Newly Discovered Inscribed Mathur Sculptures of Probable Doorkeepers, Dating to the

Katrapa Period
Author(s): Doris Meth Srinivasan and Lore Sander
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 43 (1990), pp. 63-69
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press for the Asia Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111210 .
Accessed: 24/01/2013 19:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
University of Hawai'i Press and Asia Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Archives of Asian Art.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:37:45 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Newly
Discovered Inscribed Mathur?
Sculptures
of
Probable
Doorkeepers, Dating
to the
Ksatrapa
Period
Doris Meth Srinivasan
George Washington University
Epigraphic Analysis by
Lore Sander
Museum
f?r
Indische
Kunst,
Berlin
It is not
every day
that a
discovery
occurs which
challenges
the art historian to think anew about the
methodology
of the
discipline.
But the
discovery
in
1987
of two sandstone statues in Mathur? District has done
just
that. The Mathur? School of art is of course one of
the best
documented,
and that documentation does not
betray
the same sort of uncertainties
regarding
the
chronology
of
stylistic developments,
as
does,
for
example, scholarship
on Gandharan art.
Perhaps
it is for
this reason that the statues described below are somewhat
unsettling. They
make us realize the limits of our
knowledge.
Were it not for the fortunate chance that
these statues are inscribed and therefore
susceptible
to
epigraphic
analysis,
their
interpretation,
based on
style
and
iconography,
would have oeen,
I am
afraid,
quite
different.
In
May
1987
two sandstone statues in
very good
condition came out of the
ground
of Bharna
Kalan, 32
kilometers northwest of Mathur? on the Govardhan
Chchata Road. Both statues are life-size and stand on
bases that are inscribed.
They
were soon
deposited
in the
Mathur?
Museum,
where I saw them in
June
1987.1
Both
figures
are males. The one with the sword
(Fig. 1)
is 6 feet 6
inches;
that
is,
the
figure
is
5
feet
7
inches and
its base is 11 inches. The male faces
frontally;
he stands
with both feet
planted firmly
on the
ground,
although
there is a
slight
shift of
weight
onto his
right leg.
His
oval face has
sharply
chiseled features: the
eyes
look
outward under
heavy
lids;
the nose is
straight
and the
nostrils are
defined;
the
lips
relax into the faintest of
smiles and the
jaw
is somewhat raised and resolute. Most
of his hair is
gathered up
and tied underneath the turban.
The turban's bulbous
portion
and
large
knot are on the
right
side of the
figure
s forehead. Some of the hair which
escapes
the turban falls in thick locks at the
nape
of the
neck
(Fig.
ib).
The dhoti he wears is tied
just
below the
slightly
rounded abdomen. It is secured
by
a
large girdle,
gathered
into thin
folds,
and knotted in the center. The
ends of the
girdle
are decorated with
large
tassels that
fall between the
legs.
A section of the dhoti is also
gathered
into narrow
pleats,
seen
just
below the tassels.
The end of the dhoti lies
softly
on the left
thigh,
in a
series of folds
having
a
rippled edge.
The
figure
wears
a
scarf,
best seen in the back
(Fig.
ib).
It is
pulled
into
a
diagonal strip
of
gathered
cloth which
drapes
over both
arms before
opening
into a
cascade of folds in both front
and back.
Evidently
the
scarf, dhoti,
and
girdle
are made
of a cloth
sufficiently
thin to
permit
of such fine
gathering.2
The man's
upper
chest is decorated with two neck
laces. One is tied close to the neck and lies
flat;
it has
floral
designs.
The other is
longer
and
looped.
It seems
to be
composed
of six strands held
together by
rec
tangular clasps.
The
figure's
two arms are
ornamented
with armlets and bracelets. The
right
hand clenches the
handle of a sword
resting against
the
right
side of the
torso; the
upper part
of the sword is now broken. The
left arm is bent and the hand rests at the
waist;
it seems
to hold the base of
something.
Whatever it was,
it should
have
originally
touched the left side of the
figure
because
a
breakage point
remains there.
Perhaps
the
object
was
the
figure
of a
child or diminutive
person.
A second cen
tury
b.c. relief from
Hariparvat
Til?,
Mathur?
(Fig. 2)
shows
a
small
figure
on a base held in the left hand of
a
personage
clad and ornamented
quite
like the Bharna
Kalan
figure.
The small
figure
touches the
personage
in
the relief
precisely
where the Bharna Kalan male snows
the
breakage point.
The second statue is 6 feet
5
inches tall
(Fig. 3).
The
base is 10
inches,
that is 1 inch less than the base of the
first statue,
leaving
the
figures
themselves of identical
height.
The dress and ornamentation of the second
figure
also
closely
resembles the
first,
and the visual
impression
is that
they
are related. The second male is
distinguished
from the
first;
he wears a decorated turban knotted in
the center. The turbaned head is surrounded
by
an
ogee
shape having
flame-like incisions all over the back and
along
the outer
edge
of the front
(Fig. 3b).
The left arm
is
broken;
the
breakage
at the
hip
indicates that the left
hand rested on the
hip
and held a water bottle. The lower
part
of the
right
arm is also
damaged;
it
probably
ex
tended into
space
since there are no contact
points
on
either the
right
side of the torso or the
right upper
arm.
The strut
supporting
the elbow would also indicate that
the arm made some kind of
open gesture.
It is of course
no
longer
possible
to determine whether the
right
hand
also held an attribute.
The two Bharna Kalan
images appear
to have been
carved
by
a master
sculptor
who
delighted
in
depicting
cloth as it
draped
around a modeled
form,
and who was
able to
convey
the tactile
reality
of the tautness of
skin,
the
gathers
of
folds,
the
weight
of a
stance, and the
raised tilt of a head. Since both
images display very
similar
sculptural qualities
as well as similar
dress,
stance, ornamentation,
and
size,
it is to be inferred that
they
were carved
by
the same hand
probably
in
response
to one commission.
It is
immediately apparent
that the
figures
trace their
ancestry
back to the Parkham Yaksa
(Fig. 4).
The over
8 foot
Yaksa,
frontally
conceived and
standing
with the
weight
on the
right leg,
is dressed and ornamented in a
manner similar to the Bharna Kalan
images.
Even the
shallow
zigzag
incisions
indicating
creases in the back of
the Yaksa's dhoti are identical to those on the back of
the
sword-holding
male
(compare
Fig.
ib
with
Fig. 4B).
However,
the block-like
rigidity
and archaic treatment
of the
drapery
and
corporeal
forms,
and their in
terrelation,
are not echoed in the Bharna Kalan
images.
The
sculptural
advances of the latter
belong
to a different
age. ...
It is therefore instructive to
compare
the
images
with
less archaic
sculptures
from Uttar Pradesh and sur
rounding
areas. The Noh Yaksa
(Fig. 5)
does not show
stylistic developments
much in advance of the Parkham
Yaksa. What remains of the Palwal Yaksa also shows a
63
This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:37:45 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
heavy-set
bust decorated with necklaces that are
rigid
and that fail to relate to the surface of the skin
(Fig. 6).
The now headless
Pratapgarh
Yaksa exhibits more
gradually
rounded forms
especially
in the abdominal area
and in the
torque
and folds of the
girdle (Fig. 7).
But the
block-like
shape
of the
body
and its stiff outline recall
the Bharhut
style.
The Vidi's? Yaksa no
longer preserves
the stiff outline
(Fig. 8).
The
image
is more relaxed and
conveys
a
greater
sense of
plasticity.
Pramod Chandra
dates the
image
to the second half of the second
century
b.c. because the
modeling
has
a
feeling
for the soft and
resilient surface of the
flesh,
and because the contours
of the ornamentation are in advance of those found either
in the Parkham or the Bharhut Yaksas. Susan
Huntington
puts
the Vidi's? Yaksa at 100 b.c.
James
Harle
assigns
the
piece
to the first
century
b.c.3
Although
there is not
complete agreement
on the date of the Vidis?
Yaksa,
all
three scholars would
agree
that the
image
is bracketed
between the second
century
b.c.
sculptures
such as the
Bharhut and
Pratapgarh
Yaksas and the
carvings
of
Sanc?,
stupa
I.
It should be
possible
to determine whether these
brackets are also useful in
setting
the relative date of the
Bharna Kalan
images.
A useful
comparison
to the Bharna
Kalan statues is the Yaksa or Guardian on the north
pillar
of the eastern torana at Sanc?
stupa
I
(Fig. 9A).
Certain
details are
similar,
such as the turban
type?especially
the
cone-shaped
knot?and the rows of
pleating
between
the
legs.
However,
the Mathur? carver
surely
took
greater delight,
and had
greater proficiency,
in
rendering
the
beauty
of
draped
cloth. He did not, however,
have
as deft an
understanding
of the
figure
in
space
as did the
carver of the Guardian on the
pillar
of the west torana
at Sanc?
stupa
I,
and this
despite
the latter
being
a relief
(Fig. 9b),
and the former
free-standing images.
True,
the
Mathur? artist
may
not have wished to
give
his
figures
a
pliant contrapposto posture,
but nevertheless his
figures
assume a more cautious stance when
compared
to the
easy
grace
of the Guardian on the west
torana,
usually
dated
to the first half of the first
century
a.d. No linear
stylistic
Erogression
is to be
implied,
however. Archaisms cannot
e
discounted,
for
example,
in Kus?na art. Kus?na di
vinities do not as a rule have bends in the
body, causing
Kus?na
deities,
such as the so-called Bhiksu Bala's
"Bodhisattva" of the
year 3
of
Kaniska,
to retain the
stocky,
rigid
look reminiscent of the
Sunga
Yaksas.
On the basis of the brief
stylistic survey
it
appears
that
the Bharna Kalan
images
could date from the second
part
of the first
century
b.c. onward. A few
iconographie
comparisons
could favor a b.c. date. The
type
of bulbous
turban is seen on other first
century
b.c.
figures,
such as
the Sanc? I east torana
figure,
or the head on a Bodh
Gay?
lotus
medallion,
where the distinctive
cone-shaped
knot
is also
present (Fig. 10).
The necklaces have too
long
a
history
to be useful as
chronological
indicators. The
triple-hooped earrings
are also worn
by
the Parkham
YaKsa
(Fig. 4).
A Mathur? male
figure
of the
beginning
of the Christian era wears a
two-hooped variety.4 Triple
hoops
with striations decorate the ears of a
N?ga
on a
terracotta
fragment
from the
upper phase
of the Kaniska
period
at Sonkh.5
If,
based on the
above,
we were to consider the Bharna
Kalan
images
as
possibly
Yaksa
figures
belonging
to the
latter
part
of the first
century
b.c.,
we would be
quite
wrong
in
light
of the
pal?ographie
evidence.
Just
as the
64
Parkham Yaksa has an
inscription
incised around its feet
on the
pedestal,
so do these two
figures
have Brahm?
characters incised in the same
place:
Figure
with the Sword
(87.145)
Right
side
(Fig. ha)
1.
amatyena
prati [h?r] (e) [na]6
. . .
?
2. . .
(?) [jayagh] (o) [s] (ena)
. . ....
[to] pra7
Only
one
Aksara,
perhaps
no is
preserved
in the third line
underneath the
scanty
remains of
gho.
Left side
(Fig. iib)
Scratches in one line
(see analysis below).
Figure
with
Flaming
Aureole
(87.146)
Right
side
(Fig. I2a)
1.
(ao [m] (a)ty [e]na pratih?re
2.
[na]
. . . .
jayaghosena
3.
[bh] (aga) [v] (a)
to8 ?
[gn]
isa9
pra [t]
i
[m] (?)10
left side
(Fig. 12b)
i.
[ka]
rit?11
p [r?] yamt?m [a] ga [ya]10
Diacritical marks:
( )
Aksara restored
[ ]
uncertain
reading
. . traces of an
undeciphered
Aksara
Translation:
By
the
minister,
the Pratih?ra6
. . .
jayaghosa
an
image
of the
holy Agni
was caused to be
made. The fires
(?)
may
be
pleased!
Analysis:
The
reading
is based on seven black-and
white
photos
of the incised
portions.12
The
poor
and faint
remains of the three-line
inscription
of the
right
side of
87.145
(the
Figure
with the
Sword)
show that
originally
the lines of this
inscription
were
longer
and contained
more text than those on the
parallel
side of
87.146
(the
Figure
with the
Flaming Aureole),
which is in a much
better state of
preservation.
While it is not at all sure
if the
left
side or
87.145
was
inscribed?only
scratches of
uncertain
meaning
are to be seen?a one-line
inscription
can be
deciphered
on
87.146
which is the continuation
of the third and last line on the
right
side. The
inscriptions
begin
with the same
wording.
The first word
amatyena
is
clearly
readable in
87.145,
while in
87.146
only ?tyena
is sure. From there on the
inscription
87.146
is better
preserved; pratih?re
can be read without
difficulty.
It
appears very faintly
also in
87.145,
in the first line. After
pratih?r. (-e
is not
discernible)
the
reading
of this in
scription
is uncertain. The first Aksara of the second line
of
87.146
looks at first
sight
like
capital
A. But the stone
is eroded around the
Aksara,
and the small vertical stroke
is not curved as in A. Therefore I
prefer
to read the
Aksara as
na, which is also
expected.
Even in the washed
out
inscription
of
87.145
the horizontal stroke of na is
discernible. More
puzzling
are the two
following
Aksaras.
They
cannot form a
complete
word in the in
strumental case. Do
they belong
to the name
jayaghosa?
Could the name of the
pratihar?
have been Mah?
jayaghosa?
Also the
inscription
in
87.145
does not
help.
In this
inscription
the name
Jayaghosena
can be detected
only
at the
beginning
of line 2 with the
help
of
87.146.
The three horizontal strokes of
ja appear first,
the second
and the third stroke of the
tripartite ya
are
certain,
and
of
gh (no
trace of a vowel
sign) only
the flat base is to
be seen;
sa is washed out but sure.
Merely
scratches
remain of the
following
Aksaras. At the end of the stone,
a faint to is followed
by
a clear
pra,
but both Aksaras are
placed only
a bit lower than the first line. On the basis
This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:37:45 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of the better
preserved inscription
87.146,
they may
be
restored to
bhagavato pratim?,
and therefore I tend to
put
them into the second line. The third line of
87.145 should,
accordingly, begin
with
?tim?,
but
nothing
is
preserved.
If the third line had the same
length
as the other two,
it
may
well be that the
inscription
ended here and that
the left side remained uninscribed. Because the two
inscriptions prove
that the two male
figures
are a
donation of one and the same
person,
the minister and
high
official
(perhaps
the head of the
guards
of the
city
gate6)
named
. . .
jayaghosa,
it is most
probable
that the
figures
formed a
pair
of
doorkeepers.
According
to the
script
the
inscriptions
should be dated
to the
Ksatrapa
or
very early
Kus?na
period.
Subscribed
-y-
has still its M?trk?
shape
and the middle stroke of the
M?trk? is somewhat
prolongated:
ra is incised rather
long
and
slightly
curved;
the
right part
of ha is
very short,
therefore it looks similar to
pa;
ma has
got
a flat base.
All that
speaks
in favor of the
Ksatrapa
era. The char
acteristic da is
missing.13
The
language
is a
sanskritized
Prakrit,
which
points
toward the Kus?na
period.
In
Ksatrapa inscriptions
Prakrit forms
prevail. Compare,
for
example,
the
Ksatrapa "inscriptions
on
twenty-six
bricks and
brickbats from the second Ganeshr?
mound,
now in the
Mathur?
Museum,"14
where the Prakrit word for
minister amaca is used and not the mixed Sanskrit/Prakrit
form
amatya (with
short
ma\)
as in our
inscription
87.145,
on the
right
side. Another item for
dating
the
inscription
into the
Ksatrapa
era is the use of the
past participle
k?rita,
which
according
to G.
Bhattacharya11
was re
placed by
different forms of the verb
pratistha
in the
Kus?na
inscriptions.
The
inscriptional
evidence,
leading
to the iden
tification of the
images
as
doorkeepers
is corroborated
by sculpture
in situ. On either side of vih?ra
4
at
Pitalkhora, Maharashtra,
stand
doorkeepers (Fig. 13).
The
date of the vih?ra is set at the late second to
early
first
century
b.c.
by J. Harle,
a date which tallies with the
one
given by
Susan
Huntington. Vidya Dehejia assigns
it to the mid-first
century
b.c.15 The Pitalkhora door
keepers
are as tall as the entrance
they guard.
Their
large
size is
just
one feature
they
share with the
pair
from
Bharna
Kalan,
but there are others as well. The
Pitalkhora
doorkeepers
also wear
large three-hooped
earrings,
flat-collared
necklaces, dhotis,
and
turbans;
the
general
shape
and tilt of the turban of the
right
door
keeper
echoes that of the
sword-holding
male from
Bharna Kalan. Instead of
carrying
a sword as
weapon,
the Pitalkhora
doorkeepers carry javelins
and shields.
Their
fringed
tunics over the dhotis are also distinctive
and are not seen
elsewhere
(are they
coats of
mail?).
The
main
point
to be
gleaned
from the Pitalkhora
doorkeep
ers, for the
present
context,
is that the two Bharna Kalan
images
could well serve the same function as the
sculptures
from Pitalkhora.
In
conclusion,
the most
likely possibility
is that the
Bharna Kalan
images
are a
pair
of
doorkeepers.
One can
be identified as
Agni:
this is
87.146.
It now becomes clear
why
the head of this
figure
is surrounded
by
a
flaming
aureole. The water bottle is also a characteristic attribute
of
Agni (cf.
Mathur? Museum no.
2883).
The second
figure
cannot be
precisely
identified. Both date some
where between the
Ksatrapa
and
very early
Kus?na
ages,
with
greater leanings
toward the
Ksatrapa age. Probably
they
stood on either side of the entrance of a shrine of
the same date. Since one of the
guardians
is
Agni,
the
shrine is more
likely
to be Hindu than either Buddhist
or
Jain.16
The fact that there are no extant Hindu shrines in
Mathur? from this
period
cannot be a serious deterrent.
In the first
place
there is the Mor? Well
inscription
from
the
Ksatrapa period,
which refers to a stone shrine
housing images
of the Pancav?ras of the Vrsni clan.17
There is also
inscriptional
evidence from the Kus?na
period mentioning
a
temple complex
to honor
Mahesvara,
that is Siva.18 In the second
place,
archi
tectural
fragments
from the Kus?na
period
exist. Some
of these
fragments
have been reconstructed
by
Ulrich
Wiesner to demonstrate the
types
of Mathur?
portal
frames associated with shrines of the Kus?na
period.
The
earliest one Wiesner has reconstructed cannot be
assigned
to
any religion
on the basis of the decoration
on the
fragment.
It is a
fragment
of a lintel decorated
with a row of
worshippers carrying
flowers;
the
project
ing part
has a
flying figure
and an
open
flower
(Fig. 14).19
A somewhat later lintel
fragment,
on which Professor
van Lohuizen-de Leeuw had
already
found Gandharan
influences,
shows "a row of Buddhas and a
devotee on
the
right.
"20
These reconstructions can
help
us to
imagine
how the Bharna Kalan
doorkeepers
might
have looked
at the sides of an entrance of a
shrine,
probably
to a Hindu
god,
and
likely
to date to the third
quarter
of the first
century
a.d.
It must be clear from the
foregoing
that without the
inscriptional
evidence I would not have arrived at this
conclusion.
Although
I
might
have hesitated to call the
figures
yaksas,
I would have been drawn in that direction.
I would, have
assumed,
on the basis of the second
century
b.c. Mathur? relief from
Hariparvat
T?la
(Fig. 2)
that the
sword-bearing
male held a small
figure
in his
right
hand.
Accordingly
I would have recalled that a
Sunga
relief
from Mathur? contains the
upper portion
of a male
having striking iconographie
similarities with the Bharna
Kalan
image (Fig. 15).
I would have mentioned that V. S.
Agrawala
identified that relief as a scene from the
Sutasoma
J?taka.21
In this
J?taka,
a
Yaksa sacrifices
a
boy.
Probably
I would have
expressed
the
possibility
that the
same
Yaksa could be
represented
in one of the Bharna
Kalan
figures,
and that these date to the late first
century
b.c. If all this were then
accepted by
the
scholarly
com
munity,
a new bit of
misinterpretation
would have been
added to?one can
only hope?not
too much more.
65
This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:37:45 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.
iA
Fig.
iB
Fig.
2
Fig. 3A Fig.
3B Fig. 4A Fig. 4B
Fig.
i.
a,
Figure
from Bharma
Kalan,
Ksatrapa period,
sandstone,
h. 6 feet 6 inches with base. Mathur? Museum
no.
87.145; b, Reverse.
Figs.
1, 3, 4A, 15,
Photographs
Government Museum,
Mathur?.
Fig.
2. Relief from
Hariparvat
T?l?,
Mathur?.
Figs.
2, 4B, 6,
7, 10,
Photographs
American Institute of Indian
Studies,
Varanasi.
Figs.
2, 4B, 6-8, 15,
second
century
b.c., sandstone.
66
Fig.
3. a,
Figure
from Bharna
Kalan,
Ksatrapa period,
sandstone,
h. 6 feet
5
inches with base. Mathur? Museum
no.
87.146; B, Reverse.
Fig.
4. a, Parkham Yaksa. h. 2.62 m. Mathur? Museum no.
ci; B, Reverse.
This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:37:45 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.
5
Fig.
6
Fig.
7
Fig.
8
Fig. 9A
Fig. 9B
Fig.
io
Fig.
5.
The Noh Yaksa.
Photograph
Frederich M. Asher.
Fig.
6. The Palwal Yaksa. h.
87.0,
w.
79.0
cm. State
Museum,
Lucknow no.
0.107.
Fig.
7.
The
Pratapgarh
Yaksa. H.
1.150,
w.
0.440
m.
Allahabad Museum no. 1.
Fig.
8. Vidis? Yaksa.
Photograph
Frederick M. Asher.
Fig.
9.
Figures
on Sane! I: a, Eastern
torana; b, Western
torana.
Photographs,
a,
L.
Buchhofer,
Early
Indian
Sculpture,
pi.
58; B, R. N. Misra.
Fig.
10. Bodh
Gaya
lotus medallion with turbaned
head,
Bodh
Gaya
Museum no.
47.
67
This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:37:45 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.
iiA
Fig.
iiB
Fig.
12A
Fig.
12B
Fig.
13
Fig.
ii.
Inscriptions
on
87.145
(Fig. 1):
a,
Right
side; b, Left
side.
Photographs Archaeological Survey
of India.
Fig.
12.
Inscriptions
on
87.146
(Fig. 3):
a,
Right
side; b, Left
side.
Photographs Archaeological Survey
of India.
Fig.
13. Pitalkhora,
vihara
4:
doorkeepers,
late
second-early
first
century
b.c., Deccan
trap.
h.
5.5
inches.
Photograph
Archaeological Survey
of India. From
J.
C.
Harle,
The Art and
Architecture
of
the Indian Subcontinent
(Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1986), pi.
33.
68
Fig.
H
Fig.
15
Fig.
14.
Mathur? lintel
fragment,
second
century
a.D.,
sandstone,
h.
63.0,
w.
121.0,
l. 22.0 cm.
Photograph, Joanna
G. Williams.
Fig.
15.
Mathur? relief:
figure holding
a sword and a small
male,
Sunga,
h. i foot
3
inches. Mathur? Museum no. 1.18
This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:37:45 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes
i. I wish to thank the Director of the Mathur? Museum for
giving permission
to
publish
these statues. I also thank Shri M.
C.
Joshi, Jt.
Director General of the
Archaeological Survey
of
India,
for slides and
photographs.
The new
photographs
allowed
Lore Sander to
improve
her first
reading,
based on other
photo
graphs kindly supplied by
the Museum. The slides were most
useful in the oral
presentation
of this article at the fourth
symposium
of The American Committee for South Asian
Art,
Richmond, Virginia, April
29, 1988
by
Doris M. Srinivasan.
We also thank Professor Dr. Herbert
H?rtel,
who reviewed
the
inscriptions
and made
helpful proposals.
2.
Quite likely
the cloth is a fine cotton
produced
in Mathur?
itself. The Artha's?stra
(II.11.81)
refers to the
production
of
cotton in Mathur?. The
Mah?bh?sya
also mentions a certain
cloth
(pata)
called
M?thura,
that
is,
coming
from Mathur?
(V.3.SS). '
3.
Pramod
Chandra,
Yaksa and Yaks?
Images
from
Vidis?,
Ars Orientalis 6
(1966):
162;
Susan
Huntington,
Art
of
Ancient India
(New
York and
Tokyo, 1985), p. 59;
James
Harle,
Art and
Architecture
of
the Indian Subcontinent
(Middlesex, 1986), p.
29.
4.
See N. P.
Joshi,
Mathur?
Sculptures (Mathur?, 1966),
pis.
18, 19.
5.
Herbert
H?rtel,
Some Results of the Excavations at
Conkh: A
Preliminary Report,
German Scholars on India II
(Bombay, 1976), fig.
41.
6.
According
to D. C.
Sircar,
Epigraphical Glossary (Delhi,
Varanasi,
and
Patna,
1966), p. 259,
pratih?ra
is "an officer in
charge
of the defence of the
royal palace
or bed-chamber or
the head of the
guards
of the
city gate."
The title
pratih?ra
appears
in the
inscription
no.
5
of the N?sik Caves
(Epigraphia
Indica VIII
[reprint
Calcutta,
1981], pp. 73-74),
which
may
be
dated on
palaeographical grounds
to
approximately
the same
period
as our
inscription,
but its
language
is more
prakritized.
In line 11,
pratih?rakhiya Lot?ya
is incised and translated
by
E. Senart as
"by
Lota,
the
door-keeper."
Krishna
Deva,
when
consulted
by
Doris Srinivasan on this
inscription,
also read
pratih?ra
on the
right
side of
87.146.
7.
It is not clear how
many
Aksaras
belong
to line 1. Traces
of at least two Aksaras are detectable. Cf. also line 2 of
87.146;
see
Analysis
in the text.
8.
Only
the left
angle
of the Aksara bha is visible on the
eroded stone.
9.
agnisa
is to be
expected,
but the small stroke on the
right
side of A makes the
reading
?
absolutely
sure.
10.
Already
Krishna Deva read this line as
agnisa (cf.
note
9) prati[ma].
He also
deciphered
the left-side
inscription
as
k?rit?
priyat?m agi.
Neither -?
(k?)
nor -i
(agi)
is to be seen. In
my reading priyamtam long
-i is not
absolutely
sure, but it is to
be
expected.
The Anusvara above
ya
is
clearly
marked.
My
reading agaya (=agnayah)
is uncertain. It is based on the
observation that the stroke which is the
only
remains of the
original
Aksara can
only
be the middle
part
of the
tripartite
ya.
The
gap
between
ga
and the stroke is too broad to be read
as
ra, which also would not make much sense. Krishna Deva
omitted these traces. Cf. the same
praise
in a much later
inscription
of the
year 24
of V?siska
(H.
L?ders,
Mathur?
Inscriptions.
Abh. der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
G?ttingen, Philog.-Hist.
Ki.
3.
Folge,
Nr.
47,
G?ttingen
1961,
? 94)
after the announcement of the erection of a sacrificial
post (y?pa): priyant [a] m-agnaya(h).
Cf. note 11.
11.
k?rit? is to be
expected,
but no trace of -? on k- is to be
seen. A similar
wording
in an undated Buddhist
Ksatrapa
inscription
on a
coping
stone of a
railing announcing
that a
railing
was caused to be made
by
the
trooper (asvav?rika)
Bodhiya'sa. "May
the
holy
one be
pleased" (vedik?
k?rit?
pri
yat?[m] bhagav[?j);
see H.
L?ders,
Mathur?
Inscriptions, ?
176.
For
k?rit? cf. also G.
Bhattacharya, D?na-Deyadharma:
Donation
in
Early
Buddhist Records
(in Br?hm?), Investigating
Indian Art
(Berlin, 1987), Ver?ffentlichungen
des Museums f?r Indische
Kunst,
ed.
by
M.
Yaldiz,
W.
Lobo,
vol.
8, p. 49.
12. Please see note 1.
13.
Very
similar is the Kosam
inscription
of Kaniska
I, year
2
(EpigraphiaIndica,
vol.
XXIX, pp.
210-212
=
D. C.
Sircar,
Select
Inscriptions Bearing
on Indian
History
and
Civilization,
vol. I
3rd
ed.
[Delhi, 1986], pi.
XXV. Sircar reads samvatsare
3
against
Goswami in
Epigraphia
Indica
p.
211. Cf. also H.
H?rtel,
A
Remarkable Inscribed
Sculpture,
D. Barrett Felicitation
Volume,
note
10; in
press).
For further
comparisons
see The
Jal?mpur
Mound
Inscription
of Sod?sa
(H.
L?ders,
Mathur?
Inscriptions,
? 64);
R. C.
Sharma,
Buddhist Art
of
Mathur?
(Delhi, 1984),
illustration no.
6, Sod?sa new
inscription;
H.
H?rtel,
An
Early
Coping
Stone
Inscription
from
Mathur?,
Deyadharma,
Studies in
Memory of
D. C.
Sircar,
ed. G.
Bhattacharya (Delhi, 1987),
Sri
Garib Dass Oriental
Series,
no.
33, pp.
101-110,
esp.
note 21
about ma, which
points
i.a. to a somewhat earlier date of the
railing
stone
inscriptions
of
S?ryamitra.
Note that in the Kus?na
era da is curved the other
way
round.
14. L?ders,
Mathur?
Inscriptions, ?
120.
15. Harle,
Art and
Architecture, p. 51;
Huntington,
Art
of
Ancient
India, p. 83;
Vidya Dehejia, Early
Buddhist Rock
Temples (London,
1972), p. 157.
16. Here we have another indicator that Mathur? must be
recognized
not
only
as a
prominent Jain
and Buddhist center,
but
probably
as first and foremost a center of Brahmanic and
Hindu
religious
activities. For other indicators see Mathur?: The
Cultural
Heritage, gen.
ed. Doris Meth Srinivasan
(New
Delhi,
1989),
Introduction, p.
xiii.
17. Sircar,
Select
Inscriptions
I,
no.
26a;
cf. also
L?ders,
Mathur?
Inscriptions, ?
115,
from the time of Sod?sa.
18. R. C.
Sharma,
New
Inscriptions
from
Mathur?,
Mathur?:
The Cultural
Heritage, p. 312.
19.
Ulrich
Wiesner,
Nepalese Temple
Architecture
(Leiden,
1978), pp. 56-57;
fig.
17
20.
Ibid., p. 57,
fig.
18.
21. V. S.
Agrawala,
Mathur? Museum
Catalogue,
Part III
(Lucknow 1952), pp. 98-99.
69
This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:37:45 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions