Indus Seals and Glyptic Studies, An Overview (Asko Parpola, 2017)
Indus Seals and Glyptic Studies, An Overview (Asko Parpola, 2017)
Indus Seals and Glyptic Studies, An Overview (Asko Parpola, 2017)
CHAPTER EIGHT
ABSTR ACT
127
Comp. by: SURENDRAN R Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 8 Title Name: Scottetal
Date:26/5/17 Time:01:43:16 Page Number: 128
both kinds (cf. Bibby 1958, 1969; Kjaerum 1983). When Dales (1962) more-
over reported the Harappan outposts on the Makran coast and Rao (1963)
published the “Dilmun” seal from Lothal, attention focused on cuneiform
documents on maritime trade with the foreign countries Dilmun, Magan, and
Meluhha (Oppenheim 1954). It is now generally agreed that Dilmun
principally refers to Failaka and Bahrain, Magan to the Oman peninsula and
Iranian Makran, and Meluhha to the Greater Indus Valley (cf. Maekawa
and Mori 2011).
Steffen Terp Laursen (2010b) has examined 121 “Gulf Type” seals
(27 bearing Indus script) and their relationship to the later “Dilmun” seals;
this is his topic also in this volume. The Joint Hadd Project directed by Serge
Cleuziou and Maurizio Tosi has documented Harappan presence in Oman,
and Frenez and Tosi (2005) have identified further seals at Lothal associated
with the Gulf trade: the square copper seal (L-44) has a parallel in the
square Indus seal found at Ra’s al-Hadd in the copper-rich Oman, and the
rectangular stone seal decorated with concentric circles at the back like
“Dilmun” seals (L-100).
Besides stained cornelian beads, Indus-related seals discovered in Western
Asia have provided most important chronological and geographical evidence
of the intercultural relations between these regions (cf. Collon 1996; Possehl
2002c: 221–29; Reade 2008). Harappan presence in Central Asia is attested
by two square seals (with swastika and two signs of Indus script respectively)
and other objects of Harappan affinity from Altyn Depe in Turkmenistan
(cf. Masson 1981; Possehl 2002c: 229–30). In 2004 a square Indus seal with
an elephant and a line of Indus script with native Harappan sequences was
excavated at Gonur in Turkmenistan. It probably belonged to a high-ranking
Harappan “diplomat,” like a cylinder seal from Gonur possessed (according to
its cuneiform inscription) by the cup-bearer of an Akkadian king (cf. Parpola
2006). In Afghanistan, the Harappan colony of Shortughai near the lapis lazuli
mines also produced a classical Indus seal (Francfort 1989).
8.1. Seals in Pre-, Early, and Mature Harappan phases. After Uesugi 2011: 365, fig. 3. Courtesy
© Akinori Uesugi.
the water buffalo. H-1689 with a finely carved elephant already has the shape
of the dominant type of the following peak phase of the Indus Civilization.
Kenoyer and Meadow (2010: xlv) date period 3A to around 2600–2450 BCE.
It seems to correspond to the “transition period” of Nausharo ID (2600–2500
BCE) plus “Indus 1” of Nausharo II (2500–2300 BCE) in the chronology of
Jarrige et al. (2011: 208). I follow the latter chronology here, although the
scarcity of 3A seals at Harappa suggests a shorter duration of this Early
Mature phase.
8.3. A typical square Indus seal (M-147 from Mohenjo-daro) made of steatite, with an
inscription in the Indus script and the motif of a “unicorn” bull plus a “cult stand” on the
face (photo Erja Lahdenperä), and a bisected and pierced knob on the reverse (photo
Archaeological Survey of India [ASI]). Courtesy ASI.
chinkara (Indian gazelle), long-spouted crocodile (gavial), wild ass, and two
kinds of “mythical” beasts, either with one body and three different heads, or
one animal with a human face and other body parts coming from different
animals. Rarely depicted are (one or more) anthropomorphic deities, heroes or
priests, with or without animals and/or trees; one more often repeated scene
shows a man with a chignon squatting in a tree while a tiger beneath looks
backwards at him. I would like to add a few comments on these glyptic motifs
while referring to Marta Ameri’s chapter in this book, in which she examines
Indus iconography from a new angle.
The “unicorn” is a new motif in the iconography of Greater Indus Valley,
including painted pottery, and probably comes from Mesopotamia, where
aurochs bulls have been represented in this fashion since Uruk times. That the
single horn is intentional is proved by three-dimensional figurines, and related
Eurasian “unicorn” legends and later South Asian parallels confirm its phallic
symbolism. Humpless cattle did not exist in South Asia, where this foreign
animal was identified with the native cow-like nilgai antelope, in Vedic religion
a prominent symbol for the creator god Prajāpati (cf. Parpola 2011b).
The “cult stand” is likewise a new motif. On some molded tablets it is
carried by worshipers, once (M-490) in a procession behind the “unicorn”
image, also carried on a shaft. The “cult stand” resembles the tree-like post to
which humped bulls are tethered on “Kulli style B” painted pots, whereas the
earlier “Kulli style A” bulls are tethered to a tree (often a fig) or to the ground
(cf. Jarrige et al. 2011: 73–74, 89, 195). In the “transition period” pots of
Nausharo ID, humped bulls are tethered to a fig tree, and caprids to a fruit
Comp. by: SURENDRAN R Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 8 Title Name: Scottetal
Date:26/5/17 Time:01:43:18 Page Number: 135
tree (cf. Jarrige et al. 2011: 88). Perhaps the stand and the tree correspond to the
sacrificial stake to which animal victims were tied in Vedic and Hindu religion.
One clearly Mesopotamian motif adopted by the Harappans is the
“contest”: a human hero holds back two felines with bare hands. Such details
as the hairstyle of the hero (either six locks of hair or the chignon), or the
“victory pose” (in the buffalo-killing scene) date the adoption to Late Early
Dynastic or Early Akkadian period (cf. Parpola 1984, 2011c, 2012a).
Harappan anthropomorphic deities often squat in “yoga posture”, which
may ultimately come from the “sitting bulls” of proto-Elamite art (cf. Parpola
1984). Contact with proto-Elamite culture is attested by bevel-rimmed vessels
at Miri Qalat (ca. 2800 BCE) in Pakistani Makran (cf. Besenval 2011: 49 and
133 with figs. 121–22).
speakers to these parts, reflected also in the references to inimical people called
Dāsa and Dasyu in the Rigveda (cf. Parpola 2012a).
script) and the underlying language (proto-Dravidian), and obtain some read-
ings, which agree with later South Asian (Vedic, Hindu, and Old Tamil)
traditions (see Parpola 1994a, 2009, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012a, 2012b, 2015).
8.5. Michael Jansen’s analysis of house I in the HR-A area of Mohenjo-daro. After Jansen
1986: 200–01, fig. 125: (a) isometry; (b) distribution of the seal finds, Courtesy © Michael Jansen.
8.6. Michael Jansen’s analysis of house I in the HR-A area of Mohenjo-daro. After Jansen
1986: 200–01, fig. 125. Reconstruction of the original structure (left); reconstruction of the final
structure (right), Courtesy © Michael Jansen.
The Indus seals had holes for cords so that they could be carried on the
person. The ownership of a seal was a mark of prestige, and seals undoubtedly
functioned as badges of rank and authority. It is possible that the different
animal motifs were linked with different social positions or occupations. The
association of the gaur bison with the “Gulf Type” seals (Vidale 2004) may be
seen as evidence of this. Being worn in this fashion probably means that they
also had an amuletic function, protecting their owners as well as their
property. The case seals probably contained some talisman, and the seal’s
iconographic motif undoubtedly also had a religious significance (compare the
association of the bull with Śiva in later Indian seals). The inscriptions have
been sawn off some of the larger seals; perhaps the text indicated the seal
owner’s high position – later lost, for instance through death – and his family
were able to keep the rest of the seal as a status symbol. In any case, it is
remarkable that the Indus seals have been found scattered all over habitation
sites, while elsewhere seals were often buried with their owners. (Cf. Parpola
1997: 49–50.)
A clay tag with the impression of a square Indus seal and marks of coarse
cloth on the reverse comes from Umma in Mesopotamia (Scheil 1925). The
excavations at Lothal (Rao 1979–85) uncovered a large (210m x 35m x 4.5m)
water tank lined with baked bricks and connected through a channel with the
Sabarmati River flowing to the sea. Next to this dockyard was a 50 x 40 meter
mud-brick platform with the remains of a burnt-down “warehouse” with
ventilation arrangements under an assumed wooden floor. Collected in one
place, probably as an archive from the past season, were seventy fire-baked clay
tags, with twenty-six additional tags coming from elsewhere in Lothal (CISI
1 [Joshi and Parpola 1987]: 268–89). These ninety-six tags provide evidence of
how Indus seals were used and of Harappan bureaucratic and administrative
practices, in which several persons took part as participants or witnesses of
transactions. One tag bears five seal impressions (all broken off or indistinct),
two tags (L-189, L-193) bear four seal impressions made with four different
seals, three tags bear three seal impressions, twenty-six tags bear two seal
impressions, and sixty-three tags bear a single seal impression; among the
readable seal inscriptions, twelve occur more than twice in the Lothal tags.
Overlapping of seal impressions show that it was the text portion of the seal
that mattered (cf. L-211). Two of the actual seal stamps used in making these
impressions have been identified among the seals excavated at Lothal (Parpola
1986a, 1994a: 114, 2007).
Sealings are much rarer in the Indus Valley than they appear to be in West
Asia, Egypt, and across the Iranian Plateau. While some argue that this hints at
a different way of using seals and sealings, others rather believe that it is an
accident of preservation. It is possible that unfired clay sealings, in the moist
layers of the Indus Basin, are much more difficult to see and to recover than
their western counterparts. The known Indus sealings were all strongly fired,
either purposefully, or accidentally, as in the burnt warehouse of Lothal.
In addition to the seal impressions, these lumps of clay have impressions of
the objects on which they were attached. Dennys Frenez and Maurizio Tosi
(2005) have studied them with the help of comparative material from Meso-
potamia and Shahr-i Sokhta in Seistan. Their results suggest that the tags sealed
doors bound with strings to pegs fixed to holes in wooden walls; joints
between movable parts or doors or furniture or crates (without any strings);
cane wrappings of packages with strings; pottery closed with textile covers tied
with strings under the rim; and finely polished wooden surfaces, perhaps
boxes. The last-mentioned twelve items (L-161 to L-172) all bear impressions
of a single seal, unique with its elephant motif. The lumps impressed with this
elephant seal also have fingernail tallies, apparently to record how many objects
were kept inside the sealed box closed with knotted strings.
Indus seals were also used to control craft processes producing valuable
goods. Thus, at Mohenjo-daro, a sealed clay tag closed a container in which
Comp. by: SURENDRAN R Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 8 Title Name: Scottetal
Date:26/5/17 Time:01:43:22 Page Number: 143
F Seal Manufacture
A seal-making workshop has been discovered at Chanhu-daro (Mackay 1976
[1943]). Unfinished seals at different stages of completion enable conclusions
about the process of manufacture. The typical material for making Indus seals
was the soft stone steatite. It is easy to carve, but has the drawback of becoming
easily worn. This could to some extent be remedied by baking the completed
seal. Rarer materials of manufacture include agate, lapis lazuli, copper, and
silver. Analyzing and sourcing the materials of which the Harappans made their
seals and other artifacts has provided important information on Harappan
activity spheres and trade routes (Law 2011).
Blanks for seals were first sawn from larger blocks by means of copper saws.
Smooth flat surfaces were then made with grinding stones of different grades,
from coarse to fine. The iconographic motif was carved first, using incising
tools of stone and metal, then the inscription. In C-14 (CISI 1 [Joshi and
Parpola 1987]: 331) the inscription was sketched before carving. The ready seal
was heated to harden the steatite, and glazed by adding a silica coating. The
hole, whether through the body of the seal or through the knob on the reverse
(in this case in an angle from two sides), was made with drills of stone or metal.
Microscopes and silicone impressions taken of the seals have been used in order
to catch the finest tool traces.
Paul Rissman (1989), assuming chronological and local significance in the
variations of the most popular iconographic motif, tried to use them as a means
to penetrate into the history and organization of Harappan seal carving.
Franke-Vogt (1991: I, 111–24) elaborated the analysis of this motif of
“unicorn” plus “cult stand.” Mark Kenoyer’s research in this field (cf. Kenoyer
and Meadow 2010: li–lvi) has paid particular attention to carving techniques
and chronological aspects of boss types. In this volume, Gregg Jamison hunts
for idiosyncracies of individual artisans and workshops, and Adam Green
studies sequencing and styles in inscription carving.
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No.: Plates Title Name: Scottetal
Date:27/5/17 Time:12:10:10 Page Number: 8
plate ix. The famous “Proto-Shiva” seal M-304A from Mohenjo-daro. Photo Erja
Lahdenperä, courtesy National Museum of India.
Comp. by: Amoudha Stage: Proof Chapter No.: FrontMatter Title Name: Scottetal
Date:5/6/17 Time:16:42:36 Page Number: 3
SARAH SCOTT
Wagner College
MARTA AMERI
Colby College
GREGG JAMISON
University of Wisconsin- Waukesha