161 - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/160484... · and southern extremities of...
Transcript of 161 - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/160484... · and southern extremities of...
161
CHAPTER VII
HARAPPAN FORTIFICATIONS
The large-scale excavations at the various Indus
valley sites in the nineteen-thirties failed to prove
the existence of fort-walls or fortification of any other
sort though the same wsds expected by a few scholars.
In other words the Indus valley civilization showed a
sharp contrast to its contemporary Egyptian and Summe-
jrian societies. And hence the Indus society was consider
ed to toe a wealthy mercajitile comniTinity that had in some
unscrutable manner done away with aristocratic or princely
rule symbolised by citadels and forts and further that
it had established a democracy based on "bourgeoisie
economy”. But owing to the availability of Indus seals
at Ur (1 or 2 ), Kish (2 ), Tell-Asmar (2 ), Tape Gawra (1)
and Susa (1) in association with seals certainly or pro
bably of Sargonid date^, it was inferred that the Harappan
culture was in contact, by way of maritime activities
through the Arabian sea and Persian gulf or through the
land routes, with Sumer in and about the time of Sargon
of Agade (Akkad) dated to C. 2350 B.C. In such conditions
certainly there were chances of intermixing of societies.
The Indus people must have borrowed so many things includ
ing certain ideas and technological advancements from the
16‘J
Mesopotamians and vice-versa. As such it was a big
mystery for the archaeologists as to why the art of forti
fications alone was not learnt by the Indus people from the
Sumerians.
The mystery was solved by Wheeler's discovery of
fortification around a mound at Harappan in 19^6. Beside
the fortification wall Harappa yielded a citadel too —
a conventional seat of power of a few — the priest,
priestly king or the king. Soon the mounds at Mohenoo..
daro were also made to reveal their secrets. Mohenjodaro
yielded an identical pattern of fortification viz. the
fortification wall and the guardian citadel, although the
citadel here was more heavily fortified. Afterwards
various sites of Indus valley civilization were excava
ted. Suktagendor, Soktakoh, and Kot-Diji in Baluchistan,
Ali-lurad in Sind Desalpur in Kutch, Lethal Surkotda in
Gujarat and Kalibangan in Ra^jasthan yielded traces of for
tification. Being the earliest known concrete manifesta
tion of military engineering in India, they can perhaps
be the prototype or have some bearing on the defence
works of future India. They are significant from some
other aspects as well. Their strength/weakness is the
measure of the dangers, they were expected to face, their
plans indicate the nature of the dangers and obviously
1G3
the military tradition of the Indus peoples. Through an
analysis of the distribution of these fortified sites one
can very easily guess the expansion of the power controll
ing them. Strategical study of the situation of diffe
rent fortified places would give an idea about the fron
tiers and core of the vast empire.
The e^qpanse of Indus Civilization is spread over
an area that makes up the entire Pakistan to-day. The
western-most site, Sxiktagen-dor is on the Makran coast in
West Pakistan, while the eastern-most limit is Alamgirpur
some 4 3 km., north-east of Delhi in Distt. Meerut of U.P.
Rupar in Punjab and Bhagtrav in Gujarat form the northern
and southern extremities of the area influenced by this civi
lization. If all the four points are joined with a straight
lin e , rough parallelogram is formed. The core of the
civilization, obviously was the valley of Great Indus.
The northern, north-western and north-eastern extre
mities of the region are surrounded by the Himalayas and its
subsidiary hill ranges like Karakoram and Hindukush. On
the western side it is partially separated from the table
land of Iran and Hazara-highlands by Kirthar, Sulaiman,
and Safed-Koh ranges. The extreme westerly and southerly
expansion is mainly on the coast-line of the Arabian sea.
Eastern border of the civilization is generally demarcated
IGl
by the Great Indian Desert — The Thar, besides it being
parallel to the Aravali hill ranges. The entire area
defined by the above limits forms a more or less homoge
neous geographical unit, watered by the Indus and its tri
butaries like Sutlej and Ravi. The river Saraswati is no
more to-day but it also must have been an important asset
of the Indus people. The two valleys that of Indus and
Saraswati, owing to the absence of any physical barrier
between them, must have been complementary to each other.
Within these areaf, more than a hundred villages, townships
and stations of the Harappans have been investigated. To
sum up, the geographical features of this expanse fulfil
the basic pre-conditions of an compact political unit as it
is more or less secluded but united internally.
Out of these sites, especially the fortified sites
were located at the points of strategic importance, though
not as effectively as in contemporary Egypt — where a
series of fortifications guarded the approaches from the
island of Elephantine to the fortress of the sea or as the
approaches from Asia were guarded by the forts at S ile ,
Pelusium and Pithon. Most of the fortified Indus sites
are situated so as to command important trade/military
routes. There are almost negligible changes in these
routes, (especially in hilly regions) even after a lapse
of many centuries, and it can be safely inferred that som(
of the routes (specially carved out of natural formations
should have been used by the Harappans and their contempo'
raries.
Kohtras-Bhuthi — one of the fortified site of A.mr;
culture, commands the route from Arabjo Thana to Taiing.
Another site Suktagen-dor occupies a position upon which
convenient routes towards KeJ, converge from a number of
little fishing harbours on the coast from the Gwatar bay,
Pasu-Bandar and Gwadar^. These routes may well have clail
some importance in pre-historic times also. As such it i«
not quite unreasonable to take the site as a check-post oj
the sea-routes to India. Similarly Lothal in Gujarat whe;
in the existence of a dock has been revealed by the excavi
tions, must have acted as a sentinal against any invasion
through the Arabian sea, beside its being on important
trade centre for the import and export of the various
commodities between India and Mesopotamia. Another site
Gujarat, Surkotda, though not situated to command a trade>
route or some frontier is strategically important. As it
is situated on the portion of land joining the island of
Kutch with Indian mainland, it could have regulated the
entry of the people of the mainland into Kutch. If the
river Indus is taken as a barrier against the inroads to
India as in fact it worked, the passes through the Suli^B
I W l
and Kirthar ranges from the tableland of Iran were guarded
by Ali-Murad, Mohenoodaro, Judeirodaro and Dabar-Kot,
Pathani-Damb — also an Indus culture site is located at
4the entrance of the Harbab-pass . A further survey near
the approaches of sutfh routes may throw some light on the
military aspects of the Indus civilization.
The study of the weaponry possessed by the people
of some culture has got a direct bearing on the fortifica
tions of that particular culture. The weaponry of the Indus
people includes a large number of flakes and blades of stone
which according to scholars like Wheeler and Mackay do not
belong to the class of "arms and weapons". The various
arrow-heads of Copper and Bronze leaf-shaped, having long
tangs but without mid rib discovered at Indus sites attest
the use of bow and arrow as their favourite weapons of war
and chase. A split bamboo or wooden handle served the
purpose of mid-rib. The shape and dimensions of these
arrow-heads, resemble to the flint arrowheads of Northern
Iran and Egypt^ but stone arrow-heads are not recovered
from the Harappan sites except the two specimen one at
6 7Harappa and the other at Periano-ghundai*^. The chert
arrow-heads unearthed from Kot-Diji are all from pre-
Harappan levels. The metal type does not occxir in EgyptQ
or Sumer but is found in Minsan Crete . A type of barbed
w
arrow-head occurs rather infrequently. Spearheads and
knives are easily confused and both have such thin blades
that they would warp on impact with any hard material,
these must have been stiffened by being set back between
the split ends of the shaft which would thus serve as a
mid-rib. The two small holes near the base of the blade
in some of the specimen, suggest a former binding for
such a device. Rarely the blade has a slight median thick
ening, giving a diamond shaped section^ Mackay reports the
discovery of two short swords, one of which some 4? cm.
long, broad blade, was evidently used for slashing ratherQ
than thrusting, for its point is blunt^. According to
iTheeler this weapon representing rather short sword or
dirk, is a type of weapon for which there is no other
evidence. They are from late levels, and have parallels of
C. 2200-1750 B.C. in Syria and Palestine^®. Whatever arms
and weapons m e found are made of Copper or Bronze with
poor Tin percentage. Axes are hafted with tangs, no sockets
or socket-holes are found. At Mohenjodaro in a hoard of
buried implements beneath the floor of a house an Adze-
axe of hard Bronze some 25 cm. long was found and it is
the only specimen of a socketted tool. It is to be noted
that socketed tools were in extensive use in Elam and
Sumer before $000 B.C.^^
16^
Mace-head of Alabaster, sand-stone, Oherty-limestone
and a hard green coloured stone resembling slate are not
uncommon and were doubtless used as weapons, especially
perhaps for individual protection in the jungle though these
can be suspected to be weights for digging These
mace-heads generally lentoid shaped but rarely pear-shaped
and circular too, are perforated in a hour-glass form
bored from both ends and they were presximably lashed to a
handle with leather thongs. This type was in general
occurrence at Susa, in Egypt, in the Caucasus and exten
sively in pre-historic Europe. A mace-head of Bronze or
Copper has also been reported from the late Harappan levels
or Jhukar phase of Chanhu-daro. Comparable with Persian
examples of the second millennium B .C . , though the nearest
analogy is from Luristan, where a date rather after than
before 1400 B.C. may be conjectured in the absence of direct
12evidence .
Baked-clay-pellets of various sizes having round and
oblong shapes have been found. These might have been
used as missiles hurled with the hand or from a sling,
as there is no evidence of the invention of the catapult
as such an early date either in or outside India. Three
categories of these pellets could be distinguished. Twok
common types were compressed in the Zand and then baked
lightly. The only difference between the two is of weight
JG'i
one is approximating to I 7 0 gm. while the other to 340 gm. At
Mohenjodaro in 1950 at the foot of the citadel mound, in
the vicinity of the great Granary many pellets were found.
The parapet wal^ interconnecting two of the southeastern
towers of the citadel yield^ 98 pellets each weighing I 7 0 gm.
A hoard of 50 or more had been found stored in a large
pottery vessel in the lesser of the two halls on the southern-
half of the citadel. Further south in the same area quite
a number of large pottery balls were found lying in confu-
1?sion upon the ground outside the very thick enclosure wall
According to Marshall “their shape, material and the spot,
where they were found certaihly lead us to regard them as
weapons of offence or rather of defence . The third
category is round and about 2 .5 cm. diameter or ovoid and
upto 6 . 5 5 cm. in length but this category is quite rare.
According to Vats "The weapons of war and of chase
one the bow and arrow, spear, axe, dagger and mace. The
sword they have not yet evaded nor is there any evidence of
defensive body armour”^^. Whether they had any thing as a
substitute for the defensive body armour, made of perishable
material like wood or leather, nothing can be said for want
of evidence. But in the present state of our knowledge,
the evidence of shield, helmet, and of-metal are absent.
However as suggested by Marshall the domed pieces of Copper,
each pierced by two holes, were stitched on to a piece of
170
cloth might have been used as a coat of mail. In a few
pictographs of the Indus script, men are represented holding
such shields^^.
By way of comparison if the weaponry of the West-
I
Asian contemporaries of the Indus people is surveyed, one
can easily infer that the Indus valley people were lagging
far behind them. In Assyria the first recorded specimen of
a type of dagger which defends not upon the cut or thrust
3?d-but on the slit, is of the time of the 3 dynasty of Ur,
and it is clearly distinct from the weapons used in Baby
lonia. The curved blade of this copper dagger is sharpened
on the outer edge^*^. There is evidence in a seal impre
ssion on a Cappadocian tablet of the use of the four-horse
1 ftchariot in Asia-Minor at about 2100-1900 B.C. The use
of mace though a constant phenomenon in Mesopotamia but was
reduced to a great extent after the introduction of a strong
helmet. Then comes the axe. In third millenium B.C. Copper
axes were being used. The sword appeared and gradually «advanced to a curved shaped. Before this the Mesopotamian
phalanx was using spears with a long wooden staff and leaf
shaped metal blade, shoulder-sloped on march and carried
horizontally in assault. Many a monuments of the end of
millennium B.C. depict the use of bow. The Egyptian
bow was double convex while the Mesopotamians had a single
one. The Nubians also had two curves. There is of course
171
no evidence regarding the use of bow by the charioteers
before 5000 B.C. Composite bow is seen for the first time
in the victory monument of Naram Sin (C. 2800 B .C .) . The
effective range of a light bow was 2 7 5 to 365 m. and
consequently the shields and armours of suitable strength
were introduced. The first coat of mail was a cap worn
by the Smerians studded with small circular*pieces of
metal^^.
Coming to the description of extant remains indivi
dually, Harappa can be referred to in the beginning as the
rmins of large scale fortifications were first discovered
here. The citadel at Hari^ppa is roughly a parallelogram
measuring 450 M x 210 M. It is between 9 to 12 metres higher
than the level of the surrounding plains. The defences
rest on the pre-Harappan deposits which show signs of having
been subjected to heavy flooding. These inroads of water
were first filled up with mud-brick and the whftle was then
raised to a higher level with baked bricks. This served as
the antiflood bund, spreading protectively beyond the outer
foort of the great defensive wall some 14 metres wide at
the base and tapering upwards. The core of the wall was of
mud-brick but it had an burnt brick revetment 1 .2 m. to
1 .8 m. thick externally. To give extra strength to the
wall, a sort of buttress was added on the interior of the
wall. The buttress was in the form of a sloping platform
of mud bricks. Bastions were built at fairly regular interval
PRINCIPAL mVNDS AT HARAPPA
( ANCIENT IHDIA NO3 PAG£ NO^SS)
17 :i
and some of them at least were taller than the circuit
wall. The main entrance was on the northern side. Evi
dence of guard rooms flanking the subsidiary gateways in
the western wall was clear. At the southern end a broad
ramp or stair led upto the citadel.
Excavations have revealed three phases of recons
truction. Regarding the original phase Wheeler says "as
originally built the defences of the citadel long remain-o
ed untouched save by the weather, which w^re and rounded
the exposed surface of the baked brick revetment to a
notable extent" . The final phase of rejuvenation was
the enlargement of the defences on the north-west corner
and the blocking of the gateway in the northern wall, when
the Harappans were on the defensive according to Wheeler.
After a preliminary occupation of the site or its
vicinity, mound AB was heavily fortified — a stage indi
cating the arrival of mature^ Harappans. The defensive
wall overlies and is an integral part of the rampart. The
function of the rampart was presiimably to raise the base
of defences proper above the flood level. The bund or
rampart was crowned with the main wall of mud brick batt
ered on both sides (internally and externally). It had a
basal width of 12.2 m. and was 10.6 m. high. This was
strengthened by an outer revetment of burnt brick and
174
battered back to a slope of 2 3 . 3 1 degree from the vertical.
An elaborate system of infilade is indicated by the rectan
gular towers at regular intervals. The decline of Harappans
is indicated by the blocking off the gateway in the northern
wall and strengthening the salient on N.W. corner. Some
of the Vanished features of the citadel of Harappa can be
guessed from the analogy of the citadel of Mohenjodaro
21and of course vice-versa .
Mohenjodaro is the second site to yield the forti
fications of the Indus valley civilization. The analogy
between these two sites and to certain extent with other
sites also is quite obvious. Specially regarding the
analogy of Harappa and Mohenjodaro Wheeler says "it is tempt
ing to infer something like an imperial status for so
uniform a civilization perhaps with the metropolitan duality
which was later to mark the Kushanas, Arab and Mughal regimes
in northern India and seems indeed to be endemic in that
spacious land". He further adds that "the Indus civiliza
tion exemplified the vastest political experiment beforeO O
the advent of the Roman fimpire" .
Mohenjodaro yielded a citadel located as in case of
Harappa to the west of the township. This was also raised
on an artificial mound, the general height being 6.5 m. to
17o
1 3 metres. Obviously this artificial platform was raised
as an anti-flood measure and naturally to protect it from
water-erosion, a brick-embankment was added to it as an
after thought. The width of this anti-water-erosion embank
ment was 14 metres. At or near the south-east corner of
the Mohenjodaro citadel platform exhibits the gradual multi
plication of rectangular bastions of burnt-brick. The
earliest of these bastions is found contemporary with the
platform but their purpose cannnot be fully explained
without further excavations. Two of them seem td have
originally flanked a postern gate which was later blocked
and replaced by a platform with a parapet^^.
The dimensions of the citadel here are almost the
same as that of Harappa. The only difference is that this
citadel was more heavily fortified. It had massive towers
at regular intervals, built of burnt brick with a timber
reinforcement given in the beginning — an idea \msuitable
for a damp climate like that of Mohenjodaro. Hence after
wards the cavities of timber left in the wall were filled
up with burnt brick and also the later builders of the
adjacent towers presumably warned by this weakness, did not
repeat the method. It is to be noted here that the method
was not suitable for the damp climates like that of Mohenjo-
daro but it has been used in^futurenIndia. The most remar-
Vs'hlA AYonmlA hAincr the wooden Dalisade of Fataliputra*
17G
About the location of the main entrance nothing so
far has been said or suggested. On the west side of the
citadel and south of the Granary a baked brick tower or
salient still standing to a height of 5 metres has been
partially unearthed, and to the north of this tower, a small
postern has been identified. It is clear that the platform
of the citadel was of a defensible character, throughout
its circuit and even the residential quarters of the city
were overlooked by a brick-wall, at one point with a breast-
high parapet, linked or rather continued from the assemblage
of solid burnt-brick towers at the S-S corner of the citadel.
This is the parapet where a large number of terracotta
missiles were found.
The presence of a large building measuring 75 M. x
2 5 M. within the enclosed area of the citadel probably the
residence of some high official, chief-priest or perhaps
the king; ”the Great Bath" and a huge Granary on its fringes,
made Wheeler infer that this citadel was "both a religious
,,24and a secular head quarters
In the lower city in the HR area, a remarkable
block of barracks comprising 16 similar sub-units arranged
back to back in two lines, an eastern and a western, divi
ded, save for the end pair by an axial passage, was un
earthed. Here each normal barrack consists of a small
177
bed-room and a larger front room, most of the front rooms
contain in one corner a small brick-paved bathing floor
with an escape-hole for waste water. The precise function
of these barracks can only be guessed, whether shops,
coolie-lines, police quarters or priests' quarters, "what
ever their precise function, they fit into and enhance our
general picture of a disciplined and even regimented civi
lization^^.
The massively fortified site Suktagendor was disco
vered first by A. Stein and afterwards surveyed by Dales.
The observations of both are identical but for a few details.,
The more important contribution of Dales is his interpre
tation of the locus of this site on the estuary of river
Dasht. The fortifications here consist of the usual pair
of a township and a citadel like the two sites already des
cribed. The only difference here is that the two components
are situated on two separate sand-stone ridges. The citadel
here is a rough parallelogram of 205 If. x 103 M. The main
stone wall is built of roughly squared stone blocks in
courses. It was 11 metres wide at the base having the
inner face vertical. Stein observed a buttress wall on
the inner side made of mud-brick, 2 . 5 metres thick and
making an angle of It must have been 6.1 to 7»6 metres
high. There are traces of a gateway at the western end of
17S
the southern wall. The gateway was only 2 ,4 wide and
probably was flanked on either side by massive rectangular
26towers . The plateau was not continuously walled as the
ridges on the northern and southern sides are high enough
and steep as if scarped by nature. These ridges were Joined
by the artificial defences on the eastern and western
sides to complete the enclosure. The excavator observed
three phases of construction. The first one was of stone
structures with solid stone fortification walls. In the
second phase a floor of earth was observed built of thick
stone filling. In the third phase the structures were of
semi-dressed stone blocks. These three phases are strati-
graphically associated with the fortification wall and the
occupation of the site was a continuous one and purely
27Harappan in character ' .
Sviktagendor must have been an important trading
centre as providing contacts with the sea-borne trades of
ore
29
28the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea . According to
Dales and his colleagues Suktagen was a port
Dales and his colleagues also get the credit of
discovering one more HaraPPan site — Sokta-Koh (Burned
Hill) situated about 9 miles north of Pasni in the Shadi
Kaur Valley. Like Suktagendor^ it is also situated on the
17!^
mouth of the river. The place is a key-point to the central
traffic between the coast and the interior. It is situated
on the top of a Jagged natural outcrop and a strong wall
along the edge of the rock on the western side was traced
to a length of 488 metres. The plan of the fortification
at Soktakoh is identical in all respects to that of the
Suktagendor, v iz ., a citadel (fortified) and a township.
The fortifications at Eot-Diji in Sind, can he taken
as the earliest known fortifications in India. Here a for
tified town of pre-Indus valley culture date, was revealed
by the excavations. The pre-Harappan strata was covered by
a burnt layer and below this layer the fortification was
discovered. It consists of at strongly walled citadel, armed
with rectangular towers of stone and mud-brick. This pre-
Harappan fortification was not utilised or rebuilt by the
Harappans. They built their residential structures over it,
Thase residential buildings were set very close to the wall
and in fact the defence-wall often served as the back wall
of the houses. This pattern of houses at Kot-Diji is of
common occurrence at a ntimber of Anatolian and west-Asian
sites of the same age^^. It is difficult to explain how
the pattern was imported to India but if this pattern is
kept in mind, the buildings within the citadels of more
Harappan sites would express something more than they do
180
Kot-Diji possessed two mounds, obviously the citadel
and the lower city, measuring 183 metres x 122 metres rising
about 12 metres above the surroundings. Massive walls
about 3 metres high were erected around the citadel area.
These were built on the bed-rock with undressed blocks of
stone set in mud-mortar over which brick courses were laid,9
On the inner face of the wall no plaster was found. At
places there is a mud-brick revetment to the stone founda
tion. The walls were strengthened by bastions set at
irregular intervals on the outer side of the wall, maximum
extant height was from 3*65 to 4.25 metres. The walls are
thicker at the base and taper upwards. At some places
the walls fell in dis-use and houses were built on their
top instead of against them. The burnt layer — a demarca
tion line at the cultural break between pre-Harappan and
Harappans, corroborate the date of the settlement C. 2400
B .C ., as indicated by the method^^.
A fortified site of Amri culture-slightly earlier
than the Harappans, was discovered at Kohtras-Buthi, in
Sind by N.G. Ma^jumdar. Situated on the bank of river Baran,
the site occupies the top of a hill. There was a low rampart
wall to begin with. A much larger wall of cyclopean masonry
was built after some time. Four ruined bastions could be
traced. The entrance to the enclosure is on the south
eastern side. The walls are built of boulders without
m
mortar, bastions are situated on the four corners of the
enclosure. The hill on which the site is situated is about
2 9 metres in height, gradually sloping down to only 3 metres
above the plains and on the south side meeting the track.
On the east, west and north the hill is quite steep, rugged
and difficult of approach. A large number of stone founda
tions of rooms and houses were observed. Probably drinking
water was collected by draining the catchment areas with
stone walls. The site is situated so to command the route
from Arabjo-Thana to Taung^ .
Pigffot calls the site as a *'promontory-fort" and
compares it with the fortifications of the Tharro hill —
also in Sind. Here too the fortification similar to Kohtras
Buthi, take the form of a double-wall, curved, and of
massive construction and at a distance of 76 metres apart
cuts off the southern headland of the hill in the promontory
fort manner. AMri ware was found on the surface but plain
red ware allied to that of Harappan culture was also in
53e idence-^- .
A small Harappan site Ali Murad some 32 km ., south
of Dadu in Sind was also found fortified. Here a long
ran5)art wall, built of irregularly dressed stone blocks,
surrounds a mound of about 8 metres general height. The size
of the stone blocks was found 61 cm. x 3 0 x 30 _____
182
the average. The extent recorded height of the wall was
not more than I . 5 metres. It encloses an irregularly
squarish area measuring about 240 metres each side. The
roughly dressed stone wallfabout 1,40 metres in width.
The entrance of the fortified enclosure probably lay on
the southern side.
The southern side of the enclosure was traced
to a length of 52 metres with a maximum extent height
of 1 . 5 2 metres. It is not a straight wall but have
several bends turning in and out several times. The use
of mud-mortar was observed in the western wall. The
enclosed area bears the traces of many stone structures
built within and also possesses one well for water
supply. The system as a whole can be interpreted as
the remains of a huge fortified palace. In the words
of Piggot "the fortification seem to have been a normal
II54provision for safety from enemies and robbers .
Kalibangan in Rajasthan on the left bank of
the river Ghagger revealed the evidences of its being
an important centre of Harappan cilpilization. It had
two separate mounds viz. the citadel mound and the
lower city. The citadel is situated on the western
side of the city-mound and measures roughly 1 5 0 metres
east to west and 250 metres north to south. After the
18T
arrival of Harappans at the site, a massive mud-brick wall
was built around the site now called KLB-1 which presumably
served as a citadel^^. At the smaller mound (KLB-1) while
excavating in 1962-63 the existence of a fortification
wall of Harappan occupation suggesting its function as a
citadel was indicated and it was exposed to a length ofa'T'c4
100 metres. Rectangular salientsAbastions were exposed.
The Excavators inferred two principal phases of construc
tion. In phase I the width of the wall was 6 .5 to 7 metres
and the salient projecting to 9*55 metres from the main
face of the wall and^was 1? metres broad. It rose impo
singly and was battered on the outer face. The fortifica
tion wall and salient cut through the strata or the
structure of the preceding occupations. In no place the
fortification wall was integral with any of the platforms
within the citadel. Against the fortification wall there
was a normal occupational strata — a feature not quite
common to Harappan citadels. But the inner face of the
fortification wall bore mud-plaster, suggestive of its
standing height above the inside ground level. The outer
face of the wall is battered back to an angle of 3 * degree.
The extant height of the wall was found to be 3«^0 metres
36at the maximum' .
184
It was only in 1967-68 that the presence of Harappan
fortification was fully confirmed. The width of the main
fortification wall was 3.0 to 5 . 9 metres. The maximum
available mud-brick courses were 15 where two brick-sizes
were used in the construction (viz. 40 x 20 x 10 cm. and
3 0 X 1 5 X cm). Northern portion of the city-wall was
built in box-pattern, with mud filling inside. One gateway
in the middle of the wall was traced. This gateway, pro
bably flanked by the guard-rooms, was 3*7 metres in width^*^.
The citadel of Kalibangan has preserved the forti
fications of two periods viz. pre-Harappan and Harappan.
The wall was initially 1.90 metres thick but was increased
in width during the pre-Harappan phase itself to 3*70
metres to 4.10 metres and also strengthened by rectangular
bastions. It had a wall-guarded entrance. The Harappans
superimposed this fortifications on this but occupied
only half of the area on the southern side. In this cons
truction also mud-bricks were used, and massive towers
stood sentinal over the corners. The main gate lay ona-nd
the southern sidewas perhaps flanked by a bastion.
Desalpur in Kutch, almost on the southern fringes
of the area of expansion of the Harappan civilization,
yielded massive stone fortifications of the Harappan
period. The basal width of the fortification wall measured
18
enclosure was reinforced by corner towers and salients.
The north-east corner showed an additional feature of
mud-trick filling in the shape of a platform. Accord
ing to K.V. Soundara Ra;]an, who excavated the site, the
structural work of the site has to be assigned to the
matured Harappan period and can be dated by comparative
statues to C. 2000-1600
Lothal on the Gulf of Cambay revealed a huge dock
with its carefully planned and executed arrangements for
flooding and draining. The next feature was the neat
town-planning with rectangular mud-brick platforms. Be
side this, the most important feature was the mud-brick
rampart some 4 ,5 metres in width and 2.30 metres in extant
height. The whale plan of the city was rectangular.
Of course the enclosing ramparts can be taken as anti
flood measures but they can as well serve as a fortifi
cation wall. Within the enclosed area, was found one more
enclosure which has been rightly identified by Rao as the
citadel. Excavations at Lothal revealed three periods
of occupation, and these could be named as pre-defence,
defence and post defence period. A.11 these three periods
are sub-divided into three sub-periods each. A.S an anti
flood measure, a clay rampart was erected which appears to
have been 10.6 metres wide and i ,4 4 metres high. The
18G
high and more than 4 .8 metres thick. As shown by the
traces of breaches, the rampart suffered due to floods
and repairs were effected from time to time. As a last
resort the northern face of the platform was revetted
with bricks^^.
Surkotda in Kutch was explored by J.P . Joshi and
T .V .G . Shastri and was reported to have yielded a mound
measuring about 130 x 200 metres with vestiges of rubble
fortifications. During excavation this mound revealed an
enclosure of 115 metres x 60 metres. This area was divi
ded into two ports of 60 x 60 metres. One square area of
60 X 60 metres was the citadel and the other part was
either for the common men or for the soldiers.
According to the excavator the earliest occupants
of the site were Harappans with some affiliation with an
antecedent culture. The Harappans built a fortified
settlement, consisting of a citadel and a residential com
plex. The citadel constructed over a platform of hard
yellow rammed earth, which was contained by a fortification
wall built of mud and mud-brick (size 40 x 20 x 10 cm)
with a rubble veneer of five to eight course, on the inner
side. The basal width of the rampart was approximately
7 metres, plastered on the inner side with 5 cm. thick
clay. Four stages of construction each separated by a
187
thin whitish clay band were observed. At a later stage a
buttress of mud-brick having a width of 1 7 metres with
a rubble cushioning was provided on the eastern side of
the citadel rampart. The citadel had two entrances for
inter-communication with the residential annexe, one on
the southern side and the other on the eastern side. In
sub-period A, around the citadel area, a mud-brick forti
fication having a width of 3 . 2 5 metres was also provided.
On the south western side it still stands to a height of
1 .8 metres and stows remains of a gateway.
In sub-period C the arrival of a new people
using white painted black and red ware is detected. The
fortifications of the citadel and the residential annexe
as well were reconstructed in stone. The wall had the
thickness (basal) of 3*5 to 4 metres, and was provided with
bastions on the corners. On the southern side of the
citadel portion, a gateway complex having a 10 x 23 metres
projection contained steps and a ran^ leading to the
entrance of the citadel, at either side of the passage,
which was 1 .7 metres in width, was a guard room. Besides
an equally wide entrance was also provided on the eastern
side of the citadel for inter-communicating with the resi
dential complex, which was blocked subsequently. The
residential area had a separate entrance also on the
40southern side
18H
Dhillanijo-Kot — on the right bank of the river
Baran in Sind — a site of Amri culture possesses rema-
nants of a fortification wall surrounding the site. The
wall is built of stone and has a basal width of 1.5 metres.
Among the ruins"'of buildings, within the enclosure were
found chert flakes and prehistoric pot-sherds in abundance.
Also at Taji and Mazna Damb, in south Baluchistan indica
tions of a possible defensive wall around the settlement
were noted by Stein. Probably a similar wall stood at
Siah Domb of Jhau and at Mughal-Ghundai too, there are
41the evidences of a defensive wall to the settlement
Before undertaking a detailed discussion regarding
the Harappan fortifications, based on the above descrip
tions of the extant remains, it is advisable to visualise
the role of a fort/fortified town in the pality of a
nation. As stated earlier it is a great contraction in
the size on one hand and a vast expansion in intent and
purpose on the other. One can obviously on this basis
categorise fortifications into two varieties. The one
which defends only the king'while the other defends the
kingdom as a whole, consequently the institution of king
ship and ultimately the king himself.
In the first case the boundaries of a state are
not expected to be far removed from the capital/stronghold.
18!1
And such an assumption would be valid only for the initial
stage of the growth of a kingdom. The other variety
would be required when the kingdom is considerably expan
ded, covers a much larger area. For the defence of a
kingdom as a whole, it is not necessary that the boun
daries of a state should be cordoned off by a continuous
wall or a closely set chain of forts, pound common sense
demands the situation of a minimum number of fort located
at some strategic points, taking the geography or physio-
gamy of the region; the ups and downs of the earth's
crust or the terrains into account. These can very well
serve the purpose.
As an instrument of offence, a fort could also play
another role. In a newly conquered area, a fort would
enable a band of soldiers to spread out still farther offHu
and establish on a firm footing the new rule threin,^newly
conquered lands. To launch a new offensive a fort would
serve as a good springboard. ’i?hile acting as a spring
board for a large-scale attack, a fort can be taken as a
mobile instrument of aggeession. Utilising this twofold
benefits characteristic of a fort, its situations can be
shifted to appropiate places, according to the changing
needs of the offensive. Although the shifting may not
obviously be as frequent as the shifting of the army camps
it will beAa more permanent nature and can withstand more
190
resistance both in offence and defence. The practice was
prevalent in Egypt — a civilization contemporary to
that of Harappan.
Now can be undertaken a detailed analysis of
the fortifications of the Indus valley culture. A
glance over the map of the area of expansion of the
culture will reveal that the entrances to the area
through the passes of the Sulaiman and Kirthar ranges
from the tableland of Iran were guarded by the sites like
Ali-Murad, Mohenjodaro, Judeirodaro, and Dabarkot,
Entrance through the Horbab pass was checked by a
settlement at Pathani-Damb — a Harappan site although
not fortified as per the present state of knowledge.
Almost all the routes leading towards Kej from the
fishing harbours on the Makran coast from Gwatar bay to
Pasu-Bandar and Gwadar were commanded by the fortified
site at Suktagendor. Lothal, Somnath, Desalpur and the
two promonotory forts at Suktagendor and Soktakoh pro
bably stood as sentinals over the approaches from the
west. Surkotda — a fortified site, as described earlier,
checked entry into Harappan Kutoh from the mainland.
The fortified sites of Harappan culture can be divided
into two categories the fortified settlements which
contain only a township and the other sites containing
191
a fortified citadel guarding a township. In some cases
the lower city is also surroimded by ramparts while
in the other it is left tindefended. Surkotda can be
taken as an exception to this categorisation, as there
is no space sufficient for being temed as a 'town
ship'. It is purely a military outpost, where the re
sidence of civilian population cannot be inferred.
Though one- half of the fortified enclosure is very clear
ly seen as dominated by the other half indicating the
dominant half as the reminiscence of a citadel but the
other half is so small that it can be taken as the
residence of the low-ranking military personnel but not
the civilian population.
According to the size of the fortification
again these can be divided into two categories. The
bigger one like Mohenjodaro and Harappa and the smaller
ones like Suktagendor, Soktakoh and Surkotda. Some of
Jrhem like Surkotda are so small in dimensions (e .g . 60
X 120 yds.) that if besieged by an enemy arm* of great
magnitude, even the middle portion of the enclosure are
not safe from the missiles hurled from small bows and
the slings.
As far as the plans of these fortifications are
concerned (big or small) almost all are roughly parallelo
grams or rectangles. The guardian citadels of the
192
concerned sites are invariably situated on the west side
of the lower city and whether parallelograms or rectan
gles, these are oriented with their major axis along SsuH)
north-&i4e direction. In the case specially of Mohenjo-
daro and Harappa, even the dimensions of the citadels
are almost the same (parallelograms of 366 metres
from north to south and 183 metres from east to west).
These similarities in ground plan and orienta
tions indicate the prevalence of a tradition of and con
siderable experience of military architecture. How
ever the strange insistence on the regular and syste-
matic shape of the structure, <»f fer without reference to
the contours of the ground is a sure sign that the
architects were beginners in the art of fortification.
The use of terrain was never thought of in the context
of getting a better natural inaccessibility. And this
ignorance regarding the use of terrain compels one to
hypothesip that the shape of the fortification wall was
dependent more on the nature of the structures to be
constructed inside the enclosure. \nd the inner cons
tructional work was more or less a traditional one with
'nits accept on regular geometric shapes. No improve-
ment/alterations regarding the internal structure was
thought necessaiy so as to save labour and time and also
19‘J
to make the structure more resistant to warfare. The
number of internal buildings, the size of each build
ing and even the orientation of these in relation to
each pther was pre-determined. One can guess that this
was either a traditional arrangement directed by the
rulers or may be even a religiously oriented one.
Similarly the size of the walls and the citadel may
also depend upon the socio/religious or trade-impor-
tance of the particular site.
The Harappans used the locally available material
for the construction of these defensive work as in
the rest of their structures. Mud-brick formed the
mainstay. Baked brick revetment are added in few
places like Mohenjodaro and Harappa. Vv'herever stone
was available as at Suktagendor, Soktakoh, Surkotda,
and Desalpur, it is used. V/hile using the material,
there was no selection exercised. Especially demands
of the structure were not taken into account. Strength
of a particular material for a particular construction
was never thought of. There may be three probable
reasons for this viz. either they were unaware of the
strength/suitability of the material used for a parti
cular purpose or they lacked the means of transport
or finally more probable of the three, they knew how
to use the material av*iilable for a given purpose.
191
One cannot think of the Harappaxis being unaware of the
relative strengths of stone and brick, ks far as the
scarcity of means of transportation is concerned, the
use of vehicles was known to the Indus people, so was
river transport. As such it could not be the reason.
In the third case though the Harappans realised that
mud-rampart was not resistant enough to the floods of
the river and they provided the rampart with wooden
revetment, the damp climate — unsuitable for wood,
made them to realise that some alternative to wooden
revetments have to be found out and it was in the form
of burnt brick. It was realised that brick ramparts
could not be as strong as the ones in stone and hence
there was considerable expansion in the width of the
rampart when built.
/
The location of the sites were situated on the
easy access to water routes, but whether inside the en
closure there were arrangements for water supply cannot
be ascertained. Only Ali-Murad out of all the forti
fied sites have yielded the existence of a well inside
the enclosure. Obviously enough in case of a long term
siege the lack of fresh water would be the first reason
for surrender. There are no traces of ditches or
moat surrounding the sites.
19.1
The entrance to a fort is always a weakest point,
but this was apparently not much realised by the Indus
people. Entrances were of course guarded by flanking
towers but any other complexity in the gateway complex
to baffle any forced entry by the enemy was not provided.
Save the western gate at Harappa citadel. The approaches
to the gates are quite simple and also not commanded by
any other major port of the fortifications. The fighters
on the flanking towers and within the gate, preventing
a forced entry could not have been supported from any
other point within the enclosure. Arrangement to
harass or prevent the entry, such as erecting two gates,
the inner and outer and placing them so as to expose the
enemy e3q)osed to the fire (of arrows) from the defen
ders, as in the case of Hittite strongholds, has not
been observed. The gateway of course are flanked by
guard rooms, but the dimensions of the rooms restrict
the number of defenders and perhaps they were far fewer
than the enemy forces that could assault them.
The walls of mud-brick and mud had an average
thickness of 5*50 metres to 4.00 metres and the height
could have been as much as twice the width. In one case
the extent height was twice the width indicating that it
could originally be more, perhaps thrice. The walls
are tapered upwards from either sides and the thickness
19G
and the height was sufficient enough to make the enclo
sure fairly invulnerable. Bastions and towers along the
walls were generally taller than the circuit walls and .
served as observation post as well as the points from
which missiles could be hurled as at Mohenjodaro, where
a large number of clay-pellets were found on one of the
bastions. It is difficult to say whether these bastions
and the circuit walls were provided with battlements
and embrassures or also the loop-holes for want of any
evidence in this regard though this feature is available
in the walls of fort Buhen in Sgji5)t — an almost con
temporary monument. In the absence of battlements and
embrassures it was not a difficult task for the besie
gers to overpower the defenders on the bastions, and
walls by their missiles. The ramparts at Harappa pro
vides a parapet-walk from one tower to the another but
the efficacy of this walk, without the loop-holes,
battlements and the embrassures in between, comes down
to a minimum. All these considerations makes it clear
that although there are no remains extant, some sort of
battlements must have been
This general survey of these fortifications
makes one infer that the only factor of resistance
against enemy was the rampart. But there was no com
plexity in the arrangements and also no advantages of
39
the natural features of the land v/as taken.
It appears that these forts were not for the
defence of empire as a whole but were the local safety
measures and the hypothesis hecomes more clear v/hen the
structures inside the enclosure are observed. The inner
structures like the Great Bath, big residential build
ings and the Granary indicate that the whole complex
must be belonging to some aristocratic priestly rulers
or kings. Obviously enough the granary must be indicat
ing the common wealth of the people or the taxes collec
ted by the rulers from the public could have been
deposited in these. And consequently the importance of
these secular buildings must have been great in the eyes
of the rulers than that in the opinion of the public
and also the rulers must be more worried about the
protection of these from the outside enemy and the
public as well. As in the case of some crisis like
famine etc. these buildings must be attracting the atten
tion of public. In other words these buildings were
the first target in the hours of distress and revolt.
And to avoid any such probabilities the rxilers must
have fortified the citadels and also the origin of the
ground plan to establish the citadel at a safe distance
or rather separately from the lower city, may be the
result of a farsightedness against the revolts.
19H
In case of outside invasions also the e n e m y also
would cast his covetous eyees on these wealthy points
to topple the economy of the country. But had there
been ar r major invasion of that sort, it must have left
some impression on the sites which on the contrary,
according to the excavator — ”as originally built the
defences of the citadel long remained untouched save by
the weather, which wore and rounded the exposed surface of
the baked brick rivetment to a notable extent" (Wheeler
G .H .I . Supple. Vol. 1955 p .20) except in the last phase
of Harappan cities. Though it may indicate the absence
of any major public revolt, but as far as the outside
invasion is concerned, the total absence of it cannot be
relied upon, as it is a thing almost impossible for any
country of any age. Though the situation of the land of
the Indus people, isolated by the mountain ranges of
Kirthar, Sulaiman and Hindukush, except some passes,
on the west; by a bigger mountain range on the north,
the great Indian Desert and Arabian sea protecting it
from east and south, there may be fewer chances of inva
sion but the total absence is never possible. And in
fhis case the only probability left is that the Harappans
might be relying on the open battle. It is difficult
to say how much experience of siege warfare they had.
An standing army of able fighters, as indicated by the
presence of some barrack type constructions at Mohenjo-
19!t
daro, facing the enemy before they could reach near the
city, can either stop, make them to retreat or even
destroy them. And as such the architecture defined so
far was not the integral part of Harappan military system.
Another reference, though a guess-work which can
also answer even the vast expansion of the culture, is
the two-fold use of a fort in the case of offensive as
stated above. Though as told by Wheeler that "but it
must be remembered that at present we know almost nothing
of the earliest phase of the civilization". The sites
located at far off distances from the core of the civili
zation, might have served as the effective spring-board
for fresh egression/spread of the civilization and thus
the wealth of Indus cultiire people , though mostly derived
from agriculture and trade must have been supplemented
and enlarged by the military conquests, in the early
phase of expansion of the civilization.
200
REFBRENCSS
1 Ancient India No. 3 p. 78
2. M .A .S .I . No. 48 pp. 153-3^
5 M .A .S .I . . No. 43 p. 71
4 Pakistan Archaeology 1954 p. 28
5 Wheeler — The Indus Civilization. C .H .I. Supple.
Vol. 1968 . . p. 75
6 ’Vheeler — Early India and
Pakistan p. 102
7 A. Stein — M .A .S .I . No. 37 p . ^
8 V/heeler — The Indus Civili
zation C .H .I. Supple.Vol.1968 p. 75
9 Mackay — Journal of Royal
Society of Arts Jan. 193^ P* 220
10 D.H. Gordon — The Early use
of metals in India and
Pakistan — J.R . Anthrop
Inst. Vol. LXXX (London 1952) p. 57; '.*/heeler-CH.I.
supple. Vol. 1972 p. 73
11 Mackay — Further Excavations
at Mohenjodaro — J.R .S .A . Jan. 193^ P* 220
12 Piggotis — Ancient India No. 5 (19^8) pp. 38 ff ;
Wheeler C .H .I. Vol. 1972
pp. 77 ; 1 1 3
13 Wheeler — C .H .I . Vol. 1969 PP. 76-77
14 Marshall J. — Mohenjodaro & the Indus
Civilization, London 1931 PP* 465-467
1 5 Vats M.S. — Excavations at Harappa p. 6
201
16 Marshall J. — Op.cit. Vol.II p .535; Mackay — Op. cit.
p. 596;
17 Smith Sidney — Early History of Assyria p. 137
18 Ibid . . p. 214
19 Montgomery D.L. — History of 'Jfarfare p. 35
20 Wheeler — C .H .I Supple. Vol. 1968
21 Ancient India No.3 pp. 611-65; 'iVheeler — The Indus
Valley Civilization, C .H .I. Suppl. Vol.1972 pp .30-31
22 i(7heeler — Early India & Pakistan p. 98
23 Pakistan Archaeology 1964 pp. 38-39; Wheeler — The
Indus Valley Civilization C .H .I. Vol. 1968 p. 40
24 Wheeler — Ancient India I960 p. 244
25 Wheeler — The Indus Civilization, C^H.I. Vol. 1968
pp. 53-5^
26 Stein A. — M .A .S .I . No.43 p .60 ff.
27 Pakistan ^rch^^eology — 1964 p. 36
28 Piggot S. — Pre-historic India p. 175; V/heeler —
The Indus Civilization, C .H .I Supple Vol. 1968 pp.59-61
29 Antiquity — June 1962 pp. 86-92
30 Piggot S. — Pre-historic India
31 Pakistan Archaeology 1964 pp. 39-40 ; '.Vheeler — Early
India and Pakistan p. 106
32 Arch. Survey of India Report 1930-34 p. 162; M .A .S .I.
No.48 pp. 133-34
33 Piggot S. — Pre-historic India p. 79
34 Arch. Survey of India Report 1930-31 PP* 97-98 ;
Majumdar N.G. — Explorations in Sind M .A .S .I. No.48
p. 89
'.'Jlieeler — The Indus Civilization C .H .I. Supple Vol.
202
35 Indian A.rchaeology — A Review 1951-62 p. 43
36 Indian Arch. — a Review 1963-64 pp. 30-39
37 Indian Arch. — a Review 1967-68 pp. 42-45
38 India Arch. — a Review 1963-64 pp. 11-12
39 Indian A.rch,— a Review 195^-55 P* 12; Rao 3.R. —
Further excavations at Lothal pp. 14-30
40 Indian Arch. — a Review 1971-72 pp. 13-21
41 Arch. Survey of India Reports 1930-34 p. 104 ;
Piggot S. — Prehistoric India p. 99;
Singh S.D. — Ancient Indian 7/arfare with special
reference Vedic Period . . p. 120