The Indus Valley Civilization is a very ancient and very mysterious civilization about which not much is known. What little is known is gained from two things: the Indus script and the archeology of cities such as Harappa (which gave its name to the civilization) and Mohenjodaro. Both of these sources provide us with valuable information about the lifestyle of the ancient Harappans, but they still do not answer all our questions. Two main questions that arise when studying the Indus civilization concern the nature and uses of writing and the nature and/or existence of a class system. Three documents – Jonathan Kenoyer's article in Scientific American, Ian Glover's “Old World Civilizations,” and Alfred Fairservis' work in Facts on File – provide the details needed to get a better idea of ​​the Indus Civilization. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay One thing Glover captured was the extraordinary technology of the Indus civilization: it was "without parallel" in his time. The Harappans had plumbing systems, two-story buildings, public baths and many other things like pottery and tools which showed amazing design and skill. However, little of this skill was employed in the manufacture of weapons, a point which supports other evidence about the war. Alfred Fairservis is a scientist who actually figured out a way to translate the Indus script, and while it's not universally accepted, it might be one day. He did this by comparing the Indus script with other languages ​​and with elements of the civilization's culture. All three authors agree that the language was used primarily for legal matters such as naming people on their seals, making contracts, accounting, and the like; the writing was not used for literature like the Mesopotamian writing of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Fairservis also believes, based on what he has been able to decipher from the text, that there was a class system in the Indus civilization: he states that there was a series of small kingdoms, each with its own hierarchy. Kenoyer also says there was an elite class, but Glover says it didn't exist. Glover bases his theory on the fact that if there had been an absolute ruler, there would have been monuments and large tombs for that leader (like the pyramids of Ancient Egypt) – which there wasn't. This theory makes a lot of sense, as both Mesopotamia and Egypt had tombs and monuments, and both were known to have hierarchies. A possible compromise between these two aspects of the question is provided by another scholar, Professor Brian Fagan. He suggests that there was no political pyramid, rather a social pyramid – but that there was a pyramid. This would mean that there was no complete ruler, but rather a series of higher officials, in short a social hierarchy. Whether or not an elite class existed, ultimately, as Kenoyer suggests, they – whether “they” were leaders or simply officials – failed to keep the rapidly growing urban civilization, and empire, in check. which at one point had more land than Egypt and Mesopotamia, collapsed for unknown reasons, passing on some of its religion and none of its technology to the tribes who would later inhabit the area where a great civilization.