22 Protohistory of India and Pakistan IV: Trade and Urbanism during the Indus Civilization

V.N. Prabhakar

 Introduction

The Indus Valley Civilization (c. 2600 – 1900 BCE) was discovered during the 1920s and was first excavated by John Marshall. When the excavated materials from Harappa and Mohenjo Daro were compared with other known sites in Mesopatiamia similarities in material culture between these two regions were observed. Subsequently Marshall announced its discovery in the Illustrated London News. It was widely accepted that Indus Civilization represented an urban culture and ranked among the four Bronze Age Civilizations, viz., Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Chinese. Without the aid of absolute dating techniques, an internal chronology was developed for Harappa and Mohenjo Daro based on the comparable material from both these sites.

Following Independence of both Pakistan and India a large number of protohistoric sites were excavated both in India and Pakistan, which enabled tracing the long and continuous history of the development of the civilization. Excavations at Mehergarh, Nausharo, Pirak and Sibri revealed evidence for a gradual development from Neolithic to Early Historic over a period of 7000 years. Rafique Mughal through his excavations at Kot Diji also demonstrated the continuity from the preceding Chalcolithic culture to mature phases of Harappan culture, and coined a new terminology to this culture as ‘Early Harappan’. The more recent excavations at Harappa by Harappa Archaeological Research Project (HARP) and at Dholavira by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) have further helped in understanding the development of urbanism in the Greater Indus Valley. Dholavira, located on an island named Khadir in Great Rann of Kachchh, represents an example of well-planned Harappan city with remarkable geometrical precision between various divisions of the city. From being a small settlement during the Early Harappan phase it developed into a full blown city spreading over an area of 70 ha. Similarly, recent excavations at Harappa has helped trace the origin of this site to >3700 BCE belonging to the Hakra phase of Early Harappan period. The foundations of the city were laid during the succeeding Kot Dijian phase when the urban forms slowly emerge indicated by the communication networs that facilitated procurement of raw materials from distant sources. Randall Law provenance studies have clearly demonstrated how the inhabitants of Harappa procured raw material from nearby sources for grinding stones, steatite, chert and others located to its north. However, during the Mature Harappan phase, the inhabitants ventured to far off places to procure raw materials in order to meet the needs of an urban sophisticated elite. They also participated in the long distance trade network prevailing within the Harappan Civilization, by procuring raw materials available to the north of their settlement and supplying them to other urban settlements like Mohenjo Daro, Ganweriwala, Rakhigarhi and Dholavira.

More and more urban features appear during the Mature Harappa phase when compared to Early Harappan phase at most of the settlements. These features include extensive restructuring of the layout of the city by adding the fortifications all around the settlements in addition to the already existing ones. Further, this phase is also marked by a few massive platforms of mud-brick which also served as foundations for other structures. Large streets and drains also appear during this urban phase to facilitate proper movement of vehicles inside the city and to drain out the unwanted refuse outside the city. Other markers include seals, sealings, inscribed objects, standardised weighing system, development of various craft activities like pottery, lapidary, pyrotechnological innovations aiding copper metallurgy and alloying, shell, faience, and others.

An internal reorganisation is also witnessed at bigger site like Harappa, which witnesses a temporary disorganisation and lull in activities, which was later overcome by proper planning, rebuilding of essential features like gateways, new fortifications, drainage system, to name a few.

The urban forms tend to break down around 1900 BCE at bigger settlements like Harappa, Mohenjo Daro and Dholavira leading to abandonment of a few sites. A few sites like Harappa and Dholavira continue to flourish, although without the urban features which marked the preceding Harappa phase. Several reasons are attributed to the fall of urban features, viz., change in climatic conditions, drying up of River Sarasvati, fall in trade mechanism, just to name a few.

Trade is an important and crucial factor during the Mature Harappan phase and its preceding phases. A slow and steady increase in trade activities, again the roots of which can be traced back to Neolithic phases at Mehrgarh during which the local inhabitants traded for shell coming from the Karachi and Oman coast and for other semi-precious stones like turquoise. The raw material accessibility of settlements in different regions could have played a major role in consolidating the overall requirements of the civilization to integrate. This mechanism could not only have consolidated the interregional trade network but also facilitated trade with faraway places like Mesopotamia, Oman, Central Asia.

In this module, we will discuss on the various trade mechanisms which prevailed during the Indus Civilization and to understand them in a holistic view to understand the urbanism.

2. Objectives

The objectives of this module will be to introduce the nature of cultural contacts during the preceding phases of Mature Harappan culture, its development and amalgamation during urban phase of the civilization and its dissipation during Late Harappan phase.

The evidence related to the trade mechanisms from the various excavations will also be considered to understand them. Further, components of interregional trade will be taken up one by one followed by the evidence presented by long distance trade with Oman and Mesopotamia. The inscriptional evidence from the Mesopotamian region will be of immense use in understanding this long distance trade.

The objective of this module consists of understanding two aspects of Indus trade, viz., (1) interregional trade and (2) external trade.

3. Components of Trade Mechanism

How can we evaluate cultural contacts between two different regions? What kind of evidences and material remains can be considered for such evaluation? These are only a few questions to understand the complex interregional and long distance trade of past cultures in the absence of written records. We are not fortunate enough like the Mesopotamian or Egyptian civilizations wherein a plethora of written records document the contacts, political support, mechanism, taxes collection and overall administration and state control over the trade. In the absence of such explicit written records, we are forced to look into all remains of material culture from the excavations and evaluate them in terms of their properties, availability, i provenance and other factors in order to understand the trade mechanism.

3.1 Development of Trade from Neolithic Mehrgarh to Harappa

The roots and traits of long distance trade, are evident in Neolithic context at Mehrgarh, located on the banks of River Bolan, in the Kachi Plains of of Baluchistan, Pakistan. The archaeozoological and archaeobotanical investigations from the Neolithic levels of Mehrgarh demonstrate how the early settlers transformed their economy from a dependence on wild plants and animals to domestication. The earliest plants to be domesticated are wheat and barley, while humped bull (Bos indicus), sheep and goat were among the animals. This marked a remarkable phase in human history, as production of food that is available throughout the year enabled the sustenance and growth of urban centres. The growth of crops at a single place also necessitated the early humans to settle down, instead of moving from place to place for gathering food. This also enabled the development of several crafts and arts among the population whom can be sustained through surplus in food production. The sustained food production aided with support of craftsmen and artisans enabled development of technologies, the ceramic technology being the earliest, in which Mehrgarh passed from Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) to Pottery Neolithic (PN). This is followed by other complex technologies, which led to contacts and trade networks with other cultures from widely supported regions.

The cultural contacts with other regions is demonstrated at the Neolithic levels of Mehrgarh (c. 6500 BCE) by the presence of ornaments like beads and pendants prepared from exotic and rare materials like lapis lazuli, turquoise, steatite, carnelian, banded agate, marine shell and locally available limestone. The presence of large conch shell of Turbinella pyrum in the burials clearly indicates the trade of such varieties. The nearest source of such varieties of shell comes from 500 km to the south of Mehrgarh. Further, pendants made from mother of pearl, have their sources even from more distant sources along the coast of Oman. Scholars like Jarrige, Kenoyer argue that the presence of such exotic raw materials in the earliest levels at Mehrgarh is clear indication of the existence of long distance trade network. Kenoyer also emphasises that as shell was not available locally, the inhabitants at Mehrgarh could have procured finished products from distant places, wherein other cultural inhabitants were producing prestige goods for trading across. This laid the foundation for the increase in trade networks during succeeding Chalcolithic phases. The introduction of newer raw materials, invention of pyrotechnological processes gradually led to generating surplus and consequent growth of complex societies.

The evidence for a gradual growth in trade between distant regions is seen from Harappa. A detailed provenance study of raw materials from Hakra phase to Kot Dijian to Mature Harappan phase at the site of Harappa by Randall Law demonstrates how the dependency for raw materials from distant regions was felt and developed. While only eleven types of raw materials were exploited during Kot Dijian phase at Harappa, the succeeding Harappan phase saw a dramatic increase to forty-one types of raw materials, some coming from very far away places. This is a clear indication of discovery of newer raw material sources for satisfying the ever increase needs of an approaching urban phase of Indus Civilization.

The Chalcolithic phase cultures of Balakot, Amri, Kot Diji, have their close association with that of Mehrgarh and hence a gradual integration was being witnessed. Similar integration was happening in other regions represented by cultures such as Sothi-Siswal, Anarta and others. Each region during the Chalcolithic phase was unique and self-sustaining. They might have had access to the locally occurring raw materials and gained control through various mechanisms. These raw materials were traded among themselves and in case of interregional demands from other city centres, a supply network could have been invented for the sustenance and growth of their culture. The control of trade networks led to development of social and cultural organisations of the society and related rituals. Kenoyer emphasises that a set of prominent individuals among the communities of different regions understood the necessity of initial integration under a city government. Thus, they could be the earliest administrators for governing the settlements, its maintenance and to implement basic governing guidelines for carrying out various social obligations. Kenoyer also emphasises that these early rulers or administrators, in association with property owners and merchants created the urban centres, which were housed by traders, agriculturists, artisans, religious leaders, and administrators. This set of administrative setups along with necessity and dependence of raw materials, which were not available locally, could have necessitated the individual city centres to amalgamate and form a homogenous setup. However, even though the setup was homogenous, different urban centres were independent of each other by maintaining their identity and regional cultures, and sharing only important factors responsible for the integration.

3.2 Development of Communication and Transport Networks

An important aspect in the development trade networks between distant communities is the mode of communication and transport networks. Kenoyer identifies the following four major spheres of interaction and exchange:

    1)   the southern Indus plain and adjacent western highlands

2)   the islands of Kachchh, Saurashtra and mainland Gujarat

3)   the northern Indus and Saraswati river valleys

4)   the highland valleys of Baluchistan and Afghanistan

The above interaction spheres are also reminiscent of exclusive zones wherein specific raw materials were available. The recent study by Randall Law clearly demonstrates this fact and also helps in identifying in most of them, their exploitation and transport to the site of Harappa. The analysis of raw materials and finished products from Harappa with relation to sources for various periods, viz., Ravi, Kot Diji, Harappa and Transitional/Late Harappa phases, clearly shows the increasing and diminishing dependence on resources.

The above regions were connected by both inland and river transport networks. We will be discussing them below.

3.2.1 Inland Transport Networks

The inland transport networks are the most crucial aspect of any communication and transport of goods of whatsoever nature from one place to another. Without the aid of this network, trade mechanism would not have flourished and hence relied upon heavily. This network consists of the following:

I.  Oxen driven carriages for comparatively longer distances, and mostly in the plains from one city to another; village hinterlands to cities

The advent of wheel during the Neolithic period pronounced a major shift in technology. Soon the human could have understood the importance of wheel and transformed it into a potential tool for transportation. However, until the urban phase of Harappan civilization, better representations of wheeled transport are not available. Several terracotta toy carts have been unearthed from all parts of the Harappan civilization so far, and they represent distinct styles of construction varying from one region to another. Kenoyer identifies at least five different styles of carts, which he relates to different ethnic and cultural groups, a parallel of which is observed even in Pakistan today. This is also true in case of India, wherein the style, design and decoration of carts vary from region to region. The carts of Gujarat are distinct from those of Rajasthan, Haryana or Punjab. Carts being the most important transport system during the third millennium BCE, each region would have competed with others to create distinct styles. Further, these carriage systems were also catering to the oxen of their region. While open carts are more suitable for transporting goods and materials, closed or partially covered ones carry human and perishable goods in a safe environment.

Examples of hollow and solid framed terracotta toy carts from several Harappan sites are a clear indication of the popularity of oxen driven carriage systems. Both these types have holes on either side for placing protective frames. Kenoyer estimates a wheel span of 1.6 m for some of the carts at Harappa as indicated by the rut marks on the streets within the city. These types of carts could have been for effective transportation of goods, raw materials, essential commodities, food grains, and heavy materials from region to region, hamlet to hamlet. The use of oxcarts are even seen in many parts of India for transportation, even though in a modified format with the use of bearings, use of metals for frames, axle, pins, rubber tyres for wheels, and other facilities. However, during the Harappan Civilization, wood was the chief material for fashioning all parts of the cart, which use of leather, rugs and carpets for decoration.

II.Pack animals such as oxen, sheep and goat mostly for transportation from hilly region to the plains

Wherever wheeled transport was not feasible, pack animal mode was the most effective one. This might be the case during Harappan period onwards as we notice interaction and exchange of raw materials between different regions and terrains. The Harappans were trading between the plains of the Indus and its tributaries to hilly Baluchistan and northern Pakistan regions. As the rugged mountain terrain could not host wheeled traffic, pack animals enabled to manoeuvre in a better manner. The presence of a good number of terracotta figurines and animal bones from the excavated sites are clear indication of their wide exploitation.

III.  Oxen driven carriages, porters and pack animals for transporting goods within the city limits

The oxcarts and pack animals were of equally importance, once the commodities were to be transported to different parts of bigger cites like Harappa, Mohenjo Daro or Dholavira. This is substantiated by the presence of rut marks from the Early Harappan phase onwards at Harappan on a street, which was in continuous use up to the Mature Harappan phase. The wide streets of Mohenjo Daro often with widths ranging from 9.3 to 9.7 m were effective to take several vehicles abreast at a time. Similarly, pack animals and porters are the effective mode of transport within a city, where carts cannot reach. The crooked lanes and bye-lanes of Mohenjo Daro indicate this possibility.

3.2.2 River Transport Networks

The major Harappan settlements, be it larger cities or towns and villages are located on the banks of one major river or another. This settlement pattern is due to various reasons of habitation as well as effective communication through the rivers wherever possible with the aid of boats. The river transport was much cheaper and less tedious while travelling downstream and could have been a preferred mode of transport for longer distances. An example of transportation of goods to far away distances from their original source probably through the river may be worth mentioning here. The limestone pillar members, found at Dholavira could have found their way to Mohenjo Daro (~ 435 km aerial distance) and Harappa (~800 km aerial distance) through river transport network only.

So far, no evidence of actual boat remains has been found from any Harappan city. However, depictions of boats on seal and moulded tablet are a testimony for river transport. One such depiction of a riverboat is found on an unfired steatite seal from Mohenjo Daro. Another similar depiction is found on a three-sided terracotta tablet from Mohenjo Daro on which an eight-lettered inscription, crocodile holding a fish in its mouth and a boat are shown. Kenoyer describes these boats having cabins, with ladders to the roof and a high-seated platform at the stern, for operating the rudder, which is almost similar to the modern riverboats on the Indus in Pakistan. The presence of clay model of boat, from Harappa also substantiates this mode of transport.

Another interesting model of a boat could be the ‘cow-boat’ described by Massimo Vidale, from an unknown source, even though datable to third millennium BCE. The front portion of this ‘boat’ resembles a cow, while the rear has a protective cover, under which is found a seated woman, on a raised platform over a throne. The intermediate portion of the ‘boat’ houses rows of standing human figures. This ‘ cow- boat’ also has a flat base as it is in the case of other depictions on seals, moulds and clay models. This is also same in the case of modern Indus boats, which are more suitable for movement in the slow waters of Indus and easy to be moored on the shore.

3.2.3 Sea Transport Networks

A sea boat or vessel should be essentially different from that of riverboat, having a pointed bow and keel to withstand the pressures of the sea waves, and fitted with sails to take advantage of currents. Only one depiction of a high-powered model of a sailboat is reported from Lothal, which indicates sea voyage. The excavation at Lothal also brought to light a dockyard towards the east of settlement and adjacent to a warehouse. This warehouse also yielded around 90 sealings at a single place. The excavator of Lothal interprets that the nearby river was channelled to fill this dockyard, through which the sailboats also came inside during high tide. Further, the presence of Persian Gulf type seal from Lothal also indicates outside contacts. The most crucial evidence, however, comes from the cuneiform texts of Akkadians who mention the ships of Meluhhans (identified with Harappans) were tied in the quay of Sargon of Akkad. The other cuneiform records also record a host of items coming from Harappan region, which could not have reached without the aid of sea vessels. The details of the trade between Harappans and Mesopotamians are dealt elsewhere separately.

Interregional Trade

We have seen above various modes of transport systems being used. The interaction between different cultures and resource areas enabled the Harappans to expand their knowledge about the raw materials and exotic products that could be transported to the urban centres for conversion into various artistic materials and objects of utilitarian purposes. A survey of the raw material sources clearly indicates a pattern and restricted to certain regions. Thus, a regional domination could also be possible in controlling the raw material sources and gaining an upper hand in trading such items of specific needs for other communities. The studies by Randall Law have enabled to shortlist a number of raw material sources which are enlisted below:

The above table is a broad based one based on the findings so far from various sites. However, as pointed out by scholars, the provenance of various raw materials is revised continuously and the findings are only a pointer to the long distance trade network, which the Harappans had established during third millennium BCE. Agate -carnelian from Gujarat sources reaching Harappa and copper from Omani sources reaching the Indus valley are clear indicators of this long distance trade networks. Copper, was particularly smelted near the ore sources and traded as ingots of various sizes to the cities. These ingots were subsequently melted to produce different objects based on the requirements. The presence of copper ingots from sites like Lothal, Dholavira, Harappa, indicate this possibility. Scholars like Kenoyer interpret that as the necessary raw materials are available from several sources and not restricted to a single locality or region, this could have stimulated competition and economic growth.

The provenance studies on various raw materials are carried out based on several analytical scientific techniques, which help in arriving at broad conclusions. For example, lead, silver and copper can be analysed using lead isotope measurements using sophisticated equipment like Inductively Couple Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS).

Influential merchant communities in agreement with the administrators could have facilitated the movement of raw materials and finished products within the Greater Indus Region . The probable state control and by merchants are understood by looking into the seals and sealing found from various sites. The seals of Indus civilization are also distinct from other contemporary cultures, consisting of a square steatite material carved with an animal motif and a short inscription. The short inscriptions were understandable in all Indus cities as indicated by its wide occurrence. Scholars also agree that the totemic symbol, the animal on seals represented a particular clan or official or merchant and also additional qualities associated with the animal. Ten different animals are found frequently, which may indicate so many different groups engaged in trade and control of movement of commodities. They are unicorn, humped bull, elephant, rhino, water buffalo, short-horned humpless bull, goat, antelope, crocodile and hare. Among them, unicorn is the most frequently occurring one on seals.

The seal impressions marked on wet clay becomes the sealing and form an important document in trade transactions. Once the commodity was properly packed and sealed, the seal impression is made as a mark of supervising or authorising authority, only to be broken after its delivery. Once the clay packing with sealing was broken, it looses its value and discarded, which are found in excavations. The studies on clay sealings by Dennys Frenez found from Lothal have helped in understanding different kinds of lock mechanisms and objects.

Seals also served as authorisation for certain sophisticated manufacture of products for elite use. Evidence in this regard was found on a canister used for the manufacture of stoneware bangles at Mohenjo Daro. A sealing impression over the lid of canister clearly suggests the manufacture monitored by a controlling clan or guild.

5.External Trade

The contacts that Harappans had with Mesopotamia were ascertained as early as 1924 when Sir John Marshall announced the discovery of Indus Civilisation. The publication of a number of Harappan seals and other objects from Harappa and Mohenjo Daro paved the way to the identification of similar finds from sites in Mesopotamia and Susa, thus establishing a link between these two great civilizations. Some of the earliest finds that were compared with Harappan antiquities came from Kish and included a unicorn seal with Harappan signs, long barrel cylindrical beads of carnelian and etched carnelian beads. These findings also helped in placing the hitherto unknown Indus Civilisation in a proper chronological horizon. The subsequent excavation at Chanhudaro by Mackay brought to light a large number of unfinished carnelian beads known to us as long barrel cylindrical beads.

This was an important piece of discovery, which proved beyond doubt that similar finds from Mesopotamia were actually manufactured in the Indus valley and exported by the Harappans. This was further strengthened by studies carried out by Kenoyer, who used bead impressions from Mesopotamia studied under Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), which revealed a drilling technique unique to Harappans. Harappan Civilization is also identified with “Meluhha” of the cuneiform records of Mesopotamia. The mention of “Meluhha” is made for the first time in the cuneiform inscriptions of Early Dynastic Period of mid third millennium BCE. A reference by Sargon of Agade (2334-2279 BCE) mentions the ships of Meluhha, Magan and Dilmun were coming up to Akkad (Agade):

  “the ships from Meluhha,

the ships from Magan,

the ships from Dilmun,

He made tie-up alongside quay of Akkad.”

The scholars identify Dilmun with the Island of Bahrain and the near shores of the Arabian Peninsula; Magan with Oman, and perhaps part of the Iranian coast around the Straits of Hormuz and Meluhha with Greater Indus Region. G.L. Possehl has compiled 76 references to Meluhha and the items of trade, which prominently mentions Meluhha as a region located beyond Magan. The following is the list of cuneiform citations to items of import from Meluhha during the Early Dynastic Period (ca. 2500 BCE) to Isin – Larsa Period (ca. 1900-1800 BCE):

The contacts Harappans established with the Mesopotamian world are further strengthened by the presence of Harappan pottery, seal, ornaments like ivory comb, etched carnelian beads, segmented silver beads, etc., from sites in Oman. The most important find is tat of Ras-al-Jinz in the Oman peninsula, where typical Harappan pottery was found along with a four-letter Harappan graffitti on one black -slipped jar sherd. The black-slipped jars are among the Harappan pottery found in Oman, apart from cooking vessels, and other pottery types.

Among the items exported from the Indus Valley, the important ones are long barrel cylindrical beads and etched carnelian beads. The long barrel cylindrical beads are well defined by Possehl as “long and slender, in excess of 5 cm, sometimes with a slight thickening at the centre”. The long barrel cylindrical beads were manufactured in a variety of materials; the most beautiful is of carnelian and banded agate, the latter after heat treatment, attained the typical reddish orange colour of carnelian. The other materials in which these kinds of beads were made include that of jasper, terracotta, etc. Mackay states that, “some no less than 4.85 long and made of the finest translucent carnelian that it was possible to obtain” were found from Mohenjo Daro and it was a favourite item worn by the people of Harappa culture. Initially, the long barrel cylindrical beads were reported from Harappa, Mohenjo Daro and Chanhudaro. The subsequent excavations conducted at a host of sites like Dholavira, Banawali, Kalibangan, Surkotada, Baror (all in India) and Allahdino (in Pakistan) have brought to light these kinds of beads in various materials.

The manufacturing techniques of these beads have been understood extensively from the unfinished, chipped and unperforated beads and also through the comparative study of contemporary bead making from Khambhat and Sindh. The long and slender drill bits from many sites like Dholavira suggest the drilling mechanism of these beads. Subsequent researches extensively documented the various stages involved in the procurement, sorting, heat treatment, chipping, polishing, drilling, and final treatment of similar beads from Khambhat.

The long barrel cylindrical beads are reported from sites like Ur, Kish from the Mesopotamia and from Susa, Jalalabad, Marlik from Iran. Possehl gives a complete list of references to Meluhha that is identified with Indus region, which also includes eight citations directly mentioning carnelian from Meluhha. Out of these citations, one clearly speaks of pure or bright Meluhhan carnelian, which indicates that there should have been different grades of carnelian coming from Meluhha. The typical reddish orange with brilliant translucence and occurs rarely in nature could have been referred to as pure Meluhhan carnelian by the Mesopotamians.

The studies conducted on the contemporary manufacture of beads also indicate that agate was heated to achieve the typical reddish orange colour during the production stages. This also indicates that there was a high demand for the reddish orange variety of carnelian with translucence and this demand is reflected in the production of such beads in the archaeological record of Harappan culture. Several such agate beads could be noticed with the typical colour of carnelian, thereby reflecting the efforts made by the Harappans to meet the market demand. This demand could be both internal as well as external. That the carnelian was in high demand is indicated by the number of citations so far discovered in the Mesopotamian record, carnelian stands only next to references to wooden materials coming from Meluhha. These citations do not mention the exact finished product and broadly speaks of carnelian only.

The long barrel cylindrical beads were also popular among the people of the Indus Civilization. This is indicated by the presence of what could be seen as imitations in terracotta of these original beads, evidences coming from Harappa, Mohenjo Daro Banawali, Dholavira, and Surkotada. Evidence for a bright red slip on terracotta beads also indicates the effort to match with original beads. The beads from Banawali are also of terracotta but they could be termed as biconical or barrel shaped ones, even though it seems that, they could be imitations of long barrel cylindrical beads. Imitations of this bead type in faience are also common in many urban centres like Harappa, Mohenjo Daro and Dholavira.

The discovery of long barrel cylindrical beads from some of the sites in Mesopotamia and Iran attests their popularity in these regions as well. The references in the Akkadian records to the ships of Meluhha tied up in the quay of Akkad shows that the Harappans had their reach directly in this region. Further, the cylindrical seal depicting a Meluhhan interpreter of Sargon of Akkad substantiates the possibility of Harappan traders and intermediaries in the Mesopotamian region to further their trade related activities. The necessity of an interpreter may be for multiple purposes. The role of interpreter is felt if delegations or important dignitaries visit a foreign land with a new language and culture. Hence, there is a strong possibility that Harappan settlements, or group of Harappan merchants were actually present in Mesopotamia. They could have carried along with them large quantity of native pottery and products apart from the trade items.

Another important discovery is from Mari (Tell Hariri), Syria which brought to light a hoard in which Harappan artefacts were found. The earliest occupation at Mari dates to the beginning of the third millennium BC and continued until its destruction at the hands of Hammurabi of Babylon in 1761 BCE. Sargon of Agade (Akkad) is also known to have destroyed Mari during his conquests in mid-2400 BCE.

The excavations at Mari brought to light a hoard in 1965, termed as ‘treasure jar’ under the courtyard of a temple belonging to the pre-Sargonic palace. The antiquities were found in a pottery jar containing 52 objects.

The hoard consists of a large number of carnelian beads, some bicones in shape and others of the typical long-barrel cylindrical ones. The long-barrel cylindrical beads from this hoard are undoubtedly of Harappan origin and shape and confirm to those found from many Harappan sites. These kinds of beads, along with the etched carnelian beads are the hallmarks of Harappan culture. Another find from Mari is a small pot of typical Reserved Slip Ware, a type having its origin in Kachchh region. Reserved Slip Ware is also reported from Tell Brak, Hama, Ur, Susa, Nippur.

This is reflected by the findings of typical Harappan pottery from sites in Oman. If typical Harappan pottery could be found at sites in Oman, and, if Harappan trade items and seals are found from sites in Mesopotamia and Iran, there is every possibility to find evidences related to Harappan settlement or colony or a temporary occupation from the sites they could have actually visited. This possibility, along with the seal depicting Meluhhan interpreter fully strengthens the possibility of the presence of a bilingual inscription from this region. It has become imperative now to sift through the enormous quantity of archaeological data that had come from the Mesopotamian sites by Harappan archaeologists to segregate the Harappan material, present if any.

The presence of Harappan seals and sealings in Mesopotamia and Elam is another convincing evidence for the trade. Unicorn seal impression from Tell Umma, pre-Akkadian square seal with script from Ur, pre-Akkadian circular Indus seal from Ur, three seals from pre-Akkadian /Akkadian levels, two having unicorn motif from Kish, are a few examples. Etched carnelian beads, another hallmark Harappan type are found from Tepe Hissar, Shah Tepe, Kalleh Nisar, Susa, Tepe Yahya, Jalalabad, Marlik in Iran; Ur, Kish, Tell Asmar, Tell Abu Salabikh, Nippur and a host of other sites in Mesopotamia; Umm an-Nar, Hili in Gulf. Segmented faience bead is another type of bead that occurs both in Indus sites (Harappa, Mohenjo Daro Chanhudaro, Rojdi and others) and Mesopotamia (Tell Brak in Syria, Kish, Tepe Hissar, gold replicas from Ur).

Shell objects manufactured from marine shells with forms typical of Harappan period are also found from Mesopotamian sits like Tell Asmar (heart-shaped shell inlays), Ur and Kish (shell ladles). The other objects of Harappan type are cubical weight (Ur), limestone tetrahedron (Tell al Ubaid), pottery figures of doves (Ur), wheeled animals (Ur and Kish) are a few worthy to mention here. Harappan cubical weights also come from Gulf sites like Ras al Qala‘a, Shimal in Oman. ‘Bun’ shaped copper ingots similar to those found from Harappan sites are reported from Susa (Iran), Ras al Qala‘a (Gulf).

Thus, it is evident from the above that a brisk trade during third millennium BCE was in place between Indus Valley and Mesopotamia. The other cultures in Oman, Bahrain, Iran were also traded with.

5.1 Objects of foreign origin from Indus sites

It may now be imperative to look into some of the objects of foreign origin which might have reached the Indus region either directly or produced in the same style by Indus artisans. Some of these may be important to mention here. Persian Gulf type seals are found from Mohenjo Daro Lothal, Chanhu-daro; Indus variety of cylinder seals are reported from Mohenjo Daro Kalinbangan, Sibri, Rakhigarhi; barrel shaped weights of Mesopotamian type from Mohenjo Daro and Harappa; toilet set of copper comprising ear scoop, piercer and tweezers, a typical Mesopotamian type found from Ur and Kish is reported from late levels at Harappa.

5.2 Review of Evidence of Mesopotamian trade

Scholars agree that the material record of Indus-Mesopotamian trade indicates that the Mesopotamian record is far better than the Indus record. More objects of Indus origin are found in Mesopotamia than the latter. The presence of Indus seals with script and pottery from sites in Oman, Mesopotamia is a clear indicator of artisans and merchants actually present there. However, no cuneiform record is reported from Indus site so far.

6.Conclusion

The above presentation of data emanating from over 90 years of research has clearly indicated the dynamism and innovation shown by the Harappans in devising methodologies of local and international trade mechanisms. The incipient needs and attraction towards exotic materials and items slowly gave way to a sophisticated and state controlled trade mechanism, which was necessary to export them. The clear variation in raw materials from different regions also helped in the economic competence and ultimately prosperity to not only the regions, but also the civilization as a whole, which helped in its sustenance for nearly 700 years. The establishment of trade contacts with Mesopotamia from as early as 2500 BCE is another indicator of enterprising nature of Harappans, and it is also clear that cultural contact even prior to this period is possible.

Web links

• http://www.harappa.com/
• http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/harappa-mohenjodaro
• http://www.harappa.com/har/indus-saraswati.html
• http://www.asi.nic.in/asi_exca_2007_dholavira.asp
• http://www.asi.nic.in/asi_exca_2007_bhirrana.asp
• http://www.asi.nic.in/asi_exca_2007_sanauli.asp
• http://www.britannica.com/topic/Indus-civilization
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opj4px4vK9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zcGLlLEbmI
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joFlQItvc7Q.

Bibliography

• Allchin, F. Raymond, ed., (1995) The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Kenoyer, J.M. (1998) Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization, Oxford
• Possehl, G.L. (2003) Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, Vistaar Publications
•  Possehl, G.L., (1979) Ancient Cities of the Indus“, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi.
• Possehl, G.L., (1999) Indus Age; The Beginnings, Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi.
• Possehl, G.L., (1996) Meluhha, in Julian Reade (ed.) The Indian Ocean in Antiquity, Kegan Paul International and The British Museum