See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264900434

2013. Cord-impressed pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of eastern

India’, pp. 78-110 in K.N. Dikshit, ed., Neolithic-Chalcolithic Cultures of Eastern
India. New Delhi: Indi...

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
0 5,551

1 author:

Manjil Hazarika
Cotton University
40 PUBLICATIONS 291 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Manjil Hazarika on 21 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

78 | Manjil Hazarika

Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic

Context of Eastern India
Manjil Hazarika
Research Associate, Indian Archaeological Society and
Himalayan Languages Project, University of Bern, Switzerland
Email: [email protected]

A
s the term suggests, cord-impressed pottery bears cord-impressions, mostly
on the outer surface, either partially or fully. Impressions are made either as
a decorative pattern with a paddle wrapped with a cord, or they remain over
the surface as a by-product while beating and shaping the pot in leather-hard
condition with a cord-wrapped paddle. These impressions can be considered
either as decorations (stylistic) or just as a process of potting (technological)
or both, besides its functional aspect, if there is any. The cords are wrapped around the
paddle for easy beating of the sticky clay by preventing the paddle from sticking to the
clay. In many cases, the paddles are also curved with various designs for the same purpose
which also depicts impression over the body of the pot. Moreover, cordage or basketry
is also used to wrap the paddle. In certain cases, it is observed that these impressions
are shallow and not very clear, and so the decorations cannot be figured out. Sometimes,
it becomes difficult to identify whether these are cord-impressions or impressions of a
carved paddle. All the terms, like cord-impressed, cord-marked and corded wares, are
used to designate this kind of pottery.

The Neolithic culture of Japan, starting as early as 13,600 BC, is termed as Jomon culture
on the basis of the pottery it has revealed, which bears cord-decorations. The term Jomon
was coined by Edward S. Morse who discovered corded ware at the Omori site in 1867.
Jomon means ‘cord-mark’ in Japanese (see Zhushchikhovskaya 2007 for details).

The cord-impressed ware, a typical ceramic industry widely distributed in the prehistoric
contexts of East and Southeast Asia was first reported in the Indian context from Assam
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 79

(Sharma 1966). Later on this ware has been reported from several sites of northern
Vindhyas and the Gangetic valley. Considering the wide occurrences, this ware has been
considered as a unique characteristic of the ceramic traditions of Neolithic-Chalcolithic
culture of Eastern India. By the term Eastern India, we indicate the region in the eastern
part of the country comprising the present states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal
and the eastern part of Uttar Pradesh. Although situated in the northeastern corner
of India, we also cover the present day states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura in our present discussion which has
also revealed cord-impressed pottery in Neolithic contexts as well as later periods. This
ware has important bearings on the origin and development of the Neolithic culture
of Northeast India (Hazarika 2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b). In this paper, we shall be
dealing with the archaeological context of this vast area based on its geo-physical entities
rather than the political boundaries of these Indian states.

NORTHERN VINDHYAN REGION

Sites of northern Vindhyan region like Koldihawa (Lat. 24o 54’ N and Long. 82o 2’ E),
Mahagara and Kunjhun have yielded a considerable percentage of cord-impressed ware
besides rusticated ware, burnished red ware and burnished black ware (Pal 1987: 62).
The cord-impressed ware of Koldihawa (Pal 1986) is made of semi lavigated clay and is
not fired at high temperature. The surface colour is mat or dull red and the colour of the
core in blackish, ashy, grey and dull red. It has a coarse fabric and porous core. Except a
few, most of the sections of the potsherds are thick to medium. In a general description of
the Vindhyan cord-impressed pottery, Pal (1987: 63) mentions that the clay for making
this pottery is not well lavigated and contains calcium granulates and small iron nodules.
Several materials such as rice and millet husk, chopped straw and leaves are mixed. The
pottery is handmade and ill-fired, and palm and finger impressions can be observed (Fig.
1, 2, 3 & 4).

The bowls and basins are cord-impressed on the whole exterior, but the neck portions of
the jars and handis lack cord-impressions. The cording pattern of each pot is different in
terms of intensity and cording strokes. The impressions vary from thick to thin through
medium and deep to dull and indistinct and the cording strokes are vertical, horizontal,
oblique or slanting and occasionally multi-directional. The core of the pot is blackish,
smoky grey or dull matured and the surface is matted, dull yellow and smoky blackish.
The shapes are convex, straight or tampering sided shallow and deep bawls, flat bowls
or platters, tubular spouted bawls, and straight, concave or carinated necked jars and
handis. Pal (1987: 61-65) observed similar cord-decorations on the pottery of the
Vindhyan region with those found at the sites of Daojali Hading and Sarutaru of Assam.
However they differ in colour as well as in the range of other decorative patterns (Sharma
and Mandal 1980: 48). Pachoh, Indari (Pal 1986: 92-116) and the recently excavated site
of Tokwa (Lat. 24o 54’ 20” N and Long. 82o 16’ 45” E) have yielded cord-impressed ware
80 | Manjil Hazarika

Fig. 1: Cord-impressed pottery from Mahagarha (after Sharma and Mandal 1980)
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 81

Fig. 2: Cord-impressed and rusticated ware, Mahagarha (after Sharma and Mandal 1980)

in the Neolithic level besides other ware

which is similar to the other sites of the
Vindhyan region (Misra et. al. 2000-01:
59-72).

In certain Mesolithic sites of the Vindhyas

such as Morahana Pahar, Baghai Khor,
Lekhahia and Ghagharia, cord-impressed
pottery with geometric Microliths
(Pal 1986:76-79) also appear, though
primitive in terms of clay preparation,
firing condition and state of preservation
in comparison to the Neolithic context,
probably due to cultural interaction (Pal
1987: 63). The cord-impressed ware of
Fig. 3: Cord-impressed pottery, Koldihwa
Lekhahia (Pal 1986: 79) is ill-fired and (after Sharma and Mandal 1980)
has a coarse fabric, thick to medium
section and gritty core containing small
lateritic granules. No shapes could be
82 | Manjil Hazarika

Fig. 4: Cord-impressed pottery, Koldihwa (after Sharma and Mandal 1980)

reconstructed. Misra (2010: 14) suggests that the recovery of cord-impressed pottery
from rock shelter sites of late Mesolithic context might have been due to the symbiotic
relations between late Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures. He further suggested that there
were certain people still living a Mesolithic way of life even at a time when Neolithic
people were living in this area.

MIDDLE GANGA PLAIN

In period I (Narhan Culture) at Narhan, two cord-impressed potsherds have been found,
out of which one piece is a deep bawl of black and red ware in coarse fabric. The whole
interior is black and the rim portion of the exterior is also black while the rest of the
exterior is red. Cord-impressions are found on the exterior of the pot on the red portion
which is identical to Mahagara. The other piece is lipped basin of red slipped ware bearing
a thick slip. The cord-impressed design, similar to other potsherds, is seen on the exterior
about 4 cm below the rim (Singh 1994: 43). Cord-impressed pottery is also found in later
periods, even during the Early Historic period (Singh et. al. 1984-85: 117-120) (Fig. 5 &
6). Moreover, another variety of this pottery which is different from the period I pottery
comes from the lowest levels of period II identified at mound-2. Cord-impressed pottery
has also been found in period I at the site of Taradih in Gaya district of Bihar (IAR 1984-
85: 9). Excavations carried out at Chirand (Verma 1970-71: 19-23) in the district of Saran
in Bihar reveal a Neolithic stratum of 3.5 m thickness in which a potsherd shows mat
impressions.
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 83

Fig. 5: Corded ware from period I, Narhan

(after Singh 1994)

Fig. 6: Cord-impressed pottery from

period III, Narhan (after Singh 1994)
84 | Manjil Hazarika

At the site of Sohgaura (Chaturvedi 1985: 101-108), on the confluence of rivers Rapti
and Ami in Gorakhpur District of Uttar Pradesh, cord-impressed ware dominates Period
I which is assigned to the Neolithic period. The pottery is coarse to medium in fabric
and usually ill-fired. It is made of gritty clay mixed with rice husks, straw, etc. There is
no uniformity of colour in the section of the potsherds. Sometimes the middle portion
is black with red zones on either sides and in some potsherds, the inner portion of the
core is black and the outer portion is red; however, some potsherds show uniformity in
black colour in the section. The exterior in some potsherds is red while the interior is
either grey or black. Cord-impressions occur only in the exterior and consist mainly of
beaded lines usually vertical with other patterns. This pottery continues even to Period
II assigned to Chalcolithic and also found in sites like Susipar, Ramnagar Ghat, Gerar and
Lahuradewa in Basti District of Uttar Pradesh, Lalnahia and Kunjhum in Sidhi District of
Madhya Pradesh, Chechar in Vaishali District of Bihar etc.

Archaeological explorations at the alluvial plains along the foothills of Kaimur, within a
radius of 25-30 km were conducted by Singh (1988-1989: 6-18, also see Singh 1995-96:
75-93) and several sites of early farming communities were discovered. Cord-impressed
ware, noticed during the excavations at Senuar in the period IA (Neolithic) is thin to
medium in section. The clay is not heavily tampered and not well levigated, core is gritty
and porous and external surface is marked with cord-impressions. The impressions of
cord are incipient to thin and, at times, are indistinct; the cording strokes are vertical,
oblique and slanting. Only bowls can be found in this ware. In the subsequent Period,
IB (Neolithic – Chalcolithic), this ware shows greater variations in impressions and is
usually in bold relief.

Few cord-impressed ware potsherds were also recorded in the Chalcolithic context of the
site of Khairadih (Singh 1987-88: 32) on the right bank of Ghaghra in the Ballia District
of Uttar Pradesh as well as in several sites like Daindih, Senuwar, Raja ki Akorhi, Akorhi,
Kusuridih and Madhuri of Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Northern Black Polished Ware
contexts (Singh 1987-88: 33).

In the site of Senuwar, located in the district of Rohtas of Bihar, cord-impressions are
found in various patterns in bold relief and noted exclusively on red ware bowls and
small-sized pots. The upper portion of the pot is treated with a thick red slip to cover
the rough surface and the remaining lower portion is covered with cord strokes. It has
medium section and coarse fabric. This pottery, found at the sites of Sakas (Lat. 24o 54’
10’’ N and Long. 83o 56’ 45’’ E) and Malaon (Lat. 24o 55’ N and Long. 84o 00’ E) in the
alluvial plains of Kaimur foothills in southern Bihar, are coarse and the impressions on
the exterior are bold. The strokes are vertical, slanting and horizontal. The clay is not well
lavigated and heavily tempered with organic contacts and ill-fired. These are usually dull
red and mat red and without surface treatment. Very few potsherds are treated with red
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 85

Fig. 7: Cord-impressed pottery, period IA, Senuwar (after Singh 1995-96)

86 | Manjil Hazarika

Fig. 8: Cord-impressed pottery, period IB, Senuwar (after Singh 1995-96)

Fig. 9: Cord-impressed pottery, period II, Senuwar (after Singh 1995-96)

 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 87

slip in the interior part. The slip on the outer surface is noted up to the rim or slightly
below it and the exterior is a covered with cord-marks. Shapes are mostly bowls and
vases. The potsherds have remarkable identity with that of Senuwar (Singh 1996-97:
67-75) which again has striking similarities with the Vindhyan Neolithic pottery (Singh
2000-01: 110) (Fig. 7, 8 & 9).

Singh et. al. (1991-92) also recorded cord-impressed ware during the excavations at
Imlidih Khurd, in the left bank of Kuwana river, a tributary of Ghaghra River. Period I is
characterised by crude red ware, occasionally bearing cord-impressions. Main types are:
pedestalled bowl with incurved rim and cord-impressions on the exterior and a slipped
and heavily burnished interior. The pedestal of such bowls was made separately, probably
on wheels and then affixed to the body. Another type of vessel is a vase with a flaring rim,
constricted neck and expanding sides, making a globular pear-shaped body, which bears
cord-impressed designs just below the neck and all over the exterior. The third type of
vessels is a handi like vase with out-turned or flaring rim and expanding body below the
neck and sharp carination at the waist, which has cord-impressions below the carinated
waist. Singh (1992-93: 21-35, also see Singh 1993-94: 41-48), further outlining the corded
ware, found in this site mentions that the cord-impression has at least a dozen of patterns
which include rope pattern, criss-cross design and excised notches. After making these
patterns, a thick paste is applied in the pre-firing stage which subdues the impression. In
addition to the corded pattern, pots are also decorated with post-firing scratching by a
sharp instrument and the painting is done on the pot with dots and dashes in red colour
over a bright red surface (Fig. 10, 11 & 12).

Tewari and Srivastava (1993-94: 13-39) also record some mat-impressed or corded
ware potsherds from sites like Bhiti (Khoria) (Lat. 26o 41’ 13’’ N and Long. 83o 10’15
E), Chandidiha (Lat. 26o 49’ 19’’ N and Long. 83o 1’ 50’’ E), Nagwa (Lat. 26o 43’ 4’’ No
and Long. 83o 16’ 12” E) and Pipri (Lat. 26o 35’ 37’’ N and Long. 83o 2’ 59’’ E), which
are handmade and small in size and the shapes are not clear. A few cord-impressed ware
potsherds were recovered from period I and II of Musanagar (Lat. 26o 9’ 55’’ N and Long.
79o 58’ 13’’ E) during the excavation in the year 1995 (Tewari and Srivastava 1995-96:
69). Excavations at the site of Bhunadih, located 2 km east of Janwan on the right bank
of Bahera nala, have shown two-fold cultural sequence in which period IA (pre-Narhan,
Neolithic) and IB (overlap phase between Neolithic and Narhan culture) and II (Narhan,
Chalcolithic) yield cord-impressed pottery besides other wares, which resemble pottery
of Imlidih Khurd (Singh and Singh 1997-98: 11-29).

The site of Waina in the left bank of the ancient bed of Chhoti Saraju has yielded cord-
impressed red ware with spouted vessels, bowls and vases as principal pottery types in
Period IA (Singh and Singh 1995-96: 42). This pottery is recoded at different context at
sites like Tulsi Diha, Dhuriapur, Duruie etc. of Saryu valley of Middle Ganga plain (Pandey
and Srivastava 2009: 220-224); Ammadei, Bharaturwa, Khatkar, Bhatolwa, Deoraon,
88 | Manjil Hazarika

Fig. 10: Corded ware from period I, Imlidih

Khurd (after Singh 2010)

Fig. 11: Corded ware with appliqué designs

from period I, Imlidih Khurd (after Singh
2010)
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 89

Fig. 12: Corded ware from period I, Imlidih Khurd

(after Singh 2010)

Tendhiya Bargaon, Siswania/Pachisa, Susipar, etc. from different cultural context, i.e.
Chalcolithic to Early Historic context (Singh et. al. 1990-91: 69-82, Singh et. al. 1991-92:
33-44); Dhuriapar (Singh et. al. 1991-92: 58), Hulaskhera (Lat. 26o 41’ N and Long. 81o
1’ E) (Tewari et. al. 1995-96: 95-133), Benipur (Lat. 26o 53’ 0’’ N and Long. 82o 30’ 08’’
E) (Tewari and Mani 1995-96: 149- 168), Raja Nal Ka Tila (Tewari and Srivastava 1996-
97: 81), Agiabir (Singh and Singh 1998-99: 116, Singh and Singh 1999-2000: 32), Malhar
(Tewari et. al. 1999-2000: 68-98) (Fig. 13, 14 & 15), Phakkada Baba (Lat. 24o 58’ N and
Long. 83o 17’ 26’’ E) (Tewari 1999-2000: 102) and Gauriaghat Ranijot (Lat. 27o 15’ 15’’
N and Long. 82o 8’ 20’’) (Tewari and Srivastava 1999-2000: 174). Tewari et. al. (2001-02)
also recorded a few sherds bearing cord-impressions on their external surface in Period
I at the site of Dadupur (Lat. 26O 42’ N and Long. 80o 49’ E) in the banks of Nagwa Nala
in Lucknow District (Fig. 16).

Excavations at Lahuradewa (Tewari et. al. 2001-02: 54- 62, Tewari et. al. 2005-06)
yielded coarse variety of red and black and red wares, mostly handmade, which bear
cord-impressions on the exterior in Period I, assigned to early farming phase. Some of the
potsherds are treated with red slip in the outer surface and the shapes include vessels
and bowls. Few painted potsherds of coarse variety of black and red ware have fine red
slip in the upper shoulder, decorated with post firing incised parallel linear pattern
and subsequently with painted small vertical lines in creamish white colour. Below the
shoulder, they bear oblique cord-impressions. The cord-impression continues even in
the later Chalcolithic stages.

Jhusi (Lat. 25o 26’ 10’’ N and Long 81o 54’30’’ E), located on the left bank of the Ganga
within a marked meander, very close to the Ganga-Yamuna confluence, also yielded
cord-impressed ware along with other handmade wares, i.e. rusticated ware, burnished
red ware, burnished black ware and crude black and red ware. Rice husk was used as a
tempering material. The ceramics are ill fired and has thick to medium fabric. The clay is
not well lavigated. In some instances, there is rustication on the corded or burnished red
surface. The rustication and cording pattern have similarities with the Neolithic pottery
of the Vindhyan region. The corded designs continued even in the succeeding Chalcolithic
90 | Manjil Hazarika

Fig. 13: Corded ware, period I, Malhar (after Tewari et. al. 1999-2000)

Fig. 14: Corded ware, period II, Malhar (after Tewari et. al. 1999-2000)

period (Misra et. al. 2009) (Fig. 17). Another site, Hetapatti (Lat. 25o 29’ 0’’ N and 81o 55’
31’’ E), located on the left bank of Ganga, has also recorded a Neolithic horizon in which
cord-impressed ware occur along with other rusticated, red and burnished red ware (Pal
2007-08: 273).
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 91

Fig. 15: Cord-impressed pottery, period II, Malhar (after Tewari et. al. 1999-2000)

Fig. 16: Cord-impressed Pottery,

Dadupur (after Tewari et. al. 2001-02)

Fig. 17: Cord-impressed pottery, Jhusi (after Misra et. al. 2009)
92 | Manjil Hazarika

Fig. 18: Cord-impressed red ware from Pakka Kot (after Dubey et. al. 2010: 202)

Recent investigations (Dubey et. al. 2010: 200-204) at the site of Pakka Kot (Lat. 25o 45’
10’’ N and Long. 84o 0’30’’ E), situated in the ancient bed of Chhoti Sarayu river of Ballia
district, Uttar Pradesh yielded cord-impressed red ware along with red ware (Fig. 18).
The pottery types are bowls, vases and basins which are comparable with Imlidih Khurd,
Lahuradewa and Bhunadih.

MEGHALAYA PLATEAU AND ITS ADJOINING REGIONS

Numerous potsherds were recovered from the excavations at Sarutaru, a Neolithic site
in Assam-Meghalaya border (Rao 1977: 41), found in association with stone axes. The
pottery is handmade and made of clay, mixed with quartz particles, which show up on the
surface. Three ceramic types, on the basis of colour, are recognized, i.e. brown, buff and
grey. The ceramic is sometimes decorated with cord-impressions or basket-impressions
on the exterior in the form of either parallel or criss-cross lines. No complete shapes were
present. The coarse fabric with thicker walls fired at a low temperature, and hence is not
well baked. The ceramic can thus be classified into two groups – brown and grey- on the
basis of the surface colour attained due to the varying degree of firing. The brown ware
predominates over the grey ware (Rao 1977: 191-205). The exterior decoration on most
of the potsherds from Sarutaru is in the form of impressed patterns such as (a) simple
cord-impressions, (b) twisted cord-impressions, (c) herring bone patterns and (d) zig-
zag patterns.
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 93

Further, the site of Marakdola, excavated by Rao (1977), at a distance of 1 km from the
Neolithic site of Sarutaru, revealed a single cultural stratum of 1 m thickness with wheel
turned pottery of fine kaolin clay. The exterior decorations of the pottery include, among
others, cord-impressions on some of the vessels from shoulder to the base. The excavator
assigned the site to the Neolithic period due to the occurrence of a shouldered celt among
the pottery.

Pottery found at several sites of Khasi and Jaintia hills are mostly handmade, fired in low
temperature and have cord-impressions, a common characteristic feature of Neolithic
pottery of Northeast India (Mitri 2009). Rao (IAR 1992-93, Taher and Rao 2005), during
a trial trench measuring 2 × 1 m at Pynthorlangtein (Lat. 25O 22’ 26’’ N; Long. 92O
06’07’’ E) in Jowai Tehsill with a view to ascertain the nature of the habitation deposit
during 1992-93, unearthed a cultural deposit of 1 m comprising Neolithic cultural milieu.
Besides the lithic artifacts, a few potsherds of handmade, coarse red ware pottery with
cord-impressions were collected at a depth of 60-80 cm (Fig. 19).

Pottery recorded during the exploration by Rabha (IAR 1965-66) in the Kamakhya Hills
in Guwahati is distinguished by cord and basket impressed designs on the exterior (Fig.
20). Similar pottery was also found from the adjoining localities of Navagraha and Sarania
Hills. However, this pottery could be of later period as well.

MANIPUR VALLEY

Handmade corded ware pottery has been found in the Neolithic level overlying the
Hoabinhian stratum in the cultural sequence at the site of Nongpok Keithelmanbi (Singh
1993) of Manipur which is ill fired and heavily weathered and in many cases, the corded
surface is also eroded. These cord-marks demonstrate linear and criss-cross patterns.
The pottery is made of fine clay and tempered with sand and a few quartz particles and,
specifically, fine sands were used as tempering material for the plain pottery. The colour
of the potsherds includes various potsherds of red and brown, of which light red and
reddish brown are the dominant colours. In thickness, the potsherds ranges from 2 mm
to 8 mm, the common is being 4 to 5 mm. From the rim fragments, the vassal appears to
be a shallow bowl with flatly carved base and globular pot with constricted neck.

The site of Napachik (Singh 1993) in Manipur has yielded 893 pieces of cord-marked
ware besides 748 pieces of plain ware, 4 pieces of ring footed ware, 64 pieces of tripod
legs ware, etc. The ceramic industry is handmade, fragmentary and fired under low
temperature and the decoration is done by beating with cord-wrapped paddle. Most
of the potsherds are of fine texture and tempered with sand, vegetables or powdered
charcoal. Reddish brown is the dominant colour of the pottery and also of grey, dark grey
and whitish colour.
94 | Manjil Hazarika

Fig. 19: Pottery from Pynthorlangtein (after IAR 1992-93)

Fig. 20: Pottery from Kamakhya Hills (after IAR 1965-66)

 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 95

Plate 21: Cord-impressed pottery from Napachik I (after Singh 1993)

The pottery from Phunan (Singh 1993) is also handmade and tempered generally with
coarse sand and quartz. Some pottery has been made of fine paste. Besides the plain
sherds, the decorations were made by incising, impressing and applying, in which the
impressed wares include surface decoration with cord-wrapped paddle and circular
spots.

Mostly three types of impressions are obtained by using (i) single strand cord, (ii) double
strands twisted cord and (iii) knots of thick cord in Maipur. The cords are wrapped
around a paddle in case of the first two types, while the paddle is covered with a net made
by tying knots in series of thick cord in the case of the third type (Singh 2008: 103-104).
96 | Manjil Hazarika

Fig. 22: Cord-marked pottery from Archaeological sites of Manipur (after Singh 1998-99)

NAGA HILLS

Not much is known about the cord-impressed pottery in the Naga Hills sites except a few
sites like Chungliyimati (Nienu 1974) which has yielded handmade pottery associated
with ground stone tools; Sachema, located 25 km. northwest of Kohima at a height of
1500 m; at Kiruphema, 6 km. northwest of Sachema at a height of 1400 m and Kigwema,
16 km south of Kohima (Sharma 1996). Recent explorations and excavations carried
out by Jamir (see his paper in this volume) has brought to light several hidden aspects
of the Neolithic cultures of Nagaland. The sites have yielded pottery with distinct cord-
impressions.

SOUTHERN ASSAM HIGHLANDS

The pottery from Daojali Hading are classified by Sharma (1967) into three varieties, i.e.
595 pieces of cord-impressed variety, 19 pieces of stamped dull red variety, and 11 pieces
of brick red variety, of which majority of the potsherds are heavily weathered and broken
into small fragments which prevent identifying the shapes and forms of the vessel. The
cord-impressed coarse grey ware is made of coarse and unevenly mixed clay, heavily
tempered with large quartz particles which were prepared by coil-building method.
The colour of the cord-marked and incised pottery is predominantly grey and the other
colours are dull red and chocolate brown (Sharma 1967: 126-28).

Cord-marks on the pottery from the site of Daojali Hading show parallel grooves occurring
in rows. Although it is a common pattern, other conspicuous pattern is probably produced
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 97

by a double threaded, twisted cord. There is no evidence of burnishing, tooling or slip on

the potsherds. However, possibly some potsherds may have been affected by a deposition
of iron slat which imitates a brown slip. These are ill fired. The Incised pots show herring-
bone and cross-hatched or diamond designs. Some potsherds may have been made by
beating with a rough wooden slat, without cord-wrapping or engraved designs (Sharma
1967: 126-28).

Regarding the technology of the pottery from Daojali Hading, Sharma (1967: 126-28)
notes that only the plain red ware is made of well prepared fine clay, whereas all other
types are made of coarse and impure clay. In certain cases, the clay is heavily tempered
with comparatively large quartz and sandstone grit which are observable on the surface.
Coarse sand and some vegetable material are also used tempering material. Except
possibly the plain red types, all other vessels are modelled by hand by using various
kinds of tools. The coil or ring building method is used for heightening the wall of the pot
in some cases in the pottery assemblage of Daojali Hading.

Explorations carried out by Sharma and Ashraf (IAR 1991-92) during 1991-92 revealed
a good number of potsherds, predominantly of cord-impressed from the surface as well
as from stratified context in the area around Langting and Maibong in North Cachar Hills.

Study conducted by Roy (2004) covered the ceramics traditions of Northeast India
from Neolithic to Medieval period including pottery from the well-known site of Daojali
Hading, sites of Garo Hills and the Medieval site of Ambari. He pointed out that the pottery
collected from Garo Hills is simple and devoid of any design and, on the other hand, the

Fig. 23: Cord-marked Pottery from Daojali Hading (after IAR 1962-63)
98 | Manjil Hazarika

Fig. 24: Cord-marked Pottery from Daojali Hading (after Sengupta and Sharma 2011)

pottery from Daojali Hading is decorated with designs which were of Southeast Asian
origin. Typologically the pottery from Garo Hills is also comparable with the Southeast
Asian pottery.

ARUNACHAL PRADESH

At the site of Parsi-parlo (Ashraf 1990: 39), a few number of potsherds represent
square-grid and honey-comb (web) beater-impressed pottery. The lavigation is poor and
contains high percentage of gritty particles. The pottery represents bowl with featherless
rim and constricted neck, lipped pot with globular body made for culinary purposes.
Again, potsherds discovered at this site of Taba are coarse in texture and were handmade
(Ashraf 1990: 16-22), comprising plain (thick and coarse) ware, stamped (grid pattern)
ware and irregular corded ware.
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 99

OTHER REGIONS OF BENGAL PLAINS, CHOTANAGPUR PLATEAU AND SIKKIM

HIGHLANDS

Recent reviews of the Neolithic-Chalcolithic context indicate paucity of cord-impressed

ware in West Bengal (Chakrabarti 2002-03: 23-33, Chattopadhyay et. al. 2006-07: 68-
93, Chattopadhyay et. al. 2009: 80-95, Chattopadhyay et. al. 2010: 71-93). Pottery is not
found in association with Neolithic context in Kalimpong and Sikkim (Lama 2008: 39-
49). Sharma (1996: 144) believes that the absence of pottery in Sikkim is due to the
absence of desired type of soil for pottery making. Pottery making is not even practised
in the twentieth century due to the non availability of suitable raw material (Sharma
1996: 7).

Excavations at the site of Golbai Sasan (Lat. 20o 01’ N and Long. 83o 33’ E) in Puri district
of Orissa during 1991-92 reveals handmade pottery with cord and reed impressions in
the Neolithic period; however, some potsherds indicate use of show-wheel and turn table
technique. The pots are mostly vases in dull red and grey wares (Sinha 1992-93: 48-
50). The Orissan Neolithic/Chalcolithic sites also do not reveal much evidence of cord-
impressed ware (Kar et. al. 1998: 107-114, Pradhan 2000: 99-103, Behera 2000: 222-
263, Basa 2000: 264-284). Dash (2000: 217) mentions a pottery type of cord-marked
tapering body with pointed base, high neck and grey and brown in colour. Sinha (2000:
324) observes cord-impressed pottery in the Period I (Neolithic period) at the site of
Golbai Sasan (Lat. 20o 1’ 45’’ N and Long. 85o 33’ 22’’ E). This type of pottery is handmade
and decorated with cord or reed impression and comparable to the pottery of Daojali
Hading in Assam. Kar (2000: 373) also records cord-marked designs of vertical, parallel
and uneven nature in the red ware pottery at the site of Gopalpur (Lat. 20o 01’ 52’’ N and
85o 21’ 19’’ E), also known as Jagati of Coastal Orissa. Sites of Middle Mahanadi valley,
Orissa, such as Khameswaripali, Khajeriapali and Hikudi also yielded cord-impressed
pottery, though in less amount (Behera 2000-01: 13-34).

Behera (in this volume) reports cord-impressed red ware from the site Neolithic
habitation of Hikudi in the left bank of the Mahanadi river. The clay used is heavily
tempered with inclusions like crushed quartz and/or sand particles and lime. He records
that the thickness of the individual cord-marks on the pottery varies from 1 to 3 mm
which are very often deep. The impressions are generally vertical, oblique or slanting.
Cord-impressions are done on both inner as well as outer surfaces a large number of
pots, particularly the wide-mouthed jars and elliptical handis.

METHODS OF OBTAINING CORD­IMPRESSIONS

As noted in the introduction, the cord-impressions were decorations or a technological

aspect while making the pot. Different scholars have attempted to explain the technology
of cord-impressions. Rao (1977: 191-205) believes that cord-impressions, the most
100 | Manjil Hazarika

striking feature of decoration of the pottery from Sarutaru, were obtained through the
process of making a vessel by hand. Two parts of the vessel were moulded by hand
separately and then joined together by beating in leather-hard condition with a wooden
paddle, which could be wrapped up in rows or cord, either plain or twisted and their
impressions lay on the vessel. Beating obliquely on the vessel renders the herringbone
pattern; the zig-zag patterns resulted from paddling in irregular fashion.

While commenting on the method of manufacturing the Daojali Hading pottery, Sharma
(Sharma 1967: 126-28) narrates that during the final shaping of the pot by the process
of beating, commonly known as the beater and pad method, these impressions were
produced. The beaters were probably of two types. In some cases, a rectangular piece
of wood of 8 to 10 inches long and 3 to 4 inches wide which is used as the beater, is
wrapped round with string or cord while, in other cases, the wooden beater may have
been made rough by engraving with some kind of designs such as cross hatching or a
diamond pattern.

Wu (1938: 32-33), with reference to the cord-marked pottery of China, believes that these
engravings on the beater was done in order to prevent the instrument from sticking to
the wet clay which depicts impressions of the string or the impressed designs of the
grooved beater on their outer surface, while the inner surface bears marks of the pad
used to support the wall of the pot while beating. The pad may be pebble wrapped with
soft material, such as leather or cloth. In certain cases, the potters may use the back of
the free hand for this purpose of supporting the clay from inside the pot. In certain cases,
cord-marks extend right up to the edge of the rim of some vessels, while in others they
stop a few mm below (Sharma 1967: 126-28).

Sharma and Mandal (1980: 25) observed multidirectional striated and zig-zag dotted
designs without forming any recognised pattern in the pottery recovered from Mahagara
and Koldihawa. Pal (1987: 63) pointed out two methods of the imparting cord-impressions
on the exterior of the pottery. One is by the application of cord-wrapped paddle on the
leather hard surface of the pot. Another possibility is that they Neolithic potters used
tortoise shell for such impressions. Experimental study (Pal 1987: 63) demonstrates that
the impression of a tortoise shell on a wet clay clod show resemblance with the cord-
impression of the pottery. Misra (1977) also suggests that the cord-impressed designs
were obtained through tortoise shell impressions.

CORD­IMPRESSED POTTERY MAKING TRADITION IN THE ETHNOGRAPHIC

CONTEXT

In certain pockets of Northeast India, there are potters’ communities whose pottery
resembles well with the cord-impressed ware found in archaeological contexts (Hazarika
2011a, 2011b, 2012). Potters of Mizoram apply a cord-wrapped paddle on the wet clay
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 101

surface of the pottery. They use thick cotton threads for wrapping the beater which gives
an interesting design on the outer surface of the pottery (Saraswati and Behura 1966).

In Manipur, there are certain potters’ communities who still practice primal methods for
making earthenware. The Tangkhul tribes of Nungbi village use a netted wooden beater,
locally known as hamkapi, made of wood and the flat paddle is wrapped with thin cord
net made of the fibber from a wild creeper in making various pottery. The Andro, Sekmai
and Chairen groups of the Chakpa community as well as potters of the Thongjao village
use various kinds of plain and carved wooden beater for shaping and decorating the
outer surface of the body of the pot (Singh 2008: 65-96).

Cord-marked pottery making tradition, a living tradition among the Oinam, a Mao Naga
tribe in the Senapati district of Manipur, is still in a very primitive technological stage.
They make pottery with a very crude technique of moulding and hand-beater methods.
The Cord-marked pottery from the archaeological sites of Manipur has similarities in
certain processes of the technology. After obtaining the desired shape by beating with
plain beater, final beating is done by using cord-wrapped wooden beater, locally known
as kha, which leaves impressions on the outer surface of the pottery. These impressions
resemble well in both the prehistoric and modern pottery (Singh 1998-99: 60-64). As the
impressions are done after the final shaping of the pottery, these can be considered as
decorations rather than as process of technology.

In the Naga Hills, earthen handmade pottery is produced by a few villages notably
Viswema and Khuzama of Angami tribe; Thenyezuma, Runguzuoma and Kholazumi
of Chakhesang tribe, Tseminyu village of Rengma tribe, Peron and Puilua villages of
Zeliang, Changki, Japo and Longsemdang villages of Ao tribe, Tokikehimi and a few other
villages of Sema tribe, Wokha and several other villages of Lotha tribe, Kongsang, Yali
and Nakshao villages of Chang tribe, Wakching, Shiyong, Leangha, Chui, Choshachinguyu,
Longkai, Sheanga and Tangjen of Konyak tribe, Nguro and Lungmutra of Sangtam tribe,
Noklu, and Sao villages of Khemungam tribe, and a considerable number of villages in
Phom area. They use several kinds of sticks for shaping and beating the pottery. One of
the shaping sticks is a narrow flat piece of Mesua ferrae wood with a smooth surface,
rough shaping and the other stick with broader ends like a double paddle made of the
same wood is used for fine works. The surface of the paddle of the stick is grooved by
producing a pattern of squares and oblique cross-hatching which are imprinted on the
surface of the pots at the time of beating the pot. These may be considered as a design of
ornamentation. The other method of ornamentation is done by a string pattern, in which
a flat stick covered with coarse string binding is applied for patting, while the pot is still
in wet condition (Alemchiba 1967).

The Nagas make pottery by using good sticky plastic light brown clay. The potters of the
Chagki village in Ao area and Lothas use a mixture of red and grey clay instead of using
102 | Manjil Hazarika

one kind of clay with little proportion

of the red clay, while the Semas and the
Angamis mix the clay in proportion of
3:2 with remains of old pots crushed
and powdered into fine dust. The Phom
women collect grey clay from near the
village and then mix with broken pieces
of old pots and grind with a round stone
over a flat stone and then the mixture
is moistened with water and pounded
vigorously to prepare good quality of clay
for pot making. Kneading is done by hand
for making the clay use ready. Further, the
dough is moulded into a more rounded
form and size required for the individual
pot to be made. This rounded lump of
clay is then rammed with hands for
giving a definite shape. While shaping,
water is often sprinkled to keep the
clay moist and pliable. After obtaining a
required shape, the pot is left in the sun
for getting hard and dry for some time.
Then, the final shaping is done with a
few tools, i.e. mushroom shaped “stop”
made of baked clay and a shaping stick
(beater). The Phoms potters as well as a
few other tribal potters use a round stone
in the shape of the stop. Firing is done on
Fig. 25: Oinam pottery and wooden vessels (after a low rough platform of dried bamboo
Singh 1998-99)
about 10 cm by placing the layers of pots
upside down by covering with dried bamboo and reeds (Alemchiba 1967).

Dafla women of Arunachal Pradesh are skilled in pottery making. They pound a specific
kind of earth called dekam on a big stone with a wooden hammer into powder, and after
mixing with water, again hammer it till it gains the required softness. The women sits
with a piece of gunny bag, or old fibre blanket spread over her thigh and takes a lump of
clay and shapes it with her finger into a crude pot with a shallow opening at the top and
rim around it. After shaping several of such crude pots, these are kept in the topmost
tray over the hearth to dry. On the next day, the next process is done by pushing a stone
deeper and deeper through the hollow of the mouth to get the right bulge of the sides.
The outer surface is beaten with a bamboo stick with a lineal design on it, locally known
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 103

Fig. 26: Potters and potteries of Nagaland (after Alemchiba 1967)

as kamgi to flatten them thin, which leaves the marks of the design on the exterior of the
pot. By this process, the desired round shape, size and finish is obtained. No polishing or
burnishing is applied. After drying in shed drying, these are put in a fire though a ditch,
upon availability, without any kilns. These are exclusively made for cooking purpose
(http://ignca.nic.in/craft001.htm).

CHRONOLOGY

For computing the antiquity and chronology of the cord-impressed ware of eastern India,
we need to have a fare idea about the available dates of the earliest levels from which this
ware has been recovered. The Neolithic level bearing cord-impressed ware at the site of
Koldihawa gives the dates of 6570 + 210 BC (PRL. 224), 5540 + 240 BC (PRL. 100) and
4530 + 185 BC (PRL. 101). Two TL dates for the Neolithic context of Mahagara are reading
2265 BC and 1616 BC while the C14 dates are reading 1440 + 150 BC (PRL 409), 1330 +
120 BC (PRL 408), 1440 + 100 BC (PRL 407) and 1480 + 110 BC (BSIP). C14 date from
the site of Kunjun reveals a date of 3530-3335 BC (Possehl and Rissman 1992). Tokwa
is dated to reading 6591 BC (BS 2417), 5976 BC (BS 2369) and 4797 BC (BS 2464). The
consistent dates obtained from period I of the site of Narhan (Singh 1994: 29) are 1090
+ 110 BC (BS 850) and 1100 + 110 BC (BS 852). Chirand yielded two dates reading 1760
+ 150 BC and 1680 + 135 BC (Possehl and Rissman 1992: 461) and Senuwar recorded
the dates reading 1770 + 120 BC, 1660 + 120 BC, 1500 + 110 BC and 1400 + 110 BC
(Singh 1990: 18) which pushed the antiquities of this ware at both this site to around
2000 BC Period I of Dadupur is dated to 1420 + 80 BC (cal. 1679-1522 BC) (BS 1822),
1530 + 160 BC (cal. 1882-1465 BC) (BS 1759) and 1580 + 90 BC (cal. 1739-1695 BC) (BS
1825) (Tewari et. al. 2001-02: 111). The new dates obtained from the site of Lahuradewa
period IA have far-reaching impact as the dates reading 9510 + 100 BP (cal. 8317 – 8555
BC) (PRL 3030), 9570 + 120 (cal. 8340-8696 BC) (PRL 3031) and 9880 + 110 BP (8813-
104 | Manjil Hazarika

9171 BC) (PRL 3032) are much earlier than many other sites of the Middle Ganga plain
(Tewari et. al. 2007-08: 358). The site of Jhusi has also yielded interesting evidence for
deep antiquity of this ware in this area as the dates are reading cal. 5660, 5649, 5642 BC
(BS 2524), 5990, 5938, 5932 BC (BS 2525) and 7106, 7105, 7080 BC (BS 2526) (Misra
et. al. 2009: 41).

Ramesh (1989) dated the Neolithic tools from Tripura to c. 1500 BC by 14C method.
At the site of Nongpok Keithelmanbi (Singh 1993) site of Manipur with stone tools and
cord-impressed pottery, the cord-impressed ware stratum has been dated to 4,460 + 120
years BP. The site of Napachik (Singh 1993) of Manipur gave a TL date of 1450 BCE. The
Neolithic site at Dibru valley (Saikia 1988) of Dibrugarh in Assam has yielded celts of
different variety with handmade pottery and has been dated to 2210+140 BC. However,
more dating attempts are essentially required to establish the origins of Neolithic
culture and the cord-impressed ware which is the predominant ceramic of these sites
(Hazarika 2011c: 30-55). In a recent review of the archaeological evidences pertaining
to the movements of people in Northeast India during the time period from the earliest
to the beginning of urbanisation in the Brahmaputra valley, i.e. 5th – 6th century CE,
while attempting to understand the dispersals / migrations / interactions of the early
population with its neighbouring populations and cultural exchange, it appears that this
particular ware can be considered as one of the most prominent evidence for cultural
interactions during the Middle Holocene to Late Holocene period in these areas covering
China and Southeast India (Hazarika 2011d: 288-305), besides lithic industries (Hazarika
2011e).

De Semone (2009: 1-6), after studying and comparing the cord-impressed pottery from
the sites of Imlidih Khurd, Narhan, Bhunadih and a few sites of Ganga valley reports that
the chemical composition of sherds of this ware has a high percentage of silica and low
percentage of alumina, which results in the production of fine or coarse ware. Firing
was done in around 850o- 900o in an oxidising temperature. She believes that this ware
can be considered as a index fossil and can be used in building relative chronology of
different cultural stages of middle Ganga plain. Singh (2010: 107) considers the cord-
impressed ware as distinguishing feature of the Neolithic culture of middle Ganga
valley. However, Singh (1987-88: 32), while commenting on this kind of pottery as a
chronological marker of the Neolithic, believes that “presumption of Neolithic culture on
the mere occurrences of cord-impressed pottery would be misleading … This pottery is
associated with Chalcolithic and in a limited number with Northern Black Polished ware
deposits as well”. So, mere discovery of this pottery in a site does not directly indicate
a Neolithic context. Considering the absolute dates of the sites bearing corded ware
such as Lahuradewa, Jhusi and Koldihawa datable to circa 7th millennium BC, Tewari
et. al. (2007-08: 368) opines that this middle Ganga plain has greater antiquity than its
adjoining areas of eastern middle Ganga plain, lower Ganga plain and Northeast India.
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 105

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Current distribution pattern of the cord-marked pottery as a dominant ceramic ware in

association with polished stone tools, including the shouldered axes, over a wide region
of Eastern Asia, comprising China and the countries of the Southeast Asia and also eastern
India, indicate the cultural connections of the prehistoric people inhabiting this wide
area of Asia. A recent review of the ceramic traditions of middle Ganga plain by Mishra
(2010: 147-161) demonstrates the importance of Cord-impressed ware in Neolithic
and Chalcolithic period. The earliest evidence of pottery in China and Japan goes back
to 21,000-18,000 cal. Yrs. BP (Yasuda 2002). The earliest Neolithic period in China with
the evidences of pottery is summed up by Zhang and Hung (2008) which is dated within
the time bracket of 16,000 to 10,000 years ago. The potteries of East Asia and Southeast
Asia are remarkably alike, and include simple forms of cord-marked, combed, fingertip-
impressed or incised vessels, often on tripods and pedestals. The overall homogeneity
makes it easy to visualize a common ancestral culture, located quite close in time, from
which all the descendent cultures of the Yellow river basin originated (Bellwood 2005).
Most of the vessels found at the early Neolithic sites of China are with linear incisions or
cord-impressed surfaces (Zhang and Hung 2008). Kharakwal et. al. (2004) discuss about
the possibilities of cultural interaction among the early rice growing cultures on the basis
of the cord-impressed pottery found in most of the early Neolithic sites in Asia. The Cord-
impressed pottery has great antiquity in East Asia (Yasuda 2002) and possibly entered
eastern India through the Northeast Indian contact.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to Shri K.N. Dikshit for inviting me to contribute a paper for this volume
and providing valuable insights for improving the quality of the paper. I sincerely thank
Prof. Dr. George van Driem, my Ph. D supervisor at the University of Bern for his guidance
and constant support in my research career. I am also grateful to Shri O.P. Tandon for
critically evaluating the content of the paper and suggestions for improvements. Thanks
are also due to Dr. Pranab Jyoti Sarma of the Sage Publications, New Delhi for insightful
discussions and Shri Bharat Singh of the Indian Archaeological Society for helping in
preparing the figures for this paper.

References

Alemchiba M. 1967. The Arts and Crafts of Nagaland. Kohima: Naga Institute of Culture, Govt. of
Nagaland.
Ashraf, A.A. 1990. Prehistoric Arunachal: A study on Prehistory and Ethnoarchaeology of Kamla
Valley. Itanagar: Directorate of Research, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
106 | Manjil Hazarika

Basa, K.K., T.K. Das and B.K. Mohanta. 2000. Neolithic Culture of Pallahara, Central Orissa, In
Archaeology of Orissa, eds. K.K. Basa and P. Mohanty, 264-284. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.
Behera, P.K. 2000. Neolithic Culture Complex of Bonaigarh, Orissa, In Archaeology of Orissa, eds.
K.K. Basa and P. Mohanty, 222-263. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.
_____. 2000-01. Excavations at Khameswaripali – A Proto Historic Settlement in the middle Mahanadi
valley, Orissa: A Preliminary Report. Pragdhara 11: 13-34.
Bellwood, P. 2005. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Chakrabarti, S. 2002-03. Archaeology of Birbhum: The past informs the Present. Puratattva 33:
23-33.
Chattopadhyay, R.K., D. Acharya and S. Majumder. 2010. Archaeological Sequence of the Kumari-
Kansavati Valley, District of Bankura, West Bengal: An Appraisal. Puratattva 40: 71-93.
Chattopadhyay, R.K., P. Base and D. Acharya, 2009. Archaeological Sequence of a Region: Bishnupur/
Vishnupur Sub-Division, District Bankura, West Bengal (2005-06). Puratattva, 39: 80-95.
Chattopadhyay, R.K., R. Sanyal and K. Bandhopadhyay. 2006-07. Early Village farming Settlements
in Eastern India: A New Appraisal. Puratattva 37: 68-93.
Chaturvedi, S.N. 1985, Advances of Vindhyan Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures to the Himalayan
Tarai; Excavation and exploration in the Saryupar region of Uttar Pradesh. Man and Environment
IX: 101-108.
Dash, R.N. 2000. The Neolithic Culture of Orissa: A Typo-Technical Analysis, In Archaeology of
Orissa, Eds. K.K. Basa and P. Mohanty, 201-221. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.
De Simone, D. 2009. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cord-impressed ware of the Middle Ganga Valley,
in Abhijnan: Studies in South Asian Archaeology and Art History of Artifacts, Felicitating A.K.M.
Zakariah, ed. S.H. Jahan, 1-6. Oxford: British Archaeological Report, International Series S 1947.
Dubey, S., A. K. Singh and G.K. Lama. 2010. Archaeological Investigation in Ballia District with
Special Reference to Pakka Kot. Puratattva 40: 200-204.
Hazarika, Manjil. 2006a. Understanding the Process of Plants and Animal Domestication in
Northeast India: A Hypothetical Approach. Asian Agri-History 10: 203-212.
_____. 2006b. Neolithic Culture of Northeast India: A Recent Perspective on the Origins of Pottery
and Agriculture, Ancient Asia 1: 25-43.
_____. 2008a. Prehistoric Importance of Northeast India: Some Theoretical Considerations.
Proceedings of the North East India History Association 28: 22-36.
_____. 2008b. Archaeological Research in Northeast India: A Critical Review. Journal of Historical
Research 16: 1-14.
_____. 2011a. Shared Cultural Background of Northeast Indian Tribes: Some Thoughts in
Archaeological Perspective. In The North East Umbrella: Cultural-Historical Interaction and
Isolation of the Tribes in the Region (Pre-history to 21st Century), eds. Marco Mitri and Desmond
Kharmawphlang, 16-36. Shillong: Don Bosco Centre for Indigenous Cultures.
_____. 2011b. Pottery Technology of Northeast India in Historical Perspective, Paper presented at
the Workshop cum Conference of the History of Indian Science and Technology at Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth during 12th – 14th January, 2011.
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 107

_____. 2011c. A Recent Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultures of Northeast India. In Understanding
North East India: Cultural Diversities, Insurgency and Identities, ed. Madhu Rajput, 30-55. New
Delhi: Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd.
_____. 2011d. Archaeological Record of Human ‘Movements’ in Northeast India, In People of
Contemporary Northeast India, ed. Tiluttoma Baruah, 288-305. Guwahati: Pratisruti Publishers.
_____. 2011e. Lithic industries with Palaeolithic elements in Northeast India, Quaternary
International, doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.10.006.
_____. 2012. On Certain Common Cultural Elements of the Tribal Groups of Northeast India. In Social
and Cultural Stratification in Northeast India, ed. Madhu Rajput. New Delhi: Manak Publications
Pvt. Ltd.
http://ignca.nic.in/craft001.htm
IAR: Indian Archaeology- A Review: Volumes mentioned in the text.
Kar, S.K. 2000. Gopalpur: A Neolithic – Chalcolithic site in Coastal Orisaa, In Archaeology of Orissa,
eds. K.K. Basa and P. Mohanty, 368-391. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.
Kar, S.K., K.K. Basa and P.P. Joglekar. 1998. Explorations at Gopalpur, District Nayagarh, Orissa. Man
and Environment XXIII (1): 107-114.
Kharakwal, J.S., A. Yano, Y. Yasuda, V.S. Shinde & T. Osada, 2004, Cord Impressed Ware and Rice
Cultivation in South Asia, China and Japan: Possibilities of Inter-links. Quaternary International
123–125: 105–115.
Lama, G.K. 2008. Neolithic Culture in Kalimpong and Sikkim: A Reassessment. Puratattva 39: 39-
49).
Mishra, K.B. 2010. Ceramic Traditions of Middle Ganga Plain (From the Beginning to the Early Iron
Age). Puratattva 40: 147-161.
Misra, V.D. 1977. Some Aspects of Indian Archaeology. Allahabad: Prabhat Prakashan.
_____. 2010. Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures of North-Central India. Puratattva 40:
8-16.
Misra, V.D., J.N. Pal and M.C. Gupta. 2000-01. Excavation at Tokwa: A Neolithic-Chalcolithic
Settlement, Pragdhara 11: 59- 72.
Misra, V.D., J.N. Pal, M.C. Gupta and P.P. Joglekar. 2009. Excavations at Jhusi (Pratishthanapur) – A
fresh light on the Archaeological Profile of the Middle Gangatic Plain. Special Report no 3, Indian
Archaeological Society, New Delhi.
Mitri, M. 2009. An Outline of the Neolithic Culture of the Khasi-Jaintia Hills of Meghalaya, India: An
Archaeological Investigation. BAR International Series 2013, Oxford.
Nienu, V. 1974. Recent Prehistoric Discoveries in Nagaland - A Survey. Highlander, Research Bulletin
of Dept. of Art and culture, Govt. of Nagaland. Vol. II, No. 1.
Pal, J.N. 1987. Neolithic Cord-impressed Ware of the Vindhyas. Man and Environment XI: 61-65.
Pandey, A.K. and A. Srivastava. 2009. A Survey of Archaeological Sites of Bansganw Plain in Saryu
Valley. Puratattva 39: 220-224.
Pradhan, S. 2000. Archaeological Investigation in the Karandi valley. Man and Environment XXV
(1): 99-103.
108 | Manjil Hazarika

Ramesh, N.R. 1989. A Study on Geomorphology, Quaternary Geology and Associated Cultural Remains
of West Tripura District. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Guwahati: Gauhati University.
Rao, S.N. 1977. Excavation at Sarutaru: A Neolithic Site in Assam. Man and Environment 1: 39-42.
Roy, S.K. 2004. Ceramics of Northeast India: Ethno-archaeological Perspectives. Delhi: Himalayan
Publishers.
Saikia, P. C. 1988. Stone Tools of Dibru Valley. North East Museum Society, Dibrugarh.
Saraswati, B. and N.B. Behura. 1966. Pottery Techniques of Peasant India. Calcutta: Anthropological
Survey of India.
Sengupta, G. and S. Sharma. 2011. Archaeology in North-East India: The Post-Independence
Scenario. Ancient India 1 (New Series): 353-368.
Sharma, A.K. 1996. Early Man in Eastern Himalayas. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Sharma, G.R. and D. Mandal. 1980. Excavations at Mahagara 1977-78 (A Neolithic settlement in the
Belan Valley. Allahabad: University of Allahabad.
Sharma, T.C. 1966. Prehistoric Archaeology of Assam - A Study of the Neolithic Culture, Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, London: University of London.
_____. 1967. A Note of the Neolithic Pottery of Assam, Man 2(1): 126-128.
Singh, B.P. 1987-88. Khairadih- A Chalcolithic Settlement. Puratattva 18: 28-34.
_____. 1988-89. Early Farming Communities of Kaimur Foot Hills. Puratattva 19: 6-18.
_____. 1989-90. The Chalcolithic culture of South Bihar as revealed by the Explorations and
Excavations in district Rohatas. Puratattva 20: 83-92.
_____. 1995-96. Transformation of Culture in the Middle Ganga Plain: A Case Study of Senuwar.
Pragdhara 6: 75-93.
_____. 1996-97. Sakas, Malaon and Daidih – Important Neolithic and Chalcolithic Settlements in
district Rohtas and Kaimur, Bihar. Pragdhara 7: 67-75.
_____. 2000-01. Stages of Culture Development in the Middle Ganga Plain – A Case Study of Senuwar.
Pragdhara 11: 109-118.
Singh, O.K. 1993. Stone Age Culture of Manipur. Unpublished Ph. D Thesis, University of Manipur.
_____. 1998-99. Cord-marked Pottery Making Tradition in Manipur. Puratattva 29: 60-61.
_____. 2008. Pottery Through the Ages in Manipur. Imphal: Amusana Institute of Antiquarian Studies.
Singh, P. 1992-93, Archaeological Excavations at Imlidih Khurd- 1992. Pragdhara 3: 21-35.
_____. 1993-94, Further Excavations at Imlidih Khurd – 1993. Pragdhara 4: 41-48.
_____. 1994. Excavation at Narhan (1984-89). Delhi & Varanasi: BHU & B.R. Corporation.
_____. 2010. Archaeology of the Ganga Plain: Cultural-Historical Dimensions. Shimla: Indian Institute
of Advance Study and New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Singh, P. and A.K. Singh. 1998-99. Agiabir – 1999: A Preliminary Report. Puratattva 29: 117-119.
_____. 1995-96. Trial Excavations at Waina, District Ballia (U.P.). Pragdhara 6: 41-61.
_____. 1997-98. Trial Excavations at Bhunadih, district Ballia, U.P. Pragdhara 8: 11-29.
 Cord-impressed Pottery in Neolithic-Chalcolithic context of Eastern India | 109

_____. 1999-2000. Excavations at Agiabir, District Mirzapur (Uttar Pradesh). Pragdhara 10: 31-55.
Singh, P., A.K. Singh and I.J. Singh. 1990-91. Explorations along the Kuwana river in districts
Gorakhpur and Basti. Pragdhara 1: 89-92.
_____. 1991-92. Excavations at Imlidih Khurd. Puratattva 22: 120-122.
_____. 1991-92. On the Trails of Narhan Culture. Pragdhara 2: 33-44.
_____. 1991-92. Trail digging at Dhuriapar. Pragdhara 2: 55-60.
Singh, P., M. Lal and A.K. Singh. 1984-85. Excavations at Narhan 1983-85. Puratattva 15: 117-120.
Sinha, B.K. 1992-93. Excavations at Golbai Sasan, Dist. Puri, Orissa. Puratattva 23: 48-50.
_____. 2000. Golbai: A Protohistoric site on the coast of Orissa, In Archaeology of Orissa, Eds. K.K.
Basa and P. Mohanty, 322-355. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.
Taher, N. and L.S. Rao. 2005. A Neolithic Factory site at Pynthorlangtein, in Proceedings of the
Sixteenth International Conferences of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Paris,
2-6 July 2001, vol. I: Prehistory, eds. C. Jarrige and V. Lefevre. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les
Civilisations.
Tewari, D.P. and D. Srivastava. 1999-2000. Archaeological Exploration in Dist. Gonda (U.P.).
Pragdhara 10: 173-189.
Tewari, R. 1999-2000. Phakkada Baba: Another Protohistoric site in Karamnasa Valley. Pragdhara
10: 99-107.
Tewari, R. and B.R. Mani. 1995-96. Further Archaeological Investigations in Sarayupar Area.
Pragdhara 6: 149- 168.
Tewari, R. and R.K. Srivastava 1996-1997. Excavation at Raja Nala Ka Tila (1995-96), District
Sonbhadra (U.P.): Preliminary Observations. Pragdhara 7: 77-95.
_____. 1993-94. Explorations along the Ami river and in its nearby areas in districts Sidhartha Nagar,
Basti abd Gorakhpur. Pragdhara 4: 13-39.
_____. 1995-96. Trial Excavations at Musanagar: 1995. Pragdhara 6: 67-73.
Tewari, R., Hemraj and R.K. Srivastava. 1995-96. Excavations at Hulaskhera, Lucknow: 1978-79 to
1986-87. Pragdhara 6: 95-133.
Tewari, R., R.K. Srivastava and K.K. Singh. 2001-02. Dadupur Excavations 1999-2000-2001, District
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh: A Preliminary Report. Pragdhara 12: 99-116.
_____. 2001-02. Excavations at Lahuradewa, District Sant Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Puratattva 32: 54-
62.
Tewari, R., R.K. Srivastava, K.K. Singh and K.S. Saraswat, 2006, Further Excavations at Lahuradewa,
District Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P.) 2005-06: Preliminary Observations. Puratattva 36: 68-75.
Tewari, R., R.K. Srivastava, K.S. Saraswat and K.K. Singh. 1999-2000. Excavations at Malhar, District
Chandauli (U.P.) 2000: A Preliminary Report. Pragdhara 10: 69-98.
Tewari, R., R.K. Srivastava, K.S. Saraswat, I.B. Singh and K.K. Singh. 2007-08. Early Farming at
Lahuradewa. Pragdhara 18: 347-373.
Verma, B. S. 1970-71. Excavation at Chirand: New Light on the Indian Neolithic Culture Complex.
Puratattva 4: 19-23.
 110 | Manjil Hazarika

Yasuda, Y. 2002. Origins of Pottery and Agriculture in East Asia, in The Origins of Pottery and
Agriculture, ed. Y. Yasuda, Japan: International Research Center for Japanese Studies.
Zhang, C. and H.C. Hung. 2008. The Neolithic of Southern China- Origin, Development and Dispersal.
Asian Perspective 47 (2): 299-329.
Zhushchikhovskaya, I. 2007. Jomon Pottery: Cord-imitating Decoration, Documenta Praehistorica
XXXIV: 21-29.

View publication stats