Volume 1 of 2: Text
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Rethinking the Indus myths A comparative re-evaluation of the Indus Civilisation as an alternative paradigm in the organisation and structure of early complex societies. Cork, Edward How to cite: Cork, Edward (2006) Rethinking the Indus myths A comparative re-evaluation of the Indus Civilisation as an alternative paradigm in the organisation and structure of early complex societies., Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2665/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Rethinking the Indus myths A comparative re-evaluation of the Indus Civilisation as an alternative paradigm in the organisation and structure of early complex societies. Volume 1 of 2: Text. Edward Cork Ph.D Thesis, Submitted to the Department of Archaeology, Durham University. 2006 The copyright of this thesis rssts with the author or the university to which It was submitted. No quotation from It, or Information derived from It may be published without the prior written consent of the author or university, and any Information derived from It should be acknowledged. -5 FEB 2007 Km. 0 200 800 N I I Miles 0e•..,... • =-200 500 A Principle Indus Sites Abstract Since the earliest archaeological work at Indus sites, this civilisation has been contrasted with od1er early complex societies further west, primarily Mesopotamia. During the 1960's Walter Fairservis put forward a model constructed in this way. Using impressionistic observations of differences in the archaeological records of Mesopotamia and the Indus, he suggested that Indus society was a bipolar opposite to the type of hierarchical societal organisation he envisioned in Mesopotamia. This interpretation has exerted enormous influence on Indus archaeologists, and elements of it are still prominent in their work today. However, to date the comparative basis of this interpretation has never been critically and rigorously evaluated. None of its constituent elements, such as the absence of social stratification, the absence of warfare and the absence of centralised control, has ever been tested by detailed comparison with Mesopotamian data. This thesis undertakes this task, comparing the sorts of data cited as evidence for Fairservis' interpretation with equivalent data from contemporary West Asian societies. It focuses on three specific datasets: metalwork, domestic architecture and settlement patterns. The analyses reveal Fairservis' model to be a gross oversimplification. The rigorous comparative method adopted here demonstrates many of the perceived differences between the Indus and Mesopotamia to be highly problematic or simply wrong. Declaration This thesis is entirely the work of the stated author. All contributing material has been appropriately referenced. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it may be published in any format, including electronic and the internet, without the author's prior written consent. All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged appropriately. 1ll Acknowledgements This thesis has benefited from various conversations, emails and acts of generosity extended to me by a number of scholars. In no order, I'd like to offer my thanks to Richard Meadow, Mark Kenoyer, Gregory Possehl, Dilip Chakrabarti, Heather Miller, Heidi Miller, Shereen Ratnagar, Stephen Savage, Robert Dewar, Bruce Trigger and K. Krishnan. Special thanks are owed to my supervisors at Durham: Derek Kennet and Graham Philip. Any remaining errors in content remain my own particular contribution. Funding for this thesis was provided by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. lV Contents Volume 1: Text Abstract .. .iii Declaration ... iii Acknowledgements ... iv Contents .•. v List of Figures ... vii List of Tables ... xvi Terms and Usage ... xvii 1. Introduction ... 1 1.1. The Indus Civilisation: an early complex society with unique structural organisation? ... 1 1.2. Origins of current interpretations of the Indus Civilisation. ...14 1.3. The aims and approach ofthis thesis. ...19 2. The Comparative Method ... 20 2.1. Introduction ... 20 2.2. Social evolution and the comparative method ... 22 2.3. Comparative approaches and the Indus Civilisation ... 28 2.4. Methodology adopted by this study ... 31 2.5. Choice of comparative datasets ... 37 2.6. Summary ... 39 3. Domestic Architecture .. .40 3.1. Introduction .. .40 3.2. Review of sites .. .44 3.3. Building size ... 56 3.4. Buildings and family structure ... 67 3.5. Access analyses ... 75 3.6. Discussion ... 92 3.7. Summary offindings ... 106 4. Metalwork and Metalworking ... 108 4.1. Introduction ... 108 4.2. Recent literature ... 114 4.3. Ore sources ... 117 4.4. Functional group definition ... 121 4.5. Discussion of artefact categories ... 126 4.6. Elemental composition ... 151 4.7. Discussion ... 168 4.8. Summary of findings ... 188 -~ v 5. Settlement Patterns ... 190 5 .1. Introduction ... 190 5.2. Data collection and formatting issues ... 195 5.3. Organisation and subdivision of the Indus settlements ... 203 5.4. Third Millennium climatic influence on settlement patterns in the Greater Indus Valley ... 209 5.5. Settlement hierarchies: site size distribution ... 211 5.6. Settlement Hierarchies: Rank-Size ... 221 5.7. Discussion ... 234 5.8. Summary of findings ... 239 6. Conclusion ... 240 6.1. Summary ... 240 6.2. The success of a comparative approach ... 244 6.3. The 'alternative paradigm' model of Indus society in the light of structured comparative analyses ... 246 6.4. Moving forwards- interpreting the Indus ... 257 7. Bibliography ... 264 Volume 2: Appendices, Illustrations and Tables Contents ... 302 List of Figures ... 303 List of Tables ... 312 Appendix A: Architectural Data Used In Chapter 3 .•• 313 Appendix B: Kolmogorov-Smirnov Tests On House Size Distributions ... 345 Appendix C: Metalwork Examined In The Lothal Site Museum And Archive ...348 Appendix D: Assessing The Reliability Of Published Indus Metalwork Data ..• 358 Appendix E: Metalwork Data ... 363 Appendix F: Elemental Composition Data Used In Chapter 4 ...399 Appendix G: Problems Recreating Adams' Influential 'Four-Tiered' Settlement Hierarchy ... 417 Appendix H: Problems With Using Sites On The Indus Floodplain In Settlement Analyses ..• 419 Note To Metalwork Illustrations ... 421 Figures ... 422 Tables ... 606 Vl List of Figures Fig. l.l. Dateline of various areas discussed. ... 422 Fig. 3.1. Site plan ofMohenjo Daro showing excavated areas. .. .423 Fig. 3.2. Sarcina's typology of houses at Mohenjo Daro. .424 Fig. 3.3. Site plan ofNausharo showing relevant areas. .425 Fig. 3.4. Site plan ofLothal showing relevant areas. .426 Fig. 3.5. Site plan of Asmar showing relevant areas. .. 427 Fig. 3.6. Site plan ofKhafajah showing relevant areas. .428 Fig. 3.7. Site plan of Ur showing relevant areas. .429 Fig. 3.8. Site plan ofNippur showing relevant areas. .430 Fig. 3.9. Plan of the VS area at Mohenjo Daro showing the problems in delineating buildings. .431 Fig. 3.10. Plan of the DK-G (S) area (Intermediate Period) at Mohenjo Daro. .432 Fig. 3.11. Plan of the DK-G (S) area (Late Period) at Mohenjo Daro. .. .433 Fig. 3.12. Plan of the DK-G (N) area (Late Period) at Mohenjo Daro. .434 Fig. 3.13. Plan of the HR area at Mohenjo Daro. .. .435 Fig. 3.14. Plan of the Moneer area at Mohenjo Daro. .436 Fig. 3.15. Plan of the VS area at Mohenjo Daro. .437 Fig. 3.16. Plan of Block 2 at Nausharo. .438 Fig. 3.17. Plan of the 'merchant's house' at Lothal. .. .439 Fig. 3.18. Plan of levels Va at Asmar. .. 440 Fig. 3.19. Plan of levels Vb (left) and V c (right) at Asmar. .441 Fig. 3.20. Plan of the 'palace' area at Asmar. .. 442 Fig. 3.21. Plan of 'Houses 3' at Khafajah. .. .443 Fig. 3.22. Plan of 'Houses 2' at Khafajah. .444 Fig. 3.23. Plan of the AH area at Ur. .445 Fig. 3.24. Plan of the EM area at Ur. .446 Fig. 3.25. Plan of theTA area atNippur. .447 Fig. 3.26. Plan of the TB area at Nippur. .448 Fig. 3.27. Building sizes at Mohenjo Daro (HR, VS, DK-G and Moneer areas). .449 "- _::__- . ,., -. .. .;:~ Fig. 3.28. Building sizes at Nausharo Block 2 and Lothal 'A' Block. .449 Vll Fig. 3.29. Building sizes at Asmar levels Va to V c. ...450 Fig. 3.30. Building sizes at Khafajah 'Houses 2' to 'Houses 3 '. ...450 Fig.3.31. Building sizes at Ur, areas AH and EM. ... 451 Fig. 3.32. Building sizes at Nippur, areas TA and TB. ...451 Fig. 3.33. Comparison of house sizes (as percentage of total site population) at Mohenjo Daro, Ur, Khafajah and Asmar. ...452 Fig. 3.34. Comparison of house sizes at Mohenjo Daro and Ur (as percentage of total houses at each site). ...452 Fig. 3.35. Different areas of Mohenjo Daro compared. .. 453 Fig. 3.36. House sizes at Mohenjo Daro, DK-G (N & S). .454 Fig. 3.37. House sizes at Mohenjo Daro, VS-A and VS-B. ...454 Fig. 3.38. House sizes at Mohenjo Daro, HR-A and HR-B. ...455 Fig. 3.39. House sizes at Mohenjo Daro, Moneer Area. ...455 Fig.