An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c9.s9.61

v1.c9.s9.61

Like the genesis, the end of the Indus civilization has also been a subject of great controversy. On discovering a fortification wall around Mound AB at Harappa in 1946, and on being told of a reference in the Ṛgveda to Indra as *purandara*, i.e. destroyer of forts, Wheeler, 1947, p. 82, declared that 'on circumstantial evidence, Indra stands accused' of destroying the Indus civilization. Following Gordon Childe, he also sought to identify the Cemetery H people with the Aryans. Wheeler further saw a corroboration of his thesis in the skeletal remains found in the upper levels of the Lower Town at Mohenjo-daro and opined that here, if anywhere, lay the Indus people massacred by the invading Aryans. However, Lal, 1954 and 55, p. 151, and Dales, 1964, have amply demonstrated that there is a great deal of internal fallacy in Wheeler's proposition. Lal has shown that at Harappa the Cemetery H culture was clearly removed in time from the preceding Harappa culture and thus if there was no contact between the two one cannot be regarded as the invader and the other the invaded. Dales, after a detailed study of the stratification of the Mohenjo-daro skeletons in question, has demonstrated that these belonged to different strata and not merely to the uppermost one and therefore could not be associated specifically with its end, much less at the hands of the Aryans whose archaeological remains also ought to have been (but have not been) found in these levels. Thus, unless further compelling evidence comes to light, Indra can be absolved of the charge.