Maurya and Shunga Art c3: Preface

Maurya and Śuṅga Art c3

Language: English

Preface

c3.1

The art of the time when the Mauryas and Śuṅgas were the paramount rulers in our country is a subject that has often been studied; indeed, the monumental pillars of Aśoka and the elaborate bas-reliefs on the gates and railings of Barhut and Bodh-gaya are today some of the more important objects of Indian art with which those interested are most familiar. The choice of such a familiar subject for fresh and separate treatment in the form of a monograph requires therefore a word of explanation.

c3.2

Let me at the outset make it clear that I am not bringing to light any fresh find, nor am I trying to say anything striking by original as to the character of form of the art of the two periods under review. My aim is to read this art in the larger context of life and hence as a related phenomenon, i.e. as one of the aspects of our cultural life in that distant past. Whilst recognising the identity and integrity of this art existing independently from other sociological phenomena, my aim is to correlate it with the latter, if possible. My main pre-occupation is therefore not only to study the character of form and technique of these two phases and aspects of our art, but also to study the causes and circumstances that conditioned the life of this art. Frankly, my method is sociological. I have therefore taken into consideration the current tastes and preferences, individual and collective, the social background, the political circumstances, the trend of thought, ethnic components, root forms, traditions, influences, history of technique etc., to elucidate the coming into being of what we call Maurya and Śuṅga art. I am not ashamed to say that archaeology dominates, since I hold that archaeological discipline is yet necessary in any consideration of the early and classical art of our county. We have yet to unearth a huge corpus of art objects, elucidate their chronology, sift the hundreds of literary documents, discover the reign-ideas, bring to light the historical episodes and do so many other things before we can review the artistic achievements of our ancestors with any profit, and trace the influences and counter-influences, the genesis, growth, fulfilment and dissipation of forms and techniques. A sneering attitude towards archaeology at this stage of our art-history is therefore, in my opinion, not only idle luxury but irresponsible thinking as well.

c3.3

Chronologically, the art of the Maurya and Śuṅga periods is closely related; yet no two phases and aspects of art could be so different from each other—different in their conception of form as well as in technique which made that form realisable in stone. I have tried to find out the causes and circumstances to which this difference, in my opinion, has been due. I have further tried to fix their place not only in the history of Indian art but in the history of Indian life as well. This, as far as I know, has not hitherto been attempted.

c3.4

I am glad to acknowledge with thanks and gratitude the debt I owe to Prof. B. M. Barua but for whose very erudite elucidation and interpretation of Asokan epigraphs many of these pages could not have been written, to Dr. B. C. Law for his kindness extended generously to all my literary and academic undertakings, to Prof. Shahid Suhrawardy and Prof. Stella Kramrisch who patiently sat with me whilst I read out long extracts to them from my manuscript, to the Archæological Survey of India for having kindly permitted me to reproduce the photographs in their possession, to the University of Calcutta for kindly allowing me the privilege of reading out the larger part of the book as my first course of Bagisvari Lectures on Indian Art, and to my young friends Mr. Sudhirranjan Das and Mr. Sukeshchandra Chandra for occasional help in preparing the Ms. for the press, reading the proofs, and preparing the Index.

c3.5

The University, Calcutta.

c3.6

Niharranjan Ray