IJSECT September 2015

CHAPTER-X "The movement of goods must imply the transit of ideas and it is the archaeologist's function to elicit the evidence and to draw the proper conclusion from it* (Mallowan, 1965: 1). 312 CONCLUSION We might now look back at the material presented in the preceding chapters and see what general observations can be made from the evidence as regards the (1) distribution of pre-Harappan culture, (2) its origin and (3) its survival. It must once again be emphasized that the most important pre-Harappan culture so far known is Kalibangan, even though we know only a little of the vast information recorded at this site. All other sites have to be viewed and arranged in chronological position in relation to Kalibangan. (A) TERMINOLOGY A sound name or spoliation is necessary for the pre-Harappan culture revealed at Kalibangan and the eleven explored sites on the Sarasvati-Ghaggar-Hakra river. At pre sent} scholars call it by several names such as Kot-Dijian, Kalibangan I and Sothi. Ghosh had in 1965 considered the names "Sarasvati", "Ghaggar", "Kalibangan I" and "Sothi" but he had preferred the last one. Thapar (1965: 136) on comparing the "component elements" from Sothi and Kalibangan I feels that the latter is a more appropriate name for the culture. It is evident from Chapter VII that no two sites have yielded an identical number of ceramic types and wares. This is probably due to our inadequate knowledge of these 313 sites and not to the inherent paucity of ceramic material on them. Hence, it becomes difficult to evaluate all the dis covered sites with Kalibangan I as their yardstick solely on account of the latter having been thoroughly explored and excavated. In fact (See Chapter III) Stein's (1943) small dig almost three decades ago at Sandhanawalla-ther revealed a site of almost similar potentialities as Kalibangan I in terms of length of the cultural sequence. Cultures are labelled after the sites where character istic types of crafts are first discovered (Wheeler, 1968:2). Since the characteristic dendritic, incised, monochrome and bichrome wares of the Sarasvati-Ghaggar Valley were found first at Sothi, the culture characterized by these wares should be called after this site alone. Since the same wares are found on the excavated site of Binjor 1 and on the surface of the mounds of Nohar, Tarkhanewaladehra, Berore, Binjor 3 and RD 39, the term ••Sothi" can equally well be applied to them. It is also possible that these sites possess the same culture sequence as Binjor 1 and Kalibangan 1. Ghosh (1965: 116) had once felt justified in call ing the Sothi culture proto-Harappan. A detailed study of excavated sites in Pakistan (Amri, Kot Diji, Harappa Cut XXX, Sandhahawala-ther) show a startling contrast between pre- Harappan wares and those of the Harappans. This difference is distinctive and well marked enough to imply separate cultural entities (Khan, 1965: 43; Wheeler, 1968.*20). 314 (B) The area in which the pre-Harappan cultures have been found is divided into three sub-regions (Allchin and Allchin, 1968.' 123), the central, including Kot-Diji, Harappa and Mohenjo-daro; the southern region with Amrian ties akin to those of South Baluchistan; the eastern or Kalibangan with "a pre-Harappan Indian culture phase". (C) QJBJLG-UL So far, no satisfactory theory has been put forth regarding the origin of the pre-Harappan culture of the Sarasvati-Qhaggar valley. Thapar (1965:137) has merely mentioned that the pre-Harappan sites of Harappa, Kot-Diji and the Sarasvati-Qhaggar valley may be the result of an expansive movement of village communities, sharing certain basic elements, but, evolving their own patterns in each region. What the basic elements are, or what "pattern* frow, the cultures are said to evolve^ or, from which geographical region they originated first, is not mentioned. Allchins (1968:123) assign Kalibangan with affinities to a "pre-Harappan Indian Culture Phase" and frame the question "What were the Indian cultures which influenced the Kalibangan province and what in turn were their cultural antecedents?" They themselves have no answer to give. There is as yet no evidence at all of a culture earlier to that of Kalibangan in Rejasthan, to which, we could assign the origin of the "Indian Culture Phase". The numerous similar pottery designs and pottery decorations seen in the earlier chapters all point to influence from the west as regards the pre-Harappan cultures of India and Pakistan. My hypothesis is that the pre-Harappan Kali bangan culture is not indegenous, but, is derived from West Asia. This hypothesis is discussed in detail below. Mallowan (1935, II; 178) had suggested three decades ago that "on the fringes of India there are certain wares which bear at all events a superficial resemblance to the Tall Halaf ware. In particular the polychrome sherds of Sur Jangal and related wares in feel, colour and minuteness of design bear an apparent kinship to that of Tall Halaf". It is not known as to how detailed a comparative study Mallowan made of pottery from Tall Halaf and Sur Jangal. But the same is even more true of the Tall Halaf ware when compared to the bichrome Kalibangan I ware. The opinion of this scholar gave added strength to my own views regarding the influence of Tall Halaf ware on the pre-Harappan pottery of Kalibangan I. Throughout it had been my opinion that in some manner these two cultures were linked in time and space. A visit to London was therefore planned so that I could at first hand study the excavated wares from Tall Halaf and its affiliated site Tall Arpachiyah and t go through the excellent report published on work at the later A site by Mallowan in 1935. Some interesting data was obtained from the study of potsherds alone. (a) Stylistic comparison Forty common motifs were traced between the two sites of Tall Arpachiyah and Kalibangan as well as Sothi and Binjor 1. * Twenty-four motifs were common to Halaf ware, fourteen to Al-Ubaid ware and five to Samarran ware. All the designs are described and illustrated (Fig. 104; Fig. 105; Fig. 106). The designs from Arpachiyah can be referred to in Mallowan (1935, II: Fig. 30, 33-35, 37, 57-59, 66, 68, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78; , XVII and XVIII). Samarra Group 1. Motif 1: Arrow (or stylized Kalibangan I (IAR.1962-631 birds in flight) Arpachiyah 2). The motif Ts found in (Fig. 77:14) graffltti form at this site as well as at Sothi (Fig. 21: XXXIa). 2. Motif 2: Tree or Stalk Kalibangan I (Fig. 115; Arpachiyah (Fig. 77:11) IAR. 1962-63.* Fig.5:A) 3. Motif 3: Plant (?) Kalibangan I (Fig. 118; Arpachiyah (Fig.77:20) IAR. 1962-63: Fig. 8:K) 317 4. Motif 4.' Suspended Triangles Kalibangan I (Fig. 115; Arpachiyan (Fig. 77:20) IAR. 1962-63: Fig. 5:J) 5. Motif 5: Stylized Palm Kalibangan I (iAJl, 1961-62.' Leaf (?) Fig. 14:31) Arpachiyan (Fig. 77:18) Halaf Group Motifs 6-16 consist of naturalistic and stylized buckranian motifs. Identical finds have occurred at Tall Halaf and Tall Mefesh. 6. Motif 6: Naturalistic Kalibangan I. At this site Bukranium head ve have identically shaped Arpachiyah (Fig. 74:8) bukranium horns, three one on top of the other with the pipal leaf in the centre adjoining each horn. (IAR. 1961-62: Fig. 14:42) The pipal leaf seems to be a Sarasvatl Valley influence and has probably replaced the animal head in a new stylized form. The connec tion between these two motifs cannot be easily dismissed in the light of other gather ed information. For instance see Mallowan (Fig. 74:14 and 15) where the horns occur in a similar fashion one below the other. 6a. Motif 6a; Tall Mefesh Kalibangan I (Fig. 112| Bukranium Head with IAR. 1962-63.* Fig. 2.'4) Stalk At this site the horns are curved in like those of the buffalo or the bull, with frayed ends. On either side the horns are flanged by the stalk motif in the form of a panel. This is an import ant motif in that it shows two unusual designs in combination with each other. They occur at no other known site together. 318 7. Motif 7: Stylized Bukranlgm Kalibangan I (£ojl, 1961-62: Head Fig. 14:26). At this site Arpachiyah (Fig. 74:8) the stylized bull stump appears between the horns instead of below it as at Arpachiyah. a. Motif 8: Stylized Vertical Kalibangan I (IAR, 1961-62: Rows of Bukr^nlum Heads Fig. 14:42) Arpachiyah (Fig. 74:14 and 15) 9. Motif 9: Stylized Bukranium KalibanganKlAR. 1961-62: Head Fig. 14:46) Motif in Arpachiyah (Fig. 7416) horizontal position. Motif between vertical straight lines in panel form 9a. Motif 9a (Fig. 75:6) is similar to the motif from Kalibangan I as it is also drawn horizontally. 9b. Motif 9b (Fig.75:13) This is represented in a diagonally inverted form 9c. Motif 9c (Fig. 75:14) is also drawn horizontally with a thick stalk in between the horns re capturing the idea as on Kalibangan motif 7 (IAR. 1961-62: Fig. 14126) 9d. Motif 9d (Fig. 75:15) The motif is vertically inverted. 10. Motif 10: Stylized Kalibangan I (Fig. 112; Bukranium ? IAR. 1962-63: Fig. 2'.A,F) Arpachiyah (Fig. 68:3) U. Motif 11: Stylized Bukranium Kalibangan I (IAR. 1961-62: in horizontal Rows Fig. 14:46) Arpachiyah (Fig. 75:14) 12. Motif 12: Stylized Bukranium Kalibangan I (IAR. 1961-62: Arpachiyah (Fig.

Load more