INDUS VALLEY: 2

INDUS VALLEY: 2

What Type of Civilization was Harappan Civilization?

Understandably conventional scholarship viewed Harappan Civilization as generally similar in nature to Akkadian Mesopotamia and especially Egypt, differing from its western counterparts chiefly in the details of its development and material culture. It was seen as a powerful expansionist polity with two (or possibly three) "capitals" of centralized government that experienced rapid rise and expansion like the others.

Arguments for the conventional scenario:

1. The expansion of the Mature Harappan system into peripheral areas of the west was accompanied by some burning of the existing (indigenous) settlements. This suggests an element of imperialism and invasion.

2. The wide settlement size range can be regarded as the typical hierarchical pattern of city, town and village, with accompanying stratification of administrative institutions and society in general as befits a centralized state.

3. Marshall's "Granaries, Palaces, Assembly Halls etc. at Mahenjo Daro were long interpreted as the architectural centers of central economic and political power.

4. The remarkable uniformity in material culture throughout the vast territorial extent of the Indus Valley Civilization suggests a powerful central authority with the capacity to dictate behavior and production at every level of economic and administrative structure.

5. The few statues of "priest-kings" are portraits of the supreme rulers of the centralized state.

Arguments against the conventional scenario:

1. There is actually minimal archeological evidence for social stratification. For instance there are no identifiable palaces, elite tombs, temples, individualized statuary, narrative pottery or seal designs or any other recognizable signs of central authority except the great size of the 3 chief cities (Mahenjo-Daro, Harappa, Ganwaliwara) relative to the others.

2. All towns, with the partial exception of the ports possess identical settlement plans, architectural component, social status, and wealth. This argues against their differentiation by either internal institutions or the functions centered in them, as would be the case in a hierarchical organizational system.

3. There is no funerary ritual distinction or obvious burial differentiation by wealth from which to infer social stratification of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian type.

4. There is relatively little evidence of an exclusive category of elite material symbols of precious metal and stones (metal used primarily for tools). Also all classes of artifacts (except statuary) are found in all social contexts (seals, beads, metal etc. in residential areas as well as citadels). Thus the usual archaeological markers of social stratification are not present.

5. There is no evidence whatever for the type of exclusive control of elite symbolic materials and symbols as in Egypt and Sumer.

6. Economic production appears to have been chiefly conducted within the domestic sphere with craft workshops all appearing in residential contexts. There is little evidence for state-run production areas on the citadels or the attached specialists working in them.

7. There is total uniformity of craft forms and building materials throughout the Indus - no evidence of differential quality.

8. Religion, even when clear evidence for ritual activity is present as in the "fire-shrines," are also mostly in domestic residential contexts NOT in great central temples as elsewhere. However, some scholars would still believe that the Citadel architecture to possess a religious function.

Other Possibilities?

1. Jim Shaffer: That the Indus Valley territory/ society was characterized by an amazingly intricate and effective internal distribution system. This allowed transportation of all types of material culture to all settlement irrespective of size and type.

2. Rafique Mughal: That the Indus territory was divided into different administrative zones each under one of the three large "capitals" - thus promoting regional similarities over a large region.

4. Gregory Possehl: That the Indus state possessed five administrative "domains," each encompassing a specific geographical zone, thus allowing effective control within a pattern of closely connected “provinces.”

5. However, none of these possibilities explain many of the points noted above regarding the lack of any real evidence of social stratification, administrative complexity or centralized economic production.

Was the Indus Valley Civilization a kin/caste-organized society on a vast scale?

1. In a caste social order all members of society belong to exclusive groups defined by birth and occupational task. Members must marry within their group (endogamy) while contact outside of the case results in pollution that requires ritual cleansing to overcome. This is a rigidly ascribed social position without possibility of change of group identity or status.

2. In general a caste society is a huge communally oriented entity with individual identity totally subsumed within the corporate. Henri Dumont in his studies of Indian society has contrasted this type of system with stratified western society as the difference between Indian holistic social ideologies versus Western individualizing ideology.

3. Within this type of society significant wealth and the material symbols of hierarchy and social status are meaningless - they carry no significance in terms of the fixed status of one's social identity

4. Also the replication of castes throughout the entire society no matter how large promotes total standardization of behavior appropriate to the caste group and of the products resulting from the tasks associated with it. Hence there is great uniformity over vast areas rather than regional difference.

5. The same principles apply to town planning. If each town has the same caste structure and related segregated residential system then they will repeat this arrangement in general leading to organizational/planning similarity.

6. With each caste organized according to its own strict rules that govern relations within and between caste groups, there is a de facto internal administrative order that does not require a "typical" central government. Wider integration may well then be limited to great periodic pilgrimage festivals and ritual ablutions in the great "Baths" of the largest cities.

7. The Harappan seals may reflect this organization by associating their owners with their group/kinship membership, the texts giving name and position within the group. The distribution of seals throughout residences and not in administrative contexts as in Sumer indicate this type of function rather than a personal possession and economic function.

8. With no central government over economic production and distribution, this is in the hands of the caste groups with specific groups having the responsibility for the different production modes and distribution of raw material and finished goods. Here the role of production changes from an appurtenance of exclusive authority to basic caste determined activity and the location of production is centered in the residential areas of the castes. Moreover, standardization of craft commodities items will be extreme with a single behavioral mode dominating each caste and its product.

9. Religion is also caste-centered and conducted. It regular practice is thus most likely to be confined within the caste and its residential areas although great overall festivals of cohesion may occasionally occur. This may explain the emphasis on water distribution and management (800 wells at Mahenjo-daro) in the cities of the Indus Valley. This may well reflect the ritual need for extreme cleanliness that is related to many castes in historic periods of India.. Such patterns preempt the need for a central priesthood with each caste having its own religious focus on founding ancestors etc.