Part 3 AIT Club mutual admiration society member, Hock indulges in suggestio falsi, suppressio veri  on isoglosses

Hindu civilizational continuum (Book review -3: Talageri's The Rigveda and the Avesta, 2008, with particular reference to critique of Hock’s ‘evidence’ of the isoglosses)

1. [After a detailed discussion of the evidence concerning the river Sarasvati, and of Witzel's 1995 papers on this point, on pages 111-112 and pages 115-121, Talageri makes the following observations:] "It is interesting to note that, in spite of the fact that Witzel’s article actually only shows that the Sarasvati of the Rigveda is identical with the Ghaggar-Hakra, other AIT scholars lap up some other spurious and self-contradictory assertions from the article as evidence for the AIT. Hock cites this very article by Witzel, which he claims is ‘ignored or denied by Hindu nationalist authors’, as ‘evidence which suggests that some of the hymns in which the river Sarasvati is invoked (or the Goddess for that matter) may go back to a period before the arrival of the aryas in India and to an area outside India, in present-day Afghanistan and eastern Iran; see Appendix A in Witzel 1995b:343 which distinguishes a ‘western’ Sarasvati (RV 2.41.6, 10.64.9) and a Sarasvati in Kurukshetra (3.24.3 and in book 7)’ (HOCK 1999b Through a glass darkly: Modern ‘racial’ interpretations vs. textual and general prehistoric evidence on arya and dasa/dasyu in Vedic Society: 164). Clearly the AIT club is an extremely closed mutual admiration society where one member’s unsubstantiated speculative assertions, howsoever absurd, become another member's clinching evidence." Talageri adds: “But, in spite of Hock’s eagerness in grabbing at the straw of Witzel’s suggestion about two different Sarasvatis in the Rigveda, the sum of Witzel’s article is that all the references to the Sarasvati in the Early Books refer only to the Sarasvati of Kurukshetra: the Ghaggar-Hakra.” (page 121).

2.[In chapter 7, Talageri first shows how the theory of a homeland situated somewhere from East Central Europe to Eastern Russia does not help at all to explain the isoglosses, but that the theory of an Indian homeland explains all the isoglosses and all the other linguistic data. In this context, Talageri writes as follows about Hock's arguments:] "But most fatal to Hock's case is the fact that the evidence of the isoglosses, as presented by him, is deliberately partial and selective: not only does Hock fail to take into account many important isoglosses linking together different branches, but he even pointedly excludes from his arrangement one crucial brahcn, Tocharian, on the plea that ‘it is difficult to find dialectical affiliation’ (HOCK 1999a:16) for it. Tocharian is important because it shares certain important isoglosses with the Anatolian (Hittite) branch and the Italic branch…In no reasonable dialectological arrangement of Indo-European dialects can these three dialects (Hittite, Tocharian and Italic) be shown to be sharing these important isoglosses with each other in contiguous areas and then ‘maintaining their relative positions to each other as they fanned out from the homeland’ to their respective earliest attested areas… So Hock simply ignores the concerned isoglosses, and excludes Tocharian from his arrangement, and crosses his fingers in the hope that no-one notices. It is therefore clear that the actual evidence of the isoglosses in fact shows quite the opposite of what Hock claims for it: it in fact shows that the Indo-European homeland simply cannot be situated in any central area (such as the area from ‘East Central Europe to Eastern Russia’) with the dialects simply ‘maintaing their relative positions to each other as they fanned from the homeland; to their respective earliest attested areas." (p.221).

Can Hock read the whole chapter (Chapter 7. The Evidence of the Isoglosses, pp. 205-307) and point out any fallacies in Talageri's criticism of his (Hock's) arguments, or in Talageri's own arguments, to show that his theory of a homeland in the area East Central Europe to Eastern Asia is more plausible and simple than Talageri's theory of a homeland in northern India?

Between the self-professed linguists, Witzel and Hock, there should be some way to make both of them read Talageri’s critique and respond, instead of being dismissive. Hock, in particular, has to answer the serious charge of deliberate exclusion of Tocharian while spinning isogloss myths.

Rigveda, Sarasvati, Avesta -- S. Kalyanaraman

Indian Proto-Historic phase: Town planning-Sculpture-Seals

V.H. Sonawane (2004)

Department of Archaeology and Ancient History
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
Vadodara-390 002

Overview:

Proto-historic period of Indian History is adequately known because of incessant efforts of several scholars in order to bridge the gulf between the pre-historic and historic cultures. The mosaic of varied Chalcolithic and subsequent early Iron-age cultures belonging to the Proto-historic phase occupied different parts of the Indian subcontinent from second half of the fourth to first half of the first millennium B.C. witnessed cultural continuity in time and space. However, the glamour of Harappa culture led to the neglect of less prosperous later cultures that immediately followed the Harappans.

Recent studies have shown that number of settlements representing Chalcolithic village farming and pastoral communities found in Baluchistan, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat formed a stable base for the emergence of Harappan urbanism, refuting the Mesopotamian inspiration for the origin of the Harappan civilization. It is one of the world’s four earliest civilizations, the other three being Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Chinese. Uptill now more than 1500 sites have been reported spreading over more than a million sq. km. an area twice the size of ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia, occupying the regions of what are now Pakistan and north-western India, almost for the 700 years from 2600 to 1900 B.C. Indus valley, like Mesopotamia, by and large, is devoid of basic raw material to meet some of their needs on its own. However, the Harappans could evolve a magnificent civilization mainly because of their expansionist nature towards resource areas situated far apart by their ability to mobilise economic potentials, as the Mesopotamians did by exploiting rich mineral resources of nearby hilly regions of Iran and Anatolia. The discovery of Harappan settlement at Shortugai in Badakashan province of northern Afghanistan for lapis lazuli (Francfort 1984), Balakot on the Somani bay in Pakistan for marine gastropods (Dales and Kenoyer 1977), Cholistan region in Bahawalpur District of Pakistan for copper (Mughal 1980), Limestone hills at Sukkur Rohri in upper Sindh region of Pakistan for flint/chert (Allchin and Allchin 1982: 196-97) and Manda in Jammu and Kashmir for Timber (Thapar 1985: 52) are some of the explicit indicators of their hunt for procuring desired raw material. The penetration of Harappans further south into Gujarat demonstrates a similar enterprising character for exploiting rich deposits of semi-precious stones and marine gastropods (Sonawane 1992). Therefore, one of the important aspects of this Civilization is its apparent mobility and proliferation over a large area consisting of a number of ecozones with diverse environmental variables and economic incentives. The enterprising Harappans thus demonstrated their skill in selecting suitable environmental niches during their multidirectional expansion. These factors and accessibility to natural resources were largely responsible for the growth, expansion and long survival of the Harappa culture. The spread of this civilization was therefore governed by areas of attraction, depending upon the availability of resources and geographical factors conducive to their cultural dynamics. These factors partly explain not only the regional diversities in the manifestation of the Harappa culture but also the innate capacity of the Harappans to mobilize different subsistence systems by integrating them into their economic structure (Sonawane 1999: 1).

Harappan civilization achieved a high degree of sophistication and formalism, yet was imbued with simplicity and utilitarianism. In terms of settlement planning, monumental buildings, impressive architecture, stamp seals, the script, weights and measures, ceramics, jewellery, implements etc. is notable among the contemporary cultures. Moreover, it is also unique for its phenomenal growth and prosperity, close cultural uniformity, mass production of crafts, complex trade mechanism, maritime trade and intercultural contacts, besides a long life and vast territory. Its elaborate trade mechanism controlled the process of procurement of raw materials, converting them into finished products and transporting them over long distances by both sea and land routes to domestic as well as international markets. All these reflects on a system which induced for surplus food production and controlled its efficient distribution to promote and sustain specialized activities by different classes of artisans and craftsmen as well as by well organized trading community. The Harappans had brisk trade relations with Mesopotamia, parts of Iran, Central Asia, Oman, Bahrain Island and Failaka. Mercantile base for its rapid growth and expansion is envisaged through the vast archaeological data. The people of this civilization did not build towering monuments, bury their riches along with their dead or fight legendry and bloody battles and yet could evolve a highly organised and stupendously sophisticated first Urban Civilization of South Asia. The Harappans thus made a spectacular civilization, which must have dazzled the contemporary world with whom they came in contact. Surprisingly still we do not know precisely what was the nature of governing authority as visionary rulers or architects behind the creation of such a fabulous civilization. However, possibility of wealthy merchants, powerful landlords or spiritual leaders cannot be ruled out considering the evidence.

However, the beginning of the second millennium B.C. witnessed gradual decline of this prosperous civilization and the Harappans could never retrieve their lost glory. This Post-Urban phase is the result of the breakdown of the urban fabric and therefore represents a stage of readjustment by an urban system to a rural setting without losing its basic ethos. Similarly, the subsequent emergence of Post-Harappan indigenous regional Chalcolithic cultures found in parts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Ganga Yamuna Doab and later Early Iron Age culture associated with the Painted Grey ware, Black and Red ware and Megalithic culture remained in shadows and stand no where in their material culture compared to the Harappans. These later proto historic cultures are regarded as poor reminders of the advanced Harappans.

Town Planning:

The emergence of towns and cities is an urban phenomenon and hence the first towns and cities were associated with the first urbanisation, which took place in the fertile valleys of the river Indus, Saraswati and their several tributaries and even in far of regions dominated by the Harappan civilization. However, these towns and cities grew out of earlier villages that had existed in the same locality during the Pre/Early Harappan period. Some of these rural Harappan settlements such as Harappa, Dholavira, Rakhigarhi, Kalibangan, Banawali, Rehman Dheri, Nausharo, Kot Diji, and several others because of their ideal locational set up were on the threshold of urbanization even before 2600 B.C. Beginning with a relatively small population, they grew in size and density to become a larger settlements of the region along the major trade routes. Population growth, strong agriculture base, developed trade and growth of specialized skilled craftsmen favoured the growth of towns and cities encompassing the entire range of the Harappan domain. These towns and cities amply fulfilled many of the criteria’s suggested by the Gordon Childe while defining urbanization (Childe 1950).
Before going into the details of Harappan town planning it is pertinent to know the nature of its settlements. More than 1500 known sites covering the Harappan realm have been classified into three categories: (1) Villages or hamlets occupying an area sometimes even less than one and maximum upto ten hectares. (2) Towns between ten to fifty hectares and (3) Cities extending in an area of more than fifty hectares. Of these, villages or hamlets are represented by maximum number of sites while metropolitan cities are just five and quite a good number of towns. Their ratio is somewhat similar to the distribution pattern of the villages, towns and city, like the formation of modern districts within a provincial state. In the vast corpus of Harappan settlements five large cities have been identified as the major urban centres or metropolis. Among these, Mohenjodaro has a spread covering an area of more than 200 hectares, Harappa occupied more than 150 hectares while Ganweriwala and Rakhigarhi are almost equal dimensions each occupying more than 80 hectares and Dholavira nearly 100 hectares. The first four are inland centres located far apart from each other approximately 400 km in a zigzag pattern that covers the Indus and Saraswati river plain. The fifth, Dholavira, is situated on a small island called Khadir in the Greater Rann of Kutch in Gujarat connecting Lothal situated further south east on one side and Balakot further north west on the other, located approximately 300 km away on the either side (Kenoyer 1998: 49, Jansen 2002: 111-112). For proper understanding of the Harappan town planning quite a good deal of archaeological data is available now through extensive excavations carried out at key sites in Pakistan such as Harappa and Mohenjodaro and in India at Banawali and Rakhigarhi in Haryana, Kalibangan in Rajasthan, Lothal, Surkotada and Dholavira in Gujarat, located in diverse environmental and geographical setting. As a result, we do find slight variations in planning of the Harappan settlements, within the known Harappan norms.

Layout of the Settlements:

A most noteworthy feature of the Harappan Civilization is its remarkable town planning unheard of elsewhere during the second half of the third millennium B.C. with a probable margin on either side. The basic layout of the settlements, whether cities or towns, consists of the citadel and the lower town except Dholavira which has a middle town besides that of citadel and lower town. The earlier concept of twin mounds, higher ones located on the west acted as the citadels and the lower towns occupying relatively less elevated area situated towards the east, is applicable only for the settlements at Harappa (Fig-1), Mohenjodaro (Fig-2) and Kalibangan (Fig-3) and hence does not represent a uniform pattern of the Harappan town planning. The evidence from Lothal (Fig-4), Surkotada (Fig-5), Dholavira (Fig-6) and Banawali (Fig-7) has shown a different settlement pattern. Precise plan of the settlement at Rakhigarhi is yet to be known in the absence of large-scale horizontal excavations covering the entire site.

Most of the Harappan cities and towns are composed of a series of walled mounds or sectors oriented in different directions. Harappa and Mohenjodaro both have rectangular mound on the west and extensive mounds to the north, south and east. The settlement at Kalibangan has confined to the two separate mounds with the citadel on the west, represented by a smaller mound and the lower city towards the east, marked by a fairly extensive mound. The former was situated over the remains of the preceding occupation to gain an eminence over the lower town, which was laid out on the natural plain towards the east, leaving a gap over 40 m. between the two. Harappa and Kalibangan have a remarkable similarity in layout. The citadels of both the places have fortifications, parallelogram on plan. Mohenjodaro also appears to have a similar layout, though flood erosions have obscured the evidence. The lower city, spread out in different mounds at Harappa as well as Mohenjodaro also appears to have separately fortified. However, there are clear indications of fortification, parallelogram in shape for the lower town at Kalibangan. In contrast, Lothal and Surkotada follow a different idiom. Here, a common periphery wall encloses both the citadel and the lower town. Roughly rectangular settlement of Lothal, with longer axis running north to south was surrounded by a massive brick wall, probably as flood protection, as the site is situated on the low-lying area of Bhogava, a tributary of Sabarmati. There is no wall separating the lower town from the acropolis; the latter is situated on the southeast, a unique location. The layout of Lothal also claims a distinction as it has provided a rectangular brick basin, interpreted as dockyard, attached with a wharf along the eastern side of the settlement. On the other hand, the rectangular fortification at Surkotada is built of mud and mud bricks having stone rubble veneer and has a partition wall separating the citadel from the residential annexe, providing an intercommunicating passage between the two, dividing the settlement into almost two equal squarish halves. The western half retains its identity as the citadel. Of all Dholavira indeed enjoys a pre-eminent position on account of its unique city planning. The city is oriented in the traditional cardinal directions, but the layout of the walls and sectors are quite different from that of other Harappan settlements. The salient components of the full-grown cityscape consisted of a bipartite citadel, middle town and lower town, all of them set within enormous fortification constructed entirely of mud bricks, running on all four sides. The citadel at Dholavira, unlike its counterparts at Harappa, Mohenjodaro and Kalibangan was laid out in the south of the city area. Like Kalibangan and Surkotada it had two conjoined subdivisions, identified as castle and bailey, located on the east and west respectively, on the top of a low hill. Both are fortified. Impregnable defences most zealously guard the former, being the most important unit, while the latter is lower in height and enclosed by comparatively less thick walls. A broad and long ground between the citadel and the middle town has been interpreted as a ceremonial ground. Further north, was located the enwalled middle town and to the east of it was founded lower town. The lower town though did not have its own fortification, was set within the general circumvallation running around the entire city. These three major built-up divisions made together an L-shaped design: the citadel and the middle town forming the shorter line from the south-north and the middle town and the lower town forming the longer stroke along the east-west axis. Besides, to the south of the castle, across the adjoining reservoir, there was raised another built-up area running along the city wall. In contrast, the Harappan town at Banawali stands apart for its unusual town planning which the Harappans accepted in bequest. Belying the accepted norms it had an apsidal citadel within a trapezoidal town, both being separately securely fortified by brick construction following the natural elevation, resulting in an unusual layout. The citadel of course, enjoyed pre-eminently vantage location within the town itself, not located separately as at Harappa, Mohenjodaro, Kalibangan or Dholavira. The situation is somewhat like that of Lothal, where the acropolis occupied a higher podium within the settlement. Here, the citadel has occupied a higher and comparatively much larger south-central area of the town in which former was embraced by the latter from the three sides, i.e., the eastern, the northern and the western. Another innovation of special significance was the provision of a V-shaped moat that runs around the outer-face of the town wall.

Thus the overall layout of the Harappan towns and cities in the form of citadel to accommodate ruling and administrative class or elites and common masses including the traders and artisans in the various sectors of the same settlement. It appears that people lived in watertight compartments like the ghettos of the medieval Europe.

Fortification:

The provision of forts is one of the most important constituent part of the Harappan town planning. Though its concept developed during the Pre/Early Harappan phase, it became more pronounced and standardized during the Mature phase with the emergence of first towns and cities, as a measure to safeguard their settlements. The massive fortification walls were in fact solid structures made of proportionately moulded mud bricks set in mud mortar. Successive courses of brick were laid in a recessed manner. As a result both the faces registered a marked taper, resulting the wall rose from a broader base to a lofty narrow top forming trapezoidal cross section and often indicating the evidence of clay plastering. However, in areas where stones are easily available i.e. at Dholavira and Surkotada, to sustain the strength of susceptible portions, both on inner and outer faces, were provided with stone facing. It seems special care was taken for the constructions of the corners, gates and bastions of the fortifications. One of the fort walls found at Harappa around mound AB, was 14m wide at the base and faced on the exterior with baked bricks. The width of the fort wall of the citadel complex at Kalibangan varies from 9 to 11 m. The basal width of the fort wall of the castle at Dholavira is 11m whereas at Banawali, the basal width of the defences of the citadel ranges from 5.4 to 7m. At Surkotada the fortification wall has a width of 7m in the citadel and 4.25 m in the residential annexe. Lothal, though relatively a small settlement covering an area of twelve hectares was protected against floods by raising a 13m thick wall of mud bricks. It was however, reinforced with baked bricks on the northern side, facing the ancient riverbed. Even some of the smaller settlements like Bagasra display more or less identical layout where square bastions were provided on the corners of the inner face instead of outer ones.

Though most scholars have assumed that the fort walls were constructed for military defence, but the absence of no sudden turns in walls and no moats (except Banawali) to lead enemies into an ambush, would have been ill suited for defence. Therefore, it appears that, they were rather created to control the flow of goods in and out of the city (Kenoyer 1998: 56). Whatever the precise function of the fort walls and gates, they demonstrate the high level of architectural skill of the Harappans.

Gates:

Though we are not sure about the precise number of gates provided in different walled sectors both at Harappa and Mohenjodaro, the evidence from Mound E at Harappa suggests that one of the gates is only 2.8 m wide, just large enough to allow one ox-cart at a time to pass into or out of the city. The top of the gate was probably covered and may have had rooms or lookout posts. The second major gateway of this mound found near the junction at Mound E and ET, is much more complex. The actual gate opening is only 2.6m wide but it has pylons and side rooms. The excavated wall around Mound AB revealed four gates, three on the western face and larger on the northern wall with a ramp leading down to a lower suburb in the north of mound F. Similarly recent studies seem to confirm that like Harappa, each major mound at Mohenjodaro was surrounded by an enormous mud brick walls with gateways at key locations (Kenoyer 1998: 55-56). The fortified citadel complex at Kalibangan consists of two almost equal but separately patterned parts, rhomboid on plan, has revealed four gates, three in the northern half and one in the southern half. In addition, the partition wall, which divides the citadel, has also a gate in the form of stairway between the two centrally located salient, connecting both the units. Three gates of the northern half (occupied by the elites) one each on the eastern, northern and western sides, are simple ones without a ramp, except a brick pavement on the edge of the eastern one, while the southern gate situated between the central salient and the southern corner tower has revealed 2.65 m wide stairway passage. Likewise, two entrances of the fortified lower town were found on the northern and western sides. Of these, the western entrance was controlled by a guardroom (Thapar 1979: 200-201). No towers or gateways were built in the peripheral wall at Lothal. However, the extent of excavated areas has revealed a slanting entrance passage to the acropolis on the southern outer wall further west of the warehouse. The situation at Surkotada is somewhat different. Being a garrison defence outpost, it has elaborate gateway complexes with guardrooms. Here, citadel as well as residential areas were provided with separate entrance, each 1.70 m wide, constructed in the middle between the corner and central bastion of the southern rampart. In addition, a 4m wide passage for intercommunication was provided in a partition wall between citadel and the residential annexe (Joshi 1990: 51-57). Likewise, at Banawali an elaborate gate complex constructed in the thickness of the outer eastern town wall was found where five major streets met with the passage of the gate on a broad piazza. It was flanked by bastions having a moat in front.

Of all the Harappan settlements, Dholavira accounts for the most imposing gateways unparallel to be seen elsewhere. In all 14 gates have been laid bare in different fortified habitational areas. The break up is: Castle 5; Bailey 2; Stadium 4; Middle town 1 and Annex 2. All the five gates of the Castle have distinct designs. Of these, eastern arm has yielded two gates while one in each remaining three walls. The south gate has a concealed passage with an ordinary doorway. The west gate, which afforded intercommunication with the Bailey, has a 9 m long and 2.2 m wide passage with a guardroom. The lowermost step of the sloping passage is in the form of Chandrashila. The east gate (Fig-8), one of the two principal ones, had a large elevated side chamber on the south and a passage way on the north. The passage was connected to a flight of 14 steps at the inner end while it was fitted with a doorsill made of large limestone slabs at the other end. Huge doors must have been provided at both the ends. At either end, on the floor of chamber, was found a set of smooth nicely cut and smoothened limestone blocks of rectangular shape. The topmost block bore two long sockets, one each on two sides, parallel to each other. Each set of the blocks served as the base for a pilaster, made of mud-concrete bricks. In the centre, between the two pilasters, was found another set of limestone blocks supporting a beautifully carved and polished pillar base having a pronounced concave profile. The top flat surface bore in the centre a 5 mm circular hole to support large sized cylindrical pillar. The north gate (Fig-9) was found to be the most majestic, most elaborately designed architectural construction, which commanded over the stadium, middle town, lower town and further beyond the picturesque landscape. In the thickness of the wall, it consisted two elevated chambers flanking a passageway, which in term was furnished at the inner end with a limestone doorsill flanked by a set of limestone blocks each bearing sockets, thereby suggesting the existence of two enormous stone columns, which might have supported the heavy door frame (Bisht 1998-99: 30-31). The discovery of pillar bases in situ at Dholavira help us to explain the numerous such stones found in the streets and dumps at Harappa and Mohenjodaro. The other gates found at Dholavira are relatively quite simple.

Streets:

Streets played a vital role in the urban planning of the Harappans. The overall layout of the Harappan settlements is distinguished by the orientation of streets according to the cardinal directions. The principal streets at best were laid out running north-south and east-west cutting at right angles forming a grid pattern dividing the settlements into square or rectangular blocks. Although at Mohenjodaro, they are not in a precise alignment and the widest streets (9 meters) appear to have run across the lower city from north to south. Excavations carried out in lower city at Kalibangan established the existence of four arterial thoroughfares, running north-south and three running east-west. While the former were found to run unimpeded, the latter did not cross the former but were staggered and possibly served as delivery or entrance lanes for certain house blocks. Again, while the former were not equally spaced, the latter were situated on an average of 70m from each other. The width of the thoroughfares and streets corresponded to the multiple of 1.8 m and range from 1.8 to 7.2 m. To avoid damage from the vehicular traffic, fender posts were provided at some street corners. The width of thoroughfares seems to have been maintained throughout the occupation, the only structural encroachments into the streets were rectangular platforms immediately outside some houses. The streets, except in the late phase, were unmetalled. The layout of the city shows that the alignment of the streets is at variance with that of the fortification walls. It seems fortifications and streets had been planned at the same time (Thapar 1979: 200-201). Similarly, streets of 4-6 m wide and narrow lanes of 2-3 m divided the principal living area at Lothal. The main street ran from north to south. At Surkotada also existed streets and lanes in between the house complexes.

At Dholavira, however, the main arterial street running east-west, connecting lower and middle town provided on either side bold projections and recesses, resulting an open space opposite to the main street. It is indeed a novel method of layout of the habitational sectors with a wide-open space hitherto unknown at other Harappan sites. Of course, one could also see major and minor streets and lanes, which cut each other at right angles for making a defined network of housing units (Bisht 1998-99: 25-26). The streets at Banawali due to typical configuration of the settlement offered a different layout. The citadel has, notwithstanding its curvatural delineation, resolved itself in a formal arrangement of streets and lanes which ran straight almost along the cardinal directions and cut each other at right angles and thereby determined a fairly rectangular form for individual housing sectors of which six units can be easily identified within the excavated area. On the other hand, the lower town, having trapezoidal plan, has exhibited a nucleated radial layout of the streets and lanes, which, in turn, demarcated a series of triangulate of acutely trapezoidal residential sectors. In this unconventional layout, there were seen certain focal points for streets, like spokes of wheel, to converge on or radiate from. They therefore, made an acute or obtuse angle at the point of bifurcation. In the lower town, one such focal point was near the east gate, where five major streets- three coming from the interior of the town and two running along the fortification wall- meet with the passage of the gate on a broad piazza. No streets showed use of vehicular traffic. The only exception was seen in the outer street near the northern apex of the citadel wall. Here, several pairs of rut marks were found cut deep into the street floor. This shows that the movement of carts was restricted to some special streets only (Bisht 1998-99: 19-20).

Houses and Buildings:

Groups of residential houses and public buildings were constructed close together and formed larger blocks that were bordered by lanes and wide streets. Most of the houses opened on the narrower streets and lanes and rarely on the main street. An average house centred around an open courtyard from which access was provided to the various rooms to meet basic requirements as modules seen in traditional Indian houses even today. Almost every house was provided with a hearth, bathroom, latrine, drain while some had their own well also. The house floors were made of either rammed earth or paved with moulded mud bricks. In quite a few houses staircases have been noticed, which tend to suggest that there may have been an upper storey, though it is equally likely that in most cases these opened up on just the roof. On an average, house walls were 70 cm thick and ceilings were probably over 3 m high. Clay models of houses show that some of the doorframes were painted and possibly carved with simple decoration and also suggest a kind of locking device. Windows were reported to have normally formed by lattice brickwork. Besides the common type of houses, barrack like quarters, arranged in two parallel back to back north-south rows, separated by a narrow passage were evident from the HR area of Mohenjodaro. Here, each quarter had two rooms, one at the back and the other in the front. These barracks are reminiscent of more or less similar quarters at Harappa. There were also large houses surrounded by smaller units served as one single residential complex. The outer units may have been the houses of relatives or service groups attached to the main house. While large public buildings may have been associated with specific administrative or religious functions. The structures identified as the Great Bath, the so-called Granary, the Collage, and the Ware-house etc. may be included in this category.

Drains:

The well laid out streets and side lanes equipped with drains are one of the most outstanding features of the Harappan town planning. The fact that not only the cities but also even smaller towns and villages had impressive drainage system indicating that discharge of polluted water and sewage was an important part of the concerns of the Harappans. The drains mostly made of baked bricks, connecting the bathing platforms and latrines of private houses to medium sized drains in the side streets. These drains flowed into larger sewers in the main streets, which were covered with bricks or dressed stone blocks. Corbelled arches allowed the larger drains to cut beneath streets or buildings until they finally exited under the city wall. One completely preserved drain found at Harappa has a magnificent corbelled arch- 1.6 m high, 60 cm wide and extends for 6.5 m beneath a major city street. At intervals along the main sewage drains were a rectangular sump pits for collecting solid waste. There were also provisions for the management of wastewater inside the house, with intramural drains, vertical drain pipes in the walls, chutes through walls to the streets and drains from bathing floors into the street drains. Sometimes special baked bricks of extra length were used to cover wider drains or culverts. The Great Bath at Mohenjodaro was provided with the largest of all the Harappan culverts. Water from inside houses was sometime led directly into a street drain, but there are other facilities that were used as well: brick-lined cesspits and pottery jars along the streets.

On the other hand, Dholavira has provided excellent evidence of rainwater drains. The citadel has yielded an effective system of water harvesting through network of drains to a reservoir carved out in open space provided in the bailey. The large drains are high and broad enough to allow a person to walk through (Fig-10), resembling the drain to flush out wastewater from the Great Bath at Mohenjodaro. An interesting feature of these drains at Dholavira is the provision of small apertures at short intervals on the roofing stone slabs. These apertures could have acted like ducts to let air escape and facilitate the easy flow of storm water.

Aquatic Structures:

Depending on the geographical setting of the site, wells, tanks and reservoirs were built to ensure various requirements related to water. According to Jansen’s estimation Mohenjodaro may have had over 700 wells (Jansen 1989: 252). In contrast, Harappa may have had as few as 30 wells. Similar evidence were reported from Chanhudaro, Kalibangan, Lothal and Dholavira restricting to only very few. Majority of these wells were lined with specially made wedge-shaped bricks (Fig-11) to form a structurally sound cylinder 10 to 15 m deep that would not cave in under pressure from the surrounding soil. Deep grooves on the brick at the top edge of the well, except that of Dholavira where such marks are seen on the basal stone slab of the trough (Fig-12), show that ropes were used to lift the water, probably with leather bags. Some wells at Mohenjodaro were as small as 60 cm in diameter, while one was as large as 2.1 m. In contrast, the highly skilled masonry work employed in the construction of a well in the castle area of Dholavira is the largest of which the inner diameter measured 4.12 m.
The tank complex of Mohenjodaro known as the Great Bath is considered as the earliest public water tank in the ancient world. The tank measures approximately 12 m north south and 7 m east west, with a maximum depth of 2.4 m. Two staircases, one each on the northern and southern sides, led to the floor of the tank. Great care was taken to see that there was no leakage of water from the tank. Thus, not only was the brick-on-edge floor set in impregnable gypsum-mortar but the same kind of mortar was also used in the sidewalls. The discharge of used water was through a corbelled drain at the southwest corner of the floor. Around the tank proper there ran successively a courtyard and a pillared corridor. In one of the rooms, found behind one of the three corridors, there was a double-lined brick well, which evidently supplied water to the tank. Most scholars agree that this elaborate building was not used simply for the public bathing but was used for special religious functions where water was used to purify and renew the well being of the bathers. Likewise, two water tanks with a well, as an interrelated complex was identified at Dholavira, located in the southwestern quarter of the castle. Of these, a larger tank (Fig-13) has skilfully made floor with smothered stones, the sides upto a certain height lined with large limestone slabs and superstructure with dressed stones. On one side from the north, a flight of steps was provided half way down (not up to the floor as a normal practice). In the centre of this rectangular tank floor, there was a pit, perhaps used to let the dirty water accumulated there in during periodical cleaning of the tank. For an easy disposal of the bulk of water in the tank, a small aperture was also noticed. It was perhaps connected to a wastewater drain under the nearby broadway. In order to make the tank leak-proof, sticky, grey-coloured clay, which is highly impervious to water is used in the masonry work. The smaller tank besides the larger one, constructed more or less in the same fashion with the exception that the steps were provided upto the tank floor. The nearby well was the common source of supply of water for both these tanks connected with high inlet drain. Yet another interesting baked brick lined basin, nearly rectangular in shape, 219 by 37 m in size, was located immediately to the east of the township of Lothal. The brick walls of the sunken enclosure are 4.5 m high. A platform borders the town side and permits easy access to the warehouse and Acropolis. Two inlets for entry of water were noticed, one each on the northern and eastern wall, measuring respectively about 12 m and 7 m in width besides a spill way for the exit of excess water was provided in the southern wall. This structure has been identified by the excavator as a Dockyard (Fig-14). However, the precise function of this brick lined enclosure is still open to question. Some scholars believe that it was a tank (Leshnik 1968). In fact, neither of these alternatives, the tank versus the dockyard, is fully convincing. Whatever its functional utility may be, it represents one of the artificial largest water-retaining basin and reflects on advanced hydraulic technology developed by the Harappans.
Of all the Harappan sites, Dholavira has provided with a most efficient system of water harvesting and storage in the form of reservoirs in the absence of perennial rivers, lakes or springs in its vicinity, where subsoil water is, by and large, brackish and saline. A good deal of forethought might have gone while selecting the site at an ideal location between two seasonal storm drains, the Manhar and the Mansar. It seems, the city planners of Dholavira had conceptualised an amazing system of dams and tanks to manage water by conserving every drop of water that used to flow in the flanking streams after the downpours; otherwise, a city of such magnitude may not have thrived in an area where droughts and famines are so common. The Harappans, during their hey-day, created within the city walls in all sixteen or more reservoirs of varying size along the northern, western and southern sides of the main settlement and to the east of the citadel. A tentative estimate indicates that the reservoirs account for about 10 hectares, i.e. 10% of the total area covered under the city, for the storage of the water harnessed from the streams by way of raising series of dams. It is worth noting that the gradient between the higher northeast and lower southwest area of the city is 13 m, an ideal situation of having reservoirs. Of these, the reservoir located to the east of the castle has 31 steps from top to bottom and is a marvel of the technology and effort, of which the embankments and the steps were built in the stone masonry. It is 24 m wide and varied between 7.5 and 5 m in depth. Another reservoir near the Annex, to the south of the castle, has an exposed length of 95 m and width of approximately 10 m. The depth varies from 2 to 4 m. It is one of the earliest ever rock cut example of reservoir that too of such a large scale (Fig-15). The excavator remarks that the city might have looked like a lake-city or ‘jala-durga’.

Sculptures:

The extent works of art in general and the sculptures in particular, add greatly to our comprehension of ancient cultures and provide an insight into the minds of the artists. The works of art not only often reflects the sprit and atmosphere of a culture but also give an indication of social values and religious beliefs in a way in which other material remains cannot possibly do. This is certainly true for the Harappan culture also. Though only very few sculptures so far known in the vast corpus of the Harappan material remains, they certainly speak of high standard of craftsmanship achieved by the Harappans in this sphere of human activity also. Unfortunately, unlike other aspects of the Harappan studies, sculptural art as an important area of research is yet to attract scholars. Myself, being an archaeologist, will view it in archaeological perspective and obviously not as an art historian or art critic.
Compared to the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations, the number of stone and bronze sculptures depicting basically human and animal forms, reported from the Harappan civilization, is very limited. However, on the whole there is some justification for claiming a multiplicity of art styles and postulating the roots of the much later historic art of the Indian subcontinent in them. Among the modest collection, the major specimens are reported from Mohenjodaro and few from Harappa, Chanhudaro, Dholavira, and Daimabad. Of these, except the statue of a Dancing Girl from Mohenjodaro and Daimabad hoard representing various animals, cast in bronze, rest are carved in stone, dominated by male figures.

One of these is the famous steatite sculpture popularly known as the ‘Priest-King’ from Mohenjodaro (Fig-16). It probably represents a person of very high rank judging from the elaborate clothing and ornaments. Although the body below the chest is missing, it is 17.5 cm in height and the width is 11 cm. It has well-combed hair, parted in the middle, dropping behind the neck. Parallel lines in relief show a well-groomed beard. In contrast, however, the upper lip is clean shaved. Around the forehead goes a band, which is tied behind, and falls back further down from the neck. A circular piece attached to this band on the forehead may probably have some special significance. The eyes are half closed, as if the priest is in a meditative pose. The figure wears a shawl like garment, which passes from underneath the right arm but goes over the left shoulder. It has a design of trefoils, which were originally filled with red pigment. It has also been noted that when discovered one of the eyes had a shell inlay. The right upper arm is also decked with an ornament similar to that of the fillet headband. The back of the head is flattened, possibly in order to affix a horned headdress as a symbol of sacred authority. Parpola attempts to demonstrate that the garment of the Priest- King is something called the tarpya, found in the Vedic ritual (Parpola 1985). After the “Priest- King” the most famous stone sculpture is the small male torso from Harappa (Fig-17). This figure is a masterpiece carved from a fine-grained red sandstone (jasper), a material that was never used by the later sculptors. It is 9.5 cm high, broken at the legs, with the head and arms missing. This nude figure of a youth with well-built yet supple and sensuous body, bearing holes for the attachment of the head and arms, but none are apparent for the legs. Prominent circular indentations, probably made by a tube drill are located on the front of each shoulder probably to affix a garment or for the inlay of the ornaments. The holes for the breast nipples are apparently intended for inlay. Another interesting sculpture, representing male dancer, reported from Harappa, made of dark grey stone, confirm the technique of manufacture and general modelling of Harappan style (Fig-18). This 10cm high torso of which again head and arms are missing while legs are partly broken. However, its uniqueness lies in its somewhat twisted body with lifted left leg, posed as dancer. Holes on the back of the neck were probably intended to hold hair in place suggesting that the figure was probably shown looking down. Marshall’s reconstruction of the pose may not be far off the mark but does show life and movement and should be placed in the high rank of the Harappan art (Possehl 2002: 112). However, amongst the Harappan sculptures, the most captivating piece of art is probably the bronze statue of nude Dancing Girl from Mohenjodaro (Fig-19). Only just a little over 11 cm in height, the figure shown standing upright in relaxed pose with head tilted slightly back and the right leg somewhat straight but the left one bent at the knee. The right hand is posed against the right hip, while the left one, heavily bedecked with bangles, rest on the left knee. From behind the neck descends a necklace with the pendant dangling between the breasts. Her hair is tied in a bun hanging low on the back of the neck like many Indian women do today. The ankles and feet are missing. But there is one more bronze sculpture from Mohenjodaro itself, which shows these limbs wearing anklet. Depiction of various features of this small figure is so vivacious and hence it has been rightly recognised as one of the masterpieces of the Harappan art. Apart from these, a few more sculptures, mostly from Mohenjodaro, survived in the form of human heads. Most of these resemble in their facial features with that of the Priest King. Another sculpture reported from the same site is a seated male figure of which head is missing. This statue 29.2 cm in height, made of grey alabaster, shown wearing some garment covering left arm just like that of Priest King. Its left arm is placed just outside the left leg, which is raised and bent at the knee, whereas the right hand rests on the right knee. It is, however, unfinished and shows chisel marks of the preliminary stone dressing. The same-seated pose has been proposed for the Priest King (Fig-20). In this context, it is quite surprising that none of the Harappan sites found in India revealed such sculptures except Dholavira from where recently seated male figure carved in stone had been reported. However, this headless sculpture is also broken and not much is known in details.
It is quite enigmatic not to have sculptural remains of animals in real sense, though variety of them, both in form and kind, are represented in the Harappan seals, terracotta and pottery drawings. Though few animals found depicted in copper or bronze, gold or silver and stone or faience in the form of miniature figurines mostly as ornaments forming a part of necklace representing sheep, rabbit, monkey, buffalo, squirrel, bull etc are cannot be treated as sculptural representations. However, the hoard consisting of four bronzes, accidentally discovered from Daimabad, though of Late Harappan period, substantially fills the lacuna. It includes a pair of bull, an elephant, a rhinoceros and a buffalo. They are in an excellent state of preservation and not lost their pristine features. All the four are of solid cast and reported to weigh over 60 kg. Of these, the chariot and bulls are most remarkable so far their workmanship is concerned. It consists of an elaborate Chariot yoked to two bulls and driven by a man standing in a chariot (Fig-21). Though the chariot has some Harappan features, this vehicle has no analogues in the Harappan Civilization and thus stands unique. The elephant is the largest of the three animals in the hoard, which stands on a platform with four brackets beneath, pierced to take axles. The treatment of the rhinoceros inevitably recalls that of the Harappan seals and provides comparative examples. The same is true to the buffalo and reminds the figures of buffaloes both in terracotta and cast copper or bronze from Mohenjodaro. All these are provided with wheels, indicating because of their size, meant to be used in procession. They are in fact the finest of their kind in the whole range of Indian Protohistoric art and might have been created by an extremely skilled sculptor (Dhavalikar 1993)

Seals:

Seals have been reported from most of the Urban Harappan sites and in fact constituting one of the distinctive traits of the Mature phase. These exceed over two thousand in number and more are pouring in with every new excavation. Though there are variations in size, shape and execution, the most common were squarish, each side measuring somewhere between 2 and 3 cm with an average thickness of about 50-60 mm. Some of the seals were, however rectangular, circular and even cylindrical. Few circular and cylindrical seals found in the Harappan context, however are exotic. The presence of cylindrical types often with Harappan motifs suggests a cultural interaction with Mesopotamian and Persian world whereas the circular types are diagnostic of the Gulf area. Though majority of the seals are made of steatite, there are a few cases of copper, silver, calcite and faience also. Normally, in case of steatite seals, the process of manufacturing involves first cutting of steatite (soft soapstone) into the required size and shape and then the surface was smoothened with some abrasive. The finest surface was then engraved with the burin/chisel like sharp instrument and finally a coating of alkaline solution was applied before firing to harden it and also to get a white shinning look. Most of the seals, irrespective of their material, had a convex perforated boss on the reverse, through which a thread could be passed for suspension. Amongst the variety of subjects depicted on the seals, it was the so-called ‘Unicorn’ (one horned mythical animal) that outnumbers the rest (Fig-22). In every case of this category, in front of the animal is shown a standard like object, variously interpreted as manger, brazier, incense burner or sacred filter (Mahadevan 1984). The other animals included are the short-horned bull (bison), Brahmani bull with its characteristic dewlap and hump (Fig-23), buffalo, rhinoceros, tiger, elephant, crocodile, antelope, goat, hare etc. Then there were composite animals and even human and animal combinations. Some seals contain more complex iconographic scenes representing mythological or religious depictions (Joshi and Parpola 1987). The signs of Harappan script, which were carved inversely or “intaglio” since they were stamped, assumed stand for the name of the owner, the name of an affiliated organization or the name of a deity. These seals were probably used for trade as an administrative instrument as well as for other functions too. The recent analysis suggests that the number of actual seal impressions (sealings) are much less than that of seals, as majority of them are found abraded only at the edges and retain the crisp edge of the carving more or less intact, has led to the scholars to the speculation that they were used more as protective amulets and /or identification marks than in administrative and economic life (Chakrabarti 1999:181). The presence of one or two examples of ‘amulets’ reported from Mohenjodaro and Bagasra where the interior of the seal had been carefully hollowed out to form a compartment which was formerly closed by a sliding cover that fitted with grooves cut into the opening of the socket so that something, most probably, a magic charm, could be kept safely inside (Fig-24). It also appears that square stamped seals with animal motifs carried messages understandable to different citizens. As totemic symbol, the additional traits, such as power, cunning, agility, strength etc. may have been associated with each animal, depicted on seals. It is also surprising that the animals depicted are usually male has some specific connotation (Kenoyer 1998:83). Therefore, Harappan seals are now treated more in the nature of token of power and prestige rather then mere badges bearing their owners name. If the function they were supposed to perform had been simple-i.e. just restricted to vouching for merchant’s right on the goods they were stamped on lump of clay of sealed container, there is no reason why so much artistic skill went into their manufacture.

Major research efforts on the Harappan seals have been directed towards the decipherment of the Indus script and very feeble attempts were made in understanding the pictorial depiction and categorisation of the representations to read the minds of the Harappan people. In this regard P.V. Pathak has tried to interpret some of the seals as the pictorial representation of the Atharva Vedic hymns (Pathak 1998-99: 1999).

Conclusion:

From the aforesaid data it is quite obvious that the centralized planning of the Harappan settlements is one of the distinctive features of this one of the earliest advanced urban civilizations of the world. Although they were not strictly laid on chessboard or grid patterns with invariably straight roads, they do show many signs of careful planning. Sites like Mohenjodaro, Harappa and Kalibangan had low, large eastern sectors and separately fortified higher but smaller western sectors, known as lower towns and citadels respectively. There is a clear evidence that the buildings of the citadel were laid on a high podium fortified with bastions and towers whereas the eastern one too lay within a fortification though of high magnitude but less impressive. Though some of the settlements were fortified even during the Pre/Early Harappan phase, their actual division into separate enclosed units evidently appear to coincide with the Mature Harappan phase only, obviously denoting socio-political stratification. On the contrary Surkotada shows no such divisions but has only a single sector on the model of western sector of Kalibangan. Though Lothal and Banawali each lay within a single enclosure, the latter shows distinctly fortified apsidal citadel within a trapezoidal town. Of the two, Lothal has distinction of having a dockyard. On the other hand, Rakhigarhi, though not fully exposed show signs of possessing more than two walled residential sectors. However, Dholavira stands apart and show three divisions within the general enclosing wall consisting of bipartite citadel (Castle and Bailey), middle town and lower town, which temptingly sound analogous respectively to three interesting terms in the Rigveda viz. ‘Parama’, ‘Madhyama’ and ‘Avam’ denoting three different categories of the settlement or buildings. An open space between the citadel and the middle town served as stadium. However, most amazing is the layout of gates and provision of large reservoirs in the drought prone area of Kutch, integrating the use of two local streams into the overall civic planning. However, despite variations in details, all settlements were well integrated to suit into the landscape under one platform. Unlike the haphazard arrangement of Mesopotamian cities, Harappan settlements followed the same basic plan everywhere.

In terms of quantity or quality the Harappan sculptural remains cannot be compared with the repertoire of either Mesopotamia or Egypt, neither we find variety of expressions nor the range of exploitation of media which both of these cultures witnessed. However, an assortment of Harappan sculptures reflects on their own developed art concept. Moreover, if we look carefully at the total assemblage of Harappan sculptures, it reveals that their stylistic tradition was not homogeneous and uniform. One could see a difference in composition, form and technique between the ‘Priest-King’ and ‘Dancing girl’ found from Mohenjodaro. On the whole, although, examples of Harappan sculptures are rare, the art tradition of the later Indian subcontinent apparently owes a lot to them. This can be inferred precisely from the modelling of the Harappan torsos, which are reminiscent of the sculptures of the historic period.

Apparently, though the Harappans could not produce big works of art on a large scale, they excelled in those of small compass. Their most notable artistic achievement was perhaps in their seal engravings, especially the animals, which they delineated with powerful realism. The cult scenes show a refreshing originality, but because of subject matter of depiction there was no scope for detailed artistic expression. Though the meaning and use of inscribed seals are still shrouded in mystery, partly because the script still remains undeciphered, but certainly these were used to stamp bales of traded goods and may be more as token of power and prestige besides amulets.

Until recently, it was believed that the Harappan civilization along with its spectacular achievements, evolved quite mysteriously and then disappeared suddenly, leaving little or no legacy for later cultures. However, as new sites have been discovered and previously excavated ones were restudied it became apparent that it disintegrated gradually, leaving the field open for the development of subsequent Protohistoric cultures and the second urbanization during the first millennium B.C. In fact, there are significant continuities in subsistence activities, art and architecture, technologies, economic set up, urban organizations and possibly socio-ritual as well as political structures. Even today in the modern cities, towns and villages of the subcontinent one can see the legacy of the Harappan culture reflected in traditional arts and crafts as well as in the layout of houses and settlements (Lal 2002).
References

Allchin, B and F.R. Allchin (1982), The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bisht, R.S. (1998-99), “Dholavira and Banawali: Two Different Paradigms of the Harappan Urbis Forma”, Puratattva 29, pp. 14-37.
Chakrabarti, D.K. (1999), India: An Archaeological History, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Childe, V.G. (1950), “The Urban Revolution”, The Town Planning Review 21 (1), pp. 3-17.
Dales, G.F. and J.M. Kenoyer (1977), “Shell Working at Ancient Balakot, Pakistan”, Expedition 19 (2), pp. 13-19
Dhavalikar, M.K. (1993), “ Daimabad Bronzes”, in G.L. Possehl, ed., Harappan Civilization: A Recent Perspective, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., pp. 421-426.
Francfort, H.P. (1984),“The Harappan Settlement of Shortugai”, in B.B. Lal and S. P. Gupta, eds., Frontiers of the Indus Civilization, Delhi: Books and Books, pp. 301-310.
Jansen, M. (1989),“Some Problems Regarding the Forma Urbis Mohenjodaro”, in K. Frifelt and P. Sorensen, eds., South Asian Archaeology 1985, London: Curzon Press, pp. 247-256.
Jansen, M. (2002),“Settlement Network of the Indus Civilization”, in S. Settar and Ravi Korisettar, eds., Indian Archaeology in Retrospect: Protohistory- Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization, New Delhi: ICHR and Manohar, pp. 105-128.
Joshi, J.P. (1990), Excavation at Surkotada 1971-72 and Exploration in Kutch, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No.87, New-Delhi.
Joshi, J.P. and Asko Parpola (1987), Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions, Vol. I, Collections in India, Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Kenoyer, J.M. (1998), Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization, Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Lal, B.B. (2002), The Saraswati Flows on: the Continuity of Indian Culture, New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Leshnik, L.S. (1968), “The Harappan ‘Port’ at Lothal: Another View”, American Anthropologist 70 (5), pp. 911-922.
Mahadevan, Iravatham. (1984), “The Cult Object on Unicorn Seals: A Sacred Filter, Puratattva 13-14 (1981-83), pp. 165-186.
Mughal, M.R. (1980), “ New Archaeological Evidences from Bahawalpur”, Man and Environment 4, pp. 93-98.
Parpola, Asko (1985), “ The Harappans Priest- King’s robe and the Vedic Tarpya Garment: Their Interrelation and Symbolism”, South Asian Archaeology: 1983, pp. 385-404.
Pathak, P.V. (1998-99), “Sacred Bull: The Royal Emblem on Indus Seals and AV v.16 and vi. 86”, Puratattva 29, pp. 38-45.
Pathak, P.V. (1999), “ On the Nature of the Indus Seals: Problems and Prospects”, Man and Environment 24 (2), pp. 71-77.
Possehl, G.L. (2002), The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, New Delhi: Vistaar Publications.
Sonawane, V.H. (1992), “Fresh Light on the Specialized Crafts of the Harappans in Gujarat”, The Eastern Anthropologist 45 (1-2), pp. 155-172.
Sonawane, V.H. (1999), “ Harappan Civilization in Gujarat: A Recent Perspective”, Pragdhara 9, pp. 1-13.
Thapar, B.K. (1979), “ Kalibangan: A Harappan Metropolis Beyond the Indus Valley”, in G.L. Possehl, ed., Ancient Cities of the Indus, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., pp. 196-211.
Thapar, B.K. (1985), Recent Archaeological Discoveries in India, Paris/Tokyo: UNESCO, The Centre for East Asian Cultural studies.


Illustrations:

Figure-1: The site plan of Harappa (courtesy Jonathan Mark Kenoyer)
Figure-2: The site plan of Mohenjodaro (courtesy Jonathan Mark Kenoyer)
Figure-3: The site plan of Kalibangan (courtesy ASI)
Figure-4: The site plan of Lothal (courtesy ASI)
Figure-5: The site plan of Surkotada (courtesy ASI)
Figure-6: The site plan of Dholavira (courtesy ASI)
Figure-7: The site plan of Banawali (courtesy ASI)
Figure-8: Members of Central pillar in the eastern gate at Dholavira (courtesy ASI)
Figure-9: Western chamber of the northern gate at Dholavira (courtesy ASI)
Figure-10: Covered rainwater stone drain at Dholavira (courtesy ASI)
Figure-11: Backed brick well at Lothal (courtesy ASI)
Figure-12: Stone well showing rope marks at Dholavira (courtesy ASI)
Figure-13: Water tank at Dholavira (courtesy ASI)
Figure-14: Dockyard at Lothal with a spillway (courtesy ASI)
Figure-15: Water reservoirs at Dholavira (courtesy ASI)
Figure-16: Steatite sculpture of “Priest King” from Mohenjodaro (courtesy Jonathan Mark Kenoyer)
Figure-17: Stone sculpture of male torso from Harappa
Figure-18: Stone sculpture of male dancer from Harappa
Figure-19: Bronze statue of “Dancing Girl” from Mohenjodaro
Figure-20: Seated stone male figure from Mohenjodaro (courtesy Jonathan Mark Kenoyer)
Figure-21: Bronze Chariot from Daimabad
Figure-22: Typical steatite inscribed Harappan seal depicting unicorn (courtesy Jonathan Mark Kenoyer)
Figure-23: Typical steatite inscribed Harappan seal depicting Brahmani bull (courtesy Jonathan Mark Kenoyer)
Figure-24: Steatite Harappan seal with socket from Bagasra.

http://iias-2006.blogspot.com/2006/04/proceedings-of-seminar-2004-on.html Proceedings of the Seminar (2004) On Outlines of Indian Arts: Peaks of Creativity

Stupa as temple, s'rivatsa as hieroglyph (Sept. 2008) -- Kalyanaraman

Map of Sapta Sindhu (Nation of Seven Rivers): Theatre of Pan~cajana_h,Five Peoples

Decoding 'Nandipada composite symbol' as hieroglyph mleccha

Udayagiri cave. Nandyavarta is sculpted atop the arch of Udayagiri Jaina cave 9 (100 BCE – 100 CE). The representation antedates both Bauddham and Jaina panthas.

Hieroglyphs for sangha, dhamma, puja

Nandyavarta (nandipada) sculpted on top of the flame pillar at Amaravati (3^rd cent. BCE). Source:  Plate 28 in Robert Knox, 1992, Amaravati, London: British Museum. cf. kol 'fish-tail' rebus: kol.el 'temple, smithy' in Mlecchitavikalpa. Meaning of the sculptural representation of 'nandyavarta': devotees are worshipping the kole.l, temple. Two fish-tails tied with a string; dama 'string'; rebus: dhamma 'dharma' cf. esha dhammo sanantano (Gautama, the Buddha). Nandyavarta (Dr. N. Ganesan, Nov. 2008)  cf. tagaraka, tabernae montana; rebus: tagaram 'tin' in Mlecchitavikalpa.