The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c16.77

Language: English

v2.c16.77.1

**Ganesa Gumpha :**—A counterpart of this frieze occurs in a cave above and a little to the north-east of the Rānī Naur right on the highest crest of Udayagiri (Plate I. A). The cave is one-storeyed, and is divided into two compartments with a verandah in front (Plate XXVII). The four sides of the latter are of different dimensions, [10] the front line being 30 feet, the off line 31 ft., the left side 6′ 6″ and the right side 7 feet. It is faced by a range of five massive square pillars, of which two have fallen and disappeared. The tops of the pillars have brackets projecting forwards with female figures carved on them, to afford a sort of ornamental support to the caves of the roof, which come out a good deal beyond the line of the architrave, but without any indication of a regular cornice. The flight of steps leading to the verandah is flanked by a crouching elephant on each side, holding by its trunk a mass of lotus-stalks bearing leaves and buds and one open flower, artistically displayed in the centre of the bundle (C. 6 Plate XX). There are figures of elephants in bas-relief at the two ends of the architrave. These elephants probably have led in some way to the cave's being called Gaṇeśa Gumphā or 'the Cave of Gaṇeśa', the elaphocephalic god, for there is nothing else to justify the attribution of the cave to a Hindu divinity. The rooms are quadrangular in shape, but their sides, like those of the verandah, are unequal, the average being 15 feet x 7 feet, (Plate XIV).

v2.c16.77.2

They are, as elsewhere, perfectly plane and devoid of windows, but the door frames on the outside are flanked with pilasters having deer capitals (C. 8 Plate XXIV), and semicircular arched bands similar to, but not exactly like, the exemplars in the Queen's Palace. The frieze occurs on three piers between the arches. On the first (C. I Plate XV) the husband or wounded man, is seen reclining on a mattress under a tree in front of a cave, with his head resting on his right fore-arm, which serves the purpose of a pillow. His right leg is stretched at length, but the left is contracted, and near it sits a woman to shampoo him. The visitor introduced by the second woman has no sword nor shield, and his halting painful gait, hand on hip, and head and arms hanging down, plainly indicate that he is a wounded person, and absolutely forbid the theory of his being a lover brought in by a go-between, and saluting the lady. The action of the lady may be interpreted to be that of annoyance, and her extended left hand accepted as an indication of her direction to the stranger to go away: but the figure is not sufficiently expressive to make this clear: the extended hand may mean other feelings besides that of repulsion. The fight and the abduction are precisely the same as in the Queen's Palace frieze, with the exception of the dazed lamb, which is wanting, as also the sword in the hand of the female captive, which she is supposed to have dropped.

v2.c16.77.3

Near to the crest of the arch in seen a Brāhmaṇī goose running away. The second compartment was never completed. Through a stupid blunder, the artist chiselled the rail border on the top, and not at the bottom as in the first compartment and at Rāṇi Naur, and, on his discovering his error, left the pannel uncarved. The third (C. 3, Plate XVI) opens with a body of kilted soldiers with drawn swords chasing the ravisher, who is shooting arrows at them from the top of his elephant. The lady, seated behind him, is leaning backwards to deliver to one of her rescuers a bag or bundle, containing some of her effects. The chase proves ineffectual; the soldiers are routed; and the ravisher, further on, makes his elephant sit down, dismounts himself, and leads the lady on in an endearing manner; but she is inconsolable, and is seen sitting at the end of the tableau amidst a group of unfriendly attendants, in a desponding mood, with her head resting on the palm of her hand. The identification of the male rider on the elephant with the ravisher of the first compartment might be objected to on the ground of the former being dressed in a tunic with a fringed skirt, whereas the latter is dressed in a plaid (*dhuti*) without any tunic on the body; but it is evident that the artist did not much mind unity of costume in his composition, for the ravisher, or whoever he be, appears again in a *dhuti* descending from the elephant. The kilt of the rescuers is worthy of note.

v2.c16.77.4

It affords a remarkable proof of the existence, or at least of the knowledge, of made-dresses among the people of this country at an early period in their history. A counterpart of this kilt occurs on a piece of sculpture lately discovered at Bharāhat near Nagode. Commenting on it, General Cunningham says: "Here we can see the soldier with short curly hair, clad in jacket or tunic, which is tied at the waist, and a *dhuti* reaching below the knees, with long boots ornamented with a tassel in front, just like Hessians, and armed with a straight broad sword, of which the scabbard is three inches wide." This piece of sculpture is of the age of A'soka. To persons imbued with the theory of Greek origin of Indian architecture, the soldiers may be taken for Greeks; but seeing that their coats on which the inference will be based, are as unlike Greek *chitons* or *chlamyses*, as one made-dress can be to another, I cannot accept it. The question at issue being, whether the Indians knew and used made-dresses, and the sculpture being adduced as a proof, it would involve a *petitio principii* to say that it cannot be a proof, because it contains the representation of a made-dress.