There is a moment, in the study of the 7 Rivers civilization, when the researcher finds themselves before something unique in all of world archaeology. They have excavated hundreds of sites. They have examined thousands of artefacts. They have analyzed cities of thirty to fifty thousand inhabitants. And they realize they have not found what they were looking for — because it does not exist.
No palace. No state temple. No statue of a king. No bas-relief depicting a military victory. No chained prisoner carved in stone. No lavish tomb. No monument to the glory of any man.
After more than a century of intensive excavations on thousands of sites, from Afghanistan to Gujarat, from the Punjab to Rajasthan, archaeologists have searched for traces of centralized power. They have not found them. And their conclusions, recorded in dozens of reference works, all converge on the same astonishing finding: this civilization of several million people, spread over a territory larger than Egypt and Mesopotamia combined, functioned without the glorification of the Ego.
What archaeology says — and what it does not
The title of this book puts it plainly: Sapta Sindhu — the civilization without ego. This is not romantic hyperbole. It is an archaeological conclusion.
John Marshall, who directed the first excavations at Mohenjo-Daro, summarized it this way: « The Indus civilization represents a very perfect adjustment of human life to a specific environment which can only result from years of patient trials and accumulated experiences. » A civilization that patiently adjusts to its environment does not build pyramids to glorify its rulers. It builds sewers, wells, bathrooms — the invisible infrastructures of everyone’s daily life.
Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, one of the greatest current specialists in this civilization, formulated it with remarkable precision: « Archaeological evidence suggests that the Indus civilization was characterized by a relatively egalitarian social structure, with no clear evidence of a centralized state or ruling elite, but that it was also not governed by a rigid hierarchical system. »
Gregory Possehl, another essential reference: « The absence of palaces, large temples or large tombs in the Indus Valley suggests that power and wealth were not concentrated in the hands of a few. Instead, governance may have been carried out by local councils or assemblies, indicating a decentralized but cooperative societal structure. »
And Rita Wright: « The Indus civilization appears to have functioned through a series of autonomous, interconnected urban centers rather than through a single, centralized state. This decentralized system facilitated cooperation and mutual support among the different city-states. »
These three researchers are not citing each other for mutual support — they arrive at the same conclusions from independent archaeological data, excavated on different sites, analyzed with different methods.
The absence of warriors
The absence of glorification of power is not only readable in what is missing — the palaces, the temples, the monuments. It is also readable in what is present — or rather, in what is absent from existing representations.
In The Civilization of the 7 Rivers, I document this: there is no representation of warriors in the artefacts and sculptures of this civilization. The bones of skeletons found in cemeteries show no injuries indicating combat or deliberate violence. No trace of arson in the ruins of buildings. No arrowheads planted in walls. No helmets, no shields. Copper weapons were found, but nothing proves they were weapons of war.
Archaeology is unanimous on this point: it was a peaceful society. Not a naïve society that ignored violence — but a society that had chosen not to make violence the foundation of its political organization, and that did not make it a subject of representation or glorification either.
When one compares this finding to what is found in contemporary civilizations — Assyrian bas-reliefs depicting impaled prisoners, Egyptian friezes showing the pharaoh crushing his enemies, Sumerian stelae celebrating royal conquests — the difference is striking. All the other great civilizations of this period put the warrior and the king at the center of their iconography. The civilization of the 7 Rivers excludes them completely.
This is not a void. It is a choice.
Houses for all, not palaces for a few
This choice is also legible in the urban organization. Unlike the cities of Mesopotamia or Egypt, where everything converges toward the royal palace or the great temple, the cities of the 7 Rivers civilization are organized around collective spaces — the large common room, the community granary, the purification pool.
The houses, even the most modest, had toilets and a system of protection against humidity. Every house had an interior courtyard. Every house was connected to the wastewater drainage network. Wells were found at every crossroads.
The collective wealth did not serve to glorify a sovereign. It served to guarantee decent living conditions for the entire population.
The bricks themselves testify to this functional egalitarianism: the same dimensions across thousands of kilometres — the 1×2×4 proportion is universal throughout the entire civilization. Not an empire imposing its standards by force, but a shared convention, voluntarily adopted, that facilitated exchanges and construction everywhere and for everyone.
The regulation of the Ego: the role of soma
In The Civilization of the 7 Rivers, I advance a hypothesis that both archaeological and textual data support: what maintained this balance for fifteen centuries was not only an ingenious political organization. It was a collective spiritual practice — soma, the Agnistoma, the regular regulation of the Ego through an entheogenic experience that profoundly relativizes it.
The whole life of this civilization revolved around the sacrifice. The Agnistoma — the praise of fire, of Light, of Enlightenment — took place at least once a year. All the Masters of the House — that is, all the propertied families, therefore all those responsible for society — were required to drink the soma at least once a year.
A person who possesses things but regularly undergoes an experience that relativizes their possession cannot durably confuse what they have with what they are. A leader who drinks soma once a year cannot indefinitely maintain the illusion that their power belongs to them personally, that their Ego is the center of the world.
This is the deep reason, in my view, for the absence of Ego glorification in this civilization. Not an abstract moral virtue, not an ingenious political constitution — but a regular, collective, ritualized practice that mechanically prevented the Ego from being confused with the function.
The Dalai Lama, cited in this book, formulates it this way: « The ego often disrupts our relationships and creates conflict because it causes us to prioritize our own needs and desires over those of others, leading to a lack of empathy and understanding. » Eckhart Tolle: « The moment the ego arises, it brings a sense of separation, a sense of ‘me’ versus ‘the other.’ This fragmentation leads to conflict, discord and suffering in society. »
These contemporary formulations describe precisely what the civilization of the 7 Rivers had found a way to prevent. Not through laws. Through a practice.
What this absence says to our world
Our contemporary societies are governed by individuals with oversized Egos and authoritarian power. Dictatorships, where power is concentrated in the hands of one or a few, perfectly illustrate this. But even in regimes that claim to be democratic, free elections are influenced by a ruling class that has no desire to lose its power.
This is not a question of bad people. It is a question of structure. A structure that rewards Ego glorification — through monuments, statues, names on buildings, portraits on banknotes — mechanically attracts and produces glorified Egos.
The civilization of the 7 Rivers built a different structure. A structure where power was not glorified, not represented, not monumentalized. And this structure held for fifteen centuries — something none of our current democracies, in their present form, has yet managed to achieve.
This is not nostalgia. It is a demonstration.
Laisser un commentaire