Authority and the end of the civilisation
Who ruled, and theories about the decline.
The essentials
The uniformity of Harappan artefacts — standard brick sizes, weights, seals, pottery — and the planning of settlements suggest that some authority made and enforced decisions. But who held it is debated. A large building at Mohenjodaro was labelled a "palace" by archaeologists, yet no spectacular finds were associated with it. A stone statue was labelled the "priest-king", because it resembled Mesopotamian representations of priest-kings, though Harappan rituals are poorly understood.
Some archaeologists think there were no rulers and that everyone enjoyed equal status. Others think there was no single ruler but several, for example one in Mohenjodaro and another in Harappa. Yet others argue it was a single state, given the similarity of artefacts across the region. The last theory seems plausible, but it cannot be confirmed.
Key points
- By about 1800 BCE most Mature Harappan sites in regions such as Cholistan had been abandoned.
- There was an expansion of population into new settlements in Gujarat, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.
- In the Late Harappan phase, distinctive artefacts — weights, seals, special beads — disappeared; writing, long-distance trade and craft specialisation declined; house construction and town planning deteriorated.
- Suggested causes include climatic change, deforestation, excessive floods, shifting or drying up of rivers, and overuse of the landscape.
- One view stresses the breakdown of a unifying state, which could explain the disappearance of seals, script and weights.
Exam tips
- Be ready to explain why the labels "palace" and "priest-king" are uncertain.
Common mistakes
- Treating the "priest-king" label as a proven fact.
- Thinking the civilisation ended suddenly everywhere at the same time; it was a gradual transformation.