Lithic Blade Implements and their Role in the Harappan Chalcolithic Cultural Development in Gujarat

Full text

Walking with the Unicorn
Social Organization and Material Culture
in Ancient South Asia
Jonathan Mark Kenoyer
Felicitation Volume
Edited by
Dennys Frenez, Gregg M. Jamison, Randall W. Law,
Massimo Vidale and Richard H. Meadow
Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd
Summertown Pavilion
18-24 Middle Way
Summertown
Oxford OX2 7LG
www.archaeopress.com
ISBN 978 1 78491 917 7
ISBN 978 1 78491 918 4 (e-Pdf)
© ISMEO - Associazione Internazionale di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l'Oriente, Archaeopress and the authors 2018
Front cover: SEM microphotograph of Indus unicorn seal H95-2491 from Harappa (photograph by J. Mark Kenoyer © Harappa
Archaeological Research Project).
Back cover, background: Pot from the Cemetery H Culture levels of Harappa with a hoard of beads and decorative objects
(photograph by Toshihiko Kakima © Prof. Hideo Kondo and NHK promotions).
Back cover, box: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer excavating a unicorn seal found at Harappa (© Harappa Archaeological Research
Project).
ISMEO - Associazione Internazionale
di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l'Oriente
Corso Vittorio Emanuele II, 244
Palazzo Baleani
Roma, RM 00186
www.ismeo.eu
Serie Orientale Roma, 15
This volume was published with the financial assistance of a grant from the Progetto MIUR 'Studi e ricerche sulle culture
dell’Asia e dell’Africa: tradizione e continuità, rivitalizzazione e divulgazione'
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.
Printed in England by The Holywell Press, Oxford
This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

i
Contents
Jonathan Mark Kenoyer and ISMEO – Occasions in Continuum ....................................................................................v
Adriano V. Rossi
Jonathan Mark Kenoyer – The Tale of Sikander and the Unicorn .............................................................................. ix
Dennys Frenez, Gregg Jamison, Randall Law, Massimo Vidale and Richard H. Meadow
Jonathan Mark Kenoyer – Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. xi
Fish Exploitation during the Harappan Period at Bagasra in Gujarat, India.
An Ichthyoarchaeological Approach .....................................................................................................................................1
Abhayan G. S., P. P. Joglekar, P. Ajithprasad, K. Krishnan, K. K. Bhan and S. V. Rajesh
The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Terracotta Seals as Evidence of Imitation and Agency
in Bronze Age Middle Asia .....................................................................................................................................................19
Marta Ameri
Reflections on Fantastic Beasts of the Harappan World. A View from the West ...................................................26
Joan Aruz
Fish Symbolism and Fish Remains in Ancient South Asia .............................................................................................33
William R. Belcher
Some Important Aspects of Technology and Craft Production in the Indus Civilization with
Specific Reference to Gujarat ................................................................................................................................................48
Kuldeep K. Bhan
Chert Mines and Chert Miners. The Material Culture and Social Organization of the Indus
Chipped Stone Workers, Artisans and Traders in the Indus Valley (Sindh, Pakistan) .........................................68
Paolo Biagi, Elisabetta Starnini and Ryszard Michniak
Ceramic Analysis and the Indus Civilization. A Review .................................................................................................90
Alessandro Ceccarelli and Cameron A. Petrie
Family Matters in Harappan Gujarat ................................................................................................................................104
Brad Chase
Revisiting the Ornament Styles of the Indus Figurines: Evidence from Harappa, Pakistan .............................120
Sharri R. Clark
The Harappan ‘Veneer’ and the Forging of Urban Identity ........................................................................................150
Mary A. Davis
Private Person or Public Persona? Use and Significance of Standard Indus Seals as Markers of
Formal Socio-Economic Identities .....................................................................................................................................166
Dennys Frenez
Lithic Blade Implements and their Role in the Harappan Chalcolithic Cultural Development in Gujarat ...194
Charusmita Gadekar and P. Ajithprasad
Who Were the ‘Massacre Victims’ at Mohenjo-daro? A Craniometric Investigation ..........................................210
Brian E. Hemphill
Indus Copper and Bronze: Traditional Perspectives and New Interpretations ....................................................251
Brett C. Hoffman
A Short Note on Strontium Isotope Analysis of Human Skeletal Remains from the Site of Sarai Khola .......265
Asma Ibrahim
The Organization of Indus Unicorn Seal Production. A Multi-faceted Investigation of Technology,
Skill, and Style .........................................................................................................................................................................272
Gregg M. Jamison

ii
The Size of Indus Seals and its Significance ....................................................................................................................292
Ayumu Konasukawa and Manabu Koiso
The Art and Technology of Reserving a Slip. A Complex Side of Indus Ceramic Tradition ..............................318
K. Krishnan and Sneh Pravinkumar Patel
The Art of the Harappan Microbead – Revisited ...........................................................................................................327
Randall W. Law
The North Gujarat Archaeological Project – NoGAP. A Multi-Proxy and Multi-Scale Study of Long-
Term Socio-Ecological Dynamics ........................................................................................................................................343
Marco Madella, P. Ajithprasad, Carla Lancelotti, J. J. García-Granero, F. C. Conesa, C. Gadekar and S. V. Rajesh
Toponyms, Directions and Tribal Names in the Indus Script ....................................................................................359
Iravatham Mahadevan and M. V. Bhaskar
Ganweriwala – A New Perspective .....................................................................................................................................377
Farzand Masih
Personal Reflections on some Contributions of Jonathan Mark Kenoyer to the Archaeology
of Northwestern South Asia .................................................................................................................................................384
Richard H. Meadow
Invisible Value or Tactile Value? Steatite in the Faience Complexes of the Indus Valley Tradition ..............389
Heather M.-L. Miller and Jonathan Mark Kenoyer
What Makes a Pot Harappan? .............................................................................................................................................395
Heidi J. Miller
Dilmun-Meluhhan Relations Revisited in Light of Observations on Early Dilmun Seal Production
during the City IIa-c Period (c. 2050-1800 BC) ................................................................................................................406
Eric Olijdam and Hélène David-Cuny
Unicorn Bull and Victory Parade ......................................................................................................................................433
Asko Parpola
Analytical Study of Harappan Copper Artifacts from Gujarat with Special Reference to Bagasra .................443
Ambika Patel and P. Ajithprasad
Looking beneath the Veneer. Thoughts about Environmental and Cultural Diversity
in the Indus Civilization ........................................................................................................................................................453
Cameron A. Petrie, Danika Parikh, Adam S. Green and Jennifer Bates
Decorated Carnelian Beads from the Indus Civilization Site of Dholavira (Great Rann of
Kachchha, Gujarat) .................................................................................................................................................................475
V. N. Prabhakar
Artifact Reuse and Mixed Archaeological Contexts at Chatrikhera, Rajasthan ...................................................486
Teresa P. Raczek, Namita S. Sugandhi, Prabodh Shirvalkar and Lalit Pandey
Pre-Prabhas Assemblage in Gujarat. An Assessment based on the Material Culture from
Somnath, Datrana and Janan...............................................................................................................................................495
Rajesh S. V., Charusmita Gadekar, P. Ajithprasad, G. S. Abhayan, K. Krishnan and Marco Madella
The Indus Script and Economics. A Role for Indus Seals and Tablets in Rationing and
Administration of Labor .......................................................................................................................................................518
Rajesh P. N. Rao
Beads of Possible Indus Origin with Sumerian Royal Inscriptions ...........................................................................526
Julian E. Reade and Jonathan Taylor
The Role of Archaeology in National Identity: Muslim Archaeology in Pakistan ................................................530
Shakirullah
The Smallest Scale of Stone. Pebbles as a Diminutive Form of Nature ...................................................................536
Monica L. Smith
Five Thousand Years of Shell Exploitation at Bandar Jissah, Sultanate of Oman ................................................547
Christopher P. Thornton, Charlotte M. Cable, David Bosch and Leslie Bosch

iii
Indus Stone Beads in the Ghaggar Plain with a Focus on the Evidence from Farmana and Mitathal ............568
Akinori Uesugi, Manmohan Kumar and Vivek Dangi
Locard’s Exchange Principle and the Bead-Making Industries of the 3rd Millennium BC ................................592
Massimo Vidale, Giuseppe Guida, Gianfranco Priori and Anna Siviero
Inscription Carving Technology of Early Historic South Asia. Results of Experimental
Archaeology and Assessment of Minor Rock Edicts in Karnataka............................................................................605
Heather Walder
The Volumetric System of Harappa ...................................................................................................................................623
Bryan K. Wells
An Harappan History of US Researchers in Pakistan. In Celebration of Jonathan Mark Kenoyer ..................628
Rita P. Wright
Editors .......................................................................................................................................................................................636
Authors Contacts.....................................................................................................................................................................637

194
Chipped stone tools have been associated with man
since the beginning of human evolution. They are
one of the few artefacts to have withstood the inroads
of environmental and human perturbation, such as
erosion, decay and landscape development. Because of
this, lithic artefacts represent one of the most important
clues to understanding prehistoric/protohistoric
lifeways (Andrefsky 2005).
This paper deals with the lithic assemblages belonging
to the Holocene Period of Gujarat. The Holocene is
marked by the beginning of agriculture and settled
ways of life that led to the emergence of villages. These
villages went on to form (directly or indirectly) part of
one of the world’s first major civilizations, the Harappan
(or Indus) Civilization. How this civilization originated
and spread over the vast swaths of northwestern India
and Pakistan is still a puzzle and much new research
is being carried out to understand this aspect. The
aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it is to study of
lithic assemblages belonging to the Mesolithic Period
preceding the Harappan Civilization as well as the
different phases of the Harappan Civilization itself to
better understand that society and other contemporary
Chalcolithic cultures of the 3rd millennium BC in
Gujarat. Secondly, it aims to understand the evolution
of lithic technology. This research is based primarily
on a study of lithic assemblages belonging to four
sites, namely, Datrana, Shikarpur, Bagasra and Pithad
(Figure 1). Taken together the cover the Mesolithic,
Chalcolithic and the Harappan periods. Specific aspects
of technology and raw materials are explored in order
to distinguish between regional adaptations, resource
areas and the trade/exchange network associated with
each of these periods.
Datrana
           
locally known as Hadka Valo Timbo (Mound of Bones),
is located on a large crescent-shaped stabilized dune
about 2km northeast of Datrana village in Santalpur
taluka of Patan district Gujarat (Figure 1). There are
four different concentrations of artefact assemblages
on this large dune, whose cultural history ranges from
the Mesolithic to the Harappan Chalcolithic. The site
was first excavated by the Department of Archaeology
and Ancient History, Maharaja Sayajirao University
of Baroda, during the years 1994-95. This excavation
season resulted in the discovery of a two-fold cultural
sequence: Period I and Period II (IAR 1993-94; IAR 1994-
95).
Period I is represented by a Mesolithic assemblage
comprised of microlithic geometric and non-geometric
tools associated with a microlithic debitage, ‘palette
stones’ of sandstone, along with the skeletal remains of
a number of different animals (IAR 1993-94; IAR 1994-
95). Otoliths belonging to this level have been dated
from 7550 calBC to 7600 calBC by AMS estimation.
Period II is represented by a Chalcolithic ceramic
assemblage showing cultural affiliation to Pre-Prabhas
and Early Harappan Sindh, which has been dated
from 3300 to 2600 BC. This Chalcolithic Period is also
represented by long crested ridge blades, prismatic
Lithic Blade Implements and their Role in the Harappan
Chalcolithic Cultural Development in Gujarat
Charusmita Gadekar and P. Ajithprasad
Lithic assemblages form a very important group of material objects during the Chalcolithic Period of Gujarat, India. The study of
stylistic difference and technological continuities and discontinuities observed in lithic assemblages at ancient sites can provide
important new information regarding the spread and development of Harappan Civilization as well as about other regional
Chalcolithic cultures. Four sites in Gujarat were examined for this study: Datrana (Early Harappan), Shikarpur and Bagasra
(Urban Phase Harappan) and Pithad (Sorath Harappan). All have been dated to between the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC. The
crested guiding ridge technology had previously been associated with the Urban Phase of the Harappan Civilization (c. 2600 to
1900 BC). It was hypothesized that this technology spread as the civilization developed. New data shows that the crested guiding
ridge technique was prevalent as early as the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC at Datrana, Prabhas Patan and Janan. At major
Urban Phase Harappan sites such as Bagasra and Shikarpur, the same technique was followed later. The quartering technique,
which were popular during the Mesolithic period in Gujarat, was observed even during the Chalcolithic habitational levels at
Pithad. Datrana was a factory site where blades were produced en-mass and traded. Bagasra was a small craft production site
where people were self-sufficient but did import some of their lithic tools. Shikarpur has evidence of importing almost all of
their blades readymade from the Rohri Hills of Sindh.
Keywords: Indus Civilization, Gujarat, Rohri Hills, lithic tools, chert blades, crested ridge technique.

195

blade cores, stone beads and roughouts, drill bits and
copper punch points (Ajithprasad 2002, 2011; IAR 1993-
94; IAR 1994-95; Sonawane and Ajithprasad 1994).
The site was re-excavated during November-
December 2010 and the two-fold cultural sequence was
reconfirmed. The Mesolithic remains, however, were
found to be very thin and poor (in relative abundance)
of lithic blade tools and other Mesolithic artefacts,
which may be due to the location of the new trench at
almost the southern edge of the Mesolithic habitation.
The Chalcolithic Period habitation is concentrated in
the southwestern part of the mound. Material remains
from that part of the site were extremely rich, consisting
of blade and disc shaped stone bead production debrus,
fine copper/bronze punch points, palette stones and
Pre-Prabhas and Early Harappan Sindh type pottery
fragments (Ajithprasad 2011).
Pithad/Jaidak No Timbo
The site, locally known as the Jaidak No Timbo (23° 39.5’
N; 70° 34.43’ E), situated 4km south of Pithad/Jaidak
village (Figure 1) on the eastern bank of the Aji River,
has two mounds. Jaidak 1, is the larger one, measuring
about 300 x 150m with a height of about 5m above the
surrounding plain. The second mound, Jaidak 2, was
probably an extension of the first mound, but now is
separated by a deep erosional nullah (gully). It lies about
50m south-east and measures 140 x 90m. Excavations
were carried out by the Department of Archaeology
and Ancient History, Maharaja Sayajirao University
of Baroda, during years 1991-92 (IAR 1991-92) and
focused on the north-western corner of Jaidak 2 where
structural features were clear on the surface.
The excavation revealed a 1.40m habitational deposit of
five different layers belonging to two distinct periods.
Period I belongs to the Mesolithic culture and Period
II to the Sorath Harappan. Period I, or Mesolithic, is
represented by a 80-90cm deposit. It has yielded a
large number of microlithic implements and other
artefacts like pieces of flat sandstone ‘palettes’ and
hammer stones. The lithic industry includes geometric
and non-geometric tool-types along with simple
blades and flakes and other lithic waste. A temporary
break in the occupation at the site during this period
is indicated by about 10cm thick sterile deposit in the
middle of the strata. A probable Mesolithic working
floor has been traced at this level on the basis of the
regular arrangements of large, flat stone slabs and
the clustering of artefacts around these slabs. No
substantial quantity of faunal remains is found in this
deposit. A noteworthy find from the excavation consists
of a few pieces of ostrich eggshell. This is the first time
that ostrich eggshell pieces have been found from a
stratified Mesolithic context in Gujarat (IAR 1991-92).
The Sorath Harappan occupation, Period II, is lying
directly over the Mesolithic deposit. This deposit has
Figure 1. Map showing the location of selected sites (map by the author).

Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
196
two phases of structural activity. The first phase of
structures is represented by a long rubble stone wall,
with the remains of a few small walls in the second
layer. Associated with this structure is a large pot
buried underneath the floor level. Structures of the
second phase were built after levelling the debris of the
earlier structures. Fine red ware, buff ware, buff and
cream-slipped wares, coarse red ware and coarse grey
ware are the important pottery types recovered from
this deposit. Bowls, pots and jars with various types of
rim and body features, dishes and dish-on-stand are
the important shapes in pottery. A large number of
small terracotta biconical beads, a few beads of chert,
agate and carnelian, microlithic blade tools and bits
and pieces of copper/bronze objects are the other
important antiquities recovered from the excavation
(IAR 1991-92). Faunal remains from this period include
fragments of bone, horn-core, antler and teeth of
exploited animals. The assemblage included a large
number of bivalve shells, which indicates a wider and
intense exploitation of aquatic resources by the Sorath
Harappan occupants of the site (IAR 1991-92).
The site was re-excavated by the Department of
Archaeology and Ancient History, Maharaja Sayajirao
University of Baroda, during 2005-2006 and 2006-2007
field seasons. This excavation revealed two distinct
phases in the Harappan occupation at the site: Period
IIA, which is culturally and chronologically affiliated to
the Rangpur IIB, Kuntasi I and Rojdi B, and Period IIB,
which is affiliated to Rangpur IIC and Rojdi C. Period IIA
is contemporary to the terminal stages of the Mature
Harappan and can be dated to around 2200/2100BC.
The main planning and layout of the settlement and
the construction of the fortification wall were all
carried out during this phase. This is followed in the
upper layers by the second phase, which showed an
assemblage similar to Rojdi C, Kuntasi II and Rangpur
IIC. The approximate date of this phase may fall within
the bracket 1900 to 1700 BC and therefore belong to the
Post-Urban phase of the Harappa culture (IAR 2006-07).
Bagasra
Bagasra, (23° 3’ 30’’ N, 70° 37’ 10’’ E) is a small (160 x
120m) fortified Harappan industrial site situated
on the southeastern shore of the Gulf of Kachchh in
Maliya Taluka of Rajkot District, Gujarat (Figure 1). The
site is known locally by the name Gola Dhoro, which
means a circular mound. The site was excavated by
the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History,
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, for nine
consecutive years starting from the 1995-96 field season
(Sonawane et al. 2003).
The excavations revealed a 7.75m thick habitational
deposit belonging to four distinct developmental
phases. The classification of the developmental phases
is based on the stratigraphic context and quantitative
distribution of distinct, diagnostic artefacts and also
by considering architectural constructions at the site
(Sonawane et al. 2003).
Phase I represents the early stages of the Urban Phase
Harappan occupation at the site and it is represented
by 1.00-1.75m of habitational deposit. The date for
this phase is around 2450 BC. Phase II was the most
prosperous period during the entire history of the site.
The construction of a massive fortification wall in three
different stages is the most conspicuous feature of this
phase. A flourishing of craft activities like shell bangle
manufacture, semiprecious stone bead fabrication, and
a faience bead industry exemplify this period, which
is also marked by boosted trade and prosperity. The
cultural debris representing this period has a thick
accumulation measuring more than 5m. The date range
falls between 2400-2100 BC. Phase III was the declining
stage of the Urban Phase Harappan occupation. It
is distinguished from the preceding phase by the
preponderance of Sorath Harappan artefacts along
with the Classical Harappan. The deposit has an average
thickness of about 1.20m. This phase can be dated to
approximately 2100-1900 BC. Phase IV represents the
Late or Post-Urban Phase Harappan occupation of the
site. The deposit is found directly overlying the Phase
III deposit without any stratigraphic break. The dates
suggested are 1900-1700 B.C. (Sonawane et al. 2003).
The settlement incorporated cultural traits of the
Sorath Harappan of Saurashtra and the regional
Chalcolithic/Anarta assemblage of North Gujarat.
Moreover, the site is located equidistant from the North
Gujarat and Kachchh regions of Gujarat. Due to its
specific geographical location, the site appeared to be a
connecting link between these three major geo-cultural
regions and, therefore, was an important centre for
the movement of Chalcolithic communities during
Harappan period (Sonawane et al. 2003). The settlement
follows a simple plan, having two distinct segments in
its layout – a fortified area measuring 65 x 57m confined
to the northern half of the settlement, and the southern
half, which does not show evidence of a fortification.
Within the fortified area, craft activities such as shell
bangle manufacturing and the production of faience,
stone beads and copper implements flourished.
Structures unearthed within the fortification are
mostly associated with these craft activities. Evidence
of bead-working and pottery production is also found
outside of the fortification in the southern segment but
in lower concentrations (Sonawane et al. 2003).
Among the artefacts recovered during excavations are
beads (carnelian, amazonite, steatite, faience, lapis
lazuli and other semi-precious stones), terracotta and
shell bangles, inscribed seals and clay sealings, stone
weights, gamesman, toy cart frames, copper/bronze

197

spearhead/arrowheads and chisels, as well as a large
number of blade implements including geometric
and non-geometric tools made of crypto-crystalline
siliceous stones (Sonawane et al. 2003) (Figure 2).
Shikarpur


village at the edge of a narrow creek extending towards
the Gulf of Kutch (Figure 1). The rectangular mound
measures 3.4 hectares over an area covering the entire
elevated top of the stabilized sand dune. The overall
height of the mound is 7.5 to 8m from the surrounding
ground (Bhan and Ajithprasad 2008).
The site has a bipartite plan with a massive fortification
wall encompassing an inner area of a little over one
hectare. The excavations have revealed a 6.40m deposit
showing a three-fold sequence in the Harappan Period
occupation at the site. Phase I entirely belongs to the
Classical Harappan Period and is represented by about
3m of cultural deposit. Harappan occupation in this
phase starts with structures built of Harappan style mud
bricks. In addition to the classical pottery, the ceramic
assemblage includes a few sherds of regional, Anarta
pottery. Other artefacts found from this phase are large
chert blades and cores, several terracotta cart-frames
of various varieties and wheels, terracotta bangles,
terracotta animal and human like figures. Several stone
beads and bead roughouts along with ‘Ernestite’ drill
heads were also found.
Phase II is the Urban Phase Harappan phase. The total
habitation is about 1.40 to 1.60m. The artefacts from
this phase incorporate Harappan and Sorath Harappan
potteries. Blades of Rohri Hills-type chert, shell
bangles, stone beads, copper implements, terracotta
bangles, beads, triangular cakes, cart frames and wheels
continue in this phase too.
Phase III is thin and patchy and is generally confined to
the upper 10 to 20cm. The deposit is marked by Post-
Urban Phase Harappan materials. Very few artefacts
except ceramics have been reported from this phase.
This phase also shows absence of craft activities.
Structures belonging to this phase are meagre, except
for the remains of flimsy, circular and apsidal stone
structures.
Figure 2. Blades from Bagasra (courtesy Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University of Baroda).

Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
198
Methodology
The lithic assemblages from the above mentioned
four sites have been analyzed through typological
and technological methods. The first step in the
classification was the identification of different
raw materials. The raw materials were classified as
cryptocrystalline siliceous materials which included
chert, chalcedony, banded agate, moss agate, Rohri
chert, blood stone, quartz, carnelian, jasper, and
‘Ernestite’. Non-cryptocrystalline siliceous materials
included quartzite, sandstone, basalt, mica, amazonite,
calcite and zeolite (Gadekar 2015).
The classification of the lithic assemblages into tools
or lithic debitage (manufacturing waste) was done
according to their morphological features. Blades were
classified into simple blades, backed blades, obliquely
blunted blades, strangulated blades, crested ridge
blades, blade flakes and retouched blades. Geometric
and non-geometric tools include triangles, lunates,
trapeziums, points, burins, borers and scrapers (further
classified based on retouches into end, side, double
sided, convex, concave, side and end, notched, round).
Lithic debitage was divided into flakes, chips, nodules,
cores, core rejuvenation flake, and waste (Gadekar
2015).
Attributes recorded for all the tools, broken as well as
intact, are the same. These include condition, cortex
percentages, edge attributes such as retouches, backings
and utilization marks, condition of polish if present,
description of platforms, condition of distal ends,
dorsal ridges and the raw material. These attributes
were recorded so that they can provide a basis for
comparison for present as well as future researchers.
Measurements of length, breadth and thickness were
taken of all the tools. Length was measured from the
proximal end to the furthest possible end. Width was
taken at the mid-point of the length. Thickness was
measured by rotating the artefact 90° from the width
point (Gadekar 2015).
Lithic debitage of all sites was analyzed separately.
Lithic debitage analysis followed a different method
than finished, diagnostic tools. The intact and proximal
flakes were measured by placing them on a graph
sheet and noting the closest value of 0.5cm (adapted
from Ahler 1989). Thus, a flake with the length of
2.34cm would be recorded as having a length of 2.5cm.
Proximal end and distal end attributes were not noted
for lithic debitage flakes. This method was necessary
as it was impossible to record the precise attributes of
all the flakes belonging to lithic debitage category. All
categories of lithic debitage were weighed, however.
All the other fragments of lithic debitage – the ones
without proximal ends – were considered as shatter
and they were counted and weighed but not measured.
Care was taken to record any evidence of retouches
or utilization on flakes and, if found these, were duly
noted (Gadekar 2015).
The cores were analyzed separately. The attributes
recorded for them closely follow the attributes
recorded for cores by T. Raczek (2007), however, a
few modifications were necessary to suit the cores
under study. Length of cores was taken from the side
of the removal of longest flake. Width of the core was
measured keeping the flaked surface of the core (if it
was flaked from one side) facing front. If it was a core
which was flaked all over, the width was taken from the
widest side. Thickness was measured by rotating the
core 90° from the position in which width was measured
(Gadekar 2015; Raczek 2007).
Results and discussion
Table 1 gives an overview of the lithic assemblages at
Pithad, Datrana, Bagasra and Shikarpur. Chronologically
amongst the four, the earliest site is Datrana. Datrana is
a very interesting site in terms of its lithic assemblage.
The site has yielded thousands of blades of different
varieties (Figure 3) as well as geometric and non-
geometric tools, along with an enormous amount of
debris. It can, with ample justification, be called as one
of the oldest blade factory sites in Western India. The
site has been radiocarbon dated to 3300 BC (Ajithprasad
2011). The site has also provided evidence of the use
of crested guiding ridge technique for the first time in
the region of Gujarat. Datrana has produced an Early
Harappan ceramic assemblage along with the Pre-
Prabhas and a few sherds of Anarta pottery. Other
noteworthy finds include the abundance of a particular
type of core, defined by Cleland (1977) as a flat blade
core (found from Amri, an Early Harappan site in Sindh,
Pakistan) belonging to a distinct technological tradition,
which now is known as the quartering technique; fine
copper/bronze punch points which must have been
used in stone knapping; Rohri chert blades and proto
blade-cores (cores where crested ridges have been
prepared but were not flaked further). The presence of
the above mentioned ceramic assemblage as well as the
other distinct artefacts suggests a cultural interaction
with the Indus Valley going back to the beginning of
the 3rd millennium BC. It also points to the cultural
processes responsible for the development and spread
of early village farming communities in North Gujarat
where Datrana is located.
As can be seen from Table 1, Datrana has thousands of
finished blades. One would expect that a large number
of them to be unutilized blade blanks. This should be
the case at a factory site. Indeed, this site does have
a higher percentage of blade blanks than other sites.
Unexpectedly, however, a very high percentage of
these blades show use marks. It should be pointed out

199

that prehistoric/protohistoric factory sites should not
be confused with modern factories where only the
processing and finished goods are seen. These sites
were also habitational areas for the people. Habitational
evidence is found in the form of the thousands of animal
bones, most of which show breakage (most probably to
get to the marrow inside) as well as grinding stones,
which provide evidence for the grinding of food grains
(García-Granero et al. 2015). Even after considering
the above-mentioned points, it simply does not make
sense to have 65% (6685) of blades with utilization
marks at the site. It should be remembered here that
these vast numbers under consideration come from
an excavation of just one 5x5m trench. The site itself
is not very large, about 3 hectares. Isn’t it logical to ask
what these utilized blades are doing at the site in such
large number? Did the people have some particular use
for the blades at the site itself which resulted in such
high number of utilized blades? It’s not as if the site
did not have other type of tools. The geometric-non-
geometric tools recovered from the site correspond
with the same category of tools from other sites. It was
further observed that the intact blades did not show a
very high percentage in the used category. The broken
blades were the blades that showed high percentages
of utilization, which makes complete sense. Now the
question that asserts itself again regards the presence
of these utilized blades. At this point, it is difficult to
offer a convincing explanation for the presence of
these utilized blades, which are found in the thousands.
Table 1. Representation of lithic assemblage at selected sites
Lithic assemblage
Pithad / Jaidak No Timbo Datrana Bagasra Shikarpur
Total
Mesolithic Chalcolithic Chalcolithic
Various blades 410 63 10325 869 736 12403
Geometric tools 6 15 63 127 3 214
Non-geometric tools 204 86 180 137 30 637
Lithic debitage 3833 1379 77235 4850 4460 91757
Total 4453 1543 87803 5983 5229 105011
Figure 3. Blades from Datrana (courtesy Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University of Baroda).

Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
200
Further studies focusing on experimental replication
and use-wear techniques are required for successfully
addressing this issue.
Datrana is one of the earliest sites in Gujarat to
provide evidence for utilization of the crested guiding
ridge blade technique. Hundreds of blades as well as
cores show crested ridges running along their longer
axis (Figure 4). It is accepted that the crested ridge
technique was the preferred technique to manufacture
blades in the 2nd and 3rd millenniums BC in South Asia
(Sankalia 1982). Subbaro (1955) has noted that the most
significant feature of this industry is its association
with Chalcolithic, cultures beginning with the Indus
Valley Civilization. This technique includes preparation
of the core by making a longitudinal crested ridge.
Exactly 786 (or 8.8% of the total blades) crested ridge
blades have been found from layer 2 at Datrana and
286 blade cores have also been recovered from the
same layer. These cores are interesting as some show
the presence of one or two (and very rarely even three)
retained crested ridges. These ridges are found to lie
diagonally across the core, on the extreme right or
left, both sides of the core or at the back of the core.
However, at the same time the quartering technique,
which is generally seen during Mesolithic times, seems
to have been still employed at the site. Cleland (1977)
discussed a particular type of blade core from Amri that
he had defined as a flat blade core and proposed that
Amri participated in a distinct technological tradition.
He said that his impression was further reinforced by
the presence of triangles at both Amri and Balakot, one
of the other sites with a flat blade core. He also noted
that Balakot’s flat blade cores are much smaller than
Amri’s and, thus, could only have produced micro-
blades. Looking at the illustration provided by Cleland
it appears that these cores were flaked only from one
side, leaving the other side with cortex intact. Such
cores were also encountered by Allchin (1966) during
her study of lithic assemblages belonging to Central
Indian ‘Late Stone Age’ sites. She has described them
as blade cores which are flaked on part of the surface
and with cortex remaining on one, two or three sides
(Allchin 1966). The quartering technique (mainly
practiced during the Mesolithic period in Gujarat) has
been found to result in such types of exhausted cores
as the end product (Ajithprasad 1992). These types of
cores have also been found at Datrana where they have
been classified as wedge-shaped cores (generally blades
are removed only from one face, adapted from Raczek
2007). The presence of these cores along with crested
cores at Datrana provide evidence of two different tool
traditions. Datrana has a microlithic/Mesolithic level
preceding the Chalcolithic habitation. The quartering
technique was prevalent during the microlithic/
Mesolithic period in Gujarat. Thus, this evidence
suggests that most probably the inhabitants of Datrana
adopted the new crested ridge technology though
contact with the Early Harappans of Sindh but, at the
same time, continued their familiar technology as well.
Figure 4. Cores showing presence of intact crested guiding ridges from Datrana (courtesy Department of
Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University of Baroda).

201

One of the very interesting discoveries from Datrana was
of three cores with more than one unutilized crested
ridges during the surface survey (Gadekar et al. 2013).
These cores show evidence of three, and in one instance
four, crested ridges prepared on them while no further
flaking was undertaken. This might be the first time
that such cores have been encountered from a site; the
only other known example coming from the original
excavations of Mohenjo-daro reported by Cleland
(1977). These cores indicate that each may have utilized
multiple initiation ridges. It has been hypothesized that
providing multiple crested ridges on cores may have
served to aide city-dwelling consumers who may have
had less advanced blade production skills (Raczek 2007).
Since it is easier to remove a blade from a prepared
core than from an unworked nodule, preparing crested
guided ridges before transport provided a service to
consumers. That is cores reached cities in a ‘ready-
made’ state. This hypothesis, as yet untested, could
be valid for big cities of the Urban Phase Harappan
Civilization where cores/blades were imported from
Rohri Hills quarries. Datrana, however, is a small rural
Early Harappan site and, thus, this hypothesis does not
seem to be applicable here. Multiple crest preparation
on large parent nodules is a strategy to facilitate
maximum utility of the nodule as it helps the knapper
utilize alternate ridges for successive blade removals
even as one or more of the ridges become dysfunctional
in the process of knapping. Experimental replications
are necessary to validate this proposition.
The recovery of fine copper/bronze punch points
(Figure 5) that must have been used for stone knapping
is significant. It has been generally understood that the
blades are flaked by a sharp, straight, narrow-edged tool
like a chisel, which acted as an intermediary, the blows
being struck with a light hammer (Sankalia 1967). The
presence of copper/bronze punch is very important
in this light. Hammers were probably made of wood,
horn or small a quartzite pebble. Several quartzite
pebbles are found during excavation as well as surface
exploration, showing bruised, rough surfaces on one or
both the longitudinal ends giving evidence that most
probably these pebbles were utilized as hammers.
The crested guiding ridge technique was practiced
throughout the duration of the Chalcolithic occupation
of the site. The crested ridge does not occur in the
purely microlithic industry, which according to latest
evidence, precedes the Chalcolithic in several parts of
India, although fluted cores and parallel-sided flakes
are found in this industry (Ajithprasad 2002).
The Rohri chert blades that have been recovered from
Datrana provide interesting evidence. Hardly any lithic
debitage of this particular raw material has been found
during the excavation, affirming the conclusion that
they were imported and not made locally at the site. A
total of 20 blades have been found at the site. Only one
was found to be intact, all the others are in a broken
condition. The mean length of these broken blades
was found to be 16.29mm, mean breadth 10.38mm and
mean thickness 2.66mm. These blades are much longer,
broader and thicker than the blades made out of other
raw materials. The site has yielded evidence of Early
Harappan ceramics showing affinities with sites situated
in Sindh in association with the lithic assemblages. This
would suggest early cultural contact between the two
regions during the Early Harappan times (Ajithprasad
2011). Recently another Early Harappan site has been
identified in Kachchh district. The material assemblage
recovered from this site, Janan, is comparable to the
evidence recovered from Datrana (Gadekar et al. 2018)
Lithic data from the Early Harappan phases from the
sites of Amri, Kot Diji and Balakot (Cleland 1977) were
accessible for a comparative study. A metric comparison
of lithic tools from these sites shows striking contrast
with the tools of Datrana.
Blades from Amri, Kot Diji and Balakot are clearly much
larger, broader and thicker than the blades of Datrana
and Janan (Table 2). As noted earlier, Rohri chert blades
were unquestionably imported from Sindh, it has also
been observed that, during the Urban Phase Harappan
period, breaking Rohri chert blades into pieces for
optimizing their use was common. The same appears
to be the case at Datrana where a more economical use
of a rare commodity in a far-off place from its origin
would be one of the reasons for their fragmentation.
Figure 5. Copper punches from Datrana (courtesy Department
of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University of Baroda).

Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
202
The Rohri chert blades recovered from Urban Phase
Harappan sites in this research are represented by the
sites of Bagasra and Shikarpur. Bagasra has produced
164 Rohri chert blade fragments (Figure 6) which make
18.85% of the blade assemblage found from that site.
Shikarpur has produced 655 blades (Figure 7), which
constitute 89% of the total blade assemblage found at
the site. The archaeological importance of the Rohri
hill and other quarries situated in Sindh, Pakistan
and their association with the Indus Civilization have
been pointed out by several scholars (Allchin 1979;
Biagi 2007; Law 2011; Shaikh and Biagi 1997). Scholars
have also emphatically pointed out that long distance
trade and standardized products are characteristic
of the economic production scheme of the Harappan
Civilization (Inizan and Lechevallier 1997). The wide
distribution of standardized Rohri blades is often
regarded as an index of the Harappan efficiency in long
distance trade and craft production.
The Rohri chert blades recovered from Bagasra and
Shikarpur were clearly manufactured in quarries
situated in the Sindh region. This is seen in the lack
of lithic debitage of the same raw material from the
sites as well as in the fact that these blades follow a
standardized pattern of measurement and were clearly
broken for optimal use. Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 show
how they follow the standardized pattern. What follows
is an analysis that will make it apparent that these
blades, which are found far from their manufacturing
areas, were so precious to the people that they were
broken into segments to optimize their use.
Table 2. Metric comparison of Early Harappan Rohri chert blades (* from Cleland 1977; ° by the author).
Amri ID *
(34) Kot Diji I *
(194) Balakot A*
(52) Datrana °
(20) Janan °
(35)
Mean Length (mm) 48.7 55.3 41.6 16.29 16.52
Mean Breadth (mm) 12 15.2 12.4 10.38 11.52
Mean Thickness (mm) 3.5 4.9 3.8 2.66 2.93
Figure 6. Rohri chert blades from Bagasra (courtesy Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University of Baroda).

203

Inizan and Lechvallier (1997) have proposed that if
there is great similarity in the average width of blades
(12-14mm) at sites, such widths in parallel edged blades
suggest a certain similarity in length too. By looking at
the ratio of number of mesial to proximal fragments,
they have reconstructed blades and have suggested
reconstructions for the fractured blades. The ratios of
mesial:proximal fragments are interesting. It of course
varies between different sites, but it can also be seen
that the fragments are more in number at sites that are
situated further away from the raw material quarries.
The ratio was found to be 2.93:1 for Dholavira, 1.95:1 for
Banawali, 2.31:1 for Bagasra, 2.08:1 for Shikarpur while
1.4:1 for Mohenjo-daro and 1.1:1 for other Indus Valley
sites. By following the reconstruction of blades (Table 4)
done by Inizan and Lechvallier (1997) it was clearly seen
that the lengths of blades do not vary much between
sites situated in Indus Valley or sites situated outside
of the Indus Valley except for the sites of Bagasra and
Shikarpur.
One more fact supports this hypothesis of the deliberate
breaking of blades. Very few blades have been found
intact from above mentioned sites. Datrana has a single
intact blade that was found to have been not utilized.
Bagasra has two intact blades that appear to have been
utilized while Shikarpur has 20 intact blades out of
which only six were found to bear evidences of edge
damage and, thus, utilization. More significantly, the
single long intact blade (106mm in length) was left
totally blank. On the other hand, all of the broken blades
found at Datrana and Bagasra were heavily utilized.
All but 4.5% of the other broken blades found from
Shikarpur showed heavy utilization as well. Some of the
blade fragments have polish on both their edges, which
most probably was either due to utilization or hafting.
It might also suggest that the edges of these blades had
been utilized alternately. If that indeed was the case, it
supports the preciousness of the raw material and the
desire to make maximum use of the blades.
The discrepancy in the number of Rohri chert blades
between the sites of Bagasra and Shikarpur is significant
as it reveals a great deal about the different natures of
these contemporary sites. Both are settlements that
were strategically located along the zone connecting
Saurashtra in the south and Kachchh and the Sindh
region in the northwest. Both are situated on opposite
shores of narrow stretch of the Gulf of Kachchh and
are approximately 25km apart (Figure 1). Both are
small settlements but were involved in very different
activities. Bagasra was a craft centre (Sonawane et
al. 2003), while it appears that Shikarpur was more
involved in inter-regional trade and exchange networks.
Figure 7. Rohri chert blades from Shikarpur (courtesy Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University of Baroda).

Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
204
Table 3.1. Metric comparison of Rohri chert blades
(data from: 1. Inizan and Lechevallier 1997; 2. Gadekar 2006
Measurement
(mm)
Dholavira 1Banawali 1Bagasra 2
N Mean Max Min Sd N Mean Max Min Sd N Mean Max Min Sd
Length
proximal 76 28.6 91 15 12 93 42.4 89 15 17.4 32 34.6 72.7 13.4 15.1
mesial 223 25.3 51 13 7.5 182 29.2 67 8 9.5 74 26.1 57.7 9.4 10.9
distal 33 29.5 78 17 13.8 40 37.6 77 13 15.3 43 31.6 70.3 10.9 12.8
Width
proximal 76 11.6 18 6 2.7 93 13.3 23 6 11 32 12.4 21.8 7.5 2.9
mesial 233 12.2 21 5 2.6 182 12.9 19 3.5 2.7 74 11.9 26.8 6.4 3.2
distal 33 11.7 19 7 2.4 40 11 18 3.3 3.6 43 11.6 17.1 4.5 3
Thickness
proximal 76 2.7 5 1 0.8 93 3.3 7 1 3.3 32 3.3 6.7 1.9 0.87
mesial 233 2.8 5 1 0.7 182 3.1 5 1 1.3 74 2.9 6.8 1.4 0.9
distal 33 2.5 4 1 0.9 40 3.9 4.5 1 0.9 43 3.2 6 1.5 1
Table 3.2. Metric comparison of Rohri chert blades
(data from: 3 Kenoyer 1984; 4. Gadekar, 2015).
Measurement
(mm)
Mohenjo-daro 3Indus Valley 3Shikarpur 4
N Mean Sd N Mean Sd N Mean Max Min Sd
Length
proximal 30 48.3 15 583 47.7 17 183 33.5 79.96 4.19 15.18
mesial 42 36.4 11.7 642 41.6 15.9 382 25.62 75.45 7.11 11.92
distal 23 45.9 10.3 261 47.7 17.2 70 31.18 77.72 9.22 13.71
Width
proximal 30 13.5 3.5 583 13.5 4.1 182 10.96 24.74 3.42 3.64
mesial 42 13.1 3 642 13 4.1 382 11.52 30.1 3.79 3.13
distal 23 10.3 2.1 261 13.4 5 70 10.63 17.04 4.33 2.82
Thickness
proximal 30 3.3 1.2 583 4.1 1.3 183 2.98 19.67 0.68 1.79
mesial 42 3.2 0.9 642 3.7 1.2 382 3.03 13.11 0.09 1.25
distal 23 3.6 1.7 261 4 1.7 70 2.86 12.64 1.06 1.46
Shikarpur definitely had more access to Rohri chert
blades and, consequently, very little evidence is to be
found of the manufacturing of blades out of locally
available raw material, which was the common trend
in Bagasra. The Rohri blades are longer, broader and
thicker than the blades made out of other raw materials
and it is obvious that people would prefer such blades
if they were easily available. A suite of other artefacts
(Chase et al. 2014), along with Rohri chert blades, clearly
shows that the people of Shikarpur had more contact/
access overall to distant Indus cities. This distinction is
very important since from afar it appears as if both the
settlements are similar in nature. The variation most
probably was due to the existence of multigenerational
kin groups with varied economic interests, domestic
practices and backgrounds (Chase et al. 2014).
Spatial distribution of lithic assemblage at Bagasra
Bagasra has been divided into four phases. Phase I at
Bagasra shows the beginning of a small settlement
without any fortification walls (Figure 8). Very few

205

excavated trenches reached this phase. The lithic
assemblage recovered from this phase is 5.63% of the
total lithic assemblage recovered from the site. The
lithic assemblage shows that the southern part of the
settlement (trenches Eo3, Eo6 and Eo10) was the main
centre of lithic activity during this phase. However, a
single trench (Ec1) in western side of the settlement has
given evidence of being an important activity area from
where only one tool remained among lithic debitage.
Could it be possible that this area was a stone tool
manufacturing place where the tools were removed
after they were made and, thus, only the lithic debitage
remained?
Phase II at Bagasra is marked by the building of a huge
fortification in the northern part of the settlement
(Figure 8). The craft activity areas were situated within
the fortifications. This phase is the most prosperous at
the site and this is reflected in the lithic assemblage.
Exactly 57.96% of the total lithic assemblage belongs
to this phase. Lithic tool manufacturing areas situated
outside the fortification wall will be discussed first since
continuity from the earlier phase can be seen in these
areas. The southern area, which showed lithic activity
during Phase I, now falls way outside the fortification
wall. A few more trenches were excavated in this area
and it appears that the lithic activities from Phase I
were carried forward to Phase II. On the other hand,
the western area does show continuity of lithic activity,
but it appears that it was no longer an important
working. A few new lithic activity areas emerge during
this phase. Trench Eh3, situated in the southern side,
close to the fortification wall has yielded evidence of
bead manufacturing. The surrounding trenches (Eh4,
Ei1, Ei5) also show lithic concentrations but it appears
that these were primarily evidence of bead making
and not tool making. However, a few exhausted cores
found from these trenches indicate some amount of
tool manufacturing as well. Another new activity area
was found near the eastern side in trench Ep6/Ep7.
From here, evidence of tool production in the form
of exhausted cores, flakes, chips and a few finished
tools were recovered. Since this trench gives evidence
of a very small amount of production it has been
hypothesized that most probably a small-scale knapper
was working from here or somebody was making tools
for self-sufficiency.
We come now to the area situated inside the fortification
(Figure 8). Trench Do7 is situated in the north-eastern
corner of the wall and has provided evidence for small
scale tool production. Overall, more tools and less lithic
debitage were recovered from this trench. Seventeen
trenches situated near the western fortification wall
were combined when a shell bangle manufacturing
workshop was unearthed here. Again, more tools and a
less amount of lithic debitage was recovered from this
area. The large number of tools suggest their usefulness
in shell cutting for the bangle manufacturing process.
Kenoyer (1984) has suggested after some experimental
studies that blades might have been effective for
incising shells before cutting them. Was this process
being followed in Bagasra? Experiments should be
conducted to verify this.
Almost all lithic tool activity areas have provided
evidence of more tools and less lithic debitage (except
the southern area outside the fortification), irrespective
of their place inside or outside the fortification. Was
this due to the knapping skill of the people or some
other reason yet to be identified?
Phase III is marked by an economic setback of the
settlement, which is also reflected in lithic activities.
The numbers involved are less (28.41%) than the
previous phase. Blades take a back seat during this
phase and non-geometric tools are found to be more
in number. The southern area continues to be an
important activity area for tool manufacture (Figure 8).
First let’s have a look at the trenches that are situated
outside of the fortification wall. Trench Eo13 is no
longer the centre of activity while trench Eo2 becomes
more popular during this phase. The area on the
western side of the settlement had totally abandoned
Table 4. Reconstructed average sizes for Rohri chert blades
(data from: 1. Inizan and Lechevallier 1997; 2. Gadekar 2006; 3. Gadekar 2015; 4. Kenoyer 1984).
Site Reconstructed length
(cm) Proximal length
(cm) Mesial length
(cm) Distal length
(cm)
Banawali 114.6 4.6 6.0 (2 frag.) 4.0
Dholavira 113.5 3.0 7.5 (3 frag.) 3.0
Bagasra 211.84 3.46 5.22 (2 frag.) 3.16
Shikarpur 311.59 3.35 5.12 (2 frag.) 3.12
Mohenjo-daro 413.06 4.83 3.64 4.59
Indus sites 413.7 4.77 4.16 4.77

Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
206
Figure 8. Distribution of excavated trenches at Bagasra (courtesy Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University
of Baroda).

207

lithic tool manufacturing during this phase. Trench
Eh3, which is situated near the southern fortification
wall, showed a continuation of a very small scale lithic
activity during this phase. The trenches in the south-
eastern corner show a new activity area adjacent to the
old one. Another new activity area was also seen in the
trench Ep8.
Areas inside the fortification, such as trench Do7,
continued to be an important work place during
Phase III. New activities areas adjacent to this trench
were discovered. These trenches gave evidence for
more tools, especially non-geometric tools, than lithic
debitage. Trenches situated near the south-eastern
corner show negligible lithic activity during this phase.
Even the area from where the shell bangle workshop
was discovered during Phase II no longer shows major
concentration of lithic activity during Phase III. Small
clusters of minor lithic activities were seen in trenches
Eb13, Eb14, Eb15, Eg1, Eg2, Eg3 and Eb14/Eg2. Another
cluster is formed by trenches Ea11, Ea12, Ea16 and Ea8/
Eb5 on the western side of this area, a little away from
the shell bangle workshop.
Phase IV is the terminal phase at the site. It is confined
to the southern area (Figure 8), outside the fortification.
Only a few of the trenches that were excavated contain
Phase IV levels as compared to Phase II and III. The
lithic assemblage from this phase constitutes 8% of the
total assemblage recovered from the site. Trenches Eo2,
Eo6 and Eo10 were the main centre of lithic activity
during this phase. Trench Er13 shows some amount
of lithic debitage and the adjacent trench Ew1 shows
the presence of tools. Trenches Ei11 and Ei15 also show
lower amount of lithic debitage as compared to tools.
Trenches Eh5/Eh6 and Es3/Es4 contain lithic debitage
but a negligible number of tools.
An eastward shift in lithic activities can be seen from
the distribution of the assemblage recovered from
the excavated trenches. It also appears that this small
settlement had various lithic tool manufacturing areas,
but that the southern side of the settlement was a place
where tool manufacturing took place continuously
from the first phase. It is also clear that though a few
Rohri chert blades were imported, the majority of stone
tools at Bagasra were manufactured at the site itself.
The distribution of the lithic assemblage was found to
be as follows: 52.55% of blades, 54.79% of geometric and
non-geometric tool and 34.67% of lithic debitage were
recovered from trenches located inside the fortification
wall. Exactly 40.86% of blades, 42.15% of geometric
and non-geometric tools and 56.89% of lithic debitage
were found in trenches located outside the fortification
wall while 6.6% of blades, 3.07% of geometric and non-
geometric tools and 8.44% of lithic debitage were found
in trenches located on the wall.
Spatial distribution of lithic assemblage at Shikarpur
Shikarpur presents a very different picture than
Bagasra. The people here were able to afford imported
tools such as Rohri chert blades and, thus, there is very
little evidence for the local manufacturing of lithic tools.
Most of the debitage recovered from the site appears to
be debris of the bead manufacturing rather than blade
manufacturing. Looking at the distribution of the lithic
assemblage it becomes clear that most of the activity
was occurring inside the fortification. Precisely 87.35%
of tools and 79.98% of lithic debitage was recovered
from trenches that are located inside the fortification.
Exactly 9.05% of tools and 15.72% of lithic debitage was
found from trenches located outside the fortification.
Exactly 3.6% of tools and 4.3% of lithic debitage was
found in trenches located on the fortification wall itself.
The centrally located trenches appear to have been
centres of activity since they show the presence of a
significant lithic assemblage, that is, tools as well as
lithic debitage. All the cores that are found amongst
the assemblage were recovered from trenches situated
inside the fortification wall. This most probably
indicates that the minor amount of lithic production
that was carried out at the site was done inside of the
fortification. This is in total contrast to Bagasra, where
the southern area (falling outside the fortification in
Phase II) appears to be the centre of lithic activity.
Spatial distribution of lithic assemblage at Pithad
The Chalcolithic Period identified at the site of Pithad
has been dated to 2200 BC. The lithic assemblage
recovered from these levels is very small in number
compared to other Chalcolithic sites. This can clearly
be seen from the Table 1. It is evident that lithic
implements were not favoured at Pithad during the
Chalcolithic Period, which is totally in contrast to
the Mesolithic period identified at the same site. This
phenomenon is not easy to understand since the
Chalcolithic Period at Pithad has been defined as one of
the major Sorath Harappan settlements and one of the
features of Sorath Harappans was their ability to double
crop (Possehl and Raval 1989). Two possibilities for this
scenario comes to mind, either the stone tools were
lost in the agricultural fields and thus are not found
at the site or that people had access to better tools for
agriculture than stone implements. Copper objects
have been found from the site, but nothing remotely
related to an agricultural tool made out of copper has
been unearthed. This dearth of stone tools is also seen
at the site of Rojdi (Possehl and Raval 1989), which is
generally considered to be the type site of this regional
Chalcolithic culture.
Excavators have stated that the Phase III at Bagasra
was dominated by a Sorath Harappan artefact

Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
208
assemblage (Sonawane et al. 2003). As we have seen,
the lithic assemblage during Phase III is much less in
number than the lithic assemblage found from Phase
II but nonetheless it is found in good quantity. If stone
implements were still useful for people during the
third phase at Bagasra why were they not useful for the
people of Pithad? Is this difference in stone tools due
to the difference in economy at these two settlements?
Phase III at Bagasra has shown a setback in the urban
economy at the site (Sonawane et al. 2003). Were
the people at Bagasra simply following a stone tool
tradition that had been utilized at the site right from
the beginning? Two contemporaneous settlements
situated in similar geographical settings that exhibit
such striking differences in their lithic assemblages
raises many of questions. However, one similarity that
is seen between Phase III at Bagasra and the Chalcolithic
Period at Pithad is a comparative increase of non-
geometric tools, especially scrapers, at both the places.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident that the lithic assemblages
associated with the Mesolithic and Chalcolithic periods
of Gujarat, if studied in detail, show distinctive features.
These features reflect the characteristics of the sites
from where they have been recovered. The hunter-
gatherer tools belonging to the Mesolithic period
found from the site of Pithad indicated a preference
for different types of scrapers. The technology for
knapping these tools was adapted from a quartering
technique. The quartering technique continued for a
long period of time, even after the introduction of the
crested ridge technique during the Chalcolithic Period.
The crested ridge technique was used in the beginning
of the 3rd millennium BC at the site of Datrana,
Prabhas Patan and Janan. At the same time there is an
expansion/beginning of contact with the Sindh region.
This contact led to the development and spread of an
urban society, the Harappan Civilization.
The two settlements, Bagasra and Shikarpur, which
represent the classical phase of this civilization show
vast differences in their lithic assemblages suggesting
multiple modules of adaptation and application of
lithic tools during this period. Bagasra was found to rely
on lithic tools manufactured locally at the site using
locally available raw materials that were smaller and
thinner. Thus, to increase their durability they were
made into formal tools and were hafted into handles to
make composite tools such as sickles and knives. The
other reason that comes to mind is that most probably
the people of Bagasra were involved in hunting and
fishing activities more so than the people at Shikarpur.
It has been suggested by different scholars that
geometric tools were more useful as hunting tools.
Shikarpur, on the other hand, was major importer of
lithic tools, especially chert blades from the Rohri Hills
of Sindh. These blades were longer, thicker and broader
and, thus, did not require further modifications. And
since Shikarpur was clearly a much more affluent site
that was able to obtain exotic goods from long distances,
people there might not have been directly involved in
hunting and fishing activities. It is also possible that
metal/copper implements may have partly replaced
many of the microblade tools at the site. The reliance
on blade tools seems to have decreased during the
later period of this civilization, which is seen from the
lithic assemblage belonging to the site of Pithad where
a noteworthy increase was seen in different types of
scrapers. The significance of this phenomenon is yet to
be investigated properly. Thus, lithic assemblages, when
studied properly, reflect the characteristics of the sites
associated with them, typological and technological
choices, trade and exchange networks, interaction
between sites and continuation of traditions.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on the data collected by the first
author for her PhD thesis. The first author is very
thankful to the Department of Archaeology and Ancient
History, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
Vadodara, and the North Gujarat Archaeological Project
for allowing her to work on the excavated materials
from various sites. She is also thankful to Jawaharlal
Nehru Memorial Fund for providing financial
support during her research. We are thankful to the
Archaeological Survey of India and the Gujarat State
Department of Archaeology for granting permission
to carry out various excavations. We appreciate the
help and support provided to us by the editors of this
volume.
Bibliography
Ajithprasad, P. 1992. Microlithic blade technique: A
case study. Paper presented at the Indian Society for
Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies (ISPQS) Conference,
Dharwad.
Ajithprasad, P. 2002. The Pre-Harappan cultures
of Gujarat. In Setter and R. Korisetter (eds),
Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Vol. 2 Protohistory:
Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization: 129–158. New
Delhi, Manohar Publishers and Distributors.
Ajithprasad, P. 2011. Chalcolithic Cultural Patterns
and the Early Harappan Interaction in Gujarat.
In T. Osada and M. Weitzel (eds), Cultural Relations
between the Indus and the Iranian Plateau during the
Third Millennium BCE (Harvard Oriental Series Opera
Minora Vol. 7): 11–40. Kyoto, Research Institute for
Humanities and Nature.
Allchin, B. 1979. Stone blade industries of Early
Settlements in Sind as indicators of Geographical
and Socio-economic Change. In M. Taddei (ed.),

209

South Asian Archaeology 1977: 173–211. Naples,
Instituto Universitario Orientale.
Andrefsky, W. J. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to
Analysis. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Bhan, K. K. and Ajithprasad, P. 2008. Excavations at
Shikarpur 2007-2008: A coastal port and craft
production centre of the Indus civilization in Kutch,
India. URL: https://www.harappa.com/content/
excavations-shikarpur-2007-2008-costal-port-and-
craft-production-center-indus-civilization
Biagi, P. 2007. Quarries in Harappa. In H. Selin (ed.),
Encyclopedia of the History of Science, Technology and
Medicine in Non-Western Cultures: 1856–1863. Berlin-
Heidelberg, Springer Verlag.
Chase, B., Ajithprasad, P., Rajesh, S. V., Patel, A. and
Sharma, B. 2014. Materializing Harappan Identities:
Unity and Diversity in the Borderlands of the Indus
Civilization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35:
63–78.
Cleland, J. H. 1977. Chalcolithic and Bronze Age chipped
stone industries of the Indus region: an analysis of
variability and change. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Virginia.
Gadekar, C. 2006. A Preliminary Study of Harappan Blade
and Flake Industry of Bagasra. Unpublished MA thesis,
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
Vadodara.
Gadekar, C. 2015. Lithic blade implements and their role
in the Harappan Chalcolithic cultural development in
Gujarat. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Maharaja
Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.
Gadekar, C., Ajithprasad, P. and Madella, M. 2013.
Crested ridge technique and lithic assemblage from
Datrana, Gujarat. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary
Studies in Archaeology 1: 16–28.
Gadekar, C., Rajesh S. V., Abhayan, G. S. et al. in press.
Typo-Technological Analysis of Lithic Assemblage
from Janan, Kachchh, Gujarat. Man and Environment.
García-Granero, J. J, Gadekar, C. S., Estaban, I., Lancelotti,
C., Madella, M. and Ajithprasad, P. 2015. What’s
on the craftmen’s menu? Plant consumption at
Datrana, a 5000 years old lithic blade workshop in
North Gujarat (India). Archaeological Anthropological
Sciences 9(2): 251–263.
Inizan, M.-L. and Lechevallier, M. A. 1997. Transcultural
Phenomena in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age
Lithics of the Old World: Raw Material Circulation
and Production of Standardized Long Blades. The
Example of the Indus Civilization. In B. Allchin and
R. Allchin (eds), South Asian Archaeology 1995: 77–85.
New Delhi, Oxford and IBM.
Kenoyer, J. M. 1984. Chipped Stone Tools from
Mohenjodaro. In B. B Lal and S. P. Gupta (eds),
Frontiers of Indus Valley Civilization: 117–132. New
Delhi, Books and Books.
IAR 1991-92. Indian Archaeology – A Review. New Delhi,
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR 1993-94 Indian Archaeology – A Review. New Delhi,
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR 1994-95 Indian Archaeology – A Review. New Delhi,
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR 2006-07 Indian Archaeology – A Review. New Delhi,
Archaeological Survey of India.
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. New Delhi,
Manohar.
Possehl, G. L. and Raval, M. H. 1989. Harappan Civilization
and Rojdi. New Delhi, Oxford and IBM Publishing.
Raczek, T. P. 2007. Shared histories: Technology and
community at Gilund and Bagor, Rajasthan, India (c.
3000-1700 BC). Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Pennsylvania.
Sankaliya, H. D. 1967. The Socio-economic Significance
of the Lithic Blade Industry of Navdatoli, M.P., India.
Current Anthropology (3): 262–268.
Sankaliya, H. D. 1982. Stone Age Tools. Poona, Deccan
College Post-graduate and Research Institute.
Shaikh, N and Biagi, P. 1997. The new discoveries on the
Rohri Hills (1993-1999). Ancient Sindh (4): 7–17.
Sonawane, V. S. and Ajithprasad, P. 1994. Harappa
culture and Gujarat. Man and Environment 19 (1):
129–139.
Sonawane, V. S., Ajithprasad, P., Bhan, K. K., Krishnan,
K., Prathapachandran, S., Majumdar, A., Patel, A.
and Menon, J. 2003. Excavations at Bagarsa – 1996-
2003: A Preliminary Report. Man and Environment 28
(2): 21–50.
Subbarao, B. 1955. Chalcolithic Blade Industry of
Maheshwar (Central India) and a note on the History
of the Technique. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-
Graduate and Research Institute 17: 126–149.