No More Learning

An interregnum of 17 years (c. 344-377 B. c. ) then followed, after which
Paņdukābhaya, an illegitimate son of Chittā by her cousin Digha-Gāmani,
established himself after a long struggle as king in Anurādhapura, and
reigned 70 years (c. 377-307 B. C. ) (Mhv. VIII-X). He was succeeded by his
son Muțasiva', who had a reign of 60 years (c. 307-247 B. C. ). The latter
was followed by his second son Devānampiya Tissa" (Mhv. XI).
Vāļļas, as apparently is the case in the history of Pandukābhaya (Mhv. X). But the
legend of Kuvannā is strictly myth, being remarkably like that of Circe ; and it seems
likely that the Yakkhas in it arose from the same source.
.
1 In Sinh. Panduras.
2 The Mhv. (IX) relates that her brothers Rāma, Ururela, Anurādha, Vijita,
Dighāyu, and Rohana founded Rāmagoņa and other towns bearing their names. As
regards the second, third, and fourth of these heroes the story is obviously a duplicate
of the legend mentioned in Mhv. VII (above, p. 548).
3 Moțasiva or in Moța Tissa, in some Sinhalese histories.
4 In Sinh. Devenipa Tisa.


## p. 551 (#589) ############################################

xxv]
SAVANNAPIŅDA TISSA
551
The Msr. states that Pandukābhaya, whom it calls the son of Abhaya, built
Anurādhapura and reigned 37 years, and that his son Mutasiva constructed the Mahā.
meghavana (see below) and died A. B. 187. The Rvp. allots a reign of 40 years to
Ganapa Tissa, a son of Pandukābhaya, whom it places after Muțasiva. A. R. agrees
in making Tissa the son of Panțukābhaya and giving him a reign of 40 years; but the
Vr. places him between Abhaya and Pandukābhaya.
In the month Jettha of the year of Devānampiya's coronation
(c. 246 B. c. ) the Buddhist apostle Mahinda', son of the Maurya King
Açoka (Dhammāsoka), miraculously travelled to Ceylon in company with
the four friars Itthiya, Uttiya, Sambala, and Bhaddasala and the novice.
Sumana, son of his sister Sanghamittā. He alighted at Mahindatala”,
where he met Devānampiya and converted him and his people (Mhv. XIII,
XIV). The Mahāmegha-vana, a park south of Anurādhapura, was assigned
to the service of the new Church, and the buildings erected in it were
known afterwards as the Mahāvihāra (Mhv. xv). On the spot where
Mahinda had alighted was built the Chetiyapabbata-vihāra (Mhv. XVI),
A thūpa (Skt. stūpa) and a monastery in connection with it, the Thūpā-
rāma, were constructed at the south of Anuradhapura to receive the
collar-bone of the Buddha (Mhv. xvii), and the southern branch of the
famous Bodi-tree of Gayā was brought and planted at Anurādhapura in
the eighteenth year of Açoka' reign (Mhv. xvII-xx).
After a pious reign of 40 years (c. 247-207 B. c. ) Devānampiya died,
and was succeeded by his brother Uttiya, who ruled for 10 years (c. 207.
197 B. c. ) (Mhv. xx).
According to the Msr. Uttiya died in A, B, 237.
Next reigned Uttiya's younger brother Mabāsiva for 10 years (c. 197-
187 B. c. ), and another brother, Sūra Tissa, previously known as Suvaņ.
napiņda Tissa, likewise for 10 years (c. 187-177 B. c. ). The latter was
conquered by two Tamils named Sena and Guttaka, sons of a horse-dealer
(assa nāvika), who reigned justly for 22 years (c. 177-155 B. C), and were
then overcome by Asela, the youngest of Mutasiva's nine sons. Asela
then reigned in Anurādhapura for 10 years (c. 155-145 B. c. ), and was
then ousted by Eļāra, a Tamil from the Chõļa country, who ruled for 44
years (c. 145-101 B. c. ), and was famous for his justice (Mhv. xxI).
A Rājāvaliya inserts after Sūra Tissa an Upatissa with a reign of 10 years, and
makes the two brothers Sena and Guttaka into one person, whom it describes as
In Sanskrit Mahindra Sinh. Mihindu.
2 Mihintale, about eight miles east of Anurādhapura.
1


## p. 552 (#590) ############################################

552
[Ch.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF CEYLON
3
aciçchāri (perhaps for açvāchari) devi kenek ; the printed R. describes them as 'two
brothers who were horsemen'. The Dip. (XVIII, 47) assigns to them only 12 years.
Asela is not said by the Vr, to be a son of Muțasiva. His successor's name is usually
given in Sinhalese as Elāla; the same R, calls him a Malala (Malahari) from Soli
(Choļa. deça), and says that he brought over 1,080,000 Tamil soldiers and behaved
with great impiety, desecrating the monasteries of Devenipā Tisa.
Devānampiya Tissa had a brother, Mahānāga, who resided in Mabā.
gāmal and governed the province of Rohaņa”. He was succeeded in
this office by his son Yatthālaya Tissa, the latter's son Abhaya or Gothā.
bbaya', and the lātter's son Kākavaņņa Tissa“. The last had two sons,
Gāmaņi-Abhaya, better known as Duțțha-Gāmaņi”, and Sadhā-Tissa.
The Vrv, states that Yațțhālaya Tissa reigned in Kālaniya and built there a
sanctuary; his son Golu Abhā ruled in Ruhuna, and vas followed by his son Kāran Tisa.
The Vr. gives the succession as Mahānāma, Kālapi Tissa (apparently meant for
Yaţthālaya Tissa). Goțbābhaya, and Kāvan.
When Kākavaņņa Tissa died at the age of 64 years, Duttha-Gāmaņi,
who had previously quarrelled with him (whence his name, meaning
Wicked Gāmaņi') and taken refuge in the interior, set himself up as king
in Mahāgāma and waged a successful war against Saddha-Tissa (Mhv.
XXII-XXIV). He then embarked upon a series of campaigns against the
Tamils, which ended in the conquest of Eļāra in Anurādhapura (Mhv. xxv).
Duttha-Gāmaņi was now master of the island. To make amends for a
somewhat questionable past, he proceeded to patronise the Church royally.
He founded the Marichavațți Vihāra? , the Loha pasadas, and the Great
Thūpa, in which he enshrined a casket full of relics said to have been
brought from the land of the Nāgas by the Thera Soņuttara, and per-
formed many other pious works. His reign lasted for 24 years (c. 101-77
B. c. ) (Mhv. XXVI-XXXII).
His brother Saddba-Tissa ("Tissa of the Faith', so styled from his
pious works, one of which was the rebuilding of the Loha pāsāda after it
had been burnt), then ruled for 18 years (c. 77-59 B. c. ).
Saddhā-Tissa was followed by his younger son Thulathana', who
after a reign of 1 month and 10 days (c. 59 B. c. ) was ousted by his elder
He is said by, the Msr. to have died in A, B, 492.
1 Magama, north-east of Hambantota.
Sinh, Ruhung.
Sinh. Goli Abhi.
Sinh. Katan Tisa.
Sinh. Dutugămung.
His Original name was Tissa Abhaya (see below); inscriptions style him
Devanapiya Maharaja Gamiņi Tisa.
Mirisvāți Vehera, south-west of Anurādhapura.
In the Mahāmegha-vana, north of the Mahāvihāra.
Sinh, Tul na (for Pāli Thulanaga ? ).
2
3
5
6
7
8
9


## p. 553 (#591) ############################################

XXV]
KUTAKANNA TISSA
553
brother Lañja Tissa? , who ruled for 9 years and 15 days (c. 59-50 B. C. ).
His younger brother Khallāțanāga then reigned for 6 years (c. 50-44 B. c. ).
The Vrv. gives the succession : Sādābā. Tissa (i. e. Saddhā-Tissa), Tulla, Rālāmin
Tissa (sic), Khallātha Tissa. Lañja according to the Dip. (XX, 9) reigned 9 years and
6 months. The Msr. states that Khallāțanāga died in A. B. 444.
Khallāțanāga was ousted by a general named Kammahārattaka, who
in his turn was slain by Khallāțanāga's younger brother Vațța-Gāmaņi
Abhaya”, who now became king.
The date of Vațţa-Gāmani's accession is given by the Vr. as A. B. 439, and by the
Vrv, as 44). Kammahārattaka is called Mahārattaka in the Dip. (XX, 13), where he is
said to have reigned one day.
After Vațța-Gāmaņi had reigned 5 months (c. 44 B. c. ) he was
defeated by seven Tamil adventurers and fled, remaining in hiding in the
interior of the island for 14 years and 7 months (C. 41-29 B C. ), while the
throne was occupied successively by five Tamil usurpers, named Pu! ahattha
(3 years), Bāhiya (2 years), Panayamāra (7 years), Pilayamāra (7 months),
and Dāțhika (2 years). Vațța-Gāmaņi then conquered and slew Dāțhika,
and reigned in Anurādhapura for 12 years (c. 29. 17 B. C. ). One of his pious
foundations was the Abhaya-giri monastery (Mhv. xxxii).
Khallāțanāga's son Mabāchūli Mahātissa* then reigned righteously for
14 years. He was followed by Vațța-Gāmani's son Choranāga, who had
previously been an outlaw, and now ruled impiously for 12 years (c. 3 B. C.
- 9 A. D. ). He was then poisoned by his queen Anulā. The next king was
Mahāchūli's son Tissa', who after a reign of 3 years (c. 9-12 A. D. ) was
poisoned by Anulā, who raised to the throne Siva, one of the guards of the
palace. Siva reigned for 14 months with Anulā as his queen, after which
she transferred her affections to a Tamil named Vațuka, and poisoned Siva.
When she had reigned with Vațuka for 14 months, she wearied of him and
poisoned him, choosing for her new consort a wood-carrier (dāru bhatika)
named Tissa. After 13 months she poisoned him also, and elevated a Tamil
chaplain named Niliya, but 6 months later removed him in the same
manner, and reigned alone for 4 months. Mahāchūli's second son,
1 Also called Lajji Tissa, and in Sinh, Lāmāni Tissa from his family, the Lāmāni
(Pāli Lambakaņņi). Inscriptions style him Devanapiya Tisa Abaya.
2 Sinh, Kalunnā.
3 In Sinh, he is styled Valagambāhu (or bā) Abha ; in inscriptions his title is
Devanapiya Maharaja Gamiņi Abaya,
4 This name appears in Pāli as Mahachuli, Ochülika, and Ochula ; in Sinh, as
Mahasilu and Mahadāliya (the former implying a Pāli ºchuli, the latter a Pāli Ojāliya).
5 Known as Kuda Tissa.


## p. 554 (#592) ############################################

554
[CH. XXV]
THE EARLY HISTORY OF CEYLON
Kuțakaņņa Tissa', who had fled from the court and taken orders in the
Church, now raised an army, overthrew and killed Anulā, and reigned with
justice and piety for 22 years (c. 16-38 A. D. ).
There is much discrepancy in the accounts of this period. The Msr. gives the
names and dates thus : Balat Sivuvā, 14 months ; Vațuka, 14 months; the chaplain,
6 months; Vāsuki, an astrologer, 13 months; Bālā Tisu, 13 months ; Anulā alone,
4 months ; Kalan Tissa, 20 years. The Vr, has the variant names Balavat Situvāya and
Bālani Tissa, and calls Kutakanna Kalantika Tissa. One R. gives Sūra for Siva, with 14
months (but 1 year in the Rvp. ), and places after him a Tamil named Mukalan with a
1
reign of 13 months (in the Rvp. called Mukhanandi, with a reign of 1 year), the chaplain
with 6 months (1 year in the Rvp. ), Anulā with 4 months, Mukalan Tissa with 1 year,
etc. The Dip. assigns 3 months to Niliya (xx, 29).
1 Also called Kālakaņņi Tissa, in Sinh. Kalan or Makalan Tissa.


## p. 555 (#593) ############################################

CHAPTER XXVI
THE MONUMENTS OF ANCIENT INDIA
It is the misfortune of Indian History that its earliest and most
obscure pages derive little light from contemporary antiquities. Before the
rise of the Maurya Empire a well-developed and flourishing civilisation had
existed in India for at least a thousand years; yet, of the structural monu-
ments erected during those ages not one example has survived save the
Cyclopean walls of Rājagriha ; and of man's lesser handiwork, few objects
except the primitive implements, pottery, and tombs of the stone and early
metal ages. Moreover, such as they are, the value of these antiquities is
still further diminished by the fact that there are none among them to
which a precise date can be ascribed, while in the case of the majority, even
apart from the remains of palaeolithic man, it is impossible to affirm with-
in half a millennium when they were produced. This strange scarcity of
materials in a country so vast and thickly populated as India is due in a
great measure to the custom which then generally, though not universally,
prevailed of building in wood, as well as to the destructive agency of the
Indian climate which rapidly obliterates everything of a perishable nature;
but it is due, also, to the neglect, until the last few years, of scientific
exploration on the ancient town sites of India, which alone are likely to
yield the stratigraphical evidence indispensable for determining the chro-
nology of these early ages.
With the palaeolithic peoples of India we are scarcely here concerned.
Their rough-chipped implements (Pl. IX, 1-5) have been found in large
numbers in the southern half of the Peninsula, and in deposits which
indicate that countless centuries must have elapsed between their last
appearance and the dawn of Vedic history, while the forms of the imple-
ments themselves, strikingly unlike those of the Neolithic Age, have
suggested to some writers that their authors may not even have had an
ethnical connexion with the later inhabitants of the land. The neolithic
races, on the other hand, are invested with a more immediate interest for
the historian, not only because there are good reasons for supposing
555


## p. 556 (#594) ############################################

556
[CH,
THE MONUMENTS OF ANCIENT INDIA
that some of the existing peoples of India-notably the Dravidians - are
directly descended from them, but because this phase of civilisation was
preserved in some parts of the country until medieval and probably more
a recent times. The stone weapons and utensils which are specially
characteristic of it are found scattered over a much wider area than the
more redimentary palaeoliths, though mainly in regions where the trap
rock, used especially in their manufacture, abounds. They exhibit a
remarkable variety, illustrated by at least a hundred distinct types, some
of which belong to the polished, others to the unpolished class (Pl. IX,
6-10). With few exceptions, however, they are identical in form with
similar objects from Western Asia and Europe, and this identity has
led to the supposition that the Dravidian peoples, with whom the neolithic
culture in India appears to have been peculiarly associated, once dwelt
in the highlands of Western Asia and penetrated thence by way of
Baluchistan into India ; and, at first sight, the survival in Bāluchistan
of a Dravidian language, Brāhūi, would seem to support this view. Other
linguistic considerations, on the other hand, have been thought to point
to the conclusion that the Dravidians were indigenous in the Deccan
and spread thence over a part of Northern India. Whatever the truth
may be regarding these particular tribes and whether they played a part
or not in the introduction of neolithic culture into India, there can be
no doubt that this culture was closely related to and, it may well be
believed, mainly derived from the culture of the later Stone Age in
Western Asia. Among the implements of non-European types referred to,
the most noteworthy is a class of curious chisel-shaped, high-shouldered
celts which are found in Burma, Assam, and Chotā Nāgpur, and which
appear to have been manufactured by the ancestors of the present
Mon-Khmer stock. Similar instruments occur also in Indo-China and
the Malay Peninsula, where they seem to have been produced, not by the
aboriginal tribes of the interior, but by later invaders who were in a more
advanced state of civilisation.
It is to the later Stone Age, also, that are to be ascribed a class
of chipped trap implements from Bundelkhand and the pygmy flints that
occur in myriads among the off-shoots of the Vindhyas. Some of the
caves in which the latter have been found are adorned with rude drawings
in ruddle or haematite, and from the outlines of the primitive weapons
depicted in them it has been thought that the drawings were executed
during the neolithic period but though the conjecture is plausible enough
and is borne out, let it be said, by the discovery of rubbed specimens
of red haematite and palettes for grinding down the material at various
neolithic sites in the Deccan, it is by no means certain that these drawings
go back to so remote an age. This observation applies still more


## p. 557 (#595) ############################################

XXVI)
THE AGE OF BRONZE
557
forcibly to the megalithic tombs, which occur in vast numbers in the
central and southern parts of the Peninsula and to the accumulation of
prehistoric scoria, often of considerable size, which are known to anti-
quarians as 'cinder-mounds,' as well as to the so-called 'cup marks' or
small hollowed depressions in the rocks, which have been interpreted
by some investigators as a forgotten system of writing. In Europe,
megalithic tombs analogous to the Indian examples are referred to the
close of the neolithic period or to the succeeding age of bronze and copper;
but in India there are few such tombs which there is reason for regarding
as anterior to the iron age ; and in their case, as well as in that of
the cinder-mounds which have yielded smooth stone celts, it is a plausible
theory that the people who erected them were still in the neolithic state,
when iron had long been in vogue among other races of the Peninsula.
As the stone age passed gradually away in Northern India, it
appears to have given place, not to an age of Bronze, as it did in most
parts of Europe, but to one of copper. Finds of seven bronze implements,
it is true, have been recorded from various parts of the Empire, but it
has rightly been pointed out by Dr. Vincent Smith that out of these
seven one only can claim to be of real bronze, deliberately and knowingly
manufactured as such, and the evidence of a single specimen, which
may well have been imported from abroad, is wholly insufficient to justify
the assumption of a bronze age. Copper implements, on the contrary,
occur in relatively large quantities and over a wide range throughout
Northern India, from Hoogly in the east to Baluchistan in the west.
.
Among them are bare and shouldered celts, harpoons, spear-heads both
plain and barbed, ax-heads, swords, and an object suggestive of the
human shape (Pl. X, 11-20). The last mentioned, as well as some of the
swords, which are remarkable for their excessive weight and the form
of their handles (Pl. X, 18-20). may have been used for cult purposes.
One hoard of these implements, which came from Gungeria in the Central
Provinces – the most important, be it said, yet recorded in the Old World-
contained as many as 424 specimens of almost pure metal, weighing in all
829 pounds, besides 102 ornamental laminae of silver. Such a collection,
comprising as it did a variety of implements intended for manifold domestic
and other purposes, affords evidence enough, as Dr Smith has remarked,
that their manufacture was being conducted in India on an extensive scale;
while the distinctive types that had been evolved and are represented both
in this and in other finds, connote a development that must already have
extended over a long period, though at the same time the barbed spear-heads
and harpoons and flat celts, manifestly copied from neolithic prototypes, be-
speak a relatively high antiquity. The presence of silver ornaments in the
Gungeria hoard has suggested doubts as to its remote date, but there seems
.


## p. 558 (#596) ############################################

558
[сн.
THE MONUMENTS OF INDIA
little reason for assuming that a race familiar with the difficult metallurgical
processes by which copper is extracted from its ores, were incapable of smelting
silver from the rich argentiferous galenas which occur in various localities.
At what date iron came to supplant copper in the north of India is
uncertain, but literary evidence from the Vedas seems to indicate that it was
introduced into the north-west during the second millenium B. c. It was
about the same time, too, that it came into general use in Mesopotamia,
and it is probably enough that the knowledge not only of this metal but of
copper also in a previous age was acquired from that region. Between the
Babylonian, or Assyrian and Indian Civilisations, indeed, many archaeologi-
cal links are traceable, among which may be noticed, parenthetically, the
remarkable resemblance presented by the oblong, short-legged terracotta
sarcophagi from the neighbourhood of Baghdad to those of a prehistoric
date found at Pallavaram and other places in the Madras Presidency.
In Southern India there was no copper age, and iron probably did
not take the place of stone until about 500 B. c. Up to that time the Aryans
of the north seem to have possessed no very distinct knowledge of the
south of the Peninsula, which was at once isolated and protected against
invasion by the natural defences of the Vindhya hills and the trackless jun-
gles of Central India, and when at last they penetrated through these bar.
riers they found the Dravidian and other races in the south still in the
neolithic stage of culture. The supposition that iron was first conveyed into
Southern India by sea from Egypt, has nothing to commend it. ?
Notwithstanding the wide extent and long duration of Vedic civili-
sation in Northern India, there is but one group of monuments now
existing to which there is any warrant for assigning a Vedic origin.
There are the well-known mounds at Lauriyā Nandangarh in Bihār,
which were opened a few years ago by the late Dr Bloch and identi.
fied by him with the burial mounds (çmaçāna) described in Vedic ritual.
Two of these proved to be composed of horizontal layers of clay alternating
with straw and leaves, with a post (sthūņā) of sāl wood standing erect in
the centre, above which was a deposit of human bones and charcoal accom-
panied by a small gold leaf. The latter (Plate XI, 21) bore impressed
upon it in crude outline the figure of a female, which has been interpreted
as the Earth Goddess referred to the Vedic burial hymn, but both this
interpretation and the date (seventh or eighth century B. c. ) hazarded by the
explorer for these mounds must be regarded as tentative only. Of actual
structures anterior to the Maurya epoch the only examples, as already re-
1 A date c. 1000 B. C. is suggested in Chapter II, p. 50; cf. Chapter IV, p. 99-100.
2 Besides the works detailed in the bibliography at the end of this volume, the
author is much indebted to a very valuable note on the prehistoric antiquities of India
by Mr J. Coggin-Brown, M. Sc. , of the Geological Dept. , whose knowledge of this
subject is perhaps unrivalled.


## p. 559 (#597) ############################################

XXVI)
THE EARLIEST BUILDINGS
559
marked, known to have survived until the present day, are the walls and
remains of dwellings in the old city of Rājagriha, all built of rough cyclopean
masonry. This city was reputed in antiquity to have been forsaken during
the reign of king Bimbisāra, the contemporary of Buddha, who removed
the capital to New Rājagļiha, but as to how long the walls are houses had
then been standing, tradition is silent. Such structures, built of durable
materials, were certainly the rare exception rather than the rule in ancient
India, and were probably essayed only in localities where stones suitable
for such masonry were ready to hand. In primitive India, as among the
poorer classes of to-day, the materials most commonly in use were mud or
mud bricks, bamboo canes, and other kinds of wood. The simplest kinds
of dwellings were constructed of screens of bamboo inwoven with palm
branches or the like, the roofs being either flat or arched. In the latter
case, the bamboos were lashed together at the apex and tied in near the
lower end, thus forming a singularly strong framework of curvilinear form,
while the walls were strengthened to resist the outward thrust. In other
cases, the walls were constructed of unbaked brick or mud, and the latter
material was also used as a covering for the flat roofs or for plastering the
screens of the walls on the 'wattle and daub' principle. At a later date
cut timbers came to be used in the more pretentious dwellings, and afforded
opportunities for the development of that exuberant surface decoration in
which the genius of India has always excelled.
These materials left their character deeply and permanently impressed
on Indian architecture. From the use of the bamboo came the curvilinear
type of roof which was afterwards reproduced in cut timber and subse-
quently in stone, and from which were evolved the familiar chaitya
arches used over doorways and windows. Log capitals were imitated
in stone, and the more finished timbering of walls, roofs, and gateways in
the same material, every detail down to the nail-heads being copied with
sedulous care and accuracy by the masons of later days. As a protection
against destructive insects, wooden posts were set in ghaļas or jars
of earthenware, and from these resulted the ‘pot and foliage' base,
so beautifully developed in the Gupta age. A striking illustration of
the influence exerted by wood as contrasted with brick construction
is to be found in the pillars of the cave temples. In the earliest ex-
amples the stone pillars are manifestly copied from wooden prototypes and
are relatively slender, though amply thick enough for their purpose. In the
later examples, on the other hand, the pillars are heavy and cumbersome,
not because extra strength was required, nor yet in order to save labour, but
because they were copied from the brick-in-mud pillars of famous
vihāras, which necessarily required to be much thicker in proportion to their
height than columns of stone. It is stated by Arrian that cities on


## p. 560 (#598) ############################################

560
[CH.
THE MONUMENTS OF ANCIENT INDIA
a
the banks of rivers and in other low-lying spots were built of wood, those
in more commanding situations, where they were less exposed to floods, of
mud or brick. This statement refers to the time of Megasthenes, Ambassa-
dor to the Court of Chandragupta Maurya, on whose writings the Indica
of Arrian is believed to have been based. It has been endorsed by the
discovery of portions of the wooden palisades of Pătaliputra and of
the mud or brick walls of Çrāvasti, Bhitā, and other towns. But no
kiln-burnt bricks have been found in the Gangetic plains which can
be referred to an earlier date than the fourth century B. C. , and it is
improbable that they came generally into vogue in this part of India
until after the reign of Açoka ; for the unwieldy size of the bricks used in
the buildings of Açoka at Sārnāth and other places, coupled with
their inferior quality, betoken but little experience of brick-making. The
potter's art, on the other hand, had been practised throughout India from
time immemorial, and in the Punjab and North-West, which were in closer
touch with Persia and Mesopotamia, it is likely enough that burnt bricks were
used at more remote age. In this connexion & special interest
attaches to certain seals of unknown date and origin (PI. XI. 22, 23), which
are said to have been found from tinie to time among the remains of brick
structures at Harappa in the Montgomery District of the Punjab. The
majority of these seals are engraved with the device of a bull with head
outstretched over some uncertain object, possibly in the act of being
sacrificed, and all of them bear legends in a pictographic script, which
remains still to be deciphered.
With the advent of the Mauryas, the obscurity, in wbich the earlier
monuments are wrapped, rapidly disperses, and from this time onwards we
are able to trace step by step and with relative precision the evolution both
of architecture and of the formative arts. Of Indian art, generally, it was
said by Fergusson, and the statement has often been repeated, that its
history is written in decay : that the noblest and most perfect examples of
it are the works of the Emperor Açoka ; and that each succeeding monu-
ment is but a landmark in the steady process of decline. In reality, as we
shall presently see, its history is one of continuous forward progress, and,
when the works of extraneous schools have been recognised and eliminated
it is found to follow a clear and logical sequence, in obedience to the fixed
and immutable principles which govern the artistic efforts of all primitive
peoples.
As it happens, it is the earliest monuments that have proved the
greatest stumbling-block. Yet the fallacies. which have grown up around
them, are not difficult to correct. They arise, in a great measure, from the
tendency, common in all ages, to magnify the exploits of great heroes, and
to ascribe to them feats and achievements in which they bore no part.


## p. 561 (#599) ############################################

XXVI)
THE MAURYA EPOCH
561
a
.
What happened in this respect to Alexander, to King Arthur, or to
Charlemagne, happened also to the Emperor Açoka. In ancient days bis
name became the centre of a cycle of heroic legends, and the same process
of glorification has continued in modern times by fathering on to him
a multitude of works with which he had no connexion. The monuments
that can with relative certainty be assigned to the Maurya age, or to the
age immediately succeeding it, are few. Besides the brick buildings referred
to above they comprise the following: a series of isolated columns erected
by the Emperor Açoka at various spots in Northern India ; the remains of
a pillared hall at Patna, wbich probably formed part of a royal place
designed, perhaps, on the model of the Achaemenian palaces of Persia ; a
group
of rock-cut shrines in the Barābar hills in Bihār ; a small monoli.
thic rail at Sārnāth ; a throne in the interior of the temple at Buddh
Gayā ; some portions of stūpa umbrellas at Sāncbi and Sārnāth ; and
three statues in the round, two in the Indian Museum at Calcutta, the third
at Mathurā. Of these monuments, twelve bear records of Açoka himself,
and three of his successor, Daçaratha; the age of the others is
determined by their style, by the inscriptions carved upon them, or by their
peculiar technique, every member but one in the group being identical in
two distinct features, namely, in the exceeding care with which they are
chiselled and in the brilliant polish afterwards imparted to their surface.
Moreover, with the exception of the caves cut out of the natural gneies
rock in the Barābar hills, they are one and all of sandstone from a quarry
near Chunār.
The pillars of lāts, as they are commonly called, are of singularly
massive proportions, consisting of a ground and slightly tapering mono-
lithic shaft with bell-shaped capital surmounted by an abacus and
ing sculpture in the round, the whole rising to an average height,
from base to summit, of between 40 and 50 feet. One of the best
preserved, though not the best in style, in that at Lauriyā Nandangarh,
illustrated in P). XI, 24. The crowning figure on this pillar is a lion, and
the relief which adorns the abacus a row of geese, symbolical, perhaps, of
the flock of the Buddha's disciples. In other cases, the single lion is
replaced by a group of lions set back to back with or without some sacred
symbol between them, or by an elephant or bull, while the abacus is adorn-
ed with a lotus and honeysuckle design or with wheels and animals alter-
nating. Shafts of a precisely similar pattern, but smaller proportions, were
employed in the great ball at Patna, but there the capitals and entablature
appear to have been of wood. The dignified, massive simplicity of these
pillars is common to all the other architectural remains of the Maurya
epoch. The rail at Sārnāth and the throne at Buddh Gayā are devoid of
ornament, but each is cut entire and with exquisite precision from a single
crown-
>
a


## p. 562 (#600) ############################################

562
[CH.
THE MONUMENTS OF ANCIENT INDIA
block of stone, and the plainness of the umbrellas is only relieved by
delicately defined ribs radiating on their under side. Equally chaste and
severe are the dwellings and chapels excavated for the Ajivika ascetics in
the hills of Bihār. Like the chaityas or hermitages from which they were
copied, these consist of a small oblong chamber (in one instance with
rounded ends) with or without a circular apartment at one extremity, but
in only one example is the timber work of their prototypes reproduced in
stone. The example referred to is the Lomas Rishi Cave, the ornamental
façade of which (Pl. XI, 25) is an accurate replica of a wooden model. This
particular cave, however, bears no inscriptions either of Açoka or of
Daçaratha, and the fact that its interior was left in an unfinished state
suggests that it was the latest of the whole group. Probably, it was not
excavated until after the close of Daçaratha's reign.
Hardly less striking than the skill with which the monuments were
chiselled and the brilliancy to which they were polished, is the disparity
evinced in the style of their sculptured ornamentation. This disparity is
well exemplified by comparing the primitive treatment of the statue from
Pārkbam in the Mathurā Museum with the highly developed modelling of
the Sārnāth capital (Pl. XII, 26-28). The former represents a stage of art
not yet emancipated from the binding law of 'frontality' or from the
trammels imposed by the mental prepossessions of the artist. The head
and torso are so posed that, were they bisected vertically, the two halves
would be found to be all but symmetrical ; while the flattened sides and
back of the figure, connected only by a slight chamfering of the edges, are
conclusive proof that the sculptor failed to grasp more than one aspect of
his subject at a time, or to co-ordinate its parts harmoniously together as
an organic whole. These features are not mere superficial details of techni-
que, due to the caprice of the artist. They are the fundamental character-
istics of the nascent sculpture of all countries, and the primitiveness of the
art which they signify is borne out in this particular statue by other traits,
namely, by the subordination of the side and back to the front aspect, by
the inorganic attachment of the ears, by the uncouth proportions of the
neck, by the schematic rotundity of the abdomen, and the absence of
modelling in the feet.
The Sārnāth capital, on the other hand, though by no means a
masterpiece, is the product of the most developed art of which the world
was cognisant in the third century B. O. --the handiwork of one who had
generations of artistic effort and experience behind him. In the masterful
strength of the crowning lions, with their swelling veins and tense muscular
development, and in the spirited realism of the reliefs below, there is no
trace whatever of the limitations of primitive art. So far as naturalism
was his aim, the sculptor has modelled his figures direct from nature, and


## p. 563 (#601) ############################################

XXVI]
PERSIAN INFLUENCE
553
has delineated their forms with bold, faithful touch; but he has done
more than this : he has consciously and of set purpose infused a tectonic
conventional spirit into the four lions, so as to bring them into harmony
with the architectural character of the monument, and in the case of the
horse on the abacus he has availed himself of a type well known and
approved in western art. Equally mature is the technique of his re-
lief work. In early Indian, as in early Greek sculpture, it was the practice,
as we shall presently see, to compress the relief between two fixed planes,
the original front plane of the slab and the plane of the background. In the
reliefs of the Sārnāth capital there is no trace whatever of this process; each
and every part of the animal is modelled according to its actual depth with-
out reference to any ideal front plane, with the result that it presents
the appearance almost of a figure in the round which has been cut
in half and then applied to the background of the abacus.
What, then, is the explanation of the gulf which separates these
two sculptures-the primitive unifacial image of Pārkham and the
richly modelled capital of Sārnāth? The answer to this question is not far
to seek, and will readily occur to any one who is familiar with the
art of Western Asia. Long ago M. Senart pointed out that the decrees of
the Achaemenian monarchs engraved on the
monarchs engraved on the rocks of Bahistāu and
elsewhere furnished the models on which the edicts of Açoka were based. It
was in Persia, also, that the bell-shaped capital was evolved. It was from
Persian originals, specimens of which are still extant in the plain of
the Murghāb at Istakhr, Naksh-i-Rustam, and Persepolis, that the smooth
unfluted shafts of the Maurya columns were copied. It was from
Persia, again, that the craftsmen of Açoka learnt how to give so lustrous a
polish to the stone-a technique of which abundant examples survive
at Persepolis and elsewhere. Lastly, it is to Persia, or- to be more precise
- to that part of it which was once the satrapy of Bactria and was at this
time asserting its independence from the Empire of the Seleucids, that
we must look for the Hellenistic influence which alone at that epoch of the
world's history could have been responsible for the modelling of the
living forms on the Sārnāth capital. Little more than two generations had
passed since Alexander the Great had planted in Bactria a powerful colony
of Greeks, who occupying as they did a tract of country on the very thres-
hold of the Maurya dominions, where the great trade routes from
India, Irān, and Central Asia converged, and closely in touch as they were
with the great centres of civilisation in Western Asia, must have play-
ed a dominant part in the transmission of Hellenistic art and culture
into India. Every argument, indeed, whether based on geographical
1 Journ. Asiat. 8me sér. , t. v (1885) pp. 269 ff. and Inscriptions de Piyadass,
t,II. pp. 219 ff.


## p. 564 (#602) ############################################

564
[CH.
THE MONUMENTS OF ANCIENT INDIA
9
considerations or on the political and commercial relations which are known
to have been maintained between India and Western Asia, or on the happy
fusion of Hellenistic and Irānian art visible in this monument, indi-
cates Bactria as the probable source from which the artist who created it
drew his inspiration. At the time of which we speak the Hellenistic spirit
then vigorous in Bactria was mastering and vitalising the dull expressionless
forms of Irān. At a later date, as the strength of Hellenism weakened and
declined, other elements from the neighbouring steppes of Central
Asia asserted or reasserted themselves in the cosmopolitan art of this region,
and, in their turn, were borne to India on the stream of influence whicb, un-
til the fall of the Kushāņa Empire, flowed ceaselessly over the passes of the
Hindu Kush.
While the Sārnāth capital is thus an exotic, alien to Indian ideas in ex-
pression and in execution, the statue of Pārkham falls naturally into
line with other products of indigenous art and affords a valuable start-
ing point for the study of its evolution. These two works represent
the alpha and the omega of early Indian art, between which all the
sculptures known to us take their place, approximating to the one or
the other extreme according as the Indian or Perso-Hellenic spirit
prevailed in them. Thus, the two statues from Patoa in the Calcutta
Museum (Pl. XIII, 29, 30) are akin in many respects to the Pārkham image,
but exhibit a nearer approach to plurifaciality in the moulding of the torso.
The lion capital at Sāncbī, on the other band, though not quite as successful
as that of Sārnāth, shows so close an affnity to it, that there can
be little doubt that it was the handiwork of one and the same artist; and
the well-developed modelling of the figures on the other columns of Açoka
shows that, in spite of their occasionally inferior execution, they be-
long to the same Perso-Hellenistic group. It is not, of course, to be
presumed that a single sculptor was responsible for all these monuments,
nor yet that all the sculptors employed were of equal ability. Probably, there
were many Indians assisting the foreign artists in the mechanical part
of their work, and these, we may believe, were responsible for some of the
sculptures noticed above, but it is incredible that any Indian hand at
this period should either have modelled in clay or chiselled from the stone
such perfected forms as those of the Sārnāth capital.
The contrast between Indian and foreign workmanship exhibited
by these sculptures is equally apparent in the minor arts of the Maurya
period. Thus, the indigenous coins (Pl. XIII, 31-32) known commonly as
'punch-marked,' which were current at this time, are singularly crude and
ugly, neither their form, which is unsymmetrical, nor the symbols, which
are stamped almost indiscriminately upon their surface, having any pre-
tensions to artistic merit. On the other hand, the coins of Sophytes


## p. 565 (#603) ############################################

XXVI)
JEWELLERS' AND LAPIDARIES' ARTS
565
(Saubhūti), who was reigning in the Punjab at the close of the fourth cen-
tury B.