Chapter 4
Marappan Settlements
in Saurashtra:
Archaeological
Investigation done so far
CHAPTER 4
HARAPPAN SETTLEMENTS IN SAURASHTRA:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS SO FAR
4.1 Background
This chapter presents an overview of the researches in the varied dimensions and
trends of Harappan culture in Gujarat, especially in Saurashtra. Continuing studies and
analysis of the available data, besides new explorations and discovery of a large number
of Harappan sites have resulted in many different scenarios being suggested for these
settlements. However, scholars are unanimous that the Indus Civilization in Gujarat
considerably differs from the core areas of urban emergence in the Indus valley proper.
The foundation of the recent developments and trends in Harappan research in Saurashtra
was laid by the vigorous works of Vats (1934-35), Ghurye (1939), Dikshit (1950) and
most important of all Rao (1963) at the site of Rangpur. A long Harappan tradition was
defined at this site showing many apparent differences with that of the Harappan tradition
existing in Sindh and Punjab. Thus it reflected a major trend toward settled life in
Gujarat, especially in Saurashtra, at a point of time when the urban centers in the Indus
Valley were being abandoned.
Gujarat has been reported to have more than five hundred sites relating to the
Harappan Civilization spanning over a vast time frame from the Pre-Urban, through the
Urban and Post-Urban phases or ca. 3000-1300 B. C.(Possehl 1992) (Figure 4.1). The
history of Harappan research in Gujarat commenced in the 1930s. M. S. Vats (1936) of
the Archaeological survey of India undertook trial excavations at the site of Rangpur at
the invitation of the Thakore Sahib of the erstwhile princely state of Limbdi in the present
Surendranagar district. Vats noted for the first time materials (ceramics as well as other
artifacts) bearing striking similarity with that of Mohenjo Daro. He also pointed out some
materials to be somewhat different and suggested their “Late Period” association with
62
-
-
Figure 4.1 Map showing Major Harappan and Affiliated Chalcolithic Sites in
Gujarat
Indus Valley sites for Rangpur (Vats 1936). Subsequent excavators of Rangpur- G. S.
Ghurye (1939) and M. G. Dikshit (1950) followed basically in the lines of Vats. Ghurye
observed that the materials from Rangpur bore no similarity with any of the known sites
in the prehistorical or historical context in Gujarat or India for that matter. He therefore
named it as “Rangpur culture”. Ghurye was also the first person to point out the
occurrence of a stud-handled bowl (later determined as one of the characteristics of the
Harappan sites in Saurashtra) as a unique example affiliated to this culture, though he
misinterpreted it as a representation of cobra (Ghurye 1939).
63
-
-
The third excavation at Rangpur was undertaken by H. D. Sankalia and M. G.
Dikshit with the aim of exposing the earliest level of occupation at the site, i.e. preceding
the “Rangpur culture”. Though this aim was not accomplished, Dikshit concluded that the
pottery and other artifacts of the “Rangpur culture” are essentially different from that of
Harappan. He also went on to opine that the site was not Harappan and the pottery was a
later manifestation of the Post-Harappan chalcolithic life (Dikshit 1950). The importance
of these early excavations by Vats, Ghurye, and Dikshit lie in the proposition of “late” or
“post” or else having some “affiliation” with the Harappan. This became a major issue of
research right from the beginning of the Harappan studies in Gujarat.
These disputes were finally resolved by the three seasons of excavation carried
out by S. R. Rao from 1953 to 1956 (IAR 1954-55; Rao 1963) at Rangpur and established
the “Rangpur Sequence”. The significance of this sequence lies in the fact that for the
first time stratigraphical relation to the Mature Harappan of Mohenjo Daro with that of
layers found in a site of Gujarat was established, Not only that this sequence revealed a
gradual “evolution” of the pottery shapes of Harappan period (Period IIA) undergo
change and finally develop into the “Lustrous Red Ware Culture” (Period III) (Rao
1963). At the same time, the sequence showed that the end of the Harappans was not
abrupt, but gradually transformed. Whether such transformation can be called
“degeneration” or “evolution” needed further consideration at that point of time.
During the years 1954 and 1958 Rao, P. P. Pandya and J. M. Nanavati had located
some eighty-eight Harappan and Harappan affiliated sites all over Gujarat (Rao 1963a,
Pandya 1954). Later in spite of extensive surveys, they could not locate further Harappan
sites along the Wadhwan Gateway (narrow passage between Surendranagar and
Viramgam), nor along the upper reaches of the Sabarmati river, connecting Saurashtra
and mainland of Gujarat, Or along the eastern and southern shores of the Little Rann of
Kachchh (Rao 1963a). He therefore concluded that the north-eastern, northern and central
parts of Saurashtra did not come under the influence of the Harappans (Rao 1963a). Till
that time only six Harappan sites had been located - Desalpur and Navianal in Kachchh;
64-
-
Lothal, Koth, Rangpur and Bhagatrav around the Gulf of Khambat. However, a number
of small Late Harappan sites were discovered along the western and southern coastlines
of Saurashtra: Amra, Lakhabawal, etc. in Jamnagar district; Kinderkhera, Somnath
(Prabhas Patan) in Junagadh district; Kanjetar in Amreli district; Mehgam, Telod in
Broach district, etc. The distribution pattern of these sites led Rao (1963a) to infer that
the Harappans followed a sea-route to Gujarat; whereby they first settled on the coast,
and only in the later phases moved further interior into the Saurashtra peninsula.
This theory of Rao was contradicted by the fresh survey of Kachchh by J. P. Joshi
in the mid 1960s onwards, who successfully located numerous Harappan and postHarappan sites in the area (Joshi 1966; 1972a; 1972b; 1976; Sankalia 1968; Gupta and
Pandya 1980; Soundrarajan 1984). Thus the region of Kachchh was recognized as the
corridor for the Harappan movement connecting Sind and Gujarat.
In the 1970s, extensive surveys were carried out in various parts of Gujarat by the
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, The M. S. University of Baroda, in
collaboration with the Archaeological Survey of India. The survey stretched far and wide
across the state of Gujarat, extending from the Mehsana and Surendranagar districts of
North Gujarat (LAR 1978-79; 1982-83; Hegde and Sonawane 1986; Bhan 1989;
Sonawane 1990); the Panchmahals (Sonawane 1974; 1976), Banskantha (Parikh 1977),
Kheda or Khaira (Momin 1974; 1976a; 1976b; 1979; 1984) districts of central and
southern parts of the state; even to the Jamnagar (Bhan 1983; 1986) and Rajkot
(Chitalwala 1979) districts of Saurashtra. In addition to this G. L. Possehl (1977b; 1980)
surveyed parts of the Bhavnagar district. Broadly speaking, almost all the districts of
Gujarat were surveyed, except the south-eastern districts along the coast of the mainland.
The significance of the newly discovered sites is, in spite of their small size with
low rising mounds, that they indicate the existence of a large network of rural economic
base in Gujarat. On the other hand, discovery of extremely large settlement at Dholavira
(also known as Kotadi or Kotada) in Kachchh (Joshi 1972) and subsequent excavations at
65-
-
the site (Bisht 1989a; 1989b; IAR 1984-85) and a relatively smaller site at Surkotada
(Joshi 1972a; 1972b; 1973; 1974; 1979; 1990; IAR 1970-72) revealed the purely urban
character corresponding to the Mature phase of the Harappan Civilization aroused
attention among archaeologists. Besides re-excavations at the site of Prabhas Patan
between 1971 and 1977 (Sankalia 1974) and even later (Dhavalikar 1984b), Rojdi
(Possehl et. al. 1984; 1985; 1989), in Saurashtra are of immense importance. Further at
the site ofNagwada (Hegde et. al. 1988) in North Gujarat, pottery comparable to the preHarappan levels at Amri, Nal and Kot-Diji were not reported. The association of a
painted black-on-red pottery in the pre-Prabhas levels at Prabhas Patan and the evidences
from Nagwada confirmed the presence of village farming communities in Gujarat prior to
the actual migration by the Harappans during the Mature or Urban phase. Thus in the
light of above facts D. P. Agrawal’s (1971; 1982) observation that Gujarat falls within
peripheral zone, where the Harappan culture underwent a transition due to the shifting
phenomenon induced either by nature or intruders, cannot be completely accepted.
With the discovery of a large number of Harappan sites all over Gujarat, the
Harappan presence was proved beyond doubt. The newly excavated settlements and
surveyed sites provided guide fossils on the basis of which the “Rangpur Sequence” came
to be evaluated. Several anomalies were brought forth regarding the interpretation of
Rao’s four fold sequence at Rangpur. Misra (1965) points that the majority of pottery
from Phase IIA and IIB is basically the same; hence both phases are in fact part of the
same cultural deposit. Possehl (1980), on the other hand, does not differentiate between
Rangpur IIB and IIC. The dates were later rearranged by Rao himself by making them
consistent with the then calibrated radiocarbon dates (Rao 1979) in order to put them on
surer chronological footings. However, in spite of the criticisms, Rangpur remains a keysite for all Harappan researchers.
4.2 Chronological Framework
Possehl from the results of his extensive and systematic surveys in Saurashtra
developed a system of terminology to assist with the organization of the archaeological
66-
-
record of the Indus Civilization (Possehl 1977; 1980; 1992). This was the notion of PreUrban phase preceding the more well-known Urban, or Mature Harappan as evidenced
from MohenjoDaro, Harappa, Chanhu Daro, Kalibangan and Lothal. The Urban Phase is
then followed by a Post-Urban Phase, intended thereby to do away with the confusing,
often misused notion of a “Late Harappan”. This encompasses the period following the
principal urban occupations at MohenjoDaro, Harappa and other Urban Phase sites,
coincident with the period of literacy and the making of the Classic Indus stamp seal
(Possehl 1992). Possehl (1992) has mentioned that the Pre-Urban, Urban and Post-Urban
Phases are not necessarily time periods throughout the entire Harappan region.
Contrastingly, M. R. Mughal rejects the terms “Pre-Urban”, “Urban” and “PostUrban” Harappan proposed by Possehl. He prefers to use the terms “Early”, “Mature”
and “Late” arguing that these express better chronological position, cultural continuity as
well as the character of specific archaeological materials (Mughal 1990). On the other
hand, J. M. Kenoyer correlating all the major terminologies and chronological framework
of various scholars presented a model significant for comparison (Kenoyer 1991).
Following Shaffer’s (1992) terminology of cultural development in the Indus Valley, the
formative period of the Indus Civilization is referred to as the Regionalization Era (c.
5500-2600 B. C.). This era comprises of several regional cultures distinguishable from
one another on the basis of ceramics and other artifactual remains in the Greater Indus
Valley and adjacent areas, viz., Amri-Nal phase (in Sindh and Baluchistan) and RaviHakra Phase and Kot Diji Phase (in Punjab and Cholistan) etc. Recent archaeological
investigations in north Gujarat have revealed several Regionalization Era sites, belonging
to the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and chaicolithic food producers (Ajithprasad and
Sonawane 1993; Sonawane and Ajithprasad 1994; Bhan 1994; Hegde et. al 1989).
The “Mature Harappan” period that is generally discussed has been described by
Kenoyer as the Integration Era (c. 2600-1900 B. C.). This era is nomenclatured so due to
the fact that most of the regional cultures of the Greater Indus Valley and adjoining
regions, including Gujarat had integrated into a geographically expansive urban society.
67
-
-
One of the most significant features of the Integration Era for the present study is the
appearance of the Harappan phase sites in Gujarat. In addition to the typical Harappan
ceramics, the presence of locally derived ones, at Harappan Phase sites in the region
suggests a considerably more complex social landscape.
The period referred to either as the “Late Harappan” (Mughal 1990b, 1992) or the
“Post-Urban” (Possehl 2002b) periods has been termed as the Localization Era (c. 19001300 B, C.) by Shaffer (1992b). This era is marked by the breakdown in the interregional
trade that had characterized the Indus Civilization during the Integration Era. Like the
Regionalization era, the main geographic regions encompassing the Harappa Phase were
again distinguished from one another on the basis of their ceramics as well as other
aspects of material culture. In Gujarat, over two-hundred sites belonging to the
Localizafion Era have been discovered (Bhan 1986, Hedge and Sonawane 1986, Momin
1984, Possehl 1980). These, according to the scholars, represent correlation to the
Rangpur IIB-III (Rao 1963) assemblages, while Rangpur IIA belonged to the Urban
phase of the Harappan culture according to the radiocarbon dates. A series of dates from
the site of Rojdi (Possehl and Raval 1989) led Possehl to argue that all the sites in Gujarat
cannot be attributed to the Localization Era on the basis of their association to the
Rangpur ceramic sequence. Bhan (1992) states that the radiocarbon dates from Rojdi
have changed the earlier interpretations. Thus the sites belonging to the Rangpur IIB-C
well fall in the time bracket of Mature Harappan, which were previously assumed to
represent ‘Late Harappan’ (Rao 1963) or ‘Post-Urban’ (Possehl 1980) or ‘Initial phase of
Late Harappan’ (Rissman 1985; Bhan 1989). Bhan (1992) further states that since the
Lustrous Red Ware was actually introduced in Rangpur IIC but dominating in Period III;
Period IIC at Rangpur marks the beginning of Late Harappan Phase in Gujarat. Possehl
(1992a, 1992b, Possehl and Herman 1990) further argues that Rangpur IIA and IIB were
contemporary to Mature or Urban Harappan Phase sites, having their beginnings in the
Integration Era. Therefore, these can be best described as a local variant of the Indus
Civilization in Gujarat, more particularly in Saurashtra - the “Sorath Harappan” (Possehl
and Herman 1990; Possehl 1992a; 1992b).
68
-
-
Jansen (1992) has put forward a different viewpoint concerning the terminologies
“pre”, “early”, “late”, “post” etc. or “Kot Diji”, “Amri”, “Harappan”, etc. used in
connection with the Harappan Civilization. He has pointed out that the former are
system-related terms whereas the latter refers to the material cultures, which have not
been distinguished precisely by scholars (Jansen 1992). The debates over the usage of
terms “Early”, “Mature”, “Late” and “Pre-Urban”, “Urban” and “Post-Urban” Harappan
has been discussed by Possehl (1977; 1980), Agrawal (1979), Dikshit (1979; 1984),
Ghosh (1982), Rao (1982), Chitalwala (1985) etc. The argument put forward by Possehl
that although the former terms mark a time-period, yet they vary from place to place,
region to region and hence is many a times misleading. Possehl (1977) had proposed this
alternative terminology for the Harappan cultural tradition using the terms “Pre-Urban”,
“Urban” and “Post-Urban” to eliminate the confusion over use of the terms Pre and/or
Early and Late Harappan. He describes the former terms as phases indicating socio­
cultural and technological development in various stages of the Harappan occupation.
The Urban phase of the Harappan Civilization has been well defined through the
presence of “type-fossils” in the material assemblage, monumental architecture, long
distance trade, craft specialization, etc. The Pre-Urban Phase may be defined as the
period preceding the Urban Phase and is marked by an absence of most of the remarkable
features of the succeeding Phase. The Post-Urban phase is marked by general economic
decline resulting in less centralized and less specialized socio-cultural framework than
the preceding Urban phase. Allchin (1990) accepts the term “Post-Urban” and states that
“it relates to the observable consequences of the breakdown of the urban structure of
society and as such suggests meaningful and demonstrable criteria for its use”. The use
of these terms has been supported and accepted by several recent scholars (Sonawane
2002; Ajithprasad 2002, Shinde 1991a, Koiso 1994).
4.3 Background to Research on Sorath Harappan
The time period from mid 1960s to 1980s ushered the era of extensive surveys
carried out by J. P. Joshi (1966; 1972a; 1972b; 1976), G. L. Possehl (1977a; 1977b; 1979;
1980; 1982; 1989), Y. M. Chitalwala (1977; 1979; 1982; 1985; 1989) and the team of
69-
-
scholars from the M. S. University of Baroda (IAR 1978-79, 1982-83; Hegde and
Sonawane 1986; Sonawane 1974, 1976, 1990; Parikh 1977; Momin 1974, 1976a, 1976b,
1979, 1984; Bhan 1983, 1986, 1989) brought to light a number of Harappan sites in
Gujarat. The new data, supplemented by radiocarbon dates countered the earlier view of
taking the Harappan civilization as unified and homogenized complex. Instead it revealed
as having a more complex character, comprising of more regional traits that gave a new
dimension to the Harappan research in Gujarat.
Analyzing the pottery assemblages from Lothal Period B and Rangpur, Rao
(1985) had opined that they were basically the same, only differing in the presence of
Lustrous Red Ware in the latter. In case of Rangpur, the presence of Micaceous Red
Ware, the Coarse Gray Ware, and the Black-and-Red Ware associated with the Harappan
Red Ware, Rao suggested that these wares represent the people who occupied the site
prior to the arrival of the Harappans (Rao 1962; 1963). Subbarao interpreting the
situation in Gujarat said that the sites represented by Lothal or Rangpur IIA are the local
Harappans or the “Kathiawad Harappans”, from which derive the “Late Kathiawad”
Harappan or the Rangpur IIB (Subbarao 1958).
It is interesting to note the observation of Wheeler in this context. Wheeler (1966)
noticed some difference in the cultural assemblage of Rangpur and Lothal, and described
as “a provincial variant of the Harappa culture” (of Indus origin). Thus, he proposed the
specific name “Saurashtran Indus” or “sub-Indus” (Wheeler 1966). Wheeler suggested
that “in one way or another, the Saurashtran Indus civilization is a provincial variant of
the metropolitan culture, with a measurable element of local enterprise and a leaning
towards the Centre and the South” (Wheeler 1966) and representing “transitional or
succeeding phases in which a faint reminiscence of Harappan modes may be suspected to
underline essentially divergent or developing cultures” (Wheeler 1968). As far as Lothal
is concerned, Wheeler was of the opinion that the earlier phase at Lothal, i.e. Period A
can be grouped as Harappan but the later phase (Period B), may be described as sub-
70
-
-
Indus. Other sites in Saurashtra including Rojdi and Somnath seem likely to reinforce the
situation at Lothal (Wheeler 1968).
Nanavati (1962) while compiling the chronology of the Harappan sites in Gujarat
known till that time, revised the earlier views and suggested comparatively later date for
Lothal. This he opined on account of his observations of several trends in the ceramic
assemblage as well as relative numbers and quality of other artifacts from Lothal. He also
mentioned about the possibility of Lothal being the regional variation of the Harappan
culture in Gujarat that may have dissociated from the parental one at an early stage and
took a new course of development (Nanavati 1962). At the same time he also stated that
in contrast to the sites in Indus proper showing a general homogeneity in the pottery,
those in Gujarat exhibit variations from site to site. Furthermore, Nanavati commented on
the situation in Gujarat as having “kindered more to the general Harappan complex of
Saurashtra rather than last phase in the Indus”, so that “the epicenters of expansion of
Harappa culture at later date were from within Saurashtra and not Indus Valley”
(Nanavati 1962).Thus the above observations indicate that by early 1960s, the idea of the
presence of some fundamental difference between the sites in Gujarat (or Saurashtra) and
Sind had began to take shape.
The stratigraphical relation of “Late Harappan” phase (Rangpur IIB) with that of
“Mature Harappan” (Rangpur IIA) revealed by the “Rangpur Sequence” of Rao (1963)
was also found at excavated sites such as Lothal (Rao 1979), Surkotada (Joshi 1990),
Bagasra (Sonawane et al 2003), etc. It was the renewed excavations at Rojdi, in the
Rajkot district (Possehl and Raval 1989), and the new calibrated dates there from, that
gave a new dimension to the Harappan research in Gujarat. Possehl indicated that the socalled “Late Harappan” of Saurashtra specifically, is not really “Late” chronologically
but contemporary with the Mature Phase (c. 2500-2000 B.C.). The two phases (Rojdi A
& B) of occupation out of the three were found to fall within the Urban phase of the
Harappan Civilization. In spite of this fact, Possehl (Possehl and Raval 1989) found most
71-
-
of the material inventory from the site to be apparently different from those at the sites of
Harappa and MohenjoDaro in the Indus Valley and Lothal and Surkotada in Gujarat.
The new calibrated dates aided in the revision of the sequence. Thus Rojdi A, B
and Rangpur IIA, IIB phases fell under the time bracket of the Urban phase, while Rojdi
C and Rangpur IIC and III (the Lustrous Red Ware phase which is incidentally absent at
Rojdi) fall under the Post-Urban Harappan. A number of sites discovered in Saurashtra
subsequent to the Rojdi excavations were found to share the material inventory of Rojdi
A, B, and C. Moreover, many of Rangpur IIB-C sites listed by Possehl (1980) also fall
into this category. Thus the ceramics as well as the other aspects of material culture from
these sites led Possehl and his associates suggest that they represent a newly discovered
regional expression of the Harappan Urban Phase in Saurashtra. They proposed to call
this new regional Urban Phase manifestation the “Sorath Harappan”, drawing on one of
the ancient names for Saurashtra. It is identified to be stylistically divergent from the
“Sindhi Harappan1” as it is known from the Urban Phase sites in Kachchh and Sind, even
Punjab (Possehl and Raval 1989; Possehl and Herman 1990; Possehl 1992a; 1992b).
The urban paradigm on which the Mature Harappan was founded, as evidenced
from the Classical Harappan sites in Gujarat and elsewhere were no longer found to be
part of the Post-Urban Harappan (Possehl 1999). The former demonstrates large,
multifunctional settlements, system of writing, weights and measures, long distance trade
and contacts with the Gulf, Africa, Mesopotamia and Central Asia. The sites in
Saurashtra or the “Sorath Harappan”, on the other hand, present a simple material
inventory and are relatively small in size. There are ‘no stamp seals, very little or no
writing (except for Graffiti on a pottery sherd from Rojdi), ornaments are not abundant
1 The term “Sindhi Harappan” used by Possehl, although originally meant to refer characteristic cultural
traits generally found associated with the Urban sites of the Harappa culture in the entire Indus valley, by
default refers only to that of the Sindh region because the word Sindh/Sindhi has regional /ethnic
connotations. The Urban Harappan features are found not only in the Indus valley proper but also in the
adjoining regions in the east, south and west. Therefore the term “Classical Harappan” which does not have
any restrictive regional connotation is used here to refer to the Urban Harappan traits.
72-
-
and no elaborate architecture’ (Possehl and Raval 1989; Possehl 1992). There are
circumvallations around some of the settlements, including at Rojdi. Hardly any human
burial has been reported from any of these sites in Gujarat although burials from the
entire range of Indus sites in Gujarat are rare (Possehl and Raval 1989). The pottery and
other implements associated with Rojdi A and B are quite different in detail from those of
the Urban phase Harappan or the Classical Harappan as represented in Kachchh and Sind
sites, although certain parallels in some of the features may certainly be drawn. However,
it appears that there existed a well developed ceramic tradition and culture at Rojdi
contemporary to the Mature Harappan phase, yet showing a distinct regional identity
(Possehl and Herman 1991).
The studies so far on the Sorath Harappan subsistence adaptation has emerged
with distinctive features of the region. The use of millets during the Harappan times in
Gujarat, especially in Saurashtra is well acknowledged. Their presence in Rojdi in all the
Harappan ceramic phases seems to push back the date for the introduction of these plants
into the western Indian subsistence economy (Weber 1989). Further it has also been
stated (Possehl and Raval 1989; Rissman 1985; Possehl and Herman 1991) the use of
millets together with the distinctive blend of agriculture and pastoralism that has been
documented for prehistoric Saurashtra is an important element in defining the life ways
of this region in ancient times. The gradual shift in the subsistence strategy from farming
to herding (or the greater tendency for mobility) in the later part of the Harappan
occupation in Gujarat has also been suggested by Bhan (1989; 1992). He drew these
conclusions on the basis of detailed study on the settlement pattern of the sites in Gujarat
and their ecological settings as well as faunal and floral evidence.
The causes of eclipse of the Harappan Civilization in Sindh marked by the decline
and disintegration of the major sites like Harappa and Mohenjodaro has been explained
by various scholars. A different perspective has also been put forward that emphasises
upon the transformation of the Harappan Civilization (Allchin and Allchin 1997; Possehl
1999). This is based on two major observations indicating the reshuffling of the
73-
-
population over the landscape and interesting shifts in the subsistence, trade and economy
(Possehl 1999), The change or transformation in the Indus life is noticeable in the
thriving settlements affiliated to the Urban/Mature Harappan Phase spread over parts of
Sindh, Rajasthan generally and Gujarat in particular. Earlier S. C. Mallik (1968) had
stated that the transition of Harappan culture as seen at Rangpur (Rao 1963) could be
interpreted as an example of reorganization and readjustment, or a process of
“indigenization”, rather than what has been called “degeneration”. F. R. Allchin
explained the situation of the Harappan settlements in Gujarat as “dispersed among those
of a regional peasant culture, and this must be presumed to have led to contacts between
the two at various levels”, which in fact was the common aspect of this civilization
(Allchin 1982).
Earlier it was assumed that the earliest agricultural communities of Gujarat were
associated with the Mature Harappan phase, i.e. c. 2600-1900 B.C. (Sonawane 2000).
However new light on this issue was shed by the evidence from the excavations at
Loteshwar (Bhan 1994, Ajithprasad and Sonawane 1993), Nagwada (Hegde et. al 1989)
and Datrana (Ajithprasad 2002) all in North Gujarat; Padri (Shinde 1992) and Rojdi
(Possehl and Raval 1989) in Saurashtra; Surkotada (Joshi 1990) and Dholavira (Bisht
1991) in Kachchh and the re-analysis of the data from Prabhas Patan (Dhavalikar and
Possehl 1992) and Lothal (Herman and Krishnan 1994). These studies have revealed that
Gujarat was already inhabited by regional non-Harappan Chalcolithic communities prior
to the Harappan occupation. K. K. Bhan (1994) observes that the non-Harappan ceramics
have been reported from the earliest levels of these sites onwards and they continue up to
the Late Harappan phase in Gujarat. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from this cultural
phase at Loteshwar, Padri and Prabhas Patan go back to the second half of the fourth and
beginning of the third millennium BC, thus making them more than half a millennium
earlier than any Harappan immigrants (Ajithprasad and Sonawane 1993, Sonawane and
Ajithprasad 1994, Sonawane 2002).
74-
-
The number of sites showing affiliation to the Harappan cultural tradition is much
more in Saurashtra than in other regions of Gujarat. Studies have revealed that the
numerical distribution of the settlements varied increasingly from the Pre-Harappan to
the Post- Harappan periods. From an analysis of the data given by various scholars (Bhan
1989; Hegde and Sonawane 1986; Possehl 1980; 1993; Dimri 1999) on distribution of
Harappan sites in Saurashtra a general perception may be thus stated - during the Preurban Harappan period there were only a few sites, followed by an increase during the
Urban/Mature Harappan period (Rangpur IIA), followed by a major increase in the PostUrban phase (Rangpur IIB-C) and then a decline in the Post-Harappan (Rangpur III).
However, such variation or change depends on the way each phase has been separated
from the other. Following the present stance of the scholars regarding the chronology of
Rangpur (Bhan 1992; Ajithprasad and Sonawane 1993; Sonawane 2000), the number of
sites in Saurashtra increases during the Rangpur IIA (Urban Phase), but does not show
any marked change in number during the Rangpur IIB (Urban Phase) into the Rangpur
IIC (Post-Urban Phase); rather there is a marked decline in the number of settlements
thereafter in Rangpur III phase. Thus the picture in Saurashtra during the Chalcolithic
period appears to be quite different. In the Rojdi C phase the number of settlements
shows a decline as well as there is a reduction in the average size and total settled area.
This is indicative of a change in the system of settlement, subsistence and socio-cultural
process, more importantly some kind of economic stability, as against all other areas of
Indus civilization (Possehl 1999; Deshpande and Shinde 2005). The analysis of small
sites in Saurashtra therefore provides evidence for the location of the sites in proximity of
a complex of resources: water, fertile cultivable land, grazing land and access to
resources of clay, wood and stone.
The relative increases and decreases in settlements were explained in terms of de­
urbanization resulting from a collapse of trade with Mesopotamia which forced people to
migrate to other resource areas, where besides agriculture, pastoralism could be taken up
as a mode of subsistence. Several other models have been put forward for understanding
the cultural change and development that took place in Saurashtra towards the end of
third and beginning of the second millennium B.C. Posshel (1992), Possehl and Herman
75-
-
(1990), Herman (1995), Verma and Menon (1999), Deshpande and Shinde (2005) state
that the Rangpur 1IB-C sites in Kathiawar (Saurashtra) represented the periphery (or a
regional sub-culture) to the center that could have been Sindh and Kachchh. Sonawane
(2004) agrees to the presence of two categories of Mature Phase Harappan sites (the
“Sindhi” and “Sorath”) in Kathiawar. The first appears to have been “developed to
facilitate administration, trade and access to raw materials”; and the second category has
been interpreted as “small villages and dry season pastoral camps engaged in millet
cultivation and pastoral subsistence”. The suggestion of Sorath Harappans being farmers
and herders with very little craft activity has also been hinted at by Possehl (1992),
reflecting on the finds from Rojdi.
Some scholars like Rao (1963), Dhavalikar and Possehl (1992), and others have
attempted to explain the continuity of Harappan tradition in Saurashtra, on the basis of
continuous migration of the Harappans from the Indus Valley. The southward expansion
of the Harappan culture into Gujarat during its Mature/Urban phase was marked by the
acceleration of the process of utilizing natural resources, by colonizing selective
ecological regions keeping an eye on its resource potentials exclusively for trade, in
varying degrees rather than acquiring the entire territory for political dominance
(Sonawane 1992). Thus earlier, it was assumed that the introduction of Harappan material
culture into Gujarat was the outcome of Harappan colonization (Agrawal 1982; Joshi
1972; Rao 1979, Sankalia 1973; Soudrarajan 1984). In the recent years, new discoveries
and reanalysis of materials from several sites have drastically changed this perception
into a more realistic cultural regionalism (Possehl and Herman 1990, Herman 1995,
Deshpande and Shinde 2005) which is closer to the ecological model proposed by
Subbarao in the 1950’s (Subbarao 1958).
The “Sorath Harappan” thus may be regarded as a useful model for explaining
changes in a regional level in the material culture in Saurashtra during the Harappan
times. Yet, it poses a few difficulties concerning its integration into the larger Harappan
cultural frame. D. P. Agrawal (1993) commenting on the “Sorath Harappan” of Possehl
76-
-
suggested that the term “Sorath Culture” seems to be more appropriate, since at sites like
Rangpur and Rojdi, a different cultural assemblage perhaps evolving out of local roots
going back to the Pre-Prabhas or some other Neolithic culture, presently unknown, is
provided. With its chronological position being well defined, as mentioned above, the
cultural attributes, other than pottery, need further clarification.
In the following chapters, the findings from the Sorath Harappan site of Jaidak
(Pithad) in the Jamnagar district of Saurashtra have been described in detail. The study of
these features at Jaidak has been undertaken in the light of corresponding Harappan
cultural traits unearthed in sites of Rangpur, Rojdi, Kuntasi, Lothal, and Bagasra in
Saurashtra and Surkotada in Kachchh. The present survey is significant in understanding
the full extent of the Sorath Harappan cultural traits and providing an insight into its
individuality within the broader framework of the Harappan cultural milieu.
77-