Table of contents | |
Introduction | |
Warfare and Conflict | |
Different Views Regarding Harappan Political System | |
Recent Writings |
Compared to contemporary Mesopotamia and Egypt, the Harappan civilization appears to have weaker elements of warfare, conflict, and force.
However, fortifications, particularly the impressive ones at sites like Dholavira, cannot be ignored.
Political Stability
Debate on Political System
A Centralized Empire Ruled by Autocratic Priest-Kings
Arguments for this view:
Arguments Against This View
Note: In ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, rulers are depicted extensively in art and their power is proclaimed through monumental architecture. In contrast, the Harappan case is different. The stone bust labeled 'priest king' from Mohenjodaro and the damaged seated figure from Dholavira do not provide clear evidence of priest-kings. Large houses in Harappan sites do not match the idea of palaces, although some buildings on citadels might have served a similar function.
Chiefdom State
70 videos|815 docs
|
1. What were the key features of the Harappan political system? |
2. How did warfare and conflict influence the Harappan civilization? |
3. What are the different views regarding the political organization of the Harappan society? |
4. What recent writings have emerged regarding Harappan civilization's political system? |
5. How does the study of Harappan civilization contribute to our understanding of ancient political systems? |
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|