GEOGRAPHY OF PROTO-HISTORIC CULTURES IN INDIA THESIS SUBMITTED IN SUPPLICATIOM FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF 3Bottov of ^ffilotiopf)p IN HISTORY BY NAZIM HUSAIN AL-JAFRI Under the Supervision of Professor Shireen Moosvi Chairman and Coordinator CENTRE OF ADVANCED STUDY DEPARTMEIMT OF HISTORY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH, (INDIA] 1998 Vi:= T5153 CENTRE OF ADVANCED STUDY Idcphonc^ I intcrnnl : 341 ami 36'> nrpARi \ii N I ()i llI'^l()R^ AlK.Akll Ml SUM rNlMR.Sin AI IdAKH—?0:()o: i|ip.). INOIA CHAIRMAN & COORDINATOR 9 January 1999 CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the thesis 'Geography of Proto-historic cultures in India' by Mr Nazlm Husain Al Jafri is the original research work of the candidate, and is suitable for submission to the examiners and for the award of the Ph.D. degree. (Shireen Moosvi ) Supervisor Contents Page Nos. List of figures I-III List of Maps IV Preface 1-3 I Geographical Background of Protohistoric 4-16 India II Review of Protohistoric Cultures 17-32 III Archaeological Evidence of Protohistorical 33-167 Culture in India — Survey of sites IV Discussion 168-195 V Conclusion 196-198 Bibliography 199-228 ^p ^r ^F "^ T* List of Figures All figures at the end of the Volume Figure No. Contents Fig. 1 Copper hoard rings and harpoons Fig. 2 Copper hoard Flat and shouldered Celts Fig. 3 Copper hoard Anthropomorphic figurines Fig. 4 Copper hoard Elongated and Bar Celts Fig. 5 Copper hoards Socketed Axes, Double Axes, Antennae swords, Hooked Swords and spearheads Fig. 6 Copper hoards dagger and Antennae Axes And Diamabad copper objects Fig. 7 Copper hoards Celts And Harappan Type copper pans From Khurdi Fig. 8. Pottery and other objects from Burzahome Fig.9. Antiquities from Gufkral Fig. 10. Pottery and some other finds from Rupar Fig. 11. Bronze objects from Rupar Fig. 12. Pottery from Bara Fig. 13. Pottery and bone objects from Bhagwanpura Fig. 14. Pottery from Mitathal Fig. 15. Pottery from Mandoli Fig. 16. Pottery from Kalibangan Fig. 17. Copper objects from Kalibangan Fig.18. Pottery from Surkotada Fig. 19. Pottery from Lothal Fig.20. Pottery from Rangpur Fig.21. Gold objects from Nagwada n Fig.22. Pottery from Rojdi Fig.23. Pottery from Gilund Fig.24. Pottery from Ahar Fig.25. Pottery from BalaOia) Fig.26. Microlithic from Nagda F'ig.27. Pottery and other antiquities from Kayatiia Fig.28. Pottery from Navadotoli Fig.29. Pottery from Dangwada Fig.30. Pottery from Adam Fig.31. Pottery from Praliash Fig.32. Pottery from Jorwe Fig.33. Stone tools from Nevasa Fig.34. Pottery and otfier terracotta objects from inamgaon Fig.35. Copper objects from Bagor Fig.36. Copper Implements from Ganeshwar Fig.37. Pottery and other objects from Ranihat Fig.38. Pottery from Thapli Fig.39. Pottery from Ambkheri Fig.40. Pottery from Bargoan Fig.41. Pottery from Hulas Fig.42. Pottery from Alamgirpur Fig.43. Pottery from Ahichchhatra Fig.44. Pottery from Baheria Fig.45. Pottery from Lalqila (Bulandshar) Fig.46. Copper objects from Lai Qilla • Fig.47. Pottery from Atranjikhera Fig.48. Pottery from Saipai Fig.49. Pottery from Sankisa Fig.50. Bone & ivory points from Kaushambi ni Fig.51. Pottery from Rajghat Fig.52. Pottery from Imlidih Fig.53. Pottery from Sonipur Fig.54. Bone, ivory and terracotta objects from Chirand Fig.55. Pottery from Pandu Rajar dhibi Fig.56. Pottery from Southern sites (Piklihal, Nagarijunakonda, Brahmagiri) Fig.57. Stone tools from Southern sites (Piklihal, Nagarijunakonda, Brahmagiri, Sangankallu) Fig.58. Copper objects from Southern Chalicolithic complex Fig. 59. Mohanjodaro - Harappan copper implement typology reflective of utalitarian requirements of the Harappan times Fig. 60. Harappan makes of copper implements with utilitarian typological advancements from Ganeshwar culture. IV List of Maps MAPS All maps at end of volume, preceding Figures. Map Content No. 1. INDIA: Physical 2. INDIA: Rainfall 3. INDIA: Natural Vegetation 4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES OF PROTOHISTORIC SITES 5. NORTHERN LATE HARAPPAN SITES 6. OCP SITES 7. PGW SITES 8. BLACK & RED WARE SITES 9. WESTERN INDIAN CULTURES 10. SOUTH INDIAN NEOLITHIC/CHALCOLITHIC SITES PREFACE Ever since R.D. Banerji discovered in 1992 the runins of the city Mohenjo Daro beneath a Buddhist stupa in district Larkana in sind, a protohistoric phase was added to the known past of India. The Indus or Harappan culture, which was the first to be so identified was protohistoric not because it did not know writing, but because its writing could not be deciphered. It was not still prehistoric, because it could be dated through links wdth West Asian cultures, whose chronology was fixed by written records duly deciphered. By 1950, other protohistoric cultures had been identified, the so-called "Baluchistan cultures" preceding Harappan culture, and the Cemetery-H and Jhukar cultures following Harappan decline (Piggott, S., 1950). But on the Indian side of the post 1947 frontier nothing except a shadowy "copper-hoard" cultures had become known. But since then strenuous and widespread archaeological work has helped to fill up the map of India with different "cultures" contemporaneous with and subsequent to the mature Harappan, down to the beginning of the "historical" period set at about 500 BC. Over the last eight decades or more, a growing band of scholars have offered successive contributions towards discovery, interpretation and synthesis: Smith, (1907), Marshall, (1931), Heine (1936), Piggott, (1950), Wheeler,(1947) Lai, (1951), Sharma, (1953), Gupta, (1963), Ghosh. (1965), Dixit, (1968), Agarwal, (1973), Sankaha, (1947), Vishnu Mittre, (1978), Gaur, (1980), Mughal, (1980), Allchin, (1983), and Prossehl, (1993), -and there is, perhaps, much incompleteness and even one-sidedness in this selection, despite its length. It is now perhaps, time that the extensive evidence be synthensized in a geographical framework, much an attempt: can by no means escape the persinstent problems of chonology, locating 'diagnostic factors' behind cultures (so far restricted heavily to types of pottery) and sequence of technological development. Rather it adds to all these problems two major dimensions, viz territorial domains of differ­ ent cultures and spatial cultural expansion. In order to grapple with these questions, an attempt is made in Chapter I to provide the essential geographical background. The bulk of the thesis comprises a site-by-site survey of all protohistoric cultures, classified by geographical zones. Only the South Indian neolithic-chalcolithic sites are more summarily treated, for. though important in itself, the evolution of this culture does not conform to the pattern of evolution ol'protohistoric cultures in the remaining parts of the country. The basic site-wise information is assembled in Chapter III; and Chapter II offers an introduction to, and Chapter IV an interpretation of, the evidence that Chapter III contains. It must begin by disowning any ambition to offer a variant of geographical determinism. Human societies were already protohistoric times far too complex, and far too flexible, to make the hypothesis of such determinism convincing. But the geographical environment formed the setting in which protohistoric societies functioned. Rainfall, soils, mineral resources, forests and their derizens, were all important factors behind extent and methods of agriculture, domestication of animals, the role of "gathering" vs. production, and so on. So far as possible, I have avoided any recourse to ethnic or anthropological interpretations so popular till the 1960's and unluckily reviving now once again. I feel that Cavalli-Sforza, et al. 1994, have offered us a sufficient warning against recourse to race "for explaining the primitive (="aboriginal") and the advanced (= "aryan") by invoking unproven racial categories. Such restraint has prevented me from unduly speculating on population movements in protohistoric India, which, given my geographical concerns, may appear a little odd. I now pass on to the pleasant tasks of acknowledgement of my varied debts. I am lucky to have been the pupil of Professor R.C. Gaur and Professor M.D.N. Sahi, both of whom have done so much to further our knowledge of PGW- a major protohistoric culture of Northern India. Professor M.D.N. Sahi supervised my earlier work on this thesis, and 1 am deeply grateful to the attention he paid me. For the completion of work, 1 am greatly indebted to Professor Shireen Moosvi, Chairman, Department of History, who cheerfully took up the task devolving upon her ex-officio, and gave me assistance in varied ways. Her help and emcouragement has enabled me to complete this thesis. I have also derived much benefit from discussions with Professor Irfan Habib, who him self has been interested for the last so many years in archaeological ques­ tions. Professor H.A.S. .lafri an academician administrator whose generous help in allowing me to complete this work put me under a great obligation. The Dean Faculty of Social Sciences, Professor Noor Mohammad has also shown great consideration for me for which I am very grateful. I have been assisted during the course of my research by my friends and colleagues in various ways. I would like in particular to thank Mr. AkhtEir Khan, Mr. Khaliquzzama, Mr. N.R. farooqi. Dr. Rais Ahmad and Mr. Shamim Ahmad. My thanks are also due to the Librarian and staff of the Research Library, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and to Mr. Noor Ahmad, and Mohd Idress. In the and I wish to thank to Mr. Naved Ahmad Usmani for his excellent Computer setting of this manuscript and Mr. Zahoor Ali Khan, Mr. Faiz Habib, Mr. M. Anees Alvi and Mr. S. Husam Haider for their help in preparing the maps, figures and plates. CHAPTER- I GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUNDS OF PROTO - HISTORIC INDIA Geography. History and Archaeology together define the personality of a nation. Sir Cyril Fox used the three disciplines to define the personality of Britain.