Chapter 15: Appendices | Download PDF
Chapter 16: References | Download PDF
New Introductory Paragraph by Randall Law, 2024
The final section features extensive appendices containing all the data produced for this book, several
smaller reports on other rock types (basalt, lapis lazuli, “Ernestite”) not covered in the main text,
ancillary characterization and/or experimental studies focused on specific materials, and 52 pages of
references.
---
APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Provenience vs. Provenance
“Provenience” and “provenance” are closely related words. I have always understood the former term to mean a thing’s place of origin or source and the latter term to mean a thing’s history going back to and including it’s origin or source. Provenance is frequently used by museum curators and art historians when discussing an object’s or artwork’s chain of ownership from, if possible, the time of it’s discovery or creation to the present day. In archaeology, provenience can refer to two somewhat different things. There can be “archaeological provenience” (almost always referred to simply as provenience), which is both the site at which an artifact is recovered and its original location in three-dimensional space at said site, and then there can be “source provenience”, which is the geographic location or area from which the raw material (rock, mineral, wood, shell, paste, temper, whatever) used to fashion the object in question was acquired. Because I was attempting to locate the raw material sources of stone or metal artifacts, I decided be a little more specific and call my work a “geologic provenience” study.
I felt confident that I was using the term provenience correctly. After all, it is in Weigand and others (1977: 24) often cited paper that the basic assumption of raw material sourcing was first made explicit as the “Provenience Postulate” (emphasis added). Of course I was aware from reading the literature pertaining to sourcing studies that the term provenance was used more frequently than provenience, but for the longest time I thought of this as simply an alternate spelling, perhaps one used more commonly in the UK and Europe. Then some people started to tell me that this was not an issue like color vs. colour. Instead, they said that I was, supposedly, using the term provenience incorrectly. But no one could tell me when, why or who decided that provenance was the correct usage, only that it was the convention. Around the time I was finalizing my dissertation I read the book Geoarchaeology by Rapp and Hill (2006) in which they plainly state (ibid: 222) that provenience is an artifact’s archaeological context and provenance is an artifact’s raw material source. Not really convinced but wanting to be correct, I hit ctrl-H and replaced all of the proveniences in the text of my thesis with provenances. At my dissertation defense, however, one of my committee members said that provenance was actually the incorrect usage and bluntly told me that he would not sign my thesis unless I changed it back to provenience. Since I agreed with him anyway (and wished to graduate) I happily did so.
For this book, I will continue to refer to my work as geologic provenience analyses of stone and metal artifacts. I realize that this swimming against the stream. A quick perusal of titles, abstracts and keywords using the online search engines for journals like Archaeometry, The Journal of Archaeological Science, and Geoarchaeolog y clearly shows that the provenance is overwhelmingly favored over provenience in published articles about artifact sourcing studies. Even so, the issue is still debated1) and the latter term is still sometimes used by researchers (see Grave et al. 2009 for a recent example). I am certain that I will be continue to be told by some (perhaps many) people that my usage of the word provenience is incorrect. But it makes much more sense to me and I don’t think there will be any serious confusion because of it as to the nature of the research I am actually doing.
Appendix 2.1: Major divisions of geologic time
Appendix 2.2: Remarks and observations on the attrition of stone in riverbeds
Some scholars have suggested that certain varieties of stone used by Indus peoples may have been procured from secondary contexts, such as the beds of rivers flowing from mountain ranges, rather than from in situ geologic formations of those materials (see citations on p. 36). For example, a single, water-rounded pebble of lapis lazuli discovered at the Harappan outpost of Shortughaï in northern Afghanistan promoted the excavator of the site to speculate that some procurement activities involving that stone may have been “no more than gathering lapis in the riverbed” (Francfort 1985: 129). The riverbed in question is that of the Kokcha. It’s upper reaches transect the zone where lapis lazuli occurs in the Badakshan district and the site of Shortughaï is near (5 km away) its terminal confluence with the Amu Darya (Francfort 1984b: 302). One may wonder at what point along the Kokcha’s several hundred kilometer length was the pebble collected? Lapis lazuli is not a particularly hard (Mohs 5 to 6) or tough stone. It seems unlikely that a piece of it could have been rolled very far in a riverbed among tough boulders of granite and limestone before it was completely obliterated. And what about other types of softer or harder materials? Although I conducted no formal studies of the attrition rates of different kinds of stone in riverbeds (see Werrity 1992 for such as study), I tried to keep this issue in mind as I visited raw material sources and river drainages across the Greater Indus region.
In early 2001, I visited the Bannu Archaeological Project’s (BAP) excavations at Lewan (Appendix 2.2 Figure 1 A) and noted among the lithic debris visible on site’s surface numerous pieces of chert and jasper with rounded, weathered exteriors (Appendix 2.2 Figure 1 B). These were clearly fragments of waterworn cobbles/pebbles. When discussing potential sources of raw material for the lithic industries at Lewan and other prehistoric settlements in the western Bannu Basin, archaeologists working there have pointed to alluvial contexts in the “immediate locality” of those sites (Allchin 1981: 234), i.e., the conglomerate fans at the base of the Waziristan Hills or the beds of the region’s many intermittent streams and rivers (Morris et al. 2001: 131). However, when BAP member Justin Morris and I traveled from Lewan to the nearby bed of the Tochi-Gambila river system in order to collect samples of chert/jasper (Appendix 2.2 Figure 1 C) we found very little material at all (as I recall, we came away with only a single palm-sized pebble of grayish chert). Now it’s true that we didn’t search that long (perhaps an hour) and that the bed of river was dry and dusty (if it had been wet it would have certainly been much easier to spot chert/jasper pebbles). Under better conditions and with more time, ancient peoples with greater experience than we would have almost certainly been more successful. Even so, the Tochi-Gambila river system, at least at the point on it where Justin Morris and I searched, is not exactly brimming chert or jasper. Perhaps the richer source areas lay closer to or within the hills of Waziristan, which were visible from the bed of the Tochi, 12 km to the west (Appendix 2.2 Figure 2).
Later that same year, while conducting geologic sampling in North Waziristan, I visited three jasper outcrops in the region that lay some 50 to 70 km due west of the Bannu Basin sites (Appendix 2.2 Figure 3). Red jasper at occurs at Barzai (Appendix 2.2 Figure 4 A; see also Figure 6.3 A & B) and large boulders of the material erode directly into the adjacent stream bed or nala (Appendix 2.2 Figure 4 B). Another red jasper outcrop is found at Masha Alga (Appendix 2.2 Figure 4 C) and brecciated jasper-chalcedony occurs at Sadgai (see Figure 6.3 C & D). Importantly, the nalas along which each of these occurrences are located eventually drain into the Tochi River. We had to drive our jeep along these intermittent stream beds to get to and from the sources. As we drove away from the outcrops, the size and amount of jasper fragments visible in the nalas dropped of quickly and, in fact, became, fairly rare after only a few kilometers. By the time I walked a transect of the Tochi River bed (Appendix 2.2 Figure 4 D) just east of the town of Miran Shah (this was still well within the Waziristan Hills, around 45 km west of Lewan), I was only able to find a few fragments of jasper (Appendix 2.2 Figure 4 E & F). Although cursory, I feel fairly confident in this qualitative assessment as it was done not long after a rain and the red jasper fragments I saw stood out prominently.
Base d these obser vations and others, my conclusion is that alluvial fans or riverbeds at the bases of mountain ranges are good sources only for tough materials like sandstone, quartzite and granite. Although stone like chert and jasper can also sometimes be found in such contexts, to have a reliable supply of large, good quality pieces of those raw materials it is necessary to travel fairly close to the original source. For softer or more fractureprone types of rock it’s a non-starter. To reach the Daradar steatite deposit (see Figure 7.18) in the Kurram Agency, FATA, I had to travel the last several kilometers up a steep boulder filled streambed. It was only within sight of the source (less than a 100 meters from it) that I began to observe water-rounded pieces of steatite (Appendix 2.2 Figure 5). If you’re going to travel that far you may as well go all of the way. Ancient peoples making the arduous journey up the Kokcha River Valley in order to acquire a valuable stone like lapis lazuli certainly would have collected water-rolled pebbles of the material whenever they encountered them. It is highly likely that such opportunistic procurement happened relatively near the actual deposits and that the ancient peoples would have then continued on to the mining areas themselves.
The rest of Appendices is in the attached PDF below.
Images
Appendix 2.2 Figure 1.1 [A] Bannu Archaeological Project excavations at the site of Lewan. [B] A red jasper pebble fragment on the surface of Lewan. [C] Searching for chert and jasper in the bed of the Tochi River.
The Chapter section titles are:
Appendix 3.1: Mohs’ Mineral Hardness scale.
Appendix 4.1: X-ray diffraction analyses of Harappan rock and mineral artifacts.
Appendix 4.2: Representative XRD scans.
A. Steatite fragment H2000/2084-1
B. Steatite fragment H2000/8983-3
C. Steatite fragment H95/5729-99
D. Copper ore fragment H90/2070-12
E. Copper ore fragment H95/4943-8
F. Composite of four XRD scans of vesuvianite-grossular garnet fragments
G. Alabaster fragment H2000/9999-130
H. Lapis lazuli blocklet H2000/9999-77
I. “Ernestite” fragment H2000/3317-4
J. “Ernestite” fragment H2000/3317-3
K. “Ochre” fragment H90/3073-7, 4
L. “Ochre” fragment H2000/9999-122
M. Lead ore fragment H90/3011-147
N. Lead ore fragment H99/8857-1
O. Lead ore fragment H90/3193-6
P. Serpentine fragment H94/4999-23
Q. Serpentine bead H2000/9508-2
R. Calcite fragment H2000/2110-77
S. Fluorite fragment H97/6977-7
T. Mica fragment H87/62.
U. Prehnite fragment H96/6303-475
V. Sulfur fragment H96/6219-43
W. Turquoise fragment H94/4999-213
X. Chagai “turquoise” sample from J.-F. Jarrige
Appendix 4.3: Characterization of two basalt artifacts using EMPA.
Appendix 4.4: The Lapis Lazuli Question
Introduction
Lapis lazuli in Ancient South Asia
Potential Harappan lapis lazuli sources
Doubts about a source of lapis lazuli in the Chagai Hills
A sulfur isotope study of lapis lazuli artifacts and source samples
The sample set
Sample preparation and analysis
Results
Recent lapis lazuli provenience research using other techniques
Conclusion
Appendix 4.5: The “Ernestite” Problem.
“Ernestite”
XRD analysis of “Ernestite”
EMPA of “Ernestite”
What is “Ernestite”?
Where does “Ernestite” come from?
“Ernestite” as a drill-making material
Conclusion
Addendum - A small test
Appendix 4.6: A Late Harappan Kaolinite Bead.
Discovery
Identification
VP-SEM
XRD
Conclusion
Appendix 4.7: The identification, characterization and potential sources of a nephrite jade amulet recovered from the cemetery area at Harappa.
Description and discovery
Identification and characterization
XRD
VP-SEM
Conclusion
Potential sources
Possibilities for future studies
Appendix 5.1: All querns and mullers (whole and fragmentary) recovered from excavations and surveys at Harappa from 1986 to 2004.
Appendix 5.2: Grindingstones in the Harappa Museum from pre-1986 excavations.
Appendix 6.1: Elemental concentrations for 9 black chert artifacts from Harappa
Appendix 6.2: Elemental concentrations for black chert samples from the Bolan Pass and Jammu.
Appendix 6.3: Elemental concentrations for black chert samples from Sakesar Limestone, Salt Range
Appendix 6.4: Elemental concentrations for tan-gray chert artifacts from Harappa and Nagwada.
Appendix 6.5: Elemental concentrations for tan-gray chert samples from four Rohri Hills locations.
Appendix 6.6: Elemental concentrations for tan-gray chert samples from Balochistan, the NWFP and the Punjab.
Appendix 6.7: Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients for figures in Chapter 6 generated using canonical discriminant analysis.
Appendix 7.1: Type, context and CDA prediction information for the unfired steatite artifacts from Harappa analyzed for this study
Appendix 7.2: Steatite deposits in Pakistan and India sampled for this study
Appendix 7.3: INAA data for steatite samples collected from deposits in Pakistan and India.
Appendix 7.4: INAA data for steatite artifacts from Harappa.
Appendix 7.5: INAA data for unfired steatite artifacts from Mohenjo-daro (MD).
Appendix 7.6: INAA data for unfired steatite artifacts from Mehrgarh (MR) and Nausharo (NS).
Appendix 7.7: INAA data for unfired steatite artifacts from Gola Dhoro (GD), Nagwada (NGW), unknown Loralai site (LOR) and Tepe Hissar (TH) and Mitathal (MTL).
Appendix 7.8: Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients for scatterplots in Chapter 7 generated using canonical discriminant analysis.
Appendix 7.9: Cluster Analysis (Complete linkage) of all steatite artifacts and geologic samples.
Appendix 7.11: Cluster Analysis (Complete linkage) of all 177 steatite artifacts.
Appendix 7.12: Notes on experimental heating of black steatite from Mehrgarh.
Appendix 7.13: XRD characterization of six white beads from Mehrgarh.
Appendix 7.14: XRD and EMPA characterization of steatite beads from Harappa, Loralai, and Gola Dhoro.
Appendix 7.15: EMPA, VP-SEM and XRD observations of a steatite seal boss from Harappa.
Introduction
Boss description and summary of past work on seal surface treatments
EMPA
VP-SEM / EDS
Surface layer in section
Micro-crack
Patchy exterior surface
XRD
Conclusion
Appendix 7.16: Heating and characterization of steatite from various geologic sources.
Appendix 7.17: Is it possible to source fired steatite artifacts using INAA?
Introduction
Experimental heating and INAA
Results
Conclusion
Appendix 8.1: INAA data for agate samples from Ratanpur, Gujarat.
Appendix 8.2: INAA data for agate samples from Mardak Bet, Gujarat.
Appendix 8.3: INAA data for agate samples from Khandek, Gujarat.
Appendix 8.4: INAA data for agate artifacts from Shahr-i-Sokhta, Iran.
Appendix 8.5: INAA data for agate artifacts from Harappa.
Appendix 8.6: INAA data for agate artifacts from Mehrgarh (AMR) and Nausharo (ANS).
Appendix 8.7: INAA data for agate artifacts from Mohenjo-daro (AMD), Chanhu-daro (ACD) and Nagwada (ANGW).
Appendix 8.8: First predicted group memberships (PGMs) for agate artifacts generated from three CDAs in Chapter 8.
Appendix 8.9: Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients for the scatter and box plots in Chapter 8 generated using canonical discriminant analysis.
Appendix 9.1: EMPA of archaeological and geologic vesuvianite-grossular samples. 694 Archaeological fragments
Geologic Samples
Appendix 9.2: Analyses of vesuvianite-grossular fragments from Mohenjo-daro.
Appendix 9.3: XRD of massive vesuvianite from Kumbhalgarh Forest, Rajasthan.
Appendix 9.4: INAA data for vesuvianite-grossular samples from Harappa and Mohenjo-daro (MDV).
Appendix 9.5: INAA data for vesuvianite-grossular samples from Sakhakot-Qila (FATA-SQ) and Taleri Mohammed Jan (B-TMJ).
Appendix 9.6: INAA data for vesuvianite-grossular samples from Kumbhalgarh Forest Reserve, Rajasthan (Raj-K).
Appendix 9.7: Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients for Figure 9.8.
Appendix 9.8: Six alternate clustering strategies using the vesuvianite-grossular comparative data.
Appendix 9.9: Is the vesuvianite-grossular / “Ernestite” association genuine?
Appendix 10.1: Sulfur and strontium isotope values for alabaster artifacts from Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, Rehman Dheri and Musa Khel.
Appendix 10.2: Sulfur and strontium isotope values for geologic samples of alabaster from sources in the Sulaiman Mountains, Salt Range and Kohat.
Appendix 10.3: List of pink bi-pyramidal quartz crystals (Mari “Diamonds”) from Harappa.
Appendix 11.1: Archaeological limestone samples from Harappa analyzed for this study.
Appendix 11.2: Results of ICP-MS analysis of the initial limestone set
Appendix 11.3: Results of INAA analysis of the initial limestone set.
Appendix 11.4: Results of ICP-AES analysis of the expanded geologic limestone sample set.
Appendix 11.5: Results of ICP-AES analysis of the expanded Harappan limestone sample set
Appendix 11.6: Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients for figures in Chapter 11 generated using canonical discriminant analysis.
Appendix 11.7: Hierarchical cluster analysis of initial limestone samples set INAA data.
Appendix 12.1: Pb isotope data for ore samples from lead deposits in India, Pakistan and Oman.
Appendix 12.2: Context and Pb isotope data for 19 archaeological lead ore fragments from Harappa.
Appendix 12.3: Pb isotope data for lead artifacts, slags, lumps and residues from Harappa.
Appendix 12.4: Pb isotope data for lead artifacts from Shahr-i-Sokhta, Mundigak, Mehrgarh, Nausharo, Gola Dhoro and Mohenjo-daro.
Appendix 12.5: Pb isotope data for silver artifacts from Allahdino, Mohenjo-daro, Mundigak, Gola Dhoro and Nagwada.
Appendix 12.6: Pb isotope data for the argentiferous galena deposit at Nakhlak, Iran.
Appendix 12.7: XRD and Pb isotope analyses of modern lead objects and substances.
Appendix 12.8: Pb isotope data for copper ores and slags from deposits in India, Pakistan, Iran and Oman.
Appendix 12.9: Pb isotope data for seven copper ores from Harappa.
Appendix 13.1: Possible routes from the Indus Basin to the site of Shortughaï.
