The Sculpture of Mandasor

The Sculpture of MandasorAuthor(s): Joanna WilliamsSource: Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 26 (1972/1973), pp. 50-66Published by: University of Hawai'i Press for the Asia SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111042 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 19:34

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].

.

University of Hawai'i Press and Asia Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Archives of Asian Art.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:34:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111042?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


The Sculpture Of Mandasor Joanna Williams

University of California, Berkeley

Mandasor, the ancient Dasapura in the state of Malwa, was a pilgrimage site at least as early as the second century A.D.1 Kalidasa praised the "Dasapura

women, so practiced in seductive movements."2 Throughout the fifth and sixth centuries, under the Guptas, their feudatories, and their successors, the city was a rich cultural center, although artistic remains survive only from the end of this period. The

inscriptions of the area are problematic in historical terms, and the political fortunes of Mandasor are still controversial. Yet these inscriptions do convey clearly the literary

taste and the putative glory of the rulers. Out of ten, nine are poetic works in the

elaborate, euphuistic style known as kavya. In four, the poet or kavi took such pride in his composition that he included his own name. Two inscriptions of the late fifth

century describe the earlier Gupta period with a fin de si?cle nostalgia. Yet courtly eulo

gies of a powerful living ruler reappear in the sixth century. A summary of these in

scriptions is necessary to indicate both the specific chronology and the general cultural context of the sculpture from Mandasor.

BACKGROUND

The first inscription from Mandasor now

known is that dated in the year 461 of the Malwa or Vikrama Era (A.D. 404/5).3 This

refers to the maharaja Naravarman, son of Sin

havarman and grandson of Jayavarman. Al

though broken, the inscription appears to record a dedication by one Satya, whose merit is de

scribed at length. Vasudeva is invoked as "the

thousand-headed Purusa, sleeping on the watery throne of the four oceans," apparently a refer

ence to the Visvar?pa form of Vishnu.4

The second record, found at Bihar Kotra 105

miles east of Mandasor, is dated in the year M.E.

474 elapsed (A.D. 417/8).5 This exceptionally simple and prosaic description again mentions

Naravarman as mah?r?)a. He is here identified

as aulikara, an elusive term which seems to des

ignate the dynastic crest of the rulers of Man

dasor.6 The donor V?rasena records the excava

tion of a reservoir for the community of monks

of the four quarters, an indication of the pres ence of Buddhism in this region.

The third inscription of the area is that from

Gangdh?r, thirty-five miles east of Mandasor,

dated in the year M.E. 480 elapsed (A.D. 423/4) .7 This eulogizes Naravarman and his

reigning son Visvavarman, whose minister

May?r?ksaka caused to be built a shrine for the M?trkas and D?kinis, of a tantric nature. A

temple to Visnu which May?r?ksaka had made is described more fully:

. . . resembling the lofty peak of Kail?sa;

the Vidy?dharas, accompanied by their mis

tresses, come and gaze into it with happy faces that are like lotuses, as if it were the

lustrous surface of a mirror. Seeing which, at the moment when the surface has been

polished by the palms of the hands of the lovely women of the gods, the Sun, who in the sky is praised in chorus by the saints

possessed of superhuman powers of mind

resulting from religious merit, reigns in his

chariot-horses with tossing manes, distrust ful that they are returning (to the sun), and, joining his hands together like a closed bud, in respectful salutation runs off with

down-cast head.

The next Mandasor inscription follows after a gap in the year M.E. 524 elapsed (A.D.

467/8).8 This record begins with praise of Can

dragupta (i.e., the Gupta overlord Candragupta II) and of his son Govindagupta.9 The general of the latter was Vayuraksita, who begot the son

Dattabata. This Dattabata served as general un

der King Prabh?kara, who was "the fire to the

trees in the form of the enemies of the race of

the Guptas." Thus apparently Prabh?kara was

one of the successors of Visvavarman's son Band

huvarman, mentioned in the next record. In this

second Buddhist reference, Dattabhata dedicated a well, drinking-water stand, pleasure grove, and a st?pa "white as the moon and as jasmine," at a monastery called the Lokottara Vih?ra. This

50



combines the -vardhana suffix with the aulikara

epithet. It is highly improbable that four suc

cessive generations of Gauri's ancestors ruled in

a space of twenty-four years or less.15 More

likely, Yasodharman was the offspring of a

union of two separate houses. Perhaps the -vard

hanas ruled in Ujjain while the -varmans and

Prabh?kara ruled in Mandasor.

Yasodharman Visnuvardhana appears first in

an inscription dated to M.E. 589 elapsed (A.D.

533/4).16 By his exploits, "his own family, with

the aulikara crest, was caused to become more

and more respected;" hence the assumption that

Yasodharman belonged to the previous -varman

aulikara lineage. After an invocation of Siva,

this elegant inscription describes the dedication

by the current minister's younger brother of a

well. The engraver Govinda signed the carving.

Most is known about Yasodharman from his

eulogy or pra'sasti, engraved in duplicate in the

huge pillars visible in the background in Fig. 5. These are undated, but the fact that the scribe

is again Govinda makes it likely that they are

close in time to the last inscription, that is, in

the second quarter of the sixth century.17 The

invocation is to Siva, who appears to have been

the object of this ruler's devotion, unlike his

predecessors'. But the main purpose of the in

scription is the praise of Yasodharman:

His feet were worshipped by King Mihi

ragula with humble offerings of flowers

from his headdress?Mihiragula whose head had not been brought to the humiliation of obeisance other than to Sth?nu (Siva), en

twined by whose arms the Himalaya falsely claims the proud title "Inaccessible," whose

brow, pained by the humiliating power of

Yasodharman's flexed arm was brought

low.6

This column, like a hand of the earth, enduring until the end of the kalpa, was

raised here by Sri Yasodharman, whose

mace-like arms are strong and delightful as columns, as if to measure the earth, as if

to count the multitude of heavenly bodies

above, and as if to point out the path in

the sky of his own glory acquired by good deeds.7

It (the column) shines, endowed with slendor like an arm of the earth raised aloft

out of affection, as if to write the excel

lence of Yasodharman's virtues on the

inscription does not dwell upon the glories of

the present age but has rather an elegaic tone.

The poet is named as Ravila.

A sense of decline also appears in the Manda

sor inscription of the year M.E. 530 (A.D.

473/4) .10 This records the earlier foundation of

a Sun temple by members of a silk-weavers'

guild who come from La ta (Gujarat) to the

city of Dasapura, the charms of which are ex

tolled. Here they flourished and, in M.E. 493

(A.D. 437/8), when Kum?ragupta ruled the

earth and Bandhuvarman, son of Visvavarman, ruled locally, the silk-weavers had built a temple to S?rya,

with a broad and tall spire, like a (moun tain) peak, white as the bundle of spotless

rays of the rising moon, delighting the eye as the crest-ornament, finely placed, of this

western city.

Part of this temple was destroyed by other kings and was, in A.D. 473/4, refurbished by the same

guild, with the hope that it would endure for ever. This flowery inscription composed by

Vatsabhatti is a prime example of k?vya of the

Gauda style, that is, bold and somewhat la

boured. The absence of a ruler identified at the

time of the inscription raises historical problems. The disrepair of the temple seems to indicate

the troubles into which the Gupta empire as a

whole fell under Skandagupta.11

The next records from the area are two in

scriptions of the king Gauri, one of which is dated in the month Magha of M.E. 547 elapsed (A.D. 491).12 Gauri is said to have made sev

eral dedications, including a temple to Devi. Gauri's father Yasogupta is named, as well as his

grandfather R?stravardhana, his great-grand grandfather R?jyavardhana, and his great-great

grandfather Punyasoma. A second name used fora presiding ruler in the undated inscription is Adityavardhana, probably to be identified as

Gauri himself.15 Yet another ruler who may be referred to this lineage is Dravyavardhana,

whom Var?hamihira describes in the Brhat Samhit? as ruling in Avanti or Ujjain.14 These

inscriptions, which are close in script and lan

guage to the previous ones from Mandasor, have

usually been referred by scholars to the aulikara

lineage with names ending in -varman. The

connection between these rulers and the earlier

ones, however, lies only in the next king of

Mandasor, Yasodharman Visnuvardhana, who

51



moon's disc: "He was born in a praise

worthy family; in him is delightful con

duct, removing sin; he is the abode of

dharma; by him the customs of the people are not altered."8

Whether such claims to prowess beyond that of the Guptas, including victories over the H?nas and the conquest of much of northern India, are to be believed is beyond the scope of this discussion.18 Suffice it to say that Yasodharman's

reign seemed to be a moment of triumph in the

fortunes of Mandasor, at least in the eyes of the

poet Vasula who composed these hyperbolic verses.

After Yasodharman, no rulers of Mandasor are known with certainty. References to the

city occur later, possibly indicating its sub

servience to Ujjain.19 The reign of Yasodharman

thus forms an important dividing point between

the period of the imperial Guptas, whom he

emulated, and the following centuries, when

India fell into a kaleidoscopic confusion of

shifting smaller dynasties. From this account, the following family trees,

hypothetical in part, can be constructed:

SCULPTURE FROM SONDNI

Several carvings were discovered in association

with the two pillars whose inscription has just been described, at the village Sondni, three and a half miles from the modern Mandasor. Six

pieces of the columns, two dv?rap?las, and other

fragments were found lying in a field in 1886.20 The column parts are most integrally linked to

the inscription, which is carved about six and a half feet from the bottom of the shaft. It is estimated that the pillars would have risen forty feet above the ground. From the top of the shaft

projects a tenon which corresponds in size to a

hole in the bottom of the next lotiform piece (Fig. 1). Although the form of this capital fol

lows the Asokan pattern, each part is unmis

takably later. The curve of the lotus is very flat, as in the Sanc? Gupta Lion Capital21 and the Eran Garuda.22 Between the petals, a line,

which in Maurya examples showed a crisp, an

gular section and which clearly represented the

underlying stamenoidium, is here treated as a

tubular form undifferentiated from the rest of

the lotus. Moreover this ends in a small tassel,

hardly part of the original lotus conception.

Overlords

Candragupta / [

/ ! / Govindagupta

Kum?ragupta

Mandasor Ujjain (?)

Jayavarman

Sinhavarman

Naravarman?404/5, 417/8

Vis va varman?42 3 /4

Band hu varman?4 37/8

Prabh?kara?467/8

Punyasoma

R?jyavardhana

R?stravardhana

i, Yasogupta

Gauri ?dityavardhana?491 /

/ /

Yasodharman Visnuvardhana?5 33/4

52



Above is a twisted band or garland, something which never occurs in this elaborate form on

Maurya capitals, but which is close to the S?nc?

Gupta Lions.

From the lotus rises a short socket that con

nects with the next member, a square capital (Fig. 2). Each face of this is decorated with

addorsed lions whose heads join at the corners,

danging exceptionally long tongues. Between

their backs are grotesque human faces, bearded, with flat noses, long hair, animal ears, a flat

ruff surrounding the chin, and again dangling tongues. This variant of the kirtimukha with

prominent tongue occurs also at Nagari, a site

seventy-five miles north of Mandasor which, it

will be argued, is contemporary and closely con

nected.23 The top surface of the lion capital bears eight square sockets arranged in a circle

around a central round one; these must have

held the crowning member, now lost.

Intermingled with the column parts were dis

covered two colossal dv?rap?las or guardians

(Figs. 3-5). Although there are no direct con

nections with the capitals just described, the

proximity of findspot justifies associating the

dv?rap?las with the columns. Moreover the size

of these figures (c. 260x83x50 cm.) indicates that they must have been part of a monumental

complex, matching Yasodharman's grandiose

pillars. Finally their style and ?aiva iconography, discussed below, are less likely to belong to the fifth century phase at Mandasor, when we

know only of Vaisnava, Buddhist, and Saura

donations. Thus I shall consider the guardians to belong to the second quarter of the sixth

century. The architectural function of these two huge

carvings is not clear. The back is smooth, indi

cating that they were placed against a wall. No

sockets are visible on the edges. Yet the three

dimensional treatment of the sides suggests that

they could be viewed laterally. The tops are ap

parently plain. The dv?rap?las must have been part of a ?aiva

shrine, for they hold long shafts which can

hardly be anything other than the tris?la. More

over beneath this shaft stands a small figure from whom the trident emerges, the tris?la

purusa.24 This is clearer in the righthand figure, where a serpent coils around the shaft (Fig. 3).

The main figures, despite their grandeur, show vitality in the sensitive treatment of their

bodies. The two are roughly mirror images of

the same pose, a fairly natural d?hanchement.

Fig. 1. Loti form Capital, Sondni.

Fig. 2. Lion Capital, Sondni.

Both are subtly modelled, but with slight differ ences: Fig. 4 shows a more emphatic torso, Fig. 3 more articulate knees. The drapery differs not

only in its general arrangement but also in the

way folds are defined. In Fig. 3 is a wavy pattern of fine lines indicates the surface of the cloth,

with larger folds superimposed upon that, as if to suggest a flimsy fabric. Similar effects occur in the sculpture of Nachna Kuthara, although those are less refined.25 Fig. 4 on the other hand shows plain drapery with folds on the legs softly and somewhat irregularly defined, implying a

slightly heavier fabric. One might be tempted to ascribe the variations to different hands. Yet

the central folds radiating from the waistband are very similar. It seems reasonable to consider

53



Fig. 3. Dv?rap?la, Sondni. Fig. 4. Dv?rap?la, Sondni.

Fig. 5.

Dv?rap?las, side view, Sondni. Fig. 6. Jamb Post 1, front, Sondni.

54



Fig. S

Fig. 7. ]amh Post 1, side (Siva gambling), Sondni.

Fig. 8. famb Post 1, side, Sondni.

Fig. 9. famb Post 2, front. Sondni.

Fig. 10. famb Post 2, side, Sondni.

Fig. 11. famb Post 2, side, Sondni. Fig. 7

Fig. 11 Fig. 9 Fig. 10

55



Fig. 14. Piece b from Sondni, front. Gwal?or Museum. Fig. 12. Piece a from Sondni, side. Gwalior Museum.

Fig. 13. Piece a from Sondni, side. Gwalior Museum.

The front surfaces show elements standard on

Gupta door jambs: rosettes, mithunas (excep tional, however, in the presence of two equal rows), and a checkered band. The double can

dras?las show a distinctive form, linked by jewels which descend from a flower in the upper one.

Several dentils fill the lower arch, which is flanked by triangular wings. This form of can

dras?la is peculiar to Mandasor and the nearby site of Nagari.27

The male figures on these fragments resemble the giant dv?rap?las. The females, however, are

slightly less three-dimensional in their stance, for

example that to the right in Fig. 9 bending in an exaggerated way with neither knee brought forward. Foliage on one face of each piece re

sembles that of the dv?rap?las in its depth, al though reduced in scope (Figs. 8, 11). On the third face of one fragment is represented the

gambling of Siva and Parvat?: a male figure sits beside a gaming board, while two ganas and

Nandi are visible below (Fig. 7).28 This con

firms the sectarian character of the Sondni carv

ings as a whole.

Other fragments from the site were removed to the Gwalior Museum.29 One is carved on op posite ends with two male figures (Figs. 12,

13). The treatment of their bodies resembles that at the right in Fig. 9, while their head

the two images as largely the work of one ac

complished sculptor who sought variety in such details.

The vegetation above the dv?rap?las9 heads

looks intriguingly non-Indian at first glance, suggesting a Corinthian capital. Yet in fact

these are familiar Indian forms rendered in an

exceptionally three-dimensional manner. The

broad, acanthus-like leaves which hang over the lower edge are common in more restrained form as the outer band of ornament in Gupta doors, for example at Deogarh. Above is the frothy foliage which runs throughout Gupta art, here

unusually under-cut. Similarly the branches sur

rounding the dv?rap?las9 heads set up a deep, shadowy ambient for the elaborate headdresses.

The bold lines of the foliage, unrestrained by architectural borders, give the carving a baroque appearance within the context of earlier Indian art.

In addition to these masterpieces, a number of smaller architectural fragments were found

nearby, perhaps part of the same edifice. Two still in situ probably formed free-standing door

jambs (Figs. 6-11). They are carved on three sides. Since the back is evenly sheared off, it is likely that this fitted with a second piece of stone

which continued the carving on the sides and

possibly was carved on the fourth face as well.26

56



Fig. 15. Vidy?dharas from Sondni, National Museum, New Delhi.

dresses are versions of that to the left in Fig. 6, a distinctive type with curls gathered in a broad

ball above the head. The second piece in Gwalior bears a similar male figure on a narrow face and a mithuna on a broad face (Fig. 14). The cos

tume of this couple resembles that of other

Sondni carvings, including radiating central

folds on the man's dhoti. Yet these figures have a slightly more medieval flavor. This lies partly in the bodily proportions, the exaggerated shoul

ders of the man and the broad hips and breasts

of the woman. Their positions are also realized

with less stability than is characteristic of the

fifth century. The woman, for example, while

bearing the weight of the man's arm, would fall over were she not visually supported by the

small old man with a stick to her side.30 These

two pieces are identical in height and width and must have had related architectural functions;

the tops of both are plain. Another member of this same group was

photographed at Sondni in 1908 with the jambs which remain there (Fig. 15, 16).31 It was re

moved first to the Gwalior Museum and thence to the National Museum in New Delhi. Close in

height to the last two pieces, this may have had

the same architectural function, clearly as a

corner piece. The mithuna at the right is com

parable to those on the door jambs in style and

scale. The single candras?la above again shows

triangular wings. The vidy?dharas at the left are mannered versions of the general Mandasor

idiom. The bulk of the man's torso and of the woman's breasts resembles Fig. 14, emphasized here by the disproportionately small feet.32 His

Fig. 16. Vid y ?d haras from Sondni, side vieiv. National

Museum, New Delhi.

Fig. 17. Female Figure from Sondni, Gwalior Museum.

57



Fig. 20 Fig. 19 Fig. 18 Fig. 21

Figs. 18-21. Torana Pillar from Khilchipura, Mandasor Fort, (four side views).

breasts maximized in width, her facial features, and the flattened scarf on the arm?resembles

the Delhi vidy?dharas. Thus a date in the second quarter of the sixth century seems probable.

SCULPTURE FROM KHILCHIPURA

At the village of Khilchipura, two miles from Mandasor, a tall pillar was found which was

subsequently moved to the Mandasor Fort (Figs.

18-21).36 Three faces of this pillar bear a band

composed of sections alternating leaf-like scales

with a twisted garland (Figs. 18, 19, and 20). This twisted portion is extremely close to the

band above the lotus capital of Yasodharman's column (Fig. 1). Not only is the general effect the same, but also specific patterns appear in

both (text, Fig. A). Thus this pillar reinforces the connection between the figurai style of the

Mandasor area and Yasodharman's reign. Iden

tical patterns also occur at Nagari, more distant

variants at Sanc?, Mukundara, S?rn?th, and

Nachna.37

headdress, a type noted already, is in this case

spread out on both sides of the head, adding to its bulk. The repeated ends of her scarf, which seem too voluminous to issue from the portion above her head, form, as Benjamin Rowland

aptly says, "a celestial parachute."33 Some of the

distortions of these figures may be designed to

present a coherent view from both angles. Yet another piece from Mandasor now in

Gwalior is less obviously part of the same group

(Fig. 17).34 This four armed dancing figure holds a kalasa or water bottle, a lotus flower, and a m?la or rosary in the two raised hands.

The subject is identified by the Museum as a

Yogin?. It is tempting to connect her with the

shrine of the M?trkas of the early fifth century mentioned in Visvavarman's inscription. Some

elements here do not reoccur in the Mandasor

carvings associated with Yasodharman: the sim

ple )at? mukutay the asymmetrical neck pendant, and the skirt with a decoration at the front

lower corner.35 Yet the style of the figure?her

58



The upper panels of both broad faces are oc

cupied each by a man and woman accompanied

by one or two small attendants. Probably these are simply inventive variations upon the

mithuna theme combined with the old man as

a foil. The poses of the principal figures go be

yond any of the Sondni couples in complexity. In the lowest compartment of Fig. 18, one at

tendant assumes the same unstable, yet con

vincing lunge as the tris?la purusa below.

Above that, an aged dwarf actually supports the

weight of the man whose sash he grasps, unlike

the flatter and more disjunct arrangement of

similar figures in Fig. 14. In short, the figure

style of the Khilchipura pillar, while probably produced by the same workshop as the Sondni

pieces, shows more variants within the general idiom.

The form of the candras?la also connects this

pillar with the Sondni door jambs. In both, a double arch occurs, the lower one filled by den

tils, with triangular wings to the side. In the

Khilchipura version, the double candras?la is broader and is not connected by a tassel as at

Sondni, however. ?malakas appear above in

both, a less distinctive feature.

The third face of this pillar is fluted and punctuated by three lotus medallions (Fig. 20). The fourth (Fig. 21) is filled by foliage which rises from a puma ghata at the bottom. The ten drils themselves are no closer to Figs. 8 and 11 than they are to countless other examples of

Gupta foliage. One interesting feature is the

pearled band which weaves in and out through out the carving, a

relatively rare feature.39 The top of the foliate face of the Khilchipura

pillar bears a socket which probably held some outer projecting member rather than the lintel.

One reason for surmising this is the fact that the River Goddesses almost invariably face in

ward with their vehicles, which would not be the case were the foliate face on the inside.40 In the second place, it seems unlikely that so shallow a socket could support the weight of an architrave commensurate in length with the

height of the pillars. Finally, the torana remains of Nagari provide an excellent model for the

reconstruction, and there the lower lintel must have rested on top of the side posts, with a com

parable inner band of scales and twisted decora tion continuing on the bottom of the lintel.41

The Khilchipura pillar was found in situ on a stone floor with bricks nearby, perhaps the shrine to which this gateway led.

Fig. A. Patterns occurring

on both

Sondni Capital and Khilchipura Pillar.

One face of the pillar bears at the bottom a

dv?rap?la with tris?la purusa, identifying the shrine to which it belonged as Saiva (Fig. 18).

This figure strongly resembles the Sondni guard ians in his softly modelled body, his elaborate

)at? mukuta, and his drapery (including radi

ating central folds and bold side swag, although the rest is plain). The figure's head is again flanked by pieces of foliage. The pearled arm bands and the hand with sinuous fingers flat tened against the chest also connect this

dv?rap?la with the Sondni vidy?dharas. The tris?la purusa is not the squat gana of the

Sondni dv?rap?las but rather resembles the con

torted old man of Fig. 14, his stance in this case

being more three-dimensional and lending depth to the dv?rap?la whom he surrounds.

The reverse face bears the River Goddess Ya

muna on the back of a turtle (Fig. 19). Her

position at the bottom of the post, accompan ied only by a small attendant, according to the

typology established by Odette Viennot follows after the V?k?taka Caves at Ajant?; this ac

cords with, although it does not prove, a date

in the second quarter of the sixth century.38 The

flat, swaying pose and the drapery folds between

the legs of Yamun? resemble the female on the

right of Fig. 9. Thus, the Yamun? is slightly more mannered in style than the dv?rap?la on

the reverse of this same pillar.

59



SCULPTURE FOUND IN THE MANDASOR FORT

Fig. 22. Siva, Mandasor Fort.

Height 3 meters.

Fig. 23. Siva, side view, Mandasor Fort. Height 3 meters.

Together with the Khilchipura pillar, several

fragments are today on display in the Mandasor

Fort. These pieces are supposed to have been

brought to the Sultanate Fort from the village of Afzalpur, eleven miles southeast of Manda

sor.42 Among this group is the most imposing of

all the sculptures of the area, a huge image of

Siva (Figs. 22, 23). The central figure stands Fig. 24. Siva, as found in Mandasor Fort. (Indian Anti

quary, 1908).

60



evenly and is ithyphallic. He has two arms, that on the right holding a tris?la combined with an axe. His elaborate jat? mukuta bears a crescent

moon on the left. A third eye is visible. Below stand two full-grown attendants, each holding a lotus bud to his chest. The left-hand one held a long staff, now broken; in his headdress, the

central ornament seems to be a skull. The right hand attendant preserves his tris?la. The central Siva is surrounded by ganas, five of which are

intact on the left, including one with a lion head and one with a face on his stomach. At

the bottom of the slab are six musicians who ac

company a male dancer in the center. The rela

tively simple iconography forms the logical predecessor for the Parel Stele and the Elephanta

Mahesvara, with their more complex philosoph ical implications.

The style of this image is on the whole com

parable to the other Mandasor carvings. The two

attendants resemble the Khilchipura dv?rap?la in modelling of body and hands, their poses being slightly exaggerated to offset the rigid figure they flank. Pearled armbands are iden tical with those at Khilchipura and Sondni, as is the general style of )at? mukuta. The head dress of Siva is particularly close to the Khil chipura and Sondni dv?rap?las in the central round ornament enclosed by curling forms, with a jewel and two makaras facing outward in the center of the headband. The body of the prin ciple figure is unique among the Mandasor

images in its rigidity, a function of its role as

icon.43 The drapery is also unmatched in its

heavy, untapered folds; again, this may be a

way of emphasizing the image, for a variety of

drapery types have already been observed. The

ganas and musicians are similar to the small scenes on the Khilchipura pillar. Particularly the

musicians, angularly contorted in a narrow

band, move in a medieval direction.

One part of this image is hard to reconcile

with a sixth-century date, the face of Siva. The

eyes are sharply outlined, small in size, and flat across the bottom, unlike all the other faces at

Mandasor. The eyebrows also differ from the

rest, even within this carving, for they are de

fined by a double line and highly arched in a semicircle. Here a photograph published in

1908 when the image was still half buried sug gests a solution (Fig. 24). It is clear that the

front head was a separate piece of stone, joined to the main block by some sort of rivets inserted

in four holes. The joint is visible in the side view of the image as it now exists (Fig. 23). It is also clear that the curls of the headdress overlap the joint. Several explanations are conceivable.

Possibly the joint was original, to make up for some inadequacy in the stone. There is nothing in particular to support this, for the head pro jects no farther from the slab than other parts of the carving. Possibly the original head was

defaced at some point and the second piece was a later replacement. This suggestion is dis

counted, however, by the relationship of the front part of the )at? mukuta to the back and to other Mandasor images. Most probably the face was sawed off at some point in the medi eval period, to be recarved on the ground in

more ease than would be possible on the stand

ing image, and was then reattached. The later carver re-cut the upper part of the face, per haps added the third eye, and in the process re duced the scale of the main eyes. If one sub tracts this part of the image, the whole seems

much more convincing as a work of the second quarter of the sixth century.

A second piece preserved in Mandasor Fort is a square pillar (Figs. 25-30).44 No documenta tion exists for the provenance of this carving aside from the assurance of the local people that it was found in the Fort. At any rate, the ques tion remains open where it originated. The

iconography is Vaisnava, yet the style does not seem to belong to the fifth-century phase at

Mandasor when Vaisnavism was in the ascend ant. Some fully medieval fragments are visible in Fig. 23 to the side of the colossal Siva. In the case of the pillar, a date between these medieval

pieces and the Yasodharman style seems likely. For one thing, the pillar shows none of the

motifs which the carvings so far considered share. The decorative parts, ktrtimukha with lions and geese or hamsas in foliage, while found in the sixth century, are in fact closer to sub

sequent works such as the Teli-ka Mandir at

Gwalior, dating from the eighth century or

later.45 The figure style in general appears to

be distinct from, but much later than the other

Mandasor carvings. It therefore is reasonable to

place this pillar in the late sixth or possibly the seventh century.

All three sides now visible bear at the top a medallion with a seated couple and attendant. These are comparable to those in Fig. 6, al

though the format is different. In Figs. 25 and

61



Fig. 25. Pillar, face 1 (Nrsimha in center), Mandasor Fort.

Fig. 27. Pillar, face 2, center

(Mithuna). Mandasor Fort.

Fig. 26. Pillar, face 1. bottom (Varaba), Mandasor Fort.

Fig. 29

Fig. 28. Pillar, face 2, bottom (Dancer), Mandasor Fort.

Fig. 29. Pillar, face 2, top (Mithuna), Mandasor Fort.

Fig. 30, Pillar, face 3 ( G an esa bottom, Visvar?pa center), Mandasor Fort.

Fig. 28 Fig. 30

62



30, the two main figures turn away from each

other with their hips and toward each other

with their heads, creating a twisted axis in each

body. Thus there is a hint of the medieval con

tortion which is absent in the simply frontal

poses of the Sondni piece. This goes yet further

in Fig. 29, where the man is seen from the back

with legs splayed.

Face one of this pillar bears two clearly Vaisnava images. The Var?ha or Boar Avatar

at the bottom is of standard type (Fig. 26). Four-armed, he holds a wheel or cakra, the

Earth Goddess, and presumably a conch or

sankha (now lost). At his feet N?gas supplicate him. His strongly diagonal stance has some of

the energy of the Udayagiri Var?ha. Yet the

iconography, specifically his four arms and the

standing Earth, is closer to the images of Badami

Caves II and III in the late sixth century than to any fifth-century image.46

Above this a Nrsimha or Man-Lion presents more problems. The lion face is indistinct. He

stands erect with lower two hands at hip and

chest (in unclear gesture) and with upper hands

holding the cakra and sankha. Below are four

smaller figures, that in the lower left female;

presumably these represent the four ?yudha

purusas, although none of their emblems are

clear. Above the Nrsimha's head hover three fe

male figures which are posed with unusual sym

metry for apsarasas. The rocks in the back

ground identify this as the Girija form in which the Man-Lion emerges from a mountain cave.47

Again, the Nrsimha in B?d?mi Cave III is icono

graphically close.

The two images on face two appear by con

trast to be secular scenes and the work of a dif ferent sculptor. Below is a dancer in a common

pose with knees splayed and hand on hip (Fig. 28). A dwarf dances in the lower right, mu

sicians accompany them above, and an old man

looks upward in the lower left. In the panel above this appears a very active mithuna (Fig. 27). The man holds aloft a rounded object, pos

sibly a skull cup, and grasps the woman's breast. She clasps her garment, which is being pulled off by a monkey. A lion stands between the

couple. On the left a small attendant brandishes a va)ra. Skulls in both headdresses add to the im plication of tantric content. The man's costume

is unusual: an apron, square necklace or collar, and octagonal crown. Both scenes on this face are comparable to those of the Sondni door jambs

or of the Khilchipura pillar. Yet the style here is distinctly mannered. All the main figures have

excessively large heads and small, round eyes which bulge out. There is particular ineptitude in the body of the dancer.

Face three bears at the bottom a figure of

Ganesa with his consort on his lap, her legs now

broken (Fig. 30). A snake entwines his stomach. His right hand holds a curving form, perhaps his broken tusk. The inclusion of Ganesa on a

Vaisnava piece is not surprising in view of

his presence on the Das Avat?ra Temple at

Deogarh.48

The panel above on this face presents an in

teresting form of Visvar?pa, the deity invoked in the earliest inscription from Mandasor. This

multifold form of Visnu sits with his right hand on his knee and his left holding a sword or

khadga. He had three principal heads with kirita mukuta, only the right of which is preserved. The thirteen small heads on either side are un

differentiated. Directly above the main figure emanate two more, the upper one of which may have a leonine head and holds a va)ra on the left. Other versions of this subject are known from the Gupta period (Mathur? and Gadhwa) as well as later.49 However, the seated version of Visvar?pa seems to have been peculiar to

Gujarat.50 Thus the Mandasor pillar initiates a

West Indian iconographie type as it appears in the early medieval period.

THE PLACE OF THE MANDASOR SCULPTURE IN THE HISTORY OF GUPTA ART

In conclusion, it seems that the date of all the Mandasor carvings is 525 or later and that

they form one of the few dateable bodies of sculpture from the sixth century. If this is cor

rect, what of the city in the fifth century? Three explanations for the lack of earlier Gupta remains come to mind. One possibility, universal in India, is that more images remain to be dis covered. The majority of the early inscriptions from Mandasor were found in outlying villages of the district or re-used in later buildings. Thus, it is quite likely that the first capital of the aulikaras was not at Sondni, the source of most

of the carvings discussed here. A second possi

bility is that the earliest monuments were de

stroyed at a later period, whether from desire to improve upon them (by Yasodharman) or

63



to desecrate them (by Muslims). Either is con

ceivable if the main citadel was the present Mandasor Fort, which in any case should be

thoroughly excavated. A third possibility, and one which must be entertained for much of

fifth century architecture, is that the actual

buildings were not as large or substantial as the

hyperbolic inscriptions would suggest. It is quite likely that the spires of Mayuraksaka's Visnu

shrine or the silk weavers' Sun Temple were tall as mountains only in the eyes of those for whom

any free-standing architecture was a novelty.51 No inscription clearly indicates that the fifth

century temples at Mandasor were made of stone. Wood or brick materials would explain the easy destruction of the silk weavers' shrine

thirty-six years after it was built. Thus, there

is no compelling necessity to match any of the

images considered h?re with the earlier Gupta

period of Mandasor's history.

The Mandasor images are important not only for their chronological position but also for their

regional affinities. On the one hand, there is

certainly a broad koine of decorative motifs cur

rent throughout the Gupta period in north India

and persisting into the sixth century. Elements

have been pointed out here which occur at least as far to the east as S?rn?th and as far to the

south as B?d?mi. At the same time, particularly in the treatment of human figures, regional

styles begin to crystalize in the sixth century, whereas in the fifth the distinctions between

sites had been rather smaller matters of manner

or substyle. Mandasor lies at the beginning of

the formation of a West Indian style.

Elements which connect with this style ex

tend to Deogarh. Both, for example, show lateral

drapery folds between women's legs. Yet the

incipient medievalism of the Yasodharman

images is not so pronounced in the Das Avat?ra

Temple and only emerges in some of the frag ments found nearby.52 If boundaries must be

drawn for West India in the early sixth century, I would place one through the hills west of the

Betwa River, excluding Deogarh as well as other sites of central Madhya Pradesh.

The area most obviously linked with Man

dasor is the neighboring part of southern Ra

jasthan and northern Malwa. Here Mukundara,

eighty miles to the north-east, is significantly earlier. At Nagari, however, a torana was found

which strongly resembles the Khilchipura one in

general format, in figure style, and in decorative

details. Thus, the date of the Nagari torana

should be fixed as the second quarter of the sixth century as well.53

Finally, there are clear connections between the Mandasor images and the sixth century

sculpture of Gujarat, which justify including both in a west Indian style. Some of the Samalaji pieces show characteristics which have been

mentioned here: the seated Visvar?pa type;

pearled armbands; elaborate free-falling )ata

mukuta; fluid drapery; sensitively modelled male torsoes; and flattened, angular poses which are not always anatomically credible.54 While the

last might be found in much sixth and seventh century sculpture, the first five set this area

apart from northeastern, central, and Deccani

sculpture of the same period.

In short, the Mandasor sculpture associated

with Yasodharman stands, like that ruler him

self, at an important crossroads. The carving draws heavily upon the Gupta heritage, and it

is understandable that this has been classed as

Gupta, just as the glory of the aulikara crest

was revived by Yasodharman. There are also

hints of medievalism in pose, in elaboration, and in the regionalism which divides India after the

Gupta period, both art-historically and politi

cally. Many of the images combine realism with

stylization in a remarkably vital way. This is

the result of an aesthetic which hovered between

the classical decorum of Gupta art on the one

hand and on the other the medieval canons

which subordinated the figure to the larger re

ligious purpose. From the one Yasodharman's artists borrowed a sense of credibility in pose, from the other a nervous, exaggerated anima tion. Like the Sondni vidy?dharas themselves, the style of Mandasor sculpture seems miracu

lously suspended between two worlds.

Diacritical marks on certain words used in this article have been omitted due to the unavailability of the requisite type.

64



NOTES

1. An inscription at Nasik by Rsabhadatta, son-in-law of Na

hap?na (J. Burgess, Report on the Buddhist Cave Temples and their Inscriptions, Archaeological Survey of Western In

dia, Vol. IV, 1881, 99-100). The visit to Mandasor upon which this article is based was made possible by a Faculty Research Grant from the Center for South Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

2. Meghad?ta, tr. F. Edgerton, Ann Arbor, 1964, 38-9.

3. H. P. Shastri, "Mandasor Inscription of the Time of Nara

varman; the Malava Year 461," Epigraphia Indica XII

(1913-14), 315-21. This was found in a small village near

Mandasor. Shastri suggests that the Sinhavarman of this

lineage may be identical with that of the Susunia rock in

scription, father of Candravarman (hence, a brother of Nara varman ), whom in turn he identified with the Candra of the Mehrauli Iron Pillar. D. C. Sircar denies this suggestion (Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civiliza

tion, Calcutta, 1965, 398 n. 1). 4. Shastri, op. cit. 320-1, line 1. Also in line 7 Visnu is de

scribed as a tree with the gods as its fruits. A. S. Altekar notes that this inscription is a rare case in the Gupta period in which the motivation of the donor is the realization that "this living creation is transitory like a mirage," (The

V?k?taka-Gupta Age, ed. R. C. Majumdar and A. S. Altekar, Benares, 1967, 378).

5. S. N. Chakravarti, "Bihar Kotra Inscription of Naravarman's

Time; (Malava) Year 474," Epigraphia Indica XXVI

(1941-2), 130-2. It is conceivable that Bihar in the village name may represent a survival of vih?ra implied by the Buddhist inscription, as is also suggested for the etymology of the province name, Bihar.

6. J. F. Fleet suggests that this means either "the hot-rayed sun or the cool-rayed moon" and considers it a crest used on cop per seals rather than the top of a dhvaja (Inscriptions of the

Early Gupta Kings and Their Successors, Corpus Inscrip tionum lndicarum III, Calcutta, 1888, 151 n. 4). D. C. Sir car suggests that the seal and dhvaja may be identical (Select Inscriptions, 413 n. 3).

7. Fleet, op. cit. 72-8. The translation below substantially fol lows Fleet. In line 19, however, kritesu must refer to the

Krta era rather than to "completed years," although the locative plural construction does in fact indicate time elapsed.

8. M. B. Garde, "Mandasor Inscription of Malava Samvat 524," Epigraphia Indica XXVII (1947), 12-18. The inscription was found re-used in the Sultanate period fort at Mandasor.

9. Govindagupta is known from one other source, a seal found at Vais?l?, which indicates that he is the son of Candragupta II. Garde and others have considered him to be the elder brother of Kum?ragupta (op. cit. 14). S. R. Goyal most re

cently argues that Govindagupta was more likely younger and a subordinate governor (A History of the Imperial Guptas, Allahabad, 1967, 253-5).

10. This inscription was found re-used in the stairs outside a medieval Siva temple near Mandasor. See Fleet, op. cit.

79-88. Sircar, Select Inscriptions 299-307, gives some revi sions of Fleet's interpretation, including the "other kings" passage in line 20.

11. Goyal suggests that the Kum?ragupta of the inscription be taken doubly to indicate both that Bandhuvarman ruled un der Kum?ragupta I and that the repairs were made under

Kum?ragupta II (op. cit. 228). I do not find this con

vincing in view of the association of Kum?ragupta's name with Bandhuvarman's lineage, while the repairs are men tioned only four verses later.

12. D. C. Sircar, "Two Inscriptions of Gauri," Epigraphia In dica XXX (1953-4), 120-32. The first was found at Chot?

S?dr?, thirty-two miles north-west of Mandasor. The poet of this was named Bhramarasoma, the engraver Apar?jita. The second inscription was found in a field near Mandasor.

13. Sircar admitted the possibility that Gauri was the feudatory of ?dityavardhana (ibid. 130-1). V. V. Mirashi defended the latter suggestion on the grounds that ?dityavardhana is not mentioned in the Chot? Sadr? inscription of Gauri

("New Light on Yasodharman," Studies in Indology, Nag pur, I960, 210). However, it is not imperative that both names be consistently used for a single ruler; for example,

Yasodharman's second name, Visnuvardhana, is not used in his pillar inscription.

14. Tr. V. S. Sastri, Bangalore, 1947, Ch. lxxxvi, v. 2, p. 645. Mirashi infers that Var?hamihira worked in the early sixth

century and hence that Dravyavardhana was a predecessor of Yasodharman (op. cit. 208). Goyal points out that it is more reasonable to think that Var?hamihira lived from 505

to 587 A.D. and that therefore Dravyavardhana followed Yasodharman (op. cit. 358-60.)

15. If the 4 generations from Punyasoma to Yasogupta are put between Prabh?kara (fl. 467/8) and Gauri (fl. 491), they

must occupy an interval of 24-x years. This is entirely with out precedent according to the statistics of Thomas Traut

mann: out of 122 runs of 4 generations, the smallest ag gregate duration he found was 35 years ("Length of Genera tion and Reign in Ancient India," Journal of the American

Oriental Society 89 [1969], 564-77). I am grateful to Dr. Trautmann for privately elucidating his method and strength ening my rejection of the hypothesis that Gauri's line suc ceeded Prabh?kara.

Sircar suggests that the second inscription of Gauri reads "He protected the city with dasa at its beginning," from

which it does not follow that this city, Dasapura, was his

capital ("Two Inscriptions," Epigraphia Indica XXX, 129). 16. Fleet, op. cit. 150-8. The inscription came from "an old

well, somewhere in the lands of Mandasor." Most scholars

disagree with Fleet's interpretation that Yasodharman and Visnuvardhana were separate rulers (Sircar, Select Inscrip tions 411 n. 1). While M?lava gana sthiti vas?t means "ac

cording to the custom of the Malwa tribe," as Sircar sug gests, I concur with Fleet in taking the locative plural date as elapsed.

17. Fleet, op. cit. 142-50. The translation below follows Sircar rather than Fleet in referring yena and yasya in verse 6 to

Mihiragula (Select Inscriptions 419 n. 4). Dr. Robert Gold man has kindly checked and emended my translation.

18. Sircar is skeptical: "It is a conventional eulogy and never en

tirely historical in all its details," (Select Inscriptions 419 n.

3). Goyal suggests that "Yasodharman's success may not have been as ephemeral as is generally supposed," (op. cit.

362). 19. Fleet, op. cit. 79 n. 2. Var?hamihira's Brhat Samhit? does not,

however, link Dasapura with Avanti (Ujjain) but rather with

?vartaka, naming Dravyavardhana in a separate place as ruler of Avanti (Ch. xiv, v. 12; Ch. xxxvi, v. 2).

20. Fleet, op. cit. 142-5. Progress Report, Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle 1904-5, 63-4. C. E. Luard, "Gazet teer Gleanings in Central India," Indian Antiquary XXXVII

(1908), 107-10. Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Re

port 1925-6, 187-8. The lotus capital in PI. 1 is 90 cm.

high. The lion capital in PL 2 is 91 x 115 x 115 cm.

21. J. Marshall and A. Foucher, Monuments of Sanchi, London, 1940, PI. CVIIIa.

22. A. Cunningham, Archaeological Survey of India Report X

(1880), PI. XXVI.

23. D. R. Bhandarkar, The Archaeological Remains and Exca vations at Nagari, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 4, Calcutta, 1920, PI. XIVa. Conceivably the un

usually grotesque faces might have some reference to the

H?nas, surmounted by the aulikara crest.

24. N. P. Joshi, "A Note on Tris?la Purusa," Journal of the U.P. Historical Society VIII (I960), 79-81. R. C. Agrawala, "Tris?la Purusa in Indian Sculpture, 'Indian Historical

Quarterly XXXVI (I960), 186-8. It seems unlikely that the

large paired figures with tris?la purusa from Sondni both

represent Siva himself; hence the identification as dv?rap?las. Possibly in PI. 4 the "serpent" may in fact represent a noose, identifying this as a p?sa purusa (cf. Joshi, op. cit. 81).

25. E.g. the dv?rap?las of the Parvat? Temple (O. Viennot, Les Divinit?s fluviales Gang? et Yamun?, Paris, 1964, Pl. 16), or the N?gas now incorporated into the Mah?deva Temple.

26. The Gadhwa fragments are carved on three sides (Cunning ham, Archaeological Survey of India Report X [1880], PI.

VI). The Bilsad door posts are carved on four sides (loc. cit. XI [1880], PI. VI).

27. Bhandarkar, op. cit. PI. XXIII sides. The triangular wings also occur on fragments found at Deogarh (M. S. Vats, The

Gupta Temple at Deogarh, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 70, Delhi, 1952, Pis. XXIIc, XXVIc).

65



28. Cf. Elephanta and Ellora (W. Spink, Ajanta to Ellora, Ann

Arbor, n.d., 64).

29. The block shown in Pis. 12 and 13 is 85 x 25 x 25 cm. That in PI. 14 is 85 x 71 x 25 cm.

30. Spink discusses the theme of the old man in the Western Deccan (op. cit. 55).

31. Luard, op. cit. PL 112. This is 84 x 123 x 28 cm. The fly ing couple has usually been described as Gandharvas, yet it seems preferable to follow Indian iconographie usage in

reserving that term for hybrid bird/human figures and to

identify these as Vidy?dharas (J. N. Banerjea, Development of Hindu Iconography, Calcutta, 1956, 2nd ed., 281-3).

32. The inflated breasts and prominent trivali folds on the waist

point towards the later caves at Aurangabad (D. B. Levine, Aurangabad: A Stylistic Analysis," Artibus Asiae XXVIII

[1966], PL 17). Such connections presumably led Stella Kramrisch to date the Sondni piece in the later part of the sixth century (Indian Sculpture, Calcutta, 1933, 172).

33. Rowland, B., Art and Architecture of India, Baltimore, 1959, 2nd ed., 136.

34. This measures 84 x 40 cm. One more Sondni piece in

Gwalior, a Gang? standing beneath a checkered canopy, is too damaged to discuss.

35. The tabs ending in a flower which seem to attach the gar ment to the girdle are similar to those of the Sondni dv?ra

p?las, where, however, the flower is at the waist.

36. Luard, op. cit. 109. Archaeological Survey of India, Annual

Report 1925-6, 187. The pillar is 5.60 m. high.

37. Nagari: D. R. Bhandarkar, op. cit. PL XXIII. The Sa?a

Gupta Lion Capital bears a pattern of crescents between

plain bands (Marshall and Foucher, op. cit. PL CVilla). At Mukundara the pattern of Fig. la alternates with plain bands on unpublished ?malaka fragments in situ. At S?rn?th a variety of other patterns occur with no plain band be tween on the jambs of some of the doors to the main

shrine, unpublished. At Nachna a pattern similar to Fig. lb occurs in the edges of the grills now set into the Mah?deva

Temple, but here the triangular dividers are broader and

grooved to indicate petals.

38. Viennot, op. cit. 40-1. For the dates of Ajant?, I accept W.

Spink's arguments (Ajanta to Ellora).

39. This occurs at S?rn?th (main shrine doors, unpublished) and at Bilsadh (Cunningham, Archaeological Survey of In dia Report XI [1880], PL VI), in both with a band weav

ing through very broad, simple foliage. At Mukundara such a band weaves through plain surfaces (interior faces of

pillars, just visible in V. S. Agrawala, "A New Gupta Temple at Darr? in Malwa," Journal of the U.P. Historical

Society XXIII [1950], Fig. 1). 40. Cf. Viennot, op. cit., in all cases except Udayagiri Cave VI.

41. Bhandarkar, op. cit. PI. XXIII. The lotiform member, per haps an ?malaka, part of which remains at the top of the

Khilchipura post, indicates, however, that this torana was not identical with the Nagari one.

42. Luard, op. cit. 109. Bhandarkar implies that he found

nothing comparable to the Mandasor Fort fragments at

Afzalpura (Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle 1905-6, 64). The Siva relief in PL 22

measures 1.9 x c. 3 m.

43. Stella Kramrisch compares this stiff and ponderous body with the Eran Visnu, which she considers contemporary. She also finds connections with Gandh?ra in the sensitive

modelling of the ?yudha purusas and in the arrangement of the ganas, which she compares with scenes of the victory over M?ra ("Die Figurale Plastik der Guptazeit," Wiener

Beitr?ge zur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Asiens V [1931], 38-9). I do not find this convincing. Never is late Gand

h?ran modelling this sensitive. Similar ganas occur before this at Bhumara and Nachna in dispersed form, suggesting no connection with M?ra's hosts.

44. This measures 189 x 42 cm.

45. H. Goetz, "The Last Masterpiece of Gupta Art," Indian Arts and Letters XXIX (1955), 47-59.

46. G. Tarr, "Chronology and Development of the Ch?lukya Cave Temples," Ars Orientalis VIII (1970), Figs. 44, 45. The standing Earth occurs nearer to Mandasor on the un

published Var?ha at Badoh-Pathari, probably also of the sixth century.

47. T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Elements of Hindu Iconography, New York, 1968, I, Part I, 150, PL LXIII.

48. Vats, op. cit. PL Xb.

49. One from Mathur? in the Bharat Kal? Bhavan, Var?nasi; Mathur? Museum 35.2572 (unpublished) and 42-3.2989

(N. P. Joshi, Mathura Sculptures, Mathura, 1966, PL 88). In the Gadhwa example, an animal head appears above, possibly Nrsimha as seems to be the case at Mandasor (Cun ningham, Archaeological Survey of India Report X [1880], PL Vlld ). P. Pal, Vaisnava Iconology in Nepal, Calcutta, 1970, illustrates later examples from Nepal (PL 19),Kangra (PI. 22), and Kanauj (PL 21). In the last, an animal

headed figure surmounts a human one at the top, its long shape perhaps indicating Kalkin. The V isnudharmottara

Pur?na says that Mahesvara (without Isana) and Brahma should surmount Visvar?pa (Ch. 83, v. 2-3). The R?pa

mandana (Ch. 3, v. 57) and the Apar?jitaprcch? (Ch. 219, v. 31) distinguish only heads of a man, Nrsimha, Var?ha, and Sri. Thus, none of these texts is particularly germane to Mandasor.

50. U. P. Shah, "Sculptures from S?mal?ji and Rod?," Bulletin of the Museum and Picture Gallery, Baroda XII, I960, Pis. 48, 50. The elaborate crowns and the hard features of the left-central face would suggest a date later than the Gupta

Period, which Shah gives. The first example again shows an animal-headed figure above.

51. This is to imply not that there were no earlier freestanding temples in India (witness Besnagar, Nagari, Bodh Gay?, etc.) but that this might have been the case at Mandasor itself.

52. Vats, op. cit. PL XXVIa. Viennot, op. cit. PL 17a.

53. Bhandarkar was circumspect in dating the Nagari remains and suggested at the st?pa (sic) site two periods, the second,

marked by the introduction of stone work, including a lintel "of the early Gupta style" (op. cit. 137). The torana re

mains he ascribed to the second period, "or possibly to a

period slightly later" (op. cit. 138). T. V. G. Sastri is in correct in connecting Bhandarkar's first reference to a lintel

with the torana; Sastri offers no other evidence for the date of Nagari, although his identification of the subject of the lintel scenes with the Kir?t?rjuniya (hence, a Saiva torana) is interesting ("Antiquity of Nagari and its Torana," Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda XVI [1967] 336-41).

54. Shah, op. cit. Pis. 1, 21, 25, 26, 42, 47, 51. On p. 36 the author suggests a sixth-century date for this style, while on p. 46 he suggests fifth-century for the same piece (PL 21). S. Kramrisch has described this Western school in which "stiffening clasps the legs from thighs downward, and, as if whipped by an alien discipline, they bend in sickle shape" (Indian Sculpture 67). See also P. Pal, "Some Rajasthani Sculptures of the Gupta Period," Allen Memorial Art Mu seum Bulletin (Oberlin College) XXVIII, 1971, 116-7.

66



The Sculpture of Mandasor

Documents

Transcript of The Sculpture of Mandasor