________________
ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE-INDIAN SECTION.
Session, 1924-5. The Fourth Meeting of the Indian Section was held on June 30th, 1926, when Prof. K. de B. Codrington, Professor of Oriental Archæology at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, read & Paper on "Periods in Indian Archæology," illustrated with lantern slides. In the discussion which followed Messrs. C. E. A. W. Oldham, A. Yusuf Ali, M. H. Krishna Ayyangar, E. A. Parkyn, and H. J. E. Peake took part.
Prof. Codrington summarises his scheme as follows:
"It is very desirable to arrive at a series of periods which may be used in the discussion of Indian studies. So far it might be said that Indian Archaeology is noteworthy mainly for the debate it has aroused as to the extent of foreign influences in India, a conflict that has proved rather fruitless, for it was based on evidence belonging to the literary category rather than the archæological. The Achæmenid Indian province of Herodotus and the Macedonian invasion in India are not witnessed for by archæological evidence in India. With regard to Gandhåra it may be pointed out that the western technique and motives of this hybrid and decadent art have been chiefly enumerated and the Indian artistic evidence slurred over in favour of a survey of the Indian literary sources of the subjects portrayed. Unfortunately the chronology of Indian literature is not undebatable, so that no date can be arrived at in this way. However, it is now realised that Indian art, at all times unique and virile, shows as complete and logical a development as western art. Surveyed as a whole Indian sculpture falls into definite periods, and, incidentally, the result of such a survey is an undeniable impression that the so-called foreign influence is greatly over-emphasised because it hangs on a few motives and is not based on the radical feeling and development of the art itself..
"The sculpture provides the bulk of the evidence for such an archeological survey. Indian pottery has been sadly and grossly neglected in the reports of excavations. The Sârnâth alms-bowl of fine, black fabrio, and the Rampurvå terracotta bridled horse, cow and incenseburner are perhaps the only distinctive pieces that may be definitely accepted as having occurred at Mauryan level. Such a survey and classification as is given of the excavation at Besnagar and at Basarh cannot be accepted without doubt : no clear sequent types are to be distinguished there.
" Seal finds are mainly dependent upon palæographical evidence for their dating. Figurines and reliefs can only be compared to the Bhårhut-Sanchi-Amaravati series of the early sculpture ; not to the Mauryan. Baked bricks are not found, I believe, before Gupta times. The size of the unbaked bricks is often quoted as being a criterion of age. Actually the size varies so much at one date and in one structure that such a standard is impossible. The dating of the various styles of the early period is arrived at by comparing the sculpture of the later cave-temples at Nasik, Karli or Känheri with Kushån sculpture. The Asoka column at Sánchí co-relates that site with the Mauryan period.
A. Mauryan Perlod. "This period is historically dated, but its archeological value has been mishandled by unscientific use of the term 'Mauryan art. The only art we know to be Mauryan consists of certain sculptured capitals of fine archeological quality and certain caves of very simple design. To both of these is common the distinctive Mauryan polished surface. On the evidence of style or polish a throne-seat and certain fragments are acceptable as Mauryan. The pottery has been mentioned above.
.
