Q1.
What was the purpose of such a structure?
Answer
We do not know for certain — and the chapter says so. “Archaeologists have proposed several possible interpretations”, and one of the three has since been ruled out.
| Interpretation | Status | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 1. A public bath for people | Ruled out | “It turns out that in this city, most houses had individual bathrooms.” People who can bathe at home do not need a public bath |
| 2. A bath for the royal family only | Still possible | Its position in the upper town, its size and its careful waterproofing all suit a structure built for a few important people |
| 3. A tank used for religious rituals | Still possible | Ritual bathing is very old in India, and the trouble taken to keep the water clean fits a sacred use |
What we can say for certain, from the structure itself:
- It measured about 12 × 7 metres — a little bigger than a classroom, so “small but elaborate”.
- It was waterproofed with natural bitumen (a form of tar) laid on top of carefully laid-out bricks — the same idea as tar-lining a modern tank.
- It was surrounded by small rooms, one of which contained a well.
- It had a drain in one corner, so the tank could be emptied from time to time and refilled with freshwater.
What all that adds up to: whoever built it cared a great deal about the water being clean and fresh, and was willing to spend a lot of skilled labour on that. A tank you go to the trouble of emptying and refilling is not an ordinary water store. That is the strongest single clue we have — and it fits both of the surviving interpretations equally well, which is exactly why the debate is not over.
Be careful how you write this answer. Do not write “the Great Bath was used for religious rituals” as if it were a fact. Write: “its purpose is still debated; a royal bath and a ritual tank are the two interpretations that remain, while the public-bath idea has been ruled out because most houses had their own bathrooms.” That sentence is both shorter and truer.