A Gupta Style Bronze BuddhaAuthor(s): Stanislaw CzumaSource: The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Feb., 1970), pp. 55-67Published by: Cleveland Museum of ArtStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25152311 .Accessed: 17/10/2011 13:27

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cleveland Museum of Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Bulletinof the Cleveland Museum of Art.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25152311?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

A FG HAN I STAN

Hadda . * / K A S H M I R / S S Taxi'la

/xB

XXe I Harap"

NwDelhi

Mohenjo-daro < at C:$aitia-S I K K I M

) ~ ........ ,,..,.~~~~aipr Agra UKahnd 0 S Ir~~~~~~Jdhpur lapu >_F4 TTAR PRADES TARA

> < ~~~~~~~~RJA;ST H AN wa 6 Ar SeSiAg

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~hndsare* Atllabaa Sa rna Pan B CH Aita

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cirkt Benres usabt alanda A A D A YM _ B r o

a'c PI ' - % A Ko n a r a k

_ Nasits Ajanta *E~~lrlra < - g 0 Bhain * Bhopal

_ r; A ".X~~~~~rjunAkot N AL W

roach S- 5A oaa

_ 5 r~~~~~~~~~~~ k }~Nai Aj t l Elo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t 'TR Bhvnshvra

A Gupta Style Bronze Buddha

Metal sculpture of the Gupta period and of the time

following the fall of the Gupta Empire is represented by so few known examples that it has never been given the

attention which it deserves. Metal images, which are

easily portable and therefore convenient for individual as well as public worship, are known to have existed in

India earlier.1 It is thus logical to assume that the Gupta

period, known to us as the golden age of Indian art, which

in stone produced such high quality sculpture as that of

the Sarnath school, must have perfected the art of

casting as well.

On the basis of the remaining stone sculpture we

consider the Sarnath school as the center of artistic

activities during the high Gupta period. It was this school that formed the criteria for the international

Gupta style which spread over Asia in later ages. How

ever, the few known metal examples usually cited as

Gupta style pieces at best represent an atypical aspect of

this period. The closest example, which until recently has been

considered as Gupta is the Sultanganj Buddha (Fig. 2).

Although it undoubtedly derives from the Sarnath style

COVER: Buddha. Bronze, H. 18 inches (figure, 14

inches), presentation inscription dated A.D. 632/33. India. Purchase from the J. H. Wade Fund. 68.40

Figure 1 (opposite). Map of India.

The Bulletin of The Cleveland Museum of Art, Volume LVII, Number 2, February 1970. Published monthly, except

July and August, by The Cleveland Museum of Art, 11150 East Boulevard at University Circle, Cleveland,

Ohio 44106. Subscription included in membership fee, otherwise $5.00 per year. Single copies, 60 cents.

Copyright 1970, by The Cleveland Museum of Art. Second

class postage paid at Cleveland, Ohio. Museum photography

by Nicholas Hlobeczy and John W. Cook; design by Merald E. Wrolstad.

we feel that the traditionally applied date of the fifth century cannot now be justified in view of its similarities

with Pala sculpture. The convention of folds and sharp

facial features seems to point to the Sultanganj Buddha as a prototype for such Nalanda bronzes as that of

Figure 3. When compared on the one hand with the

Sarnath stone Buddha, dated A.D. 474 (Fig. 4), and on

the other with the above-mentioned Nalanda bronze,

dated to the ninth century, it stands stylistically between those two figures. Therefore, dating it to the eighth

century seems more logical than insisting upon the fifth

century date,2 and thus it does not aid our understanding

of Gupta per se.

In the case of the bronzes from Dhanesar Khera

(Fig. 5)3 which almost certainly date to the Gupta period,

we are faced with a style which continued the Gandharan

tradition. This group probably predates the full develop ment of the Sarnath school before the characteristics of

this style were crystalized. Sarnath influence started to be

dominant only after the style had been established around the end of the fifth century.4 The group of bronzes

from Phophnar (Fig. 6)5 represents the variant of

Sarnath sculpture as transferred via Mathura (Fig. 7)

but with the heavy addition of Southern characteristics.

The echoes of the Gandharan style still are traceable in

the plastic treatment of the folds of the lower garment.

At the same time, there are certain connecting points

between this image and the later Nalanda school of

sculpture. It introduces the convention of regularly

incised folds on the chest and a facial type which is not

too far away from the later Nalanda school-sharp

features with a hook-like nose, eyes inlaid with silver,

and pupils painted black. In the author's opinion the

Phophnar group provides a connecting link between the Northern and Southern Indian schools. Its geographical situation justifies this view. The mode of depicting Buddha with the right shoulder uncovered, which is the way in which most of the Phophnar Buddhas are

55

BELOW

Figure 2. Buddha. Bronze, H. 90 inches, 8th century.

India, Bihar, Sultanganj. Birmingham Museum, England.

RIGHT

Figure 3. Standing Buddha. Bronze, H. 14-3/16 inches, 9th century. India, Bihar, Nalanda. Nalanda Museum.

(Photograph courtesy of the American Academy of Banares).

RIGHT BELOW

Figure 4. Buddha. Chunar sandstone, H. 75 inches, dated 474.

India, Uttar Pradesh, Sarnath. Sarnath Archaeological Museum. (Photograph courtesy of M. Sakamoto, Tokyo).

LEFT

* / B F : Figure 5. Bulddha. Bronze, H. 14-3/4 inches, early 5th

~~~~~ ~~century. India, Banda District of Uttar Pradesh,

~5~~xi~=~ vDhanesar Khera. Nelson Gallery of Art, Kansas City.

"s ~ ~~LEFT BELOW i Figure 6. Budfdha. Bronze, H. 20-1/16 inches, ca.6th

century(?). India, Madhya Pradesh, Phophnar. '!> ~ National Museum, New Delhi.

BELOW

, ~1% -

Figure 7. Budldha, from the Jamalpur Mound. Red sandstone, H. 86 inches, 5th century. India, Uttar Pradesh,

*s | |Mathura. Museum of Archaeology, Mathura.

o- V

', .....it. ~..~'.: .

k *;

:."? -' ,. ' ,,"i.

...'S

r.,.-. :........ ;

LEFT

Figure 8. Front view of cover illustration.

ABOVE

Figure 9. Standing Buddha. Bronze.

H. 19-3/8 inches, mid-6th century. Probably Central India. Private Collection, New York.

ABOVE RIGHT

Figure 10. Standing Buddha. Bronze,

H. 27 inches, late 7th century. Probably

Eastern India. Private Collection, Bombay.

(Photograph courtesy of Marg Publications).

ABOVE FAR RIGHT

?|~~~~~~ ~~Figure 11. Standing Buddha. Bronze, .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ H. 10-3/16 inches, 8th century. India,

Bihar. Seattle Art Museum.

58

. .........

_, : z, a

i:..1

'"' ' Nc '.

represented, was at earlier times more characteristic for the South. It is found in Amaravati bronzes,6 in bronzes from Buddhapad,7 and in the Boston Museum Buddha

which belongs to this group.8 In the North the fashion of wearing the sanghati over both shoulders was pre dominant although both types were known. At a later

stage in the South-Nagapattinam, for instance9-we shall find the mode of depicting the Buddha with both shoulders covered which proves that there was a free

interchange of the styles. The Phophnar bronzes seem to combine the characteristics of Mathura-Sarnath on one hand and Amaravati-Buddhapad on the other, and thus this group is again to be separated from bronzes of the orthodox Gupta style.

Other North Indian bronzes known to us-such as those from Akotalo or Vasantagadhll-do not contribute to the school discussed here since they are mostly Jain, and this probably explains why there are no similarities with the Buddhist sculpture of Sarnath. The next known

large group of bronzes in North India was that of

Kurkiharl2 preceded by the Sultanganj bronze. Thus, the Dhanesar Khera, Phophnar, Sultanganj, and Pala bronzes were the only examples from which to judge the

development of Buddhist metal sculpture in North India during the period under discussion. This situation

changed quite recently when a few bronzes in the Gupta Sarnath style came to light. Their presence fills the miss

ing links and makes the further development of metal

sculpture in India somewhat clearer. Each of these new bronze pieces represents a standing

Buddha. One of them is a recent acquisition of The Cleve land Museum of Art (cover and Fig. 8); the second one, a bronze in a private collection (Fig. 9); the third one, a bronze which has been for some time in a private collec tion in Bombay13 and therefore not too well known to the public (Fig. 10); and the fourth one, a bronze re

cently acquired by the Seattle Art Museum (Fig. 11). Among these four, the Cleveland Museum piece is

by far the most important one since it is the only one

inscribed, and the inscription is dated. All of the bronzes 59

are of the same type, varying slightly in details, which would seem to indicate that this type was fairly common.

fe^-.^B;~ ~The Cleveland Museum Buddha stands in a frontal

rigid position. The hieratic frontality of the figure, how '' iw AH ever, is

somewhat eased by a subtle flexing of the body. The right hand of the Buddha is lifted in the abhaya mudra (gesture of protection), whereas the left one is raised to his waist and holds the hem of his monastic

garment. The long robe (sanghati) covers both shoulders of the Buddha in a true Sarnath manner revealing the

body. The garment is gathered on the sides into a few

'A. ~i~ ....tt~ ~vertical folds, while around the neck-which is incised

with the three iconographically proper folds (trivali)-it is accentuated by a round rim. Through the transparent

_:_~^^^^^ ~ robe we can detect the presence of the undergarment

(antaravasaka) which is longer than the sanghati and

further indicated by an incision around the hips formed

by a cord supporting it. The robe is quite plain; in the

Bombay and Seattle bronzes folds are indicated. The

modeling of the body is plastic and round connoting the fullness of the limbs and the body. The torso, swelling

with the inner breath (prana), and the body, free of imperfections, reflect the general Gupta tendency to give the figure a spiritual content on one hand and to idealize its beauty on the other.

The face is rather round and has clearly defined fea tures with a high forehead and cheek bones and a round chin. The eyebrows are softly rounded, and the nose is

straight with broad nostrils. The lips are fleshy and full, and the eyes with semi-open heavy eyelids display a well-defined eyeball underneath. The face has a benign expression indicating that the Buddha remains un touched by the earthy emotions of an ordinary mortal.

His hair is curly with a well pronounced ushnisha (the lump at the top of Buddha's head) which accommodates the Supreme Wisdom attained by Sakyamuni at his

Enlightenment. Characteristic is the absence of the urna (a whorl of hair between the eyebrows of the Buddha)

which seems not to appear in the Sarnath school. To

the back of the Buddha originally was attached a halo or

possibly an umbrella14 as is attested by the remaining 60 ',.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~fixtures on the back of the bronze (Fig. 12).

Figure 12. Profile view of cover illustration.

60

The image, it should be borne in mind, was made in accordance with the established system of proportions and prescriptions concerning Buddha's appearance which were dictated by various sastras. Since the an

thropomorphic representation of Buddha is not a perfect solution of depicting the Master, in order to distinguish him from an ordinary mortal, sutras endowed him with

superhuman characteristics (lakshanas).15 The various

parts of Buddha's body are compared to shapes bor rowed from nature which were thought to be more per fect and final than anything that could be found in the

mortal human being. Accordingly, Buddha's shoulders should be like the head of an elephant, whereas the torso should recall the tapered body of a lion. The shape of the face should have the perfect oval of an egg, the eyes should remind one of lotus petals, the lips should have the fullness of a mango, etc.16 This accounts for the idealization reflected in our image which, like all the

representations of Buddha, was intended to suggest his

superhuman nature. At the same time, however, there is a great interest here in the depiction of the human body and the grace of its movements within a framework of

purposeful abstraction. The trend in our image is towards a higher degree of realism when compared to classical Sarnath sculpture. The bodily proportions are heavier, the facial features thicker and somewhat more human.

As far as the iconography of the figure is concerned, it is difficult to be more specific than to make the general statement that it represents Buddha. The mode of de

picting Buddha with his right hand raised in the abhaya mudra and the left one supporting the hem of the garment

is one of the most common ways of portraying him in a

single iconic form. The bodily marks (lakshanas) as well as the monastic garment leave no doubt as to this identification. The problem begins when one tries to determine the particular aspect in which the Buddha is shown. Lack of attributes, other than the general ones, does not make this identification simple. The attitude and mudras seem to be characteristic for Sakyamuni, or the Historical Buddha,17 as well as for Dipankara, or the

Buddha of the Past.18

Tracing this type of single idol as far back as one can,

brings us to the lengendary representations of the

Udayana Buddha who represented Sakyamuni.19 This would suggest that our image represents the Historical Buddha. On the other hand, there is evidence that the Buddha Dipankara, increasingly popular since Gand

haran times, was depicted in the same manner.20 It was the Buddha of the Past, Dipankara, that was de scribed in a very romantic legend as the one who pre dicted to Sakyamuni (then Brahmin Sumati) his rebirth as the Historical Buddha.21 Dipankara, as the first among the twenty-four predecessors of Sakyamuni, may have had a great appeal to worshippers as a Great Ancestor of Buddhism. (This idea may have been particularly appealing to the Chinese-which would explain the

popularity of this particular image in China). The striking aspect of the Dipankara legend is that it

connects this Buddha very closely with Sakyamuni. Therefore, it seems very probable that there may be a certain fusion of both concepts. It is impossible to deter

mine to what degree each of these concepts contributed to our image, but it is highly probable that the artist did not have in mind the depiction of a particular Buddha. It seems that his perception was that of a more Universal

Buddha. It was the altruistic character of Buddha's

nature, reflected in the blessing of the abhaya mudra, and the compassionate expression of his face that really

mattered when providing the faithful with an idol for

worship. As pointed out earlier, the great importance of the

Cleveland Museum image lies in the fact that it is in scribed. The donatory inscription engraved on the

pedestal of the image (the front of the base and extending to its right side) is in late Gupta characters in good Sanskrit (Fig. 13).22 It is slightly worn and therefore not clearly readable, but several varied readings by well known sanskritists and scholars23 have given satisfactory results. The approximate reading of the inscription:

This [image] is the pious gift of the Buddhist nun named Parisuddhamati24 in the village Ladita.

Whatever merit accrues from this [gift] may it lead to the supreme enlightenment of all living beings. [This gift was made] in the year 313 [300.10.3]. [It is the wish] that [a certain ascetic] Purnnaka25

belonging to the monastery26 in the locality of

Chaityakuta27 should be fed.28 The most important-and at the same time the most

controversial-feature is the date. It has been tentatively read by various scholars as 343 (P. Banerjee), 233 (V.V.

Mirashi), 353 (P. R. Srinivasan), and 313 (D. C. Sircar). I am inclined to accept the reading of Dr. Sircar since in my opinion the characters most closely approximate "300.10.3."

61

IT-N~~~~~~~~~I

PI ~ ~ ? ???: '11:24?,:~?

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

The date does not specify the era, but one would most

likely expect that it refers to the Gupta era which began in A.D. 319-20. This would make our image date to

A.D. 632-33. However, one cannot eliminate entirely the possibility of the date referring to the Kalachuri era

which, when converted to the Christian calendar, would be A.D. 561.

In order to determine if the Kalachuri era could have been used we would have to know if the bronze was inscribed in a locality falling under the auspices of this

dynasty. The inscription of the Cleveland Museum

image provides us with a clue when it refers to the village "Ladita." Although attempts to find a modern place corresponding to this name have proven futile, there are numerous villages and towns of similar names29 and

practically any of those could derive from the ancient "Ladita." However, if we accept the readings of Messrs.

Banerjee and Mirashi of this part of the inscription which makes reference to "Chaityakuta" as the locality (see fn. 27) our choices will be narrowed. The Chaitya kuta mentioned in the inscription must have been not too far away from "Ladita." Therefore, our next step

will be to look for an area with two places close to each other which may correspond to those mentioned in the

inscription. A few such localities have been located. In

Madhya Pradesh there is Lalitpur with a hill about 150 miles northeast of it named Chitrakuta.30 In Uttar Prad esh are villages Lalia and Chaitia less than ten miles

apart. In Bihar, close to Patna, one finds another Lalia

village with Chaita31 in some proximity, about 110 miles

away, both situated on the banks of the Ganges (Fig. 1). Whereas it would be very tempting to suggest that a

locality in either Bihar or Uttar Pradesh could be the one mentioned in our inscription, an argument counter to this idea is that both of these locations were incorpor ated into Harsha's empire and, therefore, his era would have been used for dating, not a Gupta era.32 Therefore, we are left with the first possibility of Lalitpur and Chitrakuta in Madhya Pradesh.

To determine who were the rulers of this territory is a difficult problem since Indian history after the fall of the

Gupta empire in the sixth and seventh centuries is still too fragmentary to be reconstructed with certainty. The date A.D. 561 within the Kalachuri era would fall into the middle of the reign of Krishnaraja who, if not the founder of the dynasty, was its first powerful ruler. His

territory with the capital at Nasik extended as far as

Malwa,33 and there is a chance, even if remote, that it 62

? E

Figure 13.

'~" on the base

of the Cleveland

Museum Buddha; front side

... ... and right side

(opposite).

may have incorporated at one point the above-mentioned

Lalitpur. More probable, however, is the presumption that this area was mostly in the hands of the later Guptas of Magadha in which case the Gupta era would be used for the date. Other eras than Kalachuri and Gupta could not even be considered because they will be much too

early for the style of the Cleveland Museum figure. Using the Saka era would make the date A.D. 392, or the

Vikrama era would result in a date A.D. 255. Therefore, we may be reasonably certain that it was the Gupta era that was most likely used and the date of our image's presentation is 632/33.

Various other possibilities have been considered,

including the one that "Ladita" refers to Lalit-patan, the ancient equivalent of Kathmandu. The fact that the

figure was discovered in the Terai area (Southeastern Nepal) is not particularly significant, but it may be sug gestive. We investigated the possibilities of the image being inscribed there as well as being made in Nepal. Strange as it may seem at first, it is not impossible if we bear in mind that there is not enough comparative ma terial in Nepal dating to this early period which would allow us to make a positive judgment. That the Sarnath influence was strong in Nepal is demonstrated by some

of the existing Nepalese sculptures.34 However, the

comparison of the Cleveland Museum Buddha with the known Nepalese pieces and with those in the classical Sarnath style at this point yields more similarities with Sarnath. This makes us believe that the figure was cast in India proper. If the bronze was inscribed in Nepal we

would still have to accept the Gupta era as the date35

because, as we pointed out earlier, eras such as Vikrama and Saka, or even Lichchhavi (which would give a date of A.D. 423) have been variously cited as having been used in Nepal and are much too early for the style of our bronze.

Whatever the particular stylistic relationship of our

image may be, the above noted similarities between Sarnath and Nepalese sculpture suggest that there may have been some active artistic centers close to the

Nepalese border through which Sarnath influence was transferred to Nepal. We know that at a later date it was

Eastern India, particularly Bihar, that helped in trans

ferring this influence as seen in the Sultanganj and Nalanda sculptures. It is quite possible that Bihar may have been an active center much earlier (as suggested by the presence of Hsiian Tsang in the University at

Nalanda in the first half of the seventh century), and

63

were it not for the date problem we would be inclined to

accept the above rejected solution that "Ladita" was the same as Lalia in Bihar.36 At this stage, however, any further speculation concerning the identification of the

village "Ladita" is pointless. There are too many places with names similar to "Ladita," and reaching any positive conclusion is impossible. The style of the figure, besides making it obvious that Sarnath was its source, does not provide us with any clue as to regional charac teristics because we don't have enough comparative

material for judgment. Another possibility that should be considered is that

the inscription of the Cleveland Museum Buddha may be later than the figure and the figure may not have been cast in the same place where it was inscribed. We know that some Sarnath stone pieces, such as the Biharail

Buddha now in the Rajshahi Museum in East Pakistan,37 were probably imported from Sarnath. If it was possible with big stone sculpture, such as the above example, it

certainly would have caused no problem with small

portable metal statues. We are inclined to believe, how

ever, that even if this was the case, there was not too much time that elapsed between casting of the image and inscribing it. The general style of the image seems to fit the Gupta era date rather closely. The figure, generally speaking, is in the Sarnath idiom (Fig. 4), but when carefully examined it differs in various details which seem to indicate that it postdates the classical Sarnath style. It is shorter in proportion; the proportion of the head to the body is 1 :5 /2-6 in the classical Sarnath mode whereas here it is 1:41/2. There is more movement in the body, the face is rounder and has thicker, more

pronounced features as opposed to the very regular classical features of the mature Sarnath style. In this

more earthy approach and the tendency toward a greater degree of movement which characterize the post-Gupta sculpture, it seems to fit the date indicated by the in

scription. Furthermore, the left hand, holding the hem of the garment is bent at the elbow and raised, whereas in classical Sarnath and Mathura it was, as a rule, held

down. The suspended portion of the garment forms

parallel vertical folds as opposed to Mathura and Sarnath where in most cases it falls in a zigzag pattern

(Figs. 4 and 7). Finally the low hem of the robe is more

sharply horizontal and the right corner does not form a smooth rounded line as it did in both Mathura and Sarnath. The undercloth (antaravasaka) here blends

with the upper sanghati, whereas in Mathura and classical Sarnath it is definitely separate and shows from under neath.

It will be interesting to notice that the bronze repro duced in Figure 9 is closer to Mathura and Sarnath

prototypes in that the right corner of the garment is

slightly rounded and there is a more distinctly separate undercloth. Also its face is closer in type to a Dhanesar Khera image (Fig. 5), which makes us believe that it dates somewhat earlier than the Cleveland Museum

Buddha-perhaps around the middle of the sixth

century. Of course, when making these comparisons one has to consider that it is not only a factor of date that accounts for the differences, but also variations within the local styles. None of the newly discovered metal

figures discussed here can with any certainty be ascribed to a particular provenance. The Cleveland Museum

Buddha is the only one that may provide a clue by its

inscription. The Seattle piece (Fig. 11), on stylistic grounds, can be attributed to Eastern India. It is in style very similar to the Sultanganj Buddha and like the latter

probably belongs to the eighth century A.D. This com

paratively late date will explain why the stylistic features of the Eastern school are already pronounced enough to enable us to make this judgment

The situation is somewhat different in the case of the Buddha in Bombay (Fig. 10). It may be that Prof. Karl Khandalavala's suggestion that it also comes from Bihar is correct.38 The similarities between this figure and some of the Nepalese metal sculptures39 seem to indicate that

pieces like this one influenced the style of some of the

Nepalese bronzes. Therefore it is probable that the work

shop it came from may not have been too far from Nepal. We know that the convention of drapery folds which

began at Mathura continued in the Eastern school as shown by the Sultanganj and Nalanda bronzes. The folds of the Sultanganj and Nalanda bronzes, however, are somewhat different from those of the Buddha in

Bombay. The former are marked by very regular semi circular incisions, whereas in the other piece the folds relate closely to the Mathura convention both in pattern and treatment. The folds of the Bombay Buddha are

asymmetrically gathered on the right side and they are not incised but marked by rope-like projections. The facial type, softer and more fleshy, differs also from the

more sharply drawn features of the figures belonging to the Nalanda school.

64

The question which arises is which one of these two conventions is earlier. It seems more convincing to us that the one which relates more closely to the Mathura tradition should be earlier. Furthermore, the Bombay piece, like the Sarnath style sculptures, has no urna and no marks inside his palm which expresses the abhaya gesture. On the other hand, both of these signs are noticed in the Sultanganj bronze and in the later Nalanda school. These facts seem to relate the Buddha now in

Bombay more closely to the sculpture of the Sarnath

school; therefore, one is inclined to believe that it some what predates the Sultanganj and Seattle pieces. We would date it tentatively to the latter part of the seventh

century. To summarize the development of metal sculpture we

may say that the earliest bronzes of the Gupta period were done in the Gandharan tradition, as represented by the image from Dhanesar Khera (Fig. 5). This was followed by the development of the Sarnath school in the fifth century of which the closest existing examples in

metal are provided by the Buddhas discussed here illus trated in Figure 9 and the Cleveland Museum Buddha dated A.D. 632/33 (cover and Fig. 8). Sometime within the seventh century when Buddhism was losing ground in Central India and its point of gravitation moved to the East, Sarnath, borrowing the drapery convention from Mathura (Fig. 7), gave an impulse to the develop

ment of the Eastern school. The bronze in Bombay can serve as an example of this formative period, before the final emergence of the Nalanda sculptural style. It was the type represented by the Bombay Buddha that in fluenced contemporary Nepalese sculpture; for example, the Metropolitan Museum Buddha (see fn. 39). The

Eastern School characteristics are almost formed in the Seattle and Sultanganj Buddhas (Fig. 11 and 2), which

probably date to the eighth century, and they mature into the Nalanda style in the ninth century (Fig. 3).

Nepalese bronzes from the late eighth century onward seem to follow the same convention which was intro duced by the Sultanganj Buddha and carried on by the Nalanda school (Fig. 14). While there are, then, very few

representatives in bronze for these transformations, the Cleveland Museum Buddha may serve as a pivotal piece of both historical and aesthetic significance.

STANISLAW CZUMA

Ford Foundation Intern, 1967-1969

.. I :

.. .

Figure 14. Standing Buddha. Bronze, H. 10-1/2 inches, 8th-9th century. Nepal. Private Collection, New York.

APPENDIX

The technique involved in making the Cleveland Museum

image was the cire perdue or lost wax process. The image was

in a thick coating of clay which was connected with the core

by stablizing wires. Then the wax was melted and in its place the metal was poured.40 North Indian bronzes are either hollow (sushira images) or contain a core while South Indian bronzes are as a rule cast in solid metals (ghana images).4

Although sufficient research on the technique of bronze

casting in India has not as yet been carried out, it will be of

interest to notice that the major bronzes discussed here

(Sultanganj, Cleveland Museum of Art, and the bronze illus trated in Fig. 9 contain a core armature. This seems to indicate

that the core technique was preferable in the Gupta style bronzes of the period under discussion. The core of the Cleve land Museum Buddha is connected with the metal shell by long

65

Figure 15. X-ray photograph of the Cleveland

Museum Buddha.

strengthening pins in both legs and neck (see Fig. 15). Various x-rays were made of the figure to determine if the

image was cast in one piece or in separate pieces joined to

gether later. The suggested theory42 is that the head, body, and base with the feet have been cast separately; this would account for the presence of long pins joining the pieces to gether. The joint at the feet (just below the lower hem of the

garment) is easily visible and looks almost like a result of

breakage. This irregularity, according to Dr. Gibbons, is caused by the melting of metal when the pieces were soldered

together. As the result of this soldering the angle of the

figure must have been changed; the wedge at the base was

intended to correct the angle (see Fig. 13) and put the image into vertical position. Another line of soldering is at the neck of

the Buddha within one of the trivali folds and therefore hardly visible. It can be detected however through the x-ray.

The metal analysis conducted on the basis of two specimens taken from two different parts of the figure (one from the back

of the statue next to the halo support and the other from the

end of the tang which secured the statue to the base) disclosed two slightly different types of metal alloys. If the pieces were cast separately this would easily explain a somewhat different

metal structure of the main body of the figure from that of its

base. The average of both samples discloses the following composition: 79.5% of copper, 16.40% of tin, 0.60% of lead, 1.0% sulfur.

FOOTNOTES

1. Examples include Amaravati bronzes, early Jain bronzes

(the Chausa hoard), and Gandharan bronzes (the pieces in the British Museum, Victoria and Albert Museum, the Jeannerat Collection, etc.). 2. We are not alone in the belief that the Sultanganj Buddha

belongs to a later period. See: A.B. Griswold, "Prolegomena to the Study of the Buddha's Dress in Chinese Sculpture,"

Artibus Asiae xxvi, 2 (1963) 118. Mr. Douglas Barrett has

verbally communicated to me his opinion that it belongs to the early Pala period.

3. For another image from Dhanesar Khera belonging to Mr.

Pierre Jeannerat see: Sir Leigh Ashton, The Art of India &

Pakistan, (Faber & Faber Ltd., London 1947/48) pl. 32, no. 197.

4. For the dating of the Sarnath school see: John Rosenfield, "On the Dated Carvings of Sarnath," Artibus Asiae, xxvi, 1

(1963), 10-26. Sheila L. Weiner, "From Gupta to Pala

Sculpture," Artibus Asiae xxv, 2/3 (1962), 167-192. Stella Kramrisch, "Die Figurale Plastik der Guptazeit," Wiener Beitrdge.zur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Asienes, v, (Krystall Verlag, Vienna, 1931) 15-39. 5. M. Venkataramayya, "Sixth-Century Bronzes from

Phophnar," Lalit Kala, 12 (October 1962), pp. 16-20 and pls.

6. P. R. Srinivasan, "Bronzes of South India," Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum, N.S. viii (1963), pls. 3 and 4.

7. Ibid., pls. 3-6. They are controversially dated to the 6th

(Srinivasan) or to the 8th century (dating of the British

Museum, where they are located).

8. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Catalogue of the Indian Col

lections in the Museum of Fine Arts, (Boston, 1923) Pt. ni pp. 61-63, pl. 21.

9. T.N. Ramachandran, "The Nagapattinam and other

Buddhist Bronzes in the Madras Museum,)) Bulletin of the

Madras Government Museum, N. S. vi (1954), pl. 2, fig. 1.

10. Umokant P. Shah, Akota Bronzes, Department of

Archaeology, Government of Bombay, 1959. 66

11. Umakant P. Shah, "Bronze Hoard from Vasantagadh," Lalit Kala, nos. 1-2 (April 1955-March 1956), pp. 55-65. 12. K. P. Jayaswal, "Metal Images of Kurkihar Monastery," Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, II (1934), 70-82.

13. Published by Prof. Karl Khandalavala, "Masterpieces in

South Indian and Nepalese Bronzes in the collection of Mr. S. K. Bhedwar of Bombay," Marg iv, 4 (1950), 10, fig. 3.

14. Perhaps this is the same as in the Phophnar bronzes.

See M. Venkataramayya, "Sixth Century Bronzes from

Phophnar," Lalit Kala no. 12 (October 1962), pp. 16-20,

pls. 7-14.

15. There are 32 superior (mahapurusha) lakshanas and 80

inferior (anuvyanjana) lakshanas.

16. Benjamin Rowland, The Evolution of the Buddha Image,

(The Asia Society, Inc., New York 1963) p. 14.

17. John Rosenfield, "On the Dated Carvings of Sarnath," Artibus Asiae, xxvI, 1 (1963), 10, fig. 1; Gregory Henderson

and Leon Hurvitz, "The Buddha of Seiryoji," Artibus Asiae,

xix, 1 (1956), 5-55.

18. Alice Getty, The Gods of Northern Buddhism, (Charles E.

Tuttle Co., Tokyo, 1962), pp. 12-15; and Alfred Foucher, Etude sur L'Iconographie Buddhique de L'Inde (Ernest Leroux,

Paris, 1900), pp. 77-84. 19. Getty, p. 17; Rowland, pp. 5-6.

20. See fn. 18.

21. Getty, p. 13; Foucher, p. 77; Alexander Soper, Literary Evidence for Early Buddhist Art in China (Artibus Asiae, As

cona, Switzerland, 1953), p. 178.

22. This is according to written communications of Messrs.

P. R. Srinivasan and D. C. Sircar.

23. I am deeply indebted to Messrs. P. Banerjee, V. V. Mirashi, D. C. Sircar, and P. R. Srinivasan for their assistance in the

reading of the inscription. 24. Literary meaning: "Pure-minded."

25. The reading varies; Mr. Srinivasan reads it as "Purnnaka," Mr. Banerjee as "Pundika," and Mr. Mirashi as "Punnaka."

26. The name of the monastery is variously read as "Jina

(bandhu)-vihara" by Mr. Srinivasan and "Jina-punya-vihara"

by Mr. Banerjee.

27. Messrs. Banerjee and Mirashi read Chaityakuta as a place name (Chaitya meaning "place of worship" or "temple" and

Kuta meaning "hill" or "summit"). However, Mr. Srinivasan

reads it as Chaitra and connects the reading with the date

Chaitra being the Indian name for the month March-April.

28. The translation of the inscription gives its general meaning and does not claim to be quite exact. It was reconstructed from

the above-mentioned readings (fn. 23) which vary considerably and are not all complete. For the time being we have to be satis

fied with this interpretation, hoping that very soon, as prom ised by all involved scholars who kindly contributed to this

translation, it will be published in a more exact and reliable

form.

29. These include Ladia villages in Rajasthan (27'05' x 76 35') and (27?25' x 73?40'), Lalia (27?30' x 82?05') in Uttar Pradesh, Lalitpur (24040' x 78?25') and Ladi Hill (23?05' x 77?40') in

Madhya Pradesh, another Lalia village (25?30' x 87?20') in

Bihar, Ladi village (20?50' x 83055') in Orissa, Lahitapur (21?50' x 87?10'), Lalitganj (22?50' x 87?20'), Lalitahar (24020' x 88?35') in Bengal.

30. D. C. Ganguly, "Central and Western India," (Chapt. V), The Age of Imperial Kanauj, vol. iv of The History and Culture

of the Indian People, ed. R. C. Majumdar (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1964), 130. It is located at Lat. 25?00' and Long. 81 00'.

31. For the location of both Lalia villages see fn. 29. Lalia

could derive easily from "Ladita" (Ladita - Lalita = Lalia).

Chaitia is at Lat. 27?40' and Long. 82?15' and Chaita at Lat.

25?45' and Long. 85?50'. Chaitia and Chaita could stem from

"Chaityakuta" by merely dropping the ending.

32. Harsha founded a new era which commences with A.D.606

as his first regnal year. See Rai B. Pandey, Indian Paleography (Motilal Banarasi Das, Varanasi, 1957), p. 216.

33. D. C. Sircar, "Deccan in the Gupta Age," (Chapt. xi), The

Classical Age, vol. III of The History and Culture of the Indian

People, ed. R. C. Majumdar (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bom

bay, 1962), pp. 194-195. 34. See Madanjeet Singh, Himalayan Art (New York Graphic

Society Ltd., Greenwich, Conn., 1968), pp. 182 and 203. The

British Museum is in possession of an interesting unpublished sculpture (1966, no. 2-17, 2). Also see fig. 14 of this text.

35. Fleet, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, in, 189, claims that the Gupta era was in use in Nepal. 36. This argument can be still valid if it could be proven that our reading of the date as 313 was wrong. All the other read

ings will still permit the Gupta era to be used because they would all fall before or after Harsha's time.

37. Sheila L. Weiner, "From Gupta to Pala Sculpture," Arti bus Asiae, xxv 2/3 (1962), pp. 167-192, fig. 30.

38. Khandalavala, pp. 8-27, fig. 3.

39. A close similarity can be seen between this figure and the

unpublished Nepalese standing Buddha recently acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

40. For exact description of the process of making bronze

images see: S. K. Saraswati, "An Ancient Text on the Casting of Metal Images", Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art,

Iv, 2 (December 1936) 139-144.

41. 0. C. Gangoly, South Indian Bronzes, Indian Society of

Oriental Art, Calcutta 1915, p. 29.

42. We are deeply indebted to Dr. Donald F. Gibbons of Case

Western Reserve University and his staff for their cooperation in preparing x-ray photographs and the detailed chemical

report. It is Dr. Gibbons' suggestion that the Cleveland

Museum bronze was cast in three parts.

NOTE: A recent communication from Dr. P. R. Srinivasan corrects his reading of the date inscribed on the Cleveland Buddha to "Samvat 213," or A.D. 532/33.

Article Contents[unnumbered]p. 55p. [56]p. [57]p. 58p. 59p. 60p. 61p. 62p. 63p. 64p. 65p. 66p. [67]

Issue Table of ContentsThe Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Feb., 1970), pp. 55-76Front MatterA Gupta Style Bronze Buddha [pp. 55-67]A Rembrandt Drawing [pp. 68-75]Back Matter