7/27/2019 Cork_2005

1/14

Peaceful Harappans? Reviewing theevidence for the absence of warfare inthe Indus Civilisation of north-westIndia and Pakistan (r. 2500-1900 BC)Edward Cork*Life beside the ancient Indus m ay not have been so peacejul and egalitarian as has sometimes beenthought. Arguing from weapons, the author shows that Harappans only appear to be militarilyunder-endowed in comparison with Mesopotamians because their assemblages are derived fromsettleinent finds rather than grand tombs.Keywords: Indus, Harappa, warfare, weapons, metallurgy

Introduction1 he mature phase of the Harappan Civilisation, centred on the River Indus {Figure 1),has been characterised as having rigid urban planning, standardised systems of seals andweights, striking cultural uniformity over a vast area, and an absence of temples, palaces,elite burials and warfare in comparison to Egypt and Mesopotamia (see especially Piggott1962; Whe eler 196 8). Such generalising characterisations are increasingly being challenged,providing a picture of regional diversity in architectu re, material culture , and almost all aspects of life. How ever, the assum ed absence of warfare in the Ind us Civilisation rem ains largely challenge d, despite having major imp lications for the interpr etation of the internal organisation ofthis civilisation. Primarily this has meant the explanation of social coercionand control in terms of ideology rather than physical force.

In fact, the absence of warfare in rhe Indus Civilisation suggested by many researchers isbased upon problematic evidence, an uncritical acceptance of past interpretations and com-parisons mad e with Near Eastern data which fail to distinguish between the funerary contextsfrom which most Mesopotamian metalwork derives and the domestic contexts from whichmost Harappan metalwork originates. This paper does not, however, argue for the presenceof standing armies and organised war in the Indus Valley. The definition of warfare usedhere follows that of Webster: 'Warfare consists of planned confrontations between groups ofpeople who conceive of themselves as members of separate political communities (factions) .. .Warfare is organized and sanctioned group violence that involves armed confiict, includingconfrontations which comb atants recog nize may result in deliberate killing. Confiicts areorganized and carried out by at least one of the factions with the intent of maintaining

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

2/14

Peaceficl Harappami

Irnn

Figure I. Distrihutiiin of major Hara ppan sites, adap tedfrom Ratnagar (2001).

the Status quo or bringing about a shift ofpower relations, usually the latter (1998:313). Warfare need not refer specifically tothe modern notion of a military campaigncomposed of battles. The term 'weapons'is also used loosely here, encompassingobjects which were certainly intendedas weapons, but more significantly alsoincluding what Cha pm an (1999) has called'tool-weapons' - that group of objectswhich could as easily be used for domesticand violent purposes, and of which theprimary use cannot be ascertained by formalone. Th is includes such objects as knives,spears, daggers and arrowheads.

With this in mind, the paper overturnsthe reasoning behind interpretations of theH arapp ans as peaceful and warlcss, emp loy-ing a comparative approach to illustratehow the metal weapons from Indus citiesare comparable to those of the Near East

(M esopotam ia, Susiana and th e Levant) and E gypt, where warfare is historically do cu m ent ed.Discussion is confined to the Mature Harappan period. Because much of the data usedhere derives from old excavation reports with poor stratigraphic control, a more precisechronology is not possible.

The ^Peaceful Harappans' modelThe interpretation ot the Harappans as entirely 'peaceful' can be traced back to commentsma de in the first excavation repo rt of an In du s site (Marsh all 193 1); 70 years later, these ideashave gained common acceptance but have never been rigorously tested. Since then, Indusweaponry has been portrayed as technologically inadequate for offensive use, inferior toMesopotamian examples and outnumbered by tools at Indus sites. The ineffectiveness andscarcity of weapons was first commented on by Mackay (1931: 497) who observed that theblades found at Mohenjo Daro would 'double up upon impact', and linked this specificallyto an absence of warfare: 'judging from the small number .. . of weapons of offence anddefence, the people of M ohenjo Da ro appear n either to have been a warlike people nor havefeared invasion' (1931: 28 2). The former statem ent has been repeated, ofi:en word tor w ord,by Wheeler (1968: 73 ), Agrawal (1971: 191; 2000: 71), Rao (1973 : 82; 1985 : 530) , Basham(196 7: 21) and K osambi {1997: 64) . Th e scarcity of weap ons in H arap pan contexts is furthercommented upon by Lai (1997: 165-6), Agrawal (2000: 70) and Ratnagar (1991: 82).

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

3/14

Edward Cork(1931 : 107) and Ratnagar {1991: 98). Metallurgical analyses have also downplayed thesignificance of weaponry: Sana Ullah ( 1 9 3 1 : 481) and Rao (1973 : 82; 1985: 522) claimedthat the use of tin bronze was restricted to tools, jewellery and vessels. In two recenttreatments ofth e topic, Maisels (199 9: 222) states that ^ there is no evidence or armies, either interms of imagery or equipment, and Mclntosh (2001) suggests that Indus weaponry such asarrows and daggers could have as easily served as hunting implements. However, none ofthese statements has been tested, or given critical consideration. In particular, the almostverbatim repetition of Mackay's original comment regarding the thinness of blades suggeststhat it has simply become received wisdom.

The acceptance of this viewpoint by most scholars has had significant effects uponwider issues in Indus archaeology. In the absence of standing armies and monopolisedforce, some scholars have attempted to explain social coercion in terms ot ideology andreligious sanctions. Early interpretations involved 'Priest-Kings' {Marshall 1931; Piggott1962; Wheeler 1947, 1968). More recently, Malik has explained the Harappan powerstructure In terms of ''discipline. . . enforced by ideological reasons, or by a superstructure ojvalues' (1979: 179). Daniel Miller has proposed that those in power were 'conspicuousthrough asceticism' and not the monopolisation of force (1985: 61), whilst Kenoyer hasdiscussed 'coercion through trade and religion' (19 98: 99 ; see also 2000: 101). Th e dismissalof city walls as defensive structures a nd the identification of th e architec ture on the citadel'mound at Mohenjo Daro as connected with ritual and public use rather than royal ordefensive use are also arguab ly influenced by the acce ptanc e of a warless society an d elite. T h einterpretation of Harappan civilisation as below state level {the presence of warfare being aco m m on criterion for state-level society), and the discussion of increasing societal com plexityin terms of material cu lture spread { rather than the processes be hin d th at spread) are furtherexamples. The fact that scholars who have expressed reservations about an absence of warfare(e.g. Kenoyer 19 98: 82 ; Possehl 20 02 : 49 ; Ratna gar 20 01 : 118) 5f/7/discuss othe r aspects of this civilisation in a ma nne r that excludes warfare as a m otiva ting factor or conc ern, de m on - strates the end urin g influence of the mo del. Clearly, ove rturn ing the 'peaceful H arap pan s' model has broader implications than that ofthe issue of warfare alone: acceptance of thisposition is at the heart of our curre nt u nde rsta ndi ng of many aspects ofth e Indus Civilisation.

This paper compares the design of Harappan, Egyptian and Near Eastern weapons, theirmetallurgical constituents and the composition of metal assemblages from various sites inMesopotamia and the Levant. These areas are the benchmark used when authors stressthe inadequacy of Indus weaponry; furthermore, Egypt and the city-states of Mesopotamiaindisputably engaged in warfare, providing a good basis for comparison. By its nature thisstudy is highly synthetic, comparing datasets collected in significantly varying ways overa long time span (see Kenoyer & Miller 1999 for a review of the problems inherent inthe Indus data). Further complications exist in the compatison of metallurgical studiesemploying different scientific techniques (Knapp & Cherry 1994: 33-6).

Weapon design

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

4/14

Peaceful Harappans?found are swallow-tailed and un-tanged.The blades are technologically almostidentical: none have a midrib (althoughsome have slight median thickening), andall have a shorr, flat tang. The only signi-ficant variation lies in the curve of theshoulders and cutting edge, yielding bladesvarying from leaf shapes to narrow, angularshapes; it is unclear whether this reflectsdeliberate imposition of form or the effectsof re-sbarpening. This is in apparent con-trast to the Near East (Figure 3), where axestook on a large num ber of forms includingsuch specialised types as fenestrated axes,

and where blades were tanged (voluted and straight), un-tanged, riveted or socketed (seeMaxwell-Hysiop 1946; Petrie 1917; Philip 1989). Swords only appeared relatively late inthe Near East (Postgate 1992: 249), not becoming common until the Iron Age. There istherefore no reason to suppose that the lack of swords in the Indus Civilisation reflects anabsence of hand-to-hand combat.

Unsocketed Harappan axes are seen to be technologically inferior to their socketedM esopo tamian c oun terpa rts (Ratnagar 19 81 : 98) . However, unsocketed axes were evidentlyused in military contexts in Mesopotamia alongside more complex designs. Postgate (1992:248) observes that the Stele of Vultures, erected by Eanatum of Lagas around 2800 BC,depicts soldiers arm ed w ith solid axes, althou gh the identification ofthe se axes as unsocketedis not certain. In the 'A' cemetery at Kish (Early Dynastic period), solid axes are placed in thesame locations, with respect to tbe body, as socketed axes, suggesting the two designs were

Figure 2. Typical Harappan weapon forms.

1 2Ribbed Daggers

Socketed Axe

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

5/14

Edward Cork

Philip (1989) Type 10 Dagger Maxwell-Hyslop (1946) Types 3,4, and 5 Daggers

Egyptian axes (from Davies 1987)Figure 4. Selected Near Eastern and Fgyptian weapons with technological similarities to Haruppari examples.

understood as performing the same functions (Mackay 1929: 159). In Egypt, battleaxesremained unsocketed until the Iron Age, and were fastened to the shaft: by cords or tangs(Shaw 1991: 5^-7). Technologically, these Egyptian examples are no more advanced thanthe flat axes of the Indus Civilisation (Figure 4). Clearly, flat axes were used as weapons inEgypt and Mesopotamia during the Third Millennium, leaving no reason to suppose thatthose from the Indus were not.

The exact function of Harappan blades is uncertain, but they closely match types ofdaggers from the Levant and the Near East (see Philip 1989: Dagger Type 10; Maxwell-Hyslop 1946: 'lypes 1 to 5 and 2 7). Whilst these are am ongst the most technologicallybasic forms present in these catalogues, both authors draw attention to the longevity andsheer num ber ofthe se types of dagger (Philip 1989: 114; Maxwell-Hyslop 1946: 3). Theseancient Near Eastern blades have a thickness consistent with the Indus examples, but itis not suggested that they were too fragile for practical use, or that they were restrictedto domestic (non-violent) uses. In Egypt, metal daggers only became common from the

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

6/14

Peaceful Harappans?assemblages, but although they are criticised as being technologically primitive, there is noreason to suppose that they were not effective.

Harappan axes and blades conform to broad types found throughout the Near East andEgypt. They represent forms that, whilst technologically less developed, are still interpretedas wea pons and wo uld have been used alongside more complex designs. H ara pp an weap onscannot, therefore, be viewed as technologically inferior or inadequate for combat. Theeffectiveness of Egyptian weapons, despite the slow adoption of more advanced designs,further refutes the suggestion that the technological conservatism seen in Harappanweaponry equates to a lack of warfare. Argu me nts em phasising the simplicity of H arapp anweapons also ignore the fact that the bulk of complex Mesopotamian weapons (and weaponsin general) derive from burial and votive deposits (Phihp 1988). Items from these deliberatelystructured deposits clearly do not reflect social reality, and are not comparable with Harappanweapons, which derive exclusively from domestic contexts.

Metallurgical comparisonsThe most common metal used by the Harappans was unalloyed copper (Chakrabarti &Lahiri 1996; Kenoyer & Miller 1999: Appendix A). What little tin alloying exists appearspredominantly in tools; the typically unalloyed weapons consequently are interpreted as lessimportant in terms of function, aesthetics or status (Kenoyer & Miller 1999: 115; Rao 1973:82; 198 5: 52 2; Sana Ullah 1931 ). How ever, tin bronzes are also scarce in Thir d M illenn iumMesopotamia, and tbe majority derive from the high-status funerary contexts of the RoyalCemetery at Ur and 'Y' cemetery at Kish (Stech 1999). It has been suggested tbat tin was,at this time, a highly valuable commodity, associated by common geographic origin withlapis and gold (Muhly 1977: 76; Stech 1999: 66; Stech & Pigott 1986: 46). Furthermore,no link has been confirmed between tin alloying and artefact type in Mesopotamia (Pigott1999: 5, a fact acknowledged by Kenoyer & M iller 19 99: 115), despite assum ptions that tinalloying predominated in items that would have benefited from its mechanical advantages.Arsenic and lead alloying are not considered here.

Unfortunately, few recent metallurgical studies of Near Eastern domestic assemblagescontain weapons, so this study by necessity incorporates funerary data. A comparison ofselected analyses of Early and Middle Bronze Age weapons from the Eevant (Philip 1989:515-18), mid-Third Millennium Susa (Tallon 1987) and Early Dynastic to Old BabylonianUruk (Lutz etal. 1995) shows alloying trends co mp arable to tbose in the Indus (see Figure 5).Nearly all the artefact types considered have a significant number of examples with littleor no tin in them . Although the four analysed H arap pan blades (interpreted as spears) donot have a great deal of tin (maximum 2.6 per cent), neither do the Levantine tanged andriveted spearheads: tin is nor present in 15 of 20 such spears, and only one example hasover 0.5 per cent. It is the socketed spears, and those from palace and temple contextsat Susa and Uruk, which are rypically high in tin. Harappan daggers and knives show awider range in tin levels, but these fall short of the most heavily alloyed examples from the

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

7/14

Edward (.ork

Levantine Tanged SpearsLevantine Rivetled Spears

Levantine Socketted SpearsSusa Lancceads

Uruk SpearIndus Spear s

Lcvantin Narrow DaggersLevantine Other Dagger Types

Susa DaggersUnik Dagger

Indus Daggers/ Knives

Levantine Crescentic AxesSusa Socketled Ax es

Susa Flat AxesUruk Socketted Axes

Uruk Flat AxeIndus Ax es

% tin contentO t J ~ IJ oc

III

I

1

++

1 1 n i l I I I I I I 1

1 11

+

i >1I

n- +

I

+ +

i

+ +1

1

++

1 1

++

I 1

1

I

I

1 1 1

I

11

I

f

I

'uwijni

Figure 5. Metallurgical analyses of various weapons assemblages.

well within the range of tin alloying in Indus daggers. Harappan axes have the highestlevels of tin alloying amongst the Indus weapons, and are most comparable, in terms of tincontent, with Near Eastern examples. This is remarkable considering the complexity of mostNear Eastern designs {necessitating closed moulds which benefit greatly from the increasedfluidity of the molten metal produced by the addition of tin) compared to the Harappanaxes. However, the high level ot tin in a flat axe from Uruk suggests that simplicity in design

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

8/14

Peaceful Harappans?advantages ofthese alloys, and see the use of tin bronzes pred om inan tly to m anufa cture toolsand weapotis that benefited from the extra hardness of these alloys. These views are nowbeing abandoned {see Heske! & Karlovsky 1980: 230; Muller-Karpe 1991). Tin alloyingis increasingly discussed in terms of its aesthetic value, its status value and association withothe r exotic goods, and its mechanical advantages over arsenical copp er has been q uestion ed(Stech & Pigott 1986: 56). Tin alloying does not appear to grow steadily more common inthe manner expected of a new technology dispersing purely by virtue of its advantages overan older one (Stech 1999). Egypt, in particular, provides a good example ofthis. There waslittle tin alloying as late as the M iddle Kin gdo m , an d there is evidence to suggest that it wasused predominantly for its colouring properties (Ogden 2000: 153, 154).

The issue of alloying is not so clear-cut that we may draw a mono-causal associationbetween alloying practices and the functional requirem ents o fwe apo ns of war: rhe perceivedinadequacy of Harappan weaponry due to its low tin content is therefore misplaced. Theevidence cannot support the conclusions drawn by Rao (1985: 522): poorly alloyed orunalloyed weaponry was relatively common in Third Millennium Egypt and Mesopotamiaas well as the Indus. The comparison of primarily domestic Harappan assemblages withM esop otam ian palace, temple an d elite grave assemblages, which as high status objects ma yhave had higher tin contents irrespective of function, is bound ro give the impression ofrelative deficiencies in the Harappan material. Despite this, comparisons of technologicallysimilar weapons from the two areas suggest similar levels of tin alloying, especially if oneallows for rhe fact that the simpler, open-mould manufacturing techniques of Harappanweapons would have benefited little from the addition of tin.

Comparison of weapon assemblagesMost significant to the 'peaceful Harappans' model is the claim that weapons are scarce atIndus sites, and rhe overall number ofweapons lower than at Mesoporamian sites. To testthis, the metal assemblages from the Indus sites of Mohenjo Daro (Mackay 1938; Marshall1931), Harapp a (Vats 1940), Chan hud aro (Mackay 1 943; Miller pers. com m .), Lothal(Rao 1985) and Surkotada (Joshi 1990) were compared to those from residential areas atUr (Old Babylonian period, c. 1500-1300 BC, Woolley & Mallowan 1976). Nippur (Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian periods, areas TA and TB, Stone 1987), Tell Brak (periods K-N,Oates etal. 2001) and Megiddo (strata XVII-XIII, c. 2500-1750 BC, Eoud 1948). Periodsnot contemporary to the Indus Civilisation were chosen where domestic contexts werenot available for contemporary periods. Artefacts were grouped into a number of broad,functional categories in order ro compare the composition of the various assemblages.The se categories divide rhe assemblages into m utua lly exclusive and functionally consistentgroups (after, bur differing from. Miller 2000). The categories examined in this study are'weapons', 'tool/weapons' and 'tools' (see Figure 6); objects not falling into these groups arenot discussed. 'Weapons' includes items with purely violent (non-hunting) functions, suchas swords, battleaxes and mace heads, a definition that differs from that used elsewhere in

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

9/14

Edward Cork80

e

Harappan Sites i Near Eastern Sites.

Tools D Tool/weapons WeaponsFigure 6. Percentage of total assemblages composed of'tools', 'tool/weapons' and 'weapons'.

daggers, arrows and spears. The intention of the ' tool/weapons' category is to make nopresupposition about the function of ambiguous objects (Chapman 1999).

Three observations can be drawn from Figure 6. Primarily, defined 'weapons' are rare atall settlements considered, from the Near East to the Indus. The claim that they are lessnumerous in the Indus can be rejected outright. Secondly, the proportion of the assemblagescomposed of ' tool/weapons' is often greater at Indus sites than at Near Eastern sites. Moststriking in this respect is the scarcity of ' tool/weapons' at Tell Brak and Nippur, especiallyconsidering that rhe period under consideration at Nippur began and ended in violentupheaval (Stone 1987: 114). Thirdly, the variability seen in rhemetal assemblages derivingfrom individual Near Eastern sites is striking compared ro the Indus sires. This is doubtlessa factor of the contrasting nature ofpolitical and cultural unification between sites in thesetwo areas, bu t itdoes throw into doubt the validity of lumping together various Near Easternsites into such a broad entity as 'Me sopotam ian' sites.If there really are comparable levels of weaponry in Indus and Mesopotamian sites, itbegs the question why nobody has realised this simple fact. Part of the problem lies inthe predisposition to interpret Harappan objects such as axes and spears as agricultural orhunting equipment rarher than weapons for use against othe r peo ple. However, this positionis on ly the result ofyears ofacceptance that there are no significant numbers ofweapons arIndus sites; and this is the result of misconceived comparisons between early excavations ofresidential areas at Mohenjo Daro and Harappa on the one hand, and temple and palacecompounds from Mesopotamia on the other.

Discussion

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

10/14

Peaceful Harappans?the perceived simplicity and scarcity of metal weapons are the only reasons put forward for alack of warfare. However, it m us t be acknowledged that this is but on e of a num be r of lines ofevidence drawn upon by contemporary authors. It is suggested here that a prior acceptanceof 'peaceful Harappans' has coloured subsequent discussions of Harappan warfare, whichincorporate diverse lines of evidence. Recent works discuss the lack of evidence tor an actualwar or battle, the absence or unsuitability of walls and gates for defensive purposes, theabsence of art depicting w ar or violence and the absence of stimu lus for violent con fronta tion.It is not within the scope of the present paper to properly address all these issues, but a fewpoints might be brought forward. The absence of evidence for actual battles is problematicbecause they are such a rare archaeological phenomenon. Furthermore, Possehl has drawnattention to the apparent burning of a number of Harappan sites at the beginning of theMature Harappan period (2002: 47-8), which might be interpreted as territorial expansionby a specific group. The claimed unsuitabiiity of walls and gates is somewhat subjective,and ignores sites with bastions and 'double-axis' gateways {such as Dholavira and Surkotadain Gujarat, Bisht 1991 ; Joshi 1990). More significantly, our knowledge of warfare in Egyptand Mesopotamia is heavily dependent on textual evidence and art; but this simply does notexist to portray any aspect of life in the Indus Civilisation. The absence of artistic or textualreference to war in the Indus is therefore no more representative of a lack of war than a lackof trade, agriculture or urbanisation - none of which are in any doubt.

Near Eastern Bronze Age societies are known to have had elites that identified inpart with the ideal of the 'warrior, characterised by warrior burials, which includedstandardised packages of weapons {Philip 1995). Apart from the intensifying effect thatsuch an atmosphere of competitive display would have had upon the development ofweapon designs and alloying practices, it raises the issue as to what kind of evidence forwarfare would exist for a society in which the elite did not identify itself in such a way(i.e. the Indus). Essentially, these points may boil down to a consideration of whether themetal assemblages of domestic contexts actually are good indicators of the levels of warfarein a society, and what kind of archaeological evidence one might reasonably expect for thepresence of warfare as an active and struc turin g c om po ne nt of society. Th ese issues, however,do not detra ct from the fact that arg um en ts for tbe absence of warfare in H ara pp an society,based upon metalw ork, do no t stand up to scrutiny. The issue of H arap pan warfare thereforeprovides an interesting opportunity to build a framework for the examination of warfare,armies and the monopolisation of force from early complex societies which do not provideus with such clear textual and artistic evidence as Mesopotamia and Egypt, and for thearchaeological dete ction of war in general.

ConclusionIt is very clear that the patterns evident in the distribution, design and possibly functionof Mature Harappan metal weaponry differ from those in the comparative centres selected.Although there is a relative abundance of blades in Harappan urban contexts, this might be

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

11/14

Edward Corkdid not use weapons as symbols of power to differentiate themselves from the non-elitepopulat ion in the same way that Mesopotamian elites did. It does not necessarily follow,however, that the Harappan elite did not use weapons, or use warfare as amethod of socialcon trol, or for political and/ or territorial gain, or that the n ature and function of elite powerdid not involve these weapons. The absence of'high status' weaponry suggests either thatweapons were simply not a significant part of elite identity {which is entirely different tosuggesting that weapons were not used by the Harappan elite), or that they did not enterthe archaeological record in the sam e way.

T he ten denc y for Meso potam ian w eapon s to derive from funerary co ntexts creates a majordifficulty in comparison. Burials are deliberately sttuctured deposits, and their contentscannot be compared to material deriving from contexts representing accidental loss, discardor retention for later use or recycling (hoards). The message conveyed by burials, as publicdisplays {through th e ceremony, type of tom b, kind s of grave good s, etc), will conform to theideology and worldview of the survivors. This may include the deliberate m anipulation andmisrepresentation of social reality. Rissman (1988) has proposed that the apparent absenceof rich Harappan burials is the result of a deliberate attempt to mask social inequality.Likewise, Mesopotamian elite burials impart their own message of dominance in their ownway, and the association between the warrior and elite status formed apart of this. The factthat weapons are so common in the royal graves atUr is, therefore, no more indicative of asociety engaged in permanent warfare than Harappan graves without weapons are indicativeof a totally peaceful society.AcknowledgementsThanks must go to my supervisors, Dertk Kennct and Graham Philip, for a wide range of support and suggestions.I also benefited from stimulating conversations with Greg Possehl, Mark Kenoyer and Heather Miller, and thecomments from Robin Coningham and one anonymous reviewer. Heidi Miller very kindly provided me withthe quantification on the Chanhudaro metalwork. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those ofanyone above, and any errors remain my own. A version of rhis paper was originally presented at the EuropeanA ssociation of South A sian A rchaeologists' Conference in Bonn, 200.3.

ReferencesA(;RAWAL, D.I' 1971. The Copper Bronze A ge in India.New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.-2()(){). Ancient ?netal technology an d archaeology of SouthAsia. New Delhi: A ryan Book International.BASHAM, A . L. 19 67. The wonder that was India.

Calcutta: Rupa.BISHT, R.S. 1991. Dholavira: new horizons in the Indus

Civilisation. Ptiratattva 20: 71-82.C H A K R A B A R T I , D .K . & N. LA EIIRJ. 1996. Copper and its

alloys in A ncient India. New Deihi: MunshiramManoharlal.

CHAPMAN, J. 1999. The origins of warfare in the

FAIRSERVIS, W .A . 1971 . Th e roots of ancient India.London : George A llen and Unw in.

HESKEL, D. & C.C. KARLOVSKV. 1980. An alrcrnativtsequence for the development of metallurgy: TepeYahya, Iran, in J.D. Miihly (cd.). The comingoftheA ge of Iron: 229-65. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.JosHi,J.P. 1990. Excavation at Surkotada 1971-72 and

exploration inKutch. Memoirs of the ArchaeologicalSurvey of India 87.

KENOYER, J .M. \'^^^. A ncient cities of the Indus Valleytradition. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

-2 00 0 . W ealth and socioeconomic hierarchies in theIndu s V alley tradition , in M. V an Buren (ed.).

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

12/14

Peaceful Harappans?K E N O Y E R , J.M. & H.M.-L. MIL L F.R. 1999. Metaltechnologies ot the lndu.s Valley tradition inPakistan and Western India, in V.C. Pigott {ed.).

The archaeometallurgy of th e Asian Old World:107-52. Philadelphia; The University M useutn,University of Pennsylvania.

KNAPP, A . B . &J.F. C H E R R Y . 1994. Provenience studiesand Bronze Ag e Cyprus. Production, exchange an dpolitico-economic change. M adi.son: Preh istory I'ress.KOSAMBI, D.D. 1997. 'The culture an d cinilisation ofancient India. A historical outline. New Delhi; VikasPublishing House,L A I . B.B. 1997. The earliest civilisation of South Asia.New Delhi: Aryan Books International.L

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

13/14

Edward CorkS H A W , I. 1991. Egyptian warfare and weapons. Princes

Risborough: Shire Egyptology.S T E C H , T . 1999. A spects ofearly metallurgy in

Mesopotamia andA natolia, in V.C. Pigott (td.).Th e archaeometaliurgy ofthe Asian OU WorUi:59-71. Philadelphia: The University Museum,University of Pennsylvania.STF .CH , T . & V.C . Pic;oTT . 1986. The metaLs trade insouthwest Asia in the T hird M illennium B.C . /me/

4 8 : .^9-64.S T O N E , E . C . 1987 . Nippur neighbourhoods. C hicago:

O riental Instittite of th e University of C hicago.T A L L O N , F . 1987 . Metallurgie susienne I. De la fondatwnde Suse au XVI IFavantJ.-C. 2 vols. Pari.s; Mus.ee duLouvre Departemen t des A ntiquit^s O rJentales.

VATS , M.S. 1940. Excavations atHarappa. Delhi:Government of India.

WF.B.STER, D . 1998. W arfare andstatus rivalry. LowlandMaya and Polynesian comparisons, in G.M.Feinman & J. Marctis (e d.). ArchaieStates, .il ! - 5 1 .S anta F e: S chool of A merican Research Press.

W H E E LE R, R . E . M . I'M?. Harappa 1946: the defencesand cemetery R-.37. Arieierit India 3: 58 -130.- 1 9 6 8 . The Indus C ivilisation. Supplementary volume tothe Cambridge History of India. 3rd edition.C ambridge: C ambridg e University Press.W 00LI.EV, L. & M. MALLOWAN. 1976. Ur excavations

Vol. VI!. The Old Bahylomau Period Philadelphia:A llen, Lane and Scott.

7/27/2019 Cork_2005

14/14