The Indus Civilization Page 12

  Wheeler found wasserluxus an interesting and important feature of the Indus Civilization. He felt that the Great Bath and the “extravagant provision for bathing” in private homes were both testimonies to the importance of water in the life of the Indus peoples.5

  The Indus Civilization and Technological Innovation

  One of the most interesting features of the Indus Civilization is the range of new technologies associated with it. The craft specialists of the Indus Civilization were technological virtuosos. There was, for example, a significant increase in the ability of these peoples to control heat and direct it to pyrotechnology. This is best exemplified in their metal work and the development of bronze. But it is also apparent in the advancements they made with faience and stoneware, clear steps upward on the pyrotechnological ladder. Other significant technologies associated with the Indus are as follows:

  City planning and the construction of large buildings from baked brick

  The technology needed for the excavation of brick-lined wells

  Urban drainage systems

  Manufacture of very long, hard stone beads, including the sophisticated drilling technology

  Spectacular pyrotechnological achievement along a number of fronts

  Mastery of maritime sailing

  Since these new technologies all appear in the Mature Harappan, or possibly the Transitional Stage, I have come to believe that a part of the Indus ideology promoted, even institutionalized, technological prowess and innovation.

  Before we move on from this discussion of Indus ideology, I want to mention two interesting, but relatively less important, themes that “appear” with the Indus Civilization and would seem to be somehow woven into their ideology. There is also the issue of the cultural diversity of the Indus Civilization as well as the Indus identity.

  Two New Iconographic Themes of the Indus Ideology

  Horned human or humanoid figures are a motif frequently encountered in the iconography of the Indus Civilization (figure 3.1). These figures begin to appear in the Early Harappan—Mature Harappan Transition and continue into the Indus Civilization. The most famous of them is the so-called Proto-Siva or Mahayogi (figure 3.2). This seal is discussed in considerable detail in the chapter on religion. The motif combines the iconography of the water buffalo and ritual discipline, the beginnings of yoga. Given their “supernatural” appearance, they seem to be a part of the new Indus ideology or religion.

  Another well-documented motif is the one with a human or humanoid inside a tree, usually a pipal tree (figure 3.3). Sometimes this motif is fronted by a kneeling human and a goat, with seven human “attendants.” I have come to call this the seal of “Divine Adoration” as shown on seal 430 from Mohenjo-daro (figure 3.4). Once again, this is a scene with a narrative quality that seems to speak to the ideology of the Indus Civilization, but we do not know how to translate it. There is little doubt in my mind that this is the Indus peoples speaking to us of their world, of their stories about themselves, which probably aggrandize their lives, beliefs, culture, and history, which gave meaning to their way of life. In the old vocabulary of structural functionalism it contributed to Harappan self-esteem and to group solidarity by sharing experiences, both real and mythical.

  THE DIVERSITY OF THE INDUS CIVILIZATION

  It is clear that the Indus Civilization was an organization of diversity: diversity of culture, peoples, and geography. This diversity probably means that there were many ways to be a “good Harappan,” just as there were many ways to be a “good Marxist” for those who valued Marxism. This diversity informs us of the many ways that the peoples of the Indus Civilization seem to have adopted and adapted this ideology to their own view of the world and way of going about creating a happy life. For example, the “Kullis” of ancient Baluchistan represent a major divergence from the Indus ideology as compared to the “Sindhis.” I imagine the Kullis to have been a significant sectarian split of the Indus ideology, if sectarianism can be used in matters of this sort. The Sorath Harappans adapted the Indus ideology in their own way, to their own tastes, which gives a very special quality to their “Harappanness.” They are quite different, to the point that some archaeologists wonder if the Sorath Harappans were Harappans at all.6 They were Harappans, of course, since their cultural historical roots were in Sindh; it is just that their manner of expressing the Indus ideology is a regional one. In some ways, the Sorath Harappans were probably no less Harappan than any of the other Indus regional manifestations of the Indus ideology. In this sense they simply lend diversity to the character of the Indus Civilization, just as do the Kullis. There were just many ways of being Harappan.

  Figure 3.1 Horned figures in the Indus Civilization

  Figure 3.2 The “Proto-Siva” or Mahayogi seal (seal number 420)

  Figure 3.3 Human in a tree motif

  There are some ways of “scaling” this notion of Harappanness if one turns to the regional archaeological indicators of the ways and degrees by which the Indus ideology was implemented or brought into reality. It seems to me that the Indus ideology is best and most clearly seen in Sindh, especially at Mohenjo-daro. I will not go into this in detail here because the rest of this book is in some ways intended to highlight this point among others. It is not that the ancient Sindhis were the “best Harappans”; it is just that their land is where it is most clearly exhibited. The Kullis diverge from this in significant ways. Possibly the most significant is found at Nindowari, where there may be a monumental platform with a drain in the top. This sort of structure is also seen in the Quetta Valley, at Damb Sadaat, although on a smaller scale. Such buildings seem to be deeply rooted in the Kulli regional history, and these peoples can be imagined to have somehow integrated it with the rest of the Indus ideology to produce the unique “Kulli-Harappan” expression.

  I have already noted that the Sorath Harappan is its own regional manifestation of Harappanness. Applying to them the scale on which the Indus ideology is apparent in the archaeological record reveals a relatively weak signature. There are no cities or much wasserluxus, and the technological component is not especially prominent, except for seafaring. There is a significant amount of Sorath Harappan pottery in the Arabian Gulf, especially on Bahrain Island, ancient Dilmun. But I detect much nihilistic vigor in these new settlers of Saurashtra, and their material culture has many of the “signs and symbols” of the Indus Civilization. Rojdi is a very well planned town, for example. Their ceramics are very Indus-like with dishes on stand, perforated ware, and the like. They used the Indus system of weights and the writing system, but not stamp seals. Nonetheless, the expression of the Indus ideology is attenuated in the Sorath Harappan, as it is in the Eastern Domain, but in a way different from the Sorath folk.

  Recognizing this kind of cultural diversity is important as one investigates the world of the Indus Civilization. But by 1900 B.C. the world had changed, the Indus Civilization had undergone a transformation. This transformation was something that destroyed the original ideological basis of the civilization: The old nihilist paradigm was gone, of course, but so too were urbanization, wasserluxus, and the old technological prowess. M. Vidale and H. Miller very nicely highlight the key changes in technology with the emerging transformation of the Indus Civilization.7

  The transformation in the Sindhi and Kulli Domains is the most pronounced. We just do not know enough about the Northwestern Domain in the early second millennium to know what went on there. In the Sorath and Eastern Domains there was much less change. This was due to the fact that transformation focused on the amendment of the heart of the civilization, its ideology. In the Sorath and Eastern Domains there was an attenuation of the ideology. This buffered and protected the peoples there from the changes that were quite profound in Sindhi, Kulli, Cholistan, and possibly in the Harappa Domains, where the Indus ideology was much more deeply seated in the lives of the people.

  Figure 3.4 Seal of Divine Adoration (seal number 430)

  STAMP SEALS AND THE I
NDUS IDENTITY

  The use of seal types in South Asia and the Middle East has been suggested to have significant symbolic value. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky has discussed the different seal types: for example, cylinders, “Persian Gulf” button, and square stamp seals. His position is this:

  A related matter of shared ideology and meaning can be derived from seals. The use of very distinctive, highly individualized styles and shapes of seals of the Indus (square), Persian Gulf (round), Mesopotamia (cylindrical), and Turkmenistan-Seistan (compartmented) in the middle of the third millennium is . . . far from accidental. The seals in all of the above areas are believed to have served a similar function. . . . [Among other things] the seals made it possible to identify the mother country of the merchant. . . . The seals, in short, provided an overt symbol of ethnic identity as well as a practical tool for trade regulation. It is interesting to note that coincidence in the distribution of distinctive seal types is overlapped by the distribution of equally distinctive ceramic types.8

  The square Indus seal identified its holder as “Harappan,” and the cylinder identified the holder as a Mesopotamian, all without anyone having to be literate.

  The Character of the Indus Peoples

  I want to say a few things to characterize the Indus peoples. Marshall noted a contradiction in this matter: “One of the most striking facts revealed by the excavations at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa is the complete uniformity of their culture. Though these two spots are some 400 miles apart, their monuments and antiquities are to all intents and purposes identical.”9 Then, in the same book, Marshall went on to say that the Indus is just as individual, just as national, as the other civilizations, as shown by the character of the domestic architecture and monuments like the Great Bath. The remarkably naturalistic quality of Indus art is another feature, and so is the painted pottery. The use of cotton instead of flax and the quality of the writing system were also seen as unique. “But behind these and manifold other traits that are peculiar to the Indus Civilization and give it its national character, is a tissue of ideas, inventions and discoveries which were common property of the then civilized world and cannot be traced to their respective sources.”10

  The Indus Civilization is characterized by a sense of strict adherence to rules and thus a kind of internal isolation. This is shown in the painting of pottery, so carefully executed according to a plan, but also in the careful layout of the houses of Mohenjo-daro, not encroaching on one another or public space and streets, at least during the early and middle centuries of the city. Party walls are not an Indus trait, and each house is a self-sufficient entity.11 A kind of privacy in life is shown by the fact that, by and large, Mohenjo-daro houses do not open onto major roads. Rather, the entrance is off a back lane, with a space for a chowkidar (watchman) on the ground level. As we will see, there is evidence that the ground floors of many houses were not used for living, at least not for the householder and family. Life took place up on the second floor and roof level, where there was light and air and where the family could find privacy and refuge from the hustle and bustle of street life in the city.

  The Harappans had a sense of humor as well. One sees this especially in some of the terra-cotta puppet figurines of humans and animals. These have delightfulness that must have come from the maker, and not merely my biased, modern eye. It follows by inference that some of these puppets were intended as toys and were created by imaginative adults for children to enjoy.

  Concluding Remarks on Indus Ideology and Related Matters

  The fashioning of the Indus ideology drew on older cultural traditions of the Greater Indus region; but its development was also an act of creation, and there is much new within it. This nihilism was founded in urbanization and sociocultural complexity. Water and cleanliness were powerful forces in the Indus ideology. The Indus peoples were technological innovators.

  The Mature Harappan was a time of some economic prosperity, with significant advances in technology, craft specialization, and long-distance trade. These activities did not begin with the Indus Civilization—their history is much deeper—but they were certainly expanded in the Mature Harappan, sometimes in an exponential way.

  THE ETHNIC DIVERSITY OF THE INDUS PEOPLES

  The Indus Civilization is a union of peoples of the four Early Harappan regional phases.12 While we do not know where the ethnic boundaries are within the Early Harappan, the presence of four distinctive phases very strongly suggests ethnic diversity. We cannot say that each of these phases was about one ethnic group. Nor can we say that any given ethnic group was confined to one of the regional phases, since it is quite possible that one or more ethnic groups were a part of, say, both the Kot Dijian and the Sothi-Siswal Phases. But the diversity of artifactual style does suggest (not prove) ethnic diversity, so I will proceed with this assumption.

  Ethnic diversity in the Indus Civilization should be no surprise. Ancient India has always been known for its diversity of peoples, shown most clearly by the multitude of languages. The Vedas speak of different kinds of people and even have a word (Mleccha)for peoples who speak gibberish, or languages other than Sanskrit. Six hundred years after the appearance of the Vedas, Herodotus notes that “there are many Indian nations, none speaking the same language.”13

  Within the Mature Harappan there are themes of both cultural homogeneity and heterogeneity. There is an overarching sense of one civilization, but within this theme there is diversity, and that diversity of archaeological assemblages suggests ethnic diversity. Once again, no one knows how much diversity or where the boundaries were, and I am not equating ceramic pots or any other artifact or group of artifacts with “people.” But the Sindhi Harappans stand out in contrast to peoples of the other domains, especially the Kullis and the peoples with whom I worked, the Sorath Harappans.14 This comes through as not just different kinds of pots and other artifacts, but in terms of subsistence, adaptation, ways of life. I also speak of the peoples of the Sorath Harappan and those of the other domains as well, since there is no reason for us to believe that there was only one ethnic group per domain or that any given ethnic group was limited to any one domain.

  The Indus religion emerges best at Mohenjo-daro, where there seems to be some evidence for an Indus “Great Tradition” as well as religious beliefs that are more folk or “Little Tradition” in nature.15 When one looks at other sites, such as Harappa, Dholavira, Rakhigarhi, Kalibangan, and Lothal, for example, one gets the impression that there were a number of Indus Little Traditions, admitting considerable religious diversity within the Indus Civilization. Since religion along with language is so often a characteristic that defines a people, this dimension of Indus life also suggests ethnic diversity.

  Physical anthropologists have also documented biological diversity in the Indus population. For example, Mohenjo-daro is somewhat different in its phenotypic traits from the population represented at northern sites, especially Harappa and Kalibangan.16 Health profiles of individuals support the notion of biological heterogeneity since there are significant differences from region to region. The population at Mohenjo-daro has a high rate of anemia as compared to other Indus sites.17 Thus, while the Mature Harappan as a whole can be seen as a population, if we look for diversity, it is there both culturally and biologically within the whole.18

  The Late Kot Dijian of the Derajat and Potwar Plateau

  The Kot Dijian ceramic assemblage has a late stage in the Derajat and Potwar Plateau, which takes a version of this assemblage into the second half of the third millennium, contemporary with the Harappan Civilization This was first suggested by A. H. Dani19 and has been confirmed by a series of radiocarbon dates and description.20 These sites, and the peoples who lived in them, are contemporary with the Indus Civilization (2500—1900 B.C.). A map and list of Late Kot Dijian sites is available in the references.21

  The evidence documenting that the Late Kot Dijian and the Indus Civilization were contemporary is not based on radiocarbon dates alone. Some Indus p
ainted motifs are found on Late Kot Dijian ceramics: pipal leaves, fish scales, intersecting circles, and peacocks. Indus perforated ware occurs at Gumla IV. Other Indus artifacts occur also in the Late Kot Dijian: Gumla IV produced an etched carnelian bead, a cubical stone weight, a faience button or seal, steatite (paste) disk beads, toy cart frames with wheels, triangular terra-cotta cakes, and “missiles.”22

  The Late Kot Dijians of the Derajat and Potwar Plateau seem to represent peoples outside the Indus ideology, peoples who chose to stay with the older ways of the Early Harappan and who preserved their suite of material culture, best represented by their ceramics, as symbolic representation of this decision. That their relationship with the Mature Harappan peoples was a peaceful one can perhaps be inferred from the recently discovered presence of Indus sites in among the Late Kot Dijian settlements of the Derajat.23

  Thus, we see that the Indus ideology was not totally accepted everywhere. There were holdouts. The political, economic, and ideological relationships between the Indus and Late Kot Dijian peoples must have been both rich and complex, and it is therefore sad to say that we know so little about them.

  Conclusion

  The Indus Civilization had an identifiable archaeological assemblage. The differences between it and the Early Harappan testify to the immense changes that took place during the Early Harappan—Mature Harappan Transition. This transition is hypothesized to have been the period when the Indus ideology developed and proliferated. There is evidence for the existence of a diversity of peoples in ancient India that were a part of this civilization. It is taken from the diversity found within the Indus archaeological assemblages, but also from the physical remains of the Harappans themselves. It is not surprising, after all, to find cultural and physical diversity in a civilization that covers over 1 million square kilometers.