THE DEVELOPMENT OF "HARAPPAN

CULTURE" AS AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
LABEL: A CASE STUDY OF KATRIAWAR*
Supriya Varma and Jaya Menon

The excavations in the 1920s and '30s ofthe remains ofa new civilization in the
north-west part of the Indian subcontinent triggered off a search for further
remains of the Harappan culture. Explorations thereafter revealed that the In-
dus civilization was not confined to Punjab a~d Sind alone, but had extended to
other areas like Kutch and Kathiawar. However, with succeeding explorations,
the trend in Indian archaeology has been to find linkages with the Harappan in
almost every culture. In order to understand how this has come about, we will be
looking at the use ofthe label "Harappan culture" in Kathiawar.

The earliest excavation at Rangpur was undertaken by M.S. Vats in 1930s.

On the basis of ceramics, he suggested that the Rangpur evidence correlated
with the late period ofthe Indus Valley sites or could be slotted in between the
Indus Valley and the Cemetery Hat Harappa. 1 Some affiliation with Mohenjodaro
was suggested by Ghurye who laid eight trial pits at the site two years later.'

Small-scale excavations were next undertaken at Rangpur by M.G. Dikshit

in 1947. Excavating to the south ofthe present-day village ofRangpur, Dikshit
found "essentially a red ware culture ofpainted pottery'? but different from the
Indus Valley wares. He divided what he called the Rangpur culture into three
phases-I, II and III. In Phase I, plain red ware ofcoarse fabric was found in

* This paper is a revised version of the presentations made at the Deccan College, Pune, at a
Seminar on the Harappans in Gujarat in July 1993 and at the first session of ASHA
(Association for the Study of History and Archaeology) at Kurukshetra in April 1995.
1. M.S. Vats, "Trial Excavations at Rangpur, Limdi State, Kathiawar", Annual Report ofthe
Archaeological Survey ofIndia (1934-35), pp. 37-38.
2. G.S. Ghurye, "The Old Sites in Kathi awar" , Journal ofthe University ofBombay, Vol. VIII,
N.S. 1 (1939), pp. 3-12.
3. M.G. Dikshit, "Excavations at Rangpur: 1947", Bulletin ofthe Deccan College Research
Institute, Vol. XI (1950-51), pp. 3-55.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

2 The Indian Historical Review

the lower levels, while the upper levels revealed a thicker red pottery. However,
a grey ware predominated. Phase II was marked by a bi-chrome slipped ware
ofthinner fabric, occasionally well polished. In Phase III he found some intru-
sive elements such as incised wares, and black and red ware. According to
Dikshit," the absence offaience and burnt steatite, as well as the pottery forms
and the decorative patterns are suggestive of"an alien ornon-Harappan culture
at Rangpur". He further points out that the "mere presence ofblack designs on
a red background does not warrant a culture to be associated with the entire
culture-complex but these must be relegated to the various phases ofit gathered
from well-defined stratigraphy".'

Thus, Dikshit did categorically point out the differences in the culture com-
ponent of sites like Mohenjodaro, Harappa and Rangpur. Perhaps due to the
earlier findings ofVats and Ghurye, he called the Rangpur culture a post-Harappan
culture.

Wheeler too is aware ofthe distinctive character ofthe sites in Kathiawar.

The evidence from Lothal and Rangpur in Kathiawar was termed by him as
"sub-Indus" or "a provincial variant ofthe Indus civilization". 6 This evidence
included triangular terracotta "cakes", faience and steatite beads, a chert blade
and pottery with a peacock pattern all allied to Indus types. According to Wheeler :

... its thick red pottery on the other hand painted in black or choco-
late with loops, dots, criss cross, and horizontal and oblique lines, is
less distinctively Harappan. It is to be expected that dilution or
partial survival ofthis sort should occur near the periphery ofthe
civilization...the sub-Indus culture merged into a succeeding phase
characterized by a lustrous red ceramic painted in black with styl-
ized antelopes and less ambitious designs.'

Another term used by Wheeler to denote "a late and developing branch of
the Indus civilization" was the "Saurashtrian Indus"." Apart from Lothal and
Rangpur, the new evidence for the later levels from Rojdi, Somnath, Mehgam,
Telod and Bhagatrav was taken into consideration."

4. Ibid., p.15.
5. Ibid., p. 14.
6. R.E.M. Wheeler, Early India and Pakistan (Thames and Hudson, London, 1959), p. 138.
7. Ibid.
8. Idem, Civilizations oftile Indus Valley and Beyond (Thames and Hudson. London. 1966),
p.87.
9. Ibid., p. 85.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 3

The site of Rangpur was excavated again between 1953 and 1956 by
S.R. Rao. These excavations revealed the following cultural sequence:

Pre Pottery Microlithic Culture (I)

The Harappan Culture (II)

Post Harappan Lustrous Red Ware Culture (III). JO

Rangpur II or the Harappan Culture was subdivided into three phases-

A, Band C. In the light ofthis cultural sequence, Rangpur became the type-site
for all sites excavated thereafter in Kathiawar,

The Pre Pottery Microlithic Culture will not be dealt with here. In the
Rangpur II A levels were found thick red pottery with painted motifs, mud brick
architecture, long chert blades, triangular terracotta cakes, toy-carts and wheels,
cubical weights, long cylindrical carnelian beads, steatite disc and micro beads
and so on. No 'seals were however found at the site. Rao termed RangpurIIA
as the late phase ofthe Mature Harappan Culture. I I

Rangpur II B-C is marked by an assemblage different from that of the

earlier occupation - different shapes in pottery, absence ofmud brick architec-
ture, long chert blades, cubical weights, and so on. From this phase onwards,
habitation shifted to a different area, from the north to the southern part. Al-
though stratigraphically there was no evidence for Period II B to have been
chronologically later than Period II A, yet it was considered so by Rao. Rao is
also aware ofthe differences between II A and II B-C, but he interprets Rangpur
II B as the late phase ofthe Mature Harappan Culture and II C as the Transition
Phase of the Mature Harappan Culture. Rao says that '10 what at first sight
appears to be an intrusion of a new culture in sub-period II C is essentially
derived from the same culture. The Harappan elements still dominated the scene.
Some new elements may possibly be due to the contact Rangpur folk had with
other chalcolithic folk". 12 According to Rao the Rangpur excavations appear to
indicate that the occupations were all successive phases ofthe Harappan cul-
ture." Even the Rangpur III/Lustrous Red Ware Culture is seen as "basically

10. S.R. Rao, "Excavations at Rangpur and Other Explorations in Gujarat", Ancient India, Vols
18-19 (1963), p. 13.
11. Ibid., pp. 15. 25.
12. Ibid., p. 17.
13. Ibid.~ p. 25.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

4 The Indian Historical Review

Harappan" or a "local development ofthe Harappan culture with such modifica-

tions as were necessitated by the new circumstances and isolation forced upon it".

Rae's assumption ofthe continuity in the Harappan tradition in Kathiawar

rests on his theory of continuous migrations ofthe Harappans from the Indus
Valley. 14 Initially the coastal areas ofKutch and Kathiawar were occupied. Sub-
sequently, due to the paucity ofcultivable land, the Harappans had to move to
the mainland. The mass movement from Kathiawar to central India and Deccan
took place through north Gujarat.

Further changes that took place in ceramic forms are noticeable

here ....The chalcolithic folk ofMaheshwar and Navdatoli on the
Narmada river and Ahar near Udaipur came in contact with the
folk using the Lustrous Red Ware and probably earlier too as is
indicated by the Black-and - Red Ware. The new links between
the late and post-Harappan cultures of Gujarat and the Central
Indian chalcolithic cultures explain some ofthe Harappan tradi-
tions surviving in later chalcolithic cultures. 15

Thus perhaps it is here that the trend oflabelling everything "Harappan" begins.
Most subsequent analyses essentially follow Rao.

Subbarao while pointing out the differences with the introduction ofnew
wares like the Prabhas Ware yet does not lay emphasis on them. 16 Sequentially
he follows Rao; he too sees a continuity ofthe Harappan tradition in western
and central India. "The close inter-links of...(the) post Harappan culture of
Kathiawar, with the pre-NBP protohistoric chalcolithic cultures ofcentral India
suggest the possibility ofa Harappan survival in the peripheral regions to the
east, west and south ofthe main Indus basin". The continuity ofHarappan ele-
ments into later occupations in sites in Kathiawar is also brought out by Fairservis, 17

Sankalia's interpretation is interesting because he seems to have recog-

nized the existence ofnew cultural elements in the Rangpur II B-C occupation. 18
After the Harappan occupation, he notes:

14. Ibid., p. 19.

15. Ibid.
16. B. Subbarao, The Personality ofIndia (M.S. University of Baroda, Baroda, second edition,
1958), p. 101.
17. W.A. Fairservis, "The Harappan Civilization: New Evidence and More Theory", Novitates,
No. 2055 (1961), pp. 1-35, reprinted in G.L. Possehl, ed, Ancient Cities ofthe Indus (Vikas,
New Delhi, 1979), p. 63. .
18. H.D. Sankalia, Prehistory and Protohistory ofIndia and Pakistan (University of Bombay,
Mumbai, 1963), pp. 168-70.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 5

... very soon three other elements (shall we say people?) repre-
senting the Lustrous Red Ware, the Black and Red Ware with
paintings in white and the Prabhas Ware came on the scene.
Whe.nce? We do not know. But they all intermingled and what is
definite and significantis that none ofthem carried the art ofbuild-
ing in baked brick and none was literate. Even in other arts and
crafts they were deficient. Thus Saurashtra once again sank to a
pastoral-cum-agricultural stage, after the sudden imposition ofur-
banization by the Harappans. 19

What is important is that Sankalia notes the difference between the

Harappan and succeeding occupations and he does not talk ofany continuity
either.

Misra, who reviewed the Rangpur report, highlighted two important as-
pects." First, he disagreed with Rao' s periodization. He argued that Period II B
should have been treated as part of II A andIl C and III should have been
grouped as II B.21 He found little justification for a separate subphase as II B, as
he found scarce evidence for degeneration in II B. Pottery fabrics and shapes
were similar. Rao' s differentiation between II A and II B appears to have been
more "imaginary than real" and based on inadequate evidence. Moreover, dif-
ferentiating between II C and III merely on the basis of larger quantities of
Lustrous Red Ware in III was not justifiable as "the surface treatment and deco-
rative elements" continue to remain the same. Second, in contrast to Rao's view
of LustreesRed Ware evolving out ofHarappan Ware, Misra considers Lus-
trous Red Ware as an intrusive ware, based on a comparison offabrics, shapes
and decorative elements which have no precedent at the site."

Adherence to Rae' s interpretation however continued. Allchin and Allchin

described the occupation succeeding the Harappan as the "Sub Harappan Phase"
which "indicates the partial withdrawal ofcolonial rule and the emergence ofan
independent provincial culture".23 They also bring out the element ofcontinuity
while describing the Post Harappan as "one of cultural expansion eastwards

19. Ibid., pp. 171-73.

20. V.N. Misra, "Book Review, Ancient India, 18-19 (1962-63)", The Eastern Anthropologist,
Vol. 18, No.1.
21. Ibid., pp. 45-47.
22. Ibid., pp. 48-49.
23. . B. Allchin and R. Allchin, The Birth ofIndian Civilization (Penguin,
. London, 1968), p. 179.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

6 The Indian Historical Review

and southwards from the Indus Valley". No new views were expressed in the
1983 edition oftheir book."

Malik in 1968 took issue with the preoccupation ofIndian archaeology

with a purely empirical methodology. Archaeological traits were viewed as inde-
pendent and isolated, rather than as interconnected elements. In order to view
these elements as a whole, the role ofanthropology was considered to be impor-
tant. Malik found that interpretations in Indian archaeology are "frequently based
on conjectural and imaginative statements rather than on either any social sci-
ence generalization or ethnographic fact". 25 Without negating the role ofempiri-
cal data, he emphasized the importance ofusing ethnographic literature as well
as anthropological theory and archaeological reconstructions. For instance, in
contrast to Rao' s suggestion of a mass movement of people from the Indus
Valley into Kathiawar, Malik proposed "a close cultural identity?" resulting from
socio-economic interactions through such mechanisms as elite exchanges, diplo-
matic alliances, and so on.

Agrawal has suggested that the Harappan culture in Gujarat "transformed

itself into its later forms'?" as seen in the Rangpur II C and III phases.

In an article published in 1977, Possehl treated the Early, Mature and Late
Harappan as constituting a single, ongoing, dynamic, cultural continuum. These
three phases are included within the term "Harappan tradition". He also sug-
gested that "in the later phases ofthis long-lived cultural tradition there is evi-
dence that suggests that tlle surrounding highland archaeological cultures in south-
ern Rajasthan, Malwa and the Deccan can be derived in whole or in part from
this Harappan base". 28 He interprets the Mature and Late Harappan phases as
the Urban and Post Urban phases." The Late Harappan period in Kathiawar
has not been described by Possehl as a period ofdeterioration unlike Rao. 30 This
inference was based on the increase in the number of settlements in the late

24. Idem, The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan (Selectbook Service Syndicate, New
Delhi, 1983).
25. S.C. Malik, Indian Civilization: The Formative Period (Indian Institute of Advanced Study,
Shimla, 1968), p. 34.
26. Ibid., p. 87.
27. D.P. Agrawal, The Archaeology ofIndia (Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies. 1970.
reprinted by Selectbook Service Syndicate, New Delhi, 1984), p. 192.
28. G.L. Possehl, "The End of a State and Continuity of a Tradition: A Discussion of the
Late Harappan", in R. Fox, ed, Realm and Region in Traditional India (Vikas, New Delhi.
1977), p. 253.
29. Idem, Indus Civilization in Saurashtra (B.R. Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 1980).
30. R. Fox, ed. op. CIt.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 7

Harappan phase. This increase, according to him, could either have been due to
migration ofpeople out of Sind or to the settling down ofpastoralists or to the
acculturation ofa local "foreign" population such as the hunter-gatherers. These
new cultural elements could perhaps explain the variation that we find in the
archaeological assemblage in the late period. Another significant issue brought
out specially in a later publication was the introduction ofmillets in the Late
Harappan phase in Kathiawar."

The first attempt to point out the variations in the Harappan assemblage
itself was made by Pandya." On the basis of the evidence of Dikshit's and
Rae's excavations ofRangpur, Pandya suggested that non-Harappan elements
in the assemblage had been ignored and that local chalcolithic communities may
have both preceded as well as coexisted with the Harappans."

Dhavalikar has traced a continuity ofthe Harappan culture into the later
chalcolithic cultures, represented by Rangpur and Prabhas cultures, in the.
Saurashtrian peninsula."

According to Bhan also, a high degree ofcontinuity from the Mature to

the Late Harappan appears to mark the Harappan occupation in Kathiawar."
Rangpur II A and Lothal IV, Nagwada I, Surkotada I C and perhaps Desalpur
I B are seen as the transitional phase. The initial phase of the Late Harappan
follows the phase represented by Periods II B and II C at Rangpur. Period III is
termed-as the final phase ofthe Harappan tradition in Kathiawar." These phases
have been worked out on the basis ofceramics and structural remains.

With renewed excavations at Rojdi, in the mid '80s, the focus seems to
have shifted from Rangpur to this site. Radiocarbon dates revealed that the site
may have been occupied in the Mature Harappan phase. In order to understand
the chronological and cultural sequence at Rojdi, a preliminary comparison of

3 L G.L. Possehl, op. cit., ] 980.

32. S. Pandya, "Recent Advances in Protohistoric Gujarat", Puratattva, Vol. ] 2 (l 980-8]).
33. lbid., pp. 59-63.
34. M.K. Dhavalikar, "Sub-Indus Cultures of Central and Western India", in B.B. Lal and S.P.
Guptaed, Frontiers ofthe Indus Civilization (Books and Books, New Delhi. ] 984), p. 243.
35. K.K. Bhan, "Late Settlements in Western India, with Specific Reference to Gujarat", In
J.M. Kenoyer, ed, Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South ASia
(University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin, ] 989), p. 22].
36. Ibid., pp. 226-27.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

8 The Indian Historical Review

the ceramics was made with the Mohenjodaro material by Possehl and Herman."
The findings were that:

1) While Rojdi has both coarse and fine wares, the former are absent in
Mohenjodaro;

2) At Rojdi, different wares are manufactured with specific but limited sets
oftechniques, while at Mohenjodaro a wide variety ofmanufacturing tech-
niques were applied to basically one ware;

3) At Rojdi, almost all vessels are slipped while at Mohenjodaro not more
than halfofthe pottery was slipped;

4) Not more than 28 ofthe 98 Mohenjodaro vessel types and subtypes re-
corded by Dales and Kenoyer's are found at Rojdi. Important Rojdi forms
such as the convex-sided bowl and some dish types are absent at
Mohenjodaro;

5) Painting styles are very different: there is a preference for naturalistic

motifs in the Mohenjodaro pottery which is almost absent at Rojdi.

In general, later periods at Rojdi show relatively more similarities in ce-

ramic styles with Mohenjodaro. For instance, 16 vessel forms in Rojdi A are
shared with Mohenjodaro, which increases to 20 forms in Rojdi Band 26 forms
in Rojdi C. The percentage of coarse wares drops from 47 in Rojdi A to 36 in
Rojdi B and to 20 in Rojdi C.

Apart from ceramics, the differences are apparent in structural and other
artefactual remains. Although the Rojdi report has not yet been published, some
preliminary findings have been presented." Mud brick architecture appears to
be absent while the more elaborate rubble and boulder structures were largely
found in Rojdi C levels. Copper objects have Iargelybeen found from Rojdi
C. Generally, the material assemblage ofRojdi A, Band C resembles that of
Rangpur IIB-C and related sites. On the basis of this resemblance and the

37. G.L. Possehl and C.F. Herman, "The Sorath Harappan: A New Regional Manifestation of
the Indus Urban Phase", in M. Taddei. ed, South Asian Archaeology 1987 (Instituto Italiano
per il Medio Ed. Estremo Oriente, Rome, 1990), pp. 313-14.
38. G.F. Dales and J.M. Kenoyer, Excavations at Mohenjodaro, Pakistan: The Pottery (Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1986).
39. G.L. Possehl and M.H. Raval, Harappan Civilization and Rojdi (Oxford & ISH, New
Delhi, 1989).

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 9

radiocarbon dates, Rojdi and Rangpur II B-C sites have been classified by Possehl
and Herman as "a regional expression ofthe Harappan Urban Phase" or what
is termed the "Sorath Harappan"." This phase is considered to be "stylistically
divergent from the Sindhi Harappans as it is known from the Urban Phase sites
in Kutch and Sind, even the Punjab, but it is clearly part ofthe larger cultural
whole" .41 (This position has also now been accepted by Bhan," Krishnan" and
La1. 44 Dhavalikar," however, prefers the label "Late Mature Harappan" for the
Rangpur II B-C sites. And in a recent publication Allchin and Allchin have pro-
posed the use ofthe term "local Harappan?" instead of"Sorath Harappan'") A
later Gazetteer" distinguished Rangpur II B as Sorath Harappan, II C as Late
Sorath Harappan and Period III as the Lustrous Red Ware category."

40. G.L. Possehl and C.F. Herman, op.cit.

41. G.L. Possehl and M.H. Raval, op.cit., p. 13.
42. K.K. Bhan, "Late Harappan Gujarat", The Eastern Anthropologist, Vol. 45, Nos 1-2 (1992),
p. 174.
43. C.F. Herman and K. Krishnan, "Micaceous Red Ware: A Gujarat Proto-Historic Cultural
Complex or just Ceramics?" in A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio, ed, South Asian Archaeology
1993, Vol. i (Suomalainen Tideakatemia, Helsinki, 1994), pp. 225-43.
44. B.B. Lal, The Earliest Civilization ofSouth Asia: Rise. Maturity and Decline (Aryan Books
International, New Delhi, 1997), pp. 154-56.
45. M.K. Dhavalikar, Cultural Imperialism-s-Indus Civilization in Western India (Books and
Books, New Delhi, 1995), pp. 30-39; idem, Indian Protohistory (Books and Books, New
Delhi, 1997).
46. B.Allchin and R. Allchin, Origins ofa Civilization - The Prehistory and Early Archaeology
ofSouth Asia (Viking - Penguin India, New Delhi, 1997), pp. 160-61.
47. G.L. Possehl, "Harappan Sites in Gujarat Compiled" (unpublished, 1991).
48. Now new evidence has been obtained from sites in north Gujarat. Certain ceramrc fabrics
have been taken to represent a regional non-Harappan chalcolithic tradition, termed as
"Anarta tradition" (V.H. Sonawane and P. Ajithprasad, "Harappan Culture In Gujarat",
Mall and Environment, Vol. XIX, Nos 1-2, 1994, p.135). These non-Harappan wares are
the Gritty Red Ware, Fine Red Ware, Burnished Red Ware and Burnished Grey/Black Ware.
This "Anarta tradition" is suggested to have continued for almost 2000 years starting from
the fourth millennium B.C. up to the second millennium B.C. (ibid., pp. 136-37). Two
radiocarbon dates from the site of Loteshwar are cited as evidence corroborating such an
early occupation. These dates are 2921 and 3698 B.C. (calibrated). Other early regional
chalcolithic traditions cited are the Micaceous Red Ware Culture and the Black-and-Red
Ware in the Bhal region, the "Padri Ware" and the Pre-Prabhas tradition (characterized by
four ceramic types - Red Ware, Incised Red Ware, Black-and-Red Ware and Grey Ware)
froru coastal Saurashtra. the Sorath Harappan tradition in central Saurashtra, and non-
Harappan ceramic styles from Dholavira and Surkotada (ibid., pp. 130-34). Apart from
these, the burials excavated at Nagwada, Santhli, Mota Pipli and three other unspecified
sites are considered to have ceramics affiliated to "pre-Harappan" levels at Amri, Balakot,
Kot Diji, Nal and Damb Buthi, Links were also traced to burials at Surkotada (ibid., p. 136)"
A significant aspect of the evidence from north Gujarat is the issue of the "pre-Harappans"
In Kutch. Kathiawar and north Gujarat. Joshi (J.P. Joshi, "Fresh Light on the Archae-
ology of Kutch", in S.B. Deo, ed, Archaeological Congress and Seminar Papers, Nagpur

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

10 The Indian Historical Review

The trend of studying the Harappan culture in Kathiawar has been in

terms oflooking for a continuity and highlighting similarities with the Harappan
elements. Another aspect of the Harappan culture that was projected was its
assumed uniform nature. Piggott" was the first to highlight the absolute uni-
formity in the material remains ofthe Harappan culture. Reiterating this, Rao
considered the most striking feature ofthe Indus civilization as its homogene-
ity." However, early in the history ofHarapp an research, Wheeler pointed out
that "the so-called uniformity ofthe Harappan culture in depth has been exag-
gerated and is due as much to archaic methods ofresearch as to any inherent
conservatism in the ancient craftsmen"." Similarly, though the variations in the
University, Nagpur, 1972, p. 26) was the first to point out similarities in a red ware with
black and white paintings at Surkotada (Pd. I) with "pre-Harappan" pottery of Kalibangan.
Rao (S.R. Rao, Lothal and the Indus Civilization, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1973, p.
43) identified three groups of pre-Indus chalcolithic communities represented by the Mica-
ceous Red Ware at Lothal and Rojdi, Coarse Grey Ware at Prabhas and a well finished red
ware decorated with thick black bands at Desalpur resembling the Kot Diji ware. In relation
to Rangpur, Pandya (S. Pandya, op. cit., pp. 59-63) had speculated on the possibility of
chalcolithic communities preceding the Harappan occupation. Other sites with resemblance
to Kot Diji or Kalibangan Ware were Surkotada and Khirasar in Kutch (S.R. Rao, Dawn and
Devolution ofthe Indus Civilization, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi, 1991, p. 107). At Khirasar
was also identified the Amri Buff Ware (ibid.).
Burials were excavated at the site of Nagwada in north Gujarat and the associated
pottery has been compared with the pottery of the upper pre-Harappan levels at Amri,Nal
and Kot Diji (K.T.M. Hegde et al, "Excavations at Nagwada 1986-1987: A Preliminary
Report", Man and Environment, Vol. XII, 1988, pp. 58,60-62). It was also suggested that
the pre-Harappans migrated from Sind via Rajasthan into north Gujarat.
At the site of Dholavira (R.S. Bisht, "Dholavira: New Horizons of the Indus Civiliza-
tion", Puratattva, Vol. 20, 1989-90, p. 76) excavations revealed a 60-70 ern thick deposit
over sterile strata. This was considered to represent a non-Harappan or pre-Harappan
occupation, on the basis of stratigraphy. Two significant features serve as evidence for craft
working along with copper tools and the presence of fortification.
Adding the evidence from Nagwada and Dholavira to Rao's hypothesis as well as
accepting the early dates from Prabhas Patan, Dhavalikar and Possehl (M.K. Dhavalikar
and G.L. Possehl, "The Pre Harappan Period at Prabhas Patan and the Pre Harappan Phase
in Gujarat", Man and Environment, Vol. XVI, No.1, 1992, pp. 71-78) suggest pre-Harappan
occupations in Kutch, Kathiawar and north Gujarat. Of all these chalcolithic traditions, it is
suggested that Nagwada is the only one to have links with the "Early Harappan" tradition
at Amri. This link is explained on the basis of movements ofpastoralists from Sind to north
Gujarat. At Padri, recent excavations suggest a pre-Harappan phase below the so-called
Harappan deposit (V.S. Shinde and E. Thomas, f.f.A Unique Harappan Fishhook from Padri,
Gujarat", Mall and Environment, Vol. XVIII, No.2, 1993, p. 145).
Thus Sonawane and Ajithprasad have continued in the vein of Rao (op. cit., 1973,
1991), Pandya (op. cit.) and Dhavalikar and Possehl (op. cit.). However, the evidence for
"pre-Harappan occupations in Kutch, Kathiawar and north Gujarat is at the present junc-
ture too sparse to be conclusive".
49. S. Piggott, Prehistoric India to J000 B.C. (Penguin, London, 1952), p. 138.
50. S.R. Rao, op. cit., 1973, p. 5.
51. R.E.M. Wheeler, The Indus Civilization (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, first
edition, 1953), p. 71.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 11

assemblage ofthe Harappan culture in Kathiawar were recognized by most schol-

ars, only some" have speculated on the possibilities ofperhaps more than one
cultural tradition. This variation was also sought to be understood by Possehl, yet
at the same time it was seen within the frame ofthe Harappan cultural tradition."

Such a continuity was first emphasized by Wheeler when he stated that

the Indus culture was "not obliterated but was transmuted into successor cul-
tures"." Being deeply influenced by the notion ofa spreading civilization he
believed that the Indus civilization extended into large parts ofIndia. Hewrote :

...the spread ofcivilization in India assumes a logical shape: begin-

ning with the fertilisation ofmiddle eastern ideas along the north-
west coast and up the Indus valley about the middle ofthe third
millennium; then spreading southwards, on the one hand, as far as
the Narbata estuary and overflowing from the upper Punjab on
the other hand through the Panipat-Delhi corridor into the great
plains of the Ganga-Jumna doab in the first quarter of the first
millennium B.C. and later between the fifth and third centuries B.C.
percolating eastwards to the Ganges estuary and southwards
amongst the chalcolithic communities ofcentral India."

This attempt at noting a continuity not only in succeeding cultures in

Kathiawar but also in later chalcolithic and iron age cultures outside Kathiawar
was simultaneously brought out by Subbarao" as also by Fairservis" and RaO. 58
The Harappan culture has been attributed as a source for the chalcolithic
cultures of central India and the Deccan by both Dhavalikar" and Shinde."

52. H.D. Sankalia, op. cit.; Pandya, op. cit.: Sonawane and Ajithprasad, op. cit.
53. This concept ofa "Harappan/Indus Valley cultural tradition" implying a long-term continu-
ity has been further developed by Shaffer (lG. Shaffer, "Indus Valley, Baluchistan and
Helmand Traditions: Neolithic through Bronze Age", in R.W. Ehrich, ed, Chronologies in
Old World Archaeology, Vol. I, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, third edition, 1992).
He conceived of three eras within the Harappan cultural tradition. These were regionalization,
integration and localization eras.
54. R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit., 1959, p. 117.
55. Ibid., p. 137. l

56. B. Subbarao, op. cit., pp. 96, 101.

57. W.A. Fairservis, op. cit., p. 63.
58. S.R. Rao, op. cit., 1973, p. 19.
59. M.K. Dhavalikar, "Early Farming Communities of Central India", Man and Environment,
Vol. XIX, Nos 1-2 (1994), p. 168.
60. V. Shinde, "The Deccan Chalcolithic: A Recent Perspective", Man and Environment, Vol.
XIX, Nos 1-2 (1994), p. 177.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

12 The Indian Historical Review

Ghosh,61 however, counters this viewpoint ofcontinuing cultural affiliations and

taking the case ofthe early historical urbanism shows that it had no links with the
Harappan urbanism. Agrawal'? and Bharadwaj'" have noted that there is no
continuity in copper metallurgy between the Harappan culture and the succeed-
ing chalcolithic cultures. There appear to have been differences in both typology
and manufacturing techniques. Thapar also finds no link between the Harappan
culture and the later chalcolithic cultures in Sind, Baluchistan, Punjab, Ganga-
Yamuna Doab, Rajasthan, Kathiawar, central India and northern Deccan."

Lal has taken the example ofKausambi to point out the dangers oftaking
only one or two elements into consideration to establish cultural continuity." On
the basis ofthe presence ofbumt bricks, an underground passage with a corbelled
arch and some pottery, the excavator found the survival ofHarappan elements
likely. Lal, however, did not find that the burnt bricks corresponded in size to the
Harappan bricks." The claim offinding "button-based goblets" and "beakers"
was refuted as these artefacts were after examination by Lal and others consid-
ered to be totally different ceramic types. According to Lal :

How is it that only these two isolated features (fortification and

drain) reached Kausambi without the brick sizes about which the
Harappans were so meticulous allover their area of thousands
and thousands of square kilometres? And even if one were to
overlook this point, there are much more important issues that stand
out: what about grid-patterned town planning? And even if one
ignores this, what about the other elements which gave the Indus
civilization its urban character; like the seals and sealings and
weights and measures? None of these have been found at

61. A. Ghosh, The City in Early Historical India (Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla,
1973), pp. 73-85.
62. D.P. Agrawal, The Copper Bronze Age of India (Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi,
1971), pp. 204-05.
63. H.C. Bharadwaj, Aspects ofAncient Indian Technology (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1979),
p. 106.
64. B.K. Thapar, "The End of the Indus Civilization and its Aftermath", in U.V. Singhed,
ArchaeologicalCongress and Seminar Papers (Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra,
1976), pp. 1-4,
65. B.B. Lal, "West was West and East was East, but When and How did the Twain Meet?
The Role of Bhagwanpura as a Bridge between Certain Stages of the Indus and Ganges
Civilizations", in G.L. Possehl, ed, Harappan Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective
(Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, 1982).
66. Ibid., p. 336.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 13

Kausatnbi- nor at any ofthe other sites excavated in that region

(for example, Sravasti, Ayodhya, Sringverpura, Rajghat, etc.). To
say that all these items had eluded the spade would be placing too
much credence on chance. To be precise, whatever the future
might have to reveal, let it be plainly admitted that in the present
state ofknowledge, Indus urbanism did not reach the heart ofthe
Ganges valley."

II

It is thus-imperative now that a much more rigorous understanding ofthe

concept ofthe Harappan culture is called for. The earlier discussion has made it
clear that too much emphasis has been laid on the establishment ofa continuity
ofthe Harappan cultural tradition. However, to really understand the cultural
processes, the so-called Sorath/Late Harappan cultures have to be studied as
distinct entities.

In order to obtain some clarity, it is necessary to understand the compo-

nents that make up the Harappan archaeological assemblage. According to
Clarke," an archaeological culture can be understood in terms ofattribute, arte-
fact, type and assemblage.

Attribute is the smallest unit and a group ofattributes constitutes an arte-

fact. Attributes can be of"all kinds and states, reflecting aspects of raw mate-
rial, shape, size, detail, and location ofdetail" 69 0

Artefacts have generally been divided into "artefact-types" or "families".

Clarke has noted that "artefact-types are conceived ofdetailed sets of similari-
ties between numbers of artefacts such that the degree of similarity between
artefacts within the type group is greater than any similarity between artefacts
in separate type groups". 70 Artefact-types can be further refined into sub-types.
Considerable ambiguity has also arisen over the use ofthe word "type". A typi-
cal artefact can be the most common or frequent form of artefact in an assem-
blage or it can be "so rare and so peculiar as to be confined to this group and
therefore used as a diagnostic 'type fossil' ".71

67. Ibid., p. 337.

68. D.L. Clarke, Analytical Archaeology (Columbia University Press, New York, 1978).
69. Ibid., p. 208.
70. Ibid., p. 207.
71. Ibid., pp. 27-28.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

14 The Indian Historical Review

An archaeological assemblage has been defined as "an associated set of

contemporary artefact-types"." Cultures are clusters ofassemblages. Clarke"
has listed four characteristics of the assemblage that can be grouped into a
culture: that a large number ofspecific artefact-types should be shared between
different sites though each site need not have all the types; artefact-types should
indicate a comprehensive selection from most spheres ofactivity; there may be
varying combinations ofthe same specific artefact-types; component assem-
blages must come from a limited, defined and continuous geographic area and
period oftime.

It is striking that in South Asian archaeology, little attempt has been made
to rigorously go into the details ofattributes and artefact-types. Many artefact-
types and type fossils have been chosen more on the basis of intuition than
through a method ofcareful selection. For example, no specific attributes ofthe
Harappan long chert blades or copper objects are indicated in any study. An-
other tendency has been to classify pottery primarily on the basis ofone or two
attributes alone. Thus the four important pottery types representing the so-called,
"Anarta tradition" in north Gujarat are: Gritty Red Ware, Fine Red Ware, Bur-
nished Red Ware and Burnished Grey/BlackWare. All these pottery types share
common shapes and decorations and are considered as belonging to a "single
pottery tradition". 74 The only distinguishing feature is fabric and surface treat-
ment or burnishing. However, Dales and Kenoyer in their study ofthe Mohenjodaro
pottery have attempted to take multiple attributes into consideration and include
body form, rim and base form, surface treatment and applied decorations, ware
description and manufacturing details." Similarly, the analysis and classification
ofthe ceramics ofKalibangan Period I have used attributes that are not only
imprecise but appear to focus primarily on fabric rather than on form." Moreo-
ver, Shaffer also notes that the term "fabric" is riot used in any major text on
ceramic studies."

An attribute which is also necessary in the analysis of any artefact,

72. Ibid., p. 245.

73. Ibid., p. 246.
74. V.H. Sonawane and P. Ajithprasad, op. cit., p. 135.
75. G.F. Dales and J.M. Kenoyer, op. cit., p. 20.
76. J.G. Shaffer, "Cultural Development in the Eastern Punjab" in 1. Jacobson, ed, Studies in
the Archaeology ofIndia and Pakistan (Oxford & ISH, New Delhi, 1986), pp. 198-99~
M.R. Mughal, "Further Evidence of the Early Harappan Culture in the Greater Indus
Valley: 1971-90", South Asian Studies, Vol. 6 (1990), p. 184.
77. 1.G. Shaffer, op. cit., 1986.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 15

including pottery," is context. Ratnagar has pointed out the need to record the
contexts of different pottery styles where they occur within the same settle-
ment. 79 This is particularly relevant for the Harappan sites in Kathiawar and
north Gujarat.

In another context, considering the Black-and-Red Ware as Harappan

has its own associated problems, Srivastava has meticulously compared the Black-
and-Red Ware from different sites in different parts ofthe country on the basis
ofshapes and other associated cultural assemblages." Differences in typology,
paintings and associated cultural equipment show that the Black-and- Red Ware
cannot be associated with anyone particular culture. According to Srivastava:

It would be hazardous to remark that the Black-and-Red Ware was

the identity card ofanyone particular community or ethnic group
which was responsible for the introduction ofBlack-and-Red Ware at
all sites in India during the course ofits movements from one place to
the other. That the ceramic is not the trait ofa single ethnic group is
also corroborated by the varying cultural contexts in which it occurred
in various parts ofthe country. 81

Due to this lack ofclarity about the attributes that make up artefact-types,
it becomes difficult to delineate artefact-types that characterize the Harappan
culture. However, certain artefact-types have been considered as part of the
Harappan assemblage such as a thick red pottery decorated with black painting,
square steatite seals with a boss, chert cubical weights adhering to a certain
standard, burnt bricks with dimensions ofa particular ratio, terracotta toy-can
frames and wheels, triangular terracotta cakes, steatite micro beads, long cylin-
drical carnelian beads, etched carnelian beads with particular treatment ofthe
surface and designs, long chert blades and so on." It was Wheeler who first
cautioned against the indiscriminate use ofthe word "Indus"." He suggested

78. G.F. Dales and J.M. Kenoyer, op. cit., p. 20.

79. S. Ratnagar, Enquiries into the Political Organization ofHarappan Society (Ravish Pub-
Iishers, Pune, 1991), p. 52.
80. K.M. Srivastava, Community Movements in Protohistoric India (Agam Kala Prakashan,
Delhi, 1979).
81. Ibid., p. 237.
82. R.E.M. Wheeler, The Indus Civilization (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second
edition, 1960), p. 50; W.A. Fairservis, "The Origin, Character and Decline of an Early
Civilization", Novitates, No. 2302 (1967), pp. 1-48, reprinted in G.L. Possehl, ed, Ancient
Cities ofthe Indus (Vikas, New Delhi, 1979), p. 77; S. Ratnagar, op. cit., pp. 9, 50, 96-105.
83. R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit., 1960, p. 50; idem, Civilizations ofthe Indus Valley and Beyond,
op. cit., pp. 86-87.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

16 The Indian Historical Review

that certain minimum requirements were needed to identify a site as belonging to

the Indus culture. This note of caution was expressed in the context of the
"provincial or late varieties ofthe Indus civilization". 84 The above artefacts need
not be the only distinguishing components ofthe Harappan assemblage, but are
shared by a large number of sites and is a fairly comprehensive list of specific
artefact-types. Artefacts such as stoneware bangles which are distinctively
Harappan are, however, found at only two or three sites and are not considered
part ofthis list. Neither are we including artefact-types that are found only in the
Kathiawar sites. These components are shared by sites allover the Harappan
cultural region. All artefact-types are not however found at every Harappan site.

In terms oflooking for a continuity ofthe Harappan cultural tradition, the

question can then be posed - what are the elements ofcontinuity in the Rangpur
II B-C period? Most ofthe specific artefact-types are found in Lothal A, while
in Lothal B, triangular terracotta cakes, etched carnelian beads and long cylin-
drical beads are missing. In Rangpur II A, seals and etched carnelian beads are
not found, but in Rangpur II B-C, further artefact-types such as cubical weights,
long chert blades, steatite micro beads and burnt bricks are absent. However, at
other excavated II B-C sites, the evidence is quite different. At none of these
sites have we found any ofthe specific artefact-types with the exception ofa
toy-cart and wheels at Vagad and Kanewal and terracotta cakes at Rojdi and
Kanewal. Steatite micro beads have been found in Prabhas II, one cubical weight
from the surface at Vagad, one chert weight at Prabhas, three weights at Rojdi
and four etched carnelian beads from Rojdi A and B. 85

Perhaps continuation of specific Harappan elements in Lothal B can be

explained by the earlier Mature Harappan occupation while at the other sites,
occupation generally began in the II B-C period.

Apart from the absent elements indicating a lack ofcontinuity, other dif-
ferences are also apparent. In the II B-C period, we can note a smaller and
more locally exploited range of raw materials used, as well as simpler styles
adopted in other artefact categories. The variety ofartefacts within a single raw

84, Ibid., p. 87.

85. S.R. Rao, Lothal, A Harappan Port Town (Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.
1985); S.R. Rao, op. cit., 1963; V.H. Sonawane and R.N. Mehta, "Vagad - A Rural
Harappan Settlement", Man and Environment, Vol. IX (1985); R.N. Mehta and K.N.
Mornin, "Excavations at Kanewal" (M.S. University of Baroda, Baroda, 1980); M.K.
Dhavalikar, HAn Early Warehouse on the Western Coast", Puratattva, Vol. 9 (1977-78);
Indian Archaeology: A Review (hereinafter JAR) (1958-59), pp. 19-20; G.L. Possehl and
M.H. Raval, op. cit.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 17

material also shrinks dramatically in this period. For example, faience was used
to manufacture miniature vessels, ear ornaments, pendants, rings, buttons, ban-
gles and beads in Lothal A. In Lothal B, faience ear ornaments, rings, bangles
and beads were found, but the major category appears to have been beads alone
for other II B-C sites such as Kanewal, Prabhas Patan, Rangpur, Rojdi and
Vagad." As far as steatite is concerned, the range ofobjects found in Lothal A
were buttons, bangles, finger rings, earrings, ear studs, broochs, ear pendants,
lids, rods, beads and seals. In Lothal B, we only find bangles, finger rings, ear-
rings, beads and seals while at other II B-C sites, only beads were excavated."

Further, an overall simplification of artefact-types is noticed in II B-C

levels. While elaborate styles like etched carnelian beads and long cylindrical
carnelian beads totally disappear from Lothal B, the variety ofshapes also dwin-
dle. For example, where carnelian beads are concerned, in Period A, subtypes
such as bicone, lenticular, cylinder and barrel in standard type and barrel, convex
cone, bicone, cylinder and oblate subtypes in disc types were found. In Period B,
however, none ofthe standard subtypes were found while in the disc type, only
barrel, cylinder and oblate subtypes were found."

Thus on the whole the evidence does seem to indicate that the differences
between the II B-C and the Mature Harappan sites were not negligible. Chrono-
logically, apart from the eighteen C 14 dates from Rojdi, we have thirteen dates
from Babarkot, Prabhas Patan, Vagad and Padri which suggest that the II B-C
sites were contemporary to the Mature Harappan period."

While the dates (ranging between 2600 and 1800 B.C.) seem to indicate
that the II B-C sites may have been contemporary to the Mature Harappan, it
may not really be valid to draw any terminological or cultural links between the
two. Moreover, is the use of labels such as "Sorath", "Sindhi" and "Anarta",
which acquire meaning (as geographical regions) only in later historical periods,
judicious?

86. S.R. Rao, op. cit., 1985, pp. 587,609-612; R.N. Mehta and K.N. Momin, Ope cit., p. 67;
JAR (1956-57), p. 16; S.R. Rao, Ope cit., 1963, p. 143; JAR (1958-59), pp. 19-20; V.H.
Sonawane and R.N. Mehta, Ope cit.
87. S.R. Rao, Ope cit., 1985, pp. 587, 612-14.
88. lbid., p.588.
89. JAR (1972-73), pp. 63-64; JAR (1973-74), p. 52; JAR (1974-75), p. 73; JAR (1985-86),
pp. 118-19~ JAR (1986-87), pp. 125-26; G.L. Possehl and M.H. Raval, Ope cit., pp. 12-13:
G.L. Possehl, "The Harappans in Saurashtra: New Chronological Considerations", Puratattva,
No. 22 (1992), pp. 25-29; G.L. Possehl. "Radiometric Dates for South Asian Archaeology"
(unpublished. 1993); V.H. Sonawane and P. Ajithprasad, Ope cit., pp. 133-36.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

18 The Indian Historical Review

We must also consider the stratigraphic evidence from Lothal and Kuntasi.
At both these sites, the Rangpur II B-C occupation clearly succeeded the Ma-
ture Harappan." It is likely that not all the Mature Harappan and II B-C sites
would have been occupied continuously for the entire period of800 years. Many
would have been occupied for shorter durations. While we may assume a broad
contemporaneity ofthe Rangpur II B-C and Mature Harappan period, it is pos-
sible that individual sites may not have been exactly contemporary. Hence, we
cannot rule out a case ofa Rangpur II B-C pre-dating a Mature Harappan site
or VIce versa.

III

The question then evolves out ofthe preceding discussion: how do we inter-
pret the character ofthe II B-C sites? Several possibilities can be suggested:

a) First, that the II B-C sites in Kathiawar represented the periphery (or a
regional subculture) to the centre that could have been Sind and Kutch;

b) Second, using Binford's" terminology that these sites indicated "func-

tional variability". Similarly, the difference between the II B-C sites and
Mature Harappan sites could be considered to signify a rural-urban
dichotomy;

c) Perhaps it also cannot be ruled out that these sites, ifcontemporary to the
Mature Harappan, may have been the embodiment ofa different culture.

During the course ofHarappan studies, Kathiawar has long been consid-
ered as peripheral to Sind and the Punjab. While so far our region has been
perceived as peripheral, Possehl categorizes some sites within Kathiawar (that
is, the Mature Harappan sites) as part ofthe "core region" and others (the so-
called Sorath Harappan sites) as part ofthe "periphery"." (In the same vein, if
we consider the II B-C sites as representing a regional subculture, then how do

90. S.R. Rao, Lothal, A Harappan Port Town, Vol. I (Archaeological Survey of India, New
Delhi, 1979), PI. XIV; M.K. Dhavalikar, M.H. Raval and Y.M. ChitalwaJa, Kuntasi, A
Harappan Emporium on West Coast (Deccan College, Pune, 1996), Figs 4.2-4.4.
91. L.R. Binford, "Intra-assemblage Variability - The Mousterian and the 'Functional Argu-
ment' ", in C. Renfrew, ed, The Explanation of Culture Change (Duckworth, London,
1973), pp. 227-54~ idem, Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology (Academic Press, New York, 1978);
idem, "Willow-smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and the
Archaeological Site Formation", American Antiquity, Vol. 45, No.1 (1980), pp. 4-20.
92. G.L. Possehl, "The Harappan Civilization in Gujarat: The Sorath and Sindhi Harappans",
The Eastern Anthropologist, Vol. 45, Nos 1-2 (1992), pp. 136-37.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 19

we come to terms with the suggested possibility of some sites being part of a
regional subculture and some as part ofthe main culture? For example, 14 sites
in Kutch and 6 in Kathiawar are considered as part ofthe main culture and 10
sites in Kutch and 140 in Kathiawar are considered as part ofa regional subcul-
ture.) According to Clarke "regional subcultures are genetically related...but
continuous branches ofa single culture which by virtue ofpoor intercommunica-
tion and growing isolation gradually develop distinctive subculture" .93 The sug-
gested coexistence ofboth types of sites within the same region does not fit in
with this idea ofisolation. Ifthis was the case, it would be pertinent to gauge the
relationship between sites in the "periphery" and those in the "core region".

Theoretically, there has been some amount ofambiguity associated with

the concept of centre and periphery." In pre-capitalist societies, centres are
considered as being "net consumers and the dominant partners in a network of
political relationships ofwhich the exchange may be the visible manifestation,
while the peripheries are the net providers and the dominated partners". 95 Other
dimensions to the periphery concept have been the prestige goods economy"
and the emphasis on local elites who rely on relations with the core region to
sustain their political position."

In the Harappan context, the raw materials that could have been supplied
from the Kathiawar region were shells and semi-precious stones. For both these
raw materials, Harappan procurement and production centres such as Lothal
and Nageshwar were established. One then wonders what kind ofrelationship a
peripheral region such as Kathiawar could have had with the "core region". The
presence oflocal elites in the II B-C sites is also not forthcoming.

93. D.L. Clarke, op. cit., p. 252.

94. M. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen, ed, Centre and Periphery in the Ancient
World (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987); T.C. Champion, ed, Centre and
Periphery (Unwin Hyman, London, 1989).
95. T.C. Champion, "Introduction", in T.C. Champion, op. cit., p. 14.
96. K. Eckholm, "External Exchange and the Transformation of Central African Social Sys-
tems", in J. Friedman and MJ. Rowlands, ed, The Evolution ofSocial Systems (Duckworth,
London, 1977), pp. 115-36; S. Frankenstein and M. Rowlands, "The External Structure
and Regional Context of Early Iron Age Society in Southwest Germany", Bulletin ofthe
Institute ofArchaeology ofLondon, Vol. 15 (1978), pp. 73-112.
97. M. Rowlands, "Centre and Periphery: A Review of a Concept", in M. Rowlands, M. Larsen
and K. Kristiansen, ed, op. cit., p. 5; D.F. Dincauze and RJ. Hasenstab, "Explaining the
Iroquois: Tribalization on a Prehistoric Periphery", in T.e. Champion, op. cit., p. 75.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

20 The Indian Historical Review

Could the II B-C sites be considered as functionally variable in character?

According to Binford the difference in the material culture between sites could
reflect variable functions rather than the presence ofseparate culture groups."
As an example, Binford has conceived ofcollectors in a hunting-gathering soci-
ety as generating different types of sites: the residential base, field camps, ob-
servation stations and caches, and also various combinations ofthese functions."

On the basis of function, Mature Harappan and II B-C sites have been
categorized as special purpose/urban and rural respectively. 100 Accepting the
contemporaneity ofthe Mature Harappan and the II B-C sites, Bhansuggests
that there were two categories ofsettlements during the Mature Harappan pe-
riod in Kathiawar. 101 The first category includes the so-called Sindhi Harappans
while the second comprises the Sorath Harappans. The first category appears
to have been "developed to facilitate administration, trade and access to raw
materials" while the second category has been interpreted as "small villages and
dry season pastoral camps engaged in millet cultivation and pastoral subsist-
ence". Ifthis was the case, then the coexistence ofurban/special purpose (II A)
and rural (II B-C) components at the site ofRangpur would be hard to explain.

A rural-urban dichotomy ofthis type is also not so easy to illustrate in the

Harappan case. Small seemingly rural settlements such as Nagwada, Allahdino
or even Nageshwar yet.reveal all the major categories ofthe Mature Harappan
material culture. As pointed out by Shaffer:

...except for obvious items ofjewellery, metal artefacts were manu-

factured for use in daily activities and were available to a broad
segment ofHarappan society, urban or rural. A similar distribution
and access to items manufactured from semi-precious stones may
also be postulated...qualitatively, there is little difference between
Allahdino and the large urban centres of the Mature Harappan
culture such as Mohenjodaro. 102

98. L.R. Binford, op. cit. (1973, 1978, 1980).

99. Idem, op. cit., 1980, pp. 10-12.
100. R.N. Mehta, "Some Rural Harappan Settlements in Gujarat", in G.L. Possehl, op. cit.,
1982, p. 168; idem, "Valabhi - A Station ofHarappan Cattle Breeders", in B.B. Lal and
S.P. Gupta, ed, op.cit., p. 228; K.N. Momin, "Village Harappans in Kheda District of
Gujarat", in B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta, ed, op. cit., pp ..231-33; K.K. Bhan, op. cit., 1992,
pp. 174-75.
101. Ibid., pp. 174-75.
102. 1.0. Shaffer, "Harappan Culture: A Reconsideration", in G.L. Possehl, ed, op. cit., 1982,
p.47.

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

The Development of "Harappan Culture" as an Archaeological Label 21

Ifall the II B-C sites are considered to be rural Harappan sites, then one
would expect most characteristic features of the Harappan material assem-
blage, particularly in the metal and stone tool kits, to be present. However, the
available evidence indicates a paucity ofsuch material.

Special purpose sites could also have been craft sites, such as Nageshwar
and Lothal. However, not a single II B-C site appears to have functioned solely
as a craft centre.

Ifthe Mature Harappan and II B-C sites were contemporaneous, can this
contemporaneity be explained by the coexistence oftwo separate cultures? Earlier
we had highlighted some ofthe differences in the material assemblage ofthe
two groups ofsites. Other significant dissimilarities can be further noted. In the
first place, the settlement pattern of the two categories appears to differ: the
Mature Harappan sites are largely located in Kutch and here too show a pro-
pensity to cluster along the northern edge bordering the Great Rann. Few ofthe
sites are located almost in a line from the Little Rann to the GulfofKhambhat,
and one further south along the coast, which is Bhagatrav. The only other three
sites in the Kathiawarpeninsula are Nageshwar at the extreme north-western
tip, Kuntasi close to the head ofthe GulfofKutch, and Rangpur. Thus, much of
Kathiawar remained outside Harappan occupation. This is not in itselfsurprising
because geographically the peninsula is relatively'an isolated entity. Being bor-
dered on three sides by the sea and on the east by a low-lying tract marked by
the Rann ofKh ambhat and the Nal depression makes this area isolated in char-
acter.'?' In contrast the II B-C sites favoured the Kathiawar peninsula. In Kutch
too the sites are located towards the western portion and are not confined to the
coast.

Thus what clearly emerges from the above is that different areas are
preferred and occupied by the Mature Harappan and the II B-C sites. 104 Even at
Rangpur different parts ofthe mound were occupied by the Mature Harappan
and the II B-C habitations. The number ofsites also rises dramatically, from 6 in
the Mature Harappan to 140 in the II B-C period.

103. lmperial Gazetteer of India, Provincial Series, BombayPresidency, Vol. II (Calcutta,

1909), pp. 346-48; C.D. Deshpande, Western India: A Regional Geography (Students'
Own Book Depot, Dharwad, 1948), p. 208.
104. S. Varma, "Changing Settlement Patterns in Kathiawar", Studies in History, Vol. 6, "No.2,
N.S. (1990), pp. 137-61; idem, "Villages Abandoned: The Case for Mobile Pastoralism in
Post-Harappan Gujarat", Studies in History, Vol. 7, No.2, N.S. (1991), pp. 279-300;
idem, "Settlement Patterns in Kathiawar from the Chalcolithic to the Early Historic
Period" (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 1997).

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015

22 The Indian Historical Review

As regards structural remains, brick architecture is almost entirely absent.

What are generally found are either rubble and stone structures (Rojdi, Prabhas
Patan) or rectangular (Padri) and circular (Kanewal, Vagad) huts. lOS One cannot
here argue for a regional preference or adaptation for stone architecture as Ma-
ture Harappan sites such as Lothal and Kuntasi have revealed brick structures. 106

The II B-C sites indicate negligible evidence for craft activity, such as
Lothal B, Kanewal, Vagad, Rojdi, Prabhas Patan and Kuntasi 11. 107 This is in
marked contrast to the Mature Harappan sites where craft production was ei-
ther a significant activity at the sites like Lothal and Kuntasi or was the sole
activity performed such as at Nageshwar. 108

Different crops seem to have been preferred by the Mature Harappan

and the II B-C cultures. While the botanical remains from Mature Harappan
sites have revealed primarily wheat and barley as staple crops, millets have
generally been found at the II B-C sites like Rojdi.'??

What appears then is that there are significant differences between the
Mature Harappan and the II B-C occupations that cannot be ignored. Mere
contemporaneity ofthe two occupations cannot simplistically imply a common
cultural tradition. As indicated, categorization on the basis ofcentre-periphery
relations or urban-rural dichotomy does not explain the kinds ofinteractions that
we would expect or the material assemblage that is archaeologically visible.
Finally, instead of looking for linkages with the Mature Harappan, what is of
crucial significance is that we should understand the II B-C sites themselves.

105. G.L. Possehl and M.H. Raval, op. cit., pp. 34-50: M.K. Dhavalikar, op. cit., 1977-78, pp.
I 00-03~ V.S. Shinde, "Excavations at Padri 1990-91: A Preliminary Report", Man and
Environment, Vol. XVII, No.1 (1992), p. 85; R.N. Mehta and K.N. Mornin, op. cit., pp,
15-18~ V.H. Sonawane and R.N. Mehta, op. cit., pp. 38-44.
106. S.R. Rao, op. cit., 1979; M.K. Dhavalikar, M.H. RavaI and Y.M. Chitalwala, op. CIt.,
1996.
107. S.R. Rao, op. cit., 1979, pp. 98-100, Fig. 15; idem, op. cit., 1985, pp. 318,499, 501, 603,
620; R.N. Mehta and K.N. Momin, op. cit., pp. 14,55-57,63,65-67; V.H. Sonawane and
R.N. Mehta, op. cit., p. 43; IAR (1982-83), p. 28; G.L. Possehl et al, "Preliminary
Report on the Second Season of Excavations at Rojdi: 1983-84", Man and Environment,
Vol. IX (1985), pp. 93-94~ J.M. Nanavati, R.N. Mehta and K.N.Chowdhary, Somnath-
1956 (M.S. University of Baroda, Baroda, 1971), pp. 75-77, Fig. 35; M.K. Dhavalikar,
M.H. Raval and Y.t\1. Chitalwala, op. cit., p. 213.
108 S.R. Rao, op. CIt. (1979, 1985); M.K. Dhavalikar, M.H. Raval and Y.M. Chitalwala, op.
cit.: K.K. Bhan and lM. Kenoyer, "Nageshwara: A Mature Harappan Shell Working Site
on the Gulf of Kutch, Gujarat", Journal ofthe Oriental Institute, Vol. 34, Nos 1-2 (1984),
pp. 67-75; K.T.M. Hegde et al, Excavations at Nageshwar, Gujarat: A Harappan Shell
Working Site on the GulfofKutch (M.S. University of Baroda, Baroda, 1992).
109 S.A. Weber, Plants and Harappan Subsistence (Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, 1991).

Downloaded from ihr.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on December 21, 2015