The Indus Civilization Page 7

  The beginning of the Indus Age is marked by the existence of village farming communities and pastoral camps. The chronology of the Indus Age is discussed in the next section.

  THE BEGINNINGS OF A CHRONOLOGY

  The date of the Indus Civilization, the times during which Mohenjo-daro and Harappa were functioning urban centers, is based on both comparative analysis with the well-documented Mesopotamian chronology and a growing number of radiocarbon determinations. The most important Indus materials in Mesopotamia are the stamp seals with Indus script and the etched carnelian beads, reviewed later in this book. These materials allow us to tie the Mature Harappan to the Mesopotamian sequence as early as the “Royal Graves of Ur” (c. 2300 B.C.) through the Akkadian Period and just beyond (c. 2000 B.C.).19 The radiocarbon determinations for the Indus Civilization are largely in agreement with these dates.20

  Terminology and Chronology

  If one thinks of time in anthropological terms, the notion of “periods” with hard boundaries disappears in favor of looser notions of “phases” with “fuzzy” transitions. The use of the term phase in the chronology of the Indus Age is found in the first attempts to define an internal chronology for Mohenjo-daro.21 It reemerges quite clearly in my own work as well as that of Jim Shaffer.22 The scheme of stages and phases used for the Indus Age is shown in table 2.2.

  Defining Phases and Stages

  The phase of the Indus Age is an archaeological construct based on an assemblage of material culture, which can be associated with a subsistence regime(s), patterns of trade and communication, sociocultural institutions, and a geographic area. In some ways the phase is like the old notion of an archaeological culture, a term used rarely in today’s anthropological archaeology, due to the fact that we now realize that there is a significant difference between the reality of culture, as it is dealt with in contemporary life, and archaeological reconstructions of culture. Phases are not defined by a chronology, either relative or absolute; but a chronology can be ascribed to them. The independent variables in this equation are the artifacts and activities of ancient peoples. The dependent variables are the relative and absolute chronological facts that archaeologists gather as part of their research on these activities and peoples.

  Table 2.2 Chronology for the Indus Age

  Stage One: Beginnings of Village Farming Communities and Pastoral Camps

  Kili Ghul Mohammad Phase 7000—5000 B.C.

  Burj Basket-marked Phase 5000—4300 B.C.

  Stage Two: Developed Village Farming Communities and Pastoral Societies

  Togau Phase 4300—3800 B.C.

  Kechi Beg/Hakra Wares Phase 3800—3200 B.C.

  Stage Three: Early Harappan

  Four phases thought to have been generally contemporaneous

  Amri-Nal Phase 3200—2600 B.C.

  Kot Diji Phase 3200—2600 B.C.

  Sothi-Siswal Phase 3200—2600 B.C.

  Damb Sadaat Phase 3200—2600 B.C.

  Stage Four: The Early Harappan—Mature Harappan Transition

  Early Harappan—Mature Harappan Transition 2600—2500 B.C.

  Stage Five: Mature Harappan

  Five phases thought to have been generally contemporaneous

  Sindhi Harappan Phase 2500—1900 B.C.

  Kulli Harappan Phase 2500—1900 B.C.

  Sorath Harappan Phase 2500—1900 B.C.

  Punjabi Harappan Phase 2500—1900 B.C.

  Eastern Harappan Phase 2500—1900 B.C.

  Two related phases in adjacent regions thought to be generally contemporaneous with the Mature Harappan

  Quetta Phase 2500—1900 B.C.

  Late Kot Diji Phase 2500—1900 B.C.

  Stage Six: Posturban Harappan

  Jhukar Phase 1900—1700 B.C.

  Early Pirak Phase 1800—1000 B.C.

  Late Sorath Harappan Phase 1900—1600 B.C.

  Lustrous Red Ware Phase 1600—1300 B.C.

  Cemetery H Phase 1900—1500 B.C.

  Swat Valley Period IV 1650—1300 B.C.

  Late Harappan Phase in Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh 1900—1300 B.C.

  Late Harappan-Painted Gray Ware Overlap Phase 1300—1000 B.C.

  Early Gandhara Grave Culture Phase 1700—1000 B.C.

  Stage Seven: Early Iron Age of Northern India and Pakistan

  Late Pirak Phase 1000—700 B.C.

  Painted Gray Ware Phase 1100—500 B.C.

  Late Gandharan Grave Culture Phase 1000—600 B.C.

  Contending with change within a phase, especially one that is over a thousand years long, is difficult. Anthropological theory says that no culture could be stable for such a protracted period of time. Still, the present level of sophistication available to handle the phases of the Indus Age does not really allow us to define just what might be changing in most phases. Long chronological units also make the analysis of settlement data difficult since not all of the sites assigned to any given unit are likely to have been occupied for the entire span of a phase or its equivalent.

  The phase and stage terminology focuses attention on the relative and absolute chronological beginnings and endings of these constructs. The dates for the beginning and end of a phase are given on the chronological table in a rather hard and fast way. But in creating an archaeological norm, or “type fossil,” for the phase, the construct is actually best defined toward its center or mean than at the edges, that is, the beginning or end.

  Linear Culture Historical Sequences

  The chronological scheme presented in table 2.2 is basically linear, with patterns of change presented as though they took place simultaneously over vast areas of the northwestern region of the Subcontinent. This is not an historical reality. For example, it seems unlikely that the Early Harappan—Mature Harappan Transition began at precisely the same time in all regions of the Early Harappan area, or that the transition from the Togau to the Kechi Beg Phase took place at the same instant wherever these peoples were found. Archaeologists do not really know, for example, when the Kechi Beg Phase or the one called Togau began. Even the notion that stages and phases have something called a beginning and an end is debatable. In the first place, the archaeological assemblages themselves are not defined with sufficient breadth or precision for them to be endowed with meaning that goes beyond a kind of crude approximation. They are archaeological devices that must be invoked in the absence of chronological precision.

  As chronological control and precision are developed to the point where we are really in control of the dates of the phases and stages of the Indus Age, the discussion of chronology will have to move to a new conceptual level. Then we will begin to see what is already sensed: that the phases and stages do not have crisp beginnings and endings and some areas will be seen to be more conservative and retain older styles in their artifactual assemblages. The subtleties, vagaries, and complexities of the historical record will begin to emerge and defeat the simplistic conceptual schemes of past scholarship. This will demand intellectual innovation, probably the abandonment of phases and stages altogether, as we move to handle data sets that are far more particularistic in their detail but still need to be integrated and synthesized.

  Shaffer’s 1992 chronology for the Indus Valley, Baluchistan, and Helmand Traditions is presented in a way that seems to be somewhat nonlinear with much overlap between phases as seen in his figure 2.2.23 As Shaffer knows, it is not clear whether this overlap is because of the inherent weakness of the radiocarbon method or an artifact of history.

  STAGE ONE: THE BEGINNINGS OF THE VILLAGE FARMING COMMUNITY AND PASTORAL CAMP

  Kili Ghul Mohammad Phase 7000—5000 B.C.

  Burj Basket-marked Phase 5000—4300 B.C.

  Early food-producing peoples are not yet well documented in the western borderlands of the Greater Indus region. The earliest phase has been called Kili Ghul Mohammad after the site in the Quetta Valley of Baluchistan where this phase was first identified.24 For many years, there was room for doubt about the aceramic status of Kili Ghul
Mohammad I. Excavations at Mehrgarh have done much to ease the situation. A similar archaeological assemblage may also be present at Gumla in Dera Ismail Khan.25

  Mehrgarh Period ll: Burj Basket-Marked Phase

  There are strong signs of continuity between Periods I and II, but change is present as well. Pottery is introduced in Period II. It is a soft, chaff-tempered ware, handmade with simple shapes. This soft ware was not found at Kili Ghul Mohammad, but has a wide distribution across the Iranian Plateau into the Zagros Mountains (Tepe Yahya, Belt and Hotu Caves, Tepe Sialk, Sarab, Jarmo, Hajji Firuz). In these contexts it comes in the middle of the sixth millennium B.C. (5500 B.C.), a date acceptable to the Mehrgarh sequence.

  The same basic kind of architecture is present in Period II as in Period I. Twenty-three compartmented buildings can be attributed to Period II. Various retaining walls and terracing features are assigned to these times. Domestic structures are also known.

  Among these structures of Period II are various flat, hard clay surfaces, some of which were paved with bricks and/or associated with fireplaces. In one of these areas there were deposits of trash with burnt pebbles, ash, animal bones, bone tools, hammer stones, polishers colored with red ocher, and a very large collection of blades, cores, and flint debitage. This looks very much like the suite of artifacts one would expect from a shop for leather working, basket making, or weaving.

  Cotton seeds may have been found in Period II. Costantini remains cautious about this identification, but woven cotton cloth was found at Mohenjo-daro so the presence of cotton seeds at Mehrgarh may indicate that the use of this plant reaches the very beginnings of food production in Pakistan.26

  Subsistence Activities of Mehrgarh II

  The dependence on domesticated animals continued to grow through this period, as did the reliance on cultivated plants. An interesting observation on the subsistence regime of these times comes from the paleobotanical remains of Period II (Burj Basket-marked times): “The charred seeds of wheat and barley . . . that, according to L. Costantini, grow only on irrigated fields, also were collected from the ashy layers of Period II.”27 This is important documentation for the beginnings of local irrigation.

  An Aside on the South Asian Mesolithic

  The different contexts of microlithic technology in India are important since each has some chronological and cultural significance. Microlith, microlithic, and Mesolithic are terms that are somewhat abused in South Asian archaeology. They can be employed to cover a very wide range of human adaptations as well as a chronological range from circa 30,000 B.C. through medieval (perhaps even modern) times in the Subcontinent and Sri Lanka28 A discussion of this can begin with a consideration of three different forms of settlement and subsistence that have an association with a microlithic stone-working technology: the Mesolithic Aspect, the Early Food-Producing Aspect, and the Interactive Trade and Barter Aspect.

  Mesolithic Aspect Sites of the Mesolithic Aspect are found over much of the Subcontinent. They frequently occur in small caves and open settings. Tools are often abundant and associated with the remains of wild mammals, shells, and an occasional ground-stone implement. Ring stones or “mace heads” are the most common of the latter type.

  The Mesolithic is a term properly used to refer to Old World archaeological assemblages that fall within the Holocene and lack evidence for food production or an accommodation with food-producing peoples. In Sri Lanka in the caves of Fa Hien, Batadomba Lena, and Beli Lena Kitu-igala have Mesolithic occupations at circa 33,000—28,000 B.P. Mesolithic peoples in South Asia made proper microliths: lunates, crescents, triangles, microblades, and the like. But it is also true that many archaeological assemblages there ought not to be called Mesolithic and yet have an abundance of such tools. There is no necessary correlation between these tools and a particular form of settlement and subsistence. Confusion over the definition of the Mesolithic—settlement and subsistence versus typology—has muddled much writing on Indian sites with microlithic technology. Some authors seem to imply, or even state, that if a tool assemblage contains microliths, it is thereby Mesolithic. This equation has little utility since it raises such questions as to what percentage of microliths present is necessary to classify a body of material as Mesolithic. Is the Mature Harappan village of Allahdino a Mesolithic site because it has a few microlithic tools? Third, and most important, a focus on typology may actually mask the rich, historically significant aspects of the peoples who made and used these tools. As I discuss later, these folk were involved in a diversity of sociocultural settings and economic activities. They were, in fact, playing key roles in regional economies. Dwelling on tool typologies is not likely to be the most profitable way to understand these aspects of the human career.

  Early Food-Producing Aspect Microlithic tool technology was employed by many peoples involved in development of food production in India. This can be seen at such places as Koldihwa or the Mahagara Neolithic, where there is evidence for some attention being devoted to cultivation.29 However, another process, especially in western India, involved the integration of domesticated animals, principally sheep and/or goats, into economies that would otherwise be classed as hunting and gathering. The later history of these peoples seems to have involved increasing sedentariness in some cases, leading to the establishment of village farming communities. A certain amount of indigenous “experimentation” with the control and increased productivity of local flora and fauna may also be a part of this story.

  Interactive Trade and Barter Aspect Sites of the Interactive Trade and Barter Aspect have the classic microlithic technology associated with variable faunal and floral assemblages. At times, domesticated plants and animals are a part of the picture, although this is not exclusively the case. Of interest in sites of this aspect is the presence of technologically sophisticated materials such as copper/ bronze, iron, and glass. Other materials such as carnelian beads, seashells, and steatite also occur. Coins are known from some of these sites. Pottery is generally present and usually can be tied to the ceramics of surrounding village farming communities. Trade and interaction between these sites and surrounding communities, at times some distance away, can be inferred from these ceramics and the known source areas for the “exotic” materials found at these small settlements. A relationship of this sort seems to have existed between the Mature Harappan site of Lothal, in Gujarat, and peoples on the North Gujarat Plain, at sites like Langhnaj.

  Chronological Significance of the Three Aspects of the Microlithic Something has already been said of the long period of time in which true microlithic tools (lunates, crescents, trapezoids, triangles, and the like) were made in the Subcontinent. They go back to circa 33,000 B.P. in Sri Lanka and may even have been made in the early twentieth century A.D. Tool kits of this sort are certainly associated with iron tools and coins.

  Sites with microlithic tool kits conforming to one or more of the aspects just outlined are noted from time to time in this book. One of the most interesting, called Bagor, is reviewed in a later section.

  Settlement Patterns of Stage One

  Archaeological exploration in Baluchistan, the Northwest Frontier, Kachi, and Sindh has revealed a total of twenty sites that can be attributed to the Kili Ghul Mohammad Phase.30 The sites of Stage One are small (generally 2 to 3 hectares) and seem to cluster in the hills and piedmont of Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier, the “old Neolithic homeland” of farming and pastoral peoples in the Subcontinent (figure 2.5). Settlement data for Stage One are given in tables 2.3 and 2.4.31

  Table 2.3 Settlement data for the Kili Ghul Mohammad Phase

  Total sites known 20

  Sites with size estimate 9

  Settled area of sites with known sizes 23.85 hectares

  Sites with size unknown 11

  Average site size 2.651 hectares

  Estimated settled area of sites without size 29.15 hectares

  Estimated total settled area 53 hectares

  Table 2.4 Settlement data
for the Burj Basket-marked Phase

  Total sites known 33

  Sites with size estimate 19

  Settled area of sites with known sizes 48.95 hectares

  Sites with size unknown 14

  Average site size 2.58 hectares

  Estimated settled area of sites without size 36.12 hectares

  Estimated total settled area 85.07 hectares

  Since the settlement record for the ancient times considered here will never be complete, my position is that the absolute numbers and sizes of sites is a portion of what was actually a part of the historical record. Second, archaeological exploration has proceeded in a way that has led, more or less, to the same proportion of sites reported from each phase. Thus, looking not at the absolute numbers and sizes of sites but at the relative magnitude of change between phases can offer us a hint in seeing trends in population growth and settlement size.

  Pastoral and Camp Sites

  It is apparent that pastoralism emerged as an adaptation at the very beginning of the food-producing era in South Asia. The evidence for this comes from small encampments with a relative abundance of pottery, a nonmicrolithic tool kit, and without signs of permanent architecture.32