Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 231–261

Material Matters: Representation and Materiality of the Harappan Body

Article
  • 240 Downloads

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 

References

  1. 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 Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London.Google Scholar
  2. Amiran, R. (1962). Myths of the creation of man and the Jericho statues. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 167, 23–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Attfield, J. (2000). Wild things: The material culture of everyday life. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, D. W. (2005). Prehistoric figurines: Representation and corporeality in the neolithic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Barthélemy 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.Google Scholar
  7. Bhan, K. K., Vidale, M., & Kenoyer, J. M. (1994). Harappan technology: Methodological and theoretical issues. Man and Environment, 19(1–2), 141–157.Google Scholar
  8. 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 retrospect, volume II. Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan civilization (pp. 223–271). New Delhi: Manohar.Google Scholar
  9. Biehl, P. F. (1996). Symbolic communication systems: symbols on anthropomorphic figurines in neolithic and chalcolithic Southeast Europe. Journal of European Archaeology, 4, 153–176.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Bouquillon, A., Barthélemy 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.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Chang, K.-C. (1986). The archaeology of ancient China. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chapman, J. (2000). Fragmentation in archaeology: People, places and broken objects in the prehistory of southeastern Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Chapman, J., & Gaydarska, B. (2007). Parts and wholes: Fragmentation in prehistoric context. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, S. R. (2003). Representing the Indus body: Sex, gender, sexuality, and the anthropomorphic terracotta figurines from Harappa. Asian Perspectives, 42(2), 304–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, S. R. (in press). The social lives of figurines: Recontextualizing the third millennium BC terracotta figurines from Harappa (Pakistan). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  21. Coomaraswamy, A. K. (1928). Archaic Indian Terracottas. IPEK: Jahrbuch für Prähistorische and Ethnographische Kunst (Annual Review of Prehistoric and Ethnographical Art), 1928, 64–76.Google Scholar
  22. Dales, G. F. (1960). Mesopotamian and Related Female Figurines: Their Chronology, Diffusion, and Cultural Functions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. University Microfilms: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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. 185–262). Madison: Prehistory.Google Scholar
  26. 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 of Guiseppe Tucci (pp. 267–285). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.Google Scholar
  27. Fairservis, W. A., Jr. (1967). The origin, character, and decline of an early civilization. American Museum Novitates, 2302, 1–48.Google Scholar
  28. Farmer, S., Sproat, R., & Witzel, M. (2004). The collapse of the Indus-script thesis: the myth of a literate Harappan civilization. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 11(2), 19–57.Google Scholar
  29. Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gupta, S. P. (1996). The Indus–Saraswati civilization: Origins, problems, and issues. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.Google Scholar
  31. Hourmouziadis, G. (1973). I anthropomorphi eidoloplastiki tis neolithikis thessalias: Provlimata kataskevis, typologias kai ermineias. Volos: Society of Thessalian Studies.Google Scholar
  32. Huyler, S. P. (1996). Gifts of earth: Terracottas and clay sculptures of India. Middletown: Grantha Corporation.Google Scholar
  33. Ingold, T. (2007). Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues, 14(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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. 101–110). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  36. Kenoyer, J. M. (1991). Ornament styles of the Indus valley tradition: evidence from recent excavations at Harappa, Pakistan. Paléorient, 17(2), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Kenoyer, J. M. (1998). Ancient cities of the Indus civilization. Karachi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Knapp, A. B., & Meskell, L. (1997). Bodies of evidence in prehistoric Cyprus. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 7(2), 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (1996). Beyond the Tigris and Euphrates: Bronze age civilizations. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (1999). The Indus civilization: the case for caste formation. Journal of East Asian Archaeology, 13(1), 87–113.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Malik, S. C. (1968). Indian civilization: The formative period (a study of archaeology as anthropology). Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.Google Scholar
  47. Marshall, J. H. (ed). (1931). Mohenjo-daro and the Indus civilization, volumes I–III, A. London: Probsthain.Google Scholar
  48. McCarthy, B., & Vandiver, P. (1991). Ancient high-strength ceramics: Fritted faience bracelet manufacture at Harappa (Pakistan), ca. 2300–1800 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.Google Scholar
  49. Meadow, R. H. (1991). Harappa excavations 1986–1990: A multidisciplinary approach to third millennium urbanism. Monographs in world archaeology, no. 3. Madison: Prehistory.Google Scholar
  50. Meadow, R. H. (2002). The chronological and cultural significance of a steatite wig from Harappa. Iranica Antiqua, 37, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. Meadow, R. H., & Kenoyer, J. M. (2001). Recent discoveries and highlights from excavations at Harappa: 1998–2000. Indian Archaeological Studies, 22, 19–36.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Meadow, R. H., Kenoyer, J. M., & Wright, R. P. (1995). Harappa archaeological research project: 1995 excavations. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan, 15 September 1995.Google Scholar
  56. Meadow, R. H., Kenoyer, J. M., & Wright, R. P. (1996). Harappa archaeological research project: 1996 excavations. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan, December 17, 1996.Google Scholar
  57. Meadow, R. H., Kenoyer, J. M., & Wright, R. P. (1998). Harappa archaeological research project: 1997 excavations. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan.Google Scholar
  58. Meadow, R. H., Kenoyer, J. M., & Wright, R. P. (1999). Harappa archaeological research project: 1998 excavations. Submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan.Google Scholar
  59. 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.Google Scholar
  60. 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.Google Scholar
  61. Meskell, L. M. (1995). Goddesses, Gimbutas and “New Age” archaeology. Antiquity, 69, 74–86.Google Scholar
  62. Meskell, L. M. (2004). Object worlds in ancient Egypt. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  63. Meskell, L. M. (2007). Refiguring the corpus at Çatalhöyük. In C. Renfrew & I. Morley (Eds.), Image and imagination: A global prehistory of figurative representation (pp. 137–149). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  64. Meskell, L. M., Nakamura, C., King, R., & Farid, S. (2008). Figured lifeworlds and depositional practices at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18(2), 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Miller, D. (1985). Ideology and the Harappan civilization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 4(1), 34–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Miller, D. (1987). Material culture and mass consumption. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  67. 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.Google Scholar
  68. Miller, D. (ed). (2005). Materiality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Miller, H. M.-L. (2006). Archaeological approaches to technology. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  70. Mughal, M. R. (1968). Harappa-1966 (Cemetery R37). Pakistan Archaeology, 5, 63–68.Google Scholar
  71. Nakamura, C. (2005). Mastering matters: Magical sense and apotropaic figurine worlds of Neo-Assyria. In L. Meskell (Ed.), Archaeologies of materiality (pp. 18–45). Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nanoglou, S. (2005). Subjectivity and material culture in Thessaly, Greece: the case of Neolithic anthropomorphic imagery. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 15(2), 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nanoglou, S. (2008a). Representation of humans and animals in Greece and the Balkans during the earlier Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nanoglou, S. (2008b). Qualities of humanness: Material aspects of Greek Neolithic anthropomorphic imagery. Journal of Material Culture, 13(3), 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. O’Flaherty, W. D. (1980). Women, androgynes, and other mythical beasts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. Parpola, A. (1994). Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Possehl, G. L. (1996). The Indus age: The writing system. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  78. 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.Google Scholar
  79. Possehl, G. L. (1999). Indus age: The beginnings. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. Schiffer, M. B. (1999). The material life of human beings: Artifacts, behavior, and communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Schiffer, M. B., & Skibo, J. M. (1987). Theory and experiment in the study of technological change. Current Anthropology, 28, 595–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Skibo, J. M., & Schiffer, M. B. (2008). People and things: A behavioral approach to material culture. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  84. Srivastava, S. K. (1996). Terracotta art in northern India. Delhi: Parimal.Google Scholar
  85. Süger, 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.Google Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Talalay, L. E. (1993). Deities, dolls, and devices: Neolithic figurines from Franchthi cave, Greece. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  88. 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.Google Scholar
  89. Vats, M. S. (1940). Excavations at Harappa, volumes I–II. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
  90. 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).Google Scholar
  91. 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.Google Scholar
  92. Wheeler, R. E. M. (1947). Harappa 1946: The defenses and Cemetery R37. Ancient India, 3, 59–130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations