018 11:14:09

Copper Miscellaneous Measure Equal to 2.5cm Objects Displayed at 50% Scale

GNR 1978-1979 – 205

GNR 1978-1979 – 336

GNR 1978-1979 – 347

GNR 1978-1979 – 356

GNR 1978-1979 – 402

GNR 1978-1979 – 461

GNR 1978-1979 – 575

GNR 1978-1979 – 810

GNR 1978-1979 – 880

GNR 1978-1979 – 916

124

Rivizi text.indd 124

20/09/2018 11:14:11

Sikar Museum Measure Equal to 5cm Objects Displayed at 100% Scale

SIKAR MUSEUM – 120 A

GNR 1978-1979 – 120 B C D Scale equals 10cm

GNR 1978-1979 – 122

GNR 1978-1979 – 128 A

Scale equals 10cm

GNR 1978-1979 – 124

GNR 1978-1979 – 128 B

Scale equals 10cm

125

Rivizi text.indd 125

20/09/2018 11:14:12

Rivizi text.indd 126

20/09/2018 11:14:12

Appendices

Rivizi text.indd 127



Appendix I

128

List of all GJCC Survey Sites

140

List of Sites with Vitrified Waste Materials

144

List of Metal Production Sites—2003 Survey Results

145

List of Mining and Raw Material Sites—2003 Survey Results



Appendix II

146

Registry of All Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan

20/09/2018 11:14:12

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Co ordinates

State

District

Abhavas

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Achrol

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80:62

Explored

Ageri

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Aheerwala

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Ajitgarh

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Ajmeri

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1981-82: 62; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Amai (old Amaravati)

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Amansar

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Amarpura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Anatpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Aniyali

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1979-80: 62

Explored

Antela

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bachari

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1981-82: 62; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Badalgarh

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

27° 15’ 29 N 75° 26’ 40 E

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

Site Name

Badar

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Badhal

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Badhana

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1972-73: 28

Explored

Badi Lara

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Bagariyawas

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bagrava

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bakhtawar Ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Baleshwar

Rajasthan

Sikar

Baliji

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Balwar (Jorika Beed)

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 35’ 00’ N 75° 38’ 00’ E

Banar

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 50’ 11 N 76° 05’ 23 E

Banethi

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 11’ 25 N 75° 49’ E

2.8

0.5

27° 44’ 00’ N 75° 51’ 00’ E

IAR 1977-78: 49; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520 Explored IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

IAR; 1978-80: 62; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix; Explored Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

2.0

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Baneti

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 48’ 00’ N 76° 07’ 00’ E

Banher

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 50’ 00’ N 76° 07’ 00’ E

Bani Ka Chora

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Barah Ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1981-82: 62; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bari Jori

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Barmanwas

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Barnagar

Rajasthan

Sikar

Barodiya

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 33’ 00’ N 76° 07’ 00’ E

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

128

Rivizi text.indd 128

20/09/2018 11:14:12

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Co ordinates

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

Site Name

State

District

Barwars

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Basai

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Basedi

Rajasthan

Sikar

Basri

Rajasthan

Sikar

Bayka

Rajasthan

Sikar

Beedki Jodhi

Rajasthan

Sikar

Bewapatan

Rajasthan

Sikar

Bhabhra

Rajasthan

Sikar

Bhabru (Sonpura)

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Bhadwari

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 00’ N 75° 40’ 00’ E

Bhagamas

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 10’ 58 N 75° 27’ 25 E

Bhagamas II

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 11’ 50 N 75° 27’ 19 E

Bhageshwar

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Bhagodha

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100

Bhagoga

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Bhagrava

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bhagwas Ahiran

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bhaikhri

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 00’ N 76° 07’ 00’ E

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Bhainsalana

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 39’ 00’ N 76° 05’ 00’ E

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Bhainsawal

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1972-73: 28

Explored

Bhairupura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bhaishlana

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored 27° 58’ 20 N 75° 57’ 24 E

2.0

27° 38’ 00’ N 75° 45’ 00’ E

27° 36’ 00’ N 76° 09’ 00’ E

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

IAR 1972-73: 28; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520 Explored Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

1.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

0.4

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

27° 28’ 00’ N 76° 01’ 00’ E

Explored

Bhakhtawarki Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

Bhamod

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bhanipura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bhankari

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Bhanti ri Tibri

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1979-80: 62

Explored

Bhariya

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Bharni

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bhitali Gaondi

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

27° 51’ 00’ N 76° 06’ 00’ E

27° 34’ 15 N 76° 08’ 30 E

27° 33’ 57 N 75° 58’ 27 E

Bhojpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 33’ 00’ N 75° 35’ 00’ E

Bhojpura II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 40’ 23 N 75° 47’ 58 E

Bhomya Ka Tiba

Rajasthan

Jaipur

0.7

6.1

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80 :63; Joshi, Madhu Bala Explored & Ram 1984: 520 1.0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

129

Rivizi text.indd 129

20/09/2018 11:14:12

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Co ordinates

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

Site Name

State

District

Bhoortal

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bhopatpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bhopiya

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Bhudoli (Bhoodoli)

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63; IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar Explored 1998: Appendix

Bhukha Bhar

Rajasthan

Sikar

Bhuralya

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 37’ 00’ N 76° 10’ 00’ E

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Bihar

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 52’ 00’ N 75° 57’ 00’ E

Biharipur

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 53’ 33 N 75° 53’ 40 E

Biharipura

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 54’ 00’ N 75° 54’ 00’ E

Boochara (Kolyara)

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1979-80: 62

Explored

Buchahara

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1981-82: 62; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Buchara

Rajasthan

Sikar

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Buchobharat

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Buda

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

1.0

27° 33’ 00’ N 75° 58’ 00’ E

Bur ka Tila

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 51’ 06 N 75° 40’ 27 E

Burha

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 54’ 00’ N 75° 58’ 00’ E

Burka

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 52’ 45 N 75° 57’ 35 E

Burka Khera

Rajasthan

Sikar

2.0

0.6

27° 41’ 00’ N 75° 46’ 00’ E

Butholi

Rajasthan

Sikar

Byorka

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Chainpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chaja Ki Nagal

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chak Dhanota Nagal

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chak Dhelwran

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1987-88:100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chak Kharda

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chak Muzzafarpur

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chak Peoplod

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chak Sanga Kawas

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chak Shiva Singhpura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chala

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Chamrauli

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Chanuhan Ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Chapar

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88:100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

130

Rivizi text.indd 130

20/09/2018 11:14:13

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Site Name

State

District

Charan Ka Was

Rajasthan

Sikar

Chardera

Rajasthan

Sikar

Chatarpura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Chaudhrika Nangal

Rajasthan

Sikar

Chavasri

Rajasthan

Cheethwari

Co ordinates

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Jhunjhunu

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Chimanpura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Chinchroli

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 51’ 00’ N 76° 06’ 00’ E

27° 53’ 00’ N 76° 07’ 00’ E

IAR 1980-81: 56; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Chiplata

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 00’ N 75° 34’ 00’ E

Chiplata (Cheeplata) & Neerja

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 14 N 75° 49’ 25 E

Chiplata (Cheeplata) II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 34 N 75° 49’ 36 E

Chithwari

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 07’ 53 N 75° 49’ 34 E

Chosla

Rajasthan

Tonk

26° 28’ 46 N 75° 29’ 01 E

Chudela

Rajasthan

Dabla

Explored

IAR 1978-79:20; IAR 1979-80 : 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala Explored & Ram 1984: 520 80.0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix; Explored Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

19.0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Dadiya Pajyali

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Daadia

Rajasthan

Sikar

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Daduka

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Dadshahpur

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Darda

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 53’ N 75° 39’ E

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Dariba

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 41’ 00’ N 75° 54’ 00’ E

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Daruwali

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Deep Pura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Dehra

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Dehrawali

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Delsar

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Devan

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Devipura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Devta (Devitah)

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Dhabawali

Rajasthan

Dhadhania

27° 18’ 29 N 75° 28’ 37 E

27° 50’ 40 N 76° 05’ 31 E

0.4

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rajasthan

Jodhpur

IAR 1983-84: 71

Explored

Dhar

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Dharora II

Rajasthan

Sikar

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

27° 35’ 12 N 75° 51’ 39 E

0.2

1.2

131

Rivizi text.indd 131

20/09/2018 11:14:13

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Site Name

State

District

Dhoonwala

Rajasthan

Sikar

Co ordinates

27° 28’ 47 N 76° 05’ 50 E

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Dhowri ki Dongri Rajasthan

Jaipur

Dhunga ka Nangla

Rajasthan

Sikar

Dilpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Divrala

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Dokan

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Dolaj

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Dolyada

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Dungar Das Ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Gadhi Khanpur

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Galunda Ki Dur

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

IAR 1980-81: 56; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Ganeshpura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

0.8

27° 50’ 00’ N 76° 04’ 00’ E

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Ganeshwar

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 40’ 30 N 75° 48’ 59 E

Ganeshwar I

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 39’ 58 N 75° 49’ 30 E

Ganeshwar II

Rajasthan

Sikar

Kharakwal, Sharma & Meena 2003

Explored

Ganeshwar III

Rajasthan

Sikar

Kharakwal, Sharma & Meena 2003

Explored

Ganeshwar IV

Rajasthan

Sikar

Kharakwal, Sharma & Meena 2003

Explored

Ganeshwar V

Rajasthan

Sikar

Kharakwal, Sharma & Meena 2003

Explored

Gaonri

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20 IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Gaonri Bandh

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Ghala

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Gharadala Kala

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Ghasnipura

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Ghata

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79:20; IAR 1979-80:63; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Ghosiya Ka math Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Gogamerihi

Rajasthan

Jaisalmer

IAR 1990-91: 60

Explored

Gogera

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Gogera

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Gokul Ka Was

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Gokul Singh’s House

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Golyari

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80:63

Explored

Gopi Nath Ji Ka Mandir

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Goriya

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Gothnari

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

8.4

IAR 1977-78: 48; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Excavated

0.045

Kharakwal, Sharma & Meena 2003; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

27° 54’ 07 N 75° 39’ 11 E

27° 35’ 00’ N 75° 51’ 00’ E

27° 33’ 55 N 76° 06’ 51 E

27° 21’ 29 N 76° 08’ 32 E

0.3

2.0

132

Rivizi text.indd 132

20/09/2018 11:14:13

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Co ordinates

State

District

Gothnari II

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Govindgarh

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Govindpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Greedawara

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Gurara

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Gurdha

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Hanspur

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Hardas ka Was

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

27° 32’ 09 N 76° 06’ 19 E

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

Site Name

6.5

Harichand Ward Wanda

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Harijanpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Hasampur

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Hathi Deh

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Hinduka

Rajasthan

Sikar

Holkyawas

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 51’ 12 N 76° 06’ 28 E

27° 48’ 50 N 76° 04’ 32 E

0.8

6.5

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Hothoka

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 49’ 00’ N 75° 05’ 00’ E

Hovra

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 00’ N 75° 36’ 00’ E

Imloha

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Jagmalpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Jaitpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Jaitsar

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Jambalpur

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1981-82: 62; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Jankipura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Jarinda

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Jaswantpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Jatala

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Jheer ki Chowki

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Jhiloo

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored

Jhoonsya Etawah Rajasthan

Jaipur

Jhulna Tilla

Rajasthan

Jodhpur

27° 13’ 52 N 75° 28’ 21 E

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

IAR 1979-80: 62; IAR 1980-81: 56; Hooja and Kumar Explored 1998: Appendix

Jodhpura Sonari

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Jodhpura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Johadri

Rajasthan

Sikar

Jojod

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 47’ 49 N 75° 42’ 03 E

27° 36’ 51 N 75° 49’ 47 E

1.5

5.0

IAR 1978-79:20; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

7.4

IAR 1972-73; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Excavated

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

133

Rivizi text.indd 133

20/09/2018 11:14:13

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Co ordinates

State

District

Jorawar Nagar

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Jug Rajpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Jugalpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Kachra

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Kachula

Rajasthan

Bhilwara

IAR 1983-84: 71

Explored

Kair

Rajasthan

Bharatpur

IAR 1979-80: 62

Explored

Kajar

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Kala Khera

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

27° 34’ 03 N 75° 59’ 59 E

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

Site Name

Kali Dantali

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Kalyanpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Kanchanpur

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Kankariya

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Kanwat

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Katrathal

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

0.4

Khag

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 33’ 58 N 75° 59’ 57 E

Khagara

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 40 N 75° 45’ 29 E

Khalra

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Khan Kheri (near Rajasthan Bayana)

Bharatpur

IAR 1979-80: 62

Explored

Khanri

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Khard Beenjpur

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Kharkaro

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

28° 02’ 39 N 75° 46’ 11 E

Khata Dhaba

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 52’ 46 N 75° 42’ 08 E

Khatkar

Rajasthan

Sikar

Khatiwala Dhani Rajasthan

Jaipur

Khedwala

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Khelna

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Khera

Rajasthan

Sikar

Khera (Balwar)

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 15 N 75° 59’ 40 E

Khera Phoolaira

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Kheraira

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 53’ 39 N 75° 46’ 10 E

Khiroti

Rajasthan

Sikar

Khobra Road

Rajasthan

Sikar

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Khoh Mundri

Rajasthan

Sikar

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

0.4

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

12.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

1.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1972-73: 28

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

10.0

27° 55’ 00’ N 75° 59’ 00’ E

27° 13’ 36 N 75° 27’ 59 E

Khodaliya Dhola

0.08

2.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

IAR 1987-88: 100; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix Explored 28° 03’ 41 N 75° 43’ 25 E

20

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1981-82: 62; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

134

Rivizi text.indd 134

20/09/2018 11:14:13

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Co ordinates

State

District

Khokhro Khera

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1979-80: 62

Explored

Khunana

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Khurdiya

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Kilarli

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 09 N 75° 59’ 47 E

0.9

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Kilarli II

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 04 N 75° 59’ 46 E

0.15

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Kilarli III

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 03 N 75° 59’ 47 E

0.16

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Kilyanpura ‘B’

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Kiradot

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1972-73: 28; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Kiratpura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Kishore Pura

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Kojar

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

IAR 1980-81: 56

Explored

Kokana

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100

Explored

Kola ki Nagal

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Kolwa Arania

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1979-80: 62

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Kolyara

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 00’ N 75° 00’ 00’ E

Koshiya Tiba

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 46 N 75° 45’ 50 E

Kota Maholi

Rajasthan

Sawai Madhopur

Kotri

Rajasthan

Sikar 27° 41’28 N 75° 49’ 13 E

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

Site Name

1.5

Kulhade Ka Johad Rajasthan

Sikar

Kulra

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20

Explored

Kumhareri

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Kuradhan Ki Doonngri

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Lachura

Rajasthan

Bhilwara

IAR 1983-84: 71

Explored

Ladi ka Was

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Lakhipura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Lalbaba

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

0.6

Lamliya Karkhana

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Loharwara

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Loharwas

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Lomor

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Mabri

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 100

Explored

Madrajal Nala (Baleshwar)

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Mahava

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 101; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Mala Kali

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

27° 53’ 35 N 75° 45’ 13 E

0.8

135

Rivizi text.indd 135

20/09/2018 11:14:14

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Site Name

State

District

Co ordinates

Malawali Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 43’ 00’ N 75° 46’ 00’ E

Maliyawali Dhani Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 42’ 07 N 75° 46’ 58 E

Maliou ka Tiba

Jaipur

Rajasthan

Maliyou ki Dhani Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Maluala

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Malyali

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 53’ 48 N 75° 39’ 21 E

Mandha

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 16 N 76° 09’ 38 E

Mandha II

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 19 N 76° 09’ 27 E

Mando

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 00’ N 75° 00’ 00’ E

Mandoli

Rajasthan

Sikar 27° 36’ 58 N 75° 50’ 54 E

Site Size (ha) Reference

1.0

6.0

Explored/ Excavated

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

IAR 1981-82: 62

Explored

0.5

IAR 1972-73: 28; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

IAR 1987-88: 101; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Manjhaira

Rajasthan

Sikar

Manju Kota

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Marot

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Mawanda

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

1.5

Mayaramji ka Dhada

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Medh I

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Medh II

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Meeno Ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Mehroli

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Melda

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Mokabas

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Monyali Barori

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1979-80:62

Explored

Moor Kara Kala Nala

Rajasthan

Mothuka

27° 59’ 20 N 75° 54’ 17 E

0.5

Jaipur

27° 11’ 46 N 75° 47’ 52 E

6.0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 49’ 29 N 76° 03’ 55 E

25.0

IAR 1979-80: 63; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Mukundpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Mundala

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Mungtor

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Nahro Ke Kothi

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Nalot

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Nandlal pura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Nangal

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Nangal Bheem

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Napawali

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Narera

Rajasthan

Bhilwara

IAR 1983-84: 71

Explored

26° 37’ 39 N 76° 02’ 10 E

5.0

136

Rivizi text.indd 136

20/09/2018 11:14:14

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Co ordinates

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

Site Name

State

District

Natha Ki Nagal

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 101; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Naurangpur

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Neemed

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Nijhara

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

27° 35’ 00’ N 75° 36’ 00’ E

Nimki

Rajasthan

Sikar

Nimodh

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63; Hooja and Kumar Explored 1998: Appendix

Nithar

Rajasthan

Bharatpur

IAR 1979-80: 62

Explored

Oda Ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1979-80: 62

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

Paapara

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Padeva

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 44’ 05 N 75° 42’ 17 E

0.2

27° 36’ 00’ N 76° 03’ 00’ E

Panditpur

Rajasthan

Sikar

Panditpura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Panjadi

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Papra

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

Explored

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

27° 36’ 00’ N 76° 03’ 00’ E

Paragpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Pare Bhitar Ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

Partheri

Rajasthan

Sikar

Partheri

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Phagalwa

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Piprali

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Pithal Puri

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1981-82: 62; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Poonchlari Dhani Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Pragpura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Prithvipura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Puranavas

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Purani Partheri

Rajasthan

Sikar

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 521

Explored

Purana Mothuka Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Purawala

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Pyojara

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Raakawari

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 50’ 17 N 75° 44’ 25 E

3.0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Rajnota

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 36’ 04 N 76° 09’ 39 E

5.0

IAR 1972-73: 28; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Rajnotha

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 36’ 00’ N 76° 10’ 00’ E

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 521

Explored

Rajpur

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1981-82: 62; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rajpur Jagir

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

27° 33’ 00’ N 75° 45’ 00’ E

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala Explored & Ram 1984: 521

27° 37’ 00’ N 76° 09’ 00’ E

27° 21’ 05 N 76° 08’ 05 E

0.1

137

Rivizi text.indd 137

20/09/2018 11:14:14

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Site Name

State

District

Co ordinates

Ramjalra

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Ram Jhalara

Rajasthan

Sikar

Rana Ki Radi

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Ranasar

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 00’ N 75° 43’ 00’ E

Ranasar II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 31 N 75° 44’ 40 E

Ranipura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Site Size (ha) Reference

27° 35’ 00’ N 76° 09’ 00’ E

27° 56’ 22 N 75° 40’ 21 E

2.2

Explored/ Excavated

IAR 1972-73: 28

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 521

Explored

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 521; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Rasoolpur

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

Rewari (Purani)

Rajasthan

Jaipur

IAR 1972-73: 28

Explored

Saidala

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Saiwar

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Sakrai

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Saladipura

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1987-88: 101; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Salodara

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Samrathpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Sangaliya

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Sargoth

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 521

Explored

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 521

Explored

IAR 1980-81: 56; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Sarohi

Rajasthan

Sikar

Sedh ki Dungri

Rajasthan

Sikar

0.6

27° 43’ 00’ N 75° 44’ 00’ E

Sedoda

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 39’ 00’ N 75° 49’ 00’ E

Sefraguvar (Sheferaghwar)

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 48’ 55 N 75° 43’ 07 E

Shyampura

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Shyamwali

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Sihori

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Simarla

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

1.0

Singhana

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

28° 06’ 00 N 75° 50’ 34 E

Singodh Kala

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 18’ 28 N 75° 39’ 37 E

Sirohi

Rajasthan

Sikar

Somanyaki Baoli Rajasthan

Sikar

Surani

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Tapkeshwara Chavandea

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

Takalda

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 10’ 26 N 75° 40’ 56 E

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Disseration

Explored

Taskola (Tiskola)

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 51 N 76° 01’ 07 E

1.3

IAR: 1973-74:24; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Tatera

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

60

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

4.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 521

Explored

27° 32’ 00’ N 75° 56’ 00’ E

138

Rivizi text.indd 138

20/09/2018 11:14:14

Appendix I List of Explored and Excavated GJCC Sites

Site Name

State

District

Tejwala

Rajasthan

Sikar

Theekariya

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Co ordinates

Site Size (ha) Reference

Explored/ Excavated

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

Explored

IAR 1973-74: 24

Explored

Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 521

Explored

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Thikria

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 32’ 00’ N 76° 06’ 00’ E

Thikriya (Gouchar)

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 31’ N 76° 07’ 01 E

Thoi

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 32’ 00’ N 76° 45’ 00’ E

Tigri

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1973-74: 24; IAR 1979-80: 64

Explored

Toda

Rajasthan

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Todawali

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 64; IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar Explored 1998: Appendix

Tumat (Tuma’at) Rajasthan

Sikar

Tumbat

Rajasthan

Tunda

75° 49’ 30 E 75° 48’ 18 E

0.2

IAR 1978-79:20; IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala Explored & Ram 1984: 521; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

2.0

IAR 1979-80:64; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Sikar

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1988-89: 76; Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

Tyonda

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 59’ 09 N 75° 53’ 48 E

13.0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Umrawala

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 37’ 55 N 75° 48’ 57 E

0.65

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 64; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Explored

Unchi Beni

Rajasthan

Sikar

IAR 1979-80: 64

Explored

Vijay Singh Pura

Rajasthan

Jaipur

Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Explored

385 sites reported with evidence of GJCC ceramic.

139

Rivizi text.indd 139

20/09/2018 11:14:14

Appendix I Sites with Vitrified Waste Materials

Site Name

State

District

Latitude

Longitude

Site Size (ha) Reference

Site Designation

Aheerwala

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Badar

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 15’ 29 N

75° 26’ 40 E 2.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Baleshwar

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 43’ 10 N

75° 53’ 44 E

5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Copper Ore

Baleshwar II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 43’ 22 N

75° 53’ 25 E

10

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Balouji Sayni’s Ghar

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 11’ 59 N

75° 49’ 28 E

0.1

Rizvi, 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces?

Balwar (Jorika Beed)

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520; Hooja and GJCC/Vitrified Waste Kumar 1998: Appendix

Banar Khera

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 50’ 11 N

76° 05’ 23 E

2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Basai

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 58’ 20 N 75° 57’ 24 E

2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Bhagamas II

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 11’ 50 N

75° 27’ 19 E

0.4

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Bhankri

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 15 N

76° 08’ 30 E 0.7

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste

Bhariya

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 33’ 57 N

75° 58’ 27 E

6.1

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Bhojpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 40’ 23 N 75° 47’ 58 E

1

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Bihar

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 52’ 17 N

1

IAR 1979-80: 63; Rizvi, 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Bihar II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 52’ 05 N 75° 56’ 39 E

0.24

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Biharipur

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 53’ 15 N

75° 53’ 51 E

10

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Biharipur II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 53’ 33 N

75° 53’ 40 E

1

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste

Bur ka Tila

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 51’ 06 N

75° 40’ 27 E

2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Wastes/Historic

Burjiwala

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 12 N

75° 59’ 56 E

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Chamrauli

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Cheechroli (Chinchroli)

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 50’ 03 N 75° 44’ 34 E

0.8

IAR 1980-81: 56; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/ Vitrified Waste/ Raw Material Working Area

Cheeplata & Neerja

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 14 N

75° 49’ 25 E

80

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Cheeplata II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 34 N 75° 49’ 36 E

—

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Cheeplata III

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 22 N

75° 49’ 27 E

—

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Chosla

Rajasthan

Tonk

26° 28’ 46 N 75° 29’ 01 E

—

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Chowkhali Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 37’ 13 N

75° 50’ 16 E

0.35

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Delsar

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Dharora

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 35’ 15 N

75° 51’ 27 E

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Dharora II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 35’ 12 N

75° 51’ 39 E

1.2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Dhoonwala

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Dhowri ki Dongri

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 28’ 47 N 76° 05’ 50 E 0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Raw Material/Mining/GJCC

Dilpura

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 50’ N

IAR 1979-80: 63; Joshi, Madhu Bala & Ram 1984: 520

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Ganeshwar

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 40’ 30 N 75° 48’ 59 E

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/PGW/Vitrified Waste

75° 56’ 53 E

76° 04’ 00’ E — 8.4

140

Rivizi text.indd 140

20/09/2018 11:14:14

Appendix I Sites with Vitrified Waste Materials

Site Name

State

District

Latitude

Ganeshwar I

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 39’ 58 N 75° 49’ 30 E 0.045

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Ganeshwar II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 66’ 91 N

75° 82’ 64 E

0.05

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Gaonri

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Gaonri Bandh

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Garha

Rajasthan

Jaipur

—

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 62

Vitrified Waste

Gharadala Kala

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 54’ 07 N 75° 39’ 11 E

—

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Golyari

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

—

Longitude

—

Site Size (ha) Reference

Site Designation

Gomiaji Mandir Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 28° 03’ 40 N 75° 45’ 10 E

1

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Historic

Gopalnagar

Rajasthan

Jaipur

26° 38’ 46 N 75° 37’ 50 E

0.028

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Harichand Ward Rajasthan Wanda

Jaipur

27° 51’ 12 N

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/GJCC/ mixed pottery in modern context

Hinduka I

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 48’ 50 N 76° 04’ 32 E

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/Copper Mine area/raw material procurement

IAR 1981-82: 62

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

76° 06’ 28 E 0.8

6.5

Jambalpur

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

Jhoonsya Etawah

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 13’ 52 N

75° 28’ 21 E

1.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Johadri

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 36’ 51 N

75° 49’ 47 E

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/Furnaces

Johara Khera

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 25’ 33 N

75° 49’ 49 E

6

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Historic?

Kakrana

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 53’ 06 N 75° 39’ 10 E

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Kali Dantali

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 03 N 75° 59’ 59 E

0.4

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/Furnaces

Khadra

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

Vitrified Waste

Khag

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 33’ 58 N 75° 59’ 57 E

0.08

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Khagara

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 40 N 75° 45’ 29 E

0.4

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Khalra

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Kharkaro

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 28° 02’ 39 N 75° 46’ 11 E

12.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Khata Dhaba

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 52’ 46 N 75° 42’ 08 E 1.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Khatiwala Dhani

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 15 N

75° 59’ 40 E 10

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/PGW/B&R

Khera Phoolaira Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 13’ 36 N

75° 27’ 59 E

2.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Historic

Kheraira

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 53’ 39 N

75° 46’ 10 E

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Historic/GJCC?

Khodaliya Dhola Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 28° 03’ 41 N

75° 43’ 25 E

20

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Kilarli

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 09 N 75° 59’ 47 E

0.9

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Kilarli II

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 04 N 75° 59’ 46 E

0.15

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Kilarli III

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 03 N 75° 59’ 47 E

0.16

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Kishore Pura

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

—

—

—

141

Rivizi text.indd 141

20/09/2018 11:14:14

Appendix I Sites with Vitrified Waste Materials

Site Name

State

District

Latitude

Longitude

Site Size (ha) Reference

Site Designation

Kulahara ki Johar

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 41’28 N

75° 49’ 13 E

0.6

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Kulra

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1978-79: 20

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Kund

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 53’ 55 N

75° 45’ 07 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Ladala ki Dhani I

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 66’ 32 N 75° 82’ 87 E

20

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces/Ceramics

Ladala ki Dhani Rajasthan II

Sikar

27° 66’ 47 N 75° 83’ 20 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces/Ceramics

Ladala ki Dhani Rajasthan III

Sikar

27°40’ 01 N

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces/Ceramics

Ladala Ki Dhani Rajasthan IV

Sikar

27° 40’ 02 N 75° 50’ 03 E 0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Ladala ki Dhani Rajasthan V

Sikar

27° 40’ 07 N 75° 50’ 14 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Ladala ki Dhani Rajasthan VI

Sikar

27° 40’ 12 N

75° 45’ 50 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Lamliya Karkhana

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 53’ 35 N

75° 45’ 13 E

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Loharwas

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63; Hooja and Kumar GJCC/Vitrified Waste 1998: Appendix

Makako

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 28° 04’ 49 N 75° 47’ 30 E

1.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Maliyou ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 53’ 48 N 75° 39’ 21 E

6

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

1.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste

—

75° 49’ 51 E

Manjhaira

Rajasthan

Sikar

Mayaramji ka Dhada

27° 36’ 58 N 75° 50’ 54 E

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 59’ 20 N 75° 54’ 17 E

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Melda

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Motawali ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 36’28 N

75° 49’ 26 E

0.25

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Motuka

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 49’ 29 N 76° 03’ 55 E

25

IAR 1979-80: 63; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Na’al(d)a

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 35’ 33 N

75° 51’ 52 E

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Nasringji Mandir

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 56’ 36 N 75° 40’ 32 E

0.4

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Historic?

Nimodh

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63; GJCC/Vitrified Waste Hooja and Kumar 1998: Appendix

Oda Ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Jaipur

—

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 62

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Paapara

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 44’ 05 N 75° 42’ 17 E

0.2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste

Padaiwa

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 51’ 49 N

75° 41’ 18 E

0.4

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Padaiwa II

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 51’ 52 N

75° 40’ 59 E 0.05

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Historic

Panjadi

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Pare Bhitar Ki Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Pyojara

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

—

—

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 63

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Raakawari

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 50’ 17 N

75° 44’ 25 E

3

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Rajnota (Khera) Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 36’ 04 N 76° 09’ 39 E 5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Ranasar

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 19 N

75° 42’ 59 E

3.7

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Historic?

Ranasar II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 31 N

75° 44’ 40 E 2.2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces/Historic

142

Rivizi text.indd 142

20/09/2018 11:14:15

Appendix I Sites with Vitrified Waste Materials

Site Name

State

District

Latitude

Longitude

Site Size (ha) Reference

Site Designation

Rasali

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 36’ 39 N 75° 49’ 33 E

20

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces/Historic

Rasoolpur

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 56’ 22 N 75° 40’ 21 E

0.6

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste

Salawala I

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 38’16 N

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Samraith Kala

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 06’ 96 N 76° 04’26 E

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Saroun(d)

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 43’ 19 N

76° 07’ 10 E

0.7

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Singhana

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 28° 06’ 00 N 75° 50’ 34 E

60

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Multiperiod/ GJCC?

Sunari – Jodhpura

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 47’ 49 N 75° 42’ 03 E

5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/B&R/PGW

Tariyali

Rajasthan

Sikar

—

IAR 1979-80: 63

Vitrified Waste

—

75° 49’ 20 E 0.075

—

Teetora

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 07’ 16 N

76° 04’ 02 E 5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Raw Material Procurement

Tigri

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 51’ 56 N

75° 56’ 57 E

0.25

IAR 1979-80: 63; Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste

Tiskola

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 51 N

76° 01’ 07 E

1.3

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Tuma’at

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 39’ 94 N 75° 48’ 18 E

2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Tyonda

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 59’ 09 N 75° 53’ 48 E

13

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/Furnaces/ Historic

Udaas

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu 27° 53’ 20 N 75° 43’ 24 E

0.6

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Historic

Umrawala

Rajasthan

Sikar

0.65

IAR 1978-79: 20; IAR 1979-80: 64; GJCC/Vitrified Waste Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

27°37’ 55 N

75°48’ 57 E

143

Rivizi text.indd 143

20/09/2018 11:14:15

Appendix I Metal Production Sites—2003 Survey Results

Site Name

State

District

Latitude

Longitude

Site Size (ha) Reference

Site Designation

Balouji Sayni’s Ghar Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 11’ 59 N

75° 49’ 28 E

0.1

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Banar Khera

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 50’ 11 N

76° 05’ 23 E

2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/ Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Burjiwala

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 12 N

75° 59’ 56 E

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Cheeplata & Neerja Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 14 N

75° 49’ 25 E

80

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Cheeplata II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 34 N

75° 49’ 36 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Cheeplata III

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 34’ 22 N

75° 49’ 27 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Furnaces

Chowkhali Dhani

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 37’ 13 N

75° 50’ 16 E

0.35

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Furnaces

Johadri

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 36’ 51 N

75° 49’ 47 E

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Kali Dantali

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 03 N

75° 59’ 59 E

0.4

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Khag

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 33’ 58 N

75° 59’ 57 E

0.08

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Khata Dhaba

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 52’ 46 N

75° 42’ 08 E

1.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Kilarli

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 09 N

75° 59’ 47 E

0.9

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Kilarli II

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 04 N

75° 59’ 46 E

0.15

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Kilarli III

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 03 N

75° 59’ 47 E

0.16

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Ladala ki Dhani I

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 66’ 32 N

75° 82’ 87 E

20

Rizvi PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Furnaces/ Ceramics

Ladala ki Dhani II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 66’ 47 N

75° 83’ 20 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Furnaces/ Ceramics

Ladala ki Dhani III

Rajasthan

Sikar

27°40’ 01 N

75° 49’ 51 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Furnaces/ Ceramics

Ladala Ki Dhani IV

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 40’ 02 N

75° 50’ 03 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Ladala ki Dhani V

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 40’ 07 N

75° 50’ 14 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Ladala ki Dhani VI

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 40’ 12 N

75° 45’ 50 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste

Lamliya Karkhana

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 53’ 35 N

75° 45’ 13 E

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Makako

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

28° 04’ 49 N

75° 47’ 30 E

1.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Furnaces

Ranasar II

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 44’ 31 N

75° 44’ 40 E

2.2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces/Historic

Rasali

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 36’ 39 N

75° 49’ 33 E

20

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Furnaces/ Historic

Tiskola

Rajasthan

Jaipur

27° 34’ 51 N

76° 01’ 07 E

1.3

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Tuma’at

Rajasthan

Sikar

27° 39’ 94 N

75° 48’ 18 E

2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces

Tyonda

Rajasthan

Jhunjhunu

27° 59’ 09 N

75° 53’ 48 E

13

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces/Historic

Vitrified Waste/ Furnaces?

144

Rivizi text.indd 144

20/09/2018 11:14:15

Appendix I Mining and Raw Material Sites—2003 Survey Results

Site Name

District

Latitude

Longitude

Site Size (ha) Reference

Site Designation

Baleshwar

Sikar

27° 43’ 10 N

75° 53’ 44 E

5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Bard ki Dhani

Jhunjhunu

27° 58’ 10 N

75° 53’ 36 E

0.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Raw Material Procurement

Bor Deowra

Sikar

27° 35’ 05 N

75° 51’ 37 E

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Raw Material Procurement

Cheechroli

Jhunjhunu

27° 50’ 03 N

75° 44’ 34 E

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/ Raw Material Working Area

Chowkhali Dhani

Sikar

27° 37’ 13 N

75° 50’ 16 E

0.35

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Furnaces

Darda

Jhunjhunu

27° 53 N

75° 39’ N

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Raw Material Procurement

Dhowri ki Dongri

Jaipur

27° 28’ 47 N

76° 05’ 50 E

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Raw Material/ Mining/GJCC

Gurdha

Jaipur

27° 32’ 09 N

76° 06’ 19 E

6.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Copper Ore

Hinduka I

Sikar

27° 48’ 50 N

76° 04’ 32 E

6.5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste/Copper Mine Area—Raw Material Procurement

Lamliya Karkhana

Jhunjhunu

27° 53’ 35 N

75° 45’ 13 E

0.8

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC/Vitrified Waste/Furnaces

Nattga

Jaipur

27° 38’ 05 N

75° 29’ 44 E

0

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Raw Material Procurement

Paapara

Jhunjhunu

27° 44’ 05 N

75° 42’ 17 E

0.2

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Vitrified Waste

Sheferaghwar

Jhunjhunu

27° 48’ 55 N

75° 43’ 07 E

1

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

GJCC?/Raw Material

Teetora

Jaipur

27° 07’ 16 N

76° 04’ 02 E

5

Rizvi 2007 PhD Dissertation

Vitrified Waste/Raw Material Procurement

Vitrified Waste/Copper Ore

145

Rivizi text.indd 145

20/09/2018 11:14:15

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Locus

Present Location

Length

Width

Thick-ness

1

Arrow Head

Trench

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

27mm

11mm

1mm

2

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

26mm

24mm

1mm

3

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

34mm

23mm

1mm-1.2mm

4

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

36mm

21mm

1.5mm-2mm

5

Arrow Head

Surface Find

Hawa Mahal

—

—

—

6

Arrow Head

Surface Find

Unknown

—

—

—

7

Bangle

Surface Find

Unknown

—

—

— 6mm

8

Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

9mm int diam, 24 mm ext 24mm ext diam diam

9

Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

9mm int diam

18mm ext diam, 12 or less mm on one side

3mm

10

Spear Head (blade)

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

41mm

10mm

2mm

11

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

20mm

13mm

1.2mm

12

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

22mm

13mm

1mm

13

Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

24mm

13mm

2mm

14

Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

16mm

15mm

3mm

15

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

14mm

4mm

3.5mm

16

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

17mm

6mm

5mm

17

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

12mm

11mm

1mm

18

Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

13mm

13mm

1mm

19

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

28mm

15mm

>1mm

20

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

48mm

12mm

3mm

2mm (A),(B)

1.5mm (A), 1mm (B)

21

Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

28mm (A), 25mm (B)

22

Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

10mm

7mm

1.2mm

23

Quadrant Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

41mm

5mm

4mm 1mm

24

Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

6mm int 14mm ext diam diam

25

Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

28mm ext diam

12mm int diam

7mm preserved with corrosion

26

Spear Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

22mm

6mm

5mm

27

Spike

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

27mm

3mm

3mm

28

Ball

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

10mm

9mm

6mm

29

Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

6mm int 14mm ext diam diam reconrecon-structed structed

30

Ring (wire)

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

18mm ext diam

11mm int diam

2mm

31

Arrow Head

I.35 x 1.95-0.25

State Dept. of Archaeology

30mm

15mm

2mm

32

Bangle

Surface Find

Unknown

—

—

—

33

Round Piece?

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

21mm

20mm

7mm

34

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

26mm

10mm

2mm

35

Arrow Head (tail)

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

11mm

5mm

1mm

36

Ring (wire)

A

O-I Humus

State Dept. of Archaeology

10mm

6mm

2mm

37

Blade

A

O-I Humus

State Dept. of Archaeology

19mm

6mm

—

State Dept. of Archaeology

41mm

23mm

4mm, corrosion

A

3mm

38

Arrow Head

GNR II Surface Find

39

Arrow Head

GNR II Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

30mm

12mm

1mm

40

Arrow Head (tail)

GNR II Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

15mm

7mm

1mm

41

Arrow Head (tail)

GNR II Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

12mm

7mm

1mm

42

Arrow Head

GNR II Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

11mm

7mm

1mm

146

Rivizi text.indd 146

20/09/2018 11:14:16

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Trench

Locus

Present Location

Length

Width

Thick-ness

Unknown

20mm

12mm

6mm

43

Spear

GNR 79 Surface Find

44

Arrow Head

Surface Find

Unknown

11mm

6mm

1mm

45

Spear

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

9mm

7mm

2mm

46

Spear

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

7mm

7mm

1mm

47

Spear

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

—

—

—

48

Wire

A

O-I Humus

State Dept. of Archaeology

11mm

5mm

1mm

49

Arrow Head

A

III-40x 1.70-0.25 Unknown

31mm

18mm

1mm

50

Arrow Head

A

0.80 x 2.37-0.35 State Dept. of Archaeology

24mm

16mm

1mm

51

Arrow Head

A

0.80 x 2.39-0.35 State Dept. of Archaeology

25mm

14mm

1mm

52

Ear Lobe ?

A

II-III Humus

State Dept. of Archaeology

14mm ext diam 8mm

1mm

53

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

15mm

13mm

1mm

36mm int diam

11mm

54

Bangle

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

60mm ext diam

55

Blade

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

25mm

3mm

1mm

56

Blade

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

20mm

14mm

1.5mm

57

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

20mm

12mm

1mm

58

Arrow Head

Surface Find

Unknown - Hawa Mahal?

—

—

—

59

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

41mm

24mm

1.5mm

60

Arrow Head

Surface Find

Unknown - Hawa Mahal?

—

—

—

61

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

31mm

10mm

2mm

62

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

29mm

21mm

1mm

63

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

22mm

16mm

1mm

64

Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

24mm

24mm

1.5mm

65

Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

16mm

2mm

2mm

13mm (A), 10.5mm (B)

3mm (A), 7mm (B)

66

Blade

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

31mm (A), 19mm (B), 15mm turned on side

67

Arrow Head (lower part)

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

25m

4.5mm

1.2mm

68

Blade

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

28mm

8mm

1mm

69

Blade

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

22mm

9mm

1mm

70

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

23mm

21mm

1-1.2mm

71

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

13mm

10mm

1mm

72

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

12mm

12mm

1mm

73

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

10mm

11mm

1mm

74

Arrow Head

0’78x1.57-0.25 (1) State Dept. of Archaeology

38mm

23mm

1mm

75

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

32mm

14mm

1mm

76

Arrow Head

0’.70x1.40-0.39 (1)

State Dept. of Archaeology

18mm

15mm

1mm

77

Arrow Head/Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

19mm (A), 16mm (B)

18mm (A), 13mm (B)

1.5mm (A), 1.5mm (B)

78

Arrow Head/Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

38mm

15mm

1mm

79

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

34mm

11mm

1.5mm 2mm

A

A

80

Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

1mm int diam

12mm ext diam

81

Bangle/Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

15mm int diam

17mm ext diam

2mm

82

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

17mm

5mm diam

5mm

83

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

16mm

10mm

1mm

84

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

10mm

10mm

1mm

0-I-(1)

State Dept. of Archaeology

21mm ext 18mm int diam diam

2mm

2mm

85

Ring

A

86

Nail

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

87

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

25mm

88

Hair Pin

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

13mm ext diam 9mm

15mm

3mm

147

Rivizi text.indd 147

20/09/2018 11:14:16

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Locus

Present Location

Length

Width

Thick-ness

89

Arrow Head

Trench

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

30mm

14mm

1mm

90

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

23mm

16mm

1mm

91

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

10mm

22mm

1mm

92

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

24mm

15mm

1mm

93

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

16mm

7mm

1mm

94

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

6mm

7mm

1mm

95

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

14mm

14mm

4mm

96

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

24mm

15mm

1mm

97

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

24mm

11mm

1mm

98

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

15mm

10mm

1mm

99

Blade

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

25mm

8mm

1.2mm

100

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

25mm

10mm

1.2mm

101

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

23mm

10mm

1.5mm

102

Blade

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

21mm

10mm

1.2mm

103

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

12mm

12mm

1mm

104

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

16mm

10mm

1mm

105

Arrow Head

—

State Dept. of Archaeology

15mm

11mm

1mm

106

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

19mm

3mm

1.5mm 2mm

107

Ring

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

18mm ext 15mm int diam diam

108

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

41mm

4mm

3mm

109

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

15mm

15mm

1mm

110

Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

22mm

15mm

1.2mm

111

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

15mm

10mm

1mm

112

Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

25mm

10mm

1mm

113

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

12mm

3mm

2mm

114

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

17mm

6mm

3mm

115

Rod/Chiesel

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

26mm

6mm

3mm

116

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

23mm

7mm

3mm

117

Rod

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

16mm

5mm

2mm

118

Spear Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

13mm

20mm

3mm

119

Arrow Head

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

14mm

14mm

1mm

120

Fish Hook

Surface Find

State Dept. of Archaeology

15mm

3mm

1mm

121

Arrow Head

GNR.II (B)

0.92X6.85-0.05 (1)

26mm

19mm

1mm

122

Arrow Head

GNR.II (B)

0.60X1.03-0.07 (1)

36mm

17mm

1mm

123

Arrow Head

GNR.II (B)

0.50X0.94-0.05 (1)

124

Arrow Head

GNR.II (B)

0.90X1.00-0.04 (1)

21mm

12mm

1mm

125

Arrow Head

GNR.II (B)

0.77X0.94-0.05 (1)

12mm

9mm

1mm

126

Arrow Head

GNR.II (B)

0.64X0.92-0.05 (1)

26mm

15mm

1mm

127

Arrow Head

GNR.II (B)

0.79x0.72-0.06 (1)

27mm

11mm

1mm

128

Spear Head

GNR.I (A)

0.65x1.36-0.06 (1)

9mm

14mm

1.5mm

129

Ring

GNR.I (A)

1.50x3.29-0.45 (2)

16mm ext diam

13mm int diam

2mm

130

Arrow Head

GNR.I (A)

0.15x2.93-0.49 (2)

42mm

13mm

1mm

131

Arrow Head

GNR.I (A)

0.05x2.54-0.48 (2)

40mm

19mm

5mm

132

Arrow Head

GNR.I (A)

0.40X3.08-0.60 (2)

54mm

27mm

1mm

133

Arrow Head

GNR.II

Surface Find

31mm

18mm

1mm

2mm

148

Rivizi text.indd 148

20/09/2018 11:14:17

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Length

Width

Thick-ness

134

Wire

Trench

Locus Surface Find

Present Location

26mm

4mm

2mm

135

Wire

Surface Find

15mm

1.5mm

1.5mm

136

Blade

Surface Find

—

—

—

137

Blade

Surface Find

13mm

10mm

10mm

138

Arrow Head

Surface Find

22mm

12mm

12mm

139

Arrow Head

Surface Find

19mm

10mm

10mm

140

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

10mm

10mm

141

Arrow Head

Surface Find

17mm

5mm

5mm

142

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

6mm

6mm

143

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

10mm

10mm

144

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

8mm

8mm

145

Arrow Head

GNR.III

Surface Find

32mm

24mm

1mm

146

Arrow Head

GNR.III

Surface Find

—

—

—

147

Arrow Head

Surface Find

37mm

24mm

1mm

148

Arrow Head

Surface Find

—

—

—

3mm

3mm

149

Bangle

Surface Find

53mm ext diam

150

Blade

Surface Find

18mm

11mm

1mm

151

Arrow Head

Surface Find

21mm

10mm

1mm

15mm curve

2mm

152

Wire Fish Hook

Surface Find

40mm in current shape

153

Blade

Surface Find

22mm

12mm

1mm

154

Arrow Head

Surface Find

17mm

11mm

1mm

155

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm

10mm

1mm

156

Arrow Head

Surface Find

13mm

6mm

1mm

157

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

6mm

1mm

158

Arrow Head

Surface Find

12mm

13mm

1mm

159

Spear Head

Surface Find

15mm

13mm

3mm

160

Bangle

Surface Find

23mm

8mm

5mm

161

Spear Head

Surface Find

16mm

12mm

5mm

162

Arrow Head

Surface Find

—

—

—

163

Arrow Head

Surface Find

28mm

20mm

1mm

164

Arrow Head

Surface Find

22mm

16mm

1mm

165

Arrow Head

Surface Find

18mm

12mm

1mm

166

Arrow Head

GNR.I (A)

—

—

— 4mm

167

Ring

GNR.I (A)

13mm ext 10mm int diam diam

168

Spear Head/Blade

GNR.II

57mm

11mm

2mm

169

Ring

GNR.II

20mm

11mm

2mm

170

Spear Head

GNR.II

18mm

7mm

4mm

171

Rod

GNR.II

20mm

5mm

3mm

172

Rod

GNR.II

21mm

4mm

2mm

173

Rod

GNR.II

Surface Find

12mm

5mm

3mm

174

Rod

GNR.II

Surface Find

21mm

5mm

3mm

175

Ring

GNR.I73 (A)

IV-V (3)

15mm

15mm

1.5mm

176

Arrow Head

GNR.II

Surface Find

12mm

10mm

1mm

177

Blade

Surface Find

22mm

18mm

2.5mm

Surface Find

12mm

8mm

1mm

178

Blade

GNR.II TR.(B)

179

Spear Head/Blade

Near School Surface Find

40mm

8mm

1mm

180

Arrow Head

GNR.I

Surface Find

18mm

8mm

1mm

181

Arrow Head

Surface Find

25mm

20mm

1mm

182

Fish Hook

Surface Find

10mm

11mm

3.5mm

183

Spear Head

Surface Find

12mm

12mm

3mm

184

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm

12mm

1mm

185

Arrow Head

Surface Find

25mm

17mm

1mm

149

Rivizi text.indd 149

20/09/2018 11:14:17

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Length

Width

Thick-ness

186

Arrow Head

Trench

Surface Find

10mm

7mm

1mm

187

Fish Hook

Surface Find

14mm

7mm

2mm

188

Ring

Surface Find

10mm

9mm

1.5mm

189

Arrow Head

Surface Find

38mm

19mm

1mm

Surface Find

14mm (A), 13mm (B)

12mm (A), 10mm (B)

1mm

GNR.II

Locus

Present Location

190

Ring

191

Arrow Head

Surface Find

19mm

6mm

1mm

192

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

8mm

1mm

193

Arrow Head

Surface Find

30mm

16mm

1mm

194

Arrow Head

Surface Find

34mm

21mm

1mm

195

Arrow Head

Surface Find

21mm

17mm

1mm

196

Arrow Head

Surface Find

20mm

13mm

1mm

197

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm

11mm

1mm

198

Arrow Head

Surface Find

7mm

11mm

1mm

199

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

7mm

1mm

200

Arrow Head

Surface Find

17mm

5mm

1mm

201

Rod/Chiesel

Surface Find

25mm

4mm

2mm

202

Rod

Surface Find

32mm

3mm

2.5mm

203

Rod/Chiesel

Surface Find

38mm

4mm

2mm

204

Spear Head

Surface Find

22mm

16mm

2mm

205

Implement ?

Surface Find

43mm

7mm

3mm, 8mm from leg

206

Arrow Head

Surface Find

27mm

12mm

1mm

207

Hook ?

Surface Find

15mm

4mm

1mm

208

Blade/Lower Portion Arrow Head?

Surface Find

10mm

3mm

1mm

209

Blade

Surface Find

14mm

8mm

1mm

210

Blade

Surface Find

11mm

5mm

1.2mm

211

Arrow Head

III-IV Pit B Cut Into (5)

36mm

19mm

1mm

212

Blade

III 0.60x1.250.50 (Surface)

13mm

3.5mm

1mm

213

Blade

Surface Find

14mm

4mm

1.5mm

214

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

8mm

1mm

215

Ring

Surface Find

15mm

5mm

2mm

216

Arrow Head

Surface Find

42mm

15mm

1.5mm

217

Ring

Surface Find

15mm

4mm

2.5mm

218

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

9mm

1mm

219

Arrow Head

GNR.I (B)

1.80x1.25-0.75

31mm

20mm

1mm

220

Rod

GNR.I (B)

1.80x1.25-0.79

16mm

4mm

2mm

221

Arrow Head

GNR.I (A)

0.15x1.00-0.27

46mm

17mm

1mm

15mm

8mm

6mm

GNR.I TR.A

222

Spear Head

GNR.I (A)

IV-V Pit B, Cut into (5) Humus

223

Ring/Fish Hook?

GNR.I ©

II-III Pit A, S.B. Humus

14mm (A), 9mm (A), 11mm 14mm (B), ext 2mm (B), int diam diam

224

Arrow Head

GNR.I ©

0-IV Pit A

15mm

8mm

1mm

225

Blade

TR.C

0-I (1)

17mm

5mm

1mm 2mm

226

Ring

TR.C

0-I (1)

6mm int 11mm int diam, diam, 9mm 14mm ext diam ext diam

227

Rod

TR.C

0-I (1)

10mm

4mm

4mm

228

Arrow Head

TR.A

0-I Humus

18mm

5mm

1mm

229

Arrow Head

Surface Find

18mm

11mm

1mm

230

Rod

Surface Find

35mm

6mm

4mm

231

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

9mm

1mm

232

Hair Pin

Surface Find

9mm

7mm

3mm

233

Hair Pin

Surface Find

8mm

9mm

2mm

150

Rivizi text.indd 150

20/09/2018 11:14:18

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Length

Width

Thick-ness

234

Rod

Trench

Locus Surface Find

Present Location

10mm

5mm

3mm

235

Wire

Surface Find

25mm

7mm

1.5mm

236

Wire

Surface Find

21mm

3mm

1mm

237

Wire

Surface Find

12mm

2mm

1mm

238

Arrow Head

Surface Find

20mm

17mm

1mm

239

Arrow Head

TR.C

1.60x1.70+0.20 (1)

29mm

14mm

2mm

240

Arrow Head

GNR.IV

Surface Find

26mm

22mm

1mm

241

Arrow Head

Surface Find

13mm

9mm

1mm

242

Fish Hook

Surface Find

18mm

17mm

3mm

243

Rod

Surface Find

32mm

5mm

4mm

244

Saw Piece

Surface Find

17mm

9.5mm

1mm

245

Spear Head

Surface Find

21mm

17mm

1mm

246

Blade

Surface Find

14mm

10mm

1mm

247

Blade

Surface Find

16mm

10mm

1mm

248

Blade

Surface Find

8mm

7mm

1mm

249

Arrow Head

Surface Find

29mm

15mm

1.5mm

250

Arrow Head

Surface Find

40mm

21mm

1mm

251

Arrow Head

Surface Find

23.5mm

16mm

1.5mm

252

Arrow Head

Surface Find

21mm

14mm

1mm

253

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

10mm

1mm

254

Arrow Head

Surface Find

20mm

8mm

1mm

255

Arrow Head

Surface Find

20mm

10mm

1mm

256

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14.5mm

8mm

1mm

257

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

7mm

1mm

258

Blade

Surface Find

16mm

8.5mm

2mm

259

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm

5mm

1mm

260

Arrow Head

Surface Find

20mm

6mm

1mm

261

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

8mm

1mm

262

Fish Hook

Surface Find

18mm

6mm

3mm

263

Arrow Head

Surface Find

52mm

23mm

1.5mm

264

Fish Hook

Surface Find

34mm

14mm

2mm

265

Spear Head

Surface Find

12mm

9mm

5mm

266

Blade

Surface Find

20mm

8mm

2.5mm

267

Blade ?

Surface Find

17mm

6mm

3mm

268

Rod

Surface Find

34mm

4mm

3mm

269

Blade ?

Surface Find

14mm

5mm

3mm

270

Nail Piece

Surface Find

14mm

4mm

3mm

34mm int diam

4mm

271

Bangle

Surface Find

40mm ext diam

272

Wire

Surface Find

33mm

18mm

5mm

273

Wire

Surface Find

12mm

10mm

2mm

274

Rod

GNR.II

Surface Find

30mm

13mm

4mm

275

Arrow Head

GNR.II

Surface Find

30mm

22mm

1.5mm

276

Arrow Head

TR.C

IV 0.45x1.85-0.25

23mm

9mm

1mm

277

Arrow Head

Surface Find

26mm

10mm

2mm

278

Arrow Head

Surface Find

22mm

14mm

1mm

279

Hair Pin

Surface Find

9mm diam

7mm diam

3mm

280

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

9mm

1mm

281

Blade

Surface Find

19mm

7mm

2mm

282

Blade

Surface Find

21mm

7mm

2mm

283

Blade

Surface Find

15mm

4mm

1mm

284

Blade

Surface Find

13mm

6mm

1mm

285

Blade

Surface Find

16mm

3mm

1mm

286

Fish Hook

Surface Find

16mm

11mm

4mm

GNR.II

151

Rivizi text.indd 151

20/09/2018 11:14:18

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Length

Width

Thick-ness

287

Blade

Trench

Locus Surface Find

Present Location

16mm

9mm

1mm

288

Copper Object ?

Surface Find

14mm

5mm

4mm

289

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

4mm

1mm

290

Wire

Surface Find

23mm

19mm

1mm single, 2mm double

291

Fish Hook

Surface Find

11mm

5mm

1.5mm each loop of wire

292

Rod

Surface Find

52mm

3mm

7mm 2mm (A), 2mm (B)

293

Ring

Surface Find

11mm (A), 8mm 3mm (A), (B) 3mm (B)

294

Rod

Surface Find

32mm

6mm

4mm

295

Hair Pin

Surface Find

25mm

4mm

2mm

296

Rod

Surface Find

18mm

5mm

3mm

297

Ring

Surface Find

11mm

3mm

1.5mm

298

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

10mm

1mm

299

Arrow Head

Surface Find

35mm

15mm

1mm

300

Arrow Head

Surface Find

22mm

10mm

6mm

301

Arrow Head

Surface Find

—

—

—

302

Arrow Head

Surface Find

17mm

12mm

1mm

7mm (A), 7mm (B)

1mm

303

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm (A), 12mm (B)

304

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

11mm

3mm

305

Arrow Head

Surface Find

35mm

21mm

1mm

306

Arrow Head

Surface Find

30mm

10mm

1mm

307

Arrow Head

Surface Find

22mm

13mm

1mm

308

Spear (Karni type)

Surface Find

55mm

11mm-19mm

1mm-3mm 2mm

309

Fish Hook/Ring ?

Surface Find

12mm ext diam, 9mm int 2mm diam

310

Arrow Head

Surface Find

—

—

— 1.5mm

311

Fish Hook

Surface Find

22mm

8mm total, 2mm hook

312

Arrow Head

Surface Find

32mm

16mm

1mm

313

Spear Piece

Surface Find

14mm

8mm

1mm

314

Fish Hook

Surface Find

—

—

—

315

Spear Head

Surface Find

18mm

8mm

1mm

316

Arrow Head

Surface Find

23mm

19mm

1mm

317

Arrow Head

Surface Find

33mm

13mm

1mm

318

Rod

Surface Find

30mm

6mm

4mm

319

Arrow Head

Surface Find

13mm

8mm

1mm 1mm-3mm

320

Ring

Surface Find

14mm int 17mm ext diam diam

321

Arrow Piece

Surface Find

17mm

13mm

1mm

322

Arrow Piece

Surface Find

20mm

11mm

2mm

323

Arrow Head

GNR.I

Surface Find

20mm

13mm

1mm

324

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Surface Find

—

—

—

325

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm

9mm

1mm

326

Arrow Head

Surface Find

20mm

13mm

1mm

327

Arrow Head

Surface Find

9mm

12mm

1mm

328

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

11mm

1mm

329

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

15mm

1mm

330

Fish Hook

Surface Find

58mm

3mm, 23mm 3mm entire hook

331

Rod

Surface Find

27mm

4mm

1.5mm

332

Rod

Surface Find

30mm

5mm

5mm

Surface Find

15mm ext diam, 13mm int 2mm diam

2mm

333

Ring

152

Rivizi text.indd 152

20/09/2018 11:14:19

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Length

Width

334

Rod

Trench

Locus Surface Find

Present Location

28mm

14mm/ 4mm 4.5mm

Thick-ness

335

Bangle

Surface Find

45mm

22mm

7mm

336

Sheet

Surface Find

20mm

25mm

3mm

337

Bangle

Surface Find

57mm ext diam 6mm

7mm

338

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

8mm

1mm

339

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

6mm

1mm

340

Arrow Head

Surface Find

5mm

7mm

1mm

341

Arrow Head

Surface Find

19mm

8mm

1mm

342

Bangle

GNR.III

Surface Find

23mm

7mm/ 4mm

6mm

343

Ring

GNR.I

Surface Find

25mm

12mm/ 2mm 7mm

344

Arrow Head

GNR.I

Surface Find

44mm

19mm

1mm

345

Ring

Surface Find

18mm

9mm

3mm/ 2mm

346

Wire/Fish Hook?

Surface Find

15mm

12mm/ 3mm 2mm

347

Sheet

Surface Find

13mm

11mm

1mm

Surface Find

40mm

17mm/ 1.5mm

2mm

348

Wire

349

Spear

Surface Find

14mm

8mm

3mm

350

Arrow Head

Surface Find

39mm

14mm

1mm

351

Arrow Head

Surface Find

20mm

7mm

1mm

352

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Surface Find

38mm

23mm

1mm

353

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Surface Find

36mm

20mm

1mm

354

Arrow Head

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

26mm

20mm

1mm

355

Arrow Head

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

40mm

23mm

1mm

356

Fish Hook

GNR.V

Surface Find

7mm ext diam

6mm

2mm

357

Arrow Head

GNR.VI

Near School

20mm

10mm

1mm

358

Arrow Head

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

38mm

25mm

1mm 2mm

GNR.V

359

Ring

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

19mm ext diam, 17mm int 2.2mm diam

360

Arrow Head

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

18mm

16mm

1mm

361

Fish Hook

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

—

—

—

362

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Surface Find

20mm

14mm

1mm

363

Arrow Head/Rod?

GNR.V

Surface Find

45mm

7mm

3mm

364

Wire

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

17mm for both 2mm

1mm

365

Arrow Head

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

20mm

10mm

1mm

366

Blade

Surface Find

19mm

4mm

2.5mm

Surface Find

18mm (A), 17mm (B)

2mm

2mm

367

Ring

368

Spear

GNR.V

Surface Find

15mm

9mm

2mm

369

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Surface Find

17mm

17mm

2mm

370

Spear

GNR.VI

Surface Find

15mm

11mm

1mm

371

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Surface Find

23mm

15mm

1mm

372

Wire

GNR.V

Surface Find

70mm

2mm

3mm

373

Copper Object ?

GNR.VI

Surface Find

19mm

11mm

3mm

374

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Surface Find

19mm

8mm

1mm

375

Arrow Head

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

18mm

9mm

1mm

376

Arrow Head

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

23mm

7mm

1mm

377

Wire

GNR.V

Surface Find

14mm

4mm/ 1.5mm 1mm

378

Fish Hook

GNR.V

Surface Find

32mm

2mm

2mm

379

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Near Roadside

15mm

13mm

1mm

380

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Near Roadside

10mm

10mm

1mm

381

Bangle

GNR.V

Near Roadside

19mm

5mm

3mm

382

Fish Hook

GNR.VI

Near Roadside

24mm

7mm

2mm

383

Blade

GNR.V

Near School

16mm

4mm

1mm

384

Arrow Head

GNR.V

Near School

14mm

12mm

1mm

385

Spear Head

GNR.V

Near Roadside

16mm

14mm

1mm

153

Rivizi text.indd 153

20/09/2018 11:14:19

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Trench

Locus

Length

Width

Thick-ness

386

Spear Head

GNR.V

Near Roadside

Present Location

11mm

10mm

2mm

387

Blade

GNR

Surface Find

11mm

5.5mm

1mm

388

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

10mm

1mm

389

Copper Object

Surface Find

19mm

10mm

6mm

390

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

7mm

1mm

391

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

6mm

1mm

392

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

8mm

1mm

393

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm

10mm

2mm

394

Hair Pin

Surface Find

7mm

8mm

2mm

395

Fish Hook

Surface Find

—

—

—

396

Fish Hook

Surface Find

21mm

17mm

3mm

397

Ring

Surface Find

18mm

2mm

2mm

398

Wire

Surface Find

22mm

12mm

1.5mm

399

Arrow Head

Surface Find

23mm

13mm

1mm

400

Arrow Head

Surface Find

29mm

20mm

1mm

401

Blade

Surface Find

28mm

5mm

2.5mm

402

Object, Round Piece?

Surface Find

8mm diam

—

403

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

9mm

1mm

50mm int diam

7mm 5mm

404

Bangle

TR.D 0-II

0-II Humus

60mm ext diam

405

Fish Hook

TR.D 0-II

0-II Humus

33mm

8mm

406

Ring

TR.D

0-II Humus

20mm

5mm

5mm

407

Blade

Surface Find

16mm

6mm

2.5mm

408

Blade Piece

Surface Find

12mm

5mm

3mm

409

Blade Piece

Surface Find

12mm

6mm

1mm

410

Object ?

Surface Find

13mm

5mm

3mm

411

Wire

Surface Find

13mm

5mm

2mm

412

Wire

Surface Find

15mm

2mm

1mm

413

Wire

Surface Find

15mm

2mm

1mm

414

Wire

Surface Find

11mm

3mm

1mm

415

Ring

Surface Find

10mm ext diam 2mm

2mm

416

Rod

Surface Find

15mm

4mm

2mm

417

Arrow Head

Surface Find

21mm

5mm

1mm

418

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

10mm

1mm

419

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

9mm

1mm

420

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

8mm

1mm

421

Arrow Head

Surface Find

9mm

11mm

1mm

422

Arrow Head

Surface Find

27mm

5mm

1mm

423

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

8mm

1mm

424

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm

7mm

3mm

425

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

10mm

1mm

426

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

9mm

1mm

427

Wire

Surface Find

29mm

3mm

1.5mm 2/3mm-11mm

428

Wire/Ring?

Surface Find

9mm int 11mm ext diam diam

429

Ring

Surface Find

15mm

3mm

2.5mm

2mm

3mm

430

Ring

Surface Find

19 mm int diam, 20mm ext diam

431

Arrow Head

Surface Find

27mm

21mm

1mm

432

Arrow Head

Surface Find

30mm

15mm

1mm

433

Arrow Head

Surface Find

30mm

24mm

1mm

434

Bangle

Surface Find

57mm ext diam 6mm

6mm

435

Rod

Surface Find

34mm

9mm

7mm

436

Spear Head

Surface Find

46mm

19mm

1.5mm

437

Copper Object ?

Surface Find

18mm

13mm

6mm

154

Rivizi text.indd 154

20/09/2018 11:14:20

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Length

Width

Thick-ness

438

Wire

Trench

Locus Surface Find

Present Location

17mm

1mm

1.5mm

439

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

10mm

1mm

440

Arrow Head

Surface Find

9mm

7mm

1mm

441

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

14mm

1mm

442

Ring

Surface Find

23mm

3mm

4mm

443

Rod

Surface Find

42mm

6nn

5mm

444

Rod

Surface Find

101mm

3mm

4mm

445

Fish Hook

Surface Find

25mm

4mm

4mm

446

Arrow Head

Surface Find

31mm

11mm

1mm

447

Rod

Surface Find

34mm

9mm

7mm

448

Bangle

Surface Find

24mm

4mm

4mm

449

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

10mm

1mm

450

Rod

Surface Find

9mm

7mm

4mm

451

Chiesel

Surface Find

41mm

4mm

4mm 2mm

452

Wire

Surface Find

36mm

22mm/ 1.5mm

453

Rod

Surface Find

11.5mm

5mm

3mm

454

Ring

Surface Find

14mm

2mm

1.5mm

455

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

9mm

1mm

456

Rod

Surface Find

10mm

5mm

3mm

457

Fish Hook

Surface Find

—

—

—

458

Fish Hook

Surface Find

23mm

6mm

2mm

459

Fish Hook

Surface Find

1mm

4mm

3mm

460

Fish Hook

Surface Find

6mm

4mm

3mm

461

Round Object ?

Surface Find

9mm diam

8mm diam

2mm

462

Rod

Surface Find

22mm

3mm

3mm

463

Arrow Head

Surface Find

21mm

6mm

1.5mm

464

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

4mm

1mm

465

Arrow Head

Surface Find

9mm

8mm

1mm

466

Arrow Head

Surface Find

21mm

13mm

1mm

467

Rod Piece

Surface Find

14mm

6mm

4mm

468

Arrow Head

Surface Find

21mm

12mm

1mm

469

Arrow Head

Surface Find

19mm

14mm

1mm

470

Arrow Head

Surface Find

34mm

19mm

1mm

471

Arrow Head

Surface Find

26mm

13mm

1mm

472

Arrow Head

Surface Find

24mm

16mm

1mm

473

Spear Head

Surface Find

18mm

11mm

3mm

474

Arrow Head

Surface Find

—

—

—

475

Arrow Head

Surface Find

33mm

10mm

1mm

476

Arrow Head

Surface Find

46mm

20mm

1mm

477

Arrow Head

Surface Find

27mm

17mm

1mm

478

Arrow Head/ Implement? Circular

Surface Find

20mm

17mm

2mm

479

Wire Piece

Surface Find

24mm

2mm

1.5mm

480

Blade

Surface Find

15mm

6mm

2mm

481

Blade

Surface Find

13mm

6mm

2mm

482

Blade

Surface Find

11mm

5mm

1mm

483

Ring

Surface Find

10mm ext diam 21mm

2mm

484

Fish Hook

Surface Find

9mm diam

6mm

2mm

485

Bangle

Surface Find

26mm

3mm

4mm

486

Rod Piece

Surface Find

22mm

3mm

3mm

487

Rod Point

Surface Find

62mm

7mm

4mm

488

Rod Piece, Quadrant

Surface Find

40mm

5mm

3mm

489

Arrow Head

Surface Find

38mm

18mm

1mm

Arrow Head

II 0.36x1.40-1.12 M.B.S.

30mm

20mm

1mm

490

TR.B

155

Rivizi text.indd 155

20/09/2018 11:14:20

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Trench

Locus

Present Location

Length

Width

Thick-ness

37mm

18mm

1mm

491

Arrow Head

TR.B

II 0.65x1.95-1.28 M.B.S. Structure No. 1

492

Ring

TR.B

II-IV (4) Ashy

13mm ext diam 2mm

6mm

TR.B

II 0.80x1.37-1.22 M.B.S. Structure No. 1

41mm

20mm

2mm

493

Arrow Head

494

Arrow Head

Surface Find

37mm

26mm

1mm

495

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

13mm

3mm

496

Arrow Head

Humus

14mm

14mm

1mm

497

Arrow Head

Surface Find

13mm

9mm

1mm

498

Ring

Surface Find

19mm diam

2mm

3mm

499

Arrow Head

Surface Find

17mm

9mm

1mm

500

Arrow Head

Surface Find

6mm

10mm

4mm

501

Fish Hook

Surface Find

11mm

9mm

1.5mm of wire

502

Arrow Head

Surface Find

35mm

19mm

1mm

503

Arrow Head

Surface Find

24mm

16mm

1mm

504

Arrow Head

Surface Find

22mm

13mm

1mm

505

Arrow Head

Surface Find

18mm

7mm

2mm

506

Hair Pin

Surface Find

12mm

3.5mm

5mm

507

Fish Hook

Surface Find

15mm

10mm

2mm

508

Blade

Surface Find

11mm

14mm

1mm

509

Rod

Surface Find

22mm

5mm

2mm

510

Wire/Ring ?

Surface Find

13mm

1mm

2mm

511

Ring/Wire ?

Surface Find

8mm

2mm

2mm

512

Hook

Surface Find

8mm

4.5mm

2mm

513

Arrow Head

Surface Find

17mm

3mm

1mm

514

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

3.5mm

1mm

4mm (A), 3mm (B)

2mm (A), 2mm (B)

TR.E

515

Ring

Surface Find

14mm (A), 13mm (B)

516

Copper Implement ?

Surface Find

10mm

6mm

1mm

517

Arrow Head

Surface Find

26mm

13mm

1mm

518

Chiesel

0-II (1)

32mm

5mm

2mm

519

Arrow Head

Surface Find

20mm

13mm

1mm

520

Omitted in register

521

Fish Hook

Surface Find

21mm

5mm

2mm

522

Rod

Surface Find

24mm

4mm

2mm

523

Ring/Bangle?

Surface Find

15mm

5mm

4mm

524

Blade

Surface Find

21mm

4mm

1mm

525

Ring

Surface Find

13mm

3mm

1.5mm-2mm

526

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm

4mm

1mm

527

Blade

Surface Find

16mm

13mm

1mm

528

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

5mm

1mm

529

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

7mm

1mm

530

Arrow Head [****]

Surface Find

13mm

10mm

2mm

531

Arrow Head

TR.B

VI-VII Humus

16mm

8mm

1mm

532

Arrow Head

TR.B

VI-VII Humus

25mm

9mm

1mm

TR.E

II-III (4) II 0.90x2.34-0.83 M.

33mm

5mm-7mm

1mm-2mm

TR.D.

533

Spear Head/Blade

534

Arrow Head

Surface Find

24mm

7mm

1mm

535

Arrow Head

0-I (1) 0.60x2.000.60 E

25mm

16mm

2.5mm

536

Arrow Head

Surface Find

22mm

11mm

1mm

537

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

10mm

3mm

TR.C1

156

Rivizi text.indd 156

20/09/2018 11:14:20

Appendix II Registry of Copper Material from the Collection of the State Department of Rajasthan Serial #

Object Description

Length

Width

Thick-ness

538

Horseshoe type object

Trench

Locus Surface Find

Present Location

13mm

12mm

1.5mm

539

Blade

Surface Find

17mm

7mm

1mm

540

Arrow Head

Surface Find

9mm

7.5mm

1mm

541

Arrow Head

Surface Find

10mm

5mm

1mm

542

Ring

Surface Find

10mm

5mm

3mm

543

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

12mm

1mm

44mm preserved diam

2mm

3mm

544

Bangle

Surface Find

545

Arrow

Surface Find

546

Ring

Surface Find

11mm preserved diam

1.5mm

3mm

547

Rod Piece

Surface Find

52mm

3mm

2mm

548

Hair Pin/Chiesel Type

Surface Find

26mm

5mm

2.5mm

549

Arrow Head

Surface Find

15mm

11mm

2mm

550

Rod

Surface Find

20mm

3mm

2mm

551

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

18mm

1mm

2mm (A), 3mm (B)

3mm

552

Wire Hook

Surface Find

14mm (A), 8mm (B)

553

Arrow Head

Surface Find

14mm

4mm

1.5mm

554

Blade

Surface Find

15mm

3mm

1mm

555

Arrow Head

Surface Find

9mm

1mm

1mm

556

Wire

Surface Find

19mm

2mm

2mm

8mm (A), 8mm (B)

2mm (A), 3mm (B)

557

Circular Copper Object

Surface Find

16mm (A), 15mm (B) preserved diam

558

Blade Piece

Surface Find

16mm

6mm

2mm

559

Blade?

Surface Find

11mm

3.5mm

2mm

560

Fish Hook

Surface Find

11mm

10mm/ 4mm 3mm

561

Rod

TR.C2

(1)III 0.89x0.60-0.33

72mm

6mm

5mm

562

Rod Piece

TR.C2

0-II Humus

56mm

3.5mm

4mm

563

Arrow Head

Surface Find

18mm

10.5mm

1mm

564

Hair Pin

Surface Find

40mm

5mm

4mm

3mm (A), 3mm (B)

3mm (A), 3mm (B)

565

Ring (2 NOS.?)

Surface Find

16mm (A), 18mm (B)

566

Arrow Head

Surface Find

16mm

7mm

2mm

567

Arrow Head

Surface Find

11mm

9mm

1mm

568

Arrow Head

Surface Find

26mm

17mm

1mm

569

Arrow Head

III-IV Ashy Pit

20mm

11mm

1mm-3mm

570

Arrow Head

Surface Find

24mm

12mm

1mm

571

Arrow Head

Surface Find

25mm

17mm

2mm

572

Arrow Head

TR.B

VIII-IX Clearance

29mm

15mm

1mm

573

Arrow Head

TR.B

VIII-IX Clearance

38mm

23mm

1mm

574

Fish Hook

TR.C1

0-I (1)

32mm

3mm

4mm

575

Blade (Gold Plated?)

TR.B

VIII-IX Clearance

19mm diam

—