Girawad PDF

Faunal Remains from Girawad (2006‐2007), District

Rohtak, Haryana

C. V. Sharada , P. P. Joglekar and V. S. Shinde1
1 1

1 . Department of Archaeology, Deccan College Post‐Graduate and Research Institute,
Yerawada, Pune 411006, Maharashtra, India (Email: sharada.cv9@gmail.com,
pramjog@yahoo.co.in, vshinde@gmail.com)

Received: 16 August 2014; Accepted: 09 September 2014; Revised: 01 October 2014
Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2 (2014): 421‐441

Abstract: The Harappan site of Girawad was excavated for a single season in 2006‐07 by excavators
from Deccan College, Pune; MD University, Rohtak and Research Institute for Humanity and Nature,
Japan to salvage fast‐vanishing archaeological record. This single culture site, circular in plan and 8 ha in
area, lies 3 km to the east of the present village of Girawad. Altogether 41 trenches revealed 13 pit‐
dwelling complexes with ceramics similar to Hakra Ware which portrays a regional variation that can
roughly be dated to middle of Fourth Millennium BC. The faunal material (n=4671) from this site was
analyzed at the Archaeozoology Laboratory at Deccan College, Pune following internationally
standardized procedures. This paper throws light on the diverse faunal spectra and the role and
contribution of different mammalian and non‐ mammalian species to the human subsistence at Girawad.
Methods used include NISP, skeletal representation and a minute study of pre and post depositional bone
modifications generated by anthropogenic and other causal agents in the background of their contexts.

Keywords: Indian Faunal Studies, Girawad, Haryana, Early Harappan, Pit‐dwellings,
Animal‐based Subsistence, Taphonomy

Introduction
The site of Girawad (28° 58’ 41”N and 76° 28’ 47”E) (Fig. 1), locally famous as “kheri”,
is one of the important Early Harappan sites in Haryana and it was selected for a dig
mainly to rescue the fast‐disappearing remains. Situated approximately 3 km to the
east of the present village of Girawad, it comes within the jurisdiction of the Meham
Block of Rohtak District, Haryana. The village is roughly 22 km northeast of the
Meham town and lies at about the same distance to the southwest of Rohtak. The
ancient site, circular in plan, is an extensive single culture site spread over an area of
roughly 8 hectares bearing the presence of Hakra, Early, Mature and Late Harappan
ceramic remains (Shinde et al. 2011).

Structural remains from Bhirrana, Girawad and Farmana, all of which are located in
the Ghaggar Basin, suggest that the people from the Regional Hakra Culture lived in
shallow pit‐dwellings. Excavations at Bhirrana (Rao et al. 2004) and Girawad (Shinde et
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

al. 2011) have produced evidences of extensive pit‐dwelling complexes. Each of these
complexes, as those excavated to the south of the metal road in Girawad, consisted of
features like oblong shallow pit‐dwellings with occasional post‐holes on their
peripheries, include circular or irregular storage pits, garbage pits, water pits, small
circular shallow depressions possibly for accommodating large jars, post‐holes, full
pots and storage jars survived in their bases and fire places (kilns). The site has borne
evidence of simultaneous occupation of pit‐dwellings and mud brick structures since
they have been unearthed at the same level. Additionally, Girawad produced evidence
that the Regional Hakra Culture was a class‐structured society. On the basis of the
functional analysis of the nature and content of these features, and the discovery of
three nearby pottery kilns it can be presumed that pit‐dwelling complexes were
probably occupied by craftsmen, mainly potters. In all 60 different features were
excavated and they were found to belong to 13 different pit‐dwelling complexes
identified in the excavated area. From the datum point 41 trenches measuring 5x5m
were laid. All the trenches were located on the northern side of the datum point (Fig.
2). These trenches have been given simple numerical numbers starting from 1. The first
settlers at the site built a very strong mud platform, in which different features were
made. The mud platform was visible over an area of 50m from east to west by 30m
from north to south. All the features that have been excavated belong to the earliest
occupation of the site (Shinde et al. 2011) (Fig. 3).

Figure 1: Location of Girawad and Other Harappan Sites
422
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441

Figure 2: Site Plan of Excavated Features at Girawad (After Shinde et al. 2011: 8)
423

Figure 3: General View of the Site of Girawad (After Shinde et al. 2011: 8)

Archaeozoological Methods and Material
The thirteen pit‐dwelling complexes yielded a sizeable number of bones, shells, and
teeth. Their collection, during the excavation, was carried out without any partiality
towards size, condition or completeness. All bone splinters were carefully washed
using soft brushes and dried within the premises of the Archaeozoology laboratory of
Deccan College, Pune. When thoroughly dry, they were placed back in their respective
bone packets displaying their respective contexts. Unlike other sites, where the
approach of collecting a random sample for analysis with the purpose of gaining a
preliminary insight into the diversity of fauna at the site itself is followed, Girawad
was treated as an exception. The reason being that the faunal remains were not of large
quantity and hence the analysis of the entire excavated assemblage was taken up at one
instance in the laboratory.

Positive attribution of skeletal elements to the extent of species/genus levels using
species distinguishing markers (morphological features) is the first vital step in
osteological analyses. For species attribution, the basic distinguishing markers were
derived from the comprehensive reference collection of mammalian and non‐
mammalian skeletons housed at the Deccan College Archaeozoology Laboratory.
Several published identification keys, besides those prepared at the Deccan College
(unpublished), were used. These included Schmidt (1972) and Hillson (1992) for
general identification; Joglekar et al. (1994) for finer differentiation among the cattle,
424
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441
buffalo and nilgai; Prummel and Frisch (1986) and Zeder and Lapham (2010) for
identification of bones of sheep and goat; and Pawankar and Thomas (2001) for
identification of blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra). For molluscan shell identification, help
came from the published works of Subba Rao (1989) and Apte (1998). For identification
of the carnivores (Felidae and Canidae) identification keys developed at the Deccan
College (unpublished) were consulted. A standard archaeozoological system for
measuring the dimensions of measurable bones (von den Driesch 1976) was followed.

Though large mammalian bones could be easily identified, however, in case of closely
related species like cattle (Bos indicus) and buffalo (Bubalus bubalis); goat (Capra hircus)
and sheep (Ovis aries) it is sometimes not possible to designate the bone to a particular
species if the bone is highly fragmented, or if the distinguishing markers are absent.
Therefore, broad‐level groups like Bos/Bubalus, and Capra/Ovis were created. Later on
these bone fragments were added to the respective groups depending on the
proportion of the identified species of these two categories. Similarly, the bones of
small ruminants like sheep and goat were highly fragmented. Besides the few which
could be identified up to the species level, distinction between them in many cases
could not be made. Hence, these are grouped in a broad class of Capra/Ovis. Several
other large classificatory groups were created like ‘large‐sized animals’, ‘medium‐sized
animals’, ‘small‐ruminant’ and ‘small mammal hare‐sized’ to refrain from incorrect
attribution.

The method described by Clason (1972) has been followed for identifying and counting
the specimens in which ancient fragments of a single skeletal element (if recognized)
were not treated as separate entities. All the methods, both laboratory and subsequent
analysis, are part of the protocol of faunal identification established at the
archaeozoological laboratory at Deccan College since its inception in the early 1970’s.
Every single bone fragment was studied thoroughly and the signatures of both pre‐
and post‐depositional taphonomic factors (like human, carnivore and rodent activity)
were noted. The deliberately made fractures, cut marks as well as accidental breakage
of bones both in the past and after their recovery from archaeological provenance were
recorded. Marks of carnivore activity were examined in the light of authorʹs
unpublished observations carried out on carnivores such as hyenas, jackals, dogs and
cats. All the observations including those on the bone modification were recorded in a
computerized coded format. These coded forms were analyzed by using DCPARZ –
computer software developed at the archaeozoology laboratory by the second author
in the late 1980s.

As a consequence of strides taken in interpretative faunal analyses, bones coming
originally from archaeologically distinct units are demarcated from the rest of the
material by assigning a specific numeric code to them. Hence, the results from
individual units are more analytically controlled and can be interpreted exclusively or
in conjunction with results from other features if need be. They are further collated
with the remaining faunal material from the rest of the excavated area. Such analytical
425

tools aid in understanding comparative varying patterns, if present, in species
exploitation, and pre and post‐depositional histories within (intra) and in between
(inter) sites.

After identification, the skeletal elements were measured, described, and those having
marks of natural/cultural actions were given a serial number. Once the study was over,
the faunal material was carefully restored back to their respective packets so that the
observations and inferences stand verifiable at any future point of time. Despite a
constant endeavour to identify the fragments using the reference collections and the
species identification keys, several fragments were beyond identification, and did not
fit into any taxa. Such skeletal elements (Unidentified fragments‐ UF) were grouped
into three different classes based on their sizes ranging from small to large and
counted. Additionally, any interesting modifications like charring, water logging and
breakage pattern in the fragments were noted. The fragments that had freshly broken
edges (broken after excavation) were not included in this counting procedure.

The relative proportion of large, medium and small fragments inside the complexes as
well as outside was more or less the same (Figs. 4 and 5). The pie‐chart clearly showed
that the small splinters accounted for a majority of the unidentified ones. Out of a total
of 2222 fragments, 2114 came from the complexes and the rest from areas outside the
complexes (Table 1). Small fragments accounted for most of them and they were more
than 1500 (67%) and medium fragments were a quarter of the total (558/2222, 25%).
Large fragments, on the other hand were very few, numbering in hundreds out of
thousands. With this data, it was surmised that the site had been under disturbances
from several agents such as upheaval of soil for agricultural purposes because of
cyclical tilling, sowing, harvesting, and movement of tractors, animals and humans,
changes in seasons, movement of underground animals, excavation methods and
transportation to laboratory. These factors have led to the exposure, burial, re‐exposure
and reburial of osseous entities and have led to their breakage and dispersal around
the site and within the original features themselves. Such recent fracturing makes it
nearly impossible to identify and alienate debris from bone tool manufacturing or
butchery patterns. Fracturing in some cases has obliterated other taphonomic marks.
Patina in some bones was so dark that it can be mistaken to be a sign of charring.

No or almost negligible number of large sized fragments came from complexes 3 and
13. Medium and small sized fragments were present in all complexes in different
proportions. One medium sized fragment coming from a large fire pit (no 30, Complex
9) had trampling and charring marks on it. Completely charred fragments came from
dwelling pits 11, 14B, and 20, garbage pit 18 and storage pits 20A, 44 and 33A. All the
unidentified fragments from the garbage pits 13 and 14 were charred to various
degrees. In areas falling outside the dwelling pit complexes, large‐sized fragments
came from outside Complex 4 and 7. It’s interesting because these complexes lie close
to the modern day tar road and preservation seems favourable or better as compared
426
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441
to the area away from the road. The remaining fragments come from outside the area
demarcated as Complex 13, 5; pit no 49 and the upper layers of the excavation.

Figure 4: Unidentified Fragments Figure 5: Unidentified Fragments
Inside the Complexes Outside the Complexes

Table 1: Layer Numbers Assigned to Distinct Pits within Specific Complexes
Complex No. Pit Number Layer No.
(assigned by the excavator) (assigned by the present authors)
1 1,37,37A,4,5,6, 38, 38A 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10
2 2, 2A, 8, 8A, 7, 2, 10 14, 17, 18, 21, 90, 91, 92, 98
3 2, 9 19
4 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 17A 21, 22, 24, 25, 82, 84
5 14, 14A, 14B, 40 27, 29, 30, 31, 79,
6 19, 18, 39 32,33, 34
7 16, 17B, 20, 20A, 21, 22, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41
8 43 43
9 28, 30, 31, 44 44, 48, 88, 93, 94, 96
10 25, 26, 27, 27 B 49, 50, 53, 54
11 33, 33A, 34, 34A, 35, 35A 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
12 36, 47 63, 64
13 23, 46, 50, 50A, 50B 67, 68, 70, 71

Faunal Material
The tables given below show how many bones were identified for each complex and
areas outside assigned with special unit codes. Out of a total of 4671 bones, 2449 were
identified. The level of identification is 52.2%, average and satisfactory for further
427

interpretations and substantial enough to comment on the diverse nature of fauna. A
major share of identifiable specimens (NISP) and unidentifiable bones came from
within the dwelling complexes (Tables 2 and 3). Complexes 3, 8 and 12 have negligible
number of identifiable bones and unidentified fragments. A reason for this could be
because these complexes are comparatively smaller in extent and have a maximum of
three pits functioning as either pottery kilns or storage/dwelling pits. Majority of the
identifiable and unidentified small sized fragments come from Complexes 2, 4, 5, 7,
and 11. These are bigger dwelling complexes with multiple functional pits including
separate areas for garbage, storage and for dwelling purposes.

Table 2: Girawad: Summary of Table 3: Girawad: Summary of
Identification (inside complexes) Identification (outside complexes)
Complex Total NISP UF TF Complex Total NISP UF TF
1 138 110 248 20+21+22 82 42 124
2 337 116 453 23+24+31 22 14 36
3 ‐ 3 3 26+28 12 ‐ 12
4 282 240 522 43+44+45 20 13 33
5 536 513 1049
30 2 ‐ 2
6 86 89 175
34 5 10 15
7 245 264 509
35 3 ‐ 3
8 25 32 57
40 8 4 12
9 104 68 172
41 2 ‐ 2
10 71 54 125
42 2 11 13
11 384 547 931
25 10 5 15
12 11 20 31
29 ‐ 9 9
13 62 58 120
Total 2281 2114 4395 Total 168 108 276

NISP: number of identified specimens, UF: unidentified fragments, TF: total fragments

Faunal Composition
The faunal assemblage, it was found, displays diverse range of animals akin to other
Harappan sites in the region. It consists of skeletal elements of numerous vertebrates as
well as many invertebrates (Table 4). A total of 19 species were identified from the
Early Harappan period at the site. The domestic mammals include cattle, buffalo,
sheep, goat, pig, and dog. A fairly wide spectrum of wild animals’ presence can be
demonstrated by the skeletal elements of wild buffalo, nilgai, wild pig, spotted deer,
blackbuck, gazelle, bandicoot, and rat. The material is dominated by skeletal elements
like ribs, vertebrae, phalanges and teeth owing to their hard nature and probability of
better preservation while other bones such as long bones, pelvis and scapulae number
few. The faunal material has very few non‐mammalian animal remains as well. Four
428
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441
different species of fresh water shells were identified. However, it was not possible to
identify many skeletal elements up to the genus or species. Apart from one which
could be identified as Siluridae, fish remains were broadly classified into small,
medium and large fish.

Table 4: Animal Taxa Identified at Girawad
Domestic Mammals Wild Mammals Mollusca Fishes
Bos indicus Boselaphus tragocamelus Pila globosa Siluridae
Bubalus bubalis Axis axis Zootecus insularis
Capra hircus Antilope cervicapra Lamellidens sp.
Ovis aries Sus scrofa cristatus Diginostoma pulchela
Sus domesticus Gazella bennettii
Canis familiaris Rattus rattus
Bubalus arnee
Bandicota indica

Domestic Fauna
In the Early Harappan period, domestic fauna contributed to 88.4% (2166/2449) of the
total NISP. Majority of the skeletal elements came from cattle and buffalo. Together
these two important species, contributed to 82% of the total NISP. The other domestic
animals found from this period were the goat, sheep, pig, and the dog. All these
domestic mammals contributed to 5.08% of the total NISP.

Domestic Cattle (Bos indicus)
The cattle remains at Girawad inside complexes were 6.9% and outside complexes 9.5%
of the total assemblages of the respective areas. In total, 166 bones of cattle were found,
152 inside the complexes and 14 outside the complexes. Cattle bones came from all
contexts such as pits with different functions inside Complexes and also outside
complexes. Spatial analysis revealed that cattle bones were not found in certain
contexts such as later period pits (23 and 49), bases of round jars/pots (33B, 14C and
38B), storage pits (44 and 15) and dwelling pits (48, 42 and 46). From contexts like areas
outside complexes, they were found mostly outside Complex 2, 4 and 7 and from the
upper layers of the dig. Skeletal representation analysis showed that inside complexes,
mandible, scapula, astragalus, phalanges, and dental elements had survived better and
morphological features essential for their identification as cattle were preserved well.
Bones from the head and neck region, limb bones and metapodia were poorly
represented (Fig. 6). They may have undergone extensive breakage and damaged
beyond the point of identification, or may have been disposed off in other areas of the
site which have not been excavated. In areas outside the complexes, only certain
skeletal elements of cattle were identified such as teeth, phalanges, patella and scapula.
No bifid spine was found in this assemblage.

While the meat and marrow rich bones had undergone modifications such as charring
and cut marks which were evidences of their consumption, other non meat–rich bones
429

were relatively more intact and complete and had fewer marks of carcass processing
and consumption. Bones with deliberate modification numbered 30 out of which 28
were charred to different degrees. Long bones (radius, tibia and ulna) and scapula with
charred proximal and/or distal ends were found mostly in garbage pits while only
some came from dwelling and storage pits. Cut marks were evident on phalanges and
astragalus which came from garbage and dwelling pits and areas inside Complexes 1
and 2.

Figure 6: Lateral View of Distal End (just fused) of Femur (G138) of B. indicus

Domestic Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)
The skeletal elements representing this species were only 15 in number. The possibility
of more number of axial and appendicular elements present on the site does exist.
However, they were not easily distinguishable from that of cattle, and hence they have
been categorised under the broader group of ‘cattle/buffalo’. The bones of this species
contributed to only 0.6% of the total NISP. There were nine bones within the complexes
and six bones outside the features of complexes. Out of 15 bones, six were first and
430
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441
second phalanges with some having their proximal end slightly damaged coming from
varying contexts. In addition, some patina was seen on them. They came from not only
the upper layers but also from the storage, garbage, dwelling and later period pits
inside Complexes 2, 5 and 10. A broken mandible fragment came from a garbage pit
(34) in Complex 11. Another bone‐ centrotarsal came from Pit 49. All these bones had
no other modifications. Exceptions to this were two humeri fragments, both with distal
end found in a storage pit (15) in Complex 4. One of them showed signs of trampling.
Interestingly, only non meat bearing elements like horn core, centrotarsal and
phalanges devoid of modifications were found outside the boundaries of the
complexes leading to the observation that perhaps they indeed functioned as disposal
areas. Inside the complexes, however, a different picture was noticed which refuted the
above observation since phalanges were also recovered from there along with other
bones like humerus, mandible and dental elements. This species was probably kept
and reared in countable numbers for use in agriculture, and for both milk and meat.

Domestic Cattle/Buffalo (Bos indicus/Bubalus bubalis)
Skeletal elements which could not be conclusively identified as cattle or buffalo were
identified as Bos/Bubalus (1843/2449, 75%). The possibility that most of these bones
perhaps belong to cattle as it dominates over buffalo in the entire faunal assemblage
exists. Skeletal representation shows that fragments from all anatomical parts are
present. Ribs, vertebrae, cranial fragments and dental elements were broken to an
extent that distinguishing morphological features was not possible. This accounted for
majority of the bones for this category. Differential charring was seen on 480 bones.
Cut marks were present on vertebrae, carpals, proximal end of calcaneum, radius and
humerus, distal end of humerus and on a femur (unfused). Such marks were also
recorded for phalanges and a singular mandible fragment.

Domestic Sheep (Ovis aries)
At Girawad, there were more bones identified as sheep (10 in number) than goat (1).
Spatially, their remains were not present in the complexes situated in the northwestern
part of the site. Complexes lying to the South‐East had bones of these species. Non‐
meat bearing bones were found from the areas outside Complex 4. The bones
identified were fragments of metapodia and a first phalanx (Fig. 7). A third phalanx,
complete and fused of an adult individual came from a hollow area designated as a
saddle quern holder in Pit dwelling Complex 1. The presence of this skeletal element in
such a feature is doubtful. Post‐depositional formation processes could have moved
the bone from its original place to its present position of discovery.

The bones recovered from inside the complexes were scapulae and mandible (Fig. 7).
There were two mandible fragments, one complete left vertical ramus with a recent
break in it recovered from a storage pit in Complex 2 and the other was also a left
mandible with the premolar missing and only the first molar present found in a
garbage Pit in Pit dwelling Complex 5. Three scapulae fragments were found from
garbage pits in Complexes 4 and 7 and storage pit in Complex 13. All were of the distal
431

portion, fused and out of the three; two were of left side and one of right side. These
fragments showed some signs of modifications in form of charring on one and erosion
in the other two. The non‐meat bearing extremities were represented by a first phalanx
of a young individual since the proximal end was unfused (Fig. 7). It was otherwise
complete. It was found in an area outside the Pit dwelling Complex 4.

Figure 7: Dorsal View of C. hircus/O. aries (G195) Metacarpal, Dorsal View of
O. aries (G239) Left Metatarsal, Axial View of First Phalanx (G241) of O. aries,
Lateral View of Left Scapula (G235) of O. aries

Domestic Goat (Capra hircus)
At Girawad, there is scant representation of this species. A single element, a left
maxilla with intact third premolar, first and second molar from Complex 9 could be
attributed to this species. Other than a slight patina, there were no other visible
modifications.

Domestic Goat/Sheep (Capra hircus/Ovis aries)
This pooled group contributed to 4.4% of the total NISP (109/2449). There were 105
bones categorised under this broad group inside the complexes. They were found all
over the site. Outside the complexes, the bones were only 2.3% of the total NISP of the
outside areas (4/168). Spatial distribution of remains of this animal in the excavated
area showed that they were recovered from almost every feature that was exposed.
This group had both axial and appendicular skeletal elements that could not be easily
separated as sheep or goat (Figure 7). Akin to the cattle/buffalo group, this data also
revealed a similar picture. Almost all bones of the meat and non‐meat bearing parts
were present in the assemblage. 32 bones including mandible, humerus, tibia, ribs,
vertebrae, hyoid and maxilla were found charred to varying intensities. Other major
modifications documented were encrustations, ancient and recent breakage. Cranial
fragments, ribs, vertebrae, and dental elements dominated the anatomical composition
of the assemblage.
432
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441
Domestic Pig (Sus domesticus)
This species was poorly represented in the assemblage since there was only one bone
that could be positively identified as that of the domesticated species. It was a fragment
of pelvis‐ acetabulum and pubis found in what functioned as a storage pit in Complex
2. There were no other marks on it other than ancient breakage.

Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris)
A single bone, a fragment of left mandible, of a young individual with deciduous
molars, m1, m2 and m3 was identified (Fig. 8). This skeletal element was unearthed
from Complex 1. The information for this species is insufficient to make any
generalised remarks about its role or function in the site. Speculations can only be
made that it was probably reared or kept as a pet animal and not consumed for its
meat.

Figure 8: Left: General Suidae: Maxillary Deciduous Second Molar (G242),
Right: C. familiaris Left Mandible with Deciduous Molars (G237)

Wild Mammalian Fauna
The wild mammals contributed to 2.16% of the total NISP (53/2449). Inside the
complexes there were 51 bones and outside the complexes there were only 2 bones
identified as wild mammals.

Wild Buffalo (Bubalus arnee)
Three second phalanges of this species were present in the assemblage. All of them
were preserved intact. They came from three separate contexts‐ a dwelling pit, a
garbage pit and a storage pit from Complexes 2, 6 and 10. They were devoid of any
visible modifications. Not much can be inferred other than the confirmed presence of
the wild species of this animal in the vicinity of the area during the early phase of this
culture.
433

Spotted Deer/Chital (Axis axis)
This species was represented by very few bones. In all, there were five bones of this
species. There was one cranial fragment from the NW quadrant of Complex 9 and
second and third maxillary left molars from a storage pit in Complex 2. These three
elements were without any modifications. The remaining bones, one distal shaft of
femur from Complex 1 showed signs of trampling when the bone was fresh which may
also have caused a fracture and an unfused, charred, distal end of scapula of the right
side from a very young/neonatal individual from Complex 7. It’s possible that this
individual was hunted intentionally or accidentally and its meat was consumed as a
meat bearing part‐ the scapula had signs of charring.

Indian Gazelle/Chinkara (Gazella bennettii)
Its presence on the site was attested by only one skeletal element with positive
identification‐ the right proximal fused end of metacarpal with more than half the
shaft. This bone does not contain much meat and it was probably discarded after other
meat bearing parts of this hunted animal were disarticulated from the non‐meat
bearing part of the upper limb. It came from Pit 16, which functioned as a depression to
collect the dirty water and flowing garbage from Complex 7.

Blackbuck/Krishnamrug (Antilope cervicapra)
Both axial and appendicular bones of this animal were represented by five different
elements (Fig. 9). The bones had a black patina on them giving them a ‘burnt’
appearance. Two fragments of horn core indicated a definite presence of one or two
male individuals which were killed. The horns of the blackbuck were ringed with one
to four spiral turns, with rarely more than four turns. They came from Pit 18 which was
originally a storage pit but was later converted or reused as a garbage pit. The meat
bearing parts such as those from the limbs were characterised by the proximal fused
epiphyseal end of a right humerus and two fragments of pelvis. The former fragment
was unearthed inside Pit 35A from Complex 11. The latter’s provenances were from
storage pits inside Complexes 4 and 13. While one of the two fragment’s laterality and
state of fusion could not be confirmed anatomically since it was broken, the other
consisted of the acetabulum with parts of ilium and pubis and was of the left side. No
modification indicative of butchery process was visible on the bones. The non‐meat
bearing parts which were usually disarticulated and discarded are the extremities of
limbs. In the archaeological context they are found intact, complete and with no
modifications, such as the first phalanx found in a storage pit in Complex 8.

Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)
The bones of nilgai were scarce with only five elements positively attributed to it. The
remains when plotted on the excavated area revealed that they came from close areas
from the central part of the site. They included: one complete mandibular molar from a
storage Pit 43 of Complex 8, a complete first phalanx from a dwelling pit in Complex 7
with patina on it, one proximal end of a left radius from outside Complex 4, one distal
end of a left metacarpal from a dwelling pit and a complete second phalanx from the
434
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441
area where dirty water was collected (Pit 16) in Complex 7, and a complete first
phalanx from a dwelling pit in Complex 6. A mix of both meat‐bearing and non‐meat
bearing parts led to the observation that this animal was defintely hunted, perhaps in
fewer numbers. After carcass processing and disposal only the sturdy non‐meat
bearing parts had better survived the vagaries of pre‐ and post‐ depositional
taphonomic processes.

Figure 9: From L to R Clockwise: Lateral View of Right Proximal Humerus (G230),
Axial View of Complete First/Proximal Phalanx (G175), Two Fragments of Horn
Core and Lateral View of Left Innominate with Ilium (G236) of A. cervicapra

Wild Pig (Sus scrofa cristatus)
A single bone was unmistakably recognised as that of the wild species. In a storage pit
in Complex 7, was recovered a fourth metatarsal, complete and fused; hence it was of
an adult individual. There were no modifications other than a patina.

General Suidae
Some bones that had no specific diagnostic anatomical markers to identify them as
domestic or wild pig were placed under a general category. There are five osseous
elements in this category. A metapodium with unfused ends, a complete second
phalanx with chipped proximal end, a distal end of humerus from storage pit in
Complex 2, garbage pit from Complex 4 and an area in the vicinity of Pit dwelling
Complex 9, respectively. The other elements include a maxillary left deciduous second
molar heavily worn out from a storage pit in Pit dwelling Complex 4 and a complete,
435

worn out, mandibular fourth premolar whose side is not determined from a dwelling
Pit in Complex 7 (Fig. 8).

Common House Rat (Rattus rattus)
The bones of this animal are commonly found in archaeological sites as their burrows
are found sometimes disturbing and damaging structures as a result of later intrusion.
Death of the animal subsequently leads to mixing of their bones with the archaeofaunal
assemblage. This can be clearly discerned as bones of later period rats are lighter in
colour and weight and have no patina or encrustations or concretions. At Girawad,
more than 20 odd bones of this species were well represented by different parts of the
skeletal system which contributed to 1.05% of the total NISP. No remains of this
species were found in areas outside the Complexes. There were charred fragments of
pelvis, femur, tibia, mandible with incisors and elements such as claws and teeth that
were not charred. Charring may have occurred due to later period burning activities at
the site. A majority of them were unearthed from garbage pits or storage pits. If these
bones were contemporaneous with the remaining bones or features and structures at
the site, then the presence of rodents near areas designated as storage or garbage pits,
is justified in keeping with their scavenging nature. But since these are bones of later
period animals, their presence can be attributed more as intrusions and post death mix‐
up of bones with ancient deposits.

Indian Bandicoot Rat (Bandicota indica)
This species contributed to 0.09% of the total NISP. Two pelvic bone fragments, one of
which was charred represented this species. Both were recovered from garbage pits
and the speculation exists that they could be of more recent times and not a part of the
Early Harappan faunal assemblage. No remains were recovered from areas outside the
complexes. The above mentioned rodents (both rat and bandicoot rat) were definitely
not part of the diet of the Early Harappan population. Their bones appear to be
additions to the ancient assemblage. Also, there are no other modifications on them.

Non‐Mammalian Fauna
Wild fauna which were non‐mammalian were molluscs, birds and fishes. There were
no reptilian bones found in the Early Harappan period from this site. In all, 149 bones
and shells were recovered and positively identified belonging to this category. They
contributed to 6.08% of the total NISP. 143 bones and shells came from within the
features inside the complexes and 6 from outside the complexes.

Molluscs
Molluscs played an important role in the Harappan Culture in the form of raw material
for shell working, and object manufacturing and also as a source of food. Excavations
at Girawad have uncovered some molluscan species but so far there is no evidence of
shell acquisition for manufacturing shell objects/ornaments. The site is an inland site
and there are no remains of marine species. Four species of molluscs were positively
identified in the assemblage. Their findings suggest three possibilities‐ that they were
436
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441
deliberately fished from nearby ponds, lakes and rivers as a source of food and
nutrition to supplement their regular diet, or they were part of the original natural
deposits, or that they were later intrusions. The shells are intact with no further
modifications except for Lamellidens sp. in which some natural breakage can be
observed.

Zootecus insularis
In Girawad, a single shell came from a storage pit in Pit dwelling Complex 8. It
contributed to only 0.04% of the total NISP.

Lamellidens sp.
The shells were recovered from all over the site from almost all the various categories
of pits from different complexes. Overall there were 27 remains contributing to 1.1% of
the total NISP. There were 23 remains inside the complexes and 4 remains outside the
complexes. In comparison to other shells, their higher numbers indicated that they
were caught and brought to the site for consumption and they were the most preferred
edible bivalves.

Pila globosa
At Girawad, only four shells of this gastropod were present in garbage pit in Complex
6 and in an area outside Complex 4 and 7. They contributed to 0.16% of the total NISP.

Diginostoma pulchella
There were only two shells of this species in Complex 9 at the site. They contributed to
0.08% of the total NISP.

Fishes
Freshwater fishes were exploited for dietary purposes. Evidence of this came from
profuse remains, almost 6% of the total NISP (more than 150) from all complexes
except 10 and 12. Those that could be anatomically determined were the cranial
fragments, vertebrae, operculum and spines of the fins. More than half of them were
charred which attests that they were consumed to supplement the diet. Given the
fragile nature of their bones, the fish remains from Girawad were comparatively well‐
preserved. Only one family could be positively identified as that of Siluridae (catfish)
from garbage and storage pit in Complexes 5 and 9, respectively. The rest of the
remains have been classified relatively according to sizes such as ‘freshwater fish
small, medium and large’ and ‘freshwater fish unidentified’ (Fig. 10).

Birds
A total of four bones were placed under this category, one bone each from storage pits
in Complex 7, 9 and 11 and one from a later period pit (49).Together they contributed
to 0.16% of the total NISP. Two of them were charred. Not much can be inferred from
this meagre data. It is suggested that the birds were hunted or trapped by the
inhabitants and the meat was consumed occasionally.
437

Figure 10: Fish Remains from Girawad

Bone Modifications
The major discernible pre and post depositional changes include encrustation of
sediments on bones, patination, charring, cut marks, vitrification, and objects and tools
made by Harappans in Girawad. Burnt bones with varying degree of charring and
vitrification were 650 across all the pit dwelling complexes. Some were partially
charred and some were vitrified and appear bluish‐white. The bones were definitely
exposed to some kind of fire either because of cooking or during garbage disposal or
through accidental natural fires. One cattle right mandible had an inflammation as a
result of which the second and third molars were pushed to the extreme posterior of
the horizontal ramus. In total, objects and tools fashioned on bones by humans’
numbered 11. The tools were made on the shafts of long bones of large mammals like
cattle/buffalo. Flakes have been intentionally removed to give a definite working edge
to the tool and a handhold. Two bone points, the use of which is undetermined, came
from garbage pits. There were 8 polished objects probably made on ribs and the shaft
of ulna (Fig. 11). Some whose one end is still intact are either rounded or have an ‘m’
or a ‘w’ shaped edge.
438
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441

Figure 11: Bone Objects from Girawad

Cut marks were found on 16 bones all of which are either of cattle or buffalo. These
artificial marks easily distinguishable from natural breakage as a consequence of
removal of flesh from bones were found on long bones, vertebrae, tarsals and
phalanges. Meat bearing bones such as femur, radius, humerus bear marks on the
epiphyseal ends or on shafts and vertebrae with cut marks on their central bodies were
found in garbage pits in Complexes 1, 4, 5, and 7. Astragali and first phalanges from
garbage and common areas between complexes with cut marks were also found. It is
interesting to observe here that all bones with cut marks were also found to be charred.
It confirms that these animals were selectively chosen to be killed for their meat and
contributed to the nutritional requirements of the population. In common or
overlapping areas between complexes, meat bearing bones with charring and cut
marks are found. These modifications to bones such as distal end of humerus, ribs and
vertebrae were characteristic of disarticulation and separation of meat and non‐meat
bearing parts in an animal’s skeleton in the butchery process. They provide evidence of
culling of certain chosen cattle for meat consumption by the inhabitants of Girawad.
439

Their presence outside of activity areas could be because of factors impacting site
formation, displacing artefacts from their original place of deposition or discard. It
could also imply that areas outside of household activity areas were probably used as
areas for disposal of food leftovers.

Concluding Remarks
As it has been observed for most of the Harappan sites, cattle and buffalo skeletal
elements dominate the assemblage followed by those of sheep and goat. In this study
not a single fragment of reptiles was recovered though turtles and monitor lizards have
been found at many Harappan sites in Haryana such as Karsola, Lohat, Farmana and
Mitathal (Joglekar et al. 2013). Aquatic sources such as fishes and edible molluscs have
higher representation in comparison with terrestrial wild mammals and non‐mammals
at Girawad.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the team of ‘Indus Project’ who participated in the
excavation at Girawad and for systematic collection of faunal material and contextual
documentation. We also thank Dr. Arati Deshpande‐Mukherjee and Dr. Pankaj Goyal
for their help and input in the identification of faunal remains.

References
Apte, D. 1998. The Book of Indian Shells. Bombay Natural History Society, Calcutta:
Oxford University Press.
Clason, A. T. 1972. Some Remarks on the Use and Presentation of Archaeozoological
Data, Helinium 12: 139‐153.
Driesch, A. von den. 1976. A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological
sites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Bulletin 1.
Hillson, S. 2005. Teeth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joglekar P. P., P. K. Thomas, Y. Matsushima and S. J. Pawankar. 1994. Osteological
Differences between the Forelimb Bones of Ox (Bos indicus), Buffalo
(Bubalus bubalis) and Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), Journal of Bombay
Veterinary College 5 (1‐2): 17‐20.
Joglekar, P.P., C.V. Sharada and G.S. Abhayan 2013. Faunal Diversity during the
Harappan Period in Haryana: A Review, Heritage: Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 1: 262‐287.
Pawankar, S. J. and P. K. Thomas. 2001. Osteological Differences between Blackbuck,
Goat and Sheep, Man and Environment 26: 109‐126.
Prummel, W. and H. J. Frisch. 1986. A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and
Body Side in Bones of Sheep and Goat, Journal of Archaeological Science 13:
567‐577.
Rao, L. S., N. B. Sahu, P. Sahu, S. Diwan and U. A. Shastry 2004‐2005. New Light on the
Excavations of Harappan Settlement at Bhirrana, Puratattva 35: 60‐75.
440
Sharada et al. 2014: 421‐441
Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Shinde, Vasant. 2011. Excavations at Girawad, District Rohtak, Haryana,India – 2006
(Shinde, Vasant, Toshiki Osada and Manmohan Kumar Eds.). Kyoto, Japan:
Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature.
Subba Rao, N. V. 1989. Handbook of Freshwater Molluscs of India. Kolkata: Zoological
Survey of India.
Zeder, M. A. and Suzanne E. Pilaar. 2010. Assessing the reliability of criteria used to
identify mandibles and mandibular teeth in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra,
Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 225‐242.

441

Girawad PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Girawad PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Faunal Remains from Girawad (2006‐2007), District

You might also like