Should the stone artefacts illustrated in the chapter be considered as utilitarian objects or as luxuries? Are there any that may fall into both categories?
Archaeologists broadly classify artefacts into utilitarian objects and luxuries. Utilitarian objects were items of daily use made fairly easily from ordinary materials such as stone or clay. Examples include querns, pottery, needles, and flesh-rubbers, which are usually found distributed throughout settlements.
Luxuries, on the other hand, are defined as rare objects made from costly, non-local materials or those requiring complicated technologies, such as little pots of faience. However, some artefacts fall into both categories. For instance, spindle whorls made of rare materials like faience were articles of daily use (utilitarian) but were considered precious due to the material and technology involved (luxury).
The distribution of these artefacts further highlights this distinction, as rare objects are generally concentrated in large settlements like Mohenjodaro and Harappa and are rarely found in smaller settlements like Kalibangan.
Explanation
The answer is derived directly from the section '4.2 Looking for “luxuries”'. It explains the archaeological classification of artefacts. Utilitarian items are defined as everyday objects made of common materials like stone (e.g., querns, stone blades). Luxuries are defined by rarity, cost, or technology (e.g., faience). The textbook specifically presents the complication of 'spindle whorls made of rare materials such as faience' as an example that blurs the line between the two categories, as they were tools for daily use but made of precious material. The distribution pattern (concentration in large settlements) supports the identification of luxuries.