The Indus Valley Civilization is a very ancient and very mysterious civilization about which little is known. What little is known comes from two things: Indus writing and the archeology of cities such as Harappa (for which the civilization was named) and Mohenjodaro. These two sources give us 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay One thing Glover remembered was the astonishing technology of the Indus civilization – it was “without parallel” in his time. The Harappans had plumbing, two-story buildings, public baths, and many other things, like pottery and tools, that demonstrated amazing design and craftsmanship. However, few of these skills were used in weapons manufacturing, an argument that supports other evidence of warfare. Alfred Fairservis is a scientist who found a way to translate the Indus script, and although it is not universally accepted, it might be one day. He did this by comparing the Indus script to other languages ​​and elements of the civilization's culture. All three authors agree that the language was primarily used for legal matters such as putting people's names on their seals, entering into contracts, accounting, etc. ; writing was not used for literature like Mesopotamian writing in The Epic of Gilgamesh. Fairservis also believes, based on what he was able to decipher from the text, that there was a class system in the Indus civilization: he says that there were a series of small chiefdoms, each with its own hierarchy. Kenoyer also says there was an elite class, but Glover says there wasn't one. Glover bases his theory on the fact that if there had been a ruler in his own right, there would have been monuments and large tombs to that ruler (like the pyramids of ancient Egypt) – which did not exist . This theory makes perfect sense, as Mesopotamia and Egypt both had tombs and monuments, and both were known to have hierarchies. Another researcher, Professor Brian Fagan, suggests a possible compromise between these two sides of the debate. He suggests that there was not a political pyramid, but rather a social pyramid – but that there was a pyramid. This would mean that there was not one complete ruler, but rather a series of senior officials, in short a social hierarchy. Whether or not there was an elite class, as Kenoyer suggests, ultimately, whether they were rulers or mere civil servants, they could not keep a grip on the rapidly growing urban civilization, and the empire, which at one point had had more land than Egypt and Mesopotamia, collapsed for unknown reasons, passing on little of its religion and none of its technology to the tribes who would later inhabit the region where a great civilization once stood..