Pre‐Prabhas Assemblage from , Western

Rajesh S.V. 1, K. Krishnan2, P. Ajithprasad2 and Marco Madella3

1. Department of Archaeology, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus, Thiruvananthapuram ‐ 695581, Kerala, India (Email: [email protected]) 2. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Faculty of Arts, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara – 390002, Gujarat, India 3. CaSEs – Complexity and Socio‐Ecological Dynamics Research Group (IMF‐CSIC)/ Institució Catalana de Recercai Estudis Avançats (ICREA)/ Universitat Pompeu Fabra, C/Egipciaques 15, 08001, Barcelona, Spain

Received: 12 September 2013; Accepted: 23 September 2013; Revised: 12 October 2013 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1 (2013): 181‐209

Abstract: The Pre‐Prabhas assemblage first reported from Prabhas Patan (Somnath) consists of handmade ceramics; chalcedony blades with crested‐guiding ridges; faience and steatite beads and fragment of clay plaster with reed impressions. The ceramics are predominantly coarse and comprises of wide mouthed vessels either with flat or ring base falling under the categories of Red ware, Grey ware and Black and Red ware. Surveys in north Gujarat (1990 onwards) revealed the presence of this assemblage together with Pre‐urban Harappan Sindh type ceramics at Datrana IX; at Datrana IV along with Anarta types and Pre‐urban Harappan Sindh type ceramics and at Datrana V along with Anarta pottery. The present study tries to situate the Pre‐Prabhas assemblage within the context of indigenously evolved regional Chalcolithic cultures of Gujarat through a study of changes in lithic technology in tool and bead making along with ceramics at Datrana IV. The study reveals that Datrana IV gives evidence of transition from Mesolithic to Chalcolithic, which is absent at Somnath. This leads to a tentative proposition that the appearance of Pre‐Prabhas assemblage at Datrana IV may predate Somnath, which would indicate that societal changes from Mesolithic to Chalcolithic, reflected through ceramic and lithic technology took place in north Gujarat prior to the other geographical sub‐regions in Gujarat. This calls for more intense field surveys within Gujarat to locate varieties of activity areas and the chronological placements of ‘sites’.

Keywords: Pre‐Prabhas Assemblage, Prabhas Patan, Datrana IV, Chalcolithic, Pre Urban Harappan, Ceramics, Crested Ridge Blade

Introduction Pre‐Prabhas assemblage first unearthed in 1955‐56 and 1956‐57 during the excavations at Prabhas Patan/Somnath (Figure 1) in Junagadh district throws light into the Pre‐ Urban Harappan occupation of Gujarat. Subbarao (1958), designated the early phase/Pre‐Prabhas level at Somnath as Period IA (Subbarao 1958). However, in the subsequent excavation report (Nanavati et al. 1971) there is no mention of this period ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013 as its significance was not recognized at that time. Re‐excavation of the site in 1971‐72, 1975‐76 and 1976‐77 by the Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, Pune and Department of Archaeology, Government of revealed the Pre‐Prabhas level, which horizontally extended over 75 square meters at the lowest level of the mound. This was resting on a sterile deposit of marine sand at about 3 meters below from the modern surface level. Two dates from the Pre‐Prabhas level provided a calibrated date of 2900 BC (Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992) and due to the notion that the Harappan sites in Saurasthra are Late Harappan in nature (Possehl 2007) it created some confusions and the data remained unpublished for a long time. With the reporting of settlements having elements of other Pre‐Harappan and/or regional Chalcolithic cultures of Gujarat towards the beginning of 1990s an article on the Pre‐ Prabhas assemblage at Somnath was published (Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992). This confirmed that Period I at Prabhas Patan was characterised by the occurrence of red ware, incised red ware (corrugated or broad incised), black and red ware and grey ware (Figures 2 and 3) along with crested ridge blades of agate and chalcedony (IAR 1956‐57; Subbarao 1958, Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992). The vessel forms represented are wide mouthed jars, deep shallow basins, and flat bottomed basin with flaring sides and incised rims (IAR 1971‐72; Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992). Apart from the ceramics and stone blades, faience and steatite beads (some segmented) and fragment of a wall plaster with reed impressions were also unearthed from Prabhas Patan/Somnath (20°54’00” N, 70°25’30” E). Subsequent excavations at Datrana IV (23°46’14.7” N, 71°07’26.2” E) in 1993‐94, 1994‐94 (The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda) and 2010‐11 (The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda and Spanish National Research Council) and explorations in Datrana V (23°46’12.6” N, 71°07’25.5” E) and Datrana IX (23°45’59.6” N, 71°07’21.5” E) in Banaskantha district of North Gujarat also revealed Pre‐Prabhas pottery (Figure 4). At Datrana IV (Figures 5‐7) this ceramic assemblage was found in association with Anarta pottery, Pre Urban Harappan Burial pottery, crested ridge blades and cores of chalcedony, agate, jasper and chert and copper/bronze punches (Ajithprasad 2002; Gadekar et al. 2012).

Pre‐Prabhas Assemblage from Datrana IV The excavations at Datrana IV (Hadkawala Khetar) during 1993‐94 and 1994‐95 revealed habitation deposit of 75‐90 cm incorporating two cultural periods, Period I Mesolithic and Period II Chalcolithic (Ajithprasad 2002). Contrary to the same, the excavations in 2010‐11 revealed habitation deposit of 122 cm representing a Chalcolithic occupation. The Chalcolithic period at the site was represented by long crested ridge blades, prismatic blade cores, stone beads and rough‐outs, copper punch point and ceramics similar to those from the Pre‐Prabhas level at Somnath/Prabhas Patan. Pre‐Prabhas nature of the ceramics from Datrana IV was first identified by G. L. Possehl (c.f. Ajithprasad 2002). At the upper level of the deposit, Pre‐Prabhas ceramics were found associated with a few ceramics of Anarta tradition and Early Harappan Burial pottery indicating that Pre‐Prabhas pottery using communities were the earliest Chalcolithic inhabitants at the site who later came into contact with the above

182

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

mentioned traditions/cultures. No structural remains were unearthed from the site. An important feature of Datrana IV and Somnath is the use of crested ridge technique for blade production. As the assemblage from Somnath were not available, Datrana is conceived here as the type site to derive information regarding Pre‐Prabhas assemblage.

Objectives of the Study The major objectives of this study are (1) to understand the chronological position of this assemblage in Gujarat; (2) to identify the distribution pattern of Pre‐Prabhas sites in Gujarat within specific geographical sub‐regions; (3) to define the nature of Pre‐ Prabhas settlements and investigate into various aspects of its people (4) to understand the probable region of its origin, and (5) to recognize presence of Pre‐Prabhas pottery and associated artifacts in sites outside Gujarat. It is assumed that the results of this analysis would be useful to resolve at least some issues pertaining to regional Chalcolithic cultures/traditions in Gujarat.

Pre‐Prabhas Ceramics Ajithprasad’s (2002) analysis of ceramics and associated artefacts from Datrana IV identified ceramic types of three traditions at the site namely, a group of pottery resembling the Pre‐Prabhas type of Prabhas Patan/Somnath, the Anarta ceramics and Pre Urban Harappan Sindh related pottery. The Pre‐Prabhas ceramics (Figures 8‐12), the abundant pottery type at the site, includes four different types i.e. Fine Red Ware with bright red slip and broadly corrugated exterior, Coarse Gray or Red Ware, Fine Gray Ware and Black and Red Ware (Ajithprasad 2002, 2008, 2010). Though, all these studies showed light on different aspects of Pre‐Prabhas assemblage, no one attempted to carry out a thorough typological analysis of these ceramics. Therefore, in order to understand the minute feature of the ceramics, a detailed macroscopic analysis of the entire diagnostic and undiagnostic Pre‐Prabhas pottery and sketchy analysis of other artefacts from the excavations of 1993‐94 and 1994‐95 from Datrana IV was conducted.

Analysed Ceramics: Archaeological Context Total ceramics unearthed from the site during 1993‐94 and 1994‐95 are 3477 in number. All the sherds were subjected to detailed analysis though most of them were devoid of any noticeable features. Among the analysed ceramics, 8.63% are from Trench I (Chalcolithic phase) and rest of the ceramics i.e. 91.37% are from Trench II (Chalcolithic phase). Three major categories of ceramics were identified at the site namely, Red Ware, Gray Ware and Black and Red Ware. Red Ware represented 77.51%, Gray Ware represented 6.36% and Black and Red Ware represented 16.13%. Among the ceramics, 5.87% of Red Ware, 0.55% of Gray Ware and 2.21% of Black and Red Ware are from Trench I.

Size of Potsherds It is the most fragile Chalcolithic ceramic type reported till date in Gujarat. Majority of the sherds were very fragmentary in nature; probably due to the lacunas in

183

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013 manufacturing. The post burial damages of the ceramic fragments have made the identification of its type and form difficult. These post burial damages may have occurred due to pressure within the burial, ground water action on the potsherds and presence of natural salts within the burial environment. These masked the features of ceramics to a great extend. Therefore it was thought that size analysis with all above limitations would lead to tentative identification of the general vessel form. Maximum size of the sherds varied from 1 to 14 cm. Sizes of more than 99% of ceramics in the total collection were in between 1 to 5 cm. 63.93% of ceramics were of very small size ranging from 1 to 1.99 cm. While looking at the ratio of total number of sherds and maximum size of vessel parts, one can envisage a direct relationship between the decrease in size of sherds and increase in the number of sherds. The small size of sherds made it difficult to identify the shape of the vessels. It must also be admitted that even ware identification was fairly difficult due to the aforesaid reasons.

Vessel Parts Among the total ceramics analysed, 93.85% is body sherds, followed by rim (3.16%), Base (1.72%) and neck and shoulder (1.27%). Among the collection of 3.16% rims, 2.16% was of Red Ware followed by Black and Red Ware (.60%) and Gray Ware (.40%). In the neck and shoulder (1.27%), Red Ware was the dominant variety (0.83%) followed by Black and Red Ware (0.32%) and Gray Ware (0.12%). In the body sherds (93.85%); 73.78% was Red Ware followed by Black and Red Ware (14.38%) and Gray Ware (5.69%). Within the category of bases; 0.83% was of Black and Red Ware followed by Red Ware (0.75%) and Gray Ware (0.14).

Vessel Shapes The vessel types from the site include basins (0.24%), open mouthed vessels ‐ probably bowls (0.60%), pots (8.56%) and pots/basins (90.60%). The category of pot/basin includes all body sherds and it is represented by Red Ware (71.82%), Black and Red Ware (13.46%) and Gray Ware (5.32%). Pots were represented by rim (2.44%), neck and shoulder (1.27%), Body (3.25%) and Base (1.60%). While considering the 2.44% of pot rims, Red Ware represented 1.64%, Gray Ware represented 0.37% and Black and Red Ware represented 0.43%. In case of 1.27% neck and shoulders of pots, 0.83% is of Red Ware, 0.12% is characterized by Gray Ware and 0.32% symbolised Black and Red Ware. In the 3.25% body sherds 1.96% are of Red Ware, 0.37% belongs to Gray Ware and 0.92% represents Black and Red Ware. In the case of bases (1.61%); 0.63% represents Red Ware, 0.14% represents Gray Ware and 0.92% is of Black and Red Ware. Among the 0.60% of bowl rims, 0.43% is of Red Ware followed by Black and Red Ware (0.14%) and Gray Ware (0.03%) respectively. Among the basin rims (0.12%), Red Ware (0.09%) is the prominent variety followed by Black and Red Ware (0.03%). The basins are also represented by bases (0.12%) of Red Ware.

Diameter of Vessel Parts Diameter of the pot bases (1.60%) varies from 6 to 16 cm and it can be divided into two groups i.e. small (6‐10 cm) and medium (11‐16 cm). Small bases of pots belonging to

184

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

Black and Red Ware represented 37.48% while Gray Ware and Red Ware represented 7.15% and 25% respectively. Large bases of Black and Red Ware pot bases represented 14.30% while Gray Ware and Red Ware represented 1.78% and 10.71% respectively. Diameter of pot rims varied from 6 cm to 22 cm. The pot rims from the site can be divided into three groups i.e. small (6 cm to 11 cm), medium (12 cm to 17 cm) and Large (18 cm to 22 cm). Among the 2.44% pot rims in the total ceramic collection 5.89% are small Black and Red Ware rims, followed by 8.25% medium rims and 3.54% large rims of the same Ware. In the Gray Ware 5.89% are of small rims followed by 3.54% of medium rims and 2.35% of large rims. In the Red Ware, 32.94% represented small rims, 32.95% represented medium rims and 1.18% represented large rims. Diameter of the bowl rims (open mouthed vessels) varies from 7 cm to 16 cm. Based on the rim diameter; the bowls can be divided into two groups, i.e. small bowls (7‐12 cm) and large bowls (13‐16 cm). In the total collection, 14.28% was constituted by small bowls of Black and Red Ware and 9.52% represented large bowls. All the Gray Ware sherds (4.76%) in the collection belong to the group of small bowls. Diameter of the rims of Red Ware bowls can be arranged under two groups i.e. small rims (33.33%) and large rims (38.71%). Diameter of the rims of the basins from the site varies from 19 cm to 23 cm. Based on the diameter of the rims; basins can be placed under small category. Red Ware represents 75% of basin rims and Black and Red Ware represents 25% of rims. All the bases of basins are represented by Red Ware and its diameter varies from 9 cm to 13 cm. Large vessels and miniature vessels have not been so far recovered from the site.

Manufacturing Technique None of the Pre‐Prabhas cermics showed evidences for the use of fast wheel. At primafacie vessels from the site appears to be made by hand or using multiple techniques. The possibilities of the use of very slow wheel or turn table can not be ruled out. The irregularities present on both internal and external surfaces may be the indicators of hand making or beating and paddling.

Indicators of Manufacturing/Finishing Techniques Indicators of making technique present on the ceramics from the site include irregular striation, beating/paddling marks and pressing marks. The indicators of production technique is not visible on the external surface of 1.87% of sherds and internal surface of 3.73% of sherds. Irregular striations are present on the external surface of 54.1% of sherds and internal surface of 53.17% of ceramics. Beating marks are also present on the external (64.55%) and internal (60.45%) surface of majority of the ceramics, even sometimes with irregular striations. The marks of pressing by hand or some blunt instrument is present in a few ceramics i.e. 0.37% each on the external and internal surfaces. The very irregular striations may be the indicators of slow wheel production of the ceramics or may be the marks occured during the application of slip. The beating and pressing marks probably indicate the enlargening of the walls of the vessels or production by hand or multiple techniques excluding fast wheel.

185

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

Perforation Only 0.12% of potsherds from the site have only one perforation on it. As the sherds are fragmentary it is almost impossible to identify the number of perforations in them. In all the sherds perforation is limited to the upper half of the body. 0.06% of vessels have perforation in the joining portion of the rim and neck and another half have perforations in the shoulder portion. Among these perforated vessels, 0.03% is of Black and Red Ware pot, 0.06 is of Red Ware pot and 0.03% is of Red Ware Pot/Basin. These finished post firing perforations were done from external surface to internal surface using some pointed tool. The use of pointed tool or drill bit is indicated by the narrowing nature of the perforation from external to internal surface. Diameter of the rims of one of the perforated pots (12 cm) indicates that they have broad mouths. In the Chalcolithic context such kind of perforations can be expected in vessels used for three different functions. First type is the kind of pots used in association with stone bead drilling (to pour water to the perforation while drilling) and such vessels may have only one perforation. Though, in this case, as the perforation is limited to the upper half of the body it cannot be used for stone bead drilling. Second type is the water carrying vessels (by tying string through the perforation) with three or more equidistant holes along the neck or rim used by the nomadic communities like pastoralists. The use of the wide mouthed vessels as water carrying vessels by the modern pastoral communities may be an indication of the bygone tradition. The third type similar to the second type of vessels may have used for storage purposes by hanging them from ceiling or wall.

Corrugation and Carination Corrugation and carination is present in all the wares from the site in limited quantities. In the total collection, 0.40% of Red Ware pots, 0.20% of Gray Ware pots and 0.75% of Black and Red Ware pots have corrugated external surface. In case of bowls, 0.03% belonging to Red Ware and 0.03% belonging to Black and Red Ware showed corrugated surface. In the pot/basin category 0.86% belonging to Red Ware and 0.98% belonging to Black and Red Ware have corrugated surface. Carination is present in limited quantity of pots and basins from the site. Bowls were devoid of the same and in basins only Red Ware has carination. At the site, 0.35% belonging to Red Ware pots, 0.03% belonging to Gray Ware pots and 0.06% belonging to Black and Red Ware pots have carination. Carination is also present in 0.03% belonging to Red Ware basins and 0.03% sherds belonging to Red Ware pot/basins.

Slip External slip is present on 93.75% potsherds from Datrana IV and its presence is not clear on 6.25% of sherds (Chart 4.116). In the Black and Red Ware (16.14%), external slip is present on 12.57% of sherds and 3.57% is devoid of the same. In the Gray Ware (6.36%), 5.12% is represented with external slip and 1.24% is devoid of the slip. In the Red Ware (77.5%), 76.06% of sherds have slip on external surface and 1.44% is devoid of the same. In the internal surface 84.99% of sherds have slip on it and slip is absent in 15.01% of sherds. Among the Black and Red Ware sherds 10.64% have slip on the

186

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

internal and 5.50% have no slip on it. In the Gray Ware 4.23% have slip while 2.13% is devoid of it. Majority of the Red Ware (70.12%) is represented with slip and 7.39% is unslipped or the presence of slip on them is not clear. The analysis showed that majority of the vessels have slip on external surface compared to internal surface. It shows that a large number of vessels were slipped on both the surfaces and very few were slipped exclusively on the external surface. In some vessels the slip was completely absent on both the surfaces. Being wide mouthed vessels, it is easy to apply the slip on the internal surface and this feature may have prompted the potters to apply slip on internal surface.

Burnish/Polish Burnishing/polishing is done on external surface of 22.63% and internal surface of 18.47% of sherds. In the Red Ware pottery, 9.23% have burnish on external surface and 7.31% have burnish on internal surface. In the Black and Red Ware, 12.57% have burnish/polish on external surface and 10.64% have the same on the internal surface. In the Gray Ware, 0.83% have burnish on the external and 0.52% have the same on the internal surface.

Surface Feel Among the total sherds, external surface of 53.73% of sherds are smooth and 46.27% have rough surface. On the internal surface, 35.07% of sherds have smooth feel and 64.93% of sherds have rough feel. The highest percentage of sherds having a smooth feel on the external surface compared to the internal surface indicate the deliberate polishing/ smoothening of external surface. The smoothening of the surface due to continuous human handling cannot be ruled out as well. In the pot/basin variety, majority of the sherds have rough internal surface feel compared to the smooth external surface feel.

Decoration Among the total potsherds, 2.31% of sherds have prefiring incised and 0.24% have impressed decorations which show similarities to the ceramics from the Mesolithic levels at Bagor (Figures 13 and 14) (Shinde et al. 2004). All the wares from the site have decorations and they are confined to the external surface. Another important feature of the ceramics are complete absence of painted decorations. The incised decorations are present on basins, pots and post/basins. The decorations on the sherds are geometric in nature and it include horizontal and vertical bands, herring‐bone design, slanting vertical and horizontal strokes and impressions in a row by finger or broad blunt insrument. The decorations are present on brim, rim, neck, shoulder, body and base. Majority of the decorations are present on Red Ware pots followed by Red Ware pots/basins.

Texture The texture of the ceramics can be divided into three broad categories i.e. fine, medium and coarse based on the sand paper chart. In the total collection of ceramics, 32.70%

187

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

Red Ware have fine texture, 13.81% have medium texture and 31.00% have coarse texture. Similarly, 14.64% Black and Red Ware was of fine texture, 1.29% was of medium texture and 0.20% was of coarse texture. Gray Ware was represented by 0.49%, 1.04% and 4.83% potsherds of fine, medium and coarse texture respectively.

Figure 1: General View of Archaeological Mound at Prabhas Patan/Somnath (Courtesy: Ajithprasad)

Figure 2: Pre Prabhas Ceramics from Prabhas Patan/Somnath (Adapted: Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992)

188

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

Figure 3: Pre Prabhas Ceramics from Prabhas Patan/Somnath (Adapted: Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992)

Figure 4: Map Showing Pre‐Prabhas Sites in Gujarat

189

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

Figure 5: General View of Archaeological Mound at Datrana IV (Courtesy: Ajithprasad)

Figure 6: Features of Artefact Concentration at Datrana IV (Courtesy: Department of Archaeology, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda)

190

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

Figure 7: Digital Elevation Model of Datrana IV (Courtesy: Madella and Ajithprasad)

Figure 8 : Pre Prabhas Ceramics from Datrana IV (Adapted: Ajithprasad 2002)

191

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

Figure 9: Pre Prabhas Ceramics from Datrana IV (Courtesy: Department of Archaeology, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda)

Figure 10: Pre Prabhas Ceramics from Datrana IV (Courtesy: Ajithprasad)

192

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

Figure 11 : Pre Prabhas Ceramics from Datrana IV (Courtesy: Ajithprasad)

Figure 12 : Incised and Corrugated Ceramics from Datrana IV (Courtesy: Department of Archaeology, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda)

193

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

Figure 13: Incised Ceramics from Bagor (Courtesy: Shinde et al. 2004)

Figure 14 : Incised Ceramics from Bagor (Courtesy: Shinde et al. 2004)

194

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

Among the Red Ware sherds, there was no major difference in the ratio of fine and coarse varieties. Majority of the Red Ware bowls are of medium texture followed by finer ones. Among the pots, the main group was of fine texture followed by coarse pottery. While in the Black and Red Ware, fine pottery was the predominant item and in all vessel types i.e. bowls and pots, major group was of fine pottery followed by the medium ceramics. In the Gray Ware, coarse sherds formed the main group. In this group, bowls were of fine texture. In the pots, medium texture formed major group followed by fine group. While among the undiagnostic shapes majority of the sherds are of coarse texture followed by medium texture.

Condition of Core Among the total collection, 25.11% of sherds have oxidized core and 74.89% of the sherds have deoxidized core indicating the deficiencies in firing technique. Blackening of the core may also occur due to the presence of certain mineral contents in the raw material i.e. clay. Among the Black and Red Ware vessels, oxidized core is present only on 0.12% of sherds and 15.99% is devoid of the same. All the Gray Ware (6.35%) sherds from the site have deoxidized core. Among the Red Ware, 24.97% is represented with oxidized core and 52.57% of ceramics have deoxidized core. It indicates that Red Ware ceramics were produced in better firing condition. The dark core of the Black and Red Ware is the result of the deoxidizing condition created within the kiln. At the same time, the Gray Ware appears to be the byproduct of Black and Red Ware production.

Colour of Ceramics The colour of the external slip, internal slip, external surface, internal surface and core of ceramics from the site were recorded using Munsell Soil Colour Chart (1954) (Table 1). The various colours noticed in the Gray Ware ceramics are variants of black, dark gray, dark reddish brown, dark reddish gray, gray, light brownish gray, light gray, light reddish brown, pale brown, pale red, pink, pinkish gray, reddish brown, reddish gray, very dark gray and weak red. Majority of Gray Ware ceramics have very dark gray core and very less number have black core. Prominet surface colour is gray followed by very dark gray and reddish brown. The most common slip colour was gray followed by light gray and light reddish brown in external and light reddish brown, dark gray and light gray in internal.

The colours noticed in the Black and Red Ware ceramics are the variants of black, brownish yellow, dark gray, dark red, dark reddish brown, dark reddish gray, dusky red, gray, light brownish gray, light gray, light red, light reddish brown, light yellowish brown, pale red, pink, pinkish gray, red, reddish brown, reddish gray, reddish yellow, very dark gray, very dusky red, very pale brown, weak red and white. The prominent core colour is gray. The major colour of the external surface is pale red followed by light reddish brown and weak red. The prominent colour of the internal surface is gray followed by weak red and dark gray. The most common external slip colour is weak red followed by gray and pale red. Whereas, the major colour of the internal slip is very dark gray followed by weak red and gray.

195

Table 1: Colour of Pre‐Prabhas Ceramics from Datrana IV (Adapted: Munsell Soil Colour Chart 1954)

External Surface Internal Surface Core External Slip Internal Slip 10R 5/2 Weak Red 10R 5/1 Reddish Gray 10R 3/1 Dark Reddish Gray 10R 3/1 Dark Reddish Gray 10R 3/1 Dark Reddish Gray 10R 5/3 Weak Red 10R 5/2 Weak Red 10R 5/1 Reddish Gray 10R 3/2 Dusky Red 10R 4/2 Weak Red

10R 5/4 Weak Red 10R 5/4 Weak Red 10R 5/4 Weak Red 10R 3/4 Dusky Red 10R 4/3 Weak Red 10R 5/6 Red 10R 5/6 Red 10R 6/1 Reddish Gray 10R 4/1 Dark Reddish Gray 10R 4/4 Weak Red

10R 6/3 Pale Red 10R 6/3 Pale Red 10R 6/3 Pale Red 10R 4/2 Weak Red 10R 5/1 Reddish Gray 10R 6/4 Pale Red 10R 6/4 Pale Red 10R 6/4 Pale Red 10R 4/3 Weak Red 10R 5/2 Weak Red

10R 6/6 Light Red 10R 6/6 Light Red 10R 6/6 Light Red 10R 4/4 Weak Red 10R 5/3 Weak Red 10YR 3/1 Very Dark Gray 10YR 2/1 Black 10YR 3/1 Very Dark Gray 10R 5/1 Reddish Gray 10R 5/4 Weak Red

10YR 4/1 Dark Gray 10YR 3/1 Very Dark Gray 10YR 4/1 Dark Gray 10R 5/2 Weak Red 10R 5/6 Red

10YR 5/1 Gray 10YR 4/1 Dark Gray 10YR 5/1 Gray 10R 5/3 Weak Red 10R 6/1 Reddish Gray 10YR 5/2 Grayish Brown 10YR 5/1 Gray 10YR 6/1 Gray 10R 5/4 Weak Red 10R 6/2 Pale Red

10YR 5/3 Brown 10YR 5/2 Grayish Brown 10YR 6/2 Light Brownish Gray 10R 5/6 Red 10R 6/3 Pale Red 10YR 6/1 Gray 10YR 5/3 Brown 10YR 6/4 Light Yellowish Brown 10R 6/1 Reddish Gray 10R 6/4 Pale Red

10YR 6/2 Light Brownish Gray 10YR 6/1 Gray 10YR 7/1 Light Gray 10R 6/2 Pale Red 10R 6/6 Light Red 10YR 6/3 Pale Brown 10YR 6/2 Light Brownish Gray 10YR 7/3 Very Pale Brown 10R 6/3 Pale Red 10YR 3/1 Very Dark Gray

10YR 7/2 Light Gray 10YR 6/3 Pale Brown 2.5YR 2/0 Black 10R 6/4 Pale Red 10YR 4/1 Dark Gray

10YR 7/4 Very Pale Brown 10YR 6/6 Brownish Yellow 2.5YR 3/0 Very Dark Gray 10R 6/6 Light Red 10YR 5/1 Gray 2.5YR 3/0 Very Dark Gray 10YR 7/2 Light Gray 2.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray 10YR 4/1 Dark Gray 10YR 6/1 Gray

2.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray 10YR 7/3 Very Pale Brown 2.5YR 5/0 Gray 10YR 5/1 Gray 10YR 6/2 Light Brownish Gray 2.5YR 4/2 Weak Red 10YR 7/4 Very Pale Brown 2.5YR 5/2 Weak Red 10YR 6/1 Gray 10YR 6/3 Pale Brown 2.5YR 4/4 Reddish Brown 2.5YR 2/0 Black 2.5YR 5/4 Reddish Brown 10YR 6/2 Light Brownish Gray 10YR 7/2 Light Gray 2.5YR 5/0 Gray 2.5YR 3/0 Very Dark Gray 2.5YR 5/6 Red 10YR 6/3 Pale Brown 10YR 7/3 Very Pale Brown 2.5YR 5/2 Weak Red 2.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray 2.5YR 5/8 Red 10YR 7/1 Light Gray 10YR 7/4 Very Pale Brown 2.5YR 5/4 Reddish Brown 2.5YR 4/4 Reddish Brown 2.5YR 6/4 Light Reddish Brown 10YR 7/2 Light Gray 2.5YR 2/0 Black 2.5YR 5/6 Red 2.5YR 5/0 Gray 2.5YR 6/6 Light Red 2.5YR 2/0 Black 2.5YR 3/0 Very Dark Gray 2.5YR 6/0 Gray 2.5YR 5/2 Weak Red 5YR 2/1 Black 2.5YR 3/0 Very Dark Gray 2.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray

9

2.5YR 6/2 Pale Red 2.5YR 5/4 Reddish Brown 5YR 3/1 Very Dark Gray 2.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray 2.5YR 4/2 Weak Red 2.5YR 6/4 Light Reddish Brown 2.5YR 5/6 Red 5YR 4/1 Dark Gray 2.5YR 4/2 Weak Red 2.5YR 5/0 Gray

2.5YR 6/6 Light Red 2.5YR 6/2 Pale Red 5YR 4/2 Dark Reddish Gray 2.5YR 5/2 Weak Red 2.5YR 5/2 Weak Red 5YR 3/2 Dark Reddish Brown 2.5YR 6/4 Light Reddish Brown 5YR 5/1 Gray 2.5YR 6/2 Pale Red 2.5YR 6/2 Pale Red

5YR 4/1 Dark Gray 2.5YR 6/6 Light Red 5YR 5/3 Reddish Brown 2.5YR 6/4 Light Reddish Brown 2.5YR 6/4 Light Reddish Brown 5YR 4/2 Dark Reddish Gray 5Y 3/1 Very Dark Gray 5YR 5/6 Yellowish Red 2.5YR 6/6 Light Red 2.5YR 6/6 Light Red

5YR 5/1 Gray 5YR 3/1 Very Dark Gray 5YR 6/1 Gray 5YR 2/1 Black 5YR 2/1 Black 5YR 5/2 Reddish Gray 5YR 3/2 Dark Reddish Brown 5YR 6/2 Pinkish Gray 5YR 3/1 Very Dark Gray 5YR 3/1 Very Dark Gray

5YR 5/3 Reddish Brown 5YR 4/1 Dark Gray 5YR 6/3 Light Reddish Brown 5YR 3/2 Dark Reddish Brown 5YR 3/2 Dark Reddish Brown 5YR 5/4 Reddish Brown 5YR 4/2 Dark Reddish Gray 5YR 6/4 Light Reddish Brown 5YR 4/1 Dark Gray 5YR 4/1 Dark Gray 5YR 6/1 Gray 5YR 5/1 Gray 5YR 6/6 Reddish Yellow 5YR 4/2 Dark Reddish Gray 5YR 5/1 Gray 5YR 6/2 Pinkish Gray 5YR 5/2 Reddish Gray 5YR 7/2 Pinkish Gray 5YR 5/1 Gray 5YR 5/3 Reddish Brown

5YR 6/3 Light Reddish Brown 5YR 5/3 Reddish Brown 5YR 7/3 Pink 5YR 5/2 Reddish Gray 5YR 5/4 Reddish Brown 5YR 6/4 Light Reddish Brown 5YR 5/4 Reddish Brown 5YR 7/4 Pink 5YR 5/3 Reddish Brown 5YR 6/1 Gray

5YR 6/6 Reddish Yellow 5YR 6/1 Gray 5YR 7/6 Reddish Yellow 5YR 6/1 Gray 5YR 6/2 Pinkish Gray 5YR 7/1 Light Gray 5YR 6/2 Pinkish Gray 5YR 8/1 White 5YR 6/2 Pinkish Gray 5YR 6/3 Light Reddish Brown

5YR 7/3 Pink 5YR 6/3 Light Reddish Brown 5YR 8/4 Pink 5YR 6/3 Light Reddish Brown 5YR 6/6 Reddish Yellow 5YR 7/4 Pink 5YR 6/4 Light Reddish Brown 7.5YR 3/0 Very Dark gray 5YR 6/6 Reddish Yellow 5YR 7/2 Pinkish Gray

5YR 7/6 Reddish Yellow 5YR 6/6 Reddish Yellow 7.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray 5YR 7/2 Pinkish Gray 5YR 7/3 Pink

5YR 8/4 Pink 5YR 7/2 Pinkish Gray 7.5YR 4/2 Dark Brown 5YR 7/4 Pink 5YR 7/4 Pink 7.5YR 3/0 Very Dark gray 5YR 7/3 Pink 7.5YR 5/0 Gray 5YR 7/6 Reddish Yellow 7.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray

7.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray 5YR 7/4 Pink 7.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray 5YR 7/6 Reddish Yellow

5YR 8/1 White 5YR 8/4 Pink 7.5YR 3/0 Very Dark gray 7.5YR 4/0 Dark Gray

7.5YR 5/0 Gray

1

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

Different colours identified in Red Ware sherds are the variants of black, brown, dark brown, dark gray, dark reddish gray, gray, grayish brown, light brownish gray, light gray, light red, light reddish brown, pale red, pink, pinkish gray, red, reddish brown, reddish gray, reddish yellow, very dark gray, very dusky red, very pale brown and weak red. The prominent core colour is very dark gray followed by gray. The prominet colour on the external surface is reddish brown followed by light red, light reddish brown and pale red in equal quantity. In the external surface reddish brown is the common colour and other prominent colours are light red, light reddish brown and pale red. The prominent colours of the external and internal slip are weak red followed by pale red.

Surface Condition The present condition of different sherds inferred from external and internal surface can be divided into four namely even, uneven, abraded and calcium encrusted. While considering the total sherds, 6.72%, 25.56%, 32.28% and 22.95% of Black and Red Ware have even, uneven, abraded and calcium encrusted external surface respectively. But on the internal surface except those with calcium encrustations (22.20%), rest were similar to the external. At the same time, 2.43%, 5.22%, 7.65% and 5.04% of Gray Ware have even, uneven, abraded and calcium encrusted external surfaces. But on the internal surface even, uneven, abraded and calcium encrusted internal surfaces were represented by 2.61%, 5.04%, 7.65 % and 5.41% of sherds. In the Red Ware 13.06%, 47.01%, 59.70% and 35.45% of sherds have even, uneven, abraded and calcium encrusted external surface. On the internal, 12.87%, 47.20%, 60.07% and 36.01% of sherds have even, uneven, abraded and calcium encrusted surfaces. All the wares show that the majority of the potsherds have uneven surfaces, probably indicating hand making, beating and paddling or probable use of slow wheel/turn table. Majority of the ceramics have calcium/salt encrustation on both surfaces indicating the condition of the soil in which the artefacts are preserved. These calcium/salt in the soil may have also led to the disintegration of the ceramics at the site.

Marks on Ceramics Smoke clouding is present on the external surface of 10.45% of vessels and 38.99% on the internal surface of vessels. Black and Red Ware sherds have maximum amount of smoke clouding; i.e. external surface have 1.12% and internal surface have 32.38%. Gray Ware has soot mark/smoke clouding on 3.36% on both the surfaces and Red Ware has soot mark/smoke clouding on 5.97% on external surface and 3.36% on internal surface. The high concentration of smoke clouding/soot mark in Black and Red Ware may be the result of deliberate attempt and it shows controlled heating by the potter for attaining deoxidized surface. There are smoke clouding in more than half of the vessels of Gray Ware and the same is very less in Red Ware. Red Ware vessels also show controlled heating by the potter to attain oxidized surfaces. All the ceramics from the site have some small scratches on both the surfaces. These scratches may have occured due to the day to day use of the vessels. The possiblity of occurence of these scratches due to natural transformations cannot be ruled out as well.

Fracture The fracture of the ceramics from the site can be divided into two broad groups i.e. smooth and irregular. Among the total sherds, 94.22% of sherds have rough breakage and only 5.78% of sherds have smooth breakage. Among the total analysed sherds, 2.98%, 0.56% and

198

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

2.24% of sherds of Black and Red Ware, Gray Ware and Red Ware have smooth breakage while 29.29%, 7.09% and 57.84% of Black and Red Ware, Gray Ware and Red Ware have irregular breakages. The irregular breakages of the sherds also indicate the inadequate firing condition prevailed in the kiln or deficiencies in the clay paste preparation.

Inclusions and Impurities All the analysed ceramics from the site showed the presence of small sand particles. Among the total assemblage, 25% had varieties of sand inclusions in it. Of these 13.62%, had big sand particles, 10.82% had white particles and 0.93% had impurity imprints. All the potsherds also showed the presence of mica in it. The sand and white particles present in the sherds may be included deliberately during clay preparation. The probabilities of the presence of sand, shell and mica in the clay cannot be ruled out as well. The impurity imprints may be indicating the drawbacks in clay refining techniques or it may be the result of deliberate addition.

Other Features Among the total sherds, 12.69% have pores in its core and it is due to the loss of grains, probably showing its disintegration due to less amount of clay in it. Cracks are also present in 1.87% of sherds from site. In the total collection, 0.56% of sherds are reworked and probably used as pottery discs. Among this 0.38% are of Red Ware and 0.19% are of Black and Red Ware.

Structural Remains The excavations at Datrana has not revealed any structural remains and due to the absence of structures and flimsy cultural deposit, scholars consider the site as a seasonal habitation/camp site of the pastoral nomads (Bhan 1994). At Somnath, a wall plaster with reed impressions probably indicating simple wattle and daub architecture was unearthed from the Pre‐Prabhas level (Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992).

Other Artefacts The site is remarkable for the presence of large amount stone blades, microliths, stone beads, bead rough outs, manufacturing wastes, raw materials (carnelian) for bead production, shell beads, tools of copper and bone, household objects like grinding stones and hammer stones and organic substances like animal bones, shells and fish otoliths.

Ornaments A few shell beads and four shell bangle fragments were recovered from Datrana IV and one of the bangle fragments has a perforation near to the breakage. This perforation may be a design or indicating the reuse of the fragment as a pendent or riveting of the broken bangle. The minimal amount of shell debitage collected from the site may indicate very small scale shell working at the site. Finished disc and tubular beads of amazonite, carnelian and shells including dentalium (?) were also unearthed and some of them were broken (Figure 15). Bead roughouts of agate, carnelian, chert and chalcedony were also collected from the site . The disc beads appears to be made from platform rejuvenation pieces. The tubular and barrel shaped beads were drilled from both the surfaces while perforations in the disc beads were made by pecking. The perforations and surfaces of majority of the beads are not polished. The chalcedony and carnelian drill‐bits collected from the site can be divided into

199

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013 two types i.e. cylindrical and foliated (Figure 16). The excavations in 2010‐11 revealed a stock pile of heated Carnelian nodules and they might be the raw materials intended for stone bead production (Madella et al. 2012).

Household Objects The house hold objects like sandstone grinding stones (7 nos.) and agate hammer stone (1 no.) were also unearthed from the Chalcolithic level of Datrana IV. The Mesolithic level at the site also yielded similar kind of grinding stones. The presence of grinding stones may indicate the existence of food grain processing at the site. The battering marks present on the hammer stone may be indicating the use of the same for household activities or in the context of stone tool production.

Tools A few copper objects were recovered from Datrana IV and they include bronze punch points (5 nos.) and fragment of a knife blade. The unique punch points (Figure 17) appears to be used by the Chalcolithic stone knappers to produce the crested ridge blades. The site also yielded five bone points and the probable use of the same for blade production cannot be ruled out. Stone tools made from locally available chert, Rohri chert, chalcedony, jasper, agate and carnelian were collected from the site. Eleven Rohri chert blade fragments recovered from the upper levels of the Chalcolithic habitation can be associated with the Pre Urban Harappan Sindh type ceramic using community. The site appears to be one of the major stone tool manufacturing settlements of the Pre Urban Harappan times. Large quantities of crested ridge blades, backed and blunted blades, retouched blades, pen knife blades, truncated blades, ribbon blades, blade blanks, borers, burins, points, trapezes, triangles, lunates, side and end scrapers, fluted cores, crested ridge cores, utilized flakes, core trimming flakes, lithic debitage and nodules (Figures 18‐20) (more than 10000 stone tools and 70000 lithic debitage from Chalcolithic level of one trench in 2010‐11 excavation) collected from the site bears testimony to the same (Gadekar et al. 2012).

Faunal Remains Some charred and uncharred otoliths or earstones (hard calcium concentration formed within the inner ear of bony fish which varies according to the species and size of fish) (Ajithprasad 2004) and fish vertebrae were collected from Datrana IV. Large quantity of split animal bones, antlers and teeth were collected and they are of the animals like cattle, sheep/goat, antelope and pig (IAR 1993‐94). Meanwhile, various bones identified at Pre Prabhas level of Prabhas Patan/Somnath are of domesticated animals like Bos indicus, Bubalus bubalis, Capra/Ovis, and wild varieties like Sus scrofa, Gazella gazelle, Cervus duvauceli, and Axis axis and aquatic animals like fish, tortoise, crab and mollusc. According to Thomas (1979), the economy of Period I (Pre‐Prabhas level) at Somnath was based on a combination of hunting and stock‐raising. Thus the studies clearly show that there are similarities in the animal remains from Datrana IV and Prabhas Patan. It probably indicate similar food habits in both the sites and also prevalnce of identical environmetal conditions in North Gujarat and Saurashtra sub‐regions.

Economy and Proposition of Pastoral Encampment The nature of the economy at the Pre Prabhas level of Somnath is not very clear. Thomas (1979) based on the analysis of faunal remains from the site suggested that the economy of

200

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

Period I was based on a combination of hunting and stock‐raising. Not much is known about the plant economy of Somnath and Datrana IV. The excavations in 2010 at the site under the North Gujarat Archaeological Project and the on going research on the archaeobotanical remains from the site will throw much more light into this direction. While at Datrana IV, due to the flimsy cultural deposit and absence of structures, many scholars consider the site as the seasonal habitation/camp site of the pastoral nomads (Bhan 2009). But the evidences suggests large scale stone tool production (factory site) at the site and an economy not entirely dependant on pastoral activities. They even produced beads from core rejuvenation flakes. The thousands of stone tools, cores and lithic debitage collected from the site clearly indicate that it was the biggest Chalcolithic stone tool production centre of the Pre Urban Harappan phase in Gujarat or even in the entire Indian subcontinent. Within the above context, it is possible to say that the status of a full time settlement can be attributed to Datrana which specialized in stone tool production.

Figure 15 : Carnelian Beads and Bead Roughouts from Datrana IV (Courtesy: Ajithprasad)

Figure 16 : Carnelian Beads, Bead Roughouts and Drill bits from Datrana IV (Courtesy: Ajithprasad)

201

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

Figure 17: A Copper Punch Point from Datrana IV (Courtesy: Ajithprasad)

Figure 18: Stone Artefacts from Datrana IV (Adapted: IAR 1993‐94)

202

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

Figure 19 : Stone Artefacts (Cores) from Datrana IV (Courtesy: Ajithprasad)

Figure 20 : Chalcedony Blades from Datrana IV (Courtesy: Ajithprasad)

Distribution, Similarity and Cultural Continuity Apart from Somnath/Prabhas Patan/Nagara Timbo (600x150 m) in Saurashtra, Datrana IV/Hadkawala Timbo/Vadkiwalu Khetar II (700x500 m), Datrana V/Patel no Khetar/Vadkiwalu Khetar I (100x70 m) and Datrana IX/Sutaria no Thumdo (95x65 m) in North Gujarat (Ajithprasad and Sonawane 2011), none of the excavated Chalcolithic sites in Gujarat revealed the presence of Pre‐Prabhas ceramics, which are totally different from the

203

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 2013 ceramics of other Chalcolithic cultures/ traditions. A few incised ceramics from the Mesolithic levels at Langhnaj (Sankalia 1965) show certain similarities with the ceramics from Datrana IV and Somnath. Ceramics having certain similarities to the Pre Prabhas incised Red Ware in fabric and incised decorations are reported from Bagor (Ajithprasad 2010; Rajesh 2011). At Bagor, the ceramics (Figures 13 and 14) are reported from Phase B i.e. ceramic Mesolithic phase (Misra 1973; Shinde et al. 2004) and the relative dates suggested for this period is c. 2800‐600 BC (Misra 1973). Calibrated AMS dates for this phase is c. 3360‐ 2465 BC (Patel 2008). According to Shinde et al. (2004) this coarse red ill fired ceramic is brittle and handmade or made on turn table. In this pottery, grass and sand were used as tempering material and in a few instances it is decorated with criss‐cross patterns and as per Shinde et al. (2004) the incised decorations on these ceramics may represent the beginning of this decorative tradition in Western Indian region. The close observation of published photographs of nondiagnostic ceramics from Bagor and ceramics from Datrana IV located in two distant geographical regions shows obvious similarities. Nevertheless, due to the absence of comparable diagnostic sherds from Bagor, the similarities/dissimilarities of vessel shapes from both the sites cannot be ascertained. Apart from this, these comparisons are based on the published images, drawings and descriptions from Langhnaj and Bagor, hence there are chances of misinterpretations. Therefore, a detailed comparative typo‐technological study of ceramics from Bagor, Langhnaj and Datrana IV is essential. During the excavation of 1957‐58 at Rojdi, crude corrugated ware of the type found in Period IA at Somnath was noticed (IAR 1957‐58). The coarse corrugated ware of the Rojdi‐Prabhas Patan type was also reported from Old Alatala, Mahadevayo, Modhera, Ranigam, Makavana, Khanderio, Jivani, Lakhan Timbo, Tarana, Gadhada I, Gadhada III and Khakhara Bela I (IAR 1953‐54, 1956‐57, 1960‐61). But the archaeological data from later excavations at Rojdi (Possehl and Raval 1989) and re‐explorations in above mentioned sites clearly show that the crude corrugated ware from these sites belong to the Sorath Harappan culture of Urban Harappan Phase. Wheel making is another feature of the Sorath Harappan coarse corrugated ware. Probably, the corrugation technique of Pre‐Prabhas community may have continued from Pre Urban Harappan phase to Urban Harappan phase where the manufacturing technique got uplift from hand modelling to wheel throwing (Ajithprasad 2012).

Cultural Contacts The relation, the Pre‐Prabhas ceramics using community maintained with the contemporary Mesolithic/microliths using communities in the nearby settlements is still unclear. The Pre‐ Prabhas ceramics using people at Datrana IV who evolved from the Mesolithic community may have lived in isolation for a short period or maintained relations with Mesolithic people of other sites like Langhnaj and later came into contact with the Anarta Tradition and Pre Urban Harappan Sindh Type Pottery using community as indicated by various ceramics and stone tools. The ceramics and stone tools from Datrana IV and stone tools from Prabhas Patan suggest that the Pre‐Prabhas ceramic using people were the first Chalcolithic community in Gujarat who were exposed to crested ridge blade manufacturing technique (no Mesolithic/Microlithic or Chalcolithic site revealed its presence earlier) and fast wheel made ceramics.

Chronology The exact time period of the origin of the Pre Prabhas Assemblage in Gujarat is not clear and the two calibrated c14 dates from Prabhas Patan/Somnath for this phase is in the 1∑ range of

204

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

3019‐2625 BC and in the 2∑ range of 3293‐2496 BC (Possehl 1994). A recalibration of these two c14 dates from Somnath reveals certain changes and accordingly Pre‐Prabhas level can be dated between in the 1∑ range of 3029‐2630 BC and in the 2∑ range of 3122‐2548 BC (Table 2). No chronometric date is available from Datrana and the Pre‐Prabhas Assemblage appears to have originated from Mesolithic community. Based on the relative dates of Pre Urban Harappan Sindh type ceramics, ceramics of Anarta Tradition and chronometric dates from Prabhas Patan, the Pre‐Prabhas Assemblage at Datrana can be roughly dated between c. 3200‐2600 BC or little later. Till date, there is no evidence available for the continuation of this assemblage in succeeding Urban Harappan phase except a broad similarity to wheel made Sorath Harappan coarse corrugated Ware.

Table 2: Recalibrated c14 dates of Pre‐Prabhas Level from Prabhas Patan/Somnath

Sample No. Uncalibrated Date Calibrated Date Material TF‐1287 4280±105 BP 1∑[cal BC 3029: cal BC 2848] 0.626569 Shell 2∑[cal BC 3122: cal BC 2578] 0.928475 PRL‐90 4240±110 BP 1∑[cal BC 2821: cal BC 2630] 0.594228 Charcoal (Possehl 1994) 2∑[cal BC 3106: cal BC 2548] 0.959116

Occurrence of Pre‐Prabhas Assemblage in North Gujarat and Saurashtra: An Explanation The reasons for the availability of Pre‐Prabhas Assemblage only in four sites (3 sites in Datrana village in North Gujarat and 1 site in Saurashtra) located at a distance of around 400 km needs to be explored further. The occurrence of similar kinds of artefacts in two different sub‐regions of Gujarat in the same period does not necessarily show that they were originated independently in two different places. Instead, the availability of these similar materials (ceramics and crested ridge blades of chalcedony) may be the result of movement of people from one place to another. There may have existed some more settlements having these cultural traits in between these sites which still remain unreported. According to Ajithprasad (2011) “it is quite possible that some of the sites along the travel routes connecting the two regions may incorporate the Pre‐Prabhas probably with the Anarta and the Pre Urban Harappan pottery as well, reflecting the interaction that existed between the two regions”.

While considering the ceramics and other material relics from both the sites, Datrana has more vessel forms and a greater concentration of artefacts. An antecedent Mesolithic cultural deposit is also present at Datrana which is marked by the absence of long blades, crested ridge blades and cores and pottery (IAR 1993‐94, 1994‐95). The material relics from this period include micro blade cores, palette stones of sandstone, backed tools like lunates, trapezes and points. The overlying Chalcolithic deposit was marked by the presence of long blades, crested ridge blades and cores of chalcedony, agate, jasper and chert, backed blades, points, truncated blades, crescents, burins, long simple blades, copper punch points, grinding stones, hammer stones, stone beads and ceramics. There is no clear stratigraphic break noticed between the Chalcolithic and Mesolithic occupation and it may indicate the origin of Pre‐Prabhas ceramic using communities from the Mesolithic communities at Datrana IV. The ceramics of the Chalcolithic occupation is marked by Pre Prabhas Assemblage, Anarta ceramics and Pre Urban Harppan Sindh Type pottery (Ajithprasad

205

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

2002). The two types of ceramics last mentioned are found occurring only from the mid level of Chalcolithic phase in limited quantities. Large number of grinding stones and hammer stones from both the Mesolithic and Chalcolithic periods at the site perhaps suggests similar food processing techniques existed in both the periods. The material remains from the site suggest it to be a blade manufacturing centre and the inhabitants were also practicing stone bead production.

At Somnath, no antecedent culture of Pre‐Prabhas Assemblage was noticed. The material remains of this phase is marked by a few crested ridge blades, faience beads, Pre Prabhas ceramics and a few “Harappan like ceramics” (IAR 1971‐72). The “Harappan like ceramics” (IAR 1971‐72) might be the Pre Urban Harappan Sindh type pottery and these kinds of ceramics were reported from a few sites in the vicinity of Prabhas Patan (Ajithprasad et al. 2011). Clay lump with reed impressions probably indicating wattle and daub structure was also unearthed from this level. Compared to Datrana IV, not much evidence is available from the site for the production of beads and stone tools.

Thus from the archaeological data it is very clear that the Chalcolithic occupants at Datrana probably evolved from the Mesolithic community who inhabited there earlier. At Datrana, Pre‐Prabhas pottery, Anarta ceramics and Pre Urban Harappan Sindh type pottery are found together only from the middle of the Chalcolithic level (Ajithprasad 2002). While at Somnath, “Harappan like ceramics” (the probable Pre Urban Harappan Sindh type ceramic) was found along with the Pre‐Prabhas assemblage (IAR 1971‐72) and it implies that at Somnath, at the very beginning of the settlement the inhabitants were in touch with Pre Urban Harappans of Sindh region. If the Chalcolithic community at Datrana IV are believed to have evolved from the Mesolithic community, the Pre‐Prabhas assemblage at the site is older than the same in Somnath/Prabhas Patan. The inhabitants from the site may have moved to Saurashtra after coming in touch with the Pre Urban Harappans of Sindh region. These movements may be due to pastoral activities, finding raw material sources or in search of more fertile land for agricultural activities.

Acknowledgements The authors thank Professor K. K. Bhan and Dr. Ambika B. Patel in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda for their help and support. The authors are indebted to Mr. Vrushab Mahesh and Miss. Charusmita Gadekar for carefully going through the manuscript. Rajesh S. V. is thankful to the Global Heritage Fund and University Grants Commission for providing the necessary financial support and convey special acknowledgement to Dr. Brad Chase, Professor J. M. Kenoyer, Mrs. Kalpana Desai, Mr. Jeff Morgan and Mr. Bob Stanton for the Saraiya Global Heritage Fund Post Doctoral Fellowship. The views expressed in this paper and all errors, both factual and interpretation is solely our own.

References Ajithprasad, P. 2002. The Pre Harappan Cultures of Gujarat. S. Setter and R. Korisetter (eds.). Indian Archaeology in Retrospect Volume II Protohistory ‐Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization: 129‐158. New : Manohar Publishers and distributors.

206

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

Ajithprasad, P. 2004. Holocene Adaptations of the Mesolithic and Chalcolithic Settlements in North Gujarat. Y. Yasuda and V. Shinde (eds.). Monsoon and Civilization: 115‐ 132. New Delhi: Lestre Press, Roli Books. Ajithprasad, P. 2008. Cultural Patterns and the Early Harappan Interactions in Gujarat (abstract). Paper Presented at the International Conference on Cultural Relations Between The Indus and the Iranian Plateau During the Third Millennium BCE: 37‐ 42. Kyoto, Japan: Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Ajithprasad, P. 2010. The Pre‐Prabhas Pottery and the Early Chalcolithic Cultural Developments in North Gujarat. Paper Presented in the Bhuj Round Table, International Conference on Gujarat Harappans and Chalcolithic Cultures. Kachchh: Institute of Rajasthan Studies ‐ Udaipur, Gujarat State Archaeology Department ‐ Gandhinagar and Research Institute for Humanity and Nature ‐ Kyoto. Ajithprasad, P. 2011. Chalcolithic Cultural Patterns and the Early Harappan Interaction in Gujarat. In T. Osada and M. Witzel (eds.). Cultural Relations Between the Indus and the Iranian Plateau During the Third Millennium BCE (Harvard Oriental Series Opera Minora) Vol. 7: 1‐28. Cambridge: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University. Ajithprasad, P. 2012. Exploring the Roots of Harappan Regional Diversity in Saurashtra. Paper Presented in the South Asian Archaeology Conference. Wisconsin – Madison: University of Wisconsin. Ajithprasad, P, Rajesh S. V. and B. Sharma. 2011. Archaeological Explorations in the Saurashtra Coast of Junagadh District, Gujarat. Occasional Paper 10: Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human Past. Toshiki Osada and Akinori Uesugi (Eds.). Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto: 27‐70. Ajithprasad, P. and V. H. Sonawane. 2011. The Harappa Culture in North Gujarat: a Regional Paradigm. In T. Osada and A. Uesugi (eds.). Occasional Paper 12 (Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human Past‐ Indus Project): 223‐269. Kyoto: Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Bhan, K. K. 1994. Cultural Development of the Prehistoric period in North Gujarat with Reference to Western India. South Asian Studies 10: 71‐90. Bhan, K. K. 2009. Review of Prehistoric Culture of Gujarat and Need to Develop Accurate Settlement Gazetteer. International Symposium in India (2009) Changing Perceptions of Japan in South Asia in the New Asian Era: The State of Japanese Studies in India and Other SAARC Countries. International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyoto: 325‐354. Dhavalikar, M. K. and G. L. Possehl. 1992. The Pre‐Harappan Period at Prabhas Patan and the Pre‐Harappan Phase in Gujarat. Man and Environment XVII (1): 72‐78. Gadekar C. S. P. Ajithprasad and M. Madella. 2012. Datrana: A Lithic Blade Factory Site. Paper Presented in the National Seminar of IAS, ISPQS and IHCS on Archaeology and Cultural Diversity. Vadodara: The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. IAR. 1953‐54. Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1954. Indian Archaeology 1953‐54 – A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. IAR. 1956‐57. Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1957. Indian Archaeology 1956‐57 – A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.

207

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

IAR. 1957‐58. Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1958. Indian Archaeology 1957‐58 – A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. IAR. 1960‐61. Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1961. Indian Archaeology 1960‐61 – A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. IAR. 1971‐72. Deshpande, M. N. (ed.). 1975. Indian Archaeology 1971‐72 – A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. IAR. 1993‐94. Bisht, R. S., C. Dorje and A. Banerji (ed.). 2000. Indian Archaeology 1993‐94 – A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. IAR. 1994‐95. Manjhi, H., C. Dorje and A. Banerji (ed.). 2000. Indian Archaeology 1994‐95 – A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Madella, M, P. Ajithprasad, A. Balbo, C. Lancelotti, B. Rondelli, F. Cecilia, G. Fiorentino, S. V. Rajesh, C. S. Gadekar, N. Garcia, V. Yannitto, D. Rodriguez, J. L. Mateos, J. Ruiz and J. J. Garcia‐Granero‐Fos. 2012. La Campaña de Excavación 2010 del Proyecto NoGAP: Metodología Interdisciplinar Para el Estudio de Contextos Socio‐Ecológicos en el Holoceno. Informes y trabajos 7: Excavaciones en el exterior 2010. Ministerio De Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Spain: 110‐117. Misra, V.N. 1973. Bagor: a Late Mesolithic settlement in North‐West India. World Archaeology 5 (1):92‐110. Munsell Soil Colour Chart. 1954. Munsell Colour Company, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland. Nanavati, J. M., R. N. Mehta and S. N. Chowdhary. 1971. Somnath‐1956 (Monograph I). Ahmedabad and Vadodara: Department of Archaeology, Gujarat State and The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. Patel, A. K. 2008. New Radiocarbon Determinations from Loteshwar and Their Implications for Understanding Holocene Settlement and Subsistence in North Gujarat and Adjoining Areas. E. M. Raven (ed.). South Asian Archaeology 1999 (Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, held at the Universiteit Leidan, 5‐ 9 July, 1999): 123‐134. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Possehl, G. L. 1994. Radiometric Dates for South Asian Archaeology. An Occasional Publication of the Asia Section. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Philadelphia: 1‐122. Possehl, G. L. 2007. The Harappan Settlement of Gujarat. E. C. Stone (ed.). Settlement and Society ‐ Essays Dedicated to Rober McCormick Adams: 297‐328. California and Chicago: Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California and The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Possehl, G. L. and M. H. Raval. 1989. Harappan Civilization and Rojdi. New Delhi‐Bombay‐ Calcutta: Oxford, IBH Publishing Co. and American Institute of Indian Studies. Rajesh, S. V. 2011. A Comprehensive Study of the Regional Chalcolithic Cultures of Gujarat (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Vadodara: Department of Archaeology and Ancient Histiry. The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Sankalia, H. D. 1965. Excavations at Langhnaj: 1944‐63 (Part I) Archaeology. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute. Shinde, V., S.S. Deshpande and Y. Yasuda 2004. Human response to Holocene climatic changes: a case study of western India between 5th and 3rd millennia BC. Y. Yasuda and V. Shinde (eds.). Monsoon and Civilization: 383‐406. New Delhi: Lestre Press, Roli Books.

208

Rajesh et al. 2013: 181‐209

Subbarao, B. 1958. The Personality of India‐ Pre and Proto‐Historic Foundation of India and . M. S. University Archaeology Series No. 3. Vadodara: Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. Thomas, P. K. 1979. Archaeozoological Aspects of the Prehistoric Culture of Prabhas Patan. Kubasiewicz (ed.). Archaeozoology I: 176‐186. Szezecin, Poland: Agricultural Academy.

209