Pastoralism

For millennia, upland and lowland areas had been linked by the seasonal movements of pastoralists, driving their flocks and herds between summer and winter pastures. Herders also moved within the Indus region itself, grazing their animals on the areas of high ground and seasonal grassland. A study of the distribution of Indus settlements shows significant clusters of towns and villages in some regions, separated by large tracts in which few or no settlements have been located despite intensive fieldwork. Pastoralists, and perhaps also hunter-gatherers, moved within these tracts, grazing their animals and providing the vital links that held together the civilization. Good pastures existed on the higher ground in the interfluve areas of the Punjab, used to graze the animals of farmers settled in the valleys of the Punjab rivers. In prehistoric and recent times, these pastures received an influx of animals from the adjacent northern highlands during the winter months, but throughout the Indus period communications between the northern borderlands and the Indus region appear to have been severely limited; so the Late Kot Diji inhabitants of the highlands probably took their animals to other pastures west of the mountains. In summer, from around March to October, the pastures of the Kulli region in southern Baluchistan may still have been utilized by Indus pastoralists, though the majority of animals were probably grazed in the summer in eastern Sindh, particularly on the seasonal grasslands of the Tharparkar, Kutch, particularly the grassland immediately south of the Great Rann, Saurashtra, and the western Saraswati Valley. Winter grazing was available on the Kachi plain, in Sindh, Punjab, and Gujarat. The inhabitants of the mountains would thus have spent their summers near home and travelled to seasonal pastures in the winter, while in the greater Indus region it was the winter months that saw the herders at home and the spring and summer when they moved to other pastures, though the distances they had to travel were often quite short.

Pastoralists may have been separate tribes, as was often the case in other regions and as is sometimes the case today in the subcontinent. A symbiotic relationship exists between these pastoralists and settled farmers in the regions that they visit, each providing the other with their produce. The farmers supply grain, vegetables, and fruits, as well as stubble grazing after the fields have been harvested, while the pastoralists provide meat, leather, wool, and goat hair, as well as dung to fertilize the fields and milk products like cheese and yogurt. Similar arrangements may have existed in Harappan times.

On the other hand, the ancestors of those who had settled on the Indus plains had belonged to communities that practiced transhumance in the Indo-Iranian borderlands, with a settled base in which at least some members of the community lived year-round and with temporary camps in the areas to which part of the community, probably often only the young men, moved seasonally to obtain pasture for their animals. Settled farmers and pastoralists were in this case members of the same families. Today the majority of cattle are kept by people who are primarily settled farmers, and the specialist pastoralists are mainly shepherds, keeping sheep. The modern

Zebu is adapted to a diet with marked seasonal variations in the quality and quantity of grazing, living today mainly on scrub vegetation on uncultivated wasteland areas. In good years the grazing and water available in the area around a village are adequate to maintain the village animals, and it is only in bad years, occurring perhaps every five to six years, that migration in search of grazing and water is necessary.

It is likely that in the Indus period there were both specialist pastoralists and farmers who spent part of their year in transhumance. In the latter case the animals belonged to the farmers and could be exploited directly, and those who took them to pasture would return seasonally to their place in the settled family. Specialist pastoralists, on the other hand, would have had an elaborate pattern of traditionally established or negotiated relationships with settled farmers whereby milk, dung, and other animal products were exchanged for grain, access to grazing, and perhaps manufactured goods. In practice the distinctions are likely to have been blurred, since many pas-toralists are likely to have had a settled base where the elderly and women with very young children lived year-round, growing a few crops. Settled farmers may have made arrangements with pastoralists whereby the latter took charge of some of the farmers' livestock during the period when the animals needed to be taken to seasonal pastures away from the settlement. In Mesopotamia, where this system was well developed, contracts for such arrangements survive from this period: The pastoralist received in payment a proportion of the annual yield of wool and lambs from the flock. In addition to the private arrangements between individuals or families, pastoral-ists in Mesopotamia also entered into such contracts with temple or secular authorities. The elusive rulers of the Indus state may have employed similar means to maintain large herds and flocks that could not be supported on pastures in the vicinity of the cities.

A few settlements have been found that can be linked to pastoralists, although they are hard to locate, given their ephemeral nature. At Nesadi (Valabhi) in Saurashtra, pastoralists dwelt in circular huts with rammed earth floors, occupying the settlement during the winter months, as their successors do today. At this time of year there was abundant lush grazing in the region, which not only provided fodder for the domestic cattle of the inhabitants but also attracted wild animals such as deer, which the pastoralists hunted. In the summer, this campsite was under seasonal (monsoon) floods, the pastoralists having moved away to higher ground.

Another probable pastoralists' campsite, from the Late Harappan period, was uncovered at Oriyo Timbo in Gujarat. This site was probably occupied seasonally by a community whose main economic strategy was the herding of cattle, sheep, and goats but who may also have practiced a limited amount of cultivation. No structural remains were found there, with the exception of hearths, and it is therefore probable that temporary huts were constructed on arrival each year. The main surviving traces of the settlement's occupants are sherds of Lustrous Red ware pottery, querns, and

Grinding stones. Analysis of the cattle and caprine bones show that the animals were killed in the hot season, March to July, indicating the time of year when this camp was occupied.

Other Domestic Animals

A number of other domestic animals were kept by the Harappans. These probably did not include domestic pigs; wild boar were common throughout the Indus Valley and adjacent lowlands and were among the abundant game hunted by the Harappans.

Dogs. Bones of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) have been found in many Harappan sites, as have a number of dog figurines. These indicate that there were several different breeds, including a squat animal resembling a bulldog and a rangy beast like an Afghan hound. Another type had pointed ears, while a fourth had an upright tail. Collars are shown around the necks of some of the figurines, reinforcing their domestic status. One dog is shown tied to a post and may represent a guard dog.

A number of Harappan figurines depict various breeds of dogs. Often they are shown wearing collars, like this charming animal, clearly a domestic pet. (Richard H. Meadow, Courtesy Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan)

The dhole, or red dog (Cuon alpinus, immortalized in Kipling's Jungle Book tale "Red Dog"), was probably captured (as orphaned puppies?) and perhaps tamed. The dhole is indigenous to the entire Indian subcontinent as well as to other parts of Asia. Dhole bones have been identified at Rojdi, and a dhole may have been presented as a gift (referred to as tribute in the text) to Ibbi-Sin, the last king of the Sumerian Ur III dynasty (ca. 2028-2004 BCE). Wolves may also have been tamed: Wolf bones have been recovered from Surkotada and Lothal.

Cats. It is possible that cats were kept by the Harappans: A number of felid species are native to the region, including Felis lybica, the ancestor of the domestic cat, and the rather larger Felis viverrina, the fishing cat. Paw prints made by the latter were found in a brick at Chanhu-daro that had been laid out to dry when the cat ran across, pursued by a dog. While cats may not have been deliberately domesticated, they are often commensal with humans in farming settlements where they are attracted by the rodents that feed on stored domestic grain. Unconfirmed bones of domestic cat (Felis catus) have been identified at Rojdi.

Birds. The chicken (Gallus gallus) may have been domesticated in South Asia, where its ancestor, the wild Indian red jungle fowl, was indigenous to the Ganges Valley and to parts of the greater Indus region. Recent genetic work, however, suggests that all modern domestic chickens were descended from birds domesticated in Thailand, though some genetic variations may indicate contributions from other birds, making it still possible that Indian chickens were locally domesticated. Chicken bones have been found on many Harappan sites, including the cities of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, the towns of Ropar and Kalibangan in the east, and Lothal, Rojdi, and Surkotada in the west.

A variety of other birds were exploited by the Harappans. Cranes are captured and kept as pets by the people of the Bannu Basin in modern Pakistan, and the representation of cranes on fourth-millennium pottery from this region, at Taraqai Qila and other sites, has been tentatively interpreted by Dr. Farid Khan (1991) as suggesting that the practice may also have taken place in ancient times, using the perforated stones found there as weights in a bola to capture the birds. This is an imaginative but not improbable suggestion.

Peacocks were a popular theme on Harappan and Cemetery H pottery. These handsome birds are native to the subcontinent, living near water in areas of deciduous forest. Peafowl are frequently commensal with humans, being attracted to cultivated ground and the edges of settlements where their food, such as insects and seeds, is easy to obtain. Although their bones have been identified only at Rojdi, it is likely they were more widely caught, both for their meat and for their feathers. Like cranes, they might also have been kept as pets. The haia bird, mentioned in a Mesopotamian text, may have been a peacock and, if so, may have been one of the variety of live animals taken to Sumer by Indus traders, perhaps as diplomatic gifts. The text reads:

May your birds all be peacocks! May their cries grace royal palaces! (ECSL2006, lines

229-230).

A terra-cotta from Harappa depicts a man carrying a duck, ducks decorate some ivory gaming counters from Mohenjo-daro, and there is also one Indus sign of a duck within a circle (a pond?). It is possible that the Harappans kept ducks, though the hunting of wild duck as game seems more probable.

Hares. Hares were common in the Indus region and may have been kept as children's pets but could also provide meat. They are known as terra-cotta figurines and are one of the small group of signs commonly occurring on copper tablets; they also occur among the miniatures at Harappa.

Mongooses. Another species that was present at a number of sites, including Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, Rangpur, Surkotada, and Kuntasi, was an ichneumon, the Indian gray mongoose (Herpestes edwardsi). It is possible that mongooses were kept by the Harappans as a protection against snakes. Bones of a mongoose, probably imported from the Indus, were found in early second-millennium Bahrain (Dilmun).

Elephant. The fauna of the greater Indus region included the Indian elephant (Elephas maximus). Ivory, which probably came mainly from the elephant, was extensively used by the Harappans: At Mohenjo-daro it was more common than bone as a material for making artifacts. Elephant bones have been recovered from a number of sites throughout the Indus region, from Lothal and Surkotada in Gujarat, to Mohenjo-daro and Chanhu-daro in Sindh, and to Harappa and Kalibangan in the east; although elephants could have been hunted for their meat, these bones may suggest that tame elephants were employed as work animals, to haul logs, for example. Further suggestive evidence of tame elephants comes from representations on seals of elephants apparently wearing a cloth over their back, and a clay model of elephant's head with painted designs on its forehead: Elephants are similarly decorated with paint on festive days in modern South Asia.

Camel. The two-humped Bactrian camel was domesticated in southern Central Asia, originally for meat and fur, and figurines show that it was used there to draw carts and as a beast of burden by the midthird millennium. A skeleton identified as a domestic camel was found at Mohenjo-daro, from a level belonging to the Posturban period. Similarly, camel bones identified at Harappa, Surkotada, Kanewal, Kalibangan, and perhaps Rojdi were all from the upper levels of these settlements, and none is likely to be earlier than 2000 BCE. A single representation of a camel at Kalibangan also confirms that the Harappans were familiar with the creature, not surprisingly given the existence of the Indus colony of Shortugai in camel country. Shortugai has also yielded a rather schematic terra-cotta figurine of a camel. Camels were probably of no local significance during the Indus civilization, and those present might have belonged to traders from eastern Iran or Turkmenia, where they were in common use. In the Posturban period at Pirak, domestic camel bones and figurines of camels are present from period I, dated after 1700 BCE. The Bactrian camel did not come into widespread use in South Asia and

Disappeared from the region before the end of the second millennium, and it was the Arabian camel that eventually became established there as an important draft and pack animal, but not before the midfirst millennium BCE and probably much later.

However, the bones from Harappan settlements have mostly been identified as the one-humped Arabian camel (dromedary). This is problematic since domestic Arabian camels are not otherwise known outside their Arabian homeland much before 1000 BCE: Doubts have therefore been expressed about this identification. On the other hand, there were large numbers of bones from (almost certainly wild) Arabian dromedaries, favored as a raw material for tools, at Umm an-Nar, Ra's Ghanada, and Tell Abraq in Oman. Since the Harappans had close trading ties with the people of the Oman peninsula, it is possible that meat and bones from hunted wild dromedaries or even live captive animals were brought to the Indus region through trade. The concentration in Gujarati sites of around half the alleged Harappan camel bones would support this suggestion.

Equids. There is considerable controversy about the presence of the domestic horse in early South Asia, made contentious by being bound up in the Indo-Aryan debate (see chapter 11). Bones said to come from the domestic horse have been found at a number of Harappan sites. From detailed studies of these equid bones, however, the eminent archaeozoologist Richard Meadow concluded that none definitely came from a domestic horse, and the balance of probability is that all the equid bones in Harappan and pre-Harappan contexts in India and Pakistan came from the onager (Equus hemionus, also known as the steppe ass). This wild equid is indigenous to northern South Asia, unlike the ancestor of the horse, E. przewalskii, which is native to the steppe region from the Ukraine to Mongolia. Morphologically, the two species are similar and it is often difficult to distinguish their bones.

The onager is apparently too intractable to be domesticated, although there are claims that young onager can be tamed. Wild onager could provide meat and skins for leather: This is probably the reason for the presence of equid bones on Indus sites.

Horses were domesticated on the European fringes of the Eurasian steppe around 4000 BCE, probably being used initially for meat; good evidence of domestic horses is known by 3000 BCE in Kazakhstan. Evidence from the steppe and adjacent regions indicate that the horse was used as a pack and particularly as a draft animal and that, as such, it spread out from the steppe into southern and Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, being used particularly to draw war chariots, invented around 2100 BCE. Horse riding probably began around the same time but was not an efficient mode of transport until the invention of supportive saddles and sophisticated bridles during the first millennium BCE. Horses reached South Asia from steppe cultures north of the Caspian, by way of Turkmenia, Bactria, and perhaps Seistan. The earliest indubitable evidence of the domestic horse in the subcontinent comes from Pirak, well after the Mature Harappan period: There horse bones and horse figurines

All equid bones from Harappan sites are likely to come from the onager (khur or steppe ass), which was probably hunted, given its reputation as a creature too intractable for domestication. (Andreas Loban)

Are known in period I (from 1700 BCE), while in period II there were also figurines of horse riders. Horses appear at a number of second - and early first-millennium sites in South Asia, ranging from the Gandhara Graves in the north to the South Indian megaliths. Second-millennium sherds from Birkot Ghundai in the Swat valley unmistakably depict horses; in contrast, there are no Harappan depictions of horses (for discussion of a fraudulent attempt to create one, see Witzel and Farmer 2000).