CIVILIZATION AND URBANIZATION: DEFINITIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
RECENT DISCOVERIES AND CHANGING PERSPECTIVES
HARAPPAN, INDUS, OR SINDHU–SARASVATI CIVILIZATION?
ORIGIN: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EARLYHARAPPAN PHASE
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EARLY AND MATURE HARAPPAN PHASES
THE GENERAL FEATURES OF MATURE HARAPPAN SETTLEMENTS
PROFILES OF SOME HARAPPAN CITIES, TOWNS, AND VILLAGES
THE DIVERSITY OF THE HARAPPAN SUBSISTENCE BASE
HARAPPAN CRAFTS AND TECHNIQUES
NETWORKS OF TRADE
THE NATURE AND USES OF WRITING
RELIGIOUS AND FUNERARY PRACTICES
THE HARAPPAN PEOPLE
THE RULING ELITE
THE DECLINE OF URBAN LIFE
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LATE HARAPPAN PHASE
CONCLUSIONS
Chapter outline
In 1826, Charles Masson, an adventurer who had deserted the East India Company army, stood on the mounds of Harappa, a village in Sahiwal district of Punjab. He was convinced that this must have been the very place where, in the 4th century BCE, the Macedonian invader Alexander had defeated king Porus in battle. A few years later, a traveller named Alexander Burnes visited
Harappa. He thought it was an important site, but was clueless about its precise significance. Many decades later, in the 1850s, Harappa was visited by Alexander Cunningham, a military engineer with the East India Company who was keenly interested in archaeology. He conducted a small excavation and discovered the remains of some structures, but was not impressed.
When Cunningham re-visited Harappa in 1872, he came as Director General of the newly established Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). He was dismayed to find the mounds badly disturbed by railway contractors who had been busy extracting free bricks. Cunningham found stone tools and ancient pottery, and also obtained a seal with a bull and some strange writing. He was intrigued, but concluded that since the bull did not have a hump, the seal must be a foreign one. He missed a very important clue.
The officers of the Archaeological Survey of India who explored Harappa and Mohenjodaro in the early 20th century were unenthusiastic about the sites. Pandit Hiranananda Sastri reported that he did not think there was any point in excavating Harappa, and D. R. Bhandarkar’s assessment was that Mohenjodaro could not be more than 250 years old! The sites were eventually excavated. In 1920, Daya Ram Sahni started excavations at Harappa and in 1921, R. D. Banerji started excavating Mohenjodaro. But it took a few more years for the true significance of the discoveries at these sites to be understood. The formal announcement of the discovery of the Indus or Harappan civilization was made in in 1924 by John Marshall, Director General of the Archaeological Survey, almost a century after Charles Masson had wandered over the mounds of Harappa and sensed that there was something significant about the place (see Lahiri, 2005 for the details of this fascinating story). The implications of Marshall’s dramatic announcement were enormous. An important and exciting fragment of India’s past had been uncovered, and the beginnings of civilization in India were pushed back some 2,500 years, to a time roughly contemporaneous with the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt.
JOHN MARSHALL, DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASI, 1902–28
Civilization and Urbanization: Definitions and Implications
The word ‘urbanization’ means the emergence of cities. ‘Civilization’ has more abstract and grander connotations, but refers to a specific cultural stage generally associated with cities and writing. In a few instances, archaeologists have described neolithic settlements as urban on the basis of size and architecture, even in the absence of writing. This is the case with 8th millennium BCE Jericho in the Jordan valley and the 7th millennium BCE settlement at Çatal Hüyük in Turkey. It has also been pointed out that the Mayan civilization of Mesoamerica and the Mycenaean civilization of Greece did not have true cities, while the Inca civilization of Peru did not have a system of true writing. However, apart from a few such exceptions, cities and writing tend to go together, and ‘urbanization’ and ‘civilization’ are more or less synonymous.
One of the earliest attempts to define a city was made by V. Gordon Childe (1950). Childe described the city as the result and symbol of a revolution that marked a new economic stage in the evolution of society. Like the earlier ‘neolithic revolution’, the ‘urban revolution’ was neither sudden nor violent; it was the culmination of centuries of gradual social and economic changes. Childe identified 10 abstract criteria, all supposedly deducible from archaeological data, which distinguished the first cities from the older and contemporary villages.
Childe’s observations proved to be the starting point of an important debate on the diagnostic features of urban societies. Some scholars did not agree with his use of the word ‘revolution’ to describe urbanization, as it suggests sudden, deliberate change. Further, his 10 criteria seem to be a loose assemblage of overlapping features, and are not arranged in any sequence of relative importance. For instance, were sophisticated artistic styles as important as an agricultural surplus or a state structure? Further, all 10 features (e.g., exact and predictive sciences) are not directly deducible from the archaeological data. Another objection is that some features, such as monumental architecture, specialized crafts, and long-distance trade are occasionally found in non-urban contexts as well. However, if we consider the 10 characteristics collectively instead of individually, it has to be conceded that Childe did succeed in identifying the most significant features and implications of city life.
Over the years, there have been three different sorts of trends in defining the city. One is to narrow down the diagnostic features, focusing, for instance, on writing, monumental structures, and a large population. A second trend is to identify more specific criteria such as settlement size, architectural features (e.g., fortifications and the use of stone and brick), and a uniform system of weights and measures. A third trend is towards a more abstract definition, highlighting features such as cultural complexity, homogeneity, and far-reaching political control.
The various hypotheses that have been put forward to explain the rise of the world’s first cities are reflective of how different scholars view and understand the unfolding of historical processes. Childe emphasized the importance of technological and subsistence factors such as increasing food surpluses, copper-bronze technology, and the use of wheeled transport, sailboats, and ploughs. Scholars such as Robert McC. Adams emphasized social factors, while Gideon Sjoberg asserted that political factors played the pivotal role in the emergence of cities.
An important aspect of McC. Adams’ contribution to our understanding of city life is his highlighting the relationship between cities and their hinterlands (see McC. Adams, 1966 and McC. Adams, 1968). City and village are not two opposite poles, but interdependent and interacting parts of a larger cultural and ecological system. While cities were no doubt ultimately sustained by agricultural surpluses produced in villages, the generation, appropriation, and deployment of agricultural surpluses were neither automatic nor purely economic phenomena and were governed by social and political factors. McC. Adams also highlighted the multiple roles played by cities: They were nodes for the appropriation and redistribution of agricultural surpluses. They provided a permanent base for new social and political institutions that regulated the relationships between specialized producers occupying different econiches. They were centres for the safe storage of surpluses, concentration of wealth, and for expenditure on public building programmes by elite groups. They were centres of learning, artistic creativity, philosophical debate, and the development of religious ideas.
The1. world’s first cities were larger and more densely populated than villages.
While2. the city population may have included some farmers and herdsmen, it also comprised full-time craftspersons, merchants, transporters, officials, and priests. These groups were supported by the surplus food produced by farmers.
Farmers3. had to hand over their surplus produce as tax or tribute to a ruling elite.
Monumental4. public buildings were hall marks of cities and reflected the concentration of social surplus (i.e., surplus produce and wealth generated in a society) in the hands of the elite.
There5. was a trade-off between the ruling class and the rest of society. Rulers lived off the surplus produced by farmers and in return provided them with peace, security, planning, and organization.
The6. invention of systems of recording—writing and numeral notation— helped meet the needs of administration.
The7. invention of writing led to the development of exact but practically useful sciences such as arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, and the creation of a calendar.
Conceptualized8. and sophisticated styles of artistic expression made their appearance. Cities9. implied a significant amount of long-distance trade.
10.They also implied a state organization based on residence in a territory rather than on kinship. The state provided security and materials to specialist craftspersons, enabling them to live a settled rather than an itinerant life.
SOURCE Childe, 1950
Gideon Sjoberg (1964) emphasized the close connection between the history of cities and the rise and fall of empires. He argued that political control was crucial in maintaining the social organization of empires and providing the stability necessary for the development of trade and commerce. He also elaborated on the many facets of the city’s functions and features. The concentration of population in a relatively small space in a city allowed a greater level of protection and security than possible in a village. It also facilitated communication and the exchange of goods and services among specialists. Elite groups tended to be concentrated in the city and usually lived near its centre. The city was hence the place where political decisions were taken and military strategies planned. Apart from being centres of intellectual and commercial activity, since elite groups were usually also patrons of the arts, cities also became centres of cultural and artistic activity.
Over the years, various factors such as population growth, long-distance trade, irrigation, and class conflict have been suggested as having played an important role in the emergence of cities. Actually, as is the case with all complex cultural phenomena, a variety of factors—social, political, economic, technological, and ideological—must have been involved, in conjunction with each other, and the details of their interplay could have varied from culture to culture. Since archaeology forms the primary source for reconstructing the emergence of the world’s first cities, there is more direct information on the technological aspect rather than other factors, which can be understood only in very general terms.
The emergence of cities has to be viewed as part of a longer history of human settlements, both rural and urban. The story of urbanization is one of increasing cultural complexity, a widening food
resource base, greater technological sophistication, expanding craft production, social stratification, and the emergence of a level of political organization that can be described as a state.
Over the eight decades or so since the momentous discoveries at Mohenjodaro and Harappa, information about the Harappan civilization has increased enormously. New sites have been discovered, old sites re-excavated, and there are several new interpretations based on the old and new discoveries. The amount of data and information has been steadily growing and continues to grow. Yet, many aspects of the civilization remain mysterious and subjects of vigorous debate.
In the initial years after its discovery, the Mesopotamian links were crucial for dating the Harappan civilization, and some archaeologists tended to compare the two (Shaffer, 1982a). This led to many questionable theories about Harappan origins and the nature of the Harappan economy and polity. In recent decades, scholars have become very conscious of the earlier bias and acknowledge the need to view the Harappan civilization independently rather than through a Mesopotamian lens.
Another feature of the early decades of Harappan studies was an emphasis on urban settlements, especially Mohenjodaro and Harappa. Apart from being the first sites of the culture to be excavated, these two cities seemed to stand out by virtue of their size and architectural features. However, several other sites are now known to be as large or even larger than them, e.g., Lurewala and Ganweriwala in Cholistan, Rakhigarhi in Haryana, and Dholavira in Gujarat. Scholars have increasingly directed attention to the smaller, less imposing sites, including towns and villages. These include the site of Allahdino (near Karachi), a village settlement that measures only about 5 ha, but which reveals all the main features of the Harappan civilization. Another recently excavated site is Balu in Haryana, a small fortified rural settlement that has yielded a rich variety of plant
remains. Profiles of different kinds of Harappan settlements are now available, and the understanding of the networks that connected cities, towns, and villages is slowly growing.
Although Harappan sites share certain common features, there are also significant regional and inter-site differences. These are visible, for instance, in the layout of settlements and in the crops that people grew and consumed. There are also differences in the types, range, and frequency of artefacts. For instance, at Allahdino, the typical black-on-red Harappan pottery formed only 1 per
cent of the total pottery finds. The mud-brick platforms in the southern part of the citadel complex at Kalibangan, which have been interpreted as ‘fire altars’, do not occur at most other sites. There are also differences in the frequency of various funerary practices across sites. For instance, post-cremation burials were much more numerous at Harappa than at Mohenjodaro. All this suggests a variety of subsistence strategies, food habits, craft traditions, religious beliefs, cultic practices, and social customs.
The nature and function of certain structures have also been re-considered in recent years. For instance, there is good reason to question whether the ‘great granaries’ at Mohenjodaro and Harappa were granaries at all (Fentress, 1984). Less acceptable is Leshnik’s suggestion (1968) that the dockyard at Lothal was not a dockyard but an irrigation reservoir. The re-interpretation of structures has important implications for the understanding of the Harappan social and political systems. For instance, the so-called ‘granaries’ used to be cited to support the theory of a strong, centralized state.
Recent excavations at Harappan sites reflect the changes in approaches, goals, and techniques within the discipline of archaeology. A good example are the recent excavations at Harappa, conducted by a joint American and Pakistani team. Compared to earlier excavations at the site, these have been marked by much more careful analysis of the cultural sequence and details of various parts of the residential areas. There has also been greater use of scientific techniques, including the analysis of bone and teeth remains, which provide very specific information about the diet and health of the Harappans.
The debates about various aspects of the Harappan civilization reflect both the potential of archaeology as a window into the ancient past and the important role of interpretation in this discipline. There are many different theories about almost every aspect of the Harappan civilization. Not all are equally acceptable; each has to be carefully examined. Conclusions can be reached on certain issues, while in other cases, it is necessary to acknowledge the current limits of our knowledge.
The first sites of this civilization were discovered in the valley of the Indus and its tributaries. Hence it was given the name ‘Indus valley civilization’ or ‘Indus civilization’. Today, the count of Harappan sites has risen to about 1,022, of which 406 are in Pakistan and 616 in India. Of these, only 97 have so far been excavated. The area covered by the Harappan culture zone is huge, ranging between 680,000 to 800,000 sq km. Sites have been found in Afghanistan; in the Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, and North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan; in Jammu, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and western Uttar Pradesh in India. The northernmost site is Manda in Jammu district of Jammu and Kashmir, the southernmost is Malvan in Surat district in southern Gujarat. The western-most site is Sutkagen-dor on the Makran coast of Pakistan, and the easternmost is Alamgirpur in the Saharanpur district of Uttar Pradesh. There is an isolated site at Shortughai in Afghanistan.
The vast geographical extent of the civilization should make the objection to the terms ‘Indus’ or ‘Indus valley’ civilization obvious. The terms ‘Indus–Sarasvati’ or ‘Sindhu–Sarasvati’ civilization are also used by some scholars. This is because a large number of sites are located on the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra river, which is identified by some scholars with the ancient Sarasvati mentioned in the Rig Veda. However, the sort of objection to the terms ‘Indus’ or ‘Indus valley’ civilization can
also be applied to the terms ‘Indus–Saraswati’ or ‘Sindhu–Saraswati’ civilization. Since the civilization was not confined to the valleys of the Indus or Ghaggar-Hakra, the best option is to use the term ‘Harappan ’ civilization. This is based on the archaeological convention of naming a culture after the site where it is first identified. The use of the term Harappan civilization does not imply that all other sites are identical to Harappa or that the culture developed first in this place. In fact, Possehl asserts that it is necessary to break the Harappan monolith into sub-regions, which he calls ‘Domains’ (Possehl, 2003: 6–7).
Newspapers and magazines sometimes announce the discovery of new sites of the Harappan civilization. This is done on the basis of a checklist of archaeological features. Pottery is an important marker. The typical Harappan pottery is red, with designs painted on in black, and has a certain range of forms and motifs. Other material traits associated with the civilization include terracotta cakes (pieces of terracotta, usually triangular, sometime round, whose precise function is unclear), a standardized brick size in the 1:2:4 ratio, and certain types of stone and copper artefacts. When the basic set of Harappan material traits are found associated with each other at a site, it is described as a Harappan site.
The Harappan culture was actually a long and complex cultural process consisting of at least three phases—the early Harappan, mature Harappan, and late Harappan. The early Harappan phase was the formative, proto-urban phase of the culture. The mature Harappan phase was the urban phase, the full-fledged stage of civilization. The late Harappan phase was the post-urban phase, when the cities declined. Other terminology is also used. For instance, Jim Shaffer (1992) uses the term ‘Indus valley tradition’ for the long series of human adaptations starting from the neolithic–chalcolithic stage to the decline of the Harappan civilization. Within this larger sequence, he uses the term ‘regionalization era’ for the early Harappan phase, ‘integration era’ for the mature Harappan phase, and ‘localization era’ for the late Harappan phase. The early Harappan–mature Harappan transition and the mature Harappan–late Harappan transition are also treated as separate, distinct phases. In this book, the simple and straightforward terminology of early Harappan, mature Harappan, and late Harappan will be used. When the unqualified term Harappan culture/civilization is mentioned, the reference is to the urban phase.
Before the advent of radiocarbon dating, this civilization was dated by cross-referencing with the Mesopotamian civilization, with which the Harappans were in contact and whose dates were known. Accordingly, John Marshall suggested that the Harappan civilization flourished between c. 3250 and 2750 BCE. When the Mesopotamian chronology was revised, the dates of the Harappan civilization were revised to c. 2350– 2000/1900 BCE.
The advent of radiocarbon dating in the 1950s offered the prospect of a more scientific way of dating the civilization, and the number of sites for which radiocarbon dates are available have gradually increased. The 1986–1996 Harappa excavations have given over 70 new radiocarbon dates, but none from the earliest levels, which are submerged in water. D. P. Agrawal (1982) suggested c. 2300–2000 BCE for the nuclear regions and c. 2000–1700 BCE for the peripheral zones, but this is based on uncalibrated radiocarbon dates. Recent calibrated C-14 dates give a time frame of about 2600–1900 BCE for the urban phase in the core regions of the Indus valley, the Ghaggar-Hakra valley, and Gujarat. This is quite close to the dates arrived at through cross-dating with Mesopotamia. The dates of individual sites vary.
Collating the calibrated radiocarbon dates from various sites gives the following broad chronology for the three phases of the Harappan culture: early Harappan, c. 3200–2600 BCE; mature Harappan, c. 2600–1900 BCE; and late Harappan, c. 1900–1300 BCE.
Issues of origins are always complex and often contentious. In his report on Mohenjo-daro, John Marshall asserted that the Indus civilization must have had a long antecedent history on the soil of India (see Chakrabarti, 1984 for a summary of the various theories). However, there were others who put forward diffusionist explanations. According to E. J. H. Mackay, a migration of people from Sumer (southern Mesopotamia) may have led to the Harappan civilization; other proponents of the migration theory included D.H. Gordon and S. N. Kramer. Mortimer Wheeler argued for a migration of ideas, not people—the idea of civilization was in the air of West Asia in the 3rd millennium BCE and the founders of the Harappan civilization had a model of civilization before them.
The fact that city life emerged in Mesopotamia a few centuries before it appeared in the Egyptian and Harappan contexts does not mean that the latter were derived from the former in a direct or indirect way. There are in fact several striking differences between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilizations. The Mesopotamians had a completely different script, a much greater use of bronze, different settlement layouts, and a large-scale canal system of the kind that seems absent in the Harappan civilization.
If the Harappan civilization cannot be explained as an offshoot or offspring of the Mesopotamian civilization, what is the alternative? The story of its origins can, in fact, be traced to the emergence of settled farming communities in Baluchistan in the 7th millennium BCE. Its more immediate prelude was the cultural phase that used to be known as pre-Harappan, and is now usually referred to as the early Harappan phase.
Amalananda Ghosh (1965) was the first archaeologist to identify similarities between a pre-Harappan culture and the mature Harappan culture. Ghosh focused on the pre-Harappan Sothi culture of Rajasthan. He asserted that there were similarities between Sothi pottery and the pottery of (a) Zhob, Quetta, and other Baluchi sites; (b) pre-Harappan Kalibangan, Kot Diji, and the lowest levels of Harappa and Mohenjodaro; and (c) mature Harappan levels at Kalibangan, and perhaps also at Kot Diji. In view of these similarities, he argued that the Sothi culture should be described as proto-Harappan. A limitation of this hypothesis was that it was based exclusively on a comparison of pottery, and did not consider other material traits. And in emphasizing ceramic similarities, Ghosh had ignored the many differences between the Sothi and Harappan cultures. The result was an overemphasis on the Sothi element in the account of the emergence of the Harappan civilization.
Diffusionist theories were popular among archaeologists and historians in the 19th and early 20th centuries and were invoked to explain developments as diverse as the beginnings of agriculture,
the origins of cities, the distribution of megalithic monuments, and similarities in religious ideas.
Diffusion is not a theory but a way of theorizing about cultural change. A diffusionist argument can broadly be described thus: The first thing to do is to figure out in which part of the world the change first occurred. This is identified as the point of origin, from where the change is presented as having diffused or spread to other areas. The process of diffusion is variously described as the result of a migration of people, some other form of contact (e.g., trade, invasion) or a more abstract cultural stimulus.
Such theories often rest on a number of questionable assumptions and flawed logic:
One1. of these assumptions is that similar discoveries/inventions/ cultural changes in different parts of the world must be connected to each other. This is not necessarily so. As we have seen in the case of the origins of agriculture, at least three independent centres of early agriculture can be identified.
Diffusionist2. theories often take up superficial resemblances between cultures and ignore the differences. They then hold up the superficial resemblances as very significant and as ‘proof’ of diffusion.
These3. theories appear to offer an explanation, but actually do not explain anything at all. Technologies or cultural transformations do not get transported and transplanted into new areas in a simple or automatic way. There has to be a need and acceptance for them in the recipient culture, and a number of preconditions have to be in place. Mere awareness of a different way of life does not lead to people changing their ways of doing things or living their lives. For example, it was pointed out in the previous chapter that there are several hunting-gathering groups who are aware of agriculture but do not practise it themselves. Urbanization is a very complex process and the mere awareness of cities does not necessarily lead to a transformation of village cultures into urban ones. As we shall see further on, a number of things have to be in place before urbanization can happen.
This criticism of diffusionist theories should not be taken to mean that cultures never influence each other. However, in all instances, while making a case for such influence, it is necessary to:
prove1. that there was some contact between the ‘donor’ and ‘recipient’ cultures before the change appeared in the latter; show2. that there is indeed a striking and significant degree of similarity in the developments in the two cultures; and demonstrate3. how and why the new technology/practice was transmitted to and absorbed into the cultural fabric of the recipient culture.
The first comprehensive analysis of the evidence from pre-Harappan sites in the greater Indus valley and north Baluchistan was made by M. R. Mughal (1977). Mughal compared the whole range of evidence (pottery, stone tools, metal artefacts, architecture, etc.) from pre-Harappan and mature Harappan levels, and explored the relationship between the two stages. The pre-Harappan phase showed large fortified settlements, a fairly high level of expertise in specialized crafts such as stone working, metal crafting, and bead making, the use of wheeled transport, and the existence of trade networks. The range of raw materials used by the pre-Harappans was more or less the same as that used in the mature Harappan phase (except for jade, which is absent in the early Harappan context). The two things lacking were large cities and increased levels of craft specialization. Mughal argued
that the ‘pre-Harappan’ phase actually represented the early, formative phase of the Harappan culture and that the term ‘pre-Harappan’ should therefore be replaced by ‘early Harappan’.
Early Harappan levels have been identified at a large number of sites, a few of which are discussed below. At some sites, the early Harappan phase represents the first cultural stage, at others it is part of a longer cultural sequence. The dates vary from site to site, but the general range is c. 3200–2600 BCE. The early Harappan phase is extremely important, not merely as a stepping-stone to urbanization, but in its own right as well.
At Balakot (on the coastal plain of Sonmiani Bay on the Makran coast), Period II is early Harappan. The pottery was wheel-made and painted, some of it similar to the polychrome ware of Nal. There were microliths, humped bull figurines, a few copper objects, miscellaneous artefacts made of terracotta, shell, and bone, and beads of lapis lazuli, stone, shell, and paste. Remains of barley, vetch, legumes, and ber were found and bones of cattle, sheep, goat, buffalo, hare, deer, and pig were identified.
Mention was made in (< />)Chapter 3 of the site of Nal in the Khozdar area of Baluchistan. Nal- and Amri-related sites represent the early Harappan phase in the southern part of the Indus valley and Baluchistan.
Amri in Sindh lies about 2 km from the right bank of the Indus. The settlement goes back to c. 3500 BCE. Period I at Amri is early Harappan and is further sub-divided into four phases—1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D. Period II represents a transitional phase and Period III is mature Harappan. Within Period I, there was a gradual increase in the refinement and variety of pottery. Mud-brick structures, sometimes supplemented with stone, made their appearance. Artefacts included chert blades, stone
balls, bone tools, and a few fragments of copper and bronze. In Period IC, there were multiple cellular compartments, perhaps used for storing grain or as platforms for buildings. The pottery was dominated by wheel-made wares and showed a great variety of forms and painted designs, mostly geometric. The painting was monochrome or polychrome, using brown, black, and ochre.
Kot Diji lies about 160 km north-east of Amri, on the left bank of one of the old flood channels of the Indus. Here, there is an early and mature Harappan level with a burnt deposit in between. Early Harappan Period I was dated from c. 3300 BCE. Fortified with a massive wall made of limestone rubble and mud-brick, the settlement consisted of a citadel complex and a lower residential area. House walls of stone and mud-brick were found in the upper levels. Artefacts included objects of stone, shell, and bone; terracotta figurines (including a bull figurine), bangles, and beads; and a fragment of a bronze bangle. There is a great variety of pottery in Period I, mostly wheel-made and decorated with brownish bands of paint. The distinctive pottery is a short-necked ovoid pot, painted with designs such as the ‘horned deity’, pipal leaves and ‘fish scales’. Artefacts similar to those at Kot Diji Period I have been found at other sites as well, and such levels are known as ‘Kot Dijian’.
At Mehrgarh, the excavators noted the occurrence of Kot Diji style vessels, fragments of triangular terracotta cakes, very long flint blades, and fragments of perforated jars, which suggest links with the Indus valley by the end of Period VII. However, these links are not so strong as to constitute true Harappan influence. At nearby Nausharo, there is a clear transition from the early Harappan to a
transitional and then mature Harappan phase. The pottery of Period IC (the later part of the early Harappan levels) at Nausharo was similar to that of Mehrgarh Period VIIC. Jarrige (Jarrige et al., n.d.: 87) suggests that these two phases were contemporaneous and can be dated c. 2600–2550 BCE.
There are a number of early Harappan sites in the Dera Jat area in the western Indus plains. At Gumla in the Gomal valley, new pottery styles, including some similar to the Kot Dijian, appeared in Period II. Period III was dominated by Kot Dijian pottery forms and designs including the ‘horned deity’. Period IV at Gumla belonged to the mature Harappan phase.
Period I at Rehman Dheri in the Gomal valley is early Harappan and its earliest levels are dated c. 3380–3040 BCE. The settlement was over 20 ha in size. Aerial photographs showed a planned, rectangular settlement with a regular grid of streets and houses, surrounded by a massive wall that belonged to a later phase, contemporary with the mature Harappan. However, it is clear that there was a wall made of mud and mud-brick around the settlement in the early Harappan phase as well. The pottery designs show Kot Dijian elements and some of the pots have graffiti. Artefacts included stone blades, copper and bronze tools, and terracotta figurines. Beads of lapis lazuli and turquoise were found, indicating exchange with Afghanistan and central Asia. Plant remains comprised grains of wheat and barley. Bones of cattle, sheep, and goat were identified.
FIGURE 4.2 KOT DIJIAN POTTERY FROM VARIOUS SITES
Similar discoveries were made at several sites in the Bannu basin. The early Harappan settlement at Lewan may go back to the early 3rd millennium BCE. Apart from a small habitation area,
excavations revealed an area measuring about 450 × 325 m, littered with various kinds of stone tools in different stages of production—microliths (mostly of chert) as well as heavy stone artefacts, including various types of querns, stone balls, long triangular stone axes, ring stones, and pointed hammer stones. Lewan was clearly a factory site where various kinds of stone tools were made. Beads and bead making material were also found in a part of this industrial area. Tarakai Qila gave evidence of wheat, barley, lentils (Lens culinaris), and field pea (Pisum arvense), and there were stone blades with the sheen typical of sickles used for harvesting grain. Bones of cattle, water buffalo, sheep, and goat were found.
Period II at Sarai Khola in the northern part of Punjab province of Pakistan is early Harappan. There was a transition within this period from pit dwellings to mud-brick houses. The dominant pottery type was Kot Dijian. Stone artefacts included microliths, celts, and chisels. There were other objects such as terracotta figurines, terracotta and shell bangles, beads made of steatite paste, and one of lapis lazuli. Some copper artefacts, including bangles, pins, rings, and rods, also made their appearance.
In the previous chapter, mention was made of recent excavations at Harappa in Pun-jab province of Pakistan, which indicate that the first occupation of the site (Period I) belongs to the Ravi or Hakra phase. The settlement of the early Harappan phase at Harappa (Period II) was over 25 ha in area (Meadow and Kenoyer, 2001). It was divided into two mounds, each with massive mud-brick platforms and fortifications. The layout of the houses and streets suggest elements of planning. Remains of mud-brick walls, hearths, and a small circular kiln were found. Craftspeople used a variety of raw materials to produce a diverse range of items. Pottery included types similar to those found at Kot Diji. Other artefacts included chert blades, a few stone celts, terracotta female figurines and bangles, and beads made of lapis lazuli, carnelian, and steatite. There is evidence of writing (on pottery and seals), inscribed seals, and standardized weights. Certain types of artefacts found in the early Harappan phase—including some pottery types, figurines, triangular terracotta cakes, toys, and bangles—continued into the mature Harappan phase.
As mentioned in (< />)Chapter 3, the first village settlements in the Cholistan tract of the Hakra plain belong to the Hakra wares phase. The next cultural phase in this area is Kot Dijian, i.e., early Harappan. In fact, the greatest concentration of Kot Dijian sites lies in the Cholistan region. In this phase, there was a dramatic change from a nomadic life to permanent settlement. M. R. Mughal’s study (1997) shows a drop in the number of camp sites from 52.5 per cent (Hakra wares phase) to 7.5 per cent. Many of the settlements had kilns, indicating a sharp increase in specialized craft activities. About 60 per cent of the sites are under 5 ha, and 25 per cent are between 5 and 10 ha. There are a few larger sites, namely Jalwali (22.5 ha) and Gamanwala (27.3 ha).
Period I at Kalibangan on the banks of the Ghaggar river is early Harappan. Calibrated radiocarbon dates give a range of c. 2920–2550 BCE. The settlement of Period I was about 4 ha in size and was surrounded by massive mud-brick fortifications. Houses were made of mud and mud-brick, and were built around courtyards. There was a standardization of brick size (3:2:1). Hearths, lime-plastered storage pits, and saddle querns were found in houses. Artefacts included stone blades, terracotta cakes, shell bangles, disc beads made of steatite, carnelian, faience, gold, and silver, and over a hundred copper objects. The pottery of Period I showed great variety. Some of the pots were similar to Kot Dijian pottery. The distinctive pottery was red or pink in colour with designs painted on in black, sometimes also in white. The designs included a moustache-like scroll, plants, fish, and cattle. Some of the graffiti on pottery is similar to the script of the mature Harappan phase. One of the most exciting finds in Period I was made to the south of the site—a ploughed field surface, showing the north–south and east–west furrow marks left by a plough hundreds of years ago.
There are a number of early Harappan sites in the Indo-Gangetic divide. At Kunal, Banawali, and Rakhigarhi in Hissar district of Haryana, the early Harappan phase is succeeded by a mature Harappan phase. At Kunal, Period IA belonged to the Hakra wares phase. Period IB showed a continuation of the traits of the earlier phase, but also a large quantity of pottery of the type found at Kalibangan I. There was also the first occurrence of sturdy red beakers and jars of the Harappan type. Period IC was transitional between the early and mature Harappan. The below ground-level houses of the earlier phases made way for ground-level houses made of standardized mud-bricks (in
the 1:2:3 and 1:2:4 size ratios). Six steatite seals and one shell seal bearing geometric patterns were found. Large hoards of jewellery, including two silver tiaras, gold ornaments, and beads made of semiprecious stones such as lapis lazuli and agate, were discovered in some of the houses.
At Banawali, the early Harappan phase was marked by mud-brick houses with hearths and plastered storage pits in the courtyards. The pottery was similar to that found at Kalibangan I. Artefacts included stone blades, copper objects, beads of gold and semi-precious stones, and a cubical chert blade. Nearby, along the Ghaggar-Hakra, early Harappan levels have been identified at Siswal and Balu in Haryana and Rohira and Mahorana in Punjab.
Rakhigarhi gives evidence of a planned settlement and mud-brick structures in early Harappan Period I. The range of pottery types was similar to that of Kalibangan I. Artefacts included uninscribed seals, pottery with graffiti, terracotta wheels, carts, rattles, and bull figurines, chert blades, weights, a bone point, and a muller. A lot of animal bones were found during the excavations, indicating the importance of animal husbandry. A stacked set of hopscotches was found in an open area behind the structural complex. This suggests the possibility that a game similar to pithu, which is popular among children in India and Pakistan, goes back to early Harappan times!
Bhirrana, a recently excavated site in Fatehabad district of Haryana (Rao et al., 2004–05), has given valuable information on the processes leading to the Harappan civilization. Period IA belongs to the Hakra wares culture, Period IB is early Harappan, Period II early mature Harappan, and Period IIB mature Harappan. The remains of Period IB included vestiges of structures made of mud-bricks in the ratio of 1:2:3, including a house complex consisting of six rooms, a central courtyard, and chullahs. There were many different kinds of pottery, including the types known from Kalibangan, as well as the bi-chrome wares, a few sherds of light incised wares, and tan/chocolate wares known from Period IA. Other artefacts included copper arrowheads, rings, and bangles; beads of carnelian, jasper, steatite, shell, and terracotta; terracotta marbles, pendant, bull figurine, rattle,
cake, wheel, and gamesmen (small pieces that may have been used as counters in some sort of ancient board game); plain and segmented terracotta bangles; faience bangles; bone objects; and sandstone sling balls, marbles, and pounders.
Excavations at sites such as Padri and Kuntasi in Saurashtra have shown the existence of a well-developed early Harappan horizon in Gujarat. The site of Dholavira in the Rann of Kutch has early Harappan levels. The settlement was fortified with an imposing wall made of stone rubble set in mud mortar. Buildings were made of standardized (1:2:4) mud-bricks. Pottery included perforated jars and dish-on-stand, and there was evidence of copper artefacts, stone blades, shell objects, terracotta cakes, and stone beads.
In spite of the undeniable evidence of cultural continuity from the early Harappan to the mature Harappan phase, the ‘outside influence’ factor still sometimes resurfaces in different forms. While acknowledging the indigenous roots of the Harappan civilization, some archaeologists still invoke Sumerian influence. Attempts have been made to connect the pottery traditions of the Harappan tradition with those of Mesopotamia and eastern Iran. Lamberg-Karlovsky (1972) suggests that the emergence of an early urban interaction sphere in c. 3000 BCE in Turkmenia, Seistan, and south Afghanistan had an important role to play in Harappan urbanism. Shereen Ratnagar (1981) suggests that Indus–Mesopotamian trade played an important role in the rise and decline of the Harappan civilization. Such theories are difficult to accept in the absence of substantive evidence.
Apart from the fact that some features of the mature Harappan culture were already in place in the early Harappan phase, what is also visible is a gradual transition from a variety of regional traditions towards a level of cultural uniformity cutting across regions, a process that the Allchins call ‘cultural convergence’ (Allchin and Allchin, 1997: 163). Some inferences can also be made about the social and political processes that were underway. Specialized crafts imply specialized craftspersons, trade implies traders, and planned settlements imply planners, executors, and labourers. Seals have been found at Kunal and Nausharo and may have been connected with traders or elite groups. The discovery of hoards of jewellery at Kunal, including a silver piece that has been interpreted as a tiara, suggests a fairly high level of concentration of wealth and may also have political implications. The discovery of symbols similar to Harappan writing at early Harappan levels at Padri in Gujarat, Kalibangan in Rajasthan, Dholavira in Kutch, and Harappa in west Punjab shows that the roots of the Harappan script go back to this phase.
Another notable feature is the appearance of the ‘horned deity’ at a number of places. He is painted on a jar found at Kot Diji and on several jars found at early Harappan Rehman Dheri, in contexts dated c. 2800-2600 BCE. At Kalibangan Period I, his figure was incised on one side of a terracotta cake, on the other side of which was a figure with a tied animal. All this suggests that the process of ‘cultural convergence’ was also operating in the religious and symbolic spheres.
But how did this convergence come about? What led to the transition from the proto-urban early Harappan phase to full-fledged city life? Was it the result of increased inter-regional contact, or long-distance trade? Trade with Mesopotamia has been suggested as a factor, but the importance of this trade has been exaggerated even in the context of the mature Harappan phase. According to Chakrabarti (1995b: 49–52), the catalyst for the transition may have been an increasing level of craft
specialization, instigated especially by the development of copper metallurgy in Rajasthan. He suggests that another crucial factor for the spread of settlements in the active floodplain of the Indus may have been agricultural growth based on an organized irrigation system, but direct evidence of this is lacking. The answer may lie in the emergence of a new, decisive political leadership, significant changes in social organization, or perhaps a new ideology. Unfortunately, such changes are difficult to deduce from the archaeological data.
There are several other gaps in our understanding of the relationship between the early and mature Harappan phases. The information about the earliest levels at sites such as Mohenjodaro and Harappa is inadequate. There are several mature Harappan sites where there is no early Harappan level, e.g., Lothal, Desalpur, Chanhudaro, Mitathal, Alamgirpur, and Ropar. There are several early Harappan sites in the Potwar plateau which do not have mature Harappan levels. In Cholistan, only three of the many early Harappan sites—Chak 76, Gamanwali, and Sandhanawala Ther—continued to be occupied in the mature Harappan phase. Further, there are no early Harappan sites in the active Indus plain. And at sites where there are both early Harappan and mature Harappan levels, the transition from one to the other is not always smooth. At Kot Diji and Gumla, a burnt deposit between the two suggests a major fire. Evidence of burning was also found at Amri and Nausharo. At Kalibangan, the break in occupation may have been due to an earthquake.
The fact that the Harappan civilization was urban does not mean that all or even most of its settlements had an urban character. A majority were in fact villages. The cities depended on villages for food and perhaps also labour, and various kinds of goods produced in cities found their way into the villages. As a result of the brisk urban–rural interaction, the typical range of Harappan artefacts reached even small village sites.
It is not easy to estimate the exact size of ancient settlements, as they are often spread over many mounds and buried under layers of alluvium. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Harappan sites varied a great deal in size and function, from large cities to small pastoral camps. The largest settlements include Mohenjodaro (over 200 ha), Harappa (over 150 ha), Ganweriwala (over 81.5 ha), Rakhigarhi (over 80 ha), and Dholavira (about 100 ha). Lurewala in Cholistan, with an estimated population of about 35,000, seems to have been as large as Mohenjodaro. Other large sites (about 50 ha) are Nagoor, Tharo Waro Daro, and Lakhueenjo-Daro in Sindh, and Nondowri in Baluchistan. Recently, some very large Harappan sites have been reported in Punjab—Dhalewan (about 150 ha) in Mansa district and Gurni Kalan I (144 ha), Hasanpur II (about 100 ha), Lakhmirwala (225 ha), and Baglian Da Theh (about 100 ha) in Bhatinda district, but details are so far lacking. The second rung of Harappan settlements are moderate-sized sites ranging between 10 and 50 ha, such as Judeirjodaro and Kalibangan. Then, there are the even smaller sites of 5–10 ha, such as Amri, Lothal, Chanhudaro, and Rojdi. The many settlements in the 1–5 ha range include Allahdino, Kot Diji, Rupar, Balakot, Surkotada, Nageshwar, Nausharo, and Ghazi Shah. There are also settlements even smaller than these.
The streets and houses of Harappan cities were once thought to be laid on a grid-pattern oriented north–south and east–west. Actually, even Mohenjodaro does not show a perfect grid system. Roads in the Harappan cities were not always absolutely straight and did not always cross one another at right angles. But the settlements were clearly planned. There is no strict correlation between the level of planning and the size of a settlement. For example, the relatively small site of Lothal shows a much higher level of planning than Kalibangan, which is twice its size. The details of the plans differ. Mohenjodaro, Harappa, and Kalibangan have a similar layout, consisting of a raised citadel complex and a lower city. At Lothal and Surkotada, the citadel complex is not separate; it is located within the main settlement. In its most fully developed phase, Dholavira consisted of not two but three parts—the citadel, middle town, and lower town.
A major difference between the buildings in large cities and those in smaller towns and villages was in the type and combination of raw materials used. In villages, houses were made mostly of mud-brick, with the additional use of mud and reeds; stone was occasionally used for foundations or drains. Buildings in towns and cities were made of sun-dried and burnt bricks. In the rocky areas of Kutch and Saurashtra, however, there was extensive use of stone. The massive fortification walls with a veneer of dressed stone at Dholavira and the remains of stone pillars in the citadel are very distinctive and are not found at any other Harappan site.
The fact that some house walls at Mohenjodaro survive upto a height of 5 m is a tribute to the strength of the bricks and the brick-laying skill of the Harappans. There were various styles of laying bricks, including what is known as the ‘English bond style’. In this, bricks were laid together in a sequence of long side (stretcher) and short side (header), with an alternate arrangement in consecutive rows. This gave the wall maximum load-bearing strength. A striking feature of Harappan structures is the uniformity in the average size of the bricks—7 × 14 × 28 cm for houses and 10 × 20
× 40 cm for city walls. Both these brick sizes have an identical ratio of thickness, width, and length (1:2:4). This ratio first makes its appearance at a few sites in the early Harappan phase, but in the mature Harappan phase, it is found in all the settlements.
People lived in houses of different sizes, mostly consisting of rooms arranged around a central courtyard. Doorways and windows generally faced the side lanes and rarely opened onto the main streets. The view from the lane into the courtyard was blocked off by a wall. There are remains of staircases that may have led to the roof or a second storey. The fact that some of the houses at Mohenjodaro were two stories high or more is also suggested by the thickness of their walls. Floors were usually made of hard-packed earth, often re-plastered or covered with sand. The ceilings were probably over 3 m high. Roofs may have been made of wooden beams covered with reeds and packed clay.
The doors and windows of houses were made of wood and mats. Clay models of houses show that doors were sometimes carved or painted with simple designs. Windows had shutters (perhaps made of wood or reeds and matting), with latticework grills above and below to allow in light and air. A few pieces of carved alabaster and marble latticework have been found at Harappa and Mohenjodaro; such slabs may have been set into the brickwork. Small houses attached to large ones may have been the quarters of service groups working for wealthy city dwellers. In the larger houses, passages led into inner rooms, and there is evidence of frequent renovation activity.
Bathrooms and toilets are facilities people use every day but which most books on ancient history rarely discuss. In the case of the Harappan civilization, there is quite a bit of information on this aspect (Kenoyer, 1998: 59–60). Many houses or groups of houses had separate bathing areas and toilets. Bathing platforms with drains were often located in rooms next to a well. The floor of the bathing area was usually made of tightly fitted bricks, frequently set on edge, to make a carefully sloped watertight surface. A small drain led from here, cut through the house wall, and went out into the street, connecting ultimately with a larger sewage drain.
Although some people may have used the area outside the city walls to relieve themselves, toilets have been identified at many sites. They ranged from the simple hole in the ground above a cesspit to more elaborate arrangements. Recent excavations at Harappa have uncovered toilets in almost every house. The commodes were made of big pots sunk into the floor, many of them associated with a
small lota-type jar, no doubt for washing up. Most of the pots had a small hole in the base, through which water could seep into the ground. The waste from the toilets was in some cases discharged though a sloping channel into a jar or drain in the street outside. Some people must have had the job of cleaning the toilets and drains on a regular basis.
Well laid-out streets and side lanes associated with an efficient and well-planned drainage system are other notable features of Harappan settlements. Even the smaller towns and villages had impressive drainage systems. The sewage chutes and pipes were separate from drains for collecting rain water. Drains and water chutes from the second storey were often built inside the wall, with an exit opening just above the street drain. At Harappa and Mohenjodaro, terracotta drain pipes directed waste water into open street drains made of baked bricks. These connected into large drains along the main streets, which emptied their contents into the fields outside the city wall. The main drains were covered by corbelled arches made of brick or stone slabs. There were rectangular soak-pits for collecting solid waste at regular intervals. These must have been cleaned out regularly, otherwise the drainage system would have become choked and a health hazard.
The Harappans made elaborate arrangements for water for drinking and bathing. The emphasis on providing water for bathing, evident at several sites, suggests that they were very particular about personal hygiene. It is possible that frequent bathing also had a religious or ritualistic aspect. The sources of water were rivers, wells, and reservoirs or cisterns. Mohenjodaro is noted for its large number of wells. Harappa had much fewer wells but a depression in the centre of the city may represent a tank or reservoir that served the city’s inhabitants. There are a few wells at Dholavira, which is noted more for its impressive water reservoirs lined with stone.
A very small proportion of identified Harappan sites have been excavated. And where excavations have taken place, only sections of the settlements have been exposed (for site details, see, for instance, Kenoyer, 1998; Possehl, 2003; and Lal, 1997).
Mohenjodaro in Sindh lies about 5 km away from the Indus; in protohistoric times, the river may have flowed much closer. The site consists of two mounds, a higher but smaller western mound and a lower but larger eastern mound. There is an extensive area to the east that has not yet been explored. The size of the site has been estimated as about 200 ha. On the basis of the density of houses in the excavated area, Fairservis (1967) suggested that the lower city may have housed about 41,250 people.
The western mound at Mohenjodaro (known as the citadel) rises up to 12 m above the plain. The structures here were built on an artificial mud and mud-brick platform, about 400 × 200 m. The mound was circled by a 6 m thick mud-brick retaining wall or platform with projections on the south-west and west, and a tower has been identified on the south-east. It has been suggested that the elevated area at Mohenjodaro does not represent a defensive fortification but part of a civic design to create an elevated symbolic landscape. However, the defensive nature of the walls here and at other cities cannot be ruled out.
FIGURE 4.5 CITADEL AND LOWER TOWN, MOHENJODARO
The buildings on the citadel mound of Mohen jodaro are among the things we associate most closely with the Harappan civilization. In the north are the Great Bath, the so-called ‘granary’, and
‘college of priests’. The Great Bath, an example of the Harappans’ engineering skill, measures about 14.5 × 7 m, with a maximum depth of 2.4m. A wide staircase leads down into the tank from the north and south. The floor and walls of the tank were made water-tight by finely fitted bricks laid edge to edge with gypsum mortar. A thick layer of bitumen was laid along the sides of the tank and probably also below the floor, making this one of the earliest examples of waterproofing in the world. The floor slopes towards the southwest corner, where a small outlet leads to a large corbelled brick drain, which would have taken the water out to the edge of the mound. Remains of brick colonnades were discovered on the eastern, northern, and southern sides of the bath and a similar colonnade must have existed on the western side as well. Two large doors lead into the complex from the south and there were also entrances from the north and east. There are a series of rooms along the eastern edge of the building. One of them has a well that may have supplied water to the tank. Immediately to the north of the Great Bath is a large building consisting of eight small rooms with common bathing platforms.
MOHENJODARO: NARROW LANE BETWEEN HOUSE WALLS
Across the street from the Great Bath are the remains of a large, imposing building (69 × 23.4 m) consisting of several rooms, a 10 m square courtyard, and three verandahs. Two staircases led either to the roof or an upper storey. Because of its size and proximity to the Great Bath, it was tentatively identified as the house of the chief priest or several priests, and was labelled the ‘college of priests’.
On the western edge of the citadel mound, at the south-west corner of the Great Bath, raised on a tapered brick platform, is a structure that was originally identified as a hammam or hot-air bath, and later as the ‘great granary’. The 50 × 27 m solid brick foundation was divided into 27 square and rectangular blocks by narrow passageways, 2 running east–west and 8 running north–south. The entire superstructure may have been made of wood. A 4.5 m wide brick staircase led from the southwestern edge of the building to the level of the plain. There was a small bathing platform at the top of the stairs and a brick-lined well at their foot. To the north was a burnt brick platform, identified by Wheeler as a loading dock. As it was excavated without recording the artefacts found in the passageways or the rooms, it is difficult to be sure about its function. But the absence of reports of charred grain or storage containers has led some scholars to question its identification as a granary.
In the southern part of the citadel mound, there is a large building (27 × 27 m) that has been labelled an ‘assembly hall’. It is roughly square in shape and is divided into five aisles by rows of rectangular brick piers.
The lower town to the east, covering over 80 ha, may also have been surrounded by a fortification wall. It was divided into major blocks by four north–south and east–west streets and numerous smaller streets and alleys. The main streets were about 9 m in width, the rest in the range of 1.5–3 m. The houses varied in size, suggesting differences in wealth and status. In the HR area (the sections of Mohenjodaro are named after the excavators: HR stands for H. Hargreaves, DK for K. N. Dikshit), there were remains of a large building where many seals and fragments of a stone sculpture of a
seated man with a shawl over his left shoulder (similar to the so-called ‘priest-king’ found in the DK area) were found. This building was tentatively interpreted as a temple or the house of an important leader. In the western part of the HR area, there was a double row of 16 houses, each consisting of a single room with a bathroom in front and 1 or 2 smaller rooms in the back. These were tentatively identified as shops or workers’ quarters. A number of shops and workshops associated with copper working, bead making, dyeing, pottery making, and shell working were identified in the lower town.
There may have been over 700 wells in the city of Mohenjodaro (Jansen, 1989). This gives a very high average frequency of about one in every third house. The wells were 10–15 m deep and were lined with special wedge-shaped bricks. Deep grooves at the top edges show the spots where the ropes attached to buckets rubbed against them. Most houses or house blocks at Mohenjodaro had at least one private well. Many neighbourhoods had public wells along the main street. We can imagine people meeting here, exchanging news and gossip as they waited to fill their pots with water.
Chanhudaro is a 4.7 ha site, about 130 km south of Mohenjodaro. Today, the river flows 20 km to its west; in protohistoric times it may have been closer. This is a single mound site with no fortifications. There are mud-brick platforms with remains of various structures. The traces of at least three streets have been identified. The main one was 5.68 m wide, and had two covered drains made of burnt bricks on both sides. Chanhudaro was clearly an important centre of craft activity. Some of the houses yielded raw material such as carnelian, agate, amethyst, and crystal as well as finished and unfinished beads and drills. More striking was the discovery of a bead factory, with lots of finished and unfinished beads, mostly made of steatite. Seal making, shell working, and the making of stone weights seem to have been other important crafts practised here.
The mounds of Harappa cover an extensive area of about 150 ha. The Ravi river flows some 10 km away from the site. The higher citadel mound lies to the west, with a lower but larger lower town to its south-east. South of the citadel mound is a cemetery of the mature Harappan phase. The citadel at Harappa was shaped roughly like a parallelogram, about 415 m north–south and 195 m east–west. It was surrounded by a mud-brick wall with massive towers and gateways, and the structures inside were raised on one or more high platforms. Because of the damaged nature of the mound, clear profiles of the main citadel structures, such as those available for Mohenjodaro, are lacking.
FIGURE 4.6 CITADEL AND ADJACENT AREA, HARAPPA
To the north of the citadel complex, a number of structures were located on a mound (Mound F) surrounded by a mud-brick wall. This seems to represent a northern suburb connected with craft activity. One walled complex had at least 15 units (about 17 × 7 m), each consisting of a courtyard in front and a room at the back, arranged in 2 rows with a lane in between. This has been interpreted as workmen’s quarters. To the north of this complex were at least 18 circular brick platforms, with an average diameter of a little over 3 m, made of bricks set on edge. These may have been threshing platforms for grain. A wooden mortar for pounding grain may have been fitted into their centre, as husked barley and straw were found here. The ‘granary’ was located to the north of these platforms. It consisted of 12 units arranged in 2 rows of 6 rooms, divided by a central passage. Each unit measured 15.2 × 6.1 m, with three sleeper walls with air space in between. There was probably a wooden superstructure supported in places by large columns. As in the case of the Mohenjodaro
‘granary’, no grains were reported from this building. Its interpretation as a granary was mainly based on comparisons with structures found in Rome.
The lower walled town of Harappa (Mound E) is currently being excavated. A large open area inside the southern gateway may have been used as a market or as a place where goods coming into the city were inspected. Various workshops where shell, agate, and copper artefacts were made have been identified. Outside the southern gateway, a small mound revealed houses, drains, bathing platforms, and perhaps a well. This may have been a halting or resting spot for travellers or traders.
Kalibangan (literally, ‘black bangles’) gets its name from the thick clusters of black bangles lying all over the surface of its mounds. This site lies on the banks of the dry bed of the Ghaggar river, in the Hanumangarh district of Rajasthan. It is fairly small, with a perimeter ranging from 1 to 3 km. There is a smaller western mound (known as KLB-1) and a larger eastern one (known as KLB-2), with an open space in between. KLB-1 has evidence of early and mature Harappan occupation, while KLB-2 represents only a mature Harappan occupation. There is also a smaller, third mound, which only has a large number of fire altars. Both the citadel complex and lower town were fortified.
The mature Harappan settlement on the western mound at Kalibangan was divided into two parts by an inner wall with stairs on either side. The southern sector had no houses, but is noted for a series of mud-brick platforms with a row of seven clay-plastered pits. Nearby were a well and bath pavements. The pits have been interpreted as fire altars, i.e., sacrificial pits in which offerings were made into the fire, and the area seems to have been associated with community rituals. The buildings in the northern part of the citadel mound seem to have been houses where people associated with the rituals performed in the southern sector may have lived. There is a burial ground about 200 m west– south-west of the citadel. Apart from regular extended burials, there were also some circular pits with grave goods (pottery, bronze mirrors, etc.), but no human remains.
The lower town was a rough parallelogram in plan, enclosed by a mud-brick wall. Several streets were traced here. Oblong fire altars were found in houses, with a central stele (rectangular piece) around which terracotta cakes, ash, and charcoal were found. While corbelled drains made of bricks have been found on the citadel mound, street drains of the Mohenjodaro type were absent in the lower town at Kalibangan. The sewage from houses was discharged into troughs or large jars embedded in the ground outside. The large number of bangles of terracotta, shell, alabaster, steatite, and faience at the site indicate that bangle making was an important craft. Other interesting artefacts include an ivory comb, a copper buffalo or bull, what appears to be a stone phallic emblem with a base, and a terracotta fragment incised with a horned figure.
Banawali in Hissar district (Haryana) is a fortified site measuring about 300 × 500 m, close to the dry bed of the Rangoi river. The site shows evidence of the early, mature, and late Harappan phases. Period II represents the mature Harappan culture. A wall divided the fortified area into two sections —a higher citadel area and a lower town. The citadel was semi-elliptical in plan and had its own mud-brick fortifications, surrounded by a moat. A few streets and structures were identified inside. A ramp led from the citadel into the lower town. The mud-brick houses had raised platforms (chabutaras) outside. Baked bricks were used only for wells, bathing pavements, and drains. Excavations revealed a multi-roomed house, where archaeologists identified a kitchen and a toilet with a jar that seemed to have functioned as a washbasin. Since many seals and weights were found in this house, it may have belonged to a wealthy merchant. There was another big house with a large number of beads of gold, lapis lazuli, and carnelian, tiny weights, and a ‘touchstone’ showing steaks of gold. This must have been a jeweller’s house. Interestingly, seals were only found in the lower town, not in the citadel complex. Lots of stone weights in small denominations were found at the site, as was a terracotta model of a plough. Several houses at Banawali gave evidence of fire altars. In
one place, these altars were associated with an apsidal structure which may have had some sort of ritualistic function.
Five mounds have been identified at Rakhigarhi (Hissar district, Haryana). The citadel mound, surrounded by a mud-brick fortification wall, had platforms, a brick well, fire altars, some streets, and drains of various sizes. A lapidary workshop was identified, with remains of about 3,000 unfinished beads and roughly cut pieces of stone, mostly carnelian, chalcedony, agate, and jasper; bead polishers for smoothening the beads; and a hearth for heating the stones. In another part of the site, bones, antlers, ivory pieces, and finished and unfinished bone points, combs, needles, and engravers gave clear evidence of bone and ivory working. A cemetery revealed eight burials consisting mostly of brick-lined pits; in one case there was a wooden coffin.
At Bhirrana in Haryana, Period IIA has been described as early mature Harappan and Period IIB as mature Harappan. The mature Harappan settlement was surrounded by a massive fortification wall made of mud-brick. Three multi-roomed house complexes were exposed. One of them, in the central part of the mound, consisted of four rooms. Two house complexes, separated from each other by a lane, were exposed in the eastern part of the mound. One of these consisted of 10 rooms with a verandah and a courtyard; terracotta cakes mixed with ash and clay were found on the floors. Yet another house complex in the north-western part of the mound consisted of six rooms, a kitchen, a central courtyard, three additional courtyards, and an open verandah. The floors were paved with mud-brick, and the brick walls were plastered with mud. A circular tandoor and chullah were found in one of the courtyards, and another chullah was discovered in the kitchen. Charred bones and the skull of a bovine animal were found next to one of the chullahs. A 4.80 m wide street ran north– south along the fortification wall. Three lanes were also identified. The artefacts included a fragment of a thick, sturdy red ware with an incised female figure, whose pose is reminiscent of that of the bronze Mohenjo-daro ‘dancing girl’.
WELL AND DRAINS, LOTHAL
Lothal is located between the Sabarmati river and its tributary, the Bhogavo, in Saurashtra in Gujarat. The sea is now about 16–19 km away, but at one time, boats from the Gulf of Cambay could
have sailed right up to the place. It was a modest-sized settlement (280 × 225 m), roughly rectangular in plan, surrounded by a wall which was initially made of mud and later of mud- and burnt bricks, with the entrance on the south. There was a burial ground in the north-west, outside the enclosing walls. The citadel (called the ‘Acropolis’ by the excavator S. R. Rao) was roughly trapezoidal in plan and consisted of an area elevated on a mud-brick platform in the southern part of the site. Remains of residential buildings, streets, lanes, bathing pavements, and drains were traced here. To the south of the residential area was a complex identified as a warehouse, where goods may have been packed and stored. Sixty-five terracotta sealings with impressions of reed, woven fibre, matting, and twisted cords on one side and impressions of Harappan seals on the other were found here.
Some of the houses in the main residential area were quite large, with four to six rooms, bathrooms, a large courtyard, and verandah. A few had fire altars—small pits with terracotta cakes or round lumps of clay and ash. The streets were paved with mud-brick, with a layer of gravel on top. Houses belonging to artisans such as coppersmiths, bead makers, etc. were identified on the basis of the occurrence of kilns, raw materials, and finished and unfinished artefacts. One of the streets was identified as a ‘bazaar street’, the rooms lining it interpreted as shops.
The most distinctive feature of Lothal is the dockyard, which lies on the eastern edge of the site. This is a roughly trapezoidal basin, enclosed by walls of burnt bricks. The eastern and western walls measured 212 m and 215 m respectively in length, while those on the north and south measured 37 m and 35 m. The dockyard had provisions for maintaining a regular level of water by means of a sluice gate and a spill channel. A mud-brick platform along the western embankment may have been the wharf where goods were loaded and unloaded. An alternative interpretation of this structure as a water reservoir is not convincing.
Dholavira is located on Kadir island in the Rann of Kutch in Gujarat. In protohistoric times, water levels in the Rann may have been higher than they are today, allowing boats to sail from the coast
right up to the site. The architecture of Dholavira shows a large-scale use of sandstone, combined in places with mud-brick—a feature of the Harappan sites of Gujarat. The layout of this settlement is unlike that of any other Harappan site. It is surrounded by an outer fortification wall made of mud-brick with a veneer of stone blocks on the outer face, with imposing bastions and two major gateways in the middle of the northern and southern walls. Within the outer walls, at least three different sections were identified. There was a small ‘castle’ area, a ‘bailey’ area to its west, and a larger ‘middle town’ to the north, all with their own enclosing walls. A lower town lay to the east. An interesting feature is a large open area (called the ‘stadium’) between the castle–bailey and the middle town, which may have been used for special ceremonial occasions. There was also substantial evidence of habitation outside the fortification wall, which may represent a suburb of the city. The site seems to be looking out towards the sea and it must have been an important stopping point on busy maritime trade routes.
DHOLAVIRA: TANK
The fortified acropolis covered an area of 300 × 300 m, with gateways in the centre of its four walls. Remains of limestone pillar bases and pillar fragments with a highly polished surface were found in the eastern gateway. This discovery has taken the history of monumental stone sculpture/architecture in the subcontinent back from the 4th century BCE (the Maurya period) to the 3rd millennium BCE. In one of the side rooms of the northern gateway of Dholavira lay what seems to be a fallen signboard. An inscription had been made with white gypsum paste inlaid into a wooden board. The wooden board had fallen flat on its face, and although the wood decayed, the gypsum was found intact. The symbols, each measuring about 37 × 25–27 cm, perhaps announced the name of the city or the title of its ruler. The acropolis had a large well, an elaborate drainage system, and large buildings which may have had administrative or ritualistic functions.
FIGURE 4.7 PLAN OF DHOLAVIRA
The middle town of Dholavira was surrounded by a 360 × 250 m wall with four gateways. The lower town gave evidence of houses and areas where various types of craft activities such as bead making, shell working, and pottery making were carried out. Outside the city walls, there was evidence of additional habitation and burials. The cemetery area revealed rectangular pit burials lined with blocks of stone, but there were no skeletal remains. These may have been memorials to the dead.
The city had an impressive and unique water harvesting and management system. It can be noted that this area receives less than 160 cm of rain every year and is very prone to droughts. The site is flanked by two streams—the Manhar and Mandsar. Dams were built across these to channelize their water into reservoirs. Several large, deep water cisterns and reservoirs (at least 16) located in the citadel and lower town preserved precious stores of rain water.
DHOLAVIRA CITADEL: EASTERN GATE WITH PILLAR FRAGMENTS
Allahdino is a small (1.4 ha) unfortified village site of the Harappan civilization, about 40 km east of Karachi. Houses made of mud-brick, often resting on stone foundations, were laid out in a west–
south-west to east–north-east orientation. A large multi-roomed building on a large mud-brick platform in the north-eastern part of the excavated area seems to have had some special significance. Another building was associated with three wells. The wells at Allahdino had very small diameters, and their mouths ranged from 60 cm to 90 cm. This may have been to enable the ground water to rise higher due to hydraulic pressure. It has been suggested that well water may have been used to irrigate the nearby fields.
The artefacts found at Allahdino included a large number of copper items, seals, terracotta toy carts, and triangular terracotta cakes. The most spectacular discovery was a small terracotta jar containing a profusion of gold, silver, bronze, agate, and carnelian ornaments. These included a massive belt or necklace consisting of 36 long carnelian beads and bronze spacer beads and a multi-strand necklace of silver beads. The discovery of ornaments of precious metals and stone at a village site shows that at least some of the inhabitants of this Harappan village were very rich.
(PHOTOGRAPHS OF HARAPPAN SITES AND ARTEFACTS
The Harappan civilization covered an enormous area within which there was great ecological variety—alluvial plains, mountains, plateaux, and sea-coasts. The resource potential of this area was rich enough to generate the food surpluses that are an important aspect of urbanization. The diversity of the subsistence base may also have been an important sustaining factor—if one food resource failed, people could turn to others. Agriculture was the mainstay, supplemented by animal husbandry and hunting. Riverine and marine food resources were tapped, where available. The sources of information on the subsistence patterns of the Harappans consist of plant remains, animal bones, artefacts, motifs on seals and pottery, and analogies with modern practices.
Subsistence is closely related to environment, and the nature of the Harappan environment is the subject of continuing debate. Archaeologists such as Mortimer Wheeler and Stuart Piggott suggested a wetter climate in Harappan times on the basis of the following arguments: (a) the large number of burnt bricks found at Harappan sites would have required large quantities of fuel, which would only have been possible with a heavy forest cover, supported by heavier rainfall; (b) the gabarbands (embankments) constructed in the Baluchistan area suggest heavier rain; (c) the depiction of animals such as the tiger, elephant, and rhinoceros on seals indicates a forest and grassland vegetation that could only have been supported by heavier rainfall; (d) the elaborate drainage system of the cities was geared towards carrying off rain water. The first and last points can be refuted most easily. It is not easy to estimate just how much wood (and forest) would have been required to make the burnt bricks, and the Harappan drains were largely part of a system of sewage disposal.
Many scholars hold that climatic conditions in the greater Indus valley have remained more or less constant since Harappan times. However, some studies suggest otherwise. Plant palynologist Gurdip
Singh (1971) analysed pollen from the three salt lakes of Sambhar, Didwana, and Lunkaransar, and the freshwater Pushkar lake, and constructed a profile of rainfall in this part of Rajasthan from c. 8000 BCE to 1500 BCE. He concluded that there was an increase in rainfall in c. 3000 BCE and a decrease in 1800 BCE. However, a recent study of the Lunkaransar lake (Enzel et al., 1999) suggests that it had dried up by 3500 BCE and that the climate had become drier long before the emergence of the Harappan civilization. The issue of the nature of climatic conditions in Harappan times thus remains unresolved.
Given the area covered by the civilization, naturally there were regional variations in the plants grown by farmers. Wheat has been found at Mohenjodaro and Harappa; barley at Mohenjodaro, Harappa, and Kalibangan; and sesamum at Harappa. Harappa has also given evidence of watermelon seeds, peas, and dates. Rice occurs at Harappa, Kalibangan, Lothal, and Rangpur. Millets have been identified at Harappa, Surkotada, and Shortughai. Grapes were known, so was henna (mehendi). Cotton may also have been grown. Detailed evidence of the plant economy of the early and mature Harappan phase is available from Balu (in Haryana) (Saraswat and Pokharia, 2001–02). The crop remains identified here included various types of barley, wheat, rice, horse gram, green gram, chickpea, field pea, grass pea, sesamum, melon, watermelon, date, grapes, and the earliest evidence of garlic. Apart from the wide range of cereals, pulses, vegetables, and fruits grown by the Harappans, another striking point is the similarity of the past and present plant economies in the various regions.
Modern cropping practices provide some clues to protohistoric patterns. Today, in Sindh, rainfall levels are low, but the Indus brings down flood waters and silt. The fertile land requires no deep ploughing, irrigation or manuring. Sesamum and cotton were probably sown in June/July and reaped in September/October, as kharif (summer) crops. Crops such as wheat and barley would have been sown in November and reaped in March/April as rabi (winter) crops. In Gujarat, rice is a kharif crop, and it must have been so in Harappan times as well.
Reference has already been made to the discovery of a ploughed field at early Harappan levels at Kalibangan. The continuing use of the plough into the mature Harappan phase can be inferred. Terracotta models of ploughs at Bahawalpur and Banawali give further evidence of the use of this implement. The fact that no actual ploughs have survived is no doubt because they were made of wood.
Farmers must have built bunds (embankments) of mud or stone to divert river water, as they do today in areas like Baluchistan. Irrigation canals have been found at Shortughai. Fairservis suggested that a well and associated drains at Allahdino may represent an irrigation system, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Similarly, Leshnik’s hypothesis that the dockyard at Lothal is actually an
irrigation reservoir is not convincing. Even if the Harappans did dig canals in the alluvial plains, it would be very difficult to identify them. However, H. P. Francfort (1992) has identified remains of a small-scale canal network in the Haryana area, and some of the ancient canals traced in the Ghaggar-Hakra plain may belong to the Harappan phase.
Bones of wild animals have been found at Harappan sites. These include many varieties of deer, pig, boar, sheep, goat, ass (?), and pig. Bones of tortoise and fish have also been found. Rhinoceros bones occur only at Amri, although this animal is depicted on numerous seals and in terracotta figurines. Elephant and camel bones occur in very small quantities, although the elephant appears on seals. Tigers are represented often in figurines, leopards more rarely. Rabbits, peacocks, pigeons, ducks, monkeys, and wild fowl are represented in figurines and paintings on pottery. The Harappans exploited riverine and marine resources where these were available. At coastal sites in Gujarat, molluscs provided an important protein-rich element in people’s diet. The discovery of marine catfish bones at Harappa suggests that coastal communities may have traded in dried fish in inland cities.
Harappan sites have also yielded remains of domesticated animals such as humped and humpless cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goat. Cattle and buffaloes were the most important domesticated animals. They would have been used for meat, milk, and also as draught animals. Goats and sheep could have been used for meat, wool, milk, and as pack animals (they are still used to carry loads of salt and grain in some of the Himalayan stretches). Dog figurines suggest the domestication of this animal.
The issue of the horse is controversial and hinges on the stratigraphic context in which the remains have been found and the identification of the species they belong to. For instance, it is not easy to ascertain whether the bones in question belong to the half-ass (Equus hemionus khur) or domesticated horse (Equus caballus). Horse remains have been reported at Harappa, Lothal, Surkotada, Kuntasi, and Kalibangan, and at superficial levels at Mohenjodaro. Sàndor Bökönyi (1997) examined the equid bone samples from Surkotada and concluded that at least six of them probably belonged to the true horse. His conclusions were challenged by Meadow and Patel (1997). Brigadier Ross (1946) reported horse teeth at pre-Harappan levels at Rana Ghundai, but this identification was questioned by Zeuner (1963). While horse bones may not be completely absent at Harappan sites, they are not prolific either.
Shikarpur is a Harappan site in Kutch district in Gujarat, excavated by the Gujarat State Department of Archaeology in 1987–90. The excavation was a small one. It revealed an over 3 m thick deposit, of which the lower layers (layers 10–19) represent an early Harappan phase and the upper layers (layers 1–9) the mature Harappan phase. The animal remains found at the site were sent to the Archaeozoology Laboratory at Deccan College, Pune. The preliminary results of the detailed investigations by P. K. Thomas, P. P. Joglekar, Arati Deshpande-Mukherjee, and S. J. Pawankar have given important information about the subsistence patterns of the Harappans in Gujarat:
A total of 15,483 pieces of bone were unearthed in the excavations. It was possible to identify 53.46 per cent of them, i.e., 8,267 fragments. There were cut marks and signs of charring on some of the bones, indicating slaughtering and cooking. The faunal assemblage consisted of 47 species—23 mammals, 3 birds, 2 reptiles, 5 fish, 13 molluscs, and 1 crustacea. The wild animals included wild buffalo, nilgai, chowsingha, blackbuck, gazelle, various kinds of deer, wild pig, wild ass, jackal, hare, and rhinoceros. The domesticated animals included cattle, buffalo, sheep/goat, horse, pig, and dog.
The bones of domesticated animals comprised over 85 per cent of the total faunal assemblage in both the early and mature Harappan phases. Cattle bones were most numerous. In the early Harappan phase, 77.48 per cent of the bones were of cattle, while in the mature Harappan phase, their percentage was 77.84 per cent. Sheep/goat bones (it is difficult to distinguish the two) amounted to 11.26 per cent of the early Harappan phase, and were reduced to 4.63 per cent in the mature Harappan phase. Buffalo bones were 4.28 per cent and 4.61 per cent in the early and mature Harappan phases respectively. Dog bones were only found in the mature Harappan phase, and that too in very small quantities (0.116 per cent). Very few horse bones were found (0.13 per cent), and these occur only in the mature Harappan phase.
The evidence shows that the consumption of meat of domesticated animals was an important part of the diet of the people of Shikarpur. The contribution of wild and aquatic animals varied considerably in different layers.
The analysis of bones and teeth showed that domesticated animals were killed at different ages. Most of the cattle and buffaloes lived up to the age of maturity—about 3 years—and were killed at various ages up to the age of about 8 years. The fact that some were older than 8 years suggests that they were also valued for secondary products and used for draught purposes. Sheep/ goats were killed at relatively younger ages—between 6 months to their respective ages of maturity, suggesting they were primarily reared for meat.
Towards the end of the mature Harappan phase at Shikarpur, there seems to have been an increase in the exploitation of wild animals. It is not clear whether this was the result of a decline in agricultural production, failure of rains, population pressure, or a combination of several such factors.
SOURCE Thomas et al., 1995
Earlier writings tended to contrast the plainness of Harappan artefacts with the opulence of their Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts. Nowadays, the technological sophistication and beauty of some of the Harappan artefacts are recognized. There is a great variety of standardized, mass-produced craft items at Harappan sites. The artefacts are far greater in quantity and range, and show greater technical finesse than those found in earlier cultural phases. While some sites specialized in
the production of a single or a few items, others such as Harappa manufactured a wide range of goods. Craft activity was often localized in a certain part of the settlement.
Ceramics include all items involving the heating of clay such as bricks, terracotta, and faience. The Harappan pottery reflects efficient mass-production. Pottery kilns were found at Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Nausharo, and Chanhudaro. The pots were fired in funnel-shaped up-draft closed kilns, although open-firing kilns may also have been used. There is a great variety of pottery, including black-on-red, grey, buff, and black-and-red wares. Most pots were wheel turned. Both fine and coarse fabrics occur and their thickness varies. The typical Harappan pottery is a fine, sturdy, wheel-made ware with a bright red slip, decorated with painted black designs. Polychrome painting is rare. The red colour for the slip was made from red ochre (iron oxide, known as geru), while black was made by combining dark reddish-brown iron oxide with black manganese. Distinctive shapes include the dish-on-stand, vase with s-profile, small vessel with knobbed decoration, large slender-footed bowl, cylindrical perforated jar, and goblet with pointed foot. The decorative patterns range from simple horizontal lines to geometric patterns and pictorial motifs. Some of the designs such as fish scales, pipal leaves, and intersecting circles have their roots in the early Harappan phase. Human figures are rare and crude. At the earliest levels of Mohenjodaro, a burnished grey ware with a dark purplish slip and vitreous glaze may represent one of the earliest examples of glazing in the world. Although there is a certain level of uniformity in pottery styles and techniques across the Harappan culture zone, there are also differences between regions.
Inferences can be made about the functions of some of the Harappan pots. The large jars may have been used to store grain or water. The more elaborately painted pots may have had a ceremonial use or may have belonged to rich people. Small vessels may have been used as glasses to drink water or other beverages. The function of the perforated jars is not clear. One suggestion is that they may have been wrapped in cloth and used for brewing fermented alcoholic beverages. Another possibility is that they may have had a ceremonial or ritualistic use. Shallow bowls probably held cooked food; flattish dishes were used as plates. Cooking pots of various sizes have been found. Most of them
have a red- or black-slipped rim and a rounded bottom; the lower part of the pot is often strengthened by a thick slurry or clay mixed with ground pottery or chaff. The rims of the cooking pots are strong and project outwards to help pick them up or move them around. Some of the forms and features of the pots used by the Harappans can be seen in traditional kitchens even today. Apart from ceramic vessels, the Harappans also made and used metal ones.
Harappan sites have yielded a profusion of terracottas. There are figurines of animals such as bulls, buffaloes, monkeys, and dogs. There are toy carts with solid wheels. Human figurines include male figurines and more numerous female figurines of various types. The Harappan craftspersons also made terracotta bangles. Terracotta masks have been found at Mohenjodaro and Harappa. Faience is a paste made out of crushed quartz and coloured with various minerals. The Harappans made faience bangles, rings, pendants, miniature vessels, and figurines (including those of monkeys and squirrels). Another distinctive Harappan craft was the making of hard, high-fired bangles known as stone ware bangles. These were highly burnished red or grey-black, with a standard inner diameter of 5.5–6 cm, and usually had tiny letters written on them.
TERRACOTTAS: HUMAN AND ANIMAL FIGURINES; MASK; CIRCULAR AND TRIANGULAR CAKES
Stone work was another important craft. Reference was made earlier to the stone masonry and fine polished pillars at Dholavira. More visible at all Harappan sites were the mass-produced chert blades made by the crested guided ridge technique. Some of these may have been used as knives for domestic use, others as sickles. Harappan stone quarries have been identified in the Rohri hills of Sindh. Some of the stone blades may have been obtained from contemporary hunter-gatherer communities. The fact that stone flakes and cores occur in many houses at Mohenjodaro suggests that at least some of the tools were made by people in their homes.
The Harappan civilization is marked by a large number of copper objects. Apart from making artefacts out of pure copper, Harappan craftspersons alloyed copper with arsenic, tin, or nickel. Copper and bronze artefacts included vessels, spears, knives, short swords, arrowheads, axes, fishhooks, needles, mirrors, rings, and bangles. The axes were flat, without a shaft hole, and were probably hafted in a split and bound handle. The number of pure copper artefacts was far greater than alloyed bronze ones. Usually, tools like knives, axes, and chisels, which needed hardened edges, were alloyed. Alloys increased over time—for instance, at Mohenjodaro, bronze tools increased from 6 per cent to 23 per cent from the lower to the higher levels. The small proportion of alloyed objects compared to those of pure copper may suggest cultural preference rather than technological backwardness.
Sixteen copper furnaces were found at Harappa, and copper workshops were found at Lothal. A large amount of copper oxide was discovered in a brick-lined pit at Mohenjodaro. That metal objects were considered precious is clear from the fact that they were buried in hoards for safekeeping by their owners. One hoard found at Harappa consisted of a large cooking pot with a bronze cover. Inside were several types of copper tools and weapons, including various types of axes, daggers, spearheads, arrowheads, chisels, and a bowl. Some of the objects were unused, others used and worn.
Beautifully worked gold and silver jewellery including necklaces, bracelets, brooches, pendants, and earrings have been found at Harappan sites. A hoard of jewellery made of gold, silver, and semi-precious stones was found at the small village site of Allahdino. The Harappans used silver to emboss conch shells and to make vessels. Lead was used to make plumb bobs and in copper casting. It may be noted that two metal objects found at Lothal contain 39.1 per cent and 66.1 per cent iron. The latter can be called an iron object. What this suggests is that the Harappans (at least those of Gujarat) may have had some familiarity with iron smelting.
Seal making was another important Harappan craft. Most of the seals are square or rectangular. The average size of the square seals is about 2.54 cm, but there are larger ones, a little over 6.35 cm. Some have a perforated boss at the back for handling and suspension. A few cylindrical and round seals have also been found. Most of the seals are made of steatite, but there are a few silver, faience, and calcite ones as well. Two fine silver seals with the unicorn motif were discovered at Mohenjodaro, and some copper and soapstone ones were found at Lothal. To make the stone seals, the stone was sawed and shaped with knives, and then carved, using fine chisels and drills. The seal was coated with an alkali and heated, giving it a white lustrous surface. The carving is in intaglio— i.e., it is a sunken engraving, with the impression appearing in relief. Motifs include the elephant, tiger, antelope, crocodile, hare, humped bull, buffalo, rhinoceros, and the one-horned mythical
animal referred to as a unicorn. There is often a small feeding trough or stand in front of the animal. There are also composite animals, human figures, and plants. Most of the seals have a short inscription. Some rectangular seals have writing, but no motif.
CHERT BLADES; STONE GAMESMEN
COPPER ARROWHEAD AND CELT
Bead making was a craft known in earlier cultures, but in the Harappan civilization new materials, styles, and techniques came into vogue. A new type of cylindrical stone drill was devised and used to perforate beads of semi-precious stones. Such drills have been found at sites such as Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Chanhudaro, and Dholavira. The Harappan craftspeople made beads out of steatite, agate, carnelian, lapis lazuli, shell, terracotta, gold, silver, and copper. The Harappan long barrel cylinder beads made out of carnelian were so beautiful and valued that they found their way into royal burials in Mesopotamia. Tiny micro-beads were made of steatite paste and hardened by heating. Beads were also made of faience.
Apart from utilitarian items made of stone and metal, a few pieces of stone and metal sculpture have been found at Harappan sites. Most of them are small, but they display fine artistic skills and sensibilities. They include the stone bust (17.78 cm high) of a male figure found at Mohenjodaro, which has been labelled the ‘priest-king’. Two fine stone torsos of a male figure (about 10 cm high) were found at Harappa, a seated stone ibex or ram (49 × 27 × 21 cm) at Mohenjodaro, and a stone lizard at Dholavira. The only large piece of sculpture is that of a broken, seated male figure from Dholavira.
Two bronze female figurines were found at Mohenjodaro. One of them has become famous as the ‘dancing girl’. This figurine was found in a small house in the southwestern quarter of the city (in the HR area) during the 1926–27 excavations. The figure is 10.8 cm high and was made by the lost-wax method.
The lost-wax method involves first making a wax model and then covering it with a clay coating, leaving some holes as passageways. When the clay-covered moulds are heated in ovens, the wax melts out. Molten bronze is then poured in, and takes the place of the wax. When the mould has cooled, the outer clay envelope is chipped off and the craftsperson can then put the finishing touches to the solid bronze statue. This technique is still used in certain parts of India.
But to get back to the ‘dancing girl’: She represents a very thin woman standing with her right hand on the back of her hip and left hand resting on her left thigh, just above the knee. She may have once held some object in this hand. She is naked. She wears a necklace and has 24–25 of bangles on her left arm and just 4 on her right arm. Her arms are unnaturally long. Her head is tilted back, and she has a defiant, nonchalant air about her. Her hair is swept back in a low, loose bun at the nape of her neck. John Marshall named her the ‘dancing girl’ because he thought she had the air of a semi-impudent ‘nautch girl’, hand on hip, beating time to the music with her feet. The name has stuck. But the ‘dancing girl’ may not have been dancing at all, and even if she was, she may not represent a professional dancer.
Bead making factories with tools, furnaces, and beads in various stages of preparation have been found at Chanhudaro and Lothal. At Bagasra in Gujarat, there is evidence of the production of artefacts of shell, faience, and beads of semi-precious stones (agate, carnelian, amazonite, lapis lazuli, and steatite). Clay-lined silos, varying from 0.30 to 1 m in diameter and 0.15 to 0.30 m in depth, were used to store semi-precious stones. The bead-making tradition in Gujarat today gives us clues on how the Harappan craftspeople may have made their beads.
Beads, bracelets, and decorative inlay work of shell show the existence of craftspersons skilled in shell working. Bangles were often made from conch shell. Chanhudaro and Balakot were important centres of shell work. Further evidence of site specialization comes from Gujarat. An intensive surface survey and excavations at Nageshwar (in Jamnagar district) have shown that this site was exclusively devoted to shell-working and specialized in making bangles. Evidence of shell working also comes from Kuntasi, Dholavira, Rangpur, Lothal, Nagwada, and Bagasra. This craft was clearly very important in the Gujarat region of the Harappan culture zone. Bone working was another specialized craft. Beads, awls, and pins were made out of bone. There are a few examples of ivory carving in the form of combs, carved cylinders, small sticks, pins, gamesmen, and a carved plaque.
It can be inferred from the available evidence that the Harappans made cotton and woollen textiles. The terracotta figurines wearing clothes (shawls, skirts, etc.) reflect the kinds of clothes people wore. Mesopotamian texts mention cotton as one of the imports from Meluhha (an area which included the Indus valley). Traces of cotton cloth were found at Mohenjodaro, preserved over the centuries due to their being in contact with a corroding silver jar. Several examples of cotton thread and cloth were identified on copper tools. At Harappa, cotton threads were found wrapped around the handle of a small copper mirror in a burial and also around the handle of a curved copper razor. Recent excavations at Harappa have given evidence of woven textile impressions on the inside of faience vessels. The uniform thickness and uniformity of the weave suggest the use of spinning wheels. Various kinds of spindle whorls for spinning thread have been found at Harappan sites.
Weaving may have been a cottage industry practised in villages, and also to some extent in the cities. Impressions on clay floors and fired clay lumps suggest traditions of making baskets and mats out of reeds and grasses.
The Harappan crafts display an impressive level of standardization. Kenoyer (1998: 149–50) has suggested that state control may have been responsible for the high level of standardization in crafts that were considered to have a value in maintaining the socioeconomic or ritual order and which used non-local raw materials and highly complex technologies (e.g., the making of seals, stoneware bangles, and stone weights). Leaving aside pottery and bricks, crafts using local materials and simple technologies tend to show greater variation.
Standardization extended to units of weights and measure. Cubical weights made of chert, chalcedony, black stone, etc. have been found at all excavated sites, and their accuracy all over the Harappan culture zone is remarkable. The system is binary in the smaller weights (1:2:8:16:32:64) and decimal in the higher weights (with a ratio of 160, 200, 320, and 640). The largest weight found at Mohenjodaro weighs 10.865 g. A shell scale was found at Mohenjodaro and an ivory scale at Lothal; a shell object found in Saurashtra was probably used to measure angles.
What is the explanation of the high level of standardization in crafts such as pottery-making and brick making? Does it imply centralized control by merchants or rulers? Some element of central direction is suggested, but its nature and degree are far from certain. If not direct, it may have taken the indirect form of facilitating or controlling the flow of at least some of the raw materials and finished goods. On the other hand, the level of standardization could also indicate the fanning out of hereditary craft specialists over large areas, or a well-developed network of internal trade. It is possible that craftsmen and traders may have been organized in corporate groups similar to guilds, but there is no proof of this.
The city of Khambhat (Cambay) in Gujarat is one of the largest centres of stone bead- making in the world today. Mark Kenoyer, Massimo Vidale, and Kuldeep K. Bhan conducted an ethnoarchaeological study, examining the techniques used by modern bead makers of this place.
They supplemented this with experimentation and an analysis of the remains of bead manufacture at the site of Chanhudaro in south Pakistan. The results throw light on how the Harappan craftspersons may have made their beautiful long barrel cylinder beads. The process must have been something like this:
Long nodules of carnelian (a reddish orange variety of agate) were brought from Gujarat to Chanhudaro. The best were chosen and separated. These were dried in the sun for many months and then heated in shallow ovens to make the stone easier to work. The heating also deepened the red colour. The bead roughouts were made using a copper-tipped stake and an antler or horn hammer, using indirect percussion or pressure flaking techniques. Larger nodules were cut lengthwise and chipped to make bead roughouts. These roughouts were then partially ground on grooved sandstone or on quartzite grinding stones.
Then came the drilling of holes through the beads. This was done using a special cylindrical drill made out of a rare metamorphic rock which was heated to make an extremely hard and durable tool. This material has been given the name of ‘Ernestite’, after the archaeologist Ernest J. H. Mackay, who was the first to discover the drills and understand their significance. It could have taken a craftsperson a whole day of work—heating, chipping, and grinding—to make a drill. The Harappan bead makers used many different sizes of drills (at least six sizes) to make a single bead. The drilling was probably done with a hand-held bow drill. The friction would have produced intense heat, so the work may have been done under water, or at least by dripping water continuously on the drill hole.
The study conducted by Kenoyer and his team showed that even with these superior drills, it would have taken over 24 hours or three 8-hour days of steady drilling to perforate a single 6 cm long bead. The beads on the belts found at Mohenjodaro and Allahdino vary from 6 to 13 cm in length. It would have taken 3–8 days to make one of the longer beads, probably more, considering that the bead makers of Khambhat take long breaks after a couple of hours of work, as it is a very strenuous and tiring process. Once the beads were perforated, there was a laborious polishing process.
Taking the process from start to finish, it would have taken over 480 work days to make a belt of 36 beads of the kind found at Allahdino. Even if more than one worker was put on the job, it would still have taken up to a year. These beads must have been highly valued and worn only by the rich. For people who could not afford the expensive long carnelian beads, Harappan craftspeople made imitations in terracotta and painted them red.
Kenoyer, Vidal, and Bhan also analysed the archaeological patterns of manufacturing waste and finished artefacts, the structural evidence, and settlement layout in order to make inferences about the way in which bead manufacture was organized and controlled. Why did the Harappans transport carnelian nodules from Gujarat to Chanhudaro, instead of getting at least some of the preliminary work, such as discarding poor quality nodules, done near the source of the raw materials? The evidence suggests that all stages of carnelian bead manufacture at Chanhudaro were centralized and controlled by a powerful and wealthy group of merchants. This also
explains the uniformly good quality of the raw materials used and the high level of standardization. This is in contrast to evidence from the Moneer area at Mohenjodaro, which is suggestive of short-term production by several entrepreneurs.
SOURCE Kenoyer et al., 1995
The discovery of the Harappan civilization generated a great deal of interest in Harappan– Mesopotamian trade links. This is because before the advent of radiocarbon dating, these links gave vital clues for dating the Harappan culture, and also due to the prevailing interest in cross-cultural comparisons. Over the years, however, many scholars have come to the conclusion that Harappan– Mesopotamian trade may not have been as substantial as earlier held. Other areas such as the Persian Gulf have been identified as important zones of interaction as far as the long-distance trade of the Harappans is concerned. However, it is clear that trade networks within the Harappan culture zone and those linking the culture with other areas in the subcontinent were extremely significant; they are crucial for understanding the structure of the Harappan civilization as well as its striking level of cultural homogeneity. The importance of such trade is clear from the very wide range of raw materials and finished goods that found their way to different parts of the vast Harappan culture zone. This was an age before the advent of coinage, and the vibrant trade of the Harappans was based on barter.
One of the important aspects of Harappan trade is the identification of the sources of major raw materials used by the Harappans. The best way of doing this is to scientifically analyse the artefacts and to compare the results with raw materials from various possible sources. Unfortunately, there are not enough studies of this kind so far. Another method is to plot the location of the known resources of various raw materials, especially those closest to the Harappan culture zone. Proof that these were being used in protohistoric times would, of course, give clinching evidence. Unfortunately, this is not usually available, and the earliest evidence of the exploitation of these resources is often contained in 18th/19th century textual references. In spite of its limitations, this kind of exercise is useful in helping identify probable sources of raw materials used by the Harappans.
The discovery of factory sites in the limestone hills of Sukkur and Rohri indicates that chert blades were mass produced here and sent to various Harappan settlements in Sindh. The Khetri (< />)deposits of Rajasthan must have been an important source of copper. Reference was made in Chapter 3 to the links between the copper-manufacturing Ganeshwar–Jodhpura culture and the Harappan civilization. Lead and zinc probably also came from Rajasthan. Tin is available in the Tosam area of modern Haryana, but other possible sources are Afghanistan and central Asia. Gold may have come from the Kolar fields of Karnataka, where it may have been obtained via trade from the neolithic people who lived there. These neolithic herders may also have been exporters of cattle. (Fine disc beads, probably of steatite paste, found at Piklihal may have been obtained from the Harappans.) Gold could also have been panned from the sands of the upper Indus. Most varieties of semiprecious stone used for bead manufacture came from Gujarat. The exception is lapis lazuli, which was probably obtained from Afghanistan, although it also occurs in the Chagai hills in Baluchistan.
Traders must also have been engaged in a brisk trade in grains and other food products, transporting these between villages and cities.
Two-wheeled carts were an important mode of transport for people and goods. Bronze and terracotta models of carts have been found at various sites. No carts survive, but their tracks have been found at several sites, indicating spans roughly similar to those used today. Traders must also have transported their merchandise across long distances in caravans of pack animals such as oxen, sheep, goats, and donkeys. Towards the end of the mature Harappan phase, there is evidence of the use of the camel. The use of the horse seems to have been very minimal. Boats are depicted on seals and moulded tablets, and clay models have been found at Harappa and Lothal. River boats had cabins, ladders leading to the roof, and a high seated platform on the stern for navigation. Seafaring boats had a sharp keel, pointed prow, high flat stern, and mast and ropes for sails.
Several routes of trade and communication connected the various parts of the Harappan culture zone—Baluchistan, Sindh, Rajasthan, Cholistan, Punjab, Gujarat, and the upper doab. These routes can be reconstructed by studying the geographical landscape, settlement patterns, and the distribution of raw materials and finished products. Lahiri (1992: 112–43) points out that major trade routes connected the following areas: Sindh and south Baluchistan; coastal Sindh, upper Sindh, and the central Indus plains; the Indus plains and Rajasthan; the regions lying to the north of the Indus and Harappa; Sindh and east Punjab; east Punjab and Rajasthan; and Sindh and Gujarat. Some of the routes were already well defined in the early Harappan phase—e.g., the Baluchistan–Sindh route via the Kirthar mountains, and the route from east Punjab and Rajasthan via the Cholistan tract. The route connecting north Afghanistan, the Gomal plain, and Multan with a feeder route going to the Taxila valley also continued to be important. Certain routes that were being used in the earlier period became more important in the mature Harappan phase—e.g., the routes within Sindh, between Sindh and the central Indus plains, and between Sindh and Baluchistan via Kutch and Kathiawar. It is likely that the Indus saw a certain amount of riverine traffic. There was also a coastal route linking the Gujarat sites such as Lothal and Dholavira to sites such as Sutkagen-dor on the Makran coast. The location of some of the important sites can in fact be explained in relation to the trade routes of the time. For instance, Mohenjodaro lay at the intersection of the water-route of the Indus and the east– west land route that linked the Quetta valley and the Bolan river to Kot Diji and the western Nara.
MAP 4.3 HARAPPAN ROUTES OF INTERNAL TRADE (AFTER LAHIRI, 1992)
The main sources of information on long-distance trade include a number of Harappan or Harappan-related (i.e., similar to Harappan types) artefacts found at sites outside the subcontinent, and foreign objects found at Harappan sites. These are supplemented by textual sources in the case of Indus–Mesopotamian trade (see Chakrabarti, 1990).
A number of Harappan and Harappan-related objects have been found in south Turkmenistan at sites such as Altyn Depe, Namazga, and Khapuz. These include ivory dice, two types of metal objects (a spearhead and ladle), an ithyphallic terracotta, perforated ware, a segmented bead, and a silver seal. The most definite evidence comes from Altyn Depe, in the form of a rectangular Harappan seal bearing the Harappan script. The sites in Iran which have yielded Harappan and Harappan-related artefacts are Hissar, Shah Tepe, Kalleh Nisar, Susa, Tepe Yahya, Jalalabad, and Marlik. The main evidence consists of seals and carnelian beads (both the etched and long barrel cylinder types). The most important evidence of trade with Afghanistan comes from an isolated Harappan trading outpost at Shortughai.
Many years ago, a round seal with a short-horned bull motif and Harappan writing was found at Failaka in the Persian Gulf. In recent years, there has been a substantial increase in the evidence of Harappan trade contacts with the Persian Gulf area. Harappan and Harappan-related artefacts (including a piece of ivory, a linga-shaped object, a circular mirror, and seals with Harappan motifs and/or writing) have been found at Rasal-Qala on the island of Bahrain. Excavations near Hamad in Bahrain yielded a typical Harappan seal and carnelian beads in burials. A seal with the bull motif and Harappan script was found at the site of Hajjar. From Failaka, apart from the ‘Persian Gulf seal’ mentioned above, there was a flat, round seal with the Harappan script. Jar fragments with Harappan writing have been found at many sites in the Persian Gulf. These were probably containers used to transport perishable goods from the Harappan culture zone to this region.
The Harappans were also trading with the Oman peninsula. An etched carnelian bead of the Harappan type was found at Umm-an-Nar. There are similarities between certain other types of objects found at this site (a square steatite seal, fragments of pottery, carnelian beads, a cubical stone weight, etc.) and Harappan artefacts. Maysar, an excavated copper-smelting site, has yielded evidence (e.g., pottery decorations and motifs on a seal) that suggests Harappan influence. The major imports from Oman may have included chlorite vessels, shell, and perhaps mother-of-pearl. Copper has been mentioned as another Omani export to the Harappans, but this is unlikely, as the metal was available closer, in Rajasthan. As for Harappan exports to Oman, the items that survive in the archaeological record include beads, chert weights, and ivory objects.
There is literary as well as archaeological evidence for Harappan trade with Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian records of the time of king Sargon (2334–2279 BCE) refer to ships from the lands of Dilmun, Magan, and Meluhha tied along the quay of the capital city, Akkad. Dilmun can be identified with Bahrain, and Magan with the Makran coast and Oman. Meluhha may have been a generic term for areas lying to the east of Mesopotamia, including the Indus valley, or it may refer specifically to the Indus valley. The archaeological evidence for Harappan–Mesopotamian trade consists mainly of a few Harappan or Harappan-related seals and carnelian beads at Mesopotamian sites such as Kish, Lagash, Nippur, and Ur. Carnelian beads (both the etched type and the long barrel-cylinder type) were also found in the royal graves at Ur. Certain motifs such as the bull on Mesopotamian seals have been cited as reflecting Harappan influence. Cylinder seals (which are common in West Asia) with Harappan-type motifs suggest interaction between merchants of these two areas. The absence of Mesopotamian seals and sealings in the Harappan context suggests that Mesopotamian traders were not directly involved in the Harappan–Mesopotamian trade interactions.
MAP 4.4 LONG-DISTANCE TRADE ROUTES
Carnelian beads were clearly an important Harappan export to West Asia. Textiles and conch shell objects were other possible exports. Ivory and ivory objects may have been exported by the Harappans to Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and perhaps the Persian Gulf. Mesopotamian texts mention the following items as imports from Meluhha: lap1/22/2016is lazuli, carnelian, gold, silver, copper, ebony, ivory, tortoiseshell, a chicken-like bird, dog, cat, and monkey. Mesopotamia’s general exports included fish, grain, raw wool, woollen garments, and silver. It is possible that wool and silver found their way to Meluhha, but there is no archaeological proof of this.
There are two very different assessments of Harappan–Mesopotamian trade. Ratnagar (1981) highlights the importance of this trade, especially the trade in lapis lazuli, and even argues that its decline was a reason for the decline of the Harappan civilization. Notwithstanding the long list of items mentioned in texts, the fact remains that there are very few Harappan artefacts found in Mesopotamia and even fewer Mesopotamian artefacts found at Harappan sites. A few Mesopotamian-type stone weights have been reported from Mohenjodaro and Harappa. Three motifs found on some Harappan seals are seen by some scholars as reflecting Mesopotamian influence—the whorl design, a man grappling with two animals, and the gatepost motif. The evidence as a whole is not very substantial. Chakrabarti (1990) and Shaffer (1982b) argue that Harappan trade with Mesopotamia was not direct, extensive or intensive. This trade does not seem to have been particularly important for the development or sustenance of the Harappan civilization.
Among the Harappan imports via long-distance trade, lapis lazuli was probably an import from Afghanistan (or it could have been obtained closer from the Chagai hills of Baluchistan). Jade must
have come from Turkmenistan. Tin may have been obtained from Ferghana and eastern Kazakistan in central Asia. Carved chlorite and green schist vessels were a popular item of trade in West Asia and the Persian Gulf, and a few fragments have been found at Mohenjodaro. These may have been imported from southern Iran or from Baluchistan. Very few West Asian artefacts have been found in Harappan contexts. A seal of the Persian Gulf type was found at Lothal as a surface find. A lapis lazuli bead from Mohenjodaro and a pendant with lapis lazuli inlay found at Cemetery-H levels at Harappa were possibly imports from West Asia. A cylinder seal (as mentioned earlier, cylinder seals were common in West Asia) with Indian motifs was found at Kalibangan.
Harappan objects in Mesopotamia can be dated from the Early Dynastic IIIA period (c. 2600/2500 BCE) to the Isin–Larsa period (c. 2000/1900 BCE) in the Mesopotamian sequence, which corresponds to the entire span of the mature Harappan phase. The finds from other parts of West Asia also belong roughly to this period. However, the discovery of a Harappan seal at the site of Nippur in a 14th century BCE context suggests that Harappan contact with Mesopotamia may have continued, although in a diminished form, into the late Harappan phase. The continuation of some amount of trade with the Persian Gulf region is suggested by two Harappan seals found at Failaka in a 14th century BCE context, and a late Harappan seal found at Bet Dwarka. The latter has Harappan writing and a three-headed animal motif similar to that found on certain Persian Gulf seals.
The importance of overland routes from the Harappan civilization through Afghanistan is evident from the location of Harappan sites near each of the passes and routes that lead through Baluchistan into Afghanistan. Pathani Damb is near the Mula pass, Nausharo near the Bolan pass, Dabarkot in the Gomal valley, and Gumla and Hathala in the Derajat, along the route via the Gomal pass. The Gomal route seems to have been the most important.
Two main overland routes connected the Harappan civilization with West Asia. The northern one passed through northern Afghanistan, north Iran, Turkmenistan, and Mesopotamia, crossing sites such as Shortughai, Tepe Hissar, Shah Tepe, and Kish. A southern route passed through Tepe Yahya, Jalalabad, Kalleh Nisar, Susa, and Ur. The maritime route to Mesopotamia may also have been used. It is likely that sites such as Sutkagen-dor, Balakot, and Dabarkot (the latter two may at that time have been located at the coast instead of some distance away) were important points along this route. Lo-thal (10 km away from the Gulf of Cambay) and Kuntasi (on the Phulki river, 4 km from the coast), Dholavira (in the Rann of Kutch), and the sites along the coast of Kutch no doubt played an important role in maritime trade.
Shortughai is located near the confluence of the Oxus and its tributary, the Kokcha, in north-east Afghanistan. It is a small site, only about 2 ha. The cultural deposit is 2.5–3 m thick, within which four periods of occupation have been identified. Period I (50 cm thick) was dated by radiocarbon to the end of the 3rd millennium BCE.
The discoveries of Period I included the following: pottery with Harappan designs, terracotta cakes, fragments of toy carts, copper and bronze objects, pieces of gold and lead, a discoidal
gold bead; lapis lazuli, agate, carnelian, steatite, small barrel-shaped agate beads; long tubular and etched carnelian beads; flint micro-blades and drill heads; shell bangles; and mud-bricks of the typical Harappan size. Harappan graffiti occurred on the rims of jars and on beakers. There was a square Harappan seal with the motif of a rhinoceros and the Harappan script. The discovery of so many typical Harappan artefacts and manufacturing techniques proves that this was not a site which had mere contact with the Harappan civilization, but a site belonging to the Harappan civilization.
Shortughai also has some unique features. A ploughed field covered with flax seeds was found in an area unsuitable for irrigation, showing the practice of dry farming. Small irrigation canals drawing on the water of the Kokcha, located about 25 km away, were found in other parts of the site.
What were the Harappans doing at Shortughai? This site seems to have been connected with the lapis lazuli mines nearby. However, lapis lazuli objects are not particularly numerous at Harappan sites. A second possibility is that Shortughai owed its importance to its proximity to the tin mines of Afghanistan and Ferghana. A third possibility is that it had a role to play in camel trade.
SOURCE Chakrabarti, 1990: 1–2, 86–89
The argument that the quantum of Harappan long-distance trade was not great is persuasive. Unlike the resource-poor area of Mesopotamia, the Harappan culture zone was rich in a variety of natural resources. Food requirements and most of the raw materials required by Harappan craftspersons could have been met by resources available within the Harappan culture zone. The diverse, well-developed craft traditions meant that most of the finished goods required by the Harappans were likewise available from within this area. A few raw materials and products were obtained from other parts of the subcontinent and from areas such as Afghanistan and central Asia. Very few essential items had to be imported from distant places. Harappan trade must have involved highly organized merchant groups as well as nomadic peddlers in the mountainous stretches. The extent of state control over this activity is a matter of debate.
Among the biggest mysteries about the Harappan civilization are the language (or languages) the Harappans spoke and their writing system. It is likely that people living in various parts of the Harappan culture zone spoke different languages and dialects. The writing on the seals was probably in the language of the ruling elite. Some scholars have suggested that this language belonged to the Dravidian family of languages, while others have argued in favour of the Indo-Aryan family. However, there is so far no consensus on the affiliation of the Harappan language or on the decipherment of the script.
A total of about 3,700 inscribed objects have been found at Harappan sites (for details, see Mahadevan, 1977, Parpola, 1994). Most of the writing appears on seals and sealings (seal
impressions), some on copper tablets, copper/bronze implements, pottery, and other miscellaneous objects. About 50 per cent of the inscribed objects have been found at Mohenjodaro, and the two sites of Mohenjodaro and Harappa together account for about 87 per cent of all inscribed material. Most of the inscriptions are very short, with an average of five signs. The longest one has 26 signs. The script seems to have emerged in a fully evolved state and does not show any significant changes over time. This conclusion may, however, be the result of the inadequacies of earlier excavations, which did not record the stratigraphic context of all objects, making it difficult to sort out earlier and later samples of writing.
There are 400–450 basic signs and the script is logo-syllabic—i.e., each symbol stood for a word or syllable. It was generally written and meant to be read from right to left (this is reversed on the seals). This is evident from that fact that in inscriptions, the letters are cramped on the left side, where space had clearly run out, and from overlapping letters scratched onto pottery. There are a few instances, however, of writing from left to right. Longer inscriptions that consisted of more than one line were sometimes written in the boustrophedon style—with consecutive lines starting in opposite directions.
What was the connection between the motifs on the seals and the writing? What was the extent of literacy among the Harappans? What was writing used for? In order to understand the uses of writing in the Harappan civilization, it is necessary to try to interpret the functions of the inscribed objects. Writing appears very frequently on the seals. Some of these were impressed onto small moist clay tablets known as sealings, probably by merchants to authenticate their bales of merchandise. The evidence of textile impressions on some sealings supports this interpretation. However, more seals than sealings have been found, and the seals are generally worn at the edges and not inside. This suggests that some of the so-called seals may have had other functions. They may have been tokens used in the buying and selling of goods. They may also have been worn as amulets or used as identification markers (like modern identity cards) by well-to-do people like landowners, merchants, priests, artisans, and rulers. Those no longer in use must have been intentionally broken so that they could not be misused by anybody. Tablets with narrative scenes may have had a religious or ritualistic function. The so-called ‘seals’ were thus used for multiple purposes.
Writing also appears on miniature tablets made of steatite, terracotta, and faience. Since these objects were not used to make impressions, unlike the seals, the writing on them was not reversed. Many of the objects were discovered at Harappa and other large cities. Rectangular copper tablets with writing and animal motifs were found at Mohenjodaro, while a few tablets with raised writing were found at Harappa. The limited number of places where they occur suggests a restricted use. Interestingly, there are many duplicates of both the miniature and copper tablets.
The evidence of writing on pottery suggests a wider use in craft production and economic transactions. Harappan potters sometimes inscribed letters onto pots before firing. At other times, inscriptions were made on pots after they were fired (this is termed ‘graffiti’). Even if the potters who made the marks on their pots were themselves illiterate, they must have been able to recognize
the symbols. Pointed goblets sometimes have seal impressions, which may have indicated the name or status of the person for whom the pot was made.
Items like copper and bronze tools, stoneware bangles, bone pins, and gold jewellery were sometimes inscribed. A copper vessel found at Mohenjodaro contained a large number of gold objects. These included four ornaments with tiny inscriptions, all apparently written by the same hand, probably giving the name of the owner. Some of the writing inscribed or painted on personal possessions such as bangles, tools, beads, and bone rods may have had some sort of magico-religious or ritualistic significance.
The Dholavira ‘signboard’ may or may not indicate a high level of urban literacy, but it does indicate a civic use of writing. It is likely that a very small proportion of Harappan written material survives, and that people wrote on perishable material as well. The evidence of a common script all over the vast Harappan culture zone shows a high level of cultural integration. The virtual disappearance of the script by c. 1700 BCE suggests both a close connection of writing with city life and the lack of sufficient downward percolation of writing.
HARAPPAN SEALS
The basic elements of what can be loosely described as ‘Harappan religion’ were outlined by John Marshall in 1931. Although some aspects of Marshall’s interpretation can be criticized—especially his tendency to read elements of later Hinduism into the evidence—he did succeed in identifying several important features of Harappan religion. Hypotheses about this issue are bound to be subjective, especially in view of the fact that the script is undeciphered.
The worship of female goddesses associated with fertility has long been held as one of the major features of Harappan religion. This conclusion is based on the following factors: (a) the concerns that agricultural societies are invariably known to have with fertility; (b) cross-cultural parallels with other ancient civilizations; (c) the importance of goddess worship in later Hinduism; and (d) the discovery of a large number of terracotta female figurines that were labelled ‘Mother Goddesses’. Certain representations on seals are also relevant. For instance, a seal showing a nude woman, head downwards, with her legs apart and a plant issuing from her vagina is often interpreted as a prototype of Shakambhari, the Earth Mother.
Describing all female figurines as representations of a single great ‘Mother Goddess’ associated with fertility and maternity clearly over-simplifies the situation. The attributes of the figurines and the contexts in which they were found have to be considered carefully before assigning them a religious or cultic significance. As pointed out in an earlier chapter, not all female figurines necessarily represented goddesses (let alone a single goddess), and not all goddesses necessarily
had maternal associations. Some of the Harappan female figurines may have had a cultic significance and may have been part of household rituals. Others may have been toys or decorative items.
A study of the Harappan terracottas by Alexandra Ardeleanu-Jansen (2002) has underlined the great variety in the form of female figurines. The type which is frequently interpreted as having a religious significance is a slim female figure with a distinctive fan-shaped headdress, wearing a short skirt. She is heavily ornamented with necklaces, armlets, bangles, anklets, and earrings. Some of the figurines have cup-like attachments and flowers on either side of the head. In certain cases, the cup-like attachments have traces of black residue, suggesting that they were used to burn oil or some sort of essence. Such figurines may have been religious images worshipped in households, votive offerings made to a deity, or part of the paraphernalia of domestic rituals. It is interesting to note that such figures do not appear on Harappan seals and tablets or in stone or metal sculpture.
There is also a matronly, pot-bellied type of female figurine who may represent either a pregnant woman or a prosperous woman. She is naked and sometimes wears some jewellery and a turban or head-dress. Both the ‘matronly type’ and the ‘slim type’ of female figurines may hold a baby in their arms. The ‘matronly type’ can stand without support, while the youthful, ‘slim type’ needs support. It is interesting to note that female figurines—including those with possible religious significance—are found in large numbers at sites such as Mohenjodaro, Harappa, and Banawali, but not at sites such as Kalibangan, Lothal, Surkotada or Mitathal.
Most of the terracotta figurines (including the female ones) were found broken and discarded in secondary locations. None were found in a context that could be interpreted as a temple. This was one of the reasons why Marshall suggested that they were votive offerings rather than cult images. The fact that so many of them were broken suggests that they may have been part of a ritual cycle and were made for short-term use for certain specific occasions. The relationship between the female figurines and the male and animal figurines with which they are associated needs to be explored.
Marshall suggested that the Harappans also worshipped a male god represented on a steatite seal discovered at Mohenjodaro, usually referred to as the Pashupati seal. This shows a male figure with a buffalo horn head-dress seated on a dais with his legs bent double under him, heels together, toes pointed down. His outstretched arms are adorned with bangles, his hands rest lightly on his knees. He is flanked by four animals—an elephant, rhinoceros, water buffalo, and tiger. Beneath the dais are two antelopes or ibexes. Marshall thought the male figure was three-headed and ithyphallic (with erect penis). He saw a striking resemblance between this deity and the Shiva of later Hindu mythology, who is also known as Mahayogi (the great yogi) and Pashupati (lord of the animals).
Another aspect of the fertility-related beliefs of the Harappans was the worship of male and female creative energy in the form of stone icons of lingas and yonis (representing the male and female sexual organs respectively). A number of such stones were identified by John Marshall. Many years later, George Dales argued that the contexts in which these stones were found do not suggest cultic significance. Some of the ring stones had lines on them and may have had architectural use, either to guide masons in pillar building or to measure angles. Alternatively, they may have been used to make astronomical calculations. Marshall himself had suggested that some of the linga-shaped objects may have been grinders or unfinished weights. Dales made his arguments forcefully; however, a terracotta piece which closely resembles a linga with a yoni-pitha (yoni base) has recently been found at Kalibangan.
The Harappan seals, sealings, amulets, and copper tablets depict a number of trees, plants, and animals, some of which may have had cultic significance. The pipal (Ficus religiosa) tree appears often and may have been venerated. Sometimes, there is a figure peering out from between its branches, possibly a tree-spirit. A seal found at Mohenjo-daro shows a row of seven figures with long braids standing in front of a pipal tree which has a horned figure standing in it. It is not clear whether the figures are male or female, but because they are seven in number, scholars have speculated that there may be a connection with the later traditions of the seven rishis or the seven mothers.
Some of the animals depicted on seals and sealings—for instance, the humped and humpless bull, snake, elephant, rhinoceros, antelope, gharial, and tiger—may have had cultic significance. The bull, a symbol of male virility in many ancient cultures, seems to have been particularly important. We can note the steatite bull statuettes discovered at certain sites, including a very sophisticated terracotta bull found at Mohenjodaro. It is possible that some of the terracotta animals on wheels may have been cult images rather than toys. Two Harappan sealings appear to represent animals being carried in processions; one of them resembles a bull or cow. The composite animals (tiger– human, bull–elephant, ram–bull–elephant, etc.) and the ‘unicorn’ depicted on some seals and sealings may also have had some sort of religious or mythological significance. Some of the terracotta, shell,
faience, and metal tablets may have been amulets. Their motifs, such as the svastika, may have been associated with a protective function or auspiciousness. Terracotta masks and puppets found at Mohenjodaro and Harappa include those in the form of real and mythical animals, and these may have been used in religious, political, or politico-religious rituals.
THE 'PASHUPATI SEAL'
Marshall concluded that this seal showed that the Harappans worshipped a god who seems to have been a proto-Shiva. This conclusion has not gone unchallenged. The questions that have been asked include the following:
Is1.the figure really sitting in a yogic posture of ritual discipline?
Is2.he really three-headed?
Is3.he ithyphallic?
Is4.the figure a male?
Shiva5. as Pashupati in later Hindu mythology protects domesticated cattle, while the figure on the seal is associated with wild animals. In view of this difference, can the two really be connected?
The figure has been variously identified as a chieftain, a divine bull-man, Indra, or the demon Mahisha of the Puranas. M. K. Dhavalikar and Shubhangana Atre (see Atre, 1985–86) have suggested that it represents a goddess—a ‘lady of the beasts’. Notwithstanding all these alternative interpretations, the basics of Marshall’s interpretation are still persuasive. The figure can be accepted as that of a male seated in a yogic posture, although it is not certain that he was three-headed. The similarities between the deity—for he seems to be no ordinary man—and certain attributes of the later-day Shiva remain striking. Of course, we do not know what name the Harappans gave him.
We can recall here the ‘horned deity’ that appears on a Kot Diji pot, Kalibangan terracotta cake, and the Padri jar. This indicates that the worship of a horned deity goes back to the early
Harappan phase.
The citadel complex at Kalibangan consists of a northern and southern unit, separated from each other by a wall. In the southern sector, archaeologists found five or more mud-brick platforms, separated from each other and from the back of the fortification wall by streets. Steps or ramps led up to the platforms. On one of these platforms, there was a row of seven clay-lined pits, each about 75 × 55 cm. These have been identified as ‘fire altars’, i.e., pits in which offerings were made into the fire as part of sacrificial rituals. Ash, charcoal, the remains of a rectangular clay piece, and terracotta cakes were found in them. To the west of this row of pits, within easy reach of whoever sat in front of them, was the lower half of a jar containing ash and charcoal, embedded into the ground. Nearby was a well and the remains of bath pavements with attached drains, all made of burnt bricks. A ‘fire altar’ and a well were discovered on another platform in the southern sector of the citadel complex. There was also a 1.25 × 1 m brick-lined rectangular pit, containing cattle bones and antlers. This suggests the practice of animal sacrifice. The southern sector of the Kalibangan citadel complex seems to have been a place where sacrificial rituals of a congregational character were performed. The northern part of the citadel complex contained houses. B. B. Lal suggests this may have been where the priests who performed the rituals lived.
‘Fire altars’ have also been reported at Banawali, Lothal, Amri, Nageshwar, and Vagad in Gujarat and at Rakhigarhi in Haryana. But it is only at Kalibangan and Banawali that they may have signified some community event; in the other cases, they seem to have been associated with domestic rituals. Again, as in the case with female figurines, the fact that the ‘fire altars’ have been found at a few sites but are absent at most, indicates variations in religious practice within the vast area of the Harappan culture.
SOURCE Lal, 1984
The Great Bath was probably the scene of an elite ritual activity involving ceremonial bathing. A triangular terracotta cake found at Kalibangan has a carving of a horned deity on one side and an animal being dragged by a rope by a human on the other. The latter has been tentatively interpreted as suggesting the practice of animal sacrifice. A Kalibangan cylinder seal shows a woman flanked by two men who hold her with one hand and raise swords over her head with the other; this may represent a scene of human sacrifice. The most striking evidence suggesting ritualistic practices comes from the ‘fire altars’ found on the citadel mound at Kalibangan.
Harappan cemeteries have been located at sites such as Harappa, Kalibangan, Lo-thal,
Rakhigarhi, and Surkotada. The most common method of burial was to place the body of the
deceased in an extended position, with the head towards the north, in a simple pit or brick chamber. Grave goods including food, pottery, tools, and ornaments were placed along with the body, but they were never too many or lavish. Clearly, the Harappans preferred to use wealth in life rather than bury it with their dead. At Harappa, there was a coffin with a shroud made of reeds. Symbolic burials with grave goods but no skeletons were found at Kalibangan. Fractional burials (where the body was exposed to the elements and the bones then gathered and buried) were found at Mohenjodaro and Harappa. These two sites also gave evidence of urn burials suggestive of cremation. Multiple burials of men and women were discovered at Lothal.
The religious and funerary beliefs and practices of the Harappans show great variety. While there are dangers in viewing these through the lens of later-day Hinduism, it is interesting to note that the Harappan civilization does display a few features reminiscent of later traditions, except, however, the important element of temple worship. Not a single structure found at any Harappan site can conclusively be identified as a temple.
What did the Harappan people look like? What sorts of clothes and ornaments did they wear? How did they relax and have fun? Terracotta, stone, and bronze sculptures (some of which have been described in earlier sections) help answer such questions. The form of human terracotta figurines was connected to their function, stylistic conventions, and audience, and they may not be realistic representations of what all or even most Harappans looked like. Nevertheless, they do help insert three-dimensional people into our picture of the Harappan civilization.
The human terracottas can be divided into female and male figurines, those whose sex is not clear, a few that have both female and male attributes (e.g., a figurine from Harappa which has breasts and
a beard), and a few males in feminine dress. Going by the figurines, Harappan women wore a short skirt made of cotton or wool. They wore their hair variously in braids, rolled into a bun at the back or side of the head, arranged in separate locks or ringlets, and wrapped around the head like a turban, or left loose. What looks like a fan-shaped headdress could actually represent hair stretched over a frame made of bamboo or some other material. At Harappa, it is supplemented by flowers or flower-shaped ornaments. Such hairstyles or headdresses could indicate women of distinction or deities. Female figurines wear ornaments such as necklaces, chokers, hair ornaments, bangles, and belts. We can recall the beautiful jewellery found at many Harappan sites.
Male figurines are usually bare headed, though some are turbaned. Most of them are nude, so it is difficult to say what sort of clothes men wore. Certain stone sculptures suggest the use of a dhoti-like lower garment and an upper garment consisting of a shawl or cloak worn over one shoulder and under the other. There are various hairstyles—braids, buns, and hair hanging loose. Most of the male figurines have beards, in styles ranging from the ‘goatee’ to the more common combed and spread-out style as in the case of the ‘priest-king’. There is some degree of overlap in male and female hairstyles and ornaments, but also some differences. For instance, men and women both wear bangles and necklaces, but men rarely wear multi-strand necklaces made of graduated beads.
Children of all cultures and all times play with toys, and Harappan children were no exception. Terracotta toys of various kinds have been found at Harappan sites. They include balls, rattles, whistles, gamesmen, carts with moveable parts, and animals on wheels. There are spinning tops made of terracotta and shell. Some have a shallow depression, while others have a copper tip to make them spin around a long time. Clay marbles have been found in courtyards of houses. Miniature terracotta cooking vessels, beds, and other toy furniture have been found, with which children must have played house. There are figurines of children playing with toys. One of them holds what seems to be a clay disc. Many clay discs have in fact been found at Harappan sites, and it is possible that these are remnants of a pithu-like game played with a ball and piled-up pieces of clay or stone. Lots of terracotta figurines of dogs have been found at Harappan sites, some with collars, suggesting that people kept dogs as pets. Some of the terracotta figurines of people and animals have a comic appearance, reflecting a sense of humour.
The social implications of the worship of female deities are complex. Although such worship reflects the ability to visualize divinity in feminine form, it does not necessarily translate into power or a high social position for ordinary women. While some of the female figurines found at Harappan sites may represent goddesses, many seem to represent ordinary, mortal women. Terracotta figurines of women at work are few. Figurines depicting women grinding or kneading something (food/clay?) have been found at Nausharo, Harappa, and Mohenjodaro, suggesting the association of women with food-processing activities. In ancient societies, childbirth was a process fraught with danger. Some of the fat female terracotta figurines may represent pregnant women. Recent excavations at Harappa have yielded a burial with a woman and baby, perhaps a case of death in childbirth. Some female figurines found at Harappan sites carry a suckling infant on the left hip; others show women carrying infants close to their breast. An unusual terracotta figurine found at Nausharo (Period ID) shows a male with feminine headdress holding an infant. Tiny terracotta figurines of small children have been found at most sites. Were all of them toys or could they be votive objects? Can a statistical analysis of the child figurines help us identify whether there was a cultural bias in favour of male or female children? This is a very interesting question, but answers can only be speculative.
How healthy were the Harappans?
The early excavations at Harappa focused on architecture and artefacts. The more recent excavations carried out during the 1980s and 1990s reflect the advances in the field of archaeology and included a careful collection and scientific analysis of bone remains. The results give us important information about the health and nutrition of the Harappans.
Cemetery R-37 is located in the southern part of the site. Excavations were carried out under the supervision of J. M. Kenoyer. A team of four physical anthropologists—K. A. R. Kennedy, John R. Lucacs, Nancy Lovell, and Brian Hemphill—had the special job of carefully excavating the skeletons and removing them to the laboratory for analysis. Ninety skeletons were recovered from the cemetery. Most of them represented females. The number of skeletons in different age ranges were as follows:
Children (< 16="" yrs)="" />
:
15
Young adults (17–34 yrs)
:
35
Middle-aged adults (35–55 yrs)
:
27
Older adults (> 55 yrs)
:
13
The general health of this sample of the Harappan population was quite good. The skeletons showed a low incidence of traumatic injury, chronic infectious diseases, and neoplastic diseases (tumours). There were no traces of nutritional inadequacy such as rickets, scurvy, or anaemia. There were, however, three cases of arrested growth lines, suggesting that growth during childhood was halted temporarily. This could have been due to malnutrition or some serious illness. The most common ailment suffered by the people buried in this cemetery was arthritis. Signs of this appeared in the spine and in the joints of knees, hands, and feet. There were also several instances of severe arthritis in the neck, which may have been the result of unusual stress on the neck vertebrae, perhaps due to carrying heavy loads on the head over a long period of time.
The teeth of the people were analysed and the dental pathology profile was what would be expected in a community of agriculturists. The most common dental problem was gross enamel hypoplasia (pitted or missing enamel) and the least common was hypercementosis (excessive deposit of cementum, a calcified hard tissue covering the root surface). Dental caries (cavities) were present in 43.6 per cent of the individuals examined. The dental caries rate was worked out as 6.8 per cent, which is a high rate typical of agricultural groups. Tooth loss, calculus (hardened plaque or tartar), and alveolar resorption (wasting away of the bony socket) occurred with moderate frequency. There were differences between males and females in the incidence of tooth loss and enamel hypoplasia. But the frequency of dental abscesses, calculus, and alveolar resorption were more or less the same for men as for women.
The study showed that the Harappans buried in Cemetery R-37 were relatively healthy agriculturists. A statistical analysis of the crania of the skeletons shows biological similarity among the people buried in the cemetery, a similarity between them and the skeletons found in the late Harappan Cemetery-H, and with the modern populations inhabiting this area today. This shows a broad biological continuity between the inhabitants of the area from mature Harappan to late Harappan into more recent times.
SOURCE Dales and Kenoyer, 1991: 191–99, 210–12
Early studies of Harappan skeletons focused on classifying the Harappans into racial types. More recent studies have abandoned the old, rather arbitrary racial classifications. They have asked different questions and given an interesting set of conclusions. Kenneth A. R. Kennedy’s study (1997) of skeletons found at Harappan sites shows biological heterogeneity between the different regions, and similarity with the people who live in these areas today. This means that the Harappans of Punjab resembled the present-day Punjabis in appearance, while the Harappans of Sindh resembled the modern inhabitants of Sindh. Kennedy also identified the incidence of malaria among the Harappans.
There is the larger question of the analysis and assessment of the structure of Harappan society. The absence of deciphered written evidence is a major handicap, and inferences have to be made very carefully on the basis of archaeological data. The people who lived within the Harappan culture zone comprised villagers and city folk. Harappan society included occupational groups such
as farmers, herders, hunter-gatherers, craftspeople, fisherfolk, merchants, sailors, rulers, administrative officials, ritual specialists, architects, carpenters, brick masons, well diggers, boat makers, sailors, sculptors, shopkeepers, sweepers, garbage collectors, and so on. Some farmers may have lived in the cities and tilled their fields nearby. Terracotta net sinkers and arrow points found at Mohenjodaro and Harappa suggest that the city population included hunters and fisher-folk. The level of social differentiation may not have been as great as in Mesopotamia and Egypt, but differences in house sizes and the hoards of jewellery do indicate a concentration of wealth and differences in social and economic status. The affluent social groups would have comprised rulers, land owners, and merchants. Class and rank differences based on occupation, wealth, and status must have existed. However, claims that the caste system existed in Harappan society are highly speculative.
Political organization includes a range of issues related to the exercise of power and leadership in a society. The debate on the nature of the Harappan political system has focused largely on whether or not a state existed, and if so, what sort of state it was. A great deal depends on our definition of a state and the interpretation of the archaeological evidence. Cultural uniformity does not necessarily mean political unification; therefore there is the additional question of whether the evidence suggests the existence of one state or many.
Many scholars have observed that the elements of warfare, conflict, and force in the Harappan civilization seem weak compared to contemporary Mesopotamia and Egypt. Weapons are not a dominant feature of the artefacts found at Harappan sites. There are few depictions of conflict between people in the narrative reliefs on terracotta and faience tablets. However, fortifications, especially the imposing ones at sites such as Dholavira, cannot be overlooked. It is indeed possible that the element of force in the Harappan culture has been underestimated. Force and conflict could not have been completely absent in such a large area over such a long period of time.
That the Harappan civilization lasted for some 700 years and its artefacts, traditions, and symbols seem to have continued more or less unchanged through this long period, suggests a strong element of political stability. There must have been groups of rulers in the various cities. Just who they were and how they were related to each other remains a mystery. These groups would have been responsible for the maintenance of the city facilities—walls, roads, drains, public buildings, etc. Some of the seals may bear names, titles, and symbols of these elites and could throw important light on the Harappan rulers, if the writing could be read.
One of the earliest hypotheses regarding the Harappan political structure was put forward by Stuart Piggott and was supported to some extent by Mortimer Wheeler (for details of the various theories, see Jacobson, 1986). Piggott suggested that the Harappan state was a highly centralized empire ruled by autocratic priest-kings from the twin capitals of Mohenjodaro and Harappa. This view was based on a number of features, including the level of uniformity in material traits, the use of a common script, and standardized weights and measures. Mohenjodaro and Harappa seemed to clearly stand out in the midst of the other settlements. Urban planning and monumental public works implied the mobilization of a specialized labour force. The ‘granaries’ at Mohenjodaro and Harappa fitted in with a view of the Harappan rulers as exercising a high level of control over everything,
even maintaining buffer stocks of grain to tide over times of food scarcity. The apparent lack of internecine warfare between the settlements suggested that they were united under a single rule.
This view of the Harappan state soon came in for criticism. Walter A. Fairservis (1967) argued that the Harappans did not have an empire, not even a state. He pointed to the absence of evidence of priest-kings, slaves, standing armies, or court officials. According to him, Mohenjodaro was a ceremonial centre, not an administrative one. He argued that the sort of control reflected in the Harappan civilization could have been exercised by an elaborate village administration. Later, Fairservis modified his views to some extent and agreed that there may have been some element of centralized control and a class structure. But he still maintained that force did not play a significant role and that interdependence, religion, and tradition were responsible for regulating social behaviour.
Another view of the Harappan political system came from S. C. Malik (1968), who argued that the lack of imposing monuments and supreme gods goes against the idea of a strong, centralized state. The Harappan polity, according to Malik, is an example of what Elman Service described as the chiefdom stage, transitional between a kinship society and civil state society.
Defining a state
The word ‘state’ is used very often in historical and anthropological analysis; therefore, it is important to know the various meanings attached to it. Here are some of the frequently cited and used definitions:
According to Elman R. Service (1975:14), a state is characterized by the existence of civil law and formal government that are ‘institutionalized, enacted, official’, and which ‘employ, threaten, or imply the actual use of force’. For him, the essential ingredients of a state are the power of force and authority.
Ronald Cohen (1978: 69-70) identified the state as a specific type of political system characterized by a centralized bureaucracy and dominant control of the mechanisms of force by a central authority. He further emphasized that an important difference between a chieftaincy and state was the latter’s ability to counter forces of political fission (breakaway groups or splintering).
The central element in Morton H. Fried’s (1978) conception of the state is social stratification based on differential access of the members of a society to basic productive necessities. Fried makes a distinction between pristine states and secondary states. A pristine state is one which emerges from indigenous stimuli, usually with no pre-existing models. A secondary state is one which has the model of an already existing state at hand and whose origins are related to pressures from this already existing state.
Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik (1978) define an early state in the following way: a centralized socio-political organization for the regulation of social relations in a complex, stratified society, which is divided into at least two basic strata or emergent social classes—the rulers and the ruled—and in which the relations of political dominance and tributary obligations between the rulers and the ruled are legitimized by a common ideology founded on reciprocity (mutual relations of give and take). They also suggest that early states can be divided into three types on the basis of increasing levels of complexity—the inchoate early state, the typical early state, and the transitional early state.
Since state formation is a gradual process, it is often difficult to say precisely when something that can be called a ‘state’ appeared. Elman Service suggests that the transitional period between a pre-state kinship society and a state society should be considered a distinct stage in itself called the chiefdom stage. This is characterized by ‘centralized direction, hereditary hierarchical status arrangements with an aristocratic ethos, but no formal, legal apparatus of forceful repression’. He adds that leadership in a chiefdom was exercised by an authority that possessed neither formal legal power nor a bureaucracy. There were social ranks, but no classes.
Part of the problem in defining a state is that the many different kinds of state systems that have existed in history make it difficult to formulate a universal definition. For instance, although Fried directs attention to the element of social stratification in state societies, his emphasis on centralization simply does not fit all states. Apart from the problem of definition, in the case of early states, there is also the problem of identifying levels of social and political complexity on the basis of archaeological evidence.
Recent studies of the state have questioned various aspects of the older evolutionary models and terminology. For instance, Norman Yoffee has challenged various ‘myths’ related to the evolution and nature of the earliest states. These myths include the ideas that all these states were basically similar: that they were ruled by powerful totalitarian elites who exercised a monopoly of control over goods, services, and information; that they were marked by territorial integration of large areas; and that their social structure can be understood by invoking modern ethnographic parallels.
SOURCE Claessen and Skalník, 1978; Yoffee, 2005
The two trends in recent writings are, paradoxically, a return to the idea of a Harappan empire and a complete rejection of such an idea. Ratnagar (1991) analysed the archaeological evidence and used cross-cultural parallels with other early state societies to conclude that we do seem to be looking at a Harappan empire. The strongest critique of such a view has come from Jim Shaffer (1982b). Shaffer questions the level of homogeneity in the Harappan civilization and suggests that it could have been the result of a well-developed network of internal trade rather than a strong, centralized government. He underlines the absence of huge royal tombs, palaces, and temples, and the absence of marked social differentiation of the kind visible in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.
At Harappan sites, artefacts of various types are distributed throughout the occupational levels rather than clustered in elite residences or structures. All the typical Harappan artefacts (including ornaments of precious metals and semi-precious stones, seals and sealings, and the script) occur in small village settlements. This suggests an equality of access to wealth or the symbols of wealth among village and city dwellers, which goes against the idea of a centralized empire.
The fact that some form of state structure did exist in the Harappan civilization cannot be denied. The absence of marked social or economic differences and tombs or palaces of the Egyptian or Mesopotamian kind does not mean that a state did not exist, rather that it was a different sort of state. The communications system, standardization in artefacts, site specialization, mobilization of labour for public works, the establishment of the trading outpost of Shortughai—all these things indicate a level of economic complexity and the existence of a state. So does the level of cultural homogeneity and the use of a common system of writing across areas in which many different languages and dialects must have been spoken. The levels of social differentiation indicate some degree of class stratification. Some of the buildings on the citadel complex seem to have had an administrative function. Centralized control is apparent in the Harappan civilization. The questions are: How much and by whom?
A priest-king?
In ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, rulers are portrayed extensively in stone reliefs and sculptures; their palaces, tombs, and temples further proclaim their power. The Harappan case is strikingly different. The stone bust of a male figure found at Mohenjodaro has been given the label ‘priest king’. The figure is that of a man with a close-cropped beard, half-closed eyes, and a fillet with an encrusted diadem around his head. An armlet with a similar but smaller ornament is tied around his right arm. A robe decorated with a trefoil design passes over his left shoulder and under his right arm. However, whether he represents a priest or king or both is far from certain. The same is the case with a large damaged seated figure found at Dholavira. While large
houses have been found at Harappan sites, none of them matches our idea of a palace, although it is possible that certain buildings on the citadels of cities such as Mohenjo-daro were the functional equivalent of palaces.
Jacobson (1986) suggests that the Harappan state was an early state with the following characteristics: a sovereign or sovereigns closely linked to a mythical character and seen as benevolent; a military component lacking the dominance characteristic of more mature states; and weakly developed economic stratification. According to Possehl (2003: 57), Harappan society was highly disciplined and had a strong corporate element; the Harappans may have been ruled by councils rather than kings. Kenoyer (1998: 100) suggests that the Harappan state must have comprised many competing classes of urban elites, such as merchants, ritual specialists, and those who controlled resources such as land and livestock, with different levels and spheres of control.
Kenoyer also suggests that the animals on the square stamp seals represent totemic symbols standing for a specific clan, perhaps along with some additional information. At least 10 clans or communities are represented by these animals—the unicorn, humped bull, elephant, water buffalo, rhinoceros, humpless bull with short horns, goat, antelope, crocodile, and hare. The unicorn motif is found at almost all sites where the seals have been found, including in Mesopotamia. At Mohenjodaro, over 60 per cent of the seals have this motif, while it occurs on about 46 per cent of the seals at Harappa. The large number of unicorn seals at major cities led Ratnagar to suggest that the unicorn was the symbol of the Harappan ruling elite. Kenoyer, on the other hand, argues that the ‘unicorn clan’ probably represented the aristocracy or merchants who had an important executive role in the government. It is in fact the less frequent motifs such as the bull, elephant, rhinoceros, and tiger that may have been symbols of the most powerful rulers at the apex of the Harappan power structure.
While Mohenjodaro stands out in some ways (for instance, no other site has a structure comparable to the Great Bath), there are other large Harappan cities such as Rakhigarhi, Lurewala, Ganweriwala, and Dholavira. Were they provincial centres knit together through a well-worked-out system of political control? Were they the capitals of separate states? Were they city-states? In the past, scholars tended to simply presume highly centralized political structures, whereas now there is a greater acceptance of the possibility of decentralization. It is not, however, certain whether we need to think in terms of a Harappan empire or a number of separate, perhaps inter-related states. Another possibility that cannot be ruled out is that there may have been several states with different kinds of political organization.
At some point of time, things started going wrong in the Harappan cities. Decline had set in at Mohenjodaro by 2200 BCE and the settlement had come to an end by 2000 BCE. In some places, the civilization continued till 1800 BCE. Apart from the dates, the pace of decline also varied. Mohenjodaro and Dholavira give a picture of gradual decline, while at Kalibangan and Banawali, city life ended all of a sudden (see Lahiri, 2000 for the various theories regarding Harappan decline).
One of the most popular explanations of the decline of the Harappan civilization is one for which there is least evidence. The idea that the civilization was destroyed by Aryan invaders was first put forward by Ramaprasad Chanda (1926)—he later changed his mind—and was elaborated on by Mortimer Wheeler (1947). Wheeler argued that references in the Rig Veda to various kinds of forts, attacks on walled cities, and the epithet puramdara (fort destroyer) given to the god Indra must have a historical basis and reflect an Aryan invasion of the Harappan cities. He identified a place called Hariyupiya in the Rig Veda with Harappa. Wheeler also pointed to certain skeletal remains found at Mohenjodaro as proof of the Aryan massacre. He subsequently modified his hypothesis, to the extent that he acknowledged that other factors such as floods, decline in trade, and over-utilization of natural resources may have had a role to play. But he insisted that the ultimate blow was given by an Aryan invasion. The Cemetery-H culture, he suggested, represented the culture of the Aryan invaders.
Many scholars such as P. V. Kane (1955), George Dales (1964), and B. B. Lal (1997) have refuted the invasion theory. The evidence from the Rig Veda, a religious text of uncertain date, is far from conclusive. Moreover, if there had been an invasion, it should have left some traces in the archaeological record. There is, in fact, no evidence of any kind of military assault or conflict at any Harappan site. The 37 groups of skeletal remains at Mohenjodaro do not belong to the same cultural phase and, therefore, cannot be connected to a single event. Not one of these skeletons was found on the citadel mound, where we would have expected a major battle to have taken place. The fact that there is a sterile layer between the mature Harappan and Cemetery-H levels goes against Wheeler’s hypothesis that the latter represents the settlement of the Aryan invaders. Moreover, K. A. R. Kennedy’s analysis (1997) of the skeletal remains does not show any discontinuity in the skeletal record in the north-west at this point of time, making it clear that there was no major influx of new settlers with a different physiognomy. The Harappan civilization was not destroyed by an Indo-Aryan invasion.
Natural disasters, not necessarily sudden or single, did have a role to play. Several layers of silt at Mohenjodaro give evidence of the city being affected by repeated episodes of Indus floods. M. R. Sahni (1956), and later Robert L. Raikes (1964) and George F. Dales (1966), argued that the floods at Mohenjodaro were the result of tectonic movements. Dales suggested that these may have
occurred at a place called Sehwan, about 90 miles downstream from Mohenjodaro, where there is evidence of rock faulting. The theory is that tectonic movements led to the creation of a gigantic natural dam that prevented the Indus from flowing towards the sea, turning the area around Mohenjodaro into a huge lake. The theory of several such episodes of flooding induced by tectonic movements is not, however, convincing. Neither is H. T. Lambrick’s hypothesis (1967), based on what he himself describes as purely circumstantial evidence, that the Indus changed its course, moving some 30 miles eastwards, starving Mohenjodaro and its inhabitants of water.
While Mohenjodaro may have got worn out due to repeated episodes of naturally occurring floods, Harappan sites in the Ghaggar-Hakra valley were affected by gradual desiccation. The Sutlej or the Yamuna once flowed into the Ghaggar. Tectonic movements led to river capture—either the Yamuna joined up with the Ganga system or (what is more likely) the Sutlej was captured by the Indus, drastically reducing the water flowing into the Ghaggar. M. R. Mughal’s (1997) study of settlements in this region shows a drastic reduction in the number of sites as the river dried up.
A sudden rise in the Arabian Sea coastline of west Pakistan could have caused floods and a rise in soil salinity. Such an uplift along the coast and in the lower Indus valley could also have seriously disrupted the coastal communications and trade of the Harappans.
Reference has already been made to the debate on the nature of the climate, especially rainfall, in protohistoric times. On the basis of his study of pollen from Rajasthan lakes, Gurdip Singh (1971) suggests a connection between the onset of a drier climate and the decline of the Harappan civilization. However, a study of the sediments of the Lunkaransar lake indicates that the onset of drier conditions in this area may have happened well before the emergence of the Harappan civilization. Whether climatic change played a role in the decline of the Harappan civilization therefore remains unclear.
The issue of environmental change can be connected to the ways in which the Harappans were treating their environment. Perhaps they were over-exploiting it through over-cultivation, overgrazing, and excessive cutting of trees for fuel and farming. This would have resulted in decreasing soil fertility, floods, and increasing soil salinity. Making estimates of population, land, food, and fodder requirements on the basis of modern data, Fairservis suggests that the civilization declined because the growing population of people and cattle could not be supported from resources within the Harappan culture zone.
Shereen Ratnagar (1981) has argued that the decline in the lapis lazuli trade with Mesopotamia was a factor in the decline of the Harappan civilization. Whether this trade was particularly important for the Harappans is, however, debatable; consequently, this could not have been a factor responsible for the decline.
Archaeological evidence does not give direct access to the possible social and political dimensions of the decline of the Harappan civilization. What it does indicate very clearly is that the Harappan culture underwent a gradual process of de-urbanization. The mature Harappan phase was followed by a post-urban phase, known as the late Harappan phase.
There are five geographical zones of the late Harappan phase: Sindh; west Punjab and the Ghaggar-Hakra valley; eastern Punjab and Haryana; the Ganga–Yamuna doab; and Kutch and Saurashtra. In
Sindh, the late Harappan phase is represented by the Jhukar culture at sites such as Jhukar, Chanhudaro, and Amri. The transition from the mature to the late Harappan phase in this region does not show any sudden discontinuity. There were gradual changes in the seals, a decrease in the frequency of cubical weights, and writing came to be confined only to pottery. The evidence of pottery suggests reciprocal contacts between the Jhukar culture of Sindh and the late Harappan culture at Lothal and Rangpur.
In the Punjab province of Pakistan and the Ghaggar-Hakra valley, the late Harappan phase is represented by the Cemetery-H culture. There is a decline in the number of settlements from 174 in the mature Harappan phase to 50 in the late Harappan phase. In east Punjab, Haryana, and north Rajasthan, the late Harappan settlements were small compared to the mature Harappan ones. In the Ganga–Yamuna doab, compared to the 31 mature Harappan sites, there are 130 late Harappan sites. The settlements were small, houses were generally made of wattle and daub, but the agricultural base was very diverse. In Kutch and Saurashtra, there is a marked increase in the number of settlements in the earlier part of the late Harappan phase, from 18 in the mature Harappan phase to 120 in the early late Harappan phase.
While there was abandonment or severe reduction in population in Sindh and Cholistan, the increase in the number of settlements in Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh, northern Rajasthan, and Gujarat shows that this was not the case everywhere (see (< />)Chapter 5 for details). In fact, at around the time that people were abandoning Mohenjodaro, the people of Rojdi in Saurashtra were expanding and rebuilding their settlement. The data suggests an eastward and southward shift of settlements and people.
The evidence from mature and late Harappan sites shows a complex interplay of elements of continuity and change. Compared to mature Harappan pottery, the slip of late Harappan pottery is less bright. The pots tend to be thicker and sturdier. Some of the classic Harappan shapes—e.g., the beaker, goblet, perforated jar, s-shaped jar, and pyriform (pear-shaped) jar—disappear. Other shapes—e.g., jars of different shapes and the dish-on-stand—continue. Various elements of Harappan urbanism such as the cities, script, seals, specialized crafts, and long-distance trade declined in the late Harappan phase, but did not completely disappear. Some of the late Harappan sites such as Kudwala (38.1 ha) in Cholistan, Bet Dwarka in Gujarat, and Daimabad (20 ha) in the upper Godavari valley can be described as urban, but they are few and far between. Graffiti on pottery occurs in Saurashtra and northern Gujarat as well as in the eastern regions. Four potsherds with Harappan letters were found at late Harappan levels at Daimabad. Some circular seals occur at Daimabad and Jhukar; rectangular seals minus motifs were found at Dholavira. A rectangular conch shell seal with the motif of a three-headed animal, similar to that found on seals of the Persian Gulf, was found at Bet Dwarka. This suggests that contact with the Persian Gulf continued in the late Harappan phase, at least in the Gujarat region. The late Harappan phase at Bhagwanpura shows flourishing specialized craft activity; there are 2 clay tablets and 19 sherds with graffiti, which could represent a script. In Punjab and Haryana, there are faience ornaments, beads of semi-precious stones, terracotta cart frames, kilns, and fire altars.
A notable development in the late Harappan phase was the diversification of agriculture. At Pirak in Baluchistan, there was the beginning of double cropping—wheat and barley were being grown as winter crops and rice (with irrigation), millet, and sorghum as summer crops. In the Kachi plain, there were fairly large settlements, growing a variety of crops, supplemented with irrigation. In
Gujarat and Maharashtra, various kinds of millets were being grown as summer crops. Rice and millets were found at late Harappan levels at Harappa. Excavations at Hulas gave evidence of diverse plant remains. Grains included rice, barley, dwarf wheat, bread wheat, club wheat, oats, jowar, and finger millet. Pulses included lentil, field pea, grass pea (khesari), kulthi, green gram (moong), and chickpea. Almond and walnut shells were found, and a single carbonized seed of cotton was identified.
The general picture presented by the late Harappan phase is one of a breakdown of urban networks and an expansion of rural ones. There is an overlap between the late Harappan and Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture at sites such as Bhagwanpura and Dadheri in Haryana, and Katpalon and Nagar in Punjab. Also significant is the overlap between late Harappan and Ochre Coloured Pottery (OCP) levels in western Uttar Pradesh at sites such as Bargaon and Ambakheri. The evidence from this area, Gujarat, and north Maharashtra suggests an eastward and southward migration of the Harappans due to a combination of pressures such as those discussed in the earlier section.
The Harappan civilization was the first urban culture in South Asia. The urban phase of the Harappan culture emerged from the proto-urban early Harappan phase. Archaeological evidence reveals a great deal about this civilization—its varied subsistence base, vibrant craft traditions, and extensive trade networks—but given the non-decipherment of the script, conclusions about many other aspects such as religion, society, and polity remain speculative. There was cultural homogeneity as well as diversity within the vast Harappan culture zone. Some of the neolithic, neolithic–chalcolithic, and chalcolithic sites mentioned in (< />)Chapter 3 were roughly contemporaneous with the Harappan civilization and interacted with it. The Harappan civilization did not come to a sudden end. The urban phase was followed by the late Harappan phase, which was marked by the decline of urban features and the diversification of agriculture.
727 videos|1212 docs|628 tests
|
727 videos|1212 docs|628 tests
|
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|