Indian Antiquary Vol 60

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 110

90
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[MAY, 1931
railing fragments from Bhuvanesvar seems obvious. Nevertheless, the affinities are scanty. An exceedingly low relief can be found in the panels of the Alakåpuri cave at Udayagiri only, but there the treatment is almost purely ornamental, modelling is avoided, as the edge of the relief figures is not rounded, but is cut at a right angle, in a firm line, against a flat background. Points in common are: the añjali mudrd with the position of hands peculiar to our panel. They are joined on the side of the little fingers, in one straight upright line, whereas the hands, with finger-tips curved, as if carefully upholding something, diverge against the chest. Similar attitudes of añjali mudrd may be observed in Mañcapuri and Ranigumph& lower storey, both in Udayagiri hill, as well as on the relief fragments referred to by N. K. Bagu, This motif, too, is employed in the early as well as in the later work of Amaravati (of. Bachhofer, Plate 109, right, and Plate 111), whereas the añjali poses perpetually to be met with in BhArhut follow another convention, i.e., the palm of one hand is turned against the chest, where it lies upon the flatly distorted palm of the other hand. In Mathura, on the other hand, the añjali posture is rendered with folded hends at a right angle against the chest (of. also Gandhara).
The "costume" again is related to some of the items worn by the figures on the Mancapurf friese. The bunches of ear-rings, the heavy pad of hair-the latter a feature, however, to be met with in BhArhut as well as in Mahabodhi-are conspicuous. In the treatment, too, of accoutrements, such as drapery, jewelry and hair, a predilection for tubular and parallel courses is notioeable. Besides these affinities, however, the Mañcapuri frieze, in its cubical treatment of the single plastic units, strongly contrasts with the railing fragment.
Although the affinities with Orissan rook carvings are soanty, as none of the figures there can be quoted as altogether analogous in actual appearance to the fragment under consideration, yet its position in the history of early Indian sculpture, in one respect, corresponds to that of the cave soulptures. To the same extent as there, & connection with contemporary sculpture is visible in the composite features of the treatment. But whereas the Central Indian schools and Mathurd contributed much to the appearance of the cave reliefs, the share of the Southern school except in the later reliefs on the Râni Gumpta, upper storey, is negligible, in their case, and also in the case of the other railing fragments from Bhuvanesvar. This, however, is not so in the relief under discussion. Reference to Jaggayapeta has been made already.
One of the constituent factors of early Orissan soulpture thus becomes more clearly tangible. Although it seems, therefore, that, whatever sohool flourished in India at this period had its influence on the shaping of the Ofissan form idiom, the latter, in spite of the variety of trends made use of by it, asserts its own peculiarity.
Whatever new light further finds may throw on the early phase of sculpture in Orissa, our fragment, remarkably low in relief and with the modelling peculiar to it, gives a striking accent to Orissan stone sculpture in the second century B.o.
Bachhofor: Die frushindische Plastik. • Kramriech, Die Indische Kund, in: Springer, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, vol. VI, p. 260.