Chapter-7

Late Harappan Culture

Introduction

The last/final phase of Indus-Saraswati civilization within the time bract of first
half second millennium B.C. is recognized as the Late Harappan culture. Sometimes it is
known as post Harappan or De-urbanization phase. However, it has been observed in
greater Indo-Gangetic plain that Mature Harappan culture was transformed into several
provincial cultural like Jhukar cultural in lower basin of Indus river in Sindh (Majumdar
1934:154), Cemetery-H in Punjab and northern Sindh (Sankalia 1973) after that they
migrated in Haryana, Punjab, and western UP (Mughal:1990a), Mitathal IIBand Siswal
Degenerate Phase in Haryana (Bhan 1976), Rangpur III and Lothal V in Gujarat (Rao
1963) Apart from this sometime Bara culture is also considered as Late Harappan in
Sutlaj Yamuna Divide but it is debatable issue that Bara falls into the jurisdiction of Late
Harappan cultural or not? Bara culture will be discussed with details in the separate
chapter. First of all the distinction between the Mature Harappan phase and Late
Harappan phase was identified by N.G. Majumdar with the continuity and
change/transformation at Jhukar (in Sindh), consequently, he used the term Jhukar
culture as the local name. Thereafter, so many sites also yielded the similar material in
Sindh as well as at Harappa, M. Wheeler claimed existence a different culture from
Harappan as Cemetery-H culture which was attributed on Aryan invaders (Wheeler
1947) but further excavation at Harappan, it has been proved that the Cemetery-H
cultural was not different culture from Harappan civilization, while it was the Late phase
of Harappan cultural (Kenoyer 1991) and M.R. Mughal has been duly demonstrated
Cemetery-H cultural in Punjab in form of Late Harappan culture (Mughal 1992). In the
context of Haryana, excavations at Mitathal and Siswal represented late Harappan culture
horizon which was characterized with Mitathal IIB and Siswal degeneration phase (Bhan
1976) after that several sites of late Harappan phase have been explored and excavated in
Saraswati and Darishadwati valley (Manhohan 2009). K.N. Dikshit suggests the gradual
decline in the material culture of Mature Harappan due to the decline of the economy

183
during this phase, as well as several typical Mature Harappan elements were fallen out
from vogue while some continues and new cultural traits emerged in throughout the
greater Indo-Gangetic region but separate to each other (Dikshit 1979). In the other
words, we can say that Late Harappan phase does not present change of cultural or
decline of Harappan culture, while it was the correspondent of the transformation of
mature Harappan cultural as Late Harappan in devolution from because of the collapse of
the economic system and many other reasons.

Concept of the Late Harappan

The notion of Late Harappan culture or continuity in Indus civilization as

degenerate material cultural first of all demonstrated by N.G. Majumdar:

A degenerate and therefore, a late phase of Indus

illustrated by potteries discovered at the upper level of
Jhukar and Lohmjodaro. The old black on red technique
continued but in a modified style, and a number of new
patterns were also evolved. A noteworthy feature is the
reappearance of the bichrome style, although this new
pottery differs widely from the earlier fabric in type as well
as design. It is either of terracotta or pale buff color
representing a coarse ware, on which the decoration is
altogether poor and the number of designs extremely
limited. The style can be further studied at the lake-site of
Trihni in its characteristic schematized rosettes. Here, the
black and red pottery is totally absent, although there are
other links connecting this phase with the Indus. Side by
side with this painted ware there was prevalent a type of
pot with incised strokes at the shoulder, some example of
which come also from the latest level of Mohenjodaro
(Majumdar 1934:154).

184
After that Mackay also noticed devolution in the structural activities of late levels at
Mohenjo-Daro:

The masonry of Late period… is mostly poor as compared

with that of the intermediate Period….Toward the end of
Late Period, the whole of the southern portion of the G
section of the DK mound became an artisan's quarter,
many of whose inhabitant were potter, for no less than six
kilns, including one in the middle of Central Street, were
found in this comparatively small area….This quarter of
Manhenjodro, if not the whole of city, must by this time
have declined greatly in social standing and organization,
for it is difficult to imagine that the city authorities… would
have allowed potters to practice their craft within the
confines of the city…we have indeed, come upon a striking
example of the decay of an once honorable city, the cause
of which we suspect to be the vagaries of the Indus rather
than pressure by invaders, of whose existence we have,
infect, little positive evidence (Mackay 1938:6).

Very clear evidence to understand the Late Harappan phase of Indus –Saraswati
Civilization were found at Rangpur through the phase IIB-IIIC-III and at Lothal period V
as degeneration phase without interpretation between urban phase and Late Harappan
(Rao 1963). In Haryana first time Late Harappan deposits were found at Mitathal which
designate as Mitathal IIB and without gap from IIA (Mature Harappan Phase) (Bhan
1975). So now, it has been clearly demonstrated after these discoveries that basic concept
of Late Harappan has been taken strong places in proto-historic archaeology in South
Asia with regional diversity which were depended on the local factors (Lal 1997:258).

Nomenclature/ Terminology

This is extremely debatable among the scholars that what should be the accurate
Nomenclature of this phase. Some scholars designate it as the Late Harappan culture

185
while someone stress for de-urbanization phase and post Urban but some others suggest
that post Harappan Phase. M. Wheeler recognized this phase as post Harappan cultural
and attribute Aryan invasion (Wheeler 1947) but it was not applicable now because Later
excavations at Harappan shows the continuity and transition phase of Harappan
civilization (Kenoyer 1993: 187).The term Post Urban at first invent by Possehl in 1977
(Possehl and Raval 1989:18) thereafter took up by Allchin (1990:25) that culture which
come into light after the climax of the Indus Civilization but this term refused by scholars
like Mughal, on the base of Cemetery H culture’s site, Kudwala (38.1 ha.) in the
Cholistan which was identified as principal centre, it adopted the settlement pattern as
Mature Harappan (Mughal 1990). And M.R. Mughal Stated that:

The term 'Late Harappan' is thought to be a neutral one as

compared to the 'post-urban' because it does not impose
interpretive or conceptual bias or an opinion of an
individual. The Late Harappan terminology is certainly
widely used and understood very well by the scholars of
South Asian archaeology. Moreover, it is found less
confusing than the other unacceptable terms such as post-
urban (1990).

And J. G. Shaffer engaged the term “Localization Era” attributed to the breakdown of
the centralized authority into a sequence of local, regional patterns
(http://www.preservearticles.com/2011101915719/what-was-the-status-of-harappa-
after-the-decline-of-its-urban-system.html). According to B.B. Lal, this phase should
pronounce as Late Harappan and in its advocacy, he suggested that:

To me, Late Harappan would mean a culture-complex

which has transformed itself from the Mature Harappan,
losing some of the latter’s traits and evolving some new
ones, but still identifiable as having been derived from
latter (Lal 1997:63)

186
Fig.7.1. Distribution of Late Harappan Culture in Indo-Gangetic Plains (NCERT 2014-15)

187
 N

Not to Scale

Fig.7.2. Distribution of Late Harappan Sites in Haryana (Manmohan 2009)

Chronology
To Suggest the pinpoint date of starting and end of the Late Harappan period is very
difficult issue because of culture change or transformation happens with continuity and
change that's why old tradition also run in turn down forms while new cultural traits on
growth way and due to gradual transformation previous cultural element disappears.
Scholars use the Transition word for above-described conditions. A similar position was

188
observed between Mature Harappan and Late Harappan phases. It is clear that beginning
of Late Harappan Phase was different at every region or site. According to the scholar's
transformation from Mature Harappan to Late Harappan possibly began from around of
2000/1900/1800 B.C. in Indus-Gangetic Plains.However, C14 date of transition of Mature
Harappan to Late Harappan (Cemetery H) phase at Harappa are bracketed 1900-1800
B.C. While proper Late Harappan period tied between1800 B.C. to 1300 B.C.
(Chakrawarti 2006:205-6). Two c14dates from Lothal V (Post-Mature Harappan) period
are calibrated 2195 B.C -1783 B.C and 2273-1975 B.C.in the context of Haryana several
accurate dates have been published like TL dates from Bhagwanpura 2100 B.C. (Joshi
1993:185) but No C14 dates of Mitathal IIB in existence, so lack of this, time of this phase
is defined on the basis of Typology and Stratigraphy confined between 1700 B.C. to 1500
B.C (Bhan 1975: 17) and at Hulas (Dikhist 2015:166-169) C14 date limits were 2560 -
2005±115 B.C. while Bara , (Shrama & Shrama 1982) and Songhol (Sharma 2014)
represents 2000 B.C.to 1500 B.C. Although after the accurate date and relative date it
seems that Late Harappan phase started from the first quarter of 2nd millennium B.C. and
ended at last quarter of 2nd millennium B.C.

Features

Concerning the features of Late Harappan culture, it has been seen that, it exposed
degradation in classical aspects of Mature Harappan phase such as the town planning,
architectural features, technology, material culture, economic system as well as classical
Harappan pottery shape, typical Mature Harappan seal and sealing, triangular cakes, huge
granaries, burnt brick house, communal hearths and chess settlement pattern had been
disappeared (Dikshit 1979). Feature of Late Harappan culture are varied from region to
region like at Harappa during this phase, size of brunt brick and drain are found smaller
then Mature Harappan (Chakrabarti 2006: 206) while at Mitathal in Haryana they used
mud brick, followed Mature Harappan Sizes (1:2:4) and probably adopt the reused mud
bricks also for the constructions in addition to these, they used the soakage jar for drain
system but their drains are not properly maintained and they took up the street pattern
north to south and east to west like urban phase (Bhan 1975: 8,13). Fortification wall
during the Late Harappan Period almost absence but claims of fornication wall too at

189
some sites like Babarkot and Betdwraka (Chakrabarti 2006: 206) as well as bath and
drains are not found at Rangpur during this period (Rao 1963). It seems that town
planning system was completely disordered in the Late Harappan period.

Very distinctive feature of this phase is ceramic industry, often, classical

Harappan shapes such as beaker, storage jar with flanged rim, perforated jar and dish on
stand with nail headed rim etc. are disappeared while some Mature Harappan forms were
still continuing through some modification but every provincial Late Harappan cultural
was owner of typical ceramic industry like Cemetery-H type pottery (Punjab and
Cholistan), Jhukar pottery (Sindh), lustrous red ware (Gujrat) sturdy and dull red ware
with medium fabric (Haryana and western UP). In the context of antiquity feature, it was
noticed that during the late Harappan period use of copper was very low, lack of
antiquities like numbers of beads of semiprecious stones is very low while fiancé objects
going to increase and taking the place of semiprecious for ornament's raw material. In the
region of upper Saraswati and Darishadwati, valley terracotta objects represent growth in
quantity compared to Mature Harappan period includable terracotta objects like beads,
animal figurines, bangles, game objects, toy‐cart‐wheels, idli shaped terracotta cakes etc.
However, seal and sealing were near about fallout due to the decay of economy system if
any example founds which is devoid from animal figurine as well as script example also
found rare. The material culture of this phase evidently points out the transformation of
urbanized civilization from an urban to the rural stage.

Late Harappan Settlements in Haryana

Haryana is bearing the large No. of Late Harappan sites, up to 2008, according to
Manmohan Kumar 842 Late Harappan sites have been discovered by Archaeologists
(Manmohan 2009). After that due to the new filed work in this region, till today, include
our field survey a number of Late Harappan sites crossed the 900 in the valleys of
Saraswati, Darishadwati, Yamuna, Sahibi, and other rivers throughout the Haryana.
Numbers of Late Harappan sites compared to Mature Harappan sites are very big in
Haryana. A major proportion of these sites occupied the place in Saraswati and
Darishadwati River basin. Prominently they covered central, Eastern, Northeastern and

190
southeastern part of Haryana. The earliest Late Harappan deposits in Haryana were found
at Mitathal during the excavation by Suraj Bhan in 1968, which is characterized as
Mitathal IIB (Bhan 1975:13, 17). Then Suraj Bhan carried out a small trench (2x2mt.) at
Siswal in 1970, there was also encountered Late Harappan occupation above the Mature
Harappan without any gap or break. This occupation level was distinguished as
degeneration Siswal phase (Bhan 1975: 113). Balu also yielded the Late Harappan
deposit with continuity and change of Mature Harappan while Banawali represented the
short gap between Mature Harappan and Late Harappan. Daulatpur (U.V. Singh),
Bhagwanpura (Josh 1993) Bhola (Singh et al. 2013), Kirshoal (Sindhe et al. 2011)
yielded the direct Late Harappan occupation. However, on the basis of cultural material
classification, four types of Late Harappan sites found in Haryana. Details as follows:

1. Transformation from Urban Mature Harappan sites (Mitathal IIB): Those Late
Harappan sites were originated/transformed from regional Mature Harappan cultural,
fall in the first category. Terminology for these sites was used Mitatahl IIB by Suraj
Bhan (1975:13). Such kind of sites represent the transformation in the cultural
material of Mature Harappan like Mitathal IIB, there were several classic Mature
Harappan potteries, antiquities and other elements going to disappear through the
modification but brick sizes continue similar to mature Harappan while structures
show evolution in solidness rather than Mature Harappan. New ceramic industry
came into fashion with as well as some mature Harappan shapes were into the trend
(Bhan 1976). Semiprecious stone beads and terracotta beads were continued but, not
the well-furnished comparison to the Mature Harappan phase as well as weights, pure
copper objects and script through the graffiti mark were in vogue like the previous
period while early Harappan traditions were run side by side and Bara pottery were
also in existence (Bhan 1976). A similar situation was found at Balu (Singh & Bhan
1982).
2. The transformation from Rural Mature Harappan sites (Degeneration Siswal):
Those Late Harappan sites which were came into existence due to the transformation
of rural mature Harappan sites like Siswal (period) which were characterized as
Degeneration Siswal site (Bhan 1975). These sites were being in the rural nature

191
 during the Mature Harappan phase and adopted devolution in cultural material. Such
kind of site represents the Degeneration in culture. Typical Mature Harappan pottery
shapes were fallen out and a new trend of ceramics came into light. Several sites of
such types were identified by Suraj Bhan (Bhan 1975)
3. The transformation from Late Mature Harappan people which came from
outside: Some Late Harappan sites were originated from Late Mature Harappan sites
which probably established by outsiders (from the Cholistan) in Haryana. This site
yielded continuity of late mature elements in devolution form akin to Cemetery-H and
Late Harappan cultural material with the influences of other local late Harappan
cultural.
4. Cemetery-H type Late Harappan sites: Several sites in Haryana have the cultural
material similar to Cemetery-H culture which was found at Harappa (Wheeler 1947)
after that noticed in Punjab (Pakistan), Cholisatn (Mughal 1997). M. R. Mughal
suggested that Cemetery-H culture people moved toward the east in the Ganga-
Yamuna plains (Mughal 1990a). So probably such kind of sites was also found in
Haryana, for example, Banawali, there were found the deposit Cemetery-H after the
abandoned of mature Harappan. (Bisht 1982).
5. Mixture of all type Late Harappan material culture: Many sites revealed the
mixture of all type Late Harappan material cultural which are found in this region or
above-mentioned type sites. For example, such kind of deposits was found at
Daulatpur and Bhagwanpura-IA. These sites were also bearing the early Harappan
tradition side by side.

Note: - All types’ of Late Harappan sites in Haryana, shows the interaction to each
other during the later phase. Interaction among these was confirmed at Mitathal,
Banawali, Bhawanpura, Daultapur, Kasola, Mirzapur, Bahola Khalsa etc. Late
Harappan culture was stretched in the broad area of greater Indo-Gangetic plains
while it’s traits differ region to region because of geographic factors and K.N. Disksit
suggests that they were not connected to each other (Diksit 1979) but after the
investigation in Haryana, it appears that in the initial phase they were not connected
to each other while during the late stage there emerged the interaction among them.

192
Late Harappan settlements in Study Area

Our study region is well occupied by Late Harappan sites; around 87 Numbers of
Late Harappan sites have been explored till now there. Before the present survey in this
region, 71 Late Harappan sites have been explored by previous scholars (Bhan 1975,
Kumar 1978, Singh 1981, Joshi, 1984, Y. Joshi 2003 and other) while recent survey
during this research discovered the 16 new Late Harappan sites in this area. According to
the above-said classification Study region is bearing all five types of Late Harappan sites
which were demonstrated on the basis of explored and excavated sites’ material culture in
this region and adjoining area. Very first archaeological mound Daulatpur excavated in
1968-69, 1976-77 and 1977-78 by U.V. Singh and Suraj Bhan in upper Chautang Valley.
Excavations at Daulatpur yielded Late Harappan Deposits just on the nature Soil with
five structural phases. Earlier phases of Late Harappan has the Similarity with Mitathal
IIB while later phase represents interaction with Cemetery-H cultural people, Bara people
and apart from these Early Harappan tradition also in existence (IAR 1968-69, 1976-77
&1977-78). After that in 1975 excavation at Bhagwanpura and Kashithal also exposed
Mithal IIB type deposits and mixed culture type deposits like Daulatpur which area
closely associated with study area (Joshi 1993) as well as Balu excavation also represents
Late Harappan occupation as Mithala IIB Nature on the western periphery of the study
region. Thus, it is difficult to identify exactly nature of unexcavated Late Harappan sites
in the manners of above-described classification. Though, tried to attempt for this
classification, we adopted the percentage based method of the collected sample of
different Late Harappan culture from sites during the exploration as pottery type and
antiquity. And which site yielded the big portion of any one type material culture which
is related to previously mention types than that site considered as that category.

Settlement pattern of Late Harappan in study area

To know various aspects regarding the Late Harappan Culture, settlement pattern
study is particularly important such as, what was the method of Late Harappan people for
colonized in upper Chautang valley and to expose their survival practice? We tried to
make the functional categorization of Settlements (camp Site, permanent habitation sites,
and industry sites), size base categorization of Settlements (Village, town, campsites)
with the pecking order of settlements, locational analysis, and system of site spatial

193
 distribution of Late Harappan culture. This attempted to conclude on the gained
information during the regional survey by present scholar and pervious scholars (Bhan
1975, Bhan and Shaffer 1978, Manmohan 1978 and 2009, Joshi 1984) and other
comparable studies which were led down in different areas of Late Harappan culture by
(Mughal 1990a, 1990b, Possehl 1974).

 Locational Analysis

Our study region covered by five types of Late Harappan sites which have been discussed
previously in this chapter. In perspective of Late Harappan sites’ location analysis in our
study area, it was observed that mainly the degenerate Siswal type site comprised bank of
Darishadwati and other small streams, because of these sites transformed from Sothi-
Siswal settlements which were already situated on the bank of Darishadwati and other
small streams and mostly deposit of these sites found above the Sothi-Siswal occupation
whereas some degenerate Siswal type sites established directly on the natural soil
consequently these sites occupied the western and southern part of study area like Sothi
Siswal. Mitathal-IIB type sites found the all over the study area, frequently these sites
also found near the water streams or banks of rivers with distance from Degenerate
Siswal sites. Sometimes these sites are found in the Mature Harappan deposits while the
majority of sites occupied the fresh soil. Probably those sites established by migrants
(Cemetery-H people) in northeastern Haryana, these sites occurred away from rivers
channels and outside from floodplains possible attributable to apposition of inhabitants,
on other hand, eastern and northeastern part of study area which covered by hills and
forest shows apposite conditions so these sites found on banks of rivers and catchments
of floods. Majority of these sites comprised the natural soil to settle themselves. So after
this locational analysis, it seems that locale late Harappan communities of this region
were lived at their native spaces with new settlements and expansions in area as well as
still hold on the land and water sources while migrant people were settled out themselves
away from river courses and neglected region for living angle as forests and Siwalik
foothills there was not any kind of appose. Here, it is more important to describe that a
big amount (76) of Late Harappan sites were inhabited the first time in this region and
similar thing also point-outed by Manmohan Kumar concerning Haryana (Manmohan
2009). It is also testified that the large-scale movement of Late Harappan people toward
the east in Ganga-Yamuna plains which was suggested by M. R. Mughal (1990a).

194
Fig.7.3. Distribution of Late Harappan Sites in Study Area

195
Fig.7.4. Google Image Showing the Late Harappan Sites in Study Area

196
 Functional Base categorization of Settlements

In relation to the Functional Base categorization of Late Harappan sites which are
classified as three categories i.e. campsites (Herders activity), Permanent small rural
settlements (Raw marital production center), Big village (manufacturing and local trade
centers), this classification of settlements was made on the behalf of excavated features of
settlements, collected physical remains from sites and size of site as the tool, to identify
the class of sites.
1. Campsites were documented in flooded and grassland areas with a small number of
substantial physical remains which could easily carry-able things and absences of
immovable. Mostly campsites were established by herders.
2. Permanent Habitation Settlements were identified with the huge quantity of physical
relics like pottery and antiquity. In addition to that thick habitational deposits, massive
artifacts, and paramagnet residential activity.
3. Big Village settlements were classified with size and remains of manufacturing and local
trade centers type activities.
After applying the above-mentioned method on late Harappan sites, it suggests
that our study area possibly has 9 campsites, 41 permanent small rural settlements and 5
Big villages (small local trade center) 2 Town. Extensively, it will be discussed in the
further paragraph with the aspect of size.
Size base Categorization of Settlements
Coming directly on the issues without repetition of the method and history
regarding ding the study of Size, Classification, and Hierarchy of Settlements which has
been detailed discussed in chapter No. .4. For the Late Harappan also adopted the same
method, which was exercised by Manmohan Kumar for Late Harappan culture (2009)
and M.R. Mughal (1990).The sizes of Late Harappan sites were obtained according to
scattered the physical remains while those site in bad condition or has been completely or
partly removed, for there we used the Data of previous research. It was observed that
most of the Late Harappan sites are not so big but having some extended area rather than
Mature Harappan and Sothi-Siswal sites.

197
In the Cholistan region the Indus (Hakra-Late Harappan) sites were classified with size
(Mughal 1990) as fellow:

Small village: 0.1-5 ha.

Large village: 5.1-10 ha.

Small town: 10.1-20ha.

Large town: 20.1-30ha.

Cities: 30.1-40 + ha. More

Hierarchy of Settlements

In the concerning the Hierarchy, four steps were found among the Late
Harappan sites as campsites, small villages, big villages (small trade centers). This
classification was made after analysis of the size of sites, physical remains, and location
of sites.

Campsites

No. 09 sites were identified as the campsite because these are very small in size
(0.1- 1ha.) with the slim occupational deposits of herders activities and devoid from
remains of permanent settlements. Generally, these are located in the grassland area in
the flooded zone. Probably these people came here with their domestic animals for
feeding during the lack of feed at local places. It seems that these areas comprise by grass
and forest because of the flood and fertile soil which is made by Darishadwati, Saraswati
and Yamuna rivers. Some of these sites would be traditionally and some were
established by newcomers because of compared to the Mature Harappan phase campsite
also increased during the Late Harappan phase. The main reason to increase the number
of camps would be the decline of the long-distance trade subsequently Late Harappan
again came toward the animal husbandry for survival. Those Late Harappan sites were
extended under the 1 ha these sites most likely exploited this regions like Early Harappan
and Mature Harappans.

198
Small villages
Those sites were distinguished in form of Small village settlements which are
considered for next order of Late Harappan settlements hierarchy after the campsites. It
is earlier stated that during the Late Harappan period study region was thickly populated
by small village settlements in comparison of previous culture sites, for example, Early
and Mature Harappan was well as from campsites. Around 41 small village sites have
been found till now during the previous and recent result. It was noticed that these small
village settlements represent only rural nature through the remains of the Late Harappan
period. Doubtless, campsites people had the permanent relation with small village sites.
The most likely economy of these settlements was based on the Agricultural and Animal
husbandry and small-scale local trade hopefully in the form of barter system. It also
seems that these small village settlements were the subordinate sites of big village
settlements or local trade centers. So these sites played very important role during the
Late Harappan Phase.

Big villages (small/local trade centers)

The regarding and of Late Harappan Hierarchy was recognized as the big village
or Small/local trade centers. Approximately 6 settlements which are acknowledged for
this category as Rattak, Rughusana-I (IAR 2012-13), Sagga (Singh), Balu (Singh &Bhan
1982), Bagwanpura (Joshi 1993) in the study area and adjoins regions, most of these site
were located near the watercourse. Approximately such kind of sites extended in 5-10
ha. Although this assumption is based on the excavation and exploration because of Balu
and Bhagwanpura have been excavated and other sites explored. It was noticed that after
the observation of unearthed material from Late Harappan Level at Balu and
Bhagwanpura and sizes of settlements that these sites will be local trade center and
played very significant role in the Late Harappan economy system. While Sagga and
Rughusana-I also have big sizes and a thick deposit of Late Harappan and represent the
remains of such kinds of activities.

Town

Only two sites like Hudia and Mustafabad has the expansion under 10.1-20 ha
which can be considered as town but these sites dominated by the Bara pottery.

199
Arrival of Cemetery H people in study area

Regarding this question, it is suggested by scholars that Cemetery-H came into

Saraswati and Darishadwati valley from outside perhaps the region of Cholistan through
the Rajasthan to follow the watercourse. Very first such kind of theory was presented by
M.R. Mughal after surveyed Cholisatn region (Mughal 1990a). Similar opinion presented
by K.N. Dikshit and J.P. Joshi and other after the examined the data of several
excavations and explorations in Haryana and Punjab and western UP (Joshi 1993 and
Dikshit 1984) which gives the strength of this thought. During the exploration of Hakra
stretch in Cholisatn, region M. R. Mughal found the big downfall in number of Late
Harappan compared to Mature Harappan site while simultaneously a huge increment in
Late Harappan (Cemetery-H) site came in the light in Saraswati Darishadwati in
Haryana as well as in Yamuna valley in western UP (Mohan 2009). The first example of
Cemetery-H Culture was found at Mitathal, after that Daulatpur, Balu, Banwali, Mirjapur
and several exploration works which have conducted in Haryana and western UP as well
current fieldwork prove the existence of Cemetery-H culture in our study area. Possible
these people were reached here due to the migration of people during the first half of
second millennium B.C. from Cholisatn headed for the east (Mughal 1990). Perhaps
migration of population from Cholisatn to east had been started to during the Late Mature
Harappan phase, which has been mentioned in the previous chapter. It appears that some
of Cemetery-H culture traits were brought by Late Mature Harappan people and fully
sounded Cemetery-H culture people arrived some later to Late Mature Harappan while
migration appears to continue. Regarding the question of their traveling route and
mechanism from the Cholistan toward the east, seems that hopefully it would be also
most similar to Late Mature Harappan people and probably they faced similar barriers
like Late Mature Harappan people. May be then they entered in western Haryana, they
faced apposing from Local late Harappan than most likely a big amount of people moved
into northeast Haryana and western UP, some of occupied southern Haryana, several sites
settled in central Haryana.

200
 Fig.7.5. Frequency of LH Sites in Haryana and Study
area

Fig.7.6. Percentile of LH Sites in Haryana and Study Area

Fig.7.7. Frequency of LH Sites According to Functional

Base Categorization
201
Fig.7.8. Percentile of LH Sites According to functioning

Fig.7.9. Frequency of LH Sites According to Size

Fig.7.10. Percentile Base Distribution of PGW Sites

According to Size

202
Transformation/Legacy/Continuity

The Question, regarding the Transformation or Continuity of Late Harappan

cultures (which is known as for regional variations because of on the geographical
factors), is very tricky to solve. However, it is not possible that any cultural death or
disappear suddenly. Basically, it was observed that cultural transforms with continuity
and change as evolution and Devolution forms. Though relating to the Late Harappan
cultural of Sutlej Yamuna Divide, after the excavation (1970) at Siswal and extensive
survey of Saraswati and Darishadwati valleys in Haryana, Suraj Bhan Suggest affinity of
Late Harappan with OCP culture in two terms as Southern Haryana’s Degenerate Siswal
site transformed into the Atranjikhera type OCP culture (1975:111) whereas composite
complex of all late Harappan sites of Northern Haryana, transformed as Ambkheri type
OPC culture in far east (1975:113) . As follows:

I had also pointed out that the OCP (Ambkheri)

concentrated mainly in northern doab, represented a mere
degenerate phase of the Mitathal IIB ware, a composite
Late Harappan ceramic complex.The OPC (Atranjikhera)
on the other hand represented a different tradition which
was more common in center doab and adjoining part of
Rajasthan and UP. In the view certain typological
similarity between the Kalibangan II/Siswal wares and the
OCP (Atranjikhera), and the concentration of Siswal ware
sites in lower Haryana adjoin central Doab, the probability
of the genetic relationship between the Siswal culture and
the so-called OCP had been raised. The discovery of the
degenerate Siswal ware site in the south-eastern Haryana
bridged the geographical and chronology gap between the
Late Harappan Culture and the OCP. A mere look at the
degenerate Siswal ware would convince one of its close
affinities with the OCO (Atranjikhera) now better
illustrated from Bahadarabad and Saipai (1975:113).

203
But K.N. Dikshit denies this term (Dikshit 1979) and suggests that OCP is different
cultural to Late Harappan and both cultures flourished simultaneously in the different
region and have some cultural contact (Dsiksit 1977) and he stated as follows:

If OCP is a degenerate Harappan ware then why not

Harappan sherds noticed at more than fifty sites in Upper
Doab were also rolled and weathered like their OCP
counterpart? On the contrary, if the late Harappan and
OCP users are not contemporary and OCP is later, then
why the flood of deluge which might have covered the
whole Upper Doab (Lal 1968) has not affected the earlier
existing Harappan pottery lying on the same sites (Dikshit
1979).

In 1975 J.P. Joshi excavated Bhagwanpura and revealed the co-existence of Late
Harappan and PGW with overlapping of PGW during the Period 1B (Joshi 1993:27), as
well as situation found at Dadheri, Katplon, Nagar and Manda (Joshi 1993), these
excavation presents a new ground about the transformation debate of Late Harappan
Cultural. Recently Madina excavation yielded the co-existence of Late Harappan and
PGW but here excavator did not claim of overlapping because of he noticed continuity of
Late Harappan elements as ceramics and artifacts from beginning to end of PGW
deposits ((Manmohan et al. 2009). Scholars could not reach at any acceptable point
regarding the transformation or End of Late Harappan culture till now but continuity and
Legacy has been observed of Harappan cultural till presents through the PGW, Early
Historical and Historical period which is clearly described by B.B. Lal (in Saraswati
follows on 2002 and How Deep Rout of Indian Civilization). In my personal hypotheses
that Late Harappan people of northeastern Haryana did not move anywhere because of
this region had everything like fertile land and water to the survival of Human being to
the better way so they lived here in the new term and conditions and again developed
during the second urbanization.

204
 PL.7.1.Late Harappan Pottery, Raghusana-I

PL.7.2. Fregment of TC Bulls, Beads, Pottery. Rattak

205
PL.7.3. Late Harappan Pottery, Deeg

Pl.7.4. Fragments of Fiancé Bangle

206
Conclusion

After examining the whole scenario about Late Harappan phase, can be said that
this phase of Indus-Saraswati Civilization which is recognized as Late Harappan for
whole Indo-Genetic region but is known with several regional name too because of
regional diversity like Cemetery-H (in western Punjab and northwestern Sindh), Jhukar
(in Sindh and Baluchistan), Gujrat and Sorath Late Harappan and Mitathal-IIB and
Degenerate Siswal, (Haryana and UP) as well as it is already stated and proved by
archaeologist that Late Harappan culture was devolution from mature Harappan culture
which suggests devolution came in the existence because of many reasons such as, a)
very strong factor is starting dryness and migration of rivers courses during the late
mature Harappan Phase, second is decay of economic system as well as decline external
trade, b) third reason was attribute on natural disasters like floods, earthquakes, fires and
so on. Howerer during the previous and recent explorations, it was found that present
study area thickly comprised by Late Harappan culture sites which are distinguished as
Mitathal IIB and degenerate Siswal culture sites, apart from these, this region occupied
by the outsider Late Harappan people also like Cemetery-H people which probably came
from the Cholistan via Rajasthan and western Haryana to follow the river courses which
were going to dry from the west to east. And these Late Harappan sites are classified into
three types as campsites, the small village, and big village or small trade center.
According to location analysis, it was observed that Mithatal IIB and degenerate people
occupied the prime location near the bank of rivers mainly in the Chautang floodplains
and other streams and outsider pushed in neglected regions as well as away from rivers
banks and outside from floodplain mainly of Chautnag. Often a big amount of site led
down the first time and occupied the natural soil to settle in addition to many were found
on the Late Mature Harappan deposits as well as some are on Sothi-Siswal occupation.
Regarding the material culture, these sites yielded the similar devolution like Saraswati
and middle Darishadwati valley in culture elements as Mitathal IIA, IIB or Degenerate-
Siswal phase, Banwali, Balu and as well as Cemetery-H with legacy of few mature
Harappan elements like mud brick structure with classical Harappan bricks ratio but
structure were in low standard than Mature Harappan and after few times of devolution

207
these were full bright from typical Late Harappan traits. Almost these are rural sites with
small size and only a few sites played the role of small trade centers like Rugsana-I
Sagga, BiudaKhera pind and Rattak, probably Late Harappan sites of this region falls into
the range of regional center like Bhgwanpura, Balu, Farmana, Mitathal etc.In the context
of, Why did Cholistani or other outsider people reached in this region and settled
themselves on this land? It can be assumed probably shortage of recourses like water and
food due to dryness in lower courses of Saraswati River system and increase the pressure
on remaining resources then they followed rivers courses and pushed further toward east
by the people of those areas from where they passed and reached in upper Chautang
valley, that time it may be covered by thick forest and full of survival resources. One
thing also seems that those Late Harappan sites were settled on the virgin soil they were
perhaps few later than other Late Harappan sites. Such kind of sites is situated along with
the Yamuna river and northeastern part of the study area. At last in relation to the
transformation of Late Harappan culture in northeaster Haryana probably they were
mingled with PGW cultural and consequently further built the second urbanization during
the 7th and 6th century B.C. and several specimens of Indus-Saraswati civilization legacy
in form of material cultural and non marital culture run continue till now through the
early historic and historic period in Indian civilization. On the other hand, according to
my personal observation through the cross-check of the marital culture of both provinces,
it looks like that Late Harappans were reached across Yamuna river in the upper part of
western UP through this region, as there are several Late Harappan sites explored.

208
 Table 7.1 Late Harappan Sites List

Sr. Site Name Let, Log Block Culture Sequence Size Reference
No. (Dust.) of
site
in
acre
1 Augand 29°39'59"N Nissing LH 0.90 Bhan &
76°48'25"E (KNL) Shaffer
1978:68
2 Bahlolpur 29°43'53"N, Nissing LH, EHIS, M 7.20 Singh 1981:49
Mustarka 76°51'00"E (KNL)
3 Bahola 29°50’00”N Nilokheri MIIb, PGW 1.20 Bhan 1972:58
76°45’00”E (KNL)
4 Bala-I 29°30”22” N Assandh LH, EHIS 1.20 Singh
76°47‟ 51” E (KNL) 1981:49-50
5 Bala-II 29°31'2"N Assandh LH,EHIS,M ? Singh 1981:50
76°45'13"E (KNL)
6 Bandrala 29°29’28”N Assandh LH 1.60 Singh 1981:
76°34’45”E (KNL) 50-1
7 Bari Bhaini-I 29°45'0.00"N Nilokheri MIIB ? Bhan
76°56'0.00"E (KNL) 1975:125
8 Bari Bhaini-II Nilokheri MIIB ? Bhan
(KNL) 1975:125
9 Barsal 29°54'16"N Indri LH, HIS 2 Vinay
76°56'46"E (KNL) 2013:57
10 Baursahm-I 29°53'3.49"N Nilokheri LH, PGW, 1.20 Manmohan
76°46'55.01"E (KNL) EHIS 1978:76
11 Baursahm-II 29°53'3.49"N Nilokheri LH, EHIS ? Joshi et al.
76°46'55.01"E (KNL) 1984,
Manmohan
1978:76-77

209
12 Bijna 29°35’56”N Gharaunda LH ? Singh
76°55’54”E (KNL) 1981:51-2
13 Budakhera 29°44'0.00"N Nissing LH 6 Bhan&
Pind): 76°56'0.00"E (KNL) Shaffer
1978:62
14 Budanpur 29°35'41"N Karnal LH ? Joshi et al.
76°54'21"E 1984:524
15 Budhera 29°52'14"N Nilokheri LH,GW,EHIS ? Dutt 1980:134
76°46'29"E (KNL)
16 Budheri 30o 14’40” N Bilaspur LH, Bara ? Yogeshwar
(YNR)
77o 18’00”E 2003
17 Bukhri 30o 11’00’’ N Jgadhri LH, PGW,EHI 1 sq Bhan and
(YNR) km
77o 21’00 ” E Shaffer 1978
18 Butana 29°48'37"N Nilokheri LH, HIS, M 3.20 Vinay
76°55'43"E (KNL) 2013:56
19 Chor Karsa-I 29°37'60.00"N Assandh LH,PGW ? Joshi et al.
76°40'0.00"E (KNL) 1984:524
20 Dachar-I 29°39'36"N Nissing EH, MIIB 1 Bhan 1972:56
76°42'17"E (KNL)
0
21 Deeg 29 39’51”N Pundri MH, LH, Bara 8 New Site
760 37’51”E (KTL) ) IAR 12-13
22 Gagsina-I 29°34'00"N Karnal EH, LH 1.40 Joshi et al
76°53'00"E 1984:519
23 Gandapura 30°11'18.47"N, M.Bad LH 2 New site
(YNR)
77° 9'54.39"E
24 Garhi 30°8'25.88"N M.Bad LH 8 New site
(YNR)
77°6'29.52"E
25 Gharaunda 29° 32’ 02” N Gharaunda LH 1.20 Amar Singh
76° 58’ 13” E (KNL) 1981:53
26 Gitapur 29°52'23.95"N Nilokheri LH ? Amar Singh

210
 76°48'49.18"E (KNL) 1981:54
27 Gundyani 30°10'3.39"N M.Bad Bara, LH, 2.80
(YNR)
77° 6'14.80"E PGW,
28 Hudia-I 30° 8'25.02"N M.Bad Bara, LH, 16 Manmohan
(YNR)
77° 4'14.50"E PGW 1978
29 Hudia-II M.Bad LH, Bara ? Manmohan
(YNR)
1978
30 Jahnjhari 29°45'0.00"N KNL LH, PGW ? Bhan
76°59'0.00"E 1975:125
31 Jattanwala 30°21'14"N, LH ? Yogeshwar
77°20'55"E 2003
32 Kachhwa-I 29° 43’ 40” N Karnal LH 0.20 Bhan
76° 53’ 21” E (KNL) 1975:125
33 Kachhwa-II 29°44'2.07"N Karnal LH,EM 1.20 Singh 1981:56
76°51'43.98"E (KNL)
34 Karpuri 30°19'1.79"N Bilaspur LH and PGW 4 Manoj 2015
(YNR)
77°15'2.08"E
35 Katarwali 30°21'25.49"N Bilaspur LH, EHIS 8.10 Manoj 2015
(YNR)
77°22'14.98"E
36 Khaja 29°51'18"N Nilokheri LH ? Singh 1981:57
Ahmadpur 76°54'25"E (KNL)
37 Kheri-Brahman 300 17’ 26” N Bilaspur LH, PGW 1.80 Yogeshwar
(YNR)
770 16’ 55” E 2003
38 Kotarkhana 30°13'35"N, LH, Bara 2 Yogeshwar
77°13'07"E 2003
39 Machroli-II 30°20'51"N Bilaspur MH,LH, Bara 4 Manoj 2015
(YNR)
77°18'00"E
40 Majra Roran 29° 47’ 27” N Nilokheri LH ? Singh 1981:57
and 76° 42’ (KNL)
58” E

211
41 Mardan Hedi-I 29°31'35.02"N Assandh MIIb 1.20 NEW
76°34'20.60"E (KNL)
42 Masana Rangran 30° 7'59.74"N M.Bad LH ? NEW
(YNR)
77° 8'23.31"E
43 Maudi –III 29° 47‟ 57” N Nissing LH,PGW,EHIS 2 Singh
and 76° 46‟ 1981:57-8
30” E
44 Maudi-I 29°46'54"N Nissing M IIB 2.5 Bhan 1972:57
76°45'51."E (KNL)
45 Mirapur 30°13'48"N, Chhachhruli LH ? Manmohan
(YNR)
77°19'38"E 1978
46 Modenpur 30°15'52"N, Chhachhruli EHIS ? Yogeshwar
(YNR)
77°26'14"E 2003
47 Mohna 29°45'00"N Pundri EH, MH, DS 1.5 Bhan 1972 :57
76°35'00"E (KTL) Manmohan
2009:38
48 Morkhi-I 29°17'12.00"N Jind EH, M.IIb, 1 Dhattarwal
76°33'16."E EHI, 1978:31
49 Morkhi-II 29°16'7.40"N Jind EH, DS 4.0 Joshi et al.
76°33'2.83"E 1984:519
50 Mundh-I 29˚.30’00” N; Assandh M IIB 1.80 Bhan 1972:55
76˚.30’00” E (KNL)
51 Mustafabad-III 30°11'44"N M.Bad Bara , LH 12 New Site
(YNR)
77° 8'4"E
52 Naryana 29°46'17.22"N Nilokheri MIIB ? Joshi et al.
(KNL)
76°55'2.87"E 1984
53 Nissang-II 29° 40’00” N Nissing M IIB 1 Bhan 1972:56
76° 40’00” E (KNL)
54 Padhana 29°49'51"N Nilokheri LH,EHIS, M. 5 (Vinay
76°26'23"E (KNL 2013:56

212
55 Phaphrana 29°31'34"N Assandh LH 1.20 Singh1981:58-
76°41'15"E (KNL) 9
56 Pujam 29°51'3"N Nilokheri MIIB, PGW 2 Bhan 1972:58
76°54'44"E (KNL)
57 Qabulpur-I 29°51'3"N Assandh LH,EHIS,M 4 Singh
76°54'44"E (KNL) 1981:57-8
58 Qabulpur-II 29°32'48"N Assandh LH,EHIS,M 3.80 Singh
76°42'35"E (KNL) 1981:59-60
59 Ragushan-I 29˚39’16”N Assandh EH,LH, EHIS 4 IAR-12-
76˚40’02”E. (KNL) 13:37-45
60 Rambha-I 29°48'7.79"N Indri MIIB ? Bhan
(KNL)
77° 0'33.20"E 1975:125
61 Rambha-II: 29°48'7.79"N Indri MIIB ? Bhan
(KNL)
77° 0'33.20"E 1975:125
62 Rattak 29˚37’22”N Assandh LH, PGW, 8 IAR 2012-13
76˚37’04”E (KNL) EHIs, HIS, Bhan, 1975
EM,
63 Raupoli 30° 9'38.75"N M. Bad May be LH 2 New Site
77° 7'58.96"E (YNR)
0
64 Sagga 29 46’ 02’’ N Nilokheri LH,PGW 8 Singh1981:60
760 50’ 59” (KNL)
65 Sambhi-1 29°49'5"N Nilokheri M IIB 1 Bhan 1972:58
76°49'55"E (KNL)
66 Sambhi-II 29°49'0.47"N Nilokheri LH ? Joshi 1984
76°49'0.46"E (KNL)
67 Sambhi-III 29°49'10."N Nilokheri LH,PGW ? Manmohan
76°49'10."E (KNL) 2009
68 Sandhaya 30°20'50"N, Bilaspur MH, LH, 4 Suraj Bhan
(YNR)
77°20'15"E EHIS, HIS 1961,
Kwatra 1964.

213
69 Sandhir 29°50'31"N Nilokheri LH ? Vinay
76°58'21"E (KNL) 2013:280
70 Saunkhra –II 29°47'43"N Nilokheri EH, MH, LH 0.80 Singh
76°51'20"E (KNL) 1981:59-61
71 Saunkhra –III 29°48'49"N Nilokheri EH, MH, LH 1.20 Singh
76°52'42"E (KNL) 1981:59-61-2
Manmohan
2009: 39
72 Saunkhra-I 29° 47’ 35” N Nilokheri LH,EHIS 4 Singh
and 76° 51’ (KNL) 1981:59-61
55” E
73 Shamgarh 29°46'28.90"N Nilokheri MIIB ? Bhan
76°57'25.27"E (KNL) 1975:125
74 Shazadwala 30°20'31"N, Chhachhrauli LH ? Yogeshwar
(YNR)
77°27'15"E 2003
75 Shishpur 29°14'39"N Panpat EH, MH, LH 1 Joshi et al.
76°49'03"E 1984:515-519
Manmohan
2009:39
76 Sialba 30°9'44"N, M.Bad LH, PGW 2.20
(YNR)
77° 9'48"E
77 Singhra 29°42'00"N Nissing EH, MH, LH 1 Joshi et al.
76°50'00"E (KNL) 1984:519-525
Manmohan
2009:39
78 Takhana Khalsa 29°48'38"N Nilokheri LH,EHIS ? Vinay
76°56'24"E (KNL) 2012:76
79 Tharota 29°43'16"N Nissing LH, PGW, ? Dutt 1980:41-
76°41'18"E (KNL) EHIS, M 42

214
80 Topra Khurad 30° 8'00"N, M.Bad Bara, LH 8 New Site
(YNR)
77° 11'40"E

81 Uplana –I Assandh M IIB, PGW 0.20 AI, No.

(KNL) 10&11:141-
145,
82 Uplana –II 29°36'14"N Assandh LH ? Singh 1981:63
76°40'30"E (KNL)
83 Uplana-III 29°36'18"N Assandh LH 1.20 Singh 1981:63
76°39'19"E (KNL)
84 Uplana-IV 29°36'19"N Assandh LH, Bara 1.80 New
76°38'58"E (KNL)
85 Urdana/Aradana 29°36'41"N Assandh EH, LH 1.5 Singh 1981-95-
(KNL) 96
76°19'04"E
86 Urlana Khurad- 29°21'59"N Panipat M IIB 2 Bhan 1972
I 76°40'0.34"E
87 Urlana Khurad- 29°20'59"N Panipat EH,MH, LH 2.20 Singh
II 76°43'0"E (1981:74)

215
Refrences

Allchin, F. R. (1990). The End of the Harappan Urban Phase and its Aftermath.
ANCIENT CEYLON (10), 25-40.

Bhan, S. (1975). Excavation at Mitathal (1968) and other Exploration in Sutlej-Yamuna

Divide. Kurukshetra: Kurukshetra University Press Kurukshetra.

Chakrbarti, D. K. (2006). Indian Archaeology the archaeological foundation of Ancient

India . New Delhi : Oxford University Press .

Dikshit, K. (1979). Late Harappan Culture in India. In D. P. Agrawal & D. K.

Chakrabarti (Ed.), Essey In Indian Protohistory (pp. 23-133). Delhi: B.R. Publishing.

Dikshit, K. (1982). The Distribution of Harappan Wares in Gangetic Doab. In R. Sharma

(Ed.), Indian Archaeology: New Perspective (p. 1982b). Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan.

G.L.Possehl & M. H. Raval. (1989). HARAPPAN CIVILIZATION AND ROJDI. New

Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta: Oxford & IBH Publishing Company and American Institute
of Indian Studies.

Joshi J.P., Madhu Bala and Jassu Ram. (1984). The Indus Civilization: A reconstruction
on the Basis of Distribution Maps. (S. a. Lal, Ed.) New Delhi: Books & Books.

Joshi, Y. (2003). Archaeo-Historical Study in Northeaster Haryana (from Earliest Times

to 12th Century A.D.). Kuekshetra Uinvesrisry Kuekshetra: Unpublished Ph.D. thesis .

Kenoyer, J. (1991). Urban Process in the Indus Tradition: a Preliminary Model from
Harappa. In R. H. Meadow (Ed.), Harappa excavations 1986–1990: A Multidisciplinary
Approach to Third Millennium Urbanism (pp. 29-60). Madison: Prehistory Press.

Kumar, M. (1978,). Archaeology of Ambala and Kurukshetra Districts (Haryana).

Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Kurukshera Universcity Kurukshetra.

Kumar, M. (2009). Harappan Settlements in Ghaggar-Yamuna Divide. In T. O. (ed).,

Occasional Paper 7, Linguistics, Archaeology and Human Past (pp. 1-20.). Kayoto,
Japan.

Lal, B. (1997). The Earliest Civilization of South Asia. New Delhi: Aryan Books
International.

216
Mackay, E. (1938). Further Excavation at Mohenjodaro, Vol-2. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.

Mughal, M. R. (1997). A Preliminary Review of Archaeological Surveys in Punjab and

Sindh: 1993-1995. South Asian Studies , 13, 241-249.

Mughal, M. R. (1992). The Geographical Extent of the Indus Civilization during the
Early, Mature and Late. Harappan Times. In G. L. Possehl (Ed.), South Asian
Archaeology Studies (pp. 123-43). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Mughal, M. (1990). The Decline of the Indus Civilization and the Late Harappan Period
in the Indus vValley. Lahore Museum Bulletin , Vol. III (2), 1-26.

Mughal, M. (1990a). The Harappan Settlement Systems and Patterns in the Greater Indus
Valley ( Circa 3500-1500 B.C.). Pakistan Archaeology , 1-30.

N.G.Majumdar. (1934). Explorations in Sindh. Memory Archaeochlogical Survey of

Indian, No. 48 .

Possehl, G. L. (1974). Variation and change in the Indus Civilization: A study of

prehistoric Gujarat with special reference to the post-urban Harappan. Chicago:
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago.

R.N. Singh, C. A. (2013). Survey and Excavation at Bahola District Karnal, Haryana, A
perliminary Report. Bharati Bulletin of The Department of Ancient Indian History
Culture & Archaeology, BHU , 37, 27-37.

Rao, S. (1963). Excavation at Rangpur and Other Exploration in Gujrat . Ancient India
No. 18-19 , 5-207.

Sankalia, H. D. (1973). The 'Cemetery H' Culture. Puratattva , 6, 12-19.

Shrama, G.B.(compiled & edited by Manmohan Kumar). (2014). Excavations at Sanghol:

Harappan-Bara Phase. In M. Kumar & A. Uesugi (Ed.), Harappan Studies Recent
Researches in South Asian Archaeology (Vol. I, pp. 1-60).

Singh, A. ( 1981). Archaeology of Jind and Karnal Districts (Haryana). Unpublished

Ph.D. Thesis. K.U. Kurukshetra.

217
Udai Vir Singh & Suraj Bhan. (1982). A note on the excavation at balu Dist. Jind
(Haryana). In R. Sharma (Ed.), Indian Archaeology New Perspectives (pp. 124-126).
Delhi.

Vasant Shinde, P. B. S. Senga, Aftab Hussain, Narender Parmar, Kanti Pawan, P.D.
Sable, Nilansu Kaushik . (2011). Late Harappan Culture at Karsola in the Ghaggar
Basian. Bulletin Of The Deccan College Research Institute , 70-71, 15-34.

Wheeler, R. E. (1947). Harappa 1946: The Defences and Cemetery R-37. Ancient Indian
, 3, 58-130.

218