A Note on the Diachronic Changes of the Harappan Pottery ‐ a Preliminary Analysis

A Note on the Diachronic Changes of the Harappan Pottery ‐ A Preliminary Analysis

Akinori Uesugi 1

1. 2‐312, 4‐4‐2 Miyahara, Yodogawa‐ku, Osaka, Japan (Email: [email protected])

Received: 30 September 2013; Accepted: 13 October 2013; Revised: 30 October 2013 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1 (2013): 356‐371

Abstract: In archaeological studies, the time‐scale is one of the most important factors in understanding the diachronic changes of material culture and society. More refined the time‐scale would be more precise and better understanding on given society and culture would be gained. The need for refined time‐scale or chronological framework is true of the Indus archaeology, however many studies depend on one single time unit of ʹMature Harappan periodʹ between 2600 BC and 1900 BC. As a result, it is still difficult to see diachronic changes in material culture and society of the Indus urban society, which may have happened between its rise and decline. In such general trends, the excavations at Amri in 1959 (Casal 1964), at Harappa since 1986 (Dales et al. 1991), and at Nausharo (Jarrige 1988) divided the ʹMature Harappan periodʹ deposits into several phases and recorded the changes in material culture through time. The study on Harappan painted pottery from Nausharo by Gonzaque Quivron (2000) is an important attempt to see dynamic changes in the Harappan painted motifs. The long‐term project at Harappa by the American Mission has revealed the diachronic changes of the material cultures and urban developments including a cemetery (Jenkins 1994, 2000), dividing the Harappan period into three phases, 3A, 3B and 3C. In this paper, an attempt is to be made to establish a chronological framework inside the Harappan period between 2600 BCE and 1900 BCE by examining Harappan pottery that has a wide spatial distribution and a wide chronological span. The materials for this study are from Farmana (Shinde et al. 2011; Uesugi 2011a, b) and Mitathal (Manmohan Kumar 2011, 2012) in the Ghaggar plains, and from Kanmer (Kharakwal et al. 2012; Uesugi and Meena 2012) in Gujarat.

Keywords: History of Archaeology, Archaeology of India, Indus Valley Civilization, Rakhaldas Banerji, History of Science, Colonial Science, Cultural Heritage

Introduction: Problems and Methodology In this paper, the chronological changes of Harappan pottery are to be examined based on its formal traits. The Harappan pottery has been widely reported from a number of sites extending a vast area that is comprised by the proper Indus valley, the Ghaggar plains, Gujarat, and Balochistan as far as the northern Afghanistan (Figure 1). Among various traits of the Harappan pottery, painted pottery is the most diagnostic, but other plain pottery also exhibits similar shapes across these regions. However very few comparative studies on formal variations of the Harappan pottery have been made so

356

Uesugi 2013: 356‐371 far, and the chronological parallels of the Harappan pottery from various regions have not been fully argued.

Figure 1: Map of the Harappan period sites with major centres

357

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013

As the Harappan pottery has a wide distribution over a vast area, it is most likely that it can be a good chronological indicator to decide the time‐period of sites, when the chronological changes of the Harappan ceramic shapes are better understood and their evolutionary phases can be set out. Based on this, the changes of distribution patterns of sites in each phase can also be discussed. At a few sites like Amri (Casal 1964), Harappa (Dales et al. 1991) and Nausharo (Jarrige 1988), the whole Harappan period is divided into several phases and the evolution of the Harappan pottery has been discussed so far. Gonzaque Quivron (2000) argues the chronological changes of painting styles and motifs of the Harappan pottery and divides the evolution of the Harappan painting style into four phases. Paul Jenkins (1994, 2000) examines the ceramic evidence from the R37 cemetery at Harappa to see the chronological changes of formal traits of the Harappan pottery. These studies clearly indicate an attempt to see the chronological changes of the Harappan pottery and to divide its evolution into several phases based on ceramic evidence, which can be applicable to the entire Indus region, enables us to discuss the developments of the Indus urban society based on a more sub‐divided chronological framework.

One of the most influential problems to the study of the chronological changes of the Harappan pottery is the methodology to publish ceramic evidence in reports. Unfortunately most of the reports published so far give us information on ceramic evidence in very broad stratigraphic contexts or in a broad cultural period. In many cases, the ceramic evidence is reported in a way to make examinations of the chronological changes of ceramics based on their exact stratigraphic contexts difficult. There is also a tendency to deal with the entire Harappan period as a single chronological unit. In order to discuss the chronological changes of ceramics, much more attention must be paid to the stratigraphic contexts of ceramic evidence.

In general, the pottery from graves is useful for clarifying the stratigraphic contexts, since grave pottery tends to be complete in shape and the time span between their productions and discard (in the context of graves, ʹburialʹ) can be regarded as much shorter than those from regular habitation deposits. In habitation area, the pottery is likely to have been used until their breakage and the time‐period of production may have been different from one specimen to another, even if they are found from one single stratigraphic unit. Furthermore, site formation process may affect on the original context of pottery discarded at given site.

As early as 1920s, Harappan graves were known at Harappa, but the grave goods found from those graves were collectively reported making it difficult to see the chronological changes of grave goods (Vats 1940). R.E.M. Wheeler (1947) also adopted the same reporting system in his report on the excavations at Harappa. The ignorance of the possible chronological changes of the Harappan pottery unfortunately continued in later excavations. Recent excavations at the R37 cemetery at Harappa by the Harappa Archaeological Research Project (Dales et al. 1991; Jenkins 2000) and at a cemetery site of Seman‐6 (Shinde et al. eds. 2011; Uesugi 2011a), which is most likely to

358

Uesugi 2013: 356‐371 be associated with the settlement site of Farmana‐1, provides solid data of grave pottery for our understanding of the chronological changes of the Harappan pottery.

By comparing the evidence from graves and the ones from habitation deposits, better understanding of the chronological changes of the Harappan pottery and the sub‐ division of the chronological framework can be attained. This paper, though still in a preliminary form, attempts to examine the chronological changes of the Harappan pottery based on the evidence from the Farmana cemetery and to compare them with the evidence from habitation deposits at several sites in Ghaggar and Gujarat (Figure 2).

Chronological Changes of the Harappan Pots and Dish‐on‐stands from the Farmana Cemetery (Seman‐6) In total, 56 graves were excavated at the Farmana cemetery (Seman‐6) in the seasons of 2007‐08 and 2008‐09, among which 27 graves yielded Harappan pottery as grave goods. Pots and dish‐on‐stands were found from many graves and they are suitable for examining the chronological changes of shapes.

As to pots, three body shapes can be distinguished, elliptical shape having max body diameter on the lower part of the body, globular or relatively short oblong shape, and long oblong shape (Figures 2 and 3; Table 1). These three shapes are basically exclusive to each other, although some graves yielded two of them side by side. Examining the evidence from graves overlapping other one that exhibits clear chronological orders (an example shown in Figure 5), it appears that the elliptical shape is the earliest followed by the globular or short oblong shape, and the long oblong shape is placed as the latest. That is, these three shapes can be regarded as showing chronological changes of the pot shape. As to the elliptical shape, its similarity to the pots of the Kot Dijian pottery may reinforce its chronological position. However it appears that the changes are gradual and four phases are set out in my previous analysis (Uesugi 2011a). Phase 1 is distinguished by the elliptical shape; in Phase 2 it evolves into globular or short oval shape; in Phase 3, the elongation of body becomes prominent; and in Phase 4 the longer oval shape becomes dominant.

As to the dish‐on‐stands (Figure 4), Phases 1 and 2 have ones with a tall profile showing the ratios between the rim diameter and the total height of 0.92 and 1.02 and the specimens from Phase 3 have a slightly shorter profile as indicated by the ratios of 0.94 and 0.97. In Phase 4 ones with a shorter profile with the ratio of 0.79 appear indicating a possible chronological change.

Thus the chronological changes of the Harappan pottery are quite apparent at the Farmana cemetery. Unfortunately no C14 date has been obtained from this site, but this relative sequence of the Harappan pottery can be compared with the evidence from other sites.

359

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013

Table 1: Measurements and indexes of selected Harappan pots from the Farmana cemetery

Burial No. Number Phase RD HT MBD BHT HT:MBD Body Shape 68 1 Phase 1 8.8 17.5 16.8 15.2 1.04 elliptical 68 3 Phase 1 10.3 24.0 23.0 21.7 1.04 elliptical 68 6 Phase 1 9.4 17.0 19.5 15.0 0.87 elliptical 68 8 Phase 1 9.4 19.8 16.8 12.8 1.18 globular 40 1 Phase 2 9.0 18.3 17.7 15.6 1.03 elliptical 40 2 Phase 2 4.4 9.1 7.8 7.5 1.17 short oval 40 4 Phase 2 6.0 9.4 9.6 7.8 0.98 short oval 40 8 Phase 2 6.9 9.0 8.8 7.2 1.02 globular 40 10 Phase 2 10.8 19.8 20.7 17.1 0.96 globular 32 3 Phase 3 7.6 13.9 12.4 11.8 1.12 short oval 32 6‐2 Phase 3 7.7 17.8 14.9 15.7 1.19 long oval 32 7 Phase 3 4.4 8.9 8.3 7.7 1.08 short oval 32 10‐1 Phase 3 8.6 16.3 17.1 13.7 0.95 globular 32 13 Phase 3 9.0 18.7 17.6 16.3 1.06 short oval 25 1 Phase 4 7.6 15.4 11.9 13.6 1.29 long oval 25 3 Phase 4 5.6 9.7 8.7 8.3 1.11 short oval 25 7 Phase 4 5.7 9.5 8.8 8.4 1.08 short oval 25 9 Phase 4 7.4 11.4 15.6 8.8 0.73 squat globular 18 no number‐1 Phase 4 8.6 12.0 12.0 10.0 1.00 short oval 18 no number‐2 Phase 4 6.0 8.0 7.5 6.9 1.07 short oval 18 2 Phase 4 8.6 18.1 15.0 15.3 1.21 long oval (RD=rim diameter, HT= total height, MBD=max. body diameter, BHT=body height; unit=cm)

Evidence from the Habitation Deposits at Farmana and Mitathal At the habitation area at Farmana‐1, five structural phases were observed, but very few complete pots were found (Figure 2). Therefore the comparison with the sequence at the cemetery based on the ratio of the total height and the max body diameter is difficult; however some well preserved specimens with a body portion can be used for comparison (Figure 6). The globular body shape and slightly elongated body shape occurs through all phases suggesting that habitation deposits at Farmana‐1 can be comparable with Cemetery Phase 2, 3 and possibly a part of Phase 4.

Twenty‐one C14 dates (Table 2) indicates a time span for the habitational deposits at Farmana‐1 between ca. 2500 BCE and ca. 2300 BCE, that is, the early part of the Harappan period. Based on these dates and the comparison of pottery, Cemetery Phase 1 can be dated to around 2500 BCE or slightly earlier and Phase 4 to a period slightly later than 2300 BCE.

360

Uesugi 2013: 356‐371

Table 2: C14 dates (AMS) from Farmana (after Shinde et al. eds. 2011)

Area/Trench/ Calibrated Dates PLD. No. Feature/Phase 1 σ 2 σ PLD‐15051 Central Area 2471BC(29.9%)2436BC 2476BC(93.4%)2338BC Tr. 1D5 , Phase 2 2421BC(14.3%)2404BC 2322BC( 2.0%)2309BC 2379BC(24.0%)2349BC PLD‐15052 Central Area 2561BC(32.5%)2536BC 2571BC(50.3%)2513BC Tr. 1D5, Phase 2 2492BC(35.7%)2469BC 2503BC(45.1%)2462BC PLD‐15054 Central Area 2464BC(43.1%)2401BC 2469BC(89.1%)2335BC Tr. 1D5, Phase 2 2382BC(25.1%)2348BC 2324BC( 6.3%)2301BC PLD‐15048 Central Area 2463BC(43.0%)2401BC 2469BC(88.3%)2335BC Tr. 1D5, Phase 3 2382BC(25.2%)2348BC 2324BC( 7.1%)2301BC PLD‐15049 Central Area 2464BC(43.3%)2401BC 2470BC(86.9%)2332BC Tr. 1D5 , Phase 3 2382BC(24.9%)2348BC 2326BC( 8.5%)2299BC PLD‐15050 Central Area 2464BC(43.1%)2401BC 2469BC(89.1%)2335BC Tr. 1D5, Phase 3 2382BC(25.1%)2348BC 2324BC( 6.3%)2301BC PLD‐16340 Central Area 2401BC( 8.9%)2382BC 2459BC(10.4%)2417BC Tr. 1C11, Phase 1 2348BC(50.2%)2283BC 2410BC(68.8%)2273BC 2249BC( 8.0%)2233BC 2256BC(16.2%)2207BC 2217BC( 1.0%)2215BC PLD‐16341 Central Area 2456BC(24.3%)2419BC 2461BC(95.4%)2296BC Tr. 1C11, Phase 1 2408BC(21.8%)2375BC 2368BC( 2.8%)2363BC 2354BC(10.6%)2337BC 2323BC( 8.7%)2308BC PLD‐16342 Central Area 2457BC(25.7%)2417BC 2462BC(95.4%)2299BC Tr. 1C11, Phase 1 2410BC(42.5%)2341BC PLD‐16343 Central Area 2480BC(37.4%)2452BC 2560BC( 4.2%)2536BC Tr. 1C11, Phase 1 2443BC( 1.3%)2440BC 2491BC(91.2%)2344BC 2420BC(11.3%)2405BC 2378BC(18.2%)2350BC PLD‐16344 Central Area 2459BC(41.8%)2398BC 2466BC(85.9%)2332BC Tr. 1C11, Phase 1 2384BC(26.4%)2346BC 2326BC( 9.5%)2299BC PLD‐16349 Central Area 2463BC(42.3%)2402BC 2470BC(90.5%)2335BC Tr. 1C11, Phase 1 2382BC(25.9%)2348BC 2324BC( 4.9%)2307BC PLD‐16348 Central Area 2472BC(25.1%)2452BC 2477BC(95.4%)2342BC Tr. 1C11, Phase 2 2444BC( 2.9%)2440BC 2420BC(15.0%)2405BC 2378BC(25.2%)2350BC PLD‐12424 Central Area 2453BC( 3.3%)2444BC 2461BC(87.8%)2280BC Tr. 1A3/Pit 1, Phase 5 2438BC( 7.9%)2420BC 2251BC( 5.7%)2230BC 2405BC(14.4%)2378BC 2220BC( 1.9%)2211BC 2350BC(42.6%)2287BC

361

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013

Area/Trench/ Calibrated Dates PLD. No. Feature/Phase 1 σ 2 σ PLD‐12425 Central Area 2396BC( 4.0%)2385BC 2458BC( 8.0%)2418BC Tr. 1C1‐1C2, Phase 5 2346BC(46.1%)2278BC 2407BC ( 9.9%)2376BC 2251BC(12.9%)2229BC 2351BC(77.5%)2205BC 2221BC( 5.2%)2210BC PLD‐15057 East Area 2579BC(18.6%)2561BC 2621BC(95.4%)2476BC Tr. 2XD3, Phase 4 2536BC(49.6%)2492BC PLD‐15056 North Ex. 2547BC( 1.2%)2544BC 2564BC( 9.7%)2533BC Tr. 2D9, Phase 1 2489BC(44.7%)2455BC 2495BC(68.2%)2395BC 2419BC( 8.3%)2407BC 2385BC(17.5%)2346BC 2376BC(14.0%)2351BC PLD‐16350 North Ex. 2449BC( 1.2%)2446BC 2463BC(94.9%)2286BC Tr. 2D9 , Phase 2 2436BC( 9.3%)2420BC 2247BC( 0.5%)2244BC 2405BC(17.1%)2378BC 2350BC(40.6%)2293BC PLD‐9491 North Area 2475BC(46.2%)2400BC 2560BC( 3.7%)2536BC Tr. 3, Phase 3 2382BC(22.0%)2347BC 2492BC(91.7%)2298BC PLD‐9492 North Area 2456BC(19.2%)2419BC 2467BC(88.3%)2278BC Tr. 3, Phase 3 2407BC(17.1%)2376BC 2251BC( 5.0%)2229BC 2351BC(31.9%)2294BC 2221BC( 2.1%)2210BC PLD‐9493 North Area 2488BC(35.8%)2431BC 2566BC( 9.7%)2525BC Tr. 3, Phase 2 2425BC(13.3%)2401BC 2497BC(82.1%)2335BC 2381BC(19.1%)2348BC 2324BC( 3.6%)2301BC

Another site, Mitathal is situated about 20 km southwest of Farmana. As a result of two seasonsʹ excavations in 2010‐11 and 2011‐12, habitation deposits dated to 2300 ‐ 1900 BCE by ten C14 dates were confirmed (Table 3; five relevant dates are shown in the table). It means that the occupations at Mitathal is later than that of Farmana, and that they fall in the later part of the Harappan period. In ceramics, various traits that are not present at Farmana can be observed (Figure 2). Based on the ceramic evidence, three ceramic phases can be suggested (in terms of the structural phases on MTL‐1, Structural Phase 1 belongs to Ceramic Phase 1, Structural Phases 2 ‐ 6 to Ceramic Phase 2 and Structural Phase 7 to Ceramic Phase 3). Although Ceramic Phase 1 yields very few Harappan pots, Ceramic Phase 2 sees the globular body and the body shape with a lower gravity (Figures 2 and 7). These two shapes also occur in Ceramic Phase 3. Noteworthy is that the Harappan pots from Farmana cemetery were mostly associated with a short neck but the specimens from Mitathal Ceramic Phases 2 and 3 have a longer neck. Thus the Harappan pots from Mitathal clearly indicate formal changes from those at Farmana.

For the dish‐on‐stands, no specimen with its entire shape intact was found, but the formal changes of the dish portion from the ones from Farmana are apparent (Figure 8). Specimens with a profile deeper than the ones from Farmana occur in Phases 2 and

362

Uesugi 2013: 356‐371

3. Besides, the stem with a hollow bulge and a projection is also a feature that is not found at Farmana. The projection continues into the Bara pottery in the post‐urban phase. At a post‐urban cemetery site of Bedwa‐2, which is situated 2 km north of Farmana, many complete dish‐on‐stands have projections at the juncture between the dish and the stem and exhibits shorter profiles as indicated by the ratio of total height and the rim diameter of 0.75 ‐ 0.94 (Figure 4), compared to the ones from the Farmana cemetery, which shows the ratio of total height and the rim diameter of 0.79 ‐ 1.10. The pottery collected at this site is important for understanding the diachronic formal changes of Harappan pottery from the early part to the later part of the Harappan period.

Table 3: C14 dates (AMS) from Mitathal (after Kumar et al. 2011, 2012)

Calibrated Dates PLD No. Area/Trench/Phase 1δ 2δ PLD‐18933 MTL‐1 2259BC(52.8%)2206BC 2341BC(91.3%)2197BC Area 1 A4 SE, Phase 1 PLD‐20873 MTL‐1 2286BC(37.4%)2247BC 2300BC(88.2%)2196BC Area 1 A4 SE, Phase 1 2236BC(30.8%)2204BC PLD‐20874 MTL‐1 2345BC(46.7%)2278BC 2351BC(79.5%)2204BC Area 1 A4 SE, Phase 2 PLD‐18932 MTL‐1 2201BC(68.2%)2137BC 2209BC(76.3%)2124BC Area 1 A4 SE, Phase 2 PLD‐20875 MTL‐1 2199BC(38.8%)2161BC 2206BC(67.8%)2118BC Area 1 A4 SE, Phase 2

Evidence from Kanmer and Other Sites in Gujarat At the site of Kanmer, which is situated in the eastern part of Kachchh, five cultural periods were observed, among which Periods I ‐ III are parallel to the Harappan period.

In Period I, no complete Harappan pot was found, but several specimens with a globular or a slightly elongated oval body are present along with typical Harappan painted sherds. These specimens are comparable with those from Farmana Cemetery Phase 2 ‐ 4 (Figure 9).

In Period IIA, specimens with a globular body and ones with ridges were found (Figure 10). The ridged pots were also found from Farmana Settlement Phases 2 ‐ 5 indicating that Period IIA at Kanmer is also parallel to Farmana Cemetery Phases 2 ‐ 4. C14 dates from Periods I and IIA fall in a range between c. 2500 BCE and c. 2300 BCE (Table 4), which is consistent with the ceramic evidence.

In Period IIB, a new type of the Harappan pots appears which is comprised by a

363

Table 4: C14 dates (AMS) from Kanmer (after Kharakwal et al. eds. 2012 with modifications)

Area/Trench/Layer/ Calibrated Dates PLD No. Depth/Period 1δ 2δ PLD‐14762 Central Area, Trench: AA28, 2288BC(18.5%)2267BC 2344BC(90.6%)2196BC Layer: 12, Period I 2260BC(49.7%)2206BC 2172BC( 4.8%)2146BC

PLD‐14756 Central Area, Trench: Z28, 2455BC(19.0%)2419BC 2465BC(94.9%)2286BC Layer: 12, Period I 2406BC(17.3%)2377BC 2247BC( 0.5%)2243BC 2350BC(31.9%)2296BC PLD‐14751 Central Area, Trench: Z30 2564BC(37.9%)2534BC 2571BC(56.2%)2513BC Layer: 12, Period I 2494BC(30.3%)2472BC 2504BC(39.2%)2466BC PLD‐14761 West Area, Trench: Q28 2457BC(68.2%)2342BC 2466BC(95.4%)2292BC Layer: 10, Period I PLD‐14754 West Area, Trench: Q28 2462BC(42.4%)2398BC 2467BC(95.4%)2299BC Layer: 11, Period I 2384BC(25.8%)2346BC PLD‐14759 West Area, Trench: Q28 2462BC(42.8%)2402BC 2468BC(87.9%)2335BC Layer: 11, Period I 2382BC(25.4%)2348BC 2324BC( 7.5%)2301BC PLD‐14755 West Area, Trench: Q28 2455BC(16.2%)2420BC 2464BC(90.4%)2281BC Layer: 12, Period I 2406BC(15.5%)2377BC 2250BC( 3.9%)2231BC 2350BC(36.5%)2291BC 2219BC( 1.1%)2212BC PLD‐14758 West Area, Trench: Q28 2459BC(42.1%)2391BC 2466BC(95.4%)2298BC Layer: 13, Period I 2385BC(26.1%)2346BC PLD‐14757 Central Area, Trench: AA28, 2286BC(68.2%)2205BC 2337BC( 2.2%)2323BC Layer: 9, Period IIA 2308BC(86.7%)2196BC 2172BC( 6.5%)2146BC PLD‐14752 Central Area, Trench: Z30 2476BC(35.6%)2437BC 2560BC( 3.2%)2536BC Layer: 10, Period IIA 2421BC(12.4%)2404BC 2491BC(92.2%)2341BC 2379BC(20.2%)2349BC

PLD‐14760 Central Area, Trench: AA28, 2455BC(20.0%)2419BC 2464BC(95.4%)2288BC Layer: 8, Period IIB 2406BC(17.7%)2377BC 2351BC(30.5%)2298BC PLD‐14748 Northeast Area, Trench: 2278BC(22.7%)2251BC 2292BC(95.4%)2137BC AA17, Layer: 6, Period IIB 2229BC( 6.0%)2221BC 2211BC(13.6%)2195BC PLD‐14753 Southeast Area, Trench: EE30, 2132BC(44.8%)2084BC 2141BC(89.2%)2011BC Layer: 4, Period III 2058BC(23.4%)2030BC 2001BC( 6.2%)1977BC PLD‐14749 Southeast Area, Trench: FF29, 2204BC(62.6%)2134BC 2279BC( 7.2%)2250BC Layer: 3, Period III 2077BC( 5.6%)2064BC 2230BC( 1.5%)2220BC 2211BC(68.2%)2121BC 2095BC(18.5%)2041BC PLD‐14750 Southeast Area, Trench: FF29, 2271BC( 8.0%)2259BC 2287BC(92.7%)2133BC Layer: 3, Period III 2206BC(60.2%)2141BC 2079BC( 2.7%)2061BC

364

Uesugi 2013: 356‐371

Figure 2: Comparison of Harappan pots from the Farmana cemetery, the Farmana settlement and Mitathal (after Uesugi 2011a; Kumar et al. 2011, 2012; Uesugi and Meena 2012)

Figure 3: Comparison of Harappan pots from the Farmana cemetery (The size of each specimens is adjusted by height)

365

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013

Figure 4: Comparison of Harappan dish‐on‐stands from the Farmana cemetery and Bedwa‐2 (same scale)

Figure 5: Example of the overlapped burials (Burial no. 23 belong to Phase 3 and Burial no. 22 to Phase 4; after Uesugi 2011b)

366

Uesugi 2013: 356‐371

Figure 6: Comparison of Harappan pots from the Farmana cemetery and the Farmana settlement (The size of each specimens is adjusted by height)

Figure 7: Comparison of Harappan pots from the Farmana cemetery and Mitathal (Size of each specimens are adjusted at the position of the juncture of the neck and body)

367

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013

Figure 8: Comparison of the dish portion of Harappan dish‐on‐stands from the Farmana cemetery, Mitathal and Bedwa‐2 (The size of each specimens are adjusted at the position of the ridge)

Figure 9: Comparison of Harappan pots from the Farmana cemetery and Kanmer (after Uesugi 2011a; Uesugi Meena 2012)

Figure 10: Examples of ridged pot from Farmana and Kanmer (scale=1/6)

368

Uesugi 2013: 356‐371 thickened rim, a globular body or a bulging body with a lower gravity and a slightly rounded flat base (Figure 9). In addition, this type is decorated with groups of parallel strokes. This new type is the pots of the so‐called ʹSorath Harappan pottery’, which can be regarded as a local type developed in Gujarat. However, typical Harappan pottery that occurs in Periods I and IIA is also present along with this new type, indicating that the older type and the new type coexisted for some time.

In Period III, the Sotath Harappan pots were predominantly unearthed indicating that the local type of the Harappan pottery had continuously developed. That some painted shreds are decorated with motifs that are not derived from the typical Harappan pottery clearly exhibits the progress of the localization of the Harappan pottery in Gujarat.

For the dating of Periods IIB and III, these periods can be dated to later part of the Harappan period, as Periods I and IIA are regarded as being parallel with Farmana Cemetery Phases 2 and 3 and Settlement Phases 1 ‐ 5 and as no pottery comparable with Rangpur IIC was found. C14 dates also suggest a time range between 2300 BCE and 1900 BCE (Table 4).

Tentative Conclusion The analyses described above can be summarized as follow.

1. The morphological analysis of the Harappan pottery from the Farmana cemetery indicates that the Harappan pots see changes from the elliptical through the globular or short oblong to the tall oblong body shapes through time, and that the dish‐on‐stands change from the taller and slender shape to the shorter one. Morphological changes can be observed on other Harappan forms. Although the morphological changes seem to have been gradual, four phases can be divided based on the combination of various Harappan forms and on several overlapped burials.

2. At the Farmana settlement, the Harappan pottery can be compared to those of Cemetery Phases 2 and 3. The C14 dates from this area suggest a time range between 2500 BCE and 2300 BCE or the early half of the Harappan period.

3. At Mitathal that can be dated to 2200 ‐ 1900 BCE based on C14 dates, the Harappan pottery exhibits various traits different from those at Farmana. This new style develops into the Bara pottery by Mitathal Ceramic Phase 3 with gradual changes. The Bara pottery continues into the post‐urban phase in the Ghaggar plains.

4. Kanmer in Gujarat yields examples of the Harappan pottery in Period I and IIA comparable with the ones of Faramana Cemetery Phases 2 and 3. C14 dates, which exhibit a time range between 2500 and 2300 BCE, also match the time range of the Farmana settlement. In Periods IIB and III dating to 2300 BCE ‐ 1900

369

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013

BCE based on C14 dates, the Sorath Harappan pottery, a local type of the Harappan pottery in Gujarat, appears. This regional development of the Harappan pottery during the later half of the Harappan period resembles the case in the Ghaggar plains, i.e. at the case of Mitathal.

5. Three broad phases can be set for the Harappan period in Ghaggar and Gujarat; the early phase represented by the Farmana cemetery (Phase 1), the middle phase by the Farmana cemetery (Phases 2 and 3), the Farmana settlement (Phases 1‐5), and Kanmer Periods I and IIA and the late phase exemplified by the Farmana cemetery (Phase 4), Mitathal (Ceramic Phase 1‐3), Kanmer Periods IIB and III. While in the early phase, the Harappan pottery in Ghaggar and Gujarat exhibits the same features as the one in Sindh and Punjab, regional styles emerge in these regions during the late phase. The wide expansion of the Harappan pottery from Sindh and Punjab into the neighbouring regions in the early and middle phases is also argued by G. Quivron (2000) in his analysis on the Harappan painted pottery. The emergence of the regional styles in the late phase suggests some changes on the inter‐regional interaction network that disintegrated homogeneity of the Harappan pottery over a wide area.

The arguments in this short paper are based on the evidence from a few sites, and it must be testified against further data. Three divisions into the early, middle and late phases are not still well enough for using them as a solid chronological framework and further chronological divisions must be worked.

Acknowledgments To write this paper, I am indebted to Prof. Manmohan Kumar, Prof. V. Shinde, Prof. J.S. Kharakwal, Prof. T. Osada and Dr. V. Dangi for their support in conducting my research. I am also thankful to Prof. J.M. Kenoyer for his many valuable suggestions and comments for my work. Last but not least, I would express my gratitude to Prof. Ajit Kumar and Dr. Rajesh S.V. of University of Kerala for accepting my paper to this journal.

References Casal, J.‐M. 1964. Fouilles DʹAmri. Librarie C. Klincksieck, Paris. Dales, G.F. and J.M. Kenoyer and the staffs of the Harappa Project. 1991. Summaries of Five Seasons of Research at Harappa (District Sahiwal, Punjab, Pakistan) 1986‐1990. in R.H. Meadow ed. Harappa Excavations 1986‐90: A multidisciplinary Approach to Third Millennium Urbanism. Prehistory Press, Madison. pp. 185‐262. Jarrige, J.‐F. 1988. Excavations at Nausharo. Pakistan Archaeology 23: 149‐203. Jenkins, P.C. 1994. Harappan pottery from Cemetery R37: New perspectives on style and chronology. in J.M. Kenoyer ed. From Sumer to Meluhha: Contributions to the Archaeology of South Asia and West Asia in Memory of George F. Dales, Jr. Madison. pp. 105‐112.

370

Uesugi 2013: 356‐371

Jenkins, P.C. 2000. The Pottery from Cemetery R37: Chronology and the Changing Social Structure of Harappa Society. in M. Taddei and G. de Marco eds. South Asian Archaeology 1997. Istituto Italiano per lʹAfrica e lʹOriente, Rome. pp. 35‐53. Kharakwal, J.S., Y.S. Rawat and T. Osada. 2012. Excavations at Kanmer 2005‐06 ‐ 2008‐09. Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Gujarat State Department of Archaeology and Institute of Rajasthan Studies, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Kyoto. M. Kumar, A. Uesugi, V.S. Shinde, V. Dangi, Vijay Kumar, Sajjan Kumar, A.K. Singh, R. Mann and R. Kumar. 2011. Excavations at Mitathal, District Bhiwani (Haryana) 2010‐11: A Preliminary Report. Purātattva 41: 168‐178. M. Kumar, A. Uesugi, Vivek Dangi, Vijay Kumar and T. Nagae. 2012. Excavations at Mitathal, 2011‐12. Purātattva 42: 148‐181. Shinde, V., T. Osada and M. Kumar eds. 2011. Excavations at Farmana, Rohtak District, Haryana, India 2006‐2008. Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto. Uesugi, A. 2011a. Pottery from the Cemetery Area. in V. Shinde, T. Osada, and M. Kumar eds. 2011. Excavations at Farmana, Rohtak District, Haryana, India 2006‐2008. Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto. pp. 674‐800. Uesugi, A. 2011b. Pottery from the Settlement Area. in V. Shinde, T. Osada, and M. Kumar eds. 2011. Excavations at Farmana, Rohtak District, Haryana, India 2006‐2008. Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto. pp. 168‐368. Uesugi, A. and S. Meena. 2012. Pottery. in Kharakwal, J.S., Y.S. Rawat and T. Osada eds. Excavations at Kanmer 2005‐06 ‐ 2008‐09. Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Gujarat State Department of Archaeology and Institute of Rajasthan Studies, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth. Kyoto. pp. 219‐480. Quivron, G. 2000. The Evolution on the Mature Indus Pottery Style in the Light of the Excavations at Nausharo, Pakistan. East and West 50(1‐4): 147‐190. Vats, M.S. 1940. Excavations at Harappa. Government of India Press, Delhi. Wheeler, R.E.M. 1947. Harappa 1946: The Defences and Cemetery R37. Ancient India 3: 58‐130.

371