History of Ancient IndiaVolume II

PROTOHISTORIC FOUNDATIONS

Editors

Dilip K. Chakrabarti and Makkhan Lal

Aryan Books Internat ionalNew Delhi

Vivekananda International FoundationNew Delhi

ISBN: 978-81-7305-481-5

© Vivekananda International Foundation

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, utilised in any form orby any means, electronic and mechanical, including photocopying, recording orby any information storage and retrieval system without prior permissionof the authors and the publishers.

Responsibility for statements made and visuals provided in the various papersrest solely with the contributors. The views expressed by individual authorsare not necessarily those of the editors or of publishers.

First Published in 2014 by

Vivekananda Internat iona l Foundat ion

3, San Martin Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 110 021

Tel.: 24121764, 24106698; Fax: 91-11-43115450

E-mail: info@vifindia.org

www.vifindia.org

in association with

Aryan Books In ternat iona lPooja Apartments, 4B, Ansari Road, New Delhi - 110 002

Tel.: 23287589, 23255799; Fax: 91-11-23270385

E-mail: aryanbooks@gmail.com

www.aryanbooks.co.in

Designed and Printed in India atABI Prints & Publishing Co., New Delhi.

Cataloging in Publication Data—DK[Courtesy: D.K. Agencies (P) Ltd. <docinfo@dkagencies.com>]

History of ancient India / editors, Dilip K. Chakrabarti and Makkhan Lal.v. 2 cm.Contributed articles.Includes index.Contents: v. 2. Protohistoric foundations.ISBN 9788173054815

1. India—History. 2. India—Politics and government. I. Chakrabarti, Dilip K., 1941-II. Makkhan Lal, 1954- III. Vivekananda International Foundation.

DDC 954 23

Foreword ix

Editorsí Preface xix

Part ITHE BEGINNING OF FOOD-PRODUCTION

AND THE FIRST VILLAGES

I.1. The Beginning of Wheat, Barley 3and Rice Cultivation: Mehrgarhand Lahuradevaó Rakesh Tewari

I.2. Early Villages from Baluchistan 35to Western Uttar Pradesh andGujarató Dilip K. Chakrabarti

Part IIHARAPPAN CIVILISATION

II.1. Name, Origin and Chronology 87of the Harappan Civilisationó Dilip K. Chakrabarti

II.2. Distribution and Features of the 97Harappan Settlementsó Dilip K. Chakrabarti

II.3. The Saraswati River: 144Geographical Literature,Archaeology, Ancient Textsand Satellite Imagesó Makkhan Lal

II.4.1. Agriculture 171ó Ranjit Pratap Singh

II.4.2. Animals 184ó P.P. Joglekar and Pankaj Goyal

Contents

Protohistoric Foundations

v i

II.4.3. Internal Trade 202ó Dilip K. Chakrabarti

II.4.4. External Trade 207ó Dilip K. Chakrabarti

II.4.5. Metallurgy 212ó Ravindra N. Singh

II.4.6. Ceramics 235ó K. Krishnan and S.V. Rajesh

II.4.7. Technology, Craft Production, 263Raw Material, ManufacturingTechniques and Activity Areasó Kuldeep K. Bhan and Massimo Vidale

II.4.8. Metrology and Linear 309Measurementsó Michel Danino

II.4.9. Social Stratification and 321Political Set-upó Makkhan Lal

II.4.10. Religion 325ó Makkhan Lal

II.4.11. Human Skeletal Biology 332ó S.R. Walimbe

II.4.12. Art 344ó Dilip K. Chakrabarti

II.4.13. Seals, Sealings and Script 371ó B.M. Pande

Part IIILATE HARAPPAN PHASE 395

ó V.H. Sonawane

Part IVLEGACY OF HARAPPAN CIVILIZATION 433

ó Makkhan Lal

Part VVILLAGE SETTLEMENTS OUTSIDE

THE HARAPPAN ORBIT

V.1. Mountains in the North: 459Baluchistan, Gandhara, Kashmirand the Almorah Hillsó Makkhan Lal

V.2. Chalcolithic Rajasthan 465ó Vasant Shinde and Amrita Sarkar

V.3. Chalcolithic Madhya Pradesh 480ó Vasant Shinde, Shweta Sinha Deshpande and Varada Khaladkar

V.4. The Deccan Chalcolithic 487ó Vasant Shinde, Shweta Sinha Deshpande and Varada Khaladkar

V.5. The Neolithic and Chalcolithic 498Cultures of Karnataka andTamil Naduó Milisa Srivastava

V.6. The Neolithic-Chalcolithic of 506Andhra Pradeshó P.C. Venkatasubbaiah

V.7. Eastern Indian Neolithic- 523Chalcolithicó R.K. Chattopadhyay

V.8. Copper Hoards and the Ochre- 557Coloured Pottery of the UpperGanga Plainó Makkhan Lal

Part VITHE BEGINNING OF IRON

VI.1. The Beginning of Iron 567ó Rakesh Tewari

Contents

v i i

VI.2. The Iron Age in Tamil Nadu 592ó K. Rajan

VI.3. Towards Early Historic India 615ó Dilip K. Chakrabarti

Part VIISITE REPORTS

VII.1. Alamgirpur 629ó Ravindra N. Singh

VII.2. Bagasra 643ó P. Ajithprasad

VII.3. Balathal 660ó Milisa Srivastava

VII.4. Daimabad 667ó Vasant Shinde

VII.5. Dholavira 671

ó Milisa Srivastava

VII.6. Farmana 683ó Vasant Shinde and Prabodh Shirvalkar

VII.7. Gilund 691ó Vasant Shinde and Amrita Sarkar

VII.8. Hulaskhera 700ó Rakesh Tewari

VII.9. Inamgaon 706ó Vasant Shinde

VII.10. Kalibangan 712ó Milisa Srivastava

VII.11. Kanmer 721ó J.S. Kharakwal, Y.S. Rawat and Toshiki Osada

VII.12. Khirsara 737ó Jitendra Nath

VII.13. Kuntasi 747ó Vasant Shinde and Prabodh Shirvalkar

VII.14. Lothal 754ó Milisa Srivastava

VII.15. Malhar 764ó Rakesh Tewari

VII.16. Mayiladumparai 770ó K. Rajan

VII.17. Narhan, Imlidih Khurd and 777Other Related Sitesó Purushottam Singh

VII.18. Navdatoli 793ó Vasant Shinde

VII.19. Padri 796ó Vasant Shinde and Prabodh Shirvalkar

VII.20. Porunthal 802ó K. Rajan

VII.21. Sanauli 809ó D.V. Sharma, K.C. Nauriyal, V.N. Prabhakar and Satdev

VII.22. Sanganakallu 823ó Ravi Korisettar and Pragnya Prasanna

VII.23. Senuwar 843ó Birendra Pratap Singh

VII.24. Sheri Khan Tarakai 852ó Cameron A. Petrie

VII.25. Sohr Damb/Nal 860ó Cameron A. Petrie

VII.26. Surkotada 867ó Milisa Srivastava

VII.27. Thandikudi 872ó K. Rajan

Contributors 881

Index 885

Editorial Note

[The continuity between the Harappan systems of linearand weight measurements and those of the laterhistorical times seems to have entered the realm ofcertainty now, and from this point of view, the presentessay is a clear statement of the situation. The essay alsoconvincingly demonstrates that the Harappan plannersof settlements like Dholavira were thinking in terms ofdefinite units and proportions of measurement whichsurvive in texts like the Arthasastra.]

h

Metrology, or the study of units of weights andmeasures, has a long history in Mesopotamia,ancient Egypt and China, classical Greece andMesoamerican civilisations, among others. Incomparison, studies in Harappan metrologyhave been few and of limited outcome. Thechief reason for this situation (we will seeanother in the case of linear measures) is theabsence of written records: the Harappan scriptremains undeciphered, and in view of thebrevity of the inscriptions found so far, even anaccepted decipherment would be unlikely toyield records of transactions involving measuredquantities of traded goods. Kinnier Wilson 1984and Subbarayappa 1997 have independentlyproposed readings of some signs as numbersaccounting for traded commodities such asagricultural produce, but as with any otherproposed decipherment, the criteria forverification are problematic. This absence ofliterary evidence has compelled scholars to workout possible units from archaeological evidencealone. This is in contrast with early Indiaíshistorical, classical and medieval eras, for whichmany texts treat units of weight, length, area,

II.4.8. Metrology andLinear Measurements

Protohistoric Foundations

310

volume or time, and the literary evidence faroutweighs the archaeological data (for twooverviews, see Srinivasan 1979 and Bag 1997).

ASTRONOMY AND TIME

There have been suggestions that theHarappans had some basic astronomicalknowledge. For instance, they appear to haveused Aldebaran or the star cluster Pleiades toorient Mohenjodaroís streets according to thecardinal directions (Wanzke 1987). It has alsobeen proposed that Mohenjodaroís enigmaticring stones might have served a calendricalpurpose (Maula 1984). More recently, Vahia andYadav (in press) have suggested that a majorstructure in Dholaviraís Bailey was actually acalendrical and astronomical observatory. Ifmore such lines of research together end upforming a consistent body, they will eventuallythrow fresh light on Harappan advances inastronomy, which until then must remainconjectural.

Cylindrical objects of shell with deep slitsusually at right angles have surfaced at a fewsites (Rao 1991: 314; Joshi 2008: 162) andallowed measuring angles of 30’, 45’, 60’ and90’; apart from town planning and construction,they may have been used in astronomy andnavigation, although this again remainsspeculative.

The only artefact clearly relatable to timemeasurements is a unique terracotta ëhourglassífrom Kalibangan, 7cm high and with a maximumdiameter of 7cm too. Tests with sand showedthat it would have been used to measure aduration of about 10 seconds (Joshi 2008: 166).However, Joshiís suggested relationship with amuhμurta appears extremely tenuous; morelikely, this might have been a measure of timein some manufacturing process involving a rapidtransformation of a specific material (such as

metal, powdered minerals, beads, pigments,etc.).

HARAPPAN WEIGHTS

We are on firmer ground with the Harappansystem of weights, which was first studied byHemmy (1931) on the basis of cubical objectsof chert or other stone (alabaster, agate, steatite,quartzite etc.) found at Harappa andMohenjodaro. A few years later, Hemmy (1938)revised his study with the addition of newlydiscovered specimens and tabulated 331 of themaltogether. Although most weights were cubical,a few were truncated spheres, cylinders orcones; those were not made of chert and weregenerally less accurate than the chert weights(Hemmy 1938: 605). A few scale pans made ofbronze, copper or terracotta have survived (e.g.,Mackay 1938: 476-77).

Weights have often been unearthed in largerhouses, thought to be those of traders, but atHarappa, most were found near the cityísgateway, leading Kenoyer (1998: 99) to suggestthat they could have been used to tax goodscoming into the city rather than for trade. Thetwo purposes, however, are by no meansmutually exclusive. Ranging from less than a

Fig. 1. A set of chert weights from Dholavira (courtesy:ASI).

Metrology and Linear Measurements

311

gram to over 10kg, the weights must haveserved a multiplicity of purposes. The presenceof several Harappan weights in the Persian Gulf(Cleuziou 1992: 93-94; Possehl 2002: 226;Ratnagar 2006: 53) does seem to be a naturalcorollary of the well-attested Harappan tradewith Magan, Dilmun and Mesopotamia.

Studying the distribution of these artefactsíweights, Hemmy noticed that it was not uniformbut clustered around a few specific values whichwere the same at Harappa and at Mohenjodaro;it thus became clear that these artefacts couldhave been used only as weights. Hemmyísanalysis of the standardised values has beenconfirmed by later finds at many more MatureHarappan sites and have been accepted byarchaeologists (e.g., Allchin 1997: 193;Chakrabarti 2006: 186; Kenoyer 1998: 98-99),and more recently confirmed by a statisticalstudy (Vahia and Yadav 2007). The successiveweights, in Hemmyís words (1938: 606), ìforma series in the following ratios: 1, 2, 8/3, 4, 8,16, 32, 64, 160, 200, 320, 640, 1600, 3200, 6400,8000, 12800. The unit weight has the calculatedvalue of 0.857 g, the largest weight, 10970 g.Groups F and G, with weight 13.712 g... anddouble that amount respectively, are much morecommon than the others....î

The weights are in the great majority of casesmade with considerable accuracy, much moreso than in other countries in that period. Theunit does not change during the wholeoccupation of the site [Mohenjodaro].

Disregarding the aberrant weight of 8/3units (of which Hemmy had only twospecimens), we thus find that weights keepdoubling in value from 1 unit (of about 0.86 g)to 64 (about 54.85 g). In other words, theyinitially follow a geometric progression. Whythe series does not go on (with 128, 256, etc.) isunclear; this may have to do with Harappan

methods of calculation (to get intermediaryresults from combinations of various weights)or with their numeral notation, both of whichwe are ignorant of. At any rate, in what is ineffect a rudimentary decimal system, valuesswitch to 10, 100 or 1000 times one of theweights in the first series. (The last weight is acurious exception, being 100x128, althoughthere is no weight of 128 units.)

Not all Harappan weights fit perfectly in theabove scheme: a few aberrant specimens havecome to light from various sites (such as theabove 8/3 units), and Kenoyer (2010: 116)reports smaller weights, such as 0.3 g and 0.6 g;they might have been used for special needsnot always related to trade (e.g., manufacturingprocesses). The metrologist V.B. Mainkar (1984:142) drew attention to a special series of weightsfrom Lothal: rounding off the values to twodecimal points, they are 1.22 g, 4.34 g, 8.58 g,18.16 g and 33.3 g. Rather than go withMainkarís convoluted attempt to correlate themto Hemmyís series, I would point out that theyare respectively very close to 1.5, 5, 10, 20 and40 times the basic ëunití of 0.86 g; in other words,they are based on the same unit but followdecimal multiples almost from the start,bypassing the ëstandardí geometricalprogression. This series seems to be an isolatedcase, however.

Finally, while it is known that someHarappan weights predate the Mature phase(Kenoyer 2010: 115), a continuity betweenHarappan and historical weights has also longbeen noted. Weighing thousands of earlyhistorical punch-marked coins of silver, fromTaxila in particular, D.D. Kosambi (1941: 53)concluded that there was ìevery likelihood ofthe earlier Taxila hoard being weighed on muchthe same kind of balances and by much the samesort of weights, as at Mohenjodaro some two

Protohistoric Foundations

312

thousand years earlierî. In the same vein,Mainkar (1984: 144-55) compared the Harappansystem with the weight systems described in theArtha‹åstra and in the Manusmriti, and observedthat ìthere is reason to believe that the twosystems of weight used later in India hadperhaps a common origin which can be traceddirectly to the Indus Civilisation.î Kenoyer(1998: 98) endorsed this continuity: ìThe Indusweight system is identical to that used by thefirst kingdoms of the Gangetic Plain around 300BC, and is still in use today in traditional markets

throughout Pakistan and India.î (This is not quitetrue of India any longer, where the metricsystem has virtually eradicated the traditionalone, except in specialised areas such asweighing of gold or precious stones.)

We may also illustrate this continuity througha table prepared by Mitchiner (1978: 75) tocompare the traditional system of weights usedin India till recent decades and Harappanweights (Table1), with a difference smaller than1.8 per cent. Such a close match is plainlybeyond the realm of coincidence.

Table 1. Mitchinerís Comparison between Harappan and Traditional Weights.

Harappan weights

Unit 1 2 4 8 16 32 64

Value in grams 0.8525 1.705 3.41 6.82 13.64 27.28 54.56

Traditional Indian weights

ëRattisí 8 16 32 64 128 256 512

ëKarshasí 1 2 4 8 16

Value in grams 0.8375 1.675 3.35 6.70 13.40 26.80 53.60

HARAPPAN RATIOS

Before we come to linear measures, we musthighlight a neglected area of Harappanmetrology: the widespread deliberate use ofratios in Harappan structures. Harappan bricksgenerally had standardised proportions of 1:2:4(and often 1:2:3 in the Early phase). The acropolisor upper city at several sites (e.g. Mohenjodaro,Kalibangan, Dholavira) is laid out in a precise 2:1ratio; their lengths are twice their breadths. Thewidths of Kalibanganís streets are in ratios of1:2:3:4, where the unit is 1.8m (Lal 1997: 121).There is evidence that some of these ratios have,in fact, roots going back to Neolithic or Earlyphases (Lal 1997: 35, 61; Kenoyer 2010: 114).

But such observations have not led to a broaderunderstanding of the concepts behind such ratios.

In the case of Dholavira, however, the well-preserved condition of the foundations of thecityís fortifications prompted the excavator(Bisht 1997, 1999, 2000) to note a profusion ofspecific proportions; significantly, the overallcity obeyed a ratio of 5:4 (or 1.25) with a nilmargin of error, and the same ratio was repeatedin the Castle on the acropolis. Supplementingthis information (Danino 2005, 2008, 2010a), Iadded a few more ratios such as 9:4 (or 2.25)between the Castleís and the Middle Towníslengths, and again between the Middle Townísand the cityís lengths (Fig. 2). Such repetitive

Metrology and Linear Measurements

313

patterns cannot be accidental, especially in viewof the high degree of precision involved despitethe terrainís irregularities.

Extending to other sites the thesis thatHarappans favoured specific ratios to randomproportions wherever possible, a preliminarystudy (Danino 2010b) showed over thirtystructures across seven sites sharing somesixteen ratios (Fig. 3). This includedfortifications, large buildings and reservoirs(such as Dholaviraís). Clearly, such a distributioncannot be random and reflects a culturalspecificity: we would be hard put to locate sucha love of proportions in our modern cities.

What, then, could have impelled theHarappan mind to impose such ratios on theirlandscapes? Probably the same motive thatprompted classical Hindu architecture to evolveseries of auspicious proportions for temples andother buildings. The Månasåra follows thisprinciple when it states (35.18-20) that ìthelength of the mansion [to be built] should beascertained by commencing with its breadth, orincreasing it by one-fourth, one-half, three-fourths, or making it twice, or greater than twice

by one-fourth, one-half or three-fourths, ormaking it three timesî (Acharya 1934/1994:374). The outcome is a series of eight ratiosregarded as auspicious: 5:4, 3:2, 7:4, 2:1, 9:4,5:2, 11:4, 3:1. It is significant that all of them arefound at Dholavira or other Harappansettlements (Fig. 3). Auspiciousness apart, theMånasåra shows us how such ratios wereformed, i.e. through the addition of a simplefraction to unity or multiples of it. It is likely thatthe Harappan architects followed a similarprocess: ratios 5:4, 7:4, 9:4 and 11:4, forexample, can be simply formed by adding one-fourth to unity (1.25), then adding one-half threetimes in succession (1.75, 2.25, 2.75).

Continuity between the Harappan schemeof ratios and Indiaís classical concepts is further

Fig. 2. Main ratios at work at Dholavira (simplified plan).

Fig. 3. A sampling of ratios found at a few Harappan sites(on a linear scale), generally with a high degree ofprecision.

Protohistoric Foundations

314

suggested by the famous scholar Varåhamihira,who in the sixth century AD wrote in his BrihatSamhitå (53.4-5): ìThe length of a kingís palaceis greater than the breadth by a quarter.... Thelength of the house of a commander-in-chiefexceeds the width by a sixth....î (Bhat 1981:451-52). These two ratios, 1 + 1/4 and 1 + 1/6,are identical to 5:4 and 7:6, two key ratios atDholaviraís ratios (5:4 for the Castle and theoverall city; 7:6 for the Middle Town).

In the Indian tradition, adding a fractionreflects the cosmic principle of increase andexpansion, and invites prosperity. The mainVedic sacrificial ground, the trapezium-shapedmahavedi, measures 24 steps on its eastern sideand 30 on its western side (as given in the›atapatha Bråhmana I.1.2.23 (see Sen and Bag1983: 170), an increase reflecting the gain ofthe sacrifice. Interestingly, the ratio of increase,30:24, is the same as Dholaviraís 5:4. Much later,Maharaja Jai Singh, the author of the Jantar Mantarobservatories, took on the prefix ëSawaií, whichmeans ëone and a quarterí (again 5:4), the rateby which he was said to exceed his predecessor!

The systematic use of specific ratios byHarappans appears to be based on the sameconcept of sacred proportions; it is an attemptto embody auspiciousness in their urbanlandscape and can be seen as the origin of suchconcepts in Indiaís architectural traditions.

HARAPPAN LINEAR MEASURES

The question of Harappan linear measures ismuch less straightforward than that of weights.To determine the units of length in the absenceof literary evidence, a scale is an obviousdesideratum. Four artefacts qualifying ascandidates have so far been found. (In whatfollows, I will call them ëscalesí, although, strictlyspeaking, there is no proof that any of them wasactually intended to be one.)

In 1931, Mackay reported at Mohenjodarothe find of a broken length of shell. It bore nineneatly incised dividing lines creating eightdivisions of 0.264" or 6.706 mm each (with avery low mean error of 0.08 mm). A dot and acircle were incised five graduations apart, whichsuggested to Mackay a decimal system of linearmeasures. Taking five divisions as a unit, Petrieproposed a ìdecimal scale of 1.320 [inches]î andrelated ten such units to a foot in Egyptian,Greek, Roman and medieval British systems(Mackay 1938: 404ñ05). Since then, theconcepts of an ìIndus inchî of 1.32" (33.53 mm)and an ìIndus footî of 13.2" (33.53 cm) havefound their way into the literature (e.g., Wheeler1968: 83ñ84). However, attempts by Mackayto relate such a unit to dimensions inMohenjodaro were, on his own admission, notvery successful, and he suspected the existenceìof a second system of measurementî (Mackay1938: 405).

A few years later, Vats reported fromHarappa a fragment of a bronze rod with fourdivisions of 9.34 mm each. Being 1.39 timeslarger than the division on the Mohenjodaroscale, it bears no obvious relation to it. Vatsattempted a correlation with Egyptís royal cubitand, on that basis, proposed a ìHarappan cubitîof 56 times the above division, or 52.3 cm (Vats1940: 365-66). (A cubit is the distance from theelbow to the tip of the finger.) While trying toapply the above ìHarappan footî (based onMohenjodaroís scale) and ìHarappan cubitî tosome 150 structures, Vats used a foot of 33.0 to33.5 cm and a cubit of 51.6 to 52.8 cm.However, he published only a few examples(such as Mohenjodaroís Great Bath, so-calledìGranaryî, etc.), without margins of error, andused the foot in some cases and the cubit inothers, suggesting that it was ìvery probable thatboth these systems, one based on the foot and

Metrology and Linear Measurements

315

the other on the cubit, were simultaneously inuse in the Indus Valleyî (Vats 1940: 366). Hisproposal has been repeated by later scholars(e.g., Wheeler 1968: 84), but never seriouslytested. Moreover, it implicitly but questionablyassumed an identity between Harappan andEgyptian concepts of measure: although it isindeed very likely that Harappan linearmeasures were, as elsewhere, rooted in physicalconcepts of digit, palm, hand span, cubit andheight, they need not have been borrowed fromcontemporary cultures.

In 1950s, excavations at Lothal brought tolight a rod of ivory (Fig. 4) marked by 27graduations that covered 46 mm (Rao 1979:626). Dividing 46 mm by 26 divisions gives aunit of 1.77 mm (Rao divided by 27 graduations,an error repeated by Mainkar). The sixth andthe twenty-first graduations appear longer,perhaps pointing to a decimal intention. Raoísattempts to correlate Lothal dimensions with thisunit are too approximate and limited in scopeto form a consistent system (Rao 1991: 313-14).Of greater interest is Mainkarís observation thatthe Lothal unit should be related to Indiaístraditional angula (i.e., a digit, originally thewidth of the middle finger), which, through hiscareful analysis of metrological traditions acrossIndia, he estimated to be 17.78 mm (Mainkar1984: 147). Ten Lothal units, in other words,were equivalent to the angula, a viewtentatively accepted by Chattopadhyaya (1986:231-33).

More recently, Rottländer (1984)investigated Harappan linear units from adifferent perspective, bypassing the abovethree would-be scales and taking measurementsfrom house plans carefully drawn by Jansen andhis team at Mohenjodaro. His analysis pointedto a foot unit of 34.55 cm and a ìdouble footî oftwice that size, which he related to a unitidentified at Nippur in Mesopotamia. Rottländerrejected both the Mohenjodaro and the Harappascales; the former might have been, hesuggested, ìpart of an ornament or finger-boardof a stringed instrumentî (Rottländer 1984: 202).Assuming that Rottländerís dimensions werecorrectly measured on the plans, it remains tobe explained why we should expect the lengthsof most or all rooms to reflect a whole (orintegral) multiple of a basic unit; it is by no meanscertain that such measurements of actual roomsof houses in our twentieth century would allowus to re-create the unit of a metre. A complexstatistical argument is involved, which willrequire elucidation.

In 2005, I realised that Dholaviraís well-defined fortifications, together with their preciseproportions, should permit us to work out thelinear unit with which the cityís walls weremeasured out. Simple calculations (Danino2010a) were made with no a priori assumption,except that the fortificationsí lengths should beintegral (that is, non-fractional) expressions ofsuch a unit. Results showed that with a unit oflength of 1.901 m, all the principal dimensionsof the city (Fig. 5) could be so expressed with ahigh degree of precision, the average marginof error being a mere 0.6%. Fortifications apart,most dimensions of the cityís large reservoirsand of many structures at other Harappan sitescould also be expressed as whole multiples ofthe proposed unit (Danino 2008, 2010b). Forinstance, the maximum width of the primaryFig. 4. The Lothal ivory scale (courtesy: ASI).

Protohistoric Foundations

316

ëSR3í rock-cut reservoir (south of DholaviraísCastle), 9.45 m, is exactly five units (with amargin of error of 0.5%), while the width of thesecondary reservoir at the bottom of the sameSR3, 5.65 m, is three units (0.9%); two enigmaticstone columns found in the Castle are precisely3.8m apart, which is two units; etc. Suchexpressions of short dimensions are, of course,more compelling than those of long ones.

The unit of 1.901 m turned out to be nearly108 times larger than the Lothal digit, whichprompted me to propose a Dholavira digit of1.76 cm. The factor 108 is prescribed in theArtha‹åstra (2.20.19) as the ratio between anangula (ëfingerí) and a dhanus (bow) or danda(ëstickí) for the specific purpose of measuringcity walls and streets (Kangle 1986: 139) (theordinary dhanus is only 96 angulas).Varåhamihira also stated in his Brihat Samhitå(68.105) that the height of a tall man is 108angulas (which tallies with 1.9 m), that of amedium man 96 angulas (1.69 m with theDholavira angula, again a good match), and thatof a short man 84 angulas (Bhat 1981: 642). Itherefore suggested that the most common

Mature Harappan brick size, which is 7x14x28cm (Jansen quoted by Rottländer 1983: 202;Kenoyer 1998: 57), could be expressed as4x8x16 angulas. (Kalibanganís terracottahourglass mentioned above also measures 7 cmof 4 angulas in both height and diameter.) Asystem of the multiples of angulas including thepalm (4 angulas) and the hasta or cubit (in thiscase 27 angulas) was also proposed, but itswider applicability remains to be demonstrated.

Independently, Pant and Funo (2005) studiedblock and plot divisions at several ancient sites.At Thimi in Nepal, a 1,500-year-old town, blocksof habitations were divided by regularly spacedeastñwest streets with an average width of38.42m. Besides, a pattern of divisions on a longnearby strip of fields yielded an average of38.48 m. Pant and Funo turned to the highlyregular street pattern at Sirkap, one of Taxilaísthree mounds, and found that the averagedistance between parallel streets was, again,38.4m, even though a millennium separates thetwo sites. Moreover, on the nearby Bhir mound,they found ìa number of blocks [of houses] incontiguity with a width of 19.2 mî (Pant and Funo2005: 57), that is, half of 38.4 m. Finally,studying Mohenjodaroís plan, they noticed inmajor cluster blocks at three different parts ofthe city a frequently occurring dimension of19.20 m. They were led to correlate these figureswith the Artha‹åstra system of linear measuresand reached the same conclusion thatDholaviraís fortifications had led me to: theyadopted a danda (an equivalent of the dhanus)of 108 angulas, and, as prescribed by the text,a rajju (or ëropeí) of ten dandas. Their dandahad a value of 1.92 m, so that Mohenjodaroísblock dimensions of 19.2 m were equivalent to1 rajju, and those of 38.4 m twice as much (aunit called paridesha). At the other end of thescale, their value of the angula was 1.78 cm

Fig. 5. Dholaviraís main dimensions expressed in termsof a unit of 1.9 m.

Metrology and Linear Measurements

317

(1.92 m divided by 108). Their danda andangula were thus almost identical in value tothe units I had independently proposed (andsince some of Dholaviraís dimensions areexpressed as 10, 60, 80, 150 or 180 dhanus,there is a good case for the use of a rajju of 10dhanus there too). Pant and Funoís observationon the continuity between Harappan andhistorical linear measures also paralleled myown: ìThere is continuity in the survey andplanning tradition from Mohenjodaro to Sirkapand Thimi.... The planning modules employedin the Indus city of Mohenjodaro, Sirkap ofGandhara, and Thimi of Kathmandu Valley arethe sameî (Pant and Funo 2005: 57).

Finally, Kalibanganís excavation brought tolight a crude 9 cm-long rod of terracotta with afew markings. It was scrutinised only recently(Balasubramaniam 2008a, Balasubramaniam andJoshi 2008) and yielded a unit of 1.75 cm, whichBalasubramaniam related to the proposedDholavira angula of 1.76 cm and to 10 Lothalunits (1.77 cm), thereby lending some weightto my and Mainkarís theses. Additionally,Balasubramaniam showed that most divisions onKalibanganís terracotta scale were one-eighthof 1.75 cm, which is in accord with theArtha‹åstraís definition (2.20.6) of an angula asthe combined widths of eight grains of barley(Kangle 1986: 138).

Balasubramaniam went on to apply thelinear units worked out at Dholavira to historicalstructures: the dimensions of the Delhi Iron Pillar(Balasubramaniam 2008b), the Mauryan rock-

cut caves at Barabar and Nagarjuni hills(Balasubramaniam 2009b) and the Taj Mahalísmodular planning (Balasubramaniam 2009a)took felicitous expressions when formulated interms of the proposed units, suggesting thesurvival of the Harappan system, or of a systemakin to it.

Table 2 summarises the above discussionand the proposed Harappan linear units. Itremains, of course, wholly possible that differentunit systems were used for different purposes.If other ancient cultures are any guide, we shouldnot expect a single Harappan system to coverbeads, seals, bricks, buildings, reservoirs andlong fortification walls. It may also be that onesystem was related to another in ways not yetunderstood; for instance, Mainkar (1984: 146)noticed that 10 units on Mohenjodaroís scaleadded to 15 units on Lothalís equals 10 units onHarappaís scale, which is correct to within 0.1%(Danino 2008: 74). Whether this relationship isaccidental or the result of some design remainsto be worked out. Finally, even smaller linearunits than those shown in Table 2 might havebeen in use, as the sophisticated techniques ofbead making point to (Kenoyer 2010: 111-12).

Fig. 6. The Kalibangan terracotta scale (courtesy: ASI).

Protohistoric Foundations

318

Table 2. Summary of the Various Proposed Systems of Linear Units (A Few of Them not Discussed in the Text). AllDimensions Are in CM and Rounded Off to Two Decimal Points (Three for the First Column).

basic digit/ palm foot cubit/ dhanus/unit inch/ (4 digits) double danda

angula foot

Mohenjodaro scale 0.671 3.35 ó 33.53 ó ó(Mackay and Petrie)

Harappa scale 0.934 1.87 7.49 ó 52.3 ó(Vats)

Lothal scale 0.177 1.78 ó ó ó ó(Rao and Mainkar)

Rottländer ó 0.69 6.91 34.55 69.1 ó

Kalibangan scale ó 1.75 ó ó ó ó(Balasubramaniam)

Dholavira units ó 1.76 7.04 ó 47.52 190.1(Danino)

Mohenjodaro ó 1.78 ó ó ó 192(Pant and Funo)

Only a systematic study of all the preciselymeasured Harappan structures analysed withmodern statistical methods will provide a finalanswer to the question of the Harappan systemsof linear measures.

CONCLUSION

As one more example of a promising line ofresearch, a brief mention may be made ofHarappan volumetric units, which had untilrecently defied analysis. Like Kinnier Wilson(1984) and Subbarayappa (1997), Wells (2009)interpreted a few Harappan signs as numbers,but went on to correlate them with markings on

pots, some of them vertical strokes. He foundthat the larger the pot, the more vertical strokes,which seemed to point to some relationship withthe potís volume. Measuring three potsprecisely, he found that their volumes wereconsistent with a unit of 9.24 litres per verticalstroke. Of course, such investigations should bepursued with many more specimens beforethey may be regarded as conclusive.

In the meantime, Harappan metrology,despite our incomplete knowledge of it, appearsto be as sophisticated as Harappan craftsand technologies. Indeed, this was to beexpected.

REFERENCES

Acharya, Prasanna Kumar. 1934/1994. Architecture ofMånasåra. Vol. 4. Månasåra Series. Republished.New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Bag, A.K. 1997. Concepts and Measures of Length,Weight and Time. In A.K. Bag (ed.), History ofTechnology in India. Vol. 1. New Delhi: IndianNational Science Academy, pp. 663-76.

Metrology and Linear Measurements

319

Balasubramaniam, R. 2008a. On the Continuity ofEngineering Tradition from the Harappan to GangaCivilisation. Man and Environment 33(1): 101-05.

óñ. 2008b. On the Mathematical Significance of theDimensions of the Delhi Iron Pillar. CurrentScience 95(6): 766-70.

óñ. 2009a. New Insights on the Modular Planning ofthe Taj Mahal. Current Science 97(1): 42-49.

óñ. 2009b. New Insights on Metrology during theMauryan Period. Current Science 97(5): 680-82.

Balasubramaniam, R. and Jagat Pati Joshi. 2008. Analysisof Terracotta Scale of Harappan Civilisation fromKalibangan. Current Science 95(5): 588-89.

Bhat, M. Ramakrishna. 1981. Varåhamihiraís BrhatSamhitå. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, Vol. 1.

Bisht, R.S. 1997. Dholavira Excavations: 1990ñ94. In J.P.Joshi (ed.), Facets of Indian Civilisation: Essaysin Honour of Prof. B.B.Lal. New Delhi: AryanBooks International, vol. 1, pp. 107-20.

óñ. 1999. Dholavira and Banawali: Two DifferentParadigms of the Harappan Urbis Forma.Puratattva 29: 14-37.

óñ. 2000. Urban Planning at Dholavira: A HarappanCity. In J. McKim Malville and Lalit M. Gujral (eds.),Ancient Cities, Sacred Skies: Cosmic Geometriesand City Planning in Ancient India. New Delhi:Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts and AryanBooks International, pp. 11-23.

Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 2006. The Oxford Companion toIndian Archaeology: The ArchaeologicalFoundations of Ancient India. New Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press.

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad. 1986. History of Scienceand Technology in Ancient India. Calcutta: FirmaKLM, Vol. 1.

Cleuziou, Serge. 1992. The Oman Peninsula and theIndus Civilisation: A Reassessment. Man andEnvironment 17(2): 93-103.

Danino, Michel. 2005. Dholaviraís Geometry: APreliminary Study. Puratattva 35: 76-84.

óñ. 2008. New Insights into Harappan Town planning,Proportions and Units, with Special Reference toDholavira. Man and Environment 33(1): 66-79.

óñ. 2010a. Unravelling Dholaviraís Geometry. InP. Chenna Reddy (ed.), Rama Vijayam: RecentResearches in Archaeology, History and Culture(Festschrift to Prof. K.V. Raman). Delhi: AgamKala Prakashan, pp. 179-93.

óñ. 2010b. Further Research into Harappan Metrologyat Dholavira. Man and Environment 35(2): 35-44.

Hemmy, A.S. 1931. System of Weights at Mohenjo-Daro.In John Marshall, Mohenjo-Daro and the IndusCivilisation. London: Arthur Probsthain, pp. 589-98.

óñ. 1938. System of Weights at Mohenjo-Daro. InE.J.H. Mackay, Further Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro. Delhi: Government of India. Vol. 1, pp. 601-12. [I have modernised Hemmyís abbreviationëgmsí for a gram into ëgí.]

Joshi, Jagat Pati. 2008. Harappan Architecture and CivilEngineering. New Delhi: Rupa and InfinityFoundation.

Kangle, R.P. 1986. The Kautilya Artha‹åstra. New Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, Part II.

Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark. 1998. Ancient Cities of theIndus Valley Civilisation. Karachi and Islamabad:Oxford University Press and American Institute ofPakistan Studies.

óñ. 2010. Measuring the Harappan World: Insights intothe Indus Order and Cosmology. in Iain Morleyand Colin Renfrew (eds), The Archaeology ofMeasurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earthand Time in Ancient Societies. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Kosambi, D.D. 1941. On the Study and Metrology ofSilver Punch-marked Coins. New Indian Antiquary4(2): 1-35 and 49-76.

Lal, B.B. 1997. The Earliest Civilisation of South Asia.New Delhi: Aryan Books International.

Mackay, E.J.H. 1938. Further Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro. Delhi: Government of India. Vol. 1.

Protohistoric Foundations

320

Mainkar, V.B. 1984. Metrology in the Indus Civilisation.In B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta (eds.), Frontiers of theIndus Civilisation. New Delhi: Books and Books,pp. 141-51.

Maula, Erkka. 1984. The Calendar Stones from Mohenjo-Daro. In M. Jansen and G. Urban (eds), InterimReports on Fieldwork carried out at Mohenjo-Daro, Pakistan 1982ñ83. Aachen and Rome:German Research Project Mohenjo-Daro andIstituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente,Vol. 1, pp. 159-70.

Mitchiner, John E. 1978. Studies in the Indus ValleyInscriptions, Delhi: Oxford and IBH, 1978.

Pant, Mohan and Shuji Funo. 2005. The Grid and ModularMeasures in the Town Planning of Mohenjo-Daroand Kathmandu Valley: A Study on ModularMeasures in Block and Plot Divisions in the Planningof Mohenjo-Daro and Sirkap (Pakistan), and Thimi(Kathmandu Valley). Journal of Asian Architectureand Building Engineering. 4(1): 51-59.

Possehl, Gregory L. 2002. The Indus Civilisation: AContemporary Perspective. Oxford: AltamiraPress, (Indian edn, Vistaar, New Delhi, 2003).

Rao, S.R. 1979. Lothal, a Harappan Port Town (1955-62). New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India,Vol. 2.

óñ. 1991. Dawn and Devolution of the IndusCivilisation. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

Ratnagar, Shereen. 2006. Understanding Harappa:Civilisation in the Greater Indus Valley. 2nd edn.,New Delhi: Tulika.

Rottländer, R.C.A. 1984. The Harappan LinearMeasurement Unit. In M. Jansen and G. Urban

(eds.), Interim Reports on fieldwork carried outat Mohenjo-Daro, Pakistan 1982ñ83. Aachen andRome: German Research Project Mohenjo-Daro,and Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed EstremoOriente, Vol. 1, pp. 201-05.

Sen, S.N. and A.K. Bag. 1983. The Sulbasastras. NewDelhi: Indian National Science Academy.

Srinivasan, Sarada. 1979. Mensuration in Ancient India.Delhi: Ajanta Publications.

Subbarayappa, B.V. 1997. Indus Script: Its Nature andStructure. Madras: New Era Publications.

Vahia, M.N. and Nisha Yadav. 2007. Harappan Weights.Puratattva 37: 213-17.

óñ. In press. A Possible Astronomical Observatory atDholavira.

Vats, Madho Sarup. 1940. Excavations at Harappå. DelhiManager of Publications, Vol. I.

Wanzke, Holger 1987. Axis Systems and Orientation atMohenjo-Daro. In M. Jansen and G. Urban (eds.),Interim Reports on Fieldwork Carried out atMohenjo-Daro, Pakistan 1982ñ83. Aachen andRome: German Research Project Mohenjo-Daroand Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed EstremoOriente, Vol. 2, pp. 33-44.

Wells, Bryant. 2009. As reported by T.S. Subramanian,Indus Civilisation Reveals its Volumetric System.The Hindu. 15 November 2009.

Wheeler, Mortimer. 1968. The Indus Civilisation. 3rded. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, Kinnier J.V. 1984. The Case for Accountancy. InB.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta, (eds.), Frontiers of theIndus Civilisation. New Delhi: Books and Books,pp. 173-78.

[MD]