[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Reference works](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference) › [An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989) › v1.c6.s5.1 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c6.s5.1 An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c6.s5.1 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c6.s5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c6.s5.1) Excavated remains of the elephant (\*Elephas maximus\*, Indian elephant) are relatively scarce but are of considerable palaeoecological significance. At the s. Neolithic sites, for example, elephant bones indicate the existence of a thicker vegetation cover and more abundant sources of water, which in turn are suggestive of a more humid climate than prevails today in this region. Zeuner, 1963, thinks that the bones and the frequent pictorial representations of the elephant at Mohenjo-daro are the earliest evidence of its domestication. Elephant tusks were variously used (e.g. ivory beads from INAMGAON). Coins depicting the elephant are common during the periods \*c.\* 250–140 B.C. in the e. Mediterranean and the e., suggesting that the animal continued to remain a symbol of power. Its domestication was at first confined to India, whence it spread to the w. after Alexander’s invasion. - [Previous: v1.c6.s4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c6.s4.2) - [Next: v1.c6.s5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c6.s5.2) - [Up: v1.c6.s5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c6.s5) ## Linked texts (2) - [Mohenjo-daro](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mohenjo-daro) - [Inamgaon](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.inamgaon) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c6.s5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c6.s5.1) · Pramāṇa