Amaravati Art in the Context of Andhra Archaeology
by Sreyashi Ray chowdhuri | 2018 | 90,477 words
This page relates 鈥楻esemblance to Mathura art鈥� of the study on Amaravati Art in the Context of Andhra Archaeology, including museum exhibitions of the major archeological antiquities. These pages show how the Buddhist establishment of Amaravati (Andhra Pradesh) survived from 4th century BCE to 14th century CE. It includes references and translations of episodes of Buddha鈥檚 life drawn from the Avadanas and Jatakas which are illustrated in Amaravati art.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Resemblance to 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 art
The Buddha images from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 showed features visible in 骋补苍诲丑腻谤补 and 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 art. Scholars have opined that Buddha image in 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 appear after its introduction in 骋补苍诲丑腻谤补 and 惭补迟丑耻谤腻[1]. The sanghati of Buddha images from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 is formed by the combination of incised lines and overlapping ridges indicating the course of folds. This feature is undoubtedly reminiscent of the Buddha images of the Ku峁Ｄ乶 School. The Buddha image in 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 show curls of hair, conical 耻峁ａ箛墨峁, small nimbus and generally arched eyebrows. The 蝉补峁単丑补迟颈 is of two types. The earlier examples show 蝉补峁単丑补迟颈, which covers both the shoulders. This is also seen in 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 but the fabric is heavy and is with long folds[2]. The later 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 reliefs show 蝉补峁単丑补迟颈, which leaves the right shoulder bare.
Despite the closeness to the 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 type of Buddha, the rugged heaviness of the 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 idiom is softened and slimmed down in the South Indian type. Difference is also seen between 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 and 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 Buddha in the 补苍迟补谤补惫腻蝉补办补. In case of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 Buddha the 补苍迟补谤惫腻蝉补办补 is not seen at the waist and the arrangement of the folds on the left arm is very different to the sanghati of 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 Buddhas. However, the curve of the lower hem can be compared to that of 惭补迟丑耻谤腻.
Van Lahuizen was of the opinion that the snail shell curls and uncovered feet typical of 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 Buddha image were imitated in the sculptural art of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨[3]. Moreover, the right hand is held away from the body and at shoulder level in the manner of abhaya mudra like the 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 type[4]. However, in case of seated Buddha image, Buddha never seems actually to grasp the robe as in the 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 figures[5].
The depiction of a 测补办峁Ｄ� in the art of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 preserved in the Archaeological Museum, 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 (Pl 43c) is closely allied to the 测补办峁Ｄ� chiseled in the 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 school of art (Pl 43d). Here it should be emphasized that both the art idioms, that is, 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 and 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 are sensuous. But in comparison to the excessive sensuality at 惭补迟丑耻谤腻, the sensuousness of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 is more restrained. Moreover it may be suggested that in body physiognomy the 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 specimens exhibit heaviness whereas 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 feminine beauty shows suppleness. Likeness between 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 and 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 is also visible in the manner of dressing. The women dressed in easily perceivable double lines of cloth in 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 are also visible in some sculptural depictions from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨[6].
Another similarity is visible in the portraiture of flying figures in both 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 and 惭补迟丑耻谤腻. Kapila Vatsyayan feels that back leg extensions are seen in figures in both the idioms[7]. According to the architectural component chosen for carving the figure this anatomical characteristic is delineated in various ways. These figures are usually sculpted in 迟辞谤补峁嘺蝉 and arches of the slabs and pillars.
Resemblance is also seen in case of a depiction of 苍补诲墨 诲别惫墨蝉. In this context, reference may be made of a badly broken relief on the outer face of a railing pillar. The upper area of fluting contains at the centre a five hooded 苍腻驳补. In the side panels of the upper fluting are female figures carrying on their upturned hands bowls while the other hand carries small pots(Pl 44a). They stand upon the backs of scaly makaras with forked tails. The female figures represent river goddesses standing on makaras.[8] A comparison can be made with the female figure visible on a relief fragment of a railing pillar from 惭补迟丑耻谤腻. The figure represents a 测补办峁Ｄ� under a tree with vessels of food and drink (Pl 44b). The sculpture is preserved in the 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 Museum and is dated to 2nd century CE[9]. The similarity in posture and attire to the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 苍补诲墨 诲别惫墨蝉 and that of the 测补办峁Ｄ� is noteworthy. The slight bend of the waist on the right in both specimens from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 and 惭补迟丑耻谤腻 possibly indicates natural bend created by carrying weight on the right hand.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Vajracharya Gautama, 2007, 鈥楶ipal Tree, Tonsured Monks and Ushnisha鈥� in Pal Pratapaditya (ed) Buddhist Art Form and Meaning, Marg, vol 58, No. 3, Mumbai, p 25.
[2]:
Dupont Pierre, 2006, The Archaeology of the Mons of Dvaravat墨, Sen Joyanta K (tr), Thailand, p 113.
[3]:
[4]:
Barrett Doughlas, 1954, Sculptures from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 in the British Museum, London, p 57.
[5]:
Ibid, p 60.
[7]:
Vatsyayan Kapila, 1968, Classical Indian Dance in literature and Art, New Delhi, p 286.