Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c12.s4: 7.4 Epigraphy and the Study of the Arts

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c12.s4

Language: English

c12.s4.t1 7.4.1 The visual arts — 23 parts
c12.s4.t2 7.4.2 The performing arts — 4 parts

7.4 Epigraphy and the Study of the Arts

c12.s4.1

F. M. Asher and G. S. Gai, eds., *Indian Epigraphy: Its Bearing on the History of Art* [IEBHA]; RIE 122–41 ("Epigraphy and Indian Art and Architecture").

7.4.1 The visual arts

c12.s4.t1.1

7.4.1.1 Epigraphy as a chronological guide to the study of the visual arts

Given the paucity of information on the subject from literary records, inscriptions constitute a crucial source of information on the chronology and history of the visual arts—sculpture, architecture, and painting—in traditional India. The chronology, both relative and absolute, of these arts is to a great extent reconstructed from accompanying inscriptions, dated explicitly or by paleographic estimate. Typically, the developmental history of a given school or phase of Indian art is constructed around a basic chronological framework derived from those specimens which are accompanied by dated or datable inscriptions. Thus, for example, Joanna may suggest one conclusion about the relative or absolute chronological place of an inscribed work of art, while stylistic analysis of the work itself may suggest a different conclusion. For instance, the Kārle cave temple of the time of Nahapāna is attributed by most historians to the first century A.D. on paleographic grounds, while some art historians would prefer to date it on stylistic criteria to the first century B.C.⁵²

c12.s4.t1.3

⁵² Pramod Chandra, *On the Study of Indian Art* (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 68–9.

c12.s4.t1.4

In such a case, where two approximative dating methods suggest conflicting results, the scholar (whether art historian or epigraphist) faces the question of which method is more precise or reliable. Not surprisingly, art historians are often inclined to consider stylistic analysis as a more precise standard. For example, Karl Khandalavala says, “Where stylistic features conflict with the paleographical evidence, the former are much to be preferred in arriving at conclusions as to the period of a particular sculpture” (IEBHA 68); similarly J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw claims that “we receive far more support from the development which the style in these hundred years passed through, than from the changes in the form of the characters during the same period, because characters are more conservative than art, which is more liable to be affected by fashion and taste” (*The “Scythian” Period*, 264). Particularly important on this point are the comments of Pramod Chandra: “[T]he conclusions drawn are being deduced not from the work of art itself but from something that happens to be written on it. Used cautiously, paleography can certainly help us as we try to reconstruct chronology, but it cannot determine it. . . . The paleography of an inscription on a sculpture may help in determining its date, but the date of a sculpture, on the basis of its style, has an equal claim to modify our understanding of the paleography.”⁵³

c12.s4.t1.5

⁵³ *On the Study of Indian Art*, 67–8; see also 21–2.

c12.s4.t1.6

But the epigraphists naturally (and, as noted by Chandra, sometimes uncritically) tend to place a greater weight on the paleographic evidence; thus, for example, D. C. Sircar refers to the “less specific evidence such as that of architectural and sculptural style” (EI 33, 1959–60, 261). Ultimately, of course, one cannot make categorical judgments as to the relative weight of stylistic versus paleographic dating; in Chandra’s words, “There is nothing to distinguish one technique as being inherently superior to the other” (op. cit., 68); apparent conflicts between the two must be judged on a case-by-case basis. The real problem may be that there are very few scholars, especially in this modern age of specialization, who are expert both in art history and in epigraphy and paleography, and one naturally tends to give the most weight to that body of evidence with which one is most conversant and comfortable. All that can be done in such a situation is to remind scholars in both fields of the benefits of communication and cooperation.⁵⁴ There is room for criticism on both sides. Art historians have often placed too much trust in secondary sources which provide convenient but questionable interpretations of the paleographic data, and have failed to closely examine the original sources, while epigraphists often tend to focus too closely on the inscriptions themselves without paying due attention to the works of art on which they are written and the chronological or other evidence which may be provided thereby.⁵⁵

c12.s4.t1.7

⁵⁴ The publication of IEBHA represents a concerted attempt, albeit not entirely successful, to establish such communication. See also the supplementary comments by Gautam Sengupta in “Epigraphy and Art-History: On Some Inscribed Sculptures of Eastern India,” JESI 16, 1990, 112–8.

c12.s4.t1.8

Epigraphists should therefore always keep in mind that the art object can sometimes elucidate the accompanying inscription. An interesting application of this principle is Lohuizen-de Leeuw’s use of stylistic as well as paleographic and contextual criteria in support of her theory that certain sculptures with two-figure dates are to be attributed to the second century of the Kaniṣka era, with the figure for 100 omitted (*The “Scythian”

c12.s4.t1.9

in accompanying inscriptions.⁵⁹ The artists in question are referred to by various titles such as *rūpakāra*, *śilpin*, *sūtradhāra*, or *citrakāra*. Such inscriptions are much commoner in the medieval period, especially in the monuments of certain dynasties such as the Hoysaḷas, but some earlier specimens are also known. An important case is that of the renowned sculptor Dinna of Mathurā, whose name is recorded (e.g., *pratimā ceyaṃ ghaṭitā dinnena māthureṇa*, “And this image was created by Dinna of Mathurā”)⁶⁰ in four image inscriptions from Mathurā and Kasiā, and who seems to have been one of the master artists of his time.⁶¹ One of these inscriptions (the Mathurā [Govindnagar] pedestal ins., EI 40, 20–2) is dated in the [Gupta] year 115, enabling us to date Dinna to the first half of the fifth century A.D. An evidently prominent sculptor of the Pāla-Sena school, Amṛta, is also now known from two inscribed pieces bearing his name (*amṛtena suśilpinā*).⁶²

c12.s4.t1.10

⁵⁹ Lists and discussions of names of artisans recorded in inscriptions can be found in R. N. Misra, *Ancient Artists and Art-Activity* (Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1975), and C. Sivaramamurti, *Indian Sculpture* (New Delhi: Indian Council for Cultural Relations/Allied Publishers, 1961), 1–14. The subject is also discussed in several of the articles in IEBHA, notably R. N. Misra’s “Artists of Ḍāhala and Dakṣiṇa Kosala: A Study Based on Epigraphs” (185–90) and A. V. Narasimha Murthy’s “Study of the Label Inscriptions of the Hoysaḷa Sculptors” (215–20).

c12.s4.t1.11

⁶⁰ See D. C. Sircar, EI 35, 1963–64, 200.

c12.s4.t1.12

⁶¹ Sircar, EI 39, 1971–72, 120; Williams, *The Art of Gupta India*, 68.

c12.s4.t1.13

⁶² See G. Bhattacharya, “Susilpin Amrita,” JESI 9, 1982, 20–2.

c12.s4.t1.14

From the much more abundant material in later centuries, we learn the names not only of individual artists but also of familial or other lineages of artisans. For example, various followers of the artistic lineage of the Kokāsas (*śrīkokāsavaṃśa*; CII 4, 329, l. 43) are mentioned in several Kalacuri inscriptions of the twelfth to fifteenth centuries, and the eponymous Kokāsa is also mentioned in several Jaina texts.⁶³ These references to artisans and schools are potentially of great value for art history, for example, in helping to date pieces by known artists (Narasimha Murthy, IEBHA 215) or for refining our understanding of the development of local traditions (Misra, op. cit., 68).

c12.s4.t1.15

⁶³ Misra, *Ancient Artists and Art-Activity*, 70; “Artists of Ḍāhala and Dakṣiṇa Kosala,” IEBHA 187 and 189 n. 31.

c12.s4.t1.16

7.4.1.3 Technical and iconographic information derived from inscriptions

c12.s4.t1.17

Certain inscriptions—especially temple inscriptions from medieval southern India—provide information, sometimes in considerable detail, about architectural construction. The sequence and circumstances of the construction of the Tribhuvanacūḍāmaṇi-caityālaya at Mūḍabidure (South Kanara Dist., Karnataka), for example, are recorded in detail in a series of inscriptions of the fifteenth century (RIE 128–31). Details of the construction technique of the Īśvara temple of Tadalbāgi (Bijapur Dist., Karnataka) are recorded in an inscription of A.D. 1269 (SII 20, xxiv and 268).

c12.s4.t1.18

Also useful are the occasional citations in dedicatory inscriptions of technical architectural terms. Such references may be of use in identifying and analyzing the characteristics of the styles and features in question (e.g., RIE 125ff.).⁶⁴

c12.s4.t1.19

⁶⁴ An outstanding example of a study based on this approach is M. A. Dhaky’s *Indian Temple Forms in Karṇāṭa Inscriptions and Architecture* (New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1977).

c12.s4.t1.20

Inscriptions may also be helpful for the study of iconography by providing both descriptions of the attributes of various deities,⁶⁵ and labels (4.1.5) for sculpted or painted figures who might otherwise be difficult to identify, such as the numerous labeled *yakṣa* and *nāga* figures from Bhārhut, Patna, and other sites.⁶⁶ Since extant iconographic literature is generally late, such inscriptional labels often provide the earliest iconographic testimony for various deities. This type of information is also useful in connection with little-known, archaic, or local deities whose iconographic features may not be provided in the standard literary manuals of the subject, as, for example, the inscriptions labeling the *yoginīs* in the Caūsaṭh-yoginī temple at Bheraghāṭ.⁶⁷

c12.s4.t1.21

⁶⁵ Numerous examples provided in C. Sivaramamurti, “Iconographic Gleanings from Epigraphy,” *Arts Asiatiques* 4, 1957, 35–70.

c12.s4.t1.22

⁶⁶ Ibid., 35–6.

c12.s4.t1.23

⁶⁷ See R. K. Sharma, *The Temple of Chaunsathyogini at Bheraghat*.

7.4.2 The performing arts

c12.s4.t2.1

A few inscriptions, once again mostly from the south, provide extremely useful information on the performing arts, particularly music and dance.⁶⁸ Among the few inscriptions concerning music, the best known and most important is the Kuḍumiyāmalai inscription (EI 12, 226–37), which lists sets of notes arranged in groups of four (*catuṣprahārasvarāgāmāḥ*) for each of the seven *rāgas*. The inscription, which has been attributed by some authors to the Pallava king Mahendravarman I, is described by R. Sathyanarayana as “certainly the only primary evidence of contemporary musical practice in ancient India.”⁶⁹

c12.s4.t2.2

⁶⁸ See IESIS 14 and SITI III.2, 183–4, for general comments on these inscriptions.

c12.s4.t2.3

⁶⁹ *The Kuḍimiyāmalai Inscription on Music*, vii.

c12.s4.t2.4

Several inscriptions from Tamil Nadu recording the performance of various types of dances are collected by A. N. Perumal in “Art of Dance in the Temples of Tamil Nadu—Epigraphical Evidence” (JESI 5, 1978, 15–9). A remarkable epigraphic document referring to the classical dance is the label inscriptions, quoting the relevant verses from the fourth book (the *Tāṇḍava-lakṣaṇa*) of the *Bharata-nāṭyaśāstra*, which accompany the 108 sculptured figures depicting the corresponding dance poses (*karaṇas*) on the pillars in the eastern and western *gopurams* of the Naṭarāja temple in Cidambaram (ARSIE 1914, 40, 74–81).