Problemáticas tratadas en el contexto

A decline set in at around 1900BCEin the dynamics of the Harappan system, and there is little doubt that after 1700BCElittle remained of the Harappan civilisation. It did not, however, come to an abrupt end within a particular period of decades or during a particular century. Until quite recently it was believed that the Indus

cities were destroyed by the Aryans who entered India from Iran and Afghanistan through north-western passes such as the Bolan and the Khyber. This theory was based on two sets of evidence. One was the reference in the Rig-Veda, the premier Vedic text, that the Aryan god Indra destroyed a hostile people called the Dasas or Dasyus who lived in fortified places called pur (Wheeler 1947/1979: 289–92; Kochhar 2000: 76–8). The other concerned the discovery of some skeletons of men, women and children from the lower city of Mohenjo Daro, killed during the so-called last massacre (Dales 1964/1979: 293–6). The archaeologist who was most vehement in putting forward this theory of an Aryan onslaught on the Indus cities was Sir Mortimer Wheeler, who, after admittedly considering and rejecting other theories, had no doubt that ‘on circumstantial evidence, Indra stands accused’ (quoted in Kochhar 2000: 77). Wheeler later admitted the validity of other reasons for the Harappan decline, but nevertheless stuck to his claim about the massacre (Wheeler 1966: 72–83). Most literary scholars and archaeologists today dismiss Wheeler’s theory as too simplistic (Dales 1964/1979: 293–6; Raikes 1964/1979: 298–9; Dales 1966/1979: 308; Srivastava 1984: 437–43). For example, the Rig- Vedic pur was nothing like an Indus city; it was just a structure of flimsy ramparts and stockades (Kochhar 2000: 78–9). If the purs that Indra is supposed to have destroyed were the Indus cities, it is most curious that the first great sacred text of Hinduism, the Rig-Veda, does not mention anything about such recog nisable features of the Harappan cities as the well-laid-out streets, houses, wells, drains, granaries and seals. Again, the skeletons of some people in the lower city of Mohenjo Daro are considered wholly insufficient evidence of an attack on such a large and complex urban system. This so-called Aryan invasion theory will be discussed further in Chapter 4.

Scholars now consider a combination of natural and socio-economic factors to be the most likely reason for the decline of the Indus cities. Two of the natural factors could be the geological and the climatic (Allchin 1984: 445–54). It is presumed that the Indus region experienced severe tectonic disturbances brought about by earthquakes at the beginning of the second millenniumBCE(Agrawal and Sood 1982: 226–9). These upheavals not only affected the normal course of the Indus and its tributaries but also helped to dry up the nearby Ghaggar–Hakra River. This latter river, known to the Hindus as River Sarasvati, was the life blood of a vast number of settlements dispersed around it; with its drying up a fatal blow was struck at the heart of the Indus civilisation. Modern satellite imagery confirms the theory that the dramatic shifts in the river courses might have created great floods that could have cut off the food-producing areas from the cities themselves (Kochhar 2000: 123–5). The quantities of silt layers in the upper levels of Mohenjo Daro, which are today many feet above the river course, are also a witness to those floods. Without the surrounding food-producing areas the cities themselves could have been left isolated. And with the frequent uncertainty of regular food supplies, the city populace prudently decided to migrate before starvation overtook them. Research into the history of rainfall patterns brings out the climatic factor of the decline. During the Mature Harappan period, about 2500 BCE, there was a great rise in the amount of rainfall, but by the beginning of the second millennium

BCEit had dropped markedly (Kochhar 2000: 136). This too would have had a damaging effect on food production, further resulting in depopulation of the cities. One of the reasons for the rainfall’s unpredictability was the extreme deforestation and loss of trees caused by the burning of charcoal in brick-baking kilns. With the rivers shifting their courses, the rainfall declining and sufficient food failing to arrive from the countryside, we have to recognise a slow but inevitable collapse of the Indus system (Fairservis 1971: 296–306; Allchin 1995: 27–9). This collapse, it should be re-emphasised, cannot be explained by any one particular cause; we must think in terms of a ‘combination of factors’ (Coningham 2005: 538). The final outcome was catastrophic for the Mature Harappan phase. The Indus cities no longer had surplus produce for trade, and the ensuing loss of revenue would have affected all classes of people. The city authorities became powerless to prevent civil unrest or brigandage, and groups of people were continually leaving the cities for their own safety and survival. As the cities became poorer, their services declined dramatically. The drains and sewers of Mohenjo Daro, kept in good and clean working order for centuries, clogged up with waste and excreta, resulting in disease and pestilence. By about 1700BCEthe desolated Mohenjo Daro had become a ghost town. Thirty-seven centuries would pass before its former grandeur was revealed to a world hitherto ignorant of it.

Civilisations continually rise and fall, but they rarely disappear without trace. It was so with the Harappan civilisation too. The collapse of the Indus system was really a collapse of its urban features (Ghosh 1982: 321–4; Chakrabarti 1998: 138–40). Its culture did not cease to exist wholesale. The sophisticated lifestyle of the Indus people had certainly ended, but their folk culture continued at the village level (Allchin 1982: 329–33). Several of the beliefs and rituals, and the simple crafts and skills for making various utensils and artefacts, along with many rural features, survived and developed into proto-historic cultures in the surrounding regions (Coningham 2005: 539–40). The two important migrations of people, caused particularly by the accelerated drying up of the Ghaggar–Hakra River during the later phase, were in the direction of the Ganges–Yamuna doab and Gujarat, leading towards the Deccan (Chakrabarti 2004: 9). It is often claimed that the Dravidian people of south India are descendants of the Harappans. If they are, then it must be during the few centuries after 1700BCEthat they would have migrated. Apart from the two big inter-regional movements, local migrations from the urban settlements into the rural areas similarly occurred. Archaeologically speaking, the cultures that resulted were relatively quite advanced, in the sense that they evolved as part of the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age, and did not regress to the skills level of the Stone Age. Different names have been assigned to these lesser regional cultures, such as the Ochre-Coloured Pottery culture in the Ganges plain (Kochhar 2000: 80–1), the Jhukar culture in Sind (Allchin 1995: 31; Kochhar 2000: 188–90), the Cemetery H culture in the Punjab (Allchin 1995: 33–4; Kochhar 2000: 190–2, 221–2), the Banas culture in Mewar in Rajasthan (Kochhar 2000: 81–2) or the Malwa culture of Madhya Pradesh (Chakrabarti 1998: 148–50). Historians identify these cultures on the basis of their pottery styles, grave goods and burial patterns and the quality of ornaments and tools, particularly those of

copper. Some of these cultures survived for many centuries, thus continuing many of the non-urban Harappan traditions. The peoples of these cultures, in the course of time, came into contact with other nomadic foreign groups, such as the Aryans, some of whom began to enter India from 1700BCEonwards, and a new Indo- Aryan civilisation would come to shape India’s history for the next thousand years and more. Even today, however, a historically conscious traveller, making a journey of exploration in Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan, will certainly notice the imprints of the glorious Harappan past.

STUDY GUIDE Key issues

• Indus or Sarasvati: the significance of dispute over the naming of a civilisation.

• Controversies over the origins of the Harappan civilisation.

• The Harappan characteristics of a civilisation.

• Comparing the authority structures in Mohenjo Daro and Harappa with other

ancient civilisations.

• Evidence for post-Harappan clusters and enclaves.

Suggested readings

Chakrabarti 2004: 29–34; Maisels 1999: 186–259; Time-Life Books 1994: 9–43; Wright 2010: 235–69

INTERNET SELECTION

1) Saifullah Khan: ‘Sanitation and wastewater technologies in Harappa/Indus

valley civilisation’. www.academia.edu/5937322/Chapter_2_Sanitation_and _wastewater_technologies_in_Harappa_Indus_valley_civilization_ca._260019

00_BC

2) Chris J.D. Kostman: ‘The Indus valley civilization: In search of those elu-

sive centres and peripheries’. www.adventurecorps.com/archaeo/centper iph.html

3) Iravatham Mahadevan: ‘Parpola and the Indus Script’. http://www.thehindu.

com/opinion/op-ed/parpola-and-the-indus-script/article462079.ece

4) Vasant Shinde and Rick J. Willis: ‘A new type of inscribed copper plate from

Indus valley’ (Harrapan) civilisation. www.ancient-asia-journal.com/article/ view/aa.12317/97

QUESTIONS FOR GROUP DISCUSSION

1) What is the rationale for describing the Harappan civilisation as the Sarasvati

2) Why did the ancient cities of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa never enter into the Indian consciousness until the early twentieth century?

3) What is the significance of the discovery of the port of Lothal in understanding

the dimensions of both the internal and external trade of the Harappans? 4) How valid are some of the reasons given for the demise of the Harappan

civilisation?

5) In what ways did the post-Harappans continue the Harappan traditions?

Note