A Gupta Style Bronze Buddha

Author(s): Stanislaw Czuma

Source: The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Feb., 1970), pp. 55-67
Published by: Cleveland Museum of Art
Stable 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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of 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 Bulletin
of the Cleveland Museum of Art.

http://www.jstor.org

A FG

HAN

ISTAN
*.
Hadda

S S

K A S

H M

IR

Taxi'la

/xB
XXe

Harap"

NwDelhi
<

Mohenjo-daro

at

S
<

>

........
) ~ Ir~~~~~~Jdhpur ,,..,.~~~~aipr
lapu>_F4
H AN

~~~~~~~~RJA;ST

IM
KI
C:$aitia-S K
UKahnd
Agra
TTAR

wa

Ar SeSiAg

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~hndsare*
Atllabaa
Sarna
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cirkt

Nasits Ajanta*E~~lrlra< - g 0

BAita
Pan CH

Benres
usabt alanda
Ko %
PI ' - A
a'c

Bhain* Bhopal

Nr; AL
W
A".X~~~~~rjunAkot

roach
_

TARA

PRADES

r~~~~~~~~~~~

Sk
}~Nai Aj t

Elo

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

5A

l
Bhvnshvra

oaa

AD A
YM
n
a

A
a

A Gupta
Metal

Bronze

Style
of

sculpture

the Gupta

and

period

of

Buddha

the

time

following the fall of theGupta Empire is represented by

so few known
attention

it deserves.

which

never

it has

that

examples

Metal

been

the

given

are

which

images,

easily portable and therefore convenient for individual

as public

as well
India

earlier.1

in stone
the

It is thus

such

produced

Sarnath

in

existed

On

the

consider

of

basis
the

activities during
school

Gupta

few

as

sculpture

that of
art

the

perfected

of

style

stone

as

over

metal

at best

pieces

of

the

an atypical

represent

The

example,

which

until

as Gupta

is the Sultanganj
it undoubtedly
from
derives

Although

recently

cited

as

aspect

of

has

been

Buddha

(Fig. 2).
the Sarnath
style

18 inches (figure, 14
dated A.D. 632/33.
inches), presentation
inscription
Fund. 68.40
from the J. H. Wade
India. Purchase

COVER:

Buddha.

Bronze,

two

those

H.

1 (opposite).

Map

seems

century

date,2

In

the

of

dominant

Cook;

design

by

one

A.D.

hand

474

(Fig.

that
with

of
the
on

and

4),

Nalanda

bronze,

and

it to

dating
than

logical
thus

it does

the

bronzes

of

school

the

eighth
the fifth

upon

insisting

aid our understanding

not

Dhanesar

Khera

to the Gupta

period,

from
date

the Gandharan

continued

from

(Fig.

sculpture

as

but with

the heavy

addition

echoes

of

same

features
and

time,

this
It

away

of
there
and

of Southern

introduces
the chest
from

the

painted

of

certain

the

convention
a facial

later

Nalanda
eyes
the

7)

traceable

lower

Nalanda

and

of

(Fig.

in

garment.

connecting

later

In

are

the

the

nose,

black.

variant

characteristics.

still

style

the folds
are

of bronzes

the

via Mathura

transferred

a hook-like

with

pupils

image
on

folds

far

of
to be

started

group

represents

the Gandharan

treatment

The

century.4
6)5

Sarnath

too

the characteristics
influence

only after the style had been established

Phophnar

the

before
Sarnath

crystalized.

the end of the fifth

around

incised

and John W.

sharp

as

bronzes
the

Therefore,

the Sarnath

sculpture.
of The Cleveland
Museum
of Art, Volume
LVII,
1970. Published monthly,
Number
except
2, February
of Art,
Museum
July and August,
by The Cleveland
at University
11150 East Boulevard
Circle, Cleveland,
Ohio 44106. Subscription
in membership
included
fee,
otherwise
$5.00 per year. Single copies, 60 cents.
of Art. Second
Museum
Copyright
1970, by The Cleveland
class postage paid at Cleveland,
Ohio. Museum
photography

and

se.

case

between

by Nicholas
Hlobeczy
Merald
E. Wrolstad.

on

above-mentioned

more

per

the

ment

At

The Bulletin

its similarities

folds

tradition. This group probably predates the full develop

The

of India.

of

of

Nalanda

dated

Buddha,

figures.

century

the plastic
Figure

such

compared

with

this style were

closest

in view

convention

almost
certainly
(Fig. 5)3 which
we are faced with a style which

this period.
considered

The

dated to the ninth century, it stands stylistically between

this

How

ages.

usually

stone

of Gupta

international

in later

Asia
examples

artistic

It was

period.
for

we

sculpture

center

the

be justified

for

3. When

the other

criteria

spread

known

a prototype

Sarnath

the high Gupta

style which
the

as

Figure

the Gupta

quality

now

sculpture.

facial features seems to point to the Sultanganj Buddha

art, which

remaining

the

Pala

that

have

school

formed

that

Gupta

the

Sarnath

cannot

century
with

age of Indian

as well.

casting

ever,

high

must

school,

to have

to assume

logical

to us as the golden

known

period,

are known

worship,

we feel that the traditionally applied date of the fifth

points
school

of

of

regularly
is not

type which
school-sharp
inlaid

author's

with
opinion

silver,
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.
Museum,
Birmingham
England.
RIGHT
Buddha. Bronze, H. 14-3/16 inches,
Figure 3. Standing
9th century.
Nalanda
Museum.
India, Bihar, Nalanda.
of Banares).
courtesy of the American
Academy
(Photograph
RIGHT

BELOW

4. Buddha. Chunar
H. 75 inches, dated 474.
sandstone,
Sarnath.
Sarnath Archaeological
India, Uttar Pradesh,
Museum.
of M. Sakamoto,
courtesy
Tokyo).
(Photograph

Figure

LEFT
*

/F

~~~~~

~5~~xi~=~

~~LEFTBELOW
Figure 6. Budfdha. Bronze, H. 20-1/16
inches, ca.6th
Pradesh,
India, Madhya
century(?).
Phophnar.
New Delhi.
National
Museum,

"s~
i
'!>

BELOW

~1%

5. Bulddha. Bronze, H. 14-3/4 inches, early 5th

of Uttar Pradesh,
India, Banda District
of Art, Kansas City.
vDhanesar Khera. Nelson Gallery

BFigure
:
~~century.

*s

Red
Figure 7. Budldha, from the Jamalpur Mound.
H. 86 inches, 5th century.
India, Uttar Pradesh,
Mathura.
of Archaeology,
Museum
|Mathura.

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

:."?
-'

,.

,,"i.
'

...'S

o-

r.,.-.

:........

*;

sandstone,

LEFT
Figure

8. Front

view of cover

illustration.
ABOVE

Figure 9. Standing Buddha. Bronze.

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

RIGHT

10. Standing Buddha. Bronze,

Figure
H. 27 inches, late 7th century. Probably
Bombay.
Eastern
India. Private Collection,
of Marg Publications).
courtesy
(Photograph
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 inAmaravati 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
for instance9-we
stage in the South-Nagapattinam,
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
not contribute
those fromAkotalo or Vasantagadhll-do
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 theGupta
Sarnath style came to light. Their presence fills themiss
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 isa recent acquisition of The Cleve
landMuseum 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 typewas fairly common.
Cleveland Museum Buddha stands in a frontal
rigid position. The hieratic frontality of the figure, how

~The

fe^-.^B;~
''
iw

ever,

AH

is somewhat

eased

by a subtle

of

flexing

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.

~i~
'A.

....tt~

_:_~^^^^^

~vertical

The

on

is gathered

garment

the

sides

into

a few

is incised
folds, while around the neck-which
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
which

(antaravasaka)

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
tureswith 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

60 ',.~~

Figure
60

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
~ ~ ~ ~fixtures on the back of the bronze (Fig. 12).

12. Profile

view of cover

illustration.

The image, it should be borne inmind, was made in haran times, was depicted in the same manner.20 It
accordance with the established system of proportions
was the Buddha of the Past, Dipankara, that was de
and prescriptions concerning Buddha's appearance
scribed in a very romantic legend as the one who pre
which were dictated by various sastras. Since the an
dicted to Sakyamuni (then Brahmin Sumati) his rebirth
as theHistorical Buddha.21 Dipankara, as the first among
thropomorphic representation of Buddha is not a perfect
the twenty-four predecessors of Sakyamuni, may have
solution of depicting theMaster, in order to distinguish
him from an ordinary mortal, sutras endowed him with
had a great appeal to worshippers as a Great Ancestor
of Buddhism. (This idea may have been particularly
superhuman characteristics (lakshanas).15 The various
would explain the
parts of Buddha's body are compared to shapes bor
appealing to the Chinese-which
rowed from nature which were thought to be more per
popularity of this particular image inChina).
fect and final than anything that could be found in the
The striking aspect of the Dipankara legend is that it
mortal human being. Accordingly, Buddha's shoulders
connects this Buddha very closely with Sakyamuni.
should be like the head of an elephant, whereas the torso Therefore, it seems very probable that there may be a
should recall the tapered body of a lion. The shape of the certain fusion of both concepts. It is impossible to deter
face should have the perfect oval of an egg, the eyes mine towhat degree each of these concepts contributed to
our image, but it is highly probable that the artist did
should remind one of lotus petals, the lips should have
the fullness of a mango, etc.16 This accounts for the not have inmind the depiction of a particular Buddha.
idealization reflected in our image which, like all the It seems that his perception was that of amore Universal
representations of Buddha, was intended to suggest his Buddha. It was the altruistic character of Buddha's
superhuman nature. At the same time, however, there nature, reflected in the blessing of the abhaya mudra, and
is a great interest here in the depiction of the human body
the compassionate expression of his face that really
and the grace of itsmovements within a framework of mattered when providing the faithful with an idol for
purposeful abstraction. The trend in our image is towards worship.
a higher degree of realism when compared to classical
As pointed out earlier, the great importance of the
Sarnath sculpture. The bodily proportions are heavier,
Cleveland Museum image lies in the fact that it is in
the facial features thicker and somewhat more human.
scribed. The donatory inscription engraved on the
As far as the iconography of the figure is concerned,
pedestal of the image (the front of the base and extending
to its right side) is in late Gupta characters in good
it is difficult to be more specific than tomake the general
Sanskrit (Fig. 13).22 It is slightly worn and therefore not
statement that it represents Buddha. The mode of de
clearly readable, but several varied readings by well
picting Buddha with his right hand raised in the abhaya
known sanskritists and scholars23 have given satisfactory
mudra and the left one supporting the hem of the garment
results. The approximate reading of the inscription:
is one of themost common ways of portraying him in a
This [image] is the pious gift of the Buddhist nun
iconic
form.
The
marks
well
as
single
bodily
(lakshanas)
named Parisuddhamati24 in the village Ladita.
as the monastic garment leave no doubt as to this
Whatever merit accrues from this [gift]may it lead
identification. The problem begins when one tries to
to the supreme enlightenment of all living beings.
determine the particular aspect in which the Buddha is
shown. Lack of attributes, other than the general ones,
[This gift was made] in the year 313 [300.10.3].
does not make this identification simple. The attitude
[It is the wish] that [a certain ascetic] Purnnaka25
and mudras seem to be characteristic for Sakyamuni, or
belonging to the monastery26 in the locality of
theHistorical Buddha,17 as well as for Dipankara, or the
Chaityakuta27 should be fed.28
The most important-and
Buddha of the Past.18
at the same time themost
is the date. It has been tentatively
controversial-feature
Tracing this type of single idol as far back as one can,
read by various scholars as 343 (P. Banerjee), 233 (V.V.
brings us to the lengendary representations of the
Udayana Buddha who represented Sakyamuni.19 This Mirashi), 353 (P. R. Srinivasan), and 313 (D. C. Sircar).
I am inclined to accept the reading of Dr. Sircar since
would suggest that our image represents the Historical
inmy opinion the characters most closely approximate
Buddha. On the other hand, there is evidence that the
"300.10.3."
Buddha Dipankara, increasingly popular since Gand
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 theGupta 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, ifwe 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
62

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 InUttar 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 110miles
away, both situated on the banks of theGanges (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.32Therefore,
we are left with the first possibility of Lalitpur and
Chitrakuta inMadhya 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

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 laterGuptas
of Magadha inwhich case theGupta 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 theCleveland 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 itwas 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 itmay be sug
gestive. We investigated the possibilities of the image
being inscribed there as well as being made in Nepal.
Strange as itmay seem at first, it is not impossible ifwe
bear inmind that there is not enough comparative ma
terial inNepal dating to this early period which would
allow us to make a positive judgment. That the Sarnath
influence was strong inNepal 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 inNepal 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 toNepal. We know that at a later date itwas
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 figuremay not have been
cast in the same place where itwas inscribed.We know
that some Sarnath stone pieces, such as the Biharail
Buddha now in the Rajshahi Museum inEast Pakistan,37
were probably imported from Sarnath. If itwas 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 ismore 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 itwas, as a rule, held
down. The suspended portion of the garment forms
parallel vertical folds as opposed to Mathura and
Sarnath where inmost cases it falls in a zigzag pattern
(Figs. 4 and 7). Finally the low hem of the robe ismore
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
64

with the upper sanghati, whereas inMathura 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
around the middle of the sixth
Buddha-perhaps
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). Itmay 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 isprobable that thework
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 theMathura 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
theNalanda school.

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 theMathura
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 laterNalanda
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
.
..
I
..
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
fromMathura (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
14. Standing Buddha. Bronze, H. 10-1/2 inches,
Figure
8th-9th century. Nepal.
New York.
Private Collection,
the type represented by the Bombay Buddha that in
fluenced contemporary Nepalese sculpture; for example,
the Metropolitan Museum Buddha (see fn. 39). The
APPENDIX
Eastern School characteristics are almost formed in the
The
the Cleveland
involved
in making
Museum
Seattle and Sultanganj Buddhas (Fig. 11 and 2), which
technique
image was the cire perdue or lost wax process. The image was
probably date to the eighth century, and they mature
into the Nalanda style in the ninth century (Fig. 3).
in a thick coating of clay which was connected
with the core
and in its place
Nepalese bronzes from the late eighth century onward
by stablizing wires. Then the wax was melted
was poured.40 North
are either
Indian bronzes
the metal
seem to follow the same convention which was intro
duced by the Sultanganj Buddha and carried on by the hollow (sushira images) or contain a core while South Indian
a rule
bronzes
areas
cast in solid metals
(ghana images).4
Nalanda school (Fig. 14).While there are, then, very few
Although
sufficient
research
on the technique
of bronze
in
bronze
for
these
the
as
transformations,
in India has not
representatives
casting
yet been carried out, it will be of
to notice
Cleveland Museum Buddha may serve as a pivotal piece
interest
bronzes
that the major
discussed
here
of Art, and the bronze
Cleveland
Museum
illus
of both historical and aesthetic significance.
(Sultanganj,
STANISLAW

CZUMA

Ford Foundation Intern, 1967-1969

trated in Fig. 9 contain a core armature. This seems to indicate

was preferable
that the core technique
in the Gupta
style

bronzes of the period under discussion. The core of theCleve

landMuseum Buddha isconnected with themetal shell by long
65

intended to correct the angle (see Fig. 13) and put the image
line of soldering
into vertical position. Another
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 thiswould easily explain a somewhat different
structure of the main body of the figure
The average
of both samples
discloses

metal
base.

from that of its

the following

composition: 79.5% of copper, 16.40%of tin, 0.60% of lead,

1.0% sulfur.

FOOTNOTES
1. Examples
(the Chausa

include
hoard),

Amaravati
and Gandharan

bronzes,
early Jain bronzes
bronzes
(the pieces in the

BritishMuseum, Victoria and Albert Museum, the Jeannerat

Collection, etc.).
2. We are not alone in the belief that the Sultanganj
Buddha
to a later period. See: A.B. Griswold,
belongs
"Prolegomena
to the Study of the Buddha's
in Chinese
Dress
Sculpture,"
2 (1963) 118. Mr. Douglas
Artibus Asiae
Barrett
has
xxvi,
to me his opinion
communicated
that it belongs
to
verbally
the early Pala period.
3. For another
Khera belonging
image from Dhanesar
see: Sir Leigh Ashton,
Jeannerat
The Art of

Pierre

to Mr.
India &

Pakistan, (Faber & Faber Ltd., London 1947/48) pl. 32,

no.

197.

4. For the dating of the Sarnath

school see: John Rosenfield,
of Sarnath,"
"On the Dated
Artibus Asiae,
1
xxvi,
Carvings
L. Weiner,
10-26.
Sheila
"From
to Pala
(1963),
Gupta

Sculpture," Artibus Asiae xxv, 2/3 (1962), 167-192. Stella

Kramrisch, "Die Figurale Plastik der Guptazeit," Wiener
Beitrdge.zur Kunst undKulturgeschichteAsienes, v, (Krystall
Verlag, Vienna, 1931) 15-39.
Figure

15. X-ray

photograph

of the Cleveland

Museum Buddha.

strengthening
pins in both legs and neck (see Fig. 15).
if the
Various
x-rays were made of the figure to determine
to
image was cast in one piece or in separate pieces joined
later. The suggested
gether
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

the lower hem of the

gether. The joint at the feet (just below
and looks almost
is easily visible
like a result of
garment)

breakage. This irregularity, according to Dr. Gibbons,

caused

is

the pieces were soldered

of metal when
by the melting
As
the result of this soldering
the angle of the
together.
have been changed;
the wedge
at the base was
figure must

66

5. M. Venkataramayya,
from
Bronzes
"Sixth-Century
12 (October
Lalit Kala,
1962), pp. 16-20 and pls.
Phophnar,"
6. P. R. Srinivasan,
of South
"Bronzes
India," Bulletin
of
theMadras Government Museum,
N.S. viii (1963), pls. 3 and 4.
7. Ibid., pls. 3-6. They are controversially
to the 6th
dated
or to the 8th century
of the British
(Srinivasan)
(dating
where
Museum,
they are located).
8. Ananda
K. Coomaraswamy,
of the Indian Col
Catalogue
lections in the Museum
1923) Pt. ni pp.
of Fine Arts, (Boston,
61-63, pl. 21.
"The Nagapattinam
9. T.N.
and other
Ramachandran,
in the Madras
Buddhist
Bronzes
Bulletin
Museum,))
of the
N. S. vi (1954), pl. 2, fig. 1.
Madras
Government
Museum,
10. Umokant
P. Shah,
Akota
of
Bronzes,
Department

Archaeology, Government of Bombay, 1959.

11. Umakant

P. Shah,

"Bronze

29. These includeLadia villages inRajasthan (27'05' x 76 35')

and (27?25'x 73?40'),Lalia (27?30'x 82?05') inUttar Pradesh,

from Vasantagadh,"

Hoard

Lalit Kala, nos. 1-2 (April 1955-March 1956), pp. 55-65.

"Metal
12. K. P. Jayaswal,
Images of Kurkihar Monastery,"
Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, II (1934), 70-82.
in
13. Published
"Masterpieces
by Prof. Karl Khandalavala,
South Indian and Nepalese
Bronzes
in the collection
of Mr.
of Bombay,"
S. K. Bhedwar
iv, 4 (1950),
10, fig. 3.
Marg

in
Lalitpur
(24040' x 78?25') and Ladi Hill (23?05' x 77?40')
another
Lalia village
in
Pradesh,
Madhya
(25?30' x 87?20')
Ladi village
in Orissa,
Bihar,
(20?50' x 83055')
Lahitapur

(21?50'x 87?10'),Lalitganj (22?50'x 87?20'), Lalitahar (24020'

x 88?35')

bronzes.
this is the same as in the Phophnar
14. Perhaps
See M. Venkataramayya,
"Sixth
Bronzes
from
Century
12 (October
Lalit Kala no.
16-20,
1962), pp.
Phophnar,"

The Age

lakshanas

31. For the location

of
could derive easily from
is at Lat. 27?40'
Chaitia
25?45' and Long. 85?50'.

16. Benjamin
The Evolution
of the Buddha
Rowland,
Image,
Inc., New York
(The Asia Society,
1963) p. 14.
of Sarnath,"
17. John Rosenfield,
"On the Dated
Carvings
1 (1963), 10, fig. 1; Gregory
Artibus Asiae, xxvI,
Henderson
of Seiryoji,"
Artibus Asiae,
and Leon Hurvitz,
"The Buddha
1 (1956), 5-55.
xix,
18. Alice

Getty,

The Gods

of Northern

Buddhism,

(Charles

Etude

Buddhique

de L'Inde

E.

(Ernest Leroux,

see fn. 29. Lalia

both Lalia villages
- Lalita =
"Ladita"
Lalia).
(Ladita
and Long. 82?15' and Chaita at Lat.
Chaitia
could stem from
and Chaita

bay, 1962), pp. 194-195.

pp. 5-6.

34. See Madanjeet

Art (New York Graphic
Singh, Himalayan
Conn.,
1968), pp. 182 and 203. The
Society Ltd., Greenwich,
of an interesting unpublished
British Museum
is in possession
(1966, no. 2-17, 2). Also see fig. 14 of this text.
sculpture

21. Getty,
p. 77; Alexander
p. 13; Foucher,
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.
D. C. Sircar, and P. R. Srinivasan

and Culture

33. D. C. Sircar, "Deccan

in the Gupta Age,"
(Chapt. xi), The
and Culture of the Indian
Classical Age, vol. IIIof The History
Bom
People, ed. R. C. Majumdar
(Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,

Paris, 1900), pp. 77-84.

19. Getty,
p. 17; Rowland,
20. See fn. 18.

iv of The History

the ending.
"Chaityakuta"
by merely
dropping
32. Harsha
with A.D.606
founded a new era which commences
as his first regnal year. See Rai B. Pandey,
Indian Paleography
(Motilal Banarasi Das, Varanasi,
1957), p. 216.

Tuttle Co., Tokyo, 1962), pp. 12-15; and Alfred Foucher,

sur L'Iconographie

vol.

81 00'.

Long.

80

and

of Imperial Kanauj,

of the IndianPeople, ed. R. C. Majumdar (BharatiyaVidya

Bhavan, Bombay, 1964), 130. It is located at Lat. 25?00' and

pls. 7-14.
15. There are 32 superior
(mahapurusha)
lakshanas.
inferior (anuvyanjana)

in Bengal.

30. D. C. Ganguly, "Central andWestern India," (Chapt.V),

35. Fleet,
the Gupta

Indicarum,
in, 189, claims that
Corpus Inscriptionum
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
era to be used because
the Gupta
ings will still permit
they
all fall before or after Harsha's
would
time.

P. Banerjee, V. V. Mirashi,
for their assistance
in the

readingof 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."

37. Sheila
bus Asiae,

L. Weiner,
"From Gupta
to Pala Sculpture,"
xxv 2/3 (1962), pp. 167-192, fig. 30.
38. Khandalavala,
pp. 8-27, fig. 3.

26. The

name of the monastery

is variously
read as "Jina
and "Jina-punya-vihara"
(bandhu)-vihara"
by Mr. Srinivasan
by Mr. Banerjee.
27. Messrs.
and Mirashi
read Chaityakuta
as a place
Banerjee
or "temple"
and
name (Chaitya meaning
"place of worship"
Kuta meaning
"hill" or "summit").
Mr. Srinivasan
However,
reads it as Chaitra and connects
the reading with the date
Chaitra
being the Indian name for the month March-April.
28.
and
the
and

The translation of the inscription

gives its general meaning
does not claim to be quite exact. It was reconstructed
from
above-mentioned
readings (fn. 23) which vary considerably
For the time being we have to be satis
are not all complete.
that very soon, as prom
fied with this interpretation,
hoping
to this
ised by all involved
scholars who kindly contributed
in a more
exact and reliable
it will be published
translation,

39. A close

similarity

can be seen between

Arti

this figure and

the

unpublished Nepalese standing Buddha recently acquired by

the Metropolitan

Museum

of Art

in New

York.

of making
bronze
exact description
of the process
"An Ancient
Text on the Casting
images see: S. K. Saraswati,
of Metal
Images", Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art,
Iv, 2 (December
1936) 139-144.
40.

For

41. 0. C. Gangoly,
South Indian Bronzes,
Oriental Art, Calcutta
1915, p. 29.
42. We
Western

Indian

Society

of

are deeply indebted

Reserve University

F. Gibbons
of Case
to Dr. Donald
and his staff for their cooperation
in preparing
and the detailed
chemical
x-ray photographs
that the Cleveland
It is Dr. Gibbons'
report.
suggestion
Museum
bronze was cast in three parts.

form.
NOTE: A recent communication
from Dr.
"Samvat
213," or A.D. 532/33.

P. R. Srinivasan

corrects

his reading

of the date

inscribed

on the Cleveland

Buddha

to