DK-G Area, Southern Portion Moving up First Street from VS Area, the first block of DK-G one sees is numbered 3. This is where there may be a street that reaches all the way east to DK-C. The most interesting building in DK-G Southern Portion is Block 1, the Palace.
Block 1 has a large building, approximately 1,750 square meters. Mackay noted that the walls here “must clearly have been a part of some public building, which on the ev-idence available was almost certainly a palace, not necessarily that of a monarch, but perhaps of a ruler of a province, of which Mohenjo-daro may have been the capital.“59 This may, or may not, be a good guess. Large buildings have functions that go beyond housing political leaders, and size is the only thing that suggests a palace here. There is even some evidence that it is not likely to have been just a residence, at least during the Late Period.
Figure 11.21 Plan of DK-G Southern Portion (after Marshall 1931i)
The southern part of the Palace was divided into quite separate suites of rooms by the central corridor already mentioned. Two curious kilns on the eastern side of room 33 of the S. W. wing each measured some 3 feet 3 ins. in diameter at the top, though the flat base of the northern one was 2 feet 10 ins. in diameter and of the other 3 feet 2 ins. Both were 4 feet 3 ins. deep, and paved with brick, and round the inside of each was a 4 inch ledge, but not at the same height (Pl. XXII, 4). The bricks used in their construction were wedge-shaped and laid with mud-mortar, and their walls had been carefully plastered with mud. Their tops (Pl. XXXV, a) were only slightly above the level of the door-sill east of them.
From the vitrification of the mud-lined walls of these pits, it is evident that they were used to fire objects at a high temperature, the fuel used being either wood or charcoal, of which the white ashes still remained. The ledges mentioned above were probably intended for the support of a crucible, or if we assume that the kilns were used for glazing, a grating may have rested on the circular ledge in each.60
Mackay found a neat stack of 8,500 or so bricks against the western wall of the western courtyard.61 He dates the pile to Intermediate I times. They were the usual sizes (most 27.5 by 13.75 by 5.625 centimeters) and had been robbed from other buildings as demonstrated by the mud plaster adhering to them.
The original description of Block 7 makes interesting reading. There is good evidence for craft activity, scattered within what is otherwise a domestic environment. The large circle near House IX marks the foundations of a large, unfinished kiln of Late I—II times. House I, below which the deep digging took place, was exceptionally well made and occupied in Late Ib times, so all the building activity near the end of Mohenjo-daro was not slipshod. Mackay suggests that this is another candidate for a temple, or “the house of a deity, rather than of a notable of the city.”62 No one else seems to have taken up this notion. House VII is interesting in that it was built in part (shaded walls) of alternating courses of unbaked and baked bricks.
There are three points that would seem to be appropriate for this short review of the DK-G Area, Southern Portion. The first is that there is an immense amount of change in DK-G South from Intermediate III to Late I times (approximately 200—300 years). There is a constant process of architectural modification that took place in the buildings there, with very significant change in the look and function of this part of Mohenjo-daro over the life of the city in its final centuries. The second point is a contrast to this change. That is, the architectural continuity in terms of building foundation walls. Mackay makes the point time and again that the new buildings rose on the foundations of the walls of their predecessors, at least in terms of the load-bearing walls. Many of these walls are several meters deep. Finally, Mackay’s observation that DK-G South had been transformed into a craft/industrial area in Late I—II is important. There were still many “residences,” but there is also a great amount of craft activity here during the last centuries of Mohenjo-daro.
DK-G Area, Northern Portion DK-G Northern Portion is bounded on the east by First Street and the south by Central. The northern boundary is not well defined by architecture, and on the west Mackay found the edge of the mounded part of the city, which he explored down to plain level.
Mackay describes Central Street, a major byway of Mohenjo-daro:
From its junction with First Street as far as the western limit of Block 8A, Central Street a little over 15 feet [4.5 meters] wide. It then gradually widens as it proceeds westwards and at the same time loses its proper alignment on its southern side until West Street is reached, where its width is about 21 feet [6.4 meters]. From this point, Central Street diverges to west-north-west.63
There is little change in Central Street between Late II and Late I, the depth to which Mackay’s excavations proceeded. It is equipped with a substantial drainage system, soak pits, and the like. There is a pottery kiln in the street of the Late Period.
Mackay was quite convinced that Central Street led to the river and a gate to the city.
This very important street between the Northern and Southern Portions of our excavations in the DK Area seems to have been the chief entrance into the city through a north-west gate from the river and the quays that may have existed along its bank, a question which is discussed elsewhere. . . . [The street is] directly aligned to the point at which we have found some evidence of a gateway in what appears to be a portion of the city-wall. Thus Central Street provided direct communication between the river and First Street, one of the main arteries of the city, at right angles to it. There is no evidence in the Late II and I Phases, however, that it crossed First Street and proceeded further east.“64
Unfortunately, there is no evidence for the presence of a city wall, let alone a gateway into Mohenjo-daro in the northwestern quadrant, or anywhere else, for that matter.
West Street was a major artery in the northern portion of Mohenjo-daro. It narrows from south to north, being 4.8 meters in the south and 3 meters wide in the north. It was also well equipped with drainage.
The blocks to the west of West Street (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 29) date mostly to the last phases of the ancient city, Late Ib or Ia. Most of the houses in Block 14 and the southern portions of Blocks 15 and 16 were built on “made ground,” taken here to be platforms. Mackay notes that there do not seem to be earlier buildings in these locations, and he believed that this was done to accommodate a growing population in Mohenjo-daro.65 This might be true, but runs counter to the notion that Mohenjo-daro was a dying urban environment in Late times. It might be that as the city deteriorated generally, DK-G north emerged as one of the neighborhoods that was still functioning, and thus building expansion there ran counter to the general trend.
Mackay’s discussion of Block 14 focused on the presence of a possible latrine, and the occurrence of a large hoard of copper—bronze objects.66 The latter consisted of forty objects found buried in the western side of room 19 in House III. The other objects included two spirals of wire and three more bangles. There was also a delightfully lively copper—bronze figurine of a prancing goat that was found inside a pot, with parallels in Bactria. These fine examples of copper—bronze metalwork were very important in Mackay’s last full season of excavation, but there were more. Two other hoards were found across the lane in Block 15.
The western blocks of GK-G North were apparently built late in the life of the city and are distinguishable from other blocks by the flimsy character of their construction. There is also a fair amount of evidence for craft activity late in the life of the city here, as in DK-G South. The hoards inform us that there were still people of substance living there late in the life of the city.
MOHENJO-DARO: THE CITY
We have come to the end of the tour of Mohenjo-daro, a great ancient city whose original name still escapes us. Following Jansen, a strong case can be made that Mohenjodaro was the quintessential Indus city. This position rests on three observations:
First, Mohenjo-daro seems to have been a founder’s city, built within the Transitional Stage, or earl
y in the Mature Harappan. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that it is in some ways a complex reflection of practical day-to-day life and an expression of the ideology of the Mature Harappan.
Second, the planning and investment made in Mohenjo-daro over a protracted period of time (nominally six centuries) informs us that it was no ordinary settlement, nor simply one among several Indus urban environments. Interestingly enough, Mohenjo-daro does not compare well with Harappa or most other Mature Harappan settlements: the very extensive use of baked brick, the Great Bath, site layout, town planning, and the like.
Finally, Mohenjo-daro was a place of wealth, more wealth than is apparent at any other Indus settlement. This wealth is expressed in terms of the continuity of civic planning and investment in urban facilities, in the high quality of the architecture almost to the end, the extensive use of baked bricks, and the rich assemblage of artifacts.
A third Indus city, at Ganweriwala in Cholistan, remains unexcavated. Research is important and could further shape these observations.
What Did Mohenjo-daro Mean during the Indus Age?
Taken together these observations strongly suggest that this city was a kind of embodiment of what it meant to be an Harappan, or whatever the inhabitants called themselves. Urbanization is a defining quality of the Indus Civilization, and Mohenjo-daro is the single best example of this.
Who Lived at Mohenjo-daro?
This interesting, but frequently unasked question has no precise answer. If Mohenjo-daro was the quintessential Mature Harappan city, then we would expect that the citizens of the Indus Civilization who considered themselves to be “good Harappans” would have gravitated there. The city would have been a very special place for them, and the other citizens who lived there would have been the same sort of “true believers” and therefore good neighbors and associates. These are the people who seem to have been the owners and primary residents of the baked-brick residences of Mohenjo-daro.
The Mound of the Great Bath may well have been the abode of elites: individuals we might call leaders, ritual specialists, administrators, and/or overseers. Individuals of this sort may well have resided in the Lower Town as well, and there could have been regular commuters between the two districts of Mohenjo-daro.
The fact that there may have been facilities for travelers and visitors to Mohenjo-daro has been mentioned in connection with the modular buildings in the northwestern quadrant of HR-B Area (see the previous discussion). That these travelers were of the “bathing class” is betrayed by the consistent provisioning of bathing platforms in their rooms, and this suggests an upper-class clientele.
There is thus a case to be made that Mohenjo-daro was home to the upper classes of Harappan society. While Harappa is a different urban environment, it is worth noting here that the individuals in Cemetery R-37 are generally large, well-fed, healthy individuals with few signs of antemortem trauma.67 This would fit well with the notion that Harappa also had an upper-class population, and they used burial as at least one form of interment.
Not until late in the life of the place is Mohenjo-daro filled with housing that one would immediately think of as “lower-class” dwellings. There are some in the Late I Period that could be assigned to this category, but that is well into the period of transformation of Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization generally. But the lower floors of many of the houses of Mohenjo-daro have small rooms that could have been the abodes of the lower, servant classes. Thus, rather than establishing regular, independent homes, the servant class may have occupied the lower floors of their “employers’ ” residences—“upstairs—downstairs” may have a long history.
This begs the question of a commuting lower class, living at some distance from the city, at such places as “Spur Number 3” and the “Hasanwahan Road.” Since life in such detail is inevitably multifaceted, there may have been some, even much, of this kind of arrangement. But Mohenjo-daro as we know it does not seem to have been a place where different districts had different kinds of housing, districts that would have been the ”other side of the tracks,” as it were.
Mohenjo-daro does not have the look of a place that was home to large numbers of farmers and herders. The upper class may have included numbers of absentee farmer-pastoralist landlords, but they did not plow the fields themselves. There was probably agricultural activity around the city: gardens, fields, pasture, and the like. Some of the inhabitants may have owned and managed these facilities. Milk and its products, meat, eggs, and vegetables were probably produced relatively close to the city, with food grains being hauled in from greater distances. We know from remains found at Harappa that fish were widely traded, with maritime species reaching there.68 These exceptions being noted, Mohenjo-daro still does not look like a city that was permanent home to a large number of farmers and pastoralists.
In the Late II—I Periods we know that Mohenjo-daro was a place where a substantial amount of craft activity took place. This is documented best in DK-G Area, especially the Southern Portion as well as on the Mound of the Great Bath.69 An intensive examination of the surface of Mohenjo-daro informs us of this as well.70 This substantial amount of craft activity does not seem to have characterized the city in earlier times. Mackay’s penetration into the Intermediate levels in DK-G South and observations on the Mound of the Great Bath support this contention better than any other testimony. Thus, we have evidence for an interesting change in the population of Mohenjodaro. During the founding period of the city, through Late III, Mohenjo-daro may not have been home to a substantial number of craftspeople.
The two site reports on Mohenjo-daro are filled with references to “commercial buildings,” “shops,” “khans,” “storage facilities,” “wharves,” even “public eating places.” These suggestions as to function are in reality based on the form and nature of the buildings, not supported by collateral information on the artifacts associated with them. While it is reasonable for us to believe that there was a rich commercial life in Mohenjo-daro, and this was one of the ways in which the upper classes managed to live in this city, the commercial aspect of Mohenjo-daro does not come though very clearly in the archaeological record. In the end, archaeologists are not sure about what went on inside many of the buildings at Mohenjo-daro, especially places like the Palace in DK-G South and Blocks 18 and 19 in DK-G North.
Why Was Mohenjo-daro Abandoned?
No one knows why Mohenjo-daro was abandoned, but if the Indus Civilization was its ideology, then a failure of that ideology would explain the failure of Mohenjo-daro as the quintessential Indus settlement. By about 1900 B.C., based on radiocarbon dates, the city was no longer a functioning urban center. The changes that engulfed Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilization in general began long before the city was abandoned. Early signs of this are seen with the abandonment of the Great Bath and Warehouse, as well as the changes in Late II-I. A period of civic and social deterioration that was centuries long took place at Mohenjo-daro and elsewhere.
NOTES
1 Sorely 1959: 111.
2 Mackay 1937—38: pl. I.
3 Hussain 1989.
4 Dikshit 1925—26: 100.
5 Marshall 1931j: 127.
6 Wheeler 1968: 44.
7 Marshall 1931c: 24—25.
8 Mackay 1931a: 131.
9 Marshall 1931c: 24; Mackay 1931a: 142.
10 Marshall 1931c: 24, n. 3.
11 Mackay 1948: 43.
12 Mackay 1937—38: 20.
13 Ardeleanu-Jansen, Franke, and Jansen 1983.
14 Wheeler 1968: 127.
15 Marshall 1931i: pl. XXIb.
16 Mackay 1948: 41; Mackay 1937—38: 10.
17 Wheeler 1947: 74—78.
18 Mackay 1937—38: 19—20.
19 Wheeler 1968: 41, 43.
20 Mackay 1931b.
21 Marshall 1931b: 22—24.
22 Mackay 1948: 45.
23 Wheeler 1968: 46.
24 Wheeler 1968: 46.
25 Mackay 1931b: 167.
26 Ardeleanu-Jansen 1993.
27 Dales 1968b; Dales and Kenoyer 1986.
28 Dales 1968b: 59.
29 Dales 1968b: 60.
30 Hargreaves 1931: 179.
31 Marshall 1931b: 17—20.
32 Hargreaves 1931: 182, n. 2.
33 Jansen 1983: 46—47.
34 Marshall 1931c: 18.
35 Marshall 1931b: 19.
36 Marshall 1931b: 19.
37 Jansen and Urban 1985.
38 Jansen 1984: 46.
39 Sahni 1931a: 194.
40 Marshall 1931i: pl. CL; Sahni 1931a: 194; Mackay 19311: 522—23.
41 Marshall 1931i: pl. LIVb.
42 Sahni 1931a: 191.
43 Sahni 1926—27: pl. XIVa.
44 Marshall 1931i: pl. CXXX, 22.
45 Sahni 1931a: 208.
46 Sahni 1931a: 204.
47 Sahni 1931a: 204.
48 Sahni 1931a: 205.
49 Piggott 1950: 169.
50 Wheeler 1968: 54.
51 Sahni 1926—27: 88.
The Indus Civilization Page 37