Q1.
Have a debate in class about the last two interpretations. Can you think of any others? Remember that in this case, we do not have any other source of history — no inscription, no text, no traveller's account.
Answer
The two interpretations left standing are a bath for the royal family only and a tank used for religious rituals. Here is the case each side can actually make from the evidence, plus three further possibilities worth putting on the table.
| Side A — a royal or elite bath | Side B — a ritual tank | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it stands | In the upper town, where the elite probably lived — a private amenity for the few | In the upper town, which in many ancient cities is also where the public and sacred buildings stand |
| Its size | 12 × 7 m is far too big for one family's daily bath — but right for a select group | Big enough for a group ceremony, small enough that only chosen people take part |
| The waterproofing and the drain | Comfort and cleanliness for important people | Purity. The trouble taken to empty and refill it with freshwater is exactly what a ritual bath needs |
| The small rooms around it | Changing rooms or rooms for attendants | Rooms for preparation before the bath, or for priests |
| What weakens it | We have found no palace and no royal burial anywhere in this civilisation — so we cannot even prove there was a royal family | We have no text and no inscription we can read, so ‘ritual’ is a guess based on later Indian practice, not on Harappan evidence |
Three other interpretations you could propose:
- A civic water store — a clean reserve of freshwater for the upper town in a dry season. It would explain the well and the drain neatly.
- A place for healing or medicine — bathing in clean water, perhaps with herbs, for the sick.
- More than one use over time. Cities last for centuries; a building rarely keeps a single purpose for 700 years. It may have begun as one thing and ended as another.
Why the last sentence of the box is the most important one: “we do not have any other source of history — no inscription, no text, no traveller's account.” For Aśhoka we have his own words carved in stone; for the Harappans we have only the object itself. That is why the argument has to be built out of size, position, materials and plumbing — and why it cannot be finished. A good debater in this class must end with “this is what the evidence supports”, never “this is what happened”.
How to run the debate fairly: give each side ten minutes to list physical evidence only — no “I feel that”. Then let each side name one discovery that would change their mind. Side A might say “a palace next door”; side B might say “a deciphered inscription on the wall”. Naming what would prove you wrong is the heart of historical method.