In what ways were the pre-Indus (5000-2600 BCE) and post Indus (1900-1200 BCE) periods different from the Indus period (2600-1900 BCE)?

source:https://indusvalley-harappa.weebly.com/uploads/3/9/0/6/39066825/header_images/1410361819.jpg

The Indus period (2600-1900 BCE) often referred to as the Harappan civilization is amongst the oldest civilization known today, the other being the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilization. The absence of its mention in the literary accounts and the non-decipherment of its script has left us with archaeology as the only field to give some proven insights on the period. But with archaeology with its own limitations pertaining to excavation and differences on interpretation of artefacts provide us with only limited knowledge leading to no concrete notion about the period. Thus, it becomes a challenge to compare and demarcate it with surrounding ancient cultures with no uniform notion which can be decided upon.

The enlightenment years and the start of colonialism in India prepared a ground for a spirit of inquiry about India’s past leading to exploration works in the early 19^th century. The earliest exploration in the context of Harappa were done by Alexander Cunningham, who in 1850s, visited the ruins of Indus city of Harappa (Mcintosh, 2008) but no perception about such an old civilization could have been made due to his focus on Buddhist monuments and Early Historic cities. It was in 1920s during the Marshall era that excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro gave idea of Indus civilization. As explorations and excavations of various archaeological teams progressed thereafter, scholars used the term ‘Indus’ or ‘Harappan’ civilization, but increasingly became aware that its spread and the spread of cultures that provided prelude to the civilization, was exceptionally wide, beyond the Indus plains themselves. (Ratnagar, 2016)

As per wideness of Indus valley civilization is concerned, looking upon it both temporarily and spatially, there is no clear consensus among the scholars between the congruency and differences among the regional cultures which appears to be existent simultaneously or pre or post to the mature Indus period. In the late 20^th century there was some consensus among scholars where cultures like kot diji, sothi-siswal, amri, cemetery H etc, pertaining to there differences in local techniques, ceramics, house forms etc, were proved to be different then mature Indus period. There is some clear continuity at many sites and within their material culture but no evidence for a seamless, smooth transition (coningham and Young, 2015) is there between these periods.

The Indus civilization or the mature Indus period is differentiated from others on basis of great standardisation, uniformity and development which prevailed in it as compared to others. But while saying it as a civilization or developed period, the question which can be raised is what do we even understand from these words?  Presently, most of the archaeologist see it from the eyes of development in material culture and this becomes the criteria for differentiating it with other surrounding cultures which declined or emerged after it. Possehl even argue on the basis of greater rate for the founding of Indus new settlements from the other stages of the Indus Age as a nihilistic behaviour referring it to a new order of life.

Urbanization and sociocultural complexity are interrelated and defining features of the Indus Civilization. The size and complexity of the Indus cities are distinctive features of the Mature Harappan, not clearly developed out of even the largest of the Early Harappan places. Water management is also considered a distinctive feature. The many wells, elaborate drainage systems, bathing facilities in virtually all of the houses, and the Great Bath Show its importance. One of the most interesting features of the Indus Civilization is the range of new technologies associated with it. 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 pyro technological ladder (Possehl, 2002). Urban drainage systems, manufacture of very long, hard stone beads, including the sophisticated drilling technology, City planning and the construction of large buildings from baked bricks etc are some features which distinctly characterise the mature Indus period from the others.

The pre-Indus often now referred as the era of regionalisation, the term firstly used by Shaffer in the sense for emphasising period of an emergent urbanism and regional traditions. The developments in the Indo -Iranian region since the emergence of domestication of plants around 7000 BCE to mature Indus period was considered as a separate development stage from mature Indus but now this interpretation is challenged and the period is considered to be one of dynamic experimentation, which developed in a shared cultural complex circa 2800 BCE just prior to the emergence of Integrated Era of the Indus civilization (Coningham and Young, 2015). The pre-Indus settlements are referred to as “emerging politics” by Rita Wright on account of three factors. Firstly, as they are coexisting political units in which no single group dominate any of other. Secondly, there is evidence for active exchange networks. Thirdly, the villages and towns developed during these periods are increasingly complex both economically and socially (Wright, 2010).

As far as pre-Indus period is concerned there are many phases which are looked upon depending upon differences in their chronology, ceramic culture and geographical location. No doubt the study of these show an emerging society which continued to form into mature one in the mature Indus period however there are still large-scale differences. If the area of Baluchistan is concerned, there are basically four phases, the Kili Gul Muhammad, Kechi Beg, Damb Sadat and Nal Phases dating roughly from c.4300 BCE to c.2500 BCE. The lower Indus mainly having the Balakot Phase (c.4000-3500 BCE) and Amri Phase (c.3600-3000 BCE) while the Ravi phase (c.3500-2700 BCE) and Kot Diji are found near area of Punjab and Upper Indus.

It is argued that the period had some specialisation as for example from Kili Gul Muhammad Phase we have evidence of two type of mud-brick structures, compartmental units measuring an average of 20 by 15 metres and residential units. The compartmental units understood as granaries silos by many indicating surplus production but the point is that size of these structures is still not so big and the residential units are constructed by clay and gravel and not bricks. Another interesting structure is a monumental mud-brick platform almost 40 metres in length from Mehrgarh in Damb Sadat phase. However, the actual height remains in question as the building is collapsed however it can be thought to be some major importance. The Ravi phase represents the earliest pre-urban occupation at Harappa here the structures were built of wooden post and mud- brick structure is lacking (Wright, 2010). From the Kot Diji there is evidence of massive mud brick perimeter walls and platforms with uniform bricks (1:2:4) becoming principle building material. According to Rita wright, this suggest fairly large scale community efforts, shared system of measurement and presence of masonry specialists (Wright, 2010) Kenoyer has argued that it may represent some form of early Harappan social organisation capable of mobilising and controlling the production of large quantities of bricks as well as the labour involved in wall construction (Kenoyer 1991a, Coningham and Young, 2015).

Another aspect pointed out is presence of economic specialisation. It is argued that beads and wheel turned pottery in pre-Indus period must have required semi-industries. As for example from the Kili Gul Muhammad phase we have evidence of a stand of ceramic kilns with circumferences of 2.5 metres surrounded by a staggering six metres depth of ceramic wasters also there is find of crucibles for smelting. Also, it is argued that since most pottery containing some marks maybe identification of the workshop. However, a major limitation of this argument is that the potteries are still mostly unfired.

There is also the argument about long distance trade as there is presence of lapis, carnelian and marine shells as trade can never be done in isolation there must be exchange of information with other cultures. There is also evidence of seal from Rehman Dheri with implications for recording and trade however the scorpion engraved seals found from the site is totally missing from mature Indus marks limitation to continuity of culture.

There is argument about presence of planned outline during the period. B.B Lal’s excavation of Kalibangan has shown the remains of drains constructed of backed bricks for water proofing. Another interesting aspect is evidence of water channels following parallel lines resembling old lines of street alignments is exposed from the site of Rehman Dheri by A.H. Dani.  Durrani’s excavations also demonstrated that the mud-brick and clay block walls of the earliest residential occupation of the site respected the parallel orientation of the town walls, further supporting the argument (Coningham and Young, 2015).

As far as evidence of writing is concerned, there is little if any evidence for the beginnings of writing in the Early Harappan. Signs on pots, both pre- and post-firing, begin early, in Stage Two, but this is not writing, and some of it is probably simple potter’s marks or marks of ownership (Possehl, 2002).

The post-Indus period is argued to have shown radical changes from the mature Indus period. There is loss of traits associated with the urban-focused settlements. But the transformation was not uniform instead there was different transformation occurring in different regions (Coningham and Young, 2015). It is seen that the towns were largely abandoned during this period. Rao has noted that inhabitants of Rangpur phase started living in jerry-built houses with reed-walls in contrast with the spacious brick-paved dwellings of earlier years. (ibid) Though there is still evidence of manufacture of tools they were mainly done with local materials. There is evidence of crumbling urbanism as for example during the later stages in Dholavira, the city is reduced surrounding the citadel. Also as argued by Bisht there was progressive impoverishment as though some ceramic forms were still there it was mostly replaced by Jhukar style ceramic and seals.

An interesting aspect about the period is that it is seen that multi-cropping intensified during this period. Though there is measurable decline in density of seeds being recovered it is founded by Weber that in the post-Indus period a wider range of crops are grown by farmers then the preceding periods. He has also shown that there was a shift in the sense that the dominant crop emerged to be foxtail millet then the earlier finger millet and little millet.

The post-Indus also show a major change in the relationship with the dead as evidenced from the cemetery H phase there is abandonment of individual burial and adoption of new practices is seen. Cemetery H is seen to be divided into two phases, the first of which consisted of both extended and fractional burial, including animal remains and artefacts and other phase with fractional burials of more than one individual with no grave goods. The burials show stylised ware as compared to plain ceramics of mature-Indus period burials.

The Jhukar culture emerging in the late Indus period is often considered degenerated version of mature-Indus period. Wheeler has also argued that it represented “squatter-cultures of low grade” (Coningham and Young, 2015). The culture is seen to be result of reoccupation of area which was earlier abandoned. There is evidence of circular steatite seals from here very different from the earlier period. Also, the pottery designs and shapes are different.

As far as question of differentiation between the periods is concerned, no doubt some continuity can be observed since the pre-Indus to post-Indus periods but as per period of Mature Indus is concerned it is termed as a civilization signifying some degree of massive specialisation and urbanisation which is clearly absent in the other two periods. But it becomes very important while dealing with such argument is realisation of the fact that notions which is interpreted by archaeologists today is based on understanding of present culture, they might have signified some other meanings in earlier context. Also, there is a limitation associated with periodisation of culture as we know nothing might have suddenly emerged or had disappeared. Moreover, the environmental settings in which these phases emerged must have shaped their culture as climate is always changing and while looking upon degree of development related to material culture it becomes important to realise these aspects as terms like development or specialisation are often subjective. Thus, it still remains a difficult aspect while comparing such periods.

 

 

REFERENCE: 1. Coningham R and R Young, 2015, The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE-200 CE, New York: Cambridge University Press.

2. Possehl, G L, 2002, The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, New Delhi: Vistar

3. Ratnagar, S, 2016, Harappan Archaeology: Early State Perspectives, Delhi: Primus.

4. Wright, R P, 2010, The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy and Society, Cambridge university press