RAJASTHAN⁵

North-east Rajasthan: Ganeshwar-Jodhpura Culture

It was Jodhpura, a large mound on the bank of the non-perennial Sabi or Sahibi river in the vicinity of Kot Putli on the modern Delhi—Jaipur road, which first yielded evidence of this culture for which two early dates (calibrated ranges: 3309–2709 BC and 2879–2348 BC) are available at this site. Subsequently, the diagnostic pottery—wheelmade, orange to deep-red in colour, decorated with incised designs and possessing shapes including thick-slipped dish-on-stand, was found at Ganeshwar in a small Aravalli valley near Nim-ka-Thana on the Delhi—Jaipur railway line. Attention was focused on this culture after a large number of copper artefacts, including a distinct type of arrowhead, were found in the Ganeshwar excavations. Ganeshwar has been re-excavated and a large number of sites of this type have been located in various parts of north-east Rajasthan, especially in Sikar, Jaipur and Churu districts. No data are available on them except brief reports, but the presence of Ganeshwar-type arrowheads in Period II of Bagor in Bhilwara district (calibrated range 3501–3100 BC) identifies the culture as belonging to the late fourth millennium BC. We argued earlier that the craft-specialization represented by almost a mass manufacture of copper implements at sites like Ganeshwar in the Aravallis of north-east Rajasthan and their export to the early Harappan sites of the Ghaggar-Hakia system (cf. Kalibangan and Kunal) was one of the major factors that generated the process leading to the emergence of the Indus civilization. The north-eastern Aravallis in Rajasthan and their outliers in Haryana extending up to Tosham constitute a major copper and tin zone, and, as we shall see later, this region as a whole has constituted perhaps the most important metallurgical area of the subcontinent from the early Harappan times onwards. With this brief preamble we turn to the excavated profile of Ganeshwar.

One would expect Period I of Ganeshwar to be food-producing in some way because otherwise it would be a case of a jump from the postulated hunting-gathering stage of Ganeshwar I to the effective metallurgy of Ganeshwar II. It is situations like these which remind us time and again that much regarding the beginning of food production in India is still unknown. Ganeshwar is a 3 to 4 acre site, and strangely enough the reports do not mention anywhere the direct evidence of smelting in the excavations.

South-east Rajasthan: The Ahar Culture

Its sites (more than 90; c. 2 to 10 acres and more in size; general location on river banks; usually within 8 to 16 km of each other) have been traced in the drainage systems of the Banas and Berach rivers roughly between Udaipur and Jaipur, and one suspects that its present concentration in the Mewar plain of Udaipur, Chitorgarh and Bhilwara districts is because of the lack of exploration in other Rajasthan areas to the north-east beyond Bhilwara. The gneissic plain of Mewar grades into the Malwa plateau of Madhya Pradesh, and it is not a surprise that the sites of this culture have been known to occur in the Mandasore district of MP. Two sites, Ahar and Gilund, were excavated earlier (Ahar in 1953–54 and 1961–62; Gilund in 1959–60), but it is the recent work at Balathal (1994–98) which has provided a much fuller evidence. This site which originally covered c. 5 acres is now much destroyed and lies at the edge of a large natural depression which has led to a high water-table and the consequent ease of irrigation from wells in this area of about 75 cm of average annual rainfall. The early historic period at the site followed its protohistoric habitation after a long gap represented by a culturally sterile layer.

Fig. 29 South-east Rajasthan chalcolithic sites (Misra, 1977)

The protohistoric chronology of Balathal has added a new, if not revolutionary, dimension to our understanding of the Ahar culture. The excavators rightly point out c. 2600 BC (uncalibrated) as the general period of its beginning, with the general dates of its middle and late levels being c. 2400/2300 BC (uncalibrated) and c. 1800 BC (uncalibrated), respectively. What they curiously fail to consider is the implication of the calibrated range of these three chronological points: c. 3300–2900 BC (calibrated), c. 2900–2600 BC (calibrated) and c. 2200–2000 BC (calibrated). There should not be any doubt about the beginning of protohistoric occupation at Balathal towards the closing centuries of the fourth millennium BC. This has three major implications. First, this is as early as the beginning of early Harappan occupation at Kot Diji, among other sites, and second, this is also as early as the beginning of Ganeshwar–Jodhpura culture of north-east Rajasthan. Third, the non-iron phase of the protohistoric occupation of the area continued till c. 2000 BC or a little later. Its chronological contemporaneity with the Ganeshwar–Jodhpura culture is demonstrated by the occurrence of red-slipped incised and reserved slip wares at both Ganeshwar and Balathal and by the occurrence of a Ganeshwar-type copper arrowhead at Balathal. On the basis of present evidence, we would argue that from the late fourth millennium BC onwards there were two distinctive but interrelated chalcolithic growths along the Aravallis in north-east and south-east Rajasthan. Metallurgically, and from the point of view of its contribution to the intensification of craft specialization as a major factor leading to the growth of the mature Indus civilization, the growth in north-eastern Rajasthan has a very distinct character of its own. However, the fact that there was another major contemporary chalcolithic village development in south-east Rajasthan categorically highlights the role played by the Aravalli region as a whole in protohistoric India.

There are two phases of structural activities—the small circular wattle-daub houses with mud-plastered floors and two plastered storage pits in Phase 1 and the larger, rectangular specimens built of mud, mud-brick and stone on stone foundations in Phase 2, which were built around an irregularly shaped fortified enclosure with an area of c. 500 sq m. What is interesting about the use of stone blocks as housing material at this site is the deliberate quarrying of such blocks because stone does not occur loose in this area. The walls of the fortified enclosure are 4.8 to 5 m wide and used principally mud but revetted it with stones on both inner and outer sides. There is clear evidence of bastions, one of which has been exposed in the south-western corner. A number of floor levels have been excavated inside the fortified enclosure but it fell into disuse before the protohistoric occupation at the site came to an end. A street of irregular width (2.7 m in the north, 2 m in the centre and 4.8 m in the south) with a north-west—south-east orientation runs across the settlement and is further associated with a small lane.

The structural complexes, three of which have been exposed, are multi-roomed, and it has been possible to identify kitchen and storage spaces in them. Two potters’ kilns have been found in two successive phases, the earlier one measuring 5 m (E–W), 4.8 m (N–S) and 70 cm (height). The main pottery types are thin red ware, tan ware, black-and-red ware, buff ware, reserved slip ware, thick red-slipped ware and grey ware. Microlithic tools occur but in a limited quantity. On the other hand, the copper objects—choppers, knives, razors, chisel, arrowhead and a six-petal led flower—are relatively abundant. Cattle, buffalo, sheep, goat and pig are the domesticated animals, cattle being the predominant group. The size of the cattle falls within the size range of the Malawi and other cattle breeds of the area. Several varieties of deer, turtle, pea-fowl, fowl, fish and molluscan shells have also been identified in the archaeo-zoological record. The plant remains comprise wheat, barley, at least two varieties of millet (Panicum millet and Italian millet), black and green gram, pea and linseed, among miscellaneous weeds and items like jujube. The miscellaneous antiquities include terracotta bull figurines, terracotta and semi-precious stone beads, terracotta balls and stone querns, grinders and hammerstones.

There is no direct evidence of metal-smelting at Balathal as yet, which, however, does exist at Ahar in the outskirts of modern Udaipur in the form of copper sheet and slag. Ahar (27.5 acres) is much larger than Balathal and so is Gilund (c. 41 acres). Pottery types are similar at all these places, the most prominent type being black-and-red ware. Houses used basically mud laid on pieces of locally collected stone. Ovens/hearths are found extensively, some with multiple mouths. A house, more than 10 m long and partitioned by a mud wall, exists at Ahar, whereas at Gilund there is a mud-brick complex of about 30.48 × 24.38 m. Gilund has also storage pits, an incompletely exposed burnt-brick wall (width 0.55 m and length exposed for c. 11 m) laid on a stone-rubble foundation, and terracotta animal figurines including bulls with prominent humps and long horns. Saddle querns and beads of semi-precious stones occur both at Ahar and Gilund. Ahar possesses biconical terracotta beads or spindle-whorls with incised designs in some profusion. Copper is reasonably plentiful at this site—rings, bangles, antimony rods, a knife-blade and four socket less cells—with only a small complement of microlithic blades. Fish, turtle, fowl, cow, buffalo, goat, sheep and deer constitute the animal remains at the site which has also yielded rice. A lapis lazuli bead and five etched carnelian beads are clear evidence of contact between Ahar and the Indus civilization. No such unmistakable evidence has yet emerged from Balathal.

The protohistoric Ahar (Period I at the site) has three phases—a, b and c. The earliest calibrated points of Ia, Ib and Ic are c. 2500 BC, c. 2100 BC and c. 1900 BC respectively. The beginning of occupation at Ahar is later than at Balathal. An iron ring and a nail occur as early as Ahar Ib and iron is fairly common in Ahar Ic—arrowhead, chisel, peg and socket. Despite a long-drawn controversy over the occurrence of iron in the protohistoric levels of Ahar, there is no special reason to doubt the validity of this occurrence.