Arguments over the Central Authority of Harappan Civilization:

1. Monolithic State:
- Some archaeologists believe that the Harappan civilization was governed by a central authority or a monolithic state.
- They argue that the uniformity in urban planning, architecture, and material culture across different Harappan sites suggests a centralized power controlling and coordinating these activities.

2. Decentralized Authority:
- On the other hand, some archaeologists argue that the Harappan civilization might have had a decentralized form of governance.
- They point to the absence of monumental architecture or inscriptions glorifying rulers, which are typical features of centralized states.
- They suggest that Harappan society might have been organized into small, self-governing units with limited central authority.

3. Heterarchy Model:
- Another perspective is the idea of a heterarchy model, where power was distributed among different centers rather than being concentrated in a single authority.
- This model suggests that different cities or regions within the Harappan civilization might have had their own local rulers or councils, cooperating and competing with each other.

4. Lack of Clear Evidence:
- One of the challenges in determining the central authority of the Harappan civilization is the lack of clear archaeological evidence such as royal tombs, palaces, or written records.
- The absence of such evidence makes it difficult to conclusively prove whether a centralized state or a more decentralized system existed in the Harappan society.
In conclusion, the debate over the central authority of the Harappan civilization continues among archaeologists, with different perspectives and interpretations based on the available evidence. Further research and discoveries may shed more light on this intriguing aspect of one of the ancient world's most enigmatic civilizations.