ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

Animals played a major role in Indus agriculture. The main domestic animals were cattle, but sheep, goats, and other animals were also kept, their relative importance relating to local environmental conditions and no doubt to other factors.

Raising livestock was a useful investment against crop failure. In good years, when crop yields were high, grazing would also be good and the number of animals that were kept could be increased, surplus agricultural produce being available as fodder if the grazing ran out. In lean years, when grazing was limited, the additional animals could either be killed for food or used to obtain other foodstuffs, for example, by trading with pastoralists, by giving the animals as gifts to kin in other areas in the expectation of useful return gifts, or perhaps by exchanging them for grain stored by those in authority, though the evidence of central storage is limited and dubious.

Millets are nowadays often grown for fodder as well as for human consumption. While it is likely that the fodder needs of the Harappan domestic animals were largely met by grazing them on natural vegetation in areas beyond the cultivated land and by taking them to areas of seasonal pasture, it is possible that some use was made of fodder crops. Charcoal evidence from the latest Harappan levels at Lothal in Gujarat gives some indication of local environmental deterioration, which may imply reduced availability of grazing, at least locally. In addition, bullocks kept for plowing were probably provided with fodder, particularly during the plowing season. In Mesopotamia, as much as one-tenth of the crop could have been used to maintain the plow team, though, of course, this amount could be reduced if, as in some South Asian villages, a single plow team was maintained by and for a whole village.

Bovids

Cattle. Cattle were the main domestic animals of the Indus farmers, their bones constituting half or even three-quarters of those found in Indus sites in Gujarat and often around half elsewhere. This set a pattern that has continued up to the present day when South Asia has the highest density of cattle in the world (182 per square mile). Cows were probably kept for their milk and bullocks for drawing plows and carts, threshing, and raising water, while a few bulls would be maintained for breeding, one bull being enough to service all the cows of a village. Bones recovered from Indus sites show that many cattle were also killed for meat: they bear butchery marks and are often burnt. It is perhaps worth emphasizing that the weight of meat obtained from a cow or bullock is very much greater than that provided by a sheep or goat: A ratio of around 50 percent cattle in the faunal sample therefore implies that the bulk of meat consumed came from cattle. Cattle dung was probably used for fuel and mixed with mud as a daub applied to wattle walls.

Both the humped zebu (Bos indicus) and the humpless Bos taurus may have been kept because both appear as figurines in the Indus civilization and in earlier and later times. Distinguishing the skeletal remains of these species is difficult, though in cases where it was possible Caroline Grigson (1984), who has examined the bones from Harappa, concluded that only Bos indicus was present. It is thought likely that there were a number of different breeds of cattle in third-millennium South Asia, including smaller and larger varieties. A short-horned bovid depicted on seals may have been either the humpless bull or the gaur (Indian bison).

The unicorn frequently shown on seals is also often identified as a bovid, perhaps the humpless bull whose representation with a single horn may be due to an artistic convention (which was common in the Near East) for depicting bovids that actually had two horns. Alternatively, it may be intended as a mythical, probably composite, beast. The latter is perhaps more likely because figurines of unicorns have also been found and because the individual features of the unicorn on the seals, such as the very long horn and the pricked ear, do not match any known bovid. Alternatively, it may be a local copy of a foreign (e. g., Near Eastern) depiction of a humpless bull, if this were the case it would provide evidence that the humpless bull was not present in the Indus civilization.

The use of bullocks for traction is vividly illustrated by the many terra-cotta models of carts drawn by a pair of bullocks. They would also have been used to draw plows and probably provided the muscle power needed to draw water from wells for irrigation. Model yokes have been found at Nausharo. Other uses for cattle included threshing grain and carrying goods as pack animals.

Although it is likely milk was used, there is no evidence for this of the types known from contemporary cultures: in Mesopotamia, artistic representations of milking and textual references to milk and milk products; in Europe, vessels designed for milking and for processing milk into cheese, as well as occasional examples of an insufflator (a tube used to blow into the vagina or rectum of the animal to stimulate the milk letdown reflex). Studies of the age and sex structure of cattle and caprine populations at prehistoric sites can also reveal evidence that reflects the keeping of these animals for milk as well as for meat and other purposes, but, as far as I am aware, no such studies have been published on Indus domestic animals.

Bison. Another bovid that may have been exploited by the Harappans is the gaur (Indian bison, Bibos gaurus). Wild gaur now inhabit hilly areas in peninsular India but may also have been found in Gujarat and Rajasthan and possibly even the Indus Valley in prehistoric times. No bones from Indus settlements have been identified positively as gaur, but there are representations on a number of seals of a bovid with the short horns and shoulder ridge of the gaur.

Buffalo. Water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) were probably herded because there are buffalo bones at earlier sites such as Rehman Dheri and Mehrgarh period I, and they were also present at the Ahar-Banas site of Ahar. Bones definitely from domestic buffalo are known at Mature Indus sites, including Balakot and Dholavira. However, wild buffalo were probably also still hunted. Buffaloes occur as images on Indus seals, where they appear to be wild. Buffalo milk is richer than cows' milk, having a higher butterfat content, so it is likely that it was made into ghee.

Unlike cattle, domestic water buffaloes were generally kept in or near the village rather than taken elsewhere for seasonal grazing or used as pack animals. They require daily access to water (river buffalo) or mud (swamp buffalo, the variety present at Balakot) to keep their skins moist.

This seal depicts a bovid, either a short-horned bull or the Indian bison (gaur). Cattle, and particularly the humped zebu cattle, were the most important domestic animals kept by the Harappans. (J. M. Kenoyer, Courtesy Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan)

Caprines

Though cattle were the principal Harappan domestic animals, farmers also kept a few goats and sheep; caprines were also among the small numbers of livestock kept by town and city dwellers. Specialist pastoralists may have raised larger flocks of sheep and goats in some regions.

Domestication in sheep (as in many species) had led to or coincided with a diminution in size from that of the wild progenitor. Such small sheep continued into Indus times, being known, for example, from Dholavira, Nausharo, and Sibri, and they were still present in Kachi sites in the second millennium. Much larger domestic sheep at Harappa, however, may show that selective breeding was taking place to increase size. Sheep were kept in far larger

Numbers than goats at Harappa in the Punjab, a common practice in many communities because goats are less tractable, though often a small number of goats are kept with a flock of sheep, as they are said to calm the sheep and are also useful in leading the flock to pasture. Goats, however, have the advantage of being able to browse on a wider range of plants, so they can find food in more challenging terrain: This probably explains the more equal proportions of sheep and goats at Dholavira and Nausharo, sites in relatively arid environments.

Sheep and goats were kept for meat and perhaps for their milk. It is usually assumed that sheep were also kept for their wool. There is, however, no direct evidence that this was so. Wool is present in wild sheep as a short undercoat, grown to protect against winter weather and shed in the spring. Sheep bred for longer wool appeared in the Near East during the fourth millennium and spread into Europe during the third millennium. The wool of these sheep was still molted in the spring and could be combed out or plucked from the animal or collected after it was shed. In Mesopotamia there is both pictorial and documentary evidence of woolly sheep and woolen textiles from the late fourth millennium onward; in Europe, aside from the very rare surviving textiles, the evidence is in the form of combs for removing the wool from the sheep; flat spindle whorls for spinning wool; a change in the age and sex structure of flocks (an increase in adults, often including some wethers [castrated rams], which provide the best and most abundant wool); and a substantial increase in the proportion of sheep among the domestic stock that were kept. As far as I am aware, none of these features has been actively looked for in the Indus realms; so the question remains open. It is perhaps significant, however, that the excavators of Mehrgarh believe leather to have been the main material used for clothing in the periods leading up to the Indus civilization, suggesting that neither wool nor cotton was in use for textiles before the Harappan period. The detailed analysis of the faunal remains at Balakot showed that most male sheep were culled at a young age, a pattern suggesting that sheep were kept for meat rather than for wool production. A similar picture may obtain from Dholavira, where a significant proportion of the caprines were killed before or as they reached maturity; though the faunal report did not divide the bones by sex as well as age, it is likely that the sheep kept into adulthood, around 40 percent of the total, were breeding females. Furthermore, trade between the Indus and Mesopotamia has always seemed unbalanced, the Indus receiving nothing obvious in return for its exports. If, however, the Harappans did not themselves produce wool, the woollen textiles that Mesopotamia produced on an industrial scale and exported widely may well have been a commodity that was highly prized by and valuable to the Harappans. Another possibly significant pointer, though only negative evidence, is the discovery in the second-millennium Deccan site of Nevasa of threads used to string beads, made of cotton, silk, and flax but not wool. Barber, an expert on prehistoric textiles, places South Asia well outside the area in which wool was used for making textiles in the third millennium (1991, map 1.8, 34).