Paper presented in the International seminar on the "First Farmers in Global Perspective', Lucknow, India, 18-20 January, 2006
Early Farming Cultures of Saurashtra : Their contributions to
the Development of Regional Harappan Culture
Prabodh Shirvalkar and Vasant Shinde
Introduction
The discovery of the site of Harappa made a great
impact on the history of Indian subcontinent in early
twenties of the last century. The subsequent
excavations and explorations in various parts of
Pakistan and India confirmed the presence of
Harappan Civilization and its chronological position.
After the discovery of new civilization many
excavations were undertaken, the main concentration
of the researchers was the big and major sites. The
most focused sites of the Harappan culture are
Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, which are used as the
reference sites for the study of the other sites. "Non-
Harappan material found stratified below the ""Mature''
Harappan remains was regarded as "Pre-Harappan'.1
Various theories about the origin of the civilization
have been formulated by a number of scholars right
from its discovery. Foreign origin theories have taken
backseat now and the indigenous development theory
is getting more and more support in the form of
archaeological evidence. The excavations at
Mehrgarh,2 Nausharo3 and Kot-Diji4 proved immensely
important for the indigenous development theory.
These excavations were able to show the cultural
development within the site as well as within the
Received : 15 February 2008; Revised: 12 March 2008
Indus-Saraswati plains. The landmark work of Raffique
Mughal5 dealing with the ceramics from different
sites, which were earlier reported as pre or non-
Harappan turned out to be early Harappan, showing
the continuity in cultural assemblage. This was a
major change in the approach towards the Harappan
origin and chronology.
As the excavations and explorations, continued new
data kept emerging. Taking into consideration the
distribution of sites, location of important cities and
towns Possehl6 tried to understand the internal
structure of the Harappan cultural landscape. With
this aim, he developed the concept of Harappan
domains. These domains are the points of cleavage
between major geographic features.
The Region of Gujarat
Possehl's7 Southern domain on ecological grounds
has four parts- Saurashtra, Kachchh, southern Gujarat,
and northern Gujarat. The entire Gujarat occupied
by the Harappans comes under semi-arid zone.
The excavations at "Vallabhipur' was the first Harappan
site excavated in 1930, archaeologically proved the
importance of Gujarat though known for a long
izkX/kkjk] vad & 18
period. In 1934 Pandit M.S. Vats of the archaeological
Survey of India examined some mounds around
Limdi in the present Surendranagar district. He laid
three trenches at Rangpur, where he identified some
ceramic assemblage belonging to the Indus cultural
period. Due to his new discoveries the extent of
Indus culture was pushed up to the Kathiawar or
the present Saurashtra.8 Further it was excavated by
G.S. Ghurye in 1936. He excavated six trenches. He
says, ""as far its ornamentation is concerned, would
appear to link it up with Baluchistan and with Amri''.9
Then again in 1947 the site was excavated by M.G.
Dixit of Deccan College, Pune with the intentions of
reaching the virgin soil and to find out the Pre-
Harappan levels. He divided the total assemblage
into three phases: Phase I as the formative period of
Rangpur culture, Phase II as maturation of Rangpur
culture and Phase III shows the last phase of Rangpur
culture. The painted motifs in all the phases are
predominantly geometric and confined to the rim,
neck and belly. He totally disagreed with the views
of M.S. Vats that it belonged to the Harappan period.
He put forth that there were many differences within
the two ceramics as well as the painted designs. He
assigned this phase to the Post-Harappan phase.10
Again the Department of Archaeology, Govt. of India
excavated the site from 1953 to 1956 under the
leadership of S.R. Rao. The excavated material showed
and proved Rangpur as a true Harappan settlement.
The most important contribution was the establishment
of cultural sequence starting with the true Harappan
culture to its degenerated form, i.e. the Lustrous Red
Ware culture. During the period of excavation intensive
explorations were carried out in Saurashtra, Kachchh
and some parts of Mehasana and Surat. S.R. Rao
was able to find out eighty five sites of mature or
late Harappan affinity. His explorations also brought
216
to light the famous site of Lothal.11
S.R. Rao excavated the site of Lothal from1955 to
1962. The excavations revealed true Harappan
settlement with citadel area and lower town. The
most important discovery was that of the dock yard
though it was criticized and still remains a question
mark. A different ceramic assemblage below the
Harappan levels was identified in this excavation for
the first time. This ceramic tradition was designated
as the Micaceous Red Ware Culture.12 In 1955-57,
M.S. University of Baroda excavated the site of
Prabhas Patan, which was re-excavated by the
Gujarat state Dept., and Deccan College. During this
excavation Pre-Prabhas levels were identified.13 The
site of Rojdi was first excavated by Pandya in
1957-59 then by Dhaky in 1962-65 and again
from 1982-86 it was excavated by the Pennsylvania
University where G.L. Possehl for the first time
developed his concept of "Sorath Harappan' to
distinguish pottery assemblage from the Sindhi
Harappan pottery style.14 In 1964 J.P. Joshi of
A.S.I. started explorations in Kutch Dist. particularly
in the northern area close to Sind. He brought to
light 25 Harappan and post Harappan sites along
the Rann of Kutch including the important site of
Surkotada.15 The site of Padri in Bhavnagar district
was excavated by V.S. Shinde of Deccan College
between 1990-95 and brought to light the new
ceramic called Padri Ware.16 Since 1995 M.S.
University of Baroda began excavating the site of
Bagasra where the pottery belonging to the classical
Harappan, Sorath Harappan and Northern Gujarat
Anarta tradition was recovered.
The most important excavated sites of the early
period show that during the latter half of third
millennium B.C. there were Pre-Harappan Chalcolithic

communities living in small villages having agro-
pastoral economy. There are different Pre-Harappan
cultures in Saurashtra i.e. Padri, Pre Prabhas and
Micacious Red Ware and in North Gujarat there is
Anarta culture (Map 1). The ceramic traditions of
these cultures are as follows:
Micaceous Red Ware culture: S. R. Rao first reported
the ware of this culture from Rangpur and later on
from Lothal. The main types were round-bottomed
jars, bowls and convex sided bowls with stud handle.
The decorations were done in black over a light red
surface. They include plant motifs, horizontal, zigzag,
loops and intersecting lines. The evidence of Pre-
Harappan occupation of the village at Lothal is
Map. 1 Distribution of Various Chalcolithic Traditions
Prgdhr, No. 18
provided by the utter scarcity of Harappan pottery
and exuberance of the Micaceous Red Ware in a
three-meter thick occupation debris below the present
water table.17
Micaceous Red Ware: It is fine in texture and well
fired. The slip colour varies from light red to orange.
The dominant shapes of this ware are globular jars
with flared mouth, convex-sided bowels with
featureless rim and stud handle bowels, lamp with
pinched lip and perforated cylindrical jars. The
paintings are done in black colour. The painted
motifs consists of horizontal bands, wavy lines, loops,
zig zag lines, cross hatched diamonds and groups
of dots and strokes (Fig.1).
217
izkX/kkjk] vad & 18

Micaceous Red Ware

Fig. 1. Micaceous Red Ware Culture Ceramic (After Rao 1985)

Coarse Red Ware: It is of gritty fabric. The upper

surface of the vessels have dull red colour and this
ware is generally unslipped or some times red wash
is applied. The main types in the ware are bulbous
jars with a flaring rim with rounded bottom and
bowls having flaring rim and rounded bottom. The
motifs such as horizontal lines, wavy lines, oblique
strokes and dots are executed in black (Fig. 2).
Coarse Red Ware
Black and Red Ware : The core of this ware is Fig. 2. Micaceous Red Ware Culture Ceramic (After Rao 1985)
smoky. The important shapes are convex sided
bowels and stud handle bowels, basins and the Pre-Prabhas culture: The Pre-Prabhas cultural phase
dishes. The painted designs such as dots, strokes, at the site of Prabhas-Patan is characterized by the
wavy lines and hatched circles are done in white ceramic assemblage such as Red Ware: It is hand
colour only on the interior surface (Fig. 3).18 made and has a smooth surface. It has coarse

218
 Prgdhr, No. 18

Black and Red Ware

Fig. 3. Micaceous Red Ware Culture Ceramic (After Rao 1985)

219
izkX/kkjk] vad & 18
Fig. 4. Pre Prabhas Cultural Ceramic (After Dhavlikar and
Possehl 1992)
fabric. The ware is represented by wide mouthed
jars and rarely dish (Fig. 4).
Incised Red Ware: It is coarse and without any slip.
The colour varies from red to grey. The incised
decorations are mostly bold strokes. The major shapes
are basins (Fig. 4).
Black and Red Ware: The fabric of the ware is fine
and the surface is treated with red or orange slip,
which bears high burnishing and has incipient
horizontal or oblique ribs. The forms identified from
the limited material mainly show wide mouthed jars
and a small carinated handi (Fig. 5).
Grey Ware : It is hand made and crude. The shapes
include dishes and wide mouthed jars (Fig. 5).19
220
Fig. 5. Pre Prabhas Cultural Ceramic (After Dhavlikar and
Possehl 1992)
Padri culture: The ceramic assemblage associated
with this culture is termed as Padri Ware. This
assemblage was first identified at the site of Padri.
This is a coarse ware divided in to thick and thin
varieties. The thick ware is made up of coarse clay
with lots of sand as tempering material. It is medium
thick in section and is ill-fired. This ware is
represented by the convex sided bowls with
featureless rim, deep bowls with straight or incurved
sides, and bowls with slightly everted rims. Basins
have either flat projecting or round under cut rims
and globular pots have short out turned or beaded
rims. The paintings are done carelessly in black. The
motifs include vertical or horizontal bands, group of
vertical and horizontal bands, chevron pattern, etc.
 Prgdhr, No. 18

The thin variety is finer than the thick variety. It is

made of fine clay and is well fired. The slip is thick
red. On the neck portion is a patch of buff colour
between broad horizontal bands, decorated with a
mesh pattern in black or very rarely in white. The
small squares in jali pattern are filled in with either
white or light brown colour giving Polychrome effect.
Only small globular pots with out turned rim are
found in this variety (Fig. 6).

Pink Slipped Painted Ware: It is ill-fired and thin in

section. It has Pink slip over which designs were
executed in black such as connected hatched
diamonds, oblique lines suspending from a broad
horizontal band, short horizontal strokes and a leaf
motif.

White Lustrous Ware : It has very fine fabric, well

fired and thin in section. It is treated with the white
slip on outer side and red slip on the inner side.

Bichrome: It is crude and coarse in fabric. Two slips

were applied red and white or pink.

Red Painted Ware: it has two verities viz. coarse

painted and fine ware. Former has red slip over
which paintings were executed in black such as
vertical wavy lines, cross and banana leaf pattern.
Fine variety has thin section and red wash. The
shapes in both the cases are small globular pots
with slightly concave neck and thickened out rim.

Plain Handmade Ware: It has fine and smooth surface
without any slip or designs. The shapes are wide
mouthed pots such as convex sided bowls with
slightly everted rim.20
Anarta culture: This particular culture is identified
in north Gujarat at the sites of Nagawada and
Loteshwar. The excavations at Nagawada revealed
both Harappan as well as non-Harappan pottery.
Fig. 6 : Padri Cultural Ceramic (After Shinde1998)
The typical mature Harappan type potteries like
painted and plain Sturdy Red ware and Buff Ware
were found above the burials. The non-Harappan
pottery was associated with the extended and pot
burials. The shapes in these burials include are
dish on stand, bowl, disc based globular jar, dish

221
izkX/kkjk] vad & 18
without carination and beaker. These shapes are
similar to that of upper Pre- Harappan levels at
Amri, Nal and Kot-Diji. Among the non-Harappan
pottery types, coarse gritty Red Ware and Black
and Red Ware are important. The important thing
about these ceramic traditions except Black and
Red ware is that these ceramics have been found
over a larger area and also along with different
Harappan phases. At some sites these ceramics
are not associated with Harappan or Late Harappan
showing existence of independent ceramic tradition
of north Gujarat, which is termed as "Anarta tradition'
(Fig. 7).21
Gritty Red Ware : The core of the pottery is gritty
Fig. 7. Anarta Tradition Ceramic (After Hegde1988)
222
as the name suggest due to the use of large amount
of sand. On the basis of sand particle size it can be
further divided into a fine and coarse variety. The
fine variety has a thin body and proper slip, where
as Coarse variety has thick body and thin slip or
wash. In general, Gritty Red Ware has two types of
surface treatments viz., slipped and unslipped. The
slip has shades of red, chocolate and buff or cream.
""In many specimens, while the whole vessel was
coated with a red slip, zones either at the rim, neck
or at the shoulder were applied with a cream or
white slip and then painted in a red or black
pigment''.22 Along with this pottery, buff and cream
slips are also common. The shapes in this ware
include small or medium size pot or jar with bulbous
body, elongated and constricted neck and a widely
flaring out rim also short projected out or straight
rims. Bowls have mostly convex or straight sides
with slightly incurved rims. Basins are generally with
the large open wide mouth and have slightly convex
sides and round bottom. Along with these shapes
some of the Harappan shapes are also copied in
this variety such as dish-on-stand and perforated
jars ""such imitated forms were generally made of
relatively fine clay, coated with slip and well fired so
as to look like the Harappan pottery''.23 The painted
motifs are mostly geometrical such as horizontal
parallel lines with vertical or oblique lines over it,
wavy lines, hatched diamonds, squares, circles, loops
etc. The paintings are mostly done in black as well
as use of white is also common. This ware is mostly
either hand made or made on turn table.
Fine Red Ware: It is made of fine clay. Treatment
wise as well as shapes or form wise this ware is
identical with the Gritty Red Ware.
Burnished Red Ware: It has been identified on the
basis of surface colour and decoration. The most

common shape in this category are small pots or
jars with flaring out rim, long and constricted neck,
elongated, bulbous body with round base.
Burnished Grey or Black Ware: This particular ware
is similar to Burnished Red Ware in shapes with the
only difference is of the colour.
Black and Red Ware: It is made of well levigated
clay. This ware is represented by large stud handle
bowls. On the interior of these bowls the paintings
are done in white, mostly vertical strokes, wavy
lines, dots, comb like motif etc.24
Structural Remains from Pre-Harappan Levels
Good evidence of the construction activities has
come from the site of Padri. Two structural phases
were identified as Pre-Harappan levels.
Structures of phase I are rectangular or squarish on
plan with low mud walls and probably wattle-and
daub constructions. The houses were provided with
the storage pits and the hearths inside the room.
Along with the domestic structure, there is also
evidence for the bead manufacturing area. The area
identified based on presence of number of beads in
the different manufacturing stages along with the fire
pit for heating raw material and a sand stone bead
polisher.
Phase two has complex structural activities. They
used mud as well as mud bricks, close to the ratio
of 1:2:4. The header and stretcher method of
construction was used.
The two pottery kilns were identified. The first kiln
is 2.20 m long (E-W) and 1.34 m wide (N-S) and
is 70 cm. deep. While the other kiln is of 1.10 m
diameter.
Prgdhr, No. 18
At the site of Prabhas Patan there is evidence of
wall plaster with the reed impressions suggesting
wattle and daub constructions.25
Other Cultural Material
Early Chalcolithic material shows evidence of crafts
using shell, steatite, semi-precious stones and
terracotta cakes. The lithic industry consists of
chalcedony blades and bladelets. Lothal has produced
terracotta spindle-whorls, stone bangles and shell
bangles. The lithic industry consists of short
chalcedony blades.26 A lot of evidence for craft
manufacture activities also comes from Nagwada
such as gold objects and silver ornaments, long
chert blades, terracotta triangular cakes, toy carts,
wheels, votive tanks and bull figurines.27 At Prabhas-
Patan the cultural material consists of few chalcedony
blades, steatite and faience beads.28
Subsistence
We do not have good knowledge of plant economy
during the earlier stages but the animal economy is
well established and studied at the site of Padri. It
is mostly of domestic mammalian types like Bos
indicus, Bubalus bubalis, Capra/Ovis, Rattus rattus,
Rodent bones, Marine fish, and marine gastropod.
The bones of the domestic animals are several times
more than those of the wild animals. The cattle were
dominant in the assemblage. The Padri faunal
assemblage is more or less similar with the Surkotada
in Kutch.29
Discussion
In Saurashtra and North Gujarat the dates for the
local cultures go back to 3600 BC or earlier also.
These cultures have their own pottery style but they
have similar type of architecture, craft and lithic
223
izkX/kkjk] vad & 18
industries. Around 2500 BC mature Harappan
appears on the horizon. Even then the local
Chalcolithic cultures (Pre-Harappan) and Harappan
lived together for some time. These local cultures
are Non-Harappan in nature.
""Civilization in west and east Asia rose on the
background of agricultural communities spread mainly
in the riverine plains of the Euphrates, Tigris, Indus
and Hong Ho. The early farming communities were
spread in large areas. Especially in Indian
subcontinent, in the North-west there is evidence of
continuous indigenous evolution from the Mesolithic
to the Harappan at Mehrgarh and Kile Gul
Mohammad, in Baluchistan. The regions of North
Gujarat, Saurashtra and Mewar are other important
zones in the process of domestication and formation
of village life. This region does not come under
North-Western influence but witnessed an indigenous
development''.30 That is why Raffique Mughal's31 theory
of Early Harappan can not be applied to Saurashtra.
""The productive power of food production played
critical role in the growth and differentiation of
peoples of ancient India and Pakistan''.32 The sites
of Padri and Prabhas-Patan in Saurashtra clearly
indicate the beginning of village culture going back
to middle of the fourth millennium BC. The same
evidence has come from the sites of Nagwada and
Loteshwar in North Gujarat. The similarity in ceramic
technique and mass manufacture of craft activities
""is not due to the ethnical or racial homogeneity,
but due to the contacts and mutual experiences
based on the similarity of general economy and
social conditions''.33
These early cultures are termed as Padri and Pre-
Prabhas cultures at Padri and Prabhas-Patan
respectively and they are the earliest farming cultures
224
of Gujarat discovered so far in this region. These
communities are termed variously in literature such
as "Non', "Pre' and "Early' Harappan cultures. The
term "Pre' implies to the cultural gap between the
two cultures, while the term "Early' shows the
transition or continuity. The work at site of Padri,
Prabhas Patan and a few in North Gujarat clearer
demonstrate continuity between the Chalcolithic and
Harappan. This also indicates that the early cultures
in Saurashtra have contributed to some extent in the
development of the Regional Harappan phase in
Saurasthra. These early farming cultures in the form
of Padri and Pre-Prabhas cultures were contemporary
with the Early Harappan phase. Nevertheless, in
reality there are various differences in the life style,
ceramic, eating habits, infrastructure and civic status.
Most of the Harappan material is missing at these
sites. Therefore, it is hard to term these cultures as
"Harappan cultures'.
In the light of these factors it is better to call these
cultures as independent or local Chalcolithic cultures.
This would simplify many things and provide insight
into the cross-cultural influences.
A lot of sites in north Gujarat and Saurashtra are
mostly small settlements reflecting the agro-pastoralist
way of life. In the Harappan subsistence pastoral
nomads played an important role. They can be
termed as good carriers of information because of
which Harappans were able to attend to remarkable
degree of integration.34 These pastorals who were
the suppliers of the raw material were continuously
in contact with Harappan cultures, and at the same
time were receiving Harappan material as well as
technology. Most of the settlements in the Saurashtra
are along the major rivers like Shatrunji, Malan,
Dhantarwadi, Bhadar, Kalubhar etc., which have the
fertile black cotton soil. Even the sites, which are

located on the hill topes or slopes, may be for
exploiting natural resources that Harappans required
for their productions. The emergence of towns implies
the presence of considerable number of people who
do not grow food for themselves, but work at crafts
or perform services while subsisting on food produced
mainly by the villagers. The important centres such
as Nageswar, Lothal, Kuntasi, Dholavira etc., as well
as most of the sites in Kutch are non-agricultural
sites. These sites must have survived on the supplies
of essential goods from the smaller local Chalcolithic
food producing communities like Padri, Prabhas Patan,
Nagwada, and Loteshwar etc.
Northern Gujarat and Saurashtra are not strictly the
part of the Indus system. In terms of environment
Northern Gujarat and Saurashtra are in many ways
like an extension southward, down the coastal plain,
of the environment of the lower Indus valley and the
delta. The principal sites are located either on the
estuaries of minor streams or on rocky hills or
uplands. "In spite of the close similarities to the
heartland there are indications that these sites served
as gateways to the out side world; to sea trade with
the Arabian Gulf and Mesopotamia; to over land
trade with the Ahar copper miners of the southern
Rajasthan and the agate miners of the central Gujarat;
and perhaps also trade with other communities in
the subcontinent, like a southern Neolithic people of
Karnatak'.35
It is also interesting to understand the role of sea in
the local Chalcolithic cultures. Saurashtra's physical
features suggest that it may have been an island or
group of islands. In course of time the low-lying
area once under the sea, got filled up with the river
alluvium due to lowering of sea level mostly because
of tectonic movements. Even in the foreign accounts
of Vathema 1503, Baldaeus 1672 and Alexander
Prgdhr, No. 18
Hamilton 1690-172136 mentions Saurashtra as an
island. So in that case the locational analysis of
some sites may furnish useful information about the
role played by local Chalcolithic cultures in Harappan
economy.
Using the imported technological information, these
local Chalcolithic cultures or early farming
communities also acquired some degree of
sophistication in art and craft as also the cultural
integration to some level which can be seen in the
form of similarity of architecture, craft activities and
subsistence, due to which these cultures show
tremendous amount of Harappan influence in their
remains. This kind of contact was there right from
the earliest period. The early Chalcolithic people
were in contact with the Early Harappan people of
Amri, Nal, Kot-Diji, Sothi, etc as evident from the
burial pottery at Nagwada, which mainly consist Kot
Dijian style ceramic. So a parallel indigenous
development in various regions was happening
simultaneously. Possibly due to the supremacy of
the Harappans these cultures remained subordinate.
The early Chalcolithic cultures adopted various
Harappan traits but modified them to suit their own
economy and day-to-day needs and maintained their
identity.
That is the reason we do see a lot of similarity in
their ceramic assemblage and town planning but
with regional variations. The Harappan characteristic
material like seals, sealing, tablets, script are missing
because these cultures were not so sophisticated
and did not require them to control these small
agro-pastoral rural settlements. "The vast area of
Harappan civilization involves environmental
differences which must have played a significant
role in moulding different adaptations and
organizations. Different adaptations involve different
225
izkX/kkjk] vad & 18
responses, contrasting social organizations and
occupy different positions within an integrated
civilizational system'.37 The integration of culture
also means the integration or involvement of the
different cultures for the politico-socio-economical
benefits. In such cooperative environment cultural
diffusion and adaptations of ideas are very fast.
Such environment tends to form similar societies
looking alike but even then, the differences are
bound to happen due to the natural, ecological
habitats of the people. This reflects in their diet and
other day-to-day assemblage like ceramic shapes.
References
1. Mughal, M.R. 1970. The Early Harappan Period in
the Greater Indus Valley and Baluchistan
(Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation), Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania.
2. Jarrige, Catherine, J.F. Jarrige, R.H. Meadow and G.
Quirvon (eds.) 1995. Mehrgarh Field Reports
1974-1985- From Neolithic Times to The
Indus Civilization. Pakistan: The Department of
Culture and Tourism, Government of Sindh,
Pakistan in Collaboration With French Ministry
of Foreign Affairs.
3. Jarrige, J.F. 1988. "Excavations at Nausharo',
Pakistan Archaeology 23: 149-203.
Jarrige, J.F. 1989. "Excavations at Nausharo: 1988-
89', Pakistan Archaeology 25: 193-240.
4. Khan, F.A. 1965. "Excavations at Kot Diji', Pakistan
Archaeology 2: 13-85.
5. Mughal 1970. Op. cit.
6. Possehl, G.L. 1993. Harappan Civilization: A
Contemporary Perspective. New Delhi: Oxford
& IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
7. Ibid.
226
For example the Harappans preferred wheat in Sindh
whereas in Saurashtra people favored Bajara and
Jawar. In Sindh, they were eating mostly solid food
and hence used plates more while Bajara and Jawar
requires the liquid supplementary food that's the
reason why we get more numbers of bowls in the
assemblage. These "Parallelism and differences have
to be interpreted together as stadial contemporaniety
and distinctly local cultural traits,'38 which develop
due to the combinations of various cultural streams
giving rise to the independent regional cultural
character.
8. Vats, M.S. 1934-35. "Trial Excavations at Rangpur,
Limbdi State, Kathiawar', Annual Report of the
Archaeological Survey of India 34-35: 34-38.
9. Ghurye, G.S. 1939. "Two Old sites in Kathiawar',
Journal of the University of Bombay VIII (1)
New series: 3-12.
10. Dixit, M.G. 1950-51. "Excavations at Rangpur: 1947',
Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute
XI: 3-55.
11. Rao, S.R. 1962-63. "Excavations at Rangpur and
other explorations in Gujarat', Ancient India
18-19: 1-207.
12. Rao, S.R. 1973. Lothal and the Indus Civilization.
Bombay:Asia Publishing House.
13. Dhavalikar, M.K. and G.L. Possehl 1992. "The pre-
Harappan period at Prabhas Patan and the
pre Harappan phase in Gujarat', Man and
Environment 17(1):71-78.
14. Possehl, G.L. and Rawal M.H. 1989. Harappan
Civilization and Rojdi. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH
Publication Co. Pvt. Ltd.
15. Joshi, J.P. 1966. "Exploration in Northern Kutch',

Journal of the Oriental Institute M.S. University
of Baroda XVI (1): 62-69.
Joshi, J.P. 1972. "Exploration in Kutch and
Excavations at Surkotada and New Light on
Harappan Migration', Journal of the Oriental
Institute M.S. University of Baroda XXII: 98-144.
16. Shinde, Vasant and Sonya Bhagat Kar. 1992.
"Padri Ware: A new Painted Ceramic Found in
the Harappan Levels', Man and Environment
XVII (2):105-110.
17. Rao, S.R. 1985. Lothal A Harappan Port Town
1955-62 (Vol.II). New Delhi: Archaeological
Survey of India.
18. Ibid.
19. Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992. Op. cit.
20. Shinde and Bhagat 1992. Op. cit;
Shinde, V.S. 1998. "Pre Harappan Padri Culture in
Saurashtra: The Recent Discovery', South Asian
Studies 14:173-182.
21. Sonawane, V.H. and Ajitprasad. 1994. "Harappan
Culture and Gujarat', Man and Environment
19 (2):129-139.
22. P. Ajitprasad and V.H. Sonawane 1994. "The
Harappan Culture in North Gujarat: A Regional
Paradigm': p. 7. Paper Presented in Seminar
on ""The Harappan Culture and Gujarat'' at
Pune (In Press).
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992. Op. cit.
26. Rao 1973. Op. cit.
Prgdhr, No. 18
27. Hegde, K.T.M. 1988. "Excavation at Nagawada 1986
and 1987: A Preliminary Report', Man and
Environment XII: 55-65.
28. Dhavalikar and Possehl 1992. Op. cit.
29. Joglekar, P.P. 1996-97. "Faunal Remains from Padri:
Second Preliminary Report', Bulletin of the
Deccan College Research Institute 56-57: 55-
67.
30. Shinde, V.S. 2002. "The Emergence, Development
and Spread of Agricultural Communities in South
Asia', in Yoshinori Yasuda (ed.) The Origins of
Pottery and Agriculture, pp.89-115. New Delhi:
Roli Books Pvt. Ltd.
31. Mughal 1970. Op. cit.
32. Possehl, G.L. 2002. The Indus Civilization A
Contemporary Perspective. New Delhi: Vistar
Publications.
33. Mode, Heinz 1959. The Harappan Culture and the
west. Calcutta: The Principal, Sanskrit College.
34. Guha Sudeshna 1994. "Recognizing "Harappan': A
Critical Review of the Position of Hunter-
Gatherers within Harappan Society', South Asian
Studies 10: 91-97.
35. Allchin, Bridget and Raymond 1997. Origins of a
Civilization: The Prehistory and Early
Archaeology of South Asia. New Delhi: Viking
Penguin Books India (p) Ltd.
36. Imperial Gazetteer of India, Bombay Presidency
1909(II): 340-46.
37. Possehl, G.L. 1980. Indus Civilization in Saurashtra.
New Delhi: B.R.Publishing Corporation.
38. Heniz 1959. Op. cit.
Prabodh Shirvalkar and
Vasant Shinde
Department of Archaeology
Deccan College, Pune 411006.
227