Gandhāran Studies, vol.
11
Stone Beads from Stupa Relic Deposits at the Dharmarajika Buddhist Complex,
Taxila
Akinori Uesugi and Wannaporn Kay Rienjang
1. Introduction
This article examines stone beads found in the
excavations at the Buddhist complex of
Dharmarajika, Taxila (Figures 1 and 2). The
site was excavated under the direction of Sir
J.H. Marshall mainly between 1913 and 1916
resulting in exposing an extensive Buddhist
complex that consists of a large-scale Main
Stupa surrounded by a number of subsidiary
stupas and monastic structures (Figure 3). As
Marshall suggests that the foundation of the
main stupa at this site may date back to the
reign of King Ashoka during the third century
BC (Marshall 1951: 236), this Buddhist
complex at the Dharmarajika has a special
importance among a number of Buddhist sites
in Taxila.
The selected twenty-eight stone beads found
in three subsidiary stupas (Stupas B6, B3 and
U1) exposed by the Marshall’s excavations
are subject to the analysis in this paper. They
were redocumented by K. Rienjang in 2014 at
the Taxila Museum. In her study at the
museum, photos, measurements and
production of silicone replicas of bead holes
were made. The silicone replicas were made
for the examination of drilling techniques
used for producing these beads. Based on the
evidence obtained during her study, this
article examines morphological and
technological features of the twenty-eight
beads and their significance in the history of
the site and in the history of stone beads in
South Asia.
53
2. Chronology of the site
Marshall (1951: 236) dated the foundation of
the Main Stupa at the Dharmarajika to
between the time of Aśoka and the middle of
the first century BC. According to him, this
mid-first century BC terminus ante quem was
provided by the Indo-Scythian coins found
inside some of the subsidiary stupas that were
built around the Main Stupa (Marshall 1951:
236-241)1. Analysis of coin finds at the site,
however, narrows the foundational period at
the Dharmarajika down to sometime between
the early and mid-second century BC
(Errington 1999/2000)2. The coin finds at the
1
These are the coins of Maues (c. 75-65 BC) and
Azes I (c. 46-1 BC) in Stupas R4 and S8 ( Marshall
1951: 241-42). The dates of the Indo- Scythian coin
issuers used in this paper follow those published in
Errington and Curtis (2007).
2
On her analysis of the coins, Errington
(1999/2000) assigned the date of early second
century BC to the so-called local Taxila ‘elephant-
lion’ coins, a coin type generally believed to be the
earliest in date amongst those found at the
Dharmarajika. Errington (1999/2000: 192) argues
that the die-struck technique, a technique for
making coins introduced by the Indo-Greeks, used
on these local Taxila coins suggests a
contemporary or slightly earlier date for these
local coins with those of the first Indo-Greek kings
Pantaleon (c. 190-185 BC) and Agathocles (c. 190-
180 BC). The contemporary or slightly earlier date
with coins of Pantaleon and Agathocles is further
suggested by the square shape and designs of the
local Taxila elephant-lion type that were clearly
imitated on the biling ual issues of these two Indo-
Greek kings (Errington 1999/2000: 192).
However, the actual earliest Indo-Greek coins
found at the Dharmarajika belong to those of
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
Dharmarajika demonstrate an uninterrupted
sequence, ranging from the early second
century BC to the tenth century AD, thereby
suggesting a continuous occupation at the site
(Marshall 1951).
The chronology of the structures at the
Dharmarajika is based on, by and large, coin
finds and masonry types employed on the
structures. Marshall associated three main
periods to different types of masonry at the
Dharmarajika. The earliest period is assigned
to the time of the foundation of the Main
Stupa until about the middle of the first
century AD (Marshall 1951: 240-41).
Structures built during this period are
characterized by a masonry type called rubble,
which was composed of boulders of different
sizes laid irregularly on smaller stones of
different shapes (Marshall 1916: fig. 1
‘Parthian’; 1951: Pl. 55.1). The other type of
masonry associated with this period is called
kañjūr ashlar, which consists of blocks of
stone finely cut into rectangular shapes that fit
tightly together without mortar (Marshall
1916: 12-13; Behrendt 2003).
Marshall assigned the second period, which is
between the late first and the end of the
second centuries AD, to the structures built
with a new type of masonry called diaper
(Marshall 1916: 12-13; 1951: 248-49). This
type of masonry is characterized by the
arrangement of boulders evenly laid on small
flat stones (Marshall 1916: 12-13, fig. 1 ‘late
1st century AD’ and ‘2nd century AD’; 1951:
Pl. 55, nos. 4-6). Kuwayama (2007), however,
placed the period for this type of masonry at
Taxila slightly earlier to after the first quarter
of the first century AD until before the
accession of the fourth Kushan king, Kanishka,
i.e. AD 1273 . Marshall (1916: 12-13) assigned
Menander I (c. 155-130 BC), and thus they m ay
place the foundation of the Dharmarajika slightly
later to some time around the mid-second century
BC (Errington 1999/2000).
3
The year AD 127 for year 1 of Kanishka I
follows the proposal made by Harry Falk (2001,
54
the last period to a new type of masonry that
was employed sometime from the third
century AD onwards. This type of masonry is
called semi-ashlar, and is characterized by
boulders laid between the flat and regularly
shaped stones, divided by horizontal lines of
blocks of rectangular stone (Marshall 1916:
12-13, fig. 1 ‘3rd century AD’; 1951: Pl. 55,
nos. 9, 11-12).
Following the chronology proposed by
Marshall and the coin evidence outlined above,
the three stupas from which the selected beads
came may be dated as follows. Stupas B6 and
B3, whose constructions are of rubble and
kañjūr ashlar respectively, may be datable to
the period between the middle of the first
century BC and the middle of the first century
AD. Built with the semi-ashlar type of
masonry, Stupa U1 may be dated to a few
centuries later, i.e. from the third century AD
onwards. The study of the changing nature of
relic deposits inside stupas across the
Dharmarajika Buddhist complex (Rienjang,
forthcoming), however, shows that the
differing natures of relic deposits within each
structural type correspond more to the revised
chronology proposed by Kuwayama (2007),
thus pushing the earliest possible date for
Stupa U1 slightly earlier to sometime during
the early second century AD. As the coins in
stupa deposits at the Dharmarajika were likely
to have been inserted when still current
(Rienjang, forthcoming), the first century BC
coins found within relic deposit of Stupa U1
may suggest that this relic deposit was
originally buried elsewhere and later re-
2004), which is derived from the synchronism
between the Saka era and the Kushan era. The A D
127 date is also supported by the proposal made by
Cribb (2005) that year 1 of the Greek era, an
‘intermediary’ era for the relationship between the
Azes and Kushan era, is the year 174 BC.
Although Kuwayama (2007: 216) did not explicitly
state the year 1 of Kanishka as AD 127, he did
imply that AD 127 is the sensible date for the
accession of Kanishka I (Kuwayam a 2007: 216,
note 39).
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
deposited in the post-early second century
semi-ashlar Stupa U1. With the possible dates
of the stupas at hands, it is to bear in mind,
however, that the production of the beads
found within each stupas is not necessarily
contemporary with the structures within
which they were found.
3. Selected beads for study and their
contexts
The selected twenty-eight stone beads belong
to the relic deposits of three subsidiary stupas
at the Dharmarajika Buddhist complex: B3,
B6 and U1 (Table 1, Figure 4). They comprise
stone beads of the quartz family (agate,
carnelian, jasper, rock crystal, amethyst, and
yellow quartz), garnet, and beryl (aquamarine).
All of these beads are housed in the Taxila
Museum.
Stupas B6 and B3 form parts of the ring built
around the main stupa, while Stupa U1 is
located in the courtyard north of the Main
Stupa (Figure 3). The majority of the selected
beads (nos. 1-18) are parts of the relic deposit
of Stupa B6. They were found, together with
many other beads, inside a stone reliquary
within a small square chamber, which,
according to Marshall, is located ‘at the depth
of 13 ft. below the existing top of the stupa’
(Marshall 1951: 242).
Eight beads (nos. 19-26) belong to the relic
deposit of Stupa U1. These beads, along with
many other beads, were found inside a stone
reliquary in the centre of the stupa plinth ‘at a
height of 4 ft. 3 in. above the ground level’
(Marshall 1951: 271). Placed inside this
reliquary were also a bone fragment, pieces of
jewellery and four coins: one of the Indo-
Greek Apollodotus II (c. 65-50 BC), two of
Indo-Scythians Maues (c. 75-65 BC) and
Vonones with Spalahores (c. 65-50 BC), and
one defaced and unidentified coin (Marshall
1951: 272). These coins are the earliest in date
amongst those found within the stupa relic
deposits at the Dharmarajika, as well as in the
55
stupa relic deposits of the Buddhist sites in
Gandhara (Errington 1999/2000: appendix 1).
Coins in stupa relic deposits at the
Dharmarajika were likely to have been
included in the relic assemblages when still
current (Rienjang, forthcoming). This
suggests that the relic deposit of Stupa U1,
with its coins of the mid-first century BC, may
have been re-dedicated for they were found in
a structure whose masonry type belongs to the
period of about two centuries later. This
probability is supported by the fact that the
nature of this deposit accords well with that of
relic deposits found within the structures of
rubble masonry.
The two remaining beads (nos. 27, 28) belong
to the relic deposit of Stupa B3. They were
found together with other stone and pearl
beads and a bone fragment inside a small gold
reliquary. This gold reliquary was in turn
placed inside a larger stone reliquary ‘at a
depth of 5 ft. below the base’ of the stupa
(Marshall 1951: 244). Like the above deposit
of Stupa U1, there was no relic chamber built
for this B3 deposit.
4. Formal classification of the selected
stone beads
In this section, morphological features of the
selected twenty-eight stone beads from the
Dharmarajika are examined. Based on their
forms, these beads can be broadly classified
into two categories: geometric and figurative
(Figure 8). As the former includes various
sub-forms, their formal classifications are
attempted based on the combination of their
plan and side elevation shapes (Figures 5, 7).
Their plan and side elevation shapes can be
classified into the types shown in Figure 6.
Based on the combination of these plan and
side elevation shapes, thirteen forms can be
defined for the beads from the Dharmarajika
(Figure 8). Various forms and shapes can be
observed in the bead assemblages from each
of the three stupas. It should, however, be
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
noted that the date of the production of each
bead and the duration of time between their
production and final burial in stupas may vary
and it is not the purpose of this paper to
investigate on these matters. However, the
diverse forms of the stone beads in each of the
three deposits and the absence of traces of
threads on any of these beads suggest that
these beads might have not been strung
together on a single ornament, but may have
been gathered from various original contexts
and buried inside these stupas.
In terms of size (Table 1, Figure 9), the length
of the geometric beads range between 6 mm
and 17 mm (Length Classes 3 and 4), and the
width between 3 mm and 15 mm. Within this
range, those that have the length between 10
mm to 15 mm (Length Class 4) are
predominant. Three exceptions are the beads
nos. 11, 12 and 26, whose width far exceed
the above range, i.e. 16 mm, 22 mm, and 35
mm, respectively. In general, these beads can
be categorised as short beads as no bead of
more than 20 mm in length is present. Formal
Type Aa includes a bead of a relatively linear
profile (no. 1) and beads of a more convex
profile (nos. 2, 3). Formal Type Ad (no. 3) has
an average length (15 mm). Formal Type Ea
exhibits two different sizes, a smaller one (no.
27) measuring 11 mm and a larger one (no. 4)
measuring 17 mm in length. Formal Type Ed
(no. 5) also has an average length (12 mm).
Formal Type Eb consists of smaller beads
(nos. 6, 20, 21, 28) measuring 7 - 8 mm in
width and 10 - 12 mm in length, and a larger
(no. 7) with a width of 13 mm and a length of
10 mm. The large dimension of such bead in
this form (no. 7) may imply the central
position on an ornament, and the special value
given to this particular bead. Formal Type Db
(no. 8) is 8 mm in width and 9 mm in length.
Formal Type Ac includes four specimens
measuring 7 - 13 mm in width and length.
Formal Type Dc (no. 24) measures 12 mm in
width and length. Formal Type Gd (no. 25)
has a width of 15 mm and a length of 10 mm.
Formal Type Bh (no. 11) is 16.6 mm wide and
6 mm long. Formal Type Bf (no. 12) has a V-
56
shape similar to a crescent, measuring 22 mm
in width and 12 mm in length. Formal Type
Dg (no. 26) has a more straight profile of 35
mm wide and 11 mm long. Formal Type Ai
(no. 13) has a width of 7 mm and a length of
18 mm.
From the above morphological information, it
is clear that the beads from the Dharmarajika
include various forms, shapes and dimensions.
As mentioned above, this diversity thus
suggests that the beads from each stupa might
have not been parts of a single ornament and
that the various beads from various original
ornaments might have been collected and
buried in each stupa.
In order to understand the stylistic features of
the beads from the Dharmarajika Buddhist
complex, their parallels from other sites in
South Asia are briefly overviewed (Figure 10).
Formal Types Aa and Ad are common to
beads in South Asia since Bronze Age or the
Indus Civilization period and are also
prevalent across South Asia during Iron Age.
Faceted beads, i.e. Formal Types Ea, Eb and
Ed, were not present during the Indus
Civilization period but appeared in the Iron
Age North India, and spread into Central and
South India during Iron Age and Early
Historic period. Spherical beads, Formal Type
Ac, are predominant in North India during
Iron Age and Early Historic period. They are
also present in the South Indian Megalithic
culture. Round tabular, Formal Type Dc, has a
number of parallels in the South Indian
Megalithic culture during the first millennium
BC, but those from South India have rounded
sides, while the specimen at the Dharmarajika
(no. 24) has an angular profile. Another
distinct feature of the examples from South
India is bleached decorations on the sides. It
should also be noted that a few examples
similar to the South Indian examples can
sporadically be found in Central India and
North India. Two examples of similar features
were reported by H.C. Beck in his reports on
beads from Taxila although these two beads
are not from excavations (Beck 1940: 3, 46, Pl.
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
II-30, 31; Figure 10: 24 in this paper). Formal
Type Gd has no parallel in South Asia, as far
as the authors acknowledge. Formal Type Bh,
a unique form having a wide profile with
pointed ends, has also reported from several
Iron Age sites in North India. Formal Type Bf
has a V-shaped side elevation, while the
similar Formal Type Dg has a straight top line.
Beads in Formal Type Bf were most likely
intended to be placed in the centre of
ornaments, as the perforated holes that form a
V-Shape could have made it difficult to be
strung in position other than central. This
form may have its earliest example in the
Indus Civilization period (Kenoyer and Vidale
1992: 515), but it occurs more widely in North
India during Iron Age. Several specimens
have also been reported at Bhir Mound, Taxila
including more decorative ones with pointed
projections (Beck 1940: Pl. III-1; Figure 10:
20 in this paper). Formal Type Dg has
parallels at the Iron Age sites in North India.
Beads in Formal Type Ai have parallels at
some Iron Age sites in North India and South
Indian Megalithic sites.
Beads of figurative forms examined in this
paper comprise those in a form of lion and
frog. Unlike geometric beads, these figurative
beads may have been given some special
meanings or value such as symbolic, amuletic,
and religious, which may explain their
inclusion in stupa relic deposits. Lion-shaped
beads, in particular, have also been reported
from stupa relic deposits in Afghanistan
(Rienjang et al. 2017; Errington 2017),
suggesting that beads of this kind may have
been associated with Buddhism. They were
also reported from burial contexts in
Southeast Asia (Glover and Bellina 2011: 32-
34). However there are no parallel of these
figurative beads in North India including
Buddhist monastic sites so far, so its origin
and dispersal process are uncertain. Further
studies including its carving technologies are
needed on these figurative beads. All of the
five figurative beads examined in this paper
were drilled from both ends. The directions in
which the holes were perforated, however,
57
were done in two ways: perforation along the
width of the bead, and perforation along the
length of the bead (see Fig. 7 for
Measurement system and terminology for the
description of bead). Figurative beads that
were drilled along the width of the body
include the lion bead no. 14 and the frog bead
no. 17. Drilled along the width, these beads
would have resulted in a frontal view when
strung. Figurative beads whose perforations
were made along the length comprise the lion
beads nos. 15 and 16, and the frog bead no. 18.
In contrast to the previous two beads, when
strung, these three beads would have shown a
profile view.
With respect to forms and raw materials,
Formal Type Aa 1 includes agate, rock crystal
and jasper, Formal Type Ad, garnet, Formal
Type Ea, rock crystal, Formal Type Ed, garnet,
Formal Type Eb, rock crystal, garnet and
beryl, Formal Type Db, beryl, Formal Type
Ac, carnelian and agate, Formal Type Dc,
carnelian, Formal Type Gd, rock crystal or
agate, Formal Type Bh, agate, Formal Type
Bf, agate, Formal Type Dg, carnelian, and
Formal Type Ai, agate. The figurative beads
are of rock crystal, garnet and amethyst. As
the forms, raw materials, and dimensions
suggest, there is no obvious correlation
between the three features, suggesting
therefore that the beads found in the stupas
were not specially made for stupa burial using
specific materials, and that various beads from
various sources were gathered to be buried in
the stupas.
5. Drilling technology
This section examines the drilling
technologies used to perforate beads. In order
to know how they were perforated, the
silicone moulds were made from the bead
holes, and the remnant tool marks, impressed
on the moulds, were then examined using
Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
The studies on the drilling technologies
applied for bead production using non-
destructive silicone replicas and SEM have
been developed by L. Gorelick, A.J. Gwinett,
J.M. Kenoyer and M. Vidale (Gorelick and
Gwinett 1988; Gwinett and Gorelick 1986,
1987; Kenoyer 1997, 2017; Kenoyer and
Vidale 1992). The efforts made by these
scholars have successfully revealed several
drilling technologies using different tools that
were developed in South Asia. The surface
conditions that can be observed on the hole
surfaces using SEM can be classified into the
following patterns based on the studies by
these scholars and on the authors’ analyses on
samples from various sites across South Asia
and from various time periods (Figure 11).
Surface Pattern 1: Extraordinarily smooth
surface (on some examples very subtle
striations can be observed). This surface
pattern generally occurs on drill holes that
have straight cylindrical or tapering profile.
Surface Pattern 2: Subtle parallel striations
running perpendicular to the hole axis with an
irregularly rugged surface. This surface
pattern generally occurs on drill holes that
have straight cylindrical profile.
Surface Pattern 3: Parallel striations running
perpendicular to the hole axis with a slightly
coarse surface. This surface pattern generally
occurs on drill holes that have straight
cylindrical profile, but their profile can
occasionally be undulated in contrast to the
perfectly straight profile of Surface Pattern 1.
Surface Pattern 4: Relatively deep parallel
striations with an irregularly rugged surface.
This surface pattern generally occurs on drill
holes that have straight cylindrical profile.
Surface Pattern 5: Occasional striations
running parallel to the hole axis.
Surface Pattern 6: Heavily and irregularly
rugged surface without striations.
58
Among these patterns, Surface Patterns 1 to 4
clearly suggest that a rotational drill was used
as they exhibit parallel striations running
perpendicular to the hole axis. Surface pattern
5 indicates that the drill or some other tool
was moved along the hole axis. This pattern
could have been produced either accidentally
or intentionally. If intentionally this surface
pattern may have resulted from filing,
whereby a tool was moved back and forth in a
vertical direction along the hole axis. The
absence of striations and the heavily rugged
surface of Surface Pattern 6 clearly indicate
that this pattern is created by the non-
rotational pecking technique using a pointed
tool of a hard material.
Previous studies by J.M. Kenoyer and M.
Vidale (Kenoyer 1997; Kenoyer and Vidale
1992) strongly suggest that Surface Pattern 1
was produced by drilling with constricted drill
or tapered drill made of ernestite, a kind of
volcanic metamorphic rock (Law 2011),
which seems to have its source in Gujarat,
India. It is likely that this drilling technology
was developed in the Urban Indus period (c.
2600 - 1900 BC). Surface pattern 6 is the
result of a pecking technique, which was
exclusively used to perforate short beads. This
technique can be dated to the Pre-urban Indus
and Urban Indus periods. Based on the
comparison of Surface Pattern 2 with the
surface of the modern beads made in
Khambhat, Gujarat, the rugged surface is
likely to be the result of the use of abrasives at
the time of drilling (Figure 12). Surface
Pattern 3 may be created by the use of a drill
of softer material such as copper (Kenoyer
1997) as suggested by the shallow striations
on the surface. The coarse surface may as well
be the result of the use of abrasives. Surface
Pattern 4 has demonstratively been identified
as having been produced by diamond drills by
Gwinett and Gorelick (1986) on their
examination of a sample from Mantai, Sri
Lanka (700 - 1000 CE). Their identification of
diamond drill is based on the comparison
between the surface pattern seen on the
Mantai sample and that seen on a modern
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
bead perforated using a diamond drill by a
bead driller in Khambhat. Although it is not
certain that the material used for the
perforation of the selected beads that produce
Surface Pattern 4 was in fact the diamond
chips, it is relatively clear that the drill tip was
modelled into having a projection(s), which,
upon drilling, results in relatively deep
striations on the hole surface. In this regard,
the tip of the drill used on Surface Pattern 4
was clearly different from that used on
Surface pattern 1. Under a microscopic
examination, an irregularly rugged surface
can be observed along with deep striations on
some specimens, a feature suggestive of the
use of abrasives when drilling.
Distinctive surface patterns observed on the
hole surfaces from various beads suggest that
different tools (stone, copper, iron or
diamond) were used and different motions
(rotational or non-rotational) were employed.
To date, the published samples and data with
SEM images are still limited in numbers,
resulting in insufficient understanding of
temporal and spatial variations of drilling
technologies. Examination using SEM
methods on more beads from various regions
and time periods becomes therefore necessary
in order to better understand the process of
developments and dispersals of drilling
technologies across South Asia and beyond.
The samples from Dharmarajika are examined
for their drilling technologies (Figure 13),
based on our understanding on the drilling
technologies described above. The first point
to be noted is that except for nos. 7, 11 and 19,
which were drilled from one end, all beads
were drilled from two ends. The practice of
drilling from two ends also includes beads
with short perforation length (i.e. 3.8 mm)
such as no. 13. It appears therefore that
drilling from two ends was a dominant
method among the bead-makers who
produced these stone beads from the
Dharmarajika. It should be noted that most
beads of the Indus period, Iron Age and Early
Historic period in South Asia including
59
Afghanistan, which the authors have
examined, were also drilled from both ends.
Two-end drilling method is also common to
the modern bead workshop in Khambhat. It is
also noteworthy that the length of each of the
two holes in one bead varies. Although
precise measurements have not been made,
some samples show that the approximate ratio
between two holes is 7:3 or less. Based on
these observations, there seems to have been
some technological reasons behind the
application of two-ends-drilling method. One
of these may lie on the difficulty to perforate
an entire hole from one single end. If drilling
is done only from one end, there is a risk that
the bead could be broken due to the pressure
from a rotating drill particularly upon the
latter reaching the other end. This hypothetical
explanation however must be justified with
experiments and ethno-archaeological studies.
The second point to be noted is that all the
specimens except for nos. 7, 17 and 24 exhibit
deep parallel striations running perpendicular
to the hole axis. Observing at high
magnification (100x and higher), many
samples (nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 16, 20, 23,
25, 27, 28) have an irregularly rugged surface
along with striations. These features can be
identified as Surface Pattern 4, thereby
suggesting that a drill with a projecting tip
was used for drilling possibly together with
the use of abrasives. Nos. 2 and 25 show
prominent cleavages running irregularly along
the hole surface. As the cleavages on no. 25
concur with deep striations, they suggest that
cleavages were also associated with Surface
Pattern 4. Such cleavages were probably
produced by the application of abrasives of
relatively larger particles, which were dragged
by the drill along the surface. On three beads
(nos. 7, 17, 24), the entire hole surface do not
exhibit parallel striations perpendicular to the
hole axis. The hole profile of nos. 17 and 24
are straight cylindrical, while that of no. 7 is
slightly tapered. Some striations parallel to the
hole axis can also be observed on no. 7. While
the drill materials of these three beads cannot
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
currently be identified, the hole with a
slightly-tapered profile of no. 7 suggests that
this bead was not drilled by the same drilling
tool as that used on the majority of the
selected beads from the Dharmarajika, whose
drill hole profile are straight cylindrical.
Two more points deserve to be mentioned.
The first is that a truncated-cone shape can be
observed on the proximal end of the holes of
beads nos. 5, 9, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 25. As the
parallel striations do not appear on this end
portion, it seems likely that the projection(s)
on the drill tip was modelled on the side of the
drill a little off the end itself. The second point
is that, for Surface Pattern 4, no change can be
seen in the diameters across the entire hole. It
is therefore likely that the drill was of a
straight cylindrical profile. J.M. Kenoyer and
M. Vidale (1992: 515) points out that this kind
of cylindrical drill along with a projecting tip
was a successor of the constricted drill of the
Indus period. To drill a long bead, drills must
be straight cylindrical in order to efficiently
reach a long distance without breaking the
bead. In this respect, cylindrical and
constricted drills are technological innovation
for drilling longer beads. Whether or not there
is technological continuity from the Indus
period to the Early Historic period, it can be
stated that the cylindrical drill assumed here is
very characteristic as regards its form.
It is also important to note that the diameter of
the drill holes of the Dharmarajika beads (i.e.
between 0.70 and 1.80 mm) are relatively
smaller that those on the Indus samples (i.e.
between 2.0 and 3.0 mm in average).
Although the bead-maker’s skills must also be
taken into consideration, the smaller diameter
of the holes from the Dharmarajika samples
strongly suggests that some hard materials
were used for the drills. Being small in
diameter, these materials must have been
durable and resistant to the pressure and heat
caused in the course of drilling. For this, iron
is a strong candidate, as it has enough strength
and can be fashioned into a very thin profile.
Therefore it can be assumed that a thin iron
60
rod was prepared to have a projecting tip,
most probably made of diamond chips or
materials of similar hardness.
One example (no. 19) of Surface Pattern 4
exhibits the use of two drills of different
diameters. A larger drill was used to make an
initial hole, while a smaller drill was then used
to continue the perforation.
Among the specimens with Surface Pattern 5,
no. 24 exhibits two-ends-drilling method and
the use of two drills (the larger one with a
diameter of 1.50 mm and the smaller one with
a diameter of 1.18 mm). The proximal end of
the larger one is rounded as the examples with
Surface pattern 4 show. The hole with a
smaller diameter is distinguished by striations
parallel to the hole axis. It seems likely that a
cylindrical drill was also used to drill these
two holes as the two holes have a straight
cylindrical profile. The striations parallel to
the hole axis on one hole could suggest that
some motions in the direction along the hole
axis were made after the initial drilling. This
may have resulted in erasing the striations
occurred during the initial drilling. No. 7,
which was drilled only from one end, has a
smooth surface with very subtle striations
parallel to the hole axis. No striations
perpendicular to the hole axis can be observed.
It appears that an unknown drill, which is
different from the drill with projection(s) was
used for this specimen.
6. Summary
Summarizing the morphological and
technological examinations on the above
selected twenty-eight beads from the
Dharmarajika Buddhist complex, the
following observations can be drawn.
1) Morphologically the twenty-eight beads
can be categorized into two major groups,
geometric form and figurative form; the
former includes various forms and shapes.
This morphological variation, along with the
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
absence of traces of string or thread, suggests
that the beads were offered in the relic
deposits not in the form of strung ornaments
but in the form of individual beads from
different original sources.
2) The forms and shapes observed in the
geometric beads show strong similarity with
those from North India during Iron Age and
the Early Historic period, suggesting that the
beads from the Dharmarajika examined in this
paper were produced under the North Indian
tradition. However it should be noted that it is
uncertain whether the beads from the
Dharmarajika were imported from North India
or were locally produced in Taxila and its
vicinity.
3) All of the figurative beads examined in this
article were found in Stupa B6 indicating that
these figurative beads were intentionally
buried in this stupa with some special
meaning and value. The symbolic meaning
given to these beads is likely to have related to
Buddhism since lion-shaped beads have been
reported from Buddhist stupas in Afghanistan
(Rienjang et al. 2017; Errington 2017) and
from some sites in Southeast Asia, which are
thought to have been involved in the trades
between South Asia and Southeast Asia
(Glover and Bellina 2011). In North India, a
few humped bull-shaped beads have been
reported from Bronze Age contexts, but no
lion-shaped bead have so far been reported
from settlement and Buddhist sites in this
region. Therefore it must be noted that the
origin and dispersal process of these figurative
beads are still yet to be examined, although its
connection with Buddhism can tentatively be
assumed.
4) As regards drilling technologies, most of
the beads examined appear to have been
drilled with a straight cylindrical and thin drill
with a projecting tip (so-called diamond drill).
The origin of this type of drill has not been
identified, but it appears that it became
prevalent by the beginning of the first
millennium BC in North India and spread into
61
South India during the Megalithic period of
the first millennium BC. The examples from
Early Historic period (the beginning of the
Christian Era to the sixth century AD) also
predominantly exhibit this type of drill in
North India and South India. Therefore it can
be firmly stated that the technological traits of
drilling observed in the examples from the
Dharmarajika exhibit a strong connection with
North India.
5) The points stated above suggest that the
beads from the Dharmarajika Buddhist
complex, at least those examined in this paper,
belong to the North Indian bead
manufacturing tradition. If this is the case, it
can be postulated that the influence of the
North Indian tradition expanded into the
northwestern part of the South Asian
subcontinent where the site of Taxila is
located, some time during the first millennium
BC. Further studies must be conducted on
beads from this region to better understand the
history of the beads in this region.
Acknowledgements
Kay Rienjang would like to thank the
Directorate General of Archaeology,
Government of the Punjab and Mr. Nasir
Khan Alladand, the curator of the Taxila
Museum for their kind permission to carry out
the research of hard stone beads in the Taxila
Museum, Dr. Badshar Sardar of the Allama
Iqbal Open University, Mr. Maseeh Ullah
Bacha, and all the staffs at the Taxila Museum
for their hospitality and assistance throughout
the entire research period in Taxila, and the
SMUTS Memorial Fund for providing travel
grant to Pakistan. Both authors would like to
thank Professor Dr. Mark Kenoyer, University
of Wisconsin-Madison and Dr. Margaret Sax,
the British Museum, for their invaluable
teachings, advices and comments on stone
bead makings.
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
References
Beck, H.C. (1930). Notes on sundry Asiatic
beads - beads from megalithic tombs and
midden in Sulur taluk and neighbouring
districts, Man, special India number 30(10),
p. 166-182.
Beck, H.C. (1933). Etched Carnelian Beads,
The Antiquaries Journal 13(4), p. 384-398.
Beck, H.C. (1941). The Beads from Taxila.
Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of
India 65, Archaeological Survey of India,
New Delhi.
Beck, H.C. (1973). Classification and
Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants.
Liberty Cap Books, York.
Behrendt, K. (2003). Buddhist Architecture of
Gandhara, Brill, Leiden/Boston.
Cribb, J. (2005). The Greek Kingdom of
Bactria (northern Afghanistan), its coinage
and its collapse, in: O. Bopearachchi and
M.F. Boussac (eds.), Afghanistan,
Carrefour entre l’est et l’ouest, Brepols,
Turnhout, p. 207-26.
Dangi, V., Uesugi, A., Manmohan Kumar,
Shinde, V. and Appu (2015). Bedwa: A
Mature and Late Harappan Necropolis in
the Upper Ghaggar Basin, in: Manmohan
Kumar and A. Uesugi (eds.), Harappan
Studies, vol. 1, Aryan Books International,
New Delhi, p. 93-152.
Deo, S.B. (1970). Excavations at Takalghat
and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur University,
Nagpur.
Deo, S.B. (1973). Mahurjhari Excavation
(1970-72), Nagpur University, Nagpur.
Dikshit, M.G. (1949). Etched Beads in India,
Deccan College Monograph Series 4,
Deccan College, Poona.
Dikshit, M.G. (1952) Bead from Ahichchhatra,
U.P. Ancient India 8, p. 33-63.
Errington, E. (1999/2000). Numismatic
evidences for dating the Buddhist remains
in Gandhara, Silk Road Art and
Archaeology 6, p. 191-216.
Errington, E. (2017) Charles Masson and the
Buddhist Sites of Afghanistan: Explorations,
62
Excavations, Collections 1833-1835,
British Museum Press, London.
Errington, E. and Curtis, V. (eds.) 2007. From
Persepolis to the Punjab: exploring ancient
Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, British
Museum Press, London.
Falk, H. (2001). The Yuga of Sphujiddhvja
and the era of the Kusânas. Silk Road Art
and Archaeology 7, p. 121-36.
Falk, H. (2004). The Kaniska era in Gupta
records. Silk Road Art and Archaeology 10,
p. 167-76.
Gaur, R.C. (1983). Excavations at
Atranjikhera, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Glover, I. (1996). The archaeological evidence
for early trade between India and Southeast
Asia, in: J. Reade (ed.), The Indian Ocean
in Antiquity, Kegan Paul International,
London/New York, p. 365-400.
Glover, I. and Bellina, B. (2003). Alkaline
Etched Beads in Southeast Asia, in: I.
Glover, H. Hughes-Brock and J.
Henderson (eds.), Ornaments from the
Past: Bead Studies after Beck, The Bead
Study Trust, London, p. 92-107.
Glover, I.C. and Bellina, B. (2011). Ban Don
Ta Phet and Khao Sam Kaeo: The Earliest
Indian Contacts Re-assessed, in: P.-Y.
Manguin, A. Mani and Geoff Wade (eds.),
Early Interactions between South and
Southeast Asia: Reflections on Cross-
cultural Exchange, ISEAS Publishing,
Singapore, p. 17-45.
Gorelick, L. and Gwinnett, A.J. (1988).
Diamonds from India to Rome and Beyond,
American Journal of Archaeology 92, p.
547-552.
Gwinnett, A.J. and Gorelick, L. (1986).
Evidence for the use of a diamond drill for
bead making in Sri-Lanka c. 700-1000
A.D., Scanning Electron Microscopy 11, p.
473-477.
Gwinnett, A.J. and Gorelick, L. (1987). The
Change from Stone Drills to Copper Drills
in Mesopotamia, Expedition 29(3), p. 15-24.
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11
Haque, E., Mostafizur Rahman, S.S. and
Kamrul Ahsan, S.M. (2005). A Preliminary
Report on Wari-Bateshwar Trial
Excavation by ICSBA, in: C. Jarrige and V.
Lefèvre (eds.), South Asian Archaeology
2001, Editions Recherche sur les
Civilisations, Paris, p. 505-516.
Hommel, P. and Sax, M. (2014). Shifting
materials: variability, homogeneity and
change in the beaded ornaments of the
Western Zhou, Antiquity 88, p. 1213-1228.
Joshi, J.P. ed. (1993). Excavation at
Bhagwanpura 1975-76 and Other
Explorations & Excavations 1975-81 in
Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab,
Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of
India 89, Archaeological Survey of India,
New Delhi.
Kenoyer, J.M. (1991). Ornament styles of the
Indus valley tradition: evidence from
recent excavations at Harappa, Pakistan,
Paléorient 17/2, p. 79-98.
Kenoyer, J.M. (1997). Trade and technology
of the Indus Valley: new insights from
Harappa, Pakistan, World Archaeology
29(2), p. 262-280.
Kenoyer, J.M. (2005). Bead Technologies at
Harappa, 3300-1900BC: A Comparative
Summary, in: C. Jarrige and V. Lefèvre
(eds.), South Asian Archaeology 2001,
Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations,
Paris, p. 157-170.
Kenoyer, J.M. (2017). Using SEM to study
stone bead technology, in: A. Kanungo
(ed.), Stone Beads of South & South-East
Asia: Archaeology, Ethnography and
Global Connections, Indian Institute of
Technology-Gandhinagar & Aryan Press,
Ahmedabad/Delhi, p. 409-436.
Kenoyer, J.M. and Vidale, M. (1992). A New
Look at Stone Drills of the Indus Valley
Tradition, in: P.B. Vandiver, J.R. Druzik,
G.S. Wheeler and I.C. Freestone (eds.),
63
Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III,
Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, p.
495-518.
Kuwayama, S. (2007). Kañjūr Ashlar and
Diaper Masonry. Two Building Phases in
Taxila of the first century AD, in: D.
Srinivasan (ed.), On the Cusp of an Era.
Brill, Leiden. pp. 201-232.
Law, R.W. (2011). Inter-Regional Interaction
and Urbanism in the Ancient Indus Valley:
A Geologic Provenience Study of
Harappa’s Rock and Mineral Assemblage.
Occasional Paper 11, Indus Project,
Research Institute for Humanity and
Nature, Kyoto.
Marshall, J.H. (1916). Excavations at Taxila,
Annual Report of the Archaeological
Survey of India 1912-1913, Calcutta, 1-52.
Marshall, J.H. (1951). Taxila: an illustrated
account of archaeological excavations
carried out at Taxila under the orders of
the Government of India between the years
1913 and 1934, vols.1-3, Cambridge
University Press, London.
Rienjang, W. (Forthcoming). Honouring the
Body: relic cult practices in eastern
Afghanistan with comparison to
Dharmarajika, Pakistan, PhD Dissertation,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Rienjang, W., Kenoyer, J.K. and Sax, M.
(2017). Stone beads. A preliminary
morphological and technological analysis,
in: E. Errington (ed.), Charles Masson and
the Buddhist Sites of Afghanistan:
Explorations, Excavations, Collections
1833-1835, British Museum Press, London.
Singh, Purushottam (1994). Excavations at
Narhan (1984-89), Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi.
Thapar, B.K. 1952 Porkalam (1948).
Excavation of a Megalithic Urn-burial,
Ancient India 8, p. 3-16.
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 64

Figure 1: Map of archaeological sites in Gandhara (Base map: SRTM-90; made by A.Uesugi)

Figure 2: Map of archaeological sites in Taxila

(Locations of sites are based on Marshall 1960; Base map: SRTM-90; made by A Uesugi)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 65

Figure 3: Stupa complex at Dharmarajika (after Marshall 1951: red dots indicate the stupas where stone beads were found:
made by the authors)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 66

Figure 4: Stone beads examined in this article with their provenances (c. 150%; Photo: K. Rienjang)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 67

Figure 5: Classification of plan shapes and side shapes of beads in South Asia
(Bronze Age to Historical Period; made by A. Uesugi)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 68

Figure 6: Classification of bead forms in South Asia (Bronze Age to Historical period; made by A. Ues ugi)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 69

Figure 7: Measurement system and terminology for the description of beads (made by A. Uesugi)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 70

Figure 8: Classification of bead forms (c. 150% ; made by the authors)

Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 71

Figure 10 (contd.): Comparable examples from other sites in South Asia (c. 1:2; made by A. Uesugi)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 72

Figure 11: Classification of bead hole surfaces (SEM images produced by A.Uesugi)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 73

Figure 11 (contd.): Classification of bead hole surfaces (SEM images produced by A. Uesugi)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 74

Figure 12: SEM images of the bead hole of modern bead made in Khambhat (Left: Surface pattern 4, Right:
the drill tip; Silicon impression prepared and SEM images produced by K. Rienjang)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 75

Figure 13: SEM images of hole surfaces of the beads from Dharmarajika (SEM images taken by K. Rienjang)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 76

Figure 13 (contd.): SEM images of hole surfaces of the beads from Dharmarajika
(SEM images taken by K. Rienjang)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 77

Figure 13 (contd.): SEM images of hole surfaces of the beads from Dharmarajika
(SEM images taken by K. Rienjang)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 78

Figure (contd.): SEM images of hole surfaces of the beads from Dharmarajika
(SEM images taken by K. Rienjang)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 79

Figure 13 (contd.): SEM images of hole surfaces of the beads from Dharmarajika
(SEM images taken by K. Rienjang )
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 80

Figure 13 (contd.): SEM images of hole surfaces of the beads from Dharmarajika
(SEM images taken by K. Rienjang)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 81

Dimension (mm)
Museum
No. Find spot Material References
Acc. no. Height Width Thickness Hole diam. Hole length

Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.26

1 7728 Stupa B6 Agate 11.0 3.0 3.0 1.25 11.0
Beck 1941: No. 714, Pl. III.34

2 8376 Stupa B6 Rock crystal 14.0 10.0 - 1.10 14.0 Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.5

3 8368 Stupa B6 Garnet 15.0 11.0 - 1.15 15.0 Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.28

Yellow
4 8373 Stupa B6 17.0 12.0 - 1.15 17.0 -
quartz

5 8369 Stupa B6 Garnet 12.0 7.0 - 0.70 12.0 -

6 8370 Stupa B6 Garnet 10.0 7.0 0 1.08 10.0 -

7 7790 Stupa B6 Rock crystal 10.0 13.0 - 1.59 10.0 Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.35

8 8382 Stupa B6 Aquamarine 9.0 8.0 - 0.74 9.0 -

9 8394 Stupa B6 Carnelian 7.0 7.0 7.0 1.80 7.0 -

10 8362 Stupa B6 Garnet 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.48 10.0 -

Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.28

11 7729 Stupa B6 Agate 6.0 16.0 6.0 1.44 6.0
Beck 1941: No. 719, Pl.III.35

Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.32

12 7731 Stupa B6 Agate 12.0 22.0 - 1.33 21.0
Beck 1941: No.707, Pl.III.37

Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.12

13 7730 Stupa B6 Agate 18.0 7.0 7.0 1.14 3.8
Beck 1941: No.708, Pl.III.36

Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.3;

14 7630 Stupa B6 Rock crystal 12.0 10.0 - 0.90/1.40
Beck 1941: No. 691, Pl.I.9

15 7855 Stupa B6 Garnet 10.0 12.0 - 1.25 Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.15

16 7877 Stupa B6 Garnet 6.0 8.0 - 0.90/1.15 Beck 1941: No. 649, Pl.VII.30

Marshall 1951: Pl. 51.n.16

17 7876 Stupa B6 Rock crystal 11.0 15.0 - 0.85/1.17 Beck 1941: No.690, Pl.VII.29

Beck 1941: No. 646, Pl.

18 7878 Stupa B6 Amethyst 7.0 8.0 - 0.89/0.92
VII.31

19 8413 Stupa U1 Agate 12.0 12.0 - 1.60/1.90 12.0 Marshall 1951: Pl. 53.b.3

20 8375 Stupa U1 Rock crystal 10.0 7.0 - 1.27 10.0 Marshall 1951: Pl. 53.b.4

Table 1 Beads from Dharmarajika examined in this article (made by the authors)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 82

Yellow
21 8372 Stupa U1 12.0 8.0 - 0.90 12.0 Marshall 1951: Pl. 53.b.7
quartz

22 8397 Stupa U1 Agate 10.0 10.0 10 1.47 10.0 Marshall 1951: Pl. 53.b.8

23 8392 Stupa U1 Jasper 13.0 13.0 13 1.77 13.0 Marshall 1951: Pl. 53.b.23

Marshall 1951: Pl. 53.b.12

24 7773 Stupa U1 Carnelian 12.0 5.0 5.0 1.18/1.50 12.0
Beck 1941: No. 673, Pl.IV.38

Yellow Marshall 1951: Pl. 53.b.2

25 7789 Stupa U1 10.0 15.0 - 1.25/1.41 10.0
quartz Beck 1941: No. 680, Pl.V.11

Marshall 1951: Pl. 53.b.13

26 7770 Stupa U1 Agate 11.0 35.0 - 1.20 35.0
Beck 1941: No. 675, Pl.IV.35

Yellow
27 8371 Stupa B3 11.0 9.0 - 1.23 11.0 -
quartz

28 8383 Stupa B3 Aquamarine 10.0 7.0 - 0.83 10.0 -

Table 1 (contd.) Beads from Dharmarajika examined in this article (made by the authors)
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 11 83

Category Length Class Length

Extra-short 1 0.1 - 1.0 mm

Short 2 1.1 - 5.0 mm

3 5.1 - 10.0 mm

M edium 4 10.1 - 20.0 mm

5 20.1 - 30.0 mm

6 30.1 - 40.0 mm

Long 7 40.1 - 50.0 mm

8 50.1 - 60.0 mm

9 60.1 - 70.0 mm

Extra-long 10 70.1 - 80.0 mm

11 80.1 - 90.0 mm

12 90.1- 100.0 mm

13 >100.1 mm

Table 2: Length classification of beads (made by A. Uesugi)