Interpretation — and re-interpretation

Detail

Why interpretation is a problem at all

• An object does not speak. The digger finds it; the historian must say what it was used for.
• Two steps, and only the first is hard fact:
• The find — where it lay, what layer, what it is made of. This can be checked.

• The meaning — "this was worshipped", "this man was a king". This is a guess built on reasoning.

• The Harappan script is still undeciphered, so no Harappan text can settle any of these guesses. Everything rests on objects alone.

The religion problem — "if it looks odd, call it religious"

• Early archaeologists had a habit: anything that was not obviously a tool got labelled religious.
• The main labels they gave, and what the object actually is:
• "Mother goddesses" — terracotta (baked clay) female figures, some wearing jewellery. Called fertility goddesses.
• "Priest-king" — a seated stone male figure from Mohenjodaro. The name was borrowed from Mesopotamia, where priests did rule. No proof Harappans had such a ruler.
• The Great Bath and the fire altars of Kalibangan and Lothal — called places of ritual bathing and fire sacrifice.
• Plant motifs on seals — called nature worship or tree worship.
• The "unicorn" — a one-horned animal on seals, called a mythical made-up creature.

• Conical stones — called lingas (Shiva symbols). But Mackay suggested a plain alternative: they may simply be gamesmen (pieces of a board game).

• The last point is the lesson of the whole section: one object, two readings, and the ordinary reading is as good as the holy one.

The "priest-king" — what the object really is

• Made of white, low-fired steatite (soapstone). Height 17.5 cm, width 11 cm — a small statue, not a monument. [3]
• A fillet (ribbon headband) with a round inlay ornament on the forehead, and a matching ornament on the right upper arm. [3]
• The cloak over the left shoulder carries trefoil, double-circle and single-circle designs, once filled with red pigment. [3]
• The back of the head is flat — it may once have carried a separately carved hair bun, or a horned and plumed headdress. [3]
• Note the gap: nothing here says "priest" and nothing says "king". The name came from the excavator's mind, not the stone.

The Great Bath — what the structure really is

• The tank is about 12 m north–south, about 7 m wide, and up to 2.4 m deep, dated to the 3rd millennium BCE. [2][3]
• Because it is large, carefully waterproofed and set in the citadel, it is usually read as a place of ritual bathing. [2]
• Honest position: the size and care are facts; "ritual" is the interpretation.

Known-to-unknown — and where it breaks

• The standard method is reasoning from the present to the past: find something today that looks like the ancient object, and use it to explain the old one.
• It works well for everyday tools:
• A quern (stone grinder) today grinds grain — so a Harappan quern ground grain. Safe.

• A wide-mouthed pot today stores or cooks — same for an old pot. Safe.

• It turns shaky for symbols. A symbol's meaning changes from age to age; the shape may survive while the idea behind it dies.

Test case — the "proto-Shiva" seal

• The find: a seal showing a figure seated cross-legged, in what looks like a yoga posture, surrounded by animals.
• The claim: this is an early form of Shiva as Pashupati (lord of animals), sitting as a yogi.
• The check against the earliest text: in the Rigveda (c. 1500–1000 BCE), Rudra is neither called Pashupati nor described as a yogi.
• So the reading outruns the evidence. The idea being read into a seal appears in writing only much later than the oldest text we possess.
• A rival reading: the figure may be a shaman — a person believed to heal and to deal with spirits, found in many early societies.

The "invasion" reversal — how one reading was destroyed

Stage 1 — the bones. Marshall reported skeletons in a Mohenjodaro lane, later nicknamed Deadman Lane — 16 found, in 1925.

Stage 2 — the accusation. Wheeler, in 1947, joined the bones to the Rigveda:

• The Rigveda speaks of pur (fort or walled place).
• Indra is called puramdara — fort-destroyer.
• Harappan cities have walls. Wheeler's verdict: "On circumstantial evidence, Indra stands accused." Meaning: Aryan invaders smashed the cities.

Stage 3 — the refutation. George Dales, in 1964, wrote "The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjodaro" and knocked out every leg:

• The skeletons belong to different periods — they did not all die together in one attack.
• The bodies were buried sloppily, not slaughtered in one event.
• There is no destruction level in the layers.
• There is no burning.
• There are no bodies in armour and no weapons of a battle.
• There is no sign of a last defence of the citadel — the very place any city would defend last.

The method lesson: the bones never changed. Re-examining old data reversed the interpretation completely. A famous scholar's reading is not proof; it is a claim open to testing.

The archaeogenetic turn — as the chapter presents it

• The site: Rakhigarhi, Hisar district, Haryana — the largest Harappan city, about 550 ha. [4]
• The dig: Shinde's team worked the Rakhigarhi cemetery over three seasons, 2013 to 2016, where most burials had never been examined. [4]
• The study: DNA taken from a Rakhigarhi skeleton, by Deccan College Pune with CCMB Hyderabad and Harvard; published by Shinde et al. in Cell, 2019.
• Claims as the NCERT reports them:
• Harappans were indigenous (local), not incomers.
• Their genetic roots run back to about 10,000 BCE.
• That DNA runs unbroken into most people in South Asia today.
• Only a small mixing from outside, of the kind trade brings.
• This continuity, the chapter says, "rules out large scale immigration of the so-called Aryans."

• 3D facial reconstructions made from the skulls look like present-day people of Haryana.

• Flag — read this carefully. This is the textbook's position on a live, disputed question. The same chapter also says the Harappan–Vedic relationship needs more research. In an answer, cite it as NCERT framing, not settled scholarship.

The work continues

• In the 2025–26 field season, ASI Excavation Branch-II found eight burials at Mound No. 7 of Rakhigarhi, an area already known as a cemetery. [4]
• Three complete skeletons plus fragments were handed to the Anthropological Survey of India for study. [4]
• Planned tests: ancient DNA (aDNA), stable isotope study (chemical traces in bone that show diet and where a person grew up), osteology (study of bones), palaeopathology (old diseases in bone) and environmental reconstruction. [4]
• Rakhigarhi is one of five sites being developed as iconic archaeological sites. [5]
• Point for the exam: the interpretation of the Harappans is still being rewritten, with new science added to old spades.

The rule to carry away

• Facts are found; meanings are argued. Keep the two apart in every answer.
• Test every reading against the oldest available text and the layers of the dig — that is what sank both "Indra stands accused" and, partly, "proto-Shiva".
• Prefer the ordinary explanation unless evidence forces the extraordinary one (gamesmen before lingas).

Prelims Hooks

• The seated steatite figure from Mohenjodaro called "priest-king" measures 17.5 cm high, 11 cm wide; its cloak carries trefoil designs. [3]
• The Great Bath at Mohenjodaro is about 12 m × 7 m, maximum depth 2.4 m, dated to the 3rd millennium BCE. [2][3]
• Fire altars as evidence of ritual are reported from Kalibangan and Lothal.
• Mackay suggested the conical stones called lingas may instead be gamesmen.
• Deadman Lane, Mohenjodaro — 16 skeletons, reported by Marshall in 1925.
• Wheeler (1947) used Rigvedic pur and Indra as puramdara to say "Indra stands accused".
• George Dales (1964) wrote "The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjodaro", showing no destruction level, no burning, no armoured warriors, no last defence of the citadel.
• In the Rigveda (c. 1500–1000 BCE), Rudra is neither Pashupati nor a yogi — the key check against the "proto-Shiva" reading.
• Rakhigarhi (Hisar, Haryana) is the largest Harappan city, about 550 ha; cemetery dug 2013–2016 by Shinde's team. [4]
• Shinde et al., Cell, 2019 — Rakhigarhi ancient DNA study by Deccan College Pune + CCMB Hyderabad + Harvard.
• ASI Excavation Branch-II, 2025–26: eight burials at Mound No. 7, Rakhigarhi; three complete skeletons sent to the Anthropological Survey of India. [4]

Mains Points

• Archaeology without a readable script is interpretation-heavy. The Harappan script is undeciphered, so labels such as "mother goddess", "priest-king" and "proto-Shiva" are reasoned guesses, not readings. A good GS-I answer names the object, then names the label, then separates the two.
• Colonial-era analogy imported meaning. "Priest-king" came from Mesopotamia, where priest-rulers existed; applying it to Mohenjodaro assumed a political system instead of proving one. Use this to argue that the questions an excavator asks shape the answers found.
• The Wheeler–Dales episode is the model case of self-correction in history. Same bones, opposite conclusions, because Dales checked the stratigraphy (the order of soil layers) instead of the poetry. Useful in any answer on historical method, evidence, or the limits of textual-archaeological matching.
• Science adds tools but does not end debate. The Rakhigarhi aDNA work brings genetics into a question once argued from pots and hymns. But the NCERT itself says the Harappan–Vedic link needs more research — so present the finding as one strand of evidence in an open debate, with the new 2025–26 ASI skeletons showing the inquiry is still running. [4]