The Indus Civilization

by Gregory L. Possehl

  15 Jansen 1989b: 252.

  16 Mackay 1948: 38.

  17 Ardeleanu-Jansen 1993: 1.

  18 Jansen 1993a: 266.

  19 Mackay 1948: 39.

  20 Mackay 1948: 38.

  21 Mackay 1931d: 270.

  22 Ardeleanu-Jansen 1993.

  23 For general discussion, see Mackay (1931d: 277—82).

  24 Mackay 1937—38: 27, 29, 31, 34, and so forth.

  25 Mackay 1931d: 278.

  26 Mackay 1937—38: 27.

  27 Mackay 1937—38: 91, 428.

  28 Mackay 1931d: 273.

  29 Marshall 1931b: 21.

  30 Mackay 1931d: 281.

  31 Wheeler 1968: 93.

  32 Marshall 1931c: 18—22, pls. IV—VI.

  33 Mackay 1931d: 267.

  34 Vats 1940: 12.

  35 Mackay 1931d: 262.

  36 Vats 1940: 12.

  Figure 5.7 Sarcina’s models for Mohenjo-daro houses (after Sarcina 1978—79)

  37 Marshall 1931c: 15.

  38 Dikshit 1924—25: 69.

  39 Mackay 1937—38: 163.

  40 Marshall 1931b: 16.

  41 Mackay 1931d: 276.

  42 Mackay 1948: 27.

  43 Mackay 1948: 28.

  44 Dales 1982: 103.

  45 Mackay 1931d: 277.

  46 Sarcina 1978—79, 1979.

  CHAPTER 6

  The Art of the Indus Civilization

  INTRODUCTION

  The study of the art of the Indus Civilization has not been fully developed, making it one of the most important areas of scholarship on this civilization open for growth. I am an archaeologist, not an art historian, and will not pretend to be one. What follows is therefore a statement on Indus art from an archaeological and anthropological perspective.

  HUMAN SCULPTURE IN THE INDUS CIVILIZATION

  There is a modest amount of human sculpture from Indus sites, mainly Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. There are no examples of life-size works of art from the Indus Civilization as we know it today. The following is a description of the principal pieces of human sculpture.

  Human Sculpture from Harappa

  The Red Jasper Male Torso from Harappa

  One of the best-known art objects—and the most controversial—from an Indus site is a red jasper torso found by Vats at Harappa during the 1928—1929 field season (figure 6.1). The find was made in the vicinity of the circular brick threshing floors to the south of the great Granary and was ascribed by Vats to stratum III, the modern Period 3C (c. 2200—1900 B.C.).1

  The piece is 9.5 centimeters high, broken at the legs, with the head and both arms missing. It is a striking frontal nude. The genitalia seem to have been carefully modeled, although they have been defaced. This torso was carved in a natural, well-rounded way with “the refined and wonderfully truthful modeling of the fleshy parts.”2

  There are holes for the attachment of the head and arms, but none are apparent for the legs. Prominent circular indentations, probably made by a tube drill, are located on the front of each shoulder. Their function is unknown, but it has been suggested that they were somehow related to the way a garment might have been affixed to the original sculpture or for the inlay of ornaments. Holes for the breast nipples are apparently intended for inlay.

  Vats insisted from the beginning that the piece should be attributed to the Mature Harappan in spite of other opinion that it was best attributed to an historical era. As evidence for a prehistoric date, Vats cited the use of the tube drill, that it was made in pieces (not a practice in historical India for small sculpture), and that there is no piece of historic sculpture made of the same material. The pronounced abdomen, in relation to the chest, is characteristically Indian. There is a Gupta occupation of Mound AB at Harappa, but it is well removed from the find spot on Mound F. Vats says: “And let me state at the outset that, although a large area—larger than anywhere else at Harappa—has been explored on this Mound [F], not a single object which is not referable to the prehistoric period has ever been found on it.”3

  In a long footnote to the Vats preliminary report, Marshall counters the excavator’s arguments for an early date. He attributed it to an historic age, possibly the Gupta Period, and concludes with a reference to this object in relationship to other Harappan sculpture: “They are, without exception, crude, archaic and lacking in anatomical correctness, whereas the figure in question is anatomically correct and the work of a sculptor in possession of an advanced technique.”4

  Figure 6.1 Red torso from Harappa (after Vats 1940)

  Figure 6.2 Zebu seal number 337 (after Marshall 1931i)

  Over time Marshall’s position softened somewhat. Noting the exquisite portrayal of the zebu on Mohenjo-daro seal number 337, he said: “Experienced sculptors whom I have consulted on the subject take the view that an artist who could engrave the seal in question (no. 337) would have had little difficulty in carving the statuette; archaeologists will probably take another view and prefer to wait for further discoveries before committing themselves” (figure 6.2).5 Wheeler considered the date of this torso to be “disputed.”6

  The torso is a small masterpiece, not comparable to any other Harappan art (seal number 337 not withstanding). The find spot is impeccably documented and no one has challenged Vats’s assertion that Mound F was not reoccupied after Mature Harappan. It seems reasonable, then, to accede to his judgment on this magnificent piece and use it as an example of the heights to which the Indus artist could rise.

  Gray Stone Torso of a Dancer from Harappa

  Sahni found the broken torso of a male dancing figure, made of dark gray stone, during his excavations at Harappa (figure 6.3). Curiously, this statuette does not figure in his preliminary reports on the work there, but it is a significant piece of Indus sculpture. Vats informs us that the piece was found on Mound F in an Intermediate I stratum, which is the Great Granary area associated with Building IV on the central-aisle side.7 It is about 150 meters north of the spot where the red jasper torso was found. Everything in this part of the site can be safely assigned to the Mature Harappan.

  This torso is 9.9 centimeters high, with the head, arms, and legs all missing. The legs have been broken off, but there are holes for the arms and head, just as with the red jasper torso. Posed as a dancer, his right leg is firmly fixed, the left lifted in movement. The torso is nicely twisted, which gives it a sense of movement. Holes on the back of the neck were probably intended to hold hair in place, suggesting that the face was looking almost directly at the ground. Nothing remains of the arms to suggest their position, but Marshall’s reconstruction of the pose may not be far off the mark (figure 6.4). Wheeler considered this piece also to be “disputed” as to the period in which it was made, but he agreed with Marshall that there is an attractive historical link between it and historical “Dancing Siva.”8

  On examination, the gray stone torso of the dancer has a naturalism that does not compare to the red jasper torso, but it is still a credible interpretation of a dancing figure. It does have life and movement and should be placed in the top rank of Harappan art. Except for the bronze dancing girl, it is filled with more life than anything from Mohenjo-daro.

  Figure 6.3 Gray stone dancing figure from Harappa (after Vats 1940)

  Figure 6.4 Reconstruction of the gray dancing figure from Harappa (after Marshall 1931i)

  Human Sculpture from Mohenjo-daro

  Much of the sculpture from Mohenjo-daro was described just as it came from the earth in the preliminary reports that were published annually through the field season of 1936–1937. Ardeleanu-Jansen has reviewed the sculpture.9 The seven principal pieces are discussed here (figure 6.5).

  Bronze Dancing Girl from Mohenjo-daro (HR-5721)

  The most captivating piece of art from an Indus site is probably the bronze dancing girl from HR Area at Mohenjo-daro (figure 6.5). She was found in a Late-level house of Block 7 by Sahni during the 1926—1927 field season. 10 The house is a small structure, deep within the urban maze o
f the southwestern quarter of the city. She is 10.8 centimeters high and was cast in bronze using the lost wax process.

  The figure is a very thin young woman, standing upright, with her head tilted slightly back, her left leg bent at the knee. There is little sense of flesh on the body or anatomy to the joints, which is a stylistic feature shared with some later Indian sculpture. Her right arm is bent, with her hand placed provocatively on the back of the hip, the thumb outside a clenched fist. The left arm rests slightly bent on the thigh of her left leg. The thumb and forefinger of this hand form a circle, and it is apparent that she once held a small object, possibly a baton of some kind.

  Figure 6.5 The seven principal pieces of human sculpture from Mohenjo-daro (after Marshall 1931i and Mackay 1937—38)

  She is naked, except for some adornments. Around her neck is a small necklace with three large pendant beads. On her left arm she wears twenty-four or twenty-five bangles, which would have severely restricted the mobility of the elbow in a living person. The right arm has four bangles, two at the wrist and two above the elbow. Her hair is coifed into a kind of loose bun, held in place along the back of her head much the same as some Indian women wear their hair today. The artist has rendered this feature in detail.

  Figure 6.6 The Priest-King of Mohenjo-daro, DK-1909

  Whether this small statuette actually portrays a dancer is open to question. Only the pose seems to convey this. If she was a dancer, it would foreshadow later Indian sculpture, which is much influenced by this theme.

  Some think that the broad nose and large lips of the dancing girl can be used to indicate a racial affiliation: Dravidian;11 Nubian;12 Baluchi Proto-Australoid.13 Piggott even ventured: “When we are describing the Harappa culture we shall, I think, recognize a Kulli girl in a foreign city.”14 Phenotypic features on such a stylized piece of art are difficult to interpret, and there is every chance that she is representative of women of one of the Indus peoples.

  Marshall referred to this bronze statuette as “a small figurine of rather rough workmanship.”15 But he did catch something special in the figure as well: “It gives a vivid impression of the young aboriginal nautch girl, her hand on hip in a half-impudent posture, and legs slightly forward, as she beats time to the music with her legs and feet. . . . The modeling of the back, hips and buttocks is quite effective.”16

  On detailed examination of the bronze dancing girl from HR Area one sees a subtlety to the expression and pose that defies description and cannot be captured by the camera. In spite of the stylized, even abstract, nature of the figure, there is a sense of “impudence” as Marshall noted, certainly youthful superiority, self-confidence, even arrogance. In the 1973 autobiographical television film Sir Mortimer Wheeler, the Archaeologist, the principal described his favorite statuette.

  There is her little Baluchi-style face with pouting lips and insolent look in the eye. She’s about fifteen years old I should think, not more, but she stands there with bangles all the way up her arm and nothing else on. A girl perfectly, for the moment, perfectly confident of herself and the world. There’s nothing like her, I think, in ancient art.17

  We may not be certain that she was a dancer, but she was good at what she did and she knew it.

  A Second Bronze Dancing Girl from Mohenjo-daro (DK-12728)

  There is a second bronze dancing girl from Mohenjo-daro, found by Mackay in his final full season of 1930—1931. It was associated with Late level II of DK-G Area, Block 9, House X, Room 81, an undistinguished building just off Central Street. The preservation is not as fine as the first dancing girl, but, as Mackay observes, “Despite the damage by corrosion it is clear that the workmanship and finish of this later figure is inferior to that found earlier.”18

  The Priest-King of Mohenjo-daro (DK-1909)

  Excepting possibly the Mahayogi seal (also known as “Proto-Siva”), nothing has come to symbolize the Indus Civilization better than the so-called priest-king from Mohenjo-daro (figure 6.6). This “steatite” bust was found by Dikshit during the 1925—1926 season in DK-B Area, Chamber 1, Block 2, 1.37 meters below surface.19 This chamber was a small enclosure with some curious parallel walls that Mackay suggested might have enclosed the hypocaust for an ancient hammam (sauna). The priest-king was in one of the small passages between the parallel walls, and, as Mackay says: “This could hardly have been the place for such an object: it probably rolled here when the walls fell in.”20

  This piece can be attributed to the Late Period at Mohenjo-daro. It is broken at the bottom and survives to only 18 centimeters in height. A toga-like garment is draped over the left shoulder and under the right arm. The garment is covered in the trefoil design, found on a number of other objects of the Indus Civilization. It also occurs in Mesopotamia and Central Asia. The trefoil is interspersed with occasional circles. The trefoils and circles were left roughened on the interior, to allow a red paste filling to adhere. One hole is present below each ear, apparently intended to hold a necklace. The back of the head has been smoothed; Mackay suggests “broken.”21 This is possible but it might also be that the sculpture was intended to be placed in a niche with a sloping back, and this unseen portion of the work was created to allow it to sit farther back than it could have with a full head of hair.

  The nose is straight and broken, but does not seem to have dominated the face. The unusual eyes appear to be partially closed, or hooded, but are not of an “eastern physical type,” according to Mackay.22 One shell eye inlay survived. “Rai Bahadur Ramaprasad Chanda has ascertained that the half-closed eyes concentrated on the tip of the nose proclaim this figure to be a yogi.”23 The ears are fashioned rather crudely as simple C shapes, characteristic of Harappan sculpture. In fact, they are out of place with the other physical features of the priest-king, which are far more sophisticated in their representation.

  The hair is parted in the middle and kept in place by a simple band, which hangs down the back of the head to below the shoulders. There is no bun of hair at the back of the head. The figure’s beard is close cropped. Some suggest that there is a mustache,24 but Wheeler declares the upper lip to have been shaved, which is probably wrong.25

  Priest-King Not Finished The priest-king may not be a finished work of art. As seen in figure 6.6, the stone of the upper lip has been left slightly thicker than the cheek. The lip is thus on the same plane as the beard, but no attempt was made to portray the mustache hair. The raised mustache area is smooth, and it seems that the artist stopped working prior to carving the mustache hair lines. This sense of being unfinished is also seen at the point where the beard meets the skin of the face. The instrument used to create the beard hair lines strayed across the raised boundary for the beard and disfigured the cheek. These stray work lines were not smoothed away, as they would have been in a fully finished work. This feature is visible in figure 6.6, and runs counter to Mackay’s claim that “the general finish of this head is exceptionally good.”26

  Neither a Priest nor a King, Let Alone Both The suggestion that this work of art portrays a priest was first made by Mackay. Marshall mentions this piece as a possible “king-priest,” but Wheeler seems to have coined “priest-king,” a notion perfectly in line with his vision of the Harappan Civilization.27 That the person portrayed here was either a priest or a king, let alone someone who held both positions in Harappan life, is without foundation. Nor can it be demonstrated that it is a portrait or even a representation of a real person.

  Ardeleanu-Jansen’s Reconstruction Ardeleanu-Jansen has created an interesting reconstruction of the priest-king as a statue of a seated man, with his left leg raised and bent at the knee (figure 6.7).28 This is a posture assumed by other statuary found at Mohenjo-daro; one of which I have named the “Seated Man,” another, the “Sad Man,” as well as figures from Bactria (figure 6.8).

  Parpola’s Thoughts A. Parpola attempts to demonstrate that the robe of the priest-king is something called the tarpya, found in Vedic ritual and said to be the garment of the divine k
ing Varuna.29 Parpola postulates that this statue is a representation of a seated deity, which had an elaborate, changeable headdress of the type he proposes is found on the Mahayogi seal.30

  Figure 6.7 Ardeleanu-Jansen’s reconstruction of the Priest-King (after Ardeleanu-Jansen 1991)

  Figure 6.8 Vase from Bactria with men dressed as the Seated Man (L. 950) and possibly the Priest-King (after Ardeleanu-Jansen 1991)

  The Man from DK-B (DK-B-1057)

  One of the finds from DK-B Area at Mohenjo-daro is a brown limestone bust of a male (figure 6.5). It comes from Block 5, Room 20 of DK-B and was found 0.96 meters below ground surface in a Late level of the site.31 The bust was cleanly broken at the neck and is not severely weathered, although the nose is defaced. It is 14.5 centimeters high. The expression is not animated, but if viewed from the left, he appears to be scowling. The chin is short, comparing well with the Bearded Man from HR Area and the Stern Man of L Area, but not with the priest-king. The face has no beard, but the hair is depicted with the herringbone pattern that suggests a wavy quality, like that of the Bearded Man from HR Area. The hair was placed in a bun at the back of the head and held in place by a fillet. This was either tied in a bow or used in conjunction with a barrette, or possibly two pins. There are no bands extending down from the fillet on the back of the head. The ears are prominent and simple C shapes, much like the other sculpture from Mohenjo-daro, comparing well with the priest-king. The eyes are ovate, somewhat narrower than those of the Bearded Man from HR Area, but much wider than the priest-king’s.