An Overview of the Stone Bead Drilling Technology in South Asia from Earliest Times to Harappans

Abstract

The Harappan Civilization is one among the four Bronze Age Civilizations of third millennium BCE that flourished for nearly 700 years (c. 2600-1900 BCE) in the river valleys of Indus-Ghagger-Hakra in modern India and Pakistan. The overall site count is well over 2500 now belonging to all the three phases, viz., early Harappan, Harappan and late / post-urban Harappan. The Harappan Civilization is characterized by well-planned out cities, always with a fortification, often with more than two divisions individually fortified, standardized ceramic tradition, weighing system, seals and sealing and a wide variety of craft activities. The knowledge of copper, gold, silver, lead and bronze was widespread and the Harappans exploited more than two-dozen raw material. The beginnings of stone bead manufacturing in Indian sub-continent can be traced to Upper Palaeolithic and Microlithic traditions in South Asia, say some 35000 years ago. It is from the Neolithic Period from Mehrgarh (from 7 th millennium BCE) we get evidence of exploitation of various exotic raw materials from distant regions and perforations made using another hard stone. The technology slowly developed during the succeeding Chalcolithic Period before reaching its zenith during the Harappan Civilization. The Harappans gained access to several raw material sources spread around the Indus valley and its tributaries and it has been estimated that they exploited to around 40 minerals for manufacturing jewels and ornaments. The Harappans also developed ornaments of exotic nature from agate-carnelian such as long-barrel cylindrical beads and etched / bleached / decorated carnelian beads, which were exported all the way to Mesopotamia during third millennium BCE. The Harappans also invented a superior drilling technology by using a slightly harder material known as 'ernestite' for making perforations of these agate-carnelian beads. In particular, the Gujarat region dominated in usage of ernestite as drill bits, which indicates its source in this region, which is yet to be identified.

Full text

An Overview of the Stone Bead Drilling Technology in
South Asia from Earliest Times to Harappans
V.N. Prabhakar1
1. Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, VGEC Campus, Ahmedabad – 382424,
Gujarat, India (Email: vnprabhu@iitgn.ac.in)
Received: 10 September 2016; Accepted: 01 October 2016; Revised: 08 October 2016
Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4 (2016): 47-74
Abstract: The Harappan Civilization is one among the four Bronze Age Civilizations of third
millennium BCE that flourished for nearly 700 years (c. 2600 – 1900 BCE) in the river valleys of Indus-
Ghagger-Hakra in modern India and Pakistan. The overall site count is well over 2500 now belonging to
all the three phases, viz., early Harappan, Harappan and late / post-urban Harappan. The Harappan
Civilization is characterized by well-planned out cities, always with a fortification, often with more than
two divisions individually fortified, standardized ceramic tradition, weighing system, seals and sealing
and a wide variety of craft activities. The knowledge of copper, gold, silver, lead and bronze was
widespread and the Harappans exploited more than two-dozen raw material. The beginnings of stone
bead manufacturing in Indian sub-continent can be traced to Upper Palaeolithic and Microlithic
traditions in South Asia, say some 35000 years ago. It is from the Neolithic Period from Mehrgarh (from
7th millennium BCE) we get evidence of exploitation of various exotic raw materials from distant regions
and perforations made using another hard stone. The technology slowly developed during the succeeding
Chalcolithic Period before reaching its zenith during the Harappan Civilization. The Harappans gained
access to several raw material sources spread around the Indus valley and its tributaries and it has been
estimated that they exploited to around 40 minerals for manufacturing jewels and ornaments. The
Harappans also developed ornaments of exotic nature from agate-carnelian such as long-barrel cylindrical
beads and etched / bleached / decorated carnelian beads, which were exported all the way to Mesopotamia
during third millennium BCE. The Harappans also invented a superior drilling technology by using a
slightly harder material known as ‘ernestite’ for making perforations of these agate-carnelian beads. In
particular, the Gujarat region dominated in usage of ernestite as drill bits, which indicates its source in
this region, which is yet to be identified.
Keywords: Stone Bead, Drilling Technology, Upper Palaeolithic, Microlithic, Neolithic,
Chalcolithic, Harappans
Introduction
The Indus Valley Civilization or Harappan Civilization, one among the four Bronze
Age civilizations of third millennium BCE (Fig. 1) was discovered after the excavations
at Harappa (1921-21 to 1933-34 onwards) and Mohenjo-daro (1922 to 1931) and
announced in the Illustrated London News (Marshall: 1924).The announcement

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
48
attracted Assyriologists like A.H. Sayce (1924) who noted the similarity of inscribed
seals found from Harappa and Mohenjo-daro with Susa from levels datable between c.
2600 and 2300 BCE. Since then, Harappan seals have been reported from several sites
in West Asia like Ur (Woolley: 1928, 1932), Tell Asmar (Frankfort: 1933), Kish (Mackay:
1925; Langdon: 1931), Nippur (Gibson: 19771). Further, sealing impressions from
Harappan seals have been reported from sites like Tell Umma (Possehl: 1996). These
evidences along with other exotic artefacts of Harappan origin like long-barrel
cylindrical beads, etched/bleached/decorated beads, both of agate-carnelian, flat disc
gold beads, and others from sites in West Asia (Fig. 2) (Possehl: 1996) clearly support
the conclusion drawn by Sayce as early as 1924 that ‘…..intercourse between the Susa and
North West of India. ’The excavations at sites like Mehrgarh (Jarrige et al: 1995),
Nausharo (Jarrige: 1994), Pirak (Jarrige et al: 1979),in the Balochistan area brought to
light a long and continuous habitation spread over 8000 years which helped in
understanding the evolution of Harappan Civilization since the humans adopted a
food gathering-agro pastoral stage followed by settled life and ultimately reaching the
pinnacle of civilization through a series of interactions with other settled societies,
inventions of various technologies including pyrotechnology, and more importantly
surplus in food production.
Figure 1: Map Showing the Extent of Harappan Civilization
The investigations carried out by several agencies including governmental and
research institutions since 1924 have enabled in the better understanding of Harappan
Civilization. The spread of the civilization is also better understood with the available

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
49
data from nearly 2500 sites spread across diverse geographical zones. The north,
south, east and western limits are marked by the sites of Shortugai (Afghanistan)/
Manda (Jammu & Kashmir); Lothal (Gujarat), Alamgirpur (Uttar Pradesh) and
Sutkagen-dor (Pakistan), thereby encompassing an estimated area of nearly 0.7 – 1.0
million sq. km. Some of the important sites excavated after Harappa and Mohenjo-
daro are Chanhudaro (Mackay: 1943), Rupnagar (Sharma: 1956; 1982), Lothal (Rao:
1979; 1985), Kalibangan (Thapar: 1973; 1975), Surkotada (Joshi: 1990), Kot Diji (Khan:
1965), Dholavira (Bisht: 1991), Rakhigarhi (Nath: 1997-98), Banawali (Bisht: 1987),
Bhirrana (Rao: 2004-05), to name a few. These excavations along with a host of others
have helped in understanding the origin of Harappan culture, its rise and later slow
decline.
Figure 2: Map Showing Mesopotamian Sites with Harappan Artefacts
The Harappan culture is characterized by several features, including planned cities and
towns supported by rural settlements, often encompassed by wide fortifications,
standardized ceramics along with local pottery and is supported by a wide range of
artefactual assemblage of seals, sealing, variety of ornaments of stone, metal, shell,

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
50
terracotta and others, weaponry of copper/bronze, toys and amusement items. Among
the ornaments, the Harappans dominated the production of certain varieties from
agate-carnelian, a hard silicate rock that owes its origin to basalt rock formation of
Deccan plateau and Gujarat.
Beads in Prehistoric Context from South Asia (~40 ka1 Onwards)
The human existence on this planet had witnessed several path breaking innovations
and inventions which led them successfully on the growth pattern passing through
several stages of hunter-gathering, agro-pastoralism, domestication of plants and
animals, urbanism. The growth pattern varies from place to place and continent to
continent dependent upon factors like environment, climate, accessibility to raw
materials sources, and others. These developmental stages and interrelationship
between different groups of humans are identified from the archaeological record
through a “….prodigious quantity of classificatory studies in which artefacts are attributed to
‘cultures’ and ‘styles’ (Miller: 1985).” The human expression and cognitive development
is often reflected in the variation of styles in artefacts from cultural to culture. In the
international scenario several such examples are found. A fewexamples are Blombos
Cave (South Africa, shell beads, engraved ochre, ochre processing kits; 65-75ka),
Hohlenstein-Stadel Cave (Germany, part human, part lion standing figurine; 40 ka),
Klipdrift shelter (South Africa, engraved ostrich eggshell, 63 ka), Grotte Du Renne
(France, fox tooth ornament, 43 ka), Hohle Fels Cave (Germany, griffon vulture bone
flute, 40 ka; Venus figurine, 35 ka), Vogelherd Cave (Germany, ivory lion head, 35 ka),
Dolni Vestonice (Czech republic, ivory beads, 26 ka), Malta (Russia, ivory flying bird
pendant, 20 ka). These individual artefacts being examples of human artistic and
cognitive expressions are also accompanied by paintings on rock surfaces. A few
prominent ones are Chauvet Cave, Lascaux, Renne, Brassempouy (all in France),
Altamira, Monte Castillo (both in Spain), Geissenlkosterle, Hohle Fels, Hohlenstein-
Stadel and Vogelherd (all in Germany), Zarayst (Russia).
In the South Asian context, human occupation is attested in several locations. The
earliest dated human presence comes from Attirampakkam which is dated to 1.51 +
0.07 Ma (pooled average) for acheulian (lower palaeolithic) levels (Shanti Pappuet al:
2011).The discovery of a partial human skull from Hathnora in 1982 belonging to
archaic Homo sapiens is the earliest human fossil from India (Sonakia 1984;
Salahuddin et al: 1986-87). The remains of human bones of Homo sapiens are also found
from Jwalapuram Locality 9 datable to a time bracket of 20 and 12 ka (Clarkson et al:
2009) and Bhimbetka (Kennedy: 2000). The presence of late Pleistocene human fossil
remains from Batadomba lena (Sri Lanka) dateable to 20,239-17,298 cal. years BP and
Kitulgala Beli-Lena (Sri Lanka) datable to 15,296-12,980 cal. years BP is an important
finding outside India (Patrick Roberts et al: 2015). The earliest evidence of human
artistic expression from South Asian context comes from sites like Patne (Maharashtra),
Jwalapuram (Andhra Pradesh) and from Batadomba-lena, Fa Hien-Lena and Kitulgala
Beli-lena (all in Sri Lanka).

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
51
The Jwalapuram Locality 9 yielded 25 limestone and bone beads which is claimed to be
“….one of the largest collections of late Pleistocene symbolic items in South Asia” (Clarkson et
al: 2009). The evidence indicates preference of stone towards bone at the earlier levels
along with several unperforated blanks, interpreted as bead blanks. The other
evidences of human artistic expression are pierced bivalve shell, grooved reptile tooth,
terracotta bead from the same locality. This evidence along with ‘striated’ red ochre
datable to 20-12 kya from the same locality is also an indicator of ‘artistic activities’
(Clarkson et al: 2009). Outside India, the evidences from Sri Lanka from several caves
are excellent evidences of the presence of beads from late Pleistocene levels. The
findings at Fa Hien-lena dated to c. 38-36 kya consist of shark vertebra bead, several
perforated marine shells, an Acavus shell with multiple perforations (Patrick Roberts et
al: 2015). The Batadomba-lena evidence indicates the presence of shell bead (c. 35 ka),
two disc beads made of riverine bivalve (c. 20-15 ka).
The evidences from Jwalapuram, Fa Hien-lena and Batadomba-lena from securely
dated archaeological levels are the earliest in the context of human artistic expressions
and belonging to pre-Holocene era. The onset of Holocene marked remarkable climatic
changes, which induced transformation in way of settled human life. Such changes are
also visible in South Asian context, the excellent evidence comes from Neolithic levels
of Mehrgarh, which formed the basis of later development of Harappan Civilization.
Beads in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Context (7th – Early 3rd
Millennium BCE)
The earliest evidence for beads in the Indian sub-continent comes from the Neolithic
levels at Mehrgarh (7th – 5th millennium BCE) made from turquoise, steatite, shell,
dentalium, calcite, lapis lazuli (Jarrige et al: 1995). The exotic raw materials like
turquoise and lapis lazuli are not available locally near Mehergarh, which is a clear
indication of emergence of long distance procurement, and trade as early as 7th
millennium BCE. The available source for turquoise is from Central Asia or Iran,
nearly 1500 km away from Mehrgarh. Similarly, lapis lazuli was available only from
the Badakshan region of Afghanistan, which is equally far away from Mehrgarh.
Further, the presence of marine shells (Turbinella pyrum and Engina mendicaria) whose
origin lies in Gulf of Kachchh and Makra coast respectively is also an indication of long
distance contacts of inhabitants of Mehergarh.
There is a further sophistication starting from the Chalcolithic levels at Mehrgarh (4th
millennium BCE) asbeads of new materials like carnelian, calcite, garnet beads starts to
appear. Further, from this level onwards we start to get the evidence of drill bits,
which were used to perforate the stone beads. The presence of unfinished drills made
of a stone identified as phthanite also starts to appear. The drills were found in
association with debitage of many semi-precious stones like chalcedony, agate,
carnelian and turquoise (Jarrige et al: 1995). The identification of the material as
phthanite has drawn attention of scholars like Kenoyer, who suggests that as phthanite
is not an officially recognized scientific term, it should be discarded (Kenoyer: 1992).

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
52
While there is marked diversity in the utilization of raw materials from Mehrgarh from
Neolithic period onwards, it is also observed that more and more harder stones were
introduced, while the length of the beads also increased (Barthelemy de Saiziue and
Rodiere 2005: 39). The mineral used for one of the drills is also identified as
pumpelleyite.
A detailed microscopic and SEM analysis of bead samples to understand the drilling
technology from Neolithic and Chalcolithic levels at Mehrgarh (Barthelemy & Rodiere:
2005) indicates at least four techniques of manufacture. They are (1) carried out from
both ends, with a conical drill tip and a hand rotary motion could have driven the
borer (Fig. 3), (2) rotary grinding from two opposite ends with quasi-cylindrical boring
tips driven by mechanical motion, producing cylindrical or near cylindrical profile and
regular grinding rings on inner walls of each opposite hole(Fig. 4), (3) pecking
technique, which appears in Neolithic period, indicated by conical holes which were
executed from both ends and evidence of small cavities and conchoidal scars.
Identified as completely a hand perforation technique, which was exclusively used on
hard stones like small carnelian beads (Fig. 5)and (4) pecking from one side and other
side drilled by rotatory motion drilling(Fig. 5) (Barthelemy & Rodiere: 2005). The
drilling type (1) and (3) appears in the Neolithic period and while type (2) continues
and refined further during the Chalcolithic period, technique (1) disappears. Type (2)
and (4) emerges during the Chalcolithic period and continues well afterwards also
from many other sites with modifications and refinements.
Figure 3: Type 1 drilling technology from Neolithic Mehrgarh; (a) calcite bead,
dotted line showing different drilling axes meeting at the junction at centre; (b)
calcite bead, showing very strong obliquity and (c) steatite bead, dotted line
showing different drilling axes (after Barthelemy and Rodiere 2005)

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
53
Figure 4: Type 2 drilling technology from Chalcolithic and pre-Indus Mehrgarh; (a)
steatite bead, perforation identified in at least four stages; (b) carnelian bead,
Chalcolithic (c) carnelian bead, pre-Indus and (d) serpentine bead, pre-Indus (after
Barthelemy and Rodiere 2005)
Figure 5: (a) Carnelian bead, Type 3Pecking technology from pre-Indus Mehrgarh;
(b) carnelian bead from Harappan period, Karanpura, Rajasthan showing pecking
technique; (c) carnelian bead, Chalcolithic, pecking from left and rotary grinding
from right; and (d) carnelian bead, pre-Indus, rotary grinding from left and pecking
from right (after Barthelemy and Rodiere 2005)
From the studies, Barthelemy and Rodiere (2005) concludes that for Type (1) flint stone
drills could have been used for drilling and for Type (2) identifies a mineral named

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
54
pumpelleyite from late Chalcolithic / pre-Indus (Period VII) from Mehrgarh. These
stones were used for both harder and softer stones. Bartheley and Rodiere (2005) also
observe that the finer particles produced while rotatory grinding could have
functioned as abrasive. Thus, it may be observed from the evidence from Mehrgarh a
long and continuing tradition of bead manufacturing techniques existed for several
millennia. The drilling techniques Types (1) and (3) originated in Neolithic period and
all the types are noticed during early Chalcolithic period. The type (1) disappears from
late Chalcolithi / pre-Indus period. It may be argued, that these earliest evidences from
South Asia helps in understanding the origin of bead manufacturing techniques
including the rotatory grinding ones driven most probably by a bow drill, which
formed the foundation for the Harappan technology.
Beads as a personal ornament and status symbol were common to diverse cultures in
different archaeological traditions. Thus, the presence of beads could be observed from
other Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures in the Indian sub-continent, more particularly
from Ganga plains. The presence of stone, terracotta beads is noticed from the
Neolithic and Chalcolithic levels at many sites like Lahuradewa, Raja Nal-ka-Tila,
Chirand, Malhar, Imlidih Khurd, Waina, Jhusi, Hetapatti in the Ganga plains.
Beads in Harappan Context (4th – 3rd Millennium BCE)
The next stage in the development of bead drilling technology can be witnessed from
the context of Harappan civilization; the cultural periods represented by several
regional formative phases (c. 3700-2800 BCE), early Harappan (c. 2800-2600 BCE),
Harappan (c. 2600-1900 BCE) and late/post-urban Harappan (c. 1900-1400 BCE). The
foundations laid in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods as witnessed from key sites
like Mehrgarh helped in further innovations in diversification of raw materials sources
in addition to already existing ones. The studies conducted for nearly a century since
the discovery of Indus Civilization helps in understanding the increasingly
sophisticated nature of raw material procurement from multiple sources, often
exploiting the best available raw material in terms of quality, distribution of raw
materials to different urban centres, production of various types of beads, amulets,
pendants, and their distribution.
This has been attested by a study by Randall Law (Law 2005) at Harappa, which
clearly shows the increase in raw material varieties from a mere 11 types in Hakra-
Ravi-Kot Dijian phase (c. 3700-2800 BCE) 40 types during Harappan phase (c. 2600-1900
BCE). The various raw material sources have also been investigated by Randall Law,
which gives a fair idea of procurement, particularly for the site of Harappa. Later,
similar studies were extended to Dholavira and Rakhigarhi as well, which helps us in
understanding the pattern of raw material procurement and exploitation of different
sources. A comprehensive study of different raw materials from Harappa using
analytical and instrumentation techniques (Law 2011) have demonstrated their
provenance, e.g. steatite from Hazara (Sherwan) deposits, Prang Dera, Daradar (all in
Pakistan) and Alwar deposits (Rajasthan); agate-jaspers from Mardak Bet, Khandek

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
55
and Ratanpur (all in Kachchh area, Gujarat); vesuvianite from Sakhakot-Qila and Taleri
Mohammed Jan (both in Pakistan); lapis lazuli from Badakshan (Afghanistan);
serpentine from Mohmand, Las Bela, Zhob and Muslimbagh Ophiolites (all in
Pakistan); amazonite from northern areas of Pakistan and northern Gujarat; crystalline
quartz (rock crystal and Mari diamond) from Salt Range (Pakistan) and northern
Rajasthan. These stones formed most of the bead collection from Harappan sites with
agate-jaspers and vesuvianite being the hardest and steatite softest.
Types of Beads from Harappan Context
Tracing the development of beads from the earliest Neolithic period onwards, a
gradual evolution in terms of shapes can be discernible. This has been aptly
summarized by Kenoyer (2007) that the beads during earliest period were “……flat
disc, tubular forms in geometric shapes and short to long cylindrical beads, using both locally
available and exotic raw materials…..beads were made from relatively soft raw materials, shell,
limestone, steatite, serpentine, lapis lazuli and even turquoise.”The harder agate or carnelian
beads are mostly of short biconical types. The beads manufactured into various shapes
and sizes (Kenoyer: 2007) were used mostly as “….headbands, necklaces, belts, bracelets,
and anklets made from shell….colored stones and soft steatite.”
The beads of longer shapes manufactured from jasper, banded agate and carnelian
appear from the Chalcolithic period at Mehrgarh in addition to the continuation of disc
and tubular shapes, with the most common shapes being lenticular barrel, short
bicone, and long bicone (Kenoyer: 2007). Kenoyer (2007) opines that at Harappa,
starting from Ravi Phase (>3500-2800 BCE) evidence for local manufacture of beads
from both soft and hard stones is noticed. The shape of these beads from early period
(Kenoyer: 2007) was ”…small discs, but short bicones, long cylindrical beads, and a wide
variety of shapes are common in terracotta.” Kenoyer (2007) also observes that during the
Kot Dijian phase (~Early Harappan, c. 2800-2600 BCE) while there is an increase in
varieties of raw materials like agate, sandstone, carnelian, limestone, there was a
“….decrease in the varieties of shapes and sizes of beads….”
A ‘standardisation’ of agate bead shapes was achieved as observed by Kenoyer (1986)
and they consist of “….long tapered barrel beads, short barrel beads, and various tabular
shapes along with the standard short cylindrical and short bicones.”The beads of agate-
carnelian were probably in high demand as attested by their export to Mesopotamian
region. In particular, the long barrel cylindrical beads of reddish orange agate-
carnelian beads and etched / bleached / decorated agate-carnelian beads are found in
large numbers from several sites in modern Oman, Iraq, Syria, Iran datable to third
millennium BCE. A wide variety of stone beads were unearthed from the urban centre
of Dholavira, district Kachchh, Gujarat during a thirteen-field season excavation by
R.S. Bisht (2014, 2015) of Archaeological Survey of India. It has been estimated that
around 12307 beads of various materials have been documented from Dholavira (Bisht:
2015).

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
56
The raw materials used in the manufacture of beads are agate, amazonite, amethyst,
azurite, bloodstone, carnelian, chalcedony, chert, faience, gabbro, jasper, kaolinite, lapis
lazuli, limestone, moss agate, onyx, paste, quartz, sandstone, serpentine, soapstone,
sodalite, steatite, terracotta, turquoise, vesuvianite. Steatite as a raw material was the
most preferred one with an overall representation of 28.4% followed by terracotta
(21%) and agate-carnelian and other silicates (17%). The common shapes among the
agate-carnelian are short bicones (Fig. 6), long barrel (Fig. 6), lenticular barrel (Fig. 7),
long barrel cylindrical (Fig. 8), tubular. The common shapes made from steatite are disc
beads (Fig. 9), micro beads (Fig. 10), tubular. Interestingly, several beads of terracotta
(Fig. 11) show replication of stone bead varieties indicating a clear preference for the
shapes in stone among the different sections of society.
Figure 6: Short Bicone and Long Barrel Shaped Beads, Dholavira
Figure 7: Lenticular Barrel Shaped Eye Beads, Dholavira
Figure 8: Long Barrel Cylindrical Beads, Dholavira

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
57
Figure 9: Micro Beads of Steatite, Dholavira
Figure 10: Disc Shaped Beads of Steatite, Dholavira

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
58
Figure 11: Terracotta Beads, Dholavira
The etched / bleached / decorated carnelian beads is another category of beads which
are found from many Harappan sites and from sites outside the Indus valley. These
decorations on these beads were experimentally created by Kenoyer (2007) by the
application of “….a paste of carbonate of soda mixed with water and the pulp of a desert caper
plant called kirir in Sindhi ”when completely dry and then heated rapidly on glowing
coals, which produces a distinct white colour on a red background. The decorations
consist of single (Fig. 7), double (Fig. 12), triple (Fig. 13) and complex patterns (Fig. 14),
which are highly characteristic of Harappan Civilization and not produced elsewhere.
Fig
ure
13
: Triple
E
yed
Beads, Dholavira
Fig
ure
12: Double
E
yed
B
eads, Dholavira
Fig
ure
14: Complex
P
atterns on
E
tched
C
arnelian
B
eads, Dholavira

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
59
The beads made from lapis lazuli (Fig. 15) were mostly short and long tubular in shape
and have the distinct bluish colour with occasionally golden coloured streaks.
Figure 15: Lapis Lazuli Beads, Dholavira
Technology of the Harappan Stone Beads
E.J.H. Mackay initiated the first detailed investigations of Harappan bead
manufacturing and drilling mechanism based on the evidences from Mohenjo-daro
and Chanhudaro excavations (Mackay: 1937). While Mackay (1937) observes only little
evidence of bead manufacturing at Mohenjo-daro based on the available remains
during that time, Chanhudaro brought to light “….large numbers of incomplete beads but
also the raw material from which they were made, and, still more interesting, the actual stone
drills by which they were bored.” Mackay concludes that Chanhudaro was a “great centre
of bead-making” which also contributed for its prosperity. It was also noticed that the
finished ‘hard stone beads’ were fewer in number when compared to the large number
of unfinished ones at the site. Among the finished and unfinished beads at
Chanhudaro, the ones described as “long barrel-cylinder shape” made of agate and
carnelian has been described as favourite among the items worn by people of Harappa
culture. The maximum size of one such bead is 12.319 cm (4.85 inch.) is from Mohenjo-
daro and “made of the finest translucent carnelian that it was possible to obtain” (Mackay:
1937). However, the longest specimen from Chanhudaro is 9.271 cm (3.65 inch.), made
of yellow agate and unpeforated.
Chanhudaro also brought to light good number of raw materials including nodules of
agate and carnelian from different parts of the city. These nodules were often found
with evidence of window chipping in order to determine the quality and colour of
stone with an average size ranging between 7.62 and 10.16 cm. Mackay (1937) observes
the colour ranging from “…muddy yellow with red or darker yellow cloudy areas, others
were clear agate with occasional dark brown patches.” The evidence for roasting these
stones to achieve a reddened surface was also observed from Chanhudaro, which
Mackay (1937) compares with the practice still existing in India and other parts of the
world. Mackay (1937)also found a great variety of unfinished stone beads in various
stages of manufacture from Chanhudaro, which has led to a fair understanding of the
bead manufacturing mechanism involved in the production of the long barrel-cylinder
beads.

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
60
The sources for these stones have been briefly described by Mackay (1937) as Ratanpur
in Rajpipla, Ranpur in Ahmedabad, localities in Kathiwar (all in Gujarat), who also
mentions about the modern bead industry at Cambay (Khambhat). The earliest account
of the Cambay (Khambhat) bead industry was by Summers (1851) who gives a graphic
account of the trader community known as Akkikia Jumat. Summers (1951) gives details
of the stones traded at Cambay (Khambhat) which are jasper, heliotrope or bloodstone
(procured near village Tankarra, 19.3 km north of Rajkot), moss-agate (procured near
village Tankarra, and at Bud Kotra, 4.8 km from Tankarra), common agate (procured
from Mahidpore, 4.8 km from Tankarra), variety of agate known as ‘kupperwange’
(procured from Kupperwange), veined agate or banded agate (procured from
Rhanpore, Darpipla and Ninama), chocolate stone (jasper? / chert?), procured from
Rhanpore and Tankarra, crystal (procured from Tankarra), varietaged stone, which
appears to be fossiliferous limestone (procured from Dhokavarra (Dhokavada), lapis
lazuli (from Persian and Bokhara), jet-stone and obsidian (from Bokhara and Aden),
blue-stone known as ferosa (said to be prepared in China), carnelian (from Bowa, B.
Abbas and Rajpipla). The other stones that were used in the industry at Cambay
(Khambhat) were mora or bowa gori (onyx or dark coloured carnelian), cat’s eye.
Summers (1951) give a vivid description of the traditional manufacturing techniques of
beads from these stones, which consist of the following:
1. The selection of stones are made and broken approximately as per the desired
sizes.
2. Rough shaping of the stones thus selected by placing them on an inclined iron
spike named khondia and struck by horn hammer.
3. These roughouts are polished in groups on a hard polishing stone called dholia,
which is then repolished again on grooved polishing board known as pattimar, the
abrasives being a composition of emery and lac, through which the stones achieves
a globular form and polished.
4. A stage of final polish given by placing several thousand roughly polished beads
in a leather bag (~61 cm in length and ~25 - ~31 cm in diameter) along with emery
dust and very fine powder known as warry. Two men sitting opposite to each
other for nearly ten to fifteen days and moistening the bag in between with water
roll the bag. The beads achieve a bright polish in this process.
5. The polished beads are then perforated with a steel drill tipped with a small
diamond, the lubrication of bead while drilling achieved by dripping water from a
pot transferred by a thin narrow reed or metallic tube.
The next account of the bead manufacturing industry at Cambay (Khambhat), the
various manufacturing stages along with the stones used is by A.J. Arkell (1936). The
account given by Arkell is in complete consonance and agreement with Summers
(1851). The references to of modern agate-carnelian bead industry from Khambhat was

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
61
also continued by many scholars like Mackay (1937), S.R. Rao (1979), G.L. Possehl
(1981), Kenoyer et al (1991) have enabled in understanding the different processes
involved right from procurement of suitable stone from the mine to final polishing and
finishing. Kenoyer et al (1991) summarizes these different stages as (1) raw material
acquisition from mine and checking the quality by chipping a corner to ascertain
required colour, texture and formation, (2) sorting of nodules arriving at the workshop
far away from the original mine followed by heating and first slow heating in earthen
pots, (3) first stage of chipping of nodule by removing larger flakes thereby producing
a rough desired shape of bead followed by second stage of slow heating, (4) second
stage of finer chipping by removing smaller flakes followed by grinding with
mechanically driven emery wheel, (5) after initial grinding, finer polishing is achieved
in the emery wheel and perforation with diamond tipped drill bits and a final heating
in earthen pots to achieve the typical reddish orange colour.
Agate-Carnelian sources have been documented in Gujarat from Ratanpur in Rajpipla,
Kapadvanj, Jamnagar, Khandek and Medhok (Bisht: 1989) and of these many of the
agate-carnelian specimens from Harappa were derived from Mardak Bet (Randall:
2011). The investigation of raw materials from Dholavira indicates its provenance from
Mardak Bet, Khandek and Ratanpura (Randall: 2015)
With regard to the drilling technology of hard stones, Mackay (1937) also found a large
number of stone drills from Chanhudaro, both broken and complete. The complete
ones average 3.81 cm long and 2.54 mm to 3.048 mm in diameter (Mackay: 1937). A
few specimen was also analysed by Geological Survey of India and they described the
stone drills as, “….consist of chert, containing a little magnetite, the hardness of the specimens
is 7…..do not occur in nature in this rod-like form; they have apparently been worked into shape
from material likely to occur in any of the Archaean rock of India” (Mackay: 1937). The
beads were also bored first and then given polish, as has been evidenced from
Chanhudaro examples (Mackay: 1937). This is, however, in contrary to the method
adopted by the modern craftsmen at Khambhat as reported by Summers (1951). The
perforation of the beads is made by diamond tipped drills fitted into a wooden shank
and driven by a bow (Possehl 1981: 44). For lubricating the drill movement while in
motion, an indigenous arrangement of a small pot with water and grit is made as
described elsewhere. The drills driven by bows, the seating arrangement and the usage
of water and grit as lubricant and abrasive respectively seems to be the same
mechanism adopted by the Harappans with the only exception that instead of
diamond drills, ernestite and chert drills were used by them.
Two types of diamond drills were recorded by Kenoyer at Khambhat, namely tekni (a
single rounded diamond chip to create a depression to facilitate the second drill that
makes the actual boring) and sayedi, which has two tiny rounded diamonds set at right
angles at the tip end (Kenoyer et al 1991: 53). As diamond was unknown during
protohistoric period, drills of chert and types of mottled green jasper were in use, and
much time was consumed in drilling the hard stones using these drills. Kenoyer

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
62
estimates that at least two to ten hours would have been required to drill a perforation
of 1 cm of an agate bead (Kenoyer et al 1991: 54).
Kenoyer and Vidale have also studied the evidence for bead drilling from some
contemporary sites. The evidence from Shahr-i Sokhta (c. 2700 BCE) indicates usage of
stone drills with tips larger than 1 mm diameter for drilling lapis lazuli beads and
other materials, while beads with holes less than 1 mm diameter are also noticed
(Kenoyer and Vidale: 1992). Shahdad in eastern Iran has yielded the presence of
various colours of translucent chert and jasper for drilling small carnelian beads, short
truncated bicones in shape (Kenoyer and Vidale: 1992). The drills found from
Mehrgarh were termed to be of pthanite as mentioned above. These drills were
“…produced from a fine grained jasper-like rock with conchoidal fracture and good chipping
properties, distinguished by a uniform light greenish color” (Kenoyer and Vidale: 1992). The
correct identification of the material is yet to be made and Barthelemy and Rodiere
(2005) have identified pumpelleyite as the mineral in one of the drills.
From the archaeological context, S.R. Rao describes the presence of a bead factory from
the Harappan site of Lothal (Gujarat). This consists of a working platform and eleven
rooms along with two earthen jar containing 582 carnelian beads in one and 212
carnelian, shell and steatite beads (Rao: 1985). The complex also brought to light a
large number of cores, flakes, ground and unbored beads scatter in the courtyard and
the surrounding rooms (Rao: 1985). Rao suggests that the agate for making carnelian
at Lothal came from Rajapipla mines. Rao also brings to light the similarities between
the modern bead making lapidaries and techniques with that of bead factory at Lothal
which yielded a kiln for baking pebble and beads of semi-precious stones along with
beads in various stages of manufacture, partly-baked pebbles, fragments of earthen
bowls for baking pebbles and finished beads (Rao: 1979; Rao: 1985). Kenoyer and
Vidale (1992) carried out a comprehensive study of stone drills and suggested two new
terms for the identification and classification of cylindrical drills with a dimpled tip.
They are “tapered cylindrical drills”(Fig. 16) and “constricted cylindrical drills”based on
the morphology of the drills (Kenoyer and Vidale 1992: 495). While the former has a
very wide distribution and presence in the regions from Mesopotamia to the Indus, the
latter is “a unique form of standardized and specialized tool developed by the artisans of Indus
Valley for perforation of long beads made of agate / carnelian and jasper” (Kenoyer and Vidale
1992: 498). Detailed microscopic investigations were carried out on a stone drill
obtained from Mohenjo-daro.
Based on the investigations carried out, Kenoyer and Vidale suggested the name of
“ernestite” (Kenoyer and Vidale 1992: 507) to the type of stone drills that were used for
drilling agate beads. They describe ernestite as, “….a fine grained metamorphic rock
composed primarily of quartz, sillimanite, mullite, hematite and titanium-oxide phases”. Of
these, mullite is extremely rare in nature, but is produced in modern high temperature
ceramic materials (Kenoyer 2003: 73). Kenoyer also suggests that presence of mullite in

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
63
Harappan drill bits may be as a byproduct due to intentional heating of the original
rock (Kenoyer 2003: 73).
Figure 16: Tapered Cylindrical Drills of Ernestite, Dholavira
Figure 17: Ernestite Raw Material, Dholavira
Ernestite (Fig. 17) is found in many colours and often multi-coloured ones are also
found. The XRD analysis on Harappa examples indicate that yellow brown matrix is
composed of quartzite and sillimanite, while the brown-black portion is primarily of
quartz with hematite and some sillimanite / mullite (Kenoyer and Vidale 1992: 506-
507). Some peaks of mullite or a yet to be identified intermediary phase are also

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
64
noticed in the XRD analysis (Kenoyer and Vidale 1992: 507). The electron microprobe
X-ray analysis on the yellow brown and brown-black portions indicates a matrix of
quartz with iron / titanium oxide phase (Kenoyer and Vidale 1992: 507). The studies
carried out by Kenoyer and Vidale on ernestite further suggest that:
1. concentrations of hematite and iron-titanium oxides give cutting and polishing
properties;
2. matrix of quartz (probably as quartzite) and sillimanite produces a strongly bonded
structure that withstood pressures of drilling;
3. abraded surface of the drills retains an irregular surface that facilitates drilling the
carnelian, which is less strongly bonded;
4. the abrasion quality of the drills is due to the toughness of the sillimanite matrix and
concentration of iron-titanium oxides in the rough surface of the drills.
Randall (2011) describes ernestite as, “ernestite is an extremely fine-grained stone mottled
with dark-brown to black patches and dendritic veins in a khaki-coloured matrix.” The XRD
and EMPA investigations carried out on four ernestite samples obtained from Mound
E of Harappaindicate that ernestite is composed mainly of quartz and mullite-
sillimanite along with minor presence of hematite (iron oxide) and rutile (titanium
oxide). The remaining two samples showed the presence of crystobalite and mullite
and absence of quartz, hematite and rutile. Two ernestite raw material samples from
Dholavira were also subjected to XRD analysis (Fig. 18) and it indicates a pattern
similar to other sites (Prabhakar et al 2011).
Thus it has been observed that no unanimous agreement on the correct identification of
the material of these drills has been arrived so far with one exception of Mehrgarh
evidence. However, the term “ernestite” has gained currency among the investigators
in the absence of a correct geological term. Hence, the same term is also used in the
current study of the Dholavira drills also. The site of Dholavira has brought to light the
largest assemblage of ernestite drills from any Harappan site. A total of 1588 ernestite
drill bits have been recorded from this site and different types were identified. They
are cylindrical, tapered cylindrical, constricted cylindrical, re-used, re-sized and
pointed drills (Prabhakar et al: 2012). A coding system was developed to study these
drill bits based on a methodology devised by J.M. Kenoyer which helped in
determining various factors like length, width, tip width, base width, proximal width
and other calculations. The documentation also helped in understanding the nature of
the collection of drill bits, which indicated predominantly broken and discarded ones,
an evidence of active drilling industry of hard stones.
These drills have been found in association with bead working workshops also (Fig.
19), and in one case bead polishers were found in situ from Baily locality at Dholavira.
The presence of a large number of bead polishers of sandstone and limestone (Fig. 20)

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
65
from Dholavira also attest to the thriving bead industry at this site. The evidence from
Dholavira also indicates the continuation of use of ernestite drills in bead workshops
even during the late / post-urban Harappan phase (Prabhakar et al: 2012). Kenoyer
(2003) has extensively studied the evidences from Harappa and other sites in order to
understand the actual drilling processes followed by various experimental studies also.
The roughouts and bead blanks of various stones from sites like Chanhudaro (Mackay:
1937), Dholavira (Bisht: 2015) (Fig. 21) and Harappa (2003) clearly show the testing of
stone nodules, followed by large flake removal, small flake removal, grinding,
polishing and drilling.
Figure 18: XRD Analysis of Ernestite, Dholavira

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
66
The evidence at Dholavira from a bead workshop near the East Gate of Middle Town
clearly demonstrates that the bead blanks were grinded and polished before making
perforations. Kenoyer (2003) further discusses drilling using a variety of drills both of
stone and copper, which were used for pecking, tapered using chert/jasper drills,
tapered cylindrical using jasper drills, stepped pattern using ernestite constricted
cylindrical, and copper tubular drills(Fig. 22). The drilling patterns due to the use of
different materials can be clearly delineated from the drill holes produced by the
perforations. These can be then compared with experimental analysis based on similar
materials used. The drill holes produced by ernestite have a distinct pattern when
compared to other materials. The ernestite drills produce a highly polished surface as
it is slightly harder when compared to agates, which can be easily distinguished from
the silicone impressions (Fig. 23). Similarly, the drill holes produced by copper drills
and copper tubular drills are unique when compared to stone drills (Fig. 23). As
copper is a softer material, it wears out easily and has to be removed after short
intervals for clipping, modifying the tip and again reusing it. The drill holes produced
by diamond tipped drills are very much distinct in comparison with other materials
like jasper, ernestite and copper. As diamond is the hardest material it shears off the
softer stones and hence produce a grooved interior surface inside the bead, which is
easily distinguishable (Fig. 24).
Figure 19: Bead working areas from Dholavira; (a) On top of northern fortification,
Bailey; (b) Close up of bead polishing area with bead polisher in situ, Bailey; (c)
Near west gate of Castle, Dholavira

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
67
Figure 20: Bead Polishers, Dholavira
Fig. 21: Bead Blanks and Roughouts, Dholavira
Bead Hole Impression Studies to Understand the Drilling
Technology
Tosi and Piperno (1973) carried out one of the earliest microscopic studies of stone
drills and stages of bead manufacturing while describing the lapis lazuli trade during
third millennium BCE and excavation at Shahr-i Sokhta. Evidence for lapidary
working was unearthed at Shahr-i Sokhta with remains of finished, unfinished beads
of lapis lazuli, carnelian and turquoise in various stages of manufacture along with
microliths. The incised patterns produced by the stone drills were studied with the aid
of a microscope in this case.

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
68
The first direct application of SEM analysis on artefact impressions was made by
Gorelick and Gwinnett while studying the cylinder seals from Mesopotamia (1978).
The technique used by Gorelick and Gwinnet (1978) consisted of “….application of
silicone impression techniques used in dentistry makes it possible to provide accurate,
duplicated details of both the bore and the surface characteristics…impression could be
examined directly or a more durable plastic cast mode, both methods were used after coating
with metal for examination in the SEM.”
Figure 22: Drilling Patterns from Different Materials (after Kenoyer: 2003)
A more direct analysis of artefacts using SEM along with the regular silicone
impressions of drill holes from Shahr-i Sokhta was also attempted by Gwinnett et al
(1981). Further, a detailed methodology of silicone impression technique for anaylising
ancient Egyptian stone drilling mechanisms is also elaborated by Gorelick et al (1983)
which is as follows:
“…..are three separate steps…, all non-destructive to the object. They are (1) silicone
impressions of the part to be studied in order to capture the tool marks; (2) examination of the
impressions (or epoxy models made from them) in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) and

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
69
the fabrication of photomicrographs, and (3) functional analysis attempting to duplicate the tool
marks experimentally.”
Figure 23: Bead hole impressions analysis using SEM; (a) – (f) bead holes formed by
ernestite drills, (a) from Dholavira, (b) – (f) from Karanpura; (g) bead holed formed
by copper tubular drill (courtesy J.M. Kenoyer)
The experimental studies carried out by Gorelick et al (1983) related to the “…functional
analysis of a granite sarcophagus lid from the Old Kingdom period..” have enabled to
conclude that, “…1) loose, dry abrasives (except diamond) did not produce concentric lines; 2)
fixed abrasives or those in a watery slurry or a lubricant such as olive oil did produce concentric
cutting lines; 3) corundum and diamond cannot be ruled out as not having been used to drill
granite.”
In the Harappan context, Kenoyer and Vidale (1992) first made the use of SEM analysis
for drill impressions. Kenoyer et al (1992)also conducted experimental studies and
analysed various drill impressions from “…a carnelian bead perforated by a double
diamond tipped drill in Khambhat, India, a carnelian bead perforated by a Harappan stone drill
and a pre-Columbian quartz bead drilled with an unknown abrasive.” The drill impressions
were viewed under magnifications ranging from 100 X – 300 X and the surface
modifications on them were clearly delineated under a SEM (Kenoyer and Vidale:
1992).The studies (Kenoyer and Vidale: 1992) also indicated that the “….abrading surface
of the drill retains a rough irregular surface that helps in cutting the carnelian, which is not as
strongly bonded” and “…long carnelian beads during the Harappan phase of the Indus Valley
tradition reveal that three or four different sizes of drills were used to perforate one half of the
bead.”
Several scholars including Kenoyer and Vidale have carried out experimental drilling
to understand various patterns produced by different drill materials. The modern
beads produced at Khambhat are perforated with the aid of two types of diamond
dipped steel drill bits as explained above. One such modern bead was studied by the
author under SEM at IIT Gandhinagar (Fig 24). The patterns produced by a diamond
tipped drill are very much distinct from those of jasper, ernestite or copper drills.

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
70
Figure 24: Bead hole impressions analysis using SEM; bead holes formed by
diamond tipped steel drill from a modern bead manufactured at Khambhat
Conclusion
An attempt is made in this paper to trace the history of bead making in the South Asian
context since prehistoric times up to the Harappan Civilization in order to understand
the developments in technology as well as exploitation of various raw materials.
Through the growth of civilization, the past humans adopted technologies from
simpler to more complex to produce a wide range of artistic products of which beads
formed an important component. This is vividly reflected in the context of Harappan
Civilization and its preceding phases, the foundations of such complex technologies
were based in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Mehrgarh.
Scholars working on the bead drilling technologies have developed various means and
methods to understand them, which have been highlighted in this paper. In particular,
these methodologies have largely helped in understanding the Harappan bead drilling
technology. The hallmark of this technology is the use of ernestite stone drills. Even
though the provenance of this raw material is still unknown, its large presence from
Harappan sites in Gujarat is an eye opener and an indication towards its provenance in
this region. This is further substantiated by the continuation of bead production at
Dholavira employing ernestite drills during late / post-urban Harappan phase. The use

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
71
of ernestite cease to exist during late Harappan phase from sites outside Gujarat. The
modern bead manufacturing industry at Khambhat and its study by enthusiasts and
scholars since mid 19th century is a very good evidence in understanding the ancient
drilling technology using traditional methods and before the emergence of mechanized
drilling and polishing. The traditional bead manufacturers at Khambhat were also
instrumental in carrying out different experimental studies by scholars like Kenoyer
and Vidale, which helped in arriving at a holistic picture of Harappan bead
manufacturing technology. Beads manufactured using Harappan technology have
been recognized beyond the Indus Valley from sites in Mesopotamia based on the
understanding of this technology using SEM studies of bead hole impressions. Thus,
the scientific studies have emerged as an important tool in understanding the past
cultural interactions between civilizations and their dynamics.
Explanatory Note
1Ka = Kilo years or 1000 years ago
References
Arkell, A.J. (1936). Cambay and the Bead Trade. The Antiquaries Journal, 10, pp 292-
305. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00011856.
Barthelemy de Saizieu, B and Rodiere, J (2005) Bead-Drilling: A Look from Mehrgarh
and Nausharo. Preliminary Analysis of Micro-trace Analysis, South Asian
Archaeology 2003, ed. Ute Franke-Vogt & Hans-Joachim Weisshaar, Aachen,
pp. 39-48.
Bisht, R. S. (2014) How Harappans Honoured Death at Dholavira, Rao, ed. Nalini Rao,
Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization, D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd. Delhi, pp. 252-305.
Bisht, R.S. (1987), Further Excavations at Banawali, 1983-84, in Pande, B.M. and
Chattopadhyaya, B.D. (eds.), Archaeology and History: Essays in Memory of A.
Ghosh, Vol. I., Delhi.
Bisht, R.S. (1991), Dholavira: A New Horizon of the Indus Civilization, Puratattva, No.
20, pp. 71-82.
Bisht, R.S. (2015) Excavations at Dholavira (1989-90 to 2004-05). A Report Submitted to
Archaeological Survey of India. New Delhi.
Chris Clarkson, Michael Petraglia, Ravi Korisettar, Michael Haslam, Nicole Boivin,
Alison Crowther, Peter Ditchfield, Dorian Fuller, Preston Miracle, Clair
Harris, Kate Connel, Hannah James, Jinu Koshy (2009) The oldest and
longest enduring microlithic sequence in India: 35000 years of modern
human occupation and change at the Jwalapuram Locality 9 rockshelter.
Antiquity 83. 326-348.
Frankfort, H. (1933) Tell Asmar, Khafaje and Khorsabad: Second Preliminary Report on the
Iraqi Expedition in Oriental Institute Communications, 16. 1-102. Chicago.
Gibson, M. (1977) An Indus Valley Stamp Seal from Nippur, Iraq. Man and Environment
1. 67.

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
72
Gorelick, L., and A.J. Gwinnett (1978) Ancient Seals and Modern Science – Using the
Scanning Electron Microscope as an aid in the study of ancient seals,
Expedition 20(2), pp. 38-47.
Jarrige, C., Jarrige, J-F., Meadow, R. H., Quivron, G., (1995) Mehrgarh: Field Reports
1974-1985, From Neolithic Times to the Indus Civilization, Government of
Pakistan.
Jarrige, J.F., (1994) The Final Phase of Indus Occupation at Nausharo and its
Connection with the Following Cultural Complex at Mehrgarh VIII, South
Asian Archaeology 1993, Helsinki, 295-313.
Jarrige, J.F., Marielle Santoni. (1979) Fouilles De Pirak in 2 Volumes, Paris. Diffusion de
Boccard Publications de la Commission des Fouilles Archaeologique,
Fouilles du Pakistan 2.
Joshi, J.P., (1990) Excavation at Surkotada 1971-72 and Exploration in Kutch, Memoirs of
the Archaeological Survey of India, 87, New Delhi.
Kennedy, K. (2000). God-apes and fossil men. An Arbor (MI): University of Michigan
Press.
Kenoyer, J.M. (1986) The Indus Bead Industry: Contributions to Bead Technology,
Ornament 10(1). 18-23.
Kenoyer, J.M. (2007) Stone beads in Ancient South Asia- 7000-600 BC: A comparative
approach to technology, style, and ideology. In The Global Perspective of
Beads and Beadwork: History, Manufacture, Trade, and Adornment, edited by
Jamey Allen and Valerie Hector, pp. 1-12. Istanbul: Kadir Has University.
Kenoyer, J.M., and Vidale, Massimo, (1992) A New Look into the Stone Drills of the
Indus Valley Tradition, Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III,
Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings Volume 267, pp. 495-518.
Kenoyer, J.M., Vidale, M., & Bhan, K.K., (1991) Contemporary Stone Beadmaking in
Khambhat, India: Patterns of Craft Specialization and Organisation of
Production as Reflected in the Archaeological Record, World Archaeology
Vol. 23, No. 1, Craft Production and Specialization (Jun. 1991), pp. 44-63.
Khan, F.A. (1965) Excavation at Kot Diji, Pakistan Archaeology 2. 11-85.
Langdon, S. (1931) A New Factor in the Problem of Sumerian Origins. Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society. 593-596.
Law, R.W. (2011) Inter-regional Interaction and Urbanism in the Ancient Indus Valley:
A Geologic Provenience Study of Harappa’s Rock and Mineral
Assemblage. Occasional Paper 11, Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human
Past. Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto.
Law, R.W. (2015) Identification and Analysis of Stones and Metals. In Excavations at
Dholavira (1989-90 to 2004-05). A Report Submitted to Archaeological
Survey of India. New Delhi. 747-787.
Mackay, E.J.H. (1925) Sumerian Connections with Ancient India. Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society. 697-701.
Mackay, E.J.H. (1943) Chanhu-daro Excavations 1935-36, American Oriental Series
Volume 20, New Haven.

Prabhakar 2016: 47-74
73
Marshal, J. (1924) An Indian “Tiryns” and “Mycenae”: A Forgotten Age Revealed. The
Illustrated London News, No. 4457-Volume165, September 20, 1924.
Mililer, D. (1985) Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central
India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nath, A. (1997-98), Rakhigarhi: A Harappan Metropolis in the Sarasvati-Drisadvati
Divide, Puratattva 28, pp. 39-45.
Patrick Roberts, Nicole Boivin, Michael Petraglia (2015) The Sri Lankan ‘Microlithic’
Tradition c. 38,000 to 3,000 Years Ago: Tropical Technologies and
Adaptations of Homo sapiens at the Southern Edge of Asia, Journal of World
Prehistory 28. 69-112.
Possehl, G.L. (1996) Meluhha in Indian Ocean in Antiquity. Ed. Julian Reade. Kegan Paul
International and The British Museum. 133-208.
Possehl, G.L., (1981) Cambay Beadmaking: An Ancient Craft in Modern India,
Expedition (Summer 1981), pp. 39-47.
Rao, L.S., Nandini B. Sahu, Prabash Sahu, Samir Diwan, U.A. Sastry. (2004-05) New
Light on the Excavation of Harappan Settlement at Bhirrana, Puratattva 35,
Indian Archaeological Society, Delhi, 60-69.
Rao, S.R. (1979), Lothal: A Harappan Port Town, 1955-62, Memoirs of the Archaeological
Survey of India 78, Vol. I, New Delhi
Rao, S.R. (1985), Lothal: A Harappan Port Town, 1955-62, Memoirs of the Archaeological
Survey of India 78, Vol. II, New Delhi
Salahuddin, R.K. Ganjoo, G.L. Badam, S.N. Rajaguru (1986-87) On the Archaeological
Association of Hominid from Hathnora, Madhya Pradesh, India. Asian
Perspectives XXVII(2). 193-203.
Sayce, A.H. (1924) Professor A.H. Sayce on the Remarkable Discoveries in India. The
Illustrated London News, September 27, 1924. 566.
Shanti Pappu, Yanni Gunnel, Kumar Akhilesh, Regis Braucher, Maurice Taieb, Fancois
Demory, Nicolas Thouveny (2011) Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian
Hominins in South Asia, Science 331. 1596-1598.
Sharma, Y.D., (1956) Past Patterns in Living as Unfolded by Excavations at Rupar, in
Lalit Kala 1-2, Lalit Kala Akademi, pp. 121-129.
Sharma, Y.D., (1982) Harappan Complex on the Sutlej (India), in Gregory L. Possehl
ed., Harapapan Civiliazation: A Contemporary Perspective, Oxford & IBH and
the American Institute of Indian Studies, Delhi, pp. 141-165.
Sonakia, A. (1984) The skull cap of early man and associated mammalian fauna from
Narmada Valley alluvium Hoshangabad area, M.P. (India). Records of the
Geological Survey of India 113:159-172.
Summers, A. (1851) An Account of the Agate and Carnelian Trade of Cambay. Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bombay IV. 318-327.
Thapar, B.K. (1973) New Traits of the Indus Civilization at Kalibangan: An Appraisal,
South Asian Archaeology, 85-104.
Thapar, B.K. (1975), Kalibangan: A Harappan Metropolis beyond the Indus Valley,
Expedition 17(2): 19-32.

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016
74
Tosi, M., and Piperno, M., (1973) Lithic Technology behind the Lapis Lazuli Trade,
Expedition 16(1), pp. 15-23.
Woolley, C.L. (1928) Excavations at Ur (1926-27), Part 2, The Antiquaries Journal 8(1). 1-
29.
Woolley, C.L. (1932) Excavations at Ur (1931-32), The Antiquaries Journal 12(4). 355-383.