Harappan maritime trade

Evidence and network

• Coastal nodes: Lothal in Gujarat had a large brick basin conventionally called a dockyard, warehouses, seals and bead workshops. Its nautical function is debated—some read it as a reservoir—but its estuarine location and craft-trade assemblage are secure. Dholavira connected Kachchh routes; Kuntasi, Balakot and Sutkagen-dor served coastal exchange from Saurashtra to Makran.
• Routes and craft: River transport fed coastal entrepôts. Sewn or reed boats probably followed coastwise routes to Magan (Oman) and Dilmun (Bahrain), then Mesopotamia. A boat motif on seals and terracotta models supports water transport, though it cannot specify cargo volume.
• Exports: Etched carnelian beads, shell and ivory objects, timber, cotton textiles and perhaps sesame travelled west. Harappan-style weights, cubical stone measures, seals and bead-making technology enabled standardised transactions.
• Imports: Silver, copper and other scarce raw materials entered the Indus system. Omani copper and Gulf shells have archaeological signatures, while lapis lazuli also moved through overland Afghan routes.
• External testimony: Mesopotamian cuneiform texts mention Meluhha, Meluhhan ships and a Meluhha village/interpreter. Indus seals and carnelian beads occur at Ur, Kish and Gulf sites; Gulf seals and foreign materials occur in the Indus sphere.

Anthropological significance

The trade sustained urban craft specialisation, redistributed prestige goods and tied hinterland producers to cities. It also carried styles and techniques without erasing Harappan standardisation. Shereen Ratnagar has emphasised West Asian interaction, while other archaeologists caution against making long-distance trade the sole cause of urbanism.

Silting, shoreline change and river shifts complicate present maps. The network was maritime and terrestrial, regional and overseas; it was not a single state-run “navy” for which evidence is absent.