1

ThedistributionandroleofHarappan‘headdress’figurinesandHarappansocio-politicalorganisation.

JacekWankowski

TheUniversityofSydney,DepartmentofArchaeology,SchoolofPhilosophicalandHistoricalInquiry,A14Quadrangle,NSW2006,Australia.

Abstract

Thisdiscussionpapersummarisestheknowngeographicdistributionofthesmallanthropomorphicterracottafemalefigurineswhichwerepreviouslymisleadinglyoftendescribedas‘MotherGoddesses’.Itreviewspublishedinformationonthedistributionofthese‘headdress’figurines,concludingthattheyarecharacteristicofacoreIndusValleyCivilisationaroundthemajorIndusRiverurbancentresofHarappaandMohenjo-daro,andareabsentatthefringesandraretoabsentinbetween.Areviewofpublishedinformationonsitedistributionandpossiblerolesattributedtotheseandotherfigurinesconcludesthatratherthanbeingfertilitysymbolsorimagesofdeities,theirmostlikelyusewasasinitiationfigurinestosocialise,trainandeducatechildrenandyoungadults:amethodofexercisingpowerandsocialcontrolbyarulingelitewhichwasabsentfromthecitiesandtowns.Itisproposedthatthesocio-politicalstructurefortheIndusValleyCivilisationwassimilarto1stmillenniumCESaxonEngland:artisanal/mercantilecitiesfromwhichtherulingandreligiouseliteswereabsent,livingatdispersed,smallersitesanalogoustoSaxonaristocraticestatesandmonasteries.Furtherworkshouldbeundertakentofindandidentifysuchsites.Finally,theevidencesuggeststhattherulingclassesweredominatedbyapowerfulfemale(orfemale-gender)elite.

Introduction

TheIndusValleyCivilisationexistedapproximatelycontemporaneouslywiththethreeothergreatriverinecivilisationsofthe‘ancient’world:MesopotamiaalongtheEuphratesandTigrisRivers,EgyptalongtheNile,andXiaandShangDynastyChinaontheYellowRiver.Byitsmaturephase(2600-1900BCE)itwasbyfarthelargestoftheseandcoveredanareaof1.3millionkm2(Fig.1)andpossibleasmuchas3.1millionkm2,centredonthealluvialIndusand(thenowdry)Ghaggar-Hakra-SaraswatiRivervalley,withawide-rangingtradenetwork,bothmaritimetotheMesopotamiancivilisationsofthePersianGulfandoverlandtoAfghanistaninthewestandGujaratintheeast,integratingthishugearea(ConinghamandYoung2015,p.177-178,211,fig.6.27;ScarreandFagan2016,p.135-145).

ThematurephaseIndusCivilisation(Fig.1)comprisedfivesignificantsites:thetwolargecitiesofMohenjo-daroandHarappaandthreesmallercities,some100smalltownsandmorethan1000possiblesmallvillagesettlements(ConinghamandYoung2015,p.183-4,fig.6.2,p.200).Totalpopulationsizewasprobablyaround5million(Gelderloos2017,p.93).

2

Kenoyer(2006,p.31-33),ConinghamandYoung(2015,p.182-183,204,238-9)andScarre&Fagan(2016,p.145-148)reviewthecurrentstateofknowledgeaboutthematurephaseIndus.Nothingisknownaboutsocial,politicalorreligiousorganisationandbeliefsasthescriptremainsundecipheredandtherearenoimagescommemoratingrulers,leadersorpriests,andnoevidenceofamilitary.Whileeverythingpointstoacommonideologyandasharedsetofnormsandvalues,therearenoidentifiabletemplesorpalaces,nomonuments,noelitedwellings,no‘royal’graves;citydwellingsareunpretentious‘middleclass’standardisedbuildings.Citydwellersappeartohavebeentradersandartisans.

Recentresearchandre-analysisofpreviouswork(ConinghamandYoung2015,p.235-7;Gelderoos2017,p.94,135;Kenoyer1997,p.263:2006,p.31-32)hasnotledtoanyonemodelofsocio-political-religiousorganisation,withvarioushypotheticalalternativesproposed:

1. onesinglestate,2. multiple‘domains’orcitystates,3. adecentralisedegalitariansociety,4. asocietyrunbychangingassembliesof(possiblycompeting)inhabitants,5. astatelesspurelymercantilesociety.

ThishasledtorecentproposalsthattheIndusdoesnotfitmodelsdevelopedfortheNearEastandeasternMediterranean,andthereforeanewmodelandexplanationfortheIndusneedstobedeveloped(Coningham&Young2015:237;ShafferinWenke&Olszewski2007:425).

Indusfigurines

IndusterracottafigurinesvaryinsizeandappearanceandhavebeenfoundindifferentcontextsandlocationsthroughouttheIndusregion.Awidevarietyofzoomorphic,anthropomorphic,

1

23

4

5

Figure1.MaturephaseIndusValleyCivilisation,showingsitelocationsandregions1-5aspertheTable.BasemapfromWikimediaCommons.

3

compositeand,toalesserextent,male-formfigurines1havebeencommonlyfound(ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.491-519;Kenoyer1998,p.127-137)andfigurinescomprisethe‘mostvariedandnumerousclassofartisticsubjectsoftheIndusCivilisation’(Ardeleneanu-Jansen2002,p.205).WhilezoomorphicfigurinesdominatetheInduscorpus(Insoll2017,p.4),thesubjectofthispaperarethesmall(generallyunder20cmhigh)anthropomorphicterracottafigurinesofthefemaleforminthepastmisleadinglydescribedas‘MotherGoddess’fertility-deities(ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.510).Theideathattheyareafertilitydeityorsymbol(Kenoyer1998,p.132)or‘MotherGoddess’hasbeenextensivelychallengedbyClark(2005;2007a;2007b,p.533-44)andmoregenerallydiscredited2.Ardeleneanu-Jansen(1992,p.6)andBiagi(2004,p.24)notethat‘headdress’figurinesarerelativelyrare,butofgreatinterestbecauseoftheinsightstheyprovide.

Whiletheapproachoffocussingononlyonetypeoffigurinehasitscritics(Meskell2017,p.20-21),ithasthemeritofeliminatingthedistractionofoverwhelmingandoftenextraneousinformationandallowsforsubstantivecomparison,lookingforapatterning,ratherthannarrowcontextualisation(Lesure2017,p.37).Lesure(2011,p.44,208)notesthatbothcontextualistanduniversalistprinciplescanbeappliedtogetherina‘holistic’archaeology.

AgoodexampleofthistypeoffigurineistheNicholsonMuseumfigure(Fig.2)dated2500-1750BCE.Ithasafan-shapedheaddressstylecommonfromthelatematureHarappanperiod,2200-1900BCE(AruzandWallenfels2003,p.391-2).Thereisaprominentpairofcupseithersideofthehead.Theheaddresswasprobablyoriginallypaintedblackorsmudgedwithburningoilsmoke.Thereisatriple-strandchokerwithpendantbeadsandatriple-strandnecklacewithadisk-shapedpendant.Otherthantheseadornments,thefigureisnaked.Thefigurinecomprisesonlytheheadanduppertorso.

Marshall(inClarkandKenoyer2017,p.494)reportsthatthese‘headdress’figurinesareverydifferenttothoseofadjacentcontemporaneouscivilisationsinMesopotamia,Iran,EgyptandAfghanistan,andproposesthatthisimpliesaverydifferentsocietalorganisationandculturetothoseadjacentcivilisations.Clark(2007b,p.522,537,539-40)andClarkandKenoyer(2017,p.499)considerthatthisuniquestyleoffigurinemostlikelydevelopedindigenouslyandindependentlyofcontemporaneouscivilisations,althoughDuringCaspers(1994,p.186-190)suggeststhe3-flowerheaddressstylemayhaveoriginatedinancientSumerinsouthernMesopotamia.ThisissupportedbySuter’sobservation(2007,p.317,331-32)thatstatuesofpowerfulMesopotamian‘highpriestesses’ofthissameperiodalsodisplayuniqueandelaborateheaddresses.

Ofthe1000orsoidentifiedIndussites,only97havebeenexcavatedtoanyextent(Singh2008,p.137)andmostexcavationhasoccurredinthefivecities.Ofthese,onlyHarappaandMohenjo-darohaveyieldedsignificantnumbersof‘headdress’figurines(ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.493,511),i.e.thevastmajorityoffigurineshavebeenfoundfromthesetwocoresitesoftheIndusRiveralluvialplain(ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.511).Apartfromthesestandingformal‘headdress’figurines,otherfemale-formfigurinesfromsomesitesengageindomesticorotheractivitiesandholding/breastfeedingchildren(seebelow).

1Thisisageneralpattern:Hamilton(1996,p.285)andUcko(1962,p.40),amongstothers,notethewidespreadsmallnumberofmalefigurinesworldwide.2Whilethewidespread‘MotherGoddess’fertility-deitycharacterisationhasbeenwidelydiscredited(e.g.Meskell2017,p.21;Lesure2011,p.11-12,158,204-5;Lesure2017,p.37;Ucko1962,p.47),thereremainstheviewthatworshipofthe‘MotherGoddess’continuedaftertheIndusCivilisationwassupposedlysubsumedbyinvadingAryanpeoples,manifestingitselfinpopularworshipofthatdeityintheHindureligiouspantheon(Gelderloos2017,p.117;Lesure2011,p.12).

4

These‘headdress’figurinesappeartohaveoriginatedfromcrudely-modelled7thmillenniumBCEunbackedclayfigurinesfoundintheNeolithicsettlementofMehrgarhinBaluchistan(Indasubunmeiten2000,p.36-7;Jarrige1997,fig.1).Lesure(2011,p.20-21,fig.6)notesa‘halo’ofNeolithicandChalcolithicfemale-formfigurinesaroundtheFertileCrescentwhichshowcommonformats,traitsandthemes,ofwhichMehrgarhisattheeasternextremity.SimilaritiestothefigurinesfromIranandTurkmenistanarestriking.

Biagi(2004,p.24-5)referstoevidenceofthealmostcontinuoustypologicalevolutionfromtheseoldesttypesthroughcomposite,seatedfigurinesataround4000BCEwhichshowstylisedfaces,jewelleryandbreaststothe‘headdress’-typefemale-formatfigurinesseeninFig.2.

Byaround3000BCE,figurinesinBronzeAgeMehrgarh(Ardeleneanu-Jansen2002,p.206-7)hadevolvedintodelicately-modelled,coiffured,sittingfemale-formfiguresinfired

terracotta(Indasubunmeiten2000,p.39).Ardeleneanu-Jansen(2002,p.206-7)alsonotesthatjustbeforetheHarappanInduscultureappearsinthe3rdmillenniumBCE,thesefigureschangetoastandingstylewithmorediversejewelleryandheaddressassemblages(Indasubunmeiten2000,p.40;Jarrige1997,fig.2),andthatthisstyleandceramictechnologyisthenadoptedbytheIndus.

ThefollowingTablereviewsfindsfrommaturephaseIndussitesatwhichsignificantexcavationshavebeenundertaken(e.g.ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.510-11).SeeFig.1forlocations.

1.IndusRiveralluvialplain

Harappa Figurinesaregenerallycomplexwithvariousadornments(flowers,jewellery,belts)andfan-shapedheaddresses,usuallystandingorsitting;mostwithbreasts,somewithobviousgenitalia.Thesearetheclassic‘headdress’figurinespreviouslydescribedasthe‘MotherGoddess’.

Clark2005,figs.2and4;ClarkandKenoyer2017,figs.22.4,22.5;Indasubunmeiten2000,p.114,116;Kenoyer1998,figs.7.20,7.23;Clark2005;Clark2007a.

Figure2.TerracottafemalefigurefromHarappa,Pakistan,2500-1750BC.NicholsonMuseumUniversityofSydney.NM48.46.8.0cmHx5.6cmWx3.5cmD.

5

Mohenjo-daro Verysimilarto,butmorevariedanddiversethanHarappa,withavarietyofcoiffuresandforms;slimstandingfiguresandpot-belliedmatronsandtall,shapelynursingmothers.

Ardeleneanu-Jansen2002,p.207-11,figs.1-3;Indasubunmeiten2000,p.118;Kenoyer1998,fig.7.14.

Chanhu-daro Mckayreportsthatfigurinesweresimilartothe‘MotherGoddess’figuresfromHarappa,withdifferencesattributedbyClarkandKenoyertochronology.ButDuringCaspersreportstheyweresomewhatdifferent.

Mckay1936,p.89;1938,p.475;ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.510;DuringCaspers1994,p.186.

2.WesternIndusValleyperiphery

Nausharo Whiletherearesimilaritieswiththeabovesites,Nausharo(whichisinthesameareaasMehrgarhontheedgeoftheBaluchistanhighlands)figurinesarequitedifferentinappearance,morenaturalisticwithslimwaists,heavybreasts,genitalia,‘natural’hairstylesandturbans.

Indasubunmeiten2000,p.42,115;Jarrige1997figs.3-11;Kenoyer1998,figs.7.21,7.22.

3.UppereasternGhaggar-Hakra-SaraswatiRiver

Rakhigarhi AnthropomorphicfigurinesdonotappeartofeaturefromthisIndusmetropolisalthoughotherfigurinessimilartoHarappanonesareplentiful.

Nath1998.p.39,45;NathcitedinClarkandKenoyer2017,p.510.

Banawali OnlyahandfuloffigurineshavebeenfoundatthissiteclosetoRakhigarhi,andthesearequitedifferentfromanyothers:acylindrical-bodyfemalewithpoorly-definedfeatures,shortlegswitharmsorheaddressloopscoveringitsface.

Bisht1982,p.119,plate10.20;Indasubunmeiten2000,p.117.

BagasaraandShikarpur Onlytwo(possibly3)partialfigurineshavebeenfoundatthesetwonearbysites,one

BhanandAjithprasad2008,p.5andfig.4;2009,p.5andfig.6.

6

maleonefemale;bothshowsimple,roundmodelling,remainsofabrightredslipwithgraphicmodellingofthegenitaliainthefemale.

4.Easternplains

GujaratandDholavira Fewfemalefigurines,surprisinggiventheextentofexcavationsinthisregion,andthesearequitesimpleanddifferenttothosefromHarappa.

ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.511;Indasubunmeiten2000,p.116.

5.Coastaleasternplain

Lothal ExcavationsinthisHarappanporttownyieldedfewfemalefigurines,andthesearecompletelydifferenttoothers:crude,unornamentedrepresentationsofthenakedbody,coveredwithalightchocolateslipnotseenfromanyothersite.

Rao1985,p.477-78,fig.98.

Kuntasi Onlyonefemalefigurinewithasimple,unadornedstar-shapedbodyquitedifferenttotheHarappanstylehasbeenfoundfromthissubstantialIndusCivilisationemporiumtown.

Dhavilkaretal.1996,p.246,figs.7.44item9and7.45item9.

Rojdi Nofemalefigurinesfound.

PossehlandRaval1989,p.158.

Whatisclearfromthepublishedmaterialisthatfindsof‘headdress’-typeandotherterracottafemale-formatfigurinesarequiterareoverthelengthandbreadthoftheIndusCivilisation:thetotalisinthe100snot1000s,althoughmanythousandsofothertypesofterracottafigurineshavebeenfound.‘Headdress’female-formatfigurinesarefoundalmostexclusivelyinthecoreIndusareasofHarappainthenorth,atMohenjo-daroandatChanhu-darointhesouth.Adifferentstyle(seeTable)offemale-formfigurinesisfoundintheMehrgarhandNausharoareaswestoftheIndusRiverattheedgeoftheBaluchistanhighlands.OtherareasoftheIndusCivilisationtotheeast(fromtheupperreachesoftheGhaggar-Hakra-SaraswatiRivervalleydowntothesea)donotappeartohavemuchaffinitywiththecoreasfarasfemale-form(or,indeedanthropomorphic)figurinesareconcerned;anycommonalitymaybeattributedtothesamesubjectmatter(thehumanbody)andthesamematerial(clay).

7

Discussion

Giventherarityof‘headdress’figurinesinareasoutsideofthecoreIndusValley,it’sreasonabletoconcludethattheydidnotplaymuchofasocietalroleintheeasternIndusarea.Thisassumesthatthepaucityoffindsisnotduetolimitedexcavation,howeverthesesitesintheeasternareashavebeenwellinvestigated.ThisdiscussionthereforeconcentratesonthesocietyofthecoreIndusregion.

These‘headdress’figurineshaveexclusivelybeenfoundbrokenanddepositedinwastemiddens,domesticrubbishpitsandhousefloorswithnonefoundinanyprimary-usecontext(Biagi2004,p.24;ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.500;Insoll2017,p.6),implyingthattheywerewidelyavailable,usedephemerally,possiblyusedorre-usedastoysthendiscardedafteruse(ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.500;Insoll2017,p.5)i.e.‘discardedattheendoftheirsociallives’(Clark2003,p.309).Deliberatefragmentationoffigurinesattheendoftheir‘life’isconsideredsignificantinawiderangeofNeolithicandBronzeAgecultures:inancientMesopotamia,Europe,theAegean,NorthAmericaandMesoamerica(Insoll2017,p.10)primarilyorexclusivelyinsecondarycontextssuchasmiddens(Meskell2017,p.22;Ucko1962,p.41).Voigt(2007,p.167)arguesthat6thmillenniumAnatolianfigurinesweredeliberatelybroken,thatis‘killed’,aspartofthedisposalprocess.Marcus(inHamilton1996,p.286-91)reportsthatvirtuallyallbrokenfigurinesinearlyOaxaca,Mexicoaroundthe1stmillenniumBCEwerefoundinhouseholdmiddens.UsinginformationfromearlySpanishColonialdocuments,sheconcludesthatfemale-formfigurineswereusedbywomenininclusivehouseholdrituals(vsexclusivemale-genderorsingle-grouppublicrituals).Explanationsfortheremovalfromactiveuseincludetheconceptoffigurineagency,wherefragmentationismetaphoricallyusedtoreleasetheir‘force’or‘energy’wherethefigurinemayhavefunctionedasasurrogateusedto‘enchain’peoplewithpowerfulpersons,placesorspirits(Insoll2017,p.10).

Indus‘headdress’figurineshaveneverbeenfoundinanyburialcontext(seeaboveandBiagi2004,p.24;Clark2003,p.309).DespitesuggestionssuchasMckay(1936,p.89)thattheywerelikelykeptinwall-niche‘shrinestothegreat‘MotherGoddess’’ineveryhouseandassociatedwithvotiveofferings,therehasnotbeenanypublishedevidencesupportingsuchause.Insoll(2017,p.5-7)arguesthatfigurinesingeneralwerepartof‘muchwidermaterialworlds’andofa‘broaderworldofrepresentation’:theymayhavearitualroleinsomecontextswhileinothersfunctionvariedandchangedovertime;somewerealsousedastoys.Lesure’s(2011,p.30-31,62)‘windowonsociety’conceptofdepictionsofarangeofpeoplemayalsoberelevantsinceboth‘workingwomen’(seebelow)and‘headdress’figurineshavebeenfoundtogether(Kenoyer1998,p.135andfig.7.23).

Thefactthatnonehavebeenfoundinanyprimaryusecontextobviouslycreatesasignificantinterpretativeproblem(e.g.Lesure2011,p.28).

Further,thelackofreadableIndustextleadstoambiguityofinterpretation(Hamilton1996,p.281;Suter2007,p.317)andallowsonlyconjectureastotheroleplayedbythesefigurines(Clark2003,p.308).ClarkandKenoyer(2017,p.513-15)reviewarangeofpossibilities,manyofwhicharediscussedlaterinthispaper.

Difficultyininterpretingfigurinescanbeaproblemevenwhereareadabletextisavailable.NakamuraandYoshizawa(1997)reportasynthesisedstudyof‘Astarte’figurinesfoundin1stmillenniumBCELevant,SyriaandsouthernMesopotamia.Althoughmadefrommoulds(nothand-madeastheIndus‘headdress’figurines),‘Astarte’figurinesarefemale-form,nakedorclothed,ofsimilarsize(10-15cmheight)toIndus’headdress’figurinesandexhibitcomplexandindividualheaddresses/hairstylesandjewelleryandnecklaces(NakamuraandYoshizawa1997,p.74-82).Theyarefounddiscardedinmiddensetcandwithoutthepresenceofanyreligiousorcultobjects;mostarebrokeninaparticularway(NakamuraandYoshizawa1997,p.82-84).Textualevidence

8

initiallypointedtowardsa‘fertilitygoddess’interpretation,howeverasthisisatoddswiththecontextualevidencetheirroleremainsunclear(NakamuraandYoshizawa1997,p.84).

The‘constructionofhistories’inearlyurbansocietieswasessentialtodefineandmaintainthesocialstructuresrequiredforlong-termsurvivaloftownsandvillagesinearlysocieties(HodderandMeskell2011,p.250-51,253),theyarguethatcontrarytopriorassessments,thereislittleevidencethatritualsrelatedto‘femalefertility’figurineswereinvolved,insteadarguingforthedominanceofphallocentricorzoocentricfigurinesintheseprocesses(atleastinsomepartsoftheAnatolianNeolithic).Ozdogan(inHodderandMeskell2011,p.256)arguesthatthisisinconsistentwithearlierinterpretationsanditisnownecessarytoreconsiderallpreviousassumptionsandexplanationsregardingfigurines.

DuringCaspers(1989,p.232-35)andClark(2003,p.320;2007b,p.525)havesuggestedashamanistic/magicdimension.Butmagiccanbedifficulttodistinguishfromtheeverydayandinanycaseanysuchdivisionmaybeirrelevant.

Nakamura(2008)discussestheroleoffigurinesinearly1stmillenniumBCEMesopotamianmagic.Sheproposesthatmagic‘movesalongsideintandem’to‘arationalmodeofknowing’,‘groundsthepossibilityofadistinctsocio-religiousworldview’(Nakamura2008,p.22-3);amagicalworkproducesmeaningbothfromthecontextofitsproductionbutalsoproducesamaterialinterventionintheworld.Thecopy(thefigurine)assumesthepoweroftheoriginal(thepersonorsupernaturalbeingrepresented)andis‘maderealinthematerialfabricoftheworld’(Nakamura2008,p.28).Thecommunalprocessofmaking(transforming)capturestheforceoftheoriginalintheprimordialclay,a‘humanmastery’oftheoriginalthroughsimulacraproduction,subsequentplayandfantasy(Nakamura2008,p.30-34).AdeliberateblurringofthesupernaturalandhumansphereshasbeenproposedbySuter(2007,p.326)incontemporaneousMesopotamia.

Insoll(2017,p.13-14)reportsageneralabsenceofmagicalinterpretationsforfigurines,whilesuggestingthatwhilepejorativeinthecurrentwesterncontext,itisconceivablethatfigurineshadamagicalrole.However,asalsoarguedbyNakamura(2008,seeabove)andMeskell(2017,p.19),thereisnoreasontobelievethattherewasanystrictdivisionbetweentheeverydayandthemagical,andforthepurposesofthepresentdiscussionthereisnoneedtomakeanysuchdistinctionandprobablyit’snotonethattheInduspeopleswouldhavemade.

Thereissomeevidence(seeClarkandKenoyer2017,p.514forareview)othertypesoffigurines,butnotthesefemale-formones,mayplayaroleinIndusmagic,ritualandculturalmythology.TheonlyexamplesofIndusfemale-formimagesrelatedtoculticritualormagicareveryraretwo-dimensionalimagesincisedonafewsteatitesealsofIndusorigin:theseappeartoshowafemaledeityorpriestesswithaMesopotamian-stylehornedheaddresssurroundedbyanimalsortrees(Biagi2004,p.25).Isuggestthattheirrarity,styleandformatbearlittlerelevancetothepresentdiscussion.

Tosummarise,asClarke(2007b,p.536-37)pointsout,withnotemplesorritualisticbuildingsandconsideringtheabovediscussion,Indussociety’sworldviewwouldhavebeencomplex,withoutasingledominantdeityandthefigurinesdonotrepresentdeitiesorserveculticormagicalfunctions.

Thisraisesthequestionofwhatroledidthesefigurinesplay,whatweretheyusedfor,andmostimportantlywhatdidtheymeantotheirmakers?I.e.theirrelationtohierarchyandsocialidentityofpeopleofdifferentageandgender(Lesure2011,p.60).

Theymayhavebeensimplyimages(possibly‘portraits’,seebelow)ofpeoplewholivedintheIndus(Kenoyer1998,p.131)asthereisevidencethattheywerehand-modelledinthelikenessofindividualsandcreatedinthepresenceoftheuseroranaudience,asasharedsocialactivity(Clark2009,p.232,255-56).Therefore,procurementandcraftingwouldhavebeenanideologicaland

9

process-focussedactivityratherthanapracticalorfunctionalone(Clark2007b,p.110-115,181,523-24;2009,p.255-56;ClarkandKenoyer2017,p.512).‘Portraits’donotneedtobelikenessesinthemodernwesternartisticsense,asMarcus(citedinHamilton1996,p.288)explains,thevarietyofuniqueheaddressesin1stmillenniumOaxacafemale-formfigurinesmayhavebeenusedtoindicateidentities.

Worldwide,figurineshavebeen‘massmanufactured’,producedfrommoulds,assembledfrompre-madecomponents,orindividuallycreated;referencingissuesofcreativityanduniqueness(Insoll2017,p.11).TheseIndusfigurineswereindividuallycreatedfromtwohalvesjoinedverticallyfromheadtofootwiththebreastsmadeaspartofthesamehalvesbeforeadornmentswereadded(Biagi2004,p.24).ClarkandKenoyer(2017,p.512)suggestthesefigurinesre-enactedthebirthorcreationofhumanbeingsfromclay.Meskell(2017,p.23)arguesthatfigurine-makingwasalmostalwaysapublic,social,communalprocessinvolvingmanyindividuals;figurinesshouldnotbeinterpretedasa‘finishedandcontained’product.

Amorenuancedandfluidgender-identityandsexualitythancurrentwesternstandardsisindicatedbythelackoferotizationinIndusfigurines(thebreastsgenerallylacknipples,femalegenitaliaareveryrare),cross-dressing,androgynyandhybridmale/female/animalfigurinesindicateacomplexinteractionofsexwithother‘axesofdifference’.Theseaspectsallindicateanimportantsymbolicroleinsocial/sexualidentityandwithworldlyengagement(Clark2003,p.319-23;2007b,p.525-28)andthereforeapossible‘educational’or‘socialisation’roleforchildrenasmodelsforadultrolesinsociety(Voigt2007,p.168).Similardidactic,socialisationandgender-formationroleshavebeenascribedtofigurinesinAfrica,IranandtheArcticwheredollsareusedforplaybutalsototeachchildrenaboutadultactivities(Insoll2017,p.8).

Gelderloos(2017,footnote186p.143-4)arguesthatpatriarchalsocietiesrequirebinarygenderdifferentiation(male/female)asaprerequisite,asdomatriarchalones,whiletheantithesisisacomplementarygenderedsociety,asproposedabovefortheIndus,wheremenandwomenhaveequalaccesstopowerandwheregenderismutable.Mutable(oftenage-related)gender(thatisseveralculturalgendersasdistinctfrombinarybiologicalsex)hasbeenidentifiedinsomesocietiesbutcontinuestobesubjecttointerpretationandcontext(Lesure2011,p.27-28).

Figurinescanbeliteral‘powerobjects’,bothincontemporaryandprehistoriccontextsandusedfortheconstructionandlegitimatisationofpowerasintheMayancivilisation,playingacentralroleinpoliticsasinprehistoricSardinia,andinNorthAmericabytheirstructuring,production,curationanduse(Insoll2017,p.9-10).

ThesefigurinesmaythereforebeimagesofpowerfulwomeninIndussociety(Clark2007a,p.237),suggestingthatwomenmayhavehadimportantsocialorritualpositions,theirimagesplayinganimportantroleinlegitimisingpoliticalpower(Kenoyer1998,p.133).Kenoyer(1998,p.134)furthersuggeststhatapatternofmatri-localburial(relatedwomenburiedinthesamegrave,menburiedwithhiswife’sancestorsnothisown)showsthepowerfulpositionofwomen,asdoesthepreponderanceoffemalefigurinesvsmale(Kenoyer1998,p.134).Suter(2007,p.319-21)notesthatincontemporaneousMesopotamiawomen(oftendescribedas‘highpriestesses’)heldpowerfulpositionsinSumerian,AkkadianandIsin/Larsasocietiesbetween2900and1800BCE,theirpowercomparabletothatofkings.

Kenoyer(1998,p.134-5andfig.7.20)pointstotheimportanceoffemalecoiffureasindicatedbythehugesize,ornamentationandrangeofstylesoftheheaddressesofthefigurines.Suter(2007,p.338-39)notesthatincontemporaneousMesopotamiauniqueandelaborateheaddresseswereakeyidentifyinginsigniaofpowerful(‘highpriestess’)womenwhichunambiguouslydistinguishedthemfrom‘goddesses’.Isuggestthatthehugeheaddressesandjewelleryadornments,large

10

hoardsofwhich3havebeenexcavatedatthesesites(Kenoyer1998,p.135),maybeindicatorsofthepowerandwealthofthoseindividualwomendepictedinformalstandingposition,sincefigurinesofwomennursinginfants,seatedordoingfarmingordomestictasksdonotappeartohaveelaborateheaddressesormuchadornment(e.g.figs.7.14and7.22inKenoyer1998;figs.22.4and22.5inClarkandKenoyer2017)andaregenerallysmallerinsize(Kenoyer1998,p.135andfig.7.23).Isuggestthatboththe‘headdress’andthe’workingwoman’figurinesmayhavebeenusedtosocialiseandeducatechildrenandyoungadultsastotheirrespectiverolesinIndussociety.

Concludingfromtheabovecontext,Iproposethatthe‘headdress’figurinesareinitiationfigurineswhichconformtoUcko’sfive‘initiationfigure’criteria(1962,p.47-48):(1)useofclay,(2)technicalachievement,(3)habitationdebris/rubbishprovenance,(4)non-conformistrepresentationand(5)lackofanysignsofdivinity.

Theyidentifypowerful(andpossiblywealthy)womenand/orfemale-genderelites.Likemanyfigurines,theylackfeet,cannotstandorsitandsoaredesignedtobehandledandcirculated(Meskell2017,p.24).Viewingwhilebeingheldinthehandisacharacteristicofinitiationfigurines,asopposedtocultfigurineswhichtendtobelarger,sotheycanbedisplayedinsitu(Voigt2007,p.165).AsisthecontextintheIndus,thefindsofinitiationfigurinesinEastAfricaandAnatoliaarerarelyassociatedwithdwellings(Voigt2007,p.167).

Initiationfigurinesareusedtomarktransitionsandasameansofinstillingvaluesandproperbehaviourandmayalsobeusedastoyswiththeirownnarrative(Voigt2007,p.156-7).Figurines‘embodylives’andcanbesourcesofidealsagainstwhichanindividual’sownperformancecanbemeasured,embodyingunderstanding,socialconcernsandpractices,floodingcommunitieswithspecificimagesandwhose‘continuedpresencemusthavebeenformativeindevelopingnotionsofembodimentandbeing’(Meskell2107,p.25-6).Theyaresmall,soofuseinintimate,inclusive,domesticsettings(Lesure2011,p.62);theycirculate,enablingimmediate,intenseandfamiliarconnectiontoarangeofsocial,culturalandmaterialpreoccupations(Meskell2017,p.28).Bailey(inHamilton1996,p.295)concludesthatSEEuropeanfigurinesofthe5thmillenniumBCEwereauthoritativeandactivelyengagedandinfluencedhumanreality,especiallyrelationshipsbetweenindividuals.Theywerenarrativeandfunctionedtomakepeopleunderstand,interpretingtherelationshipsbetweenpeopleandtheworld;andtheywereamajormechanismofsocialmanipulationandcontrol.HaarlandandHaarland(inHamilton1996,p.295-300)concludethatfemale-formfigurinesplayedamajorroleinmaintainingtrustbetweenpeoplelivingtogetherincomplexurbanenvironments.

TheaboveargumentfitswellwithMiller’sview(citedinConinghamandYoung2015,p.237)that‘theuniformityoftheIndusmaterialculturewasadirectreflectionandresultoftheparticularcontrollingideologywhereextremenormativeorderwasvaluedandcombinedcontrolovertheworld’.Vidale(citedinConinghamandYoung2015,p.237-8)suggeststhat‘inter-siteeconomicandsocialpatterningofthelabourforceemployedincraftproduction’wascommonplacewithinInduscities.Theuseofinitiationfigurinesandritualssurroundingthesewouldhavebeenaneffectivetoolfordevelopingandretainingsuchsocialpatterning.

ThissystemofsocialcontrolisevidentonlyinthecoreareasoftheIndus,decliningtotheeast,possiblyduetoremotenessfromthecoreand/ortheinfluenceofwesternIndianculturesfoundfurthertotheeast.AnexampleisLothal,wherethefewfoundfigurineswerecrudeandofacompletelydifferentstyle;LothalwasatradingpostontheborderoftheIndusandcontemporaneouswesternIndianhunter-gathererswhichwereoutsideoftheprehistoric

3IndusjewellerymayhavebeentradedasfarasthecityofUrinMesopotamia(Kenoyer1997,p.270),anindicationofitsvalue.

11

worldwideclusteroffigurine-makingcivilisations(ConinghamandYoung2015,p.221;Lesure2011,p.18-19,fig.4).

Asdiscussedabove,Induscitiesandtownswerecharacterisedbyalackofpalacesandtemplesandnoevidenceofarulingorpriestelite,whichsuggeststhatitsrulersdidnotinhabitthecitiesortowns,thesebeingpurelymercantileinnature,butlivedelsewhere.ThisisasimilarsituationtothatinSaxonEngland(Dark1994).Rissman(citedinConinghamandYoung2015,p.237)arguesthatbyconcealingaccumulatedwealth,differentialwealthandstatusweredeliberatelymaskedtosupportanideologybasedonapparentequality:aformofideologicalmanipulation.FairservisandSchaffer&Lichtenstein(citedinConinghamandYoung2015,p.238)suggestthat(possiblybecauseofvenerationforzebucattle)wealthandprestige(andpresumablypower)wasbasedonpastoralismandthesizeofcattleherdsbeyondcitywalls,asituationremarkablysimilartoSaxonEngland.However,analternativeargumentproposedbyConinghamandYoung(2015,p.239)andGelderloos(2017,p.93-4)isthatauthoritylaywiththecontroloftradeandcraftproductionandthusnorulingeliteorreligiousorganisationwerenecessary(urbanorextra-urban)andcontrolwasexertedonlybytheinhabitantsofthecitiesandtowns.

Conclusions

TheIndusisnotableforthecompleteabsenceofanyevidenceofarulingorpriestlyelite.Anpoliticalelitewasthereforeeitherentirelyabsent,orabsentfromthearchaeologicalrecordofexcavatedsites.Thefivemajorurbansites,andmanyothersmallerones,haveallbeenexcavatedtoasignificantextentwhichleadstotheconclusionthatiftherewasanelite,itwasnotpresentinurbanlandscapes,andruledinabsentia.

Itisproposedthatthesocialityofcreationandsubsequentuseof‘headdress’initiationfigurineswasamethodofexertingpowerandsocialcontrol,atadistance,overthegeneralpopulationbythisunknownrulingorpriestlyelite.Thesefigurineswereeffectivelyusedas‘standins’forpowerfulindividualsorgroups.

Iftheelitesdidnotliveinthecitiesandotherurbanareas,thentheirresidencesmusthavebeenextra-urban.Agoodmodelofsuchasocio-politicalorganisationandsettlementpatternisprovidedbySaxonEnglandwheretheeliteslivedindispersedaristocraticestatesandmonasteriesandthepopulationsofcitiesandtownswereartisansandmerchants.

Isuggestalsothattherulingelitemayhavehadapredominantlyfemalecomposition:thestrongly‘female-looking’formatofthefigurinesleadstotheconclusionthatthiselitewaseitherfemaleorfemale-gender,orthatparticularformatwasusedasapropagandadevice.

Clearlysubstantialworkwouldberequiredtolocateandidentifyextra-urbanaristocraticorreligioussitesbutifthiswereundertakenandsuchsiteslocatedthenthatwouldsolveoneofthegreatenigmasofIndussociety.Thearchaeologicalrecordatsuchsitesmayalsoprovideevidenceregardingthefunctionofthe‘headdress’figurines.

Acknowledgements

IwishtothanktheUniversityofSydney,itslibraryandArchaeologyDepartment,ProfessorRolandFletcher,andProfessorBarbaraHelwingforhersupport,adviceandreviewofthemanuscript.

12

References

Ardeleanu-Jansen,A1992,‘Newevidenceonthedistributionofartifacts:anapproachtowardsaqualitative-quantitativeassessmentoftheterracottafigurinesofMohenjo-daro’,inCJarrige(ed.),SouthAsianArchaeology1989,PrehistoryPress,MadisonWI,pp.5-14.

Ardeleanu-Jansen,A2002,‘TheterracottafigurinesfromMohenjo-daro:considerationoftradition,craftandideologyintheHarappancivilization(c.2400-1800BC)’,inSSettarandRKorisettar(eds.),IndianArchaeologyinRetrospect,Vol2(Protohistory:ArchaeologyoftheHarappanCivilization),IndianCouncilofHistoricalResearch,NewDelhi,pp.205-22.

Aruz,JandWallenfels,R2003,Artofthefirstcities:thethirdmillenniumB.C.fromtheMediterraneantotheIndus.MetropolitanMuseumofArt,NewYork.

Bhan,KKandAjithprasad,P2008,‘ExcavationsatShikarpur2007-2008:ACoastalPortandCraftProductionCenteroftheIndusCivilizationinKutch,India’,viewed19September2018,https://www.harappa.com/content/excavations-shikarpur-2007-2008-costal-port-and-craft-production-center-indus-civilization.

Bhan,KKandAjithprasad,P2009,‘ExcavationsatShikarpur,Gujarat2008-2009’,viewed19September2018,https://www.harappa.com/content/excavations-shikarpur-gujarat-2008-2009.

Biagi,P2004,‘WomeninAncientSindh.BronzeAgeFigurinesoftheIndusValleyCivilization’,SindhWatchQuarterlySpring/Summer2004,pp.24–25.

BishtRS1982,‘ExcavationsatBanawali,1974-77’,inGLPossehl(ed.),HarappanCivilisation:AContemporaryPerspective,ArisandPhillips,Warminster,pp.113-24.

ClarkSR2003,‘RepresentingtheIndusbody:sex,gender,sexuality,andtheanthropomorphicterracottafigurinesfromHarappa’,AsianPerspectives,vol.42(2),pp.304-28.

ClarkSR2005,‘Theelusive“mothergoddess”:acriticalapproachtotheinterpretationofHarappanterracottafigurines’,inCJarrigeandVLefevre(eds.),SouthAsianArchaeology2001,Vol1(Prehistory),APDF-EditionsRecherchesurlesCivilisations,Paris,pp.61-77.

ClarkSR2007a,‘Bodiesofevidence:thecaseagainstthe“Harappan”mothergoddess’,inCRenfrewandIMorley(eds.),ImageandImagination:AGlobalPrehistoryofFigurativeRepresentation,McDonaldInstitute,Cambridge,pp.227-39.

Clark,SR2007b,‘TheSocialLivesofFigurines:DecontextualizingtheThirdMilleniumBCTerracottaFigurinesfromHarappa(Pakistan)’,PhDDissertation,HarvardUniversity,Boston.

Clark,SR2009,‘Materialmatters:representationandmaterialityoftheHarappanbody’,JournalofArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,vol.16,pp.231-61.

Clark,SRandKenoyer,JM2017,‘SouthAsia–IndusCivilization’,inTInsoll(ed.),TheOxfordHandbookofPrehistoricFigurines,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,pp.493-519.

Coningham,RandYoung,R2015,TheArchaeologyofSouthAsia:fromtheIndustoAsoka,c.6500BCE–200CE,CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dark,KR1994,CivitastoKingdom:StudiesintheearlyhistoryofBritain,LeicesterUniversityPress,London.

Dhavalikar,MK,Raval,MRandChitawala,YM1996,Kuntasi:AHarappanEmporiumonWestCoast,DeccanCollegePostGraduateandResearchInstitute,Pune.

DuringCaspers,ECL1989,‘MagichuntingpracticesinHarappantimes’,inKFrifeltandPSorensen(eds.),SouthAsianArchaeology1985,NordicInstituteofAsianStudies,CurzonPress,London,pp.227-36.

DuringCaspers,ECL1994,‘Vanityportrayedinclay:thefemaleterracottafigurinesfromHarappa’,inSouthAsianArchaeology1993,Helsinki,pp.183-92.

13

Gelderloos,P2017,WorshippingPower:AnAnarchistViewofEarlyStateFormation,AKPress.

Hamilton,N1996,‘CanWeInterpretFigurines?’,CambridgeArchaeologicalJournal6(2),pp.281–307.

Hodder,IandMeskell,L2011,‘A“CuriousandSometimesaTrifleMacabreArtistry”’,CurrentAnthropology52(2),pp.235–63.

Indasubunmeiten:sekaiyondaibunmei2000,IndusCivilisationExhibition:TokyoArtMuseum,NHKpress,Tokyo.

Insoll,T2017,‘Introduction’,inTheOxfordHandbookofPrehistoricFigurines,TInsoll(ed.),OxfordUniversityPress,pp.2-15.

Jarrige,C1997,‘ThefigurinesfromNausharoPeriodIandtheirfurtherdevelopments’,inBAllchinandRAllchin(eds.),SouthAsianArchaeology1995Vol1,OxfordandIBHPublishing,NewDelhi,pp.33-43.

Kenoyer,JM1997,‘TradeandtechnologyoftheIndusValley:newinsightsfromHarappa,Pakistan’,WorldArchaeology29(2),pp.262-280.

Kenoyer,JM1998,‘PeopleandProfessions’,inJMKenoyer(ed.),AncientCitiesoftheIndusValleyCivilization,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,NewYork,pp.127-137.

Kenoyer,JM2006,‘CulturesandsocietiesoftheIndustradition’,inRTharpar(ed.),TheMakingoftheAryan,NationalBookTrust,NewDelhi,pp.21-49.

Lesure,RG2011,InterpretingAncientFigurines:Context,Comparison,andPrehistoricArt,CambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork.

Lesure,RG2017,‘Comparativeperspectivesintheinterpretationofprehistoricfigurines’,inTheOxfordHandbookofPrehistoricFigurines,TInsoll(ed),OxfordUniversityPress,pp.37-60.

Mackay,E1936,‘ExcavationsatChanhu-darobytheAmericanSchoolofIndicandIranianStudiesandtheMuseumofFineArts,Boston:Season1935-36’,BulletinoftheMuseumofFineArts,vol.34,no.205,pp.83-92.

Mackay,E1938,‘ExcavationsatChanhu-darobytheAmericanSchoolofIndicandIranianStudiesandtheMuseumofFineArts,Boston:Season1935-36’,AnnualReportoftheBoardofRegentsoftheSmithsonianInstitutionfortheyear1937,publication3451,pp.469-78.

Meskell,L2017,‘TheArchaeologyofFigurinesandtheHumanBodyinPrehistory’,inTheOxfordHandbookofPrehistoricFigurines,TInsoll(ed),OxfordUniversityPress,pp.16-36.

Nakamura,C2008,‘MasteringMatters:MagicalSenseandApotropaicFigurineWorldsofNeo-Assyria’,ArchaeologiesofMateriality,Wiley-Blackwell,pp.18–45.

Nath,A1998,‘Rakhingarhi:aHarappanmetropolisintheSaraswati-Drishadvatidivide’,Puratattva,vol.28,pp.39-45.

Nishiyama,SandYoshizawa,S1997,‘WhoWorshippedtheClayGoddess?:TheLateFirstMillenniumBCTerracottaFigurinesfromTellMastuma,NorthwestSyria’.BulletinoftheAncientOrientMuseum18,pp.73–98.

Possehl,GLandRaval,MH1989,HarappanCivilizationandRojdi,OxfordandIBHPublishing,NewDelhi.

Rao,SR1985,Lothal:AHarappanPortTown(1955-62),Vol.2,ArchaeologicalSurveyofIndia,NewDelhi.

Scarre,CandFagan,BM2016,AncientCivilizations,FourthEdition,Routledge,Abingdon,Oxon.

Singh,U2008,AHistoryofAncientandEarlymedievalIndia:fromtheStoneAgetothe12thcentury,PearsonEducation,NewDelhi.

14

Suter,CE2007,‘BetweenHumanandDivine:HighPriestessesinImagesfromtheAkkadtotheIsin-LarsaPeriod’,inAncientNearEasternArtinContext,JChang,MFeldmanandIWinter(eds),pp.317–61.

Ucko,PJ1962,‘TheInterpretationofPrehistoricAnthropomorphicFigurines’,TheJournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstituteofGreatBritainandIreland,vol.92(1),pp.38-54.

Voigt,MaryM2007,‘TheSplendourofWomen:LateNeolithicImagesfromCentralAnatolia’,inCRenfrewandIMorley(eds.),ImageandImagination:AGlobalPrehistoryofFigurativeRepresentation,McDonaldInstitute,Cambridge,pp.150-70.

Wenke,RJandOlszewski,D2007,PatternsinPrehistory:humankind’sfirstthreemillionyears.OxfordUniversityPress.