INTERCULTURAL RELATIONS BETWEEN SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST ASIA.

STUDIES IN COMMEMORATION OF E.C.L. DURING CASPERS (1934-1996)

E. Olijdam & R.H. Spoor (eds)
BAR International Series 1826 (2008): 19-28

Indus and Mesopotamian Trade Networks:

New Insights from Shell and Carnelian Artifacts
Jonathan Mark Kenoyer

Ever since the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization, the question of trade contacts with outside regions has been a topic of con-
siderable discussion. Among various controversial issues is the question of whether Mesopotamian merchants or other individuals
were ever present in the Indus Valley itself. One of the leading scholars to contribute to this discussion was Elisabeth During Caspers.
Although there is still no convincing evidence for the presence of Mesopotamians in the Indus cities (Chakrabarti 1990), the interpre-
tations proposed by During Caspers (1982; 1984; 1994) and others have led to the critical analysis of the types of evidence for trade
contacts in both major regions (Ratnagar 2001; Possehl 1997). In this article I review some of the evidence for Indus internal and ex-
ternal trade and present some new information based on my comparative analysis of shell artifacts and beads from the Indus Valley
and the Royal Cemetery at Ur. Although my study of the carnelian beads has remained unfinished due to the current political situa-
tion in Iraq, it is possible to make some suggestions for future research and the possible outcome of such studies.

Indus Trade and Exchange
Since all of the major urban centers of the Indus valley
are located in the vast alluvial plains of the Indus river
and its tributaries, most essential raw materials for the
production of metal objects and luxury items would have
been traded from adjacent resource areas. Without the
aid of written texts it is impossible to determine the na-
ture of territorial control exerted by individual cities or
regional political powers. Consequently, scholars have
assumed that the distribution of sites with Harappan
seals, architecture, pottery and other diagnostic artifacts
represents the extent of economic and political control
by Indus communities.
Based on current evidence, the internal trade or inter-
action sphere of the Indus would include the major allu-
vial plains, the piedmont regions of Baluchistan to the
west and the regions of Kutch, Saurashtra and much of
modern Gujarat [Fig. 1]. Isolated Harappan sites have
been found as far north as Shortugai in Afghanistan
(Frankfort 1984), but this does not mean the entire region
between Sarai Khola and the Oxus River was integrated
into the Indus interaction system. It is less clear what the
situation is to the south in Baluchistan, where Indus set-
tlements and related Kulli culture sites (Dales 1976;
Possehl 1986) have been found. The site of Sutkagen Dor
(Dales 1962; Dales & Lipo 1992) was probably an import-
ant sea port and trading outpost, while the inland site of
Miri Kalat (Besenval 1994) probably dominated the up-
land trade. Harappan sites are found all along the pied-
mont zone of Kohistan and the Salt Range (Mughal 1974;
Dani 1970-71; Durrani 1988; Durrani, Ali & Erdosy 1991)
where passes lead through the hills to highland grazing
areas. Based on the fact that the sites in Baluchistan are
often within a few days journey of the Indus alluvium, we
can assume that these adjacent regions were in fact a part
of the internal trade networks, supplying the Indus cities
with rocks, minerals and processed metals such as cop-
per, bronze, lead and tin.
The best indicators of this internal trade are the signifi-
cant quantities of materials from the resource areas that
were being brought to the large urban centers. The most
commonly preserved materials include chert, various
forms of grinding stones and pestles, various types of
agate, carnelian and jasper, and numerous other miner-
als. Processed metal, such as copper, bronze, silver, gold
and lead were also being brought to the cities from these
adjacent regions. Both raw and semi-processed marine
shell, dried fish and other marine resources were also
being taken inland to sites in the Indus plain and even as
far north as Shortugai. Internal trade and exchange is
further reflected in the widespread use of standardized
weights and sealings that indicate aspects of economic
and political control. The analysis of raw materials,
manufacturing techniques and the discovery of actual
production areas makes it possible to trace specific arti-
facts to sites or regions.
Shell bangles made from various marine species have
been particularly useful in determining the patterns of
internal trade networks, as well as the organization of
production and trade (Kenoyer 1983; 1984). Both narrow
and wide shell bangles were produced almost exclusively
from the massive gastropod Turbinella pyrum, though
occasionally thin and twisted bangles were made from
the spiny Murex, Chicoreus ramosus [Fig. 2]. Another varia-
tion in the manufacture of bangles is seen in the use of
the bivalve Tivela damaoides to produce ornaments that
look very similar to the more circular bangles produced
from gastropods. The production of bangles from various
species in different regions has made it possible to recon-

19
 Susa

Ur Harappa

Mohenjodaro

N
Dholavira

Fig. 1: Map of the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia.

0 5 cm

Fig. 2: Bangle types of the Indus Valley. 1) Wide, Turbinella pyrum; 2) Narrow, Turbinella pyrum; 3)
Narrow, Chicoreus ramosus; 4) Narrow, Tivela damaoides.

20
 Fig. 3: Shell species and derived artifacts.
struct the actual internal trade networks and the types of
goods being traded.
For example, the manufacture of Tivela damaoides has
been documented at the site of Balakot (Dales & Kenoyer
1977) and other sites in this coastal region (Kenoyer
1983). Analysis of shell fragments at Lothal and more
recently at Harappa show that some of these bangles
were being worn or traded to distant sites within the
Indus region (Kenoyer 1997). Other shell objects, such as
partially finished bangles and ladles made from the Mu-
rex shell (Chicoreus ramosus) were being produced at the
site of Nageshwar (Bhan & Kenoyer 1980-81) and proba-
bly exported to Harappa and Mohenjodaro. Large colu-
mella of Turbinella pyrum may have been shaped into
cylinders and traded to Indus sites for use in the produc-
tion of beads or inlay, but they also may have been pre-
pared for external trade to Mesopotamia, where there is
evidence for the use of shell cylinder seals made from
Turbinella pyrum (Gensheimer 1984) [Fig. 3].
While agate and carnelian beads were being produced
at most Indus sites using similar techniques, the raw
materials were found only in limited areas. Of specific
21
interest in the context of this article are the long carnel-
ian nodules used to produce equally long biconical car-
nelian beads [Fig. 4]. So far, the actual production of such
long beads can be documented only at the site of Chanhu-
daro (Mackay 1943), though there is possible evidence for
production at Mohenjodaro and Harappa. The exact
source of the large nodules is still unknown, but large
carnelian nodules have been recovered from the Ratan-
pur agate bearing gravels and they would have been
available in many parts of Kutch, Saurashtra and Gujarat
wherever this vast geological deposit is accessible
(Kenoyer, Vidale & Bhan 1991). Current studies are being
undertaken to see if PIXE analysis which has been suc-
cessful elsewhere (Theunissen, Grave & Bailey 2000) will
work for the Indus carnelian characterization. While it is
possible to generally determine where the carnelian
came from, the source of the unique material used to
produce stone drills for perforating these hard stones is
less clear. This material has been named “Ernestite” in
honor of Ernest J. H. Mackay who first discovered the
drills at Chanhudaro (Kenoyer & Vidale 1992). Electron
microprobe x-ray analysis of the drill raw material

Fig. 4: Bead manufacturing process: from nodule to bead.
0 5 cm
Fig. 5: Ernestite constricted cylindrical drills.
reveals a unique composition that it the result of human
modification of a natural rock using heat. The rock is
composed of a yellow brown matrix of quartz and silli-
manite with concentrations of iron/titanium oxide phase.
These concentrations of hematite and iron-titanium ox-
ides give the rock its cutting and polishing properties,
while the matrix provides a strongly bonded structure
capable of withstanding the stresses of drilling. The
brown-black portion appears to be primarily quartz with
hematite and some sillimanite/mullite.
The types of Ernestite drills used in the manufacture of
long carnelian beads have been classified as “constricted
22
cylindrical” drills [Fig. 5]. This type of drill was only pro-
duced during the Harappan period (2600-1900 B.C.) and
appears to have been unique to the Indus Valley (but see
discussion below). Furthermore, there appears to be a
limited distribution of these beads within the Indus Val-
ley itself, since they have only been conclusively docu-
mented at the sites of Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Chanhu-
daro and possibly at Dholavira. Other types of stone drills
have been found at all other Indus sites, but the specific
nature of the material used to make the drills is not well
documented. The distribution of Ernestite drills corre-
sponds roughly to the distribution of long carnelian bead
production. This pattern could indicate that the produc-
tion of these beads and the drills needed to perforate
them was being controlled by certain merchants or elites.
Since long carnelian beads were clearly among the most
valuable ornaments of the Indus region, this type of con-
trol is not surprising. However, as is discussed in more
detail below, this evidence for control does have bearing
on the fact that many of the finished beads were being
traded to Mesopotamia and other adjacent regions.
Models of Internal Trade
Various models for trade and exchange systems have
been discussed for the prehistoric period (Lamberg-
Karlovsky 1975; Clark 1968), but without the support of
written documents in the Indus Valley, it is not possible
to adequately test most of these models. Based on the
limited archaeological evidence from Indus excavations,
it is possible to determine that internal trade networks
were highly stratified (Kenoyer 1989). Larger cities ap-
pear to have been more directly connected with external
regions and to each other by inter-regional networks.
These cities were in turn linked to smaller towns and
villages with intra-regional networks. At the local level,
subsistence items and locally produced commodities
would have been redistributed without recourse to the
larger networks.
In addition to the stratification of networks, there ap-
pear to be at least thee major systems of exchange during
the final part of the Early Harappan period and through-
out the Harappan period (Kenoyer 1998). The use of stan-
dardized weights reflects a centralized authority or a
coalition of merchants that maintained control of the
trade of specific commodities. It is unlikely that these
weights were used for everyday market trade, but were
probably used for establishing rates of taxation, or actual
taxation for merchants bringing a wide variety of other
goods into the cities. Recent excavations at Harappa have
indicated that most of the standardized weights are
found near to the gateways of the walled mounds, a loca-
tion where goods could be monitored and taxed while
entering or leaving the city (Kenoyer 1991).
The other two systems of exchange do not have any
direct archaeological evidence and are somewhat hypo-
thetical. One was probably a system of barter that in-
volved the exchange of grain or other subsistence com-
modities for goods. Graffiti on pottery and inscribed tab-
lets with what may be numerals or commodity names
may reflect this type of trade. The use of sealings on jars
or bales of goods also indicates some form of verification
of goods and contents of containers (Parpola 1994). At
present there are no distinct areas that can be identified
as markets, but large open spaces in some neighborhoods
at Mohenjodaro and the open areas inside some of the
gateways at Harappa may have been locations for trade
and barter.
The third system of exchange, and again one that is not
reflected archaeologically at all, is the reciprocal ex-
change of goods for services. This type of exchange is
commonly practiced throughout South Asia and in many
parts of the world and was probably common in both
rural and some urban contexts (Kenoyer 1989).
Another important feature of the trading patterns that
must be considered is how they were maintained over
vast regions and for such long periods of time. The study
of traditional shell and agate trade in South Asia and
between South Asia and external regions suggests that
much of the long distance trade is the result of entrepre-
neurial families and not due to state economic policies
(Kenoyer 1989). Furthermore, the long term maintenance
of such trade networks is the result of extended kin rela-
tions and ad hoc contracts between producers and con-
sumers rather than from state control.
The role of elites and state officials in the establish-
ment, maintenance and control of internal trade is still
not well defined. Clearly the rulers of the Indus cities
would have been the ones to establish and maintain the
walls and gateways of each city. The main mechanism for
indirect control of economy would therefore have been
through taxation of goods entering and leaving the city
(Kenoyer 1998). In addition, there were probably addi-
tional social, economic and political links to the sur-
rounding hinterland or other cities that would help in
reinforcing and maintaining control.
The use of seals for trade is clearly one of the most
important indicators of elite control, but until it is possi-
ble to decipher the script, the specific nature of that con-
trol will be conjectural. In addition to seals, there are
numerous inscribed and molded tablets made of steatite,
faience and even copper. The same mold was used to
make numerous tablets with identical inscriptions on one
side and what may be a numeral on the opposite side.
Identically inscribed steatite tablets were also produced
in large quantities. It is possible that these tablets served
as a form of credit token for goods being brought into the
city, exchanged or stored (Parpola 1994; Kenoyer 1998).
The use of numerous identical copper tablets with raised
script at Harappa is also important to note. The Harappan
style of copper tablet is distinct from the incised copper
tablets at Mohenjodaro. It is not impossible that these
standardized metal tablets with script were used as a
form of local city coinage, since they are not found at
other regional sites.
The contexts for the use of seals, and the changes in
seal and tablet types over time, suggest that there were
significant fluctuations in the power of elite communities
using these objects. These fluctuations may correspond to
experiments in different types of mechanisms for record-
ng value or simply to changes in economic and political
control within the cities. It is important to note, however,
23
that some elites were undoubtedly able to maintain con-
trol and engage in economic and political development
without the use of seals or tablets. During the Late Harap-
pan period we continue to see evidence for economic
activity and regional exchange, but there is no use of
weights, seals or even writing (Kenoyer & Meadow 1999).
External Trade and Exchange
While internal exchange was definitely an important
factor in the emergence of Indus urban centers, there is
no evidence that external exchange played a significant
role in the rise of Indus cities. The most recent evidence
from Harappa indicates that the initial urban develop-
ment was occurring during the Kot Diji period around
2800-2600 B.C. There is no evidence for trade with Meso-
potamia at this time. The hypothesis that trade with
Mesopotamia was a major factor in the rise and mainte-
nance of the urban centers (Possehl 1990; Ratnagar 1981)
assumes that the Indus economy was directed towards
external trade and this is not supported by the basic ar-
chaeological evidence from excavations in the Indus
Valley or in Mesopotamia (Shaffer 1982; and below).
Various unsuccessful attempts to apply World Systems
models to the external trade of either the Indus Valley or
Mesopotamia have been based on a limited knowledge of
the primary archaeological data from each region and the
use of unjustified generalizations (for more specific
comments see Kohl 2001; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2001; Stein
1999).
There is however clear evidence for external trade
during the Harappan period. Various degrees of direct or
indirect contact were established between the Indus
Valley, Oman, Bahrain, Central Asia and even distant
Mesopotamia. Considerable discussion of the evidence for
contact with Mesopotamia is available, but it is often
difficult to evaluate the interpretations, since most of the
data derives from earlier excavations in Mesopotamia
when detailed stratigraphic recording was not under-
taken. Other important finds were collected from art
dealers or surface contexts and therefore the provenance
and dating are problematic (Moorey 1994; Potts 1997).
Most of the Harappan-style artifacts that have been
recovered from sites in Mesopotamia presumably result
from indirect overland trade or coastal trade dominated
by middlemen from the Gulf region. As is discussed be-
low, there is also evidence to suggest that actual Indus
traders were present in Mesopotamia. The period of con-
tact between the two regions has been dated from around
2550 to 1300 B.C. (Chakrabarti 1990). The dating of the
earliest contacts are based on a relatively general date for
the artifacts found in the Royal Cemetery at Ur. Recent
studies of the chronology suggest that they may date
somewhat later, possibly to around 2450 B.C. (Richard L.
Zettler, pers. comm.). This dating actually fits much more
closely with the evidence for carnelian bead production
at the site of Chanhudaro in the Indus valley. The Harap-
pan occupation of Chanhudaro appears to date from
around 2450 to 1900 B.C. based on comparisons with the
pottery styles and figurines from Harappa.
On the basis of textual evidence as well as a limited
amount of artifactual data, we know that there were con-
siderable fluctuations in the internal, as well as the ex-
ternal trade of Mesopotamia (Gelb 1970; Stein 1999).
There is also literary evidence that individuals from the
Indus Valley (i.e. Meluḫḫa) were residing in Mesopotamia
during the Akkadian period (ca. 2350-2200 B.C.) and had
become acculturated (Parpola, Parpola & Brunswig 1977).
In contrast, there is no direct evidence for Mesopotamian
goods in the Indus region. All of the various objects that
may derive from cultures outside the Indus region can be
traced to either Central Asia or Oman, but not to Mesopo-
tamia (Chakrabarti 1990). Any Mesopotamian goods
traded to the Indus were probably perishable or consisted
of raw materials that would be transformed in the work-
shops of the Indus cities (Crawford 1973).
Indus Objects in Mesopotamia
One of the major shortcomings in the summary provided
above is that most of the discussion of Indus objects
found in Mesopotamia has been undertaken at a superfi-
cial level. Except for the seals, there is little photo-
graphic documentation or detailed analysis of the many
Harappan style objects found in Mesopotamia. In the dis-
cussion below I am only able to focus on two categories of
artifacts that have provided evidence for more specific
aspects of Indus-Mesopotamian interaction. Other cate-
gories that have not yet been studied include shell inlay,
carved ivory, copper tools, glazed steatite and faience
beads, and gold ornaments. If traders were carrying shell
cylinders, shell bangles and carnelian beads to Mesopo-
tamia, it is not unlikely that many other objects were also
being traded, but they have not been identified because
no one has been studying them in detail.
In the course of my research on Indus shell industries, I
made a study of Mesopotamian shell objects in order to
determine if any Indus objects were traded to Mesopota-
mia. During the course of this research it became clear
that some of the objects found in sites such as Susa and
even the burials at Ur, were made in the Indus Valley and
traded to Mesopotamia. A wide shell bangle with chevron
motif from the site of Susa has been identified as being
comparable to Harappan bangles (Jarrige 1988: 198, A10)
[Fig. 6]. In the catalogue the bangle from Susa has been
identified as being made from Fasciolaria trapezium, a shell
species found along the Indus coast and as far as Bahrain.
However, based on my comparative analysis of shell
structure, it appears that this bangle was in fact made
from the Turbinella pyrum, a species found only along the
Indus coast (i.e. the Makran coast west of Karachi and the
Little Rann of Kutch and coastal Gujarat) and the waters
of Southern India and Sri Lanka.
In the Indus Valley shell bangles with chevron motifs
are diagnostic of Harappan elites and are found through-
out the Indus region (Kenoyer 1992) [Fig. 2]. Wide shell
bangles with chevron motifs have also been found at the
site of Harappa, but no wide bangles were found with the
female burials in the Harappan cemetery. This discovery
of two wide bangles with a chevron motif on Mound F
could indicate that these bangles were worn by different
ethnic community living in the city or possibly by women
24
Fig. 6: Shell bangle from Susa (after Jarrige 1988: 48. Louvre Sb 14473,
Fouilles de J. de Morgan).
who were members of trading communities (Kenoyer
1998).
It is highly unlikely that the shell bangle from Susa was
made at the site or anywhere in Mesopotamia, but rather
it was probably worn or carried there by a trader. Based
on depictions of wide bangles on terracotta figurines at
Harappa I would assume that this type of ornament was
worn primarily by women. If numerous shell bangles
were found in Susa or other sites in Mesopotamia, it
would be easy to argue that they were a trade commod-
ity. However, since only one example has been reported,
it is more likely that it was an ad hoc trade item or per-
haps actually worn by a Harappan woman. If the latter
scenario is proposed, it would imply that a Harappan
female trader or perhaps a male trader with his wife
traveled as far as Susa. Taking the speculation even fur-
ther, it is possible that the woman wearing this bangle
was part of a marriage alliance with a distant trading
family in Susa. Such long distance marriage contracts can
be documented historically and ethnographically. In the
absence of strong state control, long distance kin rela-
tionships would have been a form of insurance in trade
relations.
While this discussion is purely speculative, it does sug-
gest that we should be more open to looking for evidence
of such interactions between the Indus Valley and Meso-
potamia. This is further warranted since Mesopotamian
documents indicate the presence of Meluḫḫan or Indus
boats presumably along with their traders, captains and
sailors, Meluḫḫan interpreters and even larger accultur-
ated communities in some Mesopotamian cities (Parpola,
Parpola & Brunswig 1977).
Studies of shell cylinder seals in burials of soldiers and
attendants associated with the royal cemetery at Ur also
appear to have been made from columella of the Tur-
binella pyrum shell (Gensheimer 1984). Since no carved
cylinder seals of Mesopotamian style have been found at
the sites of Lothal or Nageshwar, where similar columella
blanks were being produced, we must assume that the
blank cylinders were traded from the Indus to Mesopo-
tamia. Once they had reached Mesopotamia, they would
 1 2
0 5 cm
Fig. 7: Shell cylinder seals from Ur. 1) Shell cylinder seal found with groom in Puabi’s tomb (PG 800), height 31 mm, dia. 16 mm, B 16747 (U.10530); 2)
Shell cylinder seal found near skeleton (PG 1054), height 34 mm, dia. 16 mm, 30-12-8 (U.11528) (after Zettler & Horne 1998).
have been sent to local carvers to be inscribed with ap-
propriate motifs.
It appears that large shell cylinder seals made from
Turbinella pyrum (as opposed to thin cylinders made from
Fasciolaria trapezium) were used only for a short time dur-
ing the Early Dynastic period, and they are found only in
the royal cemetery at Ur and primarily during the Early
Dynastic period (Woolley 1934; 1955) [Fig. 7]. A recent
discussion of some of these cylinder seals and the con-
texts in which they were found indicate that one was
found with a groom in the tomb of Queen Puabi (Zettler &
Horne 1998: 80, 21a) [Fig. 7a]. This seal as well as one
other from another burial are inscribed with what appear
to be Mesopotamian names (Zettler & Horne 1998: 80,
21a, 23a). One would assume that these individuals were
all local inhabitants, but the presence of numerous items
from the Indus Valley and other distant resource areas
would suggest that Ur, being a major port city, was filled
with people from many different parts of the ancient
world.
Is it possible that the soldiers buried with shell cylinder
seals and often wearing Indus beads were non-local mer-
cenaries, either from the Gulf or from the Indus? If any of
the actual skeletons could be located it would be possible
to test this hypothesis by comparative skeletal analysis
(e.g. Hemphill, Luckas & Kennedy 1991) or through the
study of trace elements (Price 2000). If the soldiers were
born and raised locally they would probably have differ-
ent percentages of trace elements such as strontium in
their teeth and bones than people from other external
regions. Even without the more specific study of the
skeletons, the trade in shell blanks reflects a well struc-
tured system of exchange that involves middlemen or
merchants who have a clear understanding of what is
being produced in one area and what is needed by con-
sumers in the other. The question that remains is who
instigated and maintained these trade contacts. At this
point it is not possible to answer this question, but the
study of carnelian beads may provide additional clues.
Carnelian Beads: Production and Distribution
Both long carnelian beads and bleached (etched) carnel-
ian beads found in Mesopotamian sites have been attrib-
uted to the Indus. Each type of bead reflects a distinctive
process of manufacture that involves specific raw materi-
25
als, tools and techniques. In the past scholars have as-
sumed that these beads were produced in the Indus Val-
ley and traded as finished items. This interpretation has
been based on the comparison of their overall appear-
ance, but not on the basis of detailed analysis of the raw
material, the manufacturing technology or the stylistic
attributes of the object. In order to confirm that these
beads were in fact from the Indus Valley a detailed study
of the beads from Ur was begun in 1993 (with Kuldeep
Bhan, M.S. University, Baroda), in conjunction with our
long term study of the agate bead production in the Indus
valley (Vidale, Kenoyer & Bhan 1993).
During our detailed analysis of beads from the Royal
Cemetery at Ur in the collections of the University of
Pennsylvania Museum, it was possible to confirm that
many of the long carnelian biconical beads and bleached
carnelian beads from the royal cemetery were probably
made in the Indus region and traded to Mesopotamia.
However, it was also evident that some of the beads were
not made in the style of Indus beads, but they were made
using Indus raw materials, tools and techniques.
It is not possible in this article to go into all of the de-
tails of drilling, coloring and polishing, but a few exam-
ples will illustrate the important discoveries. For exam-
ple, Woolley illustrates a variety of long carnelian bead
that has six facets and notes that these types of carnelian
beads are usually found on male headdresses (Woolley
1934: 369, Fig. 78) [Fig. 8]. While some of these beads are
made of carnelian, they are also produced in lapis lazuli.
We were able to study one of the largest examples of this
type of carnelian bead at the University of Pennsylvania
Museum (B 16792.1, length 61.54 mm) and determined
that it was drilled using a distinctive Indus technique.
This type of drilling involved the use of the Ernestite
constricted cylindrical drill that has only been found at
sites such as Mohenjodaro, Harappa and Chanhudaro.
However, the shape of this bead is not Harappan and no
such bead has ever been found in any Indus site. Nodules
of long carnelian are not reported from any of the agate
producing regions of Egypt or West Asia and therefore
this raw material most probably originated in the Ratan-
pur deposits of Gujarat (Potts 1997).
The production of this specific bead and perhaps many
other shorter versions appears to have been directed
specifically for the Mesopotamian market. Beads broken
during manufacture or even good quality beads are often

Fig. 8: Carnelian bead types from Mesopotamia.
found in the sites where specialized production is going
on. Since no beads of this type have been found in the
Indus production sites, it is assumed that they were being
produced in Mesopotamia. Since the production of long
carnelian beads and the use of Ernestite drills was con-
trolled in the Indus, it is unlikely that these techniques
would have diffused to Mesopotamian craftsmen. In other
words, the access to high quality raw material, along with
the technology needed to flake, grind, heat and drill
beads suggests that actual Indus bead makers were living
somewhere in Mesopotamia.
It is unlikely that specialized craftsmen would have
been able to finance long distance travel and maintain
access to distant raw materials for beads and drills. On
the other hand, if specialized craftsmen were brought to
Mesopotamia by entrepreneurial merchants to produce
commodities for local trade this would indicate a highly
developed system of long distance trade. In order to bet-
ter understand the nature of the Indus-Mesopotamia
bead trade it is necessary to undertake specially focused
survey and excavation. Extensive surface surveys at Mo-
henjodaro revealed the presence of numerous craft activ-
ity areas (Vidale & Balista 1988; Pracchia, Tosi & Vidale
1985) and it is not unlikely that similar discoveries would
be possible at Ur. Manufacturing debris of short carnelian
beads was found in the debris sealing the royal cemetery
(Woolley 1934), but there is no debris from the manufac-
ture of long carnelian beads. If long carnelian beads were
being made at the site, the bead makers were probably
living in a separate craft area or possibly even in a dis-
tinct settlement.
Another intriguing example are long biconical blood-
stone beads found in the later Sargonid burials (ca. 2350-
2200 B.C.). Bloodstone, a dark green jasper with red spots,
is currently acquired from gravel deposits in the Deccan
region of South India, but some examples have been
found in the agate bearing gravel deposits in Gujarat. The
only Indus site with long biconical bloodstone beads is
Dholavira in Gujarat (R.S. Bisht, pers. comm.). Other
shapes of bloodstone beads have been found at Mohenjo-
daro and Harappa, but they do not have the distinctive
red speckling on dark green that is seen on the beads
from Ur and from Dholavira.
Modern bead makers in Khambhat used diamond-
tipped drills to perforate bloodstone and complain that it
is extremely hard to work compared to carnelian. The
ancient Indus craftsmen were clearly able to perforate
26
these and other jasper beads using the “Ernestite” con-
stricted cylindrical drills, but as with modern craftsmen,
it must have taken much longer than for carnelian. Based
on the analysis of the drill holes the bloodstone beads at
Ur were perforated using a heavily worn constricted
cylindrical drill. Since the beads were made in the classic
Indus shape and are of such unique material, they may
have been made at Dholavira or some nearby production
center and traded to Mesopotamia in finished form. It is
interesting however that the bloodstone beads from Ur
are quite a bit longer (80-85 mm) than the examples that I
was able to see from Dholavira (approximately 55 mm).
The fact that no biconical bloodstone beads have been
found at Mohenjodaro or Harappa could indicate exclu-
sive trade contacts between some sites in Gujarat (e.g.
Dholavira) and consumers to the west.
Conclusion
The various examples presented above indicate that
there is much work to be done to better understand the
relationships between the Indus and Mesopotamia. Elisa-
beth During Caspers was one of the scholars who inspired
me to look more closely at artifacts in order to make
more meaningful and precise comparisons. Her numer-
ous articles on figurines, script, seals and traders remain
an important milestone in our attempts to unravel the
complex relationships between these early civilizations.
However, in order to move ahead it is necessary to under-
take detailed analysis of the primary data and develop
more complex interpretive models that address the new
types of information being discovered.
Acknowledgements
My ongoing research at Harappa and the Indus Valley
Civilization has been supported by numerous organiza-
tions: the National Science Foundation, the National En-
dowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic
Society, the Smithsonian Institution, the American School
of Prehistoric Research (Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology, Harvard University), the University of
Wisconsin, and private donors. Much of the data pre-
sented in this paper derives from my early work on shell
industries under the guidance of the late George F. Dales.
I will forever be indebted to him for his support and
guidance. Other information derives from recent excava-
tions at Harappa and I would especially like to thank the
Government of Pakistan, Department of Archaeology for
facilitating our continued work at Harappa. Special
thanks to all the colleagues who have participated in the
research at Harappa and have helped to collect and ana-
lyze data; Dr. Richard Meadow, Dr. Rita Wright, Dr.
Rafique Mughal, Dr. Massimo Vidale, Dr. Kuldeep Bhan,
Mrs. Barbara Dales, and Heather M.L. Miller for their
support and stimulating discussions on Indus crafts and
technology. I would also like to thank the University of
Pennsylvania Museum for allowing me to examine the
beads from Ur; with special thanks to the previous Direc-
tor Dr. Robert H. Dyson, Richard Zettler, Curator, and the
staff.
References
Besenval, R. 1994. The 1992-1993 field-seasons at Miri Qalat: new
contributions to the chronology of Protohistoric settlement
in Pakistani Makran. Pp. 81-92 in A. Parpola & P. Koskikallio
(eds) South Asian Archaeology 1993. (Annales Academiae Scien-
tiarum Fennicae, Series B, vol. 271). Helsinki.
Bhan, K.K. & J.M. Kenoyer. 1980-81. Nageshwar, an Industrial
Centre of the Chalcolithic Period. Puratattva 12: 115-120.
Chakrabarti, D.K. 1990. The external trade of the Indus Civilization.
New Delhi.
Clark, D.L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London.
Crawford, H.E.W. 1973. Mesopotamia’s invisible exports in the
third millennium B.C. World Archaeology 5: 232-241.
Dales, G.F. 1962. Harappan Outposts on the Makran Coast. Antiq-
uity XXXVI: 86-92.
———. 1976. Shifting Trade Patterns Between the Iranian Plateau
and the Indus Valley in the Third Millennium B.C. Pp. 67-78 in
J. Deshayes (ed) Le plateau iranien et l’Asie Centrale des origines à
la conquête islamique. Paris.
Dales, G.F. & J.M. Kenoyer. 1977. Shell Working at Ancient Bala-
kot, Pakistan. Expedition 19/2: 13-19.
Dales, G.F. & C. Lipo. 1992. Explorations on the Makran Coast, Paki-
stan: A Search for Paradise. (Contributions of the Archaeological
Research Facility, no. 50). Berkeley.
Dani, A.H. 1970-71. Excavations in the Gomal Valley. Ancient
Pakistan 5: 1-177.
During Caspers, E.C.L. 1982. Sumerian Traders and Businessmen
Residing in the Indus Valley Cities: A Critical Assessment of
the Archaeological Evidence. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Na-
poli 42: 337-379, Pl. I-VIII.
———. 1984. Sumerian Trading Communities Residing in Harap-
pan Society. Pp. 363-370 in B.B. Lal & S.P. Gupta (eds) Frontiers
of the Indus Civilization. New Delhi.
———. 1994. Vanity portrayed in clay: the female terracotta
figurines from Harappa. Pp. 183-192 in A. Parpola & P. Koski-
kallio (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1993. (Annales Academiae
Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B, vol. 271). Helsinki.
Durrani, F.A. 1988. Excavations in the Gomal Valley: Rehman
Dheri Excavation Report No. 1. Ancient Pakistan 6: 1-232.
Durrani, F.A., I. Ali. & G. Erdosy. 1991. Further Excavations at
Rehman-Dheri, 1991. Ancient Pakistan 7: 61-151.
Francfort, H.-P. 1984. The Early Periods of Shortugai (Harappan)
and the Western Bactrian Culture of Dashly. Pp. 170-175 in B.
Allchin (ed) South Asian Archaeology 1981. Cambridge.
Gelb, I.J. 1970. Makkan and Meluhha in Early Mesopotamian
Sources. Revue d’Assyriologie LXIV: 1-8.
Gensheimer, T.R. 1984. The Role of Shell in Mesopotamia: Evi-
dence for Trade Exchange with Oman and the Indus Valley.
Paléorient 10: 65-73.
Hemphill, B.E., J.R. Lukacs & K.A.R. Kennedy. 1991. Biological
Adaptations and Affinities of Bronze Age Harappans. Pp. 137-
182 in R.H. Meadow (ed) Harappa Excavations 1986-1990. (Mono-
graphs of World Archaeology, no. 3). Madison.
Jarrige, J.-F. (ed). 1988. Les Cités oubliées de l‘Indus. Archéologie du
Pakistan. Paris.
Kenoyer, J. M. 1983. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civiliza-
tion: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective. Unpub-
lished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
———. 1984. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civilization: A
Summary. Paléorient 10: 49-63.
———. 1989. Socio-Economic Structures of the Indus Civilization
as reflected in Specialized Crafts and the Question of Ritual
Segregation. Pp. 183-192 in J.M. Kenoyer (ed) Old Problems and
New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia. (Wisconsin Ar-
chaeology Reports, vol. 2). Madison.
———. 1991. Urban Process in the Indus Tradition: A Preliminary
Model from Harappa. Pp. 29-60 in R.H. Meadow (ed) Harappa
27
Excavations 1986-1990. (Monographs in World Archaeology, no.
3). Madison.
———. 1992. Ornament Styles of the Indus Tradition: Evidence
from recent excavations at Harappa, Pakistan. Paléorient 17:
79-98.
———. 1997. Trade and technology of the Indus Valley: new
insights from Harappa, Pakistan. World Archaeology 29: 262-
280.
———. 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi.
Kenoyer, J.M. & R.H. Meadow. 1999. Harappa: New Discoveries
on its origins and growth. Lahore Museum Bulletin XII: 1-12.
Kenoyer, J.M. & M. Vidale. 1992. A new look at stone drills of the
Indus Valley Tradition. Pp. 495-518 in P. Vandiver, J.R.
Druzick, G.S. Wheeler & I. Freestone (eds) Materials Issues in Art
and Archaeology, vol. III. Pittsburgh.
Kenoyer, J.M., M. Vidale & K.K. Bhan. 1991. Contemporary Stone
Bead Making in Khambhat India: patterns of craft specializa-
tion and organization of production as reflected in the ar-
chaeological record. World Archaeology 23: 44-63.
Kohl, P.L. 2001. Comment on Shereen Ratnagar. 2001. The
Bronze Age: Unique Instance of a Pre-Industrial World Sys-
tem? Current Anthropology 42: 367-368.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1975. Third Millennium Modes of Ex-
change and Modes of Production. Pp. 341-368 in J. Sabloff &
C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (eds) Ancient Civilization and Trade. Al-
buquerque.
———. 2001. Comment on The Bronze Age: Unique Instance of a
Pre-Industrial World System? by Shereen Ratnagar 2001. Cur-
rent Anthropology 42: 368-369.
Mackay, E.J.H. 1943. Chanhu-Daro Excavations 1935-36. (American
Oriental Series 20). New Haven.
Moorey, P.R.S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries.
Oxford.
Mughal, M.R. 1974. Explorations in Northern Baluchistan, 1972:
New Evidence and Fresh Interpretation. Pp. 276-286 in F.
Bagherzadeh (ed) Proceedings of the IInd Annual Symposium on
Archaeological Research in Iran. Tehran.
Parpola, A. 1994. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge.
Parpola, S., A. Parpola & R.H. Brunswig. 1977. The Meluhha
Village: Evidence of Acculturation of Harappan Traders in
Late Third Millennium Mesopotamia? Journal of the Economic
and Social History of the Orient XX: 129-165.
Possehl, G.L. 1986. Kulli: An Exploration of an Ancient Civilization in
South Asia. Durham.
———. 1990. Revolution in the Urban Revolution: The Emergence
of Indus Urbanism. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 261-282.
———. 1997. Seafaring Merchants of Meluhha. Pp. 87-100 in B.
Allchin & F.R. Allchin (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1995. New
Delhi.
Potts, D.T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Founda-
tions. Cornell.
Pracchia, S., M. Tosi & M. Vidale. 1985. On the Type, Distribution
and Extent of Craft Industries at Mohenjo-daro. Pp. 207-247 in
J. Schotsmans & M. Taddei (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1983.
(Series Minor 23). Naples.
Price, T.D. 2000. Strontium isotopes and prehistoric human
movement. Scientific American 2000 (October): 26-31.
Ratnagar, S. 1981. Encounters. The Westerly Trade of the Harappa
Civilization. Delhi.
———. 2001. The Bronze Age: Unique Instance of a Pre-Industrial
World System? Current Anthropology 42: 351-379.
Shaffer, J.G. 1982. Harappan Commerce: An Alternative Perspec-
tive. Pp. 166-210 in S. Pastner & L. Flam (eds) Anthropology in
Pakistan: Recent Socio-Cultural and Archaeological Perspectives.
Ithaca.
Stein, G. 1999. Rethinking World Systems: Diasporas, colonies and
interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tucson.
Theunissen, R., P. Grave & G. Bailey. 2000. Doubts on diffusion:
 challenging the assumed Indian origin of Iron Age agate and
carnelian beads in Southeast Asia. World Archaeology 32: 84-
105.
Vidale, M. & C. Balista. 1988. Towards a Geo-Archaeology of
Craft at Moenjodaro. Pp. 93-108 in M. Jansen & M. Tosi (eds)
Interim Reports Vol. 3: Reports on Field Work Carried out at Mo-
henjo-Daro, Pakistan 1983-86 by IsMEO-Aachen-University Mission.
Aachen.
Vidale, M., J.M. Kenoyer & K.K. Bhan. 1993. Ethno-archaeological
Excavations of the Bead Making Workshops of Khambhat: A
View From Beneath the Floors. Pp. 273-288 in A.J. Gail & G.J.
Mevissen (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1991. Stuttgart.
Woolley, C.L. 1934. Ur Excavations. Vol. II: The Royal Cemetery.
London & Philadelphia.
———. 1955. Excavations at Ur. London.
Zettler, R.L. & L. Horne (eds). 1998. Treasures from the Royal Tombs
of Ur. Philadelphia.

J.M. KENOYER,
Dept. of Anthropology,
University of Wisconsin,
1180 Observatory Drive,
Madison WI 53706,
United States of America.
jkenoyer@facstaff.wisc.edu

28