Slow Read Book Club: Chapter 8 (Part 4) of The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow
The egalitarian Indus Valley: another case of scale without authority
On the other side of the Zagros mountain ranges lie the Indus Valley, a river system that flows from the Himalayan mountains and empties out into the Indian Ocean.
Just like Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley birthed several complex settlements that also followed the river. The five largest urban centres are Harappa, Rakhigarhi, Ganweriwala, Mohenjo-Daro, and Dolavira with sizes greater than 30 hectares in archaeological terms. However, the extent of the settlements actually ranged from the Afghan mountains like Shortugai located in one of the headland tributaries of the Indus River, the Oxus River; as far west as Sutkagen Dor; and southeast all the way in Lothal, near the Gulf of Khambat in the Gujarat Province.
Re-Defining Egalitarianism
In their book, Graeber and Wengrow not only mentioned the large settlements but included the smaller towns as the basis for their argument that egalitarianism seems to be the default form of human governance regardless of size. The simplest definition of egalitarianism that we have been using since the early post is the lack of control or authority over one person over another. We have been using this since the early posts about egalitarianism in smaller groups from the Paleolithic to Neolithic sites and groups.
Since our last post, we need to revisit how we understand the term as people aggregate in larger and more stable urbanised settlements. In our previous post on Mesopotamia, Graeber and Wengrow defined egalitarianism by the democracy-styled urban evidence. This includes the presence of public assembly halls and open access design that encourages collective action. For instance, collective cooperation in maintaining food storage at the temple, for instance. Meanwhile, settlements like Uruk had a robust trading and writing system that was exported to other settlements near and far. Nowhere is there a record in cuneiform or in public buildings to indicate any autocratic monarch at Uruk until its conquest by invaders. However, there was evidence of social differentiation by inference. For instance, wealthy merchants, or slowly evolving elite formations with larger residences constructed near the temple.
If we stick to the early period of 3,300 BC, it seems egalitarianism still existed despite a centralised bureaucracy. In Mesopotamia, one of the ways this was implemented was through a complex belief and symbolic system surrounding a temple system. That is, we do not know how labour was procured for temple work, but for sure, people contributed time to maintain food production, storage, and ritual redistribution. To a certain extent, egalitarianism here meant not social equality per se, but a lack of evidence of coercive control over another. This is clearly distinguished from external actors who were from warrior societies who were cultural opposites.
In the same time frame of 3,000 BC in the Indus Valley, we see a similar but slightly different form of egalitarianism evolve. A century of studies conducted among the Indus Valley settlements seems to be preoccupied with evolutionary development frameworks such as from cities to statehood. Indus Valley became an important test case because it had cities but no evidence of an autocratic or monarchic leader of any sort. None in public buildings or burials or laws. They tried, but none so far.
So here we are, thinking once again of urban settlements operating without a key distinguishing leader or monarch of some sort. It’s Bronze Age Mesopotamia once again. Writing, metallurgy, trade, bureaucracy, standardised weights, and measures define both Indus Valley and Mesopotamia.
What we have now is a kind of egalitarianism that adapts to large population numbers (anywhere from hundreds to thousands), centralised bureaucracy, organised religion, social rank hierarchy, wealth difference, and extensive trading with outsiders. Adam Green (2021) in his assessment of egalitarianism in the Indus Valley argues for egalitarianism except he postulates that there must still be a corporate group that would have shared access to a common property or control access despite not having clear archaeological proof.
Can we really live in large numbers without the invisible hand of a leader with authority? It’s hard, Green would answer. This is where he diverges with Graeber and Wengrow. The latter would vehemently disagree. Despite the social changes, they both will argue for an individual’s preference of freedom above all types of governance arrangements.
Timeline
The archaeological data in the region is defined by three timelines:
Early Harappan Phase (3,300 - 2,600 BC) - constitutes the increasing occupation of smaller communities around Harappa, Ganeriwala, and Mohenjo-Daro; this period also included the development of standardised weights and measures
Mature Harappan Phase (2,600 BC - 1,900 BC) - significant drying that allowed for plant cultivation intensification building Mohenjo Daro and Harappa into two of the largest urban settlement in the region; the Indus script was developed during this phase and standardisation extended into art, utilitarian items, architecture, and exporting the cities’ habits and styles elsewhere; trade reached its peak with import of luxury raw goods from elsewhere into the cities; there was a formation of other villages settlements surrounding the area
Late Harappan Phase (1,900 - 1,300 BC) - a cycle of abandonment and emigration occurred attributed most likely to changes in environment such as the sustained drying of the water in the area; the cities lost its size and bureaucratic organisation
Unlike the warrior conquests that characterised the decline of egalitarian Mesopotamia, it appears that the drying pattern along the river system drove people out of the urban centres.
Harappa
The ancient site of Harappa is located near the Ravi River and spread out over 150 hectares with three high mounds and several low mounds around the plain. It dates between 2,600 -1,900 BC. The artefacts found here was found in other areas leading researchers to dub it the Harappan culture.
Like Mohenjo-Daro, the construction was made of baked brick with city facilities for sewage and rainwater removal. The culture is defined by standardised weights system possible for trading or taxation but with limited evidence for external trade.
With no translation to the Indus writing system, it is difficult to ascertain any specific economic or political system in Harappa. However, there is little evidence of military aggression or war except for massive stone walls possibly for defense. Unfortunately, much of the city has been lost or eroded due to the reuse of the old bricks and pressures to expand the modern city and roads.
Mohenjo-Daro
The site is currently located in the Pakistan province of Sindh and dates to about 2,600 BC. It is characterised by the Upper Citadel: the Great Bath, Great Granary, and College Square. In the Lower Citadel in the residential area sits the Pillared Hall.
The Great Bath measures 26.7 x 18.9 m but precisely at 14 x 10 D unit. It has 10 columns along the length and 7 columns along the width. It has a depth of 2.4 meters with staircases on both ends. It is made water tight due to fine brick construction sealed with gypsum plaster.
Unlike what we have seen in Mesopotamia, Mohenjo-Daro has a large pool, maybe open to the public, which emphasises bodily cleanliness and purification as one significant city identifier, whether culturally or in a religious context. This is emphasised with a clear design for sewage and toilet facilities as part of the city design.
The Pillared Hall in the Lower Citadel measures 23 x 27 m and has four rows of five pillars each. It is open on all sides and has a high ceiling. It has paved brick walks and walls plastered with gypsum that would have brightened the brick space. It has no benches but only a large enclosed space enough for a large assembly to deliberate.
Depopulation
By the late 1,900 BC to the 1,300 BC there was a gradual exodus in these two cities due to the environmental changes with the region becoming drier. It seems the smaller villages were more resilient compared to the larger settlements to sustain food production. Disintegration or movement remains an important adaptive reaction to environmental changes. During this post-urban phase burials show increased disease such as tuberculosis, leprosy, anemia and other metabolic disorders.
Round-Up: Scale Without Authority
It is remarkable to find another region like Mesopotamia and Anatolia that is relatively highly urbanised and functioned without any clear sign of an autocratic and monarchic system. I believe that the symbolic and cultural system is key to run a place like this. What are its components?
bodily purification linked to sanitation and cleanliness on the everyday and on special occassions
public assemblies and groups for “public goods” and services such as sanitation and roads and water
standardised units of measure and writing helps to unite and make rules transparent and fair for a greater number of people
Our question now has shifted from whether this is evidence for egalitarianism to how does egalitarianism exist alongside other hierarchical features of urban life. For instance, there would be social differentiation in terms of housing, goods, and other material goods but this apparently was not enough that any individual could accumulate so much to reflect in the burial records. If egalitarianism can exist in scale and in centralised bureaucracies, what is its relationship with urban design and bureaucratic governance? So far, religious or symbolic features work well to symbiotically work with standardised systems and bureaucratic governance. In the next post, we shall be looking at early Chinese sites and see if it could be our third case of egalitarian governance.