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

net/publication/336498117

Artifact Reuse and Mixed Archaeological Contexts at Chatrikhera, Rajasthan

Chapter · August 2018

DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv19vbgkc.36

CITATIONS READS

0 38

4 authors:

Teresa Raczek Namita Sugandhi

Kennesaw State University Hartwick College
13 PUBLICATIONS   56 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Prabodh Shirvalkar Dr.lalit Pandey

Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University
10 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Mewar Plain Archaeological Assessment View project

Make Poverty History View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Teresa Raczek on 13 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Walking with the Unicorn
Social Organization and Material Culture
in Ancient South Asia

ss
ce
Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Ac
Felicitation Volume
n
pe
O
ss

Edited by
re
op

Dennys Frenez, Gregg M. Jamison, Randall W. Law,

ae

Massimo Vidale and Richard H. Meadow

ch
Ar

Archaeopress Archaeology

© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.

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)

ss
ce
© ISMEO - Associazione Internazionale di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l'Oriente, Archaeopress and the authors 2018

Archaeological Research Project). Ac

Front cover: SEM microphotograph of Indus unicorn seal H95-2491 from Harappa (photograph by J. Mark Kenoyer © Harappa

Back cover, background: Pot from the Cemetery H Culture levels of Harappa with a hoard of beads and decorative objects
n
(photograph by Toshihiko Kakima © Prof. Hideo Kondo and NHK promotions).
pe

Back cover, box: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer excavating a unicorn seal found at Harappa (© Harappa Archaeological Research
Project).
O
ss
re
op
ae

ISMEO - Associazione Internazionale

ch

di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l'Oriente

Corso Vittorio Emanuele II, 244
Ar

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

© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.

 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

ss
Joan Aruz

ce
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
Ac
Specific Reference to Gujarat.................................................................................................................................................48
n
Kuldeep K. Bhan
pe

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
O

Paolo Biagi, Elisabetta Starnini and Ryszard Michniak

ss

Ceramic Analysis and the Indus Civilization. A Review..................................................................................................90

Alessandro Ceccarelli and Cameron A. Petrie
re

Family Matters in Harappan Gujarat.................................................................................................................................104

op

Brad Chase
Revisiting the Ornament Styles of the Indus Figurines: Evidence from Harappa, Pakistan..............................120
ae

Sharri R. Clark
ch

The Harappan ‘Veneer’ and the Forging of Urban Identity.........................................................................................150

Mary A. Davis
Ar

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

i
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
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

ss
Invisible Value or Tactile Value? Steatite in the Faience Complexes of the Indus Valley Tradition...............389

ce
Heather M.-L. Miller and Jonathan Mark Kenoyer

Ac
What Makes a Pot Harappan?..............................................................................................................................................395
Heidi J. Miller
n
Dilmun-Meluhhan Relations Revisited in Light of Observations on Early Dilmun Seal Production
during the City IIa-c Period (c. 2050-1800 BC).................................................................................................................406
pe

Eric Olijdam and Hélène David-Cuny

O

Unicorn Bull and Victory Parade .......................................................................................................................................433

Asko Parpola
ss

Analytical Study of Harappan Copper Artifacts from Gujarat with Special Reference to Bagasra..................443
re

Ambika Patel and P. Ajithprasad

op

Looking beneath the Veneer. Thoughts about Environmental and Cultural Diversity
in the Indus Civilization.........................................................................................................................................................453
ae

Cameron A. Petrie, Danika Parikh, Adam S. Green and Jennifer Bates

Decorated Carnelian Beads from the Indus Civilization Site of Dholavira (Great Rann of
ch

Kachchha, Gujarat)..................................................................................................................................................................475
V. N. Prabhakar
Ar

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

ii
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
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

ss
ce
Ac
n
pe
O
ss
re
op
ae
ch
Ar

iii
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
 ss
ce
Ac
n
pe
O
ss
re
op
ae
ch
Ar

© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.

 Artifact Reuse and Mixed Archaeological Contexts
at Chatrikhera, Rajasthan

Teresa P. Raczek, Namita S. Sugandhi, Prabodh Shirvalkar and Lalit Pandey

Studying the reuse and recycling of artifacts in contemporary contexts aids in the understanding of such actions in the past.
Across South Asia, the reuse and repurposing of broken and discarded household items allows households to be thrifty; they can
meet their material needs without purchasing new items. However, when items such as pots and grinding stones are removed
from local trash deposits and archaeological sites they are separated from their original chronological and spatial context,
and their repurposing often contradicts their original function and use. Since such acts of recycling are common across all
time periods, a consideration of these actions is critical for robust archaeological interpretation of sites. In sum, studying
contemporary recycling practices aids the understanding of site formation processes because it provides cautionary tales and
interpretive pathways. One such cautionary tale was investigated at the site of Chatrikhera, in Rajasthan, India, where pottery
and grinding stones continue to be recycled today.

Keywords: recycling, depositional processes, ground stone, pottery, Ahar.

ss
For several decades, archaeologists have studied material needs without purchasing new items. They

ce
site formation processes in a variety of contexts gather these items from local trash deposits, or when
throughout South Asia (Paddayya 2007; Petraglia 2002). available, from local archaeological sites. Removing

Drawing on ethnographic research (Cooper 1997;
Faculty and Students Deccan College 1989; Kenoyer
1991; Panja 1996; Panja 1999), experiments (Eren et al.
n
2010), and intensive study of archaeological contexts,
pe
Ac
these items from their original context and putting
them to use for a new purpose creates chronological,
spatial, and functional challenges to archaeological
interpretation. Recycling also features prominently in

researchers have identified a variety of factors that self-fashioning and making meaning of the material
affect the interpretation and understanding of the world (Norris 2010; Smith 2010). In sum, the study of
O

archaeological record. Such research expanded on contemporary recycling practices provides cautionary
work on depositional processes conducted in other tales and interpretive pathways for archaeologists
ss

regions (Binford 1978 1981; Schick 1986; Schiffer 1987; as they analyze the archaeological record and its
re

Shott 1998) and applied them to the Indian context. contemporary context. The following is a discussion of
Some researchers, particularly those who focus on the how modern villages, such as Chatrikhera, in Rajasthan,
op

Paleolithic have largely focused on natural processes India, continue to practice recycling in a variety of
(Paddayya and Petraglia 1993; Pappu 1999), while ways, and the implications this has for archaeological
ae

other researchers have focused mainly on cultural studies.

processes (Rainville 2007; Shinde and Mehrotra 2007).
ch

J. M. Kenoyer, in particular, presents a thorough study Chatrikhera

that pairs detailed ethnographic observation with
Ar

excavation of contemporary contexts to elucidate the
organization of bead production in Khambat, India
(Kenoyer 1991).
Motivated by this previous work, this paper investigates
the reuse and recycling of artifacts as an important
process in the ongoing formation of sites. Kenoyer and
others have found archaeological evidence in India
and Pakistan for metal recycling (Kenoyer and Miller
1999), and recycling of ceramics in both modern and
archaeological assemblages (Dales and Kenoyer 1986;
Kramer 1997). Ethnoarchaeological studies on reuse and
recycling of artifacts have previously been conducted
outside of this region with the intent of understanding
such actions in the past (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979;
Rye and Evans 1976; Stanislawski 1978). These studies
show that village residents often recycle functional
items like pots and grinding stones in order to meet
The site of Chatrikhera, located just 4 km from Gilund
in Rajsamand District, Rajasthan, contains deposits
that date from c. 3000 BC through early Modern periods
(Figure 1). Like many villages throughout India, the
contemporary settlement has been built on top of
and around the ancient habitation mound. Due to the
archaeological deposits, the terrain of the village is
uneven, and a temple sits on top of the highest point
of the mound.
In summer 2009, the Mewar Plains Archaeological
Assessment (MPAA), a joint team with Indian and
American researchers (Raczek et al. 2015), began
research at Chatrikhera with the goals of studying
the archaeological remains and the entire site as a
form of living heritage. In the process, we assessed the
mound, secondary deposits, and the fields surrounding
the village by walking systematic transects, mapping
the site with a total station, and extensively photo-

486
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
 Teresa P. Raczek et al.: Artifact Reuse and Mixed Archaeological Contexts
n
pe
Figure 1. Map of South Asia with indication of the major sites
O
mentioned in the paper (map by the authors).
ss
re
documenting the site and village (Sugandhi et al.
2010). We also conducted 21 formal open interviews
op
with residents in order to gather historic narratives
about the mound and the village, and to build working
ae
relationships for future excavations (Raczek and
Sugandhi 2010; Raczek et al. 2011).
ch
During the course of our research we observed
Ar
the size of the mound steadily decreasing from its
original dimensions. Site encroachment due to rural
development is an increasing phenomenon in this region
(Sugandhi et al. 2015). At Chatrikhera, encroachment by
residents paired with a series of strong monsoons in
the late 20th century led to mudslides and accelerated
erosion as well as a reduced site size. In order to
stabilize the mound and prevent additional sediment
run-off from washing into their courtyards and houses,
village residents regularly removed eroded deposits
and carved straight profiles in areas that appear to be
liable to collapse. Village residents explain that they
have decreased the erosion and fluvial action that
occurs each monsoon season by straightening the edges
of the mound. However, the state of the mound is now
such that even mild monsoons can cause significant
fluvial damage. As a result of the combined geological
and cultural processes at work, only two small portions
487
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
of the mound remain. These intact portions resemble
excavated profiles, or sections, in which it is possible
to see house floors, chulhas (cooking stoves), and even
intact artifacts from multiple time periods.
In the process of mound maintenance, the villagers
encountered many artifacts which they dumped with
the rest of the excavated soil in multiple secondary
deposits around the village. However, in some cases
mundane household artifacts were reused, recycled, and
repurposed. Specifically, building stones, groundstones,
and whole ceramic vessels were reused for a variety
of new purposes. As Chatrikhera is not a centrally
protected site in India, the collection of non-valuable
artifacts by villagers is not necessarily prohibited,
provided they are not sold or shipped abroad.
In our interviews we asked residents about their habits
of artifact reuse and recycling. Many villagers were
ss
initially hesitant to discuss this sensitive topic with us,
ce
but later began to talk freely. We quickly learned that
most residents assumed that the mound and associated
Ac
artifacts were relatively recent. While some residents
suggested that the mound had Rajput origins, others
suggested that it did not form until just before or just
after Indian independence. A few residents suggested
that the mound may be a few hundred years old, but
assumed that most of the deposits and artifacts were
significantly younger. In particular, ceramic vessels
that eroded out of the mound were assumed to be only
a few decades old because they had similar forms to
those found in the market in the late 20th and early
21st centuries. Many residents were hesitant to accept
the MPAA team’s initial impressions that the mound
was about 5000 years old.
When we asked village residents about their knowledge
of Indian history and archaeology, they often referenced
stories they had learned by watching and listening to
bardic historians that periodically travel through the
region. These historians sing and dance epic tales, but
also share local community histories that they collect
by interviewing village residents as they travel. The
residents often told us that they relied on the historians
for information about various historic events because
they were the ones who collected these stories and kept
them for society. Residents were unfamiliar with formal
archaeological periods including the Chalcolithic or
Ahar-Banas, Iron Age, and Early Historic but they had
some familiarity with the history of the modern era
including Indian independence and the time period
that immediately preceded it. However, all earlier time
periods were mostly referred to as ‘Rajput’. As a result,
village residents did not connect the mound to the
same time periods that archaeologists use to describe
the mound occupation, and they did not consider the
mound and the artifacts within it to be ancient.
Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
We found that village residents did not collect artifacts
for their antiquity; they collected them in spite of their
antiquity. It is important to note that the residents do
not sell the artifacts that they find, nor do they excavate
the mound specifically to hunt for artifacts. Instead,
they collect artifacts that have become exposed due
to the processes discussed above. The only objects
collected are those that might serve some practical
purpose in the household. For this reason, broken
artifacts are largely ignored, while whole artifacts are
considered to have some use value. The villagers reuse
two main classes of artifacts: pottery and groundstone.
Pottery
Whole pots, while rare, are collected and preserved
by residents. Residents collect whole pots from both
eroded mound deposits and modern trash dumps found
throughout the village. In our survey, we noticed that
some of the collected pots appeared to be modern.
That is, some villagers collect discarded pots with
remaining use value, regardless of their origin and age.
As a result, it appears that modern and ancient pots
are grouped in the same category: ‘found pots with
some remaining use-life’. Although most collectors
n
emphasized the functionality of the vessels, a few noted
pe
the aesthetic value of the pots. In these cases, pots are
often preserved on a shelf at home which protects the
O
pots from trampling and destruction from cattle and
passersby. However, as recovered pots are sometimes
ss
stored next to modern pots bought in the market, the
line between old and new is blurred. Recycled pots,
re
regardless of their age and where they were found,
op
appear to have the same status and function as new
pots in some households.
ae
One resident showed us a pot, identified as modern,
ch
that she collected from a trash pile. Although it was
chipped on the rim, the resident saw some remaining
Ar
use value in the vessel and stored it on a shelf to await
an appropriate purpose. Although the pot is modern,
the actions taken by the resident mirror those who
retrieve items from the mound. It demonstrates
that to many villagers, the ancient middens of the
archaeological mound are equivalent to contemporary
middens located throughout the village. Habits of
frugality coupled with recycling practices create the
context in which collecting useful items – no matter
their antiquity – occurs.
The storing of old and new pots in the same location
poses challenges for archaeological interpretation in
a region where continuity in form is a long-standing
tradition. Accurately dating artifacts that have been
removed from their original context pose a challenge,
particularly when typologies are not fully established.
Ceramic chronologies for historic periods in Rajasthan
488
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
are limited, so it is not always possible to correctly
date pots that are out of context. For archaeologists,
determining age is critical to assessing an artifact’s
usefulness to our research. However, for the residents
of Chatrikhera objects operate under a different regime
of value where age is irrelevant to the most important
part of the vessel: its condition and potential usefulness.
Although preserved for their use value, most pots
were repurposed for a new use that was different from
than their initial use life. For example, one vessel was
repurposed as a flower pot, although it likely served
a different purpose originally. Such recycling and
repurposing likely occurred throughout the entire
occupation of the mound with the effect of mixing
early materials into deposits of later time periods.
Many items likely passed between different owners
and served multiple uses before being discarded.
Even after discard they may have been retrieved
ss
and reused in multiple ways at any point during the
ce
mound’s occupation. It is important to consider such
recycling and repurposing when tracing the biography
Ac
of an artifact (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986) and
interpreting the archaeological record (Schiffer 1987).
One resident showed us three pots that were
temporarily stored immediately next to the eroding
mound. The resident explained that although the pots
appeared to be useful, there was no immediate need for
them. As a result, they were being stored until some
purpose presented itself. Such storage of items in yards
has been reported elsewhere in ethnoarchaeological
research. For example, Kent refers to this temporary
caching as ‘informal storage’ (Kent 1999).
The residents argue that they are helping to preserve
these artifacts. For example, one resident that had
retrieved a chipped vessel told us, ‘It’s good that you
care for these things. I also care for my own things. I
have been caring for this pot for 15 years […] when I
found the pot it was broken on the top, so I put plaster
on top of it’. Although unfamiliar with archaeological
conservation techniques, this resident felt compelled
to preserve the pot as best as possible. Such repair and
conservation of ceramic vessels is common throughout
the archaeological record.
Broken potsherds are also re-used. One resident
collected both modern and ancient potsherds to create
a mud-free step in front of their courtyard door as water
frequently passed through that area (Figure 2). Other
residents incorporated pot sherds into mud bricks and
mud plaster for wall repair, using the potsherds as a
form of grog to stabilize the mud. Encountering such
mixed pottery deposits in the archaeological record can
prove challenging to understanding chronologies and
other features of any collected assemblage.
 Teresa P. Raczek et al.: Artifact Reuse and Mixed Archaeological Contexts
n
Groundstone
pe
Like pottery, groundstone is also recycled and reused.
Here, groundstone refers to any stone that has a ground
O
surface. This includes hand-held implements like
rubber stones, mullers, and pestles as well as stationary
ss
implements like saddle querns, mortars, and rotary
re
querns. Often, when only a small fragment of a ground
implement is found, it is not possible to place the item
op
into one of these categories. For this reason, we use the
term groundstone in all cases except where the form of
ae
the implement is clear. Our study identified 31 querns
and mortars that were being reused and repurposed in
ch
new contexts (Figure 3). It is only possible to identify
such items when the ground side was exposed to the
Ar
surface. Additional querns and mortars may have
been present but are unidentifiable when the ground
side is hidden from view. Groundstone is reused in
multiple ways in Chatrikhera, with building and road
construction being the most common new uses.
As with ceramic vessels, groundstone is not collected
for its antiquity, but for its potential function.
Groundstone is often repurposed for radically new
uses and we did not identify any pieces of groundstone
that were being reused for grinding. Although we
did not systematically investigate the use of ancient
groundstone in contemporary kitchens, our informal
observations indicated that only contemporary
grinding stones are used in kitchens. Village families use
a variety of grinding stones in their kitchens including
rotary querns, small to medium masala (spice) querns,
and hand held rubbers and pestles. There are several
489
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
Figure 2. Door step of crushed
potsherds. The potsherds
include mixed modern and
old fragments of pots and
have been strategically
placed to create a mud-
free entrance area to the
courtyard. A channel in the
middle allows water to pass
through the doorway. Village
children helped to identify
locations with recycled
potsherds (photograph by the
Mewar Plain Archaeological
Assessment).
ss
ce
Ac
reasons why ancient groundstone is unsuitable for use
in contemporary kitchens. For rotary querns, ancient
specimens may have been discarded after they were
completely worn. Reusing expired rotary querns to
grind grain would be difficult and inefficient since they
would not work well. Similarly, many of the saddle-type
querns that we noticed had been worn quite deeply and
some had been used so extensively that a hole had been
worn through them. These highly worn querns would
have also been unsuitable in a contemporary kitchen.
Ancient querns also seem to conform to different styles
than contemporary masala querns. They are larger,
difficult to lift and move, and do not have well-defined
edges unlike contemporary styles of masala querns
used in the village. As a result, the ancient forms do not
meet the needs of the modern cook. Finally, as many
home cooks keep a strict regimen of cleanliness and
purity in their kitchen, ancient groundstone previously
used in some unknown person’s kitchen may be seen as
generally unsuitable. It is important to note that ancient
and contemporary hand-held grinding stones are so
similar that it is not possible to determine through
observation alone to what extent ancient hand-held
pieces may have been reused. However, some of the
same issues may apply to the past as well.
Residents often collect stones from contemporary
middens and recently abandoned houses for use in their
own construction projects. Similarly, good-sized stones
that erode out of the mound are seen as useful building
material. In some cases, these stones were previously
used as house foundations. However, some groundstone
implements are also seen as an appropriate shape and
Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
n
pe
Figure 3. Satellite photo of Chatrikhera village with locations of re-used querns and mortars (handheld grinding stones – mullers,
O
grinders, pestles, etc. – not shown) (image by the Mewar Plain Archaeological Assessment on GoogleEarth).
ss
size for construction. Both hand-held and stationary
re
grinding stones were reused in construction. For
example, hand-held grinding stones were used with
op
similar sized and shaped river cobbles to permanently
close an existing window and turn it into a solid wall
ae
(Figure 4).
ch
One rotary quern was placed next to the water tank for
use as a stepping stone in an area that is often muddy.
Ar
Some square and rectangular-shaped querns were
used in the construction of verandahs. In addition, the
hollows of used querns were used to catch rainwater
that runs off the roof and channel water away from
the house. In some cases, the fluvial action appears
to have worn the querns further since their original
use. Similarly, placement of querns in the street has
also subjected them to additional wear from passing
pedestrians and vehicles. Similar wear is beginning
to show on querns – both rotary and saddle – used as
road pavers. Identifying differential patterns of wear
on querns recovered in the archaeological record could
help determine whether ancient groundstone also
served double lives in the past.
In addition to using groundstone as building and
paving material, the residents of Chatrikhera have
found a number of creative uses for these implements.
490
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
ss
ce
Ac
One deep mortar was used as a door pivot for a fence
post (Figure 5), thus making the cattle owner’s task
of opening and shutting the gate easier. One very
deep and wide quern served as a drinking trough for
cattle (Figure 6). Identifying the purpose of these two
artifacts would be challenging to the archaeologist
who encountered them in an archaeological context.
The wooden gate that is placed in the door pivot-quern
would not preserve in the archaeological record, so the
presence of this quern so far from a domestic context
would not be easily explained. Similarly, the watering
trough quern sat several meters from architecture and
there are few material items in its immediate context
to indicate its purpose. In an archaeological context,
the stable postholes, located several meters away, and
lower than the quern itself, would not necessarily be
identified as connected. In sum, the repurposing of
querns for new uses presents a number of problems for
archaeological interpretation. When querns are located
next to chulhas we often infer that they were used
for grinding food. However, when they are used for
secondary purposes and located away from domestic
contexts, the reason for their presence can be difficult
to assess.
Finally, similar to the storing of ceramic vessels, we
found that some residents were caching exhausted
 Teresa P. Raczek et al.: Artifact Reuse and Mixed Archaeological Contexts

Figure 4. Window opening that

has been closed with stones
including three hand-held
groundstones. Village children
helped to identify locations
with recycled groundstone
(photograph by the Mewar Plain
Archaeological Assessment).

ss
ce
Figure 5. Stone mortar that has Ac
n
been repurposed as a pivot for a
pe

wooden gate. Groundstone has

been repurposed in many creative
O

ways throughout the village

(photograph by the Mewar Plain
ss

Archaeological Assessment).
re
op
ae
ch
Ar

modern rotary querns for future use. As with pottery,
groundstone is selected for its potential use value, not
because of its antiquity. It is also sometimes cached in
a yard until an appropriate building project presents
itself.
Unlike ceramics, which can potentially be dated through
seriation, luminescence, and other techniques, dating
groundstone is extremely challenging and it is not
possible to determine age with precision through visual
analysis. Groundstone sequences are quite general and
poorly understood (Sankalia and Deo 1957), although
it is clear that saddle querns developed prior to rotary
querns. In addition, much groundstone particularly
various hand-held pieces as well as small fragments of
groundstone, do not vary much chronologically and
therefore cannot be typologically dated at all.
In some cases, querns that became too deep were
recycled by using the reverse side. Turning a piece
of grindstone over to reuse it prolongs the life of
the implement. Several pieces of groundstone at

491
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
Chatrikhera demonstrated this level of reuse, with
one quern being ground on three different sides. It is
assumed that such reuse occurred deep in the past,
n
when the querns were used for their original purpose
pe
of grinding.
O
Modern households in Rajasthan use rotary querns for
grinding flour and small oval, well carved, flat, querns
ss
for making masalas and other low volume, easy to
re
process foods. However, ancient groundstone in this
region frequently consisted of saddle querns made in
op
non-standardized shapes and sizes from river cobbles
of various materials retrieved from the Banas River
ae
bed, just a few kilometers away. One of the challenges
presented by dating groundstone is determining
ch
whether it was recycled and reused, and identifying
its original context, including the time period during
Ar
which it was used for its original intended purpose.
The significance of this is that when we find a quern,
we often assume that it was used as a quern in the
context in which it was found. This is especially true
for very large querns that appear to be too heavy to
lift and move. This study of recycling shows that this
assumption may not hold in all cases. The context in
which we find it may be related to its secondary use.
At a given site, the identification of substantially more
groundstone in later phases, compared to earlier
phases, may indicate the common practice of recycling
instead of increased grinding activity.
Archaeological applications
We excavated two test trenches at Chatrikhera; Test
Trench 1 in the northern deposit, which was 4 m deep,
and Test Trench 2 in the southern deposit, which was 2
m deep. In Test Trench 1, the pottery generally followed
492
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
Figure 6. Quern that has
been repurposed as a
drinking trough for a calf
in this stable area (calf not
pictured) (photograph by the
Mewar Plain Archaeological
Assessment).
ss
ce
Ac
an expected sequence, with Early Historic and modern
wares found in the upper levels and typical Ahar wares
found mainly in the bottom half of the trench. However,
some Ahar sherds were found in upper levels, prompting
a concern that the contexts may have been disturbed.
However, Test Trench 1 had a series of plaster floors,
a stone structure, mudbrick walls and intact hearths,
which indicated that any disturbances would have
been limited to the topmost layers, and that deposits
30 cm below the surface were intact. Test Trench 1 also
contrasted with Test Trench 2 which had no floors,
structures, or features beyond two pits. Test Trench 2
also had mixed pottery throughout with Ahar, Early
Historic, and modern wares found in upper and lower
levels. We concluded that Test Trench 2 consisted of a
context that was entirely mixed, but that Test Trench
1 did not. Instead, we suggested that the Ahar wares
found in upper levels at Chatrikhera may have resulted
in part from various activities related to recycling and
repurposing of old pots.
Unfortunately, because groundstone cannot be
confidently dated, we were unable to undertake a
similar analysis with the small pieces of groundstone
that we found throughout both trenches. However, we
argue that the overturned saddle quern that we found
on the surface next to Test Trench 1 was clearly out of
its original context. The villagers used it as an object of
devotion at the center of their excavation opening day
puja and later unceremoniously moved it to a modern
trash pile after a child tripped over it.
Discussion
It is clear that the residents of Chatrikhera do not see
the items they retrieve from the mound as antiquities
 Teresa P. Raczek et al.: Artifact Reuse and Mixed Archaeological Contexts
with historic or market value. In fact, most residents
did not think that the items they collected were either
valuable or very old. In the case of the recycled pottery,
many collected items were in fact modern. It is also
our impression that the reuse and repurposing of
groundstone is not unique to Chatrikhera, but occurs
in many other locations where villagers live close to
archaeological mounds.
Habits of artifact reuse and recycling present challenges
for determining the time period when implements
were first manufactured and used. Studying the full
biography of an object, from the time period when it
was made, to the later time periods when it was used for
secondary or tertiary purposes, is critical to accurate
archaeological interpretation.
Repurposing of artifacts poses difficult questions for
researchers who must determine which time period to
assign to an artifact: the date of original manufacture
and use or the more recent date and function of the
item. While reused artifacts are clearly out of their
original context, they continue to serve an important –
albeit new and different – function for the residents and
is part of the current material culture of the village. The
n
archaeologist must therefore consider both the date
pe
and function of the artifact’s origin and later use. Both
phases in the life of the artifact are important and tell
O
us about the daily life of the occupants of Chatrikhera.
However, each interpretation provides insight into
ss
different aspects of society.
re
In addition to archaeological interpretation, this study
op
raises the very real and urgent topic of archaeological
preservation and conservation. The residents of the
ae
village recycle modern and ancient items in the same
way, in part because they do not fully understand the
ch
antiquity and archaeological significance of the mound
and the artifacts within it. In our conversations with
Ar
the residents of the village, the MPAA team discussed
the prehistory of the region, and archaeological
preservation. As we continue to work in the region of
Chatrikhera we hope that the residents will become
stewards of the mound and begin to preserve the
mound and the artifacts within it.
Acknowledgements
We thank Professor J. M. Kenoyer for inspiring this
article and for his dedication to thorough field
methodologies, which only makes our understanding of
the past richer. We also thank the Archaeological Survey
of India for granting permission to undertake this
research. We are grateful to the American Philosophical
Society, the University of New Hampshire Center for
the Humanities and Kennesaw State University College
of Humanities and Social Sciences for funding and the
493
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
American Institute of Indian Studies for helping with
logistics.
Bibliography
Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: commodities and the
politics of value. In A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life
of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective: 3–63.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Binford, L. 1981. Behavioral archaeology and the
‘Pompeii Premise’. Journal of Anthropological Research
37.3: 195–208.
Binford, L. R. 1978. Dimensional analysis of behaviour
and site structure: learning from an Eskimo hunting
stand. American Antiquity 43: 330–361.
Cooper, Z. 1997. Prehistory of the Chitrakot Falls, Central
India. Pune, Ravish Publishers.
Dales, G. and Kenoyer J. M. 1986. Excavations at Mohenjo
Daro, Pakistan: The Pottery. Philadelphia, The
ss
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
ce
DeBoer, W. R. and Lathrap, D. 1979. The making and
breaking of Shipibo-Conibo ceramics. In C. Kramer
Ac
(ed.), Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography
for Archaeology: 102–138. New York, Columbia
University Press.
Eren, M. I., Durant, A., Neudorf, C., Haslam, M., Shipton,
C., Bora, J., Korisettar, R. and Petraglia, M. D. 2010.
Experimental examination of animal trampling
effects on artifact movement in dry and water
saturated substrates: A test case from South India.
Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 3010–3021.
Faculty and Students Deccan College, P. 1989.
Archaeology of a vacant land in Pune: An
experimental study. Bulletin of the Deccan College
Research Institute 47-48: 249–276.
Kenoyer, J. M. 1991. Contemporary stone bead making
in Kambhat India. World Archaeology 23.1: 44–63.
Kenoyer, J. M. and Miller, H. M.-L. 1999. Metal
technologies of the Indus Valley Tradition in
Pakistan and Western India. In V. C. Pigott (ed.), The
Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World: 107–151.
Philadelphia, University Museum Publications,
University of Pennsylvania.
Kent, S. 1999. The archaeological visibility of storage:
Delineating storage from trash areas. American
Antiquity 64.1: 79–94.
Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biography of things:
commoditization as process. In A. Appadurai (ed.),
The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural
Perspective: 64–91. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Kramer, C. 1997. Pottery in Rajasthan: Ethnoarchaeology
in two Indian Cities. Washington and London,
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Norris, L. 2010. Recycling Indian Clothing: Global Contexts
of Reuse and Value. Bloomington, Indiana University
Press.
 Walking with the Unicorn – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume
Paddayya, K. 2007. Role of formation processes in Indian
archaeology. In K. Paddayya (ed.), Formation Processes
and Indian Archaeology: 23–35. Pune, Deccan College.
Paddayya, K. and Petraglia, M. D. 1993. Formation
processes of Acheulean localities in the Hunsgi and
Baichbal valleys, peninsular India. In P. Goldberg, D.
T. Nash and M. D. Petraglia (eds), Formation Processes
in the Archaeological Context: 61–82. Madison,
Prehistory Press.
Panja, S. 1996. Mobility strategies, site structure and
settlement organization: An actualistic perspective.
Man and Environment 21.1: 74–85.
Panja, S. 1999. Mobility and subsistence strategies:
a case study of Inamgaon, a Chalcolithic site in
Western India. Asian Perspectives 38.2: 154–185.
Pappu, S. 1999. A study of natural site formation
processes in the Kortallayar valley, Tamil Nadu.
Geoarchaeology 14: 127–150.
Petraglia, M. D. 2002. Pursuing site formation research
in India. In S. Settar and R. Korisettar (eds),
Archaeology and Historiography-History, Theory and
Method: 217–241. New Delhi, Indian Council of
Historical Research and Manohar.
Raczek, T. P., and Sugandhi, N. S. 2010. In the heart of
the village: Exploring archaeological remains in
n
Chatrikhera Village, Rajasthan, India. Expedition
pe
52.1: 22–30.
Raczek, T. P., Sugandhi, N. S., Shirvalkar, P. and Pandey,
O
L. 2011. Researching a living site: Articulating the
intersection of collaboration and heritage in a
ss
transnational village. Archaeological Review from
re
Cambridge 26.2: 119–135.
Raczek, T. P., Sugandhi, N. S., Shirvalkar, P. and Pandey, L.
op
2015. The Mewar Plain Archaeological Assessment,
Society for American Archaeology Current Research 266.
ae
DOI: http://www.saa.org/CurrentResearch/pdf/
saa_cro_266_The_Mewar_Plain_Archaeolo.pdf
ch
Rainville, L. 2007. Daily life and microdebris:
microarchaeology in a south Indian village. In
Ar
K. Paddayya (ed.), Formation Processes and Indian
Archaeology: 183–193. Pune, Deccan College.
494
© Archaeopress and the authors, 2018.
View publication stats
Rye, O. S., and Evans, C. 1976. Traditional Pottery
Techniques of Pakistan: Field and Laboratory Studies.
Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press.
Sankalia, H. D. and S. B. Deo 1957. Saddle querns and
stratigraphy. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
Great Britain and Ireland 3.4: 209–212.
Schick, K. D. 1986. Stone Age Sites in the Making:
Experiments in the Formation and Transformation of
Archaeological Occurrences (British Archaeological
Reports International Series 319). Oxford.
Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the
Archaeological Record. Salt Lake City, University of
Utah Press.
Shinde, V., and Mehrotra, R. 2007. A study of formation
processes of Chalcolithic sites in the Mewar region
of Rajasthan with special reference to the site of
Balathal. In K. Paddayya (ed.), Formation Processes and
Indian Archaeology: 149–157. Pune, Deccan College.
ss
Shott, M. J. 1998. Status and role of formation theory
in contemporary archaeological practice. Journal of
ce
Archaeological Research 6: 299–329.
Smith, M. L. 2010. ‘I discard, therefore I am’. Identity
Ac
and leave-taking of possessions. In L. Amundson-
Pickering, N. Engel and S. Pickering (eds), Identity
Crisis: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Identity:
132–141. Calgary, Chacmool Archaeological
Association, University of Calgary.
Stanislawski, M. 1978. If pots were mortal. In R. A. Gould
(ed.), Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology: 201–228.
Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.
Sugandhi, N. S., Raczek, T. P., Shirvalkar, P. and Pandey,
L. 2010. The Chatrikhera Research Project. Antiquity
84.325. DOI: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/
sugandhi325/
Sugandhi, N. S., Raczek, T. P. Shirvalkar, P. Brummeler,
C. and Pandey, L. 2015. Methods and problems in the
site census approach: A view from Mewar through
archaeology and ethnohistory. Heritage: Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 163–179.