Q.Read the given source carefully and answer the questions that follow : (1+1+2=4) How artefacts are identified Processing of food required grinding equipment as well as vessels for mixing, blending and cooking. These were made of stone, metal and terracotta. This is an excerpt from one of the earliest reports on excavations at Mohenjodaro, the best-known Harappan site : Saddle querns ... are found in considerable numbers ... and they seem to have been the only means in use for grinding cereals. As a rule, they were roughly made of hard, gritty, igneous rock or sandstone and mostly show signs of hard usage. As their bases are usually convex, they must have been set in the earth or in mud to prevent their rocking. Two main types have been found: those on which another smaller stone was pushed or rolled to and fro, and others with which a second stone was used as a pounder, eventually making a large cavity in the nether stone. Querns of the former type were probably used solely for grain; the second type possibly only for pounding herbs and spices for making curries. In fact stones of this latter type are dubbed "curry stones" by our workmen and our cook asked for the loan of one from the museum for use in the kitchen. (From Ernest Mackay, Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro) (31.1) How do archaeologists classify their finds ?

Historical Interpretation: Understanding Artefacts from Mohenjo-daro

The passage from Ernest Mackay's excavation report illustrates how archaeologists make sense of objects unearthed from Harappan sites.

31.1 Archaeologists classify their finds based on function and material. The excerpt shows this clearly: grinding equipment is identified by its purpose (processing food), and objects are grouped by what they were made of—stone, metal, or terracotta. The saddle querns themselves are further divided into types based on how they were used.

31.2 Archaeologists use present-day analogies to interpret ancient artefacts by observing how similar tools are used today. In the passage, Mackay notes that workmen called certain stones "curry stones" because they resembled implements still used for pounding spices. The cook even requested one from the museum for his kitchen, showing that the ancient function matched a living practice. This comparison helps archaeologists infer that Harappans likely used these stones for preparing herbs and spices. …

The passage from Ernest Mackay's excavation report offers a window into how archaeologists move from silent stone objects lying in the earth to meaningful statements about daily life in the Harappan world. At Mohenjodaro, food processing left behind durable traces—grinding equipment that survived four millennia because it was made of stone, not perishable wood or fiber. But a stone is just a stone until the archaeologist asks: what was this for? How was it used? The answers come from careful observation of form, wear patterns, and a surprisingly useful trick—looking at how similar objects are used today.

Classification: ordering the finds

Archaeologists classify their discoveries along two main axes. The first is material—what the object is made of. Mackay notes that saddle querns were fashioned from "hard, gritty, igneous rock or sandstone," distinguishing them from metal tools or terracotta vessels found elsewhere on the site. Knowing the material tells you about sourcing, technology, and durability.

The second axis is function—what the object was used for. This is harder to determine, because ancient people left no labels. Mackay identifies the querns as grinding equipment, then subdivides them by type of use: grain-grinding versus spice-pounding. This functional classification transforms a pile of stones into evidence of cuisine, agriculture, and domestic routine.

Present-day analogies: the cook's request

Here the passage becomes delightful. Mackay writes that stones of the second type—those with a large cavity worn by pounding—are called "curry stones" by the workmen, and that the expedition's cook actually asked to borrow one from the museum for use in the kitchen. This is ethnographic analogy in action.

When archaeologists see a tool whose function is unclear, they look at how similar tools are used by people today, especially in the same region. The cook recognized the pounded stone as identical to what he used for grinding spices and making curry pastes. That living knowledge—transmitted across generations in Indian kitchens—helps decode the silent past. If a stone with a deep cavity works perfectly for pounding turmeric and coriander today, it very likely served the same purpose four thousand years ago in a Harappan household.

This method has limits, of course. Analogies are suggestions, not proof. But when form, wear, and modern use align so neatly, the inference becomes compelling.

Mackay's description of the saddle quern …