Introduction
The Harappan culture flourished in the Indus and
adjoining river valleys during the second half of the third millennium BCE. The
research carried out in this field for nearly a century has harnessed an
enormous amount of data which has been helpful in understanding the formative
stages through the maturity, deurbanisation, and the ultimate transformation to
rural cultures through investigations by various scholars like Cunningham
(1875: 105- 108), Marshall (1930), Mackay (1938), Wheeler (1968), Joshi (1993),
Lal (1978: 65-97), Thapar (1973: 85-104), Bisht (1987; 1991: 71-82), Possehl
(1999), Kenoyer (1991), to name a few. Ever since the concept of the ‘Indus
Civilisation’ was understood in the 1920s, more and more sites were added to
the corpus of Harappan sites, and the site count today stands at 477 for early
Harappan; 1,022 for mature Harappan, and 1,281 for post-urban Harappan cultures
(Possehl 1999: 1-33).
The recent excavations at places like Harappa
(Kenoyer et al. 1991: 331- 75), Dholavira (Bisht 1976: 16-22; 1987; 1991:
71-82; 1993: 35-38; 1994: 23-31), Rakhigarhi (Nath 1997-98: 39-45), etc., have
enabled us to understand the dynamism in the evolution, maturity and ultimate
decline of this civilisation. However, several scholars have recorded that the
beginnings of Harappan studies can be traced back to March or April of 1829,
when Charles Mason gave a description of what he saw of the great ruinous mound
of Harappa in 1826, when he identified the mound to be of ancient Sangala of
Arrian. The next account of a Harappan site is of Amri by Alexander Burnes, who
made a voyage up the Indus river in 1831. Burnes also visited Harappa in 1831,
five years after Mason, and described it as an extensive mound nearly three
miles in circumference.
The first Director General of the Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI), Alexander Cunningham, was the next visitor to Harappa on
three occasions, 1853, 1856 and 1875. In his report in 1875, Cunningham (1875:
105) noted ‘the ruins of Harappa are the most extensive of all the old sites
along the banks of the Ravi’. The size of Harappa was given as 2.5 miles (4 km)
in circuit and the height varying from 12 to 18 m. Cunningham also noted with
regret that extensive damage had been caused to the site due to the removal of
bricks from this site for use as brick ballast by railway contractors, most
probably for the Lahore–Multan railway line. Cunningham also carried out a
minor excavation at the site, but could not assign any satisfactory chronology
to the ruins. He has the credit of making the first site plan and designated
the principal mounds at Harappa as A-B, C, D and E, which are still in use
today. Cunningham described the find of a single seal as a most curious one,
which was made of smooth black stone without polish (Cunningham 1878: 108). He
also described stone implements, pottery and a ring stone. Sir John Marshall
also published two more Harappan seals in 1922, prior to the understanding of
the Indus civilisation. He described the legends to be in pictographic script,
which is yet to be deciphered. Meanwhile, some other sites of the Harappan
civilisation were being discovered, albeit on a random basis, and without
understanding their real significance.
One such site was Sutkagen-dor located in the
Dasht valley of Makran, which was first noticed by Major E. Mockler in 1875
(Possehl 1999: 53). Sutkagen-dor was the western most Harappan site, and
Mockler also did a minor excavation in 1876 to reveal houses built of burnt
bricks, stone knives, bone, pieces of copper, pottery, etc. The site was later
investigated by Sir Aurel Stein who brought to light several evidences related
to habitation, disposal of dead, etc. Dr. Fritz Noetling, a palaeontologist of
the Geological Survey of India (GSI), first recognised the importance of the
large mound at Dabarkot as an archaeological site in 1898 (Possehl 1999: 55).
Noetling also visited sites like Periano Ghundai (1897) and Rana Ghundai
(1898), made collections and published small reports.
Sir Aurel Stein (1904) visited Dabarkot, where
he later conducted a small excavation in 1927. The site of Kalibangan was
described as an ancient site as early as 1829 as ‘Kali-bang’ by Lt. Col. Tod.
Luigi Pio Tessitori again visited the site in April 1917, and undertook a small
excavation in 1918. Tessitori also calls Kalibangan ‘Kali Vangu’ and ‘Kali
Banga’ (Luigi 1918-19: 22-23). D.R. Bhandarkar discovered the great site of
Mohenjo-daro in 1911-12, and described the ancient mound spreading over
three-fourths of a mile, and near whose western edge a tower rises to a height
of nearly 70 feet from the surrounding ground level. Later, R.D. Banerji
visited the site in 1919-20 and gave a vivid description of the site and its
remains, describing it as an important site. The arrival of Sir John Marshall
as the Director General of ASI in 1902 revived interest in the further
investigation of the three reported seals which were preserved in the British
Museum at that time.
Two assessments of the mound of Harappa were
made, the first one by Pandit Hira Nanda Sastri in 1909, and the second by
Harold Hargreaves in 1914. Later, the site of Harappa was put into excavation
under Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni, the Superintending Archaeologist of the
Northern Circle of ASI in the winter of 1920-21. One of the earliest conclusions
was that, ‘…the Harappa seals and their curious pictographic legends belong to
the pre-Mauryan epoch; and it is to be remembered that the digging to date has
pierced only the topmost levels’ (Possehl 1999: 59).
R.D. Banerji started excavation at Mohenjo-daro
almost simultaneously in 1921-22, and the discoveries made here were seen in
the light of the material coming from Harappa. By 1923-24, Banerji suggested
that there was a definite relationship in the material coming from both these
sites. However, Marshall himself made the final assessment in 1924 when he
brought the materials from both Harappa and Mohenjo-daro together and compared
them directly. Marshall could deduce that the finds of these sites belonged to
the same stage of culture, were approximately of the same age, and that they
were totally distinct from anything previously known in India (Marshall
1923-24: 48).
The findings were published in the Illustrated
London News on 20 September 1924 and were widely publicised. The news item drew
the attention of scholars and immediately Sayce responded by pointing out the
similarities and close resemblance in some of the objects of the Indus Valley
with those of antiquities found from Mesopotamia (Sayce 1924: 566). Mackay also
pointed out some of the similarities in ceramics and a seal found from Kish and
Mohenjo-daro. The seal was identical to those found in Harappa and Mohenjo-daro
and from the debris beneath a temple from Hammurabi’s time (Marshall 1923-24:
48). Several other examples of Harappan antiquities found in Mesopotamia are
known to us since then. Thus, a clear chronological framework emerged for
dating the newly christened Indus Valley Civilisation or Harappan Civilisation
(which is more prevalent now). A timeframe of 4th–3rd millennium BCE was now
possible for dating the earliest culture of the Indian subcontinent. The
presence of Harappan antiquities in Mesopotamia clearly indicated the
relationship between these two cultures and opened a new chapter in
inter-regional contacts and trade relations since the third millennium BCE. The
excavations at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro continued well into the latter half of
the 1930s. During this period, various parts of both these sites were
excavated. The first cemetery site at Harappa, christened Cemetery H, was
discovered by K.N. Sastri in 1927 after a heavy downpour during the monsoon
season and was subsequently excavated. Cemetery H belonged to the late Harappan
phase of the Harappan culture and it had parallels with the material coming
from Jhukar in Sindh, which was discovered by Majumdar (Possehl 1999: 90).
K.N. Sastri was also credited with the discovery
of another cemetery site at Harappa, Cemetery R37. This cemetery belonged to
the mature Harappan phase and was the largest cemetery dated to this period. At
Mohenjo-daro, no cemetery remains could be found; however, sporadic occurrences
of skeletal remains and post-cremation urns from the habitation area were
brought to light. The other Harappan sites excavated during this period were
Rangpur by M.S. Vats (1934) and Chanhu-daro by E.J.H. Mackay (1935-1936).
Chanhuda-ro yielded the stratigraphic relationship between the mature and late
Harappan phases. It also yielded evidence on the bead and seal-making
facilities at this site. Wheeler made a brief excavation in 1946 at Harappa of
the defenses and cemetery area. He established the stratigraphic relationship
between Cemetery R37 and H, and proved that the latter is younger than the
former. Cemetery R37 was again put into excavation by M.R. Mughal in 1966 and
by the project initiated by G.F. Dales, which helped to define the various
phases in the cemeteries at Harappa.
The creation of India and Pakistan in 1947
placed almost all but two known Harappan sites in Pakistan, leaving Kalibangan
and Rangpur in India. The renewed exploration on both sides brought to light a
large number of sites belonging to early, mature and late Harappan phases. Many
sites were also excavated, the major among them being Rangpur and Lothal (Rao
1979; 1985), Kot Diji (Khan 1965: 11-85), Kalibangan (Thapar 1973: 85-104;
1975: 19-32; Lal 1979: 65-97)—which was excavated for nine field seasons from
1960-61 to 1968-69; Dholavira (Bisht 1991: 72-81), renewed excavations at
Harappa (Kenoyer 1994: 71-80), Rakhigarhi (Nath 1997-98: 39-45), to name a few.
The excavation at Mehrgarh opened a new chapter
in the history and archaeology of the Indian sub-continent in terms of
transformation from food gathering to food producing stages (Jarrige et al.
1995). Several other sites were also excavated during this period which include
Balakot, Banawali, Rojdi, Surkotada, Kuntasi, Bagasra, Nageshwar, Shortugai,
Bhagwanpura, Mitathal, Ropar, Hulas, Alamgirpur, Allahdino, Kili Gul Muhammad,
Miri Qalat, Gumla, Rahman Dheri, Baror, Bhirrana, Tarkhanawala Dhera and Juni
Kuran, which have helped us to understand the various stages through which
Harappan culture has evolved, transformed, reached its zenith and ultimately
dissipated into several regional cultures. As mentioned above, the various
explorations and excavations have enabled us to better understand the spatial
distribution of the sites in terms of the geography and changing environments.
The most prominent among the exploratory surveys are the Cholistan survey by
Mughal and the Ghaggar-Drisadvati survey by Ghosh, which brought to light a
large number of sites of early, mature and late Harappan phases.
Terminology and Chronology
Ever since the identification of the Indus
Valley Civilisation by Marshall in 1924, and a relative chronology emerged
based on the identification of Harappan antiquities from datable levels in
Mesopotamian sites, the various stages, phases and chronology of the Harappan
culture have undergone many revisions and corrections. The advent of
radiocarbon dating also greatly helped in understanding the chronology of the
Harappan civilisation. The initial suggestions in the 1920s were that the
mature Harappan phase might be as old as ca. 3000 BCE and the civilisation
itself could have lasted for 1,000 years (Possehl 1999: 17). Later, Wheeler
suggested a time period of 2500–1500 BCE for the Harappan civilisation, while
Walter Fairservis, based on the evidence emerging from the pinpointing of
Harappan antiquities from Mesopotamia into a clear chronological framework,
suggested only a 500-year duration for the Harappan Civilisation, from
2500–2000 BCE. Now it has been clearly understood that the Harappan
Civilisation was a contemporary of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Chinese
civilisations. The advent of radiocarbon dating technology and the dating of
several archaeological sites through this method enabled archaeologists to
arrive at a proper chronological framework. In 1964, Agrawal demonstrated that
the dates suggested by Fairservis of a shorter chronology might be supported by
the radiocarbon data set. The method of calibration of radiocarbon dates
further helped in determining the reasonable time bracket for the Harappan
Civilisation and the presence of a large number of radiocarbon dates available
through the various excavated sites have also enabled in fixing the proper
chronology. The results of various excavations have also helped archaeologists
in understanding the various phenomena and stages through which Harappan
culture as a whole is represented. There were several developmental phases
before which the mature Harappan culture actually emerged and it encompassed a
large area. These developmental phases were being identified from various sites
like Amri, Kalibangan, Harappa, Mehrgarh, Kot Diji, and a host of others. The
archaeologists used various terminologies like ‘pre-Harappan’, ‘early Harappan’
for the culture that immediately preceded Harappan culture.
The evidence from Mehrgarh and its neighbouring
sites like Nausharo, Pirak and Sibri brought to light an excellent and
continuous evolution of cultures starting from the Neolithic culture onwards to
the beginning of the Iron Age, through the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. The
evidence from Mehrgarh is from the food gathering to the food producing stages
and the gradual evolution and development into the settled and urban characters
of the culture. The evidence from Mehrgarh is also supplemented from sites like
Kili Ghul Muhammad and hence enabled archaeologists to define several phases / stages,
starting from the food gathering to the Iron Age. Based on the cultural strata
at Kot Diji, Rafique Mughal proposed that Harappan culture evolved from the
cultural traits that immediately preceded it, and hence named it ‘early
Harappan period’. The terminology ‘early Harappan period / culture’ is more
predominant while describing the culture that preceded the mature Harappan
period / culture.
Similarly, the terminology of ‘post-Harappan’
and ‘late-Harappan’ is used to address the culture that immediately succeeded
the Harappan culture and had some cultural traits continuing in them. However,
some archaeologists like Possehl use the terminology ‘post-urban’ to the
cultures that succeeded the Harappan culture, mainly on the basis of the urban
and non-urban characters that differentiate these cultures. The ‘post-urban’
phase also included the ochre coloured pottery ware culture and painted grey
ware culture which have been argued to represent the continuities of Harappan
culture. Scholars like Possehl and Kenoyer have revised the chronology of the
Harappan Civilisation based on the radiocarbon dates available from several
excavated sites, and now there is a general agreement over the time period c.
2600–1900 BCE.
Almost contemporary to the Harappan and late
Harappan cultures were other cultures like Ahar-Banas in Rajasthan; Kayatha;
Malwa; Jorwe; North Indian Neolithic in Kashmir and Gangetic Plains; and some
of the south Indian Neolithic sites. The chronology of these cultures has been
redefined several times recently and they flourished during the second half of
the third millennium BCE to the second millennium BCE. Hence, the Harappan and
late Harappan cultures were not flourishing in isolation, and every chance of
their interaction with some or many of the above-mentioned regional cultures of
India cannot be ignored. Further, the explorations carried out in various parts
of India and Pakistan for over a hundred years have brought to light a large
number of sites of the Harappan cultures and those preceding and succeeding it.
These are spread across various spatio-temporal circumstances. Of all the sites
known to us, only five sites can in real terms be classified as cities, all of
which measure in area above 60 ha. They are Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, Rakhigarhi,
Ganweriwala and Dholavira. Nearly 90 per cent of the sites measure less than 5
ha and they can be termed as rural or town or village settlements. Thus, the
settlement pattern clearly indicates that the larger settlements supplemented
and complemented medium sized and smaller settlements. The map gives a fair
idea of the distribution pattern of the Harappan sites. It shows the areas
under occupation and expansion during the early, mature and later / post-urban
phases of the Harappan culture. The gradual shifting of sites towards the
eastern direction in the modern states of India like Haryana, western Uttar
Pradesh, and Punjab also coincides with the drying up of river Sarasvati, which
is marked by the present day dry riverbed of river Ghaggar, active during the
monsoon season.
Features of the Harappan Civilisation
Several common features characterise all the
sites of the Harappan Civilisation spread over nearly 1.5 million sq km.
Sutkagen-dor in the west on the Pakistan–Iran border; in the north by Shortugai
(Afghanistan); Alamgirpur (UP, India); and Daimabad (Maharashtra, India) mark
the extent of the Harappan Civilisation. The recent researches have also raised
a question on the extent of the Harappan Civilisation into Maharashtra based
merely on a few elements. Some scholars like Law (2011) have preferred to limit
the extent of Harappan Civilisation up to the Kachchh area in Gujarat. The
sites located in the Saurashtra area of Gujarat have been placed under a
separate category of Sorath Harappans. The main features that define Harappan
Civilisation have been dealt with briefly here.
Planning
As already mentioned, the major Harappan cities
like Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and Dholavira have brought to light excellent
evidence of a specific planning in the layout of habitation areas. Similar
planning was evidenced from sites like Kalibangan, Lothal, Banawali and
Surkotada. The habitation areas were often circumvallated by a periphery or a
boundary wall, preferably termed fortification by several scholars. Often,
individual divisions within the city were also found to be surrounded by
fortification walls. Examples of this can be cited from sites like Harappa,
Dholavira, Kalibangan, etc. The cities and towns were also well planned in
terms of layout of streets, lanes and by-lanes, often crossing each other in 90
degrees. Provisions for drainage of waste water away from the habitation areas
were also noted in the form of underground drains all along the streets.
Further, evidence for soakage jars and other means for disposal of waste water
were also found. This evidence indicated the presence of a civic authority to
monitor and regulate the public amenities for the overall cleanliness of the
city or town.
Standardisation of Items
The Harappan Civilisation was also marked by
standardisation of several items like pottery, bricks, weights and measures,
seals and sealings.
Pottery
The Harappan culture was characterised by plain
pottery as well as red slip and black painted motifs. The pottery was of
several shapes like dish-on-stands, storage jars, perforated jars, goblets,
S-shaped jars, plates, dishes, bowls, pots, etc. The painted motifs generally
seen on the pottery were pipal leaf, fish-scales, intersecting circles, zigzag
lines, horizontal bands, geometrical motifs, floral and faunal patterns, etc.
Bricks
The Harappans used various building materials
for their construction. They consisted of baked and unbaked bricks, stones
(both dressed and undressed), etc. The most prominent aspect was the ratio of 1:2:4
maintained in the manufacture of bricks, both baked and unbaked. The various
brick sizes noted are 7 x 14 x 28 cm; 8 x 16 x 32 cm; 10 x 20 x 40 cm. The
ratio of bricks seen during the Harappans is also different from that of the
early Harappan period, which was 1:2:3.
Weights and Measures
Another important aspect related to commerce and
trade during the Harappan times was the usage of weights and measures. The
cubical chert weights were conspicuous items from any Harappan site. The
weights were based on a binary system, which doubled as they increased in the
ratio of 1:2:4:8:16:32, etc., with the 16th ratio amounting to 13.63 gm, which
was the basic reference system. Any weight found from the Harappan sites was a
multiple or a fraction of 13.63 gm. The weights following this ratio were found
in various materials like chert, chalcedony, ivory, shell, copper and
terracotta. Another weighing system along with the cubical ones was also found
from the Harappan sites. The shape of these weights was truncated spherical.
The presence of different weighing patterns from the same sites indicated that
the Harappans might have adopted two or more weighing standards, for both
inland as well as export trading. It is also interesting to mention here that
an Isin - Larsa period (ca. 1900–1800 BCE) text from Ur (modern Iraq) mentioned
that 13,100 mana of Dilmun (modern Bahrain) was equivalent to 611 gin 6 2/3
mana of Ur standard, by which the equivalent of Dilmun mana could be calculated
as 1,371.5 to 1,376.8 gm. This was equivalent to multiples of hundred in the
Harappan weighing systems. This clearly indicated the adoption of the Harappan
weighing system in distant lands to facilitate the trading mechanism.
Seals and Sealings
The seals from various mediums like steatite,
copper, terracotta and ivory were a most prominent item of the Harappans. The
seals might have served as an important trade symbol facilitating approval and
passing of commercial items. The impression of the seals was also found from
many Harappan sites, which indicated the differential patterns of usage of
Harappan seals. Further, studies carried out by Dennys Frenez on the Lothal
sealings have also indicated the medium on which they were fixed. The prominent
type of seal was the typical square seal with a pronounced boss on the reverse
with a hole for inserting a thread to hold it. The front face of the seal
normally consisted of an upper and lower portion. The lower portion contained
an image of an animal, while the upper portion generally had a text, in single
or multiple lines. The text was in the Harappan script, which is yet to be
deciphered. So far, over 5,000 texts have been found from various Harappan
sites, both from excavation, explorations and chance discoveries. The text was
in over a dozen media—steatite, faience and metal seals; clay seal impressions;
pots and potsherds; copper plates; incised shells; ivory cones and rods; stone
and metal bangles; copper weapons; and stones. The longest inscription so far
found had 17 symbols. The total number of symbols from the Harappan script was
an estimated 400. The inscriptions indicated that they were written from right
to left, while other types are also found, e.g., boustrophedon. A large
inscription consisting of 10 Harappan signs from the western chamber of the
North Gate, Dholavira, is the largest inscription found so far. According to
R.S. Bisht, the excavator of this site, this inscription might have been a
signboard of the city, fixed on a wooden board and placed somewhere near the
North Gate.
Tools and Weapons
The tools and weapons from the Harappan period
are of various mediums. The tool repertoire consisted of chert blades, bone and
ivory points, and points, chisels, needles, fishhooks, razors, weighing pans,
mirror, antimony rods of copper. The chert blades fashioned from Rohri chert is
a prominent item of the Harappans. The uniform presence of Rohri chert blades
as well as cubical weights from most of the Harappan sites spread over a wide
area indicated long distance trade and preference for such items. While the
cubical chert weights were an essential item of trade and commerce, the
presence of chert blades which served as multi-purpose tools for various
activities from many sites was also interesting. The weapons normally noticed
from Harappan sites were of either copper or bronze. The weapon repertoire
consisted of arrowheads, spearhead, celt, axe, etc. These items, once hafted
with a proper medium, should have served the purpose of effective weapons for defence
as well as offence.
Jewellery
Items of jewellery from the Harappan
Civilisation served as an important component of trade, within the limits of
civilisation as well as with distant and foreign countries. The jewellery items
were in various mediums like gold, silver, copper, stones and minerals,
faience, terracotta and stoneware. It had been recorded by Law that during the
mature Harappan phase at Harappa, nearly 40 different* kinds of rocks and
minerals were exploited by the Harappans from different geographic zones. The
presence of bead-working areas in several sites in Gujarat like Dholavira,
Shikarpur, Nagwada, Lothal and Khirsara clearly indicated that the specialised
manufacturing of such crafts as the raw material sources of agatecarnelian were
in abundance in this region.
Further, the Harappans specialised in the
drilling process of high- hardness materials like agate-carnelian. The presence
of stone drills, tentatively named ‘ernestite’ in the absence of proper
identification of the mineral, from sites in Gujarat was also an indicator of
their specialisation. This clearly indicates the expertise of the Harappans in
identifying and exploiting the various sources of raw materials from different
ecozones. Among the items of jewellery, the most important are the
agate-carnelian beads consisting of long- barrel cylindrical varieties, etched
carnelian in terms of export items to the Mesopotamian world. Faience was
another interesting medium of manufacture, which was largely exploited by the
Harappans. Various items like bangles, beads, buttons, small containers, seals,
etc., were produced using faience. Faience is an artificial material which is a
partly vitrified quartz, produced by heating reground frit, < 30 micron grain
size, fired at 940*C high to low porosity and different degrees of
vitrification .
The manufacture of stoneware bangles was another
highly specialised craft which disappeared with the Harappans. The evidence
from Mohenjo-daro indicated that the manufacture of such bangles was restricted
to a particular area and under highly controlled supervision, as seal
impression was noticed on the containers used for manufacture. Often, the
stoneware bangles contained graffiti on the surface, indicating the high value
it carried.
Toys
The Harappan period was also characterised by a
wide variety of toys and amusement items made largely of terracotta. They
consisted of toy carts, rattles, wheels, tops, marbles, hopscotch, etc. The toy
carts along with the various representations of bulls indicated the mode of
transport of the Harappans and the style of manufacture.
Art
The artistic expressions of the Harappans are
reflected in a host of figurines, both human and animal, largely made of
terracotta. Examples of other mediums like stone and metal were also noticed.
The most prominent examples are the so-called ‘Priest King’ of steatite,
dancing girl of copper (both from Mohenjo-daro), stone sculptures from Harappa,
Mohenjo-daro and Dholavira.
Religion and Disposal of Dead
The religious beliefs of the Harappans can be
deduced from several depictions of narrative scenes from the seals, which
indicate their preference for nature worship. The pipal tree attained wide
acceptance and was depicted in various mediums indicating its prominence. The
pipal tree was shown as being worshipped in a seal from Mohenjo-daro. Several
narrative scenes on terracotta and seals also indicated the act of nature
worship. Scholars like B.B. Lal have also written that the Harappans worshipped
fire. He cites the evidence of fire altars from Kalibangan to indicate such a
practice. The Harappans had various modes of disposing of the dead. Evidence of
cremation, post-cremation urns, burials of various kinds have been reported
from several Harappan sites. The presence of post-cremation urns from sites
like Mohenjo-daro, Chanhu-daro and Harappa indicated that the bodies were
cremated and burials erected after collecting the remains. Elaborate burials
were also found from sites like Harappa, Kalibangan, Farmana, Rupnagar and
Lothal, indicating extended inhumations in a north–south orientation. The
skeletons were interred either in a simple burial pit, or inside a mud-brick
lined pit and in wooden coffins. Evidence of pot burials alongside the normal
burial modes was also found from sites like Kalibangan. The burials were
accompanied by elaborate burial goods in the form of pottery of various types.
In addition, personal belongings like bangles, necklaces, beads, mirrors, kohl
jars, etc., were also found, indicating a belief in the afterlife.
Contacts with the Mesopotamians
The contacts that Harappans had with Mesopotamia
were ascertained as early as 1924 when Sir John Marshall announced the
discovery of the Indus Civilisation (Marshall 1924: 538). The publication of a
number of Harappan seals and other objects from Harappa and Mohenjo-daro paved
the way to the identification of similar finds from sites in Mesopotamia and
Susa, thus establishing a link between these two great civilisations (Sayce
1924: 566; Gadd and Smith 1924: 614-16). Some of the earliest finds that were
compared with Harappan antiquities came from Kish and included a typical
unicorn seal with Harappan signs, long-barrel cylindrical beads of carnelian,
and etched carnelian beads (Mackay 1925: 697-99). These findings also helped in
placing the hitherto unknown Indus Civilisation in a proper chronological
horizon. The subsequent excavation at Chanhu-daro by Mackay brought to light a
large number of unfinished carnelian beads known to us as ‘long barrel
cylindrical beads’. Mackay wrote: ‘...Chanhu-daro numbers of unfinished beads
were unearthed...not only large numbers of incomplete beads but also the raw
material from which they were made, and, still more interesting, the actual
stone drills by which they were bored, Chanhudaro has proved to have been a
great centre of bead-making…’ (Mackay 1937: 2). This was an important discovery
which proved beyond doubt that similar finds from Mesopotamia were actually
manufactured in the Indus Valley and exported by the Harappans. Harappan
Civilisation is also identified with ‘Meluhha’ of the cuneiform records of
Mesopotamia. The mention of ‘Meluhha’ is made for the first time in the
cuneiform inscriptions of the Early Dynastic Period of the mid third millennium
BCE (Possehl 1996:133-208)). There is a reference by Sargon of Agade (2334–2279
BCE) that the ships of Meluhha, Magan and Dilmun were coming up to Akkad
(Agade):
‘the ships from Meluhha,
the ships from Magan,
the ships from Dilmun,
He made tie-up alongside quay of Akkad.’
Scholars identified Dilmun with the Island of
Bahrain and the near shores of the Arabian Peninsula, Magan with Oman, and
perhaps part of the Iranian coast around the Straits of Hormuz, and Meluhha
with the Greater Indus region including the Harappan Civilisation. Possehl
(1996: 133-208) has compiled the reference to Meluhha and items of trade from
which we learn that there are 76 citations of Meluhha. Meluhha is mentioned on
the inscriptions as a region located beyond Magan. The following is the list of
citations to items of import from Meluhha during the Early Dynastic Period (c.
2500 BCE) to Isin– Larsa Period (ca. 1900–1800 BCE): The external trade that
the Harappans had with Mesopotamia has been dealt with widely by scholars working
in this area (Ratnagar 1981; Tosi 1982: 9-14; Rao 1979: 228-38; and Possehl
1994: 185; 1996: 133-38; 1997: 87-90; 2002: 337).
Ratnagar gives an object-wise analysis of the
Harappan materials found in the Indus valley vis-Ã -vis the Mesopotamian region.
The contacts Harappans established with the Mesopotamian world are further
strengthened by the presence of Harappan pottery, seals, ornaments like ivory
combs, etched carnelian beads, segmented silver beads, etc., from sites in Oman
(Mery 1996: 171). The famous find is of course from Rasal-Jinz in the Oman
peninsula, where typical Harappan pottery was found along with a four-letter
Harappan graffitti on one black-slipped jar sherd (Tosi 1982: 2-4). The
black-slipped jars are stated to be the most common Harappan pottery found in
Oman which is clearly placed in the second half of the third millennium BCE
(Mery 1996: 170).
Among the items exported from the Indus Valley,
the important ones are long barrel cylindrical beads and etched carnelian
beads. The former were well defined by Possehl (1996: 159) as ‘long and
slender, in excess of 5 cm, sometimes with a slight thickening at the centre’.
They were manufactured in a variety of materials; the most beautiful was of
carnelian and banded agate, the latter after heat treatment attained the
typical reddish colour of carnelian. The other materials in which these kinds
of beads were made include jasper and terracotta. Mackay states that from
Mohenjodaro, ‘some no less than 4.85’ long and made of the finest translucent
carnelian that it was possible to obtain’ were found and it was a favourite
item worn by the people of Harappan culture (Mackay 1937: 2).
Initially, the long barrel cylindrical beads
were reported from Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and Chanhu-daro based only on the
excavations from these sites. However, subsequent researches and excavations
conducted from a host of sites have also brought to light these kinds of beads
in various materials from sites like Dholavira, Banawali (NHK 2000: 109),
Kalibangan, Surkotada (NHK 2000: 109), Baror (personal communication) in India,
and Allahdino (NHK 2000: 101) in Pakistan.
The manufacturing techniques involved in the
preparation of these kinds of beads were also discussed extensively by Mackay,
who made a comparative study of contemporary bead-making from Baroach and Sindh
(Mackay 1937: 3-4, 8). The long and slender drill bits from many sites like
Dholavira suggest the drilling mechanism of the long-barrel cylindrical beads
(NHK 2000: 107). Subsequent researches extensively documented the various
stages involved in the procurement, sorting, heat treatment, chipping,
polishing, drilling, and final treatment of similar beads from Cambay (Possehl
1981: 42-46; Kenoyer et al. 1991: 49-55). The long barrel cylindrical beads are
reported from sites like Ur (NHK 2000: 160), Kish from Mesopotamia (Mackay
1925: 698; 1931; Possehl 1996: 160), and from Susa, Jalalabad, Marlik from Iran
(Possehl 1996: 160). Possehl gives a complete list of references to Meluhha
that is identified with the Indus region which also included eight citations
directly mentioning carnelian from Meluhha (Possehl 1996: 139-44, 145). Out of
these citations one clearly spoke of pure or bright Meluhhan carnelian (Gudea
Cylinder B, Column 14.13: Possehl 1996: 140). This citation indicated that
there should have been different grades of carnelian from Meluhha, and
observing the different kinds of raw materials used for the manufacture of
beads; the typical reddish orange with brilliant translucence could have been referred
to as pure Meluhhan carnelian by the Mesopotamians. The various studies
conducted on the contemporary manufacture of beads also indicate that agate was
heated to achieve the typical colour of carnelian during the production stages.
This also indicated that there was a high demand for the reddish orange,
translucent variety of carnelian, and this demand was reflected in the
production of such beads in the archaeological record of Harappan culture.
Several such agate beads with the typical colour of carnelian were noted,
thereby reflecting the efforts made by the Harappans to meet the market demand.
This demand could be both internal as well as external. That the carnelian was
in high demand is indicated by the number of citations so far discovered in the
Mesopotamian records: carnelian stands only next to references to wooden
materials coming from Meluhha. These citations do not mention the exact
finished product and broadly speak only of carnelian. The long barrel
cylindrical beads were also popular among the people of the Harappan culture.
This was indicated by the presence of what could be seen as imitations in
terracotta of these original beads, evidences coming from Harappa,
Mohenjo-daro, Banawali (NHK 2000: 109) and Surkotada; the one from the latter
site was also of terracotta and a red slip to imitate the original beads (NHK
2000: 109). The beads from Banawali are also of terracotta but they could be
termed as biconical or barrelshaped ones, even though it seemed that they could
have been imitations of longbarrel cylindrical beads (NHK 2000: 109). The
evidence from Harappa and Mohenjo-daro also indicated the manufacture of beads
of this shape in faience.
The popularity of the long barrel cylindrical
beads also continued during the post-urban Harappan period. This was clearly
seen from similar beads found in the late Harappan site of Sanauli (Sharma et
al. 2007: 166- 79). Two beads, very similar to the long barrel cylindrical
beads, albeit with some minor variations, could be discerned in a burial from
this site. Evidence indicates that these two beads formed part of a necklace,
and it was found in situ around the neck of an individual. These two beads were
also of the banded agate variety which is not available locally.
This evidence also reminds us of the surviving
internal trade network even during post-urban Harappan times. Further
investigations on these beads could enable us to pinpoint the exact source of
the raw material so that the trade network theory during the late Harappan
times may be substantiated further. The discovery of long barrel cylindrical
beads from some of the sites in Mesopotamia and Iran attested to their
popularity in these regions as well. The references in the Akkadian records to
the ships of Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha tied up in the quay of Akkad (Possehl
1996: 133) showed that the Harappans had their reach directly in this region.
Further, the cylindrical seal depicting a Meluhhan interpreter of the Old
Akkadian period further substantiated the possibility of Harappan settlements
or colonies in the Mesopotamian land to further their trade-related activities.
The necessity for an interpreter could be for
multifarious purposes. An interpreter was needed if delegations or important
dignitaries visited a foreign land with an unfamiliar language and culture.
Hence there was a strong possibility that Harappan settlements or groups of
Harappan merchants were actually present in Mesopotamia. They could have
carried along with them large quantities of native pottery and products, apart
from the items of trade. This was reflected by the findings of typical Harappan
pottery from sites in Oman.
If Harappan pottery could be found at sites in
Oman, and, if Harappan trade items and seals could be found at sites in
Mesopotamia and Iran, there was every possibility to find evidence related to a
Harappan settlement or colony or a temporary occupation from the sites they
could have actually visited. This possibility, along with the evidence of a
Meluhhan interpreter, fully strengthened the possibility of the presence of a
bilingual inscription from this region as strongly felt by Possehl (1996: 138).
It has become imperative now to sift through the enormous quantity of
archaeological data from the Mesopotamian sites by Harappan archaeologists to
segregate the Harappan material present if any. Western India was a known
source of minerals like agate, jasper, carnelian, onyx, quartz, amethyst and
opal. These minerals were often developed as secondary minerals in the Deccan
traps, either as fillings in the amygdular cavities or as products of
alteration and replacement (Krishnan 2003: 410). Rajpipla and Cambay were also
two well known centres of mineral procurement and production of beads. It is
stated that the supply of minerals for Cambay came from a tertiary
conglomerate, the pebbles of which were derived from the traps (ibid.: 419-20).
The excavation at Mari was carried out under the
direction of Andre Parrot from 1933- 34 and continued until 1974, with a gap
during World War II. The earliest occupation at Mari dated to the beginning of
the third millennium BCE and continued until its destruction at the hands of
Hammurabi of Babylon in 1761 BCE. Sargon of Agade (Akkad) was also known to
have destroyed Mari during his conquests in mid-2400 BCE. Mari was an important
city-state of the third- second millennium BCE that served as one of the
outposts of the Sumerian civilisation, and during the beginning of the second
millennium BCE, became the capital of a kingdom extending over 350 km along the
river (Saggs 1965: 17). The excavations at Mari brought to light a hoard in
1965, termed ‘treasure jar’, under the courtyard of a temple belonging to the
pre-Sargonic palace. The antiquities were found in a pottery jar containing 52
objects. The hoard consisted of a large number of carnelian beads, some bicone
in shape and others of the typical long barrel cylindrical variety. The latter
beads from this hoard were undoubtedly of Harappan origin and shape and
conformed to those found in many Harappan sites. These kinds of beads, along
with the etched carnelian beads, were the hallmarks of Harappan culture.
Trade during the Indus Valley Civilization (
2500 B.C.E -1800 B.C.E)
India's commercial interactions with West Asian
countries can be traced back from the days of Indus-Valley civilization and
prior to this. The extensive researches on the famous pre-Harappan site at
Mehergarh (in Bolan Valley, Pakistan) strongly indicate the availability of
non-local objects at Mehergarh. It is likely that the people of Mehergarh
through exchange procured these objects. This would suggest the beginning of
exchange related functions in pre-Harappan context (around fifth Millennium
B.C.E). It was the river basins of India where the civilizations appeared in a
highly commercialised form. The fertile soil of river basin, navigation,
fishing, shipping created a very favourable condition for trade. Navigation
created a new class of sailors as traders. The fishing centres turned into
mercantile towns. It was really a cradle of commerce. The traders had
sufficient knowledge of navigation, land routes, the deserts of Rajasthan and
Arab world also. They maintained a close commercial contact with the outside
worlds like Sumer. They exported goods both by land routes and sea routes to the
West Asian countries.
Some evidences point out the fact that there was
trade between India and West Asia during the period of Indus Valley
civilization. The seal of Tell Asmar is, however, certainly of Indian
workmanship. The appearance of elephants, rhinoceros and crocodile (gharial)
clearly supports the commercial relations between them. The representation on a
seal of a mast less ship with a central cabin and steersmen seated at the
rudder indicates that the people of Indus-Valley were fully acquainted with the
maritime activities. The boat has a sharply upturned prow and stem, similar to
the archaic representation on early Minoan seals, cylinders of Sumer and
pre-dynastic pottery of Egypt. Mackay thinks that the Indus Valley was in close
contact with Sumer and Elam by sea-route also.
Indus ports thus appear to have been great
commercial ports carrying on trade with Ur, Kish, and Lagash and also with
Egypt. A round seal (type 'h') found in
the pre-dynastic cemetery at Ur and described and illustrated by Lagrain, undoubtedly resembles some of the Indus seals
in the material and shape. The fish of course commonly appears on the
Mohenjodaro seals, it is common there as in the Sumerian Signatory but the
scorpion has yet to be identified amongst the Indus-Valley pictographs and one
very notable example occurs on an axe head of Eighteenth Dynasty. The
occurrence of a humped bull at both Mohenjodaro and Susa implies the
communication between these two civilizations and further suggests that the
inter communication took place by land rather than river. Another seal bearing the figures of antelope
was perhaps imported from Elam to lndia.
The most interesting seal portrays a hero grappling a tiger on the
either side of him by throat was found at Harappa. The seal recalls a scene on the ivory handle
of knife from Geobelel-Ark in which human figure is at the grips of lions. This scene may be identified with the
exploits of Eabani or Enkidu who was
represented in Sumerian legend as fighting with lions & bulls in forest.
The different marks on seals point out the trade routes followed by the
traders. Seals with animals on other designed motifs indicate the trademark for
land routes whereas the seals with ship or boat motif indicate the trademark of
sea-borne trade. An interesting fragment of a vessel was found in a low stratum
at Mohenjodaro. This is of light green steatite. The carving is very much similar to that
found in different sites of Mesopotamia. It therefore definitely came to India
by way of import from Mesopotamia.
Other objects found at Harappa and Mohenjodaro,
for example, beads of unusual shape can be linked up with the conditions of the
West such as Egypt .The cloth must have been exported to Mesopotamia since, in
the back of one seal still preserves its imprint. The texts from Lagash reveal
that the garments were being traded for Dilmun copper. The commercial tablets often refer to the
transport by water or by, cattle and assess.
Trade was sufficiently well organized to secure regular supplies not
only of food stuffs from the fertile regions but also of gold, silver, copper,
tin, lead. They might have been imported from the neighboring countries to the
north and west, namely from Persia and Afghanistan. On the other hand the
manufactured goods including beads, knobbed pottery, vases and cloth were
exported to Mesopotamia, Egypt and other countries. The ornaments include, fly
amulets, such as were common in early Dynastic Mesopotamia, a pin with double
scroll head, parallel to the double spiral headed pins which are distributed
from the Indus-Valley through Annnan and Hissar-11 & III to Troy, the
cyclades and the Balkans. Harappa was exporting timber, copper, gold, ivory,
stones and beads? Romila Thapar has
pointed out that this is in keeping with the patterns of trade, existing in the
ancient period when Indian enterprise across the sea was limited to the sale of
Indian goods where there was demand and not involved to any large extent in
acquiring the vital commodities unalienable in the subcontinent. The
excavations at Lothal, point out that the city was a harbour where sea-borne
trade might have been originated. On the other hand, the Sumerian trader
undertook the sea voyages over the Persian Gulf to Bahrain and Oman and reached
at the Indus-Valley and at other coastal towns of India. The natural coastline,
fine harbours, navigable rivers, fertile lands, provided a conducive atmosphere
to the growth of intensive trade. Other important small port towns of Indus
Valley were Chahnudaro, Suktagendor, in the distant outposts.
The possibility can not be ruled out that some
of the Sumerians and Iranian merchants had temporarily taken residence at
Harappa and Mohenjodaro in connection with the trade, as indicated by some of
the graves, excavated by Wheeler at Harappa. Similarly it can be presumed that
there might have been a colony of Indian traders in the city of Sumer. To keep
up the trade links with terminal markets, to dispose of their goods and to
collect the return cargo by caravans, a good number of guards were provided.
The island of Bahrain commanded the shipping dam of the Persian Gulf, which led
among the coast of Persia right up to the mouth of Indus. It has, therefore,
been argued that in 3rd millennium B.C.E, Bahrain merchants were handling the
trade and transshipment between India and west. The traders were using the
southern routes by sea and land for westerly connections. The location of Harappan sites indicates the
use of several minor Kirthar passes as well as the Bolan and Gomal passes but
not the Khyber Pass.
In another excavation it is found that Harappan
shells and etched carnelian beads are found in Mesopotamian royal burials.
Several small monkey figurines occur in Mesopotamia, although the monkey is not
native to Western Asia. The animal,
which some Harappans may have taken abroad as pet, appears to have held
fascination for Mesopotamians, who used the figurines as amulets. Mesopotamian
clay tablets refer to certain varieties of wood and gold and lapis lazuli
coming from Meluha; ivory too was a Harappan items used in Southern
Mesopotamia.
But Mortim Wheeler suggests that in the cemetery
at Harappa, a grave with wooden coffin and reed shroud is of the Mesopotamian
and not the Harappan tradition. Mesopotamians
appear to have been charmed by the Indian monkeys and peacocks and presumably
some Harappans saw the Bacterian camels in Kalibangan or Mahenjodaro (even if
they did not fancy it, it is just depicted on one figurine at Shortughai and
possibly one copper tablets of Mohenjodaro ). It is Ras al Junayz (Oman) where
occurred Harappan type jars, two scratched with Harappan signs, as well as
pottery painted with motiffs resembling Harappan designs, there well may have
been a sea port. Some of the bronze mirrors of Bactria, late 3rd Millennium
type, occur sporadically at Harappan sites and in upper Gulf, Kulli region,
Mesopotamia and Elam. On the basis of above findings it may be concluded that
there was a good trade between two civilizations. And its indelible impacts are
found at different places in different forms.
Decline
Investigations at several Harappan sites
indicated that around 1900 BCE, the urban fabric of the culture slowly started
disintegrating due to several reasons like climatic changes, drying of river
Ghaggar (Sarasvati), collapse in trade with Mesopotamia, etc. The distribution
pattern of sites of the mature and late / post-urban Harappan culture clearly
indicated an eastern and southern shift of sites beyond the Indus Valley. This
also clearly indicated the drying of a major river presently marked by the
course of rivers Ghaggar in India and Hakra in Pakistan. The Harappan culture
slowly transformed into several regional cultures like Cemetery H, Jhukar /
Jhangar, Bara, with an absence of all urban features and characteristics.
