Fig. 1. Mehrgarh Pre-Harappan and Early Harappan painted ceramic (after Jarrige 1995). lower part of a seated body with joined legs and feet. Period II has no terracottas, but Period II has two animal figurines of which one is that of a humped bull. Of the two types of female figurines in Period IV, one shows a roughly tubular and broad-bottomed figurine with a pinched nose and folds of cloth wrapped around a torso, and another type of the same phase shows figurines with a tubular head, pinched nose, pendulous breasts, broad hips and joined legs. In Period V, the tubular-headed female figures have curly hair and are shown in the seated posture with joined legs tied by an appliqué rope. Period VI has many female figurines and representations of cattle. The female type which shows better modelling has joined legs, drilled circular eyes, multi-strand necklaces over pendulous breasts and two large pottery obtained from the illegal excavations of Baluchistan Chalcolithic sites is now an item in the illegal trafficking of art objects (for an idea of the beauty of the Baluchistan pottery, Gotz 2000). Fig. 2. Mehrgarh Pre- Harappan painted ceramic and bull figurine (after Jarrige 1995). Fig. 3f. Painted ceramic from Nal (after Possehl 1986). Fig. 3d. Large painted jars from Nausharo. Fig. 3a. Nal painted pottery. Fig. 3e. Early Harappan Painted ceramic from Kot Diji. Fig. 3b. Nal painted pottery. Fig. 3c. Nal painted pottery. Fig. 4. Painted vase from Daamb Sadat. Fig. 5. Pottery from Amri (1-18) and Nal (19-27) (after Hargreaves 1929). Fig. 6. Painted ceramic from Amri. Fig. 7. Painted ceramic from Mundigak Pd.Ill (after Casa 1964). Fig. 9. Terracotta figurines from Mehrgarh and Mundigak (after Jarrige 1995) Fig. 10c. Details of female terracotta figurines from Mehrgarh. Fig. 10a. Details of female terracotta figurines from Mehrgarh. Fig. 10d. Details of female terracotta figurines from Mehrgarh. Fig. 10b. Details of female terracotta figurines from Mehrgarh. Fig. 13. Lothal Painted sherds, Pd-A (after Rao 1985). Fig. 14. Lothal Painted sherds, Pd.B (after Rao 1985). Fig. 11a. Terracotta bull figurine from Mehgarh (afte: Jarrige 1995). Fig. 12. Terracotta bird figurines from Mehrgarh (after Jarrige 1995). Fig. 11b. Terracotta bull figurine from Sohr-Domb Nal Pd.lll. Fig. 15a. Lothal: Red Ware jar painted in black. goddess figurine at Kalibangan and there is hardly any Mohenjodaro/Harappa-type mother goddess at Lothal. The number of excavated human figures is only 13 at Lothal, comprising both male and female specimens. Only one female torso shows some sense of modelling; the rest are crude specimens and not even richly The Mohenjodaro and Harappa terracottas are mostly of the ageless variety, but a few of them carry a powerful sense of modelling. A powerfully modelled young bull was noted at Mohenjodaro (Marshall 1931, PL XCVII, 23) and commented on by John Marshall and the general type has also been noticed at Lothal and Kalibangan. A Kalibangan human head has some resemblance to the famous limestone priesthead from Mohenjodaro. The maximum length of this terracotta head is a little above 9 cm, but within the limits of this size the impression is given of a powerful personality with half-closed eyes looking down at the tip of his nostrils. The eyebrows, or rather, the line of the eyebrows, is indicated by a broad incised ridge and the upper limit of the flat but arched forehead is shown by contrasting its plane with that of the hair by means of another incision. There is an incision below the nose too. Small incised marks Fig. 15b. Lothal: Painted jar and sherds, Pd.A. incision below the nose too. Small incised marks hair by means of another incision. There is an female torso shows some sense of modelling; Fig. 16a. Female terracotta figurine from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 16c. Female terracotta figurine from Harappa. Fig. 16d. Female terracotta figurine from Harappa. Fig. 16b. Female terracotta figurine from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 17a. Mature Harappan female figurine from Nausharo (after Jarrige 1989). Fig. 16e. Early Harappan female figurine from Harappa. Fig. 16f. Human terracotta mask from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 18b. Seated male figurine from Harappa. Fig. 18a. Seated male figurines from Harappa. Fig. 18c. Seated male figurine from Harappa. Fig. 19b. Terracotta bull figurine from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 19a. A terracotta bullock cart. Fig. 20a. Monkey from Harappa. Fig. 19f. Terracotta figuine of Zebu from Harappa. Fig. 19c. Terracotta bull figurine from Kalibangan. Fig. 19d. Terracotta wheeled ram from Harappa. Fig. 19e. Terracotta ram from Harappa. Fig. 20b. Begging dog from Harappa. Fig. 21b. Terracotta figurine of tiger from Harappa. Fig. 21a. Collared dog from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 21c. Elephant figurine from Harappa. Fig. 21d. Bird from Harappa. other objects depicted on the Harappan seals which were generally made of steatite. Their distinct aspect is their realism, sometimes expressed not merely through a sense of the volume but also through a taut rendering of the muscles. John Marshall singles out some representations of bull, buffalo and lion for special attention. The humped bull on seal no. 337 (Pl. CXI in Marshall 1931) was, no doubt, one of the best faithful renderings, but as Marshall wrote about the artist concerned: Fig. 22c. Bison depiction on a seal. Fig. 22a. Bull depiction on a seal. Fig. 22b. Large unicorn seal. Fig. 22g. Seated man and tiger, seal from Kalibangan. Fig. 23. Plano-convex moulded tablet: A female deity bathing two tigers, standing on elephant indu. Fig. 22i. Multiple animal seal from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 24b. Dancing girl like engraving on a potsherd from Bhirana. Fig. 24a. Mohenjodaro dancing female bronze figurine. Fig. 25a. Bronze bull figurine from Kalibangan. Fig. 25b. Composite bronze figurine of three monkeys from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 26b. Gray stone dancing figure from Harappa. Fig. 26a. Dancing stone statue from Harappa. Fig. 26c. Gray dancing figure (reconstruction by Marshall). Fig. 27. Nude stone torso from Harappa. Fig. 29b. Back view. Fig. 29a. Male stone statue from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 28a. Priest from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 28b. Priest (back view). Fig. 30. Harappan priest reconstruction combining the priest head and the headless stiing figures. Fig. 31a. Male head from Mohenjodaro. couchant animal with ram’s horns and body, and Fig. 31b. Back of male head. Fig. 32. Limestone sculpture from Mohenjodaro. Fig. 33. Male stone statue from Harappa. Fig. 34a. Animal statue from Mohenjodaro. To the same group. belongs the inprovenanced figure of a ram in limestone Gee ae UT Re ee ee ee: Ee ee: Oe) ae ec ee eS Mae Soe a long appendage from the head representing the trunk of an elephant with its transverse creases. The animal reclined on a plinth (8 inches long, 6.2 inches wide and 4.25 inches high) According to Ardeleanu-Jansen (1984) the fact that these are small representations of a single animal-type, that two of them are shown with < pedestal and that there are numerous amule copies of them ‘suggests an ideologica significance’ for these recumbent anima portrayals. She further drew attention to a steatite sculptural fragment of an animal figure from Mohenjodaro. Its maximum present height, with two hind legs broken, is 4.5 cm and it is carvec out of an almost plain white steatite stone. Fig. 34b. Back of the statue. F.R. Allchin (1992). The specimen was reported from a London art-dealer’s collection, but in all likelihood, this came from a site of the Harappan Civilisation. The free-standing specimen—49 cm long, 27 cm high and 21 cm wide—is in pale cream, fine-grained metamorphosed limestone. Except the underside, the surface bears a light polish. This shows a recumbent ram with hind and front legs flexed and resting on the ground, and with the body inclined to the right. The weight of the body is shown by the bulge where the flank meets the ground. The head and the muzzle are sensitively carved. The eyes are hollowed out and were originally inlaid. The eyebrows are sensitive and the curved horns are in aperfect condition, except a scar on one side. It has a short and stumpy tail. Two low ridges run around the neck and across the shoulders. This seems to suggest the presence of a kind of mane—an impression heightened by a Fig. 35a. Bull statue from Mohenjodaro. The distribution of specimens is remarkably uneven, with Mohenjodaro occupying the centre stage, followed by Harappa. There is no positive explanation except the inference that the cultural ethos of these centres, despite a remarkable impression of uniformity, admitted of variations from place to place. The indisputably uneven distribution of art objects— even down to the level of the terracotta—at the Harappan sites seems to argue in favour of the opinion that their belief system, as expressed through the emphasis on different categories of Fig. 35b. Back of bull statue. Fig. 36. A broken stone statue of animal. Fig. 37. Single piece terracotta Sivalinga from Kalibangan. themselves—at least the classical ones of Sramana and the two specimens from Harappa—are typical Indian examples of denoting strength which comes from within by highlighting mass and volume. The Sramana figure is an embodiment of yogic stance, wrapped in its own thoughts. The red sandstone male torso from Harappa is so evocative of the much later Kushan period torsos that at one point it was doubted if this was really Harappan or dated from the historic period. The Nataraja specimen from Harappa also remains archetypal Indian. The very fact that this dancing posture is associated with the god Siva who occurs in his phallic and Pasupati forms in the Harappan Civilisation makes it extremely unlikely that the figure represented a female. Even the Bronze image manufacturing tradition that we have observed in the Mohenjodaro bronze dancing figurine and various animal figures represents a craft which followed the lost wax method, a widely prevalent copper-bronze method in the village level of modern India. On the whole, it is not wrong to claim that the Harappan art
