P RIEST-KINGS OR PURITANS?

CHILDE AND
WILLING SUBORDINATION IN THE INDUS

Robin Coningham
Durham University, UK

Mark Manuel
Durham University, UK

Abstract: One of the Indus Civilization’s most striking features is its cultural uniformity evidenced by
a common script, artefact forms and motifs, weights and measures, and the presence of proscribed
urban plans. Early excavators and commentators utilized ideas of diffusion, and concepts of king-
ship and slavery remained prevalent within interpretations of the Indus. Whilst Childe questioned
ideas of diffusion and hereditary rule he still identified a system of economic exploitation in which
the vast majority of the population was subordinated. More recently scholars have begun to argue
that small sections of the Indus population may have willingly subordinated themselves in order to
secure positions of power. This article explores the dichotomy between traditional Eurocentric nor-
mative models of social organization and those derived from south Asian cultural traditions.

Keywords: asceticism, Harappa, Indus Valley, Mohenjo-daro, Mortimer Wheeler, social organization,
Stuart Piggott, Vere Gordon Childe

I NTRODUCTION
First identified at the cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in the 1920s by Sir John
Marshall, the Mature Phase or Integration Era of the Indus Civilization is dated
between 2500 and 1900 BC (Shaffer 1992). Covering almost a million square kilo-
metres, it extends from Gujarat in the south west, to the Makran Coast in the east
and as far north as Shortugai in Afghanistan. Whilst Childe and Wheeler inter-
preted its rapid appearance as evidence of a degree of diffusion from the Near East
(Childe 1939, 1942, 1954; Wheeler 1953), these models have since been refuted by
the discovery of evidence for an incipient urban phase. This phase, termed the
Regionalization Era (Shaffer 1992:444ff.) is now thought to have developed from
the region’s pre-pottery Neolithic that began in the 7th millennium BC.
One of the Indus Civilization’s most striking features is its cultural uniformity,
despite the fact that it encompasses extremely diverse ecological settings, which
vary from the Cholistan Desert in the east, to the alluvial plains of the Indus and
the mountainous coast of the Makran. This striking uniformity is provided by a

European Journal of Archaeology Vol. 12(1–3): 167–180

Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications ISSN 1461–9571 DOI:10.1177/1461957109339691

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 168 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 12(1–3)

common script, artefact forms and motifs, weights and measures, and the presence
of proscribed urban plans. The first unit of uniformity, the Indus script, remains
undeciphered, but it is thought to represent a logo-syllabic script written from left
to right. Its known corpus of 3700 inscriptions, recovered from sites stretching
between southern Asia and the Persian Gulf, contains only 170 common simple
signs and 170 common composite signs (Parpola 1993). Uniformity is also noted
within the size and shape of stone blades, bronze tools, stone beads, ceramic forms,
and even painted decorations, strongly suggesting a common artefactual standard
(Allchin and Allchin 1982:193–202, 221–225). Polished stone weights have been dis-
covered throughout the Indus Civilization and as far west as the Persian Gulf. All
share a single binary system of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and up to 12,800 and, although the
system of measurement is less certain, the fact that the dimension of both baked
and unbaked bricks follow the ratio of 1:2:4 suggests a shared or common stan-
dard. Finally, there is an apparent common urban plan, as illustrated by those of
Mohenjo-daro in Sindh and Harappa in the Punjab – the first two Indus sites to be
discovered (Childe 1942:135; Wheeler 1959:7ff.). They are widely held to share a
plan of a raised rectangular mud-brick podium in the west (referred to as a ‘citadel’)
and a lower but larger mud-brick town in the east (referred to as a ‘lower town’).
This dual pattern has also been identified at a number of other settlements
throughout the region such as Surkotada (Joshi 1990) and Kalibangan (Lal 1979).
This uniformity is quite remarkable in view of the lack of raw resources in the allu-
vial Indus flood plain and the redistribution of raw materials and finished goods
across such a vast area. Even more remarkable is the fact that this shared collection
of attributes appears to demonstrate little change throughout the Integration Era’s
600-year span. In Wheeler’s (1953:108) words: ‘[t]he Indus citizens seem to have
drawn the penalty of early success: a complacency, even self-satisfaction, which
impeded further effort. Our … knowledge does not suggest any trend towards
new social or aesthetic horizons’.
Pioneering scholars, such as Piggott (1950), Wheeler (1953, 1959), and Childe
(1942, 1954), amongst others, attempted to link the uniformity seen within the arte-
factual record with the notion of social uniformity within the Indus. Moreover,
these scholars treated social uniformity as synonymous with cultural stagnation
and an imposed subordination of large swathes of the population (Wheeler
1953:108). These Orientalist overviews have dominated normative models of the
Indus and have assumed that the caste system was the mechanism for imposing
both uniformity and stagnation (Piggott 1950:139). Despite the presence of more
recent alternative models (Fairservis 1986; Miller 1985; Rissman 1988), which
propose that such uniformity may be a consequence of willing subordination, the
pioneers’ projections have remained dominant, as demonstrated by Dhavalikar’s
interpretations (1995; Dhavalikar et al.1996).
This article explores the archaeological evidence both for and against the pres-
ence of subordinated communities within the Indus, and examines models derived
from south Asian cultural traditions and Postprocessual theory that suggest indi-
viduals may have willingly subordinated themselves in order to secure positions
of power rather than having been subordinated through caste.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 CONINGHAM & MANUEL: PRIEST-KINGS OR PURITANS? 169

S UBORDINATED COMMUNITIES

The earliest excavations of the Indus cities, Mohenjo-daro (Mackay 1938; Marshall
1931), Harappa (Vats 1940), and Chanhu-daro (Mackay 1943), were primarily con-
cerned with large-scale horizontal excavations and with identifying the cultural
affiliations of the sites. Although the ‘Indus’ or ‘Harappa’ culture was identified as
an independent entity, archaeologists naturally looked west to the more famous
and spectacular cities of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Mediterranean littoral for
their analogies. These archaeologists were mainly Europeans who had been trained
at excavations in the aforementioned areas, and consequently, their interpretations
consisted of ‘kings, urban capitals, slaves, citadels, and alien invasions in the Indus
Valley’ (Fairservis 1986:43), utilizing the imperial frameworks of Near Eastern
archaeology. Concepts of kingship and slavery remained prevalent within Indus
Valley studies for many decades, strengthened by the writings of Childe and
Wheeler. The concept of a priestly class ruling over a sprawling empire firmly
placed the Indus within the same archaeological category as the Egyptian and
Middle Eastern Bronze Age ‘Civilizations’, and the influences of Oriental Despotism
(Wittfogel 1957) and the Asiatic Mode of Production (Marx 1906) are clear within
these early interpretations.
The concept of subordinated communities within the Indus stems from the
earliest excavations of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, when Sir John Marshall first
recognized the similarities between the two sites (Marshall 1931). These two sites,
significantly larger than any other known site at the time, became the focal points
of the majority of socio-political interpretations of the Indus Valley. In their recon-
structions of Indus society, both Wheeler (Director-General of Archaeology in India
1944–1947 and later Archaeological Adviser to the Government of Pakistan) and
Piggott (who was stationed in India during the Second World War and later
succeeded Childe to the Abercromby Chair in Prehistoric Archaeology at the
University of Edinburgh 1946–1977) identified Mohenjo-daro and Harappa as the
‘twin capitals’ of an empire. Wheeler drew attention to the methodically planned
cities with rectangular blocks dissected by well-drained streets dominated by
an acropolis or citadel mound. These citadel mounds were crowned with ‘ritual’
buildings, including the ‘State Granary’ at Mohenjo-daro which was the ‘focal
point of the regime’, whilst at Harappa there were supplementary granaries that
were ‘marshalled on the lower ground’ (Wheeler 1959:97). Lothal was described as
a ‘regimented coastal township’ (1959). Wheeler’s use of terms such as state, regime,
marshalled, and regimented presented an image of military or political domination
achieved through the use of force, similar in nature to the later Kushan, Mughal and
Raj empires in south Asia. Piggott (1950:138) envisaged agricultural output being
under municipal control through the use of ‘great granaries strangely foreshadowing
those of the Roman Army’.
Wheeler’s (1959:97ff.) concept of an ‘Indus Empire’ was dependent on a series
of interpretations and assumptions made regarding Harappa and Mohenjo-daro.
First, that the two cities were rigorously planned, and that this indicated the pres-
ence of a centralized governing power that could mobilize labour and impose its

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 170 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 12(1–3)

concepts of urban planning on cities. Second, that both cities were separated into a
‘lower town’ and ‘citadel’, the latter built on a raised mud-brick platform contain-
ing ritual and public buildings such as the ‘State Granary’ at Mohenjo-daro. Third,
that the citadels housed the rulers of the cities, whilst the Lower Town maintained
a prosperous middle class. Wheeler identified that both Mohenjo-daro and Harappa
were capital cities that dominated a partially defined province or domain and were
part of the same uniform cultural phenomenon. Finally, Wheeler stated that this
cultural uniformity is apparent and overriding throughout the entirety of the Indus
Valley Tradition. Central to Wheeler’s argument was his assumption that urbaniza-
tion within the Indus Valley was not an entirely indigenous phenomenon, although
he rejected the concept of a full-scale colonization of the region from Mesopotamia.
As a result, Wheeler (1959:106) suggested that although the city of Ur evolved nat-
urally from a fourth millennium BC village to a third millennium BC city, Mohenjo-
daro, because of the diffusion of the ‘urban concept’, was designed with an already
fully established concept of civic form. At Kot Diji, where there was (at the time of
his writing) evidence of a substantial earlier settlement, Wheeler inferred an earlier
‘failed’ attempt to colonize the river valley.
Piggott (1950:134) developed Wheeler’s concept of imperial hierarchies by heav-
ily emphasizing the agrarian character of the Indus Valley Tradition, envisaging a
‘considerable agricultural population producing an adequate surplus beyond its
immediate needs for sale to the towns’. He also identified Harappa and Mohenjo-
daro as northern and southern capitals respectively. This idea appears to have been
influenced by his experience of the British Raj and Mughal Empires in south Asia,
where Delhi acted as a winter capital and Simla, further north and at a higher alti-
tude, functioned as the summer capital. The uniformity of artefacts and materials
within the Indus Valley was explained through a rigidly enforced set of laws, a
strongly established commercial code and standardization of manufacturing tech-
niques (Piggott 1950:138). Piggott not only viewed the Indus Valley Tradition as
spatially uniform, but also temporally uniform. Throughout nine phases of rebuild-
ing at Mohenjo-daro during a 700-year period Piggott (1950:139ff.) identified little
change in the material culture of the site – something he highlighted as indicative
of cultural conservatism and possible cultural stagnation. The parallel he drew was
not with the Near Eastern communities with which Wheeler identified, but Central
and South America polities with their ‘rigorously authoritarian rule and elaborate
religious conceptions’ (Piggott 1950:140). Finally, Piggott inferred an indigenous
origin for the Indus Valley Tradition, albeit with some external influence as to con-
cepts of urbanization and statehood. He did, however, concede that knowledge of
this earlier period was minimal.
Piggott (1950) and Wheeler (Wheeler 1959) both assigned a theocratic nature to
the social structure of the Indus cities. As Piggott (1950:201) put it:

It is clear that the potent forces behind the organization of the Harappan
kingdom cannot have been wholly secular, and there is, as we have already
seen, more than a hint that the priesthood of some religion played a very
important part in the regulation of the Harappan economy from within the
walls of the citadels of the two capital cities.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 CONINGHAM & MANUEL: PRIEST-KINGS OR PURITANS? 171

The partnering of the citadels with the Priest-King equated the Indus cities with
the better-known urban centres of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean.
According to Wheeler, although the lower towns of the Indus cities were inhabited
by a substantial middle-class element financed through trade and industry, the pri-
mary economy was still agricultural in nature (Wheeler 1953: 84). Excavations at
Mohenjo-daro identified a group of 16 rooms in Block 5 of Section B, HR area, con-
sisting of 12 central rooms measuring 4 × 6 m with a small internal dividing wall,
and four end units measuring 4 × 6.7 m divided into four rooms. These rooms
were divided by a street running north–south, with an additional lane separating
the four end units. A similar series of 15 rooms was identified on the north-eastern
corner of Mound AB at Harappa, although these were oriented along an east–west
running street. Each unit measured 7.3 m wide and 17 m deep and consisted of two
brick-paved cells. The entire complex at Harappa was located on a small mound,
and is associated with 17 circular brick platforms. Piggott (1950:169) likened the
rooms to ‘contemporary coolie-lines’, and subordinate to the nearby residential
areas because of their small size. Wheeler (1953:32–34) identified that the entrance-
way to these rooms was through an oblique passage designed to ensure privacy,
and that they were ‘a piece of government planning’ and that ‘it might reflect a
servile or semi-servile element of the sort familiar in the theocratic administrations
of Sumer’. However, rather than ‘coolie-lines’, he suggested that they may alterna-
tively have been barracks or priest’s quarters.
Subsequent scholars have chosen to follow Wheeler. Thus, the Allchins stated that
‘immediately below the walls of the citadel were two rows of single-roomed bar-
racks, recalling the smallest dwellings in the lower city of Mohenjo-daro and the arti-
sans’ or slaves’ quarters in such sites as Tel-el-Armana in Egypt’ (Allchin and Allchin
1982:183). Lal identified a similar complex to the south of Kalibangan’s citadel
mound, suggesting that as the houses were small and associated with craft-working
debris, the area was probably the location of a ‘colony of manual labourers’ (Lal
1993:65). More recently, Dhavalikar has identified a further example at Kuntasi in
Gujarat. In this settlement, interpreted by its excavator as a factory fort (Dhavalikar
et al. 1996), poorly-built dormitories were identified close to the eastern gate ‘proba-
bly for … artisans who were brought by the Harappans with them’ (1996:43ff.).
Dhavalikar (1995:172) also suggested that the small shell-working site of Nageshwar
may have housed specialized labourers, perhaps even ‘slave craftsmen’.

C HILDE AND THE I NDUS

Although Childe initially presumed a direct link between Mesopotamia and the
emergence of ‘civilization’ within the Indus (1942: 136ff.), it was not until the fourth
edition of New Light on the Most Ancient East (published at a similar time to Wheeler
and Piggott’s seminal works) that he questioned the notion of external stimuli as
the catalyst for urbanization in the Indus Valley, citing evidence of early occupa-
tions and urbanization at Kot Diji and Amri (Childe 1954: 187). Childe also ques-
tioned whether political rule was hereditary, as had been traditionally assumed,
and proposed the concept of competing groups vying for political control. This
concept of non-hereditary political rule pervades the more recent city-state series

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 172 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 12(1–3)

of models (Kenoyer 1994, 1998; Possehl 1993). For Childe (1954:176), the crux of the
Indus Valley economy lay in the agricultural potential of the alluvial river valley,
despite the self-confessed lack of archaeological evidence for large-scale agricul-
tural practices or irrigation works. However, the underlying Marxist credentials of
Childe (Trigger 1986:9ff.) inevitably led him to adopt an economic principle in terms
of social structure. Wheeler, on the other hand, proposed an authoritarian struc-
ture, loosely equating to traditional Edwardian British society. According to
Wheeler (1959:84), although the lower towns of the Indus Valley cities were inhab-
ited by a substantial middle-class element financed through trade and industry, the
primary economy would still have been agricultural.
However, Childe retained and developed ideas of subordinated communities
developed by Marshall (1931), in particular the concept of a racial hierarchy. Childe
stated that the Proto-Australoid element of the population was subservient to the
Sumerian, Eurasian, or Mediterranean population. He also explicitly equated the
Proto-Australoid element of Indus society with modern Dravidian populations of
south India, whilst the Mediterranean population comprised immigrants from the
west who brought with them the concept of ‘Civilization’ (Childe 1954:175).
Furthermore, Childe (1954) likened the Indus Priest-Kings with the Sumerian ‘city-
god’ and the Egyptian pharaoh, whose power resided in control over the urban
granaries and the concentration of agricultural wealth. As such, this racial division
became not only a social hierarchy, but also an economic one. Childe interpreted
this as a form of economic exploitation, as opposed to the theocratic dictatorship
proposed by Marshall (1931) and reinforced by Piggott (1950) and Wheeler (1953).
Rather than ‘coolie-lines’ or servants quarters, Childe (1954:175) interpreted the small
two-roomed structures of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro as housing artisans, most
likely bonded to the Indus bourgeois who inhabited the spacious two-storied
houses of the lower town. He also maintained the citadel–lower town divide of
rulers and ruled, though he suggests that wealthy merchants and traders from the
largest cities supported the ruling king. However, he did not indicate whether this
ruling figure would have been hereditary or if there were competing groups
involved in struggles for power. Childe envisaged a society that was heavily
dependent upon economic co-operation between the various cities within the
Indus Valley region, and argued that political rule was mostly secular.
Within the archaeological literature, the subordinated communities housed
within the cities are paralleled by the presence of dominant communities on the
neighbouring citadel mounds. Indeed, Wheeler (1953:34) suggested that ‘[f]ull in
the public eye, and more especially in that of the rulers on the citadel, there was
nothing furtive in the little Harappan cantonment’. The contrast between the well-
preserved structures on the summit of Mohenjo-daro’s citadel, with its great bath,
college, granary, and pillared hall, and on the other the ‘subordinated’ complexes,
could not have been greater in terms of their extent, height, and degree of monu-
mentality. The hypothesized presence of a subordinated element of Indus society
appears well supported by the archaeological evidence for differentiated housing
blocks within a number of settlements, and its existence would provide a logical
explanation for the apparent uniformity and timeless nature of artefacts.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 CONINGHAM & MANUEL: PRIEST-KINGS OR PURITANS? 173

W ILLING SUBORDINATION

The presence of substantial numbers of hunter-gatherers and pastoralists within

the Indus system (Fairservis 1986; Possehl and Kennedy 1979) has added unfore-
seen and archaeologically invisible additions to the variables characterizing the
social organization of the Indus Civilization. It has also been widely noted that the
structures identified by Wheeler as granaries at Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, and Lothal
are all very different and very possibly not granaries at all (Fentress 1976:138).
Even the similarity between the dual plans of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro has been
refuted, with Kenoyer (1998:55) suggesting that most of Harappa’s mounds were
walled, including Mound F, which housed the so-called subordinate communities.
The assumption that craft activities would have been located in certain quarters
within the cities (Piggott 1950:170) has also been refuted by detailed surveys car-
ried out at Mohenjo-daro. Kenoyer, for example, analysed the distribution of shell-
working, expecting to find that it was concentrated as a large-scale industry in one
urban zone under central control (Kenoyer 1985). His analysis, however, identified
that shell-working was carried out throughout the site and was geared towards a
localized market. Similar patterns were recorded for ceramic production, metal-
working and even faience-making and steatite-working (Pracchia et al. 1985:241),
providing a diverse pattern where ‘the average size of production appears to be
restricted, something between the side of a room and a courtyard’ (Coningham
1994:49). Other surprises include the fact that seals and other ‘prestige’ items usu-
ally associated with rank, ownership, redistribution, and wealth were found in
lower frequency on the citadel mounds of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro than within
the lower towns (Fentress 1976:241).
Fairservis (1986) developed concepts of decentralization and the lack of state-
level institutions even further by proposing that the Integration Era was organized
along the lines of a developed chiefdom. Influenced by the growing number of
small sites (<1 ha) being identified and emerging evidence of short-term occupa-
tion of many sites – including Mohenjo-daro – Fairservis (1986, 1989) suggested a
model of political organization centred upon cattle herds and pastoralism. Although
some archaeologists have incorporated an element of pastoralism into their periph-
eries (Kenoyer 1998; Possehl 1993), Fairservis placed the pastoral communities at
the core of the Indus Valley Tradition. The concept that wealth lay outside of the
urban centres may explain the contradictions evident in the Indus Valley cities
when compared to other contemporary communities. Whilst the absence of clearly
dominant communities has left many scholars baffled, several archaeologists have
followed Fairservis in rejecting normative concepts of state-level societies. They
have identified a number of weaknesses in existing interpretations of the Indus
Civilization (Miller 1985; Rissman 1988; Shaffer 1993). These approaches have con-
centrated upon social dynamics and human agency in order to explain the social
organization of the Indus Civilization, stressing concepts of asceticism and the
deliberate manipulation of social structures in order to mask inequality. Shaffer
provided the earliest hint towards an ascetic model of social organization in a criti-
cal review of the position of Indus Valley studies (Shaffer 1993). Rejecting Piggott’s

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 174 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 12(1–3)

(1950) concept of a strong centralized governing body, Shaffer (1993:44ff.) suggested

that the similarity and homogeneity in style and manufacture reflects the existence
of an intensive internal distribution system. Furthermore, he suggested that even
the smallest sites, such as Allahdino, have yielded examples of almost every
known Indus artefact form, even gold, silver, and semiprecious stone.
As for providing an alternative explanation of Indus Valley socio-political
organization, Shaffer relied heavily upon the manufacture of metal objects and
excavations at Allahdino. He considered metal objects mostly utilitarian in func-
tion, a direct contradiction to Mesopotamia where metal objects were considered
luxury, status items (Shaffer 1993:46), and the lack of metal objects within graves
supported this interpretation (1993:47). However, the distribution and manufacture
of objects of metal and semiprecious stone were not, in Shaffer’s opinion, without
symbolic meaning. Because they represented a conscious effort in terms of manu-
facturing, the possession of such items must have imparted some element of social
distinction on the owner(s). Nevertheless, Shaffer (1993:49) suggested that the
inability to identify consistent contextual associations of metal and semiprecious
stone objects implies that, unlike Mesopotamia, these objects were available to a
large proportion of Indus Valley society. He suggested that their absence within
burials may indicate that: (1) such wealth objects were not hereditary; (2) they were
not considered particularly important indicators of social status; (3) the objects
were redistributed at the time of death; (4) there was an absence of well-defined
social stratification; or (5) some other cultural rule was at work designating their
presence or absence in burials. This suggestion of non-hereditary wealth and social
rules that consciously or unconsciously subvert social structures was developed
further by Miller (1985) and Rissman (1988) – although their work has been largely
overlooked by Indus archaeologists.
In his article ‘Ideology and the Harappan Civilization’, Miller (1985:52–56) noted
that there was a distinct lack of architectural decoration and that house forms were
relatively homogenous. In fact, he identified a lack of evidence for any change in
almost every artefactual form for the entire span of the mature Indus Civilization.
Regarding these artefacts, Miller identified that, whilst settlements were engaged in
long-distance trade for raw materials, the vast majority of artefacts were manufac-
tured locally. The lack of imported ‘prestige items’ led Miller to postulate that there
was some form of ‘embargo upon the importation of foreign manufactures’. These
inferences convinced Miller that there was no evidence of a class of wealthy individ-
uals or political élites who had in any way demarcated their distinctiveness within
society. Miller relied on the work of Sarcina, who in her analysis of house sizes within
Mohenjo-daro stated that ‘the quality of found objects suggests a well-distributed
welfare and a comfortable standard of living, devoid of either luxury, on the one
hand, or evident signs of exploitation on the other’ (Sarcina 1979:185), and that the
so-called ‘coolie-lines’ (Piggott 1950:31) were ‘built with the same care as the larger
houses’ (Sarcina 1979:186). Miller saw such homogeneity as a tendency towards for-
malism, where artefacts ‘refer not to groups of people, regions, or other external fac-
tors, but only to the style, that is, the order within which they were created’ (Miller
1985:59). Furthermore, he envisaged a civilization that ‘opposes itself at every point

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 CONINGHAM & MANUEL: PRIEST-KINGS OR PURITANS? 175

to nature’, where institutionalized principles masked social inequality and the

standardization of both artefacts and settlements ensured the reproduction of
the formal order that imposed this ideology (1985:60). Miller also suggested that
‘the people of the Harappan who may be said to have power may not have enjoyed
privileged wealth or conspicuous consumption, and indeed are more likely to have
been conspicuous through asceticism’ (1985:61). Developing this concept, he sug-
gested that the so-called ‘barracks’ (Wheeler 1953) or ‘coolie-lines’ (Piggott 1950)
found within the citadel mounds were more likely to have housed monks than
slaves. Consequently, a normative tendency towards puritanism was identified as a
more likely explanation for the social organization of the Indus Civilization, rather
than the normative projections of priests and Priest-Kings. Within the apparently
timeless nature of the Indus (Piggott 1950), Miller conceived a society in which an
‘extreme normative order was valued and combined control over the world. Such
an order was antagonistic to anything which threatened it, which meant anything
not generated by it’ (Miller 1985:63).
Rissman (1988) built on these concepts by examining the apparent correlation
between grave goods and hoards. The impetus for his work was the growing cor-
pus of work in the early 1980s that questioned whether deliberately deposited arte-
facts reflect social relations, but rather that there is potential for the manipulation
of material culture by dominant groups who seek political legitimacy (Hodder
1982; Miller and Tilley 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1982; Shennan 1982;). Integral to
Rissman’s methodology was Bourdieu’s concept that:

the dominant culture contributes to the real integration of the dominant

class; to the fictitious integration of the society as a whole, and hence to the
demobilization (false consciousness) of the dominated classes; and to the
legitimization of the established order by the establishment of distinctions
(hierarchies) and the legitimization of these distinctions. The dominant cul-
ture produces its function of division under its function of communication.
(Bourdieu 1979:79)

Rissman utilized this concept of ideological manipulation in his definitions of

grave goods and hoards. The public nature of grave goods, offerings and other dis-
plays of wealth can be seen as deliberately misrepresenting social relations in an
outright attempt to conceal domination, and therefore cannot be utilized as objec-
tive indicators of wealth (Rissman 1988:209). On the other hand, Rissman believed
hoarding to be a private and secular act and the pure opposite of display, and as
such, hoards may be considered, archaeologically, as more objective indicators of
status distinctions. From his analysis of hoards from several Indus Valley sites, he
concluded ‘if the Harappan hierarchy of secular value was characterised by some
degree of inequality in value distribution, and by some degree of rigidity in status
distinctions, these qualities were concealed in the public domain by the ideology of
value’ (Rissman 1988:219, original italics). Significantly, four of the seven hoards
identified at Harappa were located within Mound F, the area Piggott (1950) and
Wheeler (1953) identified as ‘coolie-lines’ or ‘barracks’. Such wealthy deposits

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 176 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 12(1–3)

would not normally be associated with an apparently subordinated community

such as this. However, their presence, along with one of the hoards from Mohenjo-
daro (which was also found within a traditionally assumed subordinated area),
suggests that the inhabitants of these regions had equal, if not greater, access to
resources as the remainder of the community. In contrast, only a single hoard was
identified from within the citadels of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, the presumed
areas of wealth and power (Rissman 1988:218), and their distribution within the
lower towns was equally well spaced.

C ONCLUSION : W ILLING OR COERCIVE SUBORDINATION

Miller (1985), Rissman (1988) and Shaffer (1993) all challenged the normative
orthodox models of the Indus Civilization and concluded that the archaeological
record represents a deliberately distorted view of the social structure prevailing at
the time. The two localities widely identified as domiciles of subordinated ele-
ments of Indus society, Mound F at Harappa and Block 5 at Mohenjo-daro, can
now be interpreted as housing those with access to supraordinate wealth. Neither
Miller nor Rissman has suggested that these ‘barracks’ housed the rulers of
Harappa or Mohenjo-daro, and their role remains unclear. It is quite possible that
the inhabitants of these architectural units did indeed form part of a subordinated
community, but perhaps one which willingly subordinated itself. Such a hypothe-
sis is partially framed by Miller who suggested that the inhabitants of the rooms
were more likely to be monks than slaves and that ‘those who can maintain the
greatest distance from ordinary enterprise … are … granted an authority and
power’ (Miller 1985:61). Indeed, there are numerous examples within the historical
period of south Asia of the power of charismatic individuals who have willingly
subordinated themselves by renouncing material wealth and temporal position
(Tambiah 1976, 1984). Such individuals often achieved great influence and power
through a number of associated characteristics such as harsh ascetic practices
(Coningham 2001). It is also apparent that the more austere communities became,
the more influential they were, as illustrated by the political dominance of the
Sri Lankan Pamsukulka, or ‘those clothed in rags from dustheaps’ during the eighth
to tenth centuries AD (Coningham 1999).
This is not to suggest that such interpretations are fully supported by the data,
indeed, Miller’s statement that differential consumption never occurred (Miller
1985:62) has been challenged by the results of Rissman’s comparison of the relative
wealth of grave goods and that of hoards. Assuming burials related to a public dis-
play of wealth, he noted that they were associated with a ‘low secular value of grave
goods’ (Rissman 1988:217), but that inequality, at least in terms of wealth, was clearly
apparent within private settings in the context of hoards. As such, Rissman’s work
can be seen to demonstrate that the archaeological record provides a distorted view
of the social structure of the Indus Civilization, but that this is not due to natural
transforms (survival rates or excavation techniques), but rather a deliberate attempt
by élite groups to mask any inequality that may have existed. Clearly, such examples
strongly undermine the normative approach to identifying the social organization of

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 CONINGHAM & MANUEL: PRIEST-KINGS OR PURITANS? 177

the Indus Civilization, as it is quite possible that willingly subordinated communities

may have been responsible for, in the words of Miller, ensuring ‘the reproduction of
order’ (Miller 1985:64). It may be suggested that while traditional archaeological cor-
relates of rank and inequality (Peebles and Kus 1977; Price and Feinman 1995) may
identify the presence or absence of subordinate communities they are quite inade-
quate in allowing us to identify whether such communities held a dominant position
within a society as a whole, or whether their constituent members became subordi-
nated through choice or coercion.
In order to fully understand the social and economic organization of the Indus
Civilization, archaeologists will need to accept and understand the distortion of the
archaeological record generated by preconceived notions of past societies, which are
in turn influenced by archaeologists’ own social and political backgrounds. Trigger
famously stated that ‘[w]hilst archaeological discoveries initiated by the Europeans
have long encouraged a pride in India’s past among its educated élite, there is even
less evidence of nationalism influencing the practice of Indian Archaeology’ (Trigger
1989:271). Yet, research focused on the Indus Civilization has clearly demonstrated
that such a broad statement about south Asian archaeology is in fact erroneous.
Childe’s (1954) focus upon the economic exploitation of the populace reflected his
own Marxist belief systems, and was published within the context of the post-
colonial world in which subordinated communities throughout the world, including
south Asia, were gaining their independence and freedom and accusing their previ-
ous colonial rulers of both economic and social imperialism. In many ways, this
reflects our own changing understanding of the Indus Civilization, from its impe-
rial beginnings (i.e. Mackay 1938; Marshall 1931) to the postmodern reflections of
Miller (1985) and Rissman (1988). Along the way, the Indus Civilization has been
the recipient of postcolonial reaction (Childe 1954), nationalist impositions of Vedic
belief systems (Lal 1993; Rajaram and Frawley 1995; Talageri 1993), and ‘New World’
models of chiefdoms (Fairservis 1989). However, until its script is deciphered, or
more rigorous archaeological methodologies are adopted, the very nature of the
Indus Civilization’s social and economic infrastructure and framework will be
unclear, allowing successive generations of archaeologists to reflect their own
ethnocentric ideals and values upon this silent Bronze Age world.

R EFERENCES
ALLCHIN, B. and R. ALLCHIN, 1982. The Rise of Civilisation in India and Pakistan.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BOURDIEU, P., 1979. Symbolic Power. Critique of Anthropology 4:77–85.
CHILDE, V.G. 1939. India and the West before Darius. Antiquity 13(49):5–15.
CHILDE, V.G. 1942. What Happened in History. London: Penguin.
CHILDE, V.G., 1954. New Light on the Most Ancient East. 4th edition. London: Kegan
Paul.
CONINGHAM, R.A.E., 1994. Urban Texts: the Architectural, Textual and Artefactual
Records of an Early Historic City. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Cambridge University.
CONINGHAM, R.A.E., 1999. Anuradhapura: The British-Sri Lankan Excavations at
Anuradhapura Salgaha Watta 2. Volume 1: The Site. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR
International Series 824).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 178 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 12(1–3)

CONINGHAM, R.A.E., 2001. The archaeology of Buddhism. In T. Insoll (ed.),

Archaeology and World Religion: 61–95. London: Routledge,
DHAVALIKAR, M.K., 1995. Cultural Imperialism: Indus Civilisation in Western India.
New Delhi: Books and Books.
DHAVALIKAR, M.K., M.H. RAVAL and Y.M. CHITALWALA, 1996. Kuntasi: A Harappan
Emporium on the West Coast. Pune: Deccan College.
FAIRSERVIS, W.A., 1986. Cattle and the Harappan chiefdoms of the Indus Valley.
Expedition 28(2):43–50.
FAIRSERVIS, W.A., 1989. An epigenetic view of the Harappan culture. In C.C.
Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.), Archaeological Thought in America: 205–217.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FENTRESS, M., 1976. Resource Access, Exchange Systems and Regional Interaction
in the Indus Valley: An Investigation of Archaeological Variation at Harappa
and Mohenjo-daro. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Department of Oriental Studies.
HODDER, I., 1982. Theoretical archaeology: A reactionary view. In I. Hodder (ed.),
Symbolic and Structural Archaeology: 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
JOSHI, J.P., 1990. Excavation at Surkotada 1971–1972 and Exploration in Kutch. New
Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
KENOYER, J.M., 1985. Shell working at Mohenjo-daro, Pakistan, In J. Schotsmans
and M. Taddei (eds), South Asian Archaeology 1983: 297–344. Naples: Istituto
Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici.
KENOYER, J.M., 1994. The Harappan State: Was it or wasn’t it? In J.M. Kenoyer
(ed.), From Sumer to Meluhha: 205–217. Madison: Wisconsin Archaeological
Reports.
KENOYER, J.M., 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Karachi: Oxford
University Press.
LAL, B.B., 1979. Kalibangan and Indus Civilization. In D.P. Agrawal and D.K.
Chakrabarti (eds), Essays in Indian Protohistory: 65–97. Delhi: BR Publishing.
LAL, B.B., 1993. A glimpse of the social stratification and political set-up of the
Indus Civilisation. Harappan Studies 1:63–71.
MACKAY, E.J.H., 1938. Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro. New Delhi: Government
of India.
MACKAY, E.J.H., 1943. Chanhu-daro Excavations 1935–36. New Delhi: American
Oriental Society.
MARSHALL, J.H., 1931. Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilisation. New Delhi: Indological
Book House.
MARX, K., 1906. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (edited by F. Engels). Chicago,
IL: Charles H. Kerr & Co.
MILLER, D., 1985. Ideology and the Harappan Civilisation. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 4:34–71.
MILLER, D. and C. TILLEY, eds, 1984. Ideology, Power, and Prehistory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
PARPOLA, A., 1993. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
PEEBLES, C.S. and S.M. KUS, 1977. Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies.
American Antiquity 42(3):421–448.
PIGGOTT, S., 1950. Prehistoric India. London: Penguin.
POSSEHL, G.L., 1993. The Harappan Civilisation: A contemporary perspective. In
G.L. Possehl (ed.), Harappan Civilisation: A Recent Perspective:15–28. New
Delhi: Oxford and IBH.
POSSEHL, G.L. and K.A.R. KENNEDY, 1979. Hunter-gatherer/agriculturalist exchange
in prehistory: an Indian example. Current Anthropology 20(3):592–593.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 CONINGHAM & MANUEL: PRIEST-KINGS OR PURITANS? 179

PRACCHIA, S., M. TOSI and M. VIDALE, 1985. On the type, distribution and extent of
craft activity areas at Mohenjodaro. In J. Schotsmans and M. Taddei (eds),
South Asian Archaeology 1983: 207–247. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale,
Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici.
PRICE, T.D. and G.M. FEINMAN, 1995. Foundations of Social Equality. New York:
Plenum Press.
RAJARAM, N.S. and D. FRAWLEY, 1995. Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilisation.
New Delhi: Voices of India.
RISSMAN, P., 1988. Public displays and private values: A guide to buried wealth in
Harappan archaeology. World Archaeology 20(2):209–228.
SARCINA, A. (1979). A statistical assessment of house patterns at Mohenjo-daro.
Mesopotamia 13/14:155–197.
SHAFFER, J.G., 1992. The Indus Valley, Baluchistan, and Helmand Traditions:
Neolithic through Bronze Age. In R. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology Volume 1: 441–464. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
SHAFFER, J.G., 1993. Harappan Culture: A reconsideration. In G.L. Possehl (ed.),
Harappan Civilisation: A Recent Perspective: 41–50. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH.
SHANKS, M. and C. TILLEY, 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communi-
cation: A reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In I. Hodder (ed.),
Symbolic and Structural Archaeology: 129–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
SHENNAN, S., 1982. Ideology, change and the European Early Bronze Age. In
I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology: 155–161.Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
TALAGERI, S.G., 1993. Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism. New Delhi:
Voice of India.
TAMBIAH, S.J., 1976. World Conqueror and World Renouncer: A Study of Buddhism and
Polity in Thailand against a Historical Background. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
TAMBIAH, S.J., 1984. The Buddhist Saints of the Forest and the Cult of Amulets: A Study
of Charisma, Hagiography, Sectarianism and Millennial Buddhism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
TRIGGER, B.G., 1986. The role of technology in V. Gordon Childe’s archaeology.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 19(1):1–14.
TRIGGER, B.G., 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
VATS, M.S., 1940. Excavations at Harappa. New Delhi: Government of India.
WHEELER, R.E.M., 1953. The Indus Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
WHEELER, R.E.M., 1959. Early India and Pakistan. London: Thames & Hudson.
WITTFOGEL, K., 1957. Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

B IOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Robin Coningham is Professor of Archaeology and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Social

Sciences and Health at Durham University. He has excavated in Iran, Nepal, Pakistan,
and Sri Lanka and is particularly interested in developing methodologies for record-
ing the social and economic transformations associated with urbanization. He has
published on the relationship between archaeology, identity, and nationalism in
southern Asia and is a founder member of Durham University’s new Centre for
Ethics and Cultural Heritage.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691
 180 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 12(1–3)

Address: Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1

3LE, UK [email: [email protected]]

Mark Manuel completed his PhD thesis on the social and political organization of the
Indus Valley Tradition, and is now a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department
of Archaeology at Durham University. He has worked in India, Sri Lanka, Iran, and
Italy, and is interested in modelling early urban communities within south Asia, and in
particular their relationship with non-urban communities.

Address: Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1

3LE, UK [email: [email protected]]

A BSTRACTS
Prêtres-rois ou puritains ? Childe et la subordination consentante dans l’Indus
Robin Coningham et Mark Manuel
Une des caractéristiques les plus frappantes de la civilisation de l’Indus est son uniformité cul-
turelle attestée par une écriture, des formes et motifs d’artefacts et des poids et mesures communs
et la présence de plans urbains proscrits. Les premiers fouilleurs et observateurs utilisaient des
idées de dispersion, et parmi les interprétations de l’Indus les concepts de royauté et d’esclavage
prévalaient. Tandis que Childe mettait en question les idées de dispersion et d’autorité héréditaire,
il identifiait toujours un système d’exploitation économique dans lequel la vaste majorité de la
population était subordonnée. Plus récemment les chercheurs ont commencé de soutenir que de
petites parties de la population de l’Indus se sont peut-être soumises de leur plein gré afin de se
procurer des positions de pouvoir. Cet article examine la dichotomie entre des modèles normatifs
traditionnels et eurocentriques de l’organisation sociale, et ceux dérivés des cultures traditionnelles
d’Asie du sud.

Mots clés: ascétisme, Harappa, Vallée de l’Indus, Mohenjo-daro, Mortimer Wheeler, organisation
sociale, Stuart Piggott, Vere Gordon Childe

(translation by Isabelle Kayser-Gerges)

Priesterkönige oder Puritaner? Childe und die bereitwillige Unterordnung in der Indus-Kultur
Robin Coningham und Mark Manuel
Eines der verblüffendsten Merkmale der Indus-Zivilisation ist die kulturelle Uniformität, die durch
eine gemeinsame Schrift, Artefaktformen und Motive sowie Gewichte, Maße und das
Vorhandensein einheitlicher Stadtpläne belegt wird. Frühe Ausgräber und Bearbeiter nutzten Ideen
von Diffusion, und Konzepte von Königtum und Sklaverei blieben vorherrschend für die
Interpretation der Indus-Kultur. Obwohl Childe Ideen von Diffusion und erblicher Regentschaft kri-
tisch gegenüberstand, identifizierte er dennoch ein System ökonomischer Ausbeutung in dem die
überwiegende Mehrheit der Gesellschaft untergeordnet war. Jüngere Forscher haben zu vermuten
begonnen, dass kleine Teile der Indus-Population sich freiwillig untergeordnet haben, um
Machtpositionen zu sichern. Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die Dichotomie zwischen eurozentrischen
normativen Modellen sozialer Organisation und denen, die sich aus südasiatischen
Kulturtraditionen entwickelten.

Schlüsselbegriffe: Asketismus, Harappa, Industal, Mohenjo-daro, soziale Organisation, Mortimer

Wheeler, Stuart Piggott, Vere Gordon Childe

(translation by Heiner Schwarzberg)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Brown University Library, on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:32:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957109339691