Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c31: Chapter XVII. History of Sinhalese Art
Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c31
- Language
- English
Chapter XVII. History of Sinhalese Art
c31.1
M ATERIALS are not yet available for the detailed history of Indian art or of any off-shoot or branch of Indian art. It is only possible in speaking of the history of Sinhalese art, to indicate its main sources, and the influences that seem most to have affected it.
c31.2
Accepting the general outline of the history given in Chapter I., it is clear that we have to consider the following elements which have, or may have, gone to the building up of the traditions of Sinhalese arts and crafts as they existed in late mediæval times:—the art of indigenous peoples, pre-Vijayan ‘Yakkhas’; the art brought by the Vijayan immigrants; the art brought with Buddhism and the Aśokan culture from N. India; the influence of Dravidian art in early times, and at subsequent periods; the influence of Muhammadan art; of Chinese and Malayan; and finally of Portuguese, Dutch, and English.
c31.3
Probably the most widely exerted influence in all Oriental art, is that which accompanied and followed the Aśokan Buddhist missions. To this rule Ceylon formed no exception. It must, of course, be understood that the culture which was thus carried was not Buddhist in the sense of being non-Hindu, but was rather what we ought to call Early Indian. It is this fact which explains the perfectly true statement* that for Hindu art proper, one must go to Ceylon. Mediæval and modern Sinhalese art is essentially Indian art, but it is not modern Hindu, rather it is such an art as might have survived in some yet Buddhist part of the mainland, if Buddhism had not there been entirely merged in Hinduism.
c31.4
Early Indian art of the Aśokan period can be best studied in the Barāhat sculptures (200—150 B.C.). There are, as might be looked for, many motifs in Sinhalese art directly comparable with those characteristic at Barāhat; of these survivals, it will be worth while to notice some of the most important or conspicuous. One of these survivals, is the use of rosettes (lotus flowers), not as an essential part of a design, but to fill awkward spaces, and so preserve the flatness and evenness of the whole design, as, for example, in Pl. XVIII. Fig. 145 shows a lotus rosette similarly used at Barāhat. There are, moreover, significant resemblances and survivals in the forms of the lotus rosettes themselves. Amongst the lotus medallions of Barāhat which have parallels in mediæval Sinhalese work there are some in which the outer whorl of petals is replaced by cobra heads, all turned in one direction, right or left, around the centre (see Figs. 4 and 5, from Cunningham’s ‘Bharhut Stupa,’ Pl. XXXVIII.); in others the same forms can be recognized, but the cobra heads are so much more conventionalised that recognition would be difficult without the other type to guide us (see Fig. 6 from Cunningham’s Pl. XXXVIII.). The evolution from cobras’ heads to purely conventional forms had already taken place at Barāhat; and the more conventional type alone survives in Kandyan art (Fig. 147, also Fig. 34, III. and v.)
c31.5
Fig. 145. Lotus rosette (with makara), Barāhat.
c31.6
Conventionalised cobra heads are also recognizable in Fig. 37. This form differs, however, from the true whorl in having the elements symmetrically disposed about a median line.
c31.7
∗ E.g., Mr. Maskell, ‘Ivories,’ 1905, p. 334.
c31.8
Fig. 146. Lotus medallions, Barāhat.
c31.9
Fig. 147. Lotus rosette, Sinhalese, 18th century. Cf. Fig. 146, B.
c31.10
Fig. 148. Lotus ornament, Barāhat.
c31.11
Fig. 149. Armlet, Barāhat. Cf. Pl. XXXIII., 2.
c31.12
How far these may represent either cobra heads, or lotus leaves, as in Fig. 148, A, B, from Barāhat, it would be hard to distinguish. The form has probably a double ancestry. Resembling Fig. 148, B, is the armlet of Fig. 149, also from a Barāhat sculpture (Cunningham, Pl. XXII). It is a little surprising to find the form of this armlet or arm decoration so perfectly preserved in modern Sinhalese art, as the Garā-yakshaya costume (Pl. XXXIII., 2 and 3) shows it to have been. The resemblance in form and application amounts almost to identity; a survival of 2000 years. Another example of the same form otherwise applied will be found in the border of a betel-bag, Pl. XXXII., 6; here the chevron decoration of the central element seems like an Assyrian reminiscence. Also of Assyrian kinship are the cross-hatched flower centres (Fig. 59) and ornament of the ‘pine-apple’ type (Fig. 150, A). The ornaments considered above, except the last referred to, belong to the ‘palmette’ and ‘honeysuckle’ types, which are most familiar through their Greek forms, but occur also at Barāhat. They have Egyptian affinities too. The question of the origin of the most striking of these forms, so ‘Early Mediterranean’ in aspect, is one difficult of solution; one may trace them, perhaps, to Northern India, and thence, not to Greece (where they did not so much originate as develope), but to the common sources of all Indo-Aryan decorative art.
c31.13
*Archaic motifs*
c31.14
*Common sources*
c31.15
It is perhaps hardly possible to say more than that there survive in Sinhalese art a large number of decorative motifs of archaic character. The most striking group of these occurs on the decorated pottery made at Keḷaniya, Mātara, etc. The most characteristic of these forms are shown in Fig. 137, B-E. With these may be associated the lac-work design of Fig. 133 and the archaic motifs of the woven belt of Pl. XXIX., 7. Of similarly archaic character are the simple forms of spiral and vine or branch (Fig. 150, C); affrontment (Fig. 150, D); lotus derivatives like Fig. 150, E and F, directly comparable with Egyptian and Mediterranean equivalents; the alternation of elements in ‘knop and flower’ motifs (Fig. 150, B); and the cross-hatched ‘daisy’ or ‘pine-apple’ (Fig. 150, A). These motifs have a common origin in an art which we may call Early Asiatic or Indo-European; they are the decorative analogues of the community of primitive religious conceptions in East and West, and of the fundamental common motifs in Aryan folklore. The subject of their origin is again referred to in the Appendix to this chapter.
c31.16
More primitive than the decorative motifs above spoken of, are those everywhere characteristic of barbaric art; forms which, it would appear, have arisen independently in different parts of the world, and not necessarily traceable to a common centre of distribution. Such forms are the plaits resembling basket-work (pp. 107, 108, above); simple cross-hatchings,
c31.17
*Primitive motifs* *Early methods* circles, diamonds, dots and lines. These may have been characteristic even of a primitive art possessed by the pre-Sinhalese inhabitants, or they may have been brought into Ceylon at a later period with more advanced forms. Analogous to the survival of primitive patterns, is the maintenance of the once universal (pre-Aśokan) practice of building in wood. In spite of the repeated construction of stone buildings at Anurādhapura, Polonnaruva, Yāpahuva and elsewhere, the indigenous style of architecture has remained to this day one of wooden construction. Another survival from the earliest time is the continued practice of constructing images of impermanent materials as clay, brick, etc., that has continued side by side with the more familiar, but actually rarer, use of stone. The use of mud and primitive colours in the construction of *bali* images is a survival of primitive methods, exactly analogous to the corresponding beliefs that have survived side by side with the clear-cut non-animistic philosophy of Buddhism.
c31.18
Fig. 150. Archaic motifs in Sinhalese decorative art.
c31.19
*Later motifs* Few decorative motifs are of later origin. The elaboration of simple motifs must always have continued; but most of them, such as the continuous branch, were already developed at Barāhat,* and awaited only such an extension of their use as is illustrated in the progression from a simple border, to a design covering a large space as in Fig. 52. One definitely Buddhist decorative motif is the *bo*-leaf, and the form of triangle derived from it (see p. 106, above). Apparently post-Aśokan must be most of the patterns used for filling space, or rather most of the ways of so using patterns; thus the ‘continuous branch,’ well known at Barāhat, was afterwards used in carefully constructed patterns covering large areas as in Fig. 52 and Pl. XV. When or where such methods of design originated it would be hard to say. From such constructed patterns to patterns based on an invisible framework (*parsemé*) the transition must have been easy.
c31.20
*Lotus* The lotus petal (*pala peti*) border or moulding is ancient, and its origin clear from the petals of lotus medallions, such as we see at Barāhat. Where the lotus petal motif was first used as a moulding it would be hard to say; but it is evidently the equivalent and source of the classic ‘egg and dart’ in the West, while it has retained its individuality in the East.
c31.21
∗ It is probable that closer parallels could be drawn, were it not for the almost complete absence of the remains of examples of the minor arts from Indian sites.
c31.22
In architectural matters the relation of Sinhalese art to the Early Buddhist art of Northern India is too obvious to need a detailed commentary. The tasselled ornament of the Meḍagoḍa pillar in the Colombo Museum, goes back to the tasselled *chakra* of Barāhat; and the *makara toraṇa* arch, to the *chaitiya* windows of the Early Buddhist cave temples of India. Again, the wooden *toraṇa*, ‘triumphal arches,’ characteristic of street and gateway decoration for festival occasions, afford one out of many instances of a survival of the use of wood in architectural details; in the gaily ornamented *toraṇa* at the gateway of a *dēvāle* procession path at *perahera* time, we see the prototype of the stone gateways of Sāñchi. The national style of architecture has remained in Ceylon an architecture of wooden construction. Instances of similar survivals of wood construction could be multiplied. This fact, contrasting with the universally stone architecture of Southern India, and of what may fairly be called Hindu buildings in Ceylon (Bereṇḍi Kovil, etc.) again illustrates the survival of Early Hindu culture in Ceylon, better preserved than on the mainland. The influence of later Dravidian architecture is also everywhere apparent.
c31.23
The history of Sinhalese art in post-Aśokan and in mediæval times is mainly one of continual action and interaction with India. During the whole of this period, and until the close of the period of mediæval conditions, the relations between Southern India and Ceylon were similar to those obtaining in the Middle Ages between France and England; continually fluctuating intimate intercourse, now friendly, now hostile, migration of craftsmen to centres of civic activity, or to abandoned sites rebuilt by victorious kings, sometimes with the capture of craftsmen amongst other prisoners; sometimes their importation. Throughout this intercourse, India remained the exhaustless reservoir from which Ceylon was able to draw, whenever it became necessary to renew the traditions which fell into decay in Ceylon, as was from time to time the case. This process of renewal is well brought out in the Janavaṃsa accounts of the history of the crafts in Ceylon. Its results are equally evident in the community of motifs in Sinhalese and Dravidian art. The system of teaching drawing (pp. 64—69, above) is Dravidian, and many common elements of design have been noticed in Chapter IV. A striking instance is afforded by the tree of life in a garlanded frame, Pl. XIV., 4, which is identical in design with the decoration of South Indian *palampores*. The forms of jewellery, as well as the ‘gold leaf’ technique (*tahaḍu kola bemma*) are of South Indian origin. It is by no means easy always to say whether a given piece of jewellery is of South Indian or Sinhalese manufacture.
c31.24
We have spoken so far almost exclusively of the history of decorative art; but the art was one whole, and must so be considered from a historical point of view. If we compare the Barāhat sculptures and the Kandyan paintings as regards style and subject matter, we shall find that the conventions of ancient and modern artists are close akin. The ancient method of ‘continuous narration’ is equally characteristic of both. The whole picture is brought into one plane, and there is little or no attempt at perspective. A delight in delicate detail, as in the delineation of feathers, costume, etc., and in clear distinct outline is apparent in both schools. The representation of trees is very characteristic; the sculptured trees of Barāhat and the painted trees of a Kandyan vihāra have much in common. The treatment is entirely decorative and idealistic. The lost school of Barāhat painting, if such existed, must have been very like Kandyan. Unfortunately we have few remains of the minor arts dating from Aśokan times; it is likely that a study of these would increase the impression of similarity between Kandyan and Barāhat art.
c31.25
With regard to figure sculpture, we do not know the date of the earliest stone figures of Buddha in Ceylon. To judge from the remains at Barāhat the early Buddhist artists represented the Buddha by symbols only. Hence it has been assumed, in view of the Greeko-Roman character of the Gandhāra sculptures, that “The ideal type of Buddha was created for Buddhist art by foreigners.”* The improbability of this is discussed in the Appendix to this chapter. In any case, it is fairly evident that the first sculptors of Buddhist images in Ceylon must have been Indians, and they may not have come to Ceylon until some time later than the Aśokan missions, and the beginning of the general influence of Northern Buddhist Art in Ceylon.
c31.26
The fifth century Sigiri paintings have already been referred to. They are almost certainly the work of Indian craftsmen. They were probably related to an indigenous school of painting, much as the building in stone, and the fine weaving, were related to the indigenous style of building in wood, and home-spun weaving; that is to say they were exotic products of an art, never permanently naturalised in Ceylon. They are in every respect different from modern Kandyan painting, which there is good reason to regard as the lineal descendant of an early formal style similar in feeling to that of the Jātaka sculptures at Barāhat. Into such a line of descent the Sigiri paintings would nowhere fit.
c31.27
We may gather, however, that in the fifth century, as well as at other times, a school of highly skilled craftsmen existed in Ceylon, and if of Indian origin, at least were much at home in Ceylon. We have the Sigiri paintings; and with respect to figure sculpture Tennent states that the “early historians of China speak in raptures of work of this kind, obtained from Singhalese sculptors in the fourth and fifth centuries.”† It is possible that the very beautiful small bronzes of somewhere about this date which are sometimes met with in Ceylon, may have been the work of Sinhalese sculptors. This was a period of culmination of Indian culture, both in the mainland and in Ceylon (see above, p. 162) and the province was more intimately related to the mainland than is now the case. Perhaps it would be correct to say of such a period, not so much that its productions in Ceylon were the work of Indian craftsmen, as that in India at that time, of which Ceylon was a part, there existed a common school of craftsmen great in artistic achievement; but that these in Ceylon were unable to maintain a continuous tradition, owing to the disturbed state of the country and other causes.
c31.28
We know from the recent discoveries of bronzes at Polonnaruva that fine Hindu art flourished there in the twelfth century still; and the better known stone sculptures, especially the figure of Parākrama Bāhu, show that here too a high level of attainment was again reached. But the work is much rather Hindu than Buddhist, and there can be little doubt that many or most of the craftsmen were of Dravidian origin.
c31.29
The sum of the conclusions so far drawn then is, that there exists in Sinhalese art an early stratum of indispensable barbaric decorative motives, such as are found in savage countries still, and survive everywhere in the art of civilised lands; then a main stream of North Indian Buddhist influence; and thereafter the influence of continued reliance upon and intercourse with India, especially Southern India, accounting at every period for the strong admixture of purely Hindu with Buddhist motifs. The independent influence of China may have been considerable at certain periods, and was also exerted at second hand through India. Malayan influence is suggested in the elongated triangles described on p. 106. Muhammadan influence on Sinhalese art has been of the slightest,‡ and on this account Sinhalese art is of particular value as preserving Early Hindu feeling which in most parts of the mainland has been obscured by Muhammadan or later Hindu motifs. Sinhalese decorative art is thus in a sense both freer and wider than that of Northern India in later times, and gentler, less grotesque, more akin to mediæval European, than the Dravidian art of Southern India, to which it is, nevertheless, so closely related.
c31.30
∗ Grünwedel, ‘Buddhist Art in India,’ p. 68. † Tennent, ‘Ceylon,’ 4th ed., p. 476. ‡ It may perhaps be traced in the cone pattern of Fig. 51 and in a few forms of jewellery, such as the crescent pendant of Pl. XLVIII., 5.
c31.31
In later mediæval times, we have to consider Portuguese and Dutch and finally English influence on Sinhalese art. The influence of Portuguese and Dutch in the low-country in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, on art, costume, and manners was extremely marked; but as regards the unconquered inland districts, comparatively slight. We trace it in the forms of furniture; but here again it is almost entirely in the low-country that almirahs, four-post beds, chairs and tables came into use, and only in the nineteenth century that these spread rapidly into the Kandyan districts. In building, the same is also true; the round pillared open verandahs, romanesque arches and other details of nineteenth century domestic architecture have mainly spread from the low-country, and are often the work of low-country architects and masons. The direct influence of the Portuguese and Dutch on Kandyan culture was limited to that of the presents sent to the Kandyan kings; the influence of the prisoners at the Kandyan Court, some of them having been, it is said, employed as builders, and one, at least, appointed Koṭṭalbadde Nilame; and the influence of articles of commerce, principally cotton materials, metal ware, etc. Portuguese influence is, for example, traceable in the type of chest called Indo-Portuguese, with iron or brass fittings with Renaissance ornament. It is evident in many specimens of iron work; hinges seem directly based on European forms. There is much repoussed and chased ornament of metal work that seems also to show traces of Renaissance influence, yet may almost equally well be quite indigenous. The silver and ivory casket of the Crystal Buddha at the Daḷadā Māligāva is suggestive of Italian workmanship. I have seen also old brocades that may have been of Italian or Spanish origin. Dutch influence is seen in the brass tobacco boxes, of which Dutch examples are still common, beside the Sinhalese imitations; and in certain methods of representing lions, as in the corners of the Flag of the Four Kōrales figured by Bell (Kēgalla Report, p. 126). A similar lion rampant holding a sword is carved on a jaggery mould in my collection. These forms are quite distinctly European, and different from typical Sinhalese lions.
c31.32
Of English influence on purely Sinhalese art, the less said the better. It is been characterised, from the English side, by almost complete indifference to indigenous culture, the result of an ideal of purely material prosperity; the destruction of indigenous crafts by the competition of cheap machine-made materials and luxuries; the neglect of surviving architectural tradition and capacity for building; and by an entirely false and unnatural system of education, the result of which is to make the ‘educated,’ strangers in their own land. The immediate effect of British rule, was to destroy the system of State support of the arts and crafts; the links that bound the Koṭṭalbadde and the Paṭṭal-hatara craftsmen to the national life were snapped at a blow; by the withdrawal of support from the national religion, it came about that funds formerly available for building and decoration of temples were misappropriated. From the Sinhalese side, the history of the nineteenth century has been one of continual and snobbish imitation of the external features of Western culture, misunderstood and misapplied. . The results have been even more disastrous than is yet the case in India; it is, indeed, almost a matter for surprise that so much of the indigenous traditions of art and craft still survive. If it is so, if there are still devoted and skilled craftsmen of the old school, this is thanks neither to the patronage of the Sinhalese themselves nor to that of their British rulers; it is due to the vitality still latent in the old tradition, the effectiveness of the caste system in conserving, if somewhat forlornly, some of the best part of the old life, and lastly, and not least, to the affectionate devotion of the hereditary craftsmen to their art and its traditions.