1. Ancient Artists and Art Activity Misra R.N

ANCIENT

ARTISTS

AND

ART-ACTIVITY

R N MISRA

ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

ANCIENT

ARTISTS

AND

ART-ACTIVITY

R

N

Misra

INDIAN

INSTITUTE

OF

ADVANCED

STUDY

SIMLA

© Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Simla, 1975

Published by the Registrar, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Rashtrapati Nivas, Simla 171005 and printed by B D Sen at Naba Mudran Private Ltd.,

170A, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta 700004

Preface

THE diversity or the similarity in the artistic nuances of

Indian sculpture and architecture in different regions and

their evolution has been an important poser to the art-historians.

The early studies were mostly dependent on field studies. But

with the progress of studies in this field, the canons on śilpa

also came to light gradually, so that the vast material thus

made available was sought to be related to the extant remains

of architecture and sculpture. A synchronisation of iconic or

architectural tradition of ancient times with the extant remains

has greately helped in establishing the śilpa tradition on a more

formal and temporal basis. But even these studies have failed

in comprehending the role of artisans in the realm of art-

activity. The scholars who attempted to define the regional

and provincial styles have ignored the extent of artisans'

participation in the evolution of such provincial styles. Theore-

tically speaking, the task of defining such regional trends and

standardising them with the help of textual authority, the

monuments, and art-remains may not be possibly achieved

unless artisans are also included within the ambit of such

studies. The treatises of śilpa offer a highly advanced and

technical terminology and the aesthetic formulations as well as

the measures to achieve them. They inculcate a regimen whose

importance cannot be minimised. But the credit of perfecting

the form, style, and the regimen as well as the total external

effect of the monuments and sculptures should appropriately

go to the artisans. They shaped the monuments according to

their training and skill and in the process affected innovations

and changes within the framework of canonical prescriptions.

And if the whole system of the art-activity were to be structuri-

sed with regard to the respective roles of its various con-

vi PREFACE

stituents, the artists would obtain a place next only to the

śilpaśāstras. In fact, the śilpaśāstras too were sometimes com-

posed by the practitioners of the craft.

Keeping these points in view, this monograph seeks to define

the craftsmen associated with different monuments vis-a-vis,

their respective regions of operation and various other aspects

concerning them, such as the origin of a distinct class of

workers-in-stone, their expertise in śilpa, their organisation,

and various categories in a hierarchical setting. The first two

chapters in the monograph deal with these problems within a

certain chronological framework from the Vedic times to the

pre-Gupta period in the first instance, and from the Gupta-

Vākāṭaka age to the mediaeval dynasties. The Appendix deals

with Taranath's testimony concerning the artisans of the

different regions.

This monograph is a byproduct of my project on the Kala-

churi sculptures at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study. In

writing this I have depended mainly on the material which

was immediately available. A further exploration regarding the

artisans and their contribution to the regional art-movements

may define more clearly the evolution and growth of regional

art styles. If this monograph helps in undertaking such studies

its purpose would have been amply served.

I am grateful to Professor S C Dube, the Director of the Indian

Institute of Advanced Study for encouraging me to write this

monograph. His interest in it was a source of constant inspira-

tion to me. My thanks are also due to the Director, National

Museum, Delhi and the Director-General, Archaeological Survey

of India for providing me with the photographs used in the

monograph; to Mr S K Vashist for preparing the typescript;

to Mr Ashok Kumar Sharma for his help in going through the

proofs; and lastly to Bina, my wife for her great patience and

constant learned help.

R N Misra

Contents

Preface ... v

1 ARTISTS AND THE EARLY-ACTIVITIES 1

Artisans and their importance; The terms defining artisans and craftsmen; Their crafts and their social status; Coming up of a distinct class of stone-masons and sculptors; Mauryan and the post-Mauryan phases; Artists of the different regions; Artists' organisations and hierarchy: navakarmika, āveśanin; The method of artists' work and their tools; Participation of various classes in building-activity

2 ARTISTS AND THE ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES AND LATER 31

The situation as now defined; Types of artists; Inscriptions as a source of relevant information; Various categories of artists; Sthapati, their qualifications and responsibilities; Sūtradhāra, its variants and functions vis-a-vis the sūtradhāra in drama; Other like-sounding artisans; Sūtradhāra as engraver; Sūtradhāra as builder; His associates: śilpī, chitrakāra, rūpakāra; The case of Pālhana, the Chandella artist; Artists' guilds; Families and pedigree; Cases where the elaborate building-activity ignores the role of sūtradhāras; Participants in the building-activity; Region and dynasty-wise distribution pattern of artists and the sūtradhāras

3 ARTISTS AS DEPICTED IN RELIEFS 76

Appendix 79

Bibliography 81

Index 85

List of Plates

(between pages 64 and 65)

I. Artisans at work, Bharhat

II. Śilpiśālā, Khajuraho

III. A Śilpī carving a stone, Khajuraho

Chapter One

Artists and the Early Art-activity

THE art heritage of India has been widely studied in terms of its contents, motifs, and chronology, to explicate its evolution as well as its various chronological phases and their aesthetic brilliance. No less important in the art-history is the role of artisans who lived during various phases of art-activity and who, in fact, were responsible for bringing them forth. A meaningful correlation of the social aspect of the art-movement vis-a-vis the movement itself may perhaps be of greater significance in comprehending the creative activity on a wider scale.

Art-activity in ancient India involved different sections of society: artisans for raising monuments, patrons for financing the projects, priests for consecrating the monuments, and so on. This multilateral process has to be comprehended in its totality and in its segments too, in order to bring out a profile of artisans and patrons and their interaction in relation to the creation of the works of art.

Artist in ancient India was not an isolated institution; in the social hierarchy he belonged to a general class of artisans engaged in various crafts. Historically, therefore, his position and his craft has to be related to a kindred group of artisans and their occupations. An enquiry into the existence, function, and organisation of artist in ancient India ultimately leads to a body of data in which different categories of artisans are found clubbed together in one general group called śilpin. Likewise, the term

2 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

silpa is of a wide connotation and it includes within its ambit various crafts, skills, and occupations. This necessitates an enquiry into various crafts in relation to the word śilpa with a view to making a brief survey of some aspects of crafts along with its practitioners, in a historical perspective.

The earliest occurence of the word śilpa is found in the Saṁhitās1 and Brāhmaṇas.2 In these it has been used to define a variety of acts or activities such as manual arts and crafts, ceremonial acts and rites, artistic work, and so on. In the Naighaṇṭuka (III.7) it connotes a form or a shape. In the Brāhmaṇas, the word is used in the sense of work of art, e. g. "they recite śilpas. These are the works of art of the gods; in imitation of these works of art, here is a work of art accomplished —an elephant, a goblet, a garment, a gold-object, a mule-chariot are works of art".3 In the Kauśītaki Brāhmaṇa (XXIX. 5) are enumerated as the three-fold śilpas—dancing, music, and singing. The Panchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa has the word śilpatva, indicating a state of being variegated or decorated.4 These diverse usages of the word śilpa clearly indicate that the acts requiring skill in certain performances as singing, dancing, compiling hymns, and the other diverse art-activities were broadly known as śilpa. Even in the realm of dramatic arts, the word has significance in a form of drama which was known as śilpaka.5

The term śilpa designates "ceremonial act" in the Āśvalāyana Śrautasūtra (VIII. 4, 5-8; IX. 10 11; XI. 2), and in this sense it is close to kāru (from the root kri) which in the Vedic contexts stands for a maker or an artisan, a singer of hymns, or a poet. In a reference in the Rigveda, Viśvakarmā, a god of creation, is mentioned as dhātu-karmāra, while karmāra alone refer to artisans and artificers.6 Viśvakarmā is supposed to create things

1 Kāṭhak, 2.3; 37.9; 48.1; Paippalāda I. 92.2; 4.3.2; Taittirīya, 1.2.2.1; 6.1.2.3; 5.5.22.1; Kaṭha, 1.15; Mādhyandin, Śukla Yajurveda, 4.9; 24.5; 29.58; Maitrāyanī, 1.2.2

2 Satapatha, 14.9.9.33; 1.1.4.3; 3.2.1.5; 14.9.4.32; Aitareya, 6.27; 38; Gopatha, 2.6.7.9; Sāṅkhāyana, 25.12, 13, 29.5; Taittirīya, 2.7.15.3; 3.33.2.1;Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, 1.7.1; Tāṇḍya, 16.4.3; 8; 9.15.2.

3 Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, VI.5, 27.

4 cf., Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Śilpatva; Bhattacharya, T.P., A Study of Vāstuvidyā, (Patna, 1947) p. 26.

5 cf., Monier-Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 468.

6 Rigveda, X,72.2; Atharvaveda, III,5.6; Manu, IV,215.

out of dhātu, "raw-material", which act is known as sanghamana.7

The process of cutting, shaping, and painting has been often

explained in the texts by the taks.8 For instance, Tvashṭri is

sometimes described as a god who tataksa, "sharpens", the vajra

of Indra.9 The correspondence of Indra and Tvashṭri in creation

of some forms is mentioned in the early texts. Indra creates a

form by his inner power, while Tvashṭri brings forth a form by

chipping and carving which act has been described as rūpa-

pimśana. These activities may significantly be taken under the

wider connotations of śilpa. Besides, these references also shed

some light on the practical aspect of the skill required in the

practice of crafts.

As regards the types of occupations or śilpas ("crafts"), the

Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas have preserved relevant material. The

Vedas bring out in clear profile craftsmen like takṣaka, "carver";

rathakāra, "chariotomaker"; and karmāra, "blacksmith". The

list of occupations and crafts grew in the post-Vedic period.

Whereas the Rigveda knew only of the karmāras, takṣakas,

weavers, tanners and the rathakaras,10 the later Vedic texts

enumerate many other occupations. The Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā

XXX. 6.21) and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa refer to various cate-

gories of artisans: chariot-makers, carpenters, potters, smiths,

jewellers, herdsmen, etc. Such increase in the categories of trades,

which fall generally under śilpas, "crafts", indicates a greater

degree of economic activity which brought about such develop-

ment. The growth in the number of crafts as well as their

practitioners continued even in the post-Vedic period.

During the early Vedic phase, it seems that even though the

social status of some of the artisans, particularly takṣakas, and

rathakāras, tended to vary, the artisans as a class enjoyed a

respectable position in the society. The Atharvaveda (III. 5. 6)

cites that some of those engaged in various crafts belonged to

the viś, "the Aryan community". The special place of takṣakas,

7 Rigveda, X,72.2; quoted by Agrawala V.S., Indian Art, p.40

8 cf., Rigveda, I, 162.6; takṣtri, Ibid., I,61.4; 105-18, 130.4; rathakāra who

used wood for joining and making of chariot, is called takṣaka in the

Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, IV, 3.8.

9 Rigveda, I,32.2; I,85; X,48.

10 cf., Rigveda, IV.35.6; 36.5; VI,32.1 takṣaka; X,72.2; VIII. 5.38.

11 cf., Sharma, R.S., Śūdras in Ancient India, pp.27-8; 49;70 ff.

4 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

rathakāras, and karmāras and their administrative responsibilities have been indicated in certain other texts. They were designated as ratnins and assigned important roles in the coronation ceremonies of kings.12 Moreover, the agricultural Vedic society found immense use to the products of various crafts in agriculture and in war. As a result, the craftsmen must have commanded respect. The crafts during this stage were neither restricted to śūdras as happened later nor was their practice stigmatised.13 These points among other things, define some of the fundamental traits of crafts during the Vedic period.

When stone came into use, the takṣakas of the Vedic times transformed their techniques and helped in the growth of art-activity. During the early stages, they were primarily concerned with wood-craft. As regards the other śilpas, as pointed out earlier, they grew in number in the post-Vedic times. The Buddhist texts enumerate various occupations. In the Majjhima Nikāya (I. 85), their number is twelve. The Dīgha Nikāya,14 the Mahāvastu,15 and the Milinda Pañho16 have long lists of occupations and indicate organisation of craftsmen's guilds. About classification of crafts as high or low, the Vinaya Piṭaka says:17

craft (sippā) mean: there are two kinds of crafts: low craft and high craft. Low craft mean: the craft of basket-makers, the potters craft, the weavers craft, the leather-workers craft, the barbers craft or whatever is disdained… despised in these districts—that means low craft. High craft means: reckoning on fingers (muddā), calculation (gananā), writing (lekhā), what is not disdained… what is esteemed in these districts—this means high crafts.

12 Ibid., pp.49 ff. rathakāra and karmāra were close to king according to a passage in the Atharvaveda, (III,5.6) but later on karmāra was replaced by takṣaka “carver or carpenter”. In terms of antiquity takṣaka was older than rathakāra, for the rathakāra came to fore mainly in the later Vedic period.

13 Ibid., p.28; also Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā, XVI, 27; Kāṭhak, XVII, 13; Maitrāyaṇī, II,9.5; Taittirīya, IV,5.4.2.

14 I,51

15 Mahāvastu, (tr.) Jones J.J., III,pp 112 ff; 443 ff.

16 Horner, I.B, (tr.) Milindas Questions, 331, mentions a list of about eight crafts and occupations.

17 Horner, I.B, (tr.) Book of Discipline, II, 176 f.

ARTISTS AND THE EARLY ART-ACTIVITY

5

The Dīgha Nikāya (I. 51) includes all crafts except that of the leather-worker under the puthu, “ordinary”, crafts, and the list includes in puthu crafts even gananā, muddā, lekhā, etc., which have been mentioned in the Suttavibhānga18 as high crafts. Dīgha Nikāya19 has a distinction also between those who were regarded low by birth and those who followed low professions. But on the basis of such random statements, which are often contradictory, it is difficult to draw a hard and fast line to delineate a distinction of birth between those who followed different types of crafts.

While in the Buddhist texts a complete correspondence of crafts with lower castes is difficult to establish, the Sūtras take a position of almost an exclusive association of crafts with Śudras. The Sūtras rule that in the absence of any other means of livelihood the Śūdras may take to various śilpas. Gautama holds this view while dealing with śilpaviritti, “practice of śilpa”, as a means of Śūdras’ livelihood.20 The artisans seem to have started losing their pre-eminent position in the post-Vedic period and eventually the craftsmen such as rathakāras and takṣakas, who were of supreme importance during the Vedic age, lost their prerogatives and were relegated to the ranks of Śūdras.21 By about the sixth century B.C., the Śūdras seem to have got largely associated with diverse types of śilpas, “occupations”, and it became customary to designate individuals according to the crafts they practised. Fick has classified the practitioners of various crafts under the “despised castes” but he indicates a state of society which admitted of certain casteless professions, particularly those which had a better guild-organisation.22

18 Ibid., II,176.

19 cf. Dialogues of the Buddha, I,100,102, “one may cite here the case of rathakāra and chammakara, ‘leather-worker’’. Chammakara, occurs in the Suttavibhānga, (Book of Discipline, II, 176) among the low crafts, while rathakāra is among low kinds of birth; and there seems to be no correspondence between kinds of low births and kinds of low crafts such as would enable one to say that a man of such and such birth follows such and such trade”. Horner, I.B., op.cit., p. 173, fn. 7.

20 Gautama Dharmasūtra, X,60, Manu, X,99-100; Pāṇini in certain sūtras, e.g. IV,2.62, V.4.95. also refers to śilpī, kāruśilpī, and chāruśilpī; Arthaśāstra, I, 3.8. (Kangle, R.P. ed.)

21 Sharma, R.S., op.cit., pp. 27-8; 48-51.

22 Fick. R., The Social Organisation in the North-East India, ch. X-XII,

6 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

However, it will be far from correct to assume that the practice of crafts was limited only to persons in the lower strata of society. There are instances of persons of higher castes practising crafts. A Jātaka has the anecdote of a Brāhmaṇa who earned his living from making carts, and thus plied the trade of a vardhakī, "carpenter".23 The Sūtras usually frowned upon such cases of individuals belonging to higher castes taking to professions of lower castes. Baudhäyana, in this connection, has ruled that a Brāhmaṇa tending cattle or living by trades, or by working as a artisan should be treated like a Sūdra.24 Such disapprobation notwithstanding, one notices a fluidity in respect of the practice of crafts by groups of people, high or low in social hierarchy. In a growing society, the artisans had enormous utility and various śilpas had special roles in the growth of economy as well as in the urban patterns of life. In the circumstances, it is no wonder that quite often one meets with the instances of people of various social ranks practising different crafts. The Buddhist texts offer evidence to the extent that gahapatis, "householders", were engaged in various crafts.25 In their social status, the gahapatis of the Buddhist texts were equivalent to the Vaiśyas of the orthodox varṇa system. The Anguttara Nikāya (III. 363) refers to a gahapati who earned his living by sippādhitthāna, "practice of arts and crafts". The institution of gahapatis itself seems to have come up as a result of the prosperity of artisans, several of whom swelled the ranks of gahapati.26 Such cases clearly indicate the upward social and economic mobility of the artisans. In Vātsyāyanaś Kāmasūtra among the virtues of a nāyaka, "cultured man", the knowledge of various śilpas gets a

23 IV, 207.

24 I,5.10.24; cf., Vaśishṭha Dharmasūtra, II,27; Gautama Dharmasūtra, X-67. Haradatta, commenting upon Gautama (X,67) recognises the social equivalenc of Sūdra and a Brāhmaṇa performing an occupation allotted to Śudra. But he adds that a Śudra doing his allotted work should not be despised by those who follow the non-Aryan occupations. Such injunctions implicitely indicate that occupations were identified with Śudras. But at the same time, they indicate that situation was flexible enough to admit persons of higher castes into the professions which were identified with the Śudras.

25 for gahapatis, cf., Fick, R., op.cit., 253 ff; Luders List, 193, 201 202, 449.

26 cf.,Dīgha Nikāya, III, 281; Jātaka, III,281; Uvāsagadasāo, p. 184, quoted by Sharma, R S, op.cit., p. 88.

ARTISTS AND THE EARLY ART-ACTIVITY 7

special mention. The nāyaka was supposed to be adept in śilpas.27 Reference to the need of having a solitary place where

a cultured man could practise his skill in carving various objects, indicates the popularity which certain śilpas enjoyed

amongst the higher sections of society.28 The Lalitavistara, likewise indicates that proficiency in śilpas was inculcated

amongst the princes of ruling families. Reference is made in the text to the hesitance of Śākya Dandapāni in giving his daughter

in marriage to the prince Siddhārtha as the latter was not proficient in śilpas.29

In the works quoted above, the word śilpa has different connotations, covering occupations, skills, and crafts. These

references also establish a close relation between the artisans practising different silpas. In fact, the mutual correspondence

of artisans is vividly expressed throughout the ancient social history. At a later stage, this correspondance of different śilpīs

was formalised. A parable in the Brahmavaivartta Purāṇa (I. 10) relates how as a result of a blessing from Brahmā, Viśvakarmā,

who was born in a Brāhmaṇa family, married the Apsarā Ghritāchī, who was reborn as a milkmaid; and out of this union

came such jātis as tailors, potters, carpenters, as well as the jātis, adept in the tantra-vidyā. This parable in the Purāṇa thus

seeks to interpret a common descent as well as the equivalence of different craftsmen.

How did the sculptors and the architects fare in this general class of śilpis, and when did they come to have a distinct class

of their own is another important question. The question may be answered by splitting it into parts relating to the pre-Mauryaṇ

and the post-Mauryaṇ times. To a great extent, the evolution of a distinct class of stone-masons must have depended upon

the extensive use of stone for building purpose, which happened sometime during the rule of the Mauryaṣ. Before the Mauryaṣ,

monuments are scarce and evidence meagre and it has been

27 Kāmasūtra, VI,1.12.

28 Ibid., I,4.4. cf., also, III,3.16; pp. 83 ff;

29 When Suddhodana asked for the marriage of Dandapāṇi's daughter to Siddhārtha, Dandapāṇi is described as having said: “asmākaṁ chayāṁ kuladharmah śilpajñasyā kanyā dātavyā naśilpajñasyeti; kumāraṣcha na śilpajño...tat kathama” śilpajñāhāṁ duhitarāṁ dāsyāmi; cf., Lalitavistra, Leffmann, (ed.),p.143.

surmised that wood, ivory, and other materials of perishable nature must have been in use for art-activity. In this activity, the takṣakas, vardhakīs, and karmāras must have played an important role.30 With the coming into use of stone for building, these artisans, might have transformed their techniques to suit the new requirements. This surmise is confirmed by references to the takṣakas and vardhakīs in the canons of iconography written during the mediaeval period.31 For instance, the Mayamataḿ (V. 13-14) refers to four types of śilpīs, "artisans": sthapati, sūtragrāhīṅ, takṣaka, and vardhakī. Elsewhere, the same text defines takṣaka as an artisan who was required to fashion stone, wood, or bricks in the construction of buildings.32 Such references clearly point towards transformation of techniques and medium of artists, even though their designations continued to be the same.

That such artists as smiths and carpenters were involved in the art-activity is proved by other references too. A Jātaka story refers to a prince who invited a karmāra-jetṭhaka, "chief of goldsmiths", to make a female figure out of a quantity of gold.33 The vaddhakis, "carpenters", and their activity find mention in several Jātakas. The Alinachitta Jātaka (II. 18) refers to a vaddhakīgāma, "a village of carpenters", with 500 such carpenters. These carpenters, it is said, collected wood from forests, made "things" out of these for use in various types of buildings, including the multi-storeyed, to the choice and satisfaction of their clients. After completing a particular job, these carpenters started the cycle of collecting raw material and further work, all over again.34 Specific references to workers-in-stone, during the pre-Mauryaṅ period are very scarce. Agrawala, however, has indicated their existence as well as their participation in the building activity of the Achaemenian king Darius.35 Agrawala says that the artists of Gandhara find mention in an Achaemenian

30 cf. Sharma, R.S., op.cit., p. 49-51; 27-8.

31 cf., also, Mahābhārata. V,255, Rāmāyaṇa, II, 80.2; Quoted by Acharya, P.K. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture, (Henceforth abbreviated as Encyclopaedia), VII, Sthapati, p. 581.

32 Mayamataḿ, V, 20

33 Jātaka, V. 282; quoted by Fick, R., op.cit.

34 cf. Jātaka, II,405, IV,159, for Vaddhakīgāmas. The Samuddavānijja Jātaka refers to a village of 1,000 carpenters in which each 500 had a chief.

inscription which acknowledges their contribution in building

a palace at Susa.35

More positive evidence about the stone-masons is forthcoming

from the Mauryan times. The Arthaśāstra is of great use in this

respect. It refers to various types of artisans engaged in build-

ing-activity, their remuneration and protection by the state;

other information concerning artisans is also available in this

text. It gives details concerning artiasns' remuneration which

varied according to the skill of the concerned person. According

to this scale, a salary of two hundred paṇas for the vardhakī,

"chief-architect", appears to be equivalent to that of a physician

or a rathakāra.36 The Arthaśāstra also has a term kāru, which

generally designates artisans, whose different classes find mention

in the text.37 These references are of great assistance in identify-

ing an independent class of artisans, specifically connected with

architecture and sculptural art. The Milinda Pañho (330)

specifically refers to a "city-architect" who lays out and raises a

city and "when the city was fully developed he might go away

to another district". This reference to the architect's mobility

is important and to some extent may explain why in the

Buddhist texts although various other śilpis have been often

mentioned, architects and sculptors in particular do not get a

proportionate mention. It may also be surmised that probably

these artists did not have such guild-organisations as other

craftsmen had. This lack of organisation amongst artists might

have been due to their mobility. And in the circumstances,

references to them are not as frequent as to those who were

better organised.

With the acceleration in the tempo of building-activity during

the Mauryan period the artists received greater attention. The

35 cf., Agrawala, V.S., Studies in Indian Art, p. 121. About the origin

of stone-architecture in India, cf., Bhattacharya T.P., The Canons of

Indian Art, pp. 300 ff.

36 Arthaśāstra, V,3.12; V,3.16; the text prescribes two hundred paṇas for

vardhakī and only one hundred and twenty paṇas for kāruśilpis,

'artisan'. also MacCrindle, J.N., Ancient India as Described by

Megasthenes (Calcutta, 1926) p. 86, fragment 34. In the section on

kārukara-rakṣaṇam the Arthaśāstra (IV,1,2-4; IV,1.65) lays down rules

protecting artisans or guarding troubles from them, cf. also Arthaśāstra,

IV, 2. 18.

37 Arthaśāstra, IV,1; IV,1.65.

10 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

workers-in-stone no longer remained anonymous or completely aligned to the kindred group of craftsmen. They seem to have obtained a distinct niche in the class of artisans, which probably helped in salvaging their trade from obscurity. The emergent socio-economic situation following the Mauryan rule must have added its share in the coming up of artisans specialising in building-work. The control on economy, production, and crafts as well as the growing inland and overseas trade during the Mauryan-Sātavāhana era opened up new avenues for crafts and craftsmen. The religious fervour of the newly affluent classes of such urban centres as Mathurā, Sanchi-Vidisā, and Nasik, led to raising religious edifices. All these developments had their natural consequences on the tone of building-activity and on the craftsmen engaged in it.

The accent now was on the use of stone for building edifices or sculptures.

The vast administrative organisation of the Mauryas had successfully harnessed the skill of craftsmen on a grand scale. The introduction of stone revolutionised the art-activity. The impact of such transformations was felt in various parts of the country and the epigraphs available from Mathura, Bharhut, Sanchi, Gaya, and western and eastern coastal India, help in understanding the degrees of such impact and the consequent transformation in the techniques and medium of artists. The epigraphs have expressions like silākarmanța or śailakarma indicating that the activity had come to be known as “stone-work”,38 in contra-distinction to work in wood, ivory, or metals. The sculptors are mentioned as rūpakāra, śailavardhakī, aveśani rūpadakṣa, etc., which all define the new factors of growth obtaining in the realm of art-activity. The inscriptions also offer prolific references to dedication of small and big excavations, constructions or carvings, such as setting up of caves (selaghara/leṇa) or the facades of caves (gharamugha), stone-pillars (śilā-lakṣṭī) or their bases and so on.39 Much more

38 Luders List, 687, 350

39 Ibid., 1087; 1090; 962; several other objects are mentioned in the inscriptions, e.g., tank (pushkariṇī); reservior (udapana), garden; gamjāvāra; pūja-śilā-prākāra, “stone-wall”, chakrapata, “slabs with a wheel”, pādukāpaṭa; svastikapata, “slabs with a svastika”; harmya, “temple”. Luders List. 82; 6; 1253; 1217; 1282; 1287; 23; A Sanchi inscription.

ARTISTS AND THE EARLY ART-ACTIVITY 11

important and extensive excavations than merely the single

small structure also find mention e.g. caves; upasthānaśālā

"hall of reception"; cells and quadrangular dining hall; this is

in addition and complementary to such smaller things as

"benches for sitting", "walk", etc.40 Sometimes the donors took

pride in commissioning works which they regarded as "marvell-

ous" and which indeed are so. Thus an inscription from the

Buddhist cave at Karla records the "establishment of the cave-

dwelling, the most excellent on the Jambūdvīpa".41 Besides the

edifices and their architectural components mentioned above,

the inscriptions also record setting up of images,42 or stone-pieces

decorated with carvings—the latter described as śailarūpakarma.43

The exclusiveness of the stone-worker has been conveyed by

qualifying him as śailavardhakī, which probably purports to

indicate the distinctiveness of this stone-mason in comparison

to the ordinary vardhakī, "carpenter". The use may alternatively

indicate the transformation of techniques and medium of the

craftsmen, with the change in the medium of art.

In addition to the evidence from epigraphs, that from the

texts also suggests the growth of different classes of artists. The

Mahāvastu refers to various classes of artists and their fields of

specialisation. Those figuring in its list are: citrakāraka,

"painters"; vardhakī-rūpakāra, "carpenters"; kārupatrika, "carv-

ers"; pustakāraka, "the modellers of clay"; pustakarmakāraka,

"plasterers", lepaka, "decorators"; and sthapatī-sūtrakāra,

"architects".45 These different terms signify that in the

realm of stone-carving and architecture, different classes of

artists formed specialised groups. The Manu Sainhitā46 attempts

tion (Luders List, 350) contains an imprecation against him "who takes

away or causes to be taken away the stone-work... or causes it to be

transferred to another temple...".

40 cf. Luders List, 988

41 Ibid., 1087

42 Ibid., 114, 115

43 Ibid., 1045

44 Mahāvastu, (tr.), Jones, J.J., III 112; also p. 443 where this list occurs

with certain modifications.

45 Ibid., p. 444.

46 VI. 47-8. cf., Artibus Asiae, Vol XXXI, 4 p. 308., editor's note to the

paper "Sri Yugandhar—A Master Artist of Ajanta", by M.K.

Dhavalikar.

12 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

to fix up a hierarchy of artists of the building-activity and mentions sthapati, "master-architect"; sūtragrāhin, "surveyor-designer"; takṣaka, "sculptor"; carpenter; and painter in relation to each other. In this hierarchy sūtragrāhin has a special relationship to the master-architect in the sense that he has either to be the son or a disciple of the latter. We have two terms here, sūtragrāhin and sūtrakāra, which are important and indicate a designation which was to become more important in the post-Gupta times. The word sūtragrāhin has been explained as surveyor-designer47 while, sūtrakāra has been sometimes explained as meaning "(cotton-) spinner". 48 However, on the analogy of the Sanskrit sūtrakarma, "rule-work" or "carpentry", it has been suggested that the whole compound in the Mahāvastu, would seem to mean "a builder working by rule" or a "builder-carpenter".49 It may be added here, that "working-by-rule" was a phenomenon limited not only to the carpentry; it was used by the stone-masons also. The use of stone, brought about a transformation in the material, not so much in the methods. The liberal use of wood in the early monuments, as in the cave temples of western India, or even the principles of construction (e.g. pillars like wooden posts; or pillars tilted inwards at the top as it were to support the overhanging roof, and so forth) indicate a continuation of the older experience.

It has been surmised that some of the schools of śilpa had started taking shape in the early centuries of the Christian era. But the role of artists in evolution of such schools is not clearly defined. On one hand, the information as derived from the canons of iconography seems to relate the evolution of such schools to the prominent āchāryas, or to the craftsmen like Maya and Viśvakarmā.50 On the other hand, Tārānāth, relates the development of the schools of art to the Nāga- and Yaksha-sthapati.

47 Ibid.

48 cf. S.B.E. XXXVI, 201; Milinda Pañho, 331.

49 cf. Mahāvastu, III, p. 112; also sūtrādhyakṣa in the Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, II, 23.1. ff. sūtrakṛidā in Kāmasūtra 1.3.15. The epigraphic evidence tends to indicate that sūtragrāhin was eliminated, and a new class, that of sūtradhāra came into being in the post-Gupta era.

50 Bhattacharya discusses the earliest nature of Vāstuśāstra and the originators of the different schools of architecture and art. cf. Bhattacharya. T.P., The Canons of Indian Art, p. 87 ff., Encyclopaedia, SV., sthapati.

artisans who, he says, were employed by the Mauryas for building their edifices.51 The relevant passage from Tāranāth reads as follows:

In the ancient period, the human artists possessed miraculous power and their artistic creations were astounding. In the Vinaya Vastu, etc., it is clearly said that the statues made and pictures drawn by them created the illusion of being real objects. For about a hundred years after the parinirvāṇa of the Teacher (i.e. the Buddha), there were many artists like them.

As afterwards there was none of them any more, the celestial artists appeared in human guise and made eight wonderful images for worship in Magadha, like those of the Mahābodhi and Mañjuśrī-dundubhīśvara (an epithet of Buddha Amoghasiddhi). The caityas of the eight sacred places and the inner boundary wall of vajrāsana were built by the Yakṣa artists during the period of Aśoka and the Nāga artists built many (images) during the time of Nagarjuna.52

Evidently, the information as given by Tāranāth is anachronistic in matters of images as mentioned by him, for these images are untraceable in Indian art, till the time of the Kushāṇas. However, the tradition about the artists of the Mauryan period cannot be dismissed summarily. There is independent evidence, from Patañjali (middle of the second century B.C.) also about the Mauryas' involvement in making images for collecting money.53 That the making of images was a source of livelihood is indicated also by the sūtra of Pāṇini and the commentaries on it.54 The Mauryas popularised (animal) sculptures and their making, and along with the artists came to have a permanent place in the legend of sculpture-making, which is important,

51 Tāranāth's History of Buddhism in India, (ed.), D.P. Chattopadhyaya, p. 347.

52 Ibid.

53 Mauryaih-hiraṇyā-rthabhitaih-archa-prakalpitāh, cf. Banerjee, J.N. Development of Hindu Iconography, p. 40.

54 Pāṇini, Jīvikārthe-chā-panye. V. 3.99, Banerjea, op.cit., p. 391 says, "on the authority of commentaries, the Mahābhāshya and the Kāśikā we can assume that these objects which were meant for livelihood, but at the same time were not for sale...".

even though the specifics of Tāranāth's statement may not be true. It has been suggested that the nāgara, "northern", style may have stemmed from the innovations by the Nāgas.55 Apart from what is known from the literary texts, a fair amount of information about the artisans and their role in the building-activity, is available in the ancient inscriptions. A large number of such inscriptions are from Mathura, Bharhut, Sanchi, and many regions of western and eastern India (viz., Kuda, Kanheri, Karla, Amaravati, Jagayyapetta, etc.). Most of these places were flourishing urban centres and served as important trading posts for overseas or inland trade in various commodities.56 The consequent prosperity and affluence explains the circumstances responsible for evolution of art and architecture at such places. It seems that in the evolution of local idiom of art, the resident artists of different places helped in accomplishing a major breakthrough. In fact the art-evidence clearly indicates the development of local styles which evolved into distinct schools of sculpture, for instance, the Mathura school, or the western Indian school or the Amaravati school and so on. A comparison of motifs of arts as well as the sculptural styles clearly indicates that though there were distinct schools at different centres, mutual influences in respect of motifs, subjects of reliefs, the technical aspect of relief-carving, the practice of accompanying labels with the reliefs, etc., among the various schools are clearly discernible.

We thus have a phenomenon in the realm of architecture and sculptural art which accommodates the cognate styles as well as distinct ones. This leads to the conclusion that experiments and the skill obtained at one particular place did not necessarily remain localised to the place of origin. On the other hand, the skill spread to far and wide regions.57 This in its turn is indicative of some sort of organisation of the artists which probably included both the resident and the itinerant artists. The epigraphs afford evidence regarding both the types of

55 Bhattacharya, T.P., op.cit., p. 309 f. His reasons are different.

56 cf. Shastri, K.A.N., (ed.), Comprehensive History of India, pp. 430 ff.

57 For the Bharhut and Mathura, and western and eastern Indian early idioms of art and their cognate character, cf., Dikshit, M.G., Indica VIII, (i) pp. 1. ff; also Coomaraswamy, A.K., History of Indian and Indonesian Art, p. 27; Codrington, D.B. Ancient India, p. 27, plates 22a.

artists. The localisation of activity at different centres such as

Mathura and Bharhut may indicate the existence of resident

artists, and such artists may ultimately have led to the organisa-

tion of the kindred group on a more efficient basis even as the

itinerant artists may have helped in the dissemination of the

art-idiom. The epigraphic data suggest that such classes of

artists working in stone had come into existence by the second

century B.C. As regards the resident artists, an inscription from

Mathura58 records the dedication of a śilāpatṭa, "stone-slab", in

the temple of (the Nāga) Dadhikarṇa "by the sons... of

sailalaka,59 "stone-masons", (of) Mathura". These artisans

are praised as Chandaka brothers, chief among them was

Nandibala. The inscription offers information regarding the

artists of Mathura. Another artisan of Mathura was Gomataka,

a pupil of Kunika, who claims to have made the famous

Parkham Yaksha image.60 Yet another pupil of Kunika, Nāga

is known from another Mathura inscription, as the maker of an

image of Yakshiṇī Lāyāva.61 These inscriptions show that

artists' occupation was already in the process of specialisation.

In the case of the Chandaka brothers, it was practised by all

the brothers, although Chandaka, the eldest among them was

the most reputed for his craft.62 Similarly, in the case of Kunika

and his disciples—Gomataka and Nāga—the phenomenon of

specialisation may be inferred from their teacher-disciple relation-

ship. Further evidence about such relationship, is available from

the other regions also and will be mentioned at the relevant

58 cf, Luders List, 85; This temple of Dadhikarṇa Nāga finds mention in

another inscription from Mathura (Luders List, 63.), which records

"dedication (of the pillar) by Devila, the servant (or priest) at the

temple of Dadhikarṇa..."

59 Luders translates selālaka as "actors"; so does the Amarakośā, Sūdra-

varga, II,12. This translation is not borne out by the context of the

above inscription at Mathura, and has the sense of stone-mason; cf.,

Mahāvastu, II, p. 444, fn.7 Edgerton. F., Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit

Dictionary.

60 Luders List, 150

61 cf. Chanda, R.P., ASI, AR, 1922-23 p. 165; Agrawala., V.S., op.cit.,

p. 118, Buhler says that a sectarian distinction among artists of Mathura

cannot be established and it is possible that the same set of artists were

commissioned to create the stone-work related to different sects, e.g.

Buddhist, Jaina, and Hindu.

62 Luders List, 345

16 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

places. Among the resident artists, reference may also be made to the ivory-carvers (daintakāra) of Vidiśā mentioned in a Sanchi inscription. This inscription records that the rūpakamma, “carving”, on a portion of the south gate was done by the Vedisaka workers in ivory.

Of greater number and importance are inscriptions pertaining to the itinerant artists, and such inscriptions have come to light from Sanchi, Ramgarh, and Jagayyapetta. One of the earliest of such inscriptions has come from Ramgarh (Jogimara cave) and it refers to a lūpadakha, “sculptor”, Devadina (Devadatta) who was a native of Vārāṇasī and a lover of Sutanukā, a temple-servant (devadasikye).63 An inscription from Sanchi64 refers to an artisan (?)-Visakama (Viśvakarmā), a native of Ujjayinī.

Another Sanchi inscription,65 on the top-architrave of the south gate of the main Stūpa, records that the work was the gifts of Ānanda who was the foreman of the artisans of rājan Siri-Sātakarṇi. This architrave has an outstanding depiction of the story of Chhaddanta Jātaka, the like of which in style could not be achieved on any other gate of the Sanchi stūpa. Sanchi was under the rule of the Sātavāhanas whose centre of power during this time seems to have been located in the western part of the Maharashtra and in the case of Ānanda we have a clear evidence of the artist who belonged to another region, but accomplished his work at Sanchi.

Evidence regarding the itinerant artists also comes from certain inscriptions of Jagayyapetta, in Andhra Pradesh. These inscriptions refer to an āveśani, “the foreman among artisan”, namely Siddhārtha who made a gift of five entrance pillars at the dāra, “door”, of the Mahāchetiya at Velagiri.66 Siddhartha was a resident of the village Mahākamdurura while his father Nāgachandra, who also was an āveśani, resided in Nadatura in the district of Kammaka. Besides indicating that the artist’s profession was hereditary, the inscription also indicates their mobility in the sense of physical movement from one place to another.

63 Ibid., 921.

64 cf., Cunningham, A., Bhilsa Topes, p. 151 no. 12; Luders List, 173.

65 cf. Marshall and others, Monuments of Sanchi, Vol.I, inscription No. 398; “rañosiri Sātakanis avesanisa Vāsiṭhiputasa Ānamdas dānaṁ”.

66 cf. Luders List, 1002. Jaggayyapetta Buddhist Pillar Inscription of the time of Rājan Mādhariputa Siri Vīrapurisadatta of the Ikṣvākus; cf. also Ibid, no. 1203-4.

There are inscriptions which refer to artists alone without any reference to the places which they belonged to; like rūpakāra, "sculptor", Budharakhita of Bharhut.67 Similarly, inscriptions of Sanchi refer to two such artisans—Artha and Abhaya.68 These cases are unlike an Amaravati inscription which refers to an artist (whose name has disappeared), who was a native of Virapura and son of Dharmadeva.69 There are several other cases in which the artists find mention, e.g., the vadhakī, "carpentar", Svāmin of Dhenukāṭaka who made the mugha, "door", of the cave at Karla;70 of Baluka (or Balaka) at Kondane.71 Some of these inscriptions indicate that craftsmen belonging to other fields like ivory-carving, carpentry, etc., joined the ranks of stone-masons.

Information is also available regarding the artists' set-up and organisation. Individual artists, as we have seen above, were known as rūpakāra, rūpakāra, karmika, śailātaka, etc. Sometimes they are designated as śailavadhakī.72 These terms might also have designated their occupational class, just as work on stone was known as śailakarma.73 Among the artists of authority, the navakarmikas74 and āveśanins75 figure prominently. A Sonari inscription (Luders No 157) refers to the navakarmika, "overseer", Dharmagupta, a pupil of Ārya-Prasannaka; a Bharhut inscription mentions the navakarmika Ārya-Rishipālita who

67 C.I.I., II(ii), p. 36; Luders List, 857; This rūpakāra may have had something to do with the "creation of a gateway (torana) and stone-work (silākammamta) by Dhanabhūti..." which finds mention in another Bharhut inscription, cf. C.I.I., II (ii), p. 11 ff.; Luders List, 687.

68 Marshall, J., op.cit., inscription numbers 199, 448; Both find mention as karmika, which like navakarmika, "architect", may have some relevance in relation to artisans.

69 Luders List. 124

70 Ibid., 1092; cf., also sela-vadhakī:, E.I., XX, inscription; F., line 4, p. 22; iṭṭhakā—vaddhakī: 'brick-mason', Mahāvaṃsa, XXIX, 5, 30.

71 Luders List, 1071.

72 Ibid., 987;

73Ibid., 350; also E.I., XX, p. 22; Luders List, 1045 (śailarūpakarma); 345 (rūpakarma); 687 (silākammamta); 1087 (selaghara); also E.I., XX insc. nos. B4 E.I., for sela-khambha, and śaila-maṇḍapa.

74 cf., Luders List, 154,773, 987,1250; E.I., XX,p. 17 ff.; inscription number: C.1; C.2, F.

75 The different forms of the word āveśanin, occurring in the inscription are āvesani, āvesani, avesani, cf., Luders List, 1202-4, §46, 1298, in the inscription from Jagayyapetta; Sanchi and Amaravati.

is also styled as bhadanta and bhānaka, "preacher". A Kanheri inscription gives a long list of navakaramikas, "overseers", describing them as monks and elders—bhadanta; their names are: Achala, Grihala, Vijayamitra, Bodhika, and Dharmapāla. The merchant Aparenuaka also occurs in this list of overseers, but his role cannot be exactly established. The inscription adds that the work of excavating the cave was "executed" by bhadanta Bodhika, the pupil of bhadanta Seumla, and that in this work he acted as overseer (uparakhita) of the sela-vadhakin, "stone-masons", the nāyakamisa; the kadhichakas; the mahākatakas; the mithika, "polisher"; and the khararaki. This inscription is invaluable in explicating the functions of different types of artists engaged in the completion of an monument. An Amaravati inscription refers to a thera, "elder", styled as bhadanta Buddharakṣita, who was navakamaka, of the Chaityakas (a Buddhist sect) and who lived at Rājagiri.76 The Nagarjunakonda inscriptions of the time of the Ikṣvākus similarly refer to certain navakarmikas, e.g., student Ānanda, a navakarmika, who knew the Dighat—and Majjhima-Nikāyas "by heart" and who established the foundation of the Mahāchetitya;77 the three theras "elders"—navakarmikas, viz., Chaṃdamukha, Dhammanandi, and Nāga, who supervised the work of building such edifices as a chaitya and a vihāra, a bodhi-tree, shrine, cells, pillars of a mandapa, a hall for religious practice, a tank, a verandah and other things at different places. The inscription also mentions that the work was accomplished by the stone-mason Vidhika: "selavadhakisa Vidhikasa kamman ti".78

These records indicate that the work of excavating the Buddhist edifices was supervised by the members of the Buddhist Church and that these members of the Church sometimes functioned as pupils of other theras, who might have been master-architects in their own right. In any case, the latter proposition indicates a situation conducive to specialisation of crafts and to the development of individual schools of sculpture and architecture.

76 Luders List, 1250

77 E.I., XX, p. 17; inscription no. C.1; also p. 20, inscription. no. C.2;

78 Ibid., p. 22, inscription. no. F., line 4.

In the Mahāvaṃsa (xxx. 98), an overseer of work is designated as kammādhitṭhāyaka. The appointment of the navakarmikas by the Church, may have been necessary for the purpose of observing ecclesiastical specifications in the Buddhist edifices and also for the simple reason that person so appointed may have possessed the requisite technical skill for the job. Evidence suggesting both is available. The Cullavagga79 specifies rules regarding the buildings and the objects of use by monks and nuns; the ecclesiastical supervision might have been enforced to ensure proper adherence to these norms. As regards the eligibility of monks in supervising the building-work, etc., they seem to have earned it on account of their skill in this area of activity. Artisans were seeking and getting admission into the Buddhist Church and such artisans-converted-monks might have continued practising their skill even after joining the Buddhist Church. The status of such monk-artists in the Church was in no way inferior to any other member. In the texts the specificities of speech-usage have been defined and it is ordained that a monk’s former occupation ought not to be mentioned to humiliate him.80 A passage in the Samaññaphala-Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya81 also indicates that persons of different occupations82 were joining the Buddhist Church, to escape the rigours of the Brahmanical caste system. The passage records a dialogue between the Buddha and Ajātasatru in which the latter asks the Buddha of the advantages in becoming a recluse; the Buddha describes the advantages and interposes whether a monk, even though he might have earlier been the king’s slave, would or would not receive respect from the king, to which Ajātasatru replies that he would be respected. Such craftsman-turned-monks as mentioned in the Dīgha-Nikāya, might have come handy in the building of the Buddhist monuments.

The overseer of work or its “executer” was appointed besides by the Church, by other authorities or persons also. In a

79 Horner, I.B., (tr.), Book of Discipline (Vinayapiṭaka) V. Cullavagga, p. 204 ff; also Sutta-Vibhanga, Bhikkhuni Vibhanga, I, in the book of Discipline, III, p. 156.

80 Ibid., II. 173; Reference is made here to various crafts, though not specifically to sculptors or masons.

81 Dialogues of the Buddha, I. pp. 68 ff; pp. 76 ff.

82 Occupations are enumerated here.

20 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

Banavāsī inscription83 of the time of rājan Visnukada Chutuukulānanda Sātakarṇi, mention is made of a princess who donated a naga (?), a tank and a vihāra; and of the kāmamitika, "superintendent of work" in this case a minister—Skandasvāti. Similarly, the Junagarh rock inscription of Rudradāman cites the instance of the minister Suviśākha who executed the work of restoration of the Sudarasaṇa lake after a storm.84 From these two examples it follows, that if the work undertaken by some person required independent execution, that was possible and in such a case, the Church may not have had the responsibility of supervising the project.

Āveśanins also occur in the inscriptions as artists of authority. In the Sātavāhana-Ikṣvāku inscriptions this term occurs six times, once in the case of Ānanda, at Sanchi; thrice in the case of Siddhārtha, an Ikṣvāku artisan and his father Nāgachandra; and once in the case of an artist whose name has disappeared from the inscription.85 Siddhārtha in his inscription gives the details of his family also. The āveśanin Nāgachandra and Nagilā, were his parents, Samudrā his wife; Buddhi his brother; Krishṇā his brother's wife; Mūlaśrī, his son; Nāgabuddhā his daughter; and Nāgaśrī, Chaṇdaśrī, and Siddhārtha his brother's progeny. The relevant inscriptions mention only Nāgachandra and his son Siddhārtha as āveśanins; and there is no direct evidence whether their occupation was followed by all the male (and female) members of the family. But there is sufficient evidence in the inscription to suggest that the profession was hereditary. This information is equivalent to the one relating to the teacher-disciple relationship amongst the navakarmikas mentioned above.

The term āveśanin has been usually translated as "foreman among the artisans"; the lexicons explain āveśan as śilpīśālā, manufactory, (or workshop). On the analogy of akṣaśālā mentioned in the Arthaśāstra86 and in its commentary, the word āveśani

83 Luders List, 1186

84 Ibid., 965

85 Ibid., 346; 1202-4; 1298.

86 Kautilya's Arthaśāstra, II.13.1, akṣaśālāyām suvarnādhyakṣah; the commentary explains akṣaśālā as akṣaśālā-eti-suvarṇa-ādi-parikarma-āvasthanāsya samajñā, i.e. akṣaśālā is the name of the chamber in which artistic work of gold and other metals is carried out, cf., E.I., XXIV, p. 182. akṣaśālin as an officer finds mention in several inscriptions from eastern India., Bhandarkar's List, 1497, 1498, 1500-2.

may be explained as manufactory. Alternatively, āveśanin may imply a title or position acquired by an individual who possessed great artistic merit. The resourcefulness of āveśanin is supported by the fact that atleast in two of the cases where reference has been made to them, they are mentioned as having been involved in making an important structure. Ānanda, the aveśanin at Sanchi was associated in making the toranas when the work was started.87 Likewise, the āveśanin Siddhārtha of Jagayyapetta inscription is associated with the making of five āyaka pillars on the eastern gate of the Mahāchetiya of the Buddha at Velagiri.88 In any case, the reference to āveśanin, i.e., chief-artist, points towards the existence of āveśan, “manufactory”, for the training of artisans or making of objects of arts, as commissioned by the royal or other donors. Such workshops find mention elsewhere also. The Brihatsamhitā of Vārāhamihira refers to śilpalaya; the Brahmavaivartta Purāna to śilpagriha; and the commentary of Kullūka on Manu, to śilpageha.89 The Kāmasūtra has the information that persons of taste who practised śilpa in their own houses, used to have such workshop—ekāmta cha takṣatakṣaṇa-sthānam.90

The task of building edifices or excavating monuments was well organised. The extant monuments usually indicate a premeditated design and its execution in which probably every single architectural part, including motifs and reliefs, was predetermined and made according to the lay-out previously defined.91

Before starting the actual work on some edifice, it was possibly customary to prepare a design. An instance of this is found in the Mahāvamisa.92 Similarly in the Thūpavamisa93 there is the

87 Dahejia discusses the dates and sequence of the different toranas of the main stūpa at Sanchi and expresses some doubts as to the priority of the south gate in relation to the dating of other gates, cf., Early Buddhist Rock Temples, p.187 ff.

88 Luders List, ff 1202; of the time of the Ikṣvāku Mādharīputra Srī Virapurisadatta (third quarter of the 3rd century).

89 Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary, SV.

90 Kāmasūtra, I.4:4; śilpī-śālā finds mention in the Mayamatam, LXVIII 50.

91 Dahejia, V., op.cit., p. 135 f; She also describes the process of cutting the cave from start to its finish and the time taken in such work, cf., p.136 f.

92 Mahāvamisa, XXVII, 10, 18.

93 Law, B.C. The Legends of the Topes, p. 64

22 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

instance of the king Duṭṭhagāmani Abhaya who expressed a desire to build a "palace similar to a celestial mansion". He assembled the Order of Monks and asked them to prepare a "drawing of a mansion made upon a linen cloth...". Thereupon, the Order sent eight Bhikkhus who went to the abode of thirty-three devas and saw "a jewelled palace, twelve yojanas high and forty-eight yojanas in circumference, which was adored with thousand pinnacles, was nine-storied, and provided with a thousand chambers ... and which floated in the air". They made a drawing of it with virmillion upon a linen cloth, and on their return gave it to the Order of Monks, who sent it to the king. When the king saw it, he was glad at heart and had the "Brazen palace" (lohapāsāda) built in the style of drawing.94 It is said that the design for lohapāsāda was prepared by theras, "elders", after the vimāna, "palace", of a devatā, namely Vīraṇi.95 Such designs find mention as varṇaka or hastalekha in the texts of the Gupta or post-Gupta times. The Naishadha Charita says that the entire feminine world created by Brahma is a hastalekha, "preliminary attempt", to the final shaping of the beauty of Damayantī.96 However, more important are the details in the Mahāvaṃsa and Thūpavaṃsa which set out the whole process of making of certain buildings, including the great stūpa and these details are of invaluable significance.

These texts relate that artisans were collected on drum-beats and a skilled mason was selected from among various masons who were properly interviewed regarding their capacity to undertake the work. The king's men and the theras went around places collecting the necessary metals, stones, and bricks for use in the construction of the stūpa. All the work was paid for, and if somebody stealthily contributed something, he was detected and amply compensated for his gift. The above texts also deal with the motifs and legends carved on pillars and railings of the stūpa. These details give a comprehensive idea about the

94 Ibid., p. 64 ff.

95 cf., Mahavamsa, XXVII. 10,18; also Law, B.C., op.cit., p. 64 ff.

96 purākritis saimā vidhātum abdhu vidhātuh kila hastalekhāh; cf., Sivarammurti, Indian Sculpture p.9. For hastalekhā, cf., Naisha-dhacharita vii. 59; 72; 221.68; The other synonyms of hastalekha are: varṇaka, hastolaka, and pāndullekha. cf., Sivarammurti, op. cit., p. 9 pl 2: In the temples of Khajuraho, there are miniature representations of pillars or mandapas etched on the surfaces, for the reference of artisans.

mode of construction of the stūpa as well as its decoration and the roles of different types of participants (e.g., the chief-

architect, masons, donors), the motifs of decoration, the mobilisation of men and money for collecting the necessary

building material and so on.97 The elder Indagutta "who was gifted with six high faculties, most wise, directed all this, being

the superintendent of the building".98

In the early reliefs sometimes artisans-at-work are also depicted. One really wonders whether only the ordinary chisel

and hammer as depicted; were the important tools of sculptors and masons. Takşaka and vardhakīs used their sūtra, "threads",

for measuring. A vardhakī-kāshṭa, a measure of forty-two inches finds mention in texts.99 In the reliefs of Bharhut,

however, we have a depiction of two figures of rūpakāras, "sculptors", carrying "dagger-like" chisels in their hands;

they seem to be clearing irregular rocks preparatory to some excavation. One of them stands on the flat ground, while

the other stands on a nail pierced through rock, which serves as his working platform. Both the persons are shown,

carrying on their back baskets which contain their other tools (Plate I). The coping stone depicting the scene, was acquired from Bhatanwara

in Satna district of Madhya Pradesh and is now in the National Museum, New Delhi.100 A figure of a scribe, in relief, is known

from Nagarjunakonda.101 The figure here holds a similar iron stylus having a large, round head for a convenient grip.

Sivaramamurti identifies him as a royal scribe "shown here as casting the horoscope of Siddhartha..."; the relief might as well

represent a sculptor.

The Thūpavamsa102 gives the details of making of the relic chamber. These details throw some light on the process of raising

edifices. When the king asked the skilled itthakā-vaddhakī, "brick-mason", as to how will he make the relic chamber, the

97 Law, B.C., op.cit., pp. 73-84.

98 Ibid., p. 84; Mahāvamsa, XXX, 98-9.

99 Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary, sv.

100 Museum antiquity no. 68.163; cf., Agrawala, R.C. "Unpublished Bharhut Reliefs in the National Museum, New Delhi', Lalit Kala,

14, p. 54, pl. xx, fig. ii.

101 cf., Sivaramamurti, C., "Indian Epigraphy and South Indian Scripts", Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum, 4, p. 33, fig. 13

102 Law, B.C. op.cit., p. 73.

24 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

mason replied, "...I shall pound (the sand) in mortar, and have it sifted with winnowing basket, and crushed in mill, and then I shall do the work with a hundred workmen, throwing down only one āmāṇa (a measure of capacity) of dust in one day".103 Elsewhere, in the same text, is an account of the starting of work on a stūpa. It describes different stages of work and the various articles of use in the preliminary stages of the work. Such process as clearing the place and laying of stone by the king's soldiers inside an elephant-wall (i.e., a basement-work or a platform supported by elephants in relief); breaking of the stone into pieces, which were "stamped down by great elephant's with their feat encased in heals"; spreading of butter-clay on the pounded stones; spreading of bricks over it; "over the bricks, a rough cement, over that cinnabar stones, over that a network of iron, over that sweet-scented sand..."104 and so on are described. The description is no doubt exaggerated, for, the excavated stūpas in India hardly reveal such material in the order described above; but there is enough in the description to show that the edifices were raised with meticulous care and effort.

As regards the artisans of lower categories, engaged for routine work, mention may be made of the sela-vadhakī "stone-mason"; mahākaṭaka;105 kadhichaka,106 and mithika, "stone-polisher"—all these words occur in a Kanheri inscription cited above. In a Sanchi inscription is a reference to karmika (labourer?), which juxtaposed to navakarmika, may explain itself as a worker of lower ranks, engaged in the construction of buildings. Quite often labourers had to be employed if the task to be accomplished was big. The Thūpavamsa cites the case of a skilled mason who wanted to employ 500 workmen for achieving his task. The Mahāvamsa refers to itṭhakāvaddhakī, "brick-mason".107

103 Ibid.

104 Ibid., p. 69

105 Probably an artist or artists engaged in ivory-work, kaṭaka=ivory;

106 The word is difficult to explain. Buhler has pointed out that in Gujarat, a word Kaḍiyo (which is close to Kadhichaka) is still in use for brick-layers; cf. A.S.W.I., IV, p.76 kadhichaka, may alternatively be derived from kaṭhi, kaolin, which may help to explain kadhickaka as a stone-cutter, stone-painter, or stone-polishler.

107 cf., Geiger, W., Culture of Ceylon in Medieval Times, (ed.), Heinz Bechert, p. 92. The workmen in building trade in Ceylon

ARTISTS AND THE EARLY ART-ACTIVITY 25

The existence of such specialised classes in different departments of building activity, indicates that crafts were becoming more and more inverted leading to specialisation. In this specialisation, many factors like acquisition of greater skill through the successive stages of the practice of crafts, or teacher-disciple relationship, or hereditary factor, may have contributed their share. One often wonders that in the early inscriptions, the various terms designating the artists, are not identical to those which occur in the texts. Whereas, the texts mention such classes of artisans as sthāpati and sūtragrahin, the inscriptions have an entirely different set of terms. However, on several terms, e.g., karmāra, karmakāra, vardhakī, etc., the texts and inscription complement each other. It may be suggested, that since the inscriptions relate to the actual activity, and texts offer evidence mostly on the theoretical aspects, the former should be taken as more important in defining the practical aspects of the ancient art-activity.

In plying their trade, artisans came in contact with individuals belonging to various sections of society. The composition of these sections and their relations with artists are examined below. The donative inscriptions from different places, like Bharhut, Sanchi, Mathura, offer evidence regarding donors, their ranks and social status, the region they came from as also their share in making of the relevant monuments or parts thereof. Several hundred such donative inscription relating to the gifts of such monuments as caves, stūpas, vihāras, etc., as well as their parts or decorative motifs, indicate how the people competed with each other for receiving the merit of participation in the construction of a monument. In terms of commissioning of new edifices the donors belonging to different social or professional strata in society stood as equal partners in the ventures, which were executed by workmen and their superintendents. The evidence regarding the donors as found in the early epigraphs seems to suggest that the building activity gathered momentum, encouraged not by any

were known by a collective name vardhakī”, ...but within this group there are several sub-groups: the carpenters (dāru-vaḍḍhakī), the brick-layer (iṭṭhakā-vaḍḍhakī), the worker in stucco (cuṇṇa-vaḍḍhakī), and the worker in stone (silā-vaḍḍhakī). They seem to have been organised as a caste-like body of artisans with a nagara-vaḍḍhakī at the head”, Ibid., p. 921.

26 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

single resourceful class in society, but as a result of a ubiquitous

interest of different classes of people towards a common end.

In a situation like this, the artists, who did the actual work, and

enlivened the aspirations of the devotees, must have risen in

status, even though they belonged to a lower strata of society.

Their relation with different classes of people is clearly

established in the inscriptions, which besides indicating the

enthusiasm of persons of different social standing, in building

or excavating monuments, also point to combining of different

sections of society at the same level, ignoring thereby the caste

and class distinctions. And as such the social implications of

such religious fervour and enthusiasm are enormous.

The evidence regarding the donors may be examined on two

planes-an over-all general survey with regard to the classes of

donors and their donations at different centres of art-activity,

and the specific donor-monument equation. With regard to

the first, we find references to the participation of different

sections of society, including kings and chiefs and the members

of their families and administration; of caste-men, like Kṣatriyas

and Brāhmaṇas; persons of middle ranks occupationally, viz.,

bankers, chiefs of occupational guilds-śresthis; and the com-

moners like ploughmen, perfumers, smiths, carpenters, sculptors,

etc. Sometimes, such donations represented corporate gifts

which were meant both for small and big works. Thus a

Junnar Buddhist cave inscription108 refers to the gift of a

seven-celled cave and a cistern by the guild of corn-dealers. In

another case, Sivama and the members of his family com-

missioned a cave in which different members of the family took

credit for different work e.g., stone-carving through the gift of

his sons, pillars through the gift of his daughters, etc.109 Among

the smaller gifts of corporate type in which more than one

person were involved, reference may be made to an Amaravati

Buddhist inscription which records the "gift of a slab with a

filled vase (punaghaṭaga pāṭa) by the leather-worker Vidhika...

and by his son Nāga, together with their relatives". Any number

of such examples may be quoted here, these two instances being

only indicative. Besides the corporate gifts, there are scores of

examples of gifts by individuals combined with guilds or those

108 Luders List, 1180.

109 Ibid., 1045. (Kuda cave Inscription).

by the individuals alone. Thus we have the recorded instances

of such individual donors as kings, the members of their

families, and the members of administration (like ministers,

commanders, royal scribes, royal physician, etc.).110 In the con-

struction of the stūpa of Bharhut, we have references to the

donations of torana, “gateway”; vedikā “railing”; and śilākarma,

“stone-work” by the royal personages.111 The Nagarjuna cave

inscriptions of the Mauryan king Daśarath refer to the gifts of

the Vāhiyaka, Gopikā, and Vadathika caves to the Ājīvika

monks.112 In western India which was under the rule of the

Mahāraṭhis and Mahābhojas, who were the feudatories of the

Kṣaharātas and the Sātavāhanas, there are inscriptions indicat-

ing the chiefs’ munificient gifts, as well as those of their families.

It is interesting to observe that sometimes the important

personages combined with other classes of people and made a

corporate gift for excavation and maintenance of some monu-

ments. Thus a Kuda inscription records the gift of a cave by

three persons—two of them belonged to the royal family of the

Bhojas and the third one was a lekhaka, “scribe”, of the

Mahābhoja.113

Among the individual donors of lesser ranks, mention114 may

be made of a ganikā named Vasu, (daughter of the courtesan

Loṇaśobhikā) who set up a shrine, an āyāgasabhā, a reservior

and stone-slabs; a metal-worker, member of a guild, who set up

an image of Sarasvatī; and a ploughman; a gardener; a perfumer;

a weaver; a dyer; and so on.

The categories are diverse, and seem to include persons of

all possible professions and social ranks. Sometimes, the

members of lower occupational classes joined with merchants

to make a donation, as did a perfumer along with the merchants

in making a gift of a pavilion at Amaravati.

110 Ibid., 1253 (minister); 1266 (general); 271,1045; (royal scribes) 1190,

1191 (royal physician); cf., also the Yavana Heliodorus (the ambassador

of Antialkidas an Indo-Greek King of North-West), who set up a

Garuda pillar at Besnagar; Luders List, 669.

111 cf., C.I.I., II (ii), inscription nos. 1,2,3,4,12.

112 Luders List, 954-56.

113 Ibid., 1079, (Bhaja) -1100 (Karla), 1021,1186; 1052 (Kuda) IV (Bedsa)

1054, 1186, also 943-4 (Pabhosa inscriptions).

114 Ibid., inscription nos. 1037, 102, 54, 1084, 1121, 756, 1210, 1230,

38, 39, 331, 32, 1230.

28 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

From such instances it clearly emerges that in raising of monuments, the activity was not limited only to upper classes; in fact, the financial status mattered more. There are instances of men of various occupational classes being instrumental in the excavation of caves, while other instances relate how the more important personalities sometimes took credit only for partial excavations, like a cistern. It seems that different occupations (śilpas) were becoming quite remunerative, and a class of traders practising various śilpas had emerged more resourceful and at the same time willing to contribute to such activity. The Kanheri inscriptions seem to suport this suggestion.115 In them the largest share in such donations goes to the merchant’s class. Of the class-wise break-up of the donative inscriptions here, two epigraphs refer to a princess of Mahābhoja family; one each to a minister, a physician and a jeweller; six to the community of monks, nuns, theras, and therīs; and all the rest to the gahapatiś, “householders”, merchants and traders, and the members of their families. Many of these inscriptions record corporate gifts in the sense that either more than one person combined to raise the monuments, or that the work was financed so that the merit might be incurred by more than one member. The Kanheri inscriptions also suggests that all the donors did not belong to the same region; in many cases they came from such places as Sopārā, Chaula, Dhenukāṭaka and Kalyāṇa.116

The interaction of the different classes of people for building specific edifices, indicates the same pattern as detailed earlier. To be more clear on the point, we may refer here to the evidence from the Karla inscriptions.117 Of the twenty inscriptions from the Buddhist cave at Karla, two refer to the Sātavāhana kings, Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi, and Vāśishṭhīputra Sri Pulumāvi. One inscription records the gift of Rishabhadatta, the son of Dinika and son-in-law of the Kṣatrapa King

115 Ibid., Luders List, inscription nos. 984-1034

116 This analysis of Kanheri inscription is based on the Luders List, inscription nos, 984-1034, and takes into account those cases where the details of donors are accurately mentioned. The period of the Kanheri caves and their inscription in the Hinayana phase, is roughly AD 90-181, cf., Dahejia, V., op.cit., p. 184.

117 For the inscriptions of the Buddhist Cave at Karla, cf., Luders List, 1087-1107.

Nahapāna; while another records the gift of a pillar by Mitradeva, the son of Rishabhadatta. Of the inscriptions concerning the Mahārāṭhīs, the local chiefs, one records the erection of a lion-pillar, a gift of Mahārāṭhī Agnimitra, son of Gauptī; while the other gives details of the gift of a village and a cave to the local samgha by Mahārāṭhī Somadeva. Other epigraphs indicate that the selaghara, “cave-dwelling”, “the most excellent one in Jambūdvīpa” was “established” by the banker Bhūtapāla who hailed from Vaijayantī. The contributions for different parts in the cave came from several persons, e.g., the perfumer Simhadatta commissioned the making of the gharamugha, “cave-door” (this was made by the vadhakin, “carpenter” Svāmin, the son of Veṇuvāsa, an inhabitant of Dhenukāṭaka); the elephant-motif and the upper and lower vedikā, “rails”, before the elephant, were carved through the gift of the thera Indradeva; the two pairs of figure-sculptures and another pair of the same were donated by the monk Bhadrasena; another vedikā, made by Nandika, was donated by a woman whose name has not been specified; the pillars were excavated through donations from the Yavanas Sihādaya and Dharma, both from Dhenukāṭaka; and the other pillars were the gifts of such individuals as Bhāyila, the mother of the householder Mahādevanaka, and the preacher Svātimitra. There are two more epigraphs, one records some unspecified gift by a nun and the other refers to a female disciple of a bhadanta who paid for a cistern.

From these inscriptions it is easy to find out the extent of participation of different classes of people in the excavation of the Karla Buddhist cave. Those who contributed included the local chiefs, the king’s relatives, bankers, householders, therās, nuns, foreigners, and artisans. Here also we have the information that the people who helped in excavating the cave, in many cases, came from distant places. The banker belonged to Vaijayantī, the perfumer to Dhenukāṭaka from where also came the carpenter who made the cave-door. The two Yavanas and Mitradeva belonged to Dhenukāṭaka, while the preacher Svāti-mitra hailed from Sopārā. Examples of such contributions at the centres of art-activity, by persons coming from different places are available at most of the ancient art centres.118 This evidence coupled with that of the mobility of artisans from one place to

118 cf., Dahejia, V. op.cit., p. 142.

30 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

another, might be profitably evaluated for explicating the

pattern of spread of art styles and idioms. It seems that the

work executed at one place, did not represent only a local

movement; it had the participation of people living far beyond

the region of its growth and such people, including both donors

and artists, in the course of their movement might have helped

in dissemination of the art-idioms developed at the original

districts of art-activity.

In the following chapter we will deal further with the

evidence available on different categories of artisans in the

post-Gupta times, and examine the extent to which this

evidence could be utilised in connection with the art-activity

under various regional dynasties.

Chapter Two

Artists and the Art-activity During the Gupta Times and Later

THE Gupta-Vākāṭaka phase and the period following it were very important in the development of architecture and sculpture in India. A general survey of the art-activity in the Gupta-Vākāṭaka period indicates an interesting situation in which the sculptural art seems to have achieved a high degree of sophistication while the architecture of cave-temples and structural edifices continued to have an uneven growth (compared to sculpture). In this period polarisation of style of sculptural art into provincial idioms is fairly discernible. In recent years, art-critics have indicated the existence of a “North-Indian” style of sculptures as distinct from the “Dekkan-Gupta” style or the “Western-Indian” style, all existing during almost the same period. It has been suggested that during the rule of the Guptas and the Vākāṭakas, the predominant regional impacts shaped the different art-idioms in different parts of the country and these distinct mannerisms of style cannot be combined under a single title of the “Gupta-art”. The antecedents of such stylistic variations are definable and it seems that the North-Indian Gupta style was influenced to a great extent by the Mathura School; the Dekkan-Gupta style seems to have derived its form from the idiom prevalent in Maharashtra and which in the process of its development seems to be nearer to the art-idiom of the Ikṣvākus of Andhra Pradesh. The art of Ikṣvākus itself, in its early associations, developed from a com-

bination of factors that prevailed in the central India, the western coastal India, and the Vengī region.

The decline of the Guptas marks the end of an era and heralds a new phase distinguished by the rise of different dynasties in different parts of the country. The regions under these dynasties perfected and advanced the artistic tradition which they had inherited. But the immensity as well as the diversity of this heritage and its evolution have created a situation which tends to defy any universally accepted model of classification and critical study. Some art-historians have tried to comprehend the sculptural tradition in segments by presenting it within the framework of the different regional dynasties. Others have tried to adjust the different motifs of art within a chronological or iconographic framework. Still others have tried to periodise the total evolution of sculpture on stylistic basis. For instance, Kramarisch divides it into three phases—primitive, classical, and mediaeval. These models of study have their inherent limitations for a sculptural type or an idiom of art may cut across the regions and dynasties or be anchronistic within the framework of dynasties or chronology. For instance, we have the “Gupta-art” with its three parallel idioms, or one may also refer to the classical trends in sculptural art having an altogether different course of evolution and dissipation in different regions of India.

In an overview of the artistic situation within the parameters of time and space, some questions may have to remain unanswered, but a study which may take into account the critical factors which formulated distinct idioms of sculpture in different regions is necessary.

While scholars have comprehended the different nuances and mannerisms of style in the thematic contents of sculptural art of the different regions, the factors responsible for such diversification have not been given much serious thought. The immensity as well as the quality of art-activity however pre-supposes the existence of a body of expert artisans whose experiments in sculpture and the standardisation of such experiments may have been responsible for polarisation of style in different regions.

In the foregoing chapter an analysis of some of the determinants of art activity has been attempted to indicate that

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 33

monuments came up as a result of a wider participation in

which the artisans' share was significant. We will attempt to

define it further now within a chronological phase extending

from the time of the Guptas to the medieval times.

Certain new categories of artists came to occupy the scene

now. Although direct evidence on the guilds of artists is scarce,

the tempo of activity suggests such a possibility. Moreover, the

changed political situation led to a shift in the activity from

the erstwhile centres; the emergence of new centres of activity

suggests mobility of artisans like in the earlier times. Artists

even during this phase may be divided into two groups:

resident and itinerant. The patronage provided to them seems

to have always led to a spurt in the activity as proved both by

the extant monuments and the epigraphic references to donors

who commissioned such work. The ruling princes seem to have

taken great interest in such activity and contributed personally

both in term of resources and ideas. For instance, in the

Mandagapattu inscription of Mahendravarmana Pallava, the

King is called vichitrachitta, "of inventive mind", and he takes

credit for building a lakṣita-āyatana, "a very special temple",

without the use of conventional materials like bricks, metals,

and stone. The inscription evidently implies the rock-cut caves

which did not require use of such building-materials.1 Another

interesting information coming from the Pallava administrative

system refers to the provision of payment of taxes by artisans.2

This indicates the lucrativeness of professions as well as that

the practitioners of such professions sometimes permanently

resided in villages.

The Nagari plate of Anangabhīma III (Śaka 1151-1152 refer

to a village which was inhabited by artisans practising various

crafts—merchants, perfumers, workers in conch-shells, goldsmith,

braziers, sellers of betel, florists, weavers, etc.—and the śilpīs,

"craftsmen", find a separate mention in the list.3 The village

in which these artisans lived is described as having several

buildings of different types.4 And by combining the information

1 E.I., XVII, 14f.

2 Ibid., XXIV, inscription no. 43, lines 18-19.

3 Ibid., XXVIII, lines 127ff; XXII, p. 259.

"prākāra mukhamaṇḍapa sahita nripagrihatulya griha-chatuśataye nāna-purajana-sameta triśadgriha nirmitam-triśad-vāṭī-parimita-bhūmikān

34 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

about śilpīs and the other categories of artists relevant to art-activity on one hand and the temples and edifices mentioned in those epigraphs on the other, it is possible to obtain an idea of the roles of different participants in such activity.

It must be pointed out here that there are certain inherent limitations of inscriptions as a source to find out details concerning artists. These inscriptions recorded only the acts for which they were commissioned to be engraved. Hence, in them a definite scheme regarding the mention of artists is conspicuously absent. Sometimes the artists who designed the buildings and the edifices get credit to that effect in epigraphs;5 sometimes the sūtradhāra, supposed to be the designer and executor of such tasks, finds mention merely as the engraver of the record;6 and in such cases his role in the act may be implicitly accepted.

There are, however, certain records exclusively by sūtradhāras which define their role properly and in which these artists find specific mention as the designers and the executors of the monuments7 as well as the engravers of the inscriptions.

The epigraphs of the post-Gupta period reveal the emergence of a new class of artists, sūtradhāra, which was destined to play a significant role in the building-activity. But, like in the earlier times there still remains a hiatus between the information as gleaned from the epigraphs on the one hand and the texts on the other, in respect of different types of artisans, their role, and the work-charge.

The texts continue to refer to the sthapati, śūtradhāra, vardhakī, etc.The Mānasāra (II. 11-12; 17-20) refers to the origin of divine architects—Viśvakarmā, Maya, Tvashṭri, and Manu from the four faces of Brahmā and further elucidates that the sons of these architects were respectively sthapati, sūtragrahīn, vardhakī and takṣaka.8 As regards the areas of their activity a proficiency in painting was regarded essential for vardhakī, of draughtsmanship for sūtragrahīn, and of

nagarāṁ...". Apparently, the resident śilpis must have been the builders who were settled in the locality and may also have helped in the building of the local Jagannāth temple which finds mention in the verse 27 of the inscription.

5 C.I.I. IV (ii), p. 317.

6 Bhandarkar's List, 1683.

7 C.I.I., IV, p. 558; E.I., XI, p. 47f.

8 cf., Acharya, P. K., Encyclopaedia, VII, S.V., Sthapati.

carpentry for sūtradhāra.9 The same text accords to sthapati a rank of "the director-general" and "consulting architect", and to sūtragrāhin, a status of supervisor over vardhakī and takṣaka. These injunctions to some extent clarify the role relationship of different types of artisans in the scheme of art-activity as set out by the canons of art and architecture. However, the available epigraphic material does not seem to support the textual prescriptions particularly about sthapati and sūtradhāra.

The sthapati's pre-eminent position amongst the artisans has been stressed in the Śilpaśāstra.10 The Matsya Purāṇa describes a sthapati as one who is conversant with architectural design and foresees (everything), and is skilful, industrious, and a "champion in architectural matters".11 The Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra of the Paramāra King Bhoja describes in detail the qualifications of a sthapati and warns against choosing a wrong person for building edifices.12 To be a true sthapati was a formidable job. The text requires him to be proficient both in the precepts and the practice of architecture and the sculptural art. Just as a knowledge of astrology, astronomy, the science of numbers, chhandas, crafts, the mechanical devices (yantras), and plans was necessary for a sthapati, it was also essential that he knew painting, carpentry, masonry, stonework, metal-work, etc.13 The Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra enjoins that merely a skill in the śāstra, "theory" and its karma, "application", was not enough in a sthapati; prattyutpanna-mati, "a ready wit", modest behaviour; and honesty were equally important for him in the practice of his skill. Elsewhere, the same text14 says that sthapati should be worshipped in order to

9 Ibid.,

10 Acharya, P. K., Indian Architecture, p. 137-8, Mayamataḿ, IV. 13-14; Vāstu-vidyā, ed. Ganapati Sāstri, I. 12-15.

11 cf., Acharya, P. K. Encyclopaedia S.V., Sthapati; p. 580.

12 Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra (G.O.S., 25, Baroda 1966), ch. 44.

13 Ibid., 44.3; 20-1; 44. 11-12; The crafts had got standardized under the head of śilpa. The commentary on Kuṭṭanimataḿ explains śilpa to be of eight kinds, e.g., ālekhya, lekha, dārukarma, chitikarma, pāshāṇa-karma, raupya-karma, devakarma, and chitrakarma, cf., Bhattacharya, T.P., The Canons of Indian Art, p. 371.

14 Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra, ch. 37. The verses 36-7 enjoin that workers (parikarmakaras) should also be pleased by offering gold, cloths, etc., and by addressing them nicely.

36 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

please Tvashṭri, the divine architect. This again indicates the importance given to sthapati in the canons of śilpa.

This pre-eminent status of sthapati notwithstanding, the inscriptions relating to the raising of edifices, usually refer to the sūtradhāras, śilpīs, and rūpakāras, and seem to ignore sthapatis in those contexts. Epigraphic mentions of sthapatis are very rare. A Sthapati-samrā! occurs alongwith other royal officials, e.g. bhogika, uparika, etc., in the Karitalai copper plate of the Uchkakalpa King Jayanāth;15 the Vasantagarh stone inscription of Pūrnapāla (A.D. 1042) refers to a sthpatī Nāga as the designer of a fort in the ancient city of Vaṭa.16 Two sūtradhāras, Deuka and his son Śivapāla, also find mention in this record alongwith the sthapati Nāga. The Peshawar Museum inscription of Vanhadatta (A.D. 1461) refers to the sthapati Singalī Kārgī, the son of Kālī, as the builder of a pond.17 These are some of the instances, where a sthapati does occur, but compared to the inscriptions referring to the other categories of artists, particularly the sūtradhāra, these instances, in fact, are too few to support sthapati's predominant position as set out in the Śilpaśāstras.

The prominence of sūtradhāras compared to sthapati in the inscriptions and the opposite of it in the canons creates problems in explicating their relative importance and status in artisans, hierarchical set-up. The canons and the epigraphs appear to reflect two extremes but the latter may be regarded as more authentic owing to their close relationship with the edifices. Since the charters referring to the sūtradhāras and other artisans were usually engraved at the conclusion of work, they are apt to create an impression that those artisans (e.g. sūtradhāras) who were closer to the building activity found mention in them while others like sthapati who as designers were remote might have been ignored. Hence, a greater importance to sūtradhāras. The canons do reflect such a situation of proximity and remoteness when they sometimes refer

15 C.I.I., III, p. 118. The word has been translated as “Chief of architects”. However, it has been remarked that it may mean “Superintendent of attendants of the women's apartment”, Ibid., p. 120, fn. 5.

16 E.I., IX, 6, 12-15.

17 Ibid., X, 80-1.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 37

to sthāpaka18 as the actual worker. A system like this may have helped in elevating the roles of actual workers.

Like the sthapati who has been defined in texts as a theorician as well as a practitioner in architectural matters, the sūtradharas too claim, in the epigraphs, a proficiency in both the areas of śilpa.19 Some attempt has been made to explain this anomaly regarding the roles and status of sthapatis and sūt radhāras and it has been suggested that the former fail to find mention in the inscriptions because with the growth of building activity they were displaced by the institution of sūtradhāra. As regards the sthapati’s important status in the texts, it has been suggested that texts record an earlier tradition which may have become non-existent when the texts were a actually committed to writing.20 In any case, a dichotomy, between the two (the sthapati and sūtradhāra) in designing and execution of work is dimcult to establish. A synchronism of roles regarding the theory and practice of crafts in sūtradhāra may ultimately have made the sthapati redundant, although canons continued to beat the line previously established.

The sūtradhāra had come to occupy a special place amongst the artisans. The texts and particularly inscriptions from the sixth century onwards refer to him consistently. One of the earliest references21 to a sūtradhāra is found in an inscription in the Ajanta cave (No. XV) and in the inscriptions of the Pānduvamśī kings of South Kosala. The term and its variants were sūtrabhrit, sūtradhātri, and sūtradhārin; reference is also made to “sūt radhāra-pitāmaha, “the very best amongst the artisans” and to gajadhara as synonymous to sūtradhāra.22 It may be of use to enquire into the circumstances which led to the emergence of sūtradhāra in the realm of art-activity. The available evidence indicates a close affinity of dramatic arts with the building-arts.23 And this affinity may suggest that the role

18 cf., Acharya, P.K., Encyclopaedia, VII, S.V., Sthāpaka “one who instals, actual worker, perhaps the principal assistant to the “sthapati”.

19 cf., C.I.I., IV (ii), p. 555.

20 cf., Dhavalikar, M.K., “Sūtradhāra”, Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, III (i-iv) 1971, (pub. 1972), p. 218.

21 Dhavalikar M.K., “Sri Yugadhara—A Master Artist of Ajanta”, Artibus Asiae, XXXI. 4, (1969), pp. 301-8.

22 cf., Sircar, D. C., Indian Epigraphical Glossary, (1969), p. 329, 108.

23 It is of significance that takṣaka has been explained by lexicographers

38 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

as well as the designation of sūtradhāra in art-activity was borrowed from dramatic arts. There were certain other sources too of such borrowings as shown below.

The roles of sūtragrāhin and sūtrakāras have been properly defined in the Epics, the Manu Samhitā (IV. 47-48) and the Mahāvastu. It may be suggested that in the development of his total profile, the sūtradhāra combined the tasks of sūtragrāhin and sūtrakāras of the earlier times on one hand and the executive role of sūtradhāra, as in the dramatic performances, on the other. A close correspondence of art-activity, vis-a-vis the dramatic activity is clearly definable in terms of roles and functions of some of the performers. In the Sanskrit plays, a prologue was necessary and in this prologue which was outside the story, the sūtradhāra welcomed the audience, gave information about the author and play, and the context in or the reason for which the play was to be performed.24 This he did either alone or along with his assistants, or nātīs and vidūṣaka and thus in a way, acted as a producer.25 Such a sūtradhāra and the whole range of his activity in the domain of drama has been compared to that of sūtradhāra and his function in the realm of art-activity. Bāṇabhaṭṭa in his Harsha-Charita indicates a similarity between temples and drama with the help of three paronomastic clauses in a verse which says that Bhāsa gained as much splendour by his plays with introductions spoken by the manager (sūtradhāra), full of various characters and furnished with startling episodes, as he would have done by erecting temples created by architects (sūtradhāra) adorned with several stories and decorated with banners.26 (A parallel between the sūtradhāras in drama and the one in a building-act can be clearly seen from the above.) It may be surmised on basis of

as sūtradhāra, or a speaker in the prelude to a drama. c.f., Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary S.V., takṣaka. It may be inferred that during the post-Gupta phase, when a standard terminology regarding artists in the field of building-activity, was in the process of formulation, terms defining their role and functions were accepted from Drama for the obvious reasons of the identity of functions. Such words as takṣaka, sūtradhāra, and sthāpaka may be cited as instances here.

24 cf., Rangacharya, A., Introduction to Bharata's Nātyaśāstra, pp. 66; 24-6.

25 Ibid., pp. 24-6.

26 Harsha-Charita, (ed. Kane, P. V., 1965), I, 15.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 39

such evidence, that the institution of sūtradhāra came to be

adopted in art-activity, as a result of shifts of roles or due to

convergence of various functions into one personality sūtrad-

hāra—after a similar functionary in the domain of drama.

The sūtradhāra finds mention in the Śilpaśāstras where he

ranks fourth besides sthapati, sūtragrāhin, and vardhakī in that

order.27 The Mānasāra lays down that the sūtradhāra like all

the other must be well-versed in the Vedas and Śāstras; in

addition to this, he should also possess an expert knowledge of

carpentry. In the Śilpa-dīpikā the qualifications of a sūtradhāra

have been described as follows: “One who is of good behaviour,

clever, skilful, learned, free from lust (excessive desire of

gain), can forgive (rivals), and belongs to the twice-born class,

is called the Sūtradhāra”.28

In view of such references in the texts to the sūtradhāra, it

will be useful to examine his functions as spelled out in the

epigraphs. By far, the most frequently mentioned act of

sūtradhāra, according to the epigraphs, was to engrave the

grants or charters of kings or individual donors. It was

customary for king and other donors to employ a lekhaka,

“scribe”, to record the donations on a copper plate or on a

stone-slab, and the sūtradhāras used to engrave such letters by

a stylus, after the alphabet had been written by lekhakas. The

processes of writing as well as the various stages through which

a royal charter had to pass before it was engraved, find frequent

mention in epigraphs. For instance, an eleventh century plate

of Nettabhanja Tribhuvana-Kalāsa is described as having been

approved by an officer Bhaṭṭa Arkadeva, registered by the seal

of Queen after which it was taken to the donee’s place and

executed (praveśita) by a pratihāra, “attendant”. The grant

was further assented by a vārgulī, “bearer of the king’s betel-

box”. This document was written by a sāndhivigrahika, “a

minister”, and engraved by the akṣaśālin, “goldsmith”, Nāpā.29

Sometimes the kings also wrote on a plate, whereafter it was

passed on for engraving. Thus in the case of Takkali plates of

Mahārāja Umāvarma, the king is mentioned both as the writer

27 cf., Acharya, P.K., op.cit., pp. 137-8; also Encyclopaedia S.V. sūtragrāhin,

sūtradhāra, sūtradhārin.

28 cf., Encyclopaedia, S.V. sthapati. p. 580.

29 E.I., XXVIII, 279.

40 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

and the executor of the charter which was engraved by Keśavadeva, a vāstavya who was resident in the village of Pishtapur.30

An emphasis on the role of sūtradhāra as engraver of charters does not imply that no other ranks of artisans or craftsmen were available to do this job. The nature of their artistic skill automatically rendered artisans such as śilpī, vijñānīka and rūpakāra a likely choice for engraving letters on stone or on copper plates. There is the example of a śilpī engraving letters of a praśasti "as a lover would paint the portrait of his mistress".31 In another instance, the letters engraved by Mahīdhara are compared to "stars in the sky.32 Mahīdhara was a sūtradhāra. Some inscriptions like these shower praises on engravers for their skill in engraving. There are other inscriptions which besides praising such skill also dwell upon the engravers' other qualities. Thus, a śilpī named Karnabhadra is referred to as "one whose engraving was neat and who was intelligent, courteous and an accurate workman".33 Sometimes engravers rendered the letters ornately in the forms of creepers, birds, and animals. It is said about a Canarese sculptor Sovarasi that he could entwine "forms of elephant, lion, parrot and many other forms" that would "shine among letters", and a suggestion is made whether anyone could be so mad as to "compete with such a sculptor, Sovarasi".34

Sivaramamurti has pointed out that the artist's "boast is not empty" and his claim is borne out "from such ornamental letters found engraved in some of the Canarese inscriptions".35 There are several other examples of such ornamental letters as used in the inscriptions. In the Rajivalochana temple at Rajim in Madhya Pradesh, a pillar has the name of Śrī Pūrṇāditya engraved in an extremely ornamental design.36

30 Ibid., p. 298.

31 E.I., XIII, 295.

32 C.I.I., IV (i), p. 317, verse 37.

33 E.I., II, 354: Karnabhadreṇa bhadreṇa śilpinā-lpabuddhīnā tāṃram-vinayanamreṇa nirmitaṃ sādhukarmanā.

34 Epigraphia Carnatica, XI, 47.

35 Sivaramamurti, C., Indian Epigraphy and South India Script, p. 34, fig. 14.

36 Cunningham, A., Archaeological Survey of India, Reports, XVII, pl. X, p. 19; also, Sivaramamurti, C., op. cit., 36-7 fig. 17.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 41

The inscriptions from this area offer several names of local artists and sūtradhāras, e.g., Durgahastin, Gonṇasiva (also as Ārya Goṇṇa), Droṇasimha Golasimha. These artists were the engravers of the records of the early kings of south Kosala.37 It is likely that pūrnāditya whose signature occurs on a pillar in the Rājīvalochana temple, might have been the maker of the pillar and might have belonged to the line of some of the sūtradhāras of the region.

Sūtradhāras thus figure prominently as engravers. It is likely that owing to their pre-eminent position in their realm of activity the sūtradhāras decided upon either doing the job themselves or deputing other ranks of artisans such as silpī, rūpakāra, etc., for it. Inscriptions sometime refer to such a relationship between sūtradhāra and other ranks of artisans. We have the instance of Nīlakaṇṭha who is said to have engraved the Chandrehe inscription of Prabodhaśiva, a Saiva ascetic (A.D. 973) on the command of the sūtradhāra Sūrāk.38 Another Kalachuri inscription says how an artisan Mahīdhara engraved the letters of an inscription after the sūtradhāra Pīṭhe had worked out the relative proportions of the text of the inscription and the rock on which it was to be engraved.39 In the act of engraving records, the sūtradhāras stood in close relationship to the lekhakas, “scribes”, who find mention in inscriptions as early as the beginning of the Christian era.40 The scribes find mention alongside the sūtradhāra and the other śilpīs—suvarṇakāra, lohakāra, “smiths”, akṣaśālin, “goldsmiths”, etc.—in the inscriptions of the Gupta period and later.41 Sircar has described the practice that was prevalent with regard to writing and engraving of records. He says that the mason started the work by dressing the stone and drawing letters on it with ink under

37 E.I., XXXI, 36 (Vasuguna), p. 198 (Prabhākara); XXXI (Dronasimha); p. 316 (Golasimha; in the record of Sudeva); Bhandarkar’s List, 1882 (Gonnaśiva).

38 C.I.I., IV (i), p. 204

39 Ibid., p. 317.

40 Luders List, 271, 1045, 1148; A Kalachuri record refers to a śilpī Sarvānanda as karaṇika (an officer) who wrote a record which was engraved by Vidyānanda. cf., C.I.I., IV (i) p. 259.

41 The profession of scribes finds mention among higher crafts together with gaṇanā “counting” and muddā, etc. The word lekhā occurs in the Udāna 32; Milinda-Pañho, 59, 178;

42 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

the supervision and guidance of the writer. Sometimes the professional writer himself copied the text of the document for the guidance of the engraver. Several inscriptions refer to this practice.43 Sometimes the sūtradhāra himself wrote and engraved the letters, as in the case of sūtradhāra Kālada, son of Prahlāda-Govinda, who wrote and engraved the Kodinara (Baroda State) inscription.43

The medieval inscriptions usually provide the details concerning the composers of texts, and their writers and engravers. Sometimes the writer and engraver was the same person.44 However, among the writers or scribes are encountered a galaxy of officers who specially wrote the inscription, in their capacities as sāndhivigrahika, “minister of peace and war”; mantrins, “ministers”; karanikas; vāstavyaś, “keepers of records”; etc.45 Although the sūtradhāras usually figure as engravers of records, others also did this job, and among them mention may be made to the akṣaśālin46 or suvarnakāra47, “goldsmith”; tattthakāra48, “metal-workers”; lohāra49, “blacksmith”; or vanik50, “trader”.

The fee for doing such job was regulated. For instance, according to the Kendupatna plates of Narasimha II (Śaka 1217), the engraver of the plates, the coppersmith Panḍadi (who was also the writer of the first set of the Kendupatna plates), received “one vāṭikā (a measure) of mixed homestead and water-covered land” (i.e. irrigated land), as his fees for doing the job.51 Sometimes we come across inscriptions which recorded only the name of engravers without any reference to their occupation, making it difficult to properly evaluate their significance in relation to artisans.52

This analysis shows that one of the important tasks of the

42 Sircar, D.C., Indian Epigraphy, p. 85.

43 Bhandarkar’s List, 577.

44 Ibid., 579

45 cf., EI., XXVIII. 279; Bhandarkar’s List, 611, 371.

46 Ibid., 1479, 1496-1498; 1500-1502.

47 Ibid., 1490, 1493, 1786-1787. Sometime the goldsmith is mentioned as vanik-suvarnakāra, ‘merchant-goldsmith’; Ibid., 1492; E.I., XXVIII, 46.

48 Ibid., p. 214.

49 Bhandarkar’s List, 362, 368.

50 Ibid., 1701, 2057

51 E.I., XXVIII., 189.

52 cf., Bhandarkar’s List, 1386, 1703.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 43

sūtradhāra was to engrave the records although quite often other functionaries also performed this job. Apparently a sūtrad-hāra was employed for such work owing to his skill in incising letters on rock or copper-plates. But this must have been one of his peripheral jobs for he had a proven skill in carving intricate patterns on stone. There were other classes of artists besides the sūtradhāra, who engraved records mainly because they were expert carvers and workers on stone. We will make a digression here and mention about the śilpīs and rūpakāras in this connection and then come back to the sūtradhāras. Amongst the śilpi-engravers, epigraphs refer among others, to Pūnasimha, the son of Nāhada, as engraver of the Chintra praśasti “eulogy”;53 to śilpī Rāmadeva the son of the rūpakāra, “sculptor”, Sihaka who engraved the Dhar praśasti of Paramāra Arjunadeva;54 to the rūpakāra Kānhaḍa who engraved a charter of the Paramāra Jayavarman.55 The Silimpur (Bogra District) stone inscription of Jayapāladeva of Kāmarūpa was engraved by Someśvara, a Magadhan artist—“śilpāvin Māgadhah”. The inscription records that “just as a lover (paints) with rapt attention his own mistress by means of colour decoration, so did Someśvara, the Magadhan artist (śilpī), incise (with rapt attention) this praśasti by means of a division of letters” 56 The Deopara inscription of the Sena King Vijayasena similarly refers to the Rānaka Sūlapāni “the crest-jewel of the artist-guild of Vārendra, the son of Brihaspati and the grandson of Mānadāsa”, as the engraver of the record.57 Such illustrious artists-śilpīs and rūpakāras obviously engraved the records as a side-job, and the flattering details of their expertise and status as given in the epigraphs hardly leave any doubt about their overall proficiency in śilpas which they practised. It may be suggested here, that kings usually employed

53 E.I., I., 287

54 Bhandarkar's List, 1660, This praśasti contains two acts of a play: Pārijātamañjari.

55 E.I., XXXII, 156; Bhandarkar's List, 559.

56 śilpāvin-Māgadhah-kāmī-tana-māna-varṇabhaktibhih, Someśvaro ‘alikhad-iyam praśastim-iva-priyāyām’. There is a pun in the words varṇabhakti and alikhat; varṇa is both a ‘pigment for painting’ and ‘letter’; bhakti, ‘variegated decoration’ and ‘division’; the root likh means both ‘to paint’ and ‘to inscribe’. cf., Basak R.G., E.I., XIII, p. 295.

57 “Vārendrak śilpī goshṭhī-chūḍāmani-rānaka Sūlapāni….”, cf., Mukherji, R.R. and M. K. Maity, Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions, p. 249, verse 36.

44 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

skilled artisans to operationalise the construction work and such artists, even as they did more important jobs, also looked after smaller tasks like engraving the grants or the charters of their employers.

In view of the above, it would be naive to regard such skilled artisans merely as engravers of records and nothing more. They had greater responsibility and skill which showed itself in their accomplishments pertaining to the building-activity on a larger scale. And it will be worthwhile to find out how closely the sūtradhāras and other classes of artisans were connected with the building of temples and their sculptural decoration and the special role of sūtradhāra at various stages of such activity.

There are inscriptions which vividly refer to the sūtradhāras and their specific participation at various stages of construction. We also come across a large number of sculptures which carry the names of sūtradhāras or other artists who designed them. Some inscriptions mention certain individual artists—śilpī, rūpakāra, etc.—who carved the sculptures either independently or under the supervision of sūtradhāras. There are also a large number of inscriptions in which donors have referred to raising up of monuments and the names of sūtradhāras in them appear only as the engravers of the records. Since the sūtradhāra was not meant merely for such small tasks, it may be assumed that in the constructions mentioned in such epigraphs, the sūtradhāras might have been intimately associated in raising up of the building, even though specific credit, due to them was not specified either by default or for some other reason.

The sūtradhāras had the requisite qualification for the job by their knowledge of the theory of craft. This is proved by the cases of sūtradhāras who wrote on Silpaśāstra. Several such texts are available. We have the Vāstu rājavallabha, the Devatā-mūrti-prakarana and the Rūpamandana ascribed to the sūtra-dhāra Maṇḍana. The text written by the Paramāra King Bhoja on architecture and iconography is entitled Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra. The śilpī Piṅgala and the sūtradhāra Ahidhara (Ahiva) find mention in the Bhuvanapradīpa, a canon of Orissan architecture.58 This evidence reinforces the supposition that a sūtradhāra was not merely an engraver and his knowledge and

58 cf., Bose, N.K., Canons of Orissan Architecture, p. 8.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 45

skill extended to much higher level.59 As an active practitioner

of his trade, he was required to have special qualifications in it.

This can be seen from an epigraph concerning the sūtradhāra

Chhītaku. The epigraph informs that he was an expert in

śilpaśāstra; adept in the art of carving statues in wood, stone,

and gold; equally proficient in carving creepers and plant-motifs.

In addition to this, Chhītaku claims to have been well-versed in

the jantra-vidyā and mahāvidyā (evidently related to Śilpaśāstra);

in the intricacies of iconometry (relating to the sapta-tāla and

nava-tāla proportions of images); and in the playing of certain

types of vinās such as vanka and trivanka.60

The proficiency of many other sūtradhāras in the canons of

architecture and iconography is a subject of reference in several

other epigraphs. An excellent artist Stoṭakāchāri is described as

"of Viśvāmitra-gotra, supreme lord of Lankādvīpa-pura,... versed

in all Śastras, sought after to construct ornamental buildings and

upper storeys, adorned with all good qualities of head....,

distinguished in giving advice, of Hammigade (i. e., belonging

to) house created by Manu, Maya, Māṇḍavya and Viśva-

karmā...".61 The sūtradhāra Piṭhe claimed proficiency in the

Viśvakarma-śāstra.62 And many more such instances confirm the

fact that the sūtradhāras were well-versed in the theoretical

aspects of their crafts, and consequently took active part in

executing the work expected of them. There are specific in-

stances to prove the latter too.

The epigraphs of the Kalachuris of Tripuri and Ratanpur

afford information about several of the sūtradhāras who, in their

individual capacity or hereditarily, were connected with the

59 A śilpī-composer of a text on iconography and architecture is known

from Śilpa-Prakāśa. The copyists note on the colophon of the text

describes that it was "composed by the excellent śilpī who belonged to

the Udgāta family". The name of the śilpī was Bhaṭṭāraka Rāma-

chandra Mahāpātra who is mentioned as "devoted to Kaulāchāra".

cf. Śilpa-Prakāśa, p. 60; for more details, Ibid., pp. 129-30.

60 C.I.I., IV (ii), p. 555

61 Epigraphia Carnatice, V. (i), p. 530, transl. p. 237; cf., Encyclopaedia,

p. 581., no. 9.

62 C.I.I., IV (i), pp. 397, 317; also 561; E.I., p. 44 ft; For a discussion

on the vidyās, "knowledge", of sūtradhāras, etc. cf., Encyclopaedia, p.

589 ff.

46 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

different ruling kings of the above dynasty.63 Almost similar phenomenon is evident in other regions of the country, and there is a clear evidence of the artists and sūtradhāras taking credit for works executed by them. An inscription of the early Chālukyas refers to Śrī Guṇḍa, the sūtradhāra "who made the temple of the Queen of Vikramaditya II..."64 This inscription, found on the eastern gateway of the courtyard of Virūpākṣa temple at Pattadkal, tells that the temple was constructed for Lokamahādevī to commemorate her husband's conquest of Kanchi.65 Yet another inscription of these early Chālukyas, found on the east face of the Pāpanāth temple of Pattadkal, refers to a sculptor Chattare Revadi Ovajja as "one who decorated the whole southern country with his temples"66 The inscription is of great value as it offers information about the Sarva-Siddha-āchāryas who seem to have represented probably some guild of architects or builders. Chattare Revadi Ovajja was one of the Sarva-Siddha-āchāryas and was acquainted with the "secrets of Śri-Silemudde" (probably the name of some particular guild of stone-masons).67 A Sarva-Siddha-āchārya finds mention in one of the Canarese inscriptions as "the asylum of all virtuous qualities, the pitāmaha, the maker of many cities and houses; he whose conversation is entirely perfect and refined, he who has for a jewelled diadem and crest jewel the houses and palaces and vehicles and seats and couches (that he has constructed), the (most eminent) sūtradhārī of the southern country"68 The builder of the temple of Lokamahādevī mentioned above has the title Sarva-Siddha-āchārya.69 The Chola records also corroborate

63 C.I.I., IV. (i-ii), pp. 224, 557, 561, 585

64 cf., Indian Antiquary, X, p. 164, notes 6-10.

65 cf. Encyclopaedia, pp. 585-6, inscription nos. 34 and 35.

66 Ibid., p. 586. inscription no. 37. It is interesting to find mention of a Rayana Ojjha and his son Samgrāma, in the records of the Somavaṁśī King of Orissa and Andhra. cf., Bhandarkar's List, 1557, 1560. This is indicative of the mobility of artisans as well as the continuity of the same line of artists for a considerable period of time.

67 Encyclopaedia, p. 585, inscription no. 35.

68 Reference is also made in some of these inscriptions to the banishment and readmission into the caste of the artisans of the locality, of skilful people; import of this is not clear. cf., Fleet, J., Indian Antiquary, X, p. 164.

69 In the South Indian inscriptions, chārī, āchāriya, āchārya, Ojjha are fairly recurrent as titles for sūtadadhāra. cf. Encyclopaedia, 586.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 47

the role of artists in their constructional achievement as well as

the artists' awareness of Śilpa-śāstras. The great Chola sculptor

Ravi is said to have been well-versed in different Śilpa texts, and

capable of constructing different kinds of vimānas "temples";

gopuras, "gateways"; and mandapas, "halls".70 In this connection,

some of the inscriptions of the Guhila King Rānā Kumbhākaraṇa

are of great interest for not only supplying information about

the names of different sūtradhāras and their role in making

some edifices of the king, but also for specifying the details of

the canonical sources in reference to architectural matters.71

These inscriptions repeatedly refer to a sūtradhāra, Jaita, the son

of Lākhā and his five sons Nāpā, Pumjā, Bhūmi, Chuthi, and

Pomā. Jaita and his two sons—the first two listed above—find

mention in an inscription (of A.D. 1430) as visiting the Samād-

hiśvara temple at Chittor.72 These three architects are mentioned

again in another Chittorgarh inscription in which they claim

to have made the kīrtti-stambha, "victory-tower", of the Rānā

Kumbhā. This claim is repeated in another inscription which

specifies the names of the artisans, Nāpā, Bhūmi, and Chuthi,

who executed the job. Pumjā however, fails to occur in this

inscription. Another inscription records the "creation of the

mahāmeru śrī kīrttistambha and the śri-raṇapoli, "royal ward",

near the mahā-pratolī, "main-gateway", by the sūtradhāra Jaita

along with his sons Nāpā, Pumjā, and Pomā. It is no wonder

that such a long association of this family of the sūtradhāras

with the reigning king was amply rewarded. On the Kumbhala-

svāmī Vaishṇava temple at Chittor, constructed in the middle

of the fifteenth century, the architect Jaita, along with his two

sons, figures amongst the decorative portrait sculptures adorning

the temple.73

Thus, as regards the primary function of sūtradhāras, although

the texts of śilpa reserved for them the joiners' task in building

temples and the epigraphs referred to them usually as engravers,

70 cf., Sivaramamurti, C., Indian Sculpture, p. 4.

71 Bhandarkar's List, 1860, 769, 789, 804, 811, 803, 819.

72 This temple is now known as Advadji or Mokalji temple; it was

originally built by the Paramāra King Bhoja and named after him

as Tribhuvana-Nārāyaṇa, which was also one of the titles of the king.

Yet another name later ascribed to this temple was: 'Bhoja-Svāmideva

jagatī, cf. Rajputana Museum Report, 1924-25 pp. 3.4.

73 cf., Sivaramaurti, C, op.cit. p. 7.

48 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

a number of inscriptions indicate that their responsibilities were far greater. Many inscriptions clearly explicate his role in building temples, etc., owing to his knowledge as well as the practice of śilpa. The evidence discussed above, shows that he was responsible for execution of work from designing to the completion. He probably served as a general supervisor, and maintained a liaison with the donor whose financial help and religious fervour were mainly instrumental in the raising of a monument. The sūtradhāra’s role as a supervisor and the executor of such tasks is confirmed by his description in the Harshacharita of Bāṇabhaṭṭa,74 and is further corroborated by an allegorical reference to the god Gokarṇeśvara mentioned as a sūtradhāra in an inscription from Carnataka, e.g., Gokarna-svāmi: sakala-bhuvana-nirmāṇaika-sūtradhārasya, “the sole architect for the creation of all the world”.75

Although the sūtradhāras were usually employed by the kings, instance of other categories of persons employing them exclusively for their works are also known. The Jhalarapatan Varāha image inscription of c. ninth century contains information about a Lakulīśa saint Īśānajamu and his artisan the sūtradhāra Sīnaṭa—taysa karmakaro bhrittyaḥ sūtradhāroṭra Sīhaṭaḥ.76 Bhandarkar has suggested that this Śaiva saint may have been the head-priest of the local Sīṭaleśvara Mahādeva temple, “the shrine-door of which…has a figure of Lakulī on the dedicatory block”.77 If this conjecture is correct it emerges that even though the sūtradhāra Sīhaṭa stood in a special relationship to the Śaiva priest Īśānajamu, he carved a Vaishnava image and that a strict sectarianism was not the goal of the professional practitioner of śilpa. The employment of the sūtradhāra by the temple priest or the Śaiva saint may have been due to the fact that sometimes they also financed raising of temples. Many such instances are known from the Kalachuri epigraphs. It may be pointed out that the sūtradhāras were as proficient in carving of sculptures as they were adept in the science of architecture. A typical example of such adeptness may be inferred from the inscription on the Sarasvati

74 Harsha-charita, I, 15.

75 cf., Encyclopaedia, p. 583.

76 cf., Bhandarkar, D.R., J.B.B.R.S., XII, p. 151 ff.

77 Ibid

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 49

image from Dhārā, now deposited in the British Museum,

London. This image, according to the inscription on it, was

engraved by the sūtradhāra Mañthala the son of Sahira:

sūtradhāra Sahira-suta Mañthalena ghaṭitam.78 These instances

do not leave any doubt as to the true role of the sūtradhāras.

On the basis of this evidence it may be argued that their main

task related to building edifices for which they were eminently

suited by their theoretical and practical knowledge.

In the execution of their jobs the sūtradhāras had the

assistance of equally capable associates like the śilpīs, rūpakāras,

etc. An examination of their role vis-a-vis the sūtradhāra, may

help in understanding the organisational or the hierarchical

set-up of artists. The sūtradhāra appears to have been the overall

incharge of the construction activity probably in the fashion

of navakarmikas of earlier times. The other categories of artisans

were śilpī, rūpakāra, chitrakāra, karmika etc. These different

classes of artisans may have existed parallel to the sūtradhāra or

as is more likely worked under his supervision. There is enough

epigraphic material concerning different categories of artisans

and the areas of their skill.

The term śilpī, denoted in a special sense a "sculptor". Besides

fashioning images, the śilpīs also engraved records of kings when-

ever they were called to do so. In fact, śilpa and śilpī are words of

wider connotation and include different types of craftsmen

dealing with sculpture or architecture. In the Śilpa-prakāśa

(I. 5-9) a twelfth century treatise on architecture and sculpture,

the śilpavidyā has been defined as a knowledge of wood-work,

stone-work, iron-work, gold-work, and painting. In the Maya-

mataṁ (v. 13-14), another work on śilpa, four types of śilpīs—

sthapati, sūtragrahīṅ, takṣaka, and vardhakī—are referred to.

This would indicate that the terms śilpī and śilpa included all

the different categories of artisans and craftsmen. The epigraphic

evidence, mostly from the mediaeval inscriptions, however,

sometimes signifies special association of śilpa or śilpī with the

sculptural art and architecture, and this connotation is wide

enough to cover the whole country. The contents of some

relevant inscriptions may explicate this point. The Methi

inscription of the Yādava Krishna (dated Śaka 1176) refers to

78 cf., Sivaramamurti, C., Indian Sculpture, p. 5, plate 39.

50 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

the śilpī Hemadeva who engraved the record. In addition, it also refers to another person—Siddha Sārasvata of Kaśyapa family—who cut the stone slab for inscribing the record.79 The last verse of the inscription states that the god's image was fashioned according to the tālamāna, “rules of iconometry”. The Chirwa inscription of the Guhila King Someśvara Siṅha (v.s. 1330) was engraved by KeliSiṅha with further help from śilpī Delhana”.80 In the Dhār praśasti reference is made to śilpī Rāmadeva the son of rūpakāra Sīhaka.81 These titles seem to reflect the different levels of expertise according to which different titles such as śilpī or rūpakāra were applied. The word rūpakāra traditionally signified a sculptor,82 and a proximity of word śilpī is clearly established with the former when the two occur in the cases of father and son. Furthermore, it also denotes that the occupation was hereditary. There are instances of śilpīs “sculptors”, who carved images and sometimes recorded the fact on their creation. An image of Sūrya from Bengal, now in the British Museum, bears in the Nāgarī characters of tenth century the inscription reading “(this image) has been carved in stone by the wise and good śilpī (sculptor), Amrit a pupil of Indranīlamaṇi”.83 One of the pillars of the famous Lal Darwaza at Jaunpur, bears the name of a śilpī Kamau, the son of Viśadru.84

Sivaramamurti has collected information regarding the various sculptors of South India whose skill is portrayed by the sculptures carved on the temples at Belur, Somanathpuram, etc. Of these skilled artisans, Dasoja was famed as a smiter of the

79 E.I., XXVII, 320, ff; The inscription is engraved on the lintel of the entrance hall of a Viṣṇu temple; the record also describes the temple (verse 9). Kullkarni (Sāṃśodhana, a Marathi Journal, Vol. VI. no. 3, pp. 214-17) indentifies this Hemadeva with the famous Hemādri, the writer of Mayamatam; the suggestion however is not acceptable to P. B. Desai, cf., E.I., XXVIII, p. 313 fn. A śilpī belonging to the Kaśyapa family is mentioned in another inscription of sixth-seventh century A.D. cf., E.I., XXXII, p. 296-7. Kaśyapa was one of the originators of a school of śilpā named after him vide, Bhattacharya T.P., Canons of Indian Art, p. 178.

80 Bhandarkar's List, 579.

81 Ibid., 1660.

82 Ibid., 559.

83 cf., Chanda, R.P., Indian Sculpture, p. 66, Pl. xx.

84 cf., Encyclopaedia, p. 582

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 51

crowd of titled sculptors; his son was like a "Śiva to the cupids"

i. e. the titled sculptors, or a bherunda to the śarabhas, i. e. rival

sculptors. Chikka Hampa bore the title of "champion over rival

sculptors"; Malliyana, a "tiger amongst sculptors", was also like

"a thunderbolt to the mountains", i.e. rival titled sculptors.85

Many such famed artists are known from other regions also.

In the inscriptions from Bengal, reference is made to the śilpīs

Mahīdhara and Śasídhara of Posali, a traditional home of

artisans. Several other śilpīs "artists", of this place are known

from inscriptions, e. g., Pushyāditya; Chandrāditya; and the śilpī

Śaśideva the son of Hri (da) deva.86

Besides the śilpīs there were also other classes of artists such

as rūpakāra, karmika, chitrakāra. The title rūpakāra occurs often

in the records of the ruling dynasties of central India. Amongst

the rūpakāras, "sculptors", who worked for the Paramāras

reference may be made to Sīhaka and Kānhaka (or Kānhaḍa).87

The Mandhata plates of Paramāra Jayavarmana refer to the

rūpakāra Kānhaka, while the Godarpur plates of the same king

mention Kānhaḍa. It has been suggested that the two may be

the same, although it appears somewhat difficult to believe that

the engraver would commit a mistake in engraving his own

name. A number of other rūpakāras figure in the Chandella

records. There is a rūpakāra Lāhaḍa, the son of Rāma; Lāhaḍa

is said to have made the image of Nīlakanṭha-Śiva;88 rūpakāra

Tālhaṇa, the son of Pālhaṇa, belonging to the reputed Kokāsa

family of artisans is mentioned in the Jabalpur plates (now in

Nagpur Museum) of the Kalachuri Jayasimha.89 The Ratanpur

stone inscription of Vāhara (Vikrama year 1552) refers to the

85 Sīvaramamurti, C., Indian Sculpture, p. 4 ff.

86 Mukherji R.R. and M. K. Maity, Corpus of Bengāl Inscriptions, p.

197; Bhandarkar's List, 1632; E.I., XXIX, pp. 5, 13. 57; for other

reference to śilpīs, cf., E.I., XXXI, p. 248 ff; line 154 (the Ganga śilpī:

Lokāyī); E.I., II, 342, 383 (śilā-śilpī); Ibid., IV, 272, 277.

87 E.I., XXXII, p. 156; Bhandarkar's List 559, Sīhaka's son Rāmadeva is

also mentioned as śilpī in the inscription. A sūtradhāra Rāmadeva is

referred to in a Chandella record, (cf., E.I., XXXII p. 166), which

records that this sūtradhāra added a maṇḍapa to the Nīlakaṇṭha temple

at Kalanjar., cf., also Cunningham A., A.S.R. XXI, p. 350, he also

refers to rūpakāra Rāmadeva of Khajuraho.

88 E.I., XXXI. p. 166; Cunningham, A., A.S.R., XXI, pp. 34-5 pl. XC.

89 C.I.I., IV (i), p. 329.

rūpakara Dityan who was “praised for his knowledge of sciences and all other) merits”.90 These references make it clear that rūpakāra was a term denoting a sculptor or a worker-in-stone.

The term kammina (karmin) denoted almost the same. In the inscriptions from certain areas of Himachal Pradesh, reference is made to a kammina, “artist”, Gugga91 who exhibited his skill in preparing the inscribed metal images of Lakṣanadevī (Mahisha-marddinī) Śaktidevī, Gaṇesha, and Nandi. These images have come from the temples of Brahmour and Chatrarhi in Chamba and represent the early art of Kashmir. The inscriptions indicate that the work was conducted under the orders of king Meruvar-man sometime in the eighth century.

Like kammina and rūpakāras, reference in the same sense is found to the chitrakāras also. One such chitrakāra “sculptor”, was Śrī Sātana. His son Chhitanaka was the maker of the famous Mahoba Bodhisattva image and has been described as “well-versed in the science of all fine arts”. His wife, was equally adept in the art of image-carving; she made a beautiful image of Tārā which carries the inscription informing that its maker was the daughter-in-law of the chitrakāra Śrī Sātana.92 The treatises on iconography, as well as the other texts, clearly indicate that the title chitrakāra was synonymous to sculptor.93

These different categories of artists existing contemporaneously could not probably have flourished in isolation. It is likely that they had some mutual relationship since the profession required a high degree of skill. However, totally individualistic patterns of growth may not be completely ruled out. But this was possible only where smaller individual works of commission, like sculptures, were concerned. On a larger scale all important individuals probably combined together for building bigger monuments. With increasing experience probably the artist’s status also tended to rise. What were probably the different steps in promotion are indicated by the case of a Chandella artist Pālhana. His functions in different capacities with the passage of time indicate that some norms probably existed to decide the artists’ status as they acquired greater

90 Ibid. IV (iii), p. 557.

91 Bhandarkar’s List, 1813, 1815, 1816.

92 cf., Sivaramamurti, C., Indian Sculpture, pp. 5-6.

93 cf., Bhattacharya, T.P., The Canons of Indian Art, p. 371 ff.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 53

skills. It seems that the title śilpī was not applied to a craftsman until he became an expert in his line. Till then, he may have worked as a rūpakāra, citrakāra, or karmin, known by the nature of his work. Instances of expert rūpakāras adept in their work are not lacking, e.g., Dityan quoted above, who was adept in all the vidyās concerning the śilpa. With a greater recognition of his merit a craftsman probably became a śilpī. Pālhana, the engraver of the Semra plates (of v.s. 1223) is described merely as a pītalakāra, "brazier". Five years later, however, when he engraved the Icchawar plates (v.s. 1228) he had become a śilpī and is described as varna-ghaṭana vaidagdhī, "expert in carving letters". A further experience of about two more years made him a vijñānin, as is claimed in the Mahoba plates (of v.s. 1230). This process of acquiring recognition by Pālhana continued further and in the Pachar plates (of v.s. 1233) and the Charkhari plate (of v.s. 1236), the same Pālhana finds mention as vaidagdhī-Viśvakarmaṇā, "expert in the craft of Viśvakarmā", i.e., in the śilpaśāstra of the Visvakarmā school.94 Probably by this time he had reached a stage in his career when his knowledge was not confined to the bare technicalities of the craft, but embraced a wider field including the aesthetic aspect of the craft.95 In any case, the successive stages of Pālhana's rise specify the craftsman's hierachial mobility in the order starting from pītalakāra to the śilpī, and vijñānin. Such differences in the categories of artists are indicated in other cases also; e.g., Rāmadeva and Sīhaka, the Paramāra artists who were titled as śilpī and rūpakāra respectively.96

It may be added here that a Pālhana as father of rūpakāra Tālhana finds mention in a Kalachuri record of 1167 (K.E. 918) which specifies that Tālhana belonged to the Kokāsa family of artists.97 The dates of the Chandella and Kalachuri epigraphs referring to Pālhana and Tālhana correspond and it may be suggested that the artists of the same family were working for

94 cf., Bhandarkar's List 359, 371, 1913; E.I., XX, 131 ff; VI, 170; Indian Antiquary, XXV, p. 208; E.I., X, 49:

95 cf., Mitra, S.K., The Early Rulers of Khajuraho, p. 180. As regards Pālhana's proficiency in engraving letters, Hiralal observes no improvement in the plates engraved by him over the years. cf., E.I., XX, 128.

96 Bhandarkar's List, 1660.

97 C.I.I., IV (i), p. 331.

54 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

the two dynasties ruling conterminously in central India. A Pālhana finds mention in a record of the Paramāras of Chandrā-vatī.98 In fact, the occurrence of such names as Kānhaka (or Kānhaḍa), Delhaṇa Sajjana, Ālaḍa Nāhaḍa, Vāhaḍa, Sātana, Chhitanaka Chhītuka, in the records of the rulers of central and western India indicates some sort of a linial or guild-bound relationship among these artists. If accepted on a more formal basis proximity among artisans may also sometimes explain the proximities of styles in the regions of the artisans' operation. References to the Kokāsa family are found from the twelfth to about fifteenth century. The Alhāghat inscription of the year 1159, (v.s. 1216) refers to the sūtradhāras and artisans such as Kamalasimha, Some, Kokāsa, Pālhana, and Dalhaṇa.99 A reference to the artists belonging to his family is found centuries later in

an inscription of the fifteenth century, which speaks also of Manmath, Chhītaku, Maṇḍana, and Dityan.100

Coming back to Pālhana, it may be said that although he has been addressed by various titles and his skill and knowledge of śilpaśāstras has been specially eulogised, he fails to find mention as a sūtradhāra. His title vijñānin is also interesting, for this title was in use for sculptors in the eastern or south-eastern region.101 It is likely that this title for sculptors might have come in to central India from the eastern region and this may help in explicating the role of artists in determining the transmission of style and idioms of art. The title vijñānin was not restricted to the Chandella artists alone. It occurs also in the Paramāra inscriptions.102

It thus seems possible to establish some sort of a hierarchical scheme amongst the artisans in which the sūtradhāra figures at

98 Bhandarkar's List, 454 (dated A.D. 1209).

99 C.I.I., IV (i), p. 324

100 Ibid., IV (ii), pp. 527, 551 ff, 561.

101 cf., Bhandarkar's List, 1565, 1568, 1569; E.I., XXXIII, 268. This last inscription refers to a vijñānin Saṅkhuka who is called "suvarṇavīthī svannahi vijñānin''; Sircar (op.cit., p. 273) says that Vaheru and Mangaka who engraved the Balijhari plates are described in that record as suvarṇavīthī vijñānin, i.e. an artist who lived in a locality called suvarṇavīthī which may literally mean ‘goldsmiths’ quarters’. From this inscription it appears that svannahi or sunnahi was the name of an area in the suvarṇavīthī.

102 cf., the Paramāra vijñānin Sūmak; E.I., XXXI, 54.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 55

the top, followed by such categoreies of artists and workmen as

vijnanin, silpī, rūpakāra, and karmin. In addition to these there

must also have been a labour-force to assist the expert artisans

in manual work needed in executing bigger jobs. A sculptured

panel in the Khajuraho museum shows a silpī engaged in cutting

a piece of rock with the help of a hammer and a chisel. The

panel also depicts ordinary labourers bringing a stone capital

(Plate III). In the silpa texts sometimes a distinction has been

drawn between the one who executes the works and the rest of

artisans. The Mānasāra describes the former as sthāpaka “the

actual worker”. Acharya has suggested that perhaps he was the

principal assistant to the sthāpati, “chief architect”, while the

master was known as kartā.103

Certain exceptions in such a hierarchical scheme may also be

indicated here. A Kalachuri inscription says that the temple of

Bilvapāni was constructed by Devagana who is described as

rūpakāra siromani, “crest-jewel among the sculptors”. The

inscription refers to a sūtradhāra Sāmpula also, but merely as

the engraver of the record. Here is a case where the rūpakāra

has been regarded as more important than the sūtradhāra; but

it is of interest again that in another inscription of slightly later

date Sāmpula is mentioned not as a sūtradhāra but as a

rūpakāra and eulogised as: aneka-silpa nirmāna-payodheh

pāradriśvanā, “one who has seen farther shores of the ocean

of various crafts”.104

Guilds of artists must have been an important factor in

building-activity. Although references to such guilds are few,

nonetheless, the scale of activity together with the hereditary

practice of some craft in the same family or the āchārya-disciple

relationship among the craftsmen make a strong case for the

possibility of existence of guilds. Moreover, since other artisans

of different crafts such as metal-workers, were organised in

guilds and many such guildsmen are mentioned as engravers of

103 cf., Encyclopaedia, p. 592, S.V., Sthāpaka. On the analogy of Drama

it may be suggested that the offices of sūtradhāra and sthāpaka may

have been represented by one and the same person; sūtradhāra till

the activity was in the planning-stage and sthāpaka when the actual

work started. For sthāpaka as the same persons as sūtradhāra in Drama,

cf., Rangacharya, A., op.cit., pp. 24-5.

104 cf., C.I.I., IV (ii), pp. 490, 515.

records, it is likely that artists had also formed guilds of their

own and worked on monuments as and when commissioned to

do so. Of some definite instances of such guilds, the one con-

cerning the Sarva-Siddha-āchāryas and their special knowledge

of the “secrets of Śrī śilemudde” (probably the name of some

guild or of stone-masons) has already been quoted. The other

instances come from Bengal. The Deopara inscription of

Vijayasena refers to a master-craftsman Rānaka Śūlapāṇi who

was the “crest-jewel of the goshthī, (guild), of śilpīs of Vāren-

dra”.105 The evidence about the artists of Posali106 quoted above

also indirectly points to the artists who all came from the same

place and seem to have been in great demand obviously due to

their skill. Besides such guilds of artists, located at one place,

there probably were the itinerant families of artists also as in-

dicated by the mobility of the artists of the Kokāsa family. Artists

have often traced their descent from the ancient sages or divine

or semi-divine craftsmen like Kaśyapa, Viśvakarmā, Nārāyaṇa or

have claimed adeptness in the theory of these early exponents

of Śilpaśāstras. Inscriptions refer to a Siddha-Sārasvata of

Kaśyapa family.107 Sri Viranāchārya is addressed as Tvashṭri in

the Krishnapuram plates of Sadaśivarāya.108 The artist Viśvanāth,

(the architect of three worlds, son of Bāsavachāriya who was the

son of Vedeyappaya considered to be a jagadguru) claims to

have belonged to the family of Viśvakarmā.109 As distinct from

such claimants of a high pedigree there were artists who claimed

proficiency in particular schools of śilpa, named after their

exponents. Viśvakarmā and his theory of śilpa is most frequently

mentioned in the north Indian records. For instance, the

sūtradhāra Chhiccha who built a Khajuraho temple was vijñāna-

viśvakarttā.110 The sūtradhāra Chhītaku was well-versed in the

precepts of Nārāyaṇa, and his family-deity was Viśvakarmā.111

There are many such instances besides those relating to

particular families which produced artists in succession. Tārā-

105 Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions, p. 249, verse 36.

106 For the identification of Pośali, cf., Sircar, D.C., E.I., XIX, 6.

107 E.I., XXVIII, 30; XXII, 296-7, refers to a śilpī of Kaśyapa

family. This record dates about sixth-seventh century A.D.

108 E.I., IX, 339

109 cf., Encyclopaedia, p. 584, inscription no. 32.

110 E.I., I, 146. verse 60.

111 C.I.I., IV (iii), p. 557.

nāth, the Tibetan historian of Buddhism, lays great stress on the schools of art which developed in different regions through various individual artists. He adds that the artists belonging to such schools were known after the schools themselves, irrespective of their places of operation or of birth.112

The practice of the same craft in one family for two generations or more is often inferred from the epigraphic references to artists. This indicates a trend towards specialisation. Whether such profession admitted persons from other walks of life is another important question. It must be stressed again that the class of śilpis included different types of craftsmen; smiths, painters, carpenters, etc., were all the members of the wider group of artisans. At the elite-level, i.e., that of the sūtradhāra, the artists’ class may have attracted persons from diverse fields. The sūtradhāras status was, without doubt, respectable and such respect arose out of his skill and its recognition by people. The expert craftsmen were often close to the elite, particularly the ruling princes and others who had the resources to commission the temples, etc. This may have helped in their achieving greater recognition. There are references to the “king’s own sūtradhāra”113 or to sutradhāra-pitāmaha, “chief among the sūtradhāras”114 or to the titles they enjoyed, e.g., āchārya,115 which prove their respectable position in society. Occasionally some sūtradhāras might have come from higher varṇas also, although this must not have been a general rule. It has been said that “The social position of architects is not quit clear.... But from the functions assigned to each of the four architects (as in the texts), it would appear that the first three, namely sthapati, sūtragrāhin, and vardhakī belong to the higher class”.116 since he is often mentioned as proficient in śāstras and vidyās which included śilpaśāstra, astronomy, and science of numbers. The nature of his work demanded a knowledge of myths and legends about gods and goddesses which he needed particularly in the dhyānas after which images were fashioned. However,

112 Chattopadhayaya, D.P., Taranath’s History of Buddhism, pp. 347-9.

113 Epigraphia Carnatica, V (i) no. 123, p. 168.

114 Indian Antiquary, XIX.

115 cf., Encyclopaedia, p. 586.

116 Ibid. pp. 591-2.

58 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

the theory of art and aesthetics as well as the planning of edifices had a wider appeal. That is one of the reasons why there are instances of persons other than artists, writing treatises on architecture or iconography, e.g., Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra of the Paramāra King Bhoja. Also, there are instances of persons, who did not belong to the fold of traditional sūtradhāras, but who acted like sūtradhāras in the matters of building edifices or engraving records. The following instances will elucidate this points. A South Indian inscription refers to Mallavijaya, the son of a daṇḍanāyaka, “a minister”, as a sūtradhāra responsible for enlarging a town.117 Amongst the persons other than sūtradhāras, who figure as engravers of records, reference may be made to Nāgapāla, the son of paṇḍita Uhila “belonging to the panchakulika caste; to Jayatasimha the son of paṇḍita Yaśodhara; to Sarvachandra the son of a bhogika, “an officer of state”.118

It seems that sūtradhāras were usually drafted from amongst the traditional craftsmen and in such recruitment, the artist’s skill would have been the deciding factor. Some others might also have reached the rank of sūtradhāra owing to their higher social status coupled with their proficiency in the theory and practice of fine arts. This suggestion is based on the case of Mallavijaya, the son of a minister, quoted above. And such promotion to the rank of sūtradhāra might have ultimately helped many in the upward movement in the social hierarchy. In any case proficiency in the theory and practice of the crafts must have been the most important condition for attaining the stage of a sūtradhāra, and caste and social status probably were

117 Epigraphia Carnatica, V (i) no. 194, p. 433. translation, p. 187.

118 cf., E.I, XXX, 248; XXXII, 304; Bhandarkar’s List, 2048. There are some siṁha-ending names of engravers and sūtradhāras e.g. Kelisimha and Karmasimha etc., Bhandarkar’s List; 578, 610. In the former, a record of V.S. 1330, Kelisimha is said to have engraved the record with the further help of śilpi Delahaṇa; in the second record (V.S. 1342) he finds mention as a sūtradhāra. Another siṁha ending name is that of Droṇasimha, cf., E.I. XXXI, 106, 316. But, too much reliance ought not to be placed on such names and their obvious conclusion regarding artisans’ caste. There are instances in which the first generation of such artists has names like Nāhaḍa and Vāhaḍa and their sons change over to such names as Pūṇasimha and Kumārasimha, cf., Bhandarkar’s List, 611, 491.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 59

not so important. We sometimes have cases of even petty officers of state designing and executing edifices in which the sūtradh-āras, who otherwise were traditionally required to do such work, have been ignored. This indicates the openness of the profession.

We have so far discussed primarily the evidence pertaining to various types of artists and particularly the sūtradhāras, where they occur as makers of monuments or images. On the positive side, this evidence helps in appreciating their specific role in building of edifices and other related works. However, there are instances where these artists are described merely as the engravers of records in which specific mentions to the raising of temples, etc., have been made. In such instances, their participation may be regarded as implict. For, accepting the sūtradhāras merely as engravers of the records, makes a mockery of such master-craftsmen as Rāṇaka Śūlapāṇi, the “crest-jewel of the guild of śilpis of Vārendra”, who was son of Brihaspati, grandson of Mānadāsa and obviously was proud of his distin-guished family as well as his skill and the guild to which he belonged. And he is mentioned in the Deopara inscription merely as the engraver of the record. The contents of the Deopara inscription clearly indicate a possibility of the artist’s cooperation in building the Pradyumneśvara temple, described there in detail. The inscription mentions the making of the temple as a “great deed”. The temple is eulogised as “the unique place of manifestation of Lords Vishṇu and Śiva, where the King (Vijayasena) brought about ‘an interchange of the inhabitants of heaven and earth’, (for) by the construction of lofty house of god (=temple) and by the (the excavation of) extensive lakes, the area of both heaven and earth were reduced and they were made similar to each other”.119 The inscription also gives the details of the architectural elements of the Pradyumneśvara temple in highly technical terms, referring to such parts as śākhā, mūla, kāṇḍa, madhya, and antarīya.120 The central image of the temple deity is described as “in the representation of the sculpture, due to the apprehension of the

119 Majumdar, N.G., Inscription of Bengal, III (Rajashahi 1929) p. 50. verses 25-8. Majumdar has explained that the ‘interchange’ of the inhabitants of heaven and earth was brought about by setting up of images of gods in the temple which stood on earth; ibid. p. 54, fn. 3.

120 Ibid., p. 55 fn. 1.

60 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

cessation of embrace, the goddesses Umā and Laksmi, have taken stand between their lovers and thus somehow interfered with the complete union of the bodies (of Hari-Hara)”.121 The Deopara inscription which very graphically describes the temple and its images makes a mention of Rānaka Sūlpāni only as the engraver, although theoretically speaking most likely he alone would be knowledgeable about such sophistications in the temple and its sculpture.122

There are other inscriptions also with vivid details of temples and sculptures, but in reference only to the donor. One such record describes a person Pantha “who erected at a considerable cost…a beautiful image of Bhavānī”. The image is described as “fierce-looking, awe-inspiring owing to the garland formed of gruesome human-heads hanging from her neck, with limbs encircled by crawling snakes and with dry flesh pierced on axe; delighting in a sporting dance, and rolling eyes”. The inscription further relates that “not satisfied with the ‘erection’ (carving) of this image only, the pious man (Pantha), desirous of bliss, caused to be built a shrine of Bhavānī which was joined with a very adhesive and bright cement, resplendent with sound of bells, lovely, attractive… and decorated with lofty flags and yak-tails”.123 These details are significant architecturally and iconographically, but credit goes for this to the donor Pantha; the name of either the builder or even the engraver of the record has not been specified. This peculiar apathy in not recording the architect’s share may have been due to the religious zeal of the donor who did not want to mention the other people associated with the temple lest it may partly take

121 yaträlingana-bhagana-kätarataya-sthitvänitare, känta-rorddevib ham-katha-mapya bhinnanutä silpenta-räyah kritah.

122 Some scholars have tried to relate this evidence concerning Sūlapāni and the artisans' guild with Taranath's account of the Vārendra artists. An account corresponding to Tārānāth's is found in the Pag-Sam-Zon-jang also, as reported by Majumdar. He however, is sceptical about the evidence concerning the goshthī, 'guild', and says “...no definite evidence is yet forthcoming which justifies us to take the expression Värendrakasilpa-goshthī in the restricted sense of a 'guild' properly so-called of the artists of Bengal. The word 'goshthi', I have taken here in a general sense meaning 'multitude', although it is not impossible that the word really denotes a guild”. About the artists of Bengal, cf., Kumar, “A note on the Bengal School of Artists”, J.A.S.B., 1916, pp. 26-7.

123 E.I., IX, 60 ff.

away the religious merit from him and bestow its share on those who were mentioned. This may be one of the reasons why there are records which sing the glory of edifices commissioned by the donors without mentioning the architects who made them.

As regards the donors and their contributions towards architectural activity, one observes a change compared to pre-Gupta times. A survey of Brahmi inscriptions from north India indicates the growing prominence of individual donors, mostly kings or their priests or the other affluent members of society. A democratisation of the type as found earlier in the Buddhist monuments is of a very rare occurence. Individual images were quite often commissioned by less affluent donors124 too, but the raising of temples or the larger architectural activity, which involved greater resources in men and money, were mostly financed by the kings125 or the members of their families126 or their priests127 and officers,128 etc. It also became customary to name the temples after their donor-builders.129

An idea of the roles of different participants in raising edifices and consecrating them can be obtained by the following three examples, selected at random. The first relates to the excavation of a tank, financed by Malayasiṃha, a feudatory chief of the Kalachuri Vijayasimha of Tripuri. The Rewa inscription of this chief informs that he excavated a tank at the cost of 1500 tankakas (stamped with the figure of Bhagavat, i.e., the Buddha). Vidyādhara, a vāstavya, was superintendent of the work. Another vāstavya, Purushottam designed it. Rāmchandra performed five sacrifices (to consecrate the tank). The inscription was incised by the sūtradhāra Anant, the son of Galhaṇa. The inscription also refers to the King's doorkeeper

124 E.I., XXVII, 140-41; 340 XXVII, 25 fn. 2; Dikshit. M.G., Tripuri-1952, p. 12. A record refers to the gift of a Pāṇḍya king to a temple alongside that of another person, which shows how sometimes gifts were accepted from different sections of society for the same temple.

125 E.I., XXVI, 49 ff; XXVII, 235 ff.

126 Ibid., XXVIII, 180 ff; 184.

127 C.I.I., IV (i), 305-9; E.I., XXVIII, 114 f.

128 Ibid., pp. 30, 98 ff; VIII. 208 ff; 219 ff; Bhandarkar's List, 487-89, 491-507; 510-24.

129 Ibid., XXVIII, 182-83; 218; C.I.I., III, 288; Sircar D.C., Select Inscriptions, p. 283.

62 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

Ralhana the son of Dalhana. Although Ralhana is described as "capable of executing responsible work", his exact role in excavating the tank has escaped mention.130 The Rewa plates indicate a process of designing, excavation, and consecration of a tank in which various persons carried out their defined tasks and the major credit of work goes to the vāstavyaṣ.131

Another inscription is from Batihagh (Damoh District, Madhya Pradesh) and dates to the year 1328. It records that a local Muhammedan ruler Jallāl, son of Isāk, caused a gomat.ha, a step-well, and grove to be made at Batihādim. Dhanau, a servant of Jallāl was the manager of these institutions. The principal architects of this work were Bhojuka, Kāmadeva, and Hala of a śilāpat.t.a family and the inscription was engraved by Vasu of Mathura.132

The third inscription is from Rajasthan and it describes the building of a white marble temple. It was provided with lofty mandapa and stone seats in front and fifty-two Jina-shrines on its side. Also built here were the statues of various members of the family of Tejahpāla. The inscription was engraved by Chandeśvara, son of Dhandhala and grandson of Kelhana, and the consecration of the temple was done by a Jaina priest.133

These inscriptions define the roles of the different participants in designing and raising of edifices, their management, and consecration. The inscriptions definitely indicate that it was customary to incise the records immediately after the construction was completed. The artisans’ work did not conclude with the conclusion of a particular work. There is evidence to suggest that sometimes artisans were appointed to look after the maintenance of the work.134 New sūtradhāras were appointed

130 C.I.I., IV (i), pp. 357–58.

131 This as well as many other such instances suggest that vāstavyaṣ (and karanikaṣ) were possessed of the requisite knowledge and skill in raising monuments and many such karanikaṣ and vāstavyaṣ may have adorned the rank of sūtradhāraṣ.

132 E.I., XII, 46. Hiralal has stated that Silāwat caste still exists in the vicinity of Damoh.

133 Bhandarkar’s List, 488. Mount Abu inscription of the time of Vaghela Viradhaval and Paramāra Samar Simha.

134 E.I. XXVIII, 210 f: Teli inscription of Korai Ravi refers to the administration and maintenance of a temple in which besides the officials, managers, dancers, actors, and painters the sculptors also find

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 63

if extensive repairs or renovation were thought necessary.135

Having examined the nature and function of the sūtradhāras and the other categories of artists in raising monuments, as also the participation of the other classes of people in the total activity, we will now attempt to spell out a region-wise distribution of the sūtradhāras and other artists. This is with a view to suggest that while making a study of provincial art-idioms the artists who helped in bringing them forth, must also be kept in view. A systematic and unanimously accepted classification of style-zones in the architecture and sculptural art has not been finally worked out yet. The stress mainly has been on establishing a parity between the details of Śilpasāstras, and the actual monuments and sculptures. This exercise can be made more purposeful by introducing to it a new dimension—the role of the practitioners of this specialised craft. The inclusion of craftsmen and their role within the system of study may hopefully define the growth of activity and its variable forms (from one monument to the other through successive sūtra-dhāras and artists), in which such factors as artists' mobility and skill, their acculturation to particular schools of śilpa, etc., will have to be borne in mind for their obvious conclusions. A mere comparative study of motifs and art-forms in the same or different regions tends to ignore the factors instrumental in their making. A study of artists with regard to the regions where the relevant material is available, may be of use in defining the domain of particular regional styles as well as their wider links. The mediaeval inscriptions have enough material to indicate that the sūtradharas and other artists cannot be ignored. Their precise contribution however, remains to be studied. Keeping this in view, an attempt has been made in the following to describe a region and dynasty-wise distribution of artisans within a chronological framework starting from the seventh century. The information as detailed here relates mostly to north India.

A historical survey of different parts of India indicates the existence of several regional dynasties during the period starting

mention. Reference to śilpāchāri, ‘śilpa-āchārya’, attached to South Indian temples is also found in several inscriptions.

135 cf., Gaya Inscription referring to the sūtradhāra Haridāsa, employed for repairing the temple of Dakṣiṇāditya. Indian Antiquary, XX, p. 165.

64 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

from about the sixth century.

More prominent among these were the Pushyabhūtis and the Gurjara-Pratihāras in the north; the early Pālas and the early Kalingas (Śailodbhavas and Bhaumas) in the east; and the Maitrakas in the west. The other prominent dynasties of the north were the Varmanas, Karkotas, and Utpalas. The Gāhaḍavālas also figure in the list of the important north India dynasties. In central India, there were five dynasties ruling more or less conterminously in different parts. They were: the Chandellas; the Kalachuries of Tripurī and Ratanpur; the Kachhapaghāṭas of Gwalior and Narwar; and the Paramāras of Malva. In the eastern part of India, upto Andhra—there were the Soma and the Ganga Kings of Orissa and Andhra; the Pāla and Senas of Magadha; and the Chandras of Assam. Of the several dynasties of western India the major ones, were, the Guhilas, Pratihāras, Chāhmānas, Saindhavas, and Vaghelas. The epigraphs of many kings of these dynasties supply information about the sūtrakāras who probably were associated with the monuments raised in their respective regions. An idea of this may be obtained from the following details of the dynasties and the artisans connected with their kings.

The Pānduvaṃśīs and the Śarabhapura Kings. Historically the word sūtrakāra finds one of the earliest mentions in the inscriptions of the Pāṇdus of South Kosala. The Pāṇdus were contemporaries of the Maukharis of north. Of the artisans serving the Pāṇdus, we find reference to there: Ārya Gonna (or Gonṇasiva), Prabhākara, and the sūtrakāra Vasuguṇa, the son of Rishigana. They all occur as the engravers of the records of the Pānduvaṃśī King Mahāśivagupta Bālārjuna, who had an unusually long reign of about sixty years starting from the middle of the seventh century.136 Ārya Gonna occurs as the engraver of record which refers to the erection of a Vishṇu temple by Vasatā, the Queen mother. Another inscription refers to the qualifications of the sūtrakāra Vasuguṇa.137 The epigraphs of Suḍeva, a Śarabhapura king refers to some engraver-artisans—Droṇasimha and Golasimha.138 The Rājīvalochaṇa

136 cf., Bhandarkar's List, 1654, 1882, 1884, E.I., XXXI, 198.

137 He is described as: sūtrakāra-sakalā-karṇa-kīrtti-kīrttana-guṇāgana-oṇattimāna, E.I., XXXI, 36 ff.

138 Ibid., p 106, §16.

PLATE I Artisans at work, Bharhut

( National Museum, New Delhi)

PLATE II Śilpīśālāho Khajurāho

( Archaeological Survey of India, Government of India)

Plate III A Śilpi carving a stone, Khajuraho Museum

(© Archaeological Survey of India, Government of India)

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 65

temple at Rajim has an inscription engraved by Durgahastin.139 And as has been mentioned earlier, a pillar of this temple has the name "Śrī Pūrṇāditya", incised in ornamental letters. Pūrṇāditya and Durgahastin might have been instrumental in the raising of the Rājyālōchana temple of Rajim.

The Kalingas (Bhaumas, Karas, and Sailōdbhavás). The records of the kings of eastern India offer the names of such artisans as Deva, Paṇḍi, Śivanāga, Padmanābha, Sivagaṇa, Dagadeva, and Mālaka. Most of them were the goldsmiths who engraved records of various Bhañja Kings.140 Sthaviraviddha and Vijayadeva (the son of Ānandjīva) figure as the engravers of certain other eastern Indian records.141 It is not certain whether they had any contribution in the construction work commissioned by their kings. Although they do figure in royal records as engravers their roles in raising different edifices are not clear.

The dynasties mentioned above ruled during the post-Gupta phase, in parts of central and eastern India. Although some of the finest monuments came up in their regions of power, not much is known regarding the artisans in their employment. The existence of different schools of artists in different parts of India during this time and also later is indicated by Tārānāth (whose account is given in the Appendix). However, from the ninth century onwards, the information about sūtradhāras and the other categories of artists grows in volume.

The Gāhaḍavālas. The building activity of the Gāhaḍavālas142 of Kanauj is attested to by several epigraphic references.143 The Gāhaḍavāla records have usually supplied the names of their writers. The royal records refer to the śilpī Vāmana who engraved the Sarnath inscription of Kumāradevi. The inscription gives the details of building of a Buddhist monastery at

139 Bhandarkar's List, 1883.

140 Ibid., 1490-93; 1502, 2057.

141 ibid., 2041, 2044, 2057.

142 Before the Gāhaḍavālas, the Gurjara Pratihāras were ruling in the mid-India. A Gwalior epigraph refers to certain trader's guilds which functioned during their rule; among these guilds, one consisted of that of the stone-cutters, cf., E.I., I, pp. 167-68; 174-78.

143 Ibid., IX, 200; I, 186, 188; 157-59 (ramye' smin ekaśile Vishṇuh-bhaktyā-pratishṭhito bhavane); E.I., XIV, 199.

66 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

Sarnath by this queen.144 Besides the śilpī Vāmana, reference is also made to Śrīpati, the engraver of one of the Kamauli plates of Govinda-Chandra; to lohāra "blacksmith", Someka; and to the sūtradhāra Haleka.145 The Chandrāvatī plate of Chandradeva (V.S. 1156) has a description of the temple of Chandra Mahādeva. The engraver of the record, Mahādeva, "the son of illustrious Gangādhara" claims that he made the image of the "illustrious Chandra-Mahādeva which put to shame the other images".146 The Gāhaḍavāla charters often refer to karanikas as the writers or engravers of royal charters. It is likely that some śilpis assumed the charge of karanikas, i.e., the officer who was responsible for documentation of royal charters. There is an instance of such transformation of roles in a Kalachuri record, which refers to a śilpī Sarvānanda acting as a karanika.147 On this analogy, it may be surmised that some of the vāstavyaś (equivalent to karanikas) of the Gāhaḍavāla inscriptions may have been artists too.148

The Chandellas, Kalachuris, and Paramāras. Information regarding artisans of the different central India dynasties is more profuse. Two inscriptions from Gwalior and Chanderī region149 refer to the sūtradhāras Dhanauḳ and Bhīmadeva. The former occurs in the Narwar inscription of the time of Gaṇapati (V.S. 1355). The inscriptions of the rulers of the Chandella dynasty refer to Śrī Kana; to chitrakāra Śrī Sātana; and to his son Chhitanaka, and the latter's wife.150 From the Chandella inscriptions of Kalanjar, Ajayagarh and Khajuraho, and some other places more information regarding the different classes

144 E.I., XIV, 196 which refers to the scribe Hridayadhara the son of Sivastamblha, who wrote the copper-plate "smooth like fresh leaf adorned with lines in which lettering is quite clear".

145 cf., E.I., XVIII, 223; Bhandarkar's List, 292; E.I., IV; 126, 128; XVIII, 223.

146 E.I., XIV. 199 (line 24).

147 C.I.I., IV (i), p. 259. Likewise, the writer of another Kalachuri epigraph (C.I.I., IV (ii), p. 470), claims an adeptness in crafts: śilpaprakarshah.

148 Several such karanikas, some of them mentioned as kāyasthas of vāstavya family, are mentioned in the Gāhaḍavāla records, e.g. Kithana, Ulhana Jalhaṇa Vasudeva, Sahadeva, Gagguka, Viṣṇu, Srīpati, Kusuma-pāla, etc., cf. E.I., IV, 101-24.

149 Ibid., XXXII. 346; XXXIII, 33.

150 Sivaramamurti, C., Indian Sculpture p. 5.

of artisans—rūpakāra, śilpī, vijñānīka, and sūtradhāra—is available. One of the Kalanjar inscriptions refers to the artist Padma who was as “able” and “superior to all artists”, as was his “eminent” father. “Padmī, was the King's favourite artist”, so says the inscription; and this artist figures as the engraver of a Kalanjar inscription which informs that his brother Deoka helped him in engraving the record.151 Another Kalanjar inscription refers to a rūpakāra Lāhaḍa, the son of the sūtradhāra Rāma. The rūpakāra Lakṣmīdhara also finds mention along with Lāhaḍa.152 As regards Rāma, he is mentioned both as a rūpakāra and a sūtradhāra,153 and he is credited with the task of having made the Nīlakaṇṭha temple of Kalanjar; the image of Nīlakaṇṭha-Mahādeva, in this temple was made by Rāma's son Lāhaḍa. Lākhana and Devarāja, the latter was the son of Somarāja,154 were the other Chandella rūpakāras. Another son of Somarāja, Mahārāja,155 is also referred to as the engraver of an inscription. This inscription describes the raising of two temples, one dedicated to Vishṇu and the other to Śiva, by Sallakṣaṇa, a minister of the Chandella Paramarddideva. In certain other Chandella records Palhana, Jayasiṃha, and Pratāpasimha are mentioned as śilpīs.156 Jalhana, Palhana (the son of Rājapāla), and Uheno are mentioned as vijñānīkas. Uheno, in one of the records, is referred to as a rītikāra, “brazier”, too.157

Other artisan-engravers of the Chandella rulers were Bhānu and an unnamed artisan who was the son of Kūkem and grandson of the ayaskāra, “black-smith”, Dage (Gaṅge).158 The Chandella sculptures of Khajuraho and other places have certain names inscribed on them and Cunningham has suggested that these may represent the mason's names, of which he has given a list.159 However, it may be indicated here that although

151 Cunningham, A., Archaeological Survey of India, Reports, XXI, p. 38.

152 Ibid., p. 35.

153 Ibid., E.I., I, 325-30, 152-53; XXXI, 166; Cunningham, A., A.S.R., X, 34-5.

154 Ibid., XXI, 72, 73.

155 E.I., I, 207 ff.

156 Indian Antiquary, XV; XVII, p. 235; E.I., XX.

157 Indian Antiquary, XVI, pp. 202-7; E.I., XX, 131 (utkirṇa varṇagha-ṭana vaidagdhī Viśvakarmanā; XXI, respectively.

158 Indian Antiquary, XVII, p. 235; Bhandarkar's List, 1785.

159 Cunningham, A., op.cit., XXI, p. 62 f.

the Chandella records supply names of various artisans and their ranks, the sūtradhāras are rare in them. Amongst the sūtradhāras, Rāma and Suprata occur in the inscriptions of Kalanjar and Ajayagarh respectively.160 Rāma, the builder of a well and the mandapa at the Ajaygarh fort, during the reign of Vīravarman, is described as vaidagdhī, "skilled in his craft".161 The sūtradhāra Chiccha who built a Khajuraho temple was "proficient in the śāstra of Viśvakarmā", according to the Khajuraho stone inscription (V.S. 1059).162 For the purpose of explicating the role of artists in the growth of the Chandella art and architecture the information quoted above may be of immense value. It can at least define the choice and distribution of motifs and sculptures in relation to the monuments raised by respective artists which may help in a greater understanding of the Chandella art and architecture as a whole.

The Kalachuri inscriptions too have prolific information regarding the artists employed by the donors of various monuments in the region. The material available in this respect indicates that such engraver-artists were sufficiently proficient in śilpa, and were known by their different titles. These artists were proficient particularly in the Viśvakarmā's śilpa. For instance, we have Mādhava, the son of sūtradhāra Maheśvara, described as "able and adept in Viśvakarmā's craft". Another artist (whose name unfortunately is not available), says an inscription made an image of a goddess by the grace of Viśvakarmā. The artist Mahīdhara, who claims proficiency in the śāstra expostulated by Viśvakarmā, is also described as "crest-jewel of artisans", by his son, the sūtradhāra Nāmadeva, in a later inscription. Mahīdhara had the distinction of being the son of Bālasimha who has been mentioned as the "foremost amongst sūtradhāras". Besides these more prominently mentioned artists, the Kalachuri inscriptions refer also to Nīlakanṭha who engraved a praśasti on the orders of the sūtradhāra Sūrāk; to Nonna, the son of the excellent sūtradhāra Sangama; to Some, Kokāsa, Pālhaṇa, Ulhaṇa, and Kamalasimha; to Siruka; and to the lohāras Kuke and Kīkaka. Kuke is referred to

160 Ibid., pp. 35, 49.

161 E.I., I, 228 (verse 22)

162 Ibid., 146, (verse 60)

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 69

as vi nānī which obviously is a mistake for vijñānin, which occurs as a title of certain Chandella and Paramāra artists.163

Kalachuri inscriptions offer valuable information about the sūtrodhāras; eleven of them are mentioned in the records. Of these Sangama is referred to as an “excellent” sūtrodhāra; Sāmbhūka and Śreshṭhī respectively are mentioned as executor of a Vishṇu temple and maker of a white maṇḍapa, attached to a Śāntinath temple. Bālasimha was regarded as “foremost among the sūtrodhāras”, while Pithe is eulogised as “conversant in the Viśvakarma-śāstra” and “planner of several edifices”. Others who are mentioned only as sūtrodhāras are Sūrāk, Kamalasimha, Nāmadeva, Ananta, the son of Galhaṇa, and Maheśvara.164

In the above list, it is found that sometimes the father is an ordinary craftsman while his son reaches the rank of a sūtrodhāra. There is also an interesting case of śilpī Sarvānanda who was appointed a karaṇika and wrote a eulogy which was engraved by Vidyānanda.165 The two, Sarvānanda and Vidyā- nanda, may have been related to each other. In another Kalachuri inscription there is reference to a superintendent of writing who had his statue installed.166

The kings of the Ratanpur branch of Kalachuris also were great builders and their inscriptions or those of their region offer quite a few names of artists employed for engraving records or building temples and other edifices. Of these artisans Hāsala is described as “intelligent and repository of all the śilpa- vidyā”.167 Lakṣmidhara and his sons Dharaṇīdhara and Chāndārka also find mention in these epigraphs.168 Amongst the rūpakāras of this region, reference is made to Pālhūka, Ratna- pāla, and Dityan. The rūpakāra, “sculptor”, Devagaṇa had a very special place, as he was the “foremost amongst sculptors” and his eminence was recognised to the extent that the sūtrodhāra Sāmpula served under him when they made a temple

163 For the details of these artists mentioned in the inscriptions of the Tripuri branch of the Kalachuris, cf., C.I.I., IV (i), pp. 230, 251, 307, 336, 317, 204, 224, 324, 374, 343, 363.

164 Ibid., IV, pp. 204, 224, 230, 235, 311, 317, 324, 336.

165 Ibid., p. 259.

166 Ibid., p. 587.

167 Ibid., 401, 407.

168 Ibid., pp. 477, 461, 483 (also 494), 631.

70 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

of Bilvapāṇi Mahādeva. Sāmpula himself is first mentioned as a sūtradhāra and then in a later inscription he is referred to only as a rūpakāra. However, his merit and skill in his craft was enviable and the inscription eulogises him as one “who has seen the farthest shore of the ocean of various crafts”.

In the inscriptions of the Kalachuris of Ratanpur branch, Dhanapati and Īśvara find mention as “skilful” and “best” śilpīs. Jātū is described as the knower of śilpa-vijñāna, the “science of śilpa.” Chhītaku is also described similarly. He had an excellent pedigree, and is said to have belonged to the Kokāsa line of artists. The artists of the Kokāsa family “had attained a mastery in many crafts and (were) experts in the art of sculpture”. Chhītaku’s father Manmatha, and brother Maṇḍana, “a reader of scriptures”, were far-famed artists in the fifteenth century and they claim their participation in the building of monuments of Ratanpur. The Kalachuri records (as well as others which are dated in the Kalachuri era) refer also to certain other sūtradhāras—Nāmadeva, Ratnadeva Dharaṇīdhara, and Nāmala.169

The Paramāras of Malwa were one of the important dynasties of central India and their inscriptions indicate the existence of various categories of artists like rūpakāra, śilpī, vijñānin in their realm. References to some of them have been made earlier.

The Dynasties of Eastern India. In the eastern India, including the north-east and the south-eastern regions under the Somavaṁśīs and the Gaṅgas, artists flourished under the rulers’ patronage. In the inscriptions of the Pālas and Senas, the engravers and the artists who find mention are: Taṭaṭa; the śilpī Mahīdhara (son of Vikrāmāditya of Posali); the śilpīs Saśīdhara, Pushyāditya (son of Chandrāditya) Saśīdeva (son of Hriddeva), all of Posali; Amrit, the pupil of Indrānīlamaṇi: Rāṇaka Sūlāpaṇi, the “crest-jewel of the śilpī-guild of Vārendra”; Bhavanakadasa; and Tathāgatasara.170

169 For the above-mentioned artists, cf., C.I.I., IV, pp. 441, 456, 556 f; 490; 515, 511, 543, 556 ff.; 561, 573, 579, 586, 652. For the other engraver-artists from central India, cf. Bhandarkar’s List, 1329, 1876, 1887.

170 cf. Bhandarkar’s List, 1610, 1625, 1632, 1637, 1639, 1683, E.I., XXIX, pp. 5, 13; XIX, 57.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 71

The other ruling dynasties of eastern India—the Chandras, the Bhauma-Pālas, and the other kings of Assam—also had their own artists. Among these the most eminent seems to have been Someśvara who is addressed as a śilpāvin-Māgadhah, “Magadhan artist” in the Silimpur stone inscription of the time of Jayapāladeva of Kamarupa.171 Incidently, this inscription attests to the extent of mobility which the artist of Magadha achieved in going over to Kāmārūpa. And irrespective of this physical mobility, the artist claims his association with Magadha, a point stated by Tārānath about the individual artists and their loyalties to their schools. The other engraver-artists mentioned in the records of this region were Vinitta, a takṣakāra, Ratoka, and Madhusūdāana.172

The inscriptions of the Soma and the Ganga kings of Orissa and Andhra refer to several engravers and quite often they are titled as vijñānin. This epithet, as pointed out earlier, is found in the cases of certain Chandella, Kalachuri, and Paramāra artists also. It is likely that it was applied to artists who were vijña, “proficient”, in śilpa-vijñāna, and in rank, were superior to śilpīs, as seems to be suggested by the case of Pālhaṇa, a Chandella artist. Sircar defines vijñanin as “an artisan; same as śilpī; epithet of an artisan who is usually the engraver of an inscription”.173 This epithet is also found in cases of the engravers of the records relating to the Rāṇakas of Bihar and Orissa, to the chiefs of the former Bauddh State of Orissa, as well as to the Soma and the Ganga Kings. In the galaxy of such artists occur such names as vanik suvarṇakāra, “goldsmith”, Śivanāga, the son of Paṇḍi; Lokanāth; Harivardhana.174 The inscriptions of the Somas of Orissa refer to Samgrāma, the son of Rayana Ojjha; to the vijñānin Mādhava, the son of Vasu; to the ṭhakkura Panaka; to the vijñānins Vasuka, Madhumanthana, Śaṅkhuka, Vaheru, and Mangaka,175 etc. The records of the Ganga kings likewise offer several names

171 Bhandarkar’s List., 1727.

172 Ibid., 2062, 1519.

173 Sircar, D.C., Indian Epigraphical Glossary, p. 373.

174 Bhandarkar’s List, 2065, 2102; E.I., XXIX, 219.

175 Bhandarkar’s List, 1557, 1560, 1565, 1567-69; E.I., XXXIII, 268. It is likely that artisans lived in their well-defined localities, consisting of lanes and streets, cf., Sircar, D.C., E.I., XXXIII, 273.

of the engravers who sometimes enjoyed position of authority in the administrative system. For instance, there is a reference to an engraver Sarvachandra who was the son of a bhogika Chandichandra; or the akṣāśālin, “goldsmith” Khaṇdimalla who is sometimes mentioned as a sāmanta, a “feudatory chief”.176 The Ganga records also refer to a śilpī Lokāyī; to vijñānin Devapila; to sūtradhāras Nāmakāñcheyemācharin and Śivakara; to the tāmrakāra, “brazier”, Pannadi-rānā; and to artisans without any such title like Karaki Mentōja.177

The Dynasties of Western India. Some scholars have defined certain strains of style in the temple architecture of India, and have tried to fix them within a reasonable chronological framework.178 The exercise could be carried further by including the evolution of sculptures within those strains of architectural growth. It has been suggested that in the western region the scheme of architectural and sculptural compositions tends to conform to certain texts such as as Vāstusāra and Vāstuvidyā.179 The epigraphic evidence available, seems to confirm this supposition. It is likely that monuments raised over the centuries in this area, as well as others conformed to the prevalent traditions of śilpa which at some point of time were recorded in the form of canonical texts such as above. For instance, a Chittorgarh fragmentary inscription of the time of the Guhila King Kumbhakarna180 specifies various types of pillars and quotes two authorities, Jaya and Aparājita, on the subject. There is some evidence available about the sūtradhāras of the time of Kumbhakarna to whose time the above inscription belongs. These sūtradharas, Jaita and his five sons referred to earlier, were responsible for constructing temples, a fort, and other edifices for Kumbhakarna. In these constructions the canons available might have been made use of. An inscription of the

176 Bhandarkar’s List, 2048; E.I., XXX, 26.

177 Bhandarkar’s List, 1091, 2068, 2066, 1526, E.I., XXXI, 248 f. (line 154); XXX, 26.

178 Dhaky, M.A., Bulletin of the American Academy of Benaras, I, p. 35 and notes.

179 Ibid.

180 Bhandarkar’s List, 1860.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 73

reign of the Guhila King Rāyamalla of Meṇḍapāṭa branch,

refers to the sūtradhāras Govinda and Isamde, the son of

sūtradhāra Maṇḍana.181 It is not certain whether this Maṇḍana

was the same as the composer of several śilpa texts, but it does

indicate a tendency amongst the artisans, following a particular

school, naming the members of their family after the progenitor

of the school. This too would suggest a compatibility of schools

of artists with the canons of śilpa prevalent in the regions of

their currency.

In the records of western India, reference to the sūtradhāras

abound and the information corresponds to the prolific

building-activity in the region. In the records of the Chālukya

(Vaghela) rulers of Gujarat are several references to the sūtra-

dhāras and their patrons. We know of Bhimadeva II and his

sūtradhāra Ālada; of Mahārāja Vīra-Dhavala-deva and his

sūtradhāra Kāḷaḍa, the son of Prahlada-Govinda; of Pūṇasimha

the son Nāhaḍa.182 The similarity in the names of these artists

suggests the possibility of existence of the same family of

artists serving successive masters.

The epigraphs of the time of the Guhilas of Rajasthan

similarly, have references to the sūtradhāras existing parallel

to the kings of the dynasty. The Paldi inscription of Guhila

Arisimha (V.S. 1173) refers to the sūtradhāra Kesarin. This

record also mentions building of a temple at Paldi. It was

consecrated on completion by an astrologer and had an officer-

in-charge for general arrangements relating to the construc-

tion.183 The Chirwa praśasti of Samarasimha was “engraved by

Kelisimha with further help from śilpī Delhaṇa”.184 Besides

these artisans, there were others also, like Sajjana; the

sūtradhāra Karmasimha; and sūtradhāra Bhaila, the son of

Rājuka. Bhaila is mentioned as the engraver of the Chatsu

inscription of the Guhila Bālāditya, in which there is a reference

to the raising of Murārī temple.185

The sūtradhāras working under the Chāhamāna rulers of

Naḍḍula, Śākambharī, and Raṇathambhor were eminent in

181 Ibid., 1536.

182 Ibid., 452, 491, 577, 611.

183 E.I., XXX, 8 f.

184 Bhandarkar’s List, 579.

185 Ibid., 583, 610, 1537.

74 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

their work. There is definite evidence in case of some of them regarding their contribution to the architectural activity. The Nadlai stone inscription of the Naḍḍula Chāhmāna King Kelhaṇa refers to the building of a mandapa, an akṣasama, and dāma in the temple of Bhivadeśvara. This work was done by Pāhini the son of sūtradhāra Mahaḍuā whose wife was named Jasadevī. In this work, Pāhini was assisted by the sūtradhāras Mahīdarā and Indarāka. The inscription further relates that these constructions cost 330 drammas and were made of stones and bricks.186 In the inscriptions of the region reference is also made to the sūtradhāra Jisavarin, the son of Jisapāla; and to Bhīmasimha the brother of Gugga. Amongst the engravers, we have Goshasimha; Devala, the son of Nana; and Gajuka, the son of Trivikrama.187 The sūtradhāra Chaṇḍeśvara is mentioned in an inscription of the Paramāras of Chandrāvatī, which also refers to the sūtradhāra Palhaṇa. Chaṇḍeśvara himself was the son of Dhandhala and grandson of Kelhaṇa.188 Kiradu in Rajasthan is famous for its Vaishṇava and Śaiva temples and a local inscription of the year 1161 refers to a sūtradhāra Jasodhara, who may have contributed in building of these temples.189 In the inscription, however, he appears only as an engraver. Some other inscriptions from Rajasthan refer to Śilāśrī, son of Daṇḍi; to Bhīmasimha; and to Gajuka, son of the sūtradhāra Trivikrama.190

The region-wise documentation of material concerning the sūtradhāras and the other categories of artisans clearly indicates that they were in great demand and were spread over in different parts of the country. This evidence is in no way small enough to be ignored. It clearly spells out the existence of classes of artists parallel to the kings and dynasties, and implicity as well as explicitly suggests their interaction in the domain of art-activity. However, merely a study of the distribution-pattern of these artisans will not be useful in itself unless it is utilised to explain their role in the evolution of the

186 E.I., XI, 47. The Sūtradhāra Mādhava (Mahaḍuā) finds mention again in another record. cf., E.I., XI, 67.

187 Bhandarkar's List, 561, 581, 590, 592, 625.

188 Ibid., 454, 488.

189 Ibid., 312.

190 Ibid., 564, 817, 623; E.I., XXXI, 54; XIX, 52.

ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY DURING THE GUPTA TIMES 75

styles in their respective regions. With a documentation on these lines, attempts at relating the distinctive features of edifices with the artisans of the regions will be necessary. Such studies on a micro-level may help in establishing the advent and growth of distinctive styles and their different strains in which the interaction of the canons of art and their practitioners as well as their correspondence or the lack of it, will have to be precisely made out. As it happens, various field studies have usually attempted to establish a synchronism of the canons and monuments to the degrees possible without seeking to define the contributions of artisans who, manually and through their skill, were instrumental in flowering of the art-activity. In the wider perspective of defining the parallel or linear growth of art-activity, reinforced with its distinct or hybrid idioms and mannerism, it is necessary to comprehend the practitioners of the craft and their total role.

Chapter Three

Artists as Depicted in Reliefs

This chapter deals with more of the panels in which artists have been depicted as engaged in their work. Some such panels have already been described in the previous chapters, particularly the one from Bharhut. Two such panels are known from Khajuraho. Of these, one on a wall of a side-temple in the Lakṣamaṇeśvara temple complex, represents a scene of a śilpīśālā, “artisan’s workshop”, where the chief-śilpī is shown sitting surrounded by smaller figures of the apprentices. While the śilpī engraves on a slab of stone, with rapt attention, his apprentices surrounding him seem to be watching his action (Plate II). In the other panel, now preserved in the Khajuraho Museum, the śilpī is depicted as engaged in giving the required shape to a block of stone, on which he is shown seated. He holds a pick in his left hand and his raised right hand holds hammer intended to depict the motion required for hammering. His torso is drawn and taut and conveys the feeling of action meant here. Immediately behind him is a female figure, defaced, looking at the action. There are two more figures behind her. In front of the śilpī are six figures of karmikas, “labourers”, carrying a finished block of stone, probably a capital of a pillar, which is suspended with ropes from a pole shown across the shoulders of the labourers. Behind the labourers is a couple in an amourous pose, intended for

decoration of the panel. The couple do not seem to have any bearing on the rest of the composition (Plate III).

A panel from the Surya temple of Konark in Orissa has been identified by Bhattacharya as representing a community of artists along with the King Narasimhavarman. Khandalavala, however, disagrees with this identification and refers to it as a depiction of the King with a community of poets and writers of his court.1

1 Khandalawala, K. J., Lalit Kala, 8, p.88.

Appendix

The History of Image Makers According to Taranath*

IN THE ancient period, the human artists possessed miraculous power and their artistic creations were astounding. In the Vinayavastu etc., it is clearly said that the statues made and pictures drawn by them created the illusion of being the real objects. For about a hundred years after the parinirvāṇa of the Teacher, there were many artists like them.

As afterwards there was none of them any more, the celestial artists appeared in human guise and made eight wonderful images for worship in Magadha, like those of the Mahābodhi and Mañjuśrīdundubhiśvara. The chaityas of the eight sacred places and the inner boundry walls of Vajrāsana were built by the Yakṣa artists during the period of Aśoka and the Nāga artists built many (images) during the time of Nāgarjuna.

The (images) thus made by the Devas, Nāgas and Yakṣas created the illusion of the real objects for many years. In the later period, under the influence of time such creations were no more and there remained practically none with the knowledge of the technique concerned.

After that, for a long time there developed the traditions of different artistic techniques depending of the individual talents of various artists. There remained no uniform tradition of the technique (of image-making).

Later on, during the period of king Buddhapakṣa there lived an artist called Bimbasāra, who produced the most wonderful architectural sculptures and paintings: these could be compared to those of the celestial artists of the earlier period.

Numerous artists became his followers. This artist was born in Magadha. Therefore, the artists following his school were said to belong to the school of the madhya-deśa art, wherever they might have been born.

During the period of king Śila, there was an extraordinarily skilled icon-maker called Srigadhari, who was born in the region of Maru. He made many sculptures and paintings in the tradition of the Yakṣas. The school following his technique is known as the school of old western art.

• From Tārānath's History of Buddhism in India, edited by D. P. Chattopadhyaya.

80 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

During the time of king Devapāla and Śrī Dharmapāla, there lived a highly skilled artist called Dhīman in the Vārendra region. His son was called Bitpala. These two followed the tradition of the Nāga artists and practised various techniques like those of metal-casting, engraving and painting. The tradition of the technique of the father became different from that of the son. The son used to live in Bhaṅgāla. The cast-images made by the followers of both of them were called the eastern icons, wherever those followers might have been born.

In painting, the tradition of those that followed the father was called the tradition of eastern paintings, while those who followed the son were known as belonging to the school of the madhya-deśa painting, because this was widespread mainly in Magadha.

In Nepal also the earlier tradition of art was similar to the old western (style of Indian art). The paintings and bell-metal castings (of Napal) of the middle period are said to belong to the Nepalese school, though these resemble the eastern (Indian art). No distinct (tradition) is found (in Nepal) in the later period.

In Kashmir also was followed the tradition of the early central art and of the old western (Indian art). In the later period one called Hasurāja introduced new technique both in sculpture and painting. It is now called the art of Kashmir.

Skilled image-makers abounded in every place wherever the Law of the Buddha flourished. In the regions that came under the influence of the mlecchas declined the art of image making and the regions under the influence of the tirthikas had only inferior image-makers, That is why, practically nothing survives today of the tradition of those mentioned above.

In Pu-khan and southern India still thrives the tradition of image-making. But it is clear that their tradition of art did not reach Tibet in the past.

In the south, there exist numerous followers of the three, namely Jaya, Parajaya and Vijaya.

Bibliography

Acharya, P. K.;

Indian Architecture According to Mānasāra Śilpaśāstra, Bombay, 1927.

Mānasāra, an Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture, vol. VII, Oxford University Press, 1946.

Agrawala, R. C.;

"Unpublished Bharhut Sculptures" Lalit Kala, 14, Delhi, 1969, pp. 53-5.

Agrawala, V.S., (ed.);

Bhoja's Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra, Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1966.

Indian Art, Varanasi, 1965.

Studies in Indian Art, Varanasi, 1965.

Banerjea, J.N.;

Development of Hindu Iconography, Calcutta, 1956.

Bhandarkar, D.R.;

"List of Inscriptions in Northern India", Appendix to Epigraphia Indica, vols. XIX-XXII.

Bhandarkar R.G. and Vamanacharya Jhalakikan,

Amarakośa (with the commentary of Maheśvara), Bombay, 1867

Bhatia, P.;

The Paramāras, Delhi, 1970

Bhattacharya, A.K.;

"Konarak and its builders", Marg, VI.

Bhattacharya, T.P.;

A Study of Vāstuvidyā, Patna, 1947.

The Canons of Indian Art, Patna, 1963.

Boner, A.;

Principle of Composition in Hindu Sculpture, Leiden, 1962.

"Economic and Organisational Aspects of Building Operation of the Suni Temple at

82 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART ACTIVITY

Boner, A. and Sadasiva Rath Sarma, (ed. & Transl.);

Rāmachandra Kaulāchāra's Śilpa-Praāśa, Leiden, 1966.

Boner, A., Sarma, and Das

New Light on the Sun Temple of Konārk, Varanasi, 1972.

Bose, N.K.;

Canons of Orissan Architecture, Calcutta, 1932.

Burgess, J.;

Report on the Buddhist Cave Temples and their Inscriptions, Archaeological Survey of Western India, IV vol. Reprinted, Varanasi, 1964.

Chanda, R.P.;

Mediaeval Indian Sculpture, London, 1936

Chattopadhyaya, D.P. (ed.)

Tārānātha's History of Buddhism in India, Simla, 1970.

Coomaraswamy, A.K.;

Viśvakarmā, London, 1914

Mediaeval Sinhalese Art, 2nd edition, New York, 1956.

Cunningham, A.;

Bhilsa Topes, Reprinted, Varanasi, 1960.

Archaeological Survey of India, Reports, vols. XXI. (i-ii), Reprinted Varanasi, 1969.

Dahejia, V.;

Early Buddhist Rock-Temples, London, 1972.

Davids, T.W. Rhys., (transl.);

Dialogues of the Buddha, vols. I and II, London, 1951-56.

—— and W. Stede;

Pali-English Dictionary, London, 1959.

Dhaky, M.A.;

"Kiradu and the Māru-Gurjara Style of Temple Architecture", Bulletin of the American Academy of Benaras, vol. I, (Nov. 1967) pp. 35-45.

Dhavalikar, M.K.;

"Sūtradhāra", Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol LII (i-iv) 1971, pub. 1972. pp. 215-20.

"Sri Yugandhara—A Master Artist of Ajanta", Artibus Asiae, XXXI. 4 (1969) pp. 301-8.

Fick, R.;

Social Organisation of North-Eastern India, (translated by S.K. Mitra), Calcutta, 1920

Fleet, J.F.;

Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. III, Varanasi, 1963.

Konārk", Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. XII (i), November 1970, pp. 257-72.

Geiger, W. (transl.);

;

Mahāvaṃsa, London.

Horner, I. B. (transl.)

(transl.)

Culture of Ceylon in Mediaeval Times, (ed. H. Bechert) Wiesbaden, 1960.

Jones, J.J. (transl.);

Law, B.C.,

The Book of Discipline, (Vinaya Pitaka), 5 vols., London, 1949-1963.

Milinda's Questions, 2 vols., London, 1964.

The Mahāvastu, 3 vols. London, 1949-1956

The Legends of the Topes, Bibliotheca Indica 1553 (N.S.), Calcutta, 1945.

Luders H.;

;

"A list of Brahmi Insciptions" Epigraphia Indica, vol. X, (1909-10) p. 1-179.

Bharhut Inscriptions, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. II, (part ii), revised by Waldschmidt, E. and M.A. Mehandale, Ootacamund, 1962.

Majumdar, N.G.:

Inscriptions of Bengal, vol. III, Rajshahi, 1929.

Marshall and others;

The Monuments of Sanchi, 3 vols. Cambridge, 1939.

Miraschi, V.V.;

Inscriptions of the Kalachuri-Chedi Era., Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. IV, parts i-ii, Octacamund, 1955.

Mitra, S. K.;

The Early Rulers of Khajuraho, Calcutta, 1958.

Monier-Williams

;

Indian Wisdom, Varanasi, 1963.

Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Delhi, 1963.

Rangacharya, A.;

Introduction to Bharata's Nātyaśāstra, Bombay, 1966.

Sastry, Devadatta (ed. & transl.);

Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra, The Kashi Sanskrit Series 29, Chowkhambha, Varanasi, 1964.

Sharma, R.S.;

Sūdras in Ancient India, Delhi 1958.

Sircar, D.C.;

;

;

Select Inscriptions, Bearing on Indian History and Civilisation, Calcutta, 1942.

Indian Epigraphy, Delhi, 1965

Indian Epigraphical Glossary, Delhi, 1966.

Sivaramamurti, C.;

"Indian Epigraphy and South Indian". Script, Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum, Madras, 1952.

Indian Sculpture, Delhi, 1962

"The Artist in Ancient India", Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, vol. VIII (1934) pp. 31-45; 168-99.

Strong, D.M., (transl.);

The Udāna, London, 1900.

Index

Achaemenian (Kings) 8; Gāndhāra and—. 18-19; classes of— 51, 52; artists under—, 8-9

akṣaśālā 20

akṣaśālin 20, 39, 41, 42, 72

architects 7, 46, 47, 48 55, 56, 60, 61; class of—, 7, 9; divine or semi-divine descent of—, 34; functions, 34-35; mobility of—, 9; social position, 57. see also under artisan, artist and Sūt radhāra

artisan 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 19, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 44, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 63, (and) Arthaśāstra, 9;— at work, 23; categories of—,24; classes of—, 11; common descent of—, 7; conversion into monks of—, 19; diachotomy of roles in texts and inscriptions, 14, 25; foreman of—, 16, 17; hereditary profession of—, 20 (25); hierarchy among—, 12, 54, 55 lack of organisation among—, 9; mobility of—, 6; of Kokāsa family, 51, 54, 55, 56, 70; of Śilāpaṭṭa family, 62; specialised groups of—, 11; social status of—, 19; see also under artist.

artist 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 30, 34, 36, 46, 47, 52,55; Buddhist (system)

and—. 34; epigraphs and—, 25-30; family of—, 53-4; hereditary (practice of crafts by)— 16, 20; hierarchy amongst—, 12, 53-5; itinerant—, 14, 15, 16, 33, 36; of authority 17; organisation of—, 17; pedigree of— 56; recruitment of, at elite level, 57, (58); resident—, 14, 15, 16, 33; schools of—, 56-7; specialisation of—, 11, 15, 25; teacher-disciple relationship among—, 15, 18, 20, 25; under dynasties of eastern India, 70-2; under dynasties of western India, 72-4; under Pāndu-vamśis (and Śarabhapura kings), 64-5; under Kalingas, 65; under Gāhadavālas, 65; under Chandellas, 52, 66-8; under Kalachuris, 68-70; under Paramāras (of Chandrāvatī), 54; (of Malwa), 70; see also under craftsmen

āveśan 20, 21

āveśani 16, 17

āveśanin 10, 16, 17, 20-1

ayaskāra 67

banker 26, 29

Bhauma 65, 71

86 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

Brahmā 34

brazier 33, 53, 67, 72

building-activity, 25, 44; ecclesiastical super vision in—, 19; execu-

tor of—, 19

canon 35, 36, 73; canoncial sources, 47

carpenter 3, 7, 11; — and art-activity, 8, 29

Chāhmāna 74

Chālukyas (Vaghela) 73; early—, 46

chammakāra, (leather worker) 5, 19, 26

Candellas 51, 54, 57, 66-8

Chandras 71

chariot-maker 3, 4

citrakāra 49, 52, 66

Cholas 46-7

crafts 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 19, 25, 45, 57; high—, 4; low—, 4; specialisa-

tion in— 18, 25; and Śūdras, 4, 5; see also under profession and

occupation

craftsman 4, 7, 10, 17, 33, 49, 53, 56; (divine or semi-divine—, 3, 12,

34; 45, 50, 56); guilds of—, 4, 56;

speech-usage and—, 19

corn-dealers 26

despised castes 5

donors 25, 26, 29, 30, 48, 60, 61

dyer 27

engraver 42; master-craftsmen as—, 49-60; (under titles, such as-

rūpakāra, 40; śilpī, 40, sūtradhāra, 40-1, 47)

Gāhadavāla 65,66

Ganga 71, 72

ganikā 27

gardener 27

gharamugha 29

gifts (individual) 27; (corporate) 26, 27, 28

goldsmith 8, 33, 41, 42, 65, 71

Guhila 47, 72, 73, 74

guild 5, 9, 26, 27, 33, 43, 46, 54, 55-6

Guptas 31, 32, 33, 41

hastalekha 22

householder 6, 28, 29

Ikṣvākus 18, 20, 31

Indra 3

ivory-carvers 16

jewellers 3, 28

kadhichaka 18, 24, 106

Kalachuris 45, 51, 53, 55, 61, 66, 68-70

kammādhiṭṭhāyaka 19

kammantika 20

Kara 65

karanika 17, 24, 49, 51, 71

kammina 52

kāru 2

kāruśilpi 5 (note)

Kaśyapa 50, 56

khadariki 18

Kṣaharāta 27

Kṣatrapas 28

lohāra 42, 66, 69

Mahabhoja 27, 28

Mahārāṭhis 27, 29

mason 26, 41, 67; recruitment of, 22

Manu 34, 45

Māndabya 45

Maurya 7, 13; —and the class of

architects and sculptors, 7, 9-10

Mauryan 8, 9, 27

Maya 12, 34, 45

merchants 27, 28, 33

metal-worker 27

miṭhika 18, 24

mobility 16, 29, 63, 71;— and new

art-centres, 33; hierarchical; of

artisans, 6, and craftsmen 53

monuments 21, 26, 28, 56, 63; designing of—, 22, 25; participants in building—, 25-26; 29, 61-2; processes in building—, 21-2, 23-4

Nārāyaṇa 56

nāyaka 6, 7

nāyakamisa 18

navakarmikas 17-18; 20, 24, 49; see also under overseer

occupations 4, 19; occupational classes, 27, 28

overseer 18, 19; appointment of—, 19

Pālas (and Senas) 70, 71

Pāṇduvamśis 64

Paramāras, of Chandrāvatī 54, 74; of Malwa, 35, 43, 51, 54, 70

perfumers 26, 27, 29, 33

physician 28

ploughman 26, 27

potters 3, 7

preachers 29

professions 3, 4, 6, 27, 33, 57; (vis-a-vis) birth, 5-6, 7; caste and—, 5, 6; casteless—5; lucrative 33

Rāṇakas (of Bihar) 71

rathakāra 3, 4, 5; see also under Chariot-maker

ratnin 4

rūpadakṣa (or lūpadakṣa) 10, 16, 17

rūpakāra 10, 17, 23, 36, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 67, 69, 70

rūpa-pimśana 3

sanghamana 3

sarva-siddha-āchārya 46, 56

śailakarma 17; see also under silākarma

śaila-vardhakī 10, 11, 17, 18; see also under vardhakī

Śailodbhava 65

Sarabhapur kings 64

scribe 23, 37, 41, 42

selāgharā 29

sculptor 7, 9, 16, 47, 50, 51, 52, 54, 70; (Sovarasi's accomplishments, 40)

selālaka 15, 17

Sena 43

silākarma 27

silākarmānta 17, note 73

silpa, (sippa) 2-7; 28, 43, 48; connotations of—, 7; eight kinds of—, 35; higher sections and—, 7; schools of—, 12, 56, 63; -śāstra 35, 39, 45, 47, 53, 54, 56, 57, 63; -vidyā 49, 53, 69, -vijñāna 70; -vritti 5

silpaka 2

silpatva 2

śilpī, (silpin) 1, 7, 9, 33, 36, 41, 43, 44, 49-51, 59, 65, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73; at work, 55; four types of—, 8, 49; kindred group of— 1, 7

sippādhittāna 6

sūtradhāra 34, 37, 43, 44, 54, 55, 59, 61, 62, 64; associates of—, 49; -as builders, 44-8; -and carpentry, 35, caste and status of—, 57, 58; Drama, art-activity and— 38-9; emergence of the class of—, 34; emplayed by priests, 48; as engravers 39, 43; functions of—, 48; hierarchical set up and—, 49, 54-5; inscription and role of—, 34; levels of recruitment of—, 48; proficiency of —57, 58; specialisation and—, 45; under various rulings dynasties 64-74; variants of the term—, 37

sūtragrahīn 8, 12, 25, 37, functions of—, 34; supervisory role of—, 35

sūtrakāra 12

tailors 7

takṣaka 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 23; functions of—, 34

taksakāra 75

tantra-vidyā 7

Tārānāth 12, 13, 56-7, 65

88 ANCIENT ARTISTS AND ART-ACTIVITY

tattthakāra 42

Tvashṭri 3, 34, 35, 56

Ucchakalpa 36

vardhaki (vaḍḍaki) 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,

17, 25, 29, 34, 57; iṭṭhakā-vaddhaki

17, 23, 24; sailavaddhaki 17; 24;

tools of—, 23; specialisation of—,

34

Vākāṭakas 31

varṇaka 22

vāstavya 40, 61, 66

vijñānaka 40, 67; vijñānin, 53, 54,

71, 72

Viśvakarmā 2, 7, 12, 16, 34, 45,

53, 56, 68; —as artisans' prognitor,

7; —sūtra, 45, 53, 69

weaver 27, 33

workers-in stone 8, 10

workshop 20, 21

yavanas 29