nepal an early nepalese bronze

8/9/2019 Nepal an Early Nepalese Bronze

1/14

An Early Nepalese BronzeAuthor(s): Douglas BarrettSource: The British Museum Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1/2 (Autumn, 1965), pp. 41-50Published by: British MuseumStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4422920

Accessed: 19/11/2009 00:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

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

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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 [email protected].

British Museum is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Museum

Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4422920?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=britmuhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=britmuhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4422920?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/14

English pounds) or more, it might well be part of the weight when full. Other-wise it is unusually heavy: most of the jars with unladen weight inscriptions inC..LL. xv. ii. I weigh between 8o and 90 Roman pounds.

D. M. BAILEYx Many hundreds are publishedin C.LL. xv.ii. I. Also see OpusculaArchaeologica,vii, pp.166 ff. for references.2 T. Frank, An EconomicSurvey of AncientRome,v, pp. 272-3.3 OpusculaArchaeologica, ii, p. I67.4 Reg.No., I965, 5-6, 1.s C.LL. xv. ii. i, pl. ii (recently reinterpretedby Lamboglia in Rivista di Studi Liguri, xxi,

pp. 242-3, where Dressel Form 20 is dated to thesecond and third centuriesA.D.6 C.I.L. xv. ii. 1: 3731-4-7 T. Frank, ibid., p. 273, n. 13-8sJ.R.S. xxvii, p. 74.9 Ibid., p. 72.lo Cf. Milanges d'ArcMhologie t d'Histoire,lxxvi, p. 449, and J.R.S. xxvii, p. 79.

"I J.R.S. xxvii, p. 74.

AN EARLY NEPALESE BRONZEI N anexhibitionThe BuddhistArtof Tibet andNepal'heldin the BritishMuseum in 19i57, it was suggested that virtually all 'early' Nepalese bronzesshould be grouped in relation to what was then-and remains-the earliestknown dated piece, a Vasudhara of A.D. 1467, and given a formal date of four-teenth to fifteenth century A.D.IOf this group the earliest bronze was clearly thewell-known British Museum Tara (P1.viii): since the source of its style and icono-graphy seemed obscure, it was diffidently labelled 'i 3th century A.D. or earlier'.In the summer of 1964 a much more comprehensive exhibition'The Art of Nepal'was organized by Professor Stella Kramrisch at the Asia House Gallery in NewYork. Professor Kramrisch's admirable cataloguez of a wealth of new materialchosen with scholarship and taste undoubtedly marks real progress in our know-ledge of Nepalese art. Her views expressed in the introduction to the catalogue andin the captions are, however, somewhat modified in a more recent paper on theexhibition contributed by her to OrientalArt.3In the New York exhibition the fourteenth to fifteenth century A.D.dating formost 'early' Nepalese bronzes seems to have been retained. Professor Kramrisch'sview of the British Museum Tara is not so clear. In the catalogue it is not givena date but is mentioned (p. 35) alongside the Yampi Baha Avalokitesvara, whichin the caption (p. 34) is called end of the seventh or early eighth century A.D.,but in note 5 (p. 49) is accepted as about 780 A.D. In the paper in Oriental Artthe British Museum Tara is explicitly dated to about the eighth to ninth centuryA.D., and is compared with the image of Lakshmi on a stone stele of Vishnu fromChangu Narayan. The latter 'corresponds to 9th century A.D.Pala figures', andin the catalogue (p. 31) is called 'circa 9th century A.D.', though it is discussed(pp. 32-33) as if it belonged to the late seventh or early eighth century A.D. We

41 C


3/14

may accepteighth to ninth centuryA.D.as her finalopinionon the date of theBritish Museum Tara. There was, however,a small group of bronzes in theexhibition for which even earlier dates were claimed. The importantpiecesincludeda Devi (Catalogueno. 4), in the GeorgeP. BickfordCollection,datedto the first halfof the seventhcenturyA.D.: a Vajrapani Catalogueno. 5), in theStanfordUniversity Museum, dated to the seventh century A.D.:a Maitreya(Catalogueno. 6), in the ClevelandMuseum of Art, dated seventh to eighthcenturyA.D.; andamalefigurewith attendant(Catalogueno. 7), in the collectionof Nasli andAlice Heeramaneck,datedto the lateeighthcenturyA.D.The Devi(Catalogueno. 3), lent anonymously,has been doubted by most scholarswhohavehandled t, andwill, togetherwith the bronzeUmamahesvaran the Eilen-berg Collection,not be discussed.In this groupthe most interestingpiece fromour point of view is the StanfordVajrapani.Even if one questionsher date forthis bronze,one must at leastagreewith ProfessorKramrischhatit is Nepalese.But eventhis has beencontestedby JohnD. LaPlante,who in a long paper4hasattempted o establishthat the bronzewas cast in north-eastIndia,presumablyin Biharor Bengal.He prefersa dateperhapseven earlier hanProfessorKram-risch, in the reign of Harshavardhana(aboutA.D.606-47).Beforediscussingthesebronzesandtheirrelation o a recentacquisitionof theBritishMuseum, it may be useful to prefixa few commentson Nepaleseart ingeneral,using as far as possiblethe wordsof ProfessorKramrisch,whose esti-mateof its stylisticstatusis just and precise,though she is an advocateof earlydating. She says (Catalogue,p. 26): 'The art of Nepal is not a regionalschoolof Indianart. It is on the receivingend of a one way traffic.'Again (Reply toMr. La Plante, p. 289):The 'naturalism'f Nepalisculpturess formalized n the basisof the 'naturalism'f oneor theotherIndian chool.The naturalism f the StanfordBodhisattvaeproducesn itsownterms hatof an image romBihar.Comparedwith the animated lasticity f the modellingof the Nalandaimage, heStanfordVajrapanippears ard nd nert n itssummarilymodelledmass.Here the 'tendencyo simplifiedeometricormation's givenform.A qualitativeudgement is perhapspermissible:Nepalesesculpturesand paint-ings aregood only within the context of Nepaleseart and anyonefamiliarwiththe source(India)will findthatNepaleseart with few exceptionscannot sustainprolongedand detailedcontemplation.Moreover,in Nepal a formalor icono-graphicconventiononce adoptedmay be employednot merelyfor generationsbut for centuries.In such an art,at once derivativeandconservative,early'and'late'elementsof styleandiconographyarefrequently oundside by side on thesame piece, but obviouslyfor datingonly the latestelementsare significant.The British Museum has recently acquireda gilt bronze Avalokitesvaras(Pls. ix & x) which n styleand,whereapplicable,n detailsof iconographyorms

42


4/14

a pairwith the StanfordVajrapani.Indeed, the height of the VajrapanibeingIol inches and of the Avalokitesvara,whichhas lost its halo,93 inches,it mightbe thought they were a real pair, flanking,the Vajrapani o the left and theAvalokitesvarao the right, a standingimage of the Buddha(ProfessorKram-risch's identificationof the Stanfordimage as a Vajrapani eems wholly con-vincing). It will be convenientto compare he two bronzesunder the headingsused by Mr. La Plante in his paper,emphasizingthe identityof style and thesmall but significantdifferencesof detail.(a) The TechnicalMethodof Making theImages. Both, like the British MuseumTara, are solid cast by the cire-perduemethod in almost pure copper. On theAvalokitesvarahere are breaksat both ankles and at the right wrist. The tipsof the centraland properleft points of the crown and of the draperywhichhangs betweenthe legs aremissing. The metallicgilding, now much worn andalmostentirelyabsentfromthe base,covered he entireimageincludingthe hair,which, it seems, was left ungilded on the Vajrapaniand the British MuseumTara. When acquired he faceand neck of the Avalokitesvarawere coveredwithtwo layers of gold paint over a layer of carbonwhich had collected on themetallicgildingof the figure's ruesurface.Overthe gold painttheeyeshad beenfilledwith gesso, andwith the browsand mouthhad been paintedin white andblack, and blue and red. Clearlythe paint, like the trace of vermilionon themouthof the Vajrapani,did not, as claimedby Mr. La Plante, formpartof theoriginaldecorationof the images.All painthas been removed from the Avalo-kitesvara.For Mr. La Plante the Vajrapani-figure, halo,andbase-appears tohavebeencastin one piece. It is fairto questionthis, at least as regards he halo.The projecting lug for the attachmentof the separatebut now missing haloremains on the Avalokitesvara.On the lower curve of the halo of the BritishMuseum Tara is a shallow, rectangulardepression(a position correspondingwith the lug on the Avalokitesvara)which suggests that the same method ofattachmentwasused. Moreover,thelugremainson the GeorgeP. BickfordDevi,which has also lost its halo. Tooling of detailsseems identicalon both bronzes.Mr. La Plante, presumably arguing for an Indian provenance,states thatNepaleseimagesarefrequentlyhollow-cast,but in Indiapropercraftsmenwerebound never to cast a hollow image for worship. D. R. Thapar,whom he isquoting, is, one must assume,referring o South India,whereall metal imagesof deities,but not of theirvahanas,wereand continueto be cast solidno matterwhat their size. In Nepal, North India, and the Deccan, both solid and hollowimageswerecast,the generalprinciplebeingthatthe larger he bronzethe morelikelihoodof its beinghollow-cast o save metal. The huge BirminghamBuddha,a North Indian bronze, is, as one would expect, hollow-cast.Finally, Mr. LaPlanteclaims that the useof almostpurecopperwouldindicate hatif his bronzewas cast in North India, it was probably made before the ninth century A.D.

43


5/14

This maybe a fairclaim,for BiharandBengalat least,butit mustbeemphasizedthat a very high coppercontent is employed n casting imagesin Nepalwell intothe fifteenthcentury A.D., if not later.(b) TheFlameHalo. Unfortunately he halo of the Avalokitesvaras not avail-able for comparisonwith that of the Vajrapani.Mr. La Plante insists that noflame halo of the Pala period (about A.D. 750-twelfth century) is preciselysimilarto that on his image. This helps him little for he is unable to quote apreciselysimilar Indianhalo of any date. The only useful comparisonsare theBritishMuseumTara,whichhe acceptsasNepalese,andthe twoNepalesestonereliefs (Cataloguenos. vii and vi), which ProfessorKramrischhas datedto theend of the seventh or early eighth century A.D. (or about 780 A.D.) and to theninthcenturyA.D. respectively.The 'pipal-leaf' hapeof thehaloof theVajrapaniis that of the plainhalo on the Nepalesemale figurewith attendant(Catalogueno. 7), a formwhich is occasionally oundon Palabronzesof the ninth to tenthcenturyA.D.6Moreover,the generalconceptionof the halo on the Vajrapani ndTara-a flamebordersurrounding hreeinnerrings-is that of the well-knownbronze Parvati7 dated in the 54th year of Narayanapala (about A.D. 908). Theseparationof the pointsof the flameon the haloof the Vajrapani,muchempha-sized by Mr. La Plante, is no more distinctthan on manyPala bronzess8romNalandaof the reignof Devapala(aboutA.D.81o-50) andfrom Kurkihar f theninth to tenth centuryA.D.9The flameson the Pala pieces all spring from onespiralbase, as on the Vajrapani,but are more 'alive'. On the Vajrapanihalo asmallbutimportant eature ordatingis thechaseddecoration f the central nnerring. At top centreandon both sidesis amotif,which,shaped ike anopenvajra

(fig. 2 in Mr. La Plante'spaper), s reallythe bindingof a garlandof whichthecross-hatching n the central nnerring is thesummaryrepresentation. he samemotif in the samepositionsoccurson the haloof the BritishMuseum Tara, and,in identical and similarforms, on the haloes of Pala stone images,o?none ofwhich, I venture to claim,would be placedmuchearlier hanthe reignof Deva-pala.It is fairto concludethatthe haloon the Vajrapanis a Nepaleseadaptationof forms current n the Pala dominionfrom aboutA.D.8oo00nwards.(c) TheCrown.The crownof the Avalokitesvara,with its threepointsof equallength when completeand inclinedoutwards, s of the sameform as that of theVajrapani xcept that the centralpointof the formercontainsa seatedBuddha,now abradedbut probablyin the bhumisparsamudra. On both images the

beadedbandformingthe base of the crownhasaboveeachearan identicalhalf-floret. There are perhapsno exact Indianparallels o these crowns.They bear,however,a close resemblance o those worn by the British Museum Tara andmany 'early' Nepalese sculptures(Cataloguenos. v, vi, vii, viii, andx), and tothe crownsof some Pala sculptures," especiallyduring the Dharmapalaperiod(aboutA.D. 770-8 IO).They are,I suspect,identicalwiththe crownswornby the44


6/14

adoring figures on the book-cover of a Nepalese manuscript dated A.D. II I0(Catalogue no. 77).(d) The Ear-rings. The Avalokitesvara and the Tara wear the same type of ear-ring in both ears, a large ovaljewel with pearled border. The Vajrapaniwears thistype in his right ear only. In his left is the open circular ear-ring, ubiquitous anduseless for dating. The large oval jewel was commonly worn in Kashmir andadjacent regions from the eighth century A.D.onwards. It seems to have been lesspopular in the Pala dominion, though it is found on sculptures of the Devapalaperiod and later.,2 Apart from the British Museum Tara, it appears on most ofthe 'early' Nepalese stone sculptures illustrated by Professor Kramrisch (Cata-logue nos. vi, where Garuda wears both large oval and open circular ear-rings,vii, viii, and x). The wearing of disparate ear-rings is of course common on Palasculptures and in Nepalese paintings (Catalogue no. 77), and is no indication ofan 'early' date.(e) TheArmlets.The Avalokitesvara wears, rather high, armlets with a centraljewel in a triangular 'flamed' setting with small pendant below and a singlebeaded clasp. The armlets of the British Museum Tara are closely similar butworn very high and held by a double beaded clasp. This type of armlet, versionsof which are common on Pala sculptures from the Devapala period onward,remained popular in Nepal until the sixteenth century A.D. (Catalogue nos. Io,19, 26, 38, and 46). The Vajrapaniwears beaded spiral armlets with a large ovaljewel at the upper terminal. Spiral armlets of similar form but with both ends ofthe spiral lying on the front of the arm are found in the finest Devapala bronzes.13Both spiral and triangular armlets are worn in the famous Devapala bronze groupfrom Kurkihar of the 'Descent of the Buddha'.'3 Nepalese sculptures of 'early'dates wear either the Devapala type of spiral armlet (Catalogue nos. vi, vii, andx), or the triangular type (Catalogue nos. vI, vii, and x). On one sculpture, theVishnu from Changu Narayan (Catalogue no. vi), the Vishnu and Garuda wearspiral armlets closely similar to the Vajrapani's,while the Lakshmi wears triangu-lar armlets identical with those of the British Museum Tara.

(f) The Bracelets. Both the Avalokitesvara and the Vajrapaniwear a simpleround band decorated by a single oval jewel, which is worn on the underside ofthe wrist by the latter and on the front of the wrist by the former. The braceletsof the British Museum Tara are composed of two beaded bands with again thesingle oval jewel worn on the front and sides of the wrists. Commonly wornthroughout the Pala period, these two types of bracelet are found on all the 'early'Nepalese sculptures already quoted.(g) The Necklace. Both male Bodhisattvas wear a single beaded necklace withan oval jewel in the middle, from which, on the Vajrapani, hang three pendants.This simple type of necklace is not helpful for dating, though, as Mr. La Plantepoints out, several examples of the single beaded necklace with three pendants

45


7/14

canbe foundon earlyninthcenturyA.D.Palabronzes,andon an 'early'Nepalesestone figure(Catalogueno. viii). The BritishMuseum Taraalsowearsa singlebeadednecklace,but from it hangsa rowof bellornaments.This necklaceseemssimilarto those worn by femalefigureson certain'early'Nepalesestone sculp-tures (Catalogue nos. iii, vii, and Ix).(h) The SacredThread.On both male Bodhisattvas he yajnopavitaor sacredthread,in the formof a beadedstrandfalls fromthe proper eft shoulderand iscaughtin a loopover the upperclothwhich is tied acrossthe hips. On the curveof the loop, on the Vajrapani,s an ovaljewel. The extremelengthof the sacredthread and its beadedform, found on North IndianBuddhistsculpturesfromthesixth to the ninthcenturyA.D., arenothelpfulfeatures orprecisedating.Thelooping of the sacred thread over the upper cloth is, however,important.Theonly comparisonmadeby Mr. La Plante is with the well-knownSarnathMan-jusriof late seventh oreighthcenturyA.D.date,wherethe sacred hread s loopednot in theupperclothbut in thejewelledgirdle.But thereare two good parallelsof the Pala period:the Avalokitesvaran the IndianMuseum of the earlyninthcenturyA.D.,I5 and the Manjusri n the BritishMuseum, datable o the reignofDharmapala.'6On the formerthe sacredthreadis beadedand the parallel sprecise.On the latter it is represented implyas a threadand twistsnaturalisti-cally over the upper cloth. Once adoptedin Nepal the conventionof the longsacredthreadcaughtin a loopoverthe uppercloth continuesdownto the four-teenth centuryA.D. (Cataloguenos. vi, vii, viii, x, and 19).(i) TheDhoti and UpperCloth.On all threeBodhisattvashe dhoti is engravedwith alternatingpatternedbandsseparatedby double engravedlines, a textiledesign foundon Pala sculpturesand in both Pala andNepaleseminiatureswellinto the twelfth centuryA.D.It is supportedby a belt with a circularbeadedclasp.The belt on the Vajrapanis plain,on the Avalokitesvarabeaded,and onthe Tarabeaded between two chains.Similarbelts arevery commonon bronzeand stonesculpturesof the Dharmapala ndDevapalaperiods,and,of course, nKashmir.They are foundon most 'early'Nepalesesculptures Cataloguenos.vi,vII, viii, and4). The uppercloth,slopingof course n oppositedirections, s worndiagonallyacross the thighs by both male Bodhisattvas.On the Avalokitesvarait is tightly tied at the left thigh, the ends falling awayto the knop on the basewhich supportsthe lotus stem. On the Vajrapani he ends are drawnup andallowed o hangover the knot in a loopbeforefallingawaytowards he base.Theupper cloth worn as a sash is a very earlyconventionin Indiansculptureandremainedpopular n North Indiaand the Deccan until the ninth or tenth cen-tury A.D. It was still commonlyused in the earlyPala period,especiallywheretwo Bodhisattvaslanka centralBuddha.I7An excellentparallel o the Vajrapaniis the ninth centuryA.D. Bodhisattva n the Indian Museum.'8 On this, as onthe otherexamples quoted,the garmentis folded, not 'twirled',if this point is

46


8/14

considered significant. The folded sash is of course worn by most 'early' Nepalesesculptures (Catalogue nos. v, viI, viII, x, 7, and 19).(j) Hair Style. The wearing of the hair, looped high and with three locks oneach shoulder, is identical on the two male Bodhisattvas. Among the manysimilar forms of jatamukuta of the Pala period an exact parallel is provided bythe already mentioned Lokanatha in the Indian Museum.'9(k) The Lotus Base. The lotus bases of the Vajrapani, the Avalokitesvara, andthe British Museum Tara differ in that the Vajrapani alone rests on whatMr. La Plante calls a 'plain flat ring', and the Avalokitesvara lacks the high-relief staminodes of the other two pieces. Otherwise in each minute detailenumerated by Mr. La Plante, even to the indication of the eight lobes of theseed-pod and of the carpel pits, the three bases are identical. Now the 'plain flatring' on the baseof the Vajrapani is really a vertical foot-rim. This is not apparentin the photographs in Mr. La Plante's paper but is clear in the photograph inProfessor Kramrisch's catalogue. A vertical foot-rim is found on Pala bronzes,and indeed on many Negapatam and 'Pala-type' Javanese bronzes, often if notalways serving a functional purpose, to enable the lotus base to be fitted to apedestal, which might, in this case, have supported a triad of Vajrapani, Buddha,and Avalokitesvara. This is clearly the point of the foot-rim on the well-knowntwelfth century A.D. gilt-bronze Avalokitesvara2o from Kurkihar, now in thePatna Museum, and surely of that on the Stanford Vajrapani. Since this featureis lacking on the Avalokitesvara, it may be argued that it and the Vajrapani donot in fact make up a real.pair. In any case, the identity of style of the two maleBodhisattvas once accepted, the 'plain flat ring' loses its significance as a featuresetting the Vajrapani apart from all Nepalese bronzes in general and from theBritish Museum Tara in particular. Simply, so far as the lotus base is concerned,if the Tara is Nepalese, the two male Bodhisattvas are Nepalese.The lotus bases are even more useful for dating the three bronzes, nicelyillustrating both the derivative and the conservative nature of Nepalese art. Thelotus base of the Avalokitesvara is of an 'earlier' type than those of the other twopieces. The stamens, projecting above the rising petals, are indicated by a seriesof incised vertical lines, cut near the top by a single incised horizontal line toform the anthers. This is a translation into linear terms of the typical Pala baseof the Devapala bronzes, where the anthers are of course more naturalisticallyrendered by a projecting milled edge. Similarly, the two rows of rising and fallingpetals, broad and spaced so that the under row is clearly visible, closely imitatethe Devapala base, missing, however, the plasticity and sense of smooth textureof the original. The lotus base of the Avalokitesvara may then be said to followPala models which first appear about A.D. 800. So far the bases of the Vajrapaniand the Tara are identical with that of the Avalokitesvara. They possess, how-ever, a very important additional feature: over the second row of falling petals

47


9/14

are placed high-relief broad petaloid staminodes. Though Mr. La Plante claimsthis feature as an innovation of the seventh century A.D., he admits that no Indiansculptures, other than the Vajrapani, are known to him to carry it before the Palaperiod, that is, before about A.D. 750. We may go further. This feature is notfound on any bronze or stone sculpture with a clear claim to belong to the reignsof Dharmapala (about A.D. 770-8 o10)or Devapala (about A.D. 8 IO-50). Indeed,it does not appear on any of the, admittedly small, group of dated bronzes whichcover the period from Devapala to the beginning of the eleventh century A.D.,orto the end of the third quarter of that century, if one wishes to attribute theKurkihar bronzes dated in the regnal years of Vigrahapala to the third king ofthat name. The best examples of its use on bronze images seem to be the alreadymentioned gilt-bronze Avalokitesvara from Kurkihar, dated by all scholars to theearly twelfth century A.D., and the Vishnu in Lotus-mandala of the AshmoleanMuseum, lent to the New York exhibition and there (Catalogue no. 14) alsodated to the early twelfth century A.D. On stone sculptures it appears perhaps ona standing Tara, dated in year 3 of Ramapala (about A.D. Io8o), and certainlyon a seated Bodhisattva, dated in year 42 of Ramapala (about A.D. I 120), and ona seated Parvati, dated in year 3 of Madanapala (about A.D. I I43).-2 Admittedlyon all these pieces, except the Vishnu where a half-lotus throne is represented,the staminodes appear on rising as well as falling petals. Also the petals them-selves are closer set and of a later type than on the broad-petalled early Pala base,which does, however, seem to survive until the early eleventh century A.D. onthe well-known Cunda from Kurkihar dated in year 2 I or 3 1 of Mahipala (aboutA.D. 1OO9 or A.D. IOI9). It seems fair on present evidence to claim that therepresentation of broad petaloid staminodes does not appear on Pala sculpturesuntil the eleventh century A.D. It is therefore suggested that the Vajrapani andthe Tara demonstrated the imposition of a later convention on what remainsessentially a ninth to tenth century A.D. base. Unless it can be believed that theNepalese artist himself devised this convention, it follows that neither the Vajra-pani or the Tara can be earlier than the eleventh century A.D. The Vajrapanicarries with it the Avalokitesvara, which without the evidence of the former,might be held, as far as the base is concerned, to be as early as the ninth cen-tury A.D.If the above argument is convincing, not only are all three BodhisattvasNepalese, but all details of their iconography, less the petaloid staminodes, arederived from or are variants of forms current in the Pala dominion during thereigns of Dharmapala and Devapala. As far as actual style is concerned, the twomale Bodhisattvas come closest to the Avalokitesvara (Catalogue no. viii) of theSigha Bahu, Kathesimbhu, Katmandu, dated by Professor Kramrisch in hercatalogue to about the eighth century A.D., but, in agreement with ProfessorLohuizen de Leeuw, to the ninth to tenth century A.D. in her paper in Oriental

48


10/14

Art. The later date seems more acceptable--as a terminus ntequemnon,sincereference s not to otherNepaleseimagesbut entirelyto the Pala source. If thepetaloidstaminodesare considereda significantfeature,it would seem best togive a formaldate of eleventhto twelfthcenturyA.D. o all threebronzeBodhi-sattvas.To this group may be addedan importantbronze which has never been dis-cussed in this context,a seatedVajrapani xcavatedat Site I at Nalanda.22 Ofalmost pure copper, it is in all detailsof halo, crown,jewellery,and costumecloselysimilarto the three bronzes.The armletsare those worn by VishnuandGaruda on the Vishnu from Changu Narayan (Catalogue no. vi), dated byProfessorKramrisch o aboutthe ninthcenturyA.D.The lotus baseis of the sametype as the standingVajrapaniand Tara but with an additionalrow of fallingpetals,the tips of which only can be seen. The seatedVajrapanihas nothing incommon with the Pala style, and, in spite of the context in which it was dis-covered,there canbe little doubtthatit is another'early'Nepalesebronzeof thegroupunderdiscussion.It was presumablydedicatedat the greatmonasterybya Nepalesepilgrim.It is perhapsworthmentioningthatthe circumstances f thefind permit any date for the arrivalof the bronzeat Nalanda betweenthe reignof Devapalaand the final destructionof the monastery n the earlythirteenthcenturyA.D.The seatedVajrapanimay helpto elucidatea puzzling featureof theStanfordimage. The lattercarriesa vajrawith a pointedcentralshaft, againstwhich lie flatat either end four lateralpoints,whicharenot, saysMr. La Plante,'the open curvedprongsso characteristic f TantricBuddhismfromthe eighthcenturyon'. The seatedVajrapaniarriesavajra,alsowitha pointedcentral haft,from whichat eitherend of the grip four lateralpointshavefallenopen like thepetalsof a lotus. In my opinion both vajrasareof the sametype, on which theprongs, which have only a slight curve inwards,could be locked open or shut.The largestonevajra romNalandaquoted by Mr. La Plante,was, I believe,ofa similarpattern.Towardsthe end of his paperMr. La Plante makes reference o a Vajrapanion a bannerpaintingrecovered romTun-huang by SirAurel Stein and now inthe British Museum. Though stiff and conventionalized,his painting,one of agroupof ten perhapsby a localartist,is evidentlybased on some such figureasthe StanfordVajrapani r its paintedequivalent.Mr. La Plante points out thatthe lobatecharacterof the seed pod is indicatedand the carpelpits representedin the samemanneron bronzeandpainting.One shouldperhapsadd that thesetwo featuresare almost always present on lotus seats in Nepalese illustratedmanuscriptsof the eleventh and twelfth centuryA.D.,to which Stein himselfcompared he Tun-huangbannerpaintings.Unfortunately he paintingscannotbe used to date their stylistic source.All that can be fairlysaid of them is thatthey are probablynot later than the first quarterof the eleventh centuryA.D.

49 H


11/14

the generallyaccepteddate of the closingof the cache. It maybe significant haton the lotus seats of the painted Bodhisattvas he petaloidstaminodesare notrepresented.If the general view presentedhere is correct, the dates given in ProfessorKramrisch'scataloguefor the other membersof the 'early'group of Nepalesebronzeswould need revision. The GeorgeP. BickfordDevi is perhapsa littleearlier hanthe BritishMuseumTara,andmaybe dated to the tenth to eleventhcenturyA.D.The ClevelandMaitreya s probablycontemporary:ts Palasourceis surelynot earlier han the ninth centuryA.D.The Heeramaneckmale figurewith attendant ooksearlier hananybronzeherediscussedandmaywell belongto the ninth century A.D.I wish to thank Mr. Philip Ward for help on the technicalaspects of theBritishMuseum bronzes.

DOUGLAS BARRETTI Douglas Barrett, The BuddhistArt of Tibetand Nepal', Oriental Art, N.s., vol. iii, no. 3,Autumn1957-2 The Art of Nepal, The Asia Society, Inc.,x964.3 'The Art of Nepal', OrientalArt, N.s., vol. x,No. 4, Winter I964.4 'A Pre-PalaSculptureand its Significanceforthe InternationalBodhisattvaStyle in Asia', Arti-;us Asiae, vol. xxvi, no. 3/4, 1963. To this paperProfessor Kramrisch contributes a Note andMr. La Plante a Reply.s British Museum, no. 1965, 6-14, i.6 e.g. A. J. Bernet Kempers, The Bronzes ofNalanda and Hindu-favanese Art, Leiden, 1933,fig. 5.7 R. D. Banerji, Eastern Indian School ofMediaevalSculpture,Delhi, 1933, pl. iii(a).8 e.g. A. J.Bernet Kempers,op. cit., figs. 2, 7,9, and I7.9 e.g. S. A. Shere, Catalogueof BuddhistSculp-tures in Patna Museum, Patna, 1957, figs. 35and 41.

1oe.g.R. D. Banerji,p.cit.,pl. ii(d), v(d),viii(c), (a),xv(a),andxvi(a).1"e.g.R.D. Banerji,p.cit.,pl.viii(b).12 e.g.R.D.Banerji,p.cit.,pl. x(b)and i(c).13 K. P. Jayaswal,Metal magesfKurkiharMonastery',Journal of Indian Societyof OrientalArt, vol. ii, no. 2, 1934, pls. xxviii, 2 and 4, andXXX.'4 C. Sivaramamurti,ndian Bronzes, Bombay,1962, no. 9.is R. D. Banerji,p.cit.,pl. viii(b).16DouglasBarrett, An EarlyPalaBodhisattva',

B.M.Q.,vol. xx,no. I, 1955-17 e.g. HeinrichZimmer,The Art of IndianAsia, New York, 1955, pl. 376, 378, and 380(late-eighthand ninth centuryA.D. mages).18 R. D. Banerji, op. cit., pl. ix(d).19 R. D. Banerji,p.cit.,pl. viii(b).20 S.A.Shere,p.cit., ig.32.21 R.D.Banerji,p.cit.,pl.v(c), (a),and i(b).2 Archaeological Survey of India, AnnualReport, 929-30, pl.xxxiii(d).

A CHINESE BRONZE BELL OF THE FIFTHCENTURY B.C.

T H E largeChinese ronzebellwhichhasbeenacquiredhroughheBrookeSewellfundforthe BritishMuseumis a famousand muchpublishedpiece,whichhas not beenon public exhibitionfor many years.(FrontispieceandP1. xi.) It was sold by M. Philippe R. Stoclet,who inherited t in his shareofo50


12/14

VIII. TARA, NEPAL. iith-izth century A.D.


13/14

IX. AVALOKITESVARA. Nepal. iith-izth century A.D.


14/14

X. Reverse of Plate VIII

nepal an early nepalese bronze

Documents