Early Historic Stone Beads from Nagardhan, Maharashtra

Akinori Uesugi1, Virag Sontakke2, Shrikant Ganvir3 and Shantanu Vaidya3

1. Center for Cultural Resource Studies, Kanazawa University, Kakuma-machi,

Kanazawa, Ishikawa – 920 1192, Japan (Email: [email protected])
2. Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu

University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh – 221 005, India (Email: [email protected])

3. Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Deccan College

Postgraduate and Research Institute, Pune, Maharashtra - 411 006, India (Email:
[email protected]; [email protected])

Received: 19 August 2020; Revised: 03 October 2020; Accepted: 17 November 2020

Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2 (2020): 193-214

Abstract: This paper examines the morphological features and drilling technologies of stone beads from
Nagardhan in Maharshtra. Most of the beads examined in this paper that belong to the Vakataka period or
the mid-first millennium CE exhibit the use of ‘diamond drill’ with abrasives, which is common in the
Early Historic period across South Asia.

Keywords: Vakataka, Stone Beads, Iron Age, Early Historic, Nagardhan, Silicone
Impression, Scanning Electron Microscope

Introduction
This article is a report on the drilling technology used for stone beads unearthed from
Nagardhan in Maharashtra. The site of Nagardhan that is a large-scale urban centre in
the Nagpur district has been identified as a capital city of the Vakataka dynasty (Figure
1). Three season's excavations conducted at the site have revealed a long-term
occupation from the Iron Age (the Megalithic culture) through the Early Historic
period to the Medieval period providing prominent cultural sequence and chronology
in the this part of Maharashtra, which is also called the Vidarbha region.

The stone beads to be examined in this article were retrieved from the excavations
conducted in 2014 - 2015 and 2015 - 2016. Forty-seven beads were studied by the
author in terms of morphology, dimensions and drilling technology, among which 32
specimens which have been examined using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) are
to be reported in this article.

Outline of the Beads Examined

As mentioned in the introduction, 32 stone beads are examined in this report (Table 1).
In this section, their stone varieties used, morphological features, dimensions and
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

contexts are briefly overviewed. In terms of stone varieties used, 18 carnelian beads,
nine agate or jasper beads, three rock crystal beads, one amethyst bead and one calcite
crystal bead are included. The carnelian beads vary in colours from pale orange to dark
red. The agate or jasper beads includes seven banded ones of black and white and two
semi-transparent white ones. The rock crystal ones are transparent in colours. The
amethyst one has a transparent dark purple colour. The calcite crystal bead is of
opaque yellowish white.

Figure 1: Locations of Nagardhan and relevant sites

With respect to their morphology, the method combining plan shapes and side
elevation shapes was used (Figure 2). Type Aa (round plan + barrel side) is represented
by two specimens, Type Ac (round plan + round side) by six, Type Ai (round plan +
droplet side) by one, Type Cd (square plan + hexagonal side) by one, Type Dc
(rectangular plan + round side) by three, Type Dd (rectangular plan + lozenge side) by
one, Type Ea (hexagonal plan + barrel side) by two, Type Ed (hexagonal plan +
hexagonal side) by 16. Among these morphological types, Types Ac and Ed are
popular ones during the Iron Age and the Early Historical period in North India. Type
Dc or disc-shaped bead, which is relatively popular during the Early Historic period
over South Asia, seems to have had its prototype in Type Bc that was prevalent in the
South Indian Megalithic culture (however it should be noted that Type Bc has also
been found at a few Iron Age sites in North India).

194
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

Table 1: List of the specimens examined

195
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

Table 1 (contd.): List of the specimens examined

196
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

Figure 2: Morphological types of beads from Nagardhan (represented by shades)

197
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

Figure 3: Graph showing the dimensions of beads from Nagardhan

In terms of the correlations between morphological types and stone varieties, Type Aa
(two specimens) are made of banded agate, one of Type Ac of carnelian, the others of
this type of agate (two of them of banded agate and the other two of pale white agate),
Type Ai (one specimen) of banded agate, Type Cd (one specimen) of carnelian, one of
Type Dc of carnelian, the others of this type of banded agate, Type Dd of calcite crystal,
Type Ea (two specimens) of rock crystal, 15 specimens of Type Ed of carnelian and one
of this type of amethyst. The predominance of carnelian in Type Ed seems to exhibit a
strong connection between this morphological type and carnelian.

As to the dimensions of beads, the length of beads or the length of bead holes are
important in terms of drilling, since more elaborated skill and technology are needed
for longer beads. In terms of the length of holes, shorter beads of less than 5 mm long
are extremely limited in number among the specimens from Nagardhan. The specimen
with the longest hole measures 19.06 mm in length. The carnelian beads have a range
in length between 5.09 - 17.53 mm, the agate beads between 5.23 mm and 14.08 mm
and the rock crystal beads between 10.80 mm and 19.06 mm. The amethyst bead has a
hole length of 4.87 mm. The hole length of the calcite crystal bead is 15.18 mm. As to
the correlation between morphological types and hole length, Type Aa exhibits a range
between 9.65 mm and 10.44 mm and Type Ac between 5.23 mm and 10.80 mm. The
specimen of Type Ai measures 6.0 mm and the specimen of Type Cd 17.53 mm. Type
Dc varies from 8.81 mm to 14.08 mm. One specimen of Type Dd measures 15.18 mm.
Type Ea has a range between 14.36 mm and 19.06 mm and Type Ed between 4.87 mm
and 14.57 mm.

198
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

Regarding the archaeological contexts of beads, 26 specimens are from the Vakataka
period, two from the early medieval period and three from the late medieval period.
One was collected from the surface. However it is often difficult to determine the
original time period to which each of beads belongs as tiny artefacts like beads can
easily move from their original context and mix into secondary contexts in the course
of the site formation process, except for the case that beads are kept in a vessel and
buried in a secured context. The majority of the beads examined in this report were
retrieved from the contexts belonging to the Vakataka period, but it is quite possible
that some of the beads were mixed into the Vakataka contexts from earlier or later
occupational levels due to some reasons. While the possibility of contamination of
beads from the medieval levels into the earlier Vakataka levels might be excluded as
the number of beads retrieved from the deposits of the medieval period are limited, the
stratigraphic mixture of beads from earlier deposits into the Vakataka levels is more
likely. Similarly, the specimens from the medieval periods must be treated with
caution that they were mixed into the deposits from the earlier levels. The scarcity of
beads from the medieval contexts might corroborate the possibility of mix-up from the
earlier levels or from the Vakataka levels. However, it is worthwhile to note that 15
specimens retrieved from Layer 4 in Tr. I Qd.4B are likely to have come from their
original context as such a fair number of beads were found in one occupational deposit.

Another point to be noted is that there is a time gap between the time of production
and the time of the discard, that is the final moment to be buried at given site, of beads.
There is a great possibility that beads as ornaments can be passed over generations.
That is, the beads unearthed in the Vakataka levels could date back to an earlier period
for their production. Thus, there are many factors to be considered for determining the
time period of production and the time period of deposition of beads in a specific
stratigraphical context.

Examinations on the Drilling Technology Used for Beads

First, the method of identifying the drilling technologies applied for beads in South
Asia is briefly summarized. For examining the drilling technologies, microscopic
observation on silicone impressions of bead holes using SEM has been developed by
several scholars (Gwinnett and Gorelick 1986, 1987; Kenoyer 1997, 2017; Kenoyer and
Vidale 1992). By classifying the surface types of bead holes and referring to
experimental and ethnographic evidence, the surface pattern left on silicone
impressions can be better understood (Kenoyer and Vidale 1992). In any case, the close
observation and classification of surface patterns of bead holes of archaeological beads
are the first step for this study.

One of the authors of this paper (Akinori Uesugi) has worked on the microscopic
analysis of beads from sites of various regions and periods in South Asia, such as the
specimens from the Urban and Post-urban Indus, North Indian Iron Age and South
Indian Iron Age. Based on the evidence available from these examples, the surface
patterns observed on the silicon impressions of bead holes can be classified into six

199
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

patterns as be shown in Figure 4. Surface Type 1, which has a distinctly smooth

surface, can be identified as a trace made by stone drills. This type is widely observed
on beads from the Urban Indus period (Kenoyer and Vidale 1992; Kenoyer 1997),
during which ernestite drills were predominantly used. Two types of profiles of bead
holes, that is straight cylindrical and tapered, are present. Surface Type 2 with an
irregularly rugged surface is most likely to represent the use of abrasives. Surface Type
3 is characterized by shallow and discontinuous grooves exhibiting a possible use of
copper tubular drill with abrasives (Kenoyer, per. comm). These three surface types are
not observed on the specimens from Nagardhan.

Surface Type 4 is distinct in having deep parallel striations and relatively smaller
diameters of bead holes. This surface type has been interpreted as the trace of diamond
drill based on the comparisons with ethnographic samples from modern bead
workshops in Khambhat, Gujarat (Gwinnett and Gorelick 1986). In Khambhat, one or
two tiny diamond chips are embedded on to the tip of an aluminum rod. This type of
drill is used with a bow drill. This diamond drill has not been confirmed by actual
specimens from any archaeological sites, but it is quite apparent that some hard
materials were embedded on to the tip of a thin rod creating a series of deep striations
on the hole surface of beads. It appears that the rod used for the axis of the drill was a
thin iron rod as it must have sufficient durability for continuous use with a bow drill.
The majority of the examples from Nagardhan exhibit this surface type as is discussed
in the following section.

Surface Type 5 is distinguished from others in having striations running parallel to the
axis of the hole, which are created by the vertical motions of a tool along the axis of the
hole. Two specimens from Nagardhan exhibit this surface pattern. Surface Type 6 is
made with non-rotational pecking using a thin hard tool characterized by an
irregularly rugged surface. No specimen from Nagardhan has this surface pattern. The
details of drilling technologies used on the specimens from Nagardhan are examined
in the following section.

Carnelian Beads: All of the carnelian beads from Nagardhan (18 in number) exhibit
Surface Type 4 regardless of morphological types and hole length. Nos. 3, 5, 9, 11, 14
and 16 have deeper parallel striations. Irregularly rugged surfaces that can be observed
on most of specimens with higher magnifications seem to indicate the use of abrasives.
The rugged surfaces clearly overlap striations on some examples indicating that tiny
abrasives moved around in the hole in the course of drilling creating these rugged
surfaces. No. 4 exhibits surface patterns both with and without parallel striations, but
the rugged surface can be seen over the entire surface of the hole.

In terms of the direction of drilling, 15 specimens (nos. 2 - 5, 7 - 10, 12 - 27, 29, 31, 32)
were drilled from both ends. The tips of two holes meet at the centre of bead hole or
slightly off the centre. For the other three (nos. 1, 6, 11), a hole drilled from one end
reaches almost to the other end of the hole and the drilling was completed by a very
short drilling from the other end.

200
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

Figure 4: Classification of bead hole surfaces (SEM images made by A. Uesugi)

201
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

Figure 4 (contd.): Classification of bead hole surfaces (SEM images made by A. Uesugi)

202
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

Figure 5: SEM images of beads from Nagardhan (1)

203
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

Figure 6: SEM images of beads from Nagardhan (2)

204
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

Figure 7: SEM images of beads from Nagardhan (3)

205
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

Figure 8: SEM images of beads from Nagardhan (4)

206
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

Figure 9: SEM images of beads from Nagardhan (5)

207
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

Figure 10: SEM images of beads from Nagardhan (6)

208
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

Figure 11: SEM images of beads from Nagardhan (7)

209
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

Figure 12: SEM images of beads from Nagardhan (8)

210
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

Figure 13: SEM images of beads from Nagardhan (9)

The tips of holes or drills have a truncated conical shape in all of the specimens
examined. On many specimens (nos. 3, 5 - 10, 12, 21, 24 - 27) irregular breakages, which
can be identified as having happened at the time of piercing two holes using some thin
rod, can be observed at the juncture between two holes. No. 12 is a good example to
observe the condition of the juncture of two holes.

The diameters of holes vary from 1.24 mm to 2.10 mm, but the hole profiles are straight
cylindrical in all of the specimens. In terms of the number of drills used in each
specimen, it seems likely that one single drill was used in each specimen as the
diameters of two holes are almost identical.

Agate Beads: Among nine specimens of agate, no. 19 has no clear parallel striations but
its hole profile is straight cylindrical with a truncated conical tip. It appears that this
specimen belongs to Surface Type 4. No. 20 has prominent parallel striations and a
straight cylindrical profile. Nos. 21 and 22 also have a straight cylindrical profile with a
truncated conical tip and deep parallel striations. On no. 22, the parallel striations can
be observed even on the side of the tip suggesting that the drill tip was fashioned in a
tapering profile. No. 25 has an irregularly rugged surface, but the hole profile and the
tip form are identical with others. No. 26 is a good example exhibiting the condition of
the juncture of two holes. The diameters of bead holes range between 1.23 mm and
1.93 mm. All the specimens were drilled from both ends. It is likely that each specimen
was drilled using a single drill.

Rock Crystal Beads: One of the three rock crystal beads (no. 29) exhibits Surface Type
4 having a straight cylindrical profile of 1.12 mm and 1.58 mm in diameter. The clear
difference in diameters indicates the use of two different drills. The other two (nos.

211
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

28, 30) are distinct in having Surface Type 5 and in being drilled from one end. No. 30
has a tapered hole profile measuring 1.43 - 1.76 mm in diameter. No. 28 has a
cylindrical profile of 1.0 - 1.07 mm in diameter with a truncated conical tip.

Amethyst Beads: This amethyst bead also shows Surface Type 4 along with a straight
cylindrical profile of 1.15 - 1.18 mm. It was drilled from both ends using a single drill.

Calcite Crystal Bead:This bead has a straight cylindrical profile of 1.43 mm in

diameter, although the distal end has a wider diameter of 1.86 mm. The tip of the hole
is truncated conical. The hole surface is distinctly rugged most probably due to the
condition of the native surface of the stone used for this bead. The hole profile indicates
that this bead was drilled from both ends using one single drill identical to other beads
represented by Surface Type 4.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of the examinations described above can be summarized in the following
points.

1. Thirty specimens of 32 beads from Nagardhan examined exhibit Surface Type 4,

which is distinguished by a straight cylindrical profile with more or less deep
parallel striations. This distinct surface pattern has been identified as diamond drill.
The minutely rugged surfaces suggest the use of abrasives.

2. The majority of the beads examined belong to the Vakataka levels or the mid-first
millennium CE. Although there are possibilities that earlier or later beads were
mixed into the Vakataka levels, the beads examined can tentatively be regarded as
representing the morphology, stone varieties used and drilling technology of the
mid-first millennium CE. Very few examples of beads of the first millennium CE
have been examined especially using the SEM so far. Therefore the examples from
Nagardhan examined in this article can be a good basis for the further study on the
technological developments of stone beads in South Asia.

3. This Surface Type 4 has been identified on beads at several sites of the Iron Age and
Early Historic period in South Asia (Gwinnett and Gorelick 1986; Uesugi and
Rienjang, in press) indicating that the drilling technology used on the beads from
Nagardhan belongs to the same technological group of this period. The drilling
technology represented by this surface pattern or the technology using diamond
drills, which is likely to have been developed and adopted by specialized craftsmen,
is highly efficient in making holes on hard rocks such as carnelian, agate, rock
crystal and so on. The identification of the use of this drilling technology on the
beads from Nagardhan belonging roughly to the mid-first millennium CE, which
was widely introduced both in the northern and southern parts of India during the
Iron Age, is important in better understanding the technological continuity from the
Iron Age through the Early Historic period to the modern bead production
exemplified by the bead workshops in Khambhat, Gujarat.

212
 Uesugi et al. 2020: 193-214

4. There has been no evidence for bead production confirmed at the site of Nagardhan
so far but it is possible that this large-scale urban centre held bead workshops to
supply their products to the surrounding areas.

5. Although this article focuses on the drilling technology, the morphological features
of the beads from Nagardhan share the traits with the examples from North India
(e.g. Taxila (Marshall 1951; Beck 1941; Uesugi and Rienjang, in press), Ahichchhatra
(Dikshit 1952), Sonkh (Härtel 1993), Atranjikhera (Gaur 1983), Narhan (Singh 1994)
and so on) indicating that not only technological but also morphological traits of
beads was widely shared between North India and Central India or Nagardhan
during the first millennium CE.

6. Stone beads have numerously been reported from various sites of the Iron Age
Megalithic period and the Early Historic period in the Vidarbha region (Deo 1970,
1973). Similar examination on the drilling technology of beads from these sites can
reveal the technological developments not only in this region but also in entire
South Asia. Conversely further studies on beads can lead to better understanding of
the importance of Nagardhan as a major urban centre.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Randall Law for helping them identify the stone varieties used
for the beads from Nagardhan and Dr. Kay Rienjang for making arrangements for the
use of SEM at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of
Cambridge. It is also noted that this study on the beads from Nagardhan was
conducted with the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (Project number: 15H05164, Principal Investigator: Akinori
Uesugi) and the Chozen Project, Kanazawa University (Principal Investigator: Nozomu
Kawai).

References
Beck, H.C. 1930. Notes on sundry Asiatic beads - beads from megalithic tombs and
midden in Sulur taluk and neighbouring districts. Man, special India
number 30(10): 166-182.
Beck, H.C. 1941. The Beads from Taxila. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India
65, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.
Beck, H.C. 1973. Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants. Liberty Cap
Books, York.
Dangi, V., A. Uesugi, Manmohan Kumar, V. Shinde and Appu. 2015. “Bedwa: A
Mature and Late Harappan Necropolis in the Upper Ghaggar Basin”, in
Manmohan Kumar and A. Uesugi (eds.), Harappan Studies, vol. 1, Aryan
Books International, New Delhi. pp. 93-152.
Deo, S.B. 1970. Excavations at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69). Nagpur University,
Nagpur.
Deo, S.B. 1973. Mahurjhari Excavation (1970-72). Nagpur University, Nagpur.

213
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 8.2: 2020

Dikshit, M.G. 1952. Bead from Ahichchhatra, U.P. Ancient India 8: 33-63.
Gaur, R.C. 1983. Excavations at Atranjikhera. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Gorelick, L. and A.J. Gwinnett. 1988. Diamonds from India to Rome and Beyond.
American Journal of Archaeology 92: 547-552.
Gwinnett, A.J. and L. Gorelick. 1986. Evidence for the use of a diamond drill for bead
making in Sri-Lanka c. 700-1000 A.D. Scanning Electron Microscopy 11: 473-
477.
Gwinnett, A.J. and L. Gorelick. 1987. The Change from Stone Drills to Copper Drills in
Mesopotamia. Expedition 29(3): 15-24.
Härtel, H. 1993. Excavations at Sonkh: 2500 years of a town in Mathura District. Dietrich
Reimer Verlag, Berlin.
Kenoyer, J.M. 1991. Ornament styles of the Indus valley tradition: evidence from recent
excavations at Harappa, Pakistan. Paléorient 17/2: 79-98.
Kenoyer, J.M. 1997. Trade and technology of the Indus Valley: new insights from
Harappa, Pakistan. World Archaeology 29(2): 262-280.
Kenoyer, J.M. 2005. “Bead Technologies at Harappa, 3300-1900BC: A Comparative
Summary”, in C. Jarrige and V. Lef.vre (eds.) South Asian Archaeology 2001,
Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris. pp. 157-170.
Kenoyer, J.M. 2017. “Using SEM to study stone bead technology”, in A. Kanugo (ed.),
Stone Beads of South & South-East Asia: Archaeology, Ethnography and Global
Connections, Indian Institute of Technology-Gandhinagar & Aryan Press,
Ahmedabad/Delhi: 409-436.
Kenoyer, J.M. and M. Vidale. 1992. “A New Look at Stone Drills of the Indus Valley
Tradition”, in P.B. Vandiver, J.R. Druzik, G.S. Wheeler and I.C. Freestone
(eds.), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III, Materials Research Society,
Pittsburgh. pp. 495-518.
Marshall, J.H. 1951. Taxila: an illustrated account of archaeological excavations carried out at
Taxila under the orders of the Government of India between the years 1913 and
1934, vols.1-3. Cambridge University Press, London.
Rienjang, W., J.K. Kenoyer and M. Sax. 2017. “Stone beads. A preliminary
morphological and technological analysis”, in E. Errington (ed.) Charles
Masson and the Buddhist Sites of Afghanistan: Explorations, Excavations,
Collections 1833-1835. British Museum Press, London.
Singh, P. 1994. Excavations at Narhan (1984-89). Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.
Thapar, B.K. 1952. Porkalam (1948). Excavation of a Megalithic Urn-burial. Ancient
India 8: 3-16.
Uesugi, A. and K. Rienjang. in press. Stone Beads from Stupa Relic Deposits at the
Dharmarajika Buddhist Complex, Taxila. Gandharan Studies 11.

214