Reviewthe other, it remained the poor cousin of Egyptianand Mesopotamian scholarly research. Whilst the lackof monumental architecture, a deciphered
script, or depictionsof elites may havedissuaded a number ofscholars, it has presented a group of hardyarchaeologists with thechallenge of understanding an early complex society from excavation and survey dataalone.

area of expertise, and it shows through in the chapterson craft-producing economies.
Wright’s references to her own work within the Indus,
ranging from excavating at Mehrgarh as a graduate
student to conducting her own survey within the Beas
River lend an air of competence with the material, as
well as adding a personal touch to such a detailed
book. While some may be put off by the use of thefirst-person within textbooks, to others it creates an
air of informality. It allows the reader to understandthat these are the interpretations of an individual, andnot necessarily the collective, agreed norms. This leads
to one of the few criticisms of the book: that Wrighttends to shy away from some of the more contentious,and interesting, debates within the subject. Forinstance, the issue of whether social, political and artefactual homogeneity is achieved through co-operationor coercion. Or that the ‘decline’ of the Indus is really
only a collapse of the urban infrastructure — mostartefactual, subsistence and architectural facets of theIndus are maintained, and even developed, on the peripheries. The lack of theoretical debate underpinning
the archaeological interpretation means that at times
The ancient Indus can seem a little dry and data heavy.
However, this should not detract from the valuable
archaeological information that lies within. Currently,
no other book offers such an in-depth review of Indusstudies.

Wright’s book, The ancient Indus: urbanism, economy
and society, aims to do this, presenting in detail thearchaeological evidence from a broad sweep of sites,sources and periods. Ranging from the developmentof agriculture and the domestication of animals andplants at Mehrgarh to the breakdown of urban society,the core chapters of the book cover the key periods insequential order. It begins with an in-depth look at thepalaeogeography and hydrology of the Greater Indusregion, and the varied topographical and climaticconditions within which this civilisation emerged.
It goes on to explore the origins of sedentism andthe movement of settlements from the upland areasof Baluchistan to the Indus plain itself. Subsequent
chapters examine the function, morphology andpolitical organisation of the urban centres; a heavy
focus on what Wright terms ‘agro-pastoral and craftproducing economies’; long distance trade; the social
landscape of the Indus; and its religion and ideology.
The book ends on a discussion of the breakdown ofurban society.

MARK MANUEL
Department of Archaeology, Durham University,UK (Email: m.j.manuel@durham.ac.uk)

The real strength of The ancient Indus is the focus on
new research that allows the book to break from thetraditional Wheeler-derived paradigms of statehood,rigid planning and hereditary elites, and shift the focus
onto ideas of city-states, competing groups of elites,
and urban-rural dichotomies. The reconstructionof manufacturing processes and techniques bringthe artefacts to life in a way that few other fields
can match. Indeed, it is Wright’s analysis of craftspecialisation — in particular seals, and the terracotta
and stone figurines from Harappa and Mohenjo-daro— that are the stand-out features of the book. Decadesof archaeological and ethnographic work by a numberof scholars culminate here in a highly detailed recordof not only how such artefacts were produced, but also
the debitage generated. Craft specialisation is Wright’s

This volume is part interim archaeological fieldreport, part archaeological travelogue, part interim
anthropological fieldreport, and part local
heritage impact study;
and all these rather
disparate sections arebound together by
the search for originsof the Tamu-mai or679

ReviewCHRISTOPHER EVANS with JUDITH PETTIGREW,YARJUNG KROMCHAĨ TAMU & MARK TURIN.
Grounding knowledge / walking land: archaeologicalresearch and ethno-historical identity in central
Nepal. xii+212 pages, 117 illustrations, 12 tables.
2009. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; 978–1–902937–50–2 hardback£40.

Review
Gurung people of Nepal. The central theme of thebook can perhaps best be summed up in what Evanscalls ‘the construction of the past in the present’ (p. 185).

each other, by Yarjung Kromchai Tamu, the leadshaman of the expedition (and also an ex-Gurkha).
Yarjung also provides a very neat summary of thetensions between ‘scientific’ proof, the rationale forbelieving in the age of oral histories, and the needto show great antiquity of roots and origins in
an area where ethnic tensions are at least partly
predicated on ‘belonging’. This is a very individual
and personal account of the importance of history
and archaeology, and also the ways in which heritage
can affect local people. The flip side of this is that
Yarjung’s rhetoric leads readers to wonder whether thearchaeological work is being ‘subverted’ to support
the oral histories and historical claims where it suits
the Tamu shamans, and then disregarded as not going
far enough (to provide the proper or ‘real’ proof ),as it was cut short through political insecurity inthe region. For archaeologists and ethnographers thisbrings into focus the much-discussed issue of how
we might reconcile the ‘scientific’ objective approachof archaeology with the subjectivity of working withparticular peoples who believe absolutely in theirintuition and their oral histories — who is to say
one view is more important or more real?

The multi-disciplinary field project on which thiswork is based developed in the 1990s fromanthropological explorations, and is closely linked
to readings of the oral history or pye of the Tamumai, which is the cornerstone of their identity andsense of historical origins. This means that much of
the archaeological survey and excavation is driven(explicitly or implicitly) by concerns of historical
geography — interesting in itself, but contributing
to what Evan’s clearly recognises as the major debate
surrounding the use of archaeology to directly answer
questions of origin and ethnicity.
Archaeologists with field projects in South Asia, andmany other parts of the world, will sympathise withthe difficulties of carrying out fieldwork in times andareas of political instability and unrest with the very
real threat of physical danger leading to the disruption
and even cessation of survey and excavation. Cultural
tensions and local misunderstandings will also
be familiar, but the sheer physical demands andaccess issues faced by Evans and team make quite
astounding reading. The archaeological travelogue
sections of the volume are fascinating and provide aninteresting insight into the lengths that this team had
to go to obtain archaeological data. Sadly, the whole
field project was cut short by political developments,
leaving many areas where more and different work
would be highly desirable.

Two things marred my enjoyment of this volume:
firstly, there is no index, and given the vast rangeof material covered and geographical scope of thevolume, this would have been very useful; andsecondly, I strongly object to the use of the word
‘Aryan’ as a cultural or ethnic description, as in:‘southern Aryan people’ (p. 5) — this is casuallyand carelessly repeating accepted wisdom without
properly examining the roots or accuracy of suchdescriptors. In a volume about origins and identity inSouth Asia it is critical that labels such as ‘Aryan’ arechallenged and explored and such a lack of awarenessof current debate within and outside South Asia really
did detract from my support for this otherwise very
sympathetic work.

Each of the five chapters deals with a different aspectof the project — archaeological excavation, survey
or the different anthropological and ethnographic
ventures — accompanied by a more general
introductory and concluding chapter by Evans which
discuss the theoretical framework of the project andpresent some key results or conclusions. Of course
there could have been other ways of organising thevolume, but given the need to cover so much diverse
information and take into account the different
project protagonists this is a reasonable way tostructure such a work.

RUTH YOUNG
School of Archaeology and Ancient History,
University of Leicester (Email: rly3@le.ac.uk)
BARBARA E. BARICH. Antica Africa: alle origine
delle società (Studia Archaeologica 171). 432 pages,
126 illustrations, 17 colour plates, 5 tables. 2010.
Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider; 978–88–8265–547–
1 hardback €95.

Chapter 2 alone would make very interesting reading
for anyone intending to use ethnography in theirwork, particularly within archaeology, or those whoare interested in local impacts and the importance ofarchaeology. For me, one of the highlights of the book
was the delightful discussion of what archaeology
and anthropology are and how they differ from

Recently published syntheses on African archaeology(e.g. Phillipson 2005; Barham & Mitchell 2008)

680