Chalcolithic and modern potting atGilund, Rajasthan: a cautionary taleAmrita Sarkar∗

By an interesting coincidence the village ofGilund in Rajasthan, north-west India washost to an important Chalcolithic settlementof the early third millennium BC and to someof the last indigenous potters still workingin the twenty-first century AD. The authorshows how her study of the prehistoric potterswas enhanced by what she learnt from theirmodern successors, pointing out that shewas only just in time. These potters willbe the last to practice and in this respectethnoarchaeology is itself under threat.

Keywords: India, Rajasthan, Chalcolithic, third millennium BC, ceramics, pottery,ethnoarchaeology

IntroductionThe Ahar-Banas Complex (Shinde & Possehl 2005) initially termed the Ahar culture(Sankalia et al. 1969) is the earliest farming-based culture in Rajasthan and dates to theChalcolithic period (c. 3600 BC–1800 BC). The principal excavated sites are Gilund, Ahar,Balathal and Ojiyana (Figure 1). The Ahar-Banas culture was economically and technicallyadvanced, and featured public architecture like the fortified enclosure and boundary wallin Balathal and the warehouse and fortification in Gilund, which would have requiredlarge-scale mobilisation of labour (Misra 2007). Recent evidence from the site of Balathaland Gilund suggests that the Ahar-Banas Complex came into being before the Harappanperiod. The first hint of village life in western India — at the site of Balathal— can be tracedback to the middle of the fourth millennium BC (Shinde 2002).

An important characteristic of the Ahar-Banas culture, and of Gilund in particular, wasits well-developed pottery industry. It was while studying the Chalcolithic assemblages at

∗ Deccan College Postgraduate & Research Institute (Deemed University), Pune 411006, India(Email: amritjoy@gmail.com)

Received: 8 September 2010; Revised: 3 November 2010; Accepted: 22 November 2010

ANTIQUITY 85 (2011): 994–1007 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/ant0850994.htm

994

Res

earc

h

Amrita Sarkar

Figure 1. Map showing the excavated sites of the Ahar-Banas Complex.

Gilund that the author also became aware of the modern potters practicing there, whosepots had many points of similarity with those of the third millennium BC. Although directequations between two such widely spaced periods are not likely to be valid, there may berewards in comparing them. For example, the technology, social organisation and familycommitments of the present community may have ethnoarchaeological analogies to offerwhich may prove helpful in the interpretation of the Chalcolithic period. It also becameevident that this was likely to be the last generation of potters to remain engaged in active

995

Chalcolithic and modern potting at Gilund, Rajasthan

production at Gilund. For this reason the documentation of this community took on asense of urgency, and could result in a valuable contribution to the ethnography of Mewar(Nagar 1967; Saraswati & Behura 1966; Kramer 1997; Mishra 2008).

Chalcolithic GilundAt 25ha, Gilund is the largest of 111 reported sites of the Ahar-Banas Complex. It issituated in the wide fertile valley of the Banas River, about 1km north of the modern villageof Gilund. The archaeological site is part of the modern village, which is roughly 120km tothe north-east of Udaipur in Rajsamand district, at the southern end of the ‘Khetri copperbelt’. The site has a special place in the protohistoric archaeology of India. Nearly 45 yearsago, one season’s excavation by B.B. Lal of the Archaeological Survey of India brought tolight previously unknown features of the Chalcolithic culture of South Asia. These includedthe use of burnt bricks for construction and a unique parallel-walled mud-brick structure(IAR 1959–60). These discoveries indicated that the site had great potential for futureresearch work on Chalcolithic Mewar.

Since 1999, the University of Pennsylvania has participated with Deccan CollegePostgraduate and Research Institute in a multi-disciplinary research project at Gilund.During these excavations, the site became famous after the startling discovery of anunderground clay bin containing over 100 seal impressions, which excavators believehave parallels with the Bactriana-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) of northernAfghanistan and Central Asia (Possehl et al. 2004). However, a present study on the sealingsfrom Gilund by Ameri (2010) asserts that these sealings reflect the shifting pattern of Indo-Iranian contact. Apart from these seals, a large variety of pottery vessels and terracotta objectshave been found in many contexts throughout the site. Impressive and complex mud-brickstructures including a magazine-type warehouse, storage bins, kilns and evidence for otherpyro-technological activities have been found. The use and manufacture of kiln-burnt bricksby the ancient inhabitants of Gilund is also another remarkable feature of the site. Otherfinds include a cart track or road and a large retaining wall. Additional objects found at thesite include clay figurines, beads and game pieces. From all these finds, excavators believe thatfrom the late third to the early second millennium BC, Gilund’s population was stratified,and that the elite members of Gilund’s society had wide-ranging contacts with contemporarypopulations in south-west Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia.

The Chalcolithic pottery of the Ahar-Banas Complex can be classified into four broadgroups termed Red ware, Black and Red ware, Buff ware and Grey ware, based on theirmanufacturing techniques. Each group is classified further based on the surface treatment,so Coarse Red ware, Thick Red Slipped ware, Thin Red Slipped ware, Black and Red wareetc. Each of the subgroups is divided into fine and coarse varieties. After that each subgroup(fine or coarse) is further sorted according to its form. The following are brief descriptionsof the ware types (Figures 2 & 3).

Thick Red Slipped ware forms include large and narrow-mouthed globular jars and potsand medium-sized handis (wide-mouthed, carinated cooking vessels with sloping upper sidesand round bases), decorated with wavy lines, criss-cross incisions, herringbone patterns andchevrons. Coarse Red ware forms comprise wide-mouthed globular jars and handis, as well

996

Res

earc

h

Amrita Sarkar

Figure 2. Different types of Red ware from the Ahar-Banas Complex.

as large dishes and shallow basins, also decorated with incised lines. Thin Red Slippedware forms have a highly burnished thin slip on the outer surface and rim portion ofthe inner surface. The major shape is a convex-sided deep bowl of small and mediumsize with an everted or beaded rim. Black and Red ware (BRW) vessels are painted withwhite pigment over the black inner as well as the rim portion of the outer surface. Thepainted designs are mostly geometric consisting of straight and wavy lines both vertical andhorizontal, dashes and concentric arcs. The major shapes in the finer variety are shallowsmall- and medium-sized bowls both convex-profiled and carinated with knife-edged rim.In the coarser variety we have shallow small basins and a few wide-mouthed handis. Tanwares come in carinated shallow basins with beaked/beaded rims, large, step-sided dishesand a few bowls. Morphologically Tan wares of the Ahar-Banas Complex are identical tothe Harappan wares of Gujarat. Buff wares are fine grained and occur in small quantities.The surface has a cream coloured slip which is powdery and comes off if rubbed. Onlybody sherds were retrieved, thus nothing could be inferred about the vessel shapes of Buffware. Reserved Slip wares are vessels that were applied with two slips on the external orinternal surface, first treated with a thin slip usually of light red colour followed by asecond slightly thicker slip of darker colour. Before the second slip would dry completely,decorative patterns were executed by scooping out a part of the slip with a comb-likeinstrument. Since no rim sherds were found in this ware type, definite shapes could not beascertained.

997

Chalcolithic and modern potting at Gilund, Rajasthan

Slipped Grey ware vessels are profusely decorated with incised designs in geometric patternsbetween the slipped and unslipped portions of the vessels. The major shapes in this ware

Figure 3. Grey ware from the Ahar-Banas Complex.

type are narrow-mouthed, globular jars andmedium-sized, carinated handis. Plain Greywares have no decoration. The major formsin this type are basins and dishes with a fewnarrow-mouthed globular pots.

The Gilund potters todayThere are approximately 30 potters’ houses(locally called kumhar) in the modernvillage, amongst which only six of the housescontinue to make pottery. The authorvisited these six establishments in January2008 and again in July 2010. According tothe potters and their family members, hardlyanyone now uses earthenware or ceramicvessels, with only a few exceptions. This isbecause of modernisation and the popularityof stainless steel vessels. Pottery has veryspecific uses now, which are discussed below.Thus this occupation yields no profit. Noneof their children have taken up this tradition,which is therefore likely to disappear withthe present generation of adults.

Clay and pigment sources

All of the potters in Gilund obtain clay from the same source, named Soniana, whichlies approximately 8km to the north-west of the village. The clay, called kala mati (blackclay), is brought into the village by hired tractors. Generally two month’s supplies of clayare brought to each potter’s house at one time. On rare occasions, usually for emergencypurposes when demand is higher than expected, the potters get clay from a source muchcloser to the village named taknivali nadi. In this case, the clay is transported to their homesby donkey, bicycle or scooter. Pottery produced in Gilund is customarily ornamented withred and white pigment. The red pigment, locally called harmachh, and the white pigment,locally called khadi, are brought from a market in Gangapur, which is approximately 25kmfrom Gilund. The potters purchase one year’s worth of pigment at a time.

Manufacture

Potters in Gilund usually prepare their clay two to three hours before they plan to makevessels. The raw clay is first pounded to reach a finer consistency and then sometimes sievedin order to remove large impurities. Water is then added to the crushed clay and wedgeduntil it has a sticky yet elastic consistency. Some potters add ash or dried donkey dung to

998

Res

earc

h

Amrita Sarkar

their clay as tempering material. The prepared clay is then covered with a damp cloth. Thisprocess helps the clay retain moisture and elasticity so that it remains easier to work onthe wheel. After a vessel is shaped on the wheel and dried to leather-hard condition it isthen carefully beaten to achieve the required shape. To beat the vessels, the potters use twoimplements: one is a marble dabber — pindi in the local Mewari dialect — and the other isa wooden tool called a thapa, which looks like a table-tennis bat. The vessel is beaten witha thapa on the outer surface, whilst support is provided by holding the pindi inside.

Surface treatment

After the vessel is made on the wheel and then beaten to its required shape, the outer surfaceis rolled in ash, called locally bani. Once dried in the sun, any extra ash not absorbed intothe surface is removed by shaking the vessel, which is then dipped into a liquid of dissolvedred pigment (harmachh). This application should more suitably be called a ‘wash’ ratherthan a ‘slip’ because it is very thin and only adds a colouring effect to the surface; it doesnot form an additional layer visible after firing. Other surface treatments include burnishingand impressing. The most common surface treatment is painting. The pots are painted inboth geometric and naturalistic designs. These include straight and wavy lines, dots, as wellas leaf and peacock designs. Most of the surface treatment and design is done by the womenof the family, both old and young, using a paint brush of donkey tail hair. Burnishing isdone using a hard stone or rounded river pebbles. Pots are open-fired in fields close to thepotters’ houses or in the workshops themselves. Generally cow dung, wood and twigs areused for firing.

Firing

The potters describe how they use circular kilns set on flat open ground. First, a thinplatform of mud about 50mm high is prepared, and over this a layer of small pieces of woodand cow dung fuel is arranged. Bigger pots are kept with their mouths facing upward andsmaller vessels are arranged in several layers above these pots. In the empty places betweenthe pots, bits of fuel are inserted; the kiln is then fully covered by broken pots and sherds.The fire is lit in the kiln in the evening and it burns for several hours during the night. Thefollowing day, when the heat in the kiln has cooled down to an extent, a batch of vessels isremoved and becomes Red ware. The vessels which are to become Grey ware remain in thekiln, covered with dust, ash, dried leaves and broken potsherds. This prevents the smokefrom coming out and causes the reduction process whereby the wares are turned grey or ona few occasions, black. Thus it is evident that Red ware and Grey ware are essentially oneand the same type of fabric, the only difference being surface colour achieved during thefiring process.

Forms

Following the typology designed by Dr Malti Nagar at Parla, the modern pottery of Gilundvillage can be classified into five different types according to usage: storage; cooking and

999

Chalcolithic and modern potting at Gilund, Rajasthan

Table 1. A comparative analysis of pottery types from Parla and Gilund.

Functionalgroup Parla (after Nagar 1967) Gilund (author analysis) Ware type

Storage Matka (large globular jar) Matka (large globular jar) Red wareMatki (medium globular jar) Matki (medium globular jar) Red wareDhakani (lid) Dhakno, Dhakri, Dhakani (lid) Red ware &

Grey waren/a Chuklio (small globular jar) Red ware

Cooking andfoodprocessing

Tawa (platter)Kelri (deep pan)Bhanai (same as Kelri but with abeaded rim)

Pauni (platter)Kelria (deep pan)n/a

Red wareRed wareGrey ware

Handi (globular carinated pot) Handi/Munho (globular cari-nated pot)

Grey ware

Eating anddrinking

Chhoti Kundi (bowl) n/a Red ware &Grey ware

Bari Kundi (large bowl) n/a Red ware &Grey ware

Kulka (small globular pot) Nani Chuklio (small globularpot)

Red ware

Tavni (like a Handi but smaller) n/a Grey wareKulki (miniature pot) n/a Grey wareShakora (tumbler) n/a Red ware

Ceremonial Kulka (similar to a Handi butless globular; used in Barvan)

Ghadi (similar to a Handi butless globular)

Red ware

Kalash (globular pot withseveral mouths)

Kalash Red ware

Bujara (large pointed goblet) n/a Red wareDubana and Duban (offering

stand)Dhupanio (offering stand) Red ware

Jawario (round-sided bowl) n/a Red wareBujari (small pointed goblet) Bijora (small pointed goblet) Red waren/a Karva (small globular spouted

pot)Red ware

Miscellaneous Diyali (Lamp) Deepak Red wareGer (bucket) n/a Red waren/a Gurga (ring base) Red waren/a Galla Red ware

Shading indicates types vanishing in the last 40 years.

food processing; eating and drinking; ceremonial; and miscellaneous (Nagar 1967: tab. 1)(Table 1).

Storage and cooking vessels (Figure 4): these include the matka, a large globular pot witha narrow mouth, round belly and base. It is used for fetching water and for liquid storage,particularly for water and buttermilk. Matki is a smaller version of the matka with thesame function. Pauni is a tawa (slightly concave disc-shaped griddle) for making chapatti(flatbread made of wholewheat flour). A kelaria is similar to a pauni but comparatively

1000

Res

earc

h

Amrita Sarkar

Figure 4. Storage and cooking vessels: (clockwise from top left) matki, pauni, chuklio and munho.

deeper. Kala handi or munho are narrow-mouthed, carinated cooking pots mostly used formaking buttermilk. They are burnished on the outer surface. Chuklio and nani chuklio aresmall globular pots used for drinking water or for transferring water from a larger pot.

Ceremonial vessels (Figure 5): these include dhupania which are incense stands used inworship and in rituals. Karva are small, globular, spouted pots used by married Hinduwomen during Karvachaut (a festival celebrated by married Hindu women during whichthey keep a fast to ensure the wellbeing, prosperity and longevity of their husbands). Delais similar to karva without the spout and is used by Hindus to offer pindas (a ritual whereofferings are proffered in a personalised way for the relief of the soul for its departure tothe other world) and in death rituals. A similar vessel is used by Muslims in the village todrink water. Bijora, dhakno, dhakni and dhankan take the form of small goblets with narrowmouths and pointed bases. These are placed on kalash in an inverted position and are usedas lids.

Miscellaneous vessels (Figure 6): these include the gurga, which is a stand. A handi-likevessel is made first; it is then separated along the line of carination. The upper part is usedas a stand for seating cooking vessels over chulhas and the lower portion is used as tawa.

1001

Chalcolithic and modern potting at Gilund, Rajasthan

Figure 5. Ceremonial vessels: left) bijora; centre) dhupania; right) karva.

Figure 6. Miscellaneous vessels: left) gurga; centre) galla; right) deepak.

A galla is a coin box, for collecting money. Deepak are lamps, which come in two forms:one is large and burns for 24 hours and the other one is small and burns for two to threehours.

Parallels between present-day Gilund pottery and Chalcolithicpottery from Ahar-Banas Complex sitesAmongst the Chalcolithic pottery from Gilund, narrow-mouthed globular pots inCoarse Red ware and Thick Red Slipped ware have been identified which are verysimilar to modern matka and matki (Figure 7). Similarly the carinated, wide-mouthedcooking vessels in Grey ware recall present day handi produced in Gilund village (Fig-ure 8). Another remarkable resemblance is found between the present-day dhupania, whichare incense stands used in worship, with dishes-on-stands and bowls-on-stands retrievedfrom Ahar-Banas Complex sites. For example, a bowl-on-stand in Grey ware was foundfrom period Ib at the site of Ahar (Sankalia et al. 1969: pl. VI, fig. 54). This bowl-on-standis akin to present day dhupania crafted in Gilund village (Figure 9).

1002

Res

earc

h

Amrita Sarkar

Figure 7. Left) Chalcolithic narrow-mouthed, globular pot in thick Red Slipped ware from Gilund; right) modern-daymatka.

Figure 8. Left) modern-day Grey ware handi/munho manufactured in Gilund village; right) sherd of Chalcolithic Greyware cooking vessel reported from Gilund.

Another striking similarity the author noticed is that between a vessel tagged as T 68from period Ic from Ahar, which the report (Sankalia et al. 1969: 66) defined as a ‘vesselsomewhat crucible-like with slightly sloping sides, bulbous at the belly, rimless’, and that of avessel in which lassi (buttermilk) is sold on trains in Rajasthan (Figure 10). Similarity is alsonoticeable between painted decorations: present-day potters in Gilund village use paintedmotifs, such as groups of straight or wavy lines, dots and hatched diamonds, which parallelChalcolithic Buff ware and BRW’s groups of straight or wavy lines, spirals, dots, hatcheddiamonds, concentric circles and chevrons filled with dots and circles (Sankalia et al. 1969:88–98) (Figure 11).

1003

Chalcolithic and modern potting at Gilund, Rajasthan

Figure 9. Left) modern-day dhupania manufactured in Gilund village; right) Chalcolithic bowl-on-stand reported fromAhar (courtesy of Deccan College).

DiscussionTo put these parallels and the potters’ comments in perspective, we need to understandthe utility of ethnographic studies of pottery. Matson (1965: 203) suggested that ‘ceramicecology’ can be viewed as a ‘facet of cultural ecology, that which attempts to relate the rawmaterials and technologies that the local potter has availed to the function in his [her] culture ofthe products he [she] fashions’. At the core of ceramic ecology is an emphasis on the naturalenvironment, which, for the purposes of this research, includes clay, temper and fuel, aswell as the availability of water and the changing seasons. This thought process was amplyjustified during the author’s field visit to Gilund and the conversation with the local potters.Pottery-making as a constant occupation is prevalent only during the months of Octoberto March, which offer moderate temperatures and low humidity. The summer months seean excessive rise in temperature, which has a detrimental effect on clay pottery (it tends tobreak). The rainy months in Gilund, unsurprisingly, have never been suitable for potterymanufacture.

Apart from these material factors, the social and economic environments of potteryproduction are also of interest. This is what Matson (1965: 216) describes as the humanaspect of ceramic production. In other words, pots are craft items and domestic implementsand, as such, they are produced in a social setting by individuals who make decisions —conscious or otherwise, message-driven or not — about how pots are to be formed, decoratedand fired. As a result, issues relating to individual choice and to the social setting in whichpots are manufactured also need to be considered. The concept of ceramic ecology allowsthe potential relevance of information on all factors relevant to the study of pottery-makingand its socio-cultural and economic setting to be considered (Arnold 1991).

1004

Res

earc

h

Amrita Sarkar

Figure 10. Left) vessels in which buttermilk is sold; right) Chalcolithic form T 68 reported from Ahar.

Figure 11. Left) example of Chalcolithic painting on Buff ware reported from Ahar; right) similar painting executed onpresent-day pots in Gilund.

ConclusionEthnographic data gathered from the present village potters of Gilund has been ableto throw some light on the Chalcolithic pottery of the Ahar-Banas Complex includingprobable methods of manufacture and the possible functions of certain ancient vessel forms.

1005

Chalcolithic and modern potting at Gilund, Rajasthan

Figure 12. Women carrying both earthenware vessels and steel vessels during a marriage ceremony in Gilund village.

This shows that ethnographic data helps us in providing insights into the technology andbehaviour of prehistoric people.

However, the importance of ethnoarchaeology lies in the survival of ancient and traditionalart forms, which are now themselves under threat. Metal vessels are seen to be makingheadway into the traditional repertoire of earthenware vessels (Figure 12). There is a notabledecline in pottery production and use between Malti Nagar’s ethnographic studies done inthe village of Parla 40 years ago and today’s potters in Gilund (see Table 1). Some of themajor forms such as kundi, shakora, kulka, kalash and ger as mentioned by Nagar in herthesis are no longer produced. Parla and Gilund are approximately 100km apart and sharethe same ecological conditions. It is likely that other potters, residing in villages under thesame ecological conditions and facing the same economic and social changes brought onby globalisation, will have the same experience as potters in Gilund. It is probable that inthe next 20 years, production of ceramic vessels by these small indigenous local potters willtotally die out and pottery manufacturing will be restructured into a centralised industrymass-producing one or two types of vessels, such as large jars or pots that people might stillneed to store liquid and to keep it cool.

Ethnoarchaeology appears to be an ever-expanding sub-discipline within archaeology,and pottery undoubtedly gets more than its fair share of attention. But with recent social

1006

Res

earc

h

Amrita Sarkar

and economic trends, it can be seen that opportunities for undertaking certain kinds ofethnoarchaeological study are themselves diminishing.

AcknowledgementsFirst and foremost the author wishes to thank her advisor, Prof. Vasant Shinde for his constant supportthroughout the structuring of this article and his invaluable advice leading to a comparative study with MaltiNagar’s ethnographic patterns. The author would also like to thank Megan McCormick for editing the initialmanuscript and stimulating new ideas. As is obvious, this study could not have been completed without thehelp and support of the Gilund inhabitants themselves; the family who put the author up (Ompakashji Paliwal,Nitesh Paliwal, Sonidevi Paliwal and Chinky Paliwal), and the potters (Shankarji, Baluram, Nathulal, Bansilal,Shankarji & Dallichand) for their generosity in sharing information which gave the author a piercing insightinto the world of pottery, past and existing. The author would also like to thank Girish who has been a greathelp as a general coordinator at the village. Lastly the author wants to thank her husband, Debashis Das for hissupport and helpful comments at various stages of the manuscript.

ReferencesAMERI, M.E. 2010. Sealings at the edge of third

millenium middle Asian interaction spheres: theview from Gilund, Rajasthan, India. UnpublishedPhD dissertation, New York University.

ARNOLD, P.J. III. 1991. Domestic ceramic production andspatial organization: a Mexican case study inethnoarchaeology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

IAR. 1959–60. Indian archaeology: a review. New Delhi:Annual Publication of the Archaeological Survey ofIndia.

KRAMER, C. 1997. Pottery in Rajasthan:ethnoarchaeology in two Indian cities. Washington(DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.

MATSON, F.R. 1965. Ceramic ecology: an approach tothe study of early cultures of the Near East, in F.R.Matson (ed.) Ceramics and man (Viking FundPublication in Anthropology 41): 202–217.Chicago (IL): Aldine.

MISHRA, A. 2008. Beyond pots and pans: a study ofChalcolithic Balathal. New Delhi: IGRMS & AryanBooks International.

MISRA, V.N. 2007. Rajasthan: prehistoric and earlyhistoric foundations. New Delhi: Aryan BooksInternational.

NAGAR, M. 1967. The Ahar culture: an archaeologicaland ethnographic study. Unpublished PhDdissertation, Poona University.

POSSEHL G.L., V. SHINDE & M. AMERI. 2004. TheAhar-Banas Complex and the BMAC. Man &Environment 29(2): 18–29.

SANKALIA, H.D., S.B. DEO & Z.D. ANSARI. 1969.Excavation at Ahar (Tambavati). Pune: DeccanCollege.

SARASWATI, B. & N.K. BEHURA. 1966. Potterytechniques in peasant India (Anthropological Surveyof India Memoir 13). Calcutta: AnthropologicalSurvey of India.

SHINDE, V. 2002. The emergence, development andspread of agricultural communities in South Asia,in Y. Yasuda (ed.) The origins of pottery andagriculture: 89–115. New Delhi: Roli Books.

SHINDE, V. & G.L. POSSEHL. 2005. A report on theexcavations at Gilund in C. Jarrige & V. Lefevre(ed.) South Asian archaeology, 2001: proceedings ofthe 16th International Conference of the EuropeanAssociation of South Asian Archaeologists held inCollege de France, Paris, 2–6 July 2001: 292–302.Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations.

1007