"Studying the reuse and recycling of artifacts in contemporary contexts aids in the understanding of such actions in the past," write the authors (p. 486), who provide ample evidence that this is the case and offer another lens through which one can interrogate archaeological findings. The study of artifact reuse and recycling at Chatrikhera in Rajasthan offers significant insights into the complexities of archaeological interpretation in regions where modern and ancient practices intersect. By highlighting the challenges of mixed contexts and the importance of ethno-archaeological approaches, this research underscores the need for nuanced methodologies to unravel the intricate histories embedded in archaeological sites.

"The site of Chatrikhera, located just 4 km from Gilund in Rajsamand District, Rajasthan, contains deposits that date from c. 3000 BC through early Modern periods (Figure 1). Like many villages throughout India, the contemporary settlement has been built on top of and around the ancient habitation mound. Due to the archaeological deposits, the terrain of the village is uneven, and a temple sits on top of the highest point of the mound," (p. 486). In short it is not unlike many ancient Indus sites, including large ones like Harappa and Rakigarhi which are still inhabited. The ancient mounds, however understood by the (same?) people living there today, are part of the fabric of everyday life, a source of raw materials that, like the images above show, are easily woven into everyday material life. In fact, as the authors point out, potsherds [broken pieces of pottery] are often used to stabilize mud, which makes a lot of sense. The clever re-usability of opportunistically discarded and re-fashioned materials are a hallmark of village life. The problem is that for archaeologists, things they find in one layer may have been "imported" from another time, unsettling assumptions about place and time that underlie a lot of dating. Of course, good archaeologists are aware of this and it usually takes a lot of materials and distinct characteristics to come up with timetables along which cultures developed, but for specific objects, uncertainty can increase. "The context in which we find it may be related to its secondary use. At a given site, the identification of substantially more groundstone in later phases, compared to earlier phases, may indicate the common practice of recycling instead of increased grinding activity," (p. 492).

The research employs an ethno-archaeological perspective, combining interviews with village residents and systematic fieldwork to understand contemporary and historical artifact usage. Residents recycle artifacts for their functional value rather than their antiquity. The interviews reveal that residents often do not recognize the archaeological significance of the artifacts they reuse, perceiving them as relatively recent or not valuable. The author's conclusion raises further questions about what we want modern residents to do: "In addition to archaeological interpretation, this study raises the very real and urgent topic of archaeological preservation and conservation. The residents of the village recycle modern and ancient items in the same way, in part because they do not fully understand the antiquity and archaeological significance of the mound and the artifacts within it. In our conversations with the residents of the village, the MPAA team discussed the prehistory of the region, and archaeological preservation. As we continue to work in the region of Chatrikhera we hope that the residents will become stewards of the mound and begin to preserve the mound and the artifacts within it," (p. 493).

For example, greater awareness of the value of the mounds may lead to more digging for gold or seals, damaging sites. Yet sites are also being damaged more now than ever thanks to construction and the constant need to increase agricultural production, with mounds happily leveled. What the right balance between ancient and modern times and needs are is hard to calculate or impact given the different knowledge spaces between archaeologists, village and town dwellers and landowners, and this brief but insightful paper helps present a set of issues often ignored by excavators.

Image 1: Stone mortar that has been repurposed as a pivot for a wooden gate. Groundstone has been repurposed in many creative ways throughout the village (photograph by the Mewar Plain Archaeological Assessment).
Image 2: Window opening that has been closed with stones including three hand-held groundstones. Village children helped to identify locations with recycled groundstone (photograph by the Mewar Plain Archaeological Assessment).