Fortuitous Parallels or Historical Connections? The Prehistoric Indus Valley and Minoan Crete

Abstract

Ancient societies rarely developed in isolation. There have been contacts between them through maritime trade and human migrations. They went through similar stages of evolution, namely, birth, growth, decline and disappearance or disintegration. Striking similarities and parallels between the Indus Valley and Minoan Crete have been shown to exist. They were discussed in this review by a well-known Greek archaeologist, late Professor Costis Davaras. ¹ He argued against any direct contacts between Minoan Crete and the Indus Valley but hypothesised that such contacts might have occurred indirectly via Mesopotamia. The aim of this article is to examine whether more recent research of the past nearly two decades has overtaken his earlier seminal work.

Introduction

I could not believe that the wonderful civilization…at Knossos … was due entirely to the genius of the people of a small and isolated island; they must… have had something to go upon which derived from the other civilizations of the great countries of Asia. (L. Woolley, Spadework: Adventures in Archaeology, 1953)

There is unanimity about the existence of striking similarities between the Indus region in ancient India and the island of Crete, which is considered the source of European civilisation. But there is no consensus on the why and how of such resemblance. Are the similarities purely fortuitous or the result of any historical/cultural connection? We discuss three different scenarios in an attempt to answer this question, namely: (a) parallel between the Indus Valley and Minoan Crete; (b) indirect cultural and historical connection through Mesopotamia and (c) direct connection.

Parallels Between the Indus Valley and Minoan Crete

Greek art is believed to be very similar to the Anatolian, Egyptian and Mesopotamian before the fifth century bc. Although not dependent on the East, it had similar motivation but was smaller in scale perhaps on account of more limited resources. The same resource factor may explain why massive monuments such as the pyramids, palaces and sculptures of the East were not found in the Indus, Minoan or Mycenaean civilisations in the third and second millennia bc. But stone was found in abundance in the Mycenaean mainland, which explains the Cyclopean walls of the citadels of Mycenae, Tiryns, Glas and Boetia. Therefore, at least in the mainland, smaller buildings may have been a matter of architects’ choice and preference depending on the availability of materials, skills and other resources.

There are other similarities as well. For example, ring kernoi, used in the early Minoan and Mycenaean cultures, were also found in Harappa and Mohenjodaro. Kernoi are ceramic objects in which rings have small perforated cups on top. It is intriguing how they reached the Indus Valley. Was there any direct trade or human migration? Could kernoi have gone there via Cyprus, Egypt, Israel or Mesopotamia where they have also been unearthed? ² Ring kernoi were used for rituals at the harvest festival Kernophoria. In Crete, they were found in Malia and Aghia Nikolaos and other Minoan sites. They were also discovered in or near graves in Cyprus. In Harappa, kernoi were found in the Great Granary area where all agricultural produce was kept. Historians and archaeologists have probed the material relationship of the Indus kernoi to their use in different parts of Greece, Crete and Cyprus. ³ As only a small number were discovered, their use could not have formed an integral part of the Harappan rituals or culture more generally.

It is impossible to pinpoint the exact period of social contact between different cultures through the use of kernoi. But contacts may have existed through the Near East and even Crete where kernoi have been found in several places. Possehl ⁴ remarks that their ‘presence in the Indus cities would seem to indicate that some residents there (probably Indus people) may have enjoyed this rite, which would have come to them as a part of the activity associated with the Third Millennium Middle Asian Interaction Sphere’. Middle Asia is defined as the region between the Indus and the Mediterranean. During the third millennium, this region (including Bactria, Central Asia and the Arabian Gulf) was known for extensive maritime activity, trade and exchange of goods. Mesopotamian sources show that the Indus Valley participated in this activity (see below). The Greek festival mentioned above may have been associated with the ideology of the above intercultural style.

The prevalence of similar myths and rituals is supported by the discovery of many artefacts such as stamp seals and ornaments. As in Greek mythology, the Indus Valley people believed in a mythical god as a human figure with bull’s horns or a unicorn. A stamp seal, adorning a group of beasts surrounding a deity has been found, which may have been a god of the beasts.

Some scholars believe that the Hindu god, Lord Shiva, originated in the Indus Valley. Marshall ⁵ found a three-faced prototype of Shiva. He identified the conical and round stones found in the Valley with male and female genital organs. He also found a phallus-looking artefact (a lingam), which is associated with Shiva worship in the Hindu religion.

The mother goddess, mentioned by Evans, ⁶ was worshipped mainly by the imperial family and royal elite. Blakholmer ⁷ grouped particular deities according to individual Minoan palaces and towns. The bull or male deity belongs to Knossos, water deity to Kato Zakros and nature deity to Malia and Gournia. In the palace of Knossos, the fresco in the Throne Room suggests the existence of a goddess popularly known as the Mistress of the Animals, which is similar to that of Shiva. Yet another set of deities is represented by female figures with lions, griffins and other animals, which would also point to the existence of different cult practices.

Different deities may have been worshipped side by side by the elite and non-elite in the same place. The same deity may have been worshipped differently according to different cult practices. It is plausible that a number of deities were worshipped to unify different communities in the absence of any dominant religion. Scattered villages and communities needed a higher authority to look up to. For example, the Indus people may have worshipped Great Goddess (Magna Mater) who wore a fan-shaped head dress and ornaments. In Harappa and Mohenjodaro, the goddess was regarded as the source of all creation. ⁸

Burials occurred in both Indus Valley and Crete. They were associated with rituals, cult practices and offerings to the dead at the time of burials. However, no royal tombs were found in the Indus Valley similar to those in Crete and Mycenae.

In prehistoric times, religion played an important role in defining the nature of different civilisations, cultures as well as arts. Many archaeological artefacts, sculptures and wall paintings are based on religious scenes and motifs. For example, some figurines and seals are symbolic of gods and goddesses, for example, Lord Shiva in the Indus civilisation and Dionysus, Artemis or other gods in the Minoan and Mycenaean civilisations. Some Western observers ⁹ have argued that the slow development of the Oriental art is attributed to wearing of clothes, which the Greeks had abandoned. ¹⁰

Invariably, both Indians and Minoans used religious and cult symbols to define art at least in the prehistoric era. Mythical gods and goddesses were employed. However, the Greeks were quicker in adopting the human form of nude standing gods than the Harappans. In India, human forms for gods and goddesses were rare. The depiction of human form was adopted much later under Buddhism and Hinduism in India and by the Indo-Greeks in Gandhara.

To conclude, despite the vast distance between India and Minoan Crete, available archaeological discoveries suggest a number of remarkable parallels and common elements between religious practices of their peoples. Similarities may have developed either independently or through some human contacts (see below). People-to-people contacts across different cultures existed from time immemorial. Such contacts spread ideas, techniques and arts as well as religious practices.

How does one explain the above similarities between different cultures? Are they purely ‘coincidental’, and does this imply that material and technological developments occurred independently in different civilisations? Or were there any ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ influences? Some similarities may have developed either independently or through some human contacts (see below). Of course, both situations can coexist. Independent developments may have taken place and when foreign cultures were rejected outright, or when the indigenous population did not like to mingle with ‘aliens’ being wary of their very different ways and social mores. Some communities and societies are more receptive to other cultures while others are not. Kulke and Rothermund ¹¹ conclude that the Indus civilisation ‘was an extension of indigenous developments and not a mere transfer of a cultural pattern by migrants from Mesopotamia, Iran or Central Asia’. ¹²

Clear-cut answers to these questions are not easy given the paucity of adequate comparable data and documentary evidence. In the following sections, we discuss several factors, which may explain the above allegedly fortuitous cross-civilisational similarities.

Indirect Cultural and Historical Interactions

Cross-cultural and technological influences in different civilisations and regions can, in principle, be considered at three different levels: (a) East to East (as in the case of the Indus civilisation); (b) East to West (e.g. from the Indus to Sumer, Mesopotamia, and from Near East and Egypt to Greece) and (c) West to East (Cyprus, Aegean and Asia Minor to the Indus in the East).

Recent excavations and the application of radio-carbon analysis demonstrate that the historical and cultural connection between the Indus and Sumer existed in ancient times. The details of these links are still emerging, but evidence exists of maritime trade and settlements in Mesopotamia of Indus artists, craftsmen and traders.

To establish the validity of Indus–Minoan connections via Mesopotamia, we need to explore whether there were Indus–Mesopotamia links through trade, human interaction and even settlements. Similar connections will need to be established between Crete and Mesopotamia for any social interaction to take place. For example, did Harappan merchants and traders based in Mesopotamia enjoy commercial contacts with Crete and the Western world? Second, were Indus goods found in Mesopotamia and Crete? Did the Indus craftsmen and Cretan people establish colonies/settlements abroad? There is some archaeological and historical evidence to answer the above questions in the affirmative. However, there is no consensus on the origins of the Indus people or the Sumerians of Mesopotamia. Whatever the origin of the Indus people and the Sumerians. Whatever their origin, there is plenty of archaeological and textual evidence to support the existence of direct interactions between the Indus and Mesopotamia, particularly, Sumer and Akkad. The three types of evidence on these contacts include: (a) archaeological artefacts excavated in both Harappa and Mesopotamia, (b) written documents from Mesopotamia and (c) historical accounts of merchants, traders and travellers.

Overland and Maritime Trade

Historical and cultural connections may be explained largely by maritime trade for which long boats, seals and weights and measures were developed. Some precious raw materials, (e.g., lapis lazuli and carnelian) discovered in the Aegean, did not originate there. Lapis lazuli comes from Afghanistan and carnelian from the Indus Valley. Similarly, the imagery of peacocks and monkeys in the Aegean art (figurines, sculpture and wall paintings) suggests possible connection to the Indus. ¹³ For example, blue monkeys are found mainly in India. Yet a blue monkey fresco was found in Room 6 of Building Complex Beta at Akrotiri, Thera (present-day Santorini) in the Aegean. ¹⁴ How did Aegean artists know about the features of blue monkeys (langurs)? Was it through human contact, exchange of gifts or trade? Each of these means of knowledge transfer is plausible.

Harappans knew the art of navigation in rivers and on high seas. Tripathi ¹⁵ argues that ‘the earliest evidence of sails and maritime trade is datable to some 5000 years ago by the Harappans during the Bronze Age’. They were known to be ship builders who made wooden ships for short and long distances. Artefacts found in the Indus Valley show rough sketches of boats, sails and ships. There is some evidence of boats and ships in rock paintings, seals and other artefacts, for example: (a) a Harappan seal showing the image of a ship, (b) a terracotta boat model from Lothal, the port city and (c) a terracotta tablet from Mohenjodaro showing a ship on a potsherd. But no physical traces of any ships or boats have been found.

Minoan Cretan also knew the art of shipping, which developed further during the first palace period (c. 2100 bc). Evidence is provided by the depiction of boats and ships on seals and pottery. ¹⁶

Trade Between Harappa and Mesopotamia

Regular foreign trade was a feature of all early civilisations. It extended from Egypt as far as Byblos on the Syrian coast while Mesopotamia had commercial links with the Indus Valley. ¹⁷ Trade with Sumerian Mesopotamia may have taken place around 2500 bc during the Sargonide period, which corresponds to the Hissar III period in northern Persia and Anau in Russian Turkestan. ¹⁸

Archaeological evidence about the existence of trade relations is often based on the discovery of such artefacts as pottery objects, carnelian, shell beads, stamp seals and weights. Several types of different Indus artefacts have been found in Mesopotamia, which are discussed below. ¹⁹

Seals

Thirty Harappa seals were discovered in Mesopotamia including one which shows the imprint of coarse cloth on its back. ²⁰ Some had mixed writing on them including the Indus script. A seal from Tell Brak resembles swastika; others have seal impressions similar to those found at Harappa and Lothal. Indus seals excavated in Sumer also bear testimony to the existence of trade relations. Cuneiform economic and administrative documents in Ur excavated by Woolley ²¹ mention imported ivory objects, which may have originated in the Indus Valley.

Weights

Harappan stone weights, which were found in the Gulf, may have also been used in Mesopotamia. McIntosh ²² mentions a Harappan cubical weight, which was discovered in the Ur III period. Barrel weights from Mesopotamia have been discovered in Harappa and Mohenjodaro. The discovery of a uniform system of weights and measures in Harappa and Mohenjodaro as well as in smaller cities would suggest the existence of trade in popular as well as luxury goods.

Jewellery and Beads

Harappan-etched carnelian beads (c. 2500 to 2334 bc) were recovered from the Royal Cemetery of Ur. ²³ Schneider et al. ²⁴ give examples of jewellery (necklaces and bracelets) found in elite burials in Kish, Mari, Tell Asmar and the Royal Cemetery of Ur (especially those found in Queen Pu-abum’s tomb). These objects came either from Meluhha (Indus) or they may have been made by Harappa jewellers or other craftsmen trained by them. ²⁵

The discovery of hard stone beads from Aegina-Kolonna in Greece and their similarity to the Indus beads provide additional evidence in support of the hypothesis of long-distance trade between the Indus, Mesopotamia and the Aegean. Beads may have been a part of jewellery, which was found not only in the Indus and the Aegean but also in Anatolia. They belonged to the Early Bronze Age II, and their shape, decoration and technical specifications were similar across these cultures. Reinholdt ²⁶ presents an example of a striking cornelian bead, which is decorated with white concentric circles ‘in an etched technique well-known from sites in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley’.

Sculpture

Figurines of the zibu (indigenous to the Indian subcontinent) are common to the Indus, the Persia Gulf and Mesopotamia. Other Indus figurines, which are very similar to the Mesopotamian, include male terracotta ones from Nippur and Chanhudaro.

Metal Objects

Although Indus metallic objects are rarely found in Mesopotamia, spiral-headed pins are common to the Indus, Iranian and Mesopotamian cultures. Several authors (e.g., Kenoyer et. al, Possehl and Robinson) have noted the export of luxury products and foodstuffs from the Indus to Mesopotamian sites. Were these goods consumed by the Mesopotamian elite or ordinary people as well? Could they have been produced by first acquiring them in raw form and processing them into finished goods? There are no clear-cut answers to these questions. Indeed, there may be three plausible situations: (a) Indus-style beads found in Mesopotamia and the Aegean originated in the Indus Valley where they were first produced as finished goods for domestic consumption and export; (b) they may have been produced in Mesopotamia by the Indus craftsmen (see below); and (c) they were manufactured by Mesopotamian (Sumerian) craftsmen using raw material (gold and silver) and technique imported from the Indus Valley.

Not much information exists on what the Harappans imported from Mesopotamia. The available texts suggest a range of goods (e.g., cloth, woollen garments cereals and leather goods), which were exported to Mesopotamia but make no mention of goods or raw materials Mesopotamia exported to the Indus Valley. Neither has any archaeological evidence been found perhaps because of the perishable nature of these goods. ²⁷

However, one can conjecture what the Indus people might have imported. One good candidate is silver, which was valued highly for making ornaments. The Harappan weight discovered at Ur might have been used to weigh silver intended for export. Silver jewellery was quite popular. Mesopotamia may have been the main source of supply of silver to the Indus Valley. Other candidates for Harappan imports may include woollen textiles, as Sumer was known for their high quality.

Some Mesopotamian texts mention the range of exports to other lands such as agricultural produce (barley, dates and wheat) and manufactured goods (e.g., perfumed ointments, oils and woollen textiles), which may have also been exported to Harappa and other Indus cities. But there is no specific mention of the Indus as their destination. ²⁸ Schneider et al. ²⁹ suggest that by c. 2200 bc, the Indus Valley may have imported grain and textiles from Mesopotamia to mitigate the adverse effects of drought in the Valley at that time.

Written Sumerian and Akkadian documents refer to a prosperous land called Dilmun or Telmun where the sun rises, suggesting its location somewhere in the east of the river Tigris. Dilmun may refer to Bahrain and Telmun (or Dilmun) to the Indus Valley. ³⁰ In a cuneiform inscription, Sargon (2334 bc) boasts of ships sailing from Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha docked at the harbour of Akkad, his capital. ³¹

However, there is a controversy about which of the three regions refers to the Indus Valley. Kramer questions whether the epithet ‘where the sun rises’ used for Dilmun can refer to the island of Bahrain as some have suggested. It is more likely that it refers to the Indus River or Baluchistan. On the other hand, writers like Possehl are certain that it is present-day Bahrain. Today it is widely believed that Dilmun refers to Bahrain, Magan to Makran and Meluhha to the Indus.

According to Sumerian economic documents, from the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, ships from Dilmun (Bahrain) brought gold, copper, lapis lazuli, ivory and ivory objects, beads and semi-precious stones. It is quite plausible that these goods originated in the Indus Valley from where they may have been shipped to Sumer via Oman or Bahrain.

Were the Harappan boats and ships navigable mainly through rivers (Indus, for example) up to the neighbouring areas only or were large ships also built to travel over long distances? An unequivocal answer to this question is not possible partly because the Indus script remains undeciphered. An Indian scholar, Dandekar, ³² claims that ‘the Harappans were builders of large ships and their maritime trade extended up to Mesopotamia during 3rd millennium bc’. Excavations in Lothal confirm the existence of a dockyard there, which showed traces of water-locks and loading platforms. Excavations in Shortugai on the Oxus (Amu Darya) river discovered such objects as carnelian and lapis lazuli beads, bronze objects, terracotta figurines and models of carts, at least some of which may have come from the Indus Valley.

Trade Between Mesopotamia and Minoan Crete

Some scholars (e.g., Davaras) have suggested an indirect historical/archaeological connection between the Indus and Crete via Mesopotamia. Therefore, it is relevant to explore the nature and extent of trade between Mesopotamia and Crete.

Precious raw materials and luxury goods acquired from the Levant, Mesopotamia and Anatolia may have been responsible for the development of the Aegean. ³³ Several authors ³⁴ mention the significant role of wide-ranging trade networks which linked Crete and the rest of the Aegean with the Near East, Mesopotamia and the western Mediterranean. Abundant literature ³⁵ provides evidence of such trade during the third and second millennia bc and even earlier. Traded goods consisted of raw materials, finished goods and wall paintings. Cline ³⁶ observes that ‘the extent of trade was much greater than previously thought’. He cites the example of Uluburun shipwreck on the way to the Aegean, containing nearly 140 Canaanite jars, which came from Egypt, Canaan and Cyprus and might have been destined for Crete.

Minoan Crete and the Aegean were short of such raw materials as copper and tin, which were not locally available. But they were crucial for the growth of the metalworking industry. Crete imported these and other materials from the following sources: the Cycladic islands (marble and obsidian), Cyprus (tin and copper), Egypt (ivory) and further afield. Some minerals used in Crete, and the Aegean such as lapis lazuli, carnelian and tin were not mined in either Crete or Mesopotamia or the Near East. ³⁷ They may have been imported from Afghanistan and the Indus Valley, which may have opened up trade between the Aegean and further east.

Exotic luxury goods were imported into Crete, which suggests the existence of Minoan elites in the pre-palatial period and their taste for exotic goods. They used exotic luxury imports not only for conspicuous consumption but also as symbols of social status. The role of exotic imports as markers of social identity and elite formation has generally been downplayed as much of the literature concentrated on determining chronology. ³⁸ At that time, long-distance trade was both risky and costly. It suggests that this type of trade would have been driven mainly by the palaces, which alone could bear the cost of risky ventures, presumably intended to satisfy royal vanity through the import of luxury goods.

To conclude, Indus trade with Sumer was quite advanced by the time of the Akkadian dynasty, and some Indus traders and artisans were most probably living there (see below).

Other Evidence and Speculation

Could trade links between the Indus and Crete have occurred via Cyprus, which played an important role in the Mediterranean maritime trade? Metals trade in Cypriot copper with Crete, Italy, Sardinia and Sicily was extensive around 2000 bc. ³⁹ Cretan timber, textiles, wine and oil were exported in exchange for gold, precious stones and ivory. Dayton ⁴⁰ suggests that such stones as lapis lazuli and carnelian beads may have come from the Indus Valley, and possibly Afghanistan.

There is some limited evidence of Minoan imports Kamares cups to Cyprus in exchange for finished goods. In the fourteenth century bc, some Mycenaean pottery was discovered in Cyprus. Betancourt ⁴¹ cites examples of large vessels like kraters for holding wine, which were, ‘especially popular among Mycenaeans who had emigrated from Greece to Cyprus, and many examples have been found in Cypriote tombs’. On the other hand, Mee ⁴² argues that the Mycenaean pottery was not brought by the migrants. Instead, there were Cypriot artisans in Tiryns who may have made the piriform and stirrup jars on the spot. Whatever the case, these isolated examples suggest that trade between Cyprus and Crete (except in copper) existed, but was not significant.

A close similarity between Minoan copper rings and a double spiral ring from Lothal led an Indian scholar to suggest the existence of the Indus maritime trade with Crete and Cyprus. ⁴³ But there is no archaeological or textual evidence to confirm this conjecture. Therefore, we can conclude that no Harappan trade with the Minoans took place via Cyprus. Mesopotamia may have been the only ‘indirect’ link between the Indus Valley and Crete.

Finally, trade is not the only vehicle of contacts between different regions and cultures. Human contacts may be just as important.

Human Contacts, Migrations and Settlements

With trade came the movement of traders and merchants who became the carriers of different ideas, religious practices, technical know-how, knowledge of techniques of art and consumer tastes.

Voyages of kings and queens and their diplomatic representatives have taken place for centuries. Cline ⁴⁴ mentions journey to the Aegean from Egypt on behalf of pharaoh Amenhotep III, ‘which may have resulted in the arrival at Mycenae of faience plaques with his name on them and other objects inscribed with either his name or his wife’s at sites such as Knossos and Khania on Crete’.

Settlements of ‘foreign’ people in ancient times existed in different parts of the world. The discovery of Eastern bronze objects and jewellery in the Greek world may be due not only to trade in raw materials and finished goods noted above but also to travels of craftsmen and merchants from the Near East, craftsmen’s workshops and occasionally their settlements as well.

Harappan Settlements in Mesopotamia

As discussed above, the Harappan artefacts (e.g., seals and cubical weights) have been found in Mesopotamia, especially in Ur and Kish. Woolley ⁴⁵ concludes, ‘By the time of the Akkadian dynasty, if not before, trade between Sumer and the Indus valley had attained such proportions that there may have been agents from that distant region in Mesopotamia’. This discovery has led other scholars ⁴⁶ to believe in the supposition. But the cubical weights (also found in the Indus) could have been made locally, or they could have been used by the Harappan merchants engaged in exports. They may not necessarily suggest the presence or residence of traders in either territory.

The only other source of information, cuneiform texts do not mention the presence of Harappan traders in Mesopotamia. However, a cylinder seal from the time of Sargon has a text, which identifies its owner as Silsu, the translator/interpreter of the Meluhhan language. ⁴⁷ Kenoyer ⁴⁸ believes that the Harappan merchants may have set up shops in such cities as Ur to market their goods. He also suggests local production of Mesopotamian designs.

Several scholars ⁴⁹ have referred to the colonies of Harappan craftsmen in such Mesopotamian cities as Ur. Inscriptions of the Sumerian king of Lagash, Gudea (2144–2124 bc), mention that the Meluhhans (Indus people) supplied wood, gold dust and carnelian and other materials for the building of temples. ⁵⁰ The Harappans stayed in Lagash and built a colony there since a village named Meluhha near the capital city is known to have existed for nearly thirty-five years (2105–2071 bc) at the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Parpola et al. ⁵¹ mention a tablet which referred to the existence of the Maluhhan village. According to Parpola, ‘seals belonged to merchants of Harappan origin who lived in Mesopotamia or the Gulf and adopted local names…Such people could have functioned as commercial agents….’ ⁵² Indian merchants may have established ‘factories’ (more like workshops) there, and ‘the Harappa traders acquired a business which was already flourishing by about 2300 bc’, and ‘they must have had their resident representatives in Ur and Lagash and other centres of trade…’. ⁵³ Cuneiform texts mention a weavers’ village inhabited by men, women and children near Lagash, which was said to be a colony of the Indus people.

Indian settlements in Mesopotamia may explain the discovery of various Indus artefacts there such as pottery, beads and decorative seals. However, Laursen and Steinkeller ⁵⁴ question the existence of the village as a Harappan commercial outpost. It was probably a rural settlement like any other. The lack of adequate hard evidence makes it impossible to determine whether such colonies actually existed. The result is an abundance of suppositions and speculation.

Mesopotamians in the Indus Valley?

Was there a two-way flow of artists and craftsmen between the East and West in general and between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia in particular? Some scholars ⁵⁵ have raised the possibility of Sumerian settlers in the Indus Valley. Others ⁵⁶ believe that the Sumerians were ‘conquerors and rulers and masters of the land’ who had no incentive to uproot themselves to move to unknown lands. The settlers in Harappa were most probably Ubaidians, the original settlers of Sumer, who were subjugated and suppressed by the Mesopotamians. It is also plausible that the cylindrical seals and other imported objects were produced by Harappan craftsmen who had returned home from Sumer.

In discussing Babylonian (Sumerian and Mesopotamian) art, Osborne ⁵⁷ remarks that ‘the Kings of neighbouring lands were always ready to ask from one another the loan of outstanding craftsmen (carpenters, stone masons, metal workers and builders) and never omitted to carry them off from cities which they conquered’. This is one of the reasons for the beauty and richness in the perfection and execution of Sumerian art especially during the Akkadian dynasty (2500–2300 bc). Although the Sumerians influenced Harappan art and religion, and perhaps society in general, it does not prove that they lived there. Neither does it necessarily suggest that their prosperity provided a fillip to the Mature Harappa civilisation.

Finally, successive migrations of the Indo-Aryans to the Indus Valley are claimed to have sounded the death knell for the Indus civilisation. Mystery surrounds the origin of these people. Who they were, where they came from and what was their motivation to migrate. The Aryans did not contribute much to Indus art and architecture. They were known to be rural people with little taste for art or urban civilisation in general.

Cretan Settlements in Mesopotamia

Besides Harappan settlements in Mesopotamia, we also need to explore the existence of Cretan settlements or at least craftsmen’s workshops there to prove the existence of any Cretan–Harappan human contact and commerce and trade.

Minoan craftsmen and artists from Crete and the rest of the Aegean are known to have established workshops in Syria, Mesopotamia and Cyprus. Betancourt ⁵⁸ mentions human movements of craftsmen themselves as objects of trade. Texts discovered in Mari (northern Mesopotamia, now eastern Syria) (over 20,000 cuneiform texts were found in the ruins of the palace) mention the arrival of silver vessels from Kaptara (Crete). Such Minoan luxury items as gold and silverware, besides Kamares pottery from Phaistos, Crete, were found in the palace of Mari. ⁵⁹ No doubt there were Minoan traders and merchants visiting Mesopotamia in search of business opportunities. But there is little concrete textual evidence of the presence of Cretans in Mesopotamia on a ‘permanent’ basis.

Direct Contacts

Several Western (Dayton, Stone and Wheeler) and Indian (Banerji, Dandekar) scholars ⁶⁰ believe that the Indus Valley had direct contacts with Crete, considering similarities of the Indus and Cretan artefacts and faience techniques. Generally, the following examples are presented to support their view.

Figurines

An Early Bronze Age monkey figurine made of ivory was discovered at Trapeza (Crete). Its pattern suggests it may have originated in the Near East, Mesopotamia, Bactria (Afghanistan) and the Indus Valley. Critics of the interconnection between the Indus and the Aegean argue that the evidence is limited, that the artefacts involving monkey relate more to Egypt than the Indus and that there is no iconographic connection between the Aegean and farther Bactrian motifs. ⁶¹

Seals

An Early Bronze Age carnelian seal bearing an iconographic motif may have originated in the Indus Valley. It shows a male figure accompanied by monkeys with collars and leashes. The Indus region is the home of monkeys and langurs (no such animals were found in the Aegean) who may have arrived in Crete via Elam or Mesopotamia.

Frescoes/Paintings

A third example is that of a fresco painting in Akrotiri (Thera), which depicts monkeys of the langur type found in the Indus Valley, north India and Nepal but not in the Aegean. Pareja et al. ⁶² and Pareja ⁶³ discuss the possibility of goods moving from the Indus through Bactria, Elam, Mesopotamia, the Near East into the eastern Aegean. Mesopotamia may have provided an intermediary trade link between the East and the West.

Jewellery

According to Wheeler, ⁶⁴ necklaces and girdles ‘do show a few clear links with the West, and help thus to mitigate the isolation of the Indus culture’. Indus designs on jewellery and beads are reminiscent of similar ones in the Nile Valley and Crete. Spectrographic analysis shows that the composition of Cretan and Harappan faience beads (c. 1600 bc) was identical although it varied in other places such as Scotland, Malta and Hungary. Wheeler’s excavations show that Harappan segmented beads closely resemble those of Crete.

Fluted disc beads from the Indus region discovered by Marshall are identical to those found in Mycenaean tombs. Cornelian bead found in the Aegina hoard ⁶⁵ is decorated with white concentric circles, which were well known in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. Gold and silver beads have been found in the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia and Western Greece. Similar beads were found in Troy IIG and Mesopotamia around 2400–2300 bc. Segmented faience (glazed) beads from Mohenjodaro and Chanhudaro were discovered in northern Syria, Crete and Egypt. They are comparable to the Minoan faience beads, which were discovered during the Harappa excavations. Etched carnelian beads of the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia are almost identical. Although other types of beads are local to the ancient Indian culture, they contain some distinct decorations (suggesting possible astral significance). Similar decorations are also found on sculptures, pottery and woodwork in Mesopotamia, Crete and Egypt. This leads Wheeler ⁶⁶ to conclude that ‘the Indus Civilisation provides a clear—though not the only—instance of an interchange of ornaments and charms (or their forms) combined with a basic technological independence’. Any differences that might have existed may be explained by the sources of copper and bronze used. According to Dayton, ⁶⁷ ‘On technological grounds, the Indus faience is clearly related to that of Minoan Crete and the later Mycenaean trading empire. In return for faience beads amongst other goods, what this empire brought back from the Indus was lapis lazuli of the Mycenaean and the Egyptian world’.

While confirming trade links between the Indus Valley and Sumer around 2500 bc, an Indian scholar Dandekar ⁶⁸ remarks ‘…it does not seem unlikely that the Indus people had established trade links even with the Minoan Crete’. In this connection, he refers to the Mother Goddess cults of Harappa and Syria-Crete besides claiming that ‘the segmented variety of faience beads from Harappa resemble not those of Ur (Mesopotamia) but those discovered in Crete’. Similarly, R. D. Banerji, ⁶⁹ a contemporary of Marshall, believed in some distant connection between the Indus civilisation and that of Minoan Crete.

Some recent studies have added to the corpus of textual evidence and archaeological speculations about the direction and routes of trade between the Indus, Mesopotamia and Minoan Crete. Revesz ⁷⁰ supports the existence of direct trade between the Indus Valley and Minoan Crete, which bypasses Mesopotamia to reduce the cost of transportation. He observes, ‘The Indus Valley traders and Minoan traders could have met at Trapezus (Greek port on the Black Sea, modern Trabzon in Turkey) because the Minoans could sail through the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits and sail along the northern coast of Turkey to reach Trapezus’. ⁷¹

It is indeed very tempting to explore trade or other links between the Indus Valley and Crete because of the many parallels between the two cultures. Davaras ⁷² describes a number of such parallels, for example, extensive use of stamp seals, moderate literacy in both despite the absence of decipherment of their scripts and absence of monumental sculpture. Other similarities belong to the field of religion, rituals and cults, for example, the Mother Goddess cult, religious cult associated with the tree and pillar or stone cult, significance of the bull, the Indus Lord of the Beasts (Proto-Shiva) and the Minoan Bull of the Classical Greek iconography. There are other similarities as well. For example, the crescent moon-shaped headdress of an Indus female figurine and a similar one found in Minoan sanctuaries. The Indus priest-king resembles Cretan hieratic features of a terracotta bull-head rhyton from the Little Palace at Knossos. Such close affinity between the two cultures led Davaras to label them ‘as most obscure ends of the Oriental continuum’.

There are two schools of thought, which explain the lack of direct contact between the Indus and Crete. One considers Eastern culture of the Indus as fundamentally different from essentially a European culture represented by Minoan Crete. The second (e.g., Davaras and Possehl) recognise the two cultures as part of an East–West continuum as noted above, but failed to find a direct connection. Davaras ⁷³ was explicit in labelling parallels and affinities between Crete and India in the Bronze Age as ‘some speculations’. He rejects the hypothesis of any ‘direct’ contact in the following words:

While there is no possibility that the two areas, Minoan Crete and the Harappan Indus Valley, had any direct relationship during the second millennium bc or earlier, it is possible that their inhabitants mingled at Mesopotamia, where at least, an Indian presence is known.

Conclusion

Nearly two decades have passed since the writings of Costis Davaras on similarities between the Indus and Minoan civilisations. During this period, a number of new studies have appeared which throw more light on these two civilisations and their people. Additional information of archaeological and historical/cultural nature has further reinforced the existence of parallels and similarities. But in the absence of much progress in the decipherment of the Indus script (despite decades of research on the subject by Parpola and his colleagues in Finland and by other scholars in India notably, Mahadevan and Rao), ⁷⁴ there has been no breakthrough in the advance of our knowledge.

Although in Crete, documentary texts based on various scripts such as the Linear A and B existed, the tablets were found mostly in palaces. They do not provide a comprehensive picture of the entire society. Their coverage is limited mainly to economic issues and the administration of palaces. Third, historical records based on local traditions and religious texts are few and far between. At any rate, they are mostly mythical or are based on folklore or imagination. There is no hard evidence in the form of archaeological artefacts or written documents to support prehistoric ‘direct’ links between the Indus and Crete or the Greek mainland through trade, settlements or migration. Of course, direct interactions between Greece and the Indus occurred much later during the Persian Achaemenid Empire and under the Indo-Greek kingdoms established following Alexander’s invasion of India. ⁷⁵ These direct contacts began when the above two civilisations had long disappeared.

Finally, we can answer the questions posed at the beginning of the article. The answer to the first question, namely, are the parallels between the ancient Indus and Greek civilisations fortuitous, is yes, but only in the prehistoric era. However, ‘indirect’ contacts between merchants and settlers of Crete and the Indus most probably took place through Mesopotamia (Sumer and Akkad, for example), as was speculated by Davaras. As discussed above, additional evidence now exists of trade and human contacts between the Indus people and Mesopotamians, and between Mesopotamians and Cretans.

The second part of the question, whether there was a direct historical connection as well as social interactions, has to be answered in the negative for the prehistoric era, but not for the later period, often described as Indo-Greek, which witnessed very close and direct contacts between the two peoples, through face-to-face battles and struggle for power and supremacy, intermarriages, cultural interactions, settlements and assimilation. Few foreign invaders into ancient India assimilated as well as did the Greeks and Indians. The Hellenisation of north India, including the origin of the Gandhara School of Art, is a clear manifestation of the close cultural connections.

The study of civilisations in the past has been rather Eurocentric. Most Western scholars (e.g., Winckelmann who discusses mainly the Greek civilisation) tended to ignore Eastern civilisations such as the Chinese, Indian or Islamic. ⁷⁶ European historians believed that the ancient Greek civilisation was the most advanced and the only suitable yardstick to measure other civilisations. ⁷⁷

Is the above situation of neglect attributable to a relatively late discovery of the Indus civilisation by Marshall and others, a paucity of written material by Oriental and Western scholars, lack of an intelligible script or prejudices against the mystic East and the superiority of the West? Green ⁷⁸ blames Indus archaeologists for ‘some bad habits’ such as complaints about the lack of data or lack of usability of the available datasets because they were collected long ago. The old age of the data does not necessarily reduce its relevance. Writings by early archaeologists are useful and highly relevant.

More and more archaeological discoveries have been underway, which may reshape the conventional views on and chronology of ancient civilisations. For example, in December 2000, the National Institute of Ocean Technology discovered an ancient city nearly 120 feet beneath the surface of the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India during a routine pollution survey. More recent explorations have led to the discovery of a trove of such artefacts as pottery, beads and sculptures besides human remains. ⁷⁹ Although there is debate about the dating, many believe that the lost city may be 9,000 years old. More scientific research and additional evidence is needed before any conclusions can be drawn about the origin and precise chronology of the archaeological discovery.