Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Indian and Indonesian Art c8: Part III: Kuṣāna, Later Āndhra, and Gupta

History of Indian and Indonesian Art c8

Language
English

Contents

Part III: Kuṣāna, Later Āndhra, and Gupta

The Beginnings of Hindū and Buddhist Theistic Art

c8.s1.1

There is evidence in the early Vedic texts, revealing a connection of the elemental deities with certain animals, by which they might be represented in the ritual. Thus the horse was associated with Sūrya and Agni, the bull with Indra and Rudra (= Śiva). The animal Avatārs of Prajāpati, later appropriated by Viṣṇu, may also be cited. Material objects, too, were used as symbols. The wheel (*cakra*), which later on becomes the mark of a Cakravārtin, the discus of Viṣṇu, and the Buddhist Wheel of the Law, originally represented the Sun. The disk of gold placed behind the fire altar to represent the Sun may well be the origin of the later *prabhā-maṇḍala* or *śiraś-cakra* (nimbus¹). Radiance is predicated of almost all the Devas, is indeed one of the root meanings of the word, and most of them are connected in their origins with Sun and Fire. Just as the tree behind the empty altar or throne, representing Buddha in the early art, remains in the later art when the throne is occupied, so the sun-disk behind the fire-altar may well have remained there when the deity was first made visible. The altar itself, usually wide above and below and narrow in the middle “like a woman’s waist”, is evidently the prototype of the *āsana* and *pīṭha* of later images.

c8.s1.2

¹ We do not know when the nimbus was first used in Indian iconography, as no early images, for which we have adequate literary evidence at least in the second century B. C., are extant. In western art it first appears in Alexandrian times. Cf. p. 57.

c8.s1.3

The *vajra* (bolt) is constantly mentioned as wielded by Indra. A deprecatory reference to those who have the *śiśna* for their deity (Rv. 7, 24⁵) seems to employ the early use of a phallic symbol by non-Āryan. *Caitya-vṛkṣas* (cf. figs. 10, 27) are mentioned in the *Atharva Veda, pariśiṣṭa* LXXI; large trees are sometimes addressed as deities, they are connected with human fertility, and nymphs inhabiting them are asked to be propitious to passing wedding processions.

c8.s1.4

An elemental conception of the powers of nature does not necessitate an iconography, and there are no unmistakeable references to images in the early books. The most definite suggestion is that of Rv. 4. 24¹⁰, “Who will buy my Indra?”; but just as the Bodhi-tree and *pāduka* at Bhārhut are called “Buddha” (Bhagavato), so here a symbol may have been referred to as “Indra”. The “golden Puruṣa” of the Agniśayana, however, must have been a plaque in human form, probably something like the little plaque supposed to represent Pṛthvī found in a burial, regarded as Vedic, at Lauṛiyā-Nandangaṛh¹. The ultimate tendency is to conceive the gods more and more in definitely anthropomorphic terms; and clear references to images occur not infrequently in the later Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras². To a very considerable extent the development of theistic, devotional cults must represent an emergence of popular, non-Āryan tendencies, now recognized, absorbed, and systematised in relation to Āryan philosophies. It must never be overlooked that in the Vedas, and before the second century B. C. we possess only a one-sided view of “Indian” religion, and representing, quantitatively at least, the smaller part of Indian religion. The mass of the people worshipped, not the abstract deities of priestly theology, but local genii (Yakṣas and Nāgas) and feminine divinities of increase, and mother goddesses.

c8.s1.5

¹ Bloch, Th., *Excavations at Lauriya*, A. S. I., A. R., 1906—07; Marshall, 8, pl. XI.

c8.s1.6

² Macdonell, 1, pp. 150, 155; Bhattacharya, 1, introduction. Bollensen’s interpretation of Rv. I, 145, in Z. D. M. G., XLVII, 1890, p. 586, as implying a picture of Agni painted on cow-hide, is very doubtful.

c8.s1.7

A description of a temple of post and thatch, with mat walls, is given in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, but this was a building for the performance of sacrifices, not a temple in the later sense³. Many precise and elaborate details are given regarding the building of altars, generally fire-altars; and it is noteworthy that the rules for the construction of these sacrificial altars, given in the *Sulva Sūtras*, make use of dynamic symmetry, of which no trace can be recognized at a later period⁴.

c8.s1.8

³ Discussed by Simpson, 6.

c8.s1.9

⁴ Mazumdar, N., *Manava Sulba Sutram*, Calcutta University, 1922.

c8.s1.10

In the Epics, Manu, the *Gṛhya Sūtras*, etc., collectively good evidence for the second century B. C. or earlier, the transition from elemental to personal conceptions of the deities is completed, and at the same time images and temples are referred to fairly frequently and as a matter of course⁵. The words used for image are *daivata*, *pratimā*, *pratikṛti*, *mūrti*, *devatā-pratimā*, and those who make or carry about images are called *devalaka*. The *Harivaṁsa*, somewhat later, refers to stone images, but no stone image of a Deva is certainly older than the first century B. C., the Maurya or possibly earlier figures representing either human beings or Yakṣas⁶.

c8.s1.11

⁵ Hopkins, pp. 70—73. Quintus Curtius, Vit. Alex., VII, 14, 11, states that an image of “Hercules” was carried in front of the army of Porus as he advanced against Alexander. This may have been an image of Śiva or of a Yakṣa.

c8.s1.12

⁶ Supra, p. 16 ff.

c8.s1.13

Images are mentioned about the same time in several other connections: thus Patañjali, commenting on Pāṇini, refers to the exhibition and sale of images of "Śiva, Skanda, Viśākha, &c.". The moving about of images of bucolic deities is referred to in Āpastambha, *Gṛhya Sūtra*, 19. 13, a work perhaps composed in the Āndhra country. A *Nāga-bali* is described in Aśvalāyana, *Ghṛya Pariśiṣṭa*, 3. 16; a five-headed snake of wood or clay is to be made and worshipped for a year. This is interesting evidence of the making of images in impermanent materials; stone images of Nāgas, of the Mathurā school, are common in the Kuṣāna and Gupta periods.

c8.s1.14

Late Buddhist legends describe in the same way the making of images of Buddha at an early period, and even in the lifetime of Buddha; but these stories cannot be held to do more than emphasize the likelihood of wooden images having been made at some time anterior to the earliest known stone figures². Khāravela's Hāthī-gumphā inscription mentions a wooden image of Ketu, a human hero; this inscription, dateable about 161 B. C. is good evidence for human images, and were it necessary the figure of Sātakarṇi at Nānāghāṭ, and the various epic references to human figures, generally of gold, might be cited as analogues³.

c8.s1.15

² Kern, p. 94; Hackin, J., in Ann. Musée Guimet, Bib. Vulg., 40; Bachhofer, 1, p. 15.

c8.s1.16

³ For the Hāthī-gumphā inscription see Jayaswal, K., *Hāthī-gumphā inscription of the Emperor Khāravela*, J. B. O. R. S., vol. III; Banerji, *ibid*; and A. S. I., A. R., 1922—23, pp. 130 ff. The inscription further states that Khāravela recovered at the Magadhan capital (Pāṭaliputra) some objects connected with the first Jina (Ṛṣabhadeva) which had originally been taken away from Kaliṅga by King Nanda three centuries earlier. Smith, 4, p. 209, speaks of "it" as a statue, and were this justified, our ideas of the development of Indian art would have to be radically modified; in fact, however, the critical word is obliterated, and the correlative pronoun referring to it is in the plural. We may suppose that relics, or possibly symbols, may have been referred to.

c8.s1.17

The manner in which deities are or may be distinguished or represented by their symbols is well illustrated in a passage of the pseudo-epic, which claims all beings as creatures of Śiva, on the ground that they are marked by distinctions of sex, and not by the *cakra*, *padma*, or *vajra* (discus, lotus, or thunderbolt), by which they might have been claimed as Viṣṇu's, Brahmā's or Indra's. At a relatively early period the lotus may have represented Brahmā, for he is the successor of Prajāpati, who is born of the waters. The lotus pedestal appears already in Maurya or Śuṅga terracottas, and at Sāñcī and Bhārhut as the seat of Māyādevī-Lakṣmī, and is very soon employed in the case of all divine beings to denote miraculous birth and apparitional character; standing alone, in early Buddhist art, it seems to represent the Nativity.

c8.s1.18

Such symbols (*rūpa*) as are above referred to are found in great variety on the punch-marked coins (*kāhāpaṇa*, *kārṣāpaṇa*, *purāṇa*) (*figs*. 106—108) which were in general use from about 600 B. C. up to the beginning of the Kuṣāna period or somewhat later, on the closely related native cast and die-struck coins (figs. 110-115) of the latter part of the same period, and also on some of the Indianised coins of the Indo-Greek and Indo-Parthian kings of the Pañjāb e. g. Agathokles¹. Some of the same symbols appear in Maurya, Śuṅga and Kuṣāna art at Pāṭaliputra, Bhārhut, Sāñcī, Mathurā and in Oṛissā, and together with some new forms on Kuṣāna and Gupta sealings from Bhīṭā, Basāṛh, and many other sites, and on *pādukas* (Buddha-pada, Viṣṇu-pada) and *aṣṭamaṅgala* of various periods². With them can be associated, as belonging to the same kind of hieroglyphic art, the banner cognizances of gods and heroes mentioned in the Epics, those still used by Paṇḍās at *tīrthas* to facilitate recognition by visiting pilgrims, tattoo marks ancient and modern, cattle-brands, and folk art generally³. A few of the types appear in Western Asia, and the *svastika* is of world-wide distribution.

c8.s1.19

¹ Konow. Figures of Skanda and Viśākha appear on the coins of Huviṣka (*fig*. 126A, and Gardner, pl. XXVIII no. 24, &c.).

c8.s1.20

¹ On punch-marked coins and their symbols see Bhandarkar, 5; Rapson, 1; Spooner, 9; Theobald; Walsh; Smith, 6; and Whitehead, W. H.

c8.s1.21

² For symbols on *pādukas* see Fournereau, 2; Coomaraswamy, 1, fig. 69, and cf. *ibid.* pl. XLVIII, 15. 17. For the Jaina *aṣṭamaṅgala*, Coomaraswamy 9 (4) pl. XXXVII; Smith, 1; and fig. 72.

c8.s1.22

³ For tattoo marks see Cunningham, 2 and Luard, 1.

c8.s1.23

In determining the nature of the objects represented, all these, together with the formulae commonly employed in Indian art of less abstract types, must be considered; had this been done at first, the now universally recognized "mountain" would never have been mistaken for a *stūpa*⁴. The special religious meanings possible for each symbol must be considered in the light of Vedic and Epic references to avatārs and attributes, and to later and modern iconography, remembering always that the vocabulary was equally available to all sects, Brāhmaṇs, Buddhists and Jains each employing them in senses of their own. Finally, the heraldic significance, the secular usage by a particular king, city, or community, must be considered in the light of a comparative study of find places, and incidental references to *rāja-aṅka* of particular rulers, such as the bull mark of the Bṛhataratha dynasty of Magadha mentioned in the *Mahābhārata*, the tiger mark of the kings of Kāverī-pum-paṭṭiṇam mentioned in the *Paṭṭinappālai*; the later royal emblems used as seals on copperplate grants, and the heraldic usage of symbols on banners and standards. A passage of the *Visuddhimagga*, referring to *kāhāpaṇas* states that an experienced banker would be in a position to distinguish at what village, borough, town, mountain or river bank they were issued, and by what mint-master¹. In general, the obverse marks seem to be those of the issuing authority, the reverse signs those of private bankers and merchants.

c8.s1.24

⁴ The mountain represented by 'arches' (peaks) is found in Mesopotamia and throughout the ancient world, as well as in later Indian and Central Asian and Chinese art, cf. Glotz, G., *The Aegean civilisation*, 1925, fig. 40, and Petrucci, R., in Burlington Mag., vol. v. 29, pp. 74—79, and Coomaraswamy, 8, pl. II. cf. Burgess, 7, pl. LV, 5.

c8.s1.25

¹ Text quoted, Bhandarkar, 5, appendix.

c8.s1.26

The commonest coin symbols (see figs. 106—114) in general use before the Kuṣāna period include human figures (singly or in threes), elephant, horse, bull, bull's head, dog, cobra, fish, peacock; *caitya-vṛkṣa* (railed tree), branch, flower, lotus; sun (circle with rays), moon (crescent); mountain (many varieties with one or more peaks, and with or without the dog, peacock, tree or crescent), river (often with fish), tank; taurine, *nandipada*, *triratna* or *triśūla*, *svastika*, double triangle (like a Tāntrik *yantra*), steel-yard, so-called cotton-bale or caduceus, shield (= *triratna* or fire-altar?), Taxila mark (equal-armed cross, tipped with four circles enclosing dots), "Troy" mark (three *chatras* or arrow heads interspaced with ovals about a central circle, generally regarded as another solar symbol), bow and arrow, pile of balls (= heap of gems?), and many others. Rarer marks include the lion, rhinoceros, camel and *makara*. Marks which we might expect, but which are not found, include the *liṅgam*, *vajra*, *pāduka*, and Garuḍa. Nor is there any sign clearly representing a *stūpa* of any kind; when this symbol finally appears on seals in the Gupta period it is quite unmistakeable².

c8.s1.27

² For the *stūpa* on Gupta seals see Spooner, 8, pl. XLVI, no. 159. The so-called square *stūpa* of Amoghabhūti's coins (Smith, 6, p. 167, and pl. XXII; and fig. 115) seems to be simply a railed parasol *caitya* like those represented on the Bodhgayā railing, Cunningham, 3, pl. IX, no. 14. Structural shrines or pavilions appear on the Audumbara coins (figs. 116, 117) about the beginning of the Christian era, also on coins of Kaniṣka in the second century A.D.

c8.s1.28

For our purpose, the importance of these symbols, many of which have remained in use to the present day, lies in the fact that they represent a definite early Indian style, amounting to an explicit iconography. In Buddhist art, for example, we find at Bhārhut and Sāñcī the tree, wheel, &c., on or behind an altar, clearly designated in the inscriptions as "Buddha" (Bhagavato) and worshipped as such; even in elaborate scenes from the Life, the Master is represented only by the symbols (tree, wheel, *chatta*, *pāduka*), repeated as often as the technique of continuous narration may require. Later on the figure of a human teacher takes its place upon the throne, the old symbols being retained as specific designations, and in the scenes from the life too, he appears in human form. In the same way with Hindū types; thus we find at first the humped bull alone (fig. 109), then a two-armed (fig. 122), and finally a four-armed figure (figs. 125, 126) accompanying the bull, once the representative of the deity, now his "vehicle" (*vāhanam*), while other symbols are held in the hands as attributes. Finally the forms of such images are codified in descriptive mnemonic texts (*dhyāna mantrams*, *sādhanā*, included in the *Śilpa-śāstras*), and these texts, which are a development and definition of the older Vedic and Epic lauds, must be visualised before the work is begun.

c8.s1.29

Thus there is a natural development from indications, appropriate to elemental conceptions of the deities, to representations appropriate to the new conception of them as worshipful persons. As is always the case in India, styles of art are not developed arbitrarily, but as the result of changes in racial psychology. In this case the change may have been due in the last analysis to a fusion of Northern with Southern racial types, of Āryans with Dravidians.

c8.s1.30

It must always be remembered that the Vedas exhibit only a certain aspect of early Indian religion. Behind the pale of Āryan orthodoxy and its tendency to abstract symbolism there lay an extensive and deep-rooted system of popular beliefs and cults and a decided tendency to anthropomorphic presentation. These popular beliefs implied an iconography, such we actually find at Bhārhut, of Yakṣas and Nāgas, Devatās and Vṛkṣakās, the Earth and Mother-goddesses and divinities of fertility, fairies and goblins and human heroes¹. Gradually all of these found their place in a theistic Hinduism and Buddhism which were not purely Āryan, but Indian; partly *in propriâ personâ* as minor divinities acting on behalf of the higher gods as guardians or servants, but also, by a fusion of concepts, representing them. India offered no exception to the general rule that a higher or developing religion absorbs, embodies and preserves the types and rituals of older cults without destroying them and establishes its churches in places already sacred². If popular belief thus contributed a large element to the personalities of the gods as they came to be imagined, it can hardly be doubtful that popular religious art, of which the early terracottas and the Mathurā railing pillars may be cited as examples, made large contributions to the iconography of the ultimate pantheon. With this in view, for example, it is easy to see how it happened that the early figures of Śiva and the early Bodhisattvas should have so much resembled the current types of Yakṣas. The attendant *caurī*-bearers of early Buddha images (fig. 84), for example, predecessors of the Bodhisattvas of later trinities, are evidently Yakṣas: there is a good example in Amarāvatī style in the Field Museum, Chicago. What we see taking place in Indian art towards the beginning of the Christian era is not so much the creation of a brand-new iconography as the adaptation of an older iconography to new requirements, and the giving of a new and deeper content to time-honoured forms.

c8.s1.31

¹ In addition, cf. the popular deities still worshipped (Whitehead, H.; Parker, 2, pp. 133—206, etc.).

c8.s1.32

² Thus, according to Hsüan Tsang, Nālandā was originally the name of a Nāga, “and the monastery built by the side of the pool is therefore called after his name” (Beal, 2, p. 110). It is highly probable that the Tibetan *Dulva* preserves a true tradition when it says that the Śākyas were accustomed to present all new-born children before the image of the Yakṣa Śākya-vardhana, (Rockhill, W. W., *Life of the Buddha*, popular ed., p. 17). For Yakṣas as tutelary deities see also p. 17, note 1, 47, 68; and Schiefner, 1, p. 81. For Yakkha (Yakṣa) worship in Ceylon, *Mahāvaṁsa*, Ch. X, vv. 84—90. The designation Bhagavata is applicable to Yakṣas and Nāgas (Chanda, 1, and Hopkins, p. 145), as well as to Viṣṇu, Śiva and Buddha.

c8.s1.33

Temples or shrines are referred to in the Epics as *devatā-āyatana*, *deva-gṛha*, *devāgāra*¹, *caitya*. Inscriptions mention *deva-kula*, *arahat-āyatana*, &c. The general meaning of the word *caitya* (from √*ci*) is something built or piled up, the related derivative *citya* referring to the altar or fire-altar. Hence the usual application to funeral mounds, built in honour of heroes, teachers or prophets, of which the Buddhist and Jaina *stūpa* is a familiar example. But the word applies to many other kinds of sacred objects coming under the head of sanctuary or holystead. Sacred trees (*caitya-vṛkṣa*) are perhaps the most commonly mentioned in the Epics, where it is remarked that "not even the leaf of a *caitya* may be destroyed, for *caityas* are the resort of Devas, Yakṣas, Nāgas, Apsarasas, Bhūtas, &c.". The Bodhidruma (*nyagrodha* of most Buddhist texts, the *akṣaya vaṭa* of the Epic, but *pippala* or *aśvattha* of the reliefs) was certainly a sacred tree², haunted by a Devatā, before the Bodhisattva took his seat beneath it on the eve of the Great Enlightenment³. Most of the *Yakkhacetiya* so frequently referred to in Buddhist and Jaina literature as having been the haunt (*bhavana*) of such and such Yakṣas, may have been sacred trees; the commentators however seem to understand sanctuaries in the sense of buildings, and this may be correct in some cases⁴. The existence of early images of well-known Yakṣas (Dadhikarṇa, Maṇibhadra, &c.) must indeed imply some kind of shrine, and such a *deva-kula* is thought to have been traced in the Jamālpur mound at Mathurā.

c8.s1.34

¹ The term "gods' houses" is popularly applied even at the present day in Southern India to slab-built dolmen-like hero-shrines (Longhurst, 4). It can hardly be doubted that there exists some connection between temples and tombs. For discussion see Simpson; Hocart.

c8.s1.35

² Represented already on an Indo-Sumerian seal, fig. 6.

c8.s1.36

³ In the Sujātā story the Bodhisattva is mistaken for the tree-spirit. Bloch, 2, interpreted the railing relief of Cunningham, 3, pl. VIII, fig. 4, as representing an earlier form of the story in which the tree-spirit makes the offering of food and drink. In this case the figure standing before the tree and receiving the gifts would be *the* Bodhisattva, who "stretching out his right hand to find the bowl, grasped the vase of water" (*Jātaka*, I, 685 = *Nidānakathā*, Warren, *Buddhism in Translations*, p. 73 = Rhys Davids, *Buddhist Birth Stories*, p. 93). In Gandhāran art the "Approach to the Bodhi tree" occurs in several reliefs (A. S. I., A. R. 1921—22, p. 59, and pls. XXIV, c., and XXV, b; also nos. 787, 792 in the Peshāwar Museum, referred to by Spooner, 5, pp. 15, 16, 66, 67). But the railing relief of Cunningham, 3, VIII, 4, alluded to above does not stand alone; exactly the same composition occurs at Bhārhut (Cunningham, 2, pl. XLVIII, II) with an inscription (*Ja(m)bu naḍode pavate*, "when the Jambutree-expedient is ready to hand"), which does not refer to the Bodhisattva or the Bodhi tree. It is possible that the two reliefs do not illustrate any form of the Sujātā story, but some other and different story. The only other supposed early representation *of the* Bodhisattva is on the inner face of the right hand pillar of the east gate at Sāñcī (Fergusson, 1, pl. XXXIII = Maisey, pl. XVI). The Bodhisattva is, of course, constantly represented in human form when a former incarnation is illustrated.

c8.s1.37

⁴ In one case, explaining the *Sūciloma Sutta* of *Saṁyutta Nikāya*, 11, 5, a stone dais, throne or platform (*taṅkite mañco*) is stated to have been the Yakkha's haunt (*bhavanam*). I am indebted to Dr. W. Stede for this reference; I believe that an altar like a *Bodhi-maṇḍa* or *vajrāsana*, such as is represented in innumerable reliefs, is intended. If Yakkha temples existed, they may have served as prototypes of Buddhist Bodhi-shrines like those of figs. 41 and 55. Cf. page 46, note 2.

c8.s1.38

Where, in *Rāmāyaṇa* 5. 15. 15 a *caitya* is described as having railings (*vedikā*), terraces, coral stairs and a high roof, it is clear that a temple is meant; and a *caitya* or *āyatana* must always be a shrine or temple when it is "erected" and generally when images are mentioned¹. The "horn of the trident-bearer, high as heaven and spotless", on seeing which the mortal knows that he has reached the city of Śiva must refer to the tower of a temple²; the words recall the later "Golden Horn" of Aṅkor Thom, which was the tower of the Baphuon temple, visible from afar (see p. 189).

c8.s1.39

¹ Hopkins, pp. 70—73; Chanda, 1. A list of pre-Buddhist *caityas* is given in the P. T. S. Pali Dictionary, s. v. *cetiya*, but the meanings of the word other than *stūpa* are ignored.

c8.s1.40

² *Mahābhārata*, 3, 88, 8.

c8.s1.41

Thus it is clear from the literature that both temples and images must already have existed certainly in the second century B. C. and perhaps earlier. Remains of two or three Brāhmaṇical and several Buddhist temples have been traced: an inscription at Nagarī (= Madhyamikā) near Chitor, in script of 350—250 B. C. refers to a temple of Saṁkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva, which was doubtless a wooden building, and part of the stone enclosing wall, over nine feet in height, has been unearthed³; another inscription of the same period refers to a Vaiṣṇava temple at Besnagar, where in the second century Heliodora dedicated his *Garuḍa-dhvaja-stambha*, and two railings, one a solid morticed slab wall, have been traced⁴. The temple at Māt, near Mathurā, mentioned in two inscriptions as a *devakula*, seems, from the occurrence of the portrait statue of Kaniṣka, and other royal figures, to have been the royal chapel of the Kuṣāna kings; excavations have revealed a large rectangular plinth and some traces of a circular structure⁵. The foundations of an Aśokan *caitya*-hall have been recognized at Sāñcī; the earliest excavated *caitya*-halls and *vihāras* afford reliable indications of corresponding structural buildings. The reliefs at Bhārhut, Sāñcī, Gayā and Mathurā provide other valuable data (cf. figs, 41, 43, 45, 46, 55, 62, and 69). The only buildings represented on early coins are the domed pavilions of the Audumbara coins of Paṭhānkoṭ and Kāṅgṛā (figs. 116, 117) dating about the beginning of the Christian era, and the pavilion with a double ornamented plinth, and enshrining figures of Skanda, Viśākha and Mahāsena, represented on a coin of Huviṣka (fig. 126A). Similar pavilions are represented on early Pāṇḍyan coins⁶. The last mentioned pavilion resembles one on a terracotta of early Gupta date from Bodhgayā⁷.

c8.s1.42

³ Bhandarkar, D. R., 6.

c8.s1.43

⁴ Bhandarkar, D. R., 5.

c8.s1.44

⁵ Vogel, 15.

c8.s1.45

⁶ Pieris, pl. XIII, 7, 8, 11, 12.

c8.s1.46

⁷ Cunningham, 3, pl. XXIV, B.

c8.s1.47

Theoretically, the Hindū shrine is the imitation of a building existing in another world (generally Indraloka) the form of which has been revealed or otherwise ascertained (see p. 125). Practically, it can hardly be doubted that, as in other countries, the form of the god's house is derived from that of human dwellings and tombs, the main sources leading back to the domed thatched hut, and the barrel vaulted types of the Todas, and to the slab-built dolmens.

Kuṣāna and Later Āndhra, ca. 50—320 A. D.

c8.s2.1

The Yue-chi tribe originally occupied a part of N. W. China. Driven thence about 165 B. C. they first occupied the territories of the Scythian (Śaka) nomads, and later took possession of Bactria, about 10 B. C. By about 50 A. D. under Kadphises I, the first Kuṣāna king of N. W. India, they had occupied Gandhāra, i. e. most of Afghānistān, and the Pañjāb as far as Taxila. Kadphises II (A. D. 90—110) and Kaniṣka (ca. 120—160) extended the Kuṣāna dominion certainly as far as Mathurā and probably as far as Benāres; the eastern territories were governed by viceroys (satraps), Kaniṣka's winter capital being at Puruṣapura (Peshāwar), and his summer capital at Kapiśa in Afghānistān. The ancient University city of Taxila, on the Indian side of the Indus, lay within easy reach of Peshāwar. The Kuṣāna dominions included also Kaśmīr, and in India proper, Mathurā and the Ganges Valley as far as Bihār.

c8.s2.2

It should be noted that the date of Kaniṣka has been the subject of a great controversy; the dates given above are those now accepted by a majority of Indianists, including the late Vincent Smith (4) and Marshall (6) and in accordance with the results of the excavations at Taxila. Rapson, however, adheres to A. D. 78, the initial year of the Śaka era.

c8.s2.3

In centuries preceding the Christian era the Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian kings of Gandhāra and the Pañjāb had already come under the influence of Indian religions; we have a remarkable instance of this in the pillar erected by Heliodora, ambassador of Antialkidas of Taxila at the court of Vidiśā (Besnagar), about 126 B. C. in honour of Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa); Heliodora calls himself a Bhāgavata (Vaiṣṇava). Indian religious symbols appear not only as before on native punch-marked coins, but on various coins of Greek and Indo-Scythian kings from Agathocles (ca. 200 B. C.) onwards. In many cases these symbols had, no doubt, a Buddhist significance, but all are common to Buddhist and Brāhmaṇical usage, and many represent the deities of the cities in which they were struck (e. g. the elephant deity of Kapiśa, and the bull deity, probably Śiva, of Puṣkalāvatī). Religious benefactions by Śaka satraps or their queens are recorded in the Taxila copper plate (ca. 72 B. C.), the Mathurā lion capital inscription (ca. 30 B. C.

c8.s2.4

or near the beginning of the Christian era), and a Jaina votive tablet of about 16—17 B. C., likewise from Mathurā. In the first century of the Christian era figures of Indian deities appear on the coins of Gondophares and Kadphises II, followed in the second century by representations of Buddha, and of Śiva with four arms, on coins of Kaniṣka¹. *Stūpa* bases of the Śaka period, associated with coins of Azes, appear at Taxila.

c8.s2.5

¹ Kaniṣka is represented in Buddhist literature as a Buddhist emperor like Aśoka. His eclecticism is evident, however, from the fact that the deities represented on his coins include Hindū, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Elamite and other types.

c8.s2.6

The Graeco-Buddhist art of Gandhāra must now be discussed in greater detail. The whole subject is highly controversial, and even the most important points at issue depend upon a balance of evidence rather than upon positive data. It will be helpful to distinguish, as M. Foucher has done, the Indian from the Hellenistic elements of the iconography. The former, which predominate, include a part evidently of Indian origin, and another part that belongs to the common Indo-Īrānian inheritance of "Early Asiatic"; for present purposes these can be considered together. The following motifs exemplify those current in pre-Gandhāran Indian art (cf. figs. 85—95): Types and compositions: *Jātakas* (cf. figs. 47 and 93); the Sun god; Atlantes; Indra, Brahmā, and Yakṣas as probable prototypes of Avalokiteśvara, Maitreya, and Vajrapāṇi²; "woman and tree" (*Yakṣī* or *Vṛkṣakā*) motif³; figures of donors; lotus-seat, &c. Architectural forms: *stūpas*⁴; the double-roofed *vihāra*; the *caitya*-window arch; Buddhist railing; "Persepolitan capital"; battlements. Animals: Lion, elephant, bull, horse; winged lion, centaur, and other monsters; *haṁsa*, *garuḍa*, *makara*, &c. Floral: rose-lotus forms; blue-lotus derivatives (palmette and honeysuckle); vine (already at Sāñcī); various trees. Patterns: diaper, dog's tooth, reel and bead, checker, &c. Symbols: lion, elephant, bull, horse; wheel, *triratna*, &c.

c8.s2.7

² Spooner, 1, remarks that the evolution of Indra and Brahmā "was an accomplished fact prior to any form of the Gandhāra school with which we are acquainted". One aspect of Vajrapāṇi too, seems to derive from old Indian *yakṣa* forms. See also Bachhofer, 2 and Grünwedel, *Athene-Vajrapāṇi*, Jahrb. k. Preuß. Kunstsamml., 1915.

c8.s2.8

³ This most important characteristic of Gandhāra art will be discussed after the Kuṣāna art of the Mathurā school has been described.

c8.s2.9

⁴ At least three types are now current, (1) the early hemispherical, which is becoming rare, except in Ceylon where it persists at least to the thirteenth century, (2) the type with high cylindrical drum and two *vedikā* courses (e. g. Vogel, 13, pl. V) which occurs already at Beḍsā and has been compared above with Phoenician forms, and (3) the type with a bulbous dome (Vogel, 13, pl. IV). A fourth type which must have differed considerably from these, was that of the pagoda-like wooden relic towers (see p. 53). Cf. Finot and Goloubew.

c8.s2.10

Costume: Indian *dhotī*, &c., and jewelry, turbans, &c., while the leading Gandhāran forms which do *not* occur at Sāñcī, Bhārhut, and Bodhgayā, &c., include: Types and compositions: the Buddha figure; many *Jātaka* scenes and scenes from the life of Buddha which now appear for the first time¹ (but in many cases the composition — e. g. the “Visit of Indra” — is practically that of old Indian art, with the Buddha figure inserted); Hāritī (?); garland-bearing Erotes (fig. 89); the nimbus (see pp. 41, 57 ff.). Architectural: the three Greek orders, especially the Corinthian. Floral: acanthus. Costume: various classical, Īrānian, and Central Asian garments and jewelry.

c8.s2.11

¹ It is rarely safe to assume on negative evidence that a composition first met with in Gandhāran art must be of Gandhāran origin. Compare Figures 47 and 93; if we did not possess the first, we might easily have been misled to suppose that no Indian prototype existed for the second. What we know is only a part of what was produced in stone, and what was executed in stone was only a part, probably a very small part, of the total production.

c8.s2.12

The dating of Gandhāra sculptures is a matter of great uncertainty. As remarked by Marshall, “Not one of the thousands of known images bears a date in any known era, nor do considerations of style permit us to determine their chronological sequence with any approach to accuracy”². Foucher and others have attempted to prove that the school developed in the first century B. C., relying partly on the supposition that the best examples must have been the earliest, partly on the Bīmarān reliquary and the few sculptures which are dated in undetermined eras. The Bīmarān reliquary (fig. 88), if we can rely upon Wilson’s (Masson’s) account published in 1841, was associated with coins of Azes³; it is a golden casket, with standing figures of Buddha and worshippers in relief in niches of Indian form, the base engraved with an Indian lotus. This is generally cited as the earliest example of Graeco-Buddhist art⁴; but coins merely provide a *terminus post quem*, and Wilson himself concluded that the *stūpas* of Afghānistān “are undoubtedly all subsequent to the Christian era” (loc. cit. p. 322). A headless standing Buddha figure from Loriyān Tāngai in the Calcutta Museum is dated 318, which, if the Seleukid era is to be understood, gives 6 A. D.; another figure, from Hashtnagar, is dated 384, equivalent by the same reckoning, to 72 A. D.¹. Unsculptured reliquaries and parts of buildings undoubtedly date from the latter part of the first century B. C., e. g. part of the Dharmarājika *stūpa*², and the Jaina *stūpa* base at Sirkap³. Thus, all that can be safely said is that the Gandhāra school of Graeco-Buddhist sculpture may date from the first century B. C., probably antedates Kaniṣka, and certainly attains its greatest expansion in his reign⁴, and that it continues an abundant production in the third and fourth centuries, with increasing Indianisation both there and in Kaśmīr. Gandhāra art is iconographically in part, plastically almost altogether, a local phase of Hellenistic (not Roman — Roman art is cousin, not parent), descended from the art of the Greek period in Afghānistān and the Pañjāb, but applied to themes of Indian origin. It may be described from one point of view as representing an eastward extension of Hellenistic civilization, mixed with Īrānian elements, from another as a westward extension of Indian culture in a western garb.

c8.s2.13

² Marshall, 6, p. 31. For the whole problem consult Adam, Bachhofer, Burgess (8, 9), Codrington, K. de B., Foucher (1, 3, 4), Grünwedel, Marshall (5, 6, &c.), Rapson (2), Rawlinson, Smith (1, 2, 4), Spooner (1—5), Vogel (3, 7, 13), Wilson; also Goloubew, reviewing Foucher, 1, in B. É. F. E. O., 1923, pp. 438 ff., and Coomaraswamy, do. in O. Z., N. F. 1, 1924, and *Indian origin of the Buddha figure*, J. A. O. S., 1926. Goloubew, loc. cit. remarks: “Rien n’empêche en effet, dans l’état présent de nos connaissances, de supposer que le buddha indo-grec du Gandhāra soit une création plastique postérieur de quelques années au buddha indien de Mathurā.” Smith (4, p. 255) calls the Lahore Pallas Athene type (Smith, 2, fig. 66) “the earliest known Indo-Greek sculpture”, but elsewhere points out that the type is Indianised, and may be late (Smith, 2, p. 116).

c8.s2.14

³ Wilson, H., *Ariana Antiqua*, 1841.

c8.s2.15

⁴ Bachhofer; Marshall places it about the beginning of the Christian era, and this is possible.

c8.s2.16

¹ Vogel, 3; Bachhofer, pp. 24, 25.

c8.s2.17

² Marshall, 6, 7.

c8.s2.18

³ Marshall, 6, p. 73, and pl. XII.

c8.s2.19

⁴ "It is a point on which most authorities agree, that the palmy days of Buddhism and Buddhist art in Gandhāra coincide with the reign of the great Kuṣāna kings, and more especially with that of Kaniṣka. This is somewhat more than a hypothesis" (Vogel, 3, p. 258).

c8.s2.20

It should be observed that while the Gandhāran Buddha (figs. 89, 90, 94) is stylistically Hellenistic, it follows Indian tradition, verbal or plastic, in every essential of its iconography. The whole conception of the seated *yogī* and teacher is Indian, and foreign to western psychology, while the Indian Yakṣas afford a prototype for the standing figures. The *uṣṇīṣa* is found already at Bodhgayā, the lotus seat at Sāñcī; indeed, the Gandhāran type of lotus, resembling a prickly artichoke, is far from realising the Indian idea of a firm and comfortable (*sthira-sukha*) seat, and this is really due to the misunderstanding of a purely Indian idea. Nor can the *mudrās*, *abhaya* and *dhyāna* for example, be anything but Indian. All that is really Hellenistic is the plasticity; the Gandhāran sculptor, even supposing his priority in time, did not so much make an Apollo into a Buddha, as a Buddha into an Apollo. He may not have copied any Indian sculpture, but his Buddha type and that of Mathurā are equally based on a common literary and oral tradition⁵.

c8.s2.21

⁵ For the Indian conception of the *yogī* seated in meditation see *Bhagavad Gītā*, VI, vv. 10—21, and the *Samaññaphala Sutta* of the *Dīgha Nikāya*. A seated teacher is represented at Bhārhut, "Digha instructing his disciples", Cunningham, 2, pl. XLVIII, 4; a seated cross-legged figure occurs already on an Indo-Sumerian seal. The westward migration of the Yogī motif is traced by Berstl, who, unacqainted with the examples at Bhārhut, nevertheless inferred its representation in Indian art of the second or third century B. C.

c8.s2.22

The most important remains of Gandhāran art have been found or still exist at Jalālābād, Hadda, and Bāmiyān in Afghānistān, in the Svāt Valley (Udyāna), and at or near Taxila and Peshāwar. At Jelālābād (= Nagarahara, scene of the Dīpaṅkara legend) is the Khaesta *stūpa*, with a magnificent basement; the lower part of the *stūpa* drum is adorned with niches and statues. At Hadda the Tappa Kalan monastery proved to be a veritable museum of Gandhāra sculpture, but nothing that has been excavated has escaped the iconoclasm of the local Musalmāns. At Bāmiyān are many monasteries, innumerable "caves" and some colossal Buddha images; nothing seems to antedate Kaniṣka. One of the colossal images, 53 metres in height, is well proportioned, and slightly "swayed". The trefoil niche in which it stands preserves remains of painting, more or less Indian in aspect. The painting at Bāmiyān, however, exhibits a great variety of styles, and inclines more to the later Central Asian, than to Indian types, as a rule. The Kaniṣka monasteries were built in the open; later in date are the innumerable excavated monastic dwellings¹. Sculptures from the Svāt valley (Udyāna) and many unknown sources are scattered in various collections all over the world, the most important series being that of the Lahore Museum, which includes the sculptures formerly at Peshāwar². The gray slate in which Gandhāra sculptures are executed is supposed to come from an unknown site in the Svāt valley.

c8.s2.23

¹ Godard; Fergusson, 2, vol. 1, pp. 84 ff. Good illustrations of remains in Afghānistān are given by Hayden.

c8.s2.24

² Spooner, 5; and Foucher, 1.

c8.s2.25

Excavations at Takht-i-Bāhi, in the heart of the Yūsufzaī country and centre of Gandhāra have yielded abundant Gandhāra sculptures; the only actual date available is an inscription of Gondophares, A. D. 46, but most of the remains date from the third to fourth century³. The most remarkable monument of Kaniṣka's reign was probably his great *stūpa* near Peshāwar. To sum up the various descriptions of the Chinese pilgrims, it consisted of a basement in five stages (150 feet), a superstructure ("*stūpa*") of carved wood in thirteen stories (400 feet), surmounted by an iron column with from thirteen to twenty-five gilt copper umbrellas (88 feet) making a total height of 638 feet⁴. The monument was probably a transitional form between the simple *stūpa* and the Far Eastern pagoda; a storeyed tower represented on a *toraṇa* architrave in the Mathurā Museum (fig. 69) may perhaps give some idea of its appearance⁵. The site (at Shāh-jī-kī-Ḍherī) has been identified and excavated¹. The total base diameter proved to be some 286 feet, and the monument was thus by far the largest of its kind in India (the base diameter of the contemporary Maṇikyāla *stūpa* is less than 160 feet). In the relic chamber was found the famous Kaniṣka reliquary (fig. 89)². This reliquary consists of a gilt copper alloy cylinder and lid, of total height 7¾ inches. On the lid are a seated nimbate Buddha and two Bodhisattvas, around the rim a series of *haṁsas* with extended wings; and on the cylinder are seated Buddhas, a representation of Kaniṣka, and the sun and moon deities, with garland-bearing Erotes. The inscription mentions the names of Kaniṣka and of Agiśala, the Greek or Eurasian craftsman by whom it was made. The inferior workmanship has provided an argument for regarding the Gandhāran art of Kaniṣka's reign as late in the development of the school, but it is doubtful how far this can be pressed.

c8.s2.26

³ Spooner, 1; A. S. I., A. R., 1912–13, pt. 1, p. 17.

c8.s2.27

⁴ Chavannes, 1 p. 424.

c8.s2.28

⁵ Vogel, 6, 1909–10, pl. XXVII. Some further suggestion of what such a high wooden tower may have been like may be gleaned from the Go-jū-no-tō, Hōryuji, Japan; or from the Sembutsu Ha-no-tō (Hokke *mandara*) of the Hasedara monastery, Japan (*Japanese temples and their treasures*, 11, pl. 209). The *Bukyō Daijiten* (Japanese Buddhist Encyclopedia) explains *tō* as etymologically = *stūpa*. For Indian characteristics in Chinese architecture see also Boerschmann, *passim*.

c8.s2.29

¹ Spooner, 2.

c8.s2.30

² Spooner, 2, 4; Foucher, 1; Smith, 2.

c8.s2.31

The name Taxila (Takṣaśīla)³ covers a number of neighbouring sites. The Bhīṛ mound has already been referred to; the city of Sirkap is Indo-Greek, Scytho-Parthian and early Kuṣāna; Sirsukh is the city of Kaniṣka's reign. The area has yielded remains dating from the Mauryan period onwards; Hellenistic art of the Scytho-Parthian period; and Buddhist art mainly of the Kaniṣka period and later. Of true Gandhāran (Graeco-Buddhist) sculpture not a single fragment occurs in Scytho-Parthian or early Kuṣāna strata. The remains of fifty or sixty *stūpas* and many monasteries have been traced. The following are the chief monuments:

c8.s2.32

³ See Marshall, 6 (the great mass of information contained in this invaluable handbook cannot be adequately condensed in the space here available), and 7.

c8.s2.33

Dharmarājikā *stūpa* (= Chir tope): originally Scytho-Parthian, repaired and enlarged in the Kuṣāna period, and partly refaced in the fourth century. In connection with the building of various periods here a succession of masonry types has been established as follows: rubble and *kañjur* work of the Scytho-Parthian (Kṣatrapa) period, small diaper of the latter part of the first century, massive diaper of the second century, and semi-ashlar of the third and later. The sculptures from this site are all of the later period and include many fine specimens of the stucco Buddha heads of the Indianised Gandhāran type.

c8.s2.34

Chapel G 5 at the Dharmarājikā site is of interest only because of the discovery beneath its floor of the relics of Buddha, accompanied by an inscribed silver scroll dated equivalent to A. D. 78. The Kuṣāna apsidal *caitya*-hall 13 has the end octagonal instead of round. Chapel F 1 had a floor of thick transparent glass tiles, mostly bright blue.

c8.s2.35

In the city of Sirkap, the plan of the great palace has been made out; partly of Scytho-Parthian (Kṣatrapa), partly of Kuṣāna date, it shows a remarkable resemblance to the planning of Assyrian palaces in Mesopotamia, a feature already remarked at Pāṭaliputra. The Jaina *stūpa* base in block F, probably of the Kṣatrapa period, has a façade with niches of three types, Greek pediment, Indian *caitya*-arch, and *toraṇa* : birds are represented as perched on the arches¹, amongst others the double-headed eagle, the oldest known example of this type in India. Temple D is a large structural *caitya*-hall. An elegant female statue in the round, dateable by the evidence of coins about 50 A. D. is of interest in view of the rarity of early dateable examples of Gandhāra sculpture, and of types in the round generally². Amongst the small copper ornaments found are some comma-shaped forms exactly like the well-known prehistoric Japanese *makatama*³.

c8.s2.36

¹ A fact of interest in connection with the resemblance and like usage of the Indian *toraṇa* and Japanese *torii*, and the meaning of “bird roosting-place” assigned to the latter term.

c8.s2.37

² A. S. I., A. R., 1919—20, pl. IX.

c8.s2.38

³ A. S. I., A. R., 1919—20, pl. X. So far as I know, the related *tomo-e* form appears first on a Gupta seal (Marshall, 3, pl. XXI, 120); it is not uncommon as an architectural ornament in later south Indian art.

c8.s2.39

A remarkable temple at Jaṇḍiāl had a lofty central tower and an otherwise flat roof; certainly not Jaina, Buddhist or Brāhmaṇical, it may have been a Zoroastrian fire temple with a *zigurrat* like those of Mesopotamia.

c8.s2.40

The ancient city of Puṣkalāvatī⁴ is probably to be identified with the site known as Mīr Ziyārat or Balā Hiṣār at the junction of the Svāt and Kābul rivers, in the Peshāwar valley. Various sites in the immediate neighbourhood, such as Chārsada (= Haṣṭnagar), Pālātū Ḍherī, Ghaz Ḍherī, &c. have yielded remains of Gandhāran art rather above the average quality, and it is noteworthy that at least five of the very few inscribed sculptures of this school, including two with dates in unknown eras, one however supposed to be equivalent to 6 A. D., have come from this area⁵. That Indian influence in Gandhāra was not exclusively Buddhist is illustrated by the occurrence of a Śiva image (Maheśa, a so-called Trimūrti) from Chārsada; the deity is three-headed, three-eyed, and six-armed, and stands before the bull Nandi, holding the *ḍamaru*, *triśūla* and *kamaṇḍalu*. This type is very close to that of Vāsudeva’s coin, fig. 126. The style is that of the Indianised Gandhāran art of the third century⁶. The same is true of a four-armed female figure from the Momand frontier⁷.

c8.s2.41

⁴ The site of Foucher’s classic picture of the Indian Buddhist visiting the Eurasian craftsman and asking him to make a Buddha.

c8.s2.42

⁵ Bachhofer, 1; Marshall and Vogel; Stratton; Vogel, 3. In the last mentioned the plate references on the first page need correction.

c8.s2.43

⁶ Natesa Aiyar, 1; and A. S. I., A. R., 1914—15, p. 1, pl. XVI d. The type (seated), whether representing Śiva, or as has been suggested, Lokeśvara, reached Kaśmīr and Khotān (Kak, 1, and Stein, 4, pl. 230). Cf. pp. 67, note 1, 99, note 2, and 149. What appears to be part of a three-headed Viṣṇu of the later Kuḷū type is illustrated by Burgess, 8, pl. 22, no. 5. Cf. p. 143, note 4.

c8.s2.44

⁷ Smith, 2, fig. 78.

c8.s2.45

Another important group of *stūpas*, at least fifteen in number, is found at Māṇikyālā, some twenty miles south east of Rāwalpiṇḍī, and several have yielded valuable relics. The largest, and best preserved of all the Pañjāb *stūpas*, is a hemispherical dome of the ancient type, but probably dating from the second or third century and repaired, perhaps in the eighth, when the pillared basement must have been added. Other *stūpas* are met with further down the valley, at Mohenjo-Daro, where fragments of frescoes have been recovered, and at Thūl Mīr Rukhan near Daulatpur¹, Saïdpur² and Mīrpur Khās³, the latter here regarded as of early Gupta date.

c8.s2.46

¹ Cousens, 8, pl. 10.

c8.s2.47

² Bhandarkar, D. R., 7.

c8.s2.48

³ Cousens, 5; 8, pl. 11.

c8.s2.49

Few sites in India are of greater interest than Mathurā. If all that has been excavated had been adequately surveyed at the time, or if all that remains could be made accessible, it is probable that many of the most doubtful problems of Indian political and artistic history might be solved, and much light would be thrown on the early development of the iconography. Even the rich finds, ranging from the Śuṅga to the Gupta period, which are now preserved in the Mathurā, Lucknow and Calcutta Museums, have not been adequately studied⁴.

c8.s2.50

⁴ These finds have been secured very largely through the indefatigable efforts of Pandit Radha Krishna, Honorary Curator of the Mathurā Museum. The inadequate space available for the exhibition is by no means compensated for by the publication of Vogel's Catalogue in 1910. No catalogue of any kind is available at Lucknow, and no recent or illustrated catalogue in Calcutta. Publications fully illustrating all that has been found in Mathurā are one of the first necessities.

c8.s2.51

The pre-Kuṣāna sculptures of the Scytho-Parthian Kṣatrapa period have already been alluded to. Here we are chiefly concerned with those assignable to the reign of Kaniṣka which was the time of greatest production, and those of his immediate successors.

c8.s2.52

The most obvious characteristic of the Kuṣāna school in Mathurā is the fact, by no means astonishing, that it represents in the main a direct development of the older Indian art of Bhārhut and still older art of Besnagar. The position is nevertheless complicated by the development of a new iconography in which the Buddha figure is one of the most important elements, and by the evidence in a few of the sculptures, especially in certain reliefs, of the influence of the contemporary school in Gandhāra.

c8.s2.53

The early Kuṣāna Buddha and Bodhisattva type of Mathurā (figs. 79, 83—85)⁵ is characterised by the following peculiarities: the sculpture is in the round, or very high relief, and always in the mottled red sandstone of Sīkrī or Rūp Bās; the head is shaven, never covered with curls; the *uṣṇīṣa*, wherever preserved, is spiral; there is no *ūrṇa* and no moustache; the right hand is raised in *abhaya mudrā*, the left is often clenched, and rests on the thigh in seated figures, or in standing figures supports the folds of the robe, the elbow being always at some distance from the body; the breasts are curiously prominent, though the type is absolutely masculine, and the shoulders very broad; the robe leaves the right shoulder bare; the drapery moulds the flesh very closely, and is arranged in schematic folds; the seat is never a lotus, but always a lion throne (*siṁhāsana*) without miniature figures, while in the case of standing figures there is often a seated lion between the feet; the gesture and features are expressive of enormous energy, rather than of repose or sweetness, nor is there any suggestion of intended grace. The nimbus is plain or scalloped at the edge in low relief. All of these characteristations apply with equal force to the early Kuṣāna images of Jinas (fig. 86), and the great majority represent the contrary of what is to be found in Gandhāra.

First 100 of 379 passages. Read on

Linked texts (128)