Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization

Last updated
Female figurine. Mature Harappan period, 2700-2000 BCE. Indus civilization. National Museum, New Delhi. Female figurine 3. Mature Harappan period. Indus civilization (detail).jpg
Female figurine. Mature Harappan period, 2700–2000 BCE. Indus civilization. National Museum, New Delhi.
Indus Civilization pottery figure of horned deity. Indus pottery figure of horned deity.jpg
Indus Civilization pottery figure of horned deity.

The religion and belief system of the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) people have received considerable attention, with many writers concerned with identifying precursors to the religious practices and deities of much later Indian religions. However, due to the sparsity of evidence, which is open to varying interpretations, and the fact that the Indus script remains undeciphered, [2] [3] the conclusions are partly speculative and many are largely based on a retrospective view from a much later Hindu perspective. [4]

Contents

Indus Valley Civilisation

The Indus Valley civilisation was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in its mature form from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE. [5] [note 1] Together with ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was one of three early civilizations of the Near East and South Asia, and of the three, the most widespread, its sites spanning an area stretching from today's northeast Afghanistan, through much of what is now Pakistan, and into western and northwestern Indian Republic. [6] [note 2] It flourished in the basins of the Indus River, which flows through modern-day republics of India and Pakistan along a system of perennial, mostly monsoon-fed, rivers. [5] [7]

In these other civilizations, large temples were a central key element of cities, and religious imagery abounded. Once the scripts had been deciphered, the names of deities and the characteristics attributed to them became fairly clear. None of this is the case for the IVC.

Scholarly views on IVC-religion

Early and influential work in the area that set the trend for Hindu interpretations of archaeological evidence from the Harappan sites was that of John Marshall, [8] who in 1931 identified the following as prominent features of the Indus religion: a Great Male God and a Mother Goddess; deification or veneration of animals and plants; a symbolic representation of the phallus (linga) and vulva (yoni); and, use of baths and water in religious practice. Marshall's interpretations have been much debated, and sometimes disputed over the following decades. [9] [10] [9] [11] Geoffrey Samuel, writing in 2008, finds all attempts to make "positive assertions" about IVC religions as conjectural and intensely prone to personal biases — at the end of the day, scholars knew nothing about Indus Valley religions. [12]

In contrast to contemporary Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations, Indus Valley lacks any monumental palaces, even though excavated cities indicate that the society possessed the requisite engineering knowledge. [13] [14] This suggests that religious ceremonies, if any, may have been largely confined to individual homes, small temples, or the open air. Several sites have been proposed by Marshall and later scholars as possibly devoted to religious purposes, but at present only the Great Bath at Mohenjo-Daro is widely thought to have been so used, as a place for ritual purification. [15] [16] The funerary practices of the Harappan civilization are marked by fractional burial (in which the body is reduced to skeletal remains by exposure to the elements before final interment), and even cremation. [17] [18]

Contemporary scholars (most significantly Asko Parpola) continue to probe the roles of the IVC in the formation of Hinduism; others remain ambivalent about these results. [19] [3] [20] [note 3] In reviewing a book by Parpola in 2017, Wendy Doniger wrote: "I have supported the thesis that there is some form of continuity between the IVC and later Hinduism. I am now more than ever persuaded that IVC culture survived the destruction of its cities and that later Hindu imagery, having entered Hinduism after the Vedic period, may well be derived from the IVC. But I remain skeptical about Parpola's reconstruction of the IVC's religion." [25]

Seals

The imagery on the great majority of Indus seals centers on a single animal; generally, various attempts to attribute religious significance to these have not been widely accepted. But a minority are more complicated and prominently feature figures with a human form, and there has been much discussion of these.

Pashupati seal

Pashupati seal
Shiva Pashupati.jpg
Seal
Pashupati seal impression.jpg
Impression
The Pashupati seal discovered during excavation of the Indus Valley archaeological site of Mohenjo-Daro. Circa 2350-2000 BCE. [26] [27]

Many discussions of religion in IVC center around the most famous of the Indus seals; though interpretations of it have varied greatly, almost all do accord it some religious significance. The broken seal given the find number 420 shows a large central figure, either horned or wearing a horned headdress and possibly ithyphallic as well as tricephalic, [28] seated in a posture probably reminiscent of the Yogic Lotus position, surrounded by four wild animals – elephant, tiger, buffalo, and rhinoceros. [29] [11] Marshall concluded the figure to be Pashupati (Lord of Animals; epithet of the Hindu deity Shiva the Rudra) and it remained a piece of unassailable evidence in favor of IVC influencing Hinduism for a few decades. [30] [31] This identification (and terminology) is now rejected by modern scholars – Jonathan Mark Kenoyer notes that the figure cannot be linked to later icons without deciphering the script: even if they look apparently similar, conveyed meanings might have been radically different. [32]

In 1976, Doris Meth Srinivasan mounted the first substantial critique of Marshall's identification. [33] She accepted the figure to be indicative of cultic divinity, that people bowed towards such a posture (on other seals) but rejected the proto-Shiva identification: Pashupati of Vedic Corpus is the protector of domestic animals. [11] On comparison to facial particulars from horned masks and painted vessels, Srinivasan went on to propose the central figure to be a Buffalo-man, who had a "humanized bucranium" and whose headdress imparted powers of fertility. [11] Gavin Flood, about two decades later, noted that neither the Lotus position nor the anthropomorphic form of the central figure was deducible to any certainty. [34] Alf Hiltebeitel rejects a proto-Shiva identification; he supports Srinivasan's thesis with additional arguments, and hypothesize the Buffalo-man to have formed the legend of Mahishasura. [35] [note 4] Gregory L. Possehl concluded that while it would be appropriate to recognise the figure as a deity, its association with the water buffalo, and its posture as one of ritual discipline, regarding it as a proto-Shiva would be going too far. [24]

Triangular prism sealing, depicting a male cult figure seated in a yogic posture on a throne, a bull-like animal, and five characters in the Indus script. From Mohenjo-daro, Mature Harrapean period, c. 2600-1900 BC. Ashmolean Museum. Yogi seal Mohenjodaro EAMd13.jpg
Triangular prism sealing, depicting a male cult figure seated in a yogic posture on a throne, a bull-like animal, and five characters in the Indus script. From Mohenjo-daro, Mature Harrapean period, c. 2600-1900 BC. Ashmolean Museum.

Some scholars of Yoga – Karel Werner, Thomas McEvilley et al – have since used it to trace back the roots of Yoga to IVC. However, Geoffrey Samuel, writing in 2008, rejects Marshall's theory as mere anachronistic speculation and goes on to reject that yoga has its roots in IVC, as does Andrea R. Jain (2016) in Selling Yoga . [12] Paleontologist-cum-Indologist Alexandra Van Der Geer, in her 2008 survey of Indian mammals in art, comments the figure to remain "unknown" until the script is deciphered. [38] Samuel as well as Wendy Doniger had taken a similar stance. [12] [39] Kenoyer (as well as Michael Witzel) now consider the image to be an instance of Lord of the Beasts found in Eurasian neolithic mythology or the widespread motif of the Master of Animals found in ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean art, and the many other traditions of horned deities. [32] [40] [note 5]

Procession seal

Procession seal: horned figure in a pipal tree with one-horned attendants and bull figure. 2000-1900 BCE. Islamabad Museum. Horned deities on an Indus Valley seal with detail.jpg
Procession seal: horned figure in a pipal tree with one-horned attendants and bull figure. 2000-1900 BCE. Islamabad Museum.

Another seal from Mohenjo-daro (Find no. 420, now Islamabad Museum, 50.295), also called the "sacrifice" seal, of a type with a few examples found, is generally agreed to show a religious ritual of some kind, though readings of the imagery and interpretations of the scene vary considerably. [46] [47] It shows signs of wear from heavy usage. At top right, a figure with large horns and bangles on both arms stands in a pipal tree; it is generally agreed this represents a deity. Another figure kneels on one knee in front of this, also shown as horned and perhaps with plumes in a headdress. This is interpreted as a worshipper, perhaps a priest. Beside this figure there is what may be "a human head with hair tied in a bun", resting on a stool. Behind this a large horned animal, usually agreed to be a ram, perhaps with a human head, completes the top tier of the images. [46] [48]

In a lower tier, seven more or less identical figures, shown in a line in right-facing profile (on the seal, so left-facing on impressions), wear plumed headdresses, bangles, and dresses falling to around knee-level. What seems to be their hair is tied in a braid and comes down to waist level. Their gender is unclear, though they are often thought to be female. Groups of seven figures are seen in other pieces, [49] and a number of IVC seals show a variety of trees, that may have a religious significance, and do so in later Hinduism – banyan, pipal, and acacia. [46] [50]

Swastika seals

The swastika, which is seen on artifacts from the Indus Valley civilization, is an important symbol in Indian religions IndusValleySeals swastikas.JPG
The swastika, which is seen on artifacts from the Indus Valley civilization, is an important symbol in Indian religions

The swastika is a symbol sacred to multiple Indian religionsHinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. [51] Since the icon has been located in IVC artifacts, a continuum has been posited by a few scholars but it is a fringe view – Possehl finds such suppositions to be not "sound". [52] [24] Jonathan Mark Kenoyer notes that these artifacts were utilized by political and religious leaders of the subcontinent to claim ties of Hinduism with IVC. [53]

IVC Swastikas were primarily engraved in button (and square) seals. [51] [54] Manabu Koiso and other scholars classify the signs as "geometric motifs" [note 6] ; these types became extremely predominant at the end of the Mature Harappan Phase and the relative sizing of these seals might have reflected socio-economic, political, and religious hierarchy. [54] [55] [56] E. C. L. During Caspers found the Swastika Seals to have served "mercantile purposes" in certain trade routes; Gregory Possehl has separately documented relevant trade-circulation. [57] Kenoyer notes the IVC Swastika to be an abstract "decorative motif" that might have reflected contemporary ideology; he also posits a possible usage in trade – the seals either denoted the owners involved in a commercial transaction or were proto-bureaucratic certifications. [53] [52] [50]

Overall, the precise purpose of these seals in the IVC continues to remain inconclusive but it is unlikely that they served any religio-ritualistic purpose. [52] [55] Also, the swastika had developed in multiple cultures of the world contemporaneous to or even pre-dating the IVC. [51] [52] Since the swastika has been recorded in early Andronovo culture, the roots of the Hindu swastika might easily lie in the Indo-Aryan migrations. [58]

Other peculiar seals

Kalibangan cylinder seal, with horned human-tiger, and two nude men fighting over a woman. Indus Valley Civilization. Kalibangan cylinder seal (impression).jpg
Kalibangan cylinder seal, with horned human-tiger, and two nude men fighting over a woman. Indus Valley Civilization.

Most Indus seals depict a single animal, without obvious narrative meaning. Several are more complex, with possible symbolic designs, as well as human or semi-human figures in action.

A bull-man or bull-woman, equipped with hooves, a tail and large horns, can be seen fighting a fantastic horned beast. [60] [61] Men can be seen hiding in trees from tigers, another fighting two tigers at a time in a motif reminiscent of the Master of animals. [62] [63]

The Kalibangan cylinder seal also depicts a human-tiger (in this case graphically represented by a human with horns to whom the body of a tiger is adjoined), with two nude men fighting over a woman, reminiscent of Mesopotamian cylinder seals such as those depicting goddess Ishtar. [59]

Sculptures

Terracotta figurines

Picture of original Godess.jpg
Female figurine. Mature Harappan period. Indus civilization (detail).jpg
Terracotta figurines excavated from Indus Valley Civilization. [26] [27]

A common class of terracotta statuettes have been identified as figurines of a "mother goddess" (and goddess of fertility, by extension) by a spectrum of scholars — Ernest J. H. Mackay, Marshall, Walter Fairservis, Bridget Allchin, Hiltebeitel, [20] Jim G. Shaffer, and Parpola [22] among others — thus positing links to the Shakti tradition in Hinduism. [65] [66] Recent scholarship rejects such identification and links; a common function alternatively proposed for the figures is as dolls for young girls. [67] [66] Scholars like David Kinsley and Lynn Foulston accept the figurine-identifications, but rejects that there is any conclusive evidence to link them with Shaktism. [68] [69] Sree Padma, in an anthropological study of the Grāmadevatā tradition, finds pre-Hindu roots but declines to explicitly identify it with IVC. [70] Kenower remains ambiguous — the figurines might have been worshipers or deities — and does not mention of any links with Shaktism. [50] Yuko Yukochi, in her "landmark publication" on Shaktism, [71] refuses to discuss IVC influences — the undeciphered script did not allow integrating the archeological with the literary. [72]

Peter Ucko had challenged the very identification as early as 1967 but failed to make any noticeable dent. [66] In the last three decades, the identification has been increasingly rejected by a newer generation of scholars — Sharri Clark, Ardeleanu-Jansen, Ajay Pratap, P.V. Pathak, and others. [66] [67] In 2007, Gregory Possehl found the evidence in favor of such an identification to be "not particularly robust". [24] Shereen Ratnagar (2016) rejects the identification, as being based on flimsy evidence. [65] As does Doniger. [22] Clark, in what has been described as a ground-breaking work on terracotta figurines of Harappa, [73] emphatically rejects that there exists any bases for the Mother Goddess identification or hypothesizing a continuance into Hinduism. [74]

Priest King

The so-called Priest-King Mohenjo-daro Priesterkonig.jpeg
The so-called Priest-King

This, though broken off at the bottom, is agreed to be the best of a handful of small stone sculptures of male figures found at Mohenjo-daro. Mackay, the archaeologist leading the excavations at the site when the piece was found, thought the statuette might represent a "priest". [78] John Marshall agreed and regarded it as possibly a "king-priest", but it appears to have been his successor, Sir Mortimer Wheeler, who was the first to use the designation of Priest-King in support of his proposition that the urban complexities had to necessarily result from a ruling class. [78] [79] [80] [note 7] One of the "seven principal pieces of human sculpture from Mohenjo-daro", [81] Parpola has even hypothesized that it resembles later Indian traditions of priesthood. [3]

The terminology is not preferred in modern scholarship [note 8] and scholars have increasingly shifted to the view that IVC was a far egalitarian society with some kind of clan rule. [82] [79] [80] [83] Modern scholars find the term as well as the hypothesis to be highly speculative, problematic, and "without foundation" — Wendy Doniger in a scathing review noted that Parpola's "desire and imagination" surpassed available evidence. [84] [23] [22] [85] The statuette is now believed by many to be the result of interactions with the culture to the north, the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex, around the Oxus river. [80] [86]

Miscellaneous

A broken stone sculpture — after reconstruction of missing limbs — has been proposed to assume a dancer's pose, thus being evocative of Nataraja. [33] Another broken clay figurine has female breasts and male genitals, bearing some similarities with Ardhanarishvara. [33]

Architecture

Buildings

The Great Bath, Mohenjo-daro, found in 1926. Behind is the later Buddhist stupa, whose base has not been excavated. Mohenjodaro Sindh.jpeg
The Great Bath, Mohenjo-daro, found in 1926. Behind is the later Buddhist stupa, whose base has not been excavated.

Kenower notes that certain large structures might have been used as temples but their precise function cannot be determined; Possehl asserts there is a total absence of temples. [50] [24] Hiltebeitel and a few other scholars suggest that the elevated citadel complex might have served sacred functions — Possehl rejected such arguments. [20] [24]

Great Bath: Water and Cleanliness

Some scholars, deriving from Marshall, propose the Great Bath of Mohenjo-daro to be a forerunner of ritual bathing, central to Hinduism. [87] [20] [20] Doniger rejects the hypotheses; to her, the Great Bath is only suggestive of Harappans having a propensity for water/bath. [22] Possehl finds Marshall's theory of a ritual purpose to be convincing. [24]

Elaborate sewage networks suggest to Hiltebeitel and Parpola an excessive concern with personal cleanliness, which is correlated to the development of caste-pollution theories in Hinduism. [20] [22]

Stones

Yonis

A hypothetical lingam from Mohenjo Daro Lingam Mohenjo Daro.jpg
A hypothetical lingam from Mohenjo Daro

Marshall proposed certain ovular limestone stones to be the symbolic representation of yoni s, thus drawing links to the cult of phallic worship in Hinduism. [88] [11] Mackay, in his summary reports, rejected Marshall's view: they were architectural stones, probably from a stone pillar. [88] [11] Despite this, Marshall's hypothesis went on to propagate in mainstream scholarship notwithstanding multiple critiques. [20] Modern scholars have come to largely reject the hypothesis. [89]

George F. Dales chose to outright reject the hypothesis about sexual aspects in Harappan religion — if such stones served cultic functions, they would be spread over all Harappan sites and Marshall's findings were untenable on an overall review of excavation finds — and Srinivasan as well as Asko Parpola agreed with his specific rebuttals; yet in light of other evidence, Parpola cautioned against ruling out Marshall's broader hypothesis in totality. [88] [11] Later excavations have since vindicated Mackay's assumptions. [87] [89] Dilip Chakrabarti continue to support Marshall's identification. [90]

Lingams

To a similar effect, Marshall argued certain cone/dome-shaped stone-pieces to be abstract representations of lingams, as seen in modern-day Hinduism. [11] Despite significant critiques, Marshall's view had propagated into scholarship. [11]

H. D. Sankalia rejected these identifications, too; he raised the issue of these stones being typically found in streets and drains, which ought not house objects with a sacred connotation. [11] Srinivasan rejected Marshall's arguments, as well: (a) the more old a linga was, the more realistic (and non-abstract) was its appearance thus contradicting presentation expected from Harappan era, and (b) the sculpts of ancient lingams are found in the Brahminical heartland of India but not in IVC/post-IVC sites. [11]

Mesopotamian parallels

"Master of Animals" and
"Bull-man fighting beast"
SumerianBulls.jpg
Uruk period Master of Animals, from the harp found at Ur, dated circa 2600 BCE
Indus valley civilization "Gilgamesh" seal (2500-1500 BC).jpg
Indus Valley Civilization seal, with man fighting two tigers (2500-1500 BCE). [62] [63]
Enkidu leon.jpg
Enkidu, with horns, hooves and tail, fighting a lion. Akkadian Empire seal, Mesopotamia, circa 2200 BCE.
Indus bull-man fighting beast.jpg
Man with horns, hooves and tail, fighting a beast. He has been compared to the Mesopotamian bull-man Enkidu. [60] [91] [61] Indus Valley civilization seal.

Various authors have described parallels between the religious iconography of Mesopotamia and the depictions on the seals of the Indus Valley civilizations. [92]

Gregory Possehl notes "Mesopotamian themes in Indus iconography", particularly designs related to the Gilgamesh epic, suggesting that "some aspects of Mesopotamian religion and ideology would have been accepted at face value is a reasonable notion". [62] Some Indus seals have a "Gilgamesh" motif of a man fighting two lions, well known in West Asia as the Master of Animals motif (2500-1500 BCE). [62] [63] [93]

Several Indus Valley seals also show a fighting scene between a tiger-like beast and a man with horns, hooves and a tail, who has been compared to the Mesopotamian bull-man Enkidu, also a partner of Gilgamesh, and suggests a transmission of Mesopotamian mythology. [60] [94] [61]

Other seals of the Indus Valley Civilization, which appear to depict horned deities in ceremonial scenes, seem to have iconographical parallels in the horned deities, priest and royal figures of Mesopotamia, who used to wear horned crowns. [95] [44] [45]

These shared designs may point to a "common stratum of tradition between Mesopotamia and India". [96] [97]

See also

Notes

  1. Wright: "Mesopotamia and Egypt ... co-existed with the Indus civilization during its fluorescence between 2600 and 1900 BC." [5]
  2. Wright: "The Indus civilization is one of three in the 'Ancient East' that, along with Mesopotamia and Pharaonic Egypt, was a cradle of early civilization in the Old World (Childe, 1950). Mesopotamia and Egypt were longer-lived, but coexisted with the Indus civilization during its fluorescence between 2600 and 1900 B.C. Of the three, the Indus was the most expansive, extending from today’s northeast Afghanistan to Pakistan and India." [6]
  3. Reviews of Parpola's works have been fairly critical. [21] [22] [23] [24]
    This notion of IVC-traces, says Hiltebeitel, is deemed as the "substratum theory" by scholars in opposition. [20] Compare linear versus synthetic development in the origins of yoga.
  4. Mahishasura is a Sanskrit word composed of Mahisha meaning buffalo and asura meaning demon, thus meaning Buffalo Demon. Mahishasura had gained the boon that no man could kill him. In the battles between the Devas and the demons (asuras), the Devas, led by Indra, were defeated by Mahishasura. Subjected to defeat, the Devas assembled in the mountains where their combined divine energies coalesced into Goddess Durga. The newborn Durga led a battle against Mahishasura, riding a lion, and killed him. Thereafter, she was named Mahishasuramardini, meaning The Killer of Mahishasura. [36]
  5. Witzel: "It is known from internal evidence that the Vedic texts were orally composed in northern India, at first in the Greater Punjab and later on also in more eastern areas, including northern Bihar, between ca. 1500 BCE and ca. 500400 BCE. The oldest text, the Rgveda, must have been more or less contemporary with the Mitanni texts of northern Syria/Iraq (14501350 BCE); ..." (p. 70) "a Vedic connection of the so-called Siva Pasupati found on some Harappa seals (D. Srinivasan 1984) cannot be established; this mythological concept is due, rather, to common Eurasian ideas of the “Lord of the Animals” who is already worshipped by many Neolithic hunting societies." [41]
  6. Other "geometric motifs" include concentric circles, knots, and stars.
  7. The absence of palatial structures meant that typical kings were not a good fit. So, the idea of a military-theocratic state was borrowed from Mesopotamia.
  8. For an example, see Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund referring to the statuette as "so-called Priest King" in the latest edition of their classic introductory text for undergraduates, A History of India.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harappa</span> Archaeological site in Punjab, Pakistan

Harappa is an archaeological site in Pakistan, about 25 km (16 mi) north of Sahiwal. The Bronze Age Harappan civilisation, now more often called the Indus Valley Civilisation, is named after the site, which takes its name from a modern village near the former course of the Ravi River, which now runs 8 km (5.0 mi) to the north. The core of the Harappan civilisation extended over a large area, from Gujarat in the south, across Sindh and Rajasthan and extending into Punjab and Haryana. Numerous sites have been found outside the core area, including some as far east as Uttar Pradesh and as far west as Sutkagen-dor on the Makran coast of Balochistan, not far from Iran.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mehrgarh</span> Neolithic archaeological site in Balochistan, Pakistan

Mehrgarh is a Neolithic archaeological site situated on the Kacchi Plain of Balochistan in modern-day Pakistan. It is located near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River and between the modern-day Pakistani cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi. The site was discovered in 1974 by the French Archaeological Mission led by the French archaeologists Jean-François Jarrige and his wife, Catherine Jarrige. Mehrgarh was excavated continuously between 1974 and 1986, and again from 1997 to 2000. Archaeological material has been found in six mounds, and about 32,000 artifacts have been collected from the site. The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh, located in the northeast corner of the 495-acre (2.00 km2) site, was a small farming village dated between 7000 BCE and 5500 BCE.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indus Valley Civilisation</span> Bronze Age civilisation in South Asia

The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC), also known as the Indus Civilisation, was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in its mature form 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE. Together with ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was one of three early civilisations of the Near East and South Asia, and of the three, the most widespread, its sites spanning an area from much of modern day Pakistan, to some parts of northwestern India and northeast Afghanistan. The civilisation flourished both in the alluvial plain of the Indus River, which flows through the length of Pakistan, and along a system of perennial monsoon-fed rivers that once coursed in the vicinity of the Ghaggar-Hakra, a seasonal river in northwest India and eastern Pakistan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mohenjo-daro</span> Archaeological site in Sindh, Pakistan

Mohenjo-daro is an archaeological site in Larkana District, Sindh, Pakistan. Built c. 2500 BCE, it was the largest settlement of the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation, and one of the world's earliest major cities, contemporaneous with the civilizations of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Minoan Crete, and Norte Chico.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rakhigarhi</span> Archaeological site in Haryana, India

Rakhigarhi or Rakhi Garhi is a village and an archaeological site in the Hisar District of the northern Indian state of Haryana, situated about 150 km northwest of Delhi. It is located in the Ghaggar River plain, some 27 km from the seasonal Ghaggar river, and belonged to the Indus Valley civilisation, being part of the pre-Harappan, early Harappan, and the mature phase of the Indus Valley Civilisation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Meluhha</span> Prominent trading partner of Sumer during the Middle Bronze Age

Meluḫḫa or Melukhkha is the Sumerian name of a prominent trading partner of Sumer during the Middle Bronze Age. Its identification remains an open question, but most scholars associate it with the Indus Valley civilisation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indus script</span> Symbols of the Indus Valley Civilisation

The Indus script, also known as the Harappan script and the Indus Valley Script, is a corpus of symbols produced by the Indus Valley Civilisation. Most inscriptions containing these symbols are extremely short, making it difficult to judge whether or not they constituted a writing system used to record a Harappan language, any of which are yet to be identified. Despite many attempts, the "script" has not yet been deciphered, but efforts are ongoing. There is no known bilingual inscription to help decipher the script, which shows no significant changes over time. However, some of the syntax varies depending upon location.

Gregory Louis Possehl was a professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, United States, and curator of the Asian Collections at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. He was involved in excavations of the Indus Valley civilization in India and Pakistan since 1964, and was an author of many books and articles on the Indus Civilization and related topics. He received his BA in anthropology from the University of Washington in 1964, his MA in anthropology from the University of Washington in 1967, and his PhD in anthropology from the University of Chicago in 1974. He conducted major excavations in Gujarat, Rajasthan (Gilund), and in January 2007, began an excavation at the UNESCO World Heritage site of Bat in the Sultanate of Oman.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dholavira</span> Indus Valley Civilization site in Gujarat, India

Dholavira is an archaeological site at Khadirbet in Bhachau Taluka of Kutch District, in the state of Gujarat in western India, which has taken its name from a modern-day village 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) south of it. This village is 165 km (103 mi) from Radhanpur. Also known locally as Kotada timba, the site contains ruins of a city of the ancient Indus Valley civilization. Earthquakes have repeatedly affected Dholavira, including a particularly severe one around 2600 BCE.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amri, Sindh</span> Ancient settlement in Sindh province of Pakistan

Amri is an ancient settlement in modern-day Sindh, Pakistan, that goes back to 3600 BCE. The site is located south of Mohenjo Daro on Hyderabad-Dadu Road more than 100 kilometres north of Hyderabad, Pakistan.

Several periodisations are employed for the periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation. While the Indus Valley Civilisation was divided into Early, Mature, and Late Harappan by archaeologists like Mortimer Wheeler, newer periodisations include the Neolithic early farming settlements, and use a stage–phase model, often combining terminology from various systems.

Chanhu-daro is an archaeological site belonging to the Indus Valley civilization. The site is located 130 kilometers (81 mi) south of Mohenjo-daro, now in Sindh, Pakistan. The settlement was inhabited between 4000 and 1700 BCE, and is considered to have been a centre for manufacturing carnelian beads. This site is a group of three low mounds that excavations has shown were parts of a single settlement, approximately 7 hectares in size.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harappan language</span> Language of the Bronze Age civilization of the Indus Valley

The Harappan language is the unknown language or languages of the Bronze Age Harappan civilization. The Harappan script has long defied attempts to read it, and therefore the language remains unknown. The language being unattested in any readable contemporary source, hypotheses regarding its nature are reduced to purported loanwords and substratum influence, the substratum in Vedic Sanskrit and a few terms recorded in Sumerian cuneiform, in conjunction with analyses of the undeciphered Indus script.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jhukar phase</span>

The Jhukar phase was a phase of the Late Harappan culture in Sindh that continued after the decline of the mature Indus Valley civilisation in the 2nd millennium BC. It is named after the archaeological type site called Jhukar in Sindh. It was, in turn, followed by the Jhangar phase.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pashupati seal</span> Steatite seal discovered at Mohenjo-daro

The Pashupati seal, is a steatite seal which was uncovered in Mohenjo-daro, now in modern day Pakistan, a major urban site of the Indus Valley civilisation ("IVC"), during excavations in 1928–29, when the region was under British rule. The excavations were carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India, the official body responsible for preservation and excavation. The seal depicts a seated figure that is possibly tricephalic. The seated figure has been thought to be ithyphallic, an interpretation that has been questioned by many, but was still held by the IVC specialist Jonathan Mark Kenoyer in a publication of 2003. The man has a horned headdress and is surrounded by animals. He may represent a horned deity.

<i>Dancing Girl</i> (sculpture) Indus Valley Civilisation bronze sculpture

Dancing Girl is a prehistoric bronze sculpture made in lost-wax casting about c. 2300–1750 BC in the Indus Valley civilisation city of Mohenjo-daro, which was one of the earliest cities. The statue is 10.5 centimetres (4.1 in) tall, and depicts a nude young woman or girl with stylized ornaments, standing in a confident, naturalistic pose. Dancing Girl is highly regarded as a work of art.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indus–Mesopotamia relations</span>

Indus–Mesopotamia relations are thought to have developed during the second half of 3rd millennium BCE, until they came to a halt with the extinction of the Indus valley civilization after around 1900 BCE. Mesopotamia had already been an intermediary in the trade of lapis lazuli between the Indian subcontinent and Egypt since at least about 3200 BCE, in the context of Egypt-Mesopotamia relations.

<i>Priest-King</i> (sculpture) Stone sculpture found at Mohenjo-daro, Pakistan

The Priest-King, in Pakistan often King-Priest, is a small male figure sculpted in steatite found during the excavation of the ruined Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro in Sindh, Pakistan, in 1925–26. It is dated to around 2000–1900 BCE, in Mohenjo-daro's Late Period, and is "the most famous stone sculpture" of the Indus Valley civilization ("IVC"). It is now in the collection of the National Museum of Pakistan as NMP 50-852. It is widely admired, as "the sculptor combined naturalistic detail with stylized forms to create a powerful image that appears much bigger than it actually is," and excepting possibly the Pashupati Seal, "nothing has come to symbolize the Indus Civilization better."

References

  1. Mackay, Ernest (1935). Indus civilisation. p. Plate J.
  2. Hiltebeitel, Alf (1978). "The Indus Valley "Proto-Śiva", Reexamined through Reflections on the Goddess, the Buffalo, and the Symbolism of vāhanas". Anthropos. 73 (5/6): 767–797. JSTOR   40459645.
  3. 1 2 3 Parpola 2015.
  4. Wright 2009, pp. 281–282.
  5. 1 2 3 Wright 2009, p. 1.
  6. 1 2 Wright 2009.
  7. Giosan et al. 2012.
  8. Ratnagar 2004.
  9. 1 2 Marshall 1931, pp. 48–78.
  10. Possehl 2002, pp.  141–156.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Srinivasan, Doris (1984). "Unhinging Śiva from the Indus Civilization". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 116 (1): 77–89. doi:10.1017/S0035869X00166134. ISSN   0035-869X. JSTOR   25211627. S2CID   162904592.
  12. 1 2 3 Samuel, Geoffrey, ed. (2008), "Introduction", The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–14, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818820.002, ISBN   978-0-521-87351-2 , retrieved 2021-08-09
  13. Possehl 2002, p. 18.
  14. Thapar 2004, p. 85.
  15. Possehl 2002, pp. 141–145.
  16. McIntosh 2008, pp. 275–277, 292.
  17. Possehl 2002, pp. 152, 157–176.
  18. McIntosh 2008, pp. 293–299.
  19. Flood 1996, p. 24-30, 50.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hiltebeitel 1989.
  21. Jamison, Stephanie W. (2020). "Review of The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 140 (1): 241–244. ISSN   0003-0279. JSTOR   10.7817/jameroriesoci.140.1.0241.
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Doniger, Wendy (2017-08-02). "Another Great Story". Inference: International Review of Science. 3 (2). doi: 10.37282/991819.17.40 .
  23. 1 2 McKay, A. C.; Parpola, Asko (2017). "Review of The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization, ParpolaAsko". Asian Ethnology. 76 (2): 431–434. ISSN   1882-6865. JSTOR   90017682.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Possehl, Gregory L. (2007), Hinnells, John R. (ed.), "The Indus Civilization", A Handbook of Ancient Religions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 418–489, ISBN   978-1-107-80484-5
  25. Doniger, Wendy, "Another Great Story", August 2017, review of The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization, by Asko Parpola, DOI: 10.37282/991819.17.40
  26. 1 2 Srinivasan, Doris (1975). "The So-Called Proto-śiva Seal from Mohenjo-Daro: An Iconological Assessment". Archives of Asian Art. 29: 50. ISSN   0066-6637. JSTOR   20062578.
  27. 1 2 Mackay, Ernest (1935). Indus civilization. p. Plate I.
  28. Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998.
  29. For a drawing of the seal see Figure 1 in: Flood (1996), p. 29.
  30. Sullivan 1964.
  31. Steven Rosen; Graham M. Schweig (2006). Essential Hinduism. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 45.
  32. 1 2 Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark (2010). "Master of Animals and Animal Masters in the Iconography of the Indus Tradition". In Counts, Derek B.; Arnold, Bettina (eds.). The Master of Animals in Old World Iconography. Archaeolingua Alapítvány. p. 50.
  33. 1 2 3 Srinivasan, Doris (1975). "The So-Called Proto-śiva Seal from Mohenjo-Daro: An Iconological Assessment". Archives of Asian Art. 29: 47–58. ISSN   0066-6637. JSTOR   20062578.
  34. Flood 1996, pp. 28–29.
  35. Hiltebeitel, Alf (1978). "The Indus Valley "Proto-Śiva", Reexamined through Reflections on the Goddess, the Buffalo, and the Symbolism of vāhanas". Anthropos. 73 (5/6): 767–797. ISSN   0257-9774. JSTOR   40459645.
  36. Lochtefeld, James G. (2002). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-M . The Rosen Publishing Group. p.  410. ISBN   978-0-8239-3179-8.
  37. "Ashmolean Museum". collections.ashmolean.org.
  38. Geer, Alexandra Van Der (2008). "Rhinoceros Unicornis". Animals in Stone : Indian Mammals Sculptured Through Time. Brill. p. 384. ISBN   9789004168190.
  39. Doniger, Wendy (2011). "God's Body, or, The Lingam Made Flesh: Conflicts over the Representation of the Sexual Body of the Hindu God Shiva". Social Research. 78 (2): 485–508. ISSN   0037-783X. JSTOR   23347187.
  40. Witzel 2008, pp. 68–70, 90.
  41. Witzel 2008, pp. 90.
  42. ""An anthropomorphic figure has knelt in front of a fig tree, with hands raised in respectful salutation, prayer or worship. This reverence suggests the divinity of its object, another anthropomorphic figure standing inside the fig tree. In the ancient Near East, the gods and goddesses, as well as their earthly representatives, the divine kings and queens functioning as high priests and priestesses, were distinguished by a horned crown. A similar crown is worn by the two anthropomorphic figures in the fig deity seal. Among various tribal people of India, horned head-dresses are worn by priests on sacrificial occasions." in Conference, Association of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe International (1992). South Asian Archaeology, 1989: Papers from the Tenth International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Musée National Des Arts Asiatiques-Guimet, Paris, France, 3-7 July 1989. Prehistory Press. p. 227. ISBN   9781881094036.
  43. "Image of the seal with horned deity". www.columbia.edu.
  44. 1 2 Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2003. ISBN   9781588390431.
  45. 1 2 The Indus Script. Text, Concordance And Tables Iravathan Mahadevan. p. 139.
  46. 1 2 3 Aruz, Joan (13 August 2018). "Reflections on fantastic beasts in the Harappan world" in Walking with the Unicorn: Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume. Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. pp. 30–31. ISBN   978-1-78491-918-4.
  47. Kenoyer, Jonathan M.; Heuston, Kimberley Burton (2005). The Ancient South Asian World. Oxford University Press. p. 63. ISBN   978-0-19-522243-2.
  48. Aruz, 403; Harappa.com, with good photo; Possehl (2002), 145-146
  49. Aruz, 403; Possehl (2002), 145-146
  50. 1 2 3 4 Kenower, Jonathan Mark (2006). "Cultures and Societies of the Indus Tradition". In Thapar, Romila (ed.). Historical Roots in the Making of the 'Aryan'. National Book Trust.
  51. 1 2 3 Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark (2006–2007). "Indus Seals: An overview of Iconography and Style". Ancient Sindh: Annual Journal of Research. 9: 12.
  52. 1 2 3 4 Robinson, Andrew (2021). "Trade". The Indus: Lost Civilizations. Reaktion Books. ISBN   9781789143850.
  53. 1 2 Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark (2005). "Culture change during the Late Harappan period at Harappa: new insights on Vedic Aryan issues". In Bryant, Edwin; Patton, Laurie (eds.). The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. Routledge. p. 21. ISBN   9780203641880.
  54. 1 2 Parpola, Asko (2018), Jamison, Gregg; Ameri, Marta; Scott, Sarah Jarmer; Costello, Sarah Kielt (eds.), "Indus Seals and Glyptic Studies: An Overview", Seals and Sealing in the Ancient World: Case Studies from the Near East, Egypt, the Aegean, and South Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–143, doi:10.1017/9781108160186.011, ISBN   978-1-107-19458-8 , retrieved 2021-08-09
  55. 1 2 Avari, Burjor (2007). "The Harappan Civilisation". India: The Ancient Past : A History of the Indian Sub-Continent from c. 7000 BC to AD 1200. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN   9780415356152.
  56. Konasukawa, Ayumu; Koiso, Manabu (2018). "The Size of Indus Seals and its Significance". Walking with the Unicorn: Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume. ArchaeoPress. ISBN   9781784919184.
  57. Caspers, Elisabeth C.L. During (1973). "Harappan Trade in the Arabian Gulf in the Third Millennium B.c." Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. 3: 3–20. ISSN   0308-8421. JSTOR   41223270.
  58. Kuz’Mina, E. E.; Mallory, J. P. (2007-01-01). "Ceramics". The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. p. 73.
  59. 1 2 Aruz, Joan (13 August 2018). "Reflections on fantastic beasts in the Harappan world" in Walking with the Unicorn: Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume. Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. pp. 28–29. ISBN   978-1-78491-918-4.
  60. 1 2 3 4 Littleton, C. Scott (2005). Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology. Marshall Cavendish. p. 732. ISBN   9780761475651.
  61. 1 2 3 4 Singh. The Pearson Indian History Manual for the UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination. Pearson Education India. p. 35. ISBN   9788131717530.
  62. 1 2 3 4 5 Possehl 2002, p. 146.
  63. Mackay, E. J. H. (1937). Further excavations at mohenjo-daro-vol.ii. p. Plate LXXXII.
  64. 1 2 Ratnagar, Shereen (2016-12-01). "A critical view of Marshall's Mother Goddess at Mohenjo-Daro". Studies in People's History. 3 (2): 113–127. doi:10.1177/2348448916665714. ISSN   2348-4489. S2CID   191808666.
  65. 1 2 3 4 Bhardwaj, Deeksha (18 October 2018). "Traces of the Past: The Terracotta Repertoire From the Harappan Civilisation". Sahapedia .
  66. 1 2 Sinopoli, Carla M. (2007). "Gender and Archaeology in South and Southwest Asia". In Nelson, Sarah M.; Lyons, Diane (eds.). Worlds of Gender: The Archaeology of Women's Lives Around the Globe. Rowman Altamira. p. 79. ISBN   9780759110847.
  67. Foulston, p. 4.
  68. Kinsley(a), p. 217.
  69. Padma, Sree (17 October 2013). Vicissitudes of the Goddess : Reconstructions of the Gramadevata in India's Religious Traditions. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199325030.
  70. Sarkar, Bihani (2019-05-29), "Durgā", Hinduism, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/obo/9780195399318-0219, ISBN   978-0-19-539931-8 , retrieved 2021-08-10
  71. Yuokochi, Yuko (2004). The Rise of the Warrior-Goddess in Ancient India: A Study of the Myth of Kauśikī-Vindhyavāsinī in the Skanda-Purāṇa (Thesis). University of Groningen. p. 7-8.
  72. Fritz, John M. (June 2019). "Review of "The Social Lives of Figurines: Reconstructing the Third-Millennium-BC Terracotta Figurines from Harappa. Sharri R. Clark. Cambridge, MA: Papers of the Peabody Museum 86, 2017, 362 pp. + CD. $85.00, paper. ISBN 9780873652155."". Journal of Anthropological Research. 75 (2): 269–270. doi:10.1086/702805. ISSN   0091-7710. S2CID   191946004.
  73. Clark, Sharri R. (20 February 2017). The Social Lives of Figurines: Recontextualizing the Third-Millennium-BC Terracotta Figurines from Harappa. Papers of the Peabody Museum: 86. Harvard University Press. ISBN   9780873652155.
  74. Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2003. pp. 388–389, see object 274. ISBN   978-1-58839-043-1.
  75. Mackay, E. J. H. (1937). Further excavations at mohenjo-daro-vol.ii. p. Plate LXXIV.
  76. "Seated male in Namaskar pose" "National Museum, New Delhi". www.nationalmuseumindia.gov.in.
  77. 1 2 Possehl, 115
  78. 1 2 Coningham & Young 2015, pp. 480–83a.
  79. 1 2 3 Green, Adam S. (2021-06-01). "Killing the Priest-King: Addressing Egalitarianism in the Indus Civilization". Journal of Archaeological Research. 29 (2): 153–202. doi: 10.1007/s10814-020-09147-9 . ISSN   1573-7756. S2CID   224872813.
  80. Possehl, 113
  81. Wright 2009, p. 252.
  82. Possehl, 57; Green; Singh (2008), 176-179; Matthiae and Lamberg-Karlovsky, 377
  83. Possehl, 115 (quoted); Aruz, 385; Singh (2008), 178
  84. Kenoyer 2014, p. 424,b "The most famous of these stone figures was originally referred to as the “Priest-King” (Fig. 1.25.8) based on similar images from Mesopotamia, but there is no way to confirm this identification without the aid of written texts."
  85. Vidale, Massimo (2017). "Contacts with other regions and the Indus". Treasures from the Oxus: The Art and Civilization of Central Asia. Bloomsbury. p. 56. ISBN   9781784537722.
  86. 1 2 McIntosh, Jane (2008). The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives. ABC-CLIO. p. 277. ISBN   978-1-57607-907-2.
  87. 1 2 3 Asko Parpola (1985). "The Sky Garment - A study of the Harappan religion and its relation to the Mesopotamian and later Indian religions". Studia Orientalia. 57. The Finnish Oriental Society: 101–107.
  88. 1 2 Vidale, Massimo (2010-04-19). "Aspects of Palace Life at Mohenjo-Daro". South Asian Studies. 26 (1): 59–76. doi:10.1080/02666031003737232. ISSN   0266-6030. S2CID   191342150.
  89. Lipner, Julius J. (2017). Hindu Images and Their Worship with Special Reference to Vaisnavism: A Philosophical-theological Inquiry. London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. p. 39. ISBN   9781351967822. OCLC   985345208.
  90. Marshall, John (1996). Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization: Being an Official Account of Archaeological Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro Carried Out by the Government of India Between the Years 1922 and 1927. Asian Educational Services. p. 389. ISBN   9788120611795.
  91. "Possible influences from other cultures", citing Mesopotamian themes in Indus iconography Littleton, C. Scott (2005). Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology: Inca-Mercury. Marshall Cavendish. p. 732. ISBN   978-0-7614-7565-1.
  92. Josh, Jagat Pati (1987). Memoirs Of The Archeological Survey Of India No.86; Vol.1. p. 76.
  93. Marshall, John (1996). Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization: Being an Official Account of Archaeological Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro Carried Out by the Government of India Between the Years 1922 and 1927. Asian Educational Services. p. 389. ISBN   9788120611795.
  94. "An anthropomorphic figure has knelt in front of a fig tree, with hands raised in respectful salutation, prayer or worship. This reverence suggests the divinity of its object, another anthropomorphic figure standing inside the fig tree. In the ancient Near East, the gods and goddesses, as well as their earthly representatives, the divine kings and queens functioning as high priests and priestesses, were distinguished by a horned crown. A similar crown is worn by the two anthropomorphic figures in the fig deity seal. Among various tribal people of India, horned head-dresses are worn by priests on sacrificial occasions." in Conference, Association of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe International (1992). South Asian Archaeology, 1989: Papers from the Tenth International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Musée National Des Arts Asiatiques-Guimet, Paris, France, 3-7 July 1989. Prehistory Press. p. 227. ISBN   9781881094036.
  95. Kosambi, Damodar Dharmanand (1975). An Introduction to the Study of Indian History. Popular Prakashan. p. 64. ISBN   978-81-7154-038-9.
  96. Aruz, Joan (13 August 2018). "Reflections on fantastic beasts in the Harappan world" in Walking with the Unicorn: Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume. Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. pp. 26, 31. ISBN   978-1-78491-918-4.

Sources