Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros47-2RecensionsBlanche Barthélemy de Saizieu – ...

Recensions

Blanche Barthélemy de Saizieu – Parures de l’Indus Nausharo, Balouchistan, IIIe millénaire av. J.-C. Entre faire et dire, être et paraître

Jonathan Mark Kenoyer
p. 118-124
Référence(s) :

Blanche Barthélemy de Saizieu 2021 – Parures de l’Indus Nausharo, Balouchistan, IIIe millénaire av. J.-C. Entre faire et dire, être et paraître. Paris: de Boccard. 350p.

Texte intégral

1This monograph on the beads from the site of Nausharo, Baluchistan, Pakistan provides a very important sequel to the book previously published by the same author on the beads from the nearby site of Mehrgarh (Barthélemy de Saizieu 2003). Together these two books provide a broad overview as well as an in depth study of beads and pendants from two of the most important prehistoric sites of the Indus River Valley and Balochistan excavated by the French Archaeological Mission to Pakistan. In this new publication, the author has been able to build on her earlier study to provide an in depth analysis of beads from the Pre-Indus (2900-2500 BC) and Indus (2500-1900 BC) periods at Nausharo (p. 13). She has also provided a very useful summary and comparison with beads from the latest levels at Mehrgarh and from other contemporaneous sites in Pakistan and India, based on published site reports and online resources (up until May 2017). The comparisons that have been made in this volume raise some important issues regarding the role of beads prior to and during the first period of urbanism in the greater Indus region. The detail with which the beads have been studied and the careful comparisons with published data from other sites are the result of many years of diligent research and this is reflected in the high quality of the data presented. The author should be congratulated for her outstanding and substantive contribution to the broader study of beads and beaded ornaments and this book will undoubtedly remain a major reference for future bead studies.

2The main text (p. 13-208) is divided into seven sections that include 58 figures, with color images of beads and grey tone drawings of the same object, 4 color maps and 27 tables, many of which have color coding. Following the main body of the text is an extensive bibliography (p. 209-230) and numerous appendices (p. 232-350) that provide the detailed descriptions and measurements of each artifact studied. The organization of the artifacts in the appendices is by overall period, Pre-Indus and Indus, but it is not easy to locate a specific object since the lists are not organized by object number. Another drawback in the organization of the monograph is the lack of a table of contents, as well as lists of figures and tables, which make it difficult to look for any specific image or tables without going through each section page by page.

3The introductory section of the monograph begins with a general discussion of the context of Nausharo in the larger sphere of the Indus Civilization or Indus Tradition. The author also presents some of the main issues relating to the socio-economic, political and ideological processes that led up to the emergence of Indus urbanism. Without getting bogged down in these other discussions she subtly refocuses the discussion on the role of ornaments from the site of Nausharo, which is linked to the larger urban centers but is also relatively peripheral geographically and much smaller in size. She emphasizes that ornaments are the result of crafting or doing; that they are also artistic objects as well as symbols that convey information or communicate ideas; they are used for exchange, donations and mutual recognition. This perspective is also part of the title of the monograph “[É] Between doing and saying, being and appearing.” The important message that is reiterated throughout the text and in the final section is that beads, and ornaments in general, need to be studied from many different perspectives in order to eventually understand their role in both Pre-Indus and Indus period interactions.

4The second section provides an overview of the actual data relating to beads and the contexts of their discovery as well as the chronology of the site of Nausharo and its relation to Mehrgarh. In this monograph the author focuses on the first four chronological occupation levels of the site, which are divided into “Pre-Indus” (NS I) and “Indus” (NS II, III, IV) Periods. Period 1 has four sub-phases, IA, IB and IC (3000-2600 BC) and ID (2600-2500 BC). Periods II through IV are the main urban phase associated with the Indus Civilization (2500-1900 BC). She briefly mentions a fifth period (NS V) that is linked to the occupation of the nearby site of Pirak and dated to (1700-500 BC). The beads are presented within the overall chronological framework of only the Pre-Indus and Indus periods. Beads from the last period V are not discussed but some examples appear to have been recovered and are lumped together with the Indus period beads (see discussion below).

5It is important for the reader to understand that the term “Pre-Indus” is used literally to mean prior to the Indus. This use should not be confused with the theoretical term “Pre-Harappan” that has been used by some scholars to refer to cultures that were present prior to the emergence of the Harappan or Indus urban period and whose contributions to the processes leading to later urbanism were not clearly defined (Konishi 1984). The term Early Harappan proposed by Mughal (Mughal 1970), Shaffer (Shaffer 1992) and Kenoyer (Kenoyer 1991, 2015), or Early Indus is usually used when the early levels at a site clearly demonstrate continuities and contributions to the urban process leading to the later Indus urban phase. These processes have been well documented between the so-called “Pre-Indus” to “Indus” periods at Nausharo and Mehrgarh through the study of architecture, pottery and fauna (Jarrige 1982, 1993; Meadow 1984; Quivron 1999). With the publication of this monograph the important developments in bead technology between the “Pre-Indus” to “Indus” periods at Nausharo can be linked with the earlier studies from Mehrgarh. Together these two sites provide an excellent example of the regional trajectory for this part of the Indus region, of bead technologies and styles from 7000 BCE to around 1900 BCE (Barthélemy de Saizieu and Bouquillon 1994; Barthélemy de Saizieu 2003; Barthélemy de Saizieu and Rodière 2005).

6This second section also includes important details regarding the specific areas of the site that were excavated along with excellent figures with color highlights. In addition there are numerous tables that help the reader understand how much area was uncovered for each chronological period (table 1) and the quantification of the beads from each area and time period. This discussion is extremely important when considering the quantitative study of the beads and the interpretive value of different sets of data. The author explains how the quantification can be skewed due to recovery and locus and that it should be used only in a very general way. For example, 132 out of 138 beads from Period 1A come from the single burial of a child, while other beads from later periods were found in sifting or in the process of excavation in different contexts. The distribution of beads in different contexts was highly variable and some contexts had many beads, while other contexts had no beads at all. In table 2, the total number of beads studied is provided (5,028) with a breakdown of Pre-Indus and Indus beads as well as other variables, such as unfinished beads and raw materials in different stages of production. Additional quantitative analyses and breakdowns of the artifacts from various perspectives are presented (tables 3 to 5). There is also some discussion of objects that were classified as beads, but could have other functions, such as terra-cotta spindle whorls and fishing net weights.

7In the third section, the identification of raw materials is covered in great detail and the methods of analysis are also presented. The reader must assume that most of the materials were first studied in the field during or after each excavation season, but this point is not discussed so it is not clear who made the initial documentation of all the beads and raw materials. Selected samples were subjected to more rigorous scientific analysis in the laboratory using primarily non-destructive techniques. Selected samples of broken beads were prepared as polished sections for analysis to better document the microstructure and mineralogical/chemical composition. Similar studies had already been conducted on beads from the site of Mehrgarh and the samples from Nausharo provide an important addition and increased database of understanding the variability of raw materials and artificial materials created by the ancient craftspeople. Most of the analyses were conducted prior to 1990 and the results were published in various summary articles (Bouquillon et al. 1995; Barthélemy de Saizieu and Bouquillon 1997). This monograph provides a review of the already published analytical data with some additional details and color images. Some of the new images and data appear in the section of raw materials as well as in the later section on Products. The figures include excellent color photographs of the different raw materials and detailed drawings of the beads. In conjunction with the figures the tables (tables 6-8) provide detailed quantitative analysis and chronological distributions of different raw materials. The discussions relating to the firing and glazing of steatite and the different compositions of Indus faience are also very important, but the reader should be aware that there are other perspectives resulting from research that was not available to the author (Gu et al. 2016; Uesugi et al. 2017) or is only recently published (Miller and Kenoyer 2018; Kenoyer 2021).

8In the fourth section the author has very systematically divided the beads up into different categories based on their shapes and proportions and has provided numerous quantitative tables (tables 9-14). The author provides a comparison of terms used by previous authors, but it would be useful to have a comparative list and accompanying figures that summarize all the different terms used for the same type of bead shape. Nevertheless, the descriptions of each bead type include references to specific figures in the monograph where the actual beads are depicted in color or as a drawing. The comprehensive presentation of the bead types and different raw materials is very useful for expanding our knowledge of the range of variation found in the Pre-Indus and Indus periods at the site.

9For example, one carnelian bead shape from the Indus period that is quite rare and not reported from any major Indus site is illustrated in fig. 43.6. The author describes the shape as “ellipsoïd bitronqué court faceté” or “short elliptical bitruncated faceted but does not note the number of facets. Another more common term for this type of bead is “faceted long barrel.” Although it is associated with the Indus period at Nausharo, other faceted long barrel carnelian beads have been reported from the Pre-Indus levels at Sohr Damb (Lau and Franke 2012, fig. 2, no. 15) and also from Rehman Dheri (personal study). A much larger example of an hexagonal faceted long barrel carnelian bead was discovered the royal cemetery of Ur (Woolley 1934, p. 369, fig. 78; Kenoyer 2008, p. 25) and is contemporaneous with the Indus period. The discovery of the hexagonal faceted carnelian bead from Ur was interpreted as being the result of local manufacture in Mesopotamia (Kenoyer 2008, p. 25), but with this new discovery of a faceted carnelian bead from the Indus period at Nausharo it could possibly have been made in the Indus region and traded to Mesopotamia. Further excavations and research are needed to better understand the production and chronology of this bead type as it could reflect a rare form that was produced in Baluchistan during both the Pre-Indus and Indus periods but never found at a major Indus urban site.

10In another example there are some beads (fig. 39, nos. 4, 9, 12, 15, 16 and 17) that have been presented as belonging to the Indus period, which are in fact from a later time period, most likely Period V (1700-500 BC). This conclusion is based on the reviewer’s ongoing study of beads from other sites in Pakistan and recently published studies of beads from Pakistan and Central Asia (Rabbani 2020a, 2020b; Simpson 2020) that date to approximately this same time period. The author does note that the drilling of four of the beads (fig. 39, nos. 12, 15-17) is distinct from Indus drilling as they were only drilled only from one side, while most Indus beads are drilled from two opposing sides. Based on the published measurements in the tables and appendix, it is also important to note that the drill hole diameters are either very small or very large and do not correspond to the drill hole sizes found on most Indus carnelian beads. The locus details for some of these beads are noted in the appendix but others were not found in the published data. The ones that could be traced (fig. 39, nos. 4, 9 and 15) appear to come from different parts of the site but no other contextual details are provided. It is possible that these beads from the later time period were inadvertently mixed with the Indus levels through rodent holes or bioturbation. Future study of the actual drill holes for these beads would be able to confirm the techniques used for perforation and help to link them to a more specific post-Indus time period.

11The fifth section provides a detailed discussion of each category of bead based on different raw materials (natural and manufactured) and the chaîne opératoire that can be reconstructed on the basis of careful observation of the bead surfaces as well as the analysis of unfinished beads and raw materials. Unfortunately, the detailed study of the drill hole, which is an important part of the production process, was not included in the documentation of the Nausharo beads, and only some general observations were made regarding the drilling technique. Natural shell beads, bone beads and metal beads are not discussed in much detail, but the author provides a very useful discussion of the differences in crafting technology of the hard stone beads and notes that there is a relatively wide range of bead shapes and sizes as well as many different qualities of the main raw materials. She then goes on to propose three different categories of beads for each period based on the production quality and overall quality of the raw material. While this may be meaningful for artistic purposes, if the beads had ritualistic or symbolic function then these three different categories might not have been meaningful for the ancient bead user.

12The author also makes a special point of noting that the total assemblage has a very low number of partially finished or unfinished pieces. The fact that stone drills for perforating hard stone beads were discovered from Mehrgarh but not from Nausharo is also noted. This suggests to the author that most of the beads found at the site were brought to the site in finished form rather than being the result of local production. While this conclusion appears justified on the basis of the low number of unfinished pieces, it is also possible that specific workshop areas were located in parts of the site that were not excavated. The fact that only two flakes of manufacturing debitage are reported from the entire excavation is also somewhat odd and may have more to do with the recovery methods used than to the actual situation. Although many of the excavation units were screened and many tiny beads and bead fragments were recovered in the excavations, there is no discussion of what percentage of the excavated materials were screened, which is a very critical aspect of recovery when dealing with the identification of production areas.

13In terms of fired steatite, the author summarizes the findings already published in earlier reports and adds some additional quantitative details. Three different techniques are defined that include

141. glazed steatite with or without traces of copper pigmentation,

152. fired steatite but unglazed,

163. fired red painted steatite beads with white designs.

17One important point raised by the author is the fact that many of the tiny steatite microbeads found at other Indus sites (except for Lothal) were discovered in pots filled with ash. She raises a very important point regarding the possible use of the cementation method of glazing, where flux and sometimes colorant is added to ash and the beads that are to be glazed are fired in the ashy matrix (Wulff et al. 1968). The discussion of faience also summarizes previously published reports noted above, with some additional detail. Two types of faience beads are presented along with very useful color images of the SEM analysis. One bead of “steatite faience” was discovered from the Indus period and the rest of the beads are faience made with a quartz body. However, there is little discussion of the manufacturing or glazing techniques and no presentation of the detailed data from the scientific analysis. Based on the few beads from Mehrgarh and one bead from Nausharo, it is clear that steatite faience was extremely rare in both Pre-Indus and Indus sites. Future studies may reveal some additional examples but so far none have been identified from the studies of faience beads at the site of Harappa and the production of steatite faience does not appear to have been a widespread or commonly known technology (Kenoyer 2021).

18The terracotta beads are well illustrated in figures and in tables, with some minimal discussion of what might be spindle whorls or net weights. The measurements of all the beads are included in the appendices, but unfortunately the weights of the complete beads, particularly the spindle whorls and net weights are not recorded. In the summary discussion of this section the author emphasizes that there are many different types of beads represented but little or no evidence for production, not only of the hard stone beads but also of fired steatite, faience and terracotta beads.

19The sixth section provides short summaries of the published bead data from all the major sites of the larger Indus region and includes tables that show what types of beads were found at a specific site as well as the evidence for workshops. While these data are useful, the one piece of data that is missing is a summary of the overall excavation strategy for each site and methods of excavation and recovery. In the past, many sites were excavated with only limited sampling strategies and not all the excavation units were screened, so the quantitative value of the numbers of beads and the presence or absence of manufacturing debris is not that meaningful. Nevertheless, she has presented whatever data is available and the general lack of evidence for production centers or actual workshops is quite striking. This allows her to engage in a critical discussion of the important issue of where different categories of beads were produced and how they were traded or distributed between different sites and different regions during both the Pre-Indus and Indus periods.

20The discussion of the published data on beads from other sites is quite comprehensive, but only up to what was published by 2017. More recent research of beads from Harappa and experimental studies of bead production by various scholars has resulted in some major discoveries that would require some modifications to the discussions presented in this section of the monograph. For example, recent analysis of the Ravi phase beads at Harappa has provided evidence for the local production of various colors of glazed steatite (white, green and blue) and the presence of at least one blue-green glazed quartz body faience bead as early as > 3700-2800 BCE (Kenoyer 2021). Another major revision relates to the discussion of steatite microbeads where the author raises the question of how they were made. A third point has to do with the fact that some of the microbeads have been found in small pots filled with ash and the possible use of cementation as a glazing technique (p. 175). The manufacture of the steatite microbeads has been extensively discussed and clarified in more recent publications (Law 2018) that show they were made by slicing thin pieces of steatite that were shaped, perforated and ground down to produce the microbeads. This production technique for steatite beads of all sizes has also been found at Harappa (Kenoyer 2005) and replicated experimentally. Furthermore, the steatite microbeads and even larger disc beads were probably all glazed originally and were most likely fired using the cementation method beginning as early as the Ravi Phase at Harappa and on through the Harappa and probably the Late Harappa Phase (Kenoyer 2021).

21In the seventh and final section of the monograph the author emphasizes that bead data from Nausharo show important continuities and an increase in the variety of beads and bead types between the Pre-Indus and Indus periods. She does not feel that any major technological changes are reflected in the beads from the site and focuses the discussion on three topics:

221. the symbolism of the color and material of the beads,

232. the presence of specific beads at the site and their link to other sites,

243. the function of the beads and who wore them.

25Each of these topics is well researched and the author provides some important interpretations that will stimulate much further discussion. The choice of rock colors and artificial colors is one of the first points of discussion. She also goes into great depth on the topic of natural versus artificial materials. The importance of creating new artificial materials has long been recognized as an important aspect of Indus crafting, and this is particularly important when discussing beads. The role of technology in creating beads of different qualities that can be associated with status and hierarchy is presented and critiqued. While generally supporting the arguments of earlier scholars, she also questions the degree to which these interpretations project aspects of modern hierarchical urban society onto the past. Alternate perspectives that she suggests include heterarchical structures that link horizontally through collaborative associations of individuals and families.

26Another important topic raised in this discussion relates to the changing spheres of interaction reflected during the Pre-Indus and Indus periods and the implications for the overall socio-political organization of the site. She points out that during the Pre-Indus occupation, Nausharo appears to have strong links to area to the west in the highlands but by the Indus period the main connections are to the east and the core regions of the Indus urban centers. It should be pointed out however, that the presence of Kot Dijian pottery at Nausharo during Period I already demonstrates strong links to the Indus alluvial regions. Furthermore, the presence of Baluchistan related figurines at Harappa (Sharri R. Clark 2017; Sharri R. Clark and Kenoyer 2017: 499) and specific styles of pottery, possibly even from Nausharo itself, in the Kot Dijian levels at Harappa, confirms the numerous interactions between these two regions during the Pre-Indus or Early Harappa Phase (Meadow and Kenoyer 2008).

27In terms of the beads found at the site of Nausharo, she points out that the variety of bead shapes and raw materials found at Nausharo is also seen at most other Indus sites. If the beads reflect social complexity then this could indicate that most Indus sites had the same basic socio-economic structure. She suggests that since there is no evidence for local production of beads they all must have been brought to the site from other production centers. She also emphasizes that the diversity of beads and their different qualities suggests that they came from numerous different regions or workshops. While it is not unlikely that beads from many different workshops were traded to Nausharo over the long period of its occupation, we do know that single workshops can produce many different styles of stone beads using very different technologies. This situation is well documented at the site of Chanhudaro where Mackay reports numerous different types and qualities of beads from the same general workshop area (Mackay 1943: 210-214). The Chanhudaro bead samples from the workshop area and studied by the reviewer at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, include simple pecked carnelian short biconical beads, various shapes of natural carnelian and patterned jasper beads, the exquisite very long biconical carnelian beads drilled with specialized ernestite drills and bleached carnelian beads of different shapes and sizes (Kenoyer 1998: 160-162).

28The function of beads and their role in the economy and ideology of the inhabitants of Nausharo is the third main topic of discussion. The discovery of beads from many different domestic as well as secondary contexts at the site indicate that they were used by all segments of the population. She summarizes the basic ways in which beads were used and worn based on reconstructions figurines found at Nausharo as well as numerous other Pre-Indus and Indus sites. The ideological aspects of the ornaments are also discussed along with some interesting discussion of the possible use of beads as a form of currency. She proposes that rather than seeing the beads as symbols of ostentation and appearance, they may have been more important as social and economic symbols or linked to sacred imagery or ideology. While these topics have been discussed by many earlier scholars, she provides some new perspectives based on the types of beads found at Nausharo, particularly with regard to the many ways in which steatite beads were made and used. The final concluding paragraphs revisits many of the themes raised in the introduction and throughout the monograph supplemented by important reflexive philosophical discussions and numerous questions that will undoubtedly stimulate considerable future discussion. Although these questions cannot be tested using the archaeological bead data from Nausharo, they do raise important issues that need to be considered by any scholar interested in studying and interpreting past societies. “Qu’est-ce qu’une puissance d’être, sinon de faire, une puissance de donner, sinon d’échanger ?” (p. 208). “What is a power to be, if not to do, a power to give, if not to exchange?”

29In conclusion, this monograph is a major contribution to the larger study of beads in the prehistoric periods on ancient South Asia and will be an important reference for comparisons with other sites excavated in the future. This book is essential for anyone working on beads in the Indus region and adjacent regions and provides an important model to emulate for presenting the many complex facets of bead technology, analyses and interpretation.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Barthélemy de Saizieu B. 2003 – Les Parures de Mehrgarh: perles et pendentifs du Néolithique Préceramique à la période pré-Indus: Fouilles 1974-985. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Barthélemy de Saizieu B. and Bouquillon A. 1994 – Steatite Working at Mehrgarh during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods: Quantitative Distribution, Characterization of Material and Manufacturing Process. In: Parpola A. and Koskikallio P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology, 1993: 47-60. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Barthélemy de Saizieu B. and Bouquillon A. 1997 – Evolution of Glazed Materials from the Chalcolithic to the Indus Period Based on the Data of Mehrgarh and Nausharo. In: Allchin B. and Allchin R. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1995: 63-76. New Delhi: Oxford & Ibh Publishing Co.

Barthélemy de Saizieu B. and Rodière J. 2005 – Bead Drilling: a Look from Mehrgarh and Nausharo. Preliminary Results of Micro-Trace Analyses. In: Franke-Vogt U. and Weisshaar H. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 2003: 39-48. Aachen: Linden Soft.

Bouquillon A., Barthélemy de Saizieu B. and Duval A. 1995 – Glazed Steatite Beads from Mehrgarh and Nausharo (Pakistani Balochistan). MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) 352: 527-538.

Sharri R. C. 2017 – The Social Lives of Figurines: Recontextualizing the third Millennium BC Terracotta Figurines from Harappa 86. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Press.

Sharri R. C. and Kenoyer J. M. 2017 – South Asia Indus Civilization. In: Insoll T. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines: 493-519. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zhou G., Kenoyer J. M. and Yang Y. 2016 – Investigation Of Ancient Harappan Faience Through La-Icp-Aes And Sr-Μ Ct. Journal Of Instrumentation 11: 1-9.

Jarrige J. F. 1982 – Excavations at Mehrgarh: Their Significance for Understanding the Background of the Harappan Civilization. In: Possehl G. L.(ed.), Harappan Civilization: 79-84. New Delhi: Oxford & Ibh Publishing Co.

Jarrige J. F. 1993 – The Question of the Beginnings of the Harappan Civilization as seen from the Nausharo Excavations. In: Gail A. J. and Mevissen G. J. R. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1991: 149-164. Stuttgart: F. S. Verlag.

Kenoyer J. M. 1991 – The Indus Valley Tradition of Pakistan and Western India. Journal of World Prehistory 5,4: 331-385.

Kenoyer J. M. 1998 – Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Kenoyer J. M. 2005 – Bead Technologies at Harappa, 3300-1900 BC: a Comparison of Tools, Techniques and Finished Beads from the Ravi to the Late Harappan Period. In: Jarrige C. and Lefèvre V. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 2001: 157-170. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Kenoyer J. M. 2008 – Indus and Mesopotamian Trade Networks: New Insights from Shell and Carnelian Artifacts. In: Olijdam E. and Spoor R. H. (eds.), Intercultural Relations Between South and Southwest Asia. Studies in Commemoration of E. C. L. During-Caspers (1934-1996): 19-28. Oxford: BAR Publishing (International Series 1826).

Kenoyer J. M. 2015 – The Archaeological Heritage of Pakistan: from the Palaeolithic to the Indus Civilization. In: Long R. (ed.), History of Pakistan: 1-90. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Kenoyer J. M. In press – Glazed Steatite and Faience Technology at Harappa, Pakistan (> 3700-1900 BCE): Technological and Experimental Studies of Production and Variation. In: Kanungo A. (ed.), Ancient Glass Of South Asia: Archaeology, Ethnography And Global Connection. Singapore: Springer Nature.

Konishi M. A. 1984 – “Pre-” Or “Early” Harappan Culture: a Conceptual Battle. In: Lal B. B. and Gupta S. P. (eds.), Frontiers of the Indus Civilization: 37-42. New Delhi: I. M. Sharma of Books and Books.

Lau D. and Ute F. 2012 – Schmuckperlen Aus Sohr Damb/Nal, Pakistan. In: Hansen S. and Wagner M. (eds.), Archaölogische Mitteilungen Aus Iran Und Turan: 221-270. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag

Law R. W. 2018 – The Art of The Harappan Microbead Revisited. In: Frenez D., Jamison G., Law R., Vidale M. and Meadow R. H. (eds.), Walking with the Unicorn: Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia. Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume: 327-342. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Mackay E. J. H. 1943 – Chanhu-Daro Excavations 1935-36. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

Meadow R. H. 1984 – Notes on the Faunal Remains from Mehrgarh, with a Focus on Cattle (Bos). In: Allchin B. (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1981: 34-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meadow R. H. and Kenoyer J. M. 2008 – Harappa Excavations 1998-1999: New Evidence for the Development and Manifestation of the Harappan Phenomenon. In: Raven E. M. (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1999: 85-109. Leiden: International Institute Of Asian Studies.

Miller H. M.-L. and Kenoyer J. M. 2018 – Invisible Value or Tactile Value? Steatite in the Faience Complexes of the Indus Valley Tradition. In: Frenez D., Jamison G., Law R., Vidale M. and Meadow R. H. (eds.), Walking with the Unicorn: Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia. Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume: 389-394. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Mughal M. R. 1970 – The Early Harappan Period in the Greater Indus Valley and Northern Baluchistan. Ph.D dissertation, University Of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Anthropology.

Quivron G. 1999 – The Evolution of the Mature Indus Pottery Style in the Light of the Excavations at Nausharo, Pakistan. East And West 50: 147-190.

Rabbani M. A. 2020a – The Beads of Barikot, Pakistan: a Preliminary Typological and Palaeo-Technological Study. Ancient Sindh 15 (2018-2019): 59-80.

Rabbani M. A. 2020b – The Typology, Production and Adornment of Gandharan Beads during the Mid-3rd Century BCE-1st Century CE: Preliminary Results from Barikot, Swat, Pakistan. Archaeological Research in Asia 24: 1-20.

Shaffer J. G. 1992 – The Indus Valley, Baluchistan and Helmand Traditions: Neolithic through Bronze Age. In: Ehrich R. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (3rd Edition): 441-464. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Simpson St. J. 2020 – Etched or Bleached? Traded or Copied? Comments on the Dating and Distribution of a Distinctive Type of Decorated Carnelian Bead found from India to Eurasia from the Early 1st Millennium BC to the Early Medieval Period. In: Pankova S. V. and Simpson S. J. (eds.), Masters of the Steppe: The Impact of the Scythians and Later Nomad Societies of Eurasia: 525-543. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Uesugi A., Izumi N., Manmohan K., Kyoko Y., Hitoshi E., Yoshinari A., Junko S., Kanae T. and Vivek D. 2017 – A Study on Faience Objects in the Ghaggar Plains during the Indus Urban and post-Urban Phases. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 5: 140-164.

Woolley C. L. 1934 – The Excavations at Ur, 1933-1934. The Antiquaries Journal XIV,4: 355-378.

Wulff H. E., Hildegard S. W. and Leo K. 1968 – Egyptian Faience: A Possible Survival in Iran. Archaeology 21: 98-107.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, « Blanche Barthélemy de Saizieu – Parures de l’Indus Nausharo, Balouchistan, IIIe millénaire av. J.-C. Entre faire et dire, être et paraître »Paléorient, 47-2 | 2022, 118-124.

Référence électronique

Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, « Blanche Barthélemy de Saizieu – Parures de l’Indus Nausharo, Balouchistan, IIIe millénaire av. J.-C. Entre faire et dire, être et paraître »Paléorient [En ligne], 47-2 | 2022, mis en ligne le 02 mars 2022, consulté le 06 juin 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/1402 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.1402

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search