It is really nice when an author posits a hypothesis, discusses why or why it may not be true, introduces another and then weighs them without necessarily strongly committing to either. In this case, Dr. Heather M. L. Miller tries to determine why ancient Indus craftspeople added steatite (or talc) to faience (made from a siliceous paste) objects, a rather unusual combination. Indus objects made from either substance are well-known, as are faience objects from other ancient civilizations, particularly Egypt. The ancient Indus civilization developed steatite so elaborately that it is sometimes called the steatite civilization (the so-called Priest-King and most seals where made of steatite, for example). Nonetheless, they were also able to make elaborate faience objects (like this monkey or see the Image 1 above). Both faience and steatite required deep skills, requiring high temperatures to heat, change colors and be worked into fine shapes.

Dr. Miller frames the problem: "Why do some of the Indus siliceous pastes contain talc/steatite fragments, especially as these fragments are apparently invisible in the completed object to the consumer and even to the producer? To me (Miller), there seemed to be no technological reason for such inclusions. Within the Indus, as well as beyond it, most siliceous pastes do not contain steatite inclusions" (p. 390). Her initial thesis is that the addition of steatite was "ideological, consumer-focussed," giving objects with it additional value in the eyes of its ultimate users.

However, faience replication work by Dr. Mark Kenoyer at the University of Wisconsin, Madison suggested that "adding a small amount of steatite results in a significant improvement in the workability of the unfired material, making it much easier to form and shape the desired objects" (p. 391). Dr. Miller was able to replicate these experiments, and conclude "that there could well be technological, production reasons for the addition of some steatite to some types of Indus faience" (p. 391). Once again, experimental archaeology, where modern archaeologists try to make or do things with the same materials that ancient people used to better understand how things were done, casts an intriguing new light on the problem if not an alternate answer.

Nonetheless, a purely technological reason does not seem sufficient, for it is only a limited amount of Indus faience that has steatite added. If it so improved workability, then it is likely to have been found in other civilizations as well, yet there is no sign of its use in well-studied ancient Egyptian faience for example. While she concludes that both reasons - workability and consumer desirability - may have played a role, "ultimately, though, we need more directed experimentation and analysis focused on this problem, especially more information on exactly which objects are made of steatite-faience and which are not, and where and when this material is found. Like all good research, the new questions provided by the research to date are just as important as the new answers" (p. 393).

The answer may in part be buried in the development of historical production techniques and traditions. The very nice chart provided (Image 2) illustrates in one view the manifold ways these two materials were worked over thousands of years, stoping just short of glass, and reminding us of the sophistication and prowess of the Indus craft tradition, at least some of which is still well beyond our understanding.

Images:
1. Elaborate faience bangle and miscellaneous faience objects from Harappa.
2. The steatite and faience complex of materials in the Indus Valley Tradition over time