Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:06:16.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Wares and Fresh Problems from Baluchistan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Beatrice De Cardi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is perhaps axiomatic that archaeological research in Baluchistan should raise as many questions as it answers, and the fieldwork carried out in Kalat in 1957 was no exception. Gradually, however, the nature of these problems is changing.

Prior to 1950 a superfluity of unrelated wares confronted the prehistorian and obscured the wider issues. Much of this pottery had been collected by the late Sir Aurel Stein from the numerous wind-eroded dambs which represent the mudbrick walls of ancient settlements. In the absence of any scientific excavation in this region it was difficult to relate the different painted wares or to group them into cultural assemblages, and the emphasis lay firmly on decorated pottery, since there was even less hope of sorting out unstratified plain wares.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 33 , Issue 129 , March 1959 , pp. 15 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fairservis, Walter A. Jr., ‘Excavations in the Quetta Valley, West Pakistan’, Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 45, 2, New York (1956).Google Scholar [Reviewed in ANTIQUITY 1958, 43.]

2 Ibid., Fig. 50.

3 Fairservis, Walter A. Jr., ‘Preliminary Report on the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Afghan-Baluchi Areas,’ American Museum Novitates, no. 1587, 12 September, 1952, 24.Google Scholar

4 Ward, Lauriston, ‘The Relative Chronology of China through the Han Period’. Ehrich: Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Univ. Chicago Press (1954), 134.Google Scholar

6 de Cardi, B., ‘On the Borders of Pakistan: Recent Exploration’, Journ. Royal India, Pakistan and Ceylon Soc., 24, 2 (1950). 54.Google Scholar

6 KGM. vertical rows of wavy lines, cf. Sialk 1, Ghirshman, R., Fouilles de Sialk, pris de Kashan. 1 (1938–9), pl. XL, A4, B2, D9Google Scholar; XLi, B9, Dr. Cross-hatched pendant triangles, pi. XL, A3; XLIV, D8. Over-all streaked triangles, XL, D4, 5, 4; XLI, A14; XLII, C8; small pendant lines, XLII, C4.

7 McCown, Donald E., ‘The Comparative Stratigraphy of Early Iran,’ Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 23 (1942), 18 note.Google Scholar

8 Ghirshman, Sialk, pl. LXXV, I–2, 5, 7; LXXIX, A7; LXXX AI, C6–8.

9 Masson, V. M., Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 4, 44–54.Google Scholar

10 Piggott, S., ‘The Hissar Sequence—the Indian Evidence’, ANTIQUITY 17 (1943), 169–82.Google Scholar

11 Professor M. E. Mallowan has drawn my attention to certain Jemdet Nasr sherds which are similar to Zari-ware both in design and their use of white paint.

13 Fairservis, , Quetta Valley Report, 354.Google Scholar

13 At Ahmad Shah and Rajo-dero. Deva, Krishna and McCown, D.E., ‘Exploration in Sind’, 1938, Ancient India, 5 (1949), pl. VII, 78, and pp. 26, 30.Google Scholar

14 I am indebted to Miss Mavis Bimson, of the British Museum Laboratory, for her comments on Anjira-ware which are in part included in the description given above.

15 Hargreaves, H., ‘Excavations in Baluchistan: Sampur Mound, Mastung, and Sohr Damb, Nal’. Mem. Arch. Suro. India, 35 (1929), pls. xvi, 24; XIX, 13 R.F.I.Google Scholar; xxi, 15. Stein, A., ‘An Archaeological Tour in Gedrosia, Mem. Arch. Surv. India, 43 (1931), pl. xxi, Kulli 1.Google Scholar

14 Mackay, E. ‘Chanhu-daro Excavations’, 1933–36, American Oriental Ser., 20 (1943), pls. XXXII, 1, 4; XXXIII, I, II, 16.Google Scholar Rosettes occur in the Harappa levels at Amri and Chanhu-daro and on sherds from the defences at Harappa. The motif also appears on a bowl from the lower levels of Kot Diji in Sind, ascribed to a pre-Harappa period. Khan, F. A., ‘Before Mohenjo-daro : New Light on the Beginnings of the Indus Valley Civilization, from Recent Excavations at Kot Diji’, Illus. London News, 24 May, 1958, 867, Fig. 3.Google Scholar

17 Deva, and McCown, , Ancient India, 5 (1949), pl. VI, 70.Google Scholar

18 At Trihni and Shah Hasan. Majumdar, N. G., ‘Explorations in Sind’, Mem. Arch. Surv. India, 48 (1934), pl. XXIII, 30, 39.Google Scholar

19 Hargreaves, , Mem. Arch. Surv. India, 35 (1925), pl. XXI, 8.Google Scholar

20 Badrang-damb, Pak and Thale Damb. Stein, Gedrosia, pis. 11, B.R.18; XX, Pak. 1, Thai. 2, 6.

21 Wheeler, R. E. M., ‘Harappa 1946: the Defences and Cemetery R.37’, Ancient India, 3 (1947), 80.Google Scholar

22 Stein, A., ‘An Archaeological Tour in Waziristan and Baluchistan’, Mem. Arch. Surv. India, 87 (1929).Google Scholar Periano-Ghundai: pl. VIII, P.S.W.38; pl. VI, p. 80: Moghul-Ghundhai, pl. XI, M.M.N.49.

23 Fairservis, , Quetta Valley, Fig. 55, 263–4.Google Scholar

24 Mackay, E., Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro, 2 (1937), pl. LXVII, I. 2; 1 (1938), 184.Google Scholar

25 Fairservis, , Quetta Valley, 200, 352.Google Scholar

26 Zhob: Gordon, D. H., ‘The Pottery Industries of the Indo-Iranian Border: a Restatement and Tentative Chronology’, Ancient India, 10–11 (1954–5), Fig. 10, 174–5.Google Scholar Seistan: Fairservis, , Am. Museum Novitates, 15, 87, 12 September, 1952, 30.Google Scholar Bampur material in the British Museum.

27 I am indebted to Mr. R. L. Raikes, who discovered Kinneru, for this and much other helpful information.

28 Mackay, E., Mohenjo-daro, pl. LXXIX, 22, 23.Google Scholar