No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Priest-Kings or Puritans? Childe and Willing Subordination in the Indus
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2017
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 kingship 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 normative models of social organization and those derived from south Asian cultural traditions.
Une des caractéristiques les plus frappantes de la civilisation de l'Indus est son uniformité culturelle 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.
Zusammenfassung
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 kritisch 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.
Keywords
asceticismHarappaIndus ValleyMohenjo-daroMortimer Wheelersocial organizationStuart PiggottVere Gordon ChildeascétismeHarappaVallée de l'IndusMohenjo-daroMortimer Wheelerorganisation socialeStuart PiggottVere Gordon ChildeAsketismusHarappaIndustalMohenjo-darosoziale OrganisationMortimer WheelerStuart PiggottVere Gordon Childe
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2009 Sage Publications
References
Allchin, B. and Allchin, R., 1982. The Rise of Civilisation in India and Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Childe, V.G., 1954. New Light on the Most Ancient East. 4th edition. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Coningham, R.A.E., 1994. Urban Texts: the Architectural, Textual and Artefactual Records of an Early Historic City. Unpublished , Cambridge University.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Coningham, R.A.E., 2001. The archaeology of Buddhism. In Insoll, T. (ed.), Archaeology and World Religion:
61–95. London: Routledge,Google Scholar
Dhavalikar, M.K., 1995. Cultural Imperialism: Indus Civilisation in Western India. New Delhi: Books and Books.Google Scholar
Dhavalikar, M.K., Raval, M.H. and Chitalwala, Y.M., 1996. Kuntasi: A Harappan Emporium on the West Coast. Pune: Deccan College.Google Scholar
Fairservis, W.A., 1986. Cattle and the Harappan chiefdoms of the Indus Valley. Expedition
28(2):43–50.Google Scholar
Fairservis, W.A., 1989. An epigenetic view of the Harappan culture. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (ed.), Archaeological Thought in America:
205–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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 , University of Pennsylvania. Department of Oriental Studies.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1982. Theoretical archaeology: A reactionary view. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology:
1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, J.P., 1990. Excavation at Surkotada 1971–1972 and Exploration in Kutch. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Google Scholar
Kenoyer, J.M., 1985. Shell working at Mohenjo-daro, Pakistan, In Schotsmans, J. and Taddei, M. (eds), South Asian Archaeology 1983: 297–344. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici.Google Scholar
Kenoyer, J.M., 1994. The Harappan State: Was it or wasn't it? In Kenoyer, J. M. (ed.), From Sumer to Meluhha:
205–217. Madison: Wisconsin Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Kenoyer, J.M., 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Karachi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lal, B.B., 1979. Kalibangan and Indus Civilization. In Agrawal, D.P. and Chakrabarti, D.K. (eds), Essays in Indian Protohistory:
65–97. Delhi: BR Publishing.Google Scholar
Lal, B.B., 1993. A glimpse of the social stratification and political set-up of the Indus Civilisation. Harappan Studies
1:63–71.Google Scholar
Mackay, E.J.H., 1938. Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
Mackay, E.J.H., 1943. Chanhu-daro Excavations 1935–36. New Delhi: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Marshall, J.H., 1931. Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilisation. New Delhi: Indological Book House.Google Scholar
Marx, K., 1906. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (edited by F. Engels). Chicago, IL: Charles H. Kerr & Co.Google Scholar
Miller, D., 1985. Ideology and the Harappan Civilisation. journal of Anthropological Archaeology
4:34–71.Google Scholar
Miller, D. and Tilley, C., eds, 1984. Ideology, Power, and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parpol, A. A., 1993. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peebles, C.S. and Kus, S.M., 1977. Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies. American Antiquity
42(3):421–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Possehl, G.L., 1993. The Harappan Civilisation: A contemporary perspective. In Possehl, G. L. (ed.), Harappan Civilisation: A Recent Perspective:
15–28. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH.Google Scholar
Possehl, G.L. and Kennedy, K.A.R., 1979. Hunter-gatherer/agriculturalist exchange in prehistory: an Indian example. Current Anthropology
20(3):592–593.Google Scholar
Pracchia, S., Tosi, M. and Vidale, M., 1985. On the type, distribution and extent of craft activity areas at Mohenjodaro. In Schotsmans, J. and Taddei, M. (eds), South Asian Archaeology 1983:
207–247. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici.Google Scholar
Price, T.D. and Feinman, G.M., 1995. Foundations of Social Equality. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Rajaram, N.S. and Frawley, D., 1995. Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilisation. New Delhi: Voices of India.Google Scholar
Rissman, P., 1988. Public displays and private values: A guide to buried wealth in Harappan archaeology. World Archaeology
20(2):209–228.Google Scholar
Sarcin, A. A. (1979). A statistical assessment of house patterns at Mohenjo-daro. Mesopotamia
13/14:155–197.Google Scholar
Shaffer, J.G., 1992. The Indus Valley, Baluchistan, and Helmand Traditions: Neolithic through Bronze Age. In Ehrich, R. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology Volume
1:441–464. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Shaffer, J.G., 1993. Harappan Culture: A reconsideration. In Possehl, G. L. (ed.), Harappan Civilisation: A Recent Perspective:
41–50. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communi-cation: A reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology:
129–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shennan, S., 1982. Ideology, change and the European Early Bronze Age. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology:
155–161.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talageri, S.G., 1993. Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism. New Delhi: Voice of India.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 1986. The role of technology in V. Gordon Childe's archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review
19(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittfogel, K., 1957. Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar