The Indus Civilization

by Gregory L. Possehl

  THE BEGINNINGS OF URBANIZATION AND THE INDUS IDEOLOGY

  The Indus Civilization, as well as Mesopotamia and Dynastic Egypt, were made possible because of the productive vigor of sheep, goats, cattle, wheat, and barley. There is at least 5,000 years of cultural development that separates the Indus Civilization from the beginnings of farming and herding in the Greater Indus region. This period of gestation is characterized by gradualist change, except at two points. The first is the time that marks the beginnings of Mehrgarh III, the Togau Phase, which is a period of considerable technological change and may mark the introduction of one or more new human populations into the Mehrgarh gene pool. The next moment of punctuated equilibrium in the history of the Indus Civilization is in the middle of the third millennium, with the Early Harappan—Mature Harappan Transition.

  Many of the archaeologists working on the Indus Civilization have recognized that the Mature Harappan is preceded by a relatively short period of rapid cultural change. This is what I have come to call the Early Harappan-Mature Harappan Transition, first defined at Amri by Jean-Marie Casal in 1964.5 It is a tribute to him to have made this important observation before so many other of the archaeologists working on the Indus Civilization. The Early Harappan-Mature Harappan Transition was the period during which the features of the Indus Civilization that most clearly define it, the Indus ideology, were developed from the four regional “cultures” of the Early Harappan. This is the “fusion” that Shaffer and Lichtenstein speak.6 Based on the stratigraphy of Amri and Nausharo, as well as the radiocarbon dates available, this transition was on the order of 100 to 150 years. From the perspective of an archaeological chronology, this would be quite short, within the standard deviation of many radiocarbon dates. But it is still three or four generations, and that is not “instantaneous.”

  Wheeler used a suite of artifacts to define the Indus Civilization.7 This included the S-form jar, pointed-base goblet, beaker, knobbed ware, and the like. While this definition was a reasonable one for its time, I have attempted to define the Indus Civilization in terms of its ideology proxied by urbanization, nihilism, technology and technological innovation, and water in terms of symbolic and physical cleanliness.

  I think of Mohenjo-daro as a representation of this ideology, par excellence. This city was where the Indus ideology was epitomized. Some other centers with very strong expressions of Indus ideology would be Harappa, Chanhu-daro, Kalibangan, and probably Nausharo and Dholavira. The Mature Harappan sites in the Cholistan Domain are also probably included here, but we will have to await excavation there to know for sure. The Indus ideology is expressed in some form at all of the 1,052 Mature Harappan sites.8 But there are differences among them, as with the Kullis, for example. There is an attenuation of the Indus ideology as one moves from Sindh into Saurashtra and the South Gujarat coast, away from the strong, clear expression at Mohenjo-daro. The peoples of the Sorath Harappan were involved with the Indus ideology, but in their own way, somewhat differently, attenuated if measured against the scale of Sindh. They have their own character, possibly even their own ideology, a syncretic blend of the Indus and their own view of the world. The same quality of Indus ideology characterizes the peoples of the Eastern Domain. The syncretic expression is clearly different from the Sorath Harappan, but the peoples of the Eastern Domain are not “mainline” Harappans out of the Mohenjo-daro mold. They participated in the Indus ideology, but in their own way, with local traditions brought in as a part of their way of life.

  There are even peoples contemporary with the Mature Harappans who preserved the material culture of the Kot Dijian Early Harappan. These are the so-called Late Kot Dijians of the Derajat and Potwar Plateau. They seem to represent peoples who did not buy into the Indus ideology and stayed with the older lifeways of Kot Dijian times.

  THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE INDUS CIVILIZATION

  The transformation of the Indus Civilization took place at the heart of the ideology. It is clearest at the urban sites and had less of an impact on the lives of the farmers and herders in the countryside, especially the Eastern and Sorath Domains, those domains most removed from the ideological centers.

  J. P. Joshi’s explorations of the Indian Punjab and his excavations at Bhagwanpura and Dadheri have demonstrated that the peoples of the Posturban Stage in this area persist to just before 1000 B.C., and he can document the development of the Painted Gray Ware out of the Bronze Age ceramic technology. He calls this period of change an “overlap.”9 So, in the Indian Punjab we have a complete cultural historical sequence that documents the times during which the Indus Civilization flourished on to the Early Iron Age, represented by the Painted Gray Ware, into historical India. There are both Cemetery H and Painted Gray Ware sites in Cholistan. Well-conceived and -conducted fieldwork might provide us with the same story there.

  The Sorath Domain presents us with a gap between the end of the Indus cultural tradition and the Early Iron Age beginnings of history. The end of the Late Sorath Harappan sequence is associated with Lustrous Red Ware, which disappears at about 1500 B.C. There are no sites that are known between this point and the appearance of Northern Black Polished Ware in the second or third century B.C. Having worked in this area, I believe there are sites that fill this gap and have one or two good candidate sites in mind for excavation. But, once again, the proof is in the excavation, and this problem presents younger archaeologists with an opportunity to undertake sound, productive fieldwork.

  The descendents of the Indus Civilization in northern India flow gracefully into the peoples of the Early Historic there. And there are important continuities in the life of the peoples of historical India that can be traced back to the Indus Civilization, even earlier. Much of the subsistence system, including the “second revolution” in farming made possible by the large-scale use of millets and double cropping, has very deep roots. Elements of architecture, settlement planning, and location are also based on concepts that began during the Indus Age. There are other potentially important observations as well. For example, the form of ritual discipline we now know as yoga may be represented in an early form in the Indus Civilization.10 The most famous of these is the so-called Proto-Siva seal. Allchin has also pointed to a seal from Chanhu-daro that seems to represent the theme of male-heaven and female-earth (Mother India) as related to the creation myth found in Vedic literature.11

  This brings us face to face with one of the great challenges of South Asian archaeology: understanding the Vedic literature and the rise of the second urbanization in the Subcontinent. Unlike the Indus Civilization, ancient India saw the creation of an enduring configuration of human organization. This is represented in many ways: social organization, a complex interweaving of philosophy and practical knowledge, concepts of history, kingship, politics, and power. It is this distinct configuration of social organization, philosophy, and values that gives ancient India and Pakistan their place in human history and makes them worthy of our understanding.

  NOTES

  1 Mughal 1990b.

  2 McAlpin 1981.

  3 Possehl 1996b has a review of this material.

  4 Costantini and Biasini 1985: 16—17.

  5 Casal 1964:39—43.

  6 Shaffer and Lichtenstein 1989: 123.

  7 Wheeler 1968: 63.

  8 Possehl 1999b: 727—835.

  9 Joshi 1993.

  10 McEvilley 1981.

  11 Allchin 1985.

  References

  Adams, R. M. 1978. Strategies of maximization, stability and resilience in Mesopotamian society, settlement and agriculture. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 122(5):329—35.

  ————. 1992. Ideologies: Unity and diversity. In Ideology and pre-Columbian civilizations, edited by A. A. Demarest and G. W. Conrad, pp. 205—21. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

  Agrawal, D. P. 1982. The archaeology of India. Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series No. 46, Copenhagen.

  ————. 20
00. Ancient metal technology and archaeology of South Asia: A pan-Asian perspective. Aryan Books International, Delhi.

  Agrawal, D. P. and R. K. Sood. 1982. Ecological factors and the Harappan Civilization. In Harappan Civilization: A contemporary perspective, edited by G. L. Possehl, pp. 223—31. Oxford & IBH and the American Institute of Indian Studies, Delhi.

  Aitken, E. H. 1907. Gazetteer of the province of Sind. Government of Bombay, Karachi.

  Allchin, B. and F. R. Allchin. 1982. The rise of civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  ————. 1997. Origins of a civilization: The prehistory and early archaeology of South Asia. Viking, New Delhi.

  Allchin, F. R. 1980. Archaeological and language historical evidence for the movement of Indo-Aryan-speaking peoples into India and Pakistan. Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 48:68—102.

  ————. 1985. The interpretation of a seal from Chanhu-daro and its significance for the religion of the Indus Valley. In South Asian archaeology 1983, edited by J. Schotsmans and M. Taddei, pp. 369—84. Instituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor 23, Naples.

  ————. 1990. Indo-Aryan and Aryan: Language, culture and ethnicity. Ancient Ceylon 10:13—23.

  ————. 1992. An Indus ram: A hitherto unrecorded stone sculpture from the Indus Civilization. South Asian Studies 8:53—54.

  Allchin, F. R. and R. Knox. 1981. Preliminary report on the excavations at Lewan, 1977—78. In South Asian archaeology 1979, edited by H. Hartel, pp. 241—44. Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin.

  Allchin, F. R., B. Allchin, F. A. Durrani, and M. F. Khan. 1986. Lewan and the Bannu basin: Excavation and survey of sites and environments in northwest Pakistan. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, no. 310.

  Amiet, P. 1974. Antiquites du desert de Lut, I: A propos d‘objets de la collection Foroughi. Revue d Assyriologie et d’Archeologie Orientale 68(2):97—110.

  ————. 1986. L’Age Des Exchanges Interiraniens, 3500—1700 avant J.-C. Notes et Documents des Musées de France, Paris.

  Ardeleanu-Jansen, A. 1984. Stone sculptures from Mohenjodaro. In Reports on field work carried out at Mohenjo-daro, Pakistan 1982—83 by the IsMEO-Aachen University Mission, edited by M. Jansen and G. Urban, pp. 139—57. Interim Reports, vol. 1. RWTH/IsMEO, Aachen/Rome.

  ————. 1987. The theriomorphic stone sculpture from Mohenjo-daro reconsidered. Reports on field work carried out at Mohenjo-daro, Pakistan, 1983—84. ed. M. Jansen and G. Urban, pp. 59—68. RWTH/IsMEO, Aachen/Rome.

  ————. 1991. The sculptural art of the Harappa culture. In Forgotten cities on the Indus: Early civilization in Pakistan from the 8th to the 2nd millennium B.C., edited by M. Jansen, M. Mulloy, and G. Urban, pp. 167—78. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz.

  ————. 1993. Who fell in the well? Digging up a well in Mohenjo-daro. In South Asian archaeology 1991, edited by A. J. Gail and G. J. R. Mevissen, pp. 1—15. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.

  Ardeleanu-Jansen, A., U. Franke, and M. Jansen. 1983. An approach toward the replacement of artifacts into the architectural context of the Great Bath at Mohenjo-daro. In Forschungsprojekt DFG Mohenjodaro, edited by G. Urban and M. Jansen, pp. 43—69. Reinische-Westfalischen Technischen Hockschule, Aachen.

  Arne, T. J. 1945. Excavations at Shah Tepe, Iran. Sino-Swedish Expedition Publication, 27, VII, 5, Stockholm.

  Atre, S. 1987. The archetypical mother: A systematic approach to Harappan religion. Ravish Publishers, Pune.

  Balfour, E., ed. 1885. The cyclopaedia of India: And of Eastern and Southern Asia, commercial, industrial and scientific. Bernard Quaritch, London.

  Barth, F. 1969. Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of cultural differences. Little Brown, Boston.

  Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen. 1989. The origins of seden-tism and farming communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 3(4):447—98.

  Bar-Yosef, O. and R. H. Meadow. 1995. The origins of agriculture in the Near East. In Last hunters, first farmers: New perspectives on the prehistoric transition to agriculture, edited by T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp. 39—95. School of American Research, Santa Fe.

  Basaglia, P. 1977. La Città Bruciata del Deserto Salato. Erizzo, Venezia.

  Basham, A. L. 1967. The wonder that was India. 3d ed. Taplinger Publishing Company, New York.

  Belcher, W. R. 1991. Fish resources in an early urban context at Harappa. In Harappa excavations 1986—1990: A multidisciplinary approach to third millennium urbanization, edited by R. H. Meadow, pp. 107—20. Prehistory Press, Monographs in World Archaeology, no. 3, Madison.

  ————. 1994. Riverine fisheries and habitat exploitation of the Indus Valley tradition: An example from Harappa, Pakistan. In South Asian archaeology 1993, edited by A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio, pp. 71—80. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, series B, vol. 271, 2 vols, Helsinki.

  Bhan, S. 1975. Excavation at Mitathal (1968) and other explorations in the Sutlej-Yamuna Divide. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, India.

  Bhan, K. K. and J. M. Kenoyer. 1984. Nageswara: A Mature Harappan shell working site on the Gulf of Kutch. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda 341—2:67—80.

  Bisht, R. S. 1982. Excavations at Banawali: 1974—77. In Harappan Civilization: A contemporary perspective, edited by G. L. Possehl, pp. 113—24. Oxford & IBH and the American Institute of Indian Studies, Delhi.

  ————. 1991. Dholavira: A new horizon of the Indus Civilization. Puratattva 20:71—82.

  ————. 1999. Dholavira and Banawali: Two different paradigms of the Harappan urbis forma. Puratattva 29:14—37.

  Blackman, J. M. and M. Vidale. 1992. The production and distribution of stoneware bangles at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa as monitored by chemical characterization studies. In South Asian archaeology 1989, edited by C. Jarrige, pp. 37—44. Prehistory Press, Monographs in World Archaeology, no. 14, Madison.

  Blackman, J. M., S. Mery, and R. Wright. 1989. Production and exchange of ceramics on the Oman Peninsula from the perspective of Hili. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:61—77.

  Blanton, R. E., G. Feinman, S. A. Kowalewski, and P. N. Peregrin. 1996. A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology 37:1—14.

  Bokonyi, S. 1985. Preliminary results of a thorough evaluation of the mammal bone material from Shahr-i Sokhta. East and West 35(4):426—29.

  ————. 1997 Horse remains from the prehistoric site of Surkotada, Kutch, late 3rd millennium B.C. South Asian Studies 13:297—307.

  Braidwood, R. J. 1975. Prehistoric men. 8th ed. Scott-Foresman and Company, New York.

  Carter, R. A. In press. Saar and its external relations: New evidence for interaction between Bahrain and Gujarat in the early 2nd millennium B.C. Arabian Art and Archaeology 12(1).

  Casal, J.-M. 1961. Fouilles de Mundigak. Memoires de la Delegation Archaeologique Français en Afghanistan, tome 17, 2 vols. Paris.

  ————. 1964. Fouilles d’Amri. 2 vols. Publications de la Commission des Fouilles Archaeologiques, Fouilles du Pakistan, Paris.

  Chakrabarti, D. K. 1978. Reserved slip ware in the Harappan context. Puratattva 8:158—64.

  ————. 1982. “Long barrel-cylinder” beads and the issue of pre-Sargonic contact between the Harappan Civilization and Mesopotamia. In Harappan Civilization: A contemporary perspective, edited by G. L. Possehl, pp. 265—70. Oxford & IBH and the American Institute of Indian Studies, Delhi.

  ————. 1988. A history of Indian archaeology: From the beginning to 1947. Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.

  Chakrabarti, D. K. and P. Moghadam 1977. Some unpublished Indus beads from Iran. Iran 15:192—94.

  Chakravarty, K. K., V. S. Wakankar, and M. D. Khare.1989. Dangawada excavations. Commissioner of Archaeology and Museums, Bhopal.

  Childe, V. G. 1934. New light on the most ancient East: The Oriental prelude
to European prehistory. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, London.

  ————. 1950. The urban revolution. Town Planning Review 21:3—17.

  ————. 1953. New light on the most ancient East. Frederick A. Praeger, American printing of the 3d ed. New York.

  Claessen, H. J. M. and J. G. Oosten. 1996a. Introduction. In Ideology and the formation of early states, edited by H. J. M. Claessen and J. G. Oosten, pp. 1—23. Studies in Human Society, vol. 11. E. J. Brill, Leiden.

  ————, eds., 1996b. Ideology and the formation of early states. E. J. Brill, Leiden.

  Cleuziou, S. 1982. Hili and the beginnings of oasis life in eastern Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 12:15—22.

  ————. 1986. Dilmun and Makkan during the third and early second millennia B.C. In Bahrain through the ages, the archaeology, edited by S. H. A. A. Khalifa and M. Rice, pp. 143—58. KPI Limited, New York.

  Cleuziou, S. and M. Tosi. 1994. Black boats of Magan: Some thoughts on Bronze Age water transport in Oman and beyond from the impressed bitumen slabs of Ras al-Junayz. In South Asian archaeology 1993, edited by A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio, pp. 745—61. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, series B, vol. 271, 2 vols. Helsinki.