Gwen Kelly
I have been doing archaeology in India since 2001. I've worked mostly in South India, in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka, and my work focuses primarily on issues of society and economy. My research interests span from the Neolithic to the Early Modern period and European Colonialism.
My current research project is focused on the impacts of successive empires, both autochthonous and foreign, on the lives, society, culture, economy and landscapes of the Nilgiri Hills in Southern India. This region has been the focus of much ethnographic and historical research, but the deeper history, and material record have yet to be interrogated.
My dissertation research focused on the site of Kodumanal in Tamil Nadu, looking at ceramics, beads, bangles, spindle whorls and other objects, both in terms of their materials and technology, as well as the social organization of their production. I have also worked with data from Kadebakele (Karnataka), Arikamedu (Pondicherry), and Pattinam (Kerala) to understand the changing role of crafts and craft producers in late Iron Age and Early Historic society.
I also recently started IAWAWSA, the International Organization for Women Archaeologists Working in South Asia. The goal of the organization is to form a global network of scholars and students who share research interests in the Archaeology of South Asia, to help form collaborations, support research, and to organize events such as conferences, workshops and lectures.
Supervisors: J. Mark Kenoyer, Kathleen Morrison, and Carla Sinopoli
My current research project is focused on the impacts of successive empires, both autochthonous and foreign, on the lives, society, culture, economy and landscapes of the Nilgiri Hills in Southern India. This region has been the focus of much ethnographic and historical research, but the deeper history, and material record have yet to be interrogated.
My dissertation research focused on the site of Kodumanal in Tamil Nadu, looking at ceramics, beads, bangles, spindle whorls and other objects, both in terms of their materials and technology, as well as the social organization of their production. I have also worked with data from Kadebakele (Karnataka), Arikamedu (Pondicherry), and Pattinam (Kerala) to understand the changing role of crafts and craft producers in late Iron Age and Early Historic society.
I also recently started IAWAWSA, the International Organization for Women Archaeologists Working in South Asia. The goal of the organization is to form a global network of scholars and students who share research interests in the Archaeology of South Asia, to help form collaborations, support research, and to organize events such as conferences, workshops and lectures.
Supervisors: J. Mark Kenoyer, Kathleen Morrison, and Carla Sinopoli
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (39)
Uploads
Papers by Gwen Kelly
the workshop was part of the project, broadly themed “Indian Ocean Trade and the Archaeology of Technology. This paper discusses the categories of personal adornment made of glass, stone, metal and terracotta. It may be added that the artefacts thus far quantified are from excavations of c. 1% of the Pattanam mound that measures over 100 acres.
Archaeologists and ethnoarchaeologists have long studied variations in techniques and technology, in order to theorize how they relate to social, cultural, and ethnic groups. I argue that the South Indian producers of stone beads and ornaments should be considered as a single community of practice, not as distinct ethnic groups, as Francis (2002, 2004) suggested. The community of practice in question, that of lapidary workers, was not homogeneous or rigidly bounded, but rather, was a community with members distributed across many sites in the region, connected by their shared practices and knowledge, and a heterodox acceptance of diverse ways of engaging in that practice. We cannot know their ethnic affiliations, and I argue that does not matter. We can instead view them as a community of practice, engaged in the production of stone beads and ornaments, and in the production of more such producers. That they did not all share a single ‘way of doing’ should not be seen as an indicator of ethnic boundaries, but rather as a heterodox social space of shared, different, and overlapping practices of production.
In this introduction we offer a brief background on Peter Francis, Jr., Asia's Maritime Bead Trade, and our motivation for putting together this special issue. We summarize the papers in the issue and conclude by proposing future directions for continued research on beads in Asia.
the workshop was part of the project, broadly themed “Indian Ocean Trade and the Archaeology of Technology. This paper discusses the categories of personal adornment made of glass, stone, metal and terracotta. It may be added that the artefacts thus far quantified are from excavations of c. 1% of the Pattanam mound that measures over 100 acres.
Archaeologists and ethnoarchaeologists have long studied variations in techniques and technology, in order to theorize how they relate to social, cultural, and ethnic groups. I argue that the South Indian producers of stone beads and ornaments should be considered as a single community of practice, not as distinct ethnic groups, as Francis (2002, 2004) suggested. The community of practice in question, that of lapidary workers, was not homogeneous or rigidly bounded, but rather, was a community with members distributed across many sites in the region, connected by their shared practices and knowledge, and a heterodox acceptance of diverse ways of engaging in that practice. We cannot know their ethnic affiliations, and I argue that does not matter. We can instead view them as a community of practice, engaged in the production of stone beads and ornaments, and in the production of more such producers. That they did not all share a single ‘way of doing’ should not be seen as an indicator of ethnic boundaries, but rather as a heterodox social space of shared, different, and overlapping practices of production.
In this introduction we offer a brief background on Peter Francis, Jr., Asia's Maritime Bead Trade, and our motivation for putting together this special issue. We summarize the papers in the issue and conclude by proposing future directions for continued research on beads in Asia.
provide evidence of occupational sites with microlithic
stone technologies related to foraging for forest and coastal resources. A forager occupation of one site dates to earlier than 2000 B.C., doubling the length of Madagascar’s known occupational history, and thus the time during which people exploited Madagascar’s environments. We detail stratigraphy, chronology, and artifacts from two rock shelters. Ambohiposa near Iharana (Vohémar) on the northeast coast, yielded a stratified assemblage with small flakes, microblades, and retouched crescentic and trapezoidal tools, probably projectile elements,made on cherts and obsidian, some brought
more that 200 km. 14C dates are contemporary with the earliest
villages. No food remains are preserved. Lakaton’i Anja near Antsiranana in the north yielded several stratified assemblages. The latest assemblage is well dated to A.D. 1050–1350, by 14C and optically stimulated luminescence dating and pottery imported from the Near East and China. Below is a series of stratified assemblages similar to Ambohiposa. 14C and optically stimulated luminescence dates indicate occupation from at least 2000 B.C. Faunal remains indicate a foraging pattern. Our evidence shows that foragers with a microlithic technology were active in Madagascar long before the arrival of farmers and herders and before many Late Holocene faunal extinctions. The differing effects of historically distinct economies must be identified and understood to reconstruct Holocene histories of human environmental impact.