FEATURE this type of deformity can be caused by other forms of paralysis, such as the effects of antenatal poliomyelitis. The IND terracottas have familiarized us with all kinds of deformities and it seems clear from the corpus we have analyzed that consistency in relation to a particular 106 disease is not their only intent. The artists have taken their inspiration from reality but have also deliberately moved away from it, as the MQB figure shows on several counts. The features are not gratuitously represented, and while they can be variously interpreted, they are intended to stir feelings about exceptional destinies and hopes to be raised or misfortunes to be avoided or controlled by propitiatory or apotropaic procedures. The symbolic or metaphoric “charge” of certain details is undeniable, and no doubt the visual vocabulary used resonated with the audience of the time, even if nowadays the work leaves us puzzled and decoding it is a complicated process. In the case of the MQB sculpture, we wonder if the artist decided to take the liberty of putting the foot in dorsiflexion because he felt it semiologically important to show at first glance the cross tattooed on the sole of the foot, which, in our hypothesis, would immediately have identified the figure as Sunjata because the body and head, partly hidden behind his mother’s back, were less directly visible. Could this mark have been as easily interpreted without a shadow of doubt as, for example, a “hand of Fatima” is today? It is also possible that the artist simply exaggerated the atrophy of the limb so that the audience would know at once that he was disabled. It should be noted that we did not find this crossshaped tattoo anywhere else in the corpus we analyzed, nor is it on the feet of two other representations, supposedly also of Sunjata (figs. 17 and 19), although the soles of the feet on these are clearly visible. Further research and other stories from the oral tradition or from scientific excavations in the future will perhaps provide more pieces of this particular puzzle. Hazarding an Interpretation If we admit that the MQB sculpture is a maternity figure depicting Sogolon and Sunjata, there are two deductions to be made. Firstly, we must rectify the idea that the IND terracotta statues are associated with funerary practices as was suggested— mistakenly and fortunately only hypothetically—in Jacqueline Eid’s report in the MQB,82 and later presented as a plausible or even established fact by other writers83 as well as being long mentioned on the MQB website (fig. 30). This mistaken interpretation has been grist to the mill in some museums and academic institutions, which are uncomfortable about analyzing cultural heritage mostly taken from illegal digs, not only because the heritage in question is protected by UNESCO conventions, but also because they do not wish to be entangled in the exploitation of goods that might prove to have come from plundered tombs. But as far as we know, save for Eid’s hypothesis, there is no proof that these terracottas were associated with tombs or burial grounds and formal excavations have not turned up any evidence forming a direct link to funeral rituals.84 The large terracotta jars containing the bodies of the deceased were scattered in several places throughout the few sites that have been properly excavated, indicating that there were no specific places for burials.85 Funerary offerings certainly existed, but they were more likely to include small objects or jewelry and beads.86 Various writers have suggested there may have been terracotta funerary figures, but again there is no primary evidence to support this.87 Instead, a certain number of analyses and articles published to date suggest that ritual figures were probably used during propitiatory ceremonies involving animal and sometimes human sacrifices to obtain the favors of various entities. They may also have celebrated illustrious, exemplary personalities, who had be- FIG. 27: CT scans of the leg of figure 1, four opaque 3D views, the leg has been isolated and rotated 120° so it can be viewed in the usual position with the heel directly below the knee. © Dr. Marc Ghysels, Brussels. FIG. 28 (right): Man leaning on a staff. IND region, Mali. 12th–17th century. Terracotta with ochre/red slip. H: 40 cm. Ex Charles B. Benenson (B.A. Yale, 1933). Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut, inv. 2006.51.111. © Yale University Art Gallery.
T75E_web
To see the actual publication please follow the link above