HARAPPAN CIVILIZATION A Contemporary Perspective Ediled by GKEGORY L. POSSFHL ARTS & PI-IILLIPS LTD - WARMINSTER - ENGLAND In cooperation with American Institute of Indian Studies ( ~SL M.K. DHAVALIKAR 35. Daimabad Bronzes TIIEdiscovery of the Dairnabad brorlzes (Pls. 35.1 to hanging in a sort of chronological vacuum between 35.5) though momentous has caused considerable the 18th century B.C.and the 18th century A.D. I controversy among archaeologists. They were the therefore propose to examine the stylistic and tech- subject of heated debate during the scrninar on the nological aspects of the bronzes, as well as investigate "Irldus Civilization: Problenls and Issucs ," organized their probable function, in order to establish their by the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Simla, antiquity and authorship. November 1977. M.N. Deshpande then Director Before beginning the discussion of the authorship General of the Archaeological Survey of India, refer- and the antiquity of bronzes some note of the objects red to these objects in his inaugural address and S.A. in the hoard and the circumstances of their discovery Sali, the excavator of Daimitbad, also discussed them is called for. The bronzcs were found at Dainlabad in the course of the deliberations of the seminar (Sali (District Ahmednagar , Maharashtra), an extensive in press). S.R. Rao, who preceded Sali at the re- Chalcolithic site located on the lest bank of Pravara newed Dairnabad excavations, has also published his River, a tributary to the Godavari. 'The site was views (Rao 1978). All these authorities are of the first excavated on a srnall scale in 1959 by M.N. view that the bronzes belong to the Late Harappan Deshpande (Indian Archaeology: A review 1958-59; times, but this opinion appears to be based 011 the Dhavalikar 1969-70) and has been worked on a large circumstantial evidence. At the Simla seminar this scale since 1974 by S.A. Sali (Sali in press). It is a dating was questioned. Some scholars feel that the purely Chalcolithic site which, as the recent excava- bronzes are tribal in origin. and as such Inay be as late tions show, was first occupied about 2000 B.C. and was as the 18th century A.[). Recently, D.P. Agrawal and finally deserted by 1000 B.C. after which it was never his team have analyzed the elemental composition of reoccupied. the bronzes using atonlic absorption spectrophato- The hoard consists of four bronzes: an exquisite metry and have concluded that "We ~rouldnot be chariot pulled by a pair of bulls, an elephant, a surprised if these images turned out to be of the rhinoceros and a buffalo. They arc all in an excellent historical period" (Agrawal, Krishnamurthy and state of preservation and have not lost their pristine Kusumgar 1978: 45). Iiis argument is basecl on the features. negative evidence that "no arsenical alloying has been reported from the Chalcolithic Cultures so far, CHARIOT AND BULLS (Pls. 35.1 and 35.2) but these Daimabad bronzes show greater than 1per- cent arsenic. .. It may also be pointed out that the The chariot and bulls are the inosl remarkable pieces Chalcolithic Cultures are very poor in copper and in the hoard. Its total length is 45 centirneters and the such nlassive ligures appear completely out of place in width is 16 centimeters. The complete bronze consists the Chalcolithic context" (Agrawal, Krishnamurthy of an elaborate chariot yoked to two bulls and driven and Kusumgar 1978: 45). The exquisite hoard is thus by a man standing within it. Two solid wheels rest *Editor'snote: See S. A. Sali's paper in this volume for 3 review cif Dairil;~bad. Dairnahnd Bronzes Harappan site. There are a few toy cart models of Ijarret's pachyderm and the Daimabad specimeri. copper (Piggott 1970). Rut they too share some ele- 'Technologic:illy, however, they are far removed frorn ments with the Dairnabacl chariot. 'I'he copper carts one another. The forrner was hollow cast. The all have projecting ring loops through which the axle Daimabad elephant is solid. There are sufficient is passed. The most noteworthy leature of the axle stylistic and technological differences between these is that it is fixed to the wheels so that it moves two specimens which show that the Daimabad ele- along with thenl: the same feature is also :I part of the phant cannot be dated to the early historical period. [nodern chariot. ?'he toy carts, presum:tbly of bronze, from Chanhudaro were apparently built the same RHINOCEROS (PI. 35.4) way. "The wheels are now immovable, but they must origirlally have revolved in two axle-brackets cast in The rhino stands not on n platform as in the case with one with the frame" (Mackay 1943: 164). This feature the elephant, but on two horizontal bars over two sets may have facilitated the disn1;~ntlingof the vehicle of wheels: the bars are bent at both the ends with thc since the chasis could just bc lifted off the axle much axle passing through thenl. The wheels, which are solicl as they do today in Sind (M;lckay 1W9: 26-28). It is with a projecting hub on the inside, are fixed to the pertinent to quote Childe in this connection: "Sumer- :~xlcand move along with it. The rhino is 25 centime- ian and othcr early vehicles werc probably just as ters long and 19 centimetel-shigh with a distance of 13 easily taken to pieces, and this point nlust be centirneters between the two sets of' wheels. Skin remembered in considering thc possibility of using folds on the animal's body are rather stylistically de- them for long distance tr:insport" (Chilcic 195 1 : 183). picted with those on the hack and the belly forming ;l This would be possible because of the manner in sort of rectangle. This r-esernbles the treatment on which the axle was fixed to the wheels. One is told some of the Indus rhino seals (Marshal1 1931: 111, PI. that this mechanism actually 11iarks an early stage in CXV, No. 342-46). Short ears :ire pointed upwards. the evolution of wheeled vehicies (Singer et al., 1956: I'he mouth is too long and resembles the snout of a 72). And what is more, even the village carts of mod- bear. A short liorn on the tip of the snout is also ern Sind "preserve the main outline of the ancient indicated. Rhinos probably inhabi tecl the northern I-larappan vehicles, the wheels turn in one piece with Deccan in prehistoric times and the beast has been the axle as do those of many other recent carts with te~itatively identified at lnamgaon (Classon 1977: solid wheels" (Mackay 1929). The joined wheel and 255). axle is thus a distinguishing feature of Harappltn vehi- The presence of the rhi~iocerosin the hoard is cles and same is to be seen in the Daimabad chariot. extremely important because the animal was ncver portrayed in India11 art save the Harappan,' and they delineated the beast with considerable sympathy. ELEPHANT (PI. 35.3) Thus its presence in the Dili~liabadhoard points to its Indus origin. The Daimabnd examplc can also bc The elephant is the largest of thc three anin~alsin the favorablg compared with a terracotta specimen hoard. The beast stands on a p1;itform 27 ce~lti~neters from Lothal (Rao 1978: 62). long and 14 centirneters broad. There are four ring loops which once held the wheels, all of which are WATER BUFFALO (PI. 35.5) unfortunately niissing. The total height, including the platform, is 25 centimeters. The large trunk is curved The buffalo also is modeled in a naturalistic manner. at the lower tip but the tusks appear to be broken or Its height, including that of the wheels, is 31 centime- not completely indicated. A short tail is almost ters and the length is 25 centimeters. It reserribles a hidden in the rump. This animal recalls another bisori somewhat, but on close observation it is clearly bronze elephun t from the southeast Deccan (Barret a water buffalo with characteristic transverse ribbing 1958) which is dated to about thc third century A.D. on its horns. The animal stands on a pIatforrn similar Barret's specimen is a female, standing, or rather to that of the elephant, but the corner near the right running, on a platform with raised edges and ring foreleg is broken. 'The axles attach to the platform loops for wheels (all of which are missing). There is a through vertical bars which are providcd with holes. small bell tied around its body. The front wheels are snlaller (eight centinleters in There is sorne superficial resemblance between diameter) than those on the rear (10 centimeter-S). Dairnabad Bronzes 365 cost. This is especially likely if the bt-onzes were Deccan. A h/lalwa Ware jar, again fro111 Daimabad, is required for community religious purposes. Recall profusely painted with a jungle scene in two horizon- that all the bronzes were providcd with wheels; tal registers (Fig. 35.1). 'I'he LIPPCS one shows a :~lthoughthose on the elephant wese lost. Thi~sit is muscular human male figure with two deer approach- not unlikely that they were me:lilt to l~ci~scci in pro- ing, as if enchanled, and peacocks in between. The cession, possibly as seen on a sc:ll fronl Mohcnjodaro lower register has three tigcr-s springiug away i11 the with four animals (an cleph:\ni, :I rhino, :l tigcr and opposite direction. The Iiulnan figure is solid while one unidentifi.ed animal) irl a file facing right (Mar- the bodies of thc animals are 1l:llched.