________________
SMRITI GRANTH
75
of these, I would like to discuss in some detail the terracotta female. It measures about 1. 1/2 inch to 2.1/2 Sinch, about 1/2 inch thick, and is cast in a single muld, the back side being it. The surface is fine, red polished all over. The female is shown seated as
described by Murray, with th: thighs spread out. The Kaims are supposed to be on the sides. But there is no head. This is intentional. Round the neck is a beaded necklace, a thick girdle encircles the waist, and there are heavy anklets. In the stratificd figure there seem to be a large number of girdles, the torso is very much shortened, and there are four rosettes-two on the top, and two below.
sy that this type of mother goddess, was accepted into the Rashtrakuta pantheon. She was in fact turned into a regular goddess, as shown by the attendant figures.
Were some dubt left about such a development, it is removed by a tiny but highly significant stone sculpture from Vadgacn. near Satara. it was brought to me by Shri Inamdar of the Aundh State Museum. The goddess, again headless, is shown exactly as in the two terracottas discussed above, but in add tion with a bullNandito her right. She is regarded as a form of Durga or Parvati. That this was again a widespread feature is being proved by the occurrence of an almost identical figure from the excavations at Nevasa, in 1959-1960. The stone figure was found from the foundation debris of Period VI and is thus assignable to Period V (c. 100-300 A.D.).
This giddess was even accepted in the early Buddhi. st pantheon, as is shown by a terracotta from Nogarjunikcnda. In this, the upper part of the goddess is in the form of a stup. Baubo's Indianization is thus complete.
An almost identical figu e on a circular terracotta plaque was found by Marshall in his excavations 2 Bhita.t14 It is now exhibited in the Indian Museum at Calcutta. Though headless like the Ter figure, it differs in having a lotus flower with petals falling over the shoulders, while the hands are upraised like those of a toad; the waist is very narrow ard decorated by a girdle, and on the legs are worn a heavy anklet and a series of rings, and banglrs on the arms This figure, though heavily ornamented, is nearer the Baubo type than are those from ICI.
Marshall, probably because of the association, assig. ned it to the Kushan period, but thought that it might be Gupta. He further drew attention to a similar figure from Kosam exhibited in the Indian Museum.
The former really is of the Kushan pericd, as it was found just after of the numbers in dark black were given on the field or indicate the order in which the objects were discovered) what Marsh I called a "water bottle." 151Sin e the Kolhapur finds 167this has been recognized as a characteristic Vesse! in Red Polished Ware and dated to the 2nd century A.D.
Stella Kramrisch has identified a simialr figure-a stone sculpture in the museum at Alampur, now in Andhra Pradesh, with Aditi-Uttanapad17f. But before acepting this interpretation, it should be pointed out that we have no early identical figures from the Rigvedic period ( whatever be the date of that period ) 01 from a period before the fi:st-second century A. D. The Alampur and cther figures are at least five or six centuries later than the first introduction of this figure in India. So the indentification of the figure with AditiUttanapad may be justified as a later apotheosis of an idea or symbolism which was probably foreign, as pointed out here. How this gradually took place has been shown. And it must be cmphasised once again Urat it was not cnly in the Brairmanic religion, but also in the Buddhist that this symbol was defied.
Similar figures are also found sculp'ured in caves aud temples. The first is from a cave at Siddan Kotte. north of Kelur in Northern Karnatak. This was copied by the late Mr. Changer and is reproduced from his
diary.
An explanation of the survival (if not the first introdection) of such a goddess in India was provided by the late Shri Charger. He has n. ted that the figure is
The figure of a goddess with a fem le attend nt on either side in Cave No. 21 (Rames war) ut E ACEms similar, but may be in fact diferent. The goddess is sested in ukatilasana with thighs spread apart, preminently showing the pudenda region. But thr latter appears to be repaired, as are some other portions of the sculpure, and it is not certain whether the figure WAS Originally nude. If it indeed was, then one miglit
149 Arch. Soc. of India, Ann. Rep. ASIAR), 1911-12 p.75, pl. XXI, no. 40. A figure similar to this is described and illustrated by Kala as from Kausambi, though the latter is not clear. See Kala, op. cit., p. 30. figs. pl. XVII, A and C.
157 Marshall, op. cit., Pl. XXX, tig. 52
16+ Sankalia, HD, and Dikshit, M.G., Excavations at Kolhap ur (Brahmapuri). Poona 1952.pl XIX, A and pl. XXXII.D.
Jain Education Intemational
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
