Why are pre-Harappan strata grouped together with Early Harappan strata? Does this not obfuscate the development of the civilization?

score:5

Accepted answer

The confusion here seems to stem from the use of a combined pre-Harappan/early Harappan terminology. We can see this usage repeated in the Wikipedia article for the Indus valley Civilization, in the table on Chronology. If we look at the meaning and locations of these terms it might be more clear.

The pre-Harappan era is the oldest, and seems to mainly occur at the Mehrgarh site. One of the distinctions of this culture would be that it is aceramic Neolithic, before pottery was in use here.

The next step, also found at the Mehrgarh site, but at different levels, is Early Harappan. One distinction here is that pottery is now in use.

The distinction between these two eras being the lack of pottery would imply a certain uncertainty when excavating a site such as Mehrgarh. The layers you draw are not quite that clear-cut, and if you find no pottery when digging, is it pre-Harappan (pre-pottery) or just an area where you were unlucky and didn't find any pottery samples.

A safer label therefore would be the combined term of pre-Harappan/Early Harappan. Some regions with pottery represented, some without, but age indications placing the site definitely before the more developed culture labeled as the Mature Harappan.

Sometimes it is more accurate when describing something to use a 'fuzzy' definition then a more specific one which can't be supported by the evidence. (In genealogy, for instance, we often describe something undocumented as Before this date, or After another date-expressing uncertainty but giving information concerning what we may be sure of.)

More post

Search Posts

Related post