Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
* 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.
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.
... 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.
The site of Rangpur was excavated again between 1953 and 1956 by
S.R. Rao. These excavations revealed the following cultural sequence:
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
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.
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
... 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
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."
and southwards from the Indus Valley". No new views were expressed in the
1983 edition oftheir book."
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.
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."
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
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;
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).
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."
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
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 :
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.
II
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."
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.
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
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
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."
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.
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;
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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
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).