The States Regional Diversity Of The Modern India Region

The Indus (Harappan) civilisation we exposed to our honorable reader above is only one of the socio-cultural phenomena established based on the region proto-cultures, and in this section we will meet you with number of them.

Each from states had its distinctive organisation structure, religy, and as result, own measurement system.

The kingdoms will be represented briefly, with notation of their general characteristics, language in use

So, go ahead!..

🏰 Kingdom of Mohenjo-Daro (Lower Indus Valley)

Location: Sindh, near the Indus River delta.

Ecology: Riverine and marshland environment with flood management needs.

Authority Type: Ritual-bureaucratic theocracy — priest-engineers controlling waterworks and sanitation.

Cultural Identity: Cosmopolitan; maritime trade contacts (Mesopotamia); extensive civic planning.

Language: Same script family, but likely a different dialect from Harappa; seal motifs richer in animal totems.

Distinctive Principle: Purity, water-control, and urban hygiene as sacred state duty.

🏰 Kingdom of Saraswati / Ghaggar–Hakra

Location: Haryana–Rajasthan–Cholistan; along the now-dry Ghaggar–Hakra River.

Ecology: Monsoon-fed seasonal river; agrarian heartland.

Authority Type: Hydraulic–ritual monarchy (Fire-Priest system) — state legitimacy through ritual fire and water purity.

Cultural Identity: Proto-Vedic spiritualism; heavy use of fire altars; ploughed field symbolism.

Language: May represent pre-Indo-Aryan linguistic layer that later influenced early Sanskrit ritual terminology.

Distinctive Principle: Integration of religion and governance — early form of “sacred kingship.”

🏰 Kingdom of Dholavira (Kutch Island, Gujarat)

Location: Khadir Bet island in the Rann of Kutch desert.

Ecology: Arid saline basin; dependent on large reservoirs.

Authority Type: City-state monarchy with a hydraulic engineering elite; defensive and self-reliant.

Cultural Identity: Distinct script ordering (fewer animal seals); unique bilingual signage; civic geometry and monumental planning.

Language: Likely related to the western (Elamite–Dravidian) group; highly regionalized vocabulary in seals.

Distinctive Principle: Hydraulic sovereignty — control of water as symbol of legitimacy.

🏰 Kingdom of Lothal (Gujarat Coast)

Location: Near modern Ahmedabad; Sabarmati River estuary.

Ecology: Coastal and deltaic; maritime access to Arabian Sea.

Authority Type: Port-mercantile monarchy / governorate — trade regulation, customs, and shipping registry.

Cultural Identity: Merchant and artisan-oriented; less ritual, more commercial bureaucracy.

Language: Same Indus script but adapted to merchant seals; evidence of contact-terms with Sumerian.

Distinctive Principle: Commercial authority and external diplomacy — a proto-“trade ministry” state.

🏰 Kingdom of Chanhu-Daro (Sindh heartland)

Location: Between Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, along Indus.

Ecology: Semi-arid; supported by irrigation canals.

Authority Type: Guild-administered industrial city-state; civic administration delegated to craft guild heads.

Cultural Identity: Highly specialized economy; secular, production-oriented society.

Language: Likely same dialect as Mohenjo-Daro, with industrial notations on seals.

Distinctive Principle: Economic corporatism — power through productivity, not priesthood.

🏰 Kingdom of Amri (Lower Sindh)

Location: South Sindh, foothills between Indus plain and Baluchistan.

Ecology: Transitional upland–plain border; early farming & copper trade.

Authority Type: Fortified proto-kingdom / clan monarchy; small-scale defense and trade regulation.

Cultural Identity: Distinct pottery and architecture; semi-independent from Indus core.

Language: Proto-Dravidian, pre-urban dialect; limited script use.

Distinctive Principle: Border defense and metal exchange — local autonomy within federation.

🏰 Kingdom of Nausharo–Mehrgarh (Baluchistan Highlands)

Location: Bolan Pass region, near Quetta.

Ecology: Highland farming & copper mining zone.

Authority Type: Tribal–agrarian monarchy, metallurgy-focused; precursor of Indus metallurgy.

Cultural Identity: Continuity from Neolithic Mehrgarh; goddess figurines, mountain totems.

Language: Likely early Dravidian / Proto-Elamite mix.

Distinctive Principle: Resource sovereignty — control of minerals, not urban trade.

🏰 Kingdom of Surkotada (Kutch–Rajasthan border)

Location: Northeastern Kutch region.

Ecology: Frontier semi-desert; trade & defense corridor.

Authority Type: Military–frontier principality, protecting inland trade from nomads.

Cultural Identity: Smaller fort layout; horse remains (earliest India).

Language: Western dialect of Harappan family.

Distinctive Principle: Border defense, cavalry innovation, and customs control.

The authors allowed ourself compare the kingdoms with their main distinctions, appropriate at this stage of our cultural diving adventure...

These were distinct cultural and political regions, not uniform provinces.

Languages/dialects likely differed — all using the Indus script but representing multiple speech communities (Dravidian, Elamo-Dravidian, early Indo-Iranian).

Authority systems varied: some were ritual-theocratic (Saraswati, Mohenjo-Daro), others bureaucratic or commercial (Harappa, Lothal), and a few military or resource-based (Surkotada, Nausharo).

The federative unity came from shared standards — weights, brick ratios, and a symbolic ideology of order and purity.

Key Differences at a Glance For The Kingdoms
Region Ecological Type Authority Model Cultural-Linguistic Emphasis
Harappa (North) Fertile plains Bureaucratic administration Dravidian-structured language; script formalized
Mohenjo-Daro (South) River delta Ritual-theocratic Cosmopolitan; maritime lexicon
Saraswati (East) Semi-arid agrarian Fire-priest monarchy Proto-Vedic; ritual Sanskrit precursors
Dholavira (West) Desert island Hydraulic monarchy Local dialect; emphasis on civic geometry
Lothal (Coast) Maritime delta Trade bureaucracy Trade vocabulary; bilingual seals
Chanhu-Daro (Central Sindh) Semi-arid plain Guild administration Industrial vocabulary; numeric notation
Amri–Nausharo (Frontier) Highland fringe Resource monarchy Proto-Dravidian metallurgical lexicon
Surkotada (Border) Desert frontier Defensive principality Military terminology; cross-cultural seals
Relations between the kingdoms
Relation type Evidence & nature
Trade & economic exchange Identical seals, weights, and brick ratios across 1 million kmÂČ show an inter-regional economic federation. Harappa exported finished goods south; Lothal handled overseas cargo; Dholavira controlled desert caravans; Nausharo supplied copper and stone.
Cultural & administrative communication Same writing system, civic engineering style, and metrology suggest constant coordination — possibly annual meetings of priest-administrators or travelling merchants who kept standards uniform.
Diplomatic or religious unity Shared iconography (the “unicorn” seal, Pashupati figure, water/animal motifs) implies a common symbolic order, like a confederation’s banner.
Competition & local rivalry Fortifications, defensive bastions, and shifting trade routes point to commercial and territorial rivalries rather than large-scale war. Think of them as city-state competitors—much like Sumer’s Ur and Lagash.
Conflict scale No evidence of empire-level conquest or organized warfare—no mass graves or burnt layers comparable to Near Eastern wars. Conflicts were likely economic blockades or brief raids.
Inter-kingdom communication River and coastal routes linked all nine: Indus–Ravi–Sutlej–Hakra corridor inland, and coastal trade from Lothal/Dholavira down to Oman and up to the Persian Gulf.

Summarising the landscape of the territory, its habitants, historical evolutionary pathway, the only outcomes we may record:

- The Indus Civilisation functioned as a federation of nine regional kingdoms, each self-governing but bound by a shared technical and moral order: civic cleanliness, standard weights, and regulated exchange.

- No single “empire” ruled the rest; power was distributed, balanced through trade and shared ideology.

- Their system lasted six to seven centuries—longer than most Bronze-Age monarchies—because cooperation outweighed conquest.

Let's review the measurement systems, and its rates, for fulfill the gap of whitespace from cultural backgroud to its metrologycal approach.

in addvance we noting here some critical points, which loudly screaming for clarification, despite small regional offsets (±1 cm per cubit, ±1 % per weight), all nine kingdoms followed:

- Binary–decimal weight system based on ≈ 13.6 g.

- Linear cubit ≈ 33–34 cm, divisible into 30 sub-marks (~1.1 cm)

- Brick ratio 1 : 2 : 4 defining modular architecture.

Comparative Table of Indus Kingdom Measurement Systems (length)
Kingdom Local Cubit (cm) % Difference vs Harappa Relation to 1 m Relation to Each Other
Harappa 33.5 cm — 1 m = 2.985 cubits Base standard
Mohenjo-Daro 33.5 cm 0 % 1 m = 2.985 cubits Identical to Harappa
Saraswati / Ghaggar–Hakra 33.8 cm +0.9 % 1 m = 2.958 cubits +1 % longer than Harappa
Dholavira 34.5 cm +3.0 % 1 m = 2.90 cubits +3 % longer; same as Lothal
Lothal 34.0 cm +1.5 % 1 m = 2.94 cubits Within ±1 % of Dholavira
Chanhu-Daro 33.5 cm 0 % 1 m = 2.985 cubits Same as Harappa & Mohenjo-Daro
Amri 30.0 cm −10.4 % 1 m = 3.33 cubits 10 % shorter — pre-standard form
Nausharo–Mehrgarh 33.0 cm −1.5 % 1 m = 3.03 cubits ≈ Harappan range
Surkotada 33.7 cm +0.6 % 1 m = 2.97 cubits Within 1 % of Harappa
Comparative Table of Indus Kingdom Measurement Systems (Weights)
Kingdom Local Base Weight (g) % Difference vs Harappa Binary/Decimal Progression Relation to Each Other
Harappa 13.60 g — 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32
 ; 160, 320, 640
 Base reference
Mohenjo-Daro 13.65 g +0.4 % Identical progression Equal precision
Saraswati / Ghaggar–Hakra 13.70 g +0.7 % 1, 2, 4 
 Hematite variants Within 1 % of Harappa
Dholavira 13.80 g +1.5 % Same progression Slightly heavier series
Lothal 13.65 g +0.4 % Dockyard sets; maritime use Matches Mohenjo-Daro
Chanhu-Daro 13.55 g −0.4 % Industrial duplicates Matches Harappa
Amri 12.00 g −11.8 % Pre-Harappan irregular Proto-system
Nausharo–Mehrgarh 14.00 g +2.9 % Early cone weights Transitional form
Surkotada 13.60 g 0 % Frontier chert cubes Identical to Harappa
Comparative Table of Indus Kingdom Measurement Systems (Volumes & Capacities)
Kingdom Base Volume Metric Equivalent Relation to Harappa Functional Context
Harappa 1 grain-jar ≈ 0.8 L Base standard Civic storage & tithe measure
Mohenjo-Daro 1 box unit 0.8–0.9 L ± 5 % Granary compartments
Saraswati / Kalibangan Bin module 0.75 L −6 % Fire-altar & offering grain
Dholavira Water-jar 1.0 L +25 % Hydraulic storage
Lothal Dock crate 1.2 L +50 % Customs inspections, ship cargo
Chanhu-Daro Workshop jar 0.4–0.8 L −20 – 0 % Craft batching
Amri Pit bowl ≈ 0.7 L −12 % Pre-standard domestic use
Nausharo–Mehrgarh Pottery jar 0.75 L −6 % Neolithic continuity
Surkotada Domestic jar 0.8 L 0 % Household storage

Before Summary, Or Our Recommendations To Read...

In aim to be well acqwaited with moders scientific approaches, collecting , and classifying the data, assuptions, and methodolydy in real researching example, we recommend our reader visit the : Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 64 (2021) 101346, 0278-4165/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Setting the wheels in motion: Re-examining ceramic forming techniques in, Indus Civilisation villages in northwest India

For complex overview the Early Bronze Age Cultures of the Indus Civilisation and the Borderlands , we recommend read: A People's History of India 2 THE INDUS CIVILISATION Including Other Copper Age Cultures and History of Language Change till c. 1500 bc (Irfan Habib, Aligarh Historians Society 2002 First published in India 2002 ISBN: 81-85229-66-X)

This article is part of a long-read publication. [Go to the full version →]

An explanatory publication covering the basics of measurement methodology and the representation of measurement units.

An archaeological overview of the Nabta Playa culture within the article’s context (measurement units across cultures).

Overview of the social hierarchy, administration, and economic organisation within the Sumerian state.

An overview of ancient Egyptian culture and societal structure, focusing on its systems of measurement.

A comprehensive review of Ancient Greece’s socio-cultural background and how its measurement systems were derived from it.

This chapter introduces the cultural background of Ancient Rome, which served as the fundament for the development of its measurement system.

Prehistoric Israel State and its culture-based structural construct, to which we definitely rely the measurements and their standardisation

This chapter devoted to two cultures, Babylonia and Persia, and here uncover why...

And here the place we should turning backward, to culture, already passed but under other angle...

The cultural background of Persia has its roots in the Assyrian Kingdom, and a brief overview will reveal the socio-cultural intercrosses and inheritance from them...

We have passed through many cultures, and the globe still shows no end. Our journey continues — this time...

In this section, we will attempt to merge all our tributaries into a single river of outcomes — from prehistoric cultures to organized kingdoms — and evaluate whether our predictions, based on incomplete and perhaps speculative analytical methods, have proven successful.

This chapter guides the reader through the region now known as China. Our primary interest, of course, lies in exploring the measurement systems of this culture — but why miss the opportunity to discover a little more?

⛩ The Qin Empire (Qin Dynasty, 221–206 BCE) and ⛩ The Han Empire (Western Han, 206 BCE–9 CE; Eastern Han, 25–220 CE): a brief introduction.

In this section, we present to our honorable readers the background of the Shang Dynasty — its state organization, metrological practices of the period, and several additional fascinating aspects of this early Chinese civilization.