Block 1

Indira Gandhi
National Open University

MHI-06
School of Social Sciences Evolution of Social
Structures in India
Through the Ages
Block
1
INTRODUCTORY
UNIT 1
Reconstructing Ancient Society with Special
Reference to Sources 7
UNIT 2
Hunting-Gathering, Early Farming Society,
Pastoralism 16
UNIT 3
Harappan Civilization and Other Chalcolithic
Cultures 26
Expert Committee
Dr. Nayanjot Lahiri Prof. Yogendra Singh
Delhi University Formerly Professor at Centre for
Delhi Study of Social Systems, J N U, New Delhi
Prof. M G S Narayanan Prof. Satish Saberwal
Formerly Professor of History Formerly Professor of History
Calicut University, Calicut At C H S, J N U , New Delhi
Prof. Dilbagh Singh Prof. A R Khan
Professor of History Programme Coordinator
At C H S, J N U IGNOU
New Delhi New Delhi
Programme Coordinator Prof. A.R. Khan

Course Coordinator Ajay Mahurkar
Block Editor Dr. Ajay Dandekar
Block Preparation Team
Unit No. Resource Person IGNOU Faculty
Unit 1 Dr. Ajay Dandekar Ajay Mahurkar
Tata Instt. of Social Sciences (Format Editing)
Tuljapur
Unit 2 Dr. Supriya Verma
Department of History
Panjab University, Chandigarh
Unit 3 Dr. Jaya Menon
Baroda University, Baroda
Material Production Secretarial Assistance

Mr. Jitender Sethi Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Mr. S.S. Venkatachalam Mr. Sunil Patwal
Mr. Manjit Singh
July, 2006
 Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2006
ISBN-81-266-
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph
or any other means, without permission in writing from the Indira Gandhi National Open
University.
Further information on Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained
from the University's office at Maidan Garhi. New Delhi-110 068.
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi
by the Director, School of Social Sciences.
Paper Used : Agrobased Environment Friendly
Laser Typeset by : Tessa Media & Computers, C-206, A.F.E.-II, Okhla, New Delhi
Printed at :
COURSE INTRODUCTION
The term social structures in social sciences is not easily amenable to definition. The
difficulty of attempting such definition is underlined in much of the social science
writings.
Concretely we must not confuse social structure and social relations. This is in
contrast to sociologists such as Radcliffe Brown who considered social structure as
an ensemble of social relations only. The problem with Brown’s definition is that he
reduces study of social structures to studying and classifying data on kinship etc. He
is also unable to get into question of social communications and the value of studying
societies in an inter disciplinary fashion.
Social structures can then be considered as models built upon the raw data of social
relations. This enables us to see them in an inter disciplinary fashion. We are able
to see how social relations are uplifted to enable communication and exchange
networks to emerge. This also enables us to see the agency of the actors in the
social processes.
Basically then when we consider social structures we will examine the persistent
features of society and try to conceive the society in terms of networks of different
types of groupings. The kinship systems provides us one way to group individuals
according to certain rules; social organisations is another way of grouping individuals
and groups; social stratification whether economic and political provides us with
another type; and all these groupings can be them selves grouped by showing the
kind of relationship which exist among them and how they inter act with one another
on both synchronic and diachronic levels. We also need to bring in the role of
religion. As different scholars have pointed out studies of religions and religious
orders can also help us in reconstructing the social structures.
In our case we have tried to give the student the state of art in each theme of the
syllabus. The literature review helps us in problematising for the student the nature
of the society in the period in which it is being examined. This distinction between
social relation and social structure helps us in locating our course in two ways;
1) we are able to describe the period through the help of sources available and
2) offer a reconstruction and then offer an understanding of social structure prevailing
at that time. Remember history is basically a reconstruction. After an introduction
to the sources in the first block, first unit our unit on hunting gathering and pastoralism
does just that. We offer a reconstruction of the period through archaeological
sources and then with the help of anthropological theory posit the model of the
society at that time. Thus suggestions in the literature regarding the archeological
sites of Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic are taken up and then anthropological
theory is brought in to aid the building up of the picture of the society. Important
generalisations emerge about the nature of bands, what happens when food
producing society comes in to existence. On the basis of correlation of archeological
and anthropological accounts it is suggested that there is no unilinear transition from
band to tribe.
Similarly our unit on Harappa is even more explicit in its approach. A reconstruction
of the nature of chalcolithic social structure are offered from archeological evidences.
It is suggested that settlement patterns exhibit how non kinship social formations
were crucial to the urban settlement of Harappa. It is also suggested that kinship
formations remained and perhaps aided the reversal to tribal forms when Harappan
society declined.
Our unit on vedic society emphasizes the process of reconstruction through textual
sources. It is here the emergence of Gahapati in the social and economic contexts
of vedic society is highlighted. Textual and archeological sources to a lesser extent
dominate the rest of the units. We are here throughout conscious that historical
sources are fragmentary and help in perhaps building a partial picture. In any case
we do not have the anthropologist’s claim to analysis of the entire ensemble of
social relations.
Similarly through the medieval and colonial period we are conscious of the fact that
social processes such as urbanisation, and expansion of agrarian settlements is
creating social groups which are making the situation and responding to it to create
the networks of social relations. Crucial is also the role of land grants in creating
intermediaries between state and society. We also deal with role of religion.
In the colonial period the role of revenue policy in creating the myriad of communities
is seen as crucial. Here we are seeing the formation of communities which as Baden
Powell and Irfan Habib tell us are not in existence from times immemorial but are
formed in the process of revenue policies which are shaping the communities. We
also try to bring in a critique of Habib and Powell.
Colonialism also created an expansion of scale and different opportunities which

aided the emergence of new social groups and classes. The modern labour and
capitalist classes come in to existence with the growth of capitalism in India in this
period. Under the impact of commercialisation and colonialism the peasantry is also
getting differentiated. We round off the course by discussing the social issues revolving
around forests, tribes, discrimination, gender and protest.
So in each period the specific nature of societies is analysed to build a picture.

Through a review of literature of existing studies and keeping in mind the sources
used to studying a specific period we take each period in to account.
BLOCK INTRODUCTION
History is a continuous process of a dialogue between the present and the past, the
historian and her/his sources. It is this basic process that allows an interpretative process
to happen. Thus the issue of context then takes a primacy in such a dialogue. In the
introductory bloc we thus begin the process with the first basic premise of any historical
dialogue, the sources of history.
The first unit of block one deals with the reconstruction of the ancient society with
specific reference to the sources of history. The emphasis in this unit is on sources. The
pertinent question in the entire write up is with regard to the nature of the source. What
is or rather what constitutes a source is one of the most discussed issues in debates
over what is history.
As E.H. Carr has argued, a source is what a historian can make out to be. Given such
a wide-ranging framework, it indeed becomes important to deal with what constitutes
a source of history in a precise manner. The sources of history are rather well known,
and they range from the epigraphy and numismatics to archaeology and texts. The
moot question really is as to how to interpret the source and from which perspective.
It is this issue that has been dealt with extensively in the first unit with regard to the
sources mentioned above. The contested territory in the field of history is the
interpretative regime, the various strands of interpretations that constitute a historical
write-up. Though all the history is interpretative, the question of context cannot be left
aside; historical interpretation cannot be left in the domain of total relativity. Thus we
can now decisively question the colonial interpretation of our past as well as the historical
interpreting of the same by some obscurantist forces. This is so because the historical
interpretation is a serious endeavor where the interpretative regime has to be grounded
in the multicausal contemporary evidence. The first unit deals with all those issues.
We then move on to the realm of the neolithic ‘revolution’, the domestication of the
plants and animals and away from the original affluent society that the hunting gathering
stage was to the early farming societies. It is a misconception perpetuated by the
colonial anthropology that equated the ‘tribal’ society with the hunting and gathering
stage of the evolution of the society. As Professor Shereen Ratnagar has aptly argued
that this stage of society is reached only with the domestication of plants and animals
and the beginning of settlements, an event that has been linked to the emergence of
what is now known as the ‘tribal’ society.
Pastoralism has been a neglected field of study in the South Asian context. This lack of
interest however is slightly offset in the context of the pre and proto-historical phases
of our past. Pastoralism refers to that segment of society that is totally dependent for
its food on its herds. We do get evidences of pastoralism in the proto historic stage of
our past, but a lot needs to be done in that area. We also need to understand that
pastoralism and agriculture are not to be posited as binary opposites, rather both
together constitute a subsistence regime, where one may be a predominant element.
That pastoralism is an important element that influenced the unfolding of the past to the
present is something that cannot be denied.
The Harappan culture constitutes the first wave of Urbanization in the sub-continent.
It was truly a Bronze Age culture. Excavations at Mohanjodaro, Harappa, Lothal,
Kalibangan and many other sites have unfolded the complex nature of the society and
polity of the Harappan phase. The distinctive sense of the culture can be analyzed in
the form of the uniform systems of weights and measures and the consolidated nature
Introductory of artifacts that constituted the truly mature Harappan phase. Many a questions remain
unanswered in the context of the Harappans, but it unfolds the mature period of the
Bronze Age in the Indian context. Apart from the Harappan phase the chalcolithic
settlements have been excavated at various geographical locations in northern as well
as the peninsular India. The most celebrated excavation remains the one at Inamgaon,
a chalcolithic settlement, excavated extensively over a period of more than thirteen
years by the Deccan College. The excavations at Inamgaon reveal the nature of the
subsistence pattern, the nature of resource exploitation of the chalcolithic people in the
Deccan. It also raises a fair degree of questions regarding the nature of society and
economy, patterns of ‘tribal’ polity and the religious belief systems. The excavations at
Inamgaon also have dealt with the methods of an archaeological enquiry in the past.
The multidimensional nature of the problem is discussed in the most lucid a manner.
The first bloc thus gives an extensive introductory background to the pre and proto-
history of the subcontinent. The write-ups bring out the complexity of the nature of
historical questions and do not attempt to answer them. The important element of any
historical discussion is to raise a number of questions that reveal the multicausal nature
of the phase on history that is being discussed. The discussion is heavily grounded in
the sources, as well as the epistemology of the disciplines in which the sources are
located, in this instance anthropology and archaeology. The first bloc thus gives a
proper introduction to the early historic phase that has been dealt with in the next bloc.
6
UNIT 1 RECONSTRUCTING ANCIENT
SOCIETY WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO SOURCES
Structure
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Sources
1.1.1 Epigraphy
1.1.2 Numismatics
1.1.3 Archaeology
1.1.4 Literature
1.2 Interpretation
1.3 The Ancient Society: Anthropological Readings
1.4 Nature of Archaeology
1.5 Textual Sources
1.6 Summary
1.7 Glossary
1.8 Exercises
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of this unit is to acquaint the learner with the interpretations of
the sources that reveal the nature of the ancient society. We therefore need to define
the meaning of the term ‘ancient society’ to begin with and then move on to define a
loose chronology in the context of the sources and their readings. It would also be
useful to have an understanding about the various readings of the sources, a kind of a
historiography of the interpretative regime.
In order to facilitate a better understanding this unit is divided into five sections. In the
introduction we have discussed the range of interpretations that are deployed on the
sources and often the sources also become interpretative in nature. The complexity of
the sources has also been dealt with in the same context. The new section then discusses
the ancient society and what it means. This discussion is spread across the regions and
the varying sources that range from archaeology to oral traditions. The last section
then gives some concluding remarks.
1.1 SOURCES
Here we introduce you to different kinds of sources that help us reconstruct the social
structure.
1.1.1 Epigraphy
Epigraphy is the study of inscriptions. Epigraphic evidence form one of the most reliable
sources of ancient history. Inscriptions are engraved on stone tablets, metal plates,
pillars, walls of caves, etc. The inscriptions represent various languages at different
places and period of time. Some inscriptions give details about the political and religious
activities of that time. Others are official, commemorative and historical.
7
Introductory The edicts of Asoka, the pillars of Samudragupta and Rudradaman I are religious
and administrative inscriptions. Bilingual inscriptions at Delhi and Berhampur and
musical rules found in the Pudukottai, treatise on architecture inscribed on a tower
at Chittor are some other interesting examples of inscriptions.
Inscriptions on metal plates also cast light on the historical period. The Mandasor
copper plates, the Sohgaura plate from Gorakhpur district, the Aihole inscription of
Mahendra-Varman, the Uttiramerur inscriptions of Cholas cast light on trade, taxes
and currency. Some of these dated in the Saka and Vikrama era reflect on the
social condition of India. They give knowledge about the boundaries of kingdoms
and empire.
Epigraphy throws light on the life lived in the past, the nature of society and
economy and the general state of life. Inscriptions in the South Indian context found
on the hero stones for instance open up a different dimension of a pastoral economy
for our consideration.
1.1.2 Numismatics
Numismatics is the study of coins. The coins made of gold, silver and copper speak
of the economic situation of that period. Coins give us information about some
chronological issues as well. They also give us information about the extent of
influence of particular ruler or kingdom and its relations with the distant areas.
Roman coins discovered in India give us an idea about the existence of contacts
with the Roman Empire. Portraits and figures, Hellenistic art and dates on the coins
of the western satraps of Saurashtra are remarkable sources for reconstructing this
period. The Puranic accounts of the Satavahanas are ascertained from the Jogalthambi
hoard of coins.
The circulation of coins in gold and silver during the Gupta Empire imparts an idea
of the healthy economic condition during the rule of the Guptas. The entire argument
for instance on the urban decay rests on the paucity of currency and and lesser
content of precious metals in coins in that period.
1.1.3 Archaeology
Archaeology is the study of the material remains of the past. They include buildings,
monuments and other material relics that the inhabitants of that period were associated
with. Besides all these pots, pottery, seals, skeletal remains all are inseparable parts
of the reconstructing the context in which they were found.
Lord Curzon under the Director Generalship of Dr Marshall set up the Department
of Archaeology. Excavations conducted at various sites in the valley of the river
Indus, Lothal in Gujarat, Kalibangan in Rajasthan, at Sind and Punjab give us
knowledge of the civilization during about 2700 BC. Excavations at Taxilla give an
idea about the Kushanas.
Similarity of monuments excavated in India and abroad establish a relations

between various areas Excavations at south Indian sites such as Adichanallur,
Chandravalli, Brahmagiri highlight the prehistoric periods. The rock cut temples of
Ajanta and Ellora with its sculptures and paintings express the artistic finery of that
period.
8
1.1.4 Literature Reconstructing Ancient
Society with Special
Reference to Sources
Literature in the ancient period was not fuelled by the urge to preserve history but
was a complication of experiences and rules of worship. The literature includes the
Vedas, the Brahmanas, the Aryankas, the Upanishads, the Epics Ramayana and
Mahabharata, the Brahashastras, the Puranas.
The Buddhist and Jain literature gives knowledge of the traditions prevalent in those
periods. The literature of this period is in Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit. It gives us knowledge
about music, dance, painting architecture and administration of various kings. Kautilya’s
Arthasastra is a remarkable work on the system of administration. The Sangam
literature in south is an elaborate record of life in South India.
1.2 INTERPRETATION
Historical problems can be discussed with open minds only. Rewriting of History
is a continuous process into which historian brings to bear new methodological or
ideological insights or employs a new analytical frame drawn upon hitherto unknown
facts. The historians’ craft as Marc Bloch, has reminded us, is rooted in a method
specific to history as a discipline, most of which has evolved through philosophical
engagements and empirical investigations during the last several centuries. No
methodology which historian invokes in pursuit of the knowledge of the past is really
valid unless it respects the method of the discipline. Even when methodologies
fundamentally differ, they share certain common grounds, which constitute the field
of the historian’s craft. Notwithstanding the present skepticism about the possible
engagement with History, a strict adherence to the method of the discipline is
observed in all generally accepted forms of reconstruction of the past. The students
of history should not be presenting definitive conclusions but suggesting possibilities
that are based on the sound reading of the evidence. Here we have taken into
consideration anthropological, archaeological and textual sources to illustrate the
study of ancient society. The anthropological reading of the source pertains to a
reading of a tribe; the archaeological reading considers a chalcolithic settlement and
the textual one looks at the Rigveda in terms of an interpretation of a textual source.
Though we have not followed any definitive chronology here, yet there is a certain
understanding of time sequencing. Let us first understand the various readings of the
‘ancient Indian history’ before we get into the context of these sources discussed above.
The colonial construction of India’s past forms the earlier modern writing of Indian
history. European scholars searched for histories of India that would have conformed
to their stereotype of history writing but could find none. The only exception was
Kalhana’s Rajatarangini, a twelfth century history of Kashmir. There were primarily
two strands of writing Indian history in the colonial perspective, the Utilitarian and
the Orientalist. The Utilitarian perspective basically argued for a changeless society
in the Indian subcontinent. It also suggested that this backward society can be
changed through legislation which could be used by the British administrators to
bring about ‘progress’ in the other wise stagnant and retrograde Indian society.
James Mill thus harped on the negative aspects of Indian society. Although James
Mill’s periodisation of Indian history into Hindu and Muslim periods is generally
pointed out as an example of this colonial view, almost every aspect of the social,
cultural and political life was incorporated into this religious schema. This view has
had an abiding influence on Indian historiography, with a large number of Indian
historians of vastly different ideological persuasions rather uncritically internalizing
9
Introductory this interpretation. Thus the history of India is seen through a series of stereotypes
rooted in religious identity. No aspect of society or polity has escaped this religious
view, be it social tensions, political battles or cultural differences.
The Utilitarians also are credited with the dubious theory of the Oriental Despotism.
The theory of Oriental Despotism argued for an existence of a system of governance
that consisted of a despotic ruler with absolute power at the top and the self-
sufficient villages at the bottom. The surplus created by the villages was creamed
by the despotic ruler and his court. Much of the Asia was assumed to be arid and
the control of irrigation networks was critical in the system of control. Later on
Marx too took a leaf out of this theory and gave a different mode of production,
the ‘Asiatic’ to the Asian society. It was the later more scientific reflection on India’s
past, first by the Nationalist school and later on by the Marxists that led to the
rejection of this rather obscurantist view of the past. Indian history in the 1960s and
70s moved from being largely a body of information on dynasties and a recital of
glorious deeds to a broad based study of social forms. In this there was a focus
on religious movements, on patterns of the economy and on cultural articulations.
The multiple cultures of India were explored in terms of how they contributed to
the making of Indian civilization. Therefore, many aspects of this multiplicity and its
varying cultures – from that of forest dwellers, jhum cultivators, pastoralists, peasants,
artisans, to that of merchants, aristocracies and specialists of ritual and belief – all
found a place in the mosaic that was gradually being constructed. Identities were
not singular but plural and the most meaningful studies were of situations where
identities overlapped.
These included Marxism of various kinds, schools of interdisciplinary research such

as the French Annales School, varieties of structuralism and others. Lively debates
on the Marxist interpretation of history, for example, led to the rejection of the
Asiatic Mode of Production as proposed by Marx, and instead focused on other
aspects of Marxist history. There was no uniform reading among Marxists, leading
to many stimulating discussions on social and economic history. The ideas of historians,
such as Marc Bloch, Fernand Braudel and Henri Pirenne, were included in these
discussions. The intention was not to apply theories without questioning them, but
to use comparative history to ask searching questions.
1.3 THE ANCIENT SOCIETY: ANTHROPOLOGI-

CAL READINGS
‘At the easternmost reach of the inhabited world, beyond which lies nothing
but empty desert, there is an enormous country populated with fantastic animals
as well as strange nations and tribes. It is a place of mighty banyan trees, of
a sun so hot it appears ten times its ordinary size of multiple great rivers fed
by torrential rains. Gryphons and satyrs roam there along with gigantic
elephants, deadly snakes, multicolored peacocks and parrots, fierce jackals,
and manlike monkeys. Its human population is more numerous that that of
any other land. The people in the North are tall and fair, resembling Egyptians,
while those in the South are dark skinned; like Ethiopians, though lacking
their wooly hair. The northerners, long lived and free of disease, wear brightly
colored clothing ornamented with jewelry of gold and sparkling stones. Settled
agriculturists, their land is so bountiful it sustains two growing seasons every
year. Organized into stable classes, they are ruled by kinds who live in opulent
palaces graced by pleasure gardens, and are guided by wise philosophers,
10
who, like Plato, teach the immortality of the soul. The people of the North pay Reconstructing Ancient
a tribute in gold to the Persians which they acquire effortlessly in their deserts Reference to Sources
from deposits left by huge gold-burrowing ants. Bizarre nomadic tribes are
scattered throughout the rest of the country including pygmies, cannibals,
breastless Amazons, men without noses, giants five fathoms tall, headless
people, as well as those with feet so large they are able to use them as
umbrellas, shielding themselves from the sun while lying on their backs. The
entire land is wealthy in ordinary crops, herd animals, and gold, but also in
beautiful gems, shimmering silk, exotic spices, and potent drugs.’
This is the view of India that arose in Greece between the sixth and fourth centuries
BC, was passed on to the Romans when they superceded the Greeks as the centre
of the ancient Mediterranean world, and migrated to Northern Europe after the
Roman Empire fell under the impact of the barbarian invasions. Its principal sources
lie in the writings of four men: Scylax of Caryanda, a Greek officer sent by Darius,
the ruler of Persia, around 515 BC to reconnoiter the Indus valley, his easternmost
province; Herodotus who wrote about India half a century later in The Histories,
his famous treatment of the Persian wars; Ctesias of Cnidus, critic of Herodotus,
and Megasthenes, a Greek ambassador to the court of the Mauryas, who resided
in the Gangetic plain and wrote extensively about Indian institutions and customs
around 300 BC, in the aftermath of Alexander the Great’s invasion. Here the
quotation above reveals the way the ancient Greece thought about the East. Similar
notions have prevailed regarding the earliest societies. This rather exotic view of the
past needs to be tempered with more measured understanding of our past.
At the stage of hunting and gathering, the society, as we understand it had not
emerged. The units hunted together for a while and dispersed. There was no
permanency in societal relationships. This stage of gathering and hunting remained
for almost ten million years. It is only with the domestication of plants and animals
that the first settlements emerge. The transition from gathering and hunting to the
domestication of plants and animals also resulted in the emergence of what is known
as the tribal world. It was a condition where three elements defined the nature of
that condition, viz, the production was for consumption, individual rights were
embedded in the community ownership rights and authority and not power was
respected.
The label “tribe” has been an unstable category that has been deployed within
multiple networks of power relations, such as state-society, local-national and
national-global spheres. We will question the contending meaning of tribes, variously
defined as indigenous, aboriginal, primitive, underdeveloped, disempowered and
marginalized. Conversely, we will draw attention to the ways in which “tribe” has
also been used to empower and resist the nation state and the global economy.
British colonial rule imagined and institutionalized tribes in the northern and north-
west frontier, tribe-based demands for statehood in areas such as Jharkhand and
Bodoland, the creation of tribe as an economic and political category in the north-
eastern frontier, the politics of tribal identities in Assam today and the resurgence
of the figure of the tribal in contemporary literary and cultural discourses of
globalization.
The term adivasi was coined as a translation to the colonial category of aboriginal.
The tribal and the aboriginal are not synonymous categories. They are infact two
different categories altogether. The term tribe refers to the political organization of
the community while the term aboriginal means one present from the beginning
11
Introductory (origin) or of the sunrise (literal meaning). Any identification of a particular people
with the area implies a genetic sub text and a continuity of between them and the
first human populations of those regions. This hypothesis may have some limited
validity in the New World but none in the Old World.
Let us consider the ground reality as is obtained from the archaeological data. There
is considerable evidence that the domestication of plants and animals occurred at
different places in the subcontinent at times. The site near Allahabad suggests an
introduction of wild rice and tame animals in the diets of the people in the region
by the eighth millennium BC. We have sites from sixth millennium BC where there
is enough evidence of domestication of cattle, sheep and goats. Mehrgarh at the
foot of the Bolan Pass in the 9000BP gives us signs of wheat and barley. The
archaeological evidence does not support the consistent superiority of farming as a
subsistence strategy for some millennia after its appearance.
In fact the opening of the first millennium BC saw the prevalence of hunting and
gathering, pastoralism and agriculture as the three varying strategy as per the demands
of the eco-niche in the subcontinent. We cannot place the ‘tribal’ in the hunter
gatherer context always. These were responses determined by the eco-niche and
the limitations of manpower and technology.
The state too had an uneasy relationship with the people who lived in the forests.
The forest produce was crucial to the state, and the control over the same was
desirable. The Mauryan State for instance, in one telling stroke warned the forest
dwellers thus, “and the forest folk who live in the dominions of the Beloved of
Gods, even them he entreats and exhorts in regard to their duty. It is hereby
explained to them that, inspite of his repentance, the Beloved of the Gods
possesses power enough to punish them for their crimes so that they would
turn from their evil ways and would not be killed for their crimes. The 13th
rock edict is remarkable for its clarity and ruthlessness. An empire had to be run
and the resources had to be marshalled. It was in that context that the people were
being warned.
Let us now consider the so-called tribal, in the context of the above. Though we
cannot argue from the perspective of the indigenous, certainly we can form the
perspective of the marginalized. The first question to be asked pertains to the
defining elements of the term ‘tribal’. Prof. Shereen Ratnasar has arggued a tribe
is not just a group of people that shares a common culture, a name, an ethnic
identity, and a language/dialect; more important, its members, even if they live in
dispersed villages or pasture grounds, believe they are one people because they
trace their origins to a common ancestor. Descent is traced most often through the
male line, but in some groups like the Khasis, through the female line.
A common ancestor means that members are believed to be related by blood. An

individual is a member of a tribal society by virtue of his/her birth in it. The resources
of nature have been inherited from the tribal ancestors or ancestor-gods, are held
by the group as a group in trust for future members, and hence are not alienable.
Sometimes a tribe with a large population has internal divisions (clans, lineages, or
sections) that each hold their own areas of natural resources, so that a member has
rights to them by virtue of birth in a particular lineage, section, or clan. To be related
by kinship (blood), furthermore, means a series of duties and obligations towards
others in the tribe. Of course, this does not prevent friction or disputes altogether,
and it could be said that the low level of development of institutions of dispute
12 settlement is one of the limitations of tribal society.
When did this kind of social organization come into being? The earliest societies in Reconstructing Ancient
the world were not tribes, but are called ‘bands’ or ‘hunter-gatherers’. Periodic Reference to Sources
movement, no permanent villages, and the lack of clearly defined membership in
residence groups characterized them. The only stable social group was the family.
The men of different families might co-operate in raising shelters at a seasonal
settlement, or in hunting a large animal, but such co-operation was only for that
particular task. A hunting team formed a week later may be constituted by some
of these participants, but also other men.
When agriculture began (thousands of years ago), people settled down to cultivate
land. In terms of work, agriculture was different from hunting and gathering. The
returns on labour were no longer immediate: you ploughed a field and sowed the
seed, say, with the first rains of the year, but the crop was ready to harvest several
weeks later. And then you stored the cereal rice, wheat, or barley, to last you until
the next harvest. So sedentary and stable village life, and sustained co-operation
between families, were characteristic social correlates of the new economy. This is
the context in which societies united by kinship, which are known as ‘tribes’, came
into being.
It is in the context of the above that we need to locate the archaeological evidence
in its anthropological readings. The two go together and give an interpretative
support. The site of Inamgaon in the Deccan is a good case in point for the same.
1.4 NATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

The realm of archaeology in the south asian context is not rooted in the so called
hard data or scientific precision. We do not have the city of Pompeii here. In most
of the cases the archaeologist deals with material that has been discarded by the
people who were using it once. These things make little sense outside of the context
in which they are found. So the archaeological data gets understood in the from the
attributes of the excavated material in the context in which it is found and the
inference that is drawn from it. These are the limiting factors for the data. It cannot
by itself argue about the identity of an ethnicity, though it may suggest the existence
of various groups by the manner in which the material remains differ. It in this case
and in many other requires a corroborative evidence from other sources, textual,
epigraphic or numismatic. In some instances the other corroborative source may not
exist. In such situations the archaeologist will have to generalize on the basis of living
prehistory, i.e. from observing a phenomenon that still exist and try and make a
connection. The richness of the material remains may also pose a range of questions
to archaeology. The interpretation of the same from the historical point of view will
thus largely depend on the context in which the data is being excavated as well as
the context from which it is being argued out.
If for instance a typical chalcolithic settlement were excavated then it would yield
in a structured stratigraphy a variety of artifacts. It would for instance yield pottery,
animal bones, grain, burial and a host of other things. In order to make any sense
out of that material we need to analyze it in the context in which it was taken out.
Thus the reading of stratigraphy would be vital along with the relationship of all the
artifacts in the same strata to be contexualised. In Inamgaon for instance (a chalcolithic
site excavated by the team of archaeologists from the Deccan College) the excavation
was carried out from 1968 to 1983. This is perhaps the longest excavation done
in the annals of chalcolithic sites in the Indian context. The excavation at Inamgaon
13
Introductory allow us to examine the changes that occur in the material culture over a period of
time, from 1600 to 700 BC. This time span is further divided on the basis of the
stratigraphy and the difference in the material cultural sequence into three periods
the Malwa (is the earliest) the Early Jorwe and the Late Jorwe. Further generalizations
could be drawn about the subsistence patterns, social stratification and changing
nature of the settlement. Still further generalizations are possible which could be
drawn on the issues that pertain to the social structures. Here there might be a
divergent opinion, as we do not have any corroborative evidence in the form of
epigraphy or numismatics or oral tradition or textual sources. Here the site itself is
a text that would be deconstructed. The archaeological evidence in this case is the
only evidence. But there would be other contexts and other time sequences where
there is other kind of evidences, available in the form of inscriptions, coins, texts and
oral traditions. In such a situation the nature and the interpretation of the archaeological
evidence would confirm, deny or throw an alternative argument for historians
consideration. Let us also remember that archaeology is a discipline in its own right.
Such as this discipline has also its own epistemology and historiography. The nature
of interpretation would depend on which of the historiographical traditions the
archaeologist is drawing upon to arrive at the generalizations. Archaeology in that
sense is not a sub discipline of history in a sense epigraphy or numismatics is.
Let us now move on to the textual context beyond the chalcolithic and towards the
threshold of the change in the ancient society.
1.5 TEXTUAL SOURCES

Let us now turn to the textual sources. Here we will take one specific example of
Rig-veda to illustrate our point regarding the textual sources and our understanding
of the same. Rig-veda is not an easy source to understand the past. However it is
one of the most important ones, as it is the earliest of the textual sources. Rig-veda
is dated roughly to 1500-1000 BC.
Rig-veda is not like the Arthasastra or the Puranas. It is not a work of literature as
well. The earlier commentary with the text of Rig-veda is compiled by Yaska who
is dated even before Panini (before 400BC). Yaska also refers to the earlier
commentaries written before him. This suggests that Yaska is not the first one to
comment on the text. Today the text that we get is the one compiled by Sayana
(1387 AD).
Let us analyze this text to understand the difficulties related to it. The text is
compiled in the ‘vedic’ language that predates Sanskrit. It is a compilation of 1028
suktas/hymns that panegyrize the gods. It is divided in ten mandals out of which the
first and the tenth mandala have been compiled later. It is not a religious text alone.
It is a collection of a composition of hymns serving useful purposes. It was passed
on from generation to generation through a pre decided manner of recitation. There
are a number of ways in which the Rig-veda can be recited.
It paints a picture of a society that was pastoral in nature, tribal in terms of social
structure and gave tremendous importance to the cow. Horse and the chariot were
valued in times of war. There are references to the gods such as the Indra and Agni.
The simile used in the text is a votary of historical information. For instance we do
get references to cattle wealth and its importance. Clearly the early society value
the herd and the wealth was counted in terms of the number of cattle one had.
14
The Rig-veda as a text then provides us with a glimpse of one segment of culture Reconstructing Ancient
that was pastoral. It indicates as to what the society valued as wealth and also gives Reference to Sources
some indicators of the material cultural context which the archaeology can look for.
1.6 SUMMARY
The search for the source is as endless as its explanatory regime. We need to for
our part as students of history should see to it that the dialogue between the
historian and her/his past remains within the parameters of reasonableness and not
degenerate into a comedy of errors that is colored by obscurantist political
perspectives. The field of sources and their interpretation is a contested field, never
more so than now. The task of the historian would be to see to it that the field does
remain in the domain of historical dialogue and not lapse into the general free for
all.
1.7 GLOSSARY
Indigenous: Belonging to or native to a particular land in a region.
Marginalised: Groups, communities pushed to the edges of a society due to a one

sided developmental process.
1.8 EXERCISES
1) Discuss the various sources of reading India’s past.
2) Why is interpretation important? Discuss in the light of the explanation offered

above.
3) Write a short note on reading archaeology.
4) Discuss the text of Rig-veda as a source.
5) What constitutes a source for the study of history?
15
Introductory
UNIT 2 HUNTING-GATHERING, EARLY
FARMING SOCIETY, PASTORALISM
Structure
2.0 Introduction
2.1 The Archaeological Evidence for Paleolithic Societies
2.2 Social Structure of Hunting-Gathering Societies
2.3 Mesolithic –Neolithic Continuum and the Process of Domestication
2.4 The Archaeological Evidence for Early Food Producing (Neolithic) Villages
and Campsites.
2.5 Social Structure of Early Food-Producing (Farming and Herding) Societies
2.6 Summary
2.7 Glossary
2.8 Exercises
2.0 INTRODUCTION
In this Unit, we will be contrasting two kinds of societies, hunting-gathering and
food producing (agriculture and/or pastoralism). These signify two different stages
of social development, with hunting-gathering representing the band level and food
producing, the tribal level. Archaeologically, the material culture of early human
history (categorised as the Palaeolithic /Old Stone Age, Mesolithic /Middle Stone
Age and Neolithic /New Stone Age) in the subcontinent can help us understand
band and tribal levels of social organisation. Thus, in this Unit, we will describe the
archaeological evidence for the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic societies. This
evidence would provide information on subsistence strategies, residential units, kinds
of technologies, and so forth. Social structures of prehistoric societies, on the other
hand, have to be inferred with the aid of anthropological theory and ethnographic
accounts.
Human history comprises a mere fraction of geological history. The geological

period during which most human evolution took place is termed the Pleistocene,
that extended from roughly 2 million years ago to about 10,000 BP. Over this vast
time span, man has largely been a hunter-gatherer. It is only in the last 10,000 years,
from the onset of the Holocene, that several significant developments in human
societies have taken place. On the other hand, language development, of crucial
importance to human societies would have taken place in the Pleistocene. Dates for
the origins of language development cannot be ascertained with any certainty so far.
However, some scholars assume that the evidence of visual art forms (paintings,
sculpture) from c. 35,000 BP establishes the presence of language in the Upper
Palaeolithic.
The Holocene witnesses a far more varied picture in contrast to the Pleistocene.
Unlike the Palaeolithic where the margins between the Lower, Middle and Upper
Palaeolithic are distinct in chronology and lithic technology, in the Holocene there
may be a contemporaneity of Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age
societies. Thus at the same time there could be groups at various stages of social
development (bands, tribes, early states) coexisting together. In the Pleistocene, a
more limited range of subsistence strategies (involving hunting, foraging and fishing)
16
contrasted with the far more varied strategies (cultivation, herding, hunting- Hunting-Gathering, Early
Farming Society,
gathering, fishing and combinations of these) of the food producing societies in the Pastoralism
Holocene.
2.1 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR

PALAEOLITHIC SOCIETIES
In the Indian subcontinent, the earliest evidence for humans goes back to about 1.9
million years ago from Rawalpindi in Pakistan. This period from roughly 2 million
years ago till about c.10,000 years ago is known archaeologically as the Palaeolithic.
The word Palaeolithic means Old Stone Age (where ‘palaeo’ means old and ‘lithic’
comes from lithos, the Greek word for stone). Within the Palaeolithic, sub-phases
are differentiated into Lower, Middle and Upper on the basis of types of stone tools
and the techniques for making them as well as relative dates based on stratigraphy.
The Lower Palaeolithic is roughly dated from 1.9 million years ago, the Middle
Palaeolithic from about 80,000 years BP to 40,000 years BP and the Upper
Palaeolithic from 40,000 till 10,000 years BP.
The Lower Palaeolithic is generally identified by the presence of two types of tools:
the chopper-chopping tools and the handaxes. The former, particularly in a non-
Indian context, are considered to be earlier to the handaxe tradition. Middle
Palaeolithic tools are identified by flake industries and the preferred tools were
scrapers. A blade and burin tradition marks the Upper Palaeolithic. Largely the
Lower Palaeolithic industry concentrates on quartzite as the raw material; from the
Middle Palaeolithic, more fine-grained stones, such as jasper and varieties of chert,
were preferred. The tool making technology in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic
is relatively simple, with flakes struck off parent nodules. In the Lower Palaeolithic,
tools of the chopper-chopping variety were flaked on working edges, while handaxes
were also known as bifaces or tools flaked from both sides. The real change in tool
making technology occurs, perhaps from the Middle Palaeolithic but more obviously
in the Upper Palaeolithic, when nodules were carefully prepared, so as to remove
a number of blades from a single pebble of stone. The raw materials used were
fine-grained stones that would result in sharp-edged tools. The technology also
implied some amount of mass production and a more efficient way of making tools.
Tools were also richer from the Upper Palaeolithic, capable of being used for varied
purposes. It is also from this period that bone was used for making tools. A gradual
reduction in tool size is a feature of the Palaeolithic with the largest tools
in the earliest sub-phase, the Lower Palaeolithic. This is noted at
sites in Central India like Adamgarh Hill in Hoshangabad District or Bhimbetka
where occupations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic humans were marked by tools
increasingly smaller in size (See Figure 1).
Palaeolithic stone tools are found in several contexts: habitation sites in rock shelters
or in the open; factory sites near sources of raw material where tools were made;
habitation sites cum factory sites; or scatters of tools. Sometimes, one may find
Palaeolithic tools in sections along the banks of rivers. These may not indicate actual
living areas of Palaeolithic man but may represent tools moved by river action. We
are likely to get better evidence from say, rock shelters where early man may have
lived for periods of time, than from the relatively more open areas.
Geographically in the Indian subcontinent, certain areas would have been preferred
for habitation by early humans: areas with stone outcrops that would have provided
17
Introductory raw materials for tools, areas with water, and so forth. Thickly vegetated areas,
such as in Kerala or the northeast would have been avoided. Thus, we find Palaeolithic
sites largely on the foothills of the Himalayas, along the margins of the Ganges plain
bordering on the hills of central India, margins of the Thar Desert, and much of
central and peninsular India (see Figures 2-4).
Another body of evidence from the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic is the art found in
the form of rock engravings, rock bruisings and as paintings on walls of caves and
rock shelters. Geographically, these are obviously limited to areas where rock
formations are available such as the extensive sandstone formations of central India,
where shelters with paintings are commonly found. Apart from central India, Ladakh
in North India is an area where rock engravings are still being discovered, and
South India where carvings and bruisings have already been recorded. There are
also examples of portable art such as the decorated ostrich eggshells found from
Rajasthan that have been radiocarbon dated to c. 40,000 years BP. The Patne
eggshells have been dated to 25,000 years BP. The most evocative and extensively
studied are the rock paintings (Figure 5). The major ascribed reason for the art itself
has been magical. Early paintings largely centre on scenes of hunting and gathering.
The depiction of the hunt has been seen in terms of ensuring the efficacy of the
actual hunt that in ‘killing’ the animal through a depiction would ensure the same in
practice.
Dating examples of prehistoric art is not easy, and one has a very large time range
for the paintings, from about c. 40,000 BP to 1000 AD. While it is difficult to obtain
exact dates, one may be better able to obtain relative dates. The fact that paintings
are often superimposed one upon the other would enable us to figure out which
painted layer was earlier than the others, but the dates for each layer or the relative
time elapsing between each layer would be less easy to ascertain. Cave shelters that
have occupation deposits can be excavated and the paintings can be correlated to
the deposits. One example illustrates this: at Bhimbetka, a famous cave shelter
complex in Madhya Pradesh, paintings in a shelter were adjudged to be Upper
Palaeolithic in date as they were depicted in green pigment. The correlation was
made on the basis of pieces of green pigment found in occupation layers within the
shelter that contained Upper Palaeolithic tools. On that basis, V.S. Wakankar also
considered the use of green pigment as indicative of the earliest prehistoric paintings.
However, this last point has been disputed as early paintings have also been found
in red colour.
2.2 SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF HUNTING-GATH-

ERING SOCIETIES
Let us take the example of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic site of Budha
Pushkar around a lake in the Thar Desert in Rajasthan. Artefacts are found in
clusters that perhaps represent small living and multi-activity sites suggesting that
groups may have camped here periodically. This archaeological picture beyond a
point would not help us to understand ancient society. Information on social structures
can be inferred with help from anthropological or ethnographic data from living
hunting-gathering societies.
According to Elman Service and Marshall D Sahlins hunting-gathering societies are

essentially at the band level of social organisation. The term band is used to signify
very small groups (20-50 persons) with a flexible membership. Thus the family is
18
the essential unit of production with foraging activities performed by the nuclear Hunting-Gathering, Early
Farming Society,
family within the band’s range. Most activities (like collecting, fishing, foraging) are Pastoralism
performed at the family level, while hunting of large game could have involved a
group of males from several families and/or from a different band. The membership
of such groups may have changed from hunt to hunt.
Hunting-gathering societies are solely dependent on wild plants and animals. Wild
plant foods gathered mainly by women may have been a more substantial component
of the diet than the meat from the hunt. In fact, scholars feel that such communities
should be more appropriately termed “gatherer-hunters”. Whatever was collected/
hunted would have been according to need and consumed immediately – there was
no likelihood of storage or surplus. Camps would have had to frequently shift in
response to the availability of both plant and animal resources. The frequent mobility
of bands also ensured that population remained low; in fact, families deliberately
limited their numbers.
Band level societies are essentially egalitarian, with only two kinds of social units
comprising of families and bands of related families. There is no formal, permanent
or hereditary leadership – either elders may have had influence over moral issues
or a particularly skilled hunter may have assumed a leadership role during a hunt.
Though there is no clear territoriality, there is some kind of tacit understanding over
resource use or the areas where these were available. Conflicts over use of resources
may often have been resolved by the moving away of one group.
Ritually, there may have been totemistic beliefs. A totem could be a plant or animal
or inanimate object that was protected and revered. The relations between a group
and a totem could be such that the group took its identity from the totem. We have
also seen in the previous section that visible evidence of beliefs may survive in the
form of paintings, engravings and bruisings.
2.3 MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC CONTINUUM AND

THE PROCESS OF DOMESTICATION
Around 10,000 years BP, the Pleistocene gave way to the Holocene. This shift was
marked by climatic changes to a warmer climate much like the present, with an
increase in rainfall and humidity resulting in a dependability on water sources such
as lakes and rivers. Vegetation too changed with an expansion of forests and
grasslands into previously arid areas. Human adaptation to the changed environmental
circumstances is marked by the Mesolithic. Essentially the Mesolithic is a stage
transitional between the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic, falling between hunting-
gathering and food producing societies. Thus, the Mesolithic, in comparison to the
Palaeolithic, probably witnessed the experimenting with a larger range of subsistence
strategies. On one end of the continuum would have been a reliance on hunting-
gathering and fishing, involving a mobile existence and on the other end, a relatively
more settled pattern around a home base.
What we know of a Mesolithic stage in India is not so much one that is clearly
transitional between Palaeolithic and Neolithic, but one that is chronologically more
diffused, sites in some cases contemporary to Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures.
Very few sites have been dated; for instance, Chopani Mando in the Belan Valley
(c. 6000BC) and Bagor in Rajasthan (c. 5000-2800 BC) (see Figure 6). On the
other hand, we have indications of an advanced Mesolithic, where sites may have
19
Introductory been permanent or semi-permanent, consisting of groups of small huts, with earthen
floors, hearths and walls of wattle and daub (reeds plastered with mud). Tools
include grinding stones, hammer stones, querns and microliths. Animal bones were
of both wild and domesticated species. That would explain the finds of microliths,
and heavy stone implements as also the existence of hearths and huts. Querns and
grinding stones may have been used for processing edible wild plants that could
have been gathered or even cultivated.
From the Near East (the region comprising present-day Syria, Palestine, Israel,
Jordan and Turkey to Iraq-Iran, referred to as the ‘Fertile Crescent’), the evidence
for the transition to a Neolithic way of life is clearer. Between 10,000 and 8,000
years BP, human societies tended to cluster around water bodies on a reasonably
permanent basis. There is a shift from the hunting of big game to small animals
preferring grassy areas (deer, sheep, goat) and to aquatic resources, as well as to
a more limited range of edible plants (in this case wheat and barley). It is these
plants and animals (wheat-barley, sheep-goat) that would shortly be domesticated.
By domestication we mean the process by which humans create a new form of

plant or animal. Domestication is likely to have taken place in those areas where
wild forms, of plants and animals, were already present. The selection of certain
plants and animals, those with preferred attributes, would have necessitated a long
process of domestication. Those attributes would be: in the case of plants those
already relied upon by hunting-gathering societies; “generalist” species that could
grow in disturbed conditions; those that are adapted to growing together rather than
in dispersed forms; also those that would be able to tolerate moisture and temperature
conditions of storage. Certain features would have been looked for – their seed
retention capacity and the structure of the plant itself. Of plants that grow in the
wild, only those that escape human gathering have the chance of getting dispersed
on the ground and sprouting. When humans began to store seed stock for the next
growing season, it was these seeds that formed the genetic stock of subsequent
harvests. And early farmers would have preferred plants that kept (retained) their
seeds till they were harvested, and also those that had their seeds bunched together
rather than dispersed all along the stalk of the plant. Obviously in the latter case,
much more effort in harvesting would have been required and many seeds would
get missed altogether. Thus, the process of domestication of plants was precisely
the gradual process of selecting for actual advantages, a process that continues even
today. Thus, hardier plants would have been noticed and their seeds preferred over
more delicate varieties, those that grew quickly, those that had higher yields, and
those that appeared disease-resistant.
Similarly, the domestication of animals was also a long process beginning with
following herds of animals, to gradually attracting them to human company, to the
preliminary corralling or penning of animals and their protection from other wild
animals. Again, the process would work better with certain more docile, friendly
animals.
Specialised feeding habits prevent easy domestication of animals – hence goats and
pigs are ideal species. Social species are preferable and those that are predisposed
to follow a dominant animal are more likely to accept a human substitute. This
submissive behaviour is an important requirement for animal domestication. No
wonder then, that goat and sheep were the first species to be domesticated in the
Near East: both are relatively placid and slow-moving foragers; neither is territorial;
and both form highly social groups with a single dominant leader. Also, such species
20
maintain small home ranges and are thus amenable to human control. The ultimate Hunting-Gathering, Early
Farming Society,
end of domestication would be where a plant or animal would be unable to survive Pastoralism
by itself and needs human initiative even for its propagation.
It is this step taken towards domestication that had far-reaching implications, which
V. Gordon Childe described as the ‘Neolithic Revolution’. In the Near East, the
transition took over c. 2000 years, hence indicating that the change was not sudden
but was more in terms of its impact. The process of domestication ushered in a
change in ecological relations, with human societies now being much more in control
of their food supply. Now plants and animals could be taken from their original
habitat and nurtured elsewhere, thus expanding the possible areas of habitation.
With the reliance on a limited range of annual crops, there is now a greater need
to store grains for the year as well as for seed.
The growing of cereal crops meant their protection and careful tending over a long
growing season. This would have required some amount of sedentarisation. At the
same time, Neolithic strategies would have also involved the herding of animals
(sheep, goat, cattle). Herding involves varying scales of mobility in some cases
where for part of the year, animals may have to be pastured at some distance from
the home base. It is likely that combinations of cultivation and herding may have
been practised, rather than a dependence on either one alone. Moreover, hunting
and fishing as also gathering would have had their place in subsistence strategies.
Archaeologically, settled societies do indicate some growth of population. One of

the reasons could be sedentarisation where there would be no need to limit the size
of the family. In fact, children may be quite useful in protecting growing plants and
the herding of animals in and near the settlement. We now clearly see nucleation of
population in the form of the ‘village’. A Neolithic village would be comprised of
a cluster of houses with hearths and storage facilities, particularly for grains. In the
context of animal food, storage ‘on the hoof’ was resorted to, that is, protecting
animals and butchering them as and when required. Crafts form a part of the
Neolithic way of life. Pottery would now be required for storage purposes as also
for the cooking of the hard cereal grains. Weaving of flax and cotton were probably
practised.
Other than villages, there could also have been settlements occupied on a relatively
temporary basis - such as seasonal settlements, pastoral camps, camps for processing
raw materials and so forth. The Neolithic villages would not have been isolated
entities. There would have been contact across villages and between mobile and
sedentary groups for varying reasons (social ties, buffering mechanisms, barter,
perhaps even ritual links).
2.4 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR

EARLY FOOD PRODUCING (NEOLITHIC)
VILLAGES AND CAMPSITES
Let us try and see what these Neolithic settlements were like. An important site for
the Neolithic is Mehrgarh in Baluchistan in Pakistan. The location of this site in the
fertile Kachi Plain, known as the ‘bread basket’of Baluchistan, is particularly
significant. The site is located on the bank of the Bolan River and lies at the foot
of the Bolan Pass (see Figure 7), perhaps an important route linking the northern
and western valleys with the Indus Plains.
21
Introductory With a very long history of occupation, Mehrgarh is recorded by archaeologists as
having eight cultural levels, of which the first two, Period I and II were Neolithic.
Period I is aceramic (without pottery) while pottery appears in Period II at the site.
The earliest settlement may go back to c. 7000 BC. From the beginning of occupation,
mudbricks were used for constructing the groups of 2-4 small rectangular rooms
that may have been houses. These were associated with fireplaces. There is evidence
for the crafts of bone and stone tool making. A new feature seen here is the setting
of multiple blades in bitumen on a bone or wood handle, to be used as sickles for
the cutting of plants.
Burials in Period I indicate early beliefs regarding the disposal of the dead. Items
deposited with the dead were ornaments, made of materials of which some came
from distant areas, such as marine shell. Other materials deposited in graves were
bitumen-lined baskets and food, including whole young goats.
In Period II, structures with numerous compartments were constructed (Figure 8).
Some of these were of two rows of cells separated by a central corridor or
passage. These kinds of structures may have been used as storehouses or granaries.
Mehrgarh is a valuable site for the Neolithic because of the evidence for domestication.
Plant remains are found in the form of impressions, particularly in brick, and as
burnt specimens. Largely these were of wheat and barley. Over half the animals
represented in the aceramic neolithic were wild, with the largest number being
gazelle, along with other deer species, nilagai, onager, wild pig and so forth. Of
domesticated species, goats are the largest in number followed by sheep and cattle.
By the end of Period I, gazelle appear to have almost disappeared with other wild
species found in small amounts, while sheep-goat are over half of the domesticated
species.
The evidence of domesticated species may represent the importance of herding in

the Neolithic economy. As mentioned earlier, there may have been pastoral campsites
at varying distances from the home base. However, the archaeological detection of
such campsites will not be as easy as that of a sedentary village, for the simple
reason that herders on the move will carry little with them. Also, since occupations
are for short durations, there will be little build-up of occupation deposits. Moreover,
intensive explorations, necessary to detect such sites, have not been possible for
various reasons.
Another geographical area where Neolithic sites have been found is Kashmir, where
an important site, Burzahom was excavated (see Figure 7). At Burzahom, early
Neolithic (dated around 3000 BC) dwellings were in the form of pits of varying
depths. Holes around the pits may have been used for erecting poles and some sort
of roofing made of birches, of which burnt pieces have been found. Cooking may
have been done both inside and outside the pits as seen by the evidence for hearths.
The suggestion is that the pits were mainly used as dwellings in the cold weather
(see Figure 9). Apart from Neolithic ground stone axes, bone tools were also used.
Crude handmade pottery was also found.
In the later Neolithic (which continued until 1700 BC) at Burzahom, the pit dwellings
were given up and structures of mud or mud bricks were made. Handmade pottery
and Neolithic tools continued. Apart from this, a few objects may indicate contact
with outsiders. A few copper arrowheads, a wheel-made red ware pot with 950
beads of stones like agate and carnelian, and certain painted pottery may suggest
22
contact with Mature Harappan settlements in the Greater Indus Valley to the south. Hunting-Gathering, Early
Farming Society,
Other interesting details from the later Neolithic are animal burials (of wild dogs) Pastoralism
found along with those of humans. The use of red ochre in the burials and in other
parts of the settlement has also been noted.
A cluster of Neolithic villages (dated between 4000 and 2500 BC) showing links
with the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic have been reported in the Vindhyan
region, particularly the Ganges Plains and the Belan and Son Valleys. Hand-made
pottery of various types is found as well as the ground stone axes typical of the
Neolithic. The small squarish flat ground stone axes and cord-impressed pottery are
hints that this region was the western extension of an Eastern Neolithic culture of
Eastern Central India, Assam and South East Asia. The significance of this area may
lie in its being the locus of an early domestication of rice in the subcontinent. The
penning of cattle appears to be a new feature in these sites.
A dependence on cattle-keeping may also have been a feature of the South Indian
Neolithic. Sites in this region are the distinctive ashmounds (literally mounds of ash
suggesting large-scale ancient burning of heaps of cow-dung), as well as ashmounds
associated with habitations or habitations alone. The ashmounds or stockaded cattle-
pens were the earliest Neolithic sites in the south, dating between c. 2900 and 2400
BC. Examples of such sites were Utnur, Kupgal, Kodekal and Pallavoy (see Figure
7), all in modern Karnataka. These stockades were in two consecutive rings of
palm trees, the inner one for possibly enclosing animals and the outer for the
herders. Those ashmounds occurring alone (without permanent habitation sites) may
have been pastoral campsites. Their location in the midst of forests may add to such
an interpretation. The habitation sites generally date from 2000 BC.
Just like at Mehrgarh, subsistence strategies would have involved animal herding as
well as grain (probably ragi) collection or cultivation. By c. 2000 BC, ragi is
archaeologically detected and this may have been the main cereal consumed, as this
region is well suited environmentally to the cultivation of millet.
In the South Indian Neolithic, materially, one finds the same evidence as in other
parts of the subcontinent – stone artefacts like querns, hammer stones and sling
balls, as well as blades of fine-grained stones. Pottery is found throughout the
Neolithic period. One of the reasons for the location of sites in this region may be
the proximity to the gold resources of Karnataka and the possibility that some
small-scale early gold mining may go back to this period. The contemporaneity of
the South Indian Neolithic with the Early and Mature Harappan cultures may be a
reason for the extraction of gold.
2.5 SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF EARLY FOOD

PRODUCING (FARMING AND HERDING) SO-
CIETIES
A Neolithic society is a tribal society. By tribe is meant a particular stage in social
organisation as well as a particular type of society. It is not necessary that band
societies (hunting-gathering) would evolve into tribal societies.
A tribal society, in contrast to bands, comprise larger numbers (100 onwards) of

people held together by kinship relations, lineages, common ancestors and joint
ownership of and equal access to resources, by descent groups. A tribe is composed
23
Introductory of a number of clans, which in turn comprises of different lineages/descent groups.
The smallest social unit is the extended family, not the nuclear family. It enables the
pooling of labour required to take care of diversified activities typical of Neolithic
societies and to offset risks.
Socially, the tribal level of society is characterised by the importance given to

kinship relations. Essentially egalitarian, there is little social stratification. Kinship
relations not only govern most aspects of society, but also function as integrative
mechanisms. Exchanges, for example, between close kin would act as safety nets
against situations of stress and scarcity of food. Marriages between descent groups,
bringing about alliances, act as forces of cohesion. At the tribal level, different forms
(matrilateral, patrilateral, bilateral) of cross-cousin marriage (with frequent reversals
of wife-givers and wife-takers) prevent the hierarchisation of lineages.
Another integrative force at the tribal level would have been pan-tribal associations,
some of which cut across kinship ties. These would have included individuals bound
together by common features, such as age and proficiency in ritual or warfare or
healing. The fourth integrative force is that of inter-tribal warfare, where one tribe
perforce unites against another. Inter-tribal warfare is chronic in tribal societies, and
is never conclusive. Warfare in the form of raids or ambushes, aims at the capture
of booty and the prevention of encroachment into favoured areas.
These integrative forces were necessary in the absence of political institutions binding
the tribe together. Tribal leadership (Big Man) depends on personal charisma or
qualities of individuals and is not permanent. There is no real power attached to this
office; the role of a Big Man is as an advisor. Kinship relations also prevent the
misuse of the position of a big Man.
Ancestor worship as forming part of religious beliefs assumes importance in the

tribal level of society. Such beliefs involve the worship of immediate (at the family
level) and more remote (at the level of the clan) ancestors. Ancestors are considered
responsible for the well being of the members of society. Misfortunes require the
placating of ancestors at family and clan levels by sacrifices and ritual exchanges.
Certain individuals within the tribe have skills perhaps not available to all- to
communicate with the supernatural world, through a state of trance, to cure, to
divine. Such skills may or may not be hereditary. These individuals, described in
anthropology as shamans, occupy an important position in society.
The tribal level of society in a way provides the basis for most subsequent social
development that we will see in the following Units.
2.6 SUMMARY
This Unit has dealt with hunting-gathering and food-producing societies. The
archaeological evidence for a hunting-gathering society comprises of lithic tools,
indicating a simple level of social organisation. The domestication of plants and
animals was an important step, setting in motion a chain of subsequent development.
Sedentarisation and its effects, and the integration into larger units in society provide
for more varied material evidence. Social organisation is still at a fairly simple level,
dealing with egalitarian societies. In the next Unit, we will see the beginnings of
social stratification and a far more complex organisation of society.
24
Hunting-Gathering, Early
2.7 GLOSSARY Farming Society,
Pastoralism
Stratigraphy: The concept of stratigraphy rests on a basic principle of the deposition
of consequent layers, where the uppermost layers would be the most recent while
the lowermost would be the oldest. Continuity of human occupation at a place
would imply that over time building, destruction/decay, levelling, rebuilding of
structures and the discard and/or loss of objects would eventually result in a mound-
like formation.
2.8 EXERCISES
1) Rice is one of the cereals for which wild species still exist in the subcontinent.
Find out where wild varieties of rice are found. Do these areas correlate with
the evidence for rice domestication in the subcontinent? How does our knowledge
of the Neolithic Revolution help us to understand this picture?
2) Is there a Stone Age site in your vicinity? Or visit the nearest Museum to look
at the finds for the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic. If you cannot do either,
then study the report for Bagor. What kind of understanding of Palaeolithic,
Mesolithic or Neolithic societies can be obtained from such finds?
25
Introductory
UNIT 3 HARAPPAN CIVILISATION AND
OTHER CHALCOLITHIC CULTURES
Structure
3.0 Introduction
3.1 The Background
3.2 The Harappan Culture
3.3 Urbanism
3.4 State Structure
3.5 Social Structure
3.6 End of the Harappan Civilization
3.7 Other Chalcolithic Cultures
3.8 Summary
3.9 Glossary
3.10 Exercises
3.11 Suggested Readings
3.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Unit is to investigate more complex social structures than those
covered in the previous Unit. This complexity arises due to the emergence of the
state in the 3rd millennium BC. This early state is an inchoate one, incorporating
many elements of tribal societies. This Bronze Age state is also quite different from
the states of later periods, in no small measure due to the lack of commoditisation
and coined money in this period. That this period also witnessed the first experiments
in urbanism in the subcontinent adds to its complexity. These developments were
basically confined to the North-western parts of the subcontinent and one must be
aware that other socio-political structures, like band, tribal or chiefship level societies,
may have existed contemporaneously in this and other areas.
So far, we have seen incipient stages of social development, encompassing the band
and tribal levels. In this Unit, we will discuss the other two stages of development,
namely chiefdom (or chiefship) and state. Structurally, the chiefdom resembles the
tribal level with the beginnings of social stratification, a political office and redistributive
economy. On the other hand, there is a marked difference between tribal or chiefdom
and state societies. Essentially, the chief enjoys ritual power and not political or
economic control over people. In the case of a state, on the other hand, the ruler
has actual control over resources and hence political authority. In a state, kinship
no longer plays a determining role in social and economic transactions. This paves
the way for enforcing decisions, rules and so forth over social entities larger than
a kin group. In fact, there is marked social stratification, the beginnings of class
structure, an institutionalized political office and occupational differentiation. These
elements, indicative of increasing complexity, occur relatively late in human history,
that is, in the 3rd millennium BC. At the same time, we need to be aware that some
elements of tribal societies would continue into Bronze Age state societies.
In this Unit, we will be referring to Bronze Age and chalcolithic societies. The
Bronze Age, a term used by V. Gordon Childe, should be seen not merely as a
technological stage, but as one marked by a particular social form, that takes shape
26
within an urban context and has features of a state society, while the term chalcolithic Harappan Civilisation and
Other Chalcolithic
would refer to food producing societies at the tribal level of social organization. Cultures
While stone was used far more than metal for the major cutting tools in the chalcolithic,
the Bronze Age is noted for a far more regular use of copper/bronze tools. Given
that there are limitations to the forms possible in stone, the chalcolithic indicates a
more basic toolkit (where chalcolithic metal objects largely imitated stone tool
types), unlike the Bronze Age where a greater diversity in shapes and sizes of metal
tools come into use. Moreover there are several other implications involved in
bronze metallurgy. In contrast to stone, copper is not found commonly and even
more rare is tin, the major alloying material used for making bronze. This would
have necessitated regular long-distance trade networks, in turn requiring certain
institutional mechanisms.
3.1 THE BACKGROUND

The Greater Indus Valley (Baluchistan, Sind, the Punjab and parts of Rajasthan) is
the backdrop of cultural developments in the subcontinent until the 2nd millennium
BC. We have already seen early developments in this region in the previous Unit,
more specifically at the site of Mehrgarh, the Bolan Valley. There is continuous
occupation at the site from neolithic to chalcolithic, with the beginning of the settlement
going back to c.7000 BC. The chalcolithic is roughly dated from 4000 BC to 2200
BC but Mehrgarh has no Harappan occupation.
The period, roughly from 3300-2600 BC, is marked by what are called Early
Harappan or Early Indus cultures, the Amri-Nal, Kot Diji, Sothi-Siswal and Damb
Saddat cultures. Essentially differentiated on the basis of ceramics, there is some
spatial overlap between these cultures (See Figure 1).
What is relevant is that most of the areas of the Greater Indus Valley are settled
in this period. Wheat, barely, cattle, sheep and goat formed the major subsistence
base. House building methods also show some continuity from this period in to the
Mature Harappan period ( c.2600-1900 BC). Archaeologists like M.R. Mughal
have pointed out similarities between the Early and Mature Harappan in ceramic
shapes and designs, artifacts like terracotta toy-cart frames and wheels, cakes and
cones.
The continuing elements have led archaeologists like B. Allchin, R. Allchin and J.M.
Kenoyer to consider the Early Harappan as a stage of incipient urbanism, one that
is formative in the development of the Harappan civilization. On the other hand,
G.L. Possehl, J. Shaffer and D.L. Lichtenstein consider the Early Harappan to be
pre-urban leading to a short (100-150 years) transitional period, culminating in the
Harappan civilization. S. Ratnagar, however, points out the discontinuities. For one,
only about one fifth of the Early Harappan / Early Indus Settlements continue to be
occupied in the Harappan period. Moreover one-fifth of the Early Harappan / Early
Indus settlements continue to be occupied in the Harappan period. Moreover, the
size range of Harappan sites contrasts with that for the earlier cultures: in the case
of the Harappan, site sizes range from less than 1 ha to 125 ha (some considering
the latter figure to be more than 200 ha). For the earlier period, the range is from
less than 1 ha to 30 ha. She also sees the difference between the two cultures in
terms of social organization, where large fortified Early Indus settlements like Rahman
Dheri, in Dera Ismail Khan District in the western plains of the Indus, may have
been the locus of a chiefship. In contrast, the Harappan is seen in terms of an early
state, which will be discussed below: 27
Introductory
3.2 THE HARAPPAN CULTURE
The Harappan culture (also termed as the Indus Valley Civilization and the Mature
Harappan) covers a large geographic area, comprising of Sind, the Makran, the
Punjab, Northern Rajasthan, Kutch and parts of Kathiawad with some outlying
sites such as Shortughai in northeast Afghanistan and Manda in Jammu & Kashmir
(See Figure 2).
The Harappan culture is a proto-historic culture, where writing (limited to seals and
other inscribed material) was known but there are no lengthy texts. Thus, for most
interpretation of society and economy, we are dependent on the material record.
The question is, what in the material record would enable us to recognise a Harappan
site? Sites are classified as Harappan on the basis of the recovery of the following
types of artifacts. Thick red pottery decorated with black paintings, square steatite
seals with a boss, chert cubical weights adhering to a certain standard, burnt bricks
with dimensions of a particular ratio (4:2:1), terracotta toy-cart frames and wheels,
triangular terracotta cakes, steatite micro-beads, long cylindrical carnelian beads,
etched carnelian beads with particular treatment of the surface and designs, long
chert blades and so on. It is not the presence of one or two of these artefact-types,
but the co-occurrence of a number of them, that comprises an archaeological
assemblage, representing most spheres of human activity. Moreover, these artefact-
types should come from a limited, defined and continuous geographical area and
period of time and would comprise an archaeological culture. For example, etched
carnelian beads with different designs can be found in the Iron Age (from 1000 BC)
in Karnataka. That does not mean that those sites are Harappan. The Karnataka
sites would belong to a different archaeological culture. Similarly, just finding a single
artefact-type, like long chert blades, in a site belonging to the same period will not
qualify the site to be called Harappan. To take a concrete example, beads of typical
Harappan type found carefully kept in a pot in a chalcolithic site in Madhya Pradesh,
Kayatha, would not mean that the site was Harappan. The entire material assemblage,
apart form the beads, was chalcolithic in nature. Thus, the find of those beads
would probably represent a hard, secreted away, indicating some interaction with
the Harappan society. Moreover, finding an artefact with some vague resemblance
to a Harappan artefact in shape or material in a distance area like eastern India
would not mean the extension of the Harappan culture to that region. This is
because there should be some rigour in recognizing artefact-types. Artefact-types
should comprise of multiple attributes (and not just a single one) such as shape, size,
material, colour, context and so forth.
Thus, in the Harappan case, we find the distribution of a somewhat uniform material
assemblage over a large geographic area and period of time. In fact, early
archaeologists, such as Stuart Piggott, considered Harappan products as standardized
and uniform. However, with more excavations and research, regional variations
have been delineated. Yet, one cannot deny that certain artefact-types do have a
wide distribution. We need to go into the implications of such a distribution. There
is a strong likelihood that we may be dealing with a state(s) in the Harappan period,
a discussion that we will go into later in this Unit.
To go back to an earlier point, we had mentioned that in the Harappan period, there
is a greater size range for sites, in contrast to the Early Indus period. So there are
some very large sites such as Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Rakhigarhi, Ganweriwala
and Dholavira. Second, the Harappan culture is marked also by a profusion of
28
crafts in scale and range. This expansion of non-subsistence production is a Harappan Civilisation and
Other Chalcolithic
differentiating feature of the Harappan civilization from preceding and subsequent Cultures
periods. This can be explained by the fact that the Harappan civilization provides
the earliest evidence of urbanism in the subcontinet.
3.3 URBANISM
To qute Shereen Ranagar, “a city is a node where population chooses to concentrate,
to create a settlement larger and more dense than most other contemporary
settlements, not in order to make food production more efficient, but because of an
engagement in non-subsistence activities such as crafts or trade, administration or
ritual services”.
Let us take the example of a small rural settlement. According to geographers, like
M. Chisholm, an area of land (upto a distance of 4 km) round a settlement would
be used for locating agricultural fields. Areas further away would be used for other
purposes such as pasture lands, forests and for other requirements, as it would be
disadvantageous to locate fields more than an hour’s walking distance away from
the settlement. This agricultural land would provide livelihood for the inhabitants of
the village. If land for fields were available only further away, one would find
fissioning of the village, with the ‘hiving-off’ or ‘budding-off’ of daughter settlements.
In a nucleated settlement (a city/town) on the other hand, that amount of agricultural
land that can conveniently be cultivated is unlikely to suffice for the entire population.
Hence, there is a greater significance in the engagement of non-subsistence activities.
Why is there a need for population to nucleate? There could be ritual or political
reasons, in an area being a ritual or political centre, or for defence purposes or to
make non-agricultural production and transactions more efficient. In the case of the
latter, let us contrast again a rural settlement from an urban one. In a rural landscape,
each settlement may have a single potter or some may have no potter. Each potter
would work in isolation, procuring his own raw materials, like clay, fuel and so
forth, building his own facilities, and distributing his own products in the village and
to nearby villages. In the case of nucleated settlement on the other hand, potters
could cooperate to procure raw materials, share facilities like the kiln and distribution
networks. Moreover, the larger consuming population would provide for expansion
in production and perhaps enable a greater tendency for specialization.
Socially an urban situation provides for residence within the settlement as being
more significant than kinship relations. due to nucleation of population, dealings
within the city are more likely to be between strangers, unlike in a rural settlement.
This would make way for changes in social structures and for the existence of a
state.
Mohenjodaro and Harappa are clearly the two largest Harappan settlements. We
will take the case of Mohenjodaro to illustrate a Bronze Age city. Mohenjodaro is
divided into two sections, a higher and a smaller western section termed
the Citadel and a lower and larger area to its east called the Lower Town
(See Figure 3). These two sections are clearly spatially separated and may have
been individually walled. Most large seemingly special purpose (non-residential)
structures locate on the Citadel (such as the storage facility, the Great Bath), though
some large structures occur in the Lower Town too. This may indicate the special
nature of the Citadel as well as a possible attempt to segregate its functions and
inhabitants from the rest of the city. 29
Introductory Social heterogeneity can be inferred from the lack of uniformity in house types and
sizes. Within the Lower Town, large and small houses occur together. Material
culture too indicates differences in consumption. For example, a long (upto 12 cm)
bead in carnelian ( a favoured red coloured stone) appears to have been rare and
copied in clay. Mohenjodaro also gives evidence for metallurgy, shell working, bead
making and the production of seals and weights. These crafts are not practiced in
every household, and many among them clearly required complex skills and facilities.
By and large scholars concur that there is an integral connection between urbanism
and state societies. A state need not have urban centres, but the opposite does not
generally hold true while the existence of urban centres generally necessitates a state
structure, though here again there can be exceptions.
3.4 STATE STRUCTURE

To ascertain the existence of a state, one would have to look for markers of control
over various spheres of society. Control could be over territory, in the form of
mobilization of surplus and labour, and in the provisions of infrastructure for
administration, exchange and production.
By using the term surplus we mean that part of the produce that is extracted by a
social centre/authority and which is used by the social centre/elite for various purposes,
such as for their own maintenance, for maintaining social relations, for the support
of specialists and for promoting community enterprises.
Archaeologists have interpreted large storage facilities at Mohenjodaro and Harappa

as granaries that would indicate that surplus was collected at least at these two
centres. However, these structures need not necessarily have been used for
manufactured goods and raw materials. While in a more developed state system,
surplus mobilization termed as tax or rent would have existed (there is enough
written evidence for later states like the Mauryan Empire), the Harappan situation
is more ambiguous. There is a distinct possibility that the mobilization of labour may
have been preferred mode of maintaining control. There are various indications of
the control of labour. Urban settlements such as Mohenjodaro and Harappa have
a fairly elaborate drainage system that would have required supervised construction
and regular maintenance. The same would have been in the case of roads and
streets. Similarly, storage facilities too would have required personnel for loading
and unloading purposes. Various construction activities at the larger centres particularly
the firing of millions of bricks would have envisaged the mobilization of labour. The
work of craft specialists, the setting up of craft centres, some at remote distances
(such as Shortughai) and the obtaining of raw materials perhaps through
specially set-up expeditions may have been other ways of controlling production
and exchange.
There is a certain amount of debate over the issue whether there was a single state
or several in the Harappan period (W.F. Fairservis and J. Shaffer, in contrast,
visualize the Harappan situation as a chiefdom.) S.P. Gupta, B.B. Lal and J.M.
Kenoyer prefer to think of several city-states in the Greater Indus Valley in the 3rd
millennium BC, with Mohenjodaro at the centre of one, Harappa of another, and
similarly with Rakhigarhi, Dholavira, Ganweriwala and so forth. This conception
largely rests on a backward projection of the recorded evidence of city-states in
the Early Historic period, and on what they perceive as the appearance of autonomy
and a distinct regional identity for the large urban centre of the Harappan civilization.
30
On the other hand, J. Jacobson and S. Ratnagar have argued for the case of a Harappan Civilisation and
Other Chalcolithic
single state. this rests on a more or less common material culture over a large Cultures
geographic area, the provision of a uniform system of recording (the script) and
mensuration (the weights), the provision of infrastructure such as a common metal
and stone took kit, the lack of regional clusters in animal symbols on steatite seals,
the common appearance of the unicorn symbol on seals, the establishment of
settlements at specific loci for particular purposes (like craft centres or for the
procurement of raw materials) and the unevenness of large urban centres distributed
over the map (Harappa, Rakhigarhi and Ganweriwala all clusters in the eastern part
of the Harappan region).
Also significant is that we are dealing with a non-market economy and an absence
of coinage, with an early state that would have vestiges of a tribal and chiefdom
society. Aspects of a developed state system, such as a bureaucracy and a standing
army, are markedly absent. In the following section, we will investigate the social
structure that may have prevailed in the Harappan period.
3.5 SOCIAL STRUCTURE

While in chiefdom societies, kinship determined social and economic relations, in
state societies on the other hand, extra-kin relations have to be worked out. Political
purposes could be served and the incorporation of communities could be achieved
through mechanisms such as gift-giving, marriage alliances, patron-client relationships.
Thus, in an urban situation, solidarity is not dependent on kinship but on
interdependence and a common residence pattern. Yet, we cannot dismiss the
continuance of kin groupings in society as is clear from Bronze Age Mesopotamia
and China. Joint ownership of resources may have continued and the mobilization
of labour too may have been on kin lines. Thus what is clear is that there would
have been considerable social heterogeneity, particularly if population nucleated to
form urban centres. Archaeologically, social heterogeneity can be distinguished in
various ways.
In the first place, the fact that some Harappan settlements shown a separation
between a Citadel and Lower Town (See Figures 3 and 4) may indicate not only
functionally different areas within a settlement but also perhaps a degree of social
segregation. Plans for Mohenjodaro in turn indicate a diversity of house
forms and sizes. Variation in sizes may not necessarily indicate economic differences
but could reflect household or family units. The Mohenjodaro house (See Figure 5)
very often centred on a courtyard that was not immediately accessible from the
entrance. This ensured the privacy of the courtyard and the inner rooms. It is,
however, not quite clear whether a socially heterogeneous population necessitated
such privacy.
As mentioned earlier, there is enough evidence to show that there was occupational
differentiation in society. At the same time, we need to note that certain skills,
particularly in craft, may have been promoted but these need not have meant full-
time occupations. We need not presume that specialists would not have engaged in
subsistence-procurement activities.
Diversity of types and materials of artifacts may indicate differences in consumption

patterns: spindle whorls of terracotta or faience, vessels of terracotta or bronze,
bangles and beads of clay, stone, bone, shell, faience, metal and so forth. At the
31
Introductory same time, it should be pointed out that there is no simple correlation between, say
size of residence and seemingly wealth objects.
Practices of disposal of the dead largely comprise of burials though there may have
been other methods less archaeologically identifiable. Even within burials, one finds
some amount of variation: there is evidence of extended burials, burials in urns or
large pots, in coffins and burials may also have been secondary or symbolic.
Interestingly, Harappan burials show little evidence of social hierarchies, unlike
Mospotamian, Egyptian or Chinese Bronze Age burials, where some internents may
indicate considerable wealth. Moreover, Harappan burials were confined to cemeteries
located away from habitations. It is not yet if these cemeteries were limited to
particular social groups.
Inference of Harappan religion and belief remain conjectural due to our reliance on
material evidence alone. Artefacts like terracotta female figurines (Figure 6) termed
as Mother Goddesses, have been found at major urban centres like Mohenjodaro.
Pits with evidence of burning, sometimes associated with animal bones, were found
from Kalibangan and Lothal and have been interpreted as fire altars. An image, on
a seal and tokens, of a seated male in yogic posture was considered as a proto-
Siva (Figure 7). This same figure has more recently been interpreted as evidence
of shamanistic beliefs prevailing in the Harappan culture. Ritual practices may be
depicted through certain motifs on steatite seals, such as the narrative scenes. The
Mohenjodaro Great Bath, itself, has been considered as the locus of a public/royal
ritual.
What is important is that religious beliefs or practices may not have been
homogeneous for the Harappan civilization as a whole. If there was a fire cult, it
was limited to a few centres. Mother Goddess figurines, for example, are not found
in Kutch. Public rituals involving immersion in water may have been confined to
Mohenjodaro. Neither can we eliminate the possibility of cults involving vegetation,
nature or animals in certain areas.
Seals (see Figure 8) as class of objects, perhaps functioned as identity markers,

indicating dealings with strangers or provided proof of authenticity. These steatite
objects are provided with a pierced boss (protrusion) at the back through which
string was probably threaded, enabling it to be perhaps worn. The front of the seal
is generally engraved with a motif usually of an animal (or sometimes narrative
scenes or vegetation motifs or of a seated human) along with signs of the Harappan
script. While the unicorn- a mythical creature - is the most popular, none of the seal
motifs concentrate regionally.
Seals are also significant because of their inscriptions. This earliest evidence of
writing in the subcontinent has larger implications, of literacy in the society. The fact
that seals, used for exchange purposes, were inscribed does not necessarily mean
that literacy was widespread. It is quite likely that the knowledge of writing may
have been limited to few individuals.
The Bronze Age is considered to be an expanding political economy primarily due

to the need for materials of restricted occurrence such as copper and even more
so tin. Moreover, large urban centres in the Harappan civilization indicate the use
of a wide range of raw materials. Both these indicate wide interaction spheres in
the 3rd millennium BC, in other words, relations with the outside world. This could
be with areas on the periphery such as chalcolithic settlements in the copper-rich
32
parts of Rajasthan (Ganeshwar-Jodhpura), or with settlements in Baluchistan, termed Harappan Civilisation and
Other Chalcolithic
as Kulli culture sites. Farther away are Neolithic settlements in South Kashmir Cultures
(Burzahom, for example). Interactions with regions much farther away (Mesopotamia,
Oman, Bahrain) are known through Mesopotamian written records as well as
archaeological material. These interactions would have been of varied nature; we
know through ethnographical and historical accounts that interactions need not all
be subsumed under trade alone. Hence, some interactions may have come under
the form of expeditions to obtain raw materials, or political embassies to further
diplomatic links. It is also clear that the state may have provided for the movement
of people, in the establishment of settlements such as Shortughai, near the lapis lazuli
mines in Afghanistan, and craft centres such as Chanhudaro in Sind and Lothal in
Gujarat. These interactions, epitomizing open expanding structures may have
had other implications such as bilingualism or multilingualism.
There is thus in the Harappan period a dramatic transformation in society. Centred

on the city, this change reflects a considerable social heterogeneity. And yet there
is cohesiveness and this may have been achieved through a common general code
of rules and regulations that is imposed from above. One may think of this as a
Great Tradition subsuming multiple Little Traditions. In a way this solidarity or
cohesion appears to have been transitory, because with the disintegration of the
Harappan state, the social structure reverts back to a tribal form. Perhaps this
indicates that kin groupings in society would have retained their importance even in
an urban situation with new social institutions.
3.6 END OF THE HARAPPN CIVILIZATION

Roughly around 1900 BC, there is a visible change in the material record. First,
numerous Harappan settlements in the core areas of the Greater Indus Vlley (Sind,
Punjab and the Hakra Valley) are abandoned. For example, from Mughal’s survey
in the Hakra Valley, it appears that out of 83 Harappan habitation sites, only one
continued to be occupied and 27 new settlements were established in the later
period. Moreover, the material culture also undergoes a change: a far smaller, and
that too more locally exploited, range of raw materials appears to have been utilized
and diversity of types of artifacts also decrease. Characteristic Harappan artefacts
that we listed above seem to disappear: cubical weights, long carnelian beads,
etched carnelian beads, square steatite seals and so forth. These changes have been
seen as ‘decline’ or the ‘end’ of the Harappan civilization. Various explanations have
been offered for the above ranging from natural calamities (like floods), climatic
change, environmental degradation, Aryan invasion and due to inherent weaknesses
in the socio-political structure.
Leaving aside the Aryan invasion, a theory that has long age been discarded, most
prevailing ideas of environmental degradation or climatic change as responsible for
the end of the Harappan civilization cannot be found to apply to the entire area
covered by the Harappan culture. For example, the drying up of the Ghaggar/Hakra
river resulted in the desertion of sites in the Cholistan Desert, but that would not
have been a factor for the abandonment or desertion of sties in other areas.
It is clear that around 1900 BC, the Harappan state was collapsing or going through
a crisis. This perhaps led to widespread desertion of sites (both rural and urban)
in the core areas and considerable migrations of people to outlying areas, such as
Kathiawad and eastern Punjab. We should not assume that all aspects of life
33
Introductory associated with the Harappan came to an end. Those aspects related to the state
and urban living do disappear, but others, connected with basic subsistence practices
or technologies seem to continue. Those social institutions that may have been
created to forge ties between non-kin within urban settlements and between distant
settlements appears not to have taken root. With the end of the Harappan state,
these social institutions too collapse, resulting in a reversal to tribal institutions, that
we note in the following period. This we will deal with in the next section.
3.7 OTHER CHALCOLITIC CULTURES

Following the Harappan period, we find the Greater Indus Valley occupied
by several regions chalcolithic cultures, such as the Cemetery H and Jhukar cultures
(See Figure 9). In outlying areas, to the East and South (the Punjab and Kathiawad),
we find material elements reappearing that had been there prior to the Harappan
and continued contemporaneously with it. These cultures are largely distinguished
on the basis of ceramics while other artifacts indicate the use of local raw materials
and a limited range of types. The diversity of crafts visible in the Harappan is no
longer present. Materially, there are a few new elements appearing: seals or amulets
as Jhukar (differing from the Harappan in shape, material and possibly function),
paintings on Cemetery H pottery, terracotta headrests at Jhukar, and so forth.
These cultures comprise small rural settlements with houses of mud.
Outside the Indus Valley and Gujarat, there are other chalcolithic cultures occurring
in various parts of the subcontinent. These are partly contemporary with the Harappan
culture at the earliest and continue into later periods. These include the Banas/Ahar
culture in eastern Rajasthan, an area known for copper deposits (with a major site,
Ahar, giving evidence for copper smelting). Further to the east, in Malwa, we come
across other chalcolithic cultures termed as the Malwa Culture, followed by the
Jorwe Culture. However, Jorwe culture predominantly occurs in the northern part
of the Deccan Plateau (see Figure 9). Again, pottery is a feature differentiating
cultures form each other.
Most of these chalcolithic cultures appear to have had tribal social structures with
the capacity to develop into chiefdoms. One clear case of the latter an be given of
Inamgaon, a Jorwe Culture site that may have developed into the seat of a chiefship.
A chiefdom level of organization refers to tribes with one or more status groups:
chiefs (sometimes with a graded hierarchy) and commoners. Often, chiefly positions
are hereditary. To quote M.D. Sahlins, “power resides in the (chiefly) office, in an
organized acquiescence to chiefly privileges and organized means of upholding
them. Included is a specific control over the goods and services of the underlying
population. The people owe in advance their labour and their products. And with
these funds of power, the chief indulges in grandiose gestures of generosity ranging
from personal aid to massive support of collective ceremonial or economic enterprise”.
What could have been ways to archaeologically detect the presence of chiefships?
These could be through the analysis of mortuary remains, settlement size hierarchies,
structural remains and some organization of production. In the context of mortuary
remains, one would look for the size of funerary monuments, the presence of wealth
objects within graves as well as children’s burial of valuables, themselves rare in
chalcolithic contexts, would mean their being taken out of circulation. Also, infants
being buried with such objects would indicate an ascriptive, rather than achieved,
status.
34
Settlement size hierarchies would rest on the understanding that certain settlements Harappan Civilisation and
Other Chalcolithic
at the top of the hierarchy would be those where differently graded chiefs would Cultures
reside. (The hierarchy of chiefs essentially depends on proximity to the common
ancestor, with the senior-most descendent at the top of the hierarchy). At the
bottom of the hierarchy may be numerous small settlements clustering around the
seats of chiefships. The latter would be relatively larger in size because they would
attract followers and loyal kinsmen. Structural remains within seats of chiefships
may indicate differing social statuses. For example, a chief’s house would tend to
be larger in size than the others due to the need to entertain visitors. There would
also be storage facilities attached to the house of chiefs, attesting to the significant
redistributive role of chiefs. The chief is seen as a ritual leader, and is therefore
offered tribute by their kinsmen and followers, which is termed as “first fruits”.
Much of this tribute goes back to the community through gift-giving or as aid in
times of stress or for community works and inherently shows the non-appropriative
role of chiefs. Essentially, this aspect of chiefships is necessary because of close kin
relations.
Organization of production, clearly witnessed through ethnographic accounts, in the

case of crafts is through sponsorship of certain skilled individuals for the manufacture
of prestige goods. These individuals may be supported by part of the tribute collected
by the chief. These skilled individuals may be supported by part of the tribute
collected by the chief. These skilled individuals are not specialists in that they only
work at crafts, but more in the context of skill. Prestige goods would often be
displayed on ceremonial occasions to show the prestige of the chiefs and at times
may also be given as gifts to other elites. There is another category of objects that
function as primitive valuables. The main difference between prestige goods and
primitive valuables would be that the latter can be used in more generalized exchanges,
such as payment for death compensation, or war or alliances, or payment for the
labour of craftsmen, or marriage payments and could be used to obtain a variety
of subsistence goods. In contrast, prestige goods cannot be exchanged for subsistence
goods but may move in their own separate sphere of exchange.
We will now take up the particular case of Inamgaon. M.K. Dhavalikar considered
the site as representative of a chiefship centre on the basis of the analysis of burials
and structural remains. Situated on the Ghod river in the Bhima Valley of Maharashtra,
this site of about 5 ha was occupied from 1600-1700 BC. Its earliest occupation
was the Malwa phase (1600-1400 BC) followed by the Early Jorwe 91400-1000
BC) and finally the Late Jorwe phase (1000-700 BC).
As far as structural remains are concerned, a large multi-roomed (5 rooms) house

contrasted with the other single-roomed houses in the Early Jorwe period. This
large structure (see Figure 10) was in the central part of the settlement and next to
it was identified a granary with pit silos and round mud platforms. Two large fire-
pits were found in the granary. In the courtyard of this house was also found a four-
legged clay jar, enclosing a skeleton of an adult male sitting cross-legged with feet
intact. This latter feature has been contrasted with other burials at Inamgaon, where
bodies were buried without feet. A four-legged jar found in a slightly earlier level
is considered to represent a symbolic burial as it contains no human skeleton. There
was only an animal bone and the jar was covered with a knobbed lid. Close to this
large structure has been found another burial comprising of two clay jars fitting into
one another. Enclosed within the jars was the skeleton of a two-year old girl child
with a necklace of alternating jasper and copper beads (Figure 11). The latter may
provide an instance of ascribed or inherited status. 35
Introductory A possible irrigation channel (118 m long, 3.50m deep and 4 m wide) with an
embankment of stone rubble (2-4 m wide, 240 m long) was apparently constructed
in the Early Jorwe period. This evidence may indicate a community project involving
some amount of labour mobilisation by the chief.
In the Late Jorwe phase, mostly round huts were uncovered while a four-roomed
rectangular structure was found in the eastern margin of the settlement. This structure
enclosed a double burial (one man, one woman), with intact feet, under the floor
of one of the rooms. Dhavalikar proposed that the chiefship passed into a different
family in this late phase due to the shift in location.
At a more general level, it may be pointed out that chiefships are inherently unstable
polities. Rather than expanding and developing into a more elaborate structure,
there is a greater tendency for chiefships to fission. The role of kinship as an
enabling and a limiting factor to the power of chiefs essentially differentiates that
social formation from a state. Thus, for a state society to develop, a new set of
social institutions (overriding kin relations) needs to be set in place.
3.8 SUMMARY
In this Unit, we have attempted to analyse the possible form of the Harappan
Bronze Age state. the role of the elite appears to have been of major significance
in this early state, for obtaining non-local materials such as copper and tin that were
required for the making of bronze, for supervising craft activities as well as subsistence
production. It is also apparent that the collapse of the state, due to a combination
of factors, marked a major disrupture. The changes in social structure that must
have formed a part of urbanism were clearly transitory. Kin networks would have
been maintained despite the nucleation of populations into the major urban centres.
The strength of these kin relations is indicated by the fact that the collapse of the
state sees a reversal to tribal/chiefship societies.
3.9 GLOSSARY
Archaelogical culture: Contemporary assemblages that come from a limited, defined
and continuous geographic area and period of time. Artefact-types in assemblages
should indicate most spheres of activity. The archaeological culture that we call
Harappan is comprised of the assemblages from Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Kalibangan,
Lothal, Chanhudaro, Rakhigarhi, Dholavira and so forth.
Artefacts: Humanly produced objects retrieved during excavations. Classified on
the basis of attributes that characterize the nature of the object. Attributes can be
shape, size, colour, raw material, design, context and so forth.
Artefact-types: Artefacts are seen more in terms of artefact-types or categories/
groups for purposes of classification. Attributes help us to differentiate between
artefact-types. Etched carnelian beads would be an example of an artefact-type.
Assemblage: A collection of contemporary artefact-types. For example, the
assemblage of Mohenjodaro would comprise etched carnelian beads, chert blades,
black painted red pottery, steatite seals, steatite micro-beads, chert weight and so
forth.
Context: Of immense significance in archaeology, artifacts retrieved in excavation
can have meaning only if found within a context. The exact locus of an artefact must
be recorded in relation to its surroundings.
36
Redistributive economy: An economy where the movement of goods and materials Harappan Civilisation and
Other Chalcolithic
takes place to and from a socio-political centre. Intrinsic to chiefships and state Cultures
societies, such mobilization is used to fund elite activities.
Wealth Objects: Artefacts that are a measure of wealth, often personal in that they
may be retained and not gifted.
3.10 EXERCISES
1) Discuss the social structure in the Harappan period. After the disintegration of
the state, why did post Harappan societies revert back to tribal forms?
2) Using archaeological evidence, how may we distinguish between tribal and

state societies?
3.11 SUGGESTED READINGS

Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation, OUP,
Karachi 2005
Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Archeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower
& Middle Ganga, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2001
Himanshu Prabha Ray and Carla M Sinopoli (ed.), Archeology as History in
Early South Asia, Aryan Books, New Delhi 2004
Mortimer Wheeler, Archaeology from the Earth, Munshiram Manoharlal,
New Delhi; 2004
Dilip K Chakrabarti, Archaeology in the Third World: A History of Archaeology
since 1947, D.K. Printworld, New Delhi, 2003.
Agrawal and J.S. Kharakwal, Bronze and Iron Ages in South Asia, Aryan,
New Delhi., 2003
Upinder Singh, The Discovery of Ancient India: Early Archaeologists and the
Beginnings of Archaeology, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2004
Dilip K. Chakrabarti, India: An Archaeological History: Paleolithic Beginnings
to Early Historic Foundations, OUP, New Delhi; 2001
Gregory L. Possehl, The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective,
Vistaar Pub., New Delhi, 2003
Dilip K Chakrabarti, Indus Civilization Sites in India: New Discoveries, Marg
Pub., Mumbai 2004
K. Padayya, Recent Studies in Indian Archaeology, Munshiram Manoharlal,
New Delhi, 2002
Shereen Ratnagar, Trading Encounters: From the Euphrates to the Indus in the
Bronze Age, OUP, New Delhi, 2004
Bridget Allchin and Raymond Allchin, The Rise of Civilization in India and
Pakistan (1982)
D. P. Agrawal, The Archaeology of India (1982)
37

Block 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indira Gandhi

National Open University

Programme Coordinator Prof. A.R. Khan

Material Production Secretarial Assistance

Colonialism also created an expansion of scale and different opportunities which

So in each period the specific nature of societies is analysed to build a picture.

Similarity of monuments excavated in India and abroad establish a relations

These included Marxism of various kinds, schools of interdisciplinary research such

1.3 THE ANCIENT SOCIETY: ANTHROPOLOGI-

A common ancestor means that members are believed to be related by blood. An

1.4 NATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

1.5 TEXTUAL SOURCES

Marginalised: Groups, communities pushed to the edges of a society due to a one

2) Why is interpretation important? Discuss in the light of the explanation offered

3) Write a short note on reading archaeology.

4) Discuss the text of Rig-veda as a source.

5) What constitutes a source for the study of history?

Human history comprises a mere fraction of geological history. The geological

2.1 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR

2.2 SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF HUNTING-GATH-

According to Elman Service and Marshall D Sahlins hunting-gathering societies are

2.3 MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC CONTINUUM AND

By domestication we mean the process by which humans create a new form of

Archaeologically, settled societies do indicate some growth of population. One of

2.4 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR

The evidence of domesticated species may represent the importance of herding in

2.5 SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF EARLY FOOD

A tribal society, in contrast to bands, comprise larger numbers (100 onwards) of

Socially, the tribal level of society is characterised by the importance given to

Ancestor worship as forming part of religious beliefs assumes importance in the

3.1 THE BACKGROUND

3.4 STATE STRUCTURE

Archaeologists have interpreted large storage facilities at Mohenjodaro and Harappa

3.5 SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Diversity of types and materials of artifacts may indicate differences in consumption

Seals (see Figure 8) as class of objects, perhaps functioned as identity markers,

The Bronze Age is considered to be an expanding political economy primarily due

There is thus in the Harappan period a dramatic transformation in society. Centred

3.6 END OF THE HARAPPN CIVILIZATION

3.7 OTHER CHALCOLITIC CULTURES

Organization of production, clearly witnessed through ethnographic accounts, in the

As far as structural remains are concerned, a large multi-roomed (5 rooms) house

2) Using archaeological evidence, how may we distinguish between tribal and

3.11 SUGGESTED READINGS

You might also like