History Essay - Harappan Civilization
Was Harappan Civilisation in the Indus Valley a state-level society like contemporary Mesopotamia and Egypt?
“It is time to view the archaeological data for what it is and not what one thinks it is”
* Shaffer 1982
The above statement by Shaffer summarises my view that although there is a possibility of Harappan Civilization (3rd millennium BC) in the Indus Valley being a state-level society, like contemporary Mesopotamia and Egypt, the lack of concrete written and archaeological evidence hinders our ability to decisively label it as one. Features that set states apart include territorial organization, monopoly of force, differentiation by class and occupation rather than kinship, authority to mobilize resources and personnel, and legal jurisdiction. Although the Indus civilization “independently developed a writing system”, the Indus script remains undeciphered thus significantly impeding our ability to assess whether or not the features of the Harappan Civilization mirrored those of Egypt, Mesopotamia or other state-level societies. The lack of written and physical evidence has limited our ability to learn of the centralized political systems, social stratification, military conflicts and religion which may or may not have existed within Harappan civilization.
A centralized governing system and administration of the state is a prominent feature of political organization, of which state is a form. The archaic state is a political form, which has a strong emphasis on centralized leadership or kingship. The undeciphered Indus script and the absence of palaces or grand buildings indicating the presence or important status of heads of government is in great contrast to Egypt and Mesopotamia and adds to the ambiguity of Harappan civilization as a state. It may be so that the Harappan political system was not centered on a single person like the pharaohs in Egypt, however without proper evidence no conclusions can be drawn in the matter. Fairservis
“It is time to view the archaeological data for what it is and not what one thinks it is”
* Shaffer 1982
The above statement by Shaffer summarises my view that although there is a possibility of Harappan Civilization (3rd millennium BC) in the Indus Valley being a state-level society, like contemporary Mesopotamia and Egypt, the lack of concrete written and archaeological evidence hinders our ability to decisively label it as one. Features that set states apart include territorial organization, monopoly of force, differentiation by class and occupation rather than kinship, authority to mobilize resources and personnel, and legal jurisdiction. Although the Indus civilization “independently developed a writing system”, the Indus script remains undeciphered thus significantly impeding our ability to assess whether or not the features of the Harappan Civilization mirrored those of Egypt, Mesopotamia or other state-level societies. The lack of written and physical evidence has limited our ability to learn of the centralized political systems, social stratification, military conflicts and religion which may or may not have existed within Harappan civilization.
A centralized governing system and administration of the state is a prominent feature of political organization, of which state is a form. The archaic state is a political form, which has a strong emphasis on centralized leadership or kingship. The undeciphered Indus script and the absence of palaces or grand buildings indicating the presence or important status of heads of government is in great contrast to Egypt and Mesopotamia and adds to the ambiguity of Harappan civilization as a state. It may be so that the Harappan political system was not centered on a single person like the pharaohs in Egypt, however without proper evidence no conclusions can be drawn in the matter. Fairservis