Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Sculpture c9: Notes

Indian Sculpture c9

Language
English

Notes

c9.1

The first of these, the *Gospel of the Hebrews*, was used by the Jewish Christians of Palestine, and was probably a version of the Gospel of Matthew, though it contained some traditions not found in our canonical books. The *Gospel of the Egyptians* was used by the ascetic sects of Egypt, and was marked by a strong tendency towards mysticism and asceticism. The *Gospel of Peter* was used by the Docetists, and taught that Christ did not really suffer, but only appeared to do so.

c9.2

These gospels, and others like them, were not accepted by the Church as a whole, and were gradually lost or suppressed. The Church, however, felt the need for a standard collection of writings that would serve as a guide for faith and practice. This led to the formation of the New Testament canon, a process that took several centuries to complete.

c9.3

The first step in this process was the collection of the letters of Paul, which were widely circulated among the churches. Then came the four Gospels, which were accepted as the authoritative accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles and the other epistles were gradually added, and finally the Book of Revelation.

c9.4

By the end of the second century, the core of the New Testament was generally accepted by the Church. The process of canonization was not a formal act of a council, but rather a gradual recognition by the churches of the writings that were most valuable for their life and worship. It was only in the fourth century that the canon was formally closed by the councils of the Church.

c9.5

The formation of the New Testament canon was a crucial event in the history of the Church. It provided a standard of faith and practice that helped to unify the Church and to protect it from the influence of heretical sects. It also ensured that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles would be preserved for future generations.

c9.7

1. About the chronology of Indian art, see note 16 and pp. 7 and 137; about locality and ethnical structure, see p. 128 and *passim*.

c9.8

2. *Re* the antiquity of Amri and other sites, remoter than that of Mohenjo-Daro, etc., see *India in 1929–30*, p. 353 (Central Publication Branch, Government of India, Calcutta, 1931).

c9.9

3. Sir John Marshall, *Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Valley Civilisation*, Pl. XCVIII; A K. Coomaraswamy, *History of Indian and Indonesian Art*, Pl. I. Mesopotamian affinities cannot be interpreted as influences if it can be proved that they proceed from the same root. The main and essential character of these early relics, and also of later sculptures, does not decrease if such traits can be shown. Not that they occur matters, but the connection in which they occur. The study of form and the study of motifs are two different subjects, and the latter has nothing to do with art. (See, however, C. F. Fabri, ‘Mesopotamian and Early Indian Art Comparisons,’ *Études d’ Orientalisme*, Vol. I, 1932, p. 204.)

c9.10

⁴ The practice of yoga (cf. *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., p. 54) must have been familiar to the craftsman of the Indus civilisation. But it is recorded in scripture at a relatively late phase only (Kāṭhaka Upaniṣad).

c9.11

⁵ *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. CXII, Fig. 387; Coomaraswamy, op. cit., Fig. 6; and Cunningham, *The Stūpa of Bhārhut*, Pls. XIII, XV, etc.

c9.12

⁶ Cf. p. 170; *re* split stem, cf. *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. XII, 22, *re* arch curling upwards, *ibid.*, Pl. XII, 14.

c9.13

⁷ *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. CXII, Figs. 382, 383, 386 and 387.

c9.14

⁸ *Ibid.*, Pl. XII, 17, and Pl. XCV, 17, 26, 27. Mahābāhu, long armed, is a standing epithet of Indian heroes in literature.

c9.15

⁹ *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. XII, Figs. 6, 7–9, 10. These heads with an altogether high cranium—and not as in most of the images of the Buddha, with an excrescence on the crown of the head only—correspond to the well-developed head and forehead (*paripuṇṇasīsa* and *paripuṇṇalaḷāṭa*) of Buddhaghoṣa. Cf. *Sumaṅgalavilāsinī*, Mahāpadāna

c9.16

Sutta Vaṇṇanā, *Indian Historical Quarterly*, 1928, p. 77; Kramrisch, *Mahāpuruṣa Lakṣaṇas*; *Golden Book of Tagore*, 1931, p. 286.

c9.17

10. *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pls. XII, 17 and CXVI, 29; the feet only are crossed, and not the legs.

c9.18

11. *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. CXVI, Fig. 29.

c9.19

12. *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. XII, Fig. 17.

c9.20

13. *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 446, No. 183 (the upper figure), and Pl. CXIX, 116.

c9.21

14. *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. CXII, 382 and XIII, 24.

c9.22

15. *Joseph Strzygowski-Festschrift*, Klagenfurt, 1932, Pl. 17 and p. 102, G. A. Kuenstler, *Ein spaetpalaeolithischer Darstellungstypus*.

c9.23

16. Chronology literally means doctrine of time. This doctrine, in the case of Indian art, differs from that of European art.

c9.24

17. Excavations at Kotla Nihang, Rūpar, Ambāla District. *India in 1929-30*, p. 354.

c9.25

18. Bachhofer, *Early Indian Sculpture*, Pl. I.

c9.26

19. R. P. Chanda, *The Beginnings of Art in Eastern India*, Memoir No. 30; *Archæological Survey of India*,¹ Pl. V a, b.

c9.27

¹ *Archæological Survey of India Memoir* is subsequently abbreviated in the following manner—A.S.I.M.; *Archæological Survey of India Annual Report*—A.S.I.A.R.; *Archæological Survey of India, Western Circle*—A.S.I., W. Circle, etc.

c9.28

20. R. P. Chanda, op. cit., p. 44; for other fragments, see p. 33.

c9.29

21. Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 10.

c9.30

22. Bachhofer, op. cit., p. 13; cf. figure from Deoriya, Coomaraswamy, ‘Indian Sculpture,’ *Rūpam*, 1930, p. 8.

c9.31

This type survived not only in later Yakṣa statues (Maṇibhadra, from Pawāyā, Gwālior, about the beginning of the Christian era Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 62), but it underlies also the images of Bodhisattvas of Mathurā in the Kuṣāṇa period; cf. Coomaraswamy, *Yakṣas*, *Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection*, Vol. 80, No. 6, p. 29. It further protracts a transformed existence in the cult-images (pratimā) of later date, which are shown in samapadasthānaka, i.e. rigidly in front view.

c9.32

23. *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1914–15, Pls. LXV, f-i, LXVI, 1–5; Coomaraswamy, *History of Indian and Indonesian Art*, Figs. 18, 19.

c9.33

24. *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1903–4, p. 97, Pl. XXXIX, 17; 1913–14, Pl. XLIV b, and Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 13.

c9.34

25. R. P. Chanda, op. cit., p. 14.

c9.35

26. Re ‘Bulandhi Bagh Terra-cottas,’ *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1926-27, p. 135, Pl. XXXI; Re ‘Buxar Terra-cottas,’ *Journal of the Bihār and Orissā* Research Society, March, 1932, p. 2; A. Banerji Śastri, ‘Vedic Opaśa and Kaparda,’ and A. Banerji Śastri, ‘Remains of a Pre-historic Civilisation in the Gangetic Valley,’ *Journal of the Bombay Historical Society*, 1930, p. 187.

c9.36

27. Mohenjo-Daro, cf. note 9.

c9.37

28. Coomaraswamy, ‘Early Indian Terra-cottas,’ *Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston*, XXV, p. 90; Codrington, *Indian Antiquary*, 1931, p. 141; Salmony, ‘Statuettes Indiennes en Terre cuite,’ *Revue des arts asiatiques*, 1927, p. 98; Coomaraswamy, ‘Archaic Indian Terra-cottas,’ *Ipek*, 1928, p. 64. An early terra-cotta figure, related to those from Bulandhi Bagh, although of a somewhat later type, has recently been found at Pokharṇā, District Bāṅkurā, western Bengal.

c9.38

The only well-preserved face of a Mauryan stone figure is the one from Dīdargañj. The features and their treatment well agree with those of the terra-cotta heads from Bulandhi Bagh and Buxar. Either of them may be called ‘Mauryan.’ It has been shown with regard to the treatment of the human and animal body in the art of the Indus valley and in Mauryan art of the Ganges valley that the tradition is unbroken. The terra-cotta heads from Buxar and Bulandhi Bagh equally belong to an ancient plastic type (‘Buxar Terra-cottas, Series A,’ No. 7, *Journal of the Bombay Historical Society*, Pl. opposite p. 186 is physiognomically a type by itself). But stylistically they are not on one level with heads in stone or clay of the Indus art, whereas their connection with the head of the Dīdargañj statue is close. One head (*Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. XCV, 23), with a modelled face and heavy in treatment, can be considered a remote ancestor.

c9.39

29. ‘Excavations at Bhīṭā,’ *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1911-12, p. 73, Pl. XXII, 9.

c9.40

30. ‘Classical’ here does not denote a phase of art parallel to, or dependent upon, any in Europe. It indicates Indian artistic utterance in its fullness. In this sense the Vedas could be called classical with regard to Indian religious and philosophical thought.

c9.41

31. About the abstract art of the majority of people north of India who had lived mostly as nomads or half-nomads, such as the Āryans, etc. (see also Chapter III, p. 103), expressed without the representation of the human figure by the movement of lines, the suggestiveness of colour, etc., cf. Strzygowski, *Asiens Bildende Kunst*, 1930, pp. 597, 649, 720 and *passim*, as well as *Altai, Iran und Voelkerwanderung*, *passim*, and other writings by the same author.

c9.42

32. This plastic quality necessitated careful researches into the modes of how to make the surface appear rounded. Shading, in this sense, i.e. to give relief to the painted figures, is discussed in the *Viṣṇudharmottara* (Kramrisch, 2nd ed., p. 59); and Coomaraswamy, ‘An Early Passage on Indian Painting,’ *Eastern Art*, Vol. III, p. 219, note 8. *Re* the plastic quality of Indian painting, sculpture and architecture, cf. Kramrisch, *Grundzuege der indischen Kunst*, p. 63; and Coomaraswamy, ‘Ābhāsa,’ *Journal of the American Oriental Society*, Vol. 52, p. 210.

c9.43

33. On the middle architrave, West gate, inside, of stūpa I, Sāñcī, the umbrellas oversect the frame. Cf. Bachhofer, op cit., Pl. 53; Marshall, *A Guide to Sāñcī*, Pl. VIII *b*; *Cambridge History of India*, Vol. I, Fig. 64.

c9.44

34. The topographical method has been first noticed by Foucher, *Journal Asiatique*, 1921, p. 103; it has been corroborated by Foucher, ‘Une Representation du Sutasoma Jātaka (Auraṅgābād),’ *Études d’ Orientalisme*, 1932, Vol. I, p. 261, where, although the relief is of a later date and events which took place at various localities are shown, the main principle of arranging the scenes remains topographical.

c9.45

35. Griffith, *The Paintings in the Buddhist Cave Temples at Ajaṇṭā*, Pl. 37; later versions on Pls. 55, 60, 6, 14, 18, 31, etc.

c9.46

36. Kramrisch, *Grundzuege der indischen Kunst*, Pl. 28.

c9.47

37. See, for instance, Bāṇa, *Harṣacarita*, Chapter IV, 157. ‘From every country were summoned companies of skilled artists’ (transl. Cowell, p. 123), to work in the palace at the occasion of the wedding of Rājyaśrī.

c9.48

38. Madhyadeśa is the country bounded by the river Sarasvatī, in Kurukṣetra, Allāhābād, the Himālaya and the Vindhya; N. L. Dey, *Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Mediæval India*, 2nd ed., p. 116. Bodhgayā and also Patna and Sārnāth lie to the east of Allāhābād, i.e. outside Madhyadeśa proper. But stylistically they are connected with Bhārhut, so that their monuments may be counted as belonging to the tradition of Madhyadeśa.

c9.49

The importance of the topographical element was not only considerable to the mind of the craftsman (note 34). Ancient Indian geography is very definite about the various provinces, etc. Geographical distinctions are valid throughout for Indian sculpture. The topographical element is furthermore maintained, and not only horizontally on the surface of the earth, but also vertically with regard to the various regions. These are elaborated mythically and—what matters most—with regard to the levels of consciousness. Of the mythical and vertically situated localities the seven strata of the earth, the seven and more hells, the six Kāmāvacaraka Devalokas and Brahmā- loka may be mentioned (Marshall, *Guide to Sāñcī*, p. 63; Coomaraswamy, *Early Indian Architecture, Eastern Art*, Vol. III, p. 209, Fig. 21). Re āyatanas (spheres) of unbounded space of infinite intellection, etc., cf. C. A. F. Rhys Davids, *Buddhist Psychology*, p. 71.

c9.50

39. Veṅgī comprised the districts between Kṛṣṇā and Godāvarī (N. L. Dey, op. cit., pp. 29 and 85). Kaliṅga at this phase refers mainly to Bhuvaneśvar and surroundings.

c9.51

40. Buddhists as well as Jainas set up stūpas and surrounded them with carved railings, etc., see V. A. Smith, *The Jaina Stūpa and other Antiquities of Mathurā*.

c9.52

41. Coomaraswamy, *History*, Figs. 53, 54.

c9.53

42. Plastic treatment restrained by considerations of the surface leads to various solutions. A bracket may have a separate relief on each side (a stone bracket of a Yakṣa and a Yakṣī on the obverse and reverse respectively (at Bhilsa, Gwālior), see also the double figure on a capital, Fig. 45 and others) or else the head is repeated on each side (rider figures on the toraṇas of Sāñcī). These three solutions, i.e. (1) to display and confine ‘sculpture in the round’ within the two surfaces of the toraṇa (Yakṣī brackets in Sāñcī); (2) to treat each surface separately and to show a different figure on it, but so that, if the interstices are cut out between the portions in relief on either side, they coincide (Bhilsa); (3) a bilateral treatment, similar to (1) but with a repetition of heads on either side, so as to maintain the independence of each side, all these and also the frameless pillar figure (Bhārhut) are attempts at a compromise between fully three-dimensional sculpture according to the ancient Indian tradition (Figs. 1–4) and between a form in the main two-dimensional.

c9.54

43. Re riding on horseback around the kurgān, i.e. the cognate form of the stūpa, by the relatives of the deceased, in connection with the round form of the funeral mount and with pradakṣiṇā (circumambulation), cf. Strzygowski, *Asiens Bildende Kunst*, p. 356. Coomaraswamy, *Yakṣas*, Pt. I, p. 3, and *passim*.

c9.55

⁴⁴ Sāñcī, North gate, left pillar, outer side-face, Strzygowski, op. cit., Fig. 316, p. 312.

c9.56

⁴⁵ In addition to passages already known, attention may be drawn to Kaliṅga Bodhi Jātaka (Siamese edition, pp. 184–85). A referential object of worship (uddesikam caitya) is without a positive basis and is only a creation of the mind (cf. Cowell, *Jātaka*, 479). Buddha is shown in this passage to take an averse attitude against images. With this may be contrasted a passage of the Khuddakapāṭha Commentary

c9.57

of the Nidikaṇḍa sutta (fifth century), where Buddha patimā, i.e. the image of the Buddha, is spoken of as uddesikam caitya. (I am indebted for this reference to Prof. B. M. Barua.)

c9.58

46. The lotus creeper composition, with scenes or human figures, is not only given an important position and wide extent as frieze of the coping stone of the railing in Bhārhut, but it also figures on the posts of stūpa II, Sāñcī (Figs. 29-31) and on the gates (South gate of stūpa I, gate of stūpa III, Sāñcī, on the inside and outside of the latter) and on fragments from a railing at Besnagar (A.S.I., W. Circle, 1914, phot. 4042, 4048).

c9.59

The lotus creeper without human scenes or figures is equally frequent in Sāñcī, on railing posts of stūpa II, and in Sārnāth (A.S.I.A.R., 1914-15, Pl. LXVIII, Figs. 18-19, 22-23); in Amarāvatī (Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship, Pl. LXXXIX, etc.); and in Orissā (Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 136, etc.); and is equally rich in its landscape suggestiveness in the paintings of Ajaṇṭā, on the Dhāmek stūpa (Fig. 107), and on many other monuments. Its undulating rhythm is transferred in a more or less free manner to friezes of animals (Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 133, etc.). The importance of this motif has been verified from the iconographical point of view by Coomaraswamy, Yakṣas, Pt. II. Its artistic importance has been suggested by Kramrisch, op. cit., p. 38, and is dealt with in its further consequences on p. 54.

c9.60

47. Cf. L. A. Waddel, Report on Excavations at Pāṭaliputra, 1903, Pls. I and III. The fragments of the railing are in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Sahni—Vogel, Catalogue of the Museum of Archæology at Sārnāth, pp. 208, 246, Pls. V, VI. Re Sārnāth, A.S.I.A.R., 1906-7, Pl. XXVIII, 3; 1914-15, Pl. LXVIII. Re Mathurā, A.S.I.A.R., 1919-20, Pl. XVII d; and Agrawala, Handbook of the Sculptures in the Curzon Museum, Mathurā, Fig. 5, p. 11, etc.

c9.61

48. Sāñcī stūpa I, South gate, outside, upper- and lower-most beam, Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 46.

c9.62

49. Bachhofer, op. cit., Pls. 55, 56.

c9.63

The stylistic development which Bachhofer sees in the work of Sāñcī makes the author consider the fifth gate the ‘classical’ solution on account of its ‘gebundene Form’ (p. 47, German edition).

c9.64

Such valuations, which occur throughout Bachhofer’s Early Indian Sculpture, are derived from Woelfflin’s Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe. They are to be applied with great caution, if at all, to Indian sculpture. The trends of the latter are conditioned and directed otherwise than, and produce a different effect from, those of the art of the Renaissance and Baroque in Europe, with regard to which the criteria used by Bachhofer were originally found by Woelfflin.

c9.65

50. Cf. note 33. The theory of Ippel, *Indische Kunst und Triumphalbild*, Morgenland, No. 20, about Hellenistic spatial effects in Sāñcī is also refuted by Bachhofer, ‘Frueh-indische Historien-reliefs,’ *Ostasiatische Zeitschrift*, 1932, p. 18.

c9.66

51. *Cambridge History of India*, Vol. I, Fig. 61.

c9.67

52. Marshall, *A Guide to Sāñcī*, Pls. V a, VIII a.

c9.68

53. *Cambridge History of India*, Vol. I, Figs. 75, 76.

c9.69

54. Kramrisch, ‘A Stone Relief from a Kaliṅga Railing,’ *Indian Antiquary*, 1931, p. 89, Pl. II.

c9.70

55. Amarāvatī reliefs, cf. Fergusson, *Tree and Serpent Worship*, Pl. LXXXIX; Coomaraswamy, *History*, Figs. 144-146; Burgess, *Buddhist Stūpas at Amarāvatī and Jaggayapeṭa*, Pl. XLV, Figs. 1-4, etc.

c9.71

56. Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 108, figure to the left, lower row.

c9.72

57. Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 27.

c9.73

⁵⁸ Coomaraswamy, *ibid.*, Fig. 83.

c9.74

⁵⁹ Coomaraswamy, *Origin of the Buddha Image*, Art Bulletin 9, No. 4, New York, 1927; L. Scherman, ‘Die aeltesten Buddhadarstellungen, etc.’; *Muenchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst*, 1928, V, 3; 1929, VI, 2; and ‘Der aelteste nationalindische Buddhatyp,’ *Pantheon*, 1928, p. 147; E. Waldschmidt, ‘Die Entwicklungsgeschichte des Buddhabildes in Indien,’ *Ostasiatische Zeitschrift*, 1930, p. 265; Sten Konow, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Buddhabildes,’ *Sitzungsberichte der Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften*, phil. hist. Kl., Vol. XXIX, p. 565.

c9.75

⁶⁰ A. A. Macdonell, ‘The History of Hindu Iconography,’ *Rūpam*, No. 4, 1920, p. 11; S. Venkateśvara, ‘Vedic Iconography,’ *Rūpam*, 1930, p. 21.

c9.76

⁶¹ Marshall, *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. CXVII, Fig. 11.

c9.77

⁶² *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1915-16, p. 106; Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 62; see also J. N. Farquhar, ‘Temple and Image Worship in Hinduism,’ *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society*, 1928, p. 21.

c9.78

⁶³ Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 74; Vogel, *La Sculpture de Mathurā*, Pls. VIII, XVI c, XXIII a, etc.; This type of relief, although it is most characteristic of the school of Mathurā at this phase, does not rule exclusively. The other type, with relatively many and small figures, is also represented; for instance, Vogel, *Catalogue of the Archæological Museum at Mathurā*, Pl. XX (see, however, the top-most preserved panel of this slab). Figures whose height equals that of the panel occur, on the other hand, in Sāñcī and Bhārhut, but not in narrative 14

c9.79

reliefs with several scenes. Narrative reliefs of later ages again resort to the crowded context.

c9.80

E. J. Rapson fixes the date of the Āmohini votive tablet of Mathurā as 17–16 B.C., *Indian Studies in Honour of C. R. Lanman*, p. 49.

c9.81

64. Cf. note 58. The images from Mathurā, as a rule, show the Buddha while he is yet a Bodhisattva, i.e. before illumination.

c9.82

65. *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1919–20, Pl. 17 a; Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 84.

c9.83

66. Nānāghāṭ inscription, *A.S.W.I.*, Vol. V, p. 64. The corresponding reliefs are damaged beyond recognition.

c9.84

67. Vogel, *La Sculpture de Mathurā*, Pls. I–II, p. 91.

c9.85

68. Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 52.

c9.86

69. Bachhofer, op. cit., Pls. 135–139, *Cambridge History of India*, Vol. I, Figs. 77, 78.

c9.87

70. R. D. Banerji, *The Haihayas of Tripurī and Their Monuments*, *A.S.I.M.*, No. 23, p. 70.

c9.88

71. Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 89. The original is in the Museum at Peshāwar.

c9.89

72. Cf. J. J. Barthoux, *Les Fouilles de Haḍḍa*, III; A. and Y. Godard and J. Hackin, *Les Antiquités bouddhiques de Bāmiyān*.

c9.90

The syncretistic sculptures of Gandhāra combine Hellenistic, Indian and Scythian features. The latter are conspicuous on the Kaniṣka casket and on contemporary stone sculptures. They are absent from the Bīmarān reliquary.

c9.91

The Bīmarān casket (Afghānistān) has the earliest Buddha figures and its date is about the beginning of the Christian era. The dated stone figures from Loriyān Tāngai, etc., however, show a considerable linearisation of the drapery, a different relation of body and robe, and a novel sense of volume, so that a century may not be too long an interval to divide them from the Bīmarān reliquary. In this connection it is the Buddha from Loriyān Tāngai (Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 142, figure to the right) which appears to be the earliest stone image bearing a date; affinities with the Kaniṣka casket would assign it to approximately the same phase, whereas the Buddha from Chārsadda appears to belong to a later date. The eras to which the inscriptions on the images refer have not been identified as yet.

c9.92

Some smaller antiquities from Sirkap, for instance (*A.S.I.A.R.*, 1928–29, Pl. XIX, Figs. 2–4, pp. 53, 56), show an Indian version of Hellenism which has quality and charm. They may be compared with the tiles from Harvān, Kaśmīr (see note 116).

c9.93

73. Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 158.

c9.94

⁷⁴ *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1926–27, p. 150, Pls. XXXV, XXXVI (Gumadidurru);

c9.95

*A.S.I.A.R.*, 1919–20, p. 29, Pl. XXIII *b* (a relief from Ghaṇṭaśālā); Longhurst, ‘Nāgārjunikoṇḍa,’ *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1927–28, p. 115, Pls. LI, LI *a*, LII; 1928–29, Pls. XLVII–L; also *Annual Bibliography of Indian Archæology*, 1927, Pl. V, 1930, Pls, I, II; Longhurst, *The Illustrated Weekly of India*, 1932, 25th September, p. 14, and 4th December, p. 17.

c9.96

Hackin, *La Sculpture Indienne et Tibetaine au Musée Guimet*, Pls. IV–VIII; Coomaraswamy, ‘Buddhist Reliefs from Nāgārjunikoṇḍa and Amarāvatī,’ *Rūpam*, 1929, Nos. 37–39, p. 70; T. N. Ramachandran, *Buddhist Sculptures from a Stūpa near Goli Village, Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum*, 1929; Coomaraswamy, ‘Andhra Sculptures,’ *Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston*, 1929, Vol. XXVII, p. 20.

c9.97

The extent to which plastic art in Veṅgī is differentiated in the various sites is illustrated by the work on the monuments quoted here. Gumadidurru stands nearest in quality and style to corresponding compositions in Amarāvatī, i.e. of the latest phase (Fergusson, *Tree and Serpent Worship*, Pls. LXXIX–LXXXI), although a heavier and more flaccid modelling of some of the figures links them with the reliefs of the other sites. On the whole the reliefs from these recently discovered sites but rarely attain the level of the reliefs of Amarāvatī. The leading craftsmen must have worked in the capital, while it was left to lesser talents to decorate the stūpas in the vicinity. They vitiate the balance of the many trends which are at one in Amarāvatī by singling them out, and while they work in one trend or the other they overstress its possibilities.

c9.98

The Nāgārjunikoṇḍa reliefs (Hackin, op. cit., Pls. V–VIII) show the trend which is most peculiar to this site. An altogether heavy physique (see, however, the majority of figures in Amarāvatī, where a heavily built torso is supported by legs of slender elegance) is employed, and the linear element recedes in the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa reliefs for the sake of a densely packed plastic contiguity.

c9.99

The linear compositional movement, if at all resorted to, is as flaccid as the plastic treatment. The high relief results, with all the amount of figure, modelling, etc., in a vacuity which none of the faces of these figures attempts to disguise. Other reliefs (*A.S.I.A.R.*, 1927–28, Pls. LI–LII) mete out the same treatment in a slipshod manner. The heavy treatment of these sculptures is allied to certain reliefs from Amarāvatī (see note 75 and also Bachhofer, op. cit., Pls. 121, Fig. 3; 122, Fig. 3, etc.). From these they branch off and are assignable to a subsequent phase, i.e. to the third century A.D. (see, however, the date assigned by Hackin, op. cit., p. 6).

c9.100

Some reliefs from Nāgārjunikoṇḍa are distinguished by very slender figures and a precise outline (Hackin, op. cit., Pl. IV). They rely chiefly on the linear component of the work of Amarāvatī.

c9.101

The plastic treatment of the Goli reliefs is cursory and febrile. It links them with some of the last reliefs in Amarāvatī (Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 127, Fig. 1) and assigns them to the third century. The heavy type, however, is also represented there (Ramachandran, op. cit., Pl. IX).

c9.102

75. Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XV, p. 260; Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship, Pl. XCV, Fig. 1.

c9.103

76. The earliest sporadic occurrence of the Hellenic contrapost belongs to the middle of the second century A.D. (for instance, the two figures of guardian deities in back view, Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 126). Examples of the later second century and of the third century are: Fergusson, op. cit., Pl. LXXXII, 1; Annual Bibliography of Indian Archæology, 1927, Pl. VI a, from Nāgārjunikoṇḍa.

c9.104

77. Fergusson, op. cit., Pls. LXXIV, XCI, Fig. 4, etc.

c9.105

78. In the majority of the reliefs of the railing, i.e. of the middle of the second century, the integrity of the outline is kept intact. Towards the end of the century and later, specially in the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa and Goli reliefs, the density of the modelled figures precludes a clearly tangible outline. But this also refers to the reliefs of the Ajātaśatru pillar, Bhārhut, to Sāñcī, etc., and is the form adequate to an ageless trend of Indian art. It is not a style of a late period (Bachhofer, op. cit., pp. 60, 61, German edition), but one of the possibilities of form which had its chance already at an earlier phase (notes 74, 75), but was superseded when the school was at its height. After this high tension was relaxed, this trend once more, in its specific Veṅgī version, and with means more complex, came into its own.

c9.106

79. Rudiments of this treatment in Sāñcī; Coomaraswamy, Early Indian Architecture, Eastern Art, Vol. II, Figs 6, 9, 12, etc.

c9.107

80. Griffith, The Paintings in the Buddhist Cave Temples at Ajaṇṭā, Pls. 45, 49, 10, etc.

c9.108

Altogether the paintings in Ajaṇṭā are more closely related to Veṅgī reliefs than to the contemporary rock-cut reliefs in Ajaṇṭā itself. But this does not refer to most of the representations of the Buddha; these are of the same type in the reliefs and wall paintings.

c9.109

81. Cf. also Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 122, 4, middle panel.

c9.110

82. Vogel, La Sculpture de Mathurā, Pl. V b; pp. 27, 93; āyāgapaṭṭa of Vasu, daughter of Loṇaśobhikā.

c9.111

83. As a paradigm of Amarāvatī reliefs in this respect, the Elevation of the Bowl-relic may serve (best reproduced by Coomaraswamy, *Viśvakarmā*, Pl. 25; also Codrington, *Ancient India*, Pl. 25 a).

c9.112

84. The horizontal-vertical compositional framework, however, is frequently used in Nāgārjunikoṇḍa and Goli. But there its character is as little tectonic as it is where it occurs in Bhārhut and Sāñcī (Figs. 22, 34). Here as well as there it is employed, *faute de mieux*, where rectangular panels are to be filled and where the artistic urge is not cogent enough to dictate its own linear composition.

c9.113

85. T. N. Ramachandran, op. cit., Pls. I–III, etc.

c9.114

86. The reliefs of the caitya hall at Kārli (Figs. 43, 44) mark a phase shortly before the turning point.

c9.115

87. Vāhana means a conveyance. Animals were such conveyances of the gods (Figs. 27). Originally the figure itself of the divinity was not represented, but the animal conveyed its presence (Figs. 10, 6; cf. also R. P. Chanda, *Beginnings of Art in Eastern India*, p. 32). In this sense a composition, too, may be called a vāhana, for it conveys an everlasting presence. This term differs from the symbol, which denotes a substitute and contains only an allusion. It is not shaped by the living reality. It is not form, but just a mere sign. A symbol may, however, as any other motif, become integrated into a form context.

c9.116

88. This refers to images and to reliefs which are not narrative. But in the few narrative friezes (R. D. Banerji, *Bas Reliefs at Bādāmī*, A.S.I.M., No. 25, Pls. XXIII d, XXIV b, c; and Auraṅgābād, *Études d' Orientalisme*, Vol. I, Pl. XXI), trees, etc., occur, if rarely, and are interspersed with the figures; they are used as requisites and actors or else indicate locality. To this extent and in this manner they were also employed in the later phases of the reliefs of Veṅgi (see p. 48). But in exceptional instances (Ajaṇṭā, Kramrisch, op. cit., Pl. 8) trees and foliage are as telling as the human figures.

c9.117

89. Bachhofer, op. cit., Pls. 113–115.

c9.118

90. Śilpa śāstras, as far as they are known hitherto, deal either with image-making with regard to iconography and iconometry, or else with the theory and practice of painting, but not with the theory and but little with the technique of sculpture as plastic art.

c9.119

91. *Re* the persistence of palæolithic tendencies, cf. p. 127.

c9.120

92. Āryāvarta is the northern part of India, between the Himālayas and the Vindhya range. N. L. Dey, op. cit., p. 12.

c9.121

93. Neither spiritual realisations such as that of the Buddha, nor the systems built on them, necessarily synchronise in India with an art-form which expresses them. As in the case of the Bodhisattva-Buddha image, a millenium may lie between them. The inscription rightly calls also this image a Bodhisattva (cf. note 64). The state of mind shown in this image belongs to a stage prior to the attainment of nirvāṇa.

c9.122

94. Upekkhā (indifference) is the state in which this face dwells. The four jhāna, etc., a selaborated by the Buddhists, condition cast and physiognomy of the faces of Buddha images. While various centres and various ages tend towards physiognomies approximately expressive of the one or the other jhāna, etc. (Figs. 54, 59, 62), it is not possible to assign any of these faces definitely to one of them. Their terminology is—and has to be—more rigid than the plastic context and its expression.

c9.123

95. Kramrisch, *Die Figurale Plastik der Gupta Zeit, Wiener Beitraege zur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Asiens*, V, p. 24, Fig. 7.

c9.124

96. *Re* the effect of Sārnāth on Mathurā in the sixth century, cf. *ibid.*, Fig. 4.

c9.125

97. Kramrisch, *ibid.*, Figs. 9 and 10.

c9.126

98. Dated images in *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1914–15, p. 99, Pl. LXIII, Figs. *a, b, d*; and Kramrisch, *ibid.*, Figs. 9 and 10 respectively. The Buddha from Maṅkuwār, with its date (448–49) and facial expression, is situated midway. Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 162.

c9.127

99. Kramrisch, *ibid.*, Fig. 10.

c9.128

100. Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 161.

c9.129

101. Kramrisch, *ibid.*, Fig. 8.

c9.130

102. Kramrisch, *ibid.*, Fig. 12.

c9.131

103. Kramrisch, *ibid.*, Fig. 8.

c9.132

104. *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1909–10, p. 80, Pl. XXXVIII. Buddhist stūpa at Mirpur Khās.

c9.133

105. *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1905–6, Pl. XL.

c9.134

106. *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1911–12, Pls. LXXIII–LXXV, p. 161; Four sculptures from Caṇḍimau (*recte* Rajaona); and Kramrisch, *ibid.*, Fig. 17.

c9.135

107. Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 177.

c9.136

108. Sahni—Vogel, *Catalogue of the Museum of Archaeology at Sārnāth*, Pls. XXIV–XXIX; and Kramrisch, *ibid.*, Fig. 14.

c9.137

109. Detail of Fig. 60 in Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 173. *Re* reliefs in Deogarh, W. Cohn, *Indische Plastik*, Pls. 24, 25.

c9.138

110. H. Cousens, *Cālukyan Architecture*, A.S.I., Vol. XLII, Pls. 7, 8.

c9.139

111. R. D. Banerji, *Bas-reliefs at Bādāmī*, op. cit., Figs. XVII *a*, IX *a*, XVI.

c9.140

112. The relations between art-form and the substance of religious and philosophical systems cannot be investigated here in detail.

c9.141

113. *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1907–8, ‘The ancient temples at Aihoḷe,’ p. 189.

c9.142

114. Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 165; *Viśvakarmā*, Pl. 66.

c9.143

115. Other sculptures in central India have the same characteristics, but none of them are as thorough-bred in their central Indian peculiarity. When speaking of central India, the central part of India is meant and not the province Central India.

c9.144

116. Terra-cotta plaques, varying in treatment from impressions taken from sketchy moulds to carefully chiselled plaques after they had been burnt, are found in Mirpur Khās, Sind (A.S.I.A.R., 1909–10, p. 80, Pl. XXXVIII); Hanumangarh, Bīkanīr, Rājputāna (A.S.I.A.R., 1917–18, Pls. XII–XIII); Bhītargāon (Cunningham, A.S. Rep., XI, Pls. XIV–XVII); A.S.I.A.R., 1908–9, p. 5; Fig. 2, p. 10); Saheth-Maheth (A.S.I.A.R., 1910–11, Pl. III); Kasiā (A.S.I.A.R., 1910–11, Pl. XXXIV); Harvān (A.S.I.A.R., 1918–19, Pl. XI; R. C. Kak, Ancient Monuments of Kaśmīr, p. 108, Pls. XVIII–XLII; Sabhar, in eastern Bengal; Chausa, near Patna (K. P. Jayaswal, ‘Note on a Terra-cotta Rāmāyaṇa Panel,’ Modern Review, 1932, Vol. LII, p. 148; Pahārpur (seventh century), see note 125.

c9.145

Not the material, but form itself is the primary factor. This may be illustrated by two instances. In Pahārpur the composition of a stone relief is carried on in terra-cotta where the size of the stone-panel is too small for the niche into which it is fitted (A.S.I.A.R., 1926–27, Pl. XXXII a, the trunk of the tree to the right). One and the same composition makes use of two materials; stone and terra-cotta are joined, but not in order to achieve a special effect; without any regard to their differences the two materials are combined, so that with the help of this—scarcely perceptible—patchwork the completeness of the composition may not suffer. In another instance the mouldings of the frame of such a composition are executed in stone on the left and in terra-cotta on the right side. The indifference towards the material is obvious in this instance, but the reliefs of the Kailāsanātha temple of Kāñcīpuram (eighth century) afford another illustration. There stone and plaster were combined from the very outset—the stone as foundation of the modelling and the plaster for the elaboration of details—and not only in recent restorations, in all the reliefs.

c9.146

The formal treatment, in its indifference against the exigencies of the various materials, has its equivalent in the actual combination, either collaterally (Pahārpur) or intrinsically (Kāñcīpuram), of two different materials.

c9.147

117. Strzygowski, ‘The Orient and the North,’ Eastern Art, Vol. I, p. 69.

c9.148

The origins of the different technical treatments and of the motifs connected with them require special investigation.

c9.149

118. Cunningham, *The Stūpa of Bhārhut*, p. 116.

c9.150

119. Also in Udayagiri, Gwālior, *A.S.I.W.C.*, 1914, phot. 4032, 4034; also on the frames of the panels at Mīrpur Khās, *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1909–10, Pl. XXXVIII, and carved bricks, *ibid.*, Pl. XXXV *a*.

c9.151

120. R. D. Banerji, *Bādāmī*, op. cit., Pl. XIII, *c, d*.

c9.152

121. *Mohenjo-Daro*, op. cit., Pl. XCIV, Figs. 500–515.

c9.153

122. Sculptures in Āryāvarta can be assigned to the seventh—the same holds good for the third—century A.D., mainly on stylistic grounds, for want of dated inscriptions on preserved monuments.

c9.154

123. Sahni—Vogel, *Catalogue of the Museum of Archæology at Sārnāth*, p. 67, Pl. IX; *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1906–7, Pl. XX, 3.

c9.155

124. Marshall, *Guide to Sāñcī*, Pl. X *b*, forestalls what other images in Sāñcī show to a greater extent.

c9.156

125. *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1925–26, Pl. LIII *a*; 1926–27, Pls. XXXII *c, d*; XXXIII *b*; 1927–28, p. 101. Of the same date and of ‘provincial Gupta type’ are the reliefs from Dah Parbatiya, Darrang, Assam (*A.S.I.A.R.*, 1924–25, Pl. XXXII; see also Kramrisch, *Pāla and Sena Sculpture*, *Rūpam*, 1929, Fig. 1).

c9.157

The terra-cotta and stone panels from Pahārpur, North Bengal, belong to two traditions—the one, numerically in the minority, is an eastern and provincial version of contemporary sculpture in Madhya-deśa, but the other is an undiluted and indigenous eastern Indian contribution. Significantly enough, the latter is mainly employed in showing events from the life of Kṛṣṇa and other animated scenes and figures. But when divinities are represented in samapada-sthānaka, a hybrid compromise between the tradition of Gupta sculpture of Madhyadeśa and Bengalī form is arrived at. From there the cult images of the Pāla and Sena school take their beginning.

c9.158

126. Vogel, *Antiquities of Cambā State*, p. 7, Fig. 2.

c9.159

127. Codrington, *Ancient India*, Pls. 45–47; *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1909–10, Pl. II.

c9.160

128. Longhurst, *Pallava Architecture*, *A.S.I.M.*, No. 17, Pt. I, Pls. XV *b*, XVII, XVIII *a*.

c9.161

129. Cunningham, *A.S. Rep.*, XXI, p. 96. The walls of the Pārvatī temple at Nāchnā.

c9.162

130. Balance is established between, or the composition is clearly referred to the vertical and the horizontal—but this does not mean that a rectangular frame is merely filled with parallel rows of figures, cf. note 84—in most of the reliefs in the caves (exceptions: Durgā Mahiṣāsura-mardini, Gaṅgā relief, etc.). Architectonic in this connection denotes the equilibrium established by the dynamic urge itself. It is not a superimposed scheme.

c9.163

131. T. G. Aravamuthan, *Portrait Sculpture in South India*, Figs. 2-4, p. 25.

c9.164

132. W. Cohn, op. cit., Pl. 89; Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 208; in the latter relief the parabolic composition is carried by the curves of the Asuras and Gaṇas, on the extreme right and left respectively.

c9.165

133. See, however, Marshall, ‘The Influence of Race in Early Indian Art,’ *Rūpam*, 1924, p. 69.

c9.166

134. *Ars Asiatica*, III, ‘Sculptures Śivaites,’ Pl. XXX; and Grousset, *The Civilisations of the East : India*, Figs. 63, 66.

c9.167

135. Burgess, *Elura Cave Temples*, pp. 23, 38, 41, etc.

c9.168

136. G. Rao, *Elements of Hindu Iconography*, Vol. II, Pt. I, Pls. LIII, LIV; Kramrisch, *Grundzuege*, Pl. 9.

c9.169

137. *A.S.W.I.*, Vol. III, p. 72, Pls. XLVIII, XLIX; Coomaraswamy, *History*, p. 108.

c9.170

138. Cf. Conquest of Kāñcīpuram by Vikramāditya II, A.D. 740, etc.

c9.171

139. G. Rao, op. cit., Vol. I, Pt. II, Pls. CIV, CV; Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 208.

c9.172

140. W. Cohn, op. cit., Pl. 39.

c9.173

141. The division into three sections, i.e. ancient, classical and mediæval, is derived from the character of form of Indian sculpture. The dates assigned to these demarcations have been fixed on the basis of symptoms of the sculptures themselves. To correlate such symptoms, with data that affected the whole of India, had been a secondary consideration. Two migrations, the one about 2000 B.C., the other approximately in the first half of the first millenium A.D., and beyond these limits, either of them of people who came to India from countries to the north of it, infused new blood into the Indian organism. Its assimilative power had been adjusted to such infusions (Austro-Asiatic and Drāviḍian elements, etc.).

c9.174

Chronologically these immigrations and the transformations observed in sculpture do not coincide. In either case stylistic symptoms are posterior. The foreigners did not overthrow the indigenous heritage of art; on the contrary, they grew into it. This took time.

c9.175

Although there are signs of mediævalism in reliefs of the fifth and sixth centuries (pp. 67, 74, Figs. 61, 107), in the whole of contemporary sculpture of that phase they are only stray instances. Their importance is not manifest within the character of the whole of contemporary art. It becomes so retrospectively only when these seemingly stray instances had grown to be qualities of mediæval sculpture. The middle ages in Indian sculpture are framed by the second immigration from the north and by a third invasion, that of Islām, which put an end to sculpture. Where, as in south India, it left the monuments untouched, the practice, too, of mediæval sculpture continued. The term ‘mediæval’ is used here in this sense. It presupposes the classical. As in Europe, so in India, it has the migrations of people for its background. Its roots, however, are sunk into the soil of India, and from there forms are brought forth organically one with those that came from more ancient roots.

c9.176

¹⁴² H. Zimmer, *Kunstform und Yoga im Indischen Kultbild*, p. 54.

c9.177

¹⁴³ Yātrā, a popular type of play in Bengal. Sten Konow, *Das indische Drama*, 1920; *Encyclopædia of Indo Aryan Research*, p. 43. Repetition as a principle of Indian art is discussed by Betty Heimann, *Studien zur Eigenart Indischen Denkens*, 1930, p. 183.

c9.178

¹⁴⁴ Apart from these, earthbound with their rigid weight, whether seated or standing in kāyotsārga posture, other Jaina images are conspicuous as such only by their respective cognisances and symbols. Cf. Fig. 84. To result in the typically mediæval image of Tīrthaṃkaras, etc., two components had to meet—(1) special postures essentially not different from those of Buddha images and indicating in each case a state beyond the possibility of change, and (2) their linear and angular interpretation by the craftsmen of western India.

c9.179

¹⁴⁵ Cf., for instance, Bachhofer, op. cit., Pl. 101.

c9.180

¹⁴⁶ Kramrisch, *Mogulmalerei und indische Ueberlieferung* in Strzygowski, *Asiatische Miniaturenmalerei*, Klagenfurt, 1933; D. R. Bhandarkar, ‘Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population,’ *Indian Antiquary*, 1911, p. 7; D. R. Bhandarkar, ‘Gurjāras,’ *Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society*, 1904, p. 413; *Bombay Gazetteer*, Vol. IX, p. 471.

c9.181

¹⁴⁷ Coomaraswamy, ‘Frescoes at Elūrā,’ *Ostasiatische Zeitschrift*, N.F. III, H. 1; G. Yazdani, ‘Fresco Paintings of Ellora, *Annual Report of the Archæological Department of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Dominions*, 1930, p. 19, Pl. B; Thomson, ‘Preliminary notes . . . ,’ *Rūpam*, 1926, p. 45; Coomaraswamy, *History*, Fig. 196; Springer, *Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte*, Fig. 323.

c9.182

An early instance of this treatment is to be seen on a bronze bowl. (Coomaraswamy, ‘An Indian Bronze Bowl,’ *Ostasiatische Zeitschrift*, 1930, p. 247, Pl. 33.) The facial type, with its sharply projecting features, results from the general conduct of lines. They are nervy and precise, with a tendency towards angularity, although the appearance of these Yakṣas goes back to chubby Indian prototypes. The central circle with the lion is reminiscent of Sassanian textiles, while the outline of the back of the animal can be seen in a relaxed and sculptural version in the statue of a lion (amongst others) standing near the Kāṇḍārya Mahādeva temple at Khajurāho of the year 1000 approximately. The bowl is to be dated about A.D. 600 (cf. Coomaraswamy), and belongs to the western school.

c9.183

148. The Tibetan historian Tāranātha speaks of the western school. He also distinguishes the work of Madhyadeśa as well as the eastern school, and he connects the one with Magadha and the other with Bhangala, i.e. Bihār and Bengal. He is not precise about art-geography. Cf. Tāranātha, *Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien*, ed. Schiefner, pp. 279, 280.

c9.184

The northernisation of the ethnical fabric of mediæval India, and the corresponding differentiations of form are more definitely tangible than the Āryan factor in the ancient Indian heritage during the early classical phase. But a similar process has left its traces in either phase of Indian sculpture.

c9.185

149. G. Yazdani, *The Temples of Palampet*, A.S.I.M., No. 6, Pl. XXXII.

c9.186

150. A. H. Longhurst, *Hampi Ruins*, Madras, 1917; V. A. Smith, *A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon*, 2nd ed., p. 135, Pl. 91.

c9.187

151. The black and white effect of these clear-cut patterns (Figs. 90, 107), when imagined translated into colour, is of the same kind as are carpet designs, specially from Baluchistān, up to this day.

c9.188

152. Springer, *Kunstgeschichte*, Vol. VI, op. cit., Fig. 316; Codrington, op. cit., Pl. 66, *a, c*.

c9.189

153. K. N. Dikshit, *Six Sculptures from Mahobā*, A.S.I.M., No. 8. Mediæval sculptures from central and western India are also illustrated in Codrington’s *Introduction to the Study of Mediæval Indian Sculpture*. But the dates assigned to the sculptures on Pls. 2–5 are erroneous. These sculptures, too, are mediæval.

c9.190

154. R. D. Banerji, *The Haihayas of Tripuri and Their Monuments*, A.S.I.M., No. 23, p. 78, Pl. XXXI, etc.

c9.191

155. Utkala was an independent kingdom at the time of Kālidāsa and of the Brahmā purāṇa (N. L. Dey, op. cit., p. 213). During the eighth and ninth centuries, and with regard to Buddhist sculpture, Utkala is to be considered an art-province with a dialect of its own, although it is related to that of contemporary reliefs in Bhuvaneśvar, specially on the maṇḍapam of the Paraśurāmeśvar temple, and to a lesser extent to reliefs on the garbhagṛha of this shrine or to those of the Satryugneśvar, Uttareśvar, and allied temples of this phase.

c9.192

Kaliṅga is taken here to denote the country round Bhuvaneśvar and Purī.

c9.193

156. R. P. Chanda, *Exploration in Orissā*, *A.S.I.M.*, No. 44, p. 13, Pl. V, Fig. 3.

c9.194

157. The stylistic evidence of mediævalism, i.e. of western Indian features, in Kaliṅga, and its absence in Bengal and Bihār, may elucidate the racial stratification of these provinces at that age.

c9.195

158. K. de B. Codrington, *Ancient India*, Pl. 56.

c9.196

159. Khajurāho, cf. Codrington, op. cit., Pls. 71, 72. *Re* Māmallapuram, etc., Longhurst, *Pallava Architecture*, *A.S.I.M.*, No. 33, Pt. II, Pls. VI *b*; X; *A.S.I.M.*, No. 40, Pt. III, Pls. X, XI; later south Indian versions: V. A. Smith, op. cit., Pls. 89 *c*, 90.

c9.197

160. J. Ph. Vogel, *Antiquities of Cambā*, Pl. VII, etc. *Re* Himālayan sculpture see the following: *A.S.I.A.R.*, 1905–6, p. 21, Fig. 4; 1909–10, p. 18, Pls. VII, VIII; 1915–16, p. 39, Pls. XXXII–XXXIV, XLVII; 1923–24, p. 57, Pl. XXI.

c9.198

161. According to inscriptions, they are not earlier than the first half of the eleventh century. Others belong to the twelfth century. Vogel, op. cit., p. 32, Fig. 12, Pl. IV.

c9.199

162. The limits between the single art-provinces are artificial, in order to draw attention to the most relevant features in each province. In reality, needless to say, the demarcations are not so sharp and an interchange of traditions goes on along them.

c9.200

163. O. C. Gangoly, *South Indian Bronzes*, p. 15, Pl. XXII; G. Rao, op. cit., Vol. II, Pls. CXXXVII, CXXXVIII, p. 473.

c9.201

164. Of whatever kind the ethnical contributions are, the main fact is that all of them make the specifically Indian amalgam of plastic art. *Re* certain residues, see note 165.

First 200 of 234 passages. Read on

Linked texts (41)