Crafting Resonance: Empathy and Belonging in Ancient Rajasthan

XML Template (2015) [19.2.2015–7:28pm] [1–20]//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/JSAJ/Vol00000/150001/APPFile/SG-JSAJ150001.3d (JSA) [PREPRINTER stage]

Journal of Social Archaeology

0(0) 1–20

! The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1469605314568744

jsa.sagepub.com

Article

Crafting resonance:Empathy and belongingin ancient Rajasthan

Uzma Z. RizviDepartment of Social Science and Cultural Studies, Pratt Institute

of Art and Design, Brooklyn, New York, USA

Abstract

In this article I introduce the concept of resonance to interrogate how things and mean-

ings are relevant beyond the cultural context within which they begin. The notion of

resonance is theorized as an intangible affect that the material thing has beyond its formal

physical boundaries within larger planes of perception creating dynamic relationships

among humans/nonhumans and illustrating cultural decisions of material as vibrant

matter. If material has vibrancy and frequency it then has the capacity to evoke an emo-

tional and affective response to a similarity of material, style, and/or form. Such response

can be coded as a sensory aesthetic empathy that links to constituting subjective belong-

ing in the ancient world. In order to explore how resonance might be useful in an

archaeological context, this article will utilize copper arrowheads documented from

the 1978 to 1979 excavations at the site of Ganeshwar, in the state of Rajasthan, India.

Keywords

Copper, Ganeshwar, India, craft specialization, social ontology, resonance, materiality,

empathy, belonging

Introduction

Outside the village of Tiskola in northeastern Rajasthan, while speaking to metalsmiths about their interaction with materials I asked how they knew which piece of

Corresponding author:

Uzma Z. Rizvi, Department of Social Science and Cultural Studies, Pratt Institute of Art and Design, Brooklyn,

New York, USA.

Email: [email protected]


ore was better to use. Their response which I have revisited many times since thespring of 2003 was (translated from Hindi), ‘‘You know when you pick up the pieceof ore; it tells you what it can become. You just have to listen to it. You have totake the time to listen to it. This is what our children do not have the time to hear.’’Ever since I heard that the ore had said something related to itself and related to apotential becoming to the metal smiths, the idea that a communicative interactionbetween them existed with consequences, and that it could be a communicativeaction that would link generations or could be passed on through generations, hasnever quite left me.

In this article I introduce the concept of resonance to interrogate how things andmeanings are relevant beyond the cultural context within which they begin. The casestudy presented will situate crafting copper arrowheads fromGaneshwar, Rajasthanwithin a framework that allows for a simultaneous crafting of material and reson-ance as a rethinking of archaeological distribution of materials in other north Indiancontexts. Active interactions with surrounding third millennium BCE cultures(Harappan, Ahar Banas, and Bagor) are indicated through comparisons of coppermaterials excavated in these disparate contexts. Rather than thinking about themovement of goods or movement of people, resonance allows us to consider anaffective and empathetic communicative response to style and form.

The notion of resonance is theorized as an intangible affect that the materialthing has beyond its formal physical boundaries within larger planes of perceptioncreating dynamic relationships among humans/nonhumans and illustrating cul-tural decisions of material as vibrant matter. In developing the definition of res-onance, I am using the concepts of power and vibrant matter based on JaneBennett’s work, and her use of Spinoza’s ascription of vitality to bodies, asthing-power, even though I do not call it ‘‘thing-power’’ in the text (2010: 2–3).

If material has vibrancy and frequency it then has the capacity to evoke anemotional and affective response to a similarity of material, style, and/or form.Such response can be coded as a sensory aesthetic empathy that links to constitut-ing subjective belonging in the ancient world. In order to explore how culturalresonance might be useful in an archaeological context, this article will analyzethe copper documented from the 1978 to 1979 excavations at the site ofGaneshwar, in the State of Rajasthan, India.

This collection consists of approximately 1000 copper artifacts. Approachingthis as a collection of things, rather than individual artifacts requires a moment oftheoretical consideration. These things are not analyzed out of context per se butcertainly now exist in a different context than their archaeological past. In creatingthis new space for artifacts that may have been roughly coterminous but are nowcertainly together, we must recognize a certain ontological effect in that theseartifacts exist within new sets of relations that are internal and peculiar to thecollection itself (Moutu, 2006). There is simultaneity to the collection as it indexesboth third millennium BCE crafting and the act of creating a collection in the early1980s. In both instances, there are choices and decisions being implemented with aneye toward what types might be valued.

2 Journal of Social Archaeology 0(0)


This is not a collection of evocative objects, as Sherry Turkle might have usthink of and through things, like one’s mother’s books, trinkets, souvenirs, orphotographs tucked away in a closet that, upon interaction, produce affectiveresponses linked to love and memory underscoring ‘‘the inseparability of thoughtand feeling in our relationship to things’’ (2007: 5). Nor is this a collection of themundane, as those brought to our attention by Pierre Lemonnier’s work withfences, traps, and drums of the Ankave and Baruya peoples of Papua NewGuinea (2012). This collection falls somewhere in between the exceptionality oflove and the underappreciated everyday, drawing upon similar feelings onentanglement, interwoven existences complicated with the thoughts and feelingsin relation to things, and the thingness of things (c.f. Appadurai, 2006; Brown,2001; Heidegger, 2008; Hodder, 2011; Ingold, 2007; Olsen, 2010).

This project also exists in the messiness of acknowledging the simultaneity of thecollection and their affective properties; perhaps even the copper itself as dictatingan aesthetic. Copper, in its materiality, has its own properties (thermal conductiv-ity, heat and pressure resistance, antibacterial properties, to name a few) that arenot dependent upon my reconstruction of an ancient aesthetic because they exist.It seems easier to accept that some characteristic traits, such as thermal conduct-ivity, etc. are ontologically sound because they are considered scientifically soundand thus empirical. This is in comparison to the characteristics that are bound up incopper in unique and particular ways to distinct worlds of meaning and value, orwhat can be glossed as ‘‘culture.’’ To get at that world, the copper material can beviewed as an illustration of the communication between humans and nonhumans,as an engagement, a trap, a pragmatic exchange, an entanglement, a dance, asimple acknowledgement of each other as having the ability to inform the otherof preference or ability that results in particular types of things that make up aparticular collection. It is as if in the crafting of a thing, all things involved aretransformed. Such a framing provides a space within which to take into accountour various entanglements, whether related to shifts in value from crafted artifactto signifying meaningful sets of relations (Thomas, 1991) or the many ways inwhich things, humans, and actions are dependent/codependent on each other tocreate meaning (Hodder, 2011). Recognizing the scales of entanglements withancient things provides insight into the development of ancient subjectivities.

The archaeology j The copper

The particular collection that I will be referring to in this paper was excavated anddocumented at the site of Ganeshwar, Rajasthan, in 1978–1979. Over 1000 copperartifacts were documented during that excavation year. Ganeshwar is part of alarger complex, called the Ganeshwar-Jodhpura Cultural Complex or GJCC(Rizvi, 2007).1 Located in northeastern Rajasthan, the GJCC is a collection ofthird millennium BCE settlements bound together by shared cultural traits thatare articulated as stylistic similarities in material culture, production of coppertools, and geographic proximity to copper mines.

Rizvi 3


Archaeological evidence for the GJCC has been primarily located in the districtsof Jaipur, Sikar, and Jhunjhunu in Rajasthan (Figure 1). The sites are found in andaround the Aravalli hill range and in close proximity to copper resources. Thisrange is broader in the south, with the northern track more akin to separate hills,resulting in lower elevations. It is composed of Delhi System rock formations thatstart in Delhi in the north and run through Ajmer to Palanpur in the south. In thenorth between Delhi and Jaipur, the ridges composed of Delhi quartzite andschist comprise an intricate system of hill masses convex to the south eastand close in again with the main axis in the region of Khetri and Sambhar(Dave, 1995: 21).

The Delhi formation is recognized as the primary source of copper mineraliza-tion. The main copper deposits occur in Khetri and Singhana in JhunjhunuDistrict, and Dariba and Kho in Alwar District. Some of these deposits are asso-ciated with small deposits of cobalt minerals. Among the nonmetals present in theDelhi system are deposits of barites at Sainpuri and Bhankher in Alwar Districtand steatite deposits near Dausa (Dave, 1995: 22).

Archaeological literature about this region has focused almost exclusively on theevidence of large numbers of copper implements and scientific analysis of thecopper sources or artifacts, simultaneously interpreting this region as having ahunting and gathering community with a very low level of social complexity(Agrawala and Kumar, 1982; Hooja and Kumar, 1997; Kumar, 1985). Over thelast decade, I have worked on material from this region in order to redefine thecontext within which to understand the GJCC and argue for a direct relationshipbetween increased technology and complexity (Rizvi, 2007, 2010, 2013).

Roughly spread over 34,000 km2, with an estimated settled area at 12.51 km2,the 385 GJCC sites documented during the survey include settlement sites, vitrifiedmetal waste sites, mining sites, and raw material processing sites, often found inclose proximity to each other, each providing a different specialized activity orresource (Figure 1). Mark Kenoyer and Heather Miller (1999) provide indicatorsfor metal processing at third millennium BCE sites in the region that include:fragments of ore; kilns or fragments of kilns attributed to metal processing; metal-lurgical slag from the reduction of ore to metal; tools used for metal processing,such as crucible fragments with metal prills, molds, anvils, stakes, hammers, andchisels; and metal objects, including smelting and melting ingots and semifinishedand finished objects (Kenoyer and Miller, 1999; Miller, 1994). Based on this typ-ology, the GJCC 2003 survey results indicate that 31 percent of sites are settlementsites, 44 percent of the sites have evidence for vitrified metal waste, and 14 percentof the sites have visible surface evidence for furnaces. Of 61 GJCC habitation sites,56 had evidence for vitrified material/waste (Figure 1). The integration of the vari-ous types of sites contextualizes the clustering of sites. The high number of rec-orded sites in a relatively small geographic region suggests a high density ofpopulation and activity. Further, increased social and political complexity isreflected by the spatial practices of the GJCC communities that formed aroundcopper extraction and production technologies (Rizvi, 2007).



Of all the sites studied in the GJCC, the site of Ganeshwar has always beenhighlighted as a type site, in particular due to the large collection of copper materialthat was excavated during the 1978–1979 field season. The site of Ganeshwar wasfirst discovered in late 1977, when archaeologists from the Rajasthan StateDepartment of Archaeology examined the ‘‘Neem-ka Thana Treasury Hoard’’consisting of 58 flat copper celts and two barbed arrowheads (IAR, 1981–1982: 61). This discovery led to three seasons of excavations at the site betweenthe years 1978 and 1984, and over 1000 copper implements have been documentedin association with the characteristic GJCC ceramic assemblages. The copper arti-facts included arrowheads, beads, rings, bangles, fishhooks, pins, spearheads, celts,and balls (Figure 2). The excavators of the site contend that these artifacts weremade from local copper sources from around the site, specifically the chalcopyriteore prevalent in the region (IAR, 1981–1982: 61; Rizvi, 2007: Appendix 2).

The copper corpus is first documented in Phase I of Period II at Ganeshwar insmall amounts, with only a few implements noted: five arrowheads, three fish-hooks, one spear head, and an awl (IAR, 1987–1988: 101–102). It is in Phase IIof Period II that there is an overhaul of copper crafting, with implements like arrowheads, spear heads, chisels, fishhooks, razor blades, rings, bangles, hairpins, antim-ony rods (IAR, 1988–1989: 76–78). The copper arrowheads have been chronologic-ally linked to Ganeshwar Period II phase II, c. 2500–2000 BC (Rizvi, 2007: 56).Metallurgical analyses of two specimens from the site of Ganeshwar reveal objects

Figure 1. Map of survey area.

Rizvi 5


that are manufactured with a high percentage of pure copper content, with someevidence of lead and arsenic alloying. The results of the metallurgical analysisconducted of Ganeshwar Period II Phase II material (referred to as Period III inAgrawala and Kumar, 1982: 128; Chakrabarti and Lahiri, 1996: 35) would suggestthat this pure copper tradition may have already been in practice in the GJCC priorto the Early Harappan phase at Kalibangan (Agrawala and Kumar, 1982: 128).

The purity of the copper is significant in that it discursively links to the mostcited ethnographic work done on copper and Ancient India. In Nayanjot Laihiri’sethnographic study on metals and metal related artifacts as cultural signifiers inIndia, she activates the purity of the copper alloy to represent conscious decision-making, cultural signifiers evoking symbolic capital, and individual agency tochoose to produce and consume pure copper alloy vessels (1995). Laihiri utilizesthree positions upon which she constructs an argument for a particularly Indiancultural situation. Firstly, the dominant tradition of working in copper of highpurity that is recorded in the early Indian archaeological record fits in with whatshe illustrates as the ritual importance of pure copper in ancient Indian texts. Thecontinuity of this tradition and the position of superiority of crafts persons in purecopper to those dealing with various alloys in the caste hierarchy is highlighted inher study. Secondly, Lahiri draws from the factor of variation in the elementalcompositions of Indian metal artifacts which have limited technological dimension,due to the ethnographically documented tradition of recycling objects and scraps of

Figure 2. Copper material from 1978 to 1979 Ganeshwar excavations.



old metal. Finally, she draws attention to how metal or metal related objects arefocused around specific historical events and folk beliefs; the stories/myths andartifacts are linked to each other in ways that suggest that the artifacts are signifiersof social and cultural beliefs. Her study allows for an understanding of the pro-duction of symbolic value, in which the materiality of the artifacts contains certainmeanings and manifestations of social relationships and social control.

Given the framework of how pure copper may be discursively understood within(following Lahiri’s lead) an Indian archaeological world, an analysis of the coppercollection comes with its own assumptions and contemporary resonances. Thiscorpus is under the stewardship of and is primarily located at the RajasthanState Department of Archaeology and Museums, Jaipur, with a few specimenson display at various museums in the State. The digital documentation of the1978–1979 collection includes description and measurement of each artifact(Rizvi, forthcoming). In conducting this study, the overarching assumption ofthe archaeologists and staff I encountered at the Rajasthan State Department ofArchaeology and Museums, Jaipur, was that the purity of copper was not surpris-ing in the least. There was a matter-of-fact-ness to the purity of the ancient copperthat was not obvious to me as an outsider.

As previously mentioned, this collection of copper things includes arrowheads,spearheads, bangles, fishhooks, celts, wires, razor blades, hairpins, chisels, andother miscellaneous shapes (see Rizvi, 2007). As approximately 30 percent of thecollection is identified as arrowheads indexing a very specific craft industry on site,this study will focus on these arrowheads for analysis.

The thin and light arrowheads seem to be cut from single sheets as there is evi-dence of cutting, and there are no indications of mold use on the surface of theartifacts. Also important to note, there did not appear to be any use marks orindentations that would suggest impact. These arrows are approximately 2 g inweight, between 1 and 2mm in width, and are between 2 and 5 cm in length.Based on whitish remains on the surface of the arrowheads and a wood-likeimprint, it seems that they were attached to a wooden stick by an adhesive(Figure 3). Of the 432 copper pieces identified as being arrowheads (fragments towhole pieces), there are 133 pieces viable for use in the construction of a typology(just over 30% of the corpus); that is to say that they have a tip, the inseam cut, aswell as enough of the wings to calculate angles.

Based on stylistic criteria that include the distance between the tip and theinseam, the angle of the tip, the distance between the ends, the angle of theinseam, and the curvature of the lines, I have proposed seven types (A–G)(Rizvi, forthcoming; Figure 4). There are 44 examples of Type A. Over 90 percentof the examples in this type are less than 5 cm in length. A key identifying feature ofthis type is the angle inseam, which is a right angle tending toward obtuse angleinseam. There are 43 examples of Type B. These arrowheads are less than 5 cm inlength with an acute angle inseam. There is a sharpness to the features of thesearrowheads. There are nine examples of Type C. These arrowheads are similar tosquat equilateral triangles with roughly equal distance between ends and tips and

Rizvi 7


cut. These arrowheads are smaller than a majority of the others. There are threeexamples of Type D. These arrowheads are under 5 cm in length, squat, equilateraltriangles, with a concave inseam. There is also a slight curvature to the edges. Thereare 10 examples of Type E. The distinctive feature of this type is the curvature ofthe acute angle inseam. Copper arrowheads from the Harappan phase in Banawali(a Harappan site in Haryana) are similar in shape and style. There are nine exam-ples of Type F. Similar to Type A, these arrowheads typically have elongatedbodies, an obtuse angle inseam, and short ends. However, these arrowheads differin that they are curved at the tip and have a convex cut on the in-seam—almostpetal like. The last (and seventh) type proposed based on the 1978–1979 excavationmaterial are Type G of which there are 15. Similar to Type B, these arrowheads

Figure 4. Copper arrowhead types.

Figure 3. Copper arrowhead. GNR 145 1978–1979.



have longer wings with the acute angle, thus giving the main body of the arrowhead a small size. The shape of the wings is distinctive from all other types. This isthe type that has stylistically similar examples in Harappan contexts, specifically atMohenjoDaro and Harappa (Figure 5).

Active interactions with surrounding third millennium BCE cultures (Harappan,Ahar Banas, and Bagor) are indicated through comparisons of copper materialsexcavated in these disparate contexts. The transitional period between EarlyHarappan and Mature Harappan (c. 2600 BCE) is possibly concurrent with theshift between Period II phase I and Period II phase II at Ganeshwar, in which thereis a substantial hike in the copper production at the site, also illustrated through thehigher percentages of stylistically similar copper implements documented fromthese surrounding areas. This time period also marks an increase in the productionof copper based on the more complex organization of the resource specializedcommunity complexes within the GJCC.

In previous presentations and publications on the copper arrowheads fromGaneshwar, I have focused on this typology, included discussions of manufactur-ing technique, and provided comparisons with copper from contemporaneous sitesfrom the Ahar Banas (a large cultural entity southeast of GJCC) (Rizvi, 2010).Also, as a part of this analysis, I compared the GJCC arrowheads to arrowheadsfrom an earlier (microlithic) site of Bagor (also located in Rajasthan), in which the

Figure 5. For comparison copper arrowheads from MohenjoDaro, Harappa, Banawali,

Kalibangan, and Bagor.

Rizvi 9


arrowheads seem intentionally placed within three burials (Misra, 1973: 104).The copper arrowheads from Bagor do not find direct and easy comparisons inthe GJCC corpus. Each Bagor arrowhead has two holes for tying the shaft, and acrude shape that does not compare to the complexity and specificity of shapes ofthe GJCC arrowheads. However, the overall shape does indicate a rough imitation,rendition, or a precursor to the GJCC shapes (Rizvi, 2010). Moreover, outside ofthe Rajasthan context, there are reported examples of two arrowheads that looklike those from Bagor from burial pit context at the site of Chicholi (near Nagpur)(IAR, 1999–2000: 95–96).2

Although these examples of similar arrowheads are found in differing archaeo-logical contexts, they suggest an aesthetic affiliation through time to a style. Myintention in this article is not to make a claim on ethnicity, evoking earlier style/ethnicity debates (Sackett, 1985; Weissner, 1983), but rather to think about anaesthetic of subjective belonging of a community through the process of crafting.Rather than thinking of the style of a thing indexing ethnicity (which limits belong-ing), considering style as evoking a sense of belonging, a sense of shared aesthetics,or of shared understanding of the material makeup of the thing (in this case, thepurity of the copper). There are a few dimensions of that shared sense of belong-ing—one might come through the act of crafting itself, one might come throughbeing around a crafting community, one might come through a conscious orunconscious empathy for a shape developed through time spent/entangled withthe thing. Each of these moments includes distinct aspects of resonance thatevoke a sense of belonging. In order to get a sense of at least one of these, I willpresent the production of copper artifacts as one way to understand the simultan-eity of crafting copper, place, self, and all of those being entangled within anintangible affect that I am calling the crafting of resonance.

I have argued elsewhere that the GJCC provides a clear case study in which thedecisions of communities to continually practice copper production articulatedspecific places on the landscape that were the result of community-based decisionsrelated to functional and technological requirements (Rizvi, 2013). Through thatanalysis, a discussion on the actual bodily component of crafting brought to bearsome key points that are worth repeating in this article as so much of the aestheticempathy that I am trying to get at is crafted at the same time as the copper itself.

Crafting copper j Crafting self

In order to gain clarity in how the body might be engaged and entangled in craft-ing, and how that process also might produce an intangible element, I offer belowpossible scenarios for those members of the GJCC who were crafting copper and asense of self. Each technological process incorporated bodies of these communitymembers in very particular manners, and that repeated, self-aware process createdspecific social structures that influenced the construction of specific subjectivities.By its very nature, copper-based metallurgy must entail some degree of specializa-tion because the complexity and effort of production and the nucleated distribution



of the raw materials dictate that there must be fewer producers than consumers(White, 1995). The GJCC communities are recognized through material media, asthe crafting of copper really does become one of the defining features for this largercommunity. Crafting, thus, becomes an identifying feature for social communitycohesion and identity (Bartlett and McAnanay, 2000). Particularly regarding thetechnological aspects of copper production, there is a repetitiveness of action andmovement through the same spaces and a range of movements and practicesthrough which community identity becomes incorporated into the body (Joyce,1998; Joyce and Hendon, 2000).

Generally, there are four steps to copper production. These are raw materialprocurement; materials preparation; primary production of metal from ore, thatis smelting; and secondary production melting/casting and fabrication (Kenoyerand Miller, 1999; Miller, 2006). In following the process of copper production,each technological step marks a specific location with a specific action. Thisprocess begins at the point of raw material procurement. The mining for theore would be the main product-based activity; however, in terms of materialsneeded for the larger pyrotechnological process, this would also include theprocurement of waxes, resins, sand, clay, stones, and tempering agents for themanufacture of crucibles, molds, cores, and models (Hoffman and Miller, 2009;Miller, 2006). Moreover, every pyrotechnological activity requires the collectionof fuel materials. During the 2003 season, the GJCC survey documented 14small mining and raw materials sites thought to be possible sources for theore (Rizvi, 2007: 237). Some people at each site—such as the Baleshwar inSikar District (N 27� 430 1000, E 75� 530 4400)—performed specific movementsand body techniques in order to extract the mineral. This includes climbing,which requires certain forms of stamina that the individuals become accustomedto; walking into dark spaces, which has specific requirements for sight; andrepeated motions with specific specialized tools, which suggests musclememory for the continued use of a quick but careful range of motions. Thereis a distinct physicality to each of the movements associated with mineralextraction that creates an embodied response to place.

The next step of the process of copper production has to do with materialspreparation. Again, specific to the copper itself, often these sites were flat clearingswhere remnants of crushed mineral are embedded into the landscape and continueto be visible as at Cheehroli in Jhunjhunu District (N 27� 500 0300, E 75� 440 3400).The preparation of materials also extended into the crafting of crucibles and molds,as well as the preparation of fuel either as charcoal or dung cakes. In each of thepreparatory spaces, again, specific actions and bodily motions were enacted withinparticular places, distinct from the location of the first stage and from the followingstage of primary production of copper. This particular stage seems to allow foradditional individuals to collectively engage in these activities, whether it is sittingaround together to crush the mineral, or the possible collaboration with potters tocreate the crucibles and molds. The level of social interaction is reflected in thetechnological process.

Rizvi 11


Perhaps the most conspicuous stage of copper production is smelting of the ore.This process leaves an obvious accumulation of manufacturing debris and rem-nants of firing apparatus. Vitrified waste is visible all around the furnaces. TheGJCC survey documented 110 sites with vitrified waste material (Rizvi, 2007). Thisvitrified material tended to be uniform in shape, size, density, weight, and darknessof color. On occasion, there would be some mixed scoria but rarely lightweightglassy slag. More so than the previous stages, this specific mode of productionrequired very precise and careful motions that determined the quality of thecraft. From monitoring the fuel and temperature to the pouring of the smeltedmetal into the crucible, the primary production of copper was time consuming andrequired very controlled and precise body movements. This precision and specifi-city is replicated to a degree in the secondary stage of production in which thefabrication of the final product takes place. The process of casting, melting, alloy-ing, and reusing all require a similar finesse in terms of pyrotechnological control.Also, in the final stages of production there is the creation of the final piece that, inthe case—for example—of arrowheads, includes a hammering out of sheets ofcopper and cutting techniques. Once again, the reliance on muscle memory ofthe individuals engaged in the process of crafting each piece is significant anddistinguishes them from others in the community. However, linking that individualto the larger community has to do with the coexistence of all of the communitymembers within the places that are marked by these activities. Even if one person-ally did not craft copper, something else intangible was simultaneously crafted thathad in it an aesthetic response that evoked a sense of belonging to a craftingcommunity. The crafting of that intangible aspect is what I am referring to ascrafting resonance.

Resonance j Empathy j Belonging

Scholarship about resonance tends to live within the worlds of applied mathematics,quantum physics, and sound/music studies, although fields such as ComparativeLiterature and Sociology have utilized the notion to consider both tangible andintangible aspects of the concept. The idea that texts (as material) might have animmaterial/intangible affect through time and that diachronic affect may code asresonance is a useful approach to thinking through intergenerational and generallydiachronic approaches to the longevity of form within archaeology (for resonanceand text, see Dimock, 1997). Resonance has also been strategically employed to dis-cuss how social policy may be influenced; however, it is often glossed and undertheorized (Ferree, 2003). In other bodies of literature, emotional resonance hasbeen utilized in order to contextualize interpersonal emotion work for example, inframing transgendered communities (Schrock et al., 2004). Within archaeologicalliterature resonance becomes a nuanced lens through which to view the constitutingof ancient subjectivities as related to the things with which they are entangled.

Ian Hodder’s recent work on the entanglement of things has dealt with resonanceas a ‘‘bodily affinity. . . across domains that developed contextually’’ (2012: 127).



In his discussion, he utilizes music, and how music makes one feel as one of the mainexamples to understand this possibility. The affective relationship between the soundof the music and the bodily response is the location of a form of resonance. I want topush this line of thinking abit further and away fromHodder’s consequent discussionof ‘‘transmission process as random drift’’ (2012: 146), to think of resonance as thespace within which frequent modes of communication exist between the human andnonhuman elements. Resonance does not only then live within the human body asreacting to or accommodating an abstraction. Cultural resonance then becomes alanguage shared between things with material ramifications and as such, it can becrafted, negotiated, altered, contested, etc.

Pierre Lemonnier’s (2012) work also reflects upon the idea of objects with cap-acity for nonverbal forms of communication. The idea of resonant objects appearsin his work in relation to perissology, which he contextualizes within the Frenchuse of the word as a ‘‘figure of style that consists in emphasizing an idea by repeat-ing it in different terms’’ (italics in original 2012: 128). Within his study of the Angacultures, these classes of artifacts are not only polysemous but the reasons they areso are also multiple and overlapping and thus things must be thought of together.It is these objects that he refers to as ‘‘perissological resonators,’’ making an argu-ment for the durability of their materiality as ‘‘fundamental to the stability of thesociocultural configuration the basic relations of which they help render visible in anonverbal manner’’ (2012: 129; for a critique of this work see Ingold, 2014).

Resonance studies also consider the ways in which the brain processes specificforms of information. One such cognitive model that laid the foundation for someof Chris Tilley’s work (2004: 14) as well as Hodder’s is synesthesia which is asensory based, often automatic and involuntary cognition (2012: 125–126). In add-ition to that, we might also consider adaptive resonance theory (ART), whichfocuses on how and why things resonate as an affective response within a body(Carpenter and Grossberg, 2003). ART seems to focus on the most simplest ofunsupervised learning interactions that have to do with object identification relatedto neurological processing based on observation (which is top-down) and sensory(bottom-up) information. Life, of course, does not adhere to singular moments ofprocessing, and thus the use of ART modeling in this case is specifically in itsability to separate the memory template (or prototype) with the moment of inter-action with the material—if there is an overlap, it creates a resonance which thenfosters a sense of belonging (Carpenter and Grossberg, 2003). It is no surprise thatcognitive models of resonance and synesthesia find their homes in the human bodyand bodily responses as these are based on studies of the brain.

The notion of resonance can also be understood as an after effect, a postactionmoment, a trace, often thought of as background noise of the thing itself thatcreates the frequency, among other frequencies. The repetitive nature of a traceis significant. It is the repeated action of a frequency that establishes familiarity. InThe Poetics of Space, Gaston Bachelard calls this the reverberation of resonances:‘‘In the resonance we hear the poem, in the reverberation we speak it, it is our own’’(Bachelard, 1994: xxii).

Rizvi 13


The intention of resonance, in this project, is not about theories of function, butrather one specifically of aesthetics and aesthetic responses. For this study, reson-ance is fundamentally linked to crafting an aesthetic response that is linked tosensory based values and emotions; certainly not apolitically, that is, not out of con-text—in fact, the aesthetic is bound by contingencies of belonging as it is framedwithin cultural resonance. Aesthetics, in this sense, needs not only to be consideredvisual, but also affective. What is interesting within this formulation is the arbi-trariness of what might resonate and what might build a resonant context withinwhich to understand the meaning of things (see also Dimock, 1997; Dorsey, 2012;Greenblatt, 1990). I would argue that, particularly in the case of the copper corpus,what resonates is not arbitrary but rather an affective response steeped in an aes-thetic empathy. The collective empathetic response toward a specific aesthetic (sen-sory emotion linked to style/form) is what provides cultural cohesion. It is acollective aesthetic empathy that formulates belonging to a particular culturalmilieu (see also Landsberg, 1997).

The study of empathy, prior to its place within psychotherapy and general use,belonged first to aesthetics and then to ‘‘a psychology that rigidly separated theperceiving and understanding subject from its objects’’ (Pigman, 1995: 238). Basedon a Cartesian framework, the manner in which empathy was related to objects hadmuch to do with the power to project one’s personality into, and thus fully under-stand the object of contemplation (Ames, 1943; Titchener, 1915; cf. Koss, 2006).The ontological turn allows empathy to emerge as an affective response to a formor as Robert Vischer argued, an optical feeling for a form that taps into the ‘‘deep,dark, secure, intimate, yet free, unifying, and contractive feeling’’ (1994 [1873]: 90).In these early discussions of empathy, there was a growing focus on human experi-ence as primary for psycho-analysis. Revisiting these earlier texts allows us toreimagine this relationship between things (humans/nonhumans/institutions assubjects rather than objects, as per social ontology, Searle, 2006). Things canmake us feel certain ways, thus making us into certain beings who find connectionwith others things who/which feel familiar. Familiarity allows for a sense of belong-ing and also may engender forms of nostalgia. Separating belonging from nostalgiais complicated in the ancient record (as it is in the contemporary moment) as thelinkage between the two is complex, often simultaneous and sometimes alsocontradictory.

Investigating a ‘‘micro-politics of belonging,’’ Joost Fontein’s work on contex-tualizing land reform around Lake Mutirikwi in Southern Zimbabwe considers theaffective presence of graves and ruins and their various complex relationship withthe state as related to selfhood, citizenship, and belonging (2011). The ability toconsider things as having affective presences and that those enter into communi-cation with a variety of other factors that may even be contradictory in theirpurpose and yet integrated and simultaneous in their entanglement is a veryimportant contribution to our understanding of how ‘‘agency, intention andracial subjectivation coemerge through everyday physical encounters with thematerial world’’ (Bernstein, 2009: 69).



Focusing on the aesthetic is not meant to entice a return to formalism or tobeauty. Rather, it is to revisit formalism with a social ontological and material lens,thus allowing entanglement to be based on a sensory aesthetic. Instead of otheringthe artifact as a point of observation (as per early style-form debates), we approachthe material, recognizing it as having its own vibrancy and kinesthetic quality, andreconstruct manners in which the body of the material may have had culturallyresonant aspects that informed relationships with other things (human and nonhu-man) in the landscape. This necessarily shifts our understanding of the material andits relationship with the copper producing communities because an ontological lensdoes not mean we are not interested in the human experience, but rather, that itinforms the kind of human experience we reconstruct. A collective aesthetic empa-thy toward a culturally resonant form engenders a sense of belonging that ismaterially contingent within a community—each category being relevant to thethings entangled (both human and nonhuman).

Some concluding thoughts on crafting resonance

The materiality and purity of the copper and the empathetic links to sensory aes-thetics creating resonance of process within which such entanglements happenengenders belonging. In crafting resonance, which is in itself a space of communi-cative action, a normative affective space, a space where all sorts of other thingsmight get involved/entangled, there exists a feeling that maintains a consistency orfrequency that illustrates a desire of crafting something specific. That feeling is theempathetic affective resonance; it is because there is something about this commu-nicative action between the pure copper and the human that makes one feel com-forted, secure, and most importantly, normal. Feeling normal is not often talkedabout because it can be glossed as feeling nothing. It is only when it no longer exists,or the ability to create that cultural resonance is not possible, that something mightfeel not normal, and thus difference is highlighted. In some manner, cultural reson-ance is precisely that normal-ness for the people of Ganeshwar, the implicit assump-tion that the crafting of copper occurs in particular ways, with particular smells, andparticular bodily technologies that allow us to link to ancient subjectivity andbelonging.

There is a particular cultural labor involved in crafting resonance but signifi-cantly, this is not a form of labor that is only linked to the human body but rather,the copper itself is laboring (changing its states from solid to liquid and back tosolid) in this process. By acknowledging the labor of the copper, it allows for thepossibility of both the copper and the human body as engaged in this communi-cative action of crafting resonance through generations. This sort of subject hoodbecomes intergenerational because it is based on the culturally informed ability tocraft resonance and the purity of a certain kind of copper. Crafting cultural res-onance did not just happen and it was not arbitrary in this moment, but rather adecided action by a community of copper crafters to engage in a communicativeaction with copper as a material that labored alongside human labor.

Rizvi 15


Crafting cultural resonance requires an assumption of cultural language sharingor translation. This includes not only the visual register, but in its most broad sense, aflexibility of meaning to be generated within a realm of possible shared meanings.These meanings are triggered by the copperness of copper creating feelings of empa-thy and familiarity with the material, form, or context. In so far as that may be thecase, an argument could be made for the third millennium BCE, that there wereshared understandings of the purity of copper that had the ability to generate dif-ferent meanings but similar resonances, that spanned across the GJCC, theHarappan, and some of the communities in the greater Northern and CentralIndian landscape, particularly those areas where Copper Hoards were found atlater dates. The decision to maintain a pure copper body and have that body belocatable in disparate places and cultures suggests that in this case, rather thanfocusing on cultural distinctions between these regions, the crafting of cultural res-onance may suggest a connected constitution of self, thus providing a different inter-pretation of the region. The crafting of the copper piece in any formal manner maynot have been the key connection between these regions—rather the cultural reson-ance of the copper itself may link aspects of distinct cultures together; although themanner in which they utilize copper or the form it might take, may differ.

As mentioned previously, GJCC arrowhead types are found in Harappan con-texts (nonburial), and in burial contexts at the site of Bagor andChicholi. These findsare not temporally equivalent, nor are the arrowheads identical—but there is asimilarity of form and material to the GJCC in all cases. The utilization of similarforms and material in different contexts through time suggests that although manyother cultural aspects change or are different, the forms are resonant and resili-ent—the meaning may continue to be negotiated and mediated through time andcultural change. The material (i.e. copper) is malleable in that it can take on a varietyof forms depending on the requirements of the communicative action taking place.And yet, we find in this specific example of a copper corpus, that both the materialand the form are replicated within the corpus itself, as well as outside of this specificcollection of materials. In such a manner, the corpus maintains ontological sound-ness even if the individual arrowheads come from differing archaeological contexts(i.e. surface find versus Trench V, etc.).

During the third millennium BCE the communities of the GJCC, and specificallyfor this paper, the people from Ganeshwar, chose to engage/entangle/practice/laborwith aparticular kindof copper, and in doing so, crafted a cultural resonance betweencopper, themselves, and their communities. In the craft that ensued, they (human/nonhuman) engaged in particular choices, one of which was to produce more copperarrowheads that evoked a sensory aesthetic resonance of past shapes andmateriality.These feelings of empathy and belonging constitute specific subjectivities thatemerged, or perhaps started, in conversation with particular types of ore.

Acknowledgments

This paper has seen many lives. This paper was first presented at the 2007 Society forAmerican Archaeology Meetings and work continued through to 2008 during my



postdoctoral work at Stanford University. Parts of it appeared again at Theoretical

Archaeological Group meetings in 2010, at the Society for American ArchaeologyMeetings in 2011, at the South Asia workshop in 2013, and in the hallways of my homeinstitution. I am indebted to all those who commented and discussed the various iterations

of this work, in particular, Shinu Abraham, Lars Fogelin, Praveena Gullapalli, GreggHorowitz, Lisabeth During, and Josh Wright. Many thanks also to the three reviewers ofthis piece; certainly the work presented has improved enormously from their generous com-ments and support. This research has benefitted from the collaborative efforts of my col-

leagues at the Rajasthan State Department of Archaeology and Museums, A.K. Jagdhari,Zafarullah Khan, and Daya Ram. Also, this work would not have been possible without thesupport of Arvind Mayaram (IAS), Dr Lalit Panwar (IAS), and Naseem Hussein (RAS).

I would also like to acknowledge the intellectual guidance of Shri R.C. Agrawala, Shri V.J.Kumar, Dr Rima Hooja, and Dr R.C. Swarnkar (Department of Anthropology, Universityof Rajasthan). I would be remiss if I did not mention Harphool Singh, Ambika Dhaka, H.C.

Misra, and Nidhi Misra—all of whom were integral to this study. I am also grateful to AsadPervaiz for helping with the figures. And finally, my work is never possible without thesupport and criticality provided by Murtaza Vali.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Funding

This study emerges from research that was made possible by the financial supportof the Fulbright-Hayes Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) Grant,George F. Dales Fellowship, Zwicker Fellowship, and the Mellon FoundationFellowship for Faculty Research, Pratt Institute.

Notes

1. GJCC is synonymous with the Ganeshwar Culture, Jodhpura Culture, Ganeshwar-Jodhpura Copper complex, and the Ganeshwar-Jodhpura Culture (Agrawala andKumar, 1982; Agrawal et al., 1978; Dikshit and Sinha, 1982; Hooja and Kumar,

1997; Kharakwal et al., 2003–2004). This study refers to this area as GJCC basedupon the initial reports by R.C. Agrawala and V. J. Kumar. It is a complex based onthe two type sites, Ganeshwar (Tehsil Neem Ka Thana; District Sikar; coordinates N27� 400 4600, E 75� 480 9300) and Jodhpura (Tehsil Kot Putli; District Jaipur; coordinates:

N 27� 350 5100, E 76� 060 8500).2. Bagor (25� 210 N—74� 230E) is located in the State of Rajasthan, and the site of Chicholi

(22� 470 N–79� 680 E) is in the State of Maharashtra, near the city of Nagpur (IAR,

1999–2000: 95–96).

References

Agrawal DP, Dhir R, Krishnamurthy RV, et al. (1978) Multiple evidence for climatic changein Rajasthan. In: Mann HS (ed.) Arid Zone Research and Development. Jodhpur:

Scientific Publishers, pp. 1–18.

Rizvi 17


Agrawala RC and Kumar V (1982) Ganeshwar-Jodhpura Culture: New traits in Indian

Archaeology. In: Possehl GL (ed.) Harappan Civilization: A Recent Perspective.New Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies and Oxford Publishing Co, pp. 125–134.

Ames VM (1943) On empathy. The Philosophical Review 52: 490–494.

Appadurai A (2006) The thing itself. Public Culture 18: 15–21.

Archaeological Survey of India (1981–1982) Excavations at Ganeshwar, Indian Archaeology:A Review (IAR), pp. 61–62.

Archaeological Survey of India (1987–1988) Excavations at Ganeshwar, Indian Archaeology:A Review (IAR), pp. 101–102.

Archaeological Survey of India (1988–1989) Excavations at Ganeshwar, Indian Archaeology:

A Review (IAR), pp. 76–78.

Archaeological Survey of India (1999–2000) Exploration in District Khargone, IndianArchaeology: A Review (IAR), pp. 95–96.

Bachelard G (1994 [1958]) The Poetics of Space: The Classic Look at How We ExperienceIntimate Spaces. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Bartlett ML and McAnanay PA (2000) ‘‘Crafting’’ communities: The materialization ofFormative Maya identities. In: Canuto M and Yaeger J (eds) The Archaeology of

Communities: A New World Perspective. New York; London: Routledge, pp. 102–122.

Bennett J (2010) Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Bernstein R (2009) Dances with things: Material culture and the performance of race. SocialText 27: 67–94.

Brown B (2001) Thing theory. Critical Inquiry 28: 1–22.

Carpenter GA and Grossberg S (2003) Adaptive resonance theory. In: Arbib MA (ed.) TheHandbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

pp. 87–90.Chakrabarti D and Lahiri N (1996) Copper and Its Alloys in Ancient India. Delhi:

Munshiram Manoharlal.

Dave YN (1995) Geology. In: Banerjee GM (ed.) Rajasthan State Gazetteer, Vol. 1. Jaipur:Directorate, Dist Gazetteers, Government of Rajasthan, pp. 17–34.

Dikshit KN and Sinha AN (1982) The Ganeshwar culture – An appraisal. Puratattva 11:

120–122.Dimock WC (1997) A theory of resonance. Publication of the Modern Language Association

(PMLA) 112: 1060–1071.Dorsey D (2012) Intrinsic value and the supervenience principle. Philosophical Studies: An

International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 157: 267–285.Ferree MM (2003) Resonance and radicalism: Feminist framing in the abortion debates of

the United States and Germany. American Journal of Sociology 109: 304–344.

Fontein J (2011) Graves, ruins, and belonging: Towards an anthropology of proximity.Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 17: 706–727.

Greenblatt S (1990) Resonance and wonder. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and

Sciences 43: 11–34.Heidegger M (2008) On the origin of the work of art. In: Krell DF (ed.) Basic Writings.

First Harper Perennial Modern Thought Edition. New York: HarperCollins,

pp. 143–212.Hodder I (2011) The Human-thing entanglement: Towards an integrated archeological per-

spective. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute 17: 154–177.



Hodder I (2012) Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationship Between Humans and Things.

West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hoffman B and Miller H (2009) Production and consumption of copper base metals in the

Indus Civilization. Journal of World Prehistory 22: 237–264.

Hooja R and Kumar V (1997) Aspects of the early Copper Age in Rajasthan. In: Allchin Rand Allchin B (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1995. Proceedings of the 13th Conference ofthe European Association of South Asian Archaeologists. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH

Publishing Co., pp. 323–340.

Ingold T (2007) Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14: 1–16.

Ingold T (2014) Resonators uncased: Mundane objects or bundles of affect? Comment on

LEMONNIER, Pierre. 2012.Mundane objects:Materiality and non-verbal communication.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4(1): 517–521.

Joyce R (1998) Performing the body in pre-Hispanic Central America. Res: Anthropologyand Aesthetics 33: 147–165.

Joyce R and Hendon J (2000) Heterarchy, history and material reality: ‘‘Communities’’ inLate Classic Honduras. In: Canuto M and Yaeger J (eds) The Archaeology of

Communities: A New World Perspective. New York; London: Routledge, pp. 143–160.

Kenoyer JM and Miller HL (1999) Metal technologies of the Indus Valley tradition inPakistan and Western India. In: Piggot V (ed) The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian OldWorld. University Museum Monograph 89; MASCA Research Papers in Scienceand Archaeology, Vol. 16. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Press,

Jaipur, Rajasthan, pp. 107–151.

Kharakwal JS, Sharma ML and Meena M (2003/4) Ancient Mining and Smelting Sites inNim Ka Thana Tehsil. Sikar, Rajasthan. Sodh Patrika. Udaipur: Rajasthan Vidyapeeth,pp. 92–104.

Koss J (2006) On the limits of empathy. The Art Bulletin 88: 139–157.

Kumar VJ (1985) Ganeshwar-Jodhpura culture: The antecedent of the Copper Age in India.In: The Researcher: A Bulletin of Rajasthan‘s Archaeology and Museums. Jaipur: The

Directorate of Archaeology and Museums Government of Rajasthan, JaipurGovernment Press, pp. 5–15.

Lahiri N (1995) Indian metal and metal related artefacts as cultural signifiers: An ethno-graphic perspective. World Archaeology 27: 116–132.

Landsberg A (1997) America, the holocaust, and the mass culture of memory: Toward aradical politics of empathy. New German Critique 71: 63–86.

Lemonnier P (2012) Mundane Objects: Materiality and Non-verbal Communication. Walnut

Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Miller HL (1994) Metal processing at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro: Information from non-

metal remains. In: Parpola A and Koskikallio P (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1993:Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the European Association of South

Asian Archaeologists. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia: Helsinki, pp. 497–510.Miller HL (2006) Archaeological Approaches to Technology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier/

Academic Press.

Misra VN (1973) Bagor: A late Mesolithic settlement in North West India. WorldArchaeology 5: 92–100.

Moutu A (2006) Collection as a way of being. In: Henare A, Holbraad M and Wastell S

(eds) Thinking Through Things: Theorising Artefacts Ethnographically. New York;London: Routledge, pp. 93–113.

Rizvi 19


Olsen B (2010) In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects. Latham, MD:

AltaMira Press.Pigman G (1995) Freud and the history of empathy. The International Journal of Psycho-

analysis 76: 237–256.

Rizvi UZ (2007) Configuring the space in-between: Redefining the Ganeshwar JodhpuraCultural Complex in Chalcolithic Northeastern Rajasthan, India. PhD Thesis, Universityof Pennsylvania, USA.

Rizvi UZ (2010) Indices of interaction: Comparisons between the Ahar-Banas and Ganeshwar

Jodhpura Cultural Complex. In: Raczek T and Shinde V (eds) EASAA 2007: Special Sessionon Gilund Excavations. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 51–61.

Rizvi UZ (2013) Crafting communities and producing places: Copper, settlement patterns, and

social identity in theGaneshwar JodhpuraCultural Complex, Rajasthan, India. In: AbrahamS, Gullapalli P, Raczek T, et al. (eds) Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to theArchaeology of South Asia. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, pp. 315–340.

Rizvi UZ (forthcoming) Crafting Resonance j Crafting Place: Third Millennium BCE CopperMaterials from Ganeshwar, Rajasthan. Submitted to British Archaeological Reports.Oxford: Archaeopress.

Sackett J (1985) Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari—A reply to Wiessner. American

Antiquity 50: 154–159.Schrock D, Holden L and Reid L (2004) Creating emotional resonance: interpersonal emotion

work and motivational framing in a transgender community. Social Problems 51: 61–81.

Searle J (2006) Social ontology: Some basic principles. Anthropological Theory 6: 12–29.Thomas N (1991) Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the

Pacific. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tilley C (2004) The Materiality of Stone. Oxford: Berg.Titchener EB (1915) A Beginner’s Psychology. New York: Macmillan.Turkle S (ed.) (2007) Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Vischer R (1994 [1873]) On the optical sense of form: A contribution to aesthetics. In:Mallgrave H and Ikonomou E (eds & translators) Empathy, Form, and Space:Problems in German Aesthetics, 1873–1893. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Center for theHistory of Art and the Humanities, pp. 89–123.

White J (1995) Incorporating heterarchy into theory on socio-political development: The casefrom Southeast Asia. In: Ehrenreich R, Crumley C and Levy J (eds) Heterarchy and theAnalysis of Complex Societies. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological

Association no. 6. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association. pp.101–123.Wiessner P (1983) Style and social information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American

Antiquity 48: 253–276.

Author Biography

Uzma Z. Rizvi is Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Urban Studies at thePratt Institute of Art and Design. She has edited volumes such as Archaeology andthe Postcolonial Critique (2008), Handbook on Postcolonial Archaeology (2010), andConnections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archaeology of South Asia(2013). Rizvi specializes in studying third millennium BCE communities in SouthAsia, the Middle East, and the UAE.


Crafting Resonance: Empathy and Belonging in Ancient Rajasthan

Documents

Transcript of Crafting Resonance: Empathy and Belonging in Ancient Rajasthan