The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c16.58

v2.c16.58

The roofs of the verandah and the large chamber form an open terrace, but of different levels, and the rock behind the chamber-roof has been dressed so as to form a plain wall with a very small closet to the south of the chamber-roof. To the east of the terrace, but behind its outer line, there is a narrow verandah leading to a square compartment with two doors. (Plate III.) The length of the room on the front side is 10 feet and behind 9·4, the breadth being 8 feet. The doors are plain, having none of the usual side pilasters and semi-circular top-mouldings. The floor of the verandah has a raised plinth or seat along its three sides, two feet broad, leaving the front low. The anterior face of the verandah is divided into two inter-columniations by a massive square pillar having the angles at the middle of its shaft chamfered to form an octagon, the base is formed of a thick plinth without ornament or moulding, and the capital is represented by a small bracket projecting forward and having a female figure carved on its face (Plate IV). Against the side piers of the verandah there are two human figures in alto-relievo standing as guards to the sanctuary. The right hand figure represents a pot-bellied Uriyā, dressed in a close-tucked *dhuti* or wrapper and a heavey turban, but having no shoes, nor bearing any arms. The figure on the left hand side is 4 feet 6 inches [5] in height and is intended to represent a warrior in full uniform. The dress of this figure has already been described (Vol. I. p. [82], plate XXIV), and nothing further need be said here, than that, though the character of the dress, as there stated, cannot by any stretch of imagination be likened to anything Greek, it may be compared to that of the figure on the obverse of Kenerki coins; and the question may be raised as to how far the dress was Scythian? Did the sovereigns of the Kenerki dynasty of Kashmir retain their Scythian dress, or assume an Indian one when ruling in India? At first sight, it would appear presumptuous to assume the latter position, but seeing that Alexander the Great changed his dress in Asia, it would not be altogether unwarrantable to suppose such a change in the case of the Scythians, who adapted themselves in so many ways to the manners and customs of the country of their adoption. Certain it is that the Hindu sovereigns who followed them, appear on their coins in identically the same garb. It should be added also that the principal article of dress which raises this question is the *jāmā* or outer coat, which was an old Indian upper garment, the archetype of which was probably brought from Central Asia by the Aryan colonists, and retained by them in some modified form or other until very recently, and which the Parsis still retain, and its similitude, therefore, with a Bactro-Aryan garment is *a priori* what was to be expected, and its presence on an Indian statue cannot solve the question as to whether the garment was the old one which accompanied the old Aryans, or was borrowed from the Scythians, when they occupied the north-western parts of India. The next article of dress is the turban, which, generally speaking, is a good ethnic index, and was adopted by the Hindus from a period of remote antiquity. It is prominent on the statue in question, but the Kenerki coins show no trace of it. The *chādar* or scarf thrown diagonally over the body is another article of dress which has a marked Indian character, and it serves completely to upset the Scythic theory. Beyond the figure of the warrior, just at the corner, there is a lion guardant of nearly natural size, mounted by a female figure, not in the graceful style of Umā, but striding across with both hands uplifted.