CHAPTER 3 Sorath Harappan CHAPTER 3
SORATH HARAPPAN (Regionality in Harappan sites of Saurashtra)
3.Introduction:
The spread of Harappan culture into the regions of Punjab,
Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat in the 3rd millennium B.C. is well accepted. The evidence for this expansion is noted in settlements as far south as Bhagatrav in Broach district of Gujarat, northeast wards into Manda in Jammu and Kashmir and more recently in Bhagvanpura in Haryana (Joshi 1995), west wards along the
Makran coast of Pakistan to the Iranian border (Agarwal 1982a) and in the north to the Oxus valley of northern Afghanistan
(Frankfurt 1981, 1984). A Harappan 'tradition' (Shaffer 1991) was formed. The shift from regional styles as seen at Kot Diji, Amri and Sothi, to more uniform characteristics at its peak or mature phase was the main feature of this tradition. This Harappan tradition was characterized by urban centralization, craft specialization and a diversified subsistence economy.
The vast expanse of this tradition in the Greater Indus
Valley has put forward many questions concerning the dissimilarities in the material and structural remains at excavated Harappan sites. This particular feature, first noted in the phase termed as 'Late Harappan' has been discussed at length by different scholars (Possehl 1977a-, Agrawal 1979', Dikshit 1979,
1984', Ghosh 1982', Rao 1982', Chitalwala 1985', Mughal 1990a,
1992b). It is believed that towards the close of the third millennium B.C. the Pan - Indus cultural integration of the Indus
67 Civilization was weakened and three regional cultural patterns emerged namely 1. Cemetery H in the region of Punjab 2. Jhukar in Sind and 3. Rangpur IIB - C in Gujarat. According to Dyson
(1982) the beginnings of these regional patterns was induced by causes of a local or regional nature which were not generated simultaneously.
In recent years however, sites chronologically contemporary to the mature phase of Harappan occupation in Saurashtra has been seen as a 'regional variant' of the Harappan culture complex
(Possehl and Raval 1989). In this regard it is important to make a note of the historical background to 'regional culture' research in India in the context of Harappan sites in Gujarat; because although the material equipment found associated with
Harappan layers in the protohistoric mounds of Gujarat were thought to be contemporary to the sites in Sind and Baluchistan, the element of regional patterns were always a part of Harappan research in Gujarat.
3.1. Background to 'regional culture' research:
The material evidence from the renewed excavation at Rangpur in the late 30's by Ghurye (1939:10) and later by Sankalia and
Dikshit, led to the interpretation of the site as a Harappan affiliated 'Rangpur culture' (Dikshit 1950:18). This was mainly because the material correlates such as ceramics, artifacts and structures, were essentially different from that of the type site.
Later at Lothal, excavations carried out by Rao between
68 1954-63 (Rao 1973b, 1985) 'established the true Harappan
character' (Nanavati 1962:421) in Gujarat. Of which important
were attributes sited by Wheeler, such as, the town planning, drainage pattern, standardized weights and measures, long
parallel sided chert blades, carnelian beads and many such
associated finds (Wheeler 1968:63). Among ceramics, the typical
Harappan black painted Red ware was predominant. But once again
the most important note made was that of the Micacious Red ware,
the Coarse Grey ware and the Black and Red ware, which in
association with the Harappan red Ware came to be considered as
'indigenous'. And for the first time, there was a suggestion by
Rao that these wares represent the people who occupied the site prior to the arrival of the Harappans (Rao 1962:17, 1963:178).
Since then the number of Harappan sites all over Gujarat
have been on the rise. At present there are approximately 546 sites in Gujarat (Possehl 1993). Thanks to the extensive survey
carried out by scholars like Joshi in Kutch, Possehl, Chitalwala and Bhan in Saurashtra and the team from M S University, Baroda
in North Gujarat. But, except for the excavated sites, it is difficult to determine the chronological contemporaneity or the cultural dissimilarities of the unexcavated sites. On the whole their Harappan nature is confirmed mainly by a quick on site examination of the pottery, which is essentially 'Harappan' in character. The details of these reported sites are very
inadequate for any sort of comparative or quantitative analysis.
The excavations carried out at Prabhas Patan, Rojdi, and more recently at Padri, have given evidences for cultural levels
69 chronologically contemporary with the Mature Harappan sites in
Sindh. The material inventory and the nature of the settlement at these sites were apparently different and lacked in the standards or the characteristic features of Harappan Civilization. Even the ceramics didn't show the distinctive Indus painting style.
Possehl interpreted this as a regional expression of the Urban phase of the Harappan culture in Saurashtra and the term 'Sorath
Harappan' came into being. (Possehl and Raval 1989, Possehl and
Herman 1990). This 'Sorath Harappan' regionality in more recent research is further subdivided into ceramic bound regional centers (Sonawane and Prasad 1994:137). According to this division the site of Rojdi forms the Sorath Harappan core area;
Padri and Prabhas Patan are the 'regional chalcolithic traditions' in Saurashtra. The region around Lothal, Rangpur and
Vagad is noted as the area of 'non Harappan' traditions, although
Lothal and Nageswar are considered as Sindhi Harappan settlements.
3.2 Terninology
Definition of every prehistoric culture is predominantly based on the material correlates which it evidences for. In short, it is mainly a 'trait list' definition. The presence or absence of certain traits (if not all) and the similarities therein are thought to be enough to categorize a particular site into a 'Culture' slot. But the problem to be cautious of here has been noted by Champion (1989):
^'....the variety of actual material culture evidence discovered
70 by the archaeologists maij hide the fact that in real social and political terms the people with distinctive material culture were in fact treated as homogeneous and that they themselves may have considered such differences as secondary in importance to their shared commonalities. Equally, a shared material culture at some
level of generality may give the impression of homogeneity when the people themselves consider they are culturally distinct
(PP 2-3)^
Such similarities in the material culture, as was first recorded at the type site of Harappa, were also noted at other protohistoric mounds in India and Pakistan; and this led to the common use of the term 'Harappan'. Recent research however feels that these similarities are by far exaggerated and that there are variations in the material correlates, not just phase wise or temporal but also regional and functional. A general correlation of current terminologies and chronologies, presented by Kenoyer
(1991b), gives an overview (Table 3.a).
The beginning, growth and decline of this Harappan tradition has been categorized into separate phases, termed differently by different scholars. Mughal proposed the terms 'Pre/Early
Harappan', 'Early Harappan' 'Mature Harappan' and 'Late Harappan'
(Mughal 1970) of which 'Pre/Early Harappan' and 'Early Harappan' were severely criticized by scholars, as being misleading
(Konishi 1984) Jansen 1992). As against the chronological categorization of Mughal; Possehl (1977, 1980, 1982, 1984) suggested terms indicative of socio cultural development in the various stages of Harappan occupation namely into 'Pre Urban'
71 Table: 3.a
Shaffer nughul Jarrige et al Possehl Lai ti Thapar Fairservis Dales (19fl4/19
Indus valley Neolithic. Aceraaic Neolithic Tradition 6500-5000BC MRS I A Early Fcxxl +W)00-5000BC Producing Era. +6000-5000BC Ceranic Neolithic/ Stage I. Chaicolithic Pastoralis«. Phase B. -6ap-No Sites MR6 IB/MRB II. Liaited Agriculture Neolithic. Discovered 5000-4300BC +4000-3300BC. 5000-4000BC. Phase C. Chalcolithic {^lalcolithic Early Chalcolithic 5000-3400BC. me III 4000-3500BC. 4000-3500BC.
Regionali- Early Chalcolithic Pre Urban Phase D. zation Era. Harappan HRB IV Phase. Growth and Balakot, Aari Kot Diji A. 3500-3200BC. 3200-2600BC. spread of settleaent Hakra, Kot 3500-3000eC. Pre Harappan Turkdenia-Indus. Diji Phases Sothi/KLB I. Stage 2. 3500-3000BC. 4000-2500BC. Early Hara- Chalcolithic. 2900-2700BC. Sedentary villages, ppan. Kot- HRG V. Regionalization. Diji B. 3200-3000BC. 3300-2500BC. 3000-2500BC. Chalcolithic. HRG VI. 3000-2700BC. Pre/Early Harappan Stage 3. Phase E, MRG VII-Nausharo I Sedentary Village Protoorban. 2700-2500BC. Regionalization I incipient Urban, intraregional contact 3000-2500BC. 2500-2300BC.
Integration Kot Diji C. Mature Harappan Urban Hara- Mature Harappan Stage 4. Phase F. Era. 2500-2100BC. NSH II I III ppan. 2500-2000BC. Pd. of Urbanization. Mature Harappan. Harappan Phase Mature Hara- 2500-1900BC. 2550-'2000BC. 2100-1700BC. 2300-1700BC. Full Urban. 2500-2000BC. ppan. 2500BC. 2500-2000BC.
Localization Late Harappan. Late Harappan/ Post Urban. Late Harappan. Stage 5. Era. 2000-1700BC. Post Harappan. ?2000-?1700BC. Jhukar,Cewtry H Decline t< abando- Punjab,Jhukar, Jhukar,Ce«t- MSH IV Late Harappan. naent. Rangpur phases, ry H. Jhukar. 1700-1000BC. 1700-1200/800BC. 2100-1500BC. Pirak. 1990-1300BC.
Post Harappan. Painted Grey <1700BC. ware Culture. i2oo-eooBC.
(J.M.Kenoyer 1991)
72 'Urban' and 'Post Urban'. As far as the concept of 'Urban
Revolution' as developed by Childe (1951) was concerned, his
list of 10 traits characterizing urbanism, was criticized by
scholars like Wheatley (1972) and Adams (1966). In brief, what
Adams (1966:11) seeks to emphasize is that urbanism is more than
a collection of a few loosely associated features, it should be
studied as 'ordered systematic processes of change through time'.
Harappan urbanism in this light came to be studied as an
interrelated set of variables in a systemic context.
But the terminological dispute continues; mainly because
these terms are 'ill defined, overlapping and at times contradictory' (Kenoyer 1991:333). According to Jansen (1992)
there are two aspects which are confused again and again, namely
the system related aspects and the material related aspects.
According to him;
'....the terms "pre", "proto", "early", "mature", "late" and
"post" Harappan are first and foremost system related terms with
chronological, regional and socio cultural points of reference.
The terms "Kot Diji", "Amri", "Sothi", "Harappan", etc. refer in
the first instance to material cultures in the generally accepted prehistoric sense, but in addition to sociocultural cultures which in term could also have undergone a system-related process of "pre", "early", "mature" etc. which, at the beginning, need not have more than a little in common with the larger, superordinate system - related process mentioned first (pp 215)'.
His solution to the problem is to find a new terminology,
73 particularly for the 'civilization forming process' of the
Harappa culture and which should be separated terminologically
from the other 'cultures' like Rot Dijian, Amrian etc. (Jansen
1992:214-215) or for that matter Sorath Harappan.
Thus we see an alternative to the earlier linear models of cultural development in the recently proposed terminology by
Shaffer and Lichtenstein (1989). They use the term 'ethnic groups' or 'an analytical unit composed of archaeological
assemblages with one or more traits sufficiently characteristic to distinguish it from other similarly conceived units'
(PP 119). This was in effect to the increasing cultural diversity apparent in the 'Late Harappan' or 'Post Urban' phase of the Harappan cultural complex. This proposal can be also extended to the Mature phase of the Harappan civilization.
Contrary to the homogeneity and sameness postulated by Mackay and
Piggot more and more excavations have made it clear that there is
an abundance of variation from region to region within the large corpus of Indus remains. The reasons for variation can be many and the civilization is best studied regionally. The grouping of
Harappan sites in Saurashtra as 'Sorath Harappan' in contrast to
'Sindhi Harappan' is one such study.
3.2.a. Sorath Harappan
After the initial round of excavations at the site of Rojdi, the term 'Sorath Harappan' was adopted for the Harappan sites in
Saurashtra in contrast to the term 'Sindhi Harappan' for the sites in Sindh (Possehl and Raval 1989). This is clearly stated
74 by Possehl and his associates (Possehl and Herman 1990; Possehl
and Rissman 1991; Possehl 1992a) and the characteristic features of Sorath Harappan settlements can be enumerated thus:
1. First and foremost is a set of pottery different in its fabric and decoration from that of the sites in Sind. For
instance, Rojdi has both Fine and Coarse wares. Unlike at Mohenjo daro almost all the vessels are slipped and decorated (i.e) painted decoration for the Fine wares and corrugated ridges or
incisions for the Coarse wares (Possehl and Herman 1990). The surface treatment and decoration which marks a development from near absence of 'complex painted decorations' to that of complex geometric and non geometric pattern is also noted as a regional phenomena (Herman 1989).
2. Sorath Harappan regionality is also due to the inclusion of certain unique types unknown to the region of Sindh such as the convex sided bowl and the stud handled bowl. At Rojdi, very few of the Mohenjo daro vessel types and sub types are found.
3. There is a general dearth of small finds like long biconical carnelian beads, cubical chert weights, long parallel sided blades, seals, etc. which are suggestive of trade activities. Precious goods like objects made in gold and ivory are unheard of.
4. Sorath Harappan settlements are small with an average size of 5.3 hectares (Bhan 1992). Architecture is simple without fortification (although recent excavations at Rojdi indicate a well made fortification wall in Rojdi C phase) and planning
75 indicative of an 'urban' occupation.
5. Another important feature is the subsistence pattern
which is a distinctive blend of agriculture and pastoralism;
wherein agriculture is characterized by the predominance of
millets like 'bajra' (Pennisetum tvphoideum"). 'jowar' (Sorghuin
bicolor) and 'ragi' CEleusine coracona and E.indica).
3.2.b. Sindhi Harappan
With the intensification of both internal and external trade
within the Greater Indus valley, urban centres developed at
strategic places. This category of settlements has been referred
to by Possehl as 'Sindhi Harappan'. These sites have evidenced to
play an active role in trade and access of raw material. In Kutch most of them skirt the Rann especially Surkotada (Joshi 1972b,
1973, 1990), Desalpur (Soundarajan 1967, 1984) and Dholavira
(Bisht 1989, 1991), Nagwada and Moti Pipli along the Little Rann
(Hegde et al 1988), and in Saurashtra, Nageswar (Hegde et al
1985, 1991), Lothal (Rao 1973b, 1985) and Kuntasi (Dhavalikar
1991b, 1992, 1993) are located on the coast. These Sindhi
Harappan settlements, particularly at sites like Dholavira,
Surkotada and Kuntasi are well planned with fortification walls
and organized activity areas within the settlement. But for the
greater number of Sindhi Harappan settlements in the Indus Valley
Possehl and Raval (1989) mention only certain ceramics like Indus goblet and beaker, the 'S' form jar, tea cup and feeding cup to be distinctive of Sindhi Harappan.
The characteristic features of Sindhi Harappan can be
76 enumerated thus:
1. This category of settlements played some role in the administrative and trade activities of the civilization. The settlements are either fortified, well organized complexes like at Dholavira, Kuntasi and Surkotada or small and big manufacturing or processing centres like Nageswar and Lothal.
2. Host of these sites are located along important routes of communication like the Rann of Rutch and the sea coast, suggesting trade activities.
3. The Sindhi Harappan settlements of Gujarat share material inventory of both, sites in Sindh as well as reflect the variable impact of local 'non Harappan' and 'Early/Pre Harappan' ceramic types. In fact. Phase B of Lothal has been designated as 'Late
Sorath Harappan' because of the drop in the 'Sindhi Harappan' ceramics in this phase (Possehl 1993).
These two terms have not escaped criticism. The categorization of settlements into Sorath and Sindhi Harappan on the one hand is considered as an attempt to seek ethnicity in
Indian protohistoric archaeological record (Chakrabarty 1995:97) and on the other as an example of 'archeopolitical frenzy'
(Mughal 1990b:16).
3.3 Chronology
A Harappan chronology was established for the first time, at the site of Mohenjo daro by Sir John Marshall (1931, 1:102-7). On the basis of two Indian type seals found in the Pre-Sargonic
77 (pre-2800 B.C.) contexts of Ur and Kish from Mesopotamia, the
Mohenjo daro excavated material were placed between 3250 and 2750
B.C. A similar estimate was proposed by Mackay in 1938 (Vol 1:6-
7) which dated Mohenjo daro between 2800 and 2500 B.C. Meanwhile on the Indian side, the excavations carried out at the site of
Rangpur in Saurashtra by M.S. Vats was suggested to correspond with the Late period of the Indus valley sites or perhaps intercalated between that and the date of the Cemetery H at
Harappa (Vats 1936:38). Succeeding excavations by G.S. Ghurye
(1939), M.G. Dikshit (1950) and lastly by S.R. Rao reaffirmed the cultural phase at Rangpur to be Late Harappan.
But it was not until Wheeler (1947:78-83) that a date scheme for the Harappan civilization as a whole was proposed. It was placed between the time bracket of C.2500 - 1500 B.C. The date of
2500 B.C. for the Civilization, corresponding with the
Mesopotamian contacts was in agreement with the previous scholars but the end point of this periodization was based primarily on
Rgvedic references to fort destruction by Lord Indra, which also formed the base for the hypotheses of Aryan invasion at Harappan sites as determining the end point of the Civilization. The site of Rangpur was dated accordingly; it formed a part of the last chapter in the Harappan cultural history. Although there was no systematically secured date, the similarities in the ceramic and associated finds were used by scholars and a comparative stratigraphy was developed for Harappan sites in Saurashtra
(Possehl 1980; Allchin and Allchin 1982:243-44', Sankalia
1974:379-83).
78 In the early sixties with the help of C14 dating methods,
D.P. Agrawal (1964) put forward the chronological range of this
Civilization between 2300 and 1700 B.C. But, with the recent element of calibration, these dates can now be stretched backwards by a century or two. Besides a lot of excavated
Harappan sites were put to test causing a lot of reshuffling and it has become 'important to examine these dates to see if they are internally consistent in the light of the established archaeological sequence of all these sites' (Chakrabarty
1995:113). The MASCA factor has assigned a date of 2800 B.C. for the first stage of the Mature Harappan phase. Whereas according to Stuiver and Reimer (1986), Possehl (1992a) and Kenoyer
(1991a) the approximate beginning of the Mature Harappan phase, involving major integration of urban polities, the use of writing, weights, Harappan type ceramic designs etc. should be dated to 2600 B.C. This is marked by period III A-C at Harappa. A similar date is suggested for 'the core region' of the Indus river valley, the Ghaggar/Hakra river and Gujarat (Mughal 1990b).
C14 dates from the Mature Harappan levels at Mohenjo daro,
Kalibangan II, Balakot, Nausharo, Allahdino and Shortugai, consistently show a tendency towards 2600 B.C.
The pre dating Kot Dijian phase in the Greater Indus Valley is divided into three time brackets of which the last phase corresponds with the Mature Harappan Phase at Harappa:
3500-3000 B.C. Early Harappan A phase. 3000-2500 B.C. Early Harappan B phase. 2500-2100 B.C. Early Harappan C phase.
79 These 'phases correspond in time with Namazga III, IV and V
respectively Mehrgarh IV and V would equate with Kot
Dijian A and Mefcrgarh VI and VII with Kot Dijian B. The period between 3500 - 2500 B.C. was most important as it marks the beginning of Indus Civilization (Mughal 1990b:196)'. If 2600 B.C.
is to be considered as the beginning of the Mature Harappan phase
in the Greater Indus valley than most of the excavated Harappan sites in Saurashtra form a part of the same phase.
Site Lab« 5568 5730 Calibrated Period/ Half Life Half Life Dates Phase
RJD PRL-1088 3777+- 125BP 1950+- 130BC 2480-2120BC RJD A (Rojdi) PRL-1089 3865+- 115BP 2030+- 120BC 2590-2180BC RJD A PRL-1093 3920+- 110BP 2080+- 110BP 2625-2190BC RJD A PRL-1087 4010+- 105BP 2180+- 115BC 2850-2490BC RJD A PRL-1085 4020+- 105BP 2190+- 110BC 2850-2490BC RJD A PRL-1282 3470+- 140BP 1620+- 145BC 2110-1690BC RJD A PRL-1285 3740+- 140BP 1900+- 145BC 2430-2150BC RJD A PRL-1284 3810+- 100BP 1970+- 105BC 2490-2120BC RJD A
LTH TF-136 3915+- 130BP 2808+- 135BC 2461BC LTH A (Lothal) TF-22 3845+- 110BP 2010+- 115BC 2328BC LTH A TF-27 3840+- 110BP 2005+- 115BC 2315BC LTH A TF-26 3830+- 120BP 1995+- 125BC 2299BC LTH A TF-29 3740+- 110BP 1900+- 115BC 2181-2142BC LTH A TF-133 3740+- 110BP 1900+- 115BC 2182-2142BC LTH A TF-135 3405+- 125BP 1555+- 130BC 1735-1701BC LTH A
KTS BS-567 3870+- 90BP 2035+- 95BC 2451-2356BC KTS A (Kuntasi)PRL-1370 3710+- 160BP 1870+- 165BC 2135-2050BC KTS A PRL-1371 3650+- 140BP 1810+- 145BC 2014BC KTS A
PDR PRL-1785 4390+- 90BP 4520+- 90BC 3048 PDR II (Padri)
VCif)
The available dates from Lothal A and B phases vary from
2655-2185 to 1950-1570 and 2320-1955 to 2315-1665 B.C. respectively and both periods contain Jhukar style (Late
Harappan) pottery. At Rojdi, the dates from the early period A
80 vary between 2640-2150 / 2410-1945 and 2680-2515 / 2680-2385 B.
C.; and the distinctive Indus style and many of the characteristic vessel forms are not similar to those found at
Surkotada or Mohenjo daro (Possehl and Raval 1989). Besides the deep trenches at the site of Padri and Prabhas Patan have also yielded Early Harappan dates. The dates from the microlithic phase at Oriyo Timbo and Langhnaj are also interesting.
Site LabiJ 5568 5730 Calibrated Period/ Half Life Half Life Dates Phase
PP TF-1287 4280+-105BP 2460+-110BC 2911BC Pd I (Prabhas PRL-90 4240+-110BP 2415+-115BC 2892BC Pd I Patan)
PDR PRL-1787 4820+-100BP 4960+-100BC 3680BC PDR I (Padri)
ORY PRL-888 4720+-160BP 2910+-165BC 3510-3388BC Pd I (Oriyo PRL-886 4160+-170BP 2335+-175BC 2870-2702BC Pd I Timbo) PRL-876 4080+-160BP 2250+-165BC 2850-2612BC Pd I
LNJ TF-744 3875+-105BP 2040+-110BC 2452-2366BC (Micro) (Langhnaj )
As far as the Late phase at these sites and others in
Saurashtra are concerned the dates are as follows;
Site Lab« 5568 5730 Caliberated Period/ Half Life Half :Lif e Dates Phase
RJD PRL-1281 3520+- 110BP 1680+ -115BC 2115-1770BC RJD B (Roodi) TF-200 3810+- 110BP 1970+ -125BC 2600-2180BC RJD B TF-199 2590+- 100BP 1740+ -105BC 2150-1960BC RJD B PRL-1084 3700+- 145BP 1860+ -150BC 2340-2070BC RJD C PRL-1083 3875+- 125BP 2040+ -130BC 2610-2180BC RJD C
VGD BS-752 3625+- 100BP 1780+ -105BC 2170-1750BC VGD lA (Vagad) BS-751 2320+- 100BP 1470+ -105BC 1775-1565BC VGD IB
LTH TF-23 3705+- 105BP 1865+ -110BC 2134-2048BC LTH B (Lothal)TF-19 3650+- 135BP 1810+ -140BC 2034BC LTH B DRY PRL- 1425 5010+- 170BP 3210+- 175BC 3706BC Pd II (Oriyo PRL- 1426 4250+- 160BP 2425+- 165BC 2897BC Pd II Timbo) PRL- 1424 3750+- 130BP 1910+- 135BC 2191-2145BC Pd II PRL- 1427 3240+- 110BP 2180+- 150BC 2861-2321BC Pd II
PP PRL- 91 3860+- 165BP 2025+- 170BC 2343BC Pd III (PrabhasPRL- 20 3340+- 105BP 1490+- 110BC 1643BC Pd III Patan) PRL- 19 3100+- 160BP 1245+- 165BC 1406BC Pd III
PDR PRL- 1536 4010+- 145BP 2180+- 150BC 2861-2321BC PDR III (Padri)
A chronological correlation of cultural phases at the
excavated sites in Saurashtra, on the basis of the available C14 dates and associated material assemblage (to be discussed in detail) would be as shown in table 3.b. In short, it is difficult to say anything about the beginning of the Late Harappan period.
And again, the dates from the 'succeeding' Chalcolithic cultures around Gujarat, mainly the Banas, Malwa and Deccan are
interlinked with the Late Harappan phase of Gujarat.
Site Labif 5568 5730 Calibrated Period/ Half Life Half :Lif e Dates Phase
Ahar V-54 3835+-95BP 2000+ -100BC 2306BC Pd lA (Banas) V-57 3975+- 95BP 2145+ -100BC 2489-2551BC Pd lA TF-34 3570+- 135BP 1725+ -140BC 1925BC Pd IB TF-32 3400+- 105BP 1550+ -110BC 1733-169780 Pd IC
Diamabad PRL-654 3460+- 100BP 1615+ -105BC 1851-1761BC Pd I (Deccan) BS-180 3390+- 100BP 1540+ -105BC 1730-1689BC Pd II BS-162 3130+- 90BP 1275+ -95BC 1420BC Pd III BS-161 2990+- 100BP 1130+ -105BC 1261BC Pd IV PRL-656 3050+- 150BP 1190+ -155BC 1376-1318BC PD V
NavdatoliP-201 3492+- 128BP 1645+ -130BC 2032-2942BC Ph I (Malwa) P-200 3457+- 127BP 1610+ -130BC 1757BC Ph I P-478 4125+- 69BP 2300+ -70BC 2861-2681BC Ph II P-202 3503+- 128BP 1660+ -130BC 1878-1789BC Ph II P-204 3449+- 127BP 1600+ -130BC 1749BC Ph III P-205 3294+- 125BP 1445+ -130BC 1602-1536BC Ph IV
According to Chakrabarty (1990:112), Indus contact with
82 CHRONOLOGICAL CORRELATION (OF SITES IN SAURASHTRA)
HARAPPAN ERA SITE/CULTURAL PHASES
2nd phase cf Padri lA (Pre structural levels) REGIONALIZATIOP £M Pre Prabhas lA (3000-2700 B.C. ) Oriyo Timbo I (Microliths) 0R Rangpur I? (Microliths) CHALCOLITHIC MRG VI (3000-2700 B.C. ) (Jarrige et al 1981-1990)
3rd Phase of Padri IB (Structural phase (8) REGIONALIZATION EM Pre Prabhas IB (2700-2500 B.C. ) Lothal A phase I OR Rangpur IIA (Pre structural) PRE/EARLY HARAPPAN MRG VII & NAUSHARO I (2700-2500 B.C. )
1st Phase of Padri II (Layer (7)) INTEGRATION ERA Prabhas lA (2500-2300 B.C. ) Lothal A Phase II - IV OR Rangpur IIA (Structural levels) MATURE HARAPPAN PHASE I Rojdi A NAUSHARO II Kuntasi A (2500-2300 B.C. ) Nageswar lA
2nd phase of Padri IIIA (Layer (6) and (5)) INTEGRATION ERA Prabhas IB (2300-2000 B.C. ) Lothal B OR Rangpur II B-C MATURE HARAPPAN 2nd PHASE Rojdi B NAUSHARO III Kuntasi B Nageswar IB Vagad lA
LOCALIZATION ERA Padri IIIB (Layer (4)) (2000-1500 B.C. ) Prabhas Patan III (LRW) OR Lothal B Phase V LATE HARAPPAN Rangpur III (2000-1700 B.C. ) Rojdi C Kuntasi C Vagad IB
Table: 3.b
83 Mesopotamia and the Gulf continued in the Late Harappan phase
also and can be dated to c. 1400 B.C. and even later. From the
excavated area at Rojdi, the excavators feel that the site was
abandoned at the end of Rojdi C. This is provisionally placed at
1800 - 1700 B.C. based on C 14 dates and the fact that there is
essentially no Lustrous Red ware at the site (Possehl and Mehta
1993).
3.4. Phase predating the Mature Harappan
Research into the origins of Indus valley saw a major change
with the excavation of sites like Kulli Gul Mohammed and
Mehrgarh. The origins of village life in South Asia was first documented at Kulli Gul Mohammed in the Quetta valley and the
same sequence was confirmed at Mehrgarh at the base of the Bolan
Pass (Jarrige and Lechavallier 1979; Jarrige and Meadows 1980;
Jarrige 1981, 1984; Meadows 1991). This brought about a change in
the diffutionist theory for the origins of Indus Valley
Civilization as derived from the Mesopotamian 'city' culture.
Current investigation of information exchange and control of
knowledge are gradually breaking away from the bounds of directionality that dominated the diffusion models of the past
(Bhan 1994).
Extensive surveys carried out in the Greater Indus Valley has also brought to light many new pockets of 'Early Harappan' settlements. Although interpretative theories for the origins of civilization are regarded as 'plausible stories' (Redman
1978:346), this phase dated to the middle of the 4th mill B.C. 84 represents an early formative or developmental stage of the
Harappan Civilization in the Greater Indus valley. "Early
Harappan' or "Kot Dijian' related materials have been found at 95
sites: 46 in Cholistan, 3 in the Taxila Valley, 2 in the Gomal
Valley, 8 in the Bannu Basin, 31 (including 28 Amri related) in
South Western Sindh. On the Indian side, Kot Dijian Kalibangan I
related materials have been found in the excavation of Sothi,
Bijnor 3, Manda, Banawali and Siswal. Early Harappan material
have been reported from the surface of 131 sites excluding the
excavated sites mentioned above (Mughal 1990b). But the actual
process of development from the Early phase to the Mature or
Urban phase has not yet been proved for even at the site of
Mohenjo daro (Jansen 1983). According to Mughal (1992b), Harappan
cultural tradition as represented essentially by the Kot Dijian
assemblages, persisted in some areas and that their settlements
were neither abandoned nor destroyed by the middle of the 3rd
millennium B.C.
Mehrgarh is the best example of a steady growth of a
settlement from the Neolithic phase to the Chalcolithic (Jarrige
1984a, Jarrige et al 1980). In Gujarat also we have evidence for
microlith using community, both predating and coexisting with the
Harappan occupation. The sites are numerous and widespread. A major concentration of these are reported from North Gujarat
along the Rupen estuary, while in Saurashtra also microlithic phases have been defined^ especially at sites like Langhnaj
(Sankalia 1965) and Oriyo Timbo (Rissman 1985a, 1985b; Rissman
and Chitalwala 1990). At Langhnaj, Phase I consisted of ill baked
85 pottery, microliths and animal bones belonging mainly to the wild
taxa. In phase II, copper and steatite beads make an appearance.
Pottery becomes predominant in phase III. A similar phenomena is
noticed in the two phases at Oriyo Timbo in Bhavnagar and
Loteshwar in North Gujarat. The microlithic phase at Loteshwar
also brought to light two human burials, one in an extended and
the other in a crouched position (Bhan 1994). At the site of
Ratanpura in North Gujarat again, a lithic assemblage of blades,
lunates, points of agate, chalcedony and jasper were recovered,
but this microlithic community seems to have arrived at the sand dune after the Late Harappans had left the area (Bhan 1989). A
similar phenomena has been reported for the site of Kanewal also
(Mehta et al 1980:72).
Although the microlithic tradition continued upto the Early
Historic period in Western India, it is the slow and steady
increase and improvement in the ceramics and other material
remains which is important. The evidence of early domesticated
animals at Bagor in Rajasthan (Misra 1973a) and at Adamgarh in
Central India (Bolanath 1967) are indicative of early food producing activity along with a hunting and gathering subsistence
economy. Not much thought has been given to the ceramics from
these sites, because these sites were primarily 'mesolithic' in nature. But in the light of more and more occurrence of
'indigenous' and 'non Harappan' pottery at excavated Harappan sites, the attention can now be shifted to the understanding of
the significance of the ceramics in the ceramic and microlithic phases at the above mentioned sites.
86 3.5. Non Harappan or Regional ware
In Surashtra the re-analysis of archaeological data from excavated sites like Lothal and Prabhas Patan and the recent excavations at Padri have brought to light a few 'non Harappan ceramics. They are mainly the (a) Micacious Red v/are; first noted at the site of Lothal (b) Prabhas wares of Prabhas Patan and (c)
Padri ware as at Padri. The excavation at Loteshwar in North
Gujarat has revealed 'non Harappan' ceramics which bear similarities to the ones reported from Surkotada and Nagwada
(Bhan 1994). Whereas at Nagwada the pot burials show 'affinities' to the 'Pre Harappan' pottery of Amri and Kot Dijian tradition
(Hegde et al 1988). At Dholavira in Kutch also, an occupation predating the Mature Harappan at the site has been noted (Bisht
1991). While a report on the ceramics and material remains from this phase is awaited, recent excavations at Harappa recorded clear identifiable differences between the Early Harappan and
Harappan pottery but 'the changes that take place through time are not dramatic discontinuties but show a gradual adoption and change in the use or reduction of various design elements, manufacturing techniques and vessel forms (Jenkins 1993:316)
3.5.a Micacious Red Ware (c. 2655 B.C.)
The Micacious Red Ware of Lothal which was associated with the term 'Pre Harappan' (Rao 1973b:54, 1979:23) was not found independent of other Harappan associated ceramics, mainly the
Harappan Red ware. But keeping in mind that the trench which yielded the maximum number of Micacious Red ware was not excavated upto the natural soil, due to the problem of the water 87 table (Rao 1979:52-53; 1985a:393-395), it is quit probable that a layer independent of the Harappan Red ware could have been encountered. Besides the quantity of Harappan Red ware in Trench
SRG-30 was almost insignificant when compared to Micacious Red ware in bulk (Rao 1985).
The Micacious Red ware has a thick glossy slip with its color ranging from pink to red to brown/grey. Its burnished smooth surface seems to be dusted lightly with mica particles.
The vessels show no striation marks and the slip texture is quite close to that of Prabhas ware. The forms available are mainly 1. shallow dish basin 2. basin 3. lamp 4. jar 5. bottle 6. perforated jar and 7. convex sided bowl (Herman and Krishnan
1993). At the site of Vagad, close to Lothal, most of the stud handle bowls were made in Micacious red ware. It should be noted here that most of the shapes such as the basin, jar and perforated jar are Harappan in character and they continue to be present in the Mature Harappan phase in the succeeding layers at the site.
3.5.b Pre Prabhas Ware (c. 2900 B.C.)
The 'Pre Prabhas' ceramic assemblage is represented by four ceramic wares (Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992), namely:
1. Red ware: Hand made with smooth surface but has a coarse fabric.
2. Incised red ware: Crude with drab surface. This also has a coarse fabric.
3.Black and Red Ware: Highly burnished and the smooth
88 surface is treated with red or orange slip. Has a fine fabric.
4. Grey ware: Hand made and crude with coarse fabric.
These wares have been represented by a good number of types
such as jars, dishes, basins and carinated 'bandies'.
3.5.C Padri ware (c. 3680 B.C.)
The 'Pre Harappan' at Padri is represented by the Padri ware
(Shinde and Kar 1992). This was made from coarse clay, with sand
used as tempering material. Padri ware vessels, consisting mainly
of convex sided bowls and globular pots were either hand modeled
or made on a 'slow turn table'. The surface is treated with a
thick coat of red slip. More details of this ware is awaited. But
its independent occurrence was reattested when the following
seasons work (1992 - 93) at the site, yielded no Harappan Red
ware sherds from layers (9) to (11) from the deep trenches
(Shinde, personal communication). Layer (8) in most of the
trenches showed the presence of both the Padri ware and the
Harappan Red ware. But most interesting was to note the
occurrence of sherds of perforated jar, dish on stand and stud
handled bowl made in Padri ware. Considering that the &tud handle
bowl as a characteristic type of Saurashtra, it is encouraging to note its roots of origin.
Although 'the role of these antecedent Chalcolithic ceramic
traditions in the genesis and development of the Sorath Harappan
ceramic is a debatable issue' (Sonawane and Prasad 1994:138), the
occurrence of these regional wares along with the Harappan Red
Ware in the succeeding layers, at Lothal, Prabhas Patan and
89 Padri is important. It is this Harappan Red ware which is
homogeneous throughout Pakistan and India and has given rise to a
marked uniformity in the Mature Phase of the Indus Valley
Cultural tradition. Regional types like the convex sided bowl,
typical of Saurashtra region (Possehl 1980) was also made in
Harappan Red ware. But the Sorath Harappan painting style was
restricted mainly to simple horizontal bands on the different
sections of the pot, unlike the elaborate decorative patterns at
Harappa and Mohenjo daro. Although this was the case, we also
have from Padri a huge storage jar with the figure of the "horned deity' (Shinde 1991b), which is a characteristic motif of Kot
Dijian ceramics. At Lothal, Rao (1985:345) has identified both
the Harappan as well as local ceramic painting styles on the
Harappan Red ware during this phase.
3.5.d Nature of Snail Finds fron Pre Harappan layers.
Recent excavations at Harappa unveiled the 'Early Harappan' period at the type site; and according to the excavators, the
"Early Harappan' period is associated with "distinctive early
ceramics, grey fired bangles, stone blades made from dark greyish
chert, a stone celt, stone beads and human figurines (Dales and
Kenoyer 1992). Of these certain categories of artifacts eg. specific ceramic types, triangular terracota cakes and red fired bangles continue into the Mature Harappan period.
In Gujarat the late identification of Micacious Red ware as a distinctive 'Regional Ware'during the excavations makes it difficult to isolate the associated material finds. But the
90 nature of small finds from the Pre Prabhas levels at Prabhas
Patan and Pre Harappan levels at Padri have produced evidence
for artifacts like steatite beads, which forms a characteristic
bead variety at all Harappan sites, much before the Mature
Harappan phase at urban centres like Lothal and Kuntasi.
It is very clear that during the early levels the bead
material was restricted to a few mainly; steatite, faience, and
dentallium ijeads. Apart from dentallium no local occurrence for
steatite or faience is recorded. The occurrence of a gold bead
from 'Pre Prabhas' levels, also suggest some contact either
direct or indirect, with people outside Saurashtra, because gold
does not have a natural occurrence in the region. The occurrence
of gold on the whole is a rare feature for Harappan sites in
Saurashtra. As for copper artifacts, apart from a few nails, a
chisel, a ring and a few unidentified and corroded fragments, we
have two well preserved fish hooks from the 'Pre Harappan' layers
at Padri. However, in the succeeding Mature Harappan levels few
more copper fish hooks, rings, rods, chisel and a copper bangle
were recovered. At Prabhas patan the copper assemblage from the
early levels include a chisel, and a rod. Another interesting
find from Padri includes a stud of a stud handle bowl with
Harappan script incised on it.
Unfortunately, very small area was dug and therefore not much can be said about the intensity or spread of occupation, nor
are there enough material evidence to speak of probable
subsistence strategies. At both the sites natural soil was
reached only in a couple of trenches, and the abundance of small
91 finds of the succeeding layers cannot be compared with these early levels. But inspite of that, the plenitude of steatite and faience beads at Padri and that of a gold bead at Prabhas Patan does suggest that the community in question did have access to finished goods foreign in origin.
Stone objects from these levels include hammer stones, one or two sling balls and broken quern fragments. A stone axe, which is similar to the one mentioned from MR4 of Mehrgarh (Jarrige
1981), was also found at the 'Pre Harappan' level at Padri. A few perforated and unperforated discs, which are very common in the
Mature Harappan phase were recovered at Padri.
3.6 Snail finds fron Harappan sites in Saurashtra with special reference to Padri:
Since the excavation of Harappa in the 1920's, the material finds from it have been used for comparative study. The recent excavation at Harappa by Dales and Kenoyer (1990, 1992) has shed more light on the various aspects of this site. Their focus was mainly to study the development of civic organization and control, occupational specialization and social stratification.
Unfortunately, apart from individual and isolated studies of the small finds of the site, the concentration was mainly on the ceramic assemblage and structural phases (Dales and Kenoyer
1992) .
The details of the associated small finds form an integral part in defining the character of any culture, and in this regard
92 the excavation report of the type site Harappa by M.S.Vats
still remains the most well documented. And of the different
categories of small finds recorded from Harappa, most of them are
present at the site of Lothal (Rao 1985), but only a few
similarities are noted in the rest of the excavated Harappan
sites in Saurashtra. Artifacts like male and female figurines are totally absent at these sites. Recent excavations at Harappa
reports an abundance of terracota figurines of anthropoid and non
anthropoid creatures (Dales and Kenoyer 1992). Vessels of stone
and faience are absent. The typical square and cylindrical
Harappan seals of steatite or sealings are very rare. Copper
implements are very few, both in number and variety. Copper vessels like, jars, jar stands, vases, cups dishes and saucers are rare, if not totally absent. Implements of copper like axes, chisels, arrow heads, points, fish hooks, knives, nail parers
etc, which are common at all Harappan sites are present in small numbers in the Harappan sites of Saurashtra also. A few cubical
chert and agate weights are also present.
The dearth of the above mentioned artifacts at Harappan
settlements in Saurashtra, as already noted, is one of the chief
reasons for grouping them as 'Sorath Harappan'. But, although the material assemblage from Nageswar evidence for a similar phenomena, because of the presence of certain wares like the
Reserved slip ware, artifacts like the terracota triangular cake and the evidence for a shell working centre, the site came to be
regarded as a Sindhi Harappan settlement (Possehl 1993; Hegde et al 1991). The attempt here is therefore to understand the exact
93 nature of "Sorath Harappan' material culture with special
reference to Padri.
Quantitative comparison of small finds between sites would
be a far fetched exercise, mainly because the area excavated at
each site varies. Besides, the nature of activity or the
functional character of sites differ from one to the other and
this is reflected in the material assemblage (Fig: 3.a & 3.b).
Thus the purpose here is not to compare the volume of activity
carried out at a fortified production centre like Kuntasi or a
small shell processing Sindhi Harappan site like Nageswar (1.2
ha.) or a 'rural village' like Vagad, but to understand the
functional variability at individual Harappan settlements in
Saurashtra. The small finds from the site of Kuntasi, Padri,
Rojdi, Nageswar, Vagad and Prabhas Patan have been categorized
into four groups for this purpose; they are:
1. Beads: They form one of the major bulk of the small find
assemblage at all Harappan sites.
2. Tools and weapons: These include hunting and fishing
tools along with equipments related to agrarian activities.
3. Miscellaneous artifacts: Mainly includes domestic or
kitchen artifacts like querns and mullers, copper vessels etc.
Besides terracota objects like animal figurines, toys etc are
also included.
4. Ornaments: Personal ornaments like ear studs, pendants, bangles etc made in different raw materials are included in this
94 a Q.
= 2 O. S 2 O. ^ 2 - S o ? 3 O o
E « CB o> (D W S 5 CO c ±: a CO — CO TJ < CO £ •D o 0 .o o « - 3 s o CO (0 z > UJ S c CO o c Uu 5 S d — 9- X "CO • E - E 2 Si 6 ec CO I £ X)
« CO 3 to « •H u,
« £ — CO a (D aa.. O) • S CO 1 2 O c 5 ^ 3 o £ E CO >o CO CO CD 0) CO c CO CO CO z < •o CS 03 o « o i2 6 z JD c 1> 2 o c CO 9 5 category. 5. Craft and trade related artifacts: such as seals, sealings, weights, anchor stone, whetstones, chisels, punch etc. 6. Discs: The function of perforated and unperforated pottery discs, found in maximum numbers at Harappan sites in Saurashtra is not known and are therefore treated as a separate category. The total number of artifacts in each category are: Category Kuntasi Padri Rojdi Nageswar Vagad Prabhas Patan 1. Beads 4020 1528 175 80 29 198 2. Tools/Weapons 528 70 36 12 24 68 3. Miscellaneous 525 55 40 282 19 32 4. Ornaments 159 18 25 4 8 15 5. Craft/Trade 637 65 21 418 3 9 6. Discs 418 313 44 16 27 17 Total 8287 2049 341 812 110 339 Beads (Fig: 3.c; Table: 3.c) Decorative in nature, beads do not represent the function of any settlement unless found in association with manufacturing waste or tools used, furnaces or as unfinished beads in work areas. The site of Lothal and Kuntasi has given evidence for an established bead industry but at the rest of the excavated sites in Saurashtra, they are randomly scattered, in each occupational layer. Besides, out of the different shapes and raw material variety found at Harappa, except at Lothal, only very few similarities are noted in the bead assemblage of Harappan sites in Saurashtra. This can be elaborated further: 96 Bcid Mtiriil at H«r«ppw fltn in Swriihtn (KTS Kuntisi; PDR Pidri; RJD Rojdi; N6S NigesMar; V60 Vagad; PP Prabhas Patan) naterial KTS PDft RJD NGS V6D PP Terracota Aracanut Pottery Camelian Lapis Agate Jasper Chert Quartz Halacite Chalcedony Jade Obsidian Steatite Faience Paste Shell DentalIiufl Bone Gold Copper Unfinished Table: 3.c 97 1. Although the beads from Kuntasi, Padri, Rojdi, Nageswar, Vagad and Prabhas Patan together present a variety in shapes, the raw material is limited to a few in comparison to that from Harappa (see Appendix I). Besides, size details of beads from Padri and Harappa (Appendix I) indicate very few similarities. Particularly in the case of steatite and faience beads; at Padri the shapes of beads in this material is restricted to a few like micro, disc and tubular, whereas at Harappa they consist of the maximum bead shapes, including barrel, lenticular, rectangular, globular, oval, bicone and 'gadrooned' (Vats 1974 :412-417). 2. The beautiful long barrel specimen in carnelain from Harappa measuring 6cms in length, is totally absent in Saurashtra, except for the 13 ('long cylinder') specimens from Lothal (Rao 1985:588). These long beads required a difficult and expensive manufacturing sequence, involving multiple cycles of firing, sawing with metal tools, chipping, smoothing on various types of grinding stones, a multistage drilling process with highly specialized drills (Bhan et al 1994). Very clearly these complex activities were not carried out at Padri. Besides, these long carnelian beads are also regarded as objects of long distance trade with Early Dynastic Mesopotamia (Chakrabarty 1982). According to Van der Sleen (1974) the Sumerians traded in carnelian from Cambay in the 5th millennium B.C. Therefore, even if Lothal became an important centre of trade during the Mature Harappan period (Mughal 1992a), it should be noted that the region around Cambay was known for its 98 U) .o CO « a o. S- CO o £ O E -S 0) CO CO -o ^ < g CO o g-S P X H © O T3 C E o CO o (0 I ^ • fa CO ? O u. CO H 3 i X) CO £ H O E ' CO U T <« CD CO CO 3 0u/) CO <« CO o o "2 S -5: « o CO o o 0) X OQ ® o E en a. o u. m tio • H 99 resources even prior to the Harappan Civilization. Another bead in this material which forms the most important link among the cultures of the Indus valley, Iran and Mesopotamia are the etched carnelian beads (Khan 1992) and these are also absent at Harappan sites in Saurashtra. Of a total of 1242 carnelian beads, thirteen etched carnelian beads are noted at Lothal (Rao 1985:587) . 3. The segmented faience beads, is also considered as a main link between the main centres of the Indus valley and Mesopotamia (Rao 1985:583). This bead is common at Sorath Harappan sites and are also found at Padri. According to scholars faience came into use mainly to replicate or imitate lapis, which was rare and difficult to get (Ratnagar 1994, Van der Sleen 1974). Although it reached a high level of production during the Harappan phase (Kenoyer 1994), certain bead shapes were common to the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilization. Of these the thin tubular beads generally, measuring 20mm (2cms) long and 2.5mm wide is the most common at Padri and other Harappan sites in Saurashtra. Interestingly they are present at Padri from the pre Harappa 11 i - / levels onwards. ' ^ 4. Similarly, around 640 steatite beads were recovered from the Pre Harappan levels exposed in two quadrants at Padri. Although complex manufacturing techniques involving glazing, painting and firing were developed during the Harappan phase (Vanzetti and Vidale 1993', Hegde et al 1982), the earliest evidence for steatite working comes from Mehrgarh and dates to 100 the 5th millennium B.C. (Jarrige 1985). Here natural steatite was rolled into small cylindrical rings as early as the oldest Pre ceramic levels (Blanche and Bouquillon 1993). They appear in Mesopotamia and Egypt also as early as the end of the 5th millennium B.C. (Stone and Thomas 1956; Peltenberg 1971', Vandiver and Kingery 1986/ among others). Of the four categories of steatite beads classified at Mehrgarh (Vanzetti and Vidale 1993), the 'smaller' subtype of the fourth category i.e. rounded perforated beads are the closest in comparison to the steatite "disc' beads at Padri. These range 5mm in diameter and a maximum thickness of 0.8mm. But, according to Blanche and Bouquillon (1993) by period III at Mehrgarh (c.4500 - 3800 B.C.) the sizes of beads were standardized with an 'average diameter of 3, 8mm, an average height of 2, 7mm and an average diameter hole of 0, 9mm' respectively. In the absence of a steatite workshop at Padri which is essential for the production of white steatite, the large quantities of 'micro', 'disc' and 'tubular' beads in this material, in the Pre Harappan levels is interesting. These also occur in the Pre Prabhas levels at Prabhas Patan. And, as already noted, raw steatite is not present in Saurashtra, the closest source being North Gujarat. Thus, do the occurrence of certain beads, which are not necessarily of 'Harappan' origin suggest multi cultural contacts at Saurashtra during the phase predating the Mature Harappan phase is an important question. 3. At Padri the bead size is rarely more than >3cms. That 101 also, large beads are made in terracota only and considering the weight of these beads, they are more probable as animal beads than for human use. Such large terracota beads in barrel, cylindrical and short biconical shapes are noted at Harappa as well as at Lothal also. The aracanut shaped beads, which are common at Padri are comparable to the "pear shaped beads with one concave end' at Harappa (Vats 1974:408). Interestingly these beads are not noted at Lothal, the closest in similarity being the 'short oblate circular' bead in terracota (Rao 1985:594). Tools and. Weapons (Fig: 3.d; Table: 3.d) Tools are functional and therefore the presence and absence of this category of small finds would depend on its need. Particularly in the case of metal tools which are very function specific. Copper implements play a significant role in the Harappan cultural assemblage. But according to Ratnagar (1994): '....although at Indus sites the amount of metal and range of tools are certainly an advance on the earlier cultures, but even so the tool forms are elementary and together represent a limited range (pp 123)'. Except for a rod, chisel and four fish hooks at Padri and the axe, knife, celt and fish hook at Rojdi there is nothing significant about the copper assemblage. Although a variety in copper tools, such as a sickle, an arrow, points, blades, axes, knives, fish hooks etc are noted from Kuntasi, they are very few in quantity (Table: 3.d). Stone tools, on the other hand are present at all Sorath 102 Taol/M«ipan typn «t Hirappin titic in Swrifhtri Object KTS POR RJO N6U VGD PP Terricoti Arrow head Scraper Point Sling Ball Net Sinker Copper Arrow head Point Blade Axe Sickle Knife Fish Hook Rod Celt Stone Flake Blade Sling Ball Chopper Lunates Point Net Sinker Axe Scraper Bone Scraper Knife Point ArroN head Undentified Tool Tablet 3.d 103 Harappan sites and the stone tool assemblage at Kuntasi is substantial, except for the long parallel sided chert blade, such as found at Harappa and also at Lothal. Flakes, blades and cores are predominantly of chalcedony and jasper, although chert is also present. These are small in size and at Padri they don't exceed 3cms in length and 1.5cms in width (see Appendix I for details). They are parallel sided with very rare signs of retouch. Flakes also rarely exceed 3cms length, with the exception of a flake measuring 7cms from Padri and 13 flake scrappers reported from Vagad. Lunates are present at Padri and Oriyo Timbo and are similar to the ones at Lothal. Cores are generally irregular in shape with a maximum of 3 to 6 negative blade scars. The absence of carefully shaped cores such as at Harappa, where flint production was dominated by the pressure debitage of blades from cores carefully shaped by direct and indirect percussion (Pelegrin 1993), make it difficult to suggest regular and systematic lithic technology at Padri. Although not found in large quantities, the size and finish of flakes, blades and cores at Padri are closer to the Oriyo Timbo assemblage. Other stone tools at Sorath Harappan sites are axes (at Padri and Vagad), ring stones (a single specimen from Padri) and sling balls. Sling balls are common and its average size is 2cms diameter. Examples of stone tools such as celts made in chert, slate and basalt, leaf shaped arrow heads in chert, mace heads or ringstones in limestone and sandstone as noted at Harappa are rare at Lothal and absent at Kuntasi. Bone tools such as arrowhead, points, knife and scrappers are present at Kuntasi. 104 Fragmentary finds of these tools are reported from other Sorath Harappan settlements also including Padri. HiscellaneQUS artifacts (Fig: 3.e; Table: 3.e) Copper objects are few among the miscellaneous artifacts also (Fig: 3.e). Except for a few copper nails, common at all Harappan settlements, a copper vessel at Rojdi and a copper lamp and needle from Kuntasi, metal remains are restricted to a few unidentifiable fragments. Kitchen tools in stone like querns and mullets are common at all Chalcolithic sites. Fragmentary remains of these in sandstone are reported from all Sorath and Sindhi Harappan sites, although shapes such as the footed quern from Harappa are absent in Saurashtra. At Padri, only a single fragment of a saddle quern is recovered so far and it belongs to the Historical phase at the site. Another important category of small finds at Harappa are the human and animal figurines. Of these, while human figurines are totally absent at Sorath Harappan sites, animal figurines has a common occurrence. Animal figurines have been found in very large numbers at Harappa and are also fairly common in faience. Animal representation in terracota includes the bull, of which the humped variety predominates the humpless, rhino, goat, ram, dog, tiger, elephant, pig, monkey, cats, reptiles, aquatic animals and birds. These are common at Lothal also. Whereas at Sorath Harappan sites it is only the humped bull which is found. Unfortunately, at Padri these figurines are all fragmentary and the details are difficult to access. Besides bull horns, legs and 105 niKillmioui «rtlf«ct typit fros Hirippin iltH in Sturiihtri Object KTS PDR RJD N6S VGD PP Terncoti Toy Wheel Aniaal (Bull) Toy Cart Fra«e Gmesaen Spoon Stopper Pinched Cike? Trungular Cake? Pounder Unidentified Copper Lanp Nail Disc Needle Aniaal Vessel Unidentified Stone Muller Quern Scrubber Wheel Pounder Unidentified Shell Disc Spoon Inlay Unidentified Bone Toy Wheel Unidentified Table: 3.e 106 head, there are objects which resemble a dog, a bird and a stylized form of horse. Objects like the lingams, yonis and baetyllio stones are unheard of at sorath Harappan sites. Items like the terracota toy cart frame and gamesmen are reported from Kuntasi. Although they form a part of the ceramic assemblage, the 'Sorath Harappan' lamp is an important feature of the Harappan sites in Saurashtra. Made in Red ware, it is a small shallow bowl with a single wick channel. At Padri, the diameter of these lamps vary between 6 to 12cms, and the depth between 2.3 to 4.2cms (see Appendix I for details). Of the seven types of lamps described at Harappa (Vats 1974 ), the closest in similarity would be the "ordinary chirag'. Hon of the other examples are noted in Saurashtra so far. At Rojdi, this lamp forms a feature of the Late Sorath Harappan phase (Herman 1989), but at Padri they are present in substantial numbers from the Pre Harappan levels. Another interesting category of artifacts are the perforated and unperforated pottery discs (Fig: 3.f). Interestingly there is no specific mention of these at Harappa or Lethal, but are common at Sorath Harappan sites and at Padri they form the largest assemblage of artifacts. These are pottery sherds worked into the shape of discs, some of which are perforated. Both these categories are either well made with smooth and rounded edges or are very crude with battered surfaces and crude edges. Some are partially perforated and this could be an indicator to suggest that plain pottery discs, in itself were nonfunctional and were 107 eventually perforated. The perforation is smooth and is generally drilled from both sides of the pottery disc. Many of these perforated discs could be considered as toy wheels, but there are perfect mold made terracota wheels present at the site. Therefore the purpose of these plain and perforated pottery disc is important to study, particularly at Padri, since they occur in such large numbers. A preliminary analyses carried out to figure out signs of standardization in size (thickness and diameter) of both the varieties (perforated and unperforated) yielded no results. They occur in random sizes, ranging between Icms to 12 cms diameter suggesting the reuse of any broken pottery sherd. Interestingly most of the perforated discs were noted as spindle whorls and plain discs as hopsctoches at the previous excavations in Saurashtra. But the artifacts noted as spindle whorls at the site of Harappa and Lothal and the centrally perforated pottery discs of recent excavations are not the same. The loom weights from Lothal are also distinct and the site has concrete evidence for the use of woven fabric (Rao 1985:498). Marshall (1931:468-470) had noted faience spindle whorls to be very common in the Indus. But according to Dayton (1985), such objects in faience are impractical to use as loom weights, and are in fact beads or the heads of pins, so common in the Mycenean world. Considering the large quantity, numbering 104 perforated disc at Padri, they were most probably used as net sinkers. Unless they were to be worked into perforated discs, the purpose of the plain discs (numbering 209) remains elusive. In recent 108 CO CO ® b § •a T3 a (rt 2 k— ^ CO a ^ §03 c CL § o. 08 g c ® I 1 E CO E 2 tJO •H U4 CO CO .t: • a o ^ a oo ^ S- < 2 (0 J= CO I CO CO XJ o Oc £• 0 0 ffi 0) "S CO i5 CO o i CO (D E CO o o to I •H 109 years ethnographic work carried out by Belcher (1993) with fishermen in Punjab notes hundreds of terracota net weights used on large seine nets. These net weights are described as beads and the wearing patterns of these beads are similar to the marks on the perforated discs at Padri. Therefore most probably they are net sinkers. Whereas, in the absence of rope marks on the plain discs, it is even difficult to suggest that they were tied from all sides with a strings and used as net sinkers. But certainly, calling them as spindle whorls and hopsctoches should be reconsidered. Ornaments (Fig: 3.g; Table: 3.f) Personal ornaments in copper are very rare (Fig: 3.g). Apart from a few rings and at times a bangle (as at Padri), the main assemblage of personal ornaments at Harappan sites in Saurashtra are made in shell and terracota. Except for a few specimens from Kuntasi, decorative and luxury items of copper and ivory like mirrors and combs are totally absent. Besides, Kuntasi has also recorded 26 bangles, pendants and rings in copper. Gold objects are uncommon, except for a gold bead and a crescent shaped ornament at Prabhas Patan. A gold bead had been noted from Kuntasi also. A broken fragment of a decorated faience bangle as noted at Lothal (Rao 1985:610, plate CCLXXVI B:6) from period A IV has been recovered from the Mature Harappan phase at Padri (see Appendix I). Shell bangles are very common at all Harappan sites and continue to be so during the Historic period. Rarely found as a 110 Pinonii abjtctt ind omuwnt typn frcw Htrippin fitn in Sturifhtri Object KTS PDA RJD NGM VGD PP Terracota Earstud Pendent Aaulet Bangle Ring Copper Bangle » Ring * Cresent (Pendent) « Hirror • Pin * Kohl Stick Omaaent « Shell Bangle « Pendent * Ring « OmaMnt « Bone Ring Earstud Pin Codb Kohl Stick Pendent Omawnt Gold .Ring * Cresent (Pendent) - Omanent Faience fkulet Bangle Silver Bangle Unidentified Table: 3.f 111 CO O 0) CO .ti CO FO 0)2 r c < Q. « O « "S « 2 u iT tZI 0) g oi -• CD ^ E II CO 0) CO h- 0) til) 2| •H o w C CO a 112 complete circlet, the broken bits make quantification difficult and baised. Shell bangle types and their quantity has not been included here for these reasons. Pendants of shell are also common. At Padri, terracota and fish vertebra pendants are also noticed. Among ornaments, the pully shaped earstuds require mention. These are common at all Sorath Harappan settlements and at Lothal they are reported as 'the most popular ear ornament'(Rao 1985:514). These are described as 'biconical objects with flat circular top and base. A horizontal perforation for suspending it from the ear by means of a chain painted in black over red and chocolate over buff (Ibid,'514). At Padri, the base of the earstud is flat ay»Athe top is conical. The standard size varies from 3.2 to 5cms diameter at Lothal and Padri. The pulley earstud can be distantly compared with the faience earstuds at Harappa, although smaller in size (0.8 to 1.2cms in diameter), the shape is similar and '....roughly resembles a reel with convex ends (Vats 1974:446, PI. CXXXIX 26-28)'. Craft activity related artifacts (Fig: 3,h; Table: S.g) Artifacts related to craft activities such as weights, seals, sealings, furnaces, debitage etc are very rare at Sorath Harappan sites, whereas they are very well documented at Lothal and Kuntasi. The shell working industry at Nageswar has been extensively studied, but tools like the saw, knives, chisels, punches, points etc. associated with craft activities involving the processing of different raw materials, is totally absent at 113 CriU / Tridi rtlittd irtifut typn frai lUrippan tltn in Sturtthtrt Object KTS PDR RJD NGS V6D PP Temcoti Chisel Polisher Height Spindle Hhorl Stuip Crucible Burnisher Dabber Seal Copper Chisel Drill Sheet Hire Coil Ingot Tong Punch Stone Blade Core Fabricator ? Sharpener Perforated Stone Anchor Stones Heights Hadner Stones Polisher Ring Stones Chisel Drill Punch Anvil Shell Colluaela Debitage Height 7 Bone Punch Chisel Awl 114 steatite Seal Faience Slag Lead Coil Table: 3.g 115 the site. The excavators attribute it to site disturbance etc. (Hegde et al 1991). Similarly at Sorath Harappan settlements except for a few sharpeners, an anvil, a polisher in stone and a chisel and punch in copper there are no tools indicative of production or craft activity. Kuntasi records the maximum craft activity related artifacts in stone, shell, copper etc (Fig: 3.h) . Cubical weights of Harappan standards are very few. A measure closest in comparison to the single cube weight from Padri is 8.575 grams at Lothal. The Padri weight measures 8.352 grams and it is interesting to note that in the Heavy Assyrian system, the mean value of a shekel or silver coin is 8.35grams (Rao 1985 :564). Different indigenous forms of weights could have been in use in Harappan Saurashtra. At Padri the small pottery discs or 'button disc', the barrel shaped, smooth unperforated block in podforitic basalt, measuring 80grams and a smooth rectangular piece of jasper could have been the indigenous forms of 5orath Harappan weight system. At Rojdi also along with three cubical weights of Harappan affinity, two other probable stone weights are reported. And as already mentioned sling balls could also have been used as weights. 3.7 Discussion: Centre and Periphery. When it comes to considering a culture complex as a regional variant' it is important to know the 'core region' of the Harappan culture, of which "Sorath Harappan' is a variant. 116 The vast expanse of Harappan civilization was once noted as an 'Empire' with four provinces of which the region of Gujarat, (including Kutch and Saurashtra) formed a part of the Central Province (Rao 1973b). Later this was substituted with the term 'domain' (Possehl 1982); which had a large city at the centre of each domain with circles (of 325km radius) of influence interacting with each other. Sites like Harappa, Mohenjo daro and Ganweriwala were at the center of each domain. The site of Lothal formed the centre of the fourth circle and interestingly the radius of influence cover the whole of Kutch and Saurashtra. In more recent research however, there is a unanimous opinion that the core region of the Harappan Civilization was the lower reaches of the Ghaggar Hakra river bed in Cholistan. This area has the largest and densest cluster of Harappan sites (Ratnagar 1991, Mughul 1992a, Misra 1993, Chakrabarty 1995:43). Moreover the discovery of the third largest Urban centre on the Hakra river, Ganweriwala (81.3 Ha) emphasizes the areas importance. But according to Mughal the 'core areas' of the Early and Mature Harappan cover almost the entire Greater Indus Valley. According to him the Mature Harappan core area extends to include Saurashtra and the entire Makran coast (Mughal 1992a). In fact, defining a core region in the presence of such a wide scatter of settlements predating the Mature Harappan phase is impossible. Although regarded by some as chalcolithic settlements (Sonawane and Prasad 1994), a few Harappan cultural elements are unmistakable. It can be hypothesized that clusters of 'Early Harappan' or 'Pre Harappan' or 'Pre Urban' settlements, 117 dated to the later half of the 4th mill B.C., got unified in varying degrees during the Mature Harappan Phase. There was a certain system of common ideas which were prevailing over a vast area not only in the Greater Indus valley but also in the neighboring areas of the subcontinent beyond the Harappan sphere. Thus on the one hand we have: (a) relationship between a centre and its periphery and on the other (b) of a phase predating the Mature Harappan of the Indus valley, at excavated Sorath Harappan sites, suggesting indigenous developments. How far was an early state responsible for such a unification can be debated. As it is there is much contention on the issue of the Harappan civilization as an "Early State'. The degree of its centralized authority and its efficiency has been questioned (Allchin and Allchin 1968) Shaffer 1982,' Fairservic 1967; Malik 1979) as well as accepted to be the ultimate in determining the different course the civilization took (Piggot 1950; Wheeler 1947', Jacobson 1979, 1987). But this same 'rigorously authoritarian rule (Piggot 1950:140)' was not capable of commanding a linear rate of growth for all the settlements during the Mature phase (circa 2600 B.C). Small settlements either rural or seasonal or craft activity sites co existed with the comparatively large, urban, permanent or city sites. In Saurashtra, it was the availability of different raw materials like semiprecious stones and shell, which led to the development of sites like Lothal, Kuntasi and Nageswar (Fig: 3.1). Whereas the rest of the Harappan settlements, in the 118 Fig: 3.i Harappan Tradition Centre/Periphery model Indus Valley Civilization Agriculture Pastoralism rrade activities V Resource^ Areas/Zones Badakhshan (Lapis) Aravallies Chagai Hills (Copper, Rohri Steatite) (Flint) Gujarat (Semi Precious Stones, Shells) N/ Kuntasi Rajpipla Gulf of Kutch (Beads, (Agates (Shells) Bangles etc) Carnelian) Nageswar Lothal (Bangles, inlays, \y (Beads, Spoons, etc.) Bangles etc) Tradition & Mobile SAURASHTRA 1.Agro pastoral, nomadic, hunting gathering economy 2.Lack of resources for surplus production. 119 absence of resources in Saurashtra continued on a subsistence based economy. The material and structural evidence supports this view. These settlements have simple architectural features such as remains of round huts at Vagad, Jekhda, Kanewal and Nesadi, rubble structures with circumvolution as at Rojdi (Possehl and Raval 1989), mud structures at Padri (Shinde 1991b, 1992a, 1992b) and very ephemeral remains suggesting a temporary camp at Oriyo Timbo (Rissman and Chitalwala 1990). Thus, while Lothal, Kuntasi and Nageswar were important as processing centres of Harappan trade items and seemed to play a definite role in the economic organization of the Harappans in Sindh, the rest of the settlements in Saurashtra, continued to exist as rural settlements, partaking in all the characteristic features of a 'Sorath Harappan' site. But, inspite of the importance of Lothal, Kuntasi and Nageswar as Harappan 'port' and 'industrial' centres during the Mature Harappan phase, characteristic Sorath Harappan traits are present in the ceramic as well as in the small find assemblage from these sites. In the case of ceramics, for instance, 'only certain categories or varieties of pottery of Mohenjo daro have been "selected" and utilized at Kuntasi' and "almost all the (Rojdi) forms are comparable, if not identical with that of Kuntasi (Koiso 1994:138, 151)'. Nageswar, the Sindhi Harappan site has reported sherds of Prabhas ware, convex sided bowls and isolated surface finds of aracanut shaped beads. And as already noted, the late phase at Lothal has been regarded as a 'Late Sorath Harappan' occupation. 120 On the one hand trading centres were directly connected with external regions in the west, and on the other local exchange systems redistributed locally produced items and essential commodities to villages, pastoralists etc. (Kenoyer 1989). With the intensification of these contacts, many Harappan (or Sindhi Harappan) traits filtered into Saurashtra of which the most important was the Harappan ceramic technology; but regional shapes and painting style continued. The appearance of carnelian beads, copper objects and the few cubical chert weights of Harappan standards , which form the main highlights of the Mature Harappan phase at these sites, suggests increasing contacts, either direct or indirect, with sites like Lothal, Kuntasi and Nageswar or site which saw the full and effective control over resource exploitation. That large 'cities' like Dholavira, Surkotada, Kuntasi and Lothal were areas where raw materials were processed and that they were 'a predominantly mercantile community' is an established fact. A large proportion of the population there must have been craftsmen and their helpers, transport personnel (pastoralists) and persons concerned with the administration of trade (Possehl 1980). While these larger cities were directly connected with external regions in the west, local exchange systems redistributed locally produced items and essential commodities to villages, pastoralist etc. 121