History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c16: Chapter VII. Gandhâra Monasteries.
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c16
- Language
- English
Chapter VII. Gandhâra Monasteries.
v1.c16.2
CONTENTS. Monasteries at Jamâlgarhî,—Takht-i-Bahai and Shâh-Dherî,—Greek influence.
v1.c16.3
FEW of the later discoveries in India have been more fruitful of important results for the elucidation of the archæology of India than those obtained from the excavations of ruined monasteries in the neighbourhood of Peshâwar. They supply us with the materials for settling not only the question of the amount of influence classical art exercised on that of India, but also for solving many problems of Buddhist archæology and art.
v1.c16.4
As mentioned above, it is from their coins, and from them only, that the names of most of the kings of Baktria and their successors have been recovered; but we have not yet found a vestige of a building that can be said to have been erected by them or in their age, nor one piece of sculpture that, so far as we now know, could have been executed before their downfall, about B.C. 130. This, however, may be owing to the fact that Baktria proper has long been inhabited by fanatic Moslims, who destroy any representations of the human form they meet with, and no excavations for hidden examples have yet been undertaken in their country; while it is still uncertain how far the influence of the true Baktrians extended eastward, and whether, in fact, they ever really possessed the valley of Peshâwar, where so many of the sculptures have been found. No one, in fact, suspected their existence in our own territory till Lieutenants Lumsden and Stokes, in 1852, partially explored the half-buried monastery at Jamâlgarhî, which had been discovered by General Cunningham in 1848. It is situated about 36 miles north-east from Peshâwar, and from it these officers excavated a considerable number of sculptures, which afterwards came into the possession of the Hon. E. Clive Bayley. He published a short account of them in the ‘Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society,’ in 1853, and brought the collection itself to this country. Unfortunately, they were utterly destroyed in the disastrous fire that occurred in December 1866 at the Crystal Palace, where they were being exhibited, and this before they had been photographed, or any serious attempt made to compare them with other sculptures.
v1.c16.5
Since that time other collections have been dug out of another monastery eight miles further westward, at Takht-î-Bahai, and by Dr. Bellew at a third locality, 10 miles southward, called Shahr-î-Bahlol, some of which have found their way to this country. In 1874 Dr. Leitner brought home an extensive collection, principally from Takht-î-Bahai, which have now gone to Berlin.¹ Again, since the extension of British rule over the North-West Frontier Province during the last few years, numerous fresh sites have been discovered and excavated.² But since they were first discovered, numerous sites have been rifled, at least once; "mostly without definite plan and with motives not altogether disinterested. The history of these depredations would be long and lamentable—from the exploit of the Colonel who, as Cunningham tells us, carried off the statues from Jamâlgarhî on twelve camels, to those 'irresponsible diggings,' the ravages of which in the recently opened district of Swât, Sir H. Deane so justly deplores."³ Of the earlier official excavations, the worst thing is that they were so unsystematically carried on that it is impossible to ascertain where hundreds of the sculptures now in the Lahor Museum came from, and in almost no instance can the position of any one piece of sculpture be fixed with anything like certainty.⁴
v1.c16.6
¹ Quite recently the splendid collection of Mr. M. L. Dames, has also gone to Berlin, because the British Museum would not, or could not, purchase it.
v1.c16.7
² As an example of how such remains were too often treated, we learn that in 1896 the contractors of the Military Works Department, to obtain readily stones for a culvert near Chakdarra, destroyed a little vihâra of great archæological interest.—Foucher, 'L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique du Gandhâra,' tome i. p. 108.
v1.c16.8
³ Foucher, *loc. cit.* tome i. p. 14; Cunningham, 'Archæological Survey Report,' vol. v. p. 46; 'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,' 1896, p. 664. M. Foucher adds: "Hardly anywhere were the excavators at the trouble to unearth the buildings to the foundations, in order to determine their plans or restore the scheme of their decoration; their only care was to lay hands on the sculptures; and they took no trouble to put aside or protect pieces that were thought too heavy or too fragmentary for removal. In many places, headless trunks and mutilated reliefs strew the clearings and testify to the ignorance and *brutalité* with which the excavations were conducted, if we may use the word—for it is somewhat ironical to employ that term—since they were mostly left, without European supervision, to the direction of some native subaltern, or even to the discretion of the coolies of the nearest village."
v1.c16.9
⁴ The mode in which the excavations were conducted by Government was to send out a party of sappers in the cold weather to dig, but the officer in charge of the party was the subaltern who happened to be in command of the company at the time. A new officer was consequently appointed every year, and no one was ever selected because he had any experience in such matters or any taste for such pursuits; and the result was, as might be expected, painfully disappointing.
v1.c16.10
The sculptures discovered have been partly collected in the Indian Museums—those of Lahor and Calcutta having between them 1700 or more specimens of this class of art, and small collections were sent to Madras, Rangoon, and Bombay in 1884; there is a large and fine collection at Berlin, and over a hundred pieces at the Louvre, whilst the small collection in the British Museum is due almost entirely to private donors.¹
v1.c16.11
¹ Foucher, 'L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique du Gandhâra,' tome i. pp. 23-30.
v1.c16.12
These remarkable sculptures have attracted more attention on the continent than in India or England, and the encouragement given by continental governments has conduced in a marked degree to their study and the solution of some of the problems they present.²
v1.c16.13
² In 1893 Prof. A. Grünwedel, in a handbook of the Gandhâra sculptures at Berlin, discussed the origin of 'Buddhist Art in India,' elucidating the subject from the bas-reliefs in the Royal Museum there. An enlarged edition was issued in 1900, and an English translation revised and greatly extended was published (by Quaritch) in 1901. Dr. A. Foucher's Mission to the North-West Frontier, etc., has already been referred to, *ante*, p. 89.
v1.c16.14
The essential elements of a Buddhist monastery were the stûpa and sanghârâma or quarters for the monks; the vihâra proper, or shrines for the images, might be arranged to form a court round the stûpa, or they might surround a separate court, between the stûpa and sanghârâma—and, as in the Mahâyâna schools the images were very numerous, the pantheon must often have overflowed the capacity of the stûpa courts.
v1.c16.15
The following plans (Woodcuts Nos. 119, 120), of the two principal monasteries which have been excavated in the vicinity of Peshâwar, will explain their arrangements in so far as they have been made out. As will be seen at a glance, they are very similar to each other, or at least consist of the same parts. First a circular or square court, AA, surrounded by cells, evidently intended to contain images, though none were found *in situ*. In the centre of each stands a circular or square platform, being the basement of a stûpa, approached by steps.³ The circular one at Jamâlgarhî was 22 ft. in diameter and adorned with cross-legged, conventional, seated figures of Buddha, the smaller one, at Takht-î-Bahai, was 15 ft. square and ornamented by two rows of pilasters one over the other. Beyond this is an oblong court, BB, called the "pantheon," from the number of images, small models of topes, and other votive offerings of all sorts, that were found in it. It, like the last court, is surrounded by niches for images, and was the "vihâra" properly so called.
v1.c16.16
³ All the stûpas of the Panjâb and Gandhâra had steps up to the level of the basement, and usually on the side facing the monastery; thus, at Jamâlgarhî they were a little to the east of south, whilst at Takht-î-Bahai, they were on the north side. Some had steps on two, and others on all four sides.
v1.c16.17
Beyond this again was the sanghârâma or residence, CC, with the usual residential cells. At Takht-î-Bahai there is, at the northwest corner, a court, D, 51 ft. square, surrounded by a high wall with only one door leading into it. A corresponding court and of similar size exists at Jamâlgarhî; but it lies about 30 yards to the east, so that it could not be included in the woodcut. This has been identified by M. Foucher with the Service Hall, so often referred to in Buddhist literature, where all the Bhikshus or "members of the order" met privately on the nights of new and full moon to read their rules and go through their confessional forms, and where they met for all their more solemn purposes—as ordination, excommunication, and the like; and it was often used also as a refectory. This was known as the Upasthânasâlâ or Meeting Hall. If this was the purpose of these buildings, which seems very probable, they must have been roofed in wood.¹
v1.c16.18
¹ Foucher, '*L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique*,' tome i. pp. 162-163. It had been suggested that this roofless hall might have been a cemetery (Cunningham '*Archæological Reports*,' vol. v. p. 32); and it was pointed out that Turner in his '*Embassy to Tibet*' (p. 317), describes a similar enclosure at Teshu-lumbu in which the bodies of the deceased monks were exposed to be devoured by the birds; and what happened there in 1800 might possibly have been practised at Peshâwar at a much earlier age; but that this was not the purpose of the two enclosures referred to is quite obvious.
v1.c16.19
119. Plan of Monastery at Jamâlgarhî. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.
v1.c16.20
120. Plan of Monastery at Takht-î-Bahai. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.
v1.c16.21
When we attempt to compare these plans with those of rock-cut examples in India, we at once perceive the difficulty of comparing structural with rock-cut examples. The monastery or residential parts are the only ones readily recognised. The pantheon does not apparently exist at Ajaṇṭâ, nor is anything analogous to it attached to other series of caves. A group of small rock-cut memorial dâgabas exists outside the caves at Bhâjâ, and a much more extensive one of structural topes formed the cemetery at Kanheri, and similar groups may have existed elsewhere: but these are nowise analogous to the above. Numbers of small models of topes and votive offerings are found in the neighbourhood of all Buddhist establishments, and were originally no doubt deposited in some such place as this. The circular or square base of the stûpa marks the place which the chaitya occupies in all the rock-cut chaitya halls.
v1.c16.22
One of the most remarkable ornamental features that adorn this monastery is a series of bas-reliefs that adorn the front of the steps of the stairs leading from the so-called pantheon or vihâra to the circular court at Jamâlgarhî. They are sixteen in number, and each is carved with a bas-relief containing twenty, thirty, or forty figures according to the subject.² Among these the Vishvantara and Sâma jâtakas can easily be recognised,³ and so may others when carefully examined.
v1.c16.23
² These were removed by Gen. Cunningham, and several are now in the British Museum—'*Journal of Indian Art and Industry*,' vol. viii. p. 40, and plates 23, 24; '*Ancient Monuments, etc. of India*,' plate 151; Cunningham, '*Archæological Survey Report*,' vol. v. p. 199.
v1.c16.24
³ '*Tree and Serpent Worship*,' plates 24 (fig. 3) and 36 (fig. 1); and '*Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society*,' 1893, p. 313.
v1.c16.25
Besides these there are representations of the chase, processions, dancing, and domestic scenes of various kinds. In fact such a series of sixteen bas-reliefs, one over another, is hardly known to exist anywhere else, but is here only an appropriate part of an exuberance of sculptural ornamentation hardly to be matched, as existing in so small a space, in any other building of its class.
v1.c16.26
121. Corinthian Capital from Jamâlgarhî. (From a Photograph.)
v1.c16.27
122. Corinthian Capital from Jamâlgarhî. (From a Photograph.)[^1]
v1.c16.28
The architecture of this monastery seems to have been of singular richness. General Cunningham brought away a dozen of capitals of the Corinthian order, and others exist in the Lahor Museum. As will be seen from the last two illustrations (Nos. 121, 122), they are unmistakably classical, but of a form to which it is not at first sight easy to assign a date. They are more Greek than Roman in the character of their foliage, but more like Roman than Greek in the form of their volutes and general design. Perhaps it would be correct to say they are Indian copies or adaptations of classical capitals of the style of the Christian Era.
v1.c16.29
¹ The modillion cornice, though placed on the lower capital in the photograph, belongs in reality to another part of the building.
v1.c16.30
Not one of these was found *in situ*, nor, apparently, one quite entire, so that their use or position is not at first sight apparent. Some of them were square, and it is consequently not difficult to see they may have formed the caps of the antæ on each side of the cells, and are so represented in General Cunningham's plate (15). If this is so, the circular ones must have been placed on short circular pillars, one on each side, forming a porch to the cells. One at least seems to have stood free—like a stambha—and, as the General represents it (on plate 48), may have carried a group of elephants on its head.
v1.c16.31
All these capitals were apparently originally richly gilt, and most of them, as well as some of the best of the sculptures, show traces of gilding,¹ and, as others show traces of colour, the effect of the whole must have been gorgeous in the extreme. From the analogy of what we find in the caves at Ajantâ and Bâgh, as well as elsewhere, there can be little doubt that fresco-painting was also employed: but no gilding, as far as I know, has been found in India, nor indeed, with one or two exceptions, any analogue to the Corinthian capital.² The capitals found in India are either such as grew out of the necessities of their own wooden construction, or were copied from bell-shaped forms we are familiar with at Persepolis, where alone in Central Asia they seem to have been carried out in stone;³ and they may have been so employed down to the time of Alexander, if not later. Certain it is, at all events, that this was the earliest form we know of employed in lithic architecture in India, and the one that retained its footing there certainly till after the Christian Era, and also among the Gandhâra sculptures to a still later date.
v1.c16.32
¹ 'Archæological Reports,' vol. v. pp. 49 and 196.
v1.c16.33
² *Ante*, p. 207, *note*.
v1.c16.34
³ 'The Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored.' By the Author. Part II. sect. i., *et passim*.
v1.c16.35
In the decorative sculptures of these monasteries, architectural elements are largely employed in the representation of buildings in which scenes are pourtrayed, and in pillars separating the panels. These present forms of Perso-Indian pillars employed side by side, sometimes on the same slab, with columns having classical capitals and bases. The capitals of the old Perso-Indian type have new forms given to them—the animal figures being changed, whilst the pillars themselves are placed on the backs of crouching figures with wings. It is the same absurd composition as is found in Assyrian and even Lombard architecture, where pillars were placed on animals and monsters ; and a similar practice was also long prevalent in Dravidian architecture.¹ Structurally the architecture of the age, we may suppose, would share in the mixed character of these sculptured representations. But the evidence may not be quite decisive ; a stûpa, such as the best preserved at ’Alî Masjid, for example, affords but little aid in recovering the style of temples or other structures. What we see represented in the sculptures, together with such structural fragments as remain to us must be our chief guides.
v1.c16.36
¹ Fergusson, ‘Ancient and Mediæval Architecture,’ 3rd ed., pp. 188, 593, 594.
v1.c16.37
123. Conventional Elevation of the Façade of a Cell from Jamâlgarhî.
v1.c16.38
It is not difficult to restore, approximately, the front of the cells in these monasteries, from the numerous representations of them found among the ruins, where they are used as conventional frames for sculptures. It probably was owing to the fact that their fronts may have been adorned with paintings representing scenes from the life of Buddha, or emblems of various sorts, that these miniature representations of them were used to convey the same design in sculpture. These gable-end shaped panels were fixed on four sides of the domes of the smaller stûpas at least, and whilst they may present the general features of the façades of the more highly decorated cells, it is not to be supposed that any of them were so richly sculptured (Woodcut No. 123).²
v1.c16.39
² Conf. ‘Buddhist Art in India’ (Eng. transl.), p. 156, fig. 107 : Foucher’s ‘L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du Gandhâra,’ pp. 183-185, figs. 70-72.
v1.c16.40
The form of the wooden framework which filled the upper part of all the great windows of the chaitya halls, from the earliest known examples, is also used for the same purpose in these Gandhâra monasteries. Few things among these sculptures are more common than these semicircular frames, filled with sculpture of the most varied design. They are in fact the counterparts of what would have been carried out in painted glass had they possessed such a material.
v1.c16.41
It is to be feared that it is hardly likely we shall now recover one of these cells or chapels in so perfect a state as to feel sure of its form and ornamentation. It would, however, be an immense gain to our knowledge of the subject if one were found, for it is hardly safe to depend on restorations made from conventional representations.
v1.c16.42
Meanwhile there is one monument in India which—*mutatis mutandis*—reproduces them with considerable exactness. The small detached rath at Mâmallapuram is both in plan and dimensions, as well as in design, an almost exact reproduction of these Jamâlgarhî cells. Its lower front is entirely open, flanked by two detached pillars. Above this are two roofs, with a narrow waist between them — somewhat differently arranged it must be confessed, but still extremely similar. In the Jamâlgarhî representations of these cells everything is simplified to admit of the display of sculpture. At Mâmallapuram all the architectural features are retained, but they are still marvellously alike, so much so, that there seems no doubt this little rath (Woodcut No. 185, page 329), with its circular termination, is as exact a copy of what a Buddhist chaitya hall was at the time it was carved, as that the great rath (Woodcut No. 89, p. 172) is a correct reproduction of a Buddhist vihâra at the same period.
v1.c16.43
If this is so, these Gandhâra sculptures and these raths represent the chaitya hall of the Buddhists in a much more complicated and elaborate form than we find it in the simple but majestic examples at Kârlê, Nâsik, or Ajantâ. The Jamâlgarhî cells are not at all so modern as the rath at Mâmallapuram, but they are certainly approaching to it in form.¹
v1.c16.44
¹ One curious peculiarity of these Gandhâra sculptures is that they generally retain the sloping jamb on each side of their openings. In India and in a structural building this peculiarity would certainly fix their age as anterior to the Christian Era. In Gandhâra it is found chiefly in decorative sculpture, but it seems also to have been occasionally employed structurally, as in the small vihâra near Chakdarra fort in Swât, destroyed in 1896 by the Military Works Department. — *Ante*, p. 210, note 2.
v1.c16.45
General Cunningham dug out a small vihâra at Shâh-Dherî, the ancient Taxila, which seems more ancient than these Peshâwar monasteries. As will be seen from the plan (Woodcut No. 124), it is not only small in dimensions, but simple in its arrangements—as simple, indeed, as any of those at Katak or in the western Ghâts. Like some of them it has a raised bench, not, however, divided into beds as there, but more like a continuous seat.¹ It no doubt, however, was used for both purposes. Its most remarkable peculiarity, however, is its Ionic order. As will be seen, the bases of the pillars are of the usual form, and as correct as any that could be found in Greece or Rome, from before the Christian Era to the age of Constantine, and, though the capital is not fully made out, there can be little doubt what was intended (Woodcut No. 125). Twelve coins of Azes were found close by, from which it may be inferred the building was not of earlier date than his age, or the 1st century b.c.,² and there is nothing in the architecture to militate against this idea. It seems the oldest thing yet found in this province.
v1.c16.46
¹ Compare the plan of the Râmgarh cave, ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. ii. p. 245; or Cunningham’s ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. xiii. p. 39 and plate 10.
v1.c16.47
² Assuming that his age has been correctly ascertained: Conf. ‘Buddhist Art in India,’ p. 78.
v1.c16.48
124. Plan of Ionic Monastery, Shâh-Dheri. (From a Plan by General Cunningham.) Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.
v1.c16.49
125. Ionic Pillar, Shâh-Dherî. (From a Drawing by General Cunningham.)
v1.c16.50
The extraordinary classical character and the beauty of the sculptures found in these Gandhâra monasteries is of such surpassing interest for the history of Indian art, that it is of the utmost importance their age should be determined, if it is possible to do so. At present, sufficient materials do not exist in this country to enable the general public to form a correct opinion on any argument that may be brought forward on the subject; nor will they be in a position to do so till the Government can be induced to bring some of them home. They are quite thrown away where they now are; here, they would hardly be surpassed in interest by any recent discoveries of the same class. Quite recently, however, the solution of most of the questions relating to these sculptures has been taken out of our hands by the French mission to India to study the materials on the spot; and M. Foucher has arranged and illustrated them with such acumen that his work becomes a standard one on the subject.¹
v1.c16.51
¹ The English reader will find an account of these sculptures generally and of their origin in 'Buddhist Art in India,' with 154 illustrations (London, 1901).
v1.c16.52
Among Indian antiquaries different views have been held as to the age of these sculptures, General Cunningham's opinion was that the Baktrian Greeks carried with them into Asia the principles of Grecian sculpture and the forms of Grecian architecture, and either during their supremacy or after their expulsion from Baktria established a school of classical art in the Peshâwar valley. This view further assumed that, when Buddhism was established there under Kanishka and his successors, it bloomed into that rich and varied development we find exhibited in these Gandhâra monasteries. (He admitted, however, that, as all the sculptures are Buddhist, the earliest must be limited to the age of Kanishka, which he assumed to be about b.c. 40,² and that they extend to a.d. 100, or thereabouts.)
v1.c16.53
² 'Archæological Reports,' vol. v., Introduction, p. vi., and Appendix pp. 193-194. The date of Kanishka has long been a matter of controversy, the principal views respecting his era, being that of Mr. Fergusson, placing its epoch in a. d. 78; and the other, ably supported by Dr. J. F. Fleet and already referred to, throwing it back to b. c. 57, *ante*, p. 29.
v1.c16.54
Another theory equally admitted the presence of the classical element, derived from the previous existence of the Baktrian Greeks, but spread the development of the classical feeling through Buddhist art over the whole period during which it existed in the valley, or from the 1st to the 7th or 8th century of our era, and ascribed its peculiar forms as much, if not more, to constant communication with the West, from the age of Augustus to that of Justinian, rather than to the original seed planted there by the Baktrians.³
v1.c16.55
³ 'Journal R. Institute Brit. Architects,' 3rd ser. vol. i., 1894, pp. 93ff.
v1.c16.56
Neither view satisfactorily met the conditions, and, in 1890,⁴ Monsieur Émile Senart reviewed the question afresh and argued that the priestly type of Buddha with the nimbus—a veritable mark of the Græco-Buddhist school—first appearing on the coins of Kanishka, supplies one limit. And next, the regular appearance of this same type among the Amarâvatî sculptures, testifies that, when they were carved, the art of the north-west of India had a fixed type, and had extended its influence to the south-east of the peninsula; and since the Andhra inscriptions engraved on them cannot be assigned to a later date than the 2nd century of our era, it follows that "the zenith of the art and period of its greatest expansion falls before the second half of the 2nd century." Such an argument must have much weight in deciding this question.¹
v1.c16.57
⁴ 'Journal Asiatique' VIIIe sérié, tome xv. pp. 139-163. See also the remarks of Count Goblet D'Alviella, 'Ce que l'Inde doit a la Gréce,' pp. 58, 63ff.
v1.c16.58
¹ Foucher, 'L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique du Gandhâra,' tome i. pp. 40ff.
v1.c16.59
About the beginning of our era Greek art had become a matter of commerce and export, and Græculi travelled in all directions with their wares and models, ready to employ their skill in the service of Gaul, Skythian, or Indian to provide images for their pantheons by imitations from their own patterns. They could also represent for their employers the different classical orders of architecture, and would teach their pupils how to carve them; but, with or without models, the copy would be modified to suit the Indian taste; and so, for the acanthus of the Greek capital, were introduced the palms with which the Indian workmen were familiar; and the figures of Nikê—we see in the Corinthian capitals of antæ in the temple of Augustus erected about A.D. 10 at Ancyra, or in those of Priênê, were reproduced in Gandhâra as little figures of Buddha.² It is an imitation of Greek forms with divergencies—not a copy—but the suggestion must have come from those travelling Greek artists—probably Ionians—who were the agents by whom the Gandhâra sculptures were inspired, and Greek statuary was the model from which the Mahâyâna pantheon was evolved.³
v1.c16.60
² 'Buddhist Art in India,' p. 153. There is also a capital at Siah, in Syria, on which a bust is introduced, which may be as early as the Christian Era.—De Vogüé, 'Syrie Centrale,' plate 3.
v1.c16.61
³ It may be accepted that Greek art furnished India with the images that served for the beliefs.—Goblet D'Alviella, 'Ce que l'Inde doit a la Gréce,' p. 152.
v1.c16.62
Further, it is at least approximately correct to state that no statue of Buddha, in any of his conventional attitudes, has been found in India executed earlier than about the Christian Era. Those on the façade at Kârlê and in the western caves are avowedly insertions of the 2nd or 3rd centuries or later. There are none found at Bodh-Gayâ, Bharaut, or Sânchî; nor do I know of any one in India that can be dated before the 1st century. In these Gandhâra monasteries they are very frequent, and of a type which in India would be assumed to be as late as the 2nd or 3rd century; some of them even later.
v1.c16.63
It is true Buddhist books tell us frequently of statues of Buddha having been made at much earlier dates.⁴ But Indian books have this fatal defect, that they represent facts and beliefs at the time they were written, or acquired the forms in which we now find them, without much reference to facts at the time at which they are supposed to have happened. The actual remains and the period to which they belong are our surest guides, and we have now sufficient evidence to interpret these sculptures with reasonable confidence.
v1.c16.64
⁴ 'Buddhist Art in India,' pp. 171ff.
v1.c16.65
Besides the figures of Buddha, there are a great number of figures which have all got nimbuses or glories at the back of their heads. All have the tilaka on their foreheads, as Buddha has, and none have any kingly attributes, but all wear the same ornaments and amulets. These are recognised as representations of the Bodhisattwa or of Bodhisattwas. Until Gautama assumed Buddhahood, he was the Bodhisattwa of that age, and as such is represented with necklaces and ornaments. But the Mahâyâna school introduced many others into their iconography—mythical beings who are ultimately to be manifested as the Buddhas of future ages.¹
v1.c16.66
¹ Among these the chief are Maitreya — who is expected to appear first—Avalokitesvara or Padmapâni, Manjusrî, Samantabhadra, Vajrapâni, etc.
v1.c16.67
A more important point than the mere presence of these conventional figures of Buddha or of saints in these monasteries, is their excessive reduplication; to consecrate one was evidently, as among the Jains, a work of religious merit.
v1.c16.68
In India, no building or cave is known with a date anterior to, say, a.d. 100, in which more than one such figure is represented. Even at Amarâvatî they do not occur on the great rail which was erected at latest about the beginning of the Christian Era (*ante*, p. 122) but appear first on the basement, which was constructed in the 2nd century; and they occur in such cases as Nos. 19 and 26 at Ajantâ, and are numerous in the later caves at Kanherî, Elûrâ, and Aurangâbâd, none of which seem to be earlier than a.d. 200, and most of them much later.
v1.c16.69
In the Gandhâra monasteries they exist literally in hundreds—on the base of the stûpas, on the walls, and in the cells. The latter is, indeed, the most remarkable peculiarity of any. Among the Jains, it is the practice to surround the courts of their temples with cells which are small shrines; and here we find also numerous small cells surrounding the courts of the stûpas all consecrated as shrines for images of Buddha and saints, the monastery being quite separate from the structures for worship. And further, here are even separate courts constructed for secondary stûpas and numerous additional image chapels. This wealth of imagery, however, is accounted for by the fact that the Mahâyâna or Greater Translation was much more prevalent in the north of India than in the peninsula, and was considerably in advance of the Hînayâna school of Central India in all complications of ritual observances.
v1.c16.70
The few inscriptions found on Gandhâra sculptures or on the same sites, are dated in an unnamed era, and range from 78 to 384. One is dated in the twenty-sixth year of King Guduphara or Gondophernês of Takshasilâ or Taxila, and in the year 103 of this era. Now early Christian tradition mentions this king in connection with the mission of St. Thomas, which would fall in the 1st century; and the only Indian era we know of about that time is the Samvat commencing B.C. 57, which makes the twenty-sixth year of Guduphara coincident with A.D. 46, and places his accession in A.D. 20-21. This is quite in agreement, not only with the tradition, but with the place assigned to the coinage of Guduphara; and we can hardly suppose that the other inscriptions should be dated in a different era.¹ Among these there are known three or four of the 1st century A.D., one each of the 2nd and 3rd century, and that of Hashtnagar is dated in 384, that is A.D. 327.² The last is not later than might be expected, for when Fah Hian passed through Gandhâra at the commencement of the 5th century, the monasteries were still in a flourishing condition. It was only a century later that the Buddhists were persecuted by the Hûnas under Toramâna and his son Mihirakula, and by that time the art had probably declined; these dates, however, are sufficient to substantiate the conclusion that the Gandhâra sculptures belong to the early centuries of our era, and that its most flourishing period may be assigned to about B.C. 50 to A.D. 200.
v1.c16.71
¹ Dr. Vogel (‘Archæological Survey Annual,’ 1903-1904, pp. 259ff.), proposes the Seleukidan era of B.C. 312, for these dates, which would place Mogas about the end of Asoka’s reign, and Guduphara not long after! Conf. ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ 1906, pp. 706-711.
v1.c16.72
² ‘Buddhist Art in India,’ p. 84.
v1.c16.73
From what has been said above regarding the sculptures of Bharaut and Sânchî, it appears evident that the Indians had a school of art of their own before they knew anything of the arts of the Western world; but that native art seems to have had very little influence on the arts of Gandhâra. The Western arts, on the contrary, acting through that country, seem to have had considerable influence on those of India at periods about and subsequent to the Christian Era. It seems at least almost impossible to escape the conviction that the arts of Amarâvatî and the later caves, say of the Andhra period, betray marked evidence of Western influence; and it seems that it is only through Gandhâra that it can have reached them.
v1.c16.74
So strongly marked is all this that it may become a subject of an interesting investigation to enquire whether the Greeks were not the first who taught the Indians idolatry. There is no trace of images in the Vedas or in the laws of Manu, or any of the older books of the Hindûs. As repeatedly mentioned, there is as little trace of any image of Buddha or Buddhist figures being set up for worship much before the Christian Era. But the earliest, the finest, and the most essentially classical figures of Buddha are to be found in Gandhâra, and, so far as we at present know, of an earlier date there than any found in India Proper.
v1.c16.75
Further, if there are traces of Christian doctrine in the ‘Bhagavat Gîtâ,’ and of classical learning in other poetic works of the Hindûs, we now know at least where they may have come from. In short, when we realise how strongly Hellenic influence prevailed in Gandhâra in the first few centuries after Christ, and think how many thousands, it may be millions, crossed the Indus, going eastward during that period and through that country, we ought not to be surprised at any amount of Western thought or art we may find in India.
v1.c16.76
In the meanwhile the question that bears most directly on the subject now in hand is the enquiry, how far the undoubted classical influence shown in these Gandhâra sculptures is due to the seed sown by the Baktrian Greeks during the existence of their kingdom there, and how much to the direct influence of Hellenic intercourse between the times of Augustus and Aurelian? Both, most probably, had a part in producing this remarkable result; but we have abundant evidence that the latter was very much more important than the former cause, and that about the commencement of the Christian Era the civilisation of the West exercised an influence on the arts and religion of the inhabitants of this part of India far greater than was formerly suspected.
v1.c16.77
The question of the subjects of the sculptures is beyond the scope of this work, and for this and their origin the reader must be referred to the excellent work of Mons. A. Foucher, and to the translation of Grünwedel’s ‘Buddhist Art in India.’
v1.c16.78
126. Footprints of Buddha. (From a bas-relief at Amarâvatî.)
Cites (11)
- Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
- Veda — Sanskrit
- Bhagavadgītā — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
- Bodh Gayā
- Sāñcī
- Nāsik
- Mamallapuram
- Bagh
- Bhâjâ
- Elurā
- Ajanta