Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c47: Chapter XXX. Plastic Art

History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c47

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXX. Plastic Art

v2.c47.2

The history of Orissan art is as varied and interesting as her political history. Like Mālava and Gujarat, Orissa stood for centuries on the border line between the north and the south, freely imbibing the best characteristics of both, belonging wholly to neither. Her population also was mixed, the Utkalan resembling the people of the contiguous countries of the north and the Kalingan approximating to the Andhra or the Telegu. In sculpture and in all forms of Art, Orissa shows a definite mixture of the north and the south, in which figure work predominated in the decorative *motifs* of her shrines mixed with a vast amount of southern decorative designs. The north always accentuates the human figure in decorative *motifs*, while the south attempts to specialise in designs which are, in majority of cases, without figure-work. The general characteristic of Orissan art is a mixture; but this mixture compares unfavourably with the mediaeval art of Mālava, in which the figure work of the north is much stronger than the decorative designs of the south.

v2.c47.3

The few sculptures and bas-reliefs of the Jain caves on the Udaygiri and Khandagiri hills have been exhaustively studied by earlier writers like Marshall. After them there is a long gap of five or six centuries which neither the excavator's spade nor the explorer's zeal have served to fill. We do not know any thing of the art of Orissa during the first six centuries of the Christian ara.

v2.c47.4

Standing Surya No. II—Surya Deul—Konārak—Puri District

v2.c47.5

When we meet with Orissan art for the first time the empire of the Guptas was a thing of the past and the early mediaeval period of the history of Northen India had already begun. In this period very little is known of the history of the country itself except that the Śailodbhavas had successfully defied the arms of the great Harshavardhana for a long time. Of the early mediaeval art of Orissa, which can not be earlier than the sixth century A. D., very little is known even now, as no systematic survey has been attempted after the preliminary and pioneer accounts of the seventies of the last century. The great Buddhist establishment, which still remains without a name around Udaygiri, Ratnangiri and Lalitagiri in the Cuttack district of Orissa, serves only as a quarry for railways and is the only locality from which collectors still find it possible to cart away priceless objects of art for their collections.

v2.c47.6

The road to this locality lies from either of the railway stations at Byree or Dhanmandal on the Bengal Nagpur Railway. The highest hill is the Udaygiri, at the bottom of which there is a colosal image of Buddha, half buried in the debris and the jungle, which like the great Buddha of Baudh is built in sections.¹ This Buddha is a seated figure in the *Bhumisparśa mudra* and measures 9 feet in height.² Close by is the Naltigiri, on which there are a number of rock-cut figures all of which are about 5 feet in height. One of these is a regular Lokeśvara with a miniature figure of Amitābha on the head dress.³ It was not possible to judge the standard of excellence of these early Buddhist sculptures from Ratnagiri and Udaygiri on the basis of the crude drawings and lithographs published by earlier writes. Even the inscriptions mentioned by late Chandrasekhara Banerji or Beams have not been correctly deciphered as yet. The neglect is extremely deplorable, but sculpture is not studied in the newly created province of Bihar and Orissa, though it possesses a museum, a research society and an university of its own. The pioneer in the field of scientific analysis of the oldest mediaeval Orissan art is Professor Haran Chandra Chakladar, M. A., of the University of Calcutta, whose photographs of the Udaygiri images as published in a well-known Bengali monthly are the best yet known.¹ From the meagre description given by this scholar we can now judge that the standard of the Buddhist art of these neglected ruins of Orissa is far above that which we see in later mediaeval shrines, whether Hindu or not. The great Bengali literateur Bankim Chandra went into raptures over the sculptures of Udaygiri and Lalitagiri. It now appears that the great Buddha built in sections possesses another rival on the top of Lalitagiri which is far superior in standard of excellence to the former. Along with these a number of photographs have been published by Prof. Chakladar which throw intense light on the practically unknown Buddhist sculpture of Orissa. Many images are still buried in debris and many more have been recently brought to Calcutta, the most notable among these being the recent additions to the Calcutta museum by Rai Bahadur Rama Prasad Chanda and those lent for a time to the Museum of the Bangiya Sahitya Parishad by Mr. Ajit Kumar Ghosh, M. A., B. L. Among the photographs published by Prof. Chakladar are a beautiful Sita Tara from Ratnagiri and the figure of a dancing male with a garland of skulls, holding a staff surmounted by a human skull in the crook of his right hand. In age and excellence these two images belong the first known period of renaissance in Orissa. Had it been possible to determine the exact characteristics of the stage immediately preceeding this renaissance, then it might have been feasible to determine the nature and amount of changes introduced during it. The succeeding steps are perfectly clear. The style and artistic ideals steadily declined till about the beginning of the 9th century, when it revived in certain localities only.

v2.c47.7

¹ *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society Vol. XV, p. 70.*

v2.c47.8

² *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. XXXIX, pp. 1635; Antiquities of Orissa, Vol. II, p. 161, pl. LIX.*

v2.c47.9

³ *Ibid., p. 162.*

v2.c47.10

¹ *Prabāsī*-1335 (B. S). Vol. XXVIII, part I, No. 6; Āśvina, pp. 811-18.

v2.c47.11

Our knowledge of the Buddhist plastic art of Udaygiri Lalitagiri and Ratnagiri and the Cuttack district is derived from the older accounts incorporated in Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra's account of the antiquities of Orissa, now described again by Prof. Haran Chandra Chakladar, M. A., of the Calcutta University, a collection of images recently acquired for the Indian Museum, Calcutta, by Rai Bahadur Rama Prasad Chanda B. A., P. A. S. B., Superindent, Archaeological Section, Indian Museum, Calcutta, and a second acquired by Mr. Ajit Kumar Ghosh M. A., B. L. These sculptures fall into four separate divisions :—

v2.c47.12

A. The earliest mediaeval sculptures characterised by naturalism, perfect equipoise combined with a very high standard of idealistic excellence—with the exception of the figures in situ—are a Kubera with two hands (No. 6943 of the Indian Museum) and a two armed Lokeśvara (No. 6942 of the same collection) and a Mārichi with eight hands (No. 6957 of the same collection). Very probably a Vajrapāṇi (No. 6953 of the same collection) belongs to the same group. In Mr. Ajit Ghosh’s collection the upper part of a fine image of Vajrapāṇi attended by a miniature figurine of the Dhvāni Buddha Akshobhya, seated on a lotus, is certainly the best and the oldest.¹ Prof. Chakladar’s photographs include several images still esconced in their orginal niches. These niches are perhaps at the base of Lalitagiri (modern Naltigiri) described by earlier writers like Beames and Banurji.² Unfortunately Prof. Chakladar’s description is not very clear and therefore a certain amount of confusion has been added to that already existing on account of transpositions in the captions of the Bengali magazine *Prabāsī*. The figure labelled *Devī* from Lalitagiri is really one of Vajraghaṇṭā as identified by Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya, M. A., ph. D.³ The photographs published by Prof. Chakladar show that this image also is esconced in a niche proving that some old remains still exist on the Ratangiri. The Lokeśvara labelled Kubera is really a Sthirachakra, as the presence of the sword on a lotus clearly indicates. In the Jambhala from Lalitagiri there is a certain amount of grossness, which is perhaps due to individual artistic capacity; but in general lines this image belongs to the earlist group of mediaeval sculptures of Orissa. This grossness is decidedly absent from the two Buddha figures in *Bhumi-sparśa Mudrā*, one on the Lalitagiri and the other on the Udaygiri. The former undoubtedly belongs to the highest point of excellence reached by the artists of Orissa. One of these two, again, the Buddha from Lalitagiri, has been brought to public notice by Prof. Chakladar.

v2.c47.13

¹ See Pl.

v2.c47.14

² *Antiquities of Orissa. Vol. II. p. 162, Pl. LIX (Temple of Basuli Thākraṇi).*

v2.c47.15

³ *Buddhist Iconography, p. Pl.*

v2.c47.16

Colossal Buddha in situ—Opposite the Palace of the Chief of the Baudh State

v2.c47.17

B. The first renaissance was followed by a period of decline of which specimens are very few. The best example is perhaps a figure of Lokeśvara with two hands (No. 6948 in the Indian Museum Collection). There are two specimens of the second class in Mr. Ajit Ghosh’s collection. The first is the head of the Bodhisatva Syamantaka(?), who is always seated in a rocky cave attended by the five *Dhyāni Buddhas*.¹ In the fragments of the back-slab we find the seated figure of Maitreya in addition. A long but fragmentary *Dhāraṇī* on the back shows that the image cannot be later than the 9th century A. D., yet it is a decadent figure. The only other image of this class known to us is a tall image of Lokeśvara with four hands in the Ghosh collection (6 ft. 3 ins. by 2 ft. 8 ins.). The figure of the spiritual ancestor can not be distinguished, and the Bodhisatva holds an indistinct object in the upper right hand and a rosary in the lower, while the upper right holds a lotus and the lower rests on the head of a figure of Jambhala standing on rocks to the right. A small figure of Sita Tārā stands on the left. This particular image is unsymmetrical, as length is much more than the breadth, like 10th century images of the Bengal School of Sculpture.

v2.c47.18

¹ *Ibid.*, *Pl.*

v2.c47.19.1

C. In the 10th century A. D. there is a second renaissance in Buddhist sculpture. The artists succeeded in re-invigorating their products. The best example is perhaps the great Buddha at Baudh. This image is still *in situ*. Its temple lay just in front of the Rājā's palace at Baudh and has simply been covered up by debris on account of a local superstition. The total height of this image is 6 ft. 9 ins. of which the seated figure measures 4 ft. 3 ins. in height and 3ft. 10 ins. from knee to knee. It is seated in the *Bhumisparśa Mudrā* on a lotus throne, 1ft. 2ins. in height, placed on a pedestal 11 ins, in height and 4 ft. 6 ins. in breadth. Like the great Buddha at Udaygiri in the Cuttack district, the whole of this image is built up in sections with separately carved stones. The only attendant figures are two *Gandharvas* flying with garlands in their hands on the sides of the head. On the whole, the colossus of Baudh compares favourably with similar colossi at Udaygiri and Lalitagiri in the Cuttack district. The image is uninscribed and below the pedestal is the ancient stone pavement of the original shrine.¹ There is a certain grossness in the face which is certainly wanting in the colossi of the Cuttck district. Alike to this colossus is another brought from the Cuttack district by Mr. Ajit Ghosh.

v2.c47.19.2

This is a figure of Buddha in the *Varada Mudrā* which most probably represents the incident of the subjection of the assassins hired by Devadatta to murder Buddha in the narrow streets of Rājagriha as indicated by the kneeling male to the left of the figure (7 ft. 3 ins. by 2 ft. 9 ins.). From the general standard and the expression on the face the large image of Sita Tārā, with two hands the left hand in the *Varada Mudrā* and the right holding a lotus with stalk, attended by *Bhṛkuṭi* with four hands on the right and a kneeling male on the left belongs to the third period (5ft. 10 ins. by 2 ft. 2 ins.). Much later in the scale is a small image of Buddha in the *Bhumisparśa Mudrā* (3 ft. 10 ins, by 2 ft. 7 ins.). Though the main figure is in the *Bhumisparśa Mudrā* it is seated on a large lotus on a stalk below which are two figures seated on each side, and a third figure to the immediate left of the stalk is a kneeling monk. These figures are placed in an attitude and position in which the figures of the vanquished Tirthikas and King Prasenajit of Kośala are to be found in separate images representing the great miracle of Śrāvastī.¹ There are six smaller images on the back slab, three on each side. On the right to be found, from the top : (1) *Manjuśrī*, (2) *Vajrasattva* and (3) Male seated, two hands. On the left hand side we find : (1) *Vajrapāṇi*, (2) *Lokeśvara* with two hands and (3) another *Lokeśvara*.

v2.c47.19.3

Over the halo of the figure are represented the branches of a *Aśvattha* tree indicating that the figure is meant to be a *Vajrāsāna-Buddha-Bhaṭṭāraka*. On the halo itself we find the Buddhist creed, the characters of which enable us to determine the age of the sculpture. It is the alphabet of North-eastern India, of which the palatal *Śa*, in which the upper part of the letter has ceased to be one curve and is separated into two separate strokes : a vertical straight line on the left and a curve which touches the straight line on the right. In the inscriptions of the adjoining province of Bengal this form of *Śa* is used exclusively in the 10th century. The next from of *Śa* is to be met with for the first time in the records of Mahīpāla I of Bengal. So far as is known, the earliest occurrence of this transitional form is in the Bodh-Gaya inscription of the 26th year of Dharmapāla. From the fact that this transitional form is very largely used in the votive inscriptions of Bengal and Bihar in the earlier part of the 10th Century A. D., it would be reasonable to infer that the second renaissance movement in the plastic art of Orissa also belongs to the same period. Images of this class can be called renaissance products in a limited sense, because compared with specimens of period “A” they are still crude in conception, because proportion is not regularly observed and there is a general degeneration of ideal in the execution of faces.

v2.c47.20

¹ About the local superstition connected with this image see *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society*, Vol. XV. 1929, p. 70.

v2.c47.21

¹ *Journal Asiatique*, Tome IX.

v2.c47.22

D. In the fourth period of mediaeval plastic activity of Orissa there is a reversion to the local type in the execution of the human face. This may be called the “Oriya type.” The earliest instance of this is a large figure of Buddha, also in the *Bhumisparśa Mudrā* in the Ghosh collection (4ft. 4ins. by 2ft. 10ins.). The face shows a lessening or weakening of the jaws. This becomes more pronounced in the colossus of the same collection (6ft. 8ins. by 2ft. 8ins.) in which the type of the face approximates to that of the average low class Oriyā of the Garhjats. Exactly the same feature is to be observed in the Buddha from Khiching¹ in which the branches of the *Aśvattha* tree seem to rise out of the *Uṣṇīṣa* on Buddha’s head.

v2.c47.23

¹ *Bhanja Dynasty of Mayur-Bhanj and their ancient capital Khiching*, Pl. XII.

v2.c47.24

The decline in the standard and the ideals of Orissan artists has to be judged according to locality and not in a general synthesis. Moreover, the artistic graph is [Figure: Mātrikā Māheśvarī, Puri The original head is subsequently replaced.]

v2.c47.25

Upper Part of Vajrapāṇi, Ghosh Collection

v2.c47.26

Padmapāṇi from Kendrapara, Indian Museum, Calcutta

v2.c47.27

Mātrikā, Vaishnavī, Puri

v2.c47.28

Buddha Touching Earth, Udayagiri

v2.c47.29

Avalokiteśvara from Kendrapara, Indian Museum, Calcutta

v2.c47.30

Maitreya, Nalatigiri

v2.c47.31

Vajrapāṇi from Kendrapara, Indian Museum, Calcutta

v2.c47.32

distinctly unparallel between Buddhist, Hindu and Jaina images. While the Buddhist centres of Baudh and Udaygiri of the Cuttack district and Khiching flourished, plastic art was yet in its nascent stage in the great Hindu centre of Bhuvaneśvara. Khiching was only a minor centre of Buddhism, as only one Buddhist temple and a few images, decidedly Buddhist, have been discovered there. That the art and architecture of Khiching was strongly influenced by the contiguous province of south-western Bengal has already been noticed by Chanda.

v2.c47.33

In the “A” period there are certain characteristics which a Coomaraswamy or a Ganguli would have styled “Gupta”; the expression of the face, the modelling of the torso and the schematic arrangement of the locks of long hair over the shoulders of the Vajrapāṇi, all indicate the highest stage of plastic art which Orissa attained in the mediaeval period. Let us compare the face of Vajrasattva with that of the Tārā of period “C”; the expression on the face and the moulding of the torso would vividly express the difference between the “A” period and the “C” period in the plastic art of Orissa. Consequently, if the Buddha in the *Bhumisparśa Mudrā* of the Ghosh collection (3ft. 10ins. by 2ft. 7ins.) belongs to the earlier part of the 10th century, all “A” class images, both in the Udaygiri-Lalitagiri-Ratnagiri group and at other places can be safely assigned to the middle of the 8th century or its beginning. In certain periods there is a concurrence between Buddhist images in two different centres of Orissa. The fine Mārichi from Khiching¹ bears a generic resemblance to the equally fine *Trailokya-Vijaya* in the collection of Mr. A. K. Ghosh (3ft. 2ins. by 1ft. 8ins.).

v2.c47.34

¹ Ibid., Pl. V (a).

v2.c47.35

Before tackling the general question of Hindu images and sculptures we must turn for a minute towards early Jaina sculptures. Early mediaeval Jaina images are rather rare in Orissa. The best known examples are rock-cut figures. One such is a standing image of Rishabhanātha in the cave now called Lalatendu Keśari's cave. In general Jaina images, later than the Gupta period, are very difficult to judge. This Digambara image standing in the stereotyped *Kāyotsarga* posture is unnatural and disproportionate, but Jaina canons demand that the hands and the ears should be unnaturally long and the posture should be that of a soldier standing at attention. The face is mutilated and therefore the expression cannot be judged. This cave was excavated in the fifth year of the little known king Udyotakeśari.¹ We are more fortunate in the case of the series of figures in the Bāra-bhuji cave, where, though no dated inscription is available, the sculptures are in better preservation. The twenty-four *Tirthankaras* of the present *Kalpa* are arranged in a row along the upper part of the rear and side walls, with an umbrella on the head of each and below the lotus throne, the *Lānchhana*, *Vriksha* of each. Under each *Tirthankara*, separated by a broad plain band, is the *Śāsana-devi* of each. The sculptures generally agree in character with the "C" period of Buddhist sculpture and appear to belong to the late 9th or the early 10th century A. D.

v2.c47.36

¹ See *Ante*. Vol. I.

v2.c47.37

There is a sudden break in the mediaeval plastic art of Orissa. The great Hindu centres are Bhuvaneśvara and Jajpur, and at both places the Hindu sculptures are much earlier than those of Puri or Konarak. As Chanda has pointed out, the splendid sculptures of Khiching have very little connection in the earlier stages with the evolution of the plastic art of Orissa in general. Orissa still abounds in sculptures of all classes, but no attempt has yet been made to survey them, in order that analysis or synthesis may be possible. In 1911-12 the writer collected a large number of images from the compound of the Kedāra-gaurī temple at Bhuvaneśvara and the old Circuit house at Puri for the Archaeological section of the Indian Museum at Calcutta, which vary in date from the 8th to the 13th century. Though extremely interesting from the point of view of Hindu Iconography, they could not be precisely dated at that time and offered no help to the study of the evolution of plastic art of Orissa. Such a study, forming just the beginning of a regular synthesis, has become possible after Chanda's exploration of Khiching, his intelligent study of the sculptures of the Liṅgarāja or Kṛittivāsa temple, Prof. Chakladar's researches in the Udaygiri, Lalitagiri and Ratnagiri sites along with the publication of Wilhelm Cohn's *Indische Plastik*, Codrington's *Ancient India* and Coomaraswamy's *History of Fine Art in India and Indonesia*. As soon as the analysis of Buddhist sculptures is over, the student is faced with a very serious difficulty, a paucity of inscribed sculptures, which can be, more or less precisely dated. In the study of Hindu sculptures one has to fall back upon great centres like Bhuvaneśvara, Jajpur and Konarak and select images still *in situ*. Thereafter, when special characteristics have been determined, we can proceed with the chronology and art criticism.

v2.c47.38

Chanda's partial excavation of the area around the temple of Kiñchakeśvarī at Khiching has brought to light hundreds of beautiful sculptures and architectural specimens. In the narrow neck of the undulated country between the river Khayar-bandhan in the north and the Kanta-Khayar in the south are situated the ruins of Khiching. On the southern bank of the Khayar-bandhan is a fort ascribed to King Virāṭa, rectangular in shape and surrounded by a wet ditch. There is a larger fort near the north bank of the river Kanta-Khayar of the same shape and surrounded by masonry walls and a wet ditch. The space between these forts contains numerous temples, large and small tanks and small mounds. The entire place, as seen by the writer in March 1929, is the site of a large ancient city peopled by a much more civilized race than the modern inhabitants—mostly Kols, Santals, Oraons and a few regular Oṛiyās. In this ancient city the majority of Hindu temples were situated between the Kanachira and Kukuda-ghara tanks, the centre of attraction being the temple of Chāmuṇḍā called Kincha-keśvarī. At a little distance from the modern hut, in which the fine image of Chāmuṇḍā is kept, is the temple of Chandraśekhara, which is the only ancient structure still intact in the neighbourhood. At a greater distance are the ruins of the Buddhist temple called Itamundia, while near the Kukudaghara tank is the only other standing structure, the temple, now called Kutai-Tundi. But Chanda’s exploration has brought to light four or five plinths of ancient temples inside the circle shown on the map as “Wire fencing.” It is now possible to judge the date of Khiching sculptures as a general whole and determine their co-relation with those of the Buddhist centre of Udaygiri-Lalitagiri-Ratnagiri and the Hindu centre of Bhuvaneśvara. Khiching sculptures were certainly influenced by the art of other provinces, specially that of South-western Bengal. Inspite of this fact we can easily distinguish three different stages in the plastic art of this locality :

v2.c47.39

Colossal Buddha in Varadā Mudrā from Cuttack District—Ghosh Collection

v2.c47.40

Colossal Buddha in the Abhaya Mudrā from Cuttack District—Ghosh Collection

v2.c47.41

Avalokiteśvara, Chandwar, Ca, 11th Century A. D.

v2.c47.42

Buddhist Goddess, Chandwar, Ca, 11th Century A. D.

v2.c47.43

Manjuśrī, Lalitagiri

v2.c47.44

Statue of Goddess, Lalitagiri

v2.c47.45

Vajrāsana Buddha Bhaṭṭāraka from Cuttack District—Ghosh collection

v2.c47.46

Colossal Buddha, Udayagiri

v2.c47.47

A. The earliest period of Hindu Art, which is certainly older than the oldest sculpture in the Liṅgarāja temple at Bhuvaneśvara and possibly also than the decorative human figures on the Mukteśvara. Inspite of the influence from South-western Bengal, this is the beginning of the best period of Hindu sculpture in Orissa. The lower part of the door jamb recovered from the Khandiya Deul shows a typically South-Indian over-developed bust in females, the Lalita-bhaṅga posture of both female figures; and above all, in the larger jamb, the three exquisitely beautiful vertical bands :—(a) the meandering creeper beginning with a Satyrical figure at the bottom and with pairs of amorini in the inter-spaces, (b) the broad central band with bizarre arabesque, the beginning of which Indian art shows for the first time in the Gupta period proper and which culminates in the great Hoysaḷa school of Belur and Sravaṇa Beḷgola and (c) the narrowest band on the proper left, consisting of a new type in ornamental foliage.¹ To the same class belongs the still complete door frame of the Kutai-Tundi temple.¹ The remarks about the door jambs from the Khandiya Deul apply with the equal vigour to the two female figures in Pl. X, but No. 115 shows that the influence of the art of South-western Bengal was not entirely predominant in Khiching. This sculpture is certainly the precursor of the splendid decorative figurines of the Liṅgarāja and the Rājā-Rāṇī. The incomplete nature of the giant Śiva² and the Narteśvara³ prevents us from judging the extent of foreign influence but the attendant figurines are of the same class as No. 115 of Pl. X. The upper part of the Nāga possesses the face of the regular Kolian type and therefore cannot be classed as a regular Orissan sculpture.

v2.c47.48

¹ Chanda—Bhanja Dynasty of Mayurbhanj and their Ancient Capital Khiching, Pl. II.

v2.c47.49

¹ *Ibid.*, Pl. V.

v2.c47.50

² *Ibid.*, Pl. XI.

v2.c47.51

³ *Ibid.*, Pl. XV.

v2.c47.52

The Buddha in the *Bhumisparśa Mudrā* and the female with the child recovered from the Khandiya Deul are regularly Orissan in features and the latter is the precursor of the decorative figures of the later temples;⁴ some of which found an asylum in the Indian Museum at Calcutta before 1882.⁵ A comparison of this figure with those in the Calcutta Museum shows that the affected pose of the latter figures is absent in Khiching sculpture. The accentuation of the hips, the affected posture of the torso and the impossible position in at least one of the Calcutta Museum figures show that Khiching art of the earliest period is not conventionalized to the extent of the Rājā-Rāṇī group. At the same time attention must be drawn to the peculiarly southern *coiffure*, reminiscent of Ajanta, almost entirely absent in contemporary purely northern plastic art.¹ The difference between the artistic ideal of the “A” period of Khiching and that of the decorative figures of the temple of Kṛittivāsa or Liṅgarāja cannot be better illustrated than by a comparison of the figure of Śiva from the great temple at Khiching² with that of Kārtikeya in one of the side niches of the *Vimāna* of the Liṅgarāja.³ In the latter, art had become stereotyped and had lost the virile equipoise of the best period of Khiching. The regular Orissan type is to be found in the splendid Mahiṣa-Mardinī from Khiching⁴ as well as the two Nāgas of the “B” period from the same place.⁵

v2.c47.53

⁴ *Ibid.*, Pl. XIII (b)

v2.c47.54

⁵ *Orissa and Her Remains*, Pl. XVI.

v2.c47.55

¹ *Khiching, Pl. X (No. 115 of the Khiching Musuem) and Pl. XIII (b)*

v2.c47.56

² *Ibid., Pl. XIX.*

v2.c47.57

³ *Ibid., Pl. XX.*

v2.c47.58

⁴ *Ibid., Pl. XXI.*

v2.c47.59

⁵ *Ibid., Pl. XXIV.*

v2.c47.60

Before proceeding with the narrative of the final stages in the evolution of plastic art in Orissa we must turn aside for a moment to consider certain statements of the late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly. The first statement worth noticing is :—“Indian artists have not thought it worth their while to copy from the life ; art was to them a means of removing the veil surrounding nature, or apparent reality. To copy from a living model, they knew to be a very easy task not worth pursuing ; in this, they could have easily excelled if they would, and this is borne out by reference to the magnificent war-horse led by a warrior, or the huge elephant lying within the compound of the temple at Konārka, or the huge bull within the precincts of the temple of Lingarāja at Bhuvaneśvara.”¹ The statement is misleading and incorrect. Regarding the unnatural idealism of mediaeval art in India we must take each class separately. The high standard of plastic art reached by Orissan artists prove definitely that artists of this province copied nature only where it was required, *e. g.*, the bas-reliefs in the Lingarāja or the Konarak temples; but they followed their own standard of idealism in the case of divine or semi-divine figures, where the real form was really unknown. Even Coomaraswamy did not observe this difference.²

v2.c47.61

¹ *Orissa and Her Remains*, p. 223.

v2.c47.62

² *Essays in National Idealism*, p. 25.

v2.c47.63

The next point which must be noticed in connection with the evolution of plastic art in Orissa is the presence of indecent figures in exterior decorations of temples. About this the late Mr. Ganguly observes:—“One of the most perplexing features of Orissan Architecture and Sculpture is the presence of indecent figures defiling the sacred walls of the Jagamohana, Nātamandira, &c., except those of the sanctum. The sight of such figures representing various scenes of voluptuousness is puzzling and nauseating. One is at a loss to understand why they have a place at all within the sacred enclosure. Not being able to account for this anomaly, one is surely to be led into the pitfall of an erroneous conclusion that the artist who designed these ornaments to decorate the outer walls of a temple must have belonged to a race most morally depraved, and vicious. I enquired of the local pandits for a reasonable explanation, who could offer none; I came to learn afterwards that such indecent figures are prevalent not only in Orissa, but in other parts of India as well. As an illustration, I may cite the case of the temple of the Kandarya Mahadeva at Khajuraho in Bundelkhand.”¹

v2.c47.64

¹ Ibid., pp. 227-28.

v2.c47.65

Mātrikā Kaumārī, Jajpur

v2.c47.66

Mātrikā Indrāṇī, Jajpur

v2.c47.67

Avalokiteśvara, Nalatigiri] [Figure: Four-armed Lokeśvara, Ghosh Collection

v2.c47.68

Gaṇeśa of the Mātṛkā-group, Puri

v2.c47.69

Mātṛkā, Vrāhmaṇī, Puri

v2.c47.70

Ganesa of the Matrika-group, Puri

v2.c47.71

Matrika, Vrahmani, Puri

v2.c47.72

The presence of indecent figures on religious edifices is still a puzzle. They are not confined to any particular sect or to any province. In Orissa they are to be found in the Śaiva temples of Bhuvaneśvara, the Vaiṣṇava temple at Puri and the Saura temple at Koṇāraka. They are found on some of the Khajuraho temples in Central India and many of the modern temples of Bengal, where indecent figures are found in terra cotta. Finally, they are still used in the painting and decoration of metal and wooden rathas of the Bengali Vaiṣṇavas. In the writer’s childhood there were numerous such figures belonging to the ratha of zamindars of Kunjaghata, who are descended from Mahārāja Nanda Kumar Rai, in the Murshidabad district of Bengal.

v2.c47.73

Finally, the late Mr. Ganguly ventures forth a theory which is extremely impossible and fallacious. Early in the last century writers on Indian art and antiquities spoke glibly of Buddhist railings, Buddhist Stūpas, etc., but now we know that the stūpa or the tree in railing was a device common both to Buddhism and Jainism. Mr. Ganguly states: “I have referred to a decided Buddhist reminiscence noticed in the Brahminical sculpture of Orissa; I have shown in the second chapter that Orissa at one time was a seat of Buddhism, and as an offshoot of Brahminism, it was slowly assimilated by the former throughout the length and breadth of India, and formed an integral part of it. The religious rites of the parent stock and the branch got nicely commingled together; without referring to any particular text such as that of the Mahāyāna Tāntrika school, this can be clearly proved by making a comparative study of the Buddhistic and Brahminical iconography. I have already mentioned in this chapter some of the allied features. The figure III, Plate V (A) illustrating floral devices issuing out of a vase or urn is a distinct piece of Buddhist sculpture noticed on some of the Buddhist remains. This is met with in the temples of Paraśurāmeśvara and Vaitāl at Bhuvaneśvara. This ornamental device is noticed in the Buddhist and Brahminical caves at Elura.”[1] It will not be necessary to go far in order to prove the fallacy of Mr. Ganguly’s ideals about the sectarian origin of these decorative motifs. None of the Buddhist, Jaina or Hindu excavations of Verul (called Ellora or Elura by mistake) can be earlier than the 7th century A.D. Yet the same motifs in a chaster and more elegant form have been found by Rai Bahadur Pandit Daya Ram Sahni in the Dasāvatāra temple at Deogadh in the Jhansi district and by the writer at Bhumra in the Nagod State.

v2.c47.74.1

The evolution of the chaitya-window as a decorative motif is nowhere better illustrated in India than in the early mediæval temples of Orissa (800-1200 A.D.). It has been stated above that the chaitya-windows of the Paraśurāmeśvara are early Gupta in form. The two types used in the Jagamohana of this temple can be traced back as early as the lintel bearing the Kṣānti-vādin Jātaka in the Sarnath Museum. But the great chaitya-windows on the facades of the *Śikhara* show the beginning of stylization. In the first stage the chaitya-window is practically the same. It is converted into three separate chaitya-windows, one over the other. There are three similar ones over the central niche at the back and two such over the side niches.¹ The next step is reached in the Mukteśvara where the base is formed by a narrow band bearing small sunken panels with bas-reliefs, one of the very best examples of the idea of real naturalism and perspective of the Orissa artist. Even the side wings are complete. The medallion consists of five different circles, unconcentric, but placed within one another. The largest periphery contains a bell in the centre, hung from a ellipsoid projection on the top of the medallion, from a chain which issues out of the mouth of a *Kīrttimukha* placed above the projection. The second is much smaller and contains a lotus. The third and fourth are really one, and the fourth and the smallest contains a human head in relief.

v2.c47.74.2

The bands of the *Śikhara* on the sides are really innumerable chaitya-windows, superimposed, in fret work. In the *Vimāna* of the Liṅgarāja we see the next step, in which the ornament consists of a large chaitya-window above, and a smaller one in projection in front of it, while below the smaller chaitya-window there is a third, of about the same size. The larger chaitya-window contains two circular medallions while the same number are to be found in the two smaller ones. The chaitya-window motif is amply used over this facet, at the base of which this collection of chaitya-windows has been placed. A similar arrangement is to be found in the central facet of the northern facade also. Slightly diversified is the chaitya-window in the central facet of the northern facade of the *Jagamohana*, but here there is a bas-relief below it and a miniature temple on each flank. This arrangement occupies the central area of six out of the nine steps in the lowest tier of the pyramidal roof. There is a similar arrangement in the second tier where the chaitya-windows occupy five out of seven steps, but in this case there are *Śikharas* instead of stepped pyramids on the miniature temples on the sides. There is only one chaitya-window with two medallions. Exactly the same arrangement is to be found in the central facet of the southern facade of the *Jagamohana*. The large and beautiful chaitya-window on the ends of the Vaitāl Deul are slightly earlier.

v2.c47.74.3

They resemble those in the facade of the Viśvakarmā Cave at Ellora or Verul.¹ There are two chaitya-windows over the central niche of the type of the panels of the Gāndhāra niches, consisting of a central circular projection with a pointed top and a segment of an arch hanging from each end of the central portion.² The lower chaitya-window is complete with medallion but without side wings and has been placed over the pilasters as a roof; but only the two segments of arcs are preserved of the upper and larger chaitya-window. Most probably the upper part of this chaitya-window was destroyed when this portion was plastered over and the three *Āmalakas* surmounted by *Triśūlas* placed over it by somebody ignorant of the shape of the Dravidian Gopuram. The chaitya-window occurs in its latest stylized form on the Śikhara of the Rājā-Rāṇī, where the arcs of two superimposed chaitya-windows have coalesced to form something of the shape of Saracenic arch. This form of the chaitya-window alone will be sufficient to prove the very late date of the Rājā-Rāṇī, because in Sarnath my friend Pt. Govinda Malaviya has succeeded in proving that the coalescence of the arcs of the upper and lower chaitya-windows cannot be earlier than the beginning of the 11th century. Further stylization of the chaitya-window is to be observed in the temple of Lakshmī in the compound of the temple of Jagannātha at Puri.

v2.c47.74.4

Here the upper arc and the sidewings have formed a separate figure in which under a pointed arch there are three medallions, circular in shape but the peripheries of which intersect. The plastering of the temple of Jagannātha and the total destruction of ornaments of the exterior of the Vimāna and the Jagamohana have made it impossible to judge the shape of the chaitya-window used in these two structures. The final form of the chaitya-window in Orissan buildings is to be found in the plinth of the Vimāna of the Sūrya Deul at Konārak. The chaitya-window forms a bold projection in the plinth moulding, the Pāda, just below the Kumbha, and stands chastely apart between the larger Kumbhas in projection. From the top of it rises a long projection, which ends in a rectangular sunken panel, containing a meandering creeper which ends just below the Basanta.¹

v2.c47.75

¹ Orissa and Her Remains, pp. 233-36.

v2.c47.76

¹ *Ibid.*, Pls. XII-XIII.

v2.c47.77

¹ Coomaraswamy—*A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon*, Pl.

v2.c47.78

² Foucher—*L'Art Greco-Bouddhique du Gāndhāra*.

v2.c47.79

¹ For the Provincial terminology see-Orissa and Her Remains, Pl. II, IV (A)

v2.c47.80

Mātṛkā Chāmuṇḍā, Puri

v2.c47.81

Mātṛkā Chāmuṇḍā, Jajpur

v2.c47.82

Mārichi from Kendrapara, Indian Museum, Calcutta

v2.c47.83

Tārā from Kendrapara, Indian Museum, Calcutta

v2.c47.84

Bhairava, Ratnagiri

v2.c47.85

Tārā, Ratnagiri

v2.c47.86

Avalokiteśvara, Udayagiri

v2.c47.87

Avalokiteśvara, Udayagiri

v2.c47.88

From the earliest period of mediaeval art in Orissa till the 13th century A. D., another favourite device was the Nāga pillar. We find the use of it for the first time in the twin temples at Gandharāḍi, where each opening of the stylized chaitya-window of the Liṅgarāja type is profusely used, as also in the Sūrya Deul at Konārak. Here we find chaitya-windows with two medallions and the upper projection ending in a Kīrttimukha and the entire motif surrounded by ornamental foliage. In other cases we find a chaitya-window placed over another medallion, both having more than one concentric medallion.¹ This is the last phase in the evolution of this motif, which was neglected by later artists and is almost totally absent in the Bhogamaṇḍapa of the temple of Jagannātha at Puri.

v2.c47.89

¹ William Cohn—Indische Plastik, Berlin. 1923, Tafel, 69.

v2.c47.90

Jagamohana is flanked by a pair of thick pillars each of which is surrounded by the scaly coils of the body of a snake from the bottom upward. The upper part of the pillar or pilaster of the right hand side ends in the bust of a male and that on the left with that of a female.² Such Nāga pillars are conspicuous by their absence in the temple of Paraśurāmeśvara. They re-appear once more in the Mukteśvara as thin columns used as pilasters in the exterior.³ The best Nāga pillars in the compound of the Liṅgarāja are those to be found on the Jagamohana of the temple of Pārvati, which nobody seems to have photographed up to this time. The Nāga pillars of the Mukteśvara and the Liṅgarāja groups are thin pilasters and not bold round mouldings like those of the twin temples at Gandharāḍi or those of the Rāja-Rāṇi. The Nāga pillars in these two temples stand in magnificent relief against the openings. Exactly similar are the splendid fragments of Nāga pillars discovered by Chanda at Khiching, none of which have been reproduced as yet except a small Nāgi and two Nāgas.¹ The Nāga pilasters of the Mukteśvara show the bodies of the snakes as descending instead of ascending. The front door of the Jagamohana shows the Nāgas ascending as at Gandharāḍi. There is a gap between the Rājā-Rāṇi and the temple of Lakshmī in the compound of the Jagannātha at Puri where we find for the first time twin Nāgas on the same pillar (Nāga-yugma) as well as a combination of three Nāgas (Nāga-trayī). Like the exquisite temple of Pārvatī in the Liṅgarāja enclosure, the temple of Lakshmī in the compound of the Jagannātha temple has attracted very little attention. The Vimāna has been rebuilt in later times, but the Jagamohana and the Naṭamandira are still well preserved and in these two structures, the twin Nāgas and the three Nāgas can be seen to their best advantage. Such Nāga pilasters were also profusely used at Konārak, and here we see the general decline in the idea, in the loss of the sense of proportion and the expression of idealistic beauty on the faces.² Before proceeding to discuss the art of the final renaissance in Orissa we must turn for a while to the two exotics in the mediaeval temple architecture of Orissa, viz., the Vaitāl Deul and the Rājā-Rāṇi. The decorative motifs of the Vaitāl Deul stamp it as belonging to the same period as the Paraśurāmeśvara and the shape of its Jagamohana corroborates the evidence. The principal decorative motif is the unchanged chaitya-window of the Viśvakarmā cave type which is found in the Paraśurāmeśvara temple only. The perpendicular projection in front of the Vimāna also shows this type of the chaitya-windows.¹ The Jagamohana is exactly of the same shape in plan and elevation as those of the Paraśurāmeśvara and the Gandharāḍi temples. The chastity of the carving and the sparse decorative motifs prove it to be slightly earlier than the Mukteśvara. Its date has been discussed in the previous chapters, but the special distinctive feature of the decorative art of this temple is, like its architecture, the southern development of the Gāndhāra type of the chaitya-window.

v2.c47.91

² Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. XV, Pls ; I-II.

v2.c47.92

³ Orissa and Her Remains, p. 283.

v2.c47.93

¹ Khiching Pls. XXII-XXIII.

v2.c47.94

² Indische Plastik, Tafel, 66.

v2.c47.95

¹ Orissa and Her Remains, Pl. XVIII.

v2.c47.96

Like the Vaitāl Deul the Rājā-Rāṇī is an exotic in Orissan architecture. In this temple human figures, used in decoration, are perhaps the finest. In chastity of design, poise in execution and sense of proportion the Rājā-Rāṇī figures are perhaps unrivalled.² So also in the case of pure decorative motifs like the meandering creeper turning into scroll ornamental foliage, the Rājā-Rāṇī possesses a distinct advantage over the Liṅgarāja or the Ananta Vāsudeva. In the south-western corner of the Rājā-Rāṇī human figures used as ornaments occur on alternate recessed corners. The intervening corners bear three narrow bands on each facet, two of which coalesce, but forming six bands on two adjoining facets: (1) Narrow band with the meandering creeper, (2) Ornamental foliage, (3) meandering creeper intermixed with ornamental foliage, (4) ornamental foliage of a different type, (5) meandering creeper forming round medallions containing ornamental foliage and (6) narrow band with a creeper. Just above this portion there is a projection, above which are to be found six similar bands in which the decorative motifs issue from the mouths of Geese and Makaras. There is a greater degree of elasticity in all of these motifs. Like most art critics Cohn makes the mistake of placing this temple in the 12th or 13th century A. D., whereas the form of its Śikhara clearly proves that it is later than the Liṅgarāja but earlier than the Jagannātha temple.

v2.c47.97

² Indische Plastik, Tafel, 57-59.

v2.c47.98

Fragment of Image of Bodhisatva Syamantak from Cuttack District—Ghosh Collection

v2.c47.99

Vajrāsana-Buddha-Bhaṭṭāraka—from Cuttack District—Ghosh Collection

v2.c47.100

Buddha, Khiching, Mayurbhanj, Ca, 11th Century

v2.c47.101

Female Figure, Khiching, Mayurbhanj

v2.c47.102

Female Figure, Khiching, Mayurbhanj

v2.c47.103

Mother and Child, Statuette from Bhubaneśvara, now in the Indian Museum, Calcutta

v2.c47.104

Statuette from Bhubaneśvara, now in the Indian Museum, Calcutta

v2.c47.105

Mother and Child from Bhubaneśvara now in the Indian Museum, Calcutta

v2.c47.106

Trailokya-Vijaya with twelve hands from Cuttack District— Ghosh Collection

v2.c47.107

Sitā Tārā from Cuttack District— Ghosh Collection

v2.c47.108

The art of the Jagannātha temple at Puri is as crude as its architecture, but the vandalism of the priests of Puri has left very little of the carving of the Vimāna and the Jagamohanas uncovered to judge its standard. In March 1929 the writer observed that patches of plaster had been removed from the Vimāna, and it is absolutely certain that the decorative art of this temple, i. e., as much of it as can be certainly ascribed to Anantavarman Choḍagaṅga, is far more crude than that of the Rājā-Rāṇī. There is a certain stamp of haste and carelessness in every bit of carving that is still visible on its Vimāna and Jagamohana. The obscene figures on these two structures have been made more hideous still by the application of colours in order to heighten their shameless obscenity. In March 1929 a number of brackets and bas reliefs of the most grossly revolting type were collected on the platform of the Jagamohana, but nobody could inform the writer, at that time, whether they came from the *Vimāna* or the *Jagamohana*. They were much more crude and barbarous than sculptures still to be seen on the body of the *Vimāna* and the *Jagamohana*.

v2.c47.109

So much has been written on the Sūrya Deul at Konarak and the high standard of its art that it is almost impossible to place the art of Konarak in its proper position in the chronological scale and at the same time to convince readers of the accuracy of such statements.

v2.c47.110

According to Codrington Messrs. Havell and Coomaraswamy believe that "to the Indian mind this expression of the idealism of body and soul or of the longing of the soul for God seemed perfectly natural and that in carving or contemplating erotic motifs, no merely physical sensual image was intended or received. My knowledge of Indian thought is insufficient to allow me to judge of the correctness of this view. An element of wantonness does undoubtedly assert itself in art more boldly at some period of social culture than at others, and we must envisage certain aspects of mediaeval carving as a part of the *tantric* attitude which was characteristic of Indian religious philosophy between the 10th and 12th centuries."¹

v2.c47.111

¹ Rothenstein—*Introduction to Codrington's Ancient India*. p. 6.

v2.c47.112

In the first place, it is extremely difficult to appraise the art of Konarak, because it is isolated and very few specimens of this period have been discovered in Orissa. In the second place, it has to be admitted that after the hideous plastic art of the Jagannātha temple at Puri there was a distinct artistic renaissance in the middle of the 13th century. We can not call the art of Konarak anything else but the product of a renaissance movement in the 13th century. In the third place, there is a break in the continuity of Orissan plastic activity for nearly a couple of centuries after the death of Narasiṁha I, and the next step is reached in the middle of the 15th century, when the Bhogamaṇḍapa of the temple of Jagannātha at Puri was built.

v2.c47.113

Considered as a renaissance movement, Konarak human figures certainly lack the high ideal in their authors which we find in the figure work of the Liṅgarāja, Ananta Vāsudeva and the Rājā-Rāṇī, not to speak of the higher standard of similar work of Khiching and the Lalitagiri-Ratnagiri-Udaygiri group. It is certainly much more vigorous than the figure work of the Liṅgarāja, but it lacks the refinement of the ideal of the latter. It is this forceful and virile expression which appeals immediately to those, specially artists, who judge the art of Konarak by itself and do not attempt a comparative study of the sculpture of Orissa as a whole. So far as I know no comparative study of Orissan sculpture, beginning with the early mediaeval Buddhist art of the Cuttack district and ending with the much cruder art of the eastern gate of the inner enclosure of the temple of Jagannātha, has ever been instituted. Compared with the “A” period of Buddhist Art the virile art of Konarak is decidedly coarse and barbaric. After the end of the 12th century Orissa was practically isolated from the rest of Northern India after the Musalman conquest of Bengal at the end of the 12th century. The Haihaya kingdom of Tripuri had already followed and that of Ratnapura had become a small and unimportant principality. In the south Varangal and the Chālukya-Choḷa kingdom of the Telugu country had lapsed into aboriginal barbarism. What it had gained in vigour of expression, it had certainly lost in the exquisite delicacy of touch of the Rājā-Rāṇī period. The best examples of survival of the influence on ideals of the earlier periods are to be found in the dancing female figures on the medallions of the wheels of the Ratha on the base of the entire structure.¹ On the other hand other human figures, both decent and indecent, in the plinth as well as in bas reliefs, bring in the virility of expression and general loss of refinement. If we compare the style, proportion and the expression of the face of the indecent figures in the body of the temple² with that of the bas reliefs with the exquisite and chaste figure work of the Rājā-Rāṇī we can not but come to any other conclusion.³ Even the execution of the 12th century figures of Bhuvaneśvara are infinitely superior to the majority of figures discovered at Konarak, that we have got either on the body of the temple or in the sculpture shed. The best female figure selected by Cohn is infinitely inferior to all female figures of the Buddhist centre of Udaygiri-Lalitagiri-Ratnagiri. All the Nāga figures discovered at Konarak are coarse and disproportionate compared to those of Gandharāḍi, Khiching and the Rājā-Rāṇī temples.⁵ The great door jamb overcrowded with its nine bands of carving lack the natural poise or the exquisite charm of the less-ornamented jambs discovered after the dismantling of the Khandiya Deul at Khiching. The Konarak architect and artist had forgotten the grander effect of simplicity and overcrowded as much ornament as he could within a little space.¹ The bas reliefs in Chlorite which decorated the niches on the exterior are extremely unnatural in proportion of the human body and in the majority of cases the attitude. Let us compare the posture of the horse in one and the position of the seated figure at the foot of Kṛṣṇa seated on a throne on the other. The worst example is the proportion between the rider and the driver of the elephant in the first bas relief on Pl. 75.² These bas reliefs of Konarak remind one very forcibly of the very barbaric but extremely forceful terra cotta plaques discovered by Messrs. Th. Bloch and K. N. Dikshit of the Archaeological Survey of India at Tāmriśvari in the North-Eastern Frontier Tract, to the east of Sadiya, in Northeastern Assam.³

First 117 of 163 passages. Read on

Linked texts (20)