Implications (part 1)

 

So I couldn´t resist asking ChatGPT about the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). Was it really egalitarian and peaceful? The AI responded: "The Indus Valley Civilization is no longer viewed as uniformly peaceful or truly egalitarian — it was a complex, socially differentiated urban civilization with coordinated authority and some evidence of conflict, even if it lacked the monumental kingship and warfare seen in contemporaneous states like Egypt and Mesopotamia."

Then, the AI claimed that there is evidence of hierarchy at Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, so that became the obvious follow-up question.

What kinds of hierarchy are evidenced at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa?

Archaeologists today talk about hierarchy in the Indus cities in terms of graded access, control, and differentiation rather than kings, palaces, or castes. Mohenjo-daro and Harappa show multiple, overlapping forms of hierarchy, even though none is theatrical or explicitly ideological in the way we see in Egypt or Mesopotamia.

I’ll lay this out carefully, from most solidly evidenced to more inferential.

---

1. Spatial hierarchy: citadel vs lower town

This is the clearest and least controversial form of hierarchy.

A. Elevated precincts (“citadels”)

Both Mohenjo-daro and Harappa have:

• Artificially raised platforms

• Massive brick construction

• Restricted access routes

• Non-residential monumental buildings

At Mohenjo-daro:

• The Great Bath

• Large assembly-like structures

• Storage buildings

These areas required:

• Large labor coordination

• Central planning

• Control over space

This strongly implies:

A group with authority over communal labor and ritual space

Not necessarily kings — but institutional elites.

---

B. Lower town

• Densely packed housing

• Workshops

• Ordinary domestic life

The physical separation suggests:

Spatialized social distinction, even if not dynastic rulership.

---

2. Residential hierarchy: house size and quality

A. Variation in house size

Excavations show:

• Small single-room dwellings

• Medium courtyard houses

• Large multi-room houses with private wells and drains

At Mohenjo-daro:

• Some houses have:

  • Bathrooms

  • Advanced drainage

  • Multiple stories

• Others do not

This indicates:

Unequal access to resources, water, and labor

Even if extremes of wealth are muted compared to Mesopotamia.

---

B. Neighborhood clustering

Larger houses tend to cluster in certain areas:

• Better access to major streets

• Proximity to infrastructure

This suggests:

Status expressed through location, not ostentatious display.

---

3. Infrastructure access hierarchy

A. Water control

• Some houses had private wells

• Others relied on public wells

Wells are labor-intensive to build and maintain.

Access implies:

• Household status

• Possibly lineage or occupational privilege

---

B. Drainage and sanitation

• High-quality covered drains are not universal

• Some streets and houses have better systems

This implies:

Differential investment in public goods

Which in turn implies decision-making authority.

---

4. Occupational hierarchy: craft specialization

A. Specialized craft districts

Both cities show:

• Bead-making quarters

• Metalworking areas

• Shell-working zones

• Pottery specialization

Craft specialists:

• Required training

• Had access to trade networks

• Produced prestige goods (carnelian beads, seals)

This suggests:

Skilled producers with elevated social standing, or at least controlled roles.

---

B. Control of raw materials

Many raw materials came from far away:

• Lapis lazuli (Afghanistan)

• Copper (Rajasthan, Oman)

• Shell (Arabian Sea)

Someone coordinated:

• Long-distance trade

• Storage

• Distribution

That coordination implies:

Managerial or mercantile elites

---

5. Administrative hierarchy: seals and standardization

A. Seals

Thousands of seals found:

• High craftsmanship

• Repeated motifs

• Likely linked to identity, authority, or property

They imply:

• Individuals or institutions with recognized status

• Administrative control over goods

---

B. Standardized weights and measures

• Highly consistent across the Indus world

• Indicates enforcement, not voluntary agreement

This implies:

Regulatory authority operating above the household level

Whether council-based, mercantile, or priestly.

---

6. Burial differentiation (weak but suggestive)

Burials are generally modest, but:

• Some individuals have:

  • More grave goods

  • Higher-quality ornaments

• Differences are subtle, but real

This suggests:

Social distinction without funerary ostentation

Possibly ideological restraint on display.

---

7. Absence of royal ideology: a different kind of hierarchy

Crucially missing:

• Palaces

• Royal tombs

• Victory stelae

• Named rulers

This suggests hierarchy was:

• Corporate rather than personal

• Institutional rather than dynastic

• Managerial rather than charismatic

Comparable models scholars suggest:

• Merchant oligarchies

• Priest-administrators

• City councils

• Clan-based elites

---

8. What kind of hierarchy this was not

It was likely not:

• Absolute monarchy

• Warrior aristocracy

• Theocratic kingship

• Fully egalitarian society

Instead:

A muted, distributed hierarchy with real power but restrained symbolic expression

---

9. Why this hierarchy looks “invisible” to us

Because Indus elites:

• Did not monumentalize themselves

• Did not depict rulers

• Did not glorify violence

• Did not leave decipherable texts

Power was exercised through:

• Planning

• Regulation

• Infrastructure

• Trade

Not spectacle.

---

10. Synthesis

Mohenjo-daro and Harappa show clear evidence of hierarchy through spatial segregation, differential housing quality, infrastructure access, craft specialization, and administrative control—indicating institutional elites and regulated authority, even in the absence of kings, palaces, or overt displays of power.