Maurya and Shunga Art c3.2

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.