The Indus Civilization
Page 29
A complete discussion of the cultural historical connections, suggesting the process whereby the Indus cultural tradition met and was accepted by the Aryans, who composed the Vedic texts, is more properly part of a discussion of the transformation of the ancient cities of the Indus. There are, after all, continuities other than religious ones to be considered. At the conclusion of the paper on seal 13 from Chanhu-daro, Allchin makes the following comment:
This should warn us against any premature attempt to see in the Chanhu-daro seal evidence of the presence of the Indo-Aryan speaking people; and equally against any over simple attempt to derive the ideas in the Rgveda from an Indus source. But having said so much, it must still be admitted that the correspondences in the present case appear to be so profound, and so harmonious, that they must have involved some kind of fairly direct culture contact. Several times in recent years we have expressed our view that Indo-Aryan speaking people must have arrived in the Indus Valley during the lifetime of the mature Indus civilization, and that there must have been a period of cultural synthesis between the two very different elements. It is still not possible to say when the first Indo-Aryans arrived, nor over how long a period they continued to move into the Indus region from their earlier homelands in Central Asia, but the model of this period of cultural interaction provides in our view the most plausible indication of the medium within which the sort of cultural synthesis suggested by the Chanhu-daro seal and the Rigvedic myths could have taken place.72
Allchin’s notion that there were Indo-Europeans in the Greater Indus Valley during Indus times is perfectly reasonable, in theory. These were not the people who composed the hymns of the Rgveda, nor even necessarily the direct ancestors of the composers, since the codification of the Rgveda, the earliest Vedic text, is thought to be circa 1000 B.C. The history and ritual in the Rgveda is older than this, some of it possibly as much as several hundred years older, but surely not much more. Thus, placing the beginnings of the composition of the Rgveda at 1500 B.C. is reasonable, but certainly not proved. The composition process could have begun as late as 1100 B.C., or even decades later. In any event, it is hundreds of years removed from the date that Allchin has proposed for the earliest appearance of Indo-Europeans in the Greater Indus region. To satisfy Allchin’s suggestion and make a connection to the Vedas, we must imagine that there were early Indo-Europeans who became one of the peoples of the Indus Civilization. They must have maintained their own language and traditions, but participated in Indus cultural life as well. Their sense of self-identity preserved their own heritage in a way that allowed them to interact in a positive way with other Indo-Europeans. Allchin suggests that there may have been a more or less regular southerly migration of these peoples. While this is possible, and may well have been one part of a complex pattern of movement, we should also admit that the seasonal migration of cattle-keeping peoples, like the Aryans of the Rgveda, may have taken these peoples back north into Central Asia on a periodic basis. Moreover, various Indo-European peoples may have moved south on a seasonal or some other relatively short-term basis, thus coming into contact with both the Harappans themselves as well as their Indo-European-speaking brethren who had moved on a permanent basis into the Punjab, possibly Sindh, and other areas.
The position just stated is congruent with the linguistic findings of F. Southworth, who sees a variety of language influences in the Vedic texts.73 Moreover, with the excavations at Dadheri and Baghwanpura,74 as well as Posturban Phase Harappan sites such as Hulas,75 Mitathal,76 and Banawali, 77 we now have a complete, unbroken cultural historical sequence linking the Mature Harappan settlements to the north Indian Early Iron Age, which is associated with Painted Gray Ware.
Bringing the Harappans and Indo-Europeans together in time and place for a period of cultural synthesis is not an insurmountable problem in the cultural history of the Subcontinent. Getting archaeologists to stop thinking in terms of a single Indo-European migration is far more of a challenge.
NOTES
1 A bibliography on this subject is Atre 1987; F. R. Allchin 1985; Hiltebeitel 1978; Marshall 1931f; McEvilley 1981; Parpola 1985a, 1985b, 1992, 1994a; Srinivisan 1975—76, 1984; Sullivan 1964.
2 Marshall 1931e.
3 Allchin and Allchin 1982: 213.
4 Marshall 1931e: 49—58.
5 Marshall 1931e: 50.
6 Marshall 1931e: 52—56.
7 Mackay 1928—29: 74—75, pl. XXVIIIf.
8 Mackay 1937—38: pl. XCIV, no. 420.
9 McEvilley 1981.
10 Marshall 1931e: 52.
11 Marshall 1931e: 52.
12 Marshall 1931e: 52.
13 Walker 1968: 406.
14 Marshall 1931 e: 53.
15 Marshall 1931e: 53—54.
16 Marshall 1931e: 54.
17 Marshall 1931e: 54.
18 Marshall 1931e: 55.
19 Quoted in Mackay 1928—29: 74—75.
20 Mackay 1948; 56—57; Wheeler 1968: 105; Allchin and Allchin 1982: 214; Walker 1968: II, 406; Fairservis 1975: 275, 277; O’Flaherty 1973: 9.
21 Puskas 1984: 164.
22 Sullivan 1964.
23 Srinivasan 1975—76, 1984.
24 Hiltebeitel 1978.
25 Mackay 1937—38.
26 Hiltebeitel 1978: 773—74.
27 Marshall 1931e: 53 n. 1.
28 Shinde 1991.
29 Hiltebeitel 1978: 773—75.
30 Sullivan 1964: 120.
31 McEvilley 1981.
32 Walker 1968: II, 616—17.
33 Parpola 1984: 181—83.
34 Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973: pl. 137.
35 Mackay 1937—38: pl. LXXII, no. 37, pl. LXXIV, nos. 21, 22, 25.
36 Stein 1931: Kulli V.ix.3; Casal 1961: fig. 102.
37 Allchin et al. 1986: 112.
38 Marshall 1931e: 57; see Walker 1968: 336—38 for more.
39 Walker 1968: II, 336.
40 Marshall 1931e: 57—58.
41 Rgveda VI.61.10—12, after Griffith 1896.
42 Allchin and Allchin 1982: 215.
43 Parpola 1990: 265.
44 Grigson 1984.
45 Marshall 1931i: no. 357.
46 Marshall 1931e: 67.
47 Parpola 1984.
48 Marshall 1931e: 75.
49 Jansen 1993a.
50 Mackay 1943: pl. LI, no. 13.
51 Allchin 1985.
52 Allchin 1985: 381.
53 Wheeler 1968: 108.
54 Fairservis 1986.
55 Marshall 1931c: 22—23.
56 Wheeler 1968: 53.
57 Mackay 1948: 15.
58 Marshall 1931h: 124.
59 Jansen 1998, personal communication.
60 Hargreaves 1931: 176—79.
61 Wheeler 1968: 52.
62 Jansen 1985.
63 Jansen 1985: 166 n. 1.
64 Jansen 1985: 184.
65 Mackay 1931c: 251—52, pl. LXIV, and 1937—38: 118—20, pl. XIX.
66 Mackay 1931c: 252.
67 Mackay 1937—38: 119.
68 Mackay 1937—38: 92—93; Wheeler 1968: 51.
69 Sankalia, Deo, and Ansari 1971: 49, pl. IVB; Chakravarty, Wakankar, and Khare 1989: 43-45.
70 Ghosh 1962.
71 Wheeler 1968: 110.
72 Allchin 1985: 382.
73 Southworth 1990, 1992.
74 Joshi 1993.
75 Dikshit 1984.
76 Bhan 1975.
77 Bisht 1982.
CHAPTER 9
Burial Customs and Biological Diversity of the Peoples of the Indus Civilization
INTRODUCTION
The discovery of the Indus Age took place at a time when the concept of biological races was much in vogue, and the older literature on the Indus Civilization speaks of its peoples in these terms.1 In their report on the excavations at Mohenjo-daro, Colonel R. B. Seymour Sewell and B. S. Guha used anthropometric measurements and descriptive features of twenty-six skeletons and found four racial groups: Proto-Aust
raloid, Mediterranean, Alpine, and Mongolian branch of the Alpine stock.2 This racial typology of Indus peoples has been widely referenced despite the fact that the use of such data has been discredited for many years.3
A list of the principal sites where there is evidence for the disposal of the dead during the Indus Age is given in table 9.1. This list does not cover all the sites at which human remains have been found, those with stray human bones and teeth, for example.
The human remains associated with the Indus Civilization have been collected from diverse archaeological contexts: from cemeteries to cremation platforms; some even came from cesspits. While we know of no cemetery there, the human remains from Mohenjo-daro deserve first treatment.
Mohenjo-daro
The apparent absence of a cemetery at Mohenjo-daro is one of the important facts in the funerary record of the Indus Civilization. The interments at this city all seem to be of a rather hasty character. There is a total of forty-two individuals represented in the Mohenjo-daro skeletal series. These are human skeletal materials that can be examined and measured. There are more fractional interments and postcremation urns from seventeen other distinct archaeological contexts.
Wheeler implies that some of the humans whose remains were found at Mohenjo-daro may have died as part of a massacre associated with the abandonment of the city and the decline of the Indus Civilization.4 This has been thoroughly debunked by Dales and Kennedy.5 Whatever their cause of death, its association with war and then abandonment of Mohenjo-daro or the eclipse of the Indus Civilization cannot be proved. Neither Indra nor his Aryan believers stand accused of these deaths. Table 9.2 is a list of the places at Mohenjo-daro where human remains or possible funerary materials have been found.
The skeleton in House I of HR-A is a later interment since its jewelry includes glass beads and a zinc ornament. 6 The funerary record at Mohenjo-daro is indicated in figure 9.1.
A Note on Fractional Burials and Postcremation Urns
Marshall notes possible fractional burials in several places at Mohenjo-daro (e.g., VS Area, House XXVII), but they are not associated with human bone.7 Most of the occurrences are from late in the occupation of the city. These are doubtful cases in relation to funerary activity, but serve to illustrate how elusive the Indus treatment of the dead is to us. These occurrences are discussed here since Marshall has described them as “funerary,” and we note, of course, the absence of human bones.
There are also postcremation urns, said to be funerary relics, but most often they, too, contain no human bone. These urns occur at both Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. It may seem strange to seriously entertain the notion that the Indus peoples had a funerary custom that involved interring cremated human remains in urns with other objects if there is hardly a shred of human bone to back up the proposition.
Special mention should be made of the two urns buried at the entrance of the Great Bath. Whether or not these urns actually resulted from some funerary rite, these deposits are of special significance because of their location at the entrance of this important building. They should at least be considered a “foundation deposit” or a “commemorative offering” marking something of consequence to those who used the Great Bath.
Marshall, a deeply committed champion of this proposition, put the best face he could on the matter.8 Wheeler leaves no doubt as to his opinion: “I also omit the so-called ‘postcremation burials’ from both sites, since there is no evidence whatsoever that these have anything to do with human burial.”9 The following sections discuss the human remains from Mohenjo-daro in excavation-area order.
Table 9.1 Sites with evidence for the disposal of the dead during the Indus Age
Site District Phase
Allahdino Karachi Indus Civilization
Bagor Bhilwara Bagor
Bajaniya-no Thumdo Banaskantha Amri-Nal Burial Pottery
Bhamaria Thumdo Banaskantha Amri-Nal Burial Pottery
Binjor Three Ganganagar Indus Civilization or Sothi-Siswal
Burzahom Srinagar Northern Neolithic
Chandigarh Chandigarh Indus Civilization
Chanhu-daro Nawabshah Indus Civilization
Dabar Kot Loralai Indus Civilization
Daimabad Ahmednagar Posturban Harappan
Damb Buthi Dadu Amri-Nal
Damb Sadaat Quetta-Pishin Quetta
Damboli Kachi BMAC
Dauda Damb Kachi BMAC
Derawar Ther Bahawalpur Indus Civilization
Dher Majra Ropar Indus Civilization and/or Posturban Harappan
Gemuwala Dehar Bahawalpur Indus Civilization
Gumla Dera Ismail Khan Gandhara Graves?
Late Kot Diji
Harappa Sahiwal Indus Civilization and Cemetery H
Harthar-no Timbo Mehsana Amri-Nal Burial Pottery
Isplinji Two Kalat Quetta?
Kalibangan Ganganagar Indus Civilization
Kashi Qalat Cemetery Makran Shahi Tump?
Kulli Makran Kulli?
Langhnaj Mehsana Bagor
Lothal Ahmedabad Indus Civilization
Madhvya-no Timbo Banaskantha Amri-Nal Burial Pottery
Mahra Sharif Dera Ismail Khan Gandhara Graves
Mehi Kalat Kulli?
Mehrgarh Kachi BMAC
Early Harappan-Mature Harappan Transition
Kot Diji
Kechi Beg
Togau
Burj Basket-marked
Kili Ghul Mohammad
Moghul Ghundai Zhob Kot Diji
Mohenjo-daro Larkana Indus Civilization
Moti Pipli Banaskantha Amri-Nal Burial Pottery
Nagwada One Surendranagar Amri-Nal Burial Pottery
Nal Kalat Amri-Nal
Periano Ghundai Zhob Kot Diji
Quetta Treasury Quetta-Pishin BMAC
Rakhigarhi Hisar Indus Civilization
Rampara Two Bhavnagar Sorath Harappan?
Randal Dadwa Rajkot Sorath Harappan?
Rojdi Rajkot Sorath Harappan or Late Sorath Harappan
Ropar Ropar Indus Civilization
Santhli Two Banaskantha Amri-Nal Burial Pottery
Santhli Four Banaskantha Amri-Nal Burial Pottery
Sarai Khola Rawalpindi Iron Age Cemetery
Shahi Tump Makran Shahi Tump
Sibri Cemetery Kachi BMAC
Sur Jangal Loralai Kechi Beg?
Surkotada Kutch Transitional
Sutkagen-dor Makran Indus Civilization
Tarkhanwala Dera Ganganagar Indus Civilization
Uchali Rawalpindi Northern Neolithic?
Waddanwala Bahawalpur Indus Civilization
Table 9.2 Human remains at Mohenjo-daro
Excavation area Human remains Site report documentation
HR-B Area, Block 2, House V, Room 74 14 skeletons: 13 adult males and females and 1 child; the HR Area tragedy. These remains are skeletons numbered 2 and 4—16 in the reports. Marshall 1931f: 79—80; Hargreaves 1931: 184—86, pls. XLIIIa and XLVIa and b; Sewell and Guha 1931: 602—5
HR-B Area, Block 2, House X, Room 126 Fractional burial. Marshall 1931f: 83; Hargreaves 1931: 184
HR-B Area, Block 2, House V, Room 49 1 cranium of a female found 1.8 m below the surface. This is designated skeleton 19 in the reports. Sahni 1931a: 191; Sewell and Guha 1931: 630—31
HR-A Area, Deadman’s Lane 1 skeleton and parts of a small cranium. This is designated skeleton 17 in the reports, and the cranium seems to be number 26. Marshall 1931f: 79; Sahni 1931a: 179, pls. XLIIc and d; Sewell and Guha 1931: 605
HR-A Area, House III, Courtyard 13 Fractional burial. This is designated skeleton 3 in the reports and consists only of a cranium. Marshall 1931f: 82; Hargreaves 1931: 180—81, pl. XLIIId; Sewell and Guha 1931: 602
VS Area, Block 3, Lane 4 between Houses XVIII and XXXIII 6 skeletons, including 1, possibly 2 children; the VS Area tragedy. These are designated skeletons 20—25 in the reports. Marshall 1931f: 79; Sahni 1931b: 222—23, pl. LIXc; Sewell and Guha 1931: 605—6
VS Area, Block
4, House XXVII, Room 72 at the south end of Lane 5 Fractional burial. Marshall 1931 83; Sahni 1931b: 228
VS Area, Block 4, House XXVII, Room 66 Fractional burial. Marshall 1931f: 83; Sahni 1931b: 228, pl. LXXX, nos. 41, 44, 52
VS Area, Block 4, House XXVII, Courtyard fronting Rooms 69 to 71 Fractional burial. Marshall 1931f: 83; Sahni 1931b: 228, pl. LXXIX, no. 18, pl. LXXXI, no. 23, and pl. LXXXII, no. 35
VS Area, Lane 3 south of House XIX Postcremation urn. Marshall 1931f: 86; Sahni 1931b: 223, pl. LXXXIV, no. 19, pl. LIXb
VS Area, Block 1, House V, Room 15 Postcremation urn. Marshall 1931f: 87; Sahni 1931b: 217, pl. CXIII, no. 444
VS Area, Block 4, corridor in House XXVI Postcremation urn. Marshall 1931f: 87; Sahni 1931b: 228—29, pl. CXVI, no. 29, pl. CXVIII, no. 11