Body in Harappan

Material Matters: Representation and Materiality of the Harappan Body
Author(s): Sharri R. Clark

Source: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 16, No. 3, The Materiality of
Representation (Sep., 2009), pp. 231-261
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40346016
Accessed: 15-08-2019 18:38 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40346016?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.150 on Thu, 15 Aug 2019 18:38:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Archaeol Method Theory (2009) 16:231-261
DOI 10.1007/sl0816-009-9068-x
Material Matters: Representation and Materiality

of the Harappan Body
Sharri R. Clark
Published online: 24 June 2009

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract In the Indus Civilization (ca. 2600-1900 bc), a society with no readable
texts and few larger-scale representations, terracotta figurines were the most common
representations of the human body. This paper explores the unique construction of the
material representations of bodies and other material culture from Harappa, a major
Indus site now in Pakistan. Hand-modeling representations of human bodies from dual
clay pieces, sometimes decorated with bone pigments, suggests a focus on the process
and ideological rather than practical choices in the materialization of the Harappan
human body. For the Harappans, material matters as they engage physically with their
world and embody themselves and their worldview.
Keywords Indus Civilization • Harappa • Figurines • Representation • Materiality
In the Indus Civilization, which peaked ca. 2600-1900 bc in what is now Pakistan
and northwestern India, some of the most intriguing artifacts and the most common
representations of the human body are terracotta figurines. The purpose of creating
these material representations of the Harappan body and how they were used remain
unclear. Since they are almost always found in garbage or fill deposits and there are
no informants or deciphered texts to provide contextual information, the figurines'
"social lives" or histories and their function(s) in Harappan society are difficult to
assess.
This leaves us with the figurines themselves as the prim

Harappans' views of the human body and as material evidence
with their world. Material and manufacturing choices in the m
human body provide clues to their possible uses and meaning
the figurines from Harappa as a symbolic and social process t
Harappans engaged with the world around them, necessar
beginning of their "lives" or their creation.
S. R. Clark (El)
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Camb
e-mail: srclark@fas.harvard.edu
e-mail: sharri.clark@gmail.com
£} Springer
232 Clark
Beginni
backgrou
the figu
construct
figurine
sometim
ideologi
human b
insights
Even wi
themselv
material
with their world and embodied themselves and their worldview.
Representation, Materiality, and Ontological Issues
Some of the most provocative recent research on human representation and the body
in archeology has focused on issues such as representation, materiality, agency, and
subjectivity (e.g., Meskell 2004; Nakamura 2005; Nanoglou 2005, 2008b), as well
as taxonomies of figurines and other material culture (see Meskell 2007; Meskell et
al. 2008). Unfortunately, terms such as "representation", "reflection", and "figural",
as well as "materiality", "material culture", and "material" are sometimes conflated.
Before discussing the representation and materiality of the terracotta figurines from
Harappa, it is important to clarify some of these terms.
Human representations such as figurines are remarkably common in the material
culture of ancient and modern societies, prompting some scholars to ask to what
extent individuals recognize themselves in their replicas (Meskell 2004: 45). What
were the roles of figurines in ancient societies, what did they mean to the people in
those societies, and how did they create meaning? Some important early formal or
attribute analyses of figurines (e.g., Talalay 1993; Voigt 1983) emphasized a clear
distinction between representation (or meaning) and function, based in part on
contextual data, and provided an initial framework for systematically classifying and
quantifying archeological data for further analyses - or what figurines represented.
Recent studies seek to understand how - how figurines became material (sometimes
enlivened) objects, how figurines both functioned in and acted upon ancient
societies, and how figurines reflected and shaped the experiences and subjectivities
of their makers.
In addition, terms such as "representation" have been used in different ways.
Stratos Nanoglou (2008a: 2) construes representation as an articulatory practice that
cites and rearticulates the form it resembles. He contrasts reflection as possibly
deceptive "iconic resemblances" that always convey normative ideas concerning the
nature of the entities represented even when they aim to reflect their prototypes.
Some scholars argue that representation implies a remove from the real - depicting a
likeness, rendition, or perception rather than the immediacy of the object -
incorrectly implying that figurines stand in for and refer to something real when
they themselves are already "real" (Meskell et al. 2008: 141). Other scholars (e.g.,
£\ Springer
Material Matters: Representation and Materiality of the Harappan Body 233
Nanoglou 2008a: 2) point out that the term "representation" does not mean that
figurines are reflections of actual life, although it is possible that they are. I have
argued elsewhere that whether or not they are representations of actual life,
figurines can implicitly reflect or embody a society's mores (e.g., dress and
ornamentation) and serve as media of communication in their original social contexts
(Clark 2007a), and they may have multiple meanings and functions over time.
Nanoglou (2008a: 1-2) argues against treating material culture as a reflection of
already given human intentionalities - against approaching representations as things
made to communicate a message, as vehicles of intentions or "intentionally
expressive objects" (see Bailey 2005).
Figurines are more than representations or reflections of something concrete or
abstract and more than vehicles created to communicate a message - they are objects
with material lives. Understanding what they were and how they were engaged in
ancient societies is only possible by understanding their archeological and cultural
contexts. Approaching the figurines as representations of the body and materializa-
tions of human experience provides a different perspective, one of mutual
constitution. In other words, "we make objects and they in turn make us" (Meskell
2004: 4).
The recent emphasis in archeology on materiality, or the complex mutual
interaction between material culture and human actions and how this shapes
both objects and societies, complements studies of modern material culture and
materiality in anthropology (e.g., Attfield 2000; Miller 1987, 2005; Schiffer 1999;
Skibo and Schiffer 2008) and other fields. Focusing on the creation of relations
between people and objects or meaning-making rather than meaning per se,
some scholars have innovatively revisited semiotic approaches to interpreting
figurines (e.g., Joyce 2007). Others have explored the nature of materiality,
replication, objectification, and agency in the complex ancient and sometimes
modern biographies of objects in the contexts of their object worlds (Meskell
2004). Agreeing that no single theory or understanding of materiality will
suffice, Lynn Meskell defines materiality broadly as "the constitution of the
material world in antiquity" - our physical engagement with the world, our
medium for inserting ourselves into the fabric of that world, and our way of
constituting and shaping culture in an embodied and external sense (Meskell
2004: 1, 11, 50, 177).
Other approaches to materiality focus on the relationships between people and
things in the present as the foundation for archeological reconstruction of the past.
This behavioral approach is well illustrated in James Skibo 's and Michael Schiffer 's
recent work on a theory of artifact design that includes four components: life
history/behavioral chain, activities and interactions, technical choices, and perfor-
mance characteristics and compromises (Skibo and Schiffer 2008). This model for
investigating material culture variability and change can help us understand how
people negotiate throughout an artifact's life history the social, religious, and other
factors that affect the technological choices people make and the meanings behind
these technological choices or their "behavioral significance" (Schiffer and Skibo
1987; Skibo and Schiffer 2008). Following on a number of important studies of
material culture and materiality, Daniel Miller's work on material "mattering" also
addresses finding meanings behind technical choices (Miller 1998).
& Springer
234 Clark
The trop
is usefu
"even th
significa
illumina
original)
or mean
through
destruct
was mad
South As
centerpi
are the
"behavio
Perhaps
material
the inha
Greek N
some of
material
object, a
other w
matter",
by iden
Identify
social lif
things "c
contexts
discourse
a framework which someone had to come to terms with and which could be used in
order to find a place in the world (Nanoglou 2008a: 2). Thus, materiality focuses on
social relations and the dialectic of people and things, as well as the "thingness" of
things (e.g., see Attfield 2000; Meskell 2004) or being a material thing.
Agency and subjectivity may be implicated in materiality as well, particularly in
the case of figurines. While objects do not have lives of their own outside of human
constitution (see Meskell 2004: 4-6), objects do have some agency in that they have
effect and impact upon human actions and lives (see Gell 1998). Although scholars
have typically approached subjectivity through sex and gender, sex/gender is not
necessarily the primary structuring principle in people's identities (Nanoglou 2005:
142). Recent broader studies on the role of anthropomorphic imagery and the
constitution of subjects in ancient societies focus on how the materiality of human
representation would have impacted people's experience of their own materiality,
referring explicitly to their own bodies (e.g., Nanoglou 2005, 2008b).
Ancient conceptions of figurines may have been more nuanced than the
categories now imposed by archeologists, as we sometimes look for our own
culturally constructed demarcators when identifying figurines. In fact, "figurines"
may not have been considered a distinct category in ancient societies (see Meskell
4y Springer
1995, 2004, 2007; Meskell et al. 2008; Nanoglou 2005). Categorizing objects by
material {e.g., figurines with other clay objects) or by function {e.g., magical objects
of various materials and forms) may have aligned better with ancient conceptions of
objects than the categories now imposed by archeologists (Meskell 2004: 39-58).
For example, figurines and pottery may not have been conceptualized as different
categories in ancient societies (see Nanoglou 2005, 2008b: 318; Bailey 2005: 187-
188; also Joyce 2007). Some of the ambiguities of classification are illustrated in the
typology of the terracotta figurines from Harappa, which includes wheeled and/or
open-bodied vessel/figurines, zoomorphic attachments to vessel rims, zoomorphic
bottle stoppers, and anthropomorphic figurines attached to miniature beds, carts, and
other objects (Clark 2007a, chapter 5 and Appendix F). Although categorizations are
useful in organizing archeological data, they clearly represent extrapolations from
modern to ancient conceptions.
In this paper, I argue that in ancient societies' representations of the body,
material matters. How it matters - what the selection of different materials and types
of materialization means for people negotiating their presence in their social
worlds - is the question. This paper explores the implications of fired clay and
particular construction techniques for figurines as material representations of human
bodies in comparison with other material culture at Harappa as a case study in
representation and materiality for the Indus Civilization. This is based on a recent
systematic contextual study of the entire corpus of terracotta figurines from Harappa
and exploration of the figurines' "social lives" (Clark 2007a; Clark in press). The
aim of this paper is to continue this exploration of how the Harappans physically
engaged with and inserted themselves into the fabric of their world through
terracotta figurines - how they constituted and shaped themselves and their culture
in an embodied and external sense through figurines at Harappa.
The Indus Civilization and the Harappan Figurines
In the Indus Civilization (ca. 2600-1900 bc), a society with no surviving

monumental and few large representations of the human body, the body is primarily
constituted as relatively small-scale arguably three-dimensional terracotta figurines.
Characterized by an emphasis on small elegant art and sophisticated craft technology
and a conspicuous absence of monumental art or other sculpture (see Kenoyer 1998;
Possehl 1998), this so-called "faceless civilization" (Possehl 1998: 279) is most
abundantly and richly embodied in the terracotta figurines. The richness and
diversity of the Indus terracotta figurine corpus offers provocative insights into Indus
ideology and society, despite its still undeciphered script.
The Indus (or "Harappan") Civilization (ca. 2600-1900 bc), the earliest urban
civilization of South Asia, at its peak extended over much of what is now Pakistan
and northwestern India (Fig. 1). Most of the known sites are concentrated in river
valleys, particularly around the Indus River and the now dry Ghaggar-Hakra River,
identified as the ancient Saraswati River mentioned in Vedic texts by certain scholars
who prefer the term "Indus-Saraswati Civilization" (Gupta 1996). The term "Indus"
is used here to refer to the broader civilization, and "Harappan" is used to refer more
specifically to the site of Harappa. Identifying the ethnicities, language(s), and the
fi Springer
236 Clark
Fig. 1 Imp
(1999:2, F
ideologi
one of t
1967; K
1994; Po
The Ind
1997: 13
iconogra
£} Springer
styles in a complex urban civilization with an extensive interaction network over

a vast area. The particular Indus artifacts found at each site vary somewhat,
perhaps reflecting the regional traditions the Indus subsumes and incorporates as
well as site size and function and environmental constraints. In fact, terracotta
figurines are rare in the eastern regions of the Indus Civilization, and the figurine
types, classified albeit subjectively according to certain codified attributes (see
Clark 2007a for a typology from Harappa), vary somewhat in frequency and
execution from site to site.
Harappa, a major urban Indus site near the Ravi River, has four major mounds
(AB, E, ET, and F) with walls of mudbrick and baked brick surrounded by settled
areas (C, D, G, and J) and two superimposed cemeteries (Harappa phase Cemetery
R37 and Late Harappa phase Cemetery H). Harappa has a long history of excavation
since the 1920s (Meadow 1991; Meadow^ al. 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001; Mughal 1968; Vats 1940; Wheeler 1947). The current calibrated radiocarbon
date chronology for Harappa indicates continuous occupation of the site from ca.
3300 bc to ca. 1300 bc with five major periods of occupation (see Table I).
According to recent research {e.g., Kenoyer and Meadow 2000; Meadow and
Kenoyer 2001; Meadow et al. 1999, 2001), Harappa appears to have grown from
a small village on Mounds AB and E in the (earliest) Period 1 Ravi phase (ca.
3300-2800 bc) through incipient urbanization in Period 2 (ca. 2800-2600 bc) to a
major urban center of 150 hectares covering all mounds and surrounding areas in
Period 3 (ca. 2600-1900 bc). Eventually, Harappa transitioned in Period 4 (ca.
1900-1800(7) bc) to a smaller city with changes in material culture that signal a
return to regional or local traditions (along with a few foreign artifacts; Lamberg-
Karlovsky 1996; Meadow 2002) by Period 5 (ca. 1800(?) to <1300 bc).
At least 10,000 terracotta figurine fragments have been recovered from
nonprimary trash and fill deposits in most areas of the ancient city of Harappa,
with more than 80% of the site yet to be excavated. The majority of the figurines and
other material recovered thus far dates to Period 3, the peak of the Indus Civilization.
The Harappan figurines are part of a long South Asian figurine tradition. The
earliest large corpus of South Asian figurines comes from the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic site of Mehrgarh (now in Baluchistan, Pakistan). Unlike some other
Table I Chronology for Harappa (After Meadow et al. 2001)
Period/phase at Harappa Approximate dates
Period 5: Cemetery H/Late Harappa phase (Late Harappan period) 1800(?) to <1300 bc
Period 4: Transitional phase to Cemetery H/Late Harappa phase 1900-1800 (?) bc
(Late Harappan period)
Period 3C: Harappa phase C 2200-1900 bc
Period 3B: Harappa phase B 2450-2200 bc
Period 3A: Harappa phase A 2600-2450 bc
Period 3: Harappa phase ("Mature" Harappan period) 2600-1900 bc
Period 2: Kot Diji phase (Early Harappan period) 2800-2600 bc
Period 1: Ravi aspect of the Hakra phase >3300-2800 bc
£} Springer
238 Clark
Neolithi
figurine
and/or a
rare over
A major
2003, 20
serve no
commun
compell
differen
1998: 6)
evidenc
meaning
script (s
millenn
Farmer e
more cri
interpre
Material
concepti
construc
living in
and dispo
archeolog
Figurin
Decisions
the Hara
techniqu
and user
Material
Clay is one of the most common media chosen for three-dimensional representations
of the anthropomorphic body - as well as zoomorphic bodies and, in some cases,
composite or fantastic bodies - in the Indus Civilization as in many ancient cultures.
Indus sites have produced a wide range of terracotta objects, from pottery to
ornaments such as bangles and beads to small finds such as balls and tops and other
miniaturized objects such as furniture and carts. Even some of the Harappan tablets
were made of clay imprinted with seals or molds with iconography and/or Indus
script before firing {e.g., Fig. 2), alongside tablets made of more labor-intensive,
technologically manipulated materials such as carved and fired steatite and
(sometimes multicolor) Indus faience. The fine clay of the terracotta figurines from
Harappa was typically tempered with sand, bits of shell, mica, and vegetal material,
much like the fabric of the pottery from Harappa, but probably in different proportions.
£) Springer
Although the value or the qualities of the material chosen is often related to the
importance of the being or the concept represented, other qualities of the material
such as symbolic importance or availability can take precedence (e.g., rough stones
representing deities). For example, clay may have been chosen as a medium fo
anthropomorphic representations such as Indus figurines because of its intrinsic
connection to Mother Earth (e.g., Mackay 1938: 258). In fact, "fertile earth" was
prescribed for the manufacture of ritual figurines in several later historical Vedic
texts (see Srivastava 1996).
The creation of humans from earth or clay is a common motif in creation
myths from the ancient Near East and elsewhere, and the act of making
anthropomorphic representations of clay may have reenacted the creation of
human beings or deities symbolically and allegorically (see Amiran 1962; Dales
1 99 1 a; and others). For example, the clay cores in figurines from Neolithic Thessaly
Fig. 2 The convex face of a

molded planoconvex terracotta
tablet from Harappa with a
central female figure (with a
breast in profile) grasping two
felines by the throats shown
below a chakra (spoked wheel)
sign and above an elephant with
the mold marks still visible
along the edges (Harappa
Museum #H95-2486 (3.9 x 1.6x
0.7 cm); courtesy of the Harappa
Archaeological Research Project
and the Department of
Archaeology and Museums,
Government of Pakistan,
photograph by Richard Meadow
(©HARP)).
£l Springer
240 Clark
have bee
body, su
the myt
similar t
from Ha
Clark 20
course,
construc
producin
producin
2008b: 318).
Clay figurines - unfired and fired - have been used to represent important deities
from at least the end of the first millennium bc to the present in South Asia (e.g., see
Ahuja 2000; Huyler 1996). Whether earlier South Asian figurines represented deities
is not certain (see Clark 2005, 2007b). Scholars have long argued both for and
against (e.g., Ucko 1968: 417) the use of clay as a medium to represent deities and
other supernatural beings based on material qualities such as cheapness and ease of
use. Clay's potential for symbolism - as symbolically connected to the earth and to
creation - is perhaps balanced by its more mundane qualities. Measured against
relative value parameters such as difficulty of access and procurement and relative
degree of technological elaboration (e.g., Miller 2006: 212-217, Fig. 6.4 and 6.5),
the value of clay or terracotta figurines is relatively low. In fact, terracotta may have
been painted to make imitations of more valuable ornaments and other artifacts in
the Indus (Kenoyer 1991, 1998: 162). Besides pigments (see below), the only other
material embellishment found on the terracotta figurines from Harappa has been
copper alloy, a copper bangle on a figurine arm found by the author in the
"miscellaneous terracotta objects" drawer in the Archaeological Survey of India
collections.
Form and Decoration
Representations of the Harappan body and Harappan norms of dress and

ornamentation have been discussed extensively elsewhere (Clark 2003, 2007a:
185-266) and the details need not be repeated here. In general, the Harappan body as
represented in most of the terracotta figurines is rather schematic, sometimes without
features such as fingers or even eyes (see Fig. 3 and 4).
The Harappan female body (Fig. 3) is typically curvaceous (occasionally
globular; Fig. 5) with medium conical breasts. Despite sometimes skewed
perceptions of the female figurines as exaggerated bodies (e.g., Dales 1991b: 140),
probably based on uncritical interpretations of Indus female figurines as fertility
figures and as possible representations of the Mother Goddess since the earliest
publications (e.g., Mackay 1938; Marshall 1931; Vats 1940; Wheeler 1947), none of
the features are exaggerated. Most of the female figurines are also depicted with
headdresses (typically fan-shaped and sometimes decorated with flowers, cones,
etc.) and appliqued earpieces. Approximately half of the female figurines are
depicted with one or more appliqued or painted necklaces, but rarely (less than
15%) with appliqued or painted bangles, in spite of the ubiquity of actual
£} Springer
Fig. 3 Some examples of female figurine bodies formed from two vertically joined rolls of clay (courtesy
of the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan, photographs by Georg Helms
J. Mark Kenoyer, and Richard Meadow ©HARP): left female figurine with (missing) double volute
headdress except for a cone-and-rope (hair?) decoration and broken earpieces (Harappa Museum #H87-
265 (height, 9.5 cm)); left center female figurine with a fan-shaped headdress with panniers decorated with
flowers (National Museum of Pakistan #HP 1603 (height, 13.2 cm)); right center female figurine with a
broken fan-shaped headdress decorated with a cone, missing lips, earpieces, arms, and lower leg
(Harappa Museum #H96-3159 (height, 14.3 cm)); and right a very large and elaborately decorated female
figurine upper body with a badly broken fan-shaped headdress with broken panniers and three necklace
(Harappa Museum #H87-189 (height, 13.7 cm)).
bangles at Harappa. Most of the female figurine bodies (85%) are depicted with
a narrow belt or skirt sometimes decorated with multiple strands and ornaments
over the pubic area, either de-emphasizing or emphasizing the female genitalia by
obfuscating it.
Earlier Periods 1 and 2 figurine bodies from Harappa were depicted seated
with joined legs projecting forward from either heavy hips (see Fig. 6, top left) or
wide flattened lower bodies (Fig. 6, bottom left), similar to figurines from Rehman
Dheri and other sites in northwestern Pakistan. The former figurines typically have
small conical breasts and short pointed raised arms at the sides, and the latter ones
have small disk-shaped breasts and are often depicted holding objects or infants
against their bodies. Period 2 figurines are sometimes decorated with red slip and
brownish-black features and geometric designs (Fig. 6, bottom left). In early Period
3, the former type seems to disappear and the latter type seems to change. The heavy
seated lower bodies are made to stand and the raised arms are instead pressed against
the sides (Fig. 6, bottom center), while the appliqued decoration (locks and loops of
hair) on simple pinched heads become more bun-like attachments around the backs
of the heads.
By the end of Period 3, these figurines represent a visibly different alternative
style of Harappan female body (Fig. 6, top center). They still incorporate most of the
standard attributes or codes of typical Harappan female figurines - a triangular/fan-
shaped headdress (from an increasingly flattened pinched bun), chokers and
longer pendant necklaces, conical breasts, sometimes with an infant nursing at
£} Springer
242 Clark
Fig. 4 Som
of clay (co
by the aut
characteri
#H98-3495
(Harappa M
the left
the fem
fan, th
round p
and the
Fig. 6, t
figurine
arms, w
concave feet.
This alternative female figurine type may represent the adaptation of a regional
style to the dominant Indus style during Period 3, while maintaining some
difference. A similar trend is also seen in the changes in some zebu (humped cattle)
figurines in Period 3 (see Clark 2007a, chapter 5). In other words, these figurines
^ Springer
Fig. 5 Globular female figurine

depicted nursing a schematic
infant (NMI #230 (height,
7.5 cm), courtesy of the National
Museum of India).
may represent the materialization of the negotiation of a regional group's identity

under Indus domination with adaptations that signal resistance to full assimilation
(see Clark 2007a, chapters 5 and 7 for more discussion). Since many other figurine
types appear for the first time in Period 3 at Harappa, changes in the
anthropomorphic female and cattle figurines, which continue from the earliest
periods, are especially significant representations of materializations of societal
changes.
The Harappan male body is typically relatively slender and often depicted with
male genitalia and/or explicit and relatively exaggerated nipples (Fig. 4). The latter
subtle physiological feature without reproductive importance may be imbued with
cultural significance, mirroring female breasts as a symbolic repository of male sex,
gender, and sexuality. This is not necessarily the sexual dualism found in Hinduism
(e.g., Marshall 1931), but perhaps something like later Vedic notions of balance in
what were considered similar and dangerous body fluids of the upper and lower
bodies (O'Flaherty 1980: 55). The equivalence in the representation of male and
female upper bodies and the mixed sex/gender attributes on a few figurines suggests
a complex and fluid conception of sex and gender in the Harappan world (see Clark
2003).
No male figurines have been found in contexts earlier than Period 3 thus far at
Harappa. Unlike the female figurines, few of the male figurines and the figurines
with no sex characteristics are depicted with headdresses (less than 10%) other than
hair or hairstyles (approximately 15%), earpieces (less than 1%), necklaces
(approximately 33%), longer belts or skirts with cone decoration (approximately
2%), or bangles (0%). Almost all of the headdresses and hairstyles, a few necklace
types, and belt/skirt types are gendered, although these attributes are occasionally
mixed on figurines (see Fig. 4, right).
£} Springer
244 Clark
Fig. 6 Exam
and Period
the Depar
(©Sharri C
Construc
Almost
schemat
(see Fig.
highly s
to "stan
discarde
the terr
realistic
molds?
£} Springer
Harappan artisans were clearly capable of creating more realistic terracotta

figurines, as an exceptional finely made (carved) terracotta monkey figurine (see
Vats 1940: 304, PL LXXVIII: 35) demonstrates. They also already used molds to
produce fine details in the presumably efficient and consistent production of other
artifacts such as copper alloy tools and figurines, miniature faience figurine amulets,
and molded tablets of terracotta and faience. Some of the terracotta and faience
tablets were clearly produced using molds leaving a ridge where the molds were
joined at each side (see Fig. 2). However, only one (terracotta) figurine mold has
been found thus far, at the site of Mohenjo-daro, and even when it was used to mold
the heads of some bull figurines, the bodies were still hand-modeled (see Kenoyer
1998: 118).
Changes in other types of artifacts at Harappa in Periods 3B and 3C also appear to
indicate a general concern with more efficient and consistent production of Harappan
artifacts. For example, by Period 3C, there is a transition to less labor-intensive
rectangular seals without any iconography and the appearance of large numbers of
possibly disposable pointed base goblets, perhaps to address new problems of
urbanization such as hygiene or ritual purity (Kenoyer 1998: 17; Meadow and
Kenoyer 2001: 27). Earlier in Period 3B, less labor-intensive and more consistently
duplicated molded faience and terracotta tablets appeared alongside the more labor-
intensive individually crafted steatite tablets already being produced (Meadow and
Kenoyer 2000: 4, 2001: 26-27).
The trend toward efficient and consistent production of artifacts also continued
after the end of the Indus Civilization in later South Asian figurines. Unlike the
Harappan figurines, most terracotta figurines in the Early Historic Period (ca. 200
bc) were molded, first as individual figures and then as plaques with iconographic
scenes with multiple figures, which typically had flattened and usually undecorated
backsides (see Ahuja 2000). Most standing Harappan figurines also had flattened
and either undecorated or carelessly finished backs (see Fig. 7, far left) as well as
angled feet that would not allow them to stand on their own. Of course, some of the
Harappan figurines were truly three-dimensional, which is slightly more difficult to
achieve with molds. The Early Historic Period molded figurines were front-focused
and effectively two-dimensional materializations that had to be supported in order to
be viewed as well - presumably propped up or suspended or laid on their backs.
This effective two-dimensionality may argue against most of the Harappan
figurines acting as doubles or substitutes for human beings like Egyptian shabti and
other magical figurines, as the Harappan bodies were rendered effectively flawed or
incomplete. Nor is it likely, due to their relatively large size and incomplete
dimensions, that they were handled and viewed in a variety of positions or carried
around, possibly in bags, as some scholars have suggested for figurines from other
sites that cannot stand or sit alone (Bailey 2005; Meskell et al 2008: 158; Knapp
and Meskell 1997). Perhaps this incomplete and front-focused representation of the
Harappan body simply indicates an economy of effort based on function. There was
no need for finishing a part of the body that would be physically hidden. Their backs
may have been pressed into some other material (e.g., embedded in plaster on a wall)
or hidden from view (e.g., propped in a wall niche). This representation of the
Harappan body might indicate both a functional and a societal focus on the front of
the human body.
<£) Springer
246 Clark
Fig. 7 A d
anthropom
original m
Governme
(©HARP)).
In summ
realistic
andcons
more ef
produce
consiste
terracott
I suggest
figurine
process
quantitie
figurine
and mor
original
figurine
them in
£) Springer
explored the idea that the process of manufacturing figurines could be at least as
important as the figurines themselves and focused on figurines as processes rather
than things (see Clark 2007a, chapter 3; Dales 1991a; Meskell 2007; Meskell et al
2008; Nanoglou 2008b; Talalay 1993: 127, note 27).
The Harappans' unusual choice to hand-model the figurines from vertical halves
from head to toe (see Fig. 7) apparently extended to the (female) figurines from the
earliest pre-Indus periods at Harappa. The unique manufacture of these and even
earlier figurines, at least partially constructed of two vertically joined rolls of clay,
suggests that this figurine tradition was indigenous to South Asia.
By Period 3, the bodies of most of the standing terracotta figurines from Harappa (and
some figurines depicted in other postures) were constructed from just four pieces (other
than appliqued eyes, lips, and dress or ornamentation) - two pieces of clay joined
vertically from the top of the head to the feet and two arms joined to the torso at the
shoulders. Contrary to previous suggestions {e.g., During Caspers 1985), this
construction is very different from that of some ancient Near Eastern figurines in which
a head, arms, and legs were attached to a violin-shaped torso or "core" (see Clark 2007a:
173-184 for discussion). The internal tension lines of the clay at breaks along the
middles of the bodies of many of the Harappan figurines indicate both that the faces
were pinched out from the two joined vertical rolls of clay rather than being attached
and that the legs are continuations of two rolls of clay rather than separate pieces applied
to a "core". The fact that breaks occur at different points along the legs of figurines
rather than consistently where the legs meet the torso also supports this conclusion.
Just as ancient Egyptians considered cult statues to have been born rather than
made by artisans (Meskell 2004: 90), the unusual manufacture of Harappan figurines
from vertical halves may have been connected with the creation of life or birth.
However, linking the process of hand modeling the figurines from Harappa from
vertical halves with creation or life need not imply that they functioned as cultic
figures. George Dales interpreted the physical construction of the figurines as a
reflection of the Indus understanding of human anatomy, speculating that the
application of separate parts (vertical halves with arms attached in a manner that
imitated the human shoulder) might indicate that "ritualistic 'creation' or birth" was
the reason for making the female figurines (Dales 1991a: 66-67). The process of
modeling the figurines may have been both a re-enactment of the creation of life or
birth and a materialization of a duality in Harappan self-perception, perhaps
reflecting the integration of male and female in a more nuanced notion of sex/gender
or the integration of other essential "parts" of the self in representations of the
Harappan body (Clark 2007a: 181; see also Clark 2003). It is perhaps significant that
this actual and symbolic integration of halves - at the point of creation or birth -
would have been concealed from the viewer after further modeling of the figurine.
Only eventual breakage along the vertical join line would have revealed the unusual
construction from two vertically joined rolls of clay that represented the integration.
Harappan figurines are almost always recovered broken, typically from non-
primary contexts, which can pose challenges for classification and interpretation -
including whether they might have been constructed to be broken in particular ways.
Some scholars have suggested that Neolithic figurines from southeastern Europe
were constructed with the idea of deliberate fragmentation {e.g., Biehl 1996, 2003;
Chapman 2000; Chapman and Gaydarska 2007; Talalay 1987, 1993). This
4y Springer
248 Clark
fragme
transfor
joined h
contract
other sc
that fig
joining o
way to c
points on
consiste
consisten
All of t
medium
halves -
These ch
are delib
emphasi
suggest
Transformational Finishes
Recent research at Harappa suggests that most of the Harappan figurines were not
slipped or painted. Instead, some of the pigments or slips described by early
excavators on figurines and pottery at Indus sites such as Mohenjo-daro (e.g.,
Mackay 1938: 259-260; Vats 1940: 297-298, Plates LXXVI: 28 and LXXVII: 48)
are actually the results of postdepositional processes. The whitish gypsum accretion
on some figurines is a result of burial in the soil and the dark green, brown, and
reddish-brown stains on others result from lying in sewage (e.g., in sump pots or
along the sides of ancient streets). The fact that these so-called pigments often
extend across areas of obvious breakage confirms this interpretation. In fact, less
than 10% of the anthropomorphic figurines in this study had surviving traces of
actual black, white, blue-green, red, or (rarely) combinations of red, brown, and
purple pigments.
Pigments were sometimes used to depict hair, eyes, or ornamentation and to
decorate headdresses and appliqued features, ornamentation, and dress on the
Harappan figurines. Black (or brownish-black) pigment on the head often seems to
have represented hair, usually extending around the head and sometimes down the
back to depict loose hair. Black pigment is found on some modeled bound double
buns on (usually male) figurines and on other modeled hairstyles. However, the
pigment often covers the fan-shaped or double volute headdresses of Harappan
figurines and cup-like panniers on the sides of the head/headdress as well (see Fig. 3,
center left and right). These traces of black on and inside the panniers have been
interpreted as residue from burned oil or incense (Mackay 1938: 260-261) or
possibly pigment derived from soot (Kenoyer 1998: 135; Meadow et al. 1994: 21).
This seemingly mundane detail is actually of great significance for South Asian
archeology. The untested assumptions that the black residues in (some of) the
figurines' panniers were traces of burned oil or incense have been accepted as proof
£) Springer
of the long-standing interpretation that the Indus female figurines functioned as

"anthropomorphic votive figures". This interpretation in turn has been accepted as
proof that these figurines represented the Mother Goddess as far back as the Bronze
Age - all untested ideas dating to the earliest published excavations of Indus sites
(Mackay 1938: 260-261; see also Clark 2005, 2007b for discussion). None of these
interpretations, which have had far-reaching implications regarding interpretations of
Indus society and religion for the last 80 years, had ever been tested.
The first empirical test of Harappan figurine pigments challenging these
assumptions involved a compositional analysis of pigment samples from Harappan
figurines (see Clark 2007a: 158-169). Table II illustrates the figurines sampled,
describes the samples and the figurines' contexts, and summarizes the results of the
spectrographic compositional analyses of the 13 pigment samples - 11 black
pigment samples from anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines along with
additional samples of white and blue-green pigment from the unusual polychrome
headdress of one figurine (Table II, samples 4, 5, and 6). These analyses included
Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) microscopy analysis and electron beam
microprobe elemental chemical analysis conducted by the Strauss Laboratory of
the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University, which were generally confirmed by a
second analysis of the same samples by Steve Weiner of the Department of
Structural Biology at the Weizmann Institute of Science.
Spectrographic analysis showed that with the exception of samples 8 and 12 (see
Table II), the black pigments are essentially the same - burned bone, sometimes called
"bone black" (or "ivory black"). Samples 8 and 12, which were both from black
pigment designs on red slip on (probably later Harappa phase) quadruped figurine
bodies with decoration similar to Harappan pottery, were not bone black (which is
slightly more granular) but rather soot black in a matrix of quartz with a trace of
gypsum. The white pigment on the multicolored figurine headdress (sample 5 in
Table II) was also burned bone - "bone white" or "bone ash" (calcined bone).
Therefore, it appears that both the black and white pigments used to decorate figurines at
Harappa were produced from burned bone rather than from minerals, although mineral
pigments were used for decorated Harappan pottery (possibly iron and manganese
oxide; Kenoyer 1994b: 35, 1998: 153) and they were apparently readily available.
In addition, gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) showed that there was
no substantial difference in the fatty acids found inside the panniers of at least two
figurines (Table II, samples 2 and 3) and on the figurine without panniers (Table II,
sample 7). Thus, there is no evidence that incense or oils were burned in the panniers
of the female figurines from Harappa, contrary to the long-standing interpretation of
the female figurines as "anthropomorphic votive figures" (Mackay 1938: 260-261; see
also Clark 2005, 2007b for discussion).
The unusual choice of burned bone pigments to decorate the figurines rather than
the readily available mineral pigments used to decorate pottery and other artifacts
seems significant. It is especially striking since the visual effect of the bone and
mineral pigments is essentially the same (see Fig. 8). Moreover, the only (brownish-)
black or white mineral pigments on Period 3 figurines from Harappa identified by
the author were found on a few later Harappa phase zoomorphic figurines. All of the
black and white pigments on the Harappan anthropomorphic figurines analyzed thus
far appear to be burned bone pigments. The pigments on the earlier Period 2
4l| Springer
250 Clark
Table II Re
Figurines (
University
amount, an
anthropo
geometr
Accordi
multicol
as Celado
£) Springer
Material Matters: Representation and Materiality of the Harappan Body 25 1
Table II (continued)
Perhaps it is significant as well that the blue-green pigment chosen for the
figurines is "green earth" rather than the copper minerals that the Harappans
used in blue-green faience and other artifacts. The ancient Harappans produced
a unique faience in a variety of colors, including white (from calcium), deep
azure and blue-green (from copper minerals), black (from manganese), yellow,
brown, and red-brown (from iron minerals), and brilliant red derived from an
unknown colorant (Bhan et al. 1994, 2002: 252; also see extensive research on
Indus faience by other scholars, e.g., Barthelemy de Saizieu and Bouquillon 1997;
Bouquillon et al. 1995). Traces of calcium in the white faience and other Indus
faience may have been due to the use of calcinated bone in faience as well (Bhan et
al. 2002: 252).
In Eurasia and many other parts of the world, bone is traditionally considered to
be deeply symbolic and ritually significant, symbolizing the very essence of life by
ritual specialists such as shamans (e.g., Chang 1986: 150). The choice of burned
bone for figurine pigments may suggest a particular symbolic intimacy in their
materiality. The use of bone, a substance so clearly essential to human (and animal)
^ Springer
252 Clark
Fig. 8 Zoom
Harappa Ar
of Pakistan
bone pigm
(probably)
black mine
later Period
slip (H99/8
life, may
two rolls
bone pig
even "life force".
The majority of the Harappan terracotta figurines were not finished or decorated
with pigments, but almost all of the terracotta figurines from Harappa were well fired
(or overtired) at 700 to 900°C (see Kenoyer 1994b). Although no Period 3 pottery or
figurine workshops have been clearly identified at Harappa, a few (overtired or
blackened) figurines have been associated with kilns, possibly the same kilns used to
fire pottery at the site (Clark 2007a: 170-171; see also Dales et al 1991: 230, 235,
Figs. 13.33 and 13.37). In fact, although only a few later figurines from Harappa
have decoration similar to pottery decoration (see Table II, samples 8 and 12, and
Fig. 8), the skill required to produce even the relatively schematic Indus figurine
forms so consistently suggests that figurine specialists, who may have been potters
as well, made the figurines from Harappa.
Even if the Harappans viewed the figurines as a process in which hand modeling and
the individual production of similar figurines were essential - when more efficient and
consistent production technology was readily available - this does not explain why the
figurines were fired. Scholars have noted that modeling clay is dynamic and often
expedient (quick and easy) - an additive process, unlike the reductive process of
grinding or carving stone - but firing the clay then profoundly transforms the raw
material (e.g., Nanoglou 2008b: 318; Talalay 1993: 30-31). Firing figurines implies a
desire for concretization and durability in their materialization.
Thus, the Harappan figurines embody concretized codified actions by specialists -
a process made relatively durable through fired clay. Although it is impossible to know
for sure, each figurine might have been created with the participation of, or under the
gaze of, the user and/or an audience as well. In any case, the figurine's materialization
and transition into "thingness" rather than an aggregation of its constituent parts (clay,
fi Springer
pigment, etc.) represents the process of the Harappans physically engaging with their
world, inserting themselves and their culture into the material world, embodying
themselves and their worldview externally in the figurines - a social process shared at
least to some extent by both manufacturers and users.
The Harappan Figurines in Context
If the Harappan figurines were materialized and concretized social and ideological
processes made durable through firing, it is likely that their "lives" or "life histories"
included additional roles and multiple social meanings before their final discard and
deposition at the site. Terracotta figurines' potential for durability and longevity is
great, especially since they are often curated and reused. Ethnographic studies
suggest that even figurines made for ritual purposes may be reused as toys after their
original functions are fulfilled (e.g., Siiger et al. 1991).
Fully understanding the figurines' biographies as social objects requires
recontextualizing the figurines - considering their archeo logical contexts and
associated objects. This includes a consideration of the rich and diverse figurine
corpus and the larger assemblage of material culture from Harappa, especially the
other objects found in association with the figurines archeologically.
Like most of the Neolithic figurines from sites across the ancient Near East, the
terracotta figurines from Harappa are recovered almost exclusively from (presumably)
nonprimary contexts such as refuse and fill across the site. They were apparently
discarded after their primary and possibly subsequent uses - at the end of their
"lives" - typically broken (or broken as a result of postdepositional processes such as
trampling) along with other terracotta objects such as carts, wheels, beds, and tops, as
well as seals, tablets, pottery, and bones. While this type of deposition is still useful for
dating the objects and general spatial patterning, the lack of clear association with
features such as floors, ritual structures (e.g., niches in temples), and/or shrines limits
the information these contexts can provide about figurine use and disposition.
The most common interpretation of their widespread deposition in trash or refuse
is that the figurines were widely available and used by almost everyone, usually in
domestic contexts or at the household level and possibly temporarily (e.g., Jarrige
1991: 92; Kenoyer 1998: 111; Mackay 1938: 259; Marshall 1931: 50). However, it
seems unlikely that all of these other artifacts (especially inscribed seals and tablets)
were widely available and used domestically. It is more likely that objects became
mixed after they were discarded.
In fact, an unexpected and significant result of the author's research at Harappa
(Clark 2007a; Clark in press) is that the majority of the contextual information at
Harappa - and possibly at many large urban sites in South Asia and in the ancient
Near East - is of limited use in precise interpretation of the figurines' uses, as the
cumulative effect of centuries of human and environmental activity such as
abandonment, inalienation of possessions and collecting, reuse of architectural
material (e.g., brick-robbing) and other disturbances of earlier deposits, and other
taphonomic activities such as immersion in sewage and erosion have created
increasingly complicated and sometimes relatively undifferentiated mixtures of
archeological material in each subsequent period. The heavy disturbance of deposits
4y Springer
254 Clark
at Harap
extends
dating o
difficult.
While it is possible that some refuse contexts may provide meaningful patterns
that reflect the use(s) of figurines and other artifacts, even find contexts such as
refuse from areas around buildings and other features may bear little or no
relation to the use of the figurines before deposition. Refuse can, for example,
easily consist of mixed deposits from a number of areas deposited far away from
the original source. Even today, refuse is sometimes dumped in abandoned areas
or outside villages in Pakistan. At Harappa, clear evidence of dumping (often
broken) artifacts along with household waste including hearth deposits over city
walls and the likelihood that refuse was dumped and redistributed in different
areas of the site by populations over time (e.g., the thick mixed debris over the
cemeteries) may account for some of the widespread distribution of figurines and
other artifacts across the site. Whether the archeological contexts of the figurines are
reflections of their use and discard or simply widespread dumping of refuse is
unclear.
Still, the distributions of certain types of figurines correspond to the
boundaries of the site in the periods in which they were being produced (see
Clark 2007a). Even when considering the spatial distribution generally, there is
very little difference in the distributions of different types of Harappan figurines
that might indicate associations of different types of figurines with different areas
of the site or segregated social groups (e.g., female figurines with fan-shaped
headdresses with panniers (see Fig. 3, left center and right) versus female figurines
with double volute headdresses (see Fig. 3, left)). Due to these contextual
constraints, it is difficult to address how the figurines functioned in Harappan
society definitively.
Summary and Discussion
In this paper, we have seen that material matters for the Harappans in creating
the terracotta figurines, which can be viewed as a symbolic and social process
through which the Harappans engaged with the world around them. Since the
figurines' archeological contexts, typically garbage and fill deposits, and broad
spatial distributions provide limited insights into their "life histories", the paper
has focused on the figurines themselves and the beginning of their "lives" or
their creation. Fortunately, the creation process involved meaningful and
sometimes unusual choices in material, form and decoration, construction, and
transformational finishes that provide possible insights into the figurines' "lives"
and Harappan materiality.
Several recent studies of human representation and materiality at sites in
southeastern Europe during the Neolithic have suggested that material matters for
many earlier groups and their figurines. According to Nanoglou (2005, 2008a, b),
material matters in Neolithic Greece and the Balkans; the materiality of the human
body in stone and in clay is different as it expresses a different subjectivity and
fi Springer
experience of being in the world. For example, Nanoglou (2005, 2008b) notes
changes in the materialization of the human body from the earlier to later Greek
Neolithic that may reflect a shift in subjectivities from concerns with identity and the
present to concerns with substance and the past, concurrent with broader changes in
the Neolithic. Nanoglou (2008a: 10) also interprets differences in human and animal
representation between Neolithic Thessaly and the Balkans as evocations of different
aspects of people's bodily experiences and oriented embodied selves to different
notions of community - making sense of their worlds in different ways.
On the other hand, one cannot say material always matters at other early sites. For
example, a recent study of the figural corpus from Neolithic Qatalhoyiik (now in
Turkey) suggests that material does not matter. This spatial and temporal analysis
shows that the ultimate treatment, circulation, and deposition of all figurines (stone
and clay) across the Neolithic site is the same, which lends weight to the idea that
the inhabitants of Catalhoyuk subscribed to the broad category of "figurine" without
discriminating materials or forms (Meskell et al 2008: 157). Regardless of form,
most clay figurals appear to have been very commonplace everyday or "mundane"
objects, disposable and mobile (Meskell et al 2008: 146, 157). However, like the
situation at the later site of Harappa, these figurines have been found in refuse and
fill across the entire site, so the placement of figurines in any fill may have been
coincidental, especially if they were indeed circulated objects.
Of course, broad comparisons over geographic distances and millennia are of
limited use, as the meanings of figurines and the discourses within which they are
materialized and situated are context-dependent. There must have been differences in
the discourses within which the negotiation of identity and one's place in society
were situated in the Neolithic and later in the often densely populated urban
communities of the Bronze Age, which were connected in even more vast and
complex networks of communication and exchange with new technologies.
To sum up, a number of different lines of evidence indicate an Indus and
Harappan focus on the creation and use of figurines as process-oriented, with
ideological rather than purely functional or practical choices made throughout
production. First, the figurines were hand-modeled rather than more efficiently
molded, a technology that was known and used for other Indus and Harappan
artifacts. Molding the figurines would have been much more efficient with
more consistent results and could have easily produced a similarly two-
dimensional "front-focused" product. The small unstable base provided by two
joined legs with angled feet that made the figurine unable to stand on its own
suggests that these figurines must have been designed to lie on their backs or
to be supported. They are effectively two-dimensional objects whose backs
were not meant to be viewed. The Harappans' use of molding and tendency
toward more efficient, if not, "mass" production of other artifacts suggest that
hand modeling the figurines was a deliberate choice. Of course, there are other
possible explanations for this choice.
Second, many of the figurines were modeled from two clay pieces joined
vertically from head to toe rather than the simpler method of attaching head and
appendages to a torso. For example, although hand modeling a standing
anthropomorphic figurine by joining two rolls of clay from head to toe could have
been a practical choice since the legs would have been easier to model, this is not the
& Springer
256 Clark
most pr
securely
projectin
vertical
possibly
of sex/g
represen
integrati
through
uniform
produce
of the p
this pro
both are
transfor
Third, th
than rea
Although
cheapnes
apparent
pottery s
the Hara
Fourth,
use. Alth
"half-bak
unfired
reused or
served th
to the tr
to those of terracotta.
Many materials were intensively manipulated and transformed in the Indus
artifact assemblage - steatite was often bleached and fired to create hard white seals
and tablets, agate was sometimes partially bleached and fired to create "etched"
carnelian, ground quartz sintered with alkali-lime glassy bonding material was fired
to create the unique Indus "compact" faience (Bhan et al. 1994: 149; Kenoyer
1994b: 359; McCarthy and Vandiver 1991), and copper alloy was manipulated to
create artifacts ranging from tools to small sculptures. Of course, pyrotechnology is
transformative (see Miller 2006 for a good discussion), and other scholars have
suggested that the transformation of materials such as steatite (Vidale 2000) and
agate (Kenoyer et al. 1994; Roux and Matarasso 1999) by firing may have been
ritually important in the Indus.
In this case, the seemingly unremarkable materials, clay and bone, were
transformed through modeling and firing into figurines. The special power and
meaning of seemingly unremarkable materials such as these are not always readily
apparent. There is rarely any evidence of their ritual or magical significance or
use - or the practices involved in their materiality - in the materials that survive
in the archeological record (e.g., see Schmidt, this issue).
^ Springer
Whatever creating the Harappan figurines and the figurines themselves may
have represented, the figurines do not appear to have had permanent power or
agency, as figurines were discarded along with many other objects from broken
seals to animal bone in refuse at Harappa. The materials used for figurines may
have been meaningful, even sacred or magical, but that material was probably
not considered permanently transformed or imbued with sacred or magical
properties, nor are these qualities necessarily evident in the material itself.
Representations and imagery are actively engaged in the processes of people
relating to their world. In the case of the Harappan figurines, material matters
and the processes of manipulating material matters. The unusual construction of
the Harappan figurines represents a unique Harappan materiality - a process of
constructing Harappan identity and ways of being in the world.
Acknowledgments I would like to thank the editors of this special edition, Lynn Meskell and Stratos
Nanoglou, for inviting me to contribute and for numerous constructive suggestions on earlier drafts that
helped focus the central arguments and give the paper the appropriate structure. The paper also benefited
greatly from the constructive comments of Jim Skibo, Catherine Cameron, Heather Miller, and
anonymous reviewers. Although this paper draws upon research presented in my dissertation, the paper
allowed me to think about these data in a new way. I would like to thank my doctoral advisors C. C.
Lamberg-Karlovsky and Richard Meadow for their ongoing support and for reading portions of the work
presented here. I'm also grateful to Steve Weiner for generously providing additional analyses of the
pigment samples. This research was made possible through the generous cooperation of the Department
of Archaeology and Museums of the Government of Pakistan, including the Harappa Museum and
the National Museum of Pakistan, the Harappa Archaeological Research Project, the Lahore
Museum, the University of Peshawar SSAQ Museum of Archaeology, the Archaeological Survey of
India, and the National Museum of India. The American School of Prehistoric Research, the George
F. Dales Foundation, the Harappa Archaeological Research Project, the Cora DuBois Charitable
Trust, and Harvard University provided financial support for my research. Any errors are solely the
responsibility of the author.
References
Ahuja, N. P. (2000). Early Indian moulded terracotta: The emergence of an iconography and variations in
style, circa second century BC to first century AD. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Oriental
and African Studies, University of London, London.
Amiran, R. (1962). Myths of the creation of man and the Jericho statues. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research, 167, 23-25.
Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The
social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 3-63). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Attfield, J. (2000). Wild things: The material culture of everyday life. Oxford: Berg.
Bailey, D. W. (2005). Prehistoric figurines: Representation and corporeality in the neolithic. London:
Routledge.
Barthelemy de Saizieu, B., & Bouquillon, A. (1997). Evolution of glazed materials from the chalcolithic to
the Indus period based on the data of Mehrgarh and Nausharo. In R. Allchin & B. Allchin (Eds.),
South Asian archaeology 1995 (pp. 63-76). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH.
Bhan, K. K., Vidale, M., & Kenoyer, J. M. (1994). Harappan technology: Methodological and theoretical
issues. Man and Environment, /9(l-2), 141-157.
Bhan, K. K., Vidale, M., & Kenoyer, J. M. (2002). Some important aspects of the Harappan
civilization technological tradition. In S. Settar & R. Korisettar (Eds.), Indian archaeology in
© Springer
258 Clark
retrospect
Delhi: Manohar.
Biehl, P. F. (1996). Symbolic communication systems: symbols on anthropomorphic figurines in neolithic
and chalcolithic Southeast Europe. Journal of European Archaeology, 4, 153-176.
Biehl, P. F. (2003). Figurines in action: Methods and theories in figurine research. In R. Layton, S. Shennan
& P. Stone (Eds.), A future for archaeology: The past as the present (pp. 199-215). London: UCL.
Bouquillon, A., Barthelemy de Saizieu, B., & Duval, A. (1995). Glazed steatite beads from Mehrgarh and
Nausharo (Indus Valley). In J. R. Druzik & P. B. Vandiver (Eds.), Materials issues in art and
archaeology IV, Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 352 (pp. 527-538). Pittsburgh:
Materials Research Society.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex". New York: Routledge.
Chang, K.-C. (1986). The archaeology of ancient China. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Chapman, J. (2000). Fragmentation in archaeology: People, places and broken objects in the prehistory
of southeastern Europe. London: Routledge.
Chapman, J., & Gaydarska, B. (2007). Parts and wholes: Fragmentation in prehistoric context. Oxford:
Oxbow.
Clark, S. R. (2003). Representing the Indus body: Sex, gender, sexuality, and the anthropomorphic
terracotta figurines from Harappa. Asian Perspectives, 42(2), 304-328.
Clark, S. R. (2005). In search of the elusive "mother goddess": A critical approach to the interpretation of
Indus terracotta figurines with a focus on Harappa. In C. Jarrige & V. Lefevre (Eds.), South Asian
archaeology 2001 (pp. 61-77). Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations-ADPF.
Clark, S. R. (2007a). The social lives of figurines: Recontextualizing the third millennium BC terracotta
figurines from Harappa (Pakistan). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Harvard University, Cambridge.
Clark, S. R. (2007b). Bodies of evidence: The case against the "Harappan" mother goddess. In C. Renfrew
& I. Morley (Eds.), Image and imagination: A global prehistory of figurative representation (pp. 227-
239). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Clark, S. R. (in press). The social lives of figurines: Recontextualizing the third millennium BC terracotta
figurines from Harappa (Pakistan). Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Coomaraswamy, A. K. (1928). Archaic Indian Terracottas. IPEK: Jahrbuch fur Prdhistorische and
Ethnographische Kunst (Annual Review of Prehistoric and Ethnographical Art), 1928, 64-76.
Dales, G. F. (1960). Mesopotamian and Related Female Figurines: Their Chronology, Diffusion, and
Cultural Functions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. University Micro-
films: Ann Arbor.
Dales, G. F. (1991a). Some specialized ceramic studies at Harappa. In R. H. Meadow (Ed.), Harappa
excavations 1986-1990: A multidisciplinary approach to third millennium urbanism. Monographs in
world archaeology, no. 3 (pp. 61-69). Madison: Prehistory.
Dales, G. F. (1991b). The phenomenon of the Indus civilization. In M. Jansen, M. Mulloy & G. Urban
(Eds.), Forgotten cities on the Indus: Early civilization in Pakistan from the 8th to the 2nd millennium
B.C. (pp. 129-144). Mainz: von Zabern.
Dales, G. F., Kenoyer, J. M., & the staff of the Harappa Project. (1991). Summaries of five seasons of
research at Harappa (District Sahiwal, Punjab, Pakistan), 1986-1990. In R. H. Meadow (Ed.),
Harappa excavations 1986-1990: A multidisciplinary approach to third millennium urbanism.
Monographs in world archaeology, no. 3 (pp. 1 85-262). Madison: Prehistory.
During Caspers, E. C. L. (1985). Sundry technical aspects of the manufacture of Indus valley terracotta art.
In G. Gnoli (Ed.), Miscellanea of studies in memory ofGuiseppe Tucci (pp. 267-285). Rome: Istituto
Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
Fairservis, W. A., Jr. (1967). The origin, character, and decline of an early civilization. American Museum
Novitates, 2302, 1^8.
Farmer, S., Sproat, R., & Witzel, M. (2004). The collapse of the Indus-script thesis: the myth of a literate
Harappan civilization. Electronic Journal ofVedic Studies, 11(2), 19-57.
Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gupta, S. P. (1996). The Indus-Saraswati civilization: Origins, problems, and issues. Delhi: Pratibha
Prakashan.
Hourmouziadis, G. (1973). / anthropomorphi eidoloplastiki tis neolithikis thessalias: Provlimata
kataskevis, typologias kai ermineias. Volos: Society of Thessalian Studies.
Huyler, S. P. (1996). Gifts of earth: Terracottas and clay sculptures of India. Middletown: Grantha
Corporation.
Ingold, T. (2007). Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues, 14(\), 1-16.
^ Springer
Jarrige, C. (1991). The Terracotta figurines from Mehrgarh. In M. Jansen, M. Mulloy & G. Urban (Eds.),
Forgotten cities on the Indus: Early civilization in Pakistan from the 8th to the 2nd millennium B. C
(pp. 87-93). Mainz: von Zabern.
Joyce, R. A. (2007). Figurines, meaning and meaning-making in early Mesoamerica. In C. Renfrew & I.
Morley (Eds.), Image and imagination: A global prehistory of figurative representation (pp. 101 -
1 1 0). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Kenoyer, J. M. (1991). Ornament styles of the Indus valley tradition: evidence from recent excavations at
Harappa, Pakistan. Paleorient, 77(2), 79-98.
Kenoyer, J. M. (1994a). The Harappan state: Was it or wasn't it? In J. M. Kenoyer (Ed.), From sumer to
Meluhha: Contributions to the archaeology of South and West Asia in memory of George F Dales, Jr.
Wisconsin archaeological reports, volume 3 (pp. 71-80). Madison: Prehistory.
Kenoyer, J. M. (1994b). Experimental studies of Indus valley technology at Harappa. In A. Parpola & P.
Koskikallio (Eds.), South Asian archaeology 1993, volume II. Annales academiae scientiarum
fennicae B-271 (pp. 345-362). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Kenoyer, J. M. (1998). Ancient cities of the Indus civilization. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Kenoyer, J. M., & Meadow, R. H. (2000). The Ravi phase: A new cultural manifestation at Harappa. In M.
Taddei & G. de Marco (Eds.), South Asian archaeology 1997 (pp. 55-76). Rome: Istituto Italiano per
l'Africa e l'Oriente.
Kenoyer, J. M., Vidale, M., & Bhan, K. K. (1994). Carnelian bead production in Khambhat, India: An
ethnoarchaeological study. In B. Allchin (Ed.), Living traditions: Studies in the ethnoarchaeology of
South Asia (pp. 281-306). New Delhi: Oxford and IBH.
Knapp, A. B., & Meskell, L. (1997). Bodies of evidence in prehistoric Cyprus. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal, 7(2), 183-204.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (1996). Beyond the Tigris and Euphrates: Bronze age civilizations. Beer-
Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (1999). The Indus civilization: the case for caste formation. Journal of East
Asian Archaeology, 13(1), 87-113.
Mackay, E. J. H. (1938). Further excavations at Mohenjo-Daro: Being an official account of
archaeological excavations at Mohenjo-Daro carried out by the government of India between the
years 1927 and 1931, volumes I- II. New Delhi: Government of India.
Malik, S. C. (1968). Indian civilization: The formative period (a study of archaeology as anthropology).
Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Marshall, J. H. (ed). (1931). Mohenjo-daro and the Indus civilization, volumes I- III, A. London:
Probsthain.
McCarthy, B., & Vandiver, P. (1991). Ancient high-strength ceramics: Fritted faience bracelet manufacture at
Harappa (Pakistan), ca. 230O-1800 B. C. In P. Vandiver, J. Druzik & G. W. Wheeler (Eds.), Materials
issues in art and archaeology, volume II. Materials research society symposium proceedings 185 (pp.
495-510). Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society.
Meadow, R. H. (1991). Harappa excavations 1986-1990: A multidisciplinary approach to third
millennium urbanism. Monographs in world archaeology, no. 3. Madison: Prehistory.
Meadow, R. H. (2002). The chronological and cultural significance of a steatite wig from Harappa. Iranica
Antiqua, 37, 191-202.
Meadow, R. H., & Kenoyer, J. M. (1997). Excavations at Harappa 1994-1995: New perspectives on the
Indus script, craft activities, and city organization. In R. Allchin & B. Allchin (Eds.), South Asian
archaeology 1995 (pp. 139-172). New Delhi: Oxford and IBH.
Meadow, R. H., & Kenoyer, J. M. (2000). The 'tiny steatite seals' (incised steatite tablets) of Harappa:
Some observations on their context and dating. In M. Taddei & G. de Marco (Eds.), South Asian
archaeology 1997 (pp. 321-340). Rome: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente.
Meadow, R. H., & Kenoyer, J. M. (2001). Recent discoveries and highlights from excavations at Harappa:
1998-2000. Indian Archaeological Studies, 22, 19-36.
Meadow, R. H., Kenoyer, J. M., & Wright, R. P. (1994). Harappa archaeological research project: 1994
excavations. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan, 30
August 1994.
excavations. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan, 1 5
September 1995.
excavations. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan,
December 17, 1996.
£) Springer
260 Clark
Meadow,
1997 exca
Pakistan.
Meadow,
1998 exca
Pakistan.
Meadow, R. H., Kenoyer, J. M., & Wright, R. P. (2000). Harappa archaeological research project:
1999 excavations. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of
Pakistan.
Meadow, R. H., Kenoyer, J. M., & Wright, R. P. (2001). Harappa archaeological research project:
Harappa excavations 2000 and 2001. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Museums,
Government of Pakistan.
Meskell, L. M. (1995). Goddesses, Gimbutas and "New Age" archaeology. Antiquity, 69, 74-86.
Meskell, L. M. (2004). Object worlds in ancient Egypt. Oxford: Berg.
Meskell, L. M. (2007). Refiguring the corpus at Catalhoyiik. In C. Renfrew & I. Morley (Eds.), Image and
imagination: A global prehistory of figurative representation (pp. 137-149). Cambridge: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research.
Meskell, L. M., Nakamura, C, King, R., & Farid, S. (2008). Figured lifeworlds and depositional practices
at Catalhoyiik. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18(2), 139-161.
Miller, D. (1985). Ideology and the Harappan civilization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 4(\),
34-71.
Miller, D. (1987). Material culture and mass consumption. Oxford: Blackwell.

Miller, D. (1998). Why some things matter. In D. Miller (Ed.), Material cultures: Why some things matter
(pp. 3-21). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, D. (ed). (2005). Materiality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Miller, H. M.-L. (2006). Archaeological approaches to technology. San Diego: Academic.
Mughal, M. R. (1968). Harappa-1966 (Cemetery R37). Pakistan Archaeology, 5, 63-68.
Nakamura, C. (2005). Mastering matters: Magical sense and apotropaic figurine worlds of Neo- Assyria. In
L. Meskell (Ed.), Archaeologies of materiality (pp. 1 8^45). Maiden: Blackwell.
Nanoglou, S. (2005). Subjectivity and material culture in Thessaly, Greece: the case of Neolithic
anthropomorphic imagery. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 15(2), 141-156.
Nanoglou, S. (2008a). Representation of humans and animals in Greece and the Balkans during the earlier
Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18(\), 1-13.
Nanoglou, S. (2008b). Qualities of humanness: Material aspects of Greek Neolithic anthropomorphic
imagery. Journal of Material Culture, 13(3), 311-334.
O'Flaherty, W. D. (1980). Women, androgynes, and other mythical beasts. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Parpola, A. (1994). Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Possehl, G. L. (1996). The Indus age: The writing system. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Possehl, G. L. (1998). Sociocultural complexity without the state: The Indus civilization. In G. M.
Feinman & J. Marcus (Eds.), Archaic states (pp. 261-291). Santa Fe: School of American
Research.
Possehl, G. L. (1999). Indus age: The beginnings. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Roux, V., & Matarasso, P. (1999). Crafts and the evolution of complex societies: New methodologies for
modelling the organization of production, a Harappan example. In M.-A. Dobres & C. Hoffman
(Eds.), The social dynamics of technology, practice, politics and world views (pp. 46-70).
Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Schiffer, M. B. (1999). The material life of human beings: Artifacts, behavior, and communication. New
York: Routledge.
Schiffer, M. B., & Skibo, J. M. (1987). Theory and experiment in the study of technological change.
Current Anthropology, 28, 595-622.
Skibo, J. M., & Schiffer, M. B. (2008). People and things: A behavioral approach to material culture.
New York: Springer.
Srivastava, S. K. (1996). Terracotta art in northern India. Delhi: Parimal.
Suger, H., Castenfeldt, S., & Fentz, M. (1991). Small functional items and regeneration of society: Dough
figurines from the Kalash people of Chitral, Northern Pakistan. Folk, 33, 37-66.
Talalay, L. E. (1987). Rethinking the function of clay figurine legs from Neolithic Greece: an argument by
analogy. American Journal of Archaeology, 91, 161-169.
<S Springer
Talalay, L. E. (1993). Deities, dolls, and devices: Neolithic figurines from Franchthi cave, Greece.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ucko, P. J. (1968). Anthropomorphic figurines of predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with comparative
material from the prehistoric Near East and mainland Greece, Royal Anthropological Institute
Occasional Paper No. 24, Andrew Szmidla, Lo.
Vats, M. S. (1940). Excavations at Harappa, volumes I-II. New Delhi: Government of India.
Vidale, M. (2000). The archaeology of Indus crafts: Indus craftspeople and why we study them. Rome:
Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO).
Voigt, M. M. (1983). Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: The Neolithic settlement, Hasanlu excavation reports,
volume I. University museum monograph 50. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania.
Wheeler, R. E. M. (1947). Harappa 1946: The defenses and Cemetery R37. Ancient India, 3, 59-130.
4l1 Springer

Body in Harappan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Body in Harappan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Material Matters: Representation and Materiality of the Harappan Body

Author(s): Sharri R. Clark

Material Matters: Representation and Materiality

Published online: 24 June 2009

Keywords Indus Civilization • Harappa • Figurines • Representation • Materiality

This leaves us with the figurines themselves as the prim

Representation, Materiality, and Ontological Issues

The Indus Civilization and the Harappan Figurines

In the Indus Civilization (ca. 2600-1900 bc), a society with no surviving

styles in a complex urban civilization with an extensive interaction network over

Table I Chronology for Harappa (After Meadow et al. 2001)

Period/phase at Harappa Approximate dates

Fig. 2 The convex face of a

Form and Decoration

Representations of the Harappan body and Harappan norms of dress and

Fig. 5 Globular female figurine

may represent the materialization of the negotiation of a regional group's identity

Harappan artisans were clearly capable of creating more realistic terracotta

of the long-standing interpretation that the Indus female figurines functioned as

The Harappan Figurines in Context

Summary and Discussion

Miller, D. (1987). Material culture and mass consumption. Oxford: Blackwell.

You might also like