Distinguish the object and its context

R. E. M. Wheeler’s report of the 1946 Harappa excavations, published in 1947, records one seal and one seal impression. The seal was oblong steatite with six signs, from an unstratified layer. The terracotta impression carried signs on one side and a crocodile and fish on the reverse, and came from a debris layer in the Cemetery R 37 area. The account therefore distinguishes both material and archaeological context. An excavated object need not have a secure association with one occupation layer: the word unstratified is part of the evidence and should remain in the research note.[1]

Keep the museum’s exact attribution

The Metropolitan Museum’s bar-shaped rectangular plaque seal, object 49.40.4, provides a museum comparison. Its catalogue calls the period Mature Harappan and gives a third-millennium BCE date, the broad geography Indus Valley and the material light-brown steatite. The seal face measures 3.44 by 1.86 centimetres, with height 0.9 centimetres recorded separately. The credit line is Dodge Fund, 1949; this collection information belongs beside, rather than in place of, the ancient date. Crucially, the inspected record does not supply a particular excavation site. It can support a comparison of shape, material and catalogue classification without being relabelled an excavated Harappa example. Preserve the object number with the title: the museum identifier lets another reader reach this record even when the general search term seal returns many different objects. The limited geographical attribution should travel with that citation.[2]

Follow the published comparison

Wheeler compares both finds with earlier published examples in M. S. Vats’s excavation volumes, citing particular plates and figures. The report also relates the signs to numbered entries in a sign list. Those references identify a comparison to investigate; they are not translations of an ancient message. Record the report’s page and the earlier plate reference separately, leaving direct inspection of the earlier volumes as a further research step.[1]

Sources & notes

Source records include access dates and, where known, limits on what was examined. Checks used AI assistance; independent human or specialist review has not been completed.

  1. R. E. M. Wheeler; Ancient India, number 3, January 1947; Archaeological Survey of India. Harappa 1946: The Defences and Cemetery R 37 ↗primary published excavation report in official scanned issue · Source date: 1947-01 · Locator: Actual 238-page image-only issue: PDF 6 issue/date; printed 59–61/PDF 86–88 title, contents and introduction; printed 126/PDF 199, section 7(f) Seals, including materials, contexts and Vats comparisons. Accessed 2026-11-01.Actual complete relevant pages rendered locally and visually read. pypdf extracted no text; no garbled OCR was used. Plate LII B and the original objects were not inspected, and neither Vats 1940 volume was independently read. Six/five-sign descriptions are reported, with no attempt to read an ancient language. No invasion, political or racial interpretation from the 1947 introduction is adopted. The whole delivery and all selected Wheeler passages share a conservative pool; no scan reproduced.Return to Distinguish the object and its context, paragraph 1 ↑Return to Follow the published comparison, paragraph 1 ↑
  2. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Ancient West Asian Art. Bar-shaped rectangular plaque seal, object 49.40.4 ↗institutional object catalogue · Source date: publication date not established · Locator: Actual complete Artwork Details: title, period/date, geography, material, separate seal-face/height measurements, credit and object number. Accessed 2026-11-01.Actual complete catalogue text inspected. No specific archaeological findspot appears in that record; broad Indus Valley is not narrowed to Harappa or Punjab. No original object, accession file, technical study or image inscription is claimed inspected. No image is reproduced.Return to Keep the museum’s exact attribution, paragraph 1 ↑
Help improve this entry. Suggest a correction with a source.
Record PH-COL-0051 · English edition · human review not performed