Problems of Piecing Together the Evidence

Why Material Evidence Matters More Than Script

The Harappan script remains undeciphered, so archaeologists rely entirely on material evidence — objects like pottery, tools, ornaments, and household items — to reconstruct Harappan life. Organic materials (cloth, leather, wood, reeds) usually decay, especially in tropical climates. What survives are durable materials: stone, burnt clay (terracotta), and metal.

A critical point: only broken or useless objects were typically discarded. Valuable intact artefacts were either lost accidentally or hoarded and never retrieved. Thus, such finds are accidental, not typical.

---

11.1 Classifying Finds

Archaeologists classify artefacts in two main ways:

1. By material — stone, clay, metal, bone, ivory, etc.
2. By function — this is more complex. They decide if an object is a tool, an ornament, both, or meant for ritual use.

Function is often inferred by:

• Resemblance to present-day objects (e.g., beads, querns, stone blades, pots).
• Context of discovery — where was it found? In a house, drain, grave, or kiln?
• Indirect evidence — e.g., cotton traces at Harappan sites tell us about clothing, but we also rely on depictions in sculpture.

Archaeologists must develop frames of reference. The first Harappan seal could not be understood until it was placed in a cultural sequence and compared with finds in Mesopotamia.

---

11.2 Problems of Interpretation

Interpretation is most challenging when reconstructing religious practices.

• Terracotta figurines of heavily jewelled women with elaborate head-dresses were thought to be mother goddesses.
• Stone statuary of men in a standardised seated posture (one hand on knee) — like the “priest-king” — was classified as ritual.
• Structures like the Great Bath and fire altars at Kalibangan and Lothal were assigned ritual significance.
• Seals depicting ritual scenes or plant motifs suggest nature worship. The one-horned “unicorn” may be mythical.
• A figure seated cross-legged in a “yogic” posture, surrounded by animals, is often called “proto-Shiva” — an early form of the Hindu deity Shiva.
• Conical stone objects (made of lapis lazuli, jasper, chalcedony) have been classified as lingas (symbols of Shiva), though they could also be gamesmen for board games.

Key problem: Archaeologists often move from the known to the unknown — from the present to the past. This works for tools (querns, pots) but becomes speculative for religious symbols.

Example: The “proto-Shiva” seal. The Rigveda (c. 1500–1000 BCE) mentions a god Rudra, later identified with Shiva. But Rudra in the Rigveda is not depicted as Pashupati (lord of animals) or as a yogi. So the seal does not match the Rigvedic description. Some scholars suggest it might represent a shaman (a person claiming magical/healing powers and ability to communicate with the other world).

--- …