NCERT Solutions for Class 9th Social Science Chapter 4 The Beginning of Writing — LET US RECALL

Book page 81 Updated on2026-09-08

Q1.
The cuneiform writing system was contemporary to the Harappan script, but while cuneiform has been deciphered, the Harappan script has not yet been deciphered. Do you think our understanding of a civilisation changes when its script is deciphered compared to when it is not?
Answer

Yes — it changes completely, and the chapter itself is the demonstration. Compare how much this one chapter can tell you about Mesopotamia with how much it can tell you about the Harappans, and the whole difference comes from one fact: cuneiform can be read and Sindhu lipi cannot.

Kind of knowledgeMesopotamia (cuneiform deciphered)Sindhu–Sarasvatī (script undeciphered)
Names of rulersSargon of Akkad; Hammurabi, who ascended in 1792 BCENot one Harappan name is known
Dates of eventsAkkad rises 2334 BCE; Assur takes over 2154 BCE; Babylonia from 1900 BCEOnly period boundaries — Early, Mature, Late Harappan — dated by excavation and radio-carbon, never by a text
Law and governmentThe Code of Hammurabi — the actual rules for civil and social conduct, and the fact that they were enforced empire-wideNothing. We can see planned streets and a standard weight system but cannot read a single rule
Trade partnersSargon's tablets name Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha by nameHarappan goods are found abroad, but the Harappans never tell us where they sent them
Beliefs and literature'Great myths and epics, hymns, the law codes, and educational treatises' — including the Epic of GilgameshSeal motifs and figurines survive; what they meant is guesswork
Ordinary working lifeTablets recording the work of 'potters, seal cutters, shipbuilders, carpenters, farm workers'We know the crafts existed from the objects; we do not know the workers
Thoughts and ideasDirectly attested in their own wordsFig. 4.3's verdict applies: 'It is generally difficult to understand the thoughts and ideas of people'

The change is not only more information — it is a different kind of information. Fig. 4.3 makes exactly this distinction. Material remains tell you how people lived; written documents add names, events, and social, political and cultural life, and make dating 'relatively accurate' because documents mention specific dates of coronations and wars. Archaeology gives you the pattern of a society. Writing gives you its people.

Egypt shows the change happening. Before 1822, Egyptian monuments were impressive but mute. Then Champollion read the Rosetta Stone's hieroglyphs against its Greek, and the same stones started giving up names, reigns, prayers and medical recipes — the Papyrus Ebers alone lists more than 700 cures and spells. Nothing new was excavated; the same evidence simply began to speak.

The other half of the answer — what does not change. A decipherment does not make the archaeology wrong or redundant. We know the Harappans traded over long distances, planned their cities, managed water at Dholavira, ploughed cross-furrowed fields at Kalibangan and weighed goods in a fixed system — all without a readable line of text. And written sources bring their own problem: they are usually written by and for the powerful. Sargon's tablets record what a king wanted recorded; the potter's life still has to be reconstructed from the pots. The best history uses both, which is exactly what Fig. 4.3's 'After' column says: 'both material remains and written documents are sources'.
Was this helpful? Report an error