Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1: Volume 1

An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1

Language
English

Contents

Volume 1

Front matter

v1.c1.1

AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

v1.c1.2

The submitted image is entirely blank (contains no printed text, headings, figures, or page furniture).

v1.c1.3

Edited by A. GHOSH

v1.c1.4

VOLUME ONE SUBJECTS

v1.c1.5

*Prepared under the auspices of the Indian Council of Historical Research*

v1.c1.7

**Munshiram Manoharlal** ***Publishers Pvt. Ltd.***

v1.c1.8

ISBN 81-215-0087-7 (For the Set) ISBN 81-215-0088-5 (Vol. I) First published 1989 © 1989, Indian Council of Historical Research, New Delhi

v1.c1.9

Published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Post Box 5715, 54 Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi 110055, phototypeset and printed at Raj Bandhu Industrial Co., C-61, Mayapuri, Phase II, New Delhi 110064

Contents

v1.c2.1

Acknowledgements viii List of Contributors ix Introduction xiii

v1.c2.2

1. ANIMALS, DOMESTICATION OF 1

v1.c2.3

1.1 General Observations 1 1.2 Bovidae 2 1.3 Camelidae 3 1.4 Canidae 4 1.5 Elephantidae 4 1.6 Equidae 4 1.7 Felidae 5 1.8 Suidae 5

v1.c2.4

2. ARCHAEOBOTANY 6

v1.c2.5

2.1 Pollens 6 2.2 Cereals 6 2.3 Fibre Plants 7 2.4 Fruits, Nuts, etc. 7 2.5 Legumes (Pulses) 7 2.6 Oilseeds 8 2.7 Weeds and Forage Plants 8 2.8 Miscellaneous 8 2.9 Wood Remains 8

v1.c2.6

3. COINS, SEALS AND SEALINGS 10

v1.c2.7

3.1 Coins 10 3.2 Seals and Sealings 14

v1.c2.8

4. CULTURES 16

v1.c2.9

4.1 General Observations 16 4.2 Lower Palaeolithic 18 4.3 Middle Palaeolithic 26 4.4 Upper Palaeolithic 32 4.5 Mesolithic 37 4.6 Neolithic 43 4.7 Copper/Bronze Age 69 4.8 Pre-Harappa 75 4.9 Harappa 79 4.10 Late Harappa 89 4.11 Copper Hoard 91 4.12 Ochre-coloured Ware (OCW) 93 4.13 Black-and-red Ware—Upper Ganga Valley 94 4.14 Chalcolithic 95 4.15 Painted Grey Ware (PGW) 107 4.16 Iron Age 108 4.17 Megalithic 110 4.18 Early Historical 130 4.19 Late Historical 151

v1.c2.10

5. DATING, BASIS OF 164

v1.c2.11

5.1 Archaeological 164 5.2 Archaeomagnetic 168 5.3 Carbon-14, 14C, Radiocarbon 169 5.4 Numismatic 171 5.5 Palaeographic and Epigraphic 172 5.6 Thermoluminescent 174

v1.c2.12

6. DOMESTIC AND MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS 176

v1.c2.13

6.1 Awls 176 6.2 Axes and Adzes (Metallic) 176 6.3 Bells 177 6.4 Bullae 177 6.5 Chisels 178 6.6 Fish-hooks 178 6.7 Games and Amusement 178 6.8 Hammers 181 6.9 Hoes 181 6.10 Knives 181 6.11 Lamps 181 6.12 Locks and Keys 182 6.13 Masks 182 6.14 Nails 183 6.15 Needles 183 6.16 Net-sinkers 183 6.17 Ovens 183 6.18 Ploughshares 184 6.19 Querns, Mullers, Pestles, Mortars 184 6.20 Razors 186 6.21 Saws 186 6.22 Sickles 187 6.23 Sling-balls 187 6.24 Spades 187 6.25 Spindle-whorls 187 6.26 Technical 187

v1.c2.14

| 6.27 Terracotta Cakes | 187 | 11.14 | Painted Grey Ware (PGW) | 241 |
| 6.28 Vessels. Special | 188 | 11.15 | Megalithic | 243 |
| 6.29 Weights and Measures | 190 | 11.16 | Northern Black Polished Ware | |
| | | | (NBPW) and Associated Wares | 251 |
| ## 7. ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY | **192** | 11.17 | Vesiculated Ware | 257 |
| 7.1 Geochronology | 192 | 11.18 | Megarian Ware | 257 |
| 7.2 Neutron Activation Analysis | 192 | 11.19 | Amphorae | 257 |
| 7.3 Palaeoclimate | 193 | 11.20 | Arretine Ware | 258 |
| 7.4 Palynology | 193 | 11.21 | Rouletted Ware | 258 |
| | | 11.22 | Russet-Coated Painted Ware | 258 |
| ## 8. FOREIGN OBJECTS | **195** | 11.23 | Red Polished Ware | 259 |
| 8.1 Terracotta Objects | 195 | 11.24 | Rang Mahal Ware | 260 |
| 8.2 Glass Objects | 195 | 11.25 | Celadon Ware | 260 |
| 8.3 Metal Objects | 195 | 11.26 | Glazed Ware | 260 |
| 8.4 Seals. Sealings and Intaglios | 196 | ## 12. RITUAL AND CULT OBJECTS | **261** |
| 8.5 Coins | 196 | 12.1 | Amulets | 261 |
| | | 12.2 | Censers | 261 |
| ## 9. GEOPHYSICAL CO-ORDINATES | **197** | 12.3 | Cult Objects | 262 |
| 9.1 Black Cotton Soil | 197 | 12.4 | Disposal of the Dead | 265 |
| 9.2 Deserts | 197 | 12.5 | Head-rests | 267 |
| 9.3 Earthquakes | 201 | 12.6 | Mother Goddess | 267 |
| 9.4 Floods | 202 | 12.7 | Pillars (Memorial) and Sati Stones | 269 |
| 9.5 Fossil Sand-dunes | 203 | 12.8 | Relics and Relic Caskets | 270 |
| 9.6 Laterites | 204 | 12.9 | Sarcophagi | 275 |
| 9.7 Miliolites | 204 | 12.10 | Sex Symbols | 276 |
| 9.8 Quaternary Age | 205 | 12.11 | Votive Tanks | 277 |
| 9.9 River Terraces | 212 | | | |
| 9.10 River Valleys and Changes in | | ## 13. ROCK ART | **279** |
| River Courses | 213 | 13.1 | Distribution | 279 |
| 9.11 Sea Level | 215 | 13.2 | Location | 281 |
| | | 13.3 | Superimposition | 281 |
| ## 10. ORNAMENTS, GEMS, ETC. | **216** | 13.4 | State of Preservation | 281 |
| 10.1 Beads | 216 | 13.5 | Colour and Style | 281 |
| 10.2 Gems, Inlays and Intaglios | 222 | 13.6 | Relative Chronology | 282 |
| 10.3 Other Ornaments | 223 | 13.7 | Contents | 282 |
| | | 13.8 | Other Forms | 283 |
| ## 11. POTTERY | **225** | 13.9 | Motive Behind Rock Art | 283 |
| 11.1 Neolithic | 225 | 13.10 | Dating | 283 |
| 11.2 Pre-Harappa | 228 | 13.11 | Significance | 284 |
| 11.3 Harappa | 230 | ## 14. SETTLEMENTS | **285** |
| 11.4 Late Harappa | 233 | 14.1 | Ecology and Pattern | 285 |
| 11.5 Ochre-coloured Ware (OCW) | 234 | 14.2 | Amphitheatres | 292 |
| 11.6 Black-and-Red Ware | | 14.3 | Ash Mounds | 292 |
| (Non-Megalithic) | 234 | 14.4 | Asura Sites | 293 |
| 11.7 Kayatha Ware | 238 | 14.5 | Baths and Privies | 293 |
| 11.8 Prabhas Ware | 238 | 14.6 | Building Materials | 294 |
| 11.9 Lustrous Red Ware | 238 | 14.7 | Canals and Channels | 296 |
| 11.10 Malwa Ware | 239 | 14.8 | Docks and Wharfs | 297 |
| 11.11 Jorwe Ware | 239 | 14.9 | Fortifications and Moats | 297 |
| 11.12 Savalda Ware | 240 | 14.10 | Ghats | 298 |
| 11.13 Black-slipped Ware | 240 | | | |

v1.c2.15

| 14. 11 Kitchen Middens (Shell Mounds) | 298 | 16. 17 Transport | 335 |
| 14. 12 Monastic Establishments | 299 | 16. 18 Whetstones | 337 |
| 14. 13 Pit-dwellings | 301 | | |
| 14. 14 Water Reservoirs | 302 | 17. TERRACOTTA FIGURINES | **338** |
| 14. 15 Wells and Ring-wells | 303 | | |
| | | 17.1 Animal | 338 |
| 15. SKELETAL REMAINS | **307** | 17.2 Human | 339 |
| | | | |
| 15.1 Animal | 307 | 18. TOILET OBJECTS | **342** |
| 15.2 Human | 316 | | |
| | | 18.1 Antimony Rods | 342 |
| 16. TECHNOLOGY | **319** | 18.2 Caskets | 342 |
| | | 18.3 Combs | 343 |
| 16.1 Agriculture and Irrigation | 319 | 18.4 Flesh-rubbers | 346 |
| 16.2 Burnishers | 320 | 18.5 Mirrors | 347 |
| 16.3 Coins | 320 | | |
| 16.4 Crucibles | 320 | 19. WEAPONS | **350** |
| 16.5 Dies | 321 | | |
| 16.6 Faience | 321 | 19.1 Harappa | 350 |
| 16.7 Furnaces | 321 | 19.2 Copper Hoards | 350 |
| 16.8 Glass | 322 | 19.3 Later Periods | 352 |
| 16.9 Metal | 324 | | |
| 16. 10 Moulds | 329 | 20. WRITING | **359** |
| 16. 11 Potters' Dabbers | 329 | | |
| 16. 12 Pottery Kilns | 329 | 20.1 Graffiti on Pottery | 359 |
| 16. 13 Spindle Whorls | 331 | 20.2 Ink-pots | 359 |
| 16. 14 Steatite | 331 | 20.3 Materials | 360 |
| 16. 15 Stone Tools | 331 | 20.4 Scripts | 361 |
| 16. 16 Textiles | 334 | | |
| | | Index | **371** |

Acknowledgements

v1.c3.1

The Indian Council of Historical Research wishes to express its particular gratitude to Mrs. Sudha Ghosh, who traced a number of photographs and drawings for the work after her late husband had prepared the copy for publication. She also took great interest in the subsequent progress of the work.

v1.c3.2

In his work as Editor, Mr A. Ghosh was assisted by Dr Himanshu P. Ray, now at the Centre of Historical studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

v1.c3.3

Gratitude of the Council is also due to Mr B.K. Thapar, former Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, who kindly agreed to write the Introduction for this *Encyclopadeia*. This was the only part of his work as Editor which A. Ghosh had not been able to do before his untimely death.

v1.c3.4

The Late Mr H. Sarkar, former Joint Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, suggested the need for an index to Volume I, and Mr B.M. Pande, Director, Institute of Archaeology, New Delhi, had provided the detailed guidelines for the Index. The actual work was carried out by Mr S.P. Das, Senior Documentation Officer, ICHR.

List of Contributors

v1.c4.1

Agrawal, D.P., Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmadabad-380009.

v1.c4.2

Ansari, Z.D., Deccan College, Pune-411006.

v1.c4.3

Asthana, Shashi, Keeper, National Museum, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.4

Badam, G.L., Deccan College, Pune-411006.

v1.c4.5

Banerjee, N.R., Director, Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi-110036.

v1.c4.6

Banerjee, S., former Senior Technical Assistant, Archaeological Survey of India, K-2004 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019.

v1.c4.7

Banerji, Arundhati, Assistant Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.8

Banerji, K.D., former Director, Institute of Archaeology, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi-110001.

v1.c4.9

Bhardwaj, H.C., Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005.

v1.c4.10

Bhatia, Pratipal, Professor in History, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007.

v1.c4.11

Chakrabarti, Dilip K., Reader in Archaeology, Department of History, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007.

v1.c4.12

Chakravarty, D.K., Superintendent of Archaeology, Director of Archaeology, Govt. of West Bengal, 34 Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700012.

v1.c4.13

Chakravarty, L.R., Director of Research, Arunachal Pradesh, Shillong-793001.

v1.c4.14

\*Chowdhury, K.A., Professor, Archaeological Laboratory, Centre of Advanced Study, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202001.

v1.c4.15

Deo, S.B., Professor Emeritus, Deccan College, Pune-411006.

v1.c4.16

Desai, Devangana, Shanti 1/30, 19 Peddar Road, Bombay-400026.

v1.c4.17

Deshpande, M.N., Former Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, D-25 Press Enclave, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

v1.c4.18

Dhavalikar, M.K., Director, Deccan College, Pune-411006.

v1.c4.19

Dikshit, K.N., Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.20

Dutt, Pratap C., Anthropologist, Anthropological Survey of India, Calcutta-700016.

v1.c4.21

Gaur, R.C., Professor, Centre of Advanced Study, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202001.

v1.c4.22

\*Ghosh, A., former Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.23

Ghosh, Asok K., Department of Anthropology, University of Calcutta, Calcutta-700019.

v1.c4.24

Ghosh, Mallar, Research Officer, Zakir Hussain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi-110067.

v1.c4.25

Ghosh, N.C., Professor, Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Visva-Bharati, Shantiniketan-731235, West Bengal.

v1.c4.26

Gopal, Lallanji, Professor, Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005.

v1.c4.27

Gupta, K.P., Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.28

Gupta, S.P., Director, Municipal Museum, Allahabad-211001.

v1.c4.29

Hegde, K.T.M., Professor, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara-390001.

v1.c4.30

Iyer, R.K., Analytical Division, Modular Laboratories, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay-400085.

v1.c4.31

Joshi, R.V., Professor, Deccan College, Pune-411006.

v1.c4.32

Jayaswal, Vidula, Reader, Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221105.

v1.c4.33

Joshi, J.P., Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.34

Joshi, M.C., Joint Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.35

\*Khare, M.D., former Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.36

Krishnamoorthy, K.R., Analytical Division, Modular Laboratories, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay-400085.

v1.c4.37

Lal, B.B., former Chief Chemist, Archaeological Survey of India, Dehradun-248001.

v1.c4.38

Lal, B.B., former Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.39

Madhu Bala, Deputy Superintending Archaeologist,

v1.c4.40

Note: Name of contributors no longer alive are marked with an asterisk (\*).

v1.c4.41

The designations and addresses of the contributors given below are as available at the time of publication.

v1.c4.42

Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.43

^Mahalingam, T.V., Professor, Madras University, Madras-600005.

v1.c4.44

Malik, S.C., Fellow and Co-ordinator, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla-171005.

v1.c4.45

Margabandhu, C., Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.46

Mathpal, Y., Folk Museum, Mehra Gaon, Bhimtal, Distt. Nainital, Uttar Pradesh.

v1.c4.47

Mehta, R N., Professor, Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014.

v1.c4.48

*Mishra, V., Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Mid-Southern Circle, Bangalore-560002.

v1.c4.49

Misra, B.B., Reader, Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad-210002.

v1.c4.50

Misra, B N, Birla Museum, Bhopal-462001.

v1.c4.51

Misra, V.D, Reader, Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad-211002.

v1.c4.52

Misra, V N, Professor, Deccan College, Pune-411006

v1.c4.53

Mitra, Debala, former Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, Present Address: 338 Jodhpur Park, Calcutta-700068.

v1.c4.54

Mohapatra, G.C., Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Punjab University, Chandigarh-160014.

v1.c4.55

*Mukherjee, S.K, former Deputy Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Eastern Circle, Calcutta-700006.

v1.c4.56

Nanavati, J.M., former Director, Department of Archaeology, Govt. of Gujarat, Ahmadabad-380057

v1.c4.57

Narain, R V, Director of Archaeological Excavations, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi-221005

v1.c4.58

Nautiyal, K P. Department of History, Culture and Archaeology, Garhwal University, Shrinagar-246174

v1.c4.59

Nigam, J.S., former Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow-200007.

v1.c4.60

Ohri, V.C, former Director, Himachal State Museum, Shimla-171004

v1.c4.61

Paddayya, K., Deccan College, Pune-411006.

v1.c4.62

Pal, A.C., Indian Museum, Calcutta-700016

v1.c4.63

Pande, B.M, Director, Institute of Archaeology, Archaeological Survey of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001.

v1.c4.64

Pandya, R.C., Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011

v1.c4.65

Pant, G.N, Keeper, National Museum, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.66

Pant, P.C., Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005.

v1.c4.67

Pant, R.K., Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmadabad-380009.

v1.c4.68

Raghavachary, K., former Assistant Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.69

Raikar, Y.A., Research Fellow, Nehru Center, Bombay-400020.

v1.c4.70

Rajaguru, S.N., Deccan College, Pune-411006.

v1.c4.71

Raman, K.V., Professor, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Madras, Madras-600005.

v1.c4.72

Ramachandran, K.S., former Registration Officer, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.73

Rao, K. Venkateswara, Deputy Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Museum Branch, Madras-600009.

v1.c4.74

Rao, S.N., Reader in History, NEHU University, Shillong-793001.

v1.c4.75

Rao, S.R., Archaeologist, Institute of Oceanography, Dona Poula-403004, Goa.

v1.c4.76

Ray, Amita, Professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Calcutta, Calcutta-700019.

v1.c4.77

Ray, G.S., Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Calcutta, Calcutta-700019.

v1.c4.78

Ray, Himanshu P., Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi-110067

v1.c4.79

Ray, S.C., Professor, Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology, University of Calcutta, Calcutta-700019.

v1.c4.80

Roy, Sita Ram, Director of Archaeology and Museums, Bihar, Patna-800001.

v1.c4.81

Roy, T.N., Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005.

v1.c4.82

Sali, S.A, former Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Present Address: Govind Chhaya, Block no. 1, Ajab Nagar, Aurangabad-431001.

v1.c4.83

*Sankalia, H.D., Professor Emeritus, Deccan College, Pune-411006

v1.c4.84

Sankar, M., Analytical Division, Modular Laboratories, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay-400085.

v1.c4.85

*Sarkar, H., former Joint Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.86

Sarma, I.K., Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.87

*Sen, Dharani, former Reader, Department of Anthropology, University of Calcutta, Calcutta-700060.

v1.c4.88

Sengupta, R., former Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Present Address: 15/20 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.

v1.c4.89

Sharma, A.K., Deputy Superintending Archaeologist, Antiquities Unit, Archaeological Survey of India, Sion Fort, Bombay-400022.

v1.c4.90

Sharma, R.P., Assistant Superintending Archaeologist, Institute of Archaeology, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi-110001.

v1.c4.91

Sharma, T.C., Department of Anthropology, Gauhati University, Gauhati-781014.

v1.c4.92

Sharma, Y.D., former Deputy Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, Present Address: B-16 Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048.

v1.c4.93

Shastri, Ajay Mitra, Professor, Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, Nagpur University, Nagpur-440010.

v1.c4.94

Singh, Gurdip, Department of Biogeography and Geomorphology, Australian National University, Canberra ACT, Australia.

v1.c4.95

Singh, Purshottam, Professor in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005.

v1.c4.96

Singh, U.V., Professor in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra-132119.

v1.c4.97

Sinha, A.K., Deputy Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.98

Sinha, B.P., former Professor of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology, Patna University, Present Address: 68 Pataliputra Colony, Patna-800013.

v1.c4.99

Sinha, K.K., Professor, Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005.

v1.c4.100

Soundara Rajan, K.V., former Additional Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.101

Srivastava, K.M., former Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Present Address: 39B Pocket B, SFS Quarters, Vikaspuri Extension, New Delhi-110018.

v1.c4.102

*Subrahmanyam, R., Professor, Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology, Nagarjuna University, Guntur-522001.

v1.c4.103

Sundara, A., Professor, Department of Ancient Indian History and Epigraphy, Karnatak University, Dharwar-580003.

v1.c4.104

Suraj Bhan, Professor of Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra-132118.

v1.c4.105

Thapar, B.K., former Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, Present Address: 342 SFS, DDA Flats, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.

v1.c4.106

Thapar, Romila, Professor, Centre of Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi-110067.

v1.c4.107

Thapliyal, K.K., Professor in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Lucknow University, Lucknow-200007.

v1.c4.108

Tripathi, Vibha, Reader in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005.

v1.c4.109

Trivedi, H.V., former Deputy Director of Archaeology, Madhya Pradesh, 33 Shankar Bagh, Indore-452002.

v1.c4.110

Verma, B.S., former Director, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.

v1.c4.111

Verma, T.P., Lecturer in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005.

v1.c4.112

Vishnu-Mittre, former Joint Director, Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow-226007.

v1.c4.113

Wadia, Statira, 3 Nagar Road, Yaravada, Pune-411006.

v1.c4.114

Wahal, L.M., Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Baroda Circle, Vadodara-380014.

Introduction

v1.c5.1

The present *Encyclopaedia* is an attempt to encompass the major findings of Indian archaeology during the last hundred and fifty years, on prehistory, protohistory and the ancient historical period.

v1.c5.2

The growth of archaeology in India was essentially the product of corresponding developments in Europe. Earlier concealed in the swaddling clothes of the antiquarianism and dilettantism of the last quarter of the eighteenth century, which contributed to the founding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784, archaeology obtained formal, or official recognition in 1861, when Alexander Cunningham was appointed to undertake a systematic investigation of ancient and medieval monuments and sites in India. Prehistoric archaeology could similarly be assigned one of its initial points in January 1860, when H.P. Le. Mesurier of the East Indian Railway discovered a large number of neoliths in the valley of the Tosney river. In 1863, not long after Boucher de Perthes’ significant discovery of worked flints in the Somme valley in France, Robert Bruce Foote of the Geological Survey of India unearthed a genuine palaeolith from a small ballast-pit at Pallavaram, near Madras. More discoveries followed with the result that a beginning of the prehistoric studies in India was made.

v1.c5.3

Cunningham largely followed the footsteps of the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang and in his two tours (1861-65 and 1871-85) as Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India, explored a greater part of northern India, reporting on various monuments and sites. He was the first archaeologist to excavate Harappa but unfortunately failed to recognize its cultural content or significance. The twentythree volumes of his survey-reports constitute a valuable mine of information for students of Indian archaeology. James Burgess, who succeeded Cunningham, was largely occupied with architectural surveys and epigraphical studies. The *New Imperial Series* of the Archaeological Survey of India and *Epigraphia Indica* owe their origin to his efforts. By 1889, when Burgess retired from service, Indian archaeology had come to occupy a proper place in the scheme of knowledge.

v1.c5.4

With the appointment in 1902 of John Marshall as the Director-General, a new phase of activity began. During the first two decades excavations were undertaken at Bhita, Charsada (ancient Pushkalavati), Kasia, Nalanda, Pataliputra, Rajgriha, Sanchi, Sravasti, Sarnath, Taxila and Vaisali which laid bare Buddhist and other historical remains and yielded a rich harvest of finds. Important as these excavations were, they were practically put into the shade when in 1921-22 preliminary trial diggings at Harappa and Mohenjodaro revealed a forgotten civilization, later to be named the Indus Civilization, which at a single bound pushed back the beginnings of India’s cultural history to the third millennium B.C. The decade following these exciting discoveries witnessed large-scale excavations at Mohenjodaro and Harappa and sustained field-work in Baluchistan and Sind. Marshall further enlarged the existing publication programme of the Survey by starting the *Annual Reports* and *Memoir* series.

v1.c5.5

In 1944, another upturn came when Mortimer Wheeler was appointed as Director-General. He realized that in a country so vast and containing so many ancient sites as India, careful planning was essential if archaeological field-work was to produce coherent results. He devised two systems of digging, *viz*., vertical and horizontal, to meet these requirements and advocated the employment of strategic planning in the solution of archaeological problems. He felt that orderly knowledge of cultural sequences must precede detailed investigations of particular cultures. Initially, therefore, he stressed the building up of a cultural time-table for Indian archaeology through vertical excavation. As a result, during 1944-47 problem-centred excavations were carried out at Arikamedu (1945), Brahmagiri (1947), Harappa (1946) and Taxila (1944). The selected problems related to primary and obvious gaps in our knowledge of protohistory and early history. In the work of excavation itself, he introduced scientific methods of stratification, recording, etc., and so ‘modernized’ Indian archaeology. Realizing the role of universities in the development of archaeology as a discipline he made a strong plea for the participation of Indian universities in archaeological field-work with the result that many universities thereafter entered the field. Another noteworthy contribution from Wheeler was the starting of *Ancient India*, the bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India, which was a venture ‘to put archaeology regularly on to the bookstalls, and to interest the educated Indian public in the current work relating to the exploration and conservation of the heritage of material culture'.

v1.c5.6

In the post-Independence period the tempo of archaeological field-work increased considerably and covered all periods of human culture. Prehistoric investigations adopted new approaches, working on geomorphology, palaeontology, palaeobotany and palaeo-climatology, in order to establish the ecological relationship between human settlement and their environmental contexts. In Rajasthan, the sand-dunes have now been dated (through thermoluminiscence), providing the first reliable dating control for sand dynamics, palaeo-climatology and spread of deserts. In Kashmir valley, studies have been made by the chronostratigraphy of loessic and lacustrine sediments. A comparative study of the glaciofluvial and lake deposits has been made. Many river valleys have been studied for establishing a Stone Age stratigraphy for the sub-continent. The industries of the Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic have been defined both stratigraphically and typologically. C-14 dates are now available both for the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic horizons in certain regions. For the Mesolithic, which is found widely scattered, industries have been defined and their enviornmental studies made. C-14 dates are now available for some of the sites, indicating a postglacial succession of environments. Neolithic cultures have been identified in six regions and their time-range ascertained. Principal excavated sites belonging to the Neolithic Period, within India, are Burzahom, Brahmagiri, Chirand, Daojali, Hading, Gufkral, Hallur, Kodekal, Koldihawa, Kuchai, Mahagara, Maski, Nagarjunakonda and Utnur.

v1.c5.7

On protohistoric and historic side, cultural sequences supported by a chronological frame-work, obtained through carefully observed vertical excavations, are now available for all parts of the country. The overall pattern of the cultural development of the sub-continent has come much more clearly in form and a grammar of Indian archaeology is now available for reference. We now know more of the dynamics of the Indus Civilization, including its genesis, spread and decay, the principal excavated sites in India being Banawali, Kalibangan, Lothal, Mitathal, Rangpur, Ropar, and Surkotada. A late phase of Harappan culture being an amalgam of different traits has been duly recognized, particularly in Haryana and Punjab. The Dark Age intervening between the end of the Indus Civilization and the beginning of the historical period has been filled, though not closely secured, through the recognition of various chalcolithic cultures in western, central and eastern India, the principal excavated sites being Ahar, Chandoli, Chirand, Daimabad, Eran, Inamgaon, Jorwe, Kayatha, Mahishdal, Nagda, Nasik, Navdatoli, Nevora, Pandurajardhibi and Prakash. The elusive 'Copper Hoards' and the inappropriately termed Ochre Coloured Pottery (OCP) have been placed in a cultural and chronological sequence, the principal excavated sites being Atranjikhera, Bahadarabad, Hastinapura, Jodhpura, Lal Qila and Saipai Lichwai. The pottery has been dated by thermo-luminiscence method, which indicates a time-range from 2650 to 1180 B.C Another ceramic industry which is thought to fill the gap between the Indus Civilization and the historical period and stratigraphically follows the OCP is the Painted Grey Ware (PGW). This Ware is widely distributed in northern India, Punjab, Haryana, north-eastern Rajasthan and western Uttar Pradesh, and marks the beginning of the Iron Age in that region. Strata yielding this ware have been extensively excavated include Ahichchhatra, Atranjikhera, Hastinapura, Mathura, Noh and Ropar. Excepting a solitary date from Atranjikhera (1025 B.C.) the remaining C-14 dates of the contemporary levels fall within a range of 800-400 B.C. (uncalibrated). Relevant to the issue is the excavation at Bhagwanpura where the deposit yielding the grey ware has been found interlocked with that yielding a late Harappan complex.

v1.c5.8

Around sixth century B.C. a patent fabric, the Northern Black Polished (NBP) Ware, makes its appearance in northern India with its nuclear area in Bihar and eastern U.P. and area of spread extending to Kandahar in Afghanistan, Somnath on the Arabian Coast, Chandraketugarh near the Indo-Bangladesh border and Korkai in Tamil Nadu. It continued in use till about the end of the second century B C and in the peripheral sites a little later. This Ware is a godsend to archaeologists who use it as a chronometer for the historical period. The principal excavated sites where this Ware has been found are Ahichchhatra, Ayodhya, Chandraketugarh, Hastinapura, Kausambi, Mathura, Pataliputra, Rajghat, Rajgir, Ropar, Sanghol, Semthan, Sisupalgarh, Somnath, Sringaverpura, Sravasti, Tamluk, Ujjain, Vaisali and Vidisha.

v1.c5.9

South India is no longer full of unresolved problems. The cultural equipment of the Megalithic Culture and its time-scale is now sufficiently clear. Megalithic burials have been excavated in various parts of India including Vidarbha, the Vindhyan region and the peninsular. On the basis of the available C-14 dates, the Megalithic Culture in these regions seems to fall between 1000 and 100 B.C. Despite the excavation of a large number of burials, the identity of their builders and the origin of the culture still remain problematic. The distinctive ceramic industry of the Megalithic Culture is the Black-and-red Ware. The principal excavated sites are Brahmagiri, Mahurjhari, Maski, Nagarjunakonda, Porkalam, Paiyampalli, Sanur and Yelleswaram. Much controversy rages about the origin of this Ware and its occurrence in non-megalithic association, including the chalcolithic. The excavation at Arikamedu near Pondicherry defined for the first time, the chronological position of an extensive complex of south Indian pottery and other equipment with the associated finds of dated imports of Arretine Ware. Among the products of Arikamedu was a type of dish, decorated on the internal base with concentric rings of a rouletted pattern, mainfestly derived from a characteristic feature of the Arretine Ware with which it was associated. Being a *sui generis* otherwise foreign to Indian ceramics, the Rouletted Ware. as it was christened, soon became a chronological marker. Its subsequent discovery at other sites introduced an element of chronological precision. Among the hinterland sites where it has been found, Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh deserve special mention.

v1.c5.10

The excavated sites of historical period located in south India include Arikamedu, Brahmagiri, Dharanikota, Kaveripattinam and Maski. With these excavations, the succession of cultures prior to the Pallavas is now fairly well-defined. Besides. Buddhist monument-complexes have been excavated in various parts of the country, principally at Amaravati (Andhra Pradesh), Antichak (Bihar), Devnimori (Gujarat) Nagarjunakonda (Andhra Pradesh), Pauni (Maharashtra), Piprahwa (Uttar Pradesh) and Ratnagiri (Orissa) belonging variously to a period extending from the Asokan to the Pala.

v1.c5.11

During the last two decades an interdisciplinary approach has been developed for the solution of various archaeological problems. The focus has shifted from the concern for ascertaining the bare culture-sequence to recovering or reconstructing the complete life pattern, including socio-economic conditions, climate, etc. Palynological, palaeopathological and environmental studies and soil and spectrochemical analyses undertaken at some sites have furnished much useful evidence. A significant addition to the Survey's publications was the inauguration in 1953-54 by A. Ghosh of a new series *Indian Archaeology—A Review*, giving an account of all the archaeological work done in the country.

v1.c5.12

Quite naturally, information on all the work that has so far been accomplished remains widely scattered, published in different Indian and foreign journals and monographs and as such is not easily accessible. With a view to making this information available in a ready compendium, the Indian Council of Historical Research sponsored a project for the compilation of an *Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology* which was very ably supervised and seen through by the late A. Ghosh, former Director-General, Archaeological Survey of India, assisted by Dr. (Mrs) Himanshu Prabha Ray. Unfortunately, Shri Ghosh passed away in 1981 after successfully completing the project but before the manuscript could be sent to the press. This *Encyclopaedia* is a befitting tribute to his untiring service to Archaeology as well as his scholarship.

v1.c5.13

The articles in the *Encyclopaedia* have been contributed by scholars chosen by a specially constituted committee of the Indian Council of Historical Research. For preparing the general list of sites, assistance was taken of regional coordinators who submitted lists of explored and excavated sites in their respective regions. To all these contributors the ICHR is deeply beholden.

v1.c5.14

The *Encyclopaedia* has been planned to meet the requirements of the researcher, the professional archaeologist and the general reader. The list of subjects has been carefully chosen to provide background information on as wide a range as possible, avoiding at the same time unnecessary duplication or overlap. For the interested reader, bibliographical notes are given at the end of each article. The scope of the *Encyclopaedia* covers all aspects of Indian archaeology up to the twelfth century. Pakistan and Bangladesh, though parts of the same sub-continent and sharing many cultural mainfestations with India, are not covered. The data drawn are primarily based on published exploration and excavation with reports, evidence about numismatics, epigraphy, sculpture or architecture is excluded.

v1.c5.15

The work is divided into two volumes: Vol. I deals with twenty broad subjects, alphabetically arranged and further sub-divided into sections and sub-sections. The sections under most subjects follow a chronological rather than alphabetical order. This rule, however, has not been followed universally as in the case of section 6, Domestic and Miscellaneous Objects, where the sections numbered 6.1, 6.2 and so on, are arranged alphabetically.

v1.c5.16

Cultures have been dealt with under pragmtically convenient regions which combine present day political divisions with natural geographical boundaries. Thus the workable framework includes: n.-w. region (roughly Jammu and Kashmir), n. region (Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh), w. region (Rajasthan, Gujarat), middle Ganga Region (Bihar), Lower Ganga Region (West Bengal), e. region (Assam, the adjoining states and centrally administered territories), c. region (Madhya Pradesh), n.-e. Deccan (Orissa), Upper Deccan (Maharashtra), s.-e. Deccan (Andhra Pradesh), Lower Deccan (Karnataka), s. region (Tamil Nadu), and s.-w. region (Kerala). Special regions such as the Vindhyas and Chhota Nagpur have been dealt with separately when a culture so demands, otherwise they have been included in the nearest larger units. The principles of this regionalization and periodization have been explained under 4.1.

v1.c5.17

The use of abbreviations and symbols has been restricted to the barest minimum. Square brakcets have been used before and after all editional insertions. Small capitals, preceded by a larger one, have been used in both the volumes for names of sites on which there are detailed articles in vol. II. Thus the occurrence of an awl at Ahichchhatra may not necessarily mean that under the article Ahichchhatra the find of the object would be mentioned. Similarly, in vol. II, an entry like 4.6.1 in an article would indicate that the site belongs to the north-western neolithic culture: 4, standing for cultures, 6, for neolithic and 1, for north-western. Here again it does not mean that the site would necessarily find mention under 4.6.1 in vol. I; it only means that it is a site belonging to the north-western neolithic culture.

v1.c5.18

A detailed index is provided to vol. I; since vol. II adopts the dictionary-form, an index for it has not been judged necessary.

v1.c5.19

Vol. II contains a list of explored and excavated sites, arranged alphabetically. When there are two or more sites with the same name, these are indicated by superscripted numbers e.g., *Dhanara*¹, *Dhanara*² and *Dhanara*³. Wherever an alternative spelling occurs it carries a cross reference such as Doonda, Dunda with a cross reference for Dunda. This system holds good for alterntive names e.g. Dudli Bukhara (Mustakhan), with a cross reference for Mustakhan. However, such cross references have been omitted when the alternative spellings do not involve any appreciable change in the alphabetical order e.g., Degapuri, Degapudi. When two sites cited in different publications with different spellings are the same, or appear to be the same, the names are clubbed together, e.g., Kakkera, Kakkers, both in District Gulbarga, and both having an ash-mound, or Kachraud, Kachrod, both in District Ujjain, and yielding Kayatha Ware. It has not been possible to give the latitudes and longitudes of all listed sites, and for this the reader’s indulgence is solicited. Wherever data on coordinates was available, it has been given.

v1.c5.20

Certain deviations have also been made from the standard practice of citations references in the bibliographies. Titles of articles appearing in journals/books have been omitted, the name of the author of the article being followed by the date of publication of the journal, the latter preceded by ‘in’. Whenever necessary, the subject-matter of the article has been given in parenthesis after the full bibliographical references. Thus under 15.1.6, a reference is made to Boessneck, J, 1969, in Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E. ed., *Science in Archaeology*, London, pp. 331-58 (for osteological differences between sheep and goat), instead of the full entry: Boessneck, J, 1969, Osteological differences between sheep (*Ovis aries Linn*) and goat (*Capra his Linn*) in Brothwell, D., etc. This system has been dispensed with in some cases where the subject-matter is evident from the text or from the name of the book/journal.

v1.c5.21

In using this *Encyclopaedia* it should always be borne in mind that owing to the gap between its completion and publication it represents information available by the late 1970s. But so long as the finds published and the hypotheses proposed before the year 1980 continue to be an indispensable part of the baggage of the excavator and the theorist, this *Encyclopaedia* too should remain an indispensable work of reference. And for this, one would always cherish with special gratitude the memory of A. Ghosh, eminent archaeologist and prince among editors.

v1.c5.22

B.K. THAPAR Former Director-General Archaeological Survey of India

v1.c5.23

*New Delhi* *17 January 1989*

1 Animals, Domestication of

1.1 General Observations

v1.c6.s1.1

[For Pleistocene and early Holocene faunal remains see 15.1-6.]

v1.c6.s1.2

The process of domestication of animals, one of the factors to lay the foundations of civilization, involves first the capture and subsequently the taming of select species, and then their breeding and maintenance under controlled conditions for man's benefit. Its origins may lie in a symbiotic relationship between animals and the early hunter-gatherers or may have been motivated by religious beliefs or even by the supposed womanly instinct to feed and ultimately keep and tame pets. With man's gradually increasing control over his environment, he also realized the value of animals as sources of food and clothing and for transport. The majority of animals economically useful to man were probably domesticated under conditions of scavenging (e.g. pig, dog) or social parasitism (e.g. reindeer, sheep, goat). Domestication was probably largely the outcome of the interaction of economic and biological phenomena. The most important physical changes that occurred in domesticated animals are reflected in size, skeletal elements, soft parts and colour (Zeuner, 1963).

v1.c6.s1.3

Definite archaeozoological evidence of domestication first occurs in the Mesolithic [4.5; 15.1.5,6]. By 6000 B.C. the dog was companion to man, both in n. Europe and the Near East. There is, however, evidence which might prove the domestication of the dog during the Upper Palaeolithic in Russia (Narr, 1959). The domesticated sheep and goat are recorded both in parts of n.-w. Europe (*c.* 4000 B.C.) and the Near East (*c.* 6710 B.C.).

v1.c6.s1.4

From the beginning of the Neolithic [4.6] domestication is closely linked with food production. During the later Neolithic livestock became a prominent part of the economy and domesticated animals included both crop-robbers and those used mainly for food (the cattle, pig, buffalo, etc.). Subsequently animals were domesticated for traction (e.g. the elephant, horse, camel, ass). Unsuccessful attempts at domestication included animals like the hyena, gazelle, ibex and fox.

v1.c6.s1.5

General consensus (Zeuner, 1963; Clason, 1974) favours the Near East as the principal centre of domestication, but a number of individual species had their origin elsewhere. The reindeer was confined to n. Europe, the horse was domesticated n. of the great mountain ranges and certain species of the camel and dog originated in the New World. Clason, 1974, suggests that from the Near East stock-breeding spread e. wards to Afghanistan and Baluchistan, further e. to Pakistan and India and probably even to s.-e. Asia, to the w. into Europe and n. Africa and subsequently to the Nile valley and e. Africa. The beginnings of domestication in the Indian subcontinent, on present excavated evidence, can be traced back to the Mesolithic. The data, however, are meagre, as much of the palaeontological material remains unpublished. Excavations have often been too small and bone collections inadequate, often the reports merely give catalogues with little bearing on the history of domestication. The earliest archaeozoological remains were found at the sites of ADAMGARH (5500 B.C.) and BAGOR (4500 B.C.). The presence of both wild and domesticated animals suggests that hunting was augmented by pastoralism, trade or theft. Besides skeletal remains a substantial part of the archaeological evidence includes animals painted on pottery and in caves and rock-shelters, terracotta figurines and seals, but these must be classed as only of secondary importance.

v1.c6.s1.6

Of the domesticated animals found in India today some were domesticated within the subcontinent. They include the *mithan* or *gayal* (*Bos frontalis*), which is the product of cross-breeding of the domestic cattle with the wild gaur and is presently found in e. India, the buffalo and certain species of birds. The cattle, sheep, goat, horse, donkey, two-humped camel, cat and dog are the product of initially imported stock, probably from the n.-w. The cattle are the most widely occurring species at prehistoric sites, but it is not known if a wild ancestor was indigenous, as no parent species is known today. The wild sheep and goat still roam in the n. and w. mountain ranges, but their relationship with domesticated breeds is not very clear. Along with the pig they are not reported from all early Neolithic-Chalcolithic sites. The wild boar was and is still found in Indian jungles and may have been locally domesticated.

v1.c6.s1.7

About 10 species of domesticated animals, represented by limb bones, maxillae, teeth, pelvic and pectoral girdles, vertebrae, scapulae, metapodials, etc., have been found in excavations in India.

1.2 Bovidae

1.2.1 Bos Indicus (cattle)

v1.c6.s2.t1.1

Bones of the Indian humped cattle (zebu) account for as much as 80% of the collection from all archaeological sites. Two skeletal characteristics which distinguish the domestic species are the broad, flat, cleft spina dorsalis of the thoracic vertebrae and the flattening of the median condyle of the trochlea of the humerus. Evolutionary changes are also noted in the horn-cores which pointed sidewards in the wild prototypes and not upwards as in the modern Indian cattle. Some horn-cores, e.g. at NAVDATOLI, bear a faint depression around the base, generally observed only in European breeds. Other major changes in cattle bones are, e.g., complexity or simplicity of the enamel pattern of molars from Mohenjo-daro (Sewell and Guha, 1931), which might show evidence of a gradual change. At UTNUR (Allchin, 1961) there is a progressive reduction in the size of bones in the successively later levels. The significant variation observed in the medullary cavities of cattle bones here and at other sites suggests that they represent a relatively earlier evolutionary stage (Alur, 1967). Further changes are the anchylosis of the bones of the hock joint and the bony growth (exostosis) on certain parts of the skeleton, e.g. third phalanx. Both are the result of compression of the joints produced by heavy work and have been observed in bones from PALAVOY, HALLUR, SANGANAKALLU, UTNUR, etc.; Alur, 1975, believes that the cattle were not only eaten but used as draught animals (cf. the incised depiction of an ox-drawn cart from INAMGAON). Measurements of the maxillae indicate that the NEVASA cattle were larger than the NAVDATOLI ones (Clason, 1977). In the s.-e. Deccan Neolithic sites, e.g. UTNUR, remains of both the smaller and larger cattle occur (Allchin, 1961), parallels being observed even at present in the region. An extant breed of *Bos indicus* is still found today in Gujarat and is larger and heavier than other varieties of *Bos* found elsewhere in the peninsula. Feral herds of the zebu are still found.

v1.c6.s2.t1.2

Archaeozoological evidence, e.g. from KAYATHA, INAMGAON, points to the slaughter of young animals. Some of the bones are charred, suggesting that the animals were roasted for food, while a number of split bones, e.g. from UTNUR, indicate that the marrow was also consumed. Split shafts and long bones were used for making tools like scrapers, points, etc., e.g. at T. NARSIPUR. This, along with the evidence from rock-paintings, suggests that cattle-breeding was one of the principal occupations of the Neolithic-Chalcolithic people.

v1.c6.s2.t1.3

The earliest evidence for the zebu dates back to *c.* 3500 B.C. in the Quetta valley and the Zhob region in Baluchistan. The Harappa sites (*c.* 2000 B.C.) [4.9] have also yielded bones of cattle (humped and humpless) in addition to depictions on seals and pottery. The humpless cattle are traced back to *primigenius* (aurochs) cattle originally from w. Asia, but the origins of the zebu remain problematic. Its ancestors may have been the Pleistocene humped cattle of India, *Bos namadicus*, bones of which have been found at sites along the Narmada and Godavari, and at Mohenjo-daro and LANGHNAJ. Theories tracing its origin to an African wild race of *Bos* or the wild ox of Burma and Malaysia (*Bos banteng*) remain unsubstantiated. An indigenous origin is also proposed, because *Bos indicus* is believed to have some gaur blood and is found in several very early prehistoric sites, e.g. ADAMGARH. Pilgrim, 1939, considered *Bos acutifrons* of the Siwaliks as a possible ancestor of both *Bos primigenius* and *Bos namadicus*. Evidence suggests a connection between the former and *Bos indicus*, but these issues must await further data from the intermediate regions, as the original centre of domestication in the Old World has not yet been established.

1.2.2 Bubalus bubalis (buffalo)

v1.c6.s2.t2.1

Although a great variety of bones of the domestic buffalo is found at most excavated sites, their number suggests that only small herds were kept and bred. The earliest domestic buffalo remains come from ADAMGARH, *c.* 5500 B.C. At NAGARJUNAKONDA bones of wild and domestic species occur together in the historical levels, and this might throw light on the possibility of local domestication. Buffalo bones from some sites, e.g. ROPAR, HASTINĀPURA, bear cut-marks, perhaps indicating that the animal was eaten. Clason, 1977, suggests that larger and smaller varieties (cf. Navdatoli) were cross-bred to increase the milk yield. Bulls were used for traction. At INAMGAON the measurements of buffalo metacarpals are the same as those of the wild breed. The metapodia of the buffalo are wider than those of the cattle—an adaptation which facilitates walking on mud. Although buffaloes appear only in the upper levels at Mohenjo-daro, their occurrence on seals has been considered evidence for their domestication in Sind by this period.

v1.c6.s2.t2.2

It is generally accepted that the Indian buffalo was domesticated within the subcontinent and is a direct descendant of *Bubalus palaeindicus* found in the Siwaliks. The domestic buffalo has changed so little that it is regarded as only semi-domesticated and continues to interbreed with wild species. It is still uncertain whether the domesticated buffalo of s.-e. Asia and China is descended from the wild Pleistocene buffalo of China or from the Indian wild buffalo. The domestic buffalo was introduced from India into Iraq and thence into the Jordan valley in *c.* A.D. 725. By the Middle Ages it was known in Egypt, Bulgaria and Hungary. The buffalo was successfully bred in Sicily but was a failure in Spain and Germany. Generally speaking the discontinuity of distribution of the buffalo w. wards is due to the lack of tropical swamp conditions.

v1.c6.s2.t2.3

*1.2.3 Caprahircus aegagrus* (goat). Bones of the domestic goat are present at most excavated sites and at places, e.g. BAGOR, along with the sheep, it is the most widely represented species at all cultural levels. Bone measurements indicate that the prehistoric goat was larger than the modern one.

v1.c6.s2.t2.4

Like the sheep, in the Deccan Neolithic levels the goat is poorly represented, but at HALLUR the population of the goat and sheep shows a marked increase in the Iron Age. This is significant because it implies that here either the people had developed some special methods of goat/sheep-breeding or the animals assumed special importance in the economy. Cut-marks, e.g. at ROPAR, indicate the consumption of goat meat and the state of teeth eruption, degree of fusion of the epiphysis, etc., suggest that animals were slaughtered when 2 to 3 years old.

v1.c6.s2.t2.5

Bones of the goat and sheep are generally indistinguishable, but there is a significant difference in their cranial characteristics. In the goat the coronal suture is straight and the lambdoidal suture projects forward at an angle, while in the sheep these traits are reversed. Wherever goats have been unmistakably identified from excavations, their ratio to the sheep has generally been of the order of 1:2. Second to the cattle, the sheep and goat together comprise the largest group of animals bred and slaughtered at prehistoric sites. Interestingly, at a number of sites bones of the goat predominate over those of the sheep in the earlier levels, but later on the latter become more numerous. This may be attributed to the actual chronological sequence of domestication or to ecological conditions. In temperate climates the sheep were bred in larger numbers because of greater wool yield and tastier meat. Wherever cattle-breeding is successful, the goat is not reared as a milch animal (Zeuner, 1963).

First 179 of 3,726 passages. Read on

Linked texts (113)