Mahavira Jain Vidyalay Suvarna Mahotsav Granth Part 1

Author(s): Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya Mumbai
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 614

JAINA SCULPTURES OF THE GUPTA AGE: 149 character. This is based on the Nasik inscriptions of 1st-2nd century A.D. (Prăcina Lipimälä, Pl. LXXIV).
In view of the objections raised above it would perhaps not be in the fitness of things to make any sudden change in the reading and thus ignoring the opinions of the scholars expressed by them till now.
The scholars have dealt with the palaeographic aspect only in assigning the date of this antiquity and have not considered the stylistic grounds. I quite agree with the following remark of Dr. Lohuizen that aesthetical arguments must preferably not be used unless they are based on solid proofs and facts" (The Scythian Period, p. 20). But at a stage where the factual grounds are confusing and we are not in a position to reach any conclusion, we must not be hesitant in considering the other grounds also. These grounds must, of course, not go against the available facts.
In the present case the factual situation has been discussed in detail and now we proceed on the consideration of the secondary approach, i. e., stylistic grounds. On the close examination of the feet. of the main deity and the lower parts of the attendant figures, one is inclined to think that the sculpture was carved in the period of transition between the Kuṣāņa and the Gupta era. Fleshy feet with beautifully demarcated nails in fingers and a decorated horizontal band below them hint to the possibility that the sculpture represents a developed stage. Besides, following Dr. V. Smith if we assume for a moment that the Year 299 refers to the Vikrama era then the date of the image comes to 299-57-242 A.D. An alternative and perhaps safer explanation is to regard the date 299 as expressed in terms of an era identical, or nearly identical, with the era of Vikrama, B.C. 57. On this supposition the date would be equivalent to A.D. 242, which is quite possible' (V. Smith, J. R. A. S., 1903, p. 38). This date falls in the period of disruption of Kuṣaṇa empire after the death of Vasudeva (176 A.D.)
There still remains one point to be explained and that is the absence of the proper name of the king. Dr. Lohuizen rightly remarks. that during the Kusana period the proper name of the king was always added to the title of the king and the present inscription is very unusual in this respect (p. 57). But for this reason we need not place the inscription in the pre-Kaniska era. The absence of the name of the ruling king can be explained in the light of the fact that after their roots were uprooted the Kusapas could not proclaim their