again the kanishka casket

Again the Kanishka CasketAuthor(s): Prudence R. MyerSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 48, No. 3/4 (Sep. - Dec., 1966), pp. 396-403Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048396 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 13:14

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:14:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048396?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


396 The Art Bulletin

AGAIN THE KANISHKA CASKET

PRUDENCE R. MYER

In 1908, while excavating the mounds at Sh'ih-Ji-ki-Dheri, just outside

the Ganj Gate of PeshEawar-tentatively identitied by Foucher as the ruins of the great st~ipa and vih'ira or monastery erected by the Em- peror Kanishka-D. B. Spooner found what he took to be an original relic casket bearing the name of Kanishka himself, the greatest of the Kushina emperors (Figs. 1-3).1 The casket is a cylindrical box of bronze, about five inches in diameter and four inches high, with a tightly fitting lid. On top of the lid are three miniature full-round figures of an enthroned Buddha and two adorants, identifiable as the Vedic gods Indra

(Sakra) and Brahmni, while the lower portion, which fits down over the sides of the casket, has a continuous frieze of flying geese in low relief. On the body of the casket there is a standing figure of a man in Kush'ina costume and a row of small, active naked figures carrying a garland. In its swags appear other figures, either half length or composed in the attitude of meditation. The inscription, punched out in Kharoshthi script, runs around the outer edge of the cover, beneath the geese, and in two rows just above the base of the body. As published by Sten Konow in 1929, it reads:

In the year I of [the Mah•rj-ia] Kanishka, town. ima, connected with the ... mansion, this religious gift-may it be for the welfare and happiness of all beings,-the slave Agis'ala was the architect,--in Kanishka's

Vih'ra, in Mahisena's Sarnghira'ma, in the acceptance of the Sarva'sti- v'idin teacher.2

This reading gave the piece very great interest, for it not only con- firmed the association with Kanishka, one of the secular heroes of Buddhist tradition, but it made the small Buddha image on the lid appear to be almost exactly contemporary with the earliest dated Buddha

images from India proper, the great stone figures which the monk B~l~l dedicated at Sarnrith, Sr'ivasti, and Kausalmbl in the third year of Ka- nishka's reign. As for the architect Agis'ala, whose name Konow took to be an Indian rendering of the Greek Agesilaos, the reference to him in the inscription suggested that he might also have been the maker of the casket.3 Because of this documentary evidence, the casket has been one of the basic pieces referred to in most studies of the nature and formation of the so-called Gandhara style of the Peshawar and Taxila regions and in those dealing with the origin of the Buddha image and the much

disputed chronology of the Kushina dynasty. It has been variously de-

scribed as a decadent work proving the essentially Hellenistic inspira- tion of the more noble and earlier Gandhiran pieces, and as a pioneering effort to embody abstract spiritual concepts in a form acceptable to peo- ple of mixed cultural and religious backgrounds.4

Two recent articles in the British Museum Quarterly have been de- voted to a discussion of the technical problems involved in a meticulous cleaning and restoration of the casket and to a fresh study of its inscription.5 Working from an electrotype copy of the newly cleaned casket, and counting as the first line the characters written around the top of the lid, Mukherjee reads the inscription as follows:

In the acceptance [i.e. for the acceptance] of the Sarv'astiviidin teach- ers, this perfume box is the meritorious gift of Mahiiraija Kanishka in the city of Kanishkapura. May [it] be for the welfare and happiness of all beings.

... sa, the superintendent of construction of the refectory in Kanish- ka's viha'ra, in Mahdsena's sarnghtiriima.

The new reading has the merit of being much clearer than the old, but from the point of view of the art historian it is most significant for its elimination of the date and of the artist Agisala or Agesilaos. (Mukher- jee understands this word to be equivalent to the Sanskrit agnis'ala or Pr-krit aggislal, a "hall of fire" or heated hall serving as a refectory.) As a result of these changes the date and provenance of the casket are again thrown into question and must be reconsidered. The only real clues to the date lie in the reference to a- Mahiraja Kanishka and in

Mukherjee's assertion that the palaeography of the Kharoshthi characters is very close to that of two inscriptions from Kurram and Wardak which are clearly dated in the twentieth and fifty-first years of the Kanishka era.6

The removal of corrosion deposits and the repair of a fracture in the top of the lid, which had caused the central figure to tilt to one side, have been documented with new photographs which facilitate study of the technical character and artistic quality of the work. Organ and Werner report that they found no trace of either gilding or inlay on the casket, although it has been generally assumed that it was originally gilded. The base plate and cylinder of the casket body were separately cast, as were the standing figures of Indra and Brahma, but the Buddha and his pedestal were cast in one piece with the lid. After casting, the various pieces were scraped and chased to clarify the details and the inscription was punched before the different parts were soldered or riveted together. The broken halo, cut out of a piece of sheet metal, was found

I D. B. Spooner, "Excavations at Shah-ji-ki-Dheri," Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report for 1908-1909, 38-59, esp. 48f. The identification of the casket with the original relic deposit has been questioned because the excavator's description indicates that it was found in an abnormal position. By modern standards both the excavation methods and report leave much to be desired. Having uncovered portions of the terrace wall and identified the broad staircases and round corner projections, Spooner proceeded to dig inward toward a center which he had calculated by taking diagonals from the four corners. Within the terrace he found a substructure made up of massive radiating walls, and the relic chamber came to light slightly east of the supposed center. It is described as a crude structure made of stone slabs laid "against the end of that one of the radiating central walls which ran due east from the center of the stupa," but no photographs or diagrams of it were published, nor is it clear whether excavations were carried down to virgin soil in this area or stopped short with the discovery of the casket. It is therefore possible that an earlier relic chamber, located at a lower level and perhaps more precisely on the central axis of the monument, remained undiscovered. On the other hand it seems evident that, unless the relic chamber was fabricated by the workmen for the benefit of the excavator, the casket must have been deposited at a very early stage of

the sttlpa's

construction or at least during a very drastic rebuilding of the lower porti6ns.

2 Sten Konow, Kharosthi Inscriptions (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, ix, pt. 1), Calcutta, 1929, 135-37.

3 See Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, History of Indian and Indonesian Art, New York, 1927, 54.

4 For a summary of some of the theories about the casket, see Johanna Engelberta Van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, The "Scythian" Period: An Approach to the History, Art, Epigraphy and Palaeography of North India from the 1st Century B.c. to the 3rd Century A.D., Leiden, 1949, 73-105.

5 B. N. Mukherjee, "Sh'ih--i-kO-Vheri Casket Inscription," BMQ, 28, 1964, 39-46; R. M. Organ and A. E. Werner, "The Restoration of the Relic Casket from Shah-

j-ki-Dheii," ibid., 46-51, pls. xxv-xviI.

6 Mukherjee, "Sh~ih-ji-k-IDheri Casket Inscription," 40. In justice to Konow it should be observed that he himself had reservations in reading the date. He wrote, "Unfortunately the ensuing passage is badly corroded, but it seems possible to read the signs following after sam as I ma, i.e., the casket is dated in the first year of the Kanishka era." (Kharosthi Inscriptions, 136.)



1

2

:;? 3

1-3. Bronze relic-casket from Shbh-jT-kT-DherT and details. Peshiwar, Archaeological Museum (Courtesy British Museum)



5

6

7

4. Buddha on lotus throne. Lucknow, Provincial Museum (photo: Bachhofer)

5. The Bodhisattva in the Tushita Heaven, from Sikri. Lahore, Museum (photo:

Lyons)

6. Gift of the Jetavana Garden. Formerly in Guides' Mess, Hoti Mardin, now

Peshiwar, Archaeological Museum (photo: Lyons)

7. Stair-riser relief from Buner (?). Leiden, Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde



I

9

10

11

8. Buddha in the Indrasaila Cave, from Giri, Taxila (photo: Lyons)

9. Child Siddhartha and attendants, from Charsada. London, Victoria and Al-

bert Museum

10. Lute player. Formerly in Guides' Mess, Hoti Mardin, now Pesh-awar, Ar-

chaeological Museum (photo: Lyons)

11. Stikyamuni and the ascetic. Formerly Guides' Mess, Hoti Mard-n, now

Peshlwar, Archaeological Museum (photo: Lyons)



12 13

12. Buddha in the Indras'aila Cave. London, British Museum 13. Buddha on lotus throne, from Sahri Bahlol. Peshawar, Archaeological Mu- seum (photo: Lyons)



KANISHKA CASKET 397

with the casket although it showed no sign of ever having been attached to the Buddha figure.7

The workmanship of the casket has been termed crude, but bearing in mind the extremely small size-only about seven and one-half inches high including the figures-and the material--bronze, not gold-such an accusation seems less than justified. Although it is true that the figures on the lid appear somewhat clumsy because of their over-large heads and shrunken legs, this kind of disproportion is frequently found in bronze works of similar size.8 The new photographs show that the head of the central Buddha, with its vertically striated hair, its circular urna, carefully shaped eyelids, and strongly marked pupils, has been very neatly and carefully reworked with the aid of chasing tools. The irreg- ularly symmetrical folds of the Buddha's robe were apparently cast as

ridges and later accented by deepening the furrows between them and

adding shallower intermediate incisions, especially on the cowl-like folds around the neck and the portion across the legs. A similar combination of techniques may be observed in the robes of the separately cast figures of the two gods, Indra and Brahmi, in the flying geese on the sides of the cover, and in the figures around the cylindrical body of the casket. Incised lines have been used on the figures of the garland-carrying putti chiefly to stress the articulation of the torsos and limbs and to describe the bangles on their wrists and ankles. The hair of these figures has been

gouged or striated to indicate texture, as has the hair of the tiny meditat-

ing Buddhas. It should be noted that although these Buddhas are only about one and a half inches high, their heads are smaller and their proportions more "normal" than those of the larger Buddha on the lid, sug- gesting that the disproportion of the lid figures (and of the Kush'ina ruler on the side of the casket) was the result of the artist's effort to

emphasize expressive gestures and significant facial expressions. The only portions which may be properly described as crude in execution are the very roughly incised double lines that define the lotus petals on the

upper surface of the lid and the curiously abrupt and clumsy treatment of the free-falling drapery of the Buddha and his attendants. The abrupt straight-edged termination of the robes may well be due in part to the technical difficulty of casting narrow pointed shapes on this miniature scale.

In view of the elimination of the Greek name from the new reading of the inscription, it seems appropriate to reconsider the suggestion made some years ago that the casket is actually a work of the MathurZi school rather than a Gandhiran piece as had been assumed.9 Since the publication of that suggestion, Mme. Van Lohuizen-de Leeuw has brought forth an analysis of the typological and stylistic development of the Buddha image in Mathurg. In addition, Islay Lyons' photographs of work in Pakistani collections have made accessible a large body of

Gandhiran sculptures formerly unpublished or scattered in archaeologi-

cal reports, and recent Italian excavations have brought to light a mass

of important material from the Swat valley.l0 To facilitate discussion,

we shall list the characteristics which Miss d'Ancona proposed as evidence for the Mathuran style of the casket before proceeding to a consideration of other aspects of the problem.

General characteristics:

Squatty proportions of figures, with large heads and shrunken legs. Facial type with "wide protruding eyes, long nose, ridged eyebrows and smiling active expression."

Central Buddha: Lotus throne.

Lotus-patterned halo. Attitude with both hands raised, one in abhaya-mudri and the other holding an end of the robe. Oval head with wide protruding eyes and animated expression. Deeply cut lines of hair radiating (rising?) from the forehead.

Attendant figures: Absence of necklaces and heavy jewelry. Heavy drapery rising in a loop from the right leg. Unarticulated (i.e., boneless and rubbery looking) arms. Feet wide apart and turned outward.

Putti:

Variety of attitudes. Round heads with hair in a knot well forward on the head.

Swelling chests divided from the torso by a deeply cut line. Meditating Buddhas on the sides:

Snail-shaped ushnisha. Kush'ina ruler:

Attitude with elbows well apart from the body. Unarticulated arms. Double line at the wrist.

Widely flaring, triangular skirt. In general most of these features appear to be common to both the

casket and some of the stone sculptures of the Mathura school, although the new photographs clearly show that the ushnishas of the smaller Bud- dhas on the body of the casket are not, in fact, snail-shaped but striated to indicate a mass of hair arranged in a bun or chignon on top of the head. Furthermore, as suggested above, squat or stumpy figures are not necessarily indicative of a non-Gandh~aran canon of *?roportions but may simply be the result of the sculptor's difficulties in emphasizing faces and gestures on this very small scale. Here, as in a consideration of the technical refinement of the details, it is of course essential to remember that photographs which show monumental and miniature forms in the same size distort both scale and surface and easily lead to false conclu-

sions. Thus, for example, the miniature figures of the casket should not be compared with the famous twenty-seven inch Siddhirtha from Sahri-

Bahlol but with the three- or four-inch figures on its base, which are, in

fact, relatively stumpy and clumsy in effect.1l

The facial type of most of the casket figures is one that has few paral-

7 Organ-Werner, "Restoration of the Relic Casket," 50f. 8 E.g., the bronze stupa in the Gai collection at Pesh-awar, which has four seated

Buddhas of almost the same size and proportions (Islay Lyons and Harald Ingholt,

Gandh'aran Art in Pakistan, New York, 1957, fig. 496).

9 Mirella Levi d'Ancona, "Is the Kaniska Reliquary a Work from Mathura?" AB, 31, 1949, 321-23.

10 Lohuizen-de Leeuw, "Scythian" Period; Lyons-Ingholt, Gandhiran Art; Domenico

Faccenna, Sculptures from the Sacred Area of Butkara I (Swat, Pakistan), pts. 2-3 (Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Centro Studi e Scavi Archeologici in Asia, Reports and Memoirs, ii), Rome, 1962-64. An important new publication by John M. Rosenfield, The Dynastic Art of the Kushans, Berkeley, 1966, has not yet been released at the time this article goes to press.

11 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandharan

Art, fig. 284.




lels in monumental sculpture either in Mathuri or Gandhira. Except for the central Buddha and one or two of the putti, the heads are round with short, straight noses, strongly marked brows, protruding eyes, and small mouths. The cheeks are less heavy and the corners of the mouth less strongly indented than in Mathura figures.12 Indeed, the closest parallels are probably to be found in a number of miniature narrative panels now in the Peshawar Museum, most of which come from SahrT- Bahlol and other Gandharan sites in the vicinity.13 As in some of the sixth century Christian ivories to which they bear a striking resem- blance (e.g., the Joseph panels of the Throne of Maximianus in Ra- venna), these heads are apparently intended to give an impressionistic effect of modeling and animation on a small scale.14

The lid of the casket is treated as an expanded lotus blossom with broad petals and a tall knob-like projection representing the pericarp or seed-pod, which forms the throne on which the central Buddha sits. Around the base of the seed-pod are the stamens, narrow petal-like shapes with inscribed borders, and around these the petals of the corolla are inscribed, filling the remaining surface of the lid. This type of lotus throne with turned-back petals is seldom seen in Indian art, although a few examples have been found from widely separated regions and apparently widely separated periods. One of these appears on a damaged piece in the Provincial Museum, Lucknow, which represents a seated Buddha flanked by two standing attendants (Fig. 4).15 Here the large, loose petals of the lotus are turned downward and the central portion, on which the Buddha sits, is a broad form with slanting sides like those of

a bowl or deep soup-plate. Lotus thrones of this type are also found on a small decorative panel from Sahri-Bahlol, showing a meditating Bud- dha within a temple or palace; a rectangular panel from the drum of a small ruined stiapa at Sikri, not far from Sahri-Bahlol, which represents the future Sakyamuni meditating in the Tushita Heaven (Fig. 5); and two reliefs from Butkara in Swat.16 As in the casket, the petals are very large and rendered with double incised lines, while the inner circle of stamens is represented by narrow ridges, so thickly set that they resemble a heavy fringe.

The halo now attached to the head of the Buddha is inscribed with a circle from which radiate pointed leaf or petal shapes freely drawn with single lines. As Miss d'Ancona rightly observes, Gandharan halos are invariably plain, while those of Mathuria are most often decorated either with inverted scallops along the outer edge or with radiating shapes such

as lotus petals, pointed leaves or arrowheads. According to Mme. Van

Lohuizen-de Leeuw's typological series, one of the earliest Mathuri ex-

amples of the halo with radiating forms must be that of a seated Jina

figure dated in the eighty-seventh year of the Kanishka era.17 Lotus

petals appear on the broken halos of a seated Buddha from Sah~th- Mahith and a Bodhisattva in the Mathurli Museum, both of which ob-

viously belong to the period when Mathuri artists had adopted the Gandhiran costume for their figures.18 Neither image bears a precisely dated inscription, but the one from Sahith-Mahith may be ascribed on

palaeographic and stylistic grounds to the latter part of the first century of the Kanishka era, a period when Mathuri was under strong Gandhi- ran influence. None of these halos are quite like that of the casket Bud-

dha, for they all have petals radiating outward from the center, while those of the casket disc are inscribed around the outer edge. Discs with lotus petal borders are known in the Kushina period, but they usually form the upper element of a parasol.19 This suggests that the disc found with the casket may have been intended as part of such a parasol and that the halo would have been more conventional in type. Possibly the

parasol disc was buried with the casket because the craftsman was un- able to complete his work in time for the ceremonial enshrinement of the

reliquary. The attitude of the Buddha, with his right hand raised in abhaya-

mudrN and his left holding up a cluster of folds, is one very often found in Mathuri, but again only in works that show clear evidence of Gan- dharan influence. In most Gandhiran seated Buddhas, the left hand is lowered and rests on the thigh even when it holds the robe, while the

right hand may perform a variety of gestures. However, the gesture of

lifting up the robe appears in a number of apparently early Gandhiran pieces, notably three reliefs once in the Guides' Mess at Mardan, where the motif is combined with the right-hand gestures of abhaya-mudra, bh'mispars'a-mudra_, and touching the Wheel of the Law as if to set it in motion.20 It also appears in a relief from Building L of the Dharmarajika

Stfipa at Taxila, in conjunction with the wheel-touching gesture, and in a Peshawar Museum relief with the bhimispars/a-mudrTi.21 The closest

parallels to the Kanishka casket Buddha are three panels from the ruined Sikri stipa and a number of pieces from Butkara, all of which show the combination of abhaya-mudra and raised left hand.22

The face of the Buddha, with its rather long oval shape and long upper lip, apparently clean shaven, has few close parallels in either Ma- thuran or Gandhiran figures, but it is very like that of a relief found in

Building L of the Dharmarajiki complex at Taxila, even to the absence of a mustache.23 From the same site is a monumental standing Buddha whose wide open eyes with clearly marked pupils and straight hair drawn into a flat chignon-like ushnisha are quite similar to those of the miniature figures on the casket.24 Several reliefs from Sanghao, Nathu, and the Sikri stipa show Buddhas of similar facial type, but all of these have mustaches.25

Turning now to the attendant figures on the lid, it seems evident that their lack of elaborate jewelry may be in part the result of the difficulties

involved in modeling and casting figures on this very small scale. Tech-

nically and also aesthetically figures of this size cannot carry the load of

12 J. Ph. Vogel, La sculpture de Mathur (Ars Asiatica, xv), Paris, 1930, pls. vw-a, vi,

VIII, XVI-c, XX, XXIII, etc.

13 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandh'iran Art, figs. 3, 5, 33, 39, 102, 142, 182. See also the larger panels from Nathu and Sanghao, Sir John Marshall, The Buddhist Art of Gandh7ra

(Memoirs of the Department of Archaeology in Pakistan, 1), Cambridge, 1960, figs. 69, 70.

14 This raises the interesting possibility that the mold for the casket may have been made from a wooden model, but we must leave such technical problems to more competent judges.

15 Ludwig Bachhofer, Early Indian Sculpture, New York, 1929, 11, pl. 86. 16 Lyons-Ingholt,

Gandharan Art, figs. 262, 8; Faccenna, Sculptures from Butkara, pls.

CCCIrI, CCCXXXI.

17 Lohuizen-de Leeuw, "Scythian" Period, 220, fig. 48.

18 Ibid., 202-23, fig. 43; Bachhofer, Early Indian Sculpture, pl. 85. 19 A lotiform parasol of stone, mounted on a tall octagonal shaft, once sheltered the

Sirnlth image of SfTkyamuni dedicated in the third year of the Kanishka era (D. R. Sahni and J. P. Vogel, Catalogue of the Museum of Archaeology at S'rnath, Cal- cutta, 1914, 33-37, pls. vwI, viii).

20 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandharan Art, figs. 72, 66, 77. Mario Bussagli seems to consider this group of Mardin reliefs works of the third century, see "Gandhara," Encyclo- pedia of World Art, New York, 1962, vI, pl. 18. To us, however, the handling of the drapery, the relative freedom of the iconography, and the treatment of the Buddha as a normally scaled figure with a large chignon or bun of hair and a small halo, all appear to be indications of relatively early date.

21 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandhiran Art, figs. 75, 63. 22 Ibid., figs. 78, 70, 126; Faccenna, Sculptures from Butkara, pls. LxxIx, Lxxx, LXXXur. 23 Marshall, Buddhist Art of Gandhara, fig. 100. 24 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandharan Art, fig. 216. 25 Marshall, Buddhist Art of Gandhira, figs. 98, 71, 88; Lyons-Ingholt, Gandhdran Art,

fig. 104.



KANISHKA CASKET 399

collars, necklaces and amulet-box chains that enrich most of the monu-

mental figures of Bodhisattvas and attendant deities, but this kind of

simplicity may also be an indication of a relatively early date. A number of the reliefs from the Dharmarijika at Taxila and from the old Mardin

collection, as well as some from Nathu, Sikri (Fig. 5) and Takht-i-Bahai in the Peshiwar region, show that even the gods may appear almost unadorned in the early period.26 Similar lack of jewelry may be seen in a group of three pieces now in the Lahore Museum, but it is most unusual in works of this more mature style.27

The costumes of the attendant deities, like those of other princely or divine figures, are made of two broad strips of cloth. One is wrapped around the legs like the modern Indian dhoti, with a mass of loose pleats falling down the front or over the left thigh, and the other is worn as a sort of shawl, passing under the right arm and up again over the left

shoulder.28 In most Gandh'iran representations, these garments seem to be made of some fine gauzy fabric. The massed pleats of the lower garment are adjusted in such a way that they fall in deep points with an elaborate pattern of zigzag edges, and the upper garment is usually pleated longitudinally into a narrow strip which loops low around the

right hip and is loosely wound around the left shoulder and lower arm

(Figs. 5-7). The casket figures, however, seem to be clothed in thicker and more substantial stuffs. The falling pleats of their dhotis and the ends of their shawls do not dangle in irregular points but are cut off

abruptly on a horizontal line (again perhaps a concession to technical

problems involved in working on this small scale), and their shawls are

spread out in heavy folds, covering the entire body from armpit to thigh. Similarly broad and enveloping shawls appear in the two Taxila and Sikri reliefs referred to in the discussion of jewelry, and also in a few reliefs from Hashtnagar, Sikri, Mardan, Sahri-Bahlol, and Giri.29 They are usually worn by ascetics or youthful figures of Brahmanic type, and it is appropriate that Brahmi should wear such a costume, but it seems

inappropriate for Indra, the king of the gods. Because of their awkward proportions, enveloping garments, and al-

most complete lack of detailed modeling, the two attendant figures on the lid of the casket have very little feeling of organic structure or

rhythmic unity. Their arms-excessively long in proportion to their small hands and shrunken torsos-look like bent tubes, and their

stumpy legs and clumsy feet have no ankle articulation. The turned-out

position of the feet suggests that the artist was aware of the contrap- posto posture so often seen in Gandharan reliefs, but either he was indifferent to the movement of the entire body that is implied by this

stance, or else he did not understand it (Figs. 5-8, 11, 12).30 He seems to have been primarily indifferent, for the small figures of gamboling putti on the side of the casket show that he was capable of representing

well proportioned figures in very lively action when he had an appro-

priate model before him.

These nude, garland-carrying infants (Figs. 1-3), with their exceed-

ingly varied repertory of attitudes and movements, are similar to those

on the base of the well known group of PHcika and H~irti from Sahr_- Bahlol and to the garland-carriers on some miniature friezes now in the Lahore Museum and the Gai collection at Peshiwar.s31 Their wrist and

ankle bangles and the little topknots worn by some of them are common to most figures of this type, but their anatomy is somewhat unusual. The swelling chests emphasized by a strong incised line are best paral- leled in such muscular adult figures as the atlantids from Nathu and Sikri, now in the Calcutta and Peshiwar museums, and the one in the museum at Lahore.32

The standing figure on the side of the casket, who is presumably the donor, the Maharaija Kanishka, wears the full Kushina costume of tall hat, flaring coat, loose trousers and enormous boots (Fig. 1). Such outfits are seldom seen in Gandharan sculptures. The MahrZija's awkwardly turned-out feet are like those of the famous ruler portraits from Ma-

thur'i, but they could scarcely have been set any other way without pro- jecting excessively over the moldings of the base. Otherwise his attitude, with left arm akimbo and hand resting on hip while he lifts an offering of flowers in his right hand, is one frequently found among the donor

figures of the Gandhara region (Fig. 7).33 The clumsy triangular skirt with horizontally curving folds was probably borrowed by the sculptor from familiar coin portraits which were, in effect, official royal effigies.34

The half-length figures in the loops of the garland, who are shown in attitudes of veneration and worship, either throwing flowers or clasping their hands in a'jali-mudrai, are badly worn and their details are hard to see. Except for the bearded sun god to the right of the king, who appears to wear Kushana costume, and the moon goddess on the left, their dress and faces seem to be close to those of the deities on the lid.

We have postponed for the last a consideration of the miniature Bud- dhas (Figs. 2, 3) who occupy three of the loops of the garland. They sit in the attitude of meditation (dhyana-mudra-l) with their hands in their

laps, their eyes closed, and their heads tilted slightly downward. Unlike the Buddha on the lid, they are well proportioned, with relatively small heads. Their drapery is similar to that of the larger Buddha, with mod- eled ridges and curving incisions indicating the cowl-like roll around the neck, the symmetrical U-shaped folds over the torso, the slanting folds across the arms and legs, and the very curious parallel folds that fall forward like an apron from beneath their hands. The hands themselves are cursorily indicated with a double line at each wrist and a few deeper gouges to mark off the thumbs and fingers. Later monumental images of the meditating Buddha frequently show spiraling folds over the arms and legs, but in these the ridge-like folds fan out asymmetrically from the left shoulder, the portion of the mantle that hangs beneath the hands

is treated as a curving swag or loop whose folds are continuous with

those on the upper part of the body, and a cluster of narrow pleats un-

dulates gently over the hidden right foot.

The prototype of the casket schema can be seen in a vertical panel

26 Lyons-Ingholt, figs. 37, 50, 73, 69, 238. 27. Ibid., figs. 240, 241, 243. 28 For a useful study of the costume of Indian figures, see A. B. Griswold, "Prolegom-

ena to the Study of the Buddha's Dress in Chinese Sculpture," AAsiae, xxvi, 1963, 85-114.

29 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandharan Art, pl. I-3, figs. 103, 72, 110, 132.

30 Ibid., figs. 33, 35, 50, 58, 59, 60, 68, 74, etc. 31 Marshall, Buddhist Art of Gandhara, fig. 144; Lyons-Ingholt, Gandharan Art, figs.

342, 224, 377.

32 Marshall, Buddhist Art of Gandh'ra, fig. 70; Lyons-Ingholt, Gandhiran Art, figs.

383, 387, 384.

33 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandh'ran Art, figs. 404, 413, 414. 34 See Coomaraswamy, History of Indian and Indonesian Art, figs. 122, 123. The sec-

ond of these is undoubtedly a coin of the great Kanishka, but the beardless ruler of the other coin is much closer to the coin-effigies of Kanishka's successor Huvishka, whose headgear and flaring coat resemble those of the casket donor figure. See R. Gbbl, "Die Miinzpriigung der Kuain von Vima Kadphises bis Bahram IV," in Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl, Finanzgeschichte des Spiitantike, Frankfurt, 1957, pl. 7.




from Giri, near Taxila, representing the Buddha in the Indra'saila Cave

(Fig. 8).85 Here the lower portion of the robe has been wrapped around the hands and the vertical folds coming down from the left shoulder are pulled over toward the center to form an asymmetrical fan of pleats. Stiffer adaptations of this type, with vetrtical folds pulled so far over that they fan out rigidly from beneath the hands, appear in several very small Buddha figures now in the Lahore and Peshiwar museums, in a tiny panel from SahrT-Bahlol which represents the Future Buddha in the Tushita Heavens, and in some of the Butkara pieces.36 In the three Sikri

stfipa panels of meditating Buddhas, the drapery pattern is dry and de- rationalized, so to speak, as if the relationship between the upper and lower folds were either not understood or forgotten.37 The Sikri Future Buddha in the Tushita Heaven (Fig. 5), in particular, shows two entirely dissociated patterns of curving and parallel folds so similar to those of the casket Buddhas that both may derive from the same prototype.

The symmetrically patterned robe, often rendered as a series of incised loops descending in alternation from the two shoulders, is so common in Mathura during the first phase of Gandharan influence and so rare in Gandh-ira proper, that it might well appear to be an Indian mis- understanding of the more naturalistic northern type, were it not that it has parallels in Parthian art.38 It is also found in some early works from the Pesh'twar region, for instance a relief from Charsada, showing the child Siddhartha on his way to school, accompanied by his charioteer and the Four Guardians (Fig. 9). These figures wear tunic-like garments whose folds are indicated by a series of incised partial loops descending alternately from the shoulders.39 Similarly alternating folds, more deeply gouged and more closely set, appear in the garments of two pilaster figures, a female guard and a lute player (Fig. 10), both of which come from the old Guides' Mess at Mardin.40 In most of the Buddha figures from Mardin the folds of the robe radiate outward from the left shoulder across the right arm, but when the right hand is raised there is a tendency to render them as falling symmetrically from both shoulders, as in the frieze-like scene of the Gift of the Jetavana Garden (Fig. 6), with what Marshall thinks is the earliest known representation of the Buddha by a Gandhlran artist, and a panel representing the Buddha's encounter with the ascetic brahman (Fig. 11).41 In these reliefs the cowls and edges of the robes are raised, while the folds are indicated by broad furrows of triangular section, a convention that is also seen in the tiny figures of the Kanishka casket.

The Buddha on the lid of the casket seems,

to be a more experimental

conception than the smaller Buddhas on the sides, which may be under-

stood simply as reductions, in pose and drapery, of a standard icono-

graphic type represented by the Giri Buddha. The lid figure shows how

the twin motifs of the two raised hands and the symmetrical drapery,

already common in standing figures, were adapted to the seated meditat-

ing Buddha. The hands do not conceal the awkward transition between the looping symmetrical folds of the torso and the vertical apron-like folds across the legs, although some effort is made to mitigate the con- flict between the two systems by allowing the curved folds to become shallower as they descend into the lap and by channeling the folds from the inner sides of the wrist more deeply as they descend across the legs, but these mechanical devices do little to rationalize the scheme. Funda-

mentally, however, the drapery is scarcely more irrational than the horizontally looped folds on the legs of the seated Buddha from Takht-i- Bahai now in Berlin. It has been suggested that these folds may derive from the style of the "pre-Roman" period, when the symmetrical for- mulas of Parthian sculpture were freely applied to new and unprece- dented problems of Buddhist art.42 (A very similar treatment appears in the canonical type of the dying Buddha, whose robes look like those of a standing image tilted over on its side.)

Is it possible to draw any conclusions from this comparative analysis of the casket from Sh-ah-ji-kl-Dher1? In the first place, it seems evident that there are enough stylistic affinities with Gandharan works to war- rant reattribution of the casket to the northwest, either to the Taxila or

PeshZiwar areas. The date is difficult to fix because the pieces with which it bears comparison are clearly of very different periods, and some of them, notably the panels from the Sikri stipa, have been ascribed by competent scholars to both the early and late phases of Gandhiran art.43 However, both the drapery treatment and the lotus throne point toward a date in about the fourth or fifth decade of the Kanishka era, and this can be supported by other stylistic elements and historic tradition.

Except for a few panels from the Sikri stiipa, the combination of raised hands and symmetrically arranged drapery is very rare in seated Bud- dhas from the Taxila and Gandhara regions, although it sometimes appears in Swat and is standard in certain seated Buddhas from Mathura which, as Mme. Van Lohuizen-de Leeuw has demonstrated, derive from northwestern models. The earliest dated example of this combination of motifs is the Anyor Buddha of the year 51, Kanishka era. Within a few decades, however, the symmetrically incised folds of this figure are re- placed by more plastically rendered folds that radiate fanlike from the left shoulder.44 All these figures follow a developed Gandhiran model with the mantle falling down from the forearms and across the lap in deep curving folds. The casket Buddhas, on the other hand, derive from an earlier type of meditating Buddha, like that of Giri, whose arms and hands are wrapped in the lower edge of the mantle (Fig. 8).

Both iconographically and formally, the Girl relief appears to belong to an early phase of the Gandhiran style. The mountainous setting of the Indras'aila cave is indicated by angular rocks framing the mouth of

the cave and by two wild boars among the rocks in front. On either side

35 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandharan Art, fig. 132. 36 Ibid., figs. 237-43, 262; Faccenna, Sculptures from Butkara, pls.

,xxxII, ccxxur,

CCCIII.

37 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandharan Art, figs. 8, 96, 129. 38 Ibid., pls. VI-3, vII-2. 39 Marshall, Buddhist Art of Gandh;ra, fig. 95. Cf. the folds in the skirt of the well

known portrait of Kanishka from Mat, Vogel, Sculpture de Mathuri, pl. 1. 40 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandharan Art, figs. 361, 367. 41 Marshall, Buddhist Art of Gandhara, 41f., 47f.; Lyons-Ingholt, Gandhiran Art, figs.

95, 54. See note 20 supra regarding the probable date. 42 Alexander Coburn Soper, "The Roman Style in Gandhlira," AJA, 55, 1951, 310-11,

pl. 25-B. Rowland believes that Julio-Claudian or Flavian influence is discernible in certain stucco heads from the Apsidal Temple at Sirkap and the Dharmar-jik'i Stupa, Taxila, and also in the earliest Buddha statues of Gandh'ara, which he as- cribes to the pre-Kanishka period, i.e., before 129 A.D.; Benjamin Rowland, Jr., "The

Hellenistic Influence in Northwestern India," AB, 21, 1949, 4-8; "Gandhara and Late Antique Art: The Buddha Image," AJA, 46, 1942, 223-34. However this chronology may have to be reconsidered in light of the discovery that the Sirkap site was continuously occupied until at least the reign of Huvishka; A. Ghosh, "Taxila (Sirkap), 1944-45," Ancient India, 4, 1947/48, 45-84.

43 Marshall (Buddhist Art of Gandhara, 40, 55-58), and Lohuizen-de Leeuw ("Scyth- ian" Period, 104) both consider the Sikri stupa panels to be among the earliest Bud- dhist works from this region, but Soper ("Roman Style in Gandhira," 312, n. 80) describes them as works of "relatively late date" that still retain elements of an earlier style.

44 Lohuizen-de Leeuw, "Scythian" Period, 183-97, 202-07, figs. 39, 43. It is possible that this combination was introduced into the Mathuran tradition from Swat, for it appears on a number of the pieces found at Butkara; Faccenna, Sculptures from Butkara, pls. LxxxIx, LxxxI, LxxxIII-a.



KANISHKA CASKET 401

of the cave-mouth stand two figures in an'ali-mudrai, one of them identifiable as Indra because of his tall hat, which has almost exactly the

shape of the hat worn by the Kushina ruler on the casket, and the other, who wears his hair in a top-knot or chignon, apparently representing Brahmri, although in most versions of the story the second figure is Panchasikha, the celestial harper who came as Indra's messenger.45 A railing, very much like those that define the panels on the gate posts of the Bharhut and S`ichli stupas, appears just above the mouth of the cave, and in the upper space large figures of celestial beings soar and dive through the air as they pour a great shower of enormous blossoms down upon the cave. The use of the railing as a horizontal divider, the very large figures of the flying devas above, and the relatively small size of the Buddha figure within the cave, all recall the pre-Kushana style of India proper, and it seems most probable that the entire design was based upon a model brought from the south.

In mature Gandharan art the setting of the Indras'aila cave is much more elaborate, with rocky ledges populated by numerous figures, including Indra's entire retinue, mountain deities, adoring humans, and wild beasts. As the central figure of the Buddha grows ever larger and more hieratic in character, these secondary figures grow smaller and more numerous, and the carving becomes so deep that the portions fram-

ing the cave mouth are seen as a network of white shapes against dark

shadow.46 The British Museum has a panel that must be one of the earliest surviving versions of the mature type (Fig. 12).47 The secondary figures are relatively few in number and sturdily proportioned, with solidly rounded forms. The Buddha is somewhat more developed than that of the Girl relief, for his hands are exposed and the lower edge of his mantle is tucked under his right knee and hangs in looping folds over his feet, the pleats along its left side fanning out loosely upon the ground.

The Buddha and subordinate figures of the British Museum Indras"aila scene are similar to those of a panel found in Building L of the Dhar-

marajiki complex at Taxila.48 This piece shows the Buddha seated beneath a pipal tree. Together with a number of others from the same site, it has been assigned by Marshall to the "Early Mature" phase of Gan- dh'iran art, which he reckons at about 90-140 A.D.49 Minor variations suggest that several hands are represented in these panels, but the similarity of the compositions, each showing an enthroned Buddha or Bodhisattva flanked by more or less symmetrically arranged listeners or worshippers, indicates a close relationship between them. They all seem to belong to the period before the strong wave of Roman influence that was probably

brought by Kush~ina embassies returning from the courts of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius.50 The variety in details of drapery and the freedom in the gestures of the Buddhas, which do not always correspond to the established mudrEis of a later period, suggest that at this time the canon of the Buddha image was still in process of formation. As in the Mardin and Girl reliefs referred to above (Figs. 6-8), the Buddha is scarcely larger than his auditors or worshippers, which is of course another indication of early date. Since all these works are stylistically related to the Kanishka casket, the evidence seems to point to an early date for the casket as well.

It is sometimes said that the lotus throne appears in early Gandharan art only in representations of the miracle of Srivasti, and its presence on the casket has been cited as an indication that the work must either come from Mathur- or be ascribed to a relatively late date. Unquestion- ably the lotus throne with upturned petals is a motif characteristic of the later Gandharan style, and there are also a number of late Gan- dhiran reliefs in which the Buddha sits upon a lotus throne with down- turned petals in the attitude of Turning the Wheel of the Law (dhar- machakra-mudrii) (Fig. 13). In such representations the lotus throne is low and compact and as highly formalized as the more familiar arti- choke-like lotus throne with upturned petals.51 The casket lotus, however, like that of the Sikri stipa scene of the Future Buddha in the

Tdishita Heaven (Fig. 5) and the tiny SahrT-Bahlol representation of the same subject,52 belongs to a different type. Here, as in the small Buddha at Lucknow (Fig. 4), the Buddha is shown in meditation (dhy-ana-mudra) and the lotus throne is naturalistically rendered with large loose petals and a broad circular seedpod which serves as a seat for the figure. Thanks to Mme. Van Lohuizen-de Leeuw's establishment of a clear

typological sequence for the Mathuria Buddhas, we can say with some assurance that the Lucknow figure was probably executed shortly before the Anyor Buddha of the year 51 (Kanishka era),53 clear evidence that the Mathur- sculptors who first began to experiment with the Gandhiran type of fully enveloping drapery also made use of the lotus throne. While it is possible that this motif was- invented in the Mathuri- region, since the lotus is deeply rooted in Indian imagery, it may also be re- membered that the pre-Kush'na capital of Gandh~ira was known as

PushkalivatT, "Abounding in Lotuses," indicating that the lotus had equal significance in this region.54 In any event, the clearly observable influence of Gandhira on the art of Mathuri probably implies some counter-current of exchange by which iconographic motifs were trans- mitted from Mathuri to the northwest, as well as in the other direction.

45 In a relief of this same scene from the Jamrilpur Mound near Mathura the celestial harper is visible on one side of the cave, but the figure behind Indra holding a chauri may be

Brahmir; Vogel, Sculpture de Mathuri, pl. unl-b.

46 A highly developed version of the Indras'aila scene appears in a stele from Jauliin, which Soper thinks may be about forty years earlier than the Mamine-dherT Indra- s'aila stele dated in the year 89 of the Kanishka era (Soper, "Roman Style in Gandhlira," 307-09, pl. 30). A curious and probably late version in Lahore shows the Buddha partially concealed by the rocky side of the cave, with Panchasikha standing at the entrance, and Indra waiting discreetly outside; Lyons-Ingholt, Gandha~ran Art, fig. 128. The curious emphasis on the half-concealed view of the Buddha and the odd way his halo has slipped down as if to form a mandorla, suggest that the artist may have intended to stress the association between the Indra- s'aila legend and the Cave of the Shadow. For an extended discussion of the mean- ing and importance of this theme, see Alexander Coburn Soper, "Aspects of Light Symbolism in Gandharan Sculpture," pts. 1, 3, AAsiae, 12, 1949, 252-83, and 13, 1950, 63-75.

47 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandhiran Art, pl. xvm-3. 48 Marshall, Buddhist Art of Gandhara, fig. 101. 49 Ibid., 77-80, figs. 98, 100, 102. See also Benjamin Rowland, Jr., "A Revised Chro-

nology of Gandhara Sculpture," AB, 18, 1936, 392; Soper, "Roman Style in Gan-

dhIara," 311f., n. 72.

50 The first wave of Roman influence, as identified by Benjamin Rowland, Jr., "Gan- dhara, Rome and Mathuri," Archives of the Chinese Art Society, o10, 1956, 8-16, may be seen in some of the Sirkap sculptures and in the stair-riser reliefs (from Buner?), which show isolated figures against blank backgrounds after the manner of Augustan and Flavianic reliefs. The second wave, which Soper, "Roman Style in Gandh'ira," 303-06, derives from the Hadrianic style, is characterized by more complex compositions and a somewhat inore naturalistic and voluminous treatment of drapery.

51 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandhiran Art, figs. 257-61. Similar low, broad, round-petalled lotus thrones may be seen beneath the meditating Buddhas in stucco around the base of the Sh~ih-JT-kT-pheri stupa (Rowland, "'A Revised Chronology of Gandhara Sculp- ture," fig. 11; Soper, "Roman Style in Gandhlra," pl. 31-c).

52 Lyons-Ingholt, Gandh'ran Art, figs. 8, 262. 53 The symmetrically incised folds, relatively narrow sloping shoulders, wide-spread

knees, and robe-over-knee arrangement are almost identical with a Buddha in the Calcutta Museum that appears to be a little earlier than the dated Buddha from Anyor; Lohuizen-de Leeuw, "Scythian" Period, 184-202, figs. 33, 37, 39.)

54 The site of PushkalIvati is now known as Chirsada. See Sir R. E. Mortimer Wheeler, Charsada, A Metropolis of the North-West Frontier, Oxford, 1962, esp. pp. xii, 1-6.




The type of the standing Buddha with both hands raised must have been established some time before the twenty-third year of the Kanishka era, for it appears on coins issued by the Emperor Kanishka before his death in that year.55 The central Buddha of the Kanishka casket shows an early effort to adapt the two raised hands of the standing Buddha type to another kind of early image, that of the meditating Buddha.56 The final solution of the problem must have been found before the end of the fifth decade of the era, since the Anyor Buddha of the year 51 imitates the mature Gandharan type of seated Buddha with the mantle hanging down over the lap in a deep curve.57 The Lucknow Buddha on the lotus throne (Fig. 4) is perhaps a decade earlier than the Anyor Buddha, and the GandhFaran reliefs most closely related to the Kanishka casket are probably to be ascribed to the fourth and fifth decades of the era. Together, the fragmentary bits of evidence point to the late fourth or fifth decade of the Kanishka era as the probable period of the casket.

Who then was the Mahairaja Kanishka referred to in the inscription as the donor of the casket? The best known Kushina ruler of the period is Huvishka, whose epigraphs, dated in the years between 28 and 60 of the Kanishka era, are found throughout the empire. But an inscription found at Afr-, near Attock where the main road between Pesh-war and Taxila crossed the Indus River, names another ruler who may be identified as Kanishka II.

[During the reign] of the Mahar'aja, Rijfitirajj, Devaputra, Kaisara Kanishka, the son of Vajheshka, in the forty-first year-anno 41, on the 25. day of the month Jyaishtha, on this day-term this well was dug by Dashavhara, of the Peshawarian scions, in honor of his mother and father, for the benefit of himself with his wife and son, for the welfare of all beings in the [various] births. And, having written this [might there] for me ...58

It seems most probable that this second Kanishka, whose one known date falls at the beginning of the decade to which the casket must be ascribed on stylistic grounds, was in fact the Maharaja Kanishka named in the casket inscription. From the imperial titles assigned to him it appears that he must have been for a time co-ruler with Huvishka or possibly a temporary usurper of imperial power in the north. Nothing further is known of him, but he has been tentatively identified with the third of the three "Turushka" kings, Hushka (Huvishka), Jushka (Va-

jheshka?), and Kanishka, who are referred to in the mediaeval Kashmiri

poem Raiatarangini as co-rulers and founders of the three Kashmiri cities of Ushkur (Hushkapura), Zukur (Jushkapura), and Kanispor (Kanishkapura).59 While this tradition is too late to have great value as historic evidence, it tends to confirm the probability that Huvishka, de- spite his numerous and widely scattered epigraphs, shared his power with Vajheshka and his son Kanishka II.

Beyond these meager facts we find ourselves in a realm of hypothesis and inference. Nevertheless, it is tempting to explore further in the hope that future discoveries may confirm at least a portion of our suggestions. The casket was found in the lower portions of the terrace of an enormous ruined stupa which has been identified with the great Tower of Kanishka, known to us from the accounts of Chinese travelers. Accord-

ing to local tradition reported by Chinese pilgrims, the monument was built by the Emperor Kanishka-presumably Kanishka I-over a tiny clay stipa made by a strange childi but the miniature kept re-emerging at the top, until the Emperor tore down the upper portions and rebuilt them.60 From the circumstances in which the casket was found, it seems that it was deposited at a time when the lower portions of the foundation were already completed, which may indicate that the dismantling and reconstruction were actually the work of Kanishka II. Such deliber- ate, although partial, destruction of a stipa is without parallel in Bud- dhist history, and although local legend explained it as a consequence of pious zeal, it is possible that it represented, in fact, an effort to wipe out the memory of the founder and to take possession of the monument for the benefit of his successor. But why should such importance attach to this particular monument, and why did not Kanishka II build himself another stipa? We would suggest that the rededication and rebuilding of the stipa were associated with the founding of a new capital, the Kanishkapura of the casket inscription, and that in claiming the older monument to the Buddha as his own the emperor sought to place his new city and his realm under the special protection of the Buddha.61 Although there is no other historical or archaeological evidence for the date of the foundation of Kanishkapura, which we take to be the modern Peshawat, finds from the ruins of the earlier capital of PushkalavatT indicate that this city was still occupied at a time when Gandharan artists had begun to make representations of the Buddha, i.e., probably during the reign of the first Emperor Kanishka.62 Further excavation may con-

55 Coomaraswamy, History of Indian and Indonesian Art, fig. 123. 56 It is probable that the early Gandharan interest in the meditating Buddha is to be

explained by a local emphasis on the practice of dhyina or "Buddhist yoga." Al- though Kashmir was the traditional dhyiana center, it may have derived the practice from Gandhara. Sadgharaksha, the compiler of the important dhyina text the YogichZirabhilmi (partially translated into Chinese between 148 and 170 a.D. by the Parthian An Shih-kao), is said to have been a native of Saurashtra who came to Gandhlira in the reign of Kanishka. Paul Demibville, author of the major study of this text and its history, seems to discount this tradition, which was current in Kashmir in the fourth century, as he discounts the Kashmiri tradition that Kanishka presided over a Sarvistivadin council; "La YogNcarabhimi de Sahgharaksa," BEcole Franqais d'Extreme-Orient, 1954, 340f., 363-65. However, in view of the casket inscription, which explicitly associates a ruler named Kanishka with "the Sar-

vastivSidin teacher," and of the importance of the meditating Buddha in early Gan- dhiran art, there is reason to think that these legends are founded on something more than a desire to glorify the Sarvastividin school of Kashmir by associating it with Kanishka as a second As'oka.

57 A rare Mathura example of the fully robed standing Buddha in enveloping robes of the Gandharan type is a small figure now in the Curzon Museum, Mathura, which appears to be slightly earlier than the Anyor Buddha; Lohuizen-de Leeuw, "Scythian" Period, 187, fig. 36. Chinese and Japanese tradition associate this type of figure with King Udyana of Kausambi, but it is possible that this results from a confusion with the kingdom of Udyana or Uddliy'na, just north of Gandhira

proper, in the Swat valley. For summaries of the literature regarding the Udyina type, see A. Foucher, L'art grico-bouddhique du Gandhara, Paris, 1922, II, 724-29, and Alexander Coburn Soper, Literary Evidence of Early Buddhist Art in China (Artibus Asiae Supplementum, xix), Ascona, 1959, 259-61. On the other hand, it may be noted that a late Gandharan tradition seems to have identified the Udyina image with the type of the Buddha seated in meditation; Benjamin Rowland, Jr., "A Note on the Invention of the Buddha Image,"

Haro'ard Journal of Asiatic Stud-

ies, 11, 1948, 181-86. 58 Konow, Kharofsthi Inscriptions, 162-65. 59 J. N. Banerjea and Jagannath, "The Rise and Fall of the Kushina Power," Com-

prehensive History of India, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, ed., II,

Bombay, 1957, 243-46. 60 Samuel Beal, Si-yu-ki. Buddhist Records of the Western World, London, 1884, I,

99-101. 61 Professor John Rosenfield has generously called my attention to Chapter 12 of the

Suvarnaprabhasa-su~tra, in which the Four Heavenly Kings are assigned the special duty of protecting the pious monarch and his realm. The earliest known versions of this work do not antedate the 4th century, but there may well have been an earlier Kushana cult of royal or state Buddhism; Johannes Nobel, Suvarnaprabhasottama- sutra. Das Goldglanz-S'itra, ein Sanskrittext des Mah'y'ina Buddhismus, Leiden, 1958.

62 Wheeler, Ch~rsada, 3, says, "It has been conjectured, without much proof, that

Pushkal~ivati may have remained the local metropolis until A.D. 100 or thereabouts."



KANISHKA CASKET 403

firm this dating and clarify the chronology of the Kushana emperors following Kanishka I. In any event, the Shah-ji-ki-DherT casket, with its uncanonical Buddha images and its inscription, stands as a major docu-

ment of the developing GandhLiran style and a reminder of the historic existence of a monarch whose very name has been all but lost in the greater fame of his predecessor.63

University of California, Santa Barbara

63 I wish to express my gratitude to the Tulane University Council on Research, which generously supported me in a year's leave of absence from teaching duties so that

I could work on this and a number of other problems in Buddhist art.



again the kanishka casket

Documents