We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2015
When we look back over the past century of archaeological discovery, about a dozen ancient cities loom large in the mind's eye, a gigantic sequence of silhouettes which in turn inform us of their distinctive civilizations. Mycenae, Troy, Boghaz Koi, and now Mohenjo Daro and Harappa are signal examples of cities at which the brave work of the early pioneers was followed by the activities of another generation. These later workers, with an evolved and perfected technique, probed anew and established a more solid and elaborate edifice of knowledge on foundations which their gallant predecessors had often left insecure. If scientific work continues to keep pace with public interest we should be about to enter on another phase. Then the consolidated work of the second generation which has left so many tempting points of attack for a third, will be illuminated by new discoveries no less rewarding. Indeed what lies under land and water is still an immense treasure, for the recovery of which we are now better equipped than ever.
1 Thus the study of the development of Harappa pottery has still far to go in spite of the large corpus which the original excavations yielded. Some progress in this respect was achieved at Mohenjo Daro in 1950, see page 71, but ‘the details remain to be explored and worked out in connection with further deep digging, and the task is well worth the considerable labour which will have to be expended upon it’.
2 See Syria XXX, 1953, p. 203, fig. 4 for an illustration of the most recent addition to this set Df vases, an early Dynastic fragment, discovered by A. Parrot during his eighth campaign at Mari. The most notable examples of these quasi-Indian stone vases come from the Diyala valley. The author refers to the relevant discoveries in Sumer.
3 The author draws attention on page 81 to an important observation made by Vats, that in Mound F, at Harappa, miniature seals are characteristic of the lower levels. My recollection is that most of the Mesopotamian seals comparable with the Indian are relatively small in comparison with the standard Indus-valley type though larger than the miniature. As many, if not most, of the Mesopotamian seals are relatively early, Sargonid and third Ur dynasty, it may be worth while reinvestigating their dimensions. See also p. 85.
4 What constitutes linguistic affiliation is indeed hardly a subject which an archaeological reviewer should venture to discuss, but neither can he altogether avoid it. See the suggestive and enlightening article in Archiv Orientalni XVII, 1949, 251 if. by Vittore Pisano, La Question de l’Indo-Hittite et le Concept de Parenté Linguistique.
5 See Wace. ‘The Discovery of Inscribed Clay Tablets at Mycenae’. ANTIQUITY, June, 1953. PP. 84-6.
6 The so-called Jhukar ware which succeeds and perhaps overlaps the Harappan at Chanhu Daro may well have some bearing on this problem, for associated with it were circular ‘button seals’ or seal-amulets which seem to be strongly Cappadocian, perhaps Hittite in character. The old view mentioned by Wheeler (page 44) that at Chanhu Daro the Harappan culture is an intru sion into a local continuum could thus be taken as supporting evidence for the suggestion that an ‘Aryan’ element had long been present in that part of India.
7 The chronology of the Rig Veda is as much in dispute as that of the Homeric poems. Many authorities were prepared to suggest a date of c. 1200-800 B.C. for the older hymns, and some have acknowledged that an even higher date is admissible. Owing to the remarkable, indeed exceptional strength of oral tradition in India it seems however by no means unreasonable to suggest that the Vedic writings may accurately reflect the picture of a society many centuries, perhaps even a millennium, older than the date at which they are alleged to have been composed. Such a proposi tion would be far more difficult to accept for western epic poetry. The kind of problems involved have been discussed in a remarkable essay by Sir Maurice Bowra in ‘The Comparative Study of Homer’ (A.J.A. 54, No. 3, 1950, 184 ff.) For a different kind of attack see loc. cit. p. 162 f. ‘Some Oriental Glosses on the Homeric Problem’, by W. F. Albright. These two articles will lead any reader to recognize how difficult it can be to reconcile archaeological with literary evidence.
