Kenoyer1984 Chipped Stone Tools from Mohenjo-daro

:1 .., in mnilers of -thf IvwilAS c{vfli-z.-a-non. BJ?). L~I and S~P. Gu.prn,

;;'."

ed.S. Nu.v Del ~i '. &:>oks CV\Ol eoo ks I tQ84·

13 Jonathan M: Kenoyer

Chipped Stone Tools from Mohenjo-daro

The presence of chipped stone tools alongside copper and bronze tools led the first excavators of Mohenjo-daro to use the term 'chalcolithic' to describe the technological aspects of the iarge urban site (Marshall 1925-26: 75; Mackay 192829: 75). The large areAs of the site which were excavated dUring these early expeditions could have provided us with large samples and invalua ble data concerning the role of stone tools in what appears to be predominantly copperbronze technoiogy (Wheeler 1968: 78-79). Unfortunately, in the course of these massive excavations only the most complete and unique examples of stone tools were collected and recorded. The resulting bias in sampling and the lack of a detailed recording system for the data have made it impossible to conduct any quantitative or qualitative statistical studies of these stone artefacts.

In 1964-65 G.F. Dales, heading an expedition from the University of Pennsylvania, conducted the last and most recent excavations at Mohenjodaro. From the small area in which he was excavating he was able to collect an assemblage of chipped stone tools which has provided us with some new and important data. This being the

I II

only collection of stratigraphically excavated lithics from Mohenjo-daro, the first objective of this study is to provide a detailed description of the

I morphological features of the assemblage and t

! the relative frequency of the morphologicalI types. The second objective is to distinguish1 i specific functional features of the tools and to j determine what types of analysis need to be uni dertaken to provide us with more reliable data j

concerning these features. Finally, we will examine the question of the functional role of these stone tools in the copper-bronze technology of Mohenjo-daro and other sites of the Indus Period.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING

The site of Mohenjo-daro is presently situated on the west bank of the Indus River in Larkana District, Sind, Pakistan. The site consists of artificial mounds which extend over an area with about a five kilometre circuit (Wheeler 1972: 14), These mounds are generally divided into two parts: the so-called 'citadel' mound to the west, which rises some twelve metres above the present plain level and a lower mound which covers over six times the horizontal area of the high mound. This lower mound is separated from the high mound by a wide sandy finger of the present Indus flood plain.

The area excavated by Dales was located on the western edge of this lower mound near what has been designated the HR Area. Part of the excavation took place on the top of the mound, which is about 10.5 metres (35 feet) above the surrounding plain level (Dales 1966). The remainder of the excavation was on the face and at the base of the mound. This latter area included a deep sounding which went down 4.5 metres below the plain level to the top of the water table. The total volume of earth excavated has not been calculated but the total surface area is roughly 1700 square metres. Due to the eroded nature of the edge of the mound and the short excavation season, the exact relationship of these

I

118

two areas has been difficult to determine, but the first metre of accumulation at the base of the mound is definitely mixed with artefacts which were redeposited from the upper part of the mound (Dales, personal communication).

Although the final interpretation of the excavated area is still being worked out, it appears that the upper edge of the mound was made up of structures with close-fitted brick floors (Dales, personal communication). These are similar to other structures found by earlier exc;avators which were called bathing areas and wash floors. Below these structures, down slope, is an extremely iarge mud brick platform which appears to stand the entire height of the mound itself, 10.5 metres along one edge of this platform is a stepped drain which goes from the top of the mound to the base, where it empties out into a sump pot. At the base of the mound is a wide street which is lined on both sides by baked brick walls and the foundations of older buildings. The ceramics and the architecture indicate that the excavated levels belong to the Mature Phase of the Indus Civilization, which begins approximately 2400 B.C. (Dales 1977: 254) and ends around 1800 to 1700 B.C.(14C dates).

The·lithic sample collected from this excavation consists of all flakes, cores, blades and fragments of worked and unworked stone which were found. The sample was not collected by screening so we do not know if there were any minute flake fragments present in this area, however the range in the size of the collected artefacts indicates that the workmen were quit€ careful at picking out very small fragments as well as liuger ones. .

The sample itself consists of only 115 artefacts, so it has not been feasible to make a morphological comparison of the lithics from the upper part of the mound with those found in the lower excavation. Unfortunately, due to the small size of the sample, it has also been impossible to carry out .even simple statistical studies with reliable results, on the morphological and technological features of the artefacts. But, it has been possible to compare the basic features of the assemblage with those reported by J. Cleland in his detailed analysis of the stone industries of the entire Indus Region (Cleland 1977).

Due to the limited time and circumstances at the time these artefacts were available for study, we were not able to carry out micro-wear studies

Frontiers of the Indus Civilization

using high powered microscopes. However, through a detailed examination of edge damage using a 20X hand lense and a comparative study of the morphological features of our sample and that which has been reported from other contemporaneous sites, we have been able to distinguish some important new features of the lithic industry at Mohenjo-daro.

RAW MATERIAL AND SOURCE AREAS

All of the chipped stone artefacts in our sample are cryptocrystaline silicate (hereafter referred to as chert), but there is a range in colour and shading, as well as in the quality of the chert (see Table 13.1). Most of the artefacts can be grouped in the general category of fine-grained grey chert, 86.95 per cent. Within this category we see 70 per cent unmottled, plain greys with shades ranging from greyish white to dark grey. Banded cherts comprise 22· per cent of this group, with different shades of grey banded with brown, and 8 per cent are mottled with splotches of grey, white or brown. Fine-grained cherts with a predominantly brownish colour r;nake up 6.95 per cent of the sample and the ramaining 1.7 per cent are of a very outstanding dark brown to reddishbrown colour.

Most of the artefacts were made from finegrained, good quality chert which had no inclusions, 95.6 per cent. The remaining 4.4 per cent were made from a coarser grained chert, but even these do not exhibit any flaws or large inclusions. This difference in texture is probably only a normal range of variation, but in a larger sample it may be possible to interpret this in terms of functional or cultural selection.

The earlier excavators at Mohenjo-daro reported that the chert artefacts from their excavations were predominantly brownish-grey and often mottled (Marshall 1931: 458; Mackay 1938: 395). Their term would probably include

. the whole range of greys and brownish-grey which we have mentioned as well as including both fine and coarse textured cherts. If we lump all of these together in our sample we get 98.3 per cent brownish-grey cherts;

In the comparatively small area excavated by Dales it is not surprising to find a uniformity in the raw material, but when both Marshall and Mackay report a uniformity of raw material throughout their excavations, one begins to wonder where the source of all of this stone is. The

119

II

II

II II


earlier excavations represent several hundreds of years of occupation and encompass nearly onethird of the total horizontal area of the site. The Rohri Hills have generally been assumed to have been the primary source area for the cherts used at Mohenjo-daro and other Indus region sites. This source of chert is still being used as a source for road fill. Allchin's recent survey of the Rohri and Sukkar hills has reliably confirmed the presence of many Harappan working floors which are strewn with flakes and blades, cores and waste flakes identical to those found at the major Indus Period sites. The majority of the chert is a 'buff or grey with a patina either of cream or of mottled black and rust colour' (Allchin1976: 477). This colouring is basically the same as that reported by Marshall and Mackay and that of the artefacts in our sample, except in terms of the patirla. Most of the excavated cherts have no patina according to Marshall (Marshall 1931: 458), but from our sample there are some examples of cream-coloured patina and one example of a mottled black patina.

The similarity of the technological and physical characteristics between the Harappan blade industry at the Rohri Hills quarry area and that of Mohenjo-daro, and the actual proximity of the two sites, (80 kms) suggest that the Rohri Hills were the actual source for the majority of the chert used at Mohenjo-daro.

There are however some artefacts of a dark br~wn to reddish-brown in our sample. This colour has not been reported from the Rohri Hills area and though it is possible that such exotic coloured nodules of chert may occur in that area, it is also possible that they may have come from other unknown quarries or collection areas. Allchin reports that there are sources for chert to the west of the Indus in the Kirthar Range (Allchin 1976: 476) but unfortunately he does not identify specific sites. Louis Flam has noted several sites in this general region which have chert artefacts which do not look as if they were made from the characteristic Rohri chert. (Ram 1976-1977 Survey in Sind: Personal Communication). Some of the Harappan sites in Kohistan include Damb Buthi, Dhal Buthi, Karchat, Taung, Nuka, Bandhri and the Early Harappan sites include Phang, Khajur and Bandhni. Furth~r north on the plain, he reports that non-Rohri chert is found at Lohumjo-daro and also at Judeirjo-daro in the Kachhi Piedmont. It is interesting that at one of

t;he piedmont sites, Gorandi, which is near the Kohistan sites, he reports that only a Rohri type chert was to be found.

There are probably many sources for the chert found at these various sites, and one of them may have been the source for the exotic coloured cherts found in our sample. This new data provides a further challenge for sorting out the role of Rohri cherts at Mohenjo-daro and also indicates that their lithic assemblage is not quite as uniform as has been thought in the the past.

DESCRIPTION 0 F MORPHOLOGICAL

CHARACTERISTICS

The morphological features and detailed measurements of the artefacts were first recorded and classified in Karachi, 1979. For the purposes of comparisol1 with Cleland's extensive study of Indus region Iithics, certain modifications were made in our terminology in order to simplify discussion and avoid confusion.

·In this assemblage we have six basic morphological types; true blades (figs. 13.1, 2), crested blades (fig. 13.3/1), blade-like flakes with and without cortex (Cleland 1977: 182), cortex flakes (fig. 13.3/2), secondary flakes (fig. 13.3/3,4), and blade cores (fig. 13.3/5-9). No flake cores were found in this collection nor have they been reported in any of the previous excavations of the site (Table 13.2).

True blades are defined by three characteristics; parallel or nearly parallel lateral edges, triangular or trapezoidal cross sections, and a length: width ratio of 2: 1 or greater. This last criteria is not strictly applied to blade fragments. A complete blade must have a proximal end which is distinguished by a striking platform and a bulb of percussion on the ventral face, and a distal end which in our sample is characterized by a narrowing or widening of the blade to an abrupt edge or point. The very tip often has a 'hinge' or

. ripple and occasionally there is a distal scar on the ventral face.

. Due to the fact that we have 101 blades and blade fragments in our assemblage, it has been possible to compare their mean measurements with those recorded by Cleland for his Indus sample (Table 13.3). Cleland's Indus Region Sample is a combination of all artefacts for which he was able to collect reliable measurements, from a range of different types of sites throughout the Greater Indus region. These sites are from differ

j' !

fill~~j I:~~;";("

\1!t:: .•. ·

i" ~ ... !

120

ing time periods and the samples were collected using differing sampling strategies. His reasons .for lumping all these assemblages together was to determine variation on the regional level, and inferences were made only after looking at each assemblage separately (Cleland 1977: 30-31). The significance of our comparison with his samples lies in the fact that his is the only detailed analysis of the Indus region lithics which is available to us and,by such a comparison, we will be able to isolate features within oUr sample which warrant more study. . Our sample has only six complete blades and

.their mean measurements tend to be slightly longer, narrower and thinner than the mean blade measurements reported by Cleland. He also .reports that in a sample of 36 unbroken blades, those with trapezoidal sections averaged slightly wider and thinner than blades with triangular sections (Cleland 1977: 40-41, no figures given). But then, he states that in a larger sample of broken and unbroken blades, those with trapezoidal sections were found to be somewhat thicker .and they were still somewhat wider than the blades with triangular sections. This cannot be so with our sample where we find exactly the opposite of what Cleland reportS. In our sample, we see 59 examples (58.4%) of· doubleridged blades with trapezoidal cross sections; 18 examples (17.8%) with single ridges and triangular cross sections; and the remaining 24 blades have combinations of single, double or multiple ridges. Double-ridged, trapezoidal section blades have a mean width: thickness of 1: .245 (sd-.079) as opposed to that of triangular section blades, 1: .27 (sd-.06). This is not a significant difference within this small a sample, but by doing this type of analysis on blades from a quarry area such as the Rohri Hills, and comparing it to Mohenjodaro or other major sites, we can determine whether or not these blades were being made by the same workmen and being traded or if they were being made by two different groups.

The mean length to width ratio for complete blades is also slightly different from that reported by Cleland (Table 13.3). Our sample is admittedly qUite small, but the fact that there is a close correlation in the mean width:thickness ratio (1: .363 & 1: .33) and not in the other ratio is cause for closer examination of the discrepancy. In Cleland's sample there is a strong clustering of complete blades (48.3%) between 4 cm and 6 cm


in length. He attributes this to a culturally preferred length of blade, but one might try to examine' the probability of that size of blade to survive unbroken and then take into account the bias of earlier excavators to collecting larger blades, before inferring cultural selectivity.

Looking at other morphological features of the blades, we have a total of 36 proximal portions with striking platforms. Sixteen of the examples (45%) appear to be from unaltered striking platforms, consisting of a flat flake. surface; four examples (11 %) seem to have come from slightly trimmed platforms; and five (13%) appear to be from carefully retouched or faceted striking platforms (fig. 13.1/12, fig. 13.2/1). This retouch is identified as such on the basis of the regularity of the flaking. On the remaining eleven artefacts (31 %) the striking platforms have been fractured by the impact of the blow of blade detachment, and it is impossible to determine the original form of the platform. The mean breadth and thicknes of .the striking platforms are. 71 and .36 cm. respectively. (Measurements were taken on only 11 striking platforms.) The mean thickness: breadth ratio is 1: 2 (minimum is 1: 1.5 and maximum is 1: 4). This ratio' is probably indicative of an indirect percusion or a punch technique and we can see an attempt to keep the platform as thin as possible to obtain thin and yet'sufficiently wide blades. ~eplicative experiments using this same quality of chert would be able to determine if this hypothesis is correct or not. It is interesting to note' that two of the proximal fragments have no bulbar scar.

Among a total of 29 intact distal portions of broken and unbroken blades, we see ten exam- . pies having distal scars (38..5%) and five of these also have a ripple or hinge at the very tip (fig. 13.1/6). The distal scar 'suggests that some form of anvil was being used in blade manufacture. One of the miniature blades has a hinge, but no distal scar could be discerned (4.4%, fig. 13.1/4). The remaining eighteen examples have neither a scar nor a hinge and are distinguished only by their unbroken end (62.1 %).

Looking at the comparative measurements for proximal fragments in Cleland's sample, we can see a basic similaritY in mean length and width, but the fragments in our sample are slightly thinner (Table 13.3). We might also note here that the mean length of the proximal fragments is slightly longer than that of the other fragments

121 Chipped Stone Toafs from Mohenjo-daro

,and is more than half of the mean length of the edge damage and was therefore probably dis-complete blades. This would probably indicate carded after its removal from the rough core. The that there was no conscious snapping-off of the absence of large quanti~es of cortex flakes, speci-J

striking platform to obtain a more uniform, fically long cortex flakeS, suggests that rough core straight edged blade as has been suggested by B. blanks may have' been brought to the site.' Allchin (1979:177). Cleland reportS a 'proto-blade core' from

In terms of distal,fragrrients we have smaller Mohenjo-daro and the large bifacially flaked celtmean measurements for length, width and thick- like objectS" rep<)rted by Marshall and Mackay ness. The midsection fragments from our sample may in fact be rough core blanks (Marshall 1931: have a mean length of 3.64 cm while Cleland Vol.3 pI. _CXXXI, .17-19; and .Mackay 1938: reports a mean of 4.16 cm. The mean width andyoI.3" pI. ,~YI,.?6l. Even if these were not used to thickness correspond quite dosely., ' make' blade' 'tares; they may have been blanks

A further ,comparison for certain measure~' 'used for. the." ijlanufacture of chert weights or ments of blades from Mohenjo-daro can'be '9~he~fh:ert~~~!~~!S~,_;:#J';';~~':','.",·:'-;:., : found in B. Allchin's study (Table 13.3). The, ~.'BIC1de~~e~keSan~'flakeswhich approximate mean width for all of our blade fragments is 1.23 __ -';~I:the"'minimurtrd~iti()ij-for@blacie but lack their cm while Allchin rep<>rts a mean 'of 1.~ em•.Ff?r.'~4;'{~£~;frue~~!r.Y'·~h~,!!9u~a{€9.~"~dion(Cleland whole blades (Without the tiny 'micro'-blades), 1977:_.>182).. _"Ther~Me three examples' of such

-~~'r. .....~ . ". ~"".:",::'"";_.',J.' . ,- ···~::~tr.':f.::·~r.J.._,~~~~::{, ". ~YV,,~·,:~:~j":·,:: ~.' ':-"j~; '<'- ..". ".- . . . our mean width is 1.4 cm compared with 1.79 ern" ;.' .."flakeS,~'Qne'WI~¢oi1exand two without cortex. from Allchin's sample. This latter discrepan~'·_·t.~~'l!,~~·r,;~~j~i~~.~ave. be~n the result of accicould be due to the sampling bias for large blades ~ents iPth~ _courS~ of blade production; and the by the early excavators. , ,'" .': former,. wti~c.h·'isquite 'large, may have been re-

Most of the discussion of measurements haS ,. movedirl "the' 'manufacture of some large chert been with ,reference to the fine-grained cherts. . object, such a~.aweighl. '. However we do have five examples of blades, Cortex 'flakes r€sult from the removal of the made from a coarser and heavier chert. These weathered sulface' of a chert nodule and retain few ~xamples do not show any_ marked difference ! ~ome ofiliiS,weathe,red. sunace on the dorsal face from the other fine-grained cherts in term of the of the flake.· The cortex on o'ur flakes is less than width: thickness ratio. S.o we cannot discuss any ',i ,10 per centof.their dorSal face and are classified morphological difference between two.' How- ' as Trivial Cortex Aakes'by Cleland. The presence •eyer, with a larger sample we might be able to of these flakes suggests that some of the primary determine if there was a sepcialized functional shaping of chert objects or cores was actually role for the coarser grained chert tools, or done at the site. perhaps they appear only through the chance use Secondary flakes are 'variously shaped flakes of a different quality raw material. which have no cortex on any part of the flake.

The second morphological type is the Crested But' .of the secondary flakes found were Blade (Cleland 1977: 181). This term is used to retouched or edge damaged, but since no flake describe the blade-like flake which is removed cores have·been reported from Mohenjo-daro it from a prepared core prior to the removal of the is suggested j}tat these came from the primary blades. Crested Blades 'resemble true blades in ' shaping of some large chert object, and that their proportions, but are marked on the dorsal face by use as tools is not a primary feature of the lithic a sinuous ridge created by alternate (usually) di- industry at Mohenjo-daro. Aake cores have been rectional flaking' (Cleland, ibid.). Our example Is reported from smaller sites such as Amri,Balakot what Cleland calls a partly-crested blade in that- and Allahdino (Cleland 1977). the flaking is only unidirectional (fig. 13.3/1). It The five blade cores found in our sample can looks very much like a platform rejuvenation all be classified as polyhedral cores. They have flake, but in fact the flake scars on the one edge blade negative scars on their entire radius, form-are not blade scars, but rough trimming flakes, ing a cylindrical or conical p<>lyhedron, and their and the blade has been removed from the long st:riking platforms from nearly a 90° angle with axis of a rough core. The presence of this blade at the core face (ibid., 183). One of these cores is a the site is very important since it indicates core bi-polar core, with striking platforms at both ends preparation at· the site itself. This blade has no (fig. 13.3/7). On all but one of the cores the strik

122

ing platform consists of a flat flake scar which has been lightly trimmed along the edges to facilitate blade removal (fig. 13.3/6, 7,8). The one exception is a very small core, 5.4 cjn long and 1.5 x .8 cm thick at midpoint (fig. 13.3/5). On this core~

the flat flake striking platform Is not trimmed at the edges. All of the cores except this small one

, have been're-used In 'a secondary manner such that the 'ridges on dne or more faces have been rubbed and worn smooth.',' ,',';;" " ,:"

Although the Sample is small"the presence of a bi-polar core, a small. alm()st 'Illicfo'~blade core, a partly-crested bla.de~~ha avarletyof cortex arid secondary flakes, ,'proVides 'Us "'for, the first time with a new picture,Qf theUthlc assemblage at Mohenjo-daro.Ma~llhadr~IJOrtedthat~akes and cores' wete foun~;]n --"abundance 'inmost of the houses, but the 'published reports ,did not

":, ), "".,' "'--, .., '

contain ,any' mention,.()f~?rtexor secondary . flakes. Now that we:' have'ci' collection of at least. some of the' manufacturing debris, and a better sampling of blades and blade fragments, we have been able to compare speclfic'morphologlcal features with those reported by other researchers. In some of these comparisons we have seen some discrepancies which can only be resolved by the proper 'implementation of sampling procedures and through detailed experImental and problemoriented studies.' .-. -'

• DESCRIPTION 0 F FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Before discussing the functional characteristics of the assemblage, It must be pointed out that we are only discussing those features which were visible with the aid of a"2OX hand lense. In order to avoid making inconsjstent' subjective decisions, as to which edge damage was the result of retouch and which was attributable to utilization or natural p~ocesses, all edge damage was classed as either light or hea:vY,:;unl~therewas definite evidence for regular-retouch. Ught edge'damage was defined as minute flaking which did not alter the original edge angle or the natural edge line of the blade (one or tWo. isolated flake sears were not consid~red as:,aIteration of the edge line). Heavy edge damage' refers to flaking which has changed the original edge angle and has altered the natural edge line of the ',blade. There' are some examples of definite retouch which can be distinguished by a ''iegtdar Pattern of flaking to form a steep edge oi toaIter the edge line.

Edge damage can .r~tilt in flaking on the do~1 ; J

Frontiers ofthe Indus Civilization

or ventral face, or both tegether. It must be ·remembered that flake scars on the dorsal face result (ram pressure exerted against the edge of the ventral face and vice versa. When you have bifacial flaking, it may be the result of alternating pressure from both directions or the result of

'. heavy pressure directly perpendicular. to .the blade edge. This latter form of flaking generally results in step flaking which gives the appearance of battering. '

Admittedly, the use of the terms heavy and light edge damage are themselves somewhat subjective in that arbitrary visual distinctions are used to define the terms. But, by using these terms, we avoid the assumption inferred by the use of retouch, or uti~tion; that is, intentional reshaping or use by human agency. These terms will also be slightly confusing when trying to compare these arteifacts with previously reported ones, .but until proper experimental studies, and micro-wear analyses are carried out on these blades, the term retouch cannot reliably be applied to the edge

.damage seen on most of these blades. Cleland also noticed this problem and mentions that in the tools from Harappa he saw a 'gradient of edge condition types along which no clear demarcation .between retouch and utilization could be drawn' (Cleland 1977: 127). We would go one step further and say that there is no clear demarcation between edge damage by human agency and edge damage from some natural agencies, such as trampling.

Blades

Looking first at the blades and blade fragments, we see a complex assortment of varying degrees of edge damage on one, or both edges of the blades (Table 13.4a). There is definitely no predominant uniformity of edge damage in this assemblage. Blades with slight edge damage on both edges and with flaking on both faces account for 45.4 per cent of the total,sample of 97 artefacts. There is a macroscopic uniformity among these slightly edge damaged blades, but it must not be assumed that this uniformity is a reality until micro-wear studies have also been done. These blades may have been used in many different functions or on very specific materials. Some of these blades were probably intentionally

"truncated and note should be made of three very short midsections, one of which has retouch (6g.13.1/2-12,13.14).

.

.

1

123

. 11


.. •

7 8

'n{:I~hi• 12

0 eM 5 <::::::> ·'8 17

Small."Micro~Blade8 1-4, . Blades with Slight Edge Damage 5 -15; 010•• On Ridge. 18l Smoothed 17

Fig.13.1. Mohenjo-daro: Blades

..... 13

Four miniature blades which have slight edge damage along one or both edges are unique for Mohenjo-daro (6g. 13.1/1. 2. 3. 4). There is no conclusive evidence for a specialized micro-blade tradition at Mohenjo-daro or any of the other" contemporaneous Indus Period sites, but it appears that these blades were being produced at the site itself. The long blade (4) was found in a level which also contained a miniature blade core of comparable colouring, texture and ~e (6g. 13.3/5). There is a strong possibility that these miniature blades were produced for a specific function since they are so much smaller than the other blades found at the site. .

,Blades with heavy damage,· bilaterally and bifacially,' comprise 16.5 per cent of the sample.

. Some of these heavily edge-damaged blades would probably have been classified as retouched by the earlier excavators, but due to the irregUlarity of the flaking and our ignorance of how these blades were used and what type· of flaking would result from those uses, they have been kept in the category of 'Heavy Edge Damage'. Two of these blades show very heavy flaking on' both edges, with mostly ventral flaking on the left edge and dorsal flaking on the right edge (fig. 13.2/3. 5). Another example, but of coarse

. grained chert. has exactly ·the reverse (fig.

124

13.2/7). An example of heavY bilateral and bifacial 'nibbling' can be seen on two exceptionally long blade fragments (fig. 13.2/1, 2). This nibbling' is actually alternating directional flaking, and can be caused by heavy sawing on ahard substance, i.e. incising sheD (personal experiments) or it can be the result of intentional retouch.

Some of the blade fragments have definitely been retouched along one or both edges. One blade shows regular flaking on both edges running the entire length of the blade, with most of the flaking occurring on the dorsal face (fig.'

.2 3

7


13.2/15). A small truncated fragment shows retouch primarily on the ventral face (6g. 13.2/14). Another fragment has very steep edge angles resulting from heavy retouch on the dorsal face and some light flaking on the ventral face (fig•

. 13.2/16). The distal end olone blade has been retouched to form notches and a blunt end (fig. 13.2/9) and another has been notched on the left edge (fig. 13.2/10).

There is one example of a naturally backed 'edge and point tool' (6g. 13.2/18). The 'backing' actually consists of the negative flake scar of

5

III~

-e=:=:::> 9 8 10

12 1413

<::::::>

11

~--II '1

~ 15

IjjiI

o eM 5

c::::> 16 .~ 17

-18Edge Damage: Heavy 1-8:Slight 12.13; Notched 9.10 Aetouched 11.14-18; Point Tools 17.18

Fig.13.2. Moh.enjo-daro: Blades

125 Chipped Stone Tools from Mohenjo-daro

a blade which was removed prior to this one edge damage does nof generally effeCt the func(there is no evidence for any intentional backing tional class within which a fragment is classified of blades at Mohenjo-daro as is common in Late (Cleland 1977: 62). He bases this on his findings Upper Paleolithic or Mesolithic industries in other' for the Indus Region Sample where, 'in no case parts of India). The right edge of thiS blade has did the mean length, width or thickness of any heavy edge damage and at the distal end there is type of treatment on right edges differ signifibifacial retouch which forms a notch or point, cantly at the .05 confidence level from the same d~pending on which way the tool wasused. treatment on'the left edge' (ibid.). He also 'points

One of the most important blade tools is a out th'at 'There are significant differences in mean multifunctional Borer and Edge Tool, whose deli- lengths, widths and thicknesses for blades with cate point or bit has been broken off at the base each'fYpeof edge treatment, suggesting that (fig. 13.2/17). This blade has be~n retouched , ';': blades were c(;)Jjsistently selected on the basis of bilaterally and bifacially to form, a boring tool at ' their -dimensions for particular types of tasks' the distal end. The lateral edges of the remainder '. ,,(ibid.": Due to'the small size of our sample we of the blade also show some heavy edge damage,' ," "'; hay{i"~()t'~ee'l 'able to~arry out,such a detailed The'point was .25 mm wide at the base and we :':~'anal¥s~':~f this' feature, "but it appears as if our do not know how long it was. This is the firsf';,>fragmerits'do corr~.spo~c:i,toC:lela~c:i'sfin.dings.

'example of a borer to be published, from ~";,\1?~~;'1:}f~~e1f"~U "the'\blades-rec.9vered, only' three Mohenjo-daro 'although Marshall and Mackay ,.;:,,~~.~~r:eJotally~thout ma~roscopicaUy visible edge both reported that they were found. The form ot-','''7~~~~F(lairia''~~'-Twoblade fragmentS ~ere found which this borer is somewhat different from those used ,.' ,':';appear~]o 'hav~ -bee~ rolled or rubbed (6g. at Chanhu-daro for drilling beads, ,but since we" < 13.1/l7). The~o'ne\vhithhas'been illustrated has are missing the bit, we cannot determine what ,~,;~>-:;been 'so much altered that all previous traces of material was being drilled. ,:::edge,darnage-hafJe been removed. The smooth

Two of the blades which have heavy bilateral,":;~:>poUsh ~ohthis fragment suggests that it is similar to and bifacial edge damage also have it glossY ",',>'a blade"-fragment which, Mackay calls a wood sheen on the double ridges on the dorsal face ,~,jpolis,he~(Mackay 1938, Vol. 1: 395). (fig. 13.1/16). This glossy sheen is macroscopi-":~-'>"":~~;:":"~':~:";, . cally distinguishable from that found on the lat_,,~~akes ;" ',r· ~., eral edges of another blade. The ,gloss on this ,~6:F1akesdo,notmake up a large percentage of the blade occurs on the ventral and dcrsal faces of ' - lithic aSs~mblage but of the ones that we do have, the lateral margins, which are also very heavily most show heavy eage damage and retouch, sugedge damaged. Microscopic analysis would be gesting that they played an important role as able to determine if there actually is a difference .'specialized and multifunctional tools. The two in the gloss on these blades, or if the difference in secondary flakes are quite large and one has appearance is due to a varying intensity of utiliza- ~.: l~uge n.otc~es on either edge which have been tion on the same material. formed by. retouch (fig. 13.3/4). Both of the

The remainder of the blades have dissimilar ,notches on this flake show heavy edge damage edge damage on each edge. In 7 per cent of the on the, projecting points of the notch and not in blades, edge damage occurs only on one edge; the concave centre. This type of notched flake 3'.9 per cent have heavy edge damage on the has often be'en referred to as a 'spokeshave' but right edge and slight on the left while 6.9 per cent we really have no indication as to their actual have the reverse, heavy edge damage on the left function. The other secondary flake has bifacial edge and slight on the right. retouch on aD edges and two of the edges con-

Looking at Table 13.4a we can see that for verge'to form what appears to be a point, which is almost every type of combination of edge dam- now broken off (fig. 13.3/3). age on the left and right edges, we have examples Two of the cortex ~akes have heavy edge dam-of the reverse on the right and' left edges of age on one or more edges and they can si~ply be another blade. Cleland comes to the conclusion' 'classified as single and double sided edge tools that so ,long as the classification of a blade is (Table 13.4b). made on the type of edge damage and the size of Cleland was able to examine quite a large the blade, then the left or right-handedneSs of the number of flakes from AIlahdino and Amri,

5

126

21

"' ..,. .........,IiiI

o 5CM

a 5

860 6 1 0

Partly Crested Blade 1; Retouched Flakes 2,3; Double Notched Flake 4; Small Blade Core 5; Polyhedral Blade Cores 6- 9; Bi-polar Core 1.

Indus region, with. only 12 flakes coming from and polished ridges on one or more sides of the the larger site of Harappa. The low number of cores. Macroscopically, no distinct pattern can be flake tools in our sample from Mohenjo-daro distinguished on these polished portions. Mackay (4, about 4%) suggests that the large urban and Marshall both report similar sizes of blade centres were not using specialized flake tools cores with polish on their ridges, and refer to as much as the smaller sites. The larger sites them as burnishers (Mackay 1938, Vol. 1: 395;

9

and suggests that flakes may· have been used in a greater range of specialized functions than blades. He found that flakes tended to be large, and that there was a much higher frequency of point tools and multifunctional tools on flakes than on blades. Most of the flakes which Cleland studied came from the smaller sites of the


may have been using copper-bronze tools for' the same functions that flake tools were being used for in the smaller sites.

Blade Cores

All four of the larger blade cores in our sample show secondary utilization in the form of abraded


Marshall 1931: 458). A more detailed micros_copic analysis could probably provide 'us with a better idea of what caused this polish. The small blade core shows no sign of polish on any of the ridges and possibly it was too small to be used as I - the larger cores were.

I Functional Types ; I In this paper, the term 'edge tool' has been used

to describe the variously utilized or edge-dama-I

I 'ged blades and flakes. In the past, all such ' ,probably refering to Site A, the low mound on the artefacts were classified as single or double side- ,:eaStern edge ofthe main mound (Marshall 1925scrapers, but in view 'of our previous examinatiori~:c,>;26:86), but unfortunately,' none of these very and discussion of edg~ damage, we can see that,':--~_-.:irnportant ~ools_wereever published. Evidently,

! various activities such as cUtting, sawing, incising, ,~,o::.{~~{sorne of tHese ,tools'-Vere,collected because D.H. :j and scraping, all contribute to various fomjs of ,~·~:-t~Tj'G~rdon~-'in' his re~~nalysis' of the materials from j

edge damage. The term 'scraper' refers to a tool~·~f~;H~oth~Marshal~'s.<:~nd",MackaY'sexcavations;,;1 with retouch or utilization basically on one face~f-:~l"~treports':~thatout.ot-l,408 specimens, ,'22 were the working edge, and in our discussion of func~':.:',._::;,,~::"r~to,uchedalo(lg on~side',;14 were retouched on I

! tional types, this term would be misleading. "':.i{::,':~~}~h!rpoth ~d:es'~indtiaing'three retouched arid worked I ; On. the basis of some casual experim~nts u~ing""~',~-r~'f tC':"Jorm ~ pOii-lted a~l-like t~ol ....' (Gordon &

,:1 chert blades collected from the surface·~af.~( "c,HiCf()ti~1940: _7)~·i'~tf~'~~;\,·~'{,~~~~i:~t~ii, Mohenjo-daro it was noted that sawing or 'incisirig:,q¥r:'?Y~±f\J9tche(fflakes have b~en reported from many a relatively hard substance such as shell or steat-",,),:;:.~.c,~,~;to~ieinporaneous,,-;-tndussites but Marshall ite resulted in light to heavy flaking on the dorsal -;Y--~::';-:re~rts)hat they were- riot found at Mohenjoand ventral margin of the blade. When a pieceoi;"0'4aro-'-(Marsqall 1931:458). Interestingly enough, conch shell was sawn to the depth of 1 mm or to '(f:.,>"w~.hav~.orie'~light1y· n,otched blade and even a where the blade became pinched on the groove, -'. '~· .... -double-notched fl~ke. Furthermore, Gordon rewe foun'd that larger flakes were chipped off both .. i ports that he found six blades with nicks on one

I .faces of the blade and the edge was qUickly re- .,:(j¥~,:{_~deand seven with nicks on both sides of the duced to an irregular cutting edge. It could be

I seen from this experiment and by examining the cut marks on the shell, that stone blades could be used for incising the shell, but they could not

'j I have been used to cut off sections of the shell for I making bangles or other ornaments. No denti

culated blades have been reported from Mohenjo-daro and since we do have specialized I

I copper-bronze saws; it is doubtful that stone

i;

, blades were used for the deep sawing of hard substances such as stone, shell, or wood.

I It is not likely that all the blades we have, repre-I sent tools used for incising or general cutting

J purposes. The small truncated fragments suggest a very specialized function and these fragments 1

1 were probably hafted in some man'ler. The blades which have a heavy gloss on· the

j·1 dorsal ridges and heavy edge damage, do not

appear to have been used for cutting grain or grasses, but what their function might have been is unknown. The other blade, with gloss along both edges, could possibly have been used for '1

cutting grain, and through microscopic analysis this could be substantiated. , Multifunctional tools provide us with a little

better insight ~s to their functional roles on the basis of distinctive morphological features. However, these too must undergo further analysis to ,determine what'types of raw materials,they were being used on and exactly what part of the tool

' was 'getting the' most wear. Marshall mentibns ',' that borers were found in one ar(la of the site,

L' proximal- end, 'pOsSibly to' take a fastening, and two were worked into a definite tang' (Gordon 'and Gordon 1940: -7).

Although we did find blades and blade cores which had been rubbed and polished, our sample does not _have any examples of' the polis~ed,

'spindle shaped 'burnishers' reported by the earlier excavators._ If anyone of these types of

' artefacts had been used to actually burnish wood, metal, or stone, we ~hould be able to'distinguish

~ -different patterns of abrasion; and if they were used on metal, X-Ray Florescence' Analysis might be able to tell us what type of metal they were used on.

It is extremely important for us to begin experimental studies and microscopic analyses of the tools from the Indus region sites, in order that we can better understand the functional role of stone tools at these various sites. The range of morphological types is not that large, and it appears that stone toolS have a very specific role in the predominantly copper-bronze technology of the

l__________

128

Indus Civilization. It is therefore concievable that we will be able to determine the place and func

. tion of these stone tools during this period.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Having, presented a detailed description of the morphological and functional characteristicS of the lithic assemblage, we can see that there is more diversity in the chipped stone industry at Mohenjo-daro th~n was reported by the earlier excavators. Furthermore, we would expect that if we had more representative samples at other large urban sites; such as Harappa and Chanhu- , daro, we would see greater diversity in the lithic assemblages there·as well.

The idea that biades served only as general purpose household knives or all purpose tools (Marshall 1931: 458), was basically due'to a lack of detailed analysis. We see in our assemblage, several' different forms of multifunctional and specialized blade and flake tools. We also have a wide range of edge tools with varying degrees of edge damage and utilization. The presence of miniature blades and a blade core provides a whole, new facet of the blade technology in practice at Mohenjo-daro, and this probably .reflects an undiscovered feature of blade technology at many other contemporaneous sites.

The assumption that blades were being removed at the site was put forth by Marshall, but due to the lack of cortex flakes and other man

~,-2 ufacturing debris, there has been some doubt as to what proportion of the blcide$ were actually being detached at the site and how many were beiJig brought in from other manufacturing areas. The examples of a crested blade, cortex flakes and blade cores in our sample suggest that at least some of the blade production happened at the site itself.

Although Marshall had reported that there were no short flakes at the site, either notched or un-notched, in our sample we have found several examples of 'short flakes' as well as two examples

. of notched tools. The fact that we have a range of' specialized

tools within this assemblage brings us to the question of explaining their role within a somewhat advanced copper-bronze technology. The earlier

,excavators also addressed themselves to this , Q4esti()ri:'

"- ,, 'It is evident that in those periods (Intermediate

and Late) metal working was in an advanced


state and flint implements were no longer in demand' (Marshall 1931: 458). He also states that there may have existed 'a religious conservatism, Which required the use of the traditional stone knife at meals instead of the new fashioned metal ones', (ibid.: 36). ,

Mackay found less concentrations of stone tools in his excavations and states that 'No arrowheads nor weapons of flint have as yet been found, and though this has been termed a

- Chalcolithic Civilization owing to the presence of these long flint flakes, copper and bronze had already practically ousted stone' (Mackay 1938: 395).

Our data, on 'the .~ontrary, suggest that stone tools still remained an important part of the tech- " nological assemblage. Looking at some of the other contemporaneous Indus Period sites, "we . find more supportive evidence for this idea. At Kot Diji we have a site where the production of blades was a- very important feature, possibly even for trade with other Indus Valley sites: Also at this same site, there'appears to be an increase in multifunctional tools '10 the Mature Harappan phase (Cleland 1977: 100-101). Cleland suggests that this pattern may be due to changing economic activities, or may be due t~ bias in the sample, but it is probably not related to the introduction of a copper-bronze technology.

At Chanhu-daro, Mackay found several specialized ,stone tools, chert drills, made from blades; chert saws; polished polyhedral cores, which he calles 'burnishers'; and he also published what appears to be a crested blade (Mackay 1943: 211,230; pI. XCII, 27, 28, 29; pl.LXXXVIa, 1, 2, 3a, 3b). We can see from our sample and from assemblages from other sites, that stone tools were by no means 'practically ousted', but that, in fact, there was a specific part of the technology where stone tools were indispensable.

Until we can undertake more detailed microscopic analyses of edge wear, we cannot make specific functional interpretations of the more common edge-damaged blades and flakes. It is possible that these tools had metal counterparts, but that being made of stone, they were more economical and in some cases probably more efficient. Marshall points out that 'it has been found' by experiment that the sharp chert flakes cut steatite very well' (Marshall 1925-26: 86). The author's own experiments with chert

129 . Chipped Stone Tools/rom Mohenjo-daro'

blades show that they are very effective for incis

ing shell, and do not need to be resharpened so long as the incision does not go deep enough to pinch the edge of the blade. The outer surface of the conch shell is extremely hard, and even traditional steel tools used in Bengal for cutting and incising shell, must be repeatedly resharpened in the course of a day's work.

We could go on and cite many more examples of possible uses of stone tools where they would be more effective than metal tools, but our real goal must be to determine as precisely as possi:' ble, actual uses of these stone tools. We can ac

complish this only if we have large samples of stratigraphically excavated materials which have .

REFERENCES

Allchin, B. 1976. Paleolithic Sites in the Plains of Sind and their Geographic Implications. Geographical Journal. Vol. 142(3); 471-489.

__. 1979. Stone Blade Industries of Early Settle. ments in Sind as Indicators of Geographical and , Socio-economic Change: In South Asian Archaeol

ogy, 1977. Naples. Vol. 1; 173-211.. AlIchin, B., Gudie, A and Hegde, K T.M. 1978. The

Prehistory and Paleogeography of the Great, Indian Desert. New York. Academic Press.

.Clelan~ James H. 1977. Chalcolithic'and Bronze Age 2'·' Chipped Stone Industries of the Indus Region. .",., Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Dept; of Anthropology,

:University of Virginia. .' Dales,' G.i=.. 1965. Preliminary Note On Excavations.

been recorded, measured, and analysed wlth·.:..;.;~,:, .. !\rchaeology:VoI.18(2); 148-149:. .' . specific problems and hypotheses in mind. To. .."'~'/!':!'>' ·• ..··..;!~i 966' Th' p r f th H . S i ntiJ' supplement such analyses. of archaeolomcaf \.:~r;!~.)~.;~'.;A;:"<';'\'iB:~'ii.l\'::·:M"i;::t:i""t.".e1·'4e(c51)n~.~.. : e arappans.. c e . I IC . ~. . ·;····";::·mencan. vo. 2 .. materials, we also need to conduct technological. j.:;A.<..~~>.1977.;Jhe Mohenjo-daro Roods Reconsiand functional experiments. ~sing local cherts, ..·;~~';<dered~ Jou~.· 'bj'the Paleontological Society of India. which would be similar to those used at archa-.:: .. Vol20'251-260 (for 1975 issue) eological sites. As more studies of this nature are' /~:>·~G~rdon~-b.H.andGordon, M.E. 1940.Mohenjo-daro: carried out, we can slowly begin to eliminate. ,.".,",Some Ot.>servatioris on Indian Prehistory. Iraq. Volsome of the conjectural statements in our discus-.· '.vn, 7. London. ' sion of the technology of the Indus Civilization and begin asking questions about the people who were using the tools.

. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr.G.F. Dales for providing me with the opportunity to study the Iithics which he excavated from Mohenjo-daro in 1964-65, and I would also like to thank him and Dr.J.D. Clark for their comments and suggestions which were invaluable in the preparation of this report.

'; Mack.ay, .' F:.J.H. 1938. Further Excavations at .Mohenjo-daro. Vols. I&11. New Delh~.

-.-'-'. 1943.. Chanhu~daro ExcavatIons, 1935-36. Amencan Onental Society. New Haven. C.

._._.-. i928-29. Excavations at Mohenjo-daro. Annual Report of 'the Archaeological Survey of In

"dia; 67..75. Marshall, Sir John. 1925-26. Excavations at Mohenjo

claro. A.R.A.S.l.; 72-93. . __...._,.. 1931. Mohenjo-d~ro and' the IndusCiviliza

tion. Vols.I, II & III. London. ...... Wheeler, Sir Mortimer. 1972. Civilization of the Indus '>. VaIley and Beyond. London 1966. New York: .

McGraw-Hill.

---~------_... --_._-._._-_._ .. - --

Frontiers of the Indus Civilization130

Table 13.1: Relaltive Frequendes of Colour and Texture in Chipped Stone Artefacts from Mohenjo-daro.

Texture Fane Coarse Total

Colour Number' % Number % Number

GREY Plain 70 4 Banded 17 Mottled 3 Motw/white 2 Motw/brown 2 Band.w/brown 5 w/BlackDot 1

'ISubtotal 100 86.95% 4 3.5% 104 90.%

.' BROWN-GREY .Plain 6 Banded 1 Mottled 1

Subtotal 8 6.95% 1 .9% 8 8.%

DARK-BROWN to RED-BROWN Plain 1 Banded 1

Subtotal 2 ( 1.7% 2 2.%

Total 110 95.6% 5 4.4% 115 100.%

Table 13.2: Classification of Chipped Stone Artefacts From Mohenjo-daro; Comparison of Three Separate Studies of .-,) Different Samples.

Dales '64-65 No.'" . No. % No.·

. Allchin '761

No. % Cleland '75-762

No.· No. % No. Total

%

Complete Blades Blade Fragments Reworked Blades Crested Bladel Long. Trimming Bladelike Hakes with Cortex w/out Cortex Aakes w/Cortex w/outCortex Blade Cores Core Fragments Cores in Prep.

~ 6 95

1

4 1 2 3 5 2

5

5.2 82.6 647

10

3.5

4.3

_20 4.4 5

31 657

17

79

25 1

3.83 81.21

2.10

9.64

4.0 .12

1

1

1 7

2

1

5. 70.

20.

5.

38 759

23

84

30 2

4.06 81.10

2.45

8.97

3.21 .21

115 100% 810 100% 11 100% 936 100.%

I(Allchin, 1979:181) J(Cleland, 1977:227, Table 1b) (* We have combined some of the categories in order to prepare the comparative chart)


TABLE 13.3 Mean Measurements and Morphological Types; Comparison With Mean MQSUfeIIlents*

LENGlH WIDllf nncKNESS NUMBER MEAN RATIO BU\DES mean s.d. mean s.d mean Sod ofCases %

Proximal Fragments 4.83 1.5 1.35 ·.35 .33 .12 30 26.1 Cleland's Data 4.77 i.7 1.35 .41 .41 .13 583

Midsections 3.64 1.17 1.31 .3 ..32 .09 42 36.5 Cleland's Data 4.16 1.59 1.3 '.41 .37 .12 642

Distal Fragments 4.49 1.32 1.03 .2· .36 .17 23 20.0 Cleland's Data 4.77 1.72 1.34 .5 .40 .17 261

(Total for Fragments) 4:32 1.23 .34 95 (Cleland"s Data) 4.5 1.33 .39 1486 (AlIchln's Data) 3.65 1.40 647 L:W W:T

man s.d. mean s.d: Complete Blades . 6.32 2.5 1.12 .5 .38 .22 ~ 6 5.2 1:.188 .08 1:.363 .16

Cleland's Data 5.59 1.96 L29 .5 .43 .19 275 .47 .17 .33 .08 AlIchln's Data 6.51 1.79 31

BU\DECORES W:L T:L I I Double Platform 10.7 1:4.03 I Single Platform 5.3 2.7 1:2.7' .74 1:4.03 2.02

···1I CleJand's Data 5.75 2.2 2.4 ..9 3.2 1.2 I I CRESTED BU\DE 4.8i BU\DE-UKE FLAKE w/Cortex 13.2I w/oCortex 5.9 1.7

CORTEX FLAKE (10% or less) 3.66 .85 SECONDARY FLAKE 5.75 .2j

TOTAL ARTEFACTS (In OurSample) 115 100%

* From Cleland's Indus Region Sample (1977, Table 48c3a)8ndADchln'.SampIe riCMrlthe Mohenjo-daro Museum (i979: Table 2) (N.B. The width measurement for ow. aampIe IS the mean wtdih of the blade.) .

TABLE 13.4a: Relative Frequencies of Edge Damage Types on Each Edg8 of~ BLADE and B~E FRAGMENTS, Including Retouched Tools. - - . . -

:. {'i~·'L;~t: ..~._ .,

EDGE DAMAGE

SUGHT HEAVY HEAVY-R HEAVV-L HEAVY-R HEAVY-L SIGHT-R SIGHT-L

I FLAKING BOTH BOTH SUGHT-L SUGHT-R ONLY O.rn.y . ONLY . ONLY TOTAL

ONEEDGE D&V 1 1% 2 2.1% 2 2.1% 1 1% 6I BOTH EDGES 0 & V 44 43.4% 16 16.5% 3 3% 5 5.2% 68

J L-D&V R-DORSAL 2 2.2% 2

I L-D&V R-V£NTRAL 1% 1 L-D&V R-UNDIST 2 2% 2 L-DORSAL R-D&V 1 1% 1 L-VENTRAL R-D&V 1 1% 1 L-VENTRAL

I

R-DORSAL 2 2.1% 2I L-DORSAL I R-VENTRAL 2 2.1% 2i

I

BOTH EDGES DORSAL RETOUCH 1 1% 2 2.1% 3

BOTH EDGES VEN1RAL RETOUCH 1% 1

UNDIST. 7 7.2% 7

I TOTAL % 56 57.8 23 23.7 4 4.1 7 7.2 . 1 1.0 3 3.1 2 2.1 1 1.0 97 100%

Slight = Slight Edge Damage Both = Both. lateral Edges Undist. :or UndIstIngu1shabie Heavy = Heavy Edge Damage Dorsal = Aaklng on Dorsal Face R = Right Edge Ventral = Flaking on Ventral Faca l = left Edge 0& V = Aaklng on 80th Faces

j

.,i J

132 Frontiers of the Indus Civilization

TABLE 13 4b: Relative Frequencies of Blade Morphological Types and Rake Types

BLADES N9. % FLAKEs No. TOTAL %

EDGE TOOLS ,EDGE TOOLS .Single Edge 6 6.25 ... Single Edge 1 8 . 7.7 Double Edge 86 88.75 ." Double Edge 1 88 85.5

Multifunctional -'MuItifu~~omll . Borer & Edge Tool 1 1.0 .,Pointand Edge Tool 1

Notched & Edge Tool 1 1~0 .. "~ .: Double Notched Rake 1 Point & Edge Tool 1 1.0 Side & End 'Scraper' ", 2 2.0 7 6.8

97 103 too%

,-

,,; ,~, ' ..

"

. ~

I

Kenoyer1984 Chipped Stone Tools from Mohenjo-daro

Documents

Transcript of Kenoyer1984 Chipped Stone Tools from Mohenjo-daro