Ancient States Colorado State University Wealth and socioeconomic hierarchies of the Indus Valley civilization

J. Kenoyer,Mary Van Buren

Abstract:When archaeologists first began excavating the ancient cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in the 1920s and 1930s, they did so in the shadow of unique discoveries being made in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The social and political organization of these civilizations set the stan­ dard against which other early state societies were compared. Furthermore, monumental stone architec­ ture, sculptures made of stone or precious metals, elaborate grave goods, and royal tombs filled with gold and exotic treasures came to be used as a standard of ancient wealth. Based on the written records of Egypt and Mesopotamia, many scholars have assumed that indicators of wealth and socio-economic status were relatively uniform in the ancient world and that these indicators were used in much the same' way in all early states. The absence of comparable categories of wealth items and centralized architectural structures in the Indus cities has led most scholars to conclude that the people ruling the Indus cities had different values and possibly a different form of political organization from that seen in other early states (Kenoyer 1989; Fairservis 1989; J.G. Shaffer 1982). The lack ,of long texts and the fact that the Indus script has not been deciphered has remained a major obstacle in explaining tilese differences. In contrast to other civilizations where written texts provide the foundation for discussion, it is necessary to look back to the first settlements of the Indus Valley in order to understand the ideology and hierarchy of order, the legitimation of that order, and the nature of wealth in the Indus cities. In these early settlements it is possible to trace the origins of specific objects that came to be used as wealth items and symbols of order and legitima­ tion during the later Indus cities. The creation of these wealth items and the role of specific wealth items as indicators of socioeconomic status is based on a com­ bination of economic and ideological processes that are highly variable, both regionally and temporally. Never­ theless, contextual and chronological studies of specific, artifact types reve~1 the use of symbolic objects and the accumulation of wealth as a means of reinforcing social and economic hierarchies, beginning with the earliest Neolithic occupations at Mehrgarh (7000-6500 BC), continuing through the Chalcolithic occupatio~ at Mehrgarh, Nausharo, and Harappa, and culminating in the Integration Era, Harappan Phase, 2600-1900 BC. With the rise of the Indus cities around 2600 BC, technology and crafts appear to have become an essen­ tial mechanism for creating unique wealth objects to distinguish socioeconomic classes and reinfor~ the hier­ archy of these classes in an urban context. Many of these wealth objects have strong ideological associations and appear to have been used as symbols that served both to unite as well as to differentiate socioeconomic classes living in the cities (Vidale 1989a; Kenoyer 1992a; Bhan el af. 1994). Merchants and artisans of the Indus cities appear to have played a significant role in power, negotiations through restricting access to exotic raw materials and by the invention of new and more complex technologies requiring special knowledge of materials and manufacturing processes. Some of these technologies and their products were directly controlled by the rulers and powerful merchants (similar to what Baines and Yoffee call inner elites [Baines and Yoffee 1998; chapter 2 in this vQlume]), but there is little evidence for military coercion. Other technologies may have been subject to indirect control through taxation and limited access to raw materials. While some of the wealth items used in the Indus Valley can be identified by comparison-with contem­ poraneous cultures, other objects that may have been used as symbols of wealth can be identified archaeologi­ cally through quantitative studies combined with tech­ nological analysis and distribution patterns within the site (Kenoyer I 992b, 1997a). Through the use of stylistic studies and relational analogies with later cultures of the subcontinent and adjacent regions, it is also possible to identify symbolic objects that may have been used to communicate power and status. The nature of wealth that must have been used to support and legitimize power can also be identified. These studies have made it

History