Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

Was the ‘Dancing Girl’ from Mohenjo-Daro really a dancer?

The interpretation of this bronze statuette was shaped by the colonial officers who viewed the past through the lens of their own assumptions about Indian society and the role of women.

Excavations at Harappan sites in the early 1920s yielded a corpus of artefacts that came to define our understanding of one of the earliest societies in the Indian subcontinent. These objects, recovered from sites such as Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, were not merely documented but were also used in understanding the society they belonged to. And so, contemporary society became the yardstick through which the past was understood, allowing these interpretations to stand the test of time for over a hundred years.

Among the most celebrated of these finds is the steatite figurine of a bearded man, adorned with an intricately trefoil-patterned garment, with a composed, almost meditative expression. Popularly known as the “Priest King”, this figure has, for nearly a century, been taken to represent a statesman or a religious head, shaping broader assumptions about the political and social structure of the Harappan society. The name was heavily influenced by the role of religious heads in ancient societies, such as in Egypt, where monumental architecture, burials, and inscriptions substantiated the role of the pharaohs. The existence of such a figure in the Harappan context, however, remains unverified. The title persists, even as its foundation remains uncertain. It was named as per a colonial-gendered gaze, and a century later, it is still misinterpreted.

While this demands a separate discussion, it is worth noting that a similar interpretative approach was applied to another artefact — one that has perhaps been even more enduring in its mischaracterisation.

A small bronze statuette of a young girl, measuring just over eleven centimetres, is standing with one hand resting on her hips and another loosely hanging on the side, called the “Dancing Girl”. She is completely nude but is adorned with a series of bangles and a necklace. For over a century, the name was her identity. Despite the absence of clear evidence to support this claim, the name has remained unquestioned. We still have not dared to go beyond this title, to make an honest attempt to answer the simple questions of who she is and why she continues to occupy such a contested place in our understanding of the past, and whether she really is dancing.

This is not an attempt to provide a definitive answer, but rather a necessary act of re-examination — a course correction, if not a conclusion.

The Dancing Girl of Mohenjo-Daro

Cast using the Lost-Wax technique, the Dancing Girl was excavated from the HR (Hargreaves) area of Mohenjo-Daro during the winter of 1926 by British archaeologist Ernest Mackay. The statuette was discovered in a housing complex of Black 7 (Kennedy et al, 2012) and is assigned to the mature period of the Harappan Civilisation (c.2600-1900 BCE).

The figure is a free-standing, realistic sculpture of a naked girl with small breasts, narrow hips, elongated legs and arms and a short torso. Her left arm bears a stack of 24 bangles, while the right arm bears 4 bangles. On her neck, she wears a necklace with three pendants, and her hair is neatly tied in a bun, twisted in a spiral fashion. Her right arm is bent at the elbow, resting on her hip, while the left hand is hanging on the side. Her head is slightly tilted backwards, and her legs are bent at the knees. It was this posture that led early scholars to identify her as a young girl sculpted in a dancing position.

The interpretation of this bronze statuette was shaped by the colonial officers who viewed the past through the lens of their own assumptions about Indian society and the role of women. Also dubbed as a “Nautch Girl” by John Marshal, who oversaw the excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, the figure was interpreted in ways that were deeply imperialistic in nature. In the absence of a deciphered script and of a complete context of the excavation (where it was found and in what context), early investigators turned to the familiar framework of misinterpretation, while imposing a false sense of uniformity onto a complex society. Their interpretations were shaped by a strong gendered and colonial gaze. 

This resulted in a reductive division amongst women who, according to the colonial officers in the 1920s and 30s, were seen either as idealised and refined, usually behind the purdah or gungath (head cover), largely treated as Sanskari (traditional), or belonging to marginalised communities, associated with performance, sexuality and lower social status. The bronze figure from Mohenjo-Daro, therefore, was placed firmly in the latter category, probably due to her lack of clothing.

Labels such as “Dancing Girl” or “Nautch Girl” are not neutral descriptions. They carry specific social meanings, associations of which are not supported by any clear archaeological evidence.

While the “Dancing Girl” was linked to the Devadasi tradition, male sculptural representations from the same context are treated with far more objectivity. Male figurines are typically elevated as a symbol of authority and divinity, as in the case of the “Priest King” or the “Horned Yogi”. In contrast, the female figure is read through a more conservative lens. Since her discovery, her nudity has been called into question and described as “provocative”, whereas male nude statues or artefacts are treated as customary and socially accepted. Such differences expose a distinctly gendered framework of interpretation that is prevalent to this day.

Unlike the colonial and Eurocentric interpretation, the nationalistic scholars attributed this figurine to divinity, transforming the Dancing Girl to “Mother Goddess”. Indian scholars have affiliated the identity of this bronze figurine to either the Yogini cult or the Shaktsim cult (Joshi, 1964). A recent study shows that the bronze statuette was essentially an early idol of the Hindu deity, Parvati. The existence of the Shaiva cult imagery in the form of the trefoil pattern on the Priest King, the Proto Shiva or the Pashupati seal depiction was a few artefacts used as evidence to claim the existence of the Shaktsim cult as well. It was concluded that while there was Shiva, Shakti, too, had to remain (Chopra, 2016). Despite the Shiv must exist with Shakti interpretation, there were no associated male figurines or statuettes from the archaeological context in which the Dancing Girl was procured. The affiliations to the Mother Goddess cult, however, seem to be a never-ending feat with the Dancing Girl.

Also Read: Aravallis shaped early human history. They’re Delhi’s forgotten archaeological frontier

To identify the figure as a “dancing girl” requires clear evidence of movement — but such certainty is difficult to sustain. In the absence of textual records or a complete understanding of the Harappan society, the purpose and the meaning of the statuette remain unknown. Any interpretation, therefore, rests on inference rather than evidence.

Some scholars have linked her posture — bent knee, tilted head, and curved stance — to later Indian sculptural traditions and classical dance forms. However, these comparisons are separated by significant temporal and cultural distance. The evolution of forms such as Bharatanatyam belongs to a much later period, making such parallels speculative at best. More importantly, where movement is clearly intended in Harappan art, it is rendered explicitly. Other figures from the same context display dynamic poses and unmistakable action, for instance, the figurine of the “Dancing Man”. In contrast, the bronze girl suggests stillness rather than motion. Her posture may be poised, even expressive, but is not necessarily performative.

Also Read: We celebrate Harappa excavation—and dismiss Keeladi, Sinauli archaeological digs as politics

The other Dancing Girls… 

If she is not a dancing girl, then who is she? A mother goddess, as some have suggested or simply an ordinary young girl?

The idea of the Mother Goddess itself is not without problems. It draws from earlier, Eurocentric frameworks, where scholars like John Marshall relied on parallels with civilisations such as the Minoans. This interpretation has since been strongly criticised by scholars, including Shereen Ratnagar. On the other hand, a few art historians argue that the figure represents an average Harappan girl. Yet, this raises another question — if she is ordinary, why do we find multiple such statuettes?

The excavations at Mohenjo-Daro have yielded at least three similar bronze statuettes of the “Dancing Girl”. One from HR area and two from DK (Dikshit) area of the site. Beyond this, from the site of Bhirrana in Haryana, a potsherd with a graffiti resembling the same form is found. Such repetitions suggest that the figure held a significance beyond the ordinary. While the true identity remains unclear, what is certain is that she is neither a dancing girl nor a nautch girl.

Disha Ahluwalia is an archaeologist and research fellow at the Indian Council Of Historical Research. Views are personal. She tweets @ahluwaliadisha.

(Edited by Insha Jalil Waziri)

var ytflag = 0; var myListener = function() { document.removeEventListener('mousemove', myListener, false); lazyloadmyframes(); }; document.addEventListener('mousemove', myListener, false); window.addEventListener('scroll', function() { if (ytflag == 0) { lazyloadmyframes(); ytflag = 1; } }); function lazyloadmyframes() { var ytv = document.getElementsByClassName("klazyiframe"); for (var i = 0; i < ytv.length; i++) { ytv[i].src = ytv[i].getAttribute('data-src'); } }

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

Harappan Civilisation

Indus Valley Civilisation

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );

Pakistan-based news portal run by Kashmiri editors amplifying The Resistance Front (TRF) content

22 judges per million, 26 lakh cases pending: India’s judicial gap widens despite years of reform

We have to ensure the books we read and films we see don’t distort Indian mind: Indira Gandhi

Required fields are marked *

Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_2" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );

ThePrint Hindi ThePrint Tamil ThePrint Marathi ThePrint Store ThePrint Speakers Bureau ThePrint School Of Journalism

Copyright © 2025 Printline Media Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.

© ThePrint