A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c16.s4.15

c16.s4.15

The surprisingly coarse style of the decoration is cited by Mr. Marshall and Dr. Spooner as convincing proof that in the time of Kanishka Indo-Hellenistic art was already decadent, and that consequently all the Gandhāra sculpture of good quality must be anterior to Kanishka.² I cannot accept those inferences. The low standard of execution of the repoussé figures on the casket must be admitted, but established facts negative the opinion that art was generally decadent in the days of Kanishka. His best gold coins are far superior to the work of the casket (*ante*, p. 351), and the Sanghāo sculptures, certainly executed in his reign, are among the better productions of the Gandhāra school, although not, perhaps, of the highest class (*ante*, Fig. 70). There is no doubt that many excellent sculptures at Mathurā and elsewhere must be referred to the reigns of Kanishka and his successor Huvishka, as Cunningham showed long ago (*ante*, pp. 99, 126, 131, 132, 148). Whatever be the correct explanation of the [Figure: FIG. A. Buddha and two Bodhisattvas on lid. (Photo. No. 393.)]