IVC : Advanced Level Notes (Only for UPSC Candidates) Part 2/3

Discovery of Harappan Civilization: Early Explorations

The story of the discovery of the Harappan civilization begins in 1826, when Charles Masson visited the mounds of Harappa. He believed the site to be associated with the battle between Alexander and Porus (4th century BCE), but could not identify its true antiquity.Later, Alexander Burnes also visited Harappa and recognized its importance but remained uncertain about its historical context. In the 1850s, Alexander Cunningham conducted a small excavation but failed to grasp its significance.When Cunningham revisited Harappa in 1872, he found the site heavily damaged due to railway construction, with bricks being removed. He discovered stone tools, pottery, and a seal with a bull and script, but misinterpreted it as foreign due to the absence of a hump on the bull—thus missing a crucial clue about indigenous civilization.

Initial Archaeological Neglect and Breakthrough (1920s)

Early 20th-century ASI officials showed lack of enthusiasm:

• Hiranananda Sastri doubted the need for excavation
• D. R. Bhandarkar incorrectly dated Mohenjo-daro to only 250 years old

The turning point came when:

• 1920 → Dayaram Sahni began excavation at Harappa
• 1921–22 → R. D. Banerjee excavated Mohenjo-daro

However, the true significance was realized only in 1924, when John Marshall officially announced the discovery of the Indus (Harappan) Civilization.

Importance:

• Pushed back origins of Indian civilization by ~2500 years
• Established contemporaneity with:
  • Mesopotamia
  • Ancient Egypt

Growth of Harappan Studies

Over the decades, archaeological data has increased significantly:

• Discovery of new sites
• Re-excavation of old sites
• Development of new interpretations

Despite this, many aspects remain uncertain and debated, highlighting the interpretative nature of archaeology.

Mesopotamian Bias and Re-evaluation

In early research, Mesopotamian links were heavily relied upon for:

• Dating the Harappan civilization
• Understanding its economy and polity

This led to biased interpretations, often forcing comparisons. Modern scholarship emphasizes studying the Harappan civilization independently, without imposing external frameworks.

Shift from Urban Bias to Settlement Networks

Initially, research focused mainly on large urban centres:

• Mohenjo-daro
• Harappa

However, later discoveries revealed:

• Larger or comparable sites:
  • Rakhigarhi
  • Dholavira
  • Ganweriwala
  • Lurewala

New Focus:

• Study of smaller settlements (towns and villages)
• Example:
  • Allahdino → small village but shows full Harappan traits
  • Balu → fortified rural settlement with plant remains

👉 Leads to understanding of interconnected settlement networks

Regional Diversity within Harappan Civilization

Despite shared features, Harappan sites show significant regional variation:

Differences observed in:

• Settlement layout
• Crop patterns
• Artefact types and frequency
• Burial practices

Examples:

• At Allahdino → black-on-red pottery only ~1%
• At Kalibangan → presence of fire altars (not common elsewhere)
• At Harappa → post-cremation burials more frequent than Mohenjo-daro

👉 Indicates diversity in:

• Subsistence strategies
• Food habits
• Craft traditions
• Religious and social practices

Re-interpretation of Structures

Certain traditional interpretations are now questioned:

• “Granaries” at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro → may not actually be granaries
• Alternative interpretations affect understanding of:
  • State control
  • Economic organization

Less accepted reinterpretation:

• Lothal dockyard as irrigation tank → generally rejected

👉 These debates influence views on:

• Centralization
• Political structure

Advances in Archaeological Methods

Recent excavations show major methodological improvements:

• Detailed study of cultural sequence
• Focus on residential areas
• Use of scientific techniques:
  • Bone analysis
  • Teeth analysis

👉 Provides insights into:

• Diet
• Health
• Living conditions

Nature of Archaeological Interpretation

The study of Harappan civilization demonstrates:

• Archaeology is both:
  • Evidence-based
  • Interpretation-driven
• Multiple theories exist for:
  • Economy
  • Polity
  • Society

Terminology: Harappan vs Indus vs Sindhu–Sarasvati

The earliest discovered sites of this civilization were located in the Indus river system, leading to the term “Indus Valley Civilization” or simply “Indus Civilization.” However, with the discovery of a large number of sites beyond the Indus valley, this terminology has limitations.

• Total sites identified: ~1022
  • Pakistan: 406
  • India: 616
• Excavated sites: ~97

Geographical Extent:

• Area covered: 680,000–800,000 sq km
• Regions:
  • Pakistan: Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP
  • India: Jammu, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Western UP
  • Afghanistan: isolated site

Extremes of Distribution:

Debate on Terminology:

• “Indus Valley” → geographically restrictive
• “Indus–Sarasvati / Sindhu–Sarasvati” → based on Ghaggar-Hakra (identified by some with Sarasvati), but also limited

👉 Most appropriate term: “Harappan Civilization”

• Based on archaeological naming convention (first discovered site: Harappa)
• Does not imply origin or uniformity

Identification of Harappan Sites (Material Traits)

A site is identified as Harappan based on a set of material characteristics, especially:

• Pottery:
  • Red ware with black painted designs
  • Standard shapes and motifs
• Other markers:
  • Terracotta cakes (triangular/round; function unclear)
  • Standardized brick ratio (1:2:4)
  • Specific stone and copper artefacts

👉 Presence of these traits together → Harappan cultural attribution

Phases of Harappan Civilization

The Harappan culture represents a long cultural process with three major phases:

Alternative Terminology (Jim Shaffer):

• Early → Regionalization era
• Mature → Integration era
• Late → Localization era

👉 In standard usage, “Harappan civilization” = Mature phase

Chronology and Dating Methods

Earlier Method:

• Based on cross-dating with Mesopotamia
• John Marshall suggested: c. 3250–2750 BCE
• Later revised to: c. 2350–1900 BCE

Radiocarbon Dating (Post-1950s):

• More scientific method
• Key contribution:
  • D. P. Agrawal

Current Accepted Dates (Calibrated C-14):

• Mature phase: c. 2600–1900 BCE
• Full sequence:
  • Early: 3200–2600 BCE
  • Mature: 2600–1900 BCE
  • Late: 1900–1300 BCE

👉 Dates vary across sites, but this is the broad framework

Origin of Harappan Civilization: Theories

Early Views:

• John Marshall → Indigenous origin with long development
• Diffusionist theories:
  • E. J. H. Mackay → migration from Sumer
  • S. N. Kramer → Mesopotamian influence
  • Mortimer Wheeler → diffusion of ideas, not people

Modern View:

• Harappan civilization not derived from Mesopotamia
• Significant differences:
  • Script
  • Settlement layout
  • Limited use of bronze
  • Absence of large canal systems

👉 Conclusion: Independent development

Indigenous Development and Early Harappan Phase

Origins traced to:

• Neolithic farming communities of Baluchistan (7th millennium BCE)
• Immediate precursor:
  • Early Harappan phase (c. 3200–2600 BCE)

Early Harappan Phase: Significance

Earlier termed “pre-Harappan”, now correctly called Early Harappan

Key Features:

• Large fortified settlements
• Specialized crafts:
  • Stone working
  • Metal crafting
  • Bead making
• Use of wheeled transport
• Existence of trade networks
• Use of diverse raw materials (similar to mature phase)

Limitations:

• No large cities
• Lower level of craft specialization

👉 Represents formative stage of urban civilization

Scholarly Contributions

Amalananda Ghosh

• Identified similarities between:
  • Sothi culture pottery
  • Early and mature Harappan pottery
• Suggested proto-Harappan nature of Sothi culture
• Limitation: focus mainly on pottery

M. R. Mughal

• Comprehensive comparison of:
  • Pottery, tools, metals, architecture
• Argued:
  • “Pre-Harappan” = Early Harappan phase
• Highlighted continuity between phases

Example: Early Harappan Site (Balakot)

Balakot (Period II = Early Harappan)

Material Culture:

• Wheel-made painted pottery
• Microliths
• Humped bull figurines
• Copper objects
• Artefacts of terracotta, shell, bone

Beads:

• Lapis lazuli
• Stone, shell, paste

Subsistence:

• Crops:
  • Barley, vetch, legumes, ber
• Animals:
  • Cattle, sheep, goat, buffalo
  • Hare, deer, pig

👉 Shows mixed economy + craft activity + early Harappan traits

Key Analytical Points

• “Harappan civilization” is the most accurate term
• Civilization covered a vast, diverse geographical area
• Identification based on material culture (especially pottery + bricks)
• Early Harappan phase is crucial for understanding origins
• Development was indigenous, not Mesopotamian derivative
• Transition from rural to urban = gradual, multi-regional process

Early Harappan Phase in Southern Indus & Baluchistan (Nal–Amri Tradition)

Nal and Amri represent the early Harappan phase in southern Indus valley and Baluchistan. These sites show the gradual transition from proto-urban to urban features, especially in pottery, architecture, and craft activity.

Amri: Cultural Sequence and Material Development

Amri (c. 3500 BCE onwards) shows a continuous cultural sequence:

• Period I (Early Harappan) → subdivided into IA, IB, IC, ID
• Period II → transitional phase
• Period III → mature Harappan

Key Features (Period I):

• Gradual refinement and diversification of pottery
• Emergence of mud-brick structures, sometimes with stone
• Artefacts:
  • Chert blades
  • Stone balls
  • Bone tools
  • Early copper/bronze fragments

Special Feature:

• Period IC → multiple cellular compartments
  • Possibly granaries or platforms

Pottery:

• Dominantly wheel-made
• Designs:
  • Geometric patterns
  • Monochrome and polychrome (brown, black, ochre)

Kot Diji: Fortified Proto-Urban Centre

Kot Diji (c. 3300 BCE) represents a major early Harappan fortified settlement.

Structural Features:

• Massive fortification wall (limestone rubble + mud-brick)
• Division into:
  • Citadel
  • Lower residential area

Material Culture:

• Artefacts:
  • Stone, shell, bone objects
  • Terracotta figurines (especially bull)
  • Bangles, beads
  • Bronze fragment

Pottery:

• Mostly wheel-made
• Painted with brown bands
• Distinct forms:
  • Short-necked ovoid pots
• Motifs:
  • Horned deity
  • Pipal leaf
  • Fish scale

👉 “Kot Dijian” levels identified across multiple sites → indicates cultural horizon

Mehrgarh–Nausharo Transition

At Mehrgarh:

• Evidence of:
  • Kot Diji-style pottery
  • Triangular terracotta cakes
  • Flint blades, perforated jars

👉 Indicates contact with Indus valley, though not full Harappan influenceAt Nausharo:

• Clear transition sequence:
  • Early Harappan → Transitional → Mature Harappan
• Period IC pottery comparable to Mehrgarh Period VII C
• Dates: c. 2600–2550 BCE

Gomal Valley & Dera Jat Region

Gumla:

Gumla

• Period II:
  • New pottery styles (including Kot Dijian)
• Period III:
  • Dominance of Kot Dijian pottery + horned deity motif
• Period IV:
  • Mature Harappan

Rehman Dheri: Planned Settlement

Rehman Dheri (c. 3380–3040 BCE)

• Large site: >20 hectares
• Planned rectangular layout with grid pattern
• Fortified (early mud-brick wall + later massive wall)

Artefacts:

• Stone blades
• Copper and bronze tools
• Terracotta figurines
• Beads:
  • Lapis lazuli
  • Turquoise

👉 Indicates long-distance trade (Afghanistan, Central Asia)

Subsistence:

• Crops: wheat, barley
• Animals: cattle, sheep, goat

Bannu Basin: Craft Production Centres

Lewan:

Lewan

• Major industrial site (stone tool factory)
• Evidence:
  • Microliths (chert)
  • Querns, axes, ring stones
  • Hammer stones
• Bead-making area also present

👉 Indicates specialized craft production

Tarakai Qila:

Tarakai Qila

• Crops:
  • Wheat, barley, lentils, peas
• Stone blades with sickle sheen
• Domesticated animals:
  • Cattle, buffalo, sheep, goat

Northern Punjab: Sarai Khola

Sarai Khola (Period II = Early Harappan)

Features:

• Transition:
  • Pit dwellings → mud-brick houses
• Pottery:
  • Dominantly Kot Dijian type

Artefacts:

• Microliths, celts, chisels
• Terracotta figurines
• Shell bangles
• Steatite beads, lapis lazuli bead
• Early copper objects

Harappa: Early Harappan Phase

Harappa (Period II)

• Settlement size: >25 hectares
• Divided into two mounds with fortifications and platforms
• Evidence of planned streets and houses

Structural Features:

• Mud-brick walls
• Hearths
• Circular kiln

Material Culture:

• Chert blades
• Stone celts
• Terracotta figurines and bangles
• Beads:
  • Lapis lazuli
  • Carnelian
  • Steatite

Important Developments:

• Evidence of writing (pottery, seals)
• Standardized weights

👉 Continuity:

• Pottery, figurines, terracotta cakes → continue into mature phase

Cholistan (Hakra Region): Settlement Pattern Shift

• Early phase: Hakra ware (nomadic camps)
• Early Harappan (Kot Dijian phase):
  • Shift to permanent settlements

Data (Mughal study):

• Camp sites reduced:
  • From 52.5% → 7.5%

Settlement Size:

• 60% sites → <5 ha
• 25% → 5–10 ha
• Large sites:
  • Jalwali (22.5 ha)
  • Gamanwala (27.3 ha)

Features:

• Presence of kilns → rise of craft specialization

Kalibangan: Early Harappan Features

Kalibangan (c. 2920–2550 BCE)

• Settlement size: ~4 hectares
• Fortified with mud-brick walls

Housing:

• Around courtyards
• Standardized bricks (3:2:1 ratio)

Features:

• Hearths
• Lime-plastered storage pits
• Saddle querns

Artefacts:

• Stone blades
• Terracotta cakes
• Shell bangles
• Beads:
  • Steatite, carnelian, faience
  • Gold, silver

• 100 copper objects

Pottery:

• Red/pink with black (sometimes white) designs
• Motifs:
  • Scrolls
  • Plants
  • Fish
  • Cattle

Unique Feature:

• Ploughed field with cross furrows (N–S, E–W)

Indo-Gangetic Divide: Kunal–Banawali–Rakhigarhi

Kunal:

Kunal

• Period IA → Hakra ware
• Period IB → Kalibangan-type pottery
• Period IC → Transitional

Key Developments:

• Shift to standardized brick houses (1:2:3, 1:2:4)
• Discovery of:
  • Steatite and shell seals
  • Jewellery hoards:
    • Silver tiaras
    • Gold ornaments
    • Semi-precious stones (lapis lazuli, agate)

Banawali:

Banawali

• Mud-brick houses with:
  • Hearths
  • Storage pits

Artefacts:

• Stone blades
• Copper objects
• Beads (gold, semi-precious stones)
• Cubical chert blade

Pottery:

• Similar to Kalibangan I

Other Sites:

• Siswal
• Balu
• Rohira
• Maharona

👉 Show spread of early Harappan culture in Ghaggar-Hakra region

Key Analytical Insights

• Early Harappan phase shows:
  • Fortifications + planning beginnings
  • Craft specialization and trade networks
• Strong Kot Dijian cultural horizon across regions
• Increasing standardization (bricks, pottery, weights)
• Evidence of interaction zones (Afghanistan, Central Asia, Gujarat)
• Gradual transition to full urbanization (mature phase)